Secure Base Narrative Representations and Intimate Partner Violence: a Dyadic Perspective

This study aimed to understand the relationship between secure base phenomena and dating violence among couples. Within a relationship, a secure base can be defined as a balancing act of proximity-seeking and exploration at various times and contexts with the assurance of a caregiver’s availability and responsiveness in emotionally distressing situations. Participants were 87 heterosexual couples. The Actor-Partner Interdependence Model was used to examine the relationship between each partner’s scores on secure base representational knowledge and intimate partner violence. Findings demonstrated that women’s secure base representational knowledge had a significant direct negative effect on the victimization of both men and women, while men’s secure base representational knowledge did not have any significant partner or actor effects. Therefore, findings suggest that women with insecure attachments may be more vulnerable to being both the victims and the perpetrators of aggressive behavior. Research and clinical implications are discussed.     

The Social Sciences and a New Administration

The policy issues confronting the new administration in 2009 can benefit greatly from the results of social, behavioral, and economic sciences research. Climate change, energy, human capital, social, capital, migration, public health, fairness, new technologies, and foreign and defense policy are all issues that the research has addressed. The participation of social scientists in the policy process will enhance the contributions of the research.

The First Amendment Originalism of Justices Brennan,Scalia and Thomas

Originalism holds that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted based on the original intent or original meaning of the Constitution, that original intent is not only relevant but authoritative, and that judges are obligated to follow the framers’ original intent and meaning when resolving cases. Normative questions surrounding originalism's merit have produced one of the great constitutional debates of recent decades. This article compares and contrasts the First Amendment originalism of three justices: William Brennan, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. It examines every First Amendment opinion prior to the 2011 term written by the justices that contains originalism. The article concludes that all three justices used originalism to support a wide variety of arguments in a wide variety of First Amendment cases. In addition, the analysis demonstrates that Justices Scalia and Thomas more frequently supported the First Amendment in opinions in which they used originalism, a finding that contradicts the idea that originalism is associated with judicial restraint. The article contends that, with a few minor exceptions, none of the justices used originalism in a consistent way. Finally, the article offers perspectives on originalism's influence on current First Amendment jurisprudence and the limitations of using originalism for constitutional interpretations.