Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Addict Behav. 2019 Aug 26;100:106111. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.106111

Does it Work and Does it Last? Effects of Social and Drinking Behavior on Same and Next Day Mood

Jessica M Cronce a,*, Lindsey Zimmerman b,c, Isaac C Rhew c, Jennifer M Cadigan c, David C Atkins c, Christine M Lee c
PMCID: PMC7332199  NIHMSID: NIHMS1595731  PMID: 31518752

Abstract

Both social and drinking behavior have the potential to modify mood. However, if social drinking enhances positive mood and reduces negative mood, as compared to non-drinking social behavior, then interventions to reinforce non-drinking via sober social activity are undermined. Using multilevel modeling analyses, we compared end-of-day mood on drinking days versus non-drinking days, and on days spent with other people as compared to days spent primarily alone. We evaluated the interaction between drinking/non-drinking and social/solitary behavior and assessed whether the effects of social and drinking behavior extended to mood the next day. Participants were 352 college students (53% female; 55% fraternity/sorority membership; mean age 19.7 years) who completed three automated telephone surveys each day during four 14-day intervals over 1 year. Drinking and being social were associated with higher end-of-day positive mood and significantly lower end-of-day negative mood. However, no positive enhancement or negative attenuation effects of alcohol were observed in interaction analyses. Alcohol provided no improvement in mood over-and-above being social at the end of the day or on the following day. However, drinking the previous day significantly reduced next-day positive mood, whereas being social significantly reduced next-day negative mood. These findings provide support for the reinforcing potential of interventions that increase rewarding social activity in the place of alcohol use.

Keywords: Alcohol, Social behavior, Mood, College

1. Introduction

1.1. Alcohol consumption, social behavior, and mood

Alcohol consumption is common among college students, with 62% reporting use within the past 30 days and 32.9% reporting heavy episodic use within the past 2 weeks (Schulenberg et al., 2018). Alcohol use occurs in both social and solitary settings, which may be determined by mood (Mohr et al., 2001). Close to half (45.9%) of college students report experiencing sadness within the past 30 days, and many report other forms of negative affect including anxiety (43.5%), anger (24.3%), and loneliness (43.1%; American College Health Association, 2017).

Numerous studies associate alcohol use and social activities with mood. Mood is typically conceptualized as a predictor, mediator, or moderator of drinking (Cooper, Frone, Russell, & Mudar, 1995; Grant, Stewart, & Mohr, 2009; Hussong, Galloway, & Feagans, 2005; Kuntsche & Cooper, 2010; Park, Armeli, & Tennen, 2004; Wray, Simons, Dvorak, & Gaher, 2012). Mood induction paradigms demonstrate experimentally that negative mood can heighten craving (c.f., Rubonis et al., 1994; Sinha et al., 2009) and influences accessibility to alcohol outcome expectancies that serve to motivate alcohol use (Birch et al., 2004; Goldstein, Wall, McKee, & Hinson, 2004). Significant variation in mood has been observed between persons based on drinking (Hartley, Elsabagh, & File, 2004; Murphy, McDevitt-Murphy & Barnett, 2005; Townshend & Duka, 2005) and within persons over time (Sutker, Tabakoff, Goist, & Randall, 1983) and across settings (Schrieks et al., 2014). However, most studies of the relation between mood and alcohol use have only examined mood on drinking days (Park et al., 2004). Further research that assesses within-person variation in mood across drinking and non-drinking days (and social and non-social days) is needed to disentangle the individual, additive, and interactive effects of alcohol use and social interaction on mood. In addition, while there is a robust literature on mood as a predictor of drinking, research examining mood as an outcome of drinking behavior is much more limited, and only rarely do researchers examine variation in daily mood at both within- and between-person levels (Rankin & Maggs, 2006). Thus, theoretical understanding of interrelationships among drinking, non-drinking, social behavior, solitary behavior, and mood remains incomplete.

Study of mood states following drinking behavior is valuable for assessing the reinforcement rationale of behavioral interventions to reduce alcohol misuse. In behavior theory, mood is conceptualized as a behavioral reinforcer. For example, a positive mood state that occurs after a behavior would be expected to increase the likelihood of subsequent similar behavior (positive reinforcement). A decrease in negative mood after a behavior would also increase the likelihood of subsequent similar behavior (negative reinforcement). Based on principles of reinforcement, social behaviors and drinking behaviors would be expected to operate similarly, with end-of-day increases in positive moods or decreases in negative moods leading to repeat behaviors of either type.

Being in a social situation is generally associated with greater positive moods and lower negative moods than being alone (Pavot, Diener, & Fujita, 1990). Of course, social behavior (Diener & Seligman, 2002; Pavot et al., 1990) and drinking behavior (Sitharthan, Sitharthan, & Hough, 2009; Smith, Parker & Noble, 1975; Stritzke, Patrick & Lang, 1995) have the potential to influence mood either independently or conditionally (Armeli, O’Hara, Ehrenberg, Sullivan, & Tennen, 2014; Mohr et al., 2013). In other words, the relationship between drinking and mood may depend on whether the person is in a social or solitary situation. Or, the relationship between social or solitary activities and mood may depend on whether the person is drinking. Negative social interactions and negative moods have been associated with substance use cravings among college students in recovery (Cleveland & Harris, 2010). In addition, compared to peers with more social supports, young adults with fewer social supports have been found to drink more in response to same-week negative moods, which then predicted increases in next-week negative moods (Hussong et al., 2001). Based on these findings, it is plausible that lack of social supports may prompt drinking. However, these studies did not examine mood as an outcome of social or drinking activities earlier that day or the previous day. Hence, complementary research is warranted that may better illuminate risks for increasing alcohol use over time through an examination of the reinforcing attributes of resultant positive and negative moods following social or drinking behavior.

Better understanding how drinking-related and non-drinking-related social behavior affects mood also has important clinical implications for prevention. Efficacious cognitive-behavioral interventions recommend replacing social drinking with rewarding non-drinking social activities to reinforce non-drinking over time (McCrady & Epstein, 2008). Research indicates that engaging in positively reinforcing alcohol-free activities protects against alcohol misuse (Murphy, Correia, & Barnett, 2007; Murphy et al., 2012). In experimental investigations, students who increase participation in alcohol-free social activities report lower levels of alcohol use than students who do not engage in these activities (Murphy, Barnett, Goldstein, & Colby, 2007; Murphy, Correia, Colby, & Vuchinich, 2005). Determining whether social activities compete with drinking in terms of positively and negatively reinforcing mood states informs further development of behavioral and behavioral-economic theories of drinking behavior, and, thereby, provides guidance for improving interventions to reduce misuse.

1.2. Study purpose

The purpose of the present study is to examine mood on days spent alone or with others, across both drinking and non-drinking days. Given prior research on the reinforcing properties of positive and negative mood states, we ask, “Does alcohol use or social activity improve end-of-day mood?” Day-level data suggest students who are experiencing negative mood may be more likely to drink alone, and conversely that students who are experiencing more positive mood are more likely to engage in social drinking (Mohr et al., 2008, 2013). But, without naturally occurring observations of each of the four possible situations—alone not drinking, alone drinking, social and drinking, social and not drinking—these studies do not clarify whether or how social or drinking activities during the day impact the role of end-of-day mood as behavioral reinforcement. Behavioral-economic approaches suggest alcohol is used to provide immediate reinforcement to reduce negative mood or increase positive mood, whereas many alcohol-free activities are associated with delayed outcomes. Therefore, we use daily cellphone assessments and a lagged analytic design to also ask the question, “If it works, does it last (i.e., improve mood the next day)?” We seek to determine whether non-drinking with others is more or less reinforcing than drinking with others in terms of its impact on mood. We contextualize end-of-day and next-day mood states to understand how daily mood variability results from college students’ social and drinking behaviors and can inform interventions to reduce alcohol misuse.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Participants were 352 college students (53% female; 55% members of a fraternity or sorority) with a mean age of 19.7 years old (SD = 1.26). In terms of race, participants identified as White (74%), multiracial (11%), Asian (9%), or “other” (6%). Participants were recruited via email from a large public university. The primary inclusion criterion was that the student endorsed drinking two or more times per week.

2.2. Procedures

Data were collected three times daily—morning (9:00 am-noon), afternoon (3:00-6:00 pm), and evening (9:00 pm-midnight)—via automated telephone interviews using interactive voice response (IVR) during four 2-week intervals over 1 year. The measure of mood was administered during the evening (end-of day) interview, whereas the measures of the participant’s behavior (drinking versus not drinking, social versus alone) were administered in the morning the following day.

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. Social behavior.

During the morning interview, participants were asked “Yesterday, were you more often alone or with other people?” Scores were dichotomous (0 = primarily alone, 1 = primarily with others).

2.3.2. Drinking behavior.

During the morning interview, participants were asked “Did you drink any alcohol yesterday, from the time you got up to the time you went to sleep?” Scores were dichotomous (no = 0, yes = 1).

2.3.3. Mood.

We assessed baseline mood using 20 items from the Positive and Negative Affect Scales (PANAS), a frequently used measure of trait- and state-based mood (Schmukle, Egloff, & Burns, 2002; Watson & Clark, 1999; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Participants’ baseline PANAS scores assessed trait-level mood and demonstrated adequate internal consistency (positive mood: α = .87; negative mood: α = .86). State-based mood was assessed during the end-of-day interview. Participants were asked, “How did you feel in general today?” and response options ranged from 1 not at all to 9 very much. Positive mood items included happy, relaxed, alert, excited and energetic. Negative mood items included lonely, angry, irritable, stressed and depressed. The item averages were used to compute the mood scores. The daily positive mood state (α = .75) and negative mood state (α = .79) scales had adequate internal consistency in the present study.

2.4. Data analyses

All analyses were conducted using R v3.0.1 (R Development Core Team) using the lme4 package (Bates et al., 2014). We used graphical and descriptive analytic approaches to confirm multi-level modeling assumptions were met. We used multilevel modeling analyses to assess within-person differences in end-of-day mood across two situations: a) non-drinking or drinking (0 or 1), and b) alone or social (0 or 1). To disentangle between-person from within-person effects, we also included between-person (Level 2) covariates for the percentage of days across the monitoring periods for the covariates of interest (i.e., percent of days drinking, percent of days social). Further, we included covariates for baseline PANAS scores, reported birth sex, whether the student endorsed participation in fraternities or sororities (0 = no, 1 = yes), and the day of the week (Hussong, 2007; Kennedy-Moore, Greenberg, Newman, & Stone, 1992; Kuntsche & Cooper, 2010). The first set of models examined associations of same-day drinking and social behavior with positive and negative mood. A second set of models examined prior-day drinking and social behavior by further inclusion of these covariates into the models described above. In addition to a random intercept, all multilevel models included random slopes for the within-person (Level 1) covariates of interest (i.e., drinking, social behavior).

We also assessed the impact of the interaction between any alcohol and social behavior on daily mood. Models with and without drinking by social behavior interaction terms were assessed using fit statistics for nested models.

3. Results

Across the course of this study, participants completed 85%, 87%, and 84%, of the morning, afternoon, and evening interviews, respectively. On average, participants provided data for 141 of possible 168 interviews (SD = 40.8, range: 2–168). For these analyses, data were collapsed into days, and we used 11,469 daily observations from 348 individuals. Roughly 36% of participants’ total observed days included drinking behavior (Range for number of drinks: 0-26; M = 1.94, SD = 3.34). Approximately 69% of participants’ total observed days were spent socially with others, and 93% of social days included drinking. Intraclass correlations indicated that approximately 27% of variability in positive mood was between persons and about 32% of variability in negative mood was between persons. As is displayed in Table 1, at the within-person level, end-of-day positive mood was higher on days when participants reported drinking and being with others after accounting for one’s percentage of drinking and social behavior over the course of the study as well as other covariates. Similarly, drinking and social behavior on a given day were also each significantly associated with lower same-day negative mood. Also, at the between-person level, higher percentage of drinking days was associated with lower negative mood.

Table 1.

Multilevel model coefficients for the association between daily mood and same-day drinking, same-day social context, and covariates.

Positive Mood Negative Mood
b 95% CI p-value b 95% CI p-value
Intercept 4.769 4.427, 5.111 <0.001 4.167 3.746, 4.588 <0.001
Same Day Drinking 0.258 0.200, 0.315 <0.001 −0.282 −0.348, −0.215 <0.001
% of Drinking Days 0.004 −0.038, 0.045 0.860 −0.070 −0.120, −0.02 0.006
Same Day Social 0.363 0.300, 0.427 <0.001 −0.303 −0.384, −0.223 <0.001
% of Social Days 0.011 −0.032, 0.055 0.608 −0.024 −0.077, 0.029 0.373
Day of the week
 Sunday (ref)
 Monday −0.04 −0.115, 0.035 0.297 0.137 0.050, 0.223 0.002
 Tuesday −0.084 −0.159, −0.009 0.029 0.220 0.133, 0.306 <0.001
 Wednesday −0.012 −0.088, 0.064 0.759 0.190 0.103, 0.277 <0.001
 Thursday 0.023 −0.053, 0.099 0.555 0.181 0.093, 0.268 <0.001
 Friday 0.088 0.010, 0.166 0.027 0.057 −0.032, 0.147 0.210
 Saturday 0.177 0.100, 0.253 <0.001 −0.173 −0.261, −0.086 <0.001
Female −0.107 −0.247, 0.034 0.138 0.175 0.004, 0.346 0.046
Fraternity/Sorority −0.119 −0.266, 0.027 0.112 0.225 0.047, 0.403 0.014
Positive mood 0.225 0.153, 0.297 <0.001 −0.178 −0.265, −0.090 <0.001
Negative mood −0.101 −0.173, −0.03 0.006 0.285 0.198, 0.372 <0.001
Open in a new tab

The next set of analyses included variables for prior-day drinking and social behavior into the models. As shown in Table 2, prior-day drinking behavior was associated with a significantly lower rating of next-day positive mood but was not significantly associated with next-day negative mood. Prior-day social behavior was associated with significantly lower next-day negative mood, but not next-day positive mood. Further, we continued to see statistically significant associations of same-day drinking and social behavior with higher positive mood and lower negative mood.

Table 2.

Multilevel model coefficients for the association between daily mood and prior- and same-day drinking, prior- and same-day social context, and covariates.

Positive Mood Negative Mood
b 95% CI p-value b 95% CI p-value
(Intercept) 4.796 4.45, 5.141 <0.001 4.16 3.74, 4.579 <0.001
Prior day drinking −0.076 −0.133, −0.02 0.009 −0.041 −0.107, 0.025 0.227
Same day drinking 0.256 0.195, 0.318 <0.001 −0.275 −0.344, −0.207 <0.001
% drinking days 0.014 −0.028, 0.056 0.518 −0.069 −0.119, −0.019 0.007
Prior day social 0.011 −0.053, 0.075 0.735 −0.09 −0.164, −0.017 0.016
Same day social 0.356 0.288, 0.424 <0.001 −0.268 −0.352, −0.183 <0.001
% social days 0.009 −0.036, 0.053 0.705 −0.014 −0.067, 0.039 0.601
Day of the week
 Sunday (ref)
 Monday −0.066 −0.145, 0.014 0.106 0.099 0.008, 0.191 0.033
 Tuesday −0.089 −0.169, −0.009 0.029 0.189 0.097, 0.281 <0.001
 Wednesday −0.008 −0.088, 0.071 0.839 0.161 0.069, 0.252 0.001
 Thursday 0.02 −0.06, 0.101 0.618 0.133 0.041, 0.225 0.005
 Friday 0.082 0.001, 0.163 0.046 0.016 −0.077, 0.109 0.733
 Saturday 0.192 0.112, 0.271 <0.001 −0.182 −0.273, −0.09 <0.001
Female −0.119 −0.26, 0.023 0.102 0.179 0.011, 0.346 0.038
Fraternity/Sorority −0.124 −0.272, 0.023 0.099 0.216 0.041, 0.39 0.016
Positive mood 0.222 0.15, 0.294 <0.001 −0.176 −0.261, −0.09 <0.001
Negative mood −0.108 −0.179, −0.036 0.003 0.299 0.214, 0.384 <0.001
Open in a new tab

We did not find evidence that social behavior and drinking interact to predict same- or next-day mood (no moderation). Review of Wald’s tests, the deviance in the negative log likelihood ratio, and Akaike and Bayesian Information Criteria indicated that inclusion of interaction terms did not significantly improve the model fit.

4. Discussion

4.1. Conclusions

We found that participants reported a better overall mood on drinking days as compared to non-drinking days and on social days as compared to non-social days. Both drinking and being with others were associated with higher positive end-of-day mood and lower negative end-of-day mood. However, the results indicated a stronger association between social behavior and mood than with drinking behavior. In addition, the interaction between drinking and social activity was not significant. Alcohol did not enhance or diminish the effect of being social on mood. Thus, these findings are consistent with the theoretical rationale underlying non-drinking, socially-based behavioral interventions: being social without drinking was as rewarding as drinking in terms of self-reported end-of-day mood. Non-drinking social activities may serve as a reinforcing replacement activity to reduce alcohol misuse over time.

The benefits of replacing drinking with non-drinking social activity are more apparent when looking at mood the next day. Drinking the prior day was associated with reduced positive mood the next day, whereas being social the prior day was associated with reduced negative mood the next day. Thus, even though drinking may be associated with increases in positive mood in the moment, it does not last. By comparison, being social is associated with increases in positive mood in the moment and may serve to protect against negative mood the next day.

4.2. Implications

These findings have implications for prevention and intervention. First, psychoeducation on the potential benefits of non-drinking social activity on mood could be included as part of existing efficacious individual-focused interventions for high-risk drinking students (Cronce & Larimer, 2011). This knowledge may prompt students who are struggling with low mood to consider decreasing their alcohol consumption, especially if they have identified alcohol-free activities in which they would be willing to engage. At a population-level, clinicians in campus primary care settings could encourage self-monitoring of drinking and social behavior among students who report low mood during routine screenings. This allows students to detect associations between behaviors and mood the next day, which can serve as greater motivation for behavior change than providing psychoeducation alone. Finally, the findings from this study add to the literature supporting expenditure of campus resources to create more non-drinking social opportunities for students, consistent with evidence-based recommendations for environmental intervention (Toomey, Lenk & Wagenaar, 2007; Toomey & Wagenaar, 2002). Such activities support the 20-30% of students who abstain from drinking, as well as those who do drink but may not wish to drink on a given occasion and would drink less if given opportunities for sober social interaction.

4.3. Limitations

Our study is limited to self-reported activities and mood. We did not measure all the possible daily variables that could influence end-of-day mood, nor did we assess the nature of the social activities engaged in (which could have included risky social behaviors), whether social activities during the day were subjectively experienced as positive or negative by participants, or how proximal drinking occurred in relation to social activity. In particular, it is possible that a person was primarily with others but drank alone, and vice versa. Future research would benefit from using ecological momentary assessment (EMA), which would allow more proximal assessment of mood in relation to drinking and provide a snapshot of social engagement across the day and in relation to drinking. EMA could also be used to collect information on the mood of others in the situation; although, recent research indicates self-reported PANAS scores do not spread throughout social networks (Greetham, Hurling, Osborne, & Linley, 2011). Assessment of mood was also limited by the timing of the end-of-day assessment in this study. Specifically, 67% of mood ratings on drinking days were provided after alcohol consumption had been initiated, while 33% of mood ratings were provided prior to alcohol consumption, and it is unknown how alcohol may have altered their mood rating if it were collected later. Related to this, though the social and drinking measures and multilevel modeling analyses identify statistically significant associations when accounting for covariates, these relationships should not be interpreted as causal.

4.4. Future Directions

Drinking is associated with positive mood, but only in the short term. Students may be more likely to engage in alcohol-related activities that provide immediate reinforcement (e.g., reduce anxiety, produce euphoria), which places them at risk for greater negative consequences (Murphy et al., 2007). To date, the majority of research has shown that negative mood states predict drinking problems. Negative affect has been shown to strengthen the relationship between alcohol use and alcohol use problems among college students (Martens et al., 2008), and negative mood predicts more drinking-related consequences (Wardell, Read, & Colder, 2013). Consistent with the present findings indicating that students who drank reported lower ratings of next-day positive mood, future studies should examine whether drinking consequences and mood covary to influence drinking expectancies and drinking behavior. This would further contextualize research finding shorter sadness-to-next-day-drinking intervals among those with lower drinking consequences (Hussong, 2007). Moreover, future research may benefit from assessing drinking motives, as associations between drinking and mood among those who endorse drinking to cope with negative affect may differ from patterns found in the present study.

Supplementary Material

Accepted Supplementary Tables

Acknowledgements

Funding: This work was supported by grants from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [R01AA016979; T32AA007455; F32AA025263]. The content of this manuscript is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Footnotes

Declarations of interest: none

References

  1. American College Health Association. (2017). American College Health Association-National College Health Assessment II: Undergraduate student reference group data report fall 2016. Hanover, MD: American College Health Association. [Google Scholar]
  2. Armeli S, O’Hara RE, Ehrenberg E, Sullivan TP, & Tennen H (2014). Episode-specific drinking-to-cope motivation, daily mood, and fatigue-related symptoms among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 75, 766–774. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2014.75.766 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, & Walker S (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software. 67(1), 1–48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Birch CD, Stewart SH, Wall AM, McKee SA, Eisnor SJ, & Theakston JA (2004). Mood-induced increases in alcohol expectancy strength in internally motivated drinkers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18(3), 231–238. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.18.3.231 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cleveland HH, & Harris KS (2010). The role of coping in moderating within-day associations between negative triggers and substance use cravings: A daily diary investigation. Addictive Behaviors, 35(1), 60–63. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.08.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cooper ML, Frone MR, Russell M, & Mudar P (1995). Drinking to regulate positive and negative emotions: A motivational model of alcohol use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 990. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.990 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cronce JM, & Larimer ME (2011). Individual-focused approaches to the prevention of college student drinking. Alcohol Research & Health, 34, 210–221. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Diener E, & Seligman ME (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science, 13, 81–84. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00415 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Goldstein AL, Wall AM, McKee SA, & Hinson RE (2004). Accessibility of alcohol expectancies from memory: Impact of mood and motives in college student drinkers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 65(1), 95–104. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2004.65.95 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Grant VV, Stewart SH, & Mohr CD (2009). Coping-anxiety and coping-depression motives predict different daily mood-drinking relationships. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 23(2), 226–237. doi: 10.1037/a0015006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Greetham DV, Hurling R, Osborne G, & Linley A (2011). Social networks and positive and negative affect. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 22, 4–13. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.07.051 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hartley DE, Elsabagh S, & File SE (2004). Binge drinking and sex: Effects on mood and cognitive function in healthy young volunteers. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 78, 611–619. doi: 10.1016/j.pbb.2004.04.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hussong AM (2007). Predictors of drinking immediacy following daily sadness: An application of survival analysis to experience sampling data. Addictive Behaviors, 32(5), 1054–1065. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.07.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hussong AM, Galloway CA, & Feagans LA (2005). Coping motives as a moderator of daily mood-drinking covariation. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 66(3), 344–353. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2005.66.344 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hussong AM, Hicks RE, Levy SA, & Curran PJ (2001). Specifying the relations between affect and heavy alcohol use among young adults. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 449–461. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.110.3.449 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Kennedy-Moore E, Greenberg MA, Newman MG, & Stone AA (1992). The relationship between daily events and mood: The mood measure may matter. Motivation and Emotion, 16(2), 143–155. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kuntsche E, & Cooper ML (2010). Drinking to have fun and to get drunk: Motives as predictors of weekend drinking over and above usual drinking habits. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 110(3), 259–262. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.02.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Martens MP, Neighbors C, Lewis MA, Lee CM, Oster-Aaland L, & Larimer ME (2008). The roles of negative affect and coping motives in the relationship between alcohol use and alcohol-related problems among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 69(3), 412–419. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2008.69.412 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. McCrady BS, & Epstein EE (2008). Overcoming alcohol problems: A couples-focused program workbook. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  20. Mohr CD, Armeli S, Tennen H, Carney MA, Affleck G, & Hromi A (2001). Daily interpersonal experiences, context, and alcohol consumption: Crying in your beer and toasting good times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 489–500. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.489 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Mohr CD, Brannan D, Mohr J, Armeli S, & Tennen H (2008). Evidence for positive mood buffering among college student drinkers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1249–1259. doi: 10.1177/0146167208319385 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Mohr CD, Brannan D, Wendt S, Jacobs L, Wright R, & Wang M (2013). Daily mood–drinking slopes as predictors: A new take on drinking motives and related outcomes. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 27, 944–955. doi: 10.1037/a0032633 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Murphy JG, Barnett NP, Goldstein AL, & Colby SM (2007). Gender moderates the relationship between substance-free activity enjoyment and alcohol use. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 21, 261–265. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.21.2.261. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Murphy JG, Correia CJ, & Barnett NP (2007). Behavioral economic approaches to reduce college student drinking. Addictive Behaviors, 32, 2573–2585. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.05.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Murphy JG, Correia CJ, Colby SM, & Vuchinich RE (2005). Using behavioral theories of choice to predict drinking outcomes following a brief intervention. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 13, 93–101. doi: 10.1037/1064-1297.13.2.93 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Murphy JG, Dennhardt AA, Skidmore JR, Borsari B, Barnett NP, Colby SM, & Martens MP (2012). A randomized controlled trial of a behavioral economic Suppl. to brief motivational interventions for college drinking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 80, 876–886. doi: 10.1037/a0028763 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Murphy JG, McDevitt-Murphy ME, & Barnett NP (2005). Drink and be merry? Gender, life satisfaction, and alcohol consumption among college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 19, 184–191. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.19.2.184 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Park CL, Armeli S, & Tennen H (2004). The daily stress and coping process and alcohol use among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 65(1), 126–135. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2004.65.126 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Pavot W, Diener E, & Fujita F (1990). Extraversion and happiness. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 1299–1306. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(90)90157-M [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Rankin LA, & Maggs JL (2006). First-year college student affect and alcohol use: Paradoxical within-and between-person associations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 925–937. doi: 10.1007/s10964-006-9073-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Rubonis AV, Colby SM, Monti PM, Rohsenow DJ, Gulliver SB, & Sirota AD (1994). Alcohol cue reactivity and mood induction in male and female alcoholics. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 55(4), 487–494. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1994.55.487 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Schmukle SC, Egloff B, & Burns LR (2002). The relationship between positive and negative affect in the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(5), 463–475. doi: 10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00007-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Schrieks IC, Stafleu A, Kallen VL, Grootjen M, Witkamp RF, & Hendriks HF (2014). The biphasic effects of moderate alcohol consumption with a meal on ambiance-induced mood and autonomic nervous system balance: A randomized crossover trial. PloS One, 9, e86199. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0086199 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Schulenberg JE, Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG, Miech RA, & Patrick ME (2018). Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2017: Volume 2, college students and adults ages 19–55. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. [Google Scholar]
  35. Sinha R, Fox HC, Hong KA, Bergquist K, Bhagwagar Z, & Siedlarz KM (2009). Enhanced negative emotion and alcohol craving, and altered physiological responses following stress and cue exposure in alcohol dependent individuals. Neuropsychopharmacology, 34(5), 1198–1208. doi: 10.1038/npp.2008.7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Sitharthan G, Sitharthan T, & Hough MJ (2009). Alcohol versus placebo drinks in reducing feelings of sadness: Pilot study. Australian Psychologist, 44, 248–252. [Google Scholar]
  37. Smith RC, Parker ES, & Noble EP (1975). Alcohol and affect in dyadic social interaction. Psychosomatic Medicine, 37, 25–40. doi: 10.1097/00006842-197501000-00004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Stritzke WG, Patrick CJ, & Lang AR (1995). Alcohol and human emotion: A multidimensional analysis incorporating startle-probe methodology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 114–122. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.104.1.114 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Sutker PB, Tabakoff B, Goist KC, & Randall CL (1983). Acute alcohol intoxication, mood states and alcohol metabolism in women and men. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 18, 349–354. doi: 10.1016/0091-3057(83)90198-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Toomey TL, Lenk KM, & Wagenaar AC (2007). Environmental policies to reduce college drinking: An update of research findings. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68, 208–219. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2007.68.208 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Toomey TL, & Wagenaar AC (2002). Environmental policies to reduce college drinking: Options and research findings. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Supplement, (14), 193–205. doi: 10.15288/jsas.2002.s14.193 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Townshend JM, & Duka T (2005). Binge drinking, cognitive performance and mood in a population of young social drinkers. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 29, 317–325. doi: 10.1097/01.ALC.0000156453.05028.F5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Wardell JD, Read JP, & Colder CR (2013). The role of behavioral inhibition and behavioral approach systems in the associations between mood and alcohol consequences in college: A longitudinal multilevel analysis. Addictive Behaviors, 38, 2772–2781. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.07.012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Watson D, & Clark LA (1999). The PANAS-X manual for the positive and negative affect schedule-expanded form. Retrieved from https://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=psychology_pubs/
  45. Watson D, Clark LA, & Tellegen A (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Wray TB, Simons JS, Dvorak RD, & Gaher RM (2012). Trait-based affective processes in alcohol-involved “risk behaviors.” Addictive Behaviors, 37(11), 1230–1239. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.06.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Accepted Supplementary Tables
NIHMS1595731-supplement-Accepted_Supplementary_Tables.docx (14.4KB, docx)

RESOURCES