Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2018 Jan 11;26(1):58–64. doi: 10.1037/pha0000169

Protective Behavioral Strategies Mediate the Relationship between Behavioral Economic Risk Factors and Alcohol-Related Problems

Andrew T Voss a, Kathryn Soltis a, Ashley A Dennhardt a, Matthew P Martens b, James G Murphy a
PMCID: PMC5794516  NIHMSID: NIHMS923787  PMID: 29323504

Abstract

Behavioral economic measures of alcohol reward value and future orientation have received support as predictors of alcohol consumption, alcohol related problems, and response to intervention. Protective behavioral strategies (PBS) have been shown to be a significant mediator between a variety of risk factors and alcohol-related problems. The current paper examines direct and mediating associations between measures of alcohol reward value (proportionate substance-related activity participation and enjoyment) and future orientation, use of PBS, and alcohol-related problems. Participants were 393 undergraduates (39.2% male, 78.9% Caucasian) who reported at least 2 past-month binge drinking episodes (5/4 drinks for men/women). This study is a secondary analysis of data collected previously as part of a brief intervention study. Alcohol reward value and future orientation were significantly associated with both protective behavioral strategies and alcohol problems. PBS was a significant partial mediator between these variables and alcohol-related problems after controlling for gender, level of alcohol consumption, and sensation seeking. This study provides support for the hypothesis that high levels of reinforcement from alcohol relative to alternatives and low consideration of the future may lead to patterns of dysregulated drinking with few harm-reduction strategies that increase risk for alcohol problems. In addition to directly targeting PBS, brief alcohol interventions for college students should attempt to increase future orientation and substance-free activities.

Keywords: Behavioral economics, Protective behavioral strategies, Alcohol-related problems, Risk factors, College students

Behavioral economic (BE) research attempts to understand the development of substance abuse by examining patterns of time/resource allocation to drugs versus alternatives over time (Tucker, Vuchnich, & Rippens, 2002). BE theory asserts that the development of substance abuse is influenced by the availability and price of drugs and alcohol relative to other sources of reinforcement, and by the extent to which individuals organize their behavior around delayed relative to immediate reinforcement.

Reward value quantifies the strength of motivation for a given commodity and can be measured by assessing the amount of resources (behavioral or monetary) allocated to gain access to a reward (Dennhardt, Yurasek, & Murphy, 2014). One measure of reward value is derived from reinforcement survey instruments that quantify recent activity participation and enjoyment related to substance use versus substance-free activities (Correia, Carey, Simons & Borsari, 2003). The ratio of reinforcement from substance-related activities relative to total reinforcement (Reinforcement Ratio; RR) provides an index of alcohol reward value (Dennhardt et al., 2014; Heinz, Lilje, Kassel, & de Wit, 2012) that is sensitive to changes in substance-free and substance-related reward, and is positively associated with alcohol use and problems (Correia, Carey, & Borsari, 2002; Dennhardt et al., 2014; Magidson, Robustelli, Seitz-Brown, & Whisman, 2017; Morris et al., 2017; Skidmore, Murphy, & Martens, 2014). Other studies suggest that elevated RR predicts poor response to brief alcohol interventions, and that greater reductions in RR following a brief motivational intervention predict fewer alcohol related problems, less marijuana use, and fewer associated problems among college student heavy drinkers after controlling for baseline drinking (Dennhardt et al., 2014; Murphy, Correia, Colby, & Vuchinich, 2005). Thus, RR reflects strength of motivation for alcohol and other drugs in a manner that is partially independent of drinking level and is associated with relevant clinical outcomes.

A central tenet of behavioral economic theory is that the subjective valuation of drug versus non-drug rewards is strongly related to differences in the delay until these rewards are experienced. Whereas alcohol and other drugs generally provide immediate reinforcement (e.g., anxiety reduction, euphoria, social facilitation), many substance-free activities (e.g., exercise, working or attending class, studying) do not (Murphy, Barnett, & Colby, 2006). Delayed reward discounting is a behavioral economic measure of impulsivity that refers to the level of decrease in subjective value associated with reward delay. Discounting is commonly measured by tasks that use hypothetical monetary choices between smaller immediate rewards and larger rewards with varying temporal delays (e.g. “would you rather have $40 today, or $60 in 2 weeks”). Although the value of all rewards decrease as their receipt is delayed, there are individual differences in the degree that delayed rewards are discounted, and this discounting phenomenon may be a fundamental feature of substance abuse (Bickel, Johnson, Koffarnus, MacKillop, & Murphy, 2014).

Individuals who sharply discount the value of delayed academic, health, and career outcomes may be less likely to engage in the behaviors necessary for success in these domains (e.g., exercising, studying, attending class or internships), and may instead allocate their behavior towards immediately reinforcing activities such as attending parties and consuming alcohol (Gentile, Librizzi, & Martinetti, 2012). Indeed, numerous studies have demonstrated that substance abusers discount the value of delayed rewards more steeply than control participants (Amlung, Vedelago, Acker, Balodis, & MacKillop, 2017; MacKillop et al., 2011). Among college students specifically, however, several studies have failed to observe a relation between delay discounting and alcohol problems (MacKillop et al., 2007; Murphy et al., 2012; Teeters & Murphy, 2015). This may be due to the fact that standard delay discounting measures use hypothetical monetary choices to estimate discount functions, and because most college students have variable sources of current income, expectations of rising future income following graduation, and little experience making decisions about immediate versus delayed monetary amounts, their choices in this domain may not reflect their more general patterns of inter-temporal choice. Indeed, a previous analysis with the data set included in the present study (Soltis, McDevitt-Murphy, & Murphy, 2017) found that a related but empirically distinct measure of future orientation called Consideration of Future Consequences (CFC) was associated with both alcohol craving and problems but that delay discounting was not.

The CFC scale uses a series of face-valid questions to assess the degree to which present choices and behavior are influenced by delayed outcomes (Strathman, Gleicher, Boninger, & Edwards, 1994). Whereas, delay discounting is a specific measure of intertemporal choice between monetary rewards, CFC refers to the more general ability to organize behavior around future outcomes. Thus, CFC is only marginally related to delay discounting (rs = −.24, −.19; Murphy et al., 2012; Soltis et al., 2017) but has demonstrated consistent inverse relationships with substance use and related risk factors. Lower CFC has shown to be positively associated with substance abuse (Keough, Zimbardo, & Boyd, 1999; Soltis et al., 2017), and is distinct from related personality traits such as novelty seeking, sensation seeking, and impulse control (Keough, Zimbardo, & Boyd, 1999). Further, greater CFC has demonstrated utility as a prospective predictor of drinking (Murphy et al., 2012), and illicit drug use (Meshesha, Pickover, Teeters, & Murphy, 2017) among college students. Although the CFC deviates from traditional behavioral economic measurement approaches, it provides an alternative approach to measuring the more general construct of the influence of future rewards and consequences on present decisions that is central to behavioral economic theories of addiction (Bickel et al., 2014; Tucker et al., 2002). The goal of the present study is to examine the association between CFC and the manner in which college students drink. Students who overvalue the immediate social and physiological reward associated with drinking and devalue the potential future consequences of drinking (ranging from next day hangover to arrests and academic failure) may be less likely to implement strategies that might reduce the harmful consequences associated with drinking.

Protective Behavioral Strategies

Protective behavioral strategies (PBS) are behaviors that individuals engage in while or before drinking to limit consumption, reduce problems, and monitor intoxication (Martens et al., 2005). In an extensive review of 62 studies conducted by Pearson (2013), an overwhelming majority of studies found that PBS use was associated with less drinking and alcohol-related problems. Furthermore, Borden et al. (2011) found that PBS moderated the relationship between binge drinking and alcohol problems, such that binge drinkers who employed more PBS experienced fewer alcohol-related problems. The literature further suggests that PBS is a significant mediator between several different impulsivity-like traits and alcohol-related problems, including self-control (Pearson, Kite, & Henson, 2013), self-regulation (Bravo, Prince, & Pearson, 2016), unplanned drinking (Pearson & Henson, 2013), and sensation seeking (Pearson, Kite, & Henson, 2012).

From a behavioral economic perspective, regular use of PBS may be predicated on an ability to anticipate and value future outcomes. For example, an individual might space out his or her drinks if they can effectively anticipate that doing so will make them feel better the next day, and they value the delayed rewards associated with feeling well and being able to participate and experience other rewarding next-day activities such as employment, class, or exercise (Berman & Martinetti, 2017; Skidmore & Murphy, 2011). Individuals with few rewarding alternatives to drinking may be less motivated to engage in PBS, because limiting drinking could be perceived as limiting the experience of maximal reward. Indeed, qualitative, laboratory, and survey studies with college students have found that drinking level is associated with greater social satisfaction (Murphy, McDevitt-Murphy, & Barnett, 2005), mood enhancement (Fairbairn et al., 2015), socialization and bonding (Colby, Colby, & Raymond, 2009), and overall enjoyment (Murphy et al., 2006). One study by Park (2004) found that heavy drinkers report encountering a greater frequency of positive consequences than negative ones and that positive consequences are more likely to be considered extremely positive. These findings suggest that heavy drinkers may view PBS primarily as a means of restricting reward rather than a means of reducing harm associated with drinking. This may be especially true for students with few alternative rewarding activities and shortened temporal perspective, and may in part account for the associations between alcohol reward value, future orientation and alcohol problems.

Present Study

The goal of the present study is to replicate previous research linking reward value and future orientation with alcohol problems, and to extend this literature by evaluating whether these behavioral economic variables are associated with PBS, which might in part account for their relation to alcohol problems. One previous study found that the relationship between alcohol reward value and alcohol problems was mediated by drinking motives (Yurasek et al., 2011), but no other studies have identified variables that might explain the acute behavioral mechanisms by which low future orientation and elevated alcohol reward value might lead to the experience of alcohol problems. Bivariate correlations and mediation models will be used to understand direct and mediating associations between BE risk factors, PBS, and alcohol-related problems. Each mediation model will control for alcohol consumption, gender, and sensation seeking given that previous research has shown that these variables are related to both PBS and alcohol problems (Curcio & George, 2011; Pearson et al., 2012; Pearson, 2013). This model will allow us to determine if BE risk factors predict PBS and alcohol-related problems beyond current established predictors. We hypothesize that lower alcohol reward value and greater CFC will be will be associated with more PBS use. Further, we hypothesize that PBS will partially mediate the relationship between these variables and alcohol-related problems.

Method

Participants

Participants were 393 undergraduate students from two large public universities in the Southern and Midwestern United States (39.2% male; M = 18.77 years old, SD = 1.07; 78.9% White/Caucasian, 8.7% Black, 7.1% Multiracial, 5.9% Hispanic/Latino, 1.3% Asian, 1.3% Other). Participants were in their first or second year of college (62.1% Freshman, 37.9% Sophomore) and endorsed at least two binge drinking episodes (5/4 standard drinks for men/women respectively) in the past month.

Procedure

Data were collected as part of the baseline assessment of a larger brief alcohol intervention study (Soltis et al., 2017). Baseline assessment data were collected prior to the intervention. The primary recruitment method was campus-wide research participation solicitation emails (participants were not seeking treatment for alcohol misuse). Participants chose their method of compensation, either extra course credit if enrolled in one or more psychology courses, or cash payment ($25) for completing the baseline assessment. Participants completed the assessment on a lab computer in a private office after providing informed consent. All procedures were approved by Institutional Review Boards at both universities.

Measures

Alcohol Consumption

Alcohol consumption was measured using the Daily Drinking Questionnaire (DDQ; Collins, Parks, & Marlatt, 1985). The DDQ asks participants to indicate the total number of drinks they consumed each day during a typical week in the past month. Total number of drinks for each day was added to estimate typical weekly drinking. The DDQ is highly correlated with self-monitored drinking reports and has been widely used with college student drinkers (Kivlahan, Marlatt, Fromme, Coppel, & Williams, 1990).

Sensation Seeking

A brief, 4-item version of the Sensation Seeking Scale (BSSS-4; Hoyle, Stephenson, Palmgreen, Lorch, & Donohew, 2002) was used to assess different types of impulsivity-like behaviors. Items ask participants to endorse experience seeking, boredom susceptibility, thrill seeking, and disinhibition behaviors. The BSSS-4 has demonstrated good internal consistency, as well as evidence for convergent and construct validity (Hoyle et al., 2002). Cronbach’s alpha in the current sample was .76.

Alcohol Problems

Alcohol problems were measured using the Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire (YAACQ; Read, Merrill, Kahler, & Strong, 2007). Participants indicated whether they had experienced various alcohol-related problems at least once over the past month. The YAACQ consists of 49 items (e.g., “while drinking, I have said or done embarrassing things” and “I have passed out from drinking”). Cronbach’s alpha in the current sample was .90.

Reward Value

Alcohol reward value was measured using the Adolescent Reinforcement Survey Schedule-Substance Use Version (ARSS-SUV; Murphy et al., 2005). The ARSS-SUV asks participants to provide a frequency of participation in 32 activities over the last 30 days and the corresponding level of enjoyment rating for each activity. Participants rated each activity twice: once for activities including alcohol and/or drug use and once for activities not including alcohol and/or drug use. Frequency ratings ranged from 0 (0 times in the past 30 days) to 4 (more than once a day), and enjoyment ratings ranged from 0 (unpleasant or neutral) to 4 (extremely pleasant). The frequency and enjoyment ratings for each activity were multiplied to obtain a cross-product score ranging from 0 to 16, which estimates the level of obtained reinforcement from each activity (Correia & Carey, 1999).

The sum of substance-related reinforcement was divided by total reinforcement (the sum of substance-related reinforcement and substance-free reinforcement) to obtain a reinforcement ratio (RR) value ranging from zero to one, indicating the proportion of substance-derived reinforcement out of total reinforcement. Previous research has shown the ARSS-SUV to be reliable and significantly related to substance use and treatment response (Hallgren, Greenfield, & Ladd, 2016; Murphy et al., 2005). Cronbach’s alpha in the current sample was .92 for the substance-free items and .99 for substance-related items.

Future Orientation

Future orientation was measured using the Consideration of Future Consequences Scale – Short Version (CFC-SV; Strathman et al., 1994). The CFC-SV is a 9-item measure that estimates the extent to which individuals consider future outcomes of current decisions. Items include: “I consider how things might be in the future and try to influence those things with my day to day behavior” and “I think it is more important to perform a behavior with important distant consequences than a behavior with less-important immediate consequences.” Item responses are on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (extremely uncharacteristic) to 5 (extremely characteristic). The sum of CFC-SV item responses is used to create a composite score, which has demonstrated evidence for good convergent and construct validity, (Adams & Nettle, 2009) as well as test-retest reliability (Strathman et al., 1994). Cronbach’s alpha in the current sample was .71.

Protective Behavioral Strategies

The Protective Behavioral Strategies Survey (PBSS; Martens et al., 2005) assesses utilization of 15 different strategies that have been shown to control alcohol use and related problems. Participants indicate how often they use each strategy when drinking alcohol on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (always). Examples of strategies include “use a designated driver”, “avoid drinking games”, and “drink slowly, rather than gulp or chug.” The PBSS has consistently demonstrated evidence for convergent and incremental validity (Martens et al., 2005; Martens, Pederson, LaBrie, Ferrier, & Cimini, 2007). Cronbach’s alpha in the current sample was .82.

Data Analytic Plan

All variables were inspected for outliers, skewness, and kurtosis. Outliers greater than 3.29 standard deviations above or below the mean were converted to 1 unit above or below the largest non-outlier (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2012). Skewness and kurtosis values were determined to be within acceptable ranges according to recommendations by Gravetter, Wallnau, and Forzano (2016) for all variables, except for one. Typical weekly drinks was successfully transformed using a log transformation.

Bivariate Pearson correlations were computed to examine direct associations between study variables. To examine mediating effects of hypothesized predictor variables on protective behavioral strategies (PBS) and alcohol-related problems, two single mediation models were conducted in SPSS v 24.0 (IBM Corp. Released 2016. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.) using PROCESS Macro (Hayes, 2013). Each single mediation model examined whether PBS mediated the relations between reinforcement ratio (RR), and consideration of future consequences (CFC), and alcohol-related problems, respectively. A nonparametric bootstrapping method of 5,000 samples using a confidence interval of 95% was used to test the indirect association of RR, and CFC, on alcohol-related problems through PBS. Indirect effects were considered significant if the confidence interval did not include zero. PROCESS also provides output that indicates the ratio of indirect effect to total effect, which can be converted to a percentage that indicates the amount of effect that occurred indirectly through the mediator. Each mediation model included gender, sensation seeking, and typical weekly alcohol consumption as covariates.

Results

On average, participants reported drinking 16.8 (SD = 12.0) drinks during a typical week in the past month and 13.1 (SD = 7.9) past-month alcohol-related problems. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for all study variables are presented in Table 1. As predicted, RR was significantly positively correlated with alcohol consumption, alcohol problems, and sensation seeking, and was negatively correlated with CFC and PBS. CFC was not correlated with typical weekly consumption, but was significantly negatively associated with alcohol problems and sensation seeking, and significantly positively correlated with PBS. PBS was negatively correlated with alcohol problems, consumption, and sensation seeking.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations

Variable Range Mean SD Skewness/Kurtosis 1 2 3 4 5
1. Consumption† 0–63.0 16.8 12.0 −0.42/1.03 –
2. YAACQ 0–38.0 13.1 7.9 0.62/−0.02 .42** –
3. RR 0–0.77 0.34 0.15 0.24/−0.06 .35** .33** –
4. CFC 10–39.0 30.4 6.5 −0.36/−0.48 −.04 −.19** −.14** –
5. PBS 20–85.0 44.0 13.4 0.09/−0.41 −.33** −.35** −.31** .19** –
6. SS 4–20.0 14.5 3.2 −0.24/−0.34 .25** .17** .17** −.14** −.22**
Open in a new tab

Note. Means and standard deviations are prior to log transformation. YAACQ = Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire; RR = Reinforcement Ratio; CFC = Consideration of Future Consequences; PBS = Protective Behavioral Strategies total; SS = Sensation Seeking.

†

= variable transformed.

**

p ≤ 0.01

PBS as a Mediator between Alcohol Reward Value, and Future Orientation, and Alcohol-Related Problems

In the first model, RR along with gender, consumption, and sensation seeking accounted for significant variance in alcohol-related problems (R2 = .27 df = 4, 387, F = 35.45, p < .0001). PBS along with the covariates also accounted for significant variance in alcohol-related problems (R2 = .30, df = 5, 386, F = 33.34, p < .0001). The relation of RR to alcohol-related problems remained significant, B = 7.50, SE = 2.55, p = .003, indicating a partial mediation with 23.7% of the total effect of RR on alcohol-related problems occurring indirectly through PBS, B = 2.33, SE = 0.77, 95% CI [1.032, 4.368] (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Summary of Mediation Models Predicting Alcohol-Related Problems Mediated by Protective Behavioral Strategies

Mediator a b c c’ (SE) 95% Confidence Interval
RR −17.76*** −0.13*** 7.50** 2.3 (.77) [1.032, 4.368]ˆ
CFC 0.32*** −0.13*** −0.18*** −.04 (.02) [−.0790, −.0168]ˆ
Open in a new tab

Note. RR = Reinforcement Ratio; CFC = Consideration of Future Consequences; a = pathway from Independent Variable to Mediator; b = pathway from Mediator to Dependent Variable; c = pathway from Independent Variable to Dependent Variable; c’ = indirect effect of the Independent Variable on the Dependent Variable through the Mediator.

***

p ≤ 0.001.

**

p < 0.01.

ˆ

indicates significant indirect effect.

In the second model, CFC along with gender, consumption, and sensation seeking accounted for significant variance in alcohol-related problems (R2 = .27, df = 4, 388, F = 36.18, p < .0001). PBS along with the covariates also accounted for significant variance in alcohol-related problems (R2 = .31, df = 5, 387, F = 34.16, p < .0001). The relation of CFC to alcohol-related problems remained significant, B = −.18, SE = .06, p = .0008, indicating a partial mediation, with 18.6% of the total effect of CFC on alcohol-related problems occurring indirectly through PBS, B = −.04, SE = .02, 95% CI [−0.079, −0.017] (see Table 2)1.

Discussion

The goal of this study was to examine direct and mediating relationships between behavioral economic (BE) indices of alcohol reward value and future orientation, use of protective behavioral strategies (PBS), and alcohol-related problems in college drinkers. Both the reinforcement ratio (RR) and consideration of future consequences (CFC) were significantly associated with PBS, more so than sensation seeking, a previously established impulsivity related risk factor for problematic drinking and less PBS use. RR and CFC were also positively associated with alcohol-related problems, which is consistent with previous literature (Correia et al., 2002; Dennhardt et al., 2014; Magidson et al., 2017; Morris et al., 2017; Skidmore et al., 2014). Further, mediation results revealed that PBS significantly mediated the relationship between RR and CFC and alcohol-related problems.

The present study extends the literature linking high reward value of alcohol and low future orientation to more consumption and more alcohol related problems by indicating that these variables specifically impact the manner in which young adults drink (Pearson, 2013). Many PBSs involve limiting quantity or speed of drinking in some way, which may be a more difficult for students with higher alcohol reward value and less future orientation. It is possible that when alcohol use is a student’s only reliable means of experiencing reward, they may depend on experiences that maximize that reward (i.e. intoxication, social satisfaction, mood enhancement, etc.) and be reluctant to engage in activities that are perceived as limiting that reward (i.e. PBS). This is consistent with past findings that students experience the most enjoyment on heaviest drinking nights (Murphy et al., 2006) and that they typically report positive consequences being more extremely positive than negative consequences are negative (Park, 2004). Similarly, less future orientation has been implicated as a predictor of heavier drinking (Keough et al., 1999; Murphy et al., 2012; Vuchinich & Simpson, 1998) and the current study suggests that when students are less able to predict the distal consequences of excessive drinking, they employ fewer regulatory strategies and thus experience more problems. Conversely, when a student has a diverse reward “portfolio”, and is able to predict the salience of potential future negative outcomes of heavy drinking, the cost/benefit ratio may favor drinking, but in a manner that attempts to minimize the potential for harm.

Clinical Implications

Previous research suggests that although PBS are not effective as a stand-alone alcohol intervention (Barnett, Murphy, Colby, & Monti, 2007; Larimer et al., 2007; Martens, Smith, & Murphy, 2013), they are an active ingredient of multi-component brief motivational interventions (Barnett et al., 2007; Larimer et al 2007). Our results provide support for brief alcohol interventions that target PBS while also attempting to increase engagement in rewarding alternatives to drinking and future orientation. Indeed, Murphy et al. (2012) found that a behavioral economic intervention that targeted future orientation and substance-free activities enhanced the efficacy of a standard brief alcohol intervention relative to an active control condition, and that this advantage was mediated by increases in PBS. Other research suggests that experiential exercises that focus on vividly imagining future positive events (episodic future thinking) may increase future orientation and reduce alcohol and tobacco demand (Bulley & Gullo, 2016; Chiou & Wu, 2017; Snider, Laconte, & Bickel, 2016; Stein et al., 2016) and may thus show promise as a brief alcohol intervention element.

Strengths, Limitations & Future Directions

This study is the first to examine direct and mediating associations between behavioral economic variables and PBS. The current study extends the BE literature by establishing a proximal mediator between BE risk factors and alcohol-related problems, with a strong covariate model that bolsters confidence in the results. Finally, the current study uses a large sample with data collected from two universities. Limitations of the current study include the use of cross-sectional design and retrospective measurement approach. Because of these limitations, we cannot infer causality or establish the temporal sequence of the relations between the behavioral economic variables, PBS, and alcohol-related problems. Future research should examine the relationship between reward value and future orientation and protective behaviors prospectively to determine directionality and changes in PBS use over time, perhaps using more detailed daily assessments of substance-free activities, drinking, PBS, and alcohol problems. Another limitation is that the sample was primarily Caucasian and all participants were college students. Future research should examine diverse college and non-college young adult populations.

Conclusions

Despite these limitations, the current study contributes to the behavioral economic literature by demonstrating that two important BE measures are linked with how college drinkers choose to consume alcohol. These findings provide support for intervention approaches that attempt to increase substance-free reward, future orientation, and PBS (Murphy & Dennhardt, 2016; Snider et al., 2016).

Portions of the current data have been previously disseminated in one recently published manuscript (Soltis, McDevitt-Murphy, & Murphy, 2017; examined CFC as a mediator of the association between depression/anxiety symptoms and alcohol-related problems), and two unpublished posters/abstracts (presented at the Research Society on Alcoholism and the Collaborative Perspectives on Addiction annual conferences). The aims and hypotheses of the current paper are fully distinct from the previously published papers.

Public significance.

This study suggests that young adults with few rewarding alternatives to drinking and less consideration of the future are at risk for alcohol problems in part because of a failure to implement protective strategies. Interventions should attempt to increase sources of substance-free reward and future orientation to in turn promote more regulated drinking among college students.

Footnotes

1

We examined mediating associations of each individual PBS subscale (Martens et al., 2005) and found that each subscale mediated the association between BE variables and alcohol-related problems to a similar extent, which is likely attributable to the collinearity of the subscales. Thus, we decided to use the full scale alone in each of the final models.

References

  1. Adams J, Nettle D. Time perspective, personality and smoking, body mass, and physical activity: An empirical study. British Journal of Health Psychology. 2009;14(1):83–105. doi: 10.1348/135910708X299664. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Amlung M, Vedelago L, Acker J, Balodis I, MacKillop J. Steep delay discounting and addictive behavior: A meta-analysis of continuous associations. Addiction. 2017;112(1):51–62. doi: 10.1111/add.13535. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Barnett NP, Murphy JG, Colby SM, Monti PM. Efficacy of counselor vs. computer-delivered intervention with mandated college students. Addictive Behaviors. 2007;32(11):2529–2548. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.06.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Berman HL, Martinetti MP. The effects of next-day class characteristics on alcohol demand in college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2017;31(4):488. doi: 10.1037/adb0000275. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bickel WK, Johnson MW, Koffarnus MN, MacKillop J, Murphy JG. The behavioral economics of substance use disorders: Reinforcement pathologies and their repair. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 2014;10:641. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153724. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Borden LA, Martens MP, McBride MA, Sheline KT, Bloch KK, Dude K. The role of college students' use of protective behavioral strategies in the relationship between binge drinking and alcohol-related problems. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2011;25(2):346. doi: 10.1037/a0022678. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bravo AJ, Prince MA, Pearson MR. A multiple replication examination of distal antecedents to alcohol protective behavioral strategies. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2016;77(6):958–967. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2016.77.958. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bulley A, Gullo MJ. The influence of episodic foresight on delay discounting and demand for alcohol. Addictive Behaviors. 2017;66:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.11.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Chiou WB, Wu WH. Episodic future thinking involving the nonsmoking self can induce lower discounting and cigarette consumption. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2016;78(1):106–112. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2017.78.106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Colby SM, Colby JJ, Raymond GA. College versus the real world: Student perceptions and implications for understanding heavy drinking among college students. Addictive Behaviors. 2009;34(1):17–27. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2008.07.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Collins RL, Parks GA, Marlatt GA. Social determinants of alcohol consumption: The effects of social interaction and model status on the self-administration of alcohol. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1985;53(2):189. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.53.2.189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Correia CJ, Carey KB, Simons J, Borsari BE. Relationships between binge drinking and substance-free reinforcement in a sample of college students: A preliminary investigation. Addictive Behaviors. 2003;28(2):361–368. doi: 10.1016/s0306-4603(01)00229-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Correia CJ, Carey KB, Borsari B. Measuring substance-free and substance-related reinforcement in the natural environment. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2002;16(1):28. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Correia C, Carey K. Applying behavioral theories of choice to substance use in a sample of psychiatric outpatients. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 1999;13:207–212. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.13.3.207. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Curcio AL, George AM. Selected impulsivity facets with alcohol use/ problems: The mediating role of drinking motives. Addictive Behaviors. 2011;36:959–964. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.05.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Dennhardt AA, Yurasek AM, Murphy JG. Change in delay discounting and substance reward value following a brief alcohol and drug use intervention. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 2014;103(1):125–140. doi: 10.1002/jeab.121. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Dennhardt AA, Murphy JG, Skidmore JR, Martens MM, McDevitt-Murphy ME. Delay discounting and distress tolerance as predictors of alcohol treatment outcomes in black and white students. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research. 2011;35:147A. [Google Scholar]
  18. Fairbairn CE, Sayette MA, Wright AG, Levine JM, Cohn JF, Creswell KG. Extraversion and the rewarding effects of alcohol in a social context. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2015;124(3):660. doi: 10.1037/abn0000024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Gentile ND, Librizzi EH, Martinetti MP. Academic constraints on alcohol consumption in college students: A behavioral economic analysis. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology. 2012;20(5):390. doi: 10.1037/a0029665. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Gravetter FJ, Wallnau LB, Forzano LAB. Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences. Nelson Education; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hallgren KA, Greenfield BL, Ladd BO. Psychometric properties of the adolescent reinforcement survey schedule-alcohol use version with college student drinkers. Substance Use & Misuse. 2016;51(7):812–822. doi: 10.3109/10826084.2016.1155609. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Heinz A, Lilje T, Kassel J, de Wit H. Quantifying reinforcement value and demand for psychoactive substances in humans. Current Drug Abuse Reviews. 2012;5(4):257–272. doi: 10.2174/1874473711205040002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hoyle RH, Stephenson MT, Palmgreen P, Lorch EP, Donohew RL. Reliability and validity of a brief measure of sensation seeking. Personality and Individual Differences. 2002;32(3):401–414. [Google Scholar]
  24. Keough KA, Zimbardo PG, Boyd JN. Who’s smoking, drinking, and using drugs? Time perspective as a predictor of substance use. Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 1999;21:149–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15324834BA210207. [Google Scholar]
  25. Kivlahan D, Marlatt G, Fromme K, Coppel D, Williams E. Secondary prevention with college drinkers: Evaluation of an alcohol skills training program. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1990;58(6):805–810. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.58.6.805. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Larimer ME, Lee CM, Kilmer JR, Fabiano PM, Stark CB, Geisner IM, Neighbors C. Personalized mailed feedback for college drinking prevention: a randomized clinical trial. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology. 2007;75(2):285. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.75.2.285. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. MacKillop J, Amlung MT, Few LR, Ray LA, Sweet LH, Munafò MR. Delayed reward discounting and addictive behavior: A meta-analysis. Psychopharmacology. 2011;216(3):305–321. doi: 10.1007/s00213-011-2229-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. MacKillop J, Mattson RE, Anderson MacKillop EJ, Castelda BA, Donovick PJ. Multidimensional assessment of impulsivity in undergraduate hazardous drinkers and controls. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2007;68(6):785–788. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2007.68.785. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Magidson JF, Robustelli BL, Seitz-Brown CJ, Whisman MA. Activity enjoyment, not frequency, is associated with alcohol-related problems and heavy episodic drinking. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2017;31(1):73. doi: 10.1037/adb0000220. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Martens MP, Smith AE, Murphy JG. The efficacy of single-component brief motivational interventions among at-risk college drinkers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2013;81(4):691. doi: 10.1037/a0032235. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Martens MP, Pederson ER, LaBrie JW, Ferrier AG, Cimini MD. Measuring alcohol-related protective behavioral strategies among college students: Further examination of the Protective Behavioral Strategies Scale. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2007;21(3):307–315. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.21.3.307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Martens MP, Ferrier AG, Sheehy MJ, Corbett K, Anderson DA, Simmons A. Development of the protective behavioral strategies survey. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2005;66(5):698–705. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2005.66.698. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Morris V, Amlung M, Kaplan BA, Reed DD, Petker T, MacKillop J. Using crowdsourcing to examine behavioral economic measures of alcohol value and proportionate alcohol reinforcement. Alcoholism-Clinical and Experimental Research. 2017;41:236A–236A. doi: 10.1037/pha0000130. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Murphy JG, Dennhardt AA, Skidmore JR, Borsari B, Barnett NP, Colby SM, Martens MP. A randomized controlled trial of a behavioral economic supplement to brief motivational interventions for college drinking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2012;80(5):876–886. doi: 10.1037/a0028763. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Murphy JG, Barnett NP, Colby SM. Alcohol-related and alcohol-free activity participation and enjoyment among college students: A behavioral theories of choice analysis. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology. 2006;14(3):339. doi: 10.1037/1064-1297.14.3.339. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Murphy JG, McDevitt-Murphy ME, Barnett NP. Drink and be merry? Gender, life satisfaction, and alcohol consumption among college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2005;19(2):184. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.19.2.184. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Murphy JG, Correia CJ, Colby SM, Vuchinich RE. Using behavioral theories of choice to predict drinking outcomes following a brief intervention. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology. 2005;13(2):93–101. doi: 10.1037/1064-1297.13.2.93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Meshesha LZ, Pickover AM, Teeters JB, Murphy JG. A longitudinal behavioral economic analysis of non-medical prescription opioid use among college students. The Psychological Record. 2017;67(2):241–251. [Google Scholar]
  39. Park CL. Positive and negative consequences of alcohol consumption in college students. Addictive behaviors. 2004;29(2):311–321. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2003.08.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Pearson MR. Use of alcohol protective behavioral strategies among college students: A critical review. Clinical Psychology Review. 2013;33(8):1025–1040. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2013.08.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Pearson MR, Henson JM. Unplanned drinking and alcohol-related problems: A preliminary test of the model of unplanned drinking behavior. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2013;27(3):584–595. doi: 10.1037/a0030901. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Pearson MR, Kite BA, Henson JM. Predictive effects of good self-control and poor regulation on alcohol-related outcomes: Do protective behavioral strategies mediate? Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2013;27(1):81–89. doi: 10.1037/a0028818. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Pearson MR, Kite BA, Henson JM. Unique direct and indirect effects of impulsivity-like traits on alcohol-related outcomes via protective behavioral strategies. Journal of Drug Education. 2012;42(4):425–426. doi: 10.2190/DE.42.4.d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Read J, Merrill J, Kahler C, Strong D. Predicting functional outcomes among college drinkers: Reliability and predictive validity of the Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire. Addictive Behaviors. 2007;32(11):2597–2610. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.06.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Skidmore JR, Murphy JG, Martens MP. Behavioral economic measures of alcohol reward value as problem severity indicators in college students. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology. 2014;22(3):198–210. doi: 10.1037/a0036490. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Skidmore JR, Murphy JG. The effect of drink price and next-day responsibilities on college student drinking: A behavioral economic analysis. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2011;25(1):57–68. doi: 10.1037/a0021118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Snider SE, LaConte SM, Bickel WK. Episodic future thinking: Expansion of the temporal window in individuals with alcohol dependence. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 2016;40(7):1558–1566. doi: 10.1111/acer.13112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Soltis KE, McDevitt-Murphy M, Murphy JG. Alcohol demand, future orientation, and craving mediate the relation between depressive and stress symptoms and alcohol problems. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 2017 doi: 10.1111/acer.13395. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Stein JS, Wilson AG, Koffarnus MN, Daniel TO, Epstein LH, Bickel WK. Unstuck in time: Episodic future thinking reduces delay discounting and cigarette smoking. Psychopharmacology. 2016;233(21-22):3771–3778. doi: 10.1007/s00213-016-4410-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Strathman A, Gleicher F, Boninger DS, Edwards CS. The consideration of future consequences: Weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1994;66(4):742. [Google Scholar]
  51. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. Pearson Education Inc.; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  52. Teeters JB, Murphy JG. The behavioral economics of driving after drinking among college drinkers. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 2015;39(5):896–904. doi: 10.1111/acer.12695. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Tucker JA, Vuchinich RE, Rippens PD. Predicting natural resolution of alcohol-related problems: A prospective behavioral economic analysis. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology. 2002;10(3):248. doi: 10.1037//1064-1297.10.3.248. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Vuchinich RE, Simpson CA. Hyperbolic temporal discounting in social drinkers and problem drinkers. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology. 1998;6(3):292. doi: 10.1037//1064-1297.6.3.292. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Yurasek AM, Murphy JG, Dennhardt AA, Skidmore JR, Buscemi J, McCausland C, Martens MP. Drinking motives mediate the relationship between reinforcing efficacy and alcohol consumption and problems. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2011;72(6):991–999. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2011.72.991. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES