Research Methods in Motivation This paper will address the similarities and differences in two studies conducted. The first study discussed was performed by Armeli, S., Conner, T.S., Cullum J., and Tennen, H, (2010) and is entitled A Longitudinal Analysis of Drinking Motives Moderating the Negative Affect-Drinking Associations Among College Students. The focus of this study was whether individuals with a high drink to cope motivation, in comparison to others, would likely drink more on days where their stress levels were high as well as having a higher negative affect. The second study discussed was performed by Litvin, E.B. and Brandon, H., (2010) and is entitled Testing the Influence of External and Internal Cues on Smoking Motivation Using a Community Sample. The focus of this study was to broaden previous findings that smoking-related cues activates self-reported desires or drive together with “behavioral and physiological responses” (Litvin, E.B. & Brandon, T.H., 2010), seemingly by classical conditioning. It is obvious to this writer that both studies mentioned above are largely quantitative. This writer bases this opinion on the fact that both groups of participants were small, both studies was performed to test a hypothesis, the participants were not known to the researchers, the scientific method used in both studies were quantitative in that the researchers tested their hypotheses and did not generative new hypotheses and/or theories after the collection of data and lastly, the data collected consisted of, but was not limited to, surveys, daily diaries, observation and participant interviews thereby making these studies.

Study One: A Longitudinal Analysis of Drinking Motives Moderating the Negative Affect-Drinking Association Among College Students This study was conducted so as to study college students’ drinking