Cognitive Therapy and Research, Vol. 17, No.

6, 1993

To Drink or Not to Drink: The Differential Role

of Alcohol Expectancies and Drinking Refusal
Self-Efficacy in Quantity and Frequency of
Alcohol Consumption ~

Andrea R. Baldwin,2 Tian P.S. Oei, and Ross Young

University of Queensland

Structural equation modeling was used to examine the relationships between

alcohol expectancies (AE) and drinking refusal self-efficacy (DRSE) beliefs on
the one hand, and quantity and frequency aspects of alcohol consumption on
the other, in a sample of 118 undergraduate students. Specific expectancies
that alcohol increases assertiveness and that the subject would have poor
control over drinking were directly related to the consumption of larger
quantities of alcohol per drinking occasion. Drinking refusal self-efficacy was
related inversely to frequency of drinking: Subjects with high opportunistic
DRSE and high social pressure DRSE drank less frequently. Females drank
less per drinking occasion, drank less frequently, had a lower expectancy that
alcohol increases assertiveness, expected to have greater control over their
drinking, and had higher opportunistic DRSE than did males. The findings
indicate that AE and DRSE play different roles in influencing the frequency
and quantity of alcohol consumption. The implication of these findings for
future research is discussed.
KEY WORDS: alcohol expectancies; refusal self-efficacy.

Many studies, notably those using the balanced placebo design (Marlatt &
Rohsenow, 1980), have shown how the belief that one has consumed al-
1We would like to acknowledge the expert statistical assistance given by Dr. David Chant and
the support given by Ms Gabrielle Crook in the preparation of this paper.
2Address all correspondence to Andrea R. Baldwin, Department of Psychology, University of
Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia.

511
0147-5916/93/1200-0511507.00/0 1993PlenumPublishingCorporation
512 Baldwin, Oei, and Young

cohol can affect certain subjective states and objective behaviors more pow-
erfully than the actual pharmacological effects of the drug (Abrams & Wil-
son, 1979; Cutter, Maloof, Kurtz, & Jones, 1976; Lang, Goeckner, Adesso,
& Marlatt, 1975; Ludwig, Wikler, & Stark, 1974; Polivy & Herman, 1976;
Wilson & Abrams, 1977). Although these changes presumably result from
the person's specific beliefs about the effects of alcohol, evaluating this
assumption lies beyond the scope of the balanced placebo design. Recently,
alcohol expectancies (ALE) have been claimed to play a part in both initia-
tion (Christiansen & Goldman, 1983) and maintenance (Brown, Goldman,
& Christiansen, 1985) of problem drinking patterns. There is also early
evidence that modification of alcohol-related beliefs through cognitive be-
havior therapy may be an effective approach to the treatment of alcohol
problems (Oei & Jackson, 1982, 1984).
The alcohol expectancy concept originated within the paradigm of in-
strumental learning, and in earlier research referred only to expectations
of reinforcement (Brown, Goldman, Inn, & Anderson, 1980; Leigh, 1989).
Learning-based theories in the cognitive-behavioral area are based on a
general model in which some motivation (a need or desire) prompts an
individual towards a goal (fulfillment of the need or desire), and the indi-
vidual chooses a behavioral response to the motivation in an attempt to
achieve the goal (Vuchinich & Tucker, 1988). Studies of alcohol consump-
tion classify goals as "avoid negative" or "approach positive" (Cox & Klin-
ger, 1988). The former group includes the adaptive orientation model
(Niaura et al., 1988), which argues that people expect alcohol to confer on
them coping skills in which they are deficient (Farber, Khavari, & Douglass,
1980; Marlatt & Gordon, 1985), and the tension reduction hypothesis (Mar-
latt, 1987), which states that people expect alcohol to help them avoid or
alleviate unpleasant states such as tension, anxiety, or depressed mood
(Marlatt, 1987). Obversely, approaches focusing on approach positive goals
argue that people expect alcohol to have particularly pleasant effects, such
as enhancing sexual relations or positive mood states ("conditioned appe-
titive motivational model," Niaura et al., 1988). Since the alcohol expec-
tancy concept has been expended to include negative expectancies as well
as positive expectancies, or expectations of reinforcement (Brown, Chris-
tiansen, & Goldman, 1987), the role of alcohol expectancies in the drinking
decision model has become clearer (Oei & Baldwin, 1993). Following
awareness of the motivational state, and preceding behavioral response, a
decision-making process occurs: Alcohol expectancies both positive and
negative are weighed up in order to determine whether or not alcohol con-
sumption is a behavioral response which will help the individual achieve
the desired goal. Whether motivation is approach positive or avoid nega-
tive, strong expectations of goal fulfillment (reinforcement) through alcohol
Alcohol Expectancies 513

consumption are likely to result in a decision to drink, while expectations

that the goal will not be fulfilled through alcohol consumption are likely
to result in a decision not to drink. Actual drinking experience provides
information which modifies AE and drinking refusal self-efficacy (DRSE),
in turn shaping future drinking behavior.
Alcohol expectancies have been claimed to predict drinking behavior
at all levels of the drinking continuum (Goldman, Brown, & Christiansen,
1987). Christiansen, Goldman, and Inn (1982) found that adolescents de-
velop alcohol expectancies before ever tasting alcohol, and Christiansen and
Goldman (1983) found that these expectancies predicted later drinking
styles among adolescents: Specifically, adolescents who expected alcohol to
enhance social behavior were likely to show a pattern of social drinking
later on, while adolescents who expected alcohol to improve their cognitive
and motor performance were more likely to develop problem drinking pat-
terns. In a college population, Brown (1985) found that expectations of
enhanced social and physical pleasures were associated with frequent social
drinking, whereas the expectancy that alcohol would reduce tension was
associated with problem drinking. Among problem drinkers also, several
studies have found associations between specific alcohol expectancies and
drinking styles (Brown et al., 1985; Oei & Mewett, 1987; Oei & Pacey,
1988; Southwick, Steele, Marlatt, & Lindell, 1981), and an in-vivo study by
Oei, Foley, and Young (1990) demonstrated that alcohol expectancies are
related to alcohol consumption during a drinking episode in a public bar.
Bandura's (1977) original conceptualization of expectancies was com-
prised of two related cognitive constructs. The first of these has been dis-
cussed above under the rubric of alcohol expectancies. The second construct,
now also generating increasing research interest, is the notion of self-effi-
cacy. Self-efficacy in general concerns self-perceived competence (Bandura,
1977): A person's belief that he or she can perform tasks, make decisions,
and cope with situations. Although some studies have linked general self-
efficacy with alcohol consumption (Cooper, Russell, & George, 1988), the
more specific concept of drinking refusal self-efficacy is currently the target
of increasing research interest. DRSE refers to a person's belief that he or
she is able to resist or refuse alcohol at will. A recent study (Oei & Sweeney,
1993) found that, while general self-efficacy was not a useful predictor of
alcohol consumption, lower DRSE beliefs did predict higher consumption.
Solomon and Annis (1990) also found that DRSE beliefs were useful in
predicting drinking behavior, and that in fact AE did not add significantly
to prediction once DRSE had been accounted for. Alcohol-dependent sub-
jects have been found to experience an increase in positive AlE and a de-
crease in DRSe while holding and smelling an alcoholic beverage (Cooney,
Gillespie, Baker, & Kaplan, 1987). This finding supports Marlatt and Got-
514 Baldwin, Oei, and Young

don's (1985) hypothesis that, in high-risk situations for relapse, positive AE

increase and DRSE declines sharply. It has already been stated that learning
models of alcohol consumption postulate a decision-making process in which
cognitive variables, notably positive and negative expectancies, are weighed
against one another. Self-efficacy beliefs may play a part in this process,
conceivably to the point of rendering expectancies, and the whole weighing-
up process of a drinking decision, almost irrelevant to actual drinking be-
havior. No matter how little the individual expects alcohol help fulfil his or
her goals, if he or she feels unable to resist alcohol, he or she is likely to
drink. Similarly, if an individual feels strongly that alcohol will help fulfill
his or her goals, claiming an inability to resist is a way of abdicating respon-
sibility for the drinking decision.
To date, much cognitive-behavioral research in the field of alcohol
abuse has suffered from at least two conceptual weaknesses (Oei, Lim, &
Young, 1991). First, most available measures of alcohol expectancies do
not distinguish between AE and DRSE. A second weakness has been the
tendency to combine frequency and quantity measures of alcohol consump-
tion, for example, by self-reporting the quantity of alcohol consumed "in
the last week" or "per month." Mooney, Fromme, Kivlahan, and Marlatt
(1987) argue that such a measure does not allow discrimination between,
for example, the light frequent social drinker, and the heavy infrequent
"binge" drinker, who may consume the same amount of alcohol over a
period of time but whose alcohol-related problems are likely to be widely
disparate in both nature and severity.
The current study used the Drinking Expectancy Profile (DEP; Young
& Oei, 1990a, 1990b), to measure AE and DRSE and to evaluate their
respective roles in alcohol consumption. Developed recently in Australia
and New Zealand, the instrument consists of two sections, the Drinking
Expectancy Questionnaire (DEQ; Young & Knight, 1989; Young & Oei,
1990b) and the Drinking Refusal Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (DRSEQ;
Young, Oei, & Crook, 1991). Drinking practices were measured in this
study using the Khavari Alcohol Test (KAT; Khavari & Farber, 1978),
which measures quantity of alcohol consumed and frequency of drinking
as separate variables. The hypotheses tested were based on a general theory
of alcohol consumption, and are currently being tested on other popula-
tions. It was specifically hypothesized that DRSE would show an inverse
relationship with frequency of drinking, such that subjects who believed
themselves less able to resist alcohol would drink more frequently, and sub-
jects who considered themselves more able to resist alcohol would drink
less frequently. D R S E was also hypothesized to be inversely related to
quantity of drinking, since a person who feels unable to refuse a first drink
and so initiates a drinking session, is similarly unlikely to refuse a second
Alcohol Expectancies 515

drink and so increases the quantity of alcohol consumed within the session.
With regard to expectancies, it was hypothesized that a direct relationship
would be found between AE and quantity of alcohol consumed. A person
with stronger expectations that alcohol consumption will provide reinforce-
ment by helping fulfil his or her goals seems likely to consume more alcohol
than someone who does not strongly expect such reinforcement.
Although it seems logical that high AE would also predict higher con-
sumption frequency, this hypothesis was not included in the model since
it was expected to weaken rather than strengthen prediction. The initial
decision to begin a drinking episode is highly dependent on external factors
such as financial situation, spouse's approval, and other commitments. Low
DRSE may override other considerations; expectancies, in an initially sober
individual, are less likely to do so.
Previous studies have shown many effects of sex (Miller & Joyce,
1979; Orford & Keddie, 1985) and age (Christiansen Goldman, 1983; Chris-
tiansen et al., 1982) on drinking behavior, and some researchers have found
interactions between sex, age, and AE (Brown et al., 1980; Mooney et al.,
1987). Each model constructed in the current study therefore included and
evaluated all paths involving age and sex, to assess both their direct effects
on alcohol consumption, and their indirect effects via AE and DRSE.

METHOD

Subjects

The 118 subjects for this study were recruited from first-year psychol-
ogy courses. Forty-eight were male (mean age 19.3 years, range 17 to 29
years) and 70 were female (mean age 18.9 years, range 17 to 28 years).
The mean age for the group was 19.1 years, ranging from 17 to 29 years.
Legal drinking age in the state where the study was conducted is 18 years,
and very few underage drinkers were represented in the sample.

Instruments

Alcohol Expectancies. Current factor analytic work on the Drinking

Expectancy Questionnaire comprising the first part of the Drinking Expec-
tancy Profile (Young & Oei, 1990a, 1990b) suggests six scales: assertiveness
(e.g., "I feel less shy when drinking"; "When I am drinking its's easier to
open up and express my feelings"), affective change (e.g., "Drinking makes
me happy and content"; "Drinking makes the future brighter"), d e p e n d -
ence (e.g., "I drink alcohol because it's a habit"; "I cannot always control
516 Baldwin, Oei, and Young

my drinking"), sexual functioning (e.g., "Drinking alcohol makes me think

more about sex"; "I often feel sexier after I've been drinking"), cognitive
change (e.g., "I am more aware of what I say and do if I'm drinking alco-
hol", "Drinking helps me be more mentally alert"), and relaxation (e.g., "I
drink to relieve tension"; "Drinking enables me to fall asleep more easily").
Scales include both positive and negative valence items. Reliability and va-
lidity data for the six-factor DEQ are good, with Cronbach's alpha values
ranging from .73 to .94, and the demonstrated power to discriminate be-
tween problem and nonproblem drinkers (Young & Oei, 1990a, 1990b).
Drinking Refusal Self-Efficacy. A second section of the DEP, the
Drinking Refusal Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (Young, Oei, & Crook, 1991)
was used to measure DRSE. Subjects respond on a 6-point scale, from I
am very sure I would drink to I am very sure I would N O T drink. Factor
analysis indicates three unambiguous subscales from its 31 items: social
pressure self-efficacy (e.g., "When you see others drinking"; "When your
spouse or partner is drinking"), emotional relief self-efficacy (e.g., "When
you feel frustrated"; "When you feel sad"), and opportunistic self-efficacy
(e.g., "When you are on the way home from work"; "When you are listening
to music or reading"). Internal consistency values for the scales range from
.87 to .94, and test-retest reliability ranges from .84 to .93. Norms for the
instrument are available, based on student and community samples. Our
work suggests that the DRSEQ is a reasonably valid, reliable, and useful
instrument for the assessment of relationships between DRSE and alcohol
consumption (Young et al., t991).
Alcohol Consumption: Quantity and Frequency. The Khavari Alcohol
Test (Khavari & Farber, 1978) consists of three sections, one section each
for beer, wine, and spirits. In each section, the subject is asked to choose
from a multiple response set how frequently he or she usually consumes
the beverage, with responses ranging from Never tried to Daily. The second
question asks the subject to write down how many standard drinks of the
beverage he or she consumes on one of these normal drinking occasions.
The third question asks the subject to write down the maximum number
of standard drinks of the beverage he or she would ever consume on one
drinking occasion. The fourth question uses a multiple response set the
same as the first, and asks the subject to nominate how frequently these
occasions of maximum consumption of the beverage occur. In this study,
quantity of alcohol consumed in a normal drinking episode was calculated
separately for beer, wine, and spirits, with standard drinks as the unit,
rounded to the nearest half-glass. These three scores were then added to-
gether to create the variable general quantity. Frequency of normal drink-
ing episodes was recorded as number of drinking episodes per month, with
scores for beer, wine, and spirits added together to create the variable gen-
Alcohol Expectancies 517

eral frequency. The maximum quantity of alcohol consumed in one episode

(maximum quantity) was calculated as for general quantity, and the fie-
quency of maximal drinking episodes (maximum frequency) was calculated
as for general frequency.
Demographic Data. Subjects completed a demographic data sheet ask-
ing their age, sex, marital status, education level, and employment status.
Sex and age were included in the model. The other demographic variables,
on inspection, were deemed unnecessary to the analysis for various reasons:
Marital status for all subjects but one was single, fluctuations in employ-
ment status from subject to subject were minor since almost all subjects
were full-time students, and differences in education level were also minor
since almost all students were in their first year of tertiary education.

Procedure

Subjects were recruited via a notice in the psychology department of

a major Australian university, offering credit toward introductory psychol-
ogy courses for participation in the study. Groups of a maximum of thirty
subjects were administered a battery of questionnaires in booklet form,
which took approximately 30 min to complete. The battery included the
Drinking Expectancy Questionnaire, the Drinking Refusal Self-Efficacy
Questionnaire, the Khavari Alcohol Test, and a demographic data sheet.
Subjects were assured their responses would remain anonymous, and any
questions relating to the study were answered following the data collection.

RESULTS

The data were analyzed using the LISREL VII program (Joreskog
& Sorbom, 1988) for analysis of causal models. Since causal modeling is
based on the principles of multiple regression, SPSSx statistical procedures
were used to screen for violations of the major assumptions of linearity,
normality, and homoscedasticity. The data from the KAT and assertiveness
expectancy were found to have positively skewed distributions; thus log
transforms were performed on these variables. Following these transforma-
tions, preliminary procedures indicated that assumptions of normality,
linearity, and homoscedasticity had been adequately met. No multivariate
outliers were found using Mehalanobis' distance as a criterion.
The consumption variables functioned as criterion variables, while AE
and DRSE were predictor variables. Also included as predictor variables,
in a role parallel to that of covariates in multiple analyses of covariance,
were sex and age. Because theoretically sex and age may affect alcohol
 II
m~

~=~=~= l ~
8~
~-

o~

O
r~ m

t--~ ~ t,~ ~ e'~ 0,.~

=
o
._>
eS~Ss I ~ g

V'3 ~

< ~I -~

.-

~~.~ ~= .~ .
Alcohol Expectancies 519

consumption not only directly but also by moderating A E and DRSE, sex
and age are in this analysis termed exogenous or latent independent vari-
ables, while AE and D R S E are termed endogenous or latent dependent
variables. Direct paths between the exogenous variables and the criterion
variables, and paths from the exogenous variables through the endogenous
variables to the criterion variables, were all included and evaluated in the
model. This approach to the evaluation of sex as a predictor variable pro-
vided an alternative to dividing the sample and analyzing data for males
and females separately, a technique not feasible with this sample size.
Two major approaches were taken to analysis of the data. An em-
pirical, or "full-model," approach was used to evaluate all possible paths
between the predictor variables and the criterion variables. A second, "hy-
pothesis model," approach, was used to evaluate the specific hypotheses
put forward, namely, that DRSE relates to both quantity and frequency of
alcohol consumption, while AE relate only to quantity of alcohol consump-
tion. Both the full model and the hypothesis model were tested using the
six AE subscales and the three DRSe subscales separately. It should be
noted that each time a new model was calculated, all parameters were com-
pletely reestimated, independent of the computation of preceding models.
This means that coefficients for the same paths differed from one model
to another, owing to error variance, but between two models of good fit
the difference was expected to be small.

FuHModel

Table I presents the intercorrelations among the six AE scales and

the three D R S E scales. Age and sex did not relate significantly to any other
variables. Social pressure D R S E was related to emotional relief D R S E (r
= .67) and opportunistic D R S E (r = .61), and emotional relief D R S E was
related to opportunistic DRSE (r = .62). The D R S E scales, it can be seen,
were highly related in a positive direction: A person high in one kind of
D R S E was likely to be high in all three. With regard to AE, dependence
expectancy was related to both assertiveness expectancy (r = .31) and re-
laxation expectancy (r = .48): A person who expected to have poor control
over his or her drinking was also likely to expect alcohol to help him or
her to be more assertive and to relax. There were also correlations between
the D R S E and A E scales. Social situation D R S E was negatively related to
expectancies of assertiveness (r = -.49), dependence (r = -.44), sexual
functioning (r = -.32), and relaxation (r = -.36). Emotional relief D R S E
was negatively related to assertiveness (r = -.38), dependence (r = -.54),
and relaxation (r = -.55) expectancies. Opportunistic D R S E was negatively
520 Baldwin, Oei, and Young

Sex


GENQUAN

1
MAXQUAN L
r

~ GENFREQ

G MAXFREQ

Notes. OpportSE = opportunistic self-efficacy, EmotSE = emotional relief self-efficacy, SocSE =

social pressure self-efficacy. Depend = dependence expectancy, Assert = assertiveness expectancy,
Sexual = sexual functioning expectancy. Affect = affective change expectancy, Cognit = cognitive
change expectancy, Relax = relaxation expectancy. GENQUAN = general quantity, MAXQUAN =
maximum quantity, GENFREQ = general frequency, MAXFREQ = maximum frequency.
p < .05.
** p < .01.
*** p < .001.

Fig. 1. Path diagram for full model (significant paths only).

Alcohol Expectancies 521

related to dependence (r = -.50), relaxation (r = -.35), and cognitive

change (r = -.30) expectancies.
Figure 1 represents the full model. While all paths between the pre-
dictor variables on the one hand the criterion variables on the other were
tested, only the significant parameters are represented in the figure. Table
II presents the coefficients calculated for all paths. Since the model in-
cluded all possible parameters, it had no degrees of freedom, and the good-
ness of fit index equaled 1 [(0) = .00, p = 1.00]. Sex was negatively related
to general quantity (gamma = -.21) and maximum quantity (gamma =
-.30), indicating that women drank less on both normal and maximal drink-
ing occasions. General quantity was related positively to assertiveness ex-
pectancy (B = .29) and dependence expectancy (B = .40). Maximum
quantity was related positively to assertiveness expectancy (B = .28) and
dependence expectancy (B = .42), and related negatively to affective
change expectancy (B = -.23) and sexual functioning expectancy (B = -
.20). It appears that although subjects who expected alcohol to make them
more assertive and those who expected poorer control over their drinking
were likely to drink more on both normal and maximal drinking occasions,
subjects who expected alcohol to produce positive affective change and to
enhance sexual functioning were actually more likely to drink less on a
maximal drinking occasion. More will be made of this later. General fre-
quency was related negatively to opportunistic DRSE (/3 = -.35) and af-
fective change expectancy (B = -.23), and was related positively to
dependence expectancy (B = .31). Maximum frequency did not relate sig-
nificantly to any of the cognitive variables.

Hypothesis Model

Figure 2 represents the hypothesis model, again with only significant

parameters included in the figure. Table III presents the path coefficients
calculated for all parameters. The chi-square statistic indicated the model
is plausible for the data [)~2 (12) = 18.15, p = .111], as did the adjusted
goodness of fit index (.777). Sex was significantly related to general (gamma
= -.23) and maximum (gamma = -.32) quantity, indicating that males con-
sumed more alcohol on both normal and maximal drinking occasions. Un-
der the constraints of the model, neither general quantity nor maximum
quantity was significantly related to any of the DRSE scales, but both were
related to assertiveness expectancy (B = .28 for general quantity and B =
.27 for maximum quantity) and dependence expectancy (B = .34 for both
general and maximum quantity). General frequency was related to oppor-
O

m o ~,., [N ~

5' 5' 5' 5' " ~-

~EE

~ . ~ ...-4
A~ 0 ~
g.

o o ~ o ' ~ o
I l l l ~

~.~
~'~
~o~
~m
u ~ H ~ ~ ~.
~vvv
Alcohol Expectancies 523

Sex

MAXQUAN L
r

GENFREQ

@
@ MAXFREQ

Notes. OpportSE = opportunistic self-efficacy, EmotSE = emotional relief self-efficacy, SocSE =

social pressure self-efficacy. Depend = dependence expectancy, Assert = assertiveness expectancy,
Sexual = sexual functioning expectancy. Affect = affective change expectancy, Cognit = cognitive
change expectancy, Relax = relaxation expectancy. GENQUAN = general quantity, MAXQUAN =
maximum quantity, GENFREQ = general frequency, MAXFREQ = maximum frequency,
p < .05.
** p < .01.
*** p < .001.

Fig. 2. Path diagram for hypothesis model (significant paths only)

 '~ " ~ "~:, I ~ "~
~o

r'.- ~ ,..--~ ~ 1
I'~.~
O ,..~-, ~

'-i. ~ . "I . ~ 0 ~.

5' 5 ' 5 ' 5 ~ " '~.~

t",l ',~" ~2~ ~'1 u,..

N "

oh rr~

{2

~ ~'~
es

~i~

~.'~ .
~ CD xl

~- u . ,

:>, ~' ~.--.

>~-E
~
~= ~
= ~, ~.
.~'>' =-'~

= ,~ [ " ~-~ ..~

Alcohol Expectancies 525

tunistic DRSE (B = -.40), as was maximum frequency (B = -.20), which

was also related to social DRSE (B = -.23).

DISCUSSION

This study set out to examine relationships between AE, DRSE, fre-
quency of alcohol consumption, and quantity of alcohol consumption. Spe-
cifically it was hypothesized that AE would be related to quantity consumed
and not to frequency of drinking, while DRSE would be related to both
quantity and frequency of drinking. The results of this study support the
discrimination between frequency and quantity of drinking, and indicate
differential relationships between these aspects of consumption and the
cognitive variables AE and DRSE.
Findings from the full-model analyses indicate that high opportunistic
DRSE was associated with less frequent normal drinking episodes. None
of the DRSE scales individually made a significant contribution to predict-
ing quantity. When the models were constrained to include only those paths
predicted by the hypothesis, it was again found that subjects with stronger
opportunistic DRSE had normal drinking episodes less frequently. Subjects
with higher opportunistic DRSE, and those with stronger social DRSE, had
maximum drinking episodes less frequently. Subjects with higher assertive-
ness expectancy and those with higher dependence expectancy consumed
more alcohol on both a normal drinking occasion and a maximum drinking
occasion.
One unexpected finding from the full model was that subjects with
more positive affective change expectancies actually reported having nor-
mal drinking episodes less frequently, and drinking less on a maximal drink-
ing occasion. A n o t h e r was that m o r e positive sexual functioning
expectancies were associated with drinking less on a maximal drinking oc-
casion. Regarding these counterintuitive findings it is timely to note the
many theoretical arguments for specificity of AE: for example dose, tem-
poral, drinking environment, and beverage, specificities (Connors & Maisto,
1988; Critchlow, 1986; Leigh, 1989; Southwick et al., 1981). Drinkers may
expect positive effects from alcohol only at low dosages, for example, and
therefore endorse the AE while reporting low actual consumption. Leigh's
argument about the difficulty of determining the "desirability" of appar-
ently positive expectancies is also relevant: Drinkers who find alcohol highly
reinforcing in certain ways may not necessarily desire such reinforcement
on a frequent basis, possibly due to fear of becoming habituated to the
positive effects. At issue here is whether the usefulness of the expectancy
concept for prevention and treatment of alcohol problems warrants the de-
526 Baldwin, Oe|, and Young

velopment of an instrument which can assess such fine-grained aspects of

AE, or whether existing measures are functionally adequate. Leigh made
the point that certain inconsistencies in the expectancy research to date
may be due to ill-defined measures or to unreasonably heterogeneous sam-
pling, raising the issue of whether or not standard data collection proce-
dures using scales with acceptable psychometric properties are in fact
capable of capturing "truth" within a phenomenon as complex as alcohol
consumption.
No age differences were found in this study, although previous studies
have found differences in consumption and in expectancies as a function
of age (Christiansen & Goldman, 1983; Christiansen et al., 1982). This re-
sult may be due to the fact that all the young adults in the study were
university students: The differences in their ages may have been counter-
acted by a certain homogeneity of occupation, interests, and education.
Also, although age ranged from 17 to 29, the majority of the subjects were
around 18 or 19, restricting the range for the most part to a couple of
years. Age differences may thus have been difficult to detect.
Gender differences found in this study were not surprising given pre-
vious findings. Females in the sample reported drinking less on normal and
maximal drinking occasions, had a lower expectancy that alcohol increases
assertiveness, expected to have greater control over their drinking, and had
higher opportunistic DRSE than did the males. The study did not find gen-
der differences in specific alcohol expectancies, such as have been reported
by previous investigators (Brown et al., 1980; Mooney et al., 1987); how-
ever, self-efficacy differences emerged clearly.
In terms of the motivational model, the findings support the notion
that certain AE and certain DRSE beliefs enter into a decision to drink
or not to drink. The specific expectancies implicated also provide clues to
the nature of motivation for the majority of this student drinking sample.
Apart from dependence expectancy, the type of AE most consistently re-
lated to greater quantity of consumption was assertiveness expectancy. Al-
though relaxation expectancy did not significantly predict any of the
consumption variables on its own, it is worth consideration for its high cor-
relations with assertiveness and dependence expectancies, and with all three
DRSE scales. Both relaxation and assertiveness expectancies are readily
conceptualized in terms of drinking motivations put forward in the litera-
ture. The tension reduction hypothesis states that people drink because al-
cohol reduces tension, possibly through depressing or tranquilizing effects
on the ne~-vous system, and that this reduction of tension is reinforcing
(Young, Oei, & Knight, 1990). Alcohol may, however, actually induce or
increase tension, particularly in social situations (Abrams & Wilson, 1979).
Young et al. (1990) pointed out that the expectancy of tension reduction
Alcohol Expectancies 527

has in previous research been linked to alcohol consumption, and argued

that cognitions, notably AE, need to be taken into account in any discussion
of the tension reduction hypothesis. The finding that assertiveness expec-
tancy relates to quantity of consumption is consistent with the skills deficit
hypothesis which states that people drink because they expect alcohol to
"magically" confer on them coping and social skills in which they are de-
ficient (Marlatt, 1987). According to Niaura et al.'s (1988) adaptive orien-
tation model, this motivation for alcohol use is as a means of attempting
to avoid negative states and to correct deficits.
It should be remembered that these results were found in a student
sample, and generalization of findings should therefore be approached with
caution. In order for the model to attain full clinical usefulness, it would
be necessary to replicate this study with community and problem drinking
samples. If the model were demonstrated to apply in clinical populations,
certain implications for treatment might arise. For example, the finding that
assertiveness expectancy plays an important role in quantity of alcohol con-
sumption suggests that teaching assertiveness and other social skills may
be a useful way of providing the individual with behavioral response options
other than drinking which can help him or her achieve avoid negative goals.
At the same time, the finding that DRSE beliefs play a more important
role than AE in both quantity and frequency of consumption might suggest
that modification of AE is a less useful prevention and/or treatment ap-
proach than training in drink-refusal and other skills to increase DRSE
and reduce the likelihood of a decision to drink. However, more extensive
investigation of the model is necessary before any such implications can
properly be drawn. This and other issues are now being investigated by the
present researchers.
In conceptual terms, the findings of the current study indicate that
drawing distinctions between AE and DRSE, and between quantity and
frequency of alcohol consumption, can provide more specific information
about the relationships between cognitions and alcohol consumption than
can more general measures which do not make these distinctions. It is sug-
gested that future research in the area might be enhanced by the routine
recognition and use of these distinctions.

REFERENCES

Abrams, D. B., & Wilson, G. T. (1979). Effects of alcohol on social anxiety in women:
Cognitive versus physiological processes. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88, 161-173.
Arrindell, W. A., Sanderman, R., Van der Molen, H., Van der Ende, J., & Mersh, P, (1988).
The structure of assertiveness: A confirmatory approach. Behaviour Research and Therapy,
26, 357-339.
528 Baldwin, Oei, and Young

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological

Review, 84, 191-215.
Briddell, D. W., Rimm, D. C., Caddy, G. R., Krawitz, G., Sholis, D., & Wunderlin, R. J.
(1978). The effects of alcohol and cognitive set on sexual arousal to deviant stimuli.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 418-430.
Brown, S. A. (1985). Expectancies versus background in the prediction of college drinking
patterns. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 123-130.
Brown, S. A., Christiansen, B. A., & Goldman, M. S. (1987). The alcohol expectancy
questionnaire: An instrument for the assessment of adolescent and adult alcohol
expectancies. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 48, 483-491.
Brown, S. A., Godlman, M. S., & Christiansen, B. A. (1985). Do alcohol expectancies mediate
drinking patterns of adults?
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 512-519.
Brown, S. A., Goldman, M. S., Inn, A., & Anderson, L. (1980). Expectations of reinforcement
from alcohol: Their domain and relation to drinking patterns. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 48, 419-426.
Christiansen, B. A., & Goldman, M. S. (1983). Alcohol-related expectancies versus
demographic/background variables in the prediction of adolescent drinking. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 249-257.
Christiansen, B. A., Goldman, M. S., & Inn, A. (1982). Development of alcohol-related
expectancies in adolescents: Separating pharmacological from social-learning influences.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 336-364.
Connors, G. J., & Maisto, S. A. (1988). The alcohol expectancy construct: Overview and
clinical application. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 12, 487-504.
Cooney, N. L., Gillespie, R. A., Baker, L. H., & Kaplan, R. F. (1987). Cognitive changes
after alcohol cue exposure. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 150-155.
Cooper, M. L., Russell, M., & George, W. H. (1988). Coping, expectancies, and alcohol abuse:
A test of social learning formulations. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 218-230.
Cox, W. M., & Klinger, E. (1988). A motivational model of alcohol use. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 97, 168-180.
Critchlow, B. (1986). The powers of John Barleycorn: Beliefs about the effects of alcohol on
social behavior. American Psychologist, 41, 751-764.
Cutter, H. S., Maloof, B., Kurtz, N. R., & Jones, W. C. (1976). "Feeling no pain," differential
responses to pain by alcoholics and non-alcoholics before and after drinking. Journal of
Studies on Alcohol, 37, 273-277.
Farber, P. D., Khavari, K. A., & Douglass, F. 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, 700-781.
Goldman, M. S., Brown, S. A., & Christiansen, B. A. (1987). Expectancy theory---Thinking
about drinking. In H. T. Blane & K. E. Leonard (Eds.), Psychological theories of drinking
and alcoholism (pp. 181-226). New York: Guildford Press.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1988). LISREL VII: A guide to the program and applications.
Mooresville, IN: Scientific Sotware.
Khavari, K. A., & Farber, P. D. (1978). A profile instrument for the quantification and
assessment of alcohol consumption: The Khavari Alcohol Test. Journal of Studies on
Alcohol 39, 1525-1539.
Lang, A. R., Goeckener, D. J., Adesso, V. I., & Marlatt, G. A. (1975). Effects of alcohol on
aggression in male social drinkers. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 84, 607-610.
Leigh, B. C. (1989). In search of the seven dwarves: Issues of measurement and meaning in
alcohol expectancy research. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 361-373.
Lludwig, A. M., Wikler, A., & Stark, L. H. (1974). The first drink: Psychobiological aspects
of craving. Archives of General Psychiatry, 30, 539-547.
Alcohol Expectancies 529

Marlatt, G. A. (1987). Alcohol, the magic elixir: Stress, expectancy, and the transformation
of emotional states. In E. Gottheil, K. A. Druly, S. Pshko, and S. P. Weinstein (Eds.),
Stress and addiction (pp. 302-322) New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Marlatt, G. A., & Gordon, J. R. (1985). Relapse prevention: Maintenance strategies in the
treatment of addictive behaviors. New York: Guildford Press.
Marlatt, G. A., & Rohsenow, D. J. (1980). Cognitive processes in alcohol use: Expectancy
and the balanced-placebo design. In N. K. Mello (Ed.), Advances in substance abuse:
Behavioural and biological research (pp. 155-199) CT: JAI Press.
Miller, W. R., & Joyce, M. A. (1979). Prediction of abstinence, controlled drinking and heavy
drinking outcomes following behavioral self-control training. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 47, 773-775.
Mooney, D. K., Fromme, K., Kivlahan, D. R., & Marlatt, G. A. (1987). Correlates of alcohol
consumption: Sex, age, and expectancies relate differentially to quantity and frequency.
Addictive Behaviors, 12, 235-240.
Niaura, R. S., Rohsenow, D. J., Binkoff, J. A., Monti, P. M., Pedraza, M., & Abrams, Do B.
(1988). Relevance of cue reactivity to understanding alcohol and smoking relapse. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 133-152.
Oei, T. P. S., & Baldwin, A. R. (1993). The expectancy construct in cognitive-behavioral models
of problem drinking. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Oei, T. P. S., Foley, G., & Young, R. McD. (1990). The 'in-vivo' manipulation of alcohol
related cognitions in male social drinkers in a public bar. British Journal of Medical
Psychology, 63, 279-286.
Oei, T. P. S., & Jackson, P. (1982). Social skills and cognitive behavior approaches to the
treatment of problem drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 43, 532-547.
Oei, T. P. S., & Jackson, P. (1984). Some effective treatments in group cognitive behavior
therapy with problem drinkers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 45, 119-123.
Oei, T. P. S., Lirn, B., & Young, R. (1991). Cognitive process and cognitive behavior therapy
for the treatment of problem drinking. Journal of Addictive Diseases, 10, 63-80.
Oei, T. P. S., & Mewett, A. (1987). The role of alcohol-dependent self-statements on drinking
behavior in a public bar. British Journal of Addiction, 89, 1125-1131.
Oei, T. P. S., & Pacey, P. (1988). Changes in cognitions for social drinkers in a naturalistic
setting. Addictive Behaviors, 13, 45-49.
Oei, T. P. S., & Sweeney, M. (1993).. Alcohol beliefs, coping and self-efficacy: Can they
discriminate between different drinkers types? Manuscript submitted for publication.
Orford, J., & Keddie, A. (1985). Gender differences in the functions and effects of moderate
and excessive drinking. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24, 265-279.
Polivy, J., & Herman, C. P. (1976). Effects of alcohol on eating behavior: Influence of mood
and perceived intoxication. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85, 595-606.
Solomon, K. E., & Annis, H. M. (1990). Outcome and efficacy expectancy in the prediction
of post-treatment drinking behavior. British Journal of Addiction, 85, 659-665.
Southwick, L. L., Steele, C. M., Marlatt, G. A., & Lindell, M. (1981). Alcohol-related
expectancies: Defined by phase of intoxication and drinking experience. Journal of
ConsulthTg and Clinical Psychology, 49, 713-721.
Vuchinich, R. E., & Tucker, J. A. (1988). Contributions from behavioral theories of choice
to an analysis of alcohol abuse. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 181-195.
Wilson, G. T., & Abrams, D. (1977). Effects of alcohol on social anxiety and physiological
arousal: Cognitive versus pharmacological processes. Cognith~e Therapy and Research, 1,
195-210.
Young, R., & Knight, R. C. (1989). The Drinking Expectancy Questionnaire: A revised
measure of alcohol-related beliefs. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment,
11, 99-112.
Young, R., & Oei, T. P. S. (1990a, February). The development of the Drinking Expectancy
Profile. paper presented at the Fifth International Congress for the Treatment of
Addictive Behaviours, Sydney.
530 Baldwin, Oei, and Young

Young, R., Oei, T. P. S. (1990b). Drinking Expectancy Profile: A manual. University of

Queensland: Brisbane.
Young, R., Oei, T. P. S., & Crook, G. (1991). Development of a Drinking Self-Efficacy
Questionnaire. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 13, 1-15.
Young, R., Oei, T. P. S., & Knight, R. G. (1990). The tension reduction hypothesis revisited:
An alcohol expectancy perspective. British Journal of Addiction, 85, 31-40.