Matching Items (2)

Filtering by

Clear all filters

147515-Thumbnail Image.png

Substance Use and Stress: A look at the relationship between the use of substances and stressors before and after the outbreak of COVID-19

Description

This study explores the relationship between the use of different substances and different kinds of stress from before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The substances looked at were: alcohol, marijuana, caffeine, vape or nicotine use, and the use of prescription

This study explores the relationship between the use of different substances and different kinds of stress from before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The substances looked at were: alcohol, marijuana, caffeine, vape or nicotine use, and the use of prescription pills that were not prescribed to the user. The different kinds of stress that were examined were: academic, social, financial, and stress caused by the outbreak of COVID-19.

Contributors

Agent

Created

Date Created
2021-05

157272-Thumbnail Image.png

Understanding and predicting activist intentions: an extension of the theory of planned behavior

Description

Despite the societal importance of activism, the understanding of activist intentions remained limited (Liebert, Leve, & Hu, 2011; Klar & Kasser, 2009). The current study used the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to examine two structural models of low-risk

Despite the societal importance of activism, the understanding of activist intentions remained limited (Liebert, Leve, & Hu, 2011; Klar & Kasser, 2009). The current study used the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to examine two structural models of low-risk activist intentions and high-risk activist intentions (Ajzen, 1991). The traditional TPB model was tested against a hybrid commitment model that also assessed past activist behaviors and activist identity. Participants (N = 383) were recruited through social media, professional list-serves, and word of mouth. Results indicated a good model fit for both the traditional TPB model (CFI = .98; RMSEA = .05; SRMR = .03; χ2(120) = 3760.62, p < .01) and the commitment model (CFI = .97; RMSEA = .05; SRMR = .04; χ2(325) = 7848.07, p < .01). The commitment model accounted for notably more variance in both low-risk activist intentions (78.9% in comparison to 26.5% for the traditional TPB model) and high-risk activist intentions (58.9% in comparison to 11.2% for the traditional TPB model). Despite this, the traditional TPB model was deemed the better model as the higher variance explained in the commitment model was almost entirely due to the inclusion of past low-risk activist behaviors and past high-risk activist behaviors. A post-hoc analysis that incorporated sexual orientation and religious affiliation as covariates into the traditional model also led to a good-fitting model (CFI = .98; RMSEA = .04; SRMR = .04; χ2(127) = 217.18, p < .01) and accounted for increased variance in low-risk activist intentions (29.7%) and high-risk activist intentions (18.7%) compared to the traditional model. The merits of each of the structural models and the practical implications for practice and research were discussed

Contributors

Agent

Created

Date Created
2019