OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the moderating effect of protective behavioral strategies on the relationship between negative urgency and alcohol outcomes. METHOD: Participants were college students who endorsed participating in club/intramural or varsity athletics. The students (N = 234; 73.9% female) completed measures of negative urgency, protective behavioral strategies, alcohol use, and alcohol-related problems. Separate hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted for each subscale of the Protective Behavioral Strategies Scale to test for moderation. RESULTS: Results indicated that protective behavioral strategies aimed at serious harm reduction moderated the relationship between negative urgency and alcohol use, whereas strategies aimed at avoiding excessive or rapid drinking moderated the relationship between negative urgency and alcohol-related problems. Strategies that involved planning drinking activities in advance did not moderate the relationship between negative urgency and alcohol outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The current investigation provides further evidence for the role of protective behavioral strategies against known risk factors for alcohol use and related problems. Further, the paper suggests that type of strategy used matters when attempting to mitigate the relationship between negative urgency and alcohol outcomes. Limitations and future directions are discussed.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the moderating effect of protective behavioral strategies on the relationship between negative urgency and alcohol outcomes. METHOD:Participants were college students who endorsed participating in club/intramural or varsity athletics. The students (N = 234; 73.9% female) completed measures of negative urgency, protective behavioral strategies, alcohol use, and alcohol-related problems. Separate hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted for each subscale of the Protective Behavioral Strategies Scale to test for moderation. RESULTS: Results indicated that protective behavioral strategies aimed at serious harm reduction moderated the relationship between negative urgency and alcohol use, whereas strategies aimed at avoiding excessive or rapid drinking moderated the relationship between negative urgency and alcohol-related problems. Strategies that involved planning drinking activities in advance did not moderate the relationship between negative urgency and alcohol outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The current investigation provides further evidence for the role of protective behavioral strategies against known risk factors for alcohol use and related problems. Further, the paper suggests that type of strategy used matters when attempting to mitigate the relationship between negative urgency and alcohol outcomes. Limitations and future directions are discussed.
Authors: Matthew P Martens; Kari K Taylor; Krista M Damann; Jennifer C Page; Emily S Mowry; M Dolores Cimini Journal: Psychol Addict Behav Date: 2004-12
Authors: Matthew P Martens; Eric R Pedersen; Ashley E Smith; Sherry H Stewart; Kerry O'Brien Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2010-12-28 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Matthew P Martens; Michael A Karakashian; Kristie M Fleming; Roneferiti M Fowler; E Suzanne Hatchett; M Dolores Cimini Journal: J Drug Educ Date: 2009
Authors: Lindsay A Borden; Matthew P Martens; Michael A McBride; Kelly T Sheline; Kristen K Bloch; Kim Dude Journal: Psychol Addict Behav Date: 2011-06
Authors: Véronique S Grazioli; Melissa A Lewis; Lisa A Garberson; Nicole Fossos-Wong; Christine M Lee; Mary E Larimer Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 2.582
Authors: Angela M Haeny; Cameron C Weaver; Julia A Martinez; Douglas Steinley; Kenneth J Sher Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2016-10-21 Impact factor: 3.913