On having bad persons as friends

Intuitively, one who counts a morally bad person as a friend has gone wrong somewhere. But it is far from obvious where exactly they have gone astray. Perhaps in cultivating a friendship with a bad person, one extends to them certain goods that they do not deserve. Or perhaps the failure lies elsewhere; one may be an abettor to moral transgressions. Yet another option is to identify the mistake as a species of imprudence—one may take on great personal risk in counting a bad person as a friend. In this paper, I argue that none of these intuitive explanations are entirely convincing; for many such proposals run contrary to widely accepted features of friendship. However, they do point us in the direction of a more satisfying explanation—one which concerns a person’s moral priorities. An individual who counts a morally bad person as a friend is, I propose, one who betrays a distinct kind of defect in her values.     

Ambivalence About Interpersonal Problems and Traits Predicts Cross‐Situational Variability of Social Behavior

Multiple theoretical perspectives suggest that maladjusted personality is characterized by not only distress, but also opposing or “ambivalent” self‐perceptions and behavioral lability across social interactions. However, the degree to which ambivalence about oneself predicts cross‐situational variability in social behavior has not been examined empirically. Using the interpersonal circumplex (IPC) as a nomological framework, the present study investigated the extent to which endorsing opposing or “ambivalent” tendencies on IPC measures predicted variability in social behavior across a range of hypothetical interpersonal scenarios (Part 1; N = 288) and naturalistic social interactions (Part 2; N = 192). Ambivalent responding for interpersonal problems and traits was associated with measures of distress, maladaptive interpersonal tendencies, and greater variability of social behavior across both hypothetical and daily social interactions, though more consistently for interpersonal problems. More conservative tests suggested that ambivalence predicted some indexes of behavioral variability even when accounting for mean levels and squared means of social behaviors, vector length, gender, and depressive symptoms. Results suggest that processes theorized as typifying personality disorder may apply more broadly to personality maladjustment occurring outside of clinical samples.     

Capitalising on Positive Work Events by Sharing them at Home

The authors integrate existing theory on work–family integration and interpersonal capitalisation on positive work events by examining the effects of sharing positive work events with one's spouse on employee life satisfaction. A field study was conducted with 131 employees of a large Midwestern university, who completed surveys online. Participants provided accounts of their most important positive event during the prior week and indicated whether they had shared this event with their spouse. They also retrospectively rated their positive affect and life satisfaction over the course of the study. Results based on hierarchical regression analysis indicated that having shared that event with one's spouse was positively associated with positive affect and life satisfaction after controlling for personality and event characteristics. These results were corroborated in a subsample of 99 employees whose spouses provided independent reports of whether the event was shared with them. This research reveals that sharing positive events with others has unique and significant contributions to positive affect and life satisfaction. More importantly, these findings show that the interpersonal act of sharing is effective when conducted cross‐domain: the act of sharing positive work events with family members increases positive affect and life satisfaction.     

Perspectives on Systems Change Among Local Change Agents: A Comparative Study

Community organizers and activists draw on multiple traditions of community building and collective action in attempts to galvanize change. The diversity of perspectives on social change processes indicates corresponding differences in perspectives on systems and what is required to change them. Twenty‐two in‐depth interviews with community organizers and activists in the Midwestern USA were conducted to identify differences in perspectives on systems change efforts. Four models used by organizers were identified: action/issue‐centric, identity‐centric, relationship‐centric, and organizing‐development. Strategies for recruitment, issue selection, leadership determination, and action were compared across models. Analyses revealed that some models might be better suited to action on certain issues (e.g. identity‐centric models when organizing around homelessness), whereas others may have advantages for use in certain settings (e.g. relationship‐centric models in congregations). These findings suggest that practitioners and scholars should pay close attention to contextual factors and focal issues when determining strategies for creating systems change. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.