Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Global Journal of Health Science logoLink to Global Journal of Health Science
. 2013 Aug 5;5(6):40–45. doi: 10.5539/gjhs.v5n6p40

A Comparative Study of Self-Regulation in Substance Dependent and Non-Dependent Individuals

Nour Mohammad Bakhshani 1, Mohsen Hossienbor 2,✉
PMCID: PMC4776852  PMID: 24171872

Abstract

Background:

Several factors influence the beginning and maintenance of substance use. The purpose of this study was to examine as well as to compare ‘self-regulation’ in both substance dependent and non-substance dependent individuals.

Method:

In a cross-sectional study 228 (118 substance dependent and 110 with no history of using substance) participants aged 16-55 were recruited. All of the participants were asked to complete the Self-Regulation Inventory (SRI-25) and a demographic characteristics data checklist. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics (frequency, mean and standard deviation) and the t-test.

Results:

The results showed significant differences between substance dependent and non- substance dependent groups in all the scales of the self-regulation inventory including positive actions, controllability, expression of feelings and needs, assertiveness, and well-being seeking (p<0.01).

Conclusion:

Self-regulation and self-control skills in drug dependent individuals are lower than those without substance dependence individuals. It is concluded that substance use may related to a deficiency in self-control and regulation of feelings. Therefore, for prevention and treatment of substance dependence disorder, it is necessary to work out and exploit strategies that include the improvement of self-regulation.

Keywords: self-regulation, self-control, substance use, substance dependence, substance abuse

1. Introduction

Addiction is an important worldwide public health problem with various negative effects (Newcomb & Locke, 2005). Two Substance use disorders in DSM-IV are substance abuse and substance dependence. People with substance dependence experience tolerance and withdrawal, but those with substance abuse have maladaptive pattern of substances (American Psychiatric Association, 2000).

It is commonly held that certain individuals are vulnerable to substance dependence/substance abuse. Psychological variables such as attachment style (Kassel, Wardle, & Roberts, 2007) attachment trauma (Padykula & Conklin, 2010) and self-regulation (Percy, 2008) are held to be related to drug use. The problems in the development of attachment and low self-regulation might be related to the vulnerability to develop substance dependence (Khantzian, 2003). Deficiencies in regulating emotions related to drug experimentation and dependence (Dawes, Tarter, & Kirisci, 1997; Khantzian, 1997).

Self-regulation, being stated as an important determinant of psychological adaptability in children, is defined as the competence to regulate the attention, feelings and actions as coordinated with internal and external needs. Self-regulation is an important personality process through which individuals control their thoughts, feelings, impulses, needs and behaviors (Baumeister, Gailliot, DeWall, & Oaten, 2006). Various theoretical models (Abar, Carter, & Winsler, 2009; J. Block & J. H. Block, 1980) argue that the adaptive responses to surrounding challenges are made easier by self-regulation. In earlier studies it was the childhood period that received most of the attention, but more studies having been done on adolescents to support the idea of there being a relationship between self-regulation and the relevant structures (such as positive action and controllability) with adaptability in adolescents. For instance, the children with lower self-control showed greater drug use (J. Block, J. H. Block, & Keyes, 1988; Caspi, Henry, McGee, Moffitt, & Silva, 1995). Low self-regulation and readiness for risk-taking behaviors can also make adolescents more susceptible to the use drugs. A study by Quinn and Fromme found that self-regulation predicted less negative effects of alcohol (2010). High self-regulation buffers the substance use (Neal & Carey, 2007; Wills, Ainette, Stoolmiller, Gibbons, & Shinar, 2008). Also, Pearson et al. confirmed moderating effect of self-regulation on alcohol related problems but not on alcohol consumption (Pearson, D’Lima, & Kelley, 2011).

The negative affect regarded as a provocative factor in using drugs and developing it to a dysfunctional adaptive strategy. The individuals, thus, with low self-regulation are susceptible to use drugs as a coping method, because they lack sufficient skills to regulate their emotions and, as a result, they rely on external factors (Diaz & Fruhauf, 1991). Consequently, the adolescents lower in controlling their impulses experience a higher level of using drugs. Block et al. (1988), Baumeister et al. (2007) and Magar et al. (2008) have reported a significant relationship between low self-control competence and drug use by boys in the six months later. Although, there is a wealth of information on self-regulation and drug use but Most of the literature refers to children and adolescents. The current study mainly was based on adults and designed to examine the status of self-regulation ability among Iranian addicted (substance dependent) and non-addicted persons.

2. Method

In this cross-sectional study, data were obtained from 228 participants aged 16-55 years, 118 individuals with substance dependence were recruited randomly from those coming to an addiction treatment clinic of Baharan hospital (a university psychiatric center and 110 individuals with no history of substance use were selected from those accompanying the patients, students, and staff. Table 1 shows the frequency of the participants in the study according to the gender and age.

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of participants

Group Gender Age
Male (F %) Female (F %) Mean (SD) Min Max
Dependent 97(82.2) 21(17.8) 29.43(7.81) 16 55
Non-dependent 55(50) 55(50) 27.99(8.54) 17 50
Open in a new tab

For data gathering we used the Self-Regulation Inventory (SRI-25). The SRI designed by Grossarth, Maticek and Eysenk in 1995 to assess health-related oppositional behaviors and its short 25-item version was introduced by Ibanez et al in 2005. This inventory measures the self-regulation capacity in five areas including positive action, controllability, expression of feelings and needs, assertiveness and well-being seeking (satisfaction with oneself and others) (Ibáñez, Ruipérez, Moya, Marqués, & Ortet, 2005). Scores for the scales ranges between a minimum of 25 and a maximum of 150. Higher scores indicate higher levels of self-regulation and the skills related to it (such as positive action, controllability, expression of feelings and needs or well-being seeking). There is a reliable and valid Persian (Iranian) form of this inventory (Ghaleban & Besharat, 2011). In order to examine the consistency of the self-regulation inventory, the exploratory factor analysis through the principle component method was used. Five factors were extracted: positive action, controllability, expression of feelings and needs, assertiveness and well-being seeking in order to measure the internal consistency, the Cronbach Alpha test was relied upon and that the coefficients for the 357-member sample were 0.93, 0.87, 0.91, 0.92, and 0.90 showing satisfactory internal reliability (Besharat, 2011).

The data was analyzed by means of the SPSS software, using descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) and t-test in order to compare the score means of the two dependent and non-dependent groups.

3. Results

The results of comparing the score means of self-regulation between dependent and non-dependent groups showed that the dependent individuals had lower scores than non-dependent individuals. Differences between two groups across the subscales of SRI were significant. Table 2 provides the results of t-test for comparing the mean scores of substance dependent and normal individual on five subscales of SRI.

Table 2.

The means, standard deviations and results of t-test on five subscale of self-regulation inventory in dependent and non-dependent groups

Self-regulation Subscale Group Mean Standard Deviation t P
Positive Action Dependent 21.05 4.46 - 3.35 0.001
Non-dependent 22.89 3.71
Controllability Dependent 18.39 4.27 - 8.90 0.000
Non-dependent 22.88 3.20
Expression of Feelings and Needs Dependent 11.19 2.59 3.14 0.002
Non-dependent 10.23 1.92
Assertiveness Dependent 18.00 5.57 - 5.17 0.000
Non-dependent 21.44 4.37
Well-being Seeking Dependent 20.81 6.83 - 6.80 0.000
Non-dependent 25.74 3.44
Open in a new tab

The results of t-test on means scores of men and women in substance dependent group show no significant differences (Table 3). Additionally, meaningful differences were observed between non-dependent men and women (Table 4).

Table 3.

The means, standard deviations and results of t-test on self-regulation subscales in dependent men and women

Self-regulation subscales Gender N Mean Standard deviation t P
Positive action Male 97 21.25 4.56 1.03 0.3
Female 21 20.14 3.92
Controllability Male 97 18.46 4.90 0.35 0.7
Female 21 18.09 5.16
Expression of feelings and needs Male 97 11.19 2.57 0.009 0.9
female 21 11.19 2.78
Assertiveness Male 97 18.31 5.50 1.34 0.1
Female 21 16.52 5.78
Well-being seeking Male 97 20.69 6.73 0.418 0.6
Female 21 21.38 7.44
Open in a new tab

Table 4.

The means, standard deviations and results of t-test on self-regulation subscales in non-dependent participants

Self-regulation subscales Gender N Mean Standard deviation t P
Positive action Male 55 23.77 3.60 2.41 0.01
Female 55 22.05 3.65
Controllability Male 55 23.60 3.15 2.40 0.01
Female 55 22.16 3.11
Expression of feelings and needs Male 55 10.60 1.78 2.00 0.04
Female 55 9.87 2.00
Assertiveness Male 55 22.56 4.17 2.76 0.007
Female 55 20.32 4.31
Well-being seeking Male 55 26.43 3.00 2.13 0.03
Female 55 25.05 3.73
Open in a new tab

4. Discussion

As the results of the study showed, there were significant differences between the dependent and non-dependent participants in all the subscales of self-regulation. The current findings are in accordance with the results of the study done by Besharat and Ghal’eban (2011). They found that the self-regulation in the drug users is lower than non-users, that is, they reported that a deficiency in controllability and regulating of affect is most likely related to drug abuse. Also Oleary et al. (1992) found that individuals having lower self-regulation skills are more likely to use drugs and to show high-risk behaviors. The results of the current study illustrated that the dependent individuals have less “controllability” in turn possibly making them more vulnerable to drug abuse. It can be hypothesized that having a sense of self-efficiency, emotional independence, and having skills of active regulation play a decisive role in protecting individuals from high-risk behaviors such as drug abuse. Special attention however has been paid by many scientists to this issue (Bandura, 1991; O’leary et al., 1992). Dependent individuals show lower self-efficiency beliefs and this can be detrimental to psychological health and may facilitate drug use/abuse. Other studies have pointed to the role of the individuals’ beliefs in being able to end or to decrease negative emotions as a mechanism of self-regulation and to prevent drug abuse (Annis & Davies, 1988; Baumeister et al., 2007; Condiotte & Lichtenstein, 1981). These beliefs differ from person to person and are in direct relationship with different coping skills or reducing negative emotions (Thorberg & Lyvers, 2006) and can affect several aspects of the life such as goals setting, decision-making, and persistent of efforts when encounter to challenging situation (Bandura, 1991, 1993; Pintrich & Degrroot 1990; Walton & Roberts, 2004).

Self-regulation and self-control beliefs reduce both the probability of the development of disorders and the treatment process of various disorders (O’leary et al., 1992). The above-mentioned beliefs, also, improve the function of the body’s immune system through the modulation of stress (Grossarth-Maticek et al., 1999; Marqués et al., 2005; O’leary et al., 1992); the autonomy and impulse-control capacity (Penley & Tomaka, 2002; Vohs, Baumeister, & Ciarocco, 2005). Moreover, low self-regulation and self-control have a close relationship with behaviors like smoking, alcohol consumption, drug use, and behaviors threatening one’s health.

A study done by Baumeister and Vohs (2007) on self-regulation of patients reliant on drugs indicated that dependent individuals show lower self-regulation than non-dependent ones, and that “incomplete” regulation and “failure” in complete self-control or false regulation (a control that not leading to desired results) make the individuals susceptible to use drugs. In addition, O’leary et al. (1992) found that self-regulation beliefs are related to different behaviors like smoking, drinking alcohol, and preventive strategy of using drugs.

In summary, deficit in regulation (failure in self-control) or false regulation (a control leading to undesired results) makes the individuals susceptible to use drugs (Baumeister et al., 2007; Ghaleban & Besharat, 2011; Ibáñez et al., 2005). However deficits in self- regulation may occur due to various factors including bio psychosocial variables. For example, Besharat and Ghal’eban (2011) have pointed to the main role of frontal cortex in the emotional-regulation and its relationship with the problems of using drugs. It seems, therefore, highly essential for the researchers, policy makers, and health-care experts to consider the self-regulation competence and its interaction with the internal and external condition in prevention and treatment plans. Undoubtedly, integrating the individual, family, cultural and social factors in prevention and treatment strategies will increase the effectiveness of these programs.

Using Convenience sampling method for recruiting individuals without substance dependence is a limitation of our study. In spite of advantages of this method, such as availability and quickness of gathering participants, but caution must be taken when generalizing the results of current study because sample might not representative the study population.

References

  1. Abar B, Carter K. L, Winsler A. The effects of maternal parenting style and religious commitment on self-regulation, academic achievement, and risk behavior among African-American parochial college students. J Adolesc. 2009;32(2):259–273. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.03.008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.03.008 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. DSM-IV-TR: American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  3. Annis H. M, Davies C. S. Assessment of expectancies in alcohol-dependent clients. In: Donovan D, Marlatt G. A, editors. Assessment of addictive behaviors. New York, NY: 7 Guilford Press; 1988. pp. 84–111. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bandura A. Self-regulation of motivation through anticipatory and self-reactive mechanisms. Paper presented at the Perspectives on motivation: Nebraska symposium on motivation. 1991 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bandura A. Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational psychologist. 1993;28(2):117–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3 . [Google Scholar]
  6. Baumeister R. F, Gailliot M, DeWall C. N, Oaten M. Self-regulation and personality: how interventions increase regulatory success, and how depletion moderates the effects of traits on behavior. J Pers. 2006;74(6):1773–1801. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00428.x. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00428.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Baumeister R. F, Vohs K. D, Tice D. M. The strength model of self-control. Current directions in psychological science. 2007;16(6):351–355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00534.x . [Google Scholar]
  8. Besharat M. Psychometric Properties Of A Short Version Of The Self-Regulation Inventory In A Sample Of Iranian Population. Research In Clinical Psychology And Counseling. 2011;1(2):53–70. [Google Scholar]
  9. Block J, Block J. H, Keyes S. Longitudinally foretelling drug usage in adolescence: early childhood personality and environmental precursors. Child Dev. 1988;59(2):336–355. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1988.tb01470.x. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1130314 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Block J. H, Block J. The role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in the organization of behavior. Paper presented at the Minnesota symposium on child psychology. 1980 [Google Scholar]
  11. Caspi A, Henry B, McGee R. O, Moffitt T. E, Silva P. A. Temperamental origins of child and adolescent behavior problems: from age three to age fifteen. Child Dev. 1995;66(1):55–68. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00855.x. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131190 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Condiotte M. M, Lichtenstein E. Self-efficacy and relapse in smoking cessation programs. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1981;49(5):648–658. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.49.5.648. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.49.5.648 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Dawes M. A, Tarter R. E, Kirisci L. Behavioral self-regulation: correlates and 2 year follow-ups for boys at risk for substance abuse. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1997;45(3):165–176. doi: 10.1016/s0376-8716(97)01359-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0376-8716(97)01359-8 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Diaz R. M, Fruhauf A. G. The origins and development of self-regulation : A developmental model on the risk for addictive behaviours: N.Heather. 1991 [Google Scholar]
  15. Ghaleban M, Besharat M.A. Alexithymia and selfregulation in drug abusers. Paper presented at the Third confrence of iranian psychological assosiation, Iran. 2011. http://iranpa.org/Portal/Default.aspx?alias=iranpa.org/portal/Congress .
  16. Grossarth-Maticek R, Eysenck H, Boyle G. J, Heeb J, Costa S, Diel I. The interaction of psychosocial and physical risk factors in the causation of mammary cancer, and its prevention through psychological methods of treatment. J Clin Psychol. 1999;56(1):33. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-4679(200001)56:1<33::aid-jclp4>3.0.co;2-2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(200001)56:1<33::AID-JCLP4>3.0.CO;2-2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Ibáñez M. I, Ruipérez M. A, Moya J, Marqués M. J, Ortet G. A Short version of the Self-Regulation Inventory (SRI-S) Personality and individual differences. 2005;39(6):1055–1059. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.029 . [Google Scholar]
  18. Kassel J. D, Wardle M, Roberts J. E. Adult attachment security and college student substance use. Addict Behav. 2007;32(6):1164–1176. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.08.005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.08.005 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Khantzian E. J. The self-medication hypothesis of substance use disorders: a reconsideration and recent applications. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 1997;4(5):231–244. doi: 10.3109/10673229709030550. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/10673229709030550 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Khantzian E. J. Understanding addictive vulnerability: An evolving psychodynamic perspective. Neuropsychoanalysis: An Interdisciplinary Journal for Psychoanalysis and the Neurosciences. 2003;5(1):5–21. [Google Scholar]
  21. Magar E. C. E, Phillips L. H, Hosie J. A. Self-regulation and risk-taking. Personality and individual differences. 2008;45(2):153–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.03.014 . [Google Scholar]
  22. Marqués M. J, Ibáñez M. I, Ruipérez M. A, Moya J, Ortet G. The Self-Regulation Inventory (SRI): Psychometric properties of a health related coping measure. Personality and individual differences. 2005;39(6):1043–1054. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.030 . [Google Scholar]
  23. Neal D. J, Carey K. B. Association between alcohol intoxication and alcohol-related problems: an event-level analysis. Psychol Addict Behav. 2007;21(2):194–204. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.21.2.194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.21.2.194 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Newcomb M. D, Locke T. Springer; 2005. Health, social, and psychological consequences of drug use and abuse Epidemiology of drug abuse; pp. 45–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/0-387-24416-6_4 . [Google Scholar]
  25. O’leary A, Goodhart F, Jemmott L. S, Boccher-Lattimore D. Predictors of safer sex on the college campus: A social cognitive theory analysis. Journal of American College Health. 1992;40(6):254–263. doi: 10.1080/07448481.1992.9936290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07448481.1992.9936290 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Padykula N, Conklin P. The Self-Regulation Model of attachment trauma addiction. clin soc work j. 2010;38:351–360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10615-009-0204-6 . [Google Scholar]
  27. Pearson M. R, D’Lima G. M, Kelley M. L. Self-regulation as a buffer of the relationship between parental alcohol misuse and alcohol-related outcomes in first-year college students. Addict Behav. 2011;36(12):1309–1312. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.07.009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.07.009 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Penley J. A, Tomaka J. Associations among the Big Five, emotional responses, and coping with acute stress. Personality and individual differences. 2002;32(7):1215–1228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00087-3 . [Google Scholar]
  29. Percy A. Moderate adolescent drug use and the development of substance use self-regulation. nternational Journal of behavioral development. 2008;32(5):451–458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165025408093664 . [Google Scholar]
  30. Pintrich P. R, Degrroot E. V. Motivational and Self -Regulated learning compotents of classroom Academic Performance. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1990;82(1):33–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33 . [Google Scholar]
  31. Quinn P. D, Fromme K. Self-regulation as a protective factor against risky drinking and sexual behavior. Psychol Addict Behav. 2010;24(3):376–385. doi: 10.1037/a0018547. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018547 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Thorberg F. A, Lyvers M. Negative mood regulation (NMR) expectancies, mood, and affect intensity among clients in substance disorder treatment facilities. Addict Behav. 2006;31(5):811–820. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.06.008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.06.008 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Vohs K. D, Baumeister R. F, Ciarocco N. J. Self-regulation and self-presentation: regulatory resource depletion impairs impression management and effortful self-presentation depletes regulatory resources. Journal of personality and social psychology. 2005;88(4):632. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.632. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.632 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Walton K. E, Roberts B. On the relationship between substance use and personality traits: Abstainers are not maladjususted. Jornal of Resarch in personality. 2004;38:515–535. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2004.01.002 . [Google Scholar]
  35. Wills T. A, Ainette M. G, Stoolmiller M, Gibbons F. X, Shinar O. Good self-control as a buffering agent for adolescent substance use: an investigation in early adolescence with time-varying covariates. Psychol Addict Behav. 2008;22(4):459–471. doi: 10.1037/a0012965. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012965 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Global Journal of Health Science are provided here courtesy of Canadian Center of Science and Education

RESOURCES