Department of psychology, Zanjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Zanjan, Iran. 2

Full text

(1)

The Comparison of Personality Traits, Schema and Resiliency of People Successful in

Drug Addiction Treatment with Those of Individuals with Addiction Relapse

Masoud Hejazi1*, Gholamhoseen Entesar Foumany2, Saeide Karamzade3

1Department of psychology, Zanjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Zanjan, Iran. 2Department of psychology, Zanjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Zanjan, Iran. 3Department of psychology, Zanjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Zanjan, Iran.

*Corresponding author

ABSTRACT

The study was aimed to compare personality characteristics, schemas and resiliency of people successful in addiction treatment with those of relapsed individuals. The statistical population included drug addicts in 4 Centers (2 rehab centers, camps, prisons) as well as the successfully cured individuals in 4 Centers (3 NA meetings and detention center). A sample size of 100 people (50 successfully recovered addicts and 50 individuals with relapsed addiction) was selected by convenience sampling. They were assessed by Early Maladaptive Schema Questionnaire (SQ-SF), Personality Traits Inventory (NEO-FFİ) and Resiliency Scale Connor & Davidson (RISC-DC). Subsequently, the data coming from the samples were analyzed by SPSS software using independent t-test and Multi-way analysis of variance. The results showed that there is no significant difference between schemas and personality characteristics of successfully treated individuals and those of persons with relapsed drug addiction. Yet, there was a significant difference between resiliency of successfully treated individuals and that of persons with relapsed drug addiction at a=0.05. Finally, we concluded that psychological issues involved in treatment success.

Keywords: Schema, Personality Traits, Resiliency, Addiction, Relapse INTRODUCTION

Interdisciplinary efforts to help substance abuse treatment have been continued for many years. Logically, with the increasing thoughts of addiction as a disease, these efforts have also highlighted. Modern therapists seek medical and psychological interventions for addiction treatment. Especially in recent years, the combination of various methods and combined use of psychological interventions with the pharmaceutical interventions were utilized to improve the treatment results. Although these efforts have had some success in abuse treatment, this success did not come as expected. Despite the progress that has been made in the treatment of addiction, the relapse into heavy use period still remains a widespread problem. Understanding the phenomenon of "relapse" is the biggest challenge in the face of addiction treatment experts (Grant et al., 2006; Skinner and Ayoin, 2010; quoted in Mohammad Khani, 2011). In general, the relapse refers to the inability to maintain behavior changes over time. Most researchers consider the relapse as a complex process (Ebrahimi, 2009). However, people usually do not suddenly and for no reason return to abuse. Rather, they actively involve in drug abuse. Their attitudes, beliefs, goals and

expectations play an important role in this context. On the subject of the drug addiction relapse, most motivative models have been studied –models that could potentially have a role in the formation of this phenomenon (Grant et al., 2006; Skinner and Ayoin, 2010; quoted in Mohammad Khani, 2011). The key feature of the relapse involves that despite the intention to stay away from addictive behavior, the person walks into it or backwards. Relapse is not on logic and emerges when the person is dominated by the emotions (Bryan et al., 1984, translated by Faraji, 2013). Resiliency holds a special place in the fields of evolutionary psychology, family psychology and mental well-being so that the number of studies related to this topic are increasing day by day (Kimble and Cohen, 2006, quoted in Shafizadeh, 2012). Over the last 20 years, the studies on the resiliency have been significantly expanded and we feel the need for research on this subject. These researches should be faster for several reasons: First, as the complexity of industrial society increases, the number of people affected and the number of injuries and problems that people are facing increase as well. Second, understanding risk factors and protective parts and their functionality may

(2)

329 lead to appropriate clinical interventions. Personality traits are among the issues raised in the field of resiliency. Based on differential coping- choice model of Bloger & Zuckerman (1977), coping strategies used to cope with stress, determine positive or negative outcome and the type of coping strategy selected depends on personality traits of the person. Therefore, since the specific personality traits of a person encourage the use of alternative coping strategies, people respond to stress alternatively (Bartley and Roesch, 2011). The relationship between early maladaptive schemas and resiliency is an important factor which has been paid less attention in the internal investigation. Schemas grow during childhood and act as a model for addressing general life experiences. Since the schemas are relatively constant, they are always sought as confirmation and they can cause a person's vulnerability to psychological distress. Schemas can come into existence through the initial galling experiences and later, in the same situation, provoke a response that was apparent in the past. A considerable number of people with substance abuse have dysfunctional beliefs and attitudes over a long period of abstinence, which can be quite persistent by chronic abuse (pour-mohammad, et al., 2013). The results of the study by Jazayeri et al. (2011) showed that early maladaptive schemas are able to predict resiliency. Concerning the participents included in this study, the researcher seeks to compare the personality characteristics, schemas and resiliency of people successful in addiction treatment with those of unsuccessful ones.

Method

This is a Causal-comparative research, in which the researcher tries to reach from effect to cause, from the known to the unknown. Convenience sampling method was used for sampling. The subjects were 100 people, 50 patients with drug abuse and 50 people who experienced more than a year of abstinence and have had no relapse.

Instruments

1) Schema Questionnaire (YSQ-SF)

Early Maladaptive Schema Questionnaire (Short Form) is a 75-item questionnaire developed by Young (quoted in Lotfi et al., 2007) to assess fifteen early maladaptive schemas. These fifteen schemas include: 1) Emotional Deprivation 2) Abandonment 3) Mistrust/Abuse 4) Defectiveness/Shame 5) Failure 6) Dependence 7) Dependence/Incompetence 8) Vulnerability to Harm & Illness

9) Enmeshment 10) Subjugation 11) Self Sacrifice 12) Emotional Inhibition 13) Unrelenting Standards 14) Entitlement 15) Insufficient Self-Control/Self-Discipline In accordance with the scoring method of the Young Schema Questionnaire, several studies have demonstrated the validity and reliability of the questionnaire (Schmidt et al., 1998, quoted in Moaddab, 2011). Psychometric characteristics of Young Schema Questionnaire were evaluated on a sample of 1,125 graduate students and 187 patients admitted. The results showed the suitability of the Young Schema Questionnaire subscales in every sample which was sorted out from 0.83 to 0.96. Both samples had sufficient reliability verification and the numbers rated from 0.50 to 0.82.

Factor analysis of the questions in each group created a similar factor structure, which was significantly compatible with the proposed schema hierarchy of Young. Moreover, conceptual measuring of the structures, such as self-esteem, mental stress, personality disorder features and depression-related dysfunctional attitudes, indicated that the questionnaire has convergent and discriminant validity. The results showed that schema questionnaire has a relationship with Axis I and Axis II disorders semiotics. It has a negative relationship with self-esteem and positive affect as well. Li-Tilo and Rudan (1999) confirmed construct validity of schema questionnaire in a clinical sample of patients admitted to section. Structural analysis of the instruments generated 14 factors matching with 14 of the 16 factors of Young hypothesis (Schmidt et al., 1995, quoted in Moaddab, 2011).

Saduqi et al. (2008) carried out a Functional Assessment of Young questionnaire short-form in non-clinical samples in Iran. The findings of these psychometric researches confirmed intercultural reliability and validity of Young schema questionnaire short-form. In that research, YSQ-SF scale reliability for the subscales was obtained by Cronbach's alpha in the range 69-90.

The questionnaire is scored like a 6-point likert scale; 1) Completely untrue, 2) Mostly untrue, 3) Moderately untrue, 4) Slightly more true than untrue, 5) Mostly true of me, and 6) Completely true. Each 5 questions measure respectively a schema. The sum of the scores of the 5 questions marks a person's score in the schema and the total questions represent total score of the participant.

(3)

330 2) Personality Traits Inventory (NEO-FFI)

Due to the complexity and length of NEO-FFI, and because of the numerous detailed dimensions related to any of the Big Five Personality Traits, and above all, thanks to the subjects unwillingness, a shortened version of NEO-PI-R , the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) was developed for research and clinical situations. According to the revised version of the NEO questionnaire, the Big Five personality traits include: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Additionally, each of the main personality factors consists of six subordinate dimensions –certain personality traits that show different aspects of each dimension; Neuroticism (Anxiety, hostility, depression, Self-consciousness, Impulsiveness, Vulnerability to Stress); Extraversion (Warmth, Gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, excitement seeking, positive emotion); Openness to Experience(Fantasy, aesthetics , Feelings, actions, ideas, values); Agreeableness(Trust, Straightforwardness, Altruism, Compliance,

Modesty, Tendermindedness);

Conscientiousness(Competence, Order, Dutifulness, Achievement Striving, Self-Discipline, Deliberation). The questionnaire consists of 60 questions, which was developed based on factor analysis of NEO-PI scores that have been conducted in 1986. Any of the 60 questions is answered on a five point scale, ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree".

Concerning the validity of the NEO-FFI, the results of several studies suggest that the NEO-FFI subscales have a high internal consistency. For example, Costa & McCrae (1992) reported Cronbach's alpha coefficients from 0.68 to 0.86 for the facets Agreeableness and Neuroticism respectively.

Furthermore, Helden (1999) reported alpha coefficient of the 5 factors in the range of 0.76 (for Openness to Experience) to 0.87 (for Neuroticism). The results of Moradian Nezlek's study (1995) also suggested Cronbach's alpha at: N = .84, E= .75, O = .74, A = .75, C = .83.

NEO-FFINEO-FFI questionnaire was normalized in Iran by Garusi (1998). The reported test-retest reliability of the questionnaire on 208 students after 3 months interval was: N = .83, E = .75, O = .80, A = 79, C = .79.

Reports also have been provided in connection with the validity of NE0-FFI factors. Costa & McCrae (1998) suggest that NEO-PI shortened instruments matches exactly, so that the short form scales have higher correlation of 0.68 by the scales of the full version. In another study, Costa & McCrae (1992) reported that based on the correlation, validity of the 5 NEO-FFI factors ranged from 0.44 for

Conscientiousness to 0.65 for Openness in spouses and peers. In addition, t h i s s t u d y r e p o r t e d t h a t t h i s b r i e f p e r s o n a l i t y instrument accounts for about 85% of the variance in convergent validity crit eria, as derived from rat ings of similar traits using adjective endorsement, and spouse and peer ratings.

The scale contains 60 questions. Each subject was to obtain a score of zero to four in each question. Each question represents one of the five big personality factors of Costa & McCrae. They factors are N, E, O, A, and C standing for Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness respectively. Each one of the factors covers 12 questions of the scale . In general, the subject obtains a score of zero to 48 in each scale(Fathi-Ashtiani, 2009).

3) Resilience inventory

The scale was developed by Connor and Davidson (2003) going through the research literature of resilience circuit from 1991 to 1979. The developers of the scale believed that it soundly distinguishes those with greater resilience from those with lesser resilience in clinical and non- clinical groups and can be used in clinical and research situation. The scale consists of 25 items, each being ranged in Likert scale from zero (completely false) to five (always true).

Scoring of the options on this scale is as follows: Completely false: 0

Rarely true: 1 Sometimes true: 2 Often true: 3 Always true: 4

Therefore, the scores are ranged from 0 to 100 with higher scores reflecting greater resilience. The results of factor analysis suggest that CD- RISC contains five factors taking account of perceived personal competence, confidence in personal instincts / tolerance of negative emotion, positive acceptance of change and safe relationships, control and spiritual effects.

Statements relating to each sub-scale:

1) Subscale of perceived personal competence: 25-24-23-17-16-12-11-10 2) Subscale of confidence in personal

instincts / tolerance of negative emotion,: 20-19-15-14-8-7-6

3) Subscale of positive acceptance of change and safe relationships: 9-5-4-2-1

4) Subscale of control: 22-21-13 5) Subscale of spiritual effects: 3 -9

(4)

331 Connor and Davidson have concluded Cronbach's alpha coefficient to resilience scale at 0.89. Moreover, test-retest reliability coefficient of the method in a 4- week interval was 0.79.

The scale was standardized by Mohammadi (2005) in Iran. He used Cronbach's alpha to determine the reliability of Connor- Davidson Resilience Scale and reported the reliability coefficient at 0.89.

The scores of Connor- Davidson Resilience Scale had significant positive correlation with kobasa's Hardiness scale. They have significant negative correlation with Perceived Stress Scale and Sheehan stress vulnerability scale. These results are indicative of the concurrent validity of the scale

.

Findings

Table 1. Descriptive indicators of the personality traits of subjects

Variable Neuroticism Extraversion Openness

Mean Standard deviation Mean Standard deviation Mean Standard deviation People Successful in treatment 20.16 7.91 24.78 7.84 22.18 7.03

People with relapse 22.5 5.24 25.34 6.43 23.84 5.47

Variable Agreeableness Conscientiousness Continence

Mean Standard deviation Mean Standard deviation Mean Standard deviation People Successful in treatment 22.32 6.53 23.46 24.74 15.50 5.80

People with relapse 24.72 4.08 6.99 5.30 17.08 4.54

Table ( 1) shows that people successful in the treatment scored higher in conscientiousness, while people with relapse scored higher in Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, and Agreeableness.

Table 2 Descriptive indicators of participants' schema conditions

Variable

People successful in the treatment Relapsed people Mean Standard deviation Mean Standard deviation Emotional deprivation 16.72 6.99 15.00 5.01 Abandonment 16.60 6.29 18.62 7.4 Neglect / misconduct 15.76 5.68 16.02 5.64 Defectiveness/Shame 12.26 6.33 13.56 6.47 Failure 14.18 6.39 13.34 5.63 Social isolation 13.80 6.24 15.52 6.47 Dependence/incompetence 12.78 6.04 12.42 5.48 Vulnerability to harm 13.88 5.85 13.64 6.93 Enmeshment 14.44 5.71 14.10 5.46 Subjugation 13.76 5.74 14.40 5.69 Self-sacrifice 18.98 6.62 19.28 5.31 Emotional inhibition 14.62 6.29 15.42 5.10 Unrelenting standards 19.1 5.93 19.22 5.31 Entitlement 18.16 5.67 18.60 5.53 Self-control 15.50 5.80 17.08 4.54 Total schema 233.60 54.88 232.58 57.27

Table (2) shows that the mean scores of people successful in treatment in the indicators of Emotional deprivation, Failure, Dependence, Vulnerability, and Enmeshment are higher than those of people with relapse. On the contrary, the mean scores of people with relapse in the indicators of Abandonment, Neglect, Defectiveness, Social isolation, Subjugation, Self-sacrifice, Emotional inhibition, Unrelenting standards,

(5)

332

Entitlement and self-control are higher than those of people successful in treatment, and that, for the schema the total score of the people successful in treatment was higher than that of people with relapse.

Table 3. Descriptive indicators of subjects' resiliency

Variable People successful in treatment Relapsed people

resiliency

Mean Standard deviation Mean Standard deviation

58.86 18.23 53.92 11.63

Table (3) indicates that resiliency mean scores of the participants successful in treatment were higher that those of people with relapse.

Hypothesis (1): Personality traits (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness) of people successful in treatment are different with those of people with addiction relapse. To test the hypothesis, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used. Information on multivariate analysis is presented in the following tables:

Table 4. Testing significance level of Box's M statistic

Box value 47.63

f-value 3.001

First degree of freedom 15

Second degree of freedom 38668.74

Significance level 0.0001

Table 4 shows that Box's M significance level is lower than 0.001 (sig = 0.0001) and we violated the assumption of homogeneity of variances/covariances matrices . But, this violation does not matter since N is greater than 30. Therefore, the observed matrixes of dependent variables are different between individuals successful in treatment and individuals with relapse.

Table 5. Multivariate Tests Test model Value f-value Hypothesis

df df error Significance level Effect Pillai 0.072 1.45 5 94 0.214 0.072 Wilks's lambda 0.93 1.45 5 94 0.214 0.072 Hotelling 0.077 1.45 5 94 0.214 0.072 Roy's root 0.077 1.45 5 94 0.214 0.07

According to table (5), the tests of Pillai, Wilks, Hotelling and Roy had a significance level of greater than 0.05, meaning that individuals

successful in treatment and individuals with relapse don't play any role in the model and that, they have no significant difference in their personality traits. Table 6. Levine test

Variable f-value 1th degree of

freedom 2th degree of freedom Significance level Neuroticism 7.11 1 98 0.009 Extraversion 4.15 1 98 0.044 Openness 2.34 1 98 0.13 Agreeableness 12.01 1 98 0.001 Conscientiousness 2.96 1 98 0.088

Table (6) of Levine test shows that, Openness to Experience and Conscientiousness follow principle of homogeneity of variances because their significance is greater than 0.05. but, the

significance is lower than 0.05 on the dimensions of Neuroticism , Extraversion and Agreeableness and we violated the assumption of homogeneity of variances

.

Table 7. Test of inter participant bias

Variable Sum of squares Degree of freedom Mean squares f-value

Neuroticism 136.89 1 136.89 3.03

Extraversion 7.84 1 7.84 0.152

(6)

333

Agreeableness 144.00 1 144.00 4.85

Conscientiousness 40.96 1 40.96 1.06

Coefficient of determination = 0.03 Adjusted coefficient of determination = 0.02

Coefficient of determination = 0.002 Adjusted coefficient of determination = 0.009

Coefficient of determination = 0.017 Adjusted coefficient of determination = 0.007

Coefficient of determination = 0.047 Adjusted coefficient of determination = 0.037

Coefficient of determination = 0.011 Adjusted coefficient of determination = 0.001

Test of inter participant bias in table (7) shows that adjusted coefficient of determination values explain 2 percent, 0.9 percent,0.7 percent and 0.1 percent of total variance in the scales of Neuroticism , Extraversion, Openness and Conscientiousness respectively, which is a very small percentage.

Scales of Agreeableness alone explains 37% of the total variance, which is a justified percentage. People successful in treatment and people with relapse have significant difference on Agreeableness dimension.

Hypothesis (2): the schemas (Emotional deprivation, Abandonment, Mistrust and abuse, Social isolation, Defectiveness, Failure, Dependence, Vulnerability, Enmeshment, Subjugation, Social undesirability, Unrelenting standards, Entitlement, self-control) are different between people successful in treatment and relapse people. To test the hypothesis, multivariate analysis of variance was used. Information on multivariate analysis of variance is presented in the following tables:

Table 8. Testing significance level of Box's M

Box value 303.57

f-value 1.42

First degree of freedom 120

Second degree of freedom 29775.86

Significance level 0.002

Table (8) shows that Box's M significance level is greater than 0.001 (sig = 0.002) and we didn't violate the assumption of homogeneity of variances/covariances matrices . Therefore, the observed matrixes of dependent variables are

different between individuals successful in treatment and individuals with relapse.

Table 9. Multivariate Tests Test model Value f-value Hypothesis

df df error Significance level Effect Pillai 0.193 1.34 15.00 84 0.98 0.193 Wilks's lambda 0.807 1.34 15.00 84 0.98 0.193 Hotelling 0.239 1.34 15.00 84 0.98 0.193 Roy's root 0.239 1.34 15.00 84 0.98 0.193

According to table (9), the tests of Pillai, Wilks, Hotelling and Roy had a significance level of greater than 0.05. In other words, individuals

successful in treatment and individuals with relapse don't play any role in the model and that, they have no significant difference in the schema.

Table 10. Levine test

Variable f-value 1th degree of

freedom 2th degree of freedom Significance level Emotional deprivation 7.73 1 98 0.006 Abandonment 3.59 1 98 0.061 Mistrust 0.050 1 98 0.82 Social isolation 0.216 1 98 0.64 Defectiveness 0.152 1 98 0.7 Failure 1.08 1 98 13 Dependence/incompetence 0.93 1 98 0.34 Vulnerability to harm 3.77 1 98 0.055 Enmeshment 1.14 1 98 0.29 Subjugation 0.11 1 98 0.74

(7)

334 Self-sacrifice 1.24 1 98 0.27 Emotional inhibition 2.29 1 98 0.13 Unrelenting standards 0.43 1 98 0.51 Entitlement 0.006 1 98 0.94 Self-control 3.11 1 98 0.08

Table (10) of Levine test shows that, schema dimensions follow the principle of homogeneity of variances because their significance is greater than 0.05. Therefore, the variance of all schema

dimensions is equal between the individuals successful in treatment and the individuals with relapse

.

Table 11. Test of inter participant bias

Variable Sum of squares Degree of

freedom

Mean squares f-value

Emotional deprivation 96.73 1 73.96 1.99 Abandonment 26.01 1 26.01 0.54 Mistrust 1.99 1 1.69 0.053 Social isolation 73.96 1 73.96 1.82 Defectiveness 42.25 1 42.25 1.19 Failure 17.64 1 17.64 0.48 Dependence/incompetence 3.24 1 3.24 0.097 Vulnerability to harm 1.44 1 1.44 0.035 Enmeshment 2.89 1 2.89 0.092 Subjugation 10.24 1 10.24 0.313 Self-sacrifice 2.25 1 2.25 0.062 Emotional inhibition 16.00 1 16.00 0.48 Unrelenting standards 0.36 1 0.36 0.011 Entitlement 844 1 844 0.15 Self-control 62.41 1 62.41 2.29 1= Coefficient of determination = 0.020 Adjusted coefficient of determination = 0.010 2= Coefficient of determination = 0.006 Adjusted coefficient of determination = 0.005 3= Coefficient of determination = 0.001 Adjusted coefficient of determination = 0.010 4= Coefficient of determination = 0.0018 Adjusted coefficient of determination = 0.008 5= Coefficient of determination = 0.012 Adjusted coefficient of determination = 0.002 6= Coefficient of determination = 0.005 Adjusted coefficient of determination = 0.005 7= Coefficient of determination = 0.001 Adjusted coefficient of determination = 0.009 8= Coefficient of determination = 0.000 Adjusted coefficient of determination = 0.010 9= Coefficient of determination = 0.001 Adjusted coefficient of determination = 0.009 10= Coefficient of determination = 0.003 Adjusted coefficient of determination = 0.007 11= Coefficient of determination = 0.001 Adjusted coefficient of determination = 0.010 12= Coefficient of determination = 0.005 Adjusted coefficient of determination = 0.005 13= Coefficient of determination = 0.000

Adjusted coefficient of determination = 0.010 14= Coefficient of determination = 0.002 Adjusted coefficient of determination = 0.009 15= Coefficient of determination = 0.023 Adjusted coefficient of determination = 0.013 Test of inter participant bias in table (11) shows that determined coefficient values for any of schema dimensions does not explain a high percentage of the total variance. These values are 1%, 5%, 1%, 8%, 2%, 5%, 9%, and 1.3% for Emotional deprivation, Abandonment, Mistrust, Social isolation, Defectiveness, Failure, Dependence/incompetence, and self-control respectively, which is a very small percentage. Therefore, the second hypothesis of the research is not confirmed, i.e. the schemas of people successful in treatment and people with relapse have no significant difference.

Hypothesis (3): the resiliency of people successful in treatment is different with that of people with addiction relapse.

In order to test the hypothesis, t-test was conducted on two independent groups. The results are indicated in the following table:

(8)

335

Table 12. Results of independent t-test compared to resilience in people successful in treatment and people with relapse

Subject condition Count Mean Standard deviation Standard error of the mean successful in treatment 50 58.16 18.23 2.57 with relapse 50 53.92 11.63 1.64 Resiliency

Levine test t-test

f-value Significance level

t-value df two-tailed

significance level

7.52 0.007 1.39 93.21 0.049

Table (12) shows that significance level is less than 0.05 at Levine test and homogeneity of variances for the two groups is violated. So, the secondary- level tables should be used. Furthermore, the results of T-secondary level show that the mean difference between the two groups in resiliency is significant at a=0.05 (one-tailed test p=0.3 , 049f=83.21 , t=1.39) i.e. people successful in treatment are significantly more resilient than people with relapse. Therefore, the third hypothesis of the research was confirmed.

Discussion and conclusion

First Hypothesis: according to first hypothesis of the research, personality traits (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness) of people successful in treatment are different with those of people with relapse. The results showed that in general, the personality traits (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness) of people successful in treatment and those of people with relapse are not significantly different. But, the traits of Agreeableness are significantly different in both groups so that Agreeableness explains 3.7 percent of total variance. In other words, people successful in treatment score higher than people with addiction relapse on Agreeableness. This finding is consistent with the theory of Costa & McCrae (1992, quoted in Saber, 2011) who believe that there is a relationship between personality traits and drug dependence. It also matches with the findings of Fisher et al. (1998) who studied recurrence of drug addiction and during the one-year follow-up showed that addicts achieve higher score for Neuroticism but lower score for Conscientiousness. Many studies have shown that addicts often have serious personality problems and these problems can be rooted in the fundamental component. This is why the vast majority of research on the topic of drug addiction focuses on personality traits of addicts (Mollahzadeh-Esfanjani, 2009). Studies have shown that characteristics play a role in onset, spread and persistence of drug dependence. So, personality traits and emotional factors are generally the key factors in the treatment of addiction. Our knowledge on addicts' characteristics, people predisposing to addiction

and risk factors involved in addiction, can help to clarify the issue of addiction (Saber et al., 2011). Second Hypothesis: According to the second hypothesis of the research, the schemas of people successful in treatment are different with those of people with relapse. This finding is consistent with the findings of Decowaker et al. (2002) who believe that patients with alcohol abuse have received high scores for the schemas of Abandonment, Self-sacrifice and Mistrust/misconduct. It also matches with the findings of Arab Bafrany et al (2013) who found that smokers achieve higher scores for the schemas of Abandonment, Emotional inhibition, Unrelenting standards, Entitlement and Self-control. Furthermore, Shiri et al. (2013) suggested that people with alcohol and drug abuse achieve high score for the schema of Abandonment. Schemas are deep beliefs formed early in life as a result of life experiences. They affects people's attitude toward the world and future (kuvimseads et al., translated by Mohammad Khani et al., 2013). One of the serious and fundamental concepts of the field of psychotherapy includes that most of the schemas are formed early in life, they continue to move up and impose themselves on subsequent experiences of life. From Young's viewpoint, some of the schemas, particularly those that are shaped out of the adverse childhood experiences, may be the kernel base of personality disorders, attribute problems and many chronic disorders of axis l (Young et al., 2007, translated by Hamidpour et al., 2007).

Third Hypothesis: According to the third hypothesis of the research, resiliency of people successful in treatment is different with that of people with relapse. The results indicated that the resiliency of people successful in treatment is significantly different with that of people with relapse. The mean score of people successful in

(9)

336 treatment (x=18.23) was higher than that of relapsed people (x=11.63) and this different is significant at a=0.05. This finding is in consistent with the findings of Azeri and Qarakhan (2013), Rabienejad, Hassanpour and Fathi-Ahmed (2013) and Khakpur and Mehrafarid (2013). Resilient people are characteristically resistant to stress and learn valuable lessons from the hard experiences of their lives. They feel they can find a good way to solve their problems in the stressful and traumatic situations. They rely on themselves and show learning/coping reaction in difficult situations while people with weak resilience tend to react with a victim/blaming reaction in such a situation (jezayeri, 2008). Also, resiliency associated with positive emotions play a protective role against the depression and drug abuse (Bernano, Galeh, Bosiarli and Valho, 2007, quoted in Husseini-Almadani, 2011).

Based on the research findings, it is recommended that researches be conducted on the schema, resiliency and personality traits in women successful in treatment and women with addiction relapse in order to measure gender roles. It is also suggested that studies compare family and job status of people successful in treatment and those of people with relapse. For practical applications, it is recommended that more attention should be paid to resiliency in Addiction Treatment Centers as the key factor in addiction treatment. Training resiliency should start in schools to promote resiliency for the prevention of addiction.

References

Arab-Bafrany, H. R. Salehi, H. golkari, T. (2013). Comparison of Early Maladaptive Schemas in Smoker and Nonsmoker Students of Isfahan University. Tehran: Congress of addiction Knowledge.

Azarian, A. Tarkhan, M. (2013). Effectiveness of resiliency Training and Compatibility of Addicts in Withdrawal by methadone treatment method. Tehran: Congress of Addiction Knowledge. Bartely, C. E,&Roesch ,S.C .(2005). Coping with daily stress: the role of conscientiousness pesonality and individual differences,50,19-85. Conner, K.M.davidson ,R.T .(2003). Development of anew resiliency sale: The conner-D.resilience sale (CD-RICE).Depression and anxiety.18:76-82. Ebrahimi, A.A. (2010). Addiction recovery and Upturn. Esfahan: Kankash.

Fisher,L.A.,Elias,I.W.,& Ritza,k.(1998).predicting replace to substance abuse as a function.critical Experimental Research,22,1041-1047.

Hosseini Almadani, S.A. Ahadi, H. Karimi, Y. Bahrami, H. Moazyan, A. (2011). Resiliency Comparison, Identity styles, Spirituality and Perceived Social Support in Addicts, Non-addictive, and Cured. Journal of Drug Abuse.21,64-47.

jazayeri, A. dehqani, M. (2008). Resiliency Guidance. Tehran: Danzheh.

Khakpur, M. Mehrafrid, M. (2013). Prediction of Students' substance abuse Through resiliency and emotional Components. Tehran. Congress of Addiction Knowledge.

Kuimseads, C. Reynolds, C. Drummond, C. (2013). Behavioral -Cognitive Therapy of addiction Translation: Mohammad Khani, Sh. Ebadi, Gh. (2013). Tehran: Danzheh.

Lotfi, R. Donyavi, V. Khosravi, Z. (2007). Comparison of early maladaptive schemas in Soldiers with group B (2) personality disorders and healthy soldiers. Journal of Medical Sciences, University of Medical Sciences of Army of Islamic Republic of Iran. Fifth year.

Moaddab, N. (2011). Early maladaptive schemas and personality disorders among criminals to murder. Master Clinical Thesis, Research, Fars. Mohammad Khani, Sh. Sadeghi, N. Farzad, V. (2011). Model of causal relationships between return to drug use and Negative emotion, core beliefs, beliefs associated with Substances, tempting ideas and emotion regulation. Modern Psychological Research Journal, 159-185.

Mollahzadeh Esfanjani, R. (2009). The Relationship between Stress and Ego Psychology, Emotion Seeking, and Coping Styles in Addicts and Normal People. Master Thesis of General Psychology. University of Gilan.

Puormohammad, A. Yaqubi, H. Yusefi R. (2013). The Comparison of the Early Maladaptive Schemas and lifestyle in Substance Dependent Patients and Normal Individuals. Journal of Drug Abuse. 123-107.

Rabienejad, M.R. Hassanpour, P. Fathi, A. Serai, N. (2013). The Study of the Effectiveness of problem-solving skills on the resiliency and Happiness of addicts undergoing treatment for drug dependence. Tehran: Congress of addiction Knowledge.

Shafizadeh, R. (2012). The Relationship between resiliency and the Big Five personality Factors. Knowledge and Research in Applied Psychology. Saber F. Mousavi, S. A. Salehi, I. (2011). Comparison of personality characteristics and problem-solving styles in addicted and non-addicted males. Journal of Addiction a Research on substance abuse.39-56.

Saduqi, Z. rasul-zadeh-Tabatabaei, S. K. Esfahanian, N. (2008). factor analysis of Young Schema Questionnaire-Short Form in Iranian non-clinical samples. Journal of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology, Vol. XIV, No. 2, pages: 219-214. Shiri,P. Vatankhah, H.R. Maddahi, A. Ali Mohammadi, M. (2013). Prediction of substance abuse in adolescents based on early maladaptive schemas. Tehran: Congress of addiction Knowledge.

(10)

337 Young Jie, K. Jay, V. (2003). Schema Therapy (application guide for clinicians). Translated by

HamidPur, Hasan. Anduz, Zahra. (2007). Tehran: Arjomand

Figure

Updating...

References

Updating...

Related subjects :