{PSOCIAL}

A second major line of development represented in this issue concerns psychosocial regulation under conditions of structural demand, particularly the relationship between individual resources, institutional constraints, and coping processes in work environments undergoing rapid transformation. Contemporary organizational contexts — shaped by post-pandemic restructuring, hybrid work modalities, and accelerated technological change — have intensified performance pressures while simultaneously redistributing perceived control, autonomy, and social support. These shifts have renewed theoretical and empirical interest in resource-based and context-embedded models of stress and adaptation within social psychology.

This line of research is grounded in well-established theoretical traditions, including transactional models of stress and coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and demand–control and demand–resources frameworks in occupational research (Karasek, 1979; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), which emphasize that adaptive outcomes depend not only on exposure to demands but also on access to regulatory resources and perceived control. Rather than treating coping as a purely individual trait, these approaches conceptualize it as a dynamic process emerging from the interaction between subjective beliefs and structural conditions.

Within this framework, the study by Ciriami et al., (2025) examines how locus of control, social support, autonomy, and job demands jointly predict coping strategies among workers. Their multivariate analyses identify a consistent and theoretically coherent pattern: perceived control and social support are associated with more active coping strategies, whereas external locus of control predicts more passive forms of response. Beyond confirming established theoretical expectations, the study contributes contextualized and methodologically robust evidence, linking belief systems and organizational structures through predictive modeling. In doing so, it advances a social psychology of work that connects subjective orientations with institutional configurations and identifies actionable intervention points.

Importantly, this research trajectory also strengthens the bridge between social and clinical domains. Coping is not only an organizational variable but also a mental health resource, closely linked to vulnerability, resilience, and recovery processes. By situating coping strategies within networks of social support and autonomy conditions, this line of work reinforces a non-individualistic understanding of adaptation — one in which resilience is socially distributed and institutionally mediated rather than merely intrapsychic. Editorially, foregrounding such contributions signals a programmatic commitment to models that integrate belief structures, relational resources, and structural constraints in the analysis of psychosocial adjustment.

A third major axis represented in the regular section concerns domain-differentiated models of well-being and their patterned relationship with psychopathology across gendered and developmental contexts. Contemporary research increasingly questions monolithic conceptions of well-being, emphasizing instead its multidimensional structure and the need to examine how distinct life domains relate differentially to mental health indicators. This approach aligns with broader developments in psychological science that treat well-being as a structured and context-sensitive construct, embedded in social roles, developmental stages, and relational environments rather than reducible to a single global index.

The contribution by Rubio et al. (2025) on domains of subjective well-being and psychopathology among Chilean adolescents advances a differentiated and stratified perspective. By modeling domain-specific well-being alongside mental health indicators and gender differences, the study shows that well-being is not only multidimensional but also socially patterned. Gender differences are not reducible to mean-level contrasts; they reflect structured variations in exposure, socialization processes, normative expectations, and vulnerability configurations, as shown in research linking gender role ideology, sexism, and inequality in care and social roles (e.g., Borro, 2021; Barbeitos & Modesto, 2023). Such findings support more fine-grained explanatory models in which gender operates as a contextual and developmental organizer of psychosocial outcomes rather than as a simple categorical comparator.

This line of work reflects a broader shift toward intersectional and stratified approaches to well-being, where psychological adjustment is understood as embedded in gendered, institutional, and cultural contexts. From this perspective, well-being and psychopathology are not opposing poles on a single continuum but partially overlapping and domain-dependent configurations shaped by opportunity structures and constraint patterns. Editorially, foregrounding domain-specific and socially stratified analyses of well-being signals a commitment to theoretically nuanced and policy-relevant social psychology, capable of informing targeted prevention and intervention strategies.

These differentiated and context-embedded models of psychosocial outcomes become especially consequential when extended to institutional trajectories and recognition processes — a perspective further developed in the contributions on gendered experiences and organizational settings included in this issue.

The paper by Naranjo Douglas et al. (2025) investigates the experiences of Chilean women who received late diagnoses of autism spectrum conditions, offering an analysis of diagnostic bias, camouflage strategies, and post-diagnosis identity transformations. The study demonstrates how diagnostic practices are embedded in gendered expectations and normative models of behavior that may obscure recognition of neurodivergent experiences. By documenting processes of masking, delayed identification, and subsequent identity reconstruction, the authors show how institutional recognition reshapes personal narratives and social positioning. The reported transition from chronic self-criticism to self-understanding following diagnosis illustrates the psychological and moral consequences of recognition processes, highlighting how classification systems structure both suffering and empowerment.

From this standpoint, diagnostic systems are conceptualized as sites of social categorization and institutional recognition, where identities are defined, negotiated, and legitimized within normative and cultural frameworks. Rather than treating diagnosis as a purely clinical process, this perspective emphasizes how institutional classification interacts with gender norms, social expectations, and stigma processes, shaping both self-understanding and social inclusion. Diagnostic trajectories become key contexts for analyzing recognition and misrecognition, identity formation, and the social regulation of difference.

This contribution advances social psychology by linking categorization, stigma, gender norms, and institutional practice within a unified framework of recognition dynamics. It complements prior research on gendered expectations and normative social roles in Latin American contexts (e.g., Borro, 2021) and reinforces the need for gender-sensitive and culturally informed diagnostic approaches. More broadly, the study demonstrates the epistemic value of lived experience and qualitative inquiry for understanding how institutional processes shape subjectivity, identity negotiation, and social belonging.

While the regular section of this issue centers on measurement, coping, well-being, gender, and institutional life, the special dossier edited by Joe de Rivera extends the analytical horizon of the volume toward rituals, collective gatherings, and processes of global community formation. Without duplicating the guest editor’s introduction, it is important to emphasize the programmatic significance of incorporating this dossier, which situates social psychology within ongoing debates on collective emotion, symbolic practices, and the foundations of social cohesion in an increasingly interconnected world.

The contributions by de Rivera, Rincón-Unigarro (2025), and Páez and da-Costa (2025) converge on a central proposition: rituals and collective emotional experiences should not be understood as residual cultural phenomena but as core mechanisms in the production of solidarity, identity, and moral concern across social scales. Concepts such as collective effervescence, self-transcendent emotions, and identification with all humanity point toward a macro-social social psychology capable of linking affective experience, symbolic interaction, and global ethical orientations. In this sense, the dossier advances a research agenda that connects psychological processes with broader questions of social integration, cooperation, and shared meaning.

The inclusion of this dossier also reflects broader transformations in contemporary social psychology, characterized by increasing attention to collective processes, global interdependence, and the affective foundations of social life. In line with prior editorial reflections emphasizing pluralism, regional dialogue, and theoretical integration in the field (Páez et al., 2024), the dossier contributes to expanding the discipline’s analytical scale and conceptual repertoire.

Placed alongside the regular articles, the dossier creates a productive vertical integration of levels of analysis: from psychometric instruments and coping beliefs, through gendered and institutional experiences, to large-scale ritual processes and global identification. This multi-level architecture illustrates a central direction in contemporary social psychology—one that seeks to articulate individual experience, social structure, and collective meaning within a unified analytical framework.