The Blue Dog Coalition: Impact of a Single-Issue Caucus from the 104th to the 110th Congress

The Blue Dog Coalition is an informal organization of legislators within the House of Representatives that strives to influence policy on fiscal responsibility, attract the attention of the electorate, They are a group that elicits wide range of reactions covering the length of the political spectrum, but despite this, their claims of special defense of fiscal conservatism within the Democratic Party have gone relatively undocumented by the academic community.This project has integrated a party literature with a caucus literature, in the attempt of building a novel framework for research. Work on polarization, the significance of parties, the purpose and history of caucuses all have been fused in such away that the Blue Dogs have created an opportunity to test broad congressional questions on a caucus-microcosm scale. Three important questions have emerged from the many possible avenues of exploration on the topic: How does admission into the Blue Dog Coalition effect voting behavior - measured by interest, ideology, and party unityscores? How does party leadership delegate prestigious committee assignments, a traditional indicator of partisan favor and influence, towards Blue Dogs? Can we use the Blue Dog Coalition as an indicator of fiscal conservatism? To each of these questions, a number of interesting results emerged. Blue Dogs, in the 104th scored higher in conservative interest group scores, more towards the center in ideological methods, and lower in party unity Dogs began to behave closer to their Democratic counterparts. In addition, membership on these select committees rose from a very small number to greater proportional parity within the Democratic Party. Perhaps most interesting, the Blue Dog Coalition does behave as a significant, independent predictor effect on NTU scores, a variable used to demonstrate fiscal conservatism. This research has shown, first and foremost, that it is useful and practical to applyold arguments within the party literature to a smaller, caucus level of analysis that is relatively untouched by the political science field. For the Blue Dogs, specifically, we have tested the validity of their claims in an attempt to reach broader questions ofdemocratic responsibility and electoral clarity. This work, and other work I have drawn upon, has barely scratched the surface on Blue Dog Democrats and other caucuses of comparable influence and popularity, and there remains a wealth of research material onthis caucus alone to be explored by scholars in the field of congressional politics.

The Use of Human and Conspecific Gestures By Capuchin Monkeys to Solve an Object-Choice Task

Most primates live in highly complex social systems, and therefore have evolved similarly complex methods of communicating with each other. One type of communication is the use of manual gestures, which are only found in primates. No substantial evidence exists indicating that monkeys use communicative gestures in the wild. However, monkeys may demonstrate the ability to learn and/or use gestures in certain experimental paradigms since they¿ve been shown to use other visual cues such as gaze. The purpose of this study was to investigate if ten brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) were able to use gestural cues from monkeys and a pointing cue from a human to obtain a hidden reward. They were then tested to determine if they could transfer this skill from monkeys to humans and from humans to monkeys. One group of monkeys was trained and tested using a conspecific as the cue giver, and was then tested with a human cue-giver. The second group of monkeys began training and testing with a human cue giver, and was then tested with a monkey cue giver. I found that two monkeys were able to use gestural cues from conspecifics (e.g., reaching) to obtain a hidden reward and then transfer this ability to a pointing cue from a human. Four monkeys learned to use the human pointing cue first, and then transferred this ability to use the gestural cues from conspecifics to obtain a hidden reward. However, the number of trials it took for each monkey to transfer the ability varied considerably. Some subjects spontaneously transferred in the minimum number of trials needed to reach my criteria for successfully obtaining hidden rewards (N = 40 trials), while others needed a large number of trials to do so (e.g. N = 190 trials). Two subjects did not perform successfully in any of the conditions in which they were tested. One subject successfully used the human pointing cue and a human pointing plus vocalization cue, but did not learn the conspecific cue. One subject learned to use the conspecific cue but not the human pointing cue. This was the first study to test if brown capuchin monkeys could use gestural cues from conspecifics to solve an object choice task. The study was also the first to test if capuchins could transfer this skill from monkeys to humans and from humans to monkeys. Results showed that capuchin monkeys were able to flexibly use communicative gestures when they were both unintentionally given by a conspecific and intentionally given by a human to indicate a source of food.