Development and Validation of the Sexual Contingent Self-Worth Scale

Sexual contingent self-worth (CSW) refers to self-worth that is dependent on maintaining a sexual relationship, and has not been studied previously. This novel construct may have implications for sexual, relationship, and psychological well-being, because it could affect the cognitions, affect, and behaviors of individuals in sexual relationships. The purpose of this study was to develop the Sexual Contingent Self-Worth Scale and examine its reliability and validity in community samples. Two separate online studies (N = 329 and N = 282) included men and women who were in committed, sexually active relationships. The Sexual CSW Scale was adapted from a validated measure of relationship CSW. In Study 1, participants completed the Sexual CSW Scale, whereas in Study 2, participants also responded to standardized measures of related constructs. In addition, participants completed the Sexual CSW Scale again two weeks later in Study 2. Factor analysis yielded two subscales: (a) sexual CSW dependent on positive sexual events in the relationship and (b) sexual CSW dependent on negative sexual events. Results indicated good construct validity, incremental validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability for the Sexual CSW Scale. This research contributes to the fields of both CSW and sexuality by introducing a novel domain of CSW.     

Has the Price of Motherhood Declined Over Time? A Cross‐Cohort Comparison of the Motherhood Wage Penalty

Several recent studies have shown a negative association between motherhood and wages. However, an analysis of change over time in the motherhood penalty has not been conducted. Using two cohorts of young women drawn from the 1975–1985 National Longitudinal Survey of Young Women and the 1986–1998 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, we explicitly test the relationship between motherhood and wages across two cohorts and examine whether that relationship has changed. Even after controlling for unobserved heterogeneity and human capital variables, each additional child is associated with a negative effect on women's wages. Moreover, our findings suggest that the penalty has not diminished over time.     

Use of risk assessment and life cycle assessment in decision making: a common policy research agenda.

Quantitative risk assessment (RA) and life cycle assessment (LCA) are both analytical tools used to support decision making in environmental management. They have been developed and used by largely separate groups of specialists, and it is worth considering whether there is a common research agenda that may increase the relevance of these tools in decision-making processes. The validity of drawing comparisons between use of the tools is established through examining key aspects of the two approaches for their similarities and differences, including the nature of each approach and contextual and methodological aspects. Six case studies involving use of each approach in public decision making are described and used to draw out concerns about using RA and LCA in this context. The following categories of concern can be distinguished: philosophical approach of the tools; quantitative versus qualitative assessment; stakeholder participation; the nature of the results; and the usefulness of the results in relation to time and financial resource requirements. These can be distilled into a common policy research agenda focusing on: the legitimacy of using tools built on a particular perspective in decision making; recognition and role of value judgments in RA and LCA; treatment of uncertainty and variability; the influence of analytical tools in focusing attention on particular aspects of a decision-making situation; and understandability of the results for nonspecialists. It is concluded that it is time to bring together the experiences of RA and LCA specialists and benefit from cross-fertilization of ideas.     

New information and social trust: asymmetry and perseverance of attributions about hazard managers.

It has been argued that news about negative events has a much stronger effect on decreasing social trust than does news about positive events on increasing it. This asymmetry principle of trust was investigated in two surveys that also investigated the perseverance of trust. The possibility that established trust attributions persevere in the face of new information raises questions about the limits of trust asymmetry. The two studies yielded evidence that both type of news (good versus bad) and initial general trust in the nuclear power industry or the food supply industry affected level of trust. Compared to individuals trusting the industry, those distrusting the industry exhibited less trust following both bad and good news events. Study I also found that judged informativeness and judged positiveness of news events were affected by type of news and general trust of the industry. Individuals low in general trust of the nuclear power industry judged both bad news and good news as less positive than did those high in general trust. Those low in general trust judged bad news as more informative than good news and than did those high in general trust. An important implication of the perseverance of trust is to focus attention on including not only the effects of information about specific events and actions, but also on the judgment processes underlying social trust. The Salient Value Similarity model is suggested as one way of accounting for these psychological processes.     

Agent or Steward: The Target CEO in a Hostile Takeover: Can a Condemned Agent be Redeemed?

This article examines the differences, tensions and overlaps between agency and stewardship theories of corporate governance. The context is a hostile bid for Blue Circle Industries, a FTSE 100 company, and the focus is upon its Chief Executive Officer’s actions in response. CEOs occupy a position of pivotal importance during such takeover bids, and it is salient to examine their resultant motivations and payoffs. While agency theory suggests that CEOs may act in self-interested ways, diverging from the interests of shareholders, ongoing stewardship theory sees CEOs as fundamentally honest and caring about their company and shareholders’ interests. The hostile bid is an opportunity for the target CEO to fight at any cost, or to act in the best interests of stakeholders.In examining the target CEO’s actions, this article suggests there is more complexity than these two theories acknowledge and the relationship between them is not one of simple opposition. The article identifies a framework for making sense of CEO/stakeholder relationships, and highlights the importance to boards of understanding how CEOs manage differential stakeholder pressures over time.