Attachment style and two forms of affect coregulation between romantic partners

This study examined 2 forms of affect coregulation in 48 cohabiting heterosexual couples who provided daily ratings of positive and negative affect for 21 days. Coregulation was operationalized as covariation in partners’ daily levels of affect and coupling of the rates of change of partners’ affective cycles. Both forms of coregulation were detected, and both were moderated by attachment style. These results are interpreted with respect to the timescales and time courses of each form of coregulation, suggesting that covariation may be more sensitive to discrete affective episodes unfolding during couples’ shared time together, whereas coupling may be a longer term process in which partners manifest sensitivity to one another’s overall patterns of affective fluctuation.     

Justice and Third Party Risk: The Ethics of Xenotransplantation

abstract  The question of when it is permissible to inflict risks on others without their consent is one that we all face in our everyday lives, but which is often brought to our attention in contexts of technological innovation and scientific uncertainty. Xenotransplantation, the transplantation of organs or tissues from animals to humans, has the potential to save or improve the lives of many patients but gives rise to the possibility of infectious agents being transferred from donor animals into the human population. As well as being an important ethical issue in its own right it therefore provides a useful vehicle for exploring the more general question of how to balance the benefits of a practice against the risks to third parties. This paper focuses on the Rawlsian, justice-based analysis of the risks of xenotransplantation proposed by Robert Veatch. It argues that Veatch is right to take considerations of distributive justice into account, but that his particular approach is flawed. It is hoped that consideration of Veatch's arguments, and of the underlying assumptions will suggest better ways of executing a justice-based approach.     

A Flight of Fancy on The Tangled Wing or How Not to Argue for More Women in Positions of Power

ABSTRACT Numerous attempts have been made recently to argue from premises about 'human nature' to conclusions about social policy. This essay offers a critique of one such attempt, Melvin Konner's argument from the fact that women are more nurturing and less aggressive than men, to the claim that the world would be safer if women rather than men had control over the world's armaments, especially nuclear weapons (and thus they ought to occupy positions of power). I claim that the argument is badly flawed at several points, and that as such, it does not advance but impedes the movement towards equal access to governmental positions.