No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Within the United States (U.S.), one-third of those who use cannabis (the most commonly used illicit drug in the U.S.), exhibit cannabis use problems significant enough to warrant a diagnosis of cannabis use disorder (CUD; Compton, Grant, Colliver, Glantz, & Stinson, 2004). Data suggests that quitting cannabis is highly difficult (Copersino et al., 2006), yet, there is little empirical knowledge about the nature of factors that relate to quit processes (e.g., self-efficacy). One potentially promising variable of relevance to CUD is distress intolerance (Leyro, Zvolensky, & Bernstein, 2010). Distress intolerance is referred to as (a) the perceived capacity to withstand negative emotional and/or aversive states, and (b) the behavioral act of withstanding distressing internal states elicited by some type of stressor. Although theoretically nested within a broader network of risk and protective processes, distress intolerance is posited to be related to, though conceptually distinct from, other variables (e.g., anxiety sensitivity; emotion regulation; Leyro et al., 2010). Individuals with higher levels of distress intolerance may be prone to maladaptively respond to distress (e.g., life stressors), and attempt to avoid negative emotions and/or aversive states (e.g., use cannabis to alter the perception or impact of negative mood, or to enhance positive mood). In contrast, persons with lower levels of distress intolerance may be more able to adaptively respond to distress (e.g., seek out alternative, more adaptive coping strategies instead of using cannabis). There is limited knowledge of the explanatory role of the inability to tolerate negative affect and other aversive internal sensations (e.g., withdrawal) in terms of CUD and the nature of the quit experience (e.g., beliefs about barriers to quitting). The aim of the present study was to examine the main and interactive effects of perceived and behavioral indices of distress intolerance in terms of cannabis quit-related variables, including (a) failed quit attempts, and duration of average time to relapse for past quit attempts; (b) greater severity of withdrawal symptoms experienced while quitting in the past, lower self-efficacy for abstaining, and greater perceived barriers for quitting cannabis; and (c) greater CUD problems. The sample recruited was characterized by racially and ethnically diverse (65.2% minority) adult cannabis users, many of whom had not completed college (46.5%). The sample had high rates of co-occuring psychiatric and medical illness (e.g., 36.1% had a current anxiety disorder, 26.4% had a current mood disorder, and half endorsed a medical condition), and over 25% fell below the 2013 Federal Poverty Level. There was no empirical support for an interactive or main effect of perceived or behavioral distress intolerance for any of the dependent variables. Although previous studies did not employ most of the cannabis dependent measures utilized in the current report, the lack of significant effects in the regression models was surprising given previous work on the topic (focused largely on coping motives for cannabis use). At the bi-variate level, there was some modest evidence of a 'signal' for perceived distress intolerance for certain cannabis dependent variables; these effects ranged from small to moderate. These data suggest, at least among the present largely minority sample, neither perceived or behavioral distress intolerance are robustly related to the cannabis dependent measures. One conservative interpretation of these findings is that distress intolerance may not perform the same across all CUD samples. Post hoc analyses focused on perceived distress intolerance subfactors relations to the dependent variables; indirect explanatory role of negative affect in perceived distress intolerance-cannabis relations; and bi-variate relations between perceived and behavioral distress intolerance with other transdiagnostic distress processes. Results suggested (a) no incremental explanatory effect for specific perceived distress intolerance subfactors; (b) a significant indirect effect of negative affect in the relation between perceived distress intolerance and certain cannabis dependent variables; and (c) consistent evidence of convergent validity for perceived distress intolerance with other transdiagnostic affective vulnerability factors. I contextualize the findings in relation to past work, and the methodology employed in the current study. I discuss how future theory-driven work that seeks to uncover the time course and patterning between distress intolerance, negative mood, and cannabis use behavior are needed. I also suggest that this work will likely have the greatest impact when the social contexts of CUD populations (e.g., social determinants of health) are more directly integrated into the theoretical models.

A processing model of emotion regulation (PMER) was investigated by assessing the attachment system and the two types of emotion regulation strategies (adaptive and maladaptive) in undergraduate students (N = 307) at Georgia State University. The analysis of the data revealed an interesting set of findings: (a) attachment anxiety was a stronger indicator of whether people use adaptive or maladaptive emotion regulation strategies than was attachment avoidance; (b) self efficacy, and not cognitive inability to suppress unwanted thoughts, partially mediated the relationship between attachment anxiety and adaptive emotion regulation strategies; and (c) cognitive inability to suppress unwanted thoughts, and not self efficacy beliefs, partially mediated the relationship between attachment anxiety and maladaptive emotion regulation strategies. Overall, the findings provided substantial support for the PMER, and also have important implications for clinical interventions aimed at effective emotion regulation.

none

none

Over the past 20 years, our understanding of emotional processes has grown rapidly. Within the study of emotion, a key area of interest has been how individuals succeed or fail in regulating emotional responses. Although still in its early development, researchers in this field have made progress in identifying the neurological, psychological, and social processes that underlie emotion regulation and dysregulation. Despite these advances, relatively few of these insights have been considered in light of the highly emotional terrain of couple distress. In the present study, one hundred and eight cohabiting couples rated themselves and their partner on key emotion regulation variables (e.g., the tendency to lose control of one??s emotions and the ability to restore emotional control and equilibrium). Analyses using the Actor- Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) showed strong links between these variables and individuals?? experience of intimacy and distress in their relationship. Results suggest that there are multiple avenues through which emotion regulation impacts a given individual??s relationship functioning; these include: (1) the individual??s self perceived capacity for emotion regulation, (2) their partner??s self-perceived capacity for emotion regulation, (3) the individual??s perception of their partner??s capacity for emotion regulation, and (4) the partner??s perception of the individual??s emotion regulation abilities.

Thesis (M.A. (Clinical Psychology))--University of Pretoria, 2003.

The purpose of this research was to describe the experience of moral distress among regulated and unregulated nursing personnel employed in Long Term Care (LTC) facilities. The specific research questions were: 1) Do regulated and unregulated nursing personnel experience moral distress? 2) What is the nature of moral distress in LTC facilities? 3) How do nursing personnel describe and perceive the experience of moral distress? 4) What are the organizational factors that participants perceive as contributing to or reducing moral distress in their workplace? A qualitative, descriptive, study design was used. Semi-structured interviews were the method of data collection and analysis was conducted using thematic content analysis as proposed by Miles and Huberman’s (1994). A purposive sample of 16 participants was recruited from two LTC facilities. Participants described work experiences in which they felt they were unable to do the “right thing”. There were four kinds of situations that gave rise to moral distress: end of life care, resident behaviours, other direct care provider behaviours and the work environment. The experience of moral distress was described in terms of an initial emotional reaction, followed by a response, with resolved or unresolved outcomes. Half of the examples described by participants as giving rise to moral distress, remained unresolved. Participants also identified organizational factors that prevented moral distress and assisted with its resolution such as, educational courses, administrative leadership and pastoral support. / Thesis (Master, Nursing) -- Queen's University, 2010-09-24 13:59:20.125