Untitled Essay, Research Paper

Abstract In response to the demand for research that incorporates multiple facets of theory into a testable model, this survey attempted to retroflex and widen the consequences of Cooper, Russell, Skinner, Frone, and Mudar ( 1992 ) . A modified stressor exposure theoretical account of stress-related imbibing was tested in a homogenous sample of 65 male and female undergraduate pupil drinkers. Entire hebdomadal ingestion of intoxicant was used as the standard step, whereas household history of alcohol addiction ( Adapted SMAST: Sher & A ; Descutner, 1986 ) , alcohol outcome expectancies/valences ( CEOA: Fromme, Stroot, & A ; Kaplan, 1993 ) , perceived emphasis ( PSS: Cohen, Kamarck, & A ; Mermelstein, 1983 ) , and get bying temperaments ( COPE: Carver, Scheier, & A ; Weintraub, 1989 ) were used as the forecaster variables. The proposed modified theoretical account postulates that anticipations play a proximal mediating function in stress-related imbibing, whereas gender, household history of alcohol addiction, and get bying all play a distal moderating function. Hierarchical multiple arrested development processs were so performed to measure the theoretical account. The consequences failed to back up the hypothesized theoretical account. Specifically, anticipations emerged as a distal instead than proximal forecaster of stress-related imbibing, and household history of alcohol addiction did non chair stress-related imbibing. In contrast, gender and header manners emerged as the most powerful forecasters in the theoretical account. Despite the defects of the proposed theoretical account, the present consequences offer an alternate reading as to what constitutes the stressor exposure theoretical account of stress-related imbibing. Introduction Stress as a Causal Factor in Drinking One of the common stereotypes about the effects of intoxicant involves the drug & # 8217 ; s capacity to move as a stress adversary. Conger ( 1956 ) has proposed a theory, known as the tenseness decrease hypothesis ( TRH ) of imbibing, to back up this impression. Basically the theory holds that intoxicant & # 8217 ; s ataractic action on the cardinal nervous system serves to cut down tenseness, and because tenseness decrease is reenforcing, people drink to get away it ( Marlatt & A ; Rohsenow, 1980 ) . Strong grounds to back up the cogency of the theory comes from epidemiological findings which indicate that the prevalence of anxiousness upsets in alkies scopes from 16 to 37 % , compared to a rate of merely 4-5 % in the general population ( Welte, 1985 ) . Notwithstanding, there seems to be a subset of people for whom the anticipations of the TRH do non keep. For case, in a survey conducted by Conway, Vickers, Ward, and Rahe ( 1981 ) it was found that the ingestion of intoxicant among Navy officers during periods of high occupation demands was really lower than the ingestion during low-demand periods. In add-on, other surveies ( i.e. , Mayfield, 1968 ; Mendlson, Ladou, & A ; Soloman, 1964 ) have shown that some drinkers really consider intoxicant as a tenseness generator instead than a tenseness reducing agent. Overall, when taking into history these conflicting findings, it seems prudent to happen some in-between land. The solution to this job than is a modified version of the TRH, stipulating the conditions under which emphasis will take to an addition in imbibing. Moderating and Mediating Factors in Stress Induced Drinking In add-on to emphasize, several other variables have been shown to be important in finding an single & # 8217 ; s imbibing behaviour. These variables include gender of drinker ( gender ) , get bying behaviour of drinker ( get bying ) , and alcohol outcome anticipations of drinker ( anticipations ) . In the undermentioned treatment, the importance of each of these variables to imbibe will be considered foremost, followed by an rating of these as possible moderators or go-betweens of emphasis in imbibing. 1 Differential Gender Drinking Behavior It has been repeatedly demonstrated that important differences exist between the imbibing forms of work forces and adult females ( Hilton, 1988 ) . In a comprehensive study of US imbibing wonts conducted by the US National Center for Health Statistics in 1988, important gender differences were found in three countries as pointed out by Dawson and Archer ( 1992 ) . The first important difference pertained to the figure of male and female current drinkers. Approximately 64 % of all work forces were current drinkers in comparing to 41 % of all adult females. The 2nd and 3rd important differences concerned the measure of intoxicant consumed. Work force were more likely to ( a ) consume intoxicant on a day-to-day footing and ( B ) be classified as heavy drinkers. Men & # 8217 ; s day-to-day norm of ethanol consumption ( 17.5 gms per twenty-four hours ) was about twice every bit high as adult females & # 8217 ; s ( 8.9 gms per twenty-four hours ) . Even when an accommodation for organic structure weight was made ( females require less ethanol than males to accomplish a similar addition in blood intoxicant degree ) , work forces & # 8217 ; s ingestion was still 53 % greater than adult females & # 8217 ; s. With respects to imbibing categorization, males were classified well more frequently than females as heavy drinkers ( i.e. the figure of males who drank five or more drinks a twenty-four hours was 88 % greater than the corresponding figure of females ) . Furthermore, as the categorization steps became stricter so did the disparity between male and female heavy drinkers increase ( i.e. , the ratio of male to female heavy drinkers increased by a factor of 3 as the definition of heavy drinker was changed from five drinks or more a twenty-four hours to nine drinks or more a twenty-four hours ) . Gender as a Moderating Factor of Stress To understand why work forces and adult females drink otherwise requires an apprehension of the prevalent socialisation patterns ( Dohrenwend & A ; Dohrenwend, 1976 ; Horwitz & A ; White, 1987 ) . Harmonizing to this sociological position, & # 8220 ; adult females have been socialized to internalise hurt, whereas work forces have been socialized to project hurt & # 8221 ; ( Cooper, Russell, Skinner, Frone, & A ; Mudar, 1992 ; P. 140 ) . Therefore, adult females tend to get by with emphasis by using personal ( internal ) devices such as emotion, instead than impersonal ( external ) devices such as intoxicant, which are used more frequently by work forces. In add-on, work forces and adult females besides hold differential outlooks about the effects of imbibing. Several surveies ( i.e. Abrams & A ; Wilson, 1979 ; Sutker, Allain, Brantly, & A ; Randall, 1982 ; Wilson & A ; Abrams, 1977 ) have shown that & # 8220 ; although pharmacological effects appear to be likewise stress cut downing for both sexes, the belief that intoxicant has been consumed may really increase hurt among adult females & # 8221 ; ( Cooper et Al. , 1992 ; P. 140 ) . Therefore, it seems plausible that females really anticipate to see some signifier of hurt from imbibing as opposed to males & # 8217 ; outlook to see tenseness decrease from imbibing ( Rohsenow, 1983 ) . Differential Coping Manners in Drinking Considerable grounds has been accumulated in support of the impression that certain methods of get bying are more likely to be associated with job imbibing than others ( Moos, Finney, & A ; Chan, 1981 ) . This has led to the development of societal larning theory which postulates that opprobrious drinkers differ from comparatively healthy drinkers in ( a ) their capacity to efficaciously get by with stressors and ( B ) in their beliefs about imbibing ( Abrams & A ; Niaura, 1987 ) . In general, two types of get bying responses have been shown to rule in most state of affairss ( Folkman & A ; Lazarus, 1980 ) . The first type, problem-focused header ( besides known as attack get bying ) , is directed at either work outing the presenting job or changing the beginning of the emphasis ( Carver, Scheier, & A ; Weintraub 1989 ) . The 2nd type, emotion-focused header ( besides known as turning away get bying ) , attempts to cut down the unpleasant emotional feelings which accompany the stressor ( Carver et al. , 1989 ) . Even though people normally use both methods in response to a given stressor, the former type will be given to rule when people feel that the state of affairs is mutable, whereas the latter type will be given to rule when people appraise the state of affairs as unchangeable ( Folkman & A ; Lazarus, 1980 ) . Peoples who preponderantly resort to avoidance get bying have been shown to expose pathological imbibing behavior much more than those who utilize attack header ( Cooper, Russell, & A ; George, 1988 ; Cooper et Al. , 1992 ) . Those who typically resort to avoidance header ( a group which consists of up to 25 % of all drinkers ) , report that they do so in order to modulate negative emotions ( Cahalan, Cisin, & A ; Crossley, 1969 ; Mullford & A ; Miller, 1963 ; Polich & A ; Orvis, 1979 ) . The strongest grounds to back up this contention comes from surveies which have investigated post-treatment backsliding in alkies. In three such surveies ( Marlatt, & A ; Gordon, 1979 ; Moos et Al. , 1981 ; Moos, Finney, & A ; Gamble, 1982 ) , it was found that persons were more likely to get worse in state of affairss which elicited unpleasant emotional provinces. Coping as a Moderating Factor of Stress The key to understanding the differential impact of turning away and attack header on imbibing prevarications in the handiness of an effectual header response to a given stressor ( Cooper et Al. , 1992 ) . By definition, people who utilize attack get bying mechanisms to cover with their emphasis, engage in concrete job work outing which serves to actively cut down the sum of emphasis. By contrast, people who rely on turning away header may pull off to cut down their hurt, but they tend to make so by deflecting themselves from the emphasis. Therefore, it is non surprising that imbibing should appeal more to those who predominately use turning away header, because the ingestion of intoxicant serves as a replacement action which can deflect from the emphasis. When viewed from a societal acquisition position ( Abrams & A ; Niaura, 1987 ) , it can be seen that & # 8220 ; intoxicant usage serves as a general header mechanism invoked when other presumptively more effectual header responses are unavailable & # 8221 ; ( Cooper et Al. , 1992 ; P. 140 ) . Evidence to back up this thought comes from surveies ( i.e. , Higgins & A ; Marlatt, 1975 ; Hull & A ; immature 1983 ; Marlatt, Kosturn, & A ; Lang, 1975 ) which have investigated imbibing in response to negative affects, when no get bying option was present. For case, Marlatt et Al. ( 1975 ) have shown that drinkers who were provoked and were unable to revenge drank significantly more at a subsequent gustatory sensation evaluation undertaking than drinkers who had the option to revenge ( Cooper et Al. , 1988 ) . Differential Anticipations About Drinking Alcohol result anticipations ( AOE ) can be thought of as the beliefs people hold about the effects of imbibing ( Goldman, Brown, & A ; Christiansen, 1987 ) . These anticipations foremost develop in childhood as indirect acquisition experiences ( e.g. , media, household mold, peer influence ) and, as a consequence of increased direct experiences with the pharmacological effects of intoxicant, go more refined ( Christiansen, Goldman, & A ; Inn, 1982 ; Christiansen & A ; Goldman, 1983 ; Christiansen, Goldman, & A ; Brown 1985 ; and Miller, Smith, & A ; Goldman, 1990 ) . The anticipations that people hold about intoxicants have been shown to foretell intoxicant ingestion in a assortment of scenes ( Goldman, Brown, & A ; Christiansen 1987 ) . Brown, Goldman, Inn, and Anderson ( 1980 ) have shown that light drinkers typically hold planetary anticipations about intoxicant ( i.e. intoxicant affects multiple factors ) , whereas heavy drinkers typically hold more specific anticipations, such as intoxicant & # 8217 ; s ability to increase sexual and aggressive behaviour. Furthermore, Brown ( 1985a ) has shown that people who hold the anticipation that alcohol enhances societal experience are less likely to be job drinkers than people who drink with the anticipation of tenseness decrease. It is of import to observe, nevertheless, that AOE may & # 8220 ; vary with larning context, personal features of the drinker, sum of intoxicant consumed, and other dependence hazard factors & # 8221 ; ( Brown, 1993 ; P. 58 ) . Anticipations as a Mediating Factor of Stress Although it is good established that AOE differentially predict imbibing behaviour ( Brown, 1993 ) , really small is known about how they exert their effects. To day of the month, most of the research suggests that AOE ( gender particular ) straight predict intoxicant ingestion and, as such, are thought to play a mediational function ( Brown, 1993 ) . Intuitively, it makes sense that people who hold the anticipation that intoxicant can relieve their emphasis should imbibe more than people who do non keep this anticipation. However, small research has been conducted therefore far to back up this contention. Prior to Cooper et Al. ( 1992 ) , merely one survey ( McKirnan & A ; Peterson, 1988 ) investigated the function of anticipations in stress-induced imbibing. The survey tested a stress- exposure theoretical account among homosexual work forces, who show culturally specific stressors and exposure ( i.e. , homophobic favoritism ) . It was found that tenseness decrease expectancies significantly predicted imbibing among persons who experienced & # 8220 ; negative affectivity & # 8221 ; emphasis ( i.e. , low self-pride ) . Although the Mckirnan and Peterson ( 1988 ) survey found that anticipations exacerbated emphasis, the public-service corporation of the findings is limited because of the usage of a non-representative sample of homosexual males, and non-standard steps of emphasis ( Cooper et Al. , 1992 ) . The Synthesis of Gender, Coping & A ; Anticipations in Stress-Related Drinking As was discussed antecedently, gender, get bying, and anticipations are thought to play a important function in stress-related imbibing. Nevertheless, the majority of literature in this country has typically investigated these factors in isolation from each other ( at best, merely two of these factors have been combined at the same time ) . Since stress-related imbibing, nevertheless, is such a complex phenomenon ( remember that the tenseness decrease hypothesis of imbibing does non use universally ) it is necessary to incorporate these factors in order to derive a complete, holistic image. The lone survey which has combined all three factors at the same time was the landmark survey of Cooper et Al. ( 1992 ) . The survey tested an interactive theoretical account of stress-related imbibing which postulated that & # 8220 ; exposure to environmental stressors is most strongly related to alcohol usage and maltreatment among vulnerable persons & # 8221 ; , such that, & # 8220 ; Vulnerable persons are more likely to be male, to keep strong positive anticipations for intoxicant & # 8217 ; s effects, and to hold limited adaptative header responses & # 8221 ; ( Cooper et Al. , 1992 ; P.

141 ) . The consequences supported a stressor exposure theoretical account of imbibing. As expected, it was found that work forces were more likely to imbibe than adult females by virtuousness of their gender function socialisation. More significantly, nevertheless, it was besides found that, for job imbibing to happen in work forces, a 2nd exposure factor must frequently be present. In peculiar, work forces who either held strong positive anticipations or relied on avoidant signifiers of get bying were more likely to be job drinkers than work forces who did non possess these properties. ( Cooper et Al. , 1992 ) . With regard to anticipations, it was shown once more that both work forces and adult females who held strong positive AOE, drank significantly more so work forces and adult females who did non. Much more of import, nevertheless, was the determination that “expectancies appeared to work as stressor exposure factor among work forces but non among women” ( Cooper et Al. , 1992 ; P. 148 ) . Finally, with respects to get bying, it was confirmed that get bying manners play an of import function in job imbibing. However, important interactions with gender and anticipations were besides indicated. Work force who relied on avoidant signifiers of get bying were more likely than adult females to be vulnerable to emphasize induced imbibing. Similarly, stressors were much more likely to arouse job imbibing among persons who were both high in turning away header and positive AOE, than amongst persons who were merely high in turning away header. ( Cooper et Al. , 1992 ) . Purpose of the present survey The intent of the present survey is to widen and modify the work of Cooper et Al. ( 1992 ) in an effort to clear up the function of emphasis in intoxicant ingestion, with regard to the interactive stressor exposure theoretical account of imbibing. Specifically, the Cooper et Al. ( 1992 ) survey was limited to the probe of gender, get bying, and anticipations in stress-related imbibing. Given that Family history of alcohol addiction ( FH ) has been shown to play a important function in imbibing ( i.e. , Cotton, 1979 ; Goodwin, 1988 ; Hill, Nord, & Blow 1992 ; Ohannessian & Hesselbrock, 1993 ) , it is appealing to look into the function of FH as an extra exposure factor [ as suggested by Cooper et Al. ( 1992 ) ] . Furthermore, the Cooper et Al. ( 1992 ) survey conceptualizes gender, get bying, and anticipations as moderators of stress-related imbibing. Given that expectancies straight predict intoxicant ingestion ( as discussed antecedently ) , a modified interactive theoretical account is proposed such that gender, get bying, and household history play an indirect moderational function in foretelling stress-related imbibing ; whereas anticipations play a direct mediational function as conceptualized by Figure 1 below. Figure 1. Proposed Modified Stressor Vulnerability Model of Drinking Gender STRESS Expectancies DRINKING Coping Family History Method Subjects All subjects in this survey were undergraduate psychological science pupils from a big Canadian university. The initial sample consisted of 84 voluntaries. For the intent of this survey, merely those topics who drank at least one time a weak were included. A sum of 65 out of 84 topics ( 77.4 % ) , aged 19 old ages and over, successfully met this standard. The sample consisted of a approximately equal figure of 31males ( 47.7 % ) and 34 females ( 52.3 % ) , who were preponderantly Caucasian ( 64.6 % ) . More than three-fourthss ( 75.4 % ) of the topics were in their first twelvemonth of surveies, and were largely employed part-time ( 60.0 % ) . About three- quarters ( 72.3 % ) of those who were employed received an one-year income smaller than $ 10,000. The average age at which topics foremost consumed intoxicant was 14.7, whereas the average age at which they began to imbibe on a regular basis was 17.9. Subjects entire hebdomadal ingestion of intoxicant averaged 11.1 drinks. Measures Measures used in the present survey were embedded in a general appraisal battery that was a portion of a larger research undertaking. For the intent of the present survey, the undermentioned steps, administered in a fixed order, were employed to measure the variables of involvement. Weekly Alcohol Consumption. Subjects were given a chart which contained the yearss of the hebdomad. For each twenty-four hours they were instructed to bespeak the figure of standard alcoholic drinks and the sum of clip it would take to devour these drinks in a typical hebdomad. A standard intoxicant drink was defined as either a regular size can/bottle of beer, 1.5 ounce shooting of spirits, or a 5 ounce glass of vino. Subjects who drank less than one time a month were instructed to jump this subdivision. The entire figure of drinks in one hebdomad was summed and used as the dependant variable. Adapted Short Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test ( Adapted SMAST ) . The altered SMAST ( Sher & Descutner, 1986 ) is a 13 point self-report questionnaire designed to mensurate household history of alcohol addiction. Specifically, the questionnaire assesses the extent of an individual’s mother’s and father’s intoxicant maltreatment. Assessment is based on a two point graduated table dwelling of 0=no and 1=yes. For the intent of the present survey merely 10 points were used, and the mother/father reply classs were extended to biological mother/ male parent and measure or adoptive mother/father. Comprehensive Effectss of Alcohol ( CEOA ) . The CEOA ( Fromme, Stroot, & Kaplan, 1993 ) is a 38 point self-report questionnaire designed to measure intoxicant result anticipations and their subjective valency. It is composed of seven anticipation graduated tables, four positive ( sociableness, tension-reduction, liquid-courage, and gender ) and three negative ( cognitive-behavioral damage, hazard and aggression, and self perceptual experience ) . Expectancy appraisal is based on a four point graduated table from 1=disagree to 4=agree. The valency of these anticipations is assessed on a five point graduated table from 1=bad to 5=good. Both points and instructions were carefully worded to guarantee that the evoked anticipations were neither dose-specific, nor state of affairs particular. Perceived Stress Scale ( PSS ) . The PSS ( Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983 ) is a 14 point self-report questionnaire designed to measure the grade to which state of affairss in one’s life are appraised as stressful. An equal figure of 7 positive and 7 negative statements make up the questionnaire. Assessment is based on a five point graduated table from 0=never to 4=very frequently. Tonss are obtained by change by reversaling the tonss on the seven positive points ( i.e. , 0=4, 1=3, 2=2, etc. ) , and so summing across all 14 points. COPE. The COPE ( Carver et al. , 1989 ) is a fifty-three point self-report questionnaire designed to measure single header temperaments. The questionnaire is comprised of 14 graduated tables which are categorized into three get bying manners: Problem-Focused Coping ( Active header, Planning, Suppression of viing activities, Seeking societal support for instrumental grounds, and Restraint header ) , Emotion-Focused Coping ( Acceptance, Seeking societal support for emotional grounds, Positive reinterpretation, Turning to faith, and Focus on and venting of emotion ) , and Less than Useful Coping ( Denial, Behavioral Disengagement, and Mental Disengagement ) . For the intent of the present survey the Alcohol-drug detachment graduated table was excluded from these classs, and was treated as a separate class called Drinking to Cope. Assessment is based on a four point graduated table from1=I normally don’t make this at all to 4=I normally do this a batch. Both points and instructions were worded such that dispositional, instead than situational, manners of get bying were assessed. Procedure All participants were recruited from undergraduate psychological science classs at York University. The questionnaire was administered in a schoolroom scene. Participants completed the questionnaire in a group format of assorted sex runing in size from 10 to 30 persons. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, and a phone figure was provided in instance any concerns arose. The complete questionnaire required about 40 proceedingss to administrate. Respondents were compensated for their clip by being entered in a lottery with a 1 in 50 opportunity of winning $ 50.00. Results Correlational Analyses Table 1 nowadayss zero-order correlativities, computed for all relevant survey variables. Conceptually variables may be grouped into one of five classs: hebdomadal imbibing ( variable 1 ) , perceived emphasis ( variable 2 ) , household history of alcohol addiction ( variable 3 ) , get bying variables ( Variables 4-7 ) , and anticipation variables ( variables 8-21 ) . Analyzing the form of correlativities between these variables suggests several decisions. First, household history of alcohol addiction was neither significantly correlated with sensed emphasis nor with hebdomadal imbibing, proposing that household history of alcohol addiction is non of import in stress-induced imbibing. Second, several get bying variables were significantly correlated with either hebdomadal imbibing and/or perceived emphasis. Specifically, imbibing to get by was significantly positively correlated with both hebdomadal imbibing ( r = .420 ) and perceived emphasis ( R = .310 ) , less utile header was significantly positively correlated ( r = .674 ) with emphasis, and job focused header was significantly negatively correlated ( r = -.327 ) with hebdomadal imbibing. These findings suggest that get bying variables play an of import function in stress-related imbibing. Finally, merely one anticipation variable, the valency anticipation for cognitive and behavioural damage, was significantly correlated ( r = .340 ) with hebdomadal imbibing, but non with sensed emphasis. However, several anticipation variables were significantly positively correlated ( .357< r < .517) with drinking to cope. These findings suggest that expectancies are more likely be a distal, rather than a proximal predictor of stress- related drinking. Estimating the Model Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were employed to test the model depicted in Figure 1. Table 2 contains summary statistics for the stepwise regression used to identify the predictor variables of weekly drinking. As can be seen from Table 2, gender emerged as the most important predictor variable accounting for over 28% of the variance. The coping variables of drinking to cope and problem-focused drinking were also significant, and accounted for an additional 12% and 8% of the variance, respectively. Further multiple regression analyses were used to determine which variables predicted drinking to cope, and problem-focused coping, respectively. Table 3 shows that the expectancy for risk accounted for over 26% of the variance in predicting drinking to cope, with the expectancy for tension and perceived stress accounting for an additional 16%. Table 4 shows that emotion-focused coping accounted for over 34% of the variance in predicting problem-focused drinking, with the expectancy valence for self perception accounting for an additional 8%. Figure 2 summarizes the direct effects estimated in the foregoing series of multiple regression analyses. Table 1. Zero-Order Correlations Among Relevant Study Variables ______________________________________________________________________________________ Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Weekly Drinking -- -.143 -.072 -.327* -.232 -.206 .420** .016 .240 2. Perceived Stress -- .001 .198 .138 .674** .310* -.069 -.074 3. Family History of Alcoholism -- -.186 -.111 -.002 -.211 -.003 -.128 4. Problem-Focused Coping -- .491** .170 -.044 -.132 -.112 5. Emotion-Focused Coping -- .166 .062 .111 .107 6. Less Useful Coping -- .223 -.073 -.017 7. Drinking to Cope -- .234 .412** Alcohol Expectancy Outcomes 8. Sociability -- .262 9. Tension Reduction -- 10. Liquid Courage 11. Sexuality 12. Cognitive & Behavioral Impairment 13. Risk & Aggression 14. Self Perception Alcohol Expectancy Valence 15. Sociability 16. Tension Reduction 17. Liquid Courage 18. Sexuality 19. Cognitive & Behavioral Impairment 20. Risk & Aggression 21. Self Perception * p < .01; ** p < .001 Table 1. (Continued) Zero-Order Correlations Among Relevant Study Variables ______________________________________________________________________________________ Measure 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1. Weekly Drinking .116 -.008 -.141 .173 -.037 -.083 .185 -.062 .194 2. Perceived Stress -.041 -.069 .133 .213 .039 .044 .196 .058 -.038 3. Family History of Alcoholism -.052 .018 -.082 -.121 .069 .040 .089 .028 .007 4. Problem-Focused Coping .035 .012 .175 .141 .218 -.097 -.075 .052 -.035 5. Emotion-Focused Coping .044 .295* .218 .154 .151 -.230 -.084 -.053 -.055 6. Less Useful Coping -.178 -.006 .238 .066 .059 .016 .096 -.025 .072 7. Drinking to Cope .371* .225 -.017 .517** -.009 .066 .357* .115 .178 Alcohol Expectancy Outcomes 8. Sociability .697** .488** -.120 .433** -.160 .569** .469** .174 .289 9. Tension Reduction .233 .263 .041 .180 .006 .202 .282 .132 .222 10. Liquid Courage -- .509** .032 .622** .046 .433** .436** .381* .245 11. Sexuality -- .260 .522** .276 .118 .161 -.025 .149 12. Cognitive & Behavioral Impairment -- .221 .354* -.227 -.241 -.171 -.061 13. Risk & Aggression -- .236 .158 .304* .106 -.001 14. Self Perception -- -.335* -.175 -.089 -.247 Alcohol Expectancy Valence 15. Sociability -- .510** .499**.490** 16. Tension Reduction -- .412**.409** 17. Liquid Courage -- .541** 18. Sexuality -- 19. Cognitive & Behavioral Impairment 20. Risk & Aggression 21. Self Perception * p < .01; ** p < .001 Table 1. (Continued) Zero-Order Correlations Among Relevant Study Variables ______________________________________________________________________________________ Measure 19 20 21 1. Weekly Drinking .340* .026 .197 2. Perceived Stress -.164 .065 -.139 3. Family History of Alcoholism -.229 .045 .009 4. Problem-Focused Coping -.289 -.053 -.357* 5. Emotion-focused Coping -.122 -.123 -.135 6. Less Useful Coping -.262 -.054 -.322 7. Drinking to Cope .119 .166 -.054 Alcohol Expectancy Outcomes 8. Sociability .141 .170 .135 9. Tension Reduction .196 .166 .015 10. Liquid Courage .123 .278 .138 11. Sexuality -.271 -.152 -.160 12. Cognitive & Behavioral Impairment -.396** -.217 -.097 13. Risk & Aggression -.038 -.019 -.138 14. Self Perception -.363* -.274 -.220 Alcohol Expectancy Valence 15. Sociability .249 .482** .113 16. Tension Reduction .150 .227 -.131 17. Liquid Courage .375* .717** .219 18. Sexuality .162 .515** .181 19. Cognitive & Behavioral Impairment -- .544** .539** 20. Risk & Aggression -- .517** 21. Self Perception -- * p < .01; ** p