View/Open

THE EFFECTS OF A TEAM-CENTERED INTERVENTION ON THE 

DRINKING BEHAVIORS OF COLLEGE ATHLETES 

____________ 

A Thesis 

Presented 

to the Faculty of 

California State University, Chico 

____________ 

In Partial Fulfillment 

of the Requirements for the Degree 

Master of Arts 

in 

Kinesiology 

____________ 

by 

Luke Reid 

Spring 2009



A Thesis 

by 

Luke Reid 

Spring 2009 

APPROVED BY THE DEAN OF THE SCHOOL OF 

GRADUATE, INTERNATIONAL, AND INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES: 

_________________________________ 

Susan E. Place, Ph.D. 

APPROVED BY THE GRADUATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE: 

______________________________ _________________________________ 

George David Swanson, Ph.D. Traci Ciapponi, Ed.D., Chair 

Graduate Coordinator 

_________________________________ 

Cathrine Himberg, Ph.D. 

_________________________________ 

Scott Barker, M.S. 

_________________________________ 

Anita Barker, M.S.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

iii 

PAGE 

List of Tables.............................................................................................................. v 

Abstract....................................................................................................................... vi 

CHAPTER 

I. Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 

Overview ...................................................................................... 1 

Failing Prevention Efforts ............................................................ 2 

College Athletes: More Education, More Drinking ..................... 2 

Statement of the Problem ............................................................. 3 

Importance of the Study ............................................................... 4 

Operational Definitions ................................................................ 4 

II. Review of Literature................................................................................. 6 

Introduction .................................................................................. 6 

Drinking in College: A History of the Literature ......................... 8 

Drinking in College: Who, How Much, and How Often?............ 12 

Drinking in College: The Consequences...................................... 15 

Drinking in College: The Student-Athlete ................................... 20 

Why Do Athletes Drink More? .................................................... 25 

Drinking in College: At a Western University............................. 28 

Why CHAMPS/Life Skills? ......................................................... 30 

III. Methodology............................................................................................. 33 

Design........................................................................................... 33 

Participants ................................................................................... 33 

Materials....................................................................................... 34 

Procedures .................................................................................... 35 

Data Analysis................................................................................ 37

CHAPTER PAGE 

IV. Results ...................................................................................................... 38 

Presentation of Findings............................................................... 38 

V. Discussion................................................................................................. 52 

Summary....................................................................................... 52 

Conclusion.................................................................................... 53 

Limitations of the Study ............................................................... 54 

Future Directions.......................................................................... 55 

References .................................................................................................................. 58 

Appendices 

A. Informed Consent Agreement .................................................................. 68 

B. The Effects of Alcohol on Sport Performance Presentation .................... 71 

C. Team Contract Examples ......................................................................... 79 

D. Additional Tables ..................................................................................... 81 

iv

LIST OF TABLES 

TABLE PAGE 

1. Number of Times Reported Binging in the Last Two weeks ................... 40 

2. Times Drunk in the Past 30 Days ............................................................. 41 

3. Number of Reported Negative First-hand Effects of Drinking ................ 43 

4. Times Respondents Reported Driving after Drinking in the 

Past 30 Days ...................................................................................... 45 

5. Times Respondents Reported Driving after Having Five or More 

Drinks in the Past 30 Days ................................................................ 46 

6. Times Respondents Reported Riding with a Driver Who Was High 

or Drunk in the Past 30 Days............................................................. 47 

7. Times One of the Secondhand Effects of Other Students’ Drinking 

Experienced....................................................................................... 49 

8. Times Having Asked Someone Who Has Had Too Much Alcohol 

to Stop Drinking in the Past 30 Days ................................................ 51 

v

ABSTRACT 



by 

Luke Reid 

Master of Arts in Kinesiology 

California State University, Chico 

Spring 2009 

The abuse of alcohol by college students is well documented. Studies have re- 

vealed that the problem is even larger among student-athletes, who report drinking even 

more than their non-athlete peers. Such behavior may result from the strong social ties 

formed in a team setting. These social ties are often associated with binge drinking. 

Along with an increase in dangerous drinking comes an increase in negative firsthand 

and secondhand consequences. Thus, the problems associated with dangerous drinking 

behaviors loom even larger for student-athletes. 

The purpose of this study was to explore whether college athletes who were 

educated in a team setting with the NCAA CHAMPS Alcohol Choices and Addictive 

Behaviors course, and then asked to formulate a team-wide contract in response to that 

education, would alter their drinking behaviors. 

vi

The study was done on a residential campus of more than 15,000 students, ap- 

proximately 300 of which are involved in intercollegiate athletics. Seven of the univer- 

sity’s 13 intercollegiate athletic teams participated in the study. Every athlete on four of 

the 2005-06 rosters made up the experiment group (n=87). The athletes on three of the 

2005-06 rosters made up the control group (n=70). There were 32 females and 38 males 

in the control group, and 47 females and 40 males in the experimental group. The sample 

was representative of the university’s entire student-athlete population in terms of age 

and gender. 

The 2001 Harvard School of Public Health CAS questionnaire adapted was 

used for the pre- and post-test. The questionnaire featured questions about alcohol use 

and its consequences. 

However, no significant changes were revealed in the results following an ex- 

ploration of the statistics with SPSS. The difficulties of engaging in research aimed at 

understanding the trends and reasons for alcohol consumption among college-athletes 

became increasingly evident as this research project unfolded. Many lessons were learned 

that will undoubtedly benefit future research projects aimed at understanding these be- 

haviors. 

Future research in this field can take a number of different forms. It may be 

more effective to structure alcohol education interventions during an athlete’s off-season. 

It may also be more effective to target younger athletes before they develop drinking hab- 

its they may bring to the university setting or form once they arrive on campus. A possi- 

ble difference between student-athletes who participate in “individual” sports (e.g., track, 

vii

diving, golf) versus those who compete in more “team” oriented sports (i.e. basketball or 

football) could also lend insight. Another tact would be to use techniques such as inter- 

viewing and observation, which might provide as clearer picture of why student-athletes 

drink, as opposed to just how much they drink. 

While it is certainly disappointing that the student-athletes’ drinking behav- 

iors did not significantly improve with the intervention introduced in this study, in retro- 

spect, having a more multi-faceted design for gathering data may have also yielded re- 

sults that would help expand on current theories regarding dangerous drinking behaviors. 

viii

CHAPTER I 

INTRODUCTION 

Overview 

Red plastic cups littered the yard. Empty bottles and cans sat on the front steps 

and on the armrests of the dirty couches and chairs lining the front porch. Students 

walked by on the way to their Wednesday morning classes paying little attention to the 

sheet of plywood now being used as fencing. It read: “Beer Olympics.” For someone 

examining the extent of alcohol use in colleges around the nation, and specifically the use 

of alcohol by college athletes, this sign was impossible to ignore. Its message was 

twofold: alcohol and athletics are linked, and heavy drinking is something to be 

celebrated on the college campus. 

Many college students practice very dangerous drinking habits. This was a 

small glimpse into that reality. Though events like the “Beer Olympics” may seem to 

some like a harmless way for college students to enjoy themselves, they often, in fact, 

lead to harmful situations. This is evidenced by the alarming number of alcohol related 

unintentional deaths among college students—1,700 between 1998 and 2001 (Hingson, 

Heren, Winter, & Wechsler, 2005). Put another way, an average of nearly five college 

students died every day as a result of the misuse of alcohol in 2001. Problems like sexual 

assault, sexually transmitted diseases, poor academic performance, violence, and future 

alcohol dependence and abuse, are often directly attributable to the irresponsible use of 

1

alcohol among college students (Anderson & Mathieu, 1996; Perkins, 2002; Jennison, 

2004; Bennett, Miller, & Woodall, 1999; Hughes & Dodder, 1983; Engs & Hanson, 

1992; Engs, 1977; Hingson et al., 2005). Alcohol abuse by college students and the 

problems that result has helped lead to the research, design and implementation of 

multiple alcohol abuse prevention plans. 

Failing Prevention Efforts 

The serious consequences attributed to heavy drinking among college students 

have led to increased prevention efforts mentioned previously (Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, 

Seibring, Nelson, & Lee, 2002; Wecshler, Lee, Kuo, & Lee, 2000). The desired aim of 

these projects is to curb the regularity of events like the “Beer Olympics.” Assessing the 

worth of these preventive measures paints a discouraging picture. Educators have fallen 

well short of their desired goal of decreasing the volume and frequency of alcohol 

consumption (Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, Seibring et al., 2002). At first glance, this claim might 

seem surprising to most, but it is validated by the facts. The number of binge drinkers has 

held steady, and the number of frequent binge drinkers seems to be on the rise. 

College Athletes: More Education, 

More Drinking 

The drinking habits of college athletes are often more extreme than those of 

the average college student despite the fact that they report greater exposure to alcohol 

prevention efforts than non-athletes (Nelson & Wechsler, 2000). The social makeup of 

athletic teams may lend itself to a dangerous drinking environment (Nelson and 

Wechsler, 2000; Waldron & Krane, 2005; Messner, 2002; Overman & Terry, 1991; 

2

Donnelly & Young, 1988; Miller, Hoffman, Barnes, Farrell, Sabo, & Mellnick, 2003). 

Thus, the purpose of this study was to explore whether college athletes who are educated 

in a team setting, and then asked to formulate a team-wide contract in response to that 

education, would alter their drinking behaviors as a result. 

Statement of the Problem 

After examining the research on the drinking habits of college students and 

college athletes, and the popular theories about why this problem exists, multiple 

questions emerged that clearly warranted investigation. These questions were refined and 

led to specific and testable hypotheses aimed at creating a greater understanding 

regarding the causes, effects, and possible avenues of prevention of heavy drinking 

among college athletes. 

With respect to whether or not engaging in alcohol education in a team 

environment would alter student-athletes drinking behaviors, multiple hypotheses were 

proffered. Specifically, the hypotheses predicted were: 1) Drinking and its firsthand 

effects would decrease as a result of alcohol education, 2) Following the intervention 

students would also experience fewer secondhand effects as a result of the drinking habits 

of their peers, 3) The number of students who asked someone who has had too much to 

drink to stop drinking would increase due to the amplified situational awareness that the 

alcohol awareness classes and team contract had generated, and 4) Those students who 

reported being members of a sorority or fraternity would not report as much change as 

those who were not due to the apparent correlation between Greek affiliations and 

3

drinking (Scott-Sheldon, Carey, & Carey, 2007; Engs & Hanson, 1993; Cashin, Presley. 

& Meilman, 1998; Wechsler, Molnar, Davenport, & Bair, 1999). 

Importance of the Study 

The examination of the NCAA CHAMPS/Life Skills (CHAMPS) Alcohol 

Choices and Addictive Behaviors course (ACAB) was used specifically to encourage 

change in the drinking habits of college athletes. Drinking is a major problem on 

campuses throughout the nation, even more so among college athletes, and the efforts to 

curb this problem have been mostly ineffective historically (Nelson & Wechsler, 2000; 

Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, Seibring et al., 2002). An intervention that proved to effectively 

curb the drinking habits of college athletes would have widespread implications in the 

athletic and academic communities of our colleges and universities. 

Binge Drinking 

Operational Definitions 

A binge drinker was defined as a male who drank five or more drinks in a 

row, or female who drank four or more drinks in a row during the past two weeks 

(Nelson & Wechsler, 2000). 

Firsthand Effects 

The firsthand effects of drinking include any negative personal consequences 

associated with one’s drinking habits. The specific firsthand effects explored in this study 

are death and injuries, drinking and driving, dangerous sexual practices, blacking out and 

vomiting, academic problems, future abuse and/or dependency, and legal issues. 

4

One Drink 

A single drink was defined as a 12-ounce bottle or can of beer, a four-ounce 

glass of wine, a 12-ounce bottle or can of wine cooler, or a shot of liquor straight or in a 

drink. 

Secondhand Effects 

The secondhand effects of drinking include anything that might negatively 

affect an innocent bystander. Secondhand effects explored in this study include being hit, 

physically assaulted, sexually assaulted, insulted or humiliated, having property 

damaged, being responsible for taking care of a drunken peer, getting interrupted sleep, 

and unwanted sexual advances. 

5

CHAPTER II 

REVIEW OF LITERATURE 

Introduction 

College presidents described alcohol misuse as the single greatest threat to the 

quality of campus life in a 1990 survey (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of 

Teaching, 1990). A review of the literature focused on the study of alcohol use among 

college students supports that claim. The history of such literature will be discussed in the 

first half of this review of literature. A discussion of trends will follow. 

Widespread abuse of alcohol by college students has not only led to personal 

problems for the alcohol abusers, but also negative secondhand effects experienced by 

their peers (Green, Uryasz, Petr, & Bray, 2001; Johnson & Bogle, 2001; Leichliter, 

Meilman, Presley, & Chashin, 1998; Nelson & Wechsler, 2000). Two major recent 

national surveys report that more than 2-in-5 students stated that they binge drank at least 

once in the past two weeks (Wechsler, Dowdall, Davenport, & Rimm, 1995; O’Malley & 

Johnston, 2002). 

The problem is even larger among student-athletes, who report drinking even 

more than their non-athlete peers (Nelson & Wechsler, 2000). Such behavior may result 

from the strong social ties formed in a team setting. These social ties are often associated 

with binge drinking (Messner, 2002; Nelson & Wechsler, 2000; Overman & Terry, 1991; 

Waldron & Krane, 2005). Along with an increase in dangerous drinking comes an 

6

increase in negative firsthand and secondhand consequences. Thus, the problems 

associated with dangerous drinking behaviors loom even larger for student-athletes. 

The negative consequences of drinking are of major concern at the university 

where this research took place. A number of student deaths over the past decade were 

directly or indirectly attributable to the misuse of alcohol. In 1987, the long-standing 

Pioneer Days celebration was cancelled by the existing university president because of 

alcohol-fueled rioting. A substitute spring celebration started in 1988, but was also 

cancelled because of troubles stemming from alcohol abuse. In addition, the university 

has twice been ranked among the nation’s top party schools by Playboy magazine. 

As the base of research has grown in the study of alcohol use by college 

students, so have prevention efforts at local, regional, organizational, and national levels. 

Nevertheless, the 2001 Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Survey (CAS) 

found no significant decrease in the amount of students who reported binge drinking 

between 1993 and 2001 (Wechsler, Lee, Seibring et al., 2002). The apparent lack of 

effectiveness of many of these efforts to curb drinking among college students has caused 

researchers and educators to rethink their strategies. 

One relatively new strategy was developed by a branch of the National 

Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) as part of its CHAMPS Program. While some 

alcohol prevention strategies focus on social norms theory, one-on-one interventions, or 

environmental factors, CHAMPS ACAB is designed specifically for use in a classroom 

setting. The effectiveness of this specific intervention has yet to be studied. 

7

Drinking in College: A History 

of the Literature 

The use of alcohol by college students throughout the history of the United 

States is undeniable. According to Straus and Bacon (1953), many colleges in the 18 th 

century featured: “... student canteens called ‘butteries’ where all sorts of supplies 

including wines, beers, and liquors were sold” (p. 37). Beer and wine were also available 

in many college dining halls. More than 200 years later, the University of Colorado at 

Boulder, Florida State University, the University of Vermont, and the University of 

Wisconsin-Madison each feature more than 150 venues that sell alcohol within two miles 

of campus (Wechsler & Wuethrich, 2002). However, studies concerned with how many 

college students drink, how often they drink, and how much they drink, are a relatively 

new phenomenon. 

The Early Work 

Straus and Bacon (1953) are responsible for the first extensive research 

concerned with the drinking habits of college students on a national scale. The book, 

titled Drinking in College (Straus & Bacon, 1953), was groundbreaking because it 

included more than 15,000 students and represented 27 colleges in its sample. The 

colleges varied in size, geographical region, religiosity, and enrollment size. 

Drinking in College was the first well-publicized study of its kind, but it is 

now one of many. Until recently, however, the caliber of research left much to be desired. 

Differing methods of measurement, varying definitions of terms, and inadequate sample 

sizes were just some of the issues that made it hard to generalize the research to non- 

participating institutions, or compare one study to another. Blane and Hewitt (1977) 

8

summarized the literature of 68 surveys conducted between 1960 and 1975 and found 

that: “Data... are so limited the numerical estimates of frequency of drinking and 

intoxication experience cannot be made with confidence” (Blane & Hewitt, 1977, p. XII 

2). 

The 1970s 

Following the summary of literature by Blane and Hewitt, much of the 

research focused on the drinking habits of students in different regions of the United 

States. Kuder and Madson (1976) measured the drinking habits of students at Colorado 

State University, and Wechsler and McFadden (1979) studied 7,000 college students in 

New England. Hill and Bugen (1979) focused on students at the University of Texas, 

while Kaplan (1979) surveyed 230 undergraduate students at Arizona State University. 

Other researchers concerned themselves with national trends during this time. 

Hanson (1974) surveyed students from 37 colleges and universities in 1970 and 1971. He 

replicated the study for a report published in 1977 and found that, while heavy episodic 

drinking did not increase enough to be statistically significant, it did increase (Hanson, 

1977). In a similar study of national scope, Engs (1977) also discovered that dangerous 

drinking behaviors were on the rise. 

A Problem on the Rise 

Despite growing data suggesting drinking in college was a large problem, this 

fact did not always resonate with college administrators. According to the work of 

Kazalunas (1982), the focus of college administrators was on drug use and campus 

demonstrations, while the use of alcohol was becoming a growing problem. He declared 

that: “Before anyone really looked, drinking, too, was becoming a serious problem” 

9

(Kazalunas, 1982, p. 147). He strengthened his argument with statistics released by the 

National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism in 1976. The results of studies by 

Hughes and Dodder (1983) and Engs and Hansen (1983), each published one year after 

Kazalunas’ remarks, did little to ease the fears of Kazalunas and those who believed, as 

he did, that alcohol use among college students was becoming a major issue. 

The Search for Changes Over Time 

Though hampered by relatively small sample sizes, Engs and Hanson (1992) 

were the first to replicate their own research in an attempt to search for changes in 

drinking patterns and styles over time on a national scale. They studied surveys from 

1982, 1985, 1988, and 1991. These surveys, which were consistent in methodology, 

instrumentation, and procedures, finally gave researchers information they could study to 

understand the drinking patterns of college students over time and the inherent 

consequences. It was seen as a welcome addition to the accumulation of research. 

Continuing Research Problems 

A review of the literature reveals that data regarding drinking and college 

students grew immensely after the work of Straus and Bacon (1953). As the prevalence 

of alcohol use increased, the research followed. Nevertheless, a major problem still 

persisted; it was very difficult to generalize information from previous sources. Just as 

Blane and Hewitt discovered in the 1970s, differences in sampling procedures, collection 

methods, instrumentation, and varying classifications still made comparisons between 

studies very difficult. These problems would persist all the way into the 1990s. 

10

The CAS: A Welcome Addition 

It was the CAS, first published in 1994, which proved to be a key to the 

remedy. It was replicated in 1997, 1999, and 2001. The CAS is an ongoing survey of 

more than 50,000 college students throughout the United States. Each of the 140 four- 

year colleges involved provided a random sample of 225 students who received a 

questionnaire (Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, Seibring et al., 2002). The survey has been widely 

adopted among researchers interested in collegiate drinking behaviors resulting in 

numerous benefits. Specifically, it has assisted in standardizing the surveying methods, 

practices, and procedures in the study of alcohol use among college students. It has also 

helped in creating clear and concise operational definitions that have unified the field. 

Finally, its sample size and scope have allowed researchers to move from studying who 

in college is drinking and how much, to the personal consequences, secondhand 

consequences, and intervention strategies that go along with the dangerous drinking 

levels of college students. 

Other Recent Studies 

Though the CAS has become a vital tool in the study of the drinking habits of 

college students, other studies completed during the same time frame have also proved to 

be invaluable. In a 1994 study, over 12,000 university students representing every state 

were surveyed regarding how much and how often they drank (Engs, Diebold, & Hanson, 

1994). Gfroerer, Greenblatt, and Wright (1997) explored the effects of educational status 

and living arrangement on dangerous drinking habits. Bennett, Miller and Woodall 

contributed data taken from undergraduates in the southwest (1999). 

11

O’Malley and Johnston (2002) enlisted the CAS, Core Institute, Monitoring 

the Future, National College Health Risk Behavior Survey, and National Household 

Survey on Drug Abuse, to estimate levels of alcohol use among college students. In that 

same year, Wechsler and Wuethrich (2002) released Dying to Drink: Confronting Binge 

Drinking on College Campuses, an important book with the CAS at its core, which sums 

up much of the work that has been done in the field. 

From Occasional to Binge Drinking 

and Beyond 

Drinking in College: Who, How Much, 

and How Often? 

In their landmark study published in 1953, Straus and Bacon found that as 

many as 74 percent of students reported drinking at least once in the past year, but only 

10 percent of drinkers drank two or more times per week. For the purposes of the study, 

alcohol was separated into three categories: Beer, wine, and spirits. Only five percent of 

students reported usually drinking six glasses or more of wine at an average sitting, while 

10 percent reported drinking six bottles or eight glasses of beer at a sitting, and about 25 

percent reported drinking three or more ounces of spirits at a sitting (Straus & Bacon, 

1953). The number of students who reported drinking heavily was low in comparison 

with today’s students. 

Those numbers pale in comparison to those found in the 2001 CAS 

(Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, Seibring et al., 2002). The national survey of four-year college 

students revealed that 23 percent reported drinking on 10 or more occasions in the past 30 

days, and more than 40 percent of students reported binge drinking at least once in the 

12

past two weeks. Binge drinking was defined as five-or-more drinks at one sitting for men, 

and four-or-more drinks in one sitting for women (Wechsler, Dowdall, Davenport et al., 

1985). 

An exploration of the research revealed that many dangerous drinking habits 

among college students increased significantly during the second half of the 20 th century. 

Blane and Hewitt (1977) concluded that alcohol use among college students seemed to be 

increasing nationally between 1960 and 1975. A number of studies performed in the 

second half of the decade confirmed these findings. Engs (1977) concluded that 79 

percent of students nationally were at least infrequent drinkers, and 14 percent of students 

were heavy drinkers. Hill and Bugen (1979) found that 89 percent of students at the 

University of Texas drank, and 10 percent reported getting drunk once a week or more. 

Wechsler and McFadden (1979) found that fewer than five percent of students in New 

England were abstainers in the past year. Among males, 37 percent reported drinking 

three or more times per week, while 16 percent of women drank three or more times per 

week. More than 60 percent of students reported drinking to the point of intoxication a 

minimum of once per month. 

Engs and Hanson (1992) replicated their 1982 study in 1985, 1988, and 1991. 

They reported that the number of heavy drinkers, defined as those who consumed more 

than five drinks at any one sitting at least once per week, did not change significantly 

over that time period. The numbers did change, however, from 24.4 percent in 1982 to 

26.8 percent in 1991. 

Those trends were consistent with the findings of the CAS, which studied the 

habits of college students in 1993, 1997, 1999 and 2001 (Wechsler, Davenport, Dowdall, 

13

Moeykens, & Castillo, 1994; Wechsler, Dowdall, Maenner, Gledhill-Hoyt, & Lee, 1998; 

Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, & Lee, 2000; Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, Seibring et al., 2002). There are 

two crucial differences, however: All four years, the CAS found that 2-in-5 students were 

binge drinkers. Also, the CAS looked further into heavy drinking and uncovered a 

disturbing trend. By 2001, 23 percent of non-abstainers had binged three or more times in 

the past two weeks. Among students who drank at all in the past year, 23 percent reported 

drinking on 10-or-more occasions in the past 30 days, and 48 percent reported drinking to 

get drunk three or more times in the past 30 days (Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, Seibring et al., 

2002). 

Other studies done during the same time frame confirmed the findings of the 

CAS. In Engs’ 1994 study, 21 percent of students surveyed reported consuming five or 

more drinks in one sitting once a week or more. Thirty-one percent of males consumed 

over 21 drinks per week, and 19 percent of females consumed over 14 drinks per week 

(Engs, Diebold, & Hanson, 1994). In a study of undergraduate students in the southwest, 

over one-third reported binge drinking and 21 percent reported drinking at least three 

times per week (Bennett et al., 1999). The smaller percentage of binge drinkers is 

consistent with the CAS regional findings (Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, Seibring et al., 2002). 

O’Malley and Johnston (2002) enlisted the CAS, Core Institute (CORE), 

Monitoring the Future (MTF), National College Health Risk Behavior Survey 

(NCHRBS), and National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA), to estimate 

levels of alcohol use among college students. In a 1999 MTF study, 2-in-5 college 

students reported engaging in heavy drinking at least once in the past two weeks. A 1995 

NCHRBS study reported the same, as did a 1992-94 CORE study. The 1991-93 NHSDA 

14

study measured more extreme drinking, and found that 12 percent of college students 

reported drinking five or more drinks per sitting at least five times in the past 30 days. 

Drinking in College: The Consequences 

Because recent studies like the CAS better allowed for generalization, giving 

researchers a solid base of knowledge, much of the subsequent work in the field included, 

or turned its attention completely to, the consequences of the dangerous drinking 

behaviors of college students. Researchers have studied the relationship between alcohol 

and the following; death and injuries (Bennett et al.; Hingson et al., 2005; Wechsler, Lee, 

Kuo, Seibring et al., 2002); drinking and driving (Engs & Hanson, 1992; Engs, 1977; 

Hingson et al.; Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, Seibring 2002), dangerous sexual practices 

(Anderson & Mathieu, 1996; Hingson et al.; Perkins, 2002; Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, Seibring 

et al., 2002), blacking out and vomiting (Engs & Hanson, 1992; Hughes & Dodder, 1983; 

Perkins, 2002; Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, Seibring et al., 2002), academic problems (Bennett et 

al.; Engs & Hanson, 1992; Engs, 1977; Perkins, 2002; Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, Seibring et 

al., 2002), future abuse and/or dependency (Hughes & Dodder, 1983; Jennison, 2004), 

legal issues (Bennett et al.; Engs & Hanson, 1992; Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, Seibring et al., 

2002), and victims of the secondhand consequences of drinking (Hingson et al.; Perkins, 

2002; Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, Seibring et al., 2002). 

Death and Injuries 

Hingson and colleagues provided some of the more serious statistics available 

to date regarding the use of alcohol and its consequences. From 1998 to 2001, alcohol 

related unintentional deaths among college students rose significantly, from 1,600 to 

15

1,700. Not all consequences resulted in death, however. The same study reported that 

599,000 college students were injured because of their own drinking in 2001. Bennett et 

al. found that 95.7 percent of reported drinkers had experienced some kind of physical 

consequence or consequences during their lifetime. According to Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, 

Seibring et al. (2002), 13 percent of reported drinkers were hurt or injured in the past 

year, and one percent required medical treatment for an overdose. 

Drinking and Driving 

Many of those deaths and injuries are directly attributable to drinking and 

driving (Hingson et al.). Of the eight million college students in the United States, over 

two million reported having driven under the influence of alcohol, and over three million 

reported riding with a driver who had been drinking (Hingson et al.). Wechsler, Lee, 

Kuo, Seibring, Nelson, & Lee (2002) discovered that 29 percent of college students who 

reported drinking at least once during the past year had driven after drinking during that 

year. In a 1991 study, Engs and Hanson (1992) reported that 43 percent of college 

students had driven a car when they knew they had too much to drink beforehand. Engs 

(1977) found in a later study that 31 percent of students who drank reported driving after 

excessive drinking. 

Other Illegal Activities 

Students also reported engaging in other illegal activities like damaging 

property and fighting after drinking (Bennett et al.; Engs & Hanson, 1992; Wechsler, 

Lee, Kuo, Seibring et al., 2002). Bennett et al. discovered that 76.9 percent had 

experienced legal consequences of some kind. Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, Seibring, Nelson, & 

Lee (2002) reported that 11 percent had damaged property in the past year, while 7 

16

percent had gotten into trouble with the campus or local police. Seventeen percent of 

college drinkers surveyed by Engs and Hanson (1992) had been in a fight after drinking. 

Unplanned and Unprotected Sex 

The use of alcohol has also contributed to dangerous sexual practices like 

unplanned sex, unprotected sex, or both (Anderson & Mathieu, 1996; Hingson et al.; 

Perkins, 2002; Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, Seibring et al., 2002). In a study conducted by 

Anderson and Mathieu (1996), 33 percent of men and 17 percent of women who reported 

having one or more sexual partners in the past year said they let themselves drink more 

than they normally would as a “disinhibitor” to make sex easier. Two major studies 

concluded that more than 2-in-5 students who reported drinking in the past year engaged 

in unplanned sexual activity after drinking (Perkins, 2002; Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, Seibring 

et al., 2002). Approximately half of those students do so without using protection. 

Hingson and coworkers provided an idea of just how many students that is when they 

reported that 474,000 college students had unplanned unprotected sex after drinking in 

2001. 

Blacking Out and Vomiting 

Many students do not actually remember everything they did after drinking. In 

three separate studies, Perkins (2002), Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, Seibring and associates 

(2002), and Hughes and Dodder (1983) each revealed that 25-to-30 percent of students 

who drank in the past year reported blacking out or forgetting where they were or what 

they did at least once. Meanwhile, even more throw up as a result of drinking. Engs and 

Hanson (1992) discovered that, in 1991, over 50 percent of college students who drank 

reported vomiting. 

17

Academic Problems 

Schoolwork also may suffer as a result of drinking. A survey of college 

students in the southwest found a direct correlation between binge drinking and lower 

grade point averages (Bennett et al.). Some students who drank saw that correlation, too. 

Four percent of students in a study of 800-plus students believed their drinking had 

caused them to get a lower grade (Engs, 1977). Other research revealed that 28-to-30 

percent of students who had drank in the past year had missed class, while 19-to-22 

percent had fallen behind on their schoolwork as a result of their drinking (Engs and 

Hanson, 1992; Perkins, 2002; Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, Seibring et al., 2002). According to 

Perkins’ (2002) study, frequent bingers were eight times more likely to report getting 

behind in schoolwork than moderate drinkers. 

Dependence and Abuse 

Drinking in college has also been shown to lead to alcohol dependence and 

abuse (Jennison, 2004). In a study focused on the short and long term effects of binge 

drinking, Jennison used the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and 

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as her guide and discovered that among student 

who binged in college, 22 percent of men and 14 percent of women met the criteria for 

alcohol dependence 10 years later. During college, 24 percent of men and 19 percent of 

women met the criteria for alcohol abuse. Many of those students are aware of their 

problem. Hughes and Dodder (1983) reported that 19 percent of college drinkers 

considered their drinking habits a problem. 

18

Secondhand Effects 

Researchers have discovered that those drinking habits are often a problem for 

innocent bystanders, too (Hingson et al.; Perkins, 2002; Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, Seibring et 

al., 2002). Referred to as secondhand effects in this study, they include being hit, 

physically assaulted, sexually assaulted, insulted or humiliated, having their property 

damaged, being responsible for taking care of a drunken peer, getting their sleep 

interrupted, and experiencing unwanted sexual advances. 

Hingson and colleagues researched some of these serious secondhand effects 

of drinking in college and concluded that, “using conservative estimates,” 696,000 

students were hit or assaulted by students under the influence of alcohol, while another 

97,000 were victims of sexual assault or date rape perpetrated by a drinking student in 

2001. Perkins (2002) reported that 12 percent of non-drinking and 14 percent of drinking 

females reported being taken advantage of sexually by someone who had been drinking, 

as did 11 percent of non-drinking and 13 percent of drinking males. Meanwhile, 68 

percent of rape victims reported that their attacker had been drinking (Perkins, 2002). 

In the 2001 CAS survey, non-binge drinkers living in residence halls or 

fraternity or sorority housing were asked about the secondhand effects of drinking they 

had experienced in the past year (Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, Seibring et al., 2002) The survey 

concluded that 29 percent had been insulted or humiliated by a drinker, nine percent had 

been pushed or hit, 15 percent had their property damaged, almost 50 percent took care of 

a drunken student, 60 percent had their sleeping interrupted, 20 percent experienced an 

unwanted sexual advance, and one percent had been the victim of sexual assault or date 

19

ape. In all, 55 percent had experienced two or more secondhand consequences of 

drinking. 

Drinking in College: The Student-Athlete 

Clearly, limiting dangerous drinking is a major challenge facing college 

educators. Among student-athletes, the need for change is especially pressing. Nelson and 

Wechsler (2000) point out that student-athletes drink more alcohol on more occasions 

than their non-athlete college peers, and do so despite being more educated than their 

fellow college students about the consequences of drinking. Why then, despite these 

negative consequences and the seemingly obvious fact that drinking interferes with peak 

athletic performance, do student-athletes drink more than the average college student? 

Research has led to a theory that the social makeup of athletic teams lends itself to a 

dangerous drinking environment (Nelson & Wechsler, 2000; Waldron & Krane, 2005; 

Johnson & Bogle, 2001, Green et al., 2001; Baird, 2001; Donnelly & Young, 1988; 

Miller et al., 2003; Messner, 2002; Martens, Cox, & Beck, 2003; Martin & Leary, 2004; 

Schwerin et al., 1996). 

Student-Athletes Drink More 

Using data from the 1999 Harvard School of Public Health CAS, Nelson and 

Wechsler (2000) attempted to determine if there are differences in the drinking habits of 

college athletes and their non-athlete peers. They reported significant differences in the 

binge drinking rates of both male and female athletes. Fifty-seven percent of male 

athletes reported binge drinking at least once in the past two weeks, compared to 49 

percent of non-athletes. Among females, 48 percent of athletes reported binging, 

20

compared to 41 percent of non-athletes. Athletes also reported more extreme drinking 

patterns. Among those who drank in the past year, athletes were more likely to say they 

usually binge when they drink, more likely to be drunk three or more times in the past 30 

days, and more likely to say that drinking to get drunk was an important reason for 

drinking (Nelson & Wechsler, 2000). 

Wechsler and Davenport (1997) surveyed students from 140 American 

Colleges and also discovered that students involved in college athletics engaged in binge 

drinking more often than students not involved in athletics. Sixty-one percent of males 

involved in athletics reported binge drinking, compared to 43 percent who were not 

involved in athletics. Meanwhile, 25 percent reported being drunk three or more times in 

the past month, compared to 17 percent of those not involved in athletics. Twenty percent 

of athletically involved men reported intentionally drinking to get drunk, compared with 

15 percent of those who were uninvolved. Among women involved in athletics, 50 

percent reported binge drinking, compared to 36 percent of women not involved in 

athletics. More women involved in athletics also reported getting drunk at least three 

times in the past month and drinking to get drunk (Wechsler & Davenport, 1997). 

Leichliter et al. (1998) studied the responses of more than 51,000 students at 

125 institutions on the Core Alcohol and Drug Survey. They found that both male and 

female college athletes consumed significantly more alcohol per week and engaged in 

binge drinking more often than college students who were not athletes. Nattiv and Puffer 

(1991) also reported that college athletes consumed significantly higher amounts of 

alcohol and were more likely to drive while under the influence of alcohol than non 

athletes. 

21

In a 2001 survey of more than 21,000 NCAA student-athletes, approximately 

85 percent reported using alcoholic beverages at least once in a typical week, and 16 

percent reported using alcoholic beverages three or more times in a typical week (Green 

et al.). When asked how many drinks they usually had at one sitting, 43 percent reported 

six or more, while 82 percent reported three or more. Those rates were significantly 

higher than the rates of non-athletes. Johnson and Bogle (2001) surveyed 1,287 students 

at a public southeastern university and found a significant increase in alcohol-related risk 

behaviors for college athletes in comparison to non-athletes. They drank more frequently, 

binged more frequently, and were significantly more likely to average three or more 

drinks per sitting (Johnson & Bogle, 2001). 

A limited number of studies have found no significant difference between the 

drinking habits of college athletes and non-athletes. Overman and Terry (1991) surveyed 

146 Mississippi college students and found no significant differences. Anderson, 

Albrecht, Hough, McGrew, and McKeag (1991) also concluded that there were no 

significant differences, as did Koss and Gains (1993). However, the vast majority of 

research concerned with the drinking behaviors of student-athletes concludes that 

student-athletes do drink more than their non-athlete peers. 

Consequences for the Student-Athlete 

As is the case with college students in general, the negative drinking habits of 

student athletes seem to lead to a number of reported negative consequences (Green et 

al.; Johnson & Bogle, 2001; Leichliter et al.; Nelson & Wechsler, 2000). Because these 

negative consequences have been studied vigorously, as discussed earlier, few 

22

esearchers have undertaken the role of studying the negative consequences of drinking 

specifically by student athletes. Still, some data exists. 

Athletes are more likely than non-athletes to experience the negative 

consequences of drinking (Green et al.; Johnson & Bogle, 2001; Leichliter et al.; Nelson 

& Wechsler, 2000). Green et al. surveyed more than 21,000 student athletes to find the 

frequency of negative experiences over the past 12 months as a result of alcohol or drug 

use. Those findings included the following: Thirty-nine percent reported experiencing a 

hangover three or more times, 35 percent performed poorly on a test or important project, 

18 percent have been in trouble with authorities, 11 percent damaged property, 31 percent 

drove a car under the influence, 31 percent had a memory loss, 45 percent did something 

they later regretted, 12 percent were taken advantage of sexually, and 21 percent were 

hurt or injured. 

Other consequences of dangerous drinking behaviors student athletes reported 

facing included hazing, hindered athletic performance, and increased susceptibility to 

injury. In a study of more than 2,000 student athletes regarding hazing, Suggs (1999) 

found that 51 percent of respondents have been involved in at least one alcohol-related 

hazing activity. To better understand the consequences of drinking, consider the 

disturbing account given by one student athlete: 

The whole point of the night was to get the rookies as drunk as possible before 

running them through a gamut of games. Around midnight, everyone went to a frat 

house. The guys sat each girl down in a chair in turn and poured liquor down her 

throat and sprayed canned whipped cream in her mouth, and then held her face in 

their hands and shook her head violently back and forth. The initiation lasted five 

hours. By the end of the night, one girl was lost, wandering around a strange 

neighborhood, another was sobbing hysterically, and others were throwing up and 

falling over. (Wechsler & Wuethrich, 2002, p. 55) 

23

Hoover and Pollard (2000) found that 21 percent of college athletes have 

participated in dangerous hazing activities. Alcohol abuse was reported in approximately 

one half of those activities. They also discovered that members of sports teams are more 

likely to be hazed on high school and college campuses than those who are not members 

of sports teams. Only members of Greek organizations and gangs were more likely to be 

hazed. 

Alcohol use decreases athletic performance as well, according to research. 

Bond, Franks, and Howlet (1983) found that total cycling time to exhaustion was always 

shorter after alcohol use than after placebo. A 1987 study of 18 runners who were timed 

for five miles on a treadmill took an average of 28 seconds longer after alcohol 

consumption (Houmard, Langenfeld, & Wiley, 1987). In a study by O’Brien (1993), 

athletes were asked to consume their normal Friday night quantity of alcohol. Sixteen 

hours later, fitness assessments were performed. Those who drank the night before 

performed an average of 11.4 percent worse. 

Research has also shown a significant difference in injury rates between 

athletes who were self-reported drinkers and athletes who reportedly abstained from 

drinking. O’Brien and Lyons (2000) discovered that athletes who drank at least once a 

week, compared to those who did not drink, sustained more than twice as many injuries. 

El-Sayed, Ali, and El-Sayed Ali (2005) reported a strong correlation between alcohol use 

the night before competition and injuries sustained during sporting events. 

24

Why Do Athletes Drink More? 

Athletes are motivated to keep their bodies in top condition. They also report 

greater exposure to college alcohol education efforts than non-athletes (Nelson & 

Wechsler, 2000). Why then, are they more likely to exhibit dangerous drinking patterns 

than their non-athlete peers? Nelson and Wechsler (2000) theorized that the social 

makeup of athletic teams lends itself to a dangerous drinking environment. They claimed 

that athletes are more likely than non-athletes to be surrounded by the type of social 

environment that is associated with binge drinking. Athletes are more likely to have a 

large number of friends, particularly those who binge drink and attend parties, and they 

are also more likely to spend two or more hours a day socializing. This may account for 

their increased risk of binge drinking. 

Other research backs this theory (Baird, 2001; Donnelly & Young, 1998; 

Green et al.; Johnson & Bogle, 2001; Martens et al., 2003; Martin & Leary, 2004; 

Messner, 2002; Miller et al., 2003; Nelson & Wechsler, 2000; Schwerin et al., 1996; 

Waldron & Krane, 2005). Waldron and Krane (2005) contended that individuals often 

“over conform” to their team and sport. In other words, they have made their sport and 

their team such a vital part of their life that they were willing to forgo their own value 

system and participate in dangerous behavior in order to gain notoriety from their 

teammates. This was called a strong social approval orientation. 

It appears that social approval is a strong motivation that may lead athletes to 

engage in illicit and unhealthy behaviors. Fearing a loss of status and wanting 

continued recognition from teammates may drive athletes to take part in risky 

behavior.... (Waldron & Krane, 2005, p. 325) 

25

Messner (2002) also argued that athletes will often value the perceived notion 

of what it takes to fit in best with the team over their own uniqueness. Overman and 

Terry (1991) concluded the following in their study: “The structured experience of 

college athletics may influence some aspects of drinking,” and “participation in sport 

may socialize all types of athletes towards similar drinking behaviors” (Overman & 

Terry, 1991, p. 114). They argued that this is why male and female athletes use alcohol 

more similarly than male and female non-athletes. 

In her study of female rugby players, Baird (2001) came to the conclusion that 

certain behaviors were expected of players on certain teams. The sometimes dangerous 

conduct was meant to help develop a special bond among the participating athletes. 

Donnelly and Young (1988) stated their belief that the team is a subculture. Thus, 

newcomers to the team were forced undergo a successful socialization procedure in order 

to gain acceptance. This procedure often involved negative behaviors, such as binge 

drinking, because drinking is often a vital part of a team’s culture. That team culture is 

where many young men and women find their identity. In a study of 600 adolescents who 

self-described themselves as jocks, jock identity was significantly associated with 

drinking behavior, but the frequency of athletic activity was not (Miller et al., 2003). 

Messner (2002) theorized that sports teams can sometimes wind up with an 

unsafe hierarchy in which leaders set dangerous policies for inclusion. Another group, 

which he called the audience, was made up of followers who actively applauded and 

supported the practices of the leaders and hoped one day to be part of that group. 

Meanwhile, a third group, which he called the “marginals,” were the lower status group 

members who supported leaders with silent participation. 

26

In a study on adolescent steroid use, Miller and colleagues (2002) concluded 

that a set of patterned negative behaviors often accompanies athletic status. They argued 

that adolescents don’t always use steroids to be more successful, but instead, to gain 

social acceptance. Similarly, Martens and associates surveyed 400 intercollegiate athletes 

and found that students who had experienced a hangover or did something they later 

regretted were significantly more likely to have been drinking for social reasons than any 

other motivation. 

Martin and Leary (2004) asserted that virtually everyone has done something 

they would not normally do in order to make a desired impression on a person or group. 

They used anecdotal evidence of athletes putting their bodies at risk in the interest of 

conveying toughness, courage, and the like, to their teammates in order to strengthen the 

validity of their argument. A study of male body builders indicated that many men might 

use anabolic steroids more for the purpose of making a good physical impression than to 

improve their performance supported that argument (Schwerin et al., 1996). Johnson and 

Bogle (2001) concluded that either sports and the social situations that are inherit in them 

promote the use of alcohol among athletes, or the personality of one attracted to athletics 

must include characteristics of those who are likely to engage in risky drinking behaviors. 

Leichliter and associates suggested some other possibilities. First, athletes 

may experience a “work hard, play hard” ethic to a greater extent than other students. 

Second, alcohol may be a normal way to relieve the extra pressure that comes with being 

a student and an athlete. Third, alcohol and sports are connected in American society 

through advertising. Finally, alcohol provides a traditional means of both celebration and 

27

consolation. Thus, win or lose, it is natural to drink in the aftermath of athletic 

competition. 

Drinking in College: At a Western University 

In October of 2000, an 18-year-old freshman died of alcohol poisoning at his 

fraternity house. Within the calendar year, two more university students died when they 

were hit by trains while under the influence of alcohol (Smith, 2001). In 2005, another 

student was killed in a hazing ritual that included drinking large amounts of water in a 

very cold room. Two of the fraternity brothers hazed the pledge much longer than had 

originally been planned after one of them allegedly came home visibly intoxicated (Lore, 

2005). A 22-year-old student was beaten to death outside of a local bar while trying to 

break up an alcohol-induced fight (Welter, 2005). And in 2006, the University’s softball 

season was cancelled when a 17-year-old recruit was taken to the local hospital for 

alcohol overdose (Powers, 2006). 

At the university where this study took place, the misuse of alcohol has led to 

a host of tragedies. These are just a few examples. These problems are clear indicators 

that the problem is widespread. During the 2004-05 academic year: “Several students, 

including one with a blood alcohol content six times over the legal limit, were transported 

to Enloe Hospital for the emergency treatment of alcohol poisoning” (Zingg, 2005b, p. 

2). 

In his 2005 opening convocation address, the president had this to say: 

We are embarked on an effort to transform the Greek system on this campus into a 

national model and to demonstrate that (this) is the place to watch in order to 

witness the resolve and to find the strategies to change the alcohol culture that has 

plagued this campus and many others.... (Zingg, 2005a) 

28

A survey conducted by the Campus Alcohol and Drug Education Center 

(CADEC) in 2000 revealed that alcohol use at the campus in question exceeded alcohol 

use at comparable schools in California and around the nation (Esteban, 2000). The then- 

university president announced a new campus alcohol policy in 1999 that stated: 

“Alcohol may never be the focus of an event nor approved for use on a regular basis. 

Alcohol will not be used as a basis for fundraising” (Esteban, 1999). 

The university continued its battle against dangerous drinking by initiating a 

social norms campaign in 2001. The program was in response to four alcohol related 

deaths in the previous five years and numerous other alcohol related incidents. Alderson 

(2001) pointed to some sobering statistics as another reason for the campaign. Ninety- 

three percent of the university’s students have used alcohol, compared to the national 

average of 85 percent, and 40 percent of the university’s students reported drinking three 

or more times per week. 

Prior to the 2002-03 academic year, the university’s president made a request 

that all recognized student organizations develop their own means of self-regulating their 

conduct related to alcohol (Esteban, 2000). Failure to do so would result in a loss of 

university recognition until the requirement is met. In 2005, the university took its fight 

against the abuse of alcohol another step by requiring all first-time freshmen to complete 

an online alcohol abuse prevention course (Wills, 2005). In that same year, the 

university’s president oversaw the creation of a new task force on hazing, alcohol, and 

drugs (King, 2005). 

29

Why CHAMPS/Life Skills? 

The NCAA CHAMPS Alcohol Choices and Addictive Behaviors course 

(ACAB) was just one of a myriad of resources developed by the NCAA to provide to 

member institutions that are part of the CHAMPS/Life Skills program. The program was 

developed from the vision of NCAA Division I Athletic Director’s Association Executive 

Director Gene Hooks during the 1991-92 academic year, and the NCAA Foundation’s 

Life Skills Program. The programs merged into the CHAMPS/Life Skills program in the 

1994-95 academic year (1A Athletic Directors’ Association, n.d.b.). 

Prior to the merger and under the tutelage of Hooks, the CHAMPS program 

was recommended because it helped fulfill part of the 1A Directors’ mission. Included in 

the mission were the following statements: 

Division 1A directors of athletics are dedicated to the welfare and future success of 

the student-athletes, which we serve. It is imperative that the programs operated by 

the athletic director reflect well on the institution, and that teams representing the 

institution bring honor and respect to the campus. Athletic directors are committed 

to provide the coaching, facilities, and equipment necessary for each student-athlete 

to achieve his or her potential as a person, student, and athlete. We must also be 

committed to the prevention of drug and alcohol abuse and gambling dangers, and 

provide every possible means of testing, education, and follow-up. (1A Athletic 

Directors’ Association, n.d.c.) 

The program was also viewed as an aid to help athletic directors fulfill their 

stated values and ethics, on which each athletic director agrees to place the highest value 

and promote with each decision they make (1A Athletic Directors’ Association, n.d.a.). 

The first value listed was the overall welfare of each student athlete, which included 

health, safety, personal growth, and educational and athletic development. Within this 

framework of student-athlete welfare a code of ethics existed that included a list of 

principles to be addressed. These principles included physical development, health, and 

30

safety. “The AD should ensure that each student-athlete has a support system that 

protects and prioritizes his/her physical health and personal safety (1A Athletic Directors’ 

Association, n.d.a.).” Athletic directors were also to provide programs that, among other 

things, prepared student-athletes to make sound decisions and be good citizens. 

In an effort to fulfill their missions, values, and ethics, the 1A Directors 

adopted CHAMPS and made athletic development, academic development, community 

service, and career development as its four cornerstones. Meanwhile, the NCAA 

Foundation’s Life Skills program already featured community service, alcohol 

awareness, and career development as its foundation. Thus, when the programs merged, 

CHAMPS/Life Skills adopted five major commitments: The first was a commitment to 

academic excellence, the second was a commitment to athletic excellence, the third was a 

commitment to personal development, the fourth was a commitment to service, and the 

fifth was a commitment to career development (1A Athletic Directors’ Association, 

n.d.b.). 

ACAB is part of the CHAMPS commitment to personal development. 

Included in the personal development commitment was a pledge that every student- 

athlete would be given opportunities to focus on personal growth issues such as values 

clarification, decision making, and stress management, in order to develop a healthy 

lifestyle (1A Athletic Directors’ Association, n.d.b.). 

The course also helped the athletic department of the university in question 

meet some of the goals outlined in its own mission statement. In it, the members of the 

department pledged to strive to provide student athletes with a quality intercollegiate 

athletic experience that encourage their intellectual, physical, social, and emotional 

31

growth (Wildcat Athletics, n.d.). Ten core values of the intercollegiate athletic 

department were part of the mission statement. One featured a commitment to being a 

positive campus and community member. Another pledge was that student-athletes, 

coaches, and staff would be ambassadors locally and nationally. The last one was a 

commitment to uphold a high sense of character and moral honesty (Wildcat Athletics, 

n.d.). 

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore whether college athletes 

who were educated in a team setting, and then asked to formulate a team-wide contract in 

response to that education, would alter their drinking behaviors as a result. College 

athletes tend to drink more than non-athletes (Nelson & Wechsler, 2000). Researchers 

theorize that this is a result of environmental factors, including the desire to be included 

in the group and the desire for notoriety are inherent in team settings (Waldron & Krane, 

2005; Overman & Terry, 1991; Messner, 2002). It is reasonable to presume that 

teammates who were educated about alcohol and committed to each other to change their 

drinking habits would also be likely change those habits because of these factors 

(Waldron & Krane, 2005; Overman & Terry, 1991; Miller et al., 2002; Messner, 2002). 

32

CHAPTER III 

METHODOLOGY 

Design 

Nelson and Wechsler (2002) determined that college athletes tend to drink 

more than non-athletes. Theoretically, this is the result of environmental factors, 

including the desire to be included in the group and the desire for notoriety, which 

research has shown to be inherent in team settings (Waldron & Krane, 2005; Overman & 

Terry, 1991; Messner, 2002). Because of these factors, it is reasonable to presume that 

teammates who are educated about alcohol and commit to each other to change their 

drinking habits will likely change those habits because of these factors (Miller et al., 

2002; Messner, 2002). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore whether the 

drinking behaviors of college athletes would change after they were asked to formulate 

and sign a team-wide contract in response to the CHAMPS ACAB. 

Participants 

The study was done on a residential campus of more than 15,000 students, 

approximately 300 of which are involved in intercollegiate athletics. Seven of the 

university’s 13 intercollegiate athletic teams participated in the study. Every athlete on 

four of the 2005-06 rosters made up the experiment group (n=87). The athletes on three 

33

of the 2005-06 rosters made up the control group (n=70). The control group was made up 

of 32 females and 38 males. The experiment group consisted of 47 females and 40 males. 

The sample was representative of the university’s entire student-athlete 

population in terms of age and gender. Drinking habits of males and females differ, so it 

was important to make sure that there were representative numbers of women and men 

(Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, Seibring et al., 2002). The student-athletes chose to participate 

voluntarily after reading an informed consent form because they were willing to help the 

researcher with his project, though it should be noted that many were asked by their 

coaches to do so. 

CAS Questionnaire 

Materials 

The 2001 Harvard School of Public Health CAS questionnaire was used for 

the pre- and post-test. The questionnaire was adapted from “previous large-scale national 

studies” (Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, Seibring et al., 2002, p. 205), and featured questions about 

alcohol use and its consequences. Participants were instructed to define one drink as the 

following: a 12-oz bottle or can of beer, a 4-oz glass of wine, a 12-oz bottle or can of 

wine cooler, or a 1.25-oz shot of liquor in a mixed drink or as a straight shot (Wechsler, 

Lee, Kuo, Seibring et al., 2002). Information on the use of tobacco and other drugs was 

also gathered, along with demographic, background, and lifestyle information. Binge 

drinking was considered five or more drinks in one sitting for men and four or more 

drinks in one sitting for women (Wechsler, Dowdall, Davenport et al., 1995). The 

questions on the 2001 Harvard School of Public Health CAS questionnaire were used 

34

verbatim, with the exception of B6, B7, C17 through C19, D1, D6, D7, E20 through E22, 

E24, E25, and E28, which were changed from reading: “Since the beginning of the 

school year,” to “In the past 30 days,” for the purpose of measuring any changes over 

time during the study. 

CHAMPS Alcohol Choices And Addictive 

Behaviors Course 

The CHAMPS ACAB was designed to educate students and encourage them 

to make smart choices about alcohol and other drugs, including performance-enhancing 

drugs. CHAMPS was developed by the NCAA in conjunction with the Division I 

Athletic Director’s Association out of its dedication to “the welfare and future success of 

the student-athletes which we serve” (1A Athletic Directors’ Association, n.d.c.). 

In response to the “Personal Development Commitment” within the CHAMPS 

program, the ACAB course was introduced. Because the focus of the study was alcohol, 

only those sections of the course that were concerned with choices about drinking were 

taught. As a result, what was originally designed by the NCAA to be a six-hour course 

was changed into a four-hour course. The student workbook and coordinator guide are 

available through the CHAMPS Program to every registered CHAMPS member. 

Procedures 

Following the completion of an informed consent form (see Appendix A), 

participants were asked to complete the CAS questionnaire. They completed it a 

minimum of 30 days after the students returned from winter break, thus ensuring that the 

students’ winter break actions did not interfere with the data. To ensure the validity of the 

results by limiting the possibility that students would not answer truthfully in order to 

35

please the researcher, a trained research associate introduced and administered the 

questionnaires. The students were reminded that the time they were away for winter 

break was not included in the last 30 days before filling out the pre-test questionnaire. 

Students chose their own secret code to ensure anonymity. 

After they completed the pre-test questionnaire, and before the start of spring 

break, the four teams in the research group attended the first of two, two-hour sessions of 

the ACAB course. When the students in the experiment group completed the CAS 

questionnaire, they were given a copy of the course workbook and asked to read pages 

1-28 and complete the activities on pages 10 and 13 prior to the first classroom meeting. 

The four teams each attended a class, which was taught on the college 

campus. No one except the members of the particular team being taught that day, the 

guest speaker, or the instructor, was allowed in the room during instruction. On a later 

date, each team returned for the second two-hour section of the course. During that 

second two-hour session a guest speaker from the university athletic-training staff 

presented information about the effects of alcohol on athletes (see Appendix B). The 

control group took the pre-test and post-test, but did not receive the workbooks or take 

part in the classroom activities. 

At the conclusion of the first class session, the students were told that 

following the second class session they would be asked to make some measurable 

commitments to each other regarding their drinking habits. They were asked to begin 

thinking about what kind of commitments they would like to make. To help them in that 

process, they were provided with an illustration of a summer workout regiment decided 

on and committed to by a team – a concept they would undoubtedly be familiar with - 

36

and told the commitments might choose to make might be designed similarly. For the 

final 30 minutes of the second class session, the teams worked together on a contract 

regarding their use of alcohol for the remainder of the school year. After being instructed 

to work together and make measurable commitments, they were asked to decide what 

would be included in the contract and then each sign the contract (see the Appendix C for 

the contracts). The day after each team’s second class session, a copy of the contract was 

distributed to each team member. 

Spring break took place March 13-17, so it was not appropriate to ask students 

to complete the post-test questionnaire before April 18, which marked 30 days after the 

end of spring break. Between April 18 and April 21, each student completed the post-test 

questionnaire. Before they began, they were reminded that the last 30 days did not 

include spring break. 

Data Analysis 

The data were analyzed with SPSS version 13.0 ® . 

37

CHAPTER IV 

RESULTS 

Presentation of Findings 

The purpose of this study was to explore whether college athletes who were 

educated in a team setting, and then asked to formulate a team-wide contract in response 

to that education, would alter their drinking behaviors. Research has revealed that college 

athletes tend to drink more than non-athletes (Nelson & Wechsler, 2000). It is theorized 

that this is a result of environmental factors, including the desire to be included in the 

group and the desire for notoriety that are inherent in team settings (Waldron & Krane, 

2005; Overman & Terry, 1991; Messner, 2002). It is reasonable to presume that 

teammates who were educated about alcohol and committed to each other to change their 

drinking habits would also be likely to change those habits because of these factors 

(Waldron & Krane, 2005; Overman & Terry, 1991; Miller et al., 2002; Messner, 2002). 

In order to run ordinal statistics, answers that included more than one number 

(three-to-five or six-to-nine, for example), were assigned an average value. For example, 

question C1 reads: Think back over the last two weeks. How many times have you had 

five or more drinks in a row?” The possible answers are: None, once, twice, 3 to 5 times, 

6 to 9 times, or 10 or more times. As a result, an answer of three-to-five was assigned a 

value of four, and an answer of six-to-nine was assigned a value of 7.5, etc. This was 

chosen as the best way to get descriptive statistics. 

38

At first inspection the data appear to show some changes in the student- 

athletes’ drinking behaviors. The firsthand and secondhand effects of drinking, and the 

willingness of student-athletes to ask people to stop drinking appears to decrease. 

Unfortunately, a closer look at the statistics using SPSS does not reveal any significant 

effects between groups. 

Drinking and Its Firsthand Effects 

It was hypothesized that drinking and its firsthand effects would decrease as a 

result of alcohol education. However, questions exploring binge drinking, how often 

student-athletes drink, and the firsthand effects of drinking did not yield anything of 

statistical significance. 

The mean number of times student-athletes reported binging, or having five or 

more drinks in one sitting (four for women) during the last two weeks, decreased by .30 

among the experimental group (M = 3.74/3.44), and increased by .14 among the control 

group (M = 3.21/3.35). In this case, the mean number of student-athletes in the 

experimental group who reported binging during the last two weeks prior to the 

intervention was 3.74. Following the intervention, the mean was 3.44. In the control 

group, the mean number of student-athletes who reported binging during the last two 

weeks on the pre-test was 3.21. Those students reported a mean of 3.35 on the post-test. 

In terms of percentages, 34.8 percent of the experiment group reported binging fewer 

times, 39.1 percent binged the same number of times, and 26.1 percent binged more. 

Binging decreased among 29.2 percent of the control group, stayed the same for 33.3 

percent, and increased in 37.5 percent. However, an ANOVA between groups found no 

significance, p = .444 (see Table 1). 

39

Table 1 

Number of Times Reported Binging in the Last Two Weeks 

Exp. Pre Exp. Post Control Pre Control Post Total 

None 2 7 5 6 20 

Once 8 7 3 3 21 

Twice 7 6 5 3 21 

3 to 5 20 16 6 6 48 

6 to 9 8 10 4 5 27 

10 or more 1 0 1 1 3 

Total 46 46 24 24 140 

Mean 3.739 3.435 3.208 3.354 

P-value between 

groups 0.444 

Both pre and post-test groups reported drinking virtually the same amount of 

times in the past 30 days. The mean of the experiment group dipped slightly (M = 

8.3/8.1), while the control group rose slightly (M = 13./14.1). An ANOVA between 

groups yielded no significance, p = .928 (see Table A-1 in Appendix D). 

Just as the number of times each group drank in the past 30 days showed little 

change, the number of drinks the student-athletes usually had on those occasions also 

changed only slightly. The experimental reported a slight rise in their average number of 

drinks (M = 5.5/5.8). The control group reported a slight decline (M = 5.8/5.7). Again, an 

ANOVA between groups yielded no significance, p = .828 (Table A-2 in Appendix D). 

40

Student-athletes from both the control and experiment group reported getting 

drunk more often on the post-test than the pre-test, though the numbers were more 

dramatic in the control group than the experiment group. The times students in the 

experiment group reported drinking enough to get drunk as defined by “unsteady, dizzy, 

or sick to your stomach,” rose (M = 4.99/5.92). It rose in the control group as well (M = 

7.36/9.68). An ANOVA showed no significance, p = .411, though the total increase of 

students who reported getting drunk in both the control group and experimental group 

was much closer to being statistically significant, p = .058 (see Table 2). 

Table 2 

Times Drunk in the Past 30 Days 


Not at all 4 3 3 2 12 

1 to 2 9 10 4 2 25 

3 to 5 15 11 5 2 33 

6 to 9 5 9 5 8 27 

10 to 19 3 3 2 5 13 

20 to 39 1 1 2 2 6 

40 or more 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 37 37 21 21 116 

Mean 4.9865 5.9189 7.3333 9.6905 


groups 0.411 

41

No significant changes were found among 15 survey questions regarding the 

firsthand effects of drinking. Question C16 (a through l) explored whether drinking had 

caused the respondent to have a hangover, miss a class, get behind in schoolwork, do 

something they later regretted, forget where they were or what they did, argue with 

friends, engage in unplanned sexual activity, not use protection when they had sex, 

damage property, get into trouble with the campus or local police, get hurt or injured, or 

require medical treatment for an alcohol overdose. The survey also asked, if a respondent 

had experienced any of those firsthand effects, how many times they had experienced 

them. No statistically significant changes took place between groups in any of the 15 

variables (see Tables A3 through A14 in Appendix D). 

It was meaningful to explore what changes may have taken place regarding 

individual firsthand effects. At the same time, because all of these firsthand effects are 

linked to an individual’s drinking, it seemed worthwhile to explore them collectively. 

Those findings were also non-significant, p = .470. The mean rose in the experiment 

group (M = 5.93/ 6.15), and control group (M = 5.82/7.00) (see Table 3). 

Questions E13a, E13b, and E13c explored the behaviors of student-athletes 

with regards to drinking and driving. Student-athletes were asked how many times in the 

past 30 days they had driven after drinking, how many times in the past 30 days they had 

driven after drinking five or more drinks, and how many times in the past 30 days they 

had driven with a driver who was high or drunk. The small number of student-athletes 

who responded affirmatively to these questions in the pre- and post-tests ensured that no 

significant differences would be found (see Tables 4, 5, and 6). 

42

Table 3 

Number of Reported Negative First-Hand Effects of Drinking 


Not at all 7 5 4 6 22 

Once 3 3 5 3 14 

Twice 1 6 3 1 11 

3 times 4 5 1 0 10 

4 times 5 2 0 2 9 

5 times 4 2 1 1 8 

6 times 4 3 1 1 9 

7 times 2 3 0 0 5 

8 times 2 2 2 2 8 

9 times 4 2 1 0 7 

10 times 3 2 0 0 5 

11 times 4 1 1 0 6 

12 times 0 3 0 1 4 

13 times 0 3 1 2 6 

14 times 2 0 0 1 3 

16 times 0 1 0 0 1 

17 times 0 1 0 1 2 

20 times 1 0 0 0 1 

21 times 0 0 1 1 2 

23 times 0 1 0 0 1 

43

Table 3 (Continued) 


24 times 0 0 0 1 1 

37 times 0 0 1 0 1 

Total 46 46 22 22 136 

Missing 0 0 2 2 4 

Mean 5.93 6.15 5.82 7 


groups 0.47 

Respondents in both experiment and control groups actually reported an 

increase in driving after drinking. The increase in the experiment group from 32.6 percent 

to 42.5 percent was higher than the increase in the control group, which jumped from 

45.9 percent to 54.2 percent. 

Four of 46 student-athletes in the experiment group reported driving after 

having five or more drinks in the past 30 days on the pre-test, while seven did on the post 

test. Eight of 24 respondents in the control group reported driving after having five or 

more drinks on the pre-test, compared to seven on the post-test. 

Finally, 50 percent (23 of 46) of experiment group respondents reported riding 

with someone who was high or drunk on both the pre- and post-tests. The control group 

reported a decrease from 58.3 percent (14 of 24) to 41.7 percent (10 of 23). 

44

Table 4 

Times Respondents Reported Driving After Drinking in the Past 30 Days 


Not at all 31 26 13 11 68 

Once 13 15 4 7 46 

twice or 

more 2 5 7 6 24 

Total 46 46 24 24 140 

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 

Mean 0.37 0.54 0.75 0.79 


groups 0.301 

Drinking and Its Secondhand Effects 

It was hypothesized that student-athletes would experience fewer of the 

secondhand effects the result from the drinking habits of their peers. No significant 

changes were found among 12 survey questions regarding the secondhand effects of 

drinking, however. 

Question D1 (a through l) explored whether respondents had experienced the 

following as a result of another students’ drinking: been insulted or humiliated, had a 

serious argument or quarrel, been pushed, hit or assaulted, had their property damaged, 

had to “baby-sit” or take care of another student who drank too much, found vomit in the 

halls or bathroom of their residence, had their studying or sleep interrupted, experienced 

45

Table 5 

Times Respondents Reported Driving After Having Five or More Drinks in the Past 30 

Days 


Not at all 42 39 16 17 114 

Once 4 7 6 2 19 

twice or 

more 0 0 2 5 7 

Total 46 46 24 24 140 

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 

Mean 0.09 0.15 0.42 0.5 


groups 0.211 

an unwanted sexual advance, or been a victim of sexual assault or date rape. The survey 

also asked, if a responded had experienced any of the indicated secondhand effects, how 

many times they had experienced it (see Tables A-15 through A-23 in Appendix D). 

No statistically significant changes were uncovered between groups in these 

12 questions, some interesting discoveries were made. Questions D1b (had a serious 

argument or quarrel) (p = 0.75) and D1h (experienced an unwanted sexual advance) (p = 

.116) were closest to approaching statistical significance, but the changes proved to be 

statistically insignificant. 

46

Table 6 

Times Respondents Reported Riding with a Driver Who Was High or Drunk in the Past 

30 Days 


Not at all 23 23 10 13 69 

Once 17 12 6 4 39 

Twice or 

more 6 11 8 6 31 

Total 46 46 24 23 139 

Missing 0 0 0 1 1 

Mean 0.63 0.74 0.92 0.7 


groups 0.125 

Experiment group respondents to D1b reported a drop in secondhand 

consequences (M = 0.36/0.17). Meanwhile, control group respondents reported a rise 

(M = 0.33/0.50). Experiment group respondents to D1h reported a drop in secondhand 

consequences (M = 0.39/0.23). Meanwhile, control group respondents reported a rise 

(M = 0.31/0/54). 

Finally, though it was not between groups, something of statistical 

significance was uncovered regarding students being forced to “baby-sit” or take care of 

another student who drank too much. The drop in reports of this secondhand effect from 

47

the pre-test to the post-test within the entire group of respondents (M = 0.72/0.48) was 

statistically significant (p = .017). 

Again, because no significant changes were evident in the 12 variables when 

explored separately, the survey questions were also combined and inspected as a group 

using an ANOVA. Those findings were also non-significant (p = .499). The mean in the 

experiment group dipped (M = 3.07/2.92), while it rose in the control group (M = 

2.54/2.88) (see Table 7). 

Asking Someone Who Has Had Too Much 

to Drink to Stop Drinking 

It was hypothesized that the number of students who asked someone who had 

too much to drink to stop drinking would increase due to the augmented situational 

awareness that the alcohol awareness classes and team contract had generated. However, 

student-athletes actually reported asking someone who has had too much to drink to stop 

drinking fewer times on the post-test then on the pre-test. The number fell (M = 

0.87/0/78) in the experiment group and the control group (M = 0.54/0.46). However, the 

drop did not prove to be statistically significant (p = 0.99) (see Table 8). 

The Sorority/Fraternity Effect 

It was hypothesized that members of a sorority or fraternity would not report 

as much change as those who were not. However, no member of either group reported 

being a member of a fraternity or sorority. 

48

Table 7 

Times One of the Secondhand Effects of Other Students’ Drinking Experienced 


Not at all 9 5 12 13 39 

1.00 9 10 3 2 24 

2.00 6 4 0 2 12 

2.50 1 6 0 0 7 

3.00 3 6 1 0 10 

3.50 2 5 1 0 8 

4.00 1 1 0 2 4 

4.50 5 1 0 0 6 

5.00 2 2 0 0 4 

5.50 0 1 1 0 2 

6.00 3 2 1 0 6 

7.00 1 0 0 0 1 

7.50 0 0 1 1 2 

8.00 0 1 3 0 4 

8.50 1 0 1 0 2 

9.50 0 1 0 0 1 

10.00 0 0 0 2 2 

10.50 3 0 0 0 3 

12.50 0 1 0 1 2 

49

Table 7 (Continued) 


15.00 0 0 0 1 1 

Total 46 46 24 24 140 

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 

Mean 3.07 2.92 2.54 2.88 


groups 0.499 

50

Table 8 

Times Having Asked Someone Who Has Had Too Much Alcohol to Stop Drinking in the 

Past 30 Days 


Not at all 15 22 15 16 68 

Once 22 13 5 6 46 

2 or 3 

times 9 10 4 1 24 

4 or more 0 1 0 1 2 

Total 46 46 24 24 140 

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 

Mean 0.87 0.78 0.54 0.56 


groups 0.479 

51

CHAPTER V 

DISCUSSION 

Summary 

The serious consequences attributed to heavy drinking among college students 

have led to increased prevention efforts (Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, Seibring et al. 2002; 

Wecshler, Lee, Kuo, & Lee, 2000). These efforts seem to have fallen well short of their 

desired effects, however. The number of binge drinkers has held steady, and the number 

of frequent binge drinkers seems to be on the rise (Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, Seibring et al., 

2002). 

The drinking habits of college athletes are often more extreme than those of 

the average college student despite the fact that they report greater exposure to alcohol 

prevention efforts than non-athletes (Nelson & Wechsler, 2000). The social makeup of 

athletic teams may lend itself to a dangerous drinking environment (Nelson &Wechsler, 

2000; Waldron & Krane, 2005; Messner, 2002; Overman &Terry, 1991; Baird, 2001; 

Donnelly & Young, 1988; Miller, Hoffman, Barnes, Farrell, Sabo, & Melnick, 2003). 

Thus, the purpose of this study was to explore whether college athletes who are educated 

in a team setting, and then asked to formulate a team-wide contract in response to that 

education, would alter their drinking behaviors as a result. 

The examination of the NCAA CHAMPS/Life Skills Alcohol Choices and 

Addictive Behaviors course used specifically to encourage change in the drinking habits 

52

of college athletes is vital. An intervention that proved to effectively curb the drinking 

habits of college athletes would have widespread implications in the athletic and 

academic communities of our colleges and universities. 

The predictions offered were: 1) Drinking and its firsthand effects would 

decrease, 2) Students would experience fewer secondhand effects as a result of the 

drinking habits of their peers, 3) The number of students who asked someone who has 

had too much to drink to stop drinking would increase, and 4) Those students who 

reported being members of a sorority or fraternity would not report as much change as 

those who were not. 

At first inspection the data appear to show some changes in the student- 

athletes’ drinking behaviors, the firsthand and secondhand effects of drinking, and the 

willingness of student-athletes to ask people to stop drinking. However, a closer look at 

the descriptive statistics did not reveal any significant changes between groups. 

Conclusion 

The drinking behaviors of college student-athletes should be of major concern 

at the university in question and at institutions across the nation. The Harvard School of 

Public Health College Alcohol Study has consistently discovered that approximately 40 

percent of college students have reported binge drinking within the past 30 days 

(Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, Seibring et al., 2002). Among student-athletes, the number has 

historically hovered around 50 percent (Nelson & Wechsler, 2000). In this study, 90 

percent of the student-athletes (63-of-70) reported binging within the past 30 days. 

53

This intervention, unfortunately, did not change those numbers significantly. 

The results of this study showed that the four hours spent working through the NCAA- 

developed curriculum had little or no effect on student-athletes’ drinking, the secondhand 

effects of drinking, or the frequency of students asking someone who has had too much to 

drink the stop drinking. 

Limitations of the Study 

Ironically, one of the teams involved in this study saw its season come to a 

premature end when a 17-year-old on a recruiting visit was taken to the hospital with 

alcohol poisoning. The students who were involved either left or were asked to leave the 

university. The team was part of the control group, so this turn of events only impacted 

the numbers in the control group. Instead of having 38 individuals in the control group 

and a representative mix of genders, the control group became much smaller than the 

experiment group (40 to 24) and also became very male-dominated. 

The nature of collegiate athletics poses some obvious problems for this kind 

of study. Because some teams were in the middle of their playing season and others were 

in the off-season, it could be assumed that attitudes toward drinking may have been 

effected. For example, some teams already had in place “48-hour rules,” that forbid 

drinking at any time within 48 hours of competition. 

The limitations inherent in self-report instruments are another limiting factor 

in this study. Researchers exploring the validity of self-reports regarding drinking 

behaviors have come to varying conclusions (Midanik, 1998). What is clear though, is 

that there are differences in how males and females generally respond when answering 

54

questionnaires (LaFrance & Banaji, 1992; Shields, 1992). It has been repeatedly shown 

that males tend to under-report when answering questionnaires, while females are more 

likely to answer in a manner that accurately reflects their true behaviors. Therefore, the 

fidelity of data taken from a demographic that is predominantly male may not be as true 

as data derived from groups with more equal gender split. 

Future Directions 

The difficulties of engaging in research aimed at understanding the trends and 

reasons for alcohol consumption among college-athletes became increasingly evident as 

this research project unfolded. Despite discouraging results, many lessons were learned 

that will undoubtedly benefit future research projects aimed at understanding these 

behaviors. As a result, the following section’s specific aim is to suggest possible future 

directions for similar research projects on this topic. 

First, and arguably most importantly, it may be more effective to structure 

alcohol education interventions during an athlete’s off-season. The off-season has been 

routinely shown as an effective time for athletes to implement change. For example, 

athletes wishing to change a mental aspect within their sport performance (i.e. pre- 

performance routine) or physical aspect of their game (e.g., golf swing change) are often 

encouraged to do so away from “the heat of battle” (Barnes, Mann, & Mousseau, 2004; 

Orlick, 1990; Singer, Hausenblas, & Janelle, 2001). With respect to this study, it is quite 

possible that the in-season demands associated with competition interfered with the 

message being presented in the alcohol awareness classes. In turn, this may have 

hindered the athletes truly “owning” the message being presented in this intervention, 

55

esulting in little or no change in their reported drinking behaviors. In summary, it could 

be argued quite convincingly that during the season athletes are motivated and consumed 

with actions that directly lead to winning, while during the off-season they might be more 

receptive to learning and setting goals that curtail drinking (Barnes et al., 2004; Orlick, 

1990; Singer et al., 2001). 

When considering the results presented in this study, it also may be 

worthwhile to examine if interventions tailored to younger athletes (e.g., high school 

student-athletes) may be more beneficial and result in lasting positive changes in drinking 

behaviors. While it is illegal for these underage individuals to engage in alcohol 

consumption, evidence suggests that they are clearly doing so (Wechsler, Lee, Nelson, & 

Kuo, 2002). Attempting to change these behaviors before they become ingrained and 

accepted may also lead to healthier student-athletes who make better decisions once in 

college. 

One could also argue that additional experimental methods may actually yield 

a greater understanding of the alcohol problems facing today’s college campuses, and in 

turn possibly generate data that helps better tailor interventions to the needs of student- 

athletes at this university. By combining the questionnaire used in this study with more 

qualitative measures such as interviewing, observational techniques and additional 

archival sources a clearer picture may begin to emerge explaining why students drink, as 

opposed to just how much they drink. While it is certainly disappointing that the student- 

athletes’ drinking behaviors did not significantly improve with the intervention 

introduced in this study, in retrospect, having a more multi-faceted design for gathering 

56

REFERENCES

REFERENCES 

1A Athletic Directors’ Association. (n.d.a). Association values & ethics. Retrieved 

October 10, 2005, from 1A Athletic Directors’ web site: http://www.d- 

1a.com/pages/assoc_mission.htm 

1A Athletic Directors’ Association. (n.d.b). Challenging athletes’ minds for personal 

success. Retrieved October 10, 2005 from 1A Athletic Directors’ web site: 

http://www.d1a.com/pages/champs_history.htm 

1A Athletic Directors’ Association. (n.d.c). Mission statement. Retrieved October 10, 

2005, from http://www.d-1a.com/pages/assoc_mission.htm 

Alderson, B. (2001). Reality check: A new approach to alcohol education [Electronic 

version]. Inside Chico State, 31. 

Anderson, P.B., & Mathieu, D.A. (1996). College students’ high-risk sexual behavior 

following alcohol consumption. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 22, 269- 

264. 

Anderson, W.A., Albrecht, R.R., McKeag, D.B., Hough, D.O., & McGrew, C.A. (1991). 

A national survey of alcohol and drug use by college athletes. The Physician 

and Sports Medicine, 19, 91-104. 

Baird, S.M. (2001). Femininity on the pitch: an ethnographic study of female rugby 

players. Unpublished master’s thesis, Bowling Green State University, 

Bowling Green, OH. 

59

Barnes, R.T., Mann, D.T.Y., & Mousseau, M.B. (2004, June). Mental skills for athletes: 

The coach’s role. Presentation at the 2004 American Alliance for Health, 

Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance Convention, New Orleans, LA. 

Bennett, M.E., Miller, J.H., & Woodall, W.G. (1999). Drinking, binge drinking, and other 

drug use among southwestern undergraduates: Three-year trends. American 

Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 25, 331-350. 

Blane, H.T., & Hewitt, L.E. (1977). Alcohol and youth: An analysis of the literature, 

1960-75. Report No. PB-268 698. Springfield, VA: National Technical 

Information Services. 

Bond, V., Franks, B.D., & Howlet, E.T. (1983). Effects of small and moderate doses of 

alcohol on submaximal cardiorespiratory function, perceived exertion and 

endurance performance in abstainers and moderate drinkers. Journal of Sports 

Medicine and Physical Fitness, 23, 221-228. 

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. 

El-Sayed, M.S., Ali, N., & El-Sayed Ali, Z. (2005) Interaction between alcohol and 

exercise. Sports Medicine, 35, 257-269. 

Donnelly, P., & Young, K. (1988). The construction and confirmation of identity in sport 

subcultures. Sociology of Sport Journal, 5, 223-240. 

Engs, R.C. (1977). Drinking patterns and drinking problems of college students. Journal 

of Studies on Alcohol, 38, 2144-2156. 

60

Engs, R.C., & Hanson, D.J. (1983). University alcohol survey finds most patterns 

unchanged: Suggest look at priorities. Alcoholism and Alcohol Education, 12, 

285-299. 

Engs, R.C., Diebold, B.A., & Hanson, D.J. (1994). The drinking patterns and problems of 

a national sample of college students, 1994. Journal of Alcohol and Drug 

Education, 41, 13-34. 

Engs, R.C., & Hanson, D.J. (1992). College students’ drinking problems: A national 

study, 1982-1991. Psychological Reports, 71, 39-42. 

Engs, R.C., & Hanson, D.J. (1993). Drinking games and problems related to drinking 

among moderate and heavy drinkers. Psychological Reports, 73, 115-120. 

Esteban, M.A. (1999). Executive memorandum 99-11, campus alcohol policy. Retrieved 

November 15, 2005, from 

http://www.csuchico.edu/prs/ems/em99/em99_11.htm 

Esteban, M.A. (2000). Campus climate must change [Electronic version]. Inside Chico 

State, 31. 

Gfroerer, J.C., Greenblatt, J.C., & Wright, D.A. (1997). Substance use in the US college- 

age population: Differences according to educational status and living 

arrangement. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 62-65. 

Green, G.A., Uryasz, F.D., Petr, T.A., & Bray, C.D. (2001). NCAA study of substance 

use and abuse habits of college student-athletes. Clinical Journal of Sport 

Medicine, 11, 51-56. 

Hanson, D.J. (1977). Trends in drinking attitudes and behavior among college students. 

Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 22, 17-24. 

61

Hill, F.E., & Bugan, L.A. (1979). A survey of drinking behavior among college students. 

Journal of College Student Personnel, 20, 236-243. 

Hingson, R., Heeren, T., Winter, M., & 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. 

Hoover, N.C., & Pollard, N.J. (2000). Initiation rites in American high schools: A 

national survey: Final report. Retrieved January 4, 2006, from 

http://www.alfred.edu/news/html/hazing_study.html 

Houmard, J.A., Langenfeld, M.E., & Wiley, R.L. (1987). Effects of the acute ingestion of 

small amounts of alcohol upon 5-mile run times. Journal of Sports Medicine 

and Physical Fitness, 27, 253-257. 

Hughes, S.P. & Dodder, R.A. (1983). Alcohol consumption patterns among college 

populations. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24, 257-263. 

Jennison, K.M. (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, 659-684. 

Johnson, D.J., & Bogle, K. (2001). Comparison of patterns of alcohol use between high 

school and college athletes and non-athletes. College Student Journal, 35, 

358-365. 

Kaplan, M.S. (1979). Patterns of alcoholic beverage use among college students. Journal 

of Alcohol and Drug Education, 24, 26-40. 

Kazalunas, J.R. (1982). Drinking among college students: A problem to bring out of the 

closet and meet head on in the ’80s. College Student Journal, 16, 147-152. 

62

King, S.W. (2005). Turning the corner [Electronic version]. Inside Chico State, 36. 

Kuder, J.M., & Madson, D.C. (1976). College student use of alcoholic beverages. 

Journal of College Student Personnel, 17, 142-144. 

LaFrance, M., & Banaji, M. (1992). Toward a reconsideration of the gender-emotion 

relationship. Emotion and Social Behavior, 14, 12-17. 

Leichliter, J.S., Meilman, P.W., Presley, C.A., & Cashin, J.R. (1998). Alcohol use and 

related consequences among students with varying levels of involvement in 

college athletics. Journal of American College Health, 46, 257-262. 

Lore, M. (2005, November 3). Guilty pleas don’t erase pain. Retrieved January 4, 2006, 

from http://www.newsreview.com/chico/Content?oid=43409 

Martens, M.P., Cox, R.H., & Beck, N.C. (2003). Negative consequences of 

intercollegiate athlete drinking: The role of drinking motives. Journal of 

Studies on Alcohol, 64, 825-828. 

Martin, K.A., & Leary, M.R. (2004). Self-presentational processes in health-damaging 

behavior. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 59-74. 

Messner, M.A. (2002). Addiction. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. 

Midanik, L.T. (1998). Validity of self-reported alcohol use: A literature review and 

assessment. Addiction, 83, 1019-1029. 

Miller, K.E., Barnes, G.M., Sabo, D.F., Melnick, M.J., & Ferrell, M.P. (2002). Anabolic- 

androgenic steroid use and other adolescent problem behaviors: Rethinking 

the male athlete assumption. Sociological Perspectives, 45, 467-489. 

63

Miller, K.E., Hoffman, M.A., Barnes, G.M., Farrell, M.P., Sabo, D.F., & Melnick, M.J. 

(2003). Jocks, gender, race, and adolescent problem drinking. Journal of Drug 

Education, 33, 445-462. 

Nattiv, A. & Puffer, J.C. (1991). Lifestyles and health risks of collegiate athletes: A 

multi-center study. Journal of Family Practice, 33, 585-590. 

Nelson, T.F., & Wechsler, H. (2000). Alcohol and college athletes. Medicine & Science 

in Sports & Exercise, 33, 43-46. 

O’Brien, C.P. (1993). Alcohol and sport: Impact of social drinking on recreational and 

competitive sports performance. Sports Medicine, 15, 71-77. 

O’Brien, C.P., & Lyons, F. (2000) Alcohol and the athlete. Sports Medicine, 29, 295-300. 

O’Malley, P.M., & Johnston, L.D. (2002). Epidemiology of alcohol and other drug use 

among American college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 14, 23-39. 

Orlick, T. (1990). In pursuit of excellence (2 nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Leisure Press. 

Overman, S.J., & Terry, T. (1991). Alcohol use and attitudes: a comparison of college 

athletes and nonathletes. Journal of Drug Education, 21, 107-117. 

Perkins, H.W. (2002). Surveying the damage: a review of research on consequences of 

alcohol misuse in college populations. Journal of Alcohol Studies, 14, 91-100. 

Powers, E. (2006). More alcohol problems at Chico. Retrieved June 18, 2006, from 

http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/04/03/chico 

Schwerin, M.J., Corcoran, K.J., Fisher, L., Patterson, D., Askew, W., Olrich, T., & 

Shanks, S. (1996). Social physique anxiety, body esteem, and social anxiety in 

bodybuilders and self-reported anabolic steroid users. Addictive Behaviors, 

21, 1-8. 

64

Scott-Sheldon, A.J., Carey, K.B., & Carey, M.P. (2007). Health behavior and college 

students: Does Greek affiliation matter? Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 1, 

61-70. 

Shields, S.A. (1991). Gender in the psychology of emotion: a selective research review. 

International Review of Studies on Emotion, 1, 33-37. 

Singer, R., Hausenblas, H., & Janelle, C. (2001). Handbook of sports psychology. New 

York, NY: Wiley. 

Smith, L. (2001, August 23). Bottles, cans, & binging. Retrieved June 18, 2006, from 

http://www.newsreview.com/chico/Content?oid=5548 

Straus, R., & Bacon, S.D. (1953). Drinking in college. New Haven: Yale University 

Press. 

Student Activities Office of California State University, Chico. (2002). Special notice to 

all university recognized student organizations. Retrieved January 3, 2006, 

from http://www.csuchico.edu/prs/ems/em99/em99_11.htm 

Suggs, W. (1999). 79(percent) of college athletes experience hazing, survey finds. The 

Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(2), A83. 

Waldron, J.J., & Krane, V. (2005). Whatever it takes: Health compromising behaviors in 

female athletes. Quest, 57, 315-329. 

Wechsler, H., & Davenport, A.E. (1997). Binge drinking, tobacco, and illicit drug use 

and involvement in college athletics. Journal of American College Health, 45, 

195-200. 

65

Wechsler, H., Davenport, A., Dowdall, G., Moeykens, B., & Castillo, S. (1994) Health 

and behavioral consequences of binge drinking in college: a national survey of 

students at 140 campuses. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272, 

287-291. 

Wechsler, H., Dowdall, G.W., Davenport, A., & Rimm, E.B. (1985). a gender-specific 

measure of binge drinking among college students. American Journal of 

Public Health, 85, 921-926. 

Wechsler, H., Dowdall, G., Maenner, G., Gledhill-Hoyt, J., & Lee, H. (1998). Changes in 

binge drinking and related problems among American college students 

between 1993 and 1997. Journal of American College Health, 47, 57-68. 

Wechsler, H., Lee, J.E., Kuo, M., & Lee, H. (2000). College binge drinking in the 1990s: 

a continuing problem. Results of the Harvard School of Public Health 1999 

College Alcohol Study. Journal of American College Health, 48, 199-210. 

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 behaviour, access to alcohol, and the influence of deterrence policies. 

Journal of American College Health, 50, 223-236. 

Wechsler, H. & McFadden, J.D. (1979). Drinking among college students. Journal of 

Studies on Alcohol, 40, 969-995. 

Wechsler, H., Molnar, B.E., Davenport, A.E., & Bair, J.S. (1999). College alcohol use: a 

full or empty glass? Journal of American College Health, 47, 247-252. 

66

Wechsler, H., & Wuethrich, B. (2002). Dying to drink: Confronting binge drinking on 

college campuses. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press. 

Welter, G. (2005, February 23). Two serious alcohol poisonings being investigated by 

police [Electronic version]. Chico Enterprise-Record. 

Wildcat Athletics. (n.d.). Mission statement and intercollegiate athletics core values. 

Retrieved October 7, 2005, from 

http://www.csuchico.edu/athletics/ad/missionstate/html 

Wills, J. (2005, August 4). Alcohol abuse prevention course required for freshmen 

[Electronic version]. CSU, Chico News. 

Zingg, P.J. (2005a). Opening convocation address to university faculty. Retrieved 

January 3, 2006 from http://www.csuchico.edu/prs/ems/em99/em99_11.htm 

Zingg, P.J. (2005b, Fall). The heart of the matter [Electronic version]. Chico Statements. 

67

APPENDIX A

INFORMED CONSENT AGREEMENT 

Project Title: The Effects of Team-Centered Education on College Athletes 

Please read this consent agreement carefully before taking part in this study. 

Purpose of research study: 

The purpose of this study is to explore whether college athletes who are educated in a team setting, 

and then asked to formulate a team-wide contract in response to that education, will alter their 

drinking behaviors as a result. 

What you will do in the study: 

You will take the Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Survey twice over the course 

of this semester. You will also attend two, two-hour classes and be expected to participate in 

classroom activities and discussion. You will then work with your teammates to complete and sign 

a contract regarding your use of alcohol for the remainder of the semester. 

Risks or discomforts: 

The time commitment is approximately five hours over the course of this semester. Also, some 

questions might cause stress and you may choose to skip any question you do not feel comfortable 

answering. 

Benefits: 

Participants will receive valuable information regarding the use of alcohol and its effects on 

student-athletes. They will also have an opportunity to choose smarter and healthier ways to use 

alcohol throughout the remainder of the semester. 

Confidentiality: 

The information obtained in the study will be handled confidentially. Your information will be 

assigned a code number with no name attached. The researcher will not be able to identify your 

questionnaire. Your team will never be identified. No coach will have access to your responses or 

the responses of your team. Your responses will have no bearing on your eligibility. 

Voluntary participation: 

Your participation in this study is voluntary. 

Right to withdrawal from the study: 

If at any time you wish to withdraw from this study, you may do so without penalty. 

Who to contact if you have questions about the study: 

Luke Reid or Traci Ciapponi, Ph.D. 

Sports Information Department Department of Kinesiology 

California State University, Chico California State University, Chico 

Chico, CA 95929-0300 Chico, CA 95929-0330 

Phone: 680-7207 Phone: 898-5429 

Who to contact about your rights in the study: 

Diane Smith 

School of Graduate, International, and Interdisciplinary Studies 898-6880 

69

Informed Consent Agreement 

Project Title: The Effects of Team-Centered Education on College Athletes 

Please read this consent agreement carefully before agreeing to take part in this study. 

Purpose of research study: 

The purpose of this study is to explore whether college athletes who are educated in a team setting, 

and then asked to formulate a team-wide contract in response to that education, will alter their 

drinking behaviors as a result. 

What you will do in the study: 

You will take the Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Survey twice over the course 

of this semester. 

Risks or discomforts: 

Some questions might cause stress and you may choose to skip any question you do not feel 

comfortable answering. The time commitment of approximately one hour over the course of this 

semester is also a possible discomfort. 

Benefits: 

There are no obvious benefits for you. 

Confidentiality: 

The information obtained in the study will be handled confidentially. Your information will be 

assigned a code number with no name attached. The researcher will not be able to identify your 

questionnaire. Your team will never be identified. No coach will have access to your responses or 

the responses of your team. Your responses will have no bearing on your eligibility 

Voluntary participation: 

Your participation in this study is voluntary. 

Right to withdrawal from the study: 

If at any time you wish to withdraw from this study, you may do so without penalty. 

Who to contact if you have questions about the study: 

Luke Reid or Traci Ciapponi, Ph.D. 

Sports Information Department Department of Kinesiology 

California State University, Chico California State University, Chico 

Chico, CA 95929-0300 Chico, CA 95929-0330 

Phone: 680-7207 Phone: 898-5429 

Who to contact about your rights in the study: 

Diane Smith 

School of Graduate, International, and Interdisciplinary Studies 

898-6880 

70

APPENDIX B

THE EFFECTS OF ALCOHOL ON SPORT PERFORMANCE 

PRESENTATION 

72

APPENDIX C

TEAM CONTRACT EXAMPLES 

Team A: 

We, “Team A” commit to not drinking during the school week while we’re in-season, 

and we commit to confronting a teammate if we think he has a drinking problem. 

Team B: 

We, “Team B” commit to: Not drinking and driving; Not drinking within 48 hours of an 

official competition; Personally be responsible for what we (as individuals) drink; Team 

safe rides (call each other and offer rides if sober). 

Team C: 

We, “Team C” commit to: Not drinking and driving; Drink only one night per week and 

limit ourselves to just one drink on one other night during the week. 

Team D: We, “Team D” commit to not letting our clothes come off when we drink. 

80

APPENDIX D

Table A-1 

TABLES 

Number of Times Reported Drinking Alcohol in the Last 30 Days 


1 to 2 6 9 4 1 20 

3 to 5 9 10 5 4 28 

6 to 9 15 15 1 3 34 

10 to 19 15 11 7 8 41 

20 to 39 0 1 3 2 6 

40 or more 0 0 1 1 2 

Total 45 46 21 19 131 

Mean 8.3333 8.0889 13.6667 14.0833 

P-value between groups 0.928 

82

Table A-2 

Number of Drinks Usually Consumed When Drinking in the Last 30 Days 


1 drink 1 1 1 0 3 

2 drinks 1 2 1 1 5 

3 drinks 4 2 3 0 9 

4 drinks 3 9 2 6 20 

5 drinks 13 7 2 4 26 

6 drinks 10 8 3 1 22 

7 drinks 8 7 3 3 21 

8 drinks 4 6 2 3 15 

9 or more 1 4 4 1 10 

Total 45 46 21 19 131 

Mean 5.53 5.76 5.78 5.67 


83

Table A3 

Hangovers Reported in the Past 30 Days 


Not at all 16 17 9 9 22 

Once 10 13 5 6 14 

Twice 14 6 2 5 11 

3 times 2 7 4 0 10 

4 or more 4 3 2 2 9 

Total 46 46 22 22 136 

Missing 0 0 2 2 4 

Mean 1.3 1.26 1.32 1.09 


84

Table A4 

Missed Classes Due to Drinking in the Past 30 Days 


Not at all 35 24 13 11 83 

Once 10 10 6 3 29 

Twice 1 6 1 5 13 

3 times 0 5 2 2 9 

4 or more 0 1 0 1 2 

Total 46 46 24 24 140 

Missing 0 0 2 2 4 

Mean 0.26 0.89 0.64 1.05 


85

Table A5 

Times Fallen Behind in Schoolwork Due to Drinking Reported in the Past 30 Days 


Not at all 29 23 16 11 79 

Once 10 12 1 3 26 

Twice 2 6 3 6 17 

3 times 2 2 1 0 5 

4 or more 3 3 1 2 9 

Total 46 46 24 24 140 

Missing 0 0 2 2 4 

Mean 0.7 0.91 0.64 1.05 


86

Table A6 

Times Actions Were Regretted Following Drinking in the Past 30 Days 


Not at all 21 27 14 11 73 

Once 17 10 3 6 36 

Twice 6 6 2 5 19 

3 times 1 2 2 0 5 

4 or more 1 1 1 0 3 

Total 46 46 24 24 140 

Missing 0 0 2 2 4 

Mean 0.76 0.7 0.91 0.73 


87

Table A7 

Times Reported Forgetting Where You Were or What You Did Due to Drinking in 

the Past 30 Days 


Not at all 22 22 15 12 71 

Once 9 13 3 5 30 

Twice 4 5 2 5 16 

3 times 6 4 0 0 10 

4 or more 5 2 2 0 9 

Total 46 46 22 22 136 

Missing 0 0 2 2 4 

Mean 1.2 0.93 0.68 0.68 


88

Table A8 

Times Drinking Caused an Argument with Friends in the Past 30 Days 


Not at all 31 28 17 13 89 

Once 10 12 2 6 30 

Twice 3 5 1 2 11 

3 times 1 1 0 1 2 

4 or more 1 0 2 0 3 

Total 46 46 22 22 136 

Missing 0 0 2 2 4 

Mean 0.5 0.54 0.55 0.59 


89

Table A9 

Unplanned Sexual Activity Due to Drinking in the Past 30 Days 


Not at all 29 35 17 14 95 

Once 11 6 3 3 23 

Twice 4 5 1 5 15 

3 times 1 0 0 0 1 

4 or more 1 0 1 0 2 

Total 46 46 22 22 136 

Missing 0 0 2 2 4 

Mean 0.56 0.35 0.41 0.59 


90

Table A10 

Unprotected Sex Due to Drinking in the Past 30 Days 


Not at all 36 40 19 17 112 

Once 8 3 1 1 13 

Twice 2 3 0 2 7 

3 times 0 0 1 0 1 

4 or more 0 0 1 2 3 

Total 46 46 22 22 136 

Missing 0 0 2 2 4 

Mean 0.26 0.2 0.36 0.2 


91

Table A11 

Property Damaged Due to Drinking in the Past 30 Days 


Not at all 40 39 20 17 116 

Once 5 6 0 4 15 

Twice 1 0 1 1 3 

3 times 0 1 0 0 1 

4 or more 0 0 1 0 1 

Total 46 46 22 22 136 

Missing 0 0 2 2 4 

Mean 0.15 0.2 0.27 0.27 


92

Table A12 

Number of Times in Trouble with the Campus or Local Police Due to Drinking in the 

Past 30 Days 


Not at all 45 44 22 21 132 

Once 1 2 0 0 3 

Twice 0 0 0 1 1 

3 times 0 0 0 0 0 

4 or more 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 46 46 22 22 136 

Missing 0 0 2 2 4 

Mean 0.02 0.43 0 0.09 


93

Table A13 

Times Hurt or Injured Due to Drinking in the Past 30 Days 


Not at all 41 43 19 19 122 

Once 3 1 2 2 8 

Twice 2 1 1 1 5 

3 times 0 1 0 0 1 

4 or more 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 46 46 22 22 136 

Missing 0 0 2 2 4 

Mean 0.15 0.13 0.18 0.18 


94

Table A14 

Times Medical Treatment Was Required for an Alcohol Overdose in the Past 30 

Days 


Not at all 44 46 22 21 133 

Once 2 0 0 0 2 

Twice 0 0 0 1 1 

3 times 0 0 0 0 0 

4 or more 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 46 46 22 22 136 

Missing 0 0 2 2 4 

Mean 0.04 0 0 0.09 


95

Table A-15 

Times Insulted or Humiliated Due to Another Students’ Drinking in the Past 30 

Days 


Not at all 33 27 17 19 97 

Once 12 15 3 2 35 

2 or 3 

times 1 3 1 2 6 

4 or more 0 1 0 1 2 

Total 46 46 24 24 140 

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 

Mean 0.315 0.576 0.25 0.458 


96

Table A-16 

Times in a Serious Argument or Quarrel Due to Another Students’ Drinking in the 

Past 30 Days 


Not at all 34 38 19 18 109 

Once 10 8 4 3 25 

2 or 3 

times 1 0 0 2 3 

4 or more 1 0 1 1 3 

Total 46 46 24 24 140 

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 

Mean 0.359 0.174 0.333 0.5 


97

Table A-17 

Times Pushed, Hit or Assaulted Due to Another Students’ Drinking in the Past 30 

Days 


Not at all 42 43 22 23 130 

Once 4 2 2 1 9 

2 or 3 

times 0 1 0 0 1 

4 or more 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 46 46 24 24 140 

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 

Mean 0.087 0.098 0.083 0.042 


98

Table A-18 

Times One’s Property Has Been Damaged Due to Another Students’ Drinking in 

the Past 30 Days 


Not at all 41 41 23 23 128 

Once 5 4 1 1 11 

2 or 3 

times 0 1 0 0 1 

4 or more 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 46 46 24 24 140 

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 

Mean 0.109 0.141 0.042 0.042 


99

Table A-19 

Times Forced to “Baby-Sit” or Take Care of Another Student Who Drank Too 

Much in the Past 30 Days 


Not at all 24 28 12 16 80 

Once 16 15 8 6 45 

2 or 3 

times 5 3 4 2 14 

4 or more 1 0 0 0 1 

Total 46 46 24 24 140 

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 

Mean 0.707 0.489 0.75 0.458 


100

Table A-20 

Times Having Found Vomit in the Halls or Bathroom of Place of Residence Due to 

Other Students’ Drinking 


Not at all 38 38 23 24 123 

Once 6 6 0 0 12 

2 or 3 

times 2 2 1 0 5 

4 or more 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 46 46 24 24 140 

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 

Mean 0.239 0.239 0.104 0 


101

Table A-21 

Times Studying or Sleep Has Been Interrupted Due to Other Students’ Drinking 


Not at all 23 25 17 17 82 

Once 13 8 3 2 26 

2 or 3 

times 9 10 2 2 23 

4 or more 1 3 2 3 9 

Total 46 46 24 24 140 

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 

Mean 0.859 0.978 0.667 0.792 


102

Table A-22 

Times an Unwanted Sexual Advance Has Been Experienced Due to Other Students’ 

Drinking 


Not at all 37 40 21 20 118 

Once 4 3 1 0 8 

2 or 3 

times 5 3 2 4 14 

4 or more 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 46 46 24 24 140 

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 

Mean 0.391 0.228 0.313 0.542 


103

Table A-23 

Times Victimized by Sexual Assault or “Date Rape” Due to Other Students’ 

Drinking 


Not at all 46 46 24 23 139 

Once 0 0 0 1 1 

2 or 3 times 0 0 0 0 0 

4 or more 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 46 46 24 24 140 

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 

Mean 0 0 0 0.042 


groups 0.168 

104

View/Open

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?