and Advance Access published March 26, 2015

Alcohol and Alcoholism, 2015, 1–6 doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agv026 Article

Article Alcohol Outcome Expectancies and Regrettable Drinking-Related Social Behaviors Eugene M. Dunne1,* and Elizabeth C. Katz2

1Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA, and 2Department of Psychology, Towson University, Towson, MD, USA

*Corresponding author: Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, College of Public Health and Health

Professions, University of Florida, 101 S. Newell Drive, Room 3151, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA. Tel.:+1-732-598-7534; Downloaded from E-mail: [email protected]fl.edu

Received 19 August 2014; Revised 2 March 2015; Accepted 3 March 2015

Abstract http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/ Aims: Research has shown that alcohol outcome expectancies are predictive of heavy alcohol con- sumption, which can lead to risky behavior. The purpose of the present study was to assess the in- cidence of various low-risk social behaviors while drinking among college students. Such social behaviors may later be regretted (referred to as regrettable social behaviors) and include electronic and in-person communications. Methods: College students (N = 236) completed measures of alcohol outcome expectancies and re- grettable social behaviors. Results: Regrettable social behaviors were reported by 66.1% of participants, suggesting that they may occur at a much higher rate than more serious drinking-related consequences (e.g. drinking and by guest on March 28, 2015 driving, violence, etc.). Expectancies for social facilitation predicted regrettable social behavior. Fur- ther, this relationship was mediated by amount of alcohol consumed. Conclusion: Given the high incidence, regrettable social behaviors may be effective targets in alco- hol prevention programming.

INTRODUCTION unplanned sexual activity, injury), while nearly 20% report experien- cing at least five consequences (Wechsler et al., 2002). While high-risk Consequences of college drinking behaviors can result in serious consequences, research suggests that Despite efforts by college and university policy makers to curb alcohol less serious outcomes tend to be more commonly reported. In fact, consumption and subsequent negative consequences, college students the most frequently experienced alcohol-related negative outcome continue to drink at dangerous levels—approximately 1 in 4 college was ‘doing something regrettable’ (Wechsler et al., 2002), rather freshmen will drop out or have other academic consequences due to than , violence, or other high-risk behaviors. Another and 1800 college student deaths can be attributed to study found that blackouts were the most frequently reported negative alcohol-related injuries each year (Hingson et al., 2009). Considerable consequence, while the second most reported was social and interper- research has found a positive association between drinking and in- sonal problems (Read et al., 2008). Regarding the latter, it is unclear in volvement in high-risk behaviors such as illicit drug use, risky sexual the current literature what behaviors may lead to social and interper- behavior, driving while intoxicated and aggressive behavior (Fromme sonal problems. et al., 1997; Giancola, 2002; Paschall, 2003; Bersamin et al., 2012). Intoxicated social interactions may be examples of behaviors that The significant attention paid to high-risk behaviors in the literature result in social and interpersonal problems. If these interactions were is well deserved, as these behaviors have serious consequences for regretted, they would be consistent with literature finding regrettable the drinker, other individuals and society as a whole. actions to be highly frequent among college drinkers (Wechsler et al., Research has found that nearly half of college students report ex- 2002). These behaviors may involve in-person or electronic communi- periencing at least one alcohol-related consequence (e.g. missed class, cations, such as calling or text messaging a friend or potential sexual

© The Author 2015. Medical Council on Alcohol and Oxford University Press. All rights reserved 1 2 Alcohol and Alcoholism partner while under the influence of alcohol. Because they have the The expectancy for social enhancement has been particularly im- potential to be regretted, these behaviors are referred to herein as portant in understanding college drinking. Students entering college ‘regrettable social behaviors.’ Regrettable social behaviors may have with the expectancy that alcohol facilitates social interactions in- serious implications for interpersonal relationships and mental health creased their level of drinking after entering college (LaBrie et al., among college students. Previous research has shown that having a 2009). Another study found that positive expectancies for sociability supportive social network can be a protective factor against mental and sexuality were the strongest predictors of among health issues via increased access to pro-social activities (Kawachi college students (McBride et al., 2014). Regrettable social behaviors and Berkman, 2001). More specifically, high-quality social relation- defined in the present study are likely to result from increased social ships have been shown to be negatively associated with depression or sexual confidence, if they are directed toward potential sexual part- (Teo et al., 2013) and suicide attempts (Holma et al., 2010). Social iso- ners. Steele and Josephs’ (1990) theory supports this lation has also been found to be associated with depression, anxiety notion, as their research suggests that alcohol use disinhibits cues that and substance use (Chou et al., 2011). Research on self-consciousness would otherwise guide decision making and potentially prevent re- has found that individuals may be more likely to withdraw from future grettable social behaviors. social situations following an embarrassing situation (Froming, Positive outcomes of alcohol consumption (e.g. increased sociabil- Corley, and Rinker, 1990). If regrettable social behaviors are perceived ity; feeling ‘buzzed’) tend to be immediate and result in positive expect- as embarrassing, they may similarly result in withdrawal from future ancies that are strongly associated with drinking (Stacy et al., 1990), social events and negatively impact social support and related benefits. whereas negative consequences (e.g. hangover; impaired school/work Current mobile technology allows for a continuous stream of performance) are typically delayed, and thus produce negative expect- social communication, which may further increase susceptibility to ancies that are more weakly associated with drinking (Rohsenow, engage in regrettable social behaviors while intoxicated. Examples 1983). Learning theory suggests that memory for consequences of a Downloaded from of electronic forms of regrettable social behaviors include the relatively behavior (i.e. expectancy) is strengthened when the consequences recent phenomena of ‘drunk dialing’ or ‘drunk texting’—both of occur frequently and immediately; associative learning of a behavior which are defined on popular internet-based dictionaries (e.g. Wikipe- and its consequences does not occur, or occurs more weakly, when dia, Urban Dictionary). Ferris and Hollenbaugh (2011) examined the consequences are infrequent and/or delayed (Goldman et al., ‘ ’ motivations for drunk dialing among college students and found 1987; Stacy et al., 1994). Personal experience with a consequence http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/ that students often engaged in such behavior for reasons such as enter- may also make it more meaningful to the individual (increasing the tainment, confession of emotion and sexuality. While these reasons likelihood that it will be accessible when opportunities to engage in may serve as a benefit to an individual, such behaviors could also the behavior occur) than consequences learned vicariously or through place the individual at risk for experiencing embarrassment, distress ‘hearsay’ (Goldman et al., 1999). or other social consequences (e.g. loss of a friendship or romantic re- College students may have greater personal experiences with re- lationship). In addition to phone calls, sending text messages while grettable social behaviors that occur more frequently than high-risk intoxicated is likely more common, given the relative ease compared behaviors, thus exerting a stronger influence over future intentions to calling. These text messages may take the form of ‘sexting’—the to drink than mere knowledge of more serious negative consequences transmission of sexually explicit messages or images via cell phone— (i.e. via hearsay). Consistent with this hypothesis, prior research sug- by guest on March 28, 2015 which has been found to commonly occur among young adults gests that when recalling a prior drinking occasion, individuals are (Drouin and Landgraff, 2012), and is associated with recent substance more likely to report negative affect toward drinking compared to use and high-risk sexual behavior (Benotsch et al., 2013). when thinking about a future drinking occasion (Murgraff et al., Despite the emerging literature on intoxicated use of electronic com- 1999). Evoking anticipated regret has been found to be an effective munications, less attention has been paid to understanding perceptions strategy in reducing the intention to binge drink (Cooke et al., or consequences of these social behaviors. Specifically, the studies on 2006). Such anticipated regret is the cognitive process of evaluating ‘drunk dialing’ and ‘sexting’ discussed above do not indicate whether a future event and concluding that a negative outcome, such as embar- young adults experience negative outcomes, such as regret or embar- rassment, will likely occur. rassment, following these behaviors. Such negative outcomes from in-person (e.g. ‘hitting on an attractive person at a bar’) and electronic forms of socially risky behaviors have not been well described in the Rationale and hypotheses current literature and a better understanding of incidence and percep- Current literature indicates alcohol consumption is positively asso- tion may be beneficial to prevention and treatment efforts. ciated with risky behavior, such as driving while intoxicated and un- planned sexual encounters. Less is known about the impact of alcohol Alcohol outcome expectancies consumption on engaging in minimally risky, but potentially regret- According to alcohol expectancy theory, vicarious and direct experi- table, social behaviors that might result in embarrassment, damaged ence with drinking and its consequences shape expectancies for interpersonal relationships or social isolation. Extant research also alcohol-related outcomes (Goldman et al., 1987, 1999). Research provides support for the association between positive outcome expect- has examined the association between expectancies and drinking, ancies and increased alcohol consumption, especially among college with studies finding that positive expectancies (the belief that drinking students. Furthermore, as positive expectancies for social facilitation will result in a desirable outcome) are associated with increased levels have been found to result in heavier drinking among college students of drinking, while negative expectancies (the belief that drinking will (LaBrie et al., 2009), individuals likely consume alcohol with the belief result in an aversive outcome) are associated with reduced levels of that drinking will enhance their social interactions. Thus, college stu- drinking (Cox and Klinger, 1990; Stacy et al., 1990; Fromme et al., dents may consume greater qualities of alcohol based on these expect- 1993). Alcohol expectancies have been found to be especially strong ancies and seek out social interactions while intoxicated due to their predictors of drinking behavior among college students (Brown, greater perceived social competence, increasing their risk of engaging 1985). in social behavior that would later be regretted. Alcohol and Alcoholism 3

The primary aim of the present study was to examine rates of regret- the questionnaires. A co-investigator described the study and was table social behaviors (such as texting while intoxicated) among college available to address any questions or concerns. Surveys were com- students. Consistent with previous literature (LaBrie et al.,2009), alco- pleted electronically using the Survey Monkey website (www. hol outcome expectancies for increased sociability were hypothesized to surveymonkey.com). be associated with higher levels of alcohol consumption among college students. It was also hypothesized that higher levels of alcohol con- National sample sumption would predict engagement in regrettable social behaviors. Participants who were recruited online accessed the link to the Finally, it was hypothesized that quantity of alcohol consumed would study through two independent research websites (http://www. mediate the association between alcohol-related expectancies for socialpsychology.org and http://psych.hanover.edu/Research/exponnet. sociability and participation in regrettable social behaviors. html). In addition to providing verification of IRB approval, the pro- cedures were independently reviewed and approved by the Social Psychology and Hanover College website staff. METHOD Participants Measures Undergraduate college students between the ages of 18 and 24 years Demographics (N = 236, 58.5% female) participated in this study. The sample con- A demographics questionnaire obtained information regarding gen- sisted of 112 participants recruited through the psychology depart- der, age, ethnicity and year in school. ment research pool of a mid-Atlantic university (‘university sample’)

and 124 undergraduate college students recruited through two inde- Downloaded from Alcohol consumption pendent psychology websites (‘national sample’). Demographic char- An adapted version of the Quantity-Frequency Index (QFI, Midanik acteristics of the samples are reported in Table 1. Study procedures et al., 1989) was used to assess typical drinking behavior. Participants were approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board. were asked to list how many drinks they consumed on each day of a typical week during the past 3 months. While this approach may over- Procedure look atypical heavy drinking occasions, it allowed participants to re- http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/ University sample port a general pattern of alcohol consumption. A sum score of the Participants who signed up through the university research pool re- total number of drinks consumed by a participant in a typical week ported to an assigned classroom equipped with computers to complete was calculated.

Table 1. Sample characteristics and regrettable behaviors (N = 236)

All (N = 236) Local sample (n = 112) National sample (n = 124) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) tP

Age 19.8 (1.8) 19.1 (1.4) 20.5 (1.9) 6.34 <0.001 by guest on March 28, 2015 Total weekly drinks 16.2 (11.9) 18.5 (16.2) 16.0 (13.4) −1.33 0.185 Sociability expectancy 3.40 (0.44) 3.45 (0.38) 3.35 (0.48) −1.69 0.092

N (%) N (%) N (%) X2 P Gender 2.95 0.086 Male 98 (41.5) 53 (47.3) 45 (36.3) Female 138 (58.5) 59 (52.7) 79 (63.7) Class standing 26.61 <0.001 Freshman 98 (41.5) 66 (58.9) 32 (25.8) Sophomore 62 (26.3) 21 (18.8) 41 (33.1) Junior 45 (19.1) 15 (13.4) 30 (24.2) Senior 31 (13.1) 10 (8.9) 21 (16.9) Any social behavior + regret 156 (66.1) 83 (74.1) 73 (58.9) 6.10 0.014 Text message 201 (89.0) 107 (95.5) 103 (83.1) Text message + regret 103 (43.6) 56 (50.0) 47 (37.9) Phone call 179 (75.8) 94 (83.9) 85 (68.5) Phone call + regret 79 (33.5) 42 (37.5) 37 (29.8) Facebook Post 85 (36.0) 48 (42.9) 37 (29.8) Facebook post + regret 21 (8.9) 13 (11.6) 8 (6.5) Facebook message 35 (14.8) 21 (18.8) 14 (11.4) Facebook message + regret 12 (5.1) 5 (4.5) 7 (5.6) Email 5 (2.1) 2 (1.8) 3 (2.4) Email + regret 2 (0.8) 1 (0.9) 1 (0.8) Act out of character 176 (74.6) 85 (75.9) 91 (74.0) Act out of character + regret 59 (25.0) 27 (24.1) 32 (25.8) Say something embarrassing 80 (33.9) 33 (29.5) 47 (38.2) Say something embarrassing + regret 58 (24.6) 24 (21.4) 34 (27.4) Converse with opposite sex 186 (78.8) 97 (87.4) 89 (71.8) Converse with opposite sex + regret 22 (9.3) 10 (8.9) 12 (9.7) 4 Alcohol and Alcoholism

Fig. 1. Mediation model, adapted from Preacher and Hayes (2008). Note: Statistically controlled for sample recruitment method. Model Summary: Total R2 = 0.19. * P < 0.01, ** P < 0.001.

Outcome expectancies Questionnaire (YAACQ, Read et al., 2006), which is a 48-item meas- The 76-item Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol (CEOA; Fromme ure used to assess consequences associated with drinking. Previous re- et al., 1993) is a two-part questionnaire designed to assess alcohol out- search has found the YAACQ to have strong, positive correlations

come expectancies. The authors of this measure have provided infor- with alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems (Read Downloaded from mation to support strong internal validity, construct validity, criterion et al., 2006). Providing initial support for the convergent validity of validity and temporal stability (Fromme et al., 1993). The first half of the regrettable behavior scale, Pearson correlation revealed significant this measure uses a 4-point Likert scale to measure whether the indi- associations between the measure of regrettable social behaviors and vidual agrees or disagrees with statements such as ‘Iwouldbeout- the Social-Interpersonal Consequences scale of the YAACQ, r = 0.48, going’. The second half uses a 5-point Likert scale to rate whether P < 0.001. an individual thinks a particular drinking outcome is good or bad. http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/ The items make up four positive factors (sociability, tension reduction, Data analysis liquid courage and sexuality) and three negative factors (Cognitive and Chi-square and independent samples t-tests were used to examine dif- behavioral impairment, risk and aggression, and self-perception). As ferences between the university and national samples in terms of base- expectancy for increased sociability, in particular, has been found to line demographic characteristics. The main study hypotheses were predict increases in alcohol consumption among college students tested using Preacher and Hayes (2008) multiple mediation macro in α (LaBrie et al., 2009), the Sociability subscale (8 items; =0.71in SPSS Version 20. This procedure allows for covariates and bootstrap- this sample) was utilized. It was anticipated that college students ping to obtain point estimates and accelerated/biased corrected confi- who expected social facilitation from drinking would be more likely dence intervals. This method of mediation analysis is currently to seek out drinking situations where there was a high likelihood of preferred in the literature as it provides a statistical test for the indirect by guest on March 28, 2015 engaging in a regrettable social behavior. effect of the mediator, which is not available through Baron and Ken- ny’s (1986) causal steps approach. In addition, bootstrapping is con- Regrettable social behaviors sidered a superior method for testing intervening variable effects A questionnaire developed by the study authors was used to assess the (Williams and MacKinnon, 2008). Finally, the model provides a sig- fi occurrence of regrettable social behaviors while intoxicated in the past ni cance test for the indirect effect of the mediator, which is consid- fi 3 months. Mobile device or electronic communication included text ered statistically signi cant when zero is not included in the 95% fi messaging (formerly known as SMS message), phone calls, public con dence interval of the bootstrapped estimate (Preacher and comments made on social networking websites, private messages Hayes, 2004, 2008). Figure 1 illustrates the paths of the Preacher sent via social network websites, and emails. Additional behaviors in- and Hayes (2008) mediation model. cluded face-to-face interactions such as acting out of character, saying something potentially embarrassing, or communicating with a poten- RESULTS tial sexual partner. Participants responded with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to eight categories of regrettable social behaviors. First, participants were Sample differences asked if they engaged in the social behaviors in the previous 3 months Table 1 provides demographic and behavioral data for the local and while drinking. Individuals endorsing participation in the social beha- national samples. Results revealed that the samples differed signifi- viors were then asked whether they regretted the intoxicated behavior. cantly on several variables. The university sample (M age = 19.1, Variables were dichotomized (i.e. yes/no) to represent (i) whether they SD = 1.4) was significantly younger than the national sample (M engaged in one or more social behaviors and (ii) whether they later re- age = 20.5, SD = 1.9) (unequal t(227.3) = 6.34; P < 0.001). Chi-square gretted any social behavior. analyses showed a significant difference between samples in year in Development of the regrettable behavior measure included a pilot school (X2(3) = 26.61, P < 0.001), with a greater number of upper- study conducted by the authors to examine feasibility and interpret- classmen being represented in the national sample. The university ability. In the present study, internal consistency was deemed to be sample was also more likely to have engaged in regrettable social be- minimally acceptable (per the standards of measurement explained haviors (X2(1) = 6.10, P = 0.014). However, results showed no signifi- by DeVellis, 1991) for this measure, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient = cant differences in weekly alcohol consumption (t(1) = −1.33, 0.653. Convergent validity was assessed using the social-interpersonal P = 0.185). Because the samples differed on several baseline character- consequences domain of the Young Adult Alcohol Consequences istics, sample was entered as a covariate in all additional analyses. Alcohol and Alcoholism 5

Frequency of drinking and regrettable social behavior Paschall, 2003), this study found significant associations between ex- Self-reported typical weekly alcohol consumption ranged from 1 to 85 pectancies for sociability and alcohol consumption. Adding to this lit- drinks (M = 17.2, SD = 14.9). A square root transformation was used erature, the present study found that expectancies for sociability were to reduce the effect of outliers and control for positive skew. The high- positively associated with regrettable social behaviors. College drin- est average reported alcohol consumption occurred on Friday (5.71 kers who hold stronger beliefs that alcohol facilitates social interac- drinks) and Saturday (6.28 drinks). In the last 3 months, 156 partici- tions drank more heavily and participated more frequently in pants (66.1%) reported engaging in one or more forms of regrettable regrettable social behaviors. Moreover, quantity of alcohol consumed social behaviors. Furthermore, 122 (51.7%) regretted an electronic was found to mediate the association between sociability expectancies communication (i.e. phone call, text, Facebook, etc.) and 98 and regrettable social behaviors, such that heavier alcohol consump- (41.5%) regretted an in-person communication (i.e. saying something tion increased the likelihood of engaging in regrettable social beha- embarrassing, etc.). The most commonly reported regrettable social viors and accounted for part of the variance that was explained by behavior was sending a text message, with 103 (43.6%) college stu- expectancies alone. Current literature suggests that increased sociabil- dents endorsing this behavior in the past 3 months. ity is viewed as a positive outcome of drinking and is associated with increased alcohol consumption among college students (LaBrie et al., 2009). However, the findings of the present study indicate that disin- Mediation analysis hibited social interactions often lead to regret. While increased soci- Results of the mediation analyses are presented in Fig. 1. Consistent ability may be desirable, false confidence can lead to inappropriate fi fi with previous ndings, expectancy for sociability was signi cantly as- behaviors. Highlighting this experienced regret may be useful in alco- β sociated with alcohol consumption among college students, = 0.35, hol reduction interventions.

fi Downloaded from B =1.45,SE=0.24,P < 0.001. Furthermore, there was a signi cant There are several limitations to this study that deserve consider- positive relationship between level of alcohol consumption and en- ation. First, the data presented are derived from self-report measures; β – gagement in regrettable social behaviors, = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.15 thus social-desirability may have influenced responses to questions 1.57, B = 0.30, SE = 0.08, P < 0.001. The total effect (c path) of expect- about current drinking and engagement in regrettable social beha- fi β ancy for sociability on regrettable social behaviors was signi cant, viors. The use of a convenience sample of college students is also prob- = 3.87, 95% CI: 2.09–7.17, B = 1.35, SE = 0.32, P < 0.001. Consistent — lematic though college students are the target population of this http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/ with our study hypothesis, alcohol consumption mediated the rela- research. Further, a possible threat to construct validity is the use of tionship between expectancy for sociability and regrettable social be- a new measure for regrettable social behaviors that was developed ’ haviors. The direct effect (c path) of expectancy for sociability on by the authors and not previously validated. However, this measure regrettable social behaviors was reduced by including the mediator showed mildly promising internal consistency and the significant cor- fi β in the model, though this relationship remained signi cant, = 2.66, relation with the Social/Interpersonal Consequences Scale of the – 95% CI: 1.40 5.06, B =0.98,SE=0.33,P < 0.001. This reduction YAACQ provides preliminary evidence for convergent validity. An fi was found to be signi cant as the indirect effect of the mediator was additional limitation of the regrettable behavior measure was that it fi signi cantly different from zero (bias-corrected and accelerated 95% resulted in a dichotomous outcome and future studies would likely CI: lower limit = 0.176, upper limit = 0.739). benefit from using Likert-type scales. The use of cross-sectional data by guest on March 28, 2015 also limits these findings, as it disallows causal inferences about the association between expectancies, drinking and regrettable social be- DISCUSSION haviors. However, participants were instructed to consider behaviors Overall, the present study found that two-thirds of college drinkers re- that directly resulted from drinking occasions in the last 3 months. Fu- port engaging in and regretting social behaviors, including in-person ture research would benefit from a prospective design to get a better interactions and electronic communication. Intoxicated in-person understanding of the temporal sequencing of these variables. communications were commonly regretted, with one in four college Despite these limitations, the present study reveals significant impli- drinkers regretting behaving or saying something out of character. cations for college harm reduction programs targeting heavy drinking. ‘Drunk dialing’ and ‘drunk texting’ are understudied behaviors, yet Prevention efforts that focus on serious negative consequences of high- this study suggests that nearly 90% of college drinkers engage in risk drinking, such as Social Norming Campaigns, may be ineffective these behaviors, with ∼40% endorsing subsequent regret. To our for the majority of college students given their focus on ‘typical’ con- knowledge, this is the first study that has assessed the intoxicated sumption of the ‘average college student.’ If regrettable social behaviors use of cell phones and social media sites as potentially regrettable so- and their associated consequences (e.g. experiencing embarrassment) cial behaviors. occur more frequently than their more serious counterparts (e.g. acquir- While previous research has focused primarily on high-risk beha- ing an STD from a single instance of unprotected sex), they may become viors and serious consequences (Fromme et al., 1997; Giancola, 2002; more strongly associated in memory with drinking (Stacy et al.,1994) Paschall, 2003; Bersamin et al., 2012), the present study suggests that and therefore have a greater influence over frequency and levels of con- these efforts may be overlooking a significant group of low-risk out- sumption. Moreover, because these expectancies would be shaped by comes. Socially regrettable behaviors, such as intoxicated use of cell direct experience, they may exert a stronger influence over behavior phones or acting out of character, may negatively impact a greater than expectancies shaped vicariously or through ‘hearsay’ (i.e. through number of college students (nearly two-thirds) compared to other prevention programming). high-risk intoxicated behaviors. In contrast, Wechsler et al. (2002) The tendency to view future drinking occasions negatively based found the most commonly experienced alcohol-related problem to on memory of a previous drinking episode in which a negative out- be ‘do something you regret’ (35.0%), ‘miss a class’ (29.5%) and come occurred may result from anticipated regret. If the regret experi- ‘drove after drinking’ (29.0%). enced leads college drinkers to consider drinking less alcohol in the Consistent with past research on predictors of high-risk behavior future, it may be a useful intervention and prevention target. It is (Fromme et al., 1997; Corbin and Fromme, 2002; Giancola, 2002; plausible that facilitating memory of recent participation in one or 6 Alcohol and Alcoholism more regrettable social behaviors while drinking, and their associated Giancola PR. (2002) Alcohol-related aggression during the college years: theor- consequences, may be a more effective way of evoking anticipated re- ies, risk factors, and policy implications. J Stud Alcohol Suppl 14:129–39. gret than by encouraging students to think about more serious conse- Goldman M, Brown SA, Christiansen B. (1987) Expectancy theory: thinking quences (e.g. a car accident) that neither they, nor any of their friends, about drinking. In Blane HT, Leonard K (eds). Psychological Theories of Drinking and Alcoholism, 1st edn. New York: The Guilford Press, have experienced. Thus, eliciting personal memories of previous re- 181–226. grettable social behaviors has the potential to motivate reductions in Goldman MS, Del Boca FK, Darkes J. (1999) Alcohol expectancy theory: the consumption and/or deter drinking and future research should be con- application of cognitive neuroscience. In Leonard KE, Blane HT (eds). ducted to address this question. Psychological Theories of Drinking and Alcoholism, 2nd edn. New York: The Guilford Press, 203–46. Hingson RW, Zha W, Weitzman ER. (2009) Magnitude and trends in alcohol- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS related mortality and morbidity among U.S. college students ages 18–24, 1998–2005. J Stud Alcohol Drugs 16:12–20. E.M.D. is supported by the University of Florida Substance Abuse Training Holma KM, Melartin TK, Haukka J, et al. (2010) Incidence and predictors of Center in Public Health, funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse suicide attempts in DSM-IV major depressive disorder: a five-year prospect- (T32DA035167). The content presented is solely the responsibility of the ive study. Am J Psychiatry 167:801–8. authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Kawachi I, Berkman LF. (2001) Social ties and mental health. J Urban Health Institutes of Health. 78:458–67. LaBrie J, Lamb T, Pederson E. (2009) Changes in drinking patterns across the transition to college among first-year college males. J Child Adolesc Subst CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT Abuse 18:1–15. Downloaded from Midanik LT, Klatsky AL, Armstrong MA. (1989) A comparison of 7-day recall None declared. with two summary measures of alcohol use. Drug Alcohol Depend 24:127–34. REFERENCES McBride NM, Barrett B, Moore KA, et al. (2014) The role of positive alcohol expectancies in underage binge drinking among college students. J Am Coll Baron R, Kenny D. (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in so- Health 62:370–9. http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/ cial psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considera- Murgraff V, McDermott MR, White D, et al. (1999) Regret is what you get: the tions. J Pers Soc Psychol 51:1173–82. effects of manipulating anticipated affect and time perspective on risky Benotsch EG, Snipes DJ, Martin AM, et al. (2013) Sexting, substance use, and single-occasion drinking. Alcohol Alcohol 34:590–600. sexual risk behavior in young adults. J Adolesc Health 52:307–13. Paschall MJ. (2003) College attendance and risk-related driving behavior in a Bersamin MM, Paschall MJ, Saltz RF, et al. (2012) Young adults and casual sex: national sample of young adults. J Stud Alcohol 64:43–9. the relevance of college drinking settings. J Sex Res 49:274–81. Preacher K, Hayes A. (2004) SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect Brown SA. (1985) Expectancies verses background in the prediction of college effects in simple mediation models. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput drinking patterns. J Consult Clin Psychol 53:123–30. 36:717–31. Chou KL, Liang K, Sareen J. (2011) The association between social isolation Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for asses- and DSM-IV mood, anxiety, and substance use disorders: wave 2 of the na- sing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav Res tional epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions. JClin Methods 40:879–91. by guest on March 28, 2015 Psychiatry 11:1468–76. Read JP, Kahler CW, Strong D, et al. (2006) Development and preliminary val- Cooke R, Sniehotta F, Schüz B. (2006) Predicting binge-drinking behavior using idation of the Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire. JStud an extended TPB: examining the impact of anticipated regret and descriptive Alcohol 67:169–78. norms. Alcohol Alcohol 42:84–91. Read JP, Beattie M, Chamberlain R, et al. (2008) Beyond the ‘binge’ threshold: Corbin WR, Fromme K. (2002) Alcohol use and serial monogamy as risks heavy drinking patterns and their association with alcohol involvement in- for sexually transmitted diseases in young adults. J Health Psychol dices in college students. Addict Behav 33:225–34. 21:229–36. Rohsenow DJ. (1983) Drinking habits and expectancies about alcohol’s effects Cox WM, Klinger E. (1990) Incentive motivation, affective change, and alcohol for self verses others. J Consult Clin Psychol 51:752–6. use: a model. In Cox WM (ed). Why People Drink. New York: Gardner Stacy AW, Widaman KF, Marlatt GA. (1990) Expectancy models of alcohol use. Press, 291–314. J Pers Soc Psychol 58:918–28. DeVellis RF. (1991) Scale Development. Newbury Park, NJ: Sage Publications. Stacy AW, Leigh BC, Weingardt KR. (1994) Memory accessibility and association Drouin M, Landgraff C. (2012) Texting, sexting, and attachment in college stu- of alcohol use and its positive outcomes. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol dents’ romantic relationships. Comput Human Behav 28:444–9. 2:269–82. Ferris AL, Hollenbaugh EE. (2011) Drinking and dialing: an exploratory study Steele CC, Josephs RA. (1990) Alcohol myopia: its prized and dangerous effects. of why college students make cell phone calls while intoxicated. Ohio Am Psychol 45:921–33. Communication Journal 49:103–26. Teo AR, Choi H, Valenstein M. (2013) Social relationships and depression: ten- Froming WL, Corley EB, Rinker L. (1990) The influence of public self- year follow-up from a nationally representative study. PLoS One 8:1–8. consciousness and the audience’s characteristics on withdrawal from em- Wechsler H, Lee JE, Kuo M, et al. (2002) Trends in college binge drinking dur- barrassing situations. J Pers 58:603–22. ing a period of increased prevention efforts: findings from 4 Harvard School Fromme K, Stroot E, Kaplan D. (1993) Comprehensive effects of alcohol: devel- of Public Health College Alcohol Study surveys: 1993–2001. JAmColl opment and psychometric assessment of a new expectancy questionnaire. Health 50:203–17. Psychol Assess 5:19–26. Williams J, MacKinnon DP. (2008) Resampling and distribution of the product Fromme K, Katz EC, Rivet K. (1997) Outcome expectancies and risk-taking methods for testing indirect effects in complex models. Struct Equ Modeling behavior. Cognit Ther Res 21:421–42. 15:23–51.