Personality in Alcohol and Opioid Use Disorder:  A Multiphasic Personality Questionnaire Study

Abstract

Background

This study explored the relationship between personality attributes and substance use disorder (SUD). Research has identified specific personality dimensions, such as neuroticism, psychoticism, antisocial personality traits, paranoia, and anxiety, as contributing factors on the way to the initiation, continuation, and relapse of SUD.

Purpose

To explore this connection, we examined the personality profiles of subjects with alcohol use disorder (AUD) and opioid use disorder (OUD).

Methods

A total of 928 subjects, 320 with AUD, 490 with OUD and 118 healthy controls (HC), in the age range of 16–65 years were recruited in the study. The Clinical Profile Sheet and the Multiphasic Personality Questionnaire (MPQ) were administered to HC and patients who fulfil the diagnostic criteria for substance dependence as defined by ICD-10 (WHO-1992).

Results

We found significant differences in personality profiles between individuals with OUD and AUD. Patients with AUD scored higher than OUD on the MPQ subscales for depression, mania, paranoia, and antisocial personality traits. All subscales of the MPQ showed elevated scores in subjects with SUD compared to HC.

Conclusion

Elevated scores on the MPQ subscales suggest that personality factors may contribute to the pattern of substance use and misuse in this cohort.

Keywords

Personality profile opioid use alcohol use controls multiphasic personality questionnaire

Introduction

Both individual differences and environmental factors have been recognised as playing a crucial role in addictive behaviour.¹ Personality traits and types are among the most common factors associated with substance use disorders (SUD).^2–4 Cloninger (1987) suggests that personality traits and characteristics may play a central role in the development of alcohol use disorder (AUD).⁵ Personality attributes remain a key factor in etiological theories of SUD.^6–8 There is a well-established notion among researchers that individual differences in certain dimensions of personality might contribute to the aetiology of alcoholism and other SUD.⁵ Evidence for this role of personality traits in alcoholism aetiology appears from studies that compare AUD and normal controls, consistently revealing differences in various personality self-report measures.⁹

Studies of the genetic offspring of individuals with AUD indicate that personality aspects may partly work as a mediating risk factor in the inheritance of alcoholism.^{10, 11} Studies have found that individuals with alcohol dependence reported higher urges and scored higher on trait anger and anxiety.^12–14 McCormick et al. (1998) used NEO-PI and found that individuals with SUD scored higher on neuroticism and lower on agreeableness and conscientiousness.^{4, 15} Interestingly, cocaine users scored higher on extraversion and openness compared to alcohol users.^16–18 Furthermore, neuroticism, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and extroversion were all found to be related to different triggers of substance use including social rejection, negative emotional states, and tension.^{15, 19} Studies have identified impulsivity and sensation seeking as largely related to increased drinking among students.^20–23 They scored higher on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory subscales of hypomania and psychopathic deviate.²⁴ Additionally, personality attributes linked with substance usage include low self-confidence, low self-efficacy, low assertiveness, and self-esteem, along with external locus of control.^{25, 26} Studies have shown that individuals with SUD are likely to be more rebellious, impulsive and anxious; they are more excited to look mature and have a greater need for appreciation and approval.^27–30 They also tend to be more pessimistic and alienated from social values.^{27, 31} Studies have found that individuals with SUD experience anger more often than the occasional users and are more likely to express anger outwardly towards other people or objects in the environment.^{32, 33} Additionally, they have less control over their anger. Using the MMPI, studies have shown that individuals with a neurotic personality type were more prone to treatment failure.³⁴ Furthermore, there are substance-specific differences in personality traits of individuals with SUD. Lebon et al., compared individuals with OUD, AUD and a random selected control group matched by age and demographics using Cloninger`s Temperament & Character Inventory.¹⁸ They found patients with OUD scored greater in self-directedness and novelty-seeking than patients with AUD. Research suggests that alcohol, compared to other drugs, has a more directly proportionate association with high negative emotionality and low constraints.³⁵ Medina and Aizpiri (2005)³⁶ investigated the most frequent personality disorders related to alcohol dependence. Another study found dependent personality disorders to be the most prevailing (13.3%), followed by paranoid and obsessive-compulsive personality disorders (10% each).³⁷

The putative importance of personality is consistent with the high prevalence of personality disorders observed in AUD and OUD.³⁷ Studies have shown that:

Personality in childhood predicts alcohol use in adults.38

Different personality conditions foretell the onset of AUD among adults.39

Diagnosis of personality disorders portends time to relapse in treated patients with AUD.40

Patients with SUD and borderline personality disorder experience craving more often as a result of tension, social rejection, negative emotional states, and negative physical states, than patients with SUD not diagnosed with borderline personality disorder.41 Many studies report that excessive alcohol consumption is associated with social conditions that favour the development of psychological distress and isolation.⁴²

A wholesome understanding of the different personality traits or dimensions that might render men more susceptible to experiencing drug cravings could lead to additional treatment approaches, specifically relapse prevention skills. These personality dimensions include high novelty-seeking, impulsivity, high baseline anxiety, clinical depression, paranoid traits, and psychopathic deviation. All these factors may have a direct clinical implication in predicting relapse and managing substance dependence.

Methods

The present study aimed to examine the personality profiles of male subjects with alcohol and opioid use disorder (OUD) and compare them with healthy control (HC).

Sample

The total sample consisted of 928 subjects with 810 male subjects with SUD (320 with AUD and 490 with OUD) and 118 HC, aged 16–65 years. Participants were recruited from a tertiary care Drug De-addiction and Treatment Centre in North India. Ethical approval for the present research was taken from the Institute Ethics Committee. Informed permission was taken from all the participants.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Subjects who fulfilled the criteria for AUD and OUD as per the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10),⁴³ including tobacco dependence were recruited in the study. Subjects with multiple substance dependence, co-morbid psychiatric diagnosis, Intellectual disability, epilepsy or illness causing cognitive dysfunction were excluded from the present study.

Tools

Socio-demographic and clinical profile sheet: The socio-demographic sheet accessed demographic information including age, education, religion, income, occupation, marital status, family type and residence. The clinical profile sheet collected information about the patients, index substance (primary substance of misuse), age at initiation, duration of use, age at dependence, onset, and duration of dependence.

Multiphasic personality questionnaire (MPQ): MPQ was used to assess the personality of clinical subjects and HC. Developed and validated in India by Murthy in 1970 the MPQ contains 100 items and is a forced-choice true-false questionnaire that measures personality subscales for anxiety, depression, mania, paranoia, schizophrenia, hysteria, psychopathic deviation, lie scale and repressor-sensitiser.44 Score obtained for each subscale and pure item scores were used for analysis. An MPQ profile for HC was used for comparison with subjects with AUD and OUD.

Statistical Methods

Socio-demographic characteristics were compared across the three groups (AUD, OUD and HC) using explanatory statistics (Mean, SD) and inferential statistics (t-test, and chi-square tests). Additionally, t-tests were used to compare the alcohol-dependent and opioid-dependent groups with HC.

Results

The MPQ was administered to all 810 male subjects with AUD (N = 320), OUD (N = 490) and 118 HC. The subjects were in the age range of 16–65 years and had a mean of 32.47 years (SD of ±10.05). Their education (in years) varies between 0 and 20 years, with a mean of 11.71 years (SD ±3.17).

Socio-demographic characteristics of the patients: Table 1 shows the comparison of socio-demographic variables between alcohol and OUD. The table indicates a significant difference in age and marital status between the groups AUD and OUD. Patients with AUD had a longer duration of illness and substance dependence.

Table 1.

Comparison of Socio-demographic Characteristics of the Participants with AUD and OUD.

Socio-demographic Variables		AUD(N = 320)	OUD(N = 490)	t/χ²	P
Age in years	RangeMeanSD	16–6539.768.77	16–6527.707.75	20.49*	<.05
Education (in years)	RangeMeanSD	0–2011.713.61	0–2011.722.85	–0.33	ns
Religion	HinduSikh and others	195125	273217	2.72	ns
Occupation	Technical/ClericalProfessionalUnemployedStudent/others	5910353105	929033275	62.59	ns
Marital status	UnmarriedMarried	119201	261229	24.25*	<.05
Family type	NuclearJointExtended/others	1939433	26716756	2.57	ns
Residence	UrbanRural	188132	320170	4.13	ns

Notes: ns = non-significant.

*P < .05 level.

Clinical characteristics of the sample: Table 2 shows that the study participants’ age at the onset of substance use ranged from 9 to 55 years, with a mean of 22.27 years (SD ± 10.54). Similarly, the age at onset of substance dependence ranged from 12 to 47 years with a mean age of 25.44 years (SD ± 11.89). The duration of use also varied, lasting between 1 and 47 years, with a mean duration of 10.52 years (SD ± 9.19). Duration of substance dependence ranged from 1 to 37 years, with a mean of 7.32 years (SD ± 7.48).

Table 2.

Clinical Characteristics of the Patients with AUD and OUD (N = 810).

Parameters		AUD (N = 320)	OUD (N = 490)	t	P
Age at initiation	RangeMeanSD	9–5523.136.73	16–6521.235.71	3.54*	<.05
Duration of substance use	RangeMeanSD	1–4516.338.73	1.5–476.576.09	17.91*	<.05
Age at onset of substance dependence	RangeMeanSD	13–5629.068.95	22.647.56	8.78*	<.05
Duration of substance dependence	RangeMeanSD	1–4510.378.04	1–375.225.27	10.57*	<.05

Note: *P < .05 level.

The age 118 male HC ranged between 18 and 65 years with a mean of 34.3 years (SD ± 8.22) Among these, 72 were married, 104 were from urban areas, and 70 had an undergraduate degree, while 48 had a postgraduate degree. MPQ scores of individuals with AUD and OUD were compared with scores of 118 healthy.

Table 2 indicates that AUD patients started substance use, and became dependent, at a significantly older age compared to OUD patients. Duration of both substance use and dependence was also significantly longer in the AUD group.

Differences between personality of AUD and OUD subjects: Personality differences between AUD and OUD subjects were explored using combined data of AUD and OUD as indicated in Table 3. It shows significant differences, with AUD patients scoring higher on depression, mania, paranoia and psychopathic deviation subscales compared to OUD patients. Further analysis of individual personality items, which are pure measure of clinical personality domains, pertaining to different MPQ subscales. Table 4 shows significant difference in the scales of mania and schizophrenia on the pure clinical items. Table 5 highlights the broader population with AUD and OUD showing a high prevalence of self-reported clinical symptoms. Specifically on pure item analysis, 44% reported anxiety, 70% depression, 45% mania, and 50% paranoia. Additionally, 32% reported psychotic symptoms, 53% hysteria-like symptoms, and 49% psychopathic tendencies. Interestingly, 27% scored high on the lie scale, suggesting a potential for underreporting socially desirable responses.

Table 3.

XXX

Scales	AUD+OUD (N = 810)			AUD (N = 320)		OUD (N = 490)		t	P
Scales	Range	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	t	P
Anxiety	0–22	10.62	3.70	10.67	3.80	10.59	3.65	0.29	ns
Depression	0–13	6.00	2.33	6.37	2.44	5.94	2.24	2.38*	<.05
Mania	0–13	6.91	2.37	7.36	2.27	6.63	2.39	4.28*	<.05
Paranoia	1–15	7.56	2.46	7.96	2.55	7.32	2.36	3.67*	<.05
Schizophrenia	0–18	6.45	3.72	6.56	3.68	6.39	3.75	0.64	ns
Hysteria	0–15	3.16	1.63	3.16	1.71	3.15	1.58	0.07	ns
Psychopathic deviation	1–29	15.74	4.04	16.22	4.33	15.43	3.82	2.72*	<.05
Lie scale	0–12	4.37	1.85	4.49	1.84	4.32	1.84	1.27	ns
Repressor/sensitiser	0–28	15.70	4.19	15.78	4.30	15.67	4.11	0.36	ns

Note: ns = non-significant.

Table 4.

Personality Profile of AUD, OUD and Combined (AUD+OUD) on Pure Clinical Items.

Scales	SUD (N = 810)			AUD (N = 320)		OUD (N = 490)		t-value	P
Scales	Score Range	Mean Score	SD	Mean Score	SD	Mean Score	SD	t-value	P
Anxiety	0–9	4.37	1.59	4.29	1.55	4.42	1.61	–1.10	ns
Depression	0–1	0.70	0.46	0.70	0.45	0.70	0.45	–0.50	ns
Mania	0–5	2.25	1.07	2.38	1.03	2.17	1.09	2.81*	<.05
Paranoia	0–2	1.01	0.72	0.99	0.72	1.02	0.72	–0.45	ns
Schizophrenia	0–5	1.58	1.27	1.72	1.22	1.50	1.29	2.46*	<.05
Hysteria	0–1	0.53	0.50	0.52	0.50	0.53	0.49	–0.45	ns
Psychopathic deviation	1–14	7.80	1.99	7.89	2.05	7.75	1.95	0.96	ns
Lie scale	0–5	1.38	1.21	1.34	1.09	1.41	1.28	–0.86	ns

Notes: ns = non-significant.

*P < .05.

Table 5.

Comparison Between Personality Profile of Alcohol and Opioid-dependent Subjects with Healthy Controls.

Variables	HC (N = 118) vs. (N = 810)	HC (118) vs.AUD (320)	HC (118)vs. OUD (490)	P
Anxiety	17.32*	14.58*	15.95*	<.01
Depression	28.05*	21.71*	31.98*	<.01
Mania	17.45*	15.93*	13.47*	<.01
Paranoia	22.07*	18.75*	17.56*	<.01
Schizophrenia	30.23*	15.61*	24.66*	<.01
Hysteria	15.97*	12.71*	14.76*	<.01
Psychopathic deviation	24.26*	18.83*	19.67*	<.01
Lie scale	8.08*	7.65*	7.18*	<.01

Note: *P < .01.

Comparison of AUD and OUD combined with HC: Table 5 shows the comparison of substance-dependent and normal shows that substance-dependent subjects are significantly higher on all subscales of MPQ.

Discussion

Understanding personality profiles related to substance abuse holds significant value from both theoretical and a practical perspective. An improved understanding of such a profile may offer insight into the general dynamics of addiction, ultimately leading to more effective drug prevention and treatment strategies. Researchers continue to debate the existence of a single ‘addictive personality type’.^{45, 46} Some propose a biological basis for such a personality.⁴⁷ However, this view suggests a single personality profile type underlying all addiction, rather than acknowledging the possibility of different personality profile associated with specific types of substance use and misuse.

Our study found that all personality subscales measured by the MPQ were significantly higher in patients with AUD and OUD compared to HC. This finding aligns with previous research by Bhojack et al.⁴⁸ who reported that patients with SUD scored higher on anxiety, suspicion and psychopathy traits compared to controls. Lather et al.⁴⁹ also employed the MPQ to explore personality traits associated with drug use vulnerability. Their analysis revealed that individuals with SUD scored higher on anxiety, depression, hysteria, mania, paranoia, schizophrenia and social desirability. They concluded that susceptibility to addiction varies based on individual personality profiles.

Studies exploring Eysenck`s personality theory to addiction, suggest that substance-dependent patients tend to be more extroverted and that extroverts have a higher need for stimulation and are relatively less conditioned by social norms and authority due to their lower cortical inhibition.⁵⁰ This translated to a more social nature, particularly within peer groups. These patients exhibit higher neuroticism, characterised by a highly responsive autonomic nervous system and a propensity for antisocial and psychotic tendencies. Moreover, Eysenck’s theory proposes that extroverts might be predisposed to stimulants, while introverts might gravitate towards depressants.⁵¹

Conclusion

To conclude, the present findings uphold the notion that the personality profile of people with SUD differs significantly from HC. The elevated scores on all MPQ subscales in our study indicate a generally elevated personality profile on MPQ in individuals with AUD and SUD compared to controls, regardless of the specific substance used.

Footnotes

Abbreviations

OUD, Opioid Use Disorder; AUD, Alcohol Use Disorder; MPQ, Multiphasic Personality Questionnaire.

Author’s Contributions

Dr. Devender Kumar Rana, Dr. Anil Malhotra, Dr. S K Mattoo, Dr. Debasish Basu all contributed to the study conceptualization and design. Dr. Devender Kumar Rana, Abhishek Verma, and Dr. Rama Malhotra worked on the writing of the original draft, formal analysis, review and editing. Dr. Krishan Kumar and Dr. Rajni Sharma worked on the review and editing. All authors evaluated the results and agreed to the final version of the manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ICMJE Statement

Our study and results have not been submitted or published in any peer-reviewed journal. The present study is not a clinical trial.

Patient Consent

Written Informed agreement was taken from all participants, undergoing their voluntary involvement, data confidentiality and privacy protection.

Statement of Ethics

Approval was obtained from the appropriate authorities of the institute where the study was conducted. Confidentiality was maintained of each subject.

ORCID iD

Devender Kumar Rana

References

Smith

MA.

Social learning and addiction. Behav Brain Res 2021; 398. Epub ahead of print 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2020.112954.

Belcher

, Volkow

, * Moeller

, . Personality traits and vulnerability or resilience to substance use disorders. Trends Cogn Sci 2014; 18: 211–217.

Zuckerman

Psychological factors and addiction: personality . 2012.

Zilberman

, Yadid

, * Efrati

, . Personality profiles of substance and behavioral addictions. Addict Behav 2018; 82: 174–181.

Cloninger

CR.

Neurogenetic adaptive mechanisms in alcoholism. Annu Rev Addict Res Treat 1991; 1: 173–179.

Sher

, Trull

, * Bartholow

, . Personality and alcoholism: Issues, methods, and etiological processes . http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=6vnOPg_tpBUC&pgis=1 (1999).

Zucker

, * Gomberg

ESL

. Etiology of alcoholism reconsidered. The case for a biopsychosocial process . 1986. Epub ahead of print 1986. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.41.7.783.

Mezquita

, Ortet

, * Ibáñez

MI.

Personality traits and alcohol use and misuse. In: The Palgrave handbook of psychological perspectives on alcohol consumption . Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021, pp. 105–131.

Graham

, Marks

, * Hansen

WB.

Social influence processes affecting adolescent substance use. J Appl Psychol 1991; 76: 291–298.

10.

Sher

, Walitzer

, * Wood

, . Characteristics of children of alcoholics: Putative risk factors, substance use and abuse, and psychopathology. J Abnorm Psychol 1991; 100: 427–448.

11.

Dick

, Balcke

, * McCutcheon

, . The collaborative study on the genetics of alcoholism: Sample and clinical data. Genes, Brain Behav 2023; 22: e1286.

12.

Rodriguez

, Litt

, * Stewart

SH.

COVID-19 psychological and financial stress and their links to drinking: A dyadic analysis in romantic couples. Psychol Addict Behav 2021; 35: 377–390.

13.

Martinez

, Karriker-Jaffe

, * Ye

, et al. Mental health and drinking to cope in the early COVID period: Data from the 2019–2020 US National Alcohol Survey. Addict Behav 2022; 128. Epub ahead of print 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2022.10724.

14.

Villarosa-Hurlocker

, * Madson

MB.

A latent profile analysis of social anxiety and alcohol use among college students. Addict Behav 2020; 104. Epub ahead of print 202. DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.10628.

15.

McCormick

, Dowd

, * Quirk

, . The relationship of NEO-PI performance to coping styles, patterns of use, and triggers for use among substance abusers. Addict Behav 1998; 23: 497–507.

16.

Terracciano

, Löckenhoff

, * Crum

, . Five-factor model personality profiles of drug users. BMC Psychiatry 2008; 8: 1–10.

17.

Sutin

, Stephan

, * Luchetti

, . The prospective association between personality traits and persistent pain and opioid medication use. J Psychosom Res 2019; 123. Epub ahead of print 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2019.04.01.

18.

Le Bon

, Basiaux

, * Streel

, . Personality profile and drug of choice: A multivariate analysis using Cloninger’s TCI on heroin addicts, alcoholics, and a random population group. Drug Alcohol Depend 2004; 73: 175–182.

19.

Fodstad

, Ushakova

, * Pallesen

, . Personality and substance use disorder: characteristics as measured by NEO-personality inventory–revised. Front Psychol 2022; 13. Epub ahead of print 2022. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.982763.

20.

Baer

JS.

Student factors: understanding individual variation in college drinking. J Stud Alcohol 2002; 63: 40–53.

21.

Magid

, MacLean

, * Colder

CR.

Differentiating between sensation seeking and impulsivity through their mediated relations with alcohol use and problems. Addict Behav 2007; 32: 2046–2061.

22.

McNamara

, King

, * Corbin

, . A longitudinal examination of relations between competitive athletic participation, drinking norms, impulsivity, and sensation seeking and binge drinking throughout college. Psychol Addict Behav 2022; 36: 837–848.

23.

Lac A and Donaldson CD. Sensation seeking versus alcohol use: Evaluating temporal precedence using cross-lagged panel models. Drug Alcohol Depend 2021; 219. Epub ahead of print 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.10843.

24.

Rosen

AC.

A comparative study of alcoholic and psychiatric patients with the MMPI. Q J Stud Alcohol 1960; 21: 253–266.

25.

Kotov

, Gamez

, * Schmidt

, . Linking ‘Big’ personality traits to anxiety, depressive, and substance use disorders: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 2010; 136: 768–821.

26.

Arsuffi

, * Scarborough

A service evaluation of the Behavioural Treatment for Substance Abuse (BTSA) programme for forensic dual diagnosis populations. J Forensic Psychol Res Pract 2023; 23: 201–226.

27.

Adger

Problems of alcohol and other drug use and abuse in adolescents. J Adolesc Heal 1991; 12: 606–613.

28.

Bell

, * Battjes

. Prevention research: Deterring drug abuse among children and adolescents . Public Health Service, Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration, National Institute on Drug Abuse: Department of Health and Human Services, http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Prevention Research Deterring Drug Abuse Among Children and Adolescents.pdf (1984).

29.

Adger

Alcohol and other drug abuse in adolescents. In: American family physician . Routledge, 1994, pp. 1737–1740.

30.

Mathibela

, * Mmamoagi Skhosana

Parent-adolescent relationship and the impact of substance dependency within the trajectory of adolescent substance use disorder . Parenting-Studies by an Ecocultural and Transactional Perspectiv. 2021. Epub ahead of print 2021. DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.93114.

31.

Liu

, Zhang

, * Miao

, . The relationship between childhood maltreatment and social anxiety among Chinese male individuals with drug use disorders: A moderated mediation model of fear of negative evaluation and self-construals. Front Psychol 2023; 14. Epub ahead of print 2023. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.119395.

32.

DeMoja

, * Spielberger

CD.

A drug addiction Italy: University of Messina, 1997.

33.

King

, * Parker

Driving violations, aggression and perceived consensus. Rev Eur Psychol Appl 2008; 58: 43–49.

34.

Marshall

, * Roiger

RJ.

Substance user MMPI-2 profiles: Predicting failure in completing treatment. Subst Use Misuse 1996; 31: 197–206.

35.

McGue

, Slutske

, * Taylor

, . Personality and substance use disorders: I. Effects of gender and alcoholism subtype. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 1997; 21: 513–520.

36.

Echeburúa

, Bravo De Medina

, * Aizpiri

Alcoholism and personality disorders: An exploratory study. Alcohol Alcohol 2005; 40: 323–326.

37.

Verheul

, Van Den Brink

, * Hartgers

Prevalence of personality disorders among alcoholics and drug addicts: An overview. Eur Addict Res 1995; 1: 166–177.

38.

Cloninger

, Sigvardsson

, * Bohman

Childhood personality predicts alcohol abuse in young adults. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 1988; 12: 494–505.

39.

Johnson

, Cohen

, * Skodol

, . Personality disorders in adolescence and risk of major mental disorders and suicidality during adulthood. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1999; 56: 805–811.

40.

Verheul

, Van Den Brink

, * Hartgers

Personality disorders predict relapse in alcoholic patients. Addict Behav 1998; 23: 869–882.

41.

Kruedelbach

, McCormick

, * Schulz

, . Impulsivity, coping styles, and triggers for craving in substance abusers with borderline personality disorder. J Pers Disord 1993; 7: 214–222.

42.

Ahmed

, Ahmed

, * Aibao

, . Epidemic of COVID-19 in China and associated psychological problems. Asian J Psychiatr 2020; 51. Epub ahead of print 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102092.

43.

World Health Organisation. The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: Clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines, tenth revision . World Health Organization, https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9241544228%0Ahttps://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DFM0DgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=World+Health+Organization.+ICD-10+Classification+of+Mental+and+Behavioral+Disorders+1992+Geneva,+Switzerland+World+Health+Organi (1994).

44.

Murthy

HN.

Multiphasic personality questionnaire . Bangalore: Trans AIIMH, 1970.

45.

Blaszczynski

, Buhrich

, * McConaghy

Pathological gamblers, heroin addicts and controls compared on the E.P.Q. ‘Addiction Scale’. Br J Addict 1985; 80: 315–319.

46.

Gossop

, * Eysenck

SBG.

A further investigation into the personality of drug addicts in treatment. Br J Addict 1980; 75: 305–311.

47.

Jacobs

DF.

A general theory of addictions: a new theoretical model. J Gambl Behav 1986; 2: 15–31.

48.

Bhojak

, Krishnan

, * Nathawat

, . A comparative study of emotional life and subjective well-being in drug addicts and non-addicts. J Indian Acad Appl Psychol 1997; 23: 63–67.

49.

Lather

, Vasudeva

, * Verma

A study of drug abuse among students as related to personality variables. J Indian Acad Appl Psychol 1997; 23: 43–49.

50.

Mulder

RT.

Alcoholism and personality. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2002; 36: 46–51.

51.

Stringer

Dissertation substance abuse proclivity and personality traits . Walden University, 2011.

Personality in Alcohol and Opioid Use Disorder: A Multiphasic Personality Questionnaire Study

Abstract

Background

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Sample

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Tools

Statistical Methods

Results

Comparison of Socio-demographic Characteristics of the Participants with AUD and OUD.

Clinical Characteristics of the Patients with AUD and OUD (N = 810).

XXX

Personality Profile of AUD, OUD and Combined (AUD+OUD) on Pure Clinical Items.

Comparison Between Personality Profile of Alcohol and Opioid-dependent Subjects with Healthy Controls.

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Abbreviations

Author’s Contributions

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ICMJE Statement

Patient Consent

Statement of Ethics

ORCID iD

References

Personality in Alcohol and Opioid Use Disorder:  A Multiphasic Personality Questionnaire Study