Content uploaded by Sherry H Stewart
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sherry H Stewart on Oct 18, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Emmanuel Kuntsche
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Emmanuel Kuntsche on Oct 15, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Correspondence: Sherry H. Stewart, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2. Telephone: 902-473-4878; E-mail:
sstewart@dal.ca
Financial support:.See Acknowledgements
Keywords: drinking motives, personality, cross-cultural, multisite, methods, protocol, undergraduate students
doi: 10.7895/ijadr.v6i1.239 IJADR, 2017, 6(1), 7 – 18 ISSN: 1925-7066
The DRINC (Drinking Reasons Inter-National Collaboration)
project: Rationale and protocol for a cross-national study of
drinking motives in undergraduates
Marie-Eve Couture1, Sherry H. Stewart1, M. Lynne Cooper2, Emmanuel Kuntsche3, Roisin M. O’Connor4, Sean P.
Mackinnon1, and the DRINC Team5
1 Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
2 Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri–Columbia, Columbia, MO, United States
3 Addiction Suisse Research Institute, Lausanne, Switzerland
4 Department of Psychology, Concordia University, Montreal, QC, Canada
5 The members of the DRINC Team are listed in the Appendix
Abstract
Drinking motives are a proximal predictor of alcohol use and misuse through which the effects of more distal influences (e.g.,
personality) on alcohol-related outcomes are mediated. Although Cooper’s (1994) four-factor drinking-motives model has been
well validated in North America, few studies have validated this model in other countries. The aim of the present paper is to
describe the rationale, protocol, and methods of a project designed to evaluate the cross-national validity and generalizability of
Cooper’s (1994) measure, as modified by Kuntsche and Kuntsche’s Drinking Motives Questionnaire Revised Short Form
(DMQ–R SF, 2009), and of the theoretical model (Cooper, Frone, Russell, & Mudar, 1995) linking drinking motives to specific
personality risks and alcohol consequences. The project uses data from undergraduates representing 10 nations (Brazil, United
Kingdom and Republic of Ireland, Canada, Hungary, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, and the United
States; total N = 8,478). Findings from this collaboration can be used to guide international researchers in determining the
suitability of the DMQ–R SF as a measure of drinking motives in countries outside of North America and may have implications
for the development of preventive and therapeutic interventions for alcohol misuse among young adults globally.
The Drinking Reasons Inter-National Collaboration
(DRINC) team is a global network of investigators focused
on the cross-national study of drinking motives (i.e., the
particular reasons why people drink). Past research has
shown that drinking motives predict, theoretically and
practically, meaningful differences in patterns and
consequences of alcohol use (see Cooper, Kuntsche, Levitt,
Barber, & Wolf, 2015, for a review). In the present paper,
we will provide a brief summary of the underlying theory
and research on motivational models of alcohol use, outline
the primary rationale and goals for this collaborative
research effort, and describe each of the data sets that
comprise the project.
Underlying Theory and Research
Cox and Klinger (1988, 1990, 2004) proposed the most
widely known and influential motivational model of
alcohol use. According to their model, people’s lives are
organized around the pursuit and enjoyment of incentives,
defined as the joint operation of a need within the person
and a condition in the environment with the potential to
satisfy that need (Geen, 1995). A person’s motivation to
drink can therefore be seen as a complex product of the
incentives he or she associates with drinking. In other
words, a person decides to drink as a function of
anticipated positive affective consequences of drinking—
either increases in positive affective outcomes or decreases
in negative ones. Thus, alcohol use can be usefully
understood as a strategic behavior in which people choose
to drink based on the anticipated affective outcomes (Cox
& Klinger, 1988, 1990).
Cox and Klinger (1988, 1990) hypothesize that two
primary incentives underlie emotionally driven behaviors
such as alcohol use. These include the degree to which the
behavior (1) is motivated by a desire to avoid, escape, or
minimize a negative outcome (avoidance) versus pursue a
positive or pleasurable one (approach), and (2) is internally
focused or directed toward oneself (self) versus externally
focused or directed toward socially significant others
(social). According to this model, these two dimensions
can be crossed to yield four categories of motives: (1) self-
focused approach motivations, such as drinking to enhance
physical or emotional pleasure (i.e., enhancement motives);
IJADR
International Journal of Alcohol and Drug Research
The Official Journal of the Kettil Bruun Society for Social and Epidemiological Research on Alcohol
8 Marie-Eve Couture et al.
–––––– IJADR 6(1) ––––––
(2) self-focused avoidance motives, such as drinking to
avoid or minimize negative emotions (i.e., coping motives);
(3) social approach motives, such as drinking as a way to
bond with others (i.e., social motives); and (4) social
avoidance motives, such as drinking to avoid social censure
(i.e., approval or conformity motives).
Substantial evidence supports the existence of the four
theoretically predicted motives. For example, motives have
been consistently associated with unique patterns of
antecedents and consequences and have been shown to
serve as a final common pathway to alcohol use through
which the effects of causally prior factors, including
personality, are mediated (Cooper et al., 1995; Littlefield,
Sher, & Wood, 2010; Read, Wood, Kahler, Maddock, &
Palfai, 2003; Stewart, Zvolensky, & Eifert, 2002; see
Cooper et al., 2015, for a review). Moreover, the finding
that different motives appear to be embedded in distinct
etiologic pathways has important implications for tailoring
prevention and intervention efforts aimed at reducing
alcohol misuse. For example, recent randomized controlled
trials conducted in Canada indicate that brief skills training
interventions targeting young drinkers’ unique drinking
motives (e.g., coping vs. enhancement) and associated
personality risk factors (e.g., hopelessness vs. sensation
seeking) significantly reduce levels of heavy drinking and
alcohol-related problems (Conrod, Stewart, Comeau, &
Maclean, 2006; Watt, Stewart, Conrod, & Schmidt, 2008).
Moreover, adults who were randomly assigned to either
motive-matched or motive-mismatched interventions have
shown clearly better outcomes for motive-matched
interventions (Conrod et al., 2000).
Despite the importance of motives both theoretically and
pragmatically, the overwhelming majority of work has been
conducted in North America (Cooper et al., 2015; Kuntsche
et al., 2014; Wicki, Kuntsche, & Gmel, 2010). The purpose
of DRINC is therefore to develop an international network
of scholars dedicated to the study of drinking motives with
the long-term goal of promoting research cross-culturally
and cross-nationally.
Goals and Rationale of DRINC
The more immediate goals of DRINC are fourfold: (1) to
examine the generalizability of the factor structure of the
measure of drinking motives across nations; (2) to examine
the mean structure of motives and the extent to which this
structure is invariant across nations; (3) to test the
generalizability of key tenets of Cooper’s model linking
drinking motives to unique antecedent personality risks and
alcohol consequences (Cooper et al., 1995; Cooper,
Agocha, & Sheldon, 2000; Cooper et al., 2015); and (4) to
explore socio-cultural differences that might explain any
observed differences in factor structure, mean levels of
endorsement, or links among motives, antecedents, and
consequences.
Generalizability of the four-factor structure. It is widely
agreed that establishing invariance of the factor structure of
a measure is prerequisite to conducting meaningful cross-
group comparisons (Wu, Li, & Zumbo, 2007). As such, the
first goal of this collaboration is to examine the invariance
of the four-factor structure of the measure of drinking
motives (Cooper, 1994; Kuntsche & Kuntsche, 2009)
across 10 nations. To date, the factor structure has been
shown to be highly similar across all countries examined,
including the United States, Brazil, Canada, Switzerland,
England, Hungary, Australia, Spain, the Netherlands,
Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Poland,
Portugal, Scotland, Slovakia, and Wales (Crutzen &
Kuntsche, 2012; Hauck-Filho, Teixeira, & Cooper, 2012;
Kuntsche et al., 2014; Kuntsche, Stewart, & Cooper, 2008;
Lyvers, Hasking, Hani, Rhodes, & Trew, 2010; Mazzardis,
Vieno, Kuntsche, & Santinello, 2010; Németh et al., 2011).
Only a handful of studies have directly compared the
structure of motives across countries (Kuntsche et al., 2008;
Kuntsche et al., 2014; Németh et al., 2011) and have found
support for the invariance of the four-factor structure of
drinking motives across the countries compared.
The present collaboration extends this body of work in two
important ways. First, no studies involving a direct
comparison of more than two countries have been
conducted in university student samples, whereas the
present project extends this comparison to 10 countries.
Second, whereas past research indicates that the expected
factors consistently emerge in most countries (thus
implying configural invariance), the present study will also
test metric invariance (i.e., that factor loadings are
statistically invariant) as well as factor covariance
invariance and factor variance invariance (i.e., that
correlations among the latent factors are also statistically
invariant; Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998).
Comparison of mean levels of endorsement. To the
extent that the measure meets reasonable standards of
invariance across groups (Wu et al., 2007), a second aim of
this collaboration is to compare mean levels of the four
motives across countries. Past research points to intriguing
differences between national groups. For example,
Canadian and American youth scored higher than their
Swiss counterparts on conformity motives, whereas Swiss
adolescents scored higher than American adolescents on
enhancement and coping motives (Kuntsche et al., 2008).
Such cross-country comparisons might help elucidate
differences in susceptibility to alcohol problems and rates
of alcohol use across countries, and indeed mean level
differences in motives might mediate or explain country-
level differences in observed patterns of consumption and
problems.
In addition, we will examine the invariance of profiles of
relative endorsement across countries. Past research
suggests that similar profiles should exist cross-nationally
in which social and enhancement motives are much more
strongly endorsed than either coping or conformity motives
(Kuntsche et al., 2008; Németh et al., 2011; see Cooper et
al., 2015, for a review).
Generalizability of links among motives, antecedents,
and consequences. Assuming invariance of the basic four-
factor structure, the third goal of this collaboration will be
to determine whether motives are embedded in distinct
etiologic networks parallel to those observed in research
conducted in North America. More specifically, we will
The DRINC (Drinking Reasons Inter-National Collaboration) Project 9
–––––– IJADR 6(1) ––––––
test the invariance across countries of models in which
personality is depicted as a distal influence on alcohol-
related outcomes, whose effects are at least partially
mediated by motives (e.g., Cooper et al., 1995; Cooper et
al., 2000). Importantly, distinctive patterns of mediation
are expected. For example, neuroticism (a dispositional
sensitivity to punishment and propensity to experience
negative affect) should predict the use of alcohol to cope
with negative emotions, and coping motives in turn should
predict drinking problems both directly and indirectly via
increased consumption (e.g., Cooper et al., 2000; Stewart,
Loughlin, & Rhyno, 2001).
Although few studies testing the antecedents and
consequences of drinking motives outside of North
America have been conducted, what has been done points
to important cross-national similarities in the downstream
effects of motives on alcohol use and drinking problems.
For example, similar to findings reported in the United
States and Canada, studies conducted in Switzerland
indicate that coping motives both directly and indirectly
(via consumption) predict drinking problems, whereas
enhancement motives only indirectly predict drinking
problems via increased levels of consumption (Kuntsche,
Knibbe, Gmel, & Engels, 2005; Kuntsche et al., 2008). In
contrast, the personality antecedents of motives have
received little attention in work conducted outside North
America, and have not been considered at all in cross-
national studies.
Thus the present collaboration will extend prior work by
establishing the generality of the etiological models found
to apply in North American samples, which can be seen as
an important first-step toward determining the cross-
cultural utility of prevention and intervention efforts
targeting the motivational underpinnings of problematic
alcohol use.
Cultural explanations of observed differences. The
fourth goal of this collaboration is to investigate country-
level, socio-cultural factors that might help explain
differences in mean levels of motive endorsements across
countries, as well as potential differences in the predictive
validity of motives vis-à-vis alcohol outcomes. Potentially
relevant socio-cultural factors include tightness versus
looseness (Gelfand et al., 2011), individualism versus
collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, long-term
orientation, indulgence versus restraint, power distance
(Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010), and language group
(Germanic vs. Romance vs. Uralic). In addition, factors
indexing drinking culture will also be considered, including
degree of alcohol control policies (Brand, Saisana, Rynn,
Pennoni, & Lowenfels, 2007) and other indicators of the
ubiquity of alcohol use in the culture (e.g., percent
abstainers, mean total volume consumed, percent heavy
episodic drinkers, etc.; World Health Organization, 2014).
For example, we expect that countries high in indulgence
(the extent to which individuals within a culture try to
control their desires and impulses) should show higher
mean levels of enhancement motives relative to other
countries, and that enhancement motives may also be a
stronger predictor of alcohol outcomes in such countries.
To our knowledge, no prior research has taken this
approach, and by so doing, we hope to shed new light on
the meaning of cross-national similarities and differences in
drinking motives and their related consequences.
Methods
Twenty-one data sets from 10 countries were acquired for
cross-national analysis. Multiple data sets were included
for each country when possible, particularly for Canada, the
United States, and the United Kingdom and Republic of
Ireland, in an attempt to increase the breadth of
representation. All data sets included age, sex, drinking
motives, alcohol use and related consequences; 13 data sets
also included a common measure of the Five-Factor model
of personality, the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI;
Costa & McCrae, 1992). Each country was represented by
a minimum of 200 participants. One data set from Israel
was screened out due to its small sample size (N = 171).
Participants were university undergraduate students
between the ages of 17–27 years. Students outside this
range were excluded to ensure greater homogeneity in age
across data sets and to yield samples that better typify the
traditional university undergraduate. To ensure the
meaningfulness of motive reports, which are phrased in
terms of reasons why a person drinks, alcohol abstainers
were also excluded. Table 1 lists final sample sizes, mean
ages, and sex distributions for each data set and each
country, along with the language and method of
administration, collaborators, year of data collection, and
key publications.
Procedure
All data were collected in compliance with guidelines
outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical
Association, 1997). The 20-item Drinking Motives
Questionnaire Revised (DMQ–R; Cooper, 1994), the 60-
item NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1992), and measures of
frequency, quantity, and consequences of alcohol use were
administered as paper-and-pencil or online surveys.
Collaborators provided translations and back-translations
when measures were administered in languages other than
English. The DMQ–R SF, based on 12 of the original 20
items from the DMQ–R, will be used in statistical analyses,
as it was developed specifically for use in cross-cultural
studies (Kuntsche & Kuntsche, 2009).
Responses on the drinking motives and personality
measures were recoded as necessary to ensure numeric
equivalence across nations. The original versions of both
measures used 1 to 5 scales (for motives, 1 = never/almost
never, 5 = always/almost always, and for the FFI, 1 =
disagree, 5 = agree). Thus, in samples where responses
were coded on a different scale, values were re-expressed
on a 5-point scale. For example, 4-point (e.g., 0–3 or 1–4)
scales were re-coded on a 1–5 scale so as to retain equal
spacing between consecutive values (e.g., 1, 2.33, 3.67, and
5 for the 4-point scale). The time frames assessed by the
DMQ–R and the NEO-FFI, as well as the original response
scales, are listed in Table 2.
10 Marie-Eve Couture et al.
–––––– IJADR 6(1) ––––––
Table 1
Sample sizes, year of data collection, principal investigators, location, language, methodology, age, and sex by cultural group
Cultural
group
Sample
N
Year of
collection
Principal
investigators
Affiliation
Location of
data
collection
Language
Method
Mean
Age
(SD)
Gender
(% men)
Citation
Brazil
384
2008–
2009
Marco
Antônio
Pereira
Teixeira &
Nelson
Hauck-Filho
Institute of
Psychology,
Universidade
Federal do Rio
Grande do Sul
& School of
Psychology,
Universidade
São Francisco
Universidade
Federal do
Rio Grande
do Sul &
Universidade
de Cruz Alta
Brazilian
Portuguese
Paper
and
pencil
21.51
(3.08)
44.8%
Hauck-
Filho,
Teixeira,
&
Cooper,
2012
UK and
Ireland
733
20.98
(3.00)
20.1%
England
89
2010
Patricia
Conrod &
Peter Musiat
Department of
Psychiatry,
Université de
Montréal &
Institute of
Psychiatry,
King’s College
London
University of
King’s
College,
London
English
Paper
and
pencil
20.12
(2.29)
14.6%
Ireland
189
2010
Daniel
Regan
Applied
Research for
Connected
Health,
University
College Dublin
National
University of
Ireland,
Galway
English
Paper
and
pencil
19.94
(2.08)
14.3%
Scotland
455
Gillian Bruce
School of
Social
Sciences,
University of
the West of
Scotland
University of
the West of
Scotland,
Paisley
English
Online
21.59
(3.28)
23.5%
Canada
1,223
21.17
(2.37)
16.9%
1
146
2001
Sherry
Stewart
Department of
Psychology
and
Neuroscience,
Dalhousie
University
Dalhousie
University,
Halifax
English
Paper
and
pencil
21.07
(2.19)
28.1%
Stewart
et al.,
2001
2
105
2009–
2010
Sherry
Stewart
Department of
Psychology
and
Neuroscience,
Dalhousie
University
Dalhousie
University,
Halifax
English
Paper
and
pencil
19.85
(1.96)
19%
3
74
2010–
2011
Roisin
O’Connor
Department of
Psychology,
Concordia
University
Concordia
University,
Montreal
English
Online
19.64
(1.40)
14.9%
4
898
2012
Roisin
O’Connor
Department of
Psychology,
Concordia
University
Concordia
University,
Montreal
English
Online
21.47
(2.41)
15%
Hungary
839
2008–
2009
Zsolt
Demetrovics
Department of
Clinical
Psychology &
Addiction,
Institute of
Psychology,
Eötvös Loránd
University
Eötvös
Loránd
University,
Budapest
Hungarian
Online
22.12
(2.10)
37.8%
Németh
et al.,
2011
The DRINC (Drinking Reasons Inter-National Collaboration) Project 11
–––––– IJADR 6(1) ––––––
Cultural
group
Sample
N
Year of
collection
Principal
investigators
Affiliation
Location of
data
collection
Language
Method
Mean
Age
(SD)
Gender
(% men)
Citation
Mexico
298
2012–
2013
Imelda G.
Alcalá-
Sánchez &
Dora Isabel
Lozano
Center for
Legal
Research,
Faculty of
Law,
Universidad
Autónoma de
Chihuahua &
Institute of
Social Sciences
and
Administration,
Department of
Social
Sciences,
Universidad
Autónoma de
Ciudad Juárez
UA
Chihuahua,
San Felipe &
UA Ciudad
Juárez,
Ciudad
Juárez
Spanish
Online
20.26
(1.68)
39.6%
Netherlands
1,297
19.63
(2.06)
26.4%
1
471
2009
Reinout
Wiers
Department of
Developmental
Psychology,
Faculty of
Social and
Behavioural
Sciences,
University of
Amsterdam
University of
Amsterdam,
Amsterdam
Dutch
Online
19.55
(1.87)
28.2%
2
469
2010
Reinout
Wiers
Department of
Developmental
Psychology,
Faculty of
Social and
Behavioural
Sciences,
University of
Amsterdam
University of
Amsterdam,
Amsterdam
Dutch
Online
19.57
(1.76)
25.8%
3
357
2011
Reinout
Wiers
Department of
Developmental
Psychology,
Faculty of
Social and
Behavioural
Sciences,
University of
Amsterdam
University of
Amsterdam,
Amsterdam
Dutch
Online
19.83
(2.58)
24.9%
Portugal
489
2009–
2010
Joaquim A.
Ferreira,
Jorge S.
Martins, &
Mariana S.
Coelho
Faculty of
Psychology
and Education
Sciences,
University of
Coimbra
University of
Coimbra,
Coimbra
Portuguese
Paper
and
pencil
and
Online
20.48
(2.03)
33.7%
Spain
396
2008–
2009
Zsolt
Demetrovics
Department of
Clinical
Psychology &
Addiction,
Institute of
Psychology,
Eötvös Loránd
University
University of
Almeria,
Andalusia;
University of
Sevilla,
Sevilla;
University of
Huelva,
Huelva
Spanish
Online
22.28
(2.50)
37.6%
Németh
et al.,
2011
12 Marie-Eve Couture et al.
–––––– IJADR 6(1) ––––––
Cultural
group
Sample
N
Year of
collection
Principal
investigators
Affiliation
Location of
data
collection
Language
Method
Mean
Age
(SD)
Gender
(% men)
Citation
Switzerland
364
22.17
(2.20)
53.6%
1
170
2010
Emmanuel
Kuntsche
Addiction
Suisse
Research
Institute
Lausanne
University,
Lausanne;
University of
Geneva,
Geneva
French
(Kuntsche,
Knibbe,
Gmel, &
Engels,
2006)
Online
22.44
(2.45)
61.8%
Kuntsche
&
Labhart,
2013
2
194
2009
Emmanuel
Kuntsche
Addiction
Suisse
Research
Institute
Lausanne
University,
Lausanne
French
(Kuntsche
et al.,
2006)
Online
21.94
(1.94)
46.4%
Kuntsche
&
Kuendig,
2012
US
2,455
18.59
(.96)
41.8%
1
245
2003
Lindsay Ham
Department of
Psychological
Science,
University of
Arkansas
University of
Nebraska,
Lincoln
English
Paper
and
pencil
19.78
(1.64)
42.4%
Ham,
Bonin, &
Hope,
2007
2
1,580
2002
Kenneth
Sher
Department of
Psychological
Sciences,
University of
Missouri-
Columbia
University of
Missouri,
Columbia
English
Online
18.33
(.49)
38.4%
Sher &
Rutledge,
2007
3
512
2003
Stephen
Armeli,
Howard
Tennen
School of
Psychology,
Fairleigh
Dickinson
University &
Department of
Community
Medicine and
Health Care,
University of
Connecticut
Health Center
University of
Connecticut
English
Online
18.79
(1.09)
48.2%
Armeli,
Todd,
Connor,
&
Tennen,
2008
4
118
2001
Cynthia
Mohr,
Stephen
Armeli,
Howard
Tennen
Department of
Psychology,
Portland State
University;
School of
Psychology,
Fairleigh
Dickinson
University; &
Department of
Community
Medicine and
Health Care,
University of
Connecticut
Health Center
University of
Connecticut,
Storrs
English
Online
18.86
(1.15)
57.6%
Mohr,
Brannan,
Mohr,
Armeli,
&
Tennen,
2008;
Mohr et
al., 2005
Total
8,478
The DRINC (Drinking Reasons Inter-National Collaboration) Project 13
–––––– IJADR 6(1) ––––––
Table 2
Time frame and response scale for Drinking Motives Questionnaire Revised, NEO Five-Factor Inventory, drinking
frequency, drinking quantity, and alcohol-use consequences
Sample
Questionnaire
Time frame assessed
Response scale
Brazil
DMQ–R
NEO-FFI
Frequency2
Quantity2
Consequences
Lifetime
N/A
Per week, month
Typical
Lifetime
5-point scale, 1–5
N/A
5-point scale, 0–4
7-point scale, 0–6 (corresponding to 0–10 or more)
Forced choice, yes or no
UK and Ireland
England
DMQ–R
NEO-FFI
Frequency
Quantity
Consequences
1
Lifetime
Lifetime
N/A
Typical
Lifetime
5-point scale, 1–5
5-point scale, 1–5
N/A
Open-ended
5-point scale, 0–4
Ireland
DMQ–R
NEO-FFI
Frequency
Quantity
Consequences
Lifetime
N/A
Per year
Typical
N/A
6-point scale, 1–6
N/A
Open-ended
Open-ended
N/A
Scotland
DMQ–R
NEO-FFI
Frequency
Quantity
Consequences
Lifetime
N/A
Per week
Typical
N/A
5-point scale, 1–5
N/A
Open-ended
Open-ended
N/A
Canada
1
DMQ–R
NEO-FFI
Frequency
Quantity
Consequences
1
Lifetime
Lifetime
Per week
Typical
Past 3 years
5-point scale, 1–5
5-point scale, 1–5
Open-ended
Open-ended
5-point scale, 0–4
2
DMQ–R
NEO-FFI
Frequency
Quantity
Consequences
1
Lifetime
Lifetime
Per day, week, month, year
Typical
Past 3 years
5-point scale, 1–5
5-point scale, 1–5
Open-ended
Open-ended
5-point scale, 0–4
3
DMQ–R
NEO-FFI
Frequency
Quantity
Consequences
1
Lifetime
Lifetime
Per day, week, month, year
Typical
Past 3 years
5-point scale, 1–5
5-point scale, 1–5
Open-ended
Open-ended
5-point scale, 0–4
4
DMQ–R
NEO-FFI
Frequency
Quantity
Consequences
1
Lifetime
Lifetime
Per day, week, month, year
Typical
Past 3 years
5-point scale, 1–5
5-point scale, 1–5
Open-ended
Open-ended
5-point scale, 0–4
Hungary
DMQ–R
NEO-FFI
Frequency
Quantity2
Consequences
1
Lifetime
Lifetime
Per month
Typical
Lifetime
5-point scale, 1–5
5-point scale, 1–5
6-point scale, 0–5
5-point scale, 0–4
5-point scale, 0–4
Mexico
DMQ–R
NEO-FFI
Frequency
Quantity
Consequences
Lifetime
N/A
Per week
Typical
Lifetime
5-point scale, 1–5
N/A
Open-ended
Open-ended
5-point scale, 0–4
Netherlands
1
DMQ–R
NEO-FFI
Frequency2
Quantity2
Consequences
1
Lifetime
N/A
Per week, month
Typical
Past year
5-point scale, 1–5
N/A
5-point scale, 0–4
5-point scale, 0–4
2
DMQ–R
NEO-FFI
Frequency2
Quantity2
Consequences
Lifetime
N/A
Per week, month
Typical
Past year
5-point scale, 1–5
N/A
5-point scale, 0–4
5-point scale, 0–4
14 Marie-Eve Couture et al.
–––––– IJADR 6(1) ––––––
Sample
Questionnaire
Time frame assessed
Response scale
3
DMQ–R
NEO-FFI
Frequency2
Quantity2
Consequences
2
Lifetime
N/A
Per week, month
Typical
Past year
5-point scale, 1–5
N/A
5-point scale, 0–4
5-point scale, 0–4
Portugal
DMQ–R
NEO-FFI
Frequency2
Quantity2
Consequences
23
Lifetime
N/A
Per week, month
Typical
Past year
5-point scale, 1–5
N/A
5-point scale, 0–4
5-point scale, 0–4
5-point scale, 0–4, and dichotomous scale, yes or no
Spain
DMQ–R
NEO-FFI
Frequency
Quantity2
Consequences
1
Lifetime
Lifetime
Per month
Typical
Lifetime
5-point scale, 1–5
5-point scale, 1–5
6-point scale, 0–5
5-point scale, 0–4
5-point scale, 0–4
Switzerland
1
DMQ–R
NEO-FFI
Frequency
Quantity
Consequences
Lifetime
Lifetime
Per day, week, month, year
Typical
N/A
5-point scale, 1–5
5-point scale, 1–5
Open-ended
7-point scale, 0–6
2
DMQ–R
NEO-FFI
Frequency2
Quantity2
Consequences
2
Lifetime
Lifetime
Per week, month
Typical
Past year
5-point scale, 1–5
5-point scale, 1–5
5-point scale, 0–4
5 point scale, 0–4
5-point scale, 0–4
United States
1
DMQ–R
NEO-FFI
Frequency
Quantity
Consequences
1
Lifetime
Lifetime
Per day, week, month
Typical
Lifetime
5-point scale, 0–4
5-point scale, 1–5
7-point scale, 0–6
Open-ended
5-point scale, 0–4
2
DMQ–R
NEO-FFI
Frequency
Quantity
Consequences
Lifetime
Lifetime
Per day, week, month
Typical
Pat 3 months
4-point scale, 0–3
5-point scale, 1–5
7-point scale, 0–6
11-point scale, 0–10
5-point scale, 0–4
3
DMQ–R
NEO-FFI
Frequency
Quantity
Consequences
Lifetime
Lifetime
Per month
Typical
Past year
5-point scale, 1–5
7-point scale, 1–7
7-point scale, 0–6
10-point scale, 0–9
5-point scale, 0–4
4
DMQ–R
NEO-FFI
Frequency
Quantity
Consequences
Lifetime
Lifetime
Per month
Typical
Lifetime
5-point scale, 1–5
7-point scale, 1–7
6-point scale, 0–5
10-point scale, 0–9
5-point scale, 0–4
Note. DMQ–R = Drinking Motives Questionnaire Revised; NEO-FFI = NEO Five-Factor Inventory; 1 = From the Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index
(White & Labouvie, 1989); 2 = From the AUDIT (Babor, Higgins-Biddle, Saunders, & Monteiro, 2001); 3 = From the Brief Young Adult Alcohol
Consequences Questionnaire (Kahler, Hustad, Barnett, Strong, & Borsari, 2008).
Similar steps were taken to render self-report measures of
quantity, frequency, and consequences of alcohol use
commensurate across countries. Frequency responses were
standardized for a past-30-day time frame by multiplying
frequency per week by 4.33 or dividing frequency per year
by 12. Quantity was defined as the typical number of
alcoholic drinks consumed on a typical drinking occasion
and did not require re-expression across studies. Frequency
and quantity measures assessed using ranges instead of
actual values were converted to actual values by
substituting the mid-point of the range (e.g., “1 to 2 times”
and “1 to 2 drinks” were recoded to 1.5). Top categories on
such scales (typically labeled as a given value or more, e.g.,
“9 or more”) were converted to the value plus 0.5 (e.g.,
9.5).
Finally, responses on the alcohol-related consequences
variables were re-coded as either absent (0) or present (1)
during one’s lifetime. Alcohol-related consequences that
were measured in two or more data sets were retained for
analyses. These included somatic symptoms (e.g.,
blackout, hangover), truancy from work or school,
problems with schoolwork, social problems, familial
problems, violence, defining one’s use as problematic, and
engaging in unplanned sex as a result of drinking. Time
frames and response scales used in the original data
collections for frequency, quantity, and alcohol-related
consequences are described in Table 2; specific alcohol-
related consequences assessed in each study are listed in
Table 3.
The DRINC (Drinking Reasons Inter-National Collaboration) Project 15
–––––– IJADR 6(1) ––––––
Table 3
Items included to measure alcohol-use consequences
Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Brazil
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
UK and Ireland
England
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Ireland
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Scotland
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Canada
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Hungary
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Mexico
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Netherlands
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Portugal
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Spain
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Switzerland
1
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
2
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
United States
1
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
2
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
3
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
4
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Note. 1 = “Had a blackout”; 2 = “Missed a day of school or work”; 3 = “Problems with schoolwork”; 4 = “Problems with friends”; 5 = “Got into
fights”; 6 = “Had a hangover”; 7 = “Felt I had a problem with alcohol”; 8 = “Engaged in unplanned sex”; 9 =“Problems with family”; 10 =
“Damaged property.” Information for the four Canadian samples and the three Dutch samples were collapsed under “Canada” and “Netherlands,”
respectively, as problems were consistently reported across samples for these countries.
Discussion
The present study protocol presents the rationale and
methodology of DRINC, a cross-national project designed
to promote research cross-culturally and cross-nationally on
drinking motives. The first goal of DRINC is to evaluate
the psychometric properties of the DMQ–R SF in order to
validate its use in cultural and language groups outside of
North America. Should cross-cultural invariance be
established, the project will go on to investigate mean
levels of endorsement both within and across cultural
groups, as well as similarities and differences in the links
between drinking motives and their antecedents and
consequences, as previously investigated in the United
States, Canada, and Switzerland.
As the first direct, large-scale comparison of drinking
motives among university students across cultures, this
project will allow researchers around the globe to draw
more definitive conclusions about cross-national
similarities and differences in the drinking patterns of
university students in the same way that past cross-national
investigations of other phenomena (e.g., personality and
mate preferences) have allowed researchers to draw
conclusions about the universality of a specific
phenomenon (McCrae & Costa, 1997; Shackelford,
Schmitt, & Buss, 2005). Specifically, testing the structural
invariance of the DMQ–R SF across countries will allow
international scholars to determine its suitability for use as
a measure of drinking motives in their country. More
broadly, testing a theoretical model of the links between
drinking motives and their antecedents and consequences
will help identify universal and/or region-specific treatment
targets for university students with alcohol-use problems,
allowing clinicians and researchers alike to adapt
interventions developed elsewhere (e.g., Conrod et al.,
2006; Conrod, Castellanos, & Mackie, 2008; Watt et al.,
2008) to local cultural context, if appropriate.
Limitations
It is noted that most of the data from the present project
were collected in North America and Western Europe, a
reflection of where most of the research on drinking
motives has been conducted to date. Because of the
availability of international samples suitable for inclusion
in these analyses, conclusions drawn from this project may
only apply to university students from the countries
sampled. However, the development of an international
network of alcohol researchers as proposed in this project
will stimulate more research in under-represented parts of
the world and allow for further global collaboration, with
more diverse samples included. Once the network is
established, cross-national studies could be designed with
sample size and variable requirements specified initially
(rather than using archival data), which would strengthen
study design and the generalizability of the results.
Further, the present project’s data are restricted to
university students, as much of the investigations of
drinking motives have been conducted in this group and
this population is also at high risk for developing alcohol-
related problems. Indeed, in developed countries, young
adults between the ages of 18 and 24 have the highest level
of alcohol consumption across the lifespan (Arnett, 2005).
The rates of alcohol use are also high among
undergraduates globally (Keller, Frye, Bauerle, & Turner,
16 Marie-Eve Couture et al.
–––––– IJADR 6(1) ––––––
2009) and are associated with specific alcohol-related
problems for this population, such as poor academic
performance (Weschler, Davenport, Dowdall, Moeykens,
& Castillo, 1994).
Finally, the authors acknowledge the present study’s
exclusive focus on personality as the antecedent of drinking
motives. To date, most theory development and research
has focused on the antecedents of the internally focused
motives—coping and enhancement—which has naturally
led to a focus on intra-individual factors at the expense of
broader social and cultural factors. By also examining
cultural factors and how they influence drinking motives,
this collaboration will serve to inspire additional research
on these neglected facets.
Acknowledgments
The establishment of the DRINC project was funded by a
grant to Sherry Stewart (PI), Roisin O’Connor, Emmanuel
Kuntsche, and Lynne Cooper from the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC)
International Opportunities Fund (861-2008-1028).
Funding of individual projects comprising the larger work
was supported by the following grants: Coordenação de
Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior to Nelson
Hauck-Filho; NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for
Mental Health, South London, and Maudsley NHS
Foundation Trust and Institute of Psychiatry, King’s
College London, to Peter Musiat; Lady Gregory Fellowship
from the College of Arts, Social Science, and Celtic studies
at the National University of Ireland, Galway, to Gillian
Bruce; Dalhousie University Research and Development
Fund for Humanities and Social Sciences Grant, &
Operating Grant (410-96-1044) from the SSHRC to Sherry
Stewart; Concordia University Start Up Funds to Roisin
O’Connor; János Bolyai Research Fellowship from the
Hungarian Academy of Sciences to Zsolt Demetrovics;
Dutch National Science Foundation N.W.O. (VICI 453-08-
001) to Reinout Wiers; Dutch National Science Foundation
N.W.O. (VENI 451-10-029) to Elske Salemink; Swiss
National Science Foundation Grant (100014_124568/1) to
Emmanuel Kuntsche; Swiss National Science Foundation
Grant (100014_129570/1) to Emmanuel Kuntsche and
Hervé Kuendig; National Research Service Award
Predoctoral Fellowship (1 F31 AA13462-01A1) from the
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism to
Lindsay S. Ham, R37 AA07231 to Kenneth J. Sher, P50
AA11998 to Andrew C. Heath, T32-AA07290,
R29AA09917, P50-AA03510, and R21AA15691-0.
References
Armeli, S., Todd, M., Connor, T. D., & Tennen, H. (2008).
Drinking to cope with negative moods and the
immediacy of drinking within the weekly cycle among
college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and
Drugs, 69, 313–322.
Arnett, J. J. (2005). The developmental context of
substance use in emerging adulthood. Journal of Drug
Issues, 35, 235–254.
Babor, T. F., Higgins-Biddle, J. C., Saunders, J. B., &
Monteiro, M. G. (2001). The Alcohol Use Disorders
Identification Test (AUDIT): Guidelines for use in
primary health care. Geneva, Switzerland: World
Health Organization.
Brand, D. A., Saisana, M., Rynn, L. A., Pennoni, F., &
Lowenfels, A. B. (2007). Comparative analysis of
alcohol control policies in 30 countries. PLOS
Medicine, 4(4), 752–759.
Conrod, P. J., Castellanos, N., & Mackie, C. (2008).
Personality-targeted interventions delay the growth of
adolescent drinking and binge drinking. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 181–190.
Conrod, P. J., Stewart, S. H., Comeau, M. N., & Maclean,
M. (2006). Efficacy of cognitive behavioral
interventions targeting personality risk factors for
youth alcohol misuse. Journal of Clinical Child and
Adolescent Psychology, 35, 550–563.
Conrod, P. J., Stewart, S. H., Pihl, R. O., Côté, S., Fontaine,
V., & Dongier, M. (2000). Efficacy of brief coping
skills interventions that match different personality
profiles of female substance abusers. Psychology of
Addictive Behaviors, 14, 231–242.
Cooper, M. L. (1994). Motivations for alcohol use among
adolescents: Development and validation of a four-
factor model. Psychological Assessment, 6, 117–128.
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, 1058–1088.
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., Kuntsche, E., Levitt, A., Barber, L. L., &
Wolf, S. (2015). Motivational models of substance
use: A review of theory and research on motives for
using alcohol, marijuana, and tobacco. In K. J. Sher
(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of substance use
disorders (Vol. 1, pp. Forthcoming). New York, NY,
United States: Oxford University Press.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO
Personality Inventory and NEO Five-Factor
Inventory (p. vi). Odessa, FL, United States:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Cox, W. M., & Klinger, E. (1988). A motivational model of
alcohol use. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97(2),
168–180.
Cox, W. M., & Klinger, E. (1990). Incentive motivation,
affective change, and alcohol use: A model. In W. M.
Cox (Ed.), Why people drink: Parameters of alcohol
as a reinforcer (pp. 291–314). New York, NY, United
States: Oxford Gardner Press.
Cox, W. M., & Klinger, E. (2004). A motivational model of
alcohol use: Determinants of use and change. In W.
M. Cox & E. Klinger (Eds.), Handbook of
motivational counseling (pp. 131–158). Chichester,
United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
The DRINC (Drinking Reasons Inter-National Collaboration) Project 17
–––––– IJADR 6(1) ––––––
Crutzen, R., & Kuntsche, E. (2012). Validation of the four-
dimensional structure of drinking motives among
adults. European Addiction Research, 19, 222–226.
Geen, R. G. (1995). Human motivation. Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun,
J., Lim, B. C., . . . Yamaguchi, S. (2011). Differences
between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study.
Science, 332, 1100–1104.
Ham, L. S., Bonin, M., & Hope, D. A. (2007). The role of
drinking motives in social anxiety and alcohol use.
Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 21, 991–1003.
Hauck-Filho, N., Teixeira, M. A. P., & Cooper, M. L.
(2012). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Brazilian
version of the Drinking Motives Questionnaire-
Revised (DMQ–R). Addictive Behaviors, 37, 524–527.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010).
Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd
ed.). New York, NY, United States: McGraw-Hill.
Kahler, C. W., Hustad, J., Barnett, N. P., Strong, D. R., &
Borsari, B. (2008). Validation of the 30-day version of
the Brief Young Adult Alcohol Consequences
Questionnaire for use in longitudinal studies. Journal
of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 69(4), 611–615.
Keller, A., Frye, L., Bauerle, J., & Turner, J. C. (2009).
Legal ages for purchase and consumption of alcohol
and heavy drinking among college students in Canada,
Europe, and the United States. Substance Abuse, 30,
248–252.
Kuntsche, E., Gabhainn, S. N., Roberts, C., Windlin, B.,
Vieno, A., Bendtsen, P., . . . Wicki, M. (2014).
Drinking motives and links to alcohol use in 13
European countries. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and
Drugs, 75(3), 428–437.
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.
Kuntsche, E., Knibbe, R., Gmel, G., & Engels, R. (2006).
Replication and validation of the Drinking Motives
Questionnaire Revised (DMQ–R, Cooper, 1994)
among adolescents in Switzerland. European
Addiction Research, 12(3), 161–167.
Kuntsche, E., & Kuendig, H. (2012). Beyond self-reports –
Drinking motives predict grams of consumed alcohol
in wine tasting sessions. Experimental and Clinical
Psychopharmacology, 20(4), 318–324.
Kuntsche, E., & Kuntsche, S. (2009). Development and
validation of the Drinking Motive Questionnaire
Revised Short Form (DMQ–R SF). Journal of Clinical
Child and Adolescent Psychology, 38, 899–908.
Kuntsche, E., & Labhart, F. (2013). ICAT: Development of
an Internet-based data collection method for
ecological momentary assessment using personal cell
phones. European Journal of Psychological
Assessment, 29(2), 140–148.
Kuntsche, E., Stewart, S., & Cooper, M. (2008). How
stable is the motive–alcohol use link? A cross-national
validation of the Drinking Motives Questionnaire
Revised among adolescents from Switzerland,
Canada, and the United States. Journal of Studies on
Alcohol and Drugs, 69, 388–396.
Littlefield, A. K., Sher, K. J., & Wood, P. K. (2010). Do
changes in drinking motives mediate the relation
between personality change and “maturing out” of
problem drinking? Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
119(1), 93–105.
Lyvers, M., Hasking, P., Hani, R., Rhodes, M., & Trew, E.
(2010). Drinking motives, drinking restraint and
drinking behaviour among young adults. Addictive
Behaviors, 35, 116–122.
Mazzardis, S., Vieno, A., Kuntsche, E., & Santinello, M.
(2010). Italian validation of the Drinking Motives
Questionnaire Revised Short Form (DMQ–R SF).
Addictive Behaviors, 35(10), 905–908.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait
structure as a human universal. The American
Psychologist, 52(5), 509–16.
Mohr, C. D., Armeli, S., Tennen, H., Temple, M., Todd,
M., Clark, J., & Carney, M. A. (2005). Moving
beyond the keg party: A daily process study of college
student drinking motivations. Psychology of Addictive
Behaviors, 19(4), 392–403.
Mohr, C. D., Brannan, D., Mohr, J., Armeli, S., & Tennen,
H. (2008). Evidence for positive mood buffering
among college student drinkers. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1249–1259.
Németh, Z., Urbán, R., Kuntsche, E., Moreno San Pedro,
E., Gil Roales Nieto, J., Farkas, J., . . . Demetrovics, Z.
(2011). Drinking motives among Spanish and
Hungarian young adults: A cross-national study.
Alcohol & Alcoholism, 46, 261–269.
Read, J. P., Wood, M. D., Kahler, C. W., Maddock, J. E., &
Palfai, T. P. (2003). Examining the role of drinking
motives in college student alcohol use and problems.
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 17(1), 13–23.
Shackelford, T. K., Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2005).
Universal dimensions of human mate preferences.
Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 447–458.
Sher, K. J., & Rutledge, P. C. (2007). Heavy drinking
across the transition to college: Predicting first-
semester heavy drinking from precollege variables.
Addictive Behaviors, 32(4), 819–835.
Steenkamp, J. B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998).
Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national
consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research,
25(1), 78–107.
Stewart, S. H., Loughlin, H. L., & Rhyno, E. (2001).
Internal drinking motives mediate personality domain-
drinking relations in young adults. Personality and
Individual Differences, 30, 271–286.
Stewart, S. H., Zvolensky, M. J., & Eifert, G. H. (2002).
The relations of anxiety sensitivity, experiential
avoidance, and alexithymic coping to young adult’s
motivations for drinking. Behavior Modification, 26,
274–296.
Watt, M. C., Stewart, S. H., Conrod, P., & Schmidt, N. B.
(2008). Personality-based approaches to treatment of
co-morbid anxiety and substance use disorder. In S. H.
Stewart & P. J. Conrod (Eds.), Anxiety and substance
use disorders: The vicious cycle of comorbidity (pp.
201–219). New York, NY, United States: Springer.
18 Marie-Eve Couture et al.
–––––– IJADR 6(1) ––––––
Wechsler, H., Davenport, A., Dowdall, G., Moeykens, B.,
& Castillo, S. (1994). Health and behavioral
consequences of binge drinking in college. A national
survey of students at 140 campuses. JAMA, 272(21),
1672-7.
White, H. R., & Labouvie, E. W. (1989). Towards the
assessment of adolescent problems drinking. Journal
of Studies on Alcohol, 50(1), 30–37.
Wicki, M., Kuntsche, E., & Gmel, G. (2010). Drinking at
European universities? A review of students’ alcohol
use. Addictive Behaviors, 35, 913–924.
World Health Organization. (2014). Global status report on
alcohol and health. Geneva, Switzerland: World
Health Organization.
World Medical Association. (1997). Declaration of
Helsinki. Journal of the American Medical
Association, 277, 925–926.
Wu, A. D., Li, Z., & Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Decoding the
meaning of factorial invariance and updating the
practice of multi-group confirmatory factor analysis:
A demonstration with TIMSS data. Practical
Assessment, Research, & Evaluation, 12, 1–26.
Appendix
Members of the DRINC Team:
Marco Antônio Pereira Teixeira (Institute of Psychology, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul)
Nelson Hauck-Filho (School of Psychology, Universidade São Francisco)
Patricia Conrod (Department of Psychology, Université de Montréal)
Peter Musiat (Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London)
Daniel Regan (Applied Research for Connected Health, University College Dublin)
Gillian Bruce (School of Social Sciences, University of the West of Scotland)
Zsolt Demetrovics, Judit Farkas, and Lilla Futaki (Department of Clinical Psychology & Addiction, Institute of Psychology,
Eötvös Loránd University)
Imelda G. Alcalá-Sánchez (Center for Legal Research, Faculty of Law, Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua)
Dora Isabel Lozano and Lilia Susana Carmona Garcia (Institute of Social Sciences and Administration, Department of Social
Sciences, Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez); Reinout Wiers and Elske Salemink (Department of Developmental
Psychology, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, University of Amsterdam)
Joaquim A. Ferreira, Jorge S. Martins, and Mariana S. Coelho (Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, University of
Coimbra)
Florian Labhart and Hervé Kuendig (Addiction Suisse Research Institute)
Ash Levitt (Research Institute on Addictions, University at Buffalo, State University of New York)
Lindsay Ham (Department of Psychological Science, University of Arkansas)
Kenneth Sher (Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia)
Cynthia Mohr (Department of Psychology, Portland State University)
Stephen Armeli (School of Psychology, Fairleigh Dickinson University)
Howard Tennen (Department of Community Medicine and Health Care, University of Connecticut Health Center).