THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ALCOHOL AWARENESS, ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION

AND NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES

Candace Small

A Thesis Submitted to the University of North Carolina Wilmington in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Arts

Department of Psychology

University of North Carolina Wilmington

2010

Approved by

Advisory Committee

__Nora Noel Sally MacKain ___

_Richard Ogle Chair

Accepted by

Dean, Graduate School

  

ii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................................... iii 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................ iv 

DEDICATION .................................................................................................................................................. v 

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................. vi 

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 

METHOD ...................................................................................................................................................... 10 

Participants ........................................................................................................................................... 10 

Measures .............................................................................................................................................. 12 

Procedure.............................................................................................................................................. 14 

RESULTS ...................................................................................................................................................... 15 

DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................................. 18 

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 29 

APPENDIX A. ................................................................................................................................................ 32 

 

  

iii 

ABSTRACT

Alcohol is one of the most widely used and abused drugs among Americans. When used

irresponsibly, alcohol has the potential to cause numerous and severe consequences. Treatment

and prevention programs often assume that increased alcohol-related knowledge should

minimize excessive use and negative consequences. This study examined the relationship

between alcohol knowledge, quantity and frequency of alcohol use, and alcohol-related negative

consequences in three groups of people: a sample of undergraduate college students, a

community sample, and a sample of high-risk drinkers. My hypotheses were that individuals

who scored lower on an alcohol awareness measure would drink more and more frequently than

those who scored higher and individuals who scored lower on an alcohol awareness measure

would have suffered more alcohol-related negative consequences than those who scored higher.

Neither hypothesis was supported. In fact, for the undergraduate sample results supported the

opposite: those who had higher alcohol awareness drank more and suffered more consequences.

Other significant results, implications, and limitations were discussed.

  

iv 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost I would like to thank my mentor, Dr. Richard Ogle for his faith in my

abilities, his constant words of encouragement, and his ability to offer guidance while still

allowing me my independence.

I am also very grateful for all the support I have received from my family, my husband,

and my in-laws, who have all shared in the anxieties and joys of my accomplishments.

Finally, thanks also goes out to my committee for their patience, counsel, and inspiration.

  

v 

DEDICATION

I would like to dedicate this thesis to my brother, Justin Haney, who taught me to stay

strong and never give up, even in the face of extreme adversity.

  

vi 

LIST OF TABLES Table Page

1. Between Samples Comparison – Means and Standard Deviations .......................................... 24

2. Correlations between AAQ Score and QFI, DRINC, AEQ, and SCL-90 – College ................ 25

3. Correlations between AAQ Score and QFI, DRINC, AEQ, and SCL-90 – DMV ................... 26

4. Correlations between AAQ Score and QFI, DRINC, AEQ, and SCL-90 – DWI .................... 27

5. Stepwise Linear Regression ...................................................................................................... 28 

 

  

INTRODUCTION

A recent nationwide survey conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health

Services Administration (SAMHSA) indicated that 82.3% of the US population, ages 12 and

older, have consumed alcohol in their lifetime, 65.7% in the past year, and 51.1% in the past

month. This survey also revealed that over 31 million Americans drove under the influence of

alcohol in the past year and approximately 8.5 million Americans suffered from alcohol

dependence. What was even more compelling about this survey was that 7.5% of the entire

population (over 18.5 million people) met criteria for alcohol dependence or abuse. Of these

individuals, over 18% were below the legal drinking age of 21. This number may not sound very

large, but it translates into approximately 3.5 million alcohol-abusing or alcohol-addicted

teenagers (Office of Applied Studies, 2008).

Even outside of the context of a diagnosable condition such as alcohol dependence or

abuse, the impact of alcohol related consequences is a significant public health problem that

impacts a number of different demographics – especially college students (Ham and Hope,

2003). A study done by Hansen, Fearnow-Kenny, Wyrick, Dyreg, and Beau (2001) identified

several alcohol-related negative consequences experienced by a sample of college students. In

this study, students reported problems such as nausea/vomiting or feeling tired, memory loss,

feeling sad or blue, physical injury, feeling nervousness or irritability, having unplanned or

unprotected sex, getting into physical fights, having interpersonal problems, having problems at

work or school, hurting another person, spending too much money, driving after drinking,

engaging in illegal activities, problems with appetite, problems with sleep, and having regrets

about something they did while drinking. Of these, the most commonly reported were

nausea/vomiting or feeling tired, feeling sad or blue, and spending too much money (Hansen,

  

2 

Fearnow-Kenny, Wyrick, Dyreg, and Beau, 2001). In a similar study, the consequences most

often reported by students were having a hangover, being sick or vomiting after drinking, and

experiencing blackouts. Other consequences reported were becoming rude, obnoxious or

insulting, engaging in sexual experiences that were later regretted, driving after drinking, getting

into physical fights, and damaging property (Lee, Geisner, Patrick, and Neighbors, 2010). An

alarming part of this study was that most students perceived these consequences as relatively

benign even though some of them have the potential for severe legal ramifications and some

represent symptoms of potentially fatal effects of alcohol on the body.

During a drinking episode, individuals are likely to experience more than one negative

consequence (Usdan, Martin, Mays, Cremeens, Weitzel, and Bernhardt, 2008). One study found

that over half of participants reported experiencing multiple adverse consequences on one

drinking occasion. Participants in the same study reported that even positive consequences of

drinking (e.g. feeling good, having a good time, etc) were often accompanied by one or more

negative consequences (Usdan, Martin, Mays, Cremeens, Weitzel, and Bernhardt, 2008).

The above mentioned studies demonstrate that alcohol is a widely used and widely

abused drug, and has the potential to cause numerous and sometimes serious consequences.

However, not everyone who drinks experiences adverse consequences. Some studies suggest that

the amount of alcohol consumed may have an effect on the quantity and/or frequency of

consequences experienced. Neal and Carey (2007) found that the more alcohol an individual

drinks, the more likely they are to experience negative consequences. More specifically, they

found that for every 0.01 increase in an individual’s blood alcohol concentration, the odds of

experiencing an adverse consequence went up by 1.15. Another study found that “risky single-

occasion drinking” (i.e. 5 drinks or more on one occasion) resulted in more legal problems,

  

3 

accidents, fights, and immediate health problems (e.g. headaches, sickness, blackouts) than

drinking the same amount of alcohol over a longer time period. In other words, individuals who

drink larger amounts of alcohol at one time experience more negative consequences (Kuntsche,

Plant, Plant, Miller, and Gmel, 2008).

Studies have shown that individuals who binge drink are more likely to report negative

consequences than drinkers who do not binge drink (Sheffield, Darkes, Del Boca, and Goldman,

2005). Researchers have defined binge drinking as having five or more drinks for a male or four

or more drinks for a female during one drinking episode (Wechsler, Dowdall, Davenport, and

Rimm, 1995). Binge drinking has been linked to many short-term as well as long-term negative

outcomes including most of the consequences listed in the previous studies (Jennison, 2004;

Wechsler and Nelson, 2001) as well as the development of depressive symptoms (Paljärvi,

Koskenvuo, Poikolainen, Kauhanen, Sillanmäki, and Mäkelä, 2009), use of other substances

such as tobacco, marijuana, cocaine and other illicit drugs (Jones, Oeltmann, Wilson, Brener, and

Hill, 2001), and development of alcohol abuse and dependence (Jennison, 2004).

An important question to ask is why do some people drink more than others and suffer

more negative consequences from alcohol use? The answer is likely multi-factorial, but could, in

part, be lack of knowledge. The relationship between alcohol-related knowledge and alcohol

involvement has been examined in a small number of studies. Gonzalez and Broughton (1994)

conducted a study proposing a relationship between alcohol knowledge and alcohol

consumption. They compared two national samples of college students to examine the changes

that occurred in alcohol knowledge and consumption over a decade. In 1981 and again in 1991,

researchers recruited a sample of college students who visited Daytona Beach, Florida for spring

break. Using an exhibit booth at a College Expo event called “The BACCHUS College of

  

4 

Alcohol Knowledge,” they were able to administer a short 10-item true/false knowledge

questionnaire to 1,881 students in 1981 and 1,487 students in 1991. Results showed that the

percentage of drinkers significantly decreased over the decade. Also, the percentage of light

drinkers significantly increased, whereas the percentage of moderate and heavy drinkers

significantly decreased. Finally, they found that the alcohol knowledge score significantly

increased from 1981 to 1991 (Gonzalez and Broughton, 1994). These results suggest that

knowledge about alcohol may in fact influence drinking patterns.

In another study on alcohol-related knowledge, researchers examined the relationship

between drinking behaviors and alcohol knowledge among a group of college students at a small

private university in the Southeast. They administered the Student Alcohol Questionnaire (SAQ)

to a group of 129 undergraduates and found that alcohol knowledge was inadequate in that only

41% of the participants answered less than 50% of the items on the knowledge questionnaire

correctly. They also found that more than half of the students reported engaging in binge

drinking. In this study, the most frequently reported negative consequences of drinking were

hangover and vomiting (Coll, Draves, and Major, 2008). The results of these studies taken as a

whole suggest that great knowledge may reduce consequential alcohol consumption.

Given the extensive scope of alcohol use, misuse, and related consequences, many

organizations have turned to alcohol education as a method of prevention with the hope that

increasing alcohol-related knowledge will lower the number of consequences experienced by

individuals. Several college campuses now require students to complete alcohol education

courses as a method of primary as well as secondary prevention. A study by Borsari and Carey

(2005) utilized students who had committed a violation of a school alcohol policy and were

referred for further education. Participants were divided into two groups: an Alcohol Education

  

5 

(AE) group and a Brief Motivational Intervention (BMI) group. Participants in the AE group

were taught information common to many alcohol education programs in the US including topics

such as BAC and tolerance, normative quantity and frequency of drinking, alcohol-related

problems, alcohol expectancies, and the influence of setting and expectancy on drinking.

Participants in the BMI group were taught the same information, but were also exposed to

motivational interviewing and the harm reduction model. Data analysis revealed that both groups

decreased alcohol consumption following the programs. Both groups also showed a decrease in

alcohol-related problems following the programs, although the BMI group showed a greater

decrease than the AE group. These effects were maintained as shown by a 3-month as well as a

6-month follow-up. Although the BMI group decreased alcohol-related problems more than the

AE group, what is important is that both groups decreased alcohol consumption and related

problems (Borsari and Carey, 2005). These results indicate that knowledge alone may be enough

to change drinking patterns and behavior.

Web- and computer-based programs have become an effective way for college

administrators to reach large numbers of students, thus these programs are beginning to be

utilized for alcohol education and harm prevention. One such program is College Alc. College

Alc is an internet-based alcohol education course that delivers to students current research

findings regarding college alcohol use and drinking norms, consequences, harm prevention

strategies, and treatment options in the form of graphics, interactive animations, readings,

quizzes, and video clips. A study aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of this program for

incoming freshmen at a public university in Northern California found that the program helped to

reduce the frequency of heavy drinking and negative consequences among students who were

regular drinkers before beginning their college career (Bersamin, Paschall, Fearnow-Kenney, and

  

6 

Wyrick, 2007). Other web- or computer-based alcohol education programs that have proven to

be potentially effective methods of prevention include Alcohol 101 (Donohue, Allen, Maurer,

Ozols, and DeStefano, 2004) and MyStudentBody.com:Alcohol (Chiauzzi, Green, Lord, Thum,

and Goldstein, 2005).

In North Carolina, and in many other states in the US, substance abuse treatment

programs have become a mandatory task for those convicted of a driving while impaired (DWI)

offense in order to prevent recidivism. Most of these programs require some alcohol education

component (Dill and Wells-Parker, 2006). In 1997, a study was done in California to assess the

effectiveness of three types of outpatient alcohol education and treatment programs for people

convicted of driving under the influence (DUI). The first type was a 3-month program for first-

time offenders and consisted of a minimum of 10 hours of education, 10 hours of counseling, and

10 hours of education/counseling. The second program was for individuals convicted of a second

DUI within 7 years of receiving their first conviction. This program lasted 18 months and

required at least 12 hours of education and 52 hours of counseling. The third and final program

was for offenders with 3 or more DUI convictions within a 7-year period. It had a duration of 30

months and consisted of 18 hours of education, 117 hours of counseling, and 120-300 hours of

community service. The study consisted of a sample of 88,552 offenders in the 3-month

program, 27,293 offenders in the 18-month program, and 32,787 offenders in the 30-month

program. In all three programs, treatment proved to not only be an effective method of reducing

DUI recidivism, but proved to be more effective than license revocation alone (Deyoung, 1997).

Up until 2009, the treatment program for DWI offenders in North Carolina was Alcohol

and Drug Education Traffic School (ADETS). In 2009, a new educational program called

PRIME for Life was mandated to replace ADETS. PRIME for Life is designed to alter attitudes

  

7 

toward drinking and drug use, increase abstinence, and reduce high-risk drinking and drug use

(Prevention research institute, 2008). A study by Knighton (2002) aimed to assess the

effectiveness of PRIME for Life. Participants were given a survey before and after completing

the program. Results revealed that after completing PRIME for Life, participants were better able

to identify who is at risk for developing alcoholism, held fewer risky beliefs associated with

high-risk drinking, and increased individual consciousness of risk for developing alcoholism

(Knighton, 2002). It is unknown as to whether this increased awareness was related to changes in

drinking; however, from this study and those cited above, there is reason to believe that

increased knowledge reduced negative consequences. It must be noted though that most of these

studies are conducted on college students or people arrested for DUI – little data exists on

community samples.

The purpose of this study will be to examine the relationship between alcohol awareness,

alcohol consumption and alcohol-related negative consequences. Many previous studies in this

area have tended to focus exclusively on college students, and for good reason. College students

in general seem to be notorious for drinking, drinking in large amounts, and experiencing an

abundance of alcohol-related negative consequences. In fact, one nationwide study estimates that

at least 1,700 college students are killed unintentionally and an additional 600,000 are injured

because of alcohol each year (Hingson, Heeren, Winter, and Wechsler, 2005). Several factors

may contribute to students’ high-risk drinking patterns. First of all, many colleges have a Greek

system (i.e. fraternities and sororities). On average, members of the Greek system drink more

often, drink in greater amounts, and engage in more risky behaviors than non-Greek students

(Scott-Shelden, Carey, and Carey, 2008). Also, many students reach the legal drinking age of 21

while in college. Lewis, Lindgren, Fossos, Neighbors, and Oster-Aaland (2009) found that

  

8 

students in their study reported heavier drinking on the week of their 21st birthday and 60% of

those students reported experiencing alcohol-related negative consequences during that week

(most of which were hangovers, vomiting, and blackouts). College sporting events tend to

increase alcohol consumption among students. One study found that over half of participants

drank on days when there were football games at the university, and a significant percentage of

those students drank more alcohol for longer periods of time and experienced more adverse

consequences than on other drinking days (Glassman, Dodd, Sheu, Rienzo, and Wagenaar,

2010). Finally, school holidays such as Spring Break tend to cause increased drinking and related

consequences for college students. Lee, Lewis, and Neighbors (2009) found that approximately

70% of participants in their study drank during Spring Break and almost 40% of those students

experienced negative alcohol-related consequences of some sort during that time. Because

college students are a high-risk group, I included a sample of undergraduate college students in

my study.

Although college students are a high-risk group, it is important consider a broader sample

of the population when assessing alcohol knowledge and drinking behavior because there are

many other high-risk groups that do not fall into the category of college student. For example,

Donnelly, Mowery, and McCarver (1998) found that substance abuse knowledge was extremely

limited among a group of inner-city, African-American, postpartum mothers with known

substance use during pregnancy. Not only are the mothers in this group high-risk, but as their

children grow into adolescence, they might be as well. Other high-risk groups prevalent in the

general community may include military personnel (Stahre, Brewer, Fonseca, and Naimi, 2009)

and individuals with psychological disorders such as Depression (Conner, Pinquart, and Gamble,

  

9 

2009), Bipolar I and II (Chengappa, Levine, Gershon, and Kupfer, 2000), and Schizophrenia (Drake

and Mueser, 2002).

It is also important to assess alcohol awareness of the general public because even if

being uneducated about substances doesn’t contribute to personal substance use problems,

individuals with inadequate knowledge may not recognize substance use problems in others

when attention to the problem is severely needed. Griffiths, Stone, Tran, Fernandez, and Ford

(2007) assessed alcohol knowledge in a sample of hospital nurses. Results revealed that nurses

were generally ignorant about the recommended maximum daily consumption of alcohol, the

signs and symptoms of alcohol dependence, and signs and symptoms of alcohol withdrawal and

overdose. Most of the nurses in the sample disclosed that they did not feel competent to care for

someone with alcohol-related problems. These findings are especially troubling considering the

high number of medical problems and hospital admissions that are due to alcohol use (Griffiths

et al, 2007).

This study aimed to examine the relationship between alcohol knowledge, quantity and

frequency of alcohol use, and alcohol-related negative consequences in a sample of

undergraduate college students as well as a sample of high-risk drinkers and a sample of the

general public. This is an extension of prior studies in that multiple domains of alcohol

knowledge were assessed and the three different groups were compared in a single study.

Possible moderators of this relationship including impulsivity, psychopathology, and alcohol

expectancies were examined. It is important to note that the purpose of this study is not to

evaluate prevention programs, but rather to gain a better understanding of the relationship

between knowledge and consequences. My hypotheses were 1) individuals who score lower on

an alcohol awareness measure will drink more and more frequently than those who score higher

  

10 

and 2) individuals who score lower on an alcohol awareness measure will have suffered more

alcohol-related negative consequences than those who score higher.

METHOD

Participants

Participants were recruited from three locations. The first group (64% of the overall

sample) consisted of 380 undergraduate students enrolled in psychology courses at the

University of North Carolina at Wilmington. These students were recruited using an online sign-

up system for psychology studies at the university. Within this sample, 63% (n=240) of

participants were female and 37% (n=140) were male. The age of participants in this group

ranged from 18 to 48, with an average age of 19.5 years (SD=2.34). Regarding race, 83.2%

(n=316) were Caucasian, 4.2% (n=16) were African American, 3.4% (n=13) were Hispanic,

1.6% (n=6) were Native American, 2.6% (n=10) were Asian, 4.5% (n=17) were Bi-racial/Multi-

racial, and 0.5% (n=2) identified with “Other.” All participants in this sample had completed at

least 12 years of education with the most years completed being 18 and the average being 13.5

(SD=1.31).

The second group (21% of the overall sample) was a community sample of 123

individuals which were recruited through the local Department of Motor Vehicles. I chose to

recruit participants at the DMV because it provides a more representative sample of the

community and it is a place where individuals will have ample time to fill out questionnaires as

they wait in line. The participants in this sample consisted of 62% (n=76) females and 38%

(n=47) males. The ages were widely varied with a range of 18 to 88 years of age and an average

of 37.5 years (SD=15.39). Regarding race, 78.5% (n=95) were Caucasian, 13.2% (n=16) were

African American, 5.8% (n=7) were Hispanic, 0.8% (n=1) were Native American, 0.8% (n=1)

  

11 

were Asian, and 0.8% (n=1) identified with “Other.” The number of years of education

completed reported by participants in this group ranged from 7 to 19 years, with an average of

14.4 years (SD=2.40).

The third group (15% of the overall sample) consisted of 87 DWI offenders enrolled in

the PRIME for Life program at a local substance abuse treatment center. In order to qualify for

this program, the individual must have been a first-time DWI offender who proved to have a

blood alcohol content of 0.14 or less at the time of their offense, and did not meet criteria for

substance abuse or dependence. Within this sample, 31% (n=27) of participants were female and

69% (n=60) were male. Ages ranged from 18 to 57 years, with an average of 31.3 years

(SD=9.14). Regarding race, 95.3% (n=82) were Caucasian, 1.2% (n=1) were African American,

1.2% (n=1) were Native American, 1.2% (n=1) were Asian, and 1.2% (n=1) identified with

“Other.” The number of years of education reported by participants varied greatly in this group,

ranging from 8 to 22 years, with an average of 14 years (SD=2.19).

The combined sample included 590 participants. Fifty-eight percent (n=343) of the

participants were female and 42% (n=247) male. Ages ranged from 18 to 88 years, with an

average of 25 years (SD=11.05). Regarding race, 84% (n=493) were Caucasian, 5.6% (n=33)

were African American, 3.4% (n=20) were Hispanic, 1.4% (n=8) were Native American, 2%

(n=12) were Asian, 2.9% (n=17) were Bi-racial/Multi-racial, and 0.7% (n=4) identified with

“Other.” The number of years of education in the overall sample ranged from 7 to 22, with an

average of 13.7 years (SD=1.76).

There were significant differences between groups regarding age (F(2, 573)=264.47,

p

  

12 

group was significantly older than the UNCW and DWI groups. Concerning education, the

UNCW group had significantly less years of education than both the DWI and DMV groups;

however, there was no significant difference for years of education between the DWI and DMV

groups. It appears that the main differences in race between groups were due to the substantially

higher number of Caucasians in the DWI group and African Americans in the DMV group.

Measures

Each participant completed a battery of questionnaires including a measure for

demographics, quantity and frequency of alcohol use, alcohol expectancies, impulsivity,

psychopathology, alcohol-related negative consequences, and alcohol knowledge.

Demographics Questionnaire. This questionnaire determines general demographics such as race,

age, sex, level of education, and relationship status.

Quantity and Frequency Index (QFI; Cahalan and Cisin, 1968). This questionnaire assesses

alcohol usage occurring in the last 90 days preceding the individual’s participation in the study.

Specifically, it inquires about such variables as total number of days when alcohol was

consumed, average number of drinks per day, and the most amount of alcohol consumed in one

occasion.

Drinkers Inventory of Consequences Lifetime Version (DRINC-2L; Miller, Tonigan, and

Longabaugh, 1995). This self-report measure provides 50 items meant to assess negative

consequences the individual has experienced from drinking at any point over their lifetime. The

five subscales scored are physical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, social responsibility and impulse

control. There is also a sum total score. Example items include, ““I have missed days at work or

school because of my drinking” and “I have gotten into a physical fight while drinking.”

  

13 

Reliability of this measure ranges from 0.72 to 0.87 for all of the subscales and the sum total

score.

Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire (AEQ; George, Frone, Cooper, Russell, Skinner, and Windle,

1995). This self-report measure includes 40 true/false items meant to assess the individuals

beliefs about the effects alcohol has on them. It divides into eight scales including global

positive, power and aggression, social and physical pleasure, sexual enhancement, careless

unconcern, cognitive and physical impairment, social expressiveness and tension reduction.

Example items include, “Alcohol makes me feel closer to people” and “Drinking increases male

aggressiveness.” Reliability for all of the scales is good, ranging from 0.83 to 0.92.

UPPS Impulsivity Inventory (UPPS; Whiteside and Lynam 2001). This questionnaire is a 46-

item self-report measure used to assess four specific personality pathways to impulsive behavior.

The four pathways include sensation-seeking, urgency, lack of premeditation, and lack of

perseverance. Sensation-seeking refers to an individual’s preference for excitement and

stimulation, as well as their openness to new experiences. Urgency measures an individual’s

tendency to give in to strong impulses when under the influence of negative affects such as

depression, anxiety, and anger. Lack of premeditation refers to the individual’s ability to think

through the consequences of a behavior before acting. Lack of perseverance measures an

individual’s ability to complete tasks despite boredom, difficulty, or fatigue. All four scales show

good reliability ranging from 0.83 to 0.89.

Symptom Checklist 90-Revised (SCL-90R; Derogatis, 1994). This instrument is a 90-item self-

report measure used to evaluate a broad range of psychological problems and symptoms of

psychopathology. It scores into 10 subscales including somatization, obsessive-compulsive,

interpersonal sensitivity, depression, anxiety, hostility, phobic anxiety, paranoid ideation,

  

14 

psychoticism, and a global severity index. The subscales all have good reliability, ranging from

0.75 to 0.90.

Student Alcohol Questionnaire (SAQ; Engs, 1975). The original Student Alcohol Questionnaire

is a 70-item self-report measure that breaks down into four subscales: Quantity/Frequency

Patterns, Problems Resulting from Drinking, Knowledge of Alcohol and Attitudes Toward

Drinking. We decided to use different, more in depth measures for quantity/frequency, problems

resulting from drinking, and attitudes toward drinking, therefore, the only part of the SAQ

included in this study is the Knowledge of Alcohol subscale. The Knowledge of Alcohol

subscale consists of 35 questions to which the participant may answer “true”, “false”, or “do not

know.” Example items include, “Alcohol is usually classified as a stimulant” and “Liquor mixed

with soda pop will affect you faster than liquor drunk straight.” This subscale has good reliability

at 0.85. We divided the questions into 8 further subscales including pharmacology, drinking

norms, composition of alcoholic beverages, risks/consequences of alcohol use,

classifications/definitions, history of alcohol, alcohol addiction/abuse, and treatment of alcohol

addiction. In order to adequately measure each of these subscales of knowledge, we added 25

true/false questions to the questionnaire. The added questions were obtained from empirically

validated information found in the PRIME for Life instruction manual and participant

workbooks.

Procedure

The undergraduate student participants signed up for the study online through the

university’s website using a system called SONA. When they showed up to the site of the study

on the date and time that they registered for, they were given an informed consent form and

  

15 

administered the battery of questionnaires. Upon completion, they were assigned credit for

participation through the SONA system.

For the community sample (DMV sample), individuals were asked to participate as they

wait in line for their number to be called. Those who agreed to participate were given the

informed consent and then the battery of questionnaires.

As mentioned before, our last sample of participants was recruited from a local substance

abuse treatment center. Participants in the Prime for Life program were asked to participate in

the study as they waited for group to begin on their first day. Those who volunteered were then

administered an informed consent and then a questionnaire battery.

RESULTS

Concerning alcohol consumption, only 16% (n=97) of participants reported abstention

from any alcohol in the past 90 days, and only 4% (n=26) reported never having had a drink in

their lifetime. The average number of drinking days in the past 90 days was 24.4 (SD=21.5). The

average number of drinks on a typical weekday was 2.96 (SD=4.17) and on a typical weekend

day was 6.34 (SD=4.65). The largest number of drinks consumed in a 24-hour period ranged

from 0 to 52, with an average of 9.91 (SD=7.10). There were significant differences between

groups regarding the average number of drinks consumed on a typical weekend day

(F(2,442)=14.31, p

  

16 

reported drinking 20 or more drinks on one occasion. Approximately 4% (n=24) of the total

sample reported that they currently had an alcohol or drug problem and 12% (n=69) reported

having a past problem with alcohol or drugs. Over 7% (n=42) of participants reported that they

had attended a self-help group for themselves and 7% (n=42) reported that they had received

some type of treatment for alcohol or drugs. Table 1 displays differences between groups

regarding alcohol consumption.

The consequences most frequently endorsed by participants were having a hangover after

drinking (84.6%), being sick or vomiting after drinking (73.9%), saying or doing embarrassing

things while drinking (71.8%), and taking foolish risks while drinking (61.3%). Others that were

endorsed at a disturbing rate were “When drinking, I have done impulsive things that I regretted

later” (54.8%), I have gotten into trouble because of drinking. (47.7%), I have driven a motor

vehicle after having three or more drinks” (47.1%), “I have smoked tobacco more when I am

drinking” (43.7%), I have had an unwanted sexual experience while drinking or intoxicated”

(28%), “While drinking or intoxicated, I have been physically hurt, injured, or burned” (27.3%).

Consequences endorsed least often included losing a marriage or close love relationship because

of drinking (3%), not being a good parent because of drinking (3%), and being suspended/fired

from a job/school because of drinking (3.5%). Total score on the DRINC-2L ranged from 0 to 45

(out of a possible 50), with an average of 11.59 (SD=8.83). There were significant differences

between groups on total consequences (F(2, 574)=10.00, p

  

17 

There were no significant differences for reported consequences between the college and DMV

groups. Table 1 displays differences between groups regarding negative consequences.

Regarding alcohol knowledge, 41% of the overall sample answered less than 50% of the

questions correctly. Number of questions answered correctly ranged from 6 to 53 (out of 60 total

questions), with an average of 31 (SD=7.86). Regarding the eight subscales, participants scored

higher on the Addiction/Abuse scale than all other scales with an average of 58% correct, and the

Risks/Consequences scale with an average of 57% correct. Participants scored lowest on the

Classifications scale with an average of 47% correct and the Treatment scale with an average of

48% correct. There were no significant differences between groups on overall alcohol

knowledge. However, there were significant differences between groups on many of the

subscales including Pharmacology (F(2, 587)=6.68, p

  

18 

negatively correlated with several AEQ subscales including global positive (r=-0.10, p

  

19 

groups of individuals: a sample of college students, a sample of the general public (DMV), and a

sample of high-risk drinkers (DWI). Regarding alcohol consumption, over half of the total

sample reported binge drinking in the past 90 days, with many participants reporting drinking 15

or more drinks on one occasion and several others reporting drinking 20 or more drinks on one

occasion. These numbers are concerning for many reasons. First of all, binge drinking to this

extreme consuming could indicate a raised tolerance which is a symptom of alcohol dependence.

Second, consuming too much alcohol on one occasion can lead to overdose and/or death.

The college sample tended to drink in higher quantities than both the DMV and DWI

samples, yet the DWI sample (i.e. the sample of high-risk drinkers) reported experiencing a

greater number of consequences than both the college and DMV samples. Having a hangover

after drinking, being sick or vomiting after drinking, saying or doing embarrassing things while

drinking, and taking foolish risks while drinking were the consequences reported most frequently

by participants. Many participants also endorsed doing impulsive things that they later regretted

while drinking, getting into trouble because of drinking, driving while intoxicated, smoking more

cigarettes when drinking, having unwanted sexual experiences while drinking, or being

physically hurt, injured, or burned while drinking. Several of these items are especially alarming

because they suggest consequences of drinking that may pose a serious risk or harm to the

individual or others around them.

Alcohol knowledge was extremely limited with 41% of the overall sample answering less

than 50% of the questions correctly. This is the exact percentage found in the Coll, Draves, and

Major (2008) study mentioned previously. There were no differences in overall knowledge

between groups, however; there were differences on knowledge subscales between groups. The

college group scored higher on the Pharmacology and Classifications scales than the DMV

  

20 

group, but scored lower than the DMV group on the Addiction/Abuse scale and lower on the

Treatment scale than both the DMV and the DWI groups. The explanation for these differences

could be first-hand experiences. As mentioned before, the college sample drank in higher

quantities than both the DMV and DWI samples. Having more experience with higher quantities

of alcohol may have given them more knowledge regarding the effects of alcohol (i.e.

pharmacology) and about how alcohol is described (i.e. classified). Significant correlations

between knowledge of pharmacology, classifications, as well as composition (i.e. what different

types of alcohol are made of) and quantity/frequency of alcohol use in the college sample further

support this notion. Being that the DMV and DWI samples were significantly older than the

college sample, they are more likely to have been through an addiction and/or treatment before

and therefore gained knowledge through experience. The data showed that there was, in fact, a

significant correlation between age and treatment history. The data also revealed that there were

differences between groups regarding reports of having a current or past alcohol or drug

problem. Consistent with the differences in knowledge on the Addiction/Abuse scale, the

differences that existed were between the DMV and college groups. The DMV group had more

knowledge of Addiction/Abuse than the college sample and was also more likely to have

reported a current or past alcohol or drug problem.

My hypotheses were that greater alcohol awareness would be associated with less

quantity and frequency of alcohol use and with fewer negative consequences. Neither hypothesis

was supported by our data. In fact, for the college sample, the opposite relationship was found. In

this sample, a higher level of alcohol knowledge was correlated with higher alcohol consumption

as well as more negative consequences. In all three samples, quantity and frequency of alcohol

  

21 

use predicted more adverse consequences. In the college sample, more alcohol knowledge along

with higher alcohol consumption predicted consequences.

One explanation for these results could, again, be experience. Participants may have

gained alcohol awareness through their own experiences with alcohol and its effects,

consequences, etc. For example, one of the questions on the AAQ was, “For individuals who

suffer from alcoholism, withdrawal from alcohol can result in seizures.” Obviously an individual

who has actually experienced seizures as a result of withdrawal from alcohol would have more

knowledge on the subject. The study results support this notion in that the AAQ Pharmacology

scale was significantly, positively correlated with quantity and frequency of alcohol consumption

in all three samples. This could imply that those who drink more know more about the effects of

alcohol through first-hand experiences. Also, in the college and DMV groups, more knowledge

of Risks/consequences was significantly, positively correlated with having experienced more

consequences, indicating that those who have experienced more adverse effects from alcohol

know more about the possible adverse effects of alcohol.

Another explanation may be the failure of this study to gather a timeline of consequences

from participants. In other words, it could be that those who are more educated about alcohol do

currently experience less consequences; however, the DRINC-2L measures consequences over a

lifetime and as a result, I am unable to determine whether the consequences they experienced

occurred before or after their acquired alcohol knowledge. For example, in the college sample,

knowing more about treatment was positively correlated with having more consequences.

Students who violate campus alcohol policy are often referred for outpatient substance abuse

treatment; therefore, their knowledge of treatment could be a result of their having to seek

treatment as a result of consequences. For future studies, a simple solution to this problem would

  

22 

be to include the DRINC-2R (Miller, Tonigan, and Longabaugh, 1995) which establishes

consequences experienced over the previous 90 days.

This study contains a number of limitations. First of all, the Alcohol Awareness

Questionnaire may not have been the most accurate test of knowledge. Although participants

were instructed to answer “Don’t Know” to questions that they genuinely did not know, the

True/False format of the test would give them a 50% chance of getting the question right if they

guessed. A multiple choice format may have lessened the chances of guessing correctly. Another

limitation may be that this study was based on self-report. Participants, especially students or

DWI offenders in the treatment program, may have held back when answering questions about

quantity/frequency and consequences for fear of getting in some type of trouble with

administrators. Also, the DMV and DWI samples were much smaller than the college sample. I

may have been able to find more significant results in those groups if I had been able to include

more participants. Finally, this study is correlational rather than experimental therefore, no

cause-and-effect conclusions can be drawn from the results.

Whether my hypotheses were supported or not, one thing is most certainly clear: those

who drink more and more often are at a higher risk for experiencing more negative consequences

from alcohol. Therefore, a major implication of this study is the extreme need for continued

effective substance abuse prevention programs in the US, not only for college students, but for

the general public. Effective prevention programs could lead to less alcohol consumption and

therefore fewer alcohol-related problems in our society. Many of the alcohol-related problems

discussed in this study may seem minor, but the reality is that alcohol use and abuse can have

serious consequences. Alcohol is involved in an astounding number of homicides, physical

assaults, sexual assaults, and child abuse cases (National Institutes of Health, 1997). Drunk

  

23 

driving causes a tremendous number of injuries and deaths across the nation every single day

(Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2008). Alcohol use has also been linked to liver

disease (NIH, 1998) and cancer (NIH, 1993). If education alone is not enough to prevent harm

from alcohol, we must figure out what is. Future studies should be aimed at finding the most

effective forms of prevention. If we could figure out how to stop the problem before it starts,

then we wouldn’t have a problem to begin with.

  

24 

Table 1

Between Samples Comparison – Means and Standard Deviations_________________________

Measure College DMV DWI Alcohol Consumption

Number of drinking days in the past 90 days 22.98 (SD=19.71) 27.75 (SD=27.31) 28.14 (SD=21.65)

Number of drinks consumed on a typical weekday 3.06 (SD=3.38) 2.98 (SD=7.06) 2.50 (SD=2.92) Number of drinks consumed on a typical weekend day 7.10 (SD=4.37) 4.64 (SD=5.31) 4.56 (SD=4.16) Largest number of drinks consumed in a 24-hour period 10.88 (SD=6.80) 6.51 (SD=7.94) 9.04 (SD=6.17)

Negative Consequences

Total 10.94 (SD=7.50) 10.84 (SD=10.86) 15.48 (SD=10.33) Physical 2.64 (SD=1.66) 2.63 (SD=1.95) 2.96 (SD=1.98) Interpersonal 1.67 (SD=1.42) 1.91 (SD=2.46) 2.56 (SD=2.51) Intrapersonal 1.72 (SD=1.88) 1.76 (SD=2.24) 2.28 (SD=2.17) Social Responsibility 1.78 (SD=1.86) 1.46 (SD=2.01) 2.36 (SD=2.01) Impulse Control 3.13 (SD=2.55) 3.08 (SD=3.20) 5.51 (SD=2.91)

Alcohol Knowledge Total 31.01 (SD=7.26) 30.98 (SD=8.31) 31.71 (SD=9.65) Pharmacology 5.54 (SD=1.85) 4.85 (SD=2.05) 5.11 (SD=2.06) Norms 4.37 (SD=1.30) 4.48 (SD=1.41) 4.20 (SD=1.51) Risks/Consequences 4.00 (SD=1.26) 3.85 (SD=1.39) 4.01 (SD=1.60) Addiction/Abuse 3.95 (SD=1.34) 4.25 (SD=1.41) 4.21 (SD=1.38) Composition 4.51 (SD=1.89) 4.53 (SD=1.91) 4.91 (SD=2.24) Treatment 2.69 (SD=1.47) 3.29 (SD=1.56) 3.14 (SD=1.62) History 3.52 (SD=1.25) 3.43 (SD=1.41) 3.38 (SD=1.48) Classifications 2.93 (SD=1.30) 2.59 (SD=1.14) 2.75 (SD=1.42)

  

25 

Table 2 Correlations between AAQ Score and QFI, DRINC, AEQ, and SCL-90 – College_____________

Pharm Norms Risks Abuse Comp Treat Hist Class Total # of Drinking days in the past 90 days 0.14* 0.03 0.09 0.13* 0.19*** 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.19**

# of drinks on a typical weekday 0.14* 0.05 0.01 0.08 0.17** -0.01 0.01 0.13* 0.14*

# of drinks on a typical weekend day 0.17** 0.10 0.06 0.07 0.23*** 0.03 0.07 0.14* 0.20***

Largest # of drinks in 24 hours 0.15* 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.25*** 0.03 0.06 0.13* 0.19***

DRINC Total Score 0.25*** 0.10 0.24*** 0.18*** 0.30*** 0.19*** 0.06 0.19***0.31***

AEQ – Global Positive -0.11* -0.09 -0.02 -0.04 -0.13* -0.01 -0.08 0.01 -0.10*

AEQ – Power/ Aggression -0.10 -0.09 -0.08 -0.12* -0.19*** -0.06 -0.00 -0.10* -0.15**

AEQ – Social/Phys. Pleasure -0.24***-0.19*** -0.13* -0.14** -0.27*** -0.09 -0.06 -0.18***-0.27***

AEQ – Sex -0.06 -0.08 0.00 -0.09 -0.12* -0.05 0.04 -0.08 -0.09

AEQ – Careless Unconcern -0.02 -0.09 -0.05 -0.06 -0.13* -0.01 0.02 -0.11* -0.09

AEQ – Cog./Phys. Impairment -0.15** -0.09 -0.08 -0.14** -0.17** -0.06 -0.05 -0.11* -0.17**

AEQ – Social Express. -0.13* -0.07 -0.04 -0.08 -0.15** 0.02 -0.01 -0.11* -0.12*

AEQ - Tension Reduction -0.21***-0.12* -0.11* -0.16** -0.26*** -0.05 -0.07 -0.12* -0.24***

SCL-90 – Global Severity 0.09 0.04 0.15** 0.03 0.05 0.12* 0.09 0.01 0.11*

Note. *p

  

26 

Table 3

Correlations between AAQ Score and QFI, DRINC, AEQ, and SCL-90 – DMV_______________

Pharm Norms Risks Abuse Comp Treat Hist Class Total # of Drinking days in the past 90 days 0.01 0.11 -0.00 0.07 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.22 0.12

# of drinks on a typical weekday 0.04 0.01 0.05 -0.00 0.18 -0.03 0.16 -0.04 0.08

# of drinks on a typical weekend day 0.26* 0.12 0.05 0.02 0.18 0.03 0.07 0.16 0.20

Largest # of drinks in 24 hours 0.29* 0.26* 0.09 0.02 0.19 0.03 0.05 0.21 0.25* DRINC Total Score 0.06 -0.03 0.19* 0.11 0.10 0.16 -0.03 0.10 0.12

AEQ – Global Positive -0.05 0.02 -0.15 -0.01 0.05 -0.10 0.03 -0.04 -0.02

AEQ – Power/ Aggression -0.12 -0.02 -0.24* -0.06 -0.04 -0.10 -0.06 -0.12 -0.13

AEQ – Social/Phys. Pleasure -0.30** -0.04 -0.38*** -0.02 -0.14 -0.24* -0.08 -0.13 -0.25*

AEQ – Sex -0.01 0.04 -0.12 -0.03 0.08 -0.03 0.05 0.03 0.01

AEQ – Careless Unconcern -0.15 -0.03 -0.23* -0.01 0.01 -0.15 -0.10 -0.01 -0.12

AEQ – Cog./Phys. Impairment -0.16 0.08 -0.27** 0.02 -0.06 -0.18 -0.08 -0.17 -0.15

AEQ – Social Express. -0.08 0.01 -0.34*** 0.00 -0.00 -0.20* -0.02 -0.10 -0.11

AEQ - Tension Reduction -0.07 0.05 -0.22* -0.07 0.08 -0.12 -0.00 0.05 -0.05

SCL-90 – Global Severity -0.02 -0.03 0.13 0.05 0.00 0.03 -0.05 -0.08 -0.01

Note. *p

  

27 

Table 4

Correlations between AAQ Score and QFI, DRINC, AEQ, and SCL-90 – DWI_______________

Pharm Norms Risks Abuse Comp Treat Hist Class Total # of Drinking days in the past 90 days 0.23 0.02 0.27 -0.11 0.27 0.26 0.02 0.13 0.23

# of drinks on a typical weekday 0.13 -0.09 -0.04 -0.11 -0.05 -0.04 0.11 -0.14 -0.05

# of drinks on a typical weekend day 0.26* 0.27* 0.21 0.07 0.08 -0.02 0.11 0.01 0.18

Largest # of drinks in 24 hours 0.11 0.18 0.13 -0.00 -0.10 -0.21 -0.09 0.06 0.01

DRINC Total Score 0.21* 0.22* 0.11 0.04 0.11 0.08 0.08 0.24* 0.20

AEQ – Global Positive 0.03 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 -0.01 -0.03 0.06

AEQ – Power/ Aggression -0.13 -0.12 0.06 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.06 0.03

AEQ – Social/Phys. Pleasure -0.24* -0.06 -0.14 0.07 -0.01 -0.00 -0.02 0.04 -0.05

AEQ – Sex -0.11 0.08 -0.08 0.11 0.12 0.03 0.11 0.04 0.05

AEQ – Careless Unconcern -0.18 -0.17 -0.19 -0.13 -0.16 -0.08 -0.08 -0.22 -0.20

AEQ – Cog./Phys. Impairment -0.24* -0.10 -0.13 -0.07 -0.03 -0.10 0.01 -0.06 -0.12

AEQ – Social Express. -0.14 -0.08 -0.02 0.11 0.04 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00

AEQ - Tension Reduction -0.21 -0.07 -0.03 0.07 -0.08 0.00 -0.00 0.08 -0.04

SCL-90 – Global Severity 0.14 0.04 0.02 0.11 0.18 -0.04 0.08 0.07 0.11

Note. *p

  

28 

Table 5

Stepwise Linear Regression_______________________________________________________

B Significance R² College

Number of drinking days in the past 90 days 0.19 0.005**

Number of drinks consumed on a typical weekday 0.02 0.76

Number of drinks consumed on a typical weekend day 0.23 0.03*

Largest number of drinks consumed in a 24-hour period 0.12 0.24 0.27***

AAQ Score 0.13 0.02* 0.29*

DMV Number of drinking days in the past 90 days -0.10 0.53

Number of drinks consumed on a typical weekday 0.21 0.18

Number of drinks consumed on a typical weekend day -0.02 0.93

Largest number of drinks consumed in a 24-hour period 0.47 0.06 0.30**

AAQ Score 0.12 0.34 0.32

DWI Number of drinking days in the past 90 days -0.08 0.65

Number of drinks consumed on a typical weekday 0.19 0.26

Number of drinks consumed on a typical weekend day -0.33 0.09

Largest number of drinks consumed in a 24-hour period 0.66 0.003** 0.32*

AAQ Score 0.23 0.16 0.37 _____________________________________________________________________________ Note. *p

  

29 

REFERENCES

Bersamin, M., Paschall, M., Fearnow-Kenney, M., and Wyrick, D. (2007). Effectiveness of a web-based alcohol-misuse and harm-prevention course among high- and low-risk students. Journal of American College Health 55(4), 247-254.

Borsari, B., and Carey, K. (2005). Two brief alcohol interventions for mandated college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 19(3), 296-302.

Cahalan, D., and Cisin, I. H. (1968). American drinking practices: Summary of findings from a national probability sample: I. Extent of drinking by population subgroup. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol 1968, 29, 130-51.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008). Impaired driving. Retrieved May 12th, 2009 from http://www.cdc.gov.

Chengappa, K., Levine, J., Gershon, S., and Kupfer, D. (2000). Lifetime prevalence of substance or alcohol abuse and dependence among subjects with bipolar I and II disorders in a voluntary registry. Bipolar Disorders, 2(3), 191-195.

Chiauzzi, E., Green, T., Lord, S., Thum, C., and Goldstein, M. (2005). My Student Body: A High-Risk Drinking Prevention Web Site for College Students. Journal of American College Health,53(6), 263-274.

Coll, J., Draves, P., and Major, M. (2008). An examination of underage drinking in a sample of private university students. College Student Journal, 42(4), 982-985.

Conner, K., Pinquart, M., and Gamble, S. (2009). Meta-analysis of depression and substance use among individuals with alcohol use disorders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 37(2), 127-137.

Derogatis, L. R. (1994). SCL-90-R Administration, Scoring and Procedures Manual (3rd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems, Inc.

DeYoung, D. (1997). An evaluation of the effectiveness of alcohol treatment, driver license actions and jail terms in reducing drunk driving recidivism in California. Addiction, 92(8), 989-997.

Dill, P. and Wells-Parker, E. (2006). Court-mandated treatment for convicted drinking drivers. Alcohol Research and Health, 29(1), 41-48.

Donnelly, F., Mowery, J., and McCarver, D. (1998). Knowledge and misconceptions among inner-city African-American mothers regarding alcohol and drug use. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 24(4), 675-683.

Donohue, B., Allen, D., Maurer, A., Ozols, J., and 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 and Drug Education 48(1), 13-33.

Drake, R., and Mueser, K. (2002). Co-Occurring Alcohol Use Disorder and Schizophrenia. Alcohol Research and Health, 26(2), 99-102.

Engs, Ruth C. (1975). The Student Alcohol Questionnaire. Bloomington, IN: Department of Health and Safety Education.

  

30 

Fearnow-Kenny, M., Wyrick, D., Hansen, W., Dyreg, D., and Beau, D. (2001). Normative beliefs, expectancies, and alcohol-related problems among college students: Implications for theory and practice. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 47(1), 31-44.

George, W. H., Frone, M. R., Cooper, M. L., Russell, M., Skinner, J. B., and Windle, M. (1995). A revised alcohol expectancy questionnaire: Factor structure confirmation and invariance in a general population sample. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 56, 177–185.

Glassman, T., Dodd, V., Sheu, J., Rienzo, B., and Wagenaar, A. (2010). Extreme ritualistic alcohol consumption among college students on game day. Journal of American College Health, 58(5), 413-423.

Gonzalez, G., and Broughton, E. (1994, March). Changes in college student drinking and alcohol knowledge: A decade of progress, 1981-1991. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 39(3), 56-62.

Griffiths, R., Stone, A., Tran, D., Fernandez, R., and Ford, K. (2007, September). Drink a little; take a few drugs: Do nurses have knowledge to identify and manage in-patients at risk of drugs and alcohol?. Drug and Alcohol Review, 26(5), 545-552.

Ham, L., and Hope, D. (2003). College students and problematic drinking: A review of the literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 23(5), 719-759.

Hingson, R., Heeren, T., Winter, M., and Wechsler, H. (2005). Magnitude of alcohol-related mortality and morbidity among U.S. college students ages 18-24: Changes from 1998 to 2001. Annual Review of Public Health, 26, 259-279.

Jennison, K. (2004). The short-term effects and unintended long-term consequences of binge drinking in college: A 10-year follow-up study. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 30(3), 659-684.

Jones, S., Oeltmann, J., Wilson, T., Brener, N., and Hill, C. (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.

Knighton, W. (2002). Effectiveness of an intervention program for DUI (driving under the influence) offenders. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 63(6-A), 2151.

Kuntsche, S., Plant, M., Plant, M., Miller, P., and Gmel, G. (2008). Spreading or concentrating drinking occasions--Who is most at risk?. European Addiction Research, 14(2), 71-81.

Lee, C., Geisner, I., Patrick, M., and Neighbors, C. (2010). The social norms of alcohol-related negative consequences. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 24(2), 342-348.

Lee, C., Lewis, M., and Neighbors, C. (2009). Preliminary examination of Spring Break alcohol use and related consequences. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 23(4), 689-694.

Lewis, M., Lindgren, K., Fossos, N., Neighbors, C., and Oster-Aaland, L. (2009). Examining the relationship between typical drinking behavior and 21st birthday drinking behavior among college students: Implications for event-specific prevention. Addiction, 104(5), 760-767.

Miller, W.M, Tonigan, S.J., and Longabaugh, R. (1995). The Drinker Inventory of Consequences

  

31 

(DrInC): An instrument for assessing adverse alcohol consequences of alcohol abuse. Vol. 4. Project MATCH Monograph Series. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

National Institutes of Health. (1993). Alcohol and cancer. Alcohol Alert. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

National Institutes of Health. (1997). Alcohol, violence, and aggression. Alcohol Alert. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

National Institutes of Health. (1998). Alcohol and the liver. Alcohol Alert. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

Neal, D., and Carey, K. (2007). Association between alcohol intoxication and alcohol-related problems: An event-level analysis. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 21(2), 194-204.

Office of Applied Studies. (2008). Results from the 2007 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National findings. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Prevention research institute. (2008). Retrieved August 6th, 2009 from http://www.primeforlife.org/homepage.cfm?CFID=117931andCFTOKEN=21648297.

Paljärvi, T., Koskenvuo, M., Poikolainen, K., Kauhanen, J., Sillanmäki, L., and Mäkelä, P. (2009). Binge drinking and depressive symptoms: A 5-year population-based cohort study. Addiction, 104(7), 1168-1178.

Scott-Sheldon, L., Carey, K., and Carey, M. (2008). Health behavior and college students: Does Greek affiliation matter?. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 31(1), 61-70.

Sheffield, F., Darkes, J., Del Boca, F., and Goldman, M. (2005). Binge drinking and alcohol- related problems among community college students: Implications for prevention policy. Journal of American College Health, 54(3), 137-141.

Stahre, M., Brewer, R., Fonseca, V., and Naimi, T. (2009). Binge drinking among U.S. active- duty military personnel. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36(3), 208-217.

Syre, T., Martino-McAllister, J., and Vanada, L. (1997). Alcohol and other drug use at a university in the southeastern United States: Survey finidings and implications. College Student Journal, 31(3), 373-381.

Usdan, S., Martin, R., Mays, D., Cremeens, J., Weitzel, J., & Bernhardt, J. (2008). Self-reported consequences of intoxication among college students: Implications for harm reduction approaches to high-risk drinking. Journal of Drug Education, 38(4), 377-387.

Wechsler, H., Dowdall, G., Davenport, A., and Rimm, E. (1995). A gender-specific measure of binge drinking among college students. American Journal of Public Health, 85(7), 982-985.

Wechsler, H., & Nelson, T. (2001). Binge drinking and the American college students: What's five drinks?. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 15(4), 287-291.

Whiteside, S.P., Lynam, D.R., Miller, J.D., and Reynolds, S.K. (2005). Validation of the UPPS Impulsive Behaviour Scale: A four-factor model of impulsivity. European Journal of Personality, 19, 559-574.

  

32 

Appendix A. Demographic Form

Please provide the following information:

1. Gender: _________________

2. Age: ___________________

3. Race:

______ Caucasian

______ African American

______ Hispanic

______ Native American

______ Asian

______ Bi-racial/Multi-racial

______ Other: _____________________

4. Years of education completed ______.

5. Current relationship status (check one).

_____ Married

_____ Single

_____ Engaged

_____ Divorced

  

33 

Alcohol Awareness Questionnaire (AAQ)

WE WOULD NOW LIKE TO ASK YOU FOR SOME INFORMATION ABOUT ALCOHOL

The questions will either be True or False. If you do not know the answer to the question, DO NOT GUESS.

If you think the answer is TRUE, write "1" for true.

If you think the answer is FALSE, write "2" for false.

If you do not know the answer, write "0" on the line.

1) Drinking milk before drinking an alcoholic beverage will slow the absorption of alcohol into the body. _____

2) In America, drinking is usually considered an important socializing custom in business, for relaxation and for improving interpersonal relationships. _____

3) A blood alcohol content of 0.1% is the legal definition of alcohol intoxication in most states, in regards to driving. _____

4) A person cannot become an alcoholic by just drinking beer. _____

5) Wines are mad by fermenting grains. _____ 6) There is a medication available for the treatment of alcoholism that blocks the

effects of alcohol on the brain.                 _____ 

7) Alcohol was used for centuries as a medicine in childbirth, for sedation and surgery. _____

8) Alcohol is usually classified as a stimulant. _____

9) Liquor mixed with soda pop will affect you faster than liquor drunk straight. _____ 10) Gulping of alcoholic beverages is a commonly accepted drinking pattern in this

country. _____ 

11) Approximately 10% of fatal highway accidents are alcohol related. _____

12) A sign of alcohol dependence is increased tolerance. _____

  

34 

13) Alcoholic beverages do not provide weight-increasing calories. _____

14) Alcoholics Anonymous is the only free method of treatment for individuals with alcoholism. _____

15) Wines throughout history have been commonly drunk at religious ceremonies and family gatherings. _____

16) Alcohol is not a drug. _____

17) A 150 pound person, to keep his blood alcohol concentration below the legally intoxicated level, would have to drink fewer than 3 beers in an hour. _____

18) It is estimated that approximately 85% of the adult Americans who drink misuse or abuse alcoholic beverages. _____

19) Moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages is generally not harmful to the body. _____

20) For individuals who have alcoholism, withdrawal from alcohol can result in seizures. _____

21) Table wines contain from 2-12% alcohol by volume. _____

22) Methadone Maintenance can be used in the treatment of alcoholism. _____

23) Drinking of alcoholic beverages has been common in the U.S.A. since the Puritans

first settled here. _____

24) Proof on a bottle of liquor represents half the percent of alcohol contained in the bottle. _____

25) To prevent getting a hangover, one should sip one's drink slowly, drink and eat at the same time, space drinks over a period of time, and not drink over one's limit. _____

26) Many people drink to escape from problems, loneliness and depression. _____

27) You cannot die from an overdose of alcohol. _____

28) Some people are born with a higher biological risk for developing alcoholism than others.                      _____ 

29) Distilled liquors (whiskey, gin, vodka, etc.) Usually contain about 15-20% alcohol by volume. _____

30) There is a medication used in the treatment of alcoholism that makes individuals violently ill if they consume alcohol while taking it. _____

  

35 

31) Alcohol has only been used in a very few societies throughout history. _____

32) The definition of binge drinking is 10 or more drinks for a male and 8 or more for a female.                      _____ 

33) Responsible drinking can result in relaxation, enhanced social interactions, and a

feeling of well-being. _____

34) The most commonly drunk alcoholic beverage in the united States are distilled liquors (whiskey, gin, vodka). _____

35) Cirrhosis of the liver is incurable and irreversible. _____ 36) Individuals who have a family history of alcoholism are four times more likely to

develop alcoholism themselves. _____

37) An ounce of whisky contains about 60 calories. _____ 38) Alcoholics Anonymous is a nationwide support group that teaches alcoholics to

moderate their drinking. _____

39) Americans drank more alcohol per capita in the 1800s than they drink today. _____

40) A “standard drink” refers to ½ ounce of pure alcohol in any alcoholic beverage. _____

41) It takes about as many hours as the number of beers drunk to completely burn up the alcohol ingested.                    _____ 

42) Many people drink for social acceptance, because of peer group pressures, and to gain adult status. _____

43) When an individual consuming alcohol experiences a blackout, they have lost consciousness. _____

44) If you don’t have withdrawal symptoms when you are not drinking, then you are

not addicted to alcohol. _____

45) Liquors such as gin, scotch and whiskies are usually distilled from mashes made from Fermenting grains. _____

46) Inpatient treatment centers are meant to help people who are addicted to drugs and not alcohol. _____

47) The 21st Amendment to the US Constitution outlawed the production and sale of alcohol.                      _____ 

  

36 

48) If alcohol is a depressant, that means it can make you feel sad when you drink it. _____

49) A blood alcohol concentration of .02% causes a person to be in a stupor. _____

50) The United States lacks a national consensus on what constitutes the responsible use of

alcoholic beverages. _____

51) A person who drinks 2 drinks everyday will experience more problems from drinking than a person who drinks 8 drinks every Friday night but doesn’t drink for the rest of the week.                      _____

52) Approximately 3.5% of the American population suffers from alcoholism. _____

53) Beer usually contains from 2-12% alcohol by volume. _____

54) The first beers were produced in Egypt. _____ 55) Eating while drinking will have no effect on slowing down the absorption of alcohol

in the body. _____

56) There is usually more alcoholism in a society that accepts drunken behavior than in

a society that frowns on drunkenness. _____

57) The amount of alcohol in one 12 ounce beer is the same as the amount of alcohol in one ounce of 100 proof liquor. _____

58) Drinking coffee or taking a cold shower can be an effective way of sobering up. _____

59) The amount of alcohol in a 4 oz glass of wine (12% alcohol) is the same as the amount of alcohol in a 1 ½ ounce shot of 80 proof liquor.          _____ 

60) Liquor taken straight will affect you faster than liquor mixed with water. _____

  

37 

QFI

1. Frequency of alcohol use in last three months: a. If you have never had an alcoholic beverage (beer, wine or liquor) in your life, check here and go on to I c. b. If you have not had any alcoholic beverage in the LAST THREE MONTHS, check here and go on to I c. c. If you checked I a or I b, please check the reasons for deciding not to drink (check all that apply)

1. Not old enough (it's illegal) 2. Religious or moral disapproval of alcohol use 3. Health Reasons (e.g. illness, pregnancy) 4. Concern that you might have (or develop) an alcohol problem 5. Other (specify)

d. If you did not check I a, b, or c, please answer the following questions: 2. During the LAST THREE MONTHS (about 90 days) about how many days would you estimate that you drank at least one alcoholic beverage? (Think about weekends, parties, stressful events, celebrations with friends, meals, and so on). Remember to estimate between 1 and 90 days: Days a. During the LAST THREE MONTHS (about 90 days), have you experienced a major change on your drinking habits?

1. No, my drinking stayed the same as usual 2. Yes, I quit drinking altogether 3. Yes, I started drinking for the first time 4. Yes, I started drinking much more than I usually do 5. Yes, I started drinking much less than I usually do

3. Quantity of alcohol used in the last three months People often drink more than one type of alcoholic beverage on a given day. In addition, their drinking often varies depending on whether it is a weekday or weekend. Therefore, we want you to think of a TYPICAL WEEKDAY on which you drank, and estimate the amounts of each of these three beverages you had to drink. (Example: "On Thursdays, when I would get together with friends, I would drink about three 12 oz beers and two mixed drinks") a. Estimated average drinking on a TYPICAL WEEKDAY in the LAST THREE MONTHS:

  

38 

b. Estimated average drinking on a TYPICAL WEEKEND DAY in the LAST THREE MONTHS: c. Finally, of all the days in the last three months, what is the LARGEST AMOUNT of alcohol you have had in one 24 hour period?

OTHER SUBSTANCE USE How often have you used any of these psychoactive substances? For the column labeled “Ever,” mark Y for yes and N for No. For the columns labeled “Last 3 mo” and “Past 30 days,” code frequency of use according to the following scale: 0 = Never 1 = 1 or 2 times in the last three months 2 = once per month 3 = once every two weeks 4 = once per week 5 = 2 - 4 times per week 6 = almost everyday Substance Frequency of Use Ever Last 3 mos. Past 30 days Caffeine ___ ___ Nicotine ___ ___ Marijuana/Hashish ___ ___ Cocaine/Crack ___ ___ Meth/Amphetamines (not prescribed) ___ ___ Heroin ___ ___ Hallucinogens ___ ___ Inhalants ___ ___

  

39 

Do you feel you currently have a drinking or drug problem? N Y Have you ever in the past had a problem with any of these substances? N Y Have you ever attended a self-help group (like Alcoholics Anonymous, or Women for Sobriety, or Narcotics Anonymous) for yourself? N Y Have you ever had treatment for an alcohol or drug problem? N Y Do, or did, any of your family members have an alcohol or drug problem? N Y

  

40 

SCL – 90

Below is a list of problems people sometimes have. Please read each one carefully and circle the number that best describes how much this problem has distressed or bothered you during the past 7 days including today. Please do not skip any items.

0 1 2 3 4

Not at all A little bit Moderately Quite a bit Extremely

1. Headaches. 0 1 2 3 4 2. Nervousness or shakiness inside. 0 1 2 3 4 3. Repeated unpleasant thoughts that won’t leave your mind. 0 1 2 3 4 4. Faintness or dizziness. 0 1 2 3 4 5. Loss of sexual interest or pleasure. 0 1 2 3 4 6. Feeling critical of others. 0 1 2 3 4 7. The idea that someone else can control your thoughts. 0 1 2 3 4 8. Feeling others are to blame for most of your troubles. 0 1 2 3 4 9. Trouble remembering things. 0 1 2 3 4 10. Worried about sloppiness or carelessness. 0 1 2 3 4 11. Feeling easily annoyed or irritated. 0 1 2 3 4 12. Pains in the heart or chest. 0 1 2 3 4 13. Feeling afraid in open spaces or on the streets. 0 1 2 3 4 14. Feeling low in energy or slowed down. 0 1 2 3 4 15. Thoughts of ending your life. 0 1 2 3 4 16. Hearing voices that other people do not hear. 0 1 2 3 4 17. Trembling. 0 1 2 3 4

  

41 

18. Feeling that most people cannot be trusted. 0 1 2 3 4 19. Poor appetite. 0 1 2 3 4 20. Crying easily. 0 1 2 3 4 21. Feeling shy or uneasy with the opposite sex. 0 1 2 3 4 22. Feelings of being trapped or caught. 0 1 2 3 4 23. Suddenly scared for no reason. 0 1 2 3 4 24. Temper outburst that you could not control. 0 1 2 3 4 25. Feeling afraid to go out of your house alone. 0 1 2 3 4 26. Blaming yourself for things. 0 1 2 3 4 27. Pains in lower back. 0 1 2 3 4 28. Feeling blocked in getting things done. 0 1 2 3 4 29. Feeling lonely. 0 1 2 3 4 30. Feeling blue. 0 1 2 3 4 31. Worrying too much about things. 0 1 2 3 4 32. Feeling no interest in things. 0 1 2 3 4 33. Feeling fearful. 0 1 2 3 4 34. Your feelings being easily hurt. 0 1 2 3 4 35. Other people being aware of your private thoughts. 0 1 2 3 4 36. Feeling that others do not understand you or are unsympathetic. 0 1 2 3 4 37. Feeling that other people are unfriendly or dislike you. 0 1 2 3 4 38. Having to do things very slowly to insure correctness. 0 1 2 3 4 39. Heart pounding or racing. 0 1 2 3 4 40. Nausea or upset stomach. 0 1 2 3 4

  

42 

41. Feeling inferior to others. 0 1 2 3 4 42. Soreness of your muscles. 0 1 2 3 4 43. Feeling that you are watched or talked about by others. 0 1 2 3 4 44. Trouble falling asleep. 0 1 2 3 4 45. Having to check and double-check what you do. 0 1 2 3 4 46. Difficulty making decisions. 0 1 2 3 4 47. Feeling afraid to travel on buses, subways, or trains. 0 1 2 3 4 48. Trouble getting your breath. 0 1 2 3 4 49. Hot or cold spells. 0 1 2 3 4 50. Having to avoid certain things, places, or activities because they frighten you. 0 1 2 3 4 51. Your mind going blank. 0 1 2 3 4 52. Numbness or tingling in parts of your body. 0 1 2 3 4 53. A lump in your throat. 0 1 2 3 4 54. Feeling hopeless about the future. 0 1 2 3 4 55. Trouble concentrating. 0 1 2 3 4 56. Feeling weak in parts of your body. 0 1 2 3 4 57. Feeling tense or keyed up. 0 1 2 3 4 58. Heavy feelings in your arms or legs. 0 1 2 3 4 59. Thoughts of death or dying. 0 1 2 3 4 60. Overeating. 0 1 2 3 4 61. Feeling uneasy when people are watching or talking about you. 0 1 2 3 4 62. Having thoughts that are not your own. 0 1 2 3 4 63. Having urges to beat, injure, or harm someone. 0 1 2 3 4

  

43 

64. Awakening in the early morning. 0 1 2 3 4 65. Having to repeat the same action such as touching, counting, or washing. 0 1 2 3 4 66. Sleep that is restless or disturbed. 0 1 2 3 4 67. Having urges to break or smash things. 0 1 2 3 4 68. Having ideas or beliefs that others do not share. 0 1 2 3 4 69. Feeling very self-conscious with others. 0 1 2 3 4 70. Feeling uneasy in crowds, such as shopping or at a movie. 0 1 2 3 4 71. Feeling everything is an effort. 0 1 2 3 4 72. Spells of terror or panic. 0 1 2 3 4 73. Feeling uncomfortable about eating or drinking in public. 0 1 2 3 4 74. Getting into frequent arguments. 0 1 2 3 4 75. Feeling nervous when you are left alone. 0 1 2 3 4 76. Others not giving you proper credit for your achievements. 0 1 2 3 4 77. Feeling lonely even when you are with people. 0 1 2 3 4 78. Feeling so restless you couldn’t sit still. 0 1 2 3 4 79. Feelings of worthlessness. 0 1 2 3 4 80. The feeling that something bad is going to happen to you. 0 1 2 3 4 81. Shouting or throwing things. 0 1 2 3 4 82. Feeling afraid that you will faint in public. 0 1 2 3 4 83. Feeling that people will take advantage of you if you let them. 0 1 2 3 4 84. Having thoughts about sex that bother you a lot. 0 1 2 3 4 85. Feeling you should be punished for your sins. 0 1 2 3 4

  

44 

86. Thoughts and images of a frightening nature. 0 1 2 3 4 87. The idea that something serious is wrong with your body. 0 1 2 3 4 88. Never feeling close to another person. 0 1 2 3 4 89. Feelings of guilt. 0 1 2 3 4 90. The idea that something is wrong with your mind. 0 1 2 3 4

  

45 

DRINC-2L

INSTRUCTIONS: Here are a number of events that people sometimes experience as a result of drinking alcohol. Read each one carefully and circle the number that indicates whether this has EVER happened to you (0=No, 1=Yes). If an item does not apply to you, circle zero (0).

YES NO 1. I have had a hangover or felt bad after drinking. 1 0 2. I have felt bad about myself because of my drinking. 1 0 3. I have missed days of work or school because of my drinking. 1 0 4. My family or friends have worried or complained about my drinking. 1 0 5. I have enjoyed the taste of beer, wine, or liquor. 1 0 6. The quality of my work has suffered because of my drinking. 1 0 7. My ability to be a good parent has been harmed by my drinking. 1 0 8. After drinking, I have had trouble with sleeping, staying asleep, or nightmares.1 0 9. I have driven a motor vehicle after having three or more drinks. 1 0 10. My drinking has caused me to use other drugs more. 1 0 11. I have been sick and vomited after drinking. 1 0 12. I have been unhappy because of my drinking. 1 0 13. Because of my drinking, I have not eaten properly. 1 0 14. I have failed t