Helene R White1, Kristen G Anderson2, Anne E Ray3, Eun-Young Mun4. 1. Center of Alcohol Studies, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 607 Allison Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854-8001, USA. Electronic address: hewhite@rci.rutgers.edu. 2. Department of Psychology, Reed College, 3203 SE Woodstock Blvd., Portland, OR 97202, USA. Electronic address: Kristen.Anderson@reed.edu. 3. REAL Prevention, LLC, 765 Long Hill Road, Gillette, NJ 07933, USA. Electronic address: anneray@real-prevention.com. 4. Center of Alcohol Studies, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 607 Allison Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854-8001, USA. Electronic address: eymun@rci.rutgers.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The literature highlights the need to move beyond the traditional heavy episodic ("binge") drinking criteria when trying to identify at-risk college drinkers. Thus, recent attention has focused on more extreme levels of drinking. This study examines whether drinking motives can distinguish college student extreme drinkers from lighter drinkers. METHOD: We used data from 3518 college student current drinkers (63.4% women) who participated in eight different studies at five different college campuses across the United States; a subsample of these students was followed up at 6months post-baseline. At baseline and follow-up, drinkers were divided into three groups: nonbinge drinkers (<4 drinks for women and 5 for men on their maximum drinking occasion), binge drinkers (4-7 drinks for women; 5-9 for men), and extreme drinkers (8+ for women and 10+ for men). RESULTS: At baseline, extreme drinkers, compared to nonbinge and binge drinkers, reported greater social, enhancement, and coping motives, as well as greater quantity and frequency of drinking per week and more alcohol-related problems. Those who were not extreme drinkers at baseline and later became extreme drinkers at follow-up reported significantly greater increases in social and enhancement motives, compared to those who remained nonextreme drinkers. Those who were extreme drinkers at baseline and reduced their drinking 6months later, compared to those who remained extreme drinkers, reported greater reductions in enhancement and coping motives. CONCLUSIONS: Focusing on drinking motives might be an efficacious target for preventive intervention programs to reduce extreme drinking among college students.
OBJECTIVE: The literature highlights the need to move beyond the traditional heavy episodic ("binge") drinking criteria when trying to identify at-risk college drinkers. Thus, recent attention has focused on more extreme levels of drinking. This study examines whether drinking motives can distinguish college student extreme drinkers from lighter drinkers. METHOD: We used data from 3518 college student current drinkers (63.4% women) who participated in eight different studies at five different college campuses across the United States; a subsample of these students was followed up at 6months post-baseline. At baseline and follow-up, drinkers were divided into three groups: nonbinge drinkers (<4 drinks for women and 5 for men on their maximum drinking occasion), binge drinkers (4-7 drinks for women; 5-9 for men), and extreme drinkers (8+ for women and 10+ for men). RESULTS: At baseline, extreme drinkers, compared to nonbinge and binge drinkers, reported greater social, enhancement, and coping motives, as well as greater quantity and frequency of drinking per week and more alcohol-related problems. Those who were not extreme drinkers at baseline and later became extreme drinkers at follow-up reported significantly greater increases in social and enhancement motives, compared to those who remained nonextreme drinkers. Those who were extreme drinkers at baseline and reduced their drinking 6months later, compared to those who remained extreme drinkers, reported greater reductions in enhancement and coping motives. CONCLUSIONS: Focusing on drinking motives might be an efficacious target for preventive intervention programs to reduce extreme drinking among college students.
Authors: David Huh; Eun-Young Mun; Mary E Larimer; Helene R White; Anne E Ray; Isaac C Rhew; Su-Young Kim; Yang Jiao; David C Atkins Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Kasey G Creswell; Tammy Chung; Carillon J Skrzynski; Rachel L Bachrach; Kristina M Jackson; Duncan B Clark; Christopher S Martin Journal: Addiction Date: 2020-02-15 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Hannah K Allen; Angelica L Barrall; Kenneth H Beck; Kathryn B Vincent; Amelia M Arria Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2019-12-24 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Megan E Patrick; Rebecca Evans-Polce; Deborah D Kloska; Jennifer L Maggs; Stephanie T Lanza Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 2.582
Authors: Miles Q Ott; Sara G Balestrieri; Graham DiGuiseppi; Melissa A Clark; Michael Bernstein; Sarah Helseth; Nancy P Barnett Journal: Subst Use Misuse Date: 2019-12-17 Impact factor: 2.164
Authors: Tien T Tong; Jatin G Vaidya; John R Kramer; Samuel Kuperman; Douglas R Langbehn; Daniel S O'Leary Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2020-06-12 Impact factor: 4.492