Beliefs And Creative Performance: Relationships Across Three Tasks

Creative work occurs on novel, ill‐defined tasks. By virtue of their ambiguity and complexity, however, creative tasks allow the situation to be construed in a number of ways. Accordingly, one might argue that beliefs, as interpretive structures, would be related to performance on creative problem‐solving tasks. To test this proposition, a battery of measures was developed to assess people's beliefs. Subsequently, 195 undergraduates were asked to work on three creative problem‐solving tasks. When quality and originality ratings, reflecting performance on the creative problem‐solving tasks, were regressed on the beliefs, multiple correlations in the low .40s were obtained. It was found that beliefs consistent with the nature of the task were those most likely to be related to performance. The implications of these findings are discussed with respect to the role of beliefs in shaping people's creative problem‐solving activities.     

A Model of the Perceived Competence of Conflict Strategies

This study examines how strategic communication is linked to specific relational features. We hypothesize that perceptions of a communicator's competence mediate the effects of conflict strategies on the relational outcomes measured by trust, control mutuality, intimacy, and satisfaction. The components of competence were specific and general appropriateness, effectiveness, and global competence; these were included in LISREL analyses to investigate How the variables conflict, competence, and relational outcomes were linked. Participants reported on their partners’ conflict strategies, their own perceptions of the partner's competence, and relational variables. The results reveal that integrative strategies were positively linked to competence, whereas distributive and avoidant strategies were negatively linked to competence. The results support the view that competence perceptions mediate the link between conflict messages and relational outcomes.     

The State, Marriage and Divorce

ABSTRACT This essay advances several interrelated arguments concerning the proper role of the state with regard to marriage and divorce but my main contention is that 'pure'no-fault divorce laws are unjust—or, at least, they are unjust if marriage involves a genuinely contractual element, and there seems to be very little doubt that it does. Locke, Kant and Hegel are three eminent thinkers who are alike in viewing marriage as a contract (though in the case of Hegel, it is a 'contract to transcend the standpoint of contract') and in the first two sections of the essay I consider their views on the role of contract in marriage. Whilst holding (with Hegel) that marriage is more than a contract, I also hold (with Kant) that it is not less than a contract. In section three I consider the implications of this 'not less than', the most important one being that 'pure'no-fault divorce laws are unjust. I shall contend that whilst the irretrievable breakdown of marriage may be regarded as a suitable ground for divorce, it simply cannot, and certainly ought not to, be regarded as a justificatory basis for the laying aside of rights acquired by individuals as a result of their having entered into a marital contract. However minimal one might wish the role of the state to be, or however averse one might be from allowing the state any role at all in purely personal and confidential relationships, yet to allow the expression 'the irretrievable breakdown of marriage'to be employed as a olanket to cover over the infringement of personal, contractually engendered and civilly recognised rights, is not to exercise commendable restraint but is, rather, to condone what is simply an abnegation by the state of its basic responsibility to ensure that justice prevails.