Relationship between personality traits and attachment styles with metacognitive beliefs in substance abusers and normal people

Document Type : Research Paper


1 Department of psychology, Zahedan branch, Islamic azad university, zahedan, Iran

2 PhD student of Psychology, Zahedan Islamic Azad University, Zahedan, Iran


Introduction: Given that people with drug abuse have become one of the most important and widespread concerns of human societies today, it is becoming increasingly common for people with drug abuse to become familiar with personality traits. They can provide prevention and treatment for these people in the community, so this study aimed to compare personality traits, attachment styles, and metacognitive beliefs in substance abusers and normal people.
Methods: The method of this study is descriptive-analytic-causal-comparative. The sample consisted of 150 individuals, 75 normal people and 75 addicts who were selected by convenience and non-random sampling by referring to addiction treatment clinics. Measurement tools included the Five-Factor Personality Inventory (NEOPI-FF), the Collins and Reed Attachment Questionnaire (1990), and the Wright-Hutton & Wells Card Metacognition Questionnaire (1997). Independent T-test and Pearson correlation were used for data analysis.
Results: Findings of the study showed that the two dimensions of cognitive and uncontrollable thoughts were significantly different from the five dimensions of cognition in the two groups. . There was also a significant relationship between ambivalent insecure attachment style and neurotic personality traits and agreeableness.
Conclusion: Overall, the results showed a significant difference between personality traits, attachment styles and metacognitive beliefs in substance abusers and normal people.


1.Boldrini A, Scaramuzzo R. T, Cuttano A. (2013). Errors in Neonatology. Journal of Pediatric and Neonatal Individualized Medicine 2013;2(2):e020230doi: 10.7363/020230
2.Elwyn G, Lloyd A, May C, van der Weijden T, Stiggelbout A, Edwards A, &Epstein R. Collaborative deliberation: A model for patient care. Patient Education & Counseling2014, 97, 158–164. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2014.07.027.
3.Chone  P, Musson D. Individual factors in patient safety. In: Croskerry P, Cosby KS, Schenkel S, Wears R, editors. Patient Safety in Emergency Medicine. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2008. pp, 269–76.
4.  Cosby P, Graber K, Hardeep Singh H. Diagnosis: Interpreting the Shadows 1st Edition. CRC Press 2017,147
5.Boldrini A, Scaramuzzo R. T, Cuttano A. Errors in Neonatology. Journal of Pediatric and Neonatal Individualized Medicine 2013;2(2):e020230.
6. Croskerry P . Clinical cognition and diagnostic error: applications of a dual process theory of reasoning. Adv Health SciEduc Theory Pract 2009; 14:27–35.
7.Epstein R. M. Whole mind and shared mind in clinical decision-making.Patient Education &Counseling 2013; 90, 200–206.
8.O'Sullivan E. D, Schofield S. J. (2018).Cognitive bias in clinical medicine.The journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburg 2018; 48(3), 225-232.
9.Lippa K. D, Feufel M. A, Robinson f. E, Shalin V. L. Navigating the Decision Space: Shared Medical Decision Making as Distributed Cognition 2016.
10.Levy P. S, Stolte K. Statistical methods in public health and epidemiology: a look at the recent past and projections for the next decade. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 2000; 9: 41-55.
National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. Improving Diagnosisin Health Care. Washington, DC: National Academies Press 2015.
15.Norman G. R, Monteiro S. D, Sherbino J, Ilgen J. S, Schmidt H. G, Mamede S. The Causes of Errors in Clinical Reasoning:Cognitive Biases, Knowledge Deficits, andDual Process Thinking. Journal of Academic Medicine 2017.92 (1):23-30.
16.Saposnik G, Redelmeier D, Ruff C, Tobler P. (2016). Cognitive biases associated with medical decisions: a systematic review. Saposnik et al. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2016; 16:138.
17.Singh H, Thomas E. J, Khan M. M, Petersen L. A. Identifying diagnostic errors in primary care using an electronic screening algorithm. Arch Intern Med 2007; 167: 302–308.
18.Starcke, K., & Brand, M. (2012). Decision making under stress: a selective review. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Review 2007; 36: 1228-48.
19.Wegwarth O, Gaissmaier W, Gigerenzer G. (2009). Smart strategies for doctors and doctors-in-training: heuristics in medicine. Medicine and Education 2009; 43: 721–728.
20.Yardley I. E, Yardley S. J, Wu A. W. (2010). How to discuss errors and adverse events withcancer patients. Current oncology reports 2010; 12(4): 253-260 .