R McD Young1, J P Connor, L A Ricciardelli, J B Saunders. 1. The School of Psychology and Counselling, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Beams Road, Carseldine, Queensland 4034, Australia. rm.young@qut.edu.au
Abstract
AIMS: University student alcohol misuse is a considerable problem. Alcohol expectancy research has contributed significantly to our understanding of problem drinking in young adults. Most of this research has investigated positive expectancy alone. The current study utilized two measures of alcohol expectancy, the alcohol expectancy questionnaire (AEQ) and the drinking expectancy profile [consisting of the drinking expectancy questionnaire (DEQ) and the drinking refusal self-efficacy questionnaire] to predict severity of alcohol dependence, frequency of drinking, and the quantity of alcohol consumed per occasion. METHODS: Measures of drinking behaviour and alcohol expectancy were completed by 174 undergraduate university students. RESULTS: Positive alcohol expectancy factors accounted for significant variance in all three drinking indices, with the DEQ adding additional variance to AEQ scores on frequency and severity of alcohol dependence indices. Negative expectancy did not add incremental variance to the prediction of drinking behaviour in this sample. Drinking refusal self-efficacy and dependence beliefs added additional variance over positive and negative expectancies in the prediction of all three drinking parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Positive expectancy and drinking refusal self-efficacy were strongly related to university student drinking. The incorporation of expectancy as a means of informing prevention approaches in tertiary education shows promise.
AIMS: University student alcohol misuse is a considerable problem. Alcohol expectancy research has contributed significantly to our understanding of problem drinking in young adults. Most of this research has investigated positive expectancy alone. The current study utilized two measures of alcohol expectancy, the alcohol expectancy questionnaire (AEQ) and the drinking expectancy profile [consisting of the drinking expectancy questionnaire (DEQ) and the drinking refusal self-efficacy questionnaire] to predict severity of alcohol dependence, frequency of drinking, and the quantity of alcohol consumed per occasion. METHODS: Measures of drinking behaviour and alcohol expectancy were completed by 174 undergraduate university students. RESULTS: Positive alcohol expectancy factors accounted for significant variance in all three drinking indices, with the DEQ adding additional variance to AEQ scores on frequency and severity of alcohol dependence indices. Negative expectancy did not add incremental variance to the prediction of drinking behaviour in this sample. Drinking refusal self-efficacy and dependence beliefs added additional variance over positive and negative expectancies in the prediction of all three drinking parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Positive expectancy and drinking refusal self-efficacy were strongly related to university student drinking. The incorporation of expectancy as a means of informing prevention approaches in tertiary education shows promise.
Authors: Jason J Ramirez; Isaac C Rhew; Megan E Patrick; Mary E Larimer; Christine M Lee Journal: Subst Use Misuse Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 2.164