Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, Brown University, 121 Main St., Providence, RI, 002903, USA.
Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, Brown University, 121 Main St., Providence, RI, 002903, USA.
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018 Dec 1;193:83-90. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.08.035. Epub 2018 Oct 11.
Recanting - denying previous reports of lifetime substance use - occurs frequently in longitudinal investigations of adolescent substance use. While research has focused on how individual differences contribute to recanting, intra-individual factors associated with recanting over time remain understudied.
Adolescents (n = 1023) were assessed six times between 2009 - 2015. The sample included participants who reported ever-sipping alcohol in at least one assessment who maintained or recanted ever-sipping at the subsequent assessment (n = 543, 53.1% of full sample; 54.5% female; 84.9% white; 89.5% non-Hispanic). The majority (58.6%) of the sample recanted ever-sipping. We fit linear mixed models to investigate whether prospective changes in perceived peer drinking, peer approval, alcohol expectancies, and fear of reprisal predicted recanting. To explore whether mechanisms of recanting differed for delayed (i.e., two assessments or later) recanting, we refit the models in a subset of data excluding immediate (i.e., subsequent assessment) recanters.
Prospective increases in perceived peer drinking (OR = 0.65), peer approval of drinking (OR = 0.82), and positive and negative alcohol expectancies (OR = 0.96; 0.98, respectively) predicted lower odds of recanting. Similar effects were observed among only delayed recanters.
Time-varying, intra-individual factors uniquely predicted recanting over time. Although most recanting occurs immediately following the initial report of ever-sipping, the observed effects were consistent between delayed recanters and the sample as a whole. Considering the systematic patterns evident in recanting, researchers should consider using computer-assisted or other research methods that minimize or verify recanting when it occurs while also informing missing data models.
在青少年药物使用的纵向研究中,经常会出现撤回(否认之前报告的终身药物使用)的情况。虽然研究重点是个体差异如何导致撤回,但与随时间推移撤回相关的个体内因素仍未得到充分研究。
2009 年至 2015 年期间,对 1023 名青少年进行了六次评估。该样本包括在至少一次评估中报告过曾经喝过酒的参与者,并且在随后的评估中维持或撤回了曾经喝过酒的参与者(n=543,占总样本的 53.1%;54.5%为女性;84.9%为白人;89.5%为非西班牙裔)。该样本的大多数(58.6%)人撤回了曾经喝过酒的报告。我们拟合了线性混合模型,以调查预期的同伴饮酒、同伴认可、酒精期望和对报复的恐惧变化是否预测了撤回。为了探索对于延迟(即两次或更多次评估)撤回,撤回机制是否不同,我们在排除了立即(即随后评估)撤回者的子数据集重新拟合了模型。
预期的同伴饮酒增加(OR=0.65)、同伴对饮酒的认可增加(OR=0.82)、以及积极和消极的酒精期望增加(OR=0.96;0.98,分别)预测了撤回的可能性较低。仅在延迟撤回者中观察到了类似的效果。
时间变化的个体内因素可以独特地预测随时间的撤回。尽管大多数撤回是在首次报告曾经喝过酒之后立即发生的,但在延迟撤回者和整个样本中观察到的效果是一致的。考虑到撤回中明显的系统模式,研究人员应该考虑使用计算机辅助或其他研究方法来最小化或验证撤回,同时告知缺失数据模型。