Does Ego Identity Process Have a Predictive Role in Drug Abstinence?

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the predictive effect of ego identity process on self-efficacy for abstinence from substance abuse. Method: The research that is descriptive and correlational was conducted with 415 young individuals between the dates 01.07.2021 and 30.01.2022. Socio-demographic characteristics information form, Ego Identity Process Questionnaire (EIPQ) and Self-Efficacy for Protecting Adolescences from Substance Abuse Scale (SEAPSAS) were applied in this study. Results: The general mean score of the youth sub-dimension of abstinence from substances/stimulants in the SEAPSAS scale was 54.13±11.05, and the total mean score of the EIPQ was 124.86±15.84. A moderate positive correlation was identified between the total scores of the EIPQ and SEAPSAS scales. Although the detected correlation coefficient was significant, EIPQ's interpretation of SEAPSAS was at a low level (R2=.135). According to participants’ socio-demographic characteristics, the scores obtained from the SEAPSAS were low in males, those with a bachelor's or higher education degree, those living in a dormitory or alone, those with six or more siblings, those with fragmented families, those who smoke, and in those who are children of working mothers. EIPQ stability sub-dimension score of the participants who live in the county is higher than those who live in the province. Conclusion: In line with the results of the study, it is recommended to organize programs that will develop the young's ego identity process and self-efficacy for abstinence from substance abuse. It is expected that these programs will contribute to the prevention of substance addiction.

Keywords

• Substance Abuse
• Ego Identity Process
• Predictive Role

Ego Kimlik Sürecinin Madde Bağımlılığından Korunmada Yordayıcı Rolü Var mı?

Öz

Amaç: Bu araştırmada ego kimlik sürecinin madde bağımlılığından korunma öz yeterliliğine yordayıcı etkisinin araştırılması amaçlandı. Yöntem: Tanımlayıcı ve ilişki arayıcı türdeki aştırma 01.07.2021 ile 30.01.2022 tarihleri arasında 415 genç bireyle yürütüldü. Araştırmada sosyo-demografik özellikler bilgi formu, Ego Kimlik Süreci (EKS) ve Madde Bağımlılığından Korunma Öz-Yeterlik (MBKÖ) ölçekleri kullanıldı. Bulgular: Gençlerin MBKÖ ölçeği uyuşturucu/uyarıcı maddelerden uzak durma alt boyut puan ortalaması 54.13±11.05; EKS ölçeği toplam puan ortalaması 124.86±15.84’tü. MBKÖ ve EKS ölçeklerinin toplam puanları arasında orta düzeyde pozitif yönlü bir korelasyon tespit edildi. Tespit edilen korelasyon katsayısı anlamlı, olmasına rağmen EKS’nin MBKÖ’yü açıklaması düşük düzeydeydi (R2=.135). Sosyo-demografik özelliklere göre erkeklerde, lisans ve üstü öğrenim derecesine sahip olanlarda, yurtta veya yalnız yaşayanlarda, altı kardeş ve üzeri kardeşi olanlarda, parçalanmış ailelerde, sigara kullananlarda, annesi çalışanlarda MBKÖ puanlarının düşük olduğu tespit edildi. İlçede yaşayan katılımcıların EKS ölçeğinin kararlılık alt boyut puanının ilde yaşayanlara göre yüksek olduğu tespit edildi. Sonuç: Çalışma sonuçları doğrultusunda gençlerin ego kimlik süreci ve madde bağımlılığından korunma öz yeterliliğini geliştirecek programların düzenlenmesi önerilmektedir. Bu programların madde bağımlılığından korunmaya katkı sağlayacağı beklenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• madde bağımlılığı
• ego kimlik süreci
• yordayıcı rol

Kaynakça

1. 1.WHO. 2020. Available from: https://www.who.int/topics/drug_abuse/en/ (data accessed on 3 March 2022).
2. 2.Degenhardt L, Charlson F, Ferrari A, et al. The global burden of disease attributable to alcohol and drug use in 195 countries and territories, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2016. Lancet Psychiatry 2018; 5: 987–1012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S2215-0366(18)30337-7
3. 3.Turkish Drug Report. 2021. Access Link: http://www.narkotik.pol.tr/kurumlar/narkotik.pol.tr/TUB%C4%B0M/2021-Turkiye-Uyusturucu-Raporu.pdf (data accessed on 9 February 2022)
4. 4.Atlam DH, Kayli DS. A Risky Situation in Addiction: Criminal Behavior. Turkiye Klinikleri Child Psychiatry-Special Topics 2019; 5(2): 11-17.
5. 5.Epsoylu H, Nehir S. The effect of drug use on the crime and violence characteristics in patients who are delinquent. Journal of Continuing Medical Education 2019; 28(2): 108-113.
6. 6.Topçuoğlu T. Substance use and crime. Poor YS. (editor). Social work and addiction in all its aspects. Ankara: I. B. Graphics Publications, 2020: 215-251.
7. 7.Özbay Y, Yılmaz S, Büyüköztürk Ş., et al. Substance abuse: empowering the individual for a clean life. Addicta: The Turkish Journal on Addictions 2018; 5(1): 81−130.
8. 8.Dağlı Z. An evaluation on the role of religious officials in the policy of combating addiction: The case of Düzce. Journal of the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences of Süleyman Demirel University 2019; 2: 285-297.

9. 9.Kargın M, Hiçdurmaz D. Social functionality, perceived well-being and coping with stress in individuals with substance use disorder. Journal of Addiction 2018; 19(2): 35-39.
10. 10.Sevin DM, Erbay E. Life experiences of drug users receiving treatment at AMATEM for the second time. Addicta: The Turkish Journal on Addictions 2019; 6(3); 691−716.
11. 11.Botvin GJ, Griffin KW. Life skills training: empirical findings and future directions. The Journal of Primary Prevention 2004; 25(2): 211-232.
12. 12.Ögel K, Evaluation of the effectiveness of teacher and parent training in preventing drug use. Anatolian Journal of Psychiatry 2004; 5(4): 213-221.
13. 13.Yıldız M. Examinatıon of high school students’ self-efficacy regarding protection from drug dependency. İnternational Journal of Education, Science and Technology August 2017; 3(2): 70-77.
14. 14.Pellerone M, Tolini G, Polopoli C, Parenting, identity development, internalizing symptoms, and alcohol use: a cross-sectional study in a group of Italian adolescents. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2016; 12: 1769–1778.
15. 15.Schwartz SJ, Beyers W, Luyckx K, Soenens B, Waterman AS. Examining the light and dark sides of emerging adults’ identity: A study of identity status differences in positive and negative psychosocial functioning. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 2011; 40(7): 839- 859.
16. 16.Çataloğlu B. Comparison of adelescents who are using and not using drugs in terms of psychological resilience and family functions. Unpublished master's thesis, Izmir: Dokuz Eylul University Institute of Educational Sciences, 2011.
17. 17.Cattelino E, Calandri E, Bonino S. The contribution of the structure and functioning of the family in promoting the well-being of adolescents of different age groups. Età Evol 2001; 69: 49–60.
18. 18.Mclaughlin KA, Hatzenbuehler ML. Stressful life events, anxiety sensitivity, and internalizing symptoms in adolescents. J Abnorm Psychol 2009; 118(3): 659–669.
19. 19.Greenberger E, Chen C, Tally SR, Dong Q. Family, peer, and individual correlates of depressive symptomatology among U.S. and Chinese adolescents. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2000; 68(2): 209–219.
20. 20.Erikson EH. Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 1968.
21. 21.Thoits PA. Self, identity, stress, and mental health. Aneshensel CS, Phelan JC, Bierman A. (editors). Handbook of the sociology of mental health. Springer Science Business Media 2013: 357–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4276-5_18
22. 22.Telim E, Murat M. The relationship between drug abstinence self-efficacy and peer pressure, ability to express oneself and psychological resilience in adolescents. International Journal of Society Researches 2019; 14(20): 931-955.
23. 23.Ayhan F, Genç M, Türkmen AS. Relationship Between Adolescents' Self-Efficacy for Protection From Drug Abuse and Parental Attachment Levels. Journal of Dependence 2021; 22(3): 285-296.
24. 24.Uzun S, Kelleci M. Drug abuse in high school students: their self-efficacy to avoid drug abuse and related factors. Düsünen Adam The Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences 2018;3: 356-363. Doi: 10.5350/DAJPN2018310404
25. 25.Balisteri E, Busch- Rossnagel NA, Geisinger KF. Development and preliminary validation of the Ego Identity Process Questionnaire questionnaire. Journal of Adolescence 1995:18:179- 192.
26. 26.Arslan E, Arı R. The reliability and validity study of the Turkish adaptation of the Ego Identity Process Questionnaire. Selcuk University Journal of Social Sciences Institute 2005; 75-80.
27. 27.Eker F, Akkuş D, Kapısız Ö. Development and psychometric evaluation of the substance addiction prevention self-efficacy scale for adolescents. J Psychiatr Nurs 2013; 4: 7-12.
28. 28.Şener DK, Akkuş D, Karaca A, Cangür Ş. Factors Affecting High School Students' Behaviors of Drug Abstinence. Addicta: The Turkish Journal on Addictions 2018; 5(3): 405‒429. DOI 10.15805/addicta.2018.5.3.0024.
29. 29.Boynueğri E. The Relationship Between Acculturation Strategies And Identity Statuses In International Students In Turkey. Master's Thesis, Ankara: Ankara University Institute Of Education Sciences, Department of Psychological Services in Education, 2018.
30. 30.Yılmaz B. With The Ego Identity Status Of University Students Between Parent Authority Styles And Social Values Examination Of The Relationship. Master's Thesis, Istanbul: Istanbul Aydın Unıversıty Instıtute Of Socıal Scıences, Department Of Psychology Psychology Program, 2018.
31. 31.Meydancı, H.M. Examination Of Self-Efficacy Of High School Students in The Prevention Of Drug Addiction. Master's Thesis, Istanbul: Uskudar University Institute Of Addiction And Forensic Sciences Department Of Forensic Sciences Crime Prevention And Analysis, 2019.
32. 32. Yiğit Ü, Öncü E. Smoking, alcohol, drug/stimulant use and risk factors in working youth. Addicta: The Turkish Journal on Addictions 2019; 6(4): 49-66.
33. 33. Mete B, Söyiler V, Pehlivan E. Prevalence of Smoking and Substance Use in Adolescents. Journal of Addiction 2020; 21(1): 64-71.
34. 34. Ryzin, M. J., Fosco, G. M., & Dishion, T. J. Family and peer predictors of substance use from early adolescence to early adulthood: An 11-year prospective analysis. Addictive Behaviors 2012; 37, 1314–1324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.06.020
35. 35.Wills TA, Yaeger A. Family Factors and Adolescent Drug Use: Models and Mechanisms. American Psychological Society 2003; 12(6):222–226.
36. 36.Karatay G, Kubilay G. Determination of substance use status and influencing factors in two high schools with different socioeconomic levels. Journal of Research and Development in Nursing 2004; 1(2): 57–70.
37. 37. Öntaş E, Aslan D; Global Adult Tobacco Survey Turkey 2016 - HUTF Public Health Department Public Information Series -(2018/2019-63) [Internet] http://www.halksagligi.hacettepe.edu.tr/ data accessed on 12.04.2022
38. 38.The research report on the attitude and behavior on tobacco, alcohol and substance use in the general population of Turkey. (2018). Address of access: http://www.narkotik.pol.tr/kurumlar/narkotik.pol.tr/Duyurular/T%C3%9CRK%C4%B0YE%E2%80%99DE%20GENEL%20N%C3%9CFUSTA%20T%C3%9CT%C3%9CN%20ALKOL%20VE%20MADDE%20KULLANIMINA%20Y%C3%96NEL%C4%B0K%20TUTUM%20VE%20DAVRANI%C5%9E%20ARA%C5%9ETIRMASI.pdf (data accessed on 8 March 2022)
39. 39.Yörükoğlu A. National Child and Adolescent Mental Health Policies Ix. Workshop Report “Being Young in Turkey”. Turk Journal of Child Adolescent Mental Health 2014; 21(1):79-89.
40. 40.Sen A.S. Predictive Relationships Between Adolescents' Values and Their Future Expectations and Self-Efficacy in Preventing Substance Addiction. Master Thesis, Konya: Necmettin Erbakan University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Department of Educational Sciences, Guidance and Psychological Counseling, 2015.