This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and

Transcription

1 This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier s archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit:

2 Personality and Individual Differences 46 (2009) Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: Facets of personality and drinking in first-year college students Kimberly K. McAdams *, M. Brent Donnellan Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48823, United States article info abstract Article history: Received 1 April 2008 Received in revised form 17 September 2008 Accepted 30 September 2008 Keywords: Big Five Sensation seeking Alcohol misuse Narrow traits Our objective was to evaluate how well personality traits predict drinking-related variables in a longitudinal study of college students. Participants were drawn randomly from all incoming first-year students at a large university and they completed measures of the Big Five facets, sensation seeking, and drinking outcomes. Results suggested that variables linked with sensation seeking and impulse control were consistent predictors of drinking-related variables. In a few cases, narrower facets of personality were better predictors of criterion variables than were their corresponding Big Five traits. Such results underscore the value of using narrower aspects of personality for predicting consequential life outcomes. Ó 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. 1. Introduction The consequences of alcohol misuse are a major problem for universities. For example, Hingson, Heeren, Zakocs, Kopstein, and Wechsler (2002) estimated that approximately 1400 US college students die from alcohol-related injuries each year. In light of these kinds of statistics, there is interest in understanding the personality factors associated with college drinking (e.g., Baer, 2002; Ruiz, Pincus, & Dickinson, 2003; Sher & Trull, 1994). The objective of this study is to provide additional evidence concerning the personality correlates of alcohol-related variables in a sample of first-year college students Broad personality traits and college student drinking Numerous studies have examined associations between personality attributes and college drinking (see e.g., Baer (2002) for a review). One concern, however, is that many studies use different labels for seemingly similar personality constructs (e.g., trait anxiety versus neuroticism). Fortunately, the Big Five trait taxonomy (e.g., John & Srivastava, 1999) provides a convenient framework for organizing personality traits and can thereby facilitate a broad overview of this literature. Indeed, Markon, Krueger, and Watson (2005) argued that the Big Five model occupies an important position in the hierarchy of personality constructs because other trait models can be derived from the Big Five in some way (p. 154); * Corresponding author. Tel.: ; fax: address: assadkim@msu.edu (K.K. McAdams). thus, the Big Five can provide a recognizable language for personality psychology. High levels of conscientiousness appear to reduce an individual s risk for excessive drinking. For example, Bogg and Roberts (2004) found that conscientiousness was negatively associated with excessive alcohol use in a meta-analytic review (r =.25). Low conscientiousness has also been explicitly linked with drinking and alcohol-related problems in college students (Ruiz et al., 2003; Walton & Roberts, 2004). By comparison, there is less consistent evidence linking the other Big Five traits with college drinking. Ruiz et al. (2003) reported that neuroticism was positively associated with alcohol-related problems; however, they also reported that this broad trait was not as strongly related to alcohol use (see also Walton and Roberts (2004)). This indicates that neuroticism might be particularly relevant to clinically significant alcohol use problems (e.g., Baer, 2002; Sher & Trull, 1994). In contrast, extraversion appears to be more strongly associated with drinking rates rather than drinking problems (Baer, 2002). Although agreeableness and openness are less frequently studied, both Ruiz et al. (2003) and Walton and Roberts (2004) found that agreeableness was negatively related to alcohol use in college students. Thus, there are reasons to suspect that traits linked to at least four of the Big Five domains are associated with college drinking. These associations naturally raise questions about the mechanisms linking personality traits with drinking. Variables can be placed on a continuum from more proximal to more distal risk factors (see e.g., Petraitis, Flay, and Miller (1995)) and personality traits are probably best conceptualized as relatively distal predictors of college drinking (Sher, Trull, Bartholow, & Vieth, 1999). Accordingly, specific types of person environment transactions /$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi: /j.paid

3 208 K.K. McAdams, M.B. Donnellan / Personality and Individual Differences 46 (2009) (see Buss (1987)) may link traits with actual drinking behaviors. For example, selection processes might be important inasmuch as certain individuals may seek out social activities and social groups that facilitate drinking because of their personality characteristics (e.g., Kahler, Read, Wood, & Palfai, 2003). Traits like impulse control, on the other hand, might also have more immediate connections with drinking behaviors (e.g., by reducing the risk of binge drinking) Narrow personality traits and college drinking We contend that the further development of process models linking personality traits with drinking will be aided by the identification of those particular aspects of the Big Five that are associated with drinking. For instance, the widely used NEO PI-R (e.g. Costa & McCrae, 1992) specifies that extraversion has six facets. Markon et al. (2005) noted that lower-order traits generally demonstrate greater predictive validity than higher order traits (p. 154). One concern is that the breadth of the Big Five domains may sometimes obscure associations between narrower personality traits and college drinking (see Ruiz et al. (2003)). For example, Ruiz et al. (2003) found that the overall association between extraversion and drinking was virtually non-existent (r =.01) whereas the excitement seeking facet was a significant correlate of drinking (r =.21). Paunonen and Ashton (2001) raised a similar issue with respect to the prediction of grades and they argued that facet level investigations may improve the understanding of how personality traits are linked with consequential outcomes. In particular, the excitement seeking facet of extraversion might be a relatively important predictor of college drinking. This facet of extraversion is conceptually similar to sensation seeking, a trait which is a consistent predictor of college drinking (Del Boca, Darkes, Greenbaum, & Goldman, 2004; Kahler et al., 2003; see Zuckerman (2006, pp ) for a review). It might be the case that scales measuring these two dimensions actually assess the same construct. Indeed, Whiteside and Lynam (2001) found that the NEO PI-R excitement seeking scale and a measure of sensation seeking loaded on the same factor. This suggests that researchers who measure the Big Five facets may not need to separately assess sensation seeking The present study Our objective was to replicate and extend previous findings linking personality traits and college drinking using narrow personality traits linked with the Big Five. Data for the present investigation come from a two-wave study of the social development of students attending a large Midwestern University. Participants were drawn at random from all incoming first-year students to respond to Baer s (2002) lament that studies in this literature are often based on convenience samples. In addition to measuring alcohol consumption, we assessed hangover symptoms and drinking-related problems to potentially distinguish personality correlates of alcohol use as opposed to the problematic outcomes associated with heavy drinking. This decision was motivated by Sher, Wood, Crews, and Vandiver (1995) who found that certain personality attributes predicted problematic drinking but not alcohol use. 2. Method 2.1. Sample and procedure Recruitment s were sent in the fall to a pool of 1699 students randomly selected from a list of addresses obtained from school records. A total of 529 responded (178 men, 349 women, 2 cases were missing) which represents a 31% response rate. The ethnic/racial background of this sample was 72.8% European American/White, 4.3% Asian American/Pacific Islander, 2.5% Latina/Latino, 2.3% African American, 0.2% Native American, and 18.0% did not specify ethnicity/race. Of the original participants, 385 responded to the follow-up survey in the spring semester (a 73% retention rate). Reported analyses are based on participants who completed both fall and spring surveys. Parameter estimates based on all available data were similar to those reported here. Recruitment s included a link to a secure website so students could participate at their convenience. The fall data collection occurred during October and November of 2005 whereas the spring collection occurred during late March and early April of Participants were paid $10 for each wave of participation Measures Table 1 displays descriptive statistics for all study variables. Personality measures were assessed with a five point scale (1 = strongly disagree, to 5 = strongly agree ). Unless otherwise noted, all scales were created by taking the average of the constituent items The Big Five facets Facets were measured using the 120-item International Personality Item Pool-NEO inventory (IPIP-NEO; Johnson, 2000; see also Goldberg (1999)). Items were scored so that higher scores reflected greater amounts of the facet. Big Five scale scores were calculated by averaging the relevant facet scores. Although these facets have slightly different labels from the NEO PI-R facets, the IPIP-NEO was designed to assess the same dimensions of personality. Johnson (personal communication) reported that the average correlation between facets on the respective measures was.66 (.91 when corrected for measurement error; see also Goldberg (1999)). Because the NEO PI-R is a proprietary measure, we elected to use the public domain IPIP measure Sensation seeking Sensation seeking was measured using the 19-item impulsive sensation seeking scale (ImpSS; Zuckerman, Kuhlman, Joireman, Teta, & Kraft, 1993). Scores on the ImpSS and excitement seeking were strongly correlated (r =.72 for both waves), which supports the notion that these measures tap similar dimensions of personality. Zuckerman et al. (1993) noted that there are two factors within the ImpSS sensation seeking and impulsivity. The two subscales were strongly correlated (fall =.54, spring =.57) and both were correlated with excitement seeking (sensation seeking =.73 for both waves; impulsivity: fall =.48, spring =.50) Alcohol use Participants recorded how many drinks they typically drank for each day of the week for the past 3 months using the options: 0 drinks, 1 drink, 2 drinks, 3 drinks, and 4 or more drinks. Participants answered the same questions in spring but excluded drinking during spring break because this appears to be a time of unusually heightened alcohol use (e.g., Del Boca et al., 2004). Responses to the seven days were averaged. The proportion of participants reporting no alcohol consumption was 31.4% for fall and 27.8% for spring. Furthermore, 9.9% of participants in fall and 7.5% of participants in spring did not respond to these questions and were not included in analyses Hangover symptoms Participants completed the 13-item hangover symptoms scale (Slutske, Piasecki, & Hunt-Carter, 2003) using a five point scale

4 K.K. McAdams, M.B. Donnellan / Personality and Individual Differences 46 (2009) Table 1 Descriptive statistics for study variables. Variable Fall Spring Longitudinal analyses M SD a M SD a r d Extraversion Friendliness Gregariousness Assertiveness Activity level Excitement seeking Cheerfulness Agreeableness Trust Morality Altruism Cooperation Modesty Sympathy Conscientiousness Self-Efficacy Orderliness Dutifulness Achievement striving Self-discipline Cautiousness Neuroticism Anxiety Anger Depression Self-consciousness Immoderation Vulnerability Openness Imagination Artistic interest Emotionality Adventurousness Intellect Liberalism Impulsive sensation seeking Sensation seeking Impulsivity Alcohol use Hangover symptoms Drinking problems Note: All retest correlations were statistically significant at p <.01. (1 = never to 5 = every time ) to respond to the stem how many drinking occasions in the past three months were followed the next morning by the following symptoms? Sample symptoms include experienced a headache and vomited. In spring, participants were asked to exclude spring break symptoms. Responses to this scale positively correlated with alcohol use (fall =.48, spring =.53). The proportion of the sample indicating they did not experience any hangover symptoms was 31.9% in fall and 22.3% in spring. Furthermore, the proportion of the sample that did not respond to these questions was 11.2% in fall and 7.5% in spring Drinking problems Participants completed an 11-item drinking problems scale in which they responded to the stem How often did the following things happen to you in the past three months? using the following scale: never, once, twice, three times, and four or more times. The responses were coded from 0 to 4. Items include when drinking, how often did you get sick or pass out? and when drinking, how often did you get into a fight? Drinking problems were correlated with alcohol use (fall =.68, spring =.56) and with hangover symptoms (r =.66 for both waves). The proportion of participants that reported no problems was 39.2% in the fall and 29.6% in the spring. The proportion of the sample that did not respond to these questions was 10.1% in fall and 8.1% in spring. 3. Results We set the threshold for statistical significance to a conservative p <.01 to respond to concerns over multiple comparisons; however, we placed more emphasis on replicable effect sizes than statistical significance (see below). All measures showed an appreciable degree of differential stability as assessed by retest coefficients (Range:.60.86; see Table 1). To evaluate statistical significance of mean-level changes, we used paired-samples t- tests. Three personality traits had statistically significant declines (modesty, agreeableness, and cheerfulness) whereas one had an increase (cautiousness, p =.01). There were also average increases in hangover symptoms and drinking problems Cross-sectional associations between personality traits and college drinking Correlations between personality traits and the alcohol-related variables are displayed in Table 2. Effect sizes were similar using

5 210 K.K. McAdams, M.B. Donnellan / Personality and Individual Differences 46 (2009) Table 2 Cross-sectional associations between personality traits and alcohol variables. Variable Alcohol use Hangover symptoms Drinking problems Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Extraversion.27 * (.28 * ).25 * (.26 * ).12 * (.11).11(.11).16 * (.16 * ).16 * (.16 * ) Friendliness.15 * (.15 * ).16 * (.16 * ).01(.01).03(.03).04(.04).09(.09) Gregariousness.36 * (.37 * ).37 * (.38 * ).20 * (.19 * ).23 * (.23 * ).23 * (.22 * ).26 * (.26 * ) Assertiveness.02(.02).00(.00).01(.01).05(.05).02(.02).06(.06) Activity level.05(.04).14 * (.12).04(.07).06(.08).01(.03).09(.09) Excitement seeking.45 * (.45 * ).46 * (.45 * ).26 * (.27 * ).29 * (.30 * ).37 * (.38 * ).37 * (.37 * ) Cheerfulness.15 * (.16 * ).13(.14).04(.04).01(.01).03(.02).04(.04) Agreeableness.19 * (.18).25 * (.23 * ).13(.17 * ).20 * (.22 * ).14(.16 * ).19 * (.19 * ) Trust.03(.03).01(.02).10(.10).11(.10).09(.09).06(.06) morality.23 * (.23 * ).25 * (.24 * ).14 * (.15 * ).23 * (.24 * ).16 * (.16 * ).23 * (.23 * ) Altruism.14(.13).25 * (.23 * ).05(.08).17 * (.19 * ).07(.08).15 * (.16 * ) Cooperation.18 * (.17 * ).16 * (.14 * ).16 * (.20 * ).18 * (.19 * ).18 * (.20 * ).21 * (.21 * ) Modesty.06(.04).09(.07).00(.03).03(.03).01(.00).02(.03) Sympathy.10(.08).24 * (.22 * ).02(.05).16 * (.17 * ).01(.02).13(.13) Conscientiousness.20 * (.20 * ).25 * (.24 * ).16 * (.16 * ).26 * (.26 * ).19 * (.19 * ).25 * (.25 * ) Self-efficacy.06(.07).08(.07).11(.10).12(.13).08(.08).10(.10) Orderliness.09(.10).14 * (.14 * ).05(.05).14 * (.15 * ).12(.11).14 * (.14 * ) Dutifulness.19 * (.19 * ).20 * (.20 * ).15 * (.14 * ).19 * (.19 * ).15 * (.15 * ).20 * (.20 * ) Achievement striving.24 * (.24 * ).23 * (.22 * ).17 * (.20 * ).19 * (.21 * ).16 * (.18 * ).14(.14) Self-discipline.06(.06).16 * (.15 * ).07(.08).14 * (.15 * ).07(.07).20 * (.20 * ) Cautiousness.16 * (.16 * ).22 * (.22 * ).11(.12).27 * (.27 * ).18 * (.18 * ).26 * (.26 * ) Neuroticism.03(.01).08(.05).21 * (.19 * ).11(.11).16 * (.16 * ).05(.06) Anxiety.11(.10).19 * (.16 * ).12(.09).01(.03).05(.04).10(.10) Anger.05(.05).04(.02).24 * (.24 * ).10(.10).17 * (.17 * ).10(.10) Depression.03(.02).06(.05).11(.09).06(.05).13(.12).02(.02) Self-consciousness.19 * (.19 * ).22 * (.21 * ).11(.11).06(.06).12(.12).10(.10) Immoderation.32 * (.34 * ).29 * (.32 * ).35 * (.33 * ).34 * (.35 * ).38 * (.39 * ).28 * (.30 * ) Vulnerability.11(.10).10(.07).13(.10).04(.03).04(.03).01(.00) Openness.02(.03).06(.06).02(.03).09(.10).02(.01).03(.03) Imagination.08(.07).06(.06).07(.08).02(.01).09(.09).05(.05) Artistic interest.08(.07).09(.07).13(.16 * ).15 * (.17 * ).11(.12).11(.11) Emotionality.05(.03).16 * (.14 * ).10(.07).09(.10).06(.05).08(.08) Adventurousness.13(.13).12(.12).06(.06).08(.08).08(.09).08(.08) Intellect.03(.04).11(.14 * ).15 * (.13).17 * (.17 * ).07(.06).09(.10) Liberalism.03(.04).04(.03).00(.01).00(.00).01(.01).03(.03) Impulsive sensation seeking.41 * (.40 * ).42 * (.41 * ).22 * (.23 * ).24 * (.25 * ).30 * (.31 * ).31 * (.31 * ) Sensation seeking.42 * (.42 * ).41 * (.40 * ).22 * (.23 * ).23 * (.24 * ).31 * (.31 * ).29 * (.30 * ) Impulsivity.25 * (.25 * ).32 * (.30 * ).15 * (.17 * ).17 * (.19 * ).19 * (.20 * ).25 * (.25 * ) Note: Coefficients inside parentheses are standardized regression weights controlling for gender. * p <.01. spearman s rho and when taking the natural log of the drinking variables. Only those correlations that were at or above.20 for both waves will be discussed in the text. Table 2 also displays standardized regression coefficients from separate models that included controls for gender, although controlling for gender did not substantially change the reported associations. Extraversion and the facets of gregariousness and excitement seeking were positively associated with alcohol use whereas the morality facet of agreeableness was negatively associated with this variable. Conscientiousness was negatively associated with alcohol use, as was its facet of achievement striving. Although there was no overall effect for neuroticism, immoderation was positively associated with alcohol use. Last, ImpSS and its subscales were positively correlated with alcohol use. In terms of more problematic drinking outcomes, gregariousness, excitement seeking, immoderation, and ImpSS (and the sensation seeking subscale) were positively associated with hangover symptoms and with drinking problems Personality predictors of abstaining versus drinking As previously noted, a sizeable minority of the sample reported not drinking any alcohol in a typical week. We therefore investigated whether personality traits assessed in the fall could predict drinking versus abstaining at each assessment (fall and spring) and across both waves using point biserial correlations (1 = abstainer; 0 = drinker). These results are displayed in Table 3. We also conducted analyses that included controls for gender (see Table 3) but this did not alter the results. In general, abstaining was negatively associated with extraversion, gregariousness, excitement seeking, and immoderation. Abstaining was also negatively associated with the ImpSS (and both subscales). On the other hand, morality was a positive correlate of being an abstainer. Moreover, as seen in Table 3, personality traits assessed in the fall were associated with abstaining in the spring semester. We then revisited the analyses for alcohol use reported in Table 2 to determine if similar findings would be obtained after removing the nondrinkers from the analyses. Extraversion, gregariousness, excitement seeking, immoderation, and the ImpSS (and both subscales) all remained statistically significant predictors in these restricted analyses Longitudinal analyses Last, we predicted each drinking outcome in the spring from the corresponding drinking variable in the fall as well as the respective personality trait assessed in the fall using a series of regression models. The high degree of rank-order stability in drinking-related variables made us pessimistic about these results. As noted by Cole (2006, p. 20), predicting change in a highly stable phenomenon can be frustrating (if not pointless). In line with this concern, only a few relations were statistically significant at p <.01. (A complete table is available upon request). Gregariousness predicted relative

6 K.K. McAdams, M.B. Donnellan / Personality and Individual Differences 46 (2009) Table 3 Fall personality predictors of abstaining versus drinking. Variable Abstainer status Fall 2005 Spring 2006 Both waves Extraversion.27 * (.27 * ).20 * (.20 * ).19 * (.20 * ) Friendliness.16 * (.16 * ).14 * (.14 * ).13(.13) Gregariousness.42 * (.42 * ).35 * (.35 * ).38 * (.38 * ) Assertiveness.01(.01).04(.04).09(.09) Activity level.04(.04).10(.10).08(.07) Excitement seeking.36 * (.36 * ).32 * (.31 * ).34 * (.34 * ) Cheerfulness.16(.16 * ).13(.13).08(.08) Agreeableness.13(.14).18 * (.18 * ).20 * (.19 * ) Trust.07(.07).01(.02).02(.02) Morality.21 * (.21 * ).18 * (.18 * ).23 * (.23 * ) Altruism.10(.11).13(.13).16 * (.16 * ) Cooperation.17 * (.17 * ).13(.13).17 * (.17 * ) Modesty.00(.01).06(.05).03(.02) Sympathy.11(.11).17 * (.17 * ).14, p =.01 (.13) Conscientiousness.19 * (.19 * ).14(.14).21 * (.20 * ) Self-efficacy.06(.06).05(.06).10(.10) Orderliness.08(.08).09(.09).08(.08) Dutifulness.14(.14).06(.07).18 * (.19 * ) Achievement striving.21 * (.21 * ).18 * (.18 * ).20 * (.20 * ) Self-discipline.10(.10).08(.08).13(.12) Cautiousness.18 * (.18 * ).08(.08).16 * (.16 * ) Neuroticism.01(.01).02(.01).04(.05) Anxiety.12(.13).11(.11).06(.05) Anger.11(.11).01(.01).07(.07) Depression.07(.08).05(.04).02(.01) Self-consciousness.17 * (.17 * ).12(.12).14(.14) Immoderation.30 * (.30 * ).26 * (.27 * ).30 * (.32 * ) Vulnerability.08(.09).06(.05).01(.00) Openness.01(.01).00(.00).01(.01) Imagination.08(.08).08(.08).09(.09) Artistic interest.11(.12).02(.01).08(.08) Emotionality.02(.02).03(.02).00(.01) Adventurousness.15 * (.15 * ).10(.10).11(.11) Intellect.06(.06).05(.06).11(.12) Liberalism.01(.01).03(.03).02(.02) Impulsive sensation seeking.37 * (.38 * ).32 * (.32 * ).34 * (.34 * ) Sensation seeking.39 * (.39 * ).33 * (.33 * ).35 * (.35 * ) Impulsivity.22 * (.23 * ).20 * (.19 * ).22 * (.22 * ) Note: Coefficients inside parentheses control for gender. For fall 2005 and spring 2006, participants were classified as 1.00 = abstainer, 0.00 = reported any drinking. For both waves, participants were classified as 1.00 = abstained at both time points, 0.00 = reported drinking during at least one assessment. * p <.01. increases in alcohol use (b =.17) as did cheerfulness (b =.12) and extraversion (b =.13). Immoderation (b =.19) and excitement seeking (b =.13) predicted relative increases in hangover symptoms whereas gregariousness (b =.14), excitement seeking (b =.13), and ImpSS (b =.13) predicted relative increases in drinking problems. 4. Discussion Our objective was to provide information concerning the narrower personality traits associated with college drinking. Consistent with previous research, attributes linked to sensation seeking, sociability, and impulse control were notable personality correlates of college drinking. These effects generally held whether the criterion variable was alcohol use or the more problematic outcomes of hangover symptoms and drinking problems. Moreover, these attributes also generally predicted relative changes in alcohol-related problems in longitudinal analyses. Simply put, sensation seekers who have trouble controlling impulses might be most at risk for heavy drinking and its consequences during the college years. We found instances in which narrower facets were more strongly correlated with drinking criterion variables than were their corresponding Big Five scores. For example, the Immoderation facet of neuroticism was a robust predictor of alcohol use whereas the overall effect for neuroticism was comparably smaller and even in the opposite direction. The predictive power of Immoderation was apparently depressed when aggregated with the other facets of neuroticism. This effect was consistent with the concern raised by Paunonen and Ashton (2001) about the possibility of having personality-criterion associations obscured when personality facets are aggregated into broad personality factors. As such, these results indicate that facet level investigations may have value for researchers interested in predicting drinking-related variables using individual difference measures. We also examined how well the ImpSS predicted college drinking and alcohol-related problems. Previous research has demonstrated that sensation seeking is a robust correlate of drinking and substance use among young people (see Zuckerman (2006) for a review) and our results were consistent with this work. We also found that this 19-item measure was strongly associated with the excitement seeking facet of extraversion, which was measured with 4-items in this study. Nonetheless, the excitement seeking facet showed the same general associations with criterion variables as did the ImpSS. Based on these considerations, we tentatively concluded that researchers who assess personality with a reliable Big Five facet measure may not need to separately assess sensation seeking with the ImpSS. Although the present investigation has a number of positive features in terms of the sampling strategy and the use of a comprehensive assessment of personality, there are at least a few noteworthy limitations. First, because all data were self-reported, shared method biases may have inflated predictor-criterion relations. A more ideal approach would be to complement self-reports with informant reports. Second, data were collected only twice, and stronger approaches would be to collect data both more frequently (e.g., a diary study) and over longer periods of time (e.g., four or five years). This latter approach might provide a greater opportunity to find prospective personality effects given the observed stability of drinking variables. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the personality correlates of drinking can be found in longterm studies that examine how well personality traits assessed earlier in the life span correlate with future substance use. For example, Block, Block, and Keyes (1988) found that levels of selfcontrol measured in preschool could predict the risk of substance abuse in adolescence. These kinds of findings help constrain inferences regarding the causal associations between personality traits and drinking. A final limitation is that our findings may not generalize beyond the university from which our sample was drawn. Our bigger concern, however, has to do with inferences beyond this developmental period and social setting. For instance, we are uncertain as to whether traits like gregariousness are general risk factors for heavy drinking or whether these attributes confer more specific risks for heavy drinking during the college years. Our suspicion is that personality traits strongly associated with sociability are likely to predict drinking in a college or university context, which often has a strong social component. Once individuals leave these social settings, these sorts of traits may not continue to be as predictive of drinking. On the other hand, we suspect that traits like immoderation and even excitement seeking may remain fairly sturdy predictors of drinking-related variables across the life span. Acknowledgments This work was supported by the MSU Intramural Research Grants Program. We thank John Johnson for developing the personality measure.

7 212 K.K. McAdams, M.B. Donnellan / Personality and Individual Differences 46 (2009) References Baer, J. S. (2002). Student factors: Understanding individual variation in college drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol Supplement, 14, Block, J., Block, J. H., & Keyes, S. (1988). Longitudinally foretelling drug usage in adolescence: Early childhood personality and environmental precursors. Child Development, 59, Bogg, T., & Roberts, B. W. (2004). Conscientiousness and health-related behaviors: A meta-analysis of the leading behavioral contributors to mortality. Psychological Bulletin, 130, Buss, D. M. (1987). Selection, evocation, and manipulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, Cole, D. A. (2006). Coping with longitudinal data in research on developmental psychopathology. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Del Boca, F. K., Darkes, J., Greenbaum, P. E., & Goldman, M. S. (2004). Up close and personal: Temporal variability in the drinking of individual college students during their first year. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. J. Deary, I. Mervielde, F. Ostendorf, & F. De Fruyt (Eds.). Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7 28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press. Hingson, R. W., Heeren, T., Zakocs, R. C., Kopstein, A., & Wechsler, H. (2002). Magnitude of alcohol-related mortality and morbidity among US college students ages Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63, John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp ). New York: Guilford Press. Johnson, J. A. (2000). Developing a short form of the IPIP-NEO: A report to HGW consulting. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, DuBois, PA. Kahler, C. W., Read, J. P., Wood, M. D., & Palfai, T. P. (2003). Social environmental selection as a mediator of gender, ethnic, and personality effects on college student drinking. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 17, Markon, K. E., Krueger, R. F., & Watson, D. (2005). Delineating the structure of normal and abnormal personality: An integrative hierarchical approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big Five predictors of academic achievement. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, Petraitis, J., Flay, B. R., & Miller, T. Q. (1995). Reviewing theories of adolescent substance use: Organizing pieces in the puzzle. Psychological Bulletin, 117, Ruiz, M. A., Pincus, A. L., & Dickinson, K. A. (2003). NEO PI-R predictors of alcohol use and alcohol related problems. Journal of Personality Assessment, 81, Sher, K. J., & Trull, T. J. (1994). Personality and disinhibitory psychopathology: Alcoholism and antisocial personality disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, Sher, K. J., Trull, T. J., Bartholow, B. D., & Vieth, A. (1999). Personality and alcoholism: Issues, methods, and etiological processes. In K. E. Leonard & H. T. Blane (Eds.), Psychological theories of drinking and alcoholism (2nd ed., pp ). New York: Guildford Press. Sher, K. J., Wood, M. D., Crews, T. M., & Vandiver, P. A. (1995). The tridimensional personality questionnaire: Reliability and validity studies and derivation of a short form. Psychological Assessment, 7, Slutske, W. S., Piasecki, T. M., & Hunt-Carter, E. E. (2003). Development and initial validation of the Hangover Symptoms Scale: Prevalence and correlates of Hangover Symptoms in college students. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 27, Walton, K. E., & Roberts, B. W. (2004). On the relationship between substance use and personality traits: Abstainers are not maladjusted. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). The five factor model and impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, Zuckerman, M. (2006). Sensation seeking and risky behavior. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., Joireman, J., Teta, P., & Kraft, M. (1993). A comparison of three structural models for personality: The big three, the big five, and the alternative five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65,