, .1 r.
. .4... n J
.Wruunmmfinvv
1335.3. .2
g

 

”us-UHF

 

II!
..lzlrtli?. .I
‘ll—ltk: v

 

i. l
:cnc‘.$-..lh.lo
.‘I‘ll- ll‘.‘|‘
2.... 531.1

2: 1.. ‘

..
I: ('4‘. 2?...

 

-. . . . a? ragga; .. . .dénAfluwfiéfi gig. .fiflfir

TI iESlS
'2.

(I .2 (a)

SITY LIBRARIE

llllllllllllllllll”llllllllllllllllll |

3 1293 0155

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

jllll

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

A STUDY OF THE PERCEPTION OF STUDENTS ATTENDING
A FORCED-REFERRAL ALCOHOL EDUCATION PROGRAM AND
ITS EFFECTS ON SUBSEQUENT BEHAVIOR

presented by

Paul Joseph Zelenski

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph .D. degree in Educational Administration

mam/0%;

Major pro{essor

 

Date/Q’la’“ 7;

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 042771

 

l

 

l” LIBRARY
Mlchlaan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE II RETURN BOX to roman this ohookout Irom your rooord.

TO AVOID FINES Mum on or Moro onto duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU loAn Affirmative Action/Eu Opportunity Inflation
W

”9.1

A STUDY OF THE PERCEPTION OF STUDENTS ATTENDING
A FORCED-REFERRAL ALCOHOL EDUCATION PROGRAM AND
ITS EFFECTS ON SUBSEQUENT BEHAVIOR

BY

Paul Joseph Zelenski

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

The Department of Educational Administration

1995

ABSTRACT
A STUDY OF THE PERCEPTION OF STUDENTS ATTENDING

A FORCED-REFERRAL ALCOHOL EDUCATION PROGRAM AND
ITS EFFECTS ON SUBSEQUENT BEHAVIOR

BY
Paul Joseph Zelenski

Many colleges and universities have attempted to
address the issue of alcohol misuse and abuse by developing
comprehensive programs that typically contain the following
components: policy enforcement, education and prevention,
referral and treatment, and evaluation and research.
Programmatic efforts to address alcohol use have received
mixed reviews in terms of success. Most professionals agree
that not enough evaluation has been done to conclusively
determine what works.

The purpose of this study was to determine if a
particular aspect of the policy enforcement component - the
forced-referral alcohol education program, contributed to
changing the behavior of its participants. The following
questions were developed to determine if a forced-referral
program at a large public institution changed subsequent
behavior: (1) Does a forced-referral alcohol education
program effect drinking behavior as it relates to not

getting caught again violating university regulations?

(2)Are there other factors that contributed to a student not
entering the discipline system again after attending a
forced-referral program? (3) Did alcohol use patterns
change as a result of attending the forced-referral alcohol
education program? (4) If the forced-referral program
contributed to a student not reentering the judicial system,
or changing their rate of alcohol consumption, what was it
about the program that changed the student's behavior?

This perception study involved 52 participants who took
part in telephone interviews. Participants attended a
forced-referral program.during the 1992-1993 academic year.
Responses from the interviews where categorized to provide
descriptive data to allow for conclusions to be made.

It was found that very few participants in the study
(n=4) believed the experience contributed to a reduction in
alcohol consumption, which in turn led to not reentering the
discipline system. Twenty-two participants reported that
the program was reason for not getting caught violating a
university regulation. After a two-year period, 13 students
believed the program had a lasting effect on their alcohol
consumption. There were no overriding aspects of the
forced-referral program that contributed to a positive

behavior change.

This dissertation is dedicated to my
wonderful wife and two daughters who have
provided consistent and unconditional support
and love during my graduate program. They I

are my inspiration.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am forever indebted to the members of my program
committee, Dr. Will Baker, Dr. Marvin Grandstaff, and Dr.
Samuel Moore who have provided support and guidance. A very
special and sincere thank you to my major professor, Dr.
Louis Hekhuis, who has been patient, supportive, and
insightful throughout the duration of my graduate program
and for more than twelve years. I would also like to
acknowledge my professional colleagues who have endured this
journey with me especially, Ms.Marie Hansen, Dr. Patricia

Enos, Mr. K. Pete Marvin, and Dr. Phil Gardner.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES............................................ix
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION............................... ...... 1
Statement of the Problem.........................2
Purpose of the Study.............................5
Research Questions...............................9
Definition of Terms.............................10
Delimitations........ ......................... ..11
Order of Presentation...........................11
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.................. ...... 13
Alcohol Use, Misuse, and Abuse
On College Campuses.................. ...... 14
Frequency of Alcohol Use
by College Students...................15
Characteristics of College Students
Who Drink Excessively... ...... ........18
Influence of Peers on Student Alcohol Use..20
College and University Responses
to Alcohol Use........................22
Policy/Enforcement........ ........ .........23
Education/Prevention .................. .....25
Treatment/Referral.........................27

Research/Evaluation........................28

vi

III.

IV.

The Effectiveness of Alcohol Education

Programs..............................29
The Purpose of Student Discipline

and Sanctions.................. ....... 38
The Effectiveness of Mandatory Alcohol

Education Programs............. ..... ..41
Summary of the Review of the Literature.........44
METHODS.........................................46
Introduction....................................46
Research Design............... ............... ...46
Methodological Assumption.......................49
Materials.......................................50
Data Collection.................................51
Data Analysis...................................52
Limitations.....................................55
RESULTS.........................................57
Introduction........................... ....... ..57
Research Question 1.............................58
Research Question 2.............................62
Research Question 3.............................67
Research Question 4....................... ...... 73
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR

FURTHER RESEARCH...........................77

Introduction........... ............... . ....... ..77
Summary of the Purpose..........................77
Summary of the Methodology......................79
Summary of the Results and Related Conclusions..80

vii

Research Question 1........................80
Research Question 2........ ..... . .......... 82
Research Question 3 ..... . .................. 83
Research Question 4........................85
Overall Conclusions of the Study................88
Implications for Further Study..................90
Final Reflections...............................91
APPENDICES
A. Letter to the Judicial Affairs Office at
Michigan State University .................93
B. Narrative and Code Number Sheet Used By
Judicial Affairs Staff Member..............94
C. Interview Instrument and Response Sheet ......... 95
D. Letter to the Judicial Affairs Office
Requesting Grad Point Average Data.... ..... 99
E. Letter from the University Committee on
Research Involving Human Subjects.........100

LIST OFREFERENCESOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0....0.00.00.00.00101

viii

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Percentage of Students Reporting Number of

Drinks Consumed Per Week...................17
Frequency of Binge Drinking Episodes by

College Students Over a Two-Week Period....l7
Summary of Research of Voluntary Alcohol

Education Programs.........................34
Frequency of Violations that Caused the

Respondents to be Required to Attend

the Program................................59
Frequency of Responses Listing the Ways the

AES Was a Reason for Not Getting Caught

Violating Another University Regulation....61
Percentages for Reasons Given for Not Getting

Caught Violating a Another University

Regulation After Attending the AES.........63
Contingency Table of Grade Point Averages and

Effect of the AES..........................65
Percentage and Frequency of the Number of

Drinks Per Week at the Time of the

InterView...O....0...0.0.0.000000000000000068

ix

10.

11.

12.

Percentage and Frequency of the Reasons Given as
an Explanation of Why Alcohol Consumption Has
Changed....................................69

Contingency Table of the Reasons Given for a
Change In Alcohol Consumption Based Upon
Whether Alcohol Consumption Went Up, Down,
or Stayed the Same.........................71

Frequency Responses of Ways the AES Effected
Rate of Consumption........................72

Frequency Responses Identifying the Aspects of
the AES that Contributes to a Change in

Rate Of consmptionoooooooooo0.00000000000074

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The majority of colleges and universities in the United
States have alcohol and other drug education programs
designed to reduce the incidence of misuse and abuse
(Anderson and Gadeleto, 1985). Even with all of these
programmatic efforts to reduce alcohol consumption, students
still report consuming, on average, five drinks per week
(Presley, Meilman, and Lyerla, 1993). Consequence to the
individual and the campus environment from excessive use of
alcohol and other drugs continues to plague institutions of
higher education. For example, more than 50% of the 52,000
students participating in a national alcohol and other drug
survey, reported experiencing nausea or vomiting, over the
past year, as a result of excessive use. More than 28%
reported a memory loss in the past year as a result alcohol
or other drug use. Almost 40% of the respondents indicated
that they did something they later regretted as a result of

alcohol or other drug use. Alarmingly, more than 35%

1

2
stated that within the past year, they had driven a car
while under the influence of alcohol (Presley et al., 1993).
Are campus alcohol and other drug education efforts
influencing the decrease of any of the behaviors associated
with alcohol use?

The researcher's purpose of this perception study was
to attempt to examine the effectiveness of a particular
aspect of a comprehensive alcohol education program, the
forced-referral alcohol education program. This type of
program is being implemented by an increasing number of
colleges and universities. The researcher sought to
determine if the forced-referral program is perceived, by
the participants, being effective at changing subsequent

student behavior.

WW

Consumption of alcohol by college and university
students is not a new phenomenon. Some historians have been
able to trace alcohol use by college students back to Greco-
Roman history when students would interact with teachers to
discuss the great issues of the day (Goodale, 1986). While
rates of consumption are not available from those ancient
times, quantitative alcohol use data from the twentieth
century, most notably the later part of the century, are
well reported. Blane and Hewitt (1977) compiled alcohol use

rates over three periods during the 1960's and 1970's. They

3
found from a review of the research literature that pre-
1966, 78% of male students reported alcohol use, while 71%
of female students reported alcohol use. From the 1966 to
1970 period 92% of the male students reported alcohol use,
while 90% of the female students reported use. Finally from
1971 to 1975, 89% of the males reported alcohol use, and 84%
of the females reported use of alcohol.

Most recent findings from a national survey of more
than 52,000 current college students indicates that 85%
percent of men report alcohol use one or more times in the
past year, while 85.3% of women report alcohol use at least
once in the past year (Presley, et al., 1993). It is
important to note that the cited consumption rates all
illustrate the number of students who have consumed at least
one alcoholic drink within an established period of time
(one year). An accurate understanding of the extent of the
alcohol use problem of college students requires an
investigation of the degree to which alcohol is currently
misused or abused on college campuses.

Presley, Meilman, and Lyerla's (1993) data reveals an
alarming number of college and university students are
misusing and abusing alcohol. One in ten students from
four-year institutions consume sixteen or more drinks per
week. More than one third of the students reported having
driven under the influence of alcohol in the past year. A
large number of students (41.8 %) report incidents of binge

drinking. Binge drinking is defined as consumption of five

4
or more drinks in one sitting within the past two weeks.

The by-products of the previously identified rates of
consumption result in negative consequences that affect the
individual student and the college or university
environment. Behaviors ranging from.missed classes and
academic difficulties to destruction of property; physical
and verbal assault to serious injury and sometimes even
death (Goodale, 1986; Presley et al., 1993).

Wilsnak and Wilsnak (1982) state that people are all
too familiar with the degree to which young people are
drinking. They ask an important question: What can colleges
and universities do about drinking, and what should they do?
A review of the literature would suggest that higher
education institutions should provide a comprehensive,
systematic, effective program to deal with alcohol-related
problems on campus (Wilsnak and Wilsnak, 1982; Gonzalez,
1986; Upcraft and Eck, 1986) Additionally, the literature
indicates that during the 19308 alcohol education programs
on college campuses were increasing at a rapid rate to
respond to the growing concern of alcohol use and abuse
(Ingalls, 1982; Anderson and Gadeleto, 1985).

While programs to respond to drinking problems on
campus were on the rise, researchers began to ask whether
these programs were making any difference in the behavior of
college students as it related to consumption and negative
consequences. Gonzalez (1986), suggests that questions

remain about the ability of alcohol education programs to

5
reduce the incidence of alcohol-related problems. Some
studies indicate that programs designed to respond to
excessive alcohol use on campuses have proven effective in
increasing awareness and, to a lesser extent, in improving
attitudes about alcohol use. However, these same programs
have yet to indicate any positive behavioral change.
(Berkowitz, and Perkins, 1987). The question remains: what
components, if any, of a comprehensive alcohol education
program, effect the behaviors exhibited by students as a

result of drinking?

W

The Temperance Movement of the 1800s, prohibition in
the 19208 and the early 1930s, national organizations such
as the National Council on Alcoholism, and the National
Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism have all made
attempts to the address the behaviors associated with our
society's abuse of alcohol. On college and university
campuses across the country, not much was done to deal
effectively with the consequences of excessive alcohol use
by students prior to 1960. However, even then a common
response to student misuse or abuse of alcohol resulted in
meeting with the dean who would impose some kind of
disciplinary action (Fischer, 1987).

During the 1974-75 academic year, Hewitt (1977)

6
conducted a study to identify college and university
responses to student alcohol use. He found that only 15% of
the institutions reviewed had implemented any type of
organized alcohol education program as an attempt to change
behavior. As stated earlier, alcohol education programs did
not begin to appear in significant numbers on campuses
across the country until the 19803 (Ingalls, 1982; Anderson
and Gadeleto, 1985). Even before the 1980s, efforts to
change behavior of students misusing and abusing alcohol
through alcohol education were called into question. Engs
(1977) indicated that during the past 100 years there have
been a wide variety of philosophies and approaches to
address excessive drinking, however, most of the programs
have done little to change the drinking habits of our
nation. Many of the programs are thrust upon students
without being thoroughly evaluated as to their effects in
changing knowledge, attitude and behavior (Engs, 1977).
Engs (1977) has been quick to point out that an increase in
knowledge, through attendance at an alcohol education
program, does not necessarily change behavior.

A November 1988 article in the Ch;gnig1g_gfi_fligh§;
Education suggests that professionals in higher education
trying to eliminate excessive use of alcohol, reported a
"tremendous desire to learn what works." In that article
Gerardo Gonzalez a professor of counseling psychology at the
University of Florida, and a recognized national leader in

alcohol education on college and university campuses,

7
believes that institutions of higher education are throwing
away millions of dollars on well intentioned efforts and
programs without knowing what works.

The findings of a review of the literature show a
contradiction of whether aspects of alcohol education
efforts by colleges and universities changes subsequent
student behavior. Consistent in the literature is that
further investigation and evaluation needs to occur to
determine the effectiveness of alcohol and other drug
education efforts.

Fulton and Spooner (1987) suggest that alcohol
awareness education and prevention activities may be
"extremely" effective over the long term if viewed in a
cultural context. Our society has witnessed cultural
changes in the form of new norms such as requiring
alternative drinks at parties, and an increase in popularity
of non-alcoholic beer. Our values have also changed to
include more strict laws governing alcohol use and harsher
penalties for violation of alcohol related laws and policies
(Fulton and Spooner, 1987). Voluntary alcohol education
programs have indicated that behavior may be effected.

Chen, Dosch and Cychosz (1982) found that negative behaviors
such as driving under the influence of alcohol and heavy
drinking (more than fifteen drinks per week), decreased
after attending a voluntary alcohol education program.
Sadler and Scott (1993) found that after students attended a

first offenders program at Florida State University,

8
recidivism rate dropped from 4.5% to 0.2%. The researchers
were quick to point out that there could have been many
factors that could be responsible for the drop in recidivism
rates, and only suggested that one of them could have been
the first offender program.

More researchers found that alcohol education efforts
may affect knowledge and to a lesser degree attitude, but
have no effect on subsequent behavior (Dennison, 1977;
Kinder, et a1, 1980; Portnoy, 1980; Gonzalez, 1982; Hanson,
1982; Ingalls, 1984; Baines, 1984; Kraft, 1988; Magner,
1988). Dennison (1977) states that research on alcohol
education has not received sufficient attention to determine
behavioral impact.

One of the difficulties in effectively evaluating
college and university alcohol education efforts is that
typically they are multifaceted, or comprehensive, and it is
hard to determine what parts of a campus program, if any,
contribute to any kind of behavior change. A comprehensive
program reaches the entire college or university community.
Often a comprehensive program embodies: assessment and
research, policy and law enforcement, education, treatment
and referral, promotion of non—alcohol activities, and
curriculum infusion to name a few (Rapaport and Bryan,
1991).

The researcher in this dissertation concentrated on the
policy enforcement aspect of a comprehensive program and a

corresponding sanction of sending a student to a forced

9
referral alcohol education program. The forced—referral
program.was examined to determine what effect, if any, it
has on a perceived positive behavior change. There were two
overriding reasons for concentrating on the forced referral
program as an approach to attaining positive behavior
change. First, in a 1979 survey of 165 colleges and
universities, it was found that between 20% and 60% of
judiciary problems on campus were alcohol related (Anderson
and Gadeleto, 1979). Second, Flynn and Brown (1991) found
more and more campuses use mandatory or forced-referral
programs. This special condition is often used as a result
of a student entering into the campus judicial system
because of getting caught violating an alcohol regulation,
or violating a regulation while under the influence of
alcohol. Evaluation of college-based mandatory alcohol
education programs has been found to be virtually
nonexistent (Flynn and Brown, 1991). In an effort to
contribute to the existing research on forced—referral

programs, the following questions were addressed.

Researcuuestions

1. Does a forced-referral alcohol education program effect

drinking behavior as it relates to not getting caught

again violating university regulations?

10
2. Are there other factors that contributed to a student
not entering the discipline system again after

attending a forced-referral program?

3. Did alcohol use patterns change as a result of
attending the forced-referral alcohol education

program?

4. If the forced-referral program contributed to a student
not reentering the judicial system, or changing their
rate of alcohol consumption, what was it about the

program that changed the student's behavior?

I E' 'l' E

Abuse of Alcohol - patterns of drinking which indicate a
growing problem of substance use and a
consistent pattern of negative

consequences

Alcoholic Drinks - a drink is equal to 12 ounces of beer,
which is equal to 4-5 ounces of wine,
which is equal to a wine cooler, which
is equal to one and one half ounces of

80 proof liquor

ll

Forced Referral - a program.which requires mandatory
Alcohol Education attendance as a result of getting caught

Program violating a university regulation

Misuse of Alcohol — an isolated drinking incident which
resulted is a negative consequence for
the individual or persons surrounding

the individual

I 1. °! !'

The focus of this study pertained only to students
attending Michigan State University. The reader should not
conclude that Michigan State University students are
representative of students who attend other large public

institutions.

W

Chapter I includes the identification of the problem, and
the purpose of the investigation and corresponding
delimitations. Chapter II provides a review of the

pertinent literature to assist in identifying the important

12
elements of the study. Chapter III explains the research
design and the methodology used to analyze data. Chapter IV
provides the results of the analysis. Finally, Chapter V
provides the summary and conclusions drawn from the

investigation, and possible future implications.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The review of the literature includes four related
areas of review: First, the issue of alcohol use on college
campuses will be addressed including efforts that are made
to address alcohol misuse and abuse on college campuses.
Second, the effectiveness of alcohol education programs as
it relates to changing student behavior. Third, the purpose
of student discipline, which includes sanctions resulting
from violating university regulations. Finally, and most
specifically, alcohol education programs aimed at changing
student behavior after having violated college or university

regulations will be examined.

13

14

 

Alcohol use in American society can be associated with
both negative and positive aspects of a person‘s life.
While alcohol can be a part of celebrations and victories,
it is also associated with car crashes and destroyed
families. Thomas Goodale (1986) writes that alcohol has
been a source of both enjoyment and harm since the beginning
of recorded history. It has been associated with ritual and
tradition, and used to ease tension and generate social
interaction. He goes on to explain that alcohol has also
contributed significantly to destruction as a result of
irresponsible use. On college campuses this dichotomy of
enjoyment and harm also exists. For many students, drinking
is viewed as a positive social facilitator that is a part of
growing up while at college. Yet administrators and others
are concerned about the visible results of irresponsible use
such as vandalism and accidents (Goodale, 1986). Upcraft
and Welty (1990) write that colleges and universities are
increasingly paying the price for excessive use of alcohol.
Academic difficulties, property damage, discipline problems,
hazing, assaults, rape, and campus arrests are all outcomes
resulting from excessive use of alcohol.

In 1987, Sherry and Stolberg conducted a review of

pertinent literature to attempt to identify the variables

15
that contribute to college student abuse of alcohol; they
found that there were four.
. Family and peer influence.

Knowledge of the effects of alcohol.

Attitudes toward alcohol.

«sonny-
O

. Expectations about the reinforcing qualities of alcohol
use.
The most consistent and potent predictor of frequency of
alcohol consumption is peer pressure. Behavioral
consequences of alcohol use were found to be related to
responsible attitudes toward alcohol, peer pressure, and
knowledge of the effects of alcohol on the body (Sherry and
Stolberg, 1987). Sherry and Stolberg, (1987) hypothesize
that the presence of responsible attitudes toward alcohol
use may be a buffer against the occurrence of negative
attitudes. A review of the extent of college student use of

alcohol follows.

WW1:

Alcohol is clearly the most widely used drug on college
campuses (Presley, Meilman and Lyerla, 1993; Johnston,
O'Malley, and Bachman, 1990). College students typically
consume more alcohol than their non-college counterparts
(Johnston et al., 1990). Estimates of the number of students
who drink range from 75 to 85 percent (Hughes and Dodder,
1983; Presley, et a1. 1993; Johnston, et al., 1990). Engs

and Hanson (1985) found that in a survey of college students

16
from every state in the nation, 81.9% reported drinking at
least once in the past year. These percentages include
those students who may only consume a drink once or twice a
year. A national study conducted by Cheryl Presley and
associates, involving more than 58,000 students completing
the Core Alcohol and Drug Survey, found that students report
consuming an average of five drinks per week. Table 1
indicates the percentage of students reporting number of
drinks consumed per week.

Typically, consequences from drinking results when
students consume excessive amounts of alcohol. Frequency of
use is positively associated with drinking problems (Werch,
Gorman, and Marty, 1987). Binge drinking, defined as the
consumption of five or more drinks in one sitting, is of
major concern on college campuses. More than 41 percent of
students report binge drinking within a two week period
(Presley, et al.,1993). Table 2 identifies the frequency of
drinking episodes over a two week period.

Presley et. a1. (1993) findings indicate that more than
20% of the respondents to the survey consume fifteen or more
drinks in a two week period. A student who binge drinks six
times in a two week period will have consumed at least 30
drinks. Considering that the results of the survey are self
reported, one might assume that actual numbers of
frequencies of drinking may be larger. The negative
consequences for students who consume dangerous amounts of

alcohol are clear. Typically students with lower grade

17

Table 11

  
  

  
  

 

 

' ' .14“.‘."5.:':E;.§*fl§i -:;f"~r'1':12?5i"=’:vVii-‘1 17*‘~';“"I-*i‘
.1;;““*W31Total**N*537

     

.34237=v3~**
‘None or one
2 to 5 22.0
6 to 9 7.0
10 tO 15 10.2

16 tO 20 3.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'21 or more 5.3

Table 22

 

 

    
    

'""*~*::::....1tf.;.5.5.."222::?<*

   

 

 

 

3 to 5 12.1
6 tO 9 4.1

10 or more 2.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1Presley, C.A., Meilman, P. W., and Lyerla, R. Alcohol
..o I‘o: o. ;u' .0 e ‘9‘ .119 “° - e. ’o“. -
, 1, Southern
Illinois University for the 0.8. Department of Education,

1993.

2Presley, C.A., Meilman, P. W., and Lyerla, R. Alcohol

-.o .‘0‘ e. ;u‘ .0 e ‘0 on. ‘-' .0 "l‘. '

and_2erssnt1ons_of_the_9amnns_Environment. 1. Southern
Illinois University for the U.S. Department of Education,
1993.

18
point averages (GPAs) consume more alcohol(Engs and Hansen,
1985). College students with GPAs of D or F drink three
times as much as those who earn an A grade (National Council
on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, 1993, Presley et.al.,
1993). Brown (1989) found that students on academic
probation drink more than students who are not on probation.
Almost half of the college students who said they had been
victims of crime admitted that had used drugs or alcohol

before the crime occurred (NCAAD, 1993).

’{ a _ '; . ; . . ‘9- !_’ ; ‘.. . ." ‘ -::. -
Students at four-year institutions tend to consume more
alcohol than their two-year institution counterparts.
Students attending institutions with less than 2500 students
tend to consume more alcohol (Presley et. al.,1993). Among
binge drinkers, there is little difference between the
percentage of men (14.0%) and women(14.2%) who binge drink
infrequently (once in the last two weeks). However, the
more frequent the episodes of binge drinking the more likely
it is to be a male (Presley et. al., 1993; Kuh, 1992).
Hanson and Engs (1986), in a comparison study of students
from seventy-two colleges from two separate academic years
(1982-83 and 1984-85) found that males, particularly white
males experienced more problems than their female
counterparts. Consistently, men experience more negative
consequences as a result of excessive drinking than women.

Wechsler and McFadden (1979), reported that of the men they

19
studied from colleges an universities in New England, 25% of
the men stated that they had been in trouble with
authorities after drinking. In the same study, 20% of the
men indicated that they had been in a fight after drinking,
and 43% shared that they had said or done something that
they normally would not have done while sober.

Male and female college students also report different
reasons for experiencing problems from drinking (Wright,
1983). When college freshmen, who indicated that they had a
drinking problem, were asked why they believed they had a
problem, males indicated that problems resulted from
perceived parental anger and over permissiveness. Men also
reported conflicts with and between parents, delinquent
behavior, and feelings of being unproductive and tired as
reasons for their drinking problem (Wright, 1983). On the
-other hand, female freshmen students believed reasons for
their problem drinking are related to parental rejection,
parental depression, poor mother-daughter relationships, and
maternal drinking or drug abuse problems (Wright, 1983).

The relationship between academic performance and
substance use was reported earlier showing that the amount a
student drinks negatively influences grade point average.
Interestingly, many students are not aware of this negative
relationship. Researchers at the University of Iowa showed
that only 7 percent of the students surveyed believed they
had lower grades as a result of drinking (Eigen, 1991).

There also may be a relationship between academic majors and

20
substance use. In a study of 113 undergraduate students,
LeMay (1968) reported that students who choose business,
technology, humanities, and social sciences as majors tend
to consume more alcohol.

Eigen (1991) also reports that heavy drinking is most
prevalent among white men in the 18 to 29 age category.
Black males of the same age category have a lower incidence
of problem drinking. Black females are more likely to drink
less than their white counterparts. Hispanic males tend to
have more alcohol related problems than their white or black
counterparts. Among Native Americans, there are different
drinking patterns between tribes, however alcohol related
problems affect Native Americans, in general, more seriously

than others (Eigen, 1991).

W

When traditional age (18—25 year old) students enter
college for the first time they are afforded a great amount
of freedom and opportunity. Peer pressure on college and
university campuses can be positive, yet often works
negatively (Hitchcock and Oliver, 1986). Gaining acceptance
from peers is often a problem for freshmen. When students
leave home for the first time and are placed in an
environment that is intellectually and socially pressured,
alcohol becomes a way to ease anxieties and to feel
"connected" to the world in which they now live. (Commission

on Substance Abuse at Colleges and Universities, 1994).

21

The attitudes of college students are very heavily
influenced by the behaviors and activities of their peers.
College students accept levels of drinking by peers that
markedly exceed what experts define as excessive drinking
(Posavac, 1993). Because of the desire to be accepted by
their friends, the amount and frequency a student drinks is
often influenced by what the student heligxgs their peers
are doing in relation alcohol use (Commission on Substance
Abuse at Colleges and Universities, 1994). In 1986, Perkins
and Berkowitz conducted a study of undergraduates at a
liberal arts college and found that students' perception of
the amount and frequency of alcohol use was much more
extreme than the actual rate of consumption. When students
were asked about their own attitudes about drinking, about
14 percent put themselves in what Perkins and Berkowitz
described as a "conservative camp," 66 percent of the
respondents put themselves in a "moderate position," and 19
percent categorized themselves as "permissive" in relation
to alcohol use. When the same students were asked to give
their impression of the general student norm on drinking,
using the same response categories, virtually no one
perceived the norm to be conservative, only about one-third
chose a moderate response and almost two-thirds (63%) saw
their peers on campus as having a permissive attitude about
drinking (Perkins and Berkowitz, 1986). Portnoy (1980)
supports Perkins and Berkowitz assertion that the

"perceived" world of the individual determines the actions

22
of the person, not the actual physical environment. It
would appear then, that peer pressure is influenced by what
students think their friends are doing in relation to
alcohol use, rather than the actual behavior or attitude

(Perkins, 1992).

: J] i H . '! E ! E] l J H

The report from the Commission on Substance Abuse
(1994) states that over the past ten years campus-based
efforts to eliminate the irresponsible use of alcohol has
grown dramatically. Alcohol and other drug programs on
college and university campuses are designed to:

1. educate students about alcohol and the relationship
between consumption and negative consequences;

2. combat the ”nothing-to-do-but-drink' syndrome by
providing attractive alternative activities;

3. counsel and treat students who have problems and

4. intervene with students who exhibit alcohol problems.

(Ingalls, 1982)

Most professionals agree that a comprehensive alcohol and
other drug programs include the following components:
policy/enforcement; education/prevention; treatment/referral
and research/evaluation (Bryan, 1982; Gonzalez, 1986,
Rapaport and Bryan, 1988; Upcraft and Welty, 1990). A

description of each of these components follows.

23

W
The development of alcohol policies is an important

part of a comprehensive campus alcohol education program

(Gonzalez, 1987). When developing policies to address

alcohol use on college campuses, institutions usually must

choose to enforce either complete abstinence or elimination,
support responsible moderation, or attempt to reduce
consequences (Commission on Substance Abuse at Colleges and

Universities, 1994). Policy enforcement approaches vary

from institution to institution.

Rapaport and Bryan (1991) suggest that campus policies
and the enforcement of policies must:

1. maintain consistency with Federal, State and local
laws;

2. promote an educational environment free from substance
abuse;

3. define geographic jurisdictions and demographic
characteristic of populations to be governed;

4. define individual behavior and group activity that are
prohibited both on campus and at off-campus events
controlled by institutions;

5. specify the potential consequences for using or
possessing different amounts and/or categories of
alcohol and other drugs;

6. establish protocols and procedures for the involvement
of campus law enforcement and other campus entities;

7. establish protocols and procedures for referring

24
individuals with alcohol and other drug problems to
appropriate sources of assistance;
8. define campus guidelines on marketing alcoholic
beverages; and
9. define appropriate guidelines for any sanctioned use of

alcohol.

Upcraft and Welty (1990) are consistent with Rapaport
and Bryan, yet more concise. They (Upcraft and Welty)
suggest those campus policies addressing alcohol and other
drug use must be consistent with State and local laws. The
policies must address both individual and group behavior,
and address both on-campus and off-campus behavior.
Consequences for inappropriate behavior must be made clear
and the policies must apply to all campus property and to
events controlled by the institution.

While it is important for colleges and universities to
have alcohol policies that are consistent and follow laws,
a policy is only as effective as the extent to which it is
enforced. Colleges and universities have a responsibility
to enforce policies. Failure to do so reduces such policies
and regulations to "window dressing" and counters any real
commitment to eliminating problems associated with alcohol
use (Upcraft and Welty, 1990). When institutional policies
prohibit alcohol use, it is incumbent upon the institution
to explain and discuss with students the rationale for such

policies. Moreover, when students are involved in the

25
formulation of policies, greater support is given to the
enforcement of the rules and regulations (Bryan, 1982).
However, in a study of undergraduate students, Britain and
Roberge (1988) found that 80 percent of the respondents said
that the alcohol policy did not change their drinking
behavior, and that 39% indicated that alcohol policies had
no effect on the perception of alcohol use on campus.
Finally, regardless of the effectiveness of policy
enforcement, Upcraft and Welty (1990) point out that
enforcement of alcohol and other drug regulations is no
longer a matter of choice for colleges and universities,

rather it is a matter of law.

El !° [F !'
While the enforcement of alcohol policies is important,
policies are only one part of a thorough approach to address
problems associated with alcohol use (Nelson, 1987).
Prevention and education efforts within a comprehensive
alcohol and other drug program are intended to prevent a
problem from occurring and provide accurate alcohol and
other drug information so that it can be used for individual
decision making (Rapaport and Bryan, 1991). Alcohol
education and prevention programs often try to persuade a
target group that the physical and social consequences of
alcohol use are extensive, that every drinker is vulnerable,
that no one is immune, and that moderation or abstinence is

an effective way to avoid these unwanted consequences

26
(Gonzalez, 1986).

Prevention and education efforts are often categorized
into three levels: Primary efforts, which target an entire
population; Secondary efforts, which focus on individuals at
risk for developing alcohol problems; and the Tertiary
efforts, which focus prevention efforts on problem drinkers
(Berkowitz and Perkins, 1987; Upcraft and Welty, 1990; CAS
Standards, 1990; Linney and Wandersman, 1991). Additionally,
Berkowitz and Perkins (1987) suggest two approaches to
prevention on college campuses. The first or "traditional
approach" focuses on changing individual awareness or
attitudes and on developing policies and regulations to
regulate alcohol consumption. Alcohol education program
coordinators and college and university administrators have
increasingly recognized the lack of effectiveness of such
programs and consequently have looked to a new approach that
focuses on peer-oriented strategies that focus on the
"social ecology" of the campus dynamics as it relates to
alcohol use (Berkowitz and Perkins, 1987).

Examples of primary prevention efforts of this second
approach would include an alcohol education component in
orientation programs, and a consistent alcohol education
program throughout the academic year. These consistent
programs usually include the extensive use of peers.
Secondary prevention efforts would include training faculty,
staff, and students for early warning signs of an alcohol

problem. Tertiary efforts would include counseling and

27
treatment for addicted students or problem drinkers (Upcraft

and Welty, 1990).

Ireatmsntlnafsrral

Colleges and universities should have a system for
referral and treatment for students who are in trouble as a
result of their use of alcohol (Upcraft and Welty, 1990).
The first step is to provide intervention strategies that
are designed to correct what is seen as group deviance and
to encourage students to avoid behavior that is self-
destructive (Miller, Pfaffenberger, and McCarty, 1981).
Typically, institutions of higher education address
assistance for students with alcohol problems in ways which
will include provisions for treatment, referral, aftercare
and support groups (Rapaport and Bryan, 1988). It is widely
believed that colleges should not be in a position of
providing long-term treatment, but should have resources
available for alcohol counseling (Upcraft and Welty, 1990:
CAS Standards, 1990). Peer counseling, under professional
supervision, of students with alcohol and other drug
problems is becoming a valuable resource for many campuses.
It is believed that 46% of colleges are utilizing peer
counseling (Eigen, 1991). Student assistance programs
should identify and maintain contacts with campus and
community agencies which offer treatment services to
students (CAS Standards, 1990). Many institutions also have

many support groups in place (Eigen, 1991). Support groups

28
can include twelve step groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous,
programs for co-dependents and adult children of alcoholics

(Rapaport and Bryan, 1988).

W

The CAS (Council for the Advancement of Standards for
Student Services/Development Programs) Standards (1990)
clearly state that there must be systematic and consistent
research and evaluation of alcohol programs on college
campuses. Research and evaluation is important in
determining whether the educational goals and needs of the
student population are being met. The conclusions that are
drawn from effectively evaluating programs should be used to
revise and continuously improve the initiatives of a
comprehensive alcohol and other drug program (CAS Standards,
1990). Further, gathering information for assessment,
evaluation, and research purposes allows a program to be
developed and improved based upon a clear understanding of
the circumstances or issues that are present at that
particular college or university (Rapaport and Bryan, 1988).

In addition to the importance of evaluating alcohol and
other drug program initiatives, institutions of higher
education are in a position to conduct research to yield
greater insight into issues related to alcohol and other
drug use that would be valuable to the larger society
(Upcraft and Welty, 1990).

There are three reasons for evaluating alcohol

29
education efforts. The first is that there is a growing
demand for accountability. If an alcohol education program
shows effectiveness, support, in the form of resources is
more likely to occur (Dean and Dean, 1982). Secondly,
evaluation allows practitioners to have a better
understanding of the impact of their efforts. Third, the
implementors of a comprehensive alcohol and other drug

program must know what works (Dean and Dean, 1982).

1 EEE !' E E] l 1 El !°

“What works" continues to be a dilemma for many
colleges and universities as they examine the effectiveness
of their efforts to curb alcohol abuse and misuse. At a
societal level, Fulton and Spooner (1987) suggest that
perhaps from a cultural context, alcohol awareness and
education programs, prevention activities may be effective
over the long term. As evidence they point to cultural
changes in the form of new norms (i.e., requiring
alternative drinks at parties, non-alcoholic beer,
designated driver programs) and values reflected in
institutional policies. Yet, Fulton and Spooner ask a very
fundamental question: Can colleges and universities teach,
and students learn, responsible drinking? In 1977 Ruth Engs

states, . . . during the past 100 years there have been a

wide variety of alcohol education philosophies. However,

30
most of these programs have done little to change the
drinking habits of our nation (Engs, 1977)."

At many institutions of higher education, alcohol
education programs are thrust upon students without being
thoroughly evaluated as to their effects in changing
knowledge, attitudes, and most importantly behavior (Engs,
1977). In a study of college administrators, it was found
that only 24% report that alcohol education programs have
improved their campus environment. In fact, 35% of those
surveyed indicated an increase in alcohol use despite
significant programmatic efforts to decrease misuse and
abuse. Forty one percent reported no change in the campus
environment (Magner, 1988).

Research supporting the effectiveness of alcohol
programs is limited (Dennison, 1977). Even with limited
success, Goodstadt and Caleekal (1984) suggest that campus-
based alcohol education programs as opposed to other alcohol
programs appear to be better designed, and more concerned
with determining effectiveness in relation to behavior
change. The following is a summary of the studies conducted
to examine the effectiveness of voluntary alcohol education
programs on college and university campuses. A review of
studies that are mandatory or forced-referral programs,which
are most closely related to this current study, will take
place at the conclusion of this chapter. As the
effectiveness of programs is measured, it is important to

acknowledge that an increase in knowledge about alcohol use

31
does not necessarily change behavior (Engs, 1977).

Generally, alcohol programs that are voluntary show
some impact on a student's knowledge and attitude about
alcohol. The studies which report any behavior change are
minimal.

There is some evidence that experiential voluntary
alcohol education programs have shown positive behavior
change. Goodstadt and Caleekal (1984), conducted a review
of alcohol education programs. They found that programs are
more likely to be effective if they include field or
laboratory experiences, as well as factual and experiential
strategies. They suggest that more effective programs occur
over an extended period of time. Behavior change is more
likely to be evident if the experiences of the students are
intense, require a significant amount of input on the part
of the participant who has spent a large amount of hours
with the program over an extended period of time (Goodstadt
and Caleekal, 1984). Experiential programs are more likely
to fail if there is inadequate conceptualization, poor
content or process development, unsatisfactory
implementation, and inappropriate program evaluation
(Goodstadt and Caleekal, 1984).

Rozelle (1980) studied the effectiveness of a ten-week
alcohol education two credit course. Rozelle attempted to
measure effectiveness based upon two approaches. One was a
cognitive approach which involved teaching accurate factual

information. The second approach involved experiential

32
learning such as field experiments and observations. Both
approaches increased awareness about alcohol use issues, and
lessened the negative consequences when compared to a
control group. The experiential approach consistently
scored higher in responsible attitudes and lower, which is
positive, in negative consequences (Rozelle, 1980).

Chen, Dosch, and Cychosz (1982) studied the impact of a
voluntary alcohol education program.which was part of a
campus's alcohol education week. They attempted to measure
behavior change over a short period of time. They found
that of those who participated in the program, there was a
significant improvement in drinking attitudes and impact on
two specific behaviors - driving under the influence of
alcohol, and a reduction of heavy drinking, which was
defined as more than fifteen drinks a week.

Kivlahan (1990) conducted a study of students who
volunteered to participate in an eight-week education
program for social drinkers who wanted to learn more about
or to change their drinking behavior. The participants were
divided into three groups based on instruction approaches.
The first group was an alcohol skill class which emphasized
moderation. The second group was an alcohol information
class emphasizing the negative consequences of drinking.

The third group was used as a control group. The drinking
levels of the three groups were assessed, four, eight, and
twelve months after having completed the class. Kivlahan

(1990) found that the alcohol skill's class reduced their

33
drinks per week by 39%. The alcohol information group
reduced their drinking 22%. The control group reduced their
drinking by 16%. However, while drinking behavior appears
to have changed, 40% of the alcohol skills group, 58% of the
alcohol information group, and 64% of the control group
reported exceeding the legal level of intoxication at least
once during each of the three weeks they were monitored.

A final study where researchers reported any success in
changing student alcohol drinking behavior was conducted by
Robinson (1981). This researcher did a comparison study of
three alcohol instruction programs. Three instructional
methodologies were studied. Implicit instruction - class
lectures and factual information only. Explicit instruction
- lectures followed by conclusions that were drawn from the
lecture, followed by recommendations for behavior. Values
clarification instruction - values clarification exercises
were used during class lectures. All instructional methods
reported an increase in knowledge about alcohol. Only
explicit instructional methods were able to produce any
changes in attitudes or behaviors. The values clarification
approach showed no influence on changing attitudes and
behaviors (Robinson, 1981).

Of the few studies examining alcohol program
effectiveness, the majority show no effect on behavior. A
summary table (Table 3) of the research highlighted in this
chapter, and their findings can be found on the next page.

Researchers have demonstrated that while it is

34

Table 3

WW

Blum, Rivers, Howat,

Chen, Dosch, and

Engs, and Hanson

Goodstadt, and

Kinder, Pope, and

 

35
relatively easy to increase alcohol knowledge, it is more
difficult to modify attitudes and even harder to change
behavior (Hanson, 1982). For the most part, alcohol
education programs have been ineffective on obtaining the
goals of reducing or preventing substance abuse (Kinder,
Pope, and Walfish, 1980). In fact, Kinder and associates
suggest that there is evidence that alcohol education
programs may exacerbate use of alcohol. The presentation of
factual information alone does not seem to be a valid method
of producing attitudinal or positive behavioral changes
(Kinder et. al., 1980).

A national study of 72 universities which involved
surveying students that attended a similar class was
conducted during the 1982-83 academic year and again in the
1984-1985 academic year. Within the two-year period, the
participating institutions reported that they had a
comprehensive alcohol and other drug program in place. Fram
1982-83 to 1984-85 there was only a slight increase in
students' knowledge about alcohol issues. Interestingly,
the populations which represented the heaviest drinkers
reported the highest increase in knowledge (Engs and Hanson,
1989). The researchers suggested that perhaps the reason
that the heaviest drinkers had the highest increase in
knowledge could be that they are most familiar with the
effects; physically, emotionally, and socially, of the drug
(Engs and Hanson, 1989).

Kraft (1998) also conducted a study to determine the

36
effects of an alcohol education program on a college campus.
The results of the study indicated a change in knowledge and
attitude about alcohol use. However, no positive behavior
change was found. Blum, Rivers, Howat, and Bellows (1980)
set out to determine whether another approach, a contracted
abstinence agreement, would effect alcohol drinking
behavior. In essence, the University entered into a
contractual agreement with students to not drink. They
found that this approach had little systematic effect in
attitude or behavior change regarding alcohol use of college
students

Further research, this conducted by Gonzalez (1982),
attempted to determine if an alcohol education module
experienced by college students would have any impact on its
participants. The purpose for doing the study was to show
that alcohol education efforts, based on the knowledge-
attitude-behavior model can be effective in reducing alcohol
problems. He found that as a result of successfully
completing the alcohol module, knowledge and attitude where
significantly effected, however, no significant difference
in drinking behavior was found (Gonzalez, 1982).

Barnes's (1984) approach to determine if alcohol
education efforts have any impact, was to assess the success
of existing programs based upon socialization theory. The
researcher's findings indicate that generally alcohol
education programs can produce an increase in factual

knowledge, are minimally effective in changing attitudes,

37
and have no effect on alcohol use. Barnes believes that the
absence of a clear philosophy of alcohol education is
reflected in the lack of goals or stated outcomes; which in
turn leads to the inability for colleges and universities to
effectively evaluate efforts to determine what works.
Barnes further states that the goals for an alcohol
education program must begin with a relevant social theory
(Barnes, 1984).

A study consisting of one thousand undergraduates set
out to compare drinking attitudes and behaviors between
students participating in a voluntary alcohol education
program and students who did not participate in the program
(Chen, and Bosch, 1987). Both attending and non-attending
groups had similar viewpoints for most issues concerning
motivation for drinking and drinking opinions. The results
of the study indicated that students attending an alcohol
education program only exhibited healthier attitudes than
students who did not, thus having no effect on behavior
(Chen, and Bosch, 1987).

Dennison (1977), similar to Goodstadt and Caleekal
(1984) and Rozelle (1980), studied the impact of field
experiences on changing alcohol behavior. Unlike the other
two studies, Dennison (1977) found that field experiences
had no effect on drinking behavior.

Finally, when reviewing research conducted to examine
the effects of voluntary participation in alcohol education

programs, Portnoy (1980) used the Responsible Alcohol Use

38
Inventory which attempted to assess how responsible
individuals' drinking patterns were through a series of
seven Likert-style type statements. None of the comparisons
conducted from the results of Responsible Alcohol Use
Inventory were significantly different, indicating that the
alcohol education program had no effect on individual
drinking patterns (Portnoy, 1980).

When a student is required to go to an alcohol
education program (mandatory or forced-referral), typically
it is a result of getting caught violating a college or
university regulation and being held accountable through the
institution's discipline system. Before reviewing the
results of the research conducted for mandatory programs, an
overview of the purpose of student discipline and

corresponding sanctions is provided.

I] E E S! I ! E' C. 1' I S !'

Judicial systems employed by colleges and universities
should contribute to the teaching of appropriate individual
and group behavior as well as maintaining a safe and secure
campus environment (CAS Standards, 1986). One of the main
purposes or goals of a judicial system is to maintain and
create a safe and orderly environment. The campus climate
that judicial programs help create should build awareness of

the justification for rules and regulations, promote an

39
understanding of the rights and freedoms of students,and
instill a sense of accountability and responsibility for
individual and group behavior (Caruso, 1987). Disciplinary
sanctions handed down after judicial proceedings are a
common mechanism for holding students and groups accountable
for behavior.

Characteristics of student offenders tend to be
consistent. Male college students are caught violating
college or university regulations more frequently that their
female counterparts (Williamson, 1952; Tracey, Foster,
Perkins, and Hillman, 1979; Janosik, Davis, and Spencer,
1985). Students residing in residence halls with an
occupancy larger that 600 people, violate university
regulations more frequently (Tracey, Foster, Perkins, and
Hillman, 1979; Janosik, Davis, and Spencer, 1985). Off-
campus students are less likely to be caught violating
regulations. In terms of year in school, sophomore and
freshmen, respectively, are more prone to getting caught
violating regulations (Janosik, Davis, and Spencer, 1985).
Generally, student offenders are not significantly different
from the general student population in terms of major
(Tracey, Foster, Perkins, and Hillman, 1979).

In 1965, Brady and Snoxell suggested that "penalties"
used in disciplinary procedures must be chosen primarily
with the aim that the penalty itself will assist in the
rehabilitation of the student. Sanctions must have a

purpose in order to uphold the educational mission of a code

40
of conduct (Ardaiolo and Walker, 1987). The purpose of
judicial sanctions is to protect the campus community from
behaviors that are detrimental to the educational mission of
the institution, and to assist students in identifying
appropriate parameters to guide behavior (Ardaiolo and
Walker, 1987). The discipline process should constructively
confront students with their inappropriate behavior and
offer motivation to change that behavior to avoid further
difficulty. Sanctions should encourage students to exercise
self control and equip them.with information on how to
succeed in the future (Boots, 1987). Perhaps E. G.
Williamson put it best when stating that discipline as
punishment will not correct behavior, rather, discipline
should be a part of a relationship that is based on
assisting the student to grow. Alone, punishment is
repressive (Williamson, 1955).

When considering discipline sanctions for alcohol
violations, some would argue that penalties are so "light"
that the penalties often invite students to take the
policies themselves lightly (Hoekema, 1994). Ranges in
sanctions will vary depending on the seriousness of the
alcohol offense. Low level violations of alcohol
regulations such as open alcohol containers in public areas
will result in a warning or probation, often with special
conditions attached. Special conditions (i.e., an alcohol
education program) augment discipline sanctions to emphasize

student growth through encouragement and information to

41
assist in changing behavior (Ardaiolo and Walker, 1987).
Persons found guilty of more serious behaviors such as
assault while under the influence of alcohol may be
suspended or expelled. Often criminal prosecution
accompanies the most serious offenses (Upcraft and Welty,
1990, Hoekema, 1994). At some colleges and universities,
mandatory alcohol education programs have been developed to
serve as a sanction, for violators of alcohol regulations,
or students who were under the influence of alcohol while
violating another campus regulation. Typically, attendance
at a mandatory program is combined with some kind of warning

or probation (Flynn, and Brown, 1991).

Very few institutions have evaluated the effectiveness
of mandatory alcohol education programs (Flynn, and Brown,
1991). Gonzalez (1981) conducted a study to determine the
degree to which alcohol played a role in discipline cases.
He found that 34% of the judicial cases filed within one
academic year were alcohol related. In more than 50% of the
cases reported, the violations that fit into categories such
as breaking and entering, liquor-law violations, and sex
offenses, were alcohol related. Forty six percent of
malicious mischief cases were alcohol related. Gonzalez

(1981) points out that typically violators are sent to an

42
alcohol awareness workshop where participants usually gain
some knowledge, but many have been referred for a second
offense, indicating a failure to change behavior.

Requiring an individual to sit through an alcohol
intervention program has received mixed reviews. Amanda
(1986), speaking from a psychotherapist's perspective,
suggests that mandatory counseling and education, as a
condition of disciplinary action distorts and undermines the
basis for corrective intervention. On the other hand,
O'Connell (1984) studied the effects of an involuntary
therapeutic, rather than preventive, group for alcohol
abusers. After attending an eight-session structured
program, the students participating in the program did not
violate any of the drinking policies. Forty one percent
reported a reduction in alcohol use. Two-thirds reported a
greater willingness to seek help for alcohol problems.
Fifty-two percent reported a positive change in attitude
toward alcohol use (O'Connell, 1984).

Sadler and Scott (1993) studied first offenders of
alcohol regulations. They set out to determine if an
alcohol education program at their particular university
reduced the number of repeat offenders. Their findings
showed that the recidivism rate dropped from 4.5% to 0.2%.
The researchers were quick to point out that there could
have been many factors which influenced the decrease in
repeat behaviors, and simply suggest that the program.may

have been a factor in reducing the recidivism rate.

43

Brown, Tucker, and Brandon (1991) did a perception
study of freshman residence hall students who attended a
forced-referral alcohol education after having violated an
alcohol policy. The program was described as interactive
and required participants to be heavily involved. Sixty
percent of the participants surveyed believed the program
should be a part of the discipline system, and helped them
understand the psychological and physiological impact of
alcohol. The majority of the participants would recommend
the program to a friend, and believe the program encouraged
them to use common sense in using alcohol. Yet, with such
positive reviews of the program, Brown et. al. (1991) could
only report that 15% of the students reported that the
program had caused them to change their drinking habits.

In 1980, Ramsey (1982) conducted a study to see if a
required alcohol education program would have an effect on
college students who were arrested for behavior associated
with alcohol or other drugs. This program was four weeks,
which included discussions on chemical abuse, medical
aspects of chemical use, psychological aspects of substance
use, and what to do if you have a substance abuse problem.
Forty-five students went through the program and none of the
participants was a repeat offender when surveyed after a
"short period of time." Ramsey (1982) did not indicate the
specific length of time that the follow-up occurred with the
participants.

Finally, Flynn and Brown (1991) conducted a study of a

44
mandatory alcohol education program intended for violators
of campus regulations. They surveyed 30 participants of the
seven-hour program. The respondents reported an increase in
alcohol knowledge and conservation in attitude. Flynn and
Brown (1991) did a three-month follow-up and found a
continued increase in knowledge was maintained, and the
quantity and frequency of drinking, as well as behavior
problems were reduced. However, the researchers did not
report any suitable controls to suggest that a change in

behavior resulted because of attending the program.

5 E I] E . E I] 1.! l

The review of the literature showed that a significant
number of college students drink excessively (binge drink).
College and universities have attempted to address student
alcohol misuse and abuse by developing comprehensive alcohol
and other drug programs. These programs typically included
components that address alcohol policies and enforcement,
education and prevention, treatment and referral, and
research and evaluation. The findings of some studies of
alcohol education programs show that there may be some
effect on positive behavior change. However, most
professionals agree that there has been limited research to
conclude what works when considering the effectiveness of

alcohol education programs.

45

Mandatory alcohol education programs for students who
entered the discipline process due to issues related to
alcohol use have not been extensively evaluated. The
present study was conducted in an attempt to contribute to
the current research in this area and perhaps provide
greater insight into the effectiveness of forced-referral
alcohol education programs as a mechanism for changing

student behavior.

CHAPTER III

METHODS

Introduction

Chapter III contains a description of the research
design, subjects, materials, and procedures for data
collection and analysis. Included are methodological

assumptions and limitations.

W

This research is a perception study, with a random
selection of subjects who attended a forced-referral alcohol
education program after having been caught violating a
university regulation. As stated earlier, this study was
designed to answer the following questions: (1) Does a

forced-referral alcohol education program effect drinking

46

47
behavior as it relates to not getting caught violating
university regulations after attending the program? (2) Are
there other factors that contribute to a student not
entering the discipline system again after attending a
forced-referral program? (3) Did alcohol use patterns
change as a result of attending the forced-referral alcohol
education program? (4) If the forced-referral program
contributed to a student not reentering the judicial system,
or changing their rate of consumption, what was it about the
program that changed the student's behavior?

Students from Michigan State University, a large
Midwestern, public university, who attended the Alcohol
Education Seminar (AES) during the 1992-1993 academic year
were identified. The AES is a forced-referral or mandatory
alcohol education program.

The AES is a three-hour program that emphasizes group
interaction and information sharing. Participants discuss
topics which include: understanding the levels of
intoxication, the physiological and psychological effects of
alcohol use, addiction, adult children of alcoholics, and
co-dependency. Students attending the Seminar also discuss
social and environmental issues such as the relationship
between sexual activity and alcohol, sexual assault, as well
as the effects of the media on alcohol use. The format
includes short lectures by a facilitator, group exercises
and discussion, and a video. Students who attend the AES

are typically first time violators of alcohol regulations,

48
or were under the influence of alcohol while having been
caught violating another university regulation (i.e.,
noise).

From those students who attended during the 1992-1993
academic year, the population of AES participants who were
believed to not have been caught violating another
university regulation after a two year period was
identified}. .A random sample of students from this group
was chosen to conduct anonymous telephone interviews. Pilot
interviews were conducted, using students from another
academic year, to test the instrument to ensure that
information from the interview would enable the researcher
to answer the research questions. At the conclusion of each
pilot interview, the interviewer asked the students how they
interpreted each question and if they had difficulty
understanding any question, or part of the interview.

The design of the study allowed for the participants to
maintain anonymity. The Judicial Affairs Office at Michigan
State University was contacted, in writing, (see Appendix A)
and asked to provide a list of first names and current
telephone numbers of those students who attended the Alcohol
Education Seminar during the 1992-93 academic year, and who
did not get caught violating another university regulation

within a two year period. Once the Judicial Affairs Office

 

aSix students from the population were later identified
to having violated another University regulation after
attending the AES. These subjects remained in the sample.

49
was able to identify the subjects in the population, they
contacted the Registrar's Office to obtain current telephone
numbers. This list was provided to a different staff person
in the Judicial Affairs Office who placed an initial
telephone call in an effort to reach each subject; an
established narrative was used (see Appendix B). One
hundred eighteen (n=118) students were verified to be
presently enrolled and having provided the University with
an accurate telephone number. A code number was assigned to
each potential subject. If the student was willing to be
interviewed, the telephone call, identified only by the code
number, was immediately forwarded to the researcher, in
another location, to conduct the interview. A total of
fifty-two (52) students were willing to be interviewed.
Twenty (20) subjects refused to be interviewed. Attempts to
contact the remaining students were made without success.
Each subject, or potential subject, received at least three
telephone calls to participate in the study. The calls were
made on different days at different times in hopes of being
successful. The length of each interview ranged from ten to

twenty minutes.

H I] i J . J E !'

1. All students who attended the Alcohol Education
Seminar during the 1992-93 academic year and did not get

caught violating another University regulation within a two

50
year period, had an equal and independent opportunity to be
identified; thus, were representative of the described

population.

2. Students who attended the Alcohol Education
Seminar during the 1992-93 academic year were not unlike

students who attended AES during any other year.

Materials

From the researcher's review of the literature, the
limited number of previous studies of mandatory alcohol
education programs, did not allow the respondent or study
participant to openly comment on the effectiveness of their
respective programs. The interview instrument and response
sheet (see Appendix C) identify a series of closed, and
open-ended questions. Open-ended questions allowed the
respondent to express some depth and meaning to their answer
(Scheaffer, Mendenhall, and Ott, 1990). The subjects were
not limited to a prescribed categorical answer. After the
pilot study was conducted, some questions were reworded so
that they were more clear, and understandable. The response
sheet was developed in order for the researcher to easily

record the responses from the subjects.

51
mum

The data collected from the telephone interviews were
primarily descriptive in nature. Interviews were used to
obtain participants' perspectives and perceptions.
Interviews were chosen to allow the researcher to interpret
what the respondent was saying and to probe for more
information (Merriam, 1998). The researcher had experience
in conducting interviews, including telephone interviews,
and had a clear understanding of the purpose and intent of
each of the questions.

The interviews were conducted during the last two weeks
of April, 1995, and the first week of May, 1995. Telephone
calls were placed at different times on different days. At
least three attempts were made to contact each of the
potential respondents.

Once the interviews were completed, grade point
averages (GPAs) were collected for each subject to determine
if there was a grade effect based upon the responses given
by the subjects. To obtain the GPAs, the Judicial Affairs
Office provided the student ID number to the Registrars
Office in order to obtain the respondents' GPA. The
researcher was provided the GPAs using the same code number
system utilized to obtain the participants in the telephone

interviews (see Appendix D).

52
W

At the conclusion of the interviews, given the nature
of the responses from the subjects, the researcher was able
to categorize the responses given by the study participants.
Analysis of categorical data allowed the researcher to
assign frequencies to subjects in each category (Clayton,
1984). From the categorical data, contingency tables were
developed to provide insight into attempting to answer the
research questions.

The data were analyzed using a standard Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) program, A frequency
analysis was performed on each question of the interview
based upon placing responses in categories. The following
identifies the established categories for each interview
question.

Question 1. Did you attend the Alcohol Education
Seminar? Categories: Yes; No

Question 2. What did you think of the experience?
Categories: Positive response; Negative response; Both
negative and positive response; Indifferent response

Question 3. How many years have you attended
Michigan State University? Categories: 1; 2; 3; 4

Question 4. When you were caught violating a
University regulation, do you remember what the reason was?
Categories: Noise; Open alcohol; Possession of Alcohol;

Party/keg; In a room where alcohol was present; Other

53

Question 5. Have you been caught for violating any
other regulations since attending the AES? Categories:

Yes; No

Question 6. Why do you think you have not violated a
University regulation again? Categories: Did not want to
get kicked out; Moved off campus; I got caught again
(violating University regulations); I don't know; changed
behavior; Just did not get caught; I don't usually break
rules; Other

Question 7a. Do you think your alcohol consumption
has changed over the past two years or so? Categories:

Yes; No

Question 7b. If yes, in what ways has your
consumption changed? Categories: Consumption went up;
Consumption went down; Consumption stayed the same

Question 7c. On average how many drinks do you
consume a week now? Categories: 0; 1; 2-3; 4-6; 7-10; 10-
15; more than 15

Question 7d. Is the number of drinks you consume now
different from the number you consumed about two years ago?
Categories: Yes, went down; Yes, went up; No

Question 7e. Why do you think your consumption of
alcohol has changed the way you have identified?
Categories: No change; Tired of negative consequences;
More mature/responsible; I have other things to do; I drink

more now since turning twenty-one; Moved off campus; I don't

54
know

Question 7f. Has any significant, or not so
significant event occurred in your life that caused you to
change your rate of consumption? Categories: No event;
Getting caught was significant; Need to improve grades/do
better in school; Other

Question 8a. Do you think the AES, in any way,
effected your rate of consumption of alcohol? Categories:

Yes; No

Question 8b. If yes, in what ways? Categories: No
effect; For a short time, consumption went down; I thought I
might have a problem as a result of going to the program; I
didn't want to use anymore; I don't drink as much; I am just
more careful-

Question 8c. Was there any specific aspect of the AES
which played a significant role in changing your alcohol
consumption? Categories: There was no specific aspect
of the program; Levels of intoxication exercise; The length
of the program; Group discussion; Personal stories; The
facilitator; Video

Question 9a. Do you think that the AES, in any way,
is a reason for you not getting caught again violating a
University regulation? Categories: Yes; No

Question 9b. If yes, in what ways? Categories: AES
was not a reason; Did not want to get caught again; More

careful not to get caught; I changed my drinking behavior;

55

More aware of policies

Question 9c. Was there any specific aspect of the AES
which played a significant role in contributing to you not
getting caught violating another University regulation?
Categories: No specific aspect; Video; Group discussion

Question 10. Is there anything else you would like to
add since reflecting on you experience of attending the AES?
Categories: No additional comment; Positive comment;
Negative comment

When assigning categories, the rule was followed that
even if only one subject answered the question in a
particular way, a category was assigned. Where appropriate,
an "other” category was created to accommodate some singular
responses. This was done because the primary purpose of
this study was to determine if the AES had any impact in
changing perceived subsequent behavior, versus investigating
how many students responded similarly to any given question.
Descriptive statistics were used to draw conclusions from
the data. To supplement the responses to each of the
categories, anecdotal information will be highlighted in

response to the research questions.

There are limitations to this study in that conclusions

can only be made based upon responses given by the students

56
who chose to participate in the study. These students
volunteered to participate, thus the finding should be
viewed with caution (Rosenthal and Rosnow, 1975). Another
limitation to consider is that when conducting structured
interviews. There will remain differences in the way
questions are put to each respondent and what is recorded
and noted from the respondent's answer. The influence of
bias under these conditions is inherent and difficult to

measure (Oppenheim, 1966).

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

We!)

The researcher's purpose in this study was to
investigate whether the participant believed their
attendance at a forced-referral alcohol education program
effected their subsequent behavior. In this chapter, the
results of the telephone interviews are reviewed in light of
responding to the identified research questions. The
findings of this study are divided into four categories
addressing each research question. The discussion and
summary comments of the finding are presented in Chapter V.

Over half (63.5 %) of the participants in the study
were in their third year of school when the interview took
place, indicating that they were in their first year when
they attended the Alcohol Education Seminar. Students in

their fourth year of school represented 34.6% of the

57

58
population. When respondents were asked, what was the
reason for getting caught, 44.2 % indicated that they were
participating in a party where alcohol was being served or
were in possession of a keg. The violations of being in
possession alcohol or carrying an open container represented
38.4% of the sample. Forty-six of the 52 participants said
that they had not been caught for violating another
University regulation after having attended the Alcohol
Education Seminar. Six respondents indicated that they, in
fact, had been caught violating another University

regulation.

Beseargmgstim

Does a forced-referral alcohol education program effect
drinking behavior as it relates to not getting caught again
violating university regulations?

When subjects were asked for the behavior that
originally caused them to be caught violating a University
regulation, the most frequent response for students who did
not violate again and those who did was having a party or
keg. Table 4 identifies the nature of the violation for
students who were not caught again, and those who were.

As stated earlier 46 of the participants indicated that
they did not violate another University regulation after

having attended the Alcohol Education Seminar. Twenty-four

59

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* The container was not open

60
(66.7%) of the 46 respondents indicated that the AES was not
a reason for them failing to be caught violating a
University regulation again. Twenty-two students believed
that the Seminar did contribute to not getting caught again
for violating a University regulation. Table 5 is a
contingency table that illustrates the ways in which the AES
contributed to the 22 students not getting caught again.
The most common answer given was that they were more careful
not to get caught a second time. Several students said
during the interview that they did not want the hassle of
having to go to the program again even though the University
policy states that students only attend the program once.
Four students (7.7% of all participants in the study)
believed the program contributed to changing their drinking
behavior, which resulted in not getting caught again
violating a University regulation. All four subjects
indicated that their drinking decreased. One student
stated, "I was not aware of what it {alcohol} does to the
body over time." Each student revealed that they already
began evaluating the role alcohol plays in their life, but
the program gave them valid information to change their
behavior. The remaining eighteen did change their behavior
so as not to get caught again violating a regulation, but
did not change their rate of consumption. The six students
who were caught again for violating a University regulation
after attending the AES stated that the program did not make

any difference in their subsequent drinking behavior. Two

61

 

 

 

 

 

 

62
of those respondents stated that, ". . . perhaps it [the

program] made me more aware of the policies."

W

Are there other factors that contributed to a student
not entering the discipline system again after attending a
forced-referral program?

Interview participants gave several explanations for
not entering the discipline system after attending the
Alcohol Education Seminar. Table 6 indicates that over half
(51.9%) of the participants stated that they moved off
campus, and that was the reason why they did not get caught
again violating a University regulation. Eight (15.4%)
subjects indicated that they changed their behavior as a
reason for not getting caught again violating a regulation.
Of the eight students who indicated they changed their
behavior, four indicated that they reduced the amount and
frequency of alcohol consumption. The remaining four
subjects did not give very specific ways in which they
changed their behavior. One said, "I am just a different
person now, in every way." Another subject indicated that
they were tired of "the scene" they were involved in. Keep
in mind, the identified behavior change cannot be
attributed, necessarily, to the AES.

For those students (n=27) who stated they moved off

campus as the reason for not getting caught again, fifteen

63

 

I did not want to
get kicked out of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the residence 2 3'8
halls

I moved off

campus 27 51.9
I did get caught

again 6 11.5
I changed my

behavior 8 15'4
I just did not 2 3 8
get caught again '
I do not usually 4 7 7
break rules '
Other 3 5.8

 

 

 

 

64
(55.5%) indicated that the Alcohol Education Seminar did not
contribute, in any way, to their not entering the discipline
system again. Eleven volunteered that they were just more
careful not to get caught. Two students of the eleven
believed all the Seminar did was teach people how not to get
caught again. Only two students volunteered that they
violated regulations again, but did not get caught. They
both attributed this phenomenon as simply being lucky.
One subject said, "honestly, based on what I do, I can't
believe I have not been caught again."

Grade point averages were collected for three separate
semesters: Fall 1992 (prior to attending the AES); Fall 1993
(the first semester of the academic year after attending the
AES); and Spring 1995 (the semester the telephone interviews
took place). Controlling for course loads, there was not a
significant difference between the grade point averages
(GPAs) of the participants, for each semester. Generally,
the grade point average for the students who said the AES
did contribute to not getting caught again, were lower, than
their counterparts who said the Seminar did not have an
effect. For example, for Fall of 1992, the students who
indicated that the Seminar did not effect their behavior had
a mean grade point average of 2.6161. For the same
semester, students who indicated that the seminar did have
an effect on behavior have a grade point average of 2.4912.
Table 7 summarizes the grade point average for each of the

two groups for each semester.

65

   
 

 

 

 

 

 

2.6161
22 2.4912
27*** 2.7418
22 2.5583
30 2.8018
22 2.6955
* Students who indicated that the Alcohol Education

Seminar had no effect on entering the discipline system
after attending the program

** Students who indicated that the Alcohol Education
Seminar had an effect on entering the discipline system
after attending the program

*** Three subjects were not enrolled Fall Semester 1993

66

Perhaps another factor that may have played a role in
whether the AES had an effect on getting caught again was
the feeling about the overall experience of attending the
program. Over half of the subjects (53.8%, n=28) chose not
to make any concluding comments about the program, Of those
students who did not enter the discipline system again,
after attending the program, thirteen chose to make a
positive concluding comment about the Alcohol Education
Seminar; seven made a negative comment. Examples of
positive comments were:

"The program was helpful...keep doing it"

...people said it was pointless but they [the

University] need to have a consequence"

"...pretty good group discussion"

"It was pretty good punishment for the first time"
Examples of negative comments were:

"...didn't help because I was forced to go...maybe

helped some people...shorten it"

"It is pointless...listening to some lady telling

me things I already know"

"It was too long"

67
Of the six students who violated again after attending the
program, three made positive comments about the program, two

did not comment, and one made a negative comment.

WW

Did alcohol use patterns change as a result of
attending the forced referral alcohol education program?

Thirty-four (65.4%) of the fifty-two respondents
indicated that their alcohol consumption has changed over
the past two years. Twenty-nine of the 34 stated that their
consumption went down. Five indicated that their
consumption went up. Table 8 identifies the current level,
by number of drinks per week, of alcohol use at the time of
the interview. More than 35% of the respondents indicate
that they currently consume less than three drinks per week,
while more than 38% indicated they consume more than seven
drinks per week.

When the subjects were asked why they think their
consumption changed, eighteen (34.6%) believed that they
were more mature and responsible. Several of these students
said that drinking just was not as important anymore. Table
9 provides the reason the respondents gave when asked why
their consumption changed the way they identified. One
respondent said, “drinking just got old, I didn't care to do
it any more." Three of the 18 who said they were more

mature stated that their consumption went up. One of those

68

more than 15

 

* A drink is equal to: 12 ounces of beer = 4 to 5 ounces

of wine = 1% ounces of 80 proof liquor

69

twang; a

. .. . --:"3:.;~' '-:':‘-:'-Ic-:-:-:;:-:- ....;: -. . -- ‘
::::-$o-:fi:3:°3:=:~33:-:~$§33:$:3:-3=§=:-:-:<-:-:<=:-:-:«-:-:5::'..-. . ...“:a -

 

iThere was no change in 18
my consumption

.1 am tired of negative
: consequences as a 5 9.6
result of drinking

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am.more mature

and/or responsible 18 34’6

I have other things to 5 9 6

do besides drink '

I drink more now since 3 5 8
turning 21 '

I moved off campus 1 1.9

I reall do not know ___ _m 2a“ -.1h,ifimifi §f3_ _“__

70

three students said,
“...I probably drink a little more, but now I am.twenty-one
and I think I do it [drink] responsibly." The interview
with this student revealed that he or she did not consume
very much when he or she was sent to the AES. The other two
simply said that when they became of legal age, their
consumption went up. Table 10 is a contingency table
explaining the reason for the change in consumption based
upon whether consumption went up, down, or stayed the same.

When respondents were specifically asked if they
believe the Alcohol Education Seminar effected their rate of
alcohol consumption, 33 (63.5%) responded negatively.
Nineteen (36.5%) students believed that the Seminar did
change their drinking behavior. Table 11 lists the ways in
which the subjects thought the AES effected their rate of
consumption. Of the nineteen respondents who indicated that
the Seminar did effect their rate of consumption, they did
not identify any particular way in which the Seminar changed
the consumption. The most frequently represented response
was that consumption went down for a short period of time
(1-2 months), and then went back up. The six students whose
consumption changed for a short time all stated that the

program, ”forced" them to take a look at their use.

71

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

72

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

73
WW

If the forced-referral program contributed to a student
not reentering the judicial system, or changing their rate
of alcohol consumption, what was it about the program that
changed the student's behavior?

Twenty-two (42.3%) students indicated that the Alcohol
Education Seminar contributed to their not reentering the
discipline system after attending the program. Nineteen
(36.5) of the students thought the Seminar contributed to
changing their rate of alcohol consumption.

The respondents indicated that their was no particular
aspect of the Seminar that contributed to the consumption
change. Three students believed the levels of intoxication
exercise and the general group discussion contributed to a
change in behavior. Table 12 is a distribution of responses
given by the subjects regarding what aspects of the program,
if any, contributed to a change in their rate of
consumption. Ten of the nineteen students, who indicated
the Seminar contributed to a drinking behavior change, were
able to identify a specific aspect of the program that led
to that change. The other nine students generally felt the
overall experience is what contributed a rate of alcohol
consumption change. One student stated, “...I really can't
think of anything specific about the program...it was more
of not wanting to go again and feeling kinda silly for
having to be there." When questioned further, the student

indicated that at times the program was "a joke." Another

74

 

* 42 of the respondents indicated no specific aspect

** Percentage of the entire sample (n=52)

75
student stated that while there was no specific aspect of
the program that contributed to any kind of alcohol behavior
change, the program caused him or her to evaluate their
presence at the program. The student said, "I couldn't
believe I was sitting there [in the program]...while I
deserved to be there, personally I do not think I should be
there...if you know what I mean...I changed because I did
not want to be one of those people, that feels comfortable
in a setting like that."

There was also no specific aspect of the Alcohol
Education Seminar that contributed to students not getting
caught again violating University regulations. Only two of
the 22 subjects indicating the Seminar played a role in
their not reentering the discipline system, gave a specific
aspect of the program. One student said the video, and the
other believed the general group discussion contributed to
not getting caught again violating a regulation. One
student said that the group discussion illustrated for him
or her how absurd some of the behaviors are that cause a
person to get caught, and he or she did not want to fall
into that trap. The person who thought the video was
effective, stated that the content was, "too close to home."

As stated earlier, four students (see Table 5) believed
they did not enter the judicial system again because they
changed their drinking behavior. One student believed the
information about the physiological aspects of alcohol use

was significant. The other three commented that it was the

76

experience in its totality that contributed to the change.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Intradnsztiszn

Chapter V contains a summary, and conclusions of this
study. Finally, the investigator proposes recommendations

for further research related to this study.

W

A review of the literature identified that there is a
desire to "know what works" when considering approaches to
reduce the incidence of excessive use of alcohol on college
campuses. It is recommended that institutions of higher
education develop comprehensive alcohol and other drug
education programs that include policy/enforcement,
education/prevention, treatment/referral, and

evaluation/research components. Most researchers found that

77

 

78
alcohol education efforts may effect knowledge and to a
lesser degree attitude about alcohol use, but most found
that programmatic efforts have very little effect on future
behavior. One of the difficulties in determining if alcohol
education programs on college and university campuses are
effective is that they are usually multidimensional and,
taken in their entirety, are hard to evaluate.

The researcher attempted to focus on a specific
component of a comprehensive alcohol education program to
investigate if there was any perceived change in subsequent
behavior of its participants. In an effort to determine
"what works," the study concentrated on the policy/
enforcement aspect of a comprehensive alcohol education
program and a discipline sanction - the forced-referral
program instituted on a number of campuses. Anderson and
Gadeleto (1979) found that between 20% and 60% of the
discipline problems on campus were alcohol related. The
forced-referral program is used as a sanction for students
who violate university regulations related to alcohol
consumption. As stated earlier, Flynn and Brown (1991)
found that an increasing number of campuses are using
mandatory or forced-referral programs as a result of a
student entering into the campus judicial process. Yet,
very little research has been done on forced-referral
programs to test their effectiveness. The purpose of this
study was to contribute to the body of knowledge of

identifying "what works," when considering a particular

79
component of a comprehensive alcohol and other drug

education program.

WWW

Unlike other studies of forced-referral programs, the
researcher in this study attempted to do two things. First,
it was to interview students who attended a forced-referral
program two years after the experience. This was done to
determine if they believed the program contributed to any
behavior change after an extended period of time. Other
studies surveyed students up to three months after attending
a program. Second, it was to examine if behavior did in
fact change, what was it about the program that contributed
to the change according to the participants. Previous
studies attempted to document any behavior changes without
trying to ascertain what was it about the experience that
perhaps accounts for the behavior change.

In this study, behavior change was analyzed against two
measures. First, did the forced-referral program change
behavior in relation too not entering the discipline system
again after attending the program? Second, did the forced
referral program change behavior in relation to the amount
of alcohol consumption?

Fifty-two students participated in the telephone

interviews which lasted on average between ten and twenty

80
minutes. Participants of this perception study were from a
large Midwestern public university.

The subjects in the study assisted in attempting to
respond to four research questions evolving from the
identified purpose of the study.

1. Does a forced referral-alcohol education program
effect drinking behavior as it relates to not
getting caught again violating university
regulations? E

2. Are there other factors that contributed to a

student not entering the discipline system again

 

after attending a forced-referral program?

3. Did alcohol use patterns change as a result of
attending the forced-referral alcohol education
program?

4. If the forced-referral program contributed to a
student not reentering the judicial system, or
changing their rate of alcohol consumption, what
was it about the program that changed the

student's behavior?

W

This summary and conclusions section is organized to

allow each research question to be addressed.

Research Question 1. Does a forced-referral alcohol

81
education program effect drinking behavior as it relates to
not getting caught again violating university regulations?

Twenty-two (42.3%) of the 52 participants in the study
believed that the Alcohol Education Seminar (AES) did
contribute to not getting caught again for violating a
University regulation. Of those 22, only four (7.7% of the
total sample) reported a change in their drinking behavior.
It is important to note that each of those four students
indicated to the interviewer that prior to going to the
Seminar, they had been evaluating the role alcohol use was
playing their life. The four participants stated that the
program gave them the additional impetus to make the
positive changes in their drinking behavior which enabled
them to not enter the discipline system again.

One might conclude that in order for the Seminar to
effectively change student drinking behaviors, the
participant would have to be evaluating the role alcohol
plays in his or her life prior to attending the program.
Perhaps Seminar participants could be given information to
begin evaluating their alcohol use prior to attending the
Seminar. The eighteen students who believed the Seminar
contributed to not reentering the discipline system but did
not change drinking behavior, could simply not want to get
caught again to avoid having to complete another special
condition (i.e., Seminar) of their disciplinary action.

The results of the study indicate that an overwhelming

majority (92.3%) of the participants attending the AES did

 

82
not decrease their alcohol consumption as a result of
attending the program. This finding calls into question the
effectiveness of the Alcohol Education Seminar if its
purpose is to change student drinking behavior. If the goal
of the Seminar is to change behavior, new ways to achieve
behavior change will need to be explored. Perhaps the
nature of the content or the way it is delivered should be
adjusted for the Seminar to be more effective. Is the
Seminar format best suited to influence a perceived change
in consumption? Would a field experience be more effective,

or a change in length of the program, or the number of times

 

a student attends the Seminar achieve greater success?

Research Question 2. Are there other factors that
contributed to a student not entering the discipline system
again after attending a forced referral program?

Only four students participating in the study said that
they changed their drinking behavior, as a reason for not
entering into the University discipline system again. What,
then, were the reasons given by the remaining participants
for not getting caught again violating University
regulations? Over half (51.9%, n=27) reported that they
moved off campus. Since Michigan State University does not
hold off campus students accountable for inappropriate
behavior, the likelihood that a student residing off campus
will violate a University regulation is minimal. Fifteen of

the 27 students indicated that the Seminar did not play a

83

role in their not getting caught violating a University
regulation.

It appears that a change to an off campus residence is
a most effective means to keep students out of the
discipline process. However, drinking behavior does not
necessarily change. The problem behavior is removed from
the University, but their is not a drinking behavior change,
thus the problem moves to the off campus community. Given
that the most frequently given response to a change in
alcohol consumption over a two year period was that the
student believed that they were more mature, one might
conclude that the Seminar had little or no effect on
changing drinking behavior. Did the Seminar contribute to
the maturation process? Further studies should investigate
the maturation process concerning alcohol consumption of
Seminar participants and similar non-attending students to
determine if their is a difference.

It would appear that the participants in the study
found other ways to stay out of the discipline system rather
than change there drinking behavior. Some admittedly stated

that they were lucky not to get caught.

Research Question 3. Did alcohol use patterns change as
a result of attending the forced referral alcohol education
program?

Fifty out of the 52 participants indicated that they

consumed at least one drink per week. The general student

84
population drinks on average, five drinks per week (Presley,
Meilman, and Lyerla, 1993). Presley et. al. (1993) found
that 25.7% percent of the general college student population
consumes six or more drinks. Nearly one-third (31.1%) of
the students attending the Alcohol Education Seminar
reported consuming seven or more drinks per week. Nearly
half (48.7%) reported consuming four or more drinks per
week. Students attending the Seminar drink more per week
than their non-attending counterparts, however, among the
most heavy drinkers, fewer students attending the Seminar
report consuming large quantities (more than 15 drinks) of
alcohol per week. An explanation for the heaviest drinkers
not attending the Seminar could be that the program is
geared toward social drinkers. If a University judicial
staff member deems the student to be a heavy drinker, often
they are sent for an assessment with a substance abuse
counselor. Students who attend the Seminar are viewed to be
more social drinkers which may account for their rate of
consumption being greater that their non-attending
counterparts.

Thirty-five students believed their alcohol consumption
changed over the past two years. Nineteen of the 34
students indicated that the Alcohol Education Seminar did
effect their rate of consumption. There was no overriding
reason for the consumption change. However, the most
frequently represented (n=6) response was that their rate

only went down for a short period of time (1 to 2 months)

85
and then went back up to where it was previous. One could
conclude that the content of the Seminar, while it is fresh
in someone's mind, can have an effect on consumption.
Perhaps repeated contact with a Seminar participant over a
longer period of time may produce a more substantial
behavior change. After a two year period only thirteen
students indicated that the Seminar had any lasting effect
on their rate of alcohol consumption. Thirteen of the 52
participants, constitutes a small portion (25%) of the
sample. There may be several explanations for the
ineffectiveness of the Seminar influencing a behavior change
over an extended period of time. The content may not be
meaningful for the participants; students who attend the
program may be angry at being forced to attend and close
themselves off from evaluating their alcohol use; and
participants may feel their rate of alcohol consumption is

responsible.

Research Question 4. If the forced-referral program
contributed to a student not reentering the judicial system,
or changing their rate of alcohol consumption, what was it
about the program that changed the student's behavior?

Each of the interview subjects, who said the program
was reason for changing their behavior was asked to identify
a specific aspect of the program which contributed to a
behavior change. Very few students identified specific

aspects of the program. Nineteen participants believed the

86
Alcohol Education Seminar contributed to a change in their
alcohol consumption. Of those nineteen, ten did not offer a
specific aspect of the program that changed their behavior;
even after having been given suggestions of different
components of the program. A reason for the lack of
response could have been that the student could not recall
the specific aspects of the program after two years. Also,
the student may not have been willing to think about the
specifics of the program at the time of the interview. Three
identified the levels of intoxication exercise which
discusses the behavioral and physiological aspects of
becoming intoxicated. Three also stated that they thought
the group discussion that took place contributed to their
behavior change. Participants in the AES are encouraged to
talk openly and honestly about their feelings, behaviors,
and perspectives related to the variety of topics discussed
during the three-hour session. The remaining four
respondents each offered different explanations about why
they believed the program changed their rate of consumption
(see Table 12). It is difficult to make conclusions
regarding the effectiveness of a specific aspect of the
program. However, it appears that for those who believed
that the Seminar contributes to a change in alcohol
consumption, it was not so much the content which instigated
a change but perhaps the fact that they had to attend the
program. It may have been the overall experience that

contributed to a behavior change rather than any specific

87
aspect of the program.

As mentioned earlier, twenty-two students said that the
program contributed to their not reentering the University
discipline system. Keep in mind, only four students
believed that the program effected their drinking behavior,
which in turn led to not getting caught violating another
University regulation. Two of the four were able to
identify specific aspects of the program. which contributed
to their not reentering the discipline system. One student
identified the video shown during the program as having an
effect on their behavior. The video presents several
vignettes that address, alcohol use and date rape, an
accident (student falls off a balcony after a night of
drinking), children of alcoholics, and drinking games among
other issues. The student stated that the video was very
realistic, and hit him or her close to home. When asked to
explain more, the student opted not to discuss the effect of
the video further. The other student added that the group
discussion contributed to not getting caught violating a
University regulation after attending the program. This was
one of the students who stated that group discussion also
effected their alcohol consumption.

Very few students were able to identify specific
aspects of the program that contributed to a behavior
change. Further investigation should be done concerning the
content and format of AES to determine if changes in the

program could achieve a greater frequency of positive

behavior change.

MW

It is important to remember that the results of this
study can only be generalized to those who participated in
this research, yet it may offer some insight into the
effectiveness of forced-referral alcohol education programs.
Most of the students were willing to comment openly about
their experience of attending the Alcohol Education Seminar
at Michigan State University. Some students, when asked
more probing questions, declined to respond. The interview
participants revealed that the Seminar had little effect on
changing the drinking behavior. As forced-referral programs
continue to be evaluated, institutions of higher education
will need to determine the degree to which a program will be
judged effective. In this study 13 students believed the
program had any lasting impact on their rate of alcohol
consumption. The institution will have to determine if this
number is significant enough to continue the program in its
current form.

While only four students believed that the Seminar
contributed to a change in drinking behavior, which enabled
them to not get caught violating another University
regulation, overall 22 students said the program was a

reason for their not getting caught. From an alcohol

 

89

education point of view, this finding may be quite
discouraging, yet more than one third of the sample said the
program effected their behavior when measured against not
reentering the discipline system. Again, program
administrators will need to determine if these numbers are
sufficient enough to continue such a program. As mentioned
previously, there could be several explanations for the
degree to which the program was successful in changing
behavior: program content may not be relevant to the
participant; students may be angry about having to attend
the program; there may be a willingness to avoid other
negative consequences from getting caught again; and the
student may simply have matured, with or without the help of
the program, to the point that alcohol consumption and the
behaviors associated with it may not be as important.

Although not linked to a specific research question,
while completing the literature review, the investigator
uncovered information regarding the negative relationship
between academic performance and substance use (Eigen,
1991). The review of the literature revealed that students
who receive lower grades tend to have more problems with
alcohol. For this reason, the investigator of this study
wanted to determine if the students participating in the
telephone interviews had grade point averages that changed
over the two-year period, based upon not reentering the
discipline system. Unlike what was found in other studies

of alcohol use and grade point average, there was no

90
significant difference between students who reported that
the AES contributed to not getting caught again and those
who said the AES did not play a role in reentering the
discipline system. One might conclude that this may be
another indication of the Seminar having little impact on

subsequent behavior.

I 1' !' E I] i! i

It is imperative that research be continued to clarify
"what works" when considering the many facets of a
comprehensive alcohol education program. The question
arises of whether forced-referral or mandatory alcohol
education programs are an effective means of changing
behavior. This study generates more questions than perhaps
it has attempted to answer. Can forced alcohol education,
truly be educational in the way it was intended? Is the
punitive aspect of requiring a student to attend an alcohol
education program really what contributes to a positive
behavior change, rather the content of the program? Will
researchers ever be able to attribute any behavior change to
a specific alcohol education programmatic thrust?

It is recommended that additional studies be conducted
to determine if forced-referral programs really do
contribute to a positive behavior change. Specifically, a

study should be conducted to further explore the punitive

91
aspects of the mandatory program to examine what aspects of
the program can increase the likelihood of a positive
behavior change. A follow—up study which involves
interviewing students who enter society and become
contributing members of communities to see if they have used
any information attained from a forced-referral program.
And lastly, perhaps further investigation should be put into
looking at different pedagogy methods to determine if
certain content or experiences are likely to achieve a

positive behavior change.

E' J E E] !'

Upon reflecting on past professional experiences and
the findings of this study, the investigator has cause to
wonder, what role, if any, a forced-referral program should
play within a comprehensive alcohol education program. If
the purpose of a comprehensive program is to eliminate the
misuse and abuse of alcohol and other drugs, perhaps the
research findings, to date, would call into question the
efficacy of the forced-referral program. Yet, if students
are changing their behavior in other ways, so as not to get
caught violating a regulation and report the forced—referral
program contributed to that change, then perhaps the program
is effective in reducing, or removing behaviors that lead to

property damage on campus, and incidences of violence, for

92
example. The answer to the question ”what works," when
considering alcohol education efforts, should be addressed
based upon what the objective of the program is with clear

measures of evaluation in place to judge its effectiveness.

93
APPENDIX A

LETTER TO JUDICIAL AFFAIRS OFFICE

March 14. 1995

TO: Marie Hansen
Judicial Affairs

FROM: Paul Zelenski
RE: Completion of PhD.

Thank you for agreeing to assist me with my research examining the
effectiveness of the Alcohol Education Seminar. At this time I would like to
request that a list of students. who attended the Seminar during the 1992-93
academic year. be compiled. To maintain anonymity. we have agreed that a
member of your staff will assist me in placing the telephone calls for each
interview. Your staff member will provide me a code number as a means of
differentiating between subjects.

I would like to conduct the telephone interviews during the month of April. Your
assistance is appreciated. I hope that this study will provide your office with
valuable information about the effectiveness of the Alcohol Education Seminar.

94
APPENDIX B

NARRATIVE AND CODE NUMBER SHEET
USED BY JUDICIAL AFFAIRS STAFF MEMBER

AES EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE COVER SHEET

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUBJECT NO:
Date/Time of Effort to Contact: 1) Contacted? YES __ NO _
2) Contacted? YES _ NO _
3) Contacted? YES_ NO _
1. Hi! My name is , and I'm calling from the Judicial Affairs Office.

 

We are collecting information on the impact and value of the Alcohol Education Seminar
as part of the research for a graduate student working on a dissertation. Would you be
willing to spend some time answering questions about your experience with this program?

YES (if YES. go to number 3) __ NO (if NO. go to number 2)
DID NOT ATTEND (go to number 2)

2. (NO) Thanks anyway. and have a good day/night (or have a good test. etc.)

3. (YES) There is no risk in your participating in this research. We want your participation
to be completely voluntary, so if you don't want to answer a question, just say so and we
will skip it. To protect your confidentiality. we will not give your name or phone number to

the graduate student. Do you understand? Now I am going to forward this call to the
doctoral student.

[FORWARD THE CALL]

NOTES:

SUBJECT NO:

Date:

APPENDIX C

95

INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT AND RESPONSE SHEET

AES RESPONSE SHEET

 

 

 

 

Time:

 

Recorded? YesEJ NoCl

 

 

Thanks for participating in the Interview. The information you will provide will assist
the Judicial Affairs Office in evaluating the effectiveness of the program. The one
thing I ask is that you be honest, and provide as much information as you feel
comfortable giving. Rememberlhave no way of knowing who you are. To help me
have an accurate interpretation of your responses, lam wondering if you would
mind it! recorded our conversation? The recording will be destroyed as soon as

all the information from the interviews is collected.

Questions:

 

‘I.

Did you attend the Alcohol
Education Seminar (AES)?

 

Do you remember when you
anended?

 

 

2. What did you think of the
expenence?

3. How many years have you
attended MSU?

4. When you got caught violating a

University regulation. do you
remember what the reason was
(prompt if necessary: minor in
possession, alcohol in the hallway.
noise while under the influence of
alcohol)?

 

96

 

Have you been caught for violating
any other regulations since you
attended the AES? [The response
to this question should be no if the;
student has been properly
idenfifiedJ

Why do you think that you have
not violated a University regulation
again? [prompt Have you just not
gotten caught? Did you move off
campus? Did you change your
behavior?]

 

 

Do you think your alcohol
consumption has changed over
the past two years or so?

 

lfyes:

In what ways has your
consumption changed?

 

On average, how many
drinks do you consume a
week now? [A drink is a
bottle of beer. a glass of
wine, a wine cooler. a shot
glass of liquor, or a mixed
dnnkj

 

Is the number of drinks you
consume now different from
the number you consumed I
about two years ago?

 

Why do you think your
consumption of alcohol has
changed the way do you
haveidenfified?

 

97

Has any significant. or not
so significant event(s)
occurred in your life that
caused you to change you
rate of consumption?

 

If no:

On average. how many
drinks do you consume a
week? [A drink is a bottle of
.beer. a glass of wine, a
wine cooler, a shot glass of
liquor. or a mixed drink.]

Do you think the AES. in any way.
effected your rate of consumption
of alcohol?

 

If yes:

In what ways?

 

Was there any specific
aspect of the AES which
played a significant role in
changing your alcohol
consumption?

 

Do you think that the AES. in any
way, in a reason for you not
getting caught again violating a
University regulation?

 

98

lfyes:

In what ways?

 

 

Was there any specific
- aspect of the AES which
played a significant role in
contributing to you not
getting caught violating
another university
regulation.

  

 

like to add since reflecting on your
experience of attending the AES?

10. Is there anything else you would I

 

 

Thank you for participating in the phone interview. I can assure you

that your responses will be an asset to evaluating the AES. Thanks
' again.

99
APPENDIX D

LETTER TO THE JUDICIAL AFFAIRS OFFICE
REQUESTING GRADE POINT AVERAGE DATA

September 1. 1995

TO: Marie Hansen
Judicial Affairs

FROM: Paul Zelenski

RE: GPA Data Request

In an effort to complete my research examining the effectiveness of the Alcohol
Education Seminar as it relates to behavior change. I would like to request the
Grade Point Averages (GPAs) of those students who participated in the
telephone interview. Attached is the list of code numbers of those participants l
was able to interview. Please match the code to the corresponding student
number you have in your possession to provide the list of GPAs.

Specifically I would like to request the cumulative GPAs for the following
semesters.

1. Fall 1992
2. Fall 1993
3. Spring 1995

Thanks you for your assistance.

 

OFFICE OF
RESEARCH
AND
GRADUATE
STUDIES

University Committee n
Research Involving
Human Subjects
(UCRIHS)

Michigan Slate University
232 Administration Building
East Lansing, Michigan
48824-1046

517/355-2180
FAX: 517/432-1171

100
APPENDIX E

LETTER FROM THE UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON
RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS

MICHIGAN STATE

'UNIVERSITY

April 10, 1995

TO: Paul Zelenski
101 Student Services

RE: IRE#: 95-164
TITLE: THE PARTICIPANTS PERCEPTION OF ANY BEHAVIOR
CHANGE As A RESULT OF ATTENDING A FORCED
REFERRAL ALCOHOL EDUCATION PROGRAM
REVISION REQUESTED: N/A
CATEGORY: -H I
APPROVAL DATE: 04/i0/9s

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects'(UCRIHS)
review of this project is complete. I am pleased to adv se that the
rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately
protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate.

L

herefore, the UCRIHS approved this project including any revision
listed above.

RENEWAL: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with
the approval date shown above. Investigators planning to
continue a project be ond one year must use the green renewal
form (enclosed with t e original agproval letter or when a
project is renewed) to seek u date certification. There is a
maximum of four such expedite renewals ossible. Investigators

wishing to continue a project beyond tha time need to submit it
again or complete reView. .

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in rocedures involving human
subjects, rior to in tiation of t e Change. If this is done at
the time o renewal, please use the green renewal form. To
revise an approved protocol at any 0 her time during the year,
send your written request to the CRIHS Chair, requesting reVised
approval and referencing the project’s IRB # and title. Include

in your request a descr ption of the Change and any revised

ins ruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMS] -

CHANGES: Should either of the followin arise during the course of the
work, investigators must noti y UCRIHS promptly: (1) problems
(unexpected side effects, comp aints, e c.) inVOIVing uman
subjects or (2) changes in the research environment or new
information indicating greater risk to the human sub'ects than
existed when the protocol was previously reviewed an approved.

If we can be of any future help, lease do not hesitate to contact us
at (517)355-2180 or FAX (517)3 6- 171.

‘7 W

cavid E. Wri ht, P D.
UCRIHS Chair

DEW:pjm

  
  
  

cc: Louis Hekhuis

101

LIST OF REFERENCES

Anderson, D. S., and Gadeleto, A. F. Progress or Illusion:
The 1979 and 1982 College Alcohol Surveys. Journal_of

Qollsgs_§tudsnt_zsraonnal. 1984 25 (4)-

Amanda, G. Dealing With the Disruptive College Student:
Some Theoretical and Practical Considerations. Qollogo

Health, April 1983 34.
Ardaiolo, F. P. and Walker, 8. J. Models of Practice. In

Judioial_§ystoms, ed. R. Caruso and W. Travelstead.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987.

Baines, G. M. Evaluation of Alcohol Education - A
Reassessment Using Socialization Theory. Journal_of

Druo_Education. 14 (2).

Berkowitz, A. D., and Perkins, H. W. Current Issues in
Effective Alcohol Education Programming. In Aloohol

, ed. J. S. Sherwood. NASPA Monograph Series,
1987.

Blane. H T-. and Hewitt L E Alcohol_and_xonthi__An
Ana1iaia_of_ths_Literatnrai_12§Q:1215. Rockville.
Maryland: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism, March 1977.

Blum, S., Rivers, C., Howat, J., and Bellows, D. The Effect
of Contracted Abstinence On College Students Behavior
Toward Alcohol Use.

Education, 1980 25 (3)-

Brady, T. A. and Snoxell, L. F.,
fligho;_fionoatlon. American College Personnel

Association, Washington D. C., 1965.

Britain, 8., and Roberge, L. Student's Perception of the
Effects of a University's Alcohol Policy. Qollogo

Student_lournal. Fall 1988 22

Brown, J. L., Alcohol Consumption Among Kansas State
University Freshmen by Probation and No-Probation

Status. Iournal_of_A1cohol_and_nrus_zducation. 1989 34
(3)-

102

Brown, C. L., Tucker, E., and Brandon, C. Freshman
Residents' Perception of an Alcohol Education Class.

WM. December 1991 25

Bryan, W. A., Administering A Campus Alcohol Program. In
, ed. J. C. Dean
and W. A. Bryan. ACPA Media, Southern Illinois Press,
1982.

Boots, C. C., Human Development Theory Applied to Judicial
Affairs Work In W
' ' , ed. R. Caruso and
W. Travelstead. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987.

Caruso, R., Organizing for Judicial Affairs Work. In Now_

WW
Judioial_fiystoms, ed. R. Caruso and W. Travelstead.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987.

CAS (Council for the Advancement of Standards for Student
Services/Development Programs) Standards: Standards and
Guidelines Judicial Programs and Services. 1986.

CAS (Council for the Advancement of Standards for Student
Services/Development Programs) Standards: Standards and
Guidelines for Alcohol and Other Drug Programs. 1990.

Chen, W. W., Dosch, M. Comparison of Drinking Attitudes and
Behaviors Between Participating and Non-Participating
Students in an Voluntary Alcohol Education Program.

MW. Spring 1987 32-

Chen, W. W., Dosch, M. and Cychosz, C. M. The Impact of a
Voluntary Educational Program - Tip It Lightly, Alcohol

Awareness Week W 1982 12
(2)

Clayton, K. N. ' ' °
and_Ednoatlon, Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill
Publishing Co., 1984.

Commission on Substance Abuse at College and Universities
Rethinking Rites of Passage: Substance ABUSE on
America's Campuses. Center on Addiction and Substance
Abuse, Columbia University, 1994.

Dean, H. E., and Dean, J. C. The Evaluation of Campus
Alcohol Programming. In '
Eonoatlon, ed. J. C. Dean and W. A. Bryan. ACPA Media,
Southern Illinois Press, 1982.

103

Dennison, D. The Effects of Selected Field Experiences Upon
the Drinking Behavior of University Students. Journal

of_§chool_flsalth. 1977 49.

Eigen, L. D. Alcohol Practices, Policies, and Potentials of
American Colleges and University. An_foioe_of
, U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Rockville, Maryland,
1991.

Engs, R. C. Let's Look Before We Leap: The Cognitive and
Behavioral Evaluation of a University Alcohol Education

Program. lourna1_of_Alcohol_and_nrug_nducation. 1977
22 (2).

Engs, R. C. Drinking Patterns and Drinking Problems of

College Students. Ionrnal_of_§tudisa_on_Alcohol 1977
38 (11).

Engs, R. C., and Hanson, D. J. The Drinking Patterns and
Problems of College Students: 1983. 1on;nal_ofi_3loohol
and_nrug_Education. 1985 31 (1).

Engs, R. C., and Hanson, D. J. The Alcohol Knowledge and
Drinking Myths of a National Sample of University

Students. 1onrna1_of_Collsge_§tudant_nsialonmant. 1989
30 (2).

Fischer, J. M. A Historical Perspective: Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism in America and on Our Campuses. In Aloohol

Eolicisa_and_Practiasa_on_Collsgs_and_nniisraitY
Qamooeea, ed. J. S. Sherwood. National Association of
Student Personnel Administrators, Monograph Series,
1987.

Flynn, C. A. and Brown, W. E. The Effects of a Mandatory
Alcohol Education Program on College Student Drinkers.

Journal_of_Alcohol_and_Drug_Edusation. 1991 37 (1)-

Fulton, D. R. and Spooner, S. E. Alcohol on Campus: The
Current Issues. NA§£A_Jogrnal, 1987 25 (2).

Gonzalez, G. M. Alcohol Education Can Prevent Alcohol
Problems: A Summary of Some Unique Research Findings.

lonrnal_oI_Alcohol_and_nrus_Edusation. 1982 27 (3).

Gonzalez, G. M. Proactive Efforts and Selected Alcohol

Education Program. In NaN_Dirsctiona_for_5tudant
asriicaai__Alcohol_and_tha_Qollega_Studant. ed. T. G.
Goodale. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1986.

104

Gonzalez, G. M. Alcohol Policy Development: A Necessary
Component for a Comprehensive Alcohol Education Program

on Campus. In
, ed. J. S. Sherwood.

NASPA Monograph Series, 1987

Gonzalez, G. M., and Wiles, W. The Incidence of Alcohol
Usage as a Factor in Student Disciplinary Cases. NASPA

Journal. 1981 12 (2)-
Goodale, T. G. What History Has Taught Us. In Neu_nireo;ione
ed. T. G. Goodale. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1986.

Goodstadt, M. S., and Caleekal, J. Alcohol EdUcation
Programs for University Students: A Review of Their
Effectiveness.

Addictiona.1984 19 (7)

Hanson, D. J. The Effectiveness of Alcohol and Drug

Education. 1onrnal_ofIAloohol_and_nrug_nduoation. 1982
27 (2)

Hanson, D. J. and Engs, R., Correlates of Drinking Problems

Among Collegiena. Qolloss_Studont_lournal. 1986 20 (2)

Hewitt, K. T ° -
' . U. S. Department of
Health, Education , and Welfare. Rockville, MD, 1977.

Hoekema, D. a. tamona_Bulea_and_uoral_tommunit¥. Roman and
Littlefield Publishers Inc.: Lanham, Maryland, 1994.

Hughes, S. P. and Dodder, R. A., Alcohol Consumption

Patterns Among College Populations. Jon;nal_of_§ollege
Student_£orsonnol. 1983 24.

Ingalls, 2. Higher Educations's Drinking Problem. Chronlole
of_Hishor_Ednoation. July 21. 1982.

Ingalls, z. Campus Programs Called Ineffective in Ending

Student Alcohol Abuse. The.§hroniolo_of_flighor
Education 1984 May 2

Janosik, S. M., Davis, M. B., and Spencer, E. F. D.
Characteristics of Repeat Student Offenders: A 6-year

Study. Ionrna1_of_Qolloso_§tudsnt_2sraonnol. 1985 26
(5).

Kinder, W. N., Pope, N. and Walfish, 8. Drug and Alcohol
Education Programs: A Review of Outcome Studies. The

Intornational_Iourna1_of_tho_Addiotiona 1980 15 (7)

105

Kivlahan, D. R. Secondary Prevention with College Drinkers:
Evaluation of an Alcohol Skills Training Program.

Journa1_of_Qonan1ting_and_£linioa1_zaxohologx December
1990 58.

Kraft, D. D. The Prevention and treatment of Alcohol
Problems On a College Campus. Journal_of_Aloohol_and
Druo_Eduoation 1988 34 (1)

Kuh, G. D. The Influence of College Environments on Student
Drinking. Paper read at Association for the Study of
Higher Education. Boston, Massachusetts. October
1991.

LeMay, M., College Disciplinary Referrals for Drinking.
Jonrnal_of_5tudont_Aloohol. 1968 29.

Linney, J. A. and Wandersman, A. Preyention_£lns_lllt__

 

. U. S. Department Of‘
Health and Human Services. Rockville, Maryland, 1991.

Magner, D. K. Alcohol Related Problems Have Not Decreased
on Most College Campuses, Survey Indicates. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 1988, November 9.

Merriam, S. B. ‘ ' .
Qualitatixe_Aporoaoh. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
1988.

Mills, K. C., Pfaffenberger, B., and McCarty, D. Guidelines
for Alcohol Abuse Prevention on the College Campus:
Overcoming the Barriers to Program Success. Jon;nal_of

Highor_Ednoation 1981 52.

National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence (NCAAD).

NQAAn_Eaot_Shooti_xonth_and_Aloohol. Washington. D.C..
1993.

Nelson, S. J. Alcohol Policies and Educational Mission.

NA§£A_IQNIHAI, 1987 25 (2).

O'Connell, D. E., and Beck, T. An Involuntary Therapeutic
Group for Alcohol Abusers.

Personnel. 1984 25 (1).

"Officials Involved in Cutting Substance Abuse by Students
Search for What Works." Chronicle of Higher Education,
1988, November 9.

Oppenheim, A. N. ° ' ' '
Meaenrement, New York: Basic Books, 1966.

106

Perkins, W. H. Confronting Misperceptions of Peer Drug Use
Norms Among College Students: An Alternative Approach
for Alcohol and Other Drug Education Programs. Peer

Proiontion_Imnlomantation_uanuali__flolo_NotNork. 1992.

Perkins, W. H. and Berkowitz, A. D. Perceiving the
Community Norms of ALCOHOL Use Among Students: Some
research Implications for Campus Alcohol Education
Programming. Intornationa1_Iournal_of_tho_Addiotiona.
1986 21.

Portnoy, B. Effects of a Controlled Usage Alcohol Education
Program Based on the Health Belief Model. Journal_ofi

Drug_Eduoation,1980 10 (3).

Posavac, E. College Students' Views of Excessive Drinking

and the University's Role. Iournal_of_nrug_Eduoation.
1993 23 (3).

Presley, C. A., Meilman, P. S., and Lyerla, R. Aloohol_ano_
e; e, ,‘u s, e ’0‘ 'lIP.“‘ -- oozes -. ‘:
and_Poroo2tiona_of_tho_9amoUS_En21ronmont. 1. Southern
Illinois University for the 0.8. Department of
Education, 1993.

Ramsey, E. An Intervention Model for Alcohol and Drug

Problems on the College Campus. 1onrnal_of_§ollege
Student_2orsonnol. 1982 23.

Rapaport, R. S. and Bryan, W. A. Conceptual Framework for
Developing a Comprehensive Campus Program to Reduce
Alcohol, Other Drug and Substance Problems. nlfil
Dooartmont_of_Ednoation.motnork_of_tollogos_and
H . °!' : 'l! I ! II EJ' . !° E I I
Aloono1_Abuas. 1991.

Robinson, J. III A Comparison of Three Alcohol Instruction
Programs on the Knowledge, Attitudes, and Drinking

Behaviors of College Students. Journal_of_nrng
Education, 1981 11.

Rosenthal, R. and Rosnow, R. L. The_1olnnteer_§nbjeot, New
York: John Wiley and Sons, 1975.

Rozelle, G. R., Experiential and Cognitive Small group
Approaches to Alcohol Education for College Students.

lourna1_of_Aloohol_and_nrug_Eduoation 1980 26 (1).

Sadler, O. and Scott, A. First Offenders: A Systematic
Response to Underage Drinking on the College Campus.

Iournal_of_Aloohol_and_nrug_Eduoation. 1993 38 (2).

107

Scheaffer, R. L., Mendenhall, W., and Ott, L.
' , fourth ed., Boston; PWS - Kent

Publishing Company, 1990.

Sherry, P. and Stolberg, V. Factors Affecting Alcohol Use

of College Students. Iournal_of_tollogo_5tudont
Personnel. 1987 24 (4).

Tracey, T. J., Foster, M. E., Perkins, D. C., and Hillman,
L. P. Characteristics of Student Offenders: Some New
Findings and Suggested Improvements in Research Method.

Iournal_of_Qollogo_§tudont_£oraonnolI 1979 20.

Upcraft, M. L., and Eck, S. C. TAAP: A.Model Alcohol
Education Program That Works. In New_nlreoolone_foz

ed. T. G. Goodale. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1986.

Upcraft, M. L., and Welty, J. D. A_§nioe_for_gollege
E .1 ! I 3 . E I E! ! . E

I
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational
Research and Improvement, September, 1990.

Wechsler, H. and McFadden, M., Drinking Among College
Students in New England: Extent, Social Correlates, and
Consequences of Alcohol Use. Journal_of_§tndlee_on
Aloohol,1979 40.

Werch, C. E., Gorman, D. R., and Marty, P. J., Relationship
Between Alcohol Consumption and Alcohol Problems in

Young Adults. Journal_of_nrug_Eduoation. 1987 17 (3L

6

Williamson, E. G., Jowe, W. W., and Lagerstadt-Knudson, B.
What Kinds of College Students Become Disciplinary

Cases? Eduoationa1_and_2oiohologioal_noaauroment 1952
12.

Williamson, E. G., The Fusion of Discipline and Counseling
in the Educative Process. Eereonnel_ano_§nioanoe
Journal 1955 34 (1)

Wilsnak, R. W., and Wilsnak, S. C. Introduction and
Overview. In Aloonol_2rograma_for_Higher_Eduoation.
ed. J. C. Dean, and W. A. Bryan. Carbondale, Illinois:
Southern Illinois University Press, 1982.

Wright, L. S., Correlates of Reported Drinking Problems
Among Male and Female College Students. 1onrnal_of

Aloohol_and_nrug_Eduoation. 1983 28 (3)-

"17'1fi‘7fliflfljfllflifliflfllflflifllfll“