Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Mar 16.
Published in final edited form as: Personal Disord. 2021 Dec 23;13(2):192–197. doi: 10.1037/per0000540

Role of Pregaming Motives in Accounting for Links Between Maladaptive Personality Traits and Drinking Consequences

Whitney R Ringwald 1, Elizabeth A Edershile 1, Jonathan Hale 2, Trevor F Williams 3, Leonard J Simms 4, Kasey G Creswell 5, Rachel L Bachrach 1,6, Aidan GC Wright 1
PMCID: PMC8923913  NIHMSID: NIHMS1760726  PMID: 34941348

Abstract

College students are at heightened risk of engaging in unhealthy alcohol use that leads to negative consequences (e.g., motor vehicle accidents, poor academic performance). Understanding how individual differences, like maladaptive personality traits, contribute to that risk could improve intervention efforts. A potential pathway through which personality confers risk for consequences is by influencing students’ motivation to drink. In this study of 441 college students, we investigated whether different motivations to pregame, a particularly risky and common drinking practice on college campuses, accounts for links between maladaptive traits and alcohol-related consequences. Results of bivariate analyses showed that all pregaming motives and maladaptive traits (except Detachment) were strongly correlated with negative consequences. In path analytic models that adjusted for shared variance between pregaming motives and between maladaptive traits, results showed that traits had indirect effects on total drinking consequences via individual differences in pregaming motives as well as direct effects that were independent of motives. Specifically, Antagonism, Disinhibition, and Negative Affectivity predicted more drinking consequences via stronger motives to pregame for instrumental reasons over and above the general motivation to pregame whereas Detachment predicted fewer consequences via weaker instrumental pregaming motives. Antagonism and Disinhibition were also associated with more drinking consequences, and Detachment with fewer consequences, over and above pregaming motives and general personality problems. Our study indicates that one way maladaptive personality traits may shape alcohol-related consequences in college students is by associations with their motivations to pregame.

Keywords: drinking motives, alcohol use, dimensional models, personality pathology

Personality is a powerful predictor of acute alcohol-related consequences (e.g., driving drunk, unprotected sex) and longer-term problems (e.g., academic/work impairment, alcohol use disorder; Baer, 2002; Samek et al., 2018; Stacy et al., 1991). Most research on associations between personality and alcohol use outcomes has examined the Big Five traits. Meta-analyses show that Extraversion predicts increased alcohol consumption (but not consequences), whereas high Neuroticism, low Agreeableness, and low Conscientiousness predict more negative drinking consequences, and Openness is unrelated to alcohol use (Lui et al., 2021; Malouff et al., 2005). A population that is particularly likely to engage in unhealthy alcohol use is college students due in part to developmental and environmental factors (e.g., changes in neurobiology and social roles), but personality also has a role in conferring risk during this time (Ham & Hope, 2003). Given the heightened risk in this population, and the unique circumstances that contribute to this risk, there is a need to identify intervening factors that explain associations between personality and drinking consequences in college students.

A drinking practice that is relatively specific to college students is pregaming, defined as consuming alcohol in a short period of time prior to an event. Pregaming often entails rapid consumption of high volumes of alcohol, which increases susceptibility to harmful drinking consequences (Hughes et al., 2008; Labhart et al., 2013; LaBrie & Pedersen, 2008; Merrill et al., 2013). There are multiple pathways through which personality may influence the tendency to engage in a behavior like pregaming. One of the most proximal predictors of alcohol use behavior with strong ties to personality is thought to be a person’s motivation for drinking, with different motives predicting different outcomes (Bresin & Mekawi, 2021; Cox & Klinger, 1988). The broader literature on alcohol use and personality supports this hypothesized pathway; for instance, research shows that the relationship between Extraversion and alcohol consumption is accounted for by the motivation to enhance positive emotions and social experiences, whereas the relationship between Neuroticism and alcohol problems is accounted for by the motivation to cope with negative emotions (Gaher et al., 2006; Hussong, 2003; Mezquita et al., 2010).

College students’ motivations to pregame may be distinct from general drinking motives, as scales developed specifically for pregaming motives have identified a different factor structure than general drinking motives. Pregaming motives tend to fall into three categories: (1) to get drunk and have fun, (2) to loosen up and enjoy socializing more, and (3) for instrumental purposes such as hooking up or insufficiency of alcohol at the event (Bachrach et al., 2012; Labhart & Kuntsche, 2017; LaBrie et al., 2012; Read et al., 2010). Pregaming motives also incrementally predict pregaming behavior above and beyond general drinking motives, (Bachrach et al., 2012; Labhart & Kuntsche, 2017; LaBrie et al., 2012) suggesting that to thoroughly evaluate the potential pathways between personality and consequences via pregaming may require narrowing in on pregaming-specific motives.

Big Five traits may not capture the full breadth of maladaptive aspects of personality needed to predict risky drinking behavior like pregaming. A substantial body of clinical research has identified five maladaptive trait domains that conceptually and empirically align with the Big Five traits (Widiger & Simonsen, 2005), but provide more comprehensive coverage of pathological personality features (Suzuki et al., 2015). These traits are Antagonism (maladaptively low Agreeableness), Detachment (maladaptively low Extraversion), Disinhibition (maladaptively low Conscientiousness), Negative Affectivity (comparable to Neuroticism), and Psychoticism (an aspect of maladaptive Openness). Most studies on the associations between maladaptive traits and alcohol use outcomes have found that Antagonism, Disinhibition, and Negative Affectivity predict negative consequences (Adams et al., 2012; Bryant & McNulty, 2017; Creswell et al., 2015; Few et al., 2013; Jones et al., 2014; Mezquita et al., 2014), but there is a need to explore potential intervening variables that account for these associations.

In this study,1 we evaluated whether maladaptive traits confer risk for hazardous drinking outcomes in college students via individual differences in motives to pregame. Based on prior work, we expected that Antagonism, Disinhibition, and Negative Affectivity would predict more consequences. We also expected that pregaming motives would account for these associations, but we did not formulate hypotheses about the specific pathways.

Methods

Participants and Procedures.

Participants for this study were college students. Students completed online questionnaires for course credit. Specific validity indices (e.g., attention checks) were not administered, but the pattern of responding as evidenced by variable descriptives, scale reliabilities, and bivariate correlations suggest that respondents’ answers were consistent and valid (e.g., results map onto previous findings from research examining similar constructs in young adults). We excluded participants that did not report drinking alcohol in the past 30 days (n = 163) and those with missing data on covariates (n = 11). The final sample size was 441. Participants were mostly white (82%; 9% Asian; 7% Black/African American)2 and roughly balanced on gender (54% male) with an average age of 19.3 (SD = 2.1). This study was approved by the University at Buffalo and University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Boards.

Measures.

Maladaptive traits

Maladaptive traits were self-reported using the 216-item Comprehensive Assessment of Traits Relevant to Personality Disorder-Static Form (CAT-PD-SF; Simms et al., 2011). Each item asks participants to describe how they behave in general compared to others (e.g., “I get angry easily”) on a scale from (0) “Very Untrue of Me” to (5) “Very True of Me.” We calculated five maladaptive trait domains from the CAT-PD-SF by lower-order facet scales per previous factor analytic work (Wright & Simms, 2014; details in supplement).

Pregaming motives

Pregaming motives were self-reported with the 15-item Pregaming Motives Measure (Bachrach et al., 2012). Each item describes a reason for pregaming and is rated on a Likert scale from (0) “Almost never/Never to (4) “All of the Time.” We calculated three subscale scores reflecting individual differences in pregaming motives: Inebriation/Fun (e.g., “To socialize with friends), Social Ease (e.g., “To make an awkward situation at the event easier to deal with”), and Instrumental (e.g., “Because there will not be enough alcohol at the event”).

Drinking consequences

Drinking consequences were self-reported using the Brief Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire (Kahler et al., 2005). For each checklist item, participants indicated whether they experienced a given alcohol-related consequence in the past year (e.g., “I passed out from drinking”). We calculated a summed score to represent total drinking consequences.

Analytic Plan.

We used path analysis because it allowed us to simultaneously estimate the indirect effects of maladaptive traits on consequences through pregaming motives and the direct effects of traits on consequences not accounted for by motives in a single model. Maladaptive traits and pregaming motives were adjusted for participant gender, age, and race to account for differences in alcohol use patterns across these demographic characteristics (Delker et al., 2016). Correlations between pregaming motives and between traits in the path analysis were freely estimated. Because this model was fully saturated (i.e., zero degrees of freedom), we did not evaluate global fit indices. We considered coefficients with p < .05 to be statistically significant. Analyses were conducted in Mplus Version 8.5 (Muthén & Muthén, 2020).

Results

Data, code, and supplementary materials are available on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/nqyfb/. Descriptive statistics, scale reliabilities, bivariate correlations between lower-order CAT-PD scales and pregaming motives/drinking consequences, and sensitivity analyses with the sample without excluding regular drinkers are in the supplement.

We first established the zero-order associations among study variables (Table 1). In these bivariate models, all maladaptive traits (except Detachment) and pregaming motives were correlated with drinking consequences. Consistent with previous research, all maladaptive traits were strongly intercorrelated (likely reflecting general distress/dysfunction; Smith et al., 2020), as were pregaming motives (reflecting the general motivation to pregame). To disentangle the unique, trait-specific pathways linking maladaptive traits to drinking consequences, we partialled out the shared variance among traits and among motives with the path analytic model shown in Figure 1. This model included a set of multiple regression paths; all traits were entered as simultaneous predictors of pregaming motives and all traits and pregaming motives were entered as simultaneous predictors of consequences. Adjusting for shared trait variance reduced their associations with motives and consequences. After adjusting for shared variance among motives, only Instrumental motives predicted drinking consequences suggesting that the general motivation to pregame accounts for considerable variation in risk.

Table 1.

Bivariate correlations among study variables

Pre-gaming Motives Alcohol Consequences Maladaptive Traits
Inebriation/Fun Instrumental Social Ease Total Antagonism Detachment Disinhibition Negative Affectivity Psychoticism
Inebriation/Fun
Instrumental .70 **
Social Ease .80 ** .71 **
Alc. Conseq. .45 ** .44 ** .42 **
Antagonism .27 ** .22 ** .30 ** .31 **
Detachment −.10* −.03 .08 .02 .27 **
Disinhibition .25 ** .23 ** .29 ** .32 ** .50 ** .36 **
Negative Aff. .16 ** .19 ** .34 ** .21 ** .42 ** .50 ** .50 **
Psychoticism .10 ** .10 ** .15 ** .16 ** .52 ** .34 ** .52 ** .47 **
Open in a new tab

Note.

**

= p < .001;

*

= p < .05

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Path analytic model of unique associations between maladaptive traits, pregaming motives, and drinking consequences

Note. All effects are standardized regression coefficients. All paths are regression paths. Dotted lines are direct effects of maladaptive traits. ** = p < .001; * = p < .05. All predictors were allowed to freely correlate. Each pregaming motive was regressed on each maladaptive trait, and drinking consequences were regressed on all motives and traits. Only significant (p < .05) regression paths are depicted for ease of interpretation.

In this model, Antagonism and Disinhibition were uniquely associated with Inebriation/Fun and Instrumental motives over and above shared trait variance. Antagonism was further associated with Social Ease motives. Both Antagonism and Disinhibition were associated with drinking consequences indirectly via Instrumental motives as well as having a direct association over and above pregaming motives. Detachment was uniquely associated with lower Inebriation/Fun and Instrumental motives. Although Detachment was uncorrelated with consequences in the bivariate models, it was associated with fewer consequences after adjusting for shared trait variance indicating a suppression effect. Detachment also had an indirect buffering effect via lower Instrumental motives. Negative Affectivity was only associated with more consequences indirectly via stronger Instrumental motives. Negative Affectivity also had a unique association with Social Ease motives. Finally, after adjusting for shared variance with the other traits, Psychoticism was neither directly nor indirectly associated with consequences.

Discussion

In this study, we found that maladaptive traits predict consequences, in part, through individual differences in pregaming motives. Our results align with previous work on Big Five personality, suggesting that similar personality processes unfold in the context of college student’s pregaming alcohol use. At the same time, maladaptive traits may capture unique risk factors that are missed by the Big Five traits.

Antagonism and Disinhibition were associated with pregaming to enhance social, emotional, and physiological experiences (i.e., Inebriation/Fun and Instrumental motives), akin to studies showing low Agreeableness and low Conscientiousness predict enhancement motives (e.g., Theakston et al., 2004). That Antagonism and Disinhibition showed common pathways to pregaming motives and drinking consequences is also consistent with these traits being subsumed within a broader externalizing dimension (Ringwald et al., 2021). Highlighting the added predictive value of maladaptive traits, Antagonism was distinguished by pregaming to manage emotions in social situations (i.e., Social Ease motives) whereas prior work has shown Agreeableness does not associate with such coping-related drinking motives. This finding can be interpreted through the lens of clinical theories about self-regulation processes underlying antagonism (e.g., vulnerable narcissism; Cain et al., 2008), suggesting that despite outward behavior implying disregard for others, more antagonistic college students struggle to feel comfortable in social situations and pregame to cope with that discomfort.

In contrast to the externalizing traits, Detachment was associated with lower motivation to pregame for fun or to feel drunk, consistent with associations between Extraversion and enhancement motives (Hussong, 2003; Kuntsche et al., 2006). Detachment also was associated with fewer alcohol-related consequences after adjusting for shared variance with other traits. Prior work on Extraversion in college students shows that the trait’s associations with alcohol consumption are accounted for by selecting into the Greek system (e.g., Park et al., 2009), suggesting that one possible reason Detachment has a buffering effect is that more detached college students are less motivated to pregame because they are less inclined to engage in “wet” social environments–a point that is expanded on later in the discussion.

The strongest relation was between Negative Affectivity and pregaming to manage emotions (i.e., Social Ease motives), which parallels the robust associations between Neuroticism and coping motives (Littlefield & Sher, 2010; Mezquita et al., 2014). Unlike work in non-student populations showing coping motives mediate associations between Neuroticism and consequences (e.g., Gaher et al., 2006), Social Ease motives did not account for Negative Affectivity’s link to consequences. A reason for this discrepancy may be that pregaming for social ease does not predict consequences in college students because this motive is more normative in this population than drinking to cope after college.

Why do pregaming motives account for the links between maladaptive personality traits and drinking consequences in college students? One possibility is that students who are more motivated to pregame typically drink more often and drink higher volumes of alcohol, which then results in more consequences. Transactions between personality and drinking environments also likely play a key role in predicting alcohol use outcomes (Creswell, 2021; Littlefield & Sher, 2010). Drinking motives are thought to be driven by individual differences in the expected rewards of alcohol, which in turn results from the joint influence of personality traits and reinforcement from the environment (Cox & Klinger, 1988; Smith & Anderson, 2001). Further complicating the picture, personality shapes the types of drinking environments a person selects into (Sher et al., 2018). Variation in risk for drinking consequences, it follows, results from reciprocal relationships between traits, expectancies, motives, and the situations a person tends to drink in (or prior to). As noted previously, there is longitudinal evidence for the role of situation-selection on drinking outcomes related to Extraversion (e.g., Park et al., 2009), but delineating these complex pathways related to maladaptive traits, with temporally sensitive study designs, is a fruitful (and challenging) future direction. For instance, intensive longitudinal designs could clarify the mechanisms underlying personality, motives, and situations by separating between-person associations (e.g., people who tend to be motivated to pregame for instrumental reasons also tend to go to fraternity parties) from within-person associations (e.g., on days people are motivated to pregame for instrumental reasons it is typically before going to a fraternity party).

Limitations and Future Directions.

Our cross-sectional study could not establish temporal relationships; thus, longitudinal designs like those noted above are needed to tease apart the direction(s) of influence between motives, situations, and consequences. All variables were assessed with self-report which introduces method bias inherent to any mono-method research. Multi-method studies using informant personality ratings or objective measures of consequences (e.g., criminal records), for example, would provide additional insights. Despite these limitations, our study lays a foundation for further investigation into the processes linking personality and alcohol use outcomes to understand and prevent drinking-related harm in college students.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (R01 AA026879), the Veterans Health Administration (Health Services Research and Development CDA 20-057), the University of Pittsburgh’s Clinical and Translational Science Institute, which is funded by the National Institutes of Health Clinical and Translational Science Award program (UL1 TR001857). The opinions expressed are solely those of the authors and not those of the funders, institutions, the Department of Veterans Affairs, or the United States Government.

Footnotes

Declarations of interest: None.

1

This study was not pre-registered.

2

Total percentage exceeds 100% because participants could self-identify as belonging to multiple racial/ethnic groups.

References

  1. Adams ZW, Kaiser AJ, Lynam DR, Charnigo RJ, & Milich R (2012). Drinking motives as mediators of the impulsivity-substance use relation: Pathways for negative urgency, lack of premeditation, and sensation seeking. Addictive Behaviors, 37(7), 848–855. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bachrach RL, Merrill JE, Bytschkow KM, & Read JP (2012). Development and initial validation of a measure of motives for pregaming in college students. Addictive Behaviors, 37(9), 1038–1045. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baer JS (2002). Student factors: Understanding individual variation in college drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 14, 40–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Borsari B, & Carey KB (2006). How the quality of peer relationships influences college alcohol use. Drug and Alcohol Review, 25(4), 361–370. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bresin K, & Mekawi Y (2021). The “Why” of Drinking Matters: A Meta-Analysis of the Association Between Drinking Motives and Drinking Outcomes. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 45(1), 38–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bryant WT, & McNulty JL (2017). Which Domain of the PSY-5 Is Most Relevant to Substance Use? Journal of Personality Assessment, 99(5), 524–533. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cain NM, Pincus AL, & Ansell EB (2008). Narcissism at the crossroads: Phenotypic description of pathological narcissism across clinical theory, social/personality psychology, and psychiatric diagnosis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(4), 638–656. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cox WM, & Klinger E (1988). A Motivational Model of Alcohol Use. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97(2), 168–180. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Creswell KG (2021). Drinking Together and Drinking Alone: A Social-Contextual Framework for Examining Risk for Alcohol Use Disorder. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 30(1), 19–25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Creswell KG, Bachrach RL, Wright AGC, Pinto A, & Ansell E (2016). Predicting problematic alcohol use with the DSM–5 alternative model of personality pathology. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 7(1), 103–111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Creswell KG, Chung T, Wright AGC, Clark DB, Black JJ, & Martin C (2015). Personality, negative affect coping, and drinking alone: A structural equation modeling approach to examine correlates of adolescent solitary drinking. Addiction, 110(5), 775–783. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Delker E, Brown Q, & Hasin DS (2016). Alcohol Consumption in Demographic Subpopulations: An Epidemiologic Overview. Alcohol Research: Current Reviews, 38(1), 7–15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Egan KL, Cox MJ, Suerken CK, Reboussin BA, Song EY, Wagoner KG, & Wolfson M (2019). More drugs, more problems? Simultaneous use of alcohol and marijuana at parties among youth and young adults. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 202, 69–75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Few LR, Miller JD, Rothbaum AO, Meller S, Maples J, Terry DP, Collins B, & MacKillop J (2013). Examination of the Section III DSM-5 diagnostic system for personality disorders in an outpatient clinical sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122(4), 1057–1069. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hakulinen C, Elovainio M, Batty GD, Virtanen M, Kivimäki M, & Jokela M (2015). Personality and alcohol consumption: Pooled analysis of 72,949 adults from eight cohort studies. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 151, 110–114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Ham LS, & Hope DA (2003). College students and problematic drinking: A review of the literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 23(5), 719–759. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Harden KP, Quinn PD, & Tucker-Drob EM (2012). Genetically influenced change in sensation seeking drives the rise of delinquent behavior during adolescence: Sensation seeking and delinquency. Developmental Science, 15(1), 150–163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hughes K, Anderson Z, Morleo M, & Bellis MA (2008). Alcohol, nightlife and violence: The relative contributions of drinking before and during nights out to negative health and criminal justice outcomes. Addiction, 103(1), 60–65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Hussong AM (2003). Social influences in motivated drinking among college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 17(2), 142–150. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Jones KA, Chryssanthakis A, & Groom MJ (2014). Impulsivity and drinking motives predict problem behaviours relating to alcohol use in University students. Addictive Behaviors, 39(1), 289–296. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. 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 & Experimental Research, 29(7), 1180–1189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Kuntsche E, Knibbe R, Gmel G, & Engels R (2006). Who drinks and why? A review of socio-demographic, personality, and contextual issues behind the drinking motives in young people. Addictive Behaviors, 31(10), 1844–1857. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Labhart F, Graham K, Wells S, & Kuntsche E (2013). Drinking before going to licensed premises: An event-level analysis of predrinking, alcohol consumption, and adverse outcomes. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, 37(2), 284–291. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Labhart F, & Kuntsche E (2017). Development and validation of the predrinking motives questionnaire: Predrinking motives questionnaire. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47(3), 136–147. [Google Scholar]
  25. LaBrie JW, Hummer JF, Pedersen Eric. R., Lac A, & Chithambo T (2012). Measuring college students’ motives behind prepartying drinking: Development and validation of the prepartying motivations inventory. Addictive Behaviors, 37(8), 962–969. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. LaBrie JW, & Pedersen ER (2008). Prepartying promotes heightened risk in the college environment: An event-level report. Addictive Behaviors, 33(7), 955–959. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Lee CM, Cadigan JM, & Patrick ME (2017). Differences in reporting of perceived acute effects of alcohol use, marijuana use, and simultaneous alcohol and marijuana use. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 180, 391–394. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Littlefield AK, & Sher KJ (2010). The Multiple, Distinct Ways that Personality Contributes to Alcohol Use Disorders. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(9), 767–782. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Lui PP, Chmielewski M, Trujillo M, Morris J, & Pigott T (2021). Linking Big Five Personality Domains and Facets to Alcohol (Mis)Use: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Malouff JM, Thorsteinsson EB, & Schutte NS (2005). The Relationship Between the Five-Factor Model of Personality and Symptoms of Clinical Disorders: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 27(2), 101–114. [Google Scholar]
  31. Merrill JE, Vermont LN, Bachrach RL, & Read JP (2013). Is the pregame to blame? Event-level associations between pregaming and alcohol-related consequences. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 74(5), 757–764. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Mezquita L, Ibáñez MI, Moya J, Villa H, & Ortet G (2014). A Longitudinal Examination of Different Etiological Pathways to Alcohol Use and Misuse. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 38(6), 1770–1779. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Mezquita L, Stewart SH, & Ruipérez MA (2010). Big-five personality domains predict internal drinking motives in young adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(3), 240–245. [Google Scholar]
  34. Muthén L, & Muthén B (2020). Mplus (8.5) [Computer software].
  35. Park A, Sher KJ, Wood PK, & Krull JL (2009). Dual mechanisms underlying accentuation of risky drinking via fraternity/sorority affiliation: The role of personality, peer norms, and alcohol availability. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 118(2), 241. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Pedersen ER, LaBrie JW, & Kilmer JR (2009). Before you slip into the night, you’ll want something to drink: Exploring the reasons for prepartying behavior among college student drinkers. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 30(6), 354–363. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Read JP, Merrill JE, & Bytschkow K (2010). Before the Party Starts: Risk Factors and Reasons for “Pregaming” in College Students. Journal of American College Health, 58(5), 461–472. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Ringwald WR, Forbes MK, & Wright AGC (2021). Meta-analysis of structural evidence for the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) model. Psychological Medicine, 1–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Samek DR, Hicks BM, Durbin E, Hinnant JB, Iacono WG, & McGue M (2018). Codevelopment Between Key Personality Traits and Alcohol Use Disorder From Adolescence Through Young Adulthood. Journal of Personality, 86(2), 261–282. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Sher KJ, Littlefield A, & Lee M (2018). Personality Processes Related to the Development and Resolution of Alcohol Use Disorders (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  41. Simms LJ, Goldberg LR, Roberts JE, Watson D, Welte J, & Rotterman JH (2011). Computerized adaptive assessment of personality disorder: Introducing the CAT-PD project. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93(4), 380–389. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Smith GT, Atkinson EA, Davis HA, Riley EN, & Oltmanns JR (2020). The General Factor of Psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 16, 75–98. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Smith GT, & Anderson KG (2001). Personality and learning factors combine to create risk for adolescent problem drinking: A model and suggestions for intervention. In Monti PM, Colby SM, & O’Leary TA (Eds.), Adolescents, alcohol, and substance abuse: Reaching teens through brief interventions (pp. 109–141). Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  44. Stacy AW, Newcomb MD, & Bentler PM (1991). Personality, problem drinking, and drunk driving: Mediating, moderating, and direct-effect models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5), 795–811. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Suzuki T, Samuel DB, Pahlen S, & Krueger RF (2015). DSM-5 alternative personality disorder model traits as maladaptive extreme variants of the five-factor model: An item-response theory analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124(2), 343–354. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Theakston JA, Stewart SH, Dawson MY, Knowlden-Loewen SAB, & Lehman DR (2004). Big-Five personality domains predict drinking motives. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(5), 971–984. [Google Scholar]
  47. Widiger TA, & Simonsen E (2005). Alternative Dimensional Models of Personality Disorder: Finding a Common Ground. Journal of Personality Disorders, 19(2), 110–130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Wright AGC, & Simms LJ (2014). On the structure of personality disorder traits: Conjoint analyses of the CAT-PD, PID-5, and NEO-PI-3 trait models. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 5(1), 43–54. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES