Original Article

Childhood maltreatment and vulnerability to substance use disorders: The mediating role of psychological security

Introduction

Childhood maltreatment (CM) experiences might have negative effects on various aspects of development, including mental health, physical health, and social functioning.¹ CM is considered as a global problem that may lead to all sorts of unfortunate consequences. Unpleasant childhood experiences are associated with many physical and mental illnesses, abnormalities, and unhealthy lifestyles in adulthood. The role of CM experience in creating cognitive vulnerabilities has been clarified in various statistical models.^2,3 CM includes all types of abuse and neglect that may endanger the child’s health and development.⁴ Experiencing any traumatic event, including emotional abuse, physical abuse, and sexual abuse in childhood can affect people’s well-being.⁵

It appears that the combination of adverse childhood experiences, neglect, patterns of maltreatment (abuse), and family dysfunction (parental substance abuse, incarceration, separation, mental illness, and domestic violence) during childhood might lead to risky behaviors and negative outcomes in subsequent life courses.⁶ Adverse life experiences are linked to psychological trauma that may last a lifetime.⁷ Researches have indicated that a greater frequency of adverse childhood experiences is substantially linked to a larger probability of unfavorable consequences during adolescence and adulthood.^8,9 Adverse childhood experiences have been linked to unfavorable consequences, such as substance misuse and social, emotional, and cognitive deficits, as well as the adoption of dangerous health behaviors.^10-12

One of the domains that is particularly affected by CM is the vulnerability to substance use disorder (SUD), which is a chronic and relapsing condition characterized by compulsive drug seeking and use, despite harmful consequences.¹³ Previous studies have shown that the individuals who experience maltreatment in childhood are more likely to develop SUD in adolescence or adulthood, compared to those who do not have such experiences.¹⁴ However, the mechanisms that explain how CM leads to SUD are not fully understood. According to neuroscience research, stress may alter the way that brain works and looks, which may lead to drug-seeking behavior.¹⁵ Drug misuse in adulthood has been shown to be linked to the experience of unfavorable conditions throughout childhood and adolescence.^6,16,17 The most significant mediators of the tendency to participate in dangerous behaviors are the quality of the environment and the ability of parents or caregivers to raise their children.¹⁸ According to a study on over 10 000 high-risk adolescents, the most significant protective and enhancing elements in substance addiction prevention programs were parent-child connection, parental supervision versus punishment, and family interactions.¹⁹ These three family characteristics have the highest protective effects against a number of negative outcomes, including delinquency, substance addiction, academic failure, and adolescent pregnancy, even though the association with peers who use drugs was reported to be the most predictive risk factor for substance misuse.²⁰ These protective mechanisms can be promoted by parents or successful family-centered treatments.²¹

According to research, children are more likely to have behavioral problems if they have more risk factors or family issues. Poor parenting and socialization practices,²² ineffective supervision,²³ ineffective discipline practices, high levels of negativity/reinforcement, parenting styles, conflict over parenting techniques, harsh corporal punishment, low parental attachment, lack of cooperation and companionship, and a negative family environment are all examples of family factors associated with substance abuse.^24-26 CM can have profound and lasting effects on a person’s psychological security in adulthood.^2,3 The trauma experienced in childhood, either physical, emotional or sexual abuse, can negatively shape a person’s self-esteem, trust in others and general sense of safety and security.^5,27 Psychological security is considered to be a basic human need that is essential for optimal development and well-being.²⁸

Individuals who feel psychologically secure usually perceive that the world is emotionally secure or free from emotional harm.²⁹ They usually have high confidence and trust in themselves and others, feel less anxious, and tend to be more social and actively involved in relationships with others.²⁹ People who feel psychologically secure may not perceive the world and other people as a threat. They also do not feel the threat that they might easily be hurt by other people’s emotional behaviors; thus, they strive to undertake difficult tasks, and also take risk to attain higher goals in life.³⁰ However, psychological security can be undermined by exposure to maltreatment, especially when it occurs within the family context. Research has shown that less family emotional support is one of the main factors that may decrease psychological security.³¹

As a necessary component of existence, psychological safety provides equilibrium and stability, and serves as a buffer against hopelessness and dangerous surroundings.³² It appears when a youngster perceives the outside world as a dependable and secure environment.³³ Numerous studies have demonstrated the preventive role of psychological safety against various forms of childhood adversity, such as child sexual abuse,³⁴ parental sadness,³⁵ and challenging behavior.³⁶ Maltreated children may develop insecure attachment styles, low self-esteem, poor emotion regulation, and negative cognitive schemas, which can all impair their ability to form and maintain healthy relationships later in their life. These deficits in psychological security may increase the risk of SUD, as individuals may seek to cope with their emotional distress and unmet needs through substance use.¹⁶

The aim of this study was to examine the mediating role of psychological security in the relationship between CM and SUD. We were going to propose a theoretical model that may add evidence to the literature on the effects of maltreatment on psychological security and the effects of psychological security on SUD. We also reviewed the empirical evidence that supports the model and suggest directions for future research and implications for prevention and intervention. Enhancing psychological security may be a key strategy to reduce the vulnerability to SUD among individuals who have experienced CM. While psychological and environmental factors are significant predictors of substance misuse inclinations, little is known about how CM interacts with these elements to increase susceptibility. This study may be helpful in increasing our knowledge of the preventive factors by offering a new perspective on the connection between vulnerability to drug misuse and maltreatment among youth.

Materials and Methods

In this cross-sectional study, the statistical population were all male students of the three universities of Tabriz, Shahid Madani Azarbaijan and Islamic Azad University of Tabriz who were studying in the academic year of 2019. Based on the formula of Tabachnick and Fidell, the following formula was used to calculate the sample size (N = 400), depending on the number of predictor variables: N > 50 + 8M (number of predictor variables = M). Multistage cluster sampling was used to recruit 400 students in Tabriz universities. One faculty was selected from each 3 universities, and at the next stage, one educational group was considered from each faculty. Finally, the students of five classes from the selected educational groups were invited to participate in the study.

Participants and procedure

The criteria for participation in the study were male students aged 18 to 23 years (young adults). The specific cultural conditions in the study area influenced the selection of the sample, as Iranian girls in this geographical area (Tabriz city) are influenced by the traditional family structure and are therefore less likely to report experiences of abuse.

The following instruments were used in the present study:

Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ)

This questionnaire was developed by Bernstein et al³⁷ who provided the final 53-item version.³⁸ It measures maltreatment on five subscales and yields a total score indicating global maltreatment. These five scales are emotional abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional neglect, and physical neglect. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Bernstein et al approved the reliability of the questionnaire by two methods of retesting and Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.79 to 0.94.³⁷ In Iran, Mikaeili and Zamanloo used the factor analysis method to confirm the validity of this questionnaire. The factors obtained were consistent with the subscales of the questionnaire.³⁹ In the present study, the total calculated Cronbach’s alpha value was 0.80.

Psychological Security Questionnaire

This questionnaire was developed by Maslow et al⁴⁰ and standardized by Aminpour.⁴¹ The abbreviated student form has 18 items in 4 domains: self-confidence, feeling of dissatisfaction, incompatibility with the environment, and people’s view of themselves. This questionnaire can be used to identify and measure the personal characteristics that create feelings of security and insecurity, and to identify individuals who are psychologically and emotionally insecure. In the present study, the calculated Cronbach’s alpha values for self-confidence, dissatisfaction, incompatibility with the environment, and people’s view of themselves were 0.77, 0.75, 0.80, and 0.79, respectively.

Substance Abuse Questionnaire

This questionnaire was provided by Anisi et al in Tehran.⁴² The questionnaire includes 75 items and 4 factors: depression and helplessness, positive attitude toward substances, anxiety and fear of others, and sensation seeking. Scoring is based on a 4-point Likert scale (strongly disagree, disagree, partially agree, and agree). The total score of the questionnaire is the sum of all items scores. The score range of the questionnaire ranges from 0 to 225. The cut-off value for the total score of the questionnaire is 80. In other words, persons with a score of 80 or more are at risk of addiction. The reliability of the test was calculated as 0.97 according to Cronbach’s alpha. To confirm its validity, the correlation of the test with the Zuckerman’s Depression (0.76), Anxiety (0.71), Stress (DASS) (0.77), and Sensation Seeking (0.78) scales was examined.⁴² An alpha of 0.83 was calculated for this questionnaire in the present study.

Statistical analysis

Pearson correlation coefficient test and structural equation modeling were used for data analysis. Chi-squared, ratio of chi-squared to degree of freedom, goodness of fit, adaptive goodness of fit, comparative fit, mean square error of approximation, and mean square of residual were used to examine model fit. If the chi-square is not statistically significant, it means that the fit is very good. However, since this value is often obtained from samples with more than 100 significant values, it is not appropriate to measure the fit of the model. If the ratio of chi-squared to degree of freedom is less than 3, this indicates a very good fit. When comparative fit index (CFI), adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), and goodness of fit index (GFI) are greater than 0.90 and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and root mean square residual (RMR) are less than 0.05, this is considered a very good and reasonable fit, and less than 0.08 is considered a good and reasonable fit Data were analyzed using SPSS version 26 and LISREL 10 software. Pearson correlation and structural equation modeling were used for data analysis.⁴³

Results

The age range of the participants was from 18 to 32 years, with a mean of 21.96 years and a standard deviation of 2.18. About 46% of the subjects studied in the fields of technical and engineering, 20.8% studied basic sciences, 32.5% studied humanities, and 0.3% studied arts. Descriptive data on parents’ education level in the whole sample were as follows: illiterate (father [F]: 5.5%, mother [M]: 12.5%); elementary school (F: 11%, M:11.8%); high school (F: 16%, M:15.3%); diploma (F: 33.3%, M: 38.8%); associate degree (F: 6.8%, M: 5.5%); B.A. (F: 16%, M: 10.3%); M.A. (F: 8.3%, M: 2.5%); and Ph.D. (F: 3.3%, M: 3.3%). The economic status of the families of the study participants, who were divided into five groups, was as follows: very poor (8.3%); poor (4.8%); moderate (56.8%); good (22.5%); and very good (6%). Descriptive statistics for the variables studied are presented in Table 1.

As shown in Table 2, “vulnerability to SUDs” and its components are positively and significantly correlated with “CM” and its components. Among the components of “susceptibility to SUD”, only “high sensation seeking” was not significantly correlated with “CM” components.

As shown in Table 3, “vulnerability to SUDs” and its components are negatively and significantly correlated with “psychological safety” and its components. Increasing “psychological safety” decreases the likelihood of “vulnerability to SUDs” and vice versa.

As shown in Table 4, the components of “CM” are negatively and significantly correlated with “psychological security” and its components. Reducing “CM experiences” increases the possibility of “psychological security” and vice versa.

As shown in Table 5 and Figure 1, model fit indices showed that the model fits well the measurement model (CFI = 0.97, GFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.058). The finalized structural model is also presented in Figure 2.

Close

Figure 1.

The hypothetical conceptual model in the present study

Figure 1.

The hypothetical conceptual model in the present study

Close

Figure 2.

Standardized and (t) values of the finalized structural model (N = 400)

Figure 2.

Standardized and (t) values of the finalized structural model (N = 400)

Discussion

In the present study, we proposed and reviewed a theoretical model that suggests psychological security as a mediator between CM and SUD. According to this model, CM undermines the development of psychological security, which is a sense of safety, trust, and confidence among individuals. Psychological security, in turn, protects against the risk of SUD, as it enables individuals to cope with stress, regulate emotions, and seek support in healthy ways.⁴⁴ We also discussed the empirical evidence that supports the model, as well as the implications for prevention and intervention. Our results were consistent with the theoretical underpinnings and conclusions of related research, and the hypothesized model developed in this paper fits the experimental data well.

The present study was conducted on young students between the ages of 18 and 23. A population that was experiencing separation from family, and entry into a large university community for the first time, while being exposed to new academic, professional and emotional pressures. Studies show that the students who come to university with feelings of loneliness, dependent on their parents and lacking psychological security suffered from clinical problems (physical and psychological symptoms) and academic failure during their studies.⁴⁵ On the other hand, previous studies have shown that people who have had negative experiences in their childhood are more likely to be more susceptible to new pressures and stress in young adulthood and are more likely to use drugs.^13,16,17,46 According to the latest statistics in Iran, the mean age of drug use initiation among men is 24.1 years.⁴³ Therefore, this study examined the tendency to use drugs before reaching this age. In terms of gender, 95% of addicts in Iran are men,⁴⁴ which firmly suggests that Iranian boys are more prone to drug addiction, so the study of boys younger than 24 years of age were considered as the priority of our research.

The remarkable correlation between the tendency to use drugs and CM in the present study can be interpreted in the light of research findings⁴⁷ and the National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) epidemiologic study conducted in the United States, which indicates that CM increases the likelihood of alcohol abuse in adulthood.⁴⁸ Previous research has shown that adolescents who are delinquent and have a history of drug dependence have experienced physical and sexual abuse, neglect, criminal victimization, violence, and other traumatic events.^49,50 In this context, a previous study found a favorable correlation between drug dependence and sexual and domestic violence.⁴⁷ In another study, emotional, sexual, and physical abuse were reported as the leading causes of SUD.Children and adolescents can often cope with one or two problems within their families; however, the likelihood of substance abuse increases when there are frequent family problems.^51,52 According to another research, the strong parent-child bond helped Mexican-American teens to become more resilient and less likely to commit crimes.⁵³ Adolescents and young adults who are exposed to a series of stressful events may have difficulties in controlling their emotions and thus feel confused, powerless, and unstable.⁵⁴ Substance abuse can be a means of escaping or alleviating the distress, worry, and anger associated with such situations. However, it is impossible to ignore the damaging consequences of even the most minor childhood abuse. According to one study, “minor” forms of maltreatment can have a significant impact on the likelihood of substance misuse.⁵⁵

In contrast to previous studies, the current study found no significant association between CM and the variable of high need for arousal, a factor associated with the propensity to use drugs. In the view of this result, it can be said that arousal need might be an innate personality trait which is influenced by heredity. Therefore, bad experiences in the past have a low influence on mood characteristics, such as arousal need.⁵⁶ Furthermore, our results showed that CM has a negative relationship with psychological security. In this way, the children who are exposed to more maltreatment feel less psychologically safe and secure. This finding is consistent with those found in Al-Anani studiy⁵⁷ and the studies that showed psychological security as a protective factor in exposure to adverse childhood experiences.^32,33 Individuals whose basic needs, including physical needs, are neglected seem to be unable to fulfil higher needs, such as safety. Also, the individuals who are frequently neglected and harassed may experience high levels of anxiety and stress, and may perceive the world as an unsafe place. The persistence of such conditions causes the individuals to experience negative emotions that they may not be coped with, so they might not trust others, and thus withdraw from social activities.

Although we found no study on the relationship between psychological safety and the tendency to abuse drugs, the results of some studies have shown that unhealthy and tense atmosphere in the families may significantly threaten, and even sometimes completely disrupt psychological security of the child.^54,58 Another study has shown that the mothers with unresolved intrapersonal and interpersonal problems might disrupt their child’s psychological security and cause insecure attachment, which may consequently put the child at risk of displaying unhealthy behaviors, like impulsive behaviors, in adolescence.⁵⁹ Several previous studies have also shown that some factors related to psychological security, such as secure or insecure attachments,⁶⁰ attachment styles to parents,⁶¹ and self-esteem,⁶² can predict drug use or nonuse in adolescents and youth. In other words, the individuals with secure attachments and appropriate interactions with others, particularly their parents, might cope more easily with daily problems, compared to their counterparts. In contrast, the individuals with insecure attachment styles may consider substance abuse as an emotional alternative, because they feel insecure and lonely. All such findings support the mediating role of psychological security that was identified proposed in the present study. According to our model, psychological security has a mediating role in reducing the impact of CM, and seems to control the tendency to abuse drugs in individuals exposed to such negative experiences. Consistent with this finding, a previous study showed that some individuals respond flexibly to such experiences, and achieve adaptive levels of performance, despite the great psychological risks caused by CM.⁶³ In this context, other studies have shown that adaptive psychological performance,⁶² cognitive factors,⁶⁴ and social and supportive factors are potential protective factors against the consequences of CM, resulting in a lower risk of substance abuse propensity.⁶⁵

According to this model psychological security variables that have been suggested as acceptable mediators include self-confidence, satisfaction, adjustment to environment, and others’ views, each of which had a significant reducing effect size in the correlation matrix of CM and SUD in the present study. This indicates that CM survivors in this study who reported higher psychological security were less likely to use drugs. Previous studies whose findings were consistent with those of our study have shown that traits such as perseverance,⁶⁶ self-confidence,⁶⁷ and having positive attitude towards the future⁶⁸ may lead to better health among individuals with CM experiences.

Our model is consistent with the developmental psychopathology framework, which emphasizes the complex and dynamic interactions between risk and protective factors across the lifespan.⁶⁹ The model also provides us with evidence on the effects of maltreatment on attachment, self-esteem, emotion regulation, and cognitive schemas, which are key components of psychological security.⁷⁰ Our model also supports the self-medication hypothesis, which posits that individuals might use substances to alleviate their psychological distress and unmet needs.⁷¹ The model has several strengths and limitations. As one strength, it provides a comprehensive and parsimonious explanation for the link between CM and SUD. It is also supported by empirical evidence from various sources, such as cross-sectional, longitudinal, and experimental studies.^62-71 Our model has important implications for prevention and intervention of SUD among individuals who have experienced CM. Prevention programs should aim to reduce the occurrence and impact of maltreatment, as well as to promote the development of psychological security among children and adolescents. Intervention programs should focus on enhancing psychological security among adults who suffer from SUD, by providing them with a safe and supportive medium.

Although CM was found to be a strong predictor of SUD,¹⁴ the results of our study provided insight into the protective role of psychological security. While “prevention” is primarily viewed as an attempt to reduce risk, improving psychological safety through enhancing self-confidence and environmental adjustment seems to be one of the most effective preventive interventions for risky behaviors among adolescents.

Limitations

One limitation of our study was the use of self-report instrument. Many individuals tend not to answer questions about their experiences of abuse, such as sexual abuse. Therefore, the sections related to sexual abuse must be omitted from many studies. In this context, it is suggested to use other data collection methods, such as interviews, to obtain useful data. The limited sample size (male students) in this study makes it impossible to generalize the results to female populations. The particular cultural conditions in the studied area influenced our sample selection, as Iranian girls in this geographical area (the city of Tabriz) are influenced by the traditional family structure, and have therefore low willingness to report their experiences of abuse. Meanwhile, the model is mostly based on correlational data, which limits the causal inference and the direction of the effects. Another limitation is that the model does not account for the heterogeneity and diversity of maltreatment and SUD phenomena, such as the types, severity, and timing of maltreatment, as well as the substances, and their use patterns and consequences. Future research should address these limitations and test the model using more rigorous methods, such as randomized controlled trials, prospective longitudinal designs, or multilevel analyses. Future research should also examine the potential moderators and mediators of the model, such as genetic factors, personality traits, social support, and coping skills. Moreover, the applicability and generalizability of the model to different populations and contexts should be examined.

Conclusion

In the present study, we proposed a theoretical model that suggests psychological security as a mediator between CM and SUD. According to this model, CM undermines the development of psychological security, which is a sense of safety, trust, and confidence in individuals and others. Psychological security, in turn, protects against the risk of SUD, as it enables individuals to cope with stress, regulate emotions, and seek support in healthy ways. We also discussed the empirical evidence that supports the model, as well as the implications for prevention and intervention. The proposed model was identified in good agreement with the data. CM explained addiction in young boys through reducing psychological security. Investigating these interactive processes seems necessary as they enhance our understanding of the ways to reduce risk. Psychological security was identified to be an influential mediator in the relationship between CM and SUD in Iranian young boys. Investigating other protective and mediating factors to identify the long-term effects of CM in different cultures needs further research. Moreover, identifying the mediating factors that are less dependent on context, cognitive ability, and/or environmental characteristics is a promising avenue for future interventions among individuals at risk for SUD.

Acknowledgements

We appreciate All student for participating in this study.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. (Ethics code: IR. TBZMED. REC. 1395.1182) in Tabriz University of Medical Sciences.

References

1. Hughes K, Bellis MA, Hardcastle KA, Sethi D, Butchart A, Mikton C. The effect of multiple adverse childhood experiences on health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Public Health 2017; 2(8):e356-66. doi: 10.1016/s2468-2667(17)30118-4 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
2. Kim AW, Nyengerai T, Mendenhall E. Evaluating the mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic: perceived risk of COVID-19 infection and childhood trauma predict adult depressive symptoms in urban South Africa. Psychol Med 2022; 52(8):1587-99. doi: 10.1017/s0033291720003414 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
3. Qin N, Li P, Tian Y. Association between child abuse experience and pathological internet use among Chinese university students: the mediating roles of security and maladaptive cognitions. Front Psychol 2022; 13:830031. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.830031 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
4. VanMeter F, Handley ED, Cicchetti D. The role of coping strategies in the pathway between child maltreatment and internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Child Abuse Negl 2020; 101:104323. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104323 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
5. Tarber DN, Cohn TJ, Casazza S, Hastings SL, Steele J. The role of self-compassion in psychological well-being for male survivors of childhood maltreatment. Mindfulness 2016; 7(5):1193-202. doi: 10.1007/s12671-016-0562-4 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
6. Dube SR, Anda RF, Felitti VJ, Edwards VJ, Croft JB. Adverse childhood experiences and personal alcohol abuse as an adult. Addict Behav 2002; 27(5):713-25. doi: 10.1016/s0306-4603(01)00204-0 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
7. Azarmehr R, Shalchi B, Ahmadi E. Impulsive behavior as a mediator between childhood maltreatment and emotional disorders. Iran J Psychiatry Behav Sci 2020; 14(4):e105726. doi: 10.5812/ijpbs.105726 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
8. Campbell JA, Walker RJ, Egede LE. Associations between adverse childhood experiences, high-risk behaviors, and morbidity in adulthood. Am J Prev Med 2016; 50(3):344-52. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.07.022 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
9. Liming KW, Grube WA. Wellbeing outcomes for children exposed to multiple adverse experiences in early childhood: a systematic review. Child Adolesc Social Work J 2018; 35(4):317-35. doi: 10.1007/s10560-018-0532-x [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
10. Al Odhayani A, Watson WJ, Watson L. Behavioural consequences of child abuse. Can Fam Physician 2013; 59(8):831-6. [ Google Scholar]
11. Asadzadeh A, Shahrokhi H, Shalchi B, Khamnian Z, Rezaei-Hachesu P. Digital games and virtual reality applications in child abuse: a scoping review and conceptual framework. PLoS One 2022; 17(11):e0276985. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276985 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
12. Shafiei Kandjani AR, Sadeghpour S, Samadirad B, Mehrara A, Hosseinnejad P, Shalchi B. Demographic characteristics and personality disorders in people with gender dysphoria in East Azerbaijan province, Iran. Int J Med Toxicol Forensic Med 2022; 12(2):e36056. doi: 10.32598/ijmtfm.v12i2.36056 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
13. Hagborg JM, Thorvaldsson V, Fahlke C. Child maltreatment and substance-use-related negative consequences: longitudinal trajectories from early to mid-adolescence. Addict Behav 2020; 106:106365. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106365 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
14. Cicchetti D, Handley ED. Child maltreatment and the development of substance use and disorder. Neurobiol Stress 2019; 10:100144. doi: 10.1016/j.ynstr.2018.100144 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
15. Anda RF, Felitti VJ, Bremner JD, Walker JD, Whitfield C, Perry BD. The enduring effects of abuse and related adverse experiences in childhood. A convergence of evidence from neurobiology and epidemiology. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2006; 256(3):174-86. doi: 10.1007/s00406-005-0624-4 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
16. Dube SR, Felitti VJ, Dong M, Chapman DP, Giles WH, Anda RF. Childhood abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction and the risk of illicit drug use: the adverse childhood experiences study. Pediatrics 2003; 111(3):564-72. doi: 10.1542/peds.111.3.564 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
17. Blayney JA, Scalco M, Radomski S, Colder C, Read JP. Sexual victimization histories and substance use trajectories during the transition out of college. Psychol Addict Behav 2019; 33(6):529-39. doi: 10.1037/adb0000489 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
18. Villanueva L, Gomis-Pomares A. The cumulative and differential relation of adverse childhood experiences and substance use during emerging adulthood. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 2021; 52(3):420-9. doi: 10.1007/s10578-020-01029-x [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
19. CSAP. The National Cross-Site Evaluation of High-Risk Youth Programs. Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. Inc. and ORC Maco; 2000.
20. Ary DV, Duncan TE, Biglan A, Metzler CW, Noell JW, Smolkowski K. Development of adolescent problem behavior. J Abnorm Child Psychol 1999; 27(2):141-50. doi: 10.1023/a:1021963531607 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
21. Biglan A, Taylor TK. Increasing the use of science to improve child-rearing. J Prim Prev 2000; 21(2):207-26. doi: 10.1023/a:1007083203280 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
22. Benchaya MC, de Campos Moreira T, Constant H, Pereira NM, Freese L, Ferigolo M, et al. Role of parenting styles in adolescent substance use cessation: results from a Brazilian prospective study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019;16(18). 10.3390/ijerph16183432
23. Krohn MD, Larroulet P, Thornberry TP, Loughran TA. The effect of childhood conduct problems on early onset substance use: an examination of the mediating and moderating roles of parenting styles. J Drug Issues 2019; 49(1):139-62. doi: 10.1177/0022042618811784 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
24. Trucco EM. A review of psychosocial factors linked to adolescent substance use. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2020; 196:172969. doi: 10.1016/j.pbb.2020.172969 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
25. Bozzini AB, Bauer A, Maruyama J, Simões R, Matijasevich A. Factors associated with risk behaviors in adolescence: a systematic review. Braz J Psychiatry 2021; 43(2):210-21. doi: 10.1590/1516-4446-2019-0835 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
26. Houtepen LC, Heron J, Suderman MJ, Fraser A, Chittleborough CR, Howe LD. Associations of adverse childhood experiences with educational attainment and adolescent health and the role of family and socioeconomic factors: a prospective cohort study in the UK. PLoS Med 2020; 17(3):e1003031. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003031 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
27. Victor BG, Grogan-Kaylor A, Ryan JP, Perron BE, Gilbert TT. Domestic violence, parental substance misuse and the decision to substantiate child maltreatment. Child Abuse Negl 2018; 79:31-41. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.01.030 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
28. Yang Q, Shi M, Zeng L, Xu P. University freshmen’s excessive smartphone use and psychological safety during the COVID-19 pandemic. Front Psychiatry 2022; 13:993555. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.993555 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
29. Taormina RJ, Sun R. Antecedents and outcomes of psychological insecurity and interpersonal trust among Chinese people. Psychol Thought 2015; 8(2):173-88. doi: 10.5964/psyct.v8i2.143 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
30. Wouters-Soomers L, Van Ruysseveldt J, Bos AE, Jacobs N. An individual perspective on psychological safety: the role of basic need satisfaction and self-compassion. Front Psychol 2022; 13:920908. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.920908 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
31. Yan Z, Yu S, Lin W. Parents’ perceived social support and children’s mental health: the chain mediating role of parental marital quality and parent‒child relationships. Curr Psychol 2024; 43(5):4198-210. doi: 10.1007/s12144-023-04625-x [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
32. Al-Harthy A, Ahmed E, Al-Rashidi K, Al-Metrik L, Al-buainain A, Al-Dbey M. Psychological security and its relationship to empathy among a sample of early childhood in Jubail Industrial City. Inf Sci Lett 2023; 12(1):497-512. doi: 10.18576/isl/120139 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
33. Chen J. The influence of father presence and father-child attachment on the psychological security of young children. In: 2nd International Conference on Education, Language and Art (ICELA 2022). Atlantis Press; 2023. p. 145-51. 10.2991/978-2-38476-004-6_20
34. Ensink K, Bégin M, Normandin L, Fonagy P. Parental reflective functioning as a moderator of child internalizing difficulties in the context of child sexual abuse. Psychiatry Res 2017; 257:361-6. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2017.07.051 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
35. Wong K. A Study of the Effect of Maternal Depressive Symptoms on the Mother-Infant Relationship and Protective Effect of Maternal Reflective Functioning [dissertation]. Wayne State University; 2012.
36. Khoshroo S, Seyed Mousavi PS. Parental reflective functioning as a moderator for the relationship between maternal depression and child internalizing and externalizing problems. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 2022; 53(6):1319-29. doi: 10.1007/s10578-021-01214-6 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
37. Bernstein DP, Fink L, Handelsman L, Foote J, Lovejoy M, Wenzel K. Initial reliability and validity of a new retrospective measure of child abuse and neglect. Am J Psychiatry 1994; 151(8):1132-6. doi: 10.1176/ajp.151.8.1132 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
38. Bernstein DP, Ahluvalia T, Pogge D, Handelsman L. Validity of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire in an adolescent psychiatric population. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1997; 36(3):340-8. doi: 10.1097/00004583-199703000-00012 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
39. Mikaeili N, Zamanloo K. A study of the prevalence of child abuse and its prediction from parents’ depression and anxiety, attachment styles and mental health of their adolescent boys. Psychology of Exceptional Individuals 2012;2(5):145-66. [Persian].
40. Maslow AH, Birsh E, Honigmann I, McGrath F, Plason A, Stein M. Manual for the Security-Insecurity Inventory. Stanford University Press.; 1952.
41. Aminpour H. Evaluation of Practicality, Validity, Reliability and Standardization of Maslow Psychological Security Test on High School Students in Mahabad City. Islamic Azad University; 2004. [Persian].
42. Anisi J, Bahadori MH, Jahanbakhsh M. Developing and validation of identifying people in risk of addiction questionnaire (I.p.R.a). Int J High Risk Behav Addict 2013; 1(4):183-91. doi: 10.5812/ijhrba.8101 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
43. Shalchi B, Tangestanizadeh F, Parnian Khoy M, Yaghouti Azari S. The relationship of emotional intelligence and socioeconomic status with vulnerability to addiction in university students: the mediating role of basic psychological needs. Research on Addiction 2017;11(42):71-92. [Persian].
44. Yu ZO, Karapetyan LV. Psychological security as the foundation of personal psychological wellbeing (analytical review). State of the Art 2018; 11(2):State of the Art 2018;11(2). doi: 10.11621/pir.2018.0208 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
45. Mohammadi A, Garavand H, Sabzian S. The educational effect of the family on the feeling of security: the mediating role of loneliness in the correlation between childhood abuse and psychological security. Family Counseling and Psychotherapy 2023; 12(2):63-88. doi: 10.22034/fcp.2023.62733 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
46. Strine TW, Dube SR, Edwards VJ, Prehn AW, Rasmussen S, Wagenfeld M. Associations between adverse childhood experiences, psychological distress, and adult alcohol problems. Am J Health Behav 2012; 36(3):408-23. doi: 10.5993/ajhb.36.3.11 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
47. Needle RH, Su SS, Doherty WJ. Divorce, remarriage, and adolescent substance use: a prospective longitudinal study. J Marriage Fam 1990; 52(1):157-69. doi: 10.2307/352847 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
48. Guastaferro K, Linden-Carmichael AN, Chiang SC. Association between child maltreatment and substance use disorder across emerging adulthood. Child Maltreat 2024; 29(2):340-9. doi: 10.1177/10775595231154545 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
49. Robertson AA, Dill PL, Husain J, Undesser C. Prevalence of mental illness and substance abuse disorders among incarcerated juvenile offenders in Mississippi. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 2004; 35(1):55-74. doi: 10.1023/b:chud.0000039320.40382.91 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
50. O’Gara JL, Calzada EJ, Kim SY. The father’s role in risk and resilience among Mexican-American adolescents. Am J Orthopsychiatry 2020; 90(1):70-7. doi: 10.1037/ort0000394 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
51. Wright MO, Crawford E, Del Castillo D. Childhood emotional maltreatment and later psychological distress among college students: the mediating role of maladaptive schemas. Child Abuse Negl 2009; 33(1):59-68. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.12.007 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
52. Villanueva L, Gomis-Pomares A. The cumulative and differential relation of adverse childhood experiences and substance use during emerging adulthood. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 2021; 52(3):420-9. doi: 10.1007/s10578-020-01029-x [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
53. Sharp SF, Peck BM, Hartsfield J. Childhood adversity and substance use of women prisoners: a general strain theory approach. J Crim Justice 2012; 40(3):202-11. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.01.003 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
54. Spinelli M, Lionetti F, Pastore M, Fasolo M. Parents’ stress and children’s psychological problems in families facing the COVID-19 outbreak in Italy. Front Psychol 2020; 11:1713. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01713 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
55. Shin SH, Edwards EM, Heeren T. Child abuse and neglect: relations to adolescent binge drinking in the national longitudinal study of Adolescent Health (AddHealth) Study. Addict Behav 2009; 34(3):277-80. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2008.10.023 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
56. Zuckerman M, Eysenck S, Eysenck HJ. Sensation seeking in England and America: cross-cultural, age, and sex comparisons. J Consult Clin Psychol 1978; 46(1):139-49. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.46.1.139 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
57. Al-Anani H. The relationship between parental abuse and psychological safety of the children at the city of Amman and the central valleys of Jordan. Int Educ Stud 2015; 8(1):46-58. doi: 10.5539/ies.v8n1p46 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
58. Zhang H, Zhao H. Changes in Chinese adolescent college students’ psychological security during 2004-2020: a cross-temporal meta-analysis. J Adolesc 2023; 95(4):631-46. doi: 10.1002/jad.12147 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
59. Kerr S, Penner F, Ilagan G, Choi-Kain L, Sharp C. Maternal interpersonal problems and attachment security in adolescent offspring. Borderline Personal Disord Emot Dysregul 2022; 9(1):18. doi: 10.1186/s40479-022-00188-8 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
60. Jessor R. Risk behavior in adolescence: a psychosocial framework for understanding and action. Dev Rev 1992; 12(4):374-90. doi: 10.1016/0273-2297(92)90014-s [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
61. Williams SK, Kelly FD. Relationships among involvement, attachment, and behavioral problems in adolescence: examining father’s influence. J Early Adolesc 2005; 25(2):168-96. doi: 10.1177/0272431604274178 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
62. Sussman S, Dent CW, Leu L. The one-year prospective prediction of substance abuse and dependence among high-risk adolescents. J Subst Abuse 2000; 12(4):373-86. doi: 10.1016/s0899-3289(01)00053-0 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
63. Kirkbride JB, Anglin DM, Colman I, Dykxhoorn J, Jones PB, Patalay P. The social determinants of mental health and disorder: evidence, prevention and recommendations. World Psychiatry 2024; 23(1):58-90. doi: 10.1002/wps.21160 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
64. Meng X, Fleury MJ, Xiang YT, Li M, D’Arcy C. Resilience and protective factors among people with a history of child maltreatment: a systematic review. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2018; 53(5):453-75. doi: 10.1007/s00127-018-1485-2 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
65. Goldstein AL, Faulkner B, Wekerle C. The relationship among internal resilience, smoking, alcohol use, and depression symptoms in emerging adults transitioning out of child welfare. Child Abuse Negl 2013; 37(1):22-32. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.08.007 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
66. Burt KB, Paysnick AA. Resilience in the transition to adulthood. Dev Psychopathol 2012; 24(2):493-505. doi: 10.1017/s0954579412000119 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
67. Shin SH, Wang X, Yoon SH, Cage JL, Kobulsky JM, Montemayor BN. Childhood maltreatment and alcohol-related problems in young adulthood: the protective role of parental warmth. Child Abuse Negl 2019; 98:104238. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104238 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
68. Yoon S, Dillard R, Pei F, McCarthy KS, Beaujolais B, Wang X. Defining resilience in maltreated children from the practitioners’ perspectives: a qualitative study. Child Abuse Negl 2020; 106:104516. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104516 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
69. Cicchetti D. Socioemotional, personality, and biological development: illustrations from a multilevel developmental psychopathology perspective on child maltreatment. Annu Rev Psychol 2016; 67:187-211. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033259 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
70. Mikulincer M, Shaver PR. Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics, and Change. Guilford Publications; 2010.
71. Khantzian EJ. The self-medication hypothesis of substance use disorders: a reconsideration and recent applications. Harv Rev Psychiatry 1997; 4(5):231-44. doi: 10.3109/10673229709030550 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]