Addictive Behaviors 28 (2003) 643 – 655

Natural reduction of binge drinking

among college students
Peter W. Vik*, Tony Cellucci, Heath Ivers
Department of Psychology, Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID 83209-8112, USA

Abstract

Considerable evidence indicates that alcohol problems can resolve without formal treatment
[Addiction 95 (2000) Clin. Psychol.: Sci. Pract. 5 (1998) 1]. Such changes, called ‘‘natural recovery,’’
are not infrequent in the general population [Institute of Medicine. (1990). Broadening the base of
treatment for alcohol problems. Washington, DC: National Academy Press]. The goal of this study
was to determine if some college students with a history of binge drinking during high school reduced
their bingeing without intervention while in college. A second goal was to identify individual
characteristics that differentiate between current and reduced bingers. Ninety-one college students with
a history of bingeing in high school and no prior drug treatment completed questionnaires about prior
and current drinking. Results revealed that 22% of the students with a history of adolescent bingeing
had reduced their alcohol consumption while still in college and without treatment. Key factors that
differentiated between groups included marital status, church attendance, and outcome and efficacy
expectancies.
D 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Alcohol; Binge drinking; College student

1. Introduction

Studies continue to document high rates of heavy or ‘‘binge’’ drinking and associated
problems on college campuses. Between 75% and 90% of college students drink alcohol
(Baer, Kivlahan, Fromme, & Marlatt, 1991; Wechsler, Isaac, Goldstein, & Sellers, 1994), and

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-208-282-3541; fax: +1-208-282-4832.

E-mail address: vikpete@isu.edu (P.W. Vik).

0306-4603/02/$ – see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0306-4603(01)00281-7
644 P.W. Vik et al. / Addictive Behaviors 28 (2003) 643–655

between 42% and 44% of college students nationwide acknowledged a heavy drinking
episode within a recent 2-week period (Wechsler, Davenport, Dowdall, Hoeykens, & Castillo,
1994; Wechsler, Dowdall, Maenner, Gledhill-Hoyt, & Lee, 1998; Wechsler, Lee, Kuoa, &
Lee, 2000). Despite ethnic, sex, and regional differences in binge drinking rates (Wechsler,
Davenport et al., 1994), national estimates of collegiate heavy drinking have remained
consistent across studies and over time (Weingardt et al., 1998). Alcohol binge drinking is
associated with a wide range of negative consequences, including careless behaviors (e.g.,
missing class, falling behind in school), reckless activities (e.g., unsafe or unprotected sex,
driving while intoxicated), and problems with authorities (O’Hare, 1990; Vik, Carrello, Tate,
& Field, 2000; Wechsler, Dowdall, Davenport, & Castillo, 1995). Heavy or ‘‘binge’’ drinking
among college students, therefore, constitutes an important public health concern in the US.
Drinking typically begins in high school, escalates upon college entry (Adams & Nagoshi,
1999; Aseltine & Gore, 1993), gradually decreases during college (Schulenberg, O’Malley,
Bachman, Wadsworth, & Johnston, 1996), then drops off following college (Gotham, Sher, &
Wood, 1997; Muthen & Muthen, 2000; Schulenberg et al., 1996). Alcohol consumption,
heavy drinking, and alcohol consequences occur among the general population at a higher
rate during early adulthood than any other age period (Schulenberg et al., 1996). Estimated
prevalence of alcohol use disorders among college students is 13% for abuse and 11% for
dependence (Clements, 1999). Most young adults reduce their heavy alcohol consumption
without intervention (Baer, Kivlahan, et al., 1991; Bennett, McCrady, Johnson, & Pandina,
1999), yet a minority of students continue to drink heavily and may evidence an alcohol use
disorder after college (Schuckit & Smith, 1996; Schulenberg et al., 1996; Vaillant & Hiller-
Sturmhfel, 1996). Understanding factors involved in reducing heavy drinking among college
students could help guide the development of secondary prevention efforts among high-risk
students (Bennett et al., 1999; Gotham et al., 1997).
In an earlier study, Vik, Culbertson, and Cellucci (1999) identified a minority of college
students (21%) who first binged on alcohol while in high school, yet denied recent bingeing.
Half of the nonbingeing students denied any alcohol consumption during the prior 3 months,
and none had received any treatment for substance abuse. Compared to students who reduced
their alcohol consumption, those who continued heavy drinking identified a higher percent-
age of their close friends as regular drinkers, endorsed more social enhancement and personal
coping alcohol expectancies, expressed greater ambivalence about changing drinking and
recognition of a drinking problem, and experienced more risky and careless alcohol
consequences within the past year.
There is now considerable evidence that alcohol problems can resolve without formal
treatment (Sobell, Ellingstad, & Sobell, 2000; Watson & Sher, 1998). Such changes, called
‘‘natural recovery,’’ are not infrequent in the general population (Institute of Medicine, 1990).
Epidemiological research has indicated that 77% of all recoveries that maintain for a period of
1 or more years occur without formal treatment (Sobell, Cunningham, & Sobell, 1996). In
studying natural recoveries, psychologists have focused on the circumstances and events
surrounding change (Sobell, Sobell, Toneatto, & Leo, 1993; Tucker, Vuchinich, & Pukish,
1995). This research has highlighted the importance of cognitive appraisal (i.e., weighing the
costs and benefits) in the change process. Negative events over a period of time may
 P.W. Vik et al. / Addictive Behaviors 28 (2003) 643–655 645

culminate in a personally meaningful occurrence that triggers the ‘‘crystallization of

discontent’’ (Baumeister, 1994)1 and a reevaluation of drinking. Motivation or readiness to
reduce drinking has gained prominence among alcohol researchers and clinicians as a factor
that contributes to decreased consumption among problem drinkers (Miller & Rollnick, 1991)
and college students (Vik, Culbertson, & Sellers, 2000). From this perspective, reduction in
drinking involves a process involving several stages of change.
Significant reductions in drinking are known to occur among individuals during their 20s
(Johnston, Leino, Ager, Ferrer, & Fillmore, 1996) and have been attributed to the impact of
marriage and parenthood (Bachman, Wadsworth, O’Malley, Schulenberg, & Johnston,
1997). The reduction in drinking observed over the college years may similarly reflect
increased academic involvement and career preparation. Additionally, social aspects of
drinking context, such as anticipated social facilitation, perceived norms, and modeling of
drinking by others, also influences collegiate alcohol consumption. Heavy drinking has
been related to peer acceptance of drinking and biased normative judgments of alcohol
consumption by peers (Baer, Stacy, & Larimer, 1991; Fondacaro & Heller, 1983). Evidence
suggests that problem drinkers begin drinking at younger ages than nonproblem drinkers
(Gruber, DiClemente, Anderson, & Lodico, 1996). Problem drinkers also anticipate that
alcohol will reduce aversive emotional states to a greater extent than nonproblem drinkers
(Holyfield, Ducharme, & Martin, 1995; Reese, Chassin, & Molina, 1994), and have more
positive alcohol expectancies (Sher, Wood, Wood, & Raskin, 1996). Problem drinking
among college students is also associated with lower self-efficacy and higher depressive
symptoms than nonproblem drinking (Camatta & Nagoshi, 1995; Lee & Oei, 1993; Vik,
Carrello, et al., 2000). Finally, the presence of problem behaviors differentiates persistent
drinkers from those who reduce their drinking (Baer, Kivlahan, & Marlatt, 1995; Bennett et
al., 1999).
The goal of this study was to explore the natural change process with regard to binge
drinking among current college students with a history of binge drinking while in high
school. The first research goal was to determine whether or not some students with a history
of binge drinking during high school had reduced their drinking while in college without
intervention. If a group of alcohol-bingeing students had reduced their drinking without
treatment and while still in college, then a second research goal was to identify individual
characteristics that might differentiate this group of students from those that maintain or
escalate heavy drinking. Such a group of students may or may not have previously
demonstrated drinking consistent with a formal alcohol use diagnosis (abuse or dependence).
Furthermore, students who no longer binge are not necessarily abstinent from alcohol.
Therefore, we chose to label this change process as a ‘‘natural reduction’’ rather than to use

1
Mark Sobell suggested this connection between natural recovery and the crystallization of discontent during
a workshop at the 32nd Annual Convention of the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy,
Washington, DC, 1998.
646 P.W. Vik et al. / Addictive Behaviors 28 (2003) 643–655

the more common ‘‘natural recovery’’ term in order to reflect better the course of drinking
behavior for this group of students.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

A sample of 249 college students (67.1% female) completed a series of questionnaires as

part of a research project about collegiate drinking. Of these students, 91 (29 men and 62
women) met the criteria for inclusion in the present study (i.e., a history of binge drinking
in high school and no history of substance abuse treatment). Students in the final sample
ranged in age from 18 to 29 years (M = 20.60, S.D. = 3.00) and were predominately
Caucasian (98%). Twenty-four percent lived with roommates; others lived with their spouse
and/or children (23.3%), in the dormitories (21.1%), with their parents/siblings (20%), or
alone (11.1%). The majority were single (71.4%); others were cohabitants (12.1%), married
(11%), or separated/divorced (5.5%). Nearly half were not employed (42.9%); others
worked part-time in a noncareer job (36.3%), in a full-time noncareer job (12.1%), or in a
full-time career job (8.8%).

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Background questionnaire

This survey tool was developed and refined over the course of several studies of
collegiate binge drinking. The Background Questionnaire elicited basic demographic data
and information regarding history of alcohol use and recent (past 3 months) drinking
behavior. Items selected from the Customary Drinking and Drug Use Record (Brown et
al., 1998) were used to estimate the quantity and frequency of alcohol use and
diagnostic criteria for alcohol dependence. Additional questions assessed age of first
drink, age of regular drinking, and the maximum number of alcohol drinks consumed at
one time during the past 90 days. Finally, students indicated whether they had
experienced specific problems as a result of their own alcohol consumption during
the past year. The 20 problems included alcohol-use consequences identified by
Berkowitz and Perkins (1986), Wechsler, Davenport, et al. (1994), and Wechsler,
Dowdall, Davenport, & Castillo (1995).

2.2.2. Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire (AEQ)

The AEQ (Brown, Goldman, Inn, & Anderson, 1980) assessed current beliefs about the
effects of drinking alcohol. Four revised AEQ factors established using confirmatory factor
analytic techniques (Vik, Carrello, & Nathan, 1999) were used for this study. The Social
Enhancement factor assessed anticipated improvement of social experiences as a result of
drinking alcohol. The Social Coping factor assessed anticipated reduction in social
apprehension. Personal Enhancement measured expected elevation in positive feelings,
 P.W. Vik et al. / Addictive Behaviors 28 (2003) 643–655 647

and Personal Coping assessed expected reduction in negative feelings as a result of

drinking.

2.2.3. Drinking Refusal Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (DRSEQ)

The 31-item DRSEQ (Young & Oei, 1996) assessed current beliefs about one’s
personal ability to resist drinking alcohol in certain contexts. The Social Pressure Scale
assessed perceived ability to resist drinking in social contexts, the Emotional Relief Scale
assessed drinking refusal skills when confronted with negative feelings (e.g., when
uptight, when angry), and the Opportunities Drinking Scale assessed perceived ability
to resist drinking in common drinking contexts. Young and Oei (1996) reported
Cronbach’s a’s ranging from .87 to .95 for these scales, and test–retest reliabilities
estimated at 2, 4, and 8 weeks were all above .84 (M = 0.89).

2.2.4. Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale (SOCRATES)

The SOCRATES (Miller & Tonigan, 1996) was adapted from the University of Rhode
Island Change Assessment (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1992) to estimate problem drinkers’
current attitudes regarding readiness to change drinking. Miller and Tonigan found three
relatively unrelated factors for the SOCRATES (ambivalence, recognition, and taking steps).
These factors were replicated with a sample of binge drinking college students (Vik,
Culbertson, et al., 2000). Students responded to each item using a Likert scale that ranged
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

2.3. Procedure

This research was conducted with the approval of the human subjects committee at Idaho
State University. Participants were tested in groups. A member of the research team explained
the study and what participation entailed, read the consent form aloud while volunteers read
along from their own copy, and then answered any questions raised by the participants.
Participants were informed that participation was voluntary, responses were completely
confidential, and that they could discontinue involvement at any time and still receive credit
for participation. Once the study was explained and questions answered, the researcher
distributed questionnaire packets to each participant.
Binge drinking was defined as the consumption of five or more drinks at one time for men
and four or more drinks for women (Wechsler, Dowdall, Davenport, & Rimm, 1995). High
school bingeing was determined by students’ responses to several questions (e.g., age first time
consuming four/five or more drinks at one time; number of times consumed four/five or more
drinks at one time prior to high school graduation). By repeatedly asking the question, it was
possible to check the consistency of students’ answers. In no case did a student’s responses
produce ambiguous results with regard to high school bingeing classification. Definitions of
current ‘‘binge drinking’’ are generally consistent in defining a binge episode as four or five
drinks per occasion for men and women, respectively. Classification of people as ‘‘binge
drinkers,’’ however, can vary according to the timeframe used to detect a binge episode (ranges
from 2 weeks to 3 months) and the number of binge episodes necessary to meet criteria for
648 P.W. Vik et al. / Addictive Behaviors 28 (2003) 643–655

classification as a binge drinker. A single binge episode within a 3-month period is associated
with alcohol consequences similar to those found among more recent (i.e., within 2 weeks)
binge drinkers (Vik, Tate, & Carrello, 2000). Therefore, detection of current binge drinkers in
this study is based on a single binge-drinking episode within the past 3 months.

3. Results

3.1. Bingeing history

Of the 249 students surveyed who were aged 18–29, 100 (40.2%) reported heavy drinking
or bingeing while in high school. Nine of these students reported prior substance abuse
treatment. Of the 91 high school binge drinkers who had never received treatment, 20
(22.0%) reported no binge drinking within the past 3 months. These 20 students were
identified as ‘‘natural reducers.’’ On average, the natural reducers had last binged an average
of 190.94 weeks (3.67 years) prior to assessment, while high school bingers who continued to
drink heavily (current bingers) had last binged an average of 3.21 weeks prior to assessment.
Table 1 presents comparisons of these groups on recent (past 3 months) drinking. As
expected, current bingers reported significantly more days drinking during the past 3 months

Table 1
Comparison of natural reducers and current bingers on substance use history
Natural reducers Current bingers
(n = 20) (n = 71)
Age of first drink 14.80 (1.67) 15.15 (1.93)
Age began regular drinking 16.50 (2.01) 17.45 (2.07)
Age first time intoxicated 15.50 (1.54) 15.89 (1.63)
Age of first binge episode 15.80 (1.32) 15.86 (1.36)
Number of binge episodes in high school 13.05 (13.06) 22.69 (29.06)
Number of drugs used in high schoola 0.65 (.81) 1.48 (2.03)
Number of alcohol use consequences
While in high school 1.95 (2.42) 3.14 (2.89)
Types of consequencesb
Careless behavior 50.0% 67.6%
Risky/reckless behavior 45.0% 57.5%
Problem with authorities * 0% 19.7%
Met alcohol dependence criteria in high school 20.0% 38.0%
Current drinking
Days drinking, past 3 months*** 1.10 (1.55) 13.44 (13.48)
Typical number of drinks/drinking day*** 1.06 (1.11) 5.56 (4.11)
Most alcohol consumed at one time*** 1.00 (1.11) 9.27 (4.74)
a
Statistical trend.
b
Percentage indicates the proportion of students who reported one or more problems in that problem category
prior to high school graduation.
* P .05.
*** P .001.
 P.W. Vik et al. / Addictive Behaviors 28 (2003) 643–655 649

[ F(1,89) = 16.56, P < .001], more drinks consumed on drinking days [ F(1,87) = 21.08,
P < .001], and more alcohol consumed at one time [ F(1,88) = 56.56, P < .001] than natural
reducers.

3.2. High school substance use

Current bingers were compared with natural reducers on drinking milestones and
substance use severity while in high school. Results are summarized in Table 1. Natural
reducers and current bingers did not differ in drinking milestones (age of first drink, age first
time intoxicated, age began drinking regularly, age of first binge) or severity of substance use
(frequency of bingeing, number of different drugs used) in high school. Current bingers were
more likely than natural reducers to have experienced a problem with authorities while in
high school [c2(df = 1, N = 91) = 4.66, P=.031]. The difference, however, was small: one out
of five current bingers, compared to none of the natural reducers, experienced one or more
problems with authorities prior to high school graduation. Finally, there was a trend for
current bingers to have used more drugs than natural reducers had while in high school
[ F(1,89) = 3.16, P=.079].

3.3. Demographic comparisons

Group differences were found for a number of demographic variables. Results are
presented in Table 2. Compared with students who continue to binge, the natural reducers
were older [ F(1,84) = 16.96, P < .001, h2 = 0.160], were more likely to be married [c2(df = 2,

Table 2
Comparison of natural reducers and current bingers on demographic variables
Natural reducers Current bingers
Age*** 22.85 (3.72) 19.97 (2.44)
% Male 40.0% 29.6%
Marital status***
Single 55.0% 83.1%
Cohabitating 10.0% 12.7%
Married 35.0% 4.2%
Church attendance***
No 45.0% 62.0%
Irregular 10.0% 29.6%
Regular 45.0% 8.5%
Employment
Not employed 30.0% 46.5%
Part time employment 35.0% 36.6%
Full time employment 35.0% 16.9%
% Upper-class level 20.0% 19.7%
*** P .001.
650 P.W. Vik et al. / Addictive Behaviors 28 (2003) 643–655

N = 91) = 15.14, P < .001], and attended church more regularly [c2(df = 2, N = 91) = 15.78,
P < .001]. Groups did not differ with regard to sex, class level, or employment status.

3.4. Cognitive factors

Groups were compared on AEQ, DRSEQ, and SOCRATES. Table 3 presents the
results of these comparisons. Of the four alcohol expectancy scores, current bingers
endorsed more expectancies associated with enhanced personal experiences than the
natural reducers [ F(1,89) = 6.43, P=.013, h2 = 0.067]. There was a trend for current
bingers to endorse more expectancies than natural reducers on the social coping
[ F(1,89) = 3.61, P=.061, h2 = 0.039] and personal coping factors [ F(1,89) = 2.86,
P=.094, h2 = 0.032]. Groups did not differ significantly on the social enhancement factor
[ F(1,89) = 2.31, P=.132].
Groups differed on the DRSEQ Social Pressure Scale [ F(1,89) = 8.19, P=.005,
h2 = 0.085]. Reducers reported greater belief than current bingers in their ability to
resist social pressure to drink. There was a statistical trend for reducers to express
greater confidence to resist drinking for emotional relief [ F(1,88) = 3.38, P=.055,
h2 = 0.041]. On the SOCRATES, current bingers obtained higher ambivalence scores
than natural reducers did [ F(1,86) = 5.57, P=.021, h2 = 0.061]. Groups were not different
on the recognition [ F(1,86) = 1.66, P=.200] and taking steps [ F(1,86)=.21, P=.648]
scales of the SOCRATES.

Table 3
Comparison of natural reducers and current bingers on cognitive variables
Natural reducers Current bingers
AEQ
Social enhancement 3.12 (2.38) 3.62 (0.79)
Social copinga 2.98 (1.13) 3.46 (0.97)
Personal enhancement * 2.50 (1.03) 3.04 (0.79)
Personal coping 1.99 (0.85) 2.37 (0.90)

DRSEQ
Social pressure ** 5.43 (0.95) 4.65 (1.10)
Emotional relief 5.75 (0.69) 5.28 (1.00)
Opportunistic 5.83 (0.54) 5.70 (0.76)

SOCRATES
Ambivalence * 1.22 (0.53) 1.71 (0.82)
Recognition 1.21 (0.61) 1.43 (0.65)
Taking steps 2.30 (1.28) 2.44 (1.10)
a
Statistical trend.
* P .05.
** P .01.
 P.W. Vik et al. / Addictive Behaviors 28 (2003) 643–655 651

3.5. Post hoc analyses

Differences found between groups on demographic variables and psychological constructs

might reflect true differences on those measures or artifacts due to group differences in high
school drinking. To address this concern, analyses comparing groups on demographic and
psychological variables were rerun after matching the samples on high school alcohol use.
Specifically, the two groups were equated on the number of binge episodes, number of
different drugs, number of alcohol use consequences, and number of alcohol dependence
symptoms while in high school. The resulting sample included 39 current bingers who were
matched on these high school drinking variables with the natural reducers. Findings were
consistent with the results using the entire sample. Groups differed on age [ F(1,57) = 7.89,
P=.007, h2 = 0.122], marital status [c2(df = 2, n = 67) = 9.07, P=.011], church attendance
[c2(df = 2, n = 67) = 15.48, P < .001], DRSEQ social pressure [ F(1,57) = 4.62, P=.036,
h2 = 0.075], and SOCRATES ambivalence [ F(1,54) = 5.01, P=.029, h2 = 0.085]. A trend
remained for current bingers to endorse more AEQ personal enhancement expectancies than
did the natural reducers [ F(1,57) = 3.24, P=.077, h2 = 0.054]. Group differences were in the
same direction as when the entire sample was used.

4. Discussion

Results from this study revealed that a significant minority of college students with a
history of adolescent binge drinking had reduced their alcohol consumption while still in
college and without treatment. As many as one out of five students met the criteria for our
definition of natural reduction of binge drinking. Moreover, life circumstances and social
influences appear to play an important role in reduced drinking. These findings, which are
similar to findings from natural recovery studies, extend research on natural recovery to this
important population of heavy-drinking college students. These heavy-drinking students
who reduced consumption are of interest to alcohol researchers concerned with collegiate
binge drinking because they successfully reduced their drinking risk for negative drinking
consequences. Heavy and binge drinking remains a common and dangerous behavior
among college students, and it therefore remains a significant health concern among
researchers, college administrators, and treatment providers. Efforts to understand this self-
change process or natural reduction can provide insight to develop effective secondary and
primary prevention interventions.
The differences between natural reducers and current bingers were not overwhelming.
There were virtually no statistically significant differences with regard to high school
drinking milestones, number of drinking consequences, and other drug use. The small
sample size, however, likely reduced the power to statistically detect some meaningful
differences between groups. For example, though not statistically significant, current bingers
appeared more likely to have used other drugs in high school; they also experienced problems
with authorities. Both of these findings suggest that general problem behavior theory
(Donovan, Jessor, & Costa, 1999) may be a more important component of high school
652 P.W. Vik et al. / Addictive Behaviors 28 (2003) 643–655

drinking for current versus former bingers. Similarly, the rate of alcohol dependence during
high school was nearly doubled for those college students who continue to binge-drink,
raising the possibility that their alcohol consumption represents a more addictive and severe
problem than for those students who reduced their alcohol consumption. These concerns were
addressed by post hoc analyses. Groups were equated on the chronicity and severity of high
school drinking variables (number of binge episodes, different drugs used, negative alcohol
use consequences, and alcohol dependence symptoms). Results mirrored the findings for the
entire sample, with current bingers endorsing more ambivalence about change and less self-
efficacy to resist drinking under social pressure. Marital and church attendance differences
remained as well. With the exception of ambivalence about change, effect sizes decreased
somewhat after controlling for high school alcohol use, but reliable differences remained.
Thus, while problem behavior theory might explain the persistence of binge drinking during
college for some students, it is not sufficient to account for the differences found in the entire
sample of students.
Demographic comparisons revealed some clear differences that are consistent with
traditionally recognized influences on drinking. Over 80% of these students no longer lived
with parents or siblings, suggesting transition away from the family of origin. Differences
between groups in age and marital status imply an association between natural reduction and
life transitions occurring within the college student population. Specifically, the natural
reducers were older and were more likely to be married and to attend church regularly than
the current bingers. Marriage and committed relationships are well documented for their
association with reduced drinking among young adults (Bachman et al., 1997; Leonard &
Rothbard, 1999), and regular church attendance is also an important component in problem
behavior theory. The effects of age are less clear. While reducers were nearly 3 years older on
average, groups were comparable in their progress through college (i.e., four out of five were
in the first 2 years of college). In general, differences in age and marital status supported a life
transition model of natural reduction. Further research should examine more closely the
degree to which specific life transitions (e.g., change in social network, residential changes,
relationship changes) contribute to reduction in alcohol use.
Some support for a deliberate self-change process can also be inferred from the finding that
current bingers relative to natural reducers continued to be ambivalent about their drinking.
While similar in problem recognition, the current bingers are apparently struggling more with
the positives of binge drinking versus the need to change.
A striking finding from this study was that differences in alcohol expectancies were found
for expectancy domains that typically contribute less to predictions of drinking than other
expectancy domains. Previous research on these expectancy domains found that anticipated
enhancement of social situations and reduction of negative mood showed the strongest
associations with various drinking measures. The present findings, however, imply a more
subtle differentiation in expectancies for current versus former binge drinkers. Current
bingers appeared more likely than former bingers to anticipate that alcohol use will enhance
personal experiences and reduce social apprehension. Current bingers also perceived
themselves as less able to resist social pressure to drink. Admittedly, these measures estimated
current expectancies, thus rendering causal implications as purely speculative. Nevertheless,
 P.W. Vik et al. / Addictive Behaviors 28 (2003) 643–655 653

in the absence of direct interventions to modify anticipated outcome effects of drinking,

alcohol expectancies remain fairly stable across time. Thus, these findings may indicate that
students continue to binge-drink for personal reasons as well as to manage social contexts.
Alcohol outcome and efficacy expectancies may contribute in subtle yet important and
complex ways to the process of reduction in binge drinking among young adults. Longit-
udinal research is needed, however, to clarify the causal role of these cognitive factors to
reductions in drinking.
Design features limit interpretations of the present study and indicate areas for future study
of natural reduction. Most importantly, the current study is cross-sectional and based on self-
reported drinking and consequences. There is a need for prospective research designs to
clarify causal effects in the bingeing reduction process. For example, demographic factors
such as marriage and church attendance might represent events that alter the course of
drinking or they might be protective factors that facilitate reduced drinking when the
individual makes the determination to change.

References

Adams, C. E., & Nagoshi, C. T. (1999). Changes over one semester in drinking game playing and alcohol use and
problems in a college student sample. Substance Abuse, 20, 97 – 106.
Aseltine, R. H., & Gore, S. (1993). Mental health and social adaptation following the transition from high school.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 3, 247 – 270.
Bachman, J. G., Wadsworth, K. N., O’Malley, P. M., Schulenberg, J. E., & Johnston, L. D. (1997). Marriage,
divorce, and parenthood during the transition to young adulthood: impacts on drug use and abuse. In J. E.
Schulenberg, J. L. Maggs, & K. Hurrelmann (Eds.), Health risks and developmental transitions during
adolescence ( pp. 246 – 279). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Baer, J. S., Kivlahan, D. R., Fromme, K., & Marlatt, G. A. (1991). Secondary prevention of alcohol abuse with
college student populations: a skills-training approach. In N. Heather, W. R. Miller, & J. Greeley (Eds.), Self-
control and the addictive behaviors ( pp. 339 – 354). Botany, Australia: Maxwell Macmillan.
Baer, J. S., Kivlahan, D. R., & Marlatt, G. A. (1995). High-risk drinking across the transition from high school to
college. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 19, 54 – 61.
Baer, J. S., Stacy, A., & Larimer, M. E. (1991). Biases in the perception of drinking norms among college students.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52, 580 – 586.
Baumeister, R. F. (1994). The crystallization of discontent in the process of major life change. In T. F. Heatherton,
& J. L. Weinberger (Eds.), Can personality change? ( pp. 281 – 297). Washington, DC: American Psycholog-
ical Association.
Bennett, M. E., McCrady, B. S., Johnson, V., & Pandina, R. J. (1999). Problem drinking from young adulthood to
adulthood: patterns, predictors and outcomes. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 60, 605 – 614.
Berkowitz, A. D., & Perkins, H. W. (1986). Problem drinking among college students: a review of recent research.
Journal of the American College of Health, 35, 21 – 28.
Brown, S. A., Goldman, M. S., Inn, A., & Anderson, L. R. (1980). Expectations of reinforcement from alcohol:
their domain and relation to drinking patterns. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 419 – 426.
Brown, S. A., Myers, M. G., Lippke, L., Tapert, S. F., Stewart, D. G., & Vik, P. W. (1998). Psychometric
evaluation of the Customary Drinking and Drug Use Record (CDDR): a measure of adolescent alcohol and
drug involvement. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 59, 427 – 438.
Camatta, C. D., & Nagoshi, C. T. (1995). Stress, depression, irrational beliefs, and alcohol use and problems in a
college student sample. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 19, 142 – 146.
654 P.W. Vik et al. / Addictive Behaviors 28 (2003) 643–655

Clements, R. (1999). Prevalence of alcohol-use disorders and alcohol-related problems in a college sample.
Journal of American College Health, 48, 111 – 118.
Donovan, J. E., Jessor, R., & Costa, F. M. (1999). Adolescent problem drinking: stability of psychosocial and
behavioral correlates across a generation. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 60, 352 – 361.
Fondacaro, M. R., & Heller, K. (1983). Social support factors and drinking among college student males. Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 8, 393 – 405.
Gotham, H. J., Sher, K. J., & Wood, P. K. (1997). Predicting stability and change in frequency of intoxication from
the college years to beyond: individual-difference and role transition variables. Journal of Abnormal Psychol-
ogy, 106, 619 – 629.
Gruber, E., DiClemente, R. J., Anderson, M. M., & Lodico, M. (1996). Early drinking onset and its association
with alcohol use and problem behavior in late adolescence. Preventive Medicine: An International Devoted to
Practice and Theory, 25, 293 – 300.
Holyfield, L., Ducharme, L. J., & Martin, J. K. (1995). Drinking contexts, alcohol beliefs, and patterns of alcohol
consumption: evidence for a comprehensive model of problem drinking. Journal of Drug Issues, 25, 783 – 798.
Institute of Medicine (1990). Broadening the base of treatment for alcohol problems. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Johnston, L. D., Leino, E. V., Ager, C. R., Ferrer, H., & Fillmore, K. M. (1996). Determinants of life-course
variation in the frequency of alcohol consumption: meta-analysis of studies from the collaborative alcohol-
related longitudinal project. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 57, 494 – 506.
Lee, N. K., & Oei, T. P. S. (1993). The importance of alcohol expectancies and drinking refusal self-efficacy in the
quantity and frequency of alcohol consumption. Journal of Substance Abuse, 5, 379 – 390.
Leonard, K. E., & Rothbard, J. C. (1999). Alcohol and the marriage effect. Journal of Studies on Alcohol,
Supplement, 13, 139 – 146.
Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (1991). Motivational interviewing: preparing people to change addictive behavior.
New York: Guilford Press.
Miller, W. R., & Tonigan, J. S. (1996). Assessing drinkers’ motivations for change: the Stages of Change Read-
iness and Treatment Eagerness Scale (SOCRATES). Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 10, 81 – 89.
Muthen, B. O., & Muthen, L. K. (2000). The development of heavy drinking and alcohol-related problems from
ages 18 to 37 in a US national sample. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 61, 290 – 300.
O’Hare, T. (1990). Drinking in college: consumption patterns, problems, sex differences, and legal drinking age.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 51, 536 – 541.
Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1992). Stages of change in the modification of problem behavior. Progress
in Behavior Modification, 28, 183 – 218.
Reese, F. L., Chassin, L., & Molina, B. S. G. (1994). Alcohol expectancies in early adolescents: predicting
drinking behavior from alcohol expectancies and parental alcoholism. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 55,
276 – 284.
Schuckit, M. A., & Smith, T. L. (1996). An 8-year follow-up of 450 sons of alcoholic and control subjects.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 53, 202 – 210.
Schulenberg, J., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., Wadsworth, K. N., & Johnston, L. D. (1996). Getting drunk and
growing up: trajectories of frequent binge drinking during the transition to young adulthood. Journal of Studies
on Alcohol, 57, 289 – 304.
Sher, K. J., Wood, M. D., Wood, P. K., & Raskin, G. (1996). Alcohol outcome expectancies and alcohol use: a
latent variable cross-lagged panel study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 561 – 574.
Sobell, L. C., Cunningham, J. A., & Sobell, M. B. (1996). Recovery from alcohol problems with and without
treatment: prevalence in two population surveys. American Journal of Public Health, 86, 966 – 972.
Sobell, L. C., Ellingstad, T. P., & Sobell, M. B. (2000). Natural recovery from alcohol and drug problems:
methodological review of the research with suggestions for future directions. Addiction, 95(5), 749 – 764.
Sobell, L. C., Sobell, M. B., Toneatto, T., & Leo, G. I. (1993). What triggers the resolution of alcohol problems
without treatment? Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 17, 217 – 224.
Tucker, J. A., Vuchinich, R. E., & Pukish, M. M. (1995). Molar environmental contexts surrounding recovery
 P.W. Vik et al. / Addictive Behaviors 28 (2003) 643–655 655

from alcohol problems by treated and untreated problem drinkers. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharma-
cology, 3, 195 – 204.
Vaillant, G. E., & Hiller-Sturmhfel, S. (1996). The natural history of alcoholism. Alcohol Health and Research
World, 20, 152 – 161.
Vik, P. W., Carrello, P., Tate, S. R., & Field, C. (2000). Progression of consequences among heavy-drinking
college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 14, 91 – 101.
Vik, P. W., Carrello, P. D., & Nathan, P. E. (1999). Hypothesized simple factor structure for the Alcohol Expect-
ancy Questionnaire: confirmatory factor analysis. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 7,
294 – 303.
Vik, P. W., Culbertson, K., & Cellucci, T. (1999). Natural reduction in heavy drinking among college students.
Paper presented during the 20th annual scientific sessions of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, March 6,
San Diego, CA.
Vik, P. W., Culbertson, K. A., & Sellers, K. (2000). Readiness to change drinking among heavy-drinking college
students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 61, 674 – 680.
Vik, P. W., Tate, S. R., & Carrello, P. (2000). Detecting college binge drinkers using an extended time frame.
Addictive Behaviors, 25, 607 – 612.
Watson, A. L., & Sher, K. J. (1998). Resolution of alcohol problems without treatment: methodological issues and
future directions of natural recovery research. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 5, 1 – 18.
Wechsler, H., Davenport, A., Dowdall, G., Hoeykens, B., & Castillo, S. (1994). Health and behavioral conse-
quences of binge drinking in college campuses: a national survey of students at 140 campuses. Journal of the
American Medical Association, 272, 1672 – 1677.
Wechsler, H., Dowdall, G. W., Davenport, A., & Castillo, S. (1995). Correlates of college student binge drinking.
American Journal of Public Health, 85, 921 – 926.
Wechsler, H., Dowdall, G. W., Davenport, A., & Rimm, E. B. (1995). A gender-specific measure of binge
drinking among college students. American Journal of Public Health, 85, 982 – 985.
Wechsler, H., Dowdall, G. W., Maenner, G., Gledhill-Hoyt, J., & Lee, H. (1998). Changes in binge drinking and
related problems among American college student between 1993 and 1997. Journal of American College
Health, 47, 57 – 68.
Wechsler, H., Isaac, N. E., Goldstein, F., & Sellers, D. E. (1994). Continuation and initiation of alcohol use from
the first to second year of college. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 55, 41 – 45.
Wechsler, H., Lee, J. E., Kuao, 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.
Weingardt, K. R., Baer, J. S., Kivlahan, D. R., Roberts, L. J., Miller, E. T., & Marlatt, G. A. (1998). Episodic
heavy drinking among college students: methodological issues and longitudinal perspectives. Psychology of
Addictive Behaviors, 12, 155 – 167.
Young, R., & Oei, T. P. S. (1996). Manual for the drinking expectancy profile. Brisbane, Queensland, Australia:
Behaviour Research and Therapy Centre.