The Effect of Descriptive Norms on Pregaming Frequency: Tests of Five Moderators

Abstract

Background Pregaming is highly prevalent on college campuses and associated with heightened levels of intoxication and risk of alcohol consequences. However, research examining the correlates of pregaming behavior is limited. Descriptive norms (i.e., perceptions about the prevalence or frequency of a behavior) are reliable and comparatively strong predictors of general drinking behavior, with recent evidence indicating that they are also associated with pregaming. Objectives We tested the hypothesis that higher descriptive norms for pregaming frequency would be associated with personal pregaming frequency. We also tested whether this effect would be stronger in the context of several theory-based moderators: female gender, higher injunctive norms (i.e., perceptions of others' attitudes toward a particular behavior), a more positive attitude toward pregaming, a stronger sense of identification with the drinking habits of other students, and stronger social comparison tendencies. Methods College student drinkers (N=198, 63% female) participated in an online survey assessing frequency of pregaming, descriptive norms, and hypothesized moderators. Results A multiple regression model revealed that higher descriptive norms, a more positive attitude toward pregaming, and stronger peer identification were significantly associated with greater pregaming frequency among drinkers. However, no moderators of the association between descriptive norms and pregaming frequency were observed. Conclusions/Importance Descriptive norms are robust predictors of pregaming behavior, for both genders and across levels of several potential moderators. Future research seeking to understand pregaming behavior should consider descriptive norms, as well as personal attitudes and identification with student peers, as targets of interventions designed to reduce pregaming.

Secondary effects of myPlaybook on college athletes’ avoidance of drinking games or pregaming as a protective behavior strategy: A multisite randomized controlled study

“…The reasons for this study's null intervention effects are not entirely clear; yet, it is possible that some student-athletes may not always be able to extrapolate beyond what is directly presented to them in the intervention. As such, myPlaybook could be adapted in such a way that it specifically addresses DG and pregaming behaviors by incorporating social norming (Merrill et al, 2016;Pedersen and LaBrie, 2008) and motivation-matched intervention strategies (e.g., Blevins and Stephens, 2016;Canale et al, 2015;cf. Zamboanga et al, 2018) around these specific behaviors.…”

Drink for drink: measurement of preloading motivations for field and survey research with correlates of alcohol related harms

“…Although, not every individual engages in preloading and this must be accounted for in the power analysis. Prior research has found that between 60 -90% of individuals preload before a night-out (Devilly et al, 2019a, b;Hughes et al, 2008;Merrill et al, 2016). Therefore, we aimed to collect a maximum sample size of 700 individuals to ensure our analyses were not underpowered.…”

“…Approximately seventy to ninety percent of individuals preload with alcohol before a party, event or night-out (Devilly et al, 2019b;Hughes et al, 2008;Merrill et al, 2016). Preloading is often contextualized as a behaviour practiced by young adults (i.e., 18 -24 years;MacLean & Callinan, 2013;Wells et al, 2015), despite a smaller proportion of adults (i.e., 25 -60 years) also reporting engagement in the practice (de Andrade et al, 2021;Devilly et al, 2017).…”