A behavioral activation group treatment for substance use (LETS ACT) appears to increase the likelihood of abstinence and reduce adverse consequences from substance use up to 12 months post-treatment.

Current literature is divided over whether and how processes such as perspective taking and reward sensitivity differ between individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) versus neurotypical individuals. Discounting tasks may provide novel insight into how these processes operate. In delay discounting tasks, participants choose between smaller immediate rewards and larger delayed rewards, and in social discounting tasks, participants choose between a smaller monetary rewards for themselves versus a larger reward for partners of varied social distance (e.g., a close friend vs. an acquaintance). Delay and social discounting tasks thus implicitly measure the subjective value of rewards given to one's future self and to others, capturing constructs such as perspective taking, reward processing, and social closeness, all of which have been discussed as core cognitive mechanisms underlying ASD. Despite extensive research on discounting in other clinical populations, few studies have examined delay discounting in ASD and no research has examined social discounting in ASD. The goal of the current study was to assess delay and social discounting for monetary rewards in a single sample of adolescents and adults with ASD compared to a matched neurotypical sample. Overall, adults and adolescents with ASD valued both future rewards and rewards given to others less than their typical counterparts did, but rates of discounting were not significantly correlated across temporal and social domains. These results extend an important behavioral paradigm for understanding both perspective taking and reward processing to autism.Lay Summary: Discounting tasks-which experimentally measure the subjective value of different rewards-have been used with a variety of clinical populations, but are underexplored in ASD. We found that compared to neurotypical individuals, individuals with ASD showed diminished subjective value for future rewards (compared to immediate rewards) and rewards for others (compared to rewards for self). This finding has implications for understanding perspective taking, reward processing, and social closeness in ASD.

Episodic future thinking, which refers to the use of prospective imagery to concretely imagine oneself in future scenarios, has been shown to reduce delay discounting (enhance self-control). A parallel approach, in which prospective imagery is used to concretely imagine other’s scenarios, may similarly reduce social discounting (i.e., enhance altruism). In study 1, participants engaged in episodic thinking about the self or others, in a repeated-measures design, while completing a social discounting task. Reductions in social discounting were observed as a function of episodic thinking about others, though an interaction with order was also observed. Using an independent-measures design in study 2, the effect of episodic thinking about others was replicated. Study 3 addressed a limitation of studies 1 and 2, the possibility that simply thinking about others decreased social discounting. Capitalizing on Construal Level Theory, which specifies that social distance and time in the future are both dimensions of a common psychological distance, we hypothesized that episodic future thinking should also decrease social discounting. Participants engaged in episodic future thinking or episodic present thinking, in a repeated-measures design, while completing a social discounting task. The pattern of results was similar to study 1, providing support for the notion that episodic thinking about psychologically distant outcomes (for others or in the future) reduces social discounting. Application of similar episodic thinking approaches may enhance altruism.

Using consensual qualitative research (CQR), we analyzed 13 interviews of experienced psychotherapists about general intentions for therapist self-disclosure (TSD), experiences with successful TSDs, experiences with unsuccessful TSDs, and instances of unmanifested urges to disclose. For TSD generally (i.e., not about a specific instance), typical intentions were to facilitate exploration and build and maintain the therapeutic relationship. Therapists typically reported becoming more comfortable using TSD over time. In successful TSDs, the typical content was accurate, relevant similarities between therapist and client; typical consequences were positive. In unsuccessful TSDs, the typical antecedent was countertransference reactions; the typical intention was to provide support; typical content involved therapists mistakenly perceiving similarities with clients; and the general consequences were negative. In instances when therapists repressed the urge to disclose, the typical antecedent was countertransference and the content typically seemed relevant to the client's issues. We conclude that effective use of TSD requires general attunement to the client's dynamics, attunement to the client's readiness in the moment, ability to manage countertransference, and ability to use a specific TSD appropriately. Implications for practice, training, and research are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

Courts often assume that youth and adult suspects are equally capable of making decisions about whether to talk to police officers—decisions that carry serious long-term consequences. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled that prior to custodial interrogation, police officers must remind suspects of their rights to silence and legal counsel, and a suspect must waive their rights “voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently” for police to continue questioning. This legal standard was extended to youth without affording them additional protections, despite decades of research on adolescent cognitive and socioemotional development demonstrating that youth have inherent difficulties understanding and appreciating their Miranda rights. Navigating interrogation situations is likely even more challenging for youth of color, who not only face disadvantages due to their developmental immaturity, but also systemic racism within the legal system. As biased police practices put youth of color at a higher risk of police contact, it is especially important to consider how adolescent development and racial bias interact to impact youths’ ability to make valid Miranda waivers. Researchers and legal advocates have made multiple youth interrogation reform recommendations, but many of these recommendations fall short by failing to take into full account the impact of adolescent development and racial bias on youths’ ability to navigate interrogation. This paper analyzes proposals for reform through a developmental and racial equity lens and makes recommendations about future research needed to determine the most effective way to protect youth during interrogation.