Religious Tradition,Religiosity, or Everyday Theologies? Unpacking Religion’s Relationship to Support for Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Among a College Student Sample

This study explores the differential impact of religious tradition, religiosity, and everyday theologies on support for legalizing same-sex marriage among a sample of undergraduate college students. The findings suggest that among college students in the United States the group of everyday theologies—personal religious beliefs that emerge through individuals’ lived experiences and social interactions—that we examine has a larger influence on attitudes about legalizing same-sex marriage than do either religious tradition or religiosity (measured as attendance, prayer, and guidance). We operationalize the concept of everyday theologies as levels of endorsement for six different religious themes. Implications for social movements promoting same-sex marriage and future research are discussed.     

Sociorelational Psychoanalysis and Agency: Reply to Commentary

The author notes that, overall, he and White seem to agree on many important issues that she writes about in her commentary, such as the necessity of recognizing both our shared humanity and the agency of separate, subjective selves. He argues, however, that White mischaracterizes what it means to think of the self as socially constructed, and he clarifies his views of how the concept of a socially constructed self may be related to individual differences in the same culture, and to personal agency. He responds to White's imputation that his paper implicitly prescribes a type of intervention or mandates some particular view of the Truth as a new theology, substituting a concrete environmental or social determinism for the abstract (intrapsychic) determinism that he criticizes. Finally, he responds to some interesting and insightful questions White raises about the case vignette of Mr. J that was presented in his essay.     

Gender differences in the relationship of moderator variables to stress and symptoms

Abstract

This study focused on gender differences in the relationship of four moderator variables (hostility, social support, optimism, and Type A behavior) to perceptions of symptoms and stress based on a sample of 120 female and 79 male undergraduates. Results confirmed significant gender differences in hostility, Type A behavior, and social support but not in optimism. Multiple regression analyses exposed distinct gender differences. For females, social support accounted for 21% and hostility 5% of the total variance in perceived stress. For males, only hostility accounted for any significant variance (10%). Hostility contributed 21% and social support contributed 13% to the total variance in the number of symptoms for females. For males, optimism contributed 14% and hostility 5%. Results indicate that social support is a potent variable for females in their perception of both stress and symptoms but essentially unrelated for males. Hostility, however, relates to perceptions of stress and symptoms for both sexes.     

Toward a Critical Global Psychoanalysis

In light of the contemporary shift away from the universalizing of the Eurocentric perspective, brought into focus with the advent of globalization, it may be useful to consider reorienting traditional psychoanalytic assumptions about human nature to those that are more appropriate to the recognition of a culturally pluralistic world. The author argues that ego psychology originated in the Western Enlightenment's emphasis on liberal individualism, which has limited its applicability across races, classes, and cultures. Relational theories, in their capacity to include the examination of the socially constructed dimensions of the analytic dyad (including race, class, gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation), offer crucial theoretical and clinical possibilities, lacking in traditional psychoanalysis, that may help analysts to address some of the important cultural sources of psychological suffering. In the relational view expressed here, the unconscious—as made manifest in everyday life and in the transference and countertransference of the analytic situation—is reformulated to include social and cultural influences.