Abstract
Reacting to the dependence on research that incorporates multiple aspects of theory into a testable
framework, this research attempted to replicate and expand the outcomes of Cooper, Russell, Skinner, Frone
and Mudarse (1992). A modified stress factor vulnerability model of stress-related ingesting was analyzed in a
homogeneous test of 65 male and feminine undergraduate scholar drinkers. Total weekly usage of
alcohol was used while the requirements measure, although family history of alcoholism (Adapted SMAST: Sher &
Descutner, 1986), alcohol result expectancies/valences (CEOA: Fromme, Stroot, & Kaplan, 1993)
perceived stress (PSS: Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983), and coping dispositions (COPE: Carver
Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989) were utilized as the predictor variables. The proposed modified style postulates
that expectations play a proximal mediating role in stress-related ingesting, whereas sexuality, family history
of addiction to alcohol, and dealing all enjoy a distal moderating part. Hierarchical multiple regression methods were
then performed to evaluate the model. The results did not support the hypothesized version. Specifically
expectancies emerged as a distal rather than proximal predictor of stress-related ingesting, and family history
of alcoholism did not moderate stress-related drinking. In comparison, gender and coping variations emerged since the
most powerful predictors in the version. Despite the shortcomings of the recommended model, the modern day results
offer an alternate interpretation as to what constitutes the stressor weeknesses model of stress-related
drinking.
Introduction
Tension as a Causal Factor in Having
One of the common stereotypes about the consequences of alcohol entails the drug’s capacity to work as a
tension antagonist. Conger (1956) offers proposed a theory, referred to as tension lowering hypothesis (TRH)
of drinking, to support this notion. Essentially the theory holds that alcohol’s relaxing action for the
nervous system serves to reduce tension, and because tension lowering is rewarding, people drink
to escape this (Marlatt & Rohsenow, 1980). Strong proof to support the validity of the theory comes
from epidemiological findings which will indicate that the prevalence of anxiety disorders in alcoholics varies
from 18 to 37%, compared to an interest rate of simply 4-5% inside the general inhabitants (Welte, 1985).
Notwithstanding, there will be a subsection, subdivision, subgroup, subcategory, subclass of people intended for whom the predictions with the TRH do not
hold. As an example, in a analyze conducted by Conway, Vickers, Ward, and Rahe (1981) it was located that the
ingestion of liquor among Navy blue officers during periods of high job needs was actually less than the
consumption during low-demand periods. In addition , other research (i. electronic., Mayfield, 1968, Mendlson, Ladou
& Soloman, 1964) show that several drinkers in fact consider alcoholic beverages as a tension generator alternatively
than a anxiety reducer.
Total, when taking into consideration these inconsistant findings, it seems prudent to look for some midsection
ground. The perfect solution to this difficulty than can be described as modified variation of the TRH, specifying the conditions under
which stress can lead to an increase in drinking.
Moderating and Mediating Factors in Stress Caused Drinking
Moreover to stress, other variables had been shown to be vital in deciding an individual’s
having behavior. These variables consist of gender of drinker (gender), coping habit of drinker (coping)
and alcohol outcome expectancies of drinker (expectancies). In the following discussion, the value of
each one of these variables to drinking will be considered 1st, followed by an assessment of these since potential
moderators or mediators of anxiety in drinking. 1
Differential box Gender Having Behavior
It is repeatedly indicated that significant dissimilarities exist involving the drinking habits of
men and women (Hilton, 1988). In a comprehensive survey of US drinking patterns conducted by the US
Countrywide Center for Health Statistics in 1988, significant gender distinctions were present in three areas as
mentioned by Dawson and Archer (1992). The first factor pertained for the number of man
and female current drinkers. Roughly 64% of men were current consumers in comparison to 41% of all
women. The second and third significant differences worried the quantity of alcohol consumed. Guys
were more likely to (a) consume alcohol each and every day and (b) be categorized as hefty drinkers. Mens daily
average of ethanol intake (17. 5 grms per day) was nearly twice as large as women’s (8. 9 grams every day).
Even if an adjusting for body weight was made (females require significantly less ethanol than males to accomplish a
comparable increase in blood vessels alcohol level), men’s intake was still 53% greater than could. With
ok bye to having classification, men were grouped substantially more frequently than females as large
drinkers (i. e. the quantity of males who also drank five or more refreshments a day was 88% greater than the
related number of females). Furthermore, as the classification measures started to be stricter and so did the
disparity among male and female heavy consumers increase (i. e., precisely male to female weighty drinkers
improved by a component of 3 because the definition of heavy consumer was transformed from five drinks or even more a day to
nine drinks or more a day).
Sexuality as a Moderating Factor of Stress
To understand why women and men drink differently requires a knowledge of the prevailing
socialization practices (Dohrenwend & Dohrenwend, 1976, Horwitz & White, 1987). According to this
sociological perspective, “women have been socialized to internalize distress, whereas mankind has been socialized to
externalize distress (Cooper, Russell, Skinner, Frone, & Mudar, 1992, P. 140). Therefore , females tend to
handle stress by using personal (internal) devices including emotion, rather than impersonal (external)
devices including alcohol, which tend to be used more often simply by men. Additionally , men and women as well hold
differential expectations regarding the effects of having. Several research (i. electronic. Abrams & Wilson, lates 1970s, Sutker
Allain, Brantly, & Randall, 1982, Wilson & Abrams, 1977) have shown that “although medicinal
effects is very much similarly stress reducing intended for both genders, the belief that alcoholic beverages has been consumed may
in fact increase problems among women (Cooper et al., 1992, P. 140). Therefore , it appears plausible that
females truly expect to knowledge some form of distress from consuming as opposed to males’ expectation
to try out tension reduction from having (Rohsenow, 1983).
Differential Dealing Styles in Drinking
Extensive evidence have been accumulated supporting the notion that certain methods of coping are
very likely to be linked to problem having than others (Moos, Finney, & Chan, 1981). It has
led to the development of social learning theory which in turn postulates that abusive drinkers differ from fairly
healthy drinkers in (a) their capacity to effectively cope with stressors and (b) in their beliefs about drinking
(Abrams & Niaura, 1987).
Generally, two types of coping replies have been shown to predominate generally in most situations (Folkman
& Lazarus, 1980). The first type, problem-focused coping (also referred to as approach coping), is inclined to
either resolving the offering problem or altering the origin of the tension (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub
1989). The second type, emotion-focused coping (also known as avoidance coping ), attempts to lessen the
upsetting emotional thoughts which go with the stress factor (Carver ou al., 1989). Even though persons
usually make use of both strategies in response into a given stressor, the former type will often predominate the moment
people believe that the situation is definitely changeable, although the latter type will usually predominate when folks
appraise the problem as unchangeable (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980).
People who mainly resort to elimination coping have been shown to display pathological drinking
behavior a lot more than those whom utilize strategy coping (Cooper, Russell, & George, 1988, Cooper ou
al., 1992). Those who typically resort to elimination coping (a group which usually consists of up to 25% of
drinkers), survey that they do so in order to regulate negative feelings (Cahalan, Cisin, & Crossley, 1969
Mullford & Callier, 1963, Polich & Orvis, 1979). The strongest facts to support this contention
comes from studies which have investigated post-treatment relapse in alcoholics. In three such studies
(Marlatt, & Gordon, 1979, Moos et ing., 1981, Moos, Finney, & Gamble, 1982), it was identified that
persons were very likely to relapse in case of which elicited unpleasant psychological states.
Dealing as a Moderating Factor of Stress
The real key to learning the differential influence of prevention and procedure coping in drinking lies in
the availability of an effective coping response to the stressor (Cooper et approach., 1992). By definition
individuals that utilize way coping systems to deal with all their stress, participate in concrete trouble
solving which serves to actively decrease the amount of stress. In comparison, people who count on avoidance
coping may have the ability to reduce their very own distress, nevertheless they tend to do so by distracting themselves from the stress.
Therefore , it is not astonishing that having should appeal more to people who mainly use prevention
coping, as the consumption of alcohol serves as a substitute action which can distract from the anxiety.
When seen from a social learning perspective (Abrams & Niaura, 1987), it might be seen that “alcohol make use of
serves as an over-all coping system invoked when other presumably more effective dealing responses happen to be
unavailable (Cooper et approach., 1992, S. 140). Evidence to support this kind of idea originates from studies (i. e., Higgins
& Marlatt, 1975, Hull & young 1983, Marlatt, Kosturn, & Lang, 1975) which have investigated drinking in
response to bad affects, the moment no dealing alternative was present. For example, Marlatt ainsi que al. (1975)
have shown that drinkers who were provoked and were unable to retaliate consumed significantly more by a
subsequent taste score task than drinkers who had the option to retaliate (Cooper et al., 1988).
Differential Expectancies Regarding Drinking
Alcoholic beverages outcome expectations (AOE) may be thought of as the beliefs people hold about the effects of
consuming (Goldman, Brownish, & Christiansen, 1987). These kinds of expectancies first develop in childhood as indirect
learning experiences (e. g., multimedia, family building, peer influence ) and, as a result of increased direct
activities with the medicinal effects of alcohol, become more refined (Christiansen, Goldman, &
Inn, 1982, Christiansen & Goldman, 1983, Christiansen, Goldman, & Brown 85, and Callier, Smith, &
Goldman, 1990).
The expectations that people maintain about alcoholic beverages have been shown to predict alcohol consumption in a
selection of settings (Goldman, Brown, & Christiansen 1987). Brown, Goldman, Inn, and Anderson (1980)
have shown that light consumers typically carry global expectations about liquor (i. e. alcohol affects multiple
factors), whereas large drinkers typically hold more specific expectancies, just like alcohol’s capacity to
increase sex and aggression. Furthermore, Darkish (1985a) indicates that people who have hold the
expectations that liquor enhances cultural experience are less likely to be issue drinkers than people who
drink with the expectancy of pressure reduction. It is crucial to note, nevertheless , that AOE may “vary with
learning context, personal characteristics in the drinker, sum of liquor consumed, and also other addiction
risk factors (Brown, 1993, P. 58).
Expectations as a Mediating Factor of Stress
Though it is well-established that AOE differentially foresee drinking behavior (Brown, 1993), very little
is famous about how they will exert their particular effects. Currently, most of the exploration suggests that AOE (gender
specific) directly anticipate alcohol consumption and, as such, are believed to play a mediational function (Brown
1993). Intuitively, prudent that people who hold the expectancy that alcohol can relieve their stress
should drink more than people who do not hold this expectations. However , little research has recently been
conducted so far to support this contention. Ahead of Cooper ou al. (1992), only one examine (McKirnan &
Peterson, 1988) investigated the role of expectancies in stress-induced having. The study tested a stress-
vulnerability style among gay men, who show widely specific stressors and vulnerability (i. elizabeth.
homophobic discrimination). It was identified that tension reduction expectations significantly believed
drinking amongst individuals who experienced “negative affectivity stress (i. e., low self-esteem). Even though
the Mckirnan and Peterson (1988) examine found that expectancies amplified stress, the utility with the
findings is limited because of the utilization of a nonrepresentative sample of gay males, and weird
measures of stress (Cooper et approach., 1992).
The Synthesis of Gender, Coping & Expectancies in Stress-Related Drinking
While was mentioned previously, gender, coping, and expectancies are believed to play a significant role in
stress-related having. Nevertheless, the bulk of literature in this area has commonly investigated these
factors in isolation by each other (at best, just two of these kinds of factors have been combined simultaneously).
Since stress-related drinking, however , is such a complex phenomenon (recall that the anxiety reduction
hypothesis of consuming does not apply universally) it is necessary to integrate these types of factors to acquire a
finish, holistic photo.
The only examine which has merged all three elements simultaneously was your landmark research of Cooper et
‘s. (1992). The analysis tested an interactional model of stress-related consuming which postulated that
“exposure to environmental stressors is quite strongly related to alcohol make use of and mistreatment among vulnerable
individuals, so that, “Vulnerable individuals are more likely to be male, to support strong great
expectancies intended for alcohol’s results, and to possess limited adaptive coping responses (Cooper ou al., 1992, P.
141). The benefits supported a stressor weeknesses model of having. As expected, it absolutely was found that men
were more likely to drink than ladies by virtue of their particular gender function socialization. Most importantly
however , it absolutely was also found that, for issue drinking to happen in men, a second weeknesses factor need to
often be present. In particular, guys who either held solid positive expectancies or depended on avoidant forms
of coping were more likely to be problem consumers than males who would not possess these types of attributes. (Cooper
et al., 1992). With respect to expectancies, it had been shown once again that men and women who placed strong
great AOE, drank significantly more then simply men and women who did not. Far more important, yet
was the finding that “expectancies appeared to function as stress factor vulnerability aspect among guys but not
amongst women (Cooper et approach., 1992, S. 148).
Finally, with regards to dealing, it was verified that dealing styles perform an important position in difficulty
drinking. However , significant interactions with sexuality and expectancies were also indicated. Men whom
relied upon avoidant kinds of coping were more likely than women to get vulnerable to pressure induced drinking.
Similarly, stressors were more likely to generate problem ingesting among those who were both equally high
in avoidance dealing and positive AOE, than amongst individuals who were simply high in avoidance coping.
(Cooper et approach., 1992).
Aim of the present analyze
The purpose of the present study is to extend and modify the effort of Cooper et al. (1992) in an effort
to clarify the position of tension in alcohol consumption, with respect to the interactional stressor vulnerability
model of having. Specifically, the Cooper et al. (1992) study was limited to the investigation of gender
coping, and expectancies in stress-related drinking. Considering the fact that Family history of alcoholism (FH) has been
shown to play a tremendous role in drinking (i. e., Organic cotton, 1979, Goodwin, 1988, Hillside, Nord, & Blow 1992
Ohannessian & Hesselbrock, 1993), it is attractive to investigate the role of FH since an additional vulnerability
factor while suggested by simply Cooper ou al. (1992). Moreover, the Cooper ou al. (1992) study conceptualizes
gender, dealing, and expectancies as moderators of stress-related drinking. Provided that expectancies directly
predict drinking (as discussed previously), a modified interactional model is proposed so that
gender, dealing, and family history and ancestors play a great indirect moderational role in predicting stress-related drinking
while expectancies enjoy a direct mediational role since conceptualized simply by Figure one particular below.
Figure 1 ) Proposed Altered Stressor Weakness Model of Ingesting
Gender
STRESSExpectanciesDRINKING
Coping
Family history and ancestors
Method
Subjects
Most subjects through this study had been undergraduate mindset students by a large Canadian university. The
initial test consisted of 84 volunteers. For the purpose of this research, only those subjects whom drank at
least every weak were included. A total of 66 out of 84 subject matter (77. 4%), aged nineteen years and also
successfully met this qualifying criterion. The sample consisted of a roughly similar number of 31males (47. 7%) and thirty four
females (52. 3%), who were predominantly White (64. 6%). More than three-quarters (75. 4%) of the
subjects were within their first 12 months of research, and had been mostly applied part-time (60. 0%). Practically three-
quarters (72. 3%) of those who had been employed received an annual salary smaller than dollar 10, 000. The suggest
age where subjects initial consumed liquor was 13. 7, although the suggest age where they began to drink
frequently was 17. 9. Subjects total every week consumption of alcohol proportioned 11. one particular drinks.
Steps
Measures used in the present analyze were inlayed in a basic assessment power supply that was obviously a part of a
larger study. For the purpose of the current study, the subsequent measures, administered in a fixed
order, had been employed to assess the parameters of interest.
Regular Alcohol Consumption. Topics were given a chart which in turn contained the periods of the week. For
everyday they were advised to indicate the number of standard alcohol addiction drinks plus the amount of time it
would decide to use consume these kinds of drinks within a typical week. A standard alcoholic beverages drink was defined as whether
regular size can/bottle of beer, 1 ) 5 ounce shot of liquor, or maybe a 5 ounce glass of wine. Topics who consumed less
than once a month had been instructed to skip this section. The total volume of drinks in a single week was summed
and used as the centered variable.
Tailored Short The state of michigan Alcoholism Verification Test (Adapted SMAST). The adapted SMAST (Sher &
Descutner, 1986) is a 13 item self-report questionnaire made to measure family history and ancestors of dependency on alcohol.
Specifically, the questionnaire analyzes the magnitude of an individual’s mother’s and father’s alcohol abuse.
Assessment is founded on a two point scale consisting of 0=no and 1=yes. For the purpose of the present
study only 10 items were used, and the mother/father answer groups were expanded to neurological mother/
father and stage or adoptive mother/father.
Complete Effects of Alcohol (CEOA). The CEOA (Fromme, Stroot, & Kaplan, 1993) is a 38 item
self-report questionnaire built to assess alcoholic beverages outcome expectancies and their very subjective valence. It really is
composed of eight expectancy scales, four confident (sociability, tension-reduction, liquid-courage, and
sexuality) and three unfavorable (cognitive-behavioral impairment, risk and aggression, and self perception).
Expectancy evaluation is based on a four stage scale via 1=disagree to 4=agree. The valence of these
expectancies is assessed on the five level scale from 1=bad to 5=good. Both equally items and instructions had been
carefully worded to ensure that the elicited expectations were none dose-specific, neither situation particular.
Perceived Pressure Scale (PSS). The PSS (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983) is actually a 14 item self-report
questionnaire designed to assess the degree that situations in one’s existence are evaluated as nerve-racking. An
the same number of several positive and 7 unfavorable statements make up the questionnaire. Assessment is based on a
five level scale from 0=never to 4=very frequently. Scores are obtained by simply reversing the scores for the seven
great items (i. e., 0=4, 1=3, 2=2, etc . ), and then summing across all 14 items.
COPE. The COPE (Carver et ‘s., 1989) is actually a 53 item self-report customer survey designed to examine
individual dealing dispositions. The questionnaire is usually comprised of 13 scales which can be categorized into three
dealing styles: Problem-Focused Coping (Active coping, Planning, Suppression of competing actions
Seeking social support for instrumental reasons, and Restraint coping), Emotion-Focused Coping
(Acceptance, Looking for social support to get emotional causes, Positive reinterpretation, Turning to religious beliefs
and Give attention to and venting of emotion), and Less than Useful Coping (Denial, Behavioral Disengagement
and Mental Disengagement). For the purpose of this current study the Alcohol-drug disengagement scale
was excluded by these groups, and was treated as a separate category called Having to Cope.
Analysis is based on a four stage scale from1=I usually don’t do this whatsoever to 4=I usually accomplish this a lot.
Both items and instructions had been worded in a way that dispositional, rather than situational, kinds of coping
had been assessed.
Process
All individuals were hired from undergrad psychology training at You are able to University. The
questionnaire was administered within a classroom establishing. Participants accomplished the questionnaire in a
group format of mixed sex ranging in size from 15 to 40 individuals. Informed consent was obtained
via all individuals, and a telephone number was supplied in case any kind of concerns arose. The complete
customer survey required about 40 moments to administer. Respondents were paid for for their
time by being came into in a lottery with a 1 in 50 chance of successful $ 50. 00.
Results
Correlational Analyses
Desk 1 gives zero-order correlations, computed for a lot of relevant examine variables. Conceptually
variables can be grouped as one of five categories: weekly having (variable 1), perceived anxiety
(variable 2), family history of alcoholism (variable 3), dealing variables (Variables 4-7), and expectancy
variables (variables 8-21). Examining the pattern of correlations among these parameters suggests many
conclusions.
Initially, family history of alcoholism was neither significantly correlated with perceived stress nor with
weekly drinking, suggesting that family history and ancestors of dependency on alcohol is certainly not important in stress-induced consuming.
Second, a number of coping parameters were drastically correlated with both weekly drinking and/or
perceived stress. Particularly, drinking to manage was drastically positively correlated with both regular
drinking (r =. 420) and perceived stress (r =. 310), less beneficial coping was significantly positively correlated
(r =. 674) with anxiety, and problem focused coping was substantially negatively related (r = -. 327) with
each week drinking. These findings suggest that coping variables play an important role in stress-related
ingesting.
Finally, merely one expectancy changing, the valence expectancy for cognitive and behavioral impairment
was considerably correlated (r =. 340) with weekly drinking, however, not with perceived stress. However , several
expectancy variables had been significantly absolutely correlated (. 357 <, r <,. 517) with drinking to cope. These
findings suggest that expectations are more likely certainly be a distal, rather than a proximal predictor of stress-
related ingesting.
Estimating the Model
Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were employed to test the unit depicted in Figure 1 ) Table a couple of
contains summary statistics pertaining to the stepwise regression used to identify the predictor variables of weekly
drinking. Just like be seen coming from Table a couple of, gender surfaced as the most crucial predictor changing accounting
for more than 28% from the variance. The coping factors of ingesting to cope and problem-focused ingesting were
likewise significant, and accounted for an additional 12% and 8% from the variance, correspondingly. Further multiple
regression analyses were used to determine which usually variables predicted drinking to manage, and problem-focused
coping, respectively. Table 3 shows that the expectancy intended for risk accounted for over 26% of the difference in
forecasting drinking to manage, with the expectancy for stress and identified stress accounting for a great
additional 16%. Table some shows that emotion-focused coping made up over 34% of the variance in
forecasting problem-focused ingesting, with the expectations valence for self notion accounting for an
added 8%. Physique 2 summarizes the direct effects believed in the foregoing series of multiple
regression studies.
Table 1 ) Zero-Order Correlations Among Relevant Study Variables
______________________________________________________________________________________
Assess 123456789
1 . Weekly Drinking”-. 143-. 072-. 327* -. 232 -. 206. 420**. 016. 240
2 . Identified Stress”. 001. 198. 138. 674**. 310* -. 069 -. 074
3. Family history and ancestors of Addiction to alcohol “-. 186-. 111 -. 002-. 211-. 003 -. 128
5. Problem-Focused Coping”. 491**. 170-. 044-. 132 -. 112
5. Emotion-Focused Coping “. 166. 062. 111. 107
6. Much less Useful Coping”. 223-. 073-. 017
several. Drinking to Cope”. 234. 412**
Alcoholic beverages Expectancy Outcomes
8. Sociability”. 262
9. Tension Decrease “
12. Liquid Courage
11. Libido
12. Intellectual & Behavioral Impairment
13. Risk & Aggression
13. Self Understanding
Alcohol Expectations Valence
12-15. Sociability
sixteen. Tension Lowering
17. The liquid Courage
18. Sexuality
19. Cognitive & Behavioral Disability
20. Risk & Aggression
21. Self Perception
2. p <,. 01, ** p <,. 001
Table 1 . (Continued) Zero-Order Correlations Among Relevant Study Factors
______________________________________________________________________________________
Measure10 11 12 13 14 15 sixteen 17 18
1 . Regular 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 and ancestors 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
6th. Less Useful Coping-. 178-. 006. 238. 066. 059. 016. 096-. 025. 072
7. Consuming to Cope. 371*. 225-. 017. 517** -. 009. 066. 357*. 121. 178
Liquor Expectancy Final results
8. Sociability. 697**. 488** -. 120. 433** -. 160. 569**. 469**. 174. 289
9. Tension Decrease. 233. 263. 041. one hundred and eighty. 006. 202. 282. 132. 222
10. Liquid Bravery “. 509**. 032. 622**. 046. 433**. 436**. 381*. 245
11. Sexuality”. 260. 522**. 276. 118. 161-. 025. 149
12. Intellectual & Behavioral Impairment “. 221. 354* -. 227 -. 241-. 171 -. 061
13. Risk & Aggression”. 236. 158. 304*. 106 -. 001
16. Self Perception”-. 335* -. 175-. 089 -. 247
Alcohol Expectations Valence
12-15. Sociability”. 510**. 499**. 490**
16. Pressure Reduction “. 412**. 409**
17. Liquid Courage “. 541**
18. Sexuality”
nineteen. Cognitive & Behavioral Impairment
20. Risk & Out and out aggression
21. Do it yourself Perception
* p <,. 01, ** p <,. 001
Stand 1 . (Continued) Zero-Order Correlations Among Relevant Study Parameters
______________________________________________________________________________________
Evaluate 192021
1 ) Weekly Ingesting. 340*. 026. 197
2 . Perceived Stress-. 164. 065 -. 139
3. Genealogy of Addiction to alcohol -. 229. 045. 009
4. Problem-Focused Coping -. 289 -. 053 -. 357*
a few. Emotion-focused Coping -. 122 -. 123 -. one hundred thirty five
6. Less Useful Coping-. 262 -. 054 -. 322
several. Drinking to manage. 119. 166-. 054
Alcoholic beverages Expectancy Final results
8. Sociability. 141. 169. 135
9. Tension Reduction. 196. 166. 015
10. Liquid Bravery. 123. 278. 138
11. Sexuality -. 271 -. 152 -. 160
12. Cognitive & Behavioral Disability -. 396**-. 217-. 097
13. Risk & Aggression-. 038 -. 019-. 138
14. Home Perception-. 363*-. 274-. 220
Alcohol Expectancy Valence
15. Sociability. 249. 482**. 113
16. Tension Reduction. one hundred and fifty. 227-. 131
17. The liquid Courage. 375*. 717**. 219
18. Sexuality. 162. 515**. 181
19. Cognitive & Behavioral Impairment”. 544**. 539**
20. Risk & Aggression”. 517**
21 years old. Self Notion “
2. p <,. 01, ** p
