- Email: [email protected]
Predicting reduction in tension following alcohol consumption in a stressful situation with the alcohol expectancy questionnaire
Addictive
Pergamon
Behavior\. Vol. 19, No. I. pp. 57-62. 1994 Copyright C 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in the USA. All rights reserved 0306-4603194 %.OO + .oo
PREDICTING REDUCTION IN TENSION FOLLOWING ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN A STRESSFUL SITUATION WITH THE ALCOHOL EXPECTANCY QUESTIONNAIRE KEVIN J. CORCORAN Southern
lllinois
University
Abstract - The present study was designed to extend the research designed to evaluate the validity of the subscales of the Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire. Other previous behavioral studies had investigated the Global Positive subscale as a predictor of alcohol effects (Sher, 1985) and the tension reduction scale as a predictor of choosing an alcoholic beverage (Corcoran & Parker, 1991). While Brown, Goldman, Inn, and Anderson (1980) do not distinguish between different classes of expectancies, current theory (see Kirsch, 1985) highlights the distinction between response expectations (expectation of nonvolitional effects, exemplified in Sher’s study) and outcome expectancies (expectations for particular reinforcers given a specific behavior, as in Corcoran and Parker’s study). The present study was an investigation of the AEQ Tension Reduction Scale as a predictor of tension reduction in a stressful situation. The results do not lend support to the scale as a predictor of effects from drinking alcohol or expecting to drink alcohol. Results are discussed in terms of potential for future research, and theoretical and practical implications for the AEQ.
Numerous studies over the past twenty years have demonstrated the importance of cognitive factors in precipitating the behavioral effects of alcohol. Several laboratory studies (see Marlatt & Rohsenow, 1980, for a review) have demonstrated the significance of expectancies for alcohol effects in predicting behavior. Brown, Goldman, Inn, and Anderson (1980) attempted to define the domain of adults’ expectations for reinforcement from alcohol use through development of an Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire (AEQ). Subsequent research has revealed differential AEQ subscale scores between alcoholic inpatients and general medical inpatients (Brown, Goldman, & Christiansen, 198.5; Zarantonello, 1986), and alcoholics, problem drinkers, and non-problem drinkers (Connors. O’Farrell. Cutter, & Thompson, 1986). While the AEQ has appeared in literally scores of research reports in the past decade, concerns remain about its validity (Leigh, 1989a). A review of the literature uncovers several studies with relevance to the validity of the AEQ; however, most (e.g., Brown, 198%; Christiansen, Smith, Roehling, Goldman, 1989; Zarantonello, 1986) suffer from the use of post hoc explanations to support the validity of the AEQ. For example, Zarantonello (1986) found that four of the six AEQ scales significantly differentiate inpatient alcoholics from a matched group of inpatients. Like other similar studies, Zarantonello explained the meaning of these results after the fact, but could just as easily have provided a different explanation for another pattern of results. In short, there have been few studies involving the AEQ which have Poedicted a specific pattern of results. Sher (1985) used only the Global factor (factor I), along with other variables, to This research was supported by a grant from the Office of Research Development and Administration, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. Requests for reprints should be sent to Kevin J. Corcoran, Department of Psychology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901.
5x
K. .I. (‘OIIC‘OKAiK
predict changes in subjective experience following the consumption of alcohol among college-aged subjects. In analyses of six dependent variables (e.g.. warmthglow: central stimulant: impaired function, etc.), strength of expectancy interacted with beverage (alcohol vs. placebo) and setting (group vs. alone) to account for changes in subjective state: however, strength of expectancies alone accounted for changes in none of the six variables. Another study often cited (e.g., by Christiansen et al., 1989) as a validation of the AEQ. Rohsenow and Bacharowski (1984) employed a modified form of the Alcohol Effects Questionnaire (AEQ). This questionnaire contained the five items with the highest factor loading on each of the six AEQ scales; in addition, two items were two added to the Power/Aggression Scale. While this study should not really be considered a test of the validity of the AEQ since it involves a modified form, the results indicate that none of the scales of this form of the AEQ were predictive of aggression in a laboratory situation. Corcoran and Parker (1991) assessed the ability of the AEQ Tension Reduction Scale to predict alcohol consumption in high- and low-stress situations. Their results indicate a lack of support for the validity of the Tension Reduction Scale: four of the six AEQ scales predicted drinking in the high-stress situation, but the Tension Reduction Scale did not. The Tension Reduction Scale did not predict whethet individuals drank alcohol or how much they drank in tither high- or low-stress situations. There appear to be no other behavioral studies investigating the validity of the AEQ. It is also important to understand that the study conducted by Sher (1985) addresses what Kirsch (198.5) has called “response expectancies,” that is, the expectation of the occurrence of a nonvolitional response (e.g., tension reduction). Though much of the work which has been conducted in the past decade has focused on predicting self-reported drinking khrruior (e.g.. Brown. 1085a.b; Christiansen. Goldman, & Inn. 1982; Christiansen et al.. 1989). the concept of response expectancy is clearly implied in the definition used in developing the AEQ. Brown et al. (1980) suggest that expectancies may mediate effects of alcohol, as well as relate to drinking patterns. The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the validity of the AEQ in predicting effects experienced as a result of alcohol consumption. More specifically. since Brown (198%) reports that the Tension Reduction Scale (scale 5) is the most powerful single predictor of problematic drinking style, that scale was selected as the primary focus of the present investigation. Precisely. does the AEQ Tension Reduction Scale predict the effects of drinking in a stress-induced situation‘? And, is it a better predictor of those effects in a situation in which tension is higher than in a less tense situation‘?
M E T H 0 D
Eighty-nine undergraduate college students (48 males, 41 females) participated in both parts of this study as one way of obtaining extra credit, their mean age was 24 years. Male subjects drank an average of 8. I alcoholic drinks per drinking occasion: females drank an average of 5.6.
AEQ and tension
reduction
59
Procedure In Part I of the study, subjects completed a set of questionnaires. Drinking was assessed using a modified version of Cahalan’s Drinking Habits Questionnaire (DHQ; Cahalan, Cisin, & Crossley, 1969). Subjects also completed the Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire (AEQ; Brown et al., 1980), a scale comprised of 90 items designed to assess positive effects attributed to alcohol consumption. The subjects who were also available to participate in Part II of the experiment were assigned an appointment time for an individual session. Women were screened for pregnancy prior to Part II. No subjects were excluded as a result of this screening. The design for Part II involved a stressful situation used in previous research (Corcoran & Parker, 1991; Levenson, Sher, Grossman, Newman, & Newlin, 1980; Steele & Josephs, 1988). Following this procedure, participants were told that the study was designed to examine the effects of different preparatory behaviors on task performance. Subjects were told that they would be required to make a IO-min presentation, which would later be evaluated, on their most embarrassing body part, but that they would have approximately 15 min to get ready for their presentation (the fact that the study was supposedly designed to examine the effect of engaging in different behaviors prior to the presentation was again emphasized). After the task was described to subjects, they completed a mood check (including a rating of anxiety); such checks were also administered at the end of the prep time. This measurement was used as the “post” measure since Sher (1985) suggests that effects measured immediately after drinking might be most similar to subjective experience during a drinking episode. The format of these mood ratings was identical to one used by Corcoran and Parker (1991); in that study, the anxiety rating accurately differentiated between high- and low-stress conditions. Since Hull and Bond’s (1986) meta-analytic results of the balanced placebo design are somewhat equivocal with respect to mood change as a result of drinking (significant alcohol effect, yet significant heterogeneity of expectancy effect), it was determined that the balanced placebo design would be used in this study. Subjects were instructed to consume either a vodka and tonic mixture (I : 5 mix) or tonic alone - and that they needed to consume all of the beverage; in accordance with the balanced placebo design, they were given accurate or inaccurate information about the contents of the drink. The amount available was based on subjects’ body weight, with the goal of maintaining a blood alcohol level of approximately .04 in the alcohol condition and corresponding quantity of beverage for subjects assigned to the “got tonic” condition. At the end of the study, subjects were given a breathalyzer test and debriefed. RESULTS
Initial analyses indicated no significant differences in changes in ratings of tension reduction across conditions based on what subjects were told they drank (F = 0.34; df = 1, 84; ns), what they actually drank (F = 0.88; df = 1, 84; ns), nor was the interaction of the two variables significant (F = 0.01; df = 1, 84; ns). None of the simple correlations between expectancy for tension reduction and change in mood (anxiety) by the beverage they got or were told they had gotten showed a difference between genders. (In fact, none were statistically significant.) All further regression analyses used gender as an independent variable.
60
K. J. CORCORAN
Table
1. Significant stepwise in tension by balanced
predictors of reduction placebo condition R?
F
Got tonic/told tonic Social/physical pleasure
.17
3 .s4*
Got tonic/told alcohol Typical frequency Tension reduction
.33 .09
9.39*=* 2.@5*
Got alcohol/told tonic Arousal and aggression
.I8
3.814,
Got alcohol/told alcohol Arousal and aggression Typical quantity
.25 .I0
h.Sh”* 2.99”
*p
5
.lO. x*p < .os. ***p < .Ol
To investigate the ability of the AEQ Tension Reduction Scale to predict changes in self-reported tension from the beginning of the preparatory time (prior to the introduction of alcohol) to the end of the preparatory stage, four step-wise multiple regressions were undertaken; one for each of the balanced placebo conditions. Predictor variables included the six AEQ scales, gender, typical quantity, and typical frequency. Table I presents significant predictors (and R’) for each of the four conditions of the balanced placebo design. When subjects were not expecting alcohol and did not get it, no factors were predictive of tension reduction; however, factor 3 (social/physical pleasure) approached significance (R’ = .17; F = 3.54; p = .07). Under the “told alcohol, got no alcohol” condition, typical frequency was a significant predictor of tension reduction (R? = .33: F = 9.39: p < .Ol). and factor 5 (tension reduction) approached significance (R'= .09; F = 2.86; p = .lO). For the “told no alcohol, got alcohol” condition, only factor 6 (arousal and aggression) approached significance (R?= .18; F = 3.81; p = .06). For the condition in which individuals were both told they were getting alcohol and got alcohol, factor 6 (arousal and aggression) was a significant predictor (R? = .25; F = 6.57; p < .02), while typical quantity consumed approached significance (R?= .IO;F = 2.99; p < IO).
DISCUSSION It should be clear that interpretations of these findings, based on a relatively small sample of moderate drinking college students, should be made with caution. However, this discussion contains some tentative conclusions and directions for further exploration. Leigh (l989b) has concluded that the discriminant validity of the existing measures of alcohol-related expectancies is questionable. Corcoran and Parker (1991) found no support for the validity of the Tension Reduction Scale as a measure of outcome expectancy; that is, to predict the selection of an alcoholic drink in a stressful situation. The present study provides similarly distressing results with respect to the AEQ Tension Reduction Scale as a measure of response expectancy; that is, to predict subjective tension-reducing effects of drinking in a stressful situa-
AEQ and tension
reduction
61
tion. Only one of the four balanced placebo conditions (got tonic/told alcohol) provided even a trend in the direction of the Tension Reduction Scale predicting effects of drinking. In their recent conceptualizing, Goldman, Brown, Christiansen, and Smith (1991) have relied on memory models and cognitive psychology, de-emphasizing the independence of the AEQ subscales and devaluing the importance of discriminative validity with respect to the AEQ subscale. However, unlike Corcoran and Parker’s (1991) earlier study which found that some AEQ scales predicted drinking in a stressful situation (though not the relevant scale), the current results do not lend consistent support to any of the AEQ scales in predicting effects of drinking. The present results, therefore, call into question the ability of the AEQ to predict specific drinking-related effects in specific situations. As a practical tool, the AEQ has proven quite useful and may continue to prove useful. There is certainly a healthy body of literature showing its potential practical utility (see Goldman, Brown, & Christiansen, 1987; and Goldman et al., 1991); perhaps users need to be cautious in the use of the subscale names as the bases of interpretation of the meaning of subscale scores (at least with respect to the Tension Reduction Scale). Echoing Lachar’s (1974) comments on the MMPI, for clinical purposes the scale names may tend to, “at least-limit a scale’s interpretation, if not mislead” (p. 1). As a research tool, the AEQ is still in need of further investigation and elaboration. Additional research is warranted to (a) investigate the predictive validity of the other AEQ subscales as measures of outcome and response expectancies, and (b) extend Sher’s (1985) results demonstrating situational differences (e.g., group vs. individual) in the predictive validity of the AEQ. REFERENCES Brown, S. A. (1985a). Expectancies versus background in the prediction of college drinking patterns. Journal of Consulting und Clinical Psychology, 53, 123-130. Brown, S. A. (1985b). Reinforcement expectancies and alcoholism treatment outcome after a one-year followup. Journcd qfstudies on Alcohol, 46, 304-308. Brown, S. (1985~). Context of drinking and reinforcement from alcohol: Alcoholic patterns. Addictiue Behauiors, 10, 191-195. Brown, S. A.. Goldman, M. S., & Christiansen, B. A. (1985). Do alcohol expectancies mediate drinking patterns of adults? Journal of Consulring and Clinkal Psychology, 53, 512-519. Brown, S. A., Goldman, M. S., Inn, A., & Anderson, L. R. (1980). Expectancies of reinforcement from alcohol: Their domain and relation to drinking patterns. Joumul qf Consulring and Clinical Psyc,ho/ogy, 48, 419-426. Cahalan, D., Cisin, I. H., & Crossley, H. M. (1969). American drinking prucfices: A nutionul study oJ drinking behuuior andpurterns (Monograph No. 6). New Brunswick. NJ: Rutgers Center for Alcohol Studies. Christiansen, B. A., Goldman. M. S., & Inn, A. (1982) Development of alcohol-related expectancies in adolescents: Separating pharmacological from social-learning influences. Jortrnul of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 50, 334-344. Christiansen, B. A., Smith, G. T., Roehling, P. V.. Goldman, M. S. (1989). Using alcohol expectancies to predict adolescent drinking behavior after one year. Jortrncd of Consulting nnd C/ink/ P.sycho/o,~:?_, 57. 93-99. Connors, G. J., O’Farrell, T. J., Cutter, H. S. G., & Thompson. D. L. (1986). Alcohol expectancies among alcoholics, problem drinkers, and non-problem drinkers. A/coho/ism: Clinical and Experimental Researc,h, 10, 667-671. Corcoran. K. J., & Parker, P. S. (1991). Alcohol expectancy questionnaire tension reduction scale as a predictor of alcohol consumption in a stressful situation. Addkriue Behauiors, 16, 129-137. Goldman, M. S., Brown, S. A., & Christiansen. B. A. (1987). Expectancy theory: Thinking about drinking. In H. T. Blane & K. E. Leonard (Eds.), P.cyc,ho/ogic,tr/ theories of drinking crnd rrlc~oholism (pp. 181-226). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Goldman, M. S., Brown, S. A., Christiansen. B. A.. & Smith. G. T. (1991). Alcoholism and memory: Broadening the scope of alcohol-expectancy research. Psyc~hologic~ul Bulletin, 110, 137-146.
62
K. J. CORCORAN
Hull, J., & Bond, C. (1986).Social and behavioral consequences of alcohol consumption and expectancy: A meta analysis. P.F~~~IIo/o~I’~~~/ Bulletir?. 99, 347-360. Kirsch. I. (1985). Response expectancy as a determinant of experience and behavior. American Psycho/ogist, 40, I189-1202. Lachar, D. (1974). The MMPI: Clinical u.sse.ssment c~nd uuronzured interprc~trriim. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services. Leigh, B. C. (1989a). In search of the seven dwarves: Issues of measurement and meaning in alcohol expectancy research. Psychologiccrl Bulletin, 105. 361-373. Leigh, B. C. (1989b). Confirmatory factor analysis of alcohol expectancy scales. Jorrrnul c~f‘S/udies on Akohol. 50, 268-277. Levenson, R. W., Sher, K. J., Grossman. L. M.. Newman, J.. & Newlin, D. B. (1980). Alcohol and stress response dampening: Pharmacological effects. expectancy, and tension reduction. Jorrrnul c$‘Ahnormu/ P.rychn/ogy. 89, 528-538. Marlatt. G. A., & Rohsenow, D. J. (1980). Cognitive processes in alcohol use: Expectancy and the balanced placebo design. In N. K. Mello (Ed.). Adu~lnc,es in suhctnnce ahrr.\e: Behauiorr~l crnd hiologic~cd wsmrcir. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Rohsenow, D. J., & Bacharowski. J. (1984). Effects of alcohol and expectancies on verbal aggression in men and women. Journal of Ahnormcr/P.syc~ho/oyy. 93. 4 18-432. Sher, K. J. (1985). Subjective effects of alcohol: The influence of setting and individual differences in alcohol expectancies. Jourm/ of Studies on Alcohol, 46. I37- 146. Steele. C. M., & Josephs, R. A. (1988). Drinking your troubles away II: An attention-allocation model of alcohol’s effect on psychological stress. Jorrmcll of’Ahnorrmr/ P.\ycho/op,v. 97. 196-20.5. Zarantonello. M. (1986). Expectations for reinforcement from alcohol u\e in a clinical sample. Jcwrrlcrl c:f’ Srrrt/ic,.\ ON A/ccdrrd. 47, 48S-4X8.
Pergamon
Behavior\. Vol. 19, No. I. pp. 57-62. 1994 Copyright C 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in the USA. All rights reserved 0306-4603194 %.OO + .oo
PREDICTING REDUCTION IN TENSION FOLLOWING ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN A STRESSFUL SITUATION WITH THE ALCOHOL EXPECTANCY QUESTIONNAIRE KEVIN J. CORCORAN Southern
lllinois
University
Abstract - The present study was designed to extend the research designed to evaluate the validity of the subscales of the Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire. Other previous behavioral studies had investigated the Global Positive subscale as a predictor of alcohol effects (Sher, 1985) and the tension reduction scale as a predictor of choosing an alcoholic beverage (Corcoran & Parker, 1991). While Brown, Goldman, Inn, and Anderson (1980) do not distinguish between different classes of expectancies, current theory (see Kirsch, 1985) highlights the distinction between response expectations (expectation of nonvolitional effects, exemplified in Sher’s study) and outcome expectancies (expectations for particular reinforcers given a specific behavior, as in Corcoran and Parker’s study). The present study was an investigation of the AEQ Tension Reduction Scale as a predictor of tension reduction in a stressful situation. The results do not lend support to the scale as a predictor of effects from drinking alcohol or expecting to drink alcohol. Results are discussed in terms of potential for future research, and theoretical and practical implications for the AEQ.
Numerous studies over the past twenty years have demonstrated the importance of cognitive factors in precipitating the behavioral effects of alcohol. Several laboratory studies (see Marlatt & Rohsenow, 1980, for a review) have demonstrated the significance of expectancies for alcohol effects in predicting behavior. Brown, Goldman, Inn, and Anderson (1980) attempted to define the domain of adults’ expectations for reinforcement from alcohol use through development of an Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire (AEQ). Subsequent research has revealed differential AEQ subscale scores between alcoholic inpatients and general medical inpatients (Brown, Goldman, & Christiansen, 198.5; Zarantonello, 1986), and alcoholics, problem drinkers, and non-problem drinkers (Connors. O’Farrell. Cutter, & Thompson, 1986). While the AEQ has appeared in literally scores of research reports in the past decade, concerns remain about its validity (Leigh, 1989a). A review of the literature uncovers several studies with relevance to the validity of the AEQ; however, most (e.g., Brown, 198%; Christiansen, Smith, Roehling, Goldman, 1989; Zarantonello, 1986) suffer from the use of post hoc explanations to support the validity of the AEQ. For example, Zarantonello (1986) found that four of the six AEQ scales significantly differentiate inpatient alcoholics from a matched group of inpatients. Like other similar studies, Zarantonello explained the meaning of these results after the fact, but could just as easily have provided a different explanation for another pattern of results. In short, there have been few studies involving the AEQ which have Poedicted a specific pattern of results. Sher (1985) used only the Global factor (factor I), along with other variables, to This research was supported by a grant from the Office of Research Development and Administration, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. Requests for reprints should be sent to Kevin J. Corcoran, Department of Psychology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901.
5x
K. .I. (‘OIIC‘OKAiK
predict changes in subjective experience following the consumption of alcohol among college-aged subjects. In analyses of six dependent variables (e.g.. warmthglow: central stimulant: impaired function, etc.), strength of expectancy interacted with beverage (alcohol vs. placebo) and setting (group vs. alone) to account for changes in subjective state: however, strength of expectancies alone accounted for changes in none of the six variables. Another study often cited (e.g., by Christiansen et al., 1989) as a validation of the AEQ. Rohsenow and Bacharowski (1984) employed a modified form of the Alcohol Effects Questionnaire (AEQ). This questionnaire contained the five items with the highest factor loading on each of the six AEQ scales; in addition, two items were two added to the Power/Aggression Scale. While this study should not really be considered a test of the validity of the AEQ since it involves a modified form, the results indicate that none of the scales of this form of the AEQ were predictive of aggression in a laboratory situation. Corcoran and Parker (1991) assessed the ability of the AEQ Tension Reduction Scale to predict alcohol consumption in high- and low-stress situations. Their results indicate a lack of support for the validity of the Tension Reduction Scale: four of the six AEQ scales predicted drinking in the high-stress situation, but the Tension Reduction Scale did not. The Tension Reduction Scale did not predict whethet individuals drank alcohol or how much they drank in tither high- or low-stress situations. There appear to be no other behavioral studies investigating the validity of the AEQ. It is also important to understand that the study conducted by Sher (1985) addresses what Kirsch (198.5) has called “response expectancies,” that is, the expectation of the occurrence of a nonvolitional response (e.g., tension reduction). Though much of the work which has been conducted in the past decade has focused on predicting self-reported drinking khrruior (e.g.. Brown. 1085a.b; Christiansen. Goldman, & Inn. 1982; Christiansen et al.. 1989). the concept of response expectancy is clearly implied in the definition used in developing the AEQ. Brown et al. (1980) suggest that expectancies may mediate effects of alcohol, as well as relate to drinking patterns. The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the validity of the AEQ in predicting effects experienced as a result of alcohol consumption. More specifically. since Brown (198%) reports that the Tension Reduction Scale (scale 5) is the most powerful single predictor of problematic drinking style, that scale was selected as the primary focus of the present investigation. Precisely. does the AEQ Tension Reduction Scale predict the effects of drinking in a stress-induced situation‘? And, is it a better predictor of those effects in a situation in which tension is higher than in a less tense situation‘?
M E T H 0 D
Eighty-nine undergraduate college students (48 males, 41 females) participated in both parts of this study as one way of obtaining extra credit, their mean age was 24 years. Male subjects drank an average of 8. I alcoholic drinks per drinking occasion: females drank an average of 5.6.
AEQ and tension
reduction
59
Procedure In Part I of the study, subjects completed a set of questionnaires. Drinking was assessed using a modified version of Cahalan’s Drinking Habits Questionnaire (DHQ; Cahalan, Cisin, & Crossley, 1969). Subjects also completed the Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire (AEQ; Brown et al., 1980), a scale comprised of 90 items designed to assess positive effects attributed to alcohol consumption. The subjects who were also available to participate in Part II of the experiment were assigned an appointment time for an individual session. Women were screened for pregnancy prior to Part II. No subjects were excluded as a result of this screening. The design for Part II involved a stressful situation used in previous research (Corcoran & Parker, 1991; Levenson, Sher, Grossman, Newman, & Newlin, 1980; Steele & Josephs, 1988). Following this procedure, participants were told that the study was designed to examine the effects of different preparatory behaviors on task performance. Subjects were told that they would be required to make a IO-min presentation, which would later be evaluated, on their most embarrassing body part, but that they would have approximately 15 min to get ready for their presentation (the fact that the study was supposedly designed to examine the effect of engaging in different behaviors prior to the presentation was again emphasized). After the task was described to subjects, they completed a mood check (including a rating of anxiety); such checks were also administered at the end of the prep time. This measurement was used as the “post” measure since Sher (1985) suggests that effects measured immediately after drinking might be most similar to subjective experience during a drinking episode. The format of these mood ratings was identical to one used by Corcoran and Parker (1991); in that study, the anxiety rating accurately differentiated between high- and low-stress conditions. Since Hull and Bond’s (1986) meta-analytic results of the balanced placebo design are somewhat equivocal with respect to mood change as a result of drinking (significant alcohol effect, yet significant heterogeneity of expectancy effect), it was determined that the balanced placebo design would be used in this study. Subjects were instructed to consume either a vodka and tonic mixture (I : 5 mix) or tonic alone - and that they needed to consume all of the beverage; in accordance with the balanced placebo design, they were given accurate or inaccurate information about the contents of the drink. The amount available was based on subjects’ body weight, with the goal of maintaining a blood alcohol level of approximately .04 in the alcohol condition and corresponding quantity of beverage for subjects assigned to the “got tonic” condition. At the end of the study, subjects were given a breathalyzer test and debriefed. RESULTS
Initial analyses indicated no significant differences in changes in ratings of tension reduction across conditions based on what subjects were told they drank (F = 0.34; df = 1, 84; ns), what they actually drank (F = 0.88; df = 1, 84; ns), nor was the interaction of the two variables significant (F = 0.01; df = 1, 84; ns). None of the simple correlations between expectancy for tension reduction and change in mood (anxiety) by the beverage they got or were told they had gotten showed a difference between genders. (In fact, none were statistically significant.) All further regression analyses used gender as an independent variable.
60
K. J. CORCORAN
Table
1. Significant stepwise in tension by balanced
predictors of reduction placebo condition R?
F
Got tonic/told tonic Social/physical pleasure
.17
3 .s4*
Got tonic/told alcohol Typical frequency Tension reduction
.33 .09
9.39*=* 2.@5*
Got alcohol/told tonic Arousal and aggression
.I8
3.814,
Got alcohol/told alcohol Arousal and aggression Typical quantity
.25 .I0
h.Sh”* 2.99”
*p
5
.lO. x*p < .os. ***p < .Ol
To investigate the ability of the AEQ Tension Reduction Scale to predict changes in self-reported tension from the beginning of the preparatory time (prior to the introduction of alcohol) to the end of the preparatory stage, four step-wise multiple regressions were undertaken; one for each of the balanced placebo conditions. Predictor variables included the six AEQ scales, gender, typical quantity, and typical frequency. Table I presents significant predictors (and R’) for each of the four conditions of the balanced placebo design. When subjects were not expecting alcohol and did not get it, no factors were predictive of tension reduction; however, factor 3 (social/physical pleasure) approached significance (R’ = .17; F = 3.54; p = .07). Under the “told alcohol, got no alcohol” condition, typical frequency was a significant predictor of tension reduction (R? = .33: F = 9.39: p < .Ol). and factor 5 (tension reduction) approached significance (R'= .09; F = 2.86; p = .lO). For the “told no alcohol, got alcohol” condition, only factor 6 (arousal and aggression) approached significance (R?= .18; F = 3.81; p = .06). For the condition in which individuals were both told they were getting alcohol and got alcohol, factor 6 (arousal and aggression) was a significant predictor (R? = .25; F = 6.57; p < .02), while typical quantity consumed approached significance (R?= .IO;F = 2.99; p < IO).
DISCUSSION It should be clear that interpretations of these findings, based on a relatively small sample of moderate drinking college students, should be made with caution. However, this discussion contains some tentative conclusions and directions for further exploration. Leigh (l989b) has concluded that the discriminant validity of the existing measures of alcohol-related expectancies is questionable. Corcoran and Parker (1991) found no support for the validity of the Tension Reduction Scale as a measure of outcome expectancy; that is, to predict the selection of an alcoholic drink in a stressful situation. The present study provides similarly distressing results with respect to the AEQ Tension Reduction Scale as a measure of response expectancy; that is, to predict subjective tension-reducing effects of drinking in a stressful situa-
AEQ and tension
reduction
61
tion. Only one of the four balanced placebo conditions (got tonic/told alcohol) provided even a trend in the direction of the Tension Reduction Scale predicting effects of drinking. In their recent conceptualizing, Goldman, Brown, Christiansen, and Smith (1991) have relied on memory models and cognitive psychology, de-emphasizing the independence of the AEQ subscales and devaluing the importance of discriminative validity with respect to the AEQ subscale. However, unlike Corcoran and Parker’s (1991) earlier study which found that some AEQ scales predicted drinking in a stressful situation (though not the relevant scale), the current results do not lend consistent support to any of the AEQ scales in predicting effects of drinking. The present results, therefore, call into question the ability of the AEQ to predict specific drinking-related effects in specific situations. As a practical tool, the AEQ has proven quite useful and may continue to prove useful. There is certainly a healthy body of literature showing its potential practical utility (see Goldman, Brown, & Christiansen, 1987; and Goldman et al., 1991); perhaps users need to be cautious in the use of the subscale names as the bases of interpretation of the meaning of subscale scores (at least with respect to the Tension Reduction Scale). Echoing Lachar’s (1974) comments on the MMPI, for clinical purposes the scale names may tend to, “at least-limit a scale’s interpretation, if not mislead” (p. 1). As a research tool, the AEQ is still in need of further investigation and elaboration. Additional research is warranted to (a) investigate the predictive validity of the other AEQ subscales as measures of outcome and response expectancies, and (b) extend Sher’s (1985) results demonstrating situational differences (e.g., group vs. individual) in the predictive validity of the AEQ. REFERENCES Brown, S. A. (1985a). Expectancies versus background in the prediction of college drinking patterns. Journal of Consulting und Clinical Psychology, 53, 123-130. Brown, S. A. (1985b). Reinforcement expectancies and alcoholism treatment outcome after a one-year followup. Journcd qfstudies on Alcohol, 46, 304-308. Brown, S. (1985~). Context of drinking and reinforcement from alcohol: Alcoholic patterns. Addictiue Behauiors, 10, 191-195. Brown, S. A.. Goldman, M. S., & Christiansen, B. A. (1985). Do alcohol expectancies mediate drinking patterns of adults? Journal of Consulring and Clinkal Psychology, 53, 512-519. Brown, S. A., Goldman, M. S., Inn, A., & Anderson, L. R. (1980). Expectancies of reinforcement from alcohol: Their domain and relation to drinking patterns. Joumul qf Consulring and Clinical Psyc,ho/ogy, 48, 419-426. Cahalan, D., Cisin, I. H., & Crossley, H. M. (1969). American drinking prucfices: A nutionul study oJ drinking behuuior andpurterns (Monograph No. 6). New Brunswick. NJ: Rutgers Center for Alcohol Studies. Christiansen, B. A., Goldman. M. S., & Inn, A. (1982) Development of alcohol-related expectancies in adolescents: Separating pharmacological from social-learning influences. Jortrnul of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 50, 334-344. Christiansen, B. A., Smith, G. T., Roehling, P. V.. Goldman, M. S. (1989). Using alcohol expectancies to predict adolescent drinking behavior after one year. Jortrncd of Consulting nnd C/ink/ P.sycho/o,~:?_, 57. 93-99. Connors, G. J., O’Farrell, T. J., Cutter, H. S. G., & Thompson. D. L. (1986). Alcohol expectancies among alcoholics, problem drinkers, and non-problem drinkers. A/coho/ism: Clinical and Experimental Researc,h, 10, 667-671. Corcoran. K. J., & Parker, P. S. (1991). Alcohol expectancy questionnaire tension reduction scale as a predictor of alcohol consumption in a stressful situation. Addkriue Behauiors, 16, 129-137. Goldman, M. S., Brown, S. A., & Christiansen. B. A. (1987). Expectancy theory: Thinking about drinking. In H. T. Blane & K. E. Leonard (Eds.), P.cyc,ho/ogic,tr/ theories of drinking crnd rrlc~oholism (pp. 181-226). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Goldman, M. S., Brown, S. A., Christiansen. B. A.. & Smith. G. T. (1991). Alcoholism and memory: Broadening the scope of alcohol-expectancy research. Psyc~hologic~ul Bulletin, 110, 137-146.
62
K. J. CORCORAN
Hull, J., & Bond, C. (1986).Social and behavioral consequences of alcohol consumption and expectancy: A meta analysis. P.F~~~IIo/o~I’~~~/ Bulletir?. 99, 347-360. Kirsch. I. (1985). Response expectancy as a determinant of experience and behavior. American Psycho/ogist, 40, I189-1202. Lachar, D. (1974). The MMPI: Clinical u.sse.ssment c~nd uuronzured interprc~trriim. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services. Leigh, B. C. (1989a). In search of the seven dwarves: Issues of measurement and meaning in alcohol expectancy research. Psychologiccrl Bulletin, 105. 361-373. Leigh, B. C. (1989b). Confirmatory factor analysis of alcohol expectancy scales. Jorrrnul c~f‘S/udies on Akohol. 50, 268-277. Levenson, R. W., Sher, K. J., Grossman. L. M.. Newman, J.. & Newlin, D. B. (1980). Alcohol and stress response dampening: Pharmacological effects. expectancy, and tension reduction. Jorrrnul c$‘Ahnormu/ P.rychn/ogy. 89, 528-538. Marlatt. G. A., & Rohsenow, D. J. (1980). Cognitive processes in alcohol use: Expectancy and the balanced placebo design. In N. K. Mello (Ed.). Adu~lnc,es in suhctnnce ahrr.\e: Behauiorr~l crnd hiologic~cd wsmrcir. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Rohsenow, D. J., & Bacharowski. J. (1984). Effects of alcohol and expectancies on verbal aggression in men and women. Journal of Ahnormcr/P.syc~ho/oyy. 93. 4 18-432. Sher, K. J. (1985). Subjective effects of alcohol: The influence of setting and individual differences in alcohol expectancies. Jourm/ of Studies on Alcohol, 46. I37- 146. Steele. C. M., & Josephs, R. A. (1988). Drinking your troubles away II: An attention-allocation model of alcohol’s effect on psychological stress. Jorrmcll of’Ahnorrmr/ P.\ycho/op,v. 97. 196-20.5. Zarantonello. M. (1986). Expectations for reinforcement from alcohol u\e in a clinical sample. Jcwrrlcrl c:f’ Srrrt/ic,.\ ON A/ccdrrd. 47, 48S-4X8.