Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs logoLink to Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs
. 2023 Aug 29;84(4):520–529. doi: 10.15288/jsad.22-00284

High Spirits? Exploring “Halloweekend” Alcohol and Cannabis Use Among Heavy-Drinking College Students

Reagan E Fitzke a,,*, Denise D Tran a, Justin F Hummer b, Jordan P Davis c, Mark A Prince d, John J Prindle c, Daniel S Lee a, Eric R Pedersen a
PMCID: PMC10488306  PMID: 36971757

Abstract

Objective:

Specific events are associated with heavier and riskier substance use behaviors among college students, including holidays like Halloween, which may include several days of themed parties/events (“Halloweekend”). The current study compared drinking, pregaming (i.e., fast-paced drinking before going out for the night), cannabis use, same-day alcohol and cannabis co-use, and negative alcohol-related consequences over Halloweekend compared with two adjacent non-Halloween weekends among a sample of heavy-drinking university students.

Method:

Participants (N = 228; 65% female) provided 28 days of daily diary data. We used a three-level generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) approach estimating zero-inflated Conway–Maxwell Poisson regressions to assess the effect of weekend and specific weekend day on number of overall drinks, number of pregaming drinks, and negative alcohol-related consequences. Proportions tests assessed for differences in any cannabis use and daily co-use between Halloweekend and non-Halloween weekends.

Results:

Zero-inflated portions of the GLMMs indicated that general drinking, pregaming, and negative consequences were most prevalent on Halloweekend and Fridays and Saturdays. Count portions of the models indicated that general drinking quantity was highest during these periods, and participants experienced a greater number of negative consequences on Halloweekend compared with the weekend before; no differences were observed in the quantity of pregaming drinks consumed across weekends or days. No significant differences in cannabis use or co-use were observed between weekends.

Conclusions:

Given risk associated with Halloweekend compared with weekends immediately before and after, interventions targeting alcohol use and pregaming on Halloweekend may be beneficial to reduce related harm for heavy-drinking students.

Alcohol use remains prevalent among university settings. The 2021 Monitoring the Future report estimates that 77% of U.S. college students drank in the past year, with 56% drinking alcohol in the past 30 days and 2.4% drinking daily (Schulenberg et al., 2021). College students are at particular risk for heavy drinking (Krieger et al., 2018; O’Malley & Johnston, 2002), which can confer greater negative alcohol-related consequences (Nelson et al., 2009). Within the college social environment, event-specific substance use generally refers to heavy consumption of substances, primarily alcohol, during certain events and holidays (e.g., football games, spring break, etc.; Neighbors et al., 2011; Tremblay et al., 2010). High rates of use during these events are attributed to several factors, such as the desire to celebrate with peers, the congregation of students at themed parties or bars, and normative beliefs about drinking on these occasions (e.g., the misperception that everyone drinks heavily at games or during spring break) (Alhabash et al., 2021; Neighbors et al., 2006; Patrick & Lee, 2012). High levels of substance use at these events are associated with a greater severity of negative use–related consequences (Ehlke et al., 2021; Neighbors et al., 2011), pointing to the need for attention to event-specific use. Although research on drinking quantity and frequency is robust surrounding these events, more work is needed on other substance use behaviors that may contribute to risk on event-specific use occasions.

Like alcohol, cannabis use is also common among college students. Approximately 25% of students used cannabis in the past 30 days (with 7.9% using cannabis daily; Schulenberg et al., 2021). With rates of cannabis use among college students at their highest levels in recent years (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2021; Schulenberg et al., 2021), co-use of alcohol and cannabis is of growing concern. Approximately 15%–25% of young adults and college students use both alcohol and cannabis (Bravo et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2022). Co-use broadly refers to use of both substances during a specified period. Typically, at minimum, co-use can refer to use of both substances within the same month (concurrent alcohol and cannabis use; Earleywine & Newcomb, 1997), but it can also capture same-day use of both substances, and more granularly, use of both during a short period of hours in which effects can overlap (simultaneous alcohol and cannabis use; Sokolovsky et al., 2020). Studies have found that daily co-use and simultaneous alcohol and cannabis use may confer greater risk for negative consequences compared with concurrent alcohol and cannabis use or single substance use days, although these effects can vary depending on the amount of alcohol consumed (Lee et al., 2020; Mallett et al., 2019; Sokolovsky et al., 2020). For instance, one study reported that when college students use alcohol on the same day as cannabis, they experience more negative alcohol-related consequences compared with both cannabis- and alcohol-only use days—noting that the effect comparing co-use to alcohol use only days diminishes as alcohol use quantity increases—suggesting that perhaps, the additive use of alcohol appears to contribute to additional risk (Sokolovsky et al., 2020). This may occur as a result of interactive effects from the mixing of alcohol and cannabis leading to greater consumption and intoxication (Yurasek et al., 2017). Among college students, a recent study reported that same-day alcohol and cannabis co-use is more prevalent in social settings (e.g., using at parties/with friends) than use of cannabis alone (Looby et al., 2021). Given the associations of co-use with unique risks and social contexts, it is worth further investigation to elucidate event-specific outcomes related to co-use and associated negative consequences, specifically concerning same-day use.

Although most empirical work on event-specific substance use has focused on alcohol alone (Neighbors et al., 2011; Riordan et al., 2016; Tremblay et al., 2010), notable exceptions exist (Buckner et al., 2015). In one instance, Bravo et al. (2017) reported on daily-level cannabis use during April 20 (4/20, which cannabis users may consider a “cannabis holiday”), finding that although use was highest on 4/20 compared with typical weekends and weekdays, cannabis-related negative consequences were not higher on 4/20 compared with other days. The extent to which other calendar-related events affect cannabis use remains understudied (Fleming et al., 2021), especially using event-level data, which would be able to determine if use of alcohol and cannabis occurred on the same day. Moreover, little is known about alcohol and cannabis co-use during high-risk events, where heavier drinking is already quite likely. One event-specific study of 21st birthday celebrations included assessments of both substances, but authors only reported on alcohol and cannabis use separately, with no investigation of co-use (Gilson et al., 2022). The authors observed that although alcohol use prevalence and quantity was higher on 21st birthdays relative to other birthdays, cannabis use remained relatively stable across birthdays and nonbirthday occasions. Additional research is needed to characterize both alcohol and cannabis use, including co-use, on other high-risk events.

Another prevalent high-risk event for college students is pregaming drinking. Pregaming (i.e., prepartying) involves the consumption of alcohol before an event in which more alcohol use is likely to occur (Pedersen & LaBrie, 2007; Zamboanga & Olthuis, 2016). Prior work indicates that pregaming is likely to occur before many college-specific events, including but not limited to parties, concerts, and sporting events (Pedersen et al., 2009; Zamboanga et al., 2013). Pregaming often leads to further heavy drinking at the intended destination (LaBrie & Pedersen, 2008) and can result in greater use-related negative consequences (Merrill et al., 2013; Pedersen & LaBrie, 2007). Thus, when considering event-specific use occasions, there is a need to investigate how pregaming presents across different events and holidays in university settings.

Studies have identified Halloween as one of the heaviest drinking events for college students throughout the school year (Ehlke et al., 2021; Tremblay et al., 2010). Like other events where substance use is common, heavy drinking on Halloween may be driven in part by social norms surrounding heavy alcohol consumption among students on this holiday (Alhabash et al., 2021). Although Halloween is a single day, theme parties during which heavy drinking can occur are also popular over several days on the surrounding weekend(s)—an event known as “Halloweekend.” Yet, little is known about how substance use over Halloweekend compares to typical weekends on campus. In addition, similar to other event-specific use research, there is limited understanding of cannabis co-use and negative alcohol-related consequences on this holiday event beyond drinking quantity and frequency. More work is needed to understand behaviors such as pregaming, cannabis use, and alcohol and cannabis co-use on Halloweekend.

Present study

The research of Halloween as a risky event has been limited by three main factors. First, research has primarily examined Halloween day only (i.e., October 31) and not the surrounding days during which parties may be taking place, particularly if October 31 falls on a weekday (as noted by Ehlke et al., 2021). Second, little is known about the extent to which students use cannabis and engage in specific high-risk drinking behaviors, such as pregaming, over the duration of Halloweekend events. Third, most of the work on Halloween has been cross-sectional, and work comparing Halloweekend to typical use events at the daily level is limited. Daily-level data are particularly important for Halloween and Halloweekend, as previous research has shown that retrospective accounts of this holiday (compared with daily accounts) may result in inflated reports of drinking (Patrick & Lee, 2010).

To overcome limitations of prior work, the current study uses daily diary data to compare substance use behaviors between Halloweekend and its adjacent weekends among heavy-drinking college students. We hypothesized that participants would drink more heavily, generally and while pre-gaming, and use more cannabis on Halloweekend compared with the two weekends immediately before and after. We also hypothesized that participants would report greater negative alcohol-related consequences (e.g., injuries, blackouts) over this event compared with typical weekends.

Method

Participants and procedures

Participant recruitment was part of a larger randomized controlled trial testing an intervention to reduce pregaming behavior and related negative consequences among college students (Pedersen et al., 2022). To be included in the study, participants had to endorse pregaming at least weekly (i.e., ≥4 times in the past month) on the baseline survey (total N = 485). All participants gave informed consent, and all measures/procedures were approved by the university's institutional review board. For the purposes of the current study, and to avoid potential intervention effects in our results, only control condition participants of the randomized controlled trial who were enrolled in the first wave of participation were included in analyses (N = 228).

Following an online baseline survey assessing demographics, participants reported on 28 days of daily diary data, with an average response rate of 85% across all daily diaries. Online diary assessments were delivered to participants at 7 A.M. daily, asking about the prior day/night. Two reminders were sent via email and text if participants did not respond by noon. Nine days in October and November 2021 were included in analyses: (a) Halloweekend (Friday, October 29; Saturday, October 30; and Sunday, October 31), (b) the weekend before (Friday, October 22; Saturday, October 23; and Sunday, October 24), and (c) the weekend after (Friday, November 5; Saturday, November 6; and Sunday, November 7). Average response rates for each weekend were as follows: weekend before = 85%, Halloweekend = 80%, weekend after = 77%.

Measures

Demographics. At baseline, participants reported their age, gender, class year, membership in a fraternity/sorority versus not, and their race/ethnicity. Participants also reported alcohol use days and average quantity, pregaming days and average quantity, cannabis use days, and co-use days of alcohol and cannabis in the past month at baseline. Alcohol use disorder (AUD) symptoms were also assessed at baseline using the 10-item Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT; Saunders et al., 1993), which assesses AUD symptoms in the past year. We report demographics and baseline substance use of the analytic sample in Table 1.

Table 1.

Sample demographics (n = 228)

graphic file with name jsad.22-00284tbl1.jpg

Variable M (SD) or n (%)
Age 20.0 (1.25)
Gender
 Male 74 (32.5%)
 Female 149 (65.4%)
 Nonbinary/gender nonconforming 5 (2.2%)
Class
 Freshman 34 (14.9%)
 Sophomore 57 (25.0%)
 Junior 52 (22.8%)
 Senior 85 (37.3%)
Fraternity/sorority membership
 Yes 49 (21.5%)
 No 179 (78.5%)
Race/ethnicity
 White 106 (46.5%)
 Asian 44 (19.3%)
 Hispanic or Latinoa 41 (18.0%)
 African American or Black 8 (3.5%)
 Multiracial 27(11.8%)
 Not listed or specified 2 (0.9%)
Baseline substance use (past 30 days)
 Drinking days 9.98 (3.94)
 Typical number of drinks (overall) 4.67 (2.65)
 Pregaming days 7.04 (3.37)
 Typical number of drinks (pregaming) 3.75 (2.19)
 Cannabis use days 6.54 (9.03)
 Alcohol and cannabis co-use days in past monthb 4.57 (5.21)
 AUDIT score 10.21 (4.89)
Open in a new tab

Notes: AUDIT = Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test.

a

Hispanic/ Latino ethnicity was assessed separately from race; of the n = 41 who reported Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, 1 reported American Indian or Alaska Native race, 2 reported Black or African American, 2 reported Asian, 22 reported White, 6 reported multiple races, and 7 reported not fitting into the specified race categories.

b

Average co-use days only reported among those who reported both alcohol and cannabis use in past 30 days (n = 146).

Alcohol use. On each daily survey, participants reported whether they drank alcohol the previous day/night (yes/no). If yes, they reported how many drinks they had consumed. Participants also indicated whether they pregamed on this drinking day (yes/no). If so, they reported how many drinks they had while pregaming. Standard drinks were defined for participants (e.g., 12 oz. beer/hard seltzer, 4–5 oz. wine, 1.5 oz. distilled spirits). Pregaming was defined as drinking alcohol before attending an event or activity (e.g., drinking before going to a party, bar, or concert; events that had a large number of people or very few people) at which more alcohol may or may not be consumed (Pedersen & LaBrie, 2007).

Cannabis use. On each daily survey, participants reported whether they used cannabis the day/night before (yes/no). Cannabis use was defined as any marijuana or cannabis product (pot, weed, hash) containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in any form (like smoking a joint or blunt; eating or drinking edibles; or using a bong, vaping, dabs, or concentrates) and did not include cannabidiol (CBD)-only products.

Same-day co-use of alcohol and cannabis. Participants were coded manually as using alcohol and cannabis on the same day if they indicated that they drank alcohol and also indicated that they used cannabis on that day.

Negative consequences. For each day the participants endorsed any drinking, participants were asked whether they experienced each of 24 negative alcohol-related consequences (yes/no) from a modified Brief Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire (B-YAACQ; Kahler et al., 2005, 2008), which included items such as passing out from drinking, taking foolish risks, missing class, or neglecting responsibilities. A sum of negative consequences experienced on that day was calculated for each day, ranging from 0 to 24.

Analysis plan

In daily-level substance use research, previous work has typically considered Fridays and Saturdays “weekend” days, and Sundays “weekday” days (Bravo et al., 2017; Del Boca et al., 2004). However, we included Sundays in our “weekend” definition since Halloween Day fell on a Sunday. Therefore, for brevity of language, when considering one “weekend,” we are referring to a consecutive Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.

For alcohol-related count outcomes (number of overall drinks, number of pregaming drinks, and negative alcohol-related consequences), we used a generalized linear mixed modeling (GLMM) approach to estimate the effects of weekends and specific days on outcome variables using R version 4.2.1 (R Core Team, 2022). Our model included three levels to account for individuals nested within days and days nested within weekends (Figure 1). We fit zero-inflated Conway–Maxwell Poisson (ZICMP) regression models (Huang, 2017; Sellers & Premeaux, 2021) using the glmmTMB package in R (Brooks et al., 2017). Conway–Maxwell Poisson models are an approach to modeling count data that are robust against either underdispersed or overdispersed count data (Sellers & Premeaux, 2021; Sellers & Raim, 2016). Using a model building approach, we concluded that a ZICMP approach was appropriate for our analyses because our count data had (a) overdispersion and (b) excess zeroes (Sellers & Raim, 2016). Further, glmmTMB uses mean-parameterization to estimate Conway–Maxwell Poisson models, allowing for ease of interpretability similar to regular Poisson or negative binomial models (Huang, 2017). We fit mixed models with a random intercept and fixed effects for weekend and day factors.1 Models controlled for baseline AUDIT score, sex, and fraternity/sorority membership, given that these factors have shown potential influence on drinking, pregaming, and consequences in previous literature (Haas et al., 2012; Merrill et al., 2013; Zamboanga & Olthuis, 2016). We report incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for count portions of the models and odds ratios (ORs) for the logistic zero-inflated portions of the models.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Diagram of the three-level nested generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) for individuals/days/weekends same day if they indicated that they drank alcohol and also indicated that they used cannabis on that day.

Next, we performed descriptive analyses on dichotomous use variables using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows Version 28 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). Cannabis use and daily co-use were both coded as 1 = any use if participants indicated use on at least one of the 3 weekend days or 0 = no use. We compared sample prevalence of cannabis use and same-day alcohol and cannabis co-use using paired Z-tests for proportions across weekends.

Results

GLMM results on alcohol count outcomes

Figure 2 represents alcohol and pregaming use levels at the daily level across weekends. Regarding overall weekend drinking prevalence, 80.3% of the total sample reported any drinking on Halloweekend, whereas 68.9% and 58.8% reported drinking on the weekends before and after, respectively. IRRs, ORs, and model fit indices for ZICMP models predicting number of overall drinks consumed, number of pregaming drinks consumed, and negative alcohol-related consequences are reported in Table 2.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Average overall and pregaming drinks consumed at the daily level across weekends

Table 2.

Zero-inflated Conway–Maxwell Poisson mixed model results

graphic file with name jsad.22-00284tbl2.jpg

Predictor Number of drinks (overall) Number of drinks (pregaming) Alcohol-related consequences
Est. [95% CI] p Est. [95% CI] p Est. [95% CI] p
Count model IRR IRR IRR
 Intercept 3.83 [3.19, 4.60] <.001 3.62 [2.64, 4.96] <.001 1.15 [0.72, 1.84] .559
 Weekend priora 0.81 [0.74, 0.89] <.001 0.9 [0.78, 1.05] .18 0.74 [0.60, 0.92] .007
 Weekend aftera 0.63 [0.57, 0.70] <.001 0.89 [0.75, 1.06] .182 0.9 [0.70, 1.16] .398
 Fridayb 1.75 [1.49, 2.05] <.001 1.07 [0.81, 1.43] .621 0.99 [0.72, 1.36] .946
 Saturdayb 1.85 [1.58, 2.16] <.001 1.11 [0.84, 1.48] .464 1.16 [0.85, 1.58] .356
Zero-inflated model OR OR OR
 Intercept 2.33 [1.67, 3.24] <.001 10.9 [6.65, 17.86] <.001 4.27 [2.49, 7.34] <.001
 Weekend priora 2.37 [1.79, 3.14] <.001 3.58 [2.61, 4.92] <.001 2.18 [1.45, 3.27] <.001
 Weekend aftera 2.64 [1.97, 3.54] <.001 5.06 [3.59, 7.13] <.001 4.83 [3.15, 7.42] <.001
 Fridayb 0.12 [0.08, 0.16] <.001 0.05 [0.03, 0.08] <.001 0.10 [0.06, 0.15] <.001
 Saturdayb 0.13 [0.10, 0.18] <.001 0.08 [0.05, 0.12] <.001 0.13 [0.08, 0.20] <.001
Open in a new tab

Notes: Bolded p values indicate statistical significance. All models controlled for Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test score, fraternity/ sorority membership, and sex. Est. = estimate; CI = confidence interval; IRR = incidence rate ratio; OR = odds ratio.

a

Reference = Halloween weekend;

b

reference = Sunday.

For the count portion of the models, compared with Halloweekend, participants reported 19% fewer overall drinks on the weekend before Halloweekend and 37% fewer drinks on the weekend after. Participants consumed 75% more overall drinks on Fridays compared with Sundays and 85% more drinks on Saturdays versus Sundays (including Halloween Sunday). Days and weekends did not significantly predict pregaming quantity, such that there were no significant differences for these outcomes between weekends. As for negative alcohol-related consequences, results from the count portion of the model indicated that, compared with Halloweekend, participants reported 26% fewer consequences on the previous weekend. We found no significant differences for Halloweekend compared with the weekend after.

For the zero-inflated portion of the models, all main effects were significant in that participants were typically about twice as likely to report any drinking, pregaming, or negative alcohol-related consequences on Halloweekend compared with surrounding weekends. Participants were more likely to drink, pregame, and experience any negative consequences on Fridays and Saturdays compared with Sundays (all ORs and significance levels are reported in Table 2).

Cannabis use and daily co-use prevalence

Proportions of the sample indicating cannabis use and same-day alcohol and cannabis co-use over Halloweekend and the weekends before/after are illustrated in Figure 3. Averaged over the weekend, 33.8% of the total sample indicated cannabis use over Halloweekend, whereas 37.7% used cannabis on the weekend before and 30.3% used cannabis on the weekend after. There were no significant differences in the average proportion of the sample engaging in cannabis use between weekends. Although 27.2% of the sample co-used alcohol and cannabis on Halloweekend, compared with 24.1% on the weekend before and 18.0% on the weekend after, these proportions were not significantly different from one another.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Sample proportions of daily cannabis use and alcohol/cannabis co-use across weekends

Discussion

The current study revealed greater alcohol use, pregaming, and negative alcohol-related consequences over Halloweekend compared with adjacent weekends. Consistent with prior literature (Alhabash et al., 2021; Ehlke et al., 2021; Tremblay et al., 2010), this celebration event weekend indeed conferred additional drinking risk relative to more typical weekends. However, Halloweekend did not appear to be associated with an increased risk for cannabis use, as cannabis use and same-day co-use of alcohol and cannabis did not significantly differ across weekends. Further, at the daily level, use and negative consequences were highest on Fridays and Saturdays in general, compared with Sundays (including Halloween Sunday). These findings are important because prior work has largely examined Halloween Day only (October 31), discounting potential use events on the surrounding weekend(s) (Tremblay et al., 2010, being a notable exception, which reported findings from the previous weekend). Studies that only examine one day of a drinking event/holiday (e.g., Independence Day, St. Patrick's Day) may miss reported high-risk drinking related to the holiday that occurs on a surrounding Friday or Saturday.

This study is among the first to investigate Halloweekend alcohol and cannabis use at a daily level with particular attention given to pregaming and daily co-use of alcohol and cannabis. In addition to the previously documented higher drinking rates on and around Halloween, it is important to understand which additional risky behaviors may occur more frequently during this period so that event-level interventions can be tailored accordingly (Garcia et al., 2022). Our findings indicate that Halloweekend posits additional risk for pregaming, but not for cannabis use. Analogously, prior work has shown that events known for heavy drinking (e.g., 21st birthday celebrations) are not necessarily high-risk events for cannabis use (Gilson et al., 2022). Although our study did not assess for problems associated with cannabis use, it is noteworthy that weekend prevalence rates for cannabis use ranged from 30% to 38% across all weekends in this heavier drinking sample—which may place students at risk, regardless of a special occasion or not, given high rates of alcohol use.

These study findings have implications for event-specific prevention strategies. Such interventions focus on preventing heavy drinking during known high-risk events, where young people can receive information and personalized feedback using motivational enhancement approaches (e.g., correction of misperceived norms, encouragement to use harm-reduction strategies) in preparation for an occasion where it is likely they will drink more than usual (Neighbors et al., 2011; Riordan et al., 2016). Event-specific prevention approaches have been successful at preventing escalated and dangerous levels of alcohol use during 21st birthday celebrations, spring break trips, study abroad experiences, and football tailgating events (Cadigan et al., 2019; Ehlke et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2014; Neighbors et al., 2012; Pedersen et al., 2017). For Halloween and the broader Halloweekend event, we know of no evidence-based, event-specific approaches that have yet been developed or evaluated, despite alcohol consumption and prevalence on this holiday being similarly high as compared with other risky events for which tailored interventions have been developed (Cadigan et al., 2019; Neighbors et al., 2012; Pedersen et al., 2017). Given that our findings and the work of others (Alhabash et al., 2021; Ehlke et al., 2021; Tremblay et al., 2010) show that Halloween Day and Halloweekend come with increased risk, interventions geared toward preventing escalated drinking and corresponding negative consequences during this event may be helpful.

Limitations and future directions

Our study's generalizability is somewhat narrowed because of the inclusion of college students who pregamed regularly, a screening criterion necessary for inclusion in the broader study. Results may differ among more casual drinkers, non-pregamers, and cannabis-only users. Yet, the focus on heavy-drinking college students is also a strength of this study, as they are at-risk for negative alcohol-related consequences (Hingson et al., 2016), which are indicated even more so on this known heavy drinking weekend compared with typical use occasions. Specific attention is thus warranted for this group, and our findings help illuminate what factors are and are not relevant to heavy-drinking students.

Although Simons et al. (2015) support that self-report substance use data are generally valid and accurate, including at the daily level, this may be most applicable for those who report relatively low alcohol frequency (i.e., not engaging in high-intensity drinking). Other studies have found that heavier drinking students may tend to underreport alcohol use (Northcote & Livingston, 2011; Patrick, 2016). As such, our results may underestimate risk with respect to drinking quantity.

Findings regarding negative alcohol-related consequences at the daily level may be limited by measurement because we adapted the B-YAACQ to ask about the past day as opposed to the original past-month scale. Some of these items may not be as meaningful or show much variation at the daily level (e.g., physical appearance items). Findings regarding cannabis use were also restricted to dichotomous daily level reports of use, instead of an assessment of specific quantity or subjective reports of intoxication. Relatedly, we do not report on use temporally (i.e., when during the day participants used cannabis or co-used relative to drinking/pregaming). Although it was assumed the effects of alcohol and cannabis overlapped on co-use days, we did not specifically assess subjective effects or timing of use of both substances. However, it is likely the sample experienced overlapping intoxication effects on same-day co-use days. Sokolovsky et al. (2020) found that on days when co-use of alcohol and cannabis occurred, 50% of the time, college students used both substances within 10 minutes of each other; 70% of the time, students co-used within 1 hour. Studies with detailed data on co-use are needed to better understand how co-use contributes to differences in drinking and consequences across Halloweekend.

We also did not measure cannabis-related consequences. Future studies can expand on our findings with an in-depth focus on cannabis use. However, this study is among the first to investigate cannabis use patterns at the daily level over this high-risk event; our findings provide preliminary evidence that cannabis use does not increase during Halloweekend. This is important to consider because cannabis-specific events, such as 4/20, tend to have higher use rates of cannabis (Bravo et al., 2017). Yet, other events that have historically been marked by celebratory drinking in larger groups with friends, such as 21st birthdays (Gilson et al., 2022), appear primarily driven by heavy drinking behaviors, without clear evidence of increased cannabis use risk during these events.

We note that data were collected over fall 2021; although the university where data were collected was operating at full capacity (including open residence halls), activities were still affected to varying degrees by the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 infections and restrictions may have influenced how many students were gathering over this period. Last, we were not able to parse out all different events that were occurring at the same time over the holiday weekend (e.g., football games that may have affected drinking on Halloweekend and the other weekends included in analyses), and we were unable to discern if Halloweekend itself had more opportunities to pregame for events or parties relative to other weekends. We also are unaware of temporal effects that substance use consumption on one day or weekend could have on use quantity and prevalence for subsequent days. Results should be interpreted with these limitations in mind.

Conclusion

These findings capture high-risk behaviors associated with a high-risk event among a high-risk group of student drinkers. With more than 80% of the sample reporting drinking on Halloweekend, event-specific prevention efforts appear warranted. Universities might consider implementing campus-wide prevention campaigns directly before Halloweekend, perhaps including mobile-based interventions that encourage replacement behaviors (Witkiewitz et al., 2005) or offer individually tailored feedback (Bingham et al., 2011). The efficacy of such interventions on Halloweekend have yet to be tested but may hold promise. Overall, Halloweekend is an important target for substance use intervention and harm reduction for high-risk drinking behaviors among heavy-drinking students.

Footnotes

This work was supported by funding from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R34 AA025968: Mobile Application Intervention Targeting the High-Risk Drinking Practice of Prepartying; principal investigator: Eric R. Pedersen).

1

When estimating random effects in our model-building approach, models with random slopes for higher levels (day, weekend) were not able to converge; therefore, we report models with random intercepts only.

References

  1. Alhabash S., Kanver D., Lou C., Smith S. W., Tan P.-N. Trick or drink: Offline and social media hierarchical normative influences on Halloween celebration drinking. Health Communication. 2021;36:1942–1948. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2020.1808406. doi:10.1080/10410236.2020.1808406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bingham C. R., Barretto A. I., Walton M. A., Bryant C. M., Shope J. T., Raghunathan T. E. Efficacy of a web-based, tailored, alcohol prevention/intervention program for college students: 3-month follow-up. Journal of Drug Education. 2011;41:405–430. doi: 10.2190/DE.41.4.e. doi:10.2190/DE.41.4.e. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bravo A. J., Pearson M. R., Conner B. T., Parnes J. E. Is 4/20 an event-specific marijuana holiday? A daily diary investigation of marijuana use and consequences among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2017;78:134–139. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2017.78.134. doi:10.15288/jsad.2017.78.134. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bravo A. J., Prince M. A., Pilatti A., Mezquita L., Keough M. T., Hogarth L., the Cross-Cultural Addictions Study Team Young adult concurrent use and simultaneous use of alcohol and marijuana: A cross-national examination among college students in seven countries. Addictive Behaviors Reports. 2021;14:100373. doi: 10.1016/j.abrep.2021.100373. doi:10.1016/j.abrep.2021.100373. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Brooks M. E., Kristensen K., van Benthem K. J., Magnusson A., Berg C. W., Nielsen A., Bolker B. M.2017Modeling zero-inflated count data with glmmTMB bioRxiv 132753.doi:10.1101/132753 [Google Scholar]
  6. Buckner J. D., Henslee A. M., Jeffries E. R. Event-specific cannabis use and use-related impairment: The relationship to campus traditions. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2015;76:190–194. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2015.76.190. doi:10.15288/jsad.2015.76.190. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cadigan J. M., Martens M. P., Dworkin E. R., Sher K. J. The efficacy of an event-specific, text message, personalized drinking feedback intervention. Prevention Science. 2019;20:873–883. doi: 10.1007/s11121-018-0939-9. doi:10.1007/s11121-018-0939-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Del Boca F. K., Darkes J., Greenbaum P. E., Goldman M. S.2004Up close and personal: Temporal variability in the drinking of individual college students during their first year Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 72155–164.doi:10.1037/0022-006X.72.2.155 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Earleywine M., Newcomb M. D. Concurrent versus simultaneous polydrug use: Prevalence, correlates, discriminant validity, and prospective effects on health outcomes. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology. 1997;5:353–364. doi: 10.1037//1064-1297.5.4.353. doi:10.1037/1064-1297.5.4.353. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Ehlke S. J., Young M., Colangelo M., Stamates A. L., Braitman A. L. Event-specific drinking and protective behavioral strategy use among college students. Addiction Research & Theory. 2021;29:47–54. doi: 10.1080/16066359.2020.1751129. doi: 10.1080/16066359.2020.1751129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Fleming C. B., Duckworth J. C., Patrick M. E., Fairlie A. M., Abdallah D. A., Lee C. M. Calendar month variation in alcohol and marijuana use in a community sample of young adults. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2021;82:169–177. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2021.82.169. doi:10.15288/jsad.2021.82.169. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Garcia T. A., Hultgren B. A., Canning J. R., Gilson M. S., Larimer M. E. “On a night like this”: A mixed-methods approach to understanding high-risk drinking events in college students. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 2022;46:1121–1132. doi: 10.1111/acer.14844. doi:10.1111/acer.14844. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Gilson M. S., Cadigan J. M., Fleming C. B., Fairlie A. M., Lewis M. A., Lee C. M. Young adult birthday celebrations as windows of risk for alcohol and cannabis use: 21st birthdays compared to other young adult birthdays. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2022;36:798–803. doi: 10.1037/adb0000774. doi:10.1037/adb0000774. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Haas A. L., Smith S. K., Kagan K., Jacob T. Pre-college pregaming: Practices, risk factors, and relationship to other indices of problematic drinking during the transition from high school to college. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2012;26:931–938. doi: 10.1037/a0029765. doi:10.1037/a0029765. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hingson R., Zha W., Simons-Morton B., White A. Alcohol induced blackouts as predictors of other drinking related harms among emerging young adults. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 2016;40:776–784. doi: 10.1111/acer.13010. doi:10.1111/acer.13010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Huang A. Mean-parametrized Conway–Maxwell–Poisson regression models for dispersed counts. Statistical Modelling. 2017;17:359–380. doi:10.1177/1471082X17697749. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kahler C. W., Hustad J., Barnett N. P., Strong D. R., Borsari B. Validation of the 30-day version of the Brief Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire for use in longitudinal studies. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2008;69:611–615. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2008.69.611. doi:10.15288/jsad.2008.69.611. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Kahler C. W., Strong D. R., Read J. P. Toward efficient and comprehensive measurement of the alcohol problems continuum in college students: The Brief Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 2005;29:1180–1189. doi: 10.1097/01.alc.0000171940.95813.a5. doi:10.1097/01.ALC.0000171940.95813.A5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Krieger H., Young C. M., Anthenien A. M., Neighbors C. The epidemiology of binge drinking among college-age individuals in the United States. Alcohol Research: Current Reviews. 2018;39:23–30. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. LaBrie J. W., Pedersen E. R. Prepartying promotes heightened risk in the college environment: An event-level report. Addictive Behaviors. 2008;33:955–959. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2008.02.011. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2008.02.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Lee C. M., Calhoun B. H., Abdallah D. A., Blayney J. A., Schultz N. R., Brunner M., Patrick M. E. Simultaneous alcohol and marijuana use among young adults: A scoping review of prevalence, patterns, psychosocial correlates, and consequences. Alcohol Research: Current Reviews. 2022;42:08. doi: 10.35946/arcr.v42.1.08. doi:10.35946/arcr.v42.1.08. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Lee C. M., Neighbors C., Lewis M. A., Kaysen D., Mittmann A., Geisner I. M., Larimer M. E. Randomized controlled trial of a Spring Break intervention to reduce high-risk drinking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2014;82:189–201. doi: 10.1037/a0035743. doi:10.1037/a0035743. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Lee C. M., Patrick M. E., Fleming C. B., Cadigan J. M., Abdallah D. A., Fairlie A. M., Larimer M. E. A daily study comparing alcohol related positive and negative consequences for days with only alcohol use versus days with simultaneous alcohol and marijuana use in a community sample of young adults. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 2020;44:689–696. doi: 10.1111/acer.14279. doi:10.1111/acer.14279. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Looby A., Prince M. A., Villarosa-Hurlocker M. C., Conner B. T., Schepis T. S., Bravo A. J., the Stimulant Norms and Prevalence (SNAP) Study Team Young adult use, dual use, and simultaneous use of alcohol and marijuana: An examination of differences across use status on marijuana use context, rates, and consequences. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2021;35:682–690. doi: 10.1037/adb0000742. doi:10.1037/adb0000742. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Mallett K. A., Turrisi R., Trager B. M., Sell N., Linden-Carmichael A. N. An examination of consequences among college student drinkers on occasions involving alcohol-only, marijuana-only, or combined alcohol and marijuana use. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2019;33:331–336. doi: 10.1037/adb0000458. doi:10.1037/adb0000458. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Merrill J. E., Vermont L. N., Bachrach R. L., Read J. P. Is the pregame to blame? Event-level associations between pregaming and alcohol-related consequences. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2013;74:757–764. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2013.74.757. doi:10.15288/jsad.2013.74.757. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. National Institute on Drug Abuse. Marijuana use at historic high among college-aged adults in 2020 [News release] 2021. Sep 8, Retrieved from https://nida.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/2021/09/marijuana-use-at-historic-high-among-college-aged-adults-in-2020#:~:text=Marijuana%20use%20continued%20to%20rise%20among%20college%20students,levels%20of%20marijuana%20use%20recorded%20since%20the%201980s.
  28. Neighbors C., Atkins D. C., Lewis M. A., Lee C. M., Kaysen D., Mittmann A., Rodriguez L. M. Event-specific drinking among college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2011;25:702–707. doi: 10.1037/a0024051. doi:10.1037/a0024051. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Neighbors C., Lee C. M., Atkins D. C., Lewis M. A., Kaysen D., Mittmann A., Larimer M. E. A randomized controlled trial of event-specific prevention strategies for reducing problematic drinking associated with 21st birthday celebrations. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2012;80:850–862. doi: 10.1037/a0029480. doi:10.1037/a0029480. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Neighbors C., Oster-Aaland L., Bergstrom R. L., Lewis M. A. Event- and context-specific normative misperceptions and high-risk drinking: 21st birthday celebrations and football tailgating. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2006;67:282–289. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2006.67.282. doi:10.15288/jsa.2006.67.282. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Nelson T. F., Xuan Z., Lee H., Weitzman E. R., Wechsler H. Persistence of heavy drinking and ensuing consequences at heavy drinking colleges. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2009;70:726–734. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2009.70.726. doi:10.15288/jsad.2009.70.726. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Northcote J., Livingston M. Accuracy of self-reported drinking: Observational verification of ‘last occasion’ drink estimates of young adults. Alcohol and Alcoholism. 2011;46:709–713. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agr138. doi:10.1093/alcalc/agr138. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. O’Malley P. M., Johnston L. D. Epidemiology of alcohol and other drug use among American college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2002;(Supplement 14):23–39. doi: 10.15288/jsas.2002.s14.23. doi:10.15288/jsas.2002.s14.23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Patrick M. E. A call for research on high-intensity alcohol use. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 2016;40:256–259. doi: 10.1111/acer.12945. doi:10.1111/acer.12945. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Patrick M. E., Lee C. M. Comparing numbers of drinks: College students’ reports from retrospective summary, followback, and prospective daily diary measures. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2010;71:554–561. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2010.71.554. doi:10.15288/jsad.2010.71.554. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Patrick M. E., Lee C. M. Daily variations in Spring Break alcohol and sexual behaviors based on intentions, perceived norms, and daily trip context. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2012;73:591–596. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2012.73.591. doi:10.15288/jsad.2012.73.591. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Pedersen E. R., Hummer J. F., Davis J. P., Fitzke R. E., Christie N. C., Witkiewitz K., Clapp J. D. A mobile-based pregaming drinking prevention intervention for college students: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice. 2022;17:31. doi: 10.1186/s13722-022-00314-5. doi:10.1186/s13722-022-00314-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Pedersen E. R., LaBrie J. Partying before the party: Examining prepartying behavior among college students. Journal of American College Health. 2007;56:237–245. doi: 10.3200/JACH.56.3.237-246. doi:10.3200/JACH.56.3.237-246. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Pedersen E. R., LaBrie J. W., Kilmer J. R. Before you slip into the night, you’ll want something to drink: Exploring the reasons for prepartying behavior among college student drinkers. Issues in Mental Health Nursing. 2009;30:354–363. doi: 10.1080/01612840802422623. doi:10.1080/01612840802422623. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Pedersen E. R., Neighbors C., Atkins D. C., Lee C. M., Larimer M. E. Brief online interventions targeting risk and protective factors for increased and problematic alcohol use among American college students studying abroad. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2017;31:220–230. doi: 10.1037/adb0000242. doi:10.1037/adb0000242. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. R Core Team. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2022. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/ [Google Scholar]
  42. Riordan B. C., Flett J. A. M., Lam T., Conner T. S., Scarf D.2016The Jekyll and Hyde of our drinking: Event specific drinking, intervention, and preventionIn Gutierrez W. (Ed.), Alcohol consumption: Patterns, influences and health effectspp. 129–166.New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers [Google Scholar]
  43. Saunders J. B., Aasland O. G., Babor T. F., de la Fuente J. R., Grant M. Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption II. Addiction. 1993;88:791–804. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1993.tb02093.x. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.1993.tb02093.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Schulenberg J. E., Patrick M. E., Johnston L. D., O’Malley P. M., Bach-man J. G., Miech R. A. College students & adults ages 19–60. Volume II. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research; 2021. 1975–2020. Monitoring the Future National Survey Results on Drug Use. [Google Scholar]
  45. Sellers K. F., Premeaux B. Conway–Maxwell–Poisson regression models for dispersed count data. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics. 2021;13:e1533. doi:10.1002/wics.1533. [Google Scholar]
  46. Sellers K. F., Raim A. A flexible zero-inflated model to address data dispersion. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis. 2016;99:68–80. doi:10.1016/j.csda.2016.01.007. [Google Scholar]
  47. Simons J. S., Wills T. A., Emery N. N., Marks R. M. Quantifying alcohol consumption: Self-report, transdermal assessment, and prediction of dependence symptoms. Addictive Behaviors. 2015;50:205–212. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.06.042. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.06.042. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Sokolovsky A. W., Gunn R. L., Micalizzi L., White H. R., Jackson K. M. Alcohol and marijuana co-use: Consequences, subjective intoxication, and the operationalization of simultaneous use. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2020;212:107986. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.107986. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.107986. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Tremblay P. F., Graham K., Wells S., Harris R., Pulford R., Roberts S. E. When do first-year college students drink most during the academic year? An internet-based study of daily and weekly drinking. Journal of American College Health. 2010;58:401–411. doi: 10.1080/07448480903540465. doi:10.1080/07448480903540465. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Witkiewitz K., Marlatt G. A., Walker D. Mindfulness-based relapse prevention for alcohol and substance use disorders. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy. 2005;19:211–228. doi:10.1891/jcop.2005.19.3.211. [Google Scholar]
  51. Yurasek A. M., Aston E. R., Metrik J. Co-use of alcohol and cannabis: A review. Current Addiction Reports. 2017;4:184–193. doi: 10.1007/s40429-017-0149-8. doi:10.1007/s40429-017-0149-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Zamboanga B. L., Casner H. G., Olthuis J. V., Borsari B., Ham L. S., Schwartz S. J., Van Tyne K. Knowing where they’re going: Destination-specific pregaming behaviors in a multiethnic sample of college students. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2013;69:383–396. doi: 10.1002/jclp.21928. doi:10.1002/jclp.21928. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Zamboanga B. L., Olthuis J. V. What is pregaming and how prevalent is it among US college students? An introduction to the special issue on pregaming. Substance Use & Misuse. 2016;51:953–960. doi: 10.1080/10826084.2016.1187524. doi:10.10 80/10826084.2016.1187524. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs are provided here courtesy of Rutgers University. Center of Alcohol Studies

RESOURCES