Similarities and Differences in the Functions of Nonsuicidal Self‐Injury (NSSI) and Sex as Self‐Injury (SASI)

Differences and similarities were studied in the functions of two different self‐injurious behaviors (SIB): nonsuicidal self‐injury (NSSI) and sex as self‐injury (SASI). Based on type of SIB reported, adolescents were classified in one of three groups: NSSI only (n = 910), SASI only (n = 41), and both NSSI and SASI (n = 76). There was support for functional equivalence in the two forms of SIB, with automatic functions being most commonly endorsed in all three groups. There were also functional differences, with adolescents in the SASI only group reporting more social influence functions than those with NSSI only. Adolescents reporting both NSSI and SASI endorsed the highest number of functions for both behaviors. Clinical implications are discussed, emphasizing the need for emotion regulation skills.     

Corporate Responsibilization

This article examines the conditions for responsibilizing corporations. When we responsibilize an agent, we hold him responsible for his choices – although we are aware that he is not yet fully fit to be held responsible – in order to induce in him the relevant characteristics for being fit to be held responsible at a later time. I find that the conditions of responsibilizability are not identical to the conditions for responsibilization we usually and reasonably apply. Typically, we only responsibilize agents who do not only meet the comparably weak conditions of responsibilizability, but who also fulfil additional criteria, as for example having demonstrated first signs of normative reasoning. I argue that corporations do not only meet the minimum threshold of responsibilizability, but also a comparably higher threshold, which allows us to engage in particularly effective forms of responsibilization. Basically, we may permissibly responsibilize the overwhelming majority of corporations in the same way parents responsibilize their growing children.