Theories of alcohol-related learning propose that biological factors provide a substrate for individual variability in the reinforcement value of alcohol, which can manifest as differences in alcohol-related cognitions (e.g., Goldman et al., 1999; 2006; Kuntsche et al., 2005; Wiers et al., 2009). To date, studies evaluating genetic influences on alcohol cognitions are generally consistent with this possibility. For example, twin studies suggest moderate heritability for alcohol expectancies (e.g., Agrawal et al., 2008; Slutske et al., 2002) and drinking motives (Agrawal et al., 2008; Prescott et al., 2004). Additionally, molecular genetic studies provide initial evidence for associations of genetic variants and alcohol cognitions. Most of these studies have examined alcohol expectancies (i.e., anticipated effects of alcohol; Goldman et al., 1999), which have been associated with variation in the alcohol metabolizing genes ALDH2 (Hahn et al., 2006; Hendershot et al., 2009a; McCarthy et al., 2000; 2001) and ADH1B (Ehlers et al., 2003), as well as with GABRB3 (Young et al., 2004). Drinking motives, which index positive and negative reinforcement reasons for drinking, are also presumed to reflect biological influences (Kuntsche et al., 2005) and appear to show higher heritability than alcohol expectancies (Agrawal et al., 2007). Although few studies have examined genetic associations with drinking motives, a recent study found associations of the OPRM1 A118G polymorphism with enhancement and coping motives for alcohol use in adolescents (Miranda et al., 2010). OPRM1 A118G has also been linked to automatic approach biases toward alcohol cues, suggesting possible associations of OPRM1 with implicit (i.e., automatic) motivational processes (Wiers et al., 2009). Cognitive and learning theories of alcohol use also emphasize the importance of self-efficacy, or the perceived ability to self-regulate drinking behavior. Drinking refusal self-efficacy, which is implicated in the risk for alcohol use disorders (Oei et al., 2005), has been associated with the ANKK1 TaqI A and GABRB3 G1 alleles (Connor et al., 2008; Young et al., 2004). In sum, there is both theoretical (Goldman et al., 1999; 2006) and empirical support that biological factors might account for variance in alcohol-related cognitions. Importantly, there is also some evidence that alcohol cognitions can partly mediate genetic influences on alcohol-related phenotypes (Agrawal et al., 2007; Hendershot et al., 2009a; McCarthy et al., 2000; Miranda et al., 2010). Whereas cognitive-behavioral theories predict joint influences of expectancies, motives and self-efficacy on drinking behavior (e.g., Engels et al., 2005; Witkiewitz and Marlatt, 2004), genetic influences are rarely modeled in these contexts (e.g., Hendershot et al., 2007; Young et al., 2004). Moreover, few efforts have been made to include theoretically relevant endophenotypes in the context of cognitive-behavioral models. For example, physiological sensitivity to alcohol is a heritable endophenotype that is frequently examined in relation to genetic risk for alcohol dependence (e.g., Joslyn et al., 2008; Schuckit et al., 2004). Because alcohol sensitivity is proposed to influence alcohol expectancies and drinking motives (Goldman et al., 1999; Kuntsche et al., 2005) and may predict drinking in part through expectancies (Schuckit et al., 2005), this construct is an appealing endophenotype for studies addressing biological influences on alcohol-related cognitions. The current study evaluated a cognitive model of genetic influences on drinking behavior, focusing on ALDH2 genotype. ALDH2 encodes the mitochondrial aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) enzyme, the principal catalyst for oxidation of acetaldehyde during alcohol metabolism. A single nucleotide substitution at exon 12 (rs671) results in a variant allele (ALDH2*2) that encodes a functionally inactive ALDH enzyme subunit, thereby limiting oxidation of acetaldehyde during alcohol metabolism. ALDH2*2 is associated with higher levels of post-drinking acetaldehyde, increased sensitivity to alcohol (Edenberg, 2007; Peng and Yin, 2009), and significantly reduced rates of heavy drinking and alcohol dependence (Luczak et al., 2006). Few studies have evaluated cognitive or learning mechanisms relevant for these associations; however, it is proposed that biological factors (including alcohol sensitivity) can influence the subjective reinforcement value of alcohol by altering rewarding or punishing effects of consumption (e.g., Brown et al. 1999; Goldman et al., 1999). Exposure to these contingencies during drinking events is presumed to result in learned associations that can be indexed as cognitive representations of the reinforcement value of alcohol (c.f. Goldman et al., 1999). Consistent with this model, previous studies have found that ALDH2*2 is associated with alcohol expectancies, which account for significant indirect effects of ALDH2 on drinking outcomes (Hendershot et al., 2009a; McCarthy et al., 2000). The goal of the current study was to evaluate a relatively more comprehensive cognitive model of ALDH2 and drinking behavior. The current model was informed by social learning theories of alcohol use (e.g., Abrams and Niaura, 1987; Cooper et al., 1988), which emphasize the importance of drinking motives and self-efficacy (in addition to expectancies) in predicting drinking behavior. Drinking motives have been invoked as a final common pathway for alcohol use and are often found to mediate associations of expectancies with drinking (Cooper et al., 1995; Kuntsche et al., 2005; 2007). Drinking refusal self-efficacy is frequently shown to predict drinking independent of alcohol expectancies (Engels et al., 2005; Oei & Jardim, 2007), but is not frequently conceptualized as a mediator of expectancies. Based on these considerations, the current study tested the following hypotheses: a) ALDH2*2 would be associated not only with self-reported alcohol sensitivity and alcohol expectancies, but with lower drinking motives and higher drinking refusal self-efficacy, b) cognitive factors and alcohol sensitivity would account for the association of ALDH2 with drinking behavior, such that the ALDH2-drinking association would not be significant when accounting for these factors in a multivariate model, and c) associations of ALDH2 with drinking motives and alcohol sensitivity would be mediated through expectancies, whereas the association of ALDH2 with drinking refusal self efficacy would not involve expectancies. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to evaluate the model in relation to heavy drinking and a prospective measure of alcohol-related problems in a sample of Asian-American young adults.