Category: Addictive Behaviors

PS1- #A14 - What You Think and Where You Drink: Context, Alcohol Outcome Expectancies, Valuations, and Drinking Behavior

Friday, Nov 17
8:30 AM – 9:30 AM
Location: Indigo Ballroom CDGH, Level 2, Indigo Level

Keywords: Alcohol | Substance Abuse

                             What You Think and Where You Drink: Context, Alcohol Outcome Expectancies, Valuations, and Drinking Behavior.

N. R. Wolkowicz*, L. S. Ham*, B. L. Zamboanga†, A. Mobley*, B. Scallion*, & J. Upshaw* 

*University of Arkansas,

†Smith College

While preliminary evidence exists (e.g., Ham et al., 2013), the ways in which contextual factors interact with Alcohol Outcome Expectancies (AOE) and Alcohol Expectancy Valuations (AEV: the extent to which these outcomes are perceived as good or bad) to influence drinking behaviors is not well understood. Elucidating the nature of drinking cognitions across context is crucial as it affords a precise understanding of what environmental considerations are relevant in predicting alcohol use. The current study sought to replicate and extend past research by examining AOE and AEV across three contexts: convivial, intimate, and negative coping (O’Hare, 1997).

Participants were 1031 (Mage=19.75, 41% male) college students attending a midsouthern university who completed an online questionnaire which included assessments of drinking frequency in the three contexts as well as three versions of the Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol (CEOA; Fromme et al., 1993), which measures AOE and AEV. Each version of the CEOA contained a unique initial prompt, asking participants to consider items in either a convivial (e.g., with friends), intimate (e.g., on a date), or negative coping context (e.g., feeling sad or angry) (Ham et al., 2011; 2013).

Repeated-measures ANOVAs suggested omnibus effects of context (convivial, negative coping, or personal-intimate) on each of seven types of AOE, Fs(2, 2062) = 34.83-267.58, ps < .0028 hp2’s = .013-.206, and valuations, Fs(2, 2062) = 70.78-185.69, ps < .0028, hp2’s = .064-.153. Contrary to previous research, almost all AOE were endorsed most in convivial and intimate contexts; this pattern reversed for the self-perception type (ps < .0028). AEV were endorsed in a similar pattern, or most in either intimate convivial contexts (ps < .0028). Additionally, multiple regressions examining drinking frequency, Fs(8, 15) = 7.79-12.36, ps < .0028, R2’s = .10-.15, identified cognitive-behavioral impairment (b = .19-.26, ps < .0028, all contexts) and tension reduction AOE (b = -.19, p < .0028, coping) as significant predictors.

Expectancies and valuations appear typically most endorsed in convivial and intimate contexts, however, there were exceptions to this pattern. Additionally, context-specific AOE and AEV are predictive of context-specific drinking behaviors. In short, context plays a role in AOE and AEV, which is consistent with the findings reported in Ham et al. (2013). Future research should explore novel findings suggesting greater cognitive-behavioral impairment AOE are related to drinking more frequently.

Noah R. Wolkowicz

University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, Arkansas

Lindsay S. Ham

Associate Professor
University of Arkansas

Byron Zamboanga

Smith College

Alita M. Mobley

Graduate Student
University of Arkansas

Bennie Scallion

University of Arkansas

Josh Upshaw

University of Arkansas