Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2008 Jul 10.
Published in final edited form as: J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2008 Jan;69(1):65–74. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2008.69.65

A Dangerous Transition: Women’s Drinking and Related Victimization From High School to the First Year at College*

KATHLEEN A PARKS 1,†, ANN M ROMOSZ 1, CLARA M BRADIZZA 1, YA-PING HSIEH 1
PMCID: PMC2452762  NIHMSID: NIHMS56161  PMID: 18080066

Abstract

Objective

The current study assessed women’s risk for victimization during the first year at college, based on changes in drinking during the transition from high school to college. We were specifically interested in differential risk for victimization based on women’s change in drinking status over the transition to college. We compared continued abstainers with women who began drinking (“new” drinkers) and women who continued drinking but either decreased, increased, or did not change their level of weekly drinking.

Method

Data were collected using a Web-based survey each fall for the first 2 years at college with one cohort (N = 886) of incoming freshmen women at a large state university in New York. Women reported on their alcohol and other drug use, psychological symptoms, number of sexual partners, and experiences with physical and sexual victimization for the year before entering college (Year 1 survey) and for the first year at college (Year 2 survey).

Results

Abstainers were significantly less likely to experience physical or sexual victimization during the first year at college, compared with drinkers. Logistic regression indicated that there were differences in the predictors of physical and sexual victimization during the first year at college. These differences included history of victimization, psychological symptoms, and number of sexual partners, as well as the type of change in drinking over the transition.

Conclusions

In comparison with abstainers, having a history of physical victimization, greater psychological symptoms, and being a “new” drinker increased the odds of physical victimization, whereas having a greater number of current psychological symptoms, sexual partners, and increasing weekly drinking increased the odds of sexual victimization during the first year at college. These findings have implications for prevention efforts targeting young women entering college.

Increases in drinking and related problems have been reported for first-year college students across several studies (e.g., Hartzler and Fromme, 2003; Leeman and Wapner, 2001; Prendergast, 1994). Findings consistently indicate that the majority (80%-85%) of college women drink (Johnston et al., 2001; Prendergast, 1994; Zuckerman et al., 1993), and a substantial percentage (39%) engage in heavy episodic drinking (four or more drinks per occasion; Wechsler et al., 1994, 1995a; Wechsler and Kuo, 2000). Among college women who engage in heavy episodic drinking, rates of alcohol-related problems are similar to those experienced by heavy-drinking college men (Wechsler et al., 1995b, 2000; Wechsler and Isaac, 1992). Some of the most serious negative consequences associated with alcohol use among college women are physical and sexual victimization.

In a national survey of college women, Fisher et al. (2000) found that 2.8% of women reported experiencing an attempted or completed rape over the previous academic year. In the only longitudinal study of college women to date, Humphrey and White (2000) found that the greatest risk for sexual victimization occurred during the first year and declined in each subsequent year, with more than 20% victimized across the 4-year period. In a national survey of college students, White and Koss (1991) found that 87% of women had experienced verbal aggression (heated argument, yelling, and insults), and 32% had experienced physical aggression (hit, pushed, grabbed) by a male dating partner during the previous school year. In a smaller study of college women, the rates of aggression were similar: 90% reported verbal and 34% reported physical victimization (Ryan, 1998). Thus, college women, particularly first-year students, appear to be at high risk for victimization.

Alcohol use has been associated with sexual victimization in numerous studies of college women (e.g., Fritner and Rubinson, 1993; Gidycz et al., 1995; Koss and Dinero, 1989; Ullman et al., 1999). Abbey (2002) suggests that 50% of sexual assaults experienced by college women are alcohol-related. Two studies have found support for alcohol’s predictive role in sexual victimization. Greene and Navarro (1998) found that alcohol use at the start of the academic year predicted victimization at the end of the academic year. In a longitudinal study of young women (40% college students), Testa et al. (2007) found that heavy episodic drinking and number of sexual partners were predictive of later sexual aggression with nonintimate partners, after controlling for history of sexual aggression.

Alcohol has also been associated with nonsexual victimization. In a survey of 1,500 students at nine universities and colleges across eight states, being older and engaging in more frequent drinking predicted nonsexual violent victimization (mugging, physical assault; Mustaine and Tewksbury, 1998). Drinking by other students also puts women at risk for victimization. Dowdall et al. (1998) found that, over a 1-year period, 27% of college women reported being “insulted or humiliated,” 25% experienced an “unwanted sexual advance,” 21% “had a serious argument or quarrel,” 11% were “pushed, hit, or assaulted,” and 2% were the “victim of sexual assault or date rape” as a result of someone else’s drinking.

There are several theoretical explanations for the increase in drinking and increase in risk for victimization found among college women. Routine activities theory (Lasley, 1989) suggests that a woman will be at greater risk for experiencing an event or becoming the victim of a crime as a result of the routine activities in which she engages. For example, being at college exposes a woman to a greater number of activities that involve alcohol and, thus, more opportunities to drink and to drink heavily. In addition, at college, a woman comes into contact with a greater number of men who are possible dating or sexual partners, and, as a result, she is in contact with a greater number of potential sexual assault perpetrators. Therefore, the likelihood of both drinking and sexual assault increase during the college years.

Other researchers have suggested that college is a time in which women are away from parental protection and so may be at greater risk for sexual assault. Buddie and Testa (2005) compared rates of sexual aggression among college and noncollege women living with and not living with parents. They found that regardless of student status, women living with parents reported significantly lower rates of sexual aggression. In addition, they found that college status did not influence rates of sexual aggression; however, heavy episodic drinking (four or more drinks per occasion) and having a greater number of sexual partners were associated with severe sexual aggression. In a qualitative study of adolescent females, Livingston et al. (2007) found that, in addition to being in an unsupervised context and substance use, inexperience with sex and dating was a theme that emerged to describe vulnerability for sexual aggression.

Purpose of the current study

In the present study, risk for victimization during the first year at college was assessed based on changes in drinking from high school through the first-year transition to college. Data were used from the first 2 years of a 4-year longitudinal study of college women. More than one quarter (26.9%) of women reported being abstainers during the year before entering college. This rate is similar to that reported for high school seniors in the 2005 Monitoring the Future Study (Johnston et al., 2006). The substantial number of abstainers provided us with an opportunity to assess differences in rates of physical and sexual victimization during the first year at college based on changes in drinking that occurred during that same year. We compared victimization rates among women who continued to abstain from drinking (abstainers), those who began drinking (new drinkers), and those who continued to drink (decreased, increased, or did not change) from the year before with their first year at college.

It has been well established in the literature that alcohol use is associated with an increased risk for victimization. Recent findings by Parks and Fals-Stewart (2004) indicate that, on days when women drink, the odds of experiencing physical and sexual aggression increase substantially. Thus, we anticipate that women who drink (new and continuing drinkers) will be at increased risk for experiencing physical and sexual aggression compared with women who do not drink (abstainers). We anticipate that new drinkers will consume less alcohol than continuing drinkers, because the amount of alcohol they will need to consume to experience the same physiological effects will be less. In addition, given that new drinkers have less experience with the effects of alcohol, we anticipate that their risk for physical and sexual victimization may be higher compared with continuing drinkers, who decrease or do not change their weekly drinking during the first year in college. These last two hypotheses are based on the idea that continuing drinkers (those individuals who consumed alcohol on a regular basis before entering college) will have developed some tolerance to their usual dose of alcohol and thus will be less susceptible to behavioral impairment under their usual dose. Among those individuals who have developed tolerance and want to continue to experience the same effect of alcohol (e.g., a “buzz”), their drinking will need to increase to experience this effect. Thus, new drinkers and continuing drinkers who increase their drinking are likely to be similarly at risk for physical and sexual victimization during the first year in college.

We included other individual factors that have been associated with increased alcohol use and risk for physical and sexual aggression in our analyses. These include women’s histories of prior victimization (Gidycz et al., 1995; Messman-Moore and Long, 2000), psychological symptoms (Greene and Navarro, 1998; Johnson, 1989), usual number of sexual partners and living arrangement (Buddie and Testa, 2005), and marijuana use (Champion et al., 2004). We anticipate that each factor, when present, will increase women’s risk for physical and/or sexual victimization. Finally, we included ethnicity in all analyses, because minority women are more likely to be abstainers or light drinkers than nonminority women (Herd, 1988; Johnson et al., 1998).

Method

Participants

During Year 1 of the study, all women who agreed to have their personal information published in the student directory (approximately 85%), had reached the age of 18 years before October 31, and were first-time freshmen at a large state university in New York (N = 1,554) were invited to participate in a brief Web-based survey. Of those invited, 1,140 (73.4%) entered and 995 (87.3%) women completed the survey. The remaining 12.7% were either not eligible (n = 46, 4.0%), declined to participate (n = 30, 2.6%), or did not finish the survey (n = 69, 6.1%). During the fall of Year 2, all of the women who completed the survey in Year 1, less the nine women who indicated that they did not wish to be contacted for the survey again, were invited to complete the Year 2 survey (N = 986). Nine hundred twenty-three (93.6%) women entered and 907 (92.0%) completed the survey. Less than 2% of women declined or failed to complete the survey. Complete data for both years of the Web survey were available for 886 women.

The majority (76.9%) of participants was of European ethnicity, with 8.4% of Asian, 7.0% of African, and the remaining 7.7% of another or multiple ethnicities. Average (SD) age was 18.5 (1.1) years on initial completion of the Year 1 survey. During both years, participants reported taking a median of five classes and 16 credit hours during the fall semester. The majority of women lived on campus during their first year at college (76.4%), whereas 21.6% of them lived with parents or relatives, and less than 2% lived off campus.

Procedures

Women were invited to participate in the Web survey through a letter mailed to their address while attending university, followed by a letter sent to their university email address. This was done to reduce the likelihood that women would delete the email as “spam” on first receipt. Similar procedures have been shown to increase response rates to Web-based surveys (Kaplowitz et al., 2004). Letters were sent at the beginning of the second week of September, followed by the email 2 days later. Women were sent brief, weekly email reminders to complete the survey, which included their unique access link, through the third week in November. Participants received an incentive check for completing the survey each year and were entered into a lottery drawing for a $500 cash prize awarded at the end of November.

A unique link to access the Web survey was provided within each email. Each participant could access the survey (certificate validated by VeriSign, Mountain View, CA) only by using the unique link embedded in the email she received and then providing a personal identification code to verify her identity. The Web server on which the survey resided was firewall protected, data were encrypted, and each woman was assigned a randomly generated alpha-numeric identification code in the data file. This alpha-numeric code was linked to identifying information in a separate, password-protected output file stored on a separate secure server at the Research Institute. This information was accessible only by project staff and necessary computer personnel.

On first entering the survey, women were provided with the following description of the study: “You have been asked to participate in this project because you are a new freshman at _________. You should be accessing this website because you received a letter about the project by e-mail and/or regular campus mail. This project involves studying women’s transition into college and their general well-being including substance use and experiences with aggression by conducting a brief, confidential web-based survey with women from the entering class this fall and for the next three fall semesters.” Women were then asked whether they were interested in participating in the study and whether they were 18 years old. If a woman indicated that she was not interested or not 18, the survey ended and she was thanked for her time.

Women who continued in the project were provided with further details about the study that are included as standard components of written consent (e.g., compensation schedule, risks and benefits, contact persons) in research protocols using non-Web methods. Women were then asked to indicate voluntary consent to participate and were given the option of beginning the survey at that time or returning at a later, more convenient time. Participants were asked to provide identifying information (i.e., name, mailing address, three contact individuals) before beginning the data collection portion of the survey. This personal identifying information was collected and stored in a separate, encrypted output file and was used for purposes of mailing incentive checks and tracking participants. Women were paid $10 for the first year and $15 for the second year of the survey.

Measures

The Year 1 survey measures included participants’ histories of alcohol and drug use, alcohol-related negative consequences, sexual histories, and psychological symptoms over the year before university as well as lifetime and past-year physical and sexual victimization.

The Year 2 survey measures remained the same as those for Year 1; however, the time frame of assessment changed. Participants were asked to report only those experiences and behaviors that had occurred during the 1-year period between entering the university for the first time and the beginning of classes for the current fall semester.

Demographics

Given that the majority of participants were of European ethnicity, with multiple other ethnicities comprising much smaller percentages, we created a dichotomous variable for comparison purposes. Living arrangement compared living on campus (in the dormitories) or off-campus with living with parents or relatives (i.e., unsupervised to supervised).

Alcohol and other drug use

Alcohol and other drug use were assessed using the Daily Drinking Questionnaire (DDQ; Collins et al., 1985). The DDQ was used to assess typical drinking patterns per occasion, per day of the week, weekly, and monthly. Additional items assessed frequency of heavy episodic drinking (consumption of four or more drinks per occasion) over a typical 1-month period; maximum number of drinks consumed on any one occasion over the past year; and intoxication after one’s usual number of drinks, four drinks, and the maximum number of drinks. A single item was used to determine the type (e.g., cigarettes, marijuana, cocaine) and frequency (“never” to “every day”) of drugs women had used over the year. The DDQ has good convergent validity with the longer Drinking Practices Questionnaire (Cahalan et al., 1969; Collins et al., 1985) and has been used extensively with college populations (e.g., Corbin et al., 1996).

Alcohol-related negative consequences

The 23-item Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index (RAPI; White and Labouvie, 1989) was used to assess negative consequences associated with drinking (e.g., “Not able to do homework or study for a test”; “Passed out or fainted suddenly”). This measure has been used successfully to assess alcohol-related problems among college students with good reliability (Cronbach’s α = .88; Collins et al., 2001).

For the current study, several modifications were made to the original RAPI (see Parks et al., 2006). Based on prior use of the RAPI in a Web format, we modified the response set from a 5-point frequency of occurrence scale to a binary scale (i.e., yes/no) to increase ease and brevity of completion. In addition, given our interest in assessing risks and experiences for alcohol-related victimization, we added five items to assess risky sexual behavior (i.e., “engaged in consensual sexual activity that you later regretted”; “engaged in unprotected sexual activity”) and personal victimization (i.e., “were the victim of a physical assault”; “… sexual assault”; “… theft or robbery”). Internal consistency for the original RAPI was .83 and .85, respectively, for Years 1 and 2 (Cronbach’s α) and .85 and .86 for Years 1 and 2, respectively, for the 28-item modified RAPI.

Psychological symptoms

We used the 18-item short form of the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI-18) to measure psychological symptoms over the year before entering university and over the first year at university (Year 1 and 2 Web surveys, respectively). The BSI-18 was designed to assess psychological symptoms in both clinical and nonclinical populations (Derogatis, 1993). It consists of 18 items measured on a 5-point rating scale (“not at all” to “extremely”) that encompass three primary symptom dimensions: somatization, depression, and anxiety. We modified the measure slightly by removing one item from the depression dimension (“thoughts of ending your life”). This was done as a result of the method of survey administration (Web-based) and our inability to provide immediate follow-up assessment and help in accessing community resources if a participant endorsed this item. In addition to the three symptom scales, the BSI provides three global indices—Global Severity Index, Positive Symptom Total (PST), and Positive Symptom Distress Index—as indicators of general psychological distress. Scores on the three individual dimensions and global indices have been found to be highly correlated (r = .90 or above) with comparable scores on the more detailed Symptom Check List, the SCL-90-R (Derogatis, 2002).

Sexual history questionnaire

A brief measure of sexual history was included in the survey to determine the age of first consensual sexual intercourse, self-reported sexual identity, recent sexual activity, number of lifetime sexual partners, and current relationship status. During the second year of the survey, women were asked to report on number of consensual sexual partners over the first year at college, recent sexual activity, and sexual identity. This measure was patterned after that of Corbin et al. (2001).

Victimization

In the Year 1 survey, experiences with violent victimization that ever had occurred before entering the university were measured using seven items patterned after questions from the National Crime Victim Survey (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1993). Five of the items assessed threats and physical violence (e.g., mugging, threats of assault, or assault with or without a weapon), whereas the remaining two items assessed attempted and completed sexual assault. In the Year 2 survey, three additional sexual assault items were included to assess unwanted sexual contact (e.g., fondling, kissing), coerced sexual intercourse (e.g., use of verbal pressure or threat to obtain intercourse), and incapacitated rape (e.g., unaware/unable to consent because of alcohol or drug intoxication). The addition of these items provided us with a brief, comprehensive measure for assessing victimization, yet allowed us to obtain information on a broader range of sexually aggressive experiences that occurred during the first year of college. These experiences represent the four categories (unwanted sexual contact, coerced sex, attempted rape, rape) measured by the Sexual Experiences Survey most frequently used to assess sexual aggression with college populations (Koss et al., 1987).

Data analyses

Women were categorized based on the change in their drinking status from the year before university to the first full year at university. Women who reported abstaining in both years were categorized as “abstainers.” Women who reported abstaining in the year before university and began drinking during the first year at university were categorized as “new drinkers,” whereas those women who reported drinking in both years were considered continuing drinkers and were categorized based on the change in their drinking as “decreased,” “no change,” or “increased” drinkers. A small number of women (n = 14, <2%) reported drinking in the year before attending the university and abstaining during the first year at university. Because of their small number, these women were not included in any of the subsequent analyses. A total of 870 women were included in analyses.

Separate dichotomous variables were created to indicate whether a woman had experienced any physical or sexual victimization ever before attending college (precollege) as well as during the first year at university (Y1 college). In addition, dichotomous variables were created to indicate whether this victimization was severe or not (i.e., attempted or completed rape for sexual; felony assault or assault with a weapon for physical) for both the “precollege” and “Y1 college” victimization data. Chi-square tests were used to assess differences in victimization between abstainers and drinkers. Analyses of variance were used to assess the differences among the drinking status groups on the drinking variables during the first year at college. To assess the relationships among the dependent variables, any sexual or physical victimization during the first year at college, and the predictor variables (e.g., ethnicity, living arrangement, history of victimization, psychological symptoms, number of sexual partners, drinking status, and cigarette and marijuana use), we used hierarchical logistic regression. Drinking status was coded into four dummy variables representing each of the drinking groups as a comparison with abstainers in the regression equation. Missing data (<5%) were handled through listwise deletion, the least biased approach when using logistic regression (Allison, 2002).

Results

Categorization of the women based on drinking status over the transition to college indicated that 12.1% (n = 105) were abstainers, whereas 14.8% (n = 129) were new drinkers, 19.4% (n = 169) decreased, 11.8% (n = 103) did not change, and 41.8% (n = 364) increased their weekly drinking. Differences in drinking variables based on drinking status during the first year at college are provided in Table 1. Women who were new drinkers were significantly lower on all drinking variables and negative consequences associated with drinking than women in the other groups. In contrast, women who increased their drinking over the transition reported consuming significantly more alcohol on all the drinking measures, including heavy episodic drinking, and reported more negative consequences associated with drinking, compared with women in the other groups. Women who either decreased or did not change their drinking were not different from each other and fell between new drinkers and those who increased their drinking.

Table 1.

Differences in drinking patterns and problems between new and experienced drinkers

Drinking group
Variable New
(n = 129)		 Decrease
(n = 169)		 No change
(n = 103)		 Increase
(n = 364)		 F
Weekly drinks 3.02 (3.89)a 5.36 (4.84)b 4.47 (6.57)ab 11.18 (6.99)c 83.58‡
Drinks per occasion 2.28 (1.39)a 3.32 (1.60)b 3.06 (2.26)b 4.49 (1.95)c 52.11‡
Maximum past year 3.99 (2.55)a 6.55 (2.42)b 5.73 (2.99)b 7.78 (2.31)c 74.78‡
Times ≥4 per month 1.25 (2.07)a 2.36 (2.43)b 1.85 (2.51)ab 4.54 (3.20)c 60.99‡
RAPI score 1.55 (2.58)a 3.31 (3.92)b 2.17 (3.81)ab 4.57 (4.38)c 23.37‡
Open in a new tab

Notes: Means with different superscripts are significantly different. RAPI = Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index.

‡

p < .001.

During the first year at college, the majority (n = 679, 78.1%) of women did not experience any victimization. Among the 190 (21.9%) women who did experience victimization, 38 (4.4%) reported one or more experiences with physical victimization, 133 (15.3%) reported one or more experiences with sexual aggression, and 19 (2.2%) reported experiences with both physical and sexual victimization. Among women who were victimized, 24 (12.6%) experienced severe physical and 73 (38.4%) experienced severe sexual victimization. We assessed victimization among abstainers compared with drinkers (new and experienced) during the first year at college using chi-square tests. Less than 2% of abstainers experienced physical victimization compared with 7.2% of drinkers (χ2 = 4.21, 1 df, p < .05; N = 870). Sexual victimization was experienced by 6.7% of abstainers compared with 19% of drinkers (χ2 = 9.70, 1 df, p < .01; N = 870).

Using hierarchical logistic regression, we assessed the contribution of ethnicity (nonminority = 0, minority = 1), victimization history before attending college (none = 0, ever experienced severe physical or sexual victimization = 1), BSI positive symptom total (BSI-PST) in the year before entering college, number of sexual partners in the year before entering college, living arrangement at college (at home with parents or relatives = 0, at school in the dormitories = 1), BSI-PST and number of sexual partners during the first year at college, changes in drinking status, and cigarette and marijuana use during the first year at college, on the odds of experiencing physical and sexual victimization during the first year at college. Rates of drug use other than marijuana were extremely low and thus were not included as predictors in the analyses. Number of sexual partners during the year before and during the first year of college was included only in the models of sexual victimization because they are most relevant conceptually to risk of sexual, not physical, victimization. The results for the hierarchical logistic regression analyses are presented in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.

Table 2.

Logistic regression predicting physical victimization during the first year at college (n = 863)

Predictor Model 1
OR (95% CI)		 Model 2
OR (95% CI)		 Model 3
OR (95% CI)		 Model 4
OR (95% CI)
Ethnicity 1.00 (0.53-1.90) 1.04 (0.54-2.00) 1.22 (0.62-2.42) 1.23 (0.62-2.44)
History of physical victim. 2.18 (1.14-4.17)* 1.94 (1.01-3.76)* 2.17 (1.11-4.22)* 2.17 (1.11-4.25)*
History of sexual victim. 1.05 (0.53-2.07) 1.00 (0.50-2.00) 0.93 (0.46-1.87) 0.91 (0.45-1.85)
Precollege psych. health 1.13 (1.06-1.20)† 1.08 (1.01-1.16)* 1.08 (1.01-1.16)* 1.08 (1.01-1.16)*
Living situation 1.01 (0.51-2.02) 0.91 (0.45-1.83) 0.90 (0.44-1.82)
First-year college sexual victim. 1.91 (1.04-3.54)* 1.83 (0.98-3.42) 1.87 (0.99-3.52)
First-year college psych. health 1.07 (1.01-1.14)* 1.07 (1.01-1.14)* 1.07 (1.01-1.14)*
Transition drinking statusa
 New drinker 5.85 (1.21-28.40)* 5.84 (1.20-28.47)*
 Decrease 3.36 (0.66-17.04) 3.27 (0.63-17.03)
 No change 4.02 (0.75-21.64) 3.84 (0.69-21.27)
 Increase 4.90 (1.06-22.69)* 4.73 (0.98-22.82)
First-year college cigarette use 1.55 (0.79-3.05)
First-year college marijuana use 0.69 (0.35-1.39)
Δχ2 26.40† 9.26* 7.61 1.93
Open in a new tab

Notes: OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; victim. = victimization; psych. = psychological.

a

Comparison group for transition drinking status is abstainers.

*

p < .05;

†

p < .01.

Table 3.

Logistic regression predicting sexual victimization during the first year at college (n = 827)

Predictor Model 1
OR (95% CI)		 Model 2
OR (95% CI)		 Model 3
OR (95% CI)		 Model 4
OR (95% CI)
Ethnicity 1.06 (0.69-1.65) 1.23 (0.77-1.96) 1.58 (0.96-2.61) 1.60 (0.97-2.64)
History of physical victim. 1.62 (0.99-2.63) 1.46 (0.87-2.46) 1.56 (0.92-2.64) 1.55 (0.91-2.62)
History of sexual victim. 1.69 (1.07-2.65)* 1.64 (1.02-2.65)* 1.58 (0.98-2.55) 1.59 (0.98-2.57)
Precollege psych. health 1.06 (1.01-1.10)* 1.03 (0.98-1.08) 1.03 (0.98-1.09) 1.03 (0.98-1.09)
Precollege no. sex partners 1.15 (1.05-1.26)† 0.99 (0.89-1.10) 0.97 (0.87-1.08) 0.97 (0.87-1.09)
Living situation 1.42 (0.83-2.41) 1.27 (0.74-2.17) 1.27 (0.74-2.17)
First-year college physical victim. 1.58 (0.80-3.11) 1.49 (0.74-2.97) 1.56 (0.78-3.12)
First-year college psych. health 1.05 (1.01-1.11)* 1.05 (1.01-1.11)* 1.05 (1.01-1.11)*
First-year college no. sex partners 1.43 (1.29-1.59)* 1.39 (1.25-1.55)† 1.39 (1.24-1.55)†
Transition drinking statusa
 New drinker 1.43 (0.50-4.06) 1.37 (0.48-3.91)
 Decrease 2.75 (1.03-7.37)* 2.67 (0.99-7.24)
 No change 1.41 (0.47-4.24) 1.39 (0.46-4.23)
 Increase 2.93 (1.15-7.49)* 2.82 (1.08-7.36)*
First-year college cigarette use 0.74 (0.47-1.18)
First-year college marijuana use 1.43 (0.91-2.25)
Δχ2 38.20† 60.84† 11.24† 2.95
Open in a new tab

Notes: OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; victim. = victimization; psych. = psychological.

a

Comparison group for transition drinking status is abstainers.

*

p < .05;

†

p < .01.

In Model 1 of the logistic regression for physical victimization, we entered ethnicity as well as all of the historical and precollege variables (see Table 2). The change in chi-square was significant, and two of the four predictors were significant. Severe physical victimization doubled the odds of physical victimization, and the likelihood of physical victimization increased significantly with each precollege psychological symptom a woman endorsed. For Model 2, we entered first-year college nonalcohol or drug-related risk variables (e.g., living situation, first-year sexual victimization, BSI-PST). The change in chi-square was again significant, and two of the three predictors were significant: first-year college sexual victimization and BSI-PST. In Model 3, we added the drinking status variables with abstainers as the reference group. The change in chi-square was not significant; however, both being a new drinker and increasing drinking over the transition to college increased the odds of physical victimization during the first year at college by nearly six and five times, respectively. Finally, in Model 4, we added other drug use (cigarette, marijuana). Neither the change in chi-square nor the individual predictors were significant. Our final regression model indicated that a history of physical aggression, as well as prior and current BSI-PST and being a new drinker, increased the odds of physical victimization during the first year at college. The full-model chi-square was significant (χ2 = 45.21, 13 df, p < .001). We also assessed differences among the drinking groups and found no significant differences.

In Model 1 of the logistic regression for sexual victimization, physical victimization, ethnicity, and the historical and precollege variables were entered (see Table 3). The change in chi-square was significant and three of the five predictors were significant. Having a history of severe sexual victimization increased the odds of first-year college sexual victimization. In addition, the odds of first-year college sexual victimization significantly increased with each precollege psychological symptom and each precollege sexual partner a woman reported. For Model 2, we entered first-year college nonalcohol or drug-related risk variables. The change in chi-square was again significant, and two of the four predictors were significant: first-year college BSI-PST and number of sexual partners. In Model 3, when the drinking status variables were added (abstainers as reference group), the change in chi-square was again significant. However, unlike physical victimization, continuing to drink over the transition to college, but either decreasing or increasing weekly drinking, increased the odds of sexual victimization. In Model 4, we added other drug use (cigarette, marijuana). Neither the change in chi-square nor the individual predictors were significant. Our final regression model indicated that only three predictors remained significant: first-year college BSI-PST, number of sexual partners, and continuing to drink with an increase in weekly drinking over the transition to college. The full-model chi-square was significant (χ2 = 121.56, 15 df, p < .001). In additional regression analyses, we assessed differences among the drinking status groups and found that the likelihood of sexual victimization was significantly higher for drinkers who increased their consumption (odds ratio = 2.06, confidence interval: 1.02-4.15) compared with new drinkers.

Discussion

The first-year transition to college falls within the developmental period described by Arnett (2000) as “emerging adulthood.” This is a developmental period that is distinct from both adolescence and young adulthood. Emerging adulthood has been characterized as a period during which alcohol and drug use, as well as risky sexual behaviors, are prevalent (Arnett, 2000; Schulenberg et al., 1996). Consequences, such as physical or sexual victimization, that result from involvement in risky behaviors during this period can have long-lasting physical and psychological implications. Thus, it is important to determine which factors, including changes in drinking, place college women at increased risk for physical and sexual victimization.

We found support for our initial hypothesis that drinkers would be at greater risk for victimization, both physical and sexual, than nondrinkers. In addition, we found differences in the drinking patterns of new and continuing drinkers. More than half of continuing drinkers increased their drinking from the year before entering college to the first year at college. They drank considerably more than new drinkers on multiple measures of alcohol consumption, including heavy episodic drinking (i.e., four or more drinks per occasion), and scored higher for alcohol-related problems. These findings suggest that later onset of drinking may be protective against patterns of heavy episodic drinking. This becomes important given that, among college populations, heavy episodic drinking has been associated with greater alcohol-related negative consequences (Wechsler et al., 1992, 1995a, 2000). This finding is tentative, and additional longitudinal data are needed to determine whether new drinkers continue to drink at lower rates or whether their drinking trajectory follows that of women who increased their drinking over the transition to college.

We hypothesized that women who began drinking (new drinkers) during the first year at college might be at greater risk for victimization than women who had experience with drinking before college. Our reasoning was that new drinkers’ social and physical inexperience (i.e., lack of tolerance) with alcohol and its effects would increase their impairment when drinking and, thus, their vulnerability to potential perpetrators or dangerous situations. We found support for this tentative hypothesis with regard to physical, but not sexual, victimization. The differences in the predictors in each logistic regression model suggest potential theoretical reasons why new drinkers are at greater risk for physical victimization and continuing drinkers who increased weekly drinking are at greater risk for sexual victimization.

New drinkers are less likely to have physical tolerance to their usual dose of alcohol, and are thus more likely to experience the behaviorally disinhibiting effects of alcohol compared with drinkers who have decreased or held constant their drinking level. Therefore, new drinkers may be more reactive, possibly verbally aggressive, or merely more likely to call attention to themselves when drinking, in comparison with more experienced drinkers. Parks et al. (1998) found that women reported being “sharp-tongued” and “calling attention to oneself” as behaviors that put women at risk for experiencing physical aggression when drinking in bars. Having a history of physical victimization and a greater number of psychological symptoms before college and during the first year at college also increased the odds of physical victimization. It is plausible that women with a history of physical victimization might respond with physical aggression to situations that they perceive as threatening, particularly dating situations, thus increasing risk for reciprocal physical aggression (e.g., Graves et al., 2005; Stappenbeck et al., 2006). In addition, among college women, a greater number of psychological symptoms are most likely indicative of anxiety and/or depression, both of which are likely to manifest as increased irritability. Among some women, increased irritability could cause an increase in verbally aggressive responding (Giancola, 2002) under conditions of light drinking (nonsedating) found among new drinkers. Again, this verbally aggressive responding could increase the likelihood that reciprocal physical aggression might occur. We might speculate that new drinkers were not at increased risk for sexual victimization as a result of increased verbally aggressive responding when drinking. This type of behavior could indicate to a would-be perpetrator the likelihood that the potential victim would resist if attacked, thus making her an unappealing target (i.e., verbal aggression is protective). These are only a few of a multitude of possible explanations for our findings that should be tested with additional studies.

The significant predictors of sexual victimization were different than those for physical victimization. When number of sexual partners was added into the regression equation, history of victimization and psychological symptoms before entering college were no longer predictive of first-year college sexual victimization. The significant predictors of sexual victimization were first year at college psychological symptoms, number of consensual sexual partners, and increased drinking. These findings fit nicely with routine activities theory. Women who have more consensual sexual partners are more likely to encounter a sexually aggressive individual and thus are more likely to experience sexual victimization. The women who increased drinking over the transition to college reported weekly heavy episodic drinking and nearly five negative alcohol-related problems during the first year at college. Therefore, it is likely that these women were becoming more intoxicated than women in the other drinking status groups. Interestingly, these predictors are similar to the predictors found by Testa et al. (2007) for sexual assaults committed by nonintimates rather than intimates.

Greater intoxication is likely to place a woman at greater risk for sexual victimization by reducing her physical and cognitive functioning. In a study with sorority women, Norris et al. (1996) found that women’s typical blood alcohol levels during social events was inversely correlated with their expectation of using verbal assertiveness or physical resistance to prevent unwanted sexual advances. In addition, reports of resisting are lower (Harrington and Leitenberg, 1994) and assault completion rates are higher (Ullman and Knight, 1993) when the victim has been drinking. Cognitive impairment owing to alcohol may limit a woman’s ability to recognize a dangerous situation or may decrease her perception of, and response to, the threat (Abbey, 1991; Norris et al., 1996). Additional studies are needed to determine the mechanisms (e.g., physical, cognitive impairment) that place first-year college women at greatest risk for physical and sexual victimization when they drink.

Limitations of the current study should be noted. This study used retrospective, self-report measures of substance use and victimization experiences. The survey was administered after the year for which the data were being collected had ended. For example, data were collected about the year before entering college during the first fall semester of college. However, retrospective, self-report data for substance use (Babor et al., 2000; Del Boca and Noll, 2000) and victimization (Gelles, 2000; Heckert and Gondolf, 2000) have been shown to be fairly reliable. We did not determine when the change in drinking occurred during the first year at college, relative to a specific victimization incident. Thus, there is some possibility that drinking may have increased for some women after they experienced victimization during that first year at college (i.e., victimization led to increased substance use). Our attrition rate over the 2 years was low; however, it should be noted that only 64% of the invited sample completed the Year 1 survey. Thus, our findings may not be generalizable to all college freshmen women.

The measures of victimization history used in the current analyses did not allow for separation of childhood and adolescent victimization experiences. In addition, neither relationship of the perpetrator to the victim, nor the location of the assault, was determined for each victimization event reported. Prior research suggests that these additional variables may be important factors associated with women’s risk for victimization (Humphrey and White, 2000; VanZile-Tamsen et al., 2005). These omissions were a consequence of our attempts to gather a comprehensive set of data while limiting the length and time required for completion of the Web survey. As with all nonevent-level analyses, this limits our ability to interpret the differences found between the predictors of physical and sexual aggression and forces us to place our findings within the context of other research completed to date.

Given these caveats, there remain several implications for prevention of both physical and sexual assault associated with alcohol use among first-year college women that might be drawn from our findings. This is the first study that we are aware of that has compared risk for physical and sexual assault among college women, based on changes in drinking over the transition to college. Clearly, abstaining from drinking is protective against both physical and sexual assault. However, becoming a new drinker or increasing one’s drinking over the transition to college increased the likelihood of victimization differentially, after controlling for other variables. Thus, college prevention programs need to continue to stress the risks of drinking and heavy drinking in social situations for women. Women with a history of drinking before entering college are at greatest risk for escalating their drinking and experiencing more negative consequences and sexual assault. Thus, these are the women who should be targeted for prevention efforts at the beginning of their first year at college. Perhaps social norming campaigns could take advantage of the fact that substantial percentages (25%-30%) of students who are entering their first year of college are not regular drinkers. Campaigns might be directed toward influencing these students to remain abstainers or very light drinkers and encouraging women who drink to reduce their level of drinking to a “light” drinker level. Our findings of greater psychological symptoms as a predictor of physical victimization and greater number of sexual partners as a predictor of sexual victimization suggest that campus health services may provide another way in which prevention messages could be disseminated to first-year students.

Footnotes

*

This research was supported by National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism grant R01-AA013986 awarded to Kathleen A. Parks.

References

  1. Abbey A. Acquaintance rape and alcohol consumption on college campuses: How are they linked? J Amer Coll Hlth. 1991;39:165–169. doi: 10.1080/07448481.1991.9936229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Abbey A. Alcohol-related sexual assault: A common problem among college students. J Stud Alcohol. 2002;(Supplement No 14):118–128. doi: 10.15288/jsas.2002.s14.118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Allison PD. Missing Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  4. Arnett JJ. Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. Amer Psychol. 2000;55:469–480. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Babor TF, Steinberg K, Anton R, Del Boca F. Talk is cheap: Measuring drinking outcomes in clinical trials. J Stud Alcohol. 2000;61:55–63. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2000.61.55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Buddie AM, Testa M. Rates and predictors of sexual aggression among students and nonstudents. J Interpers Viol. 2005;20:713–724. doi: 10.1177/0886260505276073. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bureau of Justice Statistics. National Crime Victim Survey. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Justice, Department of Justice; 1993. available at: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm#ncvs. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cahalan D, Cisin IH, Crossley HM. American Drinking Practices: A National Study of Drinking Behavior and Attitudes, Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies Monograph Series No. 6. New Brunswick, NJ: 1969. [Google Scholar]
  9. Champion HLO, Foley KL, DuRant RH, Hensberry R, Altman D, Wolfson M. Adolescent sexual victimization, use of alcohol and other substances, and other health risk behaviors. J Adolesc Hlth. 2004;35:321–328. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2003.09.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Collins RL, Koutsky JR, Morsheimer ET, Maclean MG. Binge drinking among underage college students: A test of a restraint-based conceptualization of risk for alcohol abuse. Psychol Addict Behav. 2001;15:333–340. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Collins RL, Parks GA, Marlatt GA. Social determinants of alcohol consumption: The effects of social interaction and model status on the self administration of alcohol. J Cons Clin Psychol. 1985;153:189–200. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.53.2.189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Corbin WR, Bernat JA, Calhoun KS, Mcnair LD, Seals KL. The role of alcohol expectancies and alcohol consumption among sexually victimized and non-victimized college women. J Interpers Viol. 2001;16:297–311. [Google Scholar]
  13. Corbin WR, Mcnair LD, Carter J. Self-esteem and problem drinking among male and female college students. J Alcohol Drug Educ. 1996;42(1):1–14. [Google Scholar]
  14. Del Boca FK, Noll JA. Truth or consequences: The validity of self-report data in health services research on addictions. Addiction. 2000;95(Suppl No 3):S347–S360. doi: 10.1080/09652140020004278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Derogatis LR. BSI: Brief Symptom Inventory: Administration, Scoring, and Procedures Manual. 3. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems; 1993. [Google Scholar]
  16. Derogatis LR. BSI: Brief Symptom Inventory. Baltimore, MD: Clinical Psychometric Research; 1975. available at: http://pearsonassessments.com/tests/bsi.htm, Bloomington, MN: Pearson Education, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  17. Dowdall GW, Crawford M, Wechsler H. Binge drinking among American college women: A comparison of single-sex and coeducational institutions. Psychol Women Q. 1998;22:705–715. [Google Scholar]
  18. Fisher BS, Cullen FT, Turner MG. The Sexual Victimization of College Women. National Institute of Justice Research Report, Publication No. NCJ 182369. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  19. Fritner MP, Rubinson L. Acquaintance rape: The influence of alcohol, fraternity membership, and sports team membership. J Sex Educ Ther. 1993;19:272–284. [Google Scholar]
  20. Gelles RJ. Estimating the incidence and prevalence of violence against women: National data systems and sources. Viol Women. 2000;6:784–804. [Google Scholar]
  21. Giancola PR. Irritability, acute alcohol consumption and aggressive behavior in men and women. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2002;68:263–274. doi: 10.1016/s0376-8716(02)00221-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gidycz CA, Hanson K, Layman MJ. A prospective analysis of the relationships among sexual assault experiences: An extension of previous findings. Psychol Women Q. 1995;19:5–29. [Google Scholar]
  23. Graves KN, Sechrist SM, White JW, Paradise MJ. Intimate partner violence perpetrated by college women within the context of a history of victimization. Psychol Women Q. 2005;29:278–289. [Google Scholar]
  24. Greene DM, Navarro RL. Situation-specific assertiveness in the epidemiology of sexual victimization among university women: A prospective path analysis. Psychol Women Q. 1998;22:589–604. [Google Scholar]
  25. Harrington NT, Leitenberg H. The relationship between alcohol consumption and victim behaviors immediately preceding sexual aggression by an acquaintance. Viol Vict. 1994;9:315–324. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Hartzler B, Fromme K. Heavy episodic drinking and college entrance. J Drug Educ. 2003;33:259–274. doi: 10.2190/2L2X-F8E1-32T9-UDMU. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Heckert DA, Gondolf EW. Assessing assault self-reports by batterer program participants and their partners. J Fam Viol. 2000;15:181–197. [Google Scholar]
  28. Herd D. Drinking by black and white women: Results from a national survey. Social Probl. 1988;35:493–505. [Google Scholar]
  29. Humphrey JA, White JW. Women’s vulnerability to sexual assault from adolescence to young adulthood. J Adolesc Hlth. 2000;27:419–424. doi: 10.1016/s1054-139x(00)00168-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Johnson FW, Gruenewald PJ, Treno AJ, Taff GA. Drinking over the life course within gender and ethnic groups: A hyperparametric analysis. J Stud Alcohol. 1998;59:568–580. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1998.59.568. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Johnson PB. Personality correlates of heavy and light drinking female college students. J Alcohol Drug Educ. 1989;34:33–37. [Google Scholar]
  32. Johnston LD, O’ Malley PM, Bachman JG. Monitoring the Future: National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975-2000, Vol. 2, NIH Publication No. 01-4925. Washington: Government Printing Office; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  33. Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG, Schulenberg JE. Monitoring the Future: National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975-2005, Vol. 1, NIH Publication No. 06-5883. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  34. Kaplowitz MD, Hadlock TD, Levine R. A comparision of web and mail survey response rates. Publ Opin Q. 2004;68:94–101. [Google Scholar]
  35. Koss MP, Dinero TE. Discriminant analysis of risk factors for sexual victimization among a national sample of college women. J Cons Clin Psychol. 1989;57:242–250. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.57.2.242. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Koss MP, Gidycz CA, Wisniewski N. The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. J Cons Clin Psychol. 1987;55:162–170. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.55.2.162. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Lasley JR. Drinking routines/lifestyles and predatory victimization: A causal analysis. Justice Q. 1989;6:529–542. [Google Scholar]
  38. Leeman RF, Wapner S. Some factors involved in alcohol consumption of first-year undergraduates. J Drug Educ. 2001;31:249–262. doi: 10.2190/T3HB-7J57-KG3T-3BL0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Livingston JA, Hequembourg A, Testa M, Vanzile-Tamsen C. Unique aspects of adolescent sexual victimization experiences. Psychol Women Q. 2007;31:331–343. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00383.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Mustaine EE, Tewksbury R. Specifying the role of alcohol in predatory victimization. Deviant Behav. 1998;19:173–199. [Google Scholar]
  41. Messman-Moore TL, Long PJ. The role of childhood sexual abuse sequelae in the sexual revictimization of women: An empirical review and theoretical reformulation. Clin Psychol Rev. 2003;23:537–571. doi: 10.1016/s0272-7358(02)00203-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Norris J, Nurius PS, Dimeff LA. Through her eyes: Factors affecting women’s perception of and resistance to acquaintance sexual aggression threat. Psychol Women Q. 1996;20:123–145. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00668.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Parks KA, Fals-Stewart W. The temporal relationship between college women’s alcohol consumption and victimization experiences. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2004;28:625–629. doi: 10.1097/01.alc.0000122105.56109.70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Parks KA, Miller BA, Collins RL, Zetes-Zanatta LM. Women’s descriptions of drinking in bars: Reasons and risks. Sex Roles. 1998;38:701–717. [Google Scholar]
  45. Parks KA, Pardi AM, Bradizza CM. Collecting data on alcohol use and alcohol-related victimization: A comparison of telephone and web-based survey methods. J Stud Alcohol. 2006;67:318–323. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2006.67.318. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Prendergast ML. Substance use and abuse among college students: A review of recent literature. J Amer Coll Hlth. 1994;43:99–113. doi: 10.1080/07448481.1994.9939094. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Ryan KM. The relationship between courtship violence and sexual aggression in college students. J Fam Viol. 1998;13:377–394. [Google Scholar]
  48. Schulenberg J, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG, Wadsworth KN, Johnston LD. Getting drunk and growing up: Trajectories of frequent binge drinking during the transition to young adulthood. J Stud Alcohol. 1996;57:289–304. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1996.57.289. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Stappenbeck CA, Kruse MI, Fromme K. Alcohol-related aggression in response to dating conflict. Poster presented at the Annual Scientific Meeting of the Research Society on Alcoholism; Baltimore, MD. June 24-28, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  50. Testa M, Vanzile-Tamsen C, Livingston JA. Prospective prediction of women’s sexual victimization by intimate and nonintimate male perpetrators. J Cons Clin Psychol. 2007;75:52–60. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.75.1.52. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Ullman SE, Karabatsos G, Koss MP. Alcohol and sexual assault in a national sample of college women. J Interpers Viol. 1999;14:603–625. [Google Scholar]
  52. Ullman SE, Knight RA. The efficacy of women’s resistance strategies in rape situations. Psychol Women Q. 1993;17:23–38. [Google Scholar]
  53. Vanzile-Tamsen C, Testa M, Livingston J. The impact of sexual assault history and relationship context on appraisal of and responses to acquaintance sexual assault risk. J Interpers Viol. 2005;20:813–832. doi: 10.1177/0886260505276071. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Wechsler H, DavenporT A, Dowdall GW, Moeykens B, Castillo S. Health and behavioral consequences of binge drinking in college: A national survey of students at 140 campuses. JAMA. 1994;272:1672–1677. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Wechsler H, Dowdall GW, Davenport A, Castillo S. Correlates of college student binge drinking. Amer J Publ Hlth. 1995a;85:921–926. doi: 10.2105/ajph.85.7.921. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Wechsler H, Dowdall GW, Davenport A, Rimm EB. A gender-specific measure of binge drinking among college students. Amer J Publ Hlth. 1995b;85:982–985. doi: 10.2105/ajph.85.7.982. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Wechsler H, Isaac N. ‘Binge’ drinkers at Massachusetts colleges: Prevalence, drinking style, time trends, and associated problems. JAMA. 1992;267:2929–2931. doi: 10.1001/jama.267.21.2929. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Wechsler H, Kuo M. College students define binge drinking and estimate its prevalence: Results of a national survey. J Amer Coll Hlth. 2000;49:57–64. doi: 10.1080/07448480009596285. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. White HR, Labouvie EW. Towards the assessment of adolescent problem drinking. J Stud Alcohol. 1989;50:30–37. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1989.50.30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. White JW, Koss MP. Courtship violence: Incidence in a national sample of higher education students. Viol Vict. 1991;6:247–256. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Zuckerman M, Kuhlman DM, Joireman J, Teta P, Kraft M. A comparison of the three structural models for personality: The big three, the big five, and the alternative five. J Pers Social Psychol. 1993;65:757–768. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES