Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Subst Use Misuse. 2024 Nov 26;60(3):373–380. doi: 10.1080/10826084.2024.2431049

Understanding Momentary Alcohol Use Cognitions through the Lenses of Momentary Socioeconomic Identification, Unfair Treatment, and Strain

Zhuoran Xiang 1, Nataria T Joseph 2, Laurel M Peterson 3
PMCID: PMC11769744  NIHMSID: NIHMS2037149  PMID: 39588943

Abstract

Background

Studies suggest that socioeconomic status (SES) is related to alcohol use. SES may impact alcohol use via exposures to financial stress, discriminatory experiences, identity threat, negative emotions, and perceived threat. These experiences could lead to alcohol use via increases in alcohol use willingness. However, there is little research using ecological momentary assessment (EMA) to illuminate temporal dynamics in the relationship between SES and alcohol use willingness during daily life moments. This is especially important to examine in emerging adults given their unique developmental stage.

Methods

A sample of 119 African American emerging adults (mean age = 24.82, 59% female, diverse educational levels) completed 4 days of EMA surveys reporting both SES-related experiences and alcohol use willingness on an hourly basis.

Results

Higher perception of SES-based unfair treatment was found to be linked with a greater willingness to drink at the moment (p < .001, b = 0.66). Conversely, a positive view of one’s own SES at the moment was associated with lower willingness to drink (p < .001, b = −0.12). Additionally, a heightened perception of perceived threat at the moment was associated with higher willingness to drink (p = .001, b = 0.05).

Conclusion

SES-based unfair treatment and positive identification are factors that influence spontaneous alcohol use interest among emerging adults. Clinicians should assess these SES factors when attempting prevention and treatment, especially momentary interventions. Further, research should investigate more mechanisms explaining associations between SES-based unfair treatment and willingness to use other substances.

Keywords: subjective socioeconomic status, ecological momentary assessment, unfair treatment, alcohol use willingness, African American emerging adults

Alcohol use is highly prevalent in the United States, with approximately half of the population reporting alcohol use in a given month (SAMHSA., 2022). The mismanagement of alcohol consumption can result in an increased risk of serious health conditions such as stroke, liver cirrhosis, alcoholic hepatitis, and cancer, as well as an inclination towards risky behaviors, underscoring the significance of excessive alcohol use as a critical public health issue (SAMHSA., 2022). This issue is especially pressing in emerging adults, as they have the highest binge drinking rate (SAMHSA., 2022) and are twice as likely to be diagnosed with serious substance use disorder (Bergman et al., 2016). Further, emerging adulthood is a developmental period characterized by continued formation of identity (Schwartz et al., 2013), alcohol use cognitions, and sensitivity to social evaluation and rejection (Cloutier et al., 2021), making them a vulnerable population with respect to alcohol use. It is important to investigate the underlying causes of alcohol consumption, especially in emerging adults, with the ultimate aim of reducing alcohol consumption and improving public health.

Past research has suggested that alcohol use is correlated with socioeconomic status (SES), defined as the multidimensional concept encompassing an individual’s education, income, and occupational standing (American Psychological Association, n.d.). However, studies that used objective measures of SES often found conflicting results regarding this correlation (Casswell et al., 2003; Patrick et al., 2012), possibly because these measures fail to account for the subjective experiences and feelings that individuals have in relation to their SES. Thus, an in-depth exploration of multifaceted SES-related experiences, such as unfair treatment, financial strain, and identity, may provide additional insights in understanding the influence of SES on alcohol use compared to the traditional approach using objective SES indicators alone.

First, evidence suggests that SES-based unfair treatment – any form of discrimination individuals receive due to others’ perceptions of their SES group – produces detrimental effects, such as major depressive disorder (Assari et al., 2018) and lower perception of general health (Bird et al., 2004). Second, past work suggests that financial strains inhibit identity formation of emerging adults (Vosylis & Klimstra, 2020) and engender more alcohol consumption, often as a coping mechanism (Peirce et al., 1994). Third, although no studies have examined the concept of social class identity in relation to alcohol use, it is likely that it will generate some degree of influence that is similar to racial (Buckner et al., 2022; Sellers et al., 1998), gender (Cerezo et al., 2019), and cultural identity (Jensen et al., 2011). Moreover, evidence suggests that other factors such as negative emotions and perceived threats may mediate the relationship between SES-related experiences and alcohol use. For instance, a previous systematic review of SES points out that individuals associated with lower SES are more subjectable to stress, leading them to experience more negative emotions (Gallo & Matthews, 2003), a predominant reason for alcohol consumption based on previous empirical research (Zywiak et al., 1996). Previous empirical research also points out that lower SES individuals perceive greater threats under ambiguous situations (Chen et al., 2004), making them more vulnerable to using alcohol to try to reduce their attention to these threats (Bacon & Ham, 2010). However, despite the rich literature on SES-related experiences and alcohol use, no studies have simultaneously examined them, leaving exploration of their associations warranted but limited.

In addition to the lack of comprehensive examination of SES-related experiences and alcohol use, most studies in the literature rely solely on traditional self-report measures to capture these experiences and usage, limiting their real-time effects and validity. Recent studies using ecological momentary assessment (EMA) methods have discovered significant associations between negative emotions and physical well-being (Joseph et al., 2021), as well as between perceived threats and cognitive state (Bryan et al., 2023), highlighting the further need to measure these concepts momentarily in understanding alcohol use. Conversely, although no studies have examined whether different SES-related experiences fluctuate momentarily, findings from past studies suggest they are worthy to explore. For example, fluctuations in racial discrimination suggest that SES-related discrimination could similarly be detected on a momentary basis (Joseph et al., 2021). Meanwhile, emerging adults report that social class identity affects their daily interpersonal encounters more than race and gender (Thomas & Azmitia, 2014), which makes detecting any momentary shifts in such identity crucial to further understand its impact in daily life. Lastly, change in financial strain is known to impact alcohol use (Shaw et al., 2011) and physical health (Steptoe et al., 2005) in past longitudinal studies, yet no studies have explored whether this change occurs within shorter time frames, missing the opportunities to acknowledge and address this change in real time. In light of these gaps, assessing the multifaceted dimensions of SES, negative emotions, and perceived threats as they manifest and fluctuate in real-time could provide insights to how momentary SES-based exposures impact alcohol use and which specific aspects of SES are most strongly linked to alcohol use in emerging adults.

Traditional methods of retroactively recalling alcohol use also present a challenge in understanding the underlying mechanism of the motivation behind alcohol use. Thus, alcohol use in emerging adults can be better understood through the concept of willingness, a behavioral decision cognition that represents an openness to engaging in risky behaviors given conducive circumstances (Gibbons et al., 2015), as it is a strong predictor of alcohol consumption (Davies et al., 2015). Derived from the Prototype Willingness Model (PWM), willingness captures a behavioral antecedent responsive to social cues and affect and is predictive of alcohol use among adolescents and emerging adults, especially in situations that are more socially reactive and less planned (Gerrard et al., 2008; Gibbons et al., 2015; Todd et al., 2014). Past research has demonstrated that willingness to consume alcohol varies on a day-to-day basis (Lewis et al., 2016), however, past research conducted on willingness predominantly uses cross-sectional, longitudinal, and experimental designs (Gibbons et al., 2015; Todd et al., 2014). More research is needed to determine whether SES-based social strains (e.g., unfair treatment), negative emotions, and perceived threat from daily interactions predict momentary willingness for alcohol consumption.

African American Emerging Adults

Additionally, racial identity is important to explore alongside SES due to their high intersectionality (Jackson & Williams, 2006) and unique health risks for certain racial groups. African Americans in the United States face a disproportionate impact from racial disparities related to alcohol use including more social consequences and alcohol dependence (Mulia et al., 2009), while also confronting increasing levels of unfair treatment that add strains to their development (Hope et al., 2015). Alcohol use also accelerates among African Americans emerging adults (Malone et al., 2012), placing this population at an elevated risk for adverse health outcomes, including major depressive disorder (Sartor et al., 2016) and alcohol-related liver cirrhosis (Caetano, 2003). Given that poverty is more strongly related to alcohol use in African American men and women than those of other racial and ethnic backgrounds (Glass et al., 2017), it may be possible that SES is a very important factor in alcohol use willingness in African American emerging adults as well. A substantial body of research has identified a relationship between racial unfair treatment and alcohol use willingness (Gibbons et al., 2010), including among African Americans emerging adults (Stock et al., 2013). However, there has been limited research on SES-related unfair treatment or other SES-related factors and alcohol willingness within this population, making it crucial to investigate the SES-related mechanisms that drive drinking willingness in order to effectively address and reduce alcohol consumption in African American emerging adults.

The Present Study

Several questions remain unanswered. First, specific assessment of SES is needed to better understand the acute effects of each SES dimension in relation to willingness to drink. Second, momentary measures of SES -related feelings, negative emotions, and perceived threats are needed to avoid recall bias that exists in previous literature and capture the real-time effects of these variables. Third, past research conducted on willingness predominantly uses cross-sectional, longitudinal, and experimental design (Gibbons et al., 2015; Todd et al., 2014), while EMA design is more temporally aligned and ecologically valid with the proposed pathway between psychosocial factors and willingness cognitions in daily life (Lewis et al., 2020). Fourth, considering the heightened vulnerability of African American emerging adults to alcohol-related issues, it is imperative to specifically investigate willingness to use alcohol in this population. The present study aims to utilize EMA to examine momentary SES-based experiences, negative emotions, perceived threat and alcohol willingness cognitions in a sample of African American emerging adults. Informed by previous research regarding the association between SES and alcohol use, we hypothesized that momentary SES-based unfair treatment, financial stress, and SES identification would predict momentary alcohol willingness. Additionally, momentary negative emotions and perceived threat were expected to vary by SES and predict alcohol use willingness. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the associations between a comprehensive set of SES-related beliefs and experiences and willingness to drink alcohol in daily life moments in a sample that is vulnerable to alcohol use.

Method

Participants

This study is part of a larger study on Health and Racial Discrimination in Daily Life (HRDDL). Recruitment was conducted in the Greater Los Angeles area through online advertising, physical flyers, and word-of-mouth methods. For overall aims of the broader research project, individuals were excluded if they (1) were not between the ages of 18 and 30; (2) did not self-identify as Black or African American; (3) were currently pregnant or attempting to be pregnant or conceive (if female); (4) co-slept in a bed at night with an infant or child; (5) did not have regular access to the internet or a mobile phone to complete momentary surveys; (6) did not have basic computer experience; (7) did not speak English as a native language; (8) had regular obligations that involved overnight shifts or staying up extremely late; (9) had ever been diagnosed with or treated for clinical disorders, including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and sleep disorder; (10) had ever been diagnosed with diabetes or hypertension or were taking antihypertensive medications; (11) had ever been told by a physician that their blood pressure was high; or (12) ever had a stroke, heart disease, or heart attack.

Seventy-nine interested participants did not meet eligibility criteria per the screening process. Of the eligible participants that completed the consent form process, nine did not complete the entire protocol, i.e., they either returned the equipment after completing the first appointment stating that they realized that monitoring portion of the study was not feasible for them or did not return for the second appointment. Those that provided some EMA survey data did not significantly differ from those that did not with respect to gender (p = .12), age (p = .10), lifetime or past year alcohol use (ps = .57 and .25), or years of education (p = .95). The final analytic sample included a total of 119 African American emerging adults (mean age = 24.82, 58.8% female). Please see Table 1 for further description of the sample.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Participant Demographics

Mean SD Count Percentage
Age 24.82  3.34
Gender
   Male 49 41.2
   Female 70 58.8
Education
   High school or GED 49 41.3
   Associate’s degree/junior college 22 18.8
   Bachelor’s degree 39 32.5
   Masters’ degree  6  5.0
   Other or missing  3  2.6
Employment
   Working full-time 51 42.5
   Full-time student 30 25.0
Annual Household Income
   Less than 20,000 27 22.5
   Between 20,000 and 40,000 31 26.3
   Between 40,000 and 75,000 37 31.2
   More than 75,000 24 20.0
Alcohol Consumption
   Drank alcohol in the past year 77 64.4
   Drink alcohol every week 27 22.9
   Willing to drink until drunk in the next 3 months 46 38.7
Open in a new tab

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Pepperdine University. All participants provided informed consent and were compensated up to $150 through visa gift cards for their participation in addition to $15 to cover their transportation costs. Participants who completed over 80% of all aspects of this study were also added to a raffle drawing for an additional $50 gift card beyond their compensation. All participants completed the study between June 2019 and June 2022.

Procedure

Eligible participants completed an in-person baseline appointment, four full days of in-the-field ecological momentary assessment, and an in-person concluding appointment. At the baseline visit, participants completed informed consent and baseline questionnaires regarding their life experience, annual income, education, and alcohol use willingness and behaviors. Lastly, participants were trained to properly proceed with the monitoring phase, including equipment usage and guidance on completing EMA surveys. The monitoring phase officially commenced the morning following the baseline visit.

Throughout the monitoring period, participants received periodic reminder text messages or emails prompting their survey completion. Within this period, participants were required to complete a beginning-of-day and an end-of-day survey, in addition to one short survey per hour. These hourly short surveys were expected to be during approximately 15 waking hours each day over the course of four days. A rest day was programmed into the monitoring period (the third day after baseline), during which participants were not engaged in any study-related activities. As a result, each participant could complete approximately 60 hourly momentary surveys by the conclusion of the 4-day monitoring phase. At the concluding appointment, participants completed a final survey unrelated to the current study.

Measures

Momentary socioeconomic unfair treatment.

The momentary measure of socioeconomic unfair treatment was adapted from The Everyday Unfair Treatment Scale (Williams et al., 1997). Participants responded in a dichotomous fashion (yes or no) regarding whether each of 10 different manifestations of unfair treatment occurred to them within the past hour on the basis of their SES, e.g., “Because of your SES, someone or people acted as if they’re better than you”. Responses to these items were used to create an overall dichotomous item for each moment, i.e., whether or not participants endorsed any form of unfair treatment for that moment.

Momentary positive socioeconomic identification.

The momentary measure of positive socioeconomic identification was adapted from the Private Regard Subscale of the Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity (Sellers et al., 1998) and consisted of the following two items: “I am proud of my socioeconomic background” and “I feel my socioeconomic status is an important part of who I am”. Participants indicated the extent to which they agreed with these items on a scale ranging from NO! (score of 1) to YES! (score of 6). Responses to these two items were averaged at each moment to create a momentary score.

Momentary financial strain.

The momentary measure of financial strain was created by the authors and consisted of the following two items: “My financial situation is strained” and “I am concerned about my financial situation.” Participants indicated the extent to which they agreed with these items on a scale ranging from NO! (score of 1) to YES! (score of 6).

Responses to these two items were averaged at each moment to create a momentary score.

Momentary negative emotion.

The momentary measure of negative emotion consisted of six items inquiring as to the extent to which participants were feeling the following emotions at the moment of the EMA survey: upset, hostile, nervous, afraid, lonely, sad. Response options varied from NO! to YES!, with NO! being a score of 1 on that item and YES! being a score of 6 (Kamarck et al., 1998). Responses to these six items were averaged at each moment to create a momentary score. In our previous work (Joseph et al., 2021), this method of assessing momentary negative emotion demonstrated a uni dimensional structure and strong reliability and intra-individual variability.

Momentary perceived threat.

The momentary measure of perceived threat consisted of five items and was created by the authors to capture to the extent to which participants were feeling threatened physically, emotionally, socially, and cognitively at the moment of the EMA survey (e.g., “I feel threatened”; “I do not feel secure”; “I find it hard to focus on everyday things because I am on guard for issues”). Response options varied from NO! to YES!, with NO! being a score of 1 on that item and YES! being a score of 6. Responses to these five items were averaged at each moment to create a momentary score.

Momentary alcohol use willingness.

Alcohol use willingness items were adapted from similar research (Lewis et al., 2020) and assessed using the following items: “If presented with a convenient situation or opportunity to drink alcohol, I would be willing to drink alcohol now”. Participants rated these items on a scale of 1 (not willing) to 7 (willing).

Covariates.

Participants self-reported age, gender, and SES (years of education). Participants also self-reported past year alcohol use as well as baseline drinking willingness. At the momentary level, racial unfair treatment was assessed using the same scale as SES-based unfair treatment except that participants were asked about these experiences based on race.

Statistical Analyses

SPSS Mixed was used to conduct multilevel linear regressions. Modelling decisions were made based on theory, hypotheses, parsimony, and statistical assumptions. For example, data were nested, i.e., moments were nested within days and days were nested within participants. Due to conceptual reasoning that participants’ willingness to drink (our dependent variable) could vary day by day and that each participant’s average willingness level would differ from other participants, we allowed the participant-level, day-level, and day within participant intercepts to vary. Random-intercepts only models confirmed that there was significant variation in day intercepts within participants (variance estimate = 0.163, SE = 0.019, p <.001) and between participants (variance estimate = 0.226, SE = 0.050, p < .001). With variation in these intercepts accounted for, there was not significant day-level intercept variation (variance estimate = 0.007, SE = 0.007, p = .331). Due to the fact that our hypotheses focused on momentary associations and the fact that we had no conceptual or empirical reason to believe that our hypothesized momentary associations would vary by day, we planned no day-level tests other than the day-level random intercept. To address our momentary hypothesis, we disentangled participant-level variation in our variables of interest from momentary-level variation in our variables of interest. Specifically, we controlled for participant-level variation in our analyses by controlling for average levels of our primary independent variables of interest in each participant. For example, a mean was computed for each participant to show, on average, the extent to which that participant reported SES-based unfair treatment. Because this is the first study to empirically test the hypothesized relationships, and there were no theoretical reasons to believe that the relationships would vary from participant to participant, we entered all hypothesized effects into the model as fixed. Further, we adjusted for participant level covariates (age, gender, years of education, past year alcohol use, baseline willingness) and momentary level covariates (race-based unfair treatment).

Results

There were 5284 occasions of hourly data among participants in the analytic sample (i.e., an average of approximately 44 data points per participant). The average alcohol willingness score was 2.90 (SD = .81). Participants reported being at least somewhat willing to drink (i.e., at least a 4 on the 7-point scale) in 32% of moments. The intraclass correlation (ICC) for momentary willingness was .62, suggesting that willingness to drink fluctuated within participants. Participants reported some form of SES-based unfair treatment in 8% of moments. The intraclass correlation (ICC) for momentary SES-based unfair treatment was .23, suggesting that perceived SES-based unfair treatment fluctuated substantially within participants. Momentary reports of SES-based unfair treatment did not vary significantly by SES (education), b = −0.004, p = .21.

The average positive SES identification and financial strain scores were 3.88 (SD = 1.21) and 3.66 (SD = 1.48), respectively. The intraclass correlations (ICCs) for momentary SES-positive identification and momentary financial strain were .55 and .57, respectively, suggesting that perceived SES identification and financial strain fluctuated substantially within participants. The average negative emotion and perceived threat scores were 2.21 (SD = 1.64) and 2.35 (SD = .86), respectively. The intraclass correlations (ICCs) for momentary negative affect and momentary threat were .40 and .43, respectively, suggesting that these variables fluctuated substantially within participants.

Multilevel modeling found that higher momentary SES-based unfair treatment and momentary perceived threat were associated with higher willingness to drink alcohol, b = 0.46, p = .006 and b = 0.12, p < .001, respectively, whereas higher momentary positive view of one’s SES was associated with lower drinking willingness, b = −0.09, p <.001. Momentary negative affect and momentary financial strain were not associated with willingness to drink alcohol, p = .220 and p = .208, respectively. Please see Table 2 for results of the full model.

Table 2.

Multilevel Model of Momentary Drinking Willingness

Effect B(SE)
Fixed
Intercept 4.99 (1.04)
Momentary SES Unfair Treatment .46 (.17)**
Mean SES Unfair Treatment −.38 (1.77)
Momentary SES Positive Identification −.09 (.01)***
Mean SES Positive Identification −.32 (.15)*
Momentary Financial Strain .02 (.01)
Mean Financial Strain .02 (.13)
Negative Emotion .02 (.02)
Mean Negative Emotion −.11 (.33)
Perceived Threat .12 (.02)***
Mean Perceived Threat −.22 (.29)
Random Variance (SE)
Intercept (participant level) .33 (.09)**
Intercept (days within participants) .18 (.02)**
Residual Variance (observation level) .35 (.01)**
Open in a new tab

Note: Means of variables of interest were participant means. Covariates were age, gender, years of education, past year alcohol use, baseline alcohol willingness, and momentary level race-based unfair treatment.

*

p < .05

**

p < .01

***

p < .001

Discussion

Given the limited research examining connections between socioeconomic unfair treatment, financial stress, and identification and alcohol willingness, our findings provide unique insights into alcohol use willingness through momentary stressors and cognitions and add an interesting dimension in understanding how the specific aspects of SES in African American emerging adults are associated with their alcohol use willingness. Aligning with our hypothesis, momentary unfair treatment related to SES and perceived threat were positively associated with willingness to drink over and above participants’ baseline SES, drinking behavior, and drinking willingness. The finding that emerging adults are impacted by SES-based unfair treatment align with findings that emerging adults’ have a strong sense of SES identity (Thomas & Azmitia, 2014). As noted by previous studies, willingness to use alcohol may be a form of avoidant coping with respect to unfair treatment and threat perception (Cooper et al., 1992; Doyle & Molix, 2014; Peirce et al., 1994). Our findings suggest that positive socioeconomic identity is significantly associated with lower drinking willingness, suggesting it to be a potential protective factor of alcohol use. These findings may seem to contradict previous studies that found that individuals across the lifespan with higher objective SES reported higher alcohol consumption (Collins, 2016; Mulia & Karriker-Jaffe, 2012). However, our measure that captures one’s perception of one’s own SES potentially adds an interesting layer to this literature, indicating that the key to reducing the willingness to use alcohol may lie more in individuals’ subjective feelings and experiences relevant to their SES-related identity rather than only their objective SES. Conversely, negative emotion and financial strain did not yield significant associations with alcohol use willingness. Together, our findings suggest that interpersonal interactions and comparison are perhaps more salient factors for influencing alcohol use cognitions than financial stress and negative emotions.

This study has numerous strengths. First, the EMA method makes the findings more ecologically valid and reduces participants’ recall bias as it queries their cognitions at the very moment in which they complete the surveys. Second, our examination also presents the association between alcohol use willingness and very specific SES indicators instead of drawing general connections between overall SES and willingness. Third, this study solely focuses on African American emerging adults, a population extremely vulnerable to alcohol use and discriminative social situations, maximizing the potential strength of the hypothesized relationships. Finally, this study examines the independent effects of racial and SES-based unfair treatment, demonstrating that SES-based treatment was associated with substance use willingness, above and beyond any associations of racial unfair treatment with alcohol use willingness.

Limitations & Future Research

There are limitations to this study that warrant further research. While one strength of the study is centering the experience of African American emerging adults, the focus on this population does preclude generalizability. Studies of other populations should be conducted to examine the generalizability of these findings. Future research should also investigate whether the associations found here generalize across age groups or are unique to emerging adults. Replicating this study across racial populations would also be an important future step. Further, the current sample was diverse with respect to SES, suggesting that the relationships found are not specific to a group with a specific set of SES experiences. However, to further substantiate this, future studies with larger sample sizes should explicitly test whether the relationships found here are significant in each SES stratum, e.g., among those experiencing poverty, among those who are highly educated, and among those having high levels of income. Those with high levels of SES may also experience unfair treatment based on their SES, as supported by the fact that SES did not significantly determine reports of SES-based unfair treatment in this dataset. Further, given that lower-SES is often stigmatized and shamed in society (Inglis et al., 2023), and can translate to self-stigma and negative health outcomes, further research focused solely on lower-SES identifying individuals who experience varied levels of pride in their SES identity is a fruitful direction for future research. However, we were not powered to repeat our analyses within each SES stratum or to test moderation by SES stratum.

Additionally, theoretical inference about the process through which momentary SES-based unfair treatment and threat influences alcohol use cognitions is limited due to the tradeoffs between comprehensive construct assessment and participant burden in EMA studies. While momentary SES-based unfair treatment and threat were associated with alcohol willingness, negative emotion was not. There are multiple reasons why SES-based unfair treatment and threat could influence momentary alcohol willingness aside from negative affect including: erosion of self-regulation, depletion of fundamental needs (e.g., perceived control, meaningful existence, belonging, positive emotion), or a need for social affiliation (Joseph et al., 2021; Stock et al., 2016). Future research should include measures of these constructs to further elucidate the pathways between momentary threat and alcohol willingness. Additionally, alcohol willingness cognitions were represented generally with a context-neutral single question. Alcohol use in response to negative events can be highly context-dependent and future research should expand EMA alcohol willingness questions to encompass solitary or social drinking (Creswell, 2021), kind of alcohol (e.g., hard alcohol versus beer and wine), and intensity (e.g., drinking one drink, drinking until drunk, high episodic drinking, etc., Minhas et al., 2020).

Finally, it is important to note that the findings regarding alcohol willingness should not be assumed to generalize to willingness to use other substances. Future research should continue to examine the differences among different substances to design specific substance use interventions tailored for each substance. Other popular substances among emerging adults, such as marijuana, tobacco, and nicotine vaping, should also be examined in future studies to determine whether SES-based unfair treatment, positive socioeconomic identity, and perceived threat influence willingness for other substances similarly.

Implications

The strengths and contributions of this study far outweigh the limitations; thus, the current study has important implications. This study has revealed how momentary threat cognitions and specific dimensions of SES could affect momentary alcohol use willingness cognitions. Acknowledging alcohol use willingness as a momentary cognition allows possible interventions on a momentary level as well. For instance, smartphones could serve as platforms for delivering ecological momentary interventions (EMI). Past research has demonstrated the success of technological EMI such as text message reminders in reducing young adults’ drinking (Riordan et al., 2015) behaviors. Since thoughts related to SES are primarily engendered in social interactions, EMIs that aim to provide social and cognitive support, specifically reinforcing a positive view of one’s own SES, could have a significant impact in reducing alcohol use willingness, and subsequent use.

Concluding Remarks

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to suggest that very specific dynamics of SES (rather than static SES) influence alcohol use willingness from moment to moment. These findings have conceptual and practical implications and, with replication and expansion, could contribute to more powerful targeting of the substance use behaviors of emerging adults, thereby improving their health and wellbeing.

Transparency Statements:

This study and the analysis plan were not formally registered. De-identified data and analytic code from this study are not available in a public archive. De-identified data and analytic code from this study will be made available (as allowable according to institutional IRB standards) by emailing the corresponding author. Some of the materials from this study are publicly available survey instruments adapted for use in the current study and the rest of the materials are items created for this study. The full text of the latter is in the methods section.

Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding:

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. This research was supported by a National Institutes of Health Grant R15 MD012730-01 awarded to Dr. Joseph.

Glossary

EMA

ecological momentary assessment

SES

socioeconomic status

Footnotes

Declaration of Interest Statement

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

References

  1. American Psychological Association (n.d.). Socioeconomic status. APA Dictionary of Psychology. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/socioeconomic-status?_ga=2.160650869.931162617.1669934359-106814658.1669003419 [Google Scholar]
  2. Assari S, Preiser B, Lankarani M, & Caldwell C (2018). Subjective socioeconomic status moderates the association between discrimination and depression in African American youth. Brain Sciences, 8(4), 71. 10.3390/brainsci8040071 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bacon AK, & Ham LS (2010). Attention to social threat as a vulnerability to the development of comorbid social anxiety disorder and alcohol use disorders: An avoidance-coping cognitive model. Addictive Behaviors, 35(11), 925–939. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2010.06.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bergman BG, Kelly JF, Nargiso JE, & McKowen JW (2016). “the age of feeling in-between”: Addressing challenges in the treatment of emerging adults with substance use disorders. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 23(3), 270–288. 10.1016/j.cbpra.2015.09.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bird ST, Bogart LM, & Delahanty DL (2004). Health-related correlates of perceived discrimination in HIV care. AIDS Patient Care and STDs, 18(1), 19–26. 10.1089/108729104322740884 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Buckner JD, Morris PE, Shepherd JM, & Zvolensky MJ(2022). Ethnic-racial identity and hazardous drinking among Black Drinkers: A test of the minority stress model. Addictive Behaviors, 127, 107218. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2021.107218 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bryan CJ, Daruwala SE, Tabares JV, Butner JE, Coccaro EF, & Gorka SM (2023). Heightened threat perceptions and reduced stability in anxiety and fear among US adults who carry handguns. Journal of anxiety disorders, 99, 102764. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Caetano R (2003). Alcohol-related health disparities and treatment-related epidemiological findings among whites, blacks, and Hispanics in the United States. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, 27(8), 1337–1339. 10.1097/01.alc.0000080342.05229.86 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Casswell S, Pledger M, & Hooper R (2003). Socioeconomic status and drinking patterns in young adults. Addiction, 98(5), 601–610. 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2003.00331.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cerezo A, Williams C, Cummings M, Ching D, & Holmes M (2019). Minority stress and drinking: Connecting race, Gender Identity and sexual orientation. The Counseling Psychologist, 48(2), 277–303. 10.1177/0011000019887493 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chen E, Langer DA, Raphaelson YE, & Matthews KA (2004). Socioeconomic status and health in adolescents: The role of stress interpretations. Child Development, 75(4), 1039–1052. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00724.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cloutier RM, Anderson KG, Kearns NT, Carey CN, & Blumenthal H (2021). An experimental investigation of peer rejection and social anxiety on alcohol and cannabis use willingness: Accounting for social contexts and use cues in the laboratory. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 35(8), 887–894. 10.1037/adb0000711 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Collins SE (2016). Associations Between Socioeconomic Factors and Alcohol Outcomes. Alcohol research : current reviews, 38(1), 83–94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Cooper ML, Russell M, Skinner JB, Frone MR, & Mudar P (1992). Stress and alcohol use: Moderating effects of gender, coping, and alcohol expectancies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101(1), 139–152. 10.1037/0021-843x.101.1.139 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Creswell KG (2021). Drinking together and drinking alone: A social-contextual framework for examining risk for alcohol use disorder. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 30(1), 19–25. 10.1177/0963721420969406 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Davies EL, Martin J, & Foxcroft DR (2015). Age differences in alcohol prototype perceptions and willingness to drink in UK adolescents. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 21(3), 317–329. 10.1080/13548506.2015.1051556 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Doyle DM, & Molix L (2014). Perceived discrimination as a stressor for close relationships: Identifying psychological and physiological pathways. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 37(6), 1134–1144. 10.1007/s10865-014-9563-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Gallo LC, & Matthews KA (2003). Understanding the association between socioeconomic status and physical health: Do negative emotions play a role? Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 10–51. 10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.10 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Gerrard M, Gibbons FX, Houlihan AE, Stock ML, & Pomery EA (2008). A dual-process approach to health risk decision making: The prototype willingness model. Developmental Review, 28(1), 29–61. 10.1016/j.dr.2007.10.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Gibbons FX, Etcheverry PE, Stock ML, Gerrard M, Weng C-Y, Kiviniemi M, & R. E. O’Hara. (2010). Exploring the link between racial discrimination and substance use: What mediates? what buffers? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(5), 785–801. 10.1037/a0019880 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Gibbons FX, Stock ML, Gerrard M, & Finneran S (2015). The prototype-willingness model Predicting and changing health behaviour: Research and practice with social cognition models,(pp. 189–224). Berkshire. [Google Scholar]
  22. Glass JE, Rathouz PJ, Gattis M, Joo YS, Nelson JC, & Williams EC (2017). Intersections of poverty, race/ethnicity, and sex: Alcohol consumption and adverse outcomes in the United States. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 52(5), 515–524. 10.1007/s00127-017-1362-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hope EC, Hoggard LS, & Thomas A (2015). Emerging into adulthood in the face of racial discrimination: Physiological, psychological, and sociopolitical consequences for African American youth. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 1(4), 342–351. 10.1037/tps0000041 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Inglis G, Jenkins P, McHardy F, Sosu E, & Wilson C (2023). Poverty stigma, mental health, and well-being: A rapid review and synthesis of quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 33(4), 783–806. 10.1002/casp.2677 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Jackson PB, & Williams DR (2006). The Intersection of Race, Gender, and SES: Health Paradoxes. In Schulz AJ & Mullings L (Eds.), Gender, race, class, & health: Intersectional approaches (pp. 131–162). Jossey-Bass/Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  26. Jensen LA, Arnett JJ, McKenzie J (2011). Globalization and Cultural Identity. In: Schwartz S, Luyckx K, Vignoles V (eds) Handbook of Identity Theory and Research. Springer, New York, NY. 10.1007/978-1-4419-7988-9_13 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Joseph NT, Jiang Y, & Zilioli S (2021). Momentary emotions and salivary cortisol: A systematic review and meta-analysis of ecological momentary assessment studies. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 125, 365–379. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Joseph NT, Peterson LM, Gordon H, & Kamarck TW (2021). The double burden of racial discrimination in daily-life moments: Increases in negative emotions and depletion of psychosocial resources among emerging adult African Americans. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 27(2), 234–244. 10.1037/cdp0000337 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Kamarck TW, Shiffman SM, Smithline L, Goodie JL, Paty JA, Gnys M, & Jong JY-K (1998). Effects of task strain, social conflict, and emotional activation on ambulatory cardiovascular activity: Daily life consequences of recurring stress in a multiethnic adult sample. Health Psychology, 17(1), 17–29. 10.1037/0278-6133.17.1.17 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Lewis MA, Litt DM, King KM, Fairlie AM, Waldron KA, Garcia TA, LoParco C, & Lee CM (2020). Examining the ecological validity of the prototype willingness model for adolescent and young adult alcohol use. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 34(2), 293–302. 10.1037/adb0000533 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Lewis M, King K, Litt D, Swanson A, & Lee C (2016). Examining daily variability in willingness to drink in relation to underage young adult alcohol use. Addictive Behaviors, 61, 62–67. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.05.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Malone PS, Northrup TF, Masyn KE, Lamis DA, & Lamont AE (2012). Initiation and persistence of alcohol use in United States Black, Hispanic, and white male and female youth. Addictive Behaviors, 37(3), 299–305. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.11.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Minhas M, Oshri A, Amlung M, Dennhardt A, Ferro M, Halladay J, Munn C, Tucker J, Murphy J, & MacKillop J (2020). Latent profile analysis of heavy episodic drinking in emerging adults: A reinforcer pathology approach. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 44(10), 2130–2140. 10.1111/acer.14438 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Mulia N, & Karriker-Jaffe KJ (2012). Interactive influences of neighborhood and individual socioeconomic status on alcohol consumption and problems. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 47(2), 178–186. 10.1093/alcalc/agr168 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Mulia N, Ye Y, Greenfield TK, & Zemore SE (2009). Disparities in alcohol-related problems among white, black, and Hispanic Americans. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 33(4), 654–662. 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2008.00880.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Patrick ME, Wightman P, Schoeni RF, & Schulenberg JE (2012). Socioeconomic status and substance use among young adults: A comparison across constructs and Drugs. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 73(5), 772–782. 10.15288/jsad.2012.73.772 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Peirce RS, Frone MR, Russell M, & Cooper ML (1994). Relationship of financial strain and psychosocial resources to alcohol use and abuse: The mediating role of negative affect and drinking motives. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 35(4), 291. 10.2307/2137211 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Rahal D, Huynh V, Cole S, Seeman T, & Fuligni A (2020). Subjective social status and health during high school and young adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 56(6), 1220–1232. 10.1037/dev0000919 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Riordan BC, Conner TS, Flett JA, & Scarf D (2015). A brief orientation week ecological momentary intervention to reduce university student alcohol consumption. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 76(4), 525–529. 10.15288/jsad.2015.76.525 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Sartor CE, Jackson KM, McCutcheon VV, Duncan AE, Grant JD, Werner KB, & Bucholz KK (2016). Progression from first drink, first intoxication, and regular drinking to alcohol use disorder: A comparison of African American and European American Youth. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 40(7), 1515–1523. 10.1111/acer.13113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Schwartz SJ, Zamboanga BL, Luyckx K, Meca A, & Ritchie RA (2013). Identity in emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 1(2), 96–113. 10.1177/2167696813479781 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Sellers RM, Smith MA, Shelton JN, Rowley SAJ, & Chavous TM (1998). Multidimensional Model of Racial Identity: A reconceptualization of African American racial identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(1), 18–39. 10.1207/s15327957pspr0201_2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Shaw BA, Agahi N, & Krause N (2011). Are changes in financial strain associated with changes in alcohol use and smoking among older adults?. Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs, 72(6), 917–925. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). (2022). 2021 National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) Releases. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, https://www.samhsa.gov/data/release/2021-national-survey-drug-use-and-health-nsduh-releases#annual-national-report [Google Scholar]
  45. Steptoe A, Brydon L, & Kunz-Ebrecht S (2005). Changes in financial strain over three years, ambulatory blood pressure, and cortisol responses to awakening. Psychosomatic medicine, 67(2), 281–287. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Stock ML, Gibbons FX, Peterson LM, & Gerrard M (2013). The effects of racial discrimination on the HIV-risk cognitions and behaviors of black adolescents and young adults. Health Psychology, 32(5), 543–550. 10.1037/a0028815 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Stock ML, Peterson LM, Molloy BK, & Lambert SF (2016). Past racial discrimination exacerbates the effects of racial exclusion on negative affect, perceived control, and alcohol-risk cognitions among Black young adults. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 40(3), 377–391. 10.1007/s10865-016-9793-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Thomas V, & Azmitia M (2014). Does class matter? the centrality and meaning of social class identity in emerging adulthood. Identity, 14(3), 195–213. 10.1080/15283488.2014.921171 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Todd J, Kothe E, Mullan B, & Monds L (2014). Reasoned versus reactive prediction of behaviour: A meta-analysis of the prototype willingness model. Health Psychology Review, 10(1), 1–24. 10.1080/17437199.2014.922895 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Vosylis R, & Klimstra T (2020). How does financial life shape emerging adulthood? Short-term longitudinal associations between perceived features of emerging adulthood, financial behaviors, and financial well-being. Emerging Adulthood, 10(1), 90–108. 10.1177/2167696820908970 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Williams DR, Yan Yu, Jackson JS, & Anderson NB. (1997). Racial differences in physical and mental health. Journal of Health Psychology, 2(3), 335–351. 10.1177/135910539700200305 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Zywiak WH, Connors GJ, Maisto SA, & Westerberg VS (1996). Relapse research and the reasons for drinking questionnaire: A factor analysis of Marlatt’s relapse taxonomy. Addiction, 91(12s1), 121–130. 10.1046/j.1360-0443.91.12s1.2.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES