Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Dec 15.
Published in final edited form as: Alcohol Clin Exp Res (Hoboken). 2025 Sep 2;49(11):2383–2395. doi: 10.1111/acer.70159

Person–environment transactions of impulsive traits and day-level alcohol use: A narrative review

Jack T Waddell 1, Ian A McNamera 2, Shu Inamura 1, Riley C Tolbert 1
PMCID: PMC12702521  NIHMSID: NIHMS2113057  PMID: 40898666

Abstract

Background:

Person–Environment Transactions Theory purports that certain individuals react differently (and gain different experiences) based upon their environment, which therefore informs acute and long-term behavioral development. Given the central role of impulsive traits (i.e., positive urgency, negative urgency, lack of premeditation, lack of perseverance, and sensation seeking) in the etiology of alcohol use/misuse, a variety of studies have tested person-by-environment transactions between impulsive traits and environmental, day-level variables predicting drinking behavior. Yet, a synthesis of these findings remains needed to best characterize the literature, inform future studies, and spur conversation among the research community.

Methods:

This narrative review identified studies testing cross-level interactions between Urgency, Premeditation, Perseverance, Sensation Seeking (UPPS-P) impulsive traits and day/moment-level environmental variables, broadly defined, predicting alcohol use/misuse using daily diaries/surveys, ecological momentary assessment, and timeline followback interviewing.

Results:

Thirteen studies met inclusion criteria, testing interactions between UPPS-P impulsive traits and day-level pregaming, affect/PTSD symptoms, alcohol and cannabis couse, planned drinking, physical activity, rate of alcohol consumption, and state impulsivity. Across studies with significant interactions, all but one found interactions wherein positive urgency potentiated the influence of the given day-level variable on heavier drinking. Findings for lack of premeditation and perseverance were less common but in the same direction as positive urgency, while findings for negative urgency and sensation seeking were sparse, inconsistent, and mixed.

Conclusions:

A host of day/moment-level environmental variables, broadly defined, appear to potentiate riskier drinking dependent upon impulsive personality traits. Themes across studies and the need for continued research and environment-specific intervention development are discussed.

Keywords: context, environment, impulsivity, person environment transactions, urgency

INTRODUCTION

Across the globe, it is estimated that between three and five adults report consuming alcohol over the past month, and nearly two of 10 adults report drinking 5+ drinks on a given use occasion (i.e., alcohol misuse; Lee et al., 2020; World Health Organization, 2024). While rates of alcohol use and misuse have decreased over the past 10 to 20 years, negative consequences and harms associated with alcohol use and misuse, including mental/physical health comorbidities, academic/occupational role dysfunction, and sexually coercive behavior (Boyle et al., 2024; Merrill et al., 2019; Treat et al., 2021; Zamboanga et al., 2024) remain common, impairing and impactful in adults. In fact, alcohol use remains one of the leading causes of cancer diagnosis (U.S. Surgeon General, 2025) and preventable death (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2024). Thus, it remains vital to understand risk factors for alcohol use and misuse, especially as they naturally occur in daily life, to reduce the burden associated with alcohol use and misuse.

One of the most commonly cited and studied risk factors for alcohol use/misuse is impulsive personality traits. Broadly, impulsive personality traits are characterized by swift, ill-advised action and/or inaction (e.g., Moeller et al., 2001; Whiteside & Lynam, 2001). Modern theories of impulsive traits, namely the Urgency, Premeditation, Perseverance, Sensation Seeking (UPPS-P) model, suggest that impulsive traits break down into five related (yet distinct facets) of impulsivity (e.g., Cyders et al., 2014; Lynam et al., 2007; Watts et al., 2020)—these facets are positive urgency (i.e., rash action in a positive mood state), negative urgency (i.e., rash action in a negative mood state), lack of premeditation (i.e., a lack of planning/forethought), lack of perseverance (i.e., inability to focus on mundane tasks), and sensation seeking (i.e., thrill/reward seeking). Each has distinct yet important relations with alcohol use/misuse, wherein negative and positive urgency are most related to alcohol use disorder (AUD) symptoms and alcohol problems, lack of premeditation and lack of perseverance are most related to heaviness of drinking, and sensation seeking is most related to any drinking/binge drinking (Coskunpinar et al., 2013).

The Acquired Preparedness Model (Anderson et al., 2003; Smith & Anderson, 2001) is perhaps the most cited theory of relations between impulsive traits and alcohol use and misuse. The Acquired Preparedness Model holds that individuals with higher impulsive personality traits are more susceptible to the reinforcing effects of alcohol, leading highly impulsive individuals to develop stronger positive alcohol expectancies and approach-motivated drinking behavior (Smith & Anderson, 2001). Several cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have provided evidence for the Acquired Preparedness Model, wherein impulsive traits predict higher levels of positive alcohol expectancies, which then go on to predict risk for heavier drinking, alcohol-related problems, and symptoms of AUD (e.g., Corbin et al., 2011; Halvorson et al., 2023; Settles et al., 2014). Meta-analytic findings suggest that support for the Acquired Preparedness Model is strongest for positive and negative urgency (Halvorson et al., 2023). Further, findings have indicated that this sequential process occurs early in development (i.e., in adolescence; Schick et al., 2022), and thus, the Acquired Preparedness Model has shown to be fruitful in understanding the development and progression of alcohol use and misuse.

Embedded in the Acquired Preparedness Model is the notion that individuals with higher levels of impulsive traits are more sensitive to the reinforcing effects of alcohol and thus develop stronger positive expectancies (Smith & Anderson, 2001). Given that contextual influences are central determinants of subjective reinforcement and drinking behavior (e.g., Creswell, 2021; Fairbairn & Kang, 2025), a likely predecessor to the Acquired Preparedness Model is a process wherein individuals with higher levels of impulsive traits react differently to, and gain different experiences from, certain environments, which then inform continued approach-oriented motivation toward alcohol. This process, in the context of personality formation, is formally referred to as Person–Environment Transactions Theory (e.g., Caspi et al., 2005; Caspi & Bem, 1990; Fraley & Roberts, 2005; Hopwood et al., 2022). Person–Environment Transactions Theory states that there are three specific person–environment transactions through which personality interacts with environment: reactive transactions, evocative transactions, and proactive transactions (Caspi & Bem, 1990). Reactive transactions occur when an individual’s personality predisposes an individual to react differently based upon context, evocative transactions occur when contexts evoke/motivate different behavior based upon an individual’s personality, and proactive transactions occur when an individual’s personality predisposes them to self-select into certain environments to facilitate an end goal. Importantly, early studies have a broad definition of environments (Caspi et al., 2005; Caspi & Bem, 1990), which can span from social contexts to developmental periods to affective characteristics at a certain time. Thus, environmental characteristics can be any social, developmental, affective, or extraneous circumstance to which individuals with certain personality traits are more (or less) sensitive. Several studies have found support for Person–Environment Transactions for alcohol use within the domain of impulsivity and a variety of environmental and affective variables. For example, studies suggest that individuals with higher levels of positive urgency report heavier drinking the more frequently they drink in high arousal/stimulating drinking contexts (e.g., Waddell et al., 2022) and that individuals with higher levels of negative urgency report heavier drinking and more alcohol problems when they have higher levels of negative affect (e.g., Gunn et al., 2020; Menary et al., 2015).

Put together, the two theories likely inform one another, such that impulsive individuals may react differently and garner different subjective experiences depending upon their environment (i.e., Person–Environment Transactions), which then purports a differential learning process regarding the effects of alcohol (i.e., positive alcohol expectancies), setting the stage for alcohol use and misuse. However, much of our understanding of person-by-environment transactions has been at the between-person level (i.e., individual differences), despite growing knowledge that naturalistic environments, affective experiences, and temporal predecessors to drinking vary substantially on a day-to-day and even moment-to-moment basis. For example, in regard to each of the aforementioned findings, research suggests substantial daily variation in drinking context (e.g., Merrill et al., 2013; O’Donnell et al., 2019) and affect (e.g., Dora et al., 2023; Dvorak et al., 2014). Thus, the use of ecological momentary assessment, daily diaries, and calendar-based interviews may enhance our understanding of how these person-by-environment transactions unfold on a more granular level. Such knowledge could have substantial theoretical and prevention implications, in that identification of environmental aspects that potentiate risk for alcohol use and misuse in highly impulsive individuals may guide our understanding of contexts that necessitate adaptive intervention to prevent acute and future risk behavior. However, the literature has yet to synthesize these person-by-environment transactions as they relate to UPPS-P impulsive traits and alcohol use and misuse using day-level/moment-level methodologies.

Therefore, the current narrative review sought to collate studies that test person-by-environment transactions between UPPS-P impulsive traits (person) and day/moment-varying contexts (environments) predicting alcohol use and misuse at the day and/or momentary level. Of note, the current review defined “environments” as any day-varying factor that could affect drinking behavior, in line with larger definitions of environments by Caspi et al. (2005). Thus, as stated prior, environmental characteristics could be any social, developmental, affective, or extraneous circumstance to which certain individuals are more (or less) sensitive. Further, the current narrative review also sought to provide a roadmap for future research to continue advancing our understanding of impulsive traits, environmental transactions, and acute and long-term risk for alcohol use and misuse. Through these aims, the authors of this narrative review seek to (1) provide a descriptive analysis of what previous literature has found, (2) generate a synthesized account of how the research community can continue moving forward, and (3) elicit conversation and future studies from researchers in the community.

METHODS

Protocol and registration

The protocol (Figure 1) for the current narrative review was compliant with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA; Page et al., 2023). The protocol was not preregistered prior to full-text extraction. However, the narrative review protocol is available via the corresponding author upon request.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Search process for articles to review.

Eligibility criteria

Manuscripts were eligible for the current narrative review if they: (1) were published prior to March 2025, (2) were published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, (3) focused on human participants, (4) included day- or moment-level data derived from either ecological momentary assessment, daily diaries, daily surveys/prompts or via timeline followback interview data curated to the day level, (5) included the Urgency, Premeditation, Perseverance, and Sensation Seeking (UPPS) questionnaire, in either short or long form (Cyders et al., 2014; Lynam et al., 2007), (6) specified a cross-level interaction between 1+ impulsive trait from the UPPS measure and a day-level variable, and (7) had an alcohol-related outcome.

It is important to note that our eligibility criteria focused on studies using the UPPS questionnaire for two primary reasons. First, given our goal of understanding specificity across impulsive traits, studies using the UPPS questionnaire had the opportunity, which most took advantage of, to compare how different aspects of impulsivity relate (or do not relate) to certain outcomes based upon context. Second, we sought to have studies use a common measurement of impulsive traits, given the substantial number of impulsivity scales that could make it difficult to understand whether differences across studies were due to contextual influences or due to measurement considerations.

Papers using qualitative data were not included, given this study was a narrative review of naturalistic environments and compared statistically significant results across studies. Papers using experimental paradigms were not included given their lack of naturalistic environments on a day-to-day basis, which were central to the current narrative review’s focus on day-to-day naturalistic environmental influences. Animal studies were not included given the focus on self-reported impulsive traits in humans.

Search strategy

The study team conducted a literature search to identify research articles that fit study criteria across three platforms, namely PsycInfo, PubMed, and Google Scholar. The following search terms were specified, sequentially: (1) “UPPS” and “alcohol” and “ecological momentary assessment” and “interaction,” (2) “UPPS” and “alcohol” and “daily diary” and “interaction,” (3) “UPPS” and “alcohol” and “daily survey” and “interaction,” (4) “UPPS” and “alcohol” and “timeline followback” and “interaction.” A senior research assistant compiled articles via these searches, and then both that RA and another senior RA narrowed the set of articles per the protocol. Each RA was intensively trained for each step of the protocol, leading to high degree of agreement among RAs at each step of the process (>90%). For example, during Step 1, when narrowing papers that used ecological momentary assessment, daily diary/survey, or timeline followback methods, RAs attended an hour-long training where they were briefed on each of these methodologies, and engaged in practical learning examples with their supervisor using sample papers. If the two RAs had discrepancies at any stage of the narrowing process, they engaged in discussions with their supervisor to come to a collective group decision on study inclusion vs. exclusion. Once the final set of papers were narrowed and agreed upon, the final set were sent to five researchers with expertise in impulsivity, daily survey/diary methods, and alcohol use/misuse to ensure there were no studies missed via the search strategy (Figure 1).

RESULTS

Description of included studies

We identified 243 peer-reviewed articles as part of our search. We then narrowed to articles that used ecological momentary assessment, daily diary/survey, or timeline followback data (N = 118), and then studies that included the UPPS impulsivity measure (N = 85). We then narrowed to articles that conducted day-level analyses (i.e., removed articles that treated the timeline followback as a between-person aggregate; N = 62 eligible articles), and further narrowed to articles that tested a cross-level interaction between a day/momentary-level variable and trait impulsivity (N = 19). This list of articles was sent to five experts in the field, and we further included one additional article that met study criteria (N = 20). Finally, we narrowed to articles that had an alcohol-related outcome (N = 13), which served as the final set of articles reviewed in the current manuscript (Figures 1 and 2).

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Studies reviewed. Drinking context was defined as pregaming, daytime affect was defined as either positive affect, negative affect, or PTSD symptoms, alcohol and cannabis co-use was defined as either the presence of cannabis or grams of cannabis used on a given day, drinking intentions/plans were defined as the number of drinks planned or if any drinking was planned, and other categories were physical activity, rate of consumption, and day-moment-level impulsivity.

Of the 13 peer-reviewed articles reviewed, N = 3 used timeline followback interview (TLFB) data curated to the day level, N = 9 used ecological momentary assessments/daily surveys, and N = 1 was a registered report. Of the articles that met study criteria, only two articles used momentary data, whereas all other empirical studies used day-level data. Articles varied in their sample sizes, recruitment strategies, and eligibility criteria (Table 1).

TABLE 1.

Studies included in narrative review.

Sample type Type of data Day/momentary-level variable Which UPPS variables tested Impulsive trait variables with significant interaction
Social context
 King et al. (2024) College students Timeline followback Pregaming vs. non-/Pregaming days All Premeditation, positive urgency, sensation seeking
Affect/PTSD
 Bold et al. (2017) Young adults Daily surveys Negative and positive affect All Positive and negative urgency
 Simons et al. (2010) College students EMA Sadness, hostility, anxiety, joviality All except sensation seeking Positive and negative urgency
 Dora et al. (2022) College students Daily surveys Negative and positive affect Positive and negative urgency Positive urgency
 Gaher et al. (2014) Veterans Daily surveys PTSD symptoms Negative urgency No significant interactions
 Dora et al. (2025) Young adults Daily surveys Negative and positive affect Negative and positive urgency Not yet analyzed (registered report)
Alcohol and Cannabis co-use
 Daros et al. (2022) Young adults Timeline followback Grams of delta-9 THC All Sensation seeking and negative urgency
 Waddell et al. (2021) Veterans Timeline followback Alcohol/Cannabis co-use (vs. alcohol-only) All Positive urgency and lack of perseverance
Planned drinking/Intentions
 Stevens et al. (2017) Young adults EMA # of intended drinks All No significant interactions
 Waddell, Fairlie, et al. (2023) Young adults Daily surveys Planned (vs. Unplanned) Positive urgency, premeditation Positive urgency
Physical activity
 Najjar et al. (2023) College students Daily surveys Physical activity All Positive urgency
Rate of consumption
 McNamara et al. (2024) Community EMA Time point during drinking episode All Urgency, premeditation, perseverance, sensation seeking
Impulsive states
 Griffin and Trull (2021) Young adults EMA Impulsive states All No significant interactions
Open in a new tab

Note: N = 13 studies fit the eligibility criteria for inclusion, being (1) published prior to March 2025, (2) published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, (3) focused on human participants, (4) included day- or moment-level data derived from either ecological momentary assessment, daily diaries, daily surveys/prompts, or via timeline followback interview data curated to the day-level, and (5) included the Urgency, Premeditation, Perseverance, and Sensation Seeking (UPPS) questionnaire, either in short or long-form (Cyders et al., 2014; Lynam et al., 2007), and (6) specified a cross-level interaction between 1+ impulsive trait from the UPPS measure and a day-level variable; see supplemental material for additional information for each study in terms of sample size, age range and mean, sex distribution, country of origin, and alcohol variable of interest.

Included studies

Drinking context

One study assessed whether impulsive traits influenced relations between day-level drinking context and drinking behavior, which measured pregaming at the day level (King et al., 2024). King et al. (2024) used past 30-day timeline followback interview data curated to the day level to test whether days when individuals pregamed (yes/no) were associated with heavier drinking and more negative alcohol consequences dependent upon UPPS-P traits. In terms of quantity of consumption, King et al. (2024) found that lack of premeditation and sensation seeking moderated the impact of day-level pregaming on quantity of consumption, such that pregaming (vs. non-/pregaming) days were associated with a higher number of drinks for individuals with higher (vs. lower) levels of lack of premeditation and sensation seeking. In terms of negative alcohol consequences, controlling for day-level quantity of consumption, King et al. (2024) found that sensation seeking and positive urgency moderated the impact of day-level pregaming on negative consequences, such that pregaming (vs. non-/pregaming) days were associated with more negative consequences for individuals higher (vs. lower) in positive urgency, but with more negative consequences for individuals lower (vs. higher) in sensation seeking. King et al. (2024) found no other interactions between UPPS-P facets and pregaming.

Affect

Five studies tested the impact of UPPS-P impulsive traits on the association between day-level affective variables (i.e., negative affect, positive affect, and PTSD symptoms) and alcohol outcomes, four of which were empirically tested (Bold et al., 2017; Dora et al., 2022; Gaher et al., 2014; Simons et al., 2010), and one of which was an accepted registered report (Dora et al., 2025). Bold et al. (2017) used daily surveys in young adults to test the association between day-level positive and negative affect and drinking to intoxication on alcohol use days (i.e., a BAC > =0.08). Bold et al. (2017) found that, on days when negative affect was higher than average, individuals with higher (vs. lower) levels of negative urgency were more likely to drink to intoxication. Similarly, Bold et al. (2017) found that, on days when positive affect was higher than average, individuals with higher (vs. lower) levels of positive urgency were more likely to drink to intoxication. Bold et al. (2017) found no interactions with other UPPS-P facets, but did find a cross-affective interaction between negative urgency and positive affect, such that, on days when positive affect was higher than average, individuals higher (vs. lower) in negative urgency were more likely to drink to intoxication.

Similar to Bold et al. (2017), Simons et al. (2010) collected daily surveys in college students, measuring daytime positive affect (i.e. joviality) and negative affect (i.e., anxiety, hostility, and sadness). Simons et al. (2010) tested whether the association between affect and level of intoxication when drinking, defined as a combination of heaviness of drinking and subjective intoxication, as well as acute dependence symptoms, differed as a function of UPPS-P traits (excluding sensation seeking). In terms of intoxication, Simons et al. (2010) found a significant interaction between negative urgency and daytime anxiety, such that on days when anxiety was higher than average, individuals higher (vs. lower) in negative urgency reported higher levels of intoxication. Further, Simons et al. (2010) found an interaction between positive urgency and daytime anxiety, such that on days when anxiety was higher than average, individuals lower (vs. higher) in positive urgency reported higher levels of intoxication. However, there was no interaction between positive urgency and joviality (i.e., positive affect), and no significant interactions were present for lack of premeditation nor lack of perseverance—similarly, no interactions were found when predicting acute dependence symptoms.

In a similar analysis, Dora et al. (2022) combined two samples of college students, each using daily assessments, to test whether daytime positive affect and negative affect were associated with later-day alcohol use, and if relations differed by levels of positive urgency and negative urgency, respectively. Dora et al. (2022) found a significant interaction between positive urgency and daytime positive affect in predicting heaviness of drinking on alcohol use days, such that on days when positive affect was higher than average, individuals with higher (vs. lower) levels of positive urgency reported drinking more drinks. However, the identical analysis predicting any (vs. no) drinking from the same interaction between daytime positive affect and positive urgency was not statistically significant. Similarly, Dora et al. (2022) found that the interaction between day-time negative affect and trait negative urgency did not predict later-day any (vs. no) drinking nor heaviness of drinking. It is important to note, though, that such analyses have a planned follow-up, which has been published as a registered report (Dora et al., 2025). Dora et al. (2025) plan to test urgency-by-daytime affect interactions in young adults more broadly (rather than college students), testing whether such interactions predict consumption differentially based upon whether predicting later-day use behavior.

Finally, Gaher et al. (2014) collected daily surveys from veterans, and tested if daytime fluctuations in PTSD symptoms were associated with heavier drinking on alcohol use days in veterans dependent upon levels of negative urgency. However, Gaher et al. (2014) found no support for negative urgency by day-level PTSD symptom interactions.

Alcohol and cannabis Co-use

Two studies tested the impact of UPPS-P impulsive personality traits on the association between alcohol and cannabis couse and day-level drinking behavior (Daros et al., 2022; Waddell et al., 2021). Both studies used timeline followback interviews (TLFB) data curated to the day level to test study associations, with Daros et al. (2022) assessing substance use over the past 90 days in young adults, and Waddell et al. (2021) assessing substance use over the past 180 days in veterans. Daros et al. (2022) assessed the number of grams of THC (i.e., Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) consumed on a given alcohol use day and the number of alcoholic drinks consumed. Daros et al. (2022) found an interaction between fluctuations in grams of THC and negative urgency in predicting any (vs. no) alcohol consumption, such that on days when the number of grams of THC consumed was higher than average, individuals with lower (vs. higher) levels of negative urgency reported a higher likelihood of any drinking that day. Further, Daros et al. (2022) found an interaction between fluctuations in grams of THC and negative urgency in predicting the heaviness of alcohol consumption on drinking days, such that on days when the number of grams of THC consumed was higher than average, individuals with higher (vs. lower) levels of negative urgency reported heavier drinking. Daros et al. (2022) also found an interaction between grams of THC and sensation seeking (but no other UPPS-P facet) when predicting heaviness of drinking, but this interaction was not statistically significant when accounting for other UPPS-P interactions and was not probed.

Similarly, Waddell et al. (2021) assessed whether impulsive traits moderated the influence of cannabis use on a given drinking day and the number of drinks consumed that day. Waddell et al. (2021) found interactions between cannabis use (i.e., couse) and both positive urgency and lack of perseverance when predicting the number of drinks consumed, such that co-use (vs. alcohol-only) days were associated with lesser drinking when positive urgency and lack of perseverance were at mean and low levels, but co-use (vs. alcohol-only) days were unrelated to the quantity of consumption when positive urgency and lack of perseverance were high. However, when Waddell et al. (2021) limited TLFB data to the past 90 days, in line with the reporting time-frame of Daros et al. (2022), simple slopes for high levels of positive urgency/lack of perseverance changed, such that co-use (vs. alcohol-only) days were associated with a higher number of drinks when positive urgency was high, versus a lower number of drinks when positive urgency was low. Similarly, couse (vs. alcohol-only) days were associated, albeit nonstatistically, with a higher number of drinks when lack of perseverance was high versus significantly associated with a lower number of drinks when lack of perseverance was low. Thus, Waddell et al. (2021) found evidence that positive urgency and lack of perseverance blunted against the risk for heavier drinking on co-use (vs. alcohol-only) days when at mean and low levels, and provided some evidence that impulsive traits either statistically (or negligibly) potentiated the risk for heaviness of drinking when positive urgency (and lack of perseverance) was high.

Planned/intended drinking

Two studies tested the impact of UPPS-P impulsive personality traits on the association between planned/intended drinking and day-level drinking behavior (Stevens et al., 2017; Waddell, Fairlie, et al., 2023). Both studies used daily survey data in young adults. Stevens et al. (2017) tested whether each UPPS-P impulsivity trait moderated whether day-level deviations in drinking intentions on a given day (measuring as number of drinks intended to drink) predicted heaviness of consumption. However, Stevens et al. (2017) found that UPPS-P impulsive traits did not moderate the link between deviations in the number of intended drinks and actual drinks consumed on a given drinking day. On the contrary, Waddell, Fairlie, et al. (2023) and Waddell, Okey, et al., 2023 tested whether lack of premeditation and positive urgency moderated the impact of planned (vs. unplanned) drinking days (measured as yes/no) on heaviness of drinking on a given drinking day. Waddell, Fairlie, et al. (2023) and Waddell, Okey, et al. (2023) found that positive urgency moderated the association between planned (vs. unplanned) drinking days and quantity of consumption, such that planned (vs. unplanned) drinking days were associated with heavier consumption when positive urgency was lower (vs. higher)—rather, positive urgency differentiated the marginal means of quantity of alcohol consumption on unplanned (but not planned) drinking days, wherein the marginal mean of drinking quantity for unplanned drinking and high positive urgency was substantially higher than the marginal mean of drinking quantity for unplanned drinking when positive urgency was mean/low.

Physical activity

One study tested whether impulsive traits moderated the impact of physical activity on heaviness of drinking on alcohol use days in college students (Najjar et al., 2023). Najjar et al. (2023) measured physical activity objectively (using a fitness smartphone application) and subjectively via daily self-reported physical activity, testing whether UPPS-P traits moderated the impact of daily deviations in each on consumption. Najjar et al. (2023) found that positive urgency moderated the impact of day-level deviations in subjective and objectively reported physical activity, such that as day-level physical activity increased, individuals with higher levels of positive urgency reported heavier consumption, whereas individuals with lower levels of positive urgency reported lighter consumption.

Rate of consumption

One study tested whether impulsive traits moderated the rate of alcohol consumption (i.e., how fast one drinks) in a combined community and clinical sample (McNamara et al., 2024). McNamara et al. (2024) measured the rate of consumption through change in estimated blood alcohol concentration (eBAC) across six time points during drinking episodes and tested interactions between impulsive traits and time point in predicting changes in eBAC. McNamara et al. (2024) found significant interactions between urgency, lack of premeditation, lack of perseverance, and sensation seeking and each time point across a given drinking episode, such that individuals higher in each impulsive trait consumed alcohol at a faster rate throughout the tenure of a drinking episode. Further, McNamara et al. (2024) included a second analysis where all four impulsive traits (i.e., urgency, premeditation, perseverance, sensation seeking) were entered into a multivariate model simultaneously to assess the unique effects of each on the rate of consumption. In this model, only sensation seeking and lack of perseverance were associated with a faster rate of alcohol consumption during a drinking episode. It is worth noting that this study used an older version of the UPPS that did not differentiate positive from negative urgency.

Daily impulsivity

One study tested whether UPPS impulsive traits moderated the impact of momentary impulsive states, mapping onto UPPS traits, on momentary drinking behavior (Griffin & Trull, 2021). This study assessed momentary fluctuations in UPPS impulsive states and drinking behavior (i.e., dichotomous drinking and drinking quantity) across 21 days using Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) and tested whether the relation between impulsive states and drinking behavior was moderated by impulsive traits. However, Griffin and Trull (2021) found no significant interactions between UPPS impulsive states and UPPS impulsive traits in predicting drinking behavior.

DISCUSSION

The Acquired Preparedness Model suggests that individuals with higher levels of impulsive personality traits are more likely to experience reinforcing subjective experiences from alcohol, which over time lead to positive alcohol expectancies and approach-oriented drinking behavior (Anderson et al., 2003; Smith & Anderson, 2001). However, a predecessor to the Acquired Preparedness Model is Person-Environment Transactions Theory, suggesting that individuals with certain personality traits (e.g., impulsivity) react to, and behave differently, based upon their environment, leading to different subjective experiences and changes in behavior (Caspi et al., 2005; Caspi & Bem, 1990; Hopwood et al., 2022). Given advances in methods to assess environmental influences as they occur within individuals (e.g., daily diaries, ecological momentary assessments, day-level interviewing retrospective procedures), our understanding of how impulsive traits moderate links between environmental influences and drinking behavior has substantially progressed over the past decade. However, research has yet to collate the grouping of studies testing these cross-level interactions in alcohol research, and this narrative review sought to fill this gap.

Synthesis of prior research

This narrative review identified 13 peer-reviewed articles that met the criteria of testing person (i.e., UPPS-P impulsive traits) by environment (i.e., a day- or moment-level variable) transactions predicting alcohol-related outcomes using daily assessment methods. These studies spanned the themes of day-level drinking context (1 study), affective/PTSD symptoms (5 studies), alcohol and cannabis co-use (2 studies), drinking intentions/plans (2 studies), physical activity (1 study), rate of alcohol consumption (1 study), and impulsive states (1 study). Interestingly, of these studies, less than half of the reviewed studies tested variables that were theorized/measured to occur during drinking (i.e., 4 studies; drinking context, alcohol and cannabis co-use, rate of consumption), which are most aligned with the notion that impulsive traits bias how an individual acts and reacts (i.e., drinking behavior) within certain environments (Caspi & Bem, 1990). On the contrary, the majority of reviewed studies tested variables that were theorized/measured to occur before drinking events (i.e., 9 studies; daytime affect/PTSD symptoms, drinking intentions/plans, physical activity, state impulsive action), which then influence drinking behavior thereafter. Such differences in the types of environments through which person–environment transactions occurred place an emphasis on Caspi et al.’s (2005) broad definition of environments— that is, personality variables interact with a plethora of contexts beyond just social ones.

Eleven of 13 studies reviewed hypothesized, in some capacity, that individuals with higher levels of impulsivity would drink more alcohol based upon the day-level/environmental variable of interest (Bold et al., 2017; Daros et al., 2022; Dora et al., 2022; Dora et al., 2025; Gaher et al., 2014; King et al., 2024; McNamara et al., 2024; Simons et al., 2010; Stevens et al., 2017; Waddell et al., 2021; Waddell, Fairlie, et al., 2023). Across these studies, the predominant theory was that day-level/environmental variables would purport an increase in reinforcing effects for highly impulsive individuals, thereby driving increased consumption (Bold et al., 2017; Daros et al., 2022; Dora et al., 2022; Dora et al., 2025; Gaher et al., 2014; King et al., 2024; McNamara et al., 2024; Simons et al., 2010; Stevens et al., 2017; Waddell et al., 2021; Waddell, Fairlie, et al., 2023). On the contrary, hypotheses from the other studies reviewed were more based upon the notion that highly impulsive individuals would react differently due to some level of sensitivity to the day-level/environmental variable (e.g., arousal, impulsive action; Griffin & Trull, 2021; Najjar et al., 2023), rather than due to potentiated reinforcement.

Across studies with significant impulsivity-by-environment interactions, the most consistent finding was that positive urgency predicted heavier (vs. lighter) drinking for the given day-level/environmental variables, except for one study assessing grams of cannabis use on a given day (Daros et al., 2022) and one study assessing affect before drinking (Simons et al., 2010). Since the common theory across studies focused on sensitivity to potentiated affective reinforcement from drinking in highly impulsive individuals, findings make sense given that individuals high in positive urgency are sensitive to positive affective reinforcement by nature. One manuscript that did not find a person-by-environment interaction for positive urgency measured cannabis grams and did not specify if cannabis grams overlapped with alcohol (Daros et al., 2022); thus, one possibility is that cannabis and alcohol did not necessarily overlap, and therefore theories regarding affective reinforcement may apply less on these days. However, this manuscript did find an interaction for negative urgency, such that on days when more grams of cannabis were used, individuals higher in negative urgency were less likely to drink, but when they did drink, they drank more drinks. Alcohol and cannabis co-use is thought to potentiate both positive reinforcement (e.g., sociability) and negative reinforcement (e.g., relaxation; Waddell et al., 2024). Thus, one explanation may be that Daros et al. (2022)’s sample, which was a primary cannabis using sample, experienced more negative (rather than positive) reinforcement on days when more grams of cannabis were used, potentiating drinking behavior for those higher in negative urgency but not positive urgency. Another manuscript (Simons et al., 2010) found an interaction where higher positive urgency was associated with lesser drinking when experiencing more anxiety—however, the hypothesized notion would have been for positive affect, which was nonsignificant likely due to assessing only one positive affect item (i.e., “joviality”).

Two studies found interactions between negative urgency and day-level negative affect predicting drinking behavior (Bold et al., 2017; Simons et al., 2010), each in the expected direction wherein negative urgency potentiated risk when negative affect was higher than average. However, two other studies measuring day-level negative affect (Dora et al., 2022) and PTSD symptoms (Gaher et al., 2014) did not find significant interactions. While surprising, these findings likely lend evidence to support ongoing skepticism with affect regulation hypotheses related to drinking behavior (e.g., Dora et al., 2023; Tovmasyan et al., 2022). It is worth noting that the two studies finding significant effects tested drinking to intoxication as the outcome (Bold et al., 2017; Simons et al., 2010) whereas the other two tested drinking/drinking quantity (Dora et al., 2022; Gaher et al., 2014). To help remedy conflicting evidence, a current registered report by Dora et al. (2025) seeks to better understand dynamics between affect, urgency, and substance use, understanding if/how findings differ based upon sample (i.e., college vs. young adults) and how affect and drinking/substance use is measured.

While less consistent, three studies found expected findings for lack of premeditation and perseverance in relation to the potentiating effect of impulsive traits on drinking based upon day-level variables, particularly pregaming, alcohol and cannabis couse, and rate of consumption (Hopwood et al., 2022; McNamara et al., 2024; Waddell et al., 2021). Each of these variables was also associated with heavier drinking for individuals higher in positive urgency. Thus, it is likely that lack of premeditation/perseverance and positive urgency had substantial shared variance, as has been demonstrated by past research (Coskunpinar et al., 2013; Whiteside & Lynam, 2001). In support, early research on the UPPS facets suggested that correlations between lack of perseverance/lack of premeditation and the urgency facets were in the moderate range (r = 0.28–29; Whiteside & Lynam, 2001), and sample-to-sample estimates have shown that correlations between the two are in the moderate-to-high range (r = 0.30–0.50; e.g., Waddell et al., 2022; Watts et al., 2020). However, it is worth noting that studies focused on lack of premeditation and lack of perseverance found interactions above and beyond positive urgency, suggesting that their unique variance also predicted unique person-by-environmental variance.

Finally, findings were quite mixed for sensation seeking. Daros et al. (2022) found that deviations in grams of THC cannabis and trait sensation seeking interacted to predict drinking behavior, but that this effect dissipated when accounting for other impulsivity facets. In contrast, McNamara et al. (2024) found that interactions, wherein sensation seeking potentiated the rate of consumption, remained when accounting for all other impulsivity facets. Further, King et al. (2024) found that individuals with higher levels of sensation seeking reported heavier drinking (but less negative consequences) on pregaming days. While there is not a clear theme between these studies and their findings, each demonstrated there were day-level variables and/or contextual features that potentiated heavier, but not necessarily more problematic, drinking for those higher in sensation seeking.

Future directions

Studies reviewed advance the literature on person-by-environment transactions related to impulsive traits and day/moment-level variables; however, there are important future directions worthy of investigation to build upon these findings.

Drinking context

While one study assessed interactions between day-level pregaming (vs. non-/pregaming) days and UPPS-P impulsive traits (King et al., 2024), there is a paucity of research focusing on other drinking contexts. Person-level research has found that high arousal drinking contexts, defined as going to drinking environments with more people, normative heavy drinking, and easy access to alcohol, are quite risky in terms of heavy drinking and alcohol-related problems (Waddell et al., 2025). These contexts are perhaps most aligned with the notion that impulsive individuals gain different experiences and react differently based upon their environment, given that high arousal drinking contexts have contextual features (i.e., heavy drinking peers, alcohol cues, subjective reinforcement) that may motivate riskier drinking. Person-level research suggests that individuals high in positive urgency report heavier drinking when reporting more frequent drinking in high arousal settings (Waddell et al., 2022), but future research is needed to test these person-by-environment transactions within a given individual using daily/momentary methods. Further, understanding what aspects of these environments (e.g., alcohol cues, normativity of heavy drinking, more peers present) may drive differential associations for highly impulsive individuals may prove informative.

Other “environments”

As shown in the current narrative review, there are a variety of other “environments” broadly defined, that influenced drinking behavior in highly impulsive individuals. For example, person-level research suggests that individuals higher in impulsive traits drink more alcohol if they report worsened sleep (Miller et al., 2017; Waddell, Fairlie, et al., 2023; Waddell, Okey, et al., 2023), and individuals higher in impulsive traits show less receptiveness to alcohol interventions than others (Whitt et al., 2019). Thus, better understanding other “environments” that may potentiate risk at the day/momentary level is warranted, and theoretical work is needed to best understand how such event-level variables fit into theories that primarily focus on context/environment (i.e., person-environment transactions; Caspi et al., 2005).

Translation into cognition

Central to the acquired preparedness model is that potentiated reinforcement occurs for highly impulsive individuals, which then translates into changed cognition (expectancies; Smith & Anderson, 2001). Thus, research testing how day/moment-level impulsive trait-by-environment transactions predict near-term and long-term changes in cognition is warranted. Research suggests that past-day experiences with alcohol influence next-day expectancies (Lee et al., 2018) and that past experiences with alcohol can affect expectancies from months to years later (e.g., Corbin et al., 2011; Park et al., 2013). Thus, better understanding which person-by-environment transactions purport changes in cognition, and on what time scale, may also be fruitful in understanding the process through which acquired preparedness develops. Relevant to changes in cognition may be that highly impulsive individuals also discount a variety of negative consequences (e.g., Finn et al., 2020), and thus it may be helpful to know what kinds of consequences/experiences purport changes in cognition as compared to other consequences/experiences that are discounted/not introspected upon.

Cannabis

Given dramatic increases in cannabis use over the past decade (Patrick et al., 2024), and similar theoretical frameworks related to impulsivity and alcohol/cannabis use (Coskunpinar et al., 2013; VanderVeen et al., 2016), continued work using daily methodologies to test such environmental transactions related to cannabis use is warranted. Person-level research has found that impulsive traits moderate the impact of social context on the frequency of cannabis use (Waddell, Okey, et al., 2023). However, day-level replication and extension regarding what aspects of cannabis use contexts, which are often distinct from alcohol use contexts (e.g., Boyle et al., 2023), purport that such person-by-environment transactions are important future directions. Similarly, it may be important to understand how different methods of consumption and/or types of cannabis used may motivate person-by-environment transactions for highly impulsive individuals.

Context-specific and personality-centered intervention development

It is clear from the current narrative review that person-by-environment transactions are present for impulsive traits, day-level environments, and drinking behavior. What is less clear, though, is if such contexts can be harnessed in dynamic interventions to prevent risk behavior in certain individuals based upon their personality. Personality-centered interventions have shown prowess in identifying individuals for certain intervention targets (e.g., impulsive individuals for emotion regulation and decision-making training; Conrod et al., 2011; Conrod et al., 2025). Further, context-specific interventions have shown prowess at reducing risky behavior based upon drinking events/contexts (e.g., Cullum et al., 2012; Neighbors et al., 2006; Steinka-Fry et al., 2015). Thus, better understanding the overlap between the two, specifically whether certain context-specific interventions may be impactful in reducing risk for individuals with certain personality traits, may be an effective and personalized method of reducing harms associated with drinking behavior.

Limitations

The current narrative review had limitations worthy of discussion. First, as a by-product of the current review’s focus on naturalistic environments that occur on a day-to-day basis, experimental studies were excluded. However, experimental studies may show promise in isolating controlled environmental cues and/or situations (e.g., Cyders et al., 2014), during which highly impulsive individuals may act or react in certain ways. Therefore, future work is needed to summarize and extend the literature on impulsive traits and behavior within the confines of researcher-manipulated experimental studies. Second, this narrative review focused on peer-reviewed published studies, and it is possible that there were other studies with nonsignificant person-by-environment transactions that did not reach publication. Third, aside from the registered report included (Dora et al., 2023), only one of the studies reviewed reported preregistration of analytic details (Dora et al., 2022). Thus, findings from other studies may be considered exploratory for other studies. Finally, studies reviewed were quite different in their sample sizes (i.e., Ns = 49–737) but generally reported small-to-moderate effect sizes across samples despite substantial heterogeneity. Specifically for drinking quantity, some studies found differences in quantity consumed as large as 4 standard drinks (e.g., Najjar et al., 2023) whereas others found differences as small as 0.5 standard drinks (e.g., Waddell et al., 2021). Given generally small-to-moderate effect sizes across studies, replication across sample groups and sizes is needed to make firmer conclusions regarding such person-environment transactions in daily life.

CONCLUSIONS

The current narrative review identified 13 peer-reviewed articles that tested (or plan to test) person-by-environment transactions between day-/moment-level variables and UPPS impulsive traits predicting drinking behavior. The most common finding was that positive urgency potentiated risk for heavier drinking on days when contextual, affective, and cognitive risk were higher than average, whereas findings for other impulsive traits were variable based upon the trait and environmental/day-level variable measured. Findings pave the way for future research, discussion, and potential intervention development focused on person-by-environment transactions related to impulsive traits and day-varying environments.

Supplementary Material

supp material

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of this article.

FUNDING INFORMATION

This study was supported by grant T32-AA013525 (PIs: Spadoni & Riley) from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Grant/Award Number: T32-AA013525

Footnotes

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

REFERENCES

  1. Anderson KG, Smith GT & Fischer SF (2003) Women and acquired preparedness: personality and learning implications for alcohol use. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64(3), 384–392. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bold KW, Fucito LM, DeMartini KS, Leeman RF, Kranzler HR, Corbin WR et al. (2017) Urgency traits moderate daily relations between affect and drinking to intoxication among young adults. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 170, 59–65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Boyle HK, Jackson KM, Carey KB & Merrill JE (2024) Characterizing alcohol consumption and positive and negative consequences during simultaneous alcohol and cannabis use events. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 85(1), 62–72. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Boyle HK, Singh S, López G, Jackson KM, Carey KB & Merrill JE (2023) Insights into the context of simultaneous alcohol and cannabis use among young adults. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 31(3), 662–673. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Caspi A & Bem DJ (1990) Personality continuity and change across the life course. In: Pervin LA & John OP (Eds.) Handbook of personality: theory and research, 2nd edition. New York, NY: Guilford Press, pp. 300–326. [Google Scholar]
  6. Caspi A, Roberts BW & Shiner RL (2005) Personality development: stability and change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 453–484. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2024) Alcohol facts and statistics. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/facts-stats/index.html [Accessed 14th August 2025]. [Google Scholar]
  8. Conrod P, Stewart SH, Seguin J, Pihl R, Masse B, Spinney S et al. (2025) Five-year outcomes of a school-based personality-focused prevention program on adolescent substance use disorder: a cluster randomized trial. American Journal of Psychiatry, 182, 473–482. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Conrod PJ, Castellanos-Ryan N & Mackie C (2011) Long-term effects of a personality-targeted intervention to reduce alcohol use in adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79(3), 296–397. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Corbin WR, Iwamoto DK & Fromme K (2011) A comprehensive longitudinal test of the acquired preparedness model for alcohol use and related problems. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 72(4), 602–610. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Coskunpinar A, Dir AL & Cyders MA (2013) Multidimensionality in impulsivity and alcohol use: a meta-analysis using the UPPS model of impulsivity. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 37(9), 1441–1450. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Creswell KG (2021) Drinking together and drinking alone: a social-contextual framework for examining risk for alcohol use disorder. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 30(1), 19–25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Cullum J, O’Grady M, Armeli S & Tennen H (2012) The role of context-specific norms and group size in alcohol consumption and compliance drinking during natural drinking events. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34(4), 304–312. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Cyders MA, Littlefield AK, Coffey S & Karyadi KA (2014) Examination of a short English version of the UPPS-P impulsive behavior scale. Addictive Behaviors, 39(9), 1372–1376. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Daros AR, Pereira BJ, Khan D, Ruocco AC, Quilty LC & Wardell JD (2022) Daily associations between cannabis use and alcohol use in young adults: the moderating role of self-report and behavioral measures of impulsivity. Addiction Research & Theory, 30(2), 79–88. [Google Scholar]
  16. Dora J, McCabe CJ, Schultz ME, Lee CM, Shoda Y, Patrick ME et al. (2025) Stage 1 registered report: alcohol and cannabis use predicted by affect-urgency interactions in everyday life. [Google Scholar]
  17. Dora J, Piccirillo M, Foster KT, Arbeau K, Armeli S, Auriacombe M et al. (2023) The daily association between affect and alcohol use: a meta-analysis of individual participant data. Psychological Bulletin, 149(1–2), 1–21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Dora J, Schultz ME, Shoda Y, Lee CM & King KM (2022) No evidence for trait- and state-level urgency moderating the daily association between negative affect and subsequent alcohol use in two college samples. Brain and Neuroscience Advances, 6, 23982128221079556. Available from: 10.1177/23982128221079556 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Dvorak RD, Pearson MR & Day AM (2014) Ecological momentary assessment of acute alcohol use disorder symptoms: associations with mood, motives, and use on planned drinking days. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 22(4), 285–300. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Fairbairn CE & Kang D (2025) Social drinking and addiction: a social-cognitive model for understanding alcohol use disorder risk. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 34, 225–231. Available from: 10.1177/09637214251318272 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Finn PR, Fisher L, Mayer H, Ingram P, Howe L & Atkinson E (2020) Disinhibited personality, incentives, disincentives, and drinking-related decisions. Alcohol, 82, 53–61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Fraley RC & Roberts BW (2005) Patterns of continuity: a dynamic model for conceptualizing the stability of individual differences in psychological constructs across the life course. Psychological Review, 112(1), 60–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Gaher RM, Simons JS, Hahn AM, Hofman NL, Hansen J & Buchkoski J (2014) An experience sampling study of PTSD and alcohol-related problems. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 28(4), 1013–1023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Griffin SA & Trull TJ (2021) Alcohol use in daily life: examining the role of trait and state impulsivity facets. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 35(2), 199–210. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Gunn RL, Stevens AK, Micalizzi L, Jackson KM, Borsari B & Metrik J (2020) Longitudinal associations between negative urgency, symptoms of depression, cannabis and alcohol use in veterans. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 28(4), 426–435. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Halvorson MA, Lengua LJ, Smith GT & King KM (2023) Pathways of personality and learning risk for addictive behaviors: a systematic review of mediational research on the acquired preparedness model. Journal of Personality, 91(3), 613–637. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Hopwood CJ, Wright AG & Bleidorn W (2022) Person–environment transactions differentiate personality and psychopathology. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(1), 55–63. [Google Scholar]
  28. King SE, Waddell JT & Corbin WR (2024) Pregaming potentiates risk between UPPS-P impulsivity and day-level drinking behavior: a test of person–environment transactions theory. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 32(3), 340–352. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Lee CM, Rhew IC, Patrick ME, Fairlie AM, Cronce JM, Larimer ME et al. (2018) Learning from experience? The influence of positive and negative alcohol-related consequences on next-day alcohol expectancies and use among college drinkers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 79(3), 465–473. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Lee YY, Wang P, Abdin E, Chang S, Shafie S, Sambasivam R et al. (2020) Prevalence of binge drinking and its association with mental health conditions and quality of life in Singapore. Addictive Behaviors, 100, 106114. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Lynam D, Smith GT, Cyders MA, Fischer S & Whiteside SA (2007) The UPPS-P: a multidimensional measure of risk for impulsive behavior. Unpublished technical report. [Google Scholar]
  32. McNamara IA, Nance M, Lane SP, Trela CJ, Wood PK, Piasecki TM et al. (2024) Trait impulsivity moderates rate of alcohol consumption in daily life. Addictive Behaviors, 152, 107976. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Menary KR, Corbin WR, Leeman RF, Fucito LM, Toll BA, DeMartini K et al. (2015) Interactive and indirect effects of anxiety and negative urgency on alcohol-related problems. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 39(7), 1267–1274. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Merrill JE, Boyle HK, Jackson KM & Carey KB (2019) Event-level correlates of drinking events characterized by alcohol-induced blackouts. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 43(12), 2599–2606. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Merrill JE, Vermont LN, Bachrach RL & Read JP (2013) Is the pregame to blame? Event-level associations between pregaming and alcohol-related consequences. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 74(5), 757–764. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Miller MB, DiBello AM, Lust SA, Meisel MK & Carey KB (2017) Impulsive personality traits and alcohol use: does sleeping help with thinking? Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 31(1), 46–56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Moeller FG, Barratt ES, Dougherty DM, Schmitz JM & Swann AC (2001) Psychiatric aspects of impulsivity. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158(11), 1783–1793. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Najjar LZ, Leasure JL, Henderson CE, Francis DJ & Neighbors C (2023) Subjective and behavioral impulsivity differentially moderate within-and between-person associations between physical activity and alcohol consumption. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 84(1), 137–146. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Neighbors C, Dillard AJ, Lewis MA, Bergstrom RL & Neil TA (2006) Normative misperceptions and temporal precedence of perceived norms and drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 67(2), 290–299. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. O’Donnell R, Richardson B, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M, Liknaitzky P, Arulkadacham L, Dvorak R et al. (2019) Ecological momentary assessment of drinking in young adults: an investigation into social context, affect and motives. Addictive Behaviors, 98, 106019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Page MJ, Moher D, Brennan S & McKenzie JE (2023) The PRISMATIC project: protocol for a research programme on novel methods to improve reporting and peer review of systematic reviews of health evidence. Systematic Reviews, 12(1), 196. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Park A, Kim J & Sori ME (2013) Short-term prospective influences of positive drinking consequences on heavy drinking. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 27(3), 799–809. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Patrick ME, Miech RA, Johnston LD & O’Malley PM (2024) Monitoring the future panel study annual report: national data on substance use among adults ages 19 to 65, 1976–2023. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. [Google Scholar]
  44. Schick MR, Williams JN, Kirk-Provencher KT, Cyders MA & Spillane NS (2022) Application of the acquired preparedness model for alcohol and cigarette use among reserve-dwelling first nation adolescents. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 36(8), 955–965. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Settles RE, Zapolski TC & Smith GT (2014) Longitudinal test of a developmental model of the transition to early drinking. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 123(1), 141–152. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Simons JS, Dvorak RD, Batien BD & Wray TB (2010) Event-level associations between affect, alcohol intoxication, and acute dependence symptoms: effects of urgency, self-control, and drinking experience. Addictive Behaviors, 35(12), 1045–1053. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Smith GT & Anderson KG (2001) Personality and learning factors combine to create risk for adolescent problem drinking: a model and suggestions for intervention. [Google Scholar]
  48. Steinka-Fry KT, Tanner-Smith EE & Grant S (2015) Effects of 21st birthday brief interventions on college student celebratory drinking: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Addictive Behaviors, 50, 13–21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Stevens AK, Littlefield AK, Talley AE & Brown JL (2017) Do individuals higher in impulsivity drink more impulsively? A pilot study within a high-risk sample of young adults. Addictive Behaviors, 65, 147–153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Tovmasyan A, Monk RL & Heim D (2022) Towards an affect intensity regulation hypothesis: systematic review and meta-analyses of the relationship between affective states and alcohol consumption. PLoS One, 17(1), e0262670. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Treat TA, Corbin WR, Papova A, Richner K, Craney R & Fromme K (2021) Selection and socialization accounts of the relation between fraternity membership and sexual aggression. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 35(3), 337–350. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General. (2025, January 3) Alcohol and cancer risk: The U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory. Available from: https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/reports-and-publications/alcohol-cancer/index.html
  53. VanderVeen JD, Hershberger AR & Cyders MA (2016) UPPS-P model impulsivity and marijuana use behaviors in adolescents: a meta-analysis. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 168, 181–190. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Waddell JT, Corbin WR, Grimm KJ, Metrik J, Lee CM & Trull TJ (2024) Within-episode relations among simultaneous alcohol and cannabis use and continued drinking: the role of momentary subjective responses, craving, and drinking context. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, 48(11), 2175–2187. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Waddell JT, Fairlie AM, Calhoun BH, Patrick ME & Lee CM (2023) Planned versus unplanned drinking and cannabis use: do facets of trait impulsivity influence daily risk? Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 37(2), 341–353. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Waddell JT, Gunn RL, Corbin WR, Borsari B & Metrik J (2021) Drinking less on cannabis use days: the moderating role of UPPS-P impulsive personality traits. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 35(6), 737–750. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Waddell JT, King SE & Corbin WR (2025) Initial development and preliminary validation of the physical drinking contexts scale. Assessment, 10731911251321930. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Waddell JT, King SE, Okey SA, Marohnic SD & Corbin WR (2022) Prospective effects of UPPS-P impulsivity and typical drinking context on future drinking behavior. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 83(2), 212–222. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Waddell JT, Okey SA, McDonald A, Quiroz SI, Woods-Gonzalez R & Corbin WR (2023) Cannabis use in context: relations among impulsive personality traits, context, and cannabis problems. Addictive Behaviors, 147, 107841. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Watts AL, Smith GT, Barch DM & Sher KJ (2020) Factor structure, measurement and structural invariance, and external validity of an abbreviated youth version of the UPPS-P impulsive behavior scale. Psychological Assessment, 32(4), 336–350. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Whiteside SP & Lynam DR (2001) The five-factor model and impulsivity: using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 30(4), 669–689. [Google Scholar]
  62. Whitt ZT, Bernstein M, Spillane N, Stein LAR, Suffoletto B, Neighbors C et al. (2019) Positive urgency worsens the impact of normative feedback on 21st birthday drinking. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 204, 107559. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. World Health Organization. (2024) Alcohol. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/alcohol [Accessed 14th August 2025].
  64. Zamboanga BL, Newins AR, Walukevich-Dienst K, Merrill JE, Ramarushton B, Kim SY et al. (2024) Motives to play drinking games and their unique associations with drinking game behaviors and consequences in a national sample of university students in the United States. Psychology & Health, 1–17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

supp material
NIHMS2113057-supplement-supp_material.docx (16.8KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

RESOURCES