Masculine Ideology,Sexual Communication,and Sexual Self‐Efficacy Among Parenting Adolescent Couples

This study examined the relationship between traditional masculine role norms (status, toughness, anti‐femininity) and psychosocial mechanisms of sexual risk (sexual communication, sexual self‐efficacy) among young, low‐income, and minority parenting couples. Between 2007 and 2011, 296 pregnant adolescent females and their male partners were recruited from urban obstetrics clinics in Connecticut. Data regarding participants' beliefs in masculine role norms, frequency of general sex communication and sexual risk communication, and sexual self‐efficacy were collected via computer‐assisted self‐interviews. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were used to test for actor effects (whether a person's masculine role norms at baseline influence the person's own psychosocial variables at 6‐month follow‐up) and partner effects (whether a partner's masculine role norms at baseline influence an actor's psychosocial variables at 6‐month follow‐up). Results revealed that higher actor status norms were significantly associated with more sexual self‐efficacy, higher actor toughness norms were associated with less sexual self‐efficacy, and higher actor anti‐femininity norms were significantly associated with less general sex communication, sexual risk communication, and sexual self‐efficacy. No partner effects were found. These results indicate a need for redefining masculine role norms through family centered approaches in pregnant or parenting adolescent couples to increase sexual communication and sexual self‐efficacy. Further research is needed to understand partner effects in the context of a relationship and on subsequent sexual risk behavior.     

Hierarchical model of vulnerabilities for anxiety: replication and extension with a clinical sample

This study served to replicate and extend our previously obtained hierarchical model of the relationships among general anxiety vulnerabilities, specific anxiety vulnerabilities and specific anxiety manifestations including panic symptoms, health anxiety, obsessive-compulsive symptoms and worry. Questionnaires assessing these variables, as well as positive affectivity and depressiveness, were administered to 125 outpatients seeking treatment for panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder or major depressive disorder. The results, using a clinical sample, were highly consistent with the hierarchical model obtained in the previous study using a student sample. A more elaborate model, based on published theoretical and empirical evidence, was identified and tested, and similar results were obtained. Negative affectivity had expected direct positive effects on all of the specific anxiety and depression manifestations, with the exception of health anxiety, which showed a negative relationship, and OCD symptoms, which showed no relationship. Positive affectivity was found to be a specific risk factor for depression, while intolerance of uncertainty was found to be a specific risk factor for worry and depression. Finally, anxiety sensitivity appears to be a significant risk factor for panic and health anxiety.     

On the rationality of positive mysterianism

In Paradox in Christian Theology (2007) I argued that the Christian doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation are paradoxical—that is, they appear to involve implicit contradictions—yet Christians can still be rational in affirming and believing those doctrines. Dale Tuggy has characterized my theory of theological paradox as a form of “positive mysterianism” and argues that the theory “faces steep epistemic problems, and is at best a temporarily reasonable but ultimately unsustainable stance.” After summarizing my proposed model for the rational affirmation of theological paradox and considering whether my proposal is indeed a form of “positive mysterianism” as Tuggy defines the term, I address the two main criticisms raised in Tuggy’s paper: first, that the doctrine of divine incomprehensibility cannot bear the weight required by my defense of paradox; and second, that my proposed model is afflicted with epistemic instability. I conclude that Tuggy has failed to show that a mysterian stance with respect to paradoxical Christian doctrines is in principle unreasonable, unnatural, or unsustainable.     

The Bromance: Undergraduate Male Friendships and the Expansion of Contemporary Homosocial Boundaries

The present study provides the first known qualitative examination of heterosexual undergraduate men’s conceptualization and experiences of the bromance, outside research on cinematic representations. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 30 undergraduate men enrolled in one of four undergraduate sport-degree programs at one university in the United Kingdom, we find these heterosexual men to be less reliant on traditional homosocial boundaries, which have previously limited male same-sex friendships. Contrary to the repressive homosociality of the 1980s and 1990s, these men embrace a significantly more inclusive, tactile, and emotionally diverse approach to their homosocial relationships. All participants provided comparable definitions of what a bromance is and how it operates, all had at least one bromantic friend, and all suggested that bromances had more to offer than a standard friendship. Participants described a bromance as being more emotionally intimate, physically demonstrative, and based upon unrivalled trust and cohesion compared to their other friendships. Participants used their experiences with romances and familial relations as a reference point for considering the conditions of a bromance. Results support the view that declining homophobia and its internalization has had significantly positive implications for male expression and intimacy. Conclusions are made about the bromance’s potential to improve men’s mental health and social well-being because participants indicate these relationships provide a space for emotional disclosure and the discussion of potentially traumatic and sensitive issues.     

Who Reads Outcome Research?

To explore patterns of outcome research consumption, we conducted a national survey of 313 family therapists currently practicing in the United States. Participants were asked about their reading practices, as well as about attitudes toward and barriers to reading marriage/couple and family therapy (M/CFT) outcome research. Results suggest that most therapists perceive outcome research as at least somewhat important. However, they spend relatively little time reading it: The average is 1.7?h per month. Therapist-identified barriers to reading outcome research articles include access, applicability, quality of writing, and quality of research. Recommendations for addressing some of these barriers are offered.