No abstract

No abstract

Objective: To provide national estimates of donor insemination (DI) use in the United States and a description of the population of users. Design: Population estimates were generated from nationally representative data through weighted proportions and count estimates. Setting: Not applicable. Patient(s): Participants were U.S. women of childbearing age (15-44 years) sampled for interview in the National Survey of Family Growth. Intervention(s): None. Main Outcome Measure(s): Respondents who reported having received artificial insemination were asked the origin of the sperm. Responses could include husband/partner, donor only, or mixed donor and husband/partner.

Some scholars have proposed that people in couples in which at least one person is secure are just as satisfied as people in which both members are secure (i.e., buffering hypothesis). The present investigation tested this hypothesis by examining how relationship satisfaction varies as a function of the attachment security of both dyad members. Secondary analyses were performed using data from two studies (Study 1: 172 couples; Study 2: 194 couples) in which heterosexual dating couples were asked to complete self-reports of their own attachment style and relationship satisfaction. To evaluate the buffering hypothesis, we fit a standard APIM using SEM and added an actor × partner interaction term to our model. Contrary to expectations, our results suggested that secure partners do not “buffer” insecurely attached individuals. Moreover, partner attachment did not explain satisfaction much above and beyond actor effects. This work addresses a gap in the literature with respect to the dynamic interplay of partner pairing, allowing scholars to better understand attachment processes in romantic relationships.

A wealth of research has investigated how and why people cast blame. However, less is known about blame- shifting (i.e., blaming someone else for one’s own failures) and how exposure to a blame-shifting agent might lead to expectations that other agents will also shift blame. The present research tested whether exposure to a blame-shifting (versus responsibility-taking) agent would lead perceivers to expect a second, unrelated target to also shift blame. Contrary to our expectations, people expected greater blame-shifting after exposure to a responsible agent, particularly when perceivers were surprised by this reaction to failure. Discussion focuses on how people habitually expect some people to shift blame for their mishaps, and how expectancy violations when people act in unexpected ways predict the extent to which perceivers expect unrelated agents to also shift blame.