Objectives Distress in patients with cancer is a significant problem that affects up to 32% of patients. Yet research indicates that 35% of cancer patients do maintain high levels of well‐being. Resilience is one psychological factor implicated as being protective against distress; however, the mechanisms for this relationship are currently unknown. The present study aimed to explore emotion regulation as a potential mediator of the relationship between resilience and distress. Methods A cross‐sectional survey examining emotional regulation, resilience, and distress was completed by 227 patients from two hospitals with heterogeneous cancer types. Measures included the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS), the Connor Davidson Resilience Scale, and the Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scale. Results Difficulties in emotion regulation and resilience explained 33.2% of the variance in distress. Resilience had a significant direct effect on distress, accounting for 15.8% of the variance. However, this effect was no longer significant when difficulties in emotion regulation were controlled for. The indirect effect through difficulties in emotion regulation was significant, b = 0.009, 95% CI [−0.013,−0.007], suggesting that the effect of resilience on distress was fully mediated by emotion regulation. Parallel mediation analyses also examined the differential effects of the six DERS subscales on the relationship between resilience and distress. Conclusion These findings suggest that emotion regulation is an important mediator of resilience in cancer. Hence, in patients with cancer, difficulties in emotion regulation (and the DERS specifically) might be a useful focus for screening for patients at risk of distress.

No abstract

Population hand preferences are rare in nonhuman primates, but individual hand preferences are consistent over a lifetime and considered to reflect an individual's preference to use a particular hemisphere when engaged in a specific task. Previous findings in marmosets have indicated that left‐handed individuals tend to be more fearful than their right‐handed counterparts. Based on these findings, we tested the hypotheses that left‐handed marmosets are (a) more reactive to a social stressor and (b) are slower than right‐handed marmosets in acquiring a reversal learning task. We examined the hand preference of 27 male and female marmosets (ages of 4–7 years old) previously tested in a social separation task and a reversal learning task. Hand preference was determined via a simple reaching task. In the social separation task, monkeys were separated from their partner and the colony for a single 7‐hr session. Urinary cortisol levels and behavior were assessed at baseline, during the separation and 24 hr postseparation. Hand preferences were equally distributed between left (n = 10), right‐handed (n = 10), and ambidextrous (n = 7) individuals. The separation phase was associated with an increase in cortisol levels and behavioral changes that were similar across handedness groups. However, cortisol levels at baseline were positively correlated with right‐handedness, and this relationship was stronger in females than in males. In addition, the occurrence of social behaviors (pre‐ and postseparation) was positively correlated with right‐handedness in both sexes. Baseline cortisol levels did not correlate significantly with social behavior. Acquisition of the reversals was poorer in females than males but did not differ as a function of handedness. We conclude that (a) both stress reactivity and cognitive flexibility are similar across handedness groups and (b) left‐handers exhibit less social behavior and have lower basal cortisol levels than ambidextrous and right‐handed subjects. The underlying causes for these differences remain to be established.

No abstract

No abstract