Search

Introduction: Solitary drinking (i.e., drinking alone) and coping drinking motives are risk factors for alcohol problems. Theoretical models suggest that solitary drinking and coping motives are highly related. However, the direction of effects between solitary drinking and coping motives is unclear. It also remains unclear if relations are present solely at the between-person level, or if there are also dynamic, within-person relations. Therefore, the current study tested dynamic, reciprocal relations among solitary drinking, coping motives, and alcohol problems using Random Intercept Cross Lagged Panel Modeling (RI-CLPM).Methods: Data came from a large alcohol administration study with longitudinal follow-ups over 2 years (N = 448). Participants completed a baseline session and then were followed up 6, 12, 18, and 24 months later. Participants reported their solitary drinking frequency, coping motives, drinking behavior, and alcohol problems at all assessments.Results: Person-level solitary drinking was related to person-level coping motives and alcohol problems, and person-level coping motives were related to person-level alcohol problems. There were also contemporaneous within-person effects, such that a within-person increase in solitary drinking was associated with a concurrent within-person increase in coping motives, and a within-person increase in coping motives was associated with a concurrent within-person increase in alcohol problems. There were no within-person prospective relations among any variables.Conclusions: Findings suggest strong between-person associations among solitary drinking, coping motives, and alcohol problems. Within-person associations were concurrent but not prospective. Targeting solitary and coping-motivated drinkers, as well within-person increases in both, may be effective at reducing risk for alcohol problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Negative urgency was prospectively associated with depression, anxiety, and stress. • Lack of premeditation was prospectively associated with heavier drinking. • Heavier drinking, depression, and anxiety were prospectively associated with alcohol problems. • Different impulsive traits demonstrated different mechanisms toward alcohol problems. • Interventions should consider personality traits when treatment planning. 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 age = 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]