THE CONSEQUENCES OF ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION FOR DRINKING AND NON-DRINKING STUDENTS

Transcription

1 THE CONSEQUENCES OF ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION FOR DRINKING AND NON-DRINKING STUDENTS Shadd Cabalatungan Abstract In this study, I investigate whether other students alcohol consumption negatively influences the academic and social lives of non-drinking college students. I examine the second-hand effects of alcohol with a scale measure of the negative consequences of drinking. Method: The variables measured in the study were drawn from Wechsler s Harvard College Alcohol Study (2001). Multiple regression models were used to assess relationships between the negative consequences of others drinking and outcome variables. Comparisons were used to assess whether these relationships differed for abstainers relative to drinkers. Conclusion: The grades and satisfaction of college students, drinkers and abstainers alike, suffer as a result of their peers drinking; however, compared to drinkers, abstainers are more adversely affected. College alcohol programs should extend their focus from drinkers to abstainers and develop intervention strategies that will promote health and well-being for both groups. Keywords Second Hand Effects of Alcohol Consumption, Abstainers, College Drinking, Party Scene, Undergraduate Education, and College Alcohol Study Introduction The Culture of College Drinking Understanding college drinking requires an examination of the experimental core of college life the time between college entry and exit (Burawoy 2009) and a consideration of alcohol s role as part of the structure of the university. On college campuses across America, alcohol related culture is entwined in school customs, social norms, and the academic institution itself. Although the majority of college undergraduates are below the legal drinking age, an extensive literature documents the prevalence of alcohol and its related consequences in U.S. universities and colleges. Wechsler and colleagues (1994) found that about two in five students (44%) attending 4 year colleges drink alcohol at a high level and that binge drinking was widely accepted. Moreover, many students begin drinking heavily while attending college: Wechsler et al. (1994) found that approximately, one out of four students who did not drink heavily in high school started drinking to excess in college (also see Turrisi et al. 2006). For many students, drinking is a social norm and an integral part of higher education (Chauvin 2012). The Party Scene According to Hamilton and Armstrong (2013), four year residential colleges have long depended financially on the patronage of upper and middle class, pre-dominantly Shadd Cabalatungan Originally published in Explorations: The UC Davis Undergraduate Research Journal, Vol. 17 (2015). The Regents of the University of California.

2 2 white families. The influence of this group has increased in recent years because of states declining financial support for post-secondary education. As a result, tuition now accounts for the biggest share of revenues in many colleges and universities (Brint 2012). Many public universities have increased the proportions of students who either generate more tuition dollars or who require the least financial aid and thus cost the university the least (Armstrong and Hamilton 2013). This type of selective admission favors the portion of affluent, white students who require less financial support than their minority counterparts (Armstrong and Hamilton 2013). As a result, institutions are forced to provide the social experiences desired by this constituency. Colleges have implicit pathways, that students fall into depending on a variety of factors such as ethnicity and socio economic status (Armstrong and Hamilton 2013). One pathway, the party pathway, centers on alcohol consumption and is more popular among students who are socially-oriented and affluent. Students in this group are less dependent on college as a source of upward social mobility compared to their minority counterparts. The majority of the former have enough cultural, social, and economic capital from their parents to secure a stable career following graduation (Armstrong and Hamilton 2013). For many of these students, the social aspects of college, such as athletics or partying events may be more important than academic reasons for enrolling in a particular school (Armstrong and Hamilton 2013). Universities and colleges indirectly support alcohol consumption and the party scene, by catering to the organizations where these are most common, most notably, Greek organizations (Cashin et al. 1996). According to Armstrong and Hamilton (2013), there is an institutionalized partnership between Greek chapters and many post-secondary schools as many Greek organizations donate to the university, mostly by way of wealthy alumni or philanthropic events. In addition, many large state universities allow pre dominantly white Greek chapters to own valuable property on and near campus, which affords these organizations a measure of power unlike any other student organization (Armstrong and Hamilton 2013). University resources allow Greek society to dominate the social life on campus. As a result, most college students are encompassed within an atmosphere centered upon drinking and partying (Cashin et al. 1996). Even if students were willing to socialize without alcohol, universities offer few opportunities. In an ethnographic study of college women, Armstrong and Hamilton (2013) observed how students who were non Greek affiliated often struggled in forming and maintaining social relationships in their first year in college. This difficulty was pronounced for students who refused to consume alcohol or attend parties and social ties were sometimes severed when one person actively engaged in the party scene while the other abstained. Many university-sponsored events also reduce coed interaction, because they are often viewed as uncool (Armstrong and Hamilton 2013). Students who are younger than the legal drinking age also have few options for alcoholfree dancing or parties since these most often happen in fraternities or in bars. Consequences for the Drinker The impacts of alcohol on the drinker, particularly on the health of the drinker, are relatively well researched (Casswell et al. 2011). Research on college alcohol consumption has found that heavy drinkers are at an increased risk for drinking-related problems such as criminal violations, injuries, and engaging in unplanned sexual activity (Wechsler et al. 1994). Presley and colleagues (1993) found that heavy drinkers missed more classes and had poorer grades. Excessive drinking may also have long-term health consequences such as liver failure or cirrhosis, and increases the odds Vol. 17 (2015) S. Cabalatungan p.2

3 3 of an alcohol overdose (Eigen 1991). Drinkers also experience high levels of exposure to the second-hand effects of alcohol: that is to various costs and damages that result from other people s drinking (Giesbrecht et al. 2010). Overview of Second Hand Effects There is a small, but growing literature on second-hand effects of alcohol. Secondhand effects range from serious acts involving physical or sexual violence or fatal accidents (e.g., involving drunk drivers ) to less-serious but more common irritants such as verbal disputes or sleep interruption (Wechsler et al. 1994; Rossow and Hauge 2004). Most research on alcohol s harm to others focuses on noncollege settings. For example, Caswell et al. (2011) found relationships between exposure to heavy drinkers and reduced personal wellbeing and poorer health status in a crosssectional study of a general population of New Zealand residents aged years. Those exposed to heavy drinkers had lower standards of living, reduced levels of activity, and experienced significantly more pain, discomfort, anxiety and depression, and less satisfaction with relationships. A number of gender and age differences were also evident: women were more affected by the drinking of someone in their household or family, men were more influenced by the alcohol consumption of strangers, friends or coworkers, and young adults were generally more adversely affected compared to older adults (Wells and Graham 2007). Gender and age differences in alcohol s second-hand effects are consistent with findings from Australia research (Laslett et al. 2011). Recent research has also examined the relationships between alcohol s secondhand effects and neighborhood disadvantage. Karriker-Jaffe and Greenfield (2014) conducted an analysis of cross-sectional survey data from the 2000 and 2005 United States National Alcohol Surveys and showed that socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods were positively associated with family problems and crime victimization that resulted from someone s drinking. Chen (2002) conducted a longitudinal study in the United States of a community sample of 725 individuals and found that increased alcohol use was correlated with intimate partner violence, parental fighting, and child abuse. Fewer studies have focused on how other s drinking in college negatively affects the general student population, or on how it affects non-drinkers; instead, the majority of research on college drinking has focused on the consequences for the student who actively consumes alcohol; yet, virtually all college students experience the effects of college drinking whether they drink or not. Other individuals potentially affected by alcohol s second-hand effects in college include administrators, families, and neighborhood residents (Leonard 1993). Colleges with higher reports of alcohol abuse have higher crime rates and the communities in which they are located often have higher alcohol related auto accidents and property damage (Carnegie Foundation 1990). Wechsler et al. (2002) found that people who lived near college campuses were more likely to report lower neighborhood quality as a result of second hand effects of alcohol from noise, vandalism, and disturbances such as public urination. Students who live in college dorms that are not substance-free also suffer more from secondary drinking effects then do those who reside in substance-free housing (Wechsler et al. 2001). Research Questions This study examines the relationship between secondary drinking effects and a student s college experience. Alcohol use is common across U.S. colleges and universities, but, to date, studies have not examined how other students alcohol consumption negatively influences other students academic Vol. 17 (2015) S. Cabalatungan p.3

4 4 and social outcomes. As well, prior research has neglected the possibility that this harm may be greater for certain groups such as non drinking students. Therefore, the main questions of this study are: (1) How extensive is exposure to second-hand effects of drinking among college and university students?; (2) Does exposure to the second-hand effects of alcohol have negative consequences for grades and the college experience?; and (3) Does exposure to alcohol s second-hand effects harm abstainers, as well as drinkers? Hypotheses (1) Exposure to alcohol s second-hand effects will have adverse consequences for grades and satisfaction with school for all students. (2) Although students who drink likely have more contact with other drinkers than do abstainers, the negative effects of exposure to alcohol s second-hand effects may be heightened for abstainers because of their inexperience and the importance of alcohol in college life. Students who abstain from alcohol consumption may have little experience handling inebriated students in comparison to those with prior drinking experience. As a result, they may experience a heightened stress response when having to deal with alcohol s second-hand effects and this stress may negatively affect their ability to study and concentrate on their school work. Students, who refuse to drink, whether for personal or religious reasons, may feel socially distant from others leading to a greater decrease in school satisfaction compared to drinkers. In their ethnographic research on college women, Armstrong and Hamilton (2013) observed that women who refused to attend parties or drink alcohol had a smaller group of friends, were isolated from peers, and overall, were less satisfied with life at school. Conversely, students who actively participate in alcohol consumption are less likely to experience increased anxiety over grades because they are accustomed to the drinking behaviors of their peers and they may have already developed proper coping mechanisms. Chauvin (2012) examined social motives for college drinking and found that students actively participate in drinking to elevate their social status; these students were also more likely to be satisfied with life at their university. Likewise, Armstrong and Hamilton (2013) found that the students who actively engaged in the party scene were happier, than students who found other outlets. Alcohol may also promote a higher social status further enhancing student satisfaction while in college. Cashin et al. (1998) found that Greek affiliated students are more likely to be satisfied with life at school. These organizations are well known for excessive alcohol consumption, an activity that may contribute to the high social status for members of Greek organizations. Methodology The variables measured in this study were drawn from a nationally representative sample of students, Wechsler s Harvard College Alcohol Study (CAS) 2001 (n = 10, 904 & 119 universities). This study is the most recent in a series of four large scale, nationally representative surveys of college drinking, educational experiences, and overall health. In its entirety the College Alcohol Study consists of four surveys from 1993, 1997, 1999, and 2001 and involves more than 50,000 students and 120 universities (Wechsler and Wuethrich 2002). The four surveys constitute a broad cross section of U.S. 4 year colleges and universities. The four studies used the same sampling frame drawn from the American Council on Education s list of four-year colleges. The guidelines called for a random sampling of students using probability proportionate to the size of the college or university sampled. Students received a total of four mailings from the study: the initial questionnaire, a reminder postcard, a second questionnaire, and a second Vol. 17 (2015) S. Cabalatungan p.4

5 5 reminder postcard. The study assured students that their participation was voluntary and that their responses were confidential. Measures and Analyses The two dependent variables examine two dimensions of academic life. The first, academic achievement is measured with a question that asked about the respondents overall, average grade for the current year. There were seven possible responses: (1) = C or lower, (2) = C+ (3) = B-, (4) = B, (5) = B+, (6) = A-, and (7) = A. The second dimension, satisfaction, is measured with a Likert-style question that asked about satisfaction with life at school. This variable was recoded into a dichotomous measure (0 = Dissatisfied, 1= Satisfied). The key independent variable in this study, problems related to other students drinking, is a scale based on responses to eight questions. Students were asked, Since the beginning of the school year, how often have you experienced any of the following because of other students drinking: been insulted or humiliated, had a serious argument or quarrel, been pushed or assaulted, had your property damaged, had to babysit or take care of another student who drank, found vomit in your residence area, had your study or sleep disrupted, experienced an unwanted sexual advance, or have been a victim of sexual assault or date-rape. There were two response categories for each question: (0) = not at all or (1) = At least once. Answers to these questions are strongly correlated (alpha =.766). This pattern is also evident in a factor analysis of the items. It produced a one-factor solution with an eigenvalue of 2.08 for the main factor (the remaining factors had eigenvalues of >1). The nine items all had strong factor loadings (>.46) affirming their status as important components of a second-hand effects of alcohol scale (the scale was standardized on the number of questions answered). =.745). Drinking while at college is measured with a dichotomous variable that distinguishes students who abstained from those who classified themselves as a light, moderate, or heavy drinker (0= Drinker, 1 = Abstainer). The following variables were included as controls: age; gender; race; religious affiliation; year in school; member in Greek life (fraternity or sorority); parents drinking, parents education, peer support for drinking, and drinking behavior at the end of high school and in college. Age is measured with nine responses: (0) = 17, (1) = 18, (2) = 19, (3) = 20, (4) = 21, and (5) = 22 or over. Gender is a dichotomous variables (0 = male, 1 = female) and race is measured by a set of dummy variables, with white as the comparison group. Religious affiliation was measured as a dichotomous variable (0 = religious, 1 = nonreligious). Year in school is based on five responses: (1) = first year, (2) = second year, (3) = third year, (4) = fourth year, and (5) = fifth year or beyond A dichotomous measure distinguishes student who were members in a fraternity or a sorority from those who did not have this affiliation (0 = Yes, 1 = No). The variable, drinking behavior in high school, is based on responses to the following question: How often did you drink alcohol during a typical month during your last year in high school? Students selected one of seven possible answers: (1) = Never, (2) = 1 2 occasions, (3) = 3 5 occasions, (4) = 6 9 occasions, (5) = occasions, (6) = occasions, and (7) = 40 or more occasions. The variable, peer support for drinking is a scale based on responses to eight questions. The survey asked, To what extent do students at your school approve of the following behaviors: (A) having 6 drinks at a party, (B) 3 or 4 drinks at a party, (C) 1 or 2 drinks at a party, (D) coming back to the dorm drunk, (E) playing drinking games, (F) reporting a roommate who often drinks too much to the health center, (G) reporting a student who is noisy or disruptive, and (H) refusing to drink at a party. For variables (A-E) the four possible answers were: (1) =strongly Vol. 17 (2015) S. Cabalatungan p.5

6 6 approve, (2) approve, (3) = disapprove, and (4) = strongly disapprove. In contrast, for variables (F-H) the four possible responses were: (1) = strongly disapprove, (2) = disapprove, (3) = approve, and (4) = strongly disapprove. The last three questions were reverse coded and the answers to the eight questions are strongly correlated (alpha =.816). Two measures of parent attributes were also included: drinking and education. Parents drinking was based on five responses: (0) = abstainer, (1) = infrequent drinker, (2) = moderate drinker, (3) = heavy drinker, and (4) = problem drinker. Parents education was also based on five responses: (1) = less than high school, (2) = high school diploma, (3) = some college, (4) = four year college or more. All statistical analyses were carried out using STATA 13. Listwise deletion (completecase analysis) was used to handle missing data, where a case was removed if it contained one or more missing values. Approximately 16 percent of cases are dropped from the analysis because of missing information; the largest loss occurs for the peer support for drinking scale (approximately 7 %) and for parent measures (approximately 2 %). Multivariate regression models were used to assess the relationships between the consequences of friends drinking for the two outcomes, school satisfaction and grades, described above. Two equations were estimated for each outcome variable: the first focuses on main effects, whereas the second analysis considers an interaction term between abstainers and drinkers. Ordinary least squares regression (OLS) was used to examine grades and logit regression was used to examine overall satisfaction with life at school. Results Descriptive Statistics Table 1 provides means and standard deviations for the variables used in this study. Females comprised the majority of the sample (64%). The sample was composed mostly of Caucasians (approximately 74%) with the remaining respondents identifying as Asian (8%), African American (7%), Hispanic / Latino (8%), or another ethnicity (4%). The majority of students were in between their second and third year in college. The average age of respondents was 20.8 and about half were not of legal drinking age. The mean for parents education indicates that the average student lived in a family in which at least one parent had some college or technical schooling beyond high school. The average self reported grade among respondents was a B to a B+ grade. The great majority of respondents, 90%, reported satisfaction with life in college. The mean for drinking while in high school indicates that the average student drank on one or two occasions during a typical month in high school. The mean for drinking while at college suggests that the average student was a light to moderate drinker. Approximately 76% of students in the sample classify themselves as light to moderate drinkers, whereas 21% of students abstained from alcohol consumption. The mean of 2.29 for peer support of drinking behaviors indicates that the students generally approve of alcohol-related behaviors in college. About 13% of students reported some Greek affiliation and 14% had a religious affiliation. The mean for parents drinking indicates that the majority of parents were light to moderate heavy drinkers; 12% of parents were classified as heavy drinkers, whereas 10% were abstainers. The sample mean for the secondhand exposure scale was.27. The secondhand effects students experienced the most frequently were having to take care of a drunk student (54%), having study or sleep disrupted (47%), and being insulted or humiliated (30%). As expected, drinkers had significantly greater exposure to second-hand effects compared to abstainers, yet a sizable proportion of the latter report that they also experience negative Vol. 17 (2015) S. Cabalatungan p.6

7 7 consequences of other students drinking. For example, a comparable proportion of drinkers (17%) and abstainers (13%) reported property damage. The variable, having studying or sleeping disrupted, was also similar between drinkers (49%) and abstainers (39%). A larger difference, 32%, is evident for having had to babysit a drunken student. Physical and sexual violence victimization were the least commonly reported experiences by both groups. The variation of responses across measures of secondary effect variables suggests that respondents treated each question as distinct, as opposed to answering in a way that would indicate a response set. Academic Achievement Equation 2.1 presents the main effect of experiencing problems with friends drinking behavior on academic grades. Several control variables are statistically significant. Males and racial minority students experience lower academic grades relative to females and Caucasian students, respectfully. As expected, the unstandardized coefficient for experiencing secondary drinking effects (b=-.47, p<.01) is significant, net of the effects for control variables: as exposure to the negative consequences of peers drinking behavior increases, academic grades decrease. For comparison, the unstandardized coefficients were translated to beta coefficients. The standardized coefficient for exposure to second-hand effects of peers drinking is -.06 suggesting that the effect is small to moderate in size. Thus, in general, students, whether they actively participate in alcohol consumption or abstain, experience a decrease in academic grades as exposure to the second-hand effects of peers drinking behavior increases. Equation 2.2 estimates the interaction between exposure to second-hand effects and the abstainer/drinker indicator. The interaction coefficient is not statistically significant. However, the relationship is stronger for abstainers. This point is illustrated in Figure 1, which presents coefficients for exposure to second-hand effects from two separate equations, one for abstainers and drinkers. For abstainers, the beta coefficient is -.09 and is 1.6 times the size of the coefficient for students who drink (-.05). The difference between the two coefficients is not statistically significant at the.05 level with a two-tailed test; it is however, significant with a one tailed test (Chi2 = 2.80, p =.09). Satisfaction with Life at School Table 3 provides estimates of the relationship between exposure to the negative consequences of peers drinking behavior and students satisfaction with school. Equation 3.1 is limited to main effects. The parameter estimates in this table are unstandardized coefficients; these can be transformed to odds ratios for analysis. Several associations are noteworthy in the first equation. For example, students who reported a Greek affiliation are 75% more likely to be satisfied with school. Not surprisingly, racial minority students are more likely to be dissatisfied with their college or university. For the variable of most interest, the results from equation 3.1 indicate that a one unit increase in experiencing negative consequences in peers drinking behavior is associated with a decrease of about 40% in the expected odds of student satisfaction. Thus, in general, students, whether they actively drink or not are more likely to have a lower satisfaction in college as the occurrences of experiencing secondary drinking consequences increase. This effect is statistically significant at the.01 level and is net of control variables. Equation 3.2 estimates the interaction between exposure to second-hand effects and the abstainer/drinker indicator. The unstandardized coefficient for the interaction term is statistically significant at the.05 level: a one unit increase in experiencing negative consequences in peers drinking behavior is associated with a decrease of about 43% in the expected odds of student satisfaction Vol. 17 (2015) S. Cabalatungan p.7

8 8 with consideration of the abstainer/drinker interaction term. Figure 2 divides the analysis into the two groups of interest, abstainers and drinkers. For students who abstain, a one unit increase in experiencing negative consequences of peers drinking behavior decreases the expected odds of student satisfaction by 64%, whereas for drinkers it decreases by 33%. This result is consistent with the hypothesis that the effect of experiencing negative consequences of peers drinking behavior on student satisfaction is worse for abstainers. The difference between the two beta coefficients discussed in Figure 2 was analyzed using a chi square test. The result indicates that the difference is statistically significant at the.05 level for a two tailed test (Chi2 = 4.21, p=.04). Discussion This is the first college alcohol study that examines the relationship between secondary drinking effects and students college experience. This study focused on determining the extent of second hand effects of drinking on two student groups: abstainers and drinkers. It examined whether problems were more pronounced for students from a particular subgroup. Lastly, this study investigated whether the exposure of secondary drinking effects have similar consequences for the grades and social satisfaction for all university students. The study s findings indicate that problems associated with high levels of student drinking on college campuses can adversely affect all students. Although all students are negatively affected by their peers drinking behavior, students who abstain from alcohol consumption are more adversely affected in regards to their social and academic trajectories. Limitations of the study A number of factors may affect the validity of the findings and should be noted. The study s results cannot be used to infer a causal relationship between peers drinking behavior and the outcome variables because the data are cross-sectional. Self report data are another potential limitation. Although the survey was anonymous, some students may have been reticent about reporting the extent of their drinking behavior or their experience of second hand-effects. An extension of the research should include observational data in order to understand more completely the factors that influence student drinking. Implications of the research This analysis clearly shows an association between the negative consequences of peers drinking behavior on academic grades and satisfaction with life at school. The findings, if validated by other research, have a number of implications for college programs and responses to heavy drinking. Further research should investigate the background characteristics of abstainers, but also the mechanisms regarding why these students suffer more in comparison to students who drink. An in depth analysis comparing peer relationships with college alcohol consumption would highlight the hypothesis that students who abstain often feel socially isolated from their peers leading to negative feelings about their university or college experience. In comparison, a survey of student stress levels would shed insight into the mental state of both groups of students. Thus, university and college programs for alcohol prevention and misuse ought to address the needs of students who abstain, since they constitute a sizable minority of the student population. The secondary effects of alcohol consumption of college campuses can transform the college environment from one of a jovial academic setting to one where the quality of student life is degraded and scholarship is undermined. Vol. 17 (2015) S. Cabalatungan p.8

9 9 Figure 1 Figure 2 Vol. 17 (2015) S. Cabalatungan p.9

10 10 Table 1. Descriptive statistics for full sample, abstainers, and drinkers Full Sample Abstainer Drinker Mean STD Mean STD Mean STD t p Independent variables Exposure to second-hand effects (α=.76) Insulted or humiliated Serious argument or quarrel Pushed, hit or assaulted Property damaged Had to babysit a drunk student Studying or sleep interrupted Unwanted sexual advance Found vomit in residential area Sexual assault or date rape Peer support of drinking behaviors Student drinking level Parents' education Parents' drinking High school drinking School year religious affiliation Greek Affiliation Gender (0=male) Asian African American Hispanic Other ethnicity Age Dependent variables Grades (1=>B+) Satisfaction with school (1=satisfied) Vol. 17 (2015) S. Cabalatungan p.10

11 Vol. 17 (2015) S. Cabalatungan p.11 11

12 Vol. 17 (2015) S. Cabalatungan p.12 12

13 13 References Armstrong, E., and L. Hamilton Paying for the Party. Cambridge: Harvard Press. Brint, S., and A. Cantwell Portrait of the Disengaged. Unpublished manuscript. Center for Studies in Education. University of California, Berkeley. Burawoy, M Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process under Monopoly Capitalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cashin J., C. Presley., and P. Meilman Alcohol use in the Greek System: Follow the Leader? Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drug Abuse 59(1): Casswell, S., R. You., and T. Huckle Alcohol s Harm to Others: Reduced Wellbeing and Health Status for those with Heavy Drinkers in their Lives. Addiction 106: Chauvin, C Social Norms and Motivations Associated with College Binge Drinking. Sociological Inquiry 82(2): Chen, P The Role of Alcohol Use in Intimate Partner Violence among Men and Women. Dissertation Abstracts International. A: The Humanities and Social Sciences 60(10): Eigen, L Alcohol Practices, Policies, and Potentials of American Colleges and Universities: An OSAP White Paper. Rockville, Md.: USDHHS, Public Health Service, ADAMHA, Office for Substance Abuse Prevention. Giesbrecht, N., S. Cukier., and D. Steeves Collateral Damage from Alcohol: Implications of Second-hand Effects of Drinking for Populations and Health Priorities. Addiction 105: Greenfield, T., K. Karriker-Jaffe., N. Giesbrecht., W. Kerr., and J. Bond Second-hand Drinking may Increase Support for Alcohol Policies: New Results from the 2010 National Alcohol Survey. Drug and Alcohol Review 33: Karriker-Jaffe, K., and T. Greenfield. Gender Differences in Associations of Neighbourhood Disadvantage with Alcohol s Harms to Others: A Cross-Sectional Study from the USA. Drug and Alcohol Review 33: Laslett, A., R. Room., J. Ferris., C. Wilkinson., M. Livingston., and J. Mugavin Surveying the Range and Magnitude of Alcohol s Harm to Others in Australia. Addiction 106: Leonard, K Drinking Patterns and Intoxication in Marital Violence: Review, Critique, and Future Directions for Research. Martin, S.E. (Ed.) Alcohol and Interpersonal Violence: Fostering Multidisciplinary Perspectives 24: Presley A., W. Meilman, and R. Lyerla Alcohol and Drugs of American College Campuses: Use, Consequence and Perceptions of the Campus Environment, Volume I: Carbondale, Ill: The Core Institute. Vol. 17 (2015) S. Cabalatungan p.13

14 14 Rossow, I., and R. Hauge Who Pays for the Drinking? Characteristics of the Extent and Distribution of Social Harms from Others Drinking. Addiction 99: Turrisi, R., K. Mallett, N. Mastroleo. and M. Larimer Heavy Drinking in College Students: Who Is at Risk and What Is Being Done About It? Journal of General Psychology 133(4): Wechsler, H Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study, ICPSR04291-v2. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], Wechsler, H., A. Davenport, G. Dowdall, B, Moeykens and S. Castillo Health and Behavioral Consequences of Binge Drinking in College: A National Survey of Students at 140 campuses. The Journal of the American Medical Association. 272: Wechsler, H., and B. Wuethrich Dying to Drink: Confronting Binge Drinking on College Campuses. New York: St. Martin s Press. Wechsler, H., J. Lee., T. Nelson., and H. Lee Drinking Levels, Alcohol Problems, and Secondhand Effects in Substance-Free College Residencies: Results of a National Study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 26: Wells, S., and K. Graham Verbal Versus Physical Victimization from Other People s Drinking: How Do Gender, Age, and their Interactions with Drinking Pattern affect Vulnerability. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 68: Vol. 17 (2015) S. Cabalatungan p.14