↓ Skip to main content

Are Drinking Motives Universal? Characteristics of Motive Types in Alcohol-Dependent Men from Two Diverse Populations

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychiatry, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Are Drinking Motives Universal? Characteristics of Motive Types in Alcohol-Dependent Men from Two Diverse Populations
Published in
Frontiers in Psychiatry, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00038
Pubmed ID
Authors

Verena Ertl, Melissa Preuße, Frank Neuner

Abstract

Since alcohol use disorders are among the most prevalent and destructive mental disorders, it is critical to address factors contributing to their development and maintenance. Drinking motives are relevant driving factors for consumption. Identifying groups of drinkers with similar motivations may help to specialize intervention components and make treatment more effective and efficient. We aimed to identify and describe distinct motive types of drinkers in dependent males from two diverse cultures (Uganda and Germany) and to explore potential differences and similarities in addiction-related measures. Moreover, we investigated specific links between motive types and childhood maltreatment, traumatic experiences, and symptoms of comorbid psychopathologies. To determine distinct drinking motive types, we conducted latent class analyses concerning drinking motives (Drinking Motive Scale) in samples of treatment-seeking alcohol-dependent men (N = 75). Subsequently we compared the identified motive types concerning their alcohol consumption and alcohol-related symptoms (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test), history of childhood maltreatment (Childhood Trauma Questionnaire), trauma exposure (Violence, War and Abduction Exposure Scale), psychopathology (Posttraumatic Stress Diagnostic Scale, Depression-section of the Hopkins Symptom Checklist, and Brief Symptom Inventory) and deficits in emotion regulation (Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale). We found two congruent drinking motive types in both contexts. Reward-oriented drinking motives like the generation of positive feelings and enhancing performance were endorsed almost equally by both motive types, whereas high relief motive endorsement characterized one group, but not the other. The relief motive type drank to overcome aversive feelings, withdrawal, and daily hassles and was characterized by higher adversity in general. Emotional maltreatment in childhood and psychopathological symptoms were reported to a significantly greater extent by relief drinkers (effect sizes of comparisons ranging fromr = 0.25 tor = 0.48). However, the motive types did not differ significantly on alcohol consumption or alcohol-related symptoms and traumatic experiences apart from childhood maltreatment. The chronology of addiction development and patterns of drinking motivation seem to be similar across cultures, i.e., that motive targeting interventions might be applicable cross-culturally. Addressing comorbid symptomatology should be a key treatment component for relief drinkers, whereas finding alternatives for the creation of positive feelings and ways to counteract boredom and inactivity should be a general treatment element.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 131 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 13%
Student > Master 17 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 8%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 46 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 38 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 9%
Social Sciences 9 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 4%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 48 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 March 2018.
All research outputs
#9,031,437
of 26,626,316 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#4,462
of 13,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,747
of 462,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#79
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,626,316 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,254 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 462,591 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 129 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.