Modeling the Gender Difference in Depression: A Commentary on Cambron, Acitelli, and Pettit

In reviewing Cambron, Acitelli, and Pettit’s interpersonal contingent self-esteem model of the gender difference in depression, we applaud their domain-match vulnerability-stress approach as well as their specification of the processes mediating self-esteem and depression. However, we argue that models of the gender difference in depression must address five key points in order to provide compelling and meaningful explanations. Such models should: consider that vulnerability, stress, or vulnerability-stress interactions may vary across domains; articulate the processes by which stress-reactive negative affect develops into depressive symptoms; take a developmental approach; be sensitive to social and political implications; and provide clear hypotheses regarding the mediating and moderating mechanisms implicated in the model. These suggestions apply to all researchers interested in explaining the gender difference in depression.     

A Hostility Scale for the California Psychological Inventory: MMPI,Observer Q-Sort,and Big-Five Correlates

Using two samples, we developed and validated a hostility scale that can be scored from the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) and serves as an alternate for the Cook-Medley Hostility Scale (Ha; Cook & Medley, 1954). The CPI Hostility (H) scale consists of 33 items that are either duplicates or close equivalents of specific He items, and the two scales correlate at least .90 in samples differing in sex. The H and Ho scales show a similar pattern of correlations with conceptually relevant MMPI scales and with observer-rated personality attributes tapping Barefoot, Peterson, et al.'s (1991) five hostility categories of Hostile Affect, Cynicism, Aggressive Responding, Social Avoidance, and Hostile Attributions. These findings provide evidence for the equivalence of the two hostility scales, as well as external validation for those personality characteristics that are purported to underlie the construct of hostility as tapped by both the original Ho and the new CPI H scale.     

Culture, Communication, and Competence: A Commentary on Variables Affecting Social and Academic Behavior

The editors of this special issue have recruited six papers focused on the ways that language and communication interact with culture to influence student behavior. Two themes that emerge from these papers are the fundamental role of communication in learning and living, and the impact of culture on the functions of communication. The present commentary is offered in admiration for the work of the authors, and with the goal of emphasizing common messages that may guide both future research and practice.     

Advances,Problems, and Challenges in the Study of Emotion Regulation: A Commentary

As observed by Zinbarg and Mineka (American Psychologist 62:259–261, 2007), the study of emotion regulation faces significant challenges that need to be addressed. In reviewing the articles in the present issue, we comment upon how researchers have attempted, with varying degrees of success, to meet these challenges. We suggest that the articles in the present volume demonstrate important conceptual and methodological advances in emotion regulation research, but that the most central problems noted by Zinbarg and Mineka have yet to be fully remedied. In highlighting both the progress made and problems faced by the field of emotion regulation, we suggest new directions for future research in this area.     

A Delicate Knowledge: Epistemology, Homosexuality, and St. John of the Cross

In light of the intractable disagreements, both theological and theoretical, which emerge at every turn in contemporary discussions of homosexuality and religion, this essay advances an epistemological approach to the discussion. The advantage of an epistemological approach is that it sidesteps many of the narrow denominational discussions, making almost no reference to Romans, to natural law, or to a sexual ethic based on love and mutuality. By drawing upon analytic philosophy of religion (Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne specifically), I hope to show how a failure explicitly to face epistemological challenges has undermined pro-gay claims and arguments and contributed to religious confusion. Constructively, the work of St. John the Cross helpfully offers a powerful epistemological vision that importantly supplements the analytic projects of Plantinga and Swinburne, thereby helping us comprehend more fully what is implied and required in justified pro-gay religious conviction.