Social-conservatism, Australian politics and cricket: The triumvirate of Prime Minister John Howard, Sir Robert Menzies and Sir Donald Bradman

This Article does not have an abstract.

Stimulus competition in affective and relational learning

Evaluative learning theory states that affective learning, the acquisition of likes and dislikes, is qualitatively different from relational learning, the learning of predictive relationships among stimuli. Three experiments tested the prediction derived from evaluative learning theory that relational learning, but not affective learning, is affected by stimulus competition by comparing performance during two conditional stimuli, one trained in a superconditioning procedure and the other in a blocking procedure. Ratings of unconditional stimulus expectancy and electrodermal responses indicated stimulus competition in relational learning. Evidence for stimulus competition in affective learning was provided by verbal ratings of conditional stimulus pleasantness and by measures of blink startle modulation. Taken together, the present experiments demonstrate stimulus competition in relational and affective learning, a result inconsistent with evaluative learning theory. (C) 2001 Academic Press.

Parties, governments and pollsters: A new form of patronage?

In its first term, the Howard government hired Australasian Research Strategies (ARS), headed by pollster Mark Textor, to conduct market research for several Commonwealth departments and agencies. This was, the Labor Opposition claimed, a case of the Liberals handing jobs to their 'mates'. Textor played a key role in the Liberals' 1996 and 1998 federal election campaigns. However, Labor's attack rings hollow since in the 1980s the Hawke government similarly contracted Rod Cameron's ANOP to conduct opinion research for Commonwealth departments and agencies. At the time Cameron was Labor's strategic pollster and centrally involved in planning Labor election campaigns. On both sides of Australian politics, governments have begun to channel patronage towards their party's pollsters. In this research note, we suggest that this development cannot be explained as 'jobs for the boys'. Instead, this new form of patronage has its roots in the vital role that pollsters now play in guiding election campaigns, and in the commercial reality that Australian politics provides too little work to sustain specialist political pollsters. Parties in government now appear to utilise incumbency to sustain an ongoing relationship with the commercial polling organisations like ANOP and ARS to whom they will entrust much of the planning of their campaign for re-election.