On the Morality of Nuclear Deterrence

ABSTRACT Nuclear deterrence has struck many people as morally perplexing because it is a case in which it appears to be right to threaten, and in a sense intend, what it would be wrong to do. Section 1 explores the assumptions that are necessary to generate this moral paradox. Some moral theorists, however, have refused to embrace this paradox, contending instead that nuclear deterrence is immoral in principle precisely because it is wrong to threaten that which it would be immoral to do. Section 2 rebuts this contention and seeks to reduce the apparent paradoxicality of nuclear deterrence to manageable proportions. This is not to maintain, though, that nuclear deterrence is morally permissible in the world in which we live; consequently, Section 3 surveys some of the factors relevant to a moral assessment of the legitimacy of the actual practice of nuclear deterrence.     

Assessing Individual Family Members' Constructions of Family Problems

Much contemporary family therapy theory and practice takes into account clients' cognitive constructions of their family problems. Recent calls for therapists to elicit and work with clients' causal explanations and narratives parallel accumulating evidence in the social-clinical literature about the predictive importance of attributions in family relationships. In this article, we introduce the Constructions of Problems Scale (CPS), provide preliminary evidence of its reliability and validity, and suggest ways in which it can be used clinically to reveal new areas for questioning and to generate new ideas. The CPS is a brief questionnaire that can be used to create a profile of each individual family member's private constructions. To complete the CPS, each family member writes a free-form narrative of the presenting problem and then rates his or her perceptions of the contributing causes. The CPS profiles can be used to compare the perspectives of different family members and to assess cognitive constructions at different points in treatment. We discuss its potential for these and other clinical uses.     

Job Complexity,Performance, and Well‐being: When Does Supplies‐Values Fit Matter?*

We extend person–job fit research by investigating job performance as a moderator of the supplies–values fit relationship with strain outcomes (somatic complaints and depression). Drawing on cybernetic stress and psychological centrality perspectives, we argue that supplies–values misfit relates to lower well‐being levels when job performance is low but that this effect is attenuated when job performance is high. The results are consistent with this prediction across 3 studies that provide progressively more rigorous tests of the hypothesis. Implications of the results for theoretical and empirical person–job fit research are addressed.     

PAY SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS AND QUIT PATTERNS OF GOOD, AVERAGE, AND POOR PERFORMERS

The relationship between pay dispersion and the quits patterns of good, average, and poor performers was explored among a sample of motor carriers. Results showed that under high pay system communication, pay dispersion was negatively related to good performer quits when performance-based pay increases were emphasized, and positively related when they were not. The results for seniority-based pay increases were different. Under high pay system communication, pay dispersion was negatively related to average performer quits when seniority-based pay increases were emphasized, and the relationship was attenuated when they were not. Contrary to expectation, pay dispersion was not consistently related to quit patterns when pay system communication was low. Predictions regarding quit patterns of poor performers were not supported. Implications of the research are addressed and future research directions identified.