Evaluating implicit drinking identity as a mediator of drinking motives and alcohol consumption and craving

Abstract

Introduction Implicit drinking identity (i.e., cognitive associations between the self and drinking) is a reliable predictor of drinking. However, whether implicit drinking identity might mediate the relationship between other robust predictors of drinking and drinking outcomes is unknown. We hypothesized that implicit drinking would mediate the relationship between drinking motives and alcohol consumption and craving. Method We assessed drinking motives at Time 1, implicit drinking identity at Time 2 (on average, 11 days later) and self-reported alcohol consumption and craving at Time 3 (on average, 6 days later) in a sample of 194 US undergraduates (54% women) who reported at least one heavy drinking episode (4 drinks for women, 5 for men) in the past month. Participants completed self-report measures of drinking motives, daily alcohol consumption, and current craving. Results Implicit drinking identity uniquely mediated the relationship between social motives and alcohol consumption. It did not, however, mediate the relationship between motives and craving. Time 2 implicit drinking identity was positively associated with greater alcohol consumption and craving at Time 3, even after controlling for drinking motives. Subsequent analyses indicated significant indirect effects between social, enhancement, and coping motives (but not conformity) and consumption and craving when each motive was evaluated individually. Conclusions Implicit drinking identity continues to have promise as a predictor of drinking outcomes and as a target for interventions. Future experimental and prospective studies will be critical to establish the circumstances under which implicit drinking identity is strengthened and/or activated and the resulting effects on hazardous drinking.

Smoker identity development among adolescents who smoke.

“…In addition, social motives were unrelated to development of a smoker identity among females and unrelated to the development of a social smoker identity. These findings conflict with previous findings from research on drinking alcohol and exercising (de Bruijn et al, 2012; Foster, 2014; Lindgren et al, 2015), as well as basic research on identity development (Cialdini et al, 1976; Schlenker, 1986; Schlenker & Pontari, 2000; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). One potential reason why these motives were unrelated to identity development is that they may not have been perceived as purely internal or purely external motives.…”

“…The clearest example of this to date comes from research on drinking alcohol. People who drink are more likely to have a drinker identity the more strongly they hold positive affect enhancement motives and negative affect coping motives for drinking (Foster, 2014; Lindgren, Neighbors, Wiers, Gasser, & Teachman, 2015). Direct evidence also comes from research on exercise.…”

“…However, experimental smoking is primarily influenced by social motives for smoking (Kobus, 2003), and a smoker identity may not develop until after this stage of smoking. One thing to consider is that participants in Foster (2014) and Lindgren et al (2015) did not strongly identify as drinkers, and so identification of the correlates of drinker identity may have been constrained. Thus, the relationship between external motives for smoking namely, social motives for smoking – and smoker identity development remains an open question.…”

“…Again returning to the two adolescent smokers, one would thereby predict that Smoker B, who has social motives for smoking, would be more likely to develop a social smoker identity than Smoker A, who has internal motives for smoking. In Foster (2014) and Lindgren et al (2015), relatively weak identification as a drinker may have indicated identification as a social drinker rather than a drinker, and this may have been why social motives were observed to be correlates.…”

Habit doesn't make the predictions stronger: Implicit alcohol associations and habitualness predict drinking uniquely

“…These IATs predicted unique variance in a variety of drinking outcomes, including alcohol consumption, problems, risk of alcohol use disorders, and craving (see Lindgren et al, 2013a, 2013b; Roefs et al, 2011). Although the majority of this research is cross-sectional, there is emerging evidence that implicit alcohol associations predict drinking prospectively (Lindgren, Neighbors, Gasser, Teachman, & Wiers, in press; Thush & Wiers, 2007; Stacy, 1997) and that they can be targets for drinking interventions (Wiers et al, 2011, 2013). …”