Alcohol, clinical & experimental research · 2025
Latent motivational profiles of behavioral regulations for drinking distinguish groups by alcohol consumption and consequences.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Courtney Jimikaye B, Russell Michael A, Conroy David E
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Self-determination theory characterizes drinking motives according to level of autonomy and locus of control and aligns with harm reduction approaches to alcohol use. This study used latent profile analysis (LPA) to identify motivational profiles of self-determined behavioral regulations for drinking and to test their associations with sociodemographic variables and alcohol consumption and outcomes.
METHODS: Adults aged 18-57 (N = 630, Mage = 21.5, 55% female, 88% undergraduates) reported typical alcohol consumption (Daily Drinking Questionnaire), consequences (Brief Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire, Importance of Consequences of Drinking), and five behavioral regulations for drinking including amotivation, external regulation, positive introjected regulation, identified regulation, and intrinsic regulation (Comprehensive Relative Autonomy Index for Drinking). Three-step LPA tested models with one to five profiles and associations between the final model with sociodemographic variables and drinking behaviors and consequences.
RESULTS: A four-profile model fit best. The "Aimless Drinkers" profile (n = 75, 11.9%) had low intrinsic regulation (e.g., enjoyment of drinking) and was disproportionately male (ORs = 2.35-2.65). The "Pleasure Drinker" profile (n = 114, 18.1%) had average intrinsic and low other regulations and was significantly older (OR = 1.07) than the "Externally Controlled Drinker" profile (n = 177, 28.1%), which had high external regulation (e.g., drinking due to social pressure). Externally controlled drinkers reported greater drinking intensity (Mdrinks/day = 5.4) and more negative (Mneg = 10.6) and positive (Mpos = 7.2) consequences than all other profiles, including the "Flexible Drinker" profile (n = 264, 41.9%), which was average across all regulations. Pleasure drinkers experienced more positive consequences (Mpos = 3.3 vs. 1.5) than aimless drinkers, despite similar alcohol consumption.
CONCLUSIONS: Older individuals were more likely to drink due to intrinsic enjoyment, which may reflect a shift toward greater autonomy over alcohol consumption with increasing age. Drinking primarily for enjoyment also facilitated more positive drinking outcomes. Future research should investigate whether motivational profiles of behavioral regulations for drinking predict long-term trajectories of alcohol consumption and alcohol-related risks.
METHODS: Adults aged 18-57 (N = 630, Mage = 21.5, 55% female, 88% undergraduates) reported typical alcohol consumption (Daily Drinking Questionnaire), consequences (Brief Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire, Importance of Consequences of Drinking), and five behavioral regulations for drinking including amotivation, external regulation, positive introjected regulation, identified regulation, and intrinsic regulation (Comprehensive Relative Autonomy Index for Drinking). Three-step LPA tested models with one to five profiles and associations between the final model with sociodemographic variables and drinking behaviors and consequences.
RESULTS: A four-profile model fit best. The "Aimless Drinkers" profile (n = 75, 11.9%) had low intrinsic regulation (e.g., enjoyment of drinking) and was disproportionately male (ORs = 2.35-2.65). The "Pleasure Drinker" profile (n = 114, 18.1%) had average intrinsic and low other regulations and was significantly older (OR = 1.07) than the "Externally Controlled Drinker" profile (n = 177, 28.1%), which had high external regulation (e.g., drinking due to social pressure). Externally controlled drinkers reported greater drinking intensity (Mdrinks/day = 5.4) and more negative (Mneg = 10.6) and positive (Mpos = 7.2) consequences than all other profiles, including the "Flexible Drinker" profile (n = 264, 41.9%), which was average across all regulations. Pleasure drinkers experienced more positive consequences (Mpos = 3.3 vs. 1.5) than aimless drinkers, despite similar alcohol consumption.
CONCLUSIONS: Older individuals were more likely to drink due to intrinsic enjoyment, which may reflect a shift toward greater autonomy over alcohol consumption with increasing age. Drinking primarily for enjoyment also facilitated more positive drinking outcomes. Future research should investigate whether motivational profiles of behavioral regulations for drinking predict long-term trajectories of alcohol consumption and alcohol-related risks.