Internal Drinking Motives Mediate Personality Domain Ð Drinking Relations in Young Adults

Personality and Individual Differences 30 (2001) 271±286
www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Internal drinking motives mediate personality domain Ð

drinking relations in young adults
Sherry H. Stewart *, Heather Lee Loughlin, Ellen Rhyno
Dalhousie University, Department of Psychology, 1355 Oxford Street, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 4J1
Received 5 July 1999; received in revised form 1 December 1999; accepted 1 March 2000
Abstract
The present study was conducted in an attempt to replicate previous ®ndings regarding relations between
personality domains in the ®ve-factor model of personality and drinking motives, and to examine the
potential mediating role of the internal drinking motives in explaining hypothesized relations between
personality variables and drinking quantity/drinking problems. A sample of 154 university student drin-
kers completed the NEO ®ve factor inventory, the revised drinking motives questionnaire, and measures of
drinking quantity and alcohol-related problems. Multiple regressions indicated that the two internal
drinking motives (coping and enhancement) were predicted by personality domains information, whereas
the two external drinking motives (conformity and social) were not. Coping motives were signi®cantly
predicted by high neuroticism, whereas enhancement motives were signi®cantly predicted by a combination
of low conscientiousness and low neuroticism. Mediator regression analyses demonstrated that coping
motives partially mediated the relation between high neuroticism and increased drinking problems,
whereas enhancement motives mediated the relation between low conscientiousness and increased drinking
quantity. Implications of the ®ndings for prevention of heavy drinking and drinking problems in young
adults are discussed. # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Drinking motives; Five-factor model of personality; Problem drinking; Heavy drinking; Personality
domains; University students
1. Introduction
`Drinking motives' refer to the basic psychological motivations underlying individuals' alcohol
use behavior (Cooper, 1994). Drinking motives have been suggested as the ®nal common path-
way to alcohol use/abuse, through which other risk factors (e.g., personality) exert their in¯u-
ences on drinking behavior and drinking-related outcomes (e.g., Cox & Klinger, 1988).
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-902-494-3793; fax: +1-902-494-6585.

E-mail address: sstewart@is.dal.ca (S.H. Stewart).
0191-8869/00/$ - see front matter # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0191-8869(00)00044-1
272 S.H. Stewart et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 30 (2001) 271±286
Cox and Klinger (1988, 1990) suggest that motivations for drinking arise from expectations of
aective change from drinking (e.g., increases in positive aect, decreases in negative aect).
Expanding upon Cox and Klinger's work, Cooper (1994) proposed a 22 (valencesource)
model of drinking motives where the two dimensions refer to characteristics of the outcomes
desired from drinking. With respect to `valence', an individual might drink alcohol in order to
increase a positive outcome or to avoid/reduce a negative outcome. With respect to `source', an
individual might drink alcohol to obtain a rewarding internal outcome (e.g., aective change) or
a rewarding external outcome (e.g., social reward). Crossing the two dimensions yields four
categories of motives: (a) internal, positive motives (to increase positive aect); (b) external,
positive motives (to increase aliation); (c) internal, negative motives (to decrease negative
aect); and (d) external, negative motives (to avoid social rejection). Cooper refers to these
motives as enhancement, social, coping, and conformity motives, respectively.
These dierent motives predict unique aspects of drinking behavior (e.g., Carey & Correia,
1997; Cooper, 1994; Cooper, Russell, Skinner & Windle, 1992; Simons, Correia, Carey & Borsari,
1998). For example, the two internal motives predict heavy alcohol use, whereas the two negative
motives directly predict alcohol problems, even after controlling for drinking levels. Although
enhancement motives are also related to alcohol problems, this relation is accounted for by
enhancement motives' strong association with heavy drinking.
Several researchers have suggested that dierent types of individuals should desire dierent
outcomes from drinking and that personality variables should therefore be related to drinking
motives. For example, Cooper (1994) suggested that the drinking behavior of internally moti-
vated drinkers (i.e., enhancement and coping drinkers) re¯ects internal needs that are unlikely to
vary across situations. She speculated that the drinking behavior of internally motivated drinkers
should thus be tied to personality characteristics more so than drinking behavior of externally
motivated drinkers (i.e., social and conformity drinkers).
A few recent studies have established connections between drinking motives and personality
variables. Levels of excitement seeking (i.e., the tendency to be adventurous and to prefer excite-
ment and novelty) are signi®cantly correlated with enhancement motives, but unrelated to coping
motives (Cooper, Frone, Russell & Mudar, 1995). Stewart and Zeitlin (1995) showed that levels
oftrait anxiety (i.e., the tendency to experience anxiety under stress) and anxiety sensitivity (i.e.,
fear of anxiety-related sensations) were independent predictors of coping motives, but were
unrelated to enhancement or social motives (cf. Conrod, Pihl & Vassileva, 1998; Stewart, Karp,
Pihl & Peterson, 1997).
More recently, researchers have examined relations between the various drinking motives in
Cooper's (1994) model and the various components of a comprehensive model of personality.
The ®ve-factor model of personality encompasses ®ve robust personality constructs re¯ecting the
super-ordinate structure of personality (Digman, 1990). The ®ve personality domains in this model
are as follows: (1) neuroticism (the tendency to experience negative aect); (2) extraversion (gregar-
iousness, excitement seeking); (3) openness (curiosity, need for variety in actions); (4) Agreeable-
ness (emotional support, helpfulness); and (5) conscientiousness (will to achieve, responsibility).
Stewart and Devine (2000) conducted a study with the goal of placing Cooper's (1994) four
drinking motives within the context of the ®ve-factor model of personality. A large sample of
undergraduate university student drinkers completed the revised NEO personality inventory
(NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) as well as the revised drinking motives questionnaire
S.H. Stewart et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 30 (2001) 271±286 273
(DMQ-R; Cooper, 1994). Multiple regression analyses were conducted in which the block of ®ve
personality domains served as predictors, and a statistically pure (i.e., residualized) measure of
each drinking motive served as the criterion. Consistent with Cooper's (1994) predictions, per-
sonality domains served as signi®cant predictors of the two internal motives (coping and
enhancement), whereas personality domains failed to signi®cantly predict the external motives
(social and conformity). Coping motives were signi®cantly predicted by high neuroticism, and
enhancement motives by high extraversion (cf. Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985; Gray, 1982). Low
conscientiousness also proved an independent predictor of enhancement motives scores.
It is important to investigate relations between personality and drinking motives since prior
research demonstrates associations between certain personality variables and both drinking levels
and alcohol-related problems (see reviews by Barnes, 1983; Cox, 1987; Lang, 1983). For example,
personality characteristics within the extraversion domain (e.g., excitement seeking) and the
conscientiousness domain (e.g., low achievement striving) are strongly predictive of heavy drink-
ing among young adults (e.g., Cox, 1987; Schall, Kemeny & Maltzman, 1992). Previous studies
have also shown that drinking problems are positively associated with personality characteristics
falling within the ®ve-factor model (Barnes, 1983; Cox, 1987; Lang, 1983). For example, Martin
and Sher (1994) showed that high neuroticism, low conscientiousness, and low agreeableness are
associated with alcohol problems.
Neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness may be linked to heavy and/or problem
drinking by way of their associations with `risky' drinking motives. Since Stewart and Devine
(2000) failed to include measures of heavy drinking or alcohol-related problems, they were unable
to test the hypothesized mediating role (Cooper, 1994) of these drinking motives in accounting
for established relations between personality domains and heavy or problem drinking.
The present study had two main purposes. The ®rst was to replicate Stewart and Devine's
(2000) ®ndings using an alternative measure of the ®ve-factor model of personality Ð namely the
briefer NEO ®ve factor inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992). We predicted that, despite
the change in personality domain assessment tool, high neuroticism would predict coping
motives, and high extraversion and low conscientiousness would predict enhancement motives, in
multiple regression analyses (cf. Stewart & Devine, 2000). The second purpose was to empirically
evaluate the hypothesized `mediating' or intervening role of drinking motives in accounting for
predicted relations between certain personality domains and drinking-related criterion measures.
We hypothesized that coping motives would at least partially mediate the expected relation
between neuroticism and drinking problems. We also hypothesized that enhancement motives
would at least partially mediate the expected relations between high extraversion and low con-
scientiousness with increased heavy drinking.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Participants were 170 undergraduate students from Dalhousie University. Of the total sample,
91% reported that they had consumed alcohol in the last year (n 154; 111 females, 43 males).
Only these `drinkers' were used in all subsequent analyses. On average, students were 21.6 years
of age (SD=3.4 years) and were in the 2nd to 3rd year of their university program. The mean
family of origin salary code was 5.5 on a 1±7 scale (SD=1.6).
2.2. Materials
2.2.1. NEO-FFI
The NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1992) is a 60-item self-report measure for quantifying the ®ve
domains of the ®ve-factor model of personality (i.e., neuroticism; extraversion; openness; agree-
ableness; and conscientiousness) that was developed as a short form of the original NEO-PI.
Items were selected based on factor analysis of scores on the 180 NEO-PI items. The 12 items
with the highest loading on each of the ®ve factors were selected for the NEO-FFI (Costa &
McCrae, 1992). Items are responded to on 5-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (strongly dis-
agree) to 5 (strongly agree). `Ì often feel inferior to others'', `Ì like to have a lot of people around
me'', and `Ì am intrigued by the patterns I ®nd in art and nature'', are sample neuroticism,
extraversion, and openness items, respectively. `Ì try to be courteous to everyone I meet'', and
`Ì'm pretty good about pacing myself so as to get things done'' are sample agreeableness and
conscientiousness items, respectively. Domain scores are calculated by summing the responses to
relevant items, taking into account reverse-scoring for certain negatively keyed items. Previous
research has shown that the domain scores on the briefer NEO-FFI correlate well with scores on
the NEO-PI-R (rs 0:77ÿ0:92), and that NEO-FFI domain scale scores show adequate to good
internal consistency (alphas=0.68±0.86) (see review by Costa & McCrae, 1992). In the present
sample of 154 drinkers, the coecient alphas for the domain scales (see Table 1) similarly indi-
cated acceptable to good internal consistency (Nunnally, 1978). As subsets of NEO-PI-R domain
scales, NEO-FFI scales can be considered to carry with them some portion of the demonstrated
validity of the full scales (Costa & McCrae, 1992). NEO-FFI domain scores show high levels of
convergent/discriminant validity with domain scores on personality adjective scales, and with
spousal and peer ratings of the ®ve domains on the NEO-PI-R (see Costa & McCrae, 1992).
2.2.2. Demographics
An author-compiled questionnaire sought information on basic demographic characteristics
(cf. Stewart & Devine, 2000). Participants were asked to provide information on their age, gen-
der, the annual salary range of their family of origin (1±7 scale with 1=`ùp to $10,000'' and
7=``more than $60,000''), and the current year of their university program. Participants were
also requested to indicate whether or not they had consumed any alcohol within the last year.
Only those responding armatively to this latter item were invited to complete the measures of
drinking quantity, drinking motives, and drinking problems.
2.2.3. Drinking quantity

In the assessment of drinking behavior, we chose to focus on drinking quantity, as opposed to
drinking frequency, since quantity and frequency are distinct aspects of drinking behavior (Vogel-
Sprott, 1983) and since drinking quantity has been demonstrated as the `riskier' of the two
aspects of drinking behavior (see review in Stewart, Angelopoulos, Baker & Boland, 2000). Past
year drinking quantity was assessed with a single self-report item. Participants were asked to
indicate the average number of standard alcoholic beverages (one `drink'=12 oz beer, 4 oz wine,
Table 1
Descriptive statistics for all study variables
Measure Men (n=43) Women (n=111) Total sample (n=154)
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Alpha
Personality domains (NEO-FFI)

Neuroticisma 18.47 (6.71) 22.59 (9.28) 21.48 (8.88) 0.88
Extraversion 30.70 (6.35) 31.23 (6.25) 31.08 (6.24) 0.79
Openness 28.84 (6.05) 29.26 (6.08) 29.16 (6.00) 0.71
Agreeableness 32.02 (6.03) 32.60 (5.85) 32.40 (5.88) 0.71
Conscientiousness 30.84 (7.46) 31.43 (6.65) 31.32 (6.84) 0.83
Drinking motives (DMQ-R)

Social 3.44 (0.84) 3.24 (0.99) 3.30 (0.95) 0.85
Enhancement 3.11 (0.94) 2.83 (1.11) 2.90 (1.07) 0.89
Coping 1.77 (0.70) 1.65 (0.71) 1.69 (0.71) 0.78
Conformitya 1.48 (0.50) 1.27 (0.43) 1.33 (0.46) 0.69
Drinking behavior
RAPIa 9.34 (5.56) 7.08 (5.03) 7.71 (5.26) 0.88
Drinking quantitya 8.03 (4.44) 5.45 (2.70) 6.17 (3.47) ±
a
Indicates variables that vary by gender (p < 0:05). Coecient alpha is not presented for the drinking quantity
variable because this measure consisted of a single item. NEO-FFI=NEO ®ve factor inventory (Costa & McCrae,
1992); DMQ-R=revised drinking motives questionnaire (Cooper, 1994); RAPI=Rutgers alcohol problem index
(White & Labouvie, 1989).
or 1 oz hard liquor) they normally consumed per drinking occasion (cf. Stewart, Peterson & Pihl,
1995; Stewart et al., 2000). Hays and Huba (1988) found adequate reliability of self-reported
alcohol consumption measures across a broad range of response formats. Nonetheless, we used
methods recommended by Sobell and Sobell (1990) for enhancing the accuracy of respondents'
drinking quantity self-reports. Speci®cally, the drinking quantity item was presented in an open-
ended (as opposed to forced-choice) format, and was embedded within other questions on
demographic characteristics to minimize its salience. Since extensive evidence supports the valid-
ity of self-reported alcohol use levels when participants are assured con®dentiality (Johnston &
O'Malley, 1985), we also used a numeric coding scheme designed to preserve respondents' anon-
ymity, and verbally ensured participants of their con®dentiality prior to questionnaire package
completion.
2.2.4. DMQ-R
The DMQ-R (Cooper, 1994) is a 20-item self-report measure designed to quantify levels of the
four drinking motives in Cooper's categorical model of drinking motivations (i.e., social,
enhancement, coping, and conformity). ``To be sociable'' and ``To get high'' are sample social
and enhancement motives items, respectively. ``To forget my worries'' and ``So that others won't
kid me about not drinking'' are sample coping and conformity motives items, respectively.
Respondents rate their relative frequency of drinking for each of the indicated reasons on a 5-
point Likert scale ranging from 1 (almost never/never) to 5 (almost always/always). Subscale
scores are computed by averaging the scores across the ®ve items on each subscale (Cooper,
1994). The DMQ-R shows good internal consistency, construct validity, and criterion-related
validity in community adolescents and university students (Cooper, 1994; Simons et al., 1998). In
the present sample, the coecient alphas for the four DMQ-R subscales (Table 1) indicated
adequate to good internal consistency (Nunnally, 1978).
2.2.5. RAPI
Drinking-related problems were assessed with the 23-item Rutgers alcohol problem index
(RAPI; White & Labouvie, 1989) which was speci®cally designed for use with younger drinkers.
Each item is rated on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (never) to 3 (more than 10 times). ``Not able
to do your homework or study for a test'' and ``Missed out in other things because you spent too
much money on alcohol'' are sample RAPI items. Validity of the RAPI is evidenced by its rela-
tionships with other alcohol use-related problems, such as driving while intoxicated (Johnson &
White, 1989). In scoring the RAPI, each item was re-coded on a dichotomous scale to re¯ect the
absence (original score=0) or presence (original score 1) of the indicated problem, such that
total scores represented the total number of problem items endorsed (cf. Simons et al., 1998).
Coecient alpha for the RAPI in the present sample (Table 1) indicated good internal con-
sistency (Nunnally, 1978).
2.3. Procedure
After providing written informed consent, willing participants completed the self-report mea-
sures in the above-listed order anonymously during class time. Participants were compensated
with one credit point toward their grade in an undergraduate psychology class.
3. Results
3.1. Sample means and bivariate correlations
Descriptive statistics on all study measures are shown in Table 1, for the total sample and for
the males and females separately. Sample means on the DMQ-R and NEO-FFI compare well
with those previously reported for university samples (cf. Costa & McCrae, 1992; Stewart &
Devine, 2000). Participants reported a mean number of alcohol problems on the RAPI and an
average drinking quantity consistent with previously-tested university samples (cf. Simons et al.,
1998; Stewart et al., 2000). Women scored higher than men on the NEO-FFI neuroticism scale,
and men scored higher than women on the DMQ-R conformity motives scale, the RAPI, and the
drinking quantity measure (see Table 1).
Bivariate correlations between all study variables for the men and the women are shown in
Table 2. Several signi®cant relationships emerged between personality domains and drinking
motives (cf. Stewart & Devine, 2000). Low agreeableness and high neuroticism were related to
coping motives, and low conscientiousness was related to enhancement motives, across genders.
High neuroticism was related to conformity and social motives among the women. Low extra-
version was related to coping motives, and low agreeableness to conformity motives, among the
Table 2
S.H. Stewart et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 30 (2001) 271±286

Bivariate correlations between all study variablesa
Personality domains (NEO-FFI) Drinking motives (DMQ-R) Drinking behavior
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Personality Domains (NEO-FFI)

1. N ± ÿ0.29 ÿ0.12 ÿ0.33 ÿ0.21 0.25 0.10 0.42 0.32 0.29 0.07
2. E ÿ0.44 ± 0.02 0.26 0.04 0.02 0.05 ÿ0.12 ÿ0.02 0.04 ÿ0.03
3. O 0.08 ÿ0.18 ± 0.09 ÿ0.09 0.01 0.11 0.05 ÿ0.05 0.05 ÿ0.09
4. A ÿ0.36 0.32 ÿ0.01 ± 0.23 ÿ0.06 ÿ0.05 ÿ0.25 ÿ0.05 ÿ0.10 ÿ0.11
5. C ÿ0.43 0.45 ÿ0.18 0.33 ± 0.02 ÿ0.29 ÿ0.05 ÿ0.01 ÿ0.17 ÿ0.12
Drinking motives (DMQ-R)

6. Social 0.18 ÿ0.12 0.00 ÿ0.17 ÿ0.09 ± 0.58 0.55 0.46 0.44 0.44
7. Enhancement 0.15 ÿ0.17 0.15 ÿ0.24 ÿ0.42 0.55
± 0.44 0.30 0.46 0.53
8. Coping 0.54 ÿ0.41 ÿ0.01 ÿ0.29 ÿ0.23 0.19 0.20 ± 0.39 0.49 0.36
9. Conformity 0.17 0.02 ÿ0.12 ÿ0.35 0.00 0.19 0.06 0.47 ± 0.31 0.05
Drinking Behavior
10. RAPI 0.42 ÿ0.43 0.07 ÿ0.49 ÿ0.41 0.10 0.29 0.59 0.49 ± 0.51
11. Quantity 0.16 ÿ0.07 0.06 ÿ0.30 ÿ0.16 0.09 0.13 0.24 0.29 0.49 ±
a
Results for women (n 111) presented above diagonal and those for men (n 43) presented below diagonal; p<0.05; p<0.01 (one-tailed
tests. N=neuroticism, E=extraversion, O=openness, A=agreeableness, C=conscientiousness. NEO-FFI=NEO ®ve factor inventory (Costa &
McCrae, 1992); DMQ-R=revised drinking motives questionnaire (Cooper, 1994); RAPI=Rutgers alcohol problem index (White & Labouvie,
1989).
277
men. The results also showed several signi®cant associations between personality domains and
the two drinking-related criterion measures (cf. Cox, 1987; Martin & Sher, 1994). Alcohol pro-
blems were positively correlated with neuroticism and negatively correlated with conscientious-
ness across genders. Alcohol problems were negatively correlated with extraversion and
agreeableness among the men. For men, drinking quantity was negatively correlated with agree-
ableness, whereas none of the personality domains were related to drinking quantity among the
women. Finally, the results also showed several signi®cant associations between drinking motives
and the two drinking-related criterion measures (cf. Cooper, 1994). Positive correlations were
observed between enhancement, coping, and conformity motives and alcohol problems across
genders. Social motives were positively correlated with alcohol problems among the women.
Interestingly, while coping, social, and enhancement motives were positively correlated with
drinking quantity for the women, conformity motives were positively correlated with drinking
quantity for the men.
3.2. Multiple regressions
Separate multiple regressions were conducted to test personality domains as predictors of each
of the four DMQ-R drinking motives. These regressions were ®rst conducted on the total sample
of drinkers, and then separately among the men and women. Scores on the four DMQ-R sub-
scales are moderately-to-highly inter-correlated (see Table 2; cf. Cooper, 1994). This common
variance may be best thought of as a general disposition or motive to drink (Stewart & Devine,
2000). Thus, we ®rst conducted a series of multiple regression analyses using each of the other
three scores on the alternative drinking motive subscales to predict each drinking motive in turn
(e.g., social, coping, and conformity motives subscale scores were entered as a block to predict
enhancement motives subscale scores). Residual scores on each drinking motive were saved as
variables for each participant, representing relatively `pure' measures of each drinking motive
after parceling out the in¯uences of the other three motives (cf. Stewart & Devine, 2000). These
residuals were used as criterion variables in multiple regressions involving personality domains as
predictors of drinking motives. In all four equations, the ®ve subscales of the NEO-FFI were
entered together as a block to determine if they signi®cantly predict each of the four residual
drinking motive scores.
Taken together as a block, personality domain scores were signi®cant predictors of the two
internal motives in the total sample: residual enhancement motives (F5; 148 6:96, p < 0:0001;
see Table 3) and residual coping motives (F5; 148 5:33, p < 0:0005; see Table 4). However,
the block of personality domain scores failed to signi®cantly predict the two external motives in
the total sample: residual social motives (F5; 148 1:85, n.s.) or residual conformity motives
(F5; 148 0:59, n.s.). Personality variables explained a signi®cant 19.0% of the variance in
residual enhancement motives scores, and a signi®cant 15.3% of the variance in residual coping
motives scores, in the total sample.
Results were similar when the genders were examined separately. Among the women, person-
ality domain scores signi®cantly predicted residual enhancement motives (F5; 105 4:58,
p < 0:001) and residual coping motives (F5; 105 3:63, p < 0:005), but failed to predict resi-
dual social motives (F5; 105 1:71, n.s.) or residual conformity motives (F5; 105 0:75,
n.s.). Among the men, personality domain scores signi®cantly predicted residual coping motives
Table 3
Multiple regression using NEO ®ve factor inventory personality domains to predict residual enhancement motives
scores from the revised drinking motives questionnaire in the total sample (n 154 drinkers)
Enhancement motives B SE B beta T p-value
Personality domains
Neuroticism ÿ0.090 0.040 ÿ0.186 ÿ2.275 0.024
Extraversion 0.032 0.054 0.047 0.591 0.555
Openness 0.047 0.053 0.066 0.882 0.379
Agreeableness 0.012 0.059 0.017 0.206 0.837
Conscientiousness ÿ0.266 0.049 ÿ0.426 ÿ5.416 0.000
(Intercept) 7.480 3.468
Table 4
Multiple regression using NEO ®ve factor inventory personality domains to predict residual coping motives scores
from the revised drinking motives questionnaire in the total sample (n 154 drinkers)
Coping motives B SE B beta T p-value
Personality domains
Neuroticism 0.097 0.028 0.290 3.473 0.001
Extraversion ÿ0.058 0.038 ÿ0.123 ÿ1.513 0.133
Openness 0.036 0.037 0.074 0.961 0.338
Agreeableness ÿ0.059 0.042 ÿ0.117 ÿ1.405 0.162
Conscientiousness 0.032 0.035 0.075 0.929 0.354
(Intercept) ÿ0.430 2.443
(F5; 37 3:17, p < 0:05) and marginally predicted residual enhancement motives
(F5; 37 2:32, p 0:06), but failed to predict residual social motives (F5; 37 0:25, n.s.) or
residual conformity motives (F5; 37 1:36, n.s.).
In the regression predicting enhancement motives (see Table 3), examination of the univariate
eects of each predictor indicated partial replication of the Stewart and Devine (2000) ®ndings.
Low conscientiousness was a signi®cant predictor of residual enhancement motives scores (partial
rs ÿ0:41, ÿ0.40, and ÿ0.44, for the total sample, women, and men, respectively). However, low
neuroticism as opposed to high extraversion, was a signi®cant independent predictor of residual
enhancement motives scores (partial rs ÿ0:18, ÿ0.16, and ÿ0.23, for the total sample, women,
and men, respectively).
In the regression predicting coping motives (see Table 4), examination of the univariate eects
of each predictor indicated replication of the Stewart and Devine ®ndings. High neuroticism was
the only signi®cant univariate predictor of residual coping motives scores (partial rs 0:27, 0.25,
and 0.39, for the total sample, women, and men, respectively).
3.3. Mediator analyses
We conducted a series of mediator regression analyses (Baron & Kenny, 1986) to test the
hypothesized intervening eects of certain drinking motives in accounting for expected
personality Ð drinking behavior/drinking outcome relations. These analyses were conducted in

the total sample of drinkers (males and females combined) to maximize statistical power, and
because the relatively small number of males did not permit a powerful test of the potential
moderating eects of gender.
In the ®rst set of regressions, we tested the hypothesis that enhancement motives mediate the
association between low conscientiousness and increased heavy drinking. The potential mediating
role of coping motives was also tested for comparison purposes. Results are summarized in Fig.
1. In the ®rst regression equation, self-reported drinking quantity scores were regressed on con-
scientiousness scores. Low conscientiousness signi®cantly predicted increased drinking quantity
in the total sample. In the second equation, residual enhancement motives scores were regressed
on conscientiousness scores. For comparison purposes, residual coping motives scores were also
separately regressed on conscientiousness scores. Lower levels of conscientiousness were found to
predict increased enhancement-related drinking, whereas conscientiousness scores were unrelated
to coping-related drinking. In the third equation, drinking quantity scores were regressed on
conscientiousness and residual enhancement motives scores simultaneously. Examination of uni-
variate eects indicated that enhancement motives predict increased drinking quantity, even in
the context of conscientiousness. The signi®cant eect of low conscientiousness on drinking
quantity evident in the ®rst equation was eliminated after accounting for the eects of enhance-
ment motives in the third equation. For comparison purposes, drinking quantity scores were also
regressed on conscientiousness and residual coping motives scores simultaneously. Examination
of univariate eects indicated that coping motives were marginally predictive of increased drink-
ing quantity, even in the context of conscientiousness scores. However, the signi®cant eect of
low conscientiousness on drinking quantity evident in the ®rst equation, was still signi®cant after
accounting for the eects of coping motives in the third equation.
In the second set of regressions, we tested the hypothesis that enhancement motives (but not
coping motives) mediate the expected association between high extraversion and increased heavy
drinking. In the ®rst regression equation, self-reported drinking quantity scores were regressed on
Fig. 1. Mediator analyses demonstrating the intervening role of enhancement motives in explaining the association
between low conscientiousness and increased drinking quantity. Notes: Partial correlation coecients are displayed in
parentheses. The partial correlations between conscientiousness and drinking quantity control for coping and
enhancement motives, respectively. The partial correlations between coping/enhancement motives and drinking quan-
tity each control for conscientiousness. Drinking quantity (drinks/occasion) was assessed with a single item self-report
measure (Stewart et al., 1995, 2000); coping motives and enhancement motives are residual scores and were assessed
with the revised drinking motives questionnaire (DMQ-R; Cooper, 1994); conscientiousness was assessed with the
NEO ®ve factor inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992). tp<0.10; p<0.05; p<0.005; p<0.001 (one-tailed
tests).
extraversion scores. Since extraversion failed to predict increased drinking quantity (r ÿ0:05,
n.s.), mediator analyses could not proceed further.
In the third set of regressions, we tested the hypothesis that coping motives serve as a mediator
of the expected association between high neuroticism and increased drinking problems. The
potential mediating role of enhancement motives was also tested for comparison purposes.
Results are summarized in Fig. 2. In the ®rst regression equation, RAPI scores were regressed on
neuroticism scores. High neuroticism signi®cantly predicted increased drinking problems. In the
second equation, residual coping motives scores were regressed on neuroticism scores. For com-
parison purposes, residual enhancement motives scores were also separately regressed on neuro-
ticism scores. High neuroticism was found to predict increased coping-related drinking, whereas
low neuroticism was found to be a marginal predictor of increased enhancement-related drinking.
In the third equation, RAPI scores were regressed on neuroticism scores and residual coping
motives scores simultaneously. Examination of univariate eects indicated that residual coping
motives scores predicted increased drinking problems, even in the context of neuroticism. Neu-
roticism's eect on drinking problems was still evident, but was substantially reduced relative to
the ®rst equation, after accounting for eects of coping motives in the third equation. For com-
parison purposes, RAPI scores were also regressed on neuroticism scores and residual enhance-
ment motives scores simultaneously. Examination of univariate eects indicated that residual
enhancement motives scores predicted increased drinking problems, even in the context of neu-
roticism. However, neuroticism still showed a highly signi®cant eect on drinking problems, after
accounting for eects of enhancement motives in the third equation.
Increased drinking quantity is an established predictor of degree of alcohol problems (cf.
Cooper, 1994; Cooper et al., 1992, 1995; Simons et al., 1998). Thus, we repeated the third set of
mediator analyses reported above using residual scores on the RAPI (after parceling out the
in¯uences of drinking quantity) as the criterion measure. The pattern of results and levels of sig-
ni®cance were similar to those displayed in Fig. 2 with the exception that residual enhancement
motives' eects on drinking problems were only marginally signi®cant (r 0:11, p < 0:10) after
accounting for drinking quantity (cf. Cooper, 1994; Simons et al., 1998).
Fig. 2. Mediator analyses demonstrating the intervening role of coping motives in explaining the association between
high neuroticism and increased alcohol problems. Notes: Partial correlation coecients are displayed in parentheses.
The partial correlations between neuroticism and alcohol problems control for coping and enhancement motives,
respectively. The partial correlations between coping/enhancement motives and alcohol problems each control for
neuroticism. Alcohol problems were assessed with the Rutgers alcohol problems index (RAPI; White & Labouvie,
1989); coping motives and enhancement motives are residual scores and were assessed with the revised drinking
motives questionnaire (DMQ-R; Cooper, 1994); neuroticism was assessed with the NEO ®ve factor inventory (NEO-
FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992). tp < 0:10; p<0.05; p<0.005; p<0.001 (one-tailed tests).
4. Discussion
The ®rst purpose of the present study was to replicate Stewart and Devine's (2000) ®ndings
regarding relations between personality domains and drinking motives in an independent sample
of university students. We used a measure of the ®ve-factor model of personality (NEO-FFI)
alternative to the measure used in our initial study (NEO-PI-R) to determine whether our pre-
vious ®ndings would generalize across personality domain measures.
As hypothesized, we replicated Stewart and Devine's (2000) ®nding that only the internal
drinking motives (coping and enhancement), but not the external drinking motives (conformity
and social), were predicted by personality domains. This result held across both male and female
drinkers. This is consistent with Cooper's (1994) speculation that personality should be more
strongly related to the internal, than to the external, drinking motives.
In terms of the speci®c personality domains predicting each of the two internal drinking
motives in multiple regressions, we replicated Stewart and Devine's (2000) ®nding that enhance-
ment motivated drinkers tend to be hasty, irresponsible, and low in self-discipline (i.e., low in the
domain of conscientiousness). These personality characteristics may relate to the tendency of
enhancement motivated drinkers to engage in heavier drinking behavior (Cooper, 1994; Cooper
et al., 1992, 1995). Presumably their low self-discipline and low deliberation would make them
less likely than others to consider the long-term consequences of their heavy drinking behavior.
Instead, low conscientious individuals would focus on ®nding sources of positive-reinforcement
in short-term incentives (such as heavy drinking) that they act without much planning or fore-
thought to acquire (cf. Cox, 1987).
Contrary to hypothesis, we failed to replicate Stewart and Devine's (2000) ®nding that
enhancement motivated drinkers also tend to be gregarious, active, and excitement seeking (i.e.,
high in the domain of extraversion). Instead, low neuroticism (i.e., assured, easygoing) indepen-
dently predicted enhancement motive scores in the present multiple regression. There are at least
two possible explanations for this discrepancy. First, dierent measures of personality domains
were used across the two studies (i.e., the briefer NEO-FFI in the present study vs the NEO-PI-R
in Stewart & Devine). Scores on the extraversion domain subscales of each measure are sig-
ni®cantly inter-correlated (i.e., r 0:90; see Costa & McCrae, 1992). Nonetheless, due to the
method in which items were selected for inclusion in the NEO-FFI (i.e., based solely on magni-
tude of factor loadings), each of the six facets of the extraversion domain (e.g., excitement seek-
ing, positive emotions) is not equally represented on the NEO-FFI extraversion scale. In fact, the
facet of the extraversion domain that is theoretically most relevant to enhancement-related
drinking (i.e., excitement-seeking; Cooper et al., 1995) is less highly represented on the extraver-
sion subscale of the briefer NEO-FFI than on the NEO-PI-R (i.e., only 8.3% vs 16.7% of items;
Costa & McCrae, 1992). Instead the positive emotions facet, which previously has been estab-
lished not to be associated with enhancement-related drinking (Cooper et al., 1995), is more
highly represented on the extraversion subscale of the NEO-FFI than on the NEO-PI-R (i.e.,
33.3% vs only 16.7% of items; Costa & McCrae, 1992). Alternatively, the discrepant ®ndings
may relate to the relatively high negative correlation between neuroticism and extraversion
observed in the present study (see Table 1) as well as in previous studies (e.g., Costa & McCrae,
1992; Stewart & Devine, 2000). It is possible that low neuroticism and high extraversion are both
relevant to enhancement-related drinking. However, due to their high inter-correlation, which of
these two variables serves as the primary predictor of enhancement motives may vary across
studies in multiple regressions.
We replicated Stewart and Devine's (2000) ®nding that coping motivated drinkers tend to be
anxious, depressed, hostile, self-conscious, and vulnerable (i.e., high in neuroticism). This ®nding
compares well with previous results that personality variables which are theoretically lower-order
components of neuroticism such as trait anxiety and anxiety sensitivity (Lilienfeld, 1996) are
predictive of degree of coping motivated drinking (see review by Stewart, Samoluk & MacDonald,
1999). This ®nding is also consistent with previous research linking high neuroticism with greater use
of avoidant coping strategies (McCrae & Costa, 1986). Drinking alcohol to avoid or escape
negative aective states may be but one of several maladaptive coping strategies employed by highly
neurotic individuals in attempts to deal with their more frequent experiences of negative aect.
The second purpose of the present study was to empirically evaluate the suggestion that certain
drinking motives may serve mediating or intervening roles in explaining previously-established
relations between personality variables and heavier drinking, and personality variables and
drinking problems. In mediator regression analyses, we showed that coping motives served as a
`partial mediator' of the relation between neuroticism and drinking problems. By contrast,
enhancement motives did not mediate the neuroticism Ð drinking problem relation. This pattern
of ®ndings is consistent with the hypothesis that highly neurotic individuals may experience more
alcohol-related problems than others, partly because when they drink, they drink to relieve/avoid
negative emotions. The mediating role of coping motives was replicated even after controlling for
drinking quantity. This suggests that highly neurotic individuals' higher levels of use-related
problems are not merely a function of how much they drink, and instead may be partially attri-
butable to their maladaptive reasons for alcohol use.
Also as hypothesized, enhancement motives (but not coping motives) proved a powerful med-
iating variable in explaining the relation between low conscientiousness and heavier drinking
behavior. This ®nding is consistent with the hypothesis that individuals low in conscientiousness
may drink more heavily than other people, because when they drink, they drink to `get high'.
Larger quantities of alcohol may be required to achieve their desired outcome of enhancing
positive mood states, which could explain the tendency of low conscientious individuals to engage
in heavier drinking behavior.
The present ®ndings add to a growing literature supporting Cooper's (1994) speculation that
drinking motives may serve as intervening variables in explaining relations between personality
and drinking behavior. For example, Cooper et al. (1995) showed that enhancement, but not
coping, motives mediated relations between excitement seeking and heavy drinking.
Several potential limitations of the present study should be acknowledged. First, our sample
consisted mainly of women. Although the personality domain predictors of coping and
enhancement motives were similar across the male and female drinkers, the relatively small
number of men precluded an assessment of possible gender dierences in the mediating role of
these internal drinking motives. We recommend that future studies include a larger sample with
more equal representation of male and female participants to examine whether gender moderates
relations between personality domains, drinking motives, and drinking quantity/alcohol pro-
blems. Second, we focused only on relations between drinking motives and higher-order person-
ality domains rather than lower-order personality facets (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Although we
failed to replicate Stewart and Devine's (2000) ®nding that high scores on the extraversion
domain were predictive of increased enhancement motives, it is still possible that scores on the
excitement-seeking facet of the higher-order extraversion domain would predict enhancement
motives scores (cf. Cooper et al., 1995; Stewart & Devine, 2000).
Additionally, all study variables were assessed via self-report. Therefore, common method
variance may at least partially account for the present ®ndings. Experimental methods should be
used to further test relations between personality domains, drinking motives, and drinking
behavior. For example, the alcohol challenge paradigm (e.g., Stewart & Pihl, 1994) could be used
to test whether low conscientious, enhancement motivated drinkers experience greater mood
enhancement from drinking, and whether highly neurotic, coping motivated drinkers are more
sensitive to the stress-response dampening eects of drinking, than others. Finally, given that the
present study used a correlational methodology, causation and direction of causation cannot be
established. Although the present ®ndings are consistent with a causal role of personality factors
in contributing to both drinking motives and drinking behavior/outcomes, alternative explana-
tions are possible (e.g., heavy drinking and/or drinking problems contributing to changes in per-
sonality; Cox, 1987). Longitudinal studies in which the emergence of heavy drinking/alcohol
problems are examined in individuals high and low in neuroticism and those high and low in
conscientiousness should be conducted in future. This would provide a more compelling test of
the hypothesis that these personality domains shape drinking motives, which in turn shape
drinking behavior and drinking outcomes.
The present results have some potential prevention implications. Our ®ndings provide further
information about which types of individuals should be targeted in harm-reduction interventions
to prevent the heavy drinking and drinking problems all-too-commonly seen among university
students (O'Hare, 1990; Stewart et al., 2000; Wechsler, Davenport, Dowdall, Moeykens & Castillo,
1994). Speci®cally, preventative interventions should be developed for undergraduate drinkers
high in neuroticism and those low in conscientiousness. Our demonstration of mediating roles of
the internal motives suggest that enhancement and coping motives should be intervention targets
for low conscientious and highly neurotic individuals, respectively. Providing alternative sources
of immediately pleasurable stimulation may be the most appropriate intervention for those low in
conscientiousness whose heavier drinking is mediated by enhancement motives. Highly neurotic
students, whose greater drinking-related problems are partially mediated by coping motives, may
bene®t most from interventions designed to teach more eective ways to deal with stress.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported, in part, by a Dalhousie University Research and Development
Fund for Humanities and Social Sciences Grant, and an Operating Grant (410-96-1044) from the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), awarded to the ®rst author.
References
Barnes, G. E. (1983). Clinical and prealcoholic personality characteristics. In B. Kissin, & H. Begleiter, The biology of
alcoholism, Vol. 6 (pp. 113±195). New York: Plenum.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological research: Con-
ceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173±1182.
Carey, K. B., & Correia, D. J. (1997). Drinking motives predict alcohol-related problems in college students. Journal of
Studies on Alcohol, 58, 100±105.
Conrod, P. J., Pihl, R. O., & Vassileva, J. (1998). Dierential sensitivity to alcohol reinforcement in groups of men at
risk for distinct alcoholic syndromes. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 22, 585±597.
Cooper, M. L. (1994). Motivations for alcohol use among adolescents: Development and validation of a four-factor
model. Psychological Assessment, 6, 117±128.
Cooper, M. L., Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Mudar, P. (1995). Drinking to regulate positive and negative emotions: A
motivational model of alcohol use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 990±1005.
Cooper, M. L., Russell, M., Skinner, J. B., & Windle, M. (1992). Development and validation of a three-dimensional
measure of drinking motives. Psychological Assessment, 4, 123±132.
Costa Jr, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO ®ve-factor inven-
tory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Cox, W. M. (1987). Personality theory and research. In H. T. Blane, & K. E. Leonard, Psychological theories of
drinking and alcoholism (pp. 55±89). New York: Guilford.
Cox, W. M., & Klinger, E. (1988). A motivational model of alcohol use. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 168±180.
Cox, W. M., & Klinger, E. (1990). Incentive motivation, aective change, and alcohol use: A model. In W. M. Cox,
Why people drink (pp. 291±311). New York: Gardner.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the ®ve-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41,
417±440.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual dierences. London, UK: Plenum.
Gray, J. A. (1982). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An inquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hays, R. D., & Huba, G. J. (1988). Reliability and validity of drug use items diering in the nature of their response
options. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 470±472.
Johnson, V., & White, H. R. (1989). An investigation of factors related to intoxicated drinking behaviors among youth.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 50, 320±330.
Johnston, L. D., & O'Malley, P. M. (1985). Issues of validity and population coverage in student surveys of drug use.
In B. A. Rouse, N. J. Kozel, & L. G. Richards, Self-report methods of estimating drug use: Meeting current challenges
to validity. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Oce (National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Mono-
graph No. 57, ADM 85-1402).
Lang, A. R. (1983). Addictive personality: A viable construct?. In P. K. Levinson, D. R. Gerstein, & R. Malo,
Commonalities in substance abuse and habitual behavior (pp. 157±235). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Lilienfeld, S. O. (1996). Anxiety sensitivity is not distinct from trait anxiety. In R. M. Rapee, Current controversies in
the anxiety disorders (pp. 228±244). New York: Guilford.
Martin, E. D., & Sher, K. J. (1994). Family history of alcoholism, alcohol use disorders, and the ®ve-factor model of
personality. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 55, 81±90.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr (1986). Personality, coping, and coping eectiveness in an adult sample. Journal of
Personality, 54, 385±405.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
O'Hare, T. O. (1990). Drinking in college: Consumption patterns, problems, sex dierences and legal drinking age.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 51, 536±541.
Schall, M., Kemeny, A., & Maltzman, I. (1992). Factors associated with alcohol use in university students. Journal of
Simons, J., Correia, C. J., Carey, K. B., & Borsari, B. E. (1998). Validating a ®ve-factor marijuana motive measure:
Relations with use, problems, and alcohol motives. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 265±273.
Sobell, L. C., & Sobell, M. D. (1990). Self-report issues in addictive behaviors (Special issue). Behavioral Assessment,
12(1).
Stewart, S. H., Angelopoulos, M., Baker, J. M., & Boland, F. (2000). Relations between dietary restraint and patterns
of alcohol use in young adult women. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 14, 77±82.
Stewart, S. H., & Devine, H. (2000). Relations between personality domains and drinking motives in young adults.
Personality and Individual Dierences, 29, 495±511.
Stewart, S. H., Karp, J., Pihl, R. O., & Peterson, R. A. (1997). Anxiety sensitivity and self-reported reasons for drug
use. Journal of Substance Abuse, 9, 223±240.
Stewart, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Pihl, R. O. (1995). Anxiety sensitivity and self-reported alcohol consumption rates in
university women. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 9, 283±294.
Stewart, S. H., & Pihl, R. O. (1994). The eects of alcohol administration on psychophysiological and subjective-
emotional responses to aversive stimulation in anxiety sensitive women. Psychology of Addictive Behavior, 8, 29±42.
Stewart, S. H., Samoluk, S. B., & MacDonald, A. B. (1999). Anxiety sensitivity and substance use and abuse. In S.
Taylor, Anxiety sensitivity: Theory, research, and treatment of the fear of anxiety (pp. 287±319). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stewart, S. H., & Zeitlin, S. B. (1995). Anxiety sensitivity and alcohol use motives. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 9, 229±
240.
Vogel-Sprott, M. (1983). Response measures of social drinking: Research implications and applications. Journal of
Wechsler, H., Davenport, A., Dowdall, G., Moeykens, B., & Castillo, S. (1994). Health and behavioral consequences
of binge drinking in college: A national survey of students at 140 campuses. Journal of the American Medical Asso-
ciation, 272, 1672±1677.
White, H. R., & Labouvie, E. W. (1989). Towards the assessment of adolescent problem drinking. Journal of Studies on
Alcohol, 50, 30±37.

Internal Drinking Motives Mediate Personality Domain Ð Drinking Relations in Young Adults

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Internal Drinking Motives Mediate Personality Domain Ð Drinking Relations in Young Adults

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Personality and Individual Differences 30 (2001) 271±286