پیش بینی انگیزه های نوشیدن با حوزه های پنج عامل بزرگ شخصیتی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|34181||2004||14 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 37, Issue 5, October 2004, Pages 971–984
Relations between the Big-Five personality domains and motivations for drinking alcohol were examined. Young adult drinkers (n=581) completed the Drinking Motives Questionnaire-Revised and the 100-item International Personality Item Pool questionnaire measuring the Big-Five personality domains. Multiple regression analyses revealed that personality domains predicted both external (Conformity and Social), and particularly, internal (Coping and Enhancement) drinking motives after controlling for usual weekly drinking levels, demographic variables and overlap between drinking motives. Replicating previous findings with the NEO personality scales, Coping motives were predicted by low Emotional Stability, and Enhancement motives were predicted by high Extraversion and low Conscientiousness. Additional relations not previously documented with the NEO personality scales were observed between personality domains and drinking motives (e.g., low Extraversion predicted Coping motives, and high Intellect/Imagination and low Agreeableness predicted Enhancement motives). Thus, converging evidence suggests the presence of personality vulnerability factors associated with risky internal reasons for drinking.
The particular reasons or “motives” one has for drinking alcohol relate to patterns of alcohol use and abuse (Cooper, 1994). Discerning the desired outcomes one expects to obtain from drinking may inform the situations in which one is likely to drink, how much one might drink, and the particular negative consequences of one’s drinking. This knowledge may in turn guide interventions for problem drinkers. Expanding upon Cox and Klinger’s (1988) suggestion that drinking motives may stem from expectations of affective change (e.g., increase in positive affect or decrease in negative affect), Cooper (1994) developed a model to describe four distinct reasons for drinking. The model consists of “internal” motives to increase positive affect (“Enhancement Motives”) and reduce/avoid negative affect (“Coping Motives”) (cf. Cox and Klinger, 1988 and Cox and Klinger, 1990) as well as “external” motives to improve social gatherings (“Social Motives”) and reduce/avoid social rejection (“Conformity Motives”). These motives can also be classified as either positively reinforcing (Enhancement and Social Motives) or negatively reinforcing (Coping and Conformity). Research has demonstrated that these four motives predict different patterns of alcohol use, some of which may place individuals at risk for problem drinking (Carey & Correia, 1997; Carrigan, Samoluk, & Stewart, 1998; Cooper, Russell, Skinner, & Windle, 1992; Stewart & Chambers, 2000). Enhancement Motives predict drinking among same-sex friends, where heavy consumption of alcohol is customary or encouraged (Cooper, 1994). In fact, Enhancement Motives predict increased drinking problems––a relationship owing to the heavier drinking behaviour of Enhancement drinkers (Cooper, 1994). In contrast, negative reinforcement motives (Coping and Conformity) have been shown to predict drinking problems independent of heavy consumption (Cooper, 1994). Drinking to reduce or avoid negative states or situations may create a dependence on alcohol to cope, which could account for the direct association of the negative reinforcement motives with alcohol problems. Finally, Social Motives are associated with light drinking at social gatherings and celebrations, and have been found to be unrelated to problem drinking (Cooper et al., 1992). Cox and Klinger (1988) suggested that drinking motives might be the proximal antecedents of alcohol use, whereas other variables, such as personality factors, influence alcohol use by way of their association with drinking motives. Much research supports a link between certain personality traits and risky drinking behaviour (Cooper, Agocha, & Sheldon, 2000; Loukas, Krull, Chassin, & Carle, 2000; Stewart, Loughlin, & Rhyno, 2001; Stewart, Zvolensky, & Eifert, 2001). For example, sensation seeking (excitement and novelty seeking) and impulsivity predict frequency and amount of alcohol consumption (Grau & Ortet, 1999) and are related to risky drinking behaviours (Conrod, Pihl, Stewart, & Dongier, 2000; Sher, Bartholow, & Wood, 2000; Zuckerman & Kuhlman, 2000). Anxiety-related constructs have also been linked to problem drinking. Stewart, Zvolensky, et al. (2001) found that university students high in anxiety sensitivity (fear of anxiety symptoms) drank more often, and drank to excess more frequently, than low and moderate anxiety sensitive individuals. In addition, Sher et al. (2000) linked substance-use disorders to the anxiety-related constructs of neuroticism and harm avoidance. Different drinking motives may mediate these pathways from personality traits to alcohol use and abuse (see Cooper, 1994; Cox & Klinger, 1988). One important step in demonstrating such a mediating role for drinking motives is establishing a link between relevant personality traits and certain drinking motives. Research has shown that the negative reinforcement motives (Coping and Conformity) are predicted by anxiety-related constructs (Stewart & Zeitlin, 1995) and mediate the relationship between anxiety sensitivity and heavy drinking behaviour (Stewart, Zvolensky, et al., 2001). In addition, Enhancement motives are predicted by sensation seeking (Comeau, Stewart, & Loba, 2001; Cooper, Frone, Russell, & Mudar, 1995) and mediate the relationship between sensation seeking and alcohol use (Cooper et al., 1995). Stewart and Devine (2000) employed the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) to explore the connection between drinking motives and the Five-Factor model of personality. This well-accepted model of personality encompasses five robust personality dimensions or “domains”: (1) Neuroticism (tendency to experience negative affect); (2) Extraversion (gregariousness, excitement-seeking); (3) Agreeableness (helpfulness, compassion); (4) Conscientiousness (dependability, responsibility); and (5) Openness-to-Experience (adventurousness, broad-mindedness). In the Stewart and Devine (2000) study, multiple regression analyses revealed that personality traits predicted internal drinking motives (Coping and Enhancement) but not external drinking motives (Conformity and Social). This pattern of findings supports Cooper’s (1994) argument that personality may be more relevant to internal motives than external motives because the former are more stable over time and less context-dependent. In addition, Stewart and Devine found that high Neuroticism predicted Coping motives, suggesting that individuals who have a tendency to experience negative feelings may be more likely than others to use alcohol to dampen or avoid these feelings. Enhancement motives were predicted by high Extraversion and low Conscientiousness. These individuals may also be prone to sensation seeking behaviours (Zuckerman, Kuhlman, Joireman, Teta, & Kraft, 1993), which may render them more likely than others to drink to enhance positive mood. Using an alternative measure of the five-factor model––the NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI)––Stewart, Loughlin, et al. (2001) also found that Coping motives were predicted by high Neuroticism, and that low Conscientiousness again predicted Enhancement motives. Contrary to the finding of Stewart and Devine (2000), however, Enhancement motives were also predicted by low Neuroticism (rather than high Extraversion). The discrepancy between these two studies may be explained by differences in the Extraversion items of the NEO-PI-R and the shorter NEO-FFI (see Stewart, Loughlin, et al., 2001). Stewart and Devine (2000) had also theorized that high Openness (adventurousness, preference for variety) on the NEO-PI-R would predict increased levels of Enhancement-motivated alcohol use. However, the results of neither study (i.e., Stewart & Devine, 2000; Stewart, Loughlin, et al., 2001) supported this original hypothesis. Several authors have raised concerns about the Openness domain of the NEO personality scales, criticizing the techniques used to derive the factor (Block, 1995; McKenzie, 1998), the reliability of Openness scores across studies (Caruso, 2000), and the validity of Openness as a personality construct (Goldberg, 1994). Thus, the failure to support the expected relation between Openness and Enhancement drinking in the aforementioned studies (Stewart & Devine, 2000; Stewart et al., 2001) may be attributable to the problematic conceptualization and measurement of the Openness personality domain on the NEO scales. The present study employed the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP; Goldberg, 1999), to further examine the relationship between personality domains and drinking motives. The IPIP is a relatively new personality inventory, consisting of a large pool of statements that can be sampled to tap several different theories of personality. The 100-item version of the IPIP measuring the Big-Five model of personality (Goldberg, 1992) was used in the present study. The Big-Five model is theoretically distinct from the Five-Factor model (see Goldberg, 1994; McCrae, 1994), yet the two models comprise similar factors. The Big-Five personality domains are: (1) Emotional Stability (the opposite of Neuroticism); (2) Extraversion; (3) Agreeableness; (4) Conscientiousness; and (5) Intellect/Imagination (ability for abstract thought, desire for intellectual stimulation). Goldberg (1997) reported that Emotional Stability, Extraversion and Conscientiousness were highly correlated with their corresponding Five-Factor personality domain, whereas the overlap between Agreeableness in each model and the overlap between Intellect/Imagination and Openness on the IPIP and NEO-PI-R, respectively, were modest. The present study sought to replicate and extend the findings of Stewart and Devine (2000) and Stewart, Loughlin, et al. (2001) using the version of the IPIP representative of the Big-Five personality model. Specifically, we anticipated that despite the change in personality assessment tool, low Emotional Stability would predict Coping motives and high Extraversion (or possibly high Emotional Stability) and low Conscientiousness would independently predict Enhancement motives in multiple regression analysis. We also anticipated that high scores on the Intellect/Imagination domain of the IPIP would prove an independent personality predictor of Enhancement drinking motives. Personality domains were expected to be unrelated to the external Conformity and Social motives.