Printer Friendly

Alcohol use, acculturative stress, and drinking motivation among international community college students.

Alcohol use, acculturative stress, and drinking motivations of 262 students in English as a second language programs in a U.S. community college were explored. Alcohol consumption was generally low, but differences between two groups with different legal statuses indicate the need to consider subgroups of international students for research purposes.

Se exploraron el uso de alcohol, el estres por aculturacion y las motivaciones para beber de 262 alumnos en programas de ingles como lengua extranjera en una universidad comunitaria estadounidense. El consumo de alcohol fue moderadamente bajo, pero las diferencias entre dos grupos con diferente estatus legal indican la necesidad de considerar subgrupos de estudiantes internacionales a la hora de realizar investigaciones.

**********

Excessive alcohol use among college students has been identified as a major public health concern (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [NIAAA], 2002). College students between the ages of 18 and 24 drink more than any other age group, including their noncollege peers (NIAAA, 2002). This trend is explained by changes in living environment and human development and as a temporary phenomenon that will decline as they age and gain self-awareness of life responsibilities (Schulenberg & Maggs, 2002). The literature on alcohol use suggests a correlation between problematic drinking and a perceived level of stress for college students, which is mediated by coping skills and social supports (Ham & Hope, 2003). According to Lazarus and Folkman (1984), stress occurs when individuals of any age perceive environmental demands that exceed their resources. These researchers posited two coping styles to deal with stress: problem-focused, leading to problem-solving strategies, and emotion-focused, leading to control of negative emotions. On the basis of this model, college students who seem to be particularly vulnerable to alcohol misuse are those who deem the environmental demands as challenging because of a lack of internal and external resources and a lack of problem-focused coping skills. Vulnerability may increase if they believe that alcohol provides benefits for emotional change from negative feelings to positive feelings (Cooper, 1994).

Although many Asian and other international students come from social, cultural, and religious backgrounds that do not consider drinking as an acceptable custom, a study of 428 Asian American college freshmen showed that acculturation and drinking behavior were significantly related (Hendershot, MacPherson, Myers, Carr, & Wall, 2005). Given challenges due to acculturative stress, which Berry (2006) defined as "a stress reaction in response to life events that are rooted in the experience of acculturation" (p. 294), international students in higher education have been recognized as a high-risk population, susceptible to stress (Frey & Roysircar, 2006; Yoon & Portman, 2004). The U.S. college experience makes them vulnerable and leads to the use of emotion-focused coping strategies (Kuo, Roysircar, & Newby-Clark, 2006). Nonetheless, the literature is sparse on alcohol use related to acculturative stress among international students (Hendershot et al., 2005). To fill the gap, we explored alcohol use, acculturative stress, and drinking motivations and their interrelationships among international and other students attending English as a second language (ESL) programs at a U.S. community college.

Group differences among these students were also explored. Non-U.S.-born students in higher education in the United States are socioculturally and legally diverse. When studying these students, not all researchers carefully consider within-group differences, possibly resulting in overgeneralized or contradictory findings (Yoon & Portman, 2004). Sodowsky and Plake (1992) argued that acculturation data should not be mixed indiscriminately because various environmental conditions in the United States, including legal status, length of residence, reasons for arriving, and cultural background, distinguish one group from another even though group members may share the same national or cultural origins. Taking these suggestions into account, we compared two groups on the basis of legal status in the hope that the results could help counselors to better serve such students. Hereinafter, international students with a typical student visa are indicated as F-1 students, and students originally from other countries with legal statuses of permanent U.S. resident, naturalized U.S. citizen, and refugee are described as non-F-1 students.

According to NIAAA (2002), factors promoting higher alcohol use were belonging to the 18 to 24 age group, not living with parents, and having none or few off-campus responsibilities (e.g., employment or family). Students with an F-1 visa tend to be younger than those with legal U.S. residency, and they have fewer responsibilities beyond schooling because of legally limited employment and lifestyles (e.g., single, living away from parents). Additionally, these students have shorter lengths of stay in the United States, which may leave them in social isolation because of a lack of English language proficiency and proximity to social networks left in home countries (Frey & Roysircar, 2006; Kuo & Roysircar, 2004; Sodowsky & Plake, 1992; Yoon & Portman, 2004). These students may turn to drinking as an escape or as a way to fit in. The following three hypotheses were therefore proposed:

Hypothesis 1:F-1 students would exhibit more drinking than would nonF-1 students, as evidenced by (a) greater use and (b) more frequent consumption of alcohol.

Hypothesis 2:F-1 students would have more acculturative stress than would non-F-1 students.

Hypothesis 3:F-1 students would have higher levels of drinking motivation than would non-F-1 students.

In addition to tests of comparison, we used multiple regression to determine how much of the variance in drinking behavior could be determined by different motivations for drinking, after controlling for gender and acculturative stress variables.

method

PARTICIPANTS

Of the 472 students contacted, 279 responded for a 59% response rate. Eliminating incomplete responses brought the total to 262 valid responses (126 F-1 students and 136 non-F-1 students). Self-described legal status of the non-F-1 students included permanent U.S. resident (65%); naturalized U.S. citizen (18%); and other (16%), such as those with a working visa, dependents of working visa holders, and refugees. (Percentages in this section may not total 100 because of rounding.)

F-1 students. More than three quarters of the F-1 students (78%) were in an intermediate level ESL program, where students are not allowed to register for courses toward an academic degree. This group was 52% female and had a mean age of 26 years, with 50% between the ages of 21 and 25. Three quarters of the participants in the F-1 group were from Asia (with 73% of those from Korea), and only 10% were from Central or South America, 9% were from Europe, and 6% were from other areas or had missing information. Almost all the F-1 students were single (87%). Fifteen percent lived with their parents, 10% lived with their spouses, 10% lived with their children, 8% lived alone, and the rest lived with relatives or roommates. The average U.S. residency was 1.7 years, with a mode of 10 months.

Non-F-1 students. Almost all the non-F-1 students (90%) were in the advanced level ESL program, simultaneously taking general courses toward academic degrees. Slightly more than half were female (55%), with a mean age of 26 years, but only 30% were between the ages of 21 and 25. Only haft the participants in the non-F-1 group were from Asia (with 23% of those from Vietnam and 22% from Korea), 23% were from Central or South America, 9% were from Africa, 9% were from other areas, and 9% had missing information. More than one third were married (36%), but only 32% lived with their spouse, 46% lived with their parents, 20% lived with their children, and 3% lived alone. The average U.S. residency was 5.6 years, with a mode of 4 years.

MEASURES

Core Alcohol and Drug Survey (CADS) Community College Long Form. The CADS (Core Institute, n.d.) was developed to measure alcohol and other drug use in higher education. For this study, demographic and alcohol consumption items were taken from the CADS Community College Long Form. Quantity of alcohol use is measured by two items asking about the number of heavy drinking episodes in the past 2 weeks (binging, defined as five or more drinks in a sitting) and the average number of drinks per week (weekly average). Frequency of alcohol use is also determined by two items: how often alcohol was used in the past 12 months (past year drinking) and during the past 30 days (past month drinking). In a study of 58,625 students at 56 four-year and 22 two-year institutions, the CADS was assessed as being a stable, reliable, and valid instrument, with a test-retest reliability of .98 for the past year drinking item, potentially the most inaccurate of the four drinking items (Presley, Meilman, & Lyerla, 1993).

Index of Life Stress (ILS). Acculturative stress, the psychological impact of adaptation to a new culture, was measured by the ILS (Yang & Clum, 1995), a 31-item instrument with five dimensions: (a) seven financial concerns items (e.g., "My financial situation influences my academic study"), (b) five language difficulty items (e.g., "I can't express myself well in English"), (c) six perceived discrimination items (e.g., "I can feel racial discrimination toward me in restaurants"), (d) eight cultural adjustment items (e.g., "I don't like the activities people choose to entertain themselves"), and (e) five academic pressure items (e.g., "I worry about my academic performance"). Each item is rated on a 4-point response scale ranging from 0 (never) to 3 (often). Originally developed for international students from Asia, it was shown to have good psychometric properties for both Asian and non-Asian students, with coefficient alpha values from .71 to .88 (Misra, Crist, & Burant, 2003). In this study, alpha values ranged from .58 to .75 (see Table 1 for separate subscale alphas for each group).

Revised Drinking Motivation Questionnaire (DMQ-R). Developed by Cooper (1994), the DMQ-R is a 20-item instrument used to examine the rationale behind alcohol consumption. It has two dimensions: valences (positive affects and negative affects) and sources (internal rewards and external rewards), forming four motive subscales: (a) Enhancement (Positive Affects x Internal Rewards), related to a self-gratifying need (e.g., "Because it gives you a pleasant feeling"); (b) Coping (Negative Affects x Internal Rewards), related to the need from the self to control or reduce negative affects (e.g., "To forget about your problems"); (c) Social (Positive Affects x External Rewards), related to the need to obtain social acceptance (e.g., "Because it improves parties and celebrations"); and (d) Conformity (Negative Affects x External Rewards), related to avoiding social rejection or censure (e.g., "So you won't feel left out"). Respondents rate each item on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (alm0st never/never) to 5 (almost always/ always). Published internal reliabilities for the subscales ranged from .84 to .88 (Cooper, 1994) and from .85 to .91 in this study.

PROCEDURE

Participants were solicited from classes of ESL programs at a large community college in a Mid-Atlantic metropolitan area of the United States. They were recruited by the first author, who explained the study, ensured anonymity, and asked students to participate by completing a paper-and-pencil questionnaire. Most participants took the questionnaires home, and some answered during class time. Completed questionnaires were individually placed in an envelope, sealed, and collected by either the first author or the ESL program instructors. Signed informed consent forms were collected separately from completed questionnaires, thereby ensuring anonymity.

results

QUANTITY AND FREQUENCY OF ALCOHOL USE

The students in this study consumed, on average, less than two drinks per week, and 36% reported one or more incidents of heavy episodic alcohol use (binging) in the 2 weeks prior to the survey. The alternative hypothesis that F-1 students would exhibit more drinking than would non-F-1 students was not supported for either weekly consumption, t(232) = 0.74, p = .46, or binge drinking, t(255) = 1.44, p = .15.

Regarding frequency of alcohol use in the past year, 26% of the respondents consumed alcohol once per week or more; 18% did so only once or twice per month. A quarter of the respondents consumed alcohol only one to six times per year, and 31% never drank. Considering only the past 30 days, only 5% drank on 10 to 30 days, 20% on 3 to 9 days, and 27% drank on only 1 to 2 days. Almost half the respondents (48%) said that they did not consume any alcohol in the month prior to the survey. There were statistically significant, but weak, relationships between legal status and frequency of consumption in the past year, [chi square] (3, N= 262) = 24.47, p< .001, [phi] = .31, as well as in the past month, [chi square] (3, N= 262) = 12.66, p < .01, [phi] = .23. Almost one third (31%) of the F-1 students drank at least weekly, whereas 21% of the non-F-1 students did so. In contrast, only 16% of the F-1 students, but 45% of the non-F-1 students, said that they had not consumed alcohol in the past year. In terms of the past month, 37% of the F-1 and 58% of the non-F-1 students reported not drinking. At the other extreme, 8% of the F-1 students drank on 10 to 30 days prior to the survey, whereas only 2% of the non-F-1 students did so.

The first alternative hypothesis was not supported in terms of quantity of consumption, which did not differ between the groups for either of the quantity measures. It was supported in terms of frequency of consumption, with F-1 students drinking on more occasions than non-F-1 students, both over the past year and over the past 30 days.

ACCULTURATIVE STRESS

The five dimensions of acculturative stress from the ILS were all statistically significantly interrelated with one another, but differently for the two groups of students (see Table 1). For the F-1 group, the two strongest correlations both involved perceived discrimination, which correlated .52 with cultural adjustment and .47 with academic pressure. Other correlations between the stress subscales for the F-1 group were all low (r = .18 to .35). Eight of 10 correlations between acculturative stress dimensions were higher in the non-F-1 group. The two strongest were between stress due to language difficulty and academic pressure (r = .52) and between perceived discrimination and cultural adjustment (r = .50). Of interest was the relationship between perceived discrimination and academic pressure, which had the second strongest correlation in the F-1 group (r = .47), but the weakest in the non-F-1 group (r = .25).

All five means for different acculturative stress subscales fell in the middle third of the 0 (never) to 3 (often) response range, indicating that overall only moderate stress was perceived by this group of students. The same pattern was evident for both groups, with academic pressure as the strongest stressor (M = 1.8), followed by financial concerns (M = 1.6) and language difficulty (M = 1.5). Cultural adjustment and perceived discrimination were the least stressful (M = 1.1 and 1.0, respectively).

A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) indicated a statistically significant difference between the F-1 and non-F-1 groups on the ILS subscales, F(5, 256) = 6.49, p < .001, with 11% of the variance in the set of scores due to the group differences. Follow-up univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) indicated statistically significant group differences on four of the five ILS scores: language difficulty, F(1, 260) = 11.02, p = .001; cultural adjustment, F(1, 260) = 21.99, p < .001; perceived discrimination, F(1, 260) = 10.93, p = .001; and financial concerns, F(1, 260) = 9.96, p = .002. It was not supported for academic pressure, F(1, 260) = 0.02, p = .90. The F-1 students showed slightly higher average acculturative stress scores than did their counterparts, but the effect sizes were relatively low (.04 to .08). The second alternative hypothesis about differences in acculturative stress was supported for all but the academic pressure dimension of acculturative stress.

DRINKING MOTIVATIONS

Intercorrelations for the four drinking motivation subscales of the DMQ-R were all relatively high but, in general, slightly higher in the non-F-1 group (r = .66 to .81) than in the F-1 group (r = .61 to .80; see Table 1). The strongest correlations were between enhancement and social (r = .79 for the F-1 group and r = .81 for non-F-1 group) and between enhancement and conformity (r = .80 for the F-1 group and r =.79 for the non-F-1 group). Based on a scale from 1 (almost never/never) to 5 (almost always/always), overall responses indicated that the motives for alcohol consumption by these students were in the following order: social (M = 2.4), enhancement (M = 1.9), coping (M = 1.8), and conformity (M = 1.6). It should be noted that even the strongest of these four motives was a fairly weak motivator.

MANOVA results of the group comparison on the four subscales of the DMQ-R yielded statistically significant differences, F(4, 243) = 2.28, p = .03, with the grouping structure explaining only 10% of the variance in the scores. Univariate ANOVAs following the MANOVA yielded statistically significant differences for all four drinking motives: coping, F(1, 244) = 13.94, p < .001; enhancement, F(1, 244) = 24.52, p < .001; social, F(1, 244) = 22.82, p < .001; and conformity, F(1, 244) = 21.35, p < .001. The F-1 students, on average, scored slightly higher than did the non-F-1 students. The third alternative hypothesis was supported for the drinking motives.

PREDICTING ALCOHOL USE BY ACCULTURATIVE STRESS AND DRINKING MOTIVATIONS

In contrast to our expectations, the acculturative stress variables were not related to any of the drinking variables and only a few were slightly related to the motivation variables (see Table 1). Additionally, the intercorrelations for the motivation variables were stronger than those between motivation and drinking variables.

Because of the high intercorrelations within the three variable sets (alcohol use, acculturative stress, and drinking motivation), we conducted factor analyses of the measures in each set. Results indicated that a single dimension could represent each set, with one factor explaining 62% of the variance in the four drinking variables, 51% in the five acculturation variables, and 81% in the four drinking motivation variables. Therefore, as an initial exploratory step, three factor scores were used in a hierarchical regression analysis. Gender was entered as a control variable in the first step, under the assumption that men typically drink more than women do and that this difference should be controlled. The grouping variable was entered next to determine how much of the variance in the drinking factor score could be attributed to the legal status of the participants. The acculturative stress factor scores were entered third, followed by the drinking motivation. This ordering was based on the presumption of stress being a precursor to motivation for drinking and to allow for evaluation of how much drinking motivation accounts for drinking behavior over and above what acculturative stress might explain.

As shown in Table 2, the full model accounted for 35% of the variance in the drinking factor, with gender accounting for a statistically significant 7% of the variance, F(1, 190) = 16.35, p < .001, with the positive beta weight indicating that men have higher drinking scores than do women. Legal status explained an additional statistically significant 3% of the variance, F(1, 189) = 6.75, p = .01, with the positive beta weight indicating higher drinking scores for the F-1 group. Added third, acculturative stress did not add anything to the model, F(1, 188) = 0.12, p = .73. Finally, the drinking motivation factor uniquely explained a statistically significant 25% of the variance in the drinking factor, F(1, 187), p < .001.

discussion

The level of alcohol consumption by both groups of students in this study did not seem to be problematic. Less alcohol consumption was reported than in a national study of 2-year institutions (Presley, Cheng, & Pimenel, 2004). This finding was consistent with the literature on college drinking in which racial/ethnic minority students consumed alcohol less than did their White counterparts (NIAAA, 2002). Although both groups reported consuming low quantities of alcohol, the F-1 group consumed it with greater frequency than did the non-F-1 group. This result supported previous studies in which college students who consumed alcohol most were in the 18 to 24 age group, who lived without parents and had few or no off-campus duties (NIAAA, 2002). The F-1 students fitted this profile more than did their non-F-1 counterparts.

Different findings in alcohol use between the two groups might be manifested by different acculturation levels. Drinking behavior is a cultural construct (Straussner, 2001). The time spent in the United States for F-1 students (1.7 years) was, on average, less than one third that for their non-F-1 counterparts (5.6 years). Because of a shorter period of residency in the United States, the F-1 students from cultures where alcohol use is legally and culturally more tolerated than it is in U.S. culture may not yet be aware of U.S. drinking norms, including legal drinking age and negative consequences, or loosely applied these norms using their home cultural norms.

An emotion-focused coping model, where alcohol is used to reduce negative feelings caused by stress, did not seem to fit these students, given that there were no apparent relationships between alcohol use and acculturative stress. In this regard, the findings did not support general recognition that international students are at high risk for problematic drinking because of cross-cultural adjustment. Overall acculturative stress levels for both groups were lower than those found in a study of undergraduate and graduate students (Misra et al., 2003). This may be attributed to different college environments between ESL and general academic programs in which the unique needs of students from other countries (e.g., language aids, emotional support) may not always be provided. Consequently, such students in general programs may perceive more acculturative stress than those in ESL programs.

Except for academic pressure, the students in the non-F-1 group in this study showed much lower levels of stress than did those in the F-1 group. This difference was also likely due to their time spent in the United States. A longer residency facilitates English language acquisition (Kuo & Roysircar, 2004) and cultural adjustment (Frey & Roysircar, 2006; Kuo et al., 2006). Additionally, the non-F-1 group might be less vulnerable to stress than the F-1 group because of more immediate and direct family support and nonrestricted access to employment and financial aid.

In this study, drinking motives due to positive affect (social and enhancement) were more strongly related to alcohol use than were those for negative affect (coping and conformity). This indicates that the drinking purpose for both groups was more to increase pleasant feelings than to control disturbing feelings. The internal motive of enhancement seemed to be stronger for the F-1 group, whereas the external, social motive was stronger for the non-F-1 group. Different lifestyles and living arrangements between the F-1 group and the non-F-1 group may have led to these results.

The data were collected in one of the most culturally diverse regions of the United States using a nonrandom sampling method; thus, generalization may be limited. Furthermore, survey instruments were written in English, which was not the participants' first language. Data were self-reports, which may not always accurately reflect the activities of respondents.

implications for practice and research

The findings from this study did not suggest problematic drinking behavior for either F-1 or non-F-1 students enrolled in ESL programs in a U.S. community college. Yet, for the F-1 group, the most relevant drinking motive was enhancement. According to Cooper (1994), following the coping motive, the enhancement motive is the strongest predictor for heavy drinking and for negative consequences of alcohol use, including arguments with family, peers, and authorities. Therefore, detecting potential international and other non-U.S, students at risk for drinking problems, including those in ESL programs, is posited as an important prevention effort. Social acceptance of alcohol use varies by culture. Thus, to increase their awareness, such students would benefit from a psychoeducational group regarding alcohol use in the United States.

In future research with students from other countries, we uphold arguments by Sodowsky and Plake (1992) as well as Yoon and Portman (2004) and Frey and Roysircar (2006) that researchers need to be aware of within-group differences and select participants carefully to yield accurate and valuable information for their studies. In addition, a replication of the current study in undergraduate and graduate schools, particularly located in traditional college town settings and in rural areas, should yield interesting comparisons with the results of the present study. Adding assessments of personality and/or coping skills would detect information missed in this study. In the academic year of 2009/2010, the enrollment of international students was more than 690,000, which was an all-time high (Institute of International Education, 2010). To better serve students from other countries, counselors need to perform more research on alcohol-related behaviors and acculturative stress similar to the current study.

references

Berry, J. W. (2006). Acculturative stress. In P. T. P. Wong & L. C.J. Wong (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural perspective on stress and coping (pp. 287-298). New York, NY: Springer.

Cooper, M. L. (1994). Motivations for alcohol use among adolescents: Development and validation of a four-factor model. Psychological Assessment, 6, 117-128.

Core Institute. (n.d.). Welcome to Core Institute. Retrieved from http://www.core.siuc.edu/

Frey, L. L., & Roysircar, G. (2006). South Asian and East Asian international students' perceived prejudice, acculturation, and frequency of help resource utilization. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 34, 208-222.

Ham, L. S., & Hope, D. A. (2003). College students and problematic drinking: A review of the literature. Clinical Psychology. Review, 23, 719-759.

Hendershot, C. S., MacPherson, L., Myers, M. G., Carr, L. G., & Wall, T. L. (2005). Psychosocial, cultural and genetic influences on alcohol use in Asian American youth. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 66, 185-195.

Institute of International Education. (2010). International student enrollments rose modestly in 2009/10, led by strong increase in students from China. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/Who-We-Are/News-and-Events/ Press-Center/Press-Releases/2010/2010-11-15-Open-Doors -International-Students-In-The-US.aspx

Kuo, B. C. H., & Roysircar G. (2004). Predictors of acculturation for Chinese adolescents in Canada: Age of arrival, length of stay, social class, and English reading ability. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 32, 143-154.

Kuo, B. C. H., Roysircar, G., & Newby-Clark, I. R. (2006). Development of the Cross-Cultural Coping Scale: Collective, avoidance, and engagement coping. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 39, 161-181.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer.

Misra, R., Crist, M., & Burant, C.J. (2003). Relationships among life stress, social support, academic stressors, and reactions to stressors of international students in the United States. International Journal of Stress Management, 10, 137-157.

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (2002). High-risk drinking in college: What we know and what we need to learn: Final report of the Panel on Contexts and Consequences. Retrieved from http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/ NIAAACollegeMaterials/panelReports.aspx

Presley, C., Cheng, Y., & Pimenel, E. (2004). Alcohol and drugs on American college campuses: A report to college presidents (4th in a series). Carbondale, IL: Core Institute.

Presley, C. A., Meilman, P. W., & Lyerla, R. (1993). Alcohol and drugs on American college campuses: Use, consequences, and perceptions of the campus environment. Vol. I: 1989-91. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED358766)

Schulenberg, J. E., & Maggs, J. L. (2002). A developmental perspective on alcohol use and heavy drinking during adolescence and the transition to young adulthood. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, Suppl. 14, 54-70.

Sodowsky, G. R., & Plake, B. S. (1992). A study of acculturation differences among international people and suggestions for sensitivity to within-group differences. Journal of Counseling & Development, 71, 53-59.

Straussner, S. L. A. (2001). Ethnocultural issues in substance abuse treatment: An overview. In S. L. A. Straussner (Ed.), Ethnocultural factors in substance abuse treatment (pp. 3-28). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Yang, B., & Clum, G. A. (1995). Measures of life stress and social support specific to an Asian student population. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 17, 51-67.

Yoon, E., & Portman, T. A. A. (2004). Critical issue of literature on counseling international students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 32, 33-44.

Chieko Koyama, Department of Counseling and Psychology, Troy University Dothan Campus; Gabriella Belli, School of Education, Virginia Tech. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Chieko Koyama, Department of Counseling and Psychology, Troy University Dothan Campus, 501 University Drive, Dothan, AL 36303 (e-mail: ckoyama@troy.edu).
TABLE 1
Correlations Among Acculturative Stress, Drinking Motivations,
and Alcohol Use

Measure          1         2         3         4         5

CADS
  1. Binge
       F-1         --
       Non-F-1     --
  2. Weekly
       F-1        .69 **     --
       Non-F-1    .49 **     --
  3. Past 12 m
       F-1        .65 **    .79 **     --
       Non-F-1    .44 **    .74 **     --
  4. Past 30 d
       F-1        .69 **    .74 **    .78 **     --
       Non-F-1    .59 **    .68 **    .79 **     --
ILS
  5. Language
       F-1        .09      -.03      -.01       .01      .63#
       Non-F-1    .06       .00       .03       .01      .72#
  6. Cultural
       F-1       -.02      -.15      -.12      -.20      .35 **
       Non-F-1    .10      -.09       .08      -.04      .40 **
  7. Academic
       F-1        .02      -.08      -.04      -.02      .28 **
       Non-F-1    .04      -.01      -.03       .04      .52 **
  8. Discrim
       F-1        .11      -.03       .12       .04      .35 **
       Non-F-1    .08      -.08      -.02      -.04      .39 **
  9. Financial
       F-1        .05       .01      -.03      -.01      .24 **
       Non-F-1    .09      -.01       .03      -.02      .42 **
DMQ-R
  10. Social
       F-1        .52 **    .47 **    .58 **    .56 **   .16
       Non-F-1    .42 **    .59 **    .67 **    .61 **   .13
  11. Enhance
       F-1        .58 **    .51 **    .62 **    .58 **   .14
       Non-F-1    .39 **    .60 **    .56 **    .50 **   .20 *
  12. Coping
       F-1        .38 **    .34 **    .43 **    .39 **   .15
       Non-F-1    .32 **    .42 **    .46 **    .39 **   .17
  13. Conformity
       F-1        .52 **    .33 **    .50 **    .40 **   .31 **
       Non-F-1    .29 **    .35 **    .32 **    .35 **   .30 **

Measure          6         7        8        9      10       11

CADS
  1. Binge
       F-1
       Non-F-1
  2. Weekly
       F-1
       Non-F-1
  3. Past 12 m
       F-1
       Non-F-1
  4. Past 30 d
       F-1
       Non-F-1
ILS
  5. Language
       F-1
       Non-F-1
  6. Cultural
       F-1        .61#
       Non-F-1    .73#
  7. Academic
       F-1        .27 **   .63#
       Non-F-1    .35 **   .73#
  8. Discrim
       F-1        .52 **   .47 **   .58#
       Non-F-1    .50 **   .25 **   .75#
  9. Financial
       F-1        .27 **   .22 *    .18 *    .70#
       Non-F-1    .46 **   .47 **   .40 **   .72#
DMQ-R
  10. Social
       F-1       -.11      .08      .20 *    .16    .86#
       Non-F-1    .02      .08      .10      .09    .91#
  11. Enhance
       F-1       -.04      .10      .24 **   .06    .79 **   .85#
       Non-F-1    .08      .20 *    .08      .15    .81 **   .86#
  12. Coping
       F-1        .14      .09      .30 **   .16    .61 **   .62 **
       Non-F-1    .03      .16      .07      .13    .66 **   .79 **
  13. Conformity
       F-1        .10      .12      .41 **   .12    .74 **   .80 **
       Non-F-1    .13      .25 **   .15      .22 *  .71 **   .79 **

Measure          12       13

CADS
  1. Binge
       F-1
       Non-F-1
  2. Weekly
       F-1
       Non-F-1
  3. Past 12 m
       F-1
       Non-F-1
  4. Past 30 d
       F-1
       Non-F-1
ILS
  5. Language
       F-1
       Non-F-1
  6. Cultural
       F-1
       Non-F-1
  7. Academic
       F-1
       Non-F-1
  8. Discrim
       F-1
       Non-F-1
  9. Financial
       F-1
       Non-F-1
DMQ-R
  10. Social
       F-1
       Non-F-1
  11. Enhance
       F-1
       Non-F-1
  12. Coping
       F-1       .90#
       Non-F-1   .89#
  13. Conformity
       F-1       .64 **   .86#
       Non-F-1   .69 **   .89#

Note. Values in boldface on the diagonal are Cronbach's alpha
reliability coefficients. CADS = Core Alcohol and Drug Survey;
Binge = binge drinking; F-1 = international students with a
typical student visa; Non-F-1 = students originally from other
countries with legal statuses of permanent U.S. resident,
naturalized U.S. citizen, and refugee; Weekly = average use per
week; Past 12 m = alcohol use in the past 12 months; Past 30 d =
alcohol use in the past 30 days; ILS = Index of Life Stress;
Language = language difficulty; Cultural = cultural adjustment;
Academic = academic pressure; Discrim = perceived discrimination;
Financial = financial concern; DMQ-R = Revised Drinking
Motivation Questionnaire; Social = social motives; Enhance =
enhancement motives; Coping = coping motives; Conformity =
conformity motives.

* p < .05. ** p < .01.

Note. Values indicated with # on the diagonal are Cronbach's
alpha reliability coefficients.

TABLE 2
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Predicting a
Composite Alcohol Use Factor for International Students

                              Step 1   Step 2   Step 3
Predictor                     [beta]   [beta]   [beta]

Gender (a)                    .26 **   .26 **   .26 **
Legal status (b)                       .17 *    .17 *
Acculturative stress factor                     -0.02
Drinking motivation factor

                                      Step 4

Predictor                     [beta]      t      p

Gender (a)                     .16 **    2.88   <.01
Legal status (b)               .04       0.63    .53
Acculturative stress factor   -.15 *    -2.54    .01
Drinking motivation factor     .55 **    9.19   <.01

Note. For Step 1: [R.sup.2] = .07, F = 16.35, p < .001, and
[DELTA][R.sup.2] = .07. For Step 2: [R.sup.2] = .03, F= 6.75,
p = .01, and [DELTA][R.sup.2] = .10. For Step 3: [R.sup.2] = .00,
F = 0.12, p = .73, and [DELTA][R.sup.2] = .10. For Step 4: [R.sup.2]
= .25, F = 84.48, p < .001, and [DELTA][R.sup.2] = .35.

(a) 0 = female; 1 = male. (b) 0 = students originally from other
countries, with legal statuses of permanent U.S. resident,
naturalized U.S. citizen, and refugee; 1 = international students
with a typical student visa.

* p <.05. ** p <.01.
COPYRIGHT 2011 American Counseling Association
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2011 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

 
Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Koyama, Chieko; Belli, Gabriella
Publication:Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development
Date:Oct 1, 2011
Words:5405
Previous Article:The influence of Africentric values and neighborhood satisfaction on the academic self-efficacy of African American elementary school children.
Next Article:Transcultural wellness: an exploratory study.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters