Marital conflict patterns: Links with family conflict and family members’perceptions of one another

The goal of this study was to explore the effects of marital conflict on conflict patterns in the family, and on family members’perceptions of one another. Sixty‐eight two‐parent families with adolescent twins participated, with parents reporting on the conflict patterns used by the marital dyad, and by themselves in interaction with each of their twins, and adolescent twins reporting on their interactions with each other. In addition, all four family members engaged in a videotaped decision‐making interaction and then made global ratings of each other on five dimensions. Links were obtained between marital conflict patterns and parent‐child conflict patterns, and between parent‐child conflict patterns and those used in sibling relationships. In contrast, marital conflict patterns were unrelated to sibling conflict patterns. Similarly, links were found between marital conflict and fathers’perceptions of their children, and between father‐child conflict and children's perceptions of each other. The results are discussed in terms of theoretical models of conflict resolution and the transmission of conflict patterns within the family.     

ON THE VALIDITY OF SUBJECTIVE MEASURES OF COMPANY PERFORMANCE

Subjective measures of company performance are widely used in research and typically are interpreted as equivalent to objective measures. Yet, the assumption of equivalence is open to challenge. We compared the use of both types of measure in 3 separate samples. Findings were consistent in showing that: (a) subjective and objective measures of company performance were positively associated (convergent validity); (b) those relationships were stronger than those between measures of differing aspects of performance using the same method (discriminant validity); and (c) the relationships of subjective and objective company performance measures with a range of independent variables were equivalent (construct validity).     

Resources and the Rule of Rescue1

abstract The central issue that I consider in this paper is the use of the so‐called ‘Rule of Rescue’ in the context of resource allocation. This ‘Rule’ has played an important role in resource allocation decisions in various parts of the world. It was invoked in Ontario to overturn a decision not to fund treatment for Gaucher's Disease and it has also been used to justify resource decisions in Israel concerning the same condition. In the paper I consider the nature of the Rule of Rescue and its moral justification. The latter involves consideration of the distinction between agent‐relative and agent‐neutral obligations. If the Rule of Rescue is to be justified, it is plausible to think that it will be in the context of agent‐relative obligations. Two problems with this suggestion are considered: the role of identifiability in the Rule of Rescue and the extent to which policy makers in a health care system can be taken to have such obligations. It is argued that in both cases these problems can be overcome and hence that there is a prima facie obligation to follow the Rule of Rescue.