Abstract
Background:
Because of the role alcohol outcome expectancies play in subsequent drinking, it is important to understand factors that can shape alcohol expectancies to guide intervention efforts. This study examined among college students whether intended social contexts for drinking were associated with positive and negative alcohol expectancies at the daily-level.
Methods:
Participants included in analyses were 323 students, ages 18 to 24 years, enrolled at a 4-year university in the Pacific Northwest. At four 2-week measurement bursts across one year, participants were asked each afternoon to report whether they planned to drink alcohol later that day. If so, they were further asked how much they intended to drink, whether they plan to drink alone or with others, whether they plan to drink at home or bar/party, and their positive and negative expectancies of alcohol use that evening.
Results:
A total of 2953 person-day observations from planned drinking days were used. Results from linear mixed models, adjusted for covariates including intended number of drinks, showed that students reported greater positive alcohol expectancies on days when they intended to drink with others vs. alone and intended to drink at a bar or party vs. at home. For negative expectancies, only intended drinking with others showed a statistically significant association.
Conclusion:
This study suggests that contextual factors may shape college students’ expectancies about effects of alcohol at the daily-level. Intended drinking contexts may be important to address in event-level interventions to reduce high-risk drinking in young adults.
Keywords: alcohol, alcohol expectancies, drinking contexts, college students, daily diary
1. Background
Alcohol expectancies, or beliefs regarding effects of alcohol consumption (Fromme et al., 1993; Jones et al., 2001; Monk & Heim, 2013), may influence an individual’s decision to engage in high-risk drinking (Wiers et al., 2002) and are a promising intervention target to reduce high-risk drinking occasions. Both positive (e.g., increased sociability, stress reduction) and negative expectancies (e.g., having a hangover, becoming aggressive) have been linked with frequency, quantity, and consequences of alcohol use (e.g., Geisner et al., 2017; Patrick et al., 2016). Further, alcohol expectancies can vary within individuals over time. Benitez and Goldman (2019) observed daily-level variability in positive alcohol expectancies and found that increased positive expectancies were related to greater drinking. Lee and colleagues (2015) also documented between- and within-person variability in daily positive and negative alcohol expectancies among college students, as well as finding daily-level associations between alcohol expectancies and drinking outcomes, such that on days with higher positive or negative alcohol expectancies than average, more drinks were consumed and more positive drinking consequences were reported (Lee et al., 2018; Patrick et al., 2016). Thus, if alcohol expectancies earlier in the day can influence alcohol use, it would be important to identify factors that shape in-the-moment expectancies.
One possible factor is drinking context. Prior research has documented differences in high-risk drinking outcomes by whether the individual drank alone versus with others (e.g., Keough et al., 2018), as well as the location of alcohol use (e.g., drinking at home, drinking at a bar; Creswell, 2020). Further, Wall and colleagues (2001) found that students were more likely to endorse positive alcohol expectancies when they were drinking in a bar relative to when they were drinking in a lab. In a study of Mexican American college students, positive social and physical alcohol expectancies were related to drinking in more social settings, but not in more private settings (Zamboanga, 2005). Ham and colleagues (2013) showed that students reported fewer positive and negative expectancies and less value of expectancies in the negative coping drinking context than in the convivial or personal-intimate contexts.
As research in alcohol expectancies moves forward, it would be useful to know if intended drinking contexts are related to positive and negative alcohol expectancies at the daily-level as this may have implications for possible tailored intervention messaging. Such research should also account for intended quantity of drinks because studies have shown associations between intended number of drinks and actual use as well as positive and negative consequences (Cooke et al., 2016; Fairlie et al, 2019; Lauher et al., 2020). Thus, in a sample of college students, the present study examines whether intended drinking contexts (e.g., alone versus social, at home versus in a bar) are associated with positive or negative alcohol expectancies on days with intended drinking above and beyond intended number of drinks.
2. Material and Methods
2.1. Participants and Procedures
Study participants included first- through third-year college students ages 18–24 from a large public university in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. Across five academic quarters, 3,210 young adult college students were randomly selected from the university registrar’s list and invited to participate. Students meeting eligibility criteria (i.e., drinking 2 or more days per week in the past month, owning a mobile phone with a service contract, and agreeing to receive text messages) were invited to complete an online baseline survey. After completing the survey, students were scheduled to meet with research staff at study offices to provide informed consent, ask questions, and review protocols for the daily study. See [ANONYMOUS] for additional details about sampling and study procedures involving the telephone survey and compensation. This study was approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board.
A total of 352 students met criteria and completed the training session. These students then completed four two-week bursts of daily assessments across one year. Three assessments were conducted each day, including one assessment in the morning (9am-12pm), one in the afternoon (4–6pm), and one in the evening (9 pm-12 am). Daily assessments were conducted by automated telephone survey. During each reporting window, students received a text message reminder about the survey window and then students called a study phone number. Participants could earn up to $100 at each measurement burst depending on number of assessments completed. Data for the present manuscript comes from afternoon survey, the only daily survey when alcohol expectancies and intended drinking contexts were assessed. Of 19,712 possible afternoon surveys, a total of 14,248 (72.3%) were completed.
2.2. Measures
Daily Positive and Negative Alcohol expectancies.
Each afternoon students were asked to report how likely they would feel or do 13 different things if they were to drink that evening. The 13 items corresponded to different positive (e.g., feel more relaxed) and negative (e.g., have a hangover) effects of alcohol (Lee et al., 2015). Response options ranged from 1 (very unlikely) to 9 (very likely). The mean of the 6 positive and 7 negative expectancies items, respectively, were computed to create one daily positive and one daily negative expectancy score. See online supplemental table 1 for a list of the specific items and their distributions. Generalizability coefficients, analogous to Cronbach’s alpha in a multilevel framework, for expectancies were .91 and .79 for positive at the between- and within-person level, respectively, and .92 and .87 for negative.
Intended number of drinks.
Each afternoon, students were asked whether they were planning to drink that evening (yes, no, or unsure) and, if yes, students were then asked how many drinks they thought they would have.
Intended drinking contexts.
If they planned to drink, students were asked 1) with whom they plan to drink (alone, with others, or unsure) and 2) where they plan to drink (at home, at a bar or party, or somewhere else).
2.3. Analytic plan
Linear mixed effects models were used for analyses. Because of the focus on intended contexts and expectancies, analyses were restricted to data from planned drinking days. Intended drinking contexts were specified as dummy variables where “drinking alone” was the reference category for the social context and “drinking with others” and “unsure” were the other categories; and “drinking at home” was the reference for the drinking location context and “drinking at a bar or party” and “drinking somewhere else” were the other categories. Thus, in the example of intended social context, direct comparisons were made between drinking with others and drinking alone, and between unsure and drinking alone. For each outcome, we ran separate models for intended drinking social context, intended drinking location, and intended number of drinks as primary covariates of interest (Models 1–3) and then a model including the three intentions predictors together (Model 4). Each of the intentions were treated as time-varying covariates. In order to disentangle between- and within-person effects, for each intention covariate we included a time-fixed version of the covariate that reflected the participant’s overall level during study (e.g., proportion of days with intentions to drink with others). For intended number of drinks, we calculated the participant’s mean number of intended drinks across all days.
All models included covariates for sex (0: male; 1: female), fraternity or sorority membership (0: non-member; 1: member), weekend (0: Sunday through Wednesday; 1: Thursday thru Saturday), study measurement burst period (1 to 4), and study day number within the burst (1 to 14). The intercept and effect of day number were allowed to vary across individuals. Analyses were run using R statistical software version 3.5.1 with the “lme4” package used for mixed effects models.
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive characteristics.
Analyses included 323 individuals and a total of 2953 observations from days of planned drinking. Online supplemental table 2 shows distributions of key study variables in the sample. Of note, on the vast majority of intended drinking days, participants planned to drink with others (94.9%). Participants planned to drink alone on 4.4% of days, and on 0.8% of days they did not know. In regards to drinking location, on 59.2% of intended drinking days participants planned to drink at a bar or party, on 31.5% of days they planned to drink at home, and on 9.3% of days were somewhere else. The correlation between positive and negative expectancies across all days was moderate (r = .35).
3.2. Positive alcohol expectancies.
Unconditional models showed good within-person relative to between-person variability in positive expectancies across daily observations (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient [ICC] = .46). In models with and without adjustment for the other intended drinking context and intended number of drinks variables (Table 1), positive alcohol expectancies were higher (i.e., rated as more likely to occur) on days in which an individual reported intending to drink with others (vs. drinking alone), intending to drink at a bar or party (vs. at home), and intending to drink a greater number of drinks (all p-values <.001).
Table 1.
Results from mixed effects models for positive expectancies.
| Covariate | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| b | 95% CI | p | b | 95% CI | p | b | 95% CI | p | b | 95% CI | p | |
| Intercept | 4.86 | 3.98, 5.74 | <0.001 | 6.22 | 5.95, 6.50 | <0.001 | 5.54 | 5.19, 5.9 | <0.001 | 4.30 | 3.42, 5.18 | <0.001 |
| Time-fixed covariates | ||||||||||||
| % days intended drinking | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | ||||||
| with others | 1.05 | 0.09, 2.02 | 0.032 | 1.07 | 0.12, 2.03 | 0.029 | ||||||
| % days intended drinking at | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | ||||||
| bar or party | 0.01 | −0.39, 0.40 | 0.973 | −0.12 | −0.51, 0.27 | 0.560 | ||||||
| Average intended number | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | ||||||
| of drinks | 0.01 | −0.05, 0.06 | 0.813 | 0.12 | 0.07, 0.18 | <0.001 | ||||||
| Fraternity/sorority member | 0.07 | −0.15, 0.29 | 0.553 | 0.12 | −0.1, 0.35 | 0.286 | −0.07 | −0.28, 0.14 | 0.521 | −0.14 | −0.37, 0.10 | 0.260 |
| Female sex | 0.19 | −0.03, 0.41 | 0.086 | 0.17 | −0.06, 0.40 | 0.160 | 0.51 | 0.30, 0.72 | <0.001 | 0.36 | 0.12, 0.60 | 0.004 |
| Time-varying covariates | ||||||||||||
| Intended social context | ||||||||||||
| Alone (ref) | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| With others | 0.62 | 0.44, 0.8 | <0.001 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 0.42 | 0.24, 0.60 | <0.001 |
| Don’t know | 0.03 | −0.40, 0.46 | 0.896 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | −0.10 | −0.52, 0.32 | 0.636 |
| Intended location | ||||||||||||
| Home (ref) | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Bar or party | -- | -- | -- | 0.35 | 0.25, 0.44 | <0.001 | -- | -- | -- | 0.21 | 0.11, 0.30 | <0.001 |
| Somewhere else | -- | -- | -- | 0.15 | 0.01, 0.29 | 0.032 | -- | -- | -- | 0.07 | −0.07, 0.20 | 0.331 |
| Intended number of drinks | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 0.13 | 0.12, 0.15 | <0.001 | 0.11 | 0.09, 0.13 | <0.001 |
| Weekend | 0.17 | 0.10, 0.24 | <0.001 | 0.16 | 0.09, 0.23 | <0.001 | 0.08 | 0.01, 0.14 | 0.023 | 0.06 | −0.01, 0.14 | 0.077 |
| Study day number | −0.01 | −0.02, 0.00 | 0.005 | −0.01 | −0.02, 0.00 | 0.003 | −0.01 | −0.02, 0.00 | 0.002 | −0.01 | −0.02, 0.00 | 0.003 |
| Measurement burst | −0.21 | −0.24, −0.18 | <0.001 | −0.21 | −0.24, −0.18 | <0.001 | −0.16 | −0.19, −0.14 | <0.001 | −0.17 | −0.2, −0.14 | <0.001 |
3.3. Negative alcohol expectancies.
Negative expectancies also showed good within-person variability relative to between-person variability over time (ICC = .46). As shown in Table 2, we found statistically significant associations of daily-level intention to drink at a bar or party (vs. at home) and intended number of drinks with negative expectancies in models with and without adjustment for other daily-level level intentions. Daily-level intention to drink with others (vs. alone) was only significantly associated with negative expectancies in a model without the other intention variables (i.e., Model 1).
Table 2.
Results from mixed effects models for negative expectancies.
| Covariate | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| b | 95% CI | p | b | 95% CI | p | B | 95% CI | p | b | 95% CI | p | |
| Intercept | 3.06 | 2.19, 3.93 | <0.001 | 3.09 | 2.81, 3.36 | <0.001 | 2.08 | 1.74, 2.41 | <0.001 | 2.18 | 1.35, 3.02 | <0.001 |
| Time-fixed covariates | ||||||||||||
| % days intended drinking | ||||||||||||
| with others | −0.07 | −1.03, 0.88 | 0.883 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | −0.11 | −1.01, 0.80 | 0.819 |
| % days intended drinking at | -- | |||||||||||
| bar or party | -- | -- | 0.10 | −0.28, 0.48 | 0.610 | -- | -- | -- | 0.07 | −0.30, 0.44 | 0.714 | |
| Average intended number of | ||||||||||||
| drinks | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | −0.02 | −0.07, 0.03 | 0.381 | 0.00 | −0.06, 0.06 | 0.983 |
| Fraternity/sorority member | 0.25 | 0.03, 0.46 | 0.029 | 0.19 | −0.03, 0.40 | 0.098 | 0.00 | −0.20, 0.20 | 0.981 | −0.07 | −0.29, 0.15 | 0.526 |
| Female sex | 0.01 | −0.2, 0.23 | 0.908 | −0.09 | −0.32, 0.13 | 0.410 | 0.32 | 0.12, 0.52 | 0.002 | 0.23 | 0.00, 0.46 | 0.052 |
| Time-varying covariates | ||||||||||||
| Intended social context | ||||||||||||
| Alone (ref) | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| With others | 0.32 | 0.14, 0.49 | <0.001 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 0.01 | −0.15, 0.17 | 0.914 |
| Don’t know | −0.03 | −0.45, 0.38 | 0.869 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | −0.19 | −0.57, 0.19 | 0.328 |
| Intended location | ||||||||||||
| Home (ref) | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Bar or party | -- | -- | -- | 0.42 | 0.33, 0.51 | <0.001 | -- | -- | -- | 0.26 | 0.17, 0.34 | <0.001 |
| Somewhere else | -- | -- | -- | 0.14 | 0.01, 0.27 | 0.041 | -- | -- | -- | 0.07 | −0.05, 0.19 | 0.247 |
| Intended number of drinks | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 0.21 | 0.20, 0.22 | <0.001 | 0.18 | 0.17, 0.20 | <0.001 |
| Weekend | 0.27 | 0.20, 0.34 | <0.001 | 0.24 | 0.17, 0.31 | <0.001 | 0.11 | 0.05, 0.17 | <0.001 | 0.10 | 0.04, 0.16 | 0.002 |
| Study day number | −0.02 | −0.03, −0.01 | <0.001 | −0.02 | −0.03, −0.01 | <0.001 | −0.02 | −0.03, −0.01 | <0.001 | −0.02 | −0.03, −0.01 | <0.001 |
| Measurement burst | −0.09 | −0.12, −0.06 | <0.001 | −0.09 | −0.12, −0.06 | <0.001 | 0.00 | −0.03, 0.02 | 0.799 | −0.03 | −0.06, −0.01 | 0.019 |
4. Discussion
This study found that intended drinking context was associated with expectations of same-day positive and negative effects from alcohol. Students reported greater positive alcohol expectancies on days when they intended to drink with others (compared to alone) and on days when they intended to drink at a bar or party (compared to at home). Positive alcohol expectancies seemed to correspond to social aspects of drinking; that is, if students planned to drink in a social atmosphere, such as a bar or party or with other people, students reported greater positive expectancies. For negative alcohol expectancies, only intentions to drink at a bar or party (compared to home) showed a significant association. Thus, it is possible that planned drinking contexts—whether social or location—may shape one’s beliefs about the expected effects of drinking later that day beyond number of intended drinks.
Results may point to important intervention strategies, such as use of web-based and mobile health (mHealth) approaches to challenge alcohol expectancies and high-risk drinking (Dennhardt & Murphy, 2013; Patrick et al., 2014; Tanner-Smith & Lipsey, 2015; Wood et al., 2007). There may be utility for real-time interventions targeting individuals if they plan to drink with others, or at a bar or party. It is notable that intentions to drink at a bar or party were associated with both same day positive and negative expectancies above and beyond how much the individual intended to drink. It may be particularly important, then, to develop interventions targeting young adults when they plan to drink at these locations.
In this study, the vast majority of planned drinking occasions were to occur with others rather than alone. This may not be surprising given that young adults often report social motives for alcohol use (Cooper, 1994; Kuntsche et al., 2005). According to the Transitions Catalyst Model (Schulenberg & Maggs, 2002), drinking may be used to facilitate social goals (e.g., establishing friendships and/or dating relationships) during the transition to adulthood. Although study findings showed greater positive expectancies later in the day among those who intended to drink with others vs. alone, there still may be risks of drinking alone including mental health problems and disordered use (Fleming et al, in press; Mason, Stevens, & Fleming, 2020). Future daily diary research over multiple bursts could assess how changes in intended and actual drinking alone over time may be associated with patterns of expectancies, motives, and drinking patterns.
Despite strengths of this study, including the daily design, there were important limitations to consider. This sample only included college students and may not be representative of young adults more broadly. Measures of intended drinking contexts did not parse out specific social and location contexts (e.g., with whom participants planned to drink, bar vs. party). Further, other types of specific contexts (e.g., special events like birthdays, sporting events) and people with whom individuals drank (e.g., friends, romantic partners) were not assessed, and should be considered in future studies. For the intended social context variable, there was little variability with only 4% of intended drinking days being alone. Despite this, we were able to detect a statistically significant association of intending to drink with others and positive expectancies. While the alcohol expectancy measure is validated, more specific types of expectancy subscales, such as expectancies about sociability or mood, were not captured. Finally, analyses treated the negative and positive expectancy subscales as independent outcomes; however, there may be shared variance between the two that was not accounted for.
This study showed daily within-person associations between intended drinking contexts and expectancies about positive and negative effects of alcohol. Where and with whom an individual intends to drink may play an important role in shaping beliefs about how alcohol may yield positive and negative effects later that day. It may be important then to consider how to intervene with individuals on days when they plan to drink in these contexts.
Supplementary Material
Highlights.
This study examined daily associations between intended drinking contexts and alcohol expectancies.
Intended drinking at bars or parties was associated with positive and negative expectancies.
Intended drinking with others vs. alone was associated with negative expectancies.
Results may have implications for tailored messages for certain planned drinking contexts.
Role of funding sources
Data collection and manuscript preparation was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01AA016979; PI: C. M. Lee). Manuscript preparation was also supported by grant F32AA028153. The content of this manuscript is solely the responsibility of the author(s) and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and the National Institutes of Health.
Footnotes
Author statement
This manuscript has not published previously and it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. All authors approve of its publication in this journal, if accepted, and this paper will not be published elsewhere in the same form.
Conflict of Interest
Authors report no conflicts of interest.
Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
References
- Benitez B, & Goldman MS (2019). Using future-oriented expectancy associates to probe real-time variations in motivation to consume alcohol. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 33(6), 540–551. 10.1037/adb0000478 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Clapp JD, Reed MB, Holmes MR, Lange JE, & Voas RB (2006). Drunk in public, drunk in private: The relationship between college students, drinking environments and alcohol consumption. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 32(2), 275–285. doi: 10.1080/00952990500481205 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Clapp JD, Shillington AM, & Segars LB (2000). Deconstructing contexts of binge drinking among college students. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 26(1), 139–154. doi: 10.1081/ADA-100100596 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cooke R, Dahdah M, Norman P, & French DP (2016). How well does the theory of planned behaviour predict alcohol consumption? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review, 10(2), 148–167. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2014.947547 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cooper ML (1994). Motivations for alcohol use among adolescents: Development and validation of a four-factor model. Psychological Assessment, 6(2), 117. [Google Scholar]
- Creswell KG (2020). Drinking Together and Drinking Alone: A Social-Contextual Framework for Examining Risk for Alcohol Use Disorder. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 0963721420969406. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- Demers A, Kairouz S, Adlaf E, Gliksman L, Newton-Taylor B, & Marchand A (2002). Multilevel analysis of situational drinking among Canadian undergraduates. Social Science & Medicine, 55(3), 415–424. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00258-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dennhardt AA, & Murphy JG (2013). Prevention and treatment of college student drug use: A review of the literature. Addictive Behaviors, 38(10), 2607–2618. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.06.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fairlie AM, Cadigan JM, Patrick ME, Larimer ME, & Lee CM (2019). Unplanned heavy episodic and high-intensity drinking: Daily-level associations with mood, context, and negative consequences. Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs, 80(3), 331–339. 10.15288/jsad.2019.80.331 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fleming CB, Mason WA, Stevens AL, Jaffe AE, Cadigan J, Rhew IC, & Lee CM (in press). Antecedents, correlates, and potential consequences of young adult solitary alcohol use. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- Fromme K, Stroot EA, & Kaplan D (1993). Comprehensive effects of alcohol: Development and psychometric assessment of a new expectancy questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 5(1), 19. [Google Scholar]
- Gaher RM, & Simons JS (2007). Evaluations and expectancies of alcohol and marijuana problems among college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 21(4), 545. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.21.4.545 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Geisner IM, Rhew IC, Ramirez JJ, Lewis ME, Larimer ME, & Lee CM (2017). Not all drinking events are the same: Exploring 21st birthday and typical alcohol expectancies as a risk factor for high-risk drinking and alcohol problems. Addictive Behaviors, 70, 97–101. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.02.021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ham LS, Zamboanga BL, Bridges AJ, Casner HG, & Bacon AK (2013). Alcohol expectancies and alcohol use frequency: Does drinking context matter? Cognitive Therapy and Research, 37(3), 620–632. doi: 10.1007/s10608-012-9493-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Hingson RW, Zha W, & Smyth D (2017). Magnitude and trends in heavy episodic drinking, alcohol-impaired driving, and alcohol-related mortality and overdose hospitalizations among emerging adults of college ages 18–24 in the United States, 1998–2014. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 78(4), 540–548. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2017.78.540 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Jones BT, Corbin W, & Fromme K (2001). A review of expectancy theory and alcohol consumption. Addiction, 96(1), 57–72. doi: 10.1080/09652140020016969 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Keough MT, O’Connor RM, & Stewart SH (2018). Solitary drinking is associated with specific alcohol problems in emerging adults. Addictive behaviors, 76, 285–290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kuntsche E, Knibbe R, Gmel G, & Engels R (2005). Why do young people drink? A review of drinking motives. Clinical Psychology Review, 25(7), 841–861. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2005.06.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lauher ML, Merrill JE, Boyle HK, & Carey KB (2020). The relationship between unplanned drinking and event-level alcohol-related outcomes. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors doi: 10.1037/adb0000553 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lee CM, Atkins DC, Cronce JM, Walter T, & Leigh BC (2015). A daily measure of positive and negative alcohol expectancies and evaluations: Documenting a two-factor structure and within-and between-person variability. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 76(2), 326–335. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lee CM, Rhew IC, Patrick ME, Fairlie AM, Cronce JM, Larimer ME, … Leigh BC (2018). Learning from experience? The influence of positive and negative alcohol-related consequences on next-day alcohol expectancies and use among college drinkers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 79(3), 465–473. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Maisto SA, Carey KB, & Bradizza CM (1999). Social learning theory. In Psychological theories of drinking and alcoholism (Vol. 2, pp. 106–163). New York: Guilford. [Google Scholar]
- Mason WA, Stevens AL, & Fleming CB (2020). A systematic review of research on adolescent solitary alcohol and marijuana use in the United States. Addiction, 115(1), 19–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McBride NM, Barrett B, Moore KA, & Schonfeld L (2014). The role of positive alcohol expectancies in underage binge drinking among college students. Journal of American College Health, 62(6), 370–379. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Monk RL, & Heim D (2013). A critical systematic review of alcohol-related outcome expectancies. Substance Use & Misuse, 48(7), 539–557. doi: 10.3109/10826084.2013.787097 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- O’Hare T (1997). Measuring excessive alcohol use in college drinking contexts: The Drinking Context Scale. Addictive Behaviors, 22(4), 469–477. doi: 10.1016/S0306-4603(96)00050-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Osberg TM, & Boyer A (2018). College alcohol beliefs and drinking consequences: A multiple mediation analysis of norms, expectancies, and willingness to experience drinking consequences. Journal of American College Health, 66(3), 209–218. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2018.1431893 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Patrick ME, Cronce JM, Fairlie AM, Atkins DC, & Lee CM (2016). Day-to-day variations in high-intensity drinking, expectancies, and positive and negative alcohol-related consequences. Addictive Behaviors, 58, 110–116. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.02.025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Patrick ME, Lee CM, & Neighbors C (2014). Web-based intervention to change perceived norms of college student alcohol use and sexual behavior on spring break. Addictive Behaviors, 39(3), 600–606. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.11.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Patrick ME, Terry-McElrath YM, Evans-Polce RJ, & Schulenberg JE (2020). Negative alcohol-related consequences experienced by young adults in the past 12 months: Differences by college attendance, living situation, binge drinking, and sex. Addictive Behaviors, 105, 106320. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106320 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schulenberg J, Johnston L, O’Malley P, Bachman J, Miech R, & Patrick M (2019). Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2018: Volume II, College students and adults ages 19–60. In. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. [Google Scholar]
- Schulenberg JE, & Maggs JL (2002). A developmental perspective on alcohol use and heavy drinking during adolescence and the transition to young adulthood. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Supplement(14), 54–70. doi: 10.15288/jsas.2002.s14.54 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Tanner-Smith EE, & Lipsey MW (2015). Brief alcohol interventions for adolescents and young adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 51, 1–18. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2014.09.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- White AM, Hingson RW, Pan I.-j., & Yi H-Y (2011). Hospitalizations for alcohol and drug overdoses in young adults ages 18–24 in the United States, 1999–2008: results from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 72(5), 774–786. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2011.72.774 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wiers RW, Van Woerden N, Smulders FT, & De Jong PJ (2002). Implicit and explicit alcohol-related cognitions in heavy and light drinkers. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111(4), 648. doi: 10.1037//0021-843X.111.4.648 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wood MD, Capone C, Laforge R, Erickson DJ, & Brand NH (2007). Brief motivational intervention and alcohol expectancy challenge with heavy drinking college students: A randomized factorial study. Addictive Behaviors, 32(11), 2509–2528. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.06.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zamboanga BL (2005). Alcohol expectancies and drinking behaviors in Mexican American college students. Addictive Behaviors, 30(4), 673–684. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2004.08.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.