Internal drinking motives mediate personality domain — drinking relations in young adults

Abstract

The present study was conducted in an attempt to replicate previous findings regarding relations between personality domains in the five-factor model of personality and drinking motives, and to examine the potential mediating role of the internal drinking motives in explaining hypothesized relations between personality variables and drinking quantity/drinking problems. A sample of 154 university student drinkers completed the NEO five factor inventory, the revised drinking motives questionnaire, and measures of drinking quantity and alcohol-related problems. Multiple regressions indicated that the two internal drinking motives (coping and enhancement) were predicted by personality domains information, whereas the two external drinking motives (conformity and social) were not. Coping motives were significantly predicted by high neuroticism, whereas enhancement motives were significantly predicted by a combination of low conscientiousness and low neuroticism. Mediator regression analyses demonstrated that coping motives partially mediated the relation between high neuroticism and increased drinking problems, whereas enhancement motives mediated the relation between low conscientiousness and increased drinking quantity. Implications of the findings for prevention of heavy drinking and drinking problems in young adults are discussed.

Introduction

‘Drinking motives’ refer to the basic psychological motivations underlying individuals’ alcohol use behavior (Cooper, 1994). Drinking motives have been suggested as the final common pathway to alcohol use/abuse, through which other risk factors (e.g., personality) exert their influences on drinking behavior and drinking-related outcomes (e.g., Cox & Klinger, 1988).

Cox and Klinger, 1988, Cox and Klinger, 1990) suggest that motivations for drinking arise from expectations of affective change from drinking (e.g., increases in positive affect, decreases in negative affect). Expanding upon Cox and Klinger’s work, Cooper (1994) proposed a 2×2 (valence×source) model of drinking motives where the two dimensions refer to characteristics of the outcomes desired from drinking. With respect to ‘valence’, an individual might drink alcohol in order to increase a positive outcome or to avoid/reduce a negative outcome. With respect to ‘source’, an individual might drink alcohol to obtain a rewarding internal outcome (e.g., affective change) or a rewarding external outcome (e.g., social reward). Crossing the two dimensions yields four categories of motives: (a) internal, positive motives (to increase positive affect); (b) external, positive motives (to increase affiliation); (c) internal, negative motives (to decrease negative affect); and (d) external, negative motives (to avoid social rejection). Cooper refers to these motives as enhancement, social, coping, and conformity motives, respectively.

These different motives predict unique aspects of drinking behavior (e.g., Carey and Correia, 1997, Cooper, 1994, Cooper et al., 1992, Simons et al., 1998). For example, the two internal motives predict heavy alcohol use, whereas the two negative motives directly predict alcohol problems, even after controlling for drinking levels. Although enhancement motives are also related to alcohol problems, this relation is accounted for by enhancement motives’ strong association with heavy drinking.

Several researchers have suggested that different types of individuals should desire different outcomes from drinking and that personality variables should therefore be related to drinking motives. For example, Cooper (1994) suggested that the drinking behavior of internally motivated drinkers (i.e., enhancement and coping drinkers) reflects internal needs that are unlikely to vary across situations. She speculated that the drinking behavior of internally motivated drinkers should thus be tied to personality characteristics more so than drinking behavior of externally motivated drinkers (i.e., social and conformity drinkers).

A few recent studies have established connections between drinking motives and personality variables. Levels of excitement seeking (i.e., the tendency to be adventurous and to prefer excitement and novelty) are significantly correlated with enhancement motives, but unrelated to coping motives (Cooper, Frone, Russell & Mudar, 1995). Stewart and Zeitlin (1995) showed that levels oftrait anxiety (i.e., the tendency to experience anxiety under stress) and anxiety sensitivity (i.e., fear of anxiety-related sensations) were independent predictors of coping motives, but were unrelated to enhancement or social motives (cf. Conrod et al., 1998, Stewart et al., 1997).

More recently, researchers have examined relations between the various drinking motives in Cooper’s (1994) model and the various components of a comprehensive model of personality. The five-factor model of personality encompasses five robust personality constructs reflecting the super-ordinate structure of personality (Digman, 1990). The five personality domains in this model are as follows: (1) neuroticism (the tendency to experience negative affect); (2) extraversion (gregariousness, excitement seeking); (3) openness (curiosity, need for variety in actions); (4) Agreeableness (emotional support, helpfulness); and (5) conscientiousness (will to achieve, responsibility).

Stewart and Devine (2000) conducted a study with the goal of placing Cooper’s (1994) four drinking motives within the context of the five-factor model of personality. A large sample of undergraduate university student drinkers completed the revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) as well as the revised drinking motives questionnaire (DMQ-R; Cooper, 1994). Multiple regression analyses were conducted in which the block of five personality domains served as predictors, and a statistically pure (i.e., residualized) measure of each drinking motive served as the criterion. Consistent with Cooper’s (1994) predictions, personality domains served as significant predictors of the two internal motives (coping and enhancement), whereas personality domains failed to significantly predict the external motives (social and conformity). Coping motives were significantly predicted by high neuroticism, and enhancement motives by high extraversion (cf. Eysenck and Eysenck, 1985, Gray, 1982). Low conscientiousness also proved an independent predictor of enhancement motives scores.

It is important to investigate relations between personality and drinking motives since prior research demonstrates associations between certain personality variables and both drinking levels and alcohol-related problems (see reviews by Barnes, 1983, Cox, 1987, Lang, 1983). For example, personality characteristics within the extraversion domain (e.g., excitement seeking) and the conscientiousness domain (e.g., low achievement striving) are strongly predictive of heavy drinking among young adults (e.g., Cox, 1987, Schall et al., 1992). Previous studies have also shown that drinking problems are positively associated with personality characteristics falling within the five-factor model (Barnes, 1983, Cox, 1987, Lang, 1983). For example, Martin and Sher (1994) showed that high neuroticism, low conscientiousness, and low agreeableness are associated with alcohol problems.

Neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness may be linked to heavy and/or problem drinking by way of their associations with ‘risky’ drinking motives. Since Stewart and Devine (2000) failed to include measures of heavy drinking or alcohol-related problems, they were unable to test the hypothesized mediating role (Cooper, 1994) of these drinking motives in accounting for established relations between personality domains and heavy or problem drinking.

The present study had two main purposes. The first was to replicate Stewart and Devine’s (2000) findings using an alternative measure of the five-factor model of personality — namely the briefer NEO five factor inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992). We predicted that, despite the change in personality domain assessment tool, high neuroticism would predict coping motives, and high extraversion and low conscientiousness would predict enhancement motives, in multiple regression analyses (cf. Stewart & Devine, 2000). The second purpose was to empirically evaluate the hypothesized ‘mediating’ or intervening role of drinking motives in accounting for predicted relations between certain personality domains and drinking-related criterion measures. We hypothesized that coping motives would at least partially mediate the expected relation between neuroticism and drinking problems. We also hypothesized that enhancement motives would at least partially mediate the expected relations between high extraversion and low conscientiousness with increased heavy drinking.