LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Lazuras, Lambros; Ypsilanti, Antonia; Lamprou, Efthymios; Kontogiorgis, Christos (2017)
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
Pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement (PCE) represents the non-medical use of prescribed medication for the improvement of cognitive functioning and academic performance. Although there are some studies about PCE prevalence, it is less clear how users and non-users of PCE substances differ with respect to their positive and negative student experiences (e.g., academic burnout, engagement with studies) and in social cognitive variables that relate to decision-making and self-regulation of PCE use. The present study assessed whether students with different experiences of PCE substance use displayed differences in academic burnout, study engagement and social cognitive variables relevant to PCE use. Three hundred and forty seven University students (M age = 22.15, SD = 1.69; 54% females) completed a battery of anonymous questionnaires on academic burnout, engagement with studies, social cognitive variables relevant to PCE use, and self-reported use of PCE substances and non-prescribed nutritional supplements. Three user groups emerged, namely, non-users (51.9%, n = 180), single users of non-prescribed dietary supplements (25.4%, n = 88), and dual users of both non-prescribed dietary supplements and PCE (22.8%, n = 79). Multivariate analysis of variance indicated significant differences among the three user groups in intentions, attitudes, social norms, and anticipated regret towards PCE use. No significant differences were observed with respect to academic burnout and work engagement. The findings show that University students may engage in PCE use independently of their student experiences. Rather, a chemically-assisted performance enhancement mindset seems to differentiate users from non-users of PCE substances.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
    • Barkoukis, V., Lazuras, L., Lucidi, F., & Tsorbatzoudis, H. (2015). Nutritional supplement and doping use in sport: possible underlying social cognitive processes. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 25(6), e582-e588.
    • Belin, D., Mar, A. C., Dalley, J. W., Robbins, T. W., & Everitt, B. J. (2008). High impulsivity predicts the switch to compulsive cocaine-taking. Science,320(5881), 1352- 1355.
    • Brand, R., & Koch, H. (2016). Using caffeine pills for performance enhancement: An experimental study on university students' willingness and their intention to try neuroenhancements. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 101. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00101
    • Castaldi, S., Gelatti, U., Orizio, G., Hartung, U., Moreno-Londono, A. M., Nobile, M., & Schulz, P. J. (2012). Use of cognitive enhancement medication among northern Italian university students. Journal of Addiction Medicine, 6(2), 112-117.
    • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper.
    • de Wit, H. (2009). Impulsivity as a determinant and consequence of drug use: a review of underlying processes. Addiction Biology, 14(1), 22-31.
    • Fishbein, M. (2009). An integrative model for behavioral prediction and its application to health promotion. In R. J. DiClemente, R. A. Crosby, & M. C. Kegler (Eds.), Emerging theories in health promotion practice and research (pp. 215-234). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
    • González-Romá, V., Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Lloret, S. (2006). Burnout and work engagement: Independent factors or opposite poles? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(1), 165-174.
    • Greely, H., Sahakian, B., Harris, J., Kessler, R. C., Gazzaniga, M., Campbell, P., & Farah, M. J. (2008). Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy. Nature, 456(7223), 702-705.
    • Hildt, E., Lieb, K., & Franke, A. G. (2014). Life context of pharmacological academic performance enhancement among university students - a qualitative approach. BMC Medical Ethics, 15(1), 23.
    • Howard, M. O., Balster, R. L., Cottler, L. B., Wu, L. T., & Vaughn, M. G. (2008). Inhalant use among incarcerated adolescents in the United States: Prevalence, characteristics, and correlates of use. Drug & Alcohol Dependence, 93(3), 197-209.
    • Judson, R., & Langdon, S. W. (2009). Illicit use of prescription stimulants among college students: Prescription status, motives, theory of planned behaviour, knowledge and selfdiagnostic tendencies. Psychology Health and Medicine, 14(1), 97-104.
    • Lucke, J. C., Bell, S., Partridge, B., & Hall, W. D. (2011). Deflating the neuroenhancement bubble. AJOB Neuroscience, 2(4), 38-43.
    • Lucke, J. C. (2012). Empirical research on attitudes toward cognitive enhancement is essential to inform policy and practice guidelines. AJOB Primary Research, 3(1), 58- 60.
    • Maier, L. J., Liechti, M. E., Herzig, F., & Schaub, M. P. (2013). To dope or not to dope: Neuroenhancement with prescription drugs and drugs of abuse among Swiss university students. PLoS One, 8(11), e77967. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0077967
    • Maier, L. J., & Schaub, M. P. (2015). The use of prescription drugs and drugs of abuse for neuroenhancement in Europe. European Psychologist, 20, 155-166. doi: 10.1027/1016- 9040/a000228
    • Montaño, D. E., & Kasprzyk, D. (2015). Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, and the integrated behavioral model. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Health Behavior: Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 95-124). New York: Wiley.
    • Partridge, B. J., Bell, S. K., Lucke, J. C., Yeates, S., & Hall, W. D. (2011). Smart drugs “as common as coffee”: Media hype about neuroenhancement.PloS one, 6(11), e28416.
    • Partridge, B., Bell, S., Lucke, J., & Hall, W. (2013). Australian university students' attitudes towards the use of prescription stimulants as cognitive enhancers: Perceived patterns of use, efficacy and safety. Drug & Alcohol Review, 32(3), 295-302.
    • Petróczi, A. (2013). The doping mindset-Part I: Implications of the functional use theory on mental representations of doping. Performance Enhancement & Health, 2(4), 153-163.
    • Plachouras, D., Kavatha, D., Antoniadou, A., Giannitsioti, E., Poulakou, G., Kanellakopoulou, K., & Giamarellou, H. (2010). Dispensing of antibiotics without prescription in Greece, 2008: another link in the antibiotic resistance chain. Euro Surveillance, 15(7), 19488.
    • Repantis, D., Schlattmann, P., Laisney, O., & Heuser, I. (2010). Modafinil and methylphenidate for neuroenhancement in healthy individuals: A systematic review. Pharmacological Research, 62(3), 187-206.
    • Sandberg, T., & Conner, M. (2008). Anticipated regret as an additional predictor in the theory of planned behaviour: A meta‐analysis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(4), 589-606.
    • Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I. M., Pinto, A. M., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). Burnout and engagement in university students a cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(5), 464-481.
    • Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness studies, 3(1), 71-92.
    • Schelle, K. J., Faulmüller, N., Caviola, L., & Hewstone, M. (2014). Attitudes toward pharmacological cognitive enhancement-a review. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 8, 53. doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2014.00053
    • Skliros, E., Merkouris, P., Papazafiropoulou, et al. (2010). Self-medication with antibiotics in rural population in Greece: a cross-sectional multicenter study. BMC Family Practice, 11(1), 1. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-11-58
    • Vargo, E. J., & Petroczi, A. (2016). “It was me on a good day”: Exploring the smart drug Use phenomenon in England. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 779. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00779
    • Weyandt, L. L., Janusis, G., Wilson, K. G., et al. (2009). Nonmedical prescription stimulant use among a sample of college students: relationship with psychological variables. Journal of Attention Disorders,13, 284-296. doi:10.1177/1087054709342212
    • Wolff, W., & Brand, R. (2013). Subjective stressors in school and their relation to neuroenhancement: A behavioral perspective on students' everyday life “doping”. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, & Policy,8(1), 1.
    • Wolff, W., Brand, R., Baumgarten, F., Lösel, J., & Ziegler, M. (2014). Modeling students' instrumental (mis-) use of substances to enhance cognitive performance: Neuroenhancement in the light of job demands-resources theory. BioPsychoSocial Medicine, 8(1), 1.
    • Zelli, A., Lucidi, F., & Mallia, L. (2015). The complexity of neuroenhancement and the adoption of a social cognitive perspective. Frontiers in psychology, 6. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01880
    • 1. PCE use intentions
    • 2. Attitudes
    • 3. Subjective norms
    • 4. Perceived prevalence in cohort
    • 5. Perceived prevalence in academics
    • 6. Perceived prevalence of PCE in
    • 7. PBC
    • 8. Anticipated regret
    • 9. UWES - Vigour
    • 10. UWES - Dedication
    • 11. UWES - Absorption
    • 12. Burnout - Exhaustion
    • 13. Burnout - Cynicism
    • 14. Burnout - Efficacy
    • Mean 3.14 4.02
    • SD 1.72 1.44
    • Note. *p < .05; PBC = perceived behavioural control;
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article