The Daily Stress and Coping Process and Alcohol Use
among College Students*
CRYSTAL L. PARK. rii.D.,1 STEPHEN ARMELI, l'll.o.,t AND HOWARD TENNEN, PII.D. 1
Department of Psychology. University of Connecticlll. 406 Babbidge Road. Box U I 020. Storrs. Connecticut 06269-1020
ABSTRACT. Objective: To examine whether students drink more al-
cohol on higher-stress days than on lower-stress days: whether daily cop-
ing Slr'~tegics and affective states mediate the within-person relationship
between stress and drinking; and whether the daily stress-drin king pro-
cess varies as a function of previously idcmi fied between-person risk
factors (sex. family history, coping motives, sensation seeking. neuroti-
cism). Me1hod: College students (N = 137) completed daily surveys for
28 consecutive days. Resul!s: With daily coping, afl'ect and weekly trends
in drinking controlled for. students consumed more alcohol on days that
0 F THE DIFFERENT MOTIV ES underlying college
students' alcohol use, coping with stress is believed
to be most closely linked with the development of problem
drinking and the fai lure to "mature oul" of heavy drinking
following graduation (Baer, 2002). However, much of what
is known about stress and alcohol use among college sn•-
dents comes from studies that reveal little about the fast-
moving, intraindividual processes outlined in theoretical
models.
The present study addresses two key limitations of pre-
vious research: (I) the use of between-person or long-tem1
longitudinal designs that are not sensitive to the ebb and
flow of much of the variation in the stress process and
alcohol use (Tenncn ct al., 2000) and (2) having partici-
pants recall such phenomena weeks or even months after
their occurrence, the validity of which has been questioned
in terms of memory decay and retrieval biases (Shiffman,
2000). We used an Internet-based daily diary design that
reduced recall distortion and allowed us to examine these
relationships at time intervals that might better correspond
Received: March 14. 2003. Revision: July 28. 2003.
•This study was supported by 1 ationallnstitute on Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism grants 5R03AA 12434-02 and P50-AA03510. Crysta l L. Park
was supported, in pan. by Na tional Insti tutes of Health training grant
5K1 2 HD01409 to the Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Women's
Health. University of Connecticut Health Center.
'Correspondence may be sent to Crystal L. Park at the above address, or
via email at: crysdara@aol.com. Stephen Armeli is with the Department of
Psychology. Pace University. New York . lloward Tennen is with the Depart-
ment of Community Medicine and Healthcarc. University of Connecticut
Health Center, Fam1ington. CT.
126
had events perceived as relatively more stressful. Students also drank
more on days characterized by relatively lower problem-focused cop-
ing and relatively higher positive and negative aiTect. Contrary to pre-
dictions. the effect of stress on drinking was not fully mediated by coping
and aflcct. Findings also revea led individual differences in several links
in the daily stress coping-drink ing process. Conclusions: The daily stress
coping-drinking process is complex, and it appears that there arc both
positive and negative affective pathways underlying daily alcohol con-
sumption. (J. Stud. Alcoho/ 65: 126-135. 2004)
to the theoretically posited mechanisms underlying the
stress-alcohol link.
According to Conger ( 1956), alcohol reduces negative
affective states associated with stress, thus reinforcing con-
sumption and, in turn, increasing the probability of alcohol
use when experiencing stress. More recent accounts of the
stress-drinking link (e.g., Cooper et al., 1988) have inte-
grated key process variables taken from Lazarus and
Folkman's (1984) transactional model of stress, such as the
concept of coping. In this model, people's attempts to cope
with stressful encounters directly influence their affective
states. Accordingly. coping can be conceptualized as a proxi-
mal mediator of the influence of negative experiences on
negative affect and. subsequently, on alcohol use.
In general, research examining college students and ado-
lescents supports the notion that Iife stress is an important
risk for alcohol use in general (e.g., Hutchinson et al., 1998).
However. stt•dies explicating the processes linking stressful
encounters with alcohol use. namely coping. are limited
and conflicting (e.g., Cooper ct al., 1992; Simpson and Ar-
royo, 1998; Windle and Windle, 1996). None of these stud-
ies actually addressed the process question of interest: What
types of coping strategies are proximally related to alcohol
use?
A more accurate picture of the role of coping in the
stress-drinking process would require monitoring stress, cop-
ing, affect and alcohol use repeatedly within the person
and closer to the time they occur. For example, a series of
community-based daily diary studies of adult regular and
heavy drinkers has shown that individuals reponed greater
alcohol consumption on days during which they cncoun-
 PARK, ARMEL! AND TENNEN
tered certain types of negative events (Carney et al., 2000;
Mohr et al., 2001). Hussong et al. (2001) examined, among
college students, the association between affect and alcohol
use across weekday and weekend time intervals. Some sup-
port was found for the notion that elevated negative affect
during one time period anticipated relative increases in
drinking in subsequent time intervals and that these asso-
ciations varied as a function of social factors. However,
Hussong and colleagues (2001) did not examine the occur-
rence of stressors during these time periods, and none of
the aforementioned studies measured coping repeatedly
within the person. Frorru11e and Rivet ( 1994) did have col-
lege students record their stress, coping and drinking in
daily diaries over I0 days. However, only between-person
associations were examined using the aggregated daily data.
Thus, the primary goal of the present study was to ex-
amine the proximal within-person associations among event
stress, coping, affect and alcohol use in a college student
sample. We chose to examine the daily associations, as
opposed to other time intervals (e.g., Hussong et al., 2001),
for several reasons. First, as Hussong and associates (200 I)
stated, the time interval chosen to examine the links among
stress, coping. affect and alcohol should be driven by mecha-
nisms under consideration. Prior studies of the stress and
coping process in general and studies of stress and alcohol
use specifically support the validity of examining same-
day associations (for a review, see Tennen et al., 2000).
Second, although most drinking occurs on weekends, col-
lege students do report drinking on al l days of the week
(e.g., Hussong et al., 200 I). Thus, aggregating to larger
time intervals (e.g., weekday and/or weekend) might ob-
scure specific instances of stress-induced drinking. Finally,
examination of daily drinking allowed us to use all of our
within-person observations, thus maximizing power.
We examined three coping strategies: avoidance (efforts
to escape focusing on a situation); approach emotion-fo-
cused (actively processing and expressing emotions); and
problem-focused (efforts to solve a situation). Recent
conceptualizations of emotion-focused coping distinguish
between avoidant and approach behaviors (Teny and Hynes,
1998). Lazarus ( 1993) and others (e.g., Tennen et al., 2000)
have argued that any coping strategy may be adaptive or
maladaptive in particular circumstances. Yet, there is a great
deal of support for the notion that problem-focused coping
is related to less negative affect (Terry and Hynes, 1998),
and avoidance coping is associated with negative emotional
outcomes (Stanton et al., 2000). Approach emotion-focused
coping appears to operate differently and may be related to
better adjustment (e.g., Berghuis and Stanton, 2002). Thus,
we expected that approach emotion-focused coping efforts
and problem-focused coping effor1s would lead to less al-
cohol consumption because they help reduce distress. ln
contrast, if the aim of avoidance coping on a particular day
is to evade dealing with a situation, drinking can help
127
achieve this goal. and therefore use of avoidance coping
might be associated with greater alcohol use. A voidance
coping also may be linked with drinking on a particular
day because, as an ineffective strategy, it does not reduce
(and may actually generate) negative affect, which in tum
might lead to alcohol use.
A secondary goal of this study was to examine how the
daily stress-drinking process varied as a function of previ-
ous! y identi tied between-person risk factors. Specifically.
we examined individual differences in drinking-to-cope mo-
tives, neuroticism, sex and family history of alcohol-related
problems. Based on theory and prior findings. more posi-
tive within-person stress-drinking associations should be
found among those high in drinking-to-cope motives (Coo-
per et al.. 1995) and neuroticism (e.g., Carney et al., 2000)
and among individuals with a family history of alcohol abuse
(Simpson and Arroyo, 1998). Prior research also has found
that gender moderates the stress-drinking association, al-
though the specific effects have differed across studies
(Greeley and Oei , 1999).
Finally, we also examined factors relevant to the social-
enhancement drinking pathway (e.g.. Cooper et al.. 1995:
Windle and Windle. 1996). We thought it important to con-
trol the effect of positive affective states on daily drinking
as well as individual differences- such as sensation seek-
ing and social-enhancement drinking motives -that might
be associated with drinking in response to positive affec-
tive states. A lso, in an exploratory fashion, we examined
the role of these variables in the stress coping-drinking
process.
Method
Sample and procedure
Participants were recruited from the participant pool at
the University of Connecticut during the fall semester; stu-
dents received fu ll research credit for their participation in
addition to financial compensation. Participants initially ac-
cessed a secure Internet Web site to complete the baseline
measures. Then about a week later, the daily dia1y portion
of the study commenced, wherein participants received an
email message each day reminding them to access the di-
ary pages. To minimize reporting time variation, partici-
pants could log on to the Web site only between the hours
of 3:30 PM and 7:00 PM. Each day, they completed mea-
sures assessing the previous evening's activities (i.e., those
occurring after the previous day's daily report), including
alcohol use, and the current day's stressor, stressor apprais-
als, coping efforts and affect (up to the reporting time).
Of the 246 participants (73.8% women) who initially
enrolled in the study, 13 did not complete the initial assess-
ment, 5 did not participate in the daily portion of the study
and 38 were dropped from the final analyses because of
128 JOUR AL OF STUDIES 0
low compliance (i.e., less than 50% of the study days com-
pleted) in the daily portion of the study. Of the 190 re-
maining participants, 53 did not report alcohol use during
the daily portion of the study and thus could not be in-
cluded in the fina l analyses examining drinking. This re-
sulted in a usable sample size of 137. Of the 3,836 possible
reporting days, students logged in on 3, 132 days (8 1.6% of
the total days).
The final sample of 137 comprised 101 women (73.7%)
and had a mean (SO) age of 18.72 ( 1.02). Most partici-
pants were white (90.5%): the remainder were Asian (4.4%),
black (0. 7%), Latino (0. 7%) and of other racial groups
(3.7%). About half (52.6%) of the participants were fresh-
men, 37.2% were sophomores, 7.3% were juniors and 2.9%
were seniors or beyond. Most students lived on campus
(96.4%), were full-time students (98.5%) and single ( I00%).
Only seven pa11icipants (5. 1%) were members of a frater-
nity or sorority. A comparison of the final sample with
individuals not included in the analysis showed no differ-
ences in sex makeup (X2 = .00, I df, p = .99), class year
(X2 = 4.44. 4 df, p = .35), race (white vs other: x2 = 0.91, I
df. p = .34) or age (t = 0.91. 242 elf, p = .93).
Measures
Drinking motives. At baseline, partiCipants completed
Cooper's ( 1994) adolescent coping, social and enhancement
reasons for drinking sca les. For each 5-item subscale, re-
spondents reported the relative frequency of drinking for
such reasons. Items were answered on a 4-point scale rang-
ing from I (almost never/ never) to 4 (almost always/al-
ways). Both in the source article and in the present sample
(r = .76, p < .001), a strong positive association was found
between the social and enhancement subscales; thus they
were combined to form an overall social-enhancement mo-
ti ve. Cronbach 's alpha was .89 for the coping motives scale
and .94 for the social-enhancement motives scale.
Family hist01y of alcohol abuse. At baseline, partici-
pants completed a modified version of the family history
assessment module from Project MATCH (Project MATCH
Research Group, 1998). Here, participants reported whether
any immediate fami ly member (mother. father, brother, sis-
ter) had problems with alcohol usc. Participants were coded
as 0 if no family member had problems with alcohol use,
or I if at least one family member had problems with alco-
hol use. In the present sample, 36 panicipants (26.3%) were
classified as having a family history of alcohol problems.
Evidence of reliability and validity are presented in the
source article.
Neuroticism. At baseline, panicipants completed the 12-
item neuroticism (N) subscale from the EO Five-Factor
Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa and McCrae, 1992). The items
were rated on a 7-point scale ranging from I (strongly dis-
agree) to 7 (strongly agree). Cronbach's alpha was .87.
ALCOHOL I JANUARY 2004
Sensation seeking. At baseline. panicipants completed
the 8-itcm excitement seeking subscale from the Extrover-
sion scale of the revised EO-Persona lity Inventory (NEO-
PI -R: Costa and McCrae. 1992). The items were rated on a
7-po int scale rangi ng from I (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree). Cronbach 's alpha was .74.
Daily stress and coping. Each day participants were asked
to provide a brief description of "today's most negative
experience (no matter how small)" and to rate its degree of
stressfulness on a 7-point scale from "not at all" to "ex-
tremely." Coping was assessed with 12 items used in Park
et al. (in press) that were adapted from the Brief COPE
(Carver, 1997) and Stanton et al. (2000). Park ct al. (in
press) found three factors underlying these items: emotion
approach coping (e.g., "I've been al lowing myself to ex-
press my emotions," "I' ve been getting emotional support
from others"); avoidance coping (e.g., " I' ve been giving up
trying to deal with it," "I've been saying to myself ' this
isn't real'"); and problem-focused coping (e.g., "I've been
taking action to try to make the situation better," "I've been
trying to come up with a strategy about what to do"). Par-
ticipants reported the extent to which they engaged in each
of these strategies in dealing with today's most undesirable
event. Items were rated on a 4-point scale from I ("I haven't
been doing this at all") to 4 (" I've been doing this a lot'').
We created scale scores by averaging together the appro-
priate items. Alphas on days 2, 14 and 27 ranged from .84 to
.94 for emotion approach coping, from .68 to .8 1 for avoid-
ance coping and from .83 to .87 for problem-focused coping.
Daily affect. Individuals responded to the question "I low
much do each of the following words describe your mood
TODAY? Please click on the appropriate response." Draw-
ing on existing models of afTect and mood (e.g., Larsen
and Diener, 1992; Watson ct al.. 1988), positive affect was
assessed with the items happy, cheerful, enthusiastic, ex-
cited, relaxed and content, and negative affect was assessed
with the items nervous, jittery, hostile, angry, sad and de-
jected. Participants responded using a 5-point scale ranging
from 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely). We created general
positive and negative affect scores. Cronbach's alphas for
the composite scales across days 2. 14 and 27 ranged from
.75 to .86 for negative afTect and from .85 to .93 for posi-
tive afTect.
Dt1ily a/coho/use. Participants reponed their drinking at
home (e.g., "in your apartment, donn room, etc.") and away
from home (e.g., "at a bar, friend's apartment or dorm room,
etc.") for the previous evening. One drink was defined as
one 12-oz can or bottle of beer, one 4-oz glass of wine,
one 12-oz bottle of wine cooler or I oz of liquor straight or
in a mixed drink. Response options ranged from 0 to > 12;
responses of> 12 were recoded to a value of 13 {this value
represented only 0.5% of the total responses for each cat-
egory). In the current analyses, we summed drinking at
home and away to form a total drinking variable.
 129

Results motivation (r = .50, p < .0 I) and drinking-to-cope motiva-

Descriptive statistics and correlations
Because drinking for day 1 was recorded on day 1 + I,
we had daily data for a maximum of 27 days. In addition,
incomplete data for any I day led to two missing data points
for the drinking analyses. This resulted in a Level I sample
size of 2.420. or a mean (SO) of 17.66 (5.41) days per
person. Each day of the week was well represented in the
final sample, ranging from Fridays (290 person days; 12.0%
of total days) to Mondays (415 person days; 17 .I% of total
days).
Panicipants reponed having at least one drink on 21.9%
of the reponing days (range: I to 13 days). The mean (SO)
number of drinks per study day (based on disaggregated
data) was 1.32 (3.11) drinks. with the most drinking occur-
ring on Fridays (mean = 3.83 [4.27] drinks) and the least
on Mondays (mean = 0.20 [ 1.15] drinks). egative daily
experiences fell into the following categories: academic
(31.5%), health/fatigue (20.9%), interpersonal (20.6%) and
other (e.g., work-related, financial, traffic/parking, weather)
(27.0%). The average event stress level was highest on Mon-
day (mean = 4. 70 [ 1.86]) and lowest on Saturday (mean =
3.89 [ 1.92]).
Correlations are displayed in Table I. Consistent with
prior research, men, those high in sensation seeking, drink-
ing-to-cope and social-enhancement motives, as well as
those with higher average daily negative mood (marginal
significance) drank more on average. Consistent with Armeli
ct al. 's (2000) findings. those with higher average daily
event stress ratings drank less on average. Although the
three aggregate coping strategies were moderately to highly
correlated, Park et al. (in press) found that at the within-
person level they were only moderately associated. Finally,
we examined correlations between drinking status (drink-
ers, 11 = 137, coded as I, and nondrinkers, n = 53, coded as
0) and a II of the variables. Ori nkers reponed greater aggre-
gate avoidance coping (r = .16, p = .03). social-drinking
tion (r = .36, p < .0 I); no other differences were found.
Multilevel regression a11a~vses
The stress-dri11king associatio11. We conducted multilevel
regression analyses (Raudenbush and Bryk. 2002: Schwartz
and Stone, 1998) using Hierarchical Linear Modeling soft-
ware (vol. 5.04: Raudenbush et al.. 200 I). Because daily
drinking is a count variable. we used the Hierarchical Gen-
eralized Linear Modeling option, specifying a Poisson sam-
pling model. log-link function and overdispersion
(Raudenbush and Bryk, 2002). We report population aver-
age estimates and robust standard errors for fixed effects.
Tj ,; = bo; + b 1, (Event Stress,;) + e, (I)
bo = 'Yoo + y01 (Aggregate Event Stress;)+ u0, (2)
(3)
We first evaluated a model predicting the number of
drinks from event stress ratings. Equation I shows the
within-person (or Level I) prediction model wherein the
log-predicted value (11) for day r and person i is a function
of each person's own intercept, b0, and event stress rating
slope, b 1;, and within-person residual, e,;. To obtain unbi-
ased estimates of the pooled within-person associations, all
predictors were person-mean centered (see Bryk and
Raudenbush, 1992, pp. 117- 122). Thus, b01 in Equation I
can be interpreted as individuals' average daily drinking
levels. To reintroduce the variability lost by person center-
ing, we included person means (sec Schwartz and Stone,
1998) in the Level 2 intercept model (Equation 2). Thus,
here, the Level I intercepts (or average outcome levels) arc
a function of the grand mean (y00 ), each person ·s aggregate
event stress and a between-person residual component, u0;.
The Level 2 model (Equation 3) shows the stress-drinking
slopes as a function of the mean slope (y10) and a between-
person residual component, u1,. All Level 2 variables were
grand-mean centered.

TAillf I. Correlations and dcscnpuve statistics

Mean (SO) I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12
I. Sex
2. Family history -.02
3. euroticism 3.61 ( 1.0 I) . !9• .2 !•
4. Sensation seeking 5.34 (0.96) ·.21° -.16§ -.221
5. Drinking-to-cope motive 2.2 1 (0.95) -.06 .I 0 .46' . 13
6. Social-enhancement motive 3.44 (0.98) -.12 -.03 .w .34 1 .59'
7. Aggregate event stress 4.38 ( 1.05) .41 t .03 .5 1t -.05 .241 . I0
8. Aggregate emotion approach 1.69 (0.49) .09 ·.04 .20° .09 .29' .II .301
9. Aggregate avoidance 1.36 (0.42) ·.02 .0 I .351 -.04 .4 1t .17• .27' .661
I 0. Aggregate problem-focused 2.08 (0.53) .07 .05 .20• .04 .27' . !9• .421 .701 .46'
II . Aggregate negative affect 0.55 (0.48) -.Ot .02 .47' .0 I .4 )-· .25' .291 .551 . 71 I .41 t
12. Aggregate positive affect 1.95 (0.56) .06 -.10 -.24 1 . t8• -. 14t · .08 -.0 I . 14§ .04 .21 ° .01
13. Aggregate drinking 1.43 ( 1.61) -3·
-.) .06 -.03 .27 ' .!9• .35' -.23 1 .02 .I I .01 . 15§ -. I I

Note: N - 132. §p < . 10: •p < .05: 1p < .01.

130 JOUR AL OF STUDIES 0
Results from this model revealed a negative within-per-
son association between the daily event stress and the num-
ber of drinks (b = -.057, 1 = -2.251. 136 df, p = .024) and
a negative association between aggregate daily event stress
and average number of drinks (y - -.2 15, 1 = -2.750, 135 df,
p .006). In other words, indi viduals drank less on days
with more stressful events, and individuals who had higher
average daily stress levels drank less. A significant vari-
ance component also was found for the withi11-person event
stress-drinking association (u 1 - .032, x2 = 179.67, 135 df,
p .007), indicating significant individual differences for
the within-person slopes. The Level I intercepts for all mod-
els demonstrated significant variance components, but for Lhe
sake of brevity they arc not reported here.
To control for weekly trends in drinking, we included
six day-of-the-week dummy codes (with Sunday coded 0)
in the Level I model as fixed effects (see Anneli et al.,
2000). Results from this model revealed a nonsignificant
positive within-person association between daily event stress
and drinking (b = .034, 1 = 1.580, 136 df, p = .114). How-
ever, the slope variance component was still significant (u 1
.0 18, x2 = 174.56, 136 df. p = .0 14), and no change was
found in the aggregate daily stress-average drinking asso-
ciation (y = -.256, 1 = -2.787, 135 df, p = .006). Day-of-
the-week cflccts were as fol lows: Monday. b = -0.240, 2,4 11
df, p .457; Tuesday, b = -0.067, 2,411 df, p = .870;
Wednesday, b = 0.882, 2,411 dl~ p = .036; Thursday, b =
I.950, 2,4 11 df, p < .00 I; Friday, b =- 2.859, 2,411 df, p <
.00 I; Saturday, b = 2.684, 2,4 11 df, p < .00 I.
Because, on average, there was not a significant within-
person positive association between daily event stress and
drinking, a strong case for mediation, which requires the
exogenous predictor to be correlated with the dependent
variable (Baron and Kenny, 1986), cannot be made. How-
ever, less stringent criteria for mediated effects, not requir-
ing this effect, have been proposed wherein the exogenous
predictor is associated with the mediator, which in tum is
associated with the dependent variable (Kenny et al., 1998).
Such effects are especially likely when multiple mediators
have effects on the dependent variable in different direc-
tions. In the present case, linear multilevel models (treating
all slopes as random effects) showed the following: Event
stress predicted problem-focused coping (b = 0.124, 136
df, p < .00 I). emotion approach copi ng (b = 0.1 02, 136 df,
p < .00 1) and avoidance coping (b = 0.043, 136 df, p <
.00 I). Event stress (b = 0.054, 136 df, p < .00 I). emotion
approach coping (b = 0. 177, 136 elf, p < .001) and avoid-
ance coping (b = 0.143, 136 d f, p < .00 I) were unique
predictors of daily negative affect; and event stress (b =
-0.107, 136 df, p < .00 I) was a unique predictor of daily
positive affect. These analyses are based on a subset of the
data examined in Park et al. (in press).
Coping as a mediator ofthe stress-drinking association.
The three daily coping variables were entered, person-ceo-
ALCOHOL I JANUARY 2004
tered, into the Level I model (Equation I) containing the
event stress variable and the day-of-the-week contrasts. The
coping slopes were modeled as random effects. In addition,
the person-level means for the coping variables were en-
tered into the Level 2 model (Equation 2). Results from
thi s model can be seen in Table 2 (Model I). Aggregate
avoidance coping and event stress were unique predictors
of aggregate drinking, with those who used avoidance cop-
ing more often and those who rated events as less stressful
on average drinking more on average.
Of greater interest are the within-person associations (sec
Pooled within-person coefficients). As shown in Table 2.
the unique within-person association between event stress
and drinking was now signi flcant, indicating that, on aver-
age, individuals drank more on days characterized by events
perceived as relatively more stressful. Similarly, the within-
person unique association between problem-focused cop-
ing and drinking was significant, but in the negative
direction. Thus, individuals, on average. drank less on days
when they used relatively more problem-focused coping.
Exponentiation of the partial slopes from Lhis model offers
a straightforward interpretation and an index of effect size:
for each unit increase in stress, the rate of drinking changes
by a factor of (exp.(0.067) = 1.069) or increases by 6.9%;
for each unit increase in problem-focused coping, the rate
of drinking changes by a factor of (exp.( -0.154) = 0.857)
or decreases by 14.3%. Neither emotion approach coping
nor avoidance coping showed sign ificant within-person ef-
fects, and only the emotion approach-drinking slopes dis-
played a significant variance component (see Random
effects).
Affect as a mediator of the stress coping-drinking asso-
ciation. Daily negative affect was entered, person-centered.
into the Level I model, and aggregate negative mood was
entered into the Level 2 intercept model; the negati ve af-
fect-drinking slope was modeled as a random effect. Re-
sults are shown in Table 2 (Model 2). Aggregate daily
negative affect was positively associated with aggregate
drinking, and aggregate avoidance coping no longer pre-
dicted aggregate drinking. At the within-person level. daily
negative affect showed a marginally significant unique ef-
fect. with individuals drinking more on days characterized
by relatively higher levels of negative affect. The unique
within-person effects of both daily stress and problem-fo-
cused coping were still sign ificant. Significant or margin-
ally significant variance components were obtained for
emotion approach coping. stress and negative affect slopes;
nonsignificant variance components were fixed to zero (sec
Snijders and Boskcr, 1999).
Finally, we included positive affect in the model (sec
Table 2. Model 3). Aggregate problem-focused coping was
now a significant positive predictor of average drinking lev-
els. and aggregate positive affect was a marginal negative
predictor of average drinking levels. At Lhe within-person
 PARK,A RMELIA DTE E 13 I

TABI E 2. Muhilc\el rc~_:rcsston resuhs predicting daily dnnking

umber of drinks
Model I Model 2 Model 3
Between-person coefficients (Level 2)
Aggregate emotion upproach -0.092 (.242) -0. 170 (.269) -0.184 (.263)
Aggregate avoidance 0.619 (.275)• 0.251 (.393) 0.149 {.349)
Aggregate probh:m-focuscd 0.216 (.218) 0.182 (.221 ) 0.375 (.182)•
Aggregate event Mress -0.339 (.094)1 -0.355 (.09W -0.377 (.098)1
Aggregate negative afTect 0.575 (.222)• 0.626 {.210)1
Aggregate posim e affect -0.412 { . 239)~
Pooled\\ ithin-pen.on cocffictents (Level I)
Daily emouon approach 0.()41 (.076) -0.021 {.077) -0.069 {.077)
Daily avoidance 0.052 (.070) -0.025 (.073) -0.013 (.071)
Daily problem-focused -0.154 (.053)' -0.155 {.048)1 -0.163 (.045)1
Daily event stre>' 0.067 (.025)1 0.06 1 (.025 ). 0.086 (.024 )1
Daily negative affect 0.158 (.089)~ 0.288 (.09 1)1
Daily positive affi:ct 0.181 (.046) 1
Random effects
Daily emotion approach 0.38 I' 0.228~
Daily avoidance 0.128
Daily problem-focused 0.1 15
Daily event stress 0.040 0.0421 0.0421
Daily negative afTect 0.302' 0.239
Daily posi tive afTeet 0. 109~

.VoLes: Values for bctwecn-pen.on and within-person fixed efTect~ arc the unstandardi.-ed pantal regression
coefficients; robust standard errors are in parentheses. Both models control for day of \\eek {contra;.ts not
shown). For bctwccn-pen.on effects: 132 df for Model I; 131 df for \llodel 2: 130 df for Model 3. For withm-
person efTeets: 136 df lor all models. except for problem-focused and avoidance coping in Model 2 (2.403 df)
and in Model 3 (2.401 df). Values for random effects arc vanance components for Level I slopes. Tests of
significance for random effects arc x2 with 122 df for Model I and x.2 with 132 df for Models 2 and 3.
*p < .IO:*p < .05: 'p · .01.

leveL the unique within-person effect for negative affect
was now significant at the .05 alpha level. as was the unique
within-person effect for positive affect. Thus. individuals.
o n average, drank more on days characterized by relatively
higher levels of positive affect and relatively higher levels
of negative affect. Event stress and problem-focused cop-
ing remained s ignificant within-person predictors. as did
the day-of-the-week contrasts (not shown). There was a
marginally significant variance component for the positive
affect slopes; the variance component for the negative af-
fect slopes was no longer significant.
Cross-le1•el interactions. ext. we included sex, neuroti-
cism. sensation seeking, drinking-to-cope and social-en-
hancement drinking motives and family history of alcohol
problems in the Level 2 model. We first entered them as
predictors of average drinking (Equation 2). Significant
unique effects were found for sex (y - -0.98 1, t = -6.641,
124 df, p < .00 I); sensation seeking (y = 0.196, t = 2.909,
124 df, p = .004); social-enhancement motives (y = 0.224, r
= 2.829. 124 df, p = .005); and average negative mood (y =
0.376. t = 2.451. 124 df, p = .014), with men and those
high in sensation seeking, social-enhancement motives and
aggregate negative affect drinking more on average.
ext. we examined these factors as predictors of the
within-person slopes. For exploratory purposes, we exam-
ined each Level I slope as a function of both the tension-
reduction and social-enhancement individual-difference risk
factors. As shown in Table 3, the within-person emotion
approach coping-drinking slopes varied as a function of
several person factors. Individuals high in social-enhance-
ment motives, those low in sensation seeking and drinking-
to-cope motives. as well as those with a family history of
alcohol problems displayed positive associations between
emotion approach coping and drinking. Figure I shows the
form of the effect for social-enhancement motives; high
and low social motives correspond to plus/minus one stan-
dard deviation. {Al l interactions were of similar cross-over
form , with those low in social-enhancement motives, those
high in sensation seeking and drinking-to-cope motives. as
well as those without a family history of alcohol problems
showing negative associations.)
Sex and family history of alcohol problems were sig-
nificant predictors of the problem-focused coping-drinking
slopes. The form of the sex interaction was similar to that
shown in Figure I, with women showing a negative asso-
ciation and men showing a positive association. The form
of the family history effect revealed that individuals with a
family history of alcohol problems, compared with others.
demonstrated a stronger negative association between prob-
lem-focused coping and drinking. Sex and sensation seek-
ing were significant predictors of the event stress-drinking
slopes, and the fom1 of these effects indicated that men and
those low in sensation seeking had a negative association.
whereas women and those high in sensation seeking dem-
 132 JOURt AL OF STUDIES 0 ALCOIIOL I JA UARY 2004

T\Bit 3. Mululc\·cl regression rC!>ults for cross-Jc,cl mtcrncttons

Between-person predictors
Within-pcn.on
predictor-drinJ.. ing Scnsauon Family DTC SE
slopes Sex Neuroticism scck111g history motives mouvcs
Emotion approach 0.280~ 0. 151 ~ -.206* 0.435' -0.28 1* 0.28 1!
(. 170) (.080) (.082) (. 151) (. 11 3) (.086)
Avoidance -0.274 0.121 0.032 0.076 -0.153* -0.074
(. 181 ) (.08 1) (.082) (. 181) (.090) (.086)
Problem-focused -0.3071 0. 11o~ -0.083 -0.270° 0.051 -0.022
(.I 18) (.066) (.060) (.123) (.073) (.081)
Event ~tress 0.139 1 -0.008 0.084 1 0.006 0.006 0.022
(.0·19) (.025) (.027) (.066) (.037) (.038)
Negauve affect -0.253 -0.212* -0.055 -0.077 -0.086 0.1 II
(. 186) (.090) (.099) (.184) (.097) (. 124)
Positi'e afi"cct 0.199~ 0.041 -0.110~ 0.108 0.048 0.039
(. 11 3) (.060) (.063) (.131) (.089) (.070)

Notes: Va lues arc Level 2 unstandardi7cd panial rcgrcs>ion coefficients: robust standard errors
arc in parentheses. DTC drinking-to-cope; SE • social enhancement.
§p < . 10: *p "'- .05; 1p < .0 1.

onstratcd a positive association. Finally, ncurottctsm pre-
dicted the negative affect-drinking slopes. with those low in
neuroticism demonstrating a stronger positive association.
Supplemental analyses were conducted to examine the
moderating effects of the between-person factors on other
legs of the stress-coping-negative affect process. We rcpon
only the cross-level interactions significant at the .05 alpha
level; all models used a standard linear setup and treated
all slopes as random effects. In predicting negative affect
from event stress and coping, neuroticism moderated the
event stress-negative affect association (y = 0.0 13, 1 = 2.00,
130 df. p = .046), with individuals higher in neuroticism
showing tronger positive associations. In predicting cop-
ing from event stress, only sex moderated the event stress-
emotion approach association (Y = 0.055. 1 = 3. 13, 130 df,
p = .002), with women showing stronger positive associa-
tions. Finally, we examined the final models for problems
with multicollineariry. We ran standard regression analy-
4.5
Low Soctal Motives
4
3.5 - Htgh Social Motives
.....,.c 3 ,..
/
...8
.8
0
~
scs, usi ng the disaggrcgatcd data, including all of the inter-
actions fom1ed from the person-centered and grand-mean-
centered variables. Variance inflation factors (VIFs) revealed
no problems (i.e., all VIF values< 3.6).
Discussion
In general , our find ings underscore the importance of
examining the stress-drinking process at multiple levels of
analysis. Examination of the simple associations among the
aggregate daily variables (i.e., the between-person level of
analysis) indicated that those who on average perceived
events as more stressful actually drank less, on average.
than those who perceived events as less stressful. !low-
ever. this finding does not inform us as to whether indi-
viduals' drinking, on a given day. increases or decreases as
a function of deviations from their average stress level.
•
At the daily level of analysis, a complex process was
found wherein variation in alcohol consumption was
uniquely associated with a variety of factors. including those
that make up the tension-reduction pathway. The effect of
daily event stress on alcohol use was apparent only after
controlling for day-of-the-week and daily coping, and this
effect remained significant with positive and negative af-
fect in the model. Although it was expected that inclusion

E
2.5

2
./
,.,. / of the day-of-the-week predictors would enhance the stress-
drinking effect by removing drinking variation not related
z" 1.5 ~..., to stress (e.g., social drinking), it was not expected that
...- ...- event stress would rema in significant with the inclusion of
the key process variables (coping and affect) in the model.
o.s One possibiliry is that the remaining unique aspect of stress
appraisal might be its cognitive components of threat or
0 loss. Future research should examine distinct cognitive ap-
Hog)!
Emooon Approach Copng
prai als on a daily basis to funher verify thjs interpretation.
Ft<;~u I. The moderating effect of soctal-cnhancemcnt motives on the Our lack of evidence for a fu lly mediated model
assoctauon between daily emotion approach copmg and drinking wherein the effects of daily stress on alcohol usc take place
 PARK. ARMEL! A D TE
solely through coping and mood- docs not rule out the
possibility that event stress influences drinking via these
factors. Instead, our findings raise the possibility of a com-
plex system of indirect effects. For example, stress apprais-
als were positively associated with emotion approach and
avoidance coping, both of which were positively related to
negative affect, which in turn was positively associated with
drinking. In addition, event stress was positively related to
problem-focused coping, which was negatively related to
daily drinking. These patterns could indicate that different
aspects of stressful daily encounters might increase and/or
decrease the amount of alcohol consumed. For example, to
the degree that a daily stressor elicits problem-focused cop-
ing, drinking might be reduced due to the efforts associated
with such action. In contrast, to the degree that a daily
stressor evokes negative affect, ind ividuals might be more
likely to engage in drinking. Replication of these findings
is needed, and more fine-grained within-day sampling could
help to tease out the sequential effects posited.
The lack of a direct association between daily alcohol
usc and avoidance coping and emotion approach coping
was inconsistent with our hypotheses. However. consistent
with prior research. we did find associations among aggre-
gate avoidance coping and drinking. Thus, one possibility
is that, although avoidance coping might not be proximally
related to alcohol use, regular usc of such a strategy exac-
erbates ongoing problems over time, leading to higher lev-
els of negative mood. which in turn arc associated with
increased drinking. On the other hand, our lack of effects for
avoidance coping might be due to incorrect conceptualization
and measurement of the avoidance construct. Our measure
of avoidance coping consisted of items such as "I've been
giving up trying to deal with it'" and "I've been saying to
myself ' this isn't real. "' As a coping strategy. avoidance is
an intentional effort to cognitively escape potentially pain-
ful circumstances or to refocus one's attention. Whereas
giving up and saying "this isn' t real" appear to be auto-
matic reactions to negative events and perhaps even mani-
festations of distress rather than deliberate efforts to deal
with such events, a coping item such as " I've given up
trying to deal with this problem in order to allow me to
reevaluate my goals'" might better capture the deliberate
nature of coping strategies (cf.. Tcnncn and Affleck. 1997).
Although the pooled association between the emotion
approach coping and drinking was not significant, this as-
sociation varied across persons and was associated with
several risk factors. Again, it should be noted that the ef-
fect of emotion-focused coping was a partial effect. Thus,
it is the unique aspect of "expressing emotions" and "seek-
ing emotional support" that seems to be associated with
increased alcohol use. on a daily basis, for individuals high
in social-enhancement motives, those with a family history
of alcohol problems and those low in sensation seeking
and drinking-to-cope motives. Although in need of repli-
E 133
cation, such findings could indicate that. for such individu-
als, drinking occasions also arc times at which ongoing
problems are discussed with friends, regardless of the day's
stress and affective valence. Hussong et al. (200 I) presented
somewhat consistent findings wherein individuals with rela-
tively higher friendship quality demonstrated stronger posi-
ti ve associations between sadness and hos tility and
subsequent drinking. However, friendship quality was a per-
son-level variable, not an indicator of daily interaction.
Moreover, Hussong et al. found the opposite effect with
perceived social support. Further research is needed on the
role of interpersonal interaction as a form of coping in the
stress-drinking process.
We also found that the within-person problem-focused
coping and alcohol use association varied as a function of
sex and fami ly history of abuse, and that the associations
between daily stress appraisals and drinking varied as a
function of sex and sensation seeking. We are reluctant to
offer interpretations of these exploratory findings. How-
ever, we believe that these complex interactive findings
might start to shed light on some of the inconsistencies
(e.g.. concerning sex effects) found in studies examining
the stress-drinking process.
One important caveat to all of the coping findings is
that individuals reported on their coping up to that point in
the day. Thus. an assumption being made is that such cop-
ing extended into the even ing when drinking occurred. Fu-
ture research using more fine-grained within-day reporting
is needed to examine concurrent coping and drinking to
further understand this association.
Findings from the present study also provided prelimi-
nary evidence for motivational models positing positive and
negative affective pathways underlying alcohol consump-
tion (e.g.. Cooper ct al., 1995). In addition to the effect of
negative affect on daily drinking, individuals, on average,
tended to drink relatively more on days characterized by
relatively higher levels of positive affect. This effect may
be related to the celebratory and socializing functions of
college drinking and might be mediated via increasing ex-
pectations of such social occasions as the week progresses.
We removed weekly cycles in alcohol usc, but not in posi-
tive affect. Trends indicated that positive affect increased
as the week progressed, peaking on the weekends. One pos-
sibility is that positive affective states co-occur with in-
creased anticipation of expected pleasurable outcomes from
alcohol-related social situations (e.g., going to parties) for
the coming weekends. Future stud ies assessing expectan-
cies at the daily level of analysis arc needed to test this
interpretation.
Findings from the present study also suggest that these
two motivational pathways might be intertwined. We found
that person factors (e.g., social-enhancement motives, sen-
sation seeking). purportedly related to the social-enhance-
ment motivational pathway. were associated with variation
134 JOUR AL OF STUDIES 0
in within-person emotion approach coping-drinking asso-
ciations. Future research is needed to further explicate the
roles of such risk factors in the stress coping-drinking pro-
cess. Finally, it should be noted that the associations be-
tween the tension reduction variables and drinking became
stronger aficr controlling for positive mood, highlighting
the importance of controlling for the many antecedent fac-
tors underlying daily drinking behavior.
A number of limitations of this study must be noted.
First, our stress and coping measure focused only on the
day's most negative event. which in most cases was a rela-
tively minor problem. This strategy precludes the efTcct of
multiple negative events. and associated coping, on later-
day drinking. The decision to measure only the most nega-
tive event was guided by practicality. I laving participants
list all of their negative events and subsequent coping might
have caused excess fatigue in completing the daily report.
As is the case in all daily studies, it is a trade-off between
participant burden and coverage of the variables of interest.
Second, we focused only on the same-day associations
among stress, coping, affect and alcohol use. As stated ear-
licr, our model is only one way to conceptualize the causal
association among these constructs (cf., Hussong ct al.,
200 I). Thus, the time interval through which stressful events
innuence drinking (via the proposed mediators) might not
be fixed. In some situations it might be a few hours (i.e.,
same day); in others it might be several days. This interval
might change as a function of a variety of factors. For
example, alcohol might not always be avai lable, especially
among underage students, and other constraints might arise
that restrict drinking (e.g., nighttime employment). More-
over. this interval might covary with drinking level. For
example, problem drinkers might exhibit more proximal
temporal cfTccts of stress on alcohol usc. Studies using more
detailed event and constraint reporting arc needed to test
these possibilities.
Finally, the fact that women and whites constituted the
large majority of the sample was problematic. It limited
our ability to examine differences in the effects of the be-
tween-person risk facto rs across gender and race.
Acknowledgment
The authors greatly appreciate ick Maltby's assi$tancc in conducting
this study over the World Wide Web.
References
ARMI u. s.. CAR'I Y, M.A.. Tt '<'IHI, H.. Aflll n... (j, A'D o· Ell. T. Stress
and alcohol u:.c: A daily process cxarnin;uion of the stressor-vulner-
abi lity model. J. Pcrs. Social Psycho!. 78: 979-994, 2000.
llA~R. J.S. Student litctors: Understanding individual variation in college
drinking. J. Stud. Alcohol. Supplement o. 14, pp. 40-53. 2002.
13AR0". R.M. A'D Kt 'w. D.A. The modcmtor·mcdiator variable distinc-
tion in social psychological research: Conceptual. stmtcgic. and ~tatts­
tical considcmuon~. J. Pcrs. Social PsychoI. 5 I: 1173-1182. 1986.
ALCOHOL I JA UARY 2004
BtRGIIUI~. J.P. AM> SrA,'TON. A.L. Adju~unent to a dyadic stressor: A
longitudinal study of coping and depressive symptoms in infertile
couples over an insemination attempt. J. Cons. ('lin. Psycho!. 70: 433-
438. 2002.
8RYK, A.S. A"t> RAtt>t Noesu. S. W. llicrarclucal Linear Models: Applica-
tions and Data Analysis Melhods. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage. 1992.
CAR'IEY. M.A .. AR\tl Ll, s.. Tt).'<J "· II .. AHUO.. G. A'D 0' Ill. T.P.
Positive and negauve daily event>. percetvcd stress. and alcohol usc:
A diary study. J. Cons. Clin. Psycho!. 68: 788-798. 2000.
CARVER. C.S. You want to measure coping but your protocol's too long:
Consider the llricfCOPE. Int. J. Bchav. Mcd. 4: 92-100. 1997.
CONGFR. J.J. Reinforcement theory and the dynamics of alcoholism. Q. J.
Stud. Alcohol 17: 296·305. 1956.
CooPER. M.L. Momations for alcohol usc among adolescent~: De' elop-
ment and 'ahdauon of a four-factor model. Psycho!. Assess. 6: 117-
128. 1994.
Coor~R. M.L., FRoNt, M.R., Russf tt. M. AND Mtt>AR. P. Drinking to regu-
late positive and negative emotions: A motivational model of alcohol
usc. J. Pcrs. Social Psycho!. 69: 990-1005. 1995.
COOPER. M.L .. Rus~ttt, M. AND GtOR(,J, W.ll. Coping. expectancies. and
alcohol abuse: A test of social learning fom1ulations. J. Abnonn.
Psycho!. 97: 218-230. 1988.
COOPER. M.L .. R~~lll, M.. SKI''<~R. J.B.. FRO'-f. M.R. "'() Mt D\R, P.
Stress and alcohol usc: Moderating cnccb of gender, coping, and al-
cohol expectancies. J. Abnorm. PsychoI. I 0 I: 139-152. 1992.
COSTA, P.T. ANt> MtCRAt·, R.R. Revised NEO Personality Inventory ( EO-
Pl-R) and the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NE.O-FFI): Professional
Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. 1992.
FROMMI·. K. A'It> Rt\1 T, K. Young adults' coping style as a predictor of
lheir alcohol usc and response to daily events. J. Youth Adolcsc. 23:
85-97. 1994.
GREt,LEY. J. AI>D Ott, T. Alcohol and tension reduction. In: LFO,ARil. K.E.
A~>D BLA >~t. II.T. (Eds.) Psychological Theories of Drinking and A leo-
holism. New York: Guilford Press. 1999. pp. 14-53.
ll ussoNc;. A.M .. lltcKs. R.E.. LEvv, S.A. ,,Nn CURRAN. P.J. Specifying the
relations between a!Teet and heavy alcohol usc among young adults. J.
Abnom1. Psycho!. 110: 449-461.2001.
II UTC'Iti'-SO'. G.T .. PATOCK-PtCKJtA\1, J.A.. Cmo'<G. J. AW ACo<>~tu. C.T.
Irrat ional beliefs and behavioral mi~rcgulauon m the role of alcohol
abuse among college students. J. Ration. Emot. Cog. Beha' . Ther. 16:
61-74, 1998.
K~NNY. D.A .. KA\IIY, D.A. AI'D Bot c.~R. . Data analysis in social psy-
chology. In: Gum·RT, D.T .. f'tSKt', S.T. ANt> LtND7E\', G. (Eds.) The
Handbook of Social Psychology. Vol. I. 4th Edition, New York:
McGraw-llill. 1998. pp. 233-265.
LARSE>~. R.J. A't> Ott" R. E. Promise~ and problems with the ctrcumplcx
model of emouon. In: CLARK. M.S. (Ed.) Emotion. Thousand Oaks.
CA: Sage. 1992. pp. 25-59.
LAZARUS, R.S. Copmg theory and research: Past. present. and future.
Psychosom. Med. 55: 234-24 7. 1993.
LA7~\RUS, R.L. AND FolKMAN, S. Stress, Appraisal. and Coping. New York:
Springer. 1984.
MOIIR. C.D.. ARMIII, S., TESl\E)o, H.. CAR)ol \, M.A.. Alll f( l(, G. AM)
HR0 \11. A. Daily mtcrpersonal experiences. context and alcohol con-
sumption: Crying in your beer and toaJottng good times. J. Pers. Soctal
Psycho!. 80: 489-500. 2001.
PARK, C.L.. ARMttl, S. A'D TE'I"£'· II. Appmtsal-coping goodness of lit:
A daily mtcmet study. Pcrs. Social Psycho!. Bull., in pres>.
PROJE('T MATCII Rl,st.ARCII GROUt'. Mntching alcoholism treatment to cli-
ent heterogeneity: Project MATCH three-year drinking ou tcomes.
Alcsm Clin. f:xp. Res. 22: 1300-1311. 1998.
RA~o~"BU~II. S.W. \1\D BilYK. A.S. llicrarclucal Linear Models: Applica-
tions and Data Analysis Methods. 2nd Edition. Thousand Oal.lo, CA:
Sage. 2002.
 PARK. ARMELJ ANDTENNEN
RA~;of'<IJl'SH. s.w.. BKYK.
A.S .. CHEONG, Y.F. N~o Co:-.:GOON, R. IILM 5:
Hierarchical Linear and Nonlinear Modeling. Chicago. IL: Scientific
Sofiware lntemational. 200 I.
Smw,,Rit.. J. AND STONe. A. Strategies for analyzing ecological momen-
tary assessment data. lllth Psychol. 17: 6-16. 1998.
S1nHMA '1. S. Real-time self:rcpon of momentary states in the natural en-
vironment: Computerized ecological momentary assessment. In: STONE,
A.A .. TuRKKAN. J.S .. BAtiiRACII. C.A .. JonE, J.B.. KuRri.MAN. H.S. ,,No
CAIN. V.S. (Eds.) The Science of Self-Repon: Implications for Research
and Practice. Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence Erl baum. 2000. pp. 277-296.
StMrsoN. T. ANt> ARROYO. J.A. Coping patterns associated with alcohol-
related negative consequences among college women. J. Social Clio.
Psychol. 17: 150-166. 1998.
S'uDERS, T.A.£3. A'ID 13osK~R. R.J. Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to
Basic and Advanced Multilevel Analysis. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.
1999.
STAI\'TON. A.L.. KIKK. S.B.. CAMERo:-~. C.L. AND DAI\OH-13URG. S. Coping
through emotional approach: Scale constntction and validation. J. Pers.
Social Psychol. 78: I 150- 1169. 2000.
135
TE.,NE'I. II. AND 1\FILF.tK, G. Social comparison as a coping process: A
critical rcvicw and application to chronic pain disorders. In: BuusK.
B.P. ,\Nil GllliJONS. R.X. (Eds.) Health. Coping and Well-Being: Per-
spectives from Social Comparison Theory. Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum. 1997. pp. 263-298.
TeNNEN. H.. AH·L~('K . G.. ARMELI. S. ANI) CARNI'Y, M.A. A daily process
approach to coping: Linking theory, research, and practice. /\mer.
Psychol. 55: 626-636, 2000.
TFRRY, D.J. AND HvNtiS. G.J. Adjustment to a low-control situation: Reex-
amining the role of coping responses. J. Pers. Social Psychol. 74:
I078-l 092. 1998.
WATSON. D.. Ct.ARK. L.A. A'<D TEtLF.GEN, A. Development and validation
of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.
J. Pcrs. Soci:tl Psycho!. 54: 1063-1070. 1988.
WtNDLE. M. ,\ND Wl'lt>LE. R.C. Coping strategies. drinking motives. and
stressful life events among adolescents: Associations with emotional
and behavioral problems. and academic functioning. J. Abnorm.
Psycho!. IOS: 551-560. 1996.