- Journal List
- HHS Author Manuscripts
- PMC9278051
As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsem*nt of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice
Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2023 Dec 1.
Published in final edited form as:
Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2022 Dec; 30(6): 809–819.
Published online 2021 Nov 4. doi:10.1037/pha0000526
PMCID: PMC9278051
NIHMSID: NIHMS1818329
PMID: 34735203
Dylan K. Richards, Matthew R. Pearson, and Craig A. Field, Addiction Research Team*
Author information Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer
The publisher's final edited version of this article is available at Exp Clin Psychopharmacol
Abstract
Drinking motives, or reasons people choose to drink, are well-established risk factors for alcohol use and related negative consequences. Recent research has shown utility in a self-determination theory approach for describing motivation for engaging in behaviors that reduce the harms associated with alcohol use (i.e., drinking responsibly). In the present study, we examined the relationship between drinking motives and motivations for drinking responsibly as well as their unique and incremental associations with alcohol-related outcomes (protective behavioral strategies, consumption, and negative consequences) in two samples of college student drinkers: 1) a random sample (n=507) recruited from a Hispanic Serving Institution on the U.S. border with Mexico (Mage=22.84, SD=5.84; 67.3% female; 90.9% Hispanic), and 2) a convenience sample (n=2808) from Psychology Department research participation pools at 10 universities in 8 U.S. states (Mage=20.59, SD=4.18; 72.9% female; 58.2% non-Hispanic White). Autonomous motivations (experience of volition and choice) for drinking responsibly were negatively correlated with drinking motives, but these correlations were small-to-medium in magnitude suggesting non-redundancy between the constructs. Drinking motives were risk factors for alcohol-related outcomes, especially alcohol-related problems, and autonomous motivations for drinking responsibly were protective factors for alcohol-related outcomes, especially protective behavioral strategies. Both motivational constructs predicted alcohol-related outcomes beyond the other, but drinking motives generally accounted for more variance. These findings suggest that integrating motivation in relation to both drinking and drinking responsibly may lead to a better understanding of alcohol-related behaviors and the associated negative consequences among college students. Implications for college drinking interventions are discussed.
Keywords: alcohol, drinking motives, motivation, harm reduction, college students
The harms associated with alcohol use among U.S. college students remain a major public health burden. National surveys have found that college students report high rates of binge drinking (past two weeks) (33%) and having been drunk (past month) (35%) (Schulenberg et al., 2020). Thus, college students are an at-risk population for experiencing alcohol harms, and indeed research has identified a myriad of harms ranging from mild (e.g., hangover) to severe (e.g., physical dependence) (Read et al., 2006). A recent meta-analysis of 33 datasets comprising of over 15000 college student drinkers found that a substantial proportion of variability in alcohol harms is unexplained by consumption variables (e.g., frequency and typical quantity of past month use) (Prince et al., 2018), highlighting the need for approaches that target harm reduction directly as opposed to through reduced consumption. Specifically, engagement in harm reduction behaviors may serve as an important protective precursor to the development of alcohol problems despite heavy drinking, and research is needed to understand antecedents of harm reduction behaviors in addition to consumption to better inform alcohol interventions. Novel intervention targets, such as psychological antecedents to harm reduction behaviors, are sorely needed given that, despite decades of research, existing college drinking interventions have been found to result in only modest reductions in alcohol use (e.g., ). The present study investigated two interrelated antecedents, drinking motives and motivations for drinking responsibly, which may directly influence alcohol consumption and harm reduction behaviors, respectively, and better explain the development of alcohol problems.
Drinking Motives
Drinking motives, or reasons for choosing to drink, are proposed to be the most proximal antecedents to alcohol use (Cooper et al., 2016). According to the motivational model of alcohol use proposed by Cox and Klinger (1988, 2000), there are two dimensions that characterize the affective changes that result from drinking and therefore motivate the decision to drink: valence (positive or negative) and source (internal or external). Crossing these two dimensions yields four types of drinking motives: 1) enhancement (positive/internal; “Because you like the feeling”), 2) social (positive/external; “Because it helps you to enjoy a party”), 3) coping (negative/internal; “To forget your worries”), and 4) conformity (negative/external; “Because your friends pressure you to drink”) (Cooper, 1994). Decades of research among college students provides substantial evidence for the four types of drinking motives and the utility of drinking motives in predicting alcohol use and related harms (Kuntsche et al., 2005). There is also evidence for drinking motives as antecedents to harm reduction behaviors (Pearson, 2013). It stands to reason that those with heightened drinking motives would be less likely to use harm reduction behaviors, and vice versa, given that the underlying goals are largely incompatible. For example, someone who drinks to forget their worries would be less inclined to use behaviors to limit their consumption, such as alternating between alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks, to reach the desired level of intoxication. However, there is a need for research to identify the reasons people use harm reduction behaviors to inform intervention efforts to motivate college students to use more of these behaviors.
Harm Reduction Behaviors: Protective Behavioral Strategies Use
In addition to research demonstrating that alcohol harms are not adequately explained by consumption (Prince et al., 2018), recent research has also found that people can resolve hazardous alcohol use and alcohol dependence without abstinence, even while continuing to engage in some heavy drinking (Witkiewitz et al., 2019, 2020). These findings bolster the case for a harm reduction approach to address hazardous alcohol use among college students, which focuses on reducing the harms of alcohol as opposed to consumption per se (). Researchers commonly refer to harm reduction behaviors as protective behavioral strategies (PBS; for reviews, see Pearson, 2013; Prince et al., 2013). PBS are defined as behaviors used before, during, or after drinking to reduce alcohol use, intoxication, and harms, such as leaving the bar/party at a predetermined time, alternating between alcoholic and nonalcoholic drinks, and using a designated driver (Martens et al., 2005). There is promising evidence for PBS reducing alcohol-related harms in the context of alcohol interventions for college student drinkers, but evidence is mixed for the ability of current interventions to effectively increase PBS use (). Despite this, only recently has research attempted to explain why college students use PBS to improve the ability of interventions to effectively increase PBS use.
Motivations for Drinking Responsibly
There is cumulating evidence that self-determination theory (SDT; ) provides a useful framework for understanding what motivates people to use PBS (Richards et al., 2020d). According to SDT, those who engage in healthy behaviors for more autonomous (i.e., self-determined) reasons are more likely to initiate and persist in these healthy behaviors (Gillison et al., 2019; Ng et al., 2012; Ntoumanis et al., 2020). Indeed, recent research has found that college students endorse types of motivation for engaging in responsible drinking, which college students conceptualize as PBS use (, 2011b), that are consistent with the framework of SDT (Richards et al., 2020a, 2020b). Further, more autonomous types of motivations for drinking responsibly (e.g., “Because [drinking responsibly] is consistent with my life goals”) have been shown to be related to more frequent PBS use, less alcohol use, and fewer alcohol-related problems (Richards et al., 2020a, 2020b, 2020c). These findings provide preliminary support for leveraging SDT to increase PBS use among college student drinkers and thereby reduce the harms related to hazardous drinking.
To inform intervention efforts, research is needed that simultaneously examines drinking motives and motivations for drinking responsibly. Alcohol use and the behaviors that can be used to reduce its harmful effects are intricately related. Understanding how motivation for these related behaviors are associated with one another and with alcohol-related outcomes may provide guidance on designing interventions for reducing alcohol harm among college students. It is particularly important to determine the degree to which both drinking motives and motivations for drinking responsibly uniquely explain variability in alcohol-related outcomes (e.g., PBS, consumption, and negative consequences). If these distinct motivations predict outcomes beyond one another, it may be important for interventions to target both enhancing autonomous motivations for drinking responsibly and lowering specific drinking motives to have the largest effects. Further, the degree to which these motivations predict distinct outcomes can also inform the relative emphasis that should be placed on targeting each depending on the targeted alcohol-related outcome.
Present Study
The present study sought to address three interrelated research questions by using data from two studies that recruited large samples of college student drinkers. We used data from two studies to maximize our inferences in relation to the replicability and generalizability of the findings, especially given that different procedures were used across the studies (e.g., inclusion criteria and measures). First, what is the relationship between drinking motives and motivations for drinking responsibly, and, relatedly, what is the magnitude of these relationships? We hypothesized that drinking motives would be negatively related to more autonomous motivations for drinking responsibly, but that these associations would be small, suggesting non-redundancy. Second, how do drinking motives and motivations for drinking responsibly differentially relate to PBS, alcohol use, and alcohol-related problems? We hypothesized that motivations for drinking responsibly would be most strongly related to PBS use whereas drinking motives would be most strongly related to alcohol use as these outcomes reflect the different behavioral targets. Third, what is the relative contribution of motivations for drinking responsibly and drinking motives in predicting PBS, alcohol use, and alcohol-related problems? We hypothesized that both motivations for drinking responsibly and drinking motives would account for additional variance in alcohol-related outcomes while controlling for the other, but that the percent of additional variance would be highest in PBS use for motivations for drinking responsibly and highest in alcohol use for drinking motives. Support for these hypotheses may inform interventions that aim to reduce drinking and/or promote harm reduction behaviors to reduce the public health burden of hazardous alcohol use among college students. Lastly, given the relatively large proportions of Hispanic participants in the present studies, we conducted exploratory analyses examining ethnic differences in motivations for responsible drinking to inform personalizing/tailoring interventions promoting harm reduction behaviors.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Study 1.
Participants were 1045 college students recruited via email from a pool of 2500 randomly selected undergraduates at a Hispanic-Serving Institution on the U.S. border with Mexico (~42% response rate). Participants completed an online survey for a $5 gift and entry into a raffle to win one of five $100 gift cards. We restricted analyses to those who reported consuming alcohol in the past 3 months (n=507). The analytic sample was 22.84 years of age on average (SD=5.84) and mostly female (67.3%) and Hispanic (90.9%). Additional demographic characteristics are reported by Richards et al. (2020b). These procedures were approved by the IRB at the participating university.
Study 2.
Participants were 5497 students recruited from Psychology Department participant pools at 10 universities in 8 states across the U.S (AK, CA, CO, ID NM, TX, VA, WA) who completed an online survey for partial course credit. We restricted analyses to those who reported consuming alcohol in the past month (n=2808). The analytic sample was 20.59 years of age on average (SD=4.18) and mostly female (72.9%) and non-Hispanic white (58.2%). These procedures were approved by the IRB of record.
For both studies, we attempted to obtain the largest sample size possible over the course of the recruitment periods (two semesters for Study 1 and one semester for Study 2).
Measures
The following self-report measures were included as part of the larger online surveys to assess drinking motives, motivations for drinking responsibly, and PBS for drinking episodes in general and alcohol use and negative alcohol-related consequences in the past 3 months for Study 1 and past month for Study 2.
Motivations for drinking responsibly.
We used the 14-item version of the adapted Treatment Self-Regulation Questionnaire (TSRQ; Richards et al., 2020a, 2020b) to assess four types of motives for drinking responsibly based on SDT: autonomous motivation (6 items; “Because it is an important choice I really want to make”), introjected regulation (2 items; “Because I would feel bad about myself if I did not use alcohol responsibly”), external regulation (4 items; “Because I feel pressure from others to do so”), and amotivation (2 items; “I really don’t think about it”). Participants rate the extent to which each item is true for them using a 7-point response scale (1=Not at all true, 7=Very true), and each subscale is scored by averaging its items. Previous research has found support for desirable psychometric properties of the TSRQ among college student drinkers, including factorial validity, reliability, measurement invariance across socio-demographic groups, and concurrent validity (Richards et al., 2020a, 2020b).
Drinking motives.
A version of the Drinking Motives Questionnaire (DMQ; Cooper, 1994), the most widely used measure of drinking motives among college students, was used to assess drinking motives in both studies. In Study 1, we used the DMQ-Revised Short Form (DMQ-R SF; ). The DMQ-R SF is comprised of four subscales (3 items each): enhancement (“Because you like the feeling”), social (“Because it helps you enjoy a party”), conformity (“To fit in with a group you like”), and coping (“Because it helps when you feel depressed or nervous”). In Study 2, we used the 28-item Modified DMQ-Revised (M-DMQ-R; Grant et al., 2007) to assess five types of drinking motives: the same four motives described above, but coping is further differentiated into coping with anxiety (“To relax”) and coping with depression (“To forget my worries”). For both versions, items were responded to on a 5-point response scale (1=Almost never/Never, 5=Almost always/Always) to indicate the frequency that they have generally drank (in their lifetime) for the reason specified by each item and subscale scores were created by averaging items. Both the DMQ-R SF and M-DMQ-R have been found to be reliable and valid among college student drinkers (Grant et al., 2007; ).
PBS.
We used the 20-item version of the Protective Behavioral Strategies Scale (PBSS-20; Martens et al., 2005; revised by Treloar et al., 2015) to assess PBS use. The PBSS-20 includes three subscales representing types of PBS: Stopping/Limiting Drinking (S/LD; 7 items; “Determine not to exceed a set number of drinks”), Manner of Drinking (MOD; 5 items; “Avoid drinking games”), and Serious Harm Reduction (SHR; 8 items; “Use a designated driver”). However, we included an additional MOD item (“Avoid drinking shots of liquor”) in Study 2, which is based on a reversed-scored item (“Drink shots of liquor”) that was removed from the PBSS-20 by Treloar et al due to poor performance. Based on the results of factor analysis, we find that this item can be retained when it is modified as described above. Participants rate the frequency in which they engage in each PBS using a 6-point scale (1=Never, 6=Always) when drinking/partying. Items were averaged to create subscale scores and a total score.
Alcohol use.
In Study 1, we assessed frequency of alcohol use, typical consumption, peak consumption, and frequency of heavy drinking (4+/5+ drinks for women/men during one drinking occasion) during the past 3 months using one item each; these items were taken from the Behavioral Risk Surveillance System (). In Study 2, we used a modified version of the Daily Drinking Questionnaire (DDQ; Collins et al., 1985) to assess alcohol use during the past month. Participants completed single items assessing frequency of alcohol use, peak consumption, and frequency of heavy drinking as well as number of drinks consumed each day for a typical week. In both studies, participants were provided with a standard drink chart before responding to the alcohol use items.
Alcohol-related problems.
We used the 24-item Brief-Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire (B-YAACQ; Kahler et al., 2005) to assess alcohol-related problems, which captures the full spectrum of alcohol problem severity (“While drinking, I have said or done embarrassing things” to “I have felt like I needed a drink after I’d gotten up [that is, before breakfast]”). Items are scored using a dichotomous scale (0=No, 1=Yes) to indicate whether the problem represented by each item was experienced during the specified timeframe (past 3 months in Study 1 and past month in Study 2). The items were averaged to create a total score that indicates the proportion of the 24 problems that participants experienced.
We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions, and all measures in the study. These studies were not preregistered. Data and study materials, including a full list of the measures used in each of the larger studies, are available upon request from the first author.
Results
We used all available data and missing data were handled using listwise deletion given relatively little missingness, < 1% for each study variable across studies, except for the typical quantity variable in Study 2 derived from the DDQ for which about 7.5% of the data were missing.
Associations of Drinking Motives with Motivations for Drinking Responsibly
First, we conducted bivariate correlations to examine the associations between drinking motives and motivations for drinking responsibly (see Table 1). More autonomous types of motivation for drinking responsibly (autonomous motivation and introjected regulation) were negatively related to each drinking motive. In contrast, the less autonomous types of motivation for drinking responsibly (external regulation and amotivation) were positively related to each drinking motive.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations for Motives for Drinking Responsibly and Drinking
| Study 1 Correlations | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |
| 1. Autonomous Motivation | (.782) | ||||||||
| 2. Introjected Regulation | .486** | (.684) | |||||||
| 3. External Regulation | .147** | .118** | (.650) | ||||||
| 4. Amotivation | −.180** | −.148** | .228** | (.380) | |||||
| 5. Social Motives | −.284** | −.150** | .094* | .136** | (.937) | ||||
| 6. Coping Motives | −.296** | −.095* | .113* | .160** | .375** | (.893) | |||
| 7. Enhancement Motives | −.284** | −.169** | .072 | .174** | .684** | .427** | (.736) | ||
| 8. Conformity Motives | −.115* | −.089* | .197** | .165** | .255** | .300** | .215** | (.864) | |
| M(SD) | 4.88(1.10) | 4.74(1.50) | 3.22(1.65) | 3.02(1.86) | 2.99(1.25) | 1.94(1.09) | 2.57(1.04) | 1.56(0.88) | |
| Study 2 Correlations | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 1. Autonomous Motivation | (.899) | ||||||||
| 2. Introjected Regulation | .695** | (.841) | |||||||
| 3. External Regulation | .325** | .314** | (.836) | ||||||
| 4. Amotivation | −.305** | −.259** | .180** | (.677) | |||||
| 5. Social Motives | −.022 | −.004 | .075** | .142** | (.900) | ||||
| 6. Coping Motives - Anxiety | −.067** | −.020 | .175** | .181** | .603** | (.794) | |||
| 7. Coping Motives - Depression | −.114** | −.057** | .242** | .216** | .355** | .739** | (.950) | ||
| 8. Enhancement Motives | −.046* | −.048* | .100** | .177** | .738** | .629** | .498** | (.856) | |
| 9. Conformity Motives | −.042* | −.029 | .381** | .190** | .268** | .434** | .551** | .280** | (.907) |
| M(SD) | 5.20(1.57) | 5.25(1.79) | 2.75(1.61) | 2.83(1.72) | 3.30(1.12) | 2.38(1.07) | 1.80(1.00) | 2.88(1.08) | 1.43(0.77) |
Open in a separate window
Note. Cronbach’s alphas are presented on the diagonals.
*p < .05
**p < .01
Associations of Drinking Motives and Motivations for Drinking Responsibly with Alcohol-Related Outcomes
Second, we conducted bivariate correlations to examine the associations of motivations for drinking responsibly and drinking motives with alcohol-related outcomes (i.e., PBS, consumption, and negative consequences). Across both studies, generally, motivations for drinking responsibly demonstrated increasingly positive relations with PBS use and increasingly negative relations with alcohol use and alcohol-related problems as the type of motivation increased in autonomy (see Table 2). Greater drinking motives were generally related to less PBS use and more alcohol use and alcohol-related problems (see Table 3). However, the negative correlations with PBS use were much larger in Study 1 than in Study 2.
Table 2
Bivariate Correlations Between Motivations for Drinking Responsibly and Protective Behavioral Strategies, Alcohol Use, and Alcohol-Related Problems (and Descriptive Statistics and Reliability Estimates)
| Study 1 Correlations | M (SD) | Cronbach’s Alpha | Autonomous Motivation | Introjected Regulation | External Regulation | Amotivation |
| Protective Behavioral Strategies | ||||||
| Total Score | 4.54 (0.84) | .883 | .384** | .372** | .059 | −.155** |
| Stopping/Limiting Drinking | 4.06 (1.15) | .810 | .317** | .344** | .106* | −.103* |
| Manner of Drinking | 4.14 (1.19) | .790 | .339** | .294** | .010 | −.135** |
| Serious Harm Reduction | 5.21 (0.74) | .718 | .324** | .298** | .014 | −.164** |
| Alcohol Use (Past 3 Months) | ||||||
| Frequency | 37.93 (29.55) | - | .164** | .065 | −.064 | −.045 |
| Typical Quantity | 4.15 (3.86) | - | −.229** | −.234** | −.022 | .073 |
| Peak Quantity | 5.30 (4.54) | - | −.202** | −.177** | −.044 | .106* |
| Heavy Episodes | 5.80 (10.53) | - | −.143** | −.126** | .080 | .112* |
| Alcohol-Related Problems | 0.17 (0.18) | .879 | −.263** | −.136** | .081 | .081 |
| Study 2 Correlations | M (SD) | Cronbach’s Alpha | Autonomous Motivation | Introjected Regulation | External Regulation | Amotivation |
| Protective Behavioral Strategies | ||||||
| Total Score | 3.84 (0.95) | .925 | .328** | .309** | .048* | −.184** |
| Stopping/Limiting Drinking | 3.33 (1.18) | .854 | .287** | .270** | .099** | −.169** |
| Manner of Drinking | 3.32 (1.22) | .868 | .286** | .251** | .039* | −.164** |
| Serious Harm Reduction | 4.67 (1.06) | .914 | .245** | .250** | −.018 | −.128** |
| Alcohol Use (Past Month) | ||||||
| Frequency | 5.80 (5.73) | - | −.125** | −.108** | .018 | .127** |
| Typical Quantity | 2.32 (2.19) | - | −.146** | −.135** | .028 | .180** |
| Peak Quantity | 5.14 (3.92) | - | −.136** | −.136** | −.002 | .147** |
| Heavy Episodes | 2.12 (3.60) | - | −.157** | −.145** | .029 | .180** |
| Alcohol-Related Problems | 0.19 (0.20) | .906 | −.151** | −.096** | .162** | .199** |
Open in a separate window
Note.
*p < .05
**p < .01.
The correlations for Study 1 were previously reported by Richards et al. (2020b), but they are reported again in this paper to directly compare to the correlations for drinking motives with alcohol-related outcomes, which have not been previously reported. Richards et al. (2020b) conducted these correlations to test the concurrent validity of the TSRQ.
Table 3
Bivariate Correlations Between Drinking Motives and Protective Behavioral Strategies, Alcohol Use, and Alcohol-Related Problems
| Study 1 Correlations | Social Motives | Coping Motives | Enhancement Motives | Conformity Motives | |
| Protective Behavioral Strategies | |||||
| Total Score | −.449** | −.327** | −.492** | −.154** | |
| Stopping/Limiting Drinking | −.356** | −.244** | −.370** | −.077 | |
| Manner of Drinking | −.496** | −.321** | −.553** | −.124** | |
| Serious Harm Reduction | −.298** | −.277** | −.345** | −.209** | |
| Alcohol Use (Past 3 Months) | |||||
| Frequency | −.348** | −.230** | −.305** | .033 | |
| Typical Quantity | .282** | .171** | .246** | .022 | |
| Peak Quantity | .337** | .209** | .342** | −.026 | |
| Heavy Episodes | .286** | .232** | .301** | .175** | |
| Alcohol-Related Problems | .414** | .431** | .437** | .261** | |
| Study 2 Correlations | Social Motives | Coping - Anxiety Motives | Coping - Depression Motives | Enhancement Motives | Conformity Motives |
| Protective Behavioral Strategies | |||||
| Total Score | −.115** | −.137** | −.166** | −.172** | −.111** |
| Stopping/Limiting Drinking | −.084** | −.085** | −.084** | −.115** | −.027 |
| Manner of Drinking | −.294** | −.202** | −.189** | −.338** | −.090** |
| Serious Harm Reduction | .067** | −.064** | −.143** | .002 | −.157** |
| Alcohol Use (Past Month) | |||||
| Frequency | .197** | .217** | .195** | .230** | .030 |
| Typical Quantity | .270** | .193** | .161** | .314** | .071** |
| Peak Quantity | .279** | .172** | .157** | .315** | .057** |
| Heavy Episodes | .226** | .203** | .209** | .280** | .055** |
| Alcohol-Related Problems | .304** | .356** | .393** | .345** | .292** |
Open in a separate window
Note.
*p < .05
**p < .01
Relative Contributions of Drinking Motives and Motivations for Drinking Responsibly to Explained Variance in Alcohol-Related Outcomes
To test the relative contributions of motivations for drinking responsibly and drinking motives, we conducted two sets of hierarchical linear regressions predicting overall PBS use, number of heavy drinking episodes, and alcohol-related problems. We used one variable for PBS use (i.e., PBSS-20 total score) and one variable for alcohol use (i.e., number of heavy drinking episodes) to minimize repeated testing. Number of heavy drinking episodes was chosen because it is the indicator of consumption that has the largest association with negative consequences (Prince et al., 2018). In the first set of regressions, we tested the relative contribution of motivations for drinking responsibly (entered in Step 2) above and beyond drinking motives (entered in Step 1). In the second set of regressions, we tested the relative contribution of drinking motives (entered in Step 2) above and beyond motivations for drinking responsibly (entered in Step 1). Motivations for drinking responsibly accounted for an additional 9.5% and 11.3% of the variability in PBS use beyond drinking motives in Studies 1 and 2, respectively (see Table 4). Motivations for drinking responsibly accounted for a small but statistically significant proportion of variability beyond drinking motives in heavy drinking episodes (3.1%) and alcohol-related problems (2.4%) in Study 2 but the ΔR2 were not statistically significant for these outcomes in Study 1. In Studies 1 and 2, drinking motives explained additional variability in PBS use (17.6% and 2.2%), heavy drinking episodes (18.8% and 7.6%), and alcohol-related problems (21.6% and 13.9%) beyond motivations for drinking responsibly (see Table 5).
Table 4
Regression of Protective Behavioral Strategies (PBS), Heavy Drinking Episodes, and Alcohol-Related Problems on Motivations for Drinking Responsibly While Controlling for Drinking Motives
| Study 1 | ||||||
| PBS | Heavy Episodes | Problems | ||||
| Predictor | ΔR2 | β | ΔR2 | β | ΔR2 | β |
| Step 1 | .279** | .121** | .291** | |||
| Social | −.187** | .110 | .144** | |||
| Coping | −.116** | .088 | .251** | |||
| Enhancement | −.311** | .174** | .213** | |||
| Conformity | −.024 | .094* | .117** | |||
| Step 2 | .095** | .006 | .009 | |||
| Autonomous | .104* | −.001 | −.090 | |||
| Introjected | .228** | −.068 | −.017 | |||
| External | .073 | .035 | .033 | |||
| Amotivation | −.031 | .024 | −.056 | |||
| Study 2 | ||||||
| PBS | Heavy Episodes | Problems | ||||
| Predictor | ΔR2 | β | ΔR2 | β | ΔR2 | β |
| Step 1 | .039** | .093** | .197** | |||
| Social | .016 | .078** | .110** | |||
| Coping - Anxiety | .047 | −.059 | −.015 | |||
| Coping - Depression | −.118** | .179** | .252** | |||
| Enhancement | −.144** | .197** | .122** | |||
| Conformity | −.029 | −.093** | .095** | |||
| Step 2 | .113** | .031** | .024** | |||
| Autonomous | .207** | −.082** | −.135** | |||
| Introjected | .154** | −.072** | −.004 | |||
| External | −.029 | .057** | .107** | |||
| Amotivation | −.039 | .082** | .044* | |||
Open in a separate window
Note.
*p < .05
**p < .01
Table 5
Regression of Protective Behavioral Strategies (PBS), Heavy Drinking Episodes, and Alcohol-Related Problems on Drinking Motives While Controlling for Motivations for Drinking Responsibly
| Study 1 | ||||||
| PBS | Heavy Episodes | Problems | ||||
| Predictor | ΔR2 | β | ΔR2 | β | ΔR2 | β |
| Step 1 | .198** | .039** | .084** | |||
| Autonomous | .254** | −.109* | −.272** | |||
| Introjected | .236** | −.075 | −.018 | |||
| External | .011 | .091* | .123** | |||
| Amotivation | −.076 | .061 | .002 | |||
| Step 2 | .176** | .188** | .216** | |||
| Social | −.164** | .106 | .129* | |||
| Coping | −.096* | .084 | .235** | |||
| Enhancement | −.268** | .162** | .209** | |||
| Conformity | −.020 | .081 | .117** | |||
| Study 2 | ||||||
| PBS | Heavy Episodes | Problems | ||||
| Predictor | ΔR2 | β | ΔR2 | β | ΔR2 | β |
| Step 1 | .130** | .048** | .082** | |||
| Autonomous | .218** | −.091** | −.180** | |||
| Introjected | .160** | −.068* | −.007 | |||
| External | −.061** | .057** | .204** | |||
| Amotivation | −.063** | .125** | .105** | |||
| Step 2 | .022** | .076** | .139** | |||
| Social | .005 | .082** | .115** | |||
| Coping - Anxiety | .031 | −.050 | −.010 | |||
| Coping - Depression | −.069* | .147** | .219** | |||
| Enhancement | −.127** | .184** | .117** | |||
| Conformity | −.020 | −.120** | .056** | |||
Open in a separate window
Note.
*p < .05
**p < .01
We conducted a sensitivity analysis for each regression model where outliers on the dependent variable were removed, which were identified using box plots. The substantive conclusions of these analyses did not differ from the original analyses and thus we do not present these results further.
Exploratory Analyses: Differences Across Hispanic and non-Hispanic Identifying Participants in Study 2
Finally, we conducted independent sample t-tests on the TSRQ subscales between Hispanic (n = 741) and non-Hispanic (n = 2047) identifying participants in Study 2 as well as bivariate correlations between the TSRQ subscales and all other study variables separately for each group. These analyses were exploratory and limited to Study 2 given that the Study 1 sample was ~91% Hispanic and thus statistical power was a concern. Hispanic participants were higher on introjected regulation (p = .023) and lower on external regulation and amotivation than non-Hispanic participants (ps < .01); however, these differences were small (d = |.098| to |.198|). The correlations between the TSRQ subscales and all other study variables were largely consistent in regard to sign, magnitude, and statistical significance across groups—these results are not presented further.
Discussion
The present study examined the relative contributions of drinking motives and motivations for drinking responsibly in predicting alcohol-related outcomes among college students. In part, we sought to understand the interrelationships between drinking motives and motivations for drinking responsibly to determine the degree to which they complement each other or are redundant. Generally, more autonomous forms of motivation for drinking responsibly were negatively correlated with drinking motives, whereas less autonomous forms of motivation for drinking responsibly were positively correlated with drinking motives. This pattern of correlations is generally consistent with prior work showing that more autonomous types of motivations for responsibly drinking are protective and that most drinking motives are well-established risk factors for negative alcohol-related outcomes (Richards et al., 2020a, 2020b, 2020c). These associations were small-to-medium in magnitude, suggesting that these distinct motives are not redundant. Thus, motivations for drinking responsibly are not simply the inverse of drinking motives, rather they represent distinct forms of motivation related to drinking. In other words, weaker drinking motives do not necessarily imply more autonomous motivations for drinking responsibly, and vice versa.
Most importantly, we sought to determine the relationship of drinking motives and motivations for drinking responsibly with various drinking outcomes including PBS use, heavy drinking episodes, and alcohol-related problems. Across both studies, more autonomous motivations for drinking responsibly were significantly associated with increased PBS use, lower alcohol use, and experiencing fewer alcohol-related problems, consistent with previous research (Richards et al., 2020a, 2020b, 2020c). Also consistent with this prior research is the fact that these relationships were strongest for PBS use. Mirroring a large literature (Kuntsche et al., 2005), coping motives (or coping-depression motives in Study 2) were most robustly associated with alcohol-related problems; conformity motives were inconsistently related to alcohol use, but positively associated with alcohol-related problems; and enhancement motives were most robustly associated with alcohol use. Although the general pattern of correlations was largely consistent across studies, there were some notable differences. In particular, the correlations between drinking motives and PBS use were much larger in Study 1 than Study 2. This does not seem to be due to differences in the measurement of drinking motives as we were able to equate the subscales in Study 2 to the subscales in Study 1; the Study 2 measure had more items and included the items in the Study 1 measure. However, the general magnitude of the correlations was the same as the original results. It is unclear why there were differences in the magnitude of the correlations between drinking motives and PBS across studies. Future research is needed to investigate the factors that influence this association, which may inform intervention efforts by identifying college student drinkers for whom drinking motives pose the greatest risk for less use of PBS. That said, the finding that more autonomous motivations for drinking responsibly are a protective factor, especially for PBS, and drinking motives are a risk factor, especially for alcohol harms, was entirely consistent across studies. This lends preliminary support to differential profiles of these two conceptualizations of motivation with alcohol outcomes that may have implications for alcohol interventions.
As a head-to-head comparison, drinking motives predicted alcohol-related outcomes more robustly than motivations for drinking responsibly, except for the prediction of PBS use in Study 2. That said, in both studies motivations for drinking responsibly explained a non-trivial proportion of variability in PBS use (9.5%−11.3%). This finding lends further support to an SDT framework for understanding responsible drinking as it extends prior work by demonstrating its utility beyond the motivational model of alcohol use. Taken another way, the findings further support drinking motives as robust predictors of alcohol outcomes as they generally outperformed a novel conceptualization of motivation for alcohol-related behavior based on SDT, which has immense support across behavioral domains (). Notably, however, drinking motives have been subjected to decades of research, including various iterations of the DMQ based on psychometric analysis. In contrast, the assessment of motivations for drinking responsibly is nascent, and significant improvements are needed, like expanding the number of items for some subscales (Richards et al., 2020a, 2020b). Although research supports that using PBS is how individuals tend to think about responsible drinking (, 2011b), there are other potential ways of operationalizing responsible drinking (e.g., minimizing harms to others vs. minimizing harms to self, maximizing benefits while minimizing harms). The relative contributions of drinking motives and motivations for responsible drinking warrants further attention as measurement of motivations for responsible drinking improves. Despite this, motivations for responsible drinking did add to the explanation of PBS use, supporting the consideration of both conceptualizations of motivation. Taken together, these findings suggest that drinking motives and motivations per SDT for drinking responsibly are non-redundant constructs that are differentially associated with alcohol outcomes as the former is a risk factor primarily for alcohol harms and the latter is a protective factor primarily for PBS use. Further, each contribute uniquely to alcohol outcomes, although the contribution of motivations for responsible drinking was primarily to PBS use.
The primary contribution of the present studies is the consideration of motivations for responsible drinking in college drinking interventions to promote PBS use. Thus, given the existence of health disparities regarding alcohol-related outcomes among Hispanic college students (e.g., Sheilds et al., 2016), we conducted exploratory analyses testing differences between Hispanic and non-Hispanic participants relating to motivations for responsible drinking. There were no differences between groups on autonomous motivation, but Hispanic participants were higher on introjected regulation and lower on external regulation and amotivation than non-Hispanic participants. These findings may suggest that Hispanic college students have a more self-determined motivational profile for drinking responsibly and thus may be particularly responsive to intervention efforts targeting the facilitation of self-determined motivation. However, these differences were small and, given the exploratory nature of these analyses, warrant replication. Also, the associations between the types of motivation for responsible drinking and other study variables, including drinking motives, PBS, alcohol use, and alcohol-related problems, were mostly consistent across groups. This finding provides some support for the proposal of SDT that greater self-determination of motivation universally contributes to health-promoting behaviors (). It is important that future work continues to investigate cultural differences (or lack thereof) in motivations for responsible drinking to combat alcohol-related disparities as research has shown that PBS use may protect against factors contributing to these disparities, such as discrimination (Lopez et al., 2020). Investigating the true cultural mechanisms underlying such differences is especially important as racial/ethnic groups are a poor proxy for such mechanisms.
Limitations
The findings of the present study should be interpreted in consideration of the following. First, the data are cross-sectional which prevents causal inference and limited our ability to determine whether drinking motives or motivations for drinking responsibly were more predictive of future alcohol outcomes. Second, despite large and diverse samples in the present studies, the relatively low response rate in Study 1, although commensurate with similar studies, and the convenience sampling approach of Study 2 limit the generalizability of the findings to the population of U.S. college students. Replication studies are needed to determine the extent to which the findings generalize. Third, as mentioned previously, improvements to the measurement of motivations for responsible drinking per SDT are needed given low reliability estimates for the subscales, especially the amotivation subscale. Psychometric evaluations of the responsible drinking version as well as other versions of the TSRQ consistent find low reliability for the amotivation subscale (Levesque et al., 2007; Richards et al., 2020a, 2020b), which is likely due, in part, to the subscale having only two items. Richards and colleagues (2020a) provide specific recommendations for increasing the number of amotivation items to improve content validity. Low reliability attenuates effect size (e.g., Henson, 2001) and the relationships between amotivation and the other study variables need to be re-examined in future research as measurement improves. Further, the generally poorer reliability of the TSRQ in Study 1 may have contributed to discrepancies in the findings across studies, although, as discussed previously, both studies supported the same overall conclusions. Future work is needed to determine if there are true differences in these relations across subpopulations of college student drinkers or if the discrepancies found across studies in the present study may have been due to measurement issues. Finally, although the use of data from two studies is a strength, and consistencies in findings improve our inferences, inconsistencies, such as the magnitude of the correlations between drinking motives and PBS use across studies, are cause for caution in interpretation and warrant future research.
Conclusions
Despite these considerations, using data from two large, diverse samples of college student drinkers, we show that motivations for drinking responsibly may be important to consider in future research and interventions in addition to drinking motives. These findings have important implications for both future alcohol research and interventions among college students. In terms of future research, the present study demonstrates the importance of considering both drinking motives and motivations for drinking responsibly to better understand alcohol outcomes among college students. That is, how do these unique motivational pathways simultaneously and, potentially, synergistically, affect alcohol-related behaviors and the consequences of those behaviors? SDT provides a rich theoretical framework that may be useful for informing alcohol interventions, and thus more work is needed to follow up on these findings that investigate how motivation for both drinking and drinking responsibly contribute uniquely and in combination to alcohol-related behaviors and associated consequences. In terms of future alcohol interventions, effects may be maximized by targeting both the reductions in drinking motives as well as the increase in autonomous motivations for responsible drinking. However, in other cases, it may be more beneficial to target motivation for drinking or drinking responsibly over the other. For example, it may be most important to target drinking motives among particularly heavy drinking college students but targeting autonomous motivations for drinking responsibly may serve as an effective preventative intervention by promoting PBS use. In conclusion, there has been little progress toward bolstering the effectiveness of alcohol interventions for college students. The present study is an initial step toward integrating the most proximal antecedents (motivation) to drinking and harm reduction behaviors. Better understanding how to target both reductions in drinking and increased engagement in harm reduction behaviors may provide a new avenue for which to improve college drinking interventions.
Public significance statement:
The present study found initial support for the utility of both motivation for drinking and drinking responsibly in explaining alcohol use, its associated negative consequences, and behaviors that protect against these negative consequences among college students. These findings may inform interventions for college students that aim to address the public health burden of alcohol use among this at-risk population.
Acknowledgments
This project was completed by the Addictions Research Team (ART), which includes the following investigators: Matthew R. Pearson, University of New Mexico (Coordinating PI); Adrian J. Bravo, William & Mary (site PI); Bradley T. Conner, Colorado State University – Fort Collins (site PI); Carrie Cuttler, Washington State University (site PI); Craig A. Field, University of Texas at El Paso (site PI); Vivian Gonzalez, University of Alaska - Anchorage (site PI); James M. Henson, Old Dominion University (site PI); Jon M. Houck, Mind Research Network; Kevin M. King, University of Washington (site PI); Benjamin O. Ladd, Washington State University (site PI); Kevin S. Montes, California State University – Dominguez Hills (site PI); Mark A. Prince, Colorado State University – Fort Collins (site PI); Maria M. Wong, Idaho State University (site PI).
The ideas and data appearing in this manuscript were previously disseminated as a poster presentation at the 44th Annual Research Society on Alcoholism Scientific Meeting. These studies were not preregistered. Data and study materials are available upon request from the first author. We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
DKR is supported by an individual training grant (F32-AA028712) from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). MRP is supported by a career development grant (K01-AA023233) from the NIAAA. NIAAA had no role in the study design, collection, analysis or interpretation of the data, writing the manuscript, or the decision to submit the paper for publication.
Contributor Information
Dylan K. Richards, Center on Alcohol, Substance Use, And Addictions (CASAA), University of New Mexico.
Matthew R. Pearson, Center on Alcohol, Substance Use, And Addictions (CASAA), University of New Mexico.
Craig A. Field, Latino Alcohol and Health Disparities Research and Training (LAHDR) Center, Department of Psychology, University of Texas at El Paso.
References
- Barry AE, & Goodson P (2011a). How college students conceptualize and practice responsible drinking. Journal of American College Health, 59, 304–312. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Barry AE, & Goodson P (2011b). Developing and testing the CHORDS: Characteristics of responsible drinking survey. American Journal of Health Promotion, 25, e11–e21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2019,
April ). Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/brfss/ [Google Scholar] - Collins RL, Parks GA, & Marlatt GA (1985). Social determinants of alcohol consumption: The effects of social interaction and model status on the self-administration of alcohol. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 189–200. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cooper ML (1994). Motivations for alcohol use among adolescents: Development and validation of a four-factor model. Psychological Assessment, 6, 117–128. [Google Scholar]
- Cooper ML, Kuntsche E, Levitt A, Barber L, & Wolf S (2016). A motivational perspective on substance use: Review of theory and research. In Sher KJ (Ed.), Oxford handbook of substance use disorders (pp. 375–421). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Cox WM, & Klinger E (1988). A motivational model of alcohol use. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 168–180. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cox WM, & Klinger E (2000). Incentive motivation, affective change, and alcohol use: A model. In Cox WM (Ed.), Why people drink (pp. 291–311). Gardner Press. [Google Scholar]
- Gillison FB, Rouse P, Standage M, Sebire SJ, & Ryan RM (2019). A meta-analysis of techniques to promote motivation for health behaviour change from a self-determination theory perspective. Health Psychology Review, 13, 110–130. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Grant VV, Stewart SH, O’Connor RM, Blackwell E, & Conrod PJ (2007). Psychometric evaluation of the five-factor Modified Drinking Motives Questionnaire-Revised in undergraduates. Addictive Behaviors, 32, 2611–2632. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kahler CW, Strong DR, & Read JP (2005). Toward efficient and comprehensive measurement of the alcohol problems continuum in college students: The Brief Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 29, 1180–1189. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Henson RK (2001). Understanding internal consistency reliability estimates: A conceptual primer on coefficient alpha. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 177–189. [Google Scholar]
- Kuntsche E, Knibbe R, Gmel G, & Engels R (2005). Why do young people drink? A review of drinking motives. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 841–861. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kuntsche E, & Kuntsche S (2009). Development and validation of the Drinking Motive Questionnaire Revised Short Form (DMQ–R SF). Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 38, 899–908. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Marlatt GA, & Witkiewitz K (2002). Harm reduction approaches to alcohol use: Health promotion, prevention, and treatment. Addictive Behaviors, 27, 867–886. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Levesque CS, Williams GC, Elliot D, Pickering MA, Bodenhamer B, & Finley PJ (2007). Validating the theoretical structure of the Treatment Self-Regulation Questionnaire (TSRQ) across three different health behaviors. Health Education Research, 22, 691–702. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Martens MP, Ferrier AG, Sheehy MJ, Corbett K, Anderson DA, & Simmons A (2005). Development of the Protective Behavioral Strategies Survey. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 66, 698–705. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lopez CI, Richards DK, & Field CA (2020). Perceived discrimination and alcohol-related problems among Hispanic college students: The protective role of serious harm reduction behaviors. Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse. Advance online publication. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ng JY, Ntoumanis N, Thøgersen-Ntoumani C, Deci EL, Ryan RM, Duda JL, & Williams GC (2012). Self-determination theory applied to health contexts: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 325–340. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ntoumanis N, Ng JYY, Prestwich A, Quested E, Hancox JE, Thøgersen-Ntoumani C, Deci EL, Ryan RM, Lonsdale C, & Williams GC (2020). A meta-analysis of self-determination theory-informed intervention studies in the health domain: Effects on motivation, health behavior, physical, and psychological health. Health Psychology Review. Advance online publication. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pearson MR (2013). Use of alcohol protective behavioral strategies among college students: A critical review. Clinical Psychology Review, 33, 1025–1040. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Prince MA, Carey KB, & Maisto SA (2013). Protective behavioral strategies for reducing alcohol involvement: A review of the methodological issues. Addictive Behaviors, 38, 2343–2351. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Prince MA, Pearson MR, Bravo AJ, & Montes KS (2018). A quantification of the alcohol use-consequences association in college student and clinical populations: A large, multi-sample study. The American Journal on Addictions, 27, 116–123. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Read JP, Kahler CW, Strong DR, & Colder CR (2006). Development and preliminary validation of the young adult alcohol consequences questionnaire. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 67, 169–177. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Reid AE, & Carey KB (2015). Interventions to reduce college student drinking: State of the evidence for mechanisms of behavior change. Clinical Psychology Review, 40, 213–224. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Richards DK, Morera OF, & Field CA (2020a). The psychometric properties of a version of the Treatment Self-Regulation Questionnaire for assessing motivations for responsible drinking. Journal of American College Health. Advance online publication. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Richards DK, Pearson MR, & Field CA (2020b). Further validation of the Treatment Self-Regulation Questionnaire for assessing motivations for responsible drinking: A test of self-determination theory. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology. Advance online publication. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Richards DK, Pearson MR, & Field CA (2020c). Profiles of motivations for responsible drinking among college students: A self-determination theory perspective. Addictive Behaviors, 111, 106550. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Richards DK, Pearson MR, & Witkiewitz K (2020d). Understanding alcohol harm reduction behaviors from the perspective of self-determination theory: a research agenda. Addiction Research & Theory, 1–6. Advance online publication. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ryan RM, & Deci EL (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford. [Google Scholar]
- Ryan RM, Patrick H, Deci EL, & Williams GC (2008). Facilitating health behaviour change and its maintenance: Interventions based on self-determination theory. The European Health Psychologist, 10, 2–5. [Google Scholar]
- Samson JE, & Tanner-Smith EE (2015). Single-session alcohol interventions for heavy drinking college students: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 76, 530–543. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schulenberg JE, Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG, Miech RA & Patrick ME (2020). Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2019: Volume II, College students and adults ages 19–60. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. Available at http://monitoringthefuture.org/pubs.html#monographs [Google Scholar]
- Shields JD, Archiopoli AM, Bentley JM, Weiss D, Hoffmann J, White JM, Sharp MK, Hong Z, & Kimura M (2016). Binge-drinking attitudes and behaviors among Hispanic and non-Hispanic college students: Suggestions for tailoring health campaign messages. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 38, 243–263. [Google Scholar]
- Task Force on Recommended Alcohol Questions of the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (2003). Recommended alcohol questions. Retrieved from: https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/research/guidelines-and-resources/recommended-alcohol-questions
- Treloar H, Martens MP, & McCarthy DM (2015). The Protective Behavioral Strategies Scale-20: Improved content validity of the Serious Harm Reduction subscale. Psychological Assessment, 27, 340–346. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Witkiewitz K, Pearson MR, Wilson AD, Stein ER, Votaw VR, Hallgren KA, Maisto SA, Swan JE, Schwebel FJ, Aldridge A, Zarkin GA, & Tucker JA (2020). Can alcohol use disorder recovery include some heavy drinking? A replication and extension up to 9 years following treatment. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 44, 1862–1874. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Witkiewitz K, Wilson AD, Pearson MR, Montes KS, Kirouac M, Roos CR, Hallgren KA, & Maisto SA (2019). Profiles of recovery from alcohol use disorder at three years following treatment: can the definition of recovery be extended to include high functioning heavy drinkers?Addiction, 114, 69–80. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
