Do coping motives moderate daily mood-drinking covariation: Disentangling a paradox
by Galloway, Christopher A., Ph.D., THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, 2006, 88 pages; 3239189

Abstract:

The current study examines a paradox in the college student alcohol use literature where drinking to cope with negative affect (DTC) is concurrently and prospectively linked to problems with alcohol; however, experience sampling and daily diary studies have either failed to find a link between affect and drinking within a day, or found the relationship only under specific circumstances. Participants were 124 college students from a large Southeastern university. These individuals completed an online daily diary protocol for two weeks to report daily emotions, drinking motives and alcohol consumption. A series of HGLM analyses were conducted to test study hypotheses. The influence of self-awareness on the moderating effects of dispositional DTC on mood-drinking covariation were considered in two separate models, for global negative affect using the DTC subscale of Cooper's drinking motives questionnaire (1994) and also for sadness using a sadness specific measure of DTC. Neither the standard dispositional DTC model nor the dispositional sadness specific models were significant. DTC was also assessed as a daily process. The moderating effects of global negative affect and sadness specific daily drinking motives on mood-drinking covariation on drinking days was tested and a significant interaction between daily sadness motives, sad mood, and quantity of alcohol consumed was found. At relatively higher levels of daily sadness DTC individuals drank more when experiencing more sad mood and drank less when experiencing less sad mood, whereas those relatively low in DTC drank less on days with more sad mood and drank more on days with less sad mood. The global negative affect model was not supported. Post-hoc analyses were conducted to examine potential methodological explanations for the lack of findings in the three of the four models tested. Strengths, limitations, clinical implications and future directions are discussed.

 
AdviserAndrea Hussong
SchoolTHE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL
SourceDAI/B 67-10, p. , Feb 2007
Source TypeDissertation
SubjectsBehavioral sciences; Public health; Clinical psychology
Publication Number3239189
Adobe PDF Access the complete dissertation:
 

» Find an electronic copy at your library.
  Use the link below to access a full citation record of this graduate work:
  http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl%3furl_ver=Z39.88-2004%26res_dat=xri:pqdiss%26rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation%26rft_dat=xri:pqdiss:3239189
  If your library subscribes to the ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (PQDT) database, you may be entitled to a free electronic version of this graduate work. If not, you will have the option to purchase one, and access a 24 page preview for free (if available).

About ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
With over 2.3 million records, the ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (PQDT) database is the most comprehensive collection of dissertations and theses in the world. It is the database of record for graduate research.

The database includes citations of graduate works ranging from the first U.S. dissertation, accepted in 1861, to those accepted as recently as last semester. Of the 2.3 million graduate works included in the database, ProQuest offers more than 1.9 million in full text formats. Of those, over 860,000 are available in PDF format. More than 60,000 dissertations and theses are added to the database each year.

If you have questions, please feel free to visit the ProQuest Web site - http://www.proquest.com - or call ProQuest Hotline Customer Support at 1-800-521-3042.