Objectives The study replicated and extended previous findings by investigating relationships between positive and negative religious coping and psychological distress in minority older adults. Methods Older adults were evaluated during screening and baseline procedures of a psychotherapy clinical trial for late‐life worry and anxiety. Participants were age 50 years or older and recruited from low‐income and predominantly minority neighborhoods. Participants screening positive for worry (PSWQ‐A ≥ 23) with no significant cognitive impairment (Six‐Item Screener for cognitive impairment ≤2) completed a diagnostic interview and baseline assessments. Positive and negative religious coping were assessed with the positive and negative coping subscales of the Brief Religious Coping scale. Psychological distress was assessed with measures of depression, anxiety, and worry. A set of multiple linear regression models were used to evaluate the relationship between religious coping and each measure of psychological distress. Results Negative religious coping was associated with greater anxiety, worry, and depression. Positive and negative religious coping interacted such that positive religious coping buffered the effects of negative religious coping on anxiety and depression. Significant main effects and interactions remained after controlling for age, gender, race, years of education, and study. Conclusions The findings of this study are consistent with prior work showing that negative religious coping is associated with greater psychological distress. This study replicates previous findings that positive religious coping may buffer the harmful effects of negative religious coping and extends understandings of the specific psychological impacts that positive and negative religious coping may have on older, minority adults.

Immediate and long-term mechanisms interact in the regulation of action. We will examine neurobiology and practical clinical consequences of these interactions. Long-term regulation of immediate behavioural control is based on analogous responses to highly rewarding or stressful stimuli: (i) impulsivity is a failure of the balance between activation and inhibition in the immediate regulation of action. (ii) Sensitization is a persistently exaggerated behavioural or physiological response to highly salient stimuli, such as addictive stimuli or inescapable stress. Sensitization can generalize across classes of stimuli. (iii) Impulsivity, possibly related to poor modulation of catecholaminergic and glutamatergic functions, may facilitate development of long-term sensitized responses to stressful or addictive stimuli. In turn, impulsivity is prominent in sensitized behaviour. (iv) While impulsivity and sensitization are general components of behaviour, their interactions are prominent in the course of bipolar disorder, emphasizing roles of substance-use, recurrent course and stressors. (v) Suicide is a complex and severe behaviour that exemplifies the manner in which impulsivity facilitates behavioural sensitization and is, in turn, increased by it, leading to inherently unpredictable behaviour. (vi) Interactions between impulsivity and sensitization can provide targets for complementary preventive and treatment strategies for severe immediate and long-term behavioural disorders. Progress along these lines will be facilitated by predictors of susceptibility to behavioural sensitization. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Risk taking and impulsive behaviour: fundamental discoveries, theoretical perspectives and clinical implications’.

No abstract