Student Perceptions and Use Patterns of Alcohol and Illicit Drug

STUDENT PERCEPTIONS AND USE PATTERNS OF ALCOHOL AND ILLICIT DRUG USE AT A LARGE UNIVERSITY by Amy A. Bradshaw

CHERRI LESTER, Ph.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair ANN MEYERS, Ph.D., Committee Member DANA GONZALES, Ph.D., Committee Member

CHRISTOPHER CASSIRER, Ph.D. Dean, School of Human Services

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University October 2007

UMI Number: 3278280

Copyright 2007 by Bradshaw, Amy A. All rights reserved.

UMI Microform 3278280 Copyright 2007 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

Amy Bradshaw, 2007

Abstract Alcohol and drug use by college students has reached alarming prevalence and causes consequences in many areas of life functioning. At The University (TU), a southern university specializing in aviation and aerospace, students are required to adhere to strict alcohol policies, according to Federal Aviation Administration guidelines. TU has limited statistics examining frequency of substance use and perceptions of students. A simple descriptive survey design was utilized to identify use patterns and perceptions among TU students and compare this data to national averages. Using a probability-based simple random sampling strategy, 1,500 students were selected to complete the Core Alcohol and Drug Survey, a web-based survey. 205 surveys were received. Patterns of use at TU demonstrated differences from national norms. Overall alcohol and marijuana use frequency at TU was less than use patterns nationally. Most TU students in the sample reported never having used marijuana, an abstinence rate much higher than reported nationally. Other drug use did not differ from the national sample. Differences were noted between groups, with fraternity members reporting and being perceived as having the highest frequency and amount of alcohol use. Higher alcohol use amounts were reported at fraternity social functions than other locations. However, Greek students reported less marijuana use than other groups and all denied ever using other illicit drugs. TU students residing off-campus self-reported and were perceived as having higher alcohol and marijuana use than on-campus students. It was perceived that males drink at a higher frequency than females, and that males consume more drinks. Yet, females showed greater range of other drug use. TU student athletes did not report alcohol use higher than average. While current pilots reported alcohol use at higher frequency than

pilots-in-training, pilots-in-training reported consuming more drinks per setting than current pilots, and greater frequency of binge drinking. Non-pilots reported the lowest alcohol use and binge drinking. The reverse was observed for marijuana: non-pilots as well as pilots-in-training reported the highest range of use. All current pilots reported never using marijuana. Non-pilots reported the highest range of other drug use, followed by pilots-in-training and current pilots.

iii

Acknowledgements The process of getting a PhD has certainly been a grueling one. Without the support of those I love and who love me back, it would not have been possible. I would like to first thank my mom, who has supported me my entire life and who instilled in me the idea that I can do anything I set my mind to. Without that basic mindset, I doubt I would have ever attempted this arduous journey. To my best friend Jessica, a thank you for always giving an ear when I needed to vent my every frustration and victory during the process of coursework, colloquia, comprehensives, and dissertating. Also, to my boyfriend, Joshua, my thanks for your love, support, and patience with me as I spent countless hours on the computer editing and refining each page, when we both would have preferred to view a good film on the tube or go on one of our excellent road trips together. I would like to thank my clinical supervisor, Marie, for providing advice when I asked, prodding me along when I was stalled, and celebrating with me when I accomplished milestones. A thank you to the Patrick's, who gently nudged me in the direction of Capella University and supported me from pre-admission to graduation. To all my friends, family, and co-workers who have been there for me, I thank you. Lastly, I would like to thank my mentor, Dr. Lester, and committee members, Dr. Meyers and Dr. Gonzales, for their support, encouragement, and expertise along the way.

iv

Table of Contents Acknowledgments List of Tables List of Figures CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem Background of the Study Statement of the Problem Purpose of the Study Rationale Research Questions Significance of the Study Definition of Terms Assumptions and Limitations Theoretical/Conceptual Framework Organization of the Remainder of the Study CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Substance Use Among College Students: Prevalence Substance Use Among College Students: Developmental Considerations Substance Use Among College Students: Attitudes and Perceptions Substance Use Among College Students: Consequences of Use Prevention Strategies v iv viii ix 1 1 2 3 4 4 5 5 5 7 7 10 11 11 18 22 25 28

Literature Integration and Need for Further Study CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY Overview of Research Questions Research Design Sampling Design Instrumentation Data Collection Statistical Analysis Plan Ethical Considerations CHAPTER 4. DATA ANALYSIS Demographics

32 34 34 34 34 37 39 40 41 43 43

Research Question 1: What are Current Use Patterns of Alcohol and Illicit Drugs Among The University (TU) Students? 44

Research Question 2: What are Current Perceptions Regarding Alcohol and Illicit Drug Use Among TU Students? 58

Research Question 3: How Does Alcohol and Drug Use of TU Students Compare with National Averages as Established by Existent Literature? CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary and Discussion of Results Study Limitations Conclusions Recommendations vi 70 79 79 99 102 110

REFERENCES APPENDIX A. FOR ADDITIONAL USE CSAD SUPPLEMENT SURVEY QUESTIONS

115

122

vii

List of Tables Table 1. TU gender, ethnicity, and age demographics Table 2. TU class distribution, housing status, and pilot status demographics Table 3. Comparisons between TU students, 2003 national sample, and 2005 national sample: non-significant demographics Table 4. Comparisons between TU students, 2003 national sample, and 2005 national sample: significant demographics Table 5. Comparisons between TU students, 2003 national sample, and 2005 national sample: substance use prevalence 44 45

74

75

77

viii

List of Figures Figure 1. Median alcohol use by demographic group Figure 2. Frequency of reported binge drinking in the two weeks preceding the survey Figure 3. Mean alcohol use by demographic group Figure 4. Average alcohol consumption by social event Figure 5. Frequency of experience of alcohol-related consequences Figure 6. Frequency of experience of marijuana-related consequences Figure 7. Frequency of experience of other drug-related consequences Figure 8. Median perceived alcohol use by demographic group Figure 9. Self-reported versus perceived median alcohol use norms by demographic group Figure 10. Mean perceived alcohol use by demographic group Figure 11. Self-reported versus perceived alcohol consumption by demographic group Figure 12. Average perceived number of drinks consumed by social event Figure 13. Self-reported versus perceived alcohol consumption by social event Figure 14. Self-reported versus perceived attitudes regarding alcohol, marijuana, and other illicit drug use Figure 15. Attitudes toward campus rules and regulations regarding alcohol and other drugs 47

49 50 52 54 57 57 59

60 63

64 65 66

69

71

ix

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem The problem of alcohol and illicit drug use on college and university campuses is significant. Among college and university students, specific problems identified include binge-drinking, underage drinking, underage binge-drinking, drug use, and polysubstance use (Mohler-Kuo, Lee, & Wechsler, 2003; Sheffield, Darkes, Del Boca, & Goldman, 2005; Wechsler, Lee, Nelson, & Kuo, 2002). Estimates of prevalence of these behaviors range from 25 to 44%. As well, researchers have identified an upward trend for these problems, with increased percentages of students self-reporting these behaviors between 1993 and 2001 (Mohler-Kuo et al., 2003). With approximately 25 to 44% of students reporting alcohol and/or illicit drug use on-campus, and prevalence rates on the incline, this problem is a significant concern for American colleges and universities. Binge drinking, alcohol use, and illicit drug use is associated with a number of consequences for students. Sheffield et al. (2005) indicate that binge drinking is associated with significant consequences to students, including employment, educational, and relationship problems. In addition, Wechlser et al. (2002) indicate that, in comparing underage with legal age students, underage students who drink are more likely to experience consequences related to their alcohol use. As researchers identify an increasing prevalence of drinking and drug use among college students, an increasing trend of self-reported alcohol-related consequences, including arrests, has also been noted between 1993 and 2001 (Nicklin, 2000; Wechsler, Lee, Nelson et al., 2002).

At The University (TU), a large southern university that educates and trains a large number of pilots to enter private and commercial industry employment and whose name has been de-identified for reporting purposes, any alcohol and drug use among students is a significant concern. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires pilots to adhere to strict guidelines related to alcohol and drug use. While drug use is not tolerated, pilots are required to wait a minimum of eight hours from "bottle-to-throttle," to avoid plane operation under the influence (Fiorino, 2002). TU similarly utilizes strict standards, with students of drinking age required to adhere to a 12-hour bottle-to-throttle policy. These standards are in place to avoid operation incidents related to pilot drinking impairments. Despite this policy, TU has limited statistics related to alcohol and drug use among its students, including student pilots. It is unclear whether the zero tolerance drug policy and 12-hour bottle-to-throttle policy are sufficient in preventing alcohol and drug use among students. Background of the Study Researchers have examined alcohol and drug use as well as associated consequences of use for years. Age trends in use, for both college and non-college students, indicate that experimentation with alcohol, cigarettes, and illicit drugs increases from late adolescence through early adulthood and gradually decreases by age 30 (White, Labouvie, & Papadaratsakis, 2005). Early studies related to this problem, in the late 1970's and early 1980's, met with college and university administration response to increase preventative and treatment-related activities to quell alcohol and drug use among students (Williams, Newby, & Kanitz, 1993). Despite these efforts, it is apparent that alcohol and drug use among students is increasing (Wechsler, Lee, Kuo et al., 2002). 2

While early research in this area focused primarily on prevalence rates of drinking and drug use behaviors, current research appears to have multiple aims. First, various colleges and universities throughout the United States are participating in alcohol and drug use surveys to capture prevalence rates for their particular schools and compare these rates with national norms ("The Scope of the Problem," 2005). Second, consequences of alcohol and drug use among this sample are being examined (Jennison, 2004; Nicklin, 2002). Third, predictors of use are being identified to determine factors that increase and decrease risk of alcohol and drug use among college and university students (Clapp, Reed, Holmes, Lange, & Voas, 2006; White & Jackson, 2005). Fourth, the relationship between student use patterns and their perceptions of other students' use behaviors is being inspected (Martens et al., 2006). Finally, prevention and treatment efforts are being developed and evaluated to determine the effectiveness of such programs in reducing dangerous drinking and drug use behaviors (Karlin-Resnick, 2004; Ziemelis, Bucknam, & Elfessi, 2002). Statement of the Problem In accordance with present research related to alcohol and drug use among college and university students, the currently proposed research seeks to examine the extent and nature of alcohol and drug use at TU, a university in the South that specializes in aviation and aerospace education, and awards degrees at the associate, bachelor, and master levels (TU, 2005a). Over 4,000 undergraduates and 300 graduates are currently enrolled at the main campus, with approximately 42% of those housed on-campus (TU, 2005b). While this university prohibits alcohol and drug use possession or use on-campus, and requires random, post-accident, and pre-employment drug testing of all flight students (TU, 2003), 3

the campus safety department cited 67 liquor law violations as well as 10 drug law violations in residential facilities in 2004 (TU, 2005c). Limited data regarding alcohol and/or drug use among students, other than specific legal infractions on-campus, for TU is available. In order for TU to understand the full extent of alcohol and drug use behavior by students, a need exists for research examining frequency of these behaviors as well as student perceptions regarding alcohol and drug use. Purpose of the Study This study examines the extent of alcohol and other illicit drug use among TU students. As well, in line with modern studies in this area, this study examines the relationship between TU students' use patterns and their perceptions of other students' use patterns. Such an examination allows the author to determine if the amount of alcohol and/or drugs used by students themselves relates to their perception of the amount of alcohol and/or drugs used by their peers. Finally, results of this study are compared with existent data from colleges and universities across the United States to determine how TU relates with national averages in terms of alcohol and drug use among its college students. Rationale Current research regarding alcohol use among college students demonstrates that alcohol use, binge drinking, and illicit drug use on-campus is a concern with rising prevalence and significant consequences. Further, research indicates that a relationship between perceptions of other students' use patterns and personal use patterns exists. Knowledge of this relationship has compelled researchers as well as college and university administrators to address this and other predictive variables within prevention 4

and treatment programming efforts. The current study fits well within the existing literature, in that it seeks to (a) examine the extent of alcohol and other illicit drug use among TU students, (b) examine student perceptions of alcohol and substance use by student peers, and (c) compare alcohol and drug use of TU students with national averages as established by existent literature. Research Questions For the current study, three research questions are being asked. First, what are current use patterns of alcohol and illicit drugs among TU students? Second, what are current perceptions regarding alcohol and illicit drug use among TU students? Finally, how does alcohol and drug use of TU students compare with national averages as established by existent literature? Significance of the Study By examining current use patterns as well as perceptions of alcohol and illicit drug use among TU students as compared with national trends, results of this research study will help university management determine whether current prevention practices (i.e., targeting solely alcohol policy violators) is sufficient to address the extent of the problem for university students. Therefore, results of the study will help university management determine whether the current prevention programming should be expanded to include a greater percentage of university students. Definition of Terms The following terms are used in the study: Binge drinking. The consumption of five or more drinks in one sitting for males or four or more drinks in one sitting for females (Inaba & Cohen, 2004). 5

Cannabis. Any substance containing the psychoactive chemical

-9-

tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). This substance is also known as marijuana. Street names include herb, grass, and pot (Inaba & Cohen, 2004). Expectancies. Cognitive thoughts related to anticipated outcome(s) of substance use (Fearnow-Kenny, Wyrick, Hansen, Dyreg, & Beau, 2001). Illegal drug. Any substance obtained and/or used illegally. Includes drugs such as heroin, cocaine, ecstasy, and marijuana (Inaba & Cohen, 2004). Illicit drug. Any substance obtained and/or used illegally. Includes drugs such as heroin, cocaine, ecstasy, and marijuana (Inaba & Cohen, 2004). Illicit substance. Any substance obtained and/or used illegally. Includes drugs such as heroin, cocaine, ecstasy, and marijuana (Inaba & Cohen, 2004). Normative beliefs. Beliefs regarding typical or "normal" substance use and behaviors of other college students (Novak & Crawford, 2001). Past 30-day use. Refers to use of alcohol and/or illicit substances within the 30 days preceding survey completion and/or study participation. Past-ever use. Refers to use of alcohol and/or illicit substances at least one time prior to survey completion and/or study participation. Past month use. Refers to use of alcohol and/or illicit substances within the 30 days preceding survey completion and/or study participation. Substance abuse. Refers to use of alcohol and/or illicit substances with accompanying problems associated with use, as defined by the American Psychological Association (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition, Text Revision [DSM-IV-TR] (2000). 6

Substance dependence. Refers to use of alcohol and/or illicit substances with accompanying problems associated with dependency, as defined by the DSM-IV-TR (2000). Assumptions and Limitations A critical assumption of the current study is that student respondents are capable of reading and responding to the questions included on the measurement instrument. Since the survey is given in an e-mail and web-based format, it is assumed that TU student participants have access to and ability to utilize Internet accessible computer systems. Furthermore, an assumption is made that student participants will be honest in responding to questions asked. Regarding the sample, it is assumed that students randomly selected for participation in the study provide an accurate representation of TU students in general. Utilizing randomized sampling strategies will allow the results of this research to be generalized to the larger population of TU students (Mertens, 2005). However, since TU is a university with a narrow focus (i.e., aviation and aerospace) located in a unique geographical locale (i.e., southern region of the United States), external validity of the study may be limited. Study results may not be generalized to the larger population of universities across the nation. In addition, despite methodological assumptions of the study, there remains potential for dishonesty on the part of survey respondents (Mertens, 2005; Neuman, 2003), limiting internal validity. Theoretical/Conceptual Framework According to Benson-Quaziena, Medley, and Secrest (2004), research traditions help practitioners understand the basic assumptions that are made by researchers 7

regarding the nature and study of various phenomena. Paradigms purport ontological, epistemological, axiological, and methodological assumptions that guide the research process. This study is consistent with the paradigm of postpositivism. Postpositivism relies on the early positivist approach as a foundation of good research, yet recognizes that social research may not be studied through a true positivistic lens (Glicken, 2003). While postpositivist research may not be able to prove cause-effect relationships among variables, disallowing generalization to a larger population of students and universities, this research may indicate relationships and trends among variables (Glicken, 2003). The ontological assumption of the postpositivism tradition refers to how the paradigm defines the nature of reality. Like positivism, according to this tradition, reality is observable and measurable (Benson-Quaziena et al., 2004). Problems in the social sciences may be studied through an objective and scientific lens (Glicken, 2003). However, unlike the positivism tradition, which purports that only one true reality exists (Benson-Quaziena et al., 2004), the postpositivism tradition recognizes that researchers may only discover "reality" within a certain sphere of likelihood (Mertens, 2005). Rather than aiming to prove a theory, postpositivist researchers aim to provide evidence for theory by disproving other explanations (Mertens, 2005). A basic assumption of postpositivist researchers is that respondents are honest and help define understanding of the human condition (Glicken, 2003). The epistemological assumption of the postpositivism tradition refers to how the paradigm defines knowledge. According to this tradition, knowledge and science are based on objective and quantifiable data (Benson-Quaziena et al., 2004). While rational thought based on concrete data and evidence shapes knowledge, this tradition recognizes 8

that researchers may not be "positive" about knowledge claims, since no one absolute truth exists (Creswell, 2003). Further, postpositivist researchers acknowledge that background knowledge, theory, and hypotheses of the researcher may influence study outcomes (Mertens, 2005). Therefore, the researcher aims to eliminate sources of bias in order to improve validity and generalization of study findings (Creswell, 2003). The axiological assumption of the postpositivism tradition refers to how the paradigm defines the role of values in research. According to the postpositivism tradition, the researcher must aim for logical analysis that is objective and bias-free (FournierBonilla et al., 2004). As with the positivism perspective, personal and sociopolitical values are de-emphasized as much as possible when conducting research based on this perspective. Finally, the methodological assumption of the postpositivism tradition refers to the research strategies utilized within scientific studies. This approach recognizes the impossibility of controlling for every variable, but aims to utilize objective methodological procedures (Glicken, 2003). According to this tradition, research methods should be adapted to reduce bias as much as possible (Creswell, 2003; Letourneau & Allen, 1999). A quantitative research approach may be utilized for "measuring attitudes [and] rating behaviors" (Creswell, 2003, p. 20) in social sciences research. The primary strategy of inquiry related to these perspectives includes quantitative design relying on the scientific method and utilizing standards for increasing validity and reliability (Creswell, 2003). Quasi-experimental designs are often utilized within this paradigm (Mertens, 2005).

9

A major advantage of studying phenomena through the lens of a postpositivism perspective is the perspective's ability to lend credence to the work of research, while simultaneously acknowledging the influence of bias. This approach allows adapted research methodologies to study the complexities of human behavior (Benton & Craib, 2001; Watson, 1995). Overall, the purpose of research under this paradigm is to capture the nature of reality utilizing objective measurement; however, to reduce bias that exists in social sciences research, this tradition attempts to utilize adapted methodologies (Creswell, 2003; Fournier-Bonilla et al., 2004). Critics of this perspective contend that objective research methodologies for studying human behavior do not exist. Positivists continue to assert that one true, fixed reality exists and are critical of the postpositivist idea that multiple realities are feasible since all variables may not be controlled. The current study seeks to examine student use patterns and perceptions through objective measurement, by utilizing existing theory and adapted research methodology (i.e., descriptive design). Organization of the Remainder of the Study Chapter 2 of this manual will review, in greater depth, existing research in the field regarding prevalence of alcohol and illicit drug use on-campus, the relationship between student perceptions of alcohol and illicit drug use and student use patterns, and the effectiveness of prevention programming available. Chapter 3 of this manual will outline methodology of the study, including research and sampling design strategies, instrumentation, as well as data collection and statistical analysis plans. Statistical analysis and results are reviewed in Chapter 4, while Chapter 5 discusses study findings, limitations of the study, as well as suggestions for further research. 10

CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Substance Use Among College Students: Prevalence Alcohol Use In an online survey of 27,900 college students who took pretest surveys prior to participating in an online prevention course, called AlcoholEdu, descriptive statistics revealed that 78% of respondents consumed an average of 9.72 alcoholic beverages weekly in the two weeks prior to survey completion (Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly, 2003). Researchers responsible for data analysis concluded, "that much consumption is enough to register discernible blood alcohol content levels for an average of more than 18 hours per week per student – more than the roughly 15 hours per week spent in class by most college students" (Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly, 2003, p. 5). While the problem of drinking among a large number of college students is clear, weaknesses inherent in study reporting relates to sampling design. The AlcoholEdu survey utilized a convenience sample of students from colleges participating in the AlcoholEdu prevention curriculum. Data provided include post-hoc analysis of prevention group participants; no study purpose was made prior to data collection. No information was given regarding demographics of participating colleges; therefore, generalization of study results is limited to the population sampled. Although the sample size is large, this study alone does not provide information related to frequency of alcohol use among college students or how frequency might differ between colleges in various geographical regions or of various enrollment sizes.

In contrast, authors Juhnke, Schroat, Cashwell, and Gmutza (2003) completed a study with a specific research goal in mind: to better understand rates of alcohol consumption and associated behaviors of college students in moderately sized, public, urban college campuses with limited Greek systems. Results of the study indicated that more than 75% of study participants had consumed alcohol during the 12 months preceding the survey; and more than 50% of study participants had consumed alcohol during the 30 days preceding the survey (Juhnke et al., 2003). These rates can be compared with those cited by Monti, Tevyaw, and Borsari (2005), indicating that 67% of college students reported past-month use of alcohol with 40% reporting one or more binge episodes in the two weeks preceding survey completion. In the Juhnke et al. (2003) study, 11% of male and 15% of female participants had engaged in binge drinking during the two weeks preceding the survey. As well, more than 10% of the sample reported consuming alcoholic beverages at least 10 or more times in the 30 days preceding the survey. In an attempt to reconcile the large range of prevalence rates being reported regarding binge drinking behaviors, authors Wechsler, Lee, Kuo et al. (2002) conducted a meta-analytic study reviewing findings from four large-scale public health studies conducted by Harvard University. Utilizing data collected from 119 accredited 4-year colleges and universities from 38 states across the U.S., these authors found that binge drinking rates were relatively stable. Although some schools demonstrated a statistically significant increase in binge drinking, others demonstrated a decrease; therefore, no linear trend was identified. However, for those students engaging in binge drinking, the

12

frequency of this behavior increased from 1993 to 2001 (Wechsler, Lee, Kuo et al., 2002). Haberman (1994) conducted a study examining alcohol and other drug use patterns among college students with a random sample of 1,000 students enrolled fulltime at a large mid-Atlantic university. With mailed questionnaires, monetary incentives, and follow-up procedures, 440 students completed the survey, a 44% return rate. While the Haberman (1994) study demonstrated a low response rate, results were comparable to other national statistics related to alcohol and drug use among college students. In this sample, 90% of participants indicated current and/or past use of alcohol, with 39% of respondents using alcohol at least one time weekly (Haberman, 1994). Overall, prevalence estimates for alcohol use among college students range from 67 to 75% for past-month use and 11 to 40% for binge drinking. While past-ever use estimates are as high as 90% of students, once weekly use estimates are as low as 10% of students. Prevalence rates vary by group membership and location as well. According to Clapp et al. (2006), factors associated with increased alcohol use include being male; drinking at private parties in which many are intoxicated, illicit drugs are available, a bring your own beer policy is in effect, and/or there is a presence of drinking games; and/or drinking at a public bar in which many are intoxicated. According to Turrisi, Mallett, Mastroleo, and Larimer (2006), student athletes also show greater risk for problem drinking, with higher reported use frequency than other groups. Indeed, according to the National Collegiate Athletics Association [NCAA], (2001), in their study of 21,225 college athletes, 79.5% reported alcohol use within the past year.

13

The gender gap in alcohol use, in which males tend to report greater alcohol use than females, has been established by several studies, including those by Lo (1995) and Gleason (1994). As well, consistent with factors identified by Clapp et al. (2006), Usdan, Moore, Schumacher, and Talbott (2005) found that students leaving a private party showed higher blood alcohol concentration (BAC) levels than those leaving other events such as public bars. Number of drinks consumed tended to be higher at private parties than at other locations (Usdan et al., 2006). Finally, fraternity members show higher reported levels of alcohol use than other members. According to Usdan et al. (2005), students drinking at a fraternity showed higher BAC levels than students drinking in their own residences. Consistent with BAC levels observed, this group of students also reported higher number of drinks consumed at fraternities than other locations. The finding that fraternity members show greater frequency and consumption amount of alcohol than other groups has been confirmed by Turrisi et al. (2006) as well as Cashin, Presley, and Meilman (1998). According to Cashin et al. (1998), average number of drinks consumed was higher for fraternity members (12 weekly) and sorority members (six weekly) than other males (six weekly) and females (two weekly). In a study by McCabe et al. (2005), both fraternity and sorority members showed significantly greater rates of binge drinking (i.e., drinking five or more drinks in a row for males or four or more drinks in a row for females) in the two weeks preceding the survey than other groups. These authors indicated that 70% of male fraternity members and 50% of female sorority members reported binge drinking during this period.

14

Other Drug Use In addition to alcohol use, several research studies have examined the prevalence of other drug use among college students. According to Haberman (1994), among 440 full-time students enrolled at a large mid-Atlantic university, students reported current and/or past use of marijuana (40%), cocaine (11%), and/or stimulants (11%). Although this demonstrates other drug use is a significant concern for universities, regular drug use on college campuses may be less so. According to Haberman (1994), less than 1% of respondents reported regular (i.e., more than one time weekly) drug use, and a majority of respondents reported never having tried an illicit substance. Overall, limitations of the study relate to small return rate, limiting generalization of the study, since those participants who returned the study may have differed from non-respondents on dependent variable measurements. As well, although re-copyrighted in 2001, the study is greater than 10 years old, completed in 1994. In order to establish frequency of recent alcohol and/or marijuana use, Shillington and Clapp (2001) conducted phone interviews with 409 randomly selected students enrolled in a large urban university. Comparable with studies reviewed above, these authors found that 83% of the sample had used alcohol in the 30 days preceding the survey. However, unlike other studies, Shillington and Clapp (2001) also identified past 30-day use of marijuana in 17% of the sample. This frequency is much larger than that reported in the Haberman (1994) study. As well, the authors indicated that all selfreported marijuana users also used alcohol in the 30 days preceding the survey. As with the Haberman (1994) study, due to small sample size, results may only be generalized to the population (i.e., university) from which the sample was drawn. However, in 15

accordance with the postpositivist approach of the current study, it is clear that reviewed literature may allow researchers to make conclusions about level of alcohol and drug use among college students based on the comparable findings between multiple studies. Perhaps one of the best studies examining marijuana and other illicit drug use among college students is the meta-analytic study by Mohler-Kuo, Lee, and Wechsler (2003). In order to obtain results that may be generalized to a large group of college students across a large region of geographically located campuses, these authors utilized data gathered by the Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study (CAS) surveys in 1993, 1997, 1999, and 2001. The 1993 sample included students from 140 colleges in 40 states. The subsequent samples were composed of a random sample of 215 full-time enrolled undergraduates at 119 four-year universities. The resulting samples were as follows: 15,282 students in 1993, 14,428 students in 1997, 13,954 students in 1999, and 10,904 students in 2001 (Mohler-Kuo et al., 2003). By comparing data sets utilizing Pearson chi-square statistics, the authors were able to analyze trends in marijuana and other illicit drug use between 1993 and 2001. Results indicated that the prevalence of past-ever use of marijuana increased significantly from 1993 (41.3%) to 2001 (47.2%), as did past 30-day use of marijuana from 1993 (12.5%) to 2001 (16.9%), (Mohler-Kuo et al., 2003). As well, prevalence of past 30-day use of other illicit drugs increased significantly as follows: past 30-day use of cocaine from 1993 (0.62%) to 2001 (1.68%), past 30-day use of ecstasy from 1997 (0.83%) to 2001 (2.13%), and past 30-day use of any illicit drug from 1993 (4.41%) to 2001 (6.60%), (Mohler-Kuo et al., 2003). Clearly, the problem of drug use among college students is one that deserves attention by university administrators. The significance of this study is inherent in its use of random 16

sampling procedures of a large sample of students from a diverse sample of universities across the United States. Alcohol and Other Drug Use Among Flight Students and/or Pilots While a large body of literature exists examining prevalence rates of alcohol and other drug use among college students, no formal data regarding substance use behaviors of flight students can be identified. The use of alcohol and/or illicit substances by flight students represents a unique concern of university administrators due to the added safety hazard and potential consequences of piloting while impaired. Federal aviation regulations require that flight crewmembers and attendants refrain from duty performance within eight hours of using alcohol; indeed, many commercial airlines require stricter 12to 14-hour bottle-to-throttle rules (Carlisle, 2001). According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), blood-alcohol concentration levels of 0.03 to 0.12 can impair judgment and slow reaction time, damaging a pilot's ability to perform flight functions (Fiorino, 2002). While no data regarding student pilots is evident in the literature, the repercussions of alcohol abuse by professional commercial pilots has been examined and identified as a concern. According to the FAA, of all fatal civil aviation accidents occurring between the years 1994 and 1998, 1,683 fatalities were associated with use of drugs and/or alcohol. Furthermore, of those accidents, 7% were associated with pilots having blood-alcohol concentration levels above 0.04, within the range where alcohol begins to show significant effect on judgment and reaction time (Fiorino, 2002). According to Bor, Field, and Scragg (2002), addictive behavior such as alcohol abuse is among one of the most common psychological problems of aircrew presenting for medical assessment. 17

Substance Use Among College Students: Developmental Considerations Developmental Age Trends of Substance Use Behaviors In a comprehensive qualitative examination of developmental age trends of alcohol use, Sande (2002) utilized a sociological life cycle ritual process to help understand adolescent and young adult experimentation and use of alcohol. According to Sande, the ritual or rite of passage from youth to adult is often marked by three phases. These include (a) the separation phase marked by a youth separating from social constraints, (b) the liminal phase marked by play and celebratory activities outside typical social roles, and (c) the aggregation phase in which a youth transitions back to societal constraints with a newly adopted status and identity (Sande, 2002). Sande's conception can be compared with Erikson's (1980) foundational work regarding healthy personality development. According to Erikson (1980, 2001), the transition from adolescent to adulthood is marked by the resolution of at least two psychosocial crises; first, developing a healthy sense of ego identity, and second, establishing intimacy in relationships through a level of reciprocity with others. The use of alcohol and other drugs by college students can be understood within the context of both Erikson's (1980) theory of personality and Sande's conception of the rite of passage. As adolescents are transitioning to adulthood, healthy ego development involves balance between personal, social, and societal constraints and demands. With alcohol consumption being sanctioned for those of at least 21 years of age, this legal control marks a significant rite of passage from adolescent to adult. According to Larimer, Kilmer, and Lee (2005):

18

College represents a period where students typically postpone adult roles and responsibilities…while working on normative developmental tasks…College students are faced with many new interpersonal, academic, and societal demands and expectations…Substance use may provide students with an opportunity to facilitate the transition to college…Often viewed as a rite of passage for college students, drug experimentation is seen as normative by many students. (p. 432) Research examining developmental trends for prevalence of substance use appears to support this developmental perspective. Utilizing data from a prospective longitudinal examination of 889 individuals comprising two cohorts assessed at four time points, authors White, Labouvie, and Papadaratsakis (2005) were able to identify developmental trends for alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use. White et al. (2005) examined data from cohort waves collected during late adolescence (approximately age 18), emerging adulthood (approximately age 21), and young adulthood (approximately age 30). Results indicated that alcohol use significantly increased at the age of 18, at around the time of transition out of high school, continued to increase from ages 18 to 21, and then decreased from ages 21 to 30 (White et al.). The Monitoring the Futures national annual survey similarly demonstrated a steady increase in alcohol use from the 8th to the 12th grade, with 12% of 8th graders, 22% of 10th graders, and 28% of 12th graders reporting occasional episodes of heavy drinking ("The Scope of the Problem," 2005). These trends existed for marijuana use as well ("The Scope of the Problem," 2005; White et al., 2005). The data reviewed supports the notion that the age of majority (i.e., 18) and the legal drinking age (i.e., 21) mark significant rites of passage for alcohol use among 19

adolescents transitioning to adulthood. According to White and Jackson (2005), "peak use of alcohol occurs during emerging adulthood, and this excessive drinking appears to be normative behavior" (p. 183). Therefore, the lessening of social controls during this period coupled with the developmental task of identity formation can lead to increased drinking and/or use of illicit drugs (White & Jackson, 2005). Social, Environmental, and Personality Influences on Substance Use Behaviors Social influences are a critical component within the developmental model. Individuation occurs during adolescence and often is mediated by peer influences and relationships (Getz & Bray, 2005). In a 3-year longitudinal study of 4,088 middle school students, authors Getz and Bray (2005) examined demographic, family, individuation, and psychosocial factors to identify those factors that predicted or mediated development of heavy alcohol use. A moderately strong predictor that was identified included perceived peer alcohol use. In a similar study of 447 undergraduate college students utilizing the Core Alcohol and Drug Survey, authors Strana, Cuomo, and Venable (2004) identified perception of friends' approval of binge drinking as a predictive variable for the occurrence of binge drinking. A smaller scale study of 50 female college athletes indicated that social drinking was the most commonly reported reason for engaging in alcohol use (Bower & Martin, 1999). As well, White and Jackson (2005) indicated that direct (i.e., peer pressure and modeling of use) and indirect (i.e., perceived norms about use) peer influences have been consistently identified as variables predicting alcohol use, with perceived norms having the strongest predictive value. Other predictors identified for alcohol and drug use include environmental factors. Sullivan, Kung, and Farrell (2004) examined 1,282 youth in the 6th grade at two 20

time points and identified the experience of witnessing violence as a predictor for later initiation of alcohol use. Similarly, Broman (2005) found that the experience of traumatic stress was associated with greater alcohol and drug use among college students. Other environmental factors that have been examined include drinking settings. In a study of 4,964 graduate and undergraduate students, environmental predictors of alcohol and drug use that were identified included (a) the availability of illicit drugs, (b) the presence of many intoxicated people at an event, (c) being at a no-host, bring-your-own-beer, event, (d) the availability of food, and (e) playing drinking games (Clapp et al., 2006). As well, living environment appears to be related with college student drinking behaviors. Both living in a fraternity or sorority and living away from parents have been identified as predictive variables for higher frequency and amount of alcohol consumption (Windle, 2003). Although stress can be a function of environmental experience, it is typically experienced as an internal psychological state. In a study of 1,587 college students, Broman (2005) identified increased life stress as a variable associated with increased alcohol and drug use. In addition, positive expectancies about alcohol (e.g., that alcohol will reduce tension) are associated with greater alcohol use (Broman, 2005; White & Jackson, 2005). Psychosocial correlates of heavy drinking have also been identified. Authors White and Jackson (2005) indicate that personality characteristics including impulsivity, sensation seeking, and risk taking are all predictive of increased frequency and amount of drinking behaviors. In addition, while negative affect has been identified as a predictive variable in some studies on this topic, others indicate that this result is inconsistent (White & Jackson, 2005). Finally, personality disorders have been studied 21

with respect to co-occurrence with substance use disorders. According to Grant et al. (2006), antisocial, histrionic, and dependent personality disorders have been demonstrated as strongly related to both alcohol and drug use disorders. Therefore, as shown by White and Jackson (2005), personality characteristics associated with these disorders (e.g., impulsivity and sensation seeking) may be related to the onset of alcohol and drug use. Substance Use Among College Students: Attitudes and Perceptions Normative Beliefs According to Novak and Crawford (2001), normative beliefs regarding alcohol consumption of college students are a powerful predictor of alcohol consumption. These authors analyzed perceived drinking norms, susceptibility to peer influence, and alcohol use among a convenience sample of 261 undergraduate students enrolled in either an introductory psychology or introductory criminal justice course at a medium-sized university in the Midwestern region of the United States (Novak & Crawford, 2001). Results were comparable to other studies, indicating that students' self-reported levels of alcohol use were significantly lower than estimated norms for alcohol consumption of other students (Wechlser & Kuo, 2000). According to Novak and Crawford (2001), normative beliefs demonstrated the assumption that college students drink an average of 13 drinks weekly with five drinks per sitting while the average actual self-reported frequency of consumption was seven drinks weekly with four drinks per sitting. Further, multivariate regression analyses indicated that normative beliefs were positively associated with alcohol consumption. In the Wechlser and Kuo (2000) study of the 1999 College of Alcohol Study data, it was found that 47% of students underestimated binge 22

drinking prevalence on their campus, 29% of students overestimated binge drinking, and 13% demonstrated accurate perceptions, estimating within 10% of actual binge use patterns. The Novak and Crawford study is consistent with a more recent study by Martens et al. (2006) in which perceived norms and use patterns were examined among 833 undergraduate students utilizing the National College Health Assessment instrument. Like Novak and Crawford, these authors found that personal alcohol and drug use were significantly related to perceived norms about these behaviors. As well, Martens et al. (2006) found that perceived norms significantly overestimated normative alcohol and drug use behaviors among the sample. Expectancies Studies have indicated that positive expectancies regarding effects associated with alcohol use as well as weak negative expectancies regarding consequences associated with alcohol use are predictive of greater alcohol consumption among college students (Fearnow-Kenny, Wyrick, Hansen, Dyreg, & Beau, 2001). For instance, in Hittner's (2004) study of 179 undergraduate psychology students (78% female), analysis of female responses indicated that greater expectations for positive cognitive effects of alcohol were associated with higher levels of moderate-heavy alcohol consumption. In a similar study, according to Armeli et al. (2005): As predicted, individuals drank more on days when anticipated outcomes were rated as relatively more desirable…For example, individuals were approximately 12 times more likely to drink on a day when anticipated outcomes were rated as extremely desirable versus a day when anticipated outcomes were rated as not at 23

all desirable. This reinforces the notion that the desirability of anticipated outcomes from drinking is an important proximal antecedent of discrete drinking episodes. (p. 786) In order to examine the relationship between alcohol expectancies, normative beliefs, and consequences of alcohol abuse, Fearnow-Kenney et al. (2001) had 65 undergraduate students who were enrolled in a three credit health course with accompanying alcohol education curriculum complete a pretest and posttest survey examining these factors. Utilizing hierarchical multiple regression analysis to test for mediating effects of normative beliefs on expectancies, these authors were able to make conclusions regarding potential links between these mediators and the outcomes related to alcohol abuse (Fearnow-Kenney et al., 2001). Fearnow-Kenney et al. (2001) hypothesized that expectancies mediate the relationship between normative beliefs and problems associated with alcohol use. Results indicated a partial mediation effect of expectancies, supporting the notion that prevention programming may target expectancies directly in order to reduce alcohol consumption among college students. Attitudes Toward a Drug-Free Lifestyle It is clear that normative beliefs and expectancies influence consumption of alcohol and other illicit drug use among college students. Further, studies have indicated that positive attitudes toward a drug-free lifestyle are associated with lower levels of consumption (Simons & Gaher, 2004). Simons and Gaher (2004) utilized a convenience sample of 231 students at a small state university to evaluate the hypothesis that students with greater positive attitudes toward a drug-free lifestyle would demonstrate weaker associations between alcohol and/or drug attitudes and consumption. Indeed, results 24

indicated that student attitudes toward a drug-free lifestyle moderated the relationship between attitudes toward alcohol and/or drug use and consumption (Simons & Gaher, 2004). Substance Use Among College Students: Consequences of Use Consequences of Use Among College and University Students Consequences associated with alcohol use among college students are many. They include negative affects on relationships, engagement in risky sexual behaviors, physical injuries due to accidents, and poor academic performance (Wright, Norton, Dake, Pinkston, & Slovis, 1998). In a unique observational study of emergency department (ED) visits by University of Vanderbilt (UV) students in Nashville, Tennessee, authors Wright et al. (1998) examined incidence of alcohol-related emergency visits among this population. Examining all ED visits during a consecutive two-semester period, Wright et al. (1998) identified that 16.4% of all ED visits by UV students were alcohol-related as identified by the reporting physician. According to the authors, student ED visits were classified as not related to alcohol, possibly related to alcohol, probably related to alcohol, and definitely related to alcohol by ED physicians using self-report, physical examination, report of friends and/or family, police or emergency personnel report, and/or blood alcohol level. The large percentage of alcohol-related ED visits was significant. According to Wright et al. (1998), the incidence rate for alcohol-related ED visits was calculated as 1.7% of all undergraduate students per academic year: "Given this rate, it would be anticipated that about 1 of every 15 undergraduate students would come to our ED with an alcohol-related complaint during their 4-year college career" (p. 911). Further, the incidence rate is likely underestimated, as it is probable that many 25

students fail to seek medical attention for alcohol-related problems. Of those reporting to the ED during the study period and classified as severely intoxicated, 57% were female, and a large percentage were freshman students (57%), (Wright et al., 1998), indicating that these student populations may be at particular risk for consequences associated with alcohol use. In a meta-analytic review of statistical data gathered on the CAS in 1998 and 2001 (survey methods reviewed above), authors Hingson, Heeren, Winter, and Wechsler (2005) summarized descriptive statistics of self-reported consequences of alcohol use. According to Hingson et al. (2005), 10.5% of college students reported physical injury due to alcohol use, 8% reported participation in unprotected sexual intercourse due to alcohol use, 12% reported experience of assault or battery by another drinking student, and 2% reported experience of alcohol-related sexual assault or rape victimization. According to Wechsler, Lee, Kuo et al. (2002), consumption of alcohol is associated with increased rates of physical injury and incurring legal charges. As well, consistent with the Hingson et al. (2005) meta-analytic review, Windle (2003) identified strong associations between alcohol use among adolescents and other risky behaviors such as sexual activity, driving while intoxicated, violence, and even suicide. Sexual behaviors influenced by alcohol use include multiple sexual partners, unplanned sex, unprotected sex, taking advantage of another person sexually, and/or being taken advantage of sexually (Jones, Oeltmann, Wilson, Brener, & Hill, 2001). Participating in physically violent incidents appears to be related as well (Jones et al., 2001). In addition to short-term consequences of use, a longitudinal study of a sample of over 1,500 college students who were initially interviewed in 1972 and then interviewed 26

twice more in 1984 and 1994 helped identify long-term consequences of use (Jennison, 2004). While short-term consequences including those discussed previously were identified at the first time point in the study, residual consequences of binge drinking and heavy alcohol use while in college included propensity for development of a substance use disorder (i.e., abuse or dependence). As well, alcohol use in college was related with college dropout status and less favorable occupational outcomes (Jennison, 2004). Cashin et al. (1998) identified educational consequences of alcohol use as further related to gender and status in Greek systems: 35% of fraternity members and 29% of sorority members reported educational consequences associated with alcohol compared with 20% of other male and 14% of other female students. Overall, it is clear that alcohol use among college students is associated with consequences in many areas of life functioning. While some college students engage in binge drinking and other substance use behaviors at a high frequency but are able to quell use as they transition through adulthood (White et al., 2005), others are at high risk for developing substance use disorders with long-term consequences as they progress through adulthood (Jennison, 2004). Consequences in Aviation The issue of consequences of substance use is compounded when it is examined within the context of certain occupations. Approximately one-third of commercial aviation incidents have been identified as related to alcohol use by crewmembers (Bor et al., 2002). In addition to traditional effects of alcohol, with blood-alcohol concentrations from 0.03 to 0.12 causing impaired reaction time and judgment (Fiorino, 2002), pilots face added risks associated with even mild blood-alcohol concentrations due to high 27

altitude effects. According to Carlisle (2001), it can take as long as 48 hours for alcohol in the vestibular apparatus of the inner ear to dissipate, resulting in increasing pilot susceptibility to vertigo while operating an aircraft following use of alcohol. Furthermore, some studies have indicated that hangover effects from alcohol may influence flight performance more significantly that mild intoxication (Carlisle, 2001). In a simulator-based experiment in which pilots were randomly assigned to receive either placebo or Vodka in the evening before their flight simulations, Petros et al. (2003) discovered significant hangover-induced deficits on flight simulator performance. Specifically, for pilots who reached blood-alcohol concentrations greater than 0.10 the evening prior to the simulation, with an intervening night's sleep, significantly higher rates of errors following air traffic control directives were observed than for the placebo group pilots. In addition, for those pilots who did not reach bloodalcohol concentrations greater than 0.07, no differences were found with respect to memory or ability to follow air traffic control directives than for the placebo group pilots (Petros et al., 2003). This suggests that, while the FAA prescribes an 8-hour bottle-tothrottle guideline, this guideline may be insufficient when individuals are reaching bloodalcohol concentrations of greater than 0.10. Prevention Strategies Prevention Policy and Procedures Utilizing statistical data available from the 2001 CAS survey, authors Wechsler, Lee, Nelson, and Kuo (2002), examined the influence of state and campus deterrence policies on underage and college student drinking behaviors. Utilizing multiple logistic regression techniques and odds ratios, Wechsler, Lee, Nelson et al. (2002) found that 28

students residing in housing with no alcohol deterrence policies were significantly more likely to engage in binge drinking that students residing in housing with alcohol deterrence policies. Housing classified as having no alcohol deterrence policies included non-substance-free residence halls, housing off-campus without parents, and/or fraternity/sorority housing, while housing classified as having alcohol deterrence policies included substance-free residence halls and/or housing off-campus with parents. In addition, a significant association was found between number of alcohol-related policies targeting underage or high-volume drinking and drinking frequency among college students. Specifically, schools with four or more binge-drinking laws demonstrated lower rates of reported past-month and past-year use of alcohol than schools with fewer than four such laws (Wechsler, Lee, Nelson et al., 2002). A limitation of this comparison is that number of campuses with a comprehensive deterrence program (i.e., four or more alcohol-related policies) was quite small in the sample (i.e., 22 of 119 schools). In addition to deterrence policies, another method for reducing alcohol consumption among college students may be through reduction of organizations promoting high levels of alcohol consumption and simultaneous encouragement of organizations promoting low alcohol consumption and/or abstinence (Borynski, 2003). Utilizing a convenience sample of 144 undergraduate psychology students at a large midWestern university, Borynski (2003) sought to examine the influence of organizational membership on drinking behaviors. This author hypothesized that students belonging to high alcohol consumption organizations (e.g., Greek organizations and intercollegiate athletic teams) would demonstrate higher levels of alcohol consumption that students belonging to low alcohol consumption organizations (e.g., religious organizations). 29

Utilizing chi-square analyses, Borynski (2003) first determined that the variable of type of organizational involvement was independent. While a series of multivariate analyses of variance indicated that involvement in low alcohol consumption organizations was significantly associated with lower alcohol consumption rates, involvement in high alcohol consumption organizations was not significantly associated with higher alcohol consumption rates (Borynski, 2003). The author concluded study results suggested that prevention policy efforts should aim toward increasing student involvement in low alcohol consumption organizations rather than reducing involvement in high alcohol consumption organizations. This conclusion contradicts the Wechsler, Lee, Nelson et al. (2002) study that suggested that deterrence policies alone could reduce alcohol consumption rates. Prevention Program Effectiveness Many universities attempt to reduce alcohol consumption and binge drinking through mandated alcohol education programming. In a study comparing alcohol use among students at a community college campus using prevention programming with students at a community college campus not using prevention programming, Coll (1998) determined through chi-square analysis that significant differences existed between the two colleges in past-month use of alcohol (χ2 = 3.8, p < 0.05). Coll (1998) utilized a convenience sample of 70 students from introductory sociology and psychology courses of each of two universities, matched in community population, student enrollment, presence of residence halls, and faculty/staff size. While an equal percentage of respondents indicated a history of alcohol use (76%), students at the campus with no

30

prevention programming reported significantly more frequent alcohol consumption than students at the campus with prevention programming. In a similar, but more controlled study to evaluate the relative effectiveness of two different models of prevention programming, authors Donohue, Allen, Maurer, Ozols, and DeStefano (2004) conducted a two-group pretest-posttest study comparing the effectiveness of an education model with a cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) treatment model. The education model utilized a CD-ROM psycho-education course called "Alcohol 101," while the CBT model reviewed personal consequences associated with use as well as skills development. DeStefano (2004) randomly assigned 113 college students from a southwestern university to the two treatment conditions. While the focus of treatment condition differed (i.e., education versus CBT), treatments were matched in session length and number of sessions. To preserve program integrity, therapist manuals, audiotaping of facilitators, and ongoing supervision and feedback were utilized. Participants were students from an introductory psychology course who reported pastmonth use of at least one alcoholic beverage and agreed to informed consent procedures. In addition to self-report, DeStefano (2004) utilized urinalysis to corroborate self-report and detect use of alcohol at pre- and post-treatment. No significant differences were detected between the groups on dependent variable measurements at pretest; as well, no pretest differences were detected between participants completing posttest measurements and those lost due to attrition (i.e., nine of 113 participants). While the Alcohol 101 group reported greater awareness of consequences associated with alcohol use as well as more likely intentions to exercise caution in dangerous situations involving alcohol use as compared with the CBT group, the CBT group demonstrated higher reductions in 31

frequency and amount of past-month alcohol use than the Alcohol 101 group (DeStefano, 2004). Although examination of safe and unsafe practices of alcohol use appears to impact students more heavily in the area of decision making, reduction in alcohol consumption frequency and amount appears to be most influenced by skills development components of CBT (DeStefano, 2004). Literature Integration and Need for Further Study Research at the local, state, and federal levels clearly indicate that alcohol use among college students occurs at a prevalence that deserves attention by university administrators and treatment personnel. While incidence and prevalence rates vary by study, results indicate that past-month alcohol use among college students occurs at rates as high as 50% of students polled, with binge drinking occurring in up to 78% of student alcohol users (Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly, 2003; Juhnke et al., 2003). As well, frequency of illicit drug use among college students is less often examined. CAS data indicate that illicit drug use may be as high as 41% of college students reporting past-ever consumption (Mohler-Kuo et al., 2003). Within the field of aviation, while it has been identified that alcohol plays a role in up to one-third of commercial aviation incidents, formal research regarding prevalence of alcohol and drug use among pilot populations is scant, possibly due to "the very thought of pilots flying under the influence of alcohol [being] a taboo subject" (Bor et al., 2002). Similarly, within flight schools that host a large number of traditional college age students, this issue has not been empirically examined. The current study intends to (a) identify current prevalence rates of alcohol and drug use at a southern aviation university, under the pseudonym The University (TU), with flight students who must abide by stringent alcohol policies set by the Federal 32

Aviation Administration; and (b) compare these rates with national norms established in existent literature. Much of the research to date indicates that attitudes toward drinking behaviors and perceptions (i.e., normative beliefs) about other students' drinking behaviors influence alcohol consumption and use of illicit drugs among college students (Armeli et al., 2005; Fearnow-Kenny et al., 2001; Hittner, 2004; Novak & Crawford, 2001; Simons & Gaher, 2004). As discussed, results of one study indicated that student attitudes toward a drug-free lifestyle moderated the relationship between attitudes toward alcohol and/or drug use and consumption (Simons & Gaher, 2004). Overall, findings suggest that prevention programs should target drug-free lifestyle attitudes as well as normative beliefs and expectancies to successfully reduce consumption prevalence. The current study seeks to identify attitudes and normative beliefs of TU students in order to identify whether these characteristics should be targeted in current prevention programming at the university. Consequences associated with alcohol use, binge drinking, and use of illicit drugs are many. In addition to negative influence of use on relationship functioning, academic functioning, and physical health (i.e., due to injury), students who use alcohol often experience unwanted involvement in risky sexual behaviors including assault and rape victimization (Hingson et al., 2005; Wright et al., 1998). The current study intends to (a) identify alcohol- and drug-related consequences experienced by TU students, and (b) compare these rates with consequences reported by researchers examining other college campuses across the nation.

33

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY Overview of Research Questions For this study, the following research questions were asked: (a) What are current use patterns of alcohol and illicit drugs among The University (TU) students; (b) What are current perceptions regarding alcohol and illicit drug use among TU students; and (c) How does alcohol and drug use of TU students compare with national averages as established by existent literature? Research Design For this study, a simple descriptive survey research design was utilized. According to Mertens (2005), surveys are utilized to gather information regarding individuals' self-reported knowledge, attitudes, or behavior. A survey was useful for identifying current use patterns and perceptions related to alcohol and illicit drug use of TU students. Since the purpose of the first phase of this study was to describe characteristics of a sample of TU students at one point in time, a simple descriptive design was appropriate (Mertens, 2005). Sampling Design For this study, a probability-based stratified random sampling strategy was utilized to randomly select students who were to be included in the sample (Mertens, 2005). Eligibility requirements for the study included current enrollment in at least one course at the university's main campus. TU’s typical enrollment includes over 4,000 undergraduate and under 500 graduate students at the main campus (TU, 2005b). According to Gay and Airasian (2003), for populations of about 5,000 or more

individuals, generally a sample size of 400 is adequate. Assuming a 70% response rate for study participation, a random sample of at least 575 students should be solicited for the study to attain sufficient generalization (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005; Mertens, 2005). However, the authors of the instrument to be utilized (as described below) indicate that for populations between 3,001 and 10,000 individuals, a sample size of 700 should be utilized (Core Institute, 2005a). As well, these authors indicate that research utilizing the online survey version of the instrument should consider doubling or tripling the suggested sample size, due to lowered response rates for online surveys and potential of inaccurate e-mail addresses of students (Core Institute, 2005a). Since the survey utilized in this study was an e-mail and web-based survey, special considerations related to response rate were made. Authors White, JamiesonDrake, and Swartzwelder (2002) conducted an e-mail-based survey of college students utilizing a similar sampling design to that in the current study. In the White et al. (2002) study, the authors considered e-mail to be an appropriate method for collecting survey data as e-mail was a general method for official communications, with over 90% of students having free access to online services at the university. TU is similarly well suited, as this university offers free online wireless Internet access from any university location, including on-campus housing. It should be noted that despite the ease in accessing online services, the response rate of the White et al. (2002) study was low, with 772 of 3,120 contacted students returning the survey (i.e., 24.7% return). However, White et al. (2002) did not utilize second and third notifications to potential study participants, as was completed in the current study.

35

Based on the recommendations reviewed, an initial sample of 2,100 students was planned for recruitment in order to attain a sample size of at least 700 students. While age demographics of the university being examined is consistent with those observed nationally, TU demonstrates unique gender demographics, with only 17% of students being female (TU, 2005b). The national rate of undergraduate females generally estimates around 50-55% (Wechsler, Lee, Kuo et al., 2002); therefore, stratified random sampling was utilized in order to over sample females and have a data set that can be generalized to the larger population of college students (Mertens, 2005). To utilize random sampling, it was necessary to obtain a listing of every student enrolled and then randomly select students for the sample (Mertens, 2005). A list of currently enrolled students, including gender, was obtained from the records and registration department. During the Fall, 2006 semester, 835 females and 4,162 males were enrolled. In order to maintain consistency with the original plan for random sampling, 750 females and 750 males were randomly selected for recruitment using a computer-based randomized number generator. Students matching the randomly generated number list were recruited for the study via e-mail. All TU students possess a university e-mail address that they are expected to check frequently for official communications from the university. The voluntary nature of the study was explained to potential participants through a process of informed consent. The initial recruitment email was sent on 11/28/06. One-week reminder e-mails were sent to all recruited students on 12/5/06, and two-week reminder e-mails were sent on 12/12/06. Students accepting the informed consent statement were able to access the web-based survey with supplemental questions online. 36

Instrumentation For the variable of student perceptions as well as the variable of alcohol and drug use patterns, the Campus Survey of Alcohol and Other Drug Norms (CSAD), a revision of the Core Alcohol and Drug Survey (CADS) was utilized. The CADS was developed in 1990 by an instrument committee of the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) granting arm of the U.S. Department of Education (Presley & Meilman, 1994). The aim of the FIPSE committee was to design a standardized assessment that could be used at colleges and universities across the nation to assess student substance use, attitudes, and perceptions at two- and four-year college campuses in a reliable and valid manner (Presley & Meilman, 1994; Syre & Martino-McAllister, 1997). The CADS was originally developed as a two-page self-report instrument including items regarding basic demographical data; frequency of alcohol use and binge drinking, frequency of other drug use (e.g., marijuana, tobacco, cocaine, amphetamines, sedatives, hallucinogens, opiates, inhalants, designer drugs, and steroids); and age of first use of each substance (Presley & Meilman, 1994; Syre & Martino-McAllister, 1997). It was revised in 1993 to include two additional pages of items measuring perception of campus policies related to substance use; perceptions of others' use; location(s) used; consequences experienced as a result of use; family substance use history; and preferences regarding substances in social settings (Perkins, Meilman, Leichliter, Cashin, & Presley, 1999; Presley, Harrold, Scouten, & Lyerla, 1993; Presley & Meilman, 1994). A final revision of the instrument took place in 1997. This revised instrument is the CSAD and was used for the current study. It is a four-page, 26-item self-report questionnaire, taking approximately fifteen minutes to complete (Core Institute, 2005b). 37

The survey is accessible via the web, with on-line data collection and warehousing costing $0.50 per survey (Core Institute, 2005c). All items are closed-ended, forced choice response format. Items include closed formats of multiple choice, Likert scale, percentage ratings, and frequency ratings. For example, several frequency items involve Likert scale responses, with frequency choices of "never, 1-2 times/year, 6 times/year, once/month, twice/month, once/week, 3 times/week, 5 times/week, every day" (Core Institute, 2005d). According to the Core Institute (2005b), the survey assesses student's "alcohol and other drug use [as well as student] perceptions of campus norms and substance use by other students" (para. 1). According to Syre and Martino-McAllister (1997), content-related validity, construct validity, and test-retest reliability of the CSAD have been examined and determined satisfactory in accordance with American Psychological Association (APA) standards for test development. Validity and reliability indicators have been examined on a sample size of over 65,000 students at 87 U.S. colleges and universities over a period of seven years (Syre & Martino-McAllister, 1997). Cronbach alpha and item-to-total-test correlations range between .33 and .87, with most scores falling between .41 and .78 (Core Institute, 2005e). According to Henryson (1971), (as cited in Core Institute, 2005e), items should be included in a survey when item-to-total-test correlations fall between .30 and .70; Cronbach alpha scores for the CSAD generally fall within these criteria. At this time, limited information exists in the literature regarding specific statistical indices for validity and reliability. They can be found in the test manual, published in hard copy format (Presley et al., 1993).

38

In order to answer the research questions fully, it was necessary to utilize the CORE Institute's option to add researcher specific questions to the CSAD instrument. To identify student demographics related to college and flight status, two questions were added to the survey (see Appendix A). To identify alcohol and drug-related consequences experienced by TU students, 18 questions were added to the survey (see Appendix A). Data Collection All students randomly selected for the sample were recruited for study via e-mail on 11/28/06. A cover letter described the nature of the study, while the voluntary nature of the study was explained to potential participants through a process of informed consent. The informed consent included an explanation to the students regarding time cost of the survey they would complete if enrolled in the study (i.e., 20 minutes). In order to protect anonymity, since the informed consent was the only document linking individual participants to study results, participants were not required to sign the informed consent document. Rather, participants indicated assent to the informed consent through clicking an “I accept” link in order to access the survey. In order to maximize study participation, reminder e-mails were sent to all recruited students one week (12/5/06) following the initial. A second and final reminder recruitment e-mail was sent two weeks (12/12/06) following the initial recruitment e-mail to all recruited students. The data collection window closed three weeks (12/19/06) from the date of initial e-mail recruitment. According to Leedy and Ormrod (2005), data collection involves identifying needed data, location of needed data, methods for securing data, and methods for interpreting data. For data collection regarding all variables under study, the CSAD web39

based survey was utilized. All recruited participants were provided with the survey link, username, and password via e-mail at time of recruitment. Upon loading the survey, participants were initially presented with the informed consent statement. Participants who clicked “I accept” in response to the informed consent form were advanced to the survey instructions and survey for completion. Reminder e-mails were sent at one-week and two-weeks following date of initial recruitment for all recruited students reminding those who had not yet completed the web-based survey to do so. Raw data from the web-based survey was compiled and saved to compact disk and then mailed to the primary researcher for a fee of $20.00 by the Core Institute (Core Institute, 2005c). Survey results were coded and data entered into the statistical program, SPSS, and saved in a password-protected file to ensure confidentiality of data. Statistical Analysis Plan The purpose of the first two research questions of this study was to describe student perceptions and use patterns with regard to alcohol and other drug use. Therefore, descriptive statistics were appropriate. Descriptive statistics including points of central tendency (i.e., mean, median, and mode), extent of variability (i.e., dispersion and deviation), as well as degree of relationship between the different variables (i.e., correlation) are described for dependent variables (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005) in Chapter 4 of this manual. The purpose of the final research question of this study was to compare descriptive statistics obtained from TU students with the national averages existent in the current literature. To accomplish this, chi-square analyses were utilized. These tests are appropriate for data compiled by one randomly selected sample in which at least one 40

variable is at an interval or ratio level of measurement and when variables examined tend to be normally distributed within the population (Weinbach & Grinnell, 2004). Ethical Considerations Research ethics in psychology call for researchers to protect the dignity and welfare of study participants (Cone & Foster, 1999). Participants must be aware of benefits and risks associated with the research, have the ability to withdraw from a study at any time, and understand limitations of confidentiality (Cone & Foster, 1999). Based on the strict flight guidelines for student pilots at the university under study, it was critical that the anonymity of participants' responses was protected. In order to protect these participant rights, the study utilized an informed consent process in which participants were explained the voluntary nature of the study, risks and benefits, as well as the confidential nature of the study. As well, since the informed consent document would be the only document identifying individual student respondents, students were not required to sign the document, but rather, students wishing to participate in the study indicated their assent of the informed consent statement by clicking the "I Accept" button on their browsers. Regarding the web survey utilized, a number of ethical considerations were made. First, in order to protect participant confidentiality, participants were prompted to close their browsers following completion of the survey tool in environments where public use of computers was permitted. As well, to ensure privacy and confidentiality, data from the web-based survey was collected and stored on an independent and secure server (CORE Institute, 2005b). Second, due to the sensitive nature of the information examined (i.e., alcohol and drug use), study participants might have experienced a negative 41

psychological reaction. Therefore, both within the informed consent statement and in the survey completion statement, information regarding the student counseling center, as well as other counseling options, were noted. Finally, based on the researcher's position as a teaching professor at the university under study, it was possible that a conflict of interest existed for students randomly selected to participate in the study who also have been in, or were currently in, the researcher's psychology courses. Therefore, a statement was given within the informed consent form that explained the confidential and anonymous nature of the study as well as the fact that recruitment and/or participation in the study had no relationship to any past or present classes instructed by the researcher. Further, it was explained that performance in these classes had no relationship to study recruitment and/or participation.

42

CHAPTER 4. DATA ANALYSIS Demographics Following the three-week recruitment window, 205 surveys were completed, representing a response rate of 13.67%. Of these surveys, seven were not filled out completely. With regard to the incomplete surveys, individual items with no response or multiple responses were deemed invalid and not included in the statistical analysis. 40.1% of respondents were male and 59.9% were female. The age range of respondents was between 18 and 57 years old. 46.4% of the sample was under the legal drinking age of 21 years old. The ethnic origin of respondents was 79.6% white, 7.7% Hispanic, 4.6% Black, 4.1% Asian, and 4.1% Other. Gender, ethnicity, and age demographics are represented in Table 1. Class distribution of the sample was as follows: 19.2% freshman, 19.7% sophomore, 18.2% junior, 33.3% senior, 9.1% graduate/professional, and .5% other. 92.9% of respondents maintained full-time student status. 56.1% of respondents reported living off-campus, while 43.9% of respondents reported residing on-campus in either residence halls or approved campus housing, including fraternity and/or sorority housing. 12.2% of respondents reported belonging to a fraternity or sorority. Regarding current pilot status, 33% of the sample reported being a current pilot who flies on and/or offcampus or a pilot-in-training, while 67% of the sample reported as not a pilot or pilot-intraining. Class distribution, housing status, and pilot status demographics are presented in Table 2.

Table 1. TU Gender, Ethnicity, and Age Demographics. _______________________________________________________________________ Count Frequency ________________________________________________________________________ Gender Male Female Ethnicity White Hispanic Black Asian Other Age 20 and under 91 46.4% 156 15 9 8 8 79.6% 7.7% 4.6% 4.1% 4.1% 79 118 40.1% 59.9%

21 and older 105 53.6% ________________________________________________________________________

Research Question 1: What are Current Use Patterns of Alcohol and Illicit Drugs Among The University (TU) Students? To answer the first research question, it was necessary to calculate descriptive statistics on alcohol and drug use variables. The following reviews relevant descriptive statistics for variables of self-reported alcohol use, marijuana use, and other illicit drug use. Descriptive statistics for the variables of binge drinking, quantity of alcohol 44

consumed, most recent social drinking occasion, and quantity of drinking at various social events are reviewed.

Table 2. TU Class Distribution, Housing Status, and Pilot Status Demographics. _______________________________________________________________________ Count Frequency ________________________________________________________________________ Class Distribution Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Other Current Housing Status On-campus Off-campus Pilot Status Current pilot, flying on and/or off-campus Pilot-in-training 43 22.2% 86 111 56.1% 43.9% 38 39 36 66 19 19.2% 19.7% 18.2% 33.3% 9.6%

21

10.8%

Not a pilot or pilot-in-training 132 67.0% ________________________________________________________________________

45

Alcohol Use On the survey question, “how often do you yourself typically consume alcohol,” the mode response was “once weekly”, with 28.8% of respondents reporting this use frequency. The second most common response was “never,” with 15.6% of the sample reporting this response. The median frequency of alcohol use for the sample was “twice monthly.” Responses ranged from reported frequency of “never” to “every day.” Median use for males was “twice monthly,” for females was “twice monthly,” for on-campus students was “once monthly,” for off-campus students was “once weekly,” for fraternity members was “3 times weekly, “ for sorority members was “once weekly,” and for intercollegiate athletes was “twice monthly.” Median use for pilots currently flying on and/or off-campus was “once weekly,” for pilots-in-training was “twice monthly,” and for non-pilots and non-pilots-in-training was “twice monthly.” Median alcohol use by demographic group may be viewed in Figure 1. Marijuana Use On the survey question, “how often do you yourself typically use marijuana,” the mode response was “never,” with 86.3% of the sample reporting this response. The second most frequent response was “1-2 times yearly,” with 7.8% of respondents reporting this use frequency. The median frequency of marijuana use for the sample was “never.” Median use for all demographics groups including males, females, on-campus students, off-campus students, fraternity members, sorority members, and intercollegiate athlete was “never.” Median use for pilots currently flying on and/or off-campus, pilotsin-training, and for non-pilots and non-pilots-in-training was “never.” Responses ranged from reported frequency of “never” to “every day” for males, females, off-campus 46

students, intercollegiate athletes, pilots-in-training, and for non-pilots and non-pilots-intraining. Responses ranged from reported frequency of “never” to “1 time weekly” for oncampus students, from “never” to “6 times yearly” for fraternity members and sorority members, and from “never” to “1 time monthly” for pilots currently flying on and/or offcampus.

Median Alcohol Use by Demographic Group
Median Alcohol Use
Three times weekly Once weekly Once monthly Twice monthly

ps les les us us ers ers tes us ing ng rou Ma Fema camp camp emb emb athle amp train raini lg c t f Al On Of ity Mrity M giate r off ts-in ts-inn ro lle o Pilo ilo ter So co and/ p Fra er onInt ng on dn i an fly ots tly pil en nurr No ts c o Pil

Demographic Group

Figure 1. Median alcohol use by demographic group.

Other Illicit Drug Use On the survey question, “how often do you yourself typically use any illicit drug other than marijuana,” the mode response was “never,” with 95.5% of respondents reporting this use frequency. The second most common response was “1-2 times yearly,” 47

with 1.5% of the sample reporting this response. The median frequency of other illicit drug use for the sample was “never.” Median use for all demographics groups including males, females, on-campus students, off-campus students, fraternity members, sorority members, and intercollegiate athletes was “never.” Median use for pilots currently flying on and/or off-campus, pilots-in-training, and for non-pilots and non-pilots-in-training was “never.” Responses ranged from reported frequency of “never” to “5 times weekly” for females, off-campus students, and for non-pilots and non-pilots-in-training. Responses ranged from reported frequency of “never” to “1 time weekly” for males, intercollegiate athletes, and pilots-in-training. Responses ranged from reported frequency of “never” to “2 times monthly” for on-campus students, from “never” to “1 time monthly” for current pilots flying on and/or off-campus, and from “never” to “never” for fraternity and sorority members. Binge Drinking On the survey question, “think back over the last two weeks. How many times have you had 5 or more drinks in a row,” the mode response was “0,” with 61.3% of the sample reporting this response. The second most frequent response was “1,” with 17.2% of respondents reporting this use frequency. Responses ranged from zero to 12 binge drinking episodes in the two weeks prior to survey completion. 38.7% of the sample reported binge drinking one or more times in the two weeks preceding the survey. Frequency distribution of this variable may be viewed in Figure 2.

48

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

Percent

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12

# OF TIMES BINGED IN LAST 2 WEEKS
Figure 2. Frequency of reported binge drinking in the two weeks preceding the survey.

Quantity of Alcohol Consumed On the survey question, “how many alcohol drinks, on average, do you think you typically consume at parties and bars,” the mode response was “0,” with 26.5% of respondents reporting this use frequency. The second most frequent response was “3,” with 13.7% of the sample reporting this response. On average, the sample reported 3.23 alcoholic drinks being typically consumed at parties and bars. Responses ranged from zero drinks consumed to 15 or more drinks typically consumed at parties and bars. By demographic groups, males reported typically consuming an average of 3.48 drinks at 49

parties and bars, females reported 3.03 drinks on average, on-campus students reported an average of 2.68 drinks, off-campus students reported 3.65 drinks on average, fraternity members reported an average of 8.67 drinks, sorority members reported 3.59 drinks on average, and intercollegiate athletes reported typically consuming an average of 3.68 drinks. Average number of drinks typically consumed for pilots currently flying on and/or off-campus was 3.84 drinks, for pilots-in-training was 4.10 drinks, and for nonpilots and non-pilots-in-training was 2.89 drinks. Mean alcohol use by demographic group may be viewed in Figure 3.

Mean Alcohol Use by Demographic Group
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
s s s s g ups ale male mpus mpu ber bers letes pus ainin ining M Fe gro ca ff ca Mem Mem e ath f cam n-tr -tra All On O nity rity giat r of ts-i ts-in o ter Soro colle and/o Pil -pilo r Fra non nte g on I n and lyi ots yf il tl n-p ren No cur ots Pil

Mean Number Drinks Consumed

Demographic Group

Figure 3. Mean alcohol use by demographic group.

50

Most Recent Social Drinking Occasion On the survey question, “think about your last social drinking occasion with other students. How many drinks did you consume on that occasion,” for those students reporting consumption greater than zero, average number of drinks consumed was 4.14 drinks. Number of drinks consumed ranged from zero to greater than 15 drinks. The mode response was four drinks, with 16.9% of respondents reporting this use amount. The second most common response was two drinks, with 15.6% of the sample reporting this response. Drinking at Social Events On the survey question, “on any given occasion, how many alcoholic drinks are most typically consumed by yourself in each of the following places: bars, athletic events, fraternity social functions, sorority social functions, residence hall informal gettogethers, school dances or mixers, and off-campus parties,” responses follow. For those respondents reporting consumption greater than zero, average number of drinks consumed was 2.93 drinks in bars (range = 0-10), 0.93 drinks at athletic events (range = 0-6), 3.50 drinks at fraternity social functions (range = 0-10), 1.97 drinks at sorority social functions (range = 0-6), 1.41 drinks at residence hall informal get-togethers (range = 0-11), 2.29 drinks at school dances or mixers (range = 0-10), and 4.17 drinks at offcampus parties (range = 0-13). Mean alcohol consumption by social event may be viewed in Figure 4.

51

4 3.5 3 2.5 Mean Number Drinks 2 1.5 Consumed 1 0.5 0

Average Alcohol Consumption by Social Event 4.5

s s s s s rs nts tie ion xer ion her Ba eve par mi nct nct get fu to fu tic us or etial es ial hle mp At soc al g -ca anc soc f d m y Of ol rity nit for ter oro cho l in S S Fra hal nce e sid Re

Social Event

Figure 4. Average alcohol consumption by social event.

Consequences Associated with Alcohol Use On the survey question, “How often have you experienced alcohol-related consequences in each of the following categories: legal consequences (e.g., driving under the influence, arrest); relationship consequences (e.g., conflict with friend(s) and/or significant other(s)); family consequences (e.g., conflict with a family member); financial consequences (e.g., loss of significant amount of money); employment consequences (e.g., loss of work time, job placement); educational consequences (e.g., falling grade(s), poor attendance, academic probation),” students were asked to rate frequency of occurrence as “none, 1 time ever, 2 times ever, 3 times ever, [or] more than 3 times ever.” 98.5% of the sample reporting never having legal consequences related to alcohol use, 52

while 1.5% of the sample reporting have a legal consequence related to alcohol “1 time ever.” Regarding relationship consequences related to alcohol use, 64.9% of the sample reported “none,” 13.4% of the sample reported “1 time ever,” 11.9% reported “2 times ever,” 2% of the sample reported “3 times ever” and 7.9% reported “more than 3 times ever.” 78.1% of the respondents reported never having family consequences associated with alcohol use, while 10% reported having experienced alcohol-related family consequences “1 time ever,” 3% reported “2 times ever,” 2% reported “3 times ever,” and 7% reported “more than 3 times ever.” Regarding financial consequences associated with alcohol use, 93.5% of the sample reported “none,” 1.5% reported “1 time ever,” 3% reported “2 times ever” and 1% each reported “3 times ever” or “more than 3 times ever.” 95.5% of respondents reported never having experienced employment consequences related to alcohol use, while 3.5% of the sample reported having alcohol-related employment consequences “1 time ever,” and 1% reported “more than 3 times ever.” Regarding educational consequences related to alcohol use, 87.1% of the sample reported “none,” 6.5% of the sample reported “1 time ever,” 4% of the sample reported “2 times ever,” 1.5% reported “3 times ever,” and 1% reported “more than 3 times ever.” For those students reporting alcohol-related consequences, frequencies for each consequence category may be viewed in Figure 5.

53

Frequency of Experience of Alcohol-related Consequences
40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%
l s ly al al nt ga hip ami anci yme on Le ns F ati n io Fi uc plo lat Ed Em Re

Frequency

More than 3 times ever 3 times ever 2 times ever 1 time ever

Consequences

Figure 5. Frequency of experience of alcohol-related consequences.

Consequences Associated with Marijuana Use On the survey question, “How often have you experienced marijuana-related consequences in each of the following categories: legal consequences (e.g., driving under the influence, arrest); relationship consequences (e.g., conflict with friend(s) and/or significant other(s)); family consequences (e.g., conflict with a family member); financial consequences (e.g., loss of significant amount of money); employment consequences (e.g., loss of work time, job placement); educational consequences (e.g., falling grade(s), poor attendance, academic probation),” students were asked to rate frequency of occurrence as “none, 1 time ever, 2 times ever, 3 times ever, [or] more than 3 times ever.” 98% of the sample reported never having legal consequences related to marijuana use, while 2% of the sample reported having a legal consequence related to marijuana “1 time ever.” Regarding relationship consequences related to marijuana use, 93% of the sample

54

reported “none,” 3% of the sample reported “1 time ever,” 1% reported “2 times ever,” 0.5% of the sample reported “3 times ever” and 2.5% reported “more than 3 times ever.” 94.5% of the respondents reported never having family consequences associated with marijuana use, while 2.5% reported having experienced marijuana-related family consequences “1 time ever,” 0.5% reported “2 times ever,” 0.5% reported “3 times ever,” and 2% reported “more than 3 times ever.” Regarding financial consequences associated with marijuana use, 97% of the sample reported “none,” 2% reported “1 time ever,” and 0.5% each reported “3 times ever” or “more than 3 times ever.” 99% of respondents reported never having experienced employment consequences related to marijuana use, while 0.5% of the sample reported having marijuana-related employment consequences “2 times ever,” and 0.5% reported “more than 3 times ever.” Regarding educational consequences related to marijuana use, 97.5% of the sample reported “none,” 1% of the sample reported “1 time ever,” 1% of the sample reported “2 times ever,” and 0.5% reported “more than 3 times ever.” For those students reporting marijuana-related consequences, frequencies for each consequence category may be viewed in Figure 6. Consequences Associated with Illicit Drug Use Excluding Marijuana On the survey question, “How often have you experienced consequences related to any illicit drug other than marijuana in each of the following categories: legal consequences (e.g., driving under the influence, arrest); relationship consequences (e.g., conflict with friend(s) and/or significant other(s)); family consequences (e.g., conflict with a family member); financial consequences (e.g., loss of significant amount of money); employment consequences (e.g., loss of work time, job placement); educational consequences (e.g., falling grade(s), poor attendance, academic probation),” students 55

were asked to rate frequency of occurrence as “none, 1 time ever, 2 times ever, 3 times ever, [or] more than 3 times ever.” 100% of the sample reporting never having legal consequences related to any illicit drug other than marijuana. Regarding relationship consequences related to any illicit drug other than marijuana, 94.5% of the sample reported “none,” 2.5% of the sample reported “1 time ever,” 1.5% reported “2 times ever,” and 1.5% reported “more than 3 times ever.” 95% of the respondents reported never having family consequences associated with use of any illicit drug other than marijuana, while 2% reported having experienced drug-related family consequences “1 time ever,” 0.5% reported “2 times ever,” and 2.5% reported “more than 3 times ever.” Regarding financial consequences associated with use of any illicit drug other than marijuana, 98.5% of the sample reported “none,” 0.5% reported “1 time ever,” and 1% reported “more than 3 times ever.” 99.5% of respondents reported never having experienced employment consequences related to use of any illicit drug other than marijuana, while 0.5% of the sample reported having drug-related employment consequences “more than 3 times ever.” Regarding educational consequences related to use of any illicit drug other than marijuana, 99.5% of the sample reported “none,” and 0.5% of the sample reported “more than 3 times ever.” For those students reporting drugrelated consequences, frequencies for each consequence category may be viewed in Figure 7.

56

Frequency of Experience of Marijuana-related Consequences
10% Frequency 8% 6% 4% 2% 0%
l t s ly al ial ga en hip ami nc ion Le ns F na ploym ucat io Fi lat Ed Em Re

More than 3 times ever 3 times ever 2 times ever 1 time ever

Consequences

Figure 6. Frequency of experience of marijuana-related consequences.

Frequency of Experience of Other Drug-related Consequences
10% Frequency 8% 6% 4% 2% 0%
l s al nt ily ial ga hip Le am nanc oyme ation ns F io Fi uc pl lat Ed Em Re

More than 3 times ever 3 times ever 2 times ever 1 time ever

Consequences

Figure 7. Frequency of experience of other drug-related consequences.

57

Research Question 2: What are Current Perceptions Regarding Alcohol and Illicit Drug Use Among TU Students? To answer the second research question, it was necessary to calculate descriptive statistics on variables measuring perceptions about alcohol and drug use. The following reviews relevant descriptive statistics for variables of perceived alcohol use, marijuana use, and other illicit drug use of other students. Descriptive statistics for the variables of perceived binge drinking, quantity of alcohol consumed, most recent social drinking occasion, and quantity of drinking at various social events of other students are reviewed. Finally, descriptive statistics for attitudes toward alcohol, marijuana, and other drug use as well as attitudes toward campus alcohol and other drug rules and regulations are presented. Perceived Alcohol Use Norms On the survey question, “how often do you think students in the following categories typically consume alcohol: your friends, students in general, males, females, on-campus students, off-campus students, fraternity members, sorority members, and intercollegiate athletes,” responses were as follows. The median and mode response for “your friends’” use of alcohol was “once weekly”, with 34.8% of respondents reporting this use frequency. The second most common response for this variable was “3 times weekly,” with 25.5% of the sample reporting this response. The mode response for alcohol use by “students in general” was “3 times weekly,” with 39.4% of respondents reporting this use frequency. The median response, and second most commonly reported response for this variable was “once weekly,” with 38.9% of the sample reporting this use

58

frequency. Median perceived alcohol use by demographic group are represented in Figure 8.

Median Perceived Alcohol Use by Demographic Group Median Perceived
Alcohol Use
Three times weekly Once weekly Once monthly Twice monthly

s s s s l s s s s era end Male emale mpu ampu mber mber hlete gen Fri F n ca ff c Me Me te at n O O ity rity gia ts i ern ro lle den tu rat So terco S F In

Demographic Group

Figure 8. Median perceived alcohol use by demographic group.

Perceived norms for alcohol use by various demographic groups, as measured by median perception, were as follows: males “3 times weekly,” females “once weekly,” oncampus students “once weekly,” off-campus students “3 times weekly,” fraternity members “3 times weekly,” sorority members “3 times weekly,” and intercollegiate athletes “once weekly.” Perceived frequency of alcohol use ranged from “never” to “daily” use across all demographic groups. Differences between self-reported and perceived alcohol use among demographic groups are presented in Figure 9. 59

Self-reported Versus Perceived Median Alcohol Use Norms Median Self-reported Alcohol Use Perceived Alcohol Use

Three times weekly

Once weekly

Once monthly

Twice monthly

s us les ales ers ers tes pus up Ma Fem camp cam emb emb athle gro l f Al On Of nity M rity M giate ter Soro colle Fra er Int Demographic Group

Figure 9. Self-reported versus perceived median alcohol use norms by demographic group.

Perceived Marijuana Use Norms On the survey question, “how often do you think students in the following categories typically use marijuana: your friends, students in general, males, females, oncampus students, off-campus students, fraternity members, sorority members, and intercollegiate athletes,” responses were as follows. The median and mode response for “your friends’” use of marijuana was “never”, with 58.8% of respondents reporting this use frequency. The second most common response for this variable was “1-2 times 60

yearly,” with 16.2% of the sample reporting this response. The mode for marijuana use by “students in general” was “1-2 times yearly,” with 27.0% of respondents reporting this use frequency. The second most commonly reported response for this variable was “once monthly,” with 21.6% of the sample reporting this use frequency. The median response for this variable was “6 times yearly.” Perceived norms for marijuana use by various demographic groups, as measured by median perception, were as follows: males “once monthly,” females “6 times yearly,” on-campus students “6 times yearly,” off-campus students “once monthly,” fraternity members “6 times yearly,” sorority members “6 times yearly,” and intercollegiate athletes “1-2 times yearly.” Perceived frequency of marijuana use ranged from “never” to “daily” use across all demographic groups. Perceived Other Illicit Drug Use Norms On the survey question, “how often do you think students in the following categories typically use any illicit drug other than marijuana: your friends, students in general, males, females, on-campus students, off-campus students, fraternity members, sorority members, and intercollegiate athletes,” responses were as follows. The median and mode response for “your friends’” use of other illicit drugs was “never”, with 82.0% of respondents reporting this use frequency. The second most common response for this variable was “1-2 times yearly,” with 11.5% of the sample reporting this response. The median and mode response for other illicit drug use by “students in general” was “1-2 times yearly,” with 47.2% of respondents reporting this use frequency. The second most commonly reported response for this variable was “never,” with 24.1% of the sample reporting this use frequency. Perceived norms for other illicit drug use by various demographic groups, as measured by median perception, were as follows: males “1-2 61

times yearly,” females “1-2 times yearly,” on-campus students “1-2 times yearly,” offcampus students “1-2 times yearly,” fraternity members “1-2 times yearly,” sorority members “1-2 times yearly,” and intercollegiate athletes “never.” Perceived frequency of other illicit drug use ranged from “never” to “3 times weekly” for the “your friends” group, from “never” to “5 times weekly” for the “intercollegiate athletes” group, and from “never” to “daily” use for all other demographic groups. Perceived Binge Drinking Norms On the survey question, “overall, what percentage of students here do you think consumed five or more drinks in a row on at least one occasion in the last two weeks,” response percentage estimates ranged from 3% to 95%, with the sample estimating that 50.21% of students binge drank on at least one occasion in the two weeks preceding the survey. Perceived Norms for Quantity of Alcohol Consumed On the survey question, “how many alcoholic drinks, on average, do you think each of the following students typically consumes at parties and bars: your friends, students in general, males, females, on-campus students, off-campus students, fraternity members, sorority members, and intercollegiate athletes,” responses were as follows. For the category “friends,” the perceived number of drinks consumed ranged from zero to 14, with a mode response of “3” and an average estimate of 4.79 drinks consumed. For the category “students in general,” the perceived number of drinks consumed ranged from zero to 12, with a mode response of “5” and an average estimate of 5.17 drinks consumed at parties and bars. By demographic groups, the perceived consumption of males was 6.91 drinks at parties and bars, females was 4.43 drinks, on-campus students was 4.96 62

drinks, off-campus students was 6.30 drinks, fraternity members was 8.31 drinks, sorority members was 6.21 drinks, and intercollegiate athletes was 4.43 drinks consumed at parties and bars. Mean perceived alcohol use by demographic group may be viewed in Figure 10. The comparison between self-reported and perceived amount typically consumed at parties and bars is graphically depicted in Figure 11.

Mean Perceived Alcohol Use by Demographic Group
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
s s s s s up nds ale ale pus pu ber bers etes gro Frie M Fem cam f cam em em athl ll A On Of ity Mrity Mgiate n ter oro olle Fra S nterc I

Mean Perceived Number Drinks Consumed

Demographic Group

Figure 10. Mean perceived alcohol use by demographic group.

Perceived Norms for Most Recent Social Drinking Occasion On the survey question, “think about your last social drinking occasion with other students. How many drinks did the other students consume, on average,” for those students reporting perceived consumption as greater than zero, the average perceived number of drinks consumed was 5.47 drinks. Number of perceived drinks consumed ranged from zero to greater than 15 drinks. The mode response was four drinks, with

63

17.4% of respondents reporting this perceived use amount. The second most common response was five drinks, with 16.8% of the sample reporting this response.

Self-reported Versus Perceived Alcohol Consumption by Demographic Group
Number of Drinks Consumed 10 8 6 4 2 0
ou ps M al Fe es m al O e n ca s m Fr O pu f at er f ca s ni m t So y M pus em r In te orit b y rc M ers ol em le gi be at e rs at hl et es Al l gr

Self-reported Mean Number Drinks Consumed Perceived Mean Number Drinks Consumed

Demographic Group

Figure 11. Self-reported versus perceived alcohol consumption by demographic group.

Perceived Norms for Quantity of Drinking at Various Social Events On the survey question, “on any given occasion, how many alcoholic drinks are most typically consumed by others in each of the following places: bars, athletic events, fraternity social functions, sorority social functions, residence hall informal get-togethers, school dances or mixers, and off-campus parties,” responses follow. For those respondents reporting consumption greater than zero, average perceived number of drinks consumed was 4.58 drinks in bars (range = 0-15 or more), 3.07 drinks at athletic events 64

(range = 0-14), 6.91 drinks at fraternity social functions (range = 0-15 or more), 4.32 drinks at sorority social functions (range = 0-15 or more), 3.11 drinks at residence hall informal get-togethers (range = 0-13), 4.50 drinks at school dances or mixers (range = 014), and 6.60 drinks at off-campus parties (range = 1-15 or more). Average perceived number of drinks consumed by social event may be viewed in Figure 12. Differences between self-reported and perceived consumption rates at various social events can be viewed in Figure 13.

Average Perceived Number Drinks Consumed by Social Event
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
s s rs ers ties nts ons xer ion Ba eth par cti mi eve nct u un us or tog tic al f es etal f mp hle lg oci oci At anc -ca a s f d ys Of ol orm rity nit inf cho oro ter l S S Fra hal nce e sid Re

Mean Perceived Number Drinks Consumed

Social Event

Figure 12. Average perceived number of drinks consumed by social event.

65

Self-reported Versus Perceived Alcohol Consumption by Social Event
Number of Drinks Consumed

8 6 4 2 0
al ge Sc t- t ho og ol et he da rs nc es or m O ix ffer ca s m pu s pa rti es Ba rs et ic so ci al f so ci a At hl lf un ct io ns ev en ts un ct io ns

Self-reported Mean Number Drinks Consumed Perceived Mean Number Drinks Consumed

Fr at er ni

So ro r it y R es i

de nc e

Figure 13. Self-reported versus perceived alcohol consumption by social event.

Attitudes Toward Alcohol, Marijuana, and Other Illicit Drug Use Survey questions evaluated personal and perceived attitudes toward alcohol, marijuana, and other illicit drug use. Students were asked “Which statement below about drinking alcoholic beverages do you feel best represents your own attitude [and] which statement below about drinking alcoholic beverages do you feel best represents the most common attitude among students in general here: drinking is never a good thing to do; drinking is okay but a person should not get drunk; occasionally getting drunk is okay as long as it doesn’t interfere with academics or other responsibilities; occasionally getting 66

ha ll

Social Event

in fo rm

ty

drunk is okay even if it does interfere with academics or responsibilities; [or] frequently getting drunk is okay if that’s what the individual wants to do.” For both personal attitude and perceived attitude, the median response was “occasionally getting drunk is okay as long as it doesn’t interfere with academics or other responsibilities.” Regarding attitudes toward alcohol, the most commonly reported attitude was, “occasionally getting drunk is okay as long as it doesn’t interfere with academics or other responsibilities,” with 54.5% of the sample reporting this response. This was also the most commonly reported perceived attitude for students in general, with 61% of the sample reporting this perceived attitude. The second most commonly reported attitude regarding alcohol was, “drinking is okay but a person should not get drunk” (29.5%). However, the second most commonly reported perceived attitude for students in general was, “occasionally getting drunk is okay even if it does interfere with academics or responsibilities” (20.5%). To identify attitudes regarding marijuana use and attitudes regarding any other illicit drug other than marijuana, students were asked to choose from the following statements “it is never a good thing to use (use is never okay); trying it out one or two times (trying out a drug once or twice) is okay as long as it doesn’t interfere with academics or other responsibilities; occasional use is okay as long as it doesn’t interfere with academics or other responsibilities; occasional use is okay even if it does interfere with academics or responsibilities; [or] frequent use is okay if that’s what the individual wants to do.” The median response for personal attitude about both marijuana and other illicit drug use was “use is never okay.” The median response for perceived common attitude held by students in general for both marijuana and other illicit drug use was 67

“trying out a drug once or twice is okay as long as it doesn’t interfere with academics or other responsibilities.” Regarding attitudes toward marijuana, the most commonly reported attitude was, “it is never a good thing to use,” with 64.3% of the sample reporting this attitude. However, the most commonly reported perceived attitude for students in general was, “trying it out one or two times is okay as long as it doesn’t interfere with academics or responsibilities,” with 43.2% reporting this perceived attitude. This attitude was also the second most commonly self-reported attitude toward marijuana use, with 20.1% of the sample reporting having this attitude. The second most commonly reported perceived attitude for students in general was, “occasional use is okay as long as it doesn’t interfere with academics or other responsibilities” (34.2%). Finally, regarding attitudes toward other illicit drugs, excluding marijuana, the most commonly reported attitude was, “it is never a good thing to use,” with 87.4% of the sample reporting this attitude. As with marijuana, the most commonly reported perceived attitude for students in general regarding other illicit drug use was, “trying it out one or two times is okay as long as it doesn’t interfere with academics or responsibilities,” with 56.3% reporting this perceived attitude. This attitude was also the second most commonly self-reported attitude (8%). However, the second most commonly reported perceived attitude toward other illicit drug use was, “use is never okay” (32.2%). Self-reported versus perceived attitudes toward alcohol, marijuana, and other illicit drugs is graphically depicted in Figure 14.

68

Self-reported Versus Perceived Attitudes Regarding Alcohol, Marijuana, and Other Illicit Drug Use

Frequent use is okay if that's what the individual wants to do. Occasional use is okay even if it does interfere with academics or other responsibilities. Occasional use is okay as long as it doesn't interfere with academics or other responsibilities. Trying it 1-2 times is okay as long as it doesn't interfere with academics/other responsibilities. It is never okay. Frequent use is okay if that's what the individual wants to do. Occasional use is okay even if it does interfere with academics or other responsibilities. Occasional use is okay as long as it doesn't interfere with academics or other responsibilities. Trying it 1-2 times is okay as long as it doesn't interfere with academics/other responsibilities. It is never okay. Frequent use is okay if that's what the individual wants to do. Occasional use is okay even if it does interfere with academics or other responsibilities. Occasional use is okay as long as it doesn't interfere with academics or other responsibilities. Trying it 1-2 times is okay as long as it doesn't interfere with academics/other responsibilities. It is never okay.
% % % % % % % % 80 % 90 0% 0%

Other Illicit Drugs

Marijuana

Alcohol

20

30

40

50

10

60

70

Self-reported Attitude

Perceived Attitude

Frequency

Figure 14. Self-reported versus perceived attitudes regarding alcohol, marijuana, and other illicit drug use.

69

10

Attitudes Toward Campus Alcohol and Other Drug Use Rules and Regulations On the survey question, “Consider those campus rules and regulations regarding alcohol and other drug use that you are aware of on this campus; fill in the oval next to the response that comes the closest to or best represents your position: generally know of and support these rules and regulations; generally know of and oppose these rules and regulations; generally know of these rules but have no opinion; [or] are not aware of these rules,” 51% of respondents indicated that they generally know of and support the rules and regulations, while 11% of students indicated that they generally know of and oppose the rules and regulations. Regarding the perceived attitude of students in general, respondents indicated the perception that approximately 33% of students are aware of and support the rules and regulations, while 33% of students are perceived as being aware of and opposing the rules and regulations. Frequency distribution for the variable of attitudes toward campus rules and regulations regarding alcohol and other drugs may be viewed in Figure 15. Research Question 3: How Does Alcohol and Drug Use of TU Students Compare with National Averages as Established by Existent Literature? To examine how alcohol and drug use of TU students compare with national averages as established by existent literature, chi-square analyses were utilized. Observed frequencies of variables of interest were compared with expected frequencies as established by existing literature. First, it was necessary to determine whether significant differences in demographic variables existed between the TU sample and the national comparison sample. Two national comparison samples were utilized. These included the CORE 2005 survey including statistics drawn from 33,379 undergraduate students from 70

53 United States colleges as well as the CORE 2003 survey including statistics drawn from 38,857 undergaduate students from 89 United States colleges (Core Institute, 2005b).

Attitudes Toward Campus Rules and Regulations Regarding Alcohol and Other Drugs
60% 50% Frequency 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
p re ar op su wa reg ta nd nd a a on No of of ini w op ow o o Kn Kn en av h ut Attitude fb o w o Kn o rt pp es ru l s ule er os s ule gr din r of s ule

Self (personal attitude) Others (perceived attitude)

Figure 15. Attitudes toward campus rules and regulations regarding alcohol and other drugs.

In comparing the TU sample with the 2003 CORE sample, no significant differences were found with respect to gender, χ2 (1, N = 197) = .08, p = .776, or ethnicity, χ2 (5, N = 196) = 10.76, p = .056 (see Table 1). A significant difference was 71

observed for the variables of age, χ2 (1, N = 196) = 23.09, p < .001; class distribution, χ2 (4, N = 198) = 542.5, p < .001; and current housing status (i.e., living on or off-campus), χ2 (1, N = 198) = 19.90, p < .001 (see Table 2). For the variable of age, the frequency of TU students who reported being 20 or under (N = 91) was much less than the expected frequency (N = 124), and the frequency of TU students who reported being 21 or older (N = 105) was much more than the expected frequency (N = 73) as determined by the national sample. For the variable of class distribution, the frequency of TU students who reported being freshman (N = 38), sophomore (N = 39), and junior (N = 36) was much less than the expected frequencies (N = 63, 51, 42 respectively); and the frequency of students who reported being senior (N = 66) and other (N = 19) was much greater than the expected frequencies (N = 41, 1 respectively) as determined by the national sample. For the variable of current housing status, the frequency of TU students who reported living on-campus (N = 87) was much less than the expected frequency (N = 118), and the frequency of students who reported living off-campus (N = 111) was much more than the expected frequency (N = 80) as determined by the national sample. Similar comparisons were noted with respect to the 2005 CORE sample. No significant differences between the TU sample and the 2005 CORE sample were found with respect to gender, χ2 (1, N = 197) = .07, p = .795, or ethnicity χ2 (5, N = 196) = 9.92, p = .078 (see Table 1). A significant difference was observed for the variables of age, χ2 (1, N = 196) = 16.24, p < .001; class distribution, χ2 (4, N = 198) = 38.85, p < .001; and current housing status (i.e., living on or off-campus), χ2 (1, N = 198) = 21.00, p < .001 (see Table 2). For the variable of age, the frequency of TU students who reported being 20 or under (N = 91) was much less than the expected frequency (N = 119), and the 72

frequency of TU students who reported being 21 or older (N = 105) was much more than the expected frequency (N = 77) as determined by the national sample. For the variable of class distribution, the frequency of TU students who reported being freshman (N = 38), sophomore (N = 39), and junior (N = 36) was much less than the expected frequencies (N = 59, 47, 43 respectively); and the frequency of students who reported being senior (N = 66) and other (N = 19) was much greater than the expected frequencies (N = 42, 8 respectively) as determined by the national sample. For the variable of current housing status, the frequency of TU students who reported living on-campus (N = 87) was much less than the expected frequency (N = 119), and the frequency of students who reported living off-campus (N = 111) was much more than the expected frequency (N = 80) as determined by the national sample. For the variable of alcohol use, data were coded as respondents drinking alcohol “never” in the past year, or “1 or more times” in the past year. For the comparison between the TU sample and the 2003 CORE sample, no significant difference was observed on this variable, χ2 (1, N = 205) = .24, p = .622. As well, the comparison between the TU sample and the 2005 CORE sample yielded no significant difference on the variable of alcohol use in the past year, χ2 (1, N = 205) = .002, p = .965 (see Table 3).

73

Table 3. Comparisons Between TU Students, 2003 National Sample, and 2005 National Sample: Non-significant Demographics ________________________________________________________________________ 2003 ____________________ 2005 ____________________

Observed N Expected N χ2 df Expected N χ2 df ________________________________________________________________________ Gender Male Female Ethnicity American Indian / Alaskan Native Hispanic Asian / Pacific Islander White nonHispanic Black nonHispanic 79 118 81 116 .081 1 77.2 119.8 .067 1

0 15

1.4 7.5

10.755

5

1.6 8.0

9.92

5

8

9.4

7.4

156

158

159.8

9

13.2

13.3

Other 8 6.5 5.9 ________________________________________________________________________ * p < .001

74

Table 4. Comparisons Between TU Students, 2003 National Sample, and 2005 National Sample: Significant Demographics _______________________________________________________________________ 2003 ______________________ 2005 ______________________

Observed N Expected N χ2 df Expected N χ2 df ________________________________________________________________________ Age 20 and under 21 and older Class Distribution Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Other 38 39 36 66 19 63.5 50.6 42.2 41.1 .7 542.5* 4 58.6 46.5 43 42 7.9 38.85* 4

91

123.5

23.09*

1

118.6

16.24*

1

105

72.5

77.4

Current Housing Status On-campus 87 117.8 19.9* 1 118.6 20.99* 1

Off-campus 111 80.2 79.4 ________________________________________________________________________ * p < .001

For the variable of marijuana use, data were coded as respondents using marijuana “never” in the past year, or “1 or more times” in the past year. In comparing the TU sample with the 2003 CORE sample, a significant difference existed between the 75

samples, χ2 (1, N = 204) = 39.93, p < .001. The frequency of TU students who reported “never” using marijuana in the past year (N = 176) was more than the expected frequency (N = 133), and the frequency of TU students who reported using marijuana “1 or more times” in the past year (N = 28) was much less than the expected frequency (N = 71) as determined by the national sample. Similarly, the comparison between the TU sample and 2005 CORE sample yielded a significant difference on the variable of marijuana use in the pat year, χ2 (1, N = 204) = 26.00, p < .001. The frequency of students who reported “never” using marijuana in the past year (N = 176) was more than the expected frequency (N = 143), and the frequency of TU students who reported using marijuana “1 or more times” in the past year (N = 28) was much less than the expected frequency (N = 61) as determined by the national sample (see Table 3). For the variable of other drug use excluding marijuana, data were coded as respondents using other illicit drugs “never” in the past year, or “1 or more times” in the past year. For the comparison between the TU sample and the 2003 CORE sample, no significant difference was observed on this variable, χ2 (1, N = 202) = 4.75, p = .029. As well, the comparison between the TU sample and the 2005 CORE sample yielded no significant difference on the variable of alcohol use in the past year, χ2 (1, N = 202) = 1.28, p = .259 (see Table 3).

76

Table 5. Comparisons Between TU Students, 2003 National Sample, and 2005 National Sample: Substance Use Prevalence ________________________________________________________________________ 2003 ______________________ 2005 ______________________

Observed N Expected N χ2 df Expected N χ2 df ________________________________________________________________________ Alcohol Use Never 1 or more times Marijuana Use Never 1 or more times Other Drug Use Never 1 or more times Binge Drinking Never 125 102 10.37* 1 ------193 184.2 4.751 1 189.1 1.275 1 176 133 39.93* 1 143 26.00* 1 32 29.5 .243 1 31.8 .002 1

173

175.5

173.2

28

71

61

9

17.8

12.9

1 or more times 79 102 --________________________________________________________________________ * p < .001

77

For the variable of binge drinking, data were coded as respondents binging “never” in the past two weeks, or “1 or more times” in the past two weeks. In comparing the TU sample with the 2003 CORE sample, a significant difference existed between the samples, χ2 (1, N = 204) = 10.37, p = .001. The frequency of TU students who reported “never” binge drinking in the past two weeks (N = 125) was more than the expected frequency (N = 102), and the frequency of TU students who reported binge drinking “1 or more times” in the past two weeks (N = 79) was much less than the expected frequency (N = 102) as determined by the national sample (see Table 3). No comparison was made between the TU sample and the 2005 CORE sample, due to this data not being published within the 2005 CORE survey results (Core Institute, 2005b).

78

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary and Discussion of Results Review of the Problem This study sought to identify the extent of alcohol and other illicit drug use among TU students as well as examine the relationship between TU students' use patterns and their perceptions of other students' use patterns. In addition, a goal of this study was to evaluate alcohol and drug use of TU students in comparison with national averages as established by existent data from colleges and universities across the United States. Literature Reviewed In order to examine literature relevant to the problem of alcohol and drug use among college students, the literature review focused on prevalence, developmental considerations, attitudes and perceptions, and consequences of use within this population. Prevalence of alcohol and drug use among the national sample of college students as well as flight students and/or pilots specifically was identified. Developmental age trends of substance use behaviors were examined, particularly within the context of college-age individuals. Personality, environmental, and social influences upon substance use behaviors were analyzed. To identify attitudes and perceptions regarding alcohol and drug use within the existent literature, normative beliefs, expectancies, and attitudes toward a drug-free lifestyle were reviewed. Consequences of use were identified within college and university student populations as well as within aviation. Finally, the literature review sought to identify methods currently being utilized to prevent the

problem of alcohol and drug use among college students. Current policy and procedures related to prevention programming as well as efficacy studies were reviewed. Review of the Research Questions and Methodology In accordance with the goals of this research, the current study focused on three primary research questions. First, what are current use patterns of alcohol and illicit drugs among TU students? Second, what are current perceptions regarding alcohol and illicit drug use among TU students? Finally, how does alcohol and drug use of TU students compare with national averages as established by existent literature? To answer the research questions, a simple descriptive survey research design was utilized. A probability-based stratified random sampling strategy was utilized to randomly select students who would be included in the sample. Eligibility requirements for the study included current enrollment in at least one course at the university's main campus. An initial recruitment sample of 1,050 female and 1,050 male students was planned in order to attain a sample of sufficient size based on typical response rates of survey and internet research. Stratified sampling by gender was utilized in order to derive a data set that could be generalized to the larger population of college students. A list of currently enrolled students, including gender, was obtained from the records and registration department. During the Fall, 2006 semester, 835 females and 4,162 males were enrolled. In order to maintain consistency with the original plan for random sampling, 750 females and 750 males were randomly selected for recruitment using a computer-based randomized number generator. All students randomly selected for the sample were recruited for the study via e-mail, while the voluntary nature of the study was explained to potential participants through a process of informed consent. The 80

initial recruitment e-mail was sent on 11/28/06. One-week reminder e-mails were sent to all recruited students on 12/5/06, and two-week reminder e-mails were sent on 12/12/06. Students accepting the informed consent statement were able to access the CSAD webbased survey with supplemental questions online. Supplemental questions regarded student demographics related to college and flight status and identification of alcohol and drug-related consequences experienced by TU students (see Appendix A). Following the three-week recruitment window, 205 surveys were completed, representing a response rate of 13.67%. Study Findings and Discussion Use Patterns Relevant to the first research question, use patterns of TU students were identified utilizing descriptive statistics. Variables examined included frequency of alcohol use, frequency of marijuana use, frequency of illicit drug use, frequency of binge drinking in the two weeks preceding the survey, typical amount of alcohol consumed at parties and bars, typical amount of alcohol consumed during most recent social drinking occasion, and typical amount of alcohol consumed at various social events. Alcohol use. The most commonly reported response for frequency of alcohol use was once weekly (28.8% of the sample), with about half of the sample reporting use higher or lower than twice monthly; while approximately 15.6% of the sample reported never using alcohol. This compares well with existing literature citing rates of students reporting never using alcohol as being between 10-25% (Haberman, 1994; Juhnke et al., 2003). However, the Haberman (1994) study also indicated that 39% of their study

81

sample reported using alcohol at least one time weekly; contrasted with approximately 29% of the TU sample reporting once weekly use. The median for demographic groups differed, with fraternity members reporting the highest median use of three times weekly. This finding is consistent with existing literature demonstrating that fraternity members report higher alcohol use frequency than other groups (Cashin et al., 1998; Usdan et al., 2005; Turrisi et al., 2006; Windle, 2003). Borynski (2003) even classifies fraternities as ‘high alcohol consumption organizations.’ However, the typical frequency reported by TU fraternity members was much lower than that reported in the Cashin et al. (1998) study (i.e., three times weekly versus 12 times weekly). The second highest median frequency was once weekly use, with sorority members, off-campus students, and pilots currently flying on and/or off-campus having this median frequency. The third highest median frequency was once monthly use, with on-campus students reporting this median frequency. Males, females, intercollegiate athletes, pilots-in-training, as well as non-pilots and non-pilots-in-training did not differ from the overall sample, with median use frequency reported as twice monthly. The finding that sorority members showed higher use frequency than many other groups is consistent with Windle’s (2003) research. However, similar to findings related to fraternity members, the typical frequency reported by TU sorority members was much lower than that reported in the Cashin et al. (1998) study (i.e., once weekly versus six times weekly). As well, location of use has been established as a factor related to alcohol consumption, with students reporting higher frequency of alcohol use at private (i.e., offcampus) parties than on-campus events and public bars (Clapp et al., 2006; Usdan et al., 82

2006). This relationship helps to explain the higher use of alcohol reported by students living off-campus than on-campus. The finding that pilots currently flying on and/or offcampus report higher median use than the pilots-in-training group is noteworthy. It may be that because pilots-in-training have more frequent random breathalyzers than active pilots, this requirement relates to the less frequent alcohol use reported by this group. No gender differences were found with respect to frequency of alcohol use. This finding contrasts with literature suggesting that males report higher frequency of alcohol use than females (Clapp et al., 2006; Gleason, 1994; Lo, 1995), with estimates for males averaging around six drinks weekly and females averaging two drinks weekly (Cashin et al., 1998). The finding that no gender differences exist within the TU sample may relate to sampling design. A greater proportion of females (i.e., 750 of 835) were randomly selected than males (i.e., 750 of 4,162) to attain a local sample similar in characteristics to the national sample. Another finding in contrast with existing literature is that intercollegiate athletes in the TU sample did not report alcohol consumption higher than average. According to Turrisi et al. (2006) and the NCAA (2001), student athletes tend to demonstrate higher frequency of alcohol use than other groups; in a national sample, 79.5% of student athletes reported alcohol use in the year preceding survey completion. Indeed, in addition to fraternities, Borynski (2003) classifies intercollegiate athletes as ‘high alcohol consumption organizations.’ The literature contrasts strongly with the TU sample, in which intercollegiate athletes did not report alcohol consumption at a higher rate than average. Marijuana use. Regarding frequency of marijuana use, the most commonly reported frequency was never (86.3% of the sample), while the second most commonly 83

reported frequency was between once and twice yearly (7.8% of the sample). This contrasts with existing literature indicating 50-60% of students report never using marijuana (Haberman, 1994; Mohler-Kuo et al., 2003). While no difference existed between demographic groups with respect to median reported use, the range of use reported between groups demonstrated slight variation. Males, females, off-campus students, intercollegiate athletes, pilots-in-training, as well as non-pilots and non-pilotsin-training reported the largest range of use, from never to daily use; while on-campus students reported the second largest range of use, from never to once weekly use. Fraternity and sorority members reported the next largest range of use, from never to once monthly use; while pilots currently flying on and/or off-campus reported the smallest range of use, from never to bimonthly use. Consistent with the frequency of alcohol use reported, frequency of marijuana use did not appear to differ between males and females. As well, consistent with findings related to frequency of alcohol use, off-campus students appear to report a larger range of marijuana use (i.e., between never and daily use) than on-campus students (i.e., between never and once weekly use). Contrasting with the findings regarding alcohol use frequency, pilots-in-training appear to report a larger range of marijuana use (i.e., between never and daily use) than pilots currently flying on and/or off-campus (i.e., between never and bimonthly use). As well, in contrast with findings related to alcohol use frequency, sorority and fraternity members appear to report a smaller range of marijuana use (i.e., between never and monthly use) than the general student population (i.e., between never and daily use).

84

Other illicit drug use. As with the frequency of reported marijuana use, the most commonly reported frequency of other illicit drug use was never (95.5% of the sample), while the second most commonly reported frequency was between once and twice yearly (1.5% of the sample). This is comparable with existing literature indicating between 47% of students report past-ever use of any illicit substance (Haberman, 1994; MohlerKuo et al., 2003). As with marijuana use frequency, while no difference existed between demographic groups with respect to median reported use of other illicit drugs, the range of use reported between groups demonstrated slight variation. Females, off-campus students, as well as non-pilots and non-pilots-in-training reported the largest range of use, from never to five times weekly use; while males, intercollegiate athletes, and pilots-intraining reported the second largest range of use, from never to once weekly use. Oncampus students reported the next largest range of use, from never to once monthly use; while pilots currently flying on and/or off-campus reported the second smallest range of use, from never to twice monthly use. All fraternity and sorority members in the sample reported never using other illicit drugs. Unlike with the alcohol and marijuana use frequencies, a slight variation in range between males and females is observed in this sample, with females reporting a slightly higher range (i.e., between never and five times weekly use) than males (i.e., between never and once weekly use). The same trend is observed between off-campus students (i.e., between never and five times weekly use) and on-campus students (i.e., between never and once weekly use). Also, in contrast with the alcohol and marijuana use frequencies, pilots currently flying on and/or off-campus reported a smaller range of use (i.e., between never and twice monthly use) than pilots-in-training (i.e., between never 85

and once weekly use). However, based on the low observed rate (1.5% of the sample) for illicit drug use (i.e., nine of 205 respondents reporting), it is difficult to make comparisons between demographic groups. Note-worthy within these findings is that all sorority and fraternity members reported never using other illicit drugs. Binge drinking. Regarding binge drinking episodes (i.e., drinking five or more drinks in a row), most students (61.3% of the sample) reported no episodes within the two weeks preceding survey completion. For the remainder of the sample reporting between one and 12 binge drinking episodes in the two weeks preceding the survey, the most common amount of episodes reported was one (17.2% of the sample). As illustrated in Figure 2 of Chapter 4, amount of binge drinking episodes drops rapidly after four episodes. The frequency distribution of binge drinking within the study population is consistent with existing literature that indicates about 40% of students report one or more binge drinking episodes in the two weeks preceding survey completion (Monti et al., 2005). Number of times binged in the two weeks preceding survey completion was slightly higher for males than females, off-campus students than on-campus students, fraternity/sorority members than non-Greek students, and intercollegiate athletes than non-athletes. Among the pilot group, pilots-in-training reported higher than average number of binge drinking episodes in the two weeks preceding survey completion while non-pilots and non-pilots-in-training reported lower than average episodes. The current pilot group did not differ from average. Existing literature indicates that binge drinking may be reported more in female populations (15%) than male populations (11%) and that emergency department visits by undergraduate students related to alcohol overdose are more likely to be made by females 86

(57%), (Monti et al., 2005; Wright et al., 1998). This is not consistent with the TU sample, where males reported more binge drinking episodes than females. As well, current literature shows a positive relationship between binge drinking and housing status, with 70% of fraternity members and 50% of sorority members reporting at least one binge drinking episode in the two weeks preceding survey completion (McCabe et al., 2005). This is not consistent with the TU sample. Finally, research indicates that drinking location in housing without alcohol deterrence policies (e.g., off-campus housing) is associated with increased binge drinking frequency (Wechsler, Lee, Nelson et al., 2002). This is not consistent with the TU sample. Quantity of alcohol consumed. The most commonly reported number of drinks typically consumed at parties and bars was zero (26.5% of the sample); while the second most common response was three drinks consumed (13.7% of the sample). For the sample, the average number of drinks typically consumed at parties and bars was 3.23 with a range of reported consumption between zero and greater than 15 drinks. This contrasts with the Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly (2003) study of 27,900 college students reporting that 78% of respondents consumed an average of 9.72 alcoholic beverages weekly in the two weeks prior to survey completion. This is significantly higher than consumption reported by the TU sample. Further, in the TU sample, differences in reported consumption were observed between demographic groups. Fraternity members tended to report greater consumption than other groups, with 8.67 drinks on average. This is consistent with higher consumption rates of fraternity members as reported by Windle (2003). Sorority members did not show this trend, with average reported consumption just slightly above the mean (3.59 drinks). This contrasts 87

with Windle’s (2003) identification of sorority members as a higher alcohol consumption group than other non-Greek students. A slight difference was observed between offcampus and on-campus students, with off-campus students reporting slightly higher consumption than average (3.65 drinks) and on-campus students reporting slightly lower consumption than average (2.68 drinks). Usdan et al. (2006) demonstrated this trend as well, reporting higher consumption rates at private parties than other locations. Finally, small differences were noted between pilot status groups. Pilots-intraining reported the highest consumption (4.10 drinks), followed by pilots currently flying on and/or off-campus (3.84). It is noteworthy that both of these groups report consumption rates above the mean. Perhaps due to random drug testing for drugs taking a long period to metabolize out of the body system, current pilots and pilots-in-training who use are more likely to use alcohol, which metabolizes quickly from the system, rather than other substances. The lowest reported consumption for pilot status groups was the non-pilots and non-pilots-in-training group, reporting 2.89 drinks typically consumed at parties and bars. Most recent social drinking occasion. Related to the most recent social drinking occasion, average reported number of drinks consumed was 4.14 drinks for the sample. This consumption rate is slightly higher than the average “typical” consumption rate of 3.23 drinks. Drinking at social events. For those students reporting alcohol consumption, number of drinks reportedly consumed varied by social event. Consistent with differences shown between off-campus and on-campus students, it appears that more drinks are reportedly consumed at off-campus parties (4.17 drinks on average) than on-campus 88

activities such as athletic events (0.93 drinks), residence hall informal get-togethers (1.41 drinks), and school dances or mixers (2.29 drinks). Also consistent with differences shown between consumption by fraternity members versus other groups, the data suggest that more drinks are typically consumed at fraternity social functions (3.50 drinks) than sorority social functions (1.97 drinks) or bars (2.93 drinks). Consequences of Use Also relevant to the first research question, consequences associated with alcohol, marijuana, and other illicit drug use as experienced by TU students were identified utilizing descriptive statistics. Variables examined included consequences associated with alcohol, marijuana, and other illicit drug use in legal, relationships, family, financial, employment, and educational domains. Consequences associated with alcohol use. For those students reporting experiencing alcohol-related consequences, the most affected domain was in the area of relationships, with approximately 35% of the sample reporting the experience of relationship problems such as conflict with friend(s) and/or significant other(s) between one and three or more times ever. The second most commonly reported domain was in the area of family, with approximately 22% of students reporting the experience of family problems such as conflict with a family member. The third highest domain affected was the educational domain, with approximately 13% of the sample reporting the experience of educational problems such as falling grade(s), poor attendance, and/or academic probation. A small percentage of the sample reported the experience of financial consequences related to alcohol use such as loss of significant amount of money (6.5% of the sample), alcohol-related employment consequences such as loss of work time or job 89

placement (4.5% of the sample), or alcohol-related legal consequences such as driving under the influence and/or arrest (1.5% of the sample). Figure 5 illustrates alcohol-related consequences as reported by the TU sample. When comparing existing literature related to consequences associated with alcohol, marijuana, or other illicit drug use, categorization of consequences on the CSAD survey utilized for the TU sample does not align perfectly with consequences such as physical injuries, violence, victimization, and risky behaviors identified in studies by Hingson et al. (2005), Jones et al. (2001), and Winde (2003). However, existing literature establishes categories such as educational, employment, and legal consequences as appropriate areas for study (Jennison, 2004; Wechsler, Lee, Kuo et al., 2002). In addition, Cashin et al. (1998) report a higher percentage of Greek students as experiencing alcoholrelated educational consequences than non-Greek students (i.e., 35% of fraternity and 29% of sorority members compared with 20% of other male and 14% of other female students). Consequences associated with marijuana use. Although the experience of consequences related to marijuana use was rare, for those students reporting marijuanarelated consequences, the distribution of these consequences across domains can be compared with those for alcohol. Consistent with the former variable of alcohol-related consequences, for those students reporting the experience of marijuana-related consequences, the most affected domain was in the area of relationships, with 7% of the sample reporting experiencing relationship problems, while the second most commonly reported domain was in the area of family, with 5.5% of students reporting the experience of family problems. In contrast with the experience of alcohol-related consequences, for 90

those experiencing marijuana-related consequences, the third highest domain affected was financial (3% of the sample), followed by educational (2.5%), legal (2%), and employment (1%) domains. This distribution may be viewed in Figure 6. Consequences associated with illicit drug use excluding marijuana. As with the variable of marijuana-related consequences, the experience of drug-related consequences was rare. However, the distribution of domains affected in reference to drug-related consequences can be compared with the other consequence variables. Consistent with both alcohol-related and marijuana-related consequence variables, the most affected domain by drug-related consequences was in the area of relationships, with 5.5% of the sample reporting the experience of relationship problems, while the second most commonly reported domain was in the area of family, with 5% of students reporting the experience of family problems. In contrast with the experience of alcohol-related and marijuana-related consequences, for those experiencing drug-related consequences, the third highest domain affected was financial (1.5% of the sample), followed by educational (0.5%) and employment (0.5%) domains. No students reported experiencing legal-related consequences associated with illicit drugs excluding marijuana. Figure 7 illustrates the frequency distribution across domains for drug-related consequences. Student Perceptions To address the second research question, TU student perceptions about alcohol and drug use on their campus were examined utilizing descriptive statistics. Variables examined included perceived alcohol use norms; perceived marijuana use norms; perceived other illicit drug use norms; perceived binge drinking norms; perceived norms for quantity of alcohol consumed; perceived norms for most recent social drinking 91

occasion; perceived norms for quantity of drinking at various social events; attitudes toward alcohol, marijuana, and other illicit drug use; and attitudes toward campus alcohol and other drug use rules and regulations. Perceived alcohol use norms. In contrast with self-reported alcohol use norms, the most commonly reported response for perceived frequency of alcohol use by students in general was three times weekly (34.8% of the sample), compared with self-reported use mode of once weekly. Also in contrast with self-reported alcohol use, about half of the sample reported perceived use higher or lower than once weekly, compared with selfreported use median of twice monthly. Overall, this suggests that perceived use of alcohol is greater than self-reported use. This trend has been corroborated by researchers Novak and Crawford (2001) as well as Wechsler and Kuo (2000). Demographic groups including males, off-campus students, fraternity members, and sorority members were perceived as having consumption at higher frequency (median reported perceived use of three times weekly) than students in general and other demographic groups (median reported perceived use of one time weekly). This is consistent with the higher observed consumption frequency self-reported by fraternity members (three times weekly). However, although self-reported use by sorority members and off-campus students was higher than other groups, perceived use for these groups (three times weekly) was higher than actual reported rates of use (once weekly) by these groups. These differences are graphically depicted in Figure 9. As with self-reported alcohol consumption, perceived alcohol consumption was higher for off-campus students than on-campus students. In contrast with self-reported alcohol use, in which no differences were found between males and females, perceived 92

use of males (three times weekly) was higher than perceived use of females (once weekly). Perceived marijuana use norms. In contrast with self-reported marijuana use norms, the most commonly reported response for perceived frequency of marijuana use by students in general was between one and two times yearly (27% of the sample), compared with self-reported use mode of never. The second most commonly reported response for perceived marijuana use by students in general was once monthly. Also in contrast with self-reported marijuana use, about half of the sample reported perceived use higher or lower than six times yearly, compared with self-reported use median of never. Overall, this suggests that perceived use of marijuana is greater than self-reported use. This is consistent with findings in this study comparing self-reported and perceived alcohol use norms. All demographic groups excluding intercollegiate athletes were perceived as having higher marijuana use than students in general, with males and off-campus students having the highest perceived use of once monthly. As with findings related to alcohol consumption, perceived marijuana use was higher for off-campus students than oncampus students. Also consistent with findings related to perceived alcohol use, perceived marijuana use of males (once monthly) was higher than perceived use of females (6 times yearly). Perceived other illicit drug use norms. In contrast with self-reported other illicit drug use norms, the most commonly reported response for perceived frequency of other illicit drug use by students in general was between one and two times yearly (47.2% of the sample), compared with self-reported use mode of never. The second most commonly 93

reported response for perceived other illicit drug use by students in general was never. Also in contrast with self-reported other illicit drug use, about half of the sample reported perceived use higher or lower than between one and two times yearly, compared with self-reported use median of never. Overall, this suggests that perceived use of other illicit drug use is greater than self-reported use, a finding consistent with other outcomes in this study comparing self-reported and perceived alcohol and marijuana use norms. This is also comparable with existing literature suggesting that perceived drug use norms tend to be higher than self-reported drug use norms (Martens et al., 2006). No demographic groups were perceived as having higher other illicit drug use than students in general; however, intercollegiate athletes were perceived as using drugs less, with a median perceived use for this group of never. In contrast with findings related to alcohol consumption and marijuana use, perceived other illicit drug use does not differ between on-campus and off-campus students or males and females. Perceived binge drinking norms. Regarding perceived binge drinking norms, on average the sample indicated the perception that approximately 50% of students in general consumed five or more drinks in a row at least one time during the two weeks preceding survey completion. This contrasts with self-reported binge drinking, in that 38.7% of the sample reported binge drinking one or more times in the two weeks preceding the survey. Consistent with differences between perceived and self-reported consumption rates of alcohol, marijuana, and other illicit drugs, it appears that perceived binge drinking is greater than self-reported binge drinking. This result is comparable to Wechsler and Kuo’s (2000) study identifying that 29% of students tend to overestimate binge drinking by other students. 94

Perceived norms for quantity of alcohol consumed. Regarding amount of alcohol typically consumed at parties and bars, differences are observed between perceived and self-reported consumption rates. In contrast with the average 3.23 drinks being consumed per self-report, the perceived average rate of consumption was 5.17 drinks. The most common response for number of drinks consumed was zero per self-report, while the most common response for perceived number of drinks consumed was five. Overall, this suggests that perceived amount of alcohol consumed is greater than self-reported consumption. This is consistent with findings in this study comparing self-reported and perceived alcohol, marijuana, and other illicit drug use norms. As well, according to Novak and Crawford (2001), students’ estimated consumption rate at 13 alcoholic drinks weekly with five drinks per setting yet self-reported drinking on average seven drinks weekly with four drinks per setting. Although the TU sample reports and estimates lower consumption rates, the trend of perceived use being higher than self-reported use is demonstrated. Consistent with differences observed between demographic groups related to selfreported alcohol consumption rate, perceived amount of drinks consumed varied by demographic groups. Fraternity members were perceived as drinking the most drinks at parties and bars (8.31 drinks), while males (6.91 drinks), off-campus students (6.30 drinks), and sorority members (6.21 drinks) were perceived as having the next highest consumption rates, all with greater perceived consumption amounts than the average. As with differences observed related to alcohol and marijuana use, both self-reported and perceived, off-campus students were perceived as consuming more than on-campus students at parties and bars. As well, males were perceived as drinking greater amounts 95

than females. Also, unlike self-reported use of alcohol, but similar to results related to perceived alcohol use, sorority members were perceived as drinking more than average but did not report higher use levels than average. Overall, sorority members at TU report less use than sorority members in the national sample yet may be consuming larger amounts than reported, as evidenced by perceived norms. The comparison between selfreported and perceived amount typically consumed at parties and bars is graphically depicted in Figure 11. Perceived norms for most recent social drinking occasion. Regarding consumption for students in general during the most recent social drinking occasion, it was perceived that average amount consumed was 5.47 drinks, compared with selfreported average of 4.14 drinks. The most commonly reported response for perceived number of drinks consumed by students in general was four drinks, with 17.4% of the sample reporting this amount. As with estimates of typical consumption rates, perceived amount consumed at most recent social drinking occasion is greater than self-reported consumption amount. Perceived norms for quantity of drinking at various social events. Perceived amount of drinks consumed at various social events was highest for fraternity social functions (6.91 drinks) than for any other event. Consistent with self-reported consumption rates at various social events, it was perceived that a greater amount of alcohol is consumed at off-campus parties (6.6 drinks) and bars (4.58 drinks) than oncampus activities such as school dances or mixers (4.5 drinks), sorority social functions (4.32 drinks), and residence hall informal get-togethers (3.11 drinks). It was perceived that the least amount of drinks consumed occurred at athletic events (3.07), consistent 96

with findings for self-reported consumption rates. The estimates for perceived amount of drinks consumed at all social events was higher than for self-reported use, excluding fraternity social functions. Students in this sample actually self-reported higher alcohol consumption rate than was perceived for fraternity social functions. Differences between self-reported and perceived consumption rates at various social events can be viewed in Figure 13. Attitudes toward alcohol, marijuana, and other illicit drug use. Regarding attitudes toward alcohol, the most commonly reported and perceived attitude was, “occasionally getting drunk is okay as long as it doesn’t interfere with academics or other responsibilities.” Regarding attitudes toward marijuana and other illicit drugs, the most commonly reported attitude was, “it is never a good thing to use.” However, the most commonly reported perceived attitude for students in general was, “trying it out one or two times is okay as long a it doesn’t interfere with academics or responsibilities.” Self-reported versus perceived attitudes toward alcohol, marijuana, and other illicit drugs is graphically depicted in Figure 14. Attitudes toward campus alcohol and other drug use rules and regulations. The most commonly reported attitude toward campus alcohol and other drug rules and regulations was, “generally know[ing] of and support[ing] these rules and regulations.” Refer to Figure 15 for a graphical depiction of self-reported versus perceived attitudes toward campus rules and regulations regarding alcohol and other drugs. Comparison with National Averages Chi-square analyses were utilized to answer the third research question and identify how TU students compare with national averages as established by existent 97

literature. The study sample did not significantly differ from the CORE 2003 or CORE 2005 national data sets in gender or ethnicity (Core Institute, 2005b). However, the TU students did significantly differ from both national data sets with respect to age, class distribution, and current housing status. Regarding age, the sample of TU students was older on average than the national sample. TU students were more likely to be 21 years of age or older than students in the national sample. Consistent with age differences noted, the class distribution of TU students showed a greater number of students with senior class standing than the national sample, and less students in the freshman through junior years. Finally, TU students were more likely to live in off-campus housing than the national sample. This may also be related to having a sample of students older in age. Regarding substance use reported, TU students did not show differences in selfreported alcohol use when compared with the CORE 2003 and 2005 national samples. Similarly, TU students did not report using illicit drugs excluding marijuana at rates different than those reported in the 2003 and 2005 national samples. When evaluated in a developmental context, the finding that TU students did not differ in alcohol use rates than the national sample, yet did differ in overall age, with more students being 21 years of age or older, is noteworthy. According to White et al. (2005), alcohol use tends to increase slightly at age 18, continues to increase steadily between ages 18 and 21, and then declines from age 21 to 30. Based on a developmental perspective, the age characteristics of the TU sample (being significantly older than the national sample), would suggest that alcohol use and consumption rate might be lower than the national sample. However, the results do not support this developmental context.

98

Chi-square analyses did reveal significant differences between TU and the national data sets in the area of marijuana use. TU students were more likely to report never having used marijuana than the national samples. Similarly, TU students were more likely to report never having binge drank than the 2003 CORE sample (data were not available for the 2005 sample on this variable). Study Limitations Although the initial design of this study was created to maximize internal and external validity, a number of threats to validity exist. With regard to internal validity, items were added to the CSAD survey in order to capture use patterns and perceptions by students based on pilot status. However, no questions were asked regarding student’s perceptions of pilots’ use patterns on the survey. Therefore, it was not possible to make a comparison between self-report and perceived patterns of use for pilot groups. As well, whereas the CSAD survey has established validity and reliability, no such indices were measured for the added survey items requesting students to identify frequency of alcohol, marijuana, and other illicit drug related consequences in the areas of education, family, relationships, legal, employment, and financial domains. A number of factors within this study may reduce external validity of results. Although a probability-based stratified random sampling strategy was utilized to recruit students for study participation, through an error by the records and registration department, graduate students were included in the sampling pool but did not meet eligibility for study inclusion. According to Mertens (2005), this problem is known as coverage error and occurs when individuals who do not meet eligibility for the study are included in the sampling frame. Coverage error may account for the statistically 99

significant age and educational class difference between the TU sample and the national sample (i.e., students from the TU sample were more likely to be 21 years of age or older than the national sample; and more likely to have senior student status or above). Stratified sampling was chosen in order to attain a sample with gender demographics comparable to the national sample. Indeed, the TU sample was comparable in gender characteristics to the national sample. However, because the TU sample was significantly different in gender characteristics to the TU population (i.e., more females than males in the sample versus the TU population being predominantly male), the results may be difficult to generalize to the TU population, particularly to the male population of students at TU. While conclusions about alcohol and drug use patterns and perceptions by female students are likely sound, conclusions regarding male students are likely limited. Response rate is an additional factor that limits study generalization. Of 1,500 students recruited, a sample of 205 students was attained, representing a response rate of 13.67%. This response rate is significantly less than the original goal of 33%. The sample size was also significantly less than the original goal of 700 students. A factor that may have contributed to the low response rate is time of measurement (Mertens, 2005). The survey invitation was sent one week prior to final exams during the Fall, 2007 semester, with reminder e-mails sent the week of finals and one week after finals. Many students are particularly busy during this period and may have been less likely to participate due to time constraints. Despite differences between goal and observed rates, according to Mertens (2005), the sample is sufficiently large to make conclusions. Mertens (2005) suggests a sample size of at least 100 participants for each major subgroup examined; this study fits within those parameters. However, a larger sample size would allow for more 100

powerful conclusions about both the TU population and its comparison with the national sample. A final threat related to external validity relates to experimenter effect, in which students may have responded differently due to relationship with the experimenter (Mertens, 2005). As a faculty member at the university polled, it is possible that despite informed consent and anonymity guarantees, students were more or less likely to participate and/or change responses due to knowing the experimenter personally. Measurement error may also exist in this study. The CSAD survey relies solely on self-report. Due to the sensitive nature of information requested, students may underreport substance use in order to answer in a socially desirable fashion (Mertens, 2005). Without corroborative measures such as observation or substance testing including breathalyzer and/or urinalyses, it is impossible to know the accuracy of students’ selfreported substance use patterns. A number of steps could be taken with future research at TU using the CSAD survey to improve internal and external validity. First, survey items should be added to measure students’ general perception of pilot use patterns. Second, recruitment should occur early in the semester to improve response rates. Third, reliability and validity indices on added survey items regarding experienced consequences should be conducted. Fourth, graduate students should be excluded from the sampling frame. Finally, in order to make conclusions about the TU population, a probability-based simple random sampling strategy should be utilized to attain a sample with gender characteristics comparable to the TU population.

101

Conclusions As originally conceived, this study sought to answer three important questions relevant to TU student behaviors. First, because TU has limited data available regarding alcohol and/or drug use among its students, other than campus safety reports regarding liquor and drug law violations, the author wished to examine the nature and extent of alcohol and drug use among students at TU. Second, since self-reported alcohol and drug use is often minimized and researchers can gain better estimates of use through student perceptions, this author wished to examine student perceptions of alcohol and drug use patterns on-campus. Finally, in order to place the TU sample in context with national samples drawn from existing literature, this author wished to make comparisons between use patterns and perceptions of TU students and the national sample. While the author expected to identify alcohol, marijuana, and other illicit drug use patterns by various demographic groups across campus, the study results demonstrated several trends across demographic groups and compared with the national sample that were surprising. The following reviews overall trends identified, particularly with regard to contrasts between demographic groups as well as comparisons with the national sample. Alcohol, Marijuana, and Other Illicit Drug Use Overall alcohol use frequency at TU was reported as once weekly, less than use patterns noted within existing literature (Haberman, 1994). As a full-time professor at TU and an adjunct professor at a neighboring university, the author found this result surprising. Anecdotally, this author observes drinking-related comments by TU students at a much higher frequency than by neighboring university students. Among the TU 102

sample, 15% of students reported never having used alcohol; an abstinence rate consistent with that established by other researchers (Haberman, 1994; Juhnke et al., 2003). Perceived frequency of alcohol use (i.e., three times weekly) was higher than selfreported frequency, a trend noted by authors Novak and Crawford (2001) as well as Wechsler and Kuo (2000). TU students most commonly reported consuming an average of 3.23 alcoholic beverages when drinking; an amount much less than those observed and reported by Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly (2003). Perceived consumption rate was higher than self-reported rate; however, perceived rate was less than perceived rates noted in another study (Novak & Crawford, 2001). Most TU students denied having a binge drinking episode (i.e., drinking five or more drinks in a row) in the two weeks preceding survey completion; however, it was perceived that approximately 50% of students engaged in a binge drinking episode. For those that reported binge drinking, an average of one episode during the two weeks preceding survey completion was reported, a number consistent with the observations of Monti et al. (2005). As well, Wechsler and Kuo (2000) observed a similar trend of perceived binge drinking being greater than self-reported episodes. Very few students reporting having greater than four binge drinking episodes in the two weeks preceding survey completion. More alcohol use is reported and perceived at off-campus parties than on-campus events, with athletic events having the least alcohol consumption when compared with other groups. When compared with the 2003 and 2005 CORE national samples, overall self-reported alcohol use at TU was no higher or lower than that reported by the national sample. However, the TU sample reported less binge drinking episodes than the national 103

sample. Demographic differences in self-reported and perceived use were noted. While the data do not indicate that binge drinking occurs at a rate higher than other universities nationally, these numbers remain concerning. Binge drinking is associated with complex and devastating consequences in financial, health, social, and family spheres of functioning. Therefore, it is critical that students at risk for binge drinking receive appropriate prevention and treatment. Most TU students in the sample reported never having used marijuana, an abstinence rate much higher than that established by current literature (Haberman, 1994; Mohler-Kuo et al., 2003). However, it was perceived that most students use marijuana between one and two times yearly. In comparison with the 2003 and 2005 CORE samples, TU students were less likely to report ever using marijuana than the national sample. While differences between demographic groups were not noted, demographic groups reported varied ranges for frequency of marijuana use. Nearly all TU students denied ever using illicit drugs other than marijuana, a finding comparable with existing literature (Haberman, 1994; Mohler-Kuo et al., 2003). However, the sample perceived that most TU students use other illicit drugs between one and two times yearly; the difference between perceived and self-reported use patterns is consistent with the Martens et al. (2006) findings. Unlike for marijuana, the TU sample did not differ from the 2003 and 2005 CORE national samples in reported other illicit drug use. However, similar to findings regarding marijuana, demographic groups varied in range of use reported for other illicit drugs. Again, the low frequency of reported other illicit drug use was surprising to this author. Prior to study completion, this author overheard a former student of TU stating, "TU-that's where you get the good drugs," a 104

statement that alludes to the possibility that drug use may be underreported by the TU sample. Demographic Comparisons Fraternity and Sorority Members Although reported use amounts were lower than those cited in existing literature, fraternity members did report and were perceived as having the highest frequency and amount of alcohol use of the demographic groups examined (Borynski, 2003; Cashin et al., 1998; Turrisi et al., 2006; Usdan et al., 2005; Windle, 2003). Higher use amounts were also reported at fraternity social functions than other locations. While sorority members were also perceived as having higher use frequency and amount than other groups (excluding fraternity members), sorority members did not self-report alcohol use at levels different from average. Self-reported use pattern by this group was not consistent with existing literature suggesting that all Greek students report higher alcohol use than non-Greek students (Cashin et al., 1998; Windle, 2003). As well, students did not report consuming more drinks than average at sorority social functions than other locations. However, binge drinking was reported more often among fraternity and sorority members than other students, consistent with the research of McCabe et al. (2005) indicating that fraternity members report higher binge drinking rates than other students. In contrast with observed alcohol patterns of use, fraternity and sorority members reported less marijuana use than other groups. Within the Greek student group, the highest range of marijuana use reported was between none and one time monthly. Perceived marijuana use for Greek students was no higher or lower than perceived 105

marijuana use for students in general. All fraternity and sorority members denied ever using other illicit drugs. As with perceived marijuana use, perceptions of illicit drug use for Greek students was no higher or lower than average. Much of the original aim of this research was to help understand patterns of use among various demographic groups in order to identify at-risk student groups toward whom prevention efforts should be targeted. Results related to Greek students suggest that fraternity houses in particular may benefit from mandated prevention education each semester focused on helping students understand consequences associated with alcohol use, particularly with regard to binge drinking. Current Housing Status TU students residing off-campus self-reported and were perceived as having higher frequency and amount of alcohol use than students residing on-campus, a finding consistent with trends identified by Clapp et al. (2006) and Usdan et al. (2006). Indeed, within the TU sample, students residing on-campus reported using less alcohol when drinking than students in general. Consistent with this finding, greater self-reported consumption rates were observed for off-campus parties than on-campus activities such as residence hall informal gatherings and athletic events. As well, greater number of binge drinking episodes was reported by off-campus than on-campus students, consistent with the research of Wechsler, Lee, Nelson et al. (2002). Off-campus students reported greater range of marijuana and other illicit drug use than on-campus students. Perceived marijuana use for off-campus students was among the highest frequency for all groups (once monthly). Perceived other illicit drug use for off-campus students was no higher or lower than perceived use for students in general. 106

While the comparison between off-campus and on-campus sites are not surprising, they are concerning. TU administrators can certainly regulate alcohol and drug use oncampus; however, it becomes very difficult to regulate and monitor student behaviors offcampus. Gender Clapp et al. (2006), Gleason (1994), and Lo (1995) report greater alcohol use among males than females. However, the TU sample did not show this gender difference. Both males and females predominantly reported drinking approximately once weekly. However, among the TU sample, it was perceived that males drink at a higher frequency than females and that males consume more drinks on average than females. Indeed, perceived consumption rate for females was slightly less than average. This was consistent for binge drinking reports, in that males reported greater number of binge drinking episodes in the two weeks preceding survey completion. This finding opposes research by Monti et al. (2005) and Wright et al. (1998) suggesting that females binge drink more often than males. As with alcohol use patterns, males and females did not demonstrate differences in reported marijuana use; within both genders were students reporting a range of use from none to daily. However, males were perceived as having among the highest rate of marijuana use. Regarding other illicit drug use, the most typical reported frequency for both genders was never. However, among the female group were students reporting a range of other illicit drug use between none and five times weekly, whereas range reported by male students was lower, from none to once weekly.

107

The findings related to gender differences are very important for university administrators to understand. It is critical that prevention and treatment efforts on-campus be gender responsive, particularly at TU, where the educational and future career settings are male dominated. Females within this educational setting face specific gender-related challenges that are unique when compared with liberal arts colleges that are female dominated. Intercollegiate Athletes In contrast with existing literature suggesting athletes are among the highest alcohol consumption group (Borynski, 2003; NCAA, 2001; Turrise et al., 2006), TU student athletes did not report alcohol use frequency or amount higher than average. Perceived use frequency for athletes was no higher than for students in general; yet perceived consumption rate for student athletes was actually less than average. This is consistent with the finding that alcohol use at athletic events was much less than at other locations. Regarding binge drinking however, it was found that intercollegiate athletes report a higher number than average of episodes of binge drinking in the two weeks preceding survey completion. Self-reported and perceived marijuana use among TU student athletes was no higher or lower than use reported and perceived for students in general. However, students within the intercollegiate athlete group reported a higher range of other illicit drug use than some other student groups (i.e., once weekly use by some athletes versus once monthly use by on-campus and Greek students). This contrasts with perceived other illicit drug use for the athlete group, who were mostly perceived as never using other illicit drugs. 108

Pilot Status While pilots currently flying on and/or off-campus reported alcohol use at higher frequency than pilots-in-training (i.e., once weekly versus twice monthly use), pilots-intraining reported consuming slightly more alcoholic beverages per setting than the current pilot group, as well as a greater number of binge drinking episodes in the two weeks preceding survey completion. Non-pilots and non-pilots-in-training reported the lowest alcohol use pattern and binge drinking pattern. The reverse was observed for marijuana use self-reported among pilot groups. Non-pilots and non-pilots-in-training as well as pilots-in-training reported the highest range of use, from none to daily. All current pilots flying on and/or off-campus reported never using marijuana. Self-reported other illicit drug use demonstrated a similar trend, with non-pilots and non-pilots-in-training reporting the highest range of use, from none to daily. Pilots-in-training reported the next highest range of use, from none to five times weekly. Pilots currently flying on and/or off-campus reported the lowest range of use, from none to once weekly. Recently, this author discussed the differences found between pilot status groups in an informal setting with several TU students. Their responses were interesting and highly relevant to proper interpretation of the study findings. Predominantly, TU students made statements such as, "Of course the pilots drink more – that's what they can get away with," and "YEAH they do [in reference to higher alcohol use among pilots-in-training]." Based on these anecdotal remarks as well as differences observed between pilot status groups, it is important that university administrators examine existing alcohol and drug testing practices for pilots and pilots-in-training. Perhaps more frequent breathalyzers 109

and/or weekend checks to verify student observation of the 12-hour bottle-to-throttle rule would reduce alcohol use among these groups. Consequences of Alcohol, Marijuana, and Other Illicit Drug Use Predominantly, for those students experiencing consequences related to substance use, the area of relationships, particularly social and family relationships, was the most likely domain affected. Many students reported financial and/or educational consequences associated with use, while few students reported legal and/or employment consequences related to use. This finding is important for prevention and treatment providers, since efforts should be aimed predominantly at repairing social and family relationships influenced by substance use. Attitudes Regarding alcohol use, the most common self-reported and perceived attitude by TU students was, “occasionally getting drunk is okay as long as it doesn’t interfere with academics or other responsibilities.” In contrast, TU students reported “it is never a good thing to use” related to marijuana and other illicit drugs. Further, regarding campus rules and regulations related to alcohol and other drugs, most students felt that they “generally know of and support these rules and regulations.” Overall, it appears that the student culture at TU is one that supports a drug-free lifestyle and supports the university administration. Recommendations While it is felt that the initial study aims were accomplished, interpretation of the study findings steers a path toward future research endeavors. TU now has a more thorough picture of alcohol and drug use among its students; however, with this 110

information arrives a need to respond with prevention and treatment. Identifying appropriate and effective prevention and treatment policies and procedures requires accurate assessment of use patterns in order to identify at-risk populations, an assessment that was predominantly accomplished by the present study. However, it also requires answering questions that were not examined by the current study. The following outlines the major areas of focus that are needed if TU is to take the next step in the endeavor of eliminating alcohol and drug use among its students. Because both self-reported and perceived alcohol use norms were higher for fraternity members than other student groups, it would be useful to conduct post-hoc analyses examining whether differences exist between fraternity members and other groups in the area of alcohol-related consequences. According to Cashin et al. (1998), Greek students report greater frequency of alcohol-related consequences than non-Greek students. Additionally, as discussed previously, it may be beneficial to target prevention efforts at Greek students, particularly fraternity members, to help reduce alcohol use and particularly binge drinking among this student group. After adoption of a prevention program among fraternity members, future studies could examine program effectiveness in reducing alcohol use among this student population. The finding that alcohol, marijuana, and other illicit drug use is higher among offcampus than on-campus students is particularly significant. Are students drinking at offcampus parties and then driving when returning to campus? Future research could examine demographics and causative factors for the liquor law violations, particularly moving violations, on-campus. As well, university administrators are faced with the challenge of identifying methods for deterring alcohol use off-campus. Perhaps, greater 111

use of on-campus "dry" events for students residing off-campus would be useful in reducing off-campus alcohol use. It is critical that this issue be more thoroughly examined. The finding that females report greater range of other illicit drug use, excluding marijuana, warrants further examination. Future studies, particularly with the TU population, might examine whether this trend demonstrates reliability; and if so, should identify what drugs some female students are reportedly using at rates as high as five times weekly. Survey questions could be added that help identify classifications of prescription drugs and other illicit drugs being used as well as frequency of use for various illicit substances. Prevention efforts related to other illicit drug use prevention may be more appropriately placed within female populations and focus on specific drug types. As well, future studies should focus on identifying self-reported reasons for drug use among the female population. Perhaps the added pressure of being a female student in a male dominated college and professional specialty is contributing to drug use among the female population as a coping mechanism. It is imperative that university administrators focus on gender sensitivity among the student population and utilize gender responsive prevention and treatment programming, particularly with respect to substance abuse. Differences observed between self-reported and perceived attitudes toward alcohol and other drug use as well as differences observed between self-reported and perceived attitudes toward campus rules and regulations for substance use were consistent with existing literature. This information can help guide prevention efforts by more thoroughly examining the relationship between attitudes and use patterns. 112

Identifying attitudes that predict higher use patterns could direct effective prevention curriculum. Are students aware of prevention and treatment availability on-campus? Is this information readily available online? By answering these questions, university administrators would be better equipped to meet the needs of students in the area of prevention and treatment of substance use disorders. Finally, the differences observed between pilot status groups were noteworthy. Future research examining factors influencing these differences is warranted. Is the alcohol/drug testing policy impacting student pilot decisions regarding substance use, and does this explain why they have more alcohol but less illicit drug use than current pilots? Is the random drug testing protocol of current pilots sufficient, since some pilots are reporting once weekly use of illicit drugs while abstaining from marijuana, possibly due to knowledge that marijuana metabolizes more slowly from the body system? Is the 12hour bottle-to-throttle rule being observed? By examining factors influencing use pattern differences between pilot groups, university administrators can promote and develop more effective alcohol and drug deterrence and testing policies. As indicated by research conducted at other campuses across the nation, the first step toward elimination of alcohol and drug use by college students is the accurate assessment of student use patterns and perceptions. The current study has made significant progress in accomplishing this important step. The next step is to use the information gleaned from this study to develop prevention and treatment policies and procedures that are effective and are accurately aimed toward at-risk student groups. In order to accomplish this task, it will be necessary to further investigate contributing factors of substance use among demographic groups, initiate prevention programming for 113

at-risk student populations, and evaluate effectiveness of this programming in reducing alcohol and drug use among TU students.

114

REFERENCES Armeli, S., Mohr, C., Todd, M., Maltby, N., Tennen, H., Carney, M. A., & Affleck, G. (2005). Daily evaluation of anticipated outcomes from alcohol use among college students. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 24, 767-792. Benson-Quaziena, M., Medley, M., & Secrest, W. (2004, October). Research: Philosophy. Unpublished presentation, Capella University. Benton, T., & Craib, I. (2001). Philosophy of social science: The philosophical foundations of social thought. New York: Palgrave. Bor, R., Field, G., & Scragg, P. (2002). The mental health of pilots: An overview. Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 15, 239-256. Borynski, M. L. (2003). Factors related to reductions in alcohol consumption among college students: The role of religious involvement. Current Psychology, 22(2), 138-148. Bower, B. L., & Martin, M. (1999). African American female basketball players: An examination of alcohol and drug behaviors. Journal of American College Health, 48(3), 129-133. Broman, C. (2005). Stress, race and substance use in college. College Student Journal, 39, 340-352. Carlisle, D. (2001, February). Pilots' love-hate relationship with alcohol. Business & Commercial Aviation, 88(2), 58-62. Cashin, J. R., Presley, C. A., & Meilman, P. W. (1998). Alcohol use in the Greek system: Follow the leader? Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 59, 63-70. Clapp, J. D., Reed, M. B., Holmes, M. R., Lange, J. E., & Voas, R. B. (2006). Drunk in public, drunk in private: The relationship between college students, drinking environments and alcohol consumption. American Journal of Drug & Alcohol Abuse, 32, 275-285. Coll, K. M. (1998). Effectiveness of an alcohol education program among community college students. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 22(2), 123131. Cone, J.D., & Foster, S. L. (1999). Dissertations and theses from start to finish: Psychology and related fields. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

115

Core Institute. (2005a). Core institute, measuring change, delivering results: Frequently asked questions (FAQ). Retrieved January 27, 2006, from http://www.siu.edu/ departments/coreinst/public_html/files/documents/Core%20Institute%20FAQ.doc Core Institute. (2005b). Core institute, measuring change, delivering results: Campus survey of alcohol and other drug norms. Retrieved January 27, 2006, from http:// www.siu.edu/departments/coreinst/public_html/ Core Institute. (2005c). Core institute, measuring change, delivering results: Alcohol and other drugs products and services. Retrieved January 27, 2006, from http://www. siu.edu/departments/coreinst/public_html/core_price_list.pdf Core Institute. (2005d). Core institute, measuring change, delivering results: Campus survey of alcohol and other drug norms, sample. Retrieved January 27, 2006, from http://www.siu.edu/departments/coreinst/public_html/files/survey_forms/ Campus%20Survey%20215591-1.pdf Core Institute. (2005e). Core institute, measuring change, delivering results: Validity and reliability, campus survey of alcohol and other drug norms. Retrieved January 27, 2006, from http://www.siu.edu/departments/coreinst/public_html/files/documents/ Drug%20Norms%20Reliability%202005.doc Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Donohue, B., Allen, D. N., Maurer, A., Ozols, J., & DeStefano, G. (2004). A controlled evaluation of two prevention programs in reducing alcohol use among college students at low and high risk for alcohol related problems. Journal of Alcohol & Drug Education, 48(1), 13-33. Fearnow-Kenny, M. D., Wyrick, D. L., Hansen, W. B., Dyreg, D., & Beau, D. B. (2001). Normative beliefs, expectancies, and alcohol-related problems among college students: Implications for theory and practice. Journal of Alcohol & Drug Education, 47(1), 31-44. Fiorino, F. (2002, July 8). Two America West pilots lose licenses, face prison. Aviation Week & Space Technology, 157(2), 44-45. Fournier-Bonilla, S., Von Ber, I., Tiffin, C., & Lucies, C. (2004, October). Research methods: Cultures of inquiry. Unpublished presentation, Capella University. Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Getz, J. G., & Bray, J. H. (2005). Predicting heavy alcohol use among adolescents. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75(1), 102-116. 116

Gleason, N. (1994). College women and alcohol: A relational perspective. Journal of American College Health, 42(6), 279-289. Glicken, M. D. (2003). Social research: A simple guide. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Grant, B. F., Stinson, F. S., Dawson, D. A., Chou, S. P., Ruan, J. R., & Pickering, R. P. (2006). Co-occurrence of 12-month alcohol and drug use disorders and personality disorders in the United States: Results from the national epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions. Alcohol Research & Health, 29(2), 121-130. Haberman, S. E. (1994). A survey of alcohol and other drug use practices among college students. Journal of Alcohol & Drug Education, 39(2), 85-100. Hingson, R., Heeren, T., Winter, M., & Wechsler, H. (2005). Magnitude of alcoholrelated mortality and morbidity among U.S. college students ages 18-24: Changes from 1998 to 2001. Annual Review of Public Health, 26, 259-279. Hittner, J. B. (2004). Alcohol use among American college students in relation to need for cognition and expectations of alcohol's effects on cognition. Current Psychology, 23(2), 173-187. Jennison, K. M. (2004). The short-term effects and unintended long-term consequences of binge drinking in college: A 10-year follow-up study. American Journal of Drug & Alcohol Abuse, 30, 659-684. Jones, S. E., Oeltmann, J., Wilson, T. W., Brener, N. D., & Hill, C. V. (2001). Binge drinking among undergraduate college students in the United States: Implications for other substance use. Journal of American College Health, 50(1), 33-38. Juhnke, G. A., Schroat, D. A., Cashwell, C. S., & Gmutza, B. M. (2003). A preliminary investigation of college students' alcohol consumption at two universities with limited Greek systems. Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling, 24(1), 3545. Karlin-Resnick, J. (2004, August 13). Helping students stay clean and sober. Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(49), A31-A33. Larimer, M. E., Kilmer, J. R., & Lee, C. M. (2005). College student drug prevention: A review of individually-oriented prevention strategies. Journal of Drug Issues, 35, 431-455. Leedy, P., & Ormrod, J. E. (2005). Practical research: Planning and design (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Letourneau, M., & Allen, M. (1999). Post-positivistic critical multiplism: A beginning dialogue. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 30, 623-631. 117

Lo, C. (1995). Gender differences in collegiate alcohol use. Journal of Drug Issues, 25(4), 817-836. Martens, M. P., Page, J. C., Mowry, E. S., Damann, K. M., Taylore, K. K., & Cimini, M. D. (2006). Differences between actual and perceived student norms: An examination of alcohol use, drug use, and sexual behavior. Journal of American College Health, 54, 295-300. McCabe, S. E., Schulenberg, J. E., Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Kloska, D. D. (2005, April). Selection and socialization effects of fraternities and sororities on U.S. college student substance use: A multi-cohort national longitudinal study. Addiction, 100, 512-524. Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mohler-Kuo, M., Lee, J. E., & Wechsler, H. (2003). Trends in marijuana and other illicit drug use among college students: Results from 4 Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study surveys, 1993-2001. Journal of American College Health, 52(1), 17-24. Monti, P. M., O'Leary Tevyaw, T., & Borsari, B. (2005). Drinking among young adults: Screening, brief intervention, and outcome. Alcohol Research & Health, 28, 236244. National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA). (2001). NCAA study of substance use habits of college student-athletes. Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Nicklin, J. L. (2000, June 9). Arrests at colleges surge for alcohol and drug violations. Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(40), A48-A50. Nicklin, J. L. (2002, February 1). Drug and alcohol arrests increased on-campuses in 2000. Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(21), A32-A34. Novak, K. B., & Crawford, L. A. (2001). Perceived drinking norms, attention to social comparison information, and alcohol use among college students. Journal of Alcohol & Drug Education, 46(3), 18-33. Online survey of college students reveals extent of alcohol use. (2003, March 3). Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly, 15(9), 5.

118

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. Petros, T., Bridewell, J., Jensen, W., Ferraro, F. R., Bates, J., Moulton, P., et al. (2003). Postintoxication effects of alcohol on flight performance after moderate and high blood alcohol levels. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 13, 287-300. Presley, C.A., Harrold, R., Scouten, E., Lyerla, R., & Meilman, P. W. (1993). Core alcohol and drug survey user's manual (4th ed.). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University. Presley, C. A., & Meilman, P. W. (1994). Development of the core alcohol and drug survey: Initial findings and future decisions. Journal of American College Health, 42, 248-255. Sande, A. (2002). Intoxication and rite of passage to adulthood in Norway. Contemporary Drug Problems, 29, 277-303. The scope of the problem. (2005). Alcohol Research & Health, 28(3), 111-120. Sheffield, F. D., Darkes, J., Del Boca, F. K., & Goldman, M. S. (2005). Binge drinking and alcohol-related problems among community college students: Implications for prevention policy. Journal of American College Health, 54(3), 137-141. Shillington, A., & Clapp, J. (2001, April). Substance use problems reported by college students: Combined marijuana and alcohol use versus alcohol-only use. Substance Use & Misuse, 36, 663-672. Simons, J. S., & Gaher, R. M. (2004). Attitudes toward alcohol and drug-free experience among college students: Relationships with alcohol consumption and problems. American Journal of Drug & Alcohol Abuse, 30, 461-471. Strano, D. A., Cuomo, M. J., & Venable, R. H. (2004). Predictors of undergraduate student binge drinking. Journal of College Counseling, 7(1), 50-63. Sullivan, T. N., Kung, E. M., & Farrell, A. D. (2004). Relation between witnessing violence and drug use initiation among rural adolescents: Parental monitoring and family support as protective factors. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 488-498. Syre, T. R., & Martino-McAllister, J. M. (1997). Alcohol and other drug use at a university in the Southeastern United States: Survey findings and implications. College Student Journal, 31, 373-381. The University. (2003). Student handbook: Substance abuse. Retrieved January 26, 2006, from http://www.xxx.pdf 119

The University. (2005a). About The University: The best aviation and aerospace university in the world. Retrieved January 26, 2006, from http://www.xxx.html The University. (2005b). The University campus safety: Crime statistics report. Retrieved January 26, 2006, from http://www.xxx.html The University. (2005c). The University facts and figures: Fall 2005 residential campus enrollment. Retrieved January 26, 2006, from http://www.xxx.html Turrisi, R., Mallett, K. A., Mastroleo, N. R., & Larimer, M. E. (2006). Heavy drinking in college students: Who is at risk and what is being done about it? The Journal of General Psychology, 133(4), 401-420. Usdan, S. L., Moore, C. G., Schumacher, J. E., & Talbott, L. L. (2005). Drinking locations prior to impaired driving among college students: Implications for prevention. Journal of American College Health, 54(2), 69-75. Watson, J. (1995). Postmodernism and knowledge development in nursing. Nursing Science Quarterly, 8(2), 60-65. Wechsler, H., Lee, J. E., Kuo, M., Seibring, M., Nelson, T. F., & Lee, H. (2002). Trends in college binge drinking during a period of increased prevention efforts. Journal of American College Health, 50, 203-217. Wechsler, H., Lee, J. E., Nelson, T. F., & Kuo, M. (2002). Underage college students' drinking behavior, access to alcohol, and the influence of deterrence policies. Journal of American College Health, 50(5), 223-235. Wechlser, H., & Kuo, M. (2000). College students define binge drinking and estimaste its prevalence: Results of a national survey. College Health, 49, 57-64. Weinbach, R. W., & Grinnell, Jr., R. M. (2004). Statistics for social workers (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education. White, H., & Jackson, K. (2005). Social and psychological influences on emerging adult drinking behavior. Alcohol Research & Health, 28(4), 182-190. White, A. M., Jamieson-Drake, D. W., & Swartzwelder, H. S. (2002). Prevalence and correlates of alcohol-induced blackouts among college students: Results of an email survey. Journal of American College Health, 51(3), 117-132. White, H. R., Labouvie, E. W., & Papadaratsakis, V. (2005). Changes in substance use during the transition to adulthood: A comparison of college students and their noncollege age peers. Journal of Drug Issues, 35, 281-305.

120

Williams, J. E., Newby, R. G., & Kanitz, H. E. (1993). Assessing the need for alcohol abuse programs for African-American college students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling & Development, 21(3), 155-167. Windle, M. (2003). Alcohol use among adolescents and young adults. Alcohol Research & Health, 27(1), 79-85. Wright, S. W., Norton, V. C., Dake, A. D., Pinkston, J. R., & Slovis, C. M. (1998, October). Alcohol on-campus: Alcohol-related emergencies in undergraduate college students. Southern Medical Journal, 91, 909-913. Ziernelis, A., Bucknam, R. B., & Elfessi, A. M. (2002). Prevention efforts underlying decreases in binge drinking at institutions of higher education. Journal of American College Health, 50, 238-252.

121

APPENDIX A FOR ADDITIONAL USE CSAD SUPPLEMENT SURVEY QUESTIONS 27. Choose the option that best represents your current flight status at TU: Current pilot who flies on-campus (i.e., for TU purposes) Current pilot who flies off-campus (i.e., for private industry purposes) Current pilot who flies both on and off-campus (i.e., for TU and private industry purposes) Pilot-in-training Not a pilot and not training as a pilot 28. Indicate the college(s) for your major of study (You may choose all that apply): College of Aviation College of Business College of Arts and Sciences College of Engineering College Undecided 29. How often have you experienced alcohol-related legal consequences (e.g., driving under the influence, arrest)? Never 1 time ever 2 times ever 3 times ever More than 3 times ever 30. How often have you experienced alcohol-related relationship consequences (e.g., conflict with friend(s) and/or significant other(s))? Never 1 time ever 2 times ever 3 times ever More than 3 times ever 31. How often have you experienced alcohol-related family consequences (e.g., conflict with a family member)? Never 1 time ever 2 times ever 3 times ever More than 3 times ever

122

32. How often have you experienced alcohol-related financial consequences (e.g., loss of significant amount of money)? Never 1 time ever 2 times ever 3 times ever More than 3 times ever 33. How often have you experienced alcohol-related employment consequences (e.g., loss of work time, job placement)? Never 1 time ever 2 times ever 3 times ever More than 3 times ever 34. How often have you experienced alcohol-related educational consequences (e.g., falling grade(s), poor attendance, academic probation)? Never 1 time ever 2 times ever 3 times ever More than 3 times ever 35. How often have you experienced marijuana-related legal consequences (e.g., possession, arrest)? Never 1 time ever 2 times ever 3 times ever More than 3 times ever 36. How often have you experienced marijuana-related relationship consequences (e.g., conflict with friend(s) and/or significant other(s))? Never 1 time ever 2 times ever 3 times ever More than 3 times ever

123

37. How often have you experienced marijuana-related family consequences (e.g., conflict with a family member)? Never 1 time ever 2 times ever 3 times ever More than 3 times ever 38. How often have you experienced marijuana-related financial consequences (e.g., loss of significant amount of money)? Never 1 time ever 2 times ever 3 times ever More than 3 times ever 39. How often have you experienced marijuana-related employment consequences (e.g., loss of work time, job placement)? Never 1 time ever 2 times ever 3 times ever More than 3 times ever 40. How often have you experienced marijuana-related educational consequences (e.g., falling grade(s), poor attendance, academic probation)? Never 1 time ever 2 times ever 3 times ever More than 3 times ever 41. How often have you experienced legal consequences (e.g., possession, arrest) related to use of any illicit drug other than marijuana)? Never 1 time ever 2 times ever 3 times ever More than 3 times ever

124

42. How often have you experienced relationship consequences (e.g., conflict with friend(s) and/or significant other(s)) related to use of any illicit drug other than marijuana)? Never 1 time ever 2 times ever 3 times ever More than 3 times ever 43. How often have you experienced family consequences (e.g., conflict with a family member) related to use of any illicit drug other than marijuana)? Never 1 time ever 2 times ever 3 times ever More than 3 times ever

44. How often have you experienced financial consequences (e.g., loss of significant amount of money) related to use of any illicit drug other than marijuana)? Never 1 time ever 2 times ever 3 times ever More than 3 times ever 45. How often have you experienced employment consequences (e.g., loss of work time, job placement) related to use of any illicit drug other than marijuana)? Never 1 time ever 2 times ever 3 times ever More than 3 times ever 46. How often have you experienced educational consequences (e.g., falling grade(s), poor attendance, academic probation) related to use of any illicit drug other than marijuana)? Never 1 time ever 2 times ever 3 times ever More than 3 times ever

125