Elsevier

Addictive Behaviors

Volume 84, September 2018, Pages 79-85
Addictive Behaviors

Social cognitive mediators of the relationship between impulsivity traits and adolescent alcohol use: Identifying unique targets for prevention

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.03.031Get rights and content

Highlights

  • The bSCT showed acceptable-to-good prospective fit across two adolescent cohorts.

  • Targeting impulsivity and self-efficacy may be effective for 13–15-year-olds.

  • Targeting alcohol expectancies and self-efficacy may benefit 11–13-year-olds.

  • Impulsivity had an increasing effect on alcohol use as adolescents aged.

  • Decreasing positive expectancies may provide a pathway to improving self-efficacy.

Introduction

Adolescent alcohol use is associated with alcohol related problems, including mortality (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2014; Geels et al., 2012; Keyes, Li, & Hasin, 2012). Due to the trajectory of alcohol use from adolescence to adulthood (Duncan, Duncan, & Strycker, 2006; Stoolmiller et al., 2012), prevention through identification and targeting of key risk factors is a commonly proposed solution to reducing alcohol-related harm. Consequently, there has been a push to identify modifiable psychological risk factors that predict alcohol use in adolescents.

Impulsivity is a strong predictor of adolescent alcohol use and problematic consumption (Moffitt et al., 2011; Stautz & Cooper, 2013; Stautz, Dinc, & Cooper, 2017). The adolescent developmental period is associated with increased impulsivity and sensitivity to reward due to rapid neurological changes which occur while the cognitive and emotional regulatory neurological systems are still developing (Gullo & Dawe, 2008; Steinberg, 2008). While there is debate over the structure of trait impulsivity, including the precise number of factors (Hamilton et al., 2015, Hamilton et al., 2016; Whiteside & Lynam, 2001), recent empirical studies (Sharma, Kohl, Morgan, & Clark, 2013; Stautz et al., 2017) and a theoretical review (Gullo, Loxton, & Dawe, 2014) implicate two factors of impulsivity as uniquely involved in substance use.

According to the 2-Component Approach to Reinforcing Substances model (2-CARS; Gullo & Dawe, 2008; Gullo, Dawe, Kambouropoulos, Staiger, & Jackson, 2010), impulsivity is composed of dual systems: one characterised by reward sensitivity and appetitive motivation, related to lower order mesolimbic dopamine systems (reward sensitivity/drive); and another characterised by difficulty inhibiting approach behaviour in light of negative future consequences, related to higher order prefrontal serotoninergic systems (“rash” impulsiveness; Gullo et al., 2014; Steinberg & Chein, 2015; Steinberg, 2008). Reward drive and rash impulsiveness create separate pathways of alcohol risk (Gullo, Ward, Dawe, Powell, & Jackson, 2011). Reward sensitive adolescents have a higher drive to seek the rewarding aspects of alcohol use, whereas rash impulsive adolescents may have a reduced capacity to inhibit the impulse to engage in drinking, end a drinking session, or to withdraw from drinking patterns once they are established (Dawe, Gullo, & Loxton, 2004).

Evidence from cross-sectional and prospective structural equation modeling analyses show that impulsivity traits have distinct and unique associations with alcohol-related cognition (i.e., adjusted effects); specifically, reward drive predicts increases in positive alcohol expectancies and rash impulsiveness predicts decreases in drinking-refusal self-efficacy (Connor, Gullo, Feeney, & Young, 2011; Gullo et al., 2010; Gullo & Dawe, 2008). Positive alcohol expectancies reflect an individual's positive beliefs about the outcomes of drinking. Adolescents, in particular, are driven by the expectations of social reward relating to alcohol use (Jester et al., 2015; Tomlinson & Brown, 2012). Drinking refusal self-efficacy pertains to an individual's belief in their ability to refrain from drinking alcohol in varying contexts (Oei & Baldwin, 1993). Both of these cognitive factors are robust predictors of hazardous alcohol use as well as earlier alcohol use onset (Connor, George, Gullo, Kelly, & Young, 2011; Ehret, Ghaidarov, & LaBrie, 2014; Morawska & Oei, 2005) and are of particular utility in alcohol naïve and adolescent populations as they can be derived from vicarious as well as direct experience (e.g., observing alcohol effects on parents; Bandura, 1977, Bandura, 1986).

The 2-CARS model has been expanded to include the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) risk factors, a model known as the bioSocial Cognitive Theory (bSCT) (Gullo et al., 2010). The bSCT theorises that the effects of rash impulsiveness and reward drive on drinking are, in part, mediated through positive alcohol expectancies and drinking refusal self-efficacy. Reward drive is hypothesised to produce a learning bias for the rewarding/positive outcomes of drinking, which then increases alcohol use and undermines drinking refusal self-efficacy. In contrast, rash impulsiveness' impact on alcohol misuse is thought to be mediated by reduced drinking refusal self-efficacy, which then increases alcohol misuse. That is, individuals who know they tend to act without considering the consequences of their actions may be less likely to believe they can refuse alcohol in a tempting situation. It is proposed that this creates a self-fulfilling prophecy that is reinforced when realised. Several studies now empirically support the bSCT model in a range of populations (Gullo, St. John, et al., 2014; Harnett, Lynch, Gullo, Dawe, & Loxton, 2013; Kabbani & Kambouropoulos, 2013; Leamy, Connor, Voisey, Young, & Gullo, 2016; Papinczak, Connor, Harnett, & Gullo, 2018).

While these studies have furthered the understanding of the mechanisms of impulsivity on alcohol use, no study has examined prospective mediation of impulsivity-related risk by cognition. Prospective analyses are pertinent for adolescent populations as recent evidence has shown the importance of considering developmental perspectives on substance use interventions (Onrust, Otten, Lammers, & Smit, 2016). Onrust et al. (2016) found in their systematic review and meta-regression analysis that characteristics of intervention programs had differing effects at different developmental stages. For example, teaching drinking refusal skills – a common prevention technique that presumably increases self-efficacy – actually increased alcohol use in early and mid-adolescents, and only reduced drinking for late adolescents.

This study prospectively examined the relationships between impulsivity, alcohol-related cognition, and growth in alcohol consumption and hazardous alcohol use in adolescents, controlling for family and community risk factors. Data were analyzed from 1911 Australian adolescents who took part in the International Youth Development Study (IYDS; McMorris, Hemphill, Toumbourou, Catalano, & Patton, 2007). The hypothesised model based on the bSCT is depicted in Fig. 1. It is hypothesised that (a) drinking refusal self-efficacy will mediate the relationship between rash impulsiveness and alcohol misuse, (b) positive alcohol expectancies will mediate the relationship between reward drive and alcohol misuse, and (c) drinking refusal self-efficacy will mediate the relationship between positive alcohol expectancies and alcohol misuse. It is also hypothesised that the older and younger cohorts will differ in the size but not direction of proposed effects. We expect that as adolescents progress from elementary to early-adolescence and early to mid-adolescence, the impact of drinking refusal self-efficacy will increase as their exposure to alcohol increases (i.e., stronger positive DRSE-alcohol association). We also expect that the older adolescents' positive expectations of alcohol use will increase as their perceptions of reward and social influence become more salient and appealing, consistent with stage-relevant developmental tasks and cognitive maturation (i.e., significantly larger positive slope on expectancy growth) (Onrust et al., 2016).

Section snippets

Participants

The current study utilised the first three time points for two Australian cohorts (N = 1911), Cohort 1 (younger cohort) and Cohort 2 (older cohort), from the International Youth Development Study (IYDS) (see Table 1 for participant information). The IYDS is an ongoing international longitudinal panel survey of three cohorts of Australian students (Grades 5, 7, and 9) in Victoria, Australia and Washington, the United States of America, obtained through two-stage cluster random sampling aimed at

Results

Sixty (3.14%) students were removed from the dataset based on negative responses to at least one of the honesty measures for each time point (e.g., reporting use of a fake illicit substance). After deletion, 1851 students remained. Missing data were imputed using the Expectation Maximisation method in SPSS (version 22).

Discussion

This large scale study (N = 1911) tested prospective mediation relationships between impulsivity and social cognitive risk factors for adolescent alcohol use. The hypothesised model was based on the bioSocial Cognitive Theory (bSCT) of substance use (Gullo et al., 2010). Results demonstrated the selective influence for reward drive and rash impulsiveness on the development of alcohol-related beliefs and adolescent drinking over two subsequent years.

Our findings show that pathways to alcohol use

Role of funding sources

Data collection for the International Youth Development Study has been supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01-DA012140-05), the Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Projects (DPO663371, DPO877359, DP1095744), and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) (Project 594793). The content of this paper is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding agencies. The funders had no input

Contributors

JW Toumbourou and RF Catalano designed and ran the IYDS. MJ Gullo, JP Connor, and KA Patton designed the present study and analyses. KA Patton wrote the manuscript. GCK Chan provided technical support. All authors revised and reviewed the manuscript. All authors approved of the final manuscript before submission.

Conflicts of interest

None to declare.

Acknowledgements

MJ Gullo was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Early Career Fellowship (1036365). JP Connor is supported by a NHMRC Career Development Fellowship (1031909). KA Patton was funded by a Research Training Program stipend.

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

References (52)

  • T.E. Leamy et al.

    Alcohol misuse in emerging adulthood: Association of dopamine and serotonin receptor genes with impulsivity-related cognition

    Addictive Behaviors

    (2016)
  • A. Morawska et al.

    Binge drinking in university students: A test of the cognitive model

    Addictive Behaviors

    (2005)
  • S.A. Onrust et al.

    School-based programmes to reduce and prevent substance use in different age groups: What works for whom? Systematic review and meta-regression analysis

    Clinical Psychology Review

    (2016)
  • Z.E. Papinczak et al.

    A biosocial cognitive model of cannabis use in emerging adulthood

    Addictive Behaviors

    (2018)
  • J.M. Robinson et al.

    When you see it, let it be: Urgency, mindfulness and adolescent substance use

    Addictive Behaviors

    (2014)
  • K. Stautz et al.

    Impulsivity-related personality traits and adolescent alcohol use: A meta-analytic review

    Clinical Psychology Review

    (2013)
  • L. Steinberg

    A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking

    Developmental Review

    (2008)
  • K.L. Tomlinson et al.

    Self-medication or social learning? A comparison of models to predict early adolescent drinking

    Addictive Behaviors

    (2012)
  • S.P. Whiteside et al.

    The five factor model and impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity

    Personality and Individual Differences

    (2001)
  • R.M. Young et al.

    Validation of the drinking refusal self-efficacy questionnaire-revised in an adolescent sample (DRSEQ-RA)

    Addictive Behaviors

    (2007)
  • Australian Institute of Health and Welfare

    National drug strategy household survey detailed report: 2013

    (2014)
  • A. Bandura

    Social learning theory

    (1977)
  • A. Bandura

    Social foundations of thought and action

    (1986)
  • J.P. Connor et al.

    A prospective study of alcohol expectancies and self-efficacy as predictors of young adolescent alcohol misuse

    Alcohol and Alcoholism

    (2011)
  • P.J. Ehret et al.

    Can you say no? Examining the relationship between drinking refusal self-efficacy and protective behavioral strategy use on alcohol outcomes

    Addictive Behaviors

    (2014)
  • L.M. Geels et al.

    Trends in adolescent alcohol use: Effects of age, sex and cohort on prevalence and heritability

    Addiction

    (2012)
  • Cited by (12)

    • Development of an individualized procedure to induce reward-related impulsivity and evaluating its impact on drinking control

      2022, Addictive Behaviors
      Citation Excerpt :

      Perhaps the most proximal social cognitive mechanism in alcohol consumption is confidence in the ability to refrain from drinking in cued situations, or drinking refusal self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986; Oei & Baldwin, 1994). Drinking refusal self-efficacy is a strong predictor of alcohol consumption and mediator of the effect of other risk factors (Connor, George, Gullo, Kelly, & Young, 2011; Jang, Rimal, & Cho, 2013; Jongenelis, Pettigrew, & Biagioni, 2018; Patton et al., 2018; Tabernero, Luque, & Cuadrado, 2019). It is also a therapeutic mechanism of change in effective alcohol treatment (Magill et al., 2020).

    • Additive effectiveness and feasibility of a theory-driven instant assessment and feedback system in brief cannabis intervention: A randomised controlled trial

      2021, Addictive Behaviors
      Citation Excerpt :

      Specifically, key factors from the bioSocial Cognitive Theory (bSCT) found to be predictive of motivation to seek treatment and treatment response were included, along with general markers of clinical interest (detailed further in Section 2.4.2). The bSCT proposes that biologically-based personality traits (reward sensitivity/drive and rash impulsiveness) and social cognition (drug outcome expectancies and drug refusal self-efficacy) are critical factors in the aetiology of substance use disorders, with social cognition providing the mechanism through which personality traits impart risk (e.g., Gullo, Dawe, Kambouropoulos, Staiger & Jackson, 2010; Papinczak, Connor, Harnett & Gullo, 2018; Papinczak et al., 2019; Patton et al., 2018). Recent research suggests that two bSCT factors are particularly important to target during cannabis interventions.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text