A CROSS-SECITIONAL EXAMINATION OF DIFFERENTIAL SOCIAL SUPPORT FOR ALCOHOL USE WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS' SOCIAL NETWORKS

College drinking variables such as social networks and social support are frequently studied. However, to date, no studies have investigated the influence of alcohol specific social support (AS; i.e., for disapproval/approval of alcohol use) versus general social support (GS; e.g., friendship, advice) on alcohol consumption. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect that AS and GS have on alcohol consumption in college students’ social networks. Two hundred students (n =99 male) answered anonymous surveys, including a Demographics Questionnaire, Quantity Frequency Index (QFI), Important People & Activities Survey (IPA), and Social Support Questionnaire (Short Form; SSQSR). Results indicated that alcohol specific support ( = .38, p < .01) and proportion of drinkers in an individual’s social network ( = .29, p < .01) significantly predicted frequency of alcohol use, and that alcohol specific social support ( = .27, p < .05) and proportion of drinkers in an individual’s social network ( = .24, p < .01) significantly predicted quantity of alcohol use among participants. These results supported the hypothesis that AS is a better predictor of drinking than GS. There were some unexpected findings, however, which warrant further investigation of the variables associated with college alcohol use. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thank you to my advisor, Dr. Nora E. Noel, for being there for me. Her contribution to my learning experience at UNCW is irreplaceable, and greatly appreciated. Her guidance, encouragement, and breadth of knowledge about psychology and substance abuse is unparalleled. One could not ask for a better mentor and friend. Although I may travel in a different direction in life, I have found my way. Her support has been unwavering throughout my studies, and for that I am forever grateful. Second, I am indebted to the rich UNCW community who has made all the difference in my life in Wilmington. It is safe to say that I came to Wilmington lost, and now am found. Many thanks to my newfound friends in UNCW ECO, Greenpeace, the environmental and social justice movements, and the Wilmington activists who work tirelessly. Change is coming! Third, I thank Melissa Prasnikar, Kelsey Hunter, Amy Thompson, Amber Steele, and Christina Robins. Thanks to Britney Fackler, Megan Liborio, and Christy Lewis, their incredible focus, and steadfast conviction. Thanks my former roomie, friend, and an amazing person, Cedric Turner. Thanks to Team BEACH Lab: Jason Black, Ann Simmonds, Sharon Radomski, Sarah Allgood, Gina Greene, Rakhee Patel, Daniel Smith, and Emily Beamon. Also, thanks to non-BEACH Lab-ers Gershom Lazarous, Kate McCalla, Lucia Lazarowski, and Laura Bullard. Thank you to my committee for their guidance, support, and insight throughout this project. Although it is officially only my name as first author of this study, without your advice and expertise, I would still be drafting my prospectus! Thank you all for being a part of my graduate education. Thanks to my saviors Johan Forsman, Huu Nguyen, George Younger, and Anand Selvaraj, my family and loved ones. To Brinkley Hutchings for making me whole. Tack så mycket! DEDICATION I dedicate this thesis to my parents, Bruce and Marianne Pinsky. Without their continued support, emotional and financial, I would not be where I am today. LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Demographic information.18 2. Self-reported drinking behavior.22 3. Correlation analysis . 34 4. Alcohol use differences . 40 5. Hypotheses.60 6. Regression analyses.62 7. Exploratory regression analysis.66 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Gender differences in alcohol consumption . 43 2. Alcohol specific support and drinking frequency.44 3. General social support and drinking frequency.45 4. Proportion of drinkers and drinking frequency . 46 5. Proportion of males and drinking frequency . 47 6. Proportion of family elders and drinking frequency . 48 7. Residence location and drinking frequency.49 8. Alcohol specific support and drinking quantity . 50 9. General social support and drinking quantity.51 10. Proportion of drinkers and drinking quantity . 52 11. Proportion of males and drinking quantity . 53 12. Proportion of family elders and drinking quantity . 54 13. Residence location and drinking quantity . 55 INTRODUCTION College alcohol use continues to be a top priority for researchers and public health officials. Excessive alcohol use among college students is not just a passing trend, or a problem of the new century. In fact, researchers have been studying alcohol use in college populations since the 1940s (Hecht, Grine, & Rothrock, 1948; Straus & Bacon, 1953). The attitude many students have toward drinking is largely responsible for this problem. College students often consider alcohol consumption to be a social practice and method used to make friends (Wetherill & Fromme, 2007). Furthermore, many regard partying and excessive drinking as a rite of passage (Butler, 1993; Crawford & Novak, 2006; Dorsey, Scherer, & Real, 1999; Glider, Midyett, Mills-Novoa, Johannessen, & Collins, 2001), which results in many students feeling comfortable about using alcohol frequently, and in large quantities. Social norms often facilitate the practice of binge drinking and partying behaviors among college students (Baer, 1994; Dorsey et al., 1999). During their freshman year, students are actively forming new acquaintances and friendships, and often use alcohol in social situations as a social lubricant (Clifford, Edmundson, Koch, & Dodd, 1987). In one study, 87% of college males reported their main purpose for drinking was in order to bond with other males (Burda & Vaux, 1988). And for many students, the development and maintenance of alcohol use is significantly affected by peer alcohol use (Borsari & Carey, 2001). For some, drinking may begin as a method of socialization; however, excessive social drinking can quickly develop into problem drinking. One study of over 12,000 university students found that 72% consumed alcohol at least once a year, and 20.6% were heavy drinkers; which is defined as consuming five or more drinks per occasion at least once a week (Engs, Diebold, & Hanson, 1996). Other studies mirror these high rates of binge drinking among college students. A national study of over 25,000 college students revealed that 44% of the students met binge drinking criteria, which was defined as five or more drinks, for men, or four or more drinks, for women, at least once in the prior two weeks (Wechsler et al., 1995). The increased rate of binge drinking in the Wechsler et al. (1995) study is likely due, in part, to the criteria used for binge drinking. Wechsler and colleagues (1995) defined binge drinking as a pattern of alcohol use occurring over a two week-period, whereas Engs et al. (1996) used a oneweek period. As indicated in these two prior studies, researchers commonly differ on their definitions of binge drinking. In response to an inconsistent operational definition for heavy episodic or binge drinking, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) National Advisory Council approved the following definition: five or more drinks in males and four or more drinks in females, in about a two-hour period (NIAAA, 2007). Regardless of the methodological differences, the two studies described above present a clear example of the highly prevalent and pervasive nature of binge drinking in college populations. More recently, another large national study found binge drinking rates for young adults ages 18 to 25 was 42.2 %, with the rate of binge alcohol use peaking between ages 21 to 23 (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2006). For college students aged 18 to 22, past month alcohol use occurred in 66.4 % of the sample, and binge drinking occurred in 45.5 % of the sample. Results of the annual survey also indicate that full time college students are more likely, than part-time and non-college students, to drink alcohol and to binge drink; however, regardless of whether these young adults are full time students or not students at all, this age group drinks larger quantities of alcohol and has more rates of binge drinking than any other (SAMHSA, 2006). In a comprehensive integration of several surveys conducted in 2001, Hingson and colleagues (2005) found that college students aged 18 to 24 experienced 1,700 unintentional injury deaths, 2.8 million students reported driving while under the influence of alcohol, and nearly 600,000 were injured due to alcohol use. Thus there is no doubt that coll