Next Article in Journal
Correction: Theodosopoulos et al. Cultural Competence and Ethics Among Nurses in Primary Healthcare: Exploring Their Interrelationship and Implications for Care Delivery. Healthcare 2025, 13, 2117
Previous Article in Journal
Can Artificial Intelligence Educate Patients? Comparative Analysis of ChatGPT and DeepSeek Models in Meniscus Injuries
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Healthcare
Volume 13
Issue 22
10.3390/healthcare13222981
healthcare-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Cognitive Model of Alcohol Use Among Taiwanese Adolescents: The Influence of Alcohol Expectancies and Drinking Refusal Self-Efficacy

by
Mei-Yu Yeh
1,
Chyi-In Wu
2,
Yen-Hua Shih
3 and
Yu-Kuei Chen
4,*
1
Department of Nursing, Kang Ning University, Taipei 104, Taiwan
2
Institute of Sociology, Academia Sinica, Taipei 115, Taiwan
3
Department of Nursing, National Tai Nen Junior College of Nursing, Tainan 700, Taiwan
4
Department of Nutrition, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung 840, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Healthcare 2025, 13(22), 2981; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13222981
Submission received: 20 September 2025 / Revised: 16 November 2025 / Accepted: 18 November 2025 / Published: 20 November 2025
Versions Notes

Abstract

Background: Drinking alcohol of adolescents is an important issue in Taiwan. The purpose of the research is to determine how drinking expectancy and drinking refusal self-efficacy influence drinking behavior among Taiwanese adolescents based on a cognitive model of alcohol consumption. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, a total of 908 students, selected from 10th to 12th grade of six high schools in Taiwan, were stratified randomly. Pearson correlation, and multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationships among drinking expectancy, refusal self-efficacy, and alcohol use, including drinking frequency and drunkenness frequency. Results: There was significant positive relationship between drinking expectancies, and drinking and drunkenness frequency; and negative correlation between drinking refusal self-efficacy, and drinking and drunkenness frequency. Multiple regression analysis revealed that (1) tension reduction, sexual enhancement, social pressure, emotional relief, and opportunity to drink significant predicted drinking frequency (Adjusted R2 = 0.352, p < 0.001) and (2) tension reduction, increased confidence, cognitive enhancement, and social pressure significant predicted drunkenness frequency (Adjusted R2 = 0.226, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Adolescents have positive outcome expectancies regarding increased drinking frequency. Under the pressure of social interaction, drinking was the most difficult to refuse. Alcohol expectancy and drinking refusal self-efficacy have both shown notable influences on Taiwanese adolescents.

1. Introduction

Alcohol is one of the most used substances among adolescents [1]. Adolescent alcohol consumption can harm emotional, cognitive, and psychosocial development [1] and increase the risk of problematic drinking, with these harms potentially persisting into adulthood [2]. Alcohol-related morbidity and mortality also contribute significantly to the global public health burden [3]. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), alcohol is the fifth leading risk factor for the global burden of disease, with one person dying every minute from alcohol-related harm. The WHO recommends that nations prioritize addressing the issue of problematic drinking [4]. Consequently, the health and social problems caused by alcohol consumption have garnered considerable attention from the global medical community [5,6].
A recent study published in The Lancet Psychiatry reported a strong association between early, long-term heavy drinking in adolescence and the onset of depression in late adolescence [7]. Increased frequency and quantity of alcohol consumption among adolescents significantly elevate the risk of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts [8,9]. These findings highlight a strong correlation between adolescents’ suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and the developmental trajectories of their long-term drinking behaviors. Alcohol consumption likely plays a key precipitating role in the emergence of suicidal ideation or intentions among adolescents [10]. Notably, the negative consequences associated with alcohol consumption are critical predictors of suicide attempts in this population [11].
Liou & Chou (2001) conducted an epidemiological survey in Taiwan from 1991 to 1996 and found that the prevalence rate of adolescent drinking behavior (defined as drinking at least once per month) was 16.7%, with 22.9% for males and 10.1% for females [12]. Age-stratified analysis revealed a prevalence rate of 11.3% among 12-year-olds, rising to 31.4% among 17-year-olds. This increasing prevalence in early adolescent drinking behaviors in Taiwan closely mirrors the developmental trajectories observed in North American and European adolescents [13]. This early research suggests a growing crisis in adolescent drinking behavior in Taiwan.
Although Taiwan’s legal framework explicitly prohibits the sale of alcohol to individuals under 18 years old, the prevalence of alcohol consumption among adolescents aged 12 to 17 has steadily risen over the past decade. Reports from Taiwan indicate that the prevalence rate of alcohol use among this demographic has doubled in the past 10 years [14]. The 2009 National Health Interview and Drug Abuse Survey reported prevalence rates of 5.6% among adolescents aged 12–14 and 11.6% among those aged 15–17. By 2018, these rates had increased to 12.9% and 28.3%, respectively, suggesting that nearly 500,000 adolescents in Taiwan had developed a habit of alcohol consumption [14].
Given that adolescents are still in critical stages of physiological and psychological development, alcohol use increases their risk of social maladaptation and behavioral problems, including school dropout, substance abuse, and traffic accidents. Moreover, the long-term developmental and health consequences, such as alcohol addiction, unemployment, and criminal behavior, cannot be ignored [15]. The factors influencing adolescents who drink behavior are diverse and complex. Previous studies have shown a close relationship between adolescents who drink behavior and two key constructs: drinking expectancies and drinking refusal self-efficacy [16]. Neighbors et al. (2019) emphasized that these constructs are critical in understanding the cognitive processes underlying drinking behavior [17]. These constructs highlight the significance of individual, environmental, outcome expectancies, and efficacy expectancies factors in shaping behavior. When individuals hold positive expectations about drinking, such as its ability to reduce social pressure, alleviate tension, and enhance social relationships, these expectations significantly increase the likelihood of drinking behavior. However, adolescents who believe that drinking reduces stress are more likely to increase their alcohol consumption [16]. Consequently, the more positive the drinking expectancies among adolescents, the higher their drinking frequency and quantity [18,19,20].
Although drinking behavior has been studied in Taiwanese adolescents, the relationship between drinking expectancies and drinking refusal self-efficacy and behavior has not. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the influence of drinking expectancies and drinking refusal self-efficacy on adolescent drinking behavior with goal of developing intervention strategies to reduce the concurrent and potential long-term negative effects of alcohol consumption on adolescents as they transition into adulthood.
Based on the cognitive model of drinking [16], we hypothesized that positive alcohol expectancies would be positively associated with drinking frequency and drunkenness, and drinking refusal self-efficacy would be negatively associated with these behaviors.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

This study employed a cross-sectional design and utilized stratified random sampling to select six high schools in Taiwan, with two schools randomly selected from each of the northern, central, and southern regions. Students from grades 10 to 12 were selected, with 60 students randomly selected from each grade, totaling 1080 students. Data collection was conducted using a questionnaire survey, with students self-reporting their responses. A total of 1042 questionnaires were collected, with 134 incomplete or missing responses excluded, resulting in 908 valid questionnaires (87.1%). A minimum sample of 138 was required to detect a medium effect size (f2 = 0.15) with power = 0.95 and α = 0.05 using G Power 3.1 version. The final sample of 908 well exceeded this threshold, ensuring adequate statistical power.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Alcohol Consumption

This study referenced the definitions of adolescent drinking behavior proposed by Yeh and Chiang, which include two dimensions: (1) the frequency of alcohol consumption in the past year and (2) the frequency of drunkenness in the past year [21]. Both were measured on a six-point scale: 1 point for never drink, 2 points for drinking rarely (less than once per month on average), 3 points for occasionally drink (1–2 times per month on average), 4 points for often drink (3–4 times per month on average), 5 points for regularly (2–3 times per week on average), 6 points for almost daily drink (4 or more times per week on average). Negative alcohol-related consequences, such as missing school, drunk driving, or encountering trouble due to drinking, were measured with three additional questions [21].

2.2.2. Drinking Expectancy Questionnaire (DEQ)

The Drinking Expectancy Questionnaire (DEQ) includes five subscales: negative consequences (16 items), increased confidence (12 items), sexual enhancement (3 items), cognitive enhancement (3 items), and tension reduction (3 items), a total of 37 items. Responses are rated on a five-point Likert scale [22]. The negative consequences items (e.g., Drinking alcohol makes me tense or Drinking makes me bad-tempered) assess the awareness of negative outcomes, with higher scores indicating stronger negative expectancies. Positive expectancy subscales included increased confidence (e.g., Drinking makes me feel outgoing and friendly), sexual enhancement (e.g., Drinking makes me more sexually responsive), cognitive enhancement (e.g., I feel restless when drinking alcohol), and tension reduction (e.g., When I am anxious or tense, I do feel a need for alcohol). Higher scores on these subscales indicate stronger positive alcohol expectancies.
Confirmatory factor analysis of the DEQ has demonstrated to have a stable factor structure (Goodness of fit index = 0.97) [22], with internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α) of 0.85 [23]. In this study, the DEQ exhibited high internal consistency (α = 0.87), with subscale reliabilities ranging from 0.72 to 0.84.

2.2.3. Drinking Refusal Self-Efficacy Questionnaire-Revised (DRSE-R)

The Drinking Refusal Self-Efficacy Questionnaire-Revised (DRSE-R), developed by Oei, Hasking and Young (2005) [24], consists of 19 items across three subscales: social pressure (5 items), emotional relief (7 items), and opportunity to drink (7 items). Examples include When my friends are drinking (social pressure), When I feel sad (emotional relief), and When I am on the way home from school (opportunity to drink). Responses are rated on a six-point Likert scale, from 1 (definitely cannot refuse) to 6 (definitely can refuse). The DRSE-R has demonstrated strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.87–0.94) and test–retest reliability (0.84–0.93). In this study, the DRSE-R exhibited high internal consistency (α = 0.95), with subscale reliabilities ranging from 0.93 to 0.98 [24].

2.3. Procedure

The questionnaires were translated into Chinese through a two-stage translation process and underwent reliability and validity testing before use. After receiving approval from the Human and Social Science Research Ethics Committee (No. AS-IRB-HS02-24002), we randomly selected schools and obtained consent from school administrators. Students were informed about the anonymous and voluntary nature of the study and were assured that there were no right or wrong answers, as the primary goal was to understand adolescent drinking behavior and its influencing factors. Parental consent was obtained, and students provided written informed consent before completing the questionnaire.

2.4. Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to examine the demographic variables and frequency distribution of drinking behavior among participants. Pearson correlation and multiple regression analyses were conducted to explore the relationships and impacts of drinking expectancies and drinking refusal self-efficacy on alcohol consumption and intoxication frequency among Taiwanese adolescents. Prior to regression analysis, multicollinearity was assessed using Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) and Conditional Index (CI), with results showing VIF values below 5 and CI values below 30, indicating acceptable levels of multicollinearity. All predictors were entered simultaneously in multiple regression analyses using the enter method. Assumptions of linearity, homoscedasticity, and normality of residuals were verified. Multicollinearity diagnostics indicated acceptable VIF (<5) and Condition Index (<30) values. All statistical operations were performed using SPSS 25.0 for Windows. A p-value of 0.05 or lower was considered significant.

3. Results

This study included 908 adolescents aged 15 to 17 years, with a mean age of 17.06 years (SD = 0.87). Among the participants, 70.5% (640/908) were male, and 29.5% (268/908) were female. Regarding family structure, 75.6% (687/908) of participants lived with both parents, while 24.3% (221/908) came from single-parent families.

3.1. Drinking Behavior

As shown in Table 1, 37.6% (341/908) of adolescents reported no alcohol consumption in the past year. Meanwhile, 30.2% (274/908) drank rarely, and 32.2% (293/908) reported consuming alcohol at least one to two times per month. Regarding the frequency of becoming drunk, 68.1% (620/908) reported no instances of being drunk in the past year, while 31.9% (288/908) had experienced drunkenness. Additionally, 44.7% (406/908) of adolescents reported purchasing alcohol themselves within the past year. Almost seven percent (6.9%) of adolescents indicated that they drank with friends almost daily in the past year. Approximately 20.4% of participants drank with their families at least once per month.

3.2. Pearson Correlation Analysis

Table 2 displays the Pearson correlation between adolescent drinking, drinking expectancies (DEQ), and drinking refusal self-efficacy (DRSE). A significant positive correlation was found between tension reduction and both drinking frequency (γ = 0.389) and frequency of becoming drunk or intoxicated (γ = 0.336). Conversely, DRSE social pressure was significantly negatively correlated with drinking frequency (γ = −0.560) and frequency of becoming drunk (γ = −0.434).

3.3. Multiple Regression Analysis

As seen in Table 3, multiple regression analysis revealed that within the cognitive model of adolescent drinking, both drinking expectancies (total scores) and drinking refusal self-efficacy (total scores) significantly influenced drinking frequency (Adjusted R2 = 0.292, p < 0.001) and frequency of becoming drunk (Adjusted R2 = 0.154, p < 0.001). These two constructs explained 29.2% of the variance in drinking frequency and 15.4% of the variance in frequency of becoming drunk.
Table 4 show the significant predictors of drinking frequency within the five dimensions of drinking expectancies. These included sexual enhancement (t = −3.377, p < 0.001) and tension reduction (t = 2.191, p < 0.05). The sexual enhancement expectancy negatively predicted drinking frequency (β = –0.14, p = 0.001), suggesting that adolescents endorsing this belief tended to drink less frequently. The significant predictors of drinking refusal self-efficacy included social pressure (t = −9.462, p < 0.001), emotional relief (t = 3.128, p < 0.01), and opportunity to drink (t = −4.258, p < 0.001), collectively explaining 35.2% of the variance.
The significant predictors for increased frequency of drunkenness included tension reduction (t = 6.370, p < 0.001), increased confidence (t = −2.336, p < 0.05), cognitive enhancement (t = −3.267, p < 0.001), and drinking refusal self-efficacy under social pressure (t = −8.071, p < 0.001), collectively explaining 22.6% of the variance.

4. Discussion

According to the 2021 report from the Health Promotion Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare in Taiwan, 30.6% of high school students (aged 15 to 17) reported drinking alcohol in the past month, while 19.4% admitted to becoming drunk. In the current study, 32.2% of adolescents reported drinking at least once a month in the past year, and 17% reported being drunk. These findings agree with the results of the 2021 survey. The same report also highlighted that 76.3% of adolescents who drink consumed more than one drink per occasion, with 80.4% of males and 70.8% of females reporting such behaviors. This suggests that more than 70% of adolescents who drink in Taiwan lack awareness of moderate drinking practices, leading to uncontrolled alcohol consumption [14].
Despite Taiwan’s legal prohibition on the sale of alcohol to individuals under 18, this study found that 23.2% of adolescents aged 15 to 17 reported purchasing alcohol themselves in the past year. The current study also found that 6.9% of adolescents reported drinking with friends almost daily in the past year. As Rossow suggested, self-reports of drinking are often underreported, which may also be the case in this study [25]. This suggests that enforcement of the policy may be insufficient, allowing underage adolescents to purchase alcohol from stores, potentially contributing to the rising frequency and quantity of alcohol consumption among this demographic [15].
Whether parents should allow adolescents to drink alcohol remains a controversial issue. This study revealed that over 20% of adolescents who drank with family members at least once per month. Drinking at home or alcohol provided by parents is often rooted in the belief that it offers a safer drinking environment and establishes family-based drinking norms, which may serve as protective factors against problematic drinking [26,27]. However, other studies suggest that parental allowance of adolescents who drank at home can create permissive family norms, increasing the risk of higher drinking frequency, heavy alcohol use, and problematic behaviors [28,29,30].

4.1. Predictors of Adolescent Drinking Behavior

Multiple regression analysis revealed that drinking expectancies and drinking refusal self-efficacy were significant predictors of drinking and frequency of becoming drunk among adolescents in our cognitive model of alcohol use. Positive expectancies related to sexual enhancement and tension reduction were significant predictors of drinking frequency. Adolescents who drank to reduce tension exhibited higher drinking frequency, while those who expected alcohol to enhance sexual interest exhibited lower drinking frequency. Drinking refusal self-efficacy in the context of social pressure, emotional relief, and drinking opportunities also significantly predicted drinking frequency.
Significant predictors in frequency of becoming drunk included positive expectancies (increased confidence, cognitive enhancement, and tension reduction) as well as drinking refusal self-efficacy (social pressure). Among these, social pressure was identified as a critical factor influencing both drinking frequency and frequency of becoming drunk. Alcohol expectancies are a critical factor in the development of problematic alcohol use. Past research has shown that adolescents hold positive expectations about drinking, including enhanced social interaction, relaxation, reduced tension, increased confidence, and escapism from stress or negative emotions [18,31]. Drinking refusal self-efficacy is a protective factor. Thus, adolescents with impaired social skills could be more vulnerable to binge drinking. In this study, frequency of being drunk was not driven by increased confidence or cognitive enhancement but was instead associated with “it would be better drunk, escapism, or self-medication behaviors which may reduce stress and manage emotional distress [32,33,34].

4.2. Implications for Intervention

While drinking expectancies strongly predict adolescent drinking behavior [31], social and cultural differences in how these expectancies influence behavior remain [35]. For instance, studies have shown that adolescents with higher drinking refusal self-efficacy in social pressure contexts drink less frequently [23]. This study highlights the importance of refusal self-efficacy in shaping adolescent drinking behaviors across different groups. Since life stressors are linked to substance abuse and suicidal behaviors in adolescents, an inability to cope with such stressors may increase alcohol consumption and related health risks [6]. The comorbidity of heavy drinking and depressive symptoms may result from expectancies that alcohol reduces tension and stress [36].
The findings of this study underscore the need for monitoring adolescents who drink behaviors and implementing early psychosocial and behavioral interventions to mitigate harm. Parents play a crucial role in shaping adolescents’ views towards alcohol. Sellman et al. (2010) recommend that parents educate adolescents about the physical and mental impacts of alcohol, engage in open communication, and teach strategies to resist peer pressure [37]. Additionally, policies prohibiting underage alcohol purchase and consumption should be enforced more effectively, alongside public awareness campaigns to address parental and community perceptions of alcohol use.

4.3. Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, its cross-sectional design precludes causal inference between alcohol expectancies, refusal self-efficacy, and drinking behaviors. Second, self-reported data may be subject to recall or social desirability bias. Third, this empirical study demonstrates the specificity of the DEQ and DRSE constructs, findings are of considerable importance. Future study is recommended to validate the cognitive model of adolescent alcohol use through structural equation modeling.

5. Conclusions

Because this study employed a cross-sectional design, causal relationships cannot be inferred; future longitudinal research is warranted to confirm these cognitive pathways. This study suggests that effective strategies for preventing adolescent problematic drinking should be grounded in cognitive models of drinking behavior. These strategies include clarifying positive drinking expectancies, emphasizing negative consequences, strengthening refusal self-efficacy under social pressure, promoting confidence without alcohol, and enhancing stress management and emotional regulation skills [23,38].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, M.-Y.Y.; investigation, C.-I.W., M.-Y.Y. and Y.-K.C.; data curation, M.-Y.Y. writing and original draft preparation, review and editing, M.-Y.Y., Y.-H.S. and Y.-K.C.; project administration, funding acquisition, C.-I.W. and M.-Y.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Visiting Scholar Program of Academia Sinica, Taiwan (Funding number: SV-113-1-22). The funder had no role in the design of the study, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Academia Sinica (protocol code AS-IRB-HS02-24002, 14 May 2025).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Written informed consent was obtained from the participants and their parents prior to survey completion.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. The data are not publicly available due to their containing information that could compromise the privacy of research participants.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the participating schools, students, and parents for their cooperation. We also acknowledge the administrative support provided by the Institute of Sociology, Academia Sinica.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Degenhardt, L.; Stockings, E.; Patton, G.; Hall, W.D.; Lynskey, M. The increasing global health priority of substance use in young people. Lancet Psychiatry 2016, 3, 251–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Kuntsche, E.; Kuntsche, S.; Thrul, J.; Gmel, G. Binge drinking: Health impact, prevalence, correlates, and interventions. Psychol. Health 2017, 32, 976–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Park, S.H.; Kim, D.J. Global and regional impacts of alcohol use on public health: Emphasis on alcohol policies. Clin. Mol. Hepatol. 2020, 26, 652–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. World Health Organization. Regional Office for the Western Pacific. Young People and Alcohol: A Resource Book. WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific. 2015. Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/208202 (accessed on 5 October 2023).
  5. GBD 2016 Alcohol Collaborators. Alcohol use and burden for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2016: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet 2018, 392, 1015–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Sjodin, L.; Larm, P.; Karlsson, P.; Livingston, M.; Raninen, J. Drinking motives and their associations with alcohol use among adolescents in Sweden. Nordisk Alkohol. Nark. 2021, 38, 256–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. McGrath, J.J.; Al-Hamzawi, A.; Alonso, J.; Altwaijri, Y.; Andrade, L.H.; Bromet, E.J.; Bruffaerts, R.; de Almeida, J.M.C.; Chardoul, S.; Chiu, W.T.; et al. Age of onset and cumulative risk of mental disorders: A cross-national analysis of population surveys from 29 countries. Lancet Psychiatry 2023, 10, 668–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Luk, J.W.; Wang, J.; Simons-Morton, B.G. The co-occurrence of substance use and bullying behaviors among U.S. adolescents: Understanding demographic characteristics and social influences. J. Adolesc. 2012, 35, 1351–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Marschall-Levesque, S.; Castellanos-Ryan, N.; Parent, S.; Renaud, J.; Vitaro, F.; Boivin, M.; Tremblay, R.E.; Seguin, J.R. Victimization, suicidal ideation, and alcohol use from age 13 to 15 years: Support for the self-medication model. J. Adolesc. Health 2017, 60, 380–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rivers, I. Suicidal ideation and alcohol use: Understanding developmental trajectories. J. Adolesc. Health 2017, 60, 357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Coryell, W.; Horwitz, A.; Albucher, R.; Zheng, K.; Pistorello, J.; Eisenberg, D.; Favorite, T.; King, C. Suicidality and alcohol use as predictors of future suicidal behavior in college students. Alcohol Alcohol. 2022, 57, 643–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Liou, M.Y.; Chou, P. Prevalence and related factors of alcohol use among adolescent students in Taiwan. J. Public Health 2001, 20, 143–152. [Google Scholar]
  13. Chou, P.; Liou, M.Y.; Lai, M.Y.; Hsiao, M.L.; Chang, H.J. Time trend of substance use among adolescent students in Taiwan, 1991-1996. J. Formos. Med. Assoc. 1999, 98, 827–831. [Google Scholar]
  14. Health Promotion Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare. 2021 Taiwan National Health Interview Survey Annual Report; National Health Research Institutes (NHRI) and Taiwan Health Promotion Administration (HPA): Taipei, Taiwan, 2021.
  15. National Health Research Institutes. 2030 Medical and Health Policy Report in Children; Ministry of Health and Welfare: Taipei, Taiwan, 2019.
  16. Oei, T.P.; Morawska, A. A cognitive model of binge drinking: The influence of alcohol expectancies and drinking refusal self-efficacy. Addict. Behav. 2004, 29, 159–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Neighbors, C.; Tomkins, M.M.; Lembo Riggs, J.; Angosta, J.; Weinstein, A.P. Cognitive factors, and addiction. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2019, 30, 128–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gesualdo, C.; Pinquart, M. Expectancy challenge interventions to reduce alcohol consumption among high school and college students: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 2021, 35, 817–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Hasking, P.A.; Oei, T.P. Alcohol expectancies, self-efficacy and coping in an alcohol-dependent sample. Addict. Behav. 2007, 32, 99–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Morawska, A.; Oei, T.P. Binge drinking in university students: A test of the cognitive model. Addict. Behav. 2005, 30, 203–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Yeh, M.Y.; Chiang, I.C. Comparison of the predictors of alcohol use and misuse among Han and aboriginal students in Taiwan. Addict. Behav. 2005, 30, 989–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lee, N.K.; Oei, T.P.; Greeley, J.D.; Baglioni, A.J., Jr. Psychometric properties of the drinking expectancy questionnaire: A review of the factor structure and a proposed new scoring method. J. Stud. Alcohol. 2003, 64, 432–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Oei, T.P.; Jardim, C.L. Alcohol expectancies, drinking refusal self-efficacy and drinking behaviour in Asian and Australian students. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007, 87, 281–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Oei, T.P.; Hasking, P.A.; Young, R.M. Drinking refusal self-efficacy questionnaire-revised (DRSEQ-R): A new factor structure with confirmatory factor analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2005, 78, 297–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Rossow, I.; Keating, P.; Felix, L.; McCambridge, J. Does parental drinking influence children’s drinking? A systematic review of prospective cohort studies. Addiction 2016, 111, 204–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Aiken, A.; Clare, P.J.; Boland, V.C.; Degenhardt, L.; Yuen, W.S.; Hutchinson, D.; Najman, J.; McCambridge, J.; Slade, T.; McBride, N.; et al. Parental supply of sips and whole drinks of alcohol to adolescents and associations with binge drinking and alcohol-related harms: A prospective cohort study. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2020, 215, 108204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Clare, P.J.; Dobbins, T.; Bruno, R.; Peacock, A.; Boland, V.; Yuen, W.S.; Aiken, A.; Degenhardt, L.; Kypri, K.; Slade, T.; et al. The overall effect of parental supply of alcohol across adolescence on alcohol-related harms in early adulthood-a prospective cohort study. Addiction 2020, 115, 1833–1843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ksinan, A.J.; Ksinan Jiskrova, G.; Hrezova, E.; Andryskova, L.; Pikhart, H.; Bobak, M. Association between parental supply of alcohol and later adolescent alcohol use in a highly permissive context. J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs 2023, 84, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mattick, R.P.; Clare, P.J.; Aiken, A.; Wadolowski, M.; Hutchinson, D.; Najman, J.; Slade, T.; Bruno, R.; McBride, N.; Kypri, K.; et al. Association of parental supply of alcohol with adolescent drinking, alcohol-related harms, and alcohol use disorder symptoms: A prospective cohort study. Lancet Public Health 2018, 3, e64–e71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Staff, J.; Maggs, J.L. Parents allowing drinking is associated with adolescents’ heavy alcohol use. Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 2020, 44, 188–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Hung, C.C.; Chang, H.Y.; Chiang, Y.C.; Wu, W.C.; Yen, L.L. Factors associated with levels of risky drinking in adolescent alcohol users in Taiwan: A secondary data analysis. J. Nurs. Res. 2017, 25, 163–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Dasairy, H.F.; Demartoto, A.; Prasetya, H. Application of social cognitive theory on factors related to alcohol consumption in adolescents: Meta-analysis. J. Health Promot. Behav. 2024, 9, 61–76. [Google Scholar]
  33. Gawron, L.; Gerlach, A.L. Linking depression with negative alcohol-related consequences: A structural equation model among a clinically depressed population. Subst. Use Misuse 2022, 57, 1587–1598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. LaBrie, J.W.; Grant, S.; Hummer, J.F. “This would be better drunk”: Alcohol expectancies become more positive while drinking in the college social environment. Addict. Behav. 2011, 36, 890–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Lui, P.P.; Krantz, S.M.; Madson, M.B. Ethnic/racial differences in alcohol use: Does drinking refusal self-efficacy matter? Subst. Use Misuse 2022, 57, 1653–1662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Marmorstein, N.R.; Iacono, W.G.; Malone, S.M. Longitudinal associations between depression and substance dependence from adolescence through early adulthood. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010, 107, 154–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Sellman, J.D.; Connor, J.L.; Joyce, P.R. How to reduce alcohol-related problems in adolescents: What can parents do and what can the government do? Aust. N. Z. J. Psychiatry 2010, 44, 771–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Rossow, I.; Felix, L.; Keating, P.; McCambridge, J. Parental drinking, and adverse outcomes in children: A scoping review of cohort studies. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2016, 35, 397–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Frequency of adolescent drinking-related experiences.
Table 1. Frequency of adolescent drinking-related experiences.
QuestionNever
n (%)		Rarely
n (%)		Occasionally
n (%)		Often
n (%)		Regularly
n (%)		Almost Daily
n (%)		Mean (SD)
1. Frequency of drinking 341 (37.6)274 (30.2)199 (21.9)54 (5.9)29 (3.2)11 (1.2)2.11 (1.14)
2. Frequency of drunk620 (68.1)135 (14.9)146 (16.1) 3 (0.3)3 (0.3)3 (0.3)1.50 (0.81)
3. Frequency of purchasing
alcohol by oneself 		502 (55.3)195 (21.5)170 (18.7)30 (3.3)10 (1.1)1 (0.1)1.74 (0.96)
4. Frequency of drinking
with friends		383 (42.2)286 (31.5)157 (17.3)13 (1.4)6 (0.7)63 (6.9)2.08 (1.35)
5. Frequency of drinking
with family		522 (57.5)201 (22.1)140 (15.4)39 (4.3)5 (0.6)1 (0.1)1.69 (0.93)
Note: Rarely (less than once per month on average); Occasionally (1–2 times per month on average); Often (3–4 times per month on average); Regularly (2–3 times per week on average); Almost daily (4 or more times per week on average).
Table 2. Pearson’ correlation between drinking behavior, expectancies and drinking refusal self-efficacy.
Table 2. Pearson’ correlation between drinking behavior, expectancies and drinking refusal self-efficacy.
VariablesDrinking
Frequency		Drunkenness
Frequency		Mean (SD)
 DEQ (Drinking expectancies)0.380 **0.282 **79.94 (25.06)
      negative consequences0.286 **0.176 **29.90 (11.84)
      tension reduction0.354 **0.239 **28.15 (11.30)
      increased confidence0.389 **0.336 **7.24 (3.20)
      cognitive enhancement0.280 **0.151 **6.56 (2.60)
      sexual enhancement0.175 **0.110 **5.43 (2.80)
 DRSE (Drinking refusal self-efficacy)−0.513 **−0.371 **85.79 (24.21)
      social pressure−0.560 **−0.434 **20.09 (7.13)
      emotional relief−0.440 **−0.331 **30.55 (10.70)
      opportunity to drink−0.429 **−0.271 **35.13 (8.66)
Note: ** p < 0.01.
Table 3. Multiple regression analysis of the cognitive model for DEQ and DRSE-R total scores.
Table 3. Multiple regression analysis of the cognitive model for DEQ and DRSE-R total scores.
VariablesDrinking FrequencyDrunkenness Frequency
βtpβtp
 Constant 15.347*** 12.584***
 DEQ (Drinking expectancies)  0.1946.253***  0.1474.404***
 DRSE (Drinking refusal self-efficacy)−0.429−13.842***−0.306−9.038***
R0.5420.395
R20.2940.156
Adjusted R20.2920.154
F188.279 ***83.489 ***
Note: *** p < 0.001.
Table 4. Multiple regression analysis of cognitive model for each dimension.
Table 4. Multiple regression analysis of cognitive model for each dimension.
VariablesDrinking FrequencyDrunkenness Frequency
β tpβtp
Constant 18.732*** 14.468***
 DEQ (Drinking expectancies)
      negative consequences  0.073  1.414n.s.  0.060  1.072n.s.
      tension reduction  0.118  2.191*  0.374  6.370***
      increased confidence  0.096  1.652n.s.−0.149−2.336*
      cognitive enhancement  0.025  0.572n.s.−0.156−3.267***
      sexual enhancement−0.140−3.377***−0.002−0.044n.s.
 DRSE (Drinking refusal self-efficacy)
      social pressure−0.464−9.462***−0.432−8.071***
      emotional relief  0.159  3.128**  0.087  1.568n.s.
      opportunity to drink−0.197−4.258***  0.010  0.188n.s.
R0.5980.482
R20.3570.233
Adjusted R20.3520.226
F   62.519 ***   34.098 ***
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; n.s.: non-significant.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yeh, M.-Y.; Wu, C.-I.; Shih, Y.-H.; Chen, Y.-K. A Cognitive Model of Alcohol Use Among Taiwanese Adolescents: The Influence of Alcohol Expectancies and Drinking Refusal Self-Efficacy. Healthcare 2025, 13, 2981. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13222981

AMA Style

Yeh M-Y, Wu C-I, Shih Y-H, Chen Y-K. A Cognitive Model of Alcohol Use Among Taiwanese Adolescents: The Influence of Alcohol Expectancies and Drinking Refusal Self-Efficacy. Healthcare. 2025; 13(22):2981. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13222981

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yeh, Mei-Yu, Chyi-In Wu, Yen-Hua Shih, and Yu-Kuei Chen. 2025. "A Cognitive Model of Alcohol Use Among Taiwanese Adolescents: The Influence of Alcohol Expectancies and Drinking Refusal Self-Efficacy" Healthcare 13, no. 22: 2981. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13222981

APA Style

Yeh, M.-Y., Wu, C.-I., Shih, Y.-H., & Chen, Y.-K. (2025). A Cognitive Model of Alcohol Use Among Taiwanese Adolescents: The Influence of Alcohol Expectancies and Drinking Refusal Self-Efficacy. Healthcare, 13(22), 2981. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13222981

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop