Assessing Collegiate Substance Abuse: Current Trends, Research Needs, and Program Applications
"The arrangement of environments is probably the most powerful technique we have for influencing behavior."
(Moos 1974, p. 4).
Introduction
The use of alcohol on campuses has from times past presented problems to college and university administrators (Straus & Bacon 1953). However, problems associated with both alcohol and other drug use have escalated in recent years. Substance abuse (primarily alcohol) is the single greatest threat to the quality of campus life (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 1990). For example, over a recent period at one research university in the Northeast, alcohol use was related to 75 percent of campus police arrests, 80 percent of residence hall damages, 85 percent of sexual assaults, 70 percent of discipline referrals, and 50 percent of suicide attempts (L. Upcraft, personal communication, September 11, 1990). This increase in problems is one reason federal legislation has addressed the use of controlled substances by college students and faculty. The Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act Amendments of 1989 (Public Law 101-226) and implementing regulations published in 1990 require that an institution's leaders notify students and employees that it has adopted and implemented a program "to prevent the unlawful possession, use, or distribution of illicit drugs and alcohol by students and employees on institutional property or at any of its activities."
The response of college or university officials to alcohol and other drug-related problems sends strong messages about that institution's values. To reduce alcohol use by students, a long-term, comprehensive strategy is required. Such a strategy must take into account three elements:
Purposes of This Article
This article has two purposes: (1) to summarize what is known about the influence of collegiate environments on college students' use of alcohol and (2) to suggest how environmental conditions can be created to foster positive, health-enhancing behaviors in those students. The phrase health-enhancing environments connotes a campus setting in which the institution's philosophy, physical spaces, policies, practices, and personnel foster responsible behavior regarding alcohol and other drug use.
First, several conceptions of college environments are discussed. Because behavior is a function of the interaction between the environment and the person (Lewin 1936), the characteristics of college students who use alcohol are summarized. Second, the literature on environmental influences (on the use of alcohol by college students) is examined. Finally, conclusions and recommendations are presented for institutional policies and practices, and areas that require additional research are suggested.
Caveats
Most of the research cited in this paper was conducted at residential campuses that attract predominantly traditional-age (18-23) students. Hence, caution must be exercised when applying this information to "nontraditional" students or to urban or community college settings where most of the students are older, live off campus, and attend school part time. The primary environments that influence the behavior of older, commuting, and part-time students are more likely to be the home, family, workplace, and church, not the campus.
The College Environment and Characteristics of College Student Drinkers
People both shape their environment and are shaped by it (Banning 1975; Barker 1963; Kaiser 1972). Although the relationship between environment and behavior is complex, a consistency in behavioral patterns can be disclosed (Bandura 1977; Barker 1968; Moos 1976). That is, the same individuals behave predictably in certain situations because environmental stimuli consistently elicit and reinforce certain behaviors. For example, the actions of people from Western cultures are very predictable when they are in churches, playgrounds, gymnasiums, and museums (Rapaport 1982). Although one could argue that the behavior of college students is also predictable, collegiate environments are not a single culture; many subenvironments exist on a campus and must be identified and studied independently, as well as in relationship to each other.
Collegiate environments have been described in various ways (Walsh 1978). A campus has the following features: physical properties such as the size and location of the campus and its facilities (Gerber 1989); the ambience created by the behavior and personalities of students (Astin & Holland 1961); the perceptions of students (Pace 1969); the environmental "press" (Stern 1970), or norms and expectations established by dominant student groups (Clark & Trow 1966); and the norms, values, and assumptions that guide the behavior of individuals and groups (Kuh & Whitt 1988).
In this paper, the campus environment includes all the conditions and influences-such as physical, chemical, biological, social, and cultural stimuli-that affect the growth and development of students (Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education 1973). For example, at a fraternity party, the environment would include the characteristics of the physical setting (e.g., size of party room, music); the number of people present and their expectations; attitudes toward personal responsibility; local and state laws and campus policies; and the availability and type of beverages and food. Hence, student behavior, including alcohol use and other drug use, is a function of the mutually shaping interactions between individuals and the various subenvironments of a college (Huebner 1979). Because information about both people and environments is necessary to understand behavior, the characteristics of college students who use alcohol are summarized.
Characteristics of College Student Drinkers
"Drinking occurs in many forms, meets a variety of individual and group needs, and is accompanied by a variety of attitudes" (Straus & Bacon 1953, p. 199). Many college students do not abuse alcohol, and a small but important minority abstain from alcohol use. In addition, excessive drinking in college does not always lead to problem drinking in the future (Brennan, Walfish & AuBuchon 1986a).
The heaviest, most frequent, and most problematic drinking in college occurs among males (Berkowitz & Perkins 1986a), whites, Catholics, and Protestants (Perkins 1985, 1987); however, direct involvement in religious activities seems to be associated with lower use of alcohol and other drugs (Perkins 1987; Svendsen January 16, 1991). Heavy drinkers also tend to have parents and friends who drink heavily (Brennan, Walfish & AuBuchon 1986b); tend to frequent parties and bars (Kraft 1979a, 1988); and are typically involved with a traditional social group, such as a fraternity, which engages in frequent social activities. Heavy drinkers also are more likely to drop out and tend to perform less well academically. Although the relationship between socioeconomic status and drinking is unclear, students from affluent backgrounds seem to drink more, and drink more frequently, although they do not necessarily have more problems associated with drinking (Brennan et al. 1986b).
The presence of friends who drink heavily seems to influence men more than it does women (Brennan et al. 1986a). Women are more likely to limit the negative consequences of drinking in public (e.g., fighting; Moos, Moos & Kulik 1977). Because the female heavy drinker may be more likely to drink for escapist or rebellious reasons, she is different from the male heavy drinker (Moos 1979). It also is possible that because of gender-related norms, women confine abusive drinking to private settings or underreport negative consequences-possibilities that have not been adequately investigated (Berkowitz & Perkins 1987b).
In summary, of the two major influences on the hazardous use of alcohol by college students, family and peers, peer influence is stronger (Brennan et al. 1986b). Indeed, Oetting and Beauvais (1986) reported that 95 percent of the variance in drug use can be accounted for by the influence of peers.
Literature Review of Environmental Influences on College Student Use of Alcohol
To synthesize the literature on the environmental influences on college students' alcohol use, a conceptual framework was developed that has four domains:
Physical Properties of Environments
Design of Buildings
The amount and arrangement of space seems to have the most predictable influence on behavior (Griffin 1990). The design and location of buildings either facilitates or inhibits social interaction and the development of a cohesive interpersonal climate (Myrick & Marx 1968). In general, the level of stress will be lower in physical environments which are neater and more organized (Mehrabian & Russell 1974; Ahrentzen, Jue, Skorpanish & Evans 1982). In densely populated areas, such as high-rise residence halls, indicators of social pathology tend to be higher, a factor often associated with the hazardous use of alcohol (Moos 1976, 1979).
Design of Interior Settings
Visual stimuli, such as the low lights of a cocktail lounge and personalized mugs and whiskey bottles, promote consumption (Miller, Hersen, Eisler, Epstein & Wooten 1974; Strickler, Dobbs & Maxwell 1979). Colors are associated with certain psychological effects, such as depression (Rapoport 1982; Schuh 1980). This information suggests that pathological behavior is less likely to be manifested in the more comfortable physical settings (residence halls and other places frequented by students). It is not known whether crowding or the color of a room is related to the hazardous use of alcohol.
Size of Interior Settings
People feel more secure, interested, and satisfied in environments that emphasize involvement, affiliation, and support (Moos 1979; Wicker 1979). The greater the number of students on a campus, in a residence hall, or in a classroom, the more disconnected they tend to be from each other and from faculty and staff. A proliferation of courses has fragmented the curriculum, which further isolates departmental staff from each other and from students (Clark 1989). Large classes make it difficult for students to get to know the instructors (and vice versa). Moreover, when a campus has thousands of students, it is difficult for leaders to express a coherent philosophy regarding alcohol and other drug use (Kuh et al. 1991).
Influence of Off-Campus Environments
Institutions may be able to create a physical environment that promotes satisfaction and feelings of well-being which are-as will be demonstrated later-precursors to responsible, health-enhancing behaviors. However, many off-campus influences can counteract the successes of an institution. For example, "[O]ne block away off campus there are . . . bars with three-for-one drinks every day and quarter beer nights" (Connell 1985, p. 47). Residential colleges and universities located in somewhat isolated settings that have large numbers of traditional-age students face especially difficult problems. Few activities may be available in the surrounding community to offset the use of alcohol by students (Kraft 1979a). At institutions with a substantial number of commuting students, students spend far more time off, than on, campus. At these institutions, issues related to alcohol use become as much a responsibility of the surrounding community as they are of the institution.
Organizational Properties
Campus Policies and Practices
The percentage of colleges and universities permitting alcohol consumption on campus did not change between 1979 (77 percent) and 1991 (75 percent) (Anderson & Gadaleto 1991). Other policies, however, have changed. For example, more institutions require (1) prior registration of events involving alcohol and (2) the serving of nonalcoholic beverages and food at events where alcohol is present. More stringent policies are in place regarding the consumption of beer in public places. In addition, the percentage of campuses with alcohol education and prevention programs has increased (Fischer 1987), stimulated in part by funding from governmental agencies such as the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department Education.
Governmental Policies
According to Gonzalez (1990), despite changes in campus policies and the change in the legal drinking age from 18 or 19 to 21, alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems did not significantly decrease for either underage or legal-age students. In another study, an increase in purchase age was associated with a decrease in campus incidents of disruption and disorderly behavior, criminal mischief, vandalism, and noise problems (Hayes-Sugarman 1989). However, these same negative behaviors increased in the surrounding community, suggesting that a higher drinking age and stricter enforcement do not necessarily discourage students from drinking. Rather, it seems to force them off campus to drink.
Residential Groupings
In residence halls, drinking usually occurs in private rooms by small groups of friends or roommates, seldom by students who are alone (Kraft 1979a). In general, fraternity and sorority members drink more frequently, consume more alcohol per occasion, and have poorer grades due to alcohol consumption than students who do not belong to fraternities or sororities (Brennan, Walfish and AuBuchon 1986b; Globetti, Stem, Marasco & Haworth-Hoeppner 1988). It should be noted that not all fraternity and sorority members are heavy users of alcohol (Goodwin 1989).
As with fraternities and sororities, students in single-sex living units where almost everyone drinks heavily tend to drink heavily themselves. A heterogeneous living unit (i.e., one in which abstainers, moderate drinkers, and heavy drinkers live together) has more diverse, mediating influences and provides students with a wider choice of friends; hence, "[S]tudents are more likely to find other students with similar attitudes and values and less likely to experience consistent pressure to change" (Moos 1979, p. 252).
Students in coeducational housing units tend to be more independent, nonconforming, and have wider interests than those in single-sex living units (Moos 1979). When men and women are housed together, more moderate drinking norms often emerge, perhaps because there is less emphasis on dating and partying-which results in fewer opportunities and less social pressure to drink.
Residence Hall Staff
Berkowitz and Perkins (1986b) found that alcohol consumption by residence hall assistants (RAs) was similar to that of the "typical" student. However, RAs were less likely to drink too much or to abstain. Also, they often underestimated the degree to which other students drink (e.g., perceived consumption to be more moderate than it actually was); hence, RAs may perpetuate misperceptions regarding alcohol use.
Involvement in Campus Life
Some research suggests that when students are involved in campus activities they drink less (Goodwin 1989; Sherry & Stolberg 1987). Astin (1977), however, found that drinking is common among students involved in such activities as student government and athletics. Brennan et al. (1986b) found that although participation in a greater number of extracurricular activities was not related to quantity or frequency of alcohol consumption, frequency of intoxication was positively related. A key factor is the nature of the activity in which a student becomes involved; that is, if the activity is compatible with the institution's educational mission and purposes (Kuh et al. 1991), alcohol use may be less likely to reach hazardous levels, a point which will be discussed in the next section.
Social-Psychological Properties
Social Context of Drinking
Women tend to drink at coeducational social occasions. Men use alcohol in a wider range of settings and activities-outdoors and at athletic events-as well as alone, in small groups of other men, and in mixed groups (Engs & Hanson 1987).
People in settings where alcohol is present, such as a drinking establishment or fraternity party, feel an obligation to drink. The amount of time spent in such settings and the number of people in a group who are drinking together are positively related to the amount consumed (Cutler & Storm 1975; Room 1972). Fast drinkers in the group often force slow drinkers to consume more by using toasting rituals, drinking games, and ordering drinks in complete rounds; these are behaviors that challenge slow drinkers to finish their drinks so that another round can be ordered (Skog 1979).
Whether or not an individual student can resist the urge to drink too much in settings where alcohol is present depends on the role demands and stresses in the immediate situation and on the support available from other people or reference groups. For example, acceptance by peers is very important for first-and second-year traditional-age students (Chickering 1969). Many students lack the self-confidence and maturity to make appropriate decisions when conflicts arise, such as requesting a nonalcoholic beverage at a party. Hence, using alcohol in public settings is often an expression of a need for approval and acceptance (Kraft 1979a; Oetting & Beauvais 1986). This is particularly problematic for women because the alcohol tends to be used most frequently at male residences (e.g., residence halls, apartments, fraternity houses), a tendency that subjects women to male-dominated social norms (L. Upcraft, personal communication, September 11, 1990).
Gender Roles
Traditional male and female role expectations lead to drinking patterns that differ between men and women (Wilsnack & Wilsnack 1978). Moos (1979) speculated that men tend to be encouraged to drink and misbehave, but women are discouraged from becoming intoxicated. The net effect of environmental influences may be stronger for women than for men because women are socialized to be less assertive. Women also tend to prefer group harmony and cohesion (Eagly 1978; Gilligan 1982). Hence, women are more likely to accommodate to group norms and are less willing than men to state their personal viewpoints in group situations.
Environmental Press
Astin (1968) empirically estimated the average level of drinking in 245 institutions of higher education. Above-average levels of drinking were more common at colleges and universities that emphasized competition; where students were argumentative, aggressive, and snobbish; and where the atmosphere was liberal and informal. Below-average levels of consumption were more characteristic of colleges described as cohesive and having high levels of involvement in classes, and where the administration adopted strict rules against unlawful drinking. Also, drinking was found to be more common at selective, affluent colleges and lower at institutions where a sense of community was strong and where norms for appropriate behavior were clear (Astin 1968, 1977).
Institutional Bonding
Cherry (1987) proposed that social bonds develop between students and their college that are similar to those of parent-child bonds. Students with strong bonds to their college drank much less than did students with weak or broken bonds. The types of involvement in college activities that facilitated appropriate bonding were not identified by Cherry (1987). Perhaps the more students feel a sense of belonging within the college community (Kuh et al. 1991), the less likely they are to drink heavily.
Cultural Properties
The "culture" of a campus also contributes to drinking patterns, as one researcher has noted: "The clearly emergent view of what is required to make a significant difference in reducing alcohol and other drug use is that the campus culture must be addressed" (Roberts, in press). Culture is the shared language, practices, symbols, and beliefs that influence behavior (Kuh & Whitt 1988; Schein, 1985). To examine the influence of culture on behavior, four layers must be considered: (1) the external environment, (2) the institution, (3) subcultures, and (4) individual actors (Kuh & Whitt 1988). The cultural elements embedded in these layers are complex and mutually shaping; hence, cultural properties in one layer (e.g., the external environment) shape cultural properties of other layers (e.g., institutional traditions or individual behavior; Kuh & Whitt 1988).
The External Environment
One researcher has said, "If we are interested in understanding the institution, we must identify and appreciate how the external environment shapes the institution" (Sanford 1962, p. 73). A society or an organization, as well as an individual, can show signs of addiction. Millions of citizens are addicted to food, caffeine, gambling, sex, work, or relationships (Schaef 1987). The characteristics often associated with addicts (and alcoholics) include denial, control, self-centeredness, and rigidity. Schaef and Fassel (1988) posited that these behaviors also characterize many organizations.
Many colleges and universities reflect characteristics of addictive systems:
Denial-institutions are reluctant to admit that alcohol on campus is a problem and fail to collect accurate data on student drinking.
Control-institutions develop new policies or rely on state law for regulation.
Self-centeredness-institutions are defensive about criticism.
Rigidity-institutions are inflexible and very resistant to change.
Viewed from the addictive-society perspective, the campus culture simply reflects societal values and practices related to the use of addictive substances. It is not surprising that alcohol use and abuse on campus is widespread.
Institutions, Subcultures, and Individual Actors
Every college or university has a culture that differs from that of other institutions. For example, the language specific to groups on one college campus differs from the language of similar groups on other college campuses (Becker, Geer, Hughes & Strauss 1961; Louis 1985). To understand why students and faculty use alcohol, their cultures must be understood (Van Maanen 1987).
Alcohol use by students dates back to the 18th and 19th centuries when students rebelled against the punitive, joyless environment imposed on them (Horowitz 1987). Some of this behavior has become institutionalized (e.g., ritualistic consumption, drinking songs), particularly in certain groups such as fraternities (see Leemon 1972).
The availability of alcohol is a symbol of privilege in many collegiate settings, not only among students but also among faculty and alumni (Straus & Bacon 1953). At some institutions, alcohol is available at parties, commencement ceremonies, and other official institutional functions.
Alcohol use on college campuses can also be related to the ethnic or religious history of the school. For example, some institutions founded by Catholics (e.g., St. Anselm's College in New Hampshire and St. John's University in Minnesota) have rathskellers on campus where faculty and students routinely meet to build relationships. Certain cultures, such as the Jewish culture, have strong regulations regarding alcohol use (McClellan 1990; Perkins 1985). In spite of their religious affiliations, students sometimes succumb to peer pressure to drink rather than following religious proscriptions against such behavior (Perkins 1985). Certain Mediterranean cultures reflect a nonabusive alcohol use pattern (Fulton & Spooner 1987); Asian-American and Hispanic students tend not to participate in drinking games; and African-American fraternities center social activities around music and dancing. The ways in which ethnic cultures influence the behavior of students must be better understood.
Aspects of the student culture (such as drinking games) foster underage and potentially hazardous drinking. For example, a recent survey at Towson State University found that more than 65 drinking games exist. A typical student has a repertoire of more than 20 games. Those who participate in drinking games consider themselves to be "normal" drinkers; only about 3 percent thought that participation in drinking games led to alcohol abuse (Douglas 1987).
Summary
The following points can be drawn about the influence of the college environment on students' behavior:
The college environment has the greatest influence on students who are open to change, concerned about social acceptance, and responsive to peer pressure (Feldman & Newcomb 1969).
Some students are able to resist peer pressure.
Some collegiate environments are powerful enough to influence almost everyone (Moos 1979).
Many people both conform to and resist environmental influences (Moos 1979).
Less confident and competent individuals (which includes the largest share of traditional-age [17-19], first-year college students [Chickering 1969]) are more vulnerable to environmental influences (Lawton & Nahemow 1973).
When students are part of a group of other students who drink, they are more likely to drink themselves, provided that the reference group (or living unit) is cohesive and there is a demand for conformity in alcohol consumption.
Students whose consumption is below the group drinking norm are more likely to increase their drinking.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on this review of the literature of environmental influences on college students' alcohol use, six conclusions are warranted. To create health-enhancing campus environments, an institution must address all of the recommendations that follow. Only comprehensive, long-term, campus-specific strategies can have the desired impact. Readers should interpret the conclusions and recommendations in terms of their own institutions.
Conclusion No. 1
Policies and programs designed to reduce alcohol use by college students have generally been ineffective.
Many evaluations of alcohol education efforts and institutional policies are not very sophisticated. Because the student body changes each year, it is difficult to assess desired changes in behavior.
Nevertheless, some alcohol education programs have had salutary effects. Campuswide efforts, such as Alcohol Awareness Week and specific programs targeted to at-risk groups (such as children of alcoholics), are often effective.
Recommendations for Conclusion No. 1
Conclusion No. 2
A coherent, clearly articulated, and consistently expressed philosophy about alcohol and other drug use can encourage responsible, health-enhancing behavior.
Health-enhancing policies and interventions must be consistent with the mission, values, and educational purposes of the institution. Student behavior can then be assessed and, if necessary, challenged.
Recommendations for Conclusion No. 2
Conclusion No. 3
Institutions that expect student responsibility and health-enhancing behavior encourage these behaviors.
A college or university promotes responsible, health-enhancing behavior by establishing high, but realistic, expectations for students and faculty and tells students, from their first contact with the institution, that they will be responsible for their own affairs.
Recommendations for Conclusion No. 3
Conclusion No. 4
Small, "human-scale" environments encourage responsible, health-enhancing behavior.
Health-enhancing attitudes and behavior are fostered when faculty, staff, and students have frequent contact with one another. By providing small residences and classes, maintaining effective communication networks, and widely disseminating information, a college or university encourages its members to know each other, a precursor to caring for one another.
Recommendations for Conclusion No. 4
Conclusion No. 5
Feelings of loyalty and a sense of specialness encourage responsibility and health-enhancing behavior.
If an institution can create and sustain a culture in which alcohol use is not appropriate and where health-enhancing attitudes and behaviors are valued, students will adopt those values for themselves and behave accordingly (Moos 1976). Hence, the most promising avenue to influencing college student drinking is cultural change.
Recommendations for Conclusion No. 5
Conclusion No. 6
More information is needed about environmental influences on college student alcohol and other drug use and successful approaches to fostering drug-free environments.
Although much is known about how certain factors (e.g., peer pressure) shape drinking behavior in small and large group settings, relatively little is known about how alcohol use is influenced by advertisements, off-campus environments, and the physical setting and cultural elements of campus life.
Recommendations for Conclusion No. 6
Conclusion
Most college students have experimented with alcohol and-in many cases-other drugs prior to coming to the campus. Strict enforcement of regulations in an effort to maintain an alcohol-and drug-free environment may not be effective. Indeed, a recent survey of colleges and university presidents indicated that more stringent regulations are not likely to have the desired effects (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 1990). When rules and regulations are strictly enforced, students may simply go off campus. A college or university will not be able to eradicate the hazardous use of alcohol and other drugs without complementary policies and practices in the external environment (e.g., legislation regulating advertising).
Nonetheless, to aspire to be a community where it is not assumed that everyone drinks is consistent with the purposes of an institution of higher education. There are examples of subcommunities organized around sobriety, care, and concern (e.g., SADD), but the cultures of far too many colleges do not value these qualities. These values must be reflected in an institution's philosophy and exhibited by faculty, staff, and student leaders. Such people must work together to create a sense of urgency (Rappaport 1981) on their campuses so that attention and resources are continuously focused on promoting responsible, health-enhancing behavior.
Checklist on Influence of the College Environment
References
Ahrentzen, S., Jue, B. M., Skorpanish, M.A., & Evans, G.W. (1982). School environment and stress. In G.W. Evans (Ed.), Environmental stress (pp. 225-255). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, D.S. & Gadaleto, A.F. (1991). Unpublished findings, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia.
Astin, A.W. (1968). The college environment. Washington, DC: The American Council on Education.
_______ (1977). Four critical years. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A.W., & Holland, J.L. (1961). The environmental assessment technique: A way to measure college environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 52, 308-316.
Baird, L.L. (1988). The college environment revisited: A review of research and theory. In J.C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. IV). New York: Agathon.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Banning, J.H. (Ed.). (1975). Campus ecology: A perspective for student affairs. Portland: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.
Barker, R.G. (1963). On the nature of the environment. Journal of Social Issues, 19(4), 17-38.
_______ (1968). Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Becker, H.S., Geer, B., Hughes, E.C., & Strauss, A.L. (1961). Boys in white. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Berkowitz, A.D., & Perkins, H.W. (1986a). Problem drinking among college students: A review of recent research. Journal of American College Health, 35, 21-28.
_______ (1986b). Resident advisors as role models: A comparison of resident advisor and student peer drinking patterns. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27, 146-153.
_______ (1987a). Current issues in effective alcohol education programming. In J. S. Sherwood (Ed.), Alcohol policies and practices on college and university campuses (pp. 69-85). Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.
_______ (1987b). Recent research on gender differences in collegiate alcohol use. Journal of American College Health, 36, 123-130.
Botvin, G.J. (1983). Prevention of adolescent substance abuse through the development of personal and social competence. In T.J. Glynn, C.G. Leukefeld, & J.P. Ludford (Eds.), Preventing adolescent drug abuse (Research Monograph No. 47, pp. 115-140). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Brennan, A.F., Walfish, S., & AuBuchon, P. (1986a). Alcohol use and abuse in college students. I. A review of the individual and personality correlates. The International Journal of the Addictions, 21, 449-474.
_______ (1986b). Alcohol use and abuse in college students. II. Social/environmental correlates, methodological issues, and implications for intervention. The International Journal of the Addictions, 21, 475-493.
Burns, W.D. (1989). Alcohol and community: Rethinking privilege. Educational Record, 70(3/4), 54-58.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1990). Campus life: In search of community. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Cherry, A.L., Jr. (1987). Social bond theory and alcohol use among college students. Journal of College Student Personnel, 28, 128-135.
Chickering, A.W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Clark, B.R. (1989). The academic life: Small worlds, different worlds. Educational Researcher, 18(5), 4-8.
Clark, B.R., & Trow, M. (1966). The organizational context. In T.M. Newcomb & E.K. Wilson (Eds.), College peer groups: Problems and prospects for research (pp. 17-70). Chicago: Aldine.
Connell, J.R. (1985). Drinking on campus-The 21-year- old drinking age: Education or enforcement? Change, 17(1), 44-51.
Creeden, J.E. (1990). Environmental and behavioral factors affecting fraternity drinking. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 465-467.
Cutler, R., & Storm, T. (1975). Observational study of alcohol consumption in natural settings: The Vancouver beer parlor. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 36, 1173-1183.
Douglas, P. (1987). Bizz-buzz, turtles, quarters, and one horse club: The role of drinking games among high school and college students. Alcohol Health and Research World, 11(4), 54-57, 92.
Eagly, A.H. (1978). Sex differences in influenceability. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 86-116.
Engs, R.C. (1977). Let's look before we leap: The cognitive and behavioral evaluation of a university alcohol education program. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 22, 39-48.
Engs, R.C., & Hanson, D.J. (1987). College students' drinking patterns and problems. In J.S. Sherwood (Ed.), Alcohol policies and practices on college and university campuses (pp. 57-68). Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.
Feldman, K.A., & Newcomb, T.M. (1969). The impact of college on students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fischer, J.M. (1987). A historical perspective: Alcohol abuse and alcoholism in America and our campuses. In J.S. Sherwood (Ed.), Alcohol policies and practices on college and university campuses (pp. 1-17). Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.
Fulton, D.R., & Spooner, S.E. (1987). Alcohol on campus: Three current issues. NASPA Journal, 25, 130-136.
Gerber, C. (Ed.). (1989). Preserving a quality environment for learning: Second International Symposium. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Globetti, G., Stem, J.T., Marasco, F., & Haworth-Hoeppner, S. (1988). Student residence arrangements and alcohol use and abuse: A research note. Journal of College and University Student Housing, 18(1), 28-33.
Gonzalez, G.M. (1987). Alcohol policy development: A necessary component for a comprehensive alcohol education program on campus. In J. S. Sherwood (Ed.), Alcohol policies and practices on college and university campuses (pp. 89-95). Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.
_______ (1989). An integrated theoretical model for alcohol and other drug abuse prevention on the college campus. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 492-503.
_______ (1990). Effects of raising the drinking age and related campus initiatives on student alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 181-183.
Goodwin, L. (1989). Explaining alcohol consumption and related experiences among fraternity and sorority members. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 448-458.
Griffin, T. (1990). The physical environment of the college classroom and its effects on students. Campus Ecologist, 8(1), 1-4.
Hawkins, J.D., Lishner, D.M., Catalano, R.F., & Howard, M.D. (1986). Childhood predictors of adolescent substance abuse: Towards an empirically grounded theory. Journal of Children in Contemporary Society, 18(1/2), 1-65.
Hayes-Sugarman, K.M. (1989). New York State's 21 alcohol purchase age: Unanticipated consequences in the college community. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York, Buffalo. Dissertation Abstracts International, 49(9), 2612-A.
Horowitz, H.L. (1987). Campus life: Undergraduate cultures from the end of the eighteenth century to the present. New York: Knopf.
Huebner, L.A. (Ed.). (1979). Redesigning campus environments: New directions for student services (No. 6). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kaiser, L.R. (1972). Campus ecology: Implications for environmental design. Boulder, CO: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.
Klein, H. (1989). Helping the college student problem drinker. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 323-331.
Kraft, D.P. (1979a). Public drinking practices of college youths: Implications for prevention programs. In T.C. Harford & L.S. Gaines (Eds.), Social drinking contexts (Research Monograph No. 7, pp. 54-84). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
_______ (1979b). Strategies for reducing drinking problems among youth: College programs. In H. T. Blane & M. E. Chavez (Eds.), Youth, alcohol and social policy (pp. 311-354). New York: Plenum.
_______ (1984). A comprehensive prevention program for college students. In P. Miller & T. Nirenberg (Eds.), Prevention of alcohol abuse (pp. 327-369). New York: Plenum.
_______ (1988). Prevention and treatment of alcohol problems on a college campus. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 34, 37-51.
Kuh, G.D. (1981). Indices of quality in the undergraduate experience (AAHE-ERIC/Higher Education Research Report No. 4). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
_______ (1990). Assessing student culture. In W. G. Tierney (Ed.), Assessing academic climates and cultures: New directions for institutional research (pp. 47-60). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
_______ (1991). Environmental influences on alcohol use by college students. (Contract #43-3J47- 0- 00296). Bloomington, IN: Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning.
Kuh, G.D., & Lyons, J.W. (1990). Greek systems at "involving colleges": Lessons from the College Experiences Study. NASPA Journal, 28, 20-29.
Kuh, G.D., Schuh, J.S., Whitt, E.J., Andreas, R.E., Lyons, J.W., Strange, C.C., Krehbiel, L.E., & MacKay, K.A. (1991). Involving colleges: Successful approaches to fostering student learning and personal development outside the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kuh, G.D., & Whitt, E.J. (1988). The invisible tapestry: Culture in American colleges and universities (AAHE-ERIC/Higher Education Research Report No. 1). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
Lawton, P., & Nahemow, L. (1973). Ecology and the aging process. In C. Eisdorfer & P. Lawton (Eds.), The psychology of adult development and aging. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Leemon, T. A. (1972). The rites of passage in a student culture. New York: Teachers College Press.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Louis, M.R. (1985). An investigator's guide to workplace culture. In P. Frost, L.F. Moore, M.R. Louis, C.C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Organizational culture (pp. 73-93). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
McClellan, M.C. (1990). The problem of teenage drinking. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 810-813.
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J.A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Miller, P.M., Hersen, M., Eisler, R.M., Epstein, L.H., & Wooten, L.S. (1974). Relationship of alcohol cues to the drinking behaviors of alcoholics and social drinkers: An analogue study. Psychological Record, 24, 61-66.
Moos, R. (1974). Evaluating treatment environments: A social ecological approach. New York: Wiley.
_______ (1976). The human context: Environmental determinants of behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
_______ (1979). Evaluating educational environments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moos, R., Moos, B., & Kulik, J. (1977). Behavioral and self-concept antecedents and correlates of college-student drinking patterns. International Journal of Addictions, 12, 603-615.
Myrick, R., & Marx, B.S. (1968). An exploratory study of the relationship between high school building design and student learning. Washington, DC: Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Bureau of Research.
Oetting, E.R., & Beauvais, F. (1986). Peer cluster theory: Drugs and the adolescent. Journal of Counseling and Development, 65, 17-22.
Pace, C.R. (1969). College and university environment scales: Technical manual (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Perkins, H.W. (1985). Religious traditions, parents, and peers as determinants of alcohol and drug use among college students. Review of Religious Research, 27(1), 15-31.
_______ (1987). Parental religion and alcohol use problems as intergenerational predictors of problem drinking among college youth. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 26, 340-357.
Rapoport, A. (1982). The meaning of built environments: A non-verbal communication approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 1-26.
Roberts, D. (in press). Approaches to dealing with alcohol and other drug use. In College and university administrators' guide to prevention of alcohol and other drug use. Rockville, MD: Office for Substance Abuse Prevention.
Room, R. (1972). Notes on taverns and sociability. (Working Paper No. F25). Berkeley, CA: Social Research Group.
Sanford, N. (1962). Higher education as a field of study. In N. Sanford (Ed.), The American College. New York: Wiley.
_______ (1967). Where colleges fail: A study of the student as a person. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schaef, A.W. (1987). When society becomes an addict. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Schaef, A.W., & Fassel, D. (1988). The addictive organization. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Schein, E.H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schuh, J.H. (1980). Housing. In W.H. Morrill & J.C. Hurst (Eds.), Dimensions of intervention for student development. New York: Wiley.
Sherry, P., & Stolberg, V. (1987). Factors affecting alcohol use by college students. Journal of College Student Personnel, 28, 350-355.
Skog, V.J. (1979). Drinking behavior in small groups: The relationship between group size and consumption level. In T.C. Harford & L.S. Gaines (Eds.), Social drinking contexts (Research Monograph No. 7, pp. 54-84). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
Smith, M.C. (1989). Students, suds, and summonses: Strategies for coping with campus alcohol abuse. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 118-122.
Stern, G.G. (1970). People in context. New York: Wiley.
Strange, C.C., & Miller, B. (1978). Alcohol abuse prevention: A systematic campus approach. In T. Goodale (Ed.), Alcohol education and alcohol abuse prevention programs at selected American colleges (pp. 35-39). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.
Straus, R., & Bacon, S.D. (1953). Drinking in college. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Strickler, D.P., Dobbs, S.D., & Maxwell, W.A. (1979). The influence of setting on drinking behaviors: The laboratory vs. the barroom. Addictive Behaviors, 4, 339-344.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Van Maanen, J. (1987, May). Managing education better: Some thoughts on the management of student cultures in American colleges and universities. Presented at the meeting of the Association for Institutional Research, Kansas City.
Walsh, W.B. (1978). Person-environment interaction. In J. Banning (Ed.), Campus ecology: A perspective for student affairs (pp. 6-16). Cincinnati, OH: National Association for Student Personnel Administrators.
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. (1973). The ecosystem model: Designing campus environments. Boulder, CO: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.
Wicker, A.W. (1979). An introduction to ecological psychology. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Williams, F.G., & Knox, R. (1987). Alcohol abuse intervention in a university setting. Journal of American College Health, 36, 97-102.
Wilsnack, S.C., & Wilsnack, R.W. (1978). Sex roles and adolescent drinking. In H. T. Blane and M.E. Chafez (Eds.), Youth, alcohol and social policy. New York: Plenum.
Current Knowledge in Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse
Assessing Collegiate Substance Abuse: Current Trends, Research Needs, and Program Applications
![[ Home ]](/icons/EDhome.gif){kind=icon}