Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Vol. 48, No.

5, 1987

The Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire: An Instrument

for the Assessment of Adolescent and Adult Alcohol
Expectancies*
SANDRA A. BROWN,•- BRUCE A. CHRISTIANSENt AND MARK S. GOLDMAN•-
Veterans Administration Medical Center (116B), 3550 La Jolla Village Drive, San Diego, California 92161

ABSTRACT. Alcohol-related expectancies can influence the individuals expect alcohol to produce a variety of general
behavioral effects of alcohol and decisions regarding alcohol and specific effects. Research with the AEQ indicates a
use. A standard measure of expectanciesis needed for research consistent relationship between alcohol expectancies and al-
and clinical work in the alcohol arena; the development and cohol consumption, alcohol abuse and behavior while drink-
current status of the Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire (AEQ) ing. Data bearing on the psychometric properties and clinical
is summarized. The adolescent and adult forms of this and research utility of the AEQ are discussed. (J. Stud.
instrument are designed to measure the degree to which Alcohol 48: 483-491, 1987)

et at., 1975; Wilson, 1977). In the laboratory, alco-

ESPITE THE plethora
in the alcohol ofresearch
arena, people's and theory
motivation for holics consume larger quantities of alcohol and crave
drinking, the mechanisms by which stable drinking
practices evolve and the reasonswhy some individuals
continue to drink, regardless of increasing negative
consequences, have escaped complete articulation.
One facet of the research assault on these questions
examines the effects attributed to alcohol
individual anticipates experiencing when drinking
(Brown et al., 1980). Over the past 10-15 years there
has been an increasing recognition that such cognitive
variables are "not merely potential confounds to be
controlled, but instead may play an integral role in
determining drug (alcohol) effects" (p. 182) or an
individual's decision to use alcohol (Goldman et al.,
1987). The mere belief that alcohol is being imbibed
has been found to influence social, sexual and ag-
gressive behavior (Abrams and Wilson, 1979; Lang
Received: 12 March 1986. Revision: 1 November
* This research was supported in part by National Institute on
Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism grams R23 AA06519, R01 AA07033,
R01 AA06911 and R01 AA06123 and by Veterans Administration
grants.
•' Dr. Brown is also with the Department of Psychiatry, Uni-
versity of California, San Diego; Dr. Christiansen is with the
University of Wisconsin Medical School, Milwaukee Clinical Cam-
pus; and Dr. Goldman is with the Department of Psychology,
University of South Florida.
Reprint requeststo Dr. Sandra Brown, Department of Psychia-
try, M-003, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, Cali-
fornia 92093.
more when they are told that the supplied beverage
is alcohol (Marlatt et at., 1973). Further, the expec-
tancies of the effects of alcohol appear to be linked
to relapse drinking following alcoholism treatment
(Brown, 1985c; Marlatt, 1978).
that the Several efforts have been made to clarify the exact
expectancies associated with drinking alcohol (e.g.,
Brown et al., 1980; MacAndrew and Garfinkel, 1962;
Mulford and Miller, 1960; Southwick et al., 1981).
Recent attempts have differed from past efforts to
define expected drinking actions. For example,
MacAndrew and Garfinkel (1962) focused on the
alcoholic's self-reported reasons for drinking in an
attempt to assessexpected changes with intoxication.
Similarly, McGuirre et al. (1966) asked alcoholics to
report their expectations of the effect of alcohol on
their mood prior to an experimental drinking period.
Using a different strategy, Southwick et al. (1981)
1986. used a forced choice format of adjectives to define
the outcome effects that college students attribute to
alcohol consumption. A third approach, which has
yielded consistencyacross adolescentand adult pop-
ulations and diverse cultures, relies on empirically
generated reports of expected alcohol effects across
situations (Brown et al., 1980; Christiansen et al.,
1982) and will be discussedhere. This approach to
the assessmentof alcohol expectancieswas designed
to describe all possible expectanciesof the effects of
alcohol and then organize the domain into a man-

483
484 S.A. BROWN, B. A. CHRISTIANSEN
ageable number of categories that accurately reflect
the conceptualizationand perception of the popula-
tions of interest. The methodological rigor, diversity
of potential effects measured and reliance on empir-
ically demonstratedrelationshipsdifferentiate this ap-
proach from previous alcohol expectancy assessment
efforts.
Alcohol expectanciesare important to our under-
standing of alcohol use because of their relationship
to both abusive and nonabusive drinking patterns
(Brown et al., 1985; Christiansen et al., 1985), pre-
diction of behavior while drinking (George and Mar-
latt, 1986; Rohsenow, 1983) as well as future drinking
(Brown, 1985c) and potential mediation of alcohol
consumption decisions (Brown et al., 1980; Goldman
et al., 1987; Marlatt and Rohsenow, 1980). The role
of expectanciesin the production of behavior has
been demonstrated across a variety of domains of
human interaction. Further, using expectanciesspe-
cific to a behavioral domain has resultedin improved
therapeutic effectiveness(Bandura, 1986).
Given the consistent correlation of expectancies
with alcohol consumption, a comprehensive,reliable
and valid means of assessingalcohol-related expec-
tancies in both research and clinical settingsis needed.
To have utility in both settings, such an alcohol
expectancy measurement instrument should possess
three characteristics. First, the instrument should be
psychometrically sound and generalizable to the var-
ious populations to which it will be applied. Thus,
the expectancies of infrequent as well as abusive
alcohol consumers should be sampled and reflected
within the measurement device if it is to be employed
within populations with diverse drinking habits. Sec-
ond, the specific expectanciesmeasured should reflect
the belief system of the population of interest. That
is, if adolescents think about alcohol and its effects
in a different fashion than adults, then the alcohol
expectancies measured should be relevant to the
population of interest. Third, the expectancy meas-
urement device should meet requirements for ease of
researchand clinical use (i.e., easily administeredand
scored, and low reading level).
The present article reports on the development and
current status of the Alcohol Expectancy Question-
naire (AEQ) (Goldman et al., in press), which was
constructed according to the above stated guidelines.
Given the involvement of this cognitive dimension in
the developmentand maintenanceof drinking patterns
as well as the production of behavior while drinking,
standardized measurement of expectanciesmay have
utility for alcohol researchers and clinicians. The
present article articulates the psychometricproperties
of the AEQ and its applicability to abusing popu-
lations. Further, the expectancy update herein will,
AND M. S. GOLDMAN
it is hoped, act to spur and guide alcohol expectancy
research.
Method
The AEQ is a 90-item self-report questionnaire with two
forms: adult and adolescent. Although an identical psy-
chometric approach was used in the development of the
two forms, each will be discussedseparately here.
Adult form
This consists of 90 items that examine whether alcohol
in moderate quantities (e.g., "a few drinks" or "a couple
of drinks") produces a specified effect. Respondentsanswer
in a forced choice format according to their personal
beliefs, feelings and experienceswith alcohol "regardless
of how other people might respond." The 90 items were
derived from an initial item pool of 216 verbatim statements
taken from 125 individuals interviewedsinglyand in groups.
The initial subjects ranged in age from 15 to 60 years and
varied in drinking habits from nondrinking to chronic
excessivealcohol abuse (Brown et al., 1980). The items
were first content analyzed and then factor analyzed to
specify the domain of alcohol-related expectancies.The six
expectanciesmeasuredby the Adult AEQ include: (1) global
positive changes,(2) sexual enhancement,(3) physical and
social pleasure, (4) increased social assertiveness,(5) relax-
ation and tension reduction and (6) arousal and aggression.
Sample items for each factor are shown in Chart 1.
CXa_ART1. Adult and adolescent factors and sample items on the
Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire
ADULT FACTORS
Factor 1: Global positive changes
Drinking makes the future seem brighter
Alcohol seems like magic
I feel more coordinated after I drink
Factor 2: Sexual enhancement
After a few drinks, I am more sexually responsive
I often feel sexier after I've had a few drinks
I am more romantic when I drink
Factor 3: Physical and social pleasure
Having a few drinks is a nice way to celebratespecialoccasions
Drinking is pleasurablebecauseit's enjoyableto join in with other
people who are enjoying themselves
Some alcohol has a pleasant, cleaning, tingly taste
Factor 4: Increased social assertiveness
If I have a couple of drinks it is easierto expressmy feelings
A few drinks make it easier to talk to people
Drinking gives me more confidence in myself
Factor 5: Relaxation and tension reduction
Alcohol enables me to fall asleep more easily
Alcohol decreases muscular tension
Alcohol makes me worry less
Factor 6: Arousal and aggression
After a few drinks it is easier to pick a fight
Drinking makes me feel flushed
I feel powerful when I drink, as if I can really influence others to
do as I want
 ALCOHOL EXPECTANCY
CHART l--continued
ADOLESCENT FACTORS
Factor l: Global positive changes
Drinking alcohol makes the future seem brighter
Drinking alcohol makes it easierto be with others and, in general,
makes the world seem like a nicer place
Drinking alcohol makes a person feel good and happy
Factor 2: Changes in social behavior
Alcoholic beverages make parties more fun
Drinking alcohol is okay becauseit allows people to join in with
others who are having fun
Drinking alcohol makes people more friendly
Factor 3: Improved cognitive and motor abilities
People understand things better when they are drinking alcohol
It is easier to play sports after a few drinks of alcohol
Drinking alcohol makes people fed more alert
Factor 4: Sexual enhancement
People become more interested in people of the opposite sex after
a few drinks of alcohol
Alcohol makes people feel more romantic
Alcohol makes sexual experiences easier and more enjoyable
Factor 5: Cognitive and motor impairment
After drinking alcohol, a person may lose control and run into
things
People are apt to break and destroy things when they are drink-
ing alcohol
After a few alcoholic drinks, people are less aware of what is
going on around them
Factor 6: Increased arousal
Alcohol helps people stand up to others
Alcohol increasesarousal; it makes people feel stronger and more
powerful and makes it easier to fight
People have stronger feelings when they are drinking alcohol
Factor 7.' Relaxation and tension reduction
Drinking alcohol relaxes people
Alcohol makes people more relaxed and less tense
Drinking alcohol can keep a person's mind off his/her problems
at home
A unit weight scoring system has been developed to
simplify the use of the AEQ in research and clinical settings
(Brown, 1985b). Expectancy scale scores are calculated by
summing individual items comprising each scale. Items for
the scaleswere selected based on higher factor loadings on
the identified scale (> .30) and limited loadings on alter-
native factors. Items for each scale are mutually exclusive
(included on only one scale). Further, an item was included
on a scale only when removal of the item from the scale
resulted in a lower coefficient alpha for the scale. Thus,
items comprising the six AEQ scales were selected on the
basis of both item content and psychometric properties.
Adolescent form
This is made up of 90 items similar to those on the
Adult AEQ. These items were derived in part from the
statements comprising the Adult AEQ and additional in-
terviews with adolescents ranging in age from 12 to 19
years. The AEQ forms differ in that the Adolescent AEQ
also incorporates negative effects of alcohol consumption
and statements are worded more generally to accommodate
QUESTIONNAIRE 485
adolescents who have had little or no experience with
alcohol.
The Adolescent AEQ similarly underwent content and
factor analyses to define the domain of adolescent alcohol
expectancies (Christiansen and Goldman, 1983; Christiansen
et al., 1982). Factor analysis of the Adolescent AEQ
produced seven expectancies:(1) global positive changes,
(2) changesin social behavior, (3) improved cognitive and
motor abilities, (4) sexual enhancement, (5) cognitive and
motor impairment, (6) increased arousal and (7) relaxation
and tension reduction. Representative items are shown in
Chart 1. The unit weight scoring system developed for the
Adolescent AEQ is comparable to that developed for the
Adult AEQ. Although there is significant overlap between
the expectancyscalesof the Adolescentand Adult AEQs,
separate scoring systems have been retained to more ac-
curately reflect the perceptions and beliefs of the different
age groups.
Normatire data
As a new assessment instrument, the AEQ requires
standardization. Means (+ SD) for the adolescentand adult
versions of the AEQ are shown in Table 1. Normative
information is provided for alcoholic and general popula-
tion samples of adolescents and adults. Adolescent scores
are based on three inpatient adolescent alcoholism treatment
program groups (aged 12-19) and a sample of 1580 students
in junior and senior high schools. Adult scoreswere derived
from 410 participants in seven adult alcoholism treatment
programs (aged 21-69) and 440 adults (aged 18-59) at-
tending evening college classes.In general, excessivedrink-
ers and alcohol abusers obtain higher AEQ scores than
infrequent or moderate drinkers (Brown et al., 1985; Brown
et al., 1987).
Reliability of the AEQ
Because it is a new research and clinical instrument,
demonstration of adequate psychometric characteristics(e.g.,
reliability and validity) is essential for the AEQ. The two
forms of reliability critical to this heterogeneousself-report
instrument are: internal consistencyand test-retest reliabil-
ity. To examine the internal consistencyof the AEQ scales,
coefficient alphas were calculated for each adult and ad-
olescent scale. In a sample of 176 nonproblem drinking
adults, coefficient alphas for the Adult AEQ scales range
from .72 to .92 with a mean coefficient of .84 (Brown,
1984). Adolescent AEQ scalesrange in internal consistency
estimates from .47 to .82, with a mean internal coefficient
alpha of .72 (Christiansen and Goldman, 1983). Thus,
scales from Adolescent and Adult AEQs yield acceptable
internal consistency.
The second form of reliability examined with the AEQ
was test-retest reliability. Since older adolescentsmaintain
alcohol expectanciessimilar to those of adults (Christiansen
et al., 1982), this population was selectedto complete both
forms of the AEQ. Using a population of college students
(N = 465) who were administeredboth forms of the AEQ,
test-retest reliability measureswere obtained. This sample
486 S. A. BROWN, B. A. CHRISTIANSEN AND M. S. GOLDMAN

TABLEi. Mean (_+ SD) scoreson the Adolescentand Adult Alcoholism ExpectancyQuestionnaires

General adolescent Adolescent alcohol abusers Maximum

population in treatment possible
(N = 1580) (64) score

Adolescent scales
1. Global changes 7.89 + 3.47 11.82 + 2.74 15
2. Changes in social behavior 8.39 + 4.12 9.41 + 2.53 17
3. Cognitive and motor enhancement 1.83 + 1.81 2.18 + 2.10 10
4. Sexual enhancement 4.75 + 2.08 5.59 + 1.73 7
5. Cognitive and motor impairment 20.83 + 3.53 22.65 + 1.73 24
6. Arousal 2.43 _+ 1.21 3.71 +_ .59 4
7. Relaxation and tension reduction 10.42 _+ 2.54 12.18 _+ 1.42 13

General adult Adult alcoholics Maximum

population in treatment possible
(N = 440) (410) score

Adult scales
1. Global changes 9.85 + 8.55 14.54 + 5.38 22
2. Sexual enhancement 2.50 + 2.49 3.13 + 2.12 7
3. Physical and social pleasure 5.50 + 2.55 6.57 + 2.0l 8
4. Social assertion 5.44 _+ 3.82 7.53 + 3.05 8
5. Relaxation and tension reduction 5.19 + 2.80 6.15 + 2.19 8
6. Arousal and aggression .88 _+ .75 1.10 + .72 2
6a. Revised scale 6 currently in use -- 4.66 + 1.63 7

ranged in age from 17 to 40 (mean, 18.8 years), was behavior while drinking. Although this cognitive-behavioral
predominantly Caucasian (82%), unmarried (74%) and link has been demonstratedin a number of experimental
Christian (24% Protestant, 49% Catholic). It was antici- alcohol studies(e.g., Goldman et al., 1987), independent
pated that college student beliefs about the effects of demonstrationof such a relationshipbetweencognitionand
alcohol might change concomitant to drinking habit shifts behavior outside the laboratory is essentialto the clinical
(which typically take place during the initial college years). utility of the AEQ.
Thus, over an 8-week interval, moderate test-retest relia- As noted previously, AEQ studies with adolescents
bilities were expected. Adolescent and Adult AEQ results (Christiansenet al., 1982, 1985; Christiansenand Goldman,
are shown in Table 2. The mean 8-week test-retest reliability 1983; Brown et al., 1987), adults (Brown, 1985b; Brown
coefficient is .64 for the Adult AEQ scales and .52 for et al., 1980; Rohsenow, 1983), and abusing populations
the AdolescentAEQ scales.The test-retest scoressuggested (Brown, 1985a; Brown et al., 1985; Connors et al., 1986)
that for the college population the adolescent score may consistently demonstrate a relationship between alcohol
be less reliable or may be changing more than the adult expectancies and currentalcohol consumption.In particular,
factor structure. adolescents who drink in a frequent socialmanner expect
more social facilitation with alcohol consumption,whereas
Validity of the AEQ adolescentsdrinking in a heavy and more problematic
fashion expect improvementin their cognitiveand motor
Criterion validity. The AEQ was developed subsequent
functioningrelativeto nonabusingadolescentpeers(Chris-
to findings that cognitive factors were related to actual
tiansen and Goldman, 1983; Christiansenet al., 1985).
Further, adolescent abusers have been found to expect
TABLE 2. Test-retest reliability of the Alcohol Expectancy more positive effects from alcohol than demographically
Questionnaire comparablenonabusingpeers(Brown et al., 1987). Among
college students,social drinkers also expect social enhance-
Adult scales ment, whereasstudentsexperiencingalcohol-related problems
Retest interval 1 2 3 4 5 6
(e.g., physicaldistress,trouble at schoolor with the law)
were found to differ from frequent drinking peerswho do
8 week (N = 465) .72 .62 .64 .72 .65 .48 not manifestalcohol-relatedproblemsin that they expectmore
4 week (N = 173) .76 .70 .65 .76 .64 .47 tensionreductionand relaxationwith alcohol(Brown, 1985b).
Adolescent scales Finally, recentinvestigations
of alcoholicpopulations(Brown,
1985a; Brown et al., 1985; Christiansenet al., 1985; Con-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
nors et al., 1986) have demonstratedthat even at the heavy
8 weeka (N = 465) .61 .56 .56 .54 .39 .45 .54 drinking and abusiveend of the alcohol consumptioncon-
tinuum, expectancies havediscriminative power and vary with
a Based on college student sample. drinking habits of both adolescentsand adults.
 ALCOHOL EXPECTANCY
Until now, only one study has examined the predictive
validity of the AEQ. Brown (1985c) conducted follow-up
interviews with 42 adult male alcoholics one year after
completion of an inpatient alcoholism treatment program.
Using interviews with the alcoholic and corroborative in-
terviews with a resource person, 82ø70of the subjects were
studied. Analyses of successfollowing alcoholism treatment
indicated that more limited expectancies of tension reduc-
tion were associated with total abstinence (r = .710) and
number of days without drinking problems (r = .532).
Alcohol expectancy scores were found to enhance the
prediction of drinking outcome at one year. Thus, the
AEQ may provide useful information regarding relapse
potential for those individuals currently in alcoholism treat-
ment programs.
Cross-cultural validity. As a generalizable cognitive var-
iable, the validity of alcohol expectanciesshould transcend
cultural boundaries. In a recent study, the drinking behavior
and alcohol expectancies of 168 Irish (Dublin) adolescents
were compared with those of 168 American (Detroit)
adolescents,matched for age and sex distribution (CHRIS-
TU,SSE•r, B. A. ^st) B•tows, S. A. Adolescent alcohol
expectancies: Further evidence of their robust nature. Pre-
sented at American Psychological Association Convention,
Los Angeles, California, 1985). The Irish adolescents re-
ported lessfrequent social consumption and fewer drinking-
related problems. This was attributed to Irish religious
norms prohibiting adolescent alcohol consumption and the
higher cost of drinking in Ireland. This level of drinking
should be reflected in lower scores on the AEQ. Specifi-
cally, Irish adolescents should expect less enhancement of
social functioning and less cognitive and motor improve-
ment because those two factors were the best predictors
of frequent social drinking and problem drinking in an
American adolescent sample (Christiansen and Goldman,
1983), Scale scoresindicate that the two groups of adoles-
cents view alcohol equally as a powerful agent (there was
no difference in between total expectancy scores across
groups). However, the Irish did score significantly lower
regarding expectations for improved social and cognitive-
motor functioning. Consistent with previous research with
American adolescents, these two scales were among the
best predictors of .the parameters of Irish drinking behavior
(Christiansen and Brown, unpublished ms., 1985). Other
significant differences were interpreted to reflect cultural
differences. The Irish expect greater increases in arousal
and aggression as a consequence of drinking. The link
between drinking and the release of aggression throughout
Irish history has been reported by others (Bolles, 1972;
Pittman, 1964). The Irish also expect less enhancement of
sexuality, which is not surprising given the religious views
regarding sexual behavior prevalent in Ireland. Thus, it
seems that measures of alcohol expectancies might prove
useful for understanding drinking in countries other than
the United States.
Discriminant validity. Validity dictates that the AEQ not
measure constructs other than expected drinking conse-
quences. Two potential competing constructs are social
desirability and deviancy. Some of the anticipated effects
of alcohol may be more socially acceptable (e.g., social
QUESTIONNAIRE 487
facilitation) than other effects (e.g., increased aggressive
behavior). Hence, respondent scores may covary with the
extent to which the individual prefers to present himself
in a socially desirable fashion. If AEQ and social desira-
bility measures were highly correlated, respondent scores
would reflect little beyond the individual's desire to present
himself in a socially acceptable fashion.
To examine the relationship between social desirability
and alcohol expectancy scores, 324 male and female college
students completed both the Adolescent and the Adult
AEQs and the short form of the Marlowe-Crowne Social
Desirability Scale (Strahan and Gerbasi, 1972). Order of
questionnaire completion was determined via random as-
signment. Consistent with standardization samples, the col-
lege students obtained a mean score of 14.17 + 5.19 on
the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Correlations
between the social desirability measure and individual AEQ
scales ranged from .01 to -.16 with an average correlation
of -.14 for adult scales and -.09 for adolescent scales.
The correlations suggest that among college students re-
sponses to the AEQ at most have a modest inverse
relationship to social desirability measures. In the case of
individual AEQ scales,a maximum of 2,6ø7oof the variance
was shared between these measures. Thus, AEQ scales
appear to be relatively independent of social desirability
influence.
The AEQ might also simply measure level of deviancy.
This is an appealing hypothesis in an adolescent population
where drinking is correlated with delinquency(Jessor, 1985).
Recent data bear upon tl•is hypothesis (Canter, 1984). The
drinking behavior and alcohol expectanciesof 85 nondrink-
ers, 123 light drinkers, 103 heavy drinkers drawn from
regular classrooms and 43 deliquent adolescentswere com-
pared. Delinquents reported a wide range of drinking
patterns. If the Adolescent AEQ primarily measuresdelin-
quency, delinquents should receive the highest scale scores.
If it is specifically sensitive to drinking, the heavy-drinking
adolescent group should receive the highest scale scores.
The four groups were significantly different in six of the
seven expectancyscales(p = .06 for the relaxation factor).
The heavy-drinking group scored highest on six of the
seven scales. The delinquent group received a higher mean
score on only the behavioral impairment factor, and they
scored similarly to the lighter drinking group on other
AEQ scales. Thus, the Adolescent AEQ is not merely a
measure of delinquency.
Relationship of Adolescent and Adult AEQ scales
Despite the relatively independent development of the
AEQ for adults and adolescents, the factor analytically
derived scalesof each version indicate obvious overlap in
content areas assessedby the instruments. Christiansen et
al. (1982) reported that adolescent expectanciesevolve into
adult expectanciesby 17-19 years of age. Thus, later
adolescenceand young adulthood could be considered a
stage of transition in the perception of alcohol effects and,
consequently,the AEQ scales. To explore the relationship
between adolescent and adult expectancies,both adolescent
and adult items of the AEQ were administered to the
488 S.A. BROWN, B. A. CHRISTIANSEN AND M. S. GOLDMAN

volunteer college student sample (N = 465). The pattern
of expectancy score correlations was examined to assess
scale covariance in this transition age population (M =
18.8 years).
Given that the Adult AEQ involves statementsregarding
the effects of alcohol on the respondent, whereas the
AdolescentAEQ focuseson the effect of alcohol on people
in general, moderate correlations were expected between
certain Adult and Adolescent AEQ scales. In particular,
the global positive change scales of the Adolescent and
Adult AEQs were expectedto be correlated as were scales
of sexual enhancement, relaxation and arousal. Item anal-
ysis of the scalesindicated that the AdolescentAEQ scale
measuring changesin social behavior might be correlated
with social and physical pleasure and social assertion scales
in the Adult AEQ. Additionally, it was predicted that the
cognitive and motor impairment as measured by scale 5
of the Adolescent AEQ would be correlated with the arousal
and power dimension(scale6) of the Adult AEQ. Similarly,
the social assertivenessscaleof the Adult AEQ was expected
to correlate with both arousal and relaxation scales of the
Adolescent AEQ.
In general, the Adolescent and Adult AEQ scores are
linearly related. Total AEQ scorescorrelated .60 (p < .001)
in this population. As predicted, individual Adolescent and
Adult AEQ scaleswere significantly correlated. The specific
pattern of scale correlations shown in Table 3 is consistent
with the above stated predictions. Additional significant
correlations between Adolescent and Adult AEQ scores
indicate that: (1) the highest level of overlap of individual
AEQ scalesis with the global positive factor, (2) the sexual
enhancement expectancy of adolescents encompassesfea-
tures of sexual enhancement and social assertion as defined
by the Adult AEQ and (3) the Adolescent AEQ arousal
scale also contains strong social features. Thus, the antic-
ipated overlap between the Adolescent and Adult AEQ
scales was confirmed and additional moderate level
correlations indicate significant differences between the two
forms of the AEQ.
The pattern of intercorrelations between the adult and
adolescent versions of the AEQ has been confirmed in
other research as well (MmLER, P. M., Smtx-I, G. I. ^ND
GOrDM^S, M. S. Identification of alcohol expectanciesin
children ages 5 through 12; MONTEIRO, R. C. AND PODANY,
E. C. Alcohol expectancies and consumption in parents
and their children. Papers presented at the 94th American
Psychological Association Convention, Washington, D.C.,
August 1986). The scale correlations suggestthat although
Adult and Adolescent AEQs share significant overlap,
important differences exist between the forms that warrant
maintenance of separatequestionnairesand scoring systems.
Discussion
The results of the studies reported here suggest
that the AEQ may be both a useful research tool
and a clinical tool. The findings indicate that both
the Adult and Adolescent AEQs are internally con-
sistent and reliable over an 8-week interval. Validity
studies reported support the construct validity as well
as concurrent predictive validity of this instrument
as regards drinking patterns. In addition, the Adult
and Adolescent AEQs are capable of differentiating
problematic from nonproblematic drinkers in adoles-
cent, collegiate and noncollegiate adult populations.
Findings reported here and elsewhere indicate that
although the defined expectancies are robust and
represent the full range of personal beliefs regarding
the effects of alcohol, they are not uniformly main-
tained. Alcohol expectanciesvary with such personal
characteristicsas age, sociodemographicbackground,
personality characteristics and current drinking pat-
terns. Since alcohol abuse is no longer considered a
unitary phenomenon, identification of those variables
that may influence the use or experience of alcohol
may facilitate more accurate demarcation of the
scale
various pathways that consummate in problematic
drinking patterns.
As a measurement instrument of expectancies, the
AEQ has advantages and disadvantages when com-
pared with other instruments. Early measurement
procedures,while increasingour understandingof the
social meaning of alcohol use, did not provide the

TABLE 3. Adolescent and Adult Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire scale correlations (N = 465)

Adult Scales

1. Global 2. Sexual 3. Physical and 4. Social 5. Relaxation 6. Arousal and

Adolescent scales changes enhancement social pleasure assertion and tension aggression
reduction

1. Global changes .55a .37 .40 .41 .46 .05

2. Changes in social behavior .48 .38 .60 a .51 a .53 - .02
3. Cognitive and motor enhancement .31a .31 .19 .19 .20 - .01
4. Sexual enhancement .48 .55 a .39 .53 .38 .13
5. Cognitive and motor impairment .17 ß16 .14 .18 .16 .25 a
6. Arousal .43 .32 .31 .50 a .36 .12 a
7. Relaxation and tension reduction .43 .29 .39 .46 a .41 a .14

a Correlations predicted to be significant; r > .13 significant at .01.

 ALCOHOL EXPECTANCY QUESTIONNAIRE
conceptual specificity of the AEQ. For example, the
Definitions of Alcohol Scale (Mulford and Miller,
1960) is a well developed unidimensional Guttman-
type scale of the social and personal effects of
alcohol, which has been related to quantity-frequency
drinking scores. Similarly, Farher et al. (1980) de-
veloped a two dimensional (social drinking versus
escape drinking) factor analytically derived scale of
reasons for drinking.
More recent attempts (George and Marlatt, 1986;
Southwick et al., 1981) have used bipolar adjective
lists. The procedure developed by Southwick et al.
has been explored among college students both as a
function of phase of intoxication and drinking ex-
perience. This scale has three factors (Stimulation
and Perceived Dominance, Pleasurable Disinhibition
and Behavioral Impairment) and has been used to
highlight expectancydifferences associatedwith level
of intoxication. Since it appears that expectancies
increase in specificity with drinking experience, it
seems theoretically preferable for an expectancy in-
strument to provide a measure of both global drug
effects and highly specific types of alcohol-related
changes. The Adolescent and Adult AEQs provide
such specificity and reflect changes in conceptual
structure of expected alcohol effects by age. The
Adult AEQ is currently limited to positive effects
though a derivative has been used that includes two
types of negative effects (Robsenow, 1983). Research
is currently being conducted to more systematically
assesssuch items for inclusion in the Adult AEQ
(Be,owN, S. A. The negative effects expected from
alcohol. Unpublished manuscript, 1986).
The AEQ also differs from other expectancy in-
struments in its development. The AEQ is an empir-
ically derived questionnaire with items generated from
a broad spectrum of adolescents and adults rather
than from a predominantly college student popula-
tion. Thus, adolescentsand elderly individuals as well
as nondrinkers and alcohol abusers were surveyed to
generate the item list comprising the AEQ. Studies
described here demonstrate the consequent utility of
such an instrument across age ranges and drinking
patterns. However, applicability to other specific pop-
ulations needs to be examined.
The AEQ possessescertain advantages over other
instruments and factor analytic procedures used to
assesschanges associatedwith drinking. In particular,
while other questionnaires focus predominantly on
internal (personality)changes,the AEQ identifies both
internal features and behavioral changes that the
individual associateswith consuming alcohol. Further,
the AEQ focuses on the effects of alcohol associated
with the initial stage of drinking. This focus is based
on the presumption that by accurately identifying the
489
expectanciesassociated with the onset of drinking,
the initiating factors in the drinking process can be
articulated. Such initiating factors may also operate
to sustain the drinking behavior, but this has not yet
been investigated.
The Adolescent AEQ differs from the Adult AEQ
in several ways. The adolescent version is worded
more generally whereas items on the Adult AEQ are
predominatelyself-focused.Researchwith a derivative
of this scale (Rohsenow, 1983) has demonstrated that
personal and general alcohol expectanciesvary among
college students.Thus, to a certain extent maximum
correlations between adult and adolescent scales may
be limited by this methodological difference. More-
over, previous work with the Adult AEQ (Brown,
1979) suggeststhat the factor structureof self-focused
alcohol expectancies is more clearly demarcated in
the college population and that this same factor
structure may not be applicable when items are
worded for the "general adult population."
The Adolescent AEQ was designedto remain gen-
eralizable to the entire adolescent population. Con-
sequently,questionswere worded to assessthe beliefs
of adolescents who have not yet had direct or
personal experiencewith alcohol. As personal expe-
rience with alcohol increases, decisionsregarding ini-
tiation or resumption of drinking may be more closely
associated with the proximal rather than the distal
anticipated effects of alcohol (Falk, 1983). Therefore,
the Adult AEQ predominantly employs items with
self-focus and of moderate quantity. Further AEQ
research is needed to determine changes in specific
expectancies as a function of quantity of alcohol
considered and usual consumption patterns.
A second difference in the two forms of the AEQ
is that the adolescent form includes items regarding
the negative consequencesof drinking whereas the
adult version is limited to potentially reinforcing
componentsof the drinking experience. The adult
version of the AEQ is further restricted to effects
associated with initial or moderate consumption. Re-
search with other expectancy instruments indicates
that expectanciesvary with quantity of alcohol con-
sidered. Southwick et al. (1981) found that expectan-
cies of positivealcohol effects were more pronounced
when moderate drinking was being consideredwhereas
negativeconsequences were more frequently endorsed
when too much alcohol was being considered. Al-
though negative effect items have been added to the
Adult AEQ (Brown, unpublishedms., 1986), research
thus far suggests that positive expectancies most
consistentlydiscriminatevarious drinking populations
(Brown et al., 1985; Goldman et al., 1987).
A body of research is evolving that clarifies the
relationship between alcohol expectanciesand drink-
490 S. A. BROWN, B. A. CHRISTIANSEN
ing habits, but few studies have investigated the
relationship between specific alcohol expectancies of
the type defined by the AEQ and actual behavior
during drinking episodes.Several recent studies(George
and Marlatt, 1986; Rohsenow and Bachorowski, 1984)
indicate that specific predrinking expectancies may
predict postdrinking behaviors and that multiple ex-
pectancies may act in concert to influence behavior
while drinking. Such research may help determine
the degree and process by which cognition is involved
in drinking decisions and in production 'of the be-
havioral effects of alcohol. Additionally, although
numerous studies have demonstrated the concurrent
validity of the AEQ, the extent to which alcohol
expectanciesor changesin expectanciesare associated
with the onset of drinking, future changesin drinking
patterns, severity of dependence or relapse following
treatment await longitudinal study. Finally, even
though numerous clinical implications have been in-
ferred from research to date, the utility of alcohol
expectanciesin prevention programs or individualized
treatment regimes should be the next stage of ex-
pectancy research.
Acknowledgments
we wish to express appreciation to Nancy Neumeyer, Ethan
Munson, Robert Kaplan and Ronald Mineo for their assistance.
Appreciation is also extended to the Veterans Administration
Hospital, Allen Park, Michigan; The Salvation Army Harbor Light
Center, Detroit, Michigan; the McDonald Center and Scripps
Memorial Hospital, La Jolla, California; San Luis Rey Hospital,
Encinitas, California; and the Veterans Administration Medical
Center, Cabrillo Doctors Hospital and Crossroadsand Pathfinders,
San Diego, California from which subjects were selected.
References
ABP,AMS, D. B. AND W•rSON, G. T. Effects of alcohol on social
anxiety in women: Cognitive versus physiological processes.J.
abnorm. Psychol. 88: 161-173, 1979.
BANDUP, A, A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social
Cognitive Theory, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, inc.,
1986.
BorrES, R. C. Reinforcement, expectancy, and learning. Psychol.
Rev. 79: 394-409, 1972.
BROWN,R. A. AND CUTXER,H. S. G. Alcohol, customary drinking
behavior, and pain. J. abnorm. Psychol. 86: 179-188, 1977.
BROWN, S. A. Cognitive expectanciesof the effects of alcohol in
a nonalcoholic population, Master thesis, Wayne State Univer-
sity, Detroit, Mich., 1979.
BROWN, S. A. Tension reduction and social interactions: Alcohol
versus expectancyeffects. (Abstract) Pharmacol. Blochem. Be-
hav. 20: 988, 1984.
BROWN,S. A. Context of drinking and reinforcement from alcohol:
Alcoholic patterns. Addict. Behav. 10: 191-196, 1985a.
BROWN, S. A. Expectancies versus background in the prediction
of college drinking practices. J. cons. clin. Psychol. 53: 123-
130, 1985b.
BROWN, S. A. Reinforcement expectancies and alcoholism treat-
AND M. S. GOLDMAN
ment outcome after a one-year follow-up. J. Stud. Alcohol 46:
304-308, 1985c.
BROWN, S. h., CREAMER, V. h. AND STETSON,B. h. Adolescent
alcohol expectanciesas a function of personal and parental
drinking patterns. J. abnorm. Psychol. 96: 177-121, 1987.
BROWN, S. A., GOLDMAN, M. S. AND CHRISTIANSEN,B. A. Do
alcohol expectanciesmediate drinking patterns of adults? J.
cons. clin. Psychol. 53: 512-519, 1985.
BROWN,S. A., GOLDMAN,M. S., INN, A. AND ANDERSON,L. R.
Expectations of reinforcement from alcohol: Their domain and
relation to drinking patterns. J. cons. clin. Psychol. 48: 419-
426, 1980.
CANTER,W. A. Adolescent problem drinking: An analysis of a
social learning model, Ph.D. dissertation, Wayne State Univer-
sity, Detroit, Mich., 1984.
CHRISTIANSEN, B. A. AND GOLDMAN,M. S. Alcohol-related expec-
tancies versusdemographic/backgroundvariablesin the predic-
tion of adolescentdrinking. J. cons. clin. Psychol. 51: 249-257,
1983.
CHRISTIANSEN,B. A., GOLDMAN, M. S. AND BROWN, S. A. The
differential developmentof adolescentalcohol expectanciesmay
predict adult alcoholism. J. Addict. Behav. 10: 299-306, 1985.
CHRISTIANSEN,B. A., GOLDMAN, M. S. AND INN, A. The devel-
opment of alcohol-relatedexpectanciesin adolescents:Separating
pharmacological from social-learning influences. J. cons. clin.
Psychol. 50: 336-344, 1982.
CONNORS, G. J., O'FARRELL, T. J., CUTTER, H. S. G. AND
T•4OMPSON, D. L. Alcohol expectanciesamong male alcoholics,
problem drinkers, and nonproblem drinkers. A]csm clin. exp.
Res. 10: 667-671, 1986.
FALIC, J. L. Drug dependence: Myth or motive? Pharmacol.
Blochem. Behav. 19: 385-391, 1983.
FARBER, P. D., KaAVAR•, K. A. AND DOUGrASS, F. M., 4TI4. A
factor analytic study of reasons for drinking: Empirical vali-
dation of positive and negative reinforcement dimensions. J.
cons. clin. Psychol. 48: 780-781, 1980.
GEORGE, W. H. ArqD MARLATT, G. A. The effects of alcohol and
anger on interest in violence, erotica and deviance. J. abnorm.
Psychol. 95: 150-158, 1986.
GOLDMAN, M. S., BROWN, S. A. AND CHRISTIANSEN,B. A.
Expectancy theory: Thinking about drinking. In: BLANE, H. T.
AND LEONARD,K. E. (Eds.) Psychological Theories of Drinking
and Alcoholism, New York: The Guilford Press, 1987, pp. 181-
220.
GOLDMAN,M. S., BROWN, S. A. AND CHRISTIANSEN,B. A. Alcohol
Expectancy Questionnaire, Odessa, Fla.: Psychological Assess-
ment Resources, Inc. [In press.]
JESSOR,R. Adolescentproblem drinking: Psychosocialaspectsand
developmentaloutcomes. Alcohol Drugs Driv. 1 (No. 1-2): 69-
96, 1985.
LANG, A. R., GOECKNER, D. J., ADESSO, V. J. AND MARLATT,
G. A. Effects of alcohol on aggressionin male social drinkers.
J. abnorm. Psychol. 84: 508-518, 1975.
MACANDREW,C. AND GARFINKEr,H. A considerationof changes
attributed to intoxication as common-sensereasons for getting
drunk. Q. J. Stud. Alcohol 23: 252-266, 1962.
McGumRE, M. T., STEIN, S. AND MENDErSON,J. H. Comparative
psychosocial studies of alcoholic and nonalcoholic subjects
undergoing experimentally induced ethanol intoxication. Psycho-
som. Med. 28: 13-26, 1966.
MARLATT,G. A. Craving for alcohol, loss of control, and relapse:
A cognitive-behavioral analysis. In: NATaAN, P. E., MARZA:r:r,
G. A. •D L•ERa, T. (Eds.) Alcoholism: New Directions in
Behavioral Research and Treatment, New York: Plenum Press,
1978, pp. 271-314.
 ALCOHOL EXPECTANCY
MARLATT, G. A., DEMMIIqG, B. AND REID, J. B. Loss of control
drinking in alcoholics: An experimental analogue. J. abnorm.
Psychol. 81: 233-241, 1973.
MARLATT, G. A. At,•D ROHSENOW, D. J. Cognitive processes in
alcohol use: Expectancy and the balanced placebo design. In:
MELLO, N. K. (Ed.) Advances in SubstancesAbuse: Behavioral
and Biological Research, Vol. 1, Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press,
Inc., 1980, pp. 159-199.
MULFORD, H. A. AND MILLER, D. E. Drinking in Iowa. IH. A
scale of definitions of alcohol related to drinking behavior. Q.
J. Stud. Alcohol 21: 267-291, 1960.
PITTMAN, D. J. International overview: Social and cultural factors
in drinking patterns, pathological and nonpathological. In: PITT-
MAt4, D. J. (Ed.) Alcoholism, New York: Harper and Row
Pubs., Inc., 1964, pp. 3-20.
ROHSEIqOW,D. J. Drinking habits and expectandes about alcohol's
QUESTIONNAIRE 491
effects for self versus others. J. cons. clin. Psychol. 51: 752-
756, 1983.
ROHSENOW, D. J. AND BACHOROWSKI, J.-A. Effects of alcohol
and expectancies on verbal aggression in men and women. J.
abnorm. Psychol. 93: 418-432, 1984.
SOUTHWICK, L., STEELE, C., MARLATT, G. A. AND LINDELL, M.
Alcohol-related expectandes: Defined by phase of intoxification
and drinking experience. J. cons. clin. Psychol. 49: 713-721,
1981.
STRAHAN, R. AND GERBASI, K. C. Short, homogeneous versions
of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. J. clin. Psy-
chol. 28: 191-193, 1972.
WILS•qACK, S.C. Sex role identity and female alcoholism. J.
abnorm. Psychol. 82: 153-261, 1973.
WILSO•4, G. T. Alcohol and human sexual behavior. Behav. Res.
Ther. 15: 239-252, 1977.