Demographic and academic trends in drinking patterns and alcohol-related problems on dry college campuses.
Restricting alcohol consumption on campus is a measure often used by college administrators to prevent alcohol abuse and-alcohol-related problems. The effect of dry campus policies on alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems, however, remains poorly understood. This report will compare characteristics of two dry campuses with descriptions of general college drinking trends with respect to students 'demographic and social/academic characteristics. At two Western universities, 9,073 undergraduates aged 18 and older were surveyed between 2000 and 2004. Drinking and alcohol-related problems found on the dry campuses were similar to national trends on college campuses. Results suggest campus alcohol policies limit drinking on campus but do not prevent previously identified demographic and academic college drinking patterns.
The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the funding agency.
Researchers and college administrators alike have engaged in a continuing effort to better understand the nature of college drinking and best practices for prevention and intervention. Alcohol abuse and alcohol-related problems are considered among the most serious public health threats on American college campuses (e.g., Wechsler, Davenport, Dowdall, Moeykens, & Castillo, 1994). Some national surveys suggest 44% of college students engage in heavy episodic drinking at least occasionally (Wechsler, Molnar, Davenport, & Baer, 1999). Further, the misuse of alcohol by college students is associated with a wide variety of negative effects such as date rape, violent behavior, poor academic performance, vandalism, injury, high-risk sexual behavior (Eigen, 1991; Wechsler & Isaac, 1991; Presley, Meilman, & Lyerla 1995), and even death.
To prevent college alcohol abuse and alcohol-related problems, many colleges have maintained "dry" campuses where alcohol sales and consumption are banned. Few researchers, however, have examined whether dry campuses are less affected by alcohol. The Wechsler, Lee, Gledhill-Hoyt, & Nelson (2001) study is one of the few that examines the affect of banning alcohol on college campuses. He and his colleagues surveyed a nationally representative sample of students at 4-year colleges to test whether schools that ban alcohol have lower rates of alcohol use and heavy episodic drinking. Wechsler et al. (2001) found that students who attend schools that banned alcohol were 30% less likely to engage in binge drinking and more likely to abstain from using alcohol than were students who attended schools where alcohol was not banned. Banning alcohol, however, had no effect on student self-reports of experiencing alcohol-related problems except some reduction in secondhand effects.
Although limiting or restricting alcohol consumption on campus is a measure often used by college administrators to prevent alcohol abuse and alcohol-related problems, the effect of dry campus policies on alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems remains poorly understood. This study specifically surveys drinking patterns on dry campuses to evaluate such alcohol policies. We examined survey results that describe drinking trends on two campuses where alcohol is severely prohibited--one a completely dry campus and the other largely dry with a few modest exceptions that allow alcohol on campus. This report compares characteristics of these two dry campuses with respect to students' demographic, social, and academic characteristics and describes the colleges' general drinking trends.
The Effect of Demographic Characteristics on College Drinking
Gender: Male gender is often cited as a significant risk factor for heavy drinking in college. College men consistently have been found to drink more than college females (Humara & Sherman, 2004; Perkins, 1992). Measures of national trends among college students show more than twice as many males than females report drinking 10 or more drinks per week (O'Malley & Johnston, 2002). Further, men tend to binge drink and to report more alcohol-related problems than females as well (Wechsler, Dowdall, Davenport, & Castillo, 1995). Previous research has shown that men tend to perceive more permissive social and institutional drinking norms relative to women and, consequently, present higher drinking rates than women. In addition to differences in perceptions, misperceptions, and behavior, there are significant differences in alcohol expectancies as well (Read, Wood, Lejuez, Palfai, & Slack, 2004).
Ethnicity: Non-White ethnicity has been identified as a risk factor of alcoholism in the general population, but this association does not hold with the college population (Kahler, Read, Wood, & Palfai, 2003). In fact, across four national surveys of college students, the data consistently show White students reporting the highest prevalence of heavy drinking, followed by Hispanic and Black students, respectively (O'Malley & Johnston, 2002). This pattern has been found in several national surveys of high-school-aged youth such as the YRBS (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2000, 2004) and MTF (Johnston, O'Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2004). Research that equates ethnicity and nationality, however, may not accurately capture the drinking behavior of ethnic groups. For example, research that combines people of Asian origin into a single ethnicity may improperly describe groups that present significantly different drinking patterns such as the Chinese and Koreans (Luczak, Wall, Shea, Byun, & Carr, 2001).
Age: Heavy drinking among college students tends to increase as they approach legal drinking age and levels off after they reach legal drinking age. This pattern tends to result in alcohol abuse and underage drinking by students younger than age 21 (Wechsler, Lee, Nelson, & Kuo, 2002). It is important to note, however, that college students of legal age present alcohol abuse problems as well, albeit less severe relative to underage students.
The Effect of Social and Academic Characteristics on College Drinking
Academic Class Level: Consistent with the pattern implied by age, college freshman present the most significant drinking problems on college campuses (Del Boca, Darkes, Greenbaum, & Goldman, 2004). Data on this point, however, are inconsistent. Core Alcohol and Drug Survey (Core Institute, 2005) data, for example, suggested that college freshman binge drank less than their upperclass peers in 2004. The survey further indicated that freshmen were the lowest percentage of binge drinkers (45.3%), lower than sophomores (49.1%), juniors (51.6%), and seniors (52.8%), respectively. Reports of average number of drinks by class level followed the same pattern.
Futhermore, during high school, non-college-bound students engage in heavy drinking more than college-bound students; however, after high school, non-college-bound students only show a moderate increase in the prevalence of heavy drinking. Conversely, college-bound students drink significantly more after high school years, such that the prevalence of heavy drinking surpasses non-college-bound students (O'Malley & Johnston, 2002).
Greek Status: Fraternity and sorority status has long been known to be a significant risk factor for college drinking (Larimer, Turner, Mallett, & Geisner, 2004). Greeks tend to drink more and to present more alcohol-related problems. As with college freshmen, many universities have designed alcohol-related prevention programs targeting this unique risk group. Further, research shows that the social and normative factors that lead to excessive drinking among Greeks is quite different from factors affecting the campus at large (Baer, 1994; Sher, Bartholow, & Nanda, 2001).
Academic Performance: College drinking can severely interfere with academic performance (Higher Education Center, 1997). A national survey of nearly 37,000 students at 66 four-year institutions revealed a strong relationship between alcohol consumption and grades (Presley, Meilman, Cashin, & Lyerla, 1996); whereas students with an A average consumed a little more than three drinks per week, B students had almost five drinks, C students more than six drinks, and D or F students reported nine drinks. Further, a survey of college administrators indicated their belief that alcohol is involved in 38% of cases of lack of academic success and 29% of cases of student attrition (Anderson & Gadaleto, 1997).
Drinking Behavior of Students on Dry Campuses
Although alcohol consumption in general represents a significant administration and policy problem on college campuses, underage and binge drinking are particularly troublesome for college administrators. In fact, underage drinking and binge drinking on college campuses have been described as a national public health crisis in research, media coverage, and by many government agencies (Wechsler et al., 1999). Administrators have responded with an increase in prevention efforts and with the introduction of new prevention technologies (Wechsler et al., 2002). Although decreasing in number, many college campuses are completely dry or only allow alcohol on campus under very limited conditions and on a few modest occasions. To what extent do these measures buffer students from the detrimental effects of college drinking that is commonly found on other campuses? In short, how effective are restricted campus alcohol policies in reducing alcohol abuse and alcohol-related problems relative to general patterns found on U.S. college campuses?
College students vary significantly in their drinking patterns and associated problems; many demographic, academic, and social characteristics account for the variance. Campus alcohol policies may do little to counter national trends in college drinking. This research will describe the combined results of two surveys presented on two dry campuses in the Western United States. Based on 5 years and nine semesters of survey data (2000-2004) (1) from two Western universities, this report describes how various demographic and academic characteristics are associated with college drinking. Comparisons will be made between trends found in these data and research describing national trends.
This research includes 9,073 undergraduates aged 18 and older surveyed between 2000 and 2004. Surveys were administered at two Western universities. This report consists of a subset of those data as graduate students and students who were not degree seeking were excluded. The participants include 46.5% males and 53.5% females; 75.7% White and 24.3% non-White (including 2.5% Black, 5.7% Hispanic, 9.5% Asian, 1.3% Native American, and 5.3% identified as other); 40.1% aged 20 and younger, and 59.9% aged 21 and older. The mean age was 23.1.
A paper-and-pencil survey concerning alcohol consumption, beliefs about campus drinking, and alcohol-related problems was administered at two Western universities. After the initial baseline measures, the survey was administered during the first term of the academic year in October and during the second term of the academic year in March. The survey was identified as the Campus Alcohol Survey. Each term, the survey was administered to approximately 500 undergraduate students. Students were compensated with a $5 movie rental gift card from a nearby video rental store.
On each campus, kiosks were positioned at the student union or another location with a large amount of student traffic. Trained research assistants administered the surveys. Tables were set up at each location for 3 to 4 days from approximately 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. each day, with one or two research assistants at each table. Signs were posted at the tables indicating that students would get a gift card for completing the survey. Research assistants provided the surveys to students who approached the table. Respondents were asked to complete the survey at or near the table. The survey is about 8 pages long and takes approximately 10 to 20 minutes to complete. Students were not permitted to leave the area with the survey. Upon completion of the survey, respondents were immediately compensated with a video rental gift card.
Students anonymously completed the questionnaires; on a separate form, however, they were asked to sign their names on a "sign-up sheet" and provide their student ID numbers. The form was stored separately from the survey to maintain anonymity of responses presented on the questionnaire. This form was used to decrease the likelihood that students would complete the survey more than once each semester and, in the event of an audit, to provide evidence that the gift cards were actually given out to student respondents.
The Campus Alcohol Survey is a comprehensive self-report survey of alcohol consumption, drug use, and related problems. In addition to drinking and drug use patterns, students reported their age, race, gender, class level, and other demographic or academic characteristics.
This study placed a particular emphasis on measures of drinking patterns and alcohol-related problems. Participants were asked to report the number of times they experienced any of 29 alcohol-related problems in the last 30 days and to report the total number of alcohol-related problems they experienced. These items were recoded into dichotomous variables that simply reported whether a participant experienced the problem in the last 30 days. To reduce the 29 variables to more manageable clusters, a principal component analysis was conducted on the items after recoding to dichotomous values. This analysis revealed a set of five dimensions of alcohol-related problems. The clusters can be reasonably described in the following categories: social problems, health problems, secondary effects, risk/reckless behavior, and illegal/ violent behavior. The total count of alcohol-related problems in the last 30 days was analyzed as well. In several tests, binge drinking on at least one occasion in the last 2 weeks was used to identify students at risk for excessive drinking or alcohol abuse. This risk factor was then described along with demographic and academic characteristics.
Regarding drinking patterns, students were asked to report the number of drinks they typically consumed on Friday and Saturday, the number of times they got drunk in the last 4 weeks, and their frequency of binge drinking (5+ in a row) in the last 2 weeks.
Participants were identified as high- or low-risk drinkers based on whether they reported binge drinking at least once in the 2 weeks before the survey. This discrete measure of binge drinking was crossed with several demographic variables such as age, race, and gender; and with academic variables such as grade point average (GPA), class level, and fraternity/sorority status. Other drinking patterns, such as number of drinks on weekends or number times a respondent got drunk, also were crossed with these demographic and academic characteristics. Finally, we crossed alcohol-related problems with demographic and academic characteristics.
Gender: Males and females differed significantly in their drinking patterns. Males (43.2%) were significantly more likely than females (28.9%) to report binge drinking at least once in the last 2 weeks ([X.sup.2] = 255.3, p < 0.01). Males and females reported their drinking frequency on four additional measures: number of drinks on Friday, number of drinks on Saturday, number of times drunk in the last 4 weeks, and number of binge drinking occasions in the last 2 weeks. Males reported drinking significantly more than females (p < 0.01) on each measure of drinking occasions. Table 2 reports mean results for each measure.
Race: White and non-White students differed significantly in their drinking patterns. White (36.6%) students were significantly more likely than non-White (32.8%) students to report binge drinking in the last 2 weeks ([X.sup.2] = 12.6, p < 0.01) (2). White and non-White students reported their drinking frequency on four measures: number of drinks of Friday, number of drinks on Saturday, number of times drunk in the last 4 weeks, and binge drinking in the last 2 weeks. White and non-White students did not differ significantly in their reports of drinking on Saturday and binge drinking in the last 2 weeks (p > 0.05). White and non-White students, however, differed significantly in their reports of the number of drinks they consumed on Friday and in the number of times they got drunk in the last 4 weeks: White students, on average, reported having more drinks on Friday (p < 0.01) and getting drunk more often in the past 4 weeks (p < 0.01).
Age: Students aged 21 and older were less likely to report having at least one binge-drinking episode once in the past 2 weeks, 34.2%, relative to students aged 20 and younger, 37.1%, ([X.sup.2] = 8.4, p < 0.01), and students aged 21 and older binge drank on fewer occasions in the past two weeks, on average, (M = .95) relative to students aged 20 and younger (M = 1.05, p < .01). Students aged 20 and younger reported drinking more on Friday and on Saturday (all p < 0.001). Age did not have a significant effect on students' reports of the number of times they got drunk in the last 4 weeks (p > 0.05).
Academic Class level: Students' class levels had no effect on whether students reported binge drinking at least once in the last 2 weeks ([X.sup.2] = 9.2, p = 0.06). Class level, however, had a significant effect on the students' reported number of drinks for three of four measures of drinking patterns (p < 0.01). Freshman reported the most drinking on average for measures of drinks on Friday, drinks on Saturday, and binge drinking frequency in the last 2 weeks. Class level did not have a significant effect on the mean number of times students reported getting drunk in the last 4 weeks.
GPA: A chi-square test revealed a significant association between GPA and binge drinking at least once in the last 2 weeks ([X.sup.2] = 157.1, p < 0.01). GPA was measured at five levels (3.51-4.00, 3.01-3.50, 2.51-3.00, 2.01-2.50, < 2.00), and the percentages who reported binge drinking at least once in the last 4 weeks were 28.0%, 36.3, 40.5%, 45.9%, and 44.8%, respectively. There was a significant association between drinking and GPA on all four measures of drinking frequency (p < 0.01). Students with a GPA lower than 2.00 consistently reported high average drinks or drinking occasions, and students with a GPA of 3.51 to 4.00 reported the low average drinks or drinking occasions. In this research GPA data were self-reported, and we note that some researchers suggest students often inflate self-reported GPA--particularly students with low GPAs (Cassady, 2001; Dobbins, Farh, & Werbel, 1993).
Fraternity: Students' memberships in a fraternity or sorority had a significant effect on whether they reported binge drinking at least once in the last 2 weeks ([X.sup.2] = 228.9, p < 0.01). Among students who were not members of a fraternity or sorority, 50.7% reported getting drunk; however, among students who were members, 63.4% reported getting drunk in the last 4 weeks at least once. Fraternity/sorority status had a significant effect on students reported number of drinks for three of four measures of drinking patterns (p < 0.01). The most drinking on average for measures of drinks on Friday, drinks on Saturday, and binge drinking in the last 2 weeks was reported by Fraternity/sorority members. Fraternity/sorority membership, however, did not have a significant effect on the mean number of times a student reported getting drunk in the last 4 weeks. (3)
Alcohol-Related Problem Behavior
Students reported whether they experienced 29 problem behaviors in the last 30 days. The reports of problem behaviors were recoded into dichotomous variables that measured the occurrence of each problem behavior at least once in the last 30 days. A factor analysis of the 29 problem behaviors were categorized into five dimensions: social problems, health problems, secondary effects, risk/reckless behavior, and illegal/violent behavior. Total counts of alcohol-related problems and counts within the dimension described above were reported for demographic, academic, and social characteristics of students.
For each measure of alcohol-related problems, males reported a higher average occurrence than females (p < .01 for each). Non-White students reported a higher average occurrence than White students with respect to the following alcohol-related problems: average of all problems, social problems, health problems, and illegal/violent behavior (p < .01). White and non-White students did not differ in their reports of alcohol-related risk/reckless behaviors and secondary effects (p > 05). Most measures of alcohol-related problems showed that age had a significant effect on students' alcohol-related problems. Students aged 20 and younger had significantly higher mean alcohol-related problems in total and on each of the scale dimensions except risk/reckless behaviors (p < 0.01). For the measure of risk/reckless behavior, students aged 21 and older reported significantly more problems (p < 0.05).
Class level had a significant effect on the average alcohol-related problem for all measures (p < 0.01) except risk/reckless problems for which class showed no significance. These tests of the effect of class level on alcohol-related problems consistently showed that freshmen on average have the highest occurrence of alcohol-related problems. GPA had a significant effect on alcohol-related problems such that students with the highest GPAs reported the fewest problems and students with the lowest GPAs, on average, reported the highest number of alcohol-related problems (p < 0.01). One-way ANOVAs revealed this association between GPA and alcohol-related problems for the measure of the total problems and the measures of each dimension of the scale. Fraternity/sorority membership had a significant effect on the occurrence of alcohol-related problems such that students who were members reported more total problems and more problems in each category (p < 0.01 for each).
Few studies have compared drinking patterns of wet and dry college campuses; in a national examination by Wechsler et al (2001) they show that a greater percentage of students on wet campuses binge drink (48%) relative to students on dry campuses (38%). Further, according to Wechsler et al (2001) dry campuses report fewer secondhand effects of alcohol consumption such as being insulted, assaulted, or otherwise adversely affected by drunken students. In the current research, patterns of drinking behavior and alcohol-related problems found on the dry campuses were similar to patterns generally found on college campuses. The results of these analyses are largely consistent with previous data describing the drinking behavior of college students on campuses with a variety of alcohol policies. These results suggest campus alcohol policies may limit drinking on campus but do not prevent the expression of previously identified demographic and academic patterns in college drinking trends.
Males are significantly more likely than females to binge drink, and this gender pattern is repeated on each measure of drinking behavior. Males drink more than females on the weekend, get drunk more often, and binge drink with greater frequency. Further, in all measures of alcohol-related problem behaviors, both total alcohol-related problems and each alcohol-related problem category, males report significantly more problems than females. This pattern is consistent with other findings on gender differences in college drinking (Humara & Sherman, 2004, Perkins, 1992) and with national trends that show male college students report more daily drinking and more binge drinking than female students (Johnston, O'Malley, & Bachman, 2000).
In comparisons of White and non-White students, the general pattern found was that White students, on average, reported more alcohol consumption, but non-White students, on average, reported more alcohol-related problems. As noted earlier, this difference is consistent with national trends (O'Malley & Johnston, 2002). Although there were some measures of alcohol consumption that showed White and non-White students did not differ in their drinking habits, no measure showed non-White students as drinking more than White students. Surprisingly, in the instances where differences between reported alcohol-related problems of White and non-White students were tested, the trend was non-White students reported more alcohol-related problems. It is reasonable to assume a concordance between drinking patterns and alcohol-related problems; however, with respect to race, this does not occur. Further, in all other tests of demographic differences or academic differences, drinking trends mirror trends in alcohol-related problems. Why alcohol consumption and related problems are concordant among most demographic and academic characteristics and not among racial groups, White and non-White students, represents a research question that needs further study.
Given that the tests regarding age and drinking patterns compared underage drinkers with drinkers of legal age, many of the comparisons that demonstrate no difference between the two groups is striking. For example, both legal age and underage students reported getting drunk about two times, on average, in the past 4 weeks, and student age did not affect reports of binge drinking at least once in the last 2 weeks. Furthermore, most measures of drinking frequency, such as average number of drinks on Friday or Saturday, show that underage students drink more than students of legal drinking age. Measures of alcohol-related problems by age also direct our attention to underage drinking, and here the pattern of more frequent drinking among underage students is consistent with reports of more alcohol-related problems among underage students. Problem behaviors associated with risk or recklessness, however, were more common among students aged 21 or older. Most studies show that as the legal drinking age decreases, alcohol consumption increases, and the inverse is true when the drinking age is increased (Wagenaar & Toomey, 2002).
The effect of various drinking patterns on academic performance is consistent with previous published data and with the prevention programs that tend to focus on the drinking behavior of college freshman. Our data show that college freshman drink more frequently than all of their peers at other grade levels and are more likely to get drunk. Measures of frequency of binge drinking show college freshmen have more severe problems relative to their upper-class peers. Students at all class levels do not differ, however, if measures of binge drinking consist of reports of at least one binge drinking occasion in the last 2 weeks. These results suggest binge drinking is both a general problem on college campuses at all class levels and that is there is greater frequency of binge drinking concentrated among the college freshman population.
A significant body of literature demonstrates the relationship between alcohol consumption among college students and academic performance. The data showed nearly half of the students with a GPA of 2:00 or lower reported binge drinking at least once in the past 2 weeks; however, only about quarter of students with a 3.5 or higher GPA reported binge drinking at least once in the past 2 weeks. Data regarding the frequency of drinking occasions presented a similar pattern. As found in Presley et al. (1996), in the current research there was a clear linear trend where students with the lowest GPA drank the most and students with the highest GPA drank the least. This pattern held for Friday and Saturday drinking, frequency of getting drunk, and frequency of binge drinking. For alcohol-related problems, the trend is again consistent regarding GPA and alcohol consumption. Students with the highest GPA reported experiencing the least drinking problems and student with the lowest GPA reported experiencing the most drinking problems.
Fraternity and Sorority Status
Research consistently showed that fraternity or sorority membership is a significant risk factor for college drinking (Latimer et al., 2004), and the dry campuses described in the report are not an exception. More than half of the students in a fraternity or sorority reported that they engaged in binge drinking at least once in the past 2 weeks. This represents the group with the largest binge-drinking problem among the demographic and academic characteristics identified in this report. However, about a third of students who are not in a fraternity or a sorority engaged in binge drinking as well. The problem affects all campus groups. The difference between Greeks and non-Greeks in drinking occasions also is statistically significant. In measures of average drinks on Friday and average drinks on Saturday, Greeks reported drinking nearly one full drink more than non-Greeks. Greeks also report getting drunk more frequently and binge drinking more frequently. Members of fraternity and sorority members report significantly more alcohol-related problems, both in total and in each problem category.
Although these data are limited to two dry campuses, they present compelling evidence that the campus alcohol policies can only have a limited effect on the drinking patterns of college students. Further, this research suggests that the risk groups, such as Greeks or freshman, also are at risk on dry campuses and that commonly used prevention programs are needed on most dry campuses as well. Many of the factors that affect the prevalence and patterns of heavy drinking among college students are social, demographic, and environmental; hence, campus alcohol policies present only one point of intervention as these other factors similarly impact both wet and dry campuses.
The authors would like to thank the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) for their research support on grant numbers R37 AA12972, R37 AA12972-03S1, and K05 AA014260.
Dexter M. Taylor, Associate Research Scientist, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, Calverton, Maryland.
Mark B. Johnson, Research Scientist, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, Calverton, Maryland.
Robert B. Voas, Senior Research Scientist, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, Calverton, Maryland.
Robert Turrisi, Department of Biobehavioral Health & Prevention Research Center, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania.
Anderson, D. S., & Gadaleto, A. F. (1997). Results of the 1997 college alcohol survey: Comparison with 1994 results and baseline year. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.
Baer, J. S. (1994). Effects of college residence on perceived norms for alcohol consumption: An examination of the first year in college. Psychology of Additive Behaviors, 8, 43-50.
Cassady, J. (2001). Self-reported GPA and SAT scores: A methodological note. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7 (12). Retrieved January 10, 2006 from http:// PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=12
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2000). Youth risk behavior surveillance--United States, 1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (CDC Surveillance Summaries), 49(SS-5).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2004). Youth risk behavior surveillance--United States, 2003. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 53(SS-2).
Core Institute. (2005). Measuring Change, Delivering Results [Online]. Southern Illinois University Carbondale. Accessed June, 2005, from the World Wide Web: http://www.siu. edu/departments/coreinst/public_html/
Del Boca, F. K., Darkes, J., Greenbaum, P. E., & Goldman, M. S. (2004). Up close and personal: Temporal variability in the drinking of individual college students during their first year. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(2), 155-164.
Dobbins, G. H., Farh, J. L., and Werbel, J. D. (1993). The influence of self-monitoring and inflation of grade-point averages for research and selection purposes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 321-334.
Eigen, L. D. (1991). Alcohol practices, policies, and potentials of American colleges and universities: An OSAP White Paper.
Higher Education Center. (1997). College academic performance and alcohol and other drug use. Newton, MA: Infofacts Resources.
Humara, M. J., & Sherman, M. F. (2004). Situational determinants of alcohol abuse among Caucasian and African-American college students. Addictive Behaviors, 24(1), 135-158.
Johnston, L. D., O'Malley, P. M., & Bachman, J. G. (2000). Monitoring the future: National survey results on drug use, 1975-1999 (Vol. I. Secondary School Students) (NIH Publication No. 00-4802). Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health.
Johnston, L. D., O'Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2004). Monitoring the Future, national survey results on adolescent drug use: Overview of key findings, 2003. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health.
Kahler, C. W., Read, J. P., Wood, M. D., & Palfai, T. P. (2003). Social environmental selection as a mediator of gender, ethnic, and personality effects on college student drinking. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 17(3), 226-234.
Larimer, M. E., Turner, A. P., Mallett, K. A., & Geisner, I. M. (2004). Predicting drinking behavior and alcohol-related problems among fraternity and sorority members: Examining the role of descriptive and injunctive norms. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18(3), 203-212.
Luczak, S. E., Wall, T. L., Shea, S. H., Byun, S. M., & Carr, L. G. (2001). Binge drinking in Chinese, Korean, and White college students: Genetic and ethnic group differences. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 15(4), 306-309.
O'Malley, P. M., & Johnston, L. D. (2002). Epidemiology of alcohol and other drug use among American college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol(Suppl 14), 23-39.
Perkins, H. W. (1992). Gender patterns in consequences of collegiate alcohol abuse: A 10-year study of trends in an undergraduate population. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 53(5), 458-462.
Presley, C. A., Meilman, E W., Cashin, J. R., & Lyerla, R. (1996). Alcohol and drugs on American college campuses: Use, consequences, and perceptions of the campus environment. Volume III: 1991-1993. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Core Institute.
Presley, C. A., Meilman, P. W., & Lyerla, R. (1995). Alcohol on American college campuses: Use, consequences, and perceptions of the campus environment. (Vol. 2). Carbondale, IL: The CORE Institute Student Health Programs, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.
Read, J. P., Wood, M. D., Lejuez, C. W., Palfai, T. P., & Slack, M. (2004). Gender, alcohol consumption, and differing alcohol expectancy dimensions in college drinkers. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 12(4), 298-308.
Sher, K. J., Bartholow, B. D., & Nanda, S. (2001). Short- and long-term effects of fraternity and sorority membership on heavy drinking: a social norms perspective. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 15(1), 42-51.
Wagenaar, A. C., & Toomey, T. L. (2002). Effects of minimum drinking age laws: Review and analyses of the literature from 1960 to 2000. Journal of Studies on Alcohol Supplement, 14, 206-225.
Wechsler, H., Davenport, A., Dowdall, G., Moeykens, B., & Castillo, S. (1994). Health and behavioral consequences of binge drinking in college: A national survey of students at 140 campuses. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272(21), 1672-1677.
Wechsler, H., Dowdall, G. W., Davenport, A., & Castillo, S. (1995). Correlates of college student binge drinking. American Journal of Public Health, 85(7), 921-926.
Wechsler, H., & Isaac, N. (1991). Alcohol and the college freshman: "Binge" drinking and associated problems: A report to the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
Wechsler, H., Lee, J. E., Gledhill-Hoyt, J., & Nelson, T. E (2001). Alcohol use and problems at colleges banning alcohol: Results of a national survey. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 62, 133-141.
Wechsler, H., Lee, J. E., Nelson, T. F., & Kuo, M. (2002). Underage college students' drinking behavior, access to alcohol, and the influence of deterrence policies. Findings from the Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study. Journal of American College Health, 50(5), 223-236.
Wechsler, H., Molnar, B. E., Davenport, A. E., & Baer, J. S. (1999). College alcohol use: A full or empty glass? Journal of American College Health, 47, 247-252.
(1) Data, however, were not collected in the spring semester of 2001.
(2) Data were collected at universities with small ethnic minority populations and large White populations. Because many of the specific ethnic minority groups were too small to present a meaningful analysis, ethnic minority groups were aggregated into a single, non-White category.
(3) The Campus Alcohol Survey includes items from several scales designed to measure alcohol dependence, alcohol abuse, or both; because the survey includes an amalgamation of items from several scales the time intervals regarding the measure of behavior vary widely, e.g. two weeks, four weeks, last 30 days, and so forth.
Dexter M. Taylor, Mark B. Johnson and Robert B. Voas Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, Calverton, Maryland
Robert Turrisi Department of Biobehavioral Health & Prevention Research Center, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dexter M. Taylor, Ph.D., Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, 11710 Beltsville Drive, Suite 125, Calverton, MD 20705-3102, telephone (301) 755-2796; fax (301) 755-2799; email
TABLE 1. Percentage of Students Who Reported Binge Drinking on One or More Occasions in the Last 2 Weeks by Demographic and Social/ Academic Characteristics Binge Drinker No Yes Gender ** male 56.8 43.2 female 71.1 28.9 Race ** White 63.4 36.6 non-White 67.2 32.8 Age ** LE20 62.9 37.1 GE21 65.8 34.2 Class freshman 63.7 36.3 sophomore 63.4 36.6 junior 63.5 36.5 senior 65.0 35.0 GPA ** 3.51 thru 4.00 72.0 28.0 3.01 thru 3.50 63.8 36.3 2.51 thru 3.00 59.5 40.5 2.01 thru 2.50 54.1 45.9 LE 2.00 55.2 44.8 Greek ** No 66.3 33.7 Yes 41.5 58.5 ** Indicates differences significant with p < .01 TABLE 2. Mean Drinks or Drinking Occasions by Demographic and Social/Academic Characteristics Mean Mean Times Times Friday Saturday Drunk Binge Drinks Drinks Last 4 Wks Last 2 Wks Gender male ** 2.44 ** 2.65 ** 3.09 ** 1.39 female 1.34 1.48 1.86 0.64 Race White ** 1.89 2.02 ** 2.52 0.99 non-White 1.73 2.03 2.20 0.99 Age LE20 ** 2.05 ** 2.18 2.46 ** 1.05 GE21 1.70 1.89 2.45 0.95 Class freshman ** 2.10 ** 2.30 2.64 ** 1.16 sophomore 1.84 2.01 2.36 1.00 junior 1.77 1.96 2.44 0.95 senior 1.72 1.84 2.32 0.88 GPA 3.51 thru 4.00 ** 1.45 ** 1.56 ** 1.93 ** 0.72 3.01 thru 3.50 1.80 2.01 2.45 0.96 2.51 thru 3.00 2.05 2.19 2.61 1.10 2.01 thru 2.50 2.57 2.88 3.41 1.54 LE 2.00 3.08 3.55 3.51 1.88 Greek no ** 1.82 ** 1.97 ** 2.40 ** 0.96 yes 2.52 2.94 3.13 1.55 ** Indicates differences significant with p < .01 TABLE 3. Mean Problem Behaviors by Demographic and Academic Characteristics Mean Risk/ ALCOHOL-RELATED Count of Reckless Social PROBLEMS Problems Behavior Problems Gender male ** 3.47 ** 1.58 ** 0.99 female 2.48 1.27 0.70 Race White ** 2.85 1.40 ** 0.80 non-white 3.23 1.44 0.93 Age LE20 ** 3.16 * 1.36 ** 0.97 GE21 2.80 1.45 0.75 Class freshman ** 3.20 1.34 ** 0.99 sophomore 3.04 1.40 0.87 junior 2.88 1.46 0.79 senior 2.72 1.44 0.72 GPA 3.51 thru 4.00 ** 2.38 ** 1.13 ** 0.73 3.01 thru 3.50 2.87 1.42 0.80 2.51 thru 3.00 3.21 1.55 0.87 2.01 thru 2.50 3.80 1.79 1.08 LE 2.00 4.69 1.98 1.24 Greek No ** 2.88 ** 1.39 ** 0.82 Yes 419 1.87 1.13 Illegal/ ALCOHOL-RELATED Violent Health Secondary PROBLEMS Behavior Problems Effects Gender male ** 0.39 ** 0.54 ** 0.18 female 0.16 0.42 0.16 Race White ** 0.23 ** 0.46 0.17 non-white 0.41 0.52 0.19 Age LE20 ** 0.33 ** 0.56 ** 0.20 GE21 0.22 0.42 0.15 Class freshman ** 0.34 ** 0.58 ** 0.20 sophomore 0.31 0.49 0.18 junior 0.23 0.44 0.17 senior 0.22 0.40 0.14 GPA 3.51 thru 4.00 ** 0.23 ** 0.37 ** 0.15 3.01 thru 3.50 0.24 0.45 0.18 2.51 thru 3.00 0.30 0.53 0.19 2.01 thru 2.50 0.32 0.62 0.17 LE 2.00 0.53 0.76 0.24 Greek No ** 0.26 ** 0.46 ** 0.17 Yes 0.52 0.73 0.24 * Indicates differences significant with p < .05 ** Indicates differences significant with p < .01
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||Journal of Alcohol & Drug Education|
|Date:||Dec 1, 2006|
|Previous Article:||Selecting an alcohol and other drug prevention program in times of declining resources.|
|Next Article:||Cognitive impairment and substance abuse: implications for treatment planning.|