Elsevier

Addictive Behaviors

Volume 35, Issue 2, February 2010, Pages 116-122
Addictive Behaviors

Drinking motives, drinking restraint and drinking behaviour among young adults

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.09.011Get rights and content

Abstract

Motives to drink alcohol are widely thought to be the proximal cognitive factors involved in the decision to consume alcohol beverages. However it has also been argued that the ability to restrain drinking may be a more proximal predictor of drinking behaviour. The current study aimed to examine the relationships between drinking motives, drinking restraint and both alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems in a sample of young adults. A sample of 221 young adults (aged 17–34 years) completed self-report measures assessing drinking behaviour, motives for drinking and drinking restraint. Multiple regression analyses revealed that coping, enhancement and social motives were related to alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems, while Cognitive and Emotional Preoccupation with drinking was related to all criterion variables. Further, the relationship between coping motives and drinking behaviour was mediated by preoccupation with drinking. The results are discussed in light of the roles of drinking motives and drinking restraint in risky drinking among young people, and implications for prevention and early intervention are presented.

Introduction

Excessive alcohol use among young adults has been associated with adverse outcomes such as fatal and non-fatal injuries, blackouts, suicide attempts, unintended pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, academic failure, and violence (Hingson et al., 2002, Perkins, 2002). Young people between the ages of 20 and 29 years old maintain the highest level of alcohol consumption in Australia and are at highest risk of alcohol-related harm (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), 2008, Kuntsche et al., 2005). In addition to short term harm, these young people may also be at risk of long term harm such as impaired brain, liver and other organ functioning (Cox, Hosier, Crossley, Kendall, & Roberts, 2006). Despite such consequences, a large percentage of university students, the majority of whom are in this high risk age bracket, drink alcohol, and over half can be classified as moderate or heavy drinkers (O'Hara, 1990, Wechsler and Isaac, 1992). To effectively control excessive drinking and drinking problems in Australia's younger adult population, it is necessary to understand the factors associated with drinking behaviour. By knowing the correlates of alcohol consumption among this demographic, we can attempt to intervene with a psychological evidence-based approach. The aim of the current study was to examine the relationships between drinking motives, drinking restraint, alcohol consumption, and alcohol-related problems among young adults.

According to motivational models of alcohol use, although numerous factors are related to drinking, motivations to drink alcohol constitute the final common pathway to its use, whereby an individual makes the decision to drink based on anticipated positive and/or negative reinforcement (Cooper, 1994, Cooper et al., 1995, Cox and Klinger, 1988). Drinking motives are in some ways similar to outcome expectancies. Outcome expectancies concern the beliefs individuals hold regarding the consequences of consuming alcohol, and can lead to the formation of drinking motives (Cox & Klinger, 1988). For example, if an individual believes that alcohol will alleviate negative affect, they are more inclined to be motivated to drink to cope. Consequently drinking motives are thought to be a more proximal predictor of drinking behaviour than outcome expectancies, and thus provide one of the last points at which an individual may act on an intention to drink.

Although people may consume alcohol for varied reasons, four primary motivations identified by Cooper (1994) have been the primary focus of empirical investigation. Social motives to drink alcohol represent anticipated positive reinforcement in the form of social rewards (Cooper, 1994, Cooper et al., 1992, Cox et al., 2006, MacLean and Lecci, 2000, Stewart et al., 1996). Not surprisingly, social motives are commonly endorsed by drinkers in a social setting. Social motives tend not to be significantly related to heavy drinking or alcohol problems, but rather are often associated with light, infrequent and non-problematic alcohol use (Cooper, 1994, Read et al., 2003). Likewise conformity motives, or drinking to avoid social disapproval, are often reported by adolescents and young adults, and are likely to weaken with maturity (Cooper, 1994).

Conversely, drinking as a result of enhancement or coping motives has often been associated with heavy alcohol use and alcohol-related problems (Cooper, 1994, Grant et al., 2007, McNally et al., 2003). Coping motives represent anticipated negative reinforcement by regulation or elimination of negative emotions. In previous studies, coping motives have been related to heavy problematic drinking (Cooper et al., 1992, MacLean and Lecci, 2000, McNally et al., 2003, Stewart et al., 1996) and have been both indirectly (thorough the level of alcohol consumed) and directly (independent of the level of alcohol consumed) related to alcohol problems (Cooper, 1994). Enhancement motives represent anticipated positive reinforcement in the form of enhanced positive mood or well-being. Drinking for enhancement has previously predicted heavy alcohol use, especially in situations that encourage heavy drinking (Cooper, 1994).

While the relationships between motives and drinking are relatively consistent in the research literature, mixed results have also been reported. In 1999, Bradizza, Reifman and Barnes reported that social motives were more strongly related to alcohol misuse than coping motives in a sample of adolescents. More recently, coping motives were not observed to predict alcohol consumption among university students, but predicted alcohol-related problems in cross-sectional analyses (Read et al., 2003). One explanation for these discrepant findings is that additional variables are related to both drinking motives and drinking behaviour. Specifically, although motives are generally thought to be proximal predictors of drinking behaviour, in some situations a person may be motivated to drink but resist consuming alcohol. Conversely, an individual may not express a conscious motivation to drink, but struggles in their ability to resist drinking. Thus, although motives are clearly related to drinking behaviour, drinking restraint may be a more proximal predictor of alcohol consumption.

The inability to restrain drinking has been studied extensively with clinical and non-clinical samples, university students and adult populations (Bensley et al., 1990, Connor et al., 2004, Connors et al., 1998, Cox et al., 2001, MacKillop et al., 2006, Muraven et al., 2002, Stewart and Chambers, 2000). Drinking restraint has been linked to binge drinking, episodic excessive drinking (Collins, George, & Lapp, 1989), and alcohol dependence (MacKillop et al., 2006). However, multiple factors determine whether an individual is able to restrain drinking.

In 1989 Collins defined five dimensions of drinking restraint which differentially predict level of alcohol risk. These dimensions include difficulty controlling intake, negative affect as a reason for drinking, thoughts about drinking, attempts to limit drinking, and plans to reduce drinking or worry about controlling drinking. From these five factors, the Temptation and Restraint Inventory (TRI) was developed assessing two forms of restraint that represent competing tendencies and thus, different antecedents and consequences of drinking alcohol (Collins et al., 1989).

The first factor, Cognitive and Emotional Preoccupation (CEP), has been strongly linked to an increased intake of alcohol and predicts high risk of alcohol problems and alcohol dependence (MacKillop et al., 2006). The second factor, Cognitive and Behavioural Control (CBC), represents attempts to control alcohol use (MacKillop et al., 2006). High CEP scores are thought to be related to increased drinking, whereas high CBC scores are thought to relate to less drinking, relationships which have consistently been observed in non-clinical samples (Collins et al., 2001, Collins and Lapp, 1992, Stewart and Chambers, 2000, Williams and Ricciardelli, 1999). However CBC has been related to increased consumption, but not alcohol-related problems, in high risk and dependent drinkers (Connor et al., 2004, MacKillop et al., 2006). Consequently, drinking restraint is believed to have greater utility in understanding drinking behaviour and alcohol-related problems in non-dependent drinkers (Connor et al., 2004).

Although related, drinking motives and drinking restraint represent two distinct cognitive pathways to drinking. Consistent with the notion that restraint is a more proximal predictor of drinking behaviour, Stewart and Chambers (2000) proposed that drinking motives would predict alcohol consumption and risk of alcohol-related problems through their relationship with drinking restraint. As those who drink primarily for enhancement motives are generally at less risk of alcohol-related problems than those who drink for coping motives, Stewart and Chambers (2000) hypothesised that those with coping and enhancement motives would be highly preoccupied with thoughts about drinking, but those with coping motives would have less control over their drinking behaviour than those with enhancement motives. Thus they proposed that coping and enhancement motives would predict higher CEP scores whereas enhancement but not coping motives would predict higher CBC scores. Results of their study of 97 university students supported the proposition that both coping and enhancement motives predicted higher CEP scores. However, enhancement motives failed to predict CBC scores, while coping motives were positively related to CBC scores. Further, social motives were not related to either restraint factor. Stewart and Chambers (2000) explained this counter-intuitive finding by suggesting that those reporting coping motives were more concerned with limiting their drinking, and may thus be at reduced risk of problematic alcohol use relative to those reporting enhancement motives. Unfortunately Stewart and Chambers did not assess alcohol use, so it is unclear whether motives or restraint were related to actual drinking behaviour in their sample.

In a later study, Martens, Ferrier, and Cimini (2007) reported that the relationships between social and enhancement drinking motives and both alcohol use and alcohol-related problems were partially mediated by protective behavioural strategies used to limit alcohol use in a sample of undergraduate students. Individuals with stronger motives reported fewer protective behavioural strategies, which in turn predicted greater alcohol use and more alcohol-related problems.

To summarise the research to date, although differential results have been observed, there is general consensus that coping (to reduce negative affect) and enhancement (to increase positive affect) motives are related to adverse outcomes, while social and conformity motives are related to less problematic drinking. Similarly, preoccupation with drinking is related to greater alcohol consumption while attempts to control drinking are related to less alcohol use, at least in non-clinical samples. How motives and restraint work together to predict drinking behaviour is less clear. Coping and enhancement motives seem to be associated with preoccupation with drinking, which in turn is related to greater alcohol consumption. Conflicting results arise when examining the relationships between motives and efforts to control drinking: Stewart and Chambers (2000) found no relationships between social and enhancement motives and CBC, perhaps as a result of reduced power, yet found a positive relationship between coping motives and CBC; Martens et al (2007) observed a negative relationship between social and enhancement motives and protective behavioural strategies. The relationship between conformity motives, restraint and drinking behaviour has not previously been assessed.

Given the scarce, and conflicting, literature in this area, the current study aimed to replicate and extend the work of Stewart and Chambers (2000) by examining the relationships between all four coping motives, drinking restraint and drinking behaviour. Further, given previous literature cited above which suggests motives and restraint may be differentially related to alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems, we aimed to examine both outcome variables. Finally, given the previous over-reliance on university populations, we aimed to expand our recruitment beyond university students in order to extend the external validity of the findings.

Based on previous work cited above, we hypothesised that coping and enhancement motives would be more strongly related to drinking behaviour than social and conformity motives. Second we hypothesised that CEP would be positively related to drinking behaviour, whereas CBC would be negatively related to drinking and alcohol-related problems, in this non-clinical sample. Finally, we proposed that the relationship between drinking motives and drinking behaviour would be mediated by drinking restraint. Specifically we anticipated that both coping and enhancement motives would be related to CEP scores, which would be related to greater alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems. Given the conflicting literature regarding the nature of the relationship between motives, CBC and drinking we did not propose specific hypotheses for these relationships, but examined the potential mediating effects of CBC on all motives.

Section snippets

Participants

The sample consisted of 221 young adults from the Gold Coast region of Australia. Of these, 122 were recruited from universities and 99 were recruited from the broader community. Of those recruited from the community, 13 were currently studying, providing a final sample of 135 students and 86 non-students. Of the total sample, there were 99 females, 89 males and 33 who did not report gender.1

Results

Prior to conducting regression analyses, multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to examine whether participant samples differed on the variables under investigation. No differences were observed between the student and non-student samples on any measures (all p > .05). Consequently the samples were combined for the main analyses. A score of 8 or above on the total AUDIT is generally considered indicative of risky drinking (Roche & Watt, 1999). A score above 7 on the consumption scale,

Discussion

Motives to drink alcohol are widely thought to be the proximal cognitive factors involved in the decision to drink (Cooper, 1994, Cooper et al., 1995, Cox and Klinger, 1988). However it has also been argued that the ability to restrain drinking may be a more proximal predictor of this behaviour (Stewart & Chambers, 2000). The current study aimed to examine the relationship between drinking motives, drinking restraint and both alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems among a sample of

Role of funding sources

This research was funded by an internal Bond University Humanities and Social Sciences Research Grant. The funding source had no further role in the study.

Contributors

Michael Lyvers designed the study and supervised the data collection, analyses, and writing of the manuscript. Penelope Hasking contributed her expertise to all aspects of the study but particularly to the analyses and interpretation. Riana Hani, Madolyn Rhodes, and Emily Trew collected the data, performed preliminary analyses and assisted with the write up. All authors have thus materially participated in the research and manuscript preparation, and all have approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their insightful interpretation of the results.

References (41)

  • S.H. Stewart et al.

    Relationships between drinking motives and drinking restraint

    Addictive Behaviors

    (2000)
  • S.H. Stewart et al.

    Examination of a three-dimensional drinking motives questionnaire in a young adult university student sample

    Behavioral Research Therapy

    (1996)
  • Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW)

    2007 National Drug Strategy Household Survey

    (2008)
  • T.F. Babor et al.

    Brief intervention for hazardous and harmful drinking: A manual for use in primary care

    (2001)
  • R.M. Baron et al.

    The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations

    Journal of Personality & Social Psychology

    (1986)
  • A.T. Beck et al.

    Cognitive therapy of substance abuse

    (1993)
  • C.M. Bradizza et al.

    Social and coping reasons for drinking: Predicting alcohol misuse in adolescents

    Journal of Studies on Alcohol

    (1999)
  • R.L. Collins

    Drinking restraint and risk for alcohol abuse

    Experimental & Clinical Psychopharmacology

    (1992)
  • R.L. Collins et al.

    Drinking restraint: Refinement of a construct and prediction of alcohol consumption

    Cognitive Therapy and Research

    (1989)
  • R.L. Collins et al.

    Binge drinking among underage college students: A test of restraint-based conceptualisation of risk for alcohol abuse

    Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

    (2001)
  • Cited by (78)

    • Individual differences in distress, impulsivity, and coping motives for use as predictors of problematic ecstasy use

      2020, Addictive Behaviors
      Citation Excerpt :

      Motives for use have been shown to be useful predictors of drug use behaviours, including problematic use (Cooper, Kuntsche, Levitt, Barber, & Wolf, 2016; White, Anderson, Ray, & Mun, 2016). In particular, using a drug to cope with distress has been strongly associated with drug use problems across a variety of substances (Kuntsche, Knibbe, Gmel, &, Engels, 2005; Lyvers, Hasking, Hani, Rhodes, & Trew, 2010; Patrick, Schulenberg, O'malley, Johnston, & Bachman, 2011; Simons, Gaher, Correia, Hansen, & Christopher, 2005; Van Der Pol et al., 2013). Regarding ecstasy use, coping motives are associated with the frequency and intensity of ecstasy use (Boys & Marsden, 2003; Boys et al., 1999).

    • Data mining techniques for drug use research

      2018, Addictive Behaviors Reports
      Citation Excerpt :

      More specifically in Spain, the last National Survey on Drug Use in Secondary School Students points out that 27.3% of 14–18-year student population have smoked tobacco and 67% have consumed alcohol in the last month, being the number of binge drinking episodes (31.7% in the past 30 days) an increasing problem in this country; furthermore, 18.3% of Spanish students (14–18 years old) have used cannabis and 1% have consumed cocaine in the last month (Observatorio Español de las Drogas y las Adicciones [Spanish Drug Monitoring Agency], 2018b). Drinking motives (including normative beliefs, expectancies and social motives) are important constructs to take into consideration to understand alcohol use among students (Armeli, Conner, Cullum, & Tennen, 2010; Bekman et al., 2011; Crutzen, Kuntsche, & Schelleman-Offersman, 2013; Hasking, Lyvers, & Carlopio, 2011; Lyvers, Hasking, Hani, Rhodes, & Trew, 2010; Maddock & Glanz, 2005). On this subject, social motives are crucial: teenagers assume that drinking makes parties more enjoyable, helps them to approach others and share their feelings and experiences (Kuntsche, Knibbe, Gmel, & Engels, 2005).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text