Resources, Behavior Intentions, and Drug Use: A Ten-Year National Panel Analysis

Ritter, Christian

doi:10.2307/2786923

Cited by 19 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Recent contributions to the literature posit path models wherein (a) intentions are determined by attitudes, social norms, and objective circumstances and (b) behavior is determined by intentions, attitudes, norms, and circumstances. See, for example, Davidson and Jaccard (1979), Liska (1984), and Ritter (1988). …”

Section: Social Psychologymentioning

confidence: 98%

The Use of Intentions Data to Predict Behavior: A Best-Case Analysis

Manski

1990

Journal of the American Statistical Association

268

171

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In surveys individuals are routinely asked to predict their future behavior, that is, to state their intentions. The use of intentions data to predict behavior has been controversial. This paper determines the information content of intentions under the vvbest-casevv assumption that individuals respond as would persons with rational expectations. It is found that intentions data bound but do not identify the probability that a person will behave in a given way. Some mixed empirical evidence on consistency with the bounds is presented. Two alternatives to traditional intentions questions are considered. These are "probability forecastsvv and wforced-choicen questions.

show abstract

Section: Social Psychologymentioning

confidence: 98%

The Use of Intentions Data to Predict Behavior: A Best-Case Analysis

Manski

1990

Journal of the American Statistical Association

268

171

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While numerous studies have used the TRA or the TPB to predict cannabis use (Ajzen, Timko, & White, 1982;Bentler & Speckart, 1979;Bearden & Woodside, 1978;Conner & McMillan, 1999;Hames, Evangeli, Harrop, & di Forti, 2012;Malmberg et al, 2011;Morrisson, Golder, Keller, & Gillmore, 2002;Pomazel & Brown, 1977;Richard, Van der Pligt & de Vries, 1996;Ritter, 1988), no studies to date have tested the TPB to predict cannabis use in a sample of individuals who have recovered from cannabis use disorders.…”

Section: Theory Of Planned Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recovery from cannabis use disorders: Abstinence versus moderation and treatment-assisted recovery versus natural recovery.

Stea

Yakovenko

Hodgins

2015

Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recovery process from cannabis use disorders has received little empirical attention. Understanding how and the ways in which individuals with cannabis use disorders recover may help to improve formal treatments and facilitate recovery for those who wish to not seek treatment. The present study was undertaken with two primary objectives in mind. The first primary objective was to provide an exploratory portrait of the recovery process from cannabis use disorders from the perspective of individuals who have recovered. The second primary objective was to explore and systematically describe the similarities and differences between abstinence-and moderation-oriented recoveries, as well as the similarities and differences between treatment-assisted and natural recoveries. The methodology was largely borrowed from the natural recovery literature insofar as recovery was first inferred via the remission of diagnostic symptoms, and then explored predominantly via several interview domains (e.g., reasons for resolution, actions taken to recover, maintenance factors, barriers to treatment seeking).Several interesting and important findings emerged at the level of the total sample (N = 119), as well as at the level of group comparisons between the different recovery pathways. Notably, the findings lend further support to the effectiveness of cognitive, motivational, and behavioural strategies as helpful actions and maintenance factors

show abstract

“…The data for this study come from the 1985 wave of the Young Men and Drugs Survey (see Ritter 1988 for a more complete discussion of the survey). The sample, which was selected using a multistage stratified random sample of men drawn from the lists of the Selective Service System, is representative of all men in the general U.S. population who were 30 to 40 years old in 1984 and 1985.…”

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%