Toward an Integration of Interpersonal Risk Models of Depression and Cognitive‐Behaviour Therapy

Empirical research has increasingly focused on interpersonal variables associated with the development and maintenance of depression. This article outlines some key interpersonal risk factors for depression, including anxious attachment, sociotropy, excessive reassurance seeking, interpersonal stress generation, reduced social support, social skills deficits, and social avoidance. Recommendations are made for how cognitive‐behavioural therapy may be adapted to address such factors. Specifically, suggestions are offered for how cognitive and behavioural interventions, such as cognitive restructuring, behavioural activation, behavioural experiments, and skills training, may be used with depressed clients to promote positive relationships and reduce maladaptive interpersonal behaviours.     

“I can’t get no satisfaction”: Insecure attachment,inhibited sexual communication,and sexual dissatisfaction

An Internet survey was conducted to extend the investigation of attachment style to the domains of sexual communication and sexual satisfaction. We hypothesized that insecure attachment would be associated with sexual dissatisfaction, mediated by inhibited communication of sexual needs. Further, the association of attachment with inhibited communication was expected to be mediated by attachment‐related tendencies toward deference to partners’ needs, concern with the relationship implications of sexual choices, general anxiety regarding sex, and feelings for one’s partner. Somewhat different mediational pathways were predicted for each of the 2 dimensions of attachment insecurity: anxiety and avoidance. Respondents (N= 1,989, around half of them involved in a sexual relationship at the time of the study and half not involved but with previous sexual relationship experience) completed measures of attachment‐related anxiety and avoidance, neuroticism (a possible confound), and sexual communication and satisfaction. Results generally supported the hypotheses and provided additional evidence regarding the associations between attachment style, sexual communication, and sexual satisfaction.     

Collective Apologies and Their Effects on Forgiveness: Pessimistic Evidence but Constructive Implications

In the last three decades, there has been an explosion in the frequency with which leaders of groups have issued official apologies for collective transgressions. These apologies are commonly assumed to lay a pathway to forgiveness and reconciliation, but empirical examination of the downstream consequences of collective apologies is still in its infancy. In this article, we review a series of studies—including interview studies, survey studies, and experiments—that question the assumed wisdom that collective apologies lead to intergroup forgiveness. Reasons for the muted evidence of an apology–forgiveness link at the intergroup level are elaborated, and implications for how best to issue gestures of reconciliation and remorse are discussed.     

Expansion of Genetic Services Utilizing a General Genetic Counseling Clinic

We established a general genetic counseling clinic (GCC) to help reduce long wait times for new patient appointments and to enhance services for a subset of patients. Genetic counselors, who are licensed in Tennessee, were the primary providers and MD geneticists served as medical advisors. This article describes the clinic referral sources, reasons for referral and patient dispositions following their GCC visit(s). We obtained patients by triaging referrals made to our medical genetics division. Over 24 months, our GCC provided timely visits for 321 patients, allowing the MD geneticists to focus on patients needing a clinical exam and/or complex medical management. Following their GCC visit(s), over 80 % of patients did not need additional appointments with an MD geneticist. The GCC allowed the genetic counselor to spend more time with patients than is possible in our traditional medical genetics clinic. Patient satisfaction surveys (n?=?30) were very positive overall concerning the care provided. Added benefits for the genetic counselors were increased professional responsibility, autonomy and visibility as health care providers. We conclude that genetic counselors are accepted as health care providers by patients and referring providers for a subset of clinical genetics cases. A GCC can expand genetic services, complement more traditional genetic clinic models and utilize the strengths of the genetic counselor health care provider.