Table 5.

Hierarchical regression analyses examining the predictive utility of social and solitary demand composites on typical drinks per week and alcohol problems.

Typical Drinks per Week						Alcohol Problems
Variable	Beta (S.E.)	β	t	ΔR2		Variable	Beta (S.E.)	β	t	ΔR2
Persistence Composite
Step 1				.06		Step 1				.01
Sex	−22 (.20)	−09	−1.13			Sex	−1.15 (1.61)	−06	−72
Student	.48 (.20)	.19	2.38*			Student	1.03 (1.64)	.05	.63
Step 2 (separate)						Step 2 (separate)
Social Persistence	.32 (.10)	.22	3.26**	.05		Social Persistence	2.49 (.85)	.20	2.93**	.04
Solitary Persistence	.39 (.11)	.27	3.71***	.07		Solitary Persistence	2.24 (.88)	.19	2.55*	.04
Step 2 (Omnibus)				.07		Step 2 (Omnibus)				.04
Social Persistence	−17 (.20)	−11	−82			Social Persistence	1.94 (1.68)	.16	1.16
Solitary Persistence	.52 (.20)	.35	2.65**			Solitary Persistence	.59 (1.63)	.05	.36
Amplitude Composite
Step 1				.05		Step 1				.01
Sex	−33 (.17)	−14	−1.95			Sex	−2.60 (1.48)	−13	−1.75
Student	.28 (.17)	.12	1.63			Student	−1.25 (1.50)	−06	−83
Step 2 (separate)						Step 2 (separate)
Social Amplitude	.56 (.08)	.42	6.98***	.17		Social Amplitude	3.66 (.77)	.31	4.75***	.09
Solitary Amplitude	.56 (.08)	.43	6.85***	.17		Solitary Amplitude	3.60 (.74)	.32	4.84***	.09
Step 2 (Omnibus)				.18		Step 2 (Omnibus)				.09
Social Amplitude	.35 (.14)	.26	2.61*			Social Amplitude	1.67 (1.25)	.14	1.34
Solitary Amplitude	.28 (.13)	.21	2.10*			Solitary Amplitude	2.23 (1.22)	.20	1.83

Note. Sex and student status were included in the first step of each regression; in separate regression analyses, each demand composite was included in the second step, demarcated “second step (separate)” in the table. Finally, omnibus models assessed the residualized change in alcohol demand from the social to the solitary condition, demarcated by “second step (omnibus)” in the table.

^***p < .001,

^**p < .01,

^*p < .05.