Danilo Garcia; Lillemor Adrianson; Clara Amato; Max Rapp-Ricciardi
Abstract
AbstractObjective: We used the affective profiles model to investigate individual differences in motivation, stress andenergy. The aim was to replicate past findings, but we also focused on matched comparisons within individuals withaffective profiles that are similar in one affective dimension and differ ...
Read More
AbstractObjective: We used the affective profiles model to investigate individual differences in motivation, stress andenergy. The aim was to replicate past findings, but we also focused on matched comparisons within individuals withaffective profiles that are similar in one affective dimension and differ in the other in order to predict changes whenindividuals increase/decrease their experience of positive or negative affect.Methods: A total of 567 participants answered the Positive Affect and Negative Affect Schedule, which was usedfor affective profiling; the Situational Motivation Scale, which measures intrinsic motivation, identified regulation,external regulation, and amotivation; and the Stress-Energy questionnaire.Results: Comparisons between the four different profiles, replicating the past findings, showed that individuals withhigh affective and self-fulfilling profile scored highest in intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, and energy, whilethey scored lowest in external motivation, amotivation, and the self-fulfilling profile, also lowest in stress. Additionally,the matched comparisons showed, for example, that levels of intrinsic motivation increase when negative affect levelsdecrease, and positive affect is kept high when positive affect decreases and negative affect is kept low.Conclusions: One important feature of the affective profiles model is the possibility to compare individuals thatare similar in one affect dimension but differ in the other (Garcia, 2011, 2017). This way of discussing individualdifferences helps to predict what changes could be expected when individuals increase or decrease their experience ofpositive or negative affect. Importantly, the direction of these changes cannot be addressed from cross-sectional data
maryam mazloom; shahram mohammadkhani
Abstract
Objective: This study investigates the different motives and substance use risk profile in opium and methamphetamine use. Method: The statistical sample includes Seventy-eight individuals with substance use history referred to drop-in center (DIC) that completed research instruments including demographic ...
Read More
Objective: This study investigates the different motives and substance use risk profile in opium and methamphetamine use. Method: The statistical sample includes Seventy-eight individuals with substance use history referred to drop-in center (DIC) that completed research instruments including demographic information (researcher-made questionnaire), substance use motives (Hecimovic, Barrett, Darredeau, and Stewart, 2014), and substance use risk profile scale (Woicik et al., 2009). Multivariate analysis of variance utilized for data analysis based on SPSS-24. Results: The results of the MANOVA indicated that availability, relaxation, enjoying, and sexual motives are significantly higher in individuals using methamphetamine. Also, the results of the substance use risk profile represent that there are significant differences in anxiety sensitivity, sensation-seeking, and impulsivity in opium and methamphetamine use. Conclusions: Findings indicate the important role of motives and substance use risk profile in the tendency to the different types of substances. These various motives and personality risk factors should be considered in educational settings and psychological treatment for different types of substance use, especially opiate or stimulating substances.
