articol 2

Journal of Abnormal Psychology Copyright 1988 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 1988, Vol. 97, No. 2,218-230 0021-843X/88/$00.75

Coping, Expectancies, and Alcohol Abuse: A Test of Social Learning Formulations

M. Lynne Cooper and Marc ia Russe l l Research Institute on Alcoholism, Buffalo, New York

Wi l l i am H. George State University of New York at Buffalo

The social learning perspective on alcohol abuse has spawned theoretical analyses to explain etiology as well as intervention methods to guide treatment. Despite scattered empirical support for constitu- ent components of this approach, tests of a comprehensive social learning model of abuse have been lacking. The model proposed here postulates that alcohol abuse can be predicted from a causal chain that includes alcohol consumption and "drinking to cope" as proximal determinants and general coping skills and positive alcohol expectancies as more distal determinants. To evaluate this model in a way that permits simultaneous consideration of its multiple determinants and control for demo- graphic influences, path analytic techniques were applied to data from problem and nonproblem drinkers drawn from a general population sample. The hypothesized model accounted for significant variance in abuse status. Drinking to cope emerged as the most powerful predictor, exerting influence via direct and indirect pathways. Coping styles indicative of avoidance of emotion emerged as more important predictors of abuse than problem-focused coping. The predictive value of coping was moderated by alcohol expectancies such that avoidant styles of coping with emotion were predictive of abuse status only among drinkers expressing greater belief in alcohol's positive reinforcing properties. These findings both support and refine the social learning perspective on alcohol abuse. Theoret- ical and treatment implications are considered.

Social learning theory posits that people who exhibit abusive patterns of drinking differ from "healthy" drinkers in their ability to cope with the demands of everyday life and in their beliefs about alcohol (Abrams & Niaura, 1987).~ According to this perspective, deficiencies in more adaptive coping skills and positive expectancies about alcohol's effects operate independently and jointly to promote the use of drinking as a coping mechanism. Reliance on alcohol to cope should lead to heavier drinking and, over time, increase the risk of alcohol abuse. This perspective on the development and maintenance of alcohol abuse has heavily influenced the content, techniques, and goals of a range of alcohol treatment programs. In particular, the teaching of general and alcohol-specific coping skills, and to a lesser extent the modification of beliefs about the effects of alcohol, are integral components of various treatment approaches (e.g., social skills training). Despite its widespread influence in the treatment field, no comprehensive test of the social learning perspective has been conducted. The present study tests a causal model de-

This research was supported by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Grant AA05702 to Marcia Russell. The authors wish to thank Jeremy Skinner, Brenda Major, Michael Frone, and John Welte for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. We also gratefully acknowledge data analytic guidance provided by David Harrington, Michael Frone, and Michael Windle and analytic support provided by Donna Coviello.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to M. Lynne Cooper, Research Institute on Alcoholism, 1021 Main Street, Buffalo, New York 14203.

rived from social learning theory that relates general coping skills, alcohol expectancies, and drinking to cope to alcohol use and abuse in a general population sample. Though not a comprehensive test of social learning formulations, confirmation of the proposed model would constitute strong support for several basic tenets of this perspective.

Background

Drinking to Cope

Fundamental to the social learning perspective are the dual premises that alcohol may be used as a generalized coping mechanism and that the use of alcohol to cope will promote heavier drinking and alcohol abuse. Considerable empirical evidence exists to support both notions.

Drinking to cope is defined as the tendency to use alcohol to escape, avoid, or otherwise regulate unpleasant emotions. Cor- relational research examining motives for drinking consistently reveals that a substantial percentage of drinkers, typically rang- ing from 10% to 25%, report drinking to regulate negative emo-

t Although no cohesive, clearly defined, consensually validated body of theoretical premises comprising the social learning perspective on alcohol abuse exists, we use the terms social learning perspective/approach interchangably to refer to a set of loosely related theories and theoretical perspectives first articulated by Bandura ( ! 969) and subse- quently elaborated by Marlatt (1979) and Abrams and Niaura (1987). We use this terminology for economy of expression; we do not intend to imply that a cohesive theoretical framework exists.

218

COPING, EXPECTANCIES, AND ABUSE 219

tion (Cahalan, Cisin, & Crossley, 1969; Mulford & Miller, 1963; Polich & Orvis, 1979). Several experimental studies provide additional evidence suggesting that individuals may, consciously or unconsciously, drink to cope with negative internal states. For example, Marlatt, Kosturn, and Lang (1975) demonstrated that male social drinkers who were provoked by a confederate but given no opportunity to retaliate against the confederate drank significantly more in a subsequent taste-rating task than their angered counterparts who were given the opportunity to retaliate. Marlatt and colleagues suggested that alcohol was used in an attempt to cope with the negative emotions aroused by the provocateur when no coping alternative was provided. That subjects may drink in response to experimental manipula- tions designed to engender negative affect or emotion (e.g., anxi- ety or decreased self-esteem) has been replicated in other studies as well (cf. Higgins & Marlatt, 1975; Hull & Young, 1983).

Numerous studies have shown that reliance on alcohol as a coping mechanism is associated with heavy or abusive drinking (Farber, Khavari, & Douglass, 1980; Mulford, 1983; Parry, Cisin, Baiter, Mellinger, & Manheimer, 1974). For example, 93% of a sample of diagnosed alcoholics were classified as escape drinkers, in contrast to the typically low rates of endorse- ment of drinking-to-cope items among nonproblem drinkers (Farber et al., 1980). Moreover, drinking to cope has been shown to predict abuse status after controlling for level of consumption (Polich & Orvis, 1979), thereby suggesting that the adverse consequences of a reliance on alcohol to cope cannot be accounted for solely by increased alcohol consumption.

The use of alcohol to cope with stressful situations has also been implicated in posttreatment relapse. Marlatt and Gordon (1979) found that over three-quarters of their sample of relapsed alcoholics reported taking their first drink in situations where they were faced with either unpleasant emotional states (e.g., anger and frustration stemming from an argument with someone) or social pressure to resume drinking.

Collectively, these data provide clear support for the concep- tualization of drinking as a coping response in stressful situations. Moreover, they suggest that individuals who rely on drinking to cope are likely to drink more heavily and to develop problems indicative of abuse syndromes.

Alcohol Expectancies

According to the social learning perspective, beliefs about the effects of alcohol, referred to as alcohol expectancies, should influence the likelihood that alcohol will be used to cope with negative emotions. Presumably one must first believe that alcohol will in some way ameliorate unpleasant emotions before alcohol would be used instrumentally to regulate or reduce negative affect.

Expectancy research has focused on mapping the domain of alcohol-related expectancies and their relation to alcohol use and abuse. Early research identified six dimensions of positive expectancies (Brown, Goldman, Inn, & Anderson, 1980). Two of these dimensions were highly general, indicating the belief that alcohol is capable of "magically" transforming or enhanc- ing a broad range of physical and social experiences. The remaining four dimensions tapped expectancies for sexual enhancement, increased power and aggression, increased social

assertiveness, and tension reduction. Rohsenow (1983) subse- quently elaborated this typology to include two additional dimensions reflecting expectancies for the negative effects of alcohol, in particular for performance impairment and irresponsi- bility.

Expectancy patterns have successfully predicted drinking behavior at all points along the continuum, from the onset of drinking during adolescence to alcoholism. Expectancies assessed among 12- to 14-year-olds, prior to the onset of drinking, have predicted subsequent patterns and levels of consumption as well as the onset of problem drinking at 1- and 2-year follow- up intervals (Roehling, Smith, Goldman, & Christiansen, 1987; Smith, Roehling, Christiansen, & Goldman, 1986). Among adolescent, college, and adult populations, the strength and pattern of alcohol expectancies have discriminated between light and heavy drinkers, at-risk and control groups, and problem and nonproblem drinkers (see Goldman, Brown, & Christian- sen, 1987, for a review). Finally, expectancies have prospectively predicted relapse among groups of treated alcoholics (Brown, 1985).

Experimental studies using the balanced placebo design provide further evidence that expectancies may significantly influence alcohol consumption (see Hull & Bond, 1986, for a recent meta-analytic review of balanced placebo studies). Thus, experimental and correlational evidence provide convergent support for the role of expectancies in determining actual levels of consumption as well as the behavioral consequences of consumption. The prospective studies recently reported by Smith et al. (1986) and Roehling et al. (1987) provide compelling evidence that expectancies precede the onset of drinking and drinking problems. Collectively, these data strongly suggest that expectancies may play a causal role in the development of alcohol abuse. It is not known, however, whether all or part of the relationship between expectancies and alcohol abuse is mediated through reliance on alcohol as a coping mechanism.

General Coping Skills

Social learning theorists regard the domain of general coping skills as critical to the decision to drink as well as whether drinking will be normal or maladaptive (Abrams & Niaura, 1987). In this view, alcohol use is conceptualized as a general coping mechanism invoked in situations where other more appropriate coping responses are unavailable or unused.

Perhaps the most convincing evidence regarding the rele- vance of general coping skills to patterns of abusive drinking derives from research with alcoholic populations. Relapsed alcoholics were discriminated from recovered alcoholics and matched community controls at 6-month and 2-year follow-ups by their use of avoidance coping strategies in response to a recently experienced stressful event (Billings & Moos, 1983). The balance of positive to negative coping strategies was also found to be the strongest predictor of abstinence (accounting for approximately 30% of the explained variance) among a group of treated alcoholics at 2-year follow-ups (Cronkite & Moos, 1984). Treatment outcome studies of various skill-oriented programs provide additional indirect evidence that acquisition of appropriate coping responses may lead to a reduction in abusive drinking (see Miller & Hester, 1986, for a review).

220 L. COOPER, M. RUSSELL, AND W. GEORGE

(f Positive "~ /~-IP" ~ Expectancies J~_

Coping / - " " ~

Figure 1. Hypothesized model relating drinking to cope, expectancies, and general coping skills to alcohol use and abuse.

More relevant to the question of the etiologic role of coping in the development of alcohol abuse are studies using general population samples. Only a handful of such studies have been conducted, however, and they fail to provide strong support for the importance of general coping skills. The use of prayer or other religious means of coping has been related both to patterns of consumption and reliance on alcohol to cope (Stone, Lennox, & Neale, 1985; Timmer, Veroff, & Colten, 1985). How- ever, the relationship between prayer and alcohol use may reflect the impact of normative proscriptions against drinking charac- teristic of most major religions, rather than the protective effects of prayer per se as an adaptive coping mechanism. Seeking support and avoidance coping have also been related to drinking to cope as negative and positive predictors respectively (Timmer et al., 1985). However, these relationships were not robust across multiple analyses and were qualified by sex of respondent. Fi- nally, low self-esteem, which is suggestive of low levels of coping resources, has also been related to drinking to cope (Pearlin & Radabaugh, 1976).

The above research is largely consistent with the notion that coping deficits may contribute to reliance on alcohol as a general coping response and to the development and maintenance of alcohol abuse. However, current research is too sparse to per- mit confident conclusions regarding the etiologic significance of specific coping styles or coping deficits, particularly in the development of problem drinking among nonclinical samples.

Proposed Model

To summarize, although past research provides substantial evidence supporting the importance of expectancies, general coping skills, and the use of alcohol to cope as independent predictors of alcohol use and abuse, no research has been conducted to date that integrates these variables into a conceptual framework and tests simultaneously their contributions to alcohol abuse. Failure to simultaneously consider the contribution of these factors potentially sacrifices parsimony

and runs the risk of generating spurious findings due to the overlap among these constructs.

The present research tests a causal model relating these variables in a general population sample. Figure 1 illustrates this model, which derives directly from a social learning perspective on the development of alcohol abuse. As shown in Figure 1, we hypothesize that expectancies and general coping skills will make significant independent contributions to the prediction of drinking to cope and, further, that expectancies will moderate the relationship between general coping skills and drinking to cope. Specifically, we hypothesize that the relationship between general coping skills and drinking to cope will be stronger among individuals high in positive expectancies than among individuals low in expectancies. Al- cohol consumption is hypothesized to be a direct positive function of expectancies and of the reliance on alcohol to cope. The entire effect of general coping skills on consumption is hypothesized to be indirectly mediated via drinking to cope. Finally, abuse status is hypothesized to be a direct positive function of expectancies, drinking to cope, and alcohol consumption. General coping deficits are hypothesized to contribute only indirectly via drinking to cope.

The proposed model tests a number of premises fundamental to a social learning perspective on alcohol abuse. Consistent with Bandura's view of alcoholics as people who have acquired alcohol consumption as a widely generalized dominant response to aversive stimulation (Bandura, 1969), the present model posits a central role for the use of alcohol to cope. More- over, cognitive expectancies for alcohol's effect (i.e., outcome expectancies) and individual differences in coping skill figure prominently in the present model. Finally, in accord with the notion of multiple determinism, alcohol abuse is hypothesized to result from multiple, interacting determinants. Thus confirmation of the proposed model will constitute strong support for the fundamental logic of the social learning perspective on alcohol abuse.


Method

Sample Subjects in this study were 119 adults meeting DSM-III criteria for

current alcohol abuse or dependence and a comparison group of 948 drinkers, all of whom drank within the past year and have no history of alcohol abuse or dependence. Subjects meeting these criteria were drawn from a recently completed random sample survey of 1933 house- hold residents in Erie County, New York. Designated respondents were identified in a three-stage probability sample, stratified on race (Black vs. non-Black) and education (less than high school, high school, some college). The overall sample completion rate was 78.3%, and the major- ity (84.5%) of noncompletions were refusals.

Subjects in the present study ranged in age from 19 to 91 (M = 40 years, SD = 15.7), had completed on average one year of college (M = 13.0 years of schooling, SD = 2.4) and reported a median income of $8,500 (M = $10,503, SD = $9,695). Fifty-seven percent were female and 51% were Black. All subjects had consumed alcohol within the past year, reporting an average of one drink per day, containing approximately .5 ounces absolute alcohol.

Procedures

Data were collected by a corp of 27 interviewers in the summer and fall of 1986. Interviewers received five days of intensive training on general interviewing techniques, administration of the survey instrument and study-specific procedures. Interviews were conducted in respondents' homes using a highly structured interview schedule that con- tained both interviewer- and self-administered portions. The complete interview required approximately 90 minutes to administer. Respon- dents were compensated $25 for their time.

Routine steps were taken to ensure the standardization of interview procedures (e.g., careful interviewer training, the development and use of field manuals, etc.), which served to minimize the introduction of both random and systematic error. In addition, standard procedures were followed to assure respondents of the anonymity and confidential- ity of the data, including conducting interviews in private whenever possible. Of the 1057 respondents included in the present study, however, 259 (24.5%) were interviewed in the presence of older children or adults. Subsequent analyses of these data showed that the presence of an adult or older child did not significantly influence the reporting of alcohol consumption or alcohol problems. Thus it would appear that social de- sirability biases were not invoked by the presence of others with regard to the reporting of these key and potentially sensitive data.

Measures Measures were administered in a fixed order. Except for the expectan-

cies and anger coping measures, which were self-administered, all measures included in the present study were interviewer-administered.

Problem drinking status. Subjects were administered questions from the National Institute of Mental Health Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS, Robins, Helzer, Croughan, Williams, & Spitzer, 1981) to approxi- mate a psychiatric diagnosis of alcohol abuse or dependence according to DSM-III criteria. Subjects were first asked if they had ever experienced any of 17 symptoms (e.g., needing a drink before breakfast, having trouble on the job or at school because of drinking, having the "shakes" after stopping or cutting down drinking). Affirmative responses were followed by a question regarding the number of times that particular symptom had been experienced within the past year. Follow- ing DSM.III criteria, symptoms were divided into three categories: (A) a pattern of pathological alcohol use, (B) impairment in social or occu- pational functioning due to alcohol use, and (C) evidence of tolerance or withdrawal. Subjects had to report the occurrence of at least one

symptom in Categories A and B to be classified as an abuser, and at least one symptom in either Category A or B and one symptom in Category C to be classified as alcohol dependent. In our study, subjects were considered current problem drinkers if they scored positively on either abuse or dependence based on symptoms experienced within the past 12 months.

The DIS yields highly accurate diagnoses of alcohol abuse and dependence according to DSM-III criteria. Robins, Helzer, Croughan, & Rat- cliff ( 1981) compared diagnoses derived from independent administra- tions of the DIS by psychiatrists and lay interviewers to 216 subjects. In this study, psychiatrists were allowed to supplement data from the DIS with additional diagnostic information when they deemed it necessary to render an accurate diagnosis. Under these conditions, diagnoses by lay interviewers proved to be both sensitive, yielding a 14% false negative rate, and highly specific, yielding only a 2% false positive rate, as judged against diagnoses by psychiatrists.

Alcoholconsumption. Subjects were asked to estimate usual quantity and frequency of consumption across all beverage types over the past 12 months. From these estimates, a global measure of consumption was computed that represents the average number of drinks per day, where one drink was defined as 12 ounces of beer, 4 ounces of wine, or 1 ounce of hard liquor (i.e., approximately 0.5 ounces absolute alcohol). Quan- tity-frequency questions were adapted from the National Health and Leisure Time Survey (Wilsnack, Klassen, & Wilsnack, 1984).

Drinking to cope. Drinking to cope was assessed by a six-item scale developed by Polich and Orvis (1979). Subjects were asked to report the relative frequency on a 4-point scale (almost never, sometimes, often, almost always) with which they drink for each of the following reasons: to forget your worries, to relax, to cheer up when you're in a bad mood, to help when you feel depressed and nervous, to feel more self-confident and sure of yourself, and because there is nothing better to do (i.e., to relieve boredom). Coefficient alpha for the six-item Drinking to Cope subscale was .85.

Positive alcohol expectancies. Positive expectancies were assessed by a composite of six subseales taken from the abbreviated version of the Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire (Rohsenow, 1983). These subseales assessed expectancies for global positive effects, social and physical plea- sure, sexual enhancement, aggression and power, social expressiveness, and relaxation and tension reduction. Although Rohsenow's item content was used, instructions for completing the items were taken from Brown's Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire (Brown et al., 1980). These instructions emphasize responding in terms of personal beliefs about alcohol as opposed to Rohsenow's instructions which ask respondents to indicate their agreement with items based on the actual effects of a few alcoholic drinks.

Rationale for using a composite measure derived primarily from a higher-order factor analysis of the six subscales showing that all subscales loaded on a single factor with loadings >/.65. In addition, several statistical considerations further support the utility of this approach. 2

Specifically, two additional considerations support this decision. First, using subseales would introduce measurement error into the analyses. Four of the six subseales tapping positive expectancies have coefficient alphas lower than .75. Second, using individual subscales would create data analytic problems to which no entirely adequate solution exists. Specifically, if individual subseales were used, analyses of the hypothesized Coping Expectancies interaction would require the simultaneous estimation of up to 24 interaction terms. Such a procedure would introduce substantial muiticollinearity leading to highly unstable parameter estimates. The alternate analytic option would be to evaluate each expectancy subscale in an independent regression analysis. How- ever, this option inflates the Type I error rate to some unknown extent owing to substantial intercorrelation among the subscales (rs range from .35 to .64, ps < .001).


A summary score for positive expectancies was obtained by computing the mean of the means for the six positive expectancy subseales. Co- efficient alpha for the resulting composite was .86.

General coping skills. Three separate measures of coping were used in this study, two trait-type measures (Anger coping styles and "John Henryism" active coping style), and a process measure (Adult Health and Daily Living Form B Coping Response Index). Each measure is described below.

Anger coping styles assess how individuals characteristically react or behave when they feel angry or upset. Three dimensions of anger coping were assessed in the present study: anger-out, anger-in, and anger-reflect. Respondents were asked to rate on a 4-point scale (almost never, sometimes, often, almost always) how often they react in each of 16 different ways when they feel angry or furious.

Items developed by Spiclberger et al. (1985) were used to measure anger-in and anger-out. Anger-in assesses the extent to which respondents typically suppress or avoid dealing with their angry feelings (e.g., "Boil inside, but don't show it"). Conversely, anger-out refers to the extent that individuals engage in aggressive behaviors when motivated by angry feelings (e.g., "Say nasty things;' "Slam doors"). In the present study, six of the eight original items were used to measure each construct. Selected items were identified on the basis of a published factor analysis (Spielberger et al., 1985). Coefficient alphas were .73 and .76 for anger-in and anger-out, respectively.

Anger-reflect assesses the extent to which respondents typically control their anger in an effort to address the underlying problem or cause of their anger. Four items developed by Harburg and Gleibermann (1986) were used. Representative items include: "Keep your cool so that you handle the problem that angered you" and "Calm down and think about whatever angered you before you settle the problem?' Coefficient alpha for the four-item scale was .80.

"John Henryism" (JH) active coping style is a stress-coping style char- acterized by the belief that one can control one's environment coupled with direct and active efforts to do so. Assessed by the "John Henryism" scale (James, Hartnett, & Kalsbeek, 1983), respondents indicated on a 4-point scale (completely false, somewhat false, somewhat true, completely true) the extent to which each item accurately characterizes them. A representative item is, "Once I make up my mind to do some- thing, I stay with it until the job is completely done?' Coefficient alpha for the 12-item scale was .83.

Coping responses were assessed by using the 32-item Health and Daily Living (HDL) Coping Response Index (Moos, Cronkite, Billings, & Finney, 1986). Subjects were asked to recall and briefly describe a recently experienced stressful event or situation. They were then asked to rate on a 3-point scale (not at all, somewhat, a great deal) the extent to which they used each of 32 potential coping responses to deal with the event/situation.

Three method-of-coping indexes were derived. Active Behavioral Cop- ing (13 items) assesses the extent to which subjects engaged in direct action and problem-solving (e.g., "Tried to find out more about the situation"). Active Cognitive Coping ( 11 items) taps the use of cognitive strategies such as, "Tried to see the positive side of the situation?' Avoidance Coping (7 items) assesses reliance on avoidance, denial, or tension reduction as strategies for coping with the recently experienced stressful event. Representative items include "Tried to reduce tension by eating more" or "by smoking more" "Kept your feelings to yourself" and "Avoided being with people in general" One additional item, "Tried to reduce tension by drinking more," was deleted from the Avoidance Coping subscale to eliminate ex- pilot confounding of Avoidance Coping with Drinking to Cope.

Coefficient alphas for the coping response indexes were low to moderate: .69, .66, and .48 for Active Behavioral, Active Cognitive, and Avoidance Coping, respectively. These are nonetheless comparable with internal consistency estimates of reliability reported by Moos et al. (1986). 3

Results

Comparison o f Problem and Nonproblem Drinkers

Groups did not significantly differ on race, education, income, marital status, or employment status (unemployed vs. all others). However, problem drinkers were significantly younger (35.1 vs. 40.7 years, t(1064) = 4.43, p < .001) and a greater portion were male (72.3% vs. 38.9%, x 2 [1, N = 1067], = 50.7, p < .001). Thus, all subsequent analyses were conducted controlling for sex and age.

Data Reduction and Correlational Analyses

Table 1 presents zero-order and partial correlations among major study variables, along with means, standard deviations, observed ranges, and valid ns for each variable. Because results did not differ substantively across the two correlational procedures, results are discussed without specific reference to correlational procedure.

Conceptually variables may be grouped into one of two categories: alcohol-related variables (Variables 1-4, Table 1) and coping variables (Variables 5-11). Examining the pattern of correlations between and within these sets suggests several conclusions.

First, alcohol-related variables were significantly positively intercorrelated, as would be expected. More important, however, their magnitude ranged from small to moderate (.20 ~ r ~< .45), suggesting that these variables tap related but conceptually distinct constructs, as hypothesized.

Second, the set of coping indexes used in this study appears to represent at least two distinct domains of coping behaviors. Anger-in, anger-out, and avoidance coping were significantly and positively intercorrelated, as were JH active coping style, active cognitive coping, active behavioral coping, and anger-reflect. In addition, variables within each subset were not, for the most part, significantly positively correlated across sets. 4

In order to clarify further the interrelationships of the seven coping indexes, they were submitted to a higher order factor analysis. By using a principal components extraction and vari- max rotation, two factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 were extracted accounting for 30% and 28% of the variance, respectively. Anger-in, anger-out, and avoidance coping loaded positively on Factor 1 (loadings >I .55) and anger-reflect loaded nega-

3 It has been suggested that low internal reliability may reflect an in- herent property of the construct rather than inadequate measurement. Specifically, Lazarus and Folkman (1984) have argued that the success- ful use of one strategy within a particular domain of strategies may obvi- ate the need to use other strategies within that domain. Thus, one would not necessarily expect to obtain high estimates of internal consistency reliability.

4 The only exceptions to this pattern are the significant, though modest (. 16 ~< r < .25), positive correlations between avoidance coping, in the first subset, and the remaining subscales of the HDL Coping Re- sponse Index, Active Cognitive and Active Behavioral Coping, in the second subset. Presumably at least some portion of the relationship between these subseales reflects shared method variance. In addition, there may also be a spurious component due to perceived stressfulness of the event or situation with which the individual was coping.


b

t~

, ' , ' , ' , , , ' , 9

( ( ( ) " " " ()" ( ] "N

. . . . ~ . . . . i ~ 3~

m~m . . . . i . . . ~ ~

. . . . . . i

~ _ ~ . "' . . . . I . . . . . ~

.~ ~ - - ~ - - ~ .

. . ~ ~ ~

I . . . . . . ~ ' t ' ~ ' ~

"0

0~

< -d

AI

tively (-.59). Active cognitive coping, active behavioral coping, and JH active coping style loaded positively on Factor 2 (loadings >i .60). These factors appear to reflect major domains of coping behavior identified in the literature as emotion-focused and problem-focused coping, respectively (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980).

Finally, these analyses suggest that emotion-focused and problem-focused coping are differentially related to the set of alcohol variables. Anger-in, anger-out, and avoidance coping were significantly and positively correlated with all alcohol variables, although the magnitude of these correlations was modest (.09 ~< r ~< .28). In contrast, anger-reflect (as a presumably adaptive method of coping with emotion) was consistently negatively related to alcohol expectancies, use and abuse (-.05 ~< r ~< -.13). Problem-focused coping indicators (JH active coping style, active cognitive coping, and active behavioral coping) revealed no consistent pattern of relationships to the set of alcohol variables. Correlations ranged from - . 10 to. 10, with approximately half of these correlations not differing significantly from O.

Estimating the Model

Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were used to estimate the model depicted in Figure 1. The full model, consisting of three equations, was estimated twice: once using the emotion-focused coping indexes and a second time using the problem-focused coping indexes. 5 In Equation 1, drinking to cope was regressed on all hypothesized predictors (i.e., positive alcohol-related expectancies, the coping indexes and, in a subsequent step, the appropriate Expectancies Coping interaction terms). In Equation 2, alcohol consumption (the average number of drinks consumed per day over the past year) was regressed on all variables to its left in the model (drinking to cope, expectancies, and coping followed by Expectancies X Coping). Fi- nally, in Equation 3, problem drinking status was regressed on all variables to its left (consumption, drinking to cope, expectancies, and coping, again followed by Expectancies Coping).

This analytic strategy is highly similar to path analysis with variables postulated as effects regressed simultaneously on all variables postulated as causes. Thus, the contribution of each term in the model is evaluated, controlling for all other terms in the model. As such, the present analytic strategy is highly conservative, attributing only nonoverlapping variance to each factor. In addition, this strategy enables the estimation of direct and indirect effects among variables.

Strictly speaking, however, the present analytic strategy differs from traditional path analysis in two respects9 First, an

5 Individual coping scales are used throughout these analyses. Al- though use of composite coping measures would simplify subsequent analyses and potentially facilitate their interpretation, the composites formed on the basis oftbe reported factor analysis were not highly reliable. For the anger-in, anger-out, anger-reflect (reverse scored), avoidance coping composite, coefficient alpha was 9 for the three problem- focused coping indexes, coefficient alpha was 9 These estimates are not only lower than six oftbe seven reliability estimates obtained for the individual subscales, but also suggest that unique information carried by the individual scales might be lost by compositing.


Table 2 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Drinking to Cope From Positive Expectancies and Two Sets of Coping Indexes

Emotion-focused coping (N = 947)

R 2 Standardized Variables entered on change beta weight Variables entered on

Problem-focused coping (N= 951)

R 2 Standardized change beta weight

Step 2 .245*** Expectancies .389*** Coping indexes

HDL Avoidance .170*** Anger-In .123** Anger-Out -.023 Anger-Reflect -.010

Step 3 .015*** Expectancies X Coping .073*

HDL Avoidance .084* Anger-In -.006 Anger-Out .033 Anger-Reflect

Total R 2 .272***

Step 2 .207*** Expectancies .438*** Coping indexes

JH Active -.053 HDL Active Cognitive .069 HDL Active Behavioral .018

Step 3 .007* Expectancies Coping -.088**

JH Active .049 HDL Active Cognitive -.012 HDL Active Behavioral

Total R 2 .226***

Note. JH Active = "John Henryism" active coping style; HDL = Health and Daily Living Coping Response Index. Both analyses were conducted forcing age and sex into the equation on Step 1. R 2 for Step 1 was .012 (p < .01) across both equations. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

interaction term has been incorporated in the model and, second, multiple indicators for one of the components in the model (coping) are included, among which no causal relationships have been hypothesized. However, both modifications to standard path analytic procedures have been explicitly discussed in the literature and recommended procedures have been followed here (see Cohen & Cohen, 1983). 6

Predicting drinking to cope. Table 2 presents the results of the first pair of parallel multiple regression analyses in which drinking to cope is regressed on positive expectancies and two sets of coping indexes. Results are presented for emotion- focused coping and expectancies in Columns 1 and 2 and for problem-focused coping and expectancies in Columns 3 and 4. Beta weights are reported throughout in order to facilitate comparison of the relative importance of variables in the model.

Summarizing across both equations, Table 2 shows that the block of expectancy and coping variables was significant, accounting for more than 20% of the variance in drinking to cope after controlling for sex and age. Examination of the beta weights reveals that expectancies made a significant positive contribution across both equations. Among the coping indexes, only two of the emotion-focused coping variables, anger-in and avoidance coping, made significant independent contributions. The direction of their beta weights suggests that individuals who suppress their anger and use avoidance coping are more likely to drink to cope. Comparison of the magnitude of the betas for coping and expectancies shows that expectancies contributed relatively more to the prediction of drinking to cope.

Blocks of Coping Expectancy interaction terms were entered on Step 3. The interactions of both Avoidance Coping and Anger-In Positive Expectancies were significant and together accounted for 1.5% additional variance. The JH Active Coping

Style Positive Expectancies interaction was also significant, accounting for an additional .7% of the variance. Subgroup analyses revealed that all interactions were in the predicted direction. Using a median split on positive expectancies, the correlation between anger-in and drinking to cope was stronger for individuals high in positive alcohol expectancies (r = .24, p < .001) than it was for individuals low in expectancies (r =. 14, p < .001). Similarly, the relationship between the use of avoidance coping and subsequent drinking to cope was stronger among individuals high in positive expectancies (r = .27, p < .001) than among individuals low in expectancies (r = . 18, p < .001). Fi- nally, the interaction of JH Active Coping Style Positive Ex- pectancies was also in the predicted direction, with individuals low in active coping more likely to use alcohol to cope only if they also held strong positive expectancies. However, this effect was not robust. Among individuals high in positive expectan-

6 Cohen and Cohen (1983) state that effects will be estimated cor- rectly when interaction terms are included if both variables involved in the interaction are coded as deviations from their means and main effects are partialled from their product to create the interaction term. In this study, therefore, deviated product terms are entered in a separate step after their main effects. Regarding the use of multiple indicators, Cohen and Cohen (1983) suggest that the causal interpretation of coefficients generated by using single variables within a path analytic framework can be generalized to the analysis of variable sets. However, because no causal relationships are hypothesized among the variables within a set, common variance is treated as spurious. Consequently, this procedure is highly conservative and may systematically underestimate the true effect size for individual coping variables (see Pedhazur, 1982, for a discussion of this issue). Supplementary analyses revealed, however, that this was not the case in the present data. That is,/~ coefficients for significant coping indicators did not differ substantially when estimated singly or in conjunction with other significant coping indicators.


Table 3 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Alcohol Consumption From Drinking to Cope, Positive Expectancies, and Two Sets of Coping Indexes


R 2

Variables entered on change

Problem-focused coping (/7=951)

Standardized R 2 Standardized beta weight Variables entered on change beta weight

Step 2 .157** Drinking to cope .365** Expectancies .070* Coping indexes .015

HDL Avoidance -.053 Anger-In .022 Anger-Out -.019 Anger-Reflect

Step 3 .002 Expectancies Coping -.014

HDL Avoidance -.026 Anger-In .041 Anger-Out .035 Anger-Reflect

Total R E .275**

Step 2 .163"* Drinking to cope .369** Expectancies .076* Coping indexes .024

JH Active -.014 HDL Active Cognitive -.076" HDL Active Behavioral

Step 3 .000 Expectancies Coping -.017

JH Active .013 HDL Active Cognitive .008 HDL Active Behavioral

TotalR 2 .283**

Note. JH Active = "John Henryism" active coping style; HDL = Health and Daily Living Coping Response Index. Both analyses were conducted forcing age and sex into the equation on Step 1. R2 for Step I ranged from. 115 to. 119 ( ps < .001) across both equations. *p < .05. **p < .01.

cies, the correlation was only - .07 (p . 10) among individuals low in expectancies.

Results of these analyses provide clear support for the proposed model. Positive alcohol expectancies and an avoidant style of coping with emotion accounted for nearly 25% of the variance in the self-reported use of alcohol to cope. Conversely, more active, problem-focused coping strategies did not predict drinking to cope] In addition, expectancies and coping inter- acted, as hypothesized, to predict the use of alcohol to cope. Examination of the form of the interaction showed that drinking to cope is most likely among individuals who rely on an avoidant style of coping with emotion and hold strong positive expectancies for the effects of alcohol.

Predicting alcohol consumption. Table 3 presents the results of the second pair of parallel regression analyses in which alcohol consumption was regressed on drinking to cope, positive expectancies, and the two sets of coping indexes. Because alcohol consumption was highly skewed (skewness = 5.5), these analyses were conducted using a log-transformation of the dependent variable. Skewness of the transformed variable was -.023.

Analyses for emotion-focused and problem-focused coping revealed few differences. Summarizing across both equations, it can be seen that drinking to cope, positive expectancies, and the general coping indexes accounted for approximately 16% of the variance in alcohol consumption after controlling for sex and age. As predicted, drinking to cope and positive expectancies made significant independent contributions. Active behavioral coping also made a significant, though unpredicted, contribution. Comparison of the relative magnitude of these effects reveals, however, that drinking to cope is a substantially more important determinant of alcohol consumption than either ac-

tive behavioral coping or positive expectancies. The results of these analyses provide strong support for the proposed model, suggesting that individuals who drink heavily are prone to use alcohol to cope, have fewer active coping skills, and possess stronger expectancies for the positive effects of alcohol. 8

Predicting problem-drinking status. Table 4 presents the final pair of parallel multiple regression analyses in which problem drinking status is regressed on consumption, drinking to cope, positive expectancies, and the two sets of coping indexes. 9

7 lazarus and Folkman (1984) have postulated that individuals may use more emotion-focused or avoidant coping strategies when dealing with highly stressful events or situations. Thus, perhaps these results simply reflect the fact that individuals both use more emotion-focused or avoidance coping and drink more when faced with highly stressful situations. Consistent with this interpretation, problem drinkers had significantly higher scores on a total stress index and they also rated the event about which they completed the HDL Coping Response Index as significantly more stressful. Accordingly, supplementary analyses were conducted to evaluate the viability of this alternative explanation. Re- sults showed that the relationships between anger-in, avoidance coping, and drinking to cope cannot be accounted for by stress. The magnitude of the coefficients for anger-in and avoidance coping were only slightly reduced by controlling for two separate stress indexes, and their associated significance levels were unaffected.

8 Both regression equations were re-estimated by using the untrans- formed consumption variable. Results were replicated, with the excep- tion that the small direct effect obtained for active behavioral coping was not obtained. Instead a small direct effect was obtained for avoidance coping.

9 Because the use of dichotomous dependent variables violates a number of assumptions underlying Ordinary Least Squares Regression (see Neter, Wasserman, & Kutner, 1985, for a thorough treatment of these issues), both of these equations were reestimated by using logistic


Table 4 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Problem Drinking Status From Consumption, Drinking to Cope, Positive Expectancies, and Two Sets of Coping Indexes


R 2 Standardized Variables entered on Change beta weight

Problem-focused coping (N= 951)

R 2 Standardized change beta weight

Step 2 .207*** Alcohol consumption .279*** Drinking to cope .220*** Expectancies .067* Coping indexes

HDL Avoidance .028 Anger-In -.033 Anger-Out .104** Anger-Reflect .015

Step 3 .002 Expectancies Coping

HDL Avoidance .018 Anger-In .044 Anger-Out -.033 Anger-Reflect -.005

Total R 2 .271 ***

Step 2 Alcohol consumption Drinking to cope Expectancies Coping indexes

JH Active HDL Active Cognitive HDL Active Behavioral

.204*** .283*** .235*** .082*

.016 -.013 -.012

Step 3 .002 Expectancies Coping

JH Active -.003 HDL Active Cognitive -.051 HDL Active Behavioral .045

Total R 2 .267***

Note. JH Active = "John Henryism" active coping style; HDL = Health and Daily Living Coping Response Index. Both analyses were conducted forcing age and sex into the equation on Step 1. R 2 for Step 1 was .062 ( ps < .001) across both equations. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Summarizing across both equations, it can be seen that quantity of alcohol consumed, drinking to cope, and positive expectancies made significant independent contributions to the prediction of problem drinking status after controlling for age and sex. Jointly these variables accounted for more than 20% of the variance in abuse status. Calculation of a squared multiple correlation eliminating consumption from the equation showed that drinking to cope and expectancies alone account for nearly 14% of the variance in abuse status.

Examination of the beta weights shows that all relationships were positive and that drinking to cope and alcohol consumption contributed nearly equally to the prediction of abuse. In contrast, the expectancy effect was substantially weaker. Inter- estingly, anger-out also significantly predicted problem drinking status, although the magnitude of the effect was quite small (sr 2 = .006). The direction of the beta weight suggests that individuals who express their anger outwardly are more likely to abuse alcohol. Overall, these results are consistent with predic- tions. They suggest that, at every level of alcohol consumption, individuals who report using alcohol to cope and who hold strong positive expectancies for the effects of alcohol are more likely to abuse alcohol.

Estimating Total Effects

Figure 2 summarizes the direct effects estimated in the fore- going series of multiple regression analyses. All path coefficients

regression. Results of the logistic regression analyses did not substantively differ from the results obtained via OLS regression techniques. In order to maintain consistency across analyses, results obtained via OLS estimation procedures are reported.

represented in Figure 2 were taken from analyses that included the emotion-focused coping indexes. These coefficients were consistently smaller in magnitude and therefore more conservative than those estimated in the series of analyses using problem-focused coping indexes. In addition, coefficients obtained from equations that included the significant coping indicators provide a more unbiased estimate of the effects of the remaining predictor variables because overlapping variance among all significant predictors was controlled.

Table 5 summarizes the estimated direct, indirect, and total effects of the predictor variables on abuse status, again using only estimates derived from equations that included the emotion-focused coping indexes. Standard procedures, as described in Kenny (1979), were used to derive these estimates. For example, the estimated indirect effect of drinking to cope on abuse is obtained by multiplying the coefficient for the direct effect of drinking to cope on consumption (.365) by the coefficient for the direct effect of consumption on abuse (.279). This product (. 102) yields an estimate of that portion of the bivariate correlation that can be attributed to the indirect effect (via consumption) of drinking to cope on abuse. The direct and indirect effects may then be summed (.220 + .102 --- .322) to yield the total effect, or effect coefficient, which provides an estimate of that portion of the bivariate correlation between abuse and drinking to cope that reflects a causal (as opposed to a spurious or unanalyzed) relationship. Technically, an effect coefficient may be interpreted as the standard deviation change expected in the dependent variable for each standard deviation change in the independent variable, holding constant all other variables in the equation. Although no test for the significance of indirect effects exists, an effect is considered significant whenever all the B coefficients involved in its computation are significant (Co-


.17"**

.32"**

w," I Positive I -

9 ...... \

Avoidance ; ., *** Alcohol "c:::.; c' ) . \ \ I / , - , . , J ~ '"_ X ~ ) ~ Dependence)

'". "~f Drinking "~ ~

. 15). Using these beta weights to estimate the combined indirect contribution of avoidance coping and anger-in, yields estimated indirect effects of.065 and. 166 for individuals holding weak and strong expectancies, respectively. Because neither anger-in nor avoidance coping directly predicted problem drinking status, the total effect of these factors is equal to the indirect effect of. 166 for individuals high in positive expectancies. For individuals low in positive expectancies, however, the .065 coefficient is not reliably different from 0 according to the criterion suggested by Cohen and Cohen (1983).

To summarize data presented in Table 5, the estimated effect coefficients for alcohol consumption, drinking to cope, and positive expectancies are approximately .28, .32, and .20, respectively; among individuals with strong positive expectancies, the estimated effect coefficient for anger-in and avoidance coping combined is. 17. Comparing the relative magnitude of these coefficients reveals that the total effect for drinking to cope is at least as great as that for consumption per se and roughly 1.6 to 2.0 times greater than that for expectancies and emotion coping, respectively. Comparison of the relative magnitude of the total effects for coping and expectancies suggests that they contribute almost equally to alcohol abuse, at least among individuals who hold strong positive expectancies.

Discussion and Conclusions

Our research tested basic assumptions derived from social learning theory regarding the etiology of alcohol abuse. Overall,


the results of this study provide strong support for the proposed model, linking coping styles, alcohol expectancies, and drinking to cope to alcohol use and abuse. However, these data suggest that the relevant coping domain is restricted to avoidant styles of coping with emotion. Expectancies were also shown to moderate the relationship between avoidant styles of emotion-focused coping and drinking to cope, such that individuals who hold strong positive expectancies and also use avoidant styles of coping with emotion were most likely to drink to cope. In turn, individuals who hold strong positive expectancies and who drink to cope not only drink more, but are also more likely to experience problems as a result of their drinking. Collectively, the direct effects of consumption, drinking to cope, and expectancies account for approximately 20% of the variance in alcohol abuse, with drinking to cope and expectancies alone accounting for almost 14% of that variance. Although magnitude estimates for indirect effects cannot be directly converted into percentage of variance estimates, comparison of the relative magnitude of the combined indirect effects for drinking to cope, expectancies and general coping styles (. 10 +. 14 +. 17 = .41) with the combined direct effects of drinking to cope and expectancies (.23 + .07 -- .30) reveals that the total indirect effects are approximately 1.4 times greater than the total direct effects. Given that the direct effects alone account for 14% of the variance in abuse status, these data suggest that the total contribution of drinking to cope, expectancies, and emotion coping to alcohol abuse are substantively important.

Reliance on drinking as a coping strategy emerges as the most powerful explanatory variable in the model, contributing to alcohol abuse via direct and indirect pathways. Importantly, these data reveal that individuals who drink to cope are more likely to experience problems indicative of abuse syndromes regard- less of their level of consumption. One implication of this find- ing is that reasons for drinking are important determinants of the consequences of drinking and, in particular, that drinking to cope may be intrinsically maladaptive. It seems reasonable to speculate that individuals who rely on alcohol to cope with dysphoric feelings may become more psychologically dependent on alcohol. Increased psychological dependence, in turn, may promote continued drinking despite the experience of negative consequences indicative of abuse syndromes.

To the extent that this interpretation is valid, nonpathological reasons for drinking (e.g., social reasons) should not directly predict abuse after controlling for consumption. In fact, when the model depicted in Figure 1 was reestimated by using a three- item Drinking for Social Reasons scale (Polich & Orvis, 1979;

= .73) in lieu of drinking to cope, the Drinking for Social Reasons scale did not predict problem drinking status directly, although it made a small significant indirect contribution via increased consumption. Additional evidence of discriminant validity is provided by the set of regressions in which drinking for social reasons served as dependent variable. These analyses revealed that expectancies, but not coping, significantly predicted drinking for social reasons, thereby suggesting that drinking for social reasons is unrelated to general levels of coping ability.

Collectively, these secondary analyses provide additional support for the notion that motivations for drinking differentially influence the outcomes of alcohol use. Specifically, these analy-

ses support the hypotheses that alcohol may be used to cope and, more important, that reliance on the use of alcohol as a coping strategy may lead to the development of alcohol abuse.

Positive expectancies also emerge as an important explanatory variable, predicting abuse primarily via indirect pathways. These data suggest, however, that expectancies arc relatively less important than drinking to cope in accounting for abuse. In this regard, it is worth noting that the bivariate correlations between expectancies and alcohol use and abuse are somewhat less robust here than those typically reported in the literature, l~ Ow- ing to the large and representative sample used in this study, however, it seems likely that the magnitude estimates derived from this sample are both more reliable and more representative than previously published estimates derived from less broadly representative samples.

Among the general coping skills measured here, avoidance coping and anger suppression also emerge as useful explanatory variables, but only for people holding strong positive expectancies. Given that alcohol abusers generally hold positive alcohol expectancies, these data suggest that reliance on avoidance coping and anger suppression may contribute to the etiology and maintenance of abuse.

These data provide an important refinement of current social learning formulations regarding the role of coping in alcohol abuse. The prepotence of emotion-focused over problem-focused coping in our data may be related to alcohol's pharmaco- kinetic action. It is well documented that alcohol alters mood and impairs behavior. Thus, for individuals with inadequate emotion-focused coping, alcohol's mood-altering properties may offer an attractive counterpunch for dysphoric feelings. However, for individuals deficient in problem-focused coping, alcohol's behavioral-impairment properties would only serve to exacerbate any deficiency and thus alcohol consumption is not likely to be viewed as a viable coping option. Whereas previous theoretical treatments of coping have not distinguished among

10 Several possible explanations were explored in the data to account for the relatively small magnitude oftbe zero-order correlations involv- ing the expectancy composite. The possibility that use of a composite expectancies measure was masking more robust relationships between individual expectancy subscales and the alcohol variables was evaluated by examining the correlations of consumption and abuse to the subscales. However, the individual expectancy subscales exhibited, on average, weaker relationships to both consumption and abuse than does the composite (average rs =. 16 and .20 for consumption and abuse, respectively). In light of the fact that many expectancy studies have used samples of beavier drinkers and that heavier drinkers may possess more re- fined expectancies, it is also possible that expectancies would be more strongly related among the subset ofbeavier drinkers in the present sample. However, calculation of the correlation between expectancies and consumption among the subset of drinkers who drink every day or almost every day (n = 105) revealed only a modest increment in the magnitude of the correlation (r = .23, p < .01), Thus, neither of these explanations would appear to account for the relatively small magnitude of the expectancy-alcohol correlations. However, the divergent modes of administration used for the expectancy and alcohol measures may par- tially account for the reduced magnitude of the correlations obtained in the present data. Specifically, the expectancy measure was self-administered, whereas the remaining alcohol measures were interviewer- administered thereby reducing common method variance that may have artifactually inflated previously reported magnitude estimates.


domains of coping behaviors, the present data suggest that inadequate emotion-focused coping, rather than inadequate coping per se, contributes to the development of alcohol abuse.

The present findings lend indirect support to the general utility of treatment approaches based on social learning formulations. These data suggest that clinical interventions that focus on the proximal determinants of alcohol abuse, such as relapse prevention (Marlatt & George, 1984; Marlatt & Gordon, 1985), may prove especially effective. Identifying high-risk situations in which alcohol is likely to be used as a coping response and providing specific alternatives to the drinking-to-cope response are clearly indicated. With regard to the more distal determinants of our model, cognitive restructuring interventions that address alcohol expectancies would seem appropriate. Overly positive views about the benefits of alcohol in coping with dysphoric feeling need to be counterbalanced by a greater appreci- ation for its long-term negative consequences (e.g., Marlatt's decision matrix; Marlatt & Gordon, 1985). The potential value of skills training approaches (e.g., anger management and asser- tion training) that stress acquisition of more adaptive ways of coping with negative emotions is also supported. In contrast, these data raise the possibility that approaches seeking to teach problem-focused coping skills would be less efficacious.

Several directions for future research are indicated by our findings. Incorporation of negative affect into an expanded model would be a useful addition given the import of emotion- focused coping in the present data. Similarly, the linkages among the determinants in this model could be further clarified by examining the potential mediating role of efficacy expecta- tion. An expanded model might also focus on the potential mediating role of biomedical mechanisms that have been implicated in alcohol abuse. The role of environmental stressors as precipitants and potential moderating variables might also be usefully explored. Ultimately, replication of this work in a prospective design is required in order to elucidate reciprocally de- termined aspects of the social learning model as well as to en- able more confident inference about the hypothesized causal relationships.

In sum, these data not only provide strong support for the fundamental logic of a social learning perspective on alcohol abuse, but they also underscore the importance of cognitive and affective processes. By demonstrating a clear role for emotion- focused coping behavior in abusive drinking, our findings high- light the potential significance of emotion in the genesis of alcohol abuse. At the same time, these data illustrate the myriad contributions of cognitive expectancies, including their importance as moderators of emotion-driven processes. The interplay of emotion and cognition evident in the present data suggest that dichotomous representations of these influences may be misleading (Lazarus, 1984; Zajonc, 1984). Instead their inte- gration proffers a more meaningful contribution for under- standing human behavior from both theoretical and practical perspectives.

References

Abrams, D. B., & Niaura, R. S. (1987). Social learning theory. In H. T. Blanc & K. E. Leonard (Eds.), Psychological theories of drinking and alcoholism (pp. 131-178). New York: Guilford Press.

Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Billings, A. G., & Moos, R. H. (1983). Psychosocial processes of recov- ery among alcoholics and their families: Implications for clinicians and program evaluators. Addictive Behaviors, 8, 205-218.

Brown, S. A. (1985). Reinforcement expectancies and alcoholism treatment outcome after a one-year foUow-up. Journal of Studies on Alco- hol, 46, 304-308.

Brown, S. A., Goldman, M. S., Inn, A., & Anderson, L. R. (1980). Ex- pectations of reinforcement from alcohol: Their domain and relation to drinking patterns. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 419-426.

Cahalan, D., Cisin, I. H., & Crossley, H. M. (1969). American drinking practices: A national study of drinking behavior and attitudes. New Brunswick, N J: Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioralsciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.

Cronkite, R. C., & Moos, R. H. (1984). Determinants of the posttreatment functioning of alcoholic patients: A conceptual framework. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psycholog~, 48, 305-316.

Farber, P. D., Khavari, K. A., & Douglass IV, E M. (1980). A factor analytic study of reasons for drinking: Empirical validation of positive and negative reinforcement dimensions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 780-781.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle- aged community sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 219-239.

Goldman, M. S., Brown, S. A., & Christiansen, B. A. (1987). Expec- tancy theory: Thinking about drinking. In H. T. Blanc & K. E. Leon- ard (Eds.), Psychological theories of drinking and alcoholism (pp. 181-226). New York: Guilford Press.

Harburg, E., & Gleibermann, L. (1986). Unpublished questionnaire. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

Higgins, R. L., & Marlatt, G. A. (1975). Fear of interpersonal evaluation as a determinant of alcohol consumption in male social drinkers. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 84, 644-651.

Hull, J. G., & Bond, Jr., C. E (1986). Social and behavioral consequences of alcohol consumption and expectancy: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 347-360.

Hull, J. G., & Young, R. D. (1983). Self-consciousness, self-esteem, and success-failure as determinants of alcohol consumption in male social drinkers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1097- 1109.

James, S. A., Hartnett, S. A., & Kalsbeek, W. D. (1983). John Henryism and blood pressure differences among black men. Journal of Behav- ioral Medicine, 6, 259-278.

Kenny, D. A. (1979). Correlation and causality New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Lazarus, R. S. (1984). On the primacy of cognition. American Psycholo- gist, 39, 124-129.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.

Marlatt, G. A. (1979). Alcohol use and problem drinking: A cognitive behavioral analysis. In P. C. Kendall & S. P. Hollon (Eds.), Cognitive behavioral interventions: Theory, research and procedures (pp. 319- 355). New York: Academic Press.

Marlatt, G. A., & George, W. H. (1984). Relapse prevention: Introduc- tion and overview of the model. British Journal of Addictions, 79, 261-273.

Marlatt, G. A., & Gordon, J. R. (1979). Determinants of relapse: Im- plications for the maintenance of behavior change. In P. Davidson (Ed.), Behavioral medicine: Changing health lifestyles. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Marlatt, G. A., & Gordon, J. R. (Eds.). (1985). Relapse prevention.


Maintenance strategies in the treatment of addictive behaviors. New York: Guilford Press.

Marlatt, G. A., Kostum, C. E, & Lang, A. R. (1975). Provocation to anger and opportunity for retaliation as determinants of alcohol consumption in social drinkers. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 84, 652-659.

Miller, W. R., & Hester, R. K. (1986). Treatment: What research reveals. In W. R. Miller & N. Heather (Eds.), Treating addictive behaviors (pp. 121-174). New York. Plenum Press.

Moos, R. H., Cronkite, R. C., Billings, A. G., & Finney, J. W. (1986). Health and Daily Living Form Manual (rev. ed.). Palo Alto, CA: So- cial Ecology Laboratory, Veterans Administration and Stanford Uni- versity Medical Centers.

Mulford, H. (1983). Stress, alcohol intake and problem drinking in Iowa. In L. A. Pohorecky & J. Brick (Eds.), Stress andAlcohol Use, Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Stress and Alco- hol Use (pp. 321-332). New York: Elsevier.

Mulford, H. A., & Miller, D. E. (1963). Preoccupation with alcohol and definitions of alcohol: A replication study of two cumulative scales. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol 24, 682-696.

Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M. H. ( 1985 ). Applied linear statistical models: Regression, analysis of variance and experimental de- signs (2nd ed.). Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.

Parry, H. J., Cisin, I. H., Baiter, M. B., Mellinger, G. D., & Manheimer, D. I. (1974). Increasing alcohol intake as a coping mechanism for psychic distress. In R. Cooperstoek (Ed.), Social aspects of the medical use of psychotropic drugs. Toronto: Addiction Research Founda- tion of Ontario.

Pearlin, L. I., & Radabaugh, C. W. (1976). Economic strains and the coping functions of alcohol. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 652- 663.

Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Ex- planation and prediction (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Polich, J. M., & Orvis, B. R. (1979). Alcoholproblems: Patterns and prevalence in the U.S. Air Force (Rep. No. R-2308-AF). Santa Mon- ica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Robins, L. N., Helzer, J. E., Croughan, J., & Ratcliff, K. S. (1981). Na-

tional Institute of Mental Health Diagnostic Interview Schedule. Ar- chives in General Psychiatry, 38, 381-389.

Robins, L. N., Helzer, J. E., Croughan, J., Williams, J. B. W., & Spitzer, R. L. (1981). NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule: Version IlL (Contract No. MH 278-79-00). Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health.

Roehling, P. V., Smith, G. T., Goldman, M. S., & Christiansen, B. A. (1987, August). Alcohol expectancies predict adolescent drinldng: A three year longitudinal study, Paper presented at the 95th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, New York City.

Rohsenow, D. J. (1983). Drinking habits and expectancies about alcohol's effects for self versus others. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psycholog3z, 51, 752-756.

Smith,, G. T., Roehling, P. V., Christiansen, B. A., & Goldman, M. S. (1986, August). Alcohol expectancies predict early adolescent drinking: A longitudinal study Paper presented at the 94th Annual Con- vention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

Spielberger, C. D., Johnson, E. H., Russell, S. E, Crane, R. J., Jacobs, G. A., & Worden, T. J. (1985). In M. A. Chesney & R. H. Rosenman (Eds.), Anger and hostility in cardiovascular and behavioral disorders (pp. 5-30). Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing.

Stone, A. A., Lennox, S., & Neale, J. M. (1985). Dally coping and alcohol use in a sample of community adults. In S. Shiffman & T. A. Wills (Eds.), Coping and substance use (pp. 199-220). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Timmer, S. G., Veroff, J., & Colten, M. E. (1985). Life stress, helpless- ness, and the use of alcohol and drugs to cope: An analysis of national survey data. In S. Shiffman & T. A. Wills (Eds.), Coping and substance use (pp. 171-198). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Wilsnack, S. C., Klassen, A. D., & Wilsnack, R. W. (1984). Drinking and reproductive dysfunction among women in a 1981 national survey. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 8, 451-458.

Zajonc, R. B. (1984). On the primacy of affect. American Psychologist, 39, 117-123.

Received August 26, 1987 Revision received November 20, 1987

Accepted November 30, 1987 9

Call for Nominations for Behavioral Neuroscience

The Publications and Communications Board has opened nominations for the editorship of Behavioral Neuroscience for the years 1990-1995. Richard E Thompson is the incumbent edi- tor. Candidates must be members of APA and should be available to start receiving manuscripts in early 1989 to prepare for issues published in 1990. Please note that the P&C Board encour- ages more participation by women and ethnic minority men and women in the publication process, and would particularly welcome such nominees. Submit nominations no later than August 1, 1988 to

Martha Storandt Department of Psychology

Washington University St. Louis, Missouri 63130

Other members oftbe search committee are Byron Campbell, Mortimer Mishkin, Mark Rosen- zweig, and Shepard Siegel.

Documents

articol 2