Development of the Enthusiastic Substance Use Attitudes Scale: Preliminary Evidence of a Novel Maintenance Factor.

Background: Expectancies, motives, and attitudes toward substances are cognitive factors that partially account for substance use; however, existing measures tend to have monotonous phrasing, diverging from the enthusiastic attitude toward the perceived benefits of substance use exhibited by those who use substances regularly in informal settings. Objective: I aimed to characterize a new cognitive maintenance factor that precedes substance use by creating a brief, multidimensional measure to capture this tone nuance, which I called the Enthusiastic Substance Use Attitudes Scale (ESUAS). Method: Undergraduate students (n = 198) between ages 18 and 62 (M = 19.15, SD = 3.65; 66.2% women; 71.71% White) completed the study for course credit. Results: I used exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to reduce a 90-item item pool based on a comprehensive qualitative thematic analysis of social media, traditional media, and the scientific literature to an 18-item hierarchical bifactor model. This model contained nine specific factors, which are (1) sociability, (2) enjoyment, (3) physical health, (4) mental health, (5) relaxation, (6) personal growth, (7) performance enhancement, (8) boredom, and (9) life processing; two general factors, which are (1) substance-induced emotion regulation and (2) substance-based assistance; and a higher-order single factor above the nine specific factors - resulting in twelve highly internally consistent, empirically supported scales. Further, the ESUAS demonstrated excellent structural, convergent, divergent, incremental, and diagnostic validity. The degree of enthusiasm towards substance use positively related to substance use disorder symptomology, polysubstance use, neuroticism, and difficulty with regulating emotions while negatively relating to one's psychological quality of life and agreeableness. Conclusion: The ESUAS may be an effective tool for professionals to characterize these enthusiastic attitudes further and measure a more ecologically valid view of the perceived benefits of substance use among those who use substances, thereby developing a more compassionate, non-stigmatizing understanding within the general public, advancing medicinal uses of illicit substances, and improving conceptualizations and treatments.

Researcher degrees of freedom in statistical software contribute to unreliable results: A comparison of nonparametric analyses conducted in SPSS, SAS, Stata, and R.

Researcher degrees of freedom can affect the results of hypothesis tests and consequently, the conclusions drawn from the data. Previous research has documented variability in accuracy, speed, and documentation of output across various statistical software packages. In the current investigation, we conducted Pearson's chi-square test of independence, Spearman's rank-ordered correlation, Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance, Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney U rank-sum tests, and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, along with estimates of skewness and kurtosis, on large, medium, and small samples of real and simulated data in SPSS, SAS, Stata, and R and compared the results with those obtained through hand calculation using the raw computational formulas. Multiple inconsistencies were found in the results produced between statistical packages due to algorithmic variation, computational error, and statistical output. The most notable inconsistencies were due to algorithmic variations in the computation of Pearson's chi-square test conducted on 2 × 2 tables, where differences in p-values reported by different software packages ranged from .005 to .162, largely as a function of sample size. We discuss how such inconsistencies may influence the conclusions drawn from the results of statistical analyses depending on the statistical software used, and we urge researchers to analyze their data across multiple packages to check for inconsistencies and report details regarding the statistical procedure used for data analysis.

The explanatory ability of COVID-19 life changes on quality of life: A comparison of those who have had and not had COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has undoubtedly negatively affected individuals' quality of life through multiple means such as social isolation, exacerbated mental health conditions, and financial instability. Multiple studies have demonstrated that one of the negative correlates of quality of life is the perceived danger of COVID-19 (i.e., fear of and anxiety about COVID-19). The current study addresses limitations in the literature by testing how life changes from COVID-19 explain the direct effect of the perceived danger of COVID-19 on quality of life using a United States sample between those who have had COVID-19 compared to those who have not had COVID-19. Undergraduate students (n = 196) from a Midwestern University in the United States participated in this study for course credit (White: n = 109; 55.61%; Male: n = 94; 48.0%). Participants completed this study online and at home where they responded to a demographic form and several measures of the effects of COVID-19 and quality of life. The results suggest that COVID-19 life changes fully explain the negative relationship between the perceived danger of COVID-19 and quality of life, but only in those who have had COVID-19. In the group that has never had COVID-19, the only significant relationship was the positive relationship between the perceived danger of COVID-19 on COVID-19 life changes. The results suggest that researchers may consider steering research away from the perceived danger of COVID-19 and onto remedying life changes from COVID-19 to improve individuals' quality of life. I further discuss the theoretical findings, implications, limitations, and future directions.

When Public Will Meets Legislative Resistance: Five Lessons from Ohio's Issue 2 Cannabis Legalization Controversy.

In this paper, I explore the challenges of legalizing cannabis in Ohio, focusing on the passing of the Issue 2 Bill, legislative resistance, and public response. I propose five strategies for effective policy change: persistent advocacy post policy change success, establishing strong coalitions, empowering grassroots movements, promoting rigorous data-driven research, and launching public education campaigns. I offer a detailed analysis of the interaction between public opinion and legislative action in cannabis legalization and its implications for substance-related policy change.

Effects of nicotine patches on early and late attentional bias to smoking cues: We may know less than we think.

In contrast to overnight deprivation versus satiety studies, a small number of placebo-controlled studies have failed to find that nicotine administration reduces attentional bias (AB) to smoking cues. To assess the reliability of this failure and to address the duration and salience of AB in smokers versus never-smokers, we used a longer-than-typical (i.e., 3,000 ms) smoking cue-presentation time in a placebo-controlled trial of smokers and never-smokers. We aimed to assess whether a nicotine patch (i.e., active vs. placebo) attenuates continuously assessed eye gaze-measured AB to smoking cues across 3,000 ms in 32 habitual, overnight-deprived smokers and smoker-nonsmoker differences compared to 32 never-smokers. We presented a series of picture pairs (i.e., one smoking-related and one affectively neutral control picture) simultaneously to assess AB. Participants attended a 14 mg nicotine patch and a placebo patch session in a randomized order. The habitual smokers were 12-18 hr nicotine-deprived during both sessions. Smokers demonstrated a stronger AB toward smoking cues than never-smokers across the entire 3,000 ms cue-presentation time. Nicotine did not significantly reduce the AB to smoking cues but the AB was strongly and positively related to deprivation-associated cravings in smokers. Patch-delivered nicotine did not reduce AB to smoking cues presented for up to 3,000 ms, even though smoker-nonsmoker differences in bias remained. Assessments of longer cue presentations and more subtle cues may provide nuance not currently captured by existing studies, because of potential demand effects in designs that contrast overnight versus sated state effects on AB. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Self-administered mindfulness interventions reduce stress in a large, randomized controlled multi-site study.

Mindfulness witnessed a substantial popularity surge in the past decade, especially as digitally self-administered interventions became available at relatively low costs. Yet, it is uncertain whether they effectively help reduce stress. In a preregistered (OSF https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/UF4JZ ; retrospective registration at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06308744 ) multi-site study (nsites = 37, nparticipants = 2,239, 70.4% women, Mage = 22.4, s.d.age = 10.1, all fluent English speakers), we experimentally tested whether four single, standalone mindfulness exercises effectively reduced stress, using Bayesian mixed-effects models. All exercises proved to be more efficacious than the active control. We observed a mean difference of 0.27 (d = -0.56; 95% confidence interval, -0.43 to -0.69) between the control condition (M = 1.95, s.d. = 0.50) and the condition with the largest stress reduction (body scan: M = 1.68, s.d. = 0.46). Our findings suggest that mindfulness may be beneficial for reducing self-reported short-term stress for English speakers from higher-income countries.

Is it time for a cannabis harm reduction approach? Commentary on Sherman et al. (2022) and Borodovsky et al. (2022).

OBJECTIVE: Recent research suggests potential therapeutic benefits of cannabis-derived products, a lower risk profile than other illicit substances, and significant functional improvement from reduced use. Likewise, low abstinence rates and low motivation to achieve abstinence among those with cannabis use disorder (CUD) are the norm. As such, the harm reduction model has gained traction among substance use scientists and health care professionals as a viable alternative approach. Yet, to date no formal definition of cannabis harm reduction has been proposed. METHOD: We reviewed the literature, including two recent empirical papers published in the Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, Sherman et al. (2022) and Borodovsky et al. (2022), which demonstrate that harm reduction is sufficient to achieve functional improvement. We then propose and define a harm reduction approach for cannabis use research and treatment, and argue why this approach is a timely, necessary discussion. RESULTS: We suggest that a cannabis harm reduction approach includes treatment, research, and education initiatives that reduce the public health burden of cannabis use. This approach includes interventions that reduce functional impairment and risk from cannabis, reduced or managed use, and sometimes, but not necessarily, abstinence. Psychoeducation for treatment providers, legislative barriers, and research recommendations are also discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Research and treatment for CUD has historically focused on cannabis abstinence. Treatment trials rarely yield durable abstinence rates, and reduction has recently been tied to functional improvement. We comment on Sherman et al. (2022) and Borodovsky et al. (2022) and propose a shift toward a cannabis harm reduction approach. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Emotional fear of COVID-19, but not physiological expressions of fear, explains variability in COVID-19's impact on individuals' lives.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound and robust impact on individuals' lives and has particularly negatively affected individuals' experiences with fear of catching COVID-19. To measure this fear, researchers created the unidimensional Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S). However, some exploratory factor analysis studies suggested the presence of two factors, which are 1) emotional fear and 2) physiological expressions of fear. In the current exploratory study, we aimed to confirm this factor structure using confirmatory factor analysis and to examine how these two new factors of the FCV-19S explain variability in the impacts of COVID-19 on nine life domains (i.e., finances, loved ones, job, safety, school, mental health, physical health, social activities, and quality of life). Participants were undergraduate students (n = 224) from a Midwestern University (White: 60.7%; Male: 48.0%) who participated in the study for course credit. The results revealed that the two-factor model had an excellent fit for the FCV-19S, both subscales had excellent psychometric properties, and the emotional fear subscale significantly explained variability in all nine life domains (7% to 54%). However, the physiological fear subscale only significantly explained variability in the physical health domain along with emotional fear (28%). The findings suggested that emotional fear of COVID-19 may explain more variability in the impact of COVID-19 across life domains, while physiological fear may only explain the effects of COVID-19 on physical health. We further discussed implications, limitations, and future directions.

The Pathogenesis of Borderline Personality Disorder: Evolution of Evidence and Treatment Implications for Two Prominent Models.

Since Stern first started his work in 1938, the field has recognized several empirically supported models of the etiology of borderline personality disorder (BPD). Two such models are the Tripartite Model of the Development of BPD and the Biosocial Development Model of BPD. The Tripartite Model of the Development of BPD suggests that it is a combination of a hyperbolic temperament, traumatic childhood experiences, and an event or series of events that trigger the onset of BPD. Whereas the Biosocial Development Model of BPD elaborates on the work of Linehan's Biosocial Theory. This model suggests a combination of an emotionally vulnerable temperament and an invalidating environment cause BPD. Over 70 years of research support these models. This article covers a detailed description of each of these models, the decades of research supporting these models, similarities, differences, treatment implications, the latest research, and future directions.

The War on Drugs has Unduly Biased Substance Use Research.

After working in the substance use field for several years and conducting research on substance use, it has come to my attention how deeply ingrained the War on Drugs propaganda is in substance use research. The lines of research demonstrating the potential benefits of substance use (including illicit substances), delineation of harm from stigma, and the societal impact of the War on Drugs is rather weak and lacking, despite numerous recent studies showing the benefits of certain substances and reports of individuals in therapy and online suggesing that illicit substances help them in some respects. There are numerous critical implications of this bias in substance use research. Suppose the field primarily produces studies that show that all substances are harmful in almost any circumstance and that substance use disorders (SUDs) are primarily driven by psychological deficits (e.g., willpower). In that case, we, as researchers, would be feeding into the War on Drugs, which is known for marginalizing individuals, promoting organized crime, exacerbating SUDs, feeding into a police and prison state, and killing individuals due to tainted substances. Substance use researchers and clinicians are among the first to recognize that the War on Drugs has failed. Yet, despite this belief, we seem to have not quite fully noticed how the propaganda has influenced how we conduct our jobs and the research we produce. In the current letter, I inform researchers who study substance use and clinicians who treat SUDs to acknowledge their own learned biases against substances and those who use substances; to be more cautious when interpreting substance use data in the future.

Anhedonia in Nicotine Dependence.

Prior findings indicate that trait anhedonia enhances the likelihood of becoming a tobacco smoker, and preliminary evidence suggests that smoking abstinence leads to anhedonic states in some individuals and situations, and nicotine administration reduces anhedonic states. Nevertheless, many vital questions exist concerning relationships between anhedonia and nicotine dependence, including situational and individual difference factors that may moderate the strength of these associations. This chapter provides a critical review of the literature assessing relationships of anhedonia to nicotine dependence and the effects of acute nicotine through the lenses of the Research Domain Criteria's (RDoC) Positive Valence Systems (NIMH, RDoC changes to the matrix (CMAT) workgroup update: proposed positive valence domain revisions. A report by the national advisory mental health council workgroup on changes to the research domain criteria matrix, 2018) and the Situation x Trait Affective Response (STAR) model of nicotine's effects and nicotine dependence (Gilbert, Smoking individual differences, psychopathology, and emotion. Taylor and Francis, Washington, DC, 1995; Gilbert, Hum Psychopharmacol Clin Exp 12:S89-S102, 1997). The effects of nicotine and nicotine withdrawal on subjective, behavioral, and brain indices vary across the three RDoC Positive Valences Systems (Reward Responsiveness, Reward Learning, and Reward Valuation) in a manner that supports the research and potential clinical utility of using RDoC criteria and the STAR model to guide research and clinical innovation. We provide a revision of the STAR model that incorporates the three RDoC Positive Valence Systems with evidence that nicotine's effects on hedonic and affective processes vary as a function of the dominance/salience of (1) situational hedonic and affective cues and task/active coping cues, and (2) state executive functioning level/capacity and state reward sensitivity such that these effects of nicotine are maximal during states of suboptimal cognitive functioning and reward sensitivity, combined with low situational stimulus salience and low task-related cues/demands.

The Ethical Use of Fit Indices in Structural Equation Modeling: Recommendations for Psychologists.

Fit indices provide helpful information for researchers to assess the fit of their structural equation models to their data. However, like many statistics and methods, researchers can misuse fit indices, which suggest the potential for questionable research practices that might arise during the analytic and interpretative processes. In the current paper, the author highlights two critical ethical dilemmas regarding the use of fit indices, which are (1) the selective reporting of fit indices and (2) using fit indices to justify poorly-fitting models. The author highlights the dilemmas and provides potential solutions for researchers and journals to follow to reduce these questionable research practices.