Predictive effects of good self-control and poor regulation on alcohol-related outcomes: Do protective behavioral strategies mediate?

Abstract

In the present study, we examined whether use of protective behavioral strategies mediated the relationship between self-control constructs and alcohol-related outcomes. According to the two-mode model of self-control, good self-control (planfulness; measured with Future Time Perspective, Problem Solving, and Self-Reinforcement) and poor regulation (impulsivity; measured with Present Time Perspective, Poor Delay of Gratification, Distractibility) are theorized to be relatively independent constructs rather than opposite ends of a single continuum. The analytic sample consisted of 278 college student drinkers (68% women) who responded to a battery of surveys at a single time point. Using a structural equation model based on the two-mode model of self-control, we found that good self-control predicted increased use of three types of protective behavioral strategies (Manner of Drinking, Limiting/Stopping Drinking, and Serious Harm Reduction). Poor regulation was unrelated to use of protective behavioral strategies, but had direct effects on alcohol use and alcohol problems. Further, protective behavioral strategies mediated the relationship between good self-control and alcohol use. The clinical implications of these findings are discussed.

Self-Control as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Drinking Identity and Alcohol Use

“…A recent study found that protective behavioral strategies (e.g., limiting alcohol consumption, alternating between drinking alcohol and non-alcoholic beverages, using a designated driver, etc. ; Martens, Pedersen, LaBrie, Ferrier, & Cimini, 2007) mediated the association between SC and drinking (Pearson et al, 2013). Therefore, it makes sense that general levels of self-control would protect against heavy drinking.…”

“…Previous research has further shown that SC and the severity of alcohol-related problems are negatively associated (Dvorak, Simons, & Wray, 2011). Thus, SC has consistently been shown to negatively relate to problematic drinking (Bogg, Finn, & Monsey, 2012; Huhtanen & Raitasalo, 2012; Pearson, Kite, & Henson, 2013). Additionally, SC has been linked to reduced alcohol-related problems through greater implementation of protective behavioral strategies such as limiting alcohol consumption and using a designated driver (Pearson et al, 2013).…”

“…Thus, SC has consistently been shown to negatively relate to problematic drinking (Bogg, Finn, & Monsey, 2012; Huhtanen & Raitasalo, 2012; Pearson, Kite, & Henson, 2013). Additionally, SC has been linked to reduced alcohol-related problems through greater implementation of protective behavioral strategies such as limiting alcohol consumption and using a designated driver (Pearson et al, 2013). Therefore, evaluation of factors that may influence the relationship between SC and alcohol use is necessary.…”

Integrating acquired preparedness and dual process models of risk for heavy drinking and related problems.

“…Poor selfcontrol is typically defined by an inability to focus, monitor and control one's behavior, accurately account for consequences, delay gratification, and plan (Pearson, Kite, & Henson, 2013). In contrast, positive or good self-control is defined as the ability to monitor and modify one's own behavior according to potential consequences.…”

“…Mechanisms through which good self-control contributes to drinking outcomes are also consistent with their distinction from bottom-up personality risk. For example, Pearson and colleagues found indirect effects of good self-control on alcohol problems through its influence on manner of drinking and limiting drinking strategies (Pearson et al, 2013). These mediating variables reflect conscious efforts to regulate behavior with the former designed to reduce alcohol-related harm and the latter reflecting efforts to limit the amount consumed.…”