Intervening to Decrease Alcohol Abuse at University Parties

Abstract

This quasi-experimental field study assessed whether an incentive/reward intervention can change the drinking behavior and the subsequent levels of intoxication among college students attending fraternity parties. A total of 356 blood alcohol concentration (BAC) assessments, using hand-held breathalyzers. were obtained at two baseline and at two intervention parties at the same fratenity house. At the intervention parties, the students were informed they could win a cash prize if their BAC was below .05, and they were given nomograms to aid in monitoring their levels of intoxication. Mean BAC and the percentage of partiers with intoxication levels above .05 were significantly lower at the two intervention parties. More than twice as many partygoers were legally intoxicated (i.e., BAC > .08) at the two baseline parties than at the two intervention parties. indicating a clinically significant impact of the incentive/reward intervention. Greek-life students, in particular, were significantly less intoxicated at intervention parties, compared to baseline parties (p < .001).

Heavy Drinking in College Students: Who Is at Risk and What Is Being Done About It?

“…For example, Fournier et al (2004) gave students information about blood alcohol content (BAC), including personalized BAC charts, and told them they were eligible to win a cash prize if they kept their blood alcohol level below .05 during the course of the evening. Individuals at such intervention parties had significantly lower blood alcohol levels compared with individuals at control parties.…”

“…Kilmer and colleagues found that, one year after implementation, fraternity and sorority members were drinking less frequently, but consuming more alcohol per occasion. These findings suggest that the policy inadvertently increased risky drinking behavior in an attempt to curb it.As shown in Table 2, starting in the early 1990s, individual prevention approaches began to emerge with demonstrated efficacy among fraternity and sorority members (Baer et al, 1992;Fournier, Earhart, Glindemann, & Geller, 2004;Garvin, Alcorn, & Faulkner, 1990;Larimer et al, 2001;Marlatt et al, 1998;Thompson, 1996; see Larimer & Cronce 2002, for a comprehensive review of college student drinking interventions). Both Baer and colleagues and Marlatt and colleagues utilized a brief motivational enhancement approach combined with feedback and skills training of both members and nonmembers of fraternities and sororities.…”

Formative research on identifying and promoting responsible party-hosting skills among college students

“…[8][9][10][11] For example, Glindermann and Geller 10 found that students who were members of Greeklife organizations -along with their non-Greek peers -both consume more alcohol at parties hosted by fraternities than non-fraternity events. This finding reinforces past research that emphasized the relationship between drinking context and behavior rather than alcohol consumption rates among members of the Greek organizations.…”

The Influence of Curricular-based Interventions within First-year "Success" Courses on Student Alcohol Expectancies and Engagement in High-risk Drinking Behaviors

“…• Content (Baer, Kivlahan, Blune, McKnight, & Marlatt, 2001;Chiauzzi, Green, Lord, Thum, & Goldstein, 2005 • Audience (Baer et al, 2001;Elkins, Helms, & Pierson, 2003;Fournier et al, 2004;Sheffield, Darkes, Del Boca, & Goldman, 2005) However, no studies have investigated the effectiveness of the aforementioned intervention on reducing alcohol expectancies and highrisk drinking behaviors in any context, yet alone that of a first-year success course.…”

“…What constitutes the audience for any given intervention also varies greatly on its purpose. While all of the studies reviewed for this paper 55 Brought to you by | HEC Bibliotheque Maryriam ET J. Authenticated Download Date | 6/10/15 3:53 AM focus on interventions designed to address alcohol consumption by college students, some reflect a narrower scope, addressing issues specific to a certain segment of the student population, including but not limited to community college students (Sheffield et al, 2005), firstyear college students (Stamper et al, 2004), first-year residential students (Werch et al, 2000), high-risk drinkers (Baer et al, 2001), Greeks (Elkins et al, 2003;Kuh & Arnold, 1993;Latimer et al, 1997;Tampke, 1990;Weschler, Kuh, & Davenport, 1996;Zirkel & Tsai, 1990), and party-going college students (Fournier et al, 2004). These examples highlight how research of this kind has evolved to consider targeted student subpopulations in its efforts to maximize the potential effects of these interventions on reducing high-risk drinking behaviors among college students.…”