Alcohol norms and expectations as predictors of alcohol use and problems in a college student sample.

Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by UB Kiel on 10/28/14 For personal use only.

AM. J. DRUG ALCOHOL ABUSE, 18(4), pp. 461-476 (1992)

Alcohol Norms and Expectations as Predictors of Alcohol Use and Problems in a College Student Sample Mark D. Wood Craig T. Nagoshi* David A. Dennis Department of Psychology Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona 85287

ABSTRACT Two-hundred thirty-one alcohol-using college students completed a questionnaire on their levels of alcohol use, moderate to severe problems with alcohol use, expectations of the effects of alcohol on their own and others’ moods and behaviors, the desirability of these effects, norms of significant others for levels of alcohol use and the subject’s desire to comply with these norms, reasons for drinking and not drinking alcohol, and a personality measure. Expectations of alcohol effects, norms of significant others. and reasons for drinking and not drinking alcohol were all significant independent predictors of alcohol use and problems with alcohol use. Expectation X desirability of effects formulations and norms x desire to comply with norms formulations did not improve the predictive power of the expectations and norms scales.

INTRODUCTION Alcohol expectancies have repeatedly been found to be concurrent predictors of drinking patterns [l], and recent research by Christiansen et al. [2] demonstrated that expectancies were predictive of drinking one year later among a sample

*To whom reprint requests should be addressed

46 I


462

WOOD, NAGOSHI, AND DENNIS

composed of adolescents. Expectancies have yielded greater predictive validity for drinking than that achieved by more traditional methods, such as combinations of background and demographic variables, in both an adolescent population [3] and a college student population [4]. Leigh’s [l] review points out that alcohol expectancy research has been hampered by both limitations in the measures available and by the lack of a theoretical base for current research. A relationship between expectancies and drinlung measurement scales has been consistently demonstrated, but differences between the various scales have made generalizationsacross studies difficult. Additionally, Leigh [ l , 51 suggests that alcohol expectancy subscales may not adequately define the discrete, intrinsic factors that they are purported to be measuring. Normative beliefs concerning alcohol are widely believed to affect alcohol use. Studies investigating alcohol norms as predictors of adolescent drinking behavior have found significant correlations, but the use of cross-sectionaldata leaves direction of causality questions unresolved [6, 71. Dembo and Shern [8] describe a sociocultural view as one of the major themes of sociologically based research into the drug use of urban youths and young adults. The sociocultural perspective, which proposes that the drug user is engaging in socially learned behavior that is consistent with the experiences of hidher peers, has direct application to alcohol use and the formation of drinking norms. Leigh [11 discusses the dearth of theory testing in alcohol expectancy literature and points to the applicability of a large body of research on attitude-behavior relationships. Early research on the relationship between attitude and behavior produced generally inconsistent or nonsignificant relations between the variables [9, 101. More recent research has identified methodological and conceptual problems present in a great many earlier studies, and these later results have been much more supportive of the theory. Ajzen and Fishbein [ 1 11 proposed an attitude-behavior paradigm, the Theory of Reasoned Action, as a model which incorporates two major variables which determine specific behavioral intentions, a personal or ‘‘attitudinal” factor and a social or “normative” factor. These two components can be given empiricallyderived weights [ 111 in any given case. The attitudinal component is proposed to be a function of the perceived consequences of an act and of the values ascribed to them by the person. Alcohol expectancies are analagous to attitudes in that they contain a belief and an evaluative component which leads to behavior, in this case drinking. The inclusion of value measures (i.e., the desirability of the consequences of the behavior) in alcohol expectancy research represents a productive avenue of investigation which may significantly increase the predictive validity of expectancies on drinking patterns.


PREDICTORS OF ALCOHOL USE AND PROBLEMS

463

Leigh [12] found that evaluations were related to drinking variables independent of exjxctancies and added significant predictive validity to quantity related drinking variables. The normative component of the Theory of Reasoned Action is concerned with the effect of the social environment on behavior. The factors included in the normative component consist of normative beliefs and a motivation to comply with a reference group’s perceived expectations. Ajzen and Fishbein [ 1 11 contend that just as attitudes toward an act may be described in terms of an expectancy-valuemodel, normative beliefs may also be viewed from within an expectancy-valueframework attributed to a given referent, i.e., norms X desire to comply with the norms. Reasons for drinking and for not drinking have been shown to be related to drinking variables [13, 141, but to date have not been incorporated within a larger theoretical model. Consequently, items addressing reasons for and against drinking were also considered in the present study. The purpose of this study is to build a more powerful predictive model of alcohol quantity/frequency consumption patterns and potential alcohol use problems from norms and expectations. Expectations x desirability of effects formulations and norms x desire to comply with norms formulations will be used to investigate their utility in improving the prediction of drinking behavior over and above the variance explained by other constructs. Additional personality variables assessing impulsivity and sensation seeking were included in the questionnaire. Impulsivity and sensation seeking have been found to be related to alcohol use and problems [15, 161 and therefore merit further examination, perhaps as mediating variables of the influence of expectancies on alcohol use and problems. It is hypothesized that 1) alcohol norms and expectancies will be found to be significant independent predictors of both alcohol use and problems, 2) weighting norms with desire to comply with norms formulations and combining expectancies with desirabilities of effects will increase predictive validity over that provided by norms and expectanciesalone, and 3) reasons for drinking and reasons for not drinking will also be found to be significant independent predictors of alcohol use and problems.

METHOD Subjects Student subjectswere recruited through intmdumry psychology classes at Arizona State University and completed the 16-page questionnaire described below during

464



one of several scheduled group testing sessions on campus. Students earned research participation credits for the half-hour to an hour’s worth of time required to complete the questionnaire. Two-hundred eighty-eight students (134 males, 148 females; 6 left gender blank) completed the questionnaire, of whom 23 1 (112 males, 116 females; 3 left gender blank) indicated that they were current drinkers of alcohol. Males were slightly older than females in this alcohol using subsample (mean for males = 19.52 years, SD = 2.63 vs mean for females = 18.81, SD = 1.39). Eighty-two percent of the subsample was Caucasian.

Materials The questionnaire contained the following items. Demographic information. Sex, age, ethnicity , parent education and occupation, years of residence in Arizona, extent of ethnic group identification, and attendance of religious services. Age and parent education and occupation were not found to be significantly correlated with the variables described below. Alcohol use. Frequency of alcohol use in the past year was coded 1 = less than once a month, 2 = once a month, 3 = 2-3 times a month, 4 = once a week, 5 = 2-3 times a week, 6 = 4-5 times a week, 7 = daily or nearly daily. For one drink equivalent to 1 bottle or can of beer, 1 glass of wine, or 1 drink of distilled spirits, usual quantity of alcohol use at a sitting was coded 1 = 1 drink, 2 = 2 drinks, 3 = 3-4 drinks, 4 = 5-6 drinks, 5 = 7 or more drinks. Since quantities and frequencies of alcohol use were highly correlated in this sample and did not produce differential patterns of correlations, the quantity and frequency items were combined into a single quantity-frequency scale by converting the frequency levels into equivalent occasions per month (1 = 0.5 to 7 = 28) and the quantity levels into equivalent grams of alcohol (1 = 10 to 5 = 70). These equivalents were then multiplied and the distribution of scores normalized through a loglo transformation. Frequencies of heavy drinking (5 or more drinks at a sitting) and getting drunk were also obtained and were found to be highly correlated with the quantity-frequency scores ( r about 0.70 for each). Alcohol expectations. Subjects were asked to report on the extent to which they experienced the effects listed below when they drank their usual amount of alcohol. Subjects responded on a scale ranging from 1 = “not at all” to 5 = “a great deal” for each item. These items were used in a study of familial



465

transmission of alcohol expectations [ 171, with some additional items drawn from a questionnaire by Leigh [ 181. Principal components analyses and varimax rotations of these items guided the development of five subscales, as follows (items and alpha reliabilitl-s in parentheses): flushing (face turns pink or red, body turns pink or red, limbs turn pink or red; 0.79), physiological impairment (heart beats faster, breathe faster, get dizzy, get headache, get nauseous; 0.67), disinhibition (become talkative, feel romantic, feel friendly, cannot think straight, do things nat done when sober, act silly, feel sexually aggressive, become loud, feel good, driving ability probably impaired; 0.90),hostility (feel aggressive, become argumentative, feel mean, act vulgar, get into fights, lose self-control; 0.81), and depression (feel sleepy, feel sad, become quiet; O S 3 ) . Subscale scores are the sum of the item scores divided by the number of items. Since few individuals in this sample reported significant amounts of flushing, this subscale was dropped from further analyses. Correlations among the remaining subscales ranged from 0.32 to 0.56 (see below, Table 2). As can be seen in Table 1, disinhibition was generally regarded as being more likely to occur following alcohol use than physiological impairment, hostility, or depression. It should be noted that there is considerable controversy over the factor structure of measures of alcohol expectancies [1, 51, and the structure defined above may not generalize to other samples and sets of items. Alcohol expectations for others. For the same items above, subjects were then asked to judge the extent to which the above effects of alcohol would be experienced by “most other people,” using the same 5-point response scale. Although principal components analyses indicated a slightly less differentiated factor structure for these items, they were combined into subscales based on the subscales for own expectations. Alpha reliabilities for these subscales of expectations of alcohol effects for others were as follows: flushing, 0.85; physiological impairment, 0.84; disinhibition, 0.89; hostility, 0.86; depression, 0.57. With the deletion of the flushing subscale, correlations among the remaining scales ranged from 0.42 to 0.69. As can be seen in Table 1 and consistent with Leigh [18], subjects generally expected greater effects of alcohol, particularly negative ones, in others than for themselves. Desirability of alcohol expectations. For the same set of items on expectations of the effects of alcohol on the subject’s moods and behaviors, subjects were then asked to indicate the extent to which experiencing these effects after drinking alcohol was undesirable or desirable. Subjects responded on 5-point scales ranging from 1 = undesirable to 3 = neutral to 5 = desirable. Principal components

466


Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations of Alcohol UselProblems, Personality, Alcohol Norms and Expectations, and Reasons for Drinking and Not Drinking by Sex Males


Variable

Females

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Drinking problems scale

0.76

0.46

0.58

0.45

-2.97'

Drinking frequency

3.86

1.43

3.28

1.36

-3.07** *

Drinking quantity

3.40

1.12

2.77

0.89

-4.67"'

Eysenck 1.7 scales: Impulsivity Venturesomeness Empathy

10.09 10.80 12.19

3.71 2.80 3.02

8.86 8.89 14.29

4.01 3.12 2.71

-2.28' -4.71 * * 5.37"'

Alcohol norm levels: People Institutions

2.36 1.43

0.71 0.64

2.14 1.20

0.53 0.46

-2.21' -3.00'*

Alcohol norm compliance: People Institutions

2.50 2.10

0.76 1.19

2.57 2.02

0.94 1.18

0.55 -0.50

Alcohol expectations-self: Impairment Disinhibition Hostility Depression

1.87 3.31 2.06 2.17

0.60 0.74 0.73 0.81

1.93 3.23 I .60 2.09

0.59 0.84 0.58 0.59

0.70 -0.68 -5.12"' -0.82

Alcohol expectations-others: Impairment Disinhibition Hostility Depression

2.58 3.72 3.12 2.50

0.79 0.67 0.69 0.71

2.86 3.84 2.95 2.59

0.78 0.73 0.81 0.63

2.65" 1.27 -1.67 1.oo

Alcohol expectations-desirability : Impairment Disinhibition Hostility Depression

1.57 2.93 1.65 1.71

0.63 0.63 0.68 0.61

1.43 2.73 1.38 1.63

0.63 0.70 0.52 0.59

- 1.65 -2.26' - 3.29' * -1.03

Reasons for drinking: Celebratory Pathological

3.20 1.75

0.79 0.70

2.76 1.53

0.90 0.71

- 3.89' * * -2.32'

Reasons for not drinking: Personal Social

2.38 1.75

0.89 0.71

2.62 1.89

1.01 0.87

1.84 1.23

N

81-109 * p < .05. " p < .01. * * * p < .001

85-115

I

'



467

analyses of these items also yielded somewhat less differentiated factors than was the case for subjects’ levels of own expectations of alcohol effects. Subscales were again calculated based on own expectations, and alpha reliabilities were as follows: flushing, 0.92;physiological impairment, 0.87; dismhibition, 0.82; hostility, 0.84; depression, 0.61. With the deletion of the flushing subscale, correlations among the remaining scales ranged from 0.25 to 0.56. As can be seen in Table 1, physiological impairment, hostility, and depression following alcohol use were perceived as being undesirable, while disinhibition was perceived as being more desirable.

Reasons for drinking alcohol. These items were used in the study by Johnson et al. [ 141. Principal components analyses of these items yielded a similar twofactor structure as was found in the Johnson et al. study, with “celebratory,” social facilitation reasons (when people visit, when having fun, when in an especially good mood, when with people who make you feel shy, when you feel sociable) contrasted with more “pathological,” self-medication reasons (when nervous and tense, when worried about problems at home or work, when you wish you were another person, when conscience i s bothering, when angry or irritable, when sad or lonely, when alone). These two sets of items were separately summed and divided by the number of items, with alpha reliabilities of 0.79 for the celebratory reasons subscale and 0.86 for the pathological reasons subscale. As can be seen in Table 1, celebratory reasons for drinking were more often cited than pathological ones. Problems with alcohol use. These items [ 191 assess moderate problems with alcohol use which may be predictive of the development of severe problems indicative of alcohol abuse or dependence. Items were responded to on scales coded 0 = never, 1 = rarely, 2 = sometimes, and 3 = many times. These items (percentage of subjects in the present sample reporting the problem occurring at least rarely in parentheses) included losing control of drinking (32), getting better ideas when drinking (58), drinking too much and possibly damaging one’s health (65), using social occasions as an excuse to drink (82), sneaking drinks and hiding bottles (25), drinking binges (19), becoming depressed after drinking (48), resenting people who comment on drinking (30), one’s job requiring social drinking (1 l), feeling happy only when drinking (25), drinking as part of a romantic relationship (38), and drinking to lose emotional and social inhibitions (66). These items were averaged to form an alcohol problems scale with an alpha reliability of 0.8 1. More severe alcohol use problems (e.g., drunk driving arrests) were included but were experienced by few of these young adult subjects.


468


Reasons for not drinking alcohol. These items were also taken from the study by Johnson et al. [14], with subjects being asked to rate on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all to 3 = moderately to 5 = a great deal) the extent to which the reasons listed influenced their decision not to drink. Principal components analyses of these items yielded a two-factor structure, with “personal” reasons (dislike the taste of alcohol, bad for health, gained no benefits from drinking, saw others drink to excess, waste of money) being contrasted with external “social” reasons (against religious beliefs, against scientific beliefs, against personal beliefs, disapproval of important people in one’s life). These items were combined to form personal and social reasons for not drinking subscales, with alpha reliabilities of 0.81 and 0.68, respectively. As can be seen in Table 1, personal reasons for not drinking were more likely to be cited than social ones. Perceived norms for alcohol use. For each of the social influences listed below, subjects were asked to indicate what that social influence would indicate as being an “appropriate” amount of alcohol for the subject to consume per month. Responses were coded 1 = none, 2 = 1-3 drinks/month, 3 = 1-3 drinkdweek, 4 = i dnnk/day, 5 = more than 1 driddday. Principal components analyses and comparisons of means indicated a differentiation between people (parents, siblings, spouse/significantother, close friends, roommate, social group members, workloffice acquaintances) and institutions (moral/religious authorities, health authorities, government officials) as social influences on alcohol use. People- and institution-based norms for drinking subscales were formed, with alpha reliabilities of 0.83 and 0.74, respectively. Compliance with perceived norms for alcohol use. For each of the social influences listed above, subjects were also asked to rate the extent to which it was important for the subject to comply with the wishes of that influence, with responses ranging from 1 = not at all important to 5 = very much. Subscales of people- vs institution-basedimportance of compliance with alcohol use norms yielded alpha reliabilities of 0.83 and 0.86, respectively. As can be seen in Table 1, people-based norms for alcohol use were perceived as being higher than institution-based norms and were rated as being more important to be complied with. Eysenck I. 7. The 1.7 [20] contains three subscales measuring impulsivity (19 items, alpha reliability for this sample = 0.78), venturesomeness (sensation seeking) (19 items, alpha reliability = 0.77), and empathy (16 items, alpha reliability = 0.64).


469

Additional items in the questionnaire asked about parental and sibling alcohol use and alcoholism, but these produced few significant correlations with any of the above measures.


RESULTS Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations for the drinking problems scale, drinking frequency and quantity (original 7- and 5-point scales), and for the Eysenck 1.7, alcohol norms, compliance with alcohol norms, alcohol expectations for self, alcohol expectations for others, desirability of alcohol effects, reasons for drinking, and reasons for not drinking subscales by sex for the 231 current drinkers. As can be seen, there were a number of significant sex differences, with males reporting greater alcohol use and problems, higher impulsivity and venturesomeness, lower empathy, higher perceived norms for alcohol use, greater expectations of alcohol effects, higher desirabilities of these effects, and more reasons for drinking than females. Table 2 presents the intercorrelations among the alcohol problems scale, alcohol log quantity-frequency of use, and the Eysenck 1.7, alcohol norms, alcohol expectations, reasons for drinking, and reasons for not drinking subscales for the entire subsample of current drinkers. With only one important exception noted below, in spite of the sex differences noted above, the correlation matrices for males and females for these variables were generally quite similar. The one exception was that impulsivity was significantly correlated with alcohol use problems for males (r = 0.33) but not for females ( r = 0.06). Not surprisingly, alcohol quantity-frequency was highly correlated with alcohol use problems, while impulsivity, people-based alcohol norms, expectations of alcohol effects, reasons for drinking, and reasons for not drinking alcohol were significantly correlated with both alcohol use and problems. Of note, alcohol use norms were generally uncorrelated with expectations of alcohol effects, suggesting that these two domains are, at least as presently measured, conceptually different influences on alcohol use. While reasons for drinking seemed to be strongly related to expectations of alcohol effects, reasons for not drinking were not related to either expectations or norms for alcohol use. Expectations of alcohol effects on others and desirability of alcohol effects for one’s self were not included in Table 2 , as these subscales generally produced attenuated patterns of correlations that were similar to the correlations produced by own alcohol expectations. These correlations were not increased when subscales of own expectations were multiplied by the corresponding desirabilities of the

-.51*** -.35*++

W s range from 172 to 226. ' p < .05. " p < .01. ***p < ,001.

Reasons for not drinking: Personal -.20** Social -.09

.58"' .35***

Reasons for drinking: Celebratory .57*** Pathological .65* *

,445."

.19"

.38"* .14*

.45"' .16

.04

.21"

.33*" .22** * .13 .14 -.17* .01

.54***

.05 .13

-.22"'

Vent.

Eysenck 1.7

-.16* - .06

.30"* .16*

.08

.06

.13

.oo

-.03 -.01

-.19" .ll

.06 -.01

-.W

-.07

Emp.

- .02

.ll .12

.oo

.20" - .09 .34*** .01 .28**' .07

- .05

.06

.01

.23"*

Q-freq. Imp.

Alcohol expectations: .33**' Impairment .47* * Disinhibition Hostility .46"* Depression .41

Alcohol norms: People Institutions

Eysenck 1.7: Impulsivity Venturesome

Alcohol q-frq.

Robs.

Alcohol

-.18* -.07

.32"' .08

.05 .14 .15' .06

.28***

People

.oo

-.03

.oo

.13

-.07

.oo

-.01

-.18**

Inst.

Norms

-.04 -.15*

.25"' .34"*

.49"* ,34**' .41***

Imp.

-.12 -.14*

.55**' .32*' *

.41"'

.56***

Dis.

-.15* -.lo

.42"* .36*"

.32"'

Hos.

Alcohol expectations

.06 -.03

&*..

.31**'

Dep.

-.26"' -.14*

M...

Cel.

d.02

-.09

Path.

Drink reasons

Table 2. Intercorrelations of Alcohol Use/Problems, Personality, Alcohol Norms and Expectations, and Reasons for Drinking and Not Drinkinga


.57"*

Pers.

Not drink



47 1

alcohol effects. Similarly, compliance with alcohol use norms produced attenuated versions of the correlations obtained with the perceived alcohol use norms subscales, and multiplying these norms with the corresponding compliance subscales did not increase the magnitude of the correlations. Table 3 presents the hierarchical multiple regressions of log quantity-frequency of alcohol use on sex, impulsivity, sex X impulsivity (an interaction term), peoplebased alcohol use norms, expectations of alcohol effects, and reasons for drinking and not drinking alcohol. The multiple regression analyses were meant to test the incremental and independent influences of the various constructs in predicting alcohol use. As can be seen, over and above the influence of sex and impulsivity, alcohol use norms had a substantial impact on alcohol use. In turn, expectations of alcohol effects had a substantial independent influence on alcohol use. Note that, in spite of the high intercorrelations among the expectations subscales, disinhibition and hostility each made significant contributions to the explained variance. Surprisingly, given thc. significant correlations of reasons for drinking with expectations of alcohol effect3 reasons f9r drirddng still accounted for a substantial amount of additional explaind u r im c e in alcohol use, as did reasons for not drinking, over and above the infiuencc of alcohol expectations. Table 3 also presents the hierarchical multiple regressions of the alcohol problems scale on the same set of predictor variables, with alcohol log quantityfrequency of use entered as the first step. Again, these analyses were meant to test the incremental and independent influences of the various constructs in predicting alcohol use problems. As can be seen, the effect of sex, impulsivity, and perceived alcohol use norms on alcohol use problems was entirely mediated by level of alcohol use, i.e., once alcohol use was controlled for, these variables were no longer significant predictors of alcohol use problems. The sex X impulsivity interaction was also not significant. Of note here is that, even when level of alcohol use is partialled out, expectations of alcohol effects, particularly the negative effects of physiological impairment, hostility, and depression, are substantially predictive of alcohol use problems. Most surprising is the substantial independent influence of reasons for drinking, particularly pathological ones, on alcohol use problems over and above the influence of alcohol expectations. It should also be noted that reasons for not drinking alcohol had no independent influence on alcohol use problems.

DISCUSSION The mean age at which subjects reported having begun regular drinking (at least one drink per month) was 16.1 years (SD = 1.8), with no significant sex

472


Table 3. Hierarchical Multiple Regressions of Alcohol Quantity-Frequency and Alcohol Problems on Personality, Alcohol Norms and Expectations, and Reasons for Drinking and Not Drinking Dependent variable Alcohol quantity frequency

Predictor

Betaa

Multiple R

R2 change

F change


Alcohol q-freq.

Alcohol problems

Beta .16

F

Multiple R

R2 change

.49

.24

47.00'''

change

- .04

.28

.08

13.17*"

-.I8

.49

.oo

0.24

Eysenck 1.7: Impulsivity

.02

.36

.05

8.55**

-.17

.49

.oo

0.02

Sex

impuls.

.I4

.36

.oo

0.51

.50

.01

2.52

Alcohol norms: People

.16

.48

.10

19.23'**

.50

.oo

0.05

- .08 .19 .21 -.I2

.49 .60 .62 .63

.01 .I1 .03

2.78 25.31"' 7.35.' 1.99

.14 .19

.66 .68

.04 .03

- .26 -.15

.75 .76

.ll .01

Sex

X

Alcohol expectations: Impairment Disinhibition Hostility Depression Reasons for drinking: Celebratory Pathological

Reasons for not drinking: Personal Social

N

.01

154

9.64** 8.07** 35.23''' 4.22'

.26 -.05 .08

.57

.08

.04 .I0 .05

.59 .61 .64

.02 .02 .03

17.23' *' 4.70' 5.32' 7.85"

.17 .46

.67 .71

.04 .14

11.72"' 49.66"'

.OO

.77 .17

.oo .oo

0.01 0.01

.01

153

*Beta for final equation. ' p < .05. * * p < .01. * * * p < ,001.

differences, in spite of the legal drinking age being 21 years in Arizona. It is thus likely that the levels of alcohol use reported here reflect a relatively stable pattern of behavior and that the alcohol use problems reported here may, in fact, be precursors to the development of alcohol abuse and dependence in many of these young adult subjects. Consistent with Ajzen and Fishbein's theory [ 1I], alcohol use norms and expectancies were shown to be significant independent predictors of alcohol use, with each domain of predictor variables accounting for a substantial amount of



473

explained variance. The Theory of Reasoned Action postulates that specific behavioral intentions which, in turn, lead to behavior are composed of both an attitudinal and a normative factor. On the other hand, neither weighting norms with desirability of compliance (norms x motivations to comply) [ l l ] nor weighting expectancies with the desirability of the alcohol effects (expectancy X value) [ 1, 2 11 increased the amount of variance accounted for by norms and expectancies alone. These findings point to a need for alcohol expectancy researchers to include normative components within their expectancy models, but don’t support the necessity for including evaluative components for expectancies, as some researchers have suggested [22, 231. These results are somewhat puzzling in light of the substantial body of research supporting expectancy X value formulations [24], as well as research supporting norms x motivations to comply formulations [ 111. It should be noted that, while alcohol expectations and the desirability of alcohol effects were highly correlated, norms for alcohol use were not correlated with motivations to comply with these norms. It may be that, as Feather [24] suggests, behavior is not always logical, especially consumptive behavior such as alcohol use. These behaviors may be driven by more impulsive or habitual motivations. Alcohol expectancies were also shown to be highly significant predictors of alcohol use problems. Contrasting the relative contribution of various alcohol expectancy subscales in predicting alcohol use with those predicting alcohol problems illuminates some interesting differences in the manner in which expectancies relate to drinking patterns. The expectation of disinhibition accounted for the largest amount of variance in alcohol use. The expectations of impairment, depression, and hostility all accounted for more variance in alcohol problems than did disinhibition, even though the latter was still a significant predictor of alcohol problems. These results are consistent with previous findings [4] which indicated that expectancies of social and physical pleasure and of tension reduction contributed the greatest amount of predictive power with regard to frequent, nonproblematic and frequent, problematic drinking styles. Norms were not shown to be an independent influence on alcohol use problems, although norms were an important predictor of alcohol use. Consequently, the development of more pathological drinking behaviors seems to be more closely related to expectancies about the reinforcing properties associated with ethanol than with socially derived modes of behavior. It should be noted that the norms items in the present study were framed in terms of levels of drinking and not in terms of behaviors indicative of alcohol problems. It may be that measured norms for alcohol-related problematic behavior would have been as predictive of alcohol problems as the expectanc:1es measures.


414


Both subscales on reasons for drinking (Celebratory and Pathological) were significant predictors for alcohol use. This is consistent with Johnson et al. [14] and other studies of reasons for drinking [ 131. They found that reasons for drinking were very similar across ethnic groups and cited their results as generally supportive of alcohol use norms as important predictors of the development of alcohol use and problems. The present findings, however, suggest that reasons for drinking are related to alcohol expectations rather than perceived social norms. The connections between expectancies and reasons for drinking have not been pursued, but the present results are suggestive of how these reasons can be integrated into a theoretical framework. Reasons for drinking were also highly predictive of alcohol problems. In fact, pathological reasons for drinlung accounted for more of the explained variance of alcohol problems than any other independent measure, with the exception of the quantity-frequency measure. The significance of both alcohol expectancies and reasons for drinking as related predictors of alcohol problems is of interest in and of itself. These findings may be viewed as providing further support for the hypothesis that, when people cross the boundary between acceptable drinking levels to problem levels, they do so because of learned, internalized expectations of reinforcement. This is seen most strongly in the “pathological” reasons for drinking that have to do with purposes of self-medication, i.e., the alleviation of negative affective states such as tension, worry, anger, sadness, loneliness, and guilt. The overall pattern of results suggests that simple quantity-frequency of alcohol use may have much to do with social norms, partying, and expectations of disinhibition of social behavior. However, even in a young college student population, those who have advanced to more problematic drinking behavior are those who are trying to self-medicate negative mood states. Reasons for not drinking were significant predictors of alcohol use, even when nondrinkers were excluded from the analyses, with personal reasons accounting for a significant amount of explained variance over and above expectancies and norms. Reasons for not drinking had no independent influence on alcohol problems over their influence on level of alcohol use. T h ~ is s the same pattern of results seen with norms, although reasons for not drinking were surprisingly not significantly correlated with the norms or expectancies scales. The differential relationship between the alcohol expectancy subscales and alcohol use norms as they relate to alcohol use and problems point to potentially promising avenues of research, but a great many questions regarding how expectancies relate to actual behavior [l] also remain to be answered. Research with a more representative sample of drinkers may produce different relationships between expectancies and alcohol use and problems [23]. Further prospective


475

longitudinal studies need to be done to help address the direction of causality questions. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This project was supported in part by Grant BRSG 2 SO7 RR07112, Division of Research Resources, National Institutes of Health.


REFERENCES

[l] Leigh, B. C., In search of the seven dwarves: Issues of measurement and meaning in alcohol expectancy research. Psychol. Bull. 105:361-373 (1989). [2] Christiansen, B. A., Roehling, P. V., Smith, G. T., and Goldman, M. S., Using alcohol expectancies to predict adolescent drinking behavior after one year, J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 57193-99 (1989). [3] Christiansen, B. A , , and Goldman, M. S . , Alcohol-related expectancies versus demographichackground variables in the prediction of adolescent drinking., J . Consult. Clin. Psychol. 511249-257 (1983). [4] Brown, S . A,, Expectancies versus background in the prediction of college drinking patterns, J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 53: 123-130 (1985). [5] Leigh, B. C., Confirmatory factor analysis of alcohol expectancy scales, J. Srud. Alcohol 50:268-278 (1989). [6] Biddle, B. J., Bank, B. J., and Marlin, M. M., Social determinants of adolescent drinking., J. Stud. Alcohol 41:215-241 (1980). [7] Maddox, G. L., High-school student drinking behavior: Incidental information from two national surveys. Q. J. Stud. Alcohol 25:339-347 (1964). [8] Dembo, R., and Shern, D., Relative deviance and the process(es) of drug involvement among inner city youths, Int. J. Addict. 17(8):1373-1399 (1982). [9] Fishbein, M., The prediction of behaviors from attitudinal variables, in Advances in Communication Reseurch (C. D. Mortensen and K. K. Sereno, eds.), Harper and Row, New York, 1973. [ 101 Wicker, A. W., Attitudes vs actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects, J. SOC. Issues 25:41-78 (1969). [ l l ] Ajzen, I . , and Fishbein, M . , Attitudinal and normative variables as predictors of specific behaviors, J . Pers. SOC. Psychol. 27:41-57 (1973). 1121 Leigh, B. C., Evaluations of alcohol expectancies: Do they add to prediction of drinking patterns?, Psychol. Addict. Behav. 1:135-139 (1987). [13] Glynn, R. J., Locastro, J. S., Hermos, J. A., and Bosse, R., Social contexts and motives for drinking in men, J. Stud. Alcohol 44:lOll-1025 (1983). [I41 Johnson, R. C., Schwitters, S. Y., Wilson, J. R., Nagoshi, C. T., and McClearn, G. E., A cross-ethnic comparison of reasons given for using alcohol, not using alcohol, or ceasing to use alcohol, J. Stud. Alcohol 46:283-288 (1985). [I51 Alterman, A. I., Hall, J. G., Purtill, J. J., Searles, J. S., Holahan, J. M., and McLellan, A. T., Heavy drinking and its correlates in young men, Addict. Behav. 15:95-103 (1990). [I61 Ellis, L., Relationships of criminality and psychopathy with eight apparent behavioral manifestations of sub-optimal arousal, Pers. Individ. Diferences 8:905-925 (1987). [17] Johnson, R. C., Nagoshi, C. T., Danko, G. P., Honbo, K.A. M., andChau, L. L., Familial transmission of alcohol use norms and expectancies and reported alcohol use, Alcoholism: Clin. Exp. Res. 14:216-220 (1990).


476


[I81 Leigh, B. C., Beliefs about the effects of alcohol on self and others, J. Srud.Alcohol 48:467-475 (1987). [ 191 Rhea, S.A., Nagoshi, C. T., and Wilson, J. R., Reliability of sibling reports on parental drinking behaviors, J. Srud. Alcohol, In Press. [20] Eysenck, S. B. G., Pearson, P. R., Easting, G., and AUsopp, I. F., Age norm for impulsiveness, venturesomeness and empathy in adults, Pers. Individ. Di3erenct-s 6:613-619 (1985). [21] Edwards, W., The theory of decision making, Psychol. Bull. 51:380-417 (1954). [22] Fromme, K . , and Marlatt, G. A., Alcohol Expectancy Research and the Expectancy/Behavior Rzlation, Paper presented at the meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Seattle, Washington, 1986. [23] Fromme, K., Mooney, D. K., Kivlahan, D. R., and Marlatt, G. A,, Expectancies, risk identification, and secondary prevention with problem drinkers, Adv. Behav. Res. 7her. 8:237-251 (1986). [24] Feather, N. T., Expectations and Actions: Expectancy-Value Models in Psychology, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1982.

College Men and Alcohol Use: Positive Alcohol Expectancies as a Mediator Between Distinct Masculine Norms and Alcohol Use.

Personality and alcohol-related outcomes among mandated college students: descriptive norms, injunctive norms, and college-related alcohol beliefs as mediators.

Emerging adult identity development, alcohol use, and alcohol-related problems during the transition out of college.

Predictors of body dissatisfaction in a Hispanic college student sample.

Assessing alcohol problems in college students.

Attitudes toward alcohol as predictors of self-estimated alcohol consumption in college students.

The role of issue familiarity and social norms: findings on new college students' alcohol use intentions.

The prospective effects of impulsivity on alcohol and tobacco use in a college sample.

An examination of risky drinking behaviors and motivations for alcohol use in a college sample.

College Status, Perceived Drinking Norms, and Alcohol Use among Sexual Minority Women.

Adolescents' alcohol use related to perceived norms.

Alcohol consumption and symptoms as predictors for relapse of DSM-5 alcohol use disorder.

The role of alcohol perceptions as mediators between personality and alcohol-related outcomes among incoming college-student drinkers.

Romantic relationship status and alcohol use and problems across the first year of college.

Childhood cognitive measures as predictors of alcohol use and problems by mid-adulthood in a non-Western cohort.

Practitioner-level predictors of alcohol problems detection and management activities.

Pregaming, Drinking Duration, and Movement as Unique Predictors of Alcohol Use and Cognitions Among Mandated College Students.

The alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) in a college sample.

Alcohol problems and the availability of alcohol.

Alcohol use and alcohol-related problems among adolescents in China: A large-scale cross-sectional study.

Assessing God locus of control as a factor in college students' alcohol use and sexual behavior.

Psychometric Properties of the Adolescent Reinforcement Survey Schedule-Alcohol Use Version with College Student Drinkers.

Self-control and implicit drinking identity as predictors of alcohol consumption, problems, and cravings.

Adolescent predictors and environmental correlates of young adult alcohol use problems.