Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Oct 31.
Published in final edited form as: Addict Behav. 2013 Jan 17;38(4):1996–2002. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.01.011

Self-consciousness as a moderator of the effect of social drinking motives on alcohol use

Dawn W Foster, Clayton Neighbors
PMCID: PMC4215938  NIHMSID: NIHMS637909  PMID: 23384456

Abstract

This study evaluated self-consciousness as a moderator of the relationship between social drinking motives and alcohol use. Participants included 243 undergraduate students who reported alcohol use, alcohol-related problems, self-consciousness, and social motives. We expected that social drinking motives, private self-consciousness, and public self-consciousness would be positively associated with drinking and that this relationship would be moderated by self-consciousness. Specifically, we expected this relationship to be stronger for people lower in private self-consciousness, based on decreased awareness about their internal states. In addition, we expected that the relationship between social motives and drinking would be stronger among those who were higher in public self-consciousness, given their focus on the self as a social object. Consistent with expectations, the associations between social motives and peak drinking and drinks per week were more strongly associated among those lower in private self-consciousness. However, inconsistent with expectations, the relationship between social motives and drinking was stronger among those who were lower, rather than higher, in public self-consciousness. Overall implications of these research findings extend previous research emphasizing the importance of considering social influences in etiology and prevention of drinking. Moreover, while social motives are a consistent predictor of drinking among young adults, this is not universally true. This study contributes to social cognitive literature seeking to understand and identify individual factors related to drinking and their application to the adaptation of existing intervention approaches.

Keywords: private self-consciousness, public self-consciousness, self-awareness

1. Introduction

Research shows that college age adults engage in risky drinking and experience alcohol-related problems that range in severity, including trouble with authorities, hangovers, injuries, and death (Hingson, Heeren, Winter, & Wechsler, 2005; Hingson, 2010; Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, & Lee, 2000; Wechsler, Davenport, Dowdall, & Moeykens, 1994). Almost 20% of undergraduate students meet DSM-IV criteria for alcohol abuse or dependence (NIAAA, 2007). Additionally, research demonstrates that college drinking is associated with depression (Geisner, Larimer, & Neighbors, 2004), eating disorders (Dunn, Larimer, & Neighbors, 2002), risky sexual behavior, and sexual assault (Abbey, Buck, Zawacki, & Saenz, 2003; Kaysen, Neighbors, Martell, Fossos, & Larimer, 2006; Koss & Gaines, 1993; Larimer, Lydum, Anderson, & Turner, 1999). Prevalence estimates show that in the U.S., 80% of college students consume alcohol, 67% drink at least monthly, and 40% frequently consume several drinks on a given occasion (Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2012). Compared to 38% of non-college peers, 44% of college students meet heavy episodic drinking criteria (5+ drinks in a row during the past two weeks; SAMHSA, 2008). Brief interventions aiming to decrease drinking and associated harmful problems are among the potentially helpful strategies focusing on college drinking (Hingson, 2010).

1.1. Social drinking motives

College drinking can be studied from a motivational perspective using the framework described by work on drinking motives, which are conceptualized as a proximal pathway to alcohol use (Cooper, 1994; Cooper, Frone, Russell, & Mudar, 1995; Kuntsche, Knibbe, Gmel, & Engels, 2005; Read, Wood, Kahler, Maddock, & Palfai, 2003; Stewart & Devine, 2000) and reflect both individual and environmental influences on drinking (Cox & Klinger, 1988). From this perspective, individuals generally drink to create or enhance positive outcomes or avoid/minimize negative outcomes (Cox & Klinger, 1988). Cooper (1994) suggests four common drinking motives; enhancement motives (drinking to increase or maintain positive affect), social motives (drinking for positive social outcomes), conformity motives (drinking to avoid social rejection), and coping motives (drinking to regulate or reduce negative affect). Social factors, which include social drinking motives, have been among the strongest and most robust predictors of drinking in the college environment (e.g., Borsari & Carey, 2000; Kuntsche et al., 2005; Lewis et al., 2010). More specifically, social motives are among the most common reasons for drinking among young adults (Cooper, 1994; Kuntsche et al., 2005). Despite their more frequent endorsement, social motives are not always strongly associated with drinking (Kuntsche et al., 2005; Neighbors et al., 2007), suggesting that the relationship between social motives and alcohol use may be complicated, and there may be moderators of this relationship.

1.2. Self-consciousness

We propose that the relationship between social drinking motives and alcohol use can be further elucidated by considering individual differences in self-consciousness. Self-consciousness has been operationalized as a measure of trait self-awareness (e.g., LaBrie, Hummer, & Neighbors, 2008a; Park, Sher, & Krull, 2006). Objective self-awareness theory (Duval & Wicklund, 1972) proposes that self-awareness involves attention being inwardly focused towards the self and suggests that self-awareness is an uncomfortable state due to the highlighting of discrepancies between the actual and ideal self (Duval & Wicklund, 1972). Highly self-aware individuals may be more in tune with internal states or values, which may translate either to attempts to decrease the discrepancy between the actual and ideal self or attempts to decrease awareness of this discrepancy. The self-awareness model of alcohol consumption (Hull, 1981), an extension to objective self-awareness theory, posits that as alcohol reduces awareness of sources of tension, drinking is one possible way that individuals may try to mitigate uncomfortable awareness of the discrepancy between the actual and ideal self. The literature regarding self-awareness model of alcohol consumption has been mixed, with some studies showing that self-awareness is associated with increased drinking (e.g., Hull, 1981; Hull, Levenson, Young, & Sher, 1983; Hull, Young, & Jouriles, 1986), other studies showing that self-awareness is associated with decreased drinking (e.g., Chassin, Mann, & Sher, 1988; Niaura, Wilson, & Westrick, 1988), and others finding no effects (Frankenstein & Wilson, 1984).

Previous research has examined the relationship between private self-consciousness and drinking (e.g., LaBrie, et al., 2008a). In previous work, private self-consciousness has been found to either not be associated with drinking (Park et al., 2006) or negatively associated with drinking (LaBrie, Pedersen, Neighbors, & Hummer, 2008b). The latter study evaluated the influence of private self-consciousness on the relationship between drinking and the experience of alcohol-related negative consequences, and findings revealed that private self-consciousness was associated with less drinking. However private self-consciousness was not uniquely associated with reported alcohol-related problems (LaBrie et al., 2008b). In a separate study evaluating private self-consciousness, Labrie and colleagues (2008a) found that perceived norms and alcohol use are more strongly related among individuals higher in private self-consciousness. As social norms are an external social influence, it is possible that results might be different for variables that are intrinsic (e.g., drinking motives) versus extrinsic (perceived norms). Drinking in order to experience social reinforcement and/or to facilitate pleasant social interactions may be more strongly associated with drinking among those who are less aware of their internal states and more likely to go with the flow in social situations without questioning their reasons for drinking. Alternatively, positive associations between alcohol and social interactions seem less likely among more introspective individuals who are higher in private self-consciousness.

In addition to private self-consciousness, research has also examined public self-consciousness and findings show that it too is an important predictor of drinking (e.g., LaBrie et al., 2008). Park, Sher, and Krull (2006) demonstrated that public self-consciousness was not cross-sectionally associated with drinking but was associated with decreased drinking over time among fraternity members, however this relationship did not emerge for sorority members. In another study, public self-consciousness was shown to be related to drinking among individuals with a family history of alcohol abuse such that respondents were more likely to match their drinking level with what they perceived as normative for same-sex peers at their school (Crawford & Novak, 2007). Additionally, public self-consciousness was found to moderate the association between perceived norms and drinking such that perceived norms were positively associated with drinking, and this was more pronounced for individuals lower in public self-consciousness (LaBrie et al., 2008a). The authors suggest that perhaps public self-consciousness may be related to responses with social desirability such that individuals high in public self-consciousness are more reluctant to admit social influences on drinking. Relatedly, the authors suggest that public self-consciousness may reflect interactions with social networks, and while those low in public self-consciousness might be less likely to be in drinking contexts, when they find themselves in situations involving drinking, they may be more likely to model behaviors of those around them (LaBrie et al., 2008). Based on this, we might expect that drinking motives (specifically, social drinking motives which reflect, for example, drinking to socialize or drinking because it increases enjoyment at a party), might be more strongly associated with drinking among those low in public self-consciousness relative to those high in public self-consciousness. Furthermore, if alcohol is used as a tool for impression management by individuals high in public self-consciousness as suggested by LaBrie et al (2008), they may drink more in order to maximize the good times they have with others. The present research relates to these studies in that further research is needed to better understand differences in alcohol consumption and how private and public self-consciousness relate to drinking behavior. Particularly, this study builds on previous work by seeking to understand the effect that private and public self-consciousness have on the relationship between social drinking motives and alcohol use.

1. 3. Current study

The present study was designed to evaluate the relationship between social drinking motives and alcohol use by considering private and public self-consciousness as potential moderators of the association. As such, we evaluated three hypotheses. Our first hypothesis was that social drinking motives would be positively associated with drinking and related problems based on previous findings which have consistently demonstrated these associations (e.g., Cooper et al., 1995; Read et al., 2003; Stewart & Devine, 2000). Additionally, we hypothesized that private and public self-consciousness would be positively associated with drinking and alcohol-related problems based on the theoretical perspective that self-consciousness (a measure of trait self-awareness) is uncomfortable (Duval & Wicklund, 1972). Our second hypothesis was that social drinking motives would be more strongly related to drinking among individuals low in private self-consciousness, based on the perspective that lower self-awareness would facilitate more positive social outcomes in drinking situations. Our third hypothesis was that the relationship between social drinking motives and alcohol consumption and related problems would be moderated by public self-consciousness such that the relationship would be stronger among those higher in public self-consciousness, based on the theoretical assumption that these individuals view the self as a social object.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Participants included 243 undergraduate students (Mean age = 22.93, SD = 6.29, 82% female) from a large Southwestern university who completed measures related to alcohol use, alcohol-related problems, self-consciousness, and drinking motives and received extra credit in compensation for participation. Demographics of the sample for the present manuscript included 33.75% Caucasian, 30.17% Hispanic/Latino, 18.75% Black/African American, 20.42% Asian/Pacific Islander, 6.24% Multi-Ethnic, 0.42% Native American/American Indian, and 20.42% Other.

2.2. Procedure

Two hundred forty-three undergraduate students were recruited via email and flyers and invited to participate in a study of drinking behaviors among college students. Students who met eligibility criteria (e.g., at least 18 years of age and a registered student) completed an online survey. Recruitment remained open until we passed our proposed target of 200 students.

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. Demographics

Participants provided demographic information such as age, gender, racial background, and student status.

2.3.2. Social drinking motives

Participants completed the Drinking Motives Questionnaire-Revised (DMQR; Cooper, 1994) and provided ratings on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (Never/Almost Never) to 5 (Almost Always/Always) regarding 20 reasons why individuals might be motivated to drink. The measure yields four sub-scales that reflect motives for drinking including social motives (e.g., “Because it helps you enjoy a party”; α = .94), coping motives (e.g., “To forget your worries”; α = .88), enhancement motives (e.g., “Because you like the feeling”; α = .90), and conformity motives (e.g., “Because your friends pressure you to drink”; α = .86) for drinking alcoholic beverages. For the purposes of this research, we focused exclusively on the social motives subscale.

2.3.3. Self-consciousness

The private self-consciousness subscale (10 items) and public self-consciousness subscale (7 items) of the Self-Consciousness Scale (Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975) were used to evaluate private and public self-consciousness. Participants provided ratings on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (Extremely Uncharacteristic) to 4 (Extremely Characteristic) regarding items assessing private self-consciousness (e.g., “I’m always trying to figure myself out”; α = .69) and public self-consciousness (e.g., “I’m concerned about what other people think of me”; α =.81).

2.3.4. Alcohol use and problems

Participants completed three measures of alcohol use and related problems. The Quantity/Frequency Scale (Baer, 1993; Marlatt, Baer, & Larmer, 1995) is a 5 item measure that assesses the number of alcoholic beverages and the number of hours spent drinking on a peak drinking event within the last 30 days, as well as the number of days out of the month that the individual consumed alcohol (0 = I do not drink at all, 1 = about once per month, 2 = two to three times a month, 3 = once or twice per week, 4 = three to four times per week, 5 = almost every day, 6 = I drink once daily or more). The Daily Drinking Questionnaire (Collins, Parks, & Marlatt, 1985; Kivlahan, Marlatt, Fromme, Coppel, & Williams, 1990) measures the number of standard drinks consumed on every day of a normal Monday to Sunday week within the last 90 days (three months). Scores represent the average number of alcoholic beverages that are consumed over the course of each week during the previous month. The Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index (RAPI; White & Labouvie, 1989) is a 23 item scale assessing alcohol related negative consequences in the last 30 days (one month), and responses range from 0 (Never) to 4 (10 times or more). Two items were added related to driving after drinking. Items were rated based on how many times each problem occurred while drinking, such as “went to work or school high or drunk” and total summed scores for the RAPI ranged from 0 to 100 (White & Labouvie, 1989). Cronbach α for the RAPI was .86.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptives

Means, standard deviations, and correlations for all of the variables are presented in Table 1. The alcohol use and problems variables (peak drinks, drinking frequency, drinks per week, and alcohol-related problems) were significantly and positively associated with each other. Private and public self-consciousness were significantly and positively associated. Gender was significantly and negatively associated with drinking variables and social drinking motives. Gender was dummy coded, with 0 = male and 1 = female, and thus, negative coefficients indicate that females drink less or are lower in social drinking motives.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among Variables

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
1. Social drinking
 motives		 --
2. Private self-
 consciousness		 0.22*** --
3. Public self-
 consciousness		 0.23*** 0.60*** --
4. Peak drinks 0.42*** 0.03 −0.03 --
5. Drinking
 frequency		 0.45*** 0.07 0.04 0.71*** --
6. Drinks per week 0.35*** 0.08 0.06 0.08*** 0.78*** --
7. Alcohol-related
 problems		 0.47*** 0.16* 0.16* 0.55*** 0.64*** 0.64*** --
8. Gender −0.17** −0.11† −0.06 −0.26*** −0.11† −0.15* −0.14* --
Mean 2.26 2.38 2.21 4.21 2.82 3.91 27.80 0.82
Standard Deviation 1.22 0.64 0.91 5.41 2.61 5.68 4.41 0.39
Open in a new tab

Note. N=243

***

p < .001.

**

p < .01.

*

p < .05.

†

p < .10.

3.2. Primary analyses

To evaluate our first hypothesis that social drinking motives would be positively associated with drinking and related problems, we conducted multiple correlations between variables. Findings revealed that social drinking motives were positively related to all four drinking variables, and thus higher social drinking motives were associated with increased peak drinks, drinking frequency, drinks per week, and alcohol-related problems. Neither private nor public self-consciousness was significantly associated with drinking (e.g., peak drinks, drinking frequency, drinks per week), but both private and public self-consciousness were positively associated with alcohol-related problems such that increases in private or public self-consciousness were related to increased alcohol-related problems. Thus, our first hypothesis with respect to social drinking motives was supported, and with respect to private and public self-consciousness, our first hypothesis was partially supported.

To test our second hypothesis that the relationship between social drinking motives and alcohol consumption and related problems would be moderated by private self-consciousness, we conducted multiple hierarchical regressions. Separate analyses were conducted for private self-consciousness and public self-consciousness (described below). In the private self-consciousness model, we evaluated drinking as a function of social drinking motives and private self-consciousness at Step 1. At Step 2 we added the two-way product term between social drinking motives and private self-consciousness. Results revealed significant two-way interactions between social drinking motives and private self-consciousness. Consistent with expectations, we found that the association between social drinking motives and alcohol use was stronger among those with lower private self-consciousness. Interactions were graphed using parameters from the regression equation as described in Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken (2003). Values in Figure 1 represent the number of drinks that would be predicted for a person who scored one standard deviation above (high) and below (low) the mean of private self-consciousness and one standard deviation above (high) and below (low) the mean on social motives. Figure 1 reveals that social drinking motives were associated with increased peak drinks, but this relationship was stronger among individuals with lower private self-consciousness compared to individuals with higher private self-consciousness. Additionally, social drinking motives were associated with increased drinks per week, and this relationship was stronger among individuals with low private self-consciousness compared to individuals with high private self-consciousness (Figure 2). Thus, evidence supported our second hypothesis.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

High social drinking motives were associated with increased peak drinks, and this relationship was stronger among individuals with low private self-consciousness compared to individuals with high private self-consciousness.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

High social drinking motives were associated with increased drinks per week, and this relationship was stronger among individuals with low private self-consciousness compared to individuals with high private self-consciousness.

The same strategy was used to test our third hypothesis that the relationship between social drinking motives and alcohol consumption and related problems would be stronger at higher levels of public self-consciousness. In this model, we evaluated drinking as a function of social drinking motives and public self-consciousness at Step 1. At Step 2 we added the two-way product term between social drinking motives and public self-consciousness. Results revealed a significant two-way interaction between social drinking motives and public self-consciousness when predicting peak drinks. However, contrary to predictions, we found that the association between social drinking motives and alcohol use was stronger among individuals with lower (not higher) public self-consciousness. Specifically, social drinking motives were associated with increased peak drinks, and this relationship was stronger among individuals with low public self-consciousness compared to individuals with high public self-consciousness (Figure 3). Thus, evidence did not support our third hypothesis. Because all four drinking motives are strongly correlated (typically r = 0.06 – 0.8 in university samples), it is customary to partial out the effects of the other motives before conducting regression analyses. As such, further analyses were conducted where the effects of the other drinking motives were taken into account by adding each of the motives into the regression model. When controlling for other drinking motives, the interactions remained significant. Additionally, as public and private self-consciousness were positively intercorrelated (r = 0.60, Table 1), we conducted further analyses to take into account the effects of public and private self-consciousness. When controlling for public self-consciousness, the interaction between private self-consciousness and social drinking motives remained significant. Furthermore, when controlling for private self-consciousness, the interaction between public self-consciousness and social drinking motives remained significant.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

High social drinking motives were associated with increased peak drinks, and this relationship was stronger among individuals with low public self-consciousness compared to individuals with high public self-consciousness.

4. Discussion

This study evaluated the relationship between social drinking motives and alcohol use by considering self-consciousness as a potential moderator. Overall, support for our hypotheses was mixed. Consistent with expectations and previous research (e.g., for reviews, see Kuntsche et al., 2005), drinking for social motives was strongly and consistently associated with alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems.

We did not find significant associations between private or public self-consciousness with any of the alcohol consumption variables but both were positively associated with alcohol-related problems. These findings are fairly consistent with the self-awareness model of alcohol consumption (Hull, 1981) which has demonstrated mixed findings. Some studies have shown support for the model, indicating that increases in self-awareness (indirectly measured via self-consciousness) were associated with increased drinking (e.g., Hull, 1981; Hull, Levenson, Young, & Sher, 1983; Hull, Young, & Jouriles, 1986), and others show a lack of support, indicating that increases in self-awareness were associated with decreased drinking (e.g., Chassin, Mann, & Sher, 1988; Niaura, Wilson, & Westrick, 1988). Cross-sectional associations between drinking and self-consciousness have either not been evident or have been relatively small (Park et al., 2006; LaBrie, Pedersen, Neighbors, & Hummer, 2008). It is unclear why associations between private and public self-consciousness were evident for problems but not consumption in the present study, but one potential explanation is that individuals who are more self-conscious may be more sensitive to the experience of alcohol-related problems, even though actual drinking levels are not significantly different from individuals low in self-consciousness.A second potential explanation is that perhaps self-consciousness is a better predictor of drinking in older populations due to sensitivity to the uncomfortable self-conscious or self-aware state possibly increasing with age. This would suggest that when used on its own, self-consciousness is not as useful a predictor of drinking for the college population in comparison to social influence, which has been shown to be a powerful predictor of college drinking (e.g., Neighbors, Lee, Lewis, Fossos & Larimer, 2007).

Our second hypothesis was that the relationship between social drinking motives and alcohol consumption and related problems would be moderated by private self-consciousness such that social drinking motives would be more strongly related to drinking among individuals lower in private self-consciousness. We found support for this hypothesis for peak drinks and for drinks per week but not for frequency of drinking or for alcohol-related problems. These findings are in opposition to results of LaBrie et al (2008) which found stronger associations between perceived norms and drinking among those who were higher in private self-consciousness and provide evidence suggesting that social influence variables are not interchangeable. Indeed, perceived norms are inherently outwardly focused perceptions (e.g., how much do you think other people drink) whereas social drinking motives are focused more internally (why do you drink).

Our third hypothesis was that the relationship between social drinking motives and alcohol consumption and related problems would be moderated by public self-consciousness such that the relationship would be stronger among those high in public self-consciousness, based on the theoretical assumption that these individuals view the self as a social object. Results showed that social drinking motives did indeed moderate the relationship between self-awareness and drinking but only for one of the drinking variables and it was in the opposite direction than hypothesized. That is, social drinking motives were associated with increased peak drinking, however, this relationship was stronger among individuals with lower (not higher) public self-consciousness. Thus, we did not find evidence to support our third hypothesis. There are a couple of potential explanations for these findings.

Like the private self-consciousness findings, these findings are opposite in direction compared to the findings of LaBrie et al (2008) which found stronger associations between perceived norms and drinking among those who were higher in public self-consciousness. These results may again reflect the differential outward versus inward focus of perceived norms versus social drinking motives. Specifically, motives pertain primarily to what the individual him or herself hopes to achieve from drinking.

It is also possible that individuals who are higher in public self-consciousness have increased awareness of the social stigma associated with drinking or drunkenness relative to individuals low in public self-consciousness, and may be unwilling to be perceived as irresponsible, a “partier,” or immature. Thus, it is possible that individuals low in public self-consciousness are either less aware of this social stigma or less impacted by awareness of it and thus may drink more. While this seems somewhat inconsistent with the broader college drinking literature, it may be campus specific. It is worth noting that overall drinking norms on the campus on which the data was collected are significantly lower than the national average, partly due to many non-traditional students and very diverse demography. It is also worth noting that this finding was only significant for peak drinking, not drinking per se, which may be more related to concerns about others’ opinions of one’s excessive drinking.

A related potential explanation for these findings is that perhaps individuals high in public self-consciousness are more aware of how their behaviors are socially construed and “stick” to their identity. Deviance regulation theory (Blanton & Christie, 2003) suggests that based on goals of acceptance and inclusion, individuals are more likely to engage in behaviors that will stick to the identity in a positive/favorable way and avoid behaviors that will stick to the identity in a negative/unfavorable way. Based on social stigma associated with alcohol use and drunkenness, drinking might be categorized as a behavior that may stick to the identity in an unfavorable way, and thus individuals high in public self-consciousness, being more aware of this relative to individuals low in public self-consciousness, might avoid engaging in these behaviors (e.g., drink less). A third related potential explanation for these findings is that perhaps high public self-consciousness is associated with defensiveness about engaging in drinking behaviors. This might be because of increased awareness that the self is a social object and vulnerable to the influences of peer pressure. Defensiveness associated with unwillingness to view the self as malleable to social influence may lead to under-reporting of drinking and associated problems.

Overall implications of these research findings extend previous research emphasizing the importance of considering social influences in etiology and prevention of drinking. Moreover, while social motives are a consistent predictor of drinking among young adults, this is not universally true. In particular, higher private self-consciousness might be viewed as somewhat of a protective factor for social influences on drinking. This may suggest that intervention approaches which highlight discrepancies between attitudes, values, priorities, and behaviors (e.g., motivational interviewing; Miller & Rollnick, 2002) may be particularly effective among these individuals because they simulate similar processes.

4.1. Limitations and future directions

The strengths of the study must be considered in light of several limitations. The first limitation is the cross-sectional design of the study, which included a single assessment. Future research might address this limitation by, for example, replicating this research among heavy drinkers as well as by including multiple time points of assessment to evaluate changes in drinking. The second limitation relates to the sample. This study did not screen participants based on drinking criteria, thus, the sample included abstainers, light, moderate, and heavy drinkers. Additionally, this sample was comprised of undergraduate students, which may limit generalizability to other age groups or non-college peers. Moreover, the sample was relatively homogenous with respect to age and occupation (full-time university students). Although this is a group for whom alcohol use and problems are of concern, it is not clear whether these findings would generalize to other groups. These findings should be replicated in more diverse samples and cross-culturally to evaluate cultural effects. Directions for future research include the use of experimentally designed studies to identify individual differences in alcohol use patterns. Furthermore, future research might include a more representative distribution of age.

4.2. Conclusion

This study examined self-awareness as a moderator of the relationship between social drinking motives and alcohol use. Findings support the hypothesis that social drinking motives would be positively associated with drinking and that this relationship would be moderated by private self-consciousness such that the social drinking motives and drinking relationship would be stronger among individuals low in private self-consciousness. Findings did not support the hypothesis that the relationship between social drinking motives and drinking would be stronger among individuals high in public self-consciousness. Rather, results showed that the relationship was stronger among individuals low in public self-consciousness. Overall implications of these findings extend previous research emphasizing the importance of considering social influences such as social drinking motives in the etiology and prevention of drinking. Moreover, although social motives are a consistent predictor of drinking among young adults, the present research suggests that this is not universally true. This indicates that considering individual differences with respect to drinking motives when designing alcohol interventions may increase intervention efficacy. The present study contributes to social cognitive literature seeking to understand and identify individual factors in alcohol use and to determine if drinking motives represent a target for alcohol intervention efforts.

Highlights.

  • We evaluate self-consciousness in the link between motives and drinking

  • Social drinking motives were associated with alcohol use

  • Drinking was associated with students high in social drinking motives

  • Private self-consciousness moderates the effect of motives on drinking

Table 2.

Hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting drinking variables from social drinking motives and private self-consciousness

Criterion Predictor B SE B β p
Peak
drinks		 Step 1 Social drinking motives (SDM) 1.95 0.27 0.44 <0.001
Private self-consciousness (PC) −0.51 0.51 −0.07 0.25
Step 2 SDM * PC −1.26 0.41 −0.86 0.002
Drinking
frequency		 Step 1 Social drinking motives (SDM) 0.98 0.13 0.46 <0.001
Private self-consciousness (PC) −0.14 0.24 −0.03 0.58
Step 2 SDM * PC −0.30 0.20 −0.43 0.13
Drinks
per week		 Step 1 Social drinking motives (SDM) 1.63 0.29 0.35 <0.001
Private self-consciousness (PC) −0.01 0.55 −0.0009 0.99
Step 2 SDM * PC −0.92 0.45 −0.60 0.04
Alcohol-
related
problems		 Step 1 Social drinking motives (SDM) 1.66 0.21 0.46 <0.001
Private self-consciousness (PC) 0.42 0.40 0.06 <0.001
Step 2 SDM * PC −0.10 0.33 −0.08 0.77
Open in a new tab

Note. N=243

Table 3.

Hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting drinking variables from social drinking motives and public self-consciousness

Criterion Predictor B SE B β p
Peak
drinks		 Step 1 Social drinking motives (SDM) 2.02 0.26 0.45 <0.001
Public self-consciousness (PUC) −0.80 0.35 −0.13 0.02
Step 2 SDM * PUC −0.98 0.29 −0.73 0.001
Drinking
frequency		 Step 1 Social drinking motives (SDM) 0.99 0.13 0.46 <0.001
Public self-consciousness (PUC) −0.20 0.17 −0.07 0.24
Step 2 SDM * PUC −0.19 0.14 −0.29 0.18
Drinks
per week		 Step 1 Social drinking motives (SDM) 1.66 0.29 0.36 <0.001
Public self-consciousness (PUC) −0.14 0.39 −0.02 0.72
Step 2 SDM * PUC −0.57 0.32 −0.40 0.08
Alcohol-
related
problems		 Step 1 Social drinking motives (SDM) 1.66 0.21 0.46 <0.001
Public self-consciousness (PUC) 0.25 0.28 0.05 0.38
Step 2 SDM * PUC −0.17 0.23 −0.15 0.48
Open in a new tab

Note. N=243

Acknowledgments

Role of Funding Sources

This research was not supported by any grant.

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest

Both authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Abbey A, Buck PO, Zawacki T, Saenz C. Alcohol's effects on perceptions of a potential date rape. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2003;64:669–677. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2003.64.669. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baer JS. Etiology and secondary prevention of alcohol problems with young adults. In: Baer JS, Marlatt GA, McMahon RJ, editors. Addictive Behaviors Across the Lifespan: Prevention, Treatment, and Policy Issues. Sage; Thousand Oaks, CA: 1993. pp. 111–137. [Google Scholar]
  3. Blanton H, Christie C. Deviance regulation: A theory of action and identity. Review of General Psychology. 2003;7:115–149. [Google Scholar]
  4. Borsari B, Carey KB. Effects of a brief motivational intervention with college student drinkers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2000;68(4):728–733. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Chassin L, Mann LM, Sher KJ. Self-awareness theory, family history of alcoholism, and adolescent alcohol involvement. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1988;97:206–217. doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.97.2.206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, Aiken LS. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. 3rd Erlbaum; Hillsdale, NJ: 2003. [Google Scholar]
  7. Collins RL, Parks GA, Marlatt GA. Social determinants of alcohol consumption: The effects of social interaction and model status on the self-administration of alcohol. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1985;53:189–200. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.53.2.189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cooper ML. Motivations for alcohol use among adolescents: Development and validation of a four-factor-model. Psychological Assessment. 1994;6:117–128. [Google Scholar]
  9. Cooper M, Frone MR, Russell M, Mudar P. Drinking to regulate positive and negative emotions: A motivational model of alcohol use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1995;69:990–1005. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.69.5.990. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cox W, Klinger E. A motivational model of alcohol use. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1988;97:168–180. doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.97.2.168. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Crawford LA, Novak KB. Resisting peer pressure: Characteristics associated with other-self discrepancies in college students' levels of alcohol consumption. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education. 2007;51:35–62. [Google Scholar]
  12. Dunn EC, Larimer ME, Neighbors C. Alcohol and drug-related negative consequences in college students with bulimia nervosa and binge eating disorder. International Journal of Eating Disorders. 2002;32:171–178. doi: 10.1002/eat.10075. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Duval S, Wicklund RA. A theory of objective self awareness. Academic Press; Oxford England: 1972. [Google Scholar]
  14. Fenigstein A, Scheier MF, Buss AH. Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology. 1975;43:522–527. [Google Scholar]
  15. Frankenstein W, Wilson GT. Alcohol's effects on self-awareness. Addictive Behaviors. 1984;9:323–328. doi: 10.1016/0306-4603(84)90030-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Geisner I, Larimer ME, Neighbors C. The relationship among alcohol use, related problems, and symptoms of psychological distress: Gender as a moderator in a college sample. Addictive Behaviors. 2004;29:843–848. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2004.02.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hingson RW. Magnitude and prevention of college drinking and related problems. Alcohol Research & Health. 2010;33(1-2):45–54. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hingson R, Heeren T, Winter M, Wechsler H. Magnitude of alcohol-related mortality and morbidity among U.S. college students ages 18-24: Changes from 1998 to 2001. Annual Review Of Public Health. 2005:26259–279. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144652. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Hull JG. A self-awareness model of the causes and effects of alcohol consumption. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1981;90:586–600. doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.90.6.586. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Hull JG, Levenson RW, Young RD, Sher KJ. Self-awareness-reducing effects of alcohol consumption. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1983;44(3):461–473. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hull JG, Young RD, Jouriles E. Applications of the self-awareness model of alcohol consumption: Predicting patterns of use and abuse. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1986;51:790–796. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.51.4.790. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG, Schulenberg JE. National Institute on Drug Abuse; Bethesda, MD: 2012. Monitoring the future national results on adolescent drug use: Overview of key findings, 2011, (NIH Publication No. 12-5882) [Google Scholar]
  23. Kaysen D, Neighbors C, Martell J, Fossos N, Larimer ME. Incapacitated rape and alcohol use: A prospective analysis. Addictive Behaviors. 2006;31:1820–1832. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.12.025. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Kivlahan DR, Marlatt GA, Fromme K, Coppel DB, Williams E. Secondary prevention with college drinkers: Evaluation of an alcohol skills training program. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1990;58:805–810. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.58.6.805. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Koss MP, Gaines JA. The prediction of sexual aggression by alcohol use, athletic participation, and fraternity affiliation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 1993;8(1):94–108. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kuntsche E, Knibbe R, Gmel G, Engels R. Why do young people drink? A review of drinking motives. Clinical Psychology Review. 2005;25:841–861. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2005.06.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. LaBrie JW, Hummer JF, Neighbors C. Self-consciousness moderates the relationship between perceived norms and drinking in college students. Addictive Behaviors. 2008a;33:1529–1539. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2008.07.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. LaBrie J, Pedersen ER, Neighbors C, Hummer JF. The role of self-consciousness in the experience of alcohol-related consequences among college students. Addictive Behaviors. 2008b;33:812–820. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2008.01.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Larimer ME, Lydum AR, Anderson BK, Turner AP. Male and female recipients of unwanted sexual contact in a college student sample: Prevalence rates, alcohol use, and depression symptoms. Sex Roles. 1999;40:295–308. [Google Scholar]
  30. Leigh BC, Stacy AW. Alcohol expectancies and drinking in different age groups. Addiction. 2004;99:215–227. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2003.00641.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Marlatt GA, Baer JS, Larimer ME. Preventing alcohol abuse in college students: A harm-reduction approach. In: Boyd G, Howard J, Zucker R, editors. Alcohol Problems Among Adolescents: Current Directions in Prevention Research. Lawrence Erlbaum; Mahwah, NJ: 1995. pp. 147–172. [Google Scholar]
  32. Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change (2nd ed.) Guilford Press; New York, NY US: 2002. [Google Scholar]
  33. Neighbors C, Lee CM, Lewis MA, Fossos N, Larimer ME. Are social norms the best predictor of outcomes among heavy-drinking college students? Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2007;68:556–565. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2007.68.556. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. NIAAA . What Colleges Need to Know Now: An Update on College Drinking Research. National Institutes of Health, DHHS; Bethesda, MD: 2007. (NIH publication no. 07–5010) [Google Scholar]
  35. Niaura R, Wilson GT, Westrick E. Self-awareness, alcohol consumption, and reduced cardiovascular reactivity. Psychosomatic Medicine. 1988;50:360–380. doi: 10.1097/00006842-198807000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Park A, Sher KJ, Krull JL. Individual differences in the 'Greek effect' on risky drinking: The role of self-consciousness. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2006;20:85–90. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.20.1.85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Read JP, Wood MD, Kahler CW, Maddock JE, Palfai TP. Examining the role of drinking motives in college student alcohol use and problems. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2003;17:13–23. doi: 10.1037/0893-164x.17.1.13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. SAMHSA U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration. Screening on campus: Effective and available. 2008 Retrieved from website: http://www.samhsa.gov/samhsa_news/volumexvi_2/article7.htm. [Google Scholar]
  39. Stewart SH, Devine H. Relations between personality and drinking motives in young people. Personality and Individual Differences. 2000;29:495–511. [Google Scholar]
  40. Wechsler H, Lee J, Kuo M, Lee H. College binge drinking in the 1990s: A continuing problem: Results of the Harvard School of Public Health 1999 College Alcohol Study. Journal of American College Health. 2000;48:199–210. doi: 10.1080/07448480009599305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Wechsler H, Davenport A, Dowdall G, Moeykens B. Health and behavioral consequences of binge drinking in college: A national survey of students at 140 campuses. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association. 1994;272:1672–1677. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. White HR, Labouvie EW. Towards the assessment of adolescent problem drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1989;50:30–37. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1989.50.30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES