Search

Background: 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., Method: 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., Results: 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., Conclusions: 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., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Impulsive personality traits are associated with cannabis problems. Person-Environment Transactions Theory suggests that highly impulsive individuals behave differently in certain contexts, however little research has focused on the context in which cannabis is used. Therefore, the current study tested whether impulsive traits moderated relations between cannabis use contexts (social vs. solitary) and cannabis problems., Method: In this cross-sectional study, college student who use cannabis (N = 435; 60.7% female) reported on their impulsive traits (i.e., negative urgency, positive urgency, premeditation, perseverance, and sensation seeking), typical cannabis use context (i.e., alone, with friends), typical cannabis use frequency, and past 30-day cannabis problems., Results: Both solitary cannabis use and negative urgency were associated with more cannabis problems. There were significant interactions between negative urgency and solitary cannabis use and lack of perseverance and solitary cannabis use, such that high and mean (but not low) levels of both negative urgency and lack of perseverance were associated with more cannabis problems the more frequently an individual used cannabis alone. There was also a significant interaction between sensation seeking and social cannabis use, such that high and mean (but not low) levels of sensation seeking were associated with cannabis problems for individuals who used cannabis more socially., Conclusions: Findings suggest that impulsivity may potentiate risk for cannabis problems depending on the context in which cannabis is used. Prevention efforts may benefit from targeting protective strategy use in certain cannabis use contexts based upon an individual's personality traits., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. This study was supported by grant F31-AA030167 (PI: Jack T. Waddell) from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Theoretical models of addictive behavior suggest that subjective effects serve as a mechanism through which substance use disorders develop. However, little is known about the subjective effects of simultaneous alcohol and cannabis use, particularly whether simultaneous use (a) heightens specific subjective effects or (b) is related to unique subjective effects relative to single-substance effects. The present study used formative, qualitative data analysis to examine patterns of responses within open-answer text response data on subjective effects of simultaneous use., Method: College students who simultaneously use alcohol and cannabis ( N = 443; 68.2% female) were asked to describe how alcohol effects differ on simultaneous alcohol and cannabis use versus alcohol-only use days., Results: Conventional content analysis revealed nine concepts related to simultaneous (vs. alcohol-only) use subjective effects including as follows: (a) increased/decreased impairment, (b) low arousal/relaxation, (c) balancing/replacement effects, (d) "cross-faded" effects, (e) little-to-no differences, (f) altered sensation and perception, (g) increased negative affective states, (h) increased appetite, and (i) increased/decreased negative consequences. Increased impairment ( N = 191) and increased relaxation ( N = 110) were the most often endorsed subjective effects, followed by decreased impairment (N = 55), balancing/replacement effects ( N = 50) and cross-faded/enhancement effects ( N = 44)., Conclusions: Subjective effects from simultaneous use largely map onto domains of single-substance alcohol and cannabis effects (e.g., relaxation, sociability, cognitive/behavioral impairment), but also include distinct domains related to simultaneous use (e.g., balancing/replacement effects, altered sensation and perception). Future quantitative research is needed to validate measures of subjective effects from simultaneous use and their relations with use behavior. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).