Exploration of College

Athletes’ Involvement,
Campus Connections,
and Alcohol
ACUI Region 3 Annual Conference
West Chester, PA
November 8, 2008
 Outline

1. Introduction/Background
2. Prevalence
3. Why It’s a Problem
4. Why It Happens
5. Prevention
• Summary
 Introduction

How I got here?

 Introduction

Engagement, Involvement,
Connection…
 Cultural Considerations

ALCOHOL + SPORT = ???????

 Prevalence: College
Athletes 12 month ‘use’ (NCAA, 2006)

Marijuana = 20%
Amphetamines = 4%
Ephedrine = 2.5%
Cocaine = 2%
Anabolic steroids = 1%
ALCOHOL = 77% (81% used alcohol in the past year (Green, et al., 2001)).

http://www.ncaa.org/library/research/substance_use_habits/20
06/2006_substance_use_report.pdf
 Prevalence: College
Athletes (yearly prevalence - teams)

M Lax = 95% W Lax = 93%

Baseball = 82% Softball = 81%
Football = 75% Field Hockey = 89%
M Tennis = 73% W Tennis = 73%
M Tr/field = 68% W Tr/field = 65%
M B-ball = 63% W B-ball = 67%

http://www.ncaa.org/library/research/substance_use_habits/2006/2006
_substance_use_report.pdf
 Prevalence: College
Athletes

• College student-athletes: 81% used

alcohol in the past year (Green, et al., 2001).

• 60% male & 50% female student-athletes

‘binge drank’ past 2 weeks (Leichliter, et al.,
1998; Nelson & Wechsler, 2001; Wechsler, et al., 1997).
 Prevalence: College
Athletes

• 75% of 705 student-athletes had 5 or more

drinks in the past 2 weeks. 81% male, 68%
female (Brenner & Swanik, 2007).

• Student-athletes are more likely than

nonathletes to be ‘frequent binge drinkers’
(Nelson & Wechsler, 2001; Wechsler, et al., 1997).
– 44% of respondents
(Brenner & Swanik, 2007).
 Prevalence: College
Athletes

• 62% of student-athletes reported having 7 or

more drinks at least once in past month (Brenner
& Swanik, 2007).

• 34% of student-athletes reported having 11 or

more drinks at least once in past month (Brenner
& Swanik, 2007).
 Prevalence…

Not all Student-Athletes Are

the Same!!!!!
- Neither is every team or
institution…
 Alcohol use by level of
participation (Brenner & Swanik, 2007)
80
78
76
74
72 Division I
70 Division II
68 Division III
66
64
62
Percent of high-risk alcohol using college
athletes (p<.05)
 % of high-risk drinkers by
team/individual sport
participation (Brenner & Swanik, 2007)

90
80
70
60
50 team sport college
40 athletes (84%)
30 individual sport
college athletes (57%)
20
10
0
% of high-risk drinking college
athletes (p<.05)
 Prevalence: College
Athletes

Significant sport-type differences in alcohol

consumption (Brenner & Swanik, 2007; Martens,
Watson & Beck, 2006)
 Prevalence: College
Athletes

In-season vs. Nontraditional Season

– College athletes report drinking less during
the competitive season (Brenner & Swanik, 2007;
Martens, Dams-O’Connor, & Duffy-Paiement, 2006;
Martin, 1998).
 Prevalence: College
Athletes

College students’ drinking varies

according to events (halloween) and even
sports schedule (Neal & Fromme, 2007).

Probably some type of variation among college

athletes…
 Problems:

College student-athletes: more likely to

experience negative consequences as a result of
alcohol consumption (Leichliter, et al., 1998; Nelson &
Wechsler, 2001); especially among team leaders
(Leichliter, et al., 1998).

– Hangovers, injury, crime, academic work impairment,

regretting one’s actions.
 Problems:

Student-athletes more likely to engage in

high-risk activities related to alcohol
consumption (Nattiv & Puffer, 1991; Nattiv, et al.,
1997).

– DUI, RWID, risky sexual behavior, fights.

 More Problems:

Second hand effects: other students (66%

- at least 1 adverse consequence)
experienced physical assault, property
damaged, victim of sexual aggression,
disrupted sleep, etc. (Wechsler, et al., 1995;
Frintner & Robinson, 1993).
 If you don’t believe me…

http://www.higheredcenter.org/services/assi
Why it Happens…
 Why It Happens…

• Peer bonds, social norms, misperception of

peer norms, socialization, modeling
effect…
– Baer, Stacy, & Larimer, 1991; Collins & Marlatt, 1981; Dams-
O’Connor, Martin & Martens, 2007; Martens, et al., 2006; Nelson
& Wechsler, 2001; Overman & Terry, 1991; Perkins & Craig,
2006; Saltz & Elandt, 1986; Thombs, 2000; Turrisi, et al., 2007;
Wechsler, Dowdall, Davenport, & Castillo, 1995; Wechsler, et al.,
1997; Wechsler, et al., 2000
– Alcohol use may facilitate social bonding
(Kirchner, et al., 2006; Turrisi, et al., 2007)
 Prevention:

EDUCATION/PREVENTION
PROGRAMS:
– Athletes are significantly more likely to be
exposed to alcohol education programs than
nonathletes (Nelson & Wechsler, 2001).
 Social Ecology Theory:

• Involvement/Engagement (Porter & Pryor, 2007;

Brenner, under review)
– Exposure to multiple groups (with different social norms) has a
cumulative and combined effect on health.
– Athletes report some degree of isolation (30% - Thombs, 2000);
and socialize with other athletes (Harvey, 1999).

– Bridges gap between person and the environment.

 Variables:

• Involvement = behavior (24 items)

• Connection = attitude (9 items)
 Study details:

Sample: 720 male/female athletes at nine NCAA

institutions in PA & NJ.
3 Division I
3 Division II
3 Division III
Sports: baseball, softball, lacrosse, tennis, and track &
field.
Involvement and Alcohol Use
(Brenner, et al. under review)
 Perceived Campus
Connection and Alcohol Use
(Brenner, et al. under review)
 Involvement…

Also statistically significant differences

according to: Division (III higher); team
& individual sport participation
(individual sports higher), and gender
(female higher).
 Implications & Take Home
Points:

Do we need to expose athletes to more diverse

groups and norms??
Similarities to Greeks…
Alternative thoughts, norms, values…
Division III philosophy
Others…
Thank You!
 Jim Brenner
Assistant Professor
West Chester University
West Chester, PA 19383-2515
jbrenner@wcupa.edu
610-436-3357