Alcohol abuse and dependence symptoms: a multidimensional model of common and specific etiology

Abstract

This study tested a theoretical model hypothesizing differential pathways from 5 predictors to alcohol abuse and dependence symptoms. The participants were college students (N = 2,270) surveyed on 2 occasions in a 6-month prospective design. Social norms, perceived utility of alcohol use, and family history of alcohol problems were indirectly associated with Time 2 abuse and dependence symptoms through influencing level of alcohol consumption. Poor behavioral control had a direct effect on alcohol abuse but not on dependence symptoms at Time 2, whereas affective lability exhibited a direct prospective effect on alcohol dependence but not on abuse symptoms. A multigroup analysis showed that high levels of poor control increased the strength of paths from both consumption level and affective lability to abuse symptoms. Implications for prevention of alcohol problems among college students are discussed.

Figure 1

Heuristic model depicting primary hypotheses. Dashed lines are moderation effects.

Figure 2

Structural model for the full alcohol use sample (N = 2084). All values are standardized coefficients. Gender is coded 1 = Men, 0 = Women. *p < .05, †p < .01, §p < .001. Error variances between paired T1 and T2 indicators were allowed to covary. Nonsignificant paths from family history, lability, poor control, and use utility to T2 consumption, poor control to T2 dependence, lability to T1 abuse are omitted for clarity but are included in model estimation.

Figure 3

Structural model for the multigroup analysis (N = 2084). All values are unstandardized coefficients. Gender is coded 1 = Men, 0 = Female. *p < .05, †p < .01, §p < .001. Error variances between paired T1 and T2 indicators were allowed to covary. Path coefficients that were significantly different across groups are depicted with the high poor control group above, and the low poor control group below the horizontal lines. Nonsignificant paths from lability, use utility, and family history to T2 consumption, and gender to T1 abuse are omitted in the figure for clarity but are included in model estimation.