Willingness to Seek Treatment Among Black Students With Anxiety or Depression: The Synergistic Effect of Sociocultural Factors With Symptom Severity and Intolerance of Uncertainty

Anxiety and depressive disorders are among the most commonly diagnosed psychiatric disorders, yet they remain largely undertreated in the U.S. and Black adults are especially unlikely to seek or receive mental health services. Symptom severity has been found to impact treatment-seeking behaviors as have sociocultural factors. Yet no known research has tested whether these factors work synergistically to effect willingness to seek treatment. Further, emerging data point to the importance of transdiagnostic risk factors such as intolerance of uncertainty (IU). IU may be negatively related to seeking treatment given that Black adults may be uncertain whether treatment might benefit them. Thus, the current study examined the relations between symptom severity/IU and willingness to seek treatment for anxiety/depression problems and the impact of key sociocultural variables (i.e., cultural mistrust–interpersonal relations [CMI-IR], perceived discrimination [PED]) on these relations among 161 (85% female) Black undergraduates. Consistent with prediction, symptom severity was positively related to willingness, but unexpectedly, IU was positively related. There was a significant Symptom Severity × CMI-IR interaction such that severity was positively related to willingness among students with lower cultural mistrust, but not higher mistrust. There were also significant IU × PED interaction such that IU was positively related to willingness among students with lower PED, but not higher PED. Results highlight the importance of considering the interplay between symptom severity, transdiagnostic vulnerability factors, and sociocultural variables when striving to identify factors related to treatment seeking behaviors among anxious and/or depressed Black students.     

Trust within Limits

Abstract

There have two recent challenges to the orthodoxy that ‘X trusts Y to ø’ is the fundamental notion of trust. Domenicucci and Holton maintain that trust, like love and friendship, is fundamentally two-place. Paul Faulkner argues to the more radical conclusion that the one-place ‘X is trusting’ is explanatorily basic. I argue that ‘X trusts Y in domain D’ is the explanatorily basic notion. I make the case that only by thinking of trust as domain-specific can we make sense of the relationships between trust and belief in goodwill, trust and distrust, and trust and trustworthiness. In addition, by modeling trust as essentially domain-specific we can account for the way in which wise trust in others is finely discriminating.     

Reducing behavioural risk factors for cancer: An affect regulation perspective

Nearly half of all cancer deaths are attributable to preventable causes, primarily unhealthy behaviours such as tobacco use, alcohol use and overeating. In this review, we argue that people engage in these behaviours, at least in part, as a means of regulating their affective states. To better understand why people engage in these behaviours and how researchers might design interventions to promote the selection of healthier methods for regulating affect, we propose a conceptual model of affect regulation. We synthesise research from both the stress and coping tradition as well as the emotion and emotion regulation tradition, two literatures that are not typically integrated. In so doing, we indicate where researchers have made headway in understanding these behaviours as affect regulation and note how our model could be used to structure future work in a way that would be particularly advantageous to cancer control efforts.     

An empirical solution to the puzzle of weakness of will

This paper presents an empirical solution to the puzzle of weakness of will. Specifically, it presents a theory of action, grounded in contemporary cognitive neuroscientific accounts of decision making, that explains the phenomenon of weakness of will without resulting in a puzzle.     

Explicit but not implicit sexist beliefs predict benevolent and hostile sexist behavior

Much work has been carried out on sexist attitudes, but only little on sexist behaviors. The goal of the present research was to close this gap by testing how a variety of benevolent and hostile sexist behaviors correlate with implicit and explicit sexist attitudes. In Study 1 (N = 126), we developed implicit association tests for benevolent sexism and hostile sexism and illustrated that implicit and explicit benevolent sexist beliefs, as well as implicit and explicit hostile sexist beliefs, were positively correlated. In Study 2 (N = 83 of Study 1), we tested whether implicit and explicit benevolent and hostile sexist attitudes correlate with benevolent and hostile sexist behaviors. As expected, explicit benevolent (but not hostile) sexist attitudes predicted benevolent sexist behavior, whereas explicit hostile (but not benevolent) sexist attitudes predicted hostile sexist behavior. Implicit sexist attitudes did not predict sexist behavior. The implications of these findings are discussed.     

Context Matters for Social-Emotional Learning: Examining Variation in Program Impact by Dimensions of School Climate

This paper examines whether three dimensions of school climate—leadership, accountability, and safety/respect—moderated the impacts of the INSIGHTS program on students’ social‐emotional, behavioral, and academic outcomes. Twenty‐two urban schools and N = 435 low‐income racial/ethnic minority students were enrolled in the study and received intervention services across the course of 2 years, in both kindergarten and first grade. Intervention effects on math and reading achievement were larger for students enrolled in schools with lower overall levels of leadership, accountability, and safety/respect at baseline. Program impacts on disruptive behaviors were greater in schools with lower levels of accountability at baseline; impacts on sustained attention were greater in schools with lower levels of safety/respect at baseline. Implications for Social‐Emotional Learning program implementation, replication, and scale‐up are discussed.