The dimensionality of impulsivity: Perspectives and implications for emerging adult drinking.

Stamates, Amy L.; Lau‐Barraco, Cathy

doi:10.1037/pha0000153

Cited by 37 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 91 publications

(276 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Guided by theory (Horvath & Zuckerman, 1993;Zuckerman, 2007), sensation seeking may be relevant for SAM use for a couple of reasons. First, young adult sensation seekers are generally drawn toward engaging in higher levels of substance use, as substances can fulfill their need for stimulation (Adams, Kasier, Lynam, Charnigo, & Milich, 2012;Stamates & Lau-Barraco, 2017;Stautz & Cooper, 2013). Importantly, when using alcohol and marijuana together, the effects of one substance can intensify the effects of the other (Downey et al, 2013); thus, this drug combination may be particularly reinforcing for sensation seekers.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and Marijuana: Patterns and Individual Differences

Linden-Carmichael

Stamates

Lau‐Barraco

2019

Substance Use & Misuse

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Simultaneous alcohol and marijuana (SAM) use, or using alcohol and marijuana in such a way that their effects overlap, is associated with negative health and behavioral outcomes. Objectives: Our study sought to fill gaps in our knowledge on this emerging public health concern by comparing SAM users and alcohol-only users on individual-level factors and substance use outcomes as well as examining associations of SAM use frequency, within users. Methods: Participants were recruited through online postings. Our analytic sample consisted of 1,017 young adults (18-25 years) who reported past-month alcohol use. Most were male (67.8%), Caucasian (71.5%), and had attended at least some college (74.8%). Results: Past-year SAM users reported higher levels of sensation seeking and greater perceptions of their close friends' drinking behavior in comparison to alcohol-only users. SAM users reported heavier and more frequent alcohol use than alcohol-only users. Within past-year SAM users, 70% reported SAM use at least weekly. More frequent SAM use was associated with all alcohol use outcomes (e.g., weekly quantity, frequency, alcohol-related problems) and marijuana use outcomes (e.g., quantity, frequency, peak use) and higher drinking norms. Conclusions/Importance: It is clear that SAM users are a vulnerable sub-population of young adult drinkers. SAM users are differentiated from alcohol-only users in terms of their personality characteristics and perceptions of peer groups' drinking. SAM users and more frequent users are also at heightened risk for substance use outcomes. Prevention and intervention efforts targeting high-risk drinking may benefit from also assessing whether they simultaneously use alcohol and marijuana.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and Marijuana: Patterns and Individual Differences

Linden-Carmichael

Stamates

Lau‐Barraco

2019

Substance Use & Misuse

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The outcome of comparing two groups differing in drinking habits, however, may depend on the selection criteria and may potentially be hampered by confounding. Excessive heavy drinking is usually accompanied by impulsive behaviors, risk-seeking behavior [36], and other traits [16] that may confound the association between alcohol consumption and cognitive performance. Some authors suggest that impaired cognitive performance may partly predict excessive alcohol consumption, whereas excessive alcohol consumption does not always predict impaired cognitive functioning [37].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alcohol Consumption, Drinking Patterns, and Cognitive Performance in Young Adults: A Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Analysis

Hendriks¹,

Rest

Snippe

et al. 2020

Nutrients

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Long-term alcohol abuse is associated with poorer cognitive performance. However, the associations between light and moderate drinking and cognitive performance are less clear. We assessed this association via cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses in a sample of 702 Dutch students. At baseline, alcohol consumption was assessed using questionnaires and ecological momentary assessment (EMA) across four weeks (‘Wave 1’). Subsequently, cognitive performance, including memory, planning, and reasoning, was assessed at home using six standard cognition tests presented through an online platform. A year later, 436 students completed the four weeks of EMA and online cognitive testing (‘Wave 2’). In both waves, there was no association between alcohol consumption and cognitive performance. Further, alcohol consumption during Wave 1 was not related to cognitive performance at Wave 2. In addition, EMA-data-based drinking patterns, which varied widely between persons but were relatively consistent over time within persons, were also not associated with cognitive performance. Post-hoc analyses of cognitive performance revealed higher within-person variance scores (from Wave 1 to Wave 2) than between-person variance scores (both Wave 1 and Wave 2). In conclusion, no association was observed between alcohol consumption and cognitive performance in a large Dutch student sample. However, the online cognitive tests performed at home may not have been sensitive enough to pick up differences in cognitive performance associated with alcohol consumption.

show abstract

“…State impulsivity generally reflects impulsive behavior in situ that is typically assessed behaviorally on computerized tasks (e.g., stop-signal task, go/no-go tasks) with performance varying over time (see Dick et al 2010 for review). Thus, these measures of state impulsivity may be able to capture within-individual changes over time, but it is important to note behavioral measures of impulsivity have been utilized at the trait-level as well (see Stamates and Lau-Barraco 2017). Although state models are beneficial for capturing a “snapshot of behavior” (Cyders and Coskunpinar 2011), they could lack ecological validity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given this prior work, examining how daily impulsivity relates to hazardous drinking behaviors (i.e., binge drinking, intentions to drink, problems) in addition to testing moderators of these relationships may elucidate impulsivity’s role in daily drinking patterns. Further, given that associations between various aspects of impulsivity and alcohol use have been found in adolescents (e.g., see Stautz and Cooper 2014 for review), college-attending emerging adults (e.g., see King et al 2014; Stamates and Lau-Barraco 2017 for reviews), and treatment-seeking adults (e.g., see Loree et al 2014; Stevens et al 2014 for reviews), the present study examined how these factors relate among nonstudent young adults, an understudied population also at-risk for high-risk drinking and problems (e.g., Harford et al 2006; White et al 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing daily associations between impulsivity, affect, and alcohol outcomes: a pilot study

Stamates

Linden-Carmichael

Preonas

et al. 2018

Addiction Research & Theory

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Considerable research has examined impulsivity between individuals, but less research has focused on whether impulsivity fluctuates within a person. Although previous research supports trait levels of impulsivity as a risk factor for increased alcohol involvement, it is unclear whether daily (i.e., state) fluctuations in impulsivity coincide with same-day drinking behaviors. The present pilot study tested (1) the extent to which impulsivity fluctuates within-person; (2) the influence of daily impulsivity on alcohol use outcomes across all days (i.e., whether drinking occurred, the number of drinks consumed, and intentions to drink) and on drinking days only (i.e., whether heavy episodic drinking occurred and the number of problems experienced); and (3) daily affect as moderators of these relationships. Method: Participants were 24 young adult drinkers without postsecondary education who completed a baseline plus 14 follow-up daily surveys. Each day, participants reported their impulsivity, affect, and drinking behavior. Results: Multilevel modeling revealed that 42.5% of the variability in daily impulsivity was due to within-person differences. Impulsivity was related to greater odds of heavy episodic drinking and more alcohol-related problems on drinking days. Positive affect moderated the relationship between impulsivity and alcohol-related problems, and the relationship between impulsivity and drinking intentions. Conclusions: Findings suggest that changes in positive affect and impulsivity may be a risk factor for alcohol problems in a daily context. Future research examining within-person impulsivity and negative outcomes may benefit from considering positive affect.

show abstract

The dimensionality of impulsivity: Perspectives and implications for emerging adult drinking.

Cited by 37 publications

References 91 publications

Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and Marijuana: Patterns and Individual Differences

Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and Marijuana: Patterns and Individual Differences

Alcohol Consumption, Drinking Patterns, and Cognitive Performance in Young Adults: A Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Analysis

Testing daily associations between impulsivity, affect, and alcohol outcomes: a pilot study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About