Search

Intimate partners seeking to influence one another’s health may do so by providing support for positive health behavior and attempting to change negative health behavior (social control). Research findings examining the effectiveness of intimate partners’ attempts to influence health behavior are mixed however, and the purpose of the present research is to examine individuals’ responses to hypothetical health behavior influence attempts by an intimate partner. Specifically, we examine the role of readiness to change, cognitive appraisals, and affective responses to partner change attempts. Undergraduate students (n = 185) who reported infrequent exercise or unhealthy eating habits were asked to respond to a variety of tactics an intimate partner might use to try to change their health behavior. In the first phase of the study, we examine a model wherein individuals’ readiness to change influences their perceptions of, and affective reactions to, attempts to influence health behavior and the subsequent likelihood of making a behavioral change. In Phase 2, we use a within-subjects experimental design to simulate changes in readiness and assess resulting changes to affective and perceptual responses to a variety of hypothetical support and control attempts by an intimate partner. The findings indicate that a comprehensive model that includes readiness to change more fully accounts for variance in how individuals respond to partners’ change attempts. Theoretical and clinical implications are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past few years, federal sentencing procedure has seen significant changes. Most recently, in Irizarry v. United States, the Supreme Court held that federal criminal defendants are not entitled to advance notice when a district court judge makes a sua sponte decision to sentence them at variance with the federal Sentencing Guidelines. This Note provides a brief history of the sentencing changes that preceded Irizarry. Next, it explains why the Irizarry decision wrongly interprets previous cases, ultimately putting a roadblock in what was designed to be an efficient and fair sentencing process. Finally, it explains why it is still the better policy for district courts to voluntarily provide advance notice to defendants sentenced outside the Sentencing Guidelines, regardless of Irizarry's holding that advance notice is not required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the Arizona Supreme Court case "Cundiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co." The court held that an insurer may not reduce underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage by the amount of worker's compensation benefits received by an insured. The court found that the Arizona Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Act's definition of UIM coverage precluded an insurer from deducting workers' compensation benefits from an insured's settlement.

The Court of Justice concludes that market share thresholds in EU Commission notices do not bind national competition authorities and that ‘by object’ restrictions are presumed to appreciably affect competition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

.