Psychoenvironmental Forces and Substance Abuse Prevention

Psychoenvironmental Forces and Substance Abuse Prevention

-

English

Description

Psychological vulnerabilities and environment influences are the most powerful forces shaping the behaviour and choices of students to use harmful substances. This book employs computer-assisted Associative Group Analysis technology of comparative imaging and cognitive mapping to identify these factors and offers new perspectives for more comprehensive risk assessments and effective prevention.

Subjects

Informations

Published by
Published 01 January 1999
Reads 6
EAN13 0306471582
License: All rights reserved
Language English

Legal information: rental price per page €. This information is given for information only in accordance with current legislation.

Report a problem
Contents
Introduction: Tracing Dispositions Affecting the Use of Harmful Substances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Early Work on Images, Meanings, and Cultural Differences. . . . . . . . . . Applying Imaging to the Problem of Substance Abuse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abuse. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prevention The Problem behind the Problem of Substance Prevention Requires a Fundamental Paradigm Shift. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tracing Psychological Dispositions through Comparative Imaging. . . .
PARTI.
THEASSESSMENT OFINTERNALDISPOSITIONS THROUGHCOMPARATIVEIMAGING
1.Help to Identify SourcesAlcohol, Drugs: Images That of Differences between Use and NonUse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Images of Alcohol and Drinking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . Images of Drugs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . User Versus Nonuser Dispositions across the Domain of Alcohol and Drugs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quantifying Common Sense. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 3 7
8 10 12
21 22 26
28 30
ix
x
Contents
2. Additional Images (Friends, Fun) UsefulinTracing Psychological Dispositions to Use Alcohol and Drugs. . . . . . . . Images of Friends and Having Fun. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. User versus Nonuser Dispositions within the Domain of Friends and Entertainment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consistent Trends inTwo Domains of Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Users’ and Nonusers’ Perceptions of Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Differing Views of Authority, Discipline, and Other Values. . . . . . . . . . SelfImage and the Meaning of Family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perceptions of, and Attitudes toward, Social Institutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . The Inner Worlds Revealed by Comparative Imaging. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. The System: Mapping the World of Users and Nonusers. . . . . . . Shifting the Assessment from Single Images to the System The Subjective World. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reconstruction of the System by Its Natural Parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . Dominance What Is Important to Users and to Nonusers. . . . . . . . . . Models of Cognitive–Semantic Representations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . An Independent View of Images and Systems from Neurobiology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The World of Users and of Nonusers as Shown by the Parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PARTII. THEASSESSMENT OFVULNERABILITY/RESISTANCE THROUGHCOGNITIVEMAPPING
4. The Measurement of Vulnerability/Resistance: The Propensity for Substance Abuse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Common Experience of Vulnerability or Susceptibility. . . . . . . . . . Measuring Vulnerability to Substance Abuse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5. Vulnerability and Resistance: The Effects of Using Various Harmful Substances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Is the Measurement of Vulnerability a Pipe Dream or Reality?. . . . . . . How the Students’ Vulnerability Compares to Their SelfReportedUse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vulnerability Associated with Use of Specific Substances. . . . . . . . . . .
33 33
41 42 43 47 50 51 51
55
55 56 57 63
64
70
77 77 80
87 87
88 89
Contents
xi
Relative Vulnerability with Alcohol, Tobacco, and Marijuana Use. . . . . 94 Vulnerability of Students with Different Gender and Background. . . . .95 Communicating Findings and Their Validity with Line Graphs. . . . . . .98 The Central Assumption Confirmed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100 Focus on Etiology: Gradual Changes in Dispositions and in Behavior. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100
6. Criterion and Construct Validation of the Vulnerability/Resistance Measure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103 Testing the Accuracy of the Vulnerability/Resistance Measure to Predict Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103 Construct Validation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106 Use of Multiple Indicators to Assess Propensity for Substance Abuse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107
PARTIII.
TRACING THEEFFECTS OFBACKGROUND ANDLIFESTYLE ON THEUSEOFHARMFULSUBSTANCES
7and Group Membership: Factors Affecting. Background Substance Abuse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113 The Impact of HighUse and LowUse Environments on Vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .114 The Effects of Background on Propensities for Using or Not Using Harmful Substances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118
8.Lifestyles Affecting Vulnerability to Substance Abuse. . . . . . . . . .133 Conflicting Reports of Lifestyle Influences on Substance Abuse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Social Contacts: Going Out with Friends and Dating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134 How TV Viewing HabitsCan Affect Vulnerability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143 Participation in Sports The Hidden He alth Risk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140
9.
Academic Performance and Lifestyles That Build Resistance. . .147 Are Academic Motivation and Academic Performance Seriously Compromised by Alcohol and Drug Use?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147 Any Volunteers?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
xii
Contents
An Active Religious/Spiritual Life Builds Resistance to Substance Abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Convergent Findings Indicate Propensities with Deep Roots and Strong Implications for Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PARTIV. TRACINGENVIRONMENTALINFLUENCES, CULTURAL ANDSOCIAL
155
157
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 . Cultural Factorsin163Substance Abuse The Case of HispanicAmericans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 163 Acculturation Integrating Two Worlds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .168 The Multipolarity of HispanicAmerícan Populations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .170 Depth and Specificity of the New Knowledge on Cultural Influences and Barriers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .171 Cultural Distance Is a Function of Many Background Factors. . . . . . . .174 Multidimensional Imaging and Mapping Gives Broader Understanding of Cultural Influences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 176 11 . Acculturation Its Impact on Substance Abuse: Puerto Ricans inNew York. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 The Apparent Paradox of Puerto Rican Drug Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179 Puerto Rican Drug Users and Nonusers in Two Cultural Environments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184
12. The Phantom Power of Environmental Influences. . . . . . . . . . . . Cultural Influences: Comparisons of MexicanAmerican and Puerto Rican College Students, Users, and Nonusers, with AngloAmericans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social Environmental Influences in Substance Abuse. . . . . . . . . . . . .
193
193 205
13. Program Development and Culturally Adapted Training. . . . . . .211 The Analysis of Culture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .211 Tracing and Using Cultural Dispositions in Training. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .212 Bridging Cultural Differences in Child Rearing Approaches. . . . . . . . .213 Conclusions Supported by the CultureAdapted Training Experience. .229 Breaking the Chain of Dependency and Destitution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .230
Contents
PARTV. APPLICATIONS: DIAGNOSTICS, PROGRAMPLANNING, ANDEVALUATION
14. An Early Warning System: Assessment of Risks by Measuring Vulnerability/Resistance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Demographic Basis of Risk Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vulnerability Assessment Reaches beyond Unidimensional Demographics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Testing Theories about Causation and Contributing Factors. . . . . . . . . Anticipating Alcohol and Drug Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15. Planning and Targeting Programs Based on Imaging and Mapping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DataBased Program Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Examples from College Applications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experiences from College Applications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Complementary Use of Imaging and Mapping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1Evaluation, Feedback by Measuring6. Program Vulnerability/Resistance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Evaluation Dilemma in Prevention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Measuring Changes Produced by Treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Measuring Changes in Campus Climate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Measuring the Effects of Select Program Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Three Applications in Perspective. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PARTVI. THELATESTDEVELOPMENTS ANDFUTUREPERSPECTIVES
17. Some of the WellKnown Approaches to Drug Prevention. . . . . . The Biogenetic Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sociological Models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . Dispositional Theories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interpersonal Theories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cognitive Theories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comprehensive Theories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
xiii
235 236
237 238 239
247 247 249 253 255
261 261 263 271 272 276
281 282 283 284 285 289 292
xiv
Contents
Cutting through the Semantic Fog: Are We Comparing Apples and Oranges?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .293 Substituting Competing Theoretical Positions with ResearchBased Assessments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .294
18. The Latest Scientific Developments Open a Window on Propensities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .295 A Window on Invisible Forces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .295 Cognitive Psychology and the Cognitive Sciences The Effects of Implicit Cognitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 296 Neurobiology: The System of Representation and Behavioral Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 Research on Factors Affecting Decisions and Behavior. . . . . . . . . . . . .303 Looking under the Hood. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .305
19. Comprehensive Prevention: Future Perspectives. . . . . . . . . . . . .307 A Systematic Prevention Intervention Strategy in Three Steps. . . . . . .307 Future Vistas and Opportunities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .310
Appendix. Comparative Imaging and Mapping by the Associative Group Analysis (AGA) Method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .315 Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .315 Data Collection and Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 Main Analytic Measures and Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .322 A Model of Cognitive–Semantic Representations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .335 Multidisciplinary Applications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 336
References
Index
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .341
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .355