The Relationship of Personality Traits and Non-Suicidal Self Injury to Aggression and Alcohol Use

Emily Alexoudis

Advisor: Sarah Fischer, PhD, Department of Psychology

Committee Members: Jerome Short, Leah Adams

Online Location, Online Location
July 23, 2021, 02:00 PM to 04:00 PM

Abstract:

The following dissertation utilizes secondary data analysis of a cross-sectional dataset collected from 876 undergraduate students. The purpose of the parent study was to examine the relationship of personality traits and motives to a wide variety of mood symptoms and impulsive behaviors. The current dissertation has two studies. The goal of the Study 1 was to explore the relationship of ASPD traits, BPD traits, and distress tolerance to aggressive behavior, NSSI, and binge drinking. The goals of Study 2 was twofold: Part 1 attempted to replicate the class distinctions found in previous LCA and LPA analyses of individuals who self-injure, then Part 2 compared these classes on validators related to alcohol use and aggression. Participants completed the following measures: the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991), the UPPS-P impulsive behavior scale (Lynam et al., 2007), the Distress Tolerance Scale (DTS; Simons & Gaher, 2005), measures of motives for a variety of behaviors (including NSSI), two measures of NSSI behavior, a time line follow back calendar of binge drinking, the PROMIS anger, anxiety, and sadness scales (Pilkonis et al., 2011), and the Buss Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ; Buss & Perry, 1992). For Study 1, structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to examine how individual differences in distress tolerance predict drinking, NSSI, and aggression, distinct from ASPD and BPD. For Study 2, LCA was used for Part 1 to examine how people who have ever engaged in NSSI cluster together based on frequency, type, and motives for NSSI. In Part 2, ANOVA was used to compare mean differences on aggression, binge drinking, DT, and impulsivity (validators) among the classes from Part 1. Results supported hypotheses for both Study 1 and Study 2. Clinical implications and future research directions were explored.