Responses to dissatisfaction in romantic involvements: A multidimensional scaling analysis

Two multidimensional scaling studies were conducted to develop a comprehensive, inductively derived typology of responses to dissatisfaction in romantic involvements. Study 1 examined the responses of an undergraduate population, and Study 2 explored the reactions of a more heterogeneous, adult sample. The studies revealed similar patterns of results. In both Study 1 and Study 2, four general categories of response to dissatisfaction were observed: (a) exit—ending or actively abusing the relationship; (b) voice—actively attempting to improve conditions; (c) loyalty—passively waiting for conditions to improve; and (d) neglect—passively allowing the relationship to deteriorate. Two dimensions were distinguished among the response categories—constructiveness/destructiveness and activity/passivity. Voice and loyalty were judged to be constructive behaviors, while exit and neglect were viewed as relatively more destructive. And exit and voice were seen as fairly active, while loyalty and neglect were judged to be more passive (this effect was stronger in Study 1 than in Study 2). These findings provide good support for the Rusbult, Zembrodt, and Gunn (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1982, 43, 1230–1242) model of responses to dissatifaction in romantic involvements.     

The impact of gender and sex-role orientation on responses to dissatisfaction in close relationships

Three studies were designed to examine the relationships among gender, sex role orientation, and responses to dissatisfaction in close relationships. Four ways of reacting to dissatisfaction were explored: (a) exit — ending or threatening to end the relationship; (b) voice — activity and constructively attempting to improve conditions; (c) loyalty — passively but optimistically waiting for conditions to improve; and (d) neglect — passively allowing conditions to deteriorate. Study 1 assessed generalized responses among university students; Study 2 assessed generalized responses among adults residing in the local community; and Study 3 assessed response tendencies among lesbian, gay male, and heterosexual women and men. Greater psychological femininity was consistently associated with greater tendencies to respond to relationship problems with voice and loyalty. However, there was little evidence of a link between level of femininity and tendencies to respond with exit and neglect. Greater psychological masculinity was associated with lesser tendencies toward voice and loyalty, and there was some evidence of a link between high psychological masculinity and tendencies toward exit and neglect. Gender was not consistently related to response tendencies, though there was very weak evidence that in comparison to females, males may be more likely to engage in exit and neglect responses.The authors wish to express their gratitude to Randall James, Chip Mainous, and Leisa Maxwell for their help in conducting these studies, and to the Gay and Lesbian University Students Organization for their help in conducting Study 3. We also thank Dr. David Lowery for useful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.     

New Constitutionalism and the Social Reproduction of Caring Institutions

This essay analyzes neo-liberal economic agreements and legal and political frameworks or what has been called the “new constitutionalism,” a governance framework that empowers market forces to reshape economic and social development worldwide. The article highlights some consequences of new constitutionalism for caring institutions specifically, and for what feminists call social reproduction more generally: the biological reproduction of the species; the reproduction of labor power; and the reproduction of social institutions and processes associated with the creation and maintenance of communities. New constitutional governance frameworks fundamentally reshape conditions under which the care of human beings takes place. Caring institutions once governed by enabling professions geared to universal care are now determined increasingly by market values and private forces, and driven directly by the profit motive. This is one of the reasons why neo-liberalism is increasingly contested in both the North and the global South.     

‘The system is unfair’: Uncontrollable attributions for inequality predict more equitable giving in adolescents

Socioeconomic position is often determined by uncontrollable, structural factors, yet people from the United States tend to attribute wealth and poverty to individual control. However, information about behavioural correlates of such beliefs across development is relatively lacking. Thus, we examined adolescents' reasoning about the causes of inequality in a sample of 599 adolescents from a socioeconomically, ethnically, and racially diverse middle school (grades 6–8). Additionally, early adolescents were presented with two novel groups with an unexplained wealth disparity and given a task in which they could perpetuate or rectify inequality. We found that while adolescents tended to give equitably and rectify the inequality, this outcome was predicted by the type of explanation they gave for societal inequality. Furthermore, participants' socioeconomic status and sexual identity predicted their inequality explanations. These results add to our knowledge of adolescent reasoning about inequality by demonstrating a potential link between attributions for inequality and giving behaviour.     

Why do we share aggressive online content? Testing a short cycle model

The present study aimed to observe the impacts of aggressive online content exposure and personality on aggressive content sharing, considering the mediating role of positive and negative affects. A total of 302 Brazilians, equally divided into two groups, participated in a social network simulation, being exposed to aggressive (experimental group) or neutral (control group) posts and choosing what they would like to share on this site (among aggressive or nonaggressive material). A factorial MANOVA showed a significant difference for positive and negative affects and aggressive content sharing (Wilks' Λ = 0.936; F[3, 298] = 6.812; p = .001; η² = 0.064). Through structural equation modeling, an explanatory model was also tested, in which this behavior was directly predicted by aggressive online content exposure and suffered indirect effects from openness, conscientiousness, and extroversion, mediated by positive affects (goodness-of-fit index = 0.997, comparative fit-index = 0.998, Tucker-Lewis index = 0.996, SRMR = 0.028, root-mean-square error of approximation = 0.035, CI = 0.003−0.054). It is possible to conclude that the objectives are met, highlighting the contribution to understanding aggressive online behavior through the proximal processes described in the general aggression model.     

The Influence of the Internet on the Psychosocial Predictors of Collective Action

The Internet has emerged as an important communication platform for the support of collective action, but little is known about how it influences the psychosocial motives for participation. Two quantitative studies were conducted within two different mobilizing contexts, in which offline collective actions were launched through computer‐mediated communication. We examined whether and how the frequency with which people participated in online political discussions moderated the effects of the psychosocial predictors of collective action, specifically politicized identity, anger, collective efficacy, and morality. Results showed that collective action intention was predicted by politicized identity only when participants reported a higher versus lower frequency of online discussion. However, anger did not predict collective action when people had the chance to express this emotion through a higher versus lower frequency of online discussion. Moreover, collective efficacy and morality supported collective action intention in participants who reported a higher versus lower frequency of online discussion. We theorize on how computer‐mediated communication, and its specific features, can be studied as a mobilizing context that influences the psychosocial motives to participate in collective action. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Social signals: from theory to applications

The Special Issue Editorial introduces the research milieu in which Social Signal Processing originates, by merging computer scientists and social scientists and giving rise to this field in parallel with Human–Computer Interaction, Affective Computing, and Embodied Conversational Agents, all similarly characterized by high interdisciplinarity, stress on multimodality of communication, and the continuous loop from theory to simulation and application. Some frameworks of the cognitive and social processes underlying social signals are identified as reference points (Theory of Mind and Intersubjectivity, mirror neurons, and the ontogenesis and phylogenesis of communication), while three dichotomies (automatic vs. controlled, individualistic vs. intersubjective, and meaning vs. influence) are singled out as leads to navigate within the theoretical and applicative studies presented in the Special Issue.     

Defeasibility,Law, and Argumentation: A Critical View from an Interpretative Standpoint

The phenomenon of defeasibility has long been a central theme in legal literature. This essay aims to shed new light on that phenomenon by clarifying some fundamental conceptual issues. First, the most widespread definition of legal defeasibility is examined and criticized. The essay shows that such a definition is poorly constructed, inaccurate and generates many problems. Indeed, the definition hides the close relationship between legal defeasibility and legal interpretation. Second, this essay argues that no new definition is needed. I will show that from an interpretative standpoint, there is nothing special about legal defeasibility. Contrary to what some authors maintain, no unique or privileged source of legal defeasibility exists, nor are there privileged arguments to justify it. Specifically, legal defeasibility refers to interpretative outcomes deriving from interpretative arguments that, on the one hand, are very different from one another, and, on the other, are often employed to justify different interpretative outcomes. In the legal field, the problems related to defeasibility have little in common with the problems that this label covers in other areas—such as logic or epistemology—and they are nothing but the well-known problems related to legal interpretation. In conclusion, this paper argues that as far as legal argumentation is concerned, the notion of legal defeasibility lacks explanatory power, and it should be abandoned.

     

Does the Candidate Matter? Comparing the Voting Choice of Early and Late Deciders

Candidate personality traits have long been recognized as influential in the determination of voting choice. However, little is understood of how the perception of candidates' traits influences different categories of voters. Based on a large‐scale electoral‐panel survey (ITANES, ITAlian National Election Studies), the present study investigated whether the voting choice of early and late deciders differentially relied on candidate traits. Results showed that after considering the influence of ideology and economy assessment, candidate traits still influenced the voting choice of early deciders and, even more, of late deciders. However, while early deciders took into account both incumbent and challenger traits, late deciders mainly relied on incumbent traits. Political sophistication moderated this effect, with high‐sophisticated early deciders relying even more on the challenger, and low‐sophisticated late deciders relying even more on the incumbent. The distinction between incumbent and challenger is discussed as a key variable in explaining the role of candidate traits in the choice of voters differing as to voting decision time and political sophistication.     

Social signals: from theory to applications

The Special Issue Editorial introduces the research milieu in which Social Signal Processing originates, by merging computer scientists and social scientists and giving rise to this field in parallel with Human-Computer Interaction, Affective Computing, and Embodied Conversational Agents, all similarly characterized by high interdisciplinarity, stress on multimodality of communication, and the continuous loop from theory to simulation and application. Some frameworks of the cognitive and social processes underlying social signals are identified as reference points (Theory of Mind and Intersubjectivity, mirror neurons, and the ontogenesis and phylogenesis of communication), while three dichotomies (automatic vs. controlled, individualistic vs. intersubjective, and meaning vs. influence) are singled out as leads to navigate within the theoretical and applicative studies presented in the Special Issue.