Addictive Behaviors 34 (2009) Contents lists available at ScienceDirect. Addictive Behaviors

Transcription

1 Addictive Behaviors 34 (2009) Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Addictive Behaviors Situational and respondent-level motives for drinking and alcohol-related aggression: A multilevel analysis of drinking events in a sample of Canadian University students Ljiljana Mihic a,, Samantha Wells b,c, Kathryn Graham b,d, Paul F. Tremblay b,d, Andrée Demers e a Department of Psychology, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia b Social Prevention and Health Policy Research Department, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, London, Ontario, Canada c Department of Epidemiology, University of Western Ontario, Canada d Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, Canada e Health and Prevention Social Research Group (GRASP), University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada article info abstract Keywords: Alcohol Situational drinking motives Respondent-level drinking motives Aggression College students Situational drinking motives (i.e., motives specific to the drinking situation) as well as respondent-level drinking motives (i.e., usual drinking motives across drinking situations) were examined in terms of their relations with aggression experienced by university students. Secondary, multi-level analyses were conducted on the Canadian Campus Survey (CCS), a national survey of 40 Canadian universities conducted between March 1 and April 30, 2004 (N=6 282). For their three most recent drinking events, students reported their motive for drinking (i.e., situational motive) and whether they had an argument/fight. Respondent-level drinking motives were computed by averaging motives across drinking events. Drinking to cope at the situational-level increased the likelihood of aggression. Respondent-level enhancement motives also increased the risk of aggression. Aesthetic motives were important at both situational and respondent levels decreasing the risk for alcohol-related aggression. Gender did not moderate these relations. These results suggest that prevention programming might benefit from a focus on altering drinking motives, or their underlying causes, in order to reduce alcohol-related aggression among young adults Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Alcohol-related aggression is an important social problem among university and college students (Nicholson, Maney, Blair, & Wamboldt, 1998; Perkins, 2002). Evidence has shown that individual characteristics, alcohol consumption, and drinking contexts are linked to aggression (Wells, Mihic, Tremblay, Graham, & Demers, 2008); however, an unexplored factor that may affect the likelihood of aggression is the motive for drinking. Previous research (Cox & Klinger, 1990) has identified different types of drinking motives including: (a) coping motives (i.e., drinking to reduce or eliminate negative emotions), (b) enhancement motives (i.e., drinking to enhance positive mood or well-being), (c) social motives (i.e., drinking to obtain positive social reward), (d) conformity motives (i.e., drinking to avoid social rejection), and (e) aesthetic motives (i.e., enjoy the taste, adding to the enjoyment of a This research was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to Samantha Wells (Research in Addictions: Innovative Approaches in Health Research Secondary Analysis Grant, RAS 79983). Corresponding author. University of Novi Sad, Department of Psychology, Dr Zorana Djindjica 2, Novi Sad, Serbia. Tel./fax: address: ljiljanamihic@hotmail.com (L. Mihic). meal) (Kairouz, Gliksman, Demers, & Adlaf, 2002). Motives for drinking may be influenced by a variety of factors that are linked to aggression such as emotional or other affective states or personality characteristics such as sensation seeking. Studies have shown that coping motives, for example, are associated with destruction of property, accidents, trouble with authorities, heavier, problematic drinking, and drinking problems (Bradley, Carmen, & Petree, 1992; Cooper, 1994; Karwacki & Bredley, 1996). Drinking to cope with negative mood states may heighten sensitivity to provoking stimuli or may be indicative of underlying psychosocial problems associated with aggression. Congruent with this hypothesis, distress is linked to both aggression (Cable & Sacker, 2007; Wade & Pevalin, 2005) and coping motives (Ham & Hope, 2003). Thus, it is important to account for psychological distress when examining the relation between drinking motives (particularly coping motives) and aggression when drinking. Enhancement motives, or drinking to get high or drunk, have been found to be predictive of alcohol-related problems (i.e., heavy alcohol use, frequent binge drinking, and intoxication) (Cooper, 1994; McCabe, 2002; Wechsler & Rohman, 1981). West, Drummond, and Eames (1990) found that the single item drinking to become drunk was correlated with performing actions when drunk which were later /$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi: /j.addbeh

2 L. Mihic et al. / Addictive Behaviors 34 (2009) regretted. In addition, enhancement motives were predictive of situational alcohol intake (Kairouz et al., 2002), which, in another study, was associated with situational aggression (Wells et al., 2008). Together, these findings suggest that enhancement motives may increase the risk of aggression through heavier drinking. Thus, it is important to account for situational alcohol intake when examining the relation between drinking motives and aggression. Alternatively, enhancement motives may be linked to underlying personality characteristics, such as sensation seeking (Ham & Hope, 2003), that are more directly linked to aggression (Baer, 2002). Several studies (e.g., Cooper, Russell, Skinner, & Windle, 1992; Cooper, 1994; Labouvie & Bates, 2002) have found social motives to be negatively associated with drinking problems; however, other studies have documented a positive association between social motives, delinquency, bullying, and fighting (Bradley et al., 1992; Kuntsche, Knibbe, Engels, & Gmel, 2007). These conflicting findings indicate a need for research that can better identify the relation between social motives and problems such as aggression, while controlling for other relevant factors. Given that social motives for drinking may reflect a desire to seek positive social encounters, one might expect social motives to reduce the likelihood of aggression. Regarding aesthetic motives, Kairouz et al. (2002) reported that drinking alcohol for its taste or to complement a meal was less likely to result in heavy drinking as compared to drinking for other reasons, such as drinking to get drunk and to forget worries. Moreover, social rule violations, such as loud, boisterous or aggressive behaviour, may be less acceptable in drinking situations in which individuals are drinking for aesthetic reasons or among individuals who tend to drink for these reasons. Therefore, alcohol-related problems such as aggression may be less likely when individuals drink for aesthetic reasons compared to other reasons. Most research on drinking motives has included the implicit assumption that motives represent stable individual difference variables. However, it is also possible that drinking motives vary within individuals depending on the situation. Kairouz et al. (2002) demonstrated that situational drinking motives were associated with situational alcohol consumption, controlling for factors such as drinking circumstance, location, day of the week, group size, type of relationship, drinking norms, and type of residence. By conceptualizing and measuring drinking motives as both situational and respondent-level variables, the present study aims to assess the relative roles in explaining aggression of drinking motives that reflect respondent-level motivational tendencies versus motives that are specific to the drinking situation regardless of usual drinking motives. Finally, drinking motives that are important in explaining alcoholrelated aggression may differ for males and females. Schall, Weede, and Maltzman's (1991) study of college students found that drinking to cope with negative feelings predicted drinking frequency and problems at 2-year follow-up among females but not among males. Ham and Hope (2003) suggested that the associations between coping motives, drinking frequency, and drinking problems were stronger for females than males, particularly for those in distress. On the other hand, Holahan, Moos, Holahan, Cronkite, and Randall (2003) found no significant interaction between drinking to cope and gender in the prediction of alcohol consumption and drinking problems. Thus, given inconsistencies in relations between drinking motives and alcoholrelated problems by gender, it is important to consider possible interactions between gender and drinking motives in explaining alcohol-related aggression. The main objectives of the present research are as follows: 1) to assess the extent that situational- and respondent-level drinking motives explain the likelihood of alcohol-related aggression controlling for alcohol consumption and distress level; and 2) to test for gender differences in the relation between drinking motives and alcohol-related aggression. 1. Methods The study involves secondary analysis of the Canadian Campus Survey (CCS), a national survey of Canadian universities. Of 64 universities (69 campuses) initially contacted, 40 universities (45 campuses) agreed to participate in a study focusing on the determinants of hazardous drinking (for more details regarding the study, see Adlaf, Demers, & Gliksman, 2005). From the 40 participating universities, a random sample of full-time university undergraduate students was asked to participate, among whom 6282 (41%) completed a questionnaire. This response rate, while lower than desirable, is similar to response rates obtained in other surveys of university/college populations (see Porter & Umbach, 2006 who show that the mean response rate across university/college surveys is 43%). For the present analyses, the sample was restricted to 4336 respondents aged who provided data about their most recent drinking events in the previous month (i.e., past month drinkers) and among whom data were non-missing for all respondent-level characteristics. The data consisted of three levels of analysis: drinking events (Level 1) nested within respondents (Level 2), who were, in turn, nested within university campuses (Level 3). 2. Measures 2.1. Situational variables (Level 1) Respondents who reported drinking in the previous month were asked to provide detailed information about their three most recent drinking events Outcome variable The outcome measure for the present analyses is whether aggression was experienced on each event. Respondents were asked whether they got into an argument or a fight with someone (yes, no) Situational drinking motives Respondents were asked to select the most important reason for their consumption of alcohol for each drinking event. The list of reasons included the following mutually exclusive categories: to be sociable, to add to the enjoyment of a meal, to help me relax, to forget my worries, to feel less inhibited or shy, to get high or drunk, to celebrate, to enjoy the taste, and other. Using Cooper's Drinking Motive Questionnaire-Revised (1994) as a guiding classification scheme, the drinking motives were categorized into five groups: social (to be sociable, to celebrate); coping (to help me relax, to forget my worries, and to feel less inhibited or shy); enhancement (to get high or drunk); aesthetic (add to the enjoyment of a meal, to enjoy the taste); and other Situational control variables Additional situational variables found to be associated with aggression in previous analyses of these data (Wells, Mihic, Tremblay, Graham, & Demers, 2008) were included in the present analyses to assess the incremental role of drinking motives in explaining aggression. These include: total alcohol intake (sum of the consumption of three beverage-specific items per occasion measured in standard drinks); the circumstance in which drinking occurred (party vs. a combined category of get together/no specific circumstance/other); location (residence/fraternity/sorority, bar/disco/pub/ tavern vs. someone's home/restaurant/other); number of different places where drinking occurred (more than 2 vs. 2 or less); having a meal during the drinking occasion (yes vs. no); and whether partner/ spouse/regular girlfriend/boyfriend was present (yes vs. no). For more details regarding these measures, please see Wells et al. (2008).

3 266 L. Mihic et al. / Addictive Behaviors 34 (2009) Respondent characteristics (Level 2) Respondent-level drinking motives To assess the individual's usual drinking motivation, we computed the average number of times each motive was reported. If the respondent's score on a motive was.67 or higher (reflecting two out of three events), this was scored as a usual motive. For example, if a person selected social motives twice out of three possible drinking events, his/her respondent-level drinking motive was coded as mostly social. This respondent-level variable had the following 5 categories: mostly social, mostly enhancement, mostly coping, mostly aesthetic/other, and mixed motives (i.e., a different motive selected for each occasion) Respondent-level control variables The following respondent characteristics found to be significantly associated with aggression (Wells et al., 2008) were included as control variables in the present analyses: gender, age, drinking pattern, and perceptions of excessive drinking on campus. Although a measure of self-reported grades (i.e., A, B, C) was considered for inclusion, it was excluded from analyses because it was not significantly associated with aggression. Drinking pattern was measured with two variables: weekly frequency of drinking and heavy episodic drinking. For drinking frequency, respondents were asked how often they drank alcohol in the previous month using a scale with the following transformed values: 7 (every day), 5 (4 6 times per week), 2.5 (2 3 times per week), 1 (once a week), 0.5 (1 3 times a month), and 0.2 (less than once a month) (see Demers et al., 2002). Heavy episodic drinking was defined as the consumption of 5 or more drinks once a month or more during the past 12 months (yes vs. no). A five-point Likert scale was used to determine perceptions of excessive drinking norms on campus (e.g., You can't make it socially in this university without drinking ) with higher scores indicating a greater acceptance of excessive drinking on campus. Cronbach's alpha was.59 for the four-item scale of perceptions of drinking norms. The General Health Questionnaire (Goldberg, 1972) was used to measure recent psychological distress. Participants were asked a series of 12 questions, leading with the phrase Over the past few weeks have you and a list of mental health indicators (e.g., Lost sleep over worry, and Felt constantly under strain ). Responses were given on a four-point Likert scale (i.e., 0 = more so than usual, 1 = same as usual, 2 = less than usual, 3 = much less than usual), and were summed to create a single score with higher scores indicating a greater likelihood of poor mental health. Cronbach's alpha for this scale was University characteristics (Level 3) City size in which each university was located was included as a university-level characteristic because heavy drinking has been found to be more common among youth living in small cities and towns than among those residing in larger cities (Statistics Canada, 2004), suggesting the importance of city size in explaining heavy drinking and possibly alcohol-related problems such as aggression. The 45 participating campuses were categorized as follows: major metro area ( and higher, mid-sized metro ( ), and smaller metro ( ) (www. statcan.ca/english/concepts/ definitions/indes.htm) Analyses To account for the nested structure of the data (i.e., drinking situations (Level 1) nested within respondents (Level 2), and respondents nested within university campuses (Level 3)), we employed hierarchical linear modeling (HLM6). We utilized a particular estimation procedure suitable for explaining a dichotomous outcome variable. Namely, the Bernoulli option with Laplace approximation was used to compute the probability of aggression on a given drinking event, producing odds ratios similar in interpretation to those obtained in a logistic regression analysis. Additionally, gender by drinking motive interaction effects were tested, for both the situational and respondent-level drinking motive variables. 3. Results Table 1 displays descriptive statistics for the variables included in the present analyses. For the situational drinking motive variables (i.e., for all drinking event data pooled across individuals) social motives were endorsed most frequently (52.7%), followed by aesthetic/other motives (27.8%), coping (11.1%) and enhancement (8.4%). For the respondentlevel drinking motives, most respondents (85.9%) reported having the same motive for at least two of the three events, with the largest proportion usually drinking for social motives (51.6%), followed by aesthetic/other motives (22.7%) and the smallest proportions usually drinking for coping (6.4%) and enhancement (5.2%) motives. Table 1 Characteristics of drinking situations and respondents % or mean (sd) Situational variables Level 1 (N=13008) Situational drinking motives Coping 11.1% Enhancement 8.4% Aesthetic/other 27.8% Social 52.7% Situational control variables Number of drinks mean (sd) 4.5 (3.7) Circumstance Party 30.8% A get together/other/no specific circumstance 69.2% Location Residence/fraternity/sorority 7.5% Bar/disco/pub/tavern 36.9% Someone's home/restaurant/other 55.5% Number of places More than 2 7.6% 2 or less 92.4% Meal Yes 59.1% No 40.9% Partner presence Yes 30.8% No 69.2% Aggression Yes 3.6% No 84.3% Respondent variables Level 2 (N=4336) Respondent-level drinking motives Mostly coping 6.4% Mostly enhancement 5.2% Mostly aesthetic/other 22.7% Mostly social 51.6% Mixed motives 14.1% Respondent-level control variables Gender Males 35.6% Females 64.4% Age mean (sd) 21.0 (1.8) Heavy episodic drinking (5+ once a month or more) Yes 38.2% No 61.8% Weekly drinking frequency mean (sd) 1.2 (1.2) Perceptions of excessive campus drinking mean (sd) 2.8 (0.7) Psychological distress mean (sd) 2.5 (2.9)

4 L. Mihic et al. / Addictive Behaviors 34 (2009) Table 2 Bivariate relations between drinking events and aggression Drinking event variables Level 1 Drinking events involving aggression Total sample (overall=4.1% ) Females (overall=4.5%) Males (overall=3.4%) % or mean (sd) % or mean (sd) % or mean (sd) Situational drinking motives Coping 6.0% 6.9% 4.7% Enhancement 8.4% 8.7% 8.0% Aesthetic/other 1.3% 1.5% 1.0% Social 4.5% 5.0% 3.5% Situational control variables Number of drinks mean (sd) Aggression 7.3 (4.7) 6.2 (3.7) 9.8 (5.8) No aggression 4.4 (3.6) 3.9 (3.0) 5.3 (4.5) Circumstance Party 5.4% 6.4% 3.8% A get together/other/no 3.5% 3.7% 3.1% specific circumstance Location Residence/fraternity/sorority 7.1% 7.4% 6.7% Bar/disco/pub/tavern 4.5% 4.9% 3.8% Someone's home/restaurant/ 3.4% 3.9% 2.6% other Number of places More than 2 8.6% 10.3% 6.8% 2 or less 3.7% 4.1% 3.0% Meal Yes 3.5% 3.9% 2.7% No 5.0% 5.4% 4.3% Partner presence Yes 5.7% 6.2% 4.5% No 3.3% 3.5% 3.0% Note. These analyses do not take into account the nested structure of the data. Therefore, statistical tests were not performed. Descriptive data showing bivariate relations between drinking event variables and aggression are presented in Table 2 using a pooled sample of drinking events (N=13008) for the total sample, males, and females, respectively. As shown in the table, aggression was most likely (8.4%) on occasions when the respondent drank for enhancement motives and least likely (1.3%) when drinking was motivated by aesthetic/other reasons. Aggression was somewhat higher on occasions involving coping motives (6.0%) compared with the total proportion of drinking events involving aggression (4.1%) but was close to the total proportion for social motives (4.5%). Thus social motives were used as the reference category in subsequent analyses. Significant bivariate relations between type of motive and aggression are discussed in a subsequent section when we examine multivariate models that incorporate the nested structure of the data. Table 3 shows bivariate relations between any aggression across the three drinking events and respondent-level variables for the total sample, females, and males, respectively. As shown in this table, the overall relationship between usual motive and aggression was significant (χ 2 (4, N=4336)=92.80, pb.001) with the percent reporting aggression highest among respondents who drank mostly for enhancement motives (21.4%) and lowest for aesthetic/other motives (2.9%). The same pattern was observed for both males and females. All control variables used in the analyses were significantly related to aggression (pb.001), with the exception of gender for the total sample and weekly drinking frequency, perceptions of excessive campus drinking, and psychological distress for males (Bonferroni adjusted significance levels). Six models (shown in Table 4) were computed to test the relations between aggression, situational, and respondent-level motives for drinking controlling for other variables. Model 1 examines the effects of situational drinking motives on the probability of aggression, controlling for the nested structure of data (i.e., drinking events nested within individuals and individuals nested within universities) but no other variables. Model 2 tests situational drinking motives as predictors of aggression controlling for the effects of situational alcohol intake. Model 3 re-examines the effects of situational drinking motives controlling for additional situational drinking setting variables (location, circumstance, number of places, meal, and partner presence). Model 4 examines the role of respondent-level drinking motives and control variables in explaining aggression. Model 5 includes both situational and respondent-level variables, and Model 6 examines the relation between aggression and drinking motives at the situational and respondent-level, including all situational, respondent, and university control variables. To guard against Type-I error, multiparameter tests assessed whether omnibus hypotheses for the effects of all relevant predictors can be rejected simultaneously (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Excepting the university level variables of Model 6, all simultaneous tests of the effects of Level 1 and 2 predictors on the outcome variable were significant. Tests for interaction between gender and the drinking motives indicated no significant interaction. Thus, to simplify presentation, the interaction effects were omitted from Table 4. As shown in Table 4, the analysis for Model 1 indicated that aggression was more likely at drinking events when participants drank for enhancement reasons (i.e., to get high or drunk) and to cope compared to the events when they drank for social motives (partial η 2 =.03 and partial η 2 =.01, respectively). Aggression was less likely when participants reported aesthetic/other motives compared to the events in which social motives were reported (partial η 2 =.08). However, drinking for enhancement reasons became nonsignificant Table 3 Bivariate relations between respondent characteristics and aggression Respondents reporting aggression on any of three events Total sample (overall=9.3%) Females (overall=10.3%) Males (overall=7.5%) % or mean (sd) % or mean (sd) % or mean (sd) Respondent-level variables Level 2 (N=4336) Respondent-level drinking motives Mostly coping 10.8% 13.6% 7.7% Mostly enhancement 21.4% 20.6% 22.6% Mostly aesthetic/other 2.9% 3.4% 1.9% Mostly social 10.3% 11.4% 8.2% Mixed motives 11.0% 12.6% 8.3% Respondent-level control variables Gender Males 7.5% Females 10.3% Age mean (sd) Aggression 21.0 (1.8) 20.9 (0.2) 21.2 (1.8) No aggression 20.5 (1.8) 20.4 (1.8) 20.6 (1.8) Heavy episodic drinking (5+ once a month or more) Yes 15.0% 17.9% 11.9% No 5.8% 6.9% 3.0% Weekly drinking frequency mean (sd) Aggression 1.5 (1.3) 1.3 (1.2) 2.0 (1.4) No aggression 1.2 (1.2) 1.0 (1.0) 1.5 (1.4) Perceptions of excessive campus drinking mean (sd) Aggression 2.9 (0.7) 2.9 (0.7) 3.0 (0.7) No aggression 2.7 (0.7) 2.7 (0.7) 2.6 (0.7) Psychological distress mean (sd) Aggression 3.5 (3.3) 3.8 (3.5) 2.8 (2.9) No aggression 2.4 (2.8) 2.6 (2.8) 2.0 (2.7) pb.001. Note. A Bonferroni adjustment to alpha was applied (alpha=.05 divided by 7 tests within each group and for the total sample). Tests where pn.007 were considered non-significant.

5 268 L. Mihic et al. / Addictive Behaviors 34 (2009) Table 4 Multilevel estimates for probability of aggression per event Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Fixed effects OR CI OR CI OR CI OR CI OR CI OR CI Drinking event variables Level 1 Situational drinking motives (ref: Social) Coping Enhancement Aesthetic/other Situational control variables Number of drinks Circumstance: party vs. other (ref: other) Location (ref: other) Residence/fraternity Bar Number of places (ref: 2 or less) Drink with meal (ref: No) Partner present (ref: No) Respondent-level variables Level 2 Respondent-level drinking motives (ref: mostly social) Mostly coping Mostly enhancement Mostly aesthetic/other Mixed reasons Respondent-level control variables Gender (ref: female) Age Heavy episodic drinking Weekly frequency of drinking for last months Perceptions of campus drinking norms Psychological distress University level variable Level 3 City size (ref: major metro) Small metro Mid-size metro Statistics Deviance 24, , , , , , Number of parameters pb.10; pb.05; pb.01; pb.001. and aesthetic/other motives marginally significant (i.e., pb.10) when the respondent-level variables were included in the model (Model 5). At the respondent-level, those who usually drank for enhancement motives were more likely to report aggression compared to respondents who usually endorsed social motives (partial η 2 =.06). On the other hand, those who usually drank alcohol for its taste or with a meal were less likely to report aggression (partial η 2 =.07). These effects remained significant when all variables were included in the model (Model 6). 4. Discussion The main goal of this study was to explore the extent that situational and respondent-level drinking motives can explain variations in the likelihood of alcohol-related aggression. Consistent with other studies of college students' drinking motives at the respondent level (e.g., Kuntsche, Knibbe, Gmel, & Engels, 2005), social motives were the most frequently endorsed motives for drinking both at the situational level and in terms of usual motives across situations; however, social motives were not associated with higher or lower levels of aggression, making them an ideal category for comparison with other drinking motives. Drinking to cope (as opposed to drinking for social motives) was associated with a greater likelihood of aggression as a situational motive but not as a respondent-level motive, controlling for other person-level variables. A situation in which a person drinks to cope may put that person at greater risk for aggression, regardless of his/her interpersonal style and/or the kinds of drinking motives he/she usually has. This interpretation is in line with a contextual approach to understanding coping whereby transitory, situational factors are believed to determine coping appraisal and the choice of coping response in a given situation (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). According to this theory, coping is seen as a response to specific situations rather than a stable individual characteristic (Moos & Holahan, 2003). For example, on occasions when people drink to cope, they may be more likely to respond with aggression when reacting to provoking stimuli, possibly due to heightened emotional sensitivity or pre-existing negative mood states or high stress levels. It is important to note that this finding was obtained controlling for alcohol intake, and, therefore, cannot be explained by a higher level of alcohol consumption among those drinking to cope. With regard to gender differences, although some studies (Schall et al., 1991; Ham & Hope, 2003) have found that coping motives were more strongly linked to drinking problems among women than among men, the present analyses indicated no significant gender by motive interactions in predicting aggression. Enhancement motives, or drinking to get high or drunk, (compared to social motives) were significantly associated with a greater likelihood of aggression both at the situational level and respondent level; however, the relation at the situational level was no longer significant when respondent-level motives and control variables were included in the same model. This suggests that it may be something about the type of person who usually drinks for enhancement motives that increases risk for experiencing aggression in drinking situations.

6 L. Mihic et al. / Addictive Behaviors 34 (2009) For example, persons who usually drink for enhancement motives may have a greater level of sensation-seeking, a stable personality characteristic which has been suggested as an underlying factor linked to both enhancement motives (Ham & Hope, 2003) and aggression (Baer, 2002). Aesthetic/other motives (compared to social motives) at both the situation and respondent-level were associated with a lower likelihood of alcohol-related aggression suggesting that people who usually drink alcohol for its taste or with a meal may have interpersonal styles or personality characteristics incompatible with involvement in alcohol-related aggression or fights, and that occasions when alcohol is consumed for aesthetic reasons may be lower risk for aggression (although this latter effect reached a significance level of pb.10 when respondent-level variables were included in the model). There are a number of limitations of the present study pertaining to the measurement of situational and respondent-level drinking motives. First, drinking motives measured in the present study do not map perfectly onto previously validated scales, limiting somewhat comparability of the findings to previous research. Respondents were asked to endorse the most important reason for drinking (Kairouz et al., 2002) using a categorical response format rather than a series of questions that could be combined to form a scale. Second, because information regarding drinking motives were obtained subsequent to questions on alcohol consumption, it is possible that respondents gave reasons that they thought would explain their drinking behaviour (Kairouz et al., 2002). It is unlikely, however, that drinking motives were reported as an explanation for experiencing aggression, since the item regarding fights followed the item regarding drinking motivation. Third, respondent-level drinking motives were calculated based on only three drinking occasions, possibly limiting inferences that can be made about one's stable motivational tendencies. A further limitation of the study was the use of the GHQ as a measure of distress because it does not assess situational distress, per se, but rather changes in one's distress level compared to one's usual emotional state. In future research a better measure of distress should be used as a potential confounder in the assessment of relations between drinking motives, especially drinking to cope, and aggression. There are also a number of shortcomings pertaining to the outcome measure of aggression. First, it was measured with a single dichotomous item. Second, it combined physical with verbal aggression, potentially disguising differences between these two forms of aggression. Third, the role of participants in aggressive acts (i.e., being a perpetrator versus a victim) was not considered. Therefore, inferences based on the present study apply only to involvement in aggressive incidents without information about perpetration or victimization. Several factors may have affected generalizability of the study findings, including a low response rate (41%), possible selection bias (i.e., students who tended to engage in risky or anti-social behaviours, such as heavy drinking and aggression, may have been less willing to participate), potential under-reporting of certain drinking motives or aggression, and restriction of the sample to to year olds. Additionally, racial/ethnic compositions of the participating universities were unknown. However, although the rates of drinking and other behaviors of the sample may be affected by these limitations, there is no reason to expect that the relations between drinking motives and aggression would be different for participants compared to non-participants. Overall, as an extension of Kairouz et al.'s (2002) finding that individuals drink for different reasons and differently in different settings (pp. 601), the present results support the view that involvement in aggression on any particular drinking occasion is, at least partly, associated with motives for drinking on that occasion, especially with coping motives. This study demonstrates that in order to understand alcohol-related aggression one needs to consider both situational and respondent-level motives for drinking. An important implication of these results is that prevention programming might benefit from a focus on altering drinking motives, or their underlying causes, in order to reduce alcohol-related aggression among young adults. Finally, future research might aim at identifying and including other variables in order to obtain a better understanding of the underlying processes linking drinking motives to aggressive behaviour, such as the role of underlying personality factors or emotional states that may influence both motives for drinking and the likelihood of aggression. References Adlaf, E. M., Demers, A., & Gliksman, L. (Eds.). (2005). Canadian Campus Survey, Toronto: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. Baer, J. D. (2002). Student factors: Understanding individual variation in college drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 54, Bradley, J. R., Carmen, R. S., & Petree, A. (1992). Personal and social drinking motives, family drinking history, and problems associated with drinking in two university samples. Journal of Drug Education, 22, Cable, N., & Sacker, A. (2007). The role of adolescents social disinhibition expectancies in moderating relationship between psychological distress and alcohol use and misuse. Addictive Behaviors, 32, Cooper, L. M. (1994). Motivations for alcohol use among adolescents: Development and validation of a four-factor model. Psychological Assessment, 6, Cooper, L. M., Russell, M., Skinner, J. B., & Windle, M. (1992). Development and validation of a three-dimensional measure of drinking motives. Psychological Assessment, 4, Cox, W. M., & Klinger, E. (1990). Incentive motivation, affective change, and alcohol use: A model. In W. M. Cox (Ed.), Why people drink? Parameters of alcohol as a reinforcer (pp ). New York/Oxford: Gardner Press. Demers, A., Kairouz, S., Adlaf, E. M., Gliksman, L., Newton-Taylor, B., & Marchand (2002). Multilevel analyses of situational drinking among Canadian undergraduates. Social Science and Medicine, 55, Goldberg, D. P. (1972). The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire (Maudsley Monograph No.21). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Ham, L. S., & Hope, D. A. (2003). College students and problematic drinking: A review of the literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, Holahan, C. J., Moos, R. H., Holahan, C. K., Cronkite, R. C., & Randall, P. K. (2003). Drinking to cope and alcohol use and abuse in unipolar depression: A 10-year model. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, Karwacki, S. B., & Bredley, J. R. (1996). Coping, drinking motives, goal attainment expectancies and family models in relation to alcohol use among college students. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 26, Kairouz, S., Gliksman, L., Demers, A., & Adlaf, E. M. (2002). For all these reasons, I do drink: A multilevel analyses of contextual reasons for drinking among Canadian undergraduates. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63, Kuntsche, E., Knibbe, R., Engels, R., & Gmel, G. (2007). Bulling and fighting among adolescents-do drinking motives and alcohol use matter? Addictive Behaviors, 32 (12), Kuntsche, E., Knibbe, R., Gmel, G., & Engels, R. (2005). Why do young people drink? A review of drinking motives. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, Labouvie, E., & Bates, M. E. (2002). Reasons for drinking in young adulthood: Validation of a three-dimensional measure. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63, Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer. McCabe, S. E. (2002). Gender differences in collegiate risk factors for heavy episodic drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63, Moos, R. H., & Holahan, C. J. (2003). Dispositional and situational perspective on coping: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59, Nicholson, M. E., Maney, D. W., Blair, K., & Wamboldt, P. M. (1998). Trends in alcoholrelated campus violence: Implications for prevention. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 43(3), Perkins, H. W. (2002). Surveying the damage: A review of research on consequences of alcohol misuse on college populations. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Supplement, 14. Porter, S. R., & Umbach, P. D. (2006). Student survey response rates across institutions: Why do they vary. Research in Higher Education, 47, Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods, (2nd edition) Thousand Oaks: Sage publications, Inc. Schall, M., Weede, T. J., & Maltzman, I. (1991). Prediction of alcohol consumption by university students. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 37, Statistics Canada (2004). Retrieved January 15, 2007, from statcan.ca/ english/concepts/definitions/indes.htm Wade, T. J., & Pevalin, D. J. (2005). Adolescent delinquency and health. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 47, Wechsler, H., & Rohman, M. (1981). Extensive users of alcohol among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 42, Wells, S., Mihic, L., Tremblay, P. F., Graham, K., & Demers, A. (2008). Where, with whom, and how much alcohol is consumed on drinking events involving aggression? Event-level associations in a Canadian national survey of university students. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 32(3), West, R., Drummond, C., & Eames, K. (1990). Alcohol consumption, problem drinking and anti-social behaviuor in a sample of college students. British Journal of Addiction, 85,