4.6 Article

The relationship between cannabis outcome expectancies and cannabis refusal self-efficacy in a treatment population

期刊

ADDICTION
卷 109, 期 1, 页码 111-119

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/add.12366

关键词

Cannabis; dependence; expectancy; mediation; self-efficacy; social cognitive theory

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council (NH&MRC) of Australia [1031909]
  2. NHMRC [1036365]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and aimsSelf-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectancies are central to Social Cognitive Theory (SCT). Alcohol studies demonstrate the theoretical and clinical utility of applying both SCT constructs. This study examined the relationship between refusal self-efficacy and outcome expectancies in a sample of cannabis users, and tested formal mediational models. DesignPatients referred for cannabis treatment completed a comprehensive clinical assessment, including recently validated cannabis expectancy and refusal self-efficacy scales. SettingA hospital alcohol and drug out-patient clinic. ParticipantsPatients referred for a cannabis treatment [n=1115, mean age 26.29, standard deviation (SD) 9.39]. MeasurementsThe Cannabis Expectancy Questionnaire (CEQ) and Cannabis Refusal Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (CRSEQ) were completed, along with measures of cannabis severity [Severity of Dependence Scale (SDS)] and cannabis consumption. FindingsPositive (=-0.29, P<0.001) and negative (=-0.19, P<0.001) cannabis outcome expectancies were associated significantly with refusal self-efficacy. Refusal self-efficacy, in turn, fully mediated the association between negative expectancy and weekly consumption [95%confidence interval (CI)=0.03, 0.17] and partially mediated the effect of positive expectancy on weekly consumption (95% CI=0.06, 0.17). ConclusionsConsistent with Social Cognitive Theory, refusal self-efficacy (a person's belief that he or she can abstain from cannabis use) mediates part of the association between cannabis outcome expectancies (perceived consequences of cannabis use) and cannabis use.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据