Ruth C. Engs* D.J. Hanson, & B. Diebold. The Drinking Patterns and Problems of a National Sample of College Students, 1994: Implications for Education. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education. Spring 1997.

* Send reprint requests to: Ruth C. Engs, HPER 116, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47401 or to David J. Hanson, Department of Sociology, State University College, Potsdam, NY 13674. This study funded by Indiana University and the State University of New York, Potsdam.

Educational efforts, prevention programming and comprehensive policies concerning alcohol consumption at the university level have increased over the past decade, largely due to increased funding from the federal level. However, this funding is likely to decline. With more limited resources, universities may need to find the most efficient strategies for delivering alcohol abuse prevention (Gonzalez 1993). Rather than aiming efforts at the total student body, limited funds would be better spent on programming for those at greatest risk for alcohol abuse.

Society is constantly changing and groups at greatest risk in an earlier era may no longer be so. Moreover, educational and prevention efforts considered important in the late 1980's may no longer be relevant to the mid 1990's. It is common knowledge that there have been numerous changes in the structure of American society. These include changes in gender roles and behavioral expectations, changes in socio-economic status of racial and ethnic groups, increased religious intermarriage, and social pressures for earlier maturity of youth. In addition, our society has seen changes in the law concerning alcohol use and the decrease in rural urban differences(Stark, 1994).

Because of possible changes in drinking patterns within these demographic categories, the purpose of this study was to gather new baseline information which could be used for curriculum development. A second purpose of this descriptive cross-sectional study was to test the hypothesis that demographic variables are less important now than in the past in relation to drinking behaviors. The null hypotheses is that there are no longer any differences in drinking patterns or problems within the different demographic categories.

Societal changes in the United States may be reflected in drinking patterns and problems. There is mixed evidence regarding the importance of demographic variables in relation to drinking among the college population. Various personal, academic and social characteristics have been associated with drinking and drinking problems and gender has been one of the most important predictors of these phenomena. The majority of studies have shown that a higher percentage of men drink and experience drinking-related problems than women (Engs and Hanson, 1990; Loughlin and Kayson, 1990; Saltz and Elandt, 1986; Engs and Hanson 1985). In addition, recent studies (Billingham, Post and Gross 1993; Gustafson 1993; and Robinson, Gloria, Roth, and Schuetter 1993), have reported that men generally consume alcohol more frequently and/or in greater quantities than women. Other investigations have disputed this, however, finding little or no difference between males and females (Kodman and Stumack, 1984; Berkowitz and Perkins, 1985; Perkins, 1992).

Another important variable which is predictive of drinking patterns and problems related to drinking is racial or ethnic background. Older studies in the United States have reported non-whites having a higher rate of heavy drinking than whites (Maddox and Williams, 1968). Current research (Wechsler, Dowdall, Davenport and Castillo, 1995; Williams, Newby, and Kanitz 1993; Crowley 1991; Schall, Weede, and Maltzman 1991; and Hanson and Engs 1990) has shown that non-white college students report lower rates of both alcohol consumption and drinking-related problems. On the other hand, one study showed drinking rates equal to that of whites (Conners, Maisto, and Watson, 1989).

The relationship between drinking and religious affiliation suggests the highest proportion of drinkers are typically found among Jews, a slightly a lower rate among Catholics and the lowest among Protestants. This has been found in American (Carlucci, et al. 1993), American and Canadian(Engs, Hanson and Glicksman, 1990) and a Scottish(Mullen, Blaxter, and Dyer, 1986) sample. Some reports (Miller and Garrison, 1982; Engs and Hanson, 1985) also indicate a direct relationship between the lack of importance of religion and frequent or heavy drinking but not all (Reiskin and Wechsler, 1981).

While positive association between both quantity and frequency of drinking with both age and with college year have been documented (Wechsler, Dowdall, Davenport and Castillo, 1995; Engs and Hanson 1985,1989; and Crum, Helzer and Anthony, 1993), some studies have reported either relatively little difference or negative association with college year (Lotterhos, Holbert, and Glover, 1990; Schall, et al. 1991; Gross, 1993). An inverse relationship between student drinking and academic achievement has been reported by numerous studies (Engs and Hanson 1985; Ford and Carr, 1990; Borges and Hansen, 1993). Evidence suggests that pledges or members of sororities and fraternities report greater rates of alcohol consumption and drinking-related problems than non-Greeks (Kodman and Sturmak, 1984; Tampke 1990).

Institutional characteristics are also associated with different drinking patterns. The frequency and quantity of drinking are lower in the South, in urban areas, in large and in public institutions. However, these differences may be waning (Engs and Hanson, 1985; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1994).

The Instrument

A pre-coded anonymous instrument, the Student Alcohol Questionnaire (SAQ), was used to collect data (Engs 1977; Hanson 1972). The questionnaire includes various demographic items; six questions concerning quantity and frequency of wine, spirits and beer consumption; and 19 items regarding possible negative health/personal, social/academic, legal/violence or drinking/driving consequences resulting from alcohol consumption. The SAQ also contains alcohol knowledge and attitude questions.

For this report, 19 items regarding possible consequences of alcohol consumption are reported. The items are listed in Table III. Students were asked to indicate if a given problem had occurred at least once during the preceding year. Six items used to calculate quantity-frequency and mean amount of alcohol consumed were also utilized.

Instructions explained the voluntary nature of participation, as approved by the authors' Institutional Review Boards. The instrument has been widely used or adapted by a number of authors. Some recent examples include Hong and Isralowitz(1989), Maney(1990), Hughes and Dodder(1992), Carlucci, Genova, Rubackin, and Kayson(1993), Flynn and Brown(1991), Gross(1993) and Haworth-Hoeppner, Globetti, Stem, and Morasco(1993) among others in the United States and other countries. The instrument has demonstrated internal consistency reliability of .79 for all items, excluding demographic factors. An updated reliability analysis (Engs and Hanson 1994) has demonstrated Spearman-Brown reliability coefficients of .84 for the Quantity/Frequency and .89 for the Problems Related to Drinking sub-scales. The values of Cronbach alpha reliability were .86 and .92 respectively, for these sub-scales.

Sample

This sample is part of an ongoing study of drinking patterns and problems of students attending four-year colleges and universities from every state in the United States that was begun in 1982. A number of studies have been published over the past 15 years from the five times data have been collected(See references for citation by the author's for some examples). Institutions, were selected to form a "quota sample". Colleges were chosen to be representative of all four-year institutions of higher education in terms of financial support(public or private) and size(over and under 10,000 student enrollments). For example, approximately 65% of students attend state supported schools in terms of financial control in the United States(Snyder, 1993). This same proportion of institutions, from each state, were randomly selected from a list of colleges and universities which had health, physical education or sociology departments(Simon, 1987; College Blue Book, 1993; Eta Sigma Gamma, 1992). The department head was then contacted about participation in the study. If an institution declined to participate, another institution with similar demographics, eg, state supported, small community, with over 10,000 students, in the same state was then asked to take part.

For collecting the sample, the authors asked faculty, identified by the departmental chair, who teach general elective survey-type classes for which all students in all academic years are eligible. Examples would include courses such as personal health, first aid, and basic sociology. These faculty were asked to distribute the SAQ to students for in-class completion and to return the completed questionnaires to the researchers. The return rate for complete and usable questionnaires exceeded 97%. Due to the fact that the whole class was surveyed, this "convenience sample" is limited to students in classes from institutions where instructors were willing to distribute the questionnaire.

The resulting sample consisted of 12,081 students from 168 colleges and universities and included the following Personal demographic characteristics: 38.5% men and 61.5% women, 81.6% white, and 18.4% non-white; 31.8% Roman Catholics, 27.3% Protestants whose religions allowed drinking, 21.5% Protestants whose religion does not allow drinking, 1.9% Jews, and 17.5% none or other. 57.8% were under and 42.2% were over the age of 21 years. The mean age was 20.5. The sample over-represents females and non-whites compared to national statistics regarding the demographics of college students (Snyder, 1993)a.

Among Academic and Social Behavioral characteristics, the sample consisted of 27.7% freshmen, 23.8% sophomores, 24.6% juniors, and 23.9% seniors. 16.2% were pledges or members of a fraternity or sorority.

Institutional characteristics: twenty-four percent of the sample attended school in the Northeastern region of the United States, 28.9% in the North Central region; 30.0% in the Southern, and 17.1% in the Western region (including Alaska and Hawaii) of the United States. Of the total sample, 68.1% were from colleges with enrollments of 10,000 or more, and 31.9% were from colleges with a student body of less than 10,000; 81.7% were from public and 18.3% of were from private institutions; 69.5% were from schools with surrounding communities of populations under 100,000, 20.0% from communities between 100-500,000, and 10.5% were from surrounding communities with populations over 500,000.

A limitation to the study was that the sample over-represents females, non-whites and those who attended public schools compared to the universe of students attending four year institution of higher learning in the United States (Snyder 1993)a. Because of its large size, the sample had high power for detecting significant differences. On the other hand, the large sample size also introduces the chance of type I error.

Calculations

All calculations were accomplished on the Indiana University VAX computer using the SPSS program(Norusis, 1990).

Several methods for calculating the amount of alcohol consumed are in common use. They include calculating the mean grams or ounces of absolute alcohol or the mean drinks or units per week or per day. In self report studies, determining grams or ounces is often an imprecise calculation as it is based upon recall. In addition people often underestimate the amount they have consumed (Thomas, Goddard, Hickman and Hunter 1993).

Therefore, in recent years it has become more common to calculate the mean number of drinks, or units, per week or day of all alcoholic beverages consumed in North America and Great Britain (Lemmon, Tan and Knibbe, 1988; Engs, Hanson, Glicksman and Smythe, 1990; Thomas, Goddard, Hickman and Hunter 1993; Engs 1990; Engs and Hanson, 1994; Gaziano, Buring, Breslow, Goldharber, Rosner, VanDenburgh, Willett and Hennekens, 1993). Calculations for this method are based upon the "rule of thumb" that an average can or glass of tavern beer(12 ounces) is roughly equivalent to an average size glass of wine (5 ounces) or shot of spirits (one and half ounce) in terms of grams (approximately 13) of absolute alcohol(Consumer and Food Economics Institute, 1990).

For the calculations, the instrument assessed the usual frequency and quantity of beer, wine and spirits consumed by student. The frequency and quantity response categories were assigned constant values b. To compute the total number of drinks consumed on a weekly basis, a mean score was calculated by multiplying the re-coded quantity by the re-coded frequency weight for each beverage type and summing the three scores. A One-Way Analysis of Variance and the t-test was used to compare the mean number of drinks within demographic variables. The post-hoc Scheffe test was used to determine where differences occurred.

Calculating "at risk drinking" for males and females

Several recent reports suggest that up to 21 drinks per week for males and 14 drinks for females is considered the maximum safe consumption limit in terms of acute and chronic health consequences(Engs and Aldo-Benson, 1995; Cohen, S., Tyrrell, D.A., Russell, M.A., Jarvis, M.J., and Smith, A.P., 1993; Garg, Wagener, and Madans, 1993; Gaziano, J.M., Buring, J.E., Breslow, J.L., Goldharber, S.Z,. Rosner, R., VanDenburgh, M., Willett, W. and Hennekens, C.H., 1993; Bofetta and Garfinkel, 1990).

Chi-Square analysis was accomplished for males and females comparing the percent who had consumed over the maximum amount recommended for their gender. These students were defined as at risk drinkers. In contrast, males who consumed 21 and females who consumed 14 drinks or less per week during the previous 12 months were considered low risk drinkers.

Quantity/Frequency drinking level

Based upon a method suggested by Cahalen(1969) and adapted by Engs(1977), a quantity/frequency level of drinking was calculated to identify different levels of drinkers for the total group. Individuals were divided into three categories: Abstainers, Light to Moderate, and Heavier Drinkersc. These were analyzed by Chi-Square analysis.

Drinking related problems

Only students who had consumed any alcohol during the previous 12 months, ie, "drinkers", were asked to report on problem behaviors associated with drinking. Students who had not consumed any alcohol during the previous 12 months were asked to skip these items. A mean problem score was calculated for each student by assigning one point for each of the 19 problems experienced at least once during the previous 12 months. These scores were subjected to t-tests, and one-way analysis of variance and post-hoc Scheffe tests. In addition Chi-square analyses were used to determine possible differences in the percentages of students exhibiting each of the 19 problems for gender among low risk and among at risk drinkers. Males consuming over 21 and females consuming over 14 drinks per week were select into the at risk drinking category. Likewise, males and females under this level were selected out for the low risk category.

Quantity-Frequency and mean drinks per week

Of the total group, 72.0% were drinkers. One in five were considered Heavy Drinkers and half were classified as Light/Moderate Drinkers. Of drinkers, 27.4 % were Heavy Drinkers. The mean drinks consumed per week for the total sample of students was 9.6. For drinkers only it was 10.9 drinks per week. There was a significant difference(p < .001, t=8.8 ) between the mean drinks consumed between the total population and the drinkers.

Personal Demographic Characteristics

Gender: Table 1 revealed that men and women differed significantly in quantity and frequency of drinking (p < .001, X2=792.41). Among drinkers significantly (p < .001, X2 =65.7) fewer women were heavy drinkers. When recommended maximum limits for safe alcohol consumption for men and women were examined, chi-square results revealed that a significantly(p < .001, X2=86.3, p < .001) higher percent of males(31.1%) were "At Risk" drinkers compared to females(19.2%).

*p<.001      +p<.05

a. Note sample size in each category do not necessarily add up to the total sample due to missing data for each analysis.

Table 2 indicates that among drinkers women consumed significantly (p < .001, t=27.2) fewer mean drinks per week compared to men.

Race: A significant difference in student drinking patterns due to race was found (p < .001, X2=94.12). More whites compared to non-whites consumed alcohol. Among drinkers (p < .001, X2 =94.1) twice as many whites compared to non-whites were Heavy Drinkers. White drinkers consumed significantly (p <.001, t=18.9) more than twice as many drinks per week compared to non-white drinkers.

Age: There was a significant difference (p < .001, X2 =57.3) in the drinking patterns of older compared to younger students. Likewise among drinkers, a significantly higher percent (p < .001, X2 =55.4) of underage students were heavy drinkers compared to legal age students. Among the legal-aged drinkers, there was a higher percentage of light-moderate consumers but no difference in the mean number of drinks per week, compared to under age drinkers.

Religion: Almost half of all Protestants, whose religion does not allow drinking (Mormon, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc.), and about a fifth of Protestants whose religion does allow drinking were abstainers. In contrast few Catholics and Jews fell into this category (p < .001, X2 =58.3). Among drinkers, Catholics (p < .001, X2 =61.3) had the highest percentage of Heavy Drinkers compared to the other groups. The Scheffe post hoc test for the MANOVA revealed that Catholics and Jews consumed the highest mean number of drinks per week (p < .001, F=102.2) compared to the two Protestant groups.

Importance of Religion: A higher percent of drinkers were found among those who did not consider religion important compared to those who considered it important (p < .001, X2=474.34). Among drinkers, individuals to whom religion was not important were also more likely to be Heavy Drinkers (p < .001, X2 = 85.3). The less religious also consumed twice as many drinks compared to very religious individuals (p < .001, t=18.1).

Class standing: Table 3 reveals that the drinking patterns of students changed by year in school (p < .001, X2=227.77). Among drinkers, there was a gradual decrease, however, in the percent of Heavy Drinkers from the first to the fourth years of college (p < .05, X2 =8.1 ). However, there was no significant difference in mean drinks consumed per week(See table 4).

*p<.001    +p<.05

a. Note sample size in each category do not necessarily add up to the total sample due to missing data for each analysis.

Grade Point Average (GPA): There was a significant inverse relationship between GPA and the percent of students who drank or were Heavy Drinkers (p < .001, X2=277.17). Among drinkers the lower the GPA the higher the percentage who drank or were heavy drinkers(p < .001, X2 =143.9). Those students with 4.0 GPAs consumed a third of the number of drinks compared to those with GPAs under 2.0 (p < .001, F=38.5)

Pledge/member of fraternity/sorority(Greeks): A higher percentage of Greeks were drinkers compared to non-Greeks (p < .001, X2 =64.9). Greek drinkers also had a higher percentage of Heavy Drinkers compared to non-members (p < .001, X2 =97.4). In addition Greeks consumed almost twice as many drinks per week compared to non-Greeks (p < .001, t=15.6).

Demographic Characteristics of Institutions Students attended

Region of the country: Student drinking patterns also varied according to the region of the country in which they were attending school (p < .001, X2=433.82). The highest proportion of drinkers were found in the North central region, followed by the North Eastern, Southern, and Western regions, respectively(See table 5). Among drinker, the percentage of Heavy Drinkers (p < .001 X2 =151.5) was greatest in the North Eastern portion of the country, followed by the North Central, Southern and Western areas. However, there were no significant difference in alcohol consumption between the four regions of the country.

*p<.oo1     +p<.05

a. Note sample size in each category do not necessarily add up to the total sample due to missing data for each analysis.

Type of School, School-size and Community-size: A slightly lower percentage of drinkers was found among students attending private schools, compared to publicly funded schools (p < .001, X2=43.6). On the other hand, among drinkers, slightly more private than public school students were Heavy Drinkers (p < .001, X2 =14.7), but there was no difference in amount consumed.

There was also a significant difference between the percent of drinkers by size of school (p < .001, X2 =15.7) and community (p < .001 X2 =46.7). Schools with enrollments under 10,000 reported lower proportion of drinkers, compared to schools with enrollments greater than 10,000. The mean number of drinks did not differ between large and small schools or between private and public schools(see Table 6). Individuals attending schools in smaller communities consumed significantly more alcohol than did those at schools in large cities (p < .001, F=24.2).

Problems related to drinking

Males had a significantly ( p < .001, t=23.4) higher mean drinking problem score compared to females(see table 2). Chi-square analysis of 19 problems related to drinking were preformed (See Table 7) separately for low risk and for high risk drinkers for each gender. In most cases, a higher percent of males exhibited the problem. The exceptions were nausea and vomiting, missing classes because of hangover and being forced to have sex among the higher risk drinkers.

+p<.05     *p<.001

Whites had a higher mean problem score than did non-whites (p < .001, t=21.8). There was a significant difference in mean problem scores (p < .001, F=102.3) between religious groups, with Catholics having the highest mean(see Table 2). Those to whom religion was not important had the highest score (p < .001,t=19.2), as did those with the lowest GPA (p < .001, t=6.1), and those associated with Fraternity/sororities (p < .001, t=15.6). Students who attended college in the North East and North Central part of the country (p < .001, F=38.2), or small communities (p < .05, F=22.2), or public schools (p < .05, t=3.2) also had the highest mean problem scores(Table 6).

There were significant differences in drinking patterns for all demographic groups. In terms of mean drinks per week there were no differences in consumption due to age, type of school, and school size. For the number of drinking related problems there were no differences due to age, year in school, region of the country and size of school.

Major findings were that whites, males, Catholics, the non-religious, those with low grade point average, those affiliated with fraternities/sororities, those attending colleges located in the Northeast, which are private, have enrollment under 10,000 and in small communities were most at risk for heavier drinking. These results do not indicate dramatic changes in drinking patterns between most of the demographic groups as these results have been found over the past two decades by various researchers.

Although there have been social changes which have given women more freedom for career choices and independence, this was not reflected in a smaller gap between male and female students in this sample in regards to alcohol consumption. When the percent of males and females who were considered at risk drinkers for their gender were examined (over 21 drinks per week for males and 14 for females), about one out of three males compared to about one out of five females fell into the At Risk category for their gender.

The higher percent of underage students classified as heavy drinkers can perhaps be explained by Reactance Theory (Engs and Hanson, 1990; Allen, Sprenkel and Vitale, 1994 ). Drinking is perceived as part of the college experience by most students. Prohibition of alcohol for those under the age of 21, makes it more alluring since it is illegal. Since students feel they have the right to drink, illicit alcohol consumption has gone "underground" away from adult monitoring. Because these illegal drinkers do not have adult social pressure to limit their consumption to more moderate levels, they are likely to consume more drinks on the fewer occasions when alcohol is available. The increase in percent of students who drink from freshmen to seniors may also supports this hypotheses.

As discussed in the section concerning limitations to the study, the sample is over-represented in females, non-white's state supported institutions compared to the universe of students in the United States. This sample bias may have caused underestimated of drinking levels for some of the demographic categories. For most of the problem related to drinking, a higher proportion of males reported problems compared to females among both Low Risk and High Risk drinkers even when the gender effect of maximum safe limit is taken into consideration.

The results of this study can be useful for curricular planning. Rather than directing massive un-focused prevention efforts indiscriminately at all university students, it would appear prudent to tailor and target efforts to those groups that are at most risk for alcohol abuse. These would include being under age 21, white, male, low grade point average, fraternity member/ pledge and non religious. Programs aimed at these specific groups would be a much more efficient use of resources in an era of fiscal restraint.

a. The percent of women among university students as a whole in the United States was 52% in 1991, the last year for which data are available, 14% of students were non-white and 68% attended public institutions (Snyder 1993, Table 174, p 180).

b. Loading values used to calculate mean number of drinks per week. For the usual frequency of drinking by each respondent: every day = 7.0; at least one a week but not daily = 3.5; at least once a month but not weekly = 0.5; more than once a year but not monthly = 0.12; one a year or less = 0.02; never = 0. Values for number of drinks of beer, wine, distilled spirits: 7+ =7.5; 5-6= 5.5; 3-4 = 3.5; 1-2 = 1.5; < 1 = 0.5; 0 = 0

c. The Quantity-Frequency measure for each subject was calculated from the beverage (beer, wine or distilled spirits) most frequently used and the amount consumed on a typical occasion. Drinking category of Abstainer: drinks less than once a year or not at all; Light to Moderate Drinker: drinks at least once a month but not weekly and consumes no more than 1 to 2 drinks at any one sitting; drinks at least once a month but not weekly and consumes no more than 5 to 6 drinks per occasion; drinks at least once a week but not daily and consumes no more than 3 to 4 drinks per sitting, or once a day but consumes no more than 1 or 2 drinks. Heavy Drinker: drinks more than 5 drinks at any one sitting once a week or more.

Allen, D. N., Sprenkel, D.G. and Vitale, P.A. (1994). Reactance theory and alcohol consumption laws: further confirmation among collegiate alcohol consumers. Journal Studies on Alcohol. 55(1), 34-40.

Berkowitz, A.D., and Perkins, H.W. (1985). General differences in collegiate drinking: longitudinal trends and developmental patterns. Paper presented at the American College Personnel Association Conference.

Billingham, R.E., Post, J., and Gross, W.C. (1993). Parental divorce and the change in drinking behavior from high school to college. Psychological Reports, 72(3, pt 2), 1275-1281.

Bofetta, P. and Garfinkel, L. (1990).Alcohol drinking and mortality among men enrolled in an American Cancer Society prospective study. Epidemiology, 1, 342-348.

Borges, N.J., and Hansen, S.L. (1993). Correlation between college students' driving offenses and their risks for alcohol problems. Journal of American College Health, 42(2), 79-81.

Carlucci, K., Genova, J., Rubackin, F., Rubackin, R., and Kayson, W.A. (1993). Effects of sex, religion, and amount of alcohol consumption on self-reported drinking- related problem behaviors. Psychological Reports, 72(3, pt 1), 983-987.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1994). Frequent alcohol consumption among women of childbearing age-Behavioral risk factor surveillance system, 1991. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, 43(18), 328-329, 334-335.

Cohen, S., Tyrrell, D.A., Russell, M.A., Jarvis, M.J., and Smith, A.P.(1993). Smoking, alcohol consumption, and susceptibility to the common cold. American Journal of Public Health, 83,1277-1283.

Conners, G.J., Maisto, S.A., and Watson, D.W. (1989). Initial drinking experiences among Black and White male and female student drinkers. International Journal of the Addictions, 24(12), 1173-1182.

Crowley, J.E. (1991). Educational status and drinking patterns: How representative are college students? Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52(1), 10-16.

Crum, R.M., Helzer, J.E., and Anthony, J.C. (1993). Level of education and alcohol abuse and dependence in adulthood: A further inquiry. American Journal of Public Health, 83(6), 830-837. Engs, R.C. (1977). Drinking patterns and drinking problems of college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 38, 2144-2156

Engs, R.C. (1990). Family background of alcohol abuse and its relationship to alcohol consumption among college students: An unexpected finding. Journal Studies of Alcohol, 51,542-547.

Engs, R.C. and Aldo-Benson, M. (1995). The association of alcohol consumption with self- reported illness in university students. Psychological Reports, 76, 727-736.

Engs, R.C., and Hanson, D.J. (1994). The student alcohol questionnaire: An updated reliability of the drinking patterns, problems, knowledge and attitude subscales. Psychological Reports, 74, 12-14.

Engs, R.C., and Hanson, D.J. (1993). Boozing and brawling on campus: A national study of violent problems associated with drinking over the past decade. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22(2), 171-180.

Engs, R.C. and Hanson, D.J. (1990). Gender differences in drinking patterns and problems among college students: A review of the literature. Journal Alcohol and Drug Education., 1990,35,36-47.

Engs, R.C., and Hanson, D.J. (1989). Reactance Theory: A test with collegiate drinking. Psychological Reports, 64, 1083-1086.

Engs, R.C., and Hanson, D.J. (1985). The drinking patterns and problems of college students: 1983. Journal Alcohol and Drug Education, 31(1), 65-83.

Engs, R.C., Hanson, D. J., Glicksman, L. and Smythe, C. (1990). The religious variables: Comparison of Canadian and American college students' alcohol abuse problems. British Journal of Addictions, 85:1475-82.

Eta Sigma Gamma. (1992). A National Directory of College and Umniversity Health Education Programs and Faculties, 11th Edition. Eta Sigma Gamma. Ball State University: Muncie, IN

Ford, D.S., and Carr, P.G. (1990). Psychological correlates of alcohol consumption among Black college students. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 36(1), 45- 51.

Garg, R., Wagener, D.K., and Madans, J.H. (1993). Alcohol consumption and risk of ischemic heart disease in women. Archive of Internal Medicine, 153,1211-1216.

Gaziano, J.M., Buring, J.E., Breslow, J.L., Goldharber, S.Z,. Rosner, R., VanDenburgh, M., Willett, W. and Hennekens, C.H. (1993). Moderate alcohol intake, increased levels of high-density lipoprotein and its subfractions, and decreased risk of myocardial infarction. New England Journal of Medicine, 329,1829-34.

Gonzalez, G. Can colleges reduce student drinking ? (Winter 1993-1994), Planning for Higher Education, 22, 14-21.

Gross, W. (1993). Gender and age differences in college students' alcohol consumption. Psychological Reports. 72,211-216.

Gustafson, R. (1993). Alcohol-related expected effects and the desirability of these effects for Swedish college students measured with the Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 28(4), 469-475.

Hanson, D. J. and Engs, R.C. (1992) College students drinking problems: a national study, 1982-1991,.Psychological Reports, 71,39-42.

Hanson, D. J. and Engs, R. C. (1990) Black college students drinking patterns. in: Forster, B and Salloway, J.C. (eds) The Socio Cultural Matrix of Alcohol and Drug Abuse , 62-78.

Haworth-Hoeppner, S. Globetti, G., Stem, J. and Morasco, F. (1993). The quantity-and frequency of drinking among undergraduates at a southern university. International Journal of the Addictions, 24,829-857.

Hughes, S. P. and Dodder, R. A. (1992). Changing the minimum drinking age: results of a longitudinal study. Journal Studies on Alcohol, 53,568-575.

Kodman, F., and Sturmak, M. (1984). Drinking patterns among college fraternities: A report. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 27(3), 61-72.

Lotterhos, J.F., Holbert, D., and Glover, E.D. (1990). The impact of a 21-year drinking age law on university students' alcohol use, 1986- 1989. Paper presented at American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Loughlin, K.A., and Kayson, W.A. (1990). Alcohol consumption and self- reported drinking-related problem behaviors as related to sex, work environment and level of education. Psychological Reports, 67, 1323-1328.

Maddox, G.L., and Williams, J.R. (1968). Drinking behavior of Negro college students. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 29, 117-129.

Maney, D.W. (1990). Predicting university students' use of alcoholic beverages. Journal of College Student Development. 31,23-32.

Miller, J., and Garrison, H. (1982). Sex roles: The division of labor at home and in the workplace. Annual Review of Sociology, 8, 237- 262.

Mullen, K., Blaxter, M., and Dyer, S. (1986). Religion and attitudes toward alcohol use in the Western Isles. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 18, 51-72.

Norusis, M. SPSS Advanced Statistics: Student Guide, SPSS INC.: Chicago, 1990.

Perkins, H.W. (1992). Gender patterns in consequences of collegiate alcohol abuse: A 10-year study of trends in an undergraduate population. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 456-462.

Reiskin, H., and Wechsler, H. (1981). Drinking among college students using a campus mental health center. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 42, 716-724.

Robinson, S.E., Gloria, A.M., Roth, S.L., and Scheutter, R.M. (1993). Patterns of drug use among female and male undergraduates. Journal of College Student Development, 34(2), 130-137.

Saltz, R., and Elandt, R. (1986). College student drinking studies, 1976-1985. In Contemporary drug problems. New York: Federal Legal Publications. 117-159.

Schall, M., Weede, T.J., and Maltzman, I. (1991). Predictors of alcohol consumption by university students. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 37(1), 72-80.

Simon, J.A.(1987). Physical Education Gold Book: 1987-1989(Directory of Physical Educators in Higher Education, American Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation:Reston, Va

Snyder, T.D. (1993). Digest of Education Statistics, 1993. National Center for Education Statistics, Department of Education: Washington, D.C.

Stark, R. (1994). Sociology:Fifth Edition.(Chapters 11,16,17,18,19). Wardsworth Publishing Co.:Belmont, CA

Tampke, D. R. (1990) Alcohol behavior, risk perception, and fraternity and sorority membership. NASPA Journal, 28(1), 71-77.

The College Blue Book:Degrees Offered by College and Subject. (1993). MacMillan Pub. Co.:New York, NY.

Thomas, M., Goddard, E., Hickman, M. and Hunter, P. General Household Survey 1992, Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, HMSO: London, 1993.

Wechsler, H., Dowdall, G.W., Davenport, A. and Castillo, S. (1995). Correlates of college student binge drinking. American Journal of Public Health, 85(7), 921-926.

Williams, J.E., Newby, R.G., and Kanitz, H.E. (1993). Assessing the need for alcohol abuse programs for African-American college students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 21(3),

We would like to thank David Koceja, PhD, Indiana University, Bloomington, for statistical and John Samuel, Stat-Math, Indiana University for computer consultation.

TABLES IN MANUSCRIPT FORMAT



Table 1: Chi-square results of the percent of students exhibiting each
quantity-frequency level for ALL STUDENTS, and for DRINKERS ONLY within     
               personal   demographic characteristicsa.
___________________________________________________________________________ 
                              ALL STUDENTS                DRINKERS ONLY
                  N      Abstain  Light/  Heavy      N      Light/    Heavy
                                 Moderate                  Moderate         
                 ______________________________  ___________________________

 Gender
    Males       4641      21.8   44.5   33.7*       3630      56.9    43.1* 
    Females     7440      30.9   56.7   12.4        5071      82.1    17.9  
 
  Race
    White       9862      23.5   53.3   23.2*       7544      69.6    30.4*
    Non-white   1921      45.6   45.8    8.6        1045      84.1    15.9 

  Age
    Under 21    6931      30.2   47.7   22.1*       4841      68.4    31.6*
    Over 21     5068      23.7   57.7   18.6        3868      75.6    24.4
 
 Religious background
    Catholic    3844      15.6   56.4   28.0*       3244      66.8    33.2*
    Jewish       234      15.8   59.8   24.4         197      71.1    28.9
    Protestant,
     drinkers   3301      22.4   56.4   21.1        2561      72.7    27.3
    Protestant
     non drnks  2594      48.0   40.4   11.6        1348      77.7    22.3

  Importance of Religion
    Very        7923      32.9   50.4   16.7*       5315      75.1    24.9*
    Not         3985      16.0   55.4   28.7        3348      65.9    34.1
________________________
* p<.001     + p<.05  

a. Note sample size in each category  do not necessarily add up to the
total sample due  to missing data for each analysis. 



Table 2: Results of One-Way ANOVA and of t-test's of the mean drinks per
week consumed and number of problems related to drinking  by  personal      
           demographic characteristics among DRINKERS.
________________________________________________________________________
                   N         Mean drinks  (sd)          Number of  (sd)     
                              per week                  problems   
                  ______________________________    ________________________

Personal Demographic Characteristics

  Gender                                       
    Males        4567       14.3   (17.1)*               3.4   (3.4)*
    Females      7080        6.6   (10.6)                2.0   (2.4)

   Race
    White        9571       10.6   (14.4)*               2.7   (3.0)*
    Non-white    1107        4.2   (10.1)                1.1   (3.5)

   Age
    Under 21     6936        9.5   (14.0)                2.4   (2.9)
    Over 21      2891        9.0   (13.8)                2.5   (2.9) 

   Religious Background
    Catholic     3741       12.4   (14.7)*               3.1   (3.0)*  
    Jewish        225       13.0   (16.7)                2.7   (2.9)   
    Protestant,
     drinking    3209       10.2   (14.1)                2.7   (3.0)
    Protestant,       
     no drnkng   2494        5.7   (11.4)                1.8   (2.7)

   Importance of Religion
    Very         3568        5.3   (11.2)*               1.6   (2.6)*
    Not          4101       10.4   (13.5)                2.8   (2.8)




Table 3: Chi-square results of the percent of students exhibiting each
quantity-frequency level for ALL STUDENTS, and for DRINKERS ONLY within              academic and  social  characteristicsa.
______________________________________________________________________      
    
                            ALL STUDENTS                DRINKERS ONLY
                  N      Abstain  Light/   Heavy     N      Light/    Heavy
                                Moderate                   Moderate     
                ______________________________    _________________________

  Class year  
    Freshman     3352    35.8   45.2   19.0*       2152      70.4    29.6+
    Sophomore    2883    28.6   50.0   21.4        2059      70.0    30.0
    Junior       2973    23.9   54.6   21.5        2262      71.8    28.2 
    Senior       2527    19.4   59.3   21.3        2036      73.6    26.4

  Grade Point Average
    4.0           537    41.0   50.3    8.8*        317      85.2    14.8*
    3.5          2387    32.6   52.6   14.7        1608      78.1    21.9
    3.0          4499    27.0   53.5   19.5        3285      73.3    26.7
    2.5          3205    21.9   52.3   25.8        2502      66.9    33.1
    2.0           814    23.8   47.5   28.6         620      62.4    37.6
   <2.0           179    24.6   39.7   35.8         135      52.6    47.4

  Member/pledge of fraternity/sorority
    Member       1719    12.2   53.8   34.0*       1509      61.3    38.7*
    Non-memb    10115    29.7   52.0   18.3        7111      73.9    26.1

_______________________________ 
*p<.001    + p<.05

a. Note sample size in each category  do not necessarily add up to
the total sample due  to missing data for each analysis.



Table 4: Results of One-Way ANOVA and of t-test's of the mean drinks
per week consumed and number of problems related to drinking  by     
     academic and social characteristics among DRINKERS.
_____________________________________________________________________
                   N         Mean drinks  (sd)         Number of (sd)                           per week                problems   
                                                         Problems
                                  
                ______________________________ ______________________


Class standing
    Freshman     3307        8.6   (14.2)+               2.0   (2.7)
    Sophomore    2818        9.6   (14.0)                2.5   (2.9)
    Junior       2881       10.0   (13.7)                2.7   (2.9)
    Senior       2429       10.7   (14.0)                2.9   (2.9)

Grade Point Average
    4.0           495        5.9   (14.5)*               1.4   (2.4)*
    3.5          2245        7.6   (12.4)                2.0   (2.6)
    3.0          4406        9.2   (13.6)                2.4   (2.8)
    2.5          3159       11.4   (14.4)                3.1   (3.1)
    2.0           812       12.2   (16.4)                3.1   (3.2)
   <2.0           176       14.8   (18.8)                3.7   (3.7)

Member/Pledge of fraternity/sorority 
    Member       1714        15.4   (17.0)*              3.6   (3.2)*
    Non-member   9787         8.6   (13.1)               2.3   (2.8)






Table 5: Chi-square results of the percent of students exhibiting each
quantity-frequency level for ALL STUDENTS, and for DRINKERS ONLY,           
            within  institutional   characteristicsa.
___________________________________________________________________________ 
                            ALL STUDENTS                DRINKERS ONLY
                  N      Abstain  Light/   Heavy     N      Light/    Heavy
                                Moderate                   Moderate     
                ______________________________    _________________________

 Region of country
    Northeast    2900    21.5   49.9   28.6*       2277      63.5    36.5*
    Northcent    3497    20.7   55.5   23.8        2772      70.0    30.0
    South        3377    35.7   48.9   15.4        2170      76.0    24.0
    West         2228    33.0   53.7   13.3        1492      80.2    19.8

  Community-Size Institution located
   <100,000      8402    25.9   51.5   22.6*       6222      69.5    30.5*
  100-500,000    2419    32.1   51.5   16.4        1642      75.8    24.2
    >500,000     1180    28.3   56.4   15.3         846      78.7    21.3

  Type of School in Terms of Traditional Financial Support    
    Public       9876    26.5   53.3   20.2*       7258      72.5    27.5*
    Private      1942    32.5   45.4   22.0        1310      67.3    32.7

  School-Size
    <10,000      8233    28.6   50.3   21.1*       5879      70.5    29.5+
    >10,000      3769    24.9   55.5   19.7        2832      73.8    26.2
__________________________________________________________________________
TOTALa          12003    27.4    52.0   20.6       8711      72.6    28.4
__________________________
* p<.001    + p<.05

a. Note sample size in each category do not necessarily add up to the total
sample due  to missing data for each analysis.





Table 6: Results of One-Way ANOVA and of t-test's of the mean drinks per
week consumed and number of problems related to drinking  by institutional
demographic characteristics among DRINKERS.

________________________________________________________________________
                   N         Mean drinks  (sd)          Mean Number (sd)    
                                per week                 of problems   
                  ______________________________ __________________________

   Region of the country

    Northeast    2601        13.6   (15.0)               3.1   (2.9)        
    North        3153        11.6   (14.5)               3.0   (2.9)
      Central
    South        2714         9.4   (14.2)               2.7   (2.9)
    West         1782         8.4   (13.1)               2.6   (2.8)

   Community-Size institution located

    <100,000     8177        10.2   (10.6)*              2.6   (2.9)+
    100-500,000  2333         8.2   ( 9.8)               2.2   (2.9)
    >100,000     1155         8.3   ( 9.2)               2.2   (2.8)

  Type of School in terms of support

    Public       9560         9.6   (14.0)               2.6   (2.9)+       
    Private      1923         9.8   (14.6)               2.3   (3.0)

  School-Size

    <10,000      8001         9.7   (14.5)               2.5   (3.0)        
    >10,000      3665         9.5   (13.0)               2.6   (2.8)
_________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL                        10.9   (13.7)               2.5   (2.9)  
_________________________________
+ p < .05      * p < .001






Table 7: Chi-square results of percentage of drinkers who reported
health/personal, social/academic, legal/violence and drinking/driving
behaviors as a result of alcohol consumption for  low risk  drinkers and
for high risk  drinkers(over 21 drinks per week for males and over 14
                   drinks per week for females).  
__________________________________________________________________________  
                    Low  Risk  Drinkers           High Risk Drinkers        
                       < 21      < 14               > 21      > 14
                      Males    Females             Males    Females         
                      N=2232   N=4938              N=1426    N=766          
                    ________________________   ___________________________ 


Health/personal    
  
  Hangovers . . . . .  50.4    49.2                 92.6    94.0      
  
  Nausea and 
     Vomiting . . . .  33.1    33.2                 76.1    81.8+        
  
  Thought might 
   have problem  
   with drinking. . .   3.7     2.6+                21.3    15.8+       


Academic/social
  
  Attended class 
    after drinking . .  3.3     1.5*                21.3    13.1*
  
  Cut classes
   after drinking . . . 4.5     3.0+                29.8    23.1*     
  
  Missed classes  
    due to hangover .  10.7    10.6                 53.8    58.6+     

 Lower grade because
    of drinking . .  .  2.4     1.5+                19.3    15.2+  

  Played drinking
    games   . . . . .  74.4    70.0*                75.1    50.0*      
  

  Been criticized
    by a date  for
    drinking too 
    much . . . . . . .  9.6      6.8*                31.6    22.5*      


Legal  

  Forced someone or     
     were forced to
     have sex  . . . .  3.0      3.3                  6.2    12.2*    
  
  Had trouble
     with the law . .   2.9      1.3*                22.5    11.0*    
  
  In trouble with 
     school 
     administration .    .9       .5                  7.4     4.7  
  
  Got into  fights . .  7.8      5.8+                38.8    29.8*   
  
  Used a fake
     ID . . . . . . .  13.3     13.8                 40.9    49.5*          

  Damaged Property .    6.1      1.8*                33.2    12.5*   


Drinking/Driving
  
  Driving after
     drinking. . . .   27.0     19.5*                72.1    59.8*    
  
  Drinking while  
     driving. . . . .  16.3     11.8*                59.2    48.3*     
  
  Driving drunk . . .  16.9     10.1*                55.9    42.8*    
  
  DWI offense. . . . .    .7     .3+                  3.4     1.4+    
___________________________________
+ p < .05  * p < .001