del depicted in Figure 1. Table 2 contains summary statistics for the stepwise regression used to identify the predictor variables of weekly drinking. As can be seen from Table 2, gender emerged as the most important predictor variable accounting for over 28% of the variance. The coping variables of drinking to cope and problem-focused drinking were also significant, and accounted for an additional 12% and 8% of the variance, respectively. Further multiple regression analyses were used to determine which variables predicted drinking to cope, and problem-focused coping, respectively. Table 3 shows that the expectancy for risk accounted for over 26% of the variance in predicting drinking to cope, with the expectancy for tension and perceived stress accounting for an additional 16%. Table 4 shows that emotion-focused coping accounted for over 34% of the variance in predicting problem-focused drinking, with the expectancy valence for self perception accounting for an additional 8%. Figure 2 summarizes the direct effects estimated in the foregoing series of multiple regression analyses.Discussion The primary purpose of the present study was to replicate and extend the results of Cooper et al. (1992).Specifically, the Cooper et al. (1992) stressor vulnerability model was modified to include family history of alcoholism as an additional moderating variable, and expectancies were conceptualized as a mediating rather than a moderating variable. The model was then tested in a college population sample. Overall, the results of this study fail to support the proposed model, suggesting that expectancies play a distal rather than proximal role in stress-related drinking. Furthermore, contrary to previous findings (i.e., Cotton, 1979; Goodwin, 1988; Hill et al., 1992; & Ohannessian & Hesselbrock, 1993), family history of alcoholism did not play a significant role, either directly or indirectly, in predicting drinking. In contrast, the present results ...
