4.5 Article

Key personality traits and alcohol use disorder symptoms in first and second year college students: detangling antecedent from consequence

期刊

ADDICTIVE BEHAVIORS
卷 89, 期 -, 页码 178-187

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.10.004

关键词

Alcohol use; College students; Constraint; Gender differences; Longitudinal research; Personality

资金

  1. Auburn University Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station Young Investigator Support Award [1006129]
  2. (USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Studies have consistently shown that low constraint and high negative emotionality are associated with higher levels of alcohol use and greater alcohol related problems. Less research has examined associations between these traits and alcohol use disorder (AUD) from the first to second year of college, when alcohol use increases rapidly, or has evaluated gender differences in these associations. Methods: The longitudinal College Experiences Study (N = 209, 60% female, 90% white) was used to detangle antecedent vs. consequence between constraint, negative emotionality, and AUD symptoms using multiple methods (cross-lagged panel analysis, latent difference score approach). Results: Providing evidence for a scar/complication model, greater AUD symptoms in the first year of college was predictive of rank-order and correlated decreases in constraint in the second year, but only for males. Surprisingly, negative emotionality was not associated with AUD symptoms for either gender. Qualitative analyses show that the vast majority of those that met an AUD diagnosis (90% +) did not consider their drinking to be problematic. Conclusion: Given the vast majority of college students with AUD do not perceive their drinking to be problematic, results support the potential of using personality-based risk prevention/intervention programs to target at-risk individuals for problematic drinking, rather than targeting problematic drinking alone.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据