2013

Addiction Research and Theory, August 2013; 21(4): 285–294

Copyright � 2013 Informa UK Ltd.

ISSN: 1606-6359 print/1476-7392 online

DOI: 10.3109/16066359.2012.714429

Solitary heavy drinking, social relationships, and negative moodregulation in college drinkers

Vivian M. Gonzalez1 & Monica C. Skewes2

1Department of Psychology, University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage, AK 99508, USA and 2Department ofPsychology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 902 North Koyukuk, Fairbanks 99775, USA

(Received 8 August 2011; accepted 17 July 2012)

In college students, solitary (i.e., while alone) heavyepisodic drinking is associated with depression,suicidal ideation, drinking to cope, and havinggreater alcohol-related problems than heavy drink-ing only in social contexts. This study explored thepossible explanatory factors for solitary heavydrinking. Social (n¼ 58) and solitary heavy episodicdrinking (n¼ 32) emerging adult college studentswere compared in regards to: alcohol-related prob-lems and dependence severity, negative affect, socialrelationship issues, socially related coping skills, andnegative mood regulation. Multiple analyses ofcovariance revealed that solitary heavy drinkerswere significantly higher in alcohol-related prob-lems, severity of dependence, suicidal ideation,hopelessness, depression, loneliness, and drinking tocope and were lower in negative mood regulationexpectancies and social competence. Heavy drinkinggroups did not differ in social network size, per-ceived social support, or in their drinking socialnetwork size or satisfaction. Our findings suggestthat solitary heavy drinkers are not socially isolatedor lacking in social support; however, they doexperience greater social discomfort and difficultieswith negative mood regulation than social heavydrinkers. Interventions focused on depression, affectregulation, adaptive coping, and alcohol abusewould be helpful with this population to addresstheir related problems.

Keywords: Suicidal ideation, hopelessness, drinking alone,heavy episodic drinking, binge drinking, drinking to cope

INTRODUCTION

Emerging adulthood, which spans from ages 18 to 25,is a developmental period with high rates of heavyalcohol use, abuse, and dependence (e.g., Arnett, 2000;Bachman, Wadsoworth, O’Malley, & Johnston, 1997;Grant et al., 2004; White & Jackson, 2004). Americancollege students in this age group, compared with theirnon-college attending peers, are particularly likely toevidence alcohol abuse and to engage in heavy episodicdrinking (Slutske, 2005; Timberlake et al., 2007).

College students typically drink in social contexts(Christiansen, Vik, & Jarchow, 2002; Mohr et al., 2001;Wechsler, Dowdall, Davenport, & Castillo, 1995) andfor social reasons (Kuntsche, Knibbe, Gmel, & Engels,2005; LaBrie, Hummer, & Pedersen, 2007; Stewart,Zeitlin, & Samoluk, 1996). However, a subgroup ofcollege students also engage in solitary drinking (i.e.,while alone; Christiansen et al., 2002).

Heavy solitary episodic drinking (e.g., 4 to 5þdrinks per occasion) is associated with significantlygreater alcohol-related problems among college stu-dents and other adults than is heavy drinking only insocial contexts (Bourgault & Demers, 1997; Gonzalez,Bradizza, & Collins, 2009). College students whoengage in solitary heavy episodic drinking have alsobeen found to be higher in depression (Christiansenet al., 2002). Gonzalez, Collins and Bradizza (2009)also found that among underage (18- to 20-year-old)college drinkers with a history of at least passivesuicidal ideation, solitary heavy episodic drinking wassignificantly associated with severity of recent suicidalideation, while social heavy drinking was not.

Although solitary heavy drinking appears to beassociated with greater alcohol-related problems andnegative affect, little is known about solitary heavydrinking. There are several plausible explanations for

Correspondence: V. M. Gonzalez, Department of Psychology, University of Alaska Anchorage, 3211 Providence Drive, Social Sciences

Building, Anchorage, AK 99508, USA. Tel: 907-786-6779. Fax: 907-786-1669. E-mail: vmgonzalez@uaa.alaska.edu

285

Add

ict R

es T

heor

y D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Otta

wa

on 0

9/10

/13

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.

solitary heavy drinking. This behavior may largelyserve as a maladaptive means of coping with negativeaffect, it may be associated with social isolation, and/orit could be that students who engage in solitary heavydrinking are dependent on alcohol, resulting in drink-ing across contexts.

Drinking to cope and affect regulationIn motivational models of alcohol use, negative affectand drinking are thought to be linked by drinking tocope with negative affect, which is drinking motivatedby efforts to escape, avoid, or lessen negative affect(Cooper, Frone, Russell, & Mudar, 1995). Drinking tocope is thought to be a learned behavior by individualswho lack, or believe that they lack, more adaptivemeans of coping with negative affect (Catanzaro &Laurent, 2004; Cooper et al., 1995). Solitary drinking isassociated with drinking to cope, while social drinkingis associated with efforts to increase positive emotions(i.e., enhancement motives; Cooper, Russell, Skinner,& Windle, 1992; Gonzalez, Collins et al., 2009).Consistent with a motivational model of drinking,compared with those who only drink heavily in socialcontexts, solitary heavy drinkers also may have lowerexpectancies regarding the effectiveness of moreadaptive strategies to regulate negative affect.

Social isolation and socially related coping skillsSocial isolation is another potential cause or correlateof solitary heavy drinking. Depression, suicidal idea-tion, drinking to cope, and alcohol problems, all ofwhich have been found to be associated with solitarydrinking, are also associated with lower levels of socialsupport and with greater loneliness (Brissette, Scheier,& Carver, 2002; Clum & Febbraro, 1994; Dieserud,Roysamb, Ekeberg, & Kraft, 2001; Hawthorne, 2008;Peirce, Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1996; Russell,Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980; Sadava & Pak, 1993;Sadava & Thompson, 1986; Stein, Dixon, &Nyamathi, 2008). To date, no study has directlyexamined whether solitary and social heavy drinkersdiffer in regard to social factors.

Although it is possible that solitary heavy drinkersare more socially isolated, there is evidence that thismay not be the case. Gonzalez, Bradizza, et al. (2009)found that solitary heavy drinkers engaged in socialheavy episodic drinking to the same extent as individ-uals who drank heavily only in social settings,suggesting that they do have a social outlet for theirdrinking behavior that may be comparable to studentswho do not engage in solitary heavy drinking.Similarly, a study of adolescents found that solitarydrinkers spent more time with friends and dated morethan adolescents who only drank in social settings(Tucker, Ellickson, Collins, & Klein, 2006). It may bethat solitary drinking is occurring among heavydrinking students who have adequate social supportand contact, but who socially withdraw or who are less

likely to seek out social support when they areexperiencing distress.

Alcohol dependenceFinally, solitary heavy drinking may be due to a lowerability to control drinking behavior or to drinking thathas become independent of social norms or contextsbecause of alcohol dependence. However, drinking tocope has similarly been suggested as a factor that maymotivate solitary heavy drinking in the absence ofsocial influences among college students (Christiansenet al., 2002). Further, motivational models of alcoholuse suggest that drinking to cope contributes to alcoholdependence because the reliance on this means ofcoping leads to more drinking and drinking acrosscontexts (Cooper et al., 1995; Cooper, Agocha, &Sheldon, 2000; MacLean & Lecci, 2000; Simons,Gaher, Correia, Hansen, & Christopher, 2005;Tragesser, Sher, Trull, & Park, 2007). Because drink-ing to cope has been found to be associated withsolitary heavy episodic drinking (Gonzalez, Collins,et al., 2009), when examining the effect that alcoholdependence may have on solitary heavy drinking, it isalso important to examine the effect that drinking tocope may have on this relationship and to examine therelative contributions of each to solitary heavydrinking.

This studyCurrent evidence suggests that solitary heavy drinkersare an even greater at risk group than social heavydrinkers for alcohol-related problems, depression, andsuicidal ideation. With a better understanding ofsolitary drinking, we can begin to better tailortreatments to address these related problems. Thisstudy explored possible explanatory factors for solitaryheavy drinking among emerging adult college studentsby comparing solitary with social heavy episodicdrinkers with regard to (a) alcohol-related problemsand severity of alcohol dependence, (b) negative moodregulation expectancies and drinking to cope, (c) socialrelationship issues, (d) drinking social networks, and(e) socially related coping skills. We also examined therelative contribution of alcohol dependence severityand drinking to cope in predicting solitary heavydrinking episodes.

METHOD

ParticipantsParticipants were 90 emerging adult (between 18 and25 years old) female (73.3%, n¼ 66) and male (26.7%,n¼ 24) college students attending a large, openenrollment university in the Northwest United States.All participants were heavy episodic drinkers, definedas four or more (women) or five or more (men)standard drinks consumed in one sitting or on oneoccasion at least once a month during a typical monthin the past year. The mean age was 21.1 years

286 V. M. GONZALEZ & M. C. SKEWES

Add

ict R

es T

heor

y D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Otta

wa

on 0

9/10

/13

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.

(SD¼ 1.8). The sample was 74.4% White/EuropeanAmerican, 11.1% Alaska Native or American Indian,and 14.5% were other ethnic minorities. The majorityof participants were full-time students (91.1%) andsingle (96.7%). The majority of participants did notlive alone (91.3%). The sample consisted of 16.7%freshman, 25.6 % sophomore, 27.8% junior, 20.0%senior, 6.7% graduate students, and 3.3% non-degreeseeking.

ProceduresThe study protocol was approved by the InstitutionalReview Board of the university. Participants wererecruited via flyers posted on campus and e-mailsdirected at 18- to 25-year-old students via their studente-mail accounts. Flyer and e-mail solicitations directedpotential participants to a webpage that described thestudy and included a questionnaire with items thatinitially screened for study eligibility embedded amongdistractor questions. Eligibility criteria included: (a)reporting at least one solitary or social heavy episodicdrinking episode per month during a typical month inthe past year, (b) being a full- or part-time universitystudent, and (c) being between the ages of 18 and 25years. Those who met these criteria were scheduled foran in-person data collection session held on campus.

At the data collection session, after participants gaveinformed consent, study materials were presented in arandom order using MediaLab version 2006 software(Jarvis, 2006) on laptop computers. Participants werecompensated with a $30 gift card to a local grocerystore and gas station chain. At the end of the datacollection session, all participants were providedreferral information for counseling services.

If the participant reported a heavy drinking episodewhile alone or no one else was drinking at least onceduring a typical month in the past year, then they wereclassified as a solitary heavy drinker (n¼ 32). If theparticipant reported (a) no episodes of solitary heavyepisodic drinking during a typical month in the pastyear and (b) had at least one episode of social heavydrinking, then they were classified as a social heavydrinker (n¼ 58). Eleven individuals who gave mark-edly out of range and/or highly inconsistent andillogical responses to the study’s alcohol consumptionitems were excluded, resulting in the sample of 90participants.

MeasuresAlcohol useSolitary and social alcohol use during the past yearwere measured using items modified from the NationalInstitute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (2003)alcohol consumption question set. Separate items forsocial and solitary contexts assessed the following for atypical month in the past year: drinking days permonth, number of standard drinks consumed on atypical drinking day, and the number of days on whichheavy episodic drinking occurred.

Alcohol problemsThe Young Adult Alcohol ConsequencesQuestionnaire (YAACQ; Read, Kahler, Strong, &Colder, 2006) is a 48-item self-report inventory ofproblems associated with alcohol use among collegestudents, with items rated as present (1) or absent (0) inthe past year. In this sample, the internal consistency ofthe total YAACQ score was high, with an alphacoefficient of 0.95.

Severity of alcohol dependenceThe Short Alcohol Dependence Data (SADD)Questionnaire (Raistrick, Dunbar, & Davidson, 1983)is a 15-item measure of cognitive, behavioral, andphysiological symptoms of alcohol dependence. Itemsare rated from 0 (never) to 3 (always) for their recentdrinking habits. In this sample, the internal consistencyof the SADD was high, with an alpha coefficientof 0.89.

Drinking to copeThe Drinking Context Scale (O’Hare, 1997) is a22-item self-report measure. Respondents rate eachitem on the likelihood that they would find themselvesdrinking excessively from extremely high (5) toextremely low (1). For this study, the five-itemNegative Coping subscale was used to quantify drink-ing excessively to cope with negative affect (e.g., whenlonely, sad, or angry) with scores indicating theaverage rating across items. Internal consistency ofthis subscale was high, with an alpha coefficientof 0.89.

Negative mood regulation expectanciesThe Negative Mood Regulation Scale (Catanzaro &Mearns, 1990) is a 30-item self-report inventory. Itemsrefer to expected success of adaptive means to alter anegative mood or to general expectancies regardingability to alter negative moods and are rated on a five-point scale (1¼ strongly agree, 5¼ strongly disagree).Lower scores indicate less confidence in one’s abilityto improve a negative mood state. Internal consistencywas high in this sample, with an alpha coefficientof 0.91.

DepressionThe Beck Depression Inventory-II (Beck, Steer, &Brown, 1996) is a widely used 21-item self-report scalethat measures severity of depressive symptoms, withitems rated from 0 to 3. Internal consistency was highin this sample, with an alpha coefficient of 0.92.

HopelessnessThe Beck Hopelessness Scale (Beck & Steer, 1988) is a20-item self-report measure of negative beliefs aboutthe future, with items rated by respondents as true (1)or false (0). Internal consistency in this sample wasgood, with an alpha coefficient of 0.86.

SOLITARY HEAVY DRINKING 287

Add

ict R

es T

heor

y D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Otta

wa

on 0

9/10

/13

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.

Suicidal ideationThe Adult Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire (Reynolds,1991) is a 25-item self-report measure of suicidalthoughts and behavior experienced during the pastmonth. Items are rated on a seven-point scale(0¼ never had the thought, 6¼ had the thoughtalmost every day). Items range from general wishesone were dead to thoughts of planning a suicideattempt. Internal consistency was high in this sample,with an alpha coefficient of 0.97.

Social network and perceived social supportThe six-item short form of the Social SupportQuestionnaire (SSQ6; Sarason, Sarason, Shearin, &Pierce, 1987) was used to measure participants’perceived social support. Items present respondentswith a specific context (e.g., ‘‘Who can you count on toconsole you when you are very upset?’’) and askthem to list up to nine individuals. Network size iscalculated by averaging the number reported acrossitems. Overall satisfaction with social support ineach context is rated from 6 (very satisfied) to 1(very dissatisfied), and the average rating across itemsforms the satisfaction score. In this sample, alphacoefficients were 0.91 for network size and 0.89 forsatisfaction.

Drinking social networkFor this study, three questions were included to assessthe size of the participants’ drinking social networksand satisfaction with their drinking social networks.Participants indicated which of the individuals listed onthe SSQ6 they drank with in the past month (up tonine). Participants were also asked to list any otherindividuals with whom they drank in the pastmonth (up to nine), and to rate their satisfaction withthe size and availability of their drinking socialnetwork on a scale from 6 (very satisfied) to 1 (verydissatisfied).

LonelinessThe UCLA Loneliness Scale (Russell, 1996) is awidely used 20-item self-report scale that measuresperceived social isolation. Items are rated on a four-point scale (1¼ never, 4¼ always). Internal consis-tency was high in this sample, with an alpha coefficientof 0.95.

Social competenceThe Social Competence Questionnaire (Sarason,Sarason, Hacker, & Basham, 1985) is a 10-itemmeasure of a respondent’s perception of their socialcompetence. Items reflect specific behaviors andfeelings that reflect enjoyment and comfort withsocializing, rated on a four-point scale (0¼ not at alllike me, 3¼ a great deal like me). Internal consistencywas high in this sample, with an alpha coefficientof 0.88.

Socially related coping skillsThe Coping Strategies Inventory (Tobin, Holroyd,Reynolds, & Wigal, 1989) is a 72-item self-reportscale that measures coping behaviors. Participantsindicate the extent to which they used various copingstrategies to deal with a stressful event that occurred inthe past month on a five-point scale (1¼ not at all,5¼ very much). Scores indicate the average ratingacross items for a given subscale. For this study, twosubscales were used: social support and social with-drawal. In this sample, alpha coefficients were 0.88 forsocial support seeking and 0.90 for social withdrawal.

AnalysesMultivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVAs)were used to compare social and solitary heavy episodicdrinkers on the following domains: social and solitarydrinking, alcohol-related problems and dependence,negative affect, negative mood regulation, social rela-tionship issues, drinking social network, and sociallyrelated coping skills. Age and gender were entered intoall analyses to control for their possible effects ondrinking, negative affect, coping, and social variables.

While dichotomizing social and solitary heavyepisodic drinkers may provide findings with heuristicvalue, this method of data analysis has the potential tomiss associations that are continuous in nature.Therefore, we also examined the relationship ofsocial and solitary drinking variables and the potentialexplanatory variables using partial correlation analyses,controlling for age and gender.

Four individuals were extreme outliers in regard tothe frequency of solitary heavy episodic drinking. Inorder to reduce the influence of these outliers, reportedfrequencies of solitary heavy drinking episodes of fiveor more per month were coded as ‘‘5’’ prior toanalyses, and the variable was square root transformed.This transformed variable was also used in a simulta-neous multiple regression analysis conducted to exam-ine the relative influence of alcohol dependence anddrinking to cope on the frequency of solitary heavydrinking episodes.

All alcohol use variables, hopelessness, and suicidalideation were square root transformed prior to analysesto address departures from normality and/or homoge-neity of variance (MANCOVAs). The SADD was alsosquare root transformed due to the lack of homogeneityof variance for the MANCOVA analysis; however, forthe regression analysis, the untransformed variable wasused as no test assumptions were violated when usingthe untransformed variable. Two missing values for thesize of drinking social network and satisfaction withdrinking social network were replaced using linearinterpolation.

RESULTS

Solitary and social heavy episodic drinkers werecompared on age, proportion that were underage,

288 V. M. GONZALEZ & M. C. SKEWES

Add

ict R

es T

heor

y D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Otta

wa

on 0

9/10

/13

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.

gender, and gender by age differences. Regarding age,there was no significant difference between solitary(M¼ 21.38 years, SD¼ 1.91) and social heavy episodicdrinkers (20.90 years, SD¼ 1.78; t(88)¼�1.19,p¼ 0.24). There was no significant difference in theproportion in each group who were under the legaldrinking age (between 18 and 20 years), with 39.7% ofsocial and 40.6% of solitary heavy episodic drinkerswho were underage, �2(2)¼ 0.01, p¼ 0.93. There wasno significant difference between groups in regard togender, with 75.9% social and 68.8% of solitary heavydrinkers being women, �2(2)¼ 0.53, p¼ 0.47.However, gender by age differences between thedrinking groups were found. Solitary heavy drinkingmen were significantly older (M¼ 22.50 years,SD¼ 1.35) than social heavy drinking men(M¼ 21.00 years, SD¼ 1.92), t(22)¼ 2.12, p¼ 0.046.For women, there was no significant age differencebetween social and solitary drinkers, with both groupsbeing on average 20.86 years old.

Comparison of solitary and social heavy drinkerson alcohol useThe MANCOVA comparing social and solitary heavyepisodic drinkers on social drinking variables revealedthat overall groups did not differ significantly (Table I).Gender and age were significantly associated withsocial drinking, with men and younger students drink-ing significantly more drinks per social drinking day(gender: p < 0.001, �2

¼ 0.16; age: p¼ 0.008,�2¼ 0.08) and reporting more social binge drinking

episodes (gender: p¼ 0.010, �2¼ 0.07; age: p¼ 0.001,

�2¼ 0.11). No gender or age differences were found for

the frequency of social drinking.Among solitary heavy drinkers, the mean number of

solitary heavy drinking episodes per month was 3.09(SD¼ 4.61). Comparing social and solitary heavydrinkers on their overall number of heavy drinkingepisodes during a typical month (by summing socialand solitary heavy episodic drinking variables), solitaryheavy drinkers reported significantly more heavydrinking episodes and, on average, more than twicethe number of heavy drinking episodes per month(M¼ 7.66, SD¼ 6.03) compared with social heavydrinkers (M¼ 3.42, SD¼ 2.64), F(1, 86)¼ 28.71,p < 0.001. An examination of the relationship betweenthe frequency of solitary and social heavy drinkingepisodes among solitary heavy drinkers revealed thatthese forms of drinking were not significantly related(r¼ 0.12, p¼ 0.27).

The MANCOVA comparing social and solitaryheavy episodic drinkers on solitary drinking variablesrevealed large differences between groups (�2

¼ 0.52;Table I). Solitary heavy drinkers drank alone morefrequently and drank more drinks per solitary drinkingday. Men and older students drank alone more fre-quently (gender: p¼ 0.048, �2

¼ 0.04; age: p¼ 0.022,�2¼ 0.06); however, no gender or age differences were

found in drinks per solitary drinking day.

Alcohol-related problems and dependence severityThe MANCOVA comparing social and solitary heavydrinkers on alcohol-related problems and dependenceseverity revealed significant differences (Table I).Large differences were found between groups for thenumber of alcohol problems experienced in the pastyear (�2

¼ 0.18), with solitary heavy drinkers(M¼ 22.41, SD¼ 12.75) experiencing nearly twicethe number of alcohol-related problems comparedwith social heavy drinkers (M¼ 12.32, SD¼ 9.17).Alcohol dependence severity, as measured by theSADD, was also significantly higher among solitaryheavy drinkers and, on average, more than twice that ofsocial heavy drinkers, with a large effect size for thebetween-group difference (�2

¼ 0.15). No significantgender or age differences were found for alcohol-related problems or dependence severity.

Much of the difference found between social andsolitary heavy drinkers in regard to greater alcohol-related problems and dependence severity appears to bedue to the greater frequency of heavy episodic drinking,as controlling for overall frequency of heavy episodicdrinking resulted in large reductions in the effect sizesand non-significant differences between groups for bothalcohol problems, F(1, 85)¼ 2.24, p¼ 0.14, �2

¼ 0.03,and severity of dependence, F(1, 85)¼ 1.68, p¼ 0.20,�2¼ 0.02.

Negative affect and negative mood regulationThe MANCOVA comparing social and solitary heavydrinkers on negative affect, including suicidal ideation,hopelessness, and depression, revealed significant dif-ferences between groups. Solitary heavy drinkers weresignificantly higher in all negative affect variables, withmoderate effect sizes. Multivariate analyses revealed nosignificant age or gender differences for negative affectvariables, although an examination of univariate asso-ciations revealed trends (p < 0.10) for younger studentsto be higher in suicidal ideation (�2

¼ 0.05) anddepression (�2

¼ 0.04), and women to be higher in allnegative affect variables (�2

¼ 0.04–0.06).Partial correlations showed no significant associa-

tions between social drinking variables and suicidalideation or hopelessness (Table II). Moderate associ-ations were found between solitary drinking variablesand suicidal ideation, hopelessness, and depression.

The MANOVA comparing social and solitary heavyepisodic drinkers on their negative mood regulationexpectancies and drinking to cope with negative affectrevealed significant differences between groups(Table II). No significant gender or age differenceswere found. Solitary heavy drinkers were significantlylower in negative mood regulation expectancy andwere higher in drinking to cope, with large effect sizesfor both comparisons. When depression was controlledfor in this analysis, the relationships were attenuated,but effect sizes remained moderate to large for bothnegative mood regulation expectancies (F(1,85)¼ 6.28, p¼ 0.014, �2

¼ 0.07) and drinking to cope

SOLITARY HEAVY DRINKING 289

Add

ict R

es T

heor

y D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Otta

wa

on 0

9/10

/13

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.

(F(1, 85)¼ 18.48, p < 0.001, �2¼ 0.18). This suggests

that these associations are not solely due to a positiveassociation between solitary heavy drinking anddepression.

Partial correlations revealed non-significant associ-ations between social drinking variables and bothnegative mood regulation expectancies and drinking tocope (Table II). Moderate to strong associations werefound between all solitary drinking variables and bothnegative mood regulation expectancies and drinkingto cope.

Social relationship issuesThe MANCOVA comparing social and solitary heavydrinkers on social relationship issues revealed signif-icant differences between groups (Table II). However,groups did not differ significantly with regard to socialnetwork size or satisfaction. Solitary heavy drinkerswere higher in loneliness and lower in perceived socialcompetence than social heavy drinkers, with moderateeffect sizes for both comparisons. However, whendepression was controlled for in the MANCOVAanalysis, the relationships between solitary heavy

Table I. Comparisons of social and solitary heavy drinkers on alcohol use, problems and dependence, social support, drinking social

network, socially related coping skills, negative affect, and negative mood regulation.

Variables and measures

Social heavy

drinkers (n¼ 58)

Mean (SD)

Solitary heavy

drinkers (n¼ 32)

Mean (SD) Multivariate tests Univariate test �2

Social drinking F(3, 84)¼ 0.97,

�2¼ 0.03

Frequency/montha 6.96 (4.97) 7.38 (6.09) F(1, 86)¼ 0.00 0.00

Drinks per drinking daya 4.70 (3.54) 5.23 (3.06) F(1, 86)¼ 0.75 0.01

Frequency heavy episodic

drinking/montha3.41 (2.64) 4.58 (3.64) F(1, 86)¼ 1.91 0.02

Solitary drinking F(2, 85)¼ 46.11***,

�2¼ 0.52

Frequency/montha 1.57 (2.24) 4.84 (5.23) F(1, 86)¼ 29.76*** 0.26

Drinks per drinking daya 0.82 (1.05) 3.72 (1.74) F(1, 86)¼ 93.06*** 0.52

Frequency heavy episodic

drinking/montha– 3.09 (4.61) – –

Alcohol problems and dependence F(2, 85)¼ 9.84***,

�2¼ 0.19

Alcohol-related problems 12.24 (9.17) 22.57 (12.75) F(1, 86)¼ 19.19*** 0.18

Alcohol dependencea 5.34 (3.70) 11.26 (8.61) F(1, 86)¼ 14.65*** 0.15

Negative affect F(3, 84)¼ 4.19**,

�2¼ 0.13

Suicidal ideationa 11.55 (14.21) 22.31 (20.75) F(1, 86)¼ 9.27** 0.10

Hopelessnessa 3.18 (3.06) 5.93 (4.86) F(1, 86)¼ 6.41* 0.07

Depression 10.57 (8.34) 17.12 (11.44) F(1, 86)¼ 10.22** 0.11

Negative mood regulation F(2, 85)¼ 16.57***,

�2¼ 0.28

Negative mood regulation expectancies 111.43 (14.70) 97.37 (17.79) F(1, 86)¼ 15.56*** 0.15

Drinking to cope 2.01 (0.83) 3.06 (0.89) F(1, 86)¼ 29.90*** 0.26

Social relationship issues F(4, 83)¼ 2.58*,

�2¼ 0.11

Social network size 4.08 (2.00) 4.15 (2.12) F(1, 86)¼ 0.02 0.00

Social support satisfaction 5.18 (0.79) 4.90 (1.17) F(1, 86)¼ 1.84 0.02

Loneliness 42.61 (10.53) 49.18 (12.59) F(1, 86)¼ 6.71* 0.07

Social competence 19.22 (6.33) 15.72 (5.46) F(1, 86)¼ 6.76* 0.07

Drinking social network F(2, 85)¼ 0.49,

�2¼ 0.01

Size 7.53 (4.02) 7.67 (3.85) F(1, 86)¼ 0.03 0.00

Satisfaction 5.17 (0.86) 4.96 (1.05) F(1, 86)¼ 0.93 0.01

Socially related coping skills F(2, 85)¼ 1.71,

�2¼ 0.04

Social withdrawal 2.20 (0.90) 2.51 (1.14) F(1, 86)¼ 2.13 0.02

Social support seeking 3.07 (0.94) 2.70 (1.06) F(1, 86)¼ 2.90y 0.03

Notes: �2¼ effect size.

aThis variable was square root transformed to improve normality and/or reduce homoskedasticity. The means and standard deviations

shown are for the untransformed variables.yp < 0.10; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; and ***p < 0.001.

290 V. M. GONZALEZ & M. C. SKEWES

Add

ict R

es T

heor

y D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Otta

wa

on 0

9/10

/13

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.

drinking and all social variables were non-significant.The association between loneliness and heavy drinkinggroup was reduced from �2

¼ 0.07 to �2¼ 0.007, and

for social competence from �2¼ 0.07 to �2

¼ 0.017, asdepression was moderately to strongly associated withall social issues variable with �2 between 0.06 (socialnetwork size) and 0.36 (loneliness). No significantgender or age differences were found for socialrelationship issues.

Drinking social network size and satisfaction withdrinking networkThe MANCOVA comparing social and solitary heavydrinkers on their drinking social networks did notreveal significant differences between groups andeffect sizes were trivial (Table I). No significantgender or age differences were found for drinkingsocial network.

Although social and solitary heavy drinkers did notdiffer in their drinking network size or satisfaction,partial correlations revealed small associations betweenhaving a larger drinking social network and both morefrequent and greater social drinking during socialdrinking days (Table II). Greater solitary drinks perdrinking day and the frequency of solitary heavyepisodic drinking had small associations with lessreported satisfaction with the availability of drinkingpartners.

Socially related coping skillsThe MANOVA comparing social and solitary heavydrinkers on their socially related coping skills did notreveal significant differences between groups (Table I).No gender differences were found in socially related

coping skills. Age effects were found with youngerstudents engaged in greater social withdrawal inresponse to stress (p¼ 0.004, �2

¼ 0.09).Partial correlations revealed that neither social

withdrawal nor social support seeking were associatedwith social drinking variables (Table II). However,social withdrawal showed significant small to moderateassociations with all solitary drinking variables. Socialsupport seeking showed small negative associationswith the frequency of solitary heavy drinking.

Predicting solitary heavy episodic drinkingfrom severity of alcohol dependence and drinkingto copeIn a simultaneous multiple regression, controlling forage and gender, we examined the associations ofalcohol dependence severity and drinking to cope withthe frequency of solitary heavy drinking episodes(R2¼ 0.32, F(4, 89)¼ 10.08, p < 0.001). Both drinking

to cope (B¼ 0.12 [0.04], �¼ 0.35, p¼ 0.001,f 2¼ 0.13) and severity of alcohol dependence

(B¼ 0.02 [0.01], �¼ 0.30, p¼ 0.005, f2¼ 0.10) wereuniquely associated with the frequency of solitaryheavy drinking, and together these two variablesaccounted for 32% of the variance. Age and genderwere not significantly associated with the frequency ofsolitary binge drinking.

DISCUSSION

Solitary heavy drinkers were significantly higher indepression, hopelessness, and suicidal ideation thansocial heavy drinkers. Consistent with the previouswork (Gonzalez, Collins, et al., 2009) and extending

Table II. Partial correlations between social and solitary drinking variables and primary study variables, controlling for age and

gender (N¼ 90).

Social drinking variables Solitary drinking variables

Frequency

Drinks per

drinking day

Heavy

drinking Frequency

Drinks per

drinking day

Heavy

drinking

Suicidal ideation �0.05 0.08 0.05 0.32** 0.35*** 0.30**

Hopelessness 0.04 0.10 0.07 0.31** 0.33** 0.23*

Depression 0.05 0.18y 0.14 0.40*** 0.41*** 0.31**

Negative mood regulation expectancies 0.09 �0.21y 0.06 �0.32** �0.42*** �0.38***

Drinking to cope 0.11 0.10 0.14 0.46*** 0.48*** 0.50***

Social network size 0.08 �0.05 �0.03 0.01 �0.003 0.07

Social network satisfaction �0.11 0.04 �0.11 �0.06 �0.19y �0.11

Loneliness 0.02 0.15 0.07 0.41*** 0.33** 0.34**

Social competence 0.04 �0.03 0.04 �0.21* �0.27* �0.22*

Drinking network size 0.25* 0.20y 0.22* �0.10 �0.05 �0.14

Drinking network satisfaction 0.16 0.03 0.02 �0.17 �0.24* �0.26*

Social withdrawal 0.04 0.08 0.07 0.26* 0.27* 0.21*

Social support seeking 0.01 0.05 0.03 �0.17 �0.15 �0.24*

Note: yp < 0.10; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; and ***p < 0.001.

SOLITARY HEAVY DRINKING 291

Add

ict R

es T

heor

y D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Otta

wa

on 0

9/10

/13

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.

these findings to a general population of emergingadult heavy drinking college students, partial correla-tions examining the associations of social and solitarydrinking variables suggest that negative affect variablesalmost exclusively were related to solitary drinking, asopposed to social drinking. In this study, we addition-ally found that solitary heavy drinkers were signifi-cantly lower in negative mood regulation expectanciesthan were social heavy drinkers. Even when controllingfor depression, moderate differences were foundbetween social and solitary heavy drinkers withregard to drinking to cope and negative mood regula-tion expectancies. This suggests that greater drinking tocope and lower expectancies regarding their ability toadaptively regulate negative affect among solitaryheavy drinkers are not solely attributable to higherdepression in this group.

To our knowledge, this is the first study to directlyexamine social issues in relation to solitary drinking.We found that solitary heavy drinking was notsignificantly associated with social support networksize or satisfaction with social support. The effect sizesfor the comparison of social and solitary heavydrinkers, and the continuous associations betweensocial and solitary drinking variables and socialnetwork size, all were trivial. However, there weresmall non-significant associations between satisfactionwith social support and solitary drinking. Given themodest sample size of this study, there was limitedpower to find significant results for small relationships.However, based on the obtained effect sizes, it appearsthat if a relationship does exist between satisfactionwith social support and solitary heavy episodic drink-ing, it is a small one and of a much smaller magnitudethan other comparisons.

No significant differences were found betweensocial and solitary heavy drinkers in regard to thesize of their drinking social network or their satis-faction with the availability of drinking partners andeffect sizes for these analyses were trivial. Theresults of both the social support and drinking socialnetwork analyses suggest that these social factorslikely do not play a significant role in solitary heavydrinking.

Although social and solitary heavy episodic drinkersdid not significantly differ with regard to the size oftheir social network and their satisfaction with theirsocial support, there is an indication that solitary heavydrinkers are experiencing social discomfort. Solitaryheavy drinkers were higher in loneliness and perceivedthemselves to be lower in social competence. Hence,solitary heavy drinkers do not appear to be entirelycomfortable with their social connections, although donot appear to be truly lacking in available socialsupport.

It is important to note that although solitary heavyepisodic drinkers rated themselves lower in socialcompetence, self-ratings of social competence can beaffected by depressive symptoms. One study found that

those higher in depression rated themselves lower insocial competence than did peer raters, while thoselower in depression rated themselves higher in socialcompetence than did peers (Whitton, Larson, &Hauser, 2008). Thus the lower ratings for socialcompetence by solitary heavy drinkers may not accu-rately reflect deficits in social skills, but instead a lackof self-efficacy or a negative cognitive bias regardingsocial interactions that is associated with depression.When depression was controlled in these analyses, thesignificant differences between social and solitaryheavy drinkers on loneliness and social competencewere no longer significant. This suggests that depres-sion’s association with loneliness and self-rated socialcompetence may account for the differences betweensocial and solitary heavy drinkers or that thesevariables themselves may contribute to solitary heavydrinking as aspects of negative affect.

Regarding socially related coping skills, there was asmall difference between social and solitary heavydrinkers, with solitary heavy drinkers evidencing atrend toward being less likely to seek out social supportwhen upset as a means of coping. Partial correlationsrevealed that solitary, but not social, drinking variablesshowed small significant associations with socialwithdrawal and being less likely to seek out socialsupport when distressed. The lack of significantdifferences between the heavy episodic drinkinggroups with regard to social withdrawal, but smallsignificant relationships found between all solitarydrinking variables and social withdrawal, may be dueto both moderate and heavy solitary drinking beingrelated to social withdrawal. However, further studiesare needed to examine these associations.

In this study we found that both drinking to cope andalcohol dependence severity were uniquely associatedwith frequency of solitary heavy episodic drinking.This does not support the parsimonious explanationthat solitary heavy episodic drinking is merely anindication of severity of alcohol dependence. Instead,these findings suggest that while solitary heavy drink-ing is associated with greater severity of alcoholdependence as measured by the SADD, it also isuniquely associated with excessively using alcohol tocope with negative affect.

There are several limitations that should be consid-ered when interpreting the results of this study. Mostnotably, the sample size was modest, resulting inlimited power to detect small effects; therefore themagnitude of obtained effect sizes should also beconsidered when interpreting the results. Because ofboth the limited sample size and the overrepresentationof women in the sample, we did not examine potentialgender interactions. Future studies are needed toexplore whether gender may moderate the associationof heavy drinking context with negative affect, alcohol-related problems, mood regulation expectancies,coping skills, and drinking motives. Given that thiswas an initial exploratory study, multivariate

292 V. M. GONZALEZ & M. C. SKEWES

Add

ict R

es T

heor

y D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Otta

wa

on 0

9/10

/13

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.

associations largely were not examined and furtherstudies are also needed to examine the inter-relation-ships of the study variables and solitary heavy drinking.It should be noted that although many correlationalanalyses were conducted, we chose not to correct formultiple comparisons as this would have resulted in ahighly inflated Type II error rate. However, the resultsfor solitary drinking variables were quite consistent(Table II) and the number of significant correlationswell exceeded the 5% at an alpha of 0.05 one wouldexpect if mere chance were at play, with 69% of thecomparisons found to be significant. In contrast, 5% ofthe social drinking variable comparisons were signif-icant and it is unknown whether these significantrelationships are merely due to Type I error. Given thatthis was a study of emerging adult college drinkers,generalization of the results to other age groups orpopulations may be limited. Further, the study was notcomprised of a random sample of heavy drinkingstudents and therefore may not represent all heavydrinking students. Finally, this is a cross-sectionalstudy, therefore causation and directionality of theassociations could not be determined. Future prospec-tive studies are needed, as are studies that focus onpotential moderating or mediating effects to explain therelationship between negative affect and solitary heavydrinking.

In conclusion, the findings of this study appear to beat least partially consistent with a motivational modelof alcohol use, with solitary heavy episodic drinkingbeing associated with negative affect and believing thatone will be unable to regulate negative affect throughmore adaptive means. Solitary heavy drinking studentsappear to be at a greater risk for alcohol-relatedproblems and dependence. However, alcohol depen-dence does not appear to fully explain this drinkingbehavior among students. We found evidence thatsymptoms associated with alcohol dependence may becontributing to solitary drinking, but that drinking tocope with negative affect also was uniquely associatedwith solitary heavy drinking. Our findings also suggestthat solitary heavy drinkers are not socially isolated orlacking in social support; however, they do experiencegreater social discomfort than social heavy drinkers.This social discomfort coupled with the finding of asolitary drinking having a small continuous associationwith being less likely to seek out social support andgreater likelihood of socially withdrawing when upsetmay play a role in disinhibiting drinking heavily alone,which is not a typical behavior for college students. Itwould appear treatments focused on depression, affectregulation, adaptive coping, and alcohol abuse wouldbe helpful with this population to address their relatedproblems.

Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of

interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content

and writing of the article.

REFERENCES

Arnett, J.J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of develop-

ment from the late teens through the twenties. American

Psychologist, 55, 469–480.

Bachman, J., Wadsoworth, K., O’Malley, P., & Johnston, L.

(1997). Smoking, drinking, and drug use in young adulthood:

The impacts of a new freedoms and new

responsibilities. Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Beck, A.T., & Steer, R.A. (1988). Manual for the Beck

Hopelessness Scale. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological

Corporation.

Beck, A.T., Steer, R.A., & Brown, G.K. (1996). Manual for the

Beck Depression Inventory (2nd ed.). Antonio, TX: The

Psychological Corporation.

Bourgault, C., & Demers, A. (1997). Solitary drinking: A risk

factor for alcohol-related problems? Addiction, 92, 303–312.

Brissette, I., Scheier, M.F., & Carver, C.S. (2002). The role of

optimism in social network development, coping, and

psychological adjustment during a life transition. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 102–111.

Catanzaro, S.J., & Laurent, J. (2004). Perceived family support,

negative mood regulation expectancies, coping, and adoles-

cent alcohol use: Evidence of mediation and moderation

effects. Addictive Behaviors, 29, 1779–1797.

Catanzaro, S.J., & Mearns, J. (1990). Measuring generalized

expectancies for negative mood regulation: Initial scale

development and implications. Journal of Personality

Assessment, 54, 546–563.

Christiansen, M., Vik, P.W., & Jarchow, A. (2002). College

student heavy drinking in social contexts versus alone.

Addictive Behaviors, 27, 393–404.

Clum, G.A., & Febbraro, G.A.R. (1994). Stress, social support,

and problem-solving appraisal/skills: Prediction of suicide

severity within a college sample. Journal of Psychopathology

and Behavioral Assessment, 16, 69–83.

Cooper, M.L., Agocha, V.B., & Sheldon, M.S. (2000). A

motivational perspective on risky behaviors: The role of

personality and affect regulatory processes. Journal of

Personality, 68, 1059–1088.

Cooper, M.L., Frone, M.R., Russell, M., & Mudar, P. (1995).

Drinking to regulate positive and negative emotions: A

motivational model of alcohol use. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 69, 990–1005.

Cooper, M.L., Russell, M., Skinner, J.B., & Windle, M. (1992).

Development and validation of a three-dimensional

measure of drinking motives. Psychological Assessment, 4,

123–132.

Dieserud, G., Roysamb, E., Ekeberg, O., & Kraft, P. (2001).

Toward an integrative model of suicide attempt: A cognitive

psychological approach. Suicide and Life-Threatening

Behavior, 31, 153–168.

Gonzalez, V.M., Bradizza, C.M., & Collins, R.L. (2009).

Drinking to cope as a statistical mediator in the relationship

between suicidal ideation and alcohol outcomes among

underage college drinkers. Psychology of Addictive

Behaviors, 23, 443–451.

Gonzalez, V.M., Collins, R.L., & Bradizza, C.M. (2009).

Solitary and social heavy drinking, suicidal ideation, and

drinking motives in underage college drinkers. Addictive

Behaviors, 34, 993–999.

Grant, B.F., Dawson, D.A., Stinson, F.S., Chou, S.P.,

Dufour, M.C., & Pickering, R.P. (2004). The 12-month

prevalence and trends in DSM-IV alcohol abuse and

SOLITARY HEAVY DRINKING 293

Add

ict R

es T

heor

y D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Otta

wa

on 0

9/10

/13

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.

dependence: United states, 1991–1992 and 2001–2002. Drugand Alcohol Dependence, 74, 223–234.

Hawthorne, G. (2008). Perceived social isolation in a commu-

nity sample: Its prevalence and correlates with aspects of

peoples’ lives. Social Psychiatry and PsychiatricEpidemiology, 43, 140–150.

Jarvis, B.G. (2006). MediaLab (Version 2006.2.40) [Computer

software]. New York, NY: Empirisoft.

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.

LaBrie, J.W., Hummer, J.F., & Pedersen, E.R. (2007). Reasons

for drinking in the college student context: The differential

role and risk of the social motivator. Journal of Studies onAlcohol and Drugs, 68, 393–398.

MacLean, M.G., & Lecci, L. (2000). A comparison of models of

drinking motives in a university sample. Psychology ofAddictive Behaviors, 14, 83–87.

Mohr, C.D., Armeli, S., Tennen, H., Carney, M.A., Affleck, G.,

& Hromi, A. (2001). Daily interpersonal experiences, context,

and alcohol consumption: Crying in your beer and toasting

good times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80,

489–500.

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (2003).

Task force on recommended questions of the National Councilon alcohol abuse and alcoholism: Recommended sets ofalcohol consumption questions, October 15–16, 2003.

Bethesda, MD: Author. Retrieved from http://www.niaaa.

nih.gov/Resources/ResearchResources/TaskForce.htm

O’Hare, T. (1997). Measuring excessive alcohol use in college

drinking contexts: The Drinking Context Scale. AddictiveBehaviors, 22, 469–477.

Peirce, R.S., Frone, M.R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M.L. (1996).

Financial stress, social support, and alcohol involvement: A

longitudinal test of the buffering hypothesis in a general

population survey. Health Psychology, 15, 38–47.

Raistrick, D., Dunbar, G., & Davidson, R. (1983). Development

of a questionnaire to measure alcohol dependence. BritishJournal of Addiction, 78, 89–95.

Read, J.P., Kahler, C.W., Strong, D.R., & Colder, C.R. (2006).

Development and preliminary validation of the Young Adult

Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire. Journal of Studies onAlcohol, 67, 169–177.

Reynolds, W.M. (1991). Adult Suicide Ideation Questionnaire:Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment

Resources.

Russell, D.W. (1996). UCLA Loneliness Scale (version 3):

Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 66, 20–40.

Russell, D., Peplau, L.A., & Cutrona, C.E. (1980). The revised

UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity

evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39,

472–480.

Sadava, S.W., & Pak, A.W. (1993). Stress-related problem

drinking and alcohol problems: A longitudinal study and

extension of Marlatt’s model. Canadian Journal ofBehavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences DuComportement, 25, 446–464.

Sadava, S.W., & Thompson, M.M. (1986). Loneliness, social

drinking, and vulnerability to alcohol problems. Canadian

Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des

Sciences Du Comportement, 18, 133–139.

Sarason, B.R., Sarason, I.G., Hacker, T.A., & Basham, R.B.

(1985). Concomitants of social support: Social skills, physical

attractiveness, and gender. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 49, 469–480.

Sarason, I.G., Sarason, B.R., Shearin, E.N., & Pierce, G.R.

(1987). A brief measure of social support: Practical and

theoretical implications. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 4, 497–510.

Simons, J.S., Gaher, R.M., Correia, C.J., Hansen, C.L., &

Christopher, M.S. (2005). An affective-motivational model

of marijuana and alcohol problems among college students.

Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 19, 326–334.

Slutske, W.S. (2005). Alcohol use disorders among US college

students and their non-college-attending peers. Archives of

General Psychiatry, 62, 321–327.

Stein, J.A., Dixon, E.L., & Nyamathi, A.M. (2008). Effects of

psychosocial and situational variables on substance abuse

among homeless adults. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,

22, 410–416.

Stewart, S.H., Zeitlin, S.B., & Samoluk, S.B. (1996).

Examination of a three-dimensional drinking motives ques-

tionnaire in a young adult university student sample.

Behaviour Research and Therapy, 34, 61–71.

Timberlake, D.S., Hopfer, C.J., Rhee, S.H., Friedman, N.P.,

Haberstick, B.C., Lessem, J.M., & Hewitt, J.K. (2007).

College attendance and its effect on drinking behaviors in a

longitudinal study of adolescents. Alcoholism: Clinical and

Experimental Research, 31, 1020–1030.

Tobin, D.L., Holroyd, K.A., Reynolds, R.V., & Wigal, J.K.

(1989). The hierarchical factor structure of the Coping

Strategies Inventory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 13,

343–361.

Tragesser, S.L., Sher, K.J., Trull, T.J., & Park, A. (2007).

Personality disorder symptoms, drinking motives, and alcohol

use and consequences: Cross-sectional and prospective

mediation. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology,

15, 282–292.

Tucker, J.S., Ellickson, P.L., Collins, R.L., & Klein, D.J.

(2006). Does solitary substance use increase adoles-

cents’ risk for poor psychosocial and behavioral

outcomes? A 9-year longitudinal study comparing

solitary and social users. Psychology of Addictive

Behaviors, 20, 363–372.

Wechsler, H., Dowdall, G.W., Davenport, A., & Castillo, S.

(1995). Correlates of college student binge drinking.

American Journal of Public Health, 85, 921–926.

White, H.R., & Jackson, K. (2004). Social and psychological

influences on emerging adult drinking behavior. Alcohol

Research and Health, 28, 182–190.

Whitton, S.W., Larson, J.J., & Hauser, S.T. (2008).

Depressive symptoms and bias in perceived social compe-

tence among young adults. Journal of Clinical Psychology,

64, 791–805.

294 V. M. GONZALEZ & M. C. SKEWES

Add

ict R

es T

heor

y D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Otta

wa

on 0

9/10

/13

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.