MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073868214 · doi:10.1037/a0037244

Testing the four-factor model of personality vulnerability to alcohol misuse: A three-wave, one-year longitudinal study.

2014· article· en· W2073868214 on OpenAlexafffund
Sean P. Mackinnon, Ivy‐Lee L. Kehayes, Roderick Clark, Simon Sherry, Sherry H. Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology of Addictive Behaviors · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaDalhousie University
KeywordsImpulsivitySensation seekingPsychologyPersonalityAnxiety sensitivityAnxietyBig Five personality traitsCoping (psychology)Clinical psychologyAlcohol abuseConformityDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 4-factor model of personality vulnerability identifies 4 personality risk factors for alcohol misuse: hopelessness, anxiety sensitivity, impulsivity, and sensation seeking. These personality traits are associated with distinct mechanisms and motivations for alcohol misuse. Individuals high in hopelessness drink to regulate dysphoric affect, while those high in anxiety sensitivity drink to reduce anxiety and to conform to peer expectations. Individuals high in sensation seeking are highly sensitive to the rewarding properties of alcohol, and misuse alcohol to maximize enjoyment. Impulsivity is a broad risk factor contributing to all drinking motives. We hypothesized that personality vulnerabilities would indirectly predict alcohol quantity and problems through specific drinking motives theorized by the 4-factor model. The present study tested hypotheses using a 3-wave, 1-year longitudinal study of undergraduate drinkers (N = 302). Data were analyzed using multilevel path analysis. Hopelessness and impulsivity were positively related to drinking motives in the expected fashion. Anxiety sensitivity was related to coping-anxiety and conformity motives only in the between-subjects model (partially supporting hypotheses), while sensation seeking was generally unrelated to all drinking motives and alcohol outcomes (failing to support hypotheses). Enhancement motives predicted alcohol quantity and problems at both levels, coping-depression motives predicted alcohol problems at the between-subjects level only, and coping-anxiety, conformity, and social motives failed to predict alcohol outcomes beyond other motives. Overall, this study partially supports the 4-factor model, with the strongest support emerging for impulsivity and hopelessness. This study suggests that personality traits such as impulsivity and hopelessness may be important targets in prevention and treatment with undergraduate drinkers.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.411
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.042 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations80
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology of Addictive BehaviorsSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207