indicate that gender and coping are the most powerful explanatory variables in the model. With respect to coping, only drinking to cope and problem-focused coping directly predicted weekly drinking. Expectancies also emerged as an important explanatory variable, however, their influence was exerted via indirect pathways (i.e., via drinking to cope and problem-focused drinking). Likewise, perceived stress and emotion-focused coping also emerged as peripheral predictors (via similar pathways) of weekly drinking. Although the present results fail to support the proposed model, they are nevertheless fairly consistent with the stressor vulnerability model proposed by Cooper et al. (1992). Specifically, in keeping with Cooper et al.'s (1992) results, the present findings indicate that stress does not directly induce drinking, and that another vulnerability factor must coexist with stress for drinking to occur. However, there is some apparent discrepancy with respect to the specifics of these additional vulnerability factors, particularly concerning the subtypes of coping mechanisms which affect stress-related drinking. Whereas Cooper et al. (1992) found that individuals who were high in avoidance coping tended to drink more in response to stress, the present study found that drinking to cope was the primary coping mechanism which moderated stress-related drinking. In addition, the present study also found that the moderating influence of expectancies was not limited to positive expectancies, as suggested by Cooper et al. (1992). Instead, the negative expectancy for risk and aggression appears to act in concert with the positive expectancy of tension reduction to moderate stress-related drinking. It is important to note that many of the discrepancies between the present findings and the findings of Cooper et al. (1992) are possibly due to significant differences in the measurement instruments employed. First, with regards to the dependent mea...
