Attributional Style as a Moderator of the Effect of Personality on Risk Behavior

Running Head: MODERATING EFFECT OF ATTRIBUTIONAL STYLE

Attributional Style as a Moderator of the Effect of

Personality on Risk Behavior

Madeline Donovan

Colgate University

MODERATING EFFECT OF ATTRIBUTIONAL STYLE

Abstract

Research suggests that specific personality traits (i.e., impulsivity and extraversion) are

associated with heavy drinking and drinking-related consequences (i.e., “risk” behaviors). The

effects of these personality traits may be moderated by attributional style, which is a social

psychological construct that describes how individuals explain the causes to events. A sample of

n=87 college students and n=85 Mechanical Turk participants completed a series of online

questionnaires that measured personality traits (i.e., extraversion and impulsivity), attributional

style, and risk behaviors and planned drinking. All participants were self-reportedly current

drinkers. Findings showed that attributions for positive events (i.e., "you become very rich")

moderated the association of extraversion to risk behavior. It is likely that in the face of positive

events, attribution style combines with high or low levels of extraversion in unique ways that

associate similarly to risk. Future interventions might be tailored toward specific groups of

individuals--and particularly college students--based on personality, attributional style and the

overall manner in which they perceive alcohol-related consequences.

2


Attributional Style as a Moderator of the Effect of Personality on Risk Behavior

Prevalence of Alcohol Abuse

Heavy alcohol consumption is a major health concern. Studies consistently connect

heavy drinking with a range of negative personal and interpersonal consequences (Brown,

Donovan, Dude, & Martens, 2005). Alcohol abuse is particularly prevalent among college

students on university campuses across the United States, and problematically, this consumption

is associated with many negative consequences for students. For example, researchers estimate

that the death toll of 18-24 year old college students from alcohol-related deaths exceeds 1,400

annually (Hingson, Heeren, Zakocs, Kopstein, & Wechsler, 2002). Another 500,000 college

students are unintentionally hurt or injured under the influence each year, while more than

600,000 are hit or assaulted by their intoxicated peers (Hingson et al., 2002). Furthermore, 2.1

million students report driving under the influence of alcohol, and 70,000 students are victims of

alcohol-related sexual assaults (Brown et al. 2005). Despite the serious consequences associated

with alcohol abuse, drinking remains a popular recreational activity among young adults

nationwide.

Personality as a Predictor of Alcohol Abuse

There are numerous theories regarding the driving factor behind heavy drinking

consequences (‘risk’ behaviors). Particular researchers have focused on the role of extraversion

and impulsivity as predictors of risk behaviors (Cooper, Agocha, & Sheldon, 2000). Using a

sample of 1,666 young adults between the ages of 18 and 25, researchers found that certain traits

promote behaviors via distinct pathways. Specifically, extraverted individuals seem to engage in

3


risk behaviors to enhance positive affect (Cooper et al., 2000). These findings shed light on the

complex nature of personality as a correlate of risky behavior. Extraversion is one of the “Big

Five” personality traits, along with openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and neuroticism.

Watson and Clark pinpoint six facets of extraversion that are common across various models

(1997). The facets include venturesome (excitement seeking), affiliation (fear of solitude),

positive affectivity (feelings of enthusiasm and joy), ascendance (sense of dominance), energy,

(high activity), and ambition (feelings of motivation to succeed). A growing body of literature

suggests that an individual’s level of extraversion may be linked to their risk behaviors. In an

observational study on a sample of 583 college students, researchers measured personality traits

and risk behavior of participants using the self-report method. Results suggest that highly

extraverted individuals are more likely to engage in heavy alcohol consumption (Raynor &

Levine, 2009). In the study, heavy drinking was accompanied by a range of other detrimental

health behaviors, including cigarette smoking, engaging in unprotected sex, and not getting a

necessary amount of sleep (Raynor & Levine, 2009).

Since extraverts tend to seek affiliation and avoid solitude, extraverts may be more likely

to find themselves in social environments where alcohol is present. Extraverts are also more

inclined to seek stimulation. Theories posit that extraverts are insensitive to low levels of

stimulation but reactive to high levels of stimulation (Zuckerman, Buchsbaum, & Murphy,

1980). This may further explain an extravert’s desire to experiment and ultimately abuse

substances, as drinking can often lead to various forms of stimulation.

In addition to extraversion, studies show that impulsivity, specifically sensation-seeking

behavior, is a predictor of risky behavior (Cooper et al., 2000). It is thought that impulsive

individuals cannot inhibit their response to certain stimuli (Revelle, 1997). That is, rather than

4


using forethought to plan purposeful actions, impulsive individuals act purely based on their

immediate mindset, which may then be associated with problematic and risk behaviors and

consequences.

The link between impulsivity, specifically sensation-seeking behavior, and risk behavior

lies in the desire for immediate satisfaction. If faced with the decision between staying home to

study for an exam or going to a party, an impulsive individual would likely choose to go to the

party without considering the greater delayed reward earned by succeeding on the exam. Their

impulsive nature might also hinder their ability to consider the delayed negative consequence of

their actions. In a study of 300 adolescents who were recruited from juvenile probation offices,

results showed a positive correlation between impulsivity and alcohol use. In addition, results

indicated that adolescents who were more future-oriented (a sign of lower impulsivity) had fewer

alcohol problems (Robbins & Bryan, 2009). These findings add to the body of literature linking

impulsivity to risk behavior. In summary, specific personality traits (i.e., extraversion &

impulsivity) are strong and well-established correlates of heavy drinking and risk.

Attributional Style as a Predictor of Risk Behavior

Less established is the association of attributional style with heavy drinking and risk.

Attributional style is the manner in which people explain life events. When an event occurs,

whether it is positive or negative, people reflect to determine its cause. Attributional style can be

measured using a self-report called the Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ). In completing

this questionnaire, individuals indicate the primary cause for numerous hypothetical situations

(ASQ; Peterson et al., 1982). Researchers have identified three components of attributional

style, which are each examined using the ASQ.

5


Individuals describe the cause of an event as either (1) internal or external. An internal

attribution indicates that the individual feels responsible for a particular outcome, while an

external attribution indicates that the individual believes the outcome was a result of outside

forces. Furthermore, individuals analyze whether an event is a result of (2) stable or unstable

forces. When an individual makes a stable attribution, he or she infers that the event was caused

by unchanging factors, as opposed to temporary, unstable forces. Lastly, individuals gauge the

extent to which the cause of an event is present across different situations. When making a (3)

global attribution rather than specific, an individual infers that an event’s cause is present across

a variety of situations, not just that particular situation (Peterson et al., 1982). Individuals make

attributions about outcomes they have personally experienced, as well as outcomes involving

distant others.

Research shows that individuals who use unstable, external, and specific attributions for

negative events tend to cope more adaptively with mental stress, which can improve daily mood

and even prolong lifespan (Scheier & Carver, 1985). Paradoxically, findings have also shown

stable, internal and global (SIG) attributions to be beneficial. For example, one study found

that college students who used SIG attributions were up to 70% more likely to carry out healthy

behaviors, while avoiding harmful substances (Steptoe & Wardle, 2001). Yet, additional studies

also reveal inconsistent findings. Interestingly, a study on 1,874 university students found that

both men and women who rated higher in SIG attributions also engaged in higher levels of

substance abuse and were more likely to engage in unsafe sex in comparison to their peers

(Burnett et al., 2013). It is possible that these inconsistent findings may be somewhat of a

function of the type of event for which one makes attributions. For example, and interestingly, a

person who makes SIG attributions for positive events, such as acing a test, may feel the need to

6


celebrate in a possibly risky way, particularly if the individual has personality traits such as

extraversion or impulsivity. In the simpler case of a negative event such as failing a test, a

person who makes SIG attributions may carry out further behaviors with the idea that outcomes

would never change.

Thus, it is currently unknown how a SIG attributional locus associates to risk and

drinking-related behaviors, though it likely works in tandem with (moderates) the strong and

trait-based association of personality to risk behaviors. That is, individuals who are both high in

trait personality risks (i.e., extraversion, impulsivity) and who additionally make SIG attributions

to events might be at even greater risk than peers who do not make similar attributions.

The Present Study

In the present study, we examined the effect of attributional style on risk behavior and

alcohol consumption. More specifically, we expected that the effect of attributional style would

moderate the well-established effect of personality (i.e., extraversion & impulsivity) on risk

behaviors and planned drinking (in a sample of current drinkers).

Methods

Participants and Procedure

Data were collected using self-report. Participants completed an extensive online survey

of their demographics, alcohol consumption, personality, and attributional style. Two different

samples were recruited for the study. The first sample was a group of n=87 college students,

who were enrolled in an introductory psych course. They received course credit for their

participation. Out of the student sample, 18 were males (20.7%) and 69 were females (79.3%).

The majority of participants were underclassman. There were 39 freshmen (44.8%), 30

7


sophomores (34.5%), 11 juniors (12.6%), and 7 seniors (8%). Ages ranged from 18-23 (M=19,

SD= 1.07). The student sample consisted primarily of individuals who identified as white or

Caucasian (67%). The minority students made up 33% of our sample, who identified as Asian,

African American, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, Hispanic or Latino, or a race not

listed. Seventy-nine students (90.8%) were native English speakers, while 8 students (9.2%)

were not.

Our second sample n=85 consisted of respondents via Mechanical Turk, which is a

website that provides a reliable resource for research data collection. Respondents received

$5.00 as compensation for survey completion. In the Mechanical Turk sample, 48 were females

(56.5%) and 37 males (43.5%). Unlike our student sample, Mechanical Turk participants were

not all enrolled in college. Fifty-nine (69.4%) participants answered that they had previously

been enrolled in a university or college, 18 participants answered that they were currently

enrolled in a university or college (21.2%), and 8 participants had never attended a university or

college (9.4%). Ages ranged from 19 to 77 (M=34, SD=11.1). Similar to our student sample,

the majority of participants identified as white or Caucasian (80%). The majority of participants

were native English speakers (95.3%).

Measures

Risk Behavior. In order to assess participants’ tendency to engage in risk alcohol-related

behavior, we used The Brief Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire, a 24-item

assessment of negative alcohol-related consequences (Kahler, Strong, & Read, 2005).

Participants were asked how often they had experienced a range of alcohol-related outcomes (0

= never, 1 = 1 time, 2 = 2-4 times, 3 = 5-10 times, 4 = 11 or more times; e.g., “While drinking, I

have said or done embarrassing things,” “I have driven a car when I knew I had too much to

8


drink to drive safely.”) According to the scoring directions of the assessment, to compute an

individual’s overall “risk” score, numerical responses to each item are (and were) summed

(=.92).

In order to assess participants’ future alcohol consumption, we used a moderated form of

the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) recommended questionnaire

(NIAAA, 2005). Questions addressed participants’ planned alcohol consumption within the next

30 days and the next 12 months. We focused on the item in regards to planned heavy drinking

episodes within the next 30 days (0=never, 1=1 time, 2= 2-3 times, 3= 1-2 times a week, 4= 3-4

times a week, 5=5-6 times a week, 6= nearly every day, 7= every day).

Personality (Extraversion & Impulsivity). Two scales were used to assess our two personality

traits of interest (extraversion and impulsivity). To measure extraversion, the Ten-Item

Personality Inventory (TIPI) was administered, which is a brief inventory assessing the Big-5

personality domains (Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003). The inventory consists of ten

statements, and instructs respondents to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with

each statement (1=disagree strongly, 7=agree strongly). Out of the ten statements, two assess

extraversion specifically (e.g.,., “I see myself as extraverted, enthusiastic”) To compute a

respondent’s level of extraversion, numerical responses for the two items were averaged.

Impulsivity was measured using the sensation-seeking subscale of the UPPS Impulsive

Behavior Scale (Whiteside & Lynam, 2001). The twelve selected items focus on the sensation-

seeking facet of impulsivity. Responds must indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree

with each statement (1=strongly disagree, 4=strongly agree). (i.e., “I generally seek new and

exciting experiences and sensations,” “I would enjoy the sensation of skiing very fast down a

high mountain slope.”) For all items, high numerical responses indicate high impulsivity. The

9


sum of the twelve numerical responses was calculated to indicate each respondent’s level of

impulsivity (=.92).

Attributional Style. Attributional style was measured using the Attributional Style Questionnaire

(ASQ) (Peterson et al., 1982). The ASQ presents participants with a series of hypothetical

situations (one on each page). The survey included seventeen hypothetical situations in total.

Twelve situations (six positive and six negative) were taken from the ASQ. Examples of

positive hypothetical situations included, “You become very rich,” and “Your significant other

has been treating you more lovingly.” Negative situation examples included, “You have been

looking for a job unsuccessfully for some time,” and “You go out on a date and it goes badly.”

Five additional situations were included and adapted into this assessment. These items assessed

attributional style in regards to alcohol-related situations (i.e., “You consume more alcohol than

usual during a pre-game party,” “Your friend has to take care of you after a night out,” “You

wake up after a night out and don’t remember getting home,” “Your friend throws up at a

fraternity party,” “You have to leave early from a party with your friend.”) Positive, negative,

and alcohol-related situations were presented in a randomized order. Situations required

participants to make attributions regarding hypothetical events involving both themselves and

others. After writing down one major cause in the blank provided, respondents were asked to

answer additional questions using a seven-point scale.

The three dimensions of attributional style were separately measured (internality,

stability, and globality). These scores were combined as according to the ASQ scoring directions

to formulate a scoring. High scores indicate more frequent use of stable, internal, and global

(SIG) attributions.

10


Analysis. We examined attributional style as a moderator of personality traits (i.e., extraversion

and impulsivity) as it pertained to their effect on risk behavior and planned drinking, using

General Linear Models (GLM). Tests of simple slopes were used to probe interactions.

Results

Table 1 displays descriptive information in regards to personality. Results show that

college students were significantly higher in extraversion and impulsivity, specifically sensation-

seeking behavior, than the Mechanical Turk Participants. Table 2 displays descriptive

information in regards to attributional style. Shown are averages of internal, stable, and global

attributions across positive, negative, and alcohol-related situations. Results show that college

students used SIG attributions more frequently than Mechanical Turk participants across each

type of situation. Table 3 provides descriptive information in regards to risky behavior. As

expected, college students reported higher levels of future alcohol consumption than Mechanical

Turk participants. In addition, college students reported higher risk scores than Mechanical Turk

participants. Table 4 provides correlations between our measures. Results show a significant

positive correlation between extraversion and planned alcohol consumption. A significant

positive correlation is also shown between sensation-seeking behavior and planned alcohol

consumption, as well as impulsivity and risk score. Results also indicate a positive correlation

between the use of SIG attributions (across all situation types) and both risk behavior measures

(‘risk’ score and planned heavy drinking). Thus, in our further analyses we accounted for which

population the participants came from.

11


Table 5 and Table 6 address our hypotheses in regards to the moderating effects of

attributional style, as it relates to personality trait (extraversion and impulsivity) effects on risk

behavior (Table 5) and planned drinking (Table 6). A simple slopes test revealed that there was

no significant interacting effect between attributional style and impulsivity on future alcohol

consumption (Table 5). A simple slopes test showed that for individuals who were high in

extraversion, a high use of SIG attributions was associated with higher levels of risk, specifically

pertaining to good events (b=.17, SE= .06, p<.01). For people at mean levels of extraversion, the

effect of SIG attributional style was not significant. For people at low levels of extraversion, the

effect of SIG attributional style was associated also with higher levels of risk, specifically

pertaining to good events (b=.17, SE= .06, p<.01). This suggests that participants who were

either low or high in extraversion may have felt responsible for certain positive occurrences, and

believed these outcomes would likely occur again in the future across varying circumstances.

Discussion

Results of the present study reinforce past findings that associate extraversion and

impulsivity with risk behavior. Extraversion and impulsivity were positively correlated with risk

behavior, providing further evidence for these traits as predictors of alcohol abuse. Extending

upon previous research, which focuses solely on the relationship between personality traits and

risk behavior, our findings provide insight on the complex nature of this established association.

Results show that for good events, SIG attributional style moderated the effect of extraversion on

risk behaviors. Interestingly, the effect was such that for individuals notably high in

extraversion, high SIG corresponded to risk, and for individuals notably low in extraversion,

higher SIG corresponded to risk. The use of stable, internal, and global attributions for positive

12


events seemed to cause a similar effect for individuals at both extremes of extraversion.

Considering the different qualities associated with high and low levels of extraversion, this

finding seems counterintuitive. Thus, our results raise questions regarding distinct cognitive

processes associated with high and low levels of extraversion, which impact the complex nature

in which individuals perceive positive events.

The similar effect of SIG attributions at either side of the continuum of extraversion

might be a function of a number of factors. In both cases, and in light of the fact that this effect

occurs only for “good” events, the effect could be a caused by celebration. When using SIG

attributions for positive events, individuals may feel responsible for the outcome and may seek

positive reinforcement through celebration. For positive events, the use of SIG attributions

appears to individuals who are relatively high or low in extraversion at greater risk, possibly

because they feel the need to celebrate another stable, internal and global victory. Considering

high extraversion is associated with thrill-seeking and social behavior, while low extraversion is

associated with less desire for stimulation, we would not expect to observe similar forms of

celebration across the two groups (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975). Past research suggests a potential

explanation for this parallel, regarding personality and positive affect.

In a previous study, researchers examined the similarities and differences between the

qualities of happiness demonstrated by those who are respectively high and low in extraversion

(Hills & Argyle, 2001). This study was conducted using a sample of 270 participants, who

completed the Oxford happiness inventory and the extraversion subscale of the Eysenck

personality questionnaire (2001). The results indicated that happy participants, who were

relatively high or low in extraversion, demonstrated practically identical behavior in regards to

preference for solitude, relations with friends, and preference for introspective activities (2001).

13


This finding aligns with our current study, as our results indicate that the use of SIG attributions

only had a moderating effect on the relationship between extraversion and risk behavior when

pertaining to positive events. Additional research on a sample of 61 university students suggests

that the effect of extraversion and alcohol on an individual’s temporary level of stimulation is

mediated by positive affectivity (Ruch, 1994). Perhaps, the use of SIG attributions for positive

events boosts positive affect, such that individuals relatively high and low in extraversion

become more likely to engage in risk behavior.

Although we found a moderating effect of SIG attributions on the relationship between

personality and risk behavior, this effect was not significant for individuals who reported a

relatively average level of extraversion. One potential explanation lies in the manner in which

individuals relatively high and low in extraversion celebrate in times of happiness. Longstanding

theories on personality suggest contrasting preferences for social stimulation in regards to

extraversion (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975). In light of Hills and Argyle’s study, it is possible that

individuals both high and low in extraversion seek to celebrate positive events in the presence of

close friends and alcohol, but the social environments might be different.

For instance, a college student who reports a high level of extraversion might attend a

large fraternity party to celebrate a good exam score. On the other hand, a student who reports a

low level of extraversion might prefer to celebrate with a few close friends. Although these two

individuals prefer to celebrate in contrasting social environments, they are likely more aware of

their preferred ideal social environment than an individual who falls in the middle of the

extraversion spectrum, who may not be as decisive. Thus, high and low level extraverts may be

more inclined to celebrate in environments that they know will be enjoyable, whereas mid-level

extraverts may be less inclined to celebrate, being unsure as to whether they will enjoy certain

14


celebratory situations. Due to the frequent presence of alcohol in celebratory situations, it is

possible that mid-level extraverts may be less likely to partake in alcohol-related risk behavior.

There are a number of limitations to this study that point to directions for future research.

For example, further research should focus specifically on the decision-making process in

regards to risk behavior. In this study, we focused on the use of SIG attributions for different

types of situations, but this only addresses the manner in which individuals perceive the cause of

past events. Although we can speculate about why these perceptions produced varying effects

on risk behavior depending on personality, it would be beneficial to closely examine the

cognitive process involved in alcohol-related decision-making.

Future studies should also examine the significance of age in risk behavior. In our study,

we examined two separate populations (e.g., college students and Mechanical Turk participants).

Although the age range for the college students was much smaller and lower than the age range

of Mechanical Turk participants, we were unable to examine the moderating effect of SIG

attributions on the relationship between personality and risk behavior in regards to development

across the lifespan, considering our analysis on the two separate samples. It would be interesting

to conduct a longitudinal study on just one sample, allowing researchers to observe changes in

risk behavior and personality throughout the course of one’s life. This would provide further

information on age as a potential predictor for risk behavior.

In light of the dangerous outcomes associated with risk-taking, specifically heavy alcohol

consumption, it is important to understand the underlying predictors of these behaviors. This

work blends social and clinical psychological constructs and represents a preliminary

investigation into work that may have relevance for intervention treatments. Findings have

shown that alcohol abuse prevention initiatives can be quite effective when specifically catered

15


to certain personality types (e.g., highly impulsive individuals), and these may be further

modified and improved by considering attributional style(and ultimately decision-making in the

context of alcohol-related skills exercises that are typical in alcohol treatment; Conrod,

Castellanos, & Mackie, 2008). As we expand our knowledge on various risk behavior

predictors, we can work to prevent future alcohol-related injuries and fatalities.

16


Table 1:

Descriptive Information of Personality Traits (n=169)

Variable TotalM(SD)

CollegeM(SD)

MturkM(SD)

College vs. MturkIndependent

Samples T-Testt(df)

Extraversion 4.06 (1.69) 4.70 (1.50) 3.41 (1.64) 5.38 (169)**Impulsivity 31.82 ( 8.88) 34.16 (8.24) 29.42 (8.92) 3.58(166)**

Notes: *p<.01; **p<.001; Extraversion Scale: 1=Disagree strongly, 2= Disagree moderately, 3= Disagree a little, 4= Neither agree nor disagree, 5= Agree a little, 6= Agree moderately, 7= Agree strongly; Impulsivity Scale: 1=Strongly disagree, 4=Strongly agree.

17


Table 2:

Descriptive Information of Attribution Styles (n=164-167)

Variable GoodM(SD)

BadM(SD)

AlcoholM(SD)

Total Internal Stable

5.38(0.79)5.52(0.87)

4.37(0.87)4.61(0.84)

4.74(1.14)4.52(1.28)

Global 5.30(0.84) 4.08(0.97) 3.35(1.36)College Internal Stable

5.55(0.69)5.86(0.70)

4.43(0.82)4.83(0.75)

4.89(1.11)4.86(1.17)

Global 5.54(0.70) 4.36(0.92) 3.45(1.32) Mturk Internal Stable Global

5.19(0.87)5.17(0.89)5.04(0.91)

4.31(0.93)4.37(0.86)3.78(0.94)

4.59(1.15)4.17(1.29)3.26(1.40)

College vs. MturkIndependent Samples T-Test

Goodt(df)

Badt(df)

Alcoholt(df)

Internal 2.97(165)* 0.93(165) 1.73(165) Stable 5.52(165)** 3.72(164)** 3.62(167)** Global 4.04(167)** 4.03(166)** 0.91(165)

Note: *p<.01; **p<.001

18


Table 3:

Descriptive Information of Risk Behaviors (n=166-167)

VariableTotal

M(SD)CollegeM(SD)

MturkM(SD)

College vs. MturkIndependent

Samples T-Testt(df)

Risk 13.27(6.37) 13.41(5.56) 13.12(7.16) 0.29(166)Heavy Drinking 1.56(1.39) 2.32(1.23) 0.74(1.05) 8.92(167)**

Notes: *p<.01; **p<.001; Risk= Frequency of experience of negative-alcohol-related consequences, Heavy drinking= Frequency of planned heavy-drinking episodes within the next 30 days.

19


Table 4:

Correlations Between Measures

Mturk Extraversion Impulsivity SIG(good)

SIG(bad) SIG(alc) Risk Heavy drinking

Mturk 1

Extraversion -.38**

1

Impulsivity -.27**

.20* 1

SIG(good) -.41**

.23** .19* 1

SIG(bad) -.27**

-.01 .12 .29** 1

SIG(alc) -.22**

.02 .25** .39** .40** 1

Risk -.02 .11 .27** .10 .22** .30** 1

Heavy drinking -.57**

.22** .32** .28** .19* .34** .29** 1

Notes: *p<.01; **p<.00;Mturk: 0=College, 1=Mturk sample. Risk= Assessment of risk, based on past experience of negative alcohol-related consequences, Heavy drinking= Frequency of planned heavy-drinking episodes within the next 30 days, SIG(good)=average use of SIG attributions for positive outcomes, SIG(bad)= average use of SIG attributions for negative outcomes. SIG(alc)= Average use of SIG attributions for negative alcohol-related outcomes.

20


Table 5:

Risk as a function of Interactions between Personality Traits & Attributional Style

Good Situations Bad Situations Alcohol Situationsb(SE) b(SE) b(SE)

Control Variable Sex .45(.18)* .42(.17)* .42(.16)* Race -.35(.19) -.25(.18) -.33(.17) Age .01(.01) .03(.01)* .02(.01) Mturk .07(.25) -.14(.24) .15(.23)Predictors SIG .15(.09) .18(.08)* .38(.08)** Extraversion .12(.08) .14(.08) .18(.08)* Impulsivity .27(.09)** .25(.08)** .18(.08)*Interactions SIG x Extraversion .18(.08)** -.04(.08) -.10(.07) SIG x Impulsivity .05(.08) -.04(.08) -.15(.08) SIG x Impulsivity -.17(.08) -.11(.08) -.09(.08)R(squared) .22 .21 .29

Notes: *p<.05; **p<.01; SIG= average use of SIG attributions, Mturk: 0=College, 1=Mturk sample, Risk= assessment of risk, based on past experience of negative alcohol-related consequences.

21


Table 6:

Planned Drinking as a function of Interactions between Personality Traits & Attributional Style

Good Situations Bad Situations Alcohol Situationsb(SE) b(SE) b(SE)

Control Variable Sex .16(.15) .25(.15) .19(.14) Race -.25(.16) -.20(.16) -.20(.15) Age -.01(.01) -.01(.01) -.02(.01) Mturk -.94(.21)** -.95(.21)** -.92(.20)**Predictors SIG .06(.07) .00(.07) .14(.07)* Extraversion -.04(.07) .00(.07) -.03(.07) Impulsivity .13(.07) .11(.07) .11(.07)Interactions SIG x Extraversion .08(.07) -.04(.07) .01(.06) SIG x Impulsivity .08(.07) .16(.07)* .14(.07) SIG x Impulsivity -.10(.07) -.05(.07) -.05(.07)R(squared) .44 .42 .45

Note: *p<.05; **p<.01; SIG= average use of SIG attributions, Mturk: 0=College, 1=Mturk sample

22


References

Amazon Web Services, personal communication, February 15, 2012.

Barkley, R. A. (1997). Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions:

constructing a unifying theory of ADHD. Psychological bulletin, 121(1), 65.

Beyth-Marom, R., Austin, L., Fischhoff, B., Palmgren, C., & Jacobs-Quadrel, M. (1993).

Perceived consequences of risky behaviors: Adults and adolescents. Developmental

Psychology, 29(3), 549-563. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.29.3.549

Buchanan, G. M. E., & Seligman, M. E. (1995). Explanatory style. Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Inc.

Bickel, W. K., & Marsch, L. A. (2001). Toward a behavioral economic understanding of drug

dependence: delay discounting processes. Addiction, 96(1), 73-86.

Burnett, A. J., Sabato, T. M., Walter, K. O., Kerr, D. L., Wagner, L., & Smith, A. (2013). The

influence of attributional style on substance use and risky sexual behavior among college

students. College Student Journal, 47(1), 122-136.

Carver, C. S., & Gaines, J. G. (1987). Optimism, pessimism, and postpartum depression.

Cognitive therapy and Research, 11(4), 449-462.

Conrod, P. J., Castellanos, N., & Mackie, C. (2008). Personality‐targeted interventions delay the

growth of adolescent drinking and binge drinking. Journal of Child Psychology and

Psychiatry, 49(2), 181-190.

Cooper, M. L. (1994). Motivations for alcohol use among adolescents: Development of a

four-factor model. Psychological Assessment, 6(2), 117-128.

Cooper, M. L., Agocha, V. B., & Sheldon, M. S. (2000). A motivational perspective on risky

23


behaviors: The role of personality and affect regulatory processes. Journal of personality,

68(6), 1059-1088.

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual for the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire.

London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Fromme, K., Stroot, E., & Kaplan, D. (1993). The Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol

questionnaire: Development and psychometric evaluation of a new expectancy

questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 5(1), 19–26. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.5.1.19

Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann Jr, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five

personality domains. Journal of Research in personality, 37(6), 504-528.

Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (2001). Happiness, introversion–extraversion and happy introverts.

Personality And Individual Differences, 30(4), 595-608. doi:10.1016/S0191-

8869(00)00058-1

Hingson, R., Heeren, T., Winter, M., & Wechsler, H. (2005). Magnitude of alcohol-related

mortality and morbidity among US college students ages 18–24: Changes from 1998 to

2001. Public Health, 26.

Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The big five personality

traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel

psychology, 52(3), 621-652.

Kahler, C. W., Strong, D. R., & Read, J. P. (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.

24


National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (2012). Alcohol Screening and Brief

Interventions. Retrieved September 19 2013 from http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/Resources

/ResearchResources/TaskForce.htm l .

Peterson, C., Semmel, A., von Baeyer, C., Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, G. I., & Seligman,

M. E. P. (1982). The Attributional Style Questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy and Research,

6, 287–300.

Raynor, D. A., & Levine, H. (2009). Associations Between the Five-Factor Model of Personality

and Health Behaviors Among College Students. Journal Of American College Health,

58(1), 73-82.

Revelle, W. (1997). Extraversion and impulsivity: The lost dimension. The scientific study of

human nature: Tribute to Hans J. Eysenck at eighty, 189.

Reyna, V. F., & Farley, F. (2006). Risk and rationality in adolescent decision making

implications for theory, practice, and public policy. Psychological science in the public

interest, 7(1), 1-44.

Robbins, R. N., & Bryan, A. (2004). Relationships between future orientation, impulsive

sensation seeking, and risk behavior among adjudicated adolescents. Journal of

adolescent research, 19(4), 428-445.

Ruch, W. (1994). Extraversion, alcohol, and enjoyment. Personality and Individual Differences,

16(1), 89-102.

Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: assessment and

implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health psychology, 4(3), 219.

Sher, K. J., Bartholow, B. D., & Wood, M. D. (2000). Personality and substance use

disorders: a prospective study. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 68(5), 818.

25

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/Resources%20/ResearchResources/TaskForce.html

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/Resources%20/ResearchResources/TaskForce.html


Smith, C. D., & Brown, J. M. (1998). Sexual Behaviors, Extroversion, and Alcohol Use Among

College Students. Journal Of Alcohol & Drug Education, 44(1), 70.

Steptoe, A., & Wardle, J. (2001). Locus of control and health behaviour revisited: a multivariate

analysis of young adults from 18 countries. British journal of Psychology, 92(4), 659-

672.

Tournier, R. E. (1979). Alcoholics Anonymous as treatment and as ideology. Journal of Studies

on Alcohol and Drugs, 40(03), 230.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In R. Hogan, J.

Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 767-793). San

Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). The Five Factor Model and impulsivity: using a

structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and Individual

Differences, 30(4), 669-689. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00064-7

Zuckerman, M., Buchsbaum, M. S., & Murphy, D. L. (1980). Sensation seeking and its

biological correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 88(1), 187-214. doi:10.1037/0033-

2909.88.1.187

26

Attributional Style as a Moderator of the Effect of Personality on Risk Behavior

Documents

Transcript of Attributional Style as a Moderator of the Effect of Personality on Risk Behavior