LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

SOCIALMENTORING AS AN ALCOHOL

PREVENTION PROGRAM FOR COLLEGE FRESHMEN
ON A COMMUTER CAMPUS

presented by

Laura Sherry Hubner

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Counseling Psychology

   

/ Major professor

Date P//7 &/
/ /

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

0-12771

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

”fr-1 W‘

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

6/01 cJCIRC/DateDuepss-sz

 

 

  
  

    
 

TPRING AS AN ALCOHOL PREVENTION PROGRAM FOR
., ‘ "HATE COLLEGE FRESHMEN ON A COMNIUTER CAMPUS

By

Laura Sherry Hubner

A DISSERTATION

- , Submitted to
Michigan State University
. a j j. t in partial fulfillment of the requirements
= for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of COunseling, Educational Psychology,
and Special Education

2001

 

    
 
 

By

Laura Sherry Hubner . - 1

AN ABSTRACT OF A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Depanment of Counseling, Educational Psychology,
and Special Education

2001

Professor Nancy Crewe

 

 

 

ABSTRACT
By
Laura Sherry Hubner

There was a gap in the literature regarding the use and abuse of alcohol by
undergraduate college students on commuter campuses. Therefore, it was unclear
whether or not alcohol prevention programs would be necessary for these students.

This study investigated the alcohol use of a representative sample of 616
undergraduate college students on a medium—sized commuter campus. Students were
asked to voluntarily complete a self-report measure that described their alcohol use.
Amount of alcohol consumption, frequency of alcohol consumption, perception of
campus drinking norms, and negative consequences experienced as a result of drinking
alcohol were examined by the overall campus sample, gender, and class levels
0.6., freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior). The gender and ethnicity of participants
that abstained from drinking alcohol in the last year was also examined.

The results of this campus study indicated that a prevention program
(a.k.a. prevention study) would be beneficial to students on this commuter campus.
Therefore, a grant was obtained from the Michigan Department of Public Health to
implement an alcohol prevention program. The grant required the use of social mentoring
and was designed for first year incoming freshman students. A total of 120 students
voluntarily participated in the prevention study. Forty upper class students joined the
study as mentors and 80 incoming freshman students joined as mentees. The same
self-report measure used in the campus study was completed by 52% (n = 42) of

freshman participants in the prevention study. Protest and posttest data were collected on

 

 

 

This is dedicated to my husband, John, for his unconditional love and support.

$41..“

 

  
  

_ f I' A" to thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Nancy Crewe, for her

i“ 7 wt, patience, and guidance. I also wish to thank my dissertation committee
‘ (ICE:
‘ ‘ _’ "FER Betsy Becker, Dr. Ken Rice, and Dr. Robbie Steward for their valuable

. . .fi o.§0q§l":i’l_

  
  

 

  
     
  

 

  
   
     

a: ' .--'r L» ' 3
M - W! EW'TABLE orcomms
ism rm“ .
we... ........................................................................ vii
( my. I
I

. .............................................................................. l

The College Environment ............................................................. 2

, f 3. , .. I. FBirtdura's Social Learning Theory ................................................... 3

‘ . mgr-l Statement and Significance of the Problem ......................................... 6

Purpose of Study ........................................................................ 9

Research Questions ..................................................................... 9

Hypotheses .............................................................................. 1 1

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............................................................ 13
Alcohol Use and Misuse by College Students ....................................... 13
College Students’ Perceptions of Campus Drinking Norms ....................... 19
Alcohol Prevention and Intervention .................................................. 22
The Relationship Between Peer Mentoring and Alcohol Prevention ............. 29
CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY ............................................................................... 35
Campus Study ............................................................................ 35

Campus Description ............................................................ 35

Instruments ....................................................................... 36

Participants ....................................................................... 37
Procedures ........................................................................ 37

Prevention Study .......................................................................... 38
Participants ....................................................................... 38

Procedures ........................................................................ 38

Mentors .............................................. A. ............................. 38
Mentees ........................................................................... 40
Data Collection ................................................................... 41
Data Analytic Procedures ................................................................ 42

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS ........................................................................................... 45

Campus Study .............................................................................. 45

.53., ’ Overall Campus Drinking Habits ............................................... 47

3 7‘ 3;, Gender and Class Level Variables ............................................. 48

«.f " 1‘ V 7 I L . '3' Gender and Alcohol Consumption .........

 

; ‘ Class Level

  

 

 

 

 

Gender and Ethnicity of Abstainers .......................................... 59

Prevention Study .......................................................................... 60
Alcohol Consumption ........................................................... 61
Perceptions of the Campus Drinking Norms ................................. 62
Negative Consequences Experienced as a Result of Drinking Alcohol..64
Gender and Ethnicity of Abstainers ........................................... 65
Comparisons Between Campus Study Freshmen and Prevention Study
Freshmen ................................................................. 66
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION ...................................................................................... 69
Discussion of Major Findings ........................................................... 69
Campus Study .................................................................... 69
Prevention Study ................................................................. 74
Implications for Practice and Suggestions for Future Research .................... 76
Limitations of Study ...................................................................... 80
Additional Observations and Insights ................................................... 81
Conclusions ................................................................................. 82
REFERENCES ..................................................................................... 85
APPENDICES ..................................................................................... 90
Appendix A Fraternity Flyer ............................................................ 91
Appendix B Core Drug and Alcohol Survey .......................................... 92
Appendix C Campus Survey Consent Form ........................................... 96
Appendix D Mentor Recruitment Flyer ................................................ 97
Appendix E Mentor Application ........................................................ 98
Appendix F Mentee Recruitment Flyer ......... 3 ........................................ 99
Appendix G Newspaper Article ........................................................ 100
Appendix H Prevention Study Pretest Consent Form ............................... 101
Appendix I Prevention Study Consent Form ......................................... 102
Appendix J Prevention Study Posttest Cover Letter ................................. 103
Appendix K Questions for Mentors ....................... L ............................. l 04

vii

 

 

LIST OF TABLES

1. Demographic Characteristics of Campus Study Participants
2. Frequency of Alcohol Use in the Last Year by Gender
3. Frequency of Alcohol Use in the Past 30 Days by Gender

4. Chi-Square Tests for Frequency of Alcohol Use in the Last Year and the Past 30 Days
by Gender

5. Means and Standard Deviations for the Frequency of Alcohol Consumption
(i.e., Average Number of Drinks per Week) by Class Level

6. Frequency of Alcohol Use in the Last Year by Class Level

7. Chi-Square Tests for Frequency of Alcohol Use in the Last Year and the Past 30 Days
by Class Level

8. Frequency of Alcohol Use in the Past 30 Days by Class Level

9. Perceptions of Campus Drinking Norms by Campus Sample and Gender

10. Perceptions of Campus Drinking Norms by Class Level

11. Comparisons of Perceptions of Campus Drinking Norms by Campus Sample
12. Comparisons of Perceptions of Alcohol Use by Gender

13. Comparisons of Perceptions of Alcohol Use by Class Level

14. Participant Responses for Negative Consequences Experienced Due to Drinking
Alcohol During the Last Year by Campus Sample

15. Proportion of Campus Study Abstainers Within Each Gender and Ethnicity Group
16. Demographic Characteristics of Prevention Study Participants

17. Frequency of Alcohol Use in the Last Year by Prevention Study Freshman

l8. Perceptions of Campus Drinking Norms by Prevention Study Participants

19. Responses for Negative Consequences Experienced Due to Drinking Alcohol During
the Last Year by Freshman Groups

 

3"*"'- (Ham R1
thhie Each Gender and Ethnicity Group' in Prevention

by l t

on it lll.‘

 

CHAPTERI

Introduction

misuse, including binge drinking, IS a problem that affects college

 

- 'WMOnmde Binge dnnking' rs defined as drinking 5 or more drinks in a row.

National studies have shown that while there was a slight decrease in the amount of binge
drinkingwithin the past few years, an increase in frequency of drinking and in drinking to
get drlmk occurred (Presley, Meilman, Cashin & Lyerla, 1996; Wechsler, 1998). The
fiequency of drinking and driving and other alcohol-related problems such as missing
classes also increased. Alcohol misuse by college students has led to student deaths,
violence, and campus riots (Douglas, Collins, Warren, Kann, Gold, Clayton, Ross &
Kolbe, 1997; French, Cohen & Case, 1999; Syre, Pesa & Cockley, 1999; Wechsler,
1996). As a result, attention has focused on students who misuse alcohol while in college.
This attention augments the perception that college is a place where drinking alcohol is
the norm. However, the number of students abstaining from alcohol has increased and not
all students who drink binge drink. The national average is that one in five college
students either abstains from alcohol or drinks responsibly (Wechsler, 1998).

Many college students want to fit in with their peers and are influenced by peer

pressure (Donohew, Clayton, Skinner & Colon, 1999; Perkins et al., 1999; Perkins &
Berkowitz, 1986; Perkins & Wechsler, 1996). If students believe college is a place where

other students misuse alcohol, they will think it is acceptable to misuse alcohol

 

Wm. When students think that their campus peers desire and expect heavy alcohol

 

   

  
     

. A” i viewtheirownattitudetowarddrinkingassimilartothecampusnorm.
”I; .

I .

“Meats may feel more comfortable in a setting where they believe heavy drinking

ll ‘ incapable. Such settings minimize the attention drawn to their drinking habits. It also

as sllowsthese students to drink heavily in public college settings (e.g., bars and parties)
instead of having to hide their drinking for fear of criticism. Additionally, students who
abstain from drinking or who drink moderately may feel excluded or self-conscious
because they do not fit the perceived campus norm for drinking. These students may
experience peer pressure to drink more, or they may drink more to feel accepted
(Agostinelli, Brown & Miller, 1995; Perkins & Berkowitz, 1986; Perkins & Wechsler,
1996; Wechsler, 1998).

Altemately, students' personal attitudes toward religion or culture may inhibit
drinking. Students with a strong belief in a religion or culture which prohibits drinking do
not tend to be influenced by their perception of campus norms. The perception of campus
norms only has a weak impact on these students (Perkins & Wechsler, 1996).

The College Environment

Some aspects of college may facilitate alcohol use. College can be a lonely place
for some students. It is not always easy to meet people. A 21-year-old student stated, "If
you are not out at the bar or going to parties, it is hard to meet people" (French et a1.,

. .3
‘ .

'3. V" "

 

 

"'73

  

   

_ . 3. some college students view alcohol as a part of the college
WCollege life is not only synonymous with learning and education but with
independence and having fun. Part of the college environment includes college bars that
promote college student drinking. They are common places to socialize. They are
normally located within walking distance of a college campus, and are enticing to college
students because of their food and drink specials (Wechsler, 1998).

Students know of the risks associated with drinking alcohol and yet they continue
to drink (French et al., 1999). Some traditional-aged students (i. e., 18-22 years old) may
enter college with the idea that there will be parties and experimentation with alcohol.
Students often feel entitled to be able to drink heavily during this time in their lives
(Perkins et al., 1999). In response to college student attitudes toward drinking alcohol,
prevention and intervention programs should be implemented. Furthermore, these
programs should be multidimensional. Programs should include more than just alcohol
education (Kleinot & Rogers, 1982).

To summarize, students' use and misuse of alcohol is influenced by their
perception of college life, their need to meet people and socialize, and the availability of
places where they can do this. Some ways to help prevent alcohol use and misuse are: 1.
Focus on students who abstain from drinking or those who drink responsibly. Combined

these students represent over 20% of the college population, and this number is

 

  

  
 

‘ i W drinkersz. Establishanonthreateningmethodforsmdentsto
3am a safe structtned setting where students can meet one

_ should have an alcohol-flee environment where they can socialize. This
I ‘ “I” should include activities that college students enjoy.

“aw . One way to begin to alleviate the alcohol problem is by establishing effective
alcohol prevention programs on college campuses. Alcohol prevention programs have
been attempted on college campuses for the last ten years. Overall they have not proven
efi’ective as alcohol abuse continues to be a problem on college campuses. A weakness of
these programs is that they tended to focus on educating students about the dangers of
alcohol misuse (Kleinot & Rogers, 1982). Many students are already educated on these
facts. Although it is important for students to know the facts, they also need to learn skills
to assist them in resisting environmental pressures (Gonzalez, 1989; Smith & McCauley,
1991). Furthermore, many programs have lacked a theoretical base and utilized concepts
that lack support in the research literature (Cummings, 1997; Gonzalez, 1989). These
programs are difficult to evaluate, and it is hard to identify whether any of the

components of the program are effective.

Bandura’s Social Learning Theory
Bandura's Social Learning Theory and its self-efficacy component (Bandura
1977a, 1986) are a good bases for a prevention program on a college campus. The Social

Learning Theory views alcohol use as a socially learned behavior. Socioenvironmental

factors and personal perceptions combine to result in alcohol use as a purposive and

fimehonnlbehavior (Johnson & Solis, 1983). Therefore, prevention programs based on ‘ _~~

 

 

  

  

i 1 Wm are believed to be effective because harmful behaviors are maintained '1 I,
W recurrent social reinforcement, environmental cues, and occasionally I
physiological reinforcement (Botvin & Wills, 1985). When students improve their social
skills, assertiveness skills, decision-making skills, and communication skills they are
developing personal characteristics that make them less vulnerable to alcohol misuse.
Aside from teaching students the skills to resist the pressure to drink, prevention
programs need to reduce their motivation to drink. This may be accomplished by
strategies that increase the perceived risks alcohol poses to students' health, life, and
relationships and by increasing students’ personal and social competence (Hawkins,
Lishner, Catalano & Howard, 1986). Prevention programs need to value the belief in
students' ability to perform these skills and the outcome when the skills are applied
appropriately.
The concept of self-efficacy in the Social Learning Theory states that maintaining
and changing behavior are a function of a person's expectations. Outcome expectations
are beliefs about a particular behavior resulting in a particular outcome. Efficacy
expectations are the beliefs that a person is able to execute the behavior that results in
these outcomes. Bandura (1977b) believed that efficacy expectations are learned from
modeling, performance accomplishments, verbal persuasion, and physiological arousal.

.WApetentml cause of self-efficacy is modeling. One form of modeling is labeled ._ _ ea. _

. ,‘.

      

   

    
 

. , . , , Therefore, university alcohol prevention programs that are led by

' . . . ve etreet on students (Goodstadt & Caleekal-lohn, 1984; Oblander,

'wlm involvement can be an effective component of an alcohol prevention
prom The literature shows peers have a substantial impact on college students'
substance use (Khavari, 1993; Pruitt, Kingery, Mirzaee, Heuberger & Hurley, 1991).
Students model their peers' behavior. Promoting the visibility of students participating in
alcohol-free activities should attract students who abstain from alcohol and those who
drink responsibly. Additionally, mentoring by a peer will facilitate students’ involvement
in prevention programs. Mentoring will provide students with support. This will help
them to resist pressure to follow the perceived campus norms regarding drinking.
Mentoring is influential to the psychosocial development of students. A mentor can
provide role modeling, acceptance and confirmation, and friendship which permits social
interaction and familiarity (Kram, 1986).

Statement and Siggificance of the Problem

)

Alcohol misuse on college and university campuses is a problem. It has been a
problem for over 20 years. Although the number of abstaining students has increased
Slightly, other indicators show that the problem has not been alleviated or even
diminished. Within the past two years, there have been several alcohol-related deaths of

* ' 4- '(Douglasetal., 1997; FrenchetaL, l999).1hemisanmcreaseinthe

    

 

‘u .._'

 

”a

91‘“.

ran

lb.

"1

s M

   
   
 

mosseeouege students binge drink and more students are

  
 

' ' ~.- Fifty—two percent of college students nationwide reported "getting
' . . motivation to drink (Wechsler, 1998).

1 'r‘Lt‘.‘ ‘. ’ 1».
:5, ’m’ ‘ " r3 .. .-.e . 7 programs have been implemented with little success. Programs that . ‘ .,

'-.I
e

h -. mamas have not been evaluated appropriately, and have not been
Wat other colleges and universities. Previous prevention programs have utilized
some tactics, promoted abstinence and have attempted to educate students on the dangers
of heavy drinking.

The literature shows that students model the behavior of their peers and are
influenced by their perceived campus drinking norms (Baer, Stacy & Larimer, 1991;
Haines & Spear, 1996; Hansen, 1993; Perkins, Meilman, Leichliter, Cashin & Presley,
1999; Perkins & Berkowitz, 1986; Perkins & Wechsler, 1996; Smith & McCauley, 1991).
Therefore, prevention programs should show students the severe consequences of
excessive drinking, their vulnerability to these consequences, and the advantages of
drinking in moderation (Kalsher, Clarke & Wogalter, 1993; Kleinot & Rogers, 1982).
Additionally, alcohol free events should be promoted on college campuses along with
peer-education groups (Reisberg, 1998; Syre, Pesa & Cockley, 1999).

The majority of research on college students' substance use and misuse has been
conducted on residential campuses. There is a gap in the literature regarding alcohol use
and misuse on college commuter campuses. Furthermore, there may be increased risks
from substance misuse for students on a commuter campus. Although there is no data on "

” "Woppearsthatdnnkmgand drivingmaybeanincreasedrisktostudentsona

    

 

‘.

T)

l t

H." -
his

in-
mi

;'_
‘x'v

'9,”

\N‘

    

  
 

N '- w ' ‘We (lo-know that drinking and driving is prevalent among

 

‘ 'fstudents (Everett, Lowry, Cohen & Dellinger, 1999; F inken, Jacobs & i: _, .
m4”; Gotthoffer, 1999; Hunnicutt, 1996; Kulick & Rosenberg, 2000). Also,
college students place themselves at risk by riding with a driver who appears intoxicated
(Powell & Drucker, 1997).

The impact of gender and race on alcohol use and abuse was also explored.
Researchers, in the literature reviewed, conveyed inconsistent results regarding the effect
of gender and race on drinking habits. Regarding gender differences, it appeared that
undergraduate college men consumed more alcohol than undergraduate college females
(Humara & Sherman, 1993 ;Werner & Green, 1992). However, Humara & Sherman also
reported that there were no gender differences when examining frequency of drinking
alcohol. Altemately, Ametrano (1992) stated that he found no gender differences for
amount or frequency of alcohol consumption.

There were also discrepancies in the literature when exploring race and alcohol
use. Some researchers (Douglas et al., 1997; Johnston, O’Malley & Bachman, 1996)
rcported that there were race differences when examining undergraduate college alcohol
use. They stated that Caucasian students reported higher amounts of alcohol
consumption. However, Humara and Sherman (1993) reported finding no race
difi'erences in alcohol consumption.

Therefore, this study will examine gender and race differences on both amount

 

we

(M

.v

ie.L

  

 

 
  
 
 
  

'7- cuiifjp '.L ~.

' .. «s two components: (1) a campus-wide random slave! of
I ’ 1 ~ mung students on a medium sized commuter campus (also
Ethel-pus study”) and (2) a prevention study. The purpose of the campus
Wm besplore the amount of alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems
experienced by undergraduate students on a commuter campus. This researcher wanted to
know if these students were binge drinking and/or experiencing negative consequences
related to drinking alcohol. The University, along with the researchers, felt that the results
of this campus study demonstrated a need for alcohol prevention.

The prevention study explored the effectiveness of an alcohol prevention program
using social mentoring for incoming college freshmen on a commuter campus. Incoming
freshmen were assigned to upper classmen called mentors. Mentors were screened and
given training prior to being assigned to 1 to 3 freshmen. During the year they interacted
individually as well as through social events sponsored by the program.

Research Questions

The specific research questions for the campus study are as follows:

1. Are there differences between undergraduate college males and females in

terms of the amount of alcohol consumed?

2. Are there differences between undergraduate college males and females with

regard to frequency of alcohol consumption?

3. Are there differences in alcohol consumption between students in the

- .. fieshman undergraduate class and students in upper level classes?

  

  

 

of undergraduate college freshmen?

. How does a random sample of undergraduate college freshmen perceive the

campus drinking norms?

. What proportion of randomly sampled undergraduate college freshmen report

experiencing negative consequences as a result of drinking alcohol?

. What are the demographic characteristics of randomly sampled undergraduate

college freshmen who abstain from drinking alcohol compared to those who

report using alcohol?

The specific research questions for the prevention study are as follows:

1.

What is the frequency and amount of alcohol consumption among
undergraduate college freshmen voluntarily participating in an alcohol

prevention program?

. How do undergraduate college freshmen participating in an alcohol

prevention program perceive the campus drinking norms?

. What proportion of undergraduate college freshmen participating in an

alcohol prevention program report experiencing negative consequences as a

result of drinking alcohol?

. What are the demographic characteristics of undergraduate college freshmen

participating in an alcohol prevention program who abstain from drinking

alcohol?

. Does participation in the prevention program reduce students’ utilization of

alcohol from beginning to end of their freshman year in college?

     
  
  
  
  

_.
'._-’. ,-
l’ .

"H‘fW’ :lm _ . I .’
wiflmufliefollowinghypotheses:
a... eollegemaleswill consume more alcoholthanundergradnam

      

‘ Liz-.13 341‘ Hindu-graduate college males will drink alcohol more frequently than

undergraduate college females.
3. Students in the freshman undergraduate class will consume less alcohol than

   

students in upper level classes.

4. A random sample of undergraduate college freshmen will drink more
frequently and consume more alcohol than freshmen participating in an
alcohol prevention program at pretest and posttest.

5. A random sample of undergraduate college freshmen will perceive the campus
drinking norm as higher that it actually is.

6. A random sample of undergraduate college freshmen will report experiencing
more negative consequences as a result of drinking alcohol than
undergraduate freshmen participating in an alcohol prevention program.

7. The subgroup of undergraduate college freshmen that is most likely to abstain
from drinking alcohol will be minority women.

The prevention study will test the following hypotheses:

l. The majority of undergraduate college freshmen who participate in the alcohol

Prevention program will either abstain from drinking alcohol or will drink

‘ Hmnsibiy.

    

 

program will perceive the campus drinking norm as higher than it actually is.
3. Undergraduate college freshmen participating in an alcohol prevention

program will report experiencing fewer negative consequences as a result of

drinking alcohol than undergraduate freshmen among the campus sample.

4. The subgroup of undergraduate college freshmen that is most likely to abstain

from drinking alcohol will be minority women.

5. College freshmen will have lower levels of alcohol use after participating in

the program than they did at the beginning.

Several important, though tentative, implications for research may be drawn from
these studies. First, this research provides information about undergraduate students’
alcohol consumption solely on a commuter campus. This information is scarce in the
current literature. Second, this research will have implications for the kind of prevention
strategies that should be pursued in the future. If this program shows a positive impact on
student drinking, then social mentoring on college campuses may merit further
exploration. Third, this research will provide us with some feedback regarding the
effectiveness of a program that includes several components suggested in the literature
for an effective prevention program. Although there are limitations to the proposed study,

it is based on a theory, it uses peers as models and educators, and it is being evaluated

with a sound measure.

 

til?

A .-
J...

,L-
r‘.
,4 .

l

r321"!
¥\~A¢
5

rpm:

Rrgv
L153.
A

-

mug

l
,_ ,
4 ‘1 -

 

    

. a to be a need for alcohol prevention programs on college
7' ._, » w - :u mate students continue to misuse alcohol, specifically by binge
' g “the present study uses social mentoring by peers along with alcohol education
' . tow alcohol misuse. The following chapter reviews the literature in the following
m: the alcohol use and misuse by college students, alcohol prevention and intervention
programs, mentoring, and peer education. '
Alcohol Use and Misuse by College Students

The Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study surveyed college
students nationally in 1993 and 1997. Results showed there was minimal change
regarding binge drinking between these two years. However, some increases were
reported. There was a small increase in the rate of frequent binge drinking. Also, the
prevalence of alcohol-related problems such as driving after drinking, damaging property,
and experiencing personal injuries increased among drinkers. There were also increases
in the frequency of drunkenness among drinkers, and in drinking to get drunk as a reason
for using alcohol. Lastly, the proportion of abstainers increased significantly (Wechsler,
Dowdall, Maenner, Gledhill—Hoyt & Lee, 1998). The authors hypothesized that more
students abstained due to alcohol prevention and intervention programs. They suggested

mat these programs might be benefiting students who drink infrequently. This study

Med thatthere were an equal number of students who binge drink and those who do

   

 

w

are
bu-

in...

u

:4:
F!
r I

v.
5’.
‘i'
\J.“‘
‘x .
s ;-
‘ul
n“
l
.5; '
x.
if“

    

". W3 drinks per week. The authors also stated that half of the students surveyed

' memory. These students only consume an average of 1.5 drinks per week. This

mic suggested that prevention programs focus on the students who drink responsibly.
This might help the perception of campus drinking norms by highlighting that the
students who drink responsibly are equal in number to students who binge drink
(Wechsler, Molnar, Davenport & Beer, 1999).

Bennett, Miller, and Woodall (1999) explored drinking patterns and binge
drinking in undergraduates from a large southwestern university over a three year period,
from 1994 and 1996. They found that each year 80% of students reported some alcohol
use and over a third of students engaged in binge drinking. The highest number of
negative consequences occurred to students who engaged in binge drinking or frequent
drinking. In 1996, rates of binge drinking and frequent drinking were higher than in 1994
or 1995. The authors acknowledged that the survey was administered in the Spring
semester of 1996 instead of the Fall semester, which is when it was administered in the
previous two years. However, additional studies (Johnston, O'Malley & Bachman, 1996)
found binge drinking had been on the rise. The results also showed that underage students
were drinking in a number of settings from residence halls to commercial establishments.

Each yea, the percentage of underage drinkers ranged from 30 to 40 %. Half of these

Wattage 21, reporteddn'nking in'bars and restaurants. This studyalso explored

 

l

Um:

.Alb'

V“

\
A Al-

Elf.

h».
in“ i

it

E

backgrounds, reported the highest rates of binge dunking.
‘ ~. who reported the highest rates of abstaining were nonwhite, non-

  

.- ......

    

"‘L
. '1?

‘9’? 1

, ' . I fim'm the National College Health Risk Behavior Survey, results
“ p i m that one third (34.5%) of students were binge drinking in the month prior to the

stir-hey. Additionally, almost 30% of student drinkers had driven a car after drinking. This

survey also attempted to create a profile of the student binge drinker. A typical binge

drinker appears to be a white male between the ages of 18 and 24 years old attending a

. four year college or university. Results indicated that male students were more likely than

female students to drink and then drive and to report episodic heavy drinking. Second,
students between the ages of 18 and 24 reported higher rates of episodic heavy drinking
than students aged 25 and older. Third, White students reported higher rates of frequent
alcohol use and episodic heavy drinking than both Black and Hispanic students. White
students also had higher rates than Black students of driving after drinking. Last, students
attending four year institutions were more likely to report episodic heavy drinking than
students in two year institutions (Douglas et al., 1997).

Lowe, F agan, Fagan and Free (1992) conducted a survey of college students at a
private university on the East coast. This study was designed to explore alcohol-related
issues for students, including their reasons for drinking and their drinking companions.
Approximately 250 students were surveyed. Eighty percent of students responded that

theydrank with their friends, their peers. The survey also found that students drink to be

‘ -I
_' \
.. 1.‘
4 .q‘ x... .~

   
   

m. 'ng alcohol was shown to be a regular component of social functions. The

     

 

0‘

.k'

~r1|
LA»:

I' “

'd'

w;
L... t

s. i.\

 

~

1.

t.“‘
x

t

".I».

g. _
‘ E

.1,"

ix .
51..

PI

 

   
  

   

. percent of students believed celebrating was an important reason to
i. if; 7,».- " - 111001101 to relax was endorsed by approximately half of the students

it "i sigma Last, more than one third of students reported drinking to get drunk and

,, m because their fiiends drink.

Posavac (1993) explored college students' perception of excessive drinking and
university alcohol policies at a private university in the Midwest. One hundred thirty-
three students were surveyed. The results of the study indicated that students disapproved
of negative alcohol-related behaviors and effects such as driving after drinking, fighting,
and blackouts or memory loss. However, students had an inadequate perception of the
efi‘ect alcohol would have on the level of control they had on their behavior. A large
number of students tolerated binge drinking and negative alcohol-related behaviors by
their peers. These students did not believe that engaging in risk-taking behavior after
drinking was indicative of a drinking problem. Students were also asked about their
views toward university alcohol policies. Students surveyed reported that they would
reject a strict or severe intervention by the university. One fifth of the students surveyed
did not want any input from the university regarding student drinking. However, four-
fifiln thought it was acceptable for the university to take an educational role. This author
suggested alcohol prevention programs focus on the perceived benefits students seek

..er drinking. Then programs would be able to educate these students about

u.
.\‘.

A

M.“ )alurnativesthatmayredueetheirdfinking.Healsothoughtitmight 74;,"

    

  
  
 

"-1." mamwondmtedastudytoexploretheefi‘ectsofgender

“ . .. .. .. reomumption and as well as situational difi‘erences. A questionnaire

Wby 102 Caucasian students and 81 African American students at a

mull-W regional university in the mid-Atlantic. Results of the study showed that
mdrank more alcohol than women, but there were no significant differences in alcohol
consumption between Caucasian and African American students. However, binge
drinking Caucasian students reported higher interpersonal problems scores than African
American students and binge drinking African American students reported higher
intrapersonal problem scores. The authors defined interpersonal problems as problem
situations arising from external stimuli and intrapersonal problems arise from internal
stimuli. These authors felt strongly that prevention and intervention strategies need to be
tailored to gender and race differences, and differences between binge and nonbinge
drinkers.

Werner and Greene (1992) explored the drinking behaviors of college freshmen
and identified students at risk for problem drinking. They surveyed 308 college freshmen
with equal numbers of men and women. They found that in the month before the survey,
17% had drunk alcohol on 10 or more occasions and 18% had binged on 6 or more
occasions. Assessment questionnaires given to the students revealed that 21 to 29% of

these students were at high risk for problem drinking. The assessment scores were based

on frequent drinking and bingeing. No difference was found between men and women .

mm of drinking, however, men reported more binge drinking.

 

  

urn
l

NHL

"v.2.

.LH

Urn‘l
thug

43“

:flT‘“
"Nu

, - ‘ names 14 Massachusetts colleges. Almost every student

    

' i , e the second year ifthey had done so the first year. Students who began
I. 7 m W Mir second year were light users. Regarding binge drinking, two of
W Who binged during their first year of college continued this behavior during
the second year. Few female students began binge drinking the second year if they had
not done so the first year. However, one third of the male freshmen that did not binge
drink during the first year began this behavior the second year (Wechsler, Isaac,
Grodstein & Seller, 1993).

These studies show that students have continued to binge drink throughout the
1990s. College students continue to binge drink. However, there are an equal number of
college students who drink responsibly. The studies are in agreement regarding the
characteristics of students who binge drink. These students tend to be White males aged
18 and 24 years old. Additionally, the results from these studies show that college
students drink in social settings with their peers.

Studies investigating substance use and misuse in college students have some
common limitations. First, data are generally collected via self-report survey. This
limitation threatens the internal and external validity of studies. Students who perceive
campus drinking norms to be higher than they truly are may exaggerate their substance
use to fit this perceived norm. Altemately, they may underreport if they feel guilty about
their drinking behavior. Second, many of these studies encounter sampling problems that

' ’ty of their results. National studies of colleges while present are

0.
.‘\ ‘. ~
. ' '4’

 

 

lit

but!

in

 

 

    
    

._"1'
1"

"'1': We location, and size. Third, nonresponse to posttests and second-

   
 
  
 

" .1 "*igptentially serious source of bias. Study attrition rates may be due to

 

min-cums their alcohol use. Students who are drinking heavily may be less
0 Wormotivated to complete a survey about alcohol use.

» . - The proposed study has limitations similar to those mentioned above. However,
the study will add new data to the literature where are there are gaps. First, this is one of
the few studies conducted on a commuter campus. We know commuter students are

- drinking alcohol (Schroat et al., 1999), but we do not know how effective an alcohol
prevention program will be. Second, it explores the effects of social mentoring as a
component of alcohol prevention. Mentoring has been shown to have multiple positive
effects on college students (Cunningham, 1999; Kelly & Schweitzer, 1998; Luna &
Cullen, 1998). However, there is no research that informs us if mentoring adds any
benefits to alcohol prevention.
College Students’ Perceptions of Campus Drinking Norms
Perkins, Meilman, Leichliter, Cashin and Presley (1999) compared college
students’ self-reported frequency of alcohol use and their perceptions of the frequency of
alcohol use by other students. In a secondary analysis of a nationwide database, they
examined data from 168 students from 100 college campuses. Students were asked to
rcport their frequency of alcohol use. They were also asked to report the frequency of

alcohol use by “ the average student” on their campus. The researchers used the median

‘ 01W use to represent peer norms. They found that students tend to

‘e..

    

a
'7
“q

Hgv‘

PA

a,,

l
N‘s).
r

”l '
rm”

 

  

o u

 

.

‘ I ' = 1‘ ”sad Larimer (1991) explored college student drinking patterns and

 

WWII: of their peers’ drinking patterns. A total of 411 college student
whither: self-reported the amount of alcohol they drink and their frequency of
consnnpfion. The students then reported their perceptions’ of the amount of alcohol
consumed and the frequency of consumption by their peer groups. The authors found that
the majority of these college students perceived their peers as drinking alcohol more
frequently than they did. Both heavy and light drinkers reported an exaggerated
perception of their peers' drinking.

Wesley and Wechsler (1996) examined data from 17,592 college students that
participated in a nationwide survey. The students represented 140 universities. Random
samples were drawn from each university and students completed a self-report
questionnaire. The authors investigated college students’ perceptions of campus drinking
norms and the impact of these perceptions on alcohol abuse. They reported a variation in
students’ perceptions about the campus drinking norms at their universities. However,
Wesley and Wechsler suggested that students’ perceptions of the campus drinking norms

significantly influenced students’ own drinking behavior. They believed that students’

' perceptions of the campus drinking norm have more influence on their drinking alcohol

than their own attitudes about drinking. These authors found that students are more likely
to abuse alcohol when they perceive the campus drinking norm to be very permissive.

m regardless of the actual campus drinking norm, students who believed that

  

' . '.
J— _. . A _. _ . . ‘ ’7‘“ 0‘ H... s.

"W,"

.l’ ..

are
heat.

“an.
.3.“
.

‘."‘“

. .
U5”...

 

rm-
v.

La...

A A

 

 

, ' ~mandrngsdifreredonrywhensmdenmeporudbaieang
l" firema'ined drinking. Thentheirperception ofthe campusdrinking ’

  

. ’ Wand Spear (1996) conducted an intervention to reduce binge drinking
annealing: students. The intervention was a “major public information campaign”
employed at a public, residential campus of 23,000 students. It involved changing the
perception of the campus drinking norm through advertising. Advertisements stating the
actual campus drinking norms were posted around campus and reported weekly in the
campus newspaper. This information was also distributed to students on fliers and
pamphlets. Additionally, students would interact with other students in a game format to
share this information. These authors suggested that making students’ perceptions of the
campus drinking norm more realistic would lower the proportion of students who were
binge drinking. They implemented their intervention over a three-year period. Each year,
approximately 18,000 students completed self-report questionnaires that were
administered in required undergraduate general education classes. Baseline data showed
that students significantly exaggerated the proportion of their peers who were binge
drinking. Afier the intervention was employed, there was a significant decrease in the
proportion of students who perceived binge drinking as the norm. Furthermore, there was
a significant decrease in the proportion of students who reported binge drinking.

Perkins and Berkowitz (1986) examined 1,116 college students’ personal attitudes

toward alcohol use and their perceptions of alcohol use by their peers. The students who

-. -:. “’

. m self-report questionnaires were a representative sample of a liberal arts college

 

 

 

 

.lrbk

"V‘

y

.‘.l.

"N;

 

"nut;

 

,
l 1‘ ‘

u-
i.-

 

,

1'5.“ ~¢

‘gl \l
-\

 

     

   

  

. _ V 7 .. . . of thecampus drinking norms were significantly related to
‘ mm“ Students who believed their perceptions of the campus drinking norm
tubesinill' to their own attitudes reported drinking alcohol more heavily and in more
public places than students with dissimilar attitudes and perceptions.
Alcohol Prevention and Intervention

Numerous alcohol prevention and intervention programs have been conducted.
Some components of these programs have been shown to be effective. The following
studies review the impact and effectiveness of various programs.

Syre, Pesa and Cockley (1999) reviewed solutions to alcohol problems on college
campuses. They reported 12 steps created by Henry Wechsler of the Harvard School of
Public Health and four steps they created. These authors, including Wechsler, believed
strategies should be implemented by all departments and personnel on college campuses
including the University president. Prevention and intervention strategies should be
supported by people in positions of power to receive priority and financial support.
Initially, universities should assess how alcohol affects their campus and admit there is a
problem. They should realize that long-term efforts need to be implemented to begin to
change real and perceived campus drinking norms. Additionally, the local community
should be involved because many students drink at local bars and purchase alcohol from
W stores that market to college students. Furthermore, students who abstain from

, W arm responsibly should be supported. They should know they are not

." I" u, '

.u
r .4”.

   

wahibitnegativealcohol—relatedbehaviorsehmddbe.‘ ' " _

,1

h“

 

b:

 

 

 

  

‘ -Whigher education associations were represented at a conference at

   

W University in 1998. The purpose of this conference was to outline strategies
whip parents, students, and universities fight dangerous drinking. Strategies proposed
for college campuses were to promote alcohol-free activities and peer education
programs. Advice for students was to become involved in alcohol-free activities and to
learn the signs of alcohol poisoning. The participants of this conference recognized that
these were simple ideas, but believed that universities need to start with the basics
(Reisberg, 1998).

Roche (1997) wrote about the changes that have occurred recently in the field of
alcohol treatment which impact alcohol prevention programs. One change is thinking that
the mean level of consumption within a community causes the number of problem
drinkers. We know this is not true since research shows that most alcohol is being
consumed by a particular group of drinkers, binge drinkers. With this change, educators
are no longer trying to reduce the amount of alcohol consumed by all students. Alcohol
prevention programs are not promoting abstinence as a campus goal. Programs are
encouraging responsible drinking and are trying to reduce the number of binge drinkers.
Roche argued that preventing high risk drinking has a greater impact on drinking related

Dibblems than population strategies. Another change has been to focus on at-risk drinking

 

 

aw?

Lil

’ l

HS}.

 

quv
Her

‘ra‘

AM.

 

    
  

  
 

.. slormoredrinksinarowwhentheydodrinkarestflht

may be at increased risk for alcohol-related problems because their

Mam focusing on consumption to focusing on the consequences of use. This

I Wed me way we view alcohol problems. It rs the negative consequences from
alcohol misuse not the consuming of alcohol that is the primary area of concern. Alcohol
prevention strategies are being applied that have the ability to reduce the level of
alcohol-related problems and harm. One successful strategy that has been utilized is
having shuttle buses transport students from local bars to campus dorms. Although this
strategy may not reduce consumption it reduces the risk of alcohol-related problems and
consequences.

Haines and Spear (1996) reported that changing the perception of drinking norms
is a successfirl prevention/intervention strategy to reduce binge drinking among college
students. Their results are based on a S-year study conducted at a large public university
in the midwest. The study was implemented during the years 1988 through 1992. During
the first two years, a traditional prevention program was executed. This included alcohol
education in the form of presentations to classrooms, fraternities and sororities, and
residence halls; alcohol awareness events; new alcohol policies; and an extensive media
and advertising campaign. Evaluation of the program after two years showed no
significant changes in student drinking behavior. There was also no change in the
preportion of students who viewed binge drinking as normal behavior. Therefore, a new

mm used for the last three years of the study including the years 1990 to 1992.

 

v‘f"

UT.
,.w‘

40‘

”au-

(‘9'?

mm
11h

a.

t:'.

.b'l

‘-

'.l. .

‘rr’.

n
h

.,,
is

..5

l -

I.“

  
 

   

. ., . who viewed binge drinking as normal behavior. Posters along with

cuts in the campus newspaper were employed. F lyers and pamphlets

.- ~ Milan-WW that highlighted actual drinking norms on campus. These authors
am: aclmnge had occurred with the implementation of this strategy. Students' self-
reported drinking behavior was surveyed afler each year. In the years 1990 through 1992,
fewer students reported binge drinking. The percentage of students who reported binge
drinking in the years 1988 and 1989 were 43% (n = 644) and 45% (n = 779) respectively.
However, in 1990 37.6% (n = 716) of students reported binge drinking. This percentage
continued to decrease over the following two years, and the percentage of students who
reported binge drinking in 1992 was only 34.2. Additionally, during the years 1988 and
1989 70% of students believed binge drinking to be the norm. This percentage decreased
to 51.2% in 1992.

Black and Smith (1994) believed that Social Marketing Theory could positively
influence recruitment and program design strategies for alcohol prevention programs.
Sixty-seven undergraduate students from a large midwestem university completed a
survey developed to improve the recruitment and design of alcohol prevention programs.
Student response suggested programs be convenient, offer flexible hours, and be easily
accessible. Programs should also encourage friends' participation, offer university credit
or refunds as an incentive to participate, and educate students about alcohol-related risks.
Additionally, having parents and professionals relate alcohol reduction messages,

j ._ ' * i ; member ofalcohol free activities, and emphasim‘ngm m r =

'7
'o
.-

.3, .

   
 

worn

If .U.

HT“

.m-
s

.wv

l .4 .3
like

I . -
1le :

wyri
.Jbrul

' I
. .4.

no!“

19 .t

in .

 

!‘l"'
rut“

, ..
all .3

'jin,‘ T i
, .Wwith the goal of increasing students' knowledge of alcohol hazards. The

 

W was conducted with 134 undergraduate and graduate social fraternity
members at a medium-size private university in the northeast. Students were given an
alcohol knowledge survey as a pretest prior to viewing the warning posters. Four of eight
fraternity houses received four warning posters each which were hung in high traffic
areas (e.g., the kitchen, bathroom, and meeting rooms). The posters contained fairly
well-known facts about alcohol. The remaining four fraternity houses received no posters
or warning information. The results of the first experiment showed that the wanting
posters significantly increased the students' knowledge of alcohol facts. On average,
students who had access to the posters answered more questions on the posttest correctly
than the other participants did.

The second experiment was conducted with 84 undergraduate social fraternity
members. Experiment one was repeated using posters that included less well-known facts
about alcohol. Students participating completed an alcohol knowledge survey as a pretest
prior to viewing the warning posters. Again, exposure to the posters increased students'
knowledge of alcohol-related facts and hazards. Students who viewed the warning posters
had significantly higher posttest scores. These experiments show that posters are an

efl'ective strategy for alcohol education. The warning posters increased students'

.mof alcohol-related facts and hazards regardless of whether these facts were

 

lit?

h.‘*

ba‘.

.bbuh

 

\I
JNV ‘1
bunch

M1 ~ 2
LL.

TILE.

 

n r
.
F ‘~
A l.
1...:

.
7-- ‘
d
i ‘r
u,
- 17.
.,
h~~‘

llfis'.
'dk

on students was information that had the greatest potential for affecting their immediate
future. Warnings regarding the long-term consequences of alcohol appeared to receive
less attention. The study supported the use of warning posters on college campuses
because they are inexpensive, easily accessible, and have the potential to reach large
numbers of people (Kalsher, Clarke & Wogalter, 1993).

Hansen (1993) also believed that changing the perceived drinking norms would
be the most effective means of alcohol prevention. He suggested that risk factors
associated with alcohol use need to be identified. Additionally, school-based alcohol
prevention programs must identify risk factors that can be influenced by education, such
as peer pressure and misperceptions. Hansen reviewed 35 studies that explored the
efficacy of school-based alcohol education programs. Fourteen programs showed a
reduction in the number of students who reported using alcohol. Each program was
unique and there was no identifiable set of elements across programs that determined
success. However, successful programs included social influence approaches such as
normative beliefs, personal commitment, information and resistance skills strategies.

Ametrano (1992) performed an evaluation of the effectiveness of a series of
alcohol prevention workshops conducted at a midsize university in the midwest. The
workshops were designed to provide skills and information about the effects of alcohol
and drugs to college freshmen. Freshmen were to learn about assertiveness and stress
reduction, skills to reduce peer pressure to drink, and reasons for their own alcohol use.
One hundred and thirty-six students were surveyed using a pre and posttest. Sixty-six
students were in a control group that did not participate in the workshops. Results of the

survey showed that 69% of students had used alcohol in the last month. Unfortunately,

27

 

' ‘J
1.5..

’H

Au-

 

l"’.,

‘A...l

2v-

'.k~i
..

C"—

J
l

‘V'. a
n. 1::
l?”
l .r
“ ll)».

 

 

 

the workshops had no significant effects on alcohol use. The study also explored gender
effects. No differences were found between men and women regarding whether or not
students used alcohol or in their frequency of use. However, significant gender
differences were present in the reasons students gave for using alcohol. Men were more
likely to report drinking for social and peer pressure reasons. Altemately, women's major
reason for drinking was to enjoy what they were doing.

Kleinot and Rogers (1982) explored effective components of alcohol prevention
programs. They examined students' response to the toxicity of excessive drinking,
vulnerability of alcohol-related consequences, and the efficacy of moderate drinking to
avoid these problems. One hundred students met in groups of 8 to 14 people. The
subjects in each group randomly received one of the experimental stimulus materials.
Initially, all students viewed factual information on alcohol. Then students read messages
about the effects and consequences of alcohol on the body. Various individual students
were shown different levels of the severity of consequences, levels of their vulnerability
to these consequences, and levels of the effectiveness of moderate drinking to avoid these
consequences. The results showed students were more likely to drink moderately when:
1. They believed moderate drinking was effective in avoiding the severe consequences of
alcohol misuse. 2. They perceived themselves as personally more vulnerable to the
consequences. Prevention programs do not routinely utilize scare tactics such as focusing
on the severe consequences of alcohol because there is no effect if students do not
perceive themselves as vulnerable to these consequences. However, this study proved
that the severe consequences of excessive drinking could be presented in a way that

increases student motivation to drink moderately.

28

 

my
Q“

(
P

 

T‘
9: la.
Huh bl

 

1.

J-.

‘~

Overall, research on prevention and intervention programs share the following
limitations. Data are generally collected via self-report survey that threatens external
validity. Second, many programs are not based on theory but on educational judgments
that are not supported in the literature. This makes programs difficult to evaluate. Third, a
restriction of external and internal validity of a large number of studies is the use of a
novel program evaluation measure. No information is provided regarding reliability or
validity of items in these measures.

The Relationship Between Peer Mentoringand Alcohol Prevention/Intervention

 

Mentoring has been shown to influence human development. For example,
research shows that mentors provide role modeling, support, guidance and build students'
self-confidence (Cunningham, 1999; Kelly & Schweitzer, 1998; Luna & Cullen, 1998).
The benefits achieved from mentoring appear to be a positive addition to any program
that has a goal of impacting students such as an alcohol prevention program. However,
the literature discussing mentoring on college campuses is sparse. The few studies
available discuss mentoring as a means to increase the retention rate of minority
undergraduate students and the importance of mentoring for graduate students. No studies
discuss social mentoring as a component of alcohol prevention programs.

Dyson (1996) explored the effects of mentoring on college freshmen. She
hypothesized that mentoring would improve students' self-concept. She surveyed 84
undergraduate college freshmen at an urban university. She compared freshmen with a
mentor to a control group of freshmen with no mentors. Freshmen assigned a mentor
perceived the university climate as more positive. These students also scored higher on a

coping scale and reported more overall satisfaction with the university. However, there

29

 

ig.‘

h‘gk

 

‘I
ll" -
fiq. \

 

 

was no significant difference found between the two groups students' self-concept.

Although there is a gap in the literature regarding outcome studies on mentoring,
there are outcome studies on peer education. Mentoring provides students with support
and role models whereas peer educators teach alcohol information to their peers. It is
important to have peer involvement because peers influence student drinking.
Furthermore, using peers to provide alcohol education has been tried and studies show
this has made an impact. Turner (1997) explored the effect of peer education on college
student drinking. Forty-two undergraduates from a small Midwestern university
participated in a discussion group led by trained peers and attended a course on alcohol
use and abuse. These students were compared to a control group that received no form of
alcohol education. Using a pretest/posttest design, Turner examined the effect of peer
education on student knowledge, attitudes and behaviors related to alcohol use. A
significant difference was found between pretest and posttest scores on student
knowledge. Students in the experimental group showed more knowledge of alcohol
education. Additionally, their attitude toward responsible drinking became more positive
and drinking consumption decreased. The results of this study encourage the use of peer
educators along with alcohol education to encourage the growth of responsible attitudes
and behaviors related to alcohol use.

Massey and Neidigh (1990) evaluated a peer-based alcohol prevention program
on a college campus and made recommendations regarding components for a successful
program. These authors felt that peer-based programs increased student control and
enhanced student cohesiveness. They assumed peers convey responsible drinking

behavior more effectively than traditional authority figures. Also, enforcing responsible

30

1.
‘r

 

 

I)“ v.»
1‘ ‘
b't . n. n
L

5211-,
L'y

A

 

 

 

 

n
1
San.
"K.

\x

 

 

l'“ V

5“ ‘
~ 'H I

drinking may be achieved by peer pressure. They evaluated a peer-based program at a
large southeastern university. The problems they found with this program were poor
cohesion and organization and lack of commitment to the program. Members of the
program endorsed responsible attitudes toward drinking, but this did not match their
behavior. Members had high rates of alcohol consumption and the majority had
experienced negative consequences from drinking such as hangovers, within the last three
months. Additionally, members' knowledge of alcohol use and misuse was only 3.5%
higher than the general student population. These authors suggested members of peer-
based alcohol prevention programs have fundamental characteristics. Members should
consistently exhibit responsible drinking. They should also be committed to the
program's values and feel a sense of cohesion and involvement. Last, members should
have increased knowledge of alcohol use and misuse than the average student.
Gonzalez (1989) conducted a pilot study of an alcohol prevention program
incorporating an alcohol education course and peer educators. The course titled Alcohol
and Drug Abuse was taught weekly by a professor, but there were weekly discussion
groups led by trained peers. The peers conducted a variety of activities, such as role
plays, values clarification, and consumption self-monitoring exercises. Assertiveness and
communication skills were also incorporated in the discussion groups. The goal of the
discussion groups was to reduce the risk of experiencing alcohol—related problems by
increasing students' range of behaviors. Two hundred and five students were given a
pretest and posttest. One hundred ten students participated in the program and were
compared to a control group. Gonzalez explored the effect of the program on students'

perceived risks. The results showed that there were significant increases in the levels of

31

perceived risks associated with cocaine, but not alcohol use. The author attempts to
explain this by describing the amount of time spent on educating students on the risks of
cocaine use as longer than the time spent on alcohol. However, the study did have a
positive impact on students. Furthermore, behavior change that is motivated by increased
perceptions of risks is more likely to be attempted when it is reinforced by peer reactions
and approval. When behavior change is met with peer rejection, it is not likely to
continue over time. Therefore, the interaction between students and their peers is
important.

Although the effects of mentoring on college student drinking have not been
explored, a population that has been studied is adolescents. Mentoring and peer
involvement has been shown to prevent alcohol use among adolescents. Grossman and
Tierney (1998) evaluated the impact of a mentoring program on adolescents. These
authors found that mentoring had numerous positive effects on the adolescents in this
study. Nine hundred and fifty-nine participants were surveyed. The average age of the
participants was 13 with 62% being male. Mentors Were generally well-educated adults
with an average age of 29. Mentors met with participants approximately three times per
month for approximately three to four hours. The authors hypothesized that mentors
would help adolescents cope with peer pressure, provide good role models, and inhibit
them from initiating alcohol or drug use. During an 18 month follow-up period,
participants were significantly less likely to start using alcohol or drugs than adolescents
in a control group. The results showed that twenty-seven percent were less likely to start
using alcohol.

Black, Tobler and Sciaacca (1998) reviewed the effects of peer-led drug

32

si‘n‘gr

hubs
‘

.
'W'RF

vi

. -‘ J?"

'lea

 

 

 

.4
~\l

 

 

prevention programs for middle school students. They discussed the results of a 120-
study meta-analysis of these programs. A summary of the studies shows that peer-based
programs are statistically superior to teacher-led programs in preventing drug use among
adolescents. The benefits of peer-based programs are that real world, age-appropriate
experiences are provided through role plays. Additionally, feedback can be received from
peers regarding interpersonal skills that can be modeled and rehearsed. Peers need to be
trained and the most effective programs are highly interactive and participatory,
emphasizing sharing, cooperating, and contributing. Students reported valuing their
peers. Cements they made about their peers were, "They are not teachers, they were
very up to date on drugs and understood our views"; " We felt we could tell them more
than we could tell a teacher, and we were more likely to listen to them" (p. 4). Students
also valued small group instruction where constructive peer feedback was presented.
Overall, significantly lower alcohol use scores were demonstrated in peer-based
programs for drinkers. Additionally, more knowledge of drinking and improved attitudes
about drinking was acquired by students in peer-based programs. Last, students in peer-
based program had fewer friends who drank alcohol.

Komro, Perry, Murray and Veblen-Mortenson (1996) examined a peer program
for seventh grade students in 20 Minnesota schools. Students were recruited to attend a
leadership training where they would learn to plan and promote alcohol free activities for
their peers. One thousand two hundred and thirty-one students were surveyed. Five
hundred and one students participated in the peer program. On average, students attended
two of the four activities that were offered at each school throughout the academic year.

Ski trips, roller skating, beach parties, open gym and movies at school are some examples

33

1713??
W t.

um»
u

2“”

mm X.

"‘\
\L 3
~ -.5

v»

..t‘.\

.7109
\u

 

 

 

of activities. The results showed that girls were more likely to participate in peer program
activities. Additionally, when comparing peer planners, student attenders, and
nonparticipants, planners reported significantly less alcohol use in the past month. Also,
more planners than attenders reported that they did not intend to use alcohol within the
next year. Planners who had previously used alcohol had a significantly lower use at the
end of the seventh grade compared to students who were not planners. This finding was
stronger than the association among students who did not report prior alcohol use. This
suggests that planning may be more influential on students who have tried alcohol than
those who have not. I

Taken together, studies investigating the effects of peer education on college
students show that peer education increases students' knowledge of alcohol education.
They also have a more positive attitude toward drinking responsibly. The results of
studies investigating the effects of peer education on adolescents show the same results.
Furthermore, they demonstrate that students are less likely to start using alcohol or have
lower alcohol use.

There are some limitations of the above studies. First, self-selection of students to
participate is a threat to validity. Second, clearly a limit of this literature is the lack of

outcome studies on the effects of mentoring.

CHAPTER III
Methodology
The dissertation project consisted of two related studies-- a random survey of
undergraduate students at The University of Michigan—Dearborn (UM—D) regarding
alcohol uses and attitudes and an alcohol prevention project. These will be described
separately below as the “Campus Study” and the “Prevention Study”.

Camrms Study

 

Campus Desc_ription. This study was conducted at The University of

 

Michigan-Dearborn, a medium sized commuter campus located in the midwest. It has an
enrollment of approximately 6,000 undergraduate students. Approximately 700-800
freshmen enroll annually, and 600 of these freshmen are traditional-aged students who
are attending college for the first time.

UM-D has an established, formal, written alcohol policy. The alcohol policy at
UM-D does allow alcohol to be served at campus events under the following guidelines:
1. The serving of alcoholic beverages is restricted to certain locations on campus. 2.
Events that serve alcoholic beverages must have a designated host who is a full-time
employee of the university. 3. The Chancellor’s Office must provide written
authorization to serve alcohol at a campus event.

Prior to the prevention program, university sororities and fraternities were
allowed to advertise their parties around campus using flyers. These flyers blatantly
advertised the use of alcohol (see Appendix A). However, the flyers were stamped with
the University Student Activities Organization’s (SAO) stamp of approval. The SAO

believed they had to approve the flyers due to the Freedom of Speech Act. This was not

35

 

 

«‘7
‘IA‘

 

 

“HIT
’t gi‘.
* 1.13

 

 

 

true. In fact, the university would have been held liable if students were injured at one of
these parties (McBryde, 1999). Since this information was brought to the attention of the
SAO, they no longer approve flyers advertising the use of alcohol.

Instruments

The Core Drug and Alcohol Survey (see Appendix B) was developed by an
advisory committee funded by the U. S. Department of Education's Fund for the
Improvement of the Postsecondary Education. It was a nationally-used survey, developed
as a measurement of alcohol, marijuana, tobacco, and other drug usage on college
campuses and as an assessment of students' attitudes, perceptions, and opinions of
various aspects of college life related to substance abuse. The Long Form of the survey
was administered for this study. It consisted of 39 self-report questions. Initial questions
provided demographic information such as age, gender, ethnicity, marital status,
academic level, current residency, number of work hours, and living arrangements.
Additional questions assessed respondents' drug and alcohol use with questions such as
"Average number of drinks you consume a week" and "At what age did you first use
alcohol?". Respondents’ perceptions of peer norms were measured with questions such
as "How ofien do you think the average student on your campus uses... (a) tobacco, (b)
alcohol, (c) marijuana, etc.?" and "How do you think your close friends feel (or would
feel) about you... (a) trying marijuana once or twice, (b) smoking marijuana occasionally,
(C) smoking marijuana regularly, etc.?” Last, to assess respondents‘ perceived benefits of
alcohol, a set of 13 items in a nominal scale was used which included statements such as
"Alcohol enhances social activity," "Alcohol makes it easier to deal with stress," and

"Alcohol facilitates sexual opportunities." The inter-rater agreement for item inclusion

36

.1

.lb.

5‘.

 

E73?
.41. t

n.-

..
«1“

«5|

was .90. The test-retest reliability of the data from the question “Age of first use”, over a
two-year interval (1995-1997) ranged from .61 to 1.00 (n = 93,679). Test-retest reliability
of the data from the question “Use in the last year” ranged from .98 to 1.00. Test-retest
correlations for consequence questions ranged from .59 to 1.00. The following reliability
coefficients were reported: .79 for “Age of first use” (n = 32,015); .64 for “Use within
last year” (n = 32,384); .90 for “Perception of others’ use” (n = 29,803); and .90 for
“Consequences of use” (11 = 29,908) (Core Institute, 1998).

Participants

A sampling strategy was followed to obtain a representative sample of 10% of
UM-D’s undergraduate students using the following variables: gender, ethnicity, age and
class level. The university’s office of the registrar located classrooms with students, that
when combined, provided a representative sample. Students were surveyed with the
purpose of assessing alcohol and drug use. The survey was administered during classes in
the Winter 1999 term. Faculty members, teaching chosen classes, were contacted via
telephone to ask permission to administer the survey-during class time. Additional
classrooms were selected to compensate for classrooms where researchers were denied
access. The study’s sample included 616 undergraduate students from the University of
Michigan-Dearborn.

Procedures

Four trained research assistants administered the surveys consistently in 22
classrooms. The surveys were administered during the beginning of class and participants
were told the survey would take 20 minutes to complete. Each student received a consent

form (see Appendix C) and the Core Drug and Alcohol Survey. Students were asked to

37

"Hm '
:15" '
v

r'jfj
l‘hb

3'1-1
5:. v

 

 

it");
s ”'5‘
\

“’1‘“
”‘1'“

\_: .
‘-4u_

sign the consent form, but to not place their name on the survey. Two large envelopes
were placed on a desk in the front of the room.

When students completed the survey, they placed their consent form in one
envelope and their survey in the other. Participation was voluntary. Students who did not
wish to participate were asked to place their blank consent form and survey into the
specified envelopes. This was to help maintain the confidentiality of students who
completed or did not complete the survey. After the consent forms and surveys were
placed in the envelopes, the research assistant returned them to storage. The consent
forms and surveys were removed from the envelopes and added to the pile of consent
forms and surveys that had been collected from other classrooms. Consent forms and
surveys were stored separately.

Prevention Study

 

Participants

The prevention study's sample included a total of 120 undergraduate students at
the University of Michigan-Dearborn who voluntarily participated in an alcohol
prevention program. The program, called the Peer Educator Program or PEP, was
conducted from the campus office of Counseling & Support Services. It was funded by a
grant from the Michigan Department of Public Health. Overall, thirteen universities
across the State of Michigan received funding in an effort to reduce college student
drinking. The State required the inclusion of basic elements in each university's program.
These elements were social mentoring, responsible drinking, mentor training, and parent
information.

Procedures

Mentors. Social mentoring was achieved by pairing mentors with incoming

38

A1
,.
rJ\F
y.

 

 

 

.
hp,“

LLK M

 

'0 "n

s

 

qt.

J-

Lib‘. ll-

s
‘l

u.‘

 

freshmen. There were 40 mentors. Mentors were students who were enrolled in the
sophomore, junior, or senior classes. Upper class students were chosen as mentors
because it was assumed they had made the transition or adjustment to college life.
Mentors were recruited by posting flyers (see Appendix D), and advertising the program
around campus. F lyers were also placed in each of the University's 80 club and
organization mailboxes. Additionally, information about the program was presented
verbally to several clubs and organizations that had scheduled outreach presentations
through the campus counseling center. Since the time between when the grant was
approved and the time frame provided to recruit mentors was limited, student groups
were actively pursued. A list of telephone numbers and e-mail addresses for all of the
clubs and organizations on campus or their student leader was utilized. Each club and
organization was contacted individually in an effort to recruit club and organization
leaders and members. Mentors were required to either abstain from drinking alcohol or
only drink one drink per hour with a limit of three drinks per sitting. Information was
obtained about each mentor's drinking behaviors through structured individual
interviews. Interviews were conducted by this writer and lasted approximately 30
minutes. Students were asked to complete an application that consisted of demographic
questions (see Appendix E). Furthermore, the program was described to them and their
questions were answered. Finally, students were asked to provide a self-report of their
alcohol and drug use. A $25.00 certificate from the University's bookstore was offered to
potential mentors as an incentive to participate in the program.

Mentors received the name, telephone number, address, e-mail and major of the

freshmen they were matched with at a PEP meeting. This writer matched each mentor

39

~13“: ‘1

.l-vw "

. ‘J "
lk:¥i\-4

. ~
ch; NV‘

.35 in-

 

I;
.hv¥

T.

Ps‘N’J
Isa-m»

 

' I
“Mm
-5- a“

' I A
Cv' I." ’v
‘I r
m.“ k.
»

, .
‘ 9r.
in“:

. J “‘3‘
t. “\D

.—
="'P‘_‘,«

 

 

or 't

w
A
u,
1
47.1..

a.
if»? d
'ki‘, A‘

 

with two freshmen who had the same or similar majors or recreational activities as the
mentor. Mentors were required to contact their mentees by telephone within the first two
weeks of classes. They were also required to meet face to face with their mentees within
the first month of classes. Mentors reported these contacts to the PEP staff via e-mail.
These matchings were maintained throughout the academic year, and mentors were
required to have some form of contact with their mentees twice a month. Mentors were
also required to attend monthly trainings on topics, such as communication skills and
active listening, stress and time management, and alcohol awareness.

Mentees. Mentees were incoming freshmen students who were attending college
for the first time. Eighty mentees participated in the program. They were recruited during
eight freshmen orientations that occurred weekly from June 24th to August 5th. PEP had
a table, with information advertising the program, in the University Mall building where
the freshmen ate lunch. This researcher, a graduate assistant, and volunteer mentors
manned the table. As a promotion, plastic bags with handles and the UM-D logo were
also passed out. Freshmen were handed flyers (see Appendix F) and given verbal
information about the program. Questions were answered, and freshmen signed a sign-up
sheet if they wished to participate. Additionally, an article was placed in the university
student newspaper (see Appendix G). After the orientations, but prior to classes starting,
the participating freshmen were contacted by telephone. This researcher, a graduate
assistant, and volunteer mentors made telephone calls. Freshmen were asked to verbally
confirm their interest in the program. They were also asked if they had chosen a major
and what their recreational interests were. Freshmen were informed that a mentor would

contact them either by telephone or e-mail during the first two weeks of classes.

40

 

rm";
.u
min--

M
1m?
l.ynow

"L‘J?
knit-i \

lib-1m

ukl“

\1~'L.
NM»;
.

"’l
i

”9.7;-
W

x

 

l .

‘sq‘

Mp,

\d‘

 

 

Data Collection. The initial survey packets included a cover letter (see Appendix
H), consent form (see Appendix I), the Core Drug and Alcohol Survey, and a stamped
envelope addressed to this researcher. The goal was to mail the survey packet to the
mentees prior to the start of the alcohol prevention program. However, the University
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects had not yet approved the study. It
was approved eight weeks after the program began. Therefore, the initial packets were
mailed to the mentees eight weeks after the start of the program in November of 1999.
The cover letter explained the purpose of the study and informed students that the Core
Drug and Alcohol Survey was a national self-report survey that explored alcohol and
other drug usage on college campuses. They were also informed that ideally, the
information provided by the study would assist in assessing the effectiveness of the
campus alcohol prevention program. Students were asked to volunteer to complete the
survey. They were told they had the right to refuse to participate without penalty.
Students were informed that if they had any concerns about their substance use or any
questions about the study they could contact this investigator at the university counseling
center. They were advised that the information gathered would be used for research
purposes only, and that responses were to be held in strict confidence. They were told
that the survey should take approximately 20 minutes to complete. Students were to
complete the surveys and return them in the self-addressed stamped envelope. Surveys
were assigned and identified by number and stored in a locked file cabinet in the
university’s counseling center. The initial packet would serve as a pretest to help the

investigator establish a baseline of behaviors for each student surveyed. Three mailings

41

3‘;ch
nm

‘7 Hr ‘
a;

v'r my
u‘. 1.)“

"2‘9;

In. 45

v!" 3
villi: \

 

n
,_ I
l“

‘9'.
a).

Hg.)
'dh‘

A“. ‘g
t. ‘
l .JFJ‘
Wu V.
in M
' .

“uni
l v ,
’1‘!
‘1
9..
b
\
7,

..
[if
‘6‘

i

..

I. N.
-Ll..
r~

'.
"it.
1“"
n.

‘ I
x“.

 

 

of the initial packet occurred over a two month time period with a 52% (n = 42) return
rate.

Initially, the data were going to be collected over three time periods. However,
after the poor return rate of the first set of data and the amount of time it took to collect it,
it was decided the data would only be collected twice from the mentees.

The second survey packet consisted of a cover letter (see Appendix J), the initial
consent form, the Core Drug and Alcohol Survey, and a stamped enveIOpe addressed to
this researcher. The second survey packet was mailed to all the mentees after the Winter
term ended in May of 2000. Two mailings of the second survey packet occurred over one
month. To maximize the amount of pretest/posttest data, a third mailing occurred.
However, the packets were only sent to mentees who returned the first survey packet.
There was a 52% (n = 42) return rate with posttest data collected on the same mentees
who returned pretest data. After the Winter term, the mentors were asked questions about
their experiences in the PEP program (see Appendix K). The questions were sent to them
via mail and e-mail to increase the return rate. UnfortUnately, only twenty-five percent
(11 = 10) mentors returned this questionnaire.

Data Analytic Procedures
The research questions for the campus study were analyzed in the following way:
1. Analysis of variance was used to assess the difference in amount of alcohol
consumption between undergraduate male and female participants.
2. Chi-square analysis was used to assess the difference in frequency of alcohol

consumption between undergraduate male and female participants.

42

'rfi

wjl

LL.

uh.

“.3 v;-
T... lg:

 

Analysis of variance was used to assess the difference in amount of alcohol
consumption between the four class levels (i. e., freshman, sophomore, junior and
senior).

Chi-square analysis was conducted to compare the frequency and amount of alcohol
consumption between undergraduate college freshman in the campus study and
prevention study.

Descriptive statistics (i. e., cross-tabulations) were obtained regarding undergraduate
college freshmen’s perception of the campus drinking norms.

Chi—square analysis was performed to compare freshmen in the campus study who
reported experiencing negative consequences as a result of drinking alcohol to
freshman in the prevention program.

Descriptive statistics (i. e., cross—tabulations) were obtained for the gender and

ethnicity of undergraduate college freshmen who abstained from drinking alcohol.

The research questions for the prevention study were analyzed in the following way:

1.

Descriptive statistics (i. e., cross-tabulations) were obtained for the frequency and
amount of alcohol consumption among undergraduate college freshmen who
participated in the prevention program.

Descriptive statistics (i. e., cross-tabulations) were obtained for how undergraduate
college freshmen who participated in the prevention program perceived the campus
drinking norms.

Descriptive statistics (i. e., cross-tabulations) were obtained regarding the proportion

of undergraduate college freshmen who participated in the prevention program and

reported experiencing negative consequences as a result of drinking alcohol.

43

4‘
K:

: .11

I

‘V' .3

rl

guq, 1

\‘nka l

l
~"I.
lat;
.

"'5.“

bx.“-

 

4. Descriptive statistics (i. e., cross-tabulations) were obtained for the demographic
characteristics (i. e., gender, ethnicity, marital status, work status, and living
arrangements) of undergraduate college freshmen who participated in the alcohol
prevention program and abstained from drinking alcohol.

5. Descriptive statistics (i. e., cross- tabulations) were used to compare differences in
frequency and amount of alcohol consumption between prevention program
participants’ pretest and posttest data.

The assumptions of ANOVA (i. e., independence, normality, and homogeneity) were
explored to verify that each was satisfied. Although one cannot test whether or not the
error terms are independent, we assume each subject responded to the survey
independently. A Q-Q plot indicated that the majority of the values were close to the 45
degree line. However, there were some outliers that made the data appear more skewed
than one would expect if the values were normal. The test of homogeneity indicates the
variances are equal. The outliers were discarded and an ANOVA was conducted,
however, the readers should be aware of this when interpreting the data . An alpha level

equal to .01 was used throughout the study since there are so many tests related.

44

 

3!!)
Li i b“

'JTAJ"
Fink...

 

E f‘rc.‘
Luna-k

fifi‘w

ivhlm,‘

.‘ '. .
"fin-A.

‘~&L\.

 

CHAPTER IV
Results
Campus Study
The campus study investigated research questions using data collected from a
representative sample of undergraduate college students (11 = 616). Demographic data
(i.e., gender, ethnicity, age, marital status, work status, living arrangements, and class
level) were obtained through questions included on the Core Drug and Alcohol Survey.

Percentages were rounded to the nearest whole number.

 

Table 1

Demographic Characteristics of Camus Study Participants (11 = 616)

 

 

Characteristic g (%)
Gender
Male 256 (42)
Female 327 (53)
Missing Data 33 ( 5)
Ethnicity
Caucasian 476 (77)
Middle Eastern 43 ( 7)
African American 31 ( 5)
Asian 29( 5)
Hispanic 18 ( 3) ’
American Indian 7 ( 1)
Missing Data 12 ( 2)
Age (in years)
18 96 (16)
19 113 (18)
20 84 (14)
21 87 (14)
22 73 (12)
23-50 156 (25)
Missing Data 7( 1)

45

-«M» l c
1

In, '
A p-I
”‘1 i

“19”“

r
Fun,
.

i

‘_.Q‘

var

.i‘

 

 

 

Table 1 (cont’d)

 

 

Characteristic Q (%)
Marital Status
Never Married 519 (84)
Married 77 (13)
Separated 3 ( 1)
Divorced 13 ( 2)
Widowed 1 (<1)
Missing Data 3 ( 1)
Employment
Part-time 394 (64)
Full-time 97 (16)
Do not work 119 (19)
Missing Data 6 ( 1)
*Live With
Parents 441 (72)
Spouse 69 (11)
Roommate 40 ( 7)
Children 6 (38)
Alone 18 ( 3)
“Other” 27( 4)

 

* Participants were allowed multiple responses to this question.

To summarize, there were 11% (n =- 71) more'female than male participants. The
majority of participants were Caucasian, however, twenty-one percent (n = 128) of
participants were minority group members. Regarding age, traditional-aged college
students are 18—22 years old. Seventy—four percent (n = 453) of participants were in this
age range and twenty-five percent (n = 156) were between the ages of 23-50 years old.

The majority of participants had never been married, and eighty percent (n = 491)
worked either full or part-time. All participants lived off-campus, and the majority lived
With their parents. Participants were allowed multiple responses to the question, “With

whom do you live?” therefore, more than 100% was indicated.

46

Regarding class level, freshman (n = 135) and sophomore (n = 133) classes each
represented 22% of this sample. Twenty—five percent (n = 154) of participants were
juniors, and 29% (n = 179) seniors. Two percent (n = 15) were not seeking a degree. The
2% of participants “not seeking a degree” were not included in the results that utilized the
variable class level, because they were not categorized in a class level. Therefore, a total
of 601 participant responses were analyzed when exploring the class level.

Overall Campus Drinking Habits

 

Regarding overall campus drinking habits, participants (n = 616) were asked how
often they used alcohol over the last year. They were offered 9 responses. However, for
purposes of analysis these responses were combined into three categories: did not use,
used once a week or less, used three times a week or more. Participants that reported
drinking alcohol once a year, six times a year, once a month, twice a month, and once a
week were categorized as drinking once a week or less. Participants that reported
drinking three times a week, five times a week and everyday were referred to as drinking
three times a week or more.

Approximately 80% (n = 490) of participants reported consuming alcohol in the
last year. Therefore, approximately 20 % (n == 125) of participants reportedly did not use
alcohol in the last year. The majority of participants (67% or n = 360) reportedly drank

alcohol once a week or less, and 15% (n = 85) drank three times a week or more.

47

Participants were also asked if they used alcohol within the past 30 days. They
were offered 7 responses. However, for purposes of analysis these responses were
combined into three categories: 0 days, used 1-9 days, or used 10 days or more. The
majority of participants reported drinking 1-9 days in the past 30.

Thirty-five percent (n = 216) of participants reportedly did not drink in the past 30
days. Fifty-two percent (11 == 321) reportedly drank 1-9 days in the past 30 and 12%

(n = 72) drank 10+ days. One percent (n = 7) were missing responses.

Gender and Class Level Variables

 

A preliminary question in this investigation concerned possible differences that
might exist between participants as a result of gender or class levels. Analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was used to assess differences between gender and class groups on the
variable, amount of alcohol consumed, as participants were asked to provide the actual
number of drinks consumed. However, data on the following variables: frequency of
alcohol consumption, perception of campus drinking norms, and negative experiences
experienced as a result of drinking alcohol were obtained using an ordinal scale.
Therefore, chi-square analysis was used to assess differences between gender and class
groups on these variables.

Gender and Alcohol Consumption

Research questions were written to explore possible differences that might exist
between participants as a result of gender. An ANOVA was performed to determine if
there were any significant differences between gender and amount of alcohol
consumption. The mean number of alcoholic drinks consumed by male participants

(n = 252) per week was 5.27 with a standard deviation of 10.52. The mean number of

48

 

 

<.-- <

a. ..
p

“I"
>a...\
.

“\v‘.

nu u!
r

v
Dl"-.

‘ ‘a A”

 

 

 

 

alcoholic drinks consumed by female participants (n = 324) per week was 2.16 with a
standard deviation of 3.51. The results of this analysis indicated that there were
significant differences between males and females. In this research it was shown that
undergraduate college males reported consuming more alcohol, on average, than
undergraduate college females [F (1, 574) = 24.83, p<. 01].

The frequency of alcohol consumption by male and female participants was
explored by examining alcohol use within the last year and alcohol use within the past 30
days. Within the last year, a higher percentage of male participants than female
participants reported not drinking alcohol. However, a higher percentage of female
participants reported drinking alcohol once a week or less compared to male participants.
Furthermore, fewer female than male participants reported drinking three times a week or

more in the last year.

 

Table 2

Frequency of Alcohol Use in the Last Year by Gender

 

 

Responses Male (n = 256) Female (11 = 327)
n (%) a (%)

Did not use 67 (26) 51 (16)

Once a Week or Less 143 (57) 241 (75) ’

3 Times a Week or More 45 (19) 35 (11)

Missing Data 1 (<1) 0 ( 0)

__¥

Egg. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Regarding alcohol use in the past 30 days, a higher percentage of male
participants reported not drinking alcohol than female participants. However, a higher
percentage of female participants reported drinking alcohol 1-9 days in the past 30 than

male participants. Furthermore, fewer female participants reported drinking alcohol 10 or

49

t
.- A.»
”.1. . '

 

|_lI._
-"1'\\

11.:

it ‘oh

‘5‘“

‘\

 

 

more days than male participants did.

 

Table 3

Frequency of Alcohol Use in the Past 30 Days bLGender

 

 

Responses Male (11 = 256) Female (n = 327)
n(%) 9.0%)

Did not use 103 (40) 102 (31)

1—9 Days 112 (44) 192 (58)

10+Days 40 (16) 27( 9)

Missing Data 1 (<1) 6 ( 2)

 

11915. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Chi—square analysis was conducted to establish if there was a relationship
between gender and frequency of alcohol consumption, both within the last year and
within the past 30 days. The analysis indicated that frequency of alcohol consumption

was related to gender.

 

Table 4

Chi — Square Tests for Frequency of Alcohol Use in the Last Year and the Past 30 Days
by Gender

 

 

 

Chi — Square df P value
Last Year 25.138 8 001*
Past 30 Days 23.649 6 .001*

 

TSignificant at .01 level
Class Level
Differences that might exist due to class level (i. e., freshman, sophomore, junior,

and senior) were examined. Table 5 lists the means and standard deviations for the

amount of alcohol consumed by the four class levels.

50

Table 5

Means and Standard Deviations for the Frequency of Alcohol Consumption Li.e_., Averagg
Number of Dfinkgper WeekLby Class Level

 

 

Class Level N Mean SD Missing Range
Data Min Max
Freshman 134 4.00 8.41 1 2.56 5.44
Sophomore 131 2.86 5.70 2 1.88 3.85
Junior 152 3.30 5.16 2 2.47 4.13
Senior 177 4.12 9.79 2 2.67 5.58

 

An AN OVA was performed to determine if there were any significant differences
between class level and amount of alcohol consumption. The results of this analysis
indicated that the difference was not significant (F (6, 602) = .76, n.s.].

Regarding use of alcohol in the last year, participant responses were similar
across class levels. The majority of participants in all class levels reported drinking
alcohol once a week or less. A slightly higher percentage of freshman and sophomore
participants reported no alcohol use in the last year as compared to junior and senior
participants. Altemately, a slightly higher percentage of junior and senior participants

reported drinking three times a week or more.

 

Table 6

Frequengy of Alcohol Use in the Last Year by Class Level

 

 

RTasponses Fresh (n=135) Soph (n=133) Junior (n==154) Senior (n=l 79)
n (%) I). (%) {11%) u (%)

lTever Used 37 (27) 35 (26) 26 (17) 24 (14)

Once a Week or Less 83 (62) 83 (63) 103 (66) 125 (70)

3T1mesaWeek or More 15 (11) 15(11) 26 (17) 29 (16)

¥

51

r.) ';

1...!

»—+
K-

it

' )
.,-

v_)‘l
q ".

l I

x
. A,
l\,
~l
’35!-
) \
”L
l
P”-
4
ma
.

"Di

mg-
I

»-"‘
.

53C!
:- L

We

‘ :1i4‘/

 

Chi—square analysis was conducted to determine if there was a relationship
between class level and frequency of alcohol consumption. The results of this analysis
indicated that the frequency of alcohol consumption within the last year was not related
to class level. However, frequency of alcohol consumption within the past 30 days was

related to class level.

 

Table 7

Chi — Square Tests for Frequengy of Alcohol Use in the Last Year and the Past 30 Days
by Class Level (II = 603

 

 

 

Chi — Square df P value
Last Year 58.825 48 .136*
Past 30 Days 53.939 36 .028

 

* Significant at .01 level

Regarding alcohol use in the past 30 days, freshman and SOphomore participant
responses were similar and junior and senior participant responses were similar. The
majority of freshman and sophomore participants reported that they did not use alcohol in
the past 30 days. However, the majority of junior and senior participants reported that
they used alcohol 1-9 days in the past 30. Reported alcohol use of 10 or more days in the

past 30 was fairly consistent across class levels.

 

Table 8

Frequency of Alcohol Use in the Past 30 Days by Class Level

_

 

 

Responses Fresh (n=135) Soph (n=133) Junior (n=154) Senior (n=179)
g (%) n (%) n (%) £1. (%)
ODays 63 (47) 61 (46) 46 (30) 43 (24)

52

 

Table 8 (cont’d)

 

 

Responses Fresh (n=135) Soph (n=133) Junior (n=154) Senior (n=179)
. .11 (%) Q (%) 9 (%) a (%)

l-9 Days 56 (41) 56 (42) 85 (55) 112 (63)

10+Days 15 (11) 15 (12) 22 (15) 20(11)

Missing Data 1 (<1) 1 (<1) 1 (<1) 4( 2)

 

Note. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Perceptions of the Campus Drinking Norms

 

Descriptive statistics (i. e., cross-tabulations) provided the number and
percentages for participants’ perceptions of the campus drinking norms. Participants’
perceptions were obtained by asking three questions which were examined by the overall
campus sample, gender and class level. One question was: “How often do you think the
average student on your campus uses alcohol?” Participants were offered the following
responses: never, once a year, 6 times a year, once a month, twice a month, once a week,
3 times a week, 5 times a week, or every day. For purposes of analysis, these responses
were combined into 3 categories: never used, used once a week or less, and used three
times a week or more.

Participant responses were divided based on their own} reported levels of drinking
and their perceptions of normative use were compared (see Table 9). The majority of
participants reported that the average student on their campus drinks alcohol once a week
or less. Both male and female participants shared this perception. Only a slightly lower
number of female than male participants perceived the average student as drinking

alcohol three times a week or more.

53

Table 9

Perception of Campus Drinking Norms by Campus Sample & Gender

 

 

Responses Campus Gender
Sample (n=6l6) Male (n=256) Female (n=327)
B (%) Q (%) Q (%)
Never Used 8 ( 1) 5 ( 2) 3(1)
Once a Week or Less 315 (51) 141 (57) 157 (50)
3 Times a Week or More 270 (44) 103 (41) 152 (48)
Missing Data 23 ( 4) 0( 0) 0 ( 0)

 

Nptg. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Regarding class level, the majority of freshman and sophomore participants
reported that the average student on their campus drinks once a week or less. Alternately,
the majority of junior and senior participants perceived the average student as drinking

three times a week or more.

 

Table 10

Perception of Campus Drinking Norms by Class Level

 

 

Responses Fresh (n=135) Soph (n=133) Junior (n=154) Senior (n=179)
Q (%) B (%) 1.11%) Q (%)

Never Used 4( 3) 2( 2) 1 (<1) 1 (<1)

Once a Week or Less 72 (53) 72 (54) 77- (47) 31 (45)

3 Times a Week or More 43 (32) 54 (41) 77 (49) 87 (48)

Missing Data 4 ( 3) 5 ( 4) 4 ( 3) 10 ( 5)

 

Ngte. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

A second set of questions were: “How do you think your close friends feel (or
would feel) about you: a.) taking one or two drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every
day? b.) taking four or five drinks nearly every day c.) having five or more drinks in one

sitting?” Participants were offered the following responses: don’t disapprove, disapprove,

54

strongly disapprove.

The majority of participants perceived their close friends would either disapprove
or strongly disapprove of them drinking one or two alcoholic beverages nearly every day,
four or five alcoholic beverages nearly everyday, and four or five drinks in one sitting.
Twenty-five percent (n = 151) more participants believed their close friends would
disapprove or strongly disapprove of them drinking four or five alcoholic beverages

nearly everyday than drinking one or two alcoholic beverages nearly every day.

 

Table 1 1

Compafisons of Perceptions of Campus Drinking Norms bv Campus Sample (n = 616)

 

 

Responses 1-2 Drinks 4-5 Drinks 4-5 Drinks
Daily Daily in One Sitting
fl (%) a (%) fl (%)

Don’t Disapprove 200 (33) 47 ( 8) 223 (36)

Disapprove 220 (36) 186 (30) 127 (21)

Strongly Disapprove 177 (29) 362 (59) 242 (39)

Missing Data 19( 3) 21 ( 3) 24( 4)

 

Egg. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding

Regarding gender, the majority of both male and female participants
believed their close friends would either disapprove or strongly disapprove of them
drinking one or two alcoholic beverages nearly every day, four or five alcoholic
beverages nearly everyday, and four or five drinks in one sitting. However, a higher
percentage of female participants compared to male participants disapproved.
Furthermore, approximately twenty-five percent more male and female participants
perceived their close friends would disapprove or strongly disapprove of them drinking

four or five alcoholic beverages nearly everyday than drinking one or two alcoholic

55

beverages nearly every day.

 

 

Table 12

Comparisons of Perceptions of Alcohol Use by Gender

 

 

Responses 1-2 Drinks 4-5 Drinks 4-5 Drinks
Daily Daily in One Sitting
a (%) a (%) n (%)
Male (n=256)
Don’t Disapprove 103 (40) 37 ( 15) 111 (43)
Disapprove 82 (32) 9O (35) 41 (16)
Strongly Disapprove 61 (24) 117 (46) 91 (36)
Missing Data 10 ( 4) 12 ( 5) 13 ( 5)
Female (n=327)
Don’t Disapprove 87 (27) 8 ( 2) 100 (31)
Disapprove 128 (39) 85 (26) 77 (24)
Strongly Disapprove 106 (32) 227 (69) 142 (43)
Missing Data 6( 2) 7( 2) 8( 2)

 

m. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Across all class levels, the majority of participants perceived their close friends
would either disapprove or strongly disapprove of them drinking one or two alcoholic
beverages nearly every day, four or five alcoholic beverages nearly everyday, and four or
five drinks in one sitting. Furthermore, approximately twenty-five percent more
participants in all class levels perceived their close friends would disapprove or strongly

disapprove of them drinking four or five alcoholic beverages nearly everyday as opposed

to drinking one or two alcoholic beverages (see Table 13).

56

Table 13

Comparisons of Perceptions of Alcohol Use by Class Level

 

 

 

Responses 1-2 Drinks 4-5 Drinks 4-5 Drinks
Daily Daily in One Sitting
a (%) a (%) a (%)
Freshman (n=135)
Don’t Disapprove 42 (30) 10 ( 7) 47 (35)
Disapprove 46 (33) 45 (33) 30 (22)
Strongly Disapprove 44 (32) 77 (57) 53 (39)
Missing Data 3 ( 2) 3 ( 2) 5( 4)
Sophomore (n=133)
Don’t Disapprove 38 (29) 6 ( 5) 46 (35)
Disapprove 47 (35) 39 (29) 19 (14)
Strongly Disapprove 44 (33) 85 (64) 62 (47)
Missing Data 4( 3) 3 ( 2) 6( 4)
Junior (n=154)
Don’t Disapprove 50 (32) 13 ( 8) 61 (40)
Disapprove 61 (39) 51 (33) 37 (24)
Strongly Disapprove 39 (25) 85 (55) 52 (34)
Missing Data 4 ( 3) 5 ( 3) 4 ( 3)
Senior (n=179)
Don’t Disapprove 68 (38) 18 (10) 63 (35)
Disapprove 57 (32) 46 (27) 38 (21)
Strongly Disapprove 47 (26) 106 (59) 70 (39)
Missing Data 7 ( 4) .. 9 ( 4) 8 ( 4)

 

M- Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

A third question, where participants were asked to answer yes or no was, “On
this campus, is drinking a central part in the social life of the following groups: male
students, female students, faculty/staff, alumni, athletes, fraternities, and sororities?”

At least 50% of all participants, both male and female across all class levels
viewed drinking as a central part in the social life of male students, female students,

fraternities, and sororities. However, less than 45% perceived drinkrhng as a central part

in the social life of faculty/staff, alumni and athletes.

57

Negative Consequences Experienced as a Result of Drinking Alcohol

Negative consequences participants experienced as a result of drinking alcohol
were also explored. Participants were asked to indicate how often they experienced 19
various consequences (e. g. had a hangover, performed poorly on a test) due to drinking
during the last year. Participants were then asked to choose one of six responses: never,
once, twice, 3—6 times, 6—9 times, or 10 or more times. For purposes of analysis,
responses were divided into two categories: never and 1-10+ times.

Fewer than 20% (n = 123) of all participants (n = 616) experienced the following
negative consequences due to drinking alcohol during the last year: poor test scores,
trouble with the police, damaged property, missed class, thought I had a drinking
problem, been arrested for DWI/DUI, been taken advantage of sexually, taken advantage
of someone else sexually, tried unsuccessfully to stop using alcohol, thought about
suicide, tried to commit suicide, been injured or hurt. However, at least 20% (n = 123) or
more of participants reported experiencing the following negative consequences one to
10+ times during the last year due to drinking alcohOl: had a hangover, argument or fight,

nausea or vomiting, driven a car, been criticized by someone I know, memory loss, and

done something I later regretted.

 

Table 14

PifiiCipant Responses for Negative Consequences Experienced Due to Drinking Alcohol
Dfling the Last Year by Campus Sample (n = 6@

 

 

ansequences g (%) Consequences p (%)
1.11;] a H Been Criticized
13:52:” 306 (50) Never 478 (78)
1-10+ Times 302 (49) 1-10+ Times 126 (20)
Missing 8( 1) Missing 12( 2)

58

Table 14 (cont’d)

 

 

Consequences p (%) Consequences p (%)
Argument or Fight Memory Loss
Never 458 (74) Never 477 (77)
1-10+ Times 148 (24) 1-10+ Times 128 (21)
Missing 10 ( 2) Missing 1 l ( 2)
Nausea or Vomited Regretted Action
Never 365 (59) Never 460 (75)
1-10+ Times 242 (39) 1-10+ Times 145 (23)
Missing 9 ( 2) Missing 1 l ( 2)
Driven a Car
Never 424 (69)
1-10+ Times 182 (29)
Missing 10( 2)

 

Gender and Ethnicitmf Abstainers

 

The final research question for the campus survey explored the gender and

ethnicity characteristics of undergraduate college participants who abstained from using

alcohol. However, the majority of participants in the campus study were Caucasian

females. Therefore, the percentage of participants from each ethnicity and gender that

abstained from drinking alcohol in the last year was reported. Five responses were

missing. Proportionately, minority males were most likely to abstain from drinking.

 

Table 15

Proportion of Campus Study Abstainers Within Each Gender & Ethnicm Group (n=l 25)

 

 

Hispanic Asian Caucasian Black Middle Eastern

20%) n(%) ire/o) n (%) P.(°/0)
Male 1( 8) 7(25) 44(9) 2( 8) 11(26)
Female 3( 17) 3( 12) 31( 7) 7( 22) 6(15)
Nonabstainers 14( 75) 19( 65) 401( 84) 22( 70) 26( 60)
Total n in study 18 (100) 29 (100) 476 (100) 31 (100) 43 (100)

~

 

59

Prevention Study

Questions were investigated through data collected from voluntary freshman
participants in an alcohol prevention program. The data were collected one year after the
campus study data. The reason for the time lag was that the prevention study was created
in response to the Core Survey findings in the campus study. Descriptive statistics were
calculated on data obtained through demographic questions included on the Core Drug
and Alcohol Survey. The total number of participants who completed and returned

surveys was 42. Pretest and posttest data are on the same 42 participants.

 

Table 16

Demoggaphic Characteristics of Prevention Study Participants (11 = 42)

 

 

 

Characteristic g (%)
Gender

Male 12 (29)

Female 28 (67)

Missing Data 2 ( 5)
Ethnicity

Caucasian 29 (69)

Middle Eastern 2( 5)

Black 7 (17)

Asian 1 ( 2)

Missing Data 3 ( 7)
Age (in years)

18 33 (78)

19 9 (21)
Marital Status

Never Married 42 (100)
Employment

Part-time 35 (83)

Full-time 2( 5)

Do not work 5 (12)
*Live With

Parents 38 (91)

“Other” 4( 9)

 

60

 

In summary, the majority of prevention program participants were female
and Caucasian. All participants were either 18 or 19 years old. One hundred percent of
participants had never been married and lived off—campus. The majority lived with their
parents. They worked either full or part-time.

Alcohol Consumption

Descriptive statistics (i. e., cross—tabulations) provided information about the
amount and frequency of alcohol consumption by the voluntary participants in the
alcohol prevention study at pretest in November and posttest in May. Seventy-nine
percent (n = 33) of participants reported that they drank an average of zero alcoholic
drinks per week, 2% (n = 5) drank one drink, 10% (n = 4) drank two drinks, and less than
1% (n = l) reportedly drank 10 alcoholic drinks per week. Five percent (n = 2) of
participants did not respond to this question.

The frequency of alcohol consumption by participants was explored by examining
alcohol use within the last year and alcohol use within the past 30 days. Participant
responses were divided into three categories: did not’use, used once a week or less, used
three times a week or more. Participants that reported drinking alcohol once a year, six
times a year, once a month, twice a month, and once a week were categorized as drinking
once a week or less. Participants that reported drinking three times a week, five times a
week and everyday were referred to as drinking three times a week or more.

Approximately 50% of participants at both pretest and posttest reportedly did not
use alcohol in the last year. The other half of participants reported consuming alcohol

once a week or less (see Table 17).

61

Table 17

Frequency of Alcohol Use in the Last Year by Prevention Study Freshman in = 4?;

 

 

 

Responses Pretest Posttest
.11 (%) a (%)
Did Not Use 22 (52) 21 (50)
Once a Week or Less 19 (45) 20 (48)
3 Times a Week or More 0 ( 0) 1 (<1)
Missing Data 1 (<1) 0 ( O)

 

&- Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Alcohol use in the past 30 days was also explored. Participant responses were
divided into three categories: 0 days, 1-9 days, or 10+ days or more. Pretest and posttest
responses were the same. Within the past 30 days, the majority of participants (70% or
n = 29) reportedly did not use alcohol, 29% (12) reportedly used alcohol 1-9 days in the
past 30 and 1% (n = 1) used alcohol 10+ days.

Percemons of the Campus Drinking Norms

 

Freshman participants’ perceptions of the campus drinking norms were examined.
Descriptive statistics (i. e., cross—tabulations) provided the number and percentages for
participants’ perceptions of the campus drinking norms. Again, participants’ perceptions
were obtained by asking three questions. 1

Question 1. “How often do you think the average students on your campus uses
alcohol?” Responses were the same at pretest and posttest. The majority of participants
(55% or n = 23), perceived the average student on campus as drinking once a week or
less. Thirty-three percent (11 = 14) of participants perceived the average student as

drinking 3 times a week or more, 5% (n = 2) perceived the average student as never

drinking, and 7% (n = 3) were missing responses.

62

Question 2. “How do you think your close friends feel (or would feel) about you:
a.) taking one or two drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day? b.) taking four or
five drinks nearly every day? c.) having five or more drinks in one sitting?” The majority
of participants, at pretest and posttest, perceived their close friends would either
disapprove or strongly disapprove of them drinking one or two drinks or four or five
drinks nearly every day. They also believed their close friends would disapprove or
strongly disapprove of them drinking four or five drinks in one sitting. A higher
percentage of participants reported that their friends would disapprove or strongly
disapprove of them drinking four or five drinks nearly every day than drinking one or two

drinks nearly every day or drinking four or five drinks in one sitting.

 

Table 18

Perceptions of Camflrs Drinking Norms by Prevention Study Participants (n = 42)

 

 

Responses 1 or 2 Drinks 4 or 5 Drinks 4 or 5 Drinks
Daily Daily in One Sitting
a (%) a (%) a (%)

Don’t Disapprove 10 (24) 3 ( 7) 10 (24)

Disapprove 15 (36) 8 (19) 9 (21)

Strongly Disapprove 17 (41) 31 (74) 23 (55)

 

110$. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Question 3. “On this campus, is drinking a central part in the social life of the
following groups: male students, female students, faculty/staff, alumni, athletes,
fraternities, and sororities.” More than sixty percent (11 = 25) of participants at pretest,
perceived alcohol to be a central part in the social life of fraternities (67%) and sororities
(64%). However, less than 50% (n = 21) perceived alcohol to be a central part in the

social lives of male students, female students, faculty/staff, alumni, and athletes.

63

.(3

.‘TB

 

Negative Consequences Experienced as a Result of Drinking Alcohol

 

Freshman participants were also asked to report how often they experienced 19
various consequences (e. g. had a hangover, etc.) due to drinking alcohol during the last
year. The majority of participants reportedly did not experience negative consequences
due to drinking alcohol during the last year. However, there were two negative
consequences that more than 20% of participants reported experiencing. Twenty-four
percent (n = 32) of participants reported that they had a hangover and 21% (n = 33)
reported feeling nauseous or vomiting.

The responses of freshman participants in the campus study regarding the
experience of negative consequences as a result of drinking alcohol were compared to the
responses of prevention study freshmen. Examining the freshman class participants in the
campus study (11 = 135), fewer than 15% (n = 20) of freshman participants experienced
the following negative consequences due to drinking alcohol during the last year: poor
test score, trouble with police, damaged property, missed class, thought I had a drinking
problem, been arrested for DWI/DUI, been taken advantage of sexually, taken advantage
of someone else sexually, tried unsuccessfully to stop using alcohol, thought about
suicide, tried to commit suicide, been injured or hurt. However, 23% (n = 31) or more of
freshman participants reported experiencing the following negative consequences one to
10+ times during the last year due to drinking alcohol: had a hangover, argument or fight,
nausea or vomiting, driven a car, been criticized by someone I know, memory loss, and
done something I later regretted.

In summary, freshman participants in the campus study experienced more

negative consequences as a result of drinking alcohol than freshman study participants.

64

Table 19

Responses for Negative Consguences Ergyefienced Due to Drinking Alcohol During the
Last Year by Freshman Groupys

 

 

Consequences Campus Study Prevention Study
Freshmen (n=135) Freshmen (n = 42)
9. (%) a (%)

Had a Hangover

Never 73 (54) 33 (79)

1-10+ Times 59 (44) 9 (21)

Missing 3 ( 2) 0( 0)
Argument or Fight

Never 93 (69) 39 (93)

1-10+ Times 39 (29) 3 ( 7)

Missing 3 ( 2) 0 ( 0)
Nausea or Vomiting

Never 75 (55) 32 (76)

1-10+ Times 57 (43) 10 (24)

Missing 3 ( 2) O ( 0)
Driven a Car

Never 98 (72) 40 (95)

1-10+ Times 33 (25) 2 ( 5)

Missing 4 ( 3) 0 ( 0)
Been Criticized

Never 93 (69) 38 (91)

1-10+ Times 39 (29) 4 ( 9)

Missing 3 ( 2) 0 ( 0)
Memory Loss

Never 98 (72) 0 ( O)

1-10+ Times 33 (23) 0( 0)

Missing 4( 5) 0( O)
Regretted Action ’

Never 93 (69) 0( 0)

1-10+ Times 37 (26) ( 0)

Missing 4( 5) 0( 0)

Gender and Ethnicity of Abstainers
The gender and ethnicity of voluntary freshman participants who abstained from

using alcohol at pretest/posttest was explored. The majority of participants in the

65

 

 

prevention program were Caucasian females. Therefore, the percentage of participants
from each ethnicity that abstained from drinking alcohol in the last year was reported.
Proportionately, minority females were most likely to abstain from drinking alcohol.
Cross-tabulations on gender and ethnicity variables were obtained on participants who

reported abstaining from alcohol use within the last year.

 

Table 20

Proportion of Abstainers Within Each Gender & EthnicityGroup in Prevention Study

 

 

Asian Caucasian African American
2 (%) a (%) a (%)
Male 1 (100) 5( 18) 1 ( 20)
Female 0( 0) 9( 32) 4( 55)
NonAbstainers 0( 0) 15( 50) 2( 25)
Total n in Study 1 (100) 29 (100) 7 (100)

 

Comparisons Between Campus Study Freshmen and Prevention Study Freshmen

There was a disproportionate number of campus study freshmen (n = 135) to
prevention study freshmen (n = 42), and each sample was collected differently. The
campus study freshmen were part of a representative sample whereas the prevention
study freshmen were volunteers. However, comparisons were still conducted with

1

chi-square analysis. Prevention study data was taken from pretest responses.

Chi—square analysis was conducted to determine if the prevention study freshmen
differed from the campus study freshmen in terms of amount of alcohol consumption.
The results of this analysis indicated statistically significant differences. This finding

seems reasonable, as the majority of prevention study freshmen (n = 33) reported

drinking an average of zero drinks per week. Whereas, fifty percent (11 == 66) of campus

66

 

study freshmen reported drinking an average of one or more drinks per week.

 

Table 21

Chi — Square Tests for Consumption of Alcohol by Freshman Groups

 

Chi — Square df P value

 

Avg # ofDrinks 19.638 18 .354*

 

* Significant at .01 level

Chi—square analysis was also conducted to determine if the prevention study
freshmen differed from the campus study freshmen regarding frequency of alcohol use in
the last year and the past 30 days. The results of this analysis were not significant for
frequency of alcohol consumption within the last year, however, there were statistically

significant differences within the past 30 days.

 

Table 22

Chi — Square Tests for Frequency of Alcohol Use in the Last Year and the Past 30 Days
bLFreshman Groups

 

 

 

Chi — Square df P value
Last Year 18.190 8 .020
Past 30 Days 16.824 6 .0,10*

 

* Significant at .01 level

The frequency of alcohol consumption within the last year not being related to
freshman groups was consistent with this variable not being related to class level in the
campus study. Furthermore, the frequency of alcohol consumption in the past 30 days
being related to freshman groups was also consistent with this variable being related to

class level in the campus study. The percentage of campus study freshman (52%) that

67

reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 days was almost double the percentage of

prevention study freshman (28%).

 

Table 23

Frequency of Alcohol Use in the Last Year by Freshman Groups

 

 

Responses Campus Prevention
Freshmen (n=135) Freshmen (n = 42)
91%) a (%)

0 Days 63 (47) 29 (70)

1-9 Days 56 (41) 12 (28)

10+ Days 15(11) 1(<1)

Missing Data 1 (<1) 0 ( 0)

 

Note. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

68

Chapter V
Discussion
This chapter is presented in distinct sections. The first section integrates the
results into the existing literature by discussing potential interpretations of key findings
and identifying implications for practice and future research. The second section presents
a discussion of the limitations of the study that may confound the results. The third
section, presents an overview of the conclusions that might be drawn from this research.
Discussion of Major Findings
This section provides a review of the hypotheses with a brief summary of the
results. After each hypothesis is a discussion of the results. The results of the campus
study are presented first and then the results of the prevention program.

Cams Study

 

A total of seven hypotheses were formed regarding the data from the campus
study. The first hypothesis was that undergraduate college males would consume more
alcohol than undergraduate college females. This hypothesis was supported by the
results. Male participants (n = 252) consumed an average of five alcoholic drinks per
week. Female participants (11 = 324) consumed an average of two alcoholic drinks per
week. Humara and Sherman (1993) also found that undergraduate men reportedly drank
more than undergraduate women. Additionally, Werner and Greene (1992) found that
undergraduate freshman males reported more binge drinking than undergraduate
freshman females. A possible explanation for this may be due to physiological
differences between men and women. Women’s bodies are composed of more body fat

and less water than men’s bodies. Since alcohol is diffuse in water, women reach a higher

69

L34

Cl)

blood alcohol content (BAC) than men after drinking equivalent amounts of alcohol
(Mumenthaler, Taylor & O’Hara, 1999). Therefore, women feel the effects of alcohol
more quickly than men. This may cause them to consume fewer drinks. A second
possible explanation may be the influence of the perception that males consume more
alcohol than females. In this study, both randomly sampled undergraduate college
students and voluntary student participants perceived males as consuming more alcohol
than females. In the literature, it was reported that when students perceived heavy
drinking as a behavior of their peers, they were more likely to engage in this behavior
(Haines & Spear, 1996; Perkins & Wechsler, 1996). Perhaps male participants believe it
is the norm to consume more alcohol than females. Also, because the survey was
self—report, male participants may have over reported their alcohol consumption due to
this perception.

The second hypothesis was that undergraduate college males would drink alcohol
more frequently than undergraduate college females. Werner and Greene (1992) found no
difference between undergraduate freshman males and undergraduate freshman females
regarding frequency of drinking. However, the results of the campus study indicated that
the frequency of alcohol consumption was related to gender. Chi—square analysis was
significant for frequency of alcohol use, in the last year. In this research it was also
reported that a higher number of male students drank alcohol three times a week or more,
in the last year, than female students. As stated above, a higher frequency of alcohol
consumption by male participants may be related to the perception that male students
' drank alcohol more frequently.

The third hypothesis was that undergraduate college students in the freshman

70

class would consume less alcohol than students in upper level classes (1. e., sophomore,
junior, and senior). The results of an ANOVA indicated that the difference in amount of
alcohol consumption among class levels was not significant. My initial thoughts for
creating this hypothesis were that the majority of freshman students were under the legal
drinking age. Therefore, they would be less likely to have the ability to buy alcohol or
drink alcohol at college bars than older upper classmen. I also thought freshmen might
spend more time and energy adjusting to college (i. e., making new friends and
completing coursework) than consuming alcohol. However, freshmen may be attending
parties and drinking alcohol to meet people and/or to c0pe with the stress of the transition
from high school to college.

The fourth hypothesis was that a random sample of undergraduate college
freshmen would drink alcohol more frequently and consume more alcohol than freshmen
voluntarily participating in an alcohol prevention program at both pretest and posttest.
The results of a chi-square test were significant for amount of alcohol consumption by
freshman group. Therefore, the amount of alcohol c0nsumed by freshmen in the campus
study differed from the amount consumed by freshmen in the prevention study.
Furthermore, descriptive statistics showed that more freshmen in the prevention program
abstained from drinking alcohol than freshman in the campus study. This hypothesis was
formed based on the assumption that students who chose to participate in an alcohol
prevention program would not be heavy drinkers of alcohol. Moreover, students who
were heavy drinkers would not be attracted to an alcohol prevention program. Although
the alcohol prevention program started with 80 freshman participants, only half of these

participants returned surveys. There may be several reasons to account for the low

71

response rate. One may be due to attrition of freshman who began the program and then
decided they weren’t interested. A second reason may be freshmen feeling uncomfortable
with answering questions about their alcohol and drug use. Also, freshmen may not have
been motivated to complete and return a mail survey. The participants of the campus
study were more likely to complete the survey because it was given during a class period.
The fifth hypothesis was that undergraduate college students would perceive the
campus drinking norm as higher than it actually was. This hypothesis was supported by
the results. The number and percentages of participants responses regarding the perceived
frequency of alcohol consumption were higher than the actual responses. Participants
perceived the average student as drinking more times per week than participants actually
reported. The participants perception of the average students’ frequency of alcohol
consumption was that 42% (n = 251) drank once per week. However, participant’s
reported frequency of alcohol consumption was that 22% (n = 134) drank once per week.
This was consistent with a review of the literature (Baer et al., 1991; Haines & Spear,
1996; Perkins & Berkowitz, 1986; Perkins et al., 1999; and Perkins & Wechsler, 1996).
Students’ impressions are that more alcohol consumption and heavier alcohol
consumption are occurring than what is really the case. In recent years, these impressions
may have been influenced by the intense media focus on undergraduate college student
drinking. News coverage of alcohol—related problems on college campuses was seen on
CNN, 60 Minutes and 48 Hours. However, researchers have been reporting a
misperception of the campus drinking norms for fifteen years. An alternative
interpretation of these findings is that students underreport their own use of alcohol and

over report the use of alcohol by their peers. This may be to either minimize or

72

rationalize their own usage.

The sixth hypothesis was that undergraduate college freshmen would report
experiencing more negative consequences as a result of drinking alcohol than
undergraduate college freshmen participating in an alcohol prevention program. The
results of a chi-square test were significant. There was a difference between freshmen in
the campus study and freshmen in the prevention study. Also, the number and
percentages of experiencing negative consequences were higher for freshmen in the
campus study. This hypothesis developed from the idea that a representative sample of
students would consume more alcohol than students voluntarily participating in an
alcohol prevention program. Therefore, the sampled students would report experiencing
more negative consequences as a result of drinking alcohol.

The seventh and last hypothesis of the campus study was that the subgroup of
undergraduate college students most likely to abstain from drinking would be minority
women. This hypothesis was not true. Although the majority of participants were
Caucasian, percentages of abstainers in each ethnic pOpulation were reported.
Pr0portionately, minority males were most likely to abstain from drinking alcohol. These
percentages demonstrated that a higher percentage of minority participants than
Caucasian participants abstained from drinking alcohol. We know from the first
hypothesis that undergraduate college males consumed more alcohol than undergraduate
college females. Douglas et al., (1997) found that White undergraduate students reported
higher rates of frequent alcohol use and episodic heavy drinking than both Black and
Hispanic students. However, Humara and Sherman (1993) reported no significant

difference in alcohol consumption between Caucasian and African American

73

undergraduate students. A possible explanation for this hypothesis contains two
components. Since undergraduate college females were shown to consume less alcohol
than undergraduate college men, it was assumed that more females would abstain from
drinking alcohol than men. Also, many of the minority students on the University of
Michigan—Dearbom campus are Muslim. Muslim faith prohibits the use of alcohol.
Consequently, it would appear that minority women would be most likely to abstain from
alcohol use. Regarding Humara and Sherman’s (1993) findings, there may be no
significant difference in alcohol consumption between minority students whose religion
does not prohibit alcohol consumption.

Prevention Study

 

A total of five hypotheses were formed regarding the prevention study. The first
hypothesis was that the majority of undergraduate college freshmen voluntarily
participating in an alcohol prevention study would either abstain from drinking alcohol or
drink responsibly. This hypothesis was supported by the data. Fifty-two percent (n = 22)
of participants reported abstaining from alcohol use Within the last year. Within the past
30 days, sixty—nine percent (n = 29) of participants reported not drinking alcohol. As
already noted, it was supposed that undergraduate college students interested in an
alcohol prevention program would not be heavy drinkers. Furthermore, the alcohol
prevention program was marketed as sponsoring alcohol—free social events. Therefore, it
was more likely to attract students that did not drink alcohol.

The second hypothesis was that undergraduate college freshmen voluntarily
participating in an alcohol prevention program would perceive the campus drinking norm

as higher than it actually was. This hypothesis was supported by the results. The number

74

and percentages of participant responses regarding the perceived frequency of alcohol
consumption were higher than the actual responses. Prevention program participants
perceived the average student as drinking more times per week than participants actually
reported. One interpretation of these results was that freshmen participating in the alcohol
prevention program viewed themselves in the minority regarding their drinking habits.
This would influence their misperception that other students were consuming more
alcohol.

The third hypothesis was that undergraduate college freshmen voluntarily
participating in an alcohol prevention program would report experiencing fewer negative
consequences as a result of drinking alcohol than undergraduate freshmen among the
campus sample. The results of a chi-square test were significant. Experiencing negative
consequences as a result of drinkin alcohol and freshman group were related. Also, the
number and percentages of experiencing negative consequences were lower for freshmen
in the prevention study. Again, it was assumed that participants in the campus study
would be consuming more alcohol than voluntary participants in the alcohol prevention
study. Consequently if campus study participants were consuming more alcohol, they
would be more likely to experience negative consequences asja result of drinking alcohol.

The fourth hypothesis was that the subgroup of undergraduate college freshmen
who were most likely to abstain from drinking alcohol would be minority women. This
hypothesis was supported in the results. Although the majority of participants were
Caucasian, proportionately, minority females were most likely to abstain from drinking
alcohol. This hypothesis followed the same premise as hypothesis number seven in the

campus study. Undergraduate college females consumed less alcohol than undergraduate

 

 

college males and a large portion of the minority students on this campus were prohibited
from drinking alcohol by religious beliefs.

. The fifth and final hypothesis of the prevention study was that undergraduate
college freshmen would have lower levels of alcohol use after participating in the
program than they did at the beginning. There was little change in drinking habits from
pretest to posttest, The majority of participants in the alcohol prevention program did not
drink alcohol at the pretest or the posttest. Those who did consume alcohol drank in
moderation and continued to do so. It was difficult to discern if these results were
correlated with participation in the alcohol prevention program. Future studies may want
to ask participants directly if they believed participation in the alcohol prevention
program influenced their drinking habits through the year. Regardless, the participants
did not increase nor decrease their alcohol consumption.

Implications for Practice and Suggestions for Future Research

Several important, though tentative, implications for research may be drawn from
this study. First, there is a gap in the literature regarding undergraduate college student
alcohol use and misuse on a commuter campus. The majority of studies exploring
undergraduate college student drinking were conducted on residential campuses. This
research provides information about undergraduate students’ alcohol consumption solely
on a commuter campus.

Second, this research has implications for the kind of prevention strategies that
should be pursued in the future. Social mentoring has been explored with adolescents and
graduate students. Mentoring was shown to prevent alcohol use among adolescents

(Grossman & Tierney, 1998). Furthermore, the alcohol prevention program in this paper

 

 

 

demonstrated that undergraduate college students positively respond to social mentoring.
The students that participated in the alcohol prevention program did not report an
increase in their alcohol consumption during the school year. Therefore, social mentoring
may have a positive impact on college student drinking and merits further exploration.
Alcohol prevention programs utilizing social mentoring need to continue to be
implemented and researched on college campuses.

Third, another recommendation would be to conduct a longitudinal study of this
prevention program. Although there was a small return rate of surveys, a total of 120
students voluntarily participated in the first year of the alcohol prevention program (i. e.,
40 mentors and 80 mentees). Many of the students asked if the program would continue
the following year. Presently, it will not be continued due to the lack of staff. However, it
seems as though this type of program would expand through reputation and student
communication over time. Mentor recruitment was a good example of this. Mentors who
believed in the idea of an alcohol prevention program on campus told their friends and
acquaintances. Forty mentors were basically recruited by word of mouth. Also, if
students had a higher level of commitment to the program the survey return rate might
increase. F urthermore, data could continue to be collected on the freshmen as they
completed the three following class levels.

Overall, student participants appeared to benefit from having a student
mentor. When a relationship was formed between mentor and mentee, freshman students
verbally reported feeling a sense of support on campus. Mentors introduced mentees into
their peer groups and reported spending additional time outside the alcohol prevention

program together. A common complaint by students on a commuter campus was that it

 

was difficult to meet other students. Mentors provided this opportunity. Unfortunately,
not all mentors developed relationships with their mentees. There were personality
conflicts and a lack of common interests. This may have lead to participants
discontinuing in the program. Perhaps future studies will find a way to minimize or
manage these interpersonal difficulties prior to participants leaving the program.

Twenty-five percent (n=10) of mentors provided written feedback to questions
asked about their mentoring relationships. A total of six mentors reported a lack of
success in their mentoring relationships. The mentors reported that their relationships
with their mentees lasted approximately one month and then ended. They stated that there
was a lack of common interests in these relationships that led to a lack of communication.
Therefore, these relationships were difficult to maintain. Altemately, four mentors
reported strong relationships with their mentees. The mentors believed good
communication, common interests, and agreeable personalities maintained and enhanced
these relationships. Regarding alcohol use, five mentors spoke with their mentees about
alcohol and learned that their mentees did not use aloohol. Finally, when asked for
suggestions to improve the prevention program, five mentors mentioned having more
group activities. Additionally, one mentor suggested not pairipg mentors and mentees,
and one mentor wanted to avoid marketing the program as alcohol-free.

Another difficulty of the program was monitoring the interactions between
mentors and mentees. Although mentors were asked to record and email their contact
with the mentees, this did not always occur. It was often tedious and time consuming to
monitor 40 mentors and 80 mentees. Future studies may want to utilize a tiered approach

where several mentors report to a “lead mentor” who then reports to a program

 

coordinator.

Altemately, an advantage of the program was mentor recruitment of mentees.
Mentors were able to talk as peers to incoming freshmen and tell them the pros of
participating in an alcohol prevention program. Mentors were able to relate to freshman
experiences of the struggles of being a first year college student. Although mentors did
not participate in the alcohol prevention program as freshmen, they vocalized the benefits
they believed the program would bring. It would be positive in a longitudinal study for
this year’s freshmen to recruit the following year’s incoming freshmen as voluntary
participants. Finally, it may be beneficial to distribute surveys prior to a social event to
increase the return rate.

This research was based on Bandura’s Social Learning Theory and its
self-efficacy component (Bandura 1977a, 1986). The Social Learning Theory views
alcohol use as a socially learned behavior. The prevention study organized social events
for participants to socialize without alcohol. The goal of these events was for participants
to meet their peers in a relaxed, social setting with an organized activity. Mentors
demonstrated to mentees that students socialize in college without alcohol and enjoy it.
These activities also showed mentees that college students dop’t have to go to bars or
parties to meet people. Furthermore, mentors’ abstinence or responsible drinking was
modeled to mentees verbally and through attendance at alcohol-free events.

Mentors were also required to attend trainings that were focused on enhancing
self-efficacy. The goal of the trainings was for mentors to relay the learned information to
the mentees. Some of the trainings were on communication, assertiveness, listening

skills, and alcohol awareness. It was not clear if the mentors relayed the skills taught in

79

 

 

the trainings. However, the mentors appeared to be self-confident and comfortable with
their drinking habits. They joined a program that marketed alcohol prevention and
alcohol-free activities even when many of the college campus groups advertised parties
with alcohol. Therefore, it appeared that the mentors had high levels of

self-efficacy. The mentees that remained with the prevention program for the year may
have adapted this self-efficacy as well. Altemately, the mentees may have already been
self-efficacious prior to joining the prevention program. However, once they joined the
program they gained social support.

This research provides some feedback regarding the effectiveness of a program
that includes several components suggested in the literature for an effective prevention
program. Although there are limitations to this study, it was based on theory, used peers
as models and educators, and was evaluated with a sound measure.

Limitations of Study

This study reflects significant limitations that are characteristic of field research
involving real—life interventions. Limitations threatening internal and construct validity
are as follows.

First, all the data were collected via self-report therefore results were subject to
mono-method bias. Second, there was also self-report bias. Participants may have
exaggerated or underreported their consumption of alcohol.

Third, participation in the alcohol prevention program depended on self-selection.
It was not possible to randomly assign students to the alcohol prevention program
because participation was voluntary. Also, there appeared to be characteristics

differentiating students who chose to participate and those who chose not to. Students

80

 

with alcohol problems, who drank alcohol heavily, were less likely to participate. This
would suggest there might be a misinterpretation due to confounding variables.

Fourth, evaluation of the prevention program relied on mail surveys that had a
low return rate. Initially there was a small sample size of voluntary freshman participants
(n = 80) in the alcohol prevention program. Therefore, repeated efforts were made to
obtain as many completed pretest and posttest surveys as possible. A financial incentive,
three mailings of surveys, and e-mail reminders were offered to participants. However,
only 52% (n = 42) of participants returned their pretest and posttest surveys.

Also, attrition might have affected the survey return rate. Participants for the
alcohol prevention program were recruited during the summer months (i. e.,
June—August). They met with their mentors in September, but the pretest surveys were
not mailed until November. This researcher did not complete and propose her research
project until that time. Therefore, there was a two—month period where mentees may
have dropped from the program.

The study’s design also had potential threats to external validity. Generalizability
was restricted as the sample was surveyed from one university in the midwest. Also, the
format of the university (1. e., commuter, public, moderate—sized) also limited
generalizability.

Additional Observations and Insights

When mentors and mentees had common interests and good communication, the
relationships appeared to thrive. Unfortunately, not all mentors and mentees had common
interests. When mentors and mentees did not have common interests, the relationships

were not maintained due to lack of effort and/or communication. However, it appeared

81

 

 

 

that mentees benefited from associating with mentors during group activities. Therefore,
it is not clear if actual pairing of mentors and mentees needs to occur. It may be possible
to allow mentors and mentees to meet and form relationships independently. The goal is
for mentees to interact with mentors, learn from their behavior and feel a sense of support
and self-efficacy.

Conclusions

This study had two purposes. The first purpose was to explore the amount of
alcohol consumption and alcohol—related problems experienced by undergraduate college
students on a commuter campus. The results of this campus—wide study indicated the
need for alcohol prevention. Therefore, the second purpose of this study was to explore
the effectiveness of an alcohol prevention program using social mentoring for incoming
freshmen on a commuter campus.

The results of the campus study indicated that the majority of participants who
were part of a representative sampled drank alcohol within the last year. Sixty—five
percent of the participants reportedly drank alcohol in the past 30 days. Furthermore,
fifty—six percent of the participants reported, that on average, they drank alcohol weekly.

Additionally, male undergraduate college students were shown to consume more
alcohol than female students. The mean number of alcoholic drinks consumed by male
participants per week was double the mean number consumed weekly by female
participants. Furthermore, the frequency of alcohol consumption, both within the last year
and within the past 30 days, was related to gender.

The results demonstrated that the differences in the amount of alcohol

consumption that might exist due to class level were not significant. Additionally, the

82

 

frequency of alcohol consumption, both within the last year and within the past 30 days,
was not related to class level.

Participants were asked questions regarding their perception of the campus
drinking norms. The results indicated that participants overestimated the frequency of
alcohol consumption by the average student. Participants reported that twice as many
students drank alcohol during the week than was the actual number. Regarding their own
student relationships, at least seventy percent of participants believed their friends would
disapprove of them consuming any amount of alcohol nearly every day. Pertaining to
student groups, over fifty percent of participants perceived drinking as a central part in
the social life of male students, female students, fraternities and sororities.

Participants were also asked to report the negative consequences experienced due
to drinking alcohol within the last year. Forty percent or more of participants reported
experiencing a hangover, nausea or vomiting.

Given the results from the campus study, the need for an alcohol prevention
program was indicated. Participation in the prevention study was voluntary, and the
design of the program was based on social mentoring. Forty upper class level students
volunteered to mentor eighty incoming freshman participants.A The mentors were screened
regarding their alcohol use. Regarding freshmen drinking, the program attracted freshman
who reportedly did not drink alcohol or who drank minimally. This seems predictable
since the program was marketed to provide alcohol—free mentoring and social events.

The results of the freshman participants’ pretest and posttest surveys showed that
the amount of alcohol consumption and frequency of consumption did not increase or

decrease over the year the study was implemented. Therefore, the program appeared

83

 

effective for the participants who returned surveys.

In conclusion, this study demonstrated that there was a need for alcohol
prevention on a college commuter campus. Furthermore, upper level class students and
incoming freshman were interested in social mentoring as an alcohol prevention program.
The results from this research can provide insight into program design and student appeal

in the area of alcohol prevention.

84

 

References

Agostinelli, G., Brown, J. M., & Miller, W. (1995). Effects of normative feedback on
consumers and heavy drinking college students. Journal of Drtpg Education,

 

Ametrano, I. M. (1992). An evaluation of the effectiveness of a substance abuse
prevention program. Journal of College Student Development, 33, 507-515.

 

Baer, J. 8., Stacy, A., & Larimer, M. (1991). Biases in the perception of drinking norms
among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52, 580-586.

 

Bandura, A. (1977a). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

 

Bandura, A. (1977b). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psycholggical Review, 84, 191-215.

 

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bennett, M. E., Miller, J. H., & Woodall, W. G. (1999). Drinking, binge drinking, and
other drug use among southwestern undergraduates: three-year trends. American
Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 25, 331-350.

 

Billingham, R. E., Parrillo, A. V., & Gross, W. C. (1993). Reasons given by college
students for drinking: A discriminant analysis investigation. The lntemational
Journal of the Addictions, 28, 793-802.

 

 

Black, D. R., & Smith, M. A. (1994). Reducing alcohol consumption among university
students: recruitment and program design strategies based on Social Marketing
Theory. Health Education Research, 9, 375-384.

 

Black, D. R., Tobler, N. S., & Sciacca, J. P. (1998). Peer helping/involvement: An
efficacious way to meet the challenge of reducing alcohol, tobacco, and
other drug use among youth? The Journal of Sohool Health, 68, 87-93.

 

Botvin, G. J. (1983). Prevention of adolescent substance abuse through the development
of personal and social competence. In T. J. Glynn, C. G. Gleukefeld, & J. P.
Ludford (eds.), Preventing adolescent drug abuse (pp. 76-114). Rockville, MD:
National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Botvin, G. J ., & Willis, T. A. (1985). Personal and social skills training: Cognitive-
behavioral approaches to substance abuse prevention. In C. S. Bell & R. Battjes

(Eds), Prevention research: Deterring drug abuse amoqgchildren and adolescents
(pp. 8-49). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

85

 

Cummings, S. (1997). An empowerment model for collegiate substance abuse prevention
and education programs. The Journal of Alcohol and Drugfiducatiop 41, 46-62.

Cunningham, S. (1999). The nature of workplace mentoring relationships among faculty
Members in Christian higher education. The Journal of Higher EducationJO,

441-463.

Donohew, L., Clayton, R. R., Skinner, W. F., & Colon, S. (1999). Peer networks and
sensation seeking: some implications for primary socialization theory. Substance
Use and Misuse, 3_4, 1013-1023.

 

Douglas, K. A., Collins, J. L., Warren, G, Kann, L., Gold, R., Clayton, S., Ross, J. G.&
Kolbe, L. J. (1997). Results from the 1995 national college health risk behavior
survey. Journal of American College Health, 46, 55-66.

Dyson, S. L. (1996). The effectiveness of mentor supplemented freshmen orientation: A
self-concept enhancing retention intervention model. Dissertation Abstracts
lntemational, _5_6, 3887.

 

French, R., Cohen, J. S., & Case, W. (1999). Risks of binge drinking don’t faze college
students: They know of grim deaths, but alcohol is ‘part of college’. Detroit
News, Detroit, MI.

Goodstat, M. S., & Caleekal-John, A. (1984). Alcohol education programs for university
students: A review of their effectiveness. The International Journal of the
Addictions, 19, 721 -741 .

 

Gonzalez, G. M. (1989). An integrated theoretical model for alcohol and other drug abuse
prevention on the college campus. Journal of College Student Development, 30,
492-503.

Grossman, J. B., & Tierney, J. P. (1998). Does mentoring work? An impact study of the
Big Brothers Big Sisters Program. Evaluation Review, 2, 403-426.

Haines, M., & Spear, S. F. (1996). Changing the perception of the norm: A strategy to
decrease binge drinking among college students. Journal of American College
Health 45, 134-140.

 

Hansen, W. B. (1993). School—based alcohol prevention programs. Alcohol Health &
Research World 17, 54-60.

 

Hawkins, J. D., Lishner, D. M., Catalano, R. F., & Howard, M. D. (1986). Childhood
predictors of adolescent substance abuse: Towards an empirically grounded
theory. Journal of Children in Contemporary Society, 18, 1-65.

86

 

Humara, M. J ., & Sherman, M. F. (1999). Situational determinants of alcohol abuse
among Caucasian and African American college students. Addictive Behavior;
24, 135-138.

Johnson, C. A., & Solis, J. (1983). Comprehensive community programs for drug abuse
prevention: Implications of the community heart disease prevention programs for
future research. In T. J. Glynn, C. G. Gleukefeld, & J. P. Ludford (Eds),
Preventing adolescent drug abuse (pp. 76-114). Rockville, MD: National Institute
on Drug Abuse.

Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., & Bachman, J. G. (1996). National survey results on
drug use from the Monitoring the Future Study, 1975-1992, National Institute on
Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD.

Kalsher, M. J ., Clarke, S. W., & Wogalter, M. S. (1993). Communication of alcohol facts
and hazards by a warning poster. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 12,
78-95.

Kelly, S., & Schweitzer, J. H. (1996). Mentoring within a graduate school setting.
College Student JournaL 23, 130-148.

Khavari, K. A. (1993). Interpersonal influences in college students’ initial use of alcohol
and drugs- role of friends, self, parents, doctors, and dealers. The lntemational
Journal of the Addictions, 8, 377-388.

Kleinot, M. C., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). Identifying effective components of alcohol
misuse prevention programs. Journal of Studies on AlcohoL, 43, 802-811.

Komro, K. A., Perry, (3. L., Murray, D. M., & Veblen-Mortenson, s. (1996). Peer-
planned social activities for preventing alcohol use among young adolescents. _T_lrp
Journal of School Health, 66, 328-334.

Kram, K. (1986). Mentoring in the workplace. In D. T. Hall (Ed.), Career development in
o_rganizations (pp. 160-199). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

Lowe, D. W., Fagan, R. W., Fagan, N. M., & Free, J. (1992). The university’s response to
students’ use of alcohol: A formative evaluation approach. Journal of Alcohol and
Drug Education, 37, 33-42.

 

Luna, G., & Cullen, D. (1999). Do graduate students need mentoring? College Student
Journal, 32, 322-330.

Massey, R. F., & Neidigh, L. W. (1990). Evaluating and improving the functioning of a
peer-based alcohol abuse prevention organization. Journal of Alcohol and Drug
Education, 35, 24-35.

 

87

 

Oblander, F. W. (1984). Effective alcohol education strategies. ACU — 1 Bulletin, 52,
17-25. '

Perkins, H. W., & Berkowitz, A. D. (1986). Perceiving the community norms of alcohol
use among students: Some research implications for campus alcohol education
programming. The lntemational Journal of the Addictions, 21, 961-976.

Perkins, H. W., Meilman, P. W., Leichliter, J. S., Cashin, J. R., & Presley, C. A. (1999).
Misperceptions of the norms for the frequency of alcohol and other drug use on
college campuses. Journal of American College Health, 47, 253-258.

Posavac, E. J. (1993). College students’ views of excessive drinking and the university’s
role. Journal of Drug Education, 23, 237-245.

Presley, C. A., Meilman, P. W., Cashin, J. R., & Lyerla, R. (1996). Alcohol and drugs on
American college campuses: Use, conseflences, and perceptions of the campus
environment, Vol IV, 1992-1994, Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University.

Pruitt, B. E., Kingery, P. M., Mirzaee, E., Heuberger, G., & Hurley, R. S. (1991). Peer
influence and drug use among adolescents in rural areas. Journal of Drug
Education, 19, 1-11.

 

Reisberg, L. (1998). More students abstain from alcohol and more drink heavily, study
finds. The Chronicle of Higher Education,45, A49-51.

Roche, A. M. (1997). The shifting sands of alcohol prevention: Rethinking population
control approaches. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 21,
621-625.

Smith, R. H., & McCauley, C. R. (1991). Predictors of alcohol abuse behaviors of
undergraduates. Journal of Drug Educatiop, 21, 159-166.

Syre, T. R., Pesa, J. A., & Cockley, D. (1999). Alcohol problems on college campuses
escalate in 1997-1998: Time for action. College Student Journal, 33, 82-86.

Throms, D. L. (1991). Expectancies versus demographics in discriminating between
college drinkers: implications for alcohol abuse prevention. Health Education
Research 6, 491-495.

 

Turner, S. C. (1997). The effects of peer alcohol abuse education on college students’
drinking behavior. Dissertation Abstracts Intemational,57, 4276.

Wechsler, H. (1998). Getting serious about eradicating binge drinking. The Chronicle of
Higher EducationL45, B4-B5.

88

 

Wechsler, H., Dowdall, G. W., Maenner, G., Gledhill-Hoyt, J ., & Lee, H. (1998).
Changes in binge drinking and related problems among American college
students between 1993 and 1997. Results of the Harvard School of Public Health
College Alcohol Study. Journal of American College Health, 47, 57-68.

Wechsler, H., Isaac, N. E., Grodstein, F., & Sellers, D. E. (1994). Continuation and
initiation of alcohol use from the first to the second year of college. Journal of

Studies on Alcohol, 55, 41-45.

Wechsler, H., Molnar, B. E., Davenport, A. E., & Baer, J. S. (1999). College alcohol use:
A full or empty glass? Journal of American College Health, 47, 247-252.

Werner, M. J ., & Greene, J. W. (1992). Problem drinking among college freshmen.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 13, 487-492.

89

 

APPENDICES

90

Appendix A

D5254 22%/A Pit/If
L [727 CEfflfl/A/K

 

Appendix B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

F Core Alcohol and Drug Survey ”©“‘“®®“";;®®®‘
A ' -
. L°~ng Form , aoooooooooo
FIPSE Core Analysrs Grantee Group Core (“mm C @ ® ® ® ® ® © ® ©©
StudentHealthPrograms D©®®®®©©®®®
Southern minors Universuy
Please use a number 2 Pencil. Carbondale, IL 62901 5 © (9 ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ®
. Classification: 2 Age 3. Ethnic origin: 4. Marital status: 1
Freshman ............ 0 American Indian! Single ................ O
Sophomore ............ 0 Alaskan Native ........ 0 Married .............. O
Junior ................ O @ @ Hispanic .............. O Separated ............ 0
Senior ................ O (‘3 ® Asian/Pacific lslander . . . . O Divorced .............. O
Grad/professional ...... O @ (9 White (non-Hispanic) . . . . O Widowed .............. 0
Not seeking a @ (’3 Black (non-Hispanic) . . . . 0
degree .............. O G (‘3 Other ................ O 7- Are You working?
Other ................ O (53 (9 Yes. lull-time .......... O
{9 ® 6. Is your current residence Yes. part-time .......... O
5. Gender: (7, Q) as a student: No .................. 0
Male ................ 0 ® ® On-campus ............ 0
Female .............. O @ @ Off-campus ............ O 3- Living arrangements
A. Where: (mark best answer)

9. Approximate cumulative grade point average: (choose one) ‘ House/apartmentletc ..... O
O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Residence hall .......... O
A+ A A- 8+ 8 B- C+ C C- 0+ 0 D- F Approved housing ...... O

Fraternity or sorority . . . . O

10. Some students have indicated that alcohol or drug use at parties they attend in and Other ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 0
around campus reduces their enjoyment, otten leads to negative situations, and 8. With whom:
therefore, they would rather not have alcohol and drugs available and used. Other
students have indicated that alcohol and drug use at parties increases their (mark a” that 3090’)
enjoyment. often leads to positive situations, and therefore, they would rather have With roommate(s) ......
alcohol and drugs available and used. Which of these is closest to your own view? Alone ................ Q

Have available Not have available With parent(s) .......... 0
With regard to drugs? .............. O .............. 0 With spouse .......... 0
With regard to alcohol? .............. O .............. 0 With children .......... O
Other ., ............... O
t‘l.$tudent status: 12. Campus situation on alcohol and drugs: yes no don't know
Full-time (12+ credits) . . . . O a. Does your campus have alcohol and drug policies? ...... . . . . ......
Part-time (1—11 credits) . . O b. It so. are they enforced? ............................ O O ...... O
c. Does your campus have a drug and alcohol '
13.1913“ of permanent prevention program? .............................. O . . . . O ...... O
residence: d. 00 you believe your campus is concerned about
ln-state .............. O the prevention of drug and alcohol use? ................ O . . . . O ...... 0
USA, but out of state . . . . O 8. Are you actively involved in efforts to prevent drug
Country other than USA . . O and alcohol use problems on your campus? ............ O .. . . O
14 Think back over the last 15. Average # of 16. At what age did you % I; T i. as:
two weeks. How many drinks‘ you first use... ‘ fig » 6 a a. e, .2
times have you had consume a week: (mark one for each line) it. a e.,; ‘7, 22 is, '2}
five 9' more drinks‘ 3. Tobacco (smoke. chew, snuff) . . . . OOOOOO_OO O
8‘ a Sitting? b. Alcohol (beer. wine, liquor)‘ ...... OOQO O 900 0
None ................ 0 © @ c. Marliuana (pot hash hash oil . . . . 0000 0 000 0
Once ................ O (If less than CD CD (1. Cocaine (Crack, rock. treebase) . . O OO O
Twice ................ O 10' code ® (2) e. Amphetamines (diet pills, speed) . . O 0.0 O O 000 O
3 to 5 times ............ 0 answers as ® @ t. Sedatives (downers, ludes) ...... 000 009900
6 to 9 times ............ O 00' 01‘ 02' ® @ g. Hallucinogens (LSD, PCP) ...... 09900196900
10 or more times ........ O “c" (:7 G) h. Opiates (heroin. smack. horse) . . 00260 COG O O
- . . ® G) i. lnhalants (qlue, solvents. gas) . . . . O O O O 0 .G) O O
‘ 'A dirk-Samar w. a gags ® (D j. Designer drugs (ecstasy. MDMA). . OZ )2 )0 00:6 0 O
«mammalet,aehotglaas ® (D k. Steroids .................... 000009000
.0, liquor. or a mixed omit ® ® I. Other illegal drugs ............ OOOOOQQO O
" ‘ ‘ ' 'Otner than a row we J

 

 

92

 

 

Appendix B (cont’d)

 

 

F77. Within the last y_e_a;

18. During the past may;

 

 

 

)_-4

 

 

                     

 

 

    

         

 

 

22. Have any of your family had alcohol or other
drug problems: (mark all that apply)

 

 

(P 0‘
about how often have % gig 9) A 4 1% Q on how many days , R, ,, ’Q '6} ‘5
you used... it % ”£3,233 *2 3 did you have: 1* {323 2‘33;
(mark one for each line) it. e e a 2;. g. ’s '3; 3 (mark one for each line) 3a s 4:. 3, a o
a. Tobacco (smoke. chew, snuff) .. O O O O O OO O O a. Tobacco (smoke, chew. snuff) . . . . O O O O O O O
b. Alcohol (beer, wine, liquor) . . . . O O O O O O O O O b. Alcohol (beer, wine, liquor) ...... O O O O O O O
c. Marijuana (pot, hash, hash oil) 0 O 0 Ci 0 OO O O c. Marijuana loot. hash, hash oil). . . . O O C- O O O Q
d. Cocaine (crack. rock, freebase) C 6: 0 CU O O Q d. Cocaine (crack, rock. freebase) . . O O Q O O O 0
e. Amphetamines (diet pills, speed) 0 O O O O O O O 0 e. Amphetamines (diet pills, speed) . . O O O O O O O
f. Sedatives (downers, ludes) . . . . O O O O l" O O O O f. Sedatives (downers. ludes) ...... O O O O O O O
9. Hallucinogens (LSD, PCP) . . . . C O O O QC 0 CC 9. Hallucinogens (LSD, PCP) ...... O O Q O O O Q
h. Opiates (heroin. smack, horse) O O O O O O O O O h. Opiates (heroin, smack, horse) . . O O O O O O O
i. inhalants (glue, solvenngas). . O O O O O O O O O i. lnhalantitglue. solvents. gas) . . . . O O O O O O Q
j. Designer drugs (ecstasy, MDMATL) O O O C O O O Q j. DeSlgner drugs (ecstasy, MDMA). . C O C O O O O
k. Steroids .................. OOOOOQOOO k. Steroids .................... 0000000
I. Other illegal drugs ........... O O O O O O O O O I. Other illegal drugs ............ O O O O O O O
19. How often do you a A . u, a, 21.Please indicate how often
think the average student a g 1 at 3. . it. 9 you have experienced ,
on your campus uses... 1. g i 1% '3 ‘5. the following due to ‘3,
(mark one for each line) a. e. a g, 79;, e, 3 your drinking or drug use "i q 3
a. Tobacco (smoke, chew, snuff) . . O O O 0 000 O 0 during the ‘33‘ V93?"- 1; 3‘ $40 '9 '2
b. Alcohol (beer, wine. liquor) . . . . O O O O O O O O 0 (mark 0’79 for 930'” line) 3- e e a 35 e
c. Marijuana (pot. hash, hash my 0 O O O O OO O O a. Had a hangover ................ O O O O O Q
d. Cocaine (crack, rock, freebase) O O C O O O O O O b. Performed 900")! 0" a ‘35!
e. Amphetamines (diet pills, speed) 0 O O O O O O O O or important project .............. O O O O O O
‘f. Sedatives downers ludes . . . . O O 0 00000 O c. Been in trouble with police. = j .
g. Hallucinogens (LSD, PCP) . . . . \J residence hall, or other
h. Opiates (heroin, smack, horse) 0 O O O OO O O 0 college authorities .............. O O OO O O
i. lnhalantimlue, solvents, gas). . O O O 00 OO O Q d. Damaged property, pulled , ‘ -t
j. Designer drugs (ecstasy, MDMA)O O O O 0 (30 O 0 fire alarm, etc. .................. O O O O O O
k. Steroids .................. O O O O O O O O 0 e. Got into an argument or fight ...... O O OO O O
l. Other illegal drugs .......... O O O O O O O O O f. Got nauseated or vomited ........ O O O O O 0
9. Driven a car while under
the influence .................. O O O O O O
(3 h. Missedaclass .................. 000000
20. Where have you "s ‘9 4‘ g 231 i. Been criticized by someone .
used... 7% '23—“? % lknow ........................ OOOOOO
(mark all that apply) ‘ g) g ‘9 1E ’5. s g j. Thought l might have a drinking : :-
$% 61) ’1 “ii-iii orotherdrugproblem ............ 000000
a. Tobacco(smoke, chew, snuff)..OOOOOOOOO k. Hadamemoryloss .............. 000000
b. Alcohol (beer, wine, liquor) . . . . O O O O O O O O O I. Done something i later regretted .. .. O O OO O O
c. Mari’uana t hash, hash oil 0 O O O O O O O O m. Been arrested for DWI/DUI ........ 0 0.0.0 O Q
d. Cocaine (crack. rock. freebase) OE 3E 53 3 E 32 32 33 )3 5 n. Have been taken advantage - - ,
e. Amphetamines (diet pills. speed) 0 O O O O OO O O of sexually .................... O O O O O O
f. Sedatives downers ludes . . . . O O O O 0000 O 0. Have taken advahtage of J" 3r»
g. Hallucinogens (LSD, PCP) . . . . 0 another sexually ................ O O OO O O
h- Opiates (heroin, smack, horse) 0 O O O O OO O O p. Tried unsuccessfully to stop using . . O O O O O O
i. lnhalants lue solvents as). . O OO O O OO O Q q. Seriously thought about suicide . . . . O O OO O O
i. Designer drugs (ecstasy. MDMA)\JZ 32 35 3: SE SE SE 58 5 r. Seriously tried to commit suicide . . . . O O O OO O
k. Steroids .................. 000000000 6. Been hurt or injured .............. 000000
1. Other illegal drugs .......... 000000000

23. if you volunteer any of your time on or off campus
to help others, please indicate the approximate
number of hours per [mum] and principal activity:

0 Mother 0 Brothers/sisters O Spouse 0 Don't volunteer. or 0 10—15 hours

0 Father 0 Mother's parents 0 Children less than 1 hour O 16 or more hours

0 Stepmother ' O Father's parents 0 None 0 1-4 hours Principal volunteer activity is:

O Stepfather O Aunts/uncles 0 5-9 hours J

 

 

93

 

 

 

 

Appendix B (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

24. Within the last year to 27. Do you believe that alcohol has
what extent have you a, the following effects?
participated in any of the to (mark one for each line)
following activities? 3 .5 £31 6. yes no
(mark one for each line) ’2, ° ‘6: ‘33,}. a. Breaks the ice ...................... O O
1* 13° 33 @333 b. Enhances social activity .............. O O
a. Intercollegiate athletics .............. O n/a 0 O c. Makes it easier to deal with stress ...... O O
b. lntramural or club sports .............. 0 n/a O Q d. Facilitates a connection with peers ...... O O
c. Social fraternities or sororities .......... O O O 0 e. Gives people something to talk about. . . . O Q
d. Religious and interfaith groups ........ O O O O f. Facilitates male bonding .............. O 0
e. lntemational and language groups ...... O O O Q g. Facilitates female bonding ............ O O
f. Minority and ethnic organizations ...... O O O O h. Allows people to have more fun ........ O O
9. Political and social action groups ...... O O O O i. Gives people something to do .......... O O
h. Music and other performing j. Makes food taste better .............. O 0
arts groups ........................ O O O O k. Makes women sexier ................ O O
i. Student newspaper, radio. TV, l. Makes men sexier .................. O 0
magazine, etc ....................... O O O , O m. Makes me sexier .................... O O
n. Facilitates sexual opportunities ........ O . O
25.ln the first column, indicate whether any of the following
have happened to you within the last year while you were 28. On this campus, drinking is a central
in and around campus. 6 part in the social life of the following
If you answered yes to 6° groups:
any of these items, indicate , 4° 0 (mark one for each line)
in the second column if you $3 ’0 g Y” "0
had consumed alcohol or 150% - ‘9; 'é a. Male students ...................... O 0
other drugs shortly before ‘5 9, - g a _, b. Female students .................... O 0
these incidents. 6 9‘ . 'fl'lo‘f‘ c. Faculty/staff ........................ O O
vac 119‘ 193‘ 119: d. Alumni ............................ O O
a. Ethnic or racial harassment ...... (3. .O .O 7 ' 0 e. Athletes .......................... O O
b. Threats of physical violence ...... . O ‘ O '9 O 'l O f. Fraternities ........................ O O
c. Actual physical violence .......... O O O Q g. Sororities .......................... O O
o. Theft involving force or threat if
of force ...................... O . 0 yes 0 O 29- Campus environment: (mark one ’0’ 985‘" ”’19)
e. Forced sexual touching or
fondling ...................... O‘- ‘O 'b OI . O a. Does the social atmosphere on this Y” "0
f. Unwanted sexual intercourse ...... O O _. O Q Q . campus promote alcohol use? .......... O O
b. Does the social atmosphere promote
253°" do YOU think your . -. ‘ ‘5': other drug use? .................... O 0
close friends 199' (or would , i, . c. Do you feel safe on this campus? ...... O O
feel) Mum ’ T; gig, ' 3 I
(mark one for each line) . 931 1%: 30. Compared to other campuses with which
as $35 - a you are familiar, this camws' use of
a. Trying marijuana once or twice .............. O O ._ 0 alcohol '33-" (mark one)
b. Smoking marijuana occasionally ............ “O O 7‘: O
c. Smoking marijuana regularly .............. 7 O O ’ 0 Greater than other campuses ............ Q
d. Trying cocaine once or twice .............. O O _O ‘ Less than other campuses .............. 0
e. Taking cocaine regularly .................. O O r 0 About the same as other campuses ........ O
f. Trying LSD once or twice .................. O O 10
9. Taking LSD regularly ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, O O Q 31.Housing preferences: (mark one foreach line)
it. Trying amphetamines once or twice .......... O O O
i. Taking amphetamines regularly ............ O O O a. if you live in university housing, do you
3. Taking one or two drinks of an live in a designated alcohol-heel V08 no
alcoholic beverage (beer, wine, drug-free residence hall? .............. O O
liquor) nearly every day .................. O O ‘ O b. if no. would you like to live in such
it. Taking four or five drinks nearly every day . .j. . O O -O '1 a residence hall unit if it were
i. Having five or more drinks W ...... O O 0 available? .......................... O O
m. Taking steroids for body building or
imoroved athletic performance .............. O O O

 

94

 

 

Appendix B (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

32. To what extent do students on 37.Durlng the past 30 days,
this campus care about to what extent have you -. ._'.~:- ’01
problems associated with... ¢ » ‘52 engaged in any of the i; (Sign: a: a
(mark one for each line) 9;, “i, a following behaviors? '5, 7.} .2 0
t5 3 ,. 14 (mark one for each line) at, 13%; 61.3%
a. Alcohol and other drug use ............ O O C) O a Refused an offer of alcohol
b. Campus vandalism .................. O O O O or other drugs .............. 0 0 0 0 0 0
c. Sexual assault .................... ‘ O O O O b. Bragged about your alcohol
d. Assaults that are non-sexual .......... 0 C) O C) or other drug use ............ O OO O O 0
e. Harassment because of gender ........ 0 O 0 O c. Heard someone else brag about
f. Harassment because of sexual . his/her alcohol or other drug use QC) 000 O
orientation ........................ O O O Q d. Carried a weapon such as a z»: ‘-.
g. Harassment because of race gun knife etc. (do not count -;: i--
or ethnicity ........................ O O O O hunting situations or weapons
h. Harassment because of religion ........ - O O O 0 used as part of your job) ...... C) O 000 C)
e. Experienced peer pressure
33.To what extent has your 34.To what extent has your to drink or use drugs ,,,,,,,, Q 0000 0
alcohol use changed within illegal drug use changed f, Held a drink to have people — ~
the last 12 months? within the last 12 months? stop bothering you about why ' ‘
increased ............ 0 Increased ............ 0 you weren 't drinking .......... 0 O 0' C) 0 0
About the same ........ 0 About the same ........ 0 9. Thought a sexual partner was “‘3‘:
Decreased ............ 0 Decreased ............ 0 not attractive because helshe
I have not used alcohol . . 0 l have not used drugs . . . . 0 was drunk ................ 000000
7 h Told a sexual partner that he/she “ ‘5’»
35- HOW "WC" ‘10 you think 90°F” 5 was not attractive because "51%“
73" harming themselves he/she was drunk ............ O 0000 O
(physically or in other ways) 03ch 0
they... (mark one for each line) 16 3%,”; at, ”a. 38 To what extent do you 7""
ii: iii 2v. agree with the following .2 1; 9%
a. Try marijuana once or twice .................. O O O 00 statements? a ':‘:\ f; i 3)
b. Smoke marijuana occasionally ................ O O O C) 0 (mark 0’79 ’0’ 980” ”09) 323 {35% ’
c. Smoke marijuana regularly .................... OOOOO - a. i feel valued as a person $53.3, SOS at
(1. Try cocaine once or twice .................... O O C) 00 on this campus ............ 000000
e. Take cocaine regularly ........................ O O O O O b. i feel that faculty and staff iz'r.~:?; has. ,
f. Try LSD once or twice ........................ O 0 COO care about me as a student. . . . C) 00000
9. Take LSD regularly .......................... O 0000 c. I have a responSibiliiY t0 ‘4' 3397-1 iii?
h. Try amphetamines once or twice ................ O O O OO contribute to the well-being -. T. {’7'
i. Take amphetamines regularly .................. O O O O O , of other students ------------ O O 000 0
j. Take one or two drinks of an alcoholic beverage d. My campus encourages me F “#51?
(beer, wine, liquor) neariy every day ............ 0 0 0 0 0 to help others in need ........ 00 0 .20
k. Take four or five drinks nearly every day .......... O O 0 O O .l abide by the university policy if = '- . n
l. Have five or more drinks in one sitting .......... O 00 Q0 9and regulations that concern ;; '
m. Take steroids for body building or improved alcohol and other drug use ..... C) 00900
athletic performance ........................ O O C) O C)
n. Consume alcohol prior to being sexually active . . . O 0 OOO 33‘" which 0' "i. following W3 ‘30” 0W
0. Regularly engage in unprotected sexual activity '. students'i'drinking interfere With your life 0"
with a single partner ........................ OO'OOO 0" "Wild campus? (mark one ’0’ 930” line)
P- Regularly engage in unprotected sexual activity f' ~ yes no
with multiple partners ........................ 00,000 a. interrupts your studying .............. 0 0
b. Makes you feel unsafe .............. O 0
“Mark one answer for each line: c. Messes up your physical living space
(cleanliness, neatness. organization. etc.)0 0
a. Did you have sexual intercourse within yes no d. Adversely affects your involvement on
the last yeafl ................................ O 0 an athletic team or in other organized
if yes, answer b and c below. i groups .......................... 0
it. Did you drink alcohol the last time you e. Prevents you from enjoying events
had sexual intercourse? ........................ O 0 (concerts, sports, social activities. etc). . O 0
c. Did you use other drugs the last f. interferes in other way(s) ............ 0
time you had sexual intercourse? ................ O O 9. Doesn't interfere with my life .......... O O

 

95

 

 

 

 

Appendix C

Campus Survey Consent Form
The Core Survey is designed to obtain a description of alcohol and drug use among
college students. We are asking for your voluntary participation in the completion of this

survey. This should take approximately 20 minutes of your time.

The survey is confidential — do not write your name on it. The information gathered will
be used for research purposes only. Please return this Consent Form in one of the
stamped, addressed envelope provided. Please return the completed survey in the second

stamped, addressed enve10pe.

Please understand that: (a) this research project has been approved by the UM-D Human
Subjects Review Committee, (b) the survey is completely voluntary and confidential, (c)
you are free to discontinue participation at any time if you wish to, and (d) the results of

the project, when available, will be reported to you upon your request.

Your signature below indicates your willingness to participate in this study, and that you

authorize the University of Michigan - Dearborn to utilize the results of the study for

research purposes.

Signature

 

Name

 

Date

 

96

Appendix D

Mentor Recruitment Flyer

PEER EDUCATOR
PROGRAM

9 mentor a freshman

 

9 hell! nrcvent substance abuse
0 earn a $25 gift certificate

 
 

0 meet new neonlc _

O atteml social activities

For more information contact [aura Hubner at
counseling 8. Sunnort Scnuces
[Stun in or call]

313 593-5430

97

Appendix E

Mentor Application

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please Print FILE # __

1. NAME DATE

2. LOCAL ADDRESS

3. HOME PHONE L ) WORK PHONE ( )

4. MARITAL STATUS E-MAIL

5. RACE CITIZENSHIP

6. DATE OF BIRTH AGE __ SEX M _ F _

7. SOCIAL SECURITY#

8. STUDENT STATUS FULL-TIME __ PART-TIME __ GPA __

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

UNIT: CASL MGMT ENGR EDUC RACKHAM UNCLASSIFIED

MAJOR

 

CLASS: FR SOPH JR SR OTHER_____

HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDED:

 

PLEASE INDICATE THE FREQUENCY WITH WHICH YOU USE:

ALCOHOL:

 

MARIJUANA:

 

OTHER SUBSTANCES:

 

INTERESTS:

 

CLUBS OR ORGANIZATIONS YOU’RE INVOLVED WITH:

 

98

Appendix F

Mentee Recruitment F lyer

WANT A FUN, EASY WAY TO MEET PEOPLE ON CAMPUS?

JOIN THE PEER EDUCATOR PROGRAM (PEP)
H Meet upper classmen & other freshmen

II Have a student mentor

H Network with student leaders & members of clubs & organizations like:

0 Campus Video 0 The Michigan Journal

0 Campus Radio 0 Student Government

0 Debate Team 0 Arab Student Union

0. Association of Educators - Muslim Student Association

0 Delta Sigma Phi 0 Chaldean-American Student Assoc.
0 Delta Phi Epsilon 0 Pre-Professional Health Society

TI Attend social activities: area sporting events, movies, the Detroit Art
Festival, cookouts, volleyball games& much more

U Socialize in a substance-free environment

TIE-Mail peer-ed@umich.edu
HCall 313.593-5430 i

99

Appendix G

Peer Educator Program
orients Frosh with campus

BY NICHOLAS HAGEMAN N
STUDENT LIFE EDITOR

The
Educator Program (PEP) aims
to help incoming Freshman
meet people, make friends,
join organizations, and pro-
mote substance-free activities.

In the last school year, sub-
stance abuse and violence

came to a frightening head on.

campuses around the state and
nationwide. There were riots,

alcohol related deaths, and .‘

other tragedies that universi-
ties feel the need to deal with.

PEP is a twelve university,
statewide program started in
response to substance and vio-
lence problems on college
campuses. The purpose of
PEP is not to condemn alcohol
consumption, but to encourage
responsible. legal use of it.

Freshmen are paired up
with an upperclassman, or
mentor. Mentors are assigned
one to three freshmen, usually
sharing their major. Mentors
then meet individually with
their assigned freshmen on
campus.

Once a month, the entire
group meets for hockey, ten-
nis, lunch. coffee, or, like this
month. a.massive barbecue.
These parties continue month~
ly throughout the year, not
only promoting drug-free
activities, but also providing a
social outlet for the freshmen
and mentors alike.

UM-Dearbom Peer -

    

STEPHANIE BAKER/M]

Campus PEP organizer, Laura Hubner, posts with a mentor,
Jason Hicks. PEP offers a social outlet for new freshmen.

An added bonus this pro-
gram brings to our commuter
campus is a sense of campus
life that is all-to—often over-
looked at UM—D. The Peer
Educator Program encourages
socialization between incom-
ing freshmen, something we at
times seem in dire need of.

PEP members have an opti-
mistic response to the pro-
gram. Jason Hicks, a mentor.
is sure that it will be a fun pro-

100

gram.

The Peer Educator Program
is in need of more freshmen,
however. Anyone interested in
PEP should inquire at the
Counseling and Support
Services Center in the UMall.
Laura Hubner is more than
willing to sign you up. So
please call at 593-5430, stop
by, or show up at the barbecue
Sept. 30.

Appendix H

Prevention Study Pretest Consent Form

November 8, 1999

Dear

I am evaluating the effectiveness of the Peer Educator Program, our alcohol prevention
program on campus. I need your help to accomplish this. If you choose to help you will
be asked to complete a survey designed to obtain a description of alcohol and drug use
among college students. This survey should take approximately 20 minutes to complete.
If you return this survey, your name will be placed in a drawing for $100.00.

Please DO NOT write your name anywhere on the survey. The surveys will be numbered
to match them with surveys we will ask you to complete at a future date. The list of
numbers that are matched with participant names will be confidential. This list will be
locked in a file cabinet and accessible only to this researcher. The list will be destroyed in

April of 2000.

There are no known risks or ill effects from participating in this study. Benefits in
participating include learning more about your own attitudes and perceptions toward drug

and alcohol use.

Participation in this study 18 voluntary. You are free to withdraw consent and to
discontinue participation in this study at any time. Please sign the Consent Form included
in this packet and return it with the survey in the stamped, addressed envelope provided.
If you would like the results of this study or have any questions, please contact me at
Counseling and Support Services (313) 593-5430.

Thank you for your time. I truly appreciate your help.

Sincerely,

Laura Sherry Hubner, M. S.
Project Coordinator
Peer Educator Program

10]

Appendix I

Prevention Study Consent Form

This survey is designed to assess the effectiveness of the Peer Educator Program. We are
asking for your voluntary participation in the completion of this survey. This should take

approximately 20 minutes of your time.

The survey is confidential — do not write your name on it. The information gathered will

be used for research purposes only. Please include this Consent Form in the return

envelope provided.

Please understand that: a) this research is funded by the State-of-Michigan,
b) participation is completely voluntary & confidential c) you are free to discontinue

participation at any time if you wish to, and d) the results of the program, when available,

will be reported to you upon your request.

Your signature below indicates your willingness to participate in this study, and that you

authorize the State-of-Michigan to utilize the results of the study for research purposes.

Signature

 

Name

 

Date

 

102

Appendix J

Prevention Study Posttest Cover Letter
May 15, 2000
Dear

I am continuing to evaluate the effectiveness of the Peer Educator Program. I need your
help to accomplish this. If you choose to help you will be asked to complete a second
copy of the survey you were sent in November. It is designed to obtain a description of
alcohol and drug use among college students. This survey should take approximately 20
minutes to complete. If you return this survey, your name will be placed in two
drawings for $100.00.

Please DO NOT write your name anywhere on the survey. The surveys are numbered to
match them with the surveys we asked you to complete at an earlier date. The list of
numbers that are matched with participant names are confidential. This list is locked in a
file cabinet and accessible only to this researcher. The list will be destroyed in July of

2000.

There are no known risks or ill effects from participating in this study. Benefits in
participating include learning more about your own attitudes and perceptions toward drug

and alcohol use.

Participation in this study is voluntary. You are free to withdraw consent and to
discontinue participation in this study at any time.

Please sign the Consent Form included in this packet and return it with the survey in the

stamped, addressed envelope provided. If you would like the results of this study or have
any questions, please contact me at Counseling and Support Servrces (313) 593-5430.

Thank you for your time. I truly appreciate your help.

Sincerely,

Laura Sherry Hubner, M. S.
Project Coordinator
Peer Educator Program

103

Appendix K
Questions For Mentors

1. Describe the relationship between you and each of your mentees.

2. What made the relationship work?

3. How come the relationship didn’t work?

4. Did you ever talk about alcohol with your mentees?

a. If yes, what topics were discussed? J

5. What would have made the program more effective?

104

LiZsI- _ _

     

W l lll‘ ll‘lll I‘ll‘ l‘ ll‘l‘ll ||‘|l“|

1293 02177 426