52% Yes, a signiicant crisis 3% No, there is no crisis 7% Don't know 38% Yes, a slight crisis 38% Yes, a slight crisis 1,576 RESEARCHERS SURVEYED M ore than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature's survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research. The data reveal sometimes-contradictory attitudes towards reproduc-ibility. Although 52% of those surveyed agree that there is a significant 'crisis' of reproducibility, less than 31% think that failure to reproduce published results means that the result is probably wrong, and most say that they still trust the published literature. Data on how much of the scientific literature is reproducible are rare and generally bleak. The best-known analyses, from psychology 1 and cancer biology 2 , found rates of around 40% and 10%, respectively. Our survey respondents were more optimistic: 73% said that they think that at least half of the papers in their field can be trusted, with physicists and chemists generally showing the most confidence. The results capture a confusing snapshot of attitudes around these issues, says Arturo Casadevall, a microbiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. "At the current time there is no consensus on what reproducibility is or should be. " But just recognizing that is a step forward, he says. "The next step may be identifying what is the problem and to get a consensus. "

The present study was designed to investigate links between dimensions of romantic attachment and relationship functioning in a cross-sectional sample of people in same-sex relationships, with the goals of replicating basic findings from research on heterosexual couples and advancing understanding of unique issues faced by same-sex couples. The sample included 274 female couples, 188 male couples, 34 women whose female partners did not participate, and 39 men whose male partners did not participate. Participants were recruited from geographically diverse regions of the United States and Canada and provided data by responding to pencil-and-paper surveys. Attachment insecurity in both self and partner were linked with poor relationship functioning across a range of variables (satisfaction, commitment, trust, communication, problem intensity). The pattern of results was identical for women and men, but the effects were stronger in male couples for some associations between attachment variables and indices of positive relationship functioning. Monogamy was positively associated with relationship quality only when participants or their partners reported moderate or high levels of attachment anxiety. Contrary to hypothesis, attachment did not moderate links between minority stressors and relationship functioning.

Relationship infidelities are motivated by many distinct factors, with previous research indicating motivations of dissatisfaction, neglect, anger, and sexual desire (Barta & Kiene, 2005). We expand on this by demonstrating additional, empirically distinct motivations for infidelity. Using an Internet-based questionnaire, participants (N = 495), most of whom were young adults, self-reported their infidelities. In addition to evidence for previously studied motivations, our data demonstrate additional factors, including lack of love ("I had 'fallen out of love with' my primary partner"), low commitment ("I was not very committed to my primary partner"), esteem ("I wanted to enhance my popularity"), gaining sexual variety ("I wanted a greater variety of sexual partners"), and situational factors ("I was drunk and not thinking clearly"). Our results also show personality correlates with infidelity motivations. Consistent with predictions, attachment insecurity was associated with motivations of anger, lack of love, neglect, low commitment, and esteem, while unrestricted sociosexual orientation was associated with sexual variety. Implicit beliefs (e.g., growth, destiny, romanticism) were differentially associated with sexual desire, low commitment, lack of love, and neglect. These findings highlight multifaceted motivations underlying infidelity, moving beyond relationship deficit models of infidelity, with implications for research and psychotherapy involving people's romantic and sexual relationships.

Two studies with a college student (n ¼ 287) and an Internet volunteer sample (n ¼ 795) assessed moral judgments for norm violations in close relationships. We developed a 31-item questionnaire that assessed participants' moral judgments of potential norm violations in relationships, including sexual threats (e.g., watching others masturbate), emotional threats (e.g., keeping romantic memorabilia from past relationships), friendship boundaries (e.g., dating a best friend's ex-partner), digital infidelity (e.g., sexting), and privacy violations (e.g., looking through a partner's belongings). In addition, we assessed general moral concerns, attachment style, and sociosexuality. Results showed that concerns about purity/degradation predicted harsher moral judgments for most types of violations, even when controlling for other moral concerns. Attachment-related avoidance predicted greater permissiveness toward emotional threats, digital infidelity, and friendship boundaries but harsher judgments for privacy violations, whereas attachment anxiety predicted the opposite pattern. Sociosexuality predicted greater permissiveness toward sexual behaviors. Female participants judged most behaviors more harshly than did males. We interpret findings within the frameworks of Attachment Theory and Moral Foundations Theory.

Recent research has demonstrated parallels between romantic attachment styles and general dream content. The current study examined partner-specific attachment representations alongside dreams that contained significant others. The general prediction was that dreams would follow the "secure base script," and a general correspondence would emerge between secure attachment cognitions in waking life and in dreams. Sixty-one undergraduate student participants in committed dating relationships of six months duration or longer completed the Secure Base Script Narrative Assessment at Time 1, and then completed a dream diary for 14 consecutive days. Blind coders scored dreams that contained significant others using the same criteria for secure base content in laboratory narratives. Results revealed a significant association between relationship-specific attachment security and the degree to which dreams about romantic partners followed the secure base script. The findings illuminate our understanding of mental representations with regards to specific attachment figures. Implications for attachment theory and clinical applications are discussed.