The Incremental Utility of Emotion Regulation But Not Emotion Reactivity in Nonsuicidal Self‐Injury

This study assessed the incremental utility of emotion reactivity and emotion regulation in relation to nonsuicidal self‐injury (NSSI). Participants included 379 college students aged 18–22 who completed self‐report measures of emotion regulation, emotion reactivity, and NSSI. Emotion regulation was significantly related to NSSI both ignoring and controlling for reactivity, but the reverse was not true. Participants' use of NSSI for affect regulation appeared to moderate this relation. Findings support emotion regulation deficits as a target for intervention over and above heightened emotion reactivity, especially in those who use NSSI to regulate negative affect.     

Is cleanliness next to abstinence? The effect of cleanliness priming on attitudes towards harm reduction strategies for people with substance use disorders

Can exposure to a cleanliness prime affect moral judgements towards harm reduction strategies (HRS) for individuals with substance use disorders? Our research examined (a) the effect of a cleanliness prime on attitudes towards HRS and (b) whether this effect would be attenuated by a brief educational presentation. Participants were randomly assigned to a priming condition and an educational presentation condition. Results demonstrated that (a) the cleanliness prime did not shift attitudes towards HRS, however, (b) the educational presentations significantly shifted attitudes to be more positive after the Harm Reduction presentation and more negative after the Healthy Living presentation. The literature on priming is mixed and our results support a growing body of research challenging the robustness of cleanliness priming and also demonstrates that brief presentations can change attitudes. Our research has implications for education on the benefits of HRS in reducing disease transmission, refuse in the community, and overdose deaths.     

COMMENTARY ON "SEXUALITY AND THE MIDLIFE WOMAN"

In responding to Sandra Leiblum's clearly written, well-researched, and very well-balanced article, we would like to make three points about (a) the nature of language in menopause research and discussion; (b) the pathological and heterosexist bias in the scientific literature on menopause; and (c) our own research of menopausal lesbians.