This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Drinking to enhance and to cope: A daily process study of motive speciﬁcity
Kelly J. Arbeau a, Don Kuiken a, T. Cameron Wild b,⁎
Department of Psychology, University of Alberta, P217 Biological Sciences Building, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2E9 Addiction and Mental Health Research Laboratory, Centre for Health Promotion Studies, School of Public Health, University of Alberta, 7-30 University Terrace, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2T4
a r t i c l e
Keywords: Drinking motives College students Daily process studies
i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Objective: Daily process studies of internal drinking motives have not examined motive speciﬁcity, i.e., whether theoretically plausible trait and situational antecedents differ in their ability to predict the extent to which alcohol consumption on any given day is motivated by coping or enhancement. Method: University students (N = 81) completed trait measures of coping and enhancement-motivated drinking (trait CM and EM), sensation seeking, and conscientiousness, and then completed a 14-day online diary assessing daily completion of tasks, daily alcohol use, and (on days when alcohol was consumed) the extent to which drinking was motivated by coping or enhancement (daily CM and EM). Results: Hierarchical linear models revealed unique situational and trait antecedents of daily CM and EM. In the daily EM drinking model, main effects of daily positive affect (b = 0.11, p b 0.05), trait EM (b = 2.88, p b 0.01), and trait sensation seeking (b = 0.36, p b 0.01) were qualiﬁed by cross-level interactions between daily task accomplishment and trait conscientiousness (b = 0.03, p b 0.01), and daily task accomplishment and trait sensation seeking (b = 0.03, p b 0.01). In the daily CM drinking model, main effects of daily positive affect (b = − 0.08, p b 0.05), daily negative affect (b = 0.13, p b 0.05), and trait CM (b = 4.40, p b 0.01), were qualiﬁed by cross-level interactions between trait CM and daily positive affect (b = − 0.12, p b 0.05), trait CM and daily negative affect (b = 0.18, p b 0.01), and trait conscientiousness and daily task accomplishment (b = 0.01, p b 0.01). Conclusion: Our results replicated and extended Cooper et al.'s (1995) ﬁndings on the differential roles of sensation seeking and negative affect in CM and EM drinking at the daily level, and call into question the view that drinking motives should be solely conceptualized as individual difference variables. Theoretical and applied implications of the ﬁndings are discussed. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Alcohol use is an important part of student life at colleges and universities (Blane, 1979) and in the transition from adolescence to adulthood (Donovan, Jessor, & Jessor, 1983). A large body of research has described hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption in this population (Cyders, Flory, Rainer, & Smith, 2009; Hingson, Zha, & Weitzman, 2009; Knight et al., 2002; Wechsler, Lee, Nelson, & Kuo, 2002). Many studies describe quantity and frequency of drinking patterns (e.g., Jamison & Myers, 2008; O'Malley & Johnston, 2002), while other research has identiﬁed personal and/or environmental correlates of heavy drinking patterns and alcohol-related problems (e.g., Baer, 2002; Toomey & Wagenaar, 2002).
1.1. Motivational approaches to alcohol consumption Persistently high rates of heavy drinking and alcohol-related problems among college and university students have encouraged researchers to identify subgroups of drinkers who are at greater risk of experiencing harm. One important line of research emphasizes drinking motives, conceptualized as the “ﬁnal common pathway” to alcohol use, through which distal personal and environmental antecedents operate (Cox & Klinger, 1988). Motivational approaches to alcohol consumption emphasize the reasons drinkers give for consuming alcohol, and as such, focus on decision-making processes that lead to alcohol use (Cox & Klinger, 1988; Kuntsche, Knibbe, Gmel, & Engels, 2005). Cooper's (1994) inﬂuential model proposes that drinking motives differ in the nature of the reinforcement sought from alcohol use (positive or negative) and in the source of desired consequences of alcohol consumption (internal or external). This conceptualization yields four drinking motives, each representing a qualitatively different form of drinking behavior: drinking to be social, drinking to conform, drinking to cope with negative affect, and drinking to
⁎ Corresponding author at: School of Public Health, University of Alberta, 7-30 University Terrace, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2T4. Fax: + 1 780 492 9579. E-mail address: firstname.lastname@example.org (T.C. Wild). 0306-4603/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.07.020
Grant et al. overlooked in much of the literature (cf.g. 1994. Thus. In contrast. predict drinking behavior. Frone.. 2010).. do drinkers who report higher CM consume more alcohol and exhibit more alcohol-related problems than drinkers who report lower CM?). and how to consume alcohol (Benton et al. (2005). 2005. For example. Arbeau et al. Martens et al. motives moderated the relationship between daily anxious mood and daily alcohol consumption. see also Flynn. & Palfai. Speciﬁcally.2. The present study investigated internallymotivated drinking. & Colder. & Loba. Armeli. unlike social and conformity motives. Magid. 2003). Sher. daily mood) and between-subjects variables (e. independently of individual differences. 2002. 2007). whether theoretically plausible between-subjects (trait) and within-subjects (situational) antecedents of internally-motivated drinking differ in their ability to predict the extent to which alcohol consumption on any given day is motivated by coping or enhancement. the two drinking motives in this model for which the desired consequences involve regulation of affective states. and a body of research supports the view that CM drinking is directly associated with alcohol-related problems (Carey & Correia. but we examined them on grounds that they are theoretically plausible inﬂuences on internally-motivated daily drinking episodes.g. & Unrod. but not coping-anxiety. we predicted that individual differences in sensation seeking would be positively associated with daily EM drinking (Cooper et al.'s (1995) ﬁndings about differential predictors of CM and EM drinking using daily process measures. the extent to which alcohol consumption on any given day is motivated by coping or enhancement. Cooper. this between-subjects ﬁnding was obtained among adolescents in cross-sectional analyses and. Park.. As such. / Addictive Behaviors 36 (2011) 1174–1183 1175 enhance experience.g. 2004. Pedersen. 1. 2005. and there is mixed evidence on the relationship between EM drinking and alcohol problems (Cooper. 2003). Our second research objective was to explore whether trait conscientiousness and daily task accomplishment would also exhibit speciﬁcity in the prediction of daily CM or EM drinking. & Cimini. In contrast. only CM drinking predicted alcohol problems after controlling for typical quantity and frequency of alcohol consumption. We studied EM and CM drinking because a growing literature indicates that. argued that theoretical predictions made by models of drinking motives are necessarily process oriented (e.. Cooper et al. Our proposal is consistent with Cooper et al. drinking quantity per occasion).. Cooper (1994) reported that EM and CM drinking were both positively associated with typical frequency and quantity of alcohol use. we examined whether daily negative affect and trait sensation seeking would differentially predict the extent to which daily drinking episodes are motivated by coping or enhancement. 1996. Motive speciﬁcity and objectives of the present study Although these process-oriented studies have increased our understanding of the roles of daily factors and individual differences in the prediction of daily alcohol consumption. For example. they are associated with increased alcohol consumption and related problems..e. 2000). but not copingdepression. Students who “take care of business” before drinking can be characterized as having engaged in a form of harm reduction. and Tennen (2004. which identiﬁed different antecedents of CM and EM drinking (negative affect versus sensation seeking. Hussong. Russell. we believe that it is worthwhile to reconsider the value of conceptualizing CM and EM drinking solely as an individual difference phenomenon. Skinner.. 2010. and consume alcohol at times when the risk of negatively inﬂuencing their other activities is minimized. Park & Levenson. i.. 1992. Less research on EM drinking has been conducted. individual differences in CM drinking) have been used jointly to predict daily measures of alcohol consumption (e. These inconsistent ﬁndings may be understood if the relationship between EM drinking and alcohol problems is moderated by other variables. Also.. & Mudar. Maddock.J..'s (1995) study. 1995). The notion of motive speciﬁcity was implicit in Cooper et al. Stewart. Flynn. Enhancement-motivated (EM) drinking is an appetitive. Our theoretical elaboration is derived from a growing body of research indicating that many student drinkers strategically consider when. . Kahler. nor in a daily process study. Consistent with this more differentiated theoretical perspective. This literature suggests that many students are careful about their drinking.. involving the planning of alcohol consumption to avoid negative outcomes. LaBrie. Magid et al.'s (1995) model of internallymotivated drinking. and alcohol problems. 2007) but not with daily CM drinking (Comeau. This approach has facilitated the identiﬁcation of daily events that. Wood. the goal of the present study was to examine motive speciﬁcity in daily drinking. The latter ﬁnding has been replicated (Cooper. Neither of these variables appeared in Cooper et al. 2007). heavy drinking patterns. and Feagans (2005) reported that students scoring high on CM drinking reported reduced alcohol consumption on days in which sadness was experienced and increased alcohol use on days in which they experienced fear and shyness. i. positively reinforcing form of alcohol use emphasizing the induction of positive mood states. Read.K. For this reason.g. Ferrier. i. Delva et al. Read et al. Because so little research has examined this possibility (cf. however. initial coping-anxiety.. (2009) reported that individual differences in coping-depression. alcohol consumption and/or other trait and situational variables that contribute to the development of alcohol problems among students who typically drink to enhance experience (cf. 1995.g. to our knowledge.. Another outcome in research designs incorporating betweensubject and within-subject variables has been identiﬁcation of the moderating effects of individual differences on the relationship between daily events and drinking behavior. 2000. problem-focused coping and average negative daily mood also predicted daily drinking. 1997. Martens. work in this area has increasingly used daily process designs. people with higher CM should drink more when they feel depressed)..e. negatively reinforcing form of alcohol use emphasizing the regulation of negative affect. Mohr et al. 1993). Mohr et al. This is an adaptive feature of student drinking. However. rather than a reﬂection of individual differences. This formulation implies that daily drinking episodes should vary in their psychological meaning. Russell. but not with daily EM drinking (Flynn. 2000. motives moderated the relationship between daily depressed mood and daily alcohol consumption. (2005) showed that between-subject differences in CM drinking moderated the relationship between daily negative events and daily drinking at home: compared to low-CM students. & Mudar. In a cross-sectional analysis. high-CM students drank more on days with more negative social contacts and negative moods. e. coping-motivated (CM) drinking is a reactive. Sadava & Pak. where within-subjects variables (e. Kuntsche et al. MacLean. However.. McCormack.g. 2005. the studies reviewed thus far were only designed to answer between-subjects research questions (e.. 2001. has yet to be replicated among adults. Littleﬁeld. 2004. We predicted that daily negative affect would be positively associated with daily CM drinking. and Mohr (2009) clariﬁed these incongruous ﬁndings by suggesting that CM can be decomposed into coping-anxiety and coping-depression motives for alcohol use. Daily process studies investigating the moderating effects of between-subjects variables on situational antecedents of drinking behavior have also provided increased theoretical precision. Frone. 2004).e. Stewart.. & Wood. Mohr et al. where. Galloway. 1003). Kassel.. respectively).. 1995. Grant. Park et al.'s (1995) proposal that internallymotivated drinking is a “situationally activated” process for most drinkers (p. Extant research in this area has conceptualized EM and CM drinking solely as between-subjects phenomena. Jackson. our ﬁrst research objective was to replicate Cooper et al. Merrill & Read. 2000) found that daily negative affect predicted daily drinking and that independently of this within-subject effect.
& Grant.J. Science & Law Research Ethics Board at the University of Alberta. Although no prior research has examined this possibility. day of the week) inﬂuence the extent to which students consume alcohol to enhance experience or to cope with negative affect at the daily level. & Rhyno. For example. between-subjects. and typical alcohol use. like sensation seeking. 2010. Aasland. 1. At the daily level.90) and CM (α = 0. task accomplishment may also inﬂuence daily motive speciﬁcity. i. A total of 1626 drinkers (42% males. 2004). 1993. 2000.e.. de la Fuente. Speciﬁcally. Zuckerman's (1994) Sensation Seeking Scale Form V assessed sensation seeking. The conscientiousness subscale of the NEO Five Factor Inventory — Revised. Short Form (Costa and McCrae. Aggregate sensation seeking scale scores were used in the present study (α = 0. completed a 3-part study for partial course credit. Babor. Conceptual model of daily.87) among current drinkers. Part 1 involved baseline screening for eligibility. Between-subjects assessment Of the initial sample of 1626 drinkers. 2. an individual difference variable related to conformity and socially prescribed impulse control (Hogan and Ones. 2. This instrument includes 40 items that ask participants to select one of two competing self-descriptive statements. 1985) was used to assess conscientiousness (α = 0. Sample and procedures Participants were Introductory Psychology students at a Western Canadian University who. it is plausible that.2. . α = 0. A yes/no question screened for current drinking status. those who indicated using alcohol in the past 12 months. 2001.1. conscientiousness. Saunders.83 for full-scale AUDIT scores). the extent to which students complete important daily tasks such as work obligations and course work. among highly conscientious students. one of which reﬂects tendencies to engage in sensation seeking. These individuals then became eligible to participate in the betweensubjects assessment.85). Part 2 administered the between-subjects measures. 1997).1.. i. Conscientiousness is a plausible inﬂuence on daily motive speciﬁcity because. completion of daily tasks may be associated with daily EM drinking. Alcohol consumption was assessed using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identiﬁcation Test (AUDIT. positive affect.. Stewart. Stewart. / Addictive Behaviors 36 (2011) 1174–1183 At the between-subjects level. task accomplishment. Methods 2. Stewart and Devine.1176 K. & Ruiperez.77). The study procedures were approved by the Arts. 1. and Part 3 was a daily diary assessment. trait CM and EM drinking) and four daily situational variables (negative affect. Loughlin. and cross-level moderators of daily motive speciﬁcity in student alcohol use. we theorize that three between-subjects variables (sensation seeking. M age = 19.1.35 years) participated in the baseline screening.e. research suggests that it is differentially associated with individual differences in EM and CM drinking (Mezquita. a potentially relevant situational variable is task accomplishment.1. Arbeau et al. after giving their individual informed consent. 2. sensation seeking. Baseline screening A baseline screening instrument was administered in conjunction with other researchers as part of a mass testing session of Introductory Psychology students. Sensation seeking Conscientiousness Trait CM / EM Drinking Daily positive affect Daily negative affect Strength of situational CM or EM on drinking days Daily task accomplishment Day of the week (fixed) Fig. a potentially relevant trait is conscientiousness. Theakston et al. and Cooper's (1994) Drinking Motives Questionnaire (DMQ) assessed between-subjects EM (α = 0. 153 volunteered to participate in Part 2 of the study and completed baseline measures assessing demographics. whereas reported noncompletion of daily tasks would be associated with daily CM drinking. conscientiousness. Our overall approach for examining motive speciﬁcity in drinking behavior at the daily level is presented in Fig.
and task accomplishment) represented the Level 1 variables. Watson. Daily measures Means and correlations of daily diary variables across the study period are presented in Table 3.3. The Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS.2.87 0. 34. 2002) assessed daily and trait inﬂuences on situational drinking motives. In contrast.”Table 1 presents the ﬁnal set of items used in the present analyses. p b 0. females reported more daily negative affect (M = 17. trait EM and CM drinking scores were inversely correlated (r = −0. and daily negative affect was strongly positively correlated with daily CM drinking (r = 0. 2005).22.88. there were no other gender differences on relevant study variables.98) than were males (M = 40. and baseline scores on trait EM or CM drinking.6% of drinking days.87 0.7% as African.83. Sample scale items are ‘I managed to ﬁnish the things I needed to ﬁnish before the end of today. Two of the ten items diminished Cronbach's alpha for total scale scores and exhibited low item-total correlations.3. Hierarchical linear modeling Table 1 Internal consistency and item totals for the daily task accomplishment scale.1. Reported ethnicity did not relate to any of the study variables.30.05).71 0.05). t = −2.2% as Middle Eastern. participants were given an ID code and password to log on to the study website and were asked to complete a diary over fourteen evenings assessing mood. 55. p b 0. These results are similar to drinking behaviors reported by a nationally-representative sample of Canadian undergraduate students (Adlaf. Although females were more conscientious (M = 43. while low levels of negative affect reﬂect feelings of calmness and peace. respectively.93 on Day 1 and 0.12. while low levels of positive affect reﬂect sadness and low energy. At the end of today.88 and 0. At the end of today. p b 0. Demers. Today I did as much as I should have done on longterm projects (e. Assessment of daily covariation in experiences (positive affect. p b 0. Results 3.8% as “Other”.5. Daily assessment All 153 respondents who completed the between-subjects measures were then invited to participate in a daily diary supplement to the study.98.6% self-identiﬁed as Euro-North American.’ and ‘I did as much as I should have done today to meet the deadlines I am facing during the next week. 3. Of the 89 reported drinking days in this sample. task accomplishment.. 3.5% as South Asian. while participants rated CM as their most strongly endorsed (or equally strong) motive for using alcohol on 23 occasions (25. & Tellegen.K. students drank about once every 8. Tennen. p b 0. Level 2 (between-subjects) variables consisted of conscientiousness. 1.9% of drinking days). Day of the week was modeled as a ﬁxed effect to account for day-to-day variations in alcohol use (Carney. There were no differences on any study variables between the baseline sample of 153 participants and the analytic sample of 81 participants.44 years) completed all baseline measures and at least one daily diary entry and therefore comprised the analytic sample for this study.05).01). as appropriate. 18. strength of daily EM drinking and daily CM drinking was assessed using the enhancement and coping subscale items from the Drinking Motives Questionnaire (Cooper.33. (reversed) I managed to ﬁnish the things I needed to ﬁnish before the end of today. Of note. p b 0. / Addictive Behaviors 36 (2011) 1174–1183 1177 2. daily task accomplishment was positively correlated with daily positive affect (r = 0.69 0. p b 0.87 0. while sensation seeking and conscientiousness were inversely related.92 on Day 1 and 0. Analytic strategy for assessing motive speciﬁcity Because the primary study variables did not exhibit ethnicity or gender differences.4% of drinking days. p b 0. Item I did as much as I should have done today to meet the deadlines I am facing during the next week. Internal consistency for the daily EM subscale was excellent (αs = 0.3.22).g. t = 1.01).88 on Day 7. Baseline measures Means and standard deviations for baseline variables in the study are presented in Table 2. Armeli.68 0. and 0. 0. and other negative emotions.88 Hierarchical linear models (HLM. Reliability for the CM subscale was also excellent (αs = 0. and was slightly inversely correlated with daily negative affect (r = − 0.01).5% as European.85. (reversed) Item total Alpha if item correlation deleted 0. Among these participants.05). 2000).64 0. However.27. but not with conscientiousness (r = − 0. 1994). p b 0. p b 0.’ Response options range from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.76) than did males (M = 16. and conformity motives were endorsed on 3. M age = 19. term papers).2% as First Nations.54. Single-day reliabilities were also calculated at Day 1 and Day 7.1. Arbeau et al.71 0.45.35 years). allowing us to determine whether different between-subjects variables moderated relationships between the daily predictors and daily CM and EM ratings. but uncorrelated with the drinking-related variables among the study sample.87 0.90 on Day 1. negative affect. 3. I will feel that I have “unﬁnished business” in school or at work. participants rated EM as their most strongly endorsed motive for using alcohol (or equally strong as another motive) on 40 occasions (44. 2.01). 1988) was used to assess daily mood. Alphas for the 8-item scale were 0.71 0. In this approach.05). and for those reasons were deleted from the scale. Age was not associated with any of the baseline variables in the present study. while alphas for negative affect were 0.6 days. 23. fear.4% males.01). 3.88 0. respectively. Trait CM drinking was also positively correlated with sensation seeking (r = 0. modiﬁed to ask about reasons for consuming alcohol on that day. Raudenbush and Bryk.25. Daily positive affect was positively correlated with daily EM drinking (r = 0. Social motives were endorsed on 50. If a respondent indicated alcohol consumption on a given day. From an initial screened sample of 153 drinkers (M age = 19. There were no gender differences on enhancement and coping motive scores. & Gliksman.69 0. Our task accomplishment measure was developed from a pool of ten items created speciﬁcally for this study.65 0. Trait EM drinking was positively correlated with sensation seeking (r = 0. nor were there any differences in positive affect aggregated across daily assessments. On average.8% of drinking days). I will feel “caught up” with the tasks that I am committed to.6% females. I will have to work harder tomorrow to make up for what I did not accomplish today. and daily alcohol use (yes or no). (reversed) I worked as many hours today as I feel I should have. internal consistency estimates for positive affect were 0. Clark. ns).77 and 0. High levels of positive affect refer to a pleasurable state where one feels active and enthusiastic.J. 1.54. although the correlation was low. 81 individuals (44.11.86 on Day 7). negative affect comprises feelings of anger. averaged across all diary days.87 0. and O'Neil. I will need to “catch up” tomorrow on things that I did not ﬁnish today. Finally. daily diary entries were nested within individual respondents.1. Afﬂeck.97 on Day 7). The number of drinks consumed on drinking days ranged from 1 to 16 (M = 4. In this phase of the study.5% as East Asian. 3. we did not conduct stratiﬁed analyses in testing .87 0. sensation seeking.89 on Day 14. although the correlation was rather low (r = − 0. and 14.
13 − 0. Inclusion of trait and situational main effects and cross-level interaction terms signiﬁcantly improved the ﬁt of the model (χ 2(14) = 154. positive emotions.61 for motive speciﬁcity.12 0.01). on days when daily task accomplishment was low.14 0. trait measures of EM drinking and sensation seeking were positively related to daily EM drinking. − 0.68 12.15 0.001).21 0.65 27.90 7.20 − 0.04 0. SE= 0. − 0. Results also indicated that between-subjects differences in sensation seeking moderated the relationship between daily task accomplishment and daily EM drinking (b = 0. 3.65. 8.11 points in participants' ratings of EM drinking (p b 0.86 2.38⁎⁎ 6.98 24.08 0. high sensation seekers became more likely to report EM drinking.42⁎⁎ 0. variables not accounting for statistically signiﬁcant portions of variance in the outcome measures were removed sequentially.33.61 5.01. p b 0. for participants with low trait conscientiousness.24⁎ 0.38⁎⁎ 0.08 − 0.06 0. − 0. − 0.32 12.10 0.48⁎⁎ 0. One daily (Level 1) main effect was retained in the ﬁnal model. while the remaining 64.13⁎⁎ 4.54⁎⁎ 0. Enhancement motive 6.37⁎⁎ 0. 3. Using the same model-building approach and the same initial predictor variables in each model allowed us to examine whether. 2004).09 − 0.95 4.36 20. 0. and the other predicting daily CM drinking.75% of the variance in daily CM drinking was associated with within-subjects factors.11⁎⁎ − 0.16 4. resulting in the ﬁnal model displayed in Table 4.05. Sensation seeking 9.06 0.63 2. Arbeau et al. − 0.56 0.46⁎⁎ 0. In contrast.94 1.25% of the variance could be attributed to between-subjects factors.3. − 0.27⁎ − 0.30⁎⁎ − 0. These main effects were qualiﬁed by two signiﬁcant cross-level interactions.04 0. Between subjects and across drinking days.27⁎ 10.83⁎⁎ 0. controlling for sensation seeking.03 0.02 0. and day of the week. Day of the week Positive emotions Negative emotions Task accomplishment Desire to drink Drink to enhance Drink to be social Drink to cope Drink to conform Mean Standard deviation 2.0.82 17.88-point increase in daily EM drinking. 0. − 0.03 0.07⁎ − 0.07 6.28⁎ − 0. t (78) = 3.00 6.06 3. on days when alcohol was consumed. As daily task accomplishment increased.32 6.31 6.06 0.2.36⁎⁎ − 0. Predictor terms were modeled on the intercepts. p b 0.24⁎ 0.51⁎⁎ − 0. − 0. we estimated two separate multilevel models. and correlations of daily diary measures.45⁎⁎ 0. different direct and trait-moderated effects of situational variables predicted daily EM drinking versus daily CM drinking.20 − 0.10 − 0. 3 shows that.03.90 1. participants scoring low or high on sensation seeking were equally likely to report EM drinking. Predicting daily enhancement drinking motives A null model with no predictors revealed that 35. 0. there was an inverse relationship between daily task accomplishment and daily EM drinking. beginning with the predictor with the largest p value.10 1.88 6.55⁎⁎ 0. On days when alcohol was consumed. a one-unit increase in daily positive affect was associated with a signiﬁcant increase of 0.28⁎⁎ 0. however. and negative emotions were each modeled as ﬁxed effects. 2.11⁎ 5. Negative drinking consequences 8. with the exception of those variables having one or more cross-level interactions (Ma.02% of the variance was associated with betweensubjects factors.3. − 0.17. t (78) = 3.001).05). 1. standard deviations. Controlling for the other predictor variables in the model. The inclusion of individual predictors and cross-level interaction terms signiﬁcantly improved the ﬁt of the model (χ2(8) = 61. Next.10 0. all main effect predictors and interaction terms were entered into each model. As shown in Fig.45 18.01.J. 4. AUDIT score Mean Standard deviation ⁎ α ≤ 0.52 4. while low sensation seekers became less likely to report EM drinking. − 0. controlling for trait EM drinking.44⁎⁎ − 0.77 5. Predicting daily coping drinking motives A null model with no predictors revealed that 25.33 22. Fig.45⁎⁎ 9.76 7.10 − 0. 1. 2.33⁎⁎ 0.17⁎⁎ − 0. while the remaining 74. there was a positive relationship between daily task accomplishment and daily EM drinking.36⁎⁎ 7.57 0.40 0. 9.13 0. 0.20 42.45⁎⁎ 0.36-point increase in daily EM drinking.27⁎ − 0. corresponded to a 0. Nonsigniﬁcant predictors were eliminated sequentially.40⁎⁎ 7. p b 0. 0.12 0.08 19.01.01 0. SE = 0.34 5.00 − 0.54⁎⁎ 6. / Addictive Behaviors 36 (2011) 1174–1183 Table 2 Means. 0.3.21 8.73⁎⁎ 8.44 3.06 − 0. until only statistically signiﬁcant predictors remained in the model. 6. p b 0. Initially. Gender 3. Coping motive 5. Instead. Two betweensubjects main effects were also retained in the ﬁnal model. Social motive 4. there was a reliable cross-level interaction between daily task accomplishment and trait conscientiousness in the prediction of daily EM drinking (b = 0.01 − 0. and correlations of baseline variables.46⁎⁎ 5.11 − 0. Age (in years) 2.50 3. Table 5 Table 3 Means.48⁎⁎ − 0.40⁎⁎ 9.61⁎⁎ 0.98% of the variance in daily EM drinking was associated with within-subjects factors.52⁎⁎ 0.04 − 0.09⁎ 0. A one-unit increase in baseline sensation seeking. 2. 1. 5.04.22⁎ 0.32 . a one-unit increase in trait EM drinking predicted a 2. Controlling for day of the week and daily task accomplishment.09⁎ − 0.14 0.05 1. ⁎⁎ α ≤ 0. 0.1178 K.43⁎⁎ 0. for highly conscientious participants.13 3. standard deviations.82 0. Conformity motive 7.54⁎⁎ − 0. on days when alcohol was consumed.32 8. 3. Conscientiousness 10. 7.12 − 0.01). one predicting daily EM drinking.36 6.71 2.54⁎⁎ − 0. Positive and negative affect were modeled as ﬁxed effects because the conditional Level 1 model showed that there was no random variance remaining to be explained. 1.
B Daily variables Day of the week (ﬁxed) Positive affect Task accomplishment Between-subjects variables Trait EM (enhancement motives) Sensation seeking Conscientiousness Cross-level interactions Task accomplishment × conscientiousness Task accomplishment × sensation seeking ⁎ p b 0. ⁎⁎ p b 0.13point increase in CM drinking (pb 0.01 . controlling for the other predictors.01. − 0. the extent to which respondents endorsed daily EM and CM was predicted by different situational and trait variables. p b 0.27 0. 6 shows that conscientiousness moderated the relationship between daily task accomplishment and daily CM drinking (b = 0.03 10.13⁎ 0.18. ⁎⁎ p b 0.05).68 Task Accomplishment Fig. there was no relationship between daily negative affect and Fig.01. These main effects were qualiﬁed by three cross-level interactions between daily positive affect and between-subjects CM.04 9. daily CM scores were positively associated with trait CM and daily negative affect. betweensubjects CM drinking moderated the effect of daily positive affect on daily CM drinking (b = − 0. Trait conscientiousness moderates the effect of daily task accomplishment on strength of daily enhancement-motivated drinking.08 0. on Table 5 HLM model predicting daily endorsement of coping motives. As shown in Fig.41 4. Arbeau et al.12 SE 0.70 -14. A one-unit increase in daily negative affect. B SE 0. First. In summary. 5.01).23 0.09⁎ 0. research on internally-motivated student alcohol use has focused on identifying subgroups of ‘high risk’ student drinkers. participants reporting high levels of trait CM were more likely to endorse daily CM drinking. 0.05. Highly conscientious participants were more likely to report daily CM drinking as daily task accomplishment increased. In contrast.05.42⁎⁎ 0. Trait CM predicted a 4. Finally.01). moreover.68. SE = 0. was retained in the ﬁnal model.05). Conversely.04 2.79 Task Accomplishment presents ﬁnal results from the same model building strategy described earlier.09-point decrease in CM drinking on days when alcohol was consumed (pb 0.04 7.05. participants with low levels of trait CM drinking were less likely to engage in daily CM drinking. In contrast.00 -6.06 0.02⁎⁎ 0.04⁎⁎ 0. p b 0.60 3.08 1.01 0.05.37 0.18⁎⁎ 0. daily CM drinking among participants who were low on trait CM drinking.09 0. and daily task accomplishment and trait conscientiousness. but became less likely to report daily CM drinking as daily positive affect increased. Trait CM also moderated the effect of daily negative affect on daily CM drinking (b = 0. t (76) = −2. t (76) = 3.03 0. As shown in Fig.59 0.01). a one-unit increase in reported positive affect corresponded to a 0. SE = 0.01. p b 0.07 0. 2.02.26.13 Daily variables Day of the week (ﬁxed) Positive affect Negative affect Task accomplishment Between-subjects variables Trait CM (coping motives) Conscientiousness Cross-level interactions Positive affect × trait CM Negative affect × trait CM Task accomplishment × conscientiousness ⁎ p b 0.42-point increase in daily CM drinking ratings (pb 0.36⁎⁎ 0.55 Low Conscientiousness High Conscientiousness Enhancement-Motivated Drinking To date. Controlling for day of the week and task accomplishment.04 -9.04 0. Discussion 12. corresponded to a 0. and were inversely associated with daily positive affect. Trait sensation-seeking moderates the effect of daily task accomplishment on strength of daily enhancement-motivated drinking.12⁎ 0.11⁎ − 0. 4.70 0.37 Enhancement-Motivated Drinking 11. Daily EM scores were positively associated with trait EM.K.12. Fig. Two situational main effects were retained in the ﬁnal model. daily positive affect.05). These main effects were qualiﬁed by two crosslevel interactions involving sensation seeking and situational task accomplishment. and trait sensation seeking. t (70) = 2. One between-subjects variable. daily task accomplishment was largely unrelated to daily CM drinking.80 -0. and this relationship was largely unrelated to daily positive affect. / Addictive Behaviors 36 (2011) 1174–1183 Table 4 HLM model predicting daily endorsement of EM.06 1179 Low Sensation Seeking High Sensation Seeking 12.07 0. trait CM drinking. in comparison.41.01 7. participants with high levels of trait CM drinking reported higher ratings of daily CM drinking.08 − 0. In contrast. 4. SE = 0.84 9. These main effects were qualiﬁed by three signiﬁcant cross-level interactions. − 0. on days when our respondents consumed alcohol.14 0.00 -4.03⁎⁎ 0.84 9. among less conscientious participants.05 5.88⁎⁎ 0.65 0. daily negative affect and between-subjects CM.59 7. 3. they became more likely to endorse daily CM drinking as daily negative affect increased.J.76 17.01 8.
95 9.e.J. Although this is useful for characterizing alcohol consumption among drinkers scoring at extreme ends of CM drinking and EM drinking distributions. 1995. i. with a growing body of evidence supporting the view that individual differences in CM drinking moderate effects of daily negative affect and other negative daily events on quantity of alcohol consumption (Grant. 2004.'s model of internal drinking motives at the daily level. Speciﬁcally. 2010).00 10. The present study also provided support for a theoretical extension to this model by incorporating ﬁndings that most student drinkers think strategically about when. We proposed that three between-subjects variables 16. .04 11. Park. low sensation seekers who had met their daily responsibilities were less likely to report drinking to enhance their experience.37 Low Drink to Cope (Typical) High Drink to Cope (Typical) (sensation seeking.1180 K.97 7.75 8..04 Low Drink to Cope (Typical) High Drink to Cope (Typical) 10. 6. the extent to which situational drinking episodes are more or less motivated by CM or EM. overemphasis on internal drinking motives as an individual difference phenomenon has prevented an examination of motive speciﬁcity. but not daily CM drinking.26 Negative Affect Fig.33 2.00 2. Park and Levenson.. almost all research in this area views internally-motivated drinking solely as a between-subjects phenomenon. these individuals seek out alternative activities or drink for reasons other than enhancement. Sadava and Pak.54 Low Conscientiousness High Conscientiousness Coping-Motivated Drinking 10. 1997. at the daily level..00 18. & Mohr. sensation seeking exhibited motive speciﬁcity on days when alcohol was used: sensation seeking predicted daily EM drinking.36 2.49 5. Also as anticipated.80 -12. conscientiousness exhibited motive speciﬁcity on days when alcohol was used: highly conscientious individuals were more likely to report drinking to enhance experience when they had completed their daily tasks. Drinking to enhance experience As predicted. 1996.92 8.09 9. day of the week) inﬂuence the extent to which students drink to enhance experience or to cope with negative affect on days where alcohol is consumed. 1993) and that individual differences in both CM and EM are associated with distinct patterns of alcohol consumption and related problems (Merrill & Read.00 -6. task accomplishment. Arbeau et al. 5.40 -14. / Addictive Behaviors 36 (2011) 1174–1183 12. Speciﬁcally.12 8. the assumption that high between-subjects scores on trait CM and EM would be associated with greater consumption and alcohol-related problems. 2002. In general. respectively. Typical coping motives moderate the effect of daily negative affect on strength of daily coping-motivated drinking. conscientiousness.36 8. 4. Despite these advances. 2009. the present results provided a replication and extension of Cooper et al. Mohr et al.48 Coping-Motivated Drinkin -5.76 7. Typical coping motives moderate the effect of daily positive affect on daily coping-motivated drinking.52 16. These results were qualiﬁed by an interaction such that high sensation seekers were more likely to endorse daily EM on days with high levels of task accomplishment. the present study explored predictors of EM and CM drinking at the daily level. 2007). 2005. but at the daily level. Task Accomplishment Fig. McCormack... where. Trait conscientiousness moderates the effect of daily task accomplishment on strength of daily coping-motivated drinking. positive affect. Magid et al. trait CM and EM) and four situational/daily variables (negative affect. less conscientious participants were more likely to report drinking to enhance experience when they had failed to complete their daily tasks. & Tennen. we observed that trait conscientiousness and daily task accomplishment moderated the effects of sensation seeking and daily negative affect on the extent to which alcohol consumption on any given day is motivated by coping or enhancement.74 11. This moderator effect suggests that enhancement-motivated drinking Coping-Motivated Drinking 13. 2004). To address this issue.'s (1995) ﬁndings that daily negative affect and trait sensation seeking differentially predict the extent to which alcohol consumption is motivated by coping or enhancement. Stewart. 4.45 20.00 Positive Affect Fig. 1995. In contrast.85 30. 2005. Daily process studies have reﬁned our understanding of CM drinking. 1992.. suggesting that when they have completed their daily tasks and responsibilities. in light of consistent evidence demonstrating that elevated scores on trait CM drinking are associated with alcohol problems (Carey and Correia. our results conceptually replicated Cooper et al. In contrast.. Armeli. This approach has been fruitful. Delva et al.1. and how they consume alcohol (Benton et al. 2004. suggesting that these student drinkers wait for an appropriate opportunity to pursue stimulation by drinking to enhance experience. Martens et al.19 5. 2007).. These ﬁndings replicate previous research indicating that sensation seeking is particularly important in the prediction of EM drinking (Cooper et al. Cooper et al.87 -7.
4. 2002). which appears to be more concerned with seeking out stimulation and positive experiences. These results were qualiﬁed by an interaction indicating that high trait-CM students were more likely to report daily CM drinking when they reported high levels of daily negative affect. Finally. Further research is required. HLM weights those participants who complete more days more heavily than it weights those participants who provide less data. and motives only once in the present study.2. (2005) reported a similar negative relationship between average daily positive mood and typical endorsement of CM. Samples of younger adolescents and of older adults may reveal patterns of EM and CM drinking that differ from those observed in this study. and after internally motivated alcohol use. and particularly the relationship between mood and internal drinking motives. a primary difference between the two models was the presence of interactions involving daily positive and negative affect in the coping motivation model and only positive affect in the enhancement motivation model. Mohr et al. Speciﬁcally. Borsari. or by asking participants to provide data when considering alcohol use and then following the drinking behavior. On drinking days. Limitations and future directions One limitation of this study concerns the direction of the relationships observed. 2005. 2010). Moreover.. Drinking to cope with negative affect As predicted. Finally.. These ﬁndings replicate previous research indicating that negative affect is particularly inﬂuential in motivating daily coping motivated drinking among students who typically report drinking to cope with negative affect (Cooper et al. although the impact is less than that of more stable traits. Mohr et al.K. However. Park et al. or was experienced simultaneously with. either at speciﬁc times. Research on the natural history of alcohol use across the university experience indicates that the quantity and frequency of alcohol consumption typically increase upon entry into the university environment (Baer. Future research should examine whether drinking to enhance experience is more common and whether alcohol-related problems are more likely to occur among student drinkers who score low on trait conscientiousness and who chronically do not complete daily tasks. However. 2004). An additional limitation in the study was attrition over the fourteen days of the daily diary. alcohol use. as implied by our results. while prior research tells us that high trait-CM drinkers are .. to replicate these ﬁndings and to conﬁrm that the harm reduction perspective implied by conscientiousness and daily task accomplishment provides added explanatory value in understanding when students drink to enhance experience or to cope with negative affect. the present results have potential implications for developing interventions designed to reduce hazardous and harmful alcohol use among students. from an applied perspective.. 2002). Some 75. respectively. or whether the negative mood followed. 2002. In contrast. As well. highly conscientious participants were more likely to report daily CM drinking on days with high task accomplishment. Murphy. it may be that those participants who contributed the most data are not representative of all participants on key study variables. but not EM ratings. 1995. for example. for example. & Barnett. Park & Levenson. high trait-CM students were less likely to endorse daily-level CM drinking as positive mood increased. 2007. Perkins. during. Arbeau et al. positive affect but not negative affect predicted daily endorsement of enhancement moti- vated drinking. and then decreases again following graduation (Perkins. A limitation to generalizability is the use of a university student sample in this study. In contrast. preceded CM drinking on a given day. respectively. 4.5% completed Day 14. however. Comparing EM and CM models A key feature of both models was that between-subjects predictors generally accounted for more variance in daily EM and CM ratings than did situational factors. A next step in the research would be to assess mood before. A lagged design might also prove useful in future research in which mood from the previous day predicts the current day's alcohol use. 4. and related problems. 2000.e. but at the daily level.. tailored intervention approaches could be developed to target the unique conﬁguration of trait and situational variables that predict the psychological meaning of daily alcohol consumption patterns. suggesting that these students may feel more at liberty to drink for coping motivated reasons when their tasks are completed. the sample might not be representative of the general university population. drinking to cope. In contrast. was associated with daily factors such as mood and task accomplishment. as would be required by a repeated-measures ANOVA design. Another related ﬁnding across the two models was that the strongest predictors of daily enhancement motivated and coping motivated drinking were between-subjects EM and CM ratings. This pattern for coping motivated drinking strengthens the argument that coping motivated drinking is very much associated with affect regulation (Cox & Klinger. This strengthens the case for including trait variables in motivational models of alcohol use (Kuntsche et al. 2005. Moreover. 2002. These ﬁndings indicate that the day-to-day changes in university students' mood and completion of tasks have also substantial inﬂuence on their reasons for drinking at the daily level. although they did not examine coping motivated drinking at the daily level. Moreover.'s (1995) original ﬁndings concerning the differential roles of sensation seeking and negative affect in EM and CM drinking. Mezquita et al. These results conﬁrm that trait differences in internally-motivated drinking are potent inﬂuences on daily CM and EM. In this way. the presence of positive affect in both models establishes the key role that the positive emotions play in the prediction of either type of daily internal drinking motives. / Addictive Behaviors 36 (2011) 1174–1183 1181 among students who are less conscientious may be maladaptive because it occurs more frequently when other responsibilities have been left incomplete. frequent and heavy drinkers might not have participated in our study.3% of participants completed the diary on Day 7. If daily EM and CM drinking do exhibit motive speciﬁcity. Finally. 53% percent completed Day 11 and only 18. Flynn. the method of analysis can make use of all the data rather than discarding data from participants who failed to complete all the diaries. The present study cannot determine conclusively whether a negative mood. and approximately one-quarter of the variance in the daily CM model. the present study provides a comprehensive approach to understanding internally-motivated student alcohol use. low trait-CM students were relatively unaffected by daily negative affect in relation to daily CM drinking. slightly more than one-third of the variance in the daily EM model. Future research should explore whether trait conscientiousness moderates the relationship between coping motivated drinking.3. drinking to enhance experience among students who are more conscientious appears to be more adaptive because it is more likely to occur when risks (i. 2002). 4. 1999. our results replicate Cooper et al. With respect to situational inﬂuences. they may tend to drink less heavily or might be more conscientious.J. perhaps as a form of postlabor repair and/or tension reduction. the present study demonstrated the value of including trait conscientiousness and daily task accomplishment in models of internally-motivated drinking. alcohol consumption. EM drinkers were overselected for participation in this study. deadlines and other tasks needing completion) have been minimized. Participants reported their daily mood. Two other signiﬁcant interactions provide a more differentiated perspective on CM drinking at the daily level. negative affect exhibited motive speciﬁcity on days when alcohol was consumed: daily negative affect predicted daily CM ratings. Despite these limitations. For example.
Holahan. G. Drinking to cope among college students: Prevalence. 392–403.. S. and alcohol expectancies. Moos. Zha. C. C. Stewart. (2002). 53. 193–202. 971–984. M.. J.. S. Carey. C. U. 65–77. P. Martens. Fromme. Sheehy.S. 44. 97.. 16. G. Park. J. 101.. D. M. Drinking to regulate positive and negative affect: A motivational model of alcohol use. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 849–870). Advanced seminar in hierarchical linear modeling.. 104(2). 2062–2086. Delva.. (1985). W.. E. & Engels. & Jessor. K.J. Addiction.. K. S. Stress-Motivated Drinking in Collegiate and post-collegiate young adulthood: Life course and gender patterns. Stewart. with assistance from DK and TCW. & Colder. Benton. 26. A. Moving beyond the keg party: A daily process study of college student drinking motivations. 2003). Hogan.. and sensation seeking to adolescents' motivations for alcohol. S. College Student Journal. G. & H. H. V. E.. M. R. 48–52.. Shin. Personality and Individual Differences.. 41.. Magnitude and trends in alcoholrelated morbidity and mortality among US college students ages 18–24. & S. Stewart. LaBrie. Youth. J. T. 23. & Rhyno. Armeli. Ruth. M.. (2009). Flory. S. K. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. (2009). Student factors: Understanding individual variation in college drinking. M. coping. Knowlden-Loewen. 63. 307–315. (2009). T. Addiction. 40–53. Odessa. 68. Supplement No. R. J.). 344–354.. AB. (1983). (2004). Knibbe. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. A motivational model of alcohol use. B. Babor. Gmel. Y. H. and TCW designed the study. (2005). & Cimini. Blane. Brannigan. Russell. M. 226–237. PhD.. C. (2005).1182 K. Toronto: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. & Newton. K. H. 24. P. R. L. W. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. writing the manuscript. 49(3)... (1997). Howell. (1995). J. L. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. S. X. 115–121. W. A... A. 240–245. Calgary. S. Todd. L. R. Big-Five personality domains predict drinking motives. Canada. C. 32(10). M. 990–1005. J. G. B. 705–711. problems and coping processes. Merrill. M. Motivations for alcohol use among adolescents: Development and validation of a four-factor model. 219–227.). 698–705. H. Armeli. CA: Sage. Stress-related problem drinking and alcohol problems: A longitudinal study and extension of Marlatt's model. J. G. P. 43(4). C.. W. & Ruiperez. II. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. David Miall (University of Alberta). L. S. K. Pedersen. 37. J. M. 492–497. The daily stress and coping process and alcohol use among college students. Personality and Individual Differences. collection. C. Kuntsche. E. T. PhD. Motivational pathways to unique types of alcohol consequences. Middle-aged alcoholics and young drinkers. Sadava. 66.. 446–464. Ma. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science. Seibring. H.. E. Clinical and Experimental Research. S. S. Baer.. (2004). (2000). (2007). Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identiﬁcation Test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption. E.. 65. Park. or interpretation of data. L. R. D. (2004).. M. Jessor. Addictive Behaviors.. Western statistics seminars.. Measuring alcohol-related protective behavioral strategies among college students: Further examination of the protective behavioral strategies scale. (2007). M. Stewart. O'Malley. J. 14. College student protective strategies and drinking consequences. W. D. H. Role of funding sources Funding for this study was provided by a Department of Psychology.. & Myers... M. (2005). & Palfai.. 495–511. P. Galloway. Martens.. 91–100. Duo. R. NEO PI-R professional manual. Skinner.. M. Hussong. Afﬂeck. The funding sources had no involvement in study design. & Rivet. grant to KJA and by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council operating grant held jointly by DK and Dr. (1996). Cooper. 126–135.. E. P. L. Problem drinking in adolescence and young adulthood. & Unrod. Nancy Galambos. H. and harm reduction activities and encourage them to use this information to change the reasons they consume alcohol on a daily basis. Chafetz (Eds. D. R... Journal of Studies on Alcohol. Littleﬁeld. Wood. Newton. Rainer. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. T. cigarette. Armeli. V. Peer-group and price inﬂuence students drinking along with planned behavior. R. L. Holahan. Coping-anxiety and coping-depression motives predict different daily mood-drinking relationships. 17. & Wood. All authors substantially contributed to and have approved the ﬁnal manuscript. Young adults' coping style as a predictor of their alcohol use and response to daily events. (2001). Drinking in stressful situations: College men under pressure. Journal of Studies on Alcohol.. . W. Relations between personality and drinking motives in young people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology... Raudenbush.. Saunders. & Klinger. & McCrae. de la Fuente. Frone.. and that they lack other. J. & Lehman. A. S. alcohol. means of coping with distress (Fromme & Rivet.. anxiety sensitivity. the present results suggest that conscientiousness and daily task accomplishment could represent targets for intervention activities designed to decrease the extent to which alcohol consumption on any given occasion is motivated by coping with negative affect. M. A. & Mudar. J. G. M.. (1999). Tennen. & Barnett. Differentiating between sensation seeking and impulsivity through their mediated relations with alcohol use and problems. 271–286. Wechsler. (2002). Psychological Assessment. Cyders. Grant. B. P. Kahler. Do drinking motives mediate the relation between personality change and “maturing out” of problem drinking? Journal of Abnormal Psychology. and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Coping motives as a moderator of daily mood-drinking covariation.. In G. 65.. & Smith. D. & Ones. (2004). Frone. M. & Feagans. Conﬂict of interest All authors declare that they have no conﬂicts of interest.. Journal of American College Health. B. and marijuana use. L. A. C. J. Knight. & Weitzman. KJA collected and analyzed the data and wrote the ﬁrst draft of the manuscript. college students. J. S. Sher. Epidemiology of alcohol and other drug use among American college students. E.. & Tennen. & Correia. Comeau. 21. S. Jr.. Addictive Behaviors. Maddock. H. R.. G. Russell. M. (2002). Briggs (Eds. Contributors KJA.. Johnson. P. (1993). M.. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Tennen. (2003). J. & Jackson. Loughlin. 332–340. Demers. Krahn (Chairs). Supplement. Personality and Individual Differences.... A. 5–38). (2008). Addictive Behaviors. 93–105. (2007). D. T. C. Hingson. J. & Gliksman. New York: Plenum. L.. Addictive Behaviors. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. Examining the role of drinking motives in college student alcohol use and problems. Carney. R. (1993). Journal of Studies on Alcohol. The role of personality dispositions to risky behavior in predicting ﬁrst-year college drinking. (2002). K. Alcohol and Alcoholism. K. (1992). San Diego. (1979). Ferrier. M. D. the present results suggest that interventions could be developed for students to help them identify their own typical drinking motives. E. Drinking to cope and alcohol use and abuse in unipolar depression: A 10-year model. J. 66. A. M. (2010). Mezquita. Cooper. A.. 788–798. H. 486–497. L. P. perceived stress. M. 24. 791–804. Workshop conducted at the University of Alberta and University of Calgary Data Training Schools and Statistics Seminars. Acknowledgments The authors thank Erin Barker. H. (2005). Stewart. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. E. Wilke. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods.. D. & Mohr. Blane.. and alcohol use: A diary study. 60(2). E. J.. A... & Levenson. mood-related triggers. and contextual issues behind the drinking motives in young people. L. 159–165.. 1844–1857. (2004). P. 85–97. & Carney. University of Alberta. & Bryk. Surveying the damage: A review of research on consequences of alcohol misuse in college populations... Anderson. N. R. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. Who drinks and why? A review of socio-demographic. (1997). S. F. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. Internal drinking motives mediate personality domain-drinking relations in young adults. and Ambikaipakan Senthilselvan. (1988). Thousand Oaks. Kassel. & Read... Theakston. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. Donovan. P. PhD.. M. & Devine.. (2002). analysis. Borsari. 803–825. Corbett. A study of the relationship between protective behaviors and drinking consequences among undergraduate college students. Development of the protective behavioral strategies scale. & Loba. Arbeau et al. (2005). personality. (2000). H.. M. PhD for their assistance with this project.. Benton. MacLean. (2000). M. H. E. Comparison of cross-sectional and daily reports in studying the relationship between depression and use of alcohol in response to stress in college students. A. Stewart. 14. A. R. A. Murphy. 23. Predictors of alcohol use during the ﬁrst year of college: Implications for prevention. P. J. L. Aasland. & Schuckit.. W. D. J. Canadian campus survey 2004. & Pak. 69. A. (2010).. 63(4). 13–23. W. Read. 139–152. R. J.. S. 1996– 2005... I.. R.. 31. C. Jackson. S. V... D. Journal of Studies on Alcohol... N. A. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. (2002). References Adlaf. McCormack. Andrea Howard. Perkins. Harrison. T. J. S. Drinking motives predict alcohol-related problems in college students. Perkins. (1994). M. 29. W. P. 112. A. The relations of trait anxiety. C. DK. Ferrier. Jamison. Alcoholism. In R. Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources. 2046–2061. Clark. H.. (2000). 30.. at increased risk for drinking problems (Holahan et al.. 58. M. more functional. T. B. B... More broadly. 19. & Randall. Conscientiousness and integrity at work. (2010).. L. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. H. 18–26. Costa. R.. & Simmons. Positive and negative daily events. 88. 63. 263–270. 109–137. J. E. 1994). Schmidt. S. (1994).. L. & O'Neil. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. A. D. & Mudar. G. D. K. & Grant. 32(10). Smith. R. and social policy (pp. S. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. P.. We also owe a special debt of gratitude to our enthusiastic and willing participants. A. C. Weitzman. Alcohol abuse and dependence among U. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors.. M.. K. Big-ﬁve personality domains predict internal drinking motives in young adults. CA: Academic Press. 30. (2001). 117–128. P. A. Dawson. Generalized expectancies for negative mood regulation and problem drinking among college students.. / Addictive Behaviors 36 (2011) 1174–1183 Flynn. 23–39. J. M. Stress and alcohol use: Moderating effects of gender. D. 168–180. 25. 6. 100–105.. R. A. S. (2003). F. 119(1). Handbook of personality psychology (pp. O.. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. M. R. W. Magid.. Personality and Individual Differences. N. & M. Cox. M.. & Johnston. 12–20... W. Cooper. H.. Hogan. L. Mohr. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. In H. F.
E. M. Watson. Supplement..J.... & Tellegen. H. 1063–1070. T. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. & Kuo. 14. Clark.K. Journal of American College Health. (2002). . A. & Wagenaar. Zuckerman. Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. A. J. (1994). (2002). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. (1988). access to alcohol. 54. 223–236. New York: Cambridge University Press. 50. L. Underage college students' drinking behavior. Nelson. 193–205.. C. 1183 Wechsler. E. M. Environmental policies to reduce college drinking: Options and research ﬁndings. / Addictive Behaviors 36 (2011) 1174–1183 Toomey. and the inﬂuence of deterrence policies. T. Lee.. A. D. Arbeau et al. L.