sure, alcohol consumption, the criterion used to define one standard drink in the Cooper et al. (1992) study required significantly smaller amounts of alcohol than did the present study (i.e., 1 oz. versus 1.5 oz. of hard liquor, or 4 oz. versus 5 oz. of wine). Therefore, it is possible that by utilizing stricter alcohol consumption criteria in the present study, certain findings that were found to be significant in the Cooper et al. (1992) study were not significant here. Second, with regards to the measurement of expectancies, the Cooper et al. (1992) study measured only positive expectancies. By contrast, the present study measured both positive and negative expectancies, and it was found that both are important in stress-related drinking. Third, with respect to coping, the present study elaborated on the three coping styles used in Cooper et al. (1992) by adding a fourth category, drinking to cope. This coping style proved to be a superior predictor of stress-related drinking than any of the other coping dispositions. Finally, with respect to the measurement of stress, the Cooper et al. (1992) study used a life events scale to measure stress. This measure of stress is inferior to the perceived stress scale, because it only measures the objective occurrence of events, and not the subjective interpretation of whether the individual perceives these events to be stressful (Cohen et al., 1983). As such, the discrepancy between the overall results obtained in the present study and that reported by Cooper et al. (1992) may be due, in part, to the fact that differing constructs were investigated. Two limitations of the present study should be noted. The first and possibly most significant limitation is the relatively small sample size of the study. This limitation precluded more in-depth statistical analysis, particularly with respect to analyzing interactions. For instance, even though Figure 2 provides the impression that drinking to cope...
