Browsing by Author "Wild, T Cameron"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
- ItemOpen AccessSocial judgments of behavioral versus substance-related addictions: A population-based study(Science Direct, 2014-11-01) Konkoly-Thege, Barna; Colman, Ian; el-Guebaly, Nady; Hodgins, David C; Patten, Scott B; Schopflocher, Don; Wolfe, Jody; Wild, T CameronBackground Recently, the concept of addiction has expanded to include many types of problematic repetitive behaviors beyond those related to substance misuse. This trend may have implications for the way that lay people think about addictions and about people struggling with addictive disorders. The aim of this study was to provide a better understanding of how the public understands a variety of substance-related and behavioral addictions. Methods A representative sample of 4000 individuals from Alberta, Canada completed an online survey. Participants were randomly assigned to answer questions about perceived addiction liability, etiology, and prevalence of problems with four substances (alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and cocaine) and six behaviors (problematic gambling, eating, shopping, sexual behavior, video gaming, and work). Results Bivariate analyses revealed that respondents considered substances to have greater addiction liability than behaviors and that most risk factors (moral, biological, or psychosocial) were considered as more important in the etiology of behavioral versus substance addictions. A discriminant function analysis demonstrated that perceived addiction liability and character flaws were the two most important features differentiating judgments of substance-related versus behavioral addictions. Perceived addiction liability was judged to be greater for substances. Conversely, character flaws were viewed as more associated with behavioral addictions. Conclusions The general public appreciates the complex bio–psycho-social etiology underlying addictions, but perceives substance-related and behavioral addictions differently. These attitudes, in turn, may shape a variety of important outcomes, including the extent to which people believed to manifest behavioral addictions feel stigmatized, seek treatment, or initiate behavior changes on their own.
- ItemOpen AccessSubstance-related and behavioural addiction problems: Two surveys of Canadian adults(Addiction Research & Theory, 2014-06-13) Konkoly-Thege, Barna; Colman, Ian; El-guebaly, Nady; Hodgins, David C; Patten, Scott B; Schopflocher, Don; Wolfe, Jody; Wild, T CameronObjectives: To describe absolute and relative prevalence of 10 self-attributed substance-related and behavioural addiction problems among Canadian adults, to describe perceived prevalence of these problems in the general population, and to examine whether estimates varied by survey mode. Methods: Sample 1 included 4000 adults recruited from an online research panel; Sample 2 included 2000 randomly selected adults who completed a computer-assisted telephone interview. Respondents in both samples were asked (1) whether or not they had experienced a problem in the preceding year with each of four substances (alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and cocaine) and six behaviours (gambling, eating, shopping, sex, video gaming, and work), (2) whether they had ever personally knew someone exhibiting a problem with each behaviour, and (3) perceived prevalence of problems in the general population. Results: About half of the respondents reported experiencing any past-year addiction problems. Tobacco and alcohol were the most common substance-related problems, while the most common behavioural problems were related to eating and work. Respondents consistently overestimated perceived population prevalence relative to self-attributed problems; however, the magnitude of overestimation was significantly greater among those who personally reported a problem with these behaviours. Online survey participants consistently reported higher self-attributed problem rates compared with CATI respondents, but rank-order correlations across self-, acquaintances-, and population-attributed prevalence estimates were very high in both samples. Conclusions: Both survey modes provided accurate relative prevalence estimates, but further research should explore determinants of higher prevalence rates among online participants and respondents’ consistent tendency to overestimate perceived population prevalence.