Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Aug 12.
Published before final editing as: Subst Use Misuse. 2026 Aug 5:1–10. doi: 10.1080/10826084.2026.2709649

Daily Drinking Behaviors and the Influence of Rumination, Impulsivity, and Social Drinking Contexts

Derek D Morgan 1, Megan Fleming 1,2, Keely Dugan 1, Tionna Hough 1, Shuo Yan 1, Timothy J Trull 1
PMCID: PMC13460261  NIHMSID: NIHMS2198096  PMID: 42557868

Abstract

Background:

Impulsivity may mediate the effect of rumination on daily drinking behaviors via a negative emotional cascade, though few studies have examined temporal associations of rumination and impulsivity leading to drinking within the day. Social drinking contexts may also influence the negative emotional cascade, with social and solitary conditions potentially moderating these associations.

Methods:

This study used multilevel structural equation modeling (MSEM) to examine the mediating effect of impulsivity between rumination and drinking behaviors at the within- and between-person levels. Social drinking context was also examined as a moderator of the relations between rumination, as well as impulsivity, and later drinking behaviors within-person.

Results:

Within-person, earlier day rumination associated with later day impulsivity, which in turn associated with greater likelihood of later day alcohol consumption and negative drinking consequences. Solitary drinking, compared to social drinking, served as a protective factor between earlier day impulsivity and later drinking.

Conclusions:

Earlier rumination may lead to greater daily drinking behaviors through impulsivity via negative emotional cascades. Intervention programs seeking to reduce alcohol use may look to target rumination which may in turn lessen impulsive behaviors thereby mitigating daily drinking.

Keywords: Alcohol Use, Impulsivity, Rumination, MSEM, Ecological Momentary Assessment

Introduction

Drinking behaviors among emerging adults, those between the ages of 18 to 29, can often be influenced by negative emotional states and behavioral dysregulation. Emerging adults tend to report higher levels of negative experiences than other age groups, including rumination (Sütterlin et al., 2012), and greater levels of emotional dysregulation than older adults, which may be accompanied by impulsivity (Miller & Racine, 2022). Experiences of rumination and impulsivity can be associated with emerging adult daily drinking, as rumination may lead to drinking to lessen negative experiences (Selby et al., 2008), while impulsivity may enhance sensation-seeking which can enhance consumption (Griffin & Trull, 2021). Additionally, the process by which rumination and impulsivity influence drinking may include negative emotional cascades, whereby negative experiences coalesce to influence dysregulated behaviors that can lead to substance use (Selby et al., 2016). This model suggests that greater negative emotionality (i.e., rumination) may lead to dysregulated or impulsive behaviors, which in turn can include drinking in order to disrupt negative affect states (Selby et al., 2008). However, although the processes implicated in the negative emotional cascade model suggest a series of associations unfolding over time, the temporal associations between rumination, impulsivity, and drinking have seldom been examined.

Rumination, a repetitive and often distressing cognitive thought pattern (du Pont et al., 2018), has been linked with emerging adult drinking behaviors (Caselli et al., 2010). Reports of rumination have been associated with greater drinking and negative drinking consequences (Bravo et al., 2018; Caselli et al., 2010). Rumination may influence drinking behaviors by way of negative emotional cascades, such that greater rumination increases feelings of negative affect followed by individuals turning to drinking to cope with these negative feelings (Selby et al., 2008). Indeed, both cross-sectional (Alpay et al., 2024; Hilt et al., 2017; Wakeford et al., 2018) and longitudinal effects (Hamonniere et al., 2020; Harwell et al., 2011) between rumination and drinking have been observed. Furthermore, rumination has been found to influence greater alcohol use within-day (Riley et al., 2018). However, few studies have explored the temporal associations between daily rumination and drinking (Alpay et al., 2024; Ciesla et al., 2011), limiting our understanding of whether earlier experiences of rumination influence later day drinking behaviors.

The negative emotional cascade model suggests that negative feelings may influence substance use through dysregulated behavior (Selby et al., 2016), such as impulsivity. Impulsivity involves engaging in actions driven by immediate urges or desires to receive a reward (Cyders et al., 2014) and has been found to increase following rumination (Dawe et al., 2004). Experiences which increase momentary negative affectivity can influence impulsive behaviors as one attempts to cope and reduce negative affect (Herman & Duka, 2019). In the emotional cascade model, impulsive behaviors increase following negative experiences (i.e., rumination), as they help to stabilize the emotional system (Selby et al., 2016). The link between rumination and impulsivity can also strengthen over time as this process is reinforced (Selby et al., 2008), with prior work suggesting that rumination is associated with increased impulsive behaviors up to four weeks later (Denson et al., 2011).

Impulsivity has also been associated with alcohol use (Coskunpinar et al., 2013; Cyders et al., 2014). For example, impulsivity has been associated with consuming greater amounts of alcohol (Coskunpinar et al., 2013), and greater chances of drinking at the daily level (Griffin & Trull, 2021; Lydon-Staley et al., 2020). Greater impulsivity may limit conscientious, measured decision-making and may increase actions aimed at immediate rewards (Shin et al., 2012), such as can be attained by consuming alcohol. In a negative emotional cascade, impulsivity may lead to drinking due to perceptions that alcohol may provide immediate alleviation of uncomfortable internal states or enhanced affect (Selby et al., 2008). Despite prior links between impulsivity and drinking behaviors, few have shown that impulsivity can predict later day consumption (Griffin & Trull, 2021) and drinking consequences (Stamates & Lau-Barraco, 2020) within-person.

A limited number of studies have examined the mediating effect that impulsivity can have between rumination and alcohol use (Pollack et al., 2021; Riley et al., 2018; Selby et al., 2016), with less attention paid to daily within-person changes. At the within-person level, on days with greater rumination, impulsivity served as a significant mediator between rumination and alcohol use (Riley et al., 2018), and greater within-day lagged momentary rumination and negative mood were associated with more impulsive actions, including those of binge drinking (Selby et al., 2016). However, use of nightly daily diary assessments limit Riley and colleagues (2018) ability to predict whether rumination led to impulsivity, and impulsivity to alcohol use within the day. Additionally, while Selby and colleagues (2016) found predictive association for rumination on later momentary impulsivity behaviors, they did not examine whether impulsive behaviors served to mediate the effect of rumination on later substance use. Thus, while prior studies hint at evidence for rumination influencing impulsivity and leading to alcohol use, there remains a need to assess the temporal associations to further evaluate components of the negative emotional cascade model.

Social Drinking Context

Social contexts can contribute to drinking behaviors as being with others and being alone may influence separate processes that drive risky drinking (Creswell, 2021). For example, emerging adults engage in more risky drinking behaviors when around others (Bonar et al., 2022) compared to when they are alone. When in the presence of others, emerging adults tend to exhibit more dysregulated behaviors and substance use (Buckner et al., 2019). On the other hand, solitary drinking contexts may reduce the extent of emerging adult drinking as drinking alone may prompt more immediate feelings of loneliness and negative affect (Christiansen et al., 2002), which can lessen drinking at the state level (Tovmasyan et al., 2022; Waddell et al., 2024). Notably, negative feelings during drinking moments may limit drinking behaviors (Courtney & Russell, 2021). In contrast in the negative emotional cascade model negative experiences may gradually build up and steadily enhance dysregulation to increase later substance use. However, the role that social and solitary contexts may have on processes involved in a negative emotional cascades is unclear, and few studies have examined the potential moderating effects of these contexts on rumination and impulsivity and later drinking.

Current Study

Limited studies have evaluated the potential mediating effect of impulsivity between rumination and drinking behaviors within a day (Pollack et al., 2021; Riley et al., 2018). In addition, social drinking contexts which play a role in emerging adult drinking behaviors (Buckner et al., 2019; Creswell, 2021), may also moderate the effect that within-day rumination and impulsivity have on drinking. To address these gaps in research, this study used a sample of emerging adults with a history of binge drinking who completed an intensive longitudinal survey design to examine within- and between-person processes.

Using multilevel structural equation model (MSEM) the following hypotheses were tested: 1) rumination will be positively associated with later impulsivity; 2) rumination will be positively associated with later day drinking behaviors (including drinking days (Y/N); daily total drinks; and drinking consequences); and 3) impulsivity will serve as a mediator between earlier rumination and later drinking behaviors (including drinking days (Y/N); daily total drinks; and drinking consequences). Additionally, moderation effects for social drinking contexts at the within-person level were hypothesized, such that 4) social drinking context (i.e., being in the presence of others while drinking) will enhance the association between earlier rumination and later (a) alcohol consumption and (b) alcohol consequences, and 5) social drinking context will enhance the association between impulsivity and later (a) alcohol consumption and (b) alcohol consequences. In contrast, solitary drinking contexts are expected to attenuate these associations.

Materials and Methods

Participants

Participants come from a longitudinal study of emerging adults (aged 21 to 29) who endorsed binge drinking within the last month. The current sample included only those who completed rumination measures included in the current analyses (N = 252, Mage = 24.4, 67.5% women). Rumination items were not initially included in the protocol but were added to the protocol approximately one year after initial participant recruitment (thus, a total of 114 participants’ data were excluded from the current set of analyses). Participants were primarily White (75.7%), and the majority attended college or had college degrees (72.6%), and most had an income under $25,000 (46.0%). See Table 1 for full sample demographics. The study was approved by the University Institutional Review Board, and recruitment used social media (i.e., Facebook and Reddit), community flyers placed in local bars and restaurants, and university listservs. Those who endorsed wanting to reduce or were receiving treatment for alcohol use, were pregnant or nursing, or had medical conditions that could be worsened with alcohol use were excluded. This study’s hypotheses and analyses were pre-registered (https://osf.io/gj76r/overview?view_only=57c1b9e72309462da24fb36d147afab4).

Table 1.

Participant Sex, Age, Ethnicity, Education, & Income

Variables N=252 (%)
Age (Mean, SD) 24.4 (2.49)
Sex Assigned at Birth
 Female 170 (67.5%)
 Male 82 (32.5%)
Race/Ethnicity
 Asian/Asian American 13 (5.1%)
 Black/African American 8 (3.1%)
 MultiRacial 13 (5.1%)
 White 191 (75.7%)
 Other 1 (0.3%)
 Hispanic/Latino 3 (1.1%)
  White Hispanic 19 (7.5%)
Education
 Complete High School 11 (4.3%)
 Post High School 54 (21.4%)
 Vocational/tech program 3 (1.1%)
 Bachelors 54 (21.4%)
 Post-graduate 84 (33.3%)
 Graduate 45 (17.8%)
Income
 $0 – $25,000 116 (46.0%)
 $25,000 – $50,000 58 (23.0%)
 $50,000 – $75,000 29 (11.5%)
 $75,000 – 100,000 17 (6.7%)
 $100,000+ 32 (12.6%)
Open in a new tab

Procedures

Over the course of one year, participants in the parent study completed five surveys, four timeline follow-back assessments, an optional alcohol administration, and four two-week ecological momentary assessment (EMA) bursts. The present study utilized data from the baseline survey and first EMA burst (14 days). Consent was obtained during an initial virtual study visit, followed by participants completing the baseline survey via Qualtrics. In a second virtual visit approximately 10 weeks later, participants were provided further instruction on how to download the TigerAware app and complete the EMA surveys. Participants completed scheduled daily prompts across the 14-day burst, with morning prompts available from 4AM-12PM, random prompts administered within specified 2.5 hour spans (e.g., 12PM-2:30PM, 2:30PM-5:00PM, 5:00PM-7:30PM, 7:30PM-10:00PM, 10:00PM-12:00PM) with a 15 minute buffer added in between prompts, bedtime prompts available from 8:00PM-12:00AM, and self-initiated drinking prompts. When participants reported alcohol use in random and drink initiation prompts, they received drinking follow up prompts at 30, 60, and 120 minutes following the first report. Ten weeks following the end of the first burst, participants completed the second burst, followed by a third and fourth, spaced approximately 10 weeks apart. Participants were compensated $50 for the baseline survey, and up to $100 (depending on compliance) for each EMA burst completed.

Measures

Rumination

Participants reported rumination in all assessments using the four-item hybrid version of the content subscale for repetitive negative thinking scale (RNT; Rosenkranz et al., 2020). Items asked participants to report how much they felt the following in the last 15 minutes, “I have been thinking about my feelings,” “I have been thinking about my problems,” “I felt weighed down by these thoughts,”, and “I got stuck on certain issues and couldn’t move on,” and were scored from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). The rumination items showed excellent reliability both within (ω = .88) and between-persons (ω = .96).

Impulsivity

Impulsivity was measured using four items adapted from the short UPPS-P impulsive behavior scale (Griffin & Trull, 2021; Whiteside et al., 2005) and were administered in all study prompts. Referencing the last 15 minutes, participants reported how much they felt, “I felt and acted on a strong impulse,” “I did something without really thinking it through,” “I gave up easily,” and “I did something for the thrill of it,” scored from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Each item assessed a component of impulsivity, including urgency, lack of premeditation, lack of perseverance, and sensation seeking, respectively (Griffin & Trull, 2021). The impulsivity total score (average of four items) had good reliability within-persons (ω = .68) and excellent reliability between-persons (ω = .97).

Drinking Days and Total Drinks

Participants reported whether they had a drink on random, drinking initiation, and drinking follow up prompts, and if so, indicated the quantity of drinks they had consumed. Drinking days were determined by examining if participants had endorsed a drinking event each day, which was coded as nondrinking (0) and drinking (1) days. Daily total drinks were calculated by summing the total drink number reported in EMA prompts each day, which included 0 drinks for nondrinking days and ranged from 1 to 23 on drinking days.

Drinking Consequences

Drinking consequences were assessed via the morning report following drinking days using the brief young adult alcohol consequences questionnaire (B-YAACQ: Kahler et al., 2005). Participants rated 19 possible negative drinking consequences, such as social-interpersonal consequences, impaired control, and risky behaviors; the subscales of self-care and dependance, totaling five items, were not assessed in EMA given their focus on perceived long-term effects of alcohol use. Participants reported on their endorsement of any consequences on a dichotomous scale of 0 (no) and 1 (yes). Items were summed and the total number of consequences ranged from 0 to 11; zero drinking consequences were imputed for non-drinking days.

Social Drinking Context

Social context was assessed by whether one was currently around others or alone and was rated on a dichotomous scale of 0 (no) and 1 (yes). Responses were gathered from the first drinking report to indicate whether they initiated drinking alone (solitary) or with others (socially).

Covariates

Covariates included weekend/weekday (weekend consisted of Friday, Saturday, Sunday and was coded as 1, while weekday was coded as 0), and participants’ sex at birth (1 = female, 2 = male), and age (which is a continuous number of years and months).

Analytic Plan

To account for temporal precedence of rumination and impulsivity relative to drinking behaviors, a mean drinking initiation time (t) across days was calculated for each person. Impulsivity responses were taken from the momentary assessment immediately before mean drinking initiation time (t-1) while rumination scores were from two prompts prior to the mean drinking initiation time (t-2), to model the effect that rumination had on later impulsivity, and impulsivity on later drinking behaviors. Moments prior to mean drinking were checked to ensure no drinking moments were included. Autoregressive effects for rumination (t-2) and impulsivity (t-1) from t-2 to t-1 were also included. Spacing between prompts showed an average of 2.65 hours between t-2 to t-1 prompts, and 6.67 hours between t-1 and mean drinking initiation time, with t-2 variables having 16.4% missing data and t-1 with approximately 0.04% missing data. Missingness for rumination was further examined and these analyses suggested that data was missing at random.

To test our hypotheses, we used multilevel structural equation modeling (MSEM) in Mplus Version 8.10 (Muthén & Muthén, 2025) with Bayesian estimation to better account for non-normal data distributions (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2021), such as zero-inflation and the skewness common in alcohol consumption and consequences variables (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2014). Zero-inflated Poisson models were then used for models including daily drinking, amount of drinks consumed, and reported drinking consequences. We followed the recommendations of Preacher et al. (2011) for examining mediation with nested data, accounting for both between-person differences and within-person residuals in the variables of interest across time (see also Lüdtke et al., 2008; Preacher et al., 2011). Variables were automatically centered within the MSEM model by specifying within- and between-person components. By appropriately partitioning the variance into within- and between-person components (i.e., centering), mediational processes involving both more stable, individual differences and state-like fluctuations in rumination, impulsivity, and drinking behaviors can be examined (Preacher et al., 2011). Model convergence was evaluated according to the potential scale reduction (PSR) criterion (Gelman et al., 2004), such that values less than 1.05 indicated convergence. Default non-informative priors were implemented via Mplus for all model parameters.

Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were computed at the within-person level to examine the proportion of variance due to clustering, with results for rumination (ICC = .45), impulsivity (ICC = .42), suggesting significant variation at the within-person level, while ICC’s for drinking day (ICC = .13), daily total drinks (ICC = .15), and drinking consequences (ICC = .14) suggesting a greater proportion of the variation was at the between-person level.

First, we fit an Bayesian MSEM examining the association between rumination (X; t-2) and whether individuals drank on a given day (Y; 0 = no drinking, 1 = drinks consumed), and tested whether there was an indirect effect of rumination on decisions to drink through impulsivity (M; t-1), see Figure 1 panel A. As drinking day was treated as a binary variable, we used multilevel logistic modeling. We then fit a second MSEM examining the effects of rumination (X) on both daily total drinks (Y1) and drinking consequences (Y2), and whether impulsivity mediated either of these associations, see Figure 1 panel B. As daily total drinks and drinking consequences were treated as count variables, we used hierarchical linear modeling. Indirect effects of rumination on drinking behaviors through impulsivity were assessed using 95% Bayes credibility intervals. We attempted to estimate models with random effects but encountered convergence errors due to limited variability of the data for impulsivity measures.

Figure 1. Mediating Effect of Impulsivity Between Rumination and (A) Drinking Days, and (B) Drinks Consumed and Drinking Consequences.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Note: Associations between rumination and impulsivity are standard beta. Those predicting drinking day are in odds ratio (OR), while those predicting total drinks and drinking consequences are item response ratios (IRR). Autoregressive effects not pictured. Solid lines indicate significant path, dashed lines nonsignificant paths. OR and IRR significant confidence intervals indicated by single *, while standard beta’s are based on p-value.

p < .05*, p <.01**, p < .001***.

Next, we tested whether social drinking context moderated the within-person direct paths (c’) from rumination to daily total drinks and drinking consequences, respectively, and whether social drinking context moderated the (b) paths from impulsivity to daily total drinks and drinking consequences. We did not test moderation of the (a) path from rumination to impulsivity, as social drinking context was temporally bound to drinking reports(t) which were taken following rumination (t-2) and impulsivity reports (t-1). As typical moderation effects in the model (i.e., involving a product term) resulted in model nonconvergence; fixed groups were used given the dichotomous nature of the social drinking context (i.e., social drinking vs solitary drinking) to examine moderation paths.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

The current study included 3093 days, with 821 (26.5%) containing drinking, and 219 (7.1%) with drinking consequences endorsed. Participants completed an average of 5.4 (SD = 2.12, Range = 1–15) surveys daily, and around 73.8 (Range = 12–133) observations across the 14-day EMA burst. They reported an average of 3.62 (SD = 2.21, Range = 1–13) drinking days consuming approximately 3.23 (SD = 2.67; Range = 1–26) drinks and reported an average of .24 (Range = 0–8) drinking consequences across drinking days. Roughly half of participants engaged in binge drinking during the EMA burst (n = 134, 48.9%), which occurred on 272 (8.7%) of drinking days. Additionally, the sample reported moderate scores on the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT; M = 8.99, SD = 4.37), with most of the sample (n = 152, 55.4%) obtaining clinically relevant scores. Social drinking occurred on 654 (79.6%) drinking days, while solitary drinking occurred on 167 (20.3%); one day had no social context. Average EMA compliance for the sample was 82%, including 92% for random prompts, 71% for drinking follow-ups, and 86% for morning reports. For correlations between variables of interest, see Table 2.

Table 2.

Pearson Correlations

Measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Rumination — .252*** −.090*** .018 −.019 −.039* —
2. Impulsivity .568*** — .019 .035 −.017 .008 —
3. Daily Drink Number .184 .167* — .131*** .125** .145*** —
4. Drinking Consequences .232* .240** .711*** — .053* .067*** —
5. Social Drinking Context — — — — — .067* —
6. Weekend — — — — — — —
7. Age −.041 .073 .263** .117 — — —
8. Sex (Male vs Female) −.037 .035 −.039 −.170* — — .070
Open in a new tab

Note: Standardized values. Within-person correlations are above and between-person correlations are below the line.

Weekends and social drinking context are within-person variables, while age and sex are between-person.

p < .05*, p <.01**, p < .001***.

Drinking Days

Drinking days (1) accounted for 26.1% of the data while non-drinking days (0) accounted for 73.9% (see Table 3 and Figure 1 panel A). The drinking days model showed acceptable convergence (PSR = 1.001). Within-person, earlier rumination(t-2) was associated with greater impulsivity(t-1) later in the day (β = .07, p < .001), while controlling for autoregressive effects. Earlier rumination(t-2) was not associated with the chance of drinking that day (Odds Ratio, OR = 1.02, 95%BCI [.896, 1.169]), while impulsivity(t-1) had greater odds associated with the chance of drinking that day (OR = 1.36, 95%BCI [1.068, 1.732]). Impulsivity scores also served as a significant mediator between rumination(t-2) and daily drinking (OR = 1.01, 95%BCI [1.005, 1.057]). This suggests that earlier rumination may influence greater impulsivity, which then increases the chances of daily drinking. Between-person, greater average rumination was associated with greater average impulsivity (β = .74, p < .001), but neither rumination (95%BCI [.831, 1.284]) nor impulsivity (95%BCI [.341, 1.141]) were significantly associated with odds of drinking behavior at the between-person level.

Table 3.

Drinking Days Predicted by Rumination, and Mediated by Impulsivity

Within-Person Rumination(t-1) (β, 95% CI) Impulsivity(t-1) (β, 95% CI) Drinking Day (OR, 95% CI)
 Rumination(t-2) .665 [.640, .689] .076 [.038, .113] 1.025 [.896, 1.169]
 Impulsivity(t-1) — — 1.362 [1.068, 1.732]
 Weekend — — 1.898 [1.606, 2.243]
 Impulsivity(t-2) — .273 [.213, .330] —
 Indirect Effect — — 1.026 [1.005, 1.057]
Between-Person Impulsivity (β, 95% CI) Drinking Day (OR, 95% CI)
 Rumination .740 [.689, .785] 1.034 [.831, 1.284]
 Impulsivity — .626 [.341, 1.141]
 Age — 1.066 [1.021. 1.113]
 Male vs Female — .836 [.657, 1.059]
 Indirect Effect — .757 [.525, 1.081]
Open in a new tab

Note: Associations between rumination and impulsivity are standard beta, while those predicting drinking day are odds ratios. Posterior standard deviation included. Time −1 prior to average drink time = t-1, Time −2= t-2. Sex coded as 1 (female), 2 (male). Significant effects bolded.

Daily Total Drinks and Consequences

Next, daily total drinks and drinking consequences were examined in a single model and had acceptable convergence (PSR = 1.009); findings are shown in Table 4 and Figure 1 panel B. At the within-person level, earlier rumination(t-2) was positively associated with later impulsivity(t-1) (β = .10, p < .001), accounting for autoregressive effects, and was associated with decreased odds of consuming a greater number of drinks (Incidence Rate Ratio, IRR = .31, 95%BCI [.282, .352]) and reporting drinking consequences (IRR = .58, 95%BCI [.497, .674]). However, impulsivity(t-1) was associated with greater odds of consuming more drinks that day (IRR = 5.51, 95%BCI [4.216, 7.276]) and reporting more drinking consequences (IRR = 1.45, 95%BCI [1.082, 1.953]). Impulsivity also demonstrated significant mediating effects between earlier rumination(t-2) and odds of consuming greater drinks (IRR = 1.103, 95%BCI [1.070, 1.141]) and reporting greater drinking consequences (IRR = 1.022, 95%BCI [1.028, 1.076]). These findings suggest that within day, greater earlier experiences of rumination may lead to greater impulsivity, which in turn was associated with greater odds of consuming more drinks and experiencing more negative drinking consequences.

Table 4.

Rumination Predicting Impulsivity and Daily Total Drinks and Consequences and the Moderating Effect of Social Context

Within-Person Rumination(t-1) (β, 95% CI) Impulsivity(t-1) (β, 95% CI) Total Drinks Consumed (IRR, 95% CI) Drinking Consequences (IRR, 95% CI)
 Rumination(t-2) .523 [.496, .549] .108 [.079, .137] .316 [.282, .352] .583 [.497, .674]
 Impulsivity(t-1) — — 5.518 [4.216, 7.276] 1.459 [1.082, 1.953]
 Weekend — — 1.672 [1.529, 1.830] 1.314 [1.107, 1.558]
 Impulsivity(t-2) — .832 [.807, .854] — —
 Indirect Effect — — 1.103 [1.070, 1.141] 1.022 [1.028, 1.076]
 Rumination(t-2) X Solitary/Social — — .980 [.876, 1.091]/.978 [.675, 1.412] 1.009 [.849, 1.192]/1.008 [.688, 1.473]
 Impulsivity(t-1) X Solitary/Social — — .815 [.676, .974]/.815 [.549, 1.207] .901 [.667, 1.208]/.901 [.573, 1.411]
Between-Person Impulsivity (β, 95% CI) Total Drinks Consumed (IRR, 95% CI) Drinking Consequences (IRR, 95% CI)
 Rumination .535 [.489, .576] 3.837 [3.249, 4.558] 4.086 [3.212, 4.558]
 Impulsivity — .049 [.030, .079] .346 [.199, .591]
 Age — 1.052 [1.028, 1.076] 1.100 [1.053, 1.147]
 Male vs Female — .998 [.885, 1.124] .647 [.509, .809]
 Indirect Effect — .149 [.100, .213] .512 [.354, .720]
Open in a new tab

Note: Associations between rumination and impulsivity are standard beta, while those predicting total drinks and drinking consequences are response ratios. Posterior standard deviation included. Time −1 prior to average drink time = t-1, Time −2= t-2. Sex coded as 1 (female), 2 (male). Significant effects bolded.

At the between-person level, greater average rumination was positively associated with greater impulsivity (β = .53, p < .001). In addition, between-person rumination was positively associated with both greater odds of consuming more drinks (IRR = 3.83, 95%BCI [3.249, 4.558]) and reporting negative drinking consequences (IRR = 4.08, 95%BCI [3.212, 4.558]). However, impulsivity was associated with decreased odds of consuming more drinks (IRR = .04, 95%BCI [.030, .079]) and lower odds of reporting negative drinking consequences (IRR = .34, 95%BCI [.199, .591]). Results indicated that impulsivity partially mediated the association between rumination and the odds of consuming less drinks (IRR = .14, 95%BCI [.100, .213]), and reporting fewer drinking consequences (IRR = .51, 95%BCI [.354, .720]) at the between-person level. Findings suggests that at the person level, greater average rumination was associated with higher average impulsivity, which in turn was associated with lower overall levels of consumption and fewer reported negative drinking consequences.

Social drinking context was then examined as a potential moderator of the within-day relations between rumination, impulsivity, and daily total drinks and drinking consequences (see Table 4). At the within-person level, there were no significant differences for social or solitary contexts between rumination(t-2) and total drinks consumed or drinking consequences. Additionally, while there was not a significant effect for social context between impulsivity(t-1) and drinking consequences, there was a significant effect between earlier impulsivity(t-1) and later odds of total drinks consumed for solitary drinking (IRR = .815, 95%BCI[.676, .974]) but not social drinking (IRR = .815, 95%BCI[.549, 1.207]). This suggests that solitary drinking conditions may decrease the association between earlier impulsivity and the odds of total drinks consumed.

Discussion

Building on existing research, this study examined the potential mediating effect of impulsivity between rumination and drinking behaviors at both within- and between-person levels. Findings indicated that earlier day rumination was associated with later day impulsivity, which then associated with greater chances of drinking that day, as well as increased alcohol consumption and negative drinking consequences. At the between-person level, higher rumination scores were associated with greater average impulsivity, which was then associated with lower odds of total alcohol consumption and drinking consequences. Of primary interest, within-person level associations provide evidence for the negative emotional cascade, supporting the utility of rumination and impulsivity leading to daily drinking behaviors among binge drinking emerging adults. Moderation by social drinking contexts suggested that, within-person, solitary drinking may be protective following impulsivity on the amount of drinks one consumes. These findings highlight the negative emotional cascade model and provide evidence for this process at the within-day level while also indicating converse effects at the person level when it comes to the amount one drinks and consequences experienced. Special consideration should also be paid to one’s social context on a drinking days, as this may influence alcohol use behaviors.

Rumination, Impulsivity, and Drinking

Rumination was examined for its influence on whether one would drink on a given day, how much alcohol one consumed, and the number of drinking consequences reported. At the within day-level, we found that earlier rumination was associated with less total drinks consumed and fewer reported drinking consequences, but not the likelihood of daily drinking. Prior studies have found that rumination associates with greater alcohol use within-persons (Denson et al., 2011; Pollack et al., 2021; Riley et al., 2018), though, these studies have seldom modeled within-person temporal associations. Accounting for earlier experiences of rumination instead of daily averages may delineate its’ effect on within-day drinking. For example, as rumination is linked to negative emotionality (Selby et al., 2008), rumination may negatively associated with later day drinking given negative emotions can lessen within-day alcohol consumption (Tovmasyan et al., 2022; Waddell et al., 2024). In addition, our study found that greater person-level rumination was associated with greater levels of alcohol consumption and drinking consequences, consistent with Bravo et al. (2018). However, as the within- and between-person effects for rumination and drinking behaviors were in an opposite direction, findings highlight the importance of assessing temporality as it may serve to reveal how rumination influences drinking behaviors.

Testing the emotional cascade model, rumination was then examined as a potential predictor of later impulsivity. Our study found a link between earlier rumination and later impulsivity at the within day-level, as well as associations at the person-level. Multiple studies have linked experiences of rumination to impulsivity (Denson et al., 2011; Hasegawa et al., 2018), consistent with a negative emotional cascade (Selby et al., 2008). Emerging adults often report high levels of rumination given the numerous stressors in their daily lives (Sütterlin et al., 2012), which can also contribute to later impulsive behaviors (Herman & Duka, 2019). Thus, at the within-day level, earlier rumination may contribute to experiencing more negative emotions followed by engagement in greater impulsive behaviors to address these feelings. Furthermore, between-person examinations also found a link between average rumination and impulsivity, suggesting overall experiences of rumination and impulsivity likely influence one another (Hasegawa et al., 2018). Studies examining within-day impulsivity should then consider assessing previous rumination as it may serve as a salient influence on impulsivity.

Impulsivity was then examined as a mediator between earlier rumination and drinking behaviors. We found that impulsivity scores significantly mediated the effect between earlier rumination and later drinking behaviors at the within-day level, in-line with the negative emotional cascade model. Impulsivity associated with greater daily odds that one would drink that day, as well as greater daily total drinks consumed and drinking consequences. Prior within-person studies have shown that greater levels of impulsivity earlier in the day can predict greater chances of engaging in an unplanned drinking event (Griffin et al., 2021). Though, few have identified significant associations between prior impulsivity and later levels of alcohol consumed and drinking consequences (Griffin & Trull, 2021; Stamates & Lau-Barraco, 2020), such as those found in this study. Earlier day experiences of impulsivity may then serve to predict how much alcohol one consumes. Impulsivity may also increase drinking consequences as those who act more impulsively are likely to engage in more risky behaviors while drinking (i.e., drinking and driving; McCarthy et al., 2012). As impulsivity served as a significant mechanism by which earlier day rumination could positively influence drinking behavior, impulsivity is then an important factor in the negative emotional cascade process.

Our study also found that greater person-level impulsivity partially mediated the effect of higher average rumination on drinking behaviors. Higher average impulsivity was associated with lower overall levels of alcohol consumption, contrary to prior work (Griffin & Trull, 2021; Stamates & Lau-Barraco, 2020). These findings showcase how within-day associations can differ from between-person and reflect the utility and significance of examining these processes at different levels to better delineate their effects. Given these findings, treatments aimed at reducing individuals’ levels of rumination within the day may also aid in reducing impulsivity (Donohue et al., 2024) and help to lessen overall drinking behaviors. Future research might examine whether treatments targeting reductions in rumination may also mitigate subsequent impulsivity.

Social and Solitary Drinking Contexts

The potential risk or protective effects of social and solitary drinking contexts were examined on the within-person associations of rumination and impulsivity on later day drinks consumed and drinking consequences (Creswell, 2021). For the associations between earlier day rumination and later number of drinks and drinking consequences, social and solitary context did not significantly moderate these associations. Though social and solitary drinking contexts can often influence negative affect and drinking behaviors (Skrzynski et al., 2021), the timing between these effects may need to be more proximal in time to show an effect. However, at the within-day level, solitary drinking conditions were observed to lessen the effect of earlier day impulsivity on later consumption, while social drinking context did not affect the association between impulsivity and drinking consequences. Social drinking can increase both impulsivity and risk-taking behaviors which may correspond to greater drinking (Skrzynski et al., 2021). On the other hand, solitary drinking may lessen impulsivity and risk-taking, as emerging adults often perceive less positive experiences and lower rewards when drinking alone (Buckner et al., 2019). Emerging adults are also less likely to engage in greater consumption when alone, whereas they are more likely to consume more while social drinking (Clay et al., 2023). As solitary drinking may serve to be a protective effect against impulsivity and alcohol consumption, future work should consider examining what leads one to drink with or without others as this may enhance our ability to understand this potential protective effect.

Limitations

Although our study had many strengths, including modeling the temporal nature between daily rumination and later impulsivity, and later drinking behaviors, while adjusting for autoregressive effects, several limitations should also be noted. Firstly, the sample was primarily female participants who often report more internalizing issues as well as consume less alcohol in general (Hamonniere et al., 2020), and it consisted of a large portion (72.6%) of college educated emerging adults. Though the sample was recruited from a heavier drinking population, findings may not generalize to samples with more males or those who have not completed secondary education. Second, our study excluded participants who did not provide data on rumination, as this measure was included one year following initial data collection. Future work should aim to recruit larger sample sizes of individuals with more diverse educational backgrounds to continue evaluating the within-day associations of rumination and impulsivity with drinking to ensure they replicate. Third, while this study was able to show some temporal ordering, it was limited in describing moment to moment changes as drinking behaviors were captured at the day-level, while rumination and impulsivity were assessed in moments prior to participant mean drinking time. Future work would benefit from using momentary analyses to better model experiences as they occur and reduce the lag between occurrences.

Conclusions and Future Directions

This study tested the negative emotional cascade model by examining the mediating effect of impulsivity between earlier day rumination and later drinking behaviors. At the within-person level, findings indicated that earlier day rumination was linked with later impulsivity, which then predicted greater chances of daily drinking, as well as greater levels of drinks consumed on drinking days, and more drinking consequences reported. Solitary drinking, compared to social, was also found to have a protective effect between impulsivity and later drinking. Taken together, findings suggest within-day experiences of rumination can initiate a negative emotional cascade leading to greater impulsive behaviors, and later initiation of drinking, more alcohol consumed, and more alcohol-related consequences. This study provides initial evidence for the predictive effects of rumination on later day impulsivity, as well as rumination and impulsivity on later day drinking behaviors.

Further examination of the negative emotional cascade model should continue to consider within-day temporal association to better delineate effects. Additionally, examining other measures that may assess state level negative emotionality (i.e., negative affect, uncertainty) may assist in further developing the model clarifying what experiences initiate these cascades. Social and solitary drinking context at the within day-level should also be considered, as solitary contexts were found to mitigate drinking. Finally, treatments that specifically target rumination may also indirectly impact both impulsivity and problematic drinking behaviors (Donohue et al., 2024). Enhancing the availability and utility of these treatments, especially among emerging adult populations, may help to attenuate higher levels of alcohol use and reduce the potential for alcohol use problems.

Funding:

Support for this work came from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism grants R01AA027824 to Tim Trull, and T32AA013526 for graduate and postdoctoral funding.

Footnotes

Disclosure: Ecological momentary assessments were collected using software from TigerAware LLC, of which Timothy J. Trull is a co-founder. No compensation or royalties were provided for use of this software. The authors report no competing interests.

Data Availability:

This study was pre-registered. The raw data is not openly available, though analysis code and output are available on OSF.

References

  1. Alpay P, Kocsel N, Galambos A, & Kökönyei G. (2024). The relationship between alexithymia, rumination and binge drinking among university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 223, 112621. 10.1016/j.paid.2024.112621 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Asparouhov T, & Muthén B. (2014). Auxiliary Variables in Mixture Modeling: 3-Step Approaches Using Mplus. Structural Equation Modeling, 21(3), 329–341. 10.1080/10705511.2014.915181 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Asparouhov T, & Muthén B. (2021). Bayesian estimation of single and multilevel models with latent variable interactions. Structural Equation Modeling, 28(2), 314–328. 10.1080/10705511.2020.1761808 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bonar EE, Souweidane MA, Blow FC, Bohnert ASB, Bauermeister JA, Young SD, & Walton MA. (2022). High-intensity drinking among adolescent and emerging adult risky drinkers. Substance Abuse, 43(1), 713–721. 10.1080/08897077.2021.2007513 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bravo AJ, Pilatti A, Pearson MR, Mezquita L, Ibáñez MI, & Ortet G. (2018). Depressive symptoms, ruminative thinking, drinking motives, and alcohol outcomes: A multiple mediation model among college students in three countries. Addictive Behaviors, 76, 319–327. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.08.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Buckner JD, Lewis EM, & Walukevich-Dienst K. (2019). Drinking Problems and Social Anxiety among Young Adults: The Roles of Drinking to Manage Negative and Positive Affect in Social Situations. Substance Use and Misuse, 54(13), 2117–2126. 10.1080/10826084.2019.1637892 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Caselli G, Ferretti C, Leoni M, Rebecchi D, Rovetto F, & Spada MM. (2010). Rumination as a predictor of drinking behaviour in alcohol abusers: A prospective study. Addiction, 105(6), 1041–1048. 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.02912.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Christiansen M, Vik PW, & Jarchow A. (2002). College student heavy drinking in social contexts versus alone. Addictive Behaviors, 27(3), 393–404. 10.1016/S0306-4603(01)00180-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Ciesla JA, Dickson KS, Anderson NL, & Neal DJ. (2011). Negative repetitive thought and college drinking: Angry rumination, depressive rumination, co-rumination, and worry. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 35(2), 142–150. 10.1007/s10608-011-9355-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Clay JM, Fontana BD, Proserpio C, Fernandez EJ, Pagliarini E, Lopes F, López-Moreno JA, Canales JJ, Loyant L, Doron R, Stafford LD, & Parker MO. (2023). Drinking during social isolation: investigating associations between stress, inhibitory control, boredom, drinking motives, and alcohol use. Addiction Research and Theory, 31(1), 16–28. 10.1080/16066359.2022.2099543 [DOI] [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. 10.1111/acer.12131 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Courtney JB, & Russell MA. (2021). Testing affect regulation models of drinking prior to and after drinking initiation using ecological momentary assessment. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 35(5), 597–608. 10.1037/adb0000763 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. 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. 10.1177/0963721420969406 [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. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.02.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Dawe S, Gullo MJ, & Loxton NJ. (2004). Reward drive and rash impulsiveness as dimensions of impulsivity: Implications for substance misuse. Addictive Behaviors, 29(7), 1389–1405. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2004.06.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Denson TF, Pedersen WC, Friese M, Hahm A, & Roberts L. (2011). Understanding impulsive aggression: Angry rumination and reduced self-control capacity are mechanisms underlying the provocation-aggression relationship. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(6), 850–862. 10.1177/0146167211401420 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Donohue HE, Modini M, & Abbott MJ. (2024). Psychological interventions for pre-event and post-event rumination in social anxiety: A systematic review and meta-analysis. In Journal of Anxiety Disorders (Vol. 102, p. 102823). Elsevier Ltd. 10.1016/j.janxdis.2023.102823 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. du Pont A, Rhee SH, Corley RP, Hewitt JK, & Friedman NP. (2018). Rumination and Psychopathology: Are Anger and Depressive Rumination Differentially Associated With Internalizing and Externalizing Psychopathology? Clinical Psychological Science, 6(1), 18–31. 10.1177/2167702617720747 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, & Rubin DB. (2004). Bayesian Data Analysis (2nd ed.). Chapman and Hall. 10.1201/9780429258411 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Griffin SA, Freeman LK, & Trull TJ. (2021). Predictors of unplanned drinking in daily life: The influence of context, impulsivity, and craving in those with emotion dysregulation. Addictive Behaviors, 118, 106901. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2021.106901 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. 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), 199–207. 10.1037/adb0000679 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hamonniere T, Laqueille X, Vorspan F, Dereux A, Illel K, & Varescon I. (2020). Toward a better understanding of the influence of repetitive negative thinking in alcohol use disorder: An examination of moderation effect of metacognitive beliefs and gender. Addictive Behaviors, 111. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106561 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Harwell BD, Cellucci T, & Iwata AL. (2011). Rumination, anxiety sensitivity, and negative reinforcement drinking. Journal of Substance Use, 16(1), 79–85. 10.3109/14659891.2010.487556 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hasegawa A, Kunisato Y, Morimoto H, Nishimura H, & Matsuda Y. (2018). Depressive rumination and urgency have mutually enhancing relationships but both predict unique variance in future depression: A longitudinal study. Cogent Psychology, 5(1). 10.1080/23311908.2018.1450919 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Herman AM, & Duka T. (2019). Facets of impulsivity and alcohol use: What role do emotions play? Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 106, 202–216. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.08.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Hilt LM, Armstrong JM, & Essex MJ. (2017). Rumination and Moderators of Multifinality: Predicting Internalizing Symptoms and Alcohol Use During Adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 46(5), 746–753. 10.1080/15374416.2015.1070354 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Kahler CW, Strong DR, & Read JP. (2005). Toward efficient and comprehensive measurement of the alcohol problems continuum in college students: The brief Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 29(7), 1180–1189. 10.1097/01.ALC.0000171940.95813.A5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Lüdtke O, Marsh HW, Robitzsch A, Trautwein U, Asparouhov T, & Muthén B. (2008). The Multilevel Latent Covariate Model: A New, More Reliable Approach to Group-Level Effects in Contextual Studies. Psychological Methods, 13(3), 203–229. 10.1037/a0012869.supp [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Lydon-Staley DM, Falk EB, & Bassett DS. (2020). Within-person variability in sensation-seeking during daily life: Positive associations with alcohol use and self-defined risky behaviors. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 34(2), 257–268. 10.1037/adb0000535 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. McCarthy DM, Niculete ME, Treloar HR, Morris DH, & Bartholow BD. (2012). Acute alcohol effects on impulsivity: Associations with drinking and driving behavior. Addiction, 107(12), 2109–2114. 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03974.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Miller AE, & Racine SE. (2022). Emotion regulation difficulties as common and unique predictors of impulsive behaviors in university students. Journal of American College Health, 70(5), 1387–1395. 10.1080/07448481.2020.1799804 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Muthén LK, & Muthén BO. (2025). Mplus User’s Guide (Ninth Edition). Muthén & Muthén. [Google Scholar]
  33. Pollack SR, Kiselica AM, & Borders A. (2021). The Role of Trait Impulsivity in the Associations between Rumination and Alcohol-Related Outcomes. Substance Use and Misuse, 56(6), 743–750. 10.1080/10826084.2021.1879143 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Preacher KJ, Zhang Z, & Zyphu MJ. (2011). Alternative methods for assessing mediation in multilevel data: The advantages of multilevel sem. Structural Equation Modeling, 18(2), 161–182. 10.1080/10705511.2011.557329 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Riley KE, Park CL, & Laurenceau JP. (2018). A Daily Diary Study of Rumination and Health Behaviors: Modeling Moderators and Mediators. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 53(8), 743–755. 10.1093/abm/kay081 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Rosenkranz T, Takano K, Watkins ER, & Ehring T. (2020). Assessing repetitive negative thinking in daily life: Development of an ecological momentary assessment paradigm. PLoS ONE, 15(4). 10.1371/journal.pone.0231783 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Selby EA, Anestis MD, & Joiner TE. (2008). Understanding the relationship between emotional and behavioral dysregulation: Emotional cascades. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 46(5), 593–611. 10.1016/j.brat.2008.02.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Selby EA, Kranzler A, Panza E, & Fehling KB. (2016). Bidirectional-Compounding Effects of Rumination and Negative Emotion in Predicting Impulsive Behavior: Implications for Emotional Cascades. Journal of Personality, 84(2), 139–153. 10.1111/jopy.12147 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Shin SH, Hong HG, & Jeon SM. (2012). Personality and alcohol use: The role of impulsivity. Addictive Behaviors, 37(1), 102–107. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.09.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Skrzynski CJ, Creswell KG, Verstynen T, Bachrach RL, & Chung T. (2021). The influence of negative mood on solitary drinking preference: An experiment with young adult solitary drinkers. PLoS ONE, 16(2 February). 10.1371/journal.pone.0247202 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Stamates AL, & Lau-Barraco C. (2020). Momentary patterns of impulsivity and alcohol use: A cause or consequence? Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 217. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.108246 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Sütterlin S, Paap MCS, Babic S, Kübler A, & Vögele C. (2012). Rumination and age: Some things get better. Journal of Aging Research, 2012, 1–10. 10.1155/2012/267327 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Tovmasyan A, Monk RL, Sawicka I, & Heim D. (2022). Positive but not negative affect is associated with increased daily drinking likelihood in non-clinical populations: systematic review and meta-analyses. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 48(4), 382–396. 10.1080/00952990.2022.2082300 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Waddell JT, King SE, Okey SA, & Corbin WR. (2024). Event-level risk for negative alcohol consequences in emerging adults: The role of affect, motivation, and context. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 10.1037/adb0000969 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Wakeford G, Kannis-Dymand L, & Statham D. (2018). Anger rumination, binge eating, and at-risk alcohol use in a university sample. Australian Journal of Psychology, 70(3), 269–276. 10.1111/ajpy.12187 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Whiteside SP, Lynam DR, Miller JD, & Reynolds SK. (2005). Validation of the UPPS impulsive behaviour scale: A four-factor model of impulsivity. European Journal of Personality, 19(7), 559–574. 10.1002/per.556 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Data Availability Statement

This study was pre-registered. The raw data is not openly available, though analysis code and output are available on OSF.

RESOURCES