Psyschology Study On Drinking Essay, Research Paper

Abstract

In response to the need for research that incorporates multiple aspects of theory into a testable

framework, this study attempted to replicate and extend the results of Cooper, Russell, Skinner, Frone,

and Mudar (1992). A modified stressor vulnerability model of stress-related drinking was tested in a

homogeneous sample of 65 male and female undergraduate student drinkers. Total weekly consumption of

alcohol was used as the criterion measure, whereas family history of alcoholism (Adapted SMAST: Sher &

Descutner, 1986), alcohol outcome expectancies/valences (CEOA: Fromme, Stroot, & Kaplan, 1993),

perceived stress (PSS: Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983), and coping dispositions (COPE: Carver,

Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989) were used as the predictor variables. The proposed modified model postulates

that expectancies play a proximal mediating role in stress-related drinking, whereas gender, family history

of alcoholism, and coping all play a distal moderating role. Hierarchical multiple regression procedures were

then performed to evaluate the model. The results failed to support the hypothesized model. Specifically,

expectancies emerged as a distal rather than proximal predictor of stress-related drinking, and family history

of alcoholism did not moderate stress-related drinking. In contrast, gender and coping styles emerged as the

most powerful predictors in the model. Despite the shortcomings of the proposed model, the present results

offer an alternative interpretation as to what constitutes the stressor vulnerability model of stress-related

drinking.

Introduction

Stress as a Causal Factor in Drinking

One of the common stereotypes about the effects of alcohol involves the drug’s capacity to act as a

stress antagonist. Conger (1956) has proposed a theory, known as the tension reduction hypothesis (TRH)

of drinking, to support this notion. Essentially the theory holds that alcohol’s sedative action on the

central nervous system serves to reduce tension, and because tension reduction is reinforcing, people drink

to escape it (Marlatt & Rohsenow, 1980). Strong evidence to support the validity of the theory comes

from epidemiological findings which indicate that the prevalence of anxiety disorders in alcoholics ranges

from 16 to 37%, compared to a rate of only 4-5% in the general population (Welte, 1985).

Notwithstanding, there seems to be a subset of people for whom the predictions of the TRH do not

hold. For instance, in a study conducted by Conway, Vickers, Ward, and Rahe (1981) it was found that the

consumption of alcohol among Navy officers during periods of high job demands was actually lower than the

consumption during low-demand periods. In addition, other studies (i.e., Mayfield, 1968; Mendlson, Ladou,

& Soloman, 1964) have shown that some drinkers actually consider alcohol as a tension generator rather

than a tension reducer.

Overall, when taking into account these conflicting findings, it seems prudent to find some middle

ground. The solution to this problem than is a modified version of the TRH, specifying the conditions under

which stress will lead to an increase in drinking.

Moderating and Mediating Factors in Stress Induced Drinking

In addition to stress, several other variables have been shown to be crucial in determining an individual’s

drinking behavior. These variables include gender of drinker (gender), coping behavior of drinker (coping),

and alcohol outcome expectancies of drinker (expectancies). In the following discussion, the importance of

each of these variables to drinking will be considered first, followed by an evaluation of these as potential

moderators or mediators of stress in drinking. 1

Differential Gender Drinking Behavior

It has been repeatedly demonstrated that significant differences exist between the drinking patterns of

men and women (Hilton, 1988). In a comprehensive survey of US drinking habits conducted by the US

National Center for Health Statistics in 1988, significant gender differences were found in three areas as

pointed out by Dawson and Archer (1992). The first significant difference pertained to the number of male

and female current drinkers. Roughly 64% of all men were current drinkers in comparison to 41% of all

women. The second and third significant differences concerned the quantity of alcohol consumed. Men

were more likely to (a) consume alcohol on a daily basis and (b) be classified as heavy drinkers. Men’s daily

average of ethanol intake (17.5 grams per day) was almost twice as high as women’s (8.9 grams per day).

Even when an adjustment for body weight was made (females require less ethanol than males to achieve a

similar increase in blood alcohol level), men’s consumption was still 53% greater than women’s. With

regards to drinking classification, males were classified substantially more often than females as heavy

drinkers (i.e. the number of males who drank five or more drinks a day was 88% greater than the

corresponding number of females). Furthermore, as the classification measures became stricter so did the

disparity between male and female heavy drinkers increase (i.e., the ratio of male to female heavy drinkers

increased by a factor of 3 as the definition of heavy drinker was changed from five drinks or more a day to

nine drinks or more a day).

Gender as a Moderating Factor of Stress

To understand why men and women drink differently requires an understanding of the prevailing

socialization practices (Dohrenwend & Dohrenwend, 1976; Horwitz & White, 1987). According to this

sociological view, “women have been socialized to internalize distress, whereas men have been socialized to

externalize distress” (Cooper, Russell, Skinner, Frone, & Mudar, 1992; P. 140). Therefore, women tend to

cope with stress by utilizing personal (internal) devices such as emotion, rather than impersonal (external)

devices such as alcohol, which are used more often by men. In addition, men and women also hold

differential expectations about the effects of drinking. Several studies (i.e. Abrams & Wilson, 1979; Sutker,

Allain, Brantly, & Randall, 1982; Wilson & Abrams, 1977) have shown that “although pharmacological

effects appear to be similarly stress reducing for both sexes, the belief that alcohol has been consumed may

actually increase distress among women” (Cooper et al. , 1992; P. 140). Therefore, it seems plausible that

females actually expect to experience some form of distress from drinking as opposed to males’ expectation

to experience tension reduction from drinking (Rohsenow, 1983).

Differential Coping Styles in Drinking

Considerable evidence has been accumulated in support of the notion that certain methods of coping are

more likely to be associated with problem drinking than others (Moos, Finney, & Chan, 1981). This has

led to the development of social learning theory which postulates that abusive drinkers differ from relatively

healthy drinkers in (a) their capacity to effectively cope with stressors and (b) in their beliefs about drinking

(Abrams & Niaura, 1987).

In general, two types of coping responses have been shown to predominate in most situations (Folkman

& Lazarus, 1980). The first type, problem-focused coping (also known as approach coping), is directed at

either solving the presenting problem or altering the source of the stress (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub

1989). The second type, emotion-focused coping (also known as avoidance coping ), attempts to reduce the

unpleasant emotional feelings which accompany the stressor (Carver et al. , 1989). Even though people

usually use both methods in response to a given stressor, the former type will tend to predominate when

people feel that the situation is changeable, whereas the latter type will tend to predominate when people

appraise the situation as unchangeable (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980).

People who predominantly resort to avoidance coping have been shown to display pathological drinking

behavior much more than those who utilize approach coping (Cooper, Russell, & George, 1988; Cooper et

al. , 1992). Those who typically resort to avoidance coping (a group which consists of up to 25% of all

drinkers), report that they do so in order to regulate negative emotions (Cahalan, Cisin, & Crossley, 1969;

Mullford & Miller, 1963; Polich & Orvis, 1979). The strongest evidence to support this contention

comes from studies which have investigated post-treatment relapse in alcoholics. In three such studies

(Marlatt, & Gordon, 1979; Moos et al. , 1981; Moos, Finney, & Gamble, 1982), it was found that

individuals were more likely to relapse in situations which elicited unpleasant emotional states.

Coping as a Moderating Factor of Stress

The key to understanding the differential impact of avoidance and approach coping on drinking lies in

the availability of an effective coping response to a given stressor (Cooper et al. , 1992). By definition,

people who utilize approach coping mechanisms to deal with their stress, engage in concrete problem

solving which serves to actively reduce the amount of stress. By contrast, people who rely on avoidance

coping may manage to reduce their distress, but they tend to do so by distracting themselves from the stress.

Therefore, it is not surprising that drinking should appeal more to those who predominately use avoidance

coping, because the consumption of alcohol serves as a substitute action which can distract from the stress.

When viewed from a social learning perspective (Abrams & Niaura, 1987), it can be seen that “alcohol use

serves as a general coping mechanism invoked when other presumably more effective coping responses are

unavailable” (Cooper et al. , 1992; P. 140). Evidence to support this idea comes from studies (i.e., Higgins

& Marlatt, 1975; Hull & young 1983; Marlatt, Kosturn, & Lang, 1975) which have investigated drinking in

response to negative affects, when no coping alternative was present. For instance, Marlatt et al. (1975)

have shown that drinkers who were provoked and were unable to retaliate drank significantly more at a

subsequent taste rating task than drinkers who had the option to retaliate (Cooper et al. , 1988).

Differential Expectancies About Drinking

Alcohol outcome expectancies (AOE) can be thought of as the beliefs people hold about the effects of

drinking (Goldman, Brown, & Christiansen, 1987). These expectancies first develop in childhood as indirect

learning experiences (e.g., media, family modeling, peer influence ) and, as a result of increased direct

experiences with the pharmacological effects of alcohol, become more refined (Christiansen, Goldman, &

Inn, 1982; Christiansen & Goldman, 1983; Christiansen, Goldman, & Brown 1985; and Miller, Smith, &

Goldman, 1990).

The expectancies that people hold about alcohol have been shown to predict alcohol consumption in a

variety of settings (Goldman, Brown, & Christiansen 1987). Brown, Goldman, Inn, and Anderson (1980)

have shown that light drinkers typically hold global expectancies about alcohol (i.e. alcohol affects multiple

factors), whereas heavy drinkers typically hold more specific expectancies, such as alcohol’s ability to

increase sexual and aggressive behavior. Furthermore, Brown (1985a) has shown that people who hold the

expectancy that alcohol enhances social experience are less likely to be problem drinkers than people who

drink with the expectancy of tension reduction. It is important to note, however, that AOE may “vary with

learning context, personal characteristics of the drinker, amount of alcohol consumed, and other addiction

risk factors” (Brown, 1993; P. 58).

Expectancies as a Mediating Factor of Stress

Although it is well established that AOE differentially predict drinking behavior (Brown, 1993), very little

is known about how they exert their effects. To date, most of the research suggests that AOE (gender

specific) directly predict alcohol consumption and, as such, are thought to play a mediational role (Brown,

1993). Intuitively, it makes sense that people who hold the expectancy that alcohol can alleviate their stress

should drink more than people who do not hold this expectancy. However, little research has been

conducted thus far to support this contention. Prior to Cooper et al. (1992), only one study (McKirnan &

Peterson, 1988) investigated the role of expectancies in stress-induced drinking. The study tested a stress-

vulnerability model among homosexual men, who show culturally specific stressors and vulnerability (i.e.,

homophobic discrimination). It was found that tension reduction expectancies significantly predicted

drinking among individuals who experienced “negative affectivity” stress (i.e., low self-esteem). Although

the Mckirnan and Peterson (1988) study found that expectancies exacerbated stress, the utility of the

findings is limited because of the use of a non-representative sample of gay males, and non-standard

measures of stress (Cooper et al. , 1992).

The Synthesis of Gender, Coping & Expectancies in Stress-Related Drinking

As was discussed previously, gender, coping, and expectancies are thought to play a significant role in

stress-related drinking. Nevertheless, the bulk of literature in this area has typically investigated these

factors in isolation from each other (at best, only two of these factors have been combined simultaneously).

Since stress-related drinking , however, is such a complex phenomenon (recall that the tension reduction

hypothesis of drinking does not apply universally) it is necessary to integrate these factors in order to gain a

complete, holistic picture.

The only study which has combined all three factors simultaneously was the landmark study of Cooper et

al. (1992). The study tested an interactional model of stress-related drinking which postulated that

“exposure to environmental stressors is most strongly related to alcohol use and abuse among vulnerable

individuals”, such that, “Vulnerable individuals are more likely to be male, to hold strong positive

expectancies for alcohol’s effects, and to have limited adaptive coping responses” (Cooper et al. , 1992; P.

141). The results supported a stressor vulnerability model of drinking. As expected, it was found that men

were more likely to drink than women by virtue of their gender role socialization. More importantly,

however, it was also found that, for problem drinking to occur in men, a second vulnerability factor must

often be present. In particular, men who either held strong positive expectancies or relied on avoidant forms

of coping were more likely to be problem drinkers than men who did not possess these attributes. (Cooper

et al. , 1992). With respect to expectancies, it was shown again that both men and women who held strong

positive AOE, drank significantly more then men and women who did not. Much more important, however,

was the finding that “expectancies appeared to function as stressor vulnerability factor among men but not

among women” (Cooper et al. , 1992; P. 148).

Finally, with regards to coping, it was confirmed that coping styles play an important role in problem

drinking. However, significant interactions with gender and expectancies were also indicated. Men who

relied on avoidant forms of coping were more likely than women to be vulnerable to stress induced drinking.

Similarly, stressors were much more likely to elicit problem drinking among individuals who were both high

in avoidance coping and positive AOE, than amongst individuals who were only high in avoidance coping.

(Cooper et al. , 1992).

Purpose of the present study

The purpose of the present study is to extend and modify the work of Cooper et al. (1992) in an attempt

to clarify the role of stress in alcohol consumption, with respect to the interactional stressor vulnerability

model of drinking. Specifically, the Cooper et al. (1992) study was limited to the investigation of gender,

coping, and expectancies in stress-related drinking. Given that Family history of alcoholism (FH) has been

shown to play a significant role in drinking (i.e., Cotton, 1979; Goodwin, 1988; Hill, Nord, & Blow 1992;

Ohannessian & Hesselbrock, 1993), it is appealing to investigate the role of FH as an additional vulnerability

factor [as suggested by Cooper et al. (1992)]. Moreover, the Cooper et al. (1992) study conceptualizes

gender, coping, and expectancies as moderators of stress-related drinking. Given that expectancies directly

predict alcohol consumption (as discussed previously), a modified interactional model is proposed such that

gender, coping, and family history play an indirect moderational role in predicting stress-related drinking;

whereas expectancies play a direct mediational role as conceptualized by Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Proposed Modified Stressor Vulnerability Model of Drinking

Gender

STRESS Expectancies DRINKING

Coping

Family History

Method

Subjects

All subjects in this study were undergraduate psychology students from a large Canadian university. The

initial sample consisted of 84 volunteers. For the purpose of this study, only those subjects who drank at

least once a weak were included. A total of 65 out of 84 subjects (77.4%), aged 19 years and over,

successfully met this criterion. The sample consisted of a roughly equal number of 31males (47.7%) and 34

females (52.3%), who were predominantly Caucasian (64.6%). More than three-quarters (75.4%) of the

subjects were in their first year of studies, and were mostly employed part-time (60.0%). Nearly three-

quarters (72.3%) of those who were employed received an annual income smaller than $ 10,000. The mean

age at which subjects first consumed alcohol was 14.7, whereas the mean age at which they began to drink

regularly was 17.9. Subjects total weekly consumption of alcohol averaged 11.1 drinks.

Measures

Measures used in the present study were embedded in a general assessment battery that was a part of a

larger research project. For the purpose of the present study, the following measures, administered in a fixed

order, were employed to assess the variables of interest.

Weekly Alcohol Consumption. Subjects were given a chart which contained the days of the week. For

each day they were instructed to indicate the number of standard alcoholic drinks and the amount of time it

would take to consume these drinks in a typical week. A standard alcohol drink was defined as either a

regular size can/bottle of beer, 1.5 ounce shot of liquor, or a 5 ounce glass of wine. Subjects who drank less

than once a month were instructed to skip this section. The total number of drinks in one week was summed

and used as the dependent variable.

Adapted Short Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (Adapted SMAST). The adapted SMAST (Sher &

Descutner, 1986) is a 13 item self-report questionnaire designed to measure family history of alcoholism.

Specifically, the questionnaire assesses the extent of an individual’s mother’s and father’s alcohol abuse.

Assessment is based on a two point scale consisting of 0=no and 1=yes. For the purpose of the present

study only 10 items were used, and the mother/father answer categories were extended to biological mother/

father and step or adoptive mother/father.

Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol (CEOA). The CEOA (Fromme, Stroot, & Kaplan, 1993) is a 38 item

self-report questionnaire designed to assess alcohol outcome expectancies and their subjective valence. It is

composed of seven expectancy scales, four positive (sociability, tension-reduction, liquid-courage, and

sexuality) and three negative (cognitive-behavioral impairment, risk and aggression, and self perception).

Expectancy assessment is based on a four point scale from 1=disagree to 4=agree. The valence of these

expectancies is assessed on a five point scale from 1=bad to 5=good. Both items and instructions were

carefully worded to ensure that the elicited expectancies were neither dose-specific, nor situation specific.

Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). The PSS (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983) is a 14 item self-report

questionnaire designed to assess the degree to which situations in one’s life are appraised as stressful. An

equal number of 7 positive and 7 negative statements make up the questionnaire. Assessment is based on a

five point scale from 0=never to 4=very often. Scores are obtained by reversing the scores on the seven

positive items (i.e., 0=4, 1=3, 2=2, etc.), and then summing across all 14 items.

COPE. The COPE (Carver et al., 1989) is a 53 item self-report questionnaire designed to assess

individual coping dispositions. The questionnaire is comprised of 14 scales which are categorized into three

coping styles: Problem-Focused Coping (Active coping, Planning, Suppression of competing activities,

Seeking social support for instrumental reasons, and Restraint coping), Emotion-Focused Coping

(Acceptance, Seeking social support for emotional reasons, Positive reinterpretation, Turning to religion,

and Focus on and venting of emotion), and Less than Useful Coping (Denial, Behavioral Disengagement,

and Mental Disengagement). For the purpose of the present study the Alcohol-drug disengagement scale

was excluded from these categories, and was treated as a separate category called Drinking to Cope.

Assessment is based on a four point scale from1=I usually don’t do this at all to 4=I usually do this a lot.

Both items and instructions were worded such that dispositional , rather than situational, styles of coping

were assessed.

Procedure

All participants were recruited from undergraduate psychology courses at York University. The

questionnaire was administered in a classroom setting. Participants completed the questionnaire in a

group format of mixed sex ranging in size from 10 to 30 individuals. Informed consent was obtained

from all participants, and a phone number was provided in case any concerns arose. The complete

questionnaire required approximately 40 minutes to administer. Respondents were compensated for their

time by being entered in a lottery with a 1 in 50 chance of winning $ 50.00.

Results

Correlational Analyses

Table 1 presents zero-order correlations, computed for all relevant study variables. Conceptually

variables may be grouped into one of five categories: weekly drinking (variable 1), perceived stress

(variable 2), family history of alcoholism (variable 3), coping variables (Variables 4-7), and expectancy

variables (variables 8-21). Examining the pattern of correlations between these variables suggests several

conclusions.

First, family history of alcoholism was neither significantly correlated with perceived stress nor with

weekly drinking, suggesting that family history of alcoholism is not important in stress-induced drinking.

Second, several coping variables were significantly correlated with either weekly drinking and/or

perceived stress. Specifically, drinking to cope was significantly positively correlated with both weekly

drinking (r = .420) and perceived stress (r = .310), less useful coping was significantly positively correlated

(r = .674) with stress, and problem focused coping was significantly negatively correlated (r = -.327) with

weekly drinking. These findings suggest that coping variables play an important role in stress-related

drinking.

Finally, only one expectancy variable, the valence expectancy for cognitive and behavioral impairment,

was significantly correlated (r = .340) with weekly drinking, but not with perceived stress. However, several

expectancy variables were significantly positively correlated (.357 findings suggest that expectancies are more likely be a distal, rather than a proximal predictor of stress-

related drinking.

Estimating the Model

Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were employed to test the model depicted in Figure 1. Table 2

contains summary statistics for the stepwise regression used to identify the predictor variables of weekly

drinking. As can be seen from Table 2, gender emerged as the most important predictor variable accounting

for over 28% of the variance. The coping variables of drinking to cope and problem-focused drinking were

also significant, and accounted for an additional 12% and 8% of the variance, respectively. Further multiple

regression analyses were used to determine which variables predicted drinking to cope, and problem-focused

coping, respectively. Table 3 shows that the expectancy for risk accounted for over 26% of the variance in

predicting drinking to cope, with the expectancy for tension and perceived stress accounting for an

additional 16%. Table 4 shows that emotion-focused coping accounted for over 34% of the variance in

predicting problem-focused drinking, with the expectancy valence for self perception accounting for an

additional 8%. Figure 2 summarizes the direct effects estimated in the foregoing series of multiple

regression analyses.

Table 1. Zero-Order Correlations Among Relevant Study Variables

______________________________________________________________________________________

Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Weekly Drinking — -.143 -.072 -.327* -.232 -.206 .420** .016 .240

2. Perceived Stress — .001 .198 .138 .674** .310* -.069 -.074

3. Family History of Alcoholism — -.186 -.111 -.002 -.211 -.003 -.128

4. Problem-Focused Coping — .491** .170 -.044 -.132 -.112

5. Emotion-Focused Coping — .166 .062 .111 .107

6. Less Useful Coping — .223 -.073 -.017

7. Drinking to Cope — .234 .412**

Alcohol Expectancy Outcomes

8. Sociability — .262

9. Tension Reduction –

10. Liquid Courage

11. Sexuality

12. Cognitive & Behavioral Impairment

13. Risk & Aggression

14. Self Perception

Alcohol Expectancy Valence

15. Sociability

16. Tension Reduction

17. Liquid Courage

18. Sexuality

19. Cognitive & Behavioral Impairment

20. Risk & Aggression

21. Self Perception

* p Table 1. (Continued) Zero-Order Correlations Among Relevant Study Variables

______________________________________________________________________________________

Measure 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1. Weekly Drinking .116 -.008 -.141 .173 -.037 -.083 .185 -.062 .194

2. Perceived Stress -.041 -.069 .133 .213 .039 .044 .196 .058 -.038

3. Family History of Alcoholism -.052 .018 -.082 -.121 .069 .040 .089 .028 .007

4. Problem-Focused Coping .035 .012 .175 .141 .218 -.097 -.075 .052 -.035

5. Emotion-Focused Coping .044 .295* .218 .154 .151 -.230 -.084 -.053 -.055

6. Less Useful Coping -.178 -.006 .238 .066 .059 .016 .096 -.025 .072

7. Drinking to Cope .371* .225 -.017 .517** -.009 .066 .357* .115 .178

Alcohol Expectancy Outcomes

8. Sociability .697** .488** -.120 .433** -.160 .569** .469** .174 .289

9. Tension Reduction .233 .263 .041 .180 .006 .202 .282 .132 .222

10. Liquid Courage — .509** .032 .622** .046 .433** .436** .381* .245

11. Sexuality — .260 .522** .276 .118 .161 -.025 .149

12. Cognitive & Behavioral Impairment — .221 .354* -.227 -.241 -.171 -.061

13. Risk & Aggression — .236 .158 .304* .106 -.001

14. Self Perception — -.335* -.175 -.089 -.247

Alcohol Expectancy Valence

15. Sociability — .510** .499**.490**

16. Tension Reduction — .412**.409**

17. Liquid Courage — .541**

18. Sexuality —

19. Cognitive & Behavioral Impairment

20. Risk & Aggression

21. Self Perception

* p Table 1. (Continued) Zero-Order Correlations Among Relevant Study Variables

______________________________________________________________________________________

Measure 19 20 21

1. Weekly Drinking .340* .026 .197

2. Perceived Stress -.164 .065 -.139

3. Family History of Alcoholism -.229 .045 .009

4. Problem-Focused Coping -.289 -.053 -.357*

5. Emotion-focused Coping -.122 -.123 -.135

6. Less Useful Coping -.262 -.054 -.322

7. Drinking to Cope .119 .166 -.054

Alcohol Expectancy Outcomes

8. Sociability .141 .170 .135

9. Tension Reduction .196 .166 .015

10. Liquid Courage .123 .278 .138

11. Sexuality -.271 -.152 -.160

12. Cognitive & Behavioral Impairment -.396** -.217 -.097

13. Risk & Aggression -.038 -.019 -.138

14. Self Perception -.363* -.274 -.220

Alcohol Expectancy Valence

15. Sociability .249 .482** .113

16. Tension Reduction .150 .227 -.131

17. Liquid Courage .375* .717** .219

18. Sexuality .162 .515** .181

19. Cognitive & Behavioral Impairment — .544** .539**

20. Risk & Aggression — .517**

21. Self Perception –

* p Table 2. Stepwise Regression Summary Statistics for Weekly Drinking

Step

Variable

Beta In

Multiple R

R-Squared

(R-Squared

1

gender

-.5312

.5312

.2821

.2821*

2

drinking to cope

.3473

.6324

.3999

.1178*

3

problem- focused coping

-.2802

.6913

.4779

.0780*

______________________________________________________________________________________

* p

Table 3. Stepwise Regression Summary Statistics for Drinking to Cope

Step

Variable

Beta In

Multiple R

R-Squared

(R-Squared

1

risk expectancy

.5173

.5173

.2676

.2676*

2

tension expectancy

.3298

.6107

.3729

.1053*

3

perceived stress

.2519

.6578

.4327

.0598*

* p

Table 4. Stepwise Regression Summary Statistics for Problem-Focused Drinking

Step

Variable

Beta In

Multiple R

R-Squared

(R-Squared

1

emotion-focused coping

.5869

.5869

.3444

.3444*

2

self perception expectancy valence

-.2861

.6518

.4248

.0804*

* p

Figure 2. Estimated Model of Weekly Drinking

Gender

Risk & Aggression Expectancy

Perceived Stress Drink to Cope Weekly Drinking

Tension Reduction Expectancy

Emotion-Focused Coping

Problem-Focused Coping

Self Perception Expectancy Valence

Discussion

The primary purpose of the present study was to replicate and extend the results of Cooper et al. (1992).

Specifically, the Cooper et al. (1992) stressor vulnerability model was modified to include family history of

alcoholism as an additional moderating variable, and expectancies were conceptualized as a mediating rather

than a moderating variable. The model was then tested in a college population sample. Overall, the results

of this study fail to support the proposed model, suggesting that expectancies play a distal rather than

proximal role in stress-related drinking. Furthermore, contrary to previous findings (i.e., Cotton, 1979;

Goodwin, 1988; Hill et al., 1992; & Ohannessian & Hesselbrock, 1993), family history of alcoholism did not

play a significant role, either directly or indirectly, in predicting drinking.

In contrast, the present results indicate that gender and coping are the most powerful explanatory

variables in the model. With respect to coping, only drinking to cope and problem-focused coping directly

predicted weekly drinking. Expectancies also emerged as an important explanatory variable, however, their

influence was exerted via indirect pathways (i.e., via drinking to cope and problem-focused drinking).

Likewise, perceived stress and emotion-focused coping also emerged as peripheral predictors (via similar

pathways) of weekly drinking.

Although the present results fail to support the proposed model, they are nevertheless fairly consistent

with the stressor vulnerability model proposed by Cooper et al. (1992). Specifically, in keeping with Cooper

et al.’s (1992) results, the present findings indicate that stress does not directly induce drinking, and that

another vulnerability factor must coexist with stress for drinking to occur. However, there is some apparent

discrepancy with respect to the specifics of these additional vulnerability factors, particularly concerning the

subtypes of coping mechanisms which affect stress-related drinking. Whereas Cooper et al. (1992) found

that individuals who were high in avoidance coping tended to drink more in response to stress, the present

study found that drinking to cope was the primary coping mechanism which moderated stress-related

drinking. In addition, the present study also found that the moderating influence of expectancies was not

limited to positive expectancies, as suggested by Cooper et al. (1992). Instead, the negative expectancy for

risk and aggression appears to act in concert with the positive expectancy of tension reduction to moderate

stress-related drinking.

It is important to note that many of the discrepancies between the present findings and the findings of

Cooper et al. (1992) are possibly due to significant differences in the measurement instruments employed.

First, with regards to the dependent measure, alcohol consumption, the criterion used to define one standard

drink in the Cooper et al. (1992) study required significantly smaller amounts of alcohol than did the present

study (i.e., 1 oz. versus 1.5 oz. of hard liquor, or 4 oz. versus 5 oz. of wine). Therefore, it is possible that by

utilizing stricter alcohol consumption criteria in the present study, certain findings that were found to be

significant in the Cooper et al. (1992) study were not significant here. Second, with regards to the

measurement of expectancies, the Cooper et al. (1992) study measured only positive expectancies. By

contrast, the present study measured both positive and negative expectancies, and it was found that both

are important in stress-related drinking. Third, with respect to coping, the present study elaborated on the

three coping styles used in Cooper et al. (1992) by adding a fourth category, drinking to cope. This

coping style proved to be a superior predictor of stress-related drinking than any of the other coping

dispositions. Finally, with respect to the measurement of stress, the Cooper et al. (1992) study used a

life events scale to measure stress. This measure of stress is inferior to the perceived stress scale, because

it only measures the objective occurrence of events, and not the subjective interpretation of whether the

individual perceives these events to be stressful (Cohen et al., 1983). As such, the discrepancy between the

overall results obtained in the present study and that reported by Cooper et al. (1992) may be due, in part, to

the fact that differing constructs were investigated.

Two limitations of the present study should be noted. The first and possibly most significant limitation is

the relatively small sample size of the study. This limitation precluded more in-depth statistical analysis,

particularly with respect to analyzing interactions. For instance, even though Figure 2 provides the

impression that drinking to cope plays a mediating role in stress-related drinking, this conclusion remains

invalid without the possibility of analyzing how drinking to cope interacts with gender and problem-focused

coping. Second, the present study examined a homogeneous college sample with respect to age, social

class, education, and race. This limits the generalizability of the findings.

Several issues are raised by the present findings that could be addressed in future research. Perhaps most

importantly, there is a need to determine which instruments provide the most accurate measurement of the

constructs in question. This would create a standard set of instruments that could be universally applied in

future investigations. Further investigation of negative expectancies would also be useful given the

import of the expectancy for risk and aggression in the present data. Similarly, the linkages among the

determinants in this model could be further clarified by examining the potential mediating role of drinking to

cope. Ultimately, to elucidate the nature of stress-related drinking, other potential moderators (i.e., income,

race, religion ) must also be investigated to provide a more stringent test of the stressor vulnerability model.

In conclusion, these results indicate that the stressor vulnerability model of stress-related drinking as

suggested by Cooper et al. (1992) is somewhat imprecise. A more refined model must pay closer attention

to the influence of drinking to cope and negative expectancies.

References

Abrams, D. B., & Niaura, R. S. (1987). Social learning theory. In H. T. Blane, & K. E. Leonard (Eds.). Psychological theories of drinking and alcoholism (pp. 131-178). New York: Guilford Press.

Abrams, D. B., & Wilson, G. T. (1979). Effects of alcohol on social anxiety in women: Cognitive versus physiological arousal. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88, 161-173.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Brown, S. A. (1985a). Context of drinking and reinforcement from alcohol: Alcoholic patterns. Addictive Behaviors, 10, 191-196.

Brown, S. A. (1993). Drug effect expectancies and addictive behavior change. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 1, 55-67.

Brown, S. A., Goldman, M. S., Inn, A., & Anderson, L. R. (1980). Expectations of reinforcement from alcohol: Their domain and relations to drinking patterns. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 419-426.

Cahalan, D., Cisin, I. H., & Crossley, H. M. (1969). American drinking practices: A national study of drinking behaviors and attitudes. New Brunswick, NJ: College and University Press and New Haven, CT: Publications Division, Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies.

Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267-283.

Christiansen, B. A., Goldman, M. S., & Inn, A. (1982). Development of alcohol-related expectancies in adolescents: Separating pharmacological from social-learning influences. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 336-344.

Christiansen, B. A., & Goldman, M. S. (1983). Alcohol related expectancies versus demographic/ background variables in the prediction of adolescent drinking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 249-257.

Christiansen, B. A., Goldman, M. S., & Brown, S. A. (1985). The differential development of adolescent alcohol expectancies may predict adult alcoholism. Addictive Behaviors, 10, 299-306.

Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385-396.

Conger, J. J. (1956). Alcoholism: Theory, problem and challenge. II. Reinforcement theory and the dynamics of alcoholism. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 13, 296-305.

Conway, T. L., Vickers, R. R., Ward, H. W., & Rahe, R. H. (1981). Occupational stress and variation in cigarette, coffee, and alcohol consumption. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 22, 155-165.

Cooper, M. L., Russell, M., & George, W. H. (1988). Coping, expectancies and alcohol abuse: A test of social learning formulations. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 218-230.

Cooper, M. L., Russell, M., Skinner, J. B., Frone, M. R., & Mudar, P. (1992). Stress and alcohol use: Moderating effects of gender, coping, and alcohol expectancies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 139-152.

Cotton, N. S. (1979). The familial incidence of alcoholism: A review. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 40, 89-116.

Dawson, D. A., & Archer, L. (1992). Gender differences in alcohol consumption: Effects of measurement. British Journal of Addiction, 87, 119-123.

Fromme, K., Stroot, E., Kaplan, D. (1993). Comprehensive effects of alcohol: Developmental and psychometric assessment of a new expectancy questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 5, 19-26.

Dohrenwend, B. P., & Dohrenwend, B. S. (1976). Sex differences in psychiatric disorders. American Journal of Sociology, 81, 1447-1454.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community sample. Journal of Health and Social Behaviors, 21, 219-239.

Goldman, M. S., Brown, S. A., & Christiansen, B. A. (1987). Expectancy theory: Thinking about drinking. In H. T. Blane, & K. E. Leonard (Eds.). Psychological theories of drinking and alcoholism (pp. 181-226). New York: Guilford Press.

Goodwin, D. W. (1988). Is Alcoholism Hereditary (Second edition). New York: Balantine Books.

Higgins, R. L., & Marlatt, G. A. (1975). Fear of interpersonal evaluation as a determinant of alcohol consumption in male social drinkers. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 84, 644-651.

Hill, E. M., Nord, J. L., & Blow, F. C. (1992). Young-adult children of alcoholic parents: Protective effects of positive family functioning. British Journal of Addiction, 87, 1677-1690.

Hilton, M. E. (1988). Trends in US drinking patterns: Further evidence from the past 20 years. British Journal of Addiction, 83, 269-278.

Horwitz, A. V., & White, H. R. (1987). Gender role orientations and styles of pathology among adolescents. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 28, 158-170.

Hull, J. G., & Young, R. D. (1983). Self-consciousness, self-esteem, and success-failure as determinants of alcohol consumption in male social drinkers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1097-1109.

Marlatt, G. A., & Gordon, J. R. (1979). Determinants of relapse: Implications for the maintenance of behavior change. In P. Davidson (Ed.). Behavioral medicine: Changing health lifestyles. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Marlatt, G. A., Kosturn, C. F., & Lang, A. R. (1975). Provocation to anger and opportunity for retaliation as determinants of alcohol consumption in social drinkers. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 84, 652-659.

Marlatt, G. A, & Rohsenow, D. J. (1980). Cognitive processes in alcohol use: Expectancy and the balanced placebo design. In N. K. Mello (Ed.). Advances in Substance Abuse: Behavioral and biological research, Vol. 1. Greenwich: JAI Press.

Mayfield, D. J. (1968). Psychopharmacology of alcohol: Affective change with intoxication, drinking behavior and affective state. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 146, 314-320.

McKirnan, D. J., & Peterson, P. L. (1988). Stress, expectancies, and vulnerability to substance abuse: A test of a model among homosexual men. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 461-466.

Miller, P. Smith, G., & Goldman, M. (1990). Emergence of alcohol expectancies in childhood: A possible critical period. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 51, 343-349.

Moos, R. H., Finney, J. W., & Chan, D. A. (1981). The process of recovery from alcoholism. I. Comparing alcoholic patients and matched community controls. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 42, 383-402.

Moos, R. H., Finney, J. W., & Gamble, W. (1982). The process of recovery from alcoholism. II. Comparing spouses of alcoholic patients and matched community controls. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 43, 888-909.

Mendelson, J. H., Ladou, J., & Soloman, P. (1964). Experimentally induced chronic intoxication and withdrawal in alcoholics. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Supplement No. 2, 40-53.

Mullford, H. A., & Miller, D. E. (1963). Preoccupation with alcohol and definitions of alcohol: A replication study of two cumulative scales. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 24, 682-696.

Ohannessian, C. M., & Hesselbrock, V. M. (1993). The influence of perceived social support on the relationship between family history of alcoholism and drinking behaviors. Addiction, 88, 1651-1658.

Polich, J. M., & Orvis, B. R. (1979). Alcohol Problems: Patterns and Prevalence in the U.S. Air Force (Rep. No. R-2308-AF). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Rohsenow, D. J. (1983). Drinking habits and expectancies about alcohol’s effects for self versus others. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 752-756.

Sher, K. J., & Descutner, C. (1986). Reports of paternal alcoholism: Reliability across siblings. Journal of Addictive Behaviors, 11, 25-30.

Sutker, P. B., Allain, A. N., Brantly, P., & Randall, C. (1982). Acute alcohol intoxication, negative affect, and autonomic arousal in women and men. Addictive Behaviors, 7, 17-25.

Welte, J. W. (1985). Alcohol use and trait anxiety in the general population. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 15, 105-109.

Wilson, G. T., & Abrams, D. (1977). Effects of alcohol on social anxiety and physiological arousal: Cognitive versus pharmacological processes. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 195-210.

1 Note that a moderating variable affects “the direction and/or strength of the relation between an independent variable and a dependent variable”. Whereas a mediating variable “accounts for the relation

between the independent and dependent variable”. Thus while “moderator variables specify when certain effects will hold, mediators speak to how or why such effects occur” (Baron & Kenny, 1986; P. 1174 & P. 1176).

1