Positive but not negative affect is associated with increased daily drinking likelihood in non-clinical populations: systematic review and meta-analyses

Figures & data

Table 1. Summary of the studies.

Number	Authors	Year	Country	Length of the study	Number of assessments per day	Sample size(s)	Sample type	Sample gender(s)	Sample age(s)	Positive or negative	Affect measure
1	Duif, Thewissen, Wouters, Lechner, & Jacobs	2019	Netherlands	7	11	162	Adults	109 women	M = 36.07, SD = 9.27, range = 20 - 50	Both	PANAS Dvorak & Simons
2	Gottfredson & Hussong	2014	USA	21	9	100	Young adults	61 women	M = 20.09, SD = 1.67, range = 18 – 25	Both	PANAS (Watson et al., 1988) and mood circumplex (Diener et al., 1985)
3	Shadur, Hussong, & Haroon	2013	USA	28	1	86	Young adults	46 women	M = 18, SD not reported, range = 18-20	Both	PANAS-X (Watson & Clark, 1994)
4	Feagans Gould, Hussong, & Hersh	2015	USA	21	4	73	Adolescents	48 women	M = 13.92, SD =.47, range not reported	Negative	Sadness and worry on a scale from 1 to 5
5	Jones, Allen, Lanza, Graham-Engeland	2012	USA	21	4	75	Adolescents	49 women	M = 13.6, SD & range not reported	Negative	MAACL-R (Lubin et al., 1998)
6	Luk, Fairlie, & Lee	2021	USA	7	9	93	Adults	58 women	M & SD not reporter, range = 25 – 65	Both	Circumplex model of affect (Posner et al., 2005; Russell, 1980)
7	Patrick, Yeomans-Maldonado, & Griffin	2018	USA	14	3	347	Young adults	186 women	M = 19.7, SD = 1.3, range not reported	Negative	PANAS (Watson et al., 1988)
8	Stamates, Linden-Carmichael, Preonas, & Lau-Barraco	2016	USA	14	1	72	Young adults	20 women	M = 18.7, SD and range not reported	Both	PANAS (Watson et al., 1988)
9	Stamates, Linden-Carmichael, Preonas, & Lau-Barraco	2019	USA	14	1	24	Young adults	14 women	M = 23.83, SD = 1.83, range not reported	Both	PANAS (Watson et al., 1988)
10	O’Hara, Armeli, & Tennen	2019	Australia	21	3	83	Young adults	63 women	M = 21.42, SD = 3.09, range = 18 - 30	Both	Happy, relaxed, irritated, stressed, on a 6-point scale
11	Dvorak, Pearson, Sargent, Stevenson, & Mfon	2014	USA	30	1	1636	Young adults	867 women	M = 19.2, SD = 1.4, range not reported	Both	Several adjectives from PANAS-X (Watson & Clark, 1994)
12	Dvorak, Pearson, Sargent, Stevenson, & Mfon	2016	USA	21	3	74	University students	43 women	M = 21.30, SD & range not reported	Both	PANAS-X (Watson & Clark, 1994) and mood circumplex (Larsen & Diener, 1992)

Figure 1. Flowchart of the study selection process.

Table 2. Effect size summary.

Authors	Negative affect			Positive affect
	OR	Lower CI	Upper CI	OR	Lower CI	Upper CI
Duif, Thewissen, Wouters, Lechner, & Jacobs (2019)	1.98	1.11	3.53	1.33	0.90	1.98
Duif, Thewissen, Wouters, Lechner, & Jacobs (2019)	1.11	0.92	1.35	1.21	1.05	1.40
Duif, Thewissen, Wouters, Lechner, & Jacobs (2019)	0.89	0.56	1.42	1.00	0.74	1.35
Duif, Thewissen, Wouters, Lechner, & Jacobs (2019)	0.99	0.75	1.30	0.96	0.80	1.14
Dvorak & Simons (2014)	1.01	0.88	1.15	1.20	0.95	1.22
Gottfredson & Hussong (2013)	1.08	0.91	1.18
Shadur, Hussong, & Haroon (2015)	0.93	0.69	1.26	-	-	-
Shadur, Hussong, & Haroon (2015)	0.93	0.70	1.25	-	-	-
Shadur, Hussong, & Haroon (2015)	1.27	0.94	1.72	-	-	-
Shadur, Hussong, & Haroon (2015)	1.35	0.10	1.84	-	-	-
Feagans Gould, Hussong, & Hersh (2012)	0.12	0.05	2.91	-	-	-
Jones, Allen, Lanza, Graham-Engeland (2021)	0.83	0.47	1.45	0.92	0.64	1.32
Jones, Allen, Lanza, Graham-Engeland (2021)	1.31	0.79	2.18	1.52	1.12	2.09
Luk, Fairlie, & Lee (2018)	0.65	0.59	1.16	-	-	-
Luk, Fairlie, & Lee (2018)	0.32	0.37	1.00	-	-	-
Patrick, Yeomans-Maldonado, & Griffin (2016)	0.65	0.53	0.81	1.34	1.20	1.50
Patrick, Yeomans-Maldonado, & Griffin (2016)	0.32	0.18	0.56	1.19	0.86	1.65
Stamates, Linden-Carmichael, Preonas, & Lau- Barraco (2019)	0.90	0.77	1.05	1.08	1.00	1.16
O’Donnell et al. (2019)	0.90	0.75	1.22	0.19	0.10	2.41
O’Donnell et al. (2019)	1.03	0.76	1.35	0.97	0.76	1.28
O’Hara, Armeli, & Tennen (2014)	1.05	0.98	1.06	1.26	1.00	1.22
O’Hara, Armeli, & Tennen (2014)	1.08	0.97	1.10	-	-	-
O’Hara, Armeli, & Tennen (2014)	1.26	1.00	1.22	-	-	-
Dvorak, Pearson, Sargent, Stevenson, & Mfon (2016)	-	-	-	1.19	1.00	1.16

Figure 2. Forest plot of studies examining the relationship between daily negative affect and odds of alcohol consumption. No significant association is observed between daily negative affect and odds of alcohol consumption.

Figure 3. Forest plot of studies examining the relationship between daily negative affect and odds of alcohol consumption. Increased positive affect is associated with higher odds of drinking.

Figure 4. P-Curve analysis of studies examining the relationship between daily positive affect and odds of alcohol consumption. Most of the significant results were significant at p = .01 level, suggesting that the results are unlikely to be the product of publication bias or p-hacking alone. Note: the observed p−curve includes 8 statistically significant (p < .05) results, of which 6 are p < .025. There were 6 additional results entered but excluded from p−curve because they were p > .05.