Arizona State University, Department of Psychology, 900 S McAllister, Tempe, AZ 85287-1104, USA.
Arizona State University, Department of Psychology, 900 S McAllister, Tempe, AZ 85287-1104, USA.
Addict Behav. 2024 Jul;154:108019. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2024.108019. Epub 2024 Mar 17.
Impulsive personality traits are strong, consistent risk factors for heavy drinking, and modern theories suggest that impulsive traits may also confer risk for internalizing symptoms. However, it remains unclear which specific impulsive traits are linked with heavy drinking versus internalizing symptoms, and whether heavy drinking and internalizing symptoms are mechanisms of risk for negative alcohol consequences in impulsive individuals.
Data are from a longitudinal study of young adults (N = 448, M = 22.27, 43.5 % female) assessed at baseline (T1), 6 months (T2), and one year later (T3). Longitudinal path models tested whether T1 impulsive traits (i.e., lack of premeditation, lack of perseverance, sensation seeking, positive urgency, negative urgency) were indirectly associated with T3 negative alcohol consequences through heavy T2 drinking and T2 internalizing symptoms (i.e., depression, anxiety, stress). Separate models were tested for positive and negative urgency given strong correlations between these measures.
Across models, T1 lack of premeditation indirectly predicted more T3 negative alcohol consequences through heavy T2 drinking. When tested separately, T1 negative urgency indirectly predicted more T3 negative consequences through higher T2 stress and depressive (but not anxiety) symptoms, and T1 positive urgency predicted higher T2 anxiety symptoms, but T2 anxiety was unrelated to T3 negative consequences. Across models, T1 sensation seeking indirectly predicted less T3 negative consequences through decreased T2 depression.
Distinct impulsive traits prospectively predicted heavy drinking and internalizing symptoms, both of which conferred risk for negative alcohol consequences. Findings underscore the importance of targeted interventions based on personality and suggest that decreases in drinking may be more effective prevention for those who lack premeditation, whereas decreases in internalizing, particularly depression/stress, may be critical for those high in negative urgency.
冲动人格特质是大量饮酒的强烈、一致的风险因素，现代理论表明，冲动特质也可能导致内化症状的风险。然而，目前尚不清楚哪些特定的冲动特质与大量饮酒和内化症状有关，以及大量饮酒和内化症状是否是冲动个体产生负面酒精后果的风险机制。
数据来自一项对年轻成年人（N=448，M=22.27，43.5%为女性）的纵向研究，在基线（T1）、6 个月（T2）和一年后（T3）进行评估。纵向路径模型检验了 T1 冲动特质（即缺乏计划性、缺乏毅力、寻求刺激、积极冲动、消极冲动）是否通过 T2 大量饮酒和 T2 内化症状（即抑郁、焦虑、压力）间接与 T3 负面酒精后果相关。鉴于这些措施之间存在很强的相关性，因此分别测试了积极和消极冲动的模型。
在所有模型中，T1 缺乏计划性通过 T2 大量饮酒间接预测了更多的 T3 负面酒精后果。当分别测试时，T1 消极冲动通过更高的 T2 压力和抑郁（但不是焦虑）症状间接预测了更多的 T3 负面后果，而 T1 积极冲动预测了更高的 T2 焦虑症状，但 T2 焦虑与 T3 负面后果无关。在所有模型中，T1 寻求刺激通过降低 T2 抑郁间接预测了较少的 T3 负面后果。
不同的冲动特质前瞻性地预测了大量饮酒和内化症状，两者都增加了负面酒精后果的风险。研究结果强调了基于人格的有针对性干预的重要性，并表明对于缺乏计划性的人来说，减少饮酒可能是更有效的预防措施，而对于消极冲动的人来说，减少内化症状，特别是抑郁/压力，可能是关键。
