OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to begin the process of examining the validity of the acquired preparedness model of alcohol use for women. The model holds that trait disinhibition influences the formation of alcohol expectancies, which then influence drinking levels. METHOD: College women (N = 290) completed measures of trait disinhibition, positive and negative expectancies for alcohol and drinking measures. RESULTS: Using structural equation modeling, support was found for the hypothesized processes. Cross-sectional analyses were consistent with two hypothesized mediational pathways: disinhibition was associated with increased positive alcohol expectancies and decreased negative alcohol expectancies; both higher positive and lower negative alcohol expectancies correlated with drinking; and disinhibition's association with drinking was significantly reduced when each type of expectancy was added to a prediction model. CONCLUSIONS: Cross-sectional support for this causal model indicates the value of testing it further with longitudinal trials.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to begin the process of examining the validity of the acquired preparedness model of alcohol use for women. The model holds that trait disinhibition influences the formation of alcohol expectancies, which then influence drinking levels. METHOD: College women (N = 290) completed measures of trait disinhibition, positive and negative expectancies for alcohol and drinking measures. RESULTS: Using structural equation modeling, support was found for the hypothesized processes. Cross-sectional analyses were consistent with two hypothesized mediational pathways: disinhibition was associated with increased positive alcohol expectancies and decreased negative alcohol expectancies; both higher positive and lower negative alcohol expectancies correlated with drinking; and disinhibition's association with drinking was significantly reduced when each type of expectancy was added to a prediction model. CONCLUSIONS: Cross-sectional support for this causal model indicates the value of testing it further with longitudinal trials.
Authors: Michael Windle; Linda P Spear; Andrew J Fuligni; Adrian Angold; Jane D Brown; Daniel Pine; Greg T Smith; Jay Giedd; Ronald E Dahl Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Erica N Peters; Robert F Leeman; Lisa M Fucito; Benjamin A Toll; William R Corbin; Stephanie S O'Malley Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2011-12-03 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Christian S Hendershot; Clayton Neighbors; William H George; Denis M McCarthy; Tamara L Wall; Tiebing Liang; Mary E Larimer Journal: Psychol Addict Behav Date: 2009-09