The role of negative maternal affective states and infant temperament in early interactions between infants with cleft lip and their mothers

OBJECTIVES: The study examined the early interaction between mothers and their infants with cleft lip, assessing the role of maternal affective state and expressiveness and differences in infant temperament. METHODS: Mother-infant interactions were assessed in 25 2-month-old infants with cleft lip and 25 age-matched healthy infants. Self-report and behavioral observations were used to assess maternal depressive symptoms and expressions. Mothers rated infant temperament. RESULTS: Infants with cleft lip were less engaged and their mothers showed more difficulty in interaction than control group dyads. Mothers of infants with cleft lip displayed more negative affectivity, but did not report more self-rated depressive symptoms than control group mothers. No group differences were found in infant temperament. CONCLUSIONS: In order to support the mother's experience and facilitate her ongoing parental role, findings highlight the importance of identifying maternal negative affectivity during early interactions, even when they seem have little awareness of their depressive symptoms.

Multilevel research in the field of organizational behavior: an empirical look at 10 years of theory and research

During the last 30 years, significant debate has taken place regarding multilevel research. However, the extent to which multilevel research is overtly practiced remains to be examined. This article analyzes 10 years of organizational research within a multilevel framework (from 2001 to 2011). The goals of this article are (a) to understand what has been done, during this decade, in the field of organizational multilevel research and (b) to suggest new arenas of research for the next decade. A total of 132 articles were selected for analysis through ISI Web of Knowledge. Through a broad-based literature review, results suggest that there is equilibrium between the amount of empirical and conceptual papers regarding multilevel research, with most studies addressing the cross-level dynamics between teams and individuals. In addition, this study also found that the time still has little presence in organizational multilevel research. Implications, limitations, and future directions are addressed in the end. Organizations are made of interacting layers. That is, between layers (such as divisions, departments, teams, and individuals) there is often some degree of interdependence that leads to bottom-up and top-down influence mechanisms. Teams and organizations are contexts for the development of individual cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors (top-down effects; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Conversely, individual cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors can also influence the functioning and outcomes of teams and organizations (bottom-up effects; Arrow, McGrath, & Berdahl, 2000). One example is when the rewards system of one organization may influence employees’ intention to quit and the existence or absence of extra role behaviors. At the same time, many studies have showed the importance of bottom-up emergent processes that yield higher level phenomena (Bashshur, Hernández, & González-Romá, 2011; Katz-Navon & Erez, 2005; Marques-Quinteiro, Curral, Passos, & Lewis, in press). For example, the affectivity of individual employees may influence their team’s interactions and outcomes (Costa, Passos, & Bakker, 2012). Several authors agree that organizations must be understood as multilevel systems, meaning that adopting a multilevel perspective is fundamental to understand real-world phenomena (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). However, whether this agreement is reflected in practicing multilevel research seems to be less clear. In fact, how much is known about the quantity and quality of multilevel research done in the last decade? The aim of this study is to compare what has been proposed theoretically, concerning the importance of multilevel research, with what has really been empirically studied and published. First, this article outlines a review of the multilevel theory, followed by what has been theoretically “put forward” by researchers. Second, this article presents what has really been “practiced” based on the results of a review of multilevel studies published from 2001 to 2011 in business and management journals. Finally, some barriers and challenges to true multilevel research are suggested. This study contributes to multilevel research as it describes the last 10 years of research. It quantitatively depicts the type of articles being written, and where we can find the majority of the publications on empirical and conceptual work related to multilevel thinking.

Shared authority: courts and legislatures in legal theory

This book advances a fresh philosophical account of the relationship between the legislature and courts, opposing the common conception of law, in which it is legislatures that primarily create the law, and courts that primarily apply it. This conception has eclectic affinities with legal positivism, and although it may have been a helpful intellectual tool in the past, it now increasingly generates more problems than it solves. For this reason, the author argues, legal philosophers are better off abandoning it. At the same time they are asked to dismantle the philosophical and doctrinal infrastructure that has been based on it and which has been hitherto largely unquestioned. In its place the book offers an alternative framework for understanding the role of courts and the legislature; a framework which is distinctly anti-positivist and which builds on Ronald Dworkin’s interpretive theory of law. But, contrary to Dworkin, it insists that legal duty is sensitive to the position one occupies in the project of governing; legal interpretation is not the solitary task of one super-judge, but a collaborative task structured by principles of institutional morality such as separation of powers which impose a moral duty on participants to respect each other's contributions. Moreover this collaborative task will often involve citizens taking an active role in their interaction with the law.

The neoliberal way of war: a critical analysis of contemporary British security in policy and practice.

Dominant paradigms of causal explanation for why and how Western liberal-democracies go to war in the post-Cold War era remain versions of the 'liberal peace' or 'democratic peace' thesis. Yet such explanations have been shown to rest upon deeply problematic epistemological and methodological assumptions. Of equal importance, however, is the failure of these dominant paradigms to account for the 'neoliberal revolution' that has gripped Western liberal-democracies since the 1970s. The transition from liberalism to neoliberalism remains neglected in analyses of the contemporary Western security constellation. Arguing that neoliberalism can be understood simultaneously through the Marxian concept of ideology and the Foucauldian concept of governmentality – that is, as a complementary set of 'ways of seeing' and 'ways of being' – the thesis goes on to analyse British security in policy and practice, considering it as an instantiation of a wider neoliberal way of war. In so doing, the thesis draws upon, but also challenges and develops, established critical discourse analytic methods, incorporating within its purview not only the textual data that is usually considered by discourse analysts, but also material practices of security. This analysis finds that contemporary British security policy is predicated on a neoliberal social ontology, morphology and morality – an ideology or 'way of seeing' – focused on the notion of a globalised 'network-market', and is aimed at rendering circulations through this network-market amenable to neoliberal techniques of government. It is further argued that security practices shaped by this ideology imperfectly and unevenly achieve the realisation of neoliberal 'ways of being' – especially modes of governing self and other or the 'conduct of conduct' – and the re-articulation of subjectivities in line with neoliberal principles of individualism, risk, responsibility and flexibility. The policy and practice of contemporary British 'security' is thus recontextualised as a component of a broader 'neoliberal way of war'.