Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2009 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: Addict Behav. 2008 Jun 12;33(10):1360–1368. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2008.06.010

How important are parents during the college years? A longitudinal perspective of indirect influences parents yield on their college teens’ alcohol use

Caitlin Abar 1, Robert Turrisi 1
PMCID: PMC2553886  NIHMSID: NIHMS66915  PMID: 18635318

Abstract

Building on previous findings supporting the continuing influence of parents on their teens after they have gone to college (Turrisi et al., 2001; 2000), this study examined the possible indirect influence that parents may have on their teen’s alcohol use through the selection of alcohol using peers in college. Friend use served as a mediator of the relationship between parenting characteristics and alcohol use in a longitudinal college sample. As part of a larger study, 392 incoming college freshmen were assessed for their perceptions of their parent’s parenting practices, and peer alcohol use. Results from SEM indicated that friend alcohol use (first semester freshman year) mediated the relationship between parental knowledge about what their teen was doing in his/her free time (baseline pre-matriculation to college) and individual use in college (second semester freshman year). Findings suggest that even at this late stage of early adulthood parents continue to exhibit influence on the choices their teens make as far as friends, which in turn influences their teens’ drinking in college. Implications for prevention are discussed.

Keywords: Parenting characteristics, alcohol use, college

1 Introduction

In response to the breadth of research coupling college alcohol misuse with a range of negative outcomes, both scientists and administrators have increased their efforts in addressing college heavy drinking tendencies (Hingson, Heeren, Winter, & Wechsler, 2005; Hingson & Howland, 2002). Individual factors such as gender, ethnicity, personality, and family history (Baer, 2002; Kahler, Read, Wood, & Palfai, 2003; Weitzman, Nelson, & Wechsler, 2003), alcohol expectancies and motives for drinking (Fromme & D’Amico, 2000; Galen & Rogers, 2004; Jones, Corbin, & Fromme, 2001; Rutledge & Sher, 2001), availability and attractiveness of alternative activities (Turrisi, 1999; Walters & Bennett, 2000), and ecological factors including alcohol availability, price, academic class and exam schedules, and residence (Baer, 2002; DeJong & Langford, 2002) have each been implicated in the etiology of alcohol misuse among college students. However, as the drinking attitudes and the behaviors and influence of peers are among the strongest correlates of adolescent alcohol use and abuse (Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller, 1992), much of the present prevention efforts at this level have focused on peer use and influence (Borsari & Carey, 2005; Larimer et al., 2001; Read, Wood, & Capone, 2005; Read, Wood, Davidoff, McLacken, & Campbell, 2002)

Although some literature has suggested the salience of parental influences declines as individuals develop into young adults and move away from their families (Kandel & Andrews, 1987; Windle, 2000; Wood et al., 2001), there is considerable research that suggests parents are quite active in the plans of students as they prepare for college, and they maintain influence after the student has moved to campus across domains such as academic, social, emotional, financial functioning, and health information (ACHA, 2005; Fass & Tubman, 2002; Lehr, Dilorio, Dudley, & Lipana, 2000; Wintre & Yaffe, 2000). For example, Turrisi and colleagues (2001) found that parents educated about binge drinking and how to convey information to their teens just before they embarked on their college education had teens that engaged in significantly lower levels of alcohol use and experienced fewer alcohol related negative consequences. In addition, Wood and colleagues (2000) discovered parental modeling and monitoring were related to lowered use, problems, and moderated peer influences on drinking outcomes. These findings support evidence that parents continue to directly influence decision making regarding alcohol use and alcohol related behaviors as students enter college via communication of expectations, setting limits, transmission of values, and the examples parents set regarding alcohol use through modeled behavior. However, there remain aspects of parental influence not yet examined at the college level; the potential indirect influence a parent yields on their college teen.

Throughout developmental literature, research has shown that in addition to directly influencing their teens, parents also indirectly influence teen outcomes in a variety of ways (Ary, Duncan, Duncan, & Hops, 1999; Davis-Keen, 2005; George & Kaplan, 1998). For example, Ary and colleagues (1999) found that parental conflict indirectly influences the problem behaviors experienced by adolescents by lowering the quality of parental monitoring, which, in turn, increases the likelihood of association with deviant peers. In addition, research by Davis-Kean (2005) revealed that the socio-economic status of parents and parental education level indirectly influenced the academic achievement of 8–12 year old children through the number of books a child has and his/her enjoyment for reading. Although many studies have associated indirect parental influence to teen outcomes, the notion of indirect parenting influences on college student behavior has yet to be sufficiently explored. Given that research has directly coupled parenting behaviors with college outcomes (Turrisi et al., 2001; Wood et al., 2000), it is likely that parents continue to also indirectly influence their teen’s behavior during the college years. This paper sought to examine the possible indirect influences that parents may have on their teen’s alcohol use through the selection of alcohol using friends in college, as alcohol using peers is a known risk factor for individual use (Schulenberg, et al., 1999; Windle, 2000). This information would be very informative for alcohol prevention efforts at the college level, considering that peers and parents have both been shown to influence college alcohol use. If, ultimately, parents help impact the peers one selects in college, then collegiate alcohol prevention efforts may be more robust if parents were more involved rather than exclusively focusing on peers.

The present study hypothesized that parental approval of alcohol use, parental monitoring, and parental knowledge of their teens’ activities outside the home are each facets of parenting that are associated with college drinking. As college students are often physically distant from their parents, these effects were hypothesized to be indirect, functioning through the alcohol use tendencies of the student’s friends. The more parents show approval of the use of alcohol, the more students were expected to associate with friends who regularly consumed alcohol. Additionally, the more parents attempt to know about what their teens are doing at school during free time, the less a student was expected to associate with other students with high levels of alcohol use. This same relationship was expected to hold for the degree to which parents actually knew what their teen was doing in his/her free time. These hypotheses are supported by previous research that indicates that decreases in parental supervision and monitoring during adolescence have been strongly linked with the adolescent acquisition of substance using peers, and in turn, substance use (Warr, 2005). In addition, research by Brown and colleagues (1993) found that parenting practices, such as monitoring, encouragement of achievement, and joint decision making, significantly influenced adolescent membership in common adolescent crowds (e.g. substance using, non-substance using).

In order to control for prior alcohol use and association with alcohol using peers before college, one’s reports of alcohol use during the summer prior to college and the drinking behavior of one’s friends in high school were included in the model. If the parental behaviors modeled remain significant in the presence of previous individual and friend use, the conclusions reached would be further legitimized. Lastly, it was hypothesized that, based on previous work, the more a student’s friends tended to drink during the first semester (Fall), the more the student was expected to drink during the second semester (Spring) (See Figure 1). In order rule out the possibility that the true mediation of parenting characteristics only functions through the drinking behavior of one’s children early in college, one’s individual use of alcohol during the first semester was also included in the model.

Figure 1. Hypothesized Structural Equation Model.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

2 Method

2.1 Sample

Participants consisted of 392 incoming freshman attending colleges in the United States and who resided near a large northeastern university and a large northwestern university just prior to attending college. Students completed measures assessing their perceptions of their parent’s knowledge of their lives, monitoring behaviors, and approval of alcohol use prior to the first semester of college. The demographic composition of the sample was as follows: 43% male, 57% female; 90.2% Caucasian, 1.3% Hispanic, .5% African American, 3.3% Asian, and 3% other; 31.1% Catholic, 15.2% Protestant, 4.0% Jewish, 13.6% Church of Latter Day Saints, .5% Muslim, 21.5% other, and 13.6% no religion. The mean age was 17.97 years.

2.2 Participant recruitment and procedure

Study participants were recruited from the cities and surrounding areas near the participating state universities on the east and west coasts of the United States as part of a larger study examining college student drinking. Students' names were randomly selected from all high school yearbooks from public and private schools in the sampling areas. This approach has been used to develop sampling lists in prior research (Turrisi & Jaccard, 1992; Turrisi, Jaccard, Kelly, & O'Malley, 1993). Incoming freshmen were surveyed during the summer prior to enrollment in college, during the fall semester of their first year, and again during the spring semester of their first year.

2.3 Measures

2.3.1 Baseline Pre-matriculation Parent Variables

Parental approval of alcohol use

This measure of parental approval was made up of two variables describing the extent to which an individual feels his/her parents would approve of two specific drinking behaviors, α = .96 (for a complete description of the items, see Appendix A). Items were measured on a 3 point scale ranging from “approve” to “disapprove”.

Parental monitoring

The factor representing parental monitoring consisted of three items detailing how much effort a student perceives his/her parent taking to monitor his/her behavior, α = .71 (see Appendix A). Items were measured on a 3 point scale ranging from “don’t try” to “try a lot.”

Parental knowledge

Parental knowledge was indexed by three manifest items tapping the degree to which an individual perceives his/her parent as actually knowing what he/she is doing when outside of the house, α = .86 (see Appendix A). Items were measured on a 3 point scale ranging from “don’t know” to “know a lot.”

2.3.2 First Semester (Fall) Mediating Variable

Friend alcohol use

The measure representing friend alcohol use consisted of 3 items describing an individual’s perception of how many of one’s closest friends engage in risky drinking behaviors, α = .93 (see Appendix A). Items were measured on a 5 point scale ranging from “none” to “nearly all.” This same measure was used as a control variable at baseline pre-matriculation, α = .92.

2.3.3 Second Semester (Spring) Outcome Variable

Individual alcohol use

This measure of alcohol use was made up of four manifest variables describing weekend drinking. Three items asked participants to provide the number of drinks they would typically consume on a given day of the week (Thursday, Friday, Saturday). For the fourth item, students were asked to state how often he/she had gotten drunk in the past 30 days, α = .96. The first 3 items were asked in a free response fashion, while the fourth item was measured on a 6 point scale ranging from never to 9 or more times (see Appendix A). The same measure was used as control variable at baseline pre-matriculation, α = .82, and during the second semester in order to illustrate the most appropriate meditational model, α = .89.

3 Results

A structural equation model, using AMOS 7.0, was fit to the 23 manifest items and 8 latent factors mentioned above. For item descriptives and correlations, see Table 1. In addition to the hypothesized pathways discussed, residual covariances were included between the items associated with the parental monitoring and parental knowledge factors. These associations represent method factors stemming from the measurements performed, as the covaried items ask about parents’ knowledge and monitoring of the same behaviors/circumstances in the same manner. For example, a residual covariance was modeled between, “How hard do your parents try to know where you are at night?” and “How well do your parents know where you go at night?” In addition, the residuals variances of the items loading on one’s own use during the first semester and one’s own use during the second semester were allowed to covary due to the fact that the items were identical at both time points as was the context in which the behavior occurred (i.e. at college). In addition, covariances between the factor representing baseline alcohol consumption and the factors representing baseline friend use, parental knowledge, and parental approval were estimated, as were the covariances between parental monitoring and parental knowledge, parental approval and baseline friend use, and parental knowledge and baseline friend use. These were included to account for the contemporaneous association between participant’s alcohol use and the behaviors of one’s parents and peers during the summer prior to college. Covariances were also estimated between parental factors representing expected relationships among parenting characteristics. Finally, significant residual direct effects of baseline predictors on an individual’s alcohol use during the second semester of college were included in the model.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of Variables Used

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Baseline
1. Parental Approval (1) 1
2. Parental Approval (2) .24*** 1
3. Squared Parental Monitoring (1) −.21*** −.11* 1
4. Squared Parental Monitoring (2) −.12* .00 .37*** 1
5. Squared Parental Monitoring (3) −.10 −.07 .30*** .22*** 1
6. Parental Knowledge (1) .07 −.02 −.30*** −.19*** −.15*** 1
7. Parental Knowledge (2) .09 .03 −.27*** −.33*** −.19*** .67*** 1
8. Parental Knowledge (3) .09 .04 −.27*** −.29*** −.35*** .63*** .72*** 1
9. Friend Alcohol Use (1) −.07 −.29*** .04 .00 .09 −.25*** −.18*** −.15** 1
10. Friend Alcohol Use (2) −.05 −.29*** .06 −.00 .10 −.22*** −.17** −.14** .80*** 1
11. Friend Alcohol Use (3) −.01 −.28*** .04 .01 .08 −.18*** −.12*** −.11* .74*** .81*** 1
12. Individual Alcohol Use (1) −.22*** −.28*** .07 .00 .11* −.14** −.20*** −.18** .41*** .48*** .41*** 1
13. Individual Alcohol Use (2) −.16** −.47*** .08 .02 .14* −.13** −.22*** −.23** .43*** .52*** .47*** .84*** 1
14. Individual Alcohol Use (3) −.09 −.38*** .11* .01 .17** −.17** −.19** −.19*** .51*** .56*** .54*** .74*** .76*** 1
First Semester
15. Friend Alcohol Use (1) −.08 −.24*** .01 −.04 .07 −.20*** −.16** −.15** .72*** .61*** .60*** .36*** .38*** .47*** 1
16. Friend Alcohol Use (2) −.02 −.26*** −.05 −.05 .07 −.19*** −.16** −.14** .67*** .66*** .66*** .39*** .44*** .48*** .83*** 1
17. Friend Alcohol Use (3) −.01 −.22*** .03 −.05 .05 .20*** −.15** −.14** .66*** .68*** .72*** .41*** .46*** .52*** .79*** .84*** 1
18. Individual Alcohol Use (1) −.11* −.35*** .01 −.00 .03 −.16** −.16** −.15** .50*** .50*** .49*** .61*** .58*** .58*** .57*** .61*** .56*** 1
19. Individual Alcohol Use (2) −.05 −.32*** .00 −.04 −.00 −.20*** −.17* −.17** .51*** .52*** .49*** .59*** .59*** .55*** .55*** .58*** .56*** .83*** 1
20. Individual Alcohol Use (3) −.02 −.33*** −.02 −.03 .03 −.14** −.11* −.09 .58*** .58*** .56*** .55*** .53*** .62*** .60*** .63*** .60*** .78*** .77*** 1
Second Semester
21. Individual Alcohol Use (1) −.15** −.37*** .03 .01 .11* −.16** −.18** −.15** .53*** .53*** .49*** .55*** .58*** .59*** .55*** .58*** .55*** .74*** .70*** .66*** 1
22. Individual Alcohol Use (2) −.13* −.40*** .05 −.04 .07 −.18** −.21** −.18** .52*** .49*** .46*** .54*** .58*** .57*** .53*** .55*** .53*** .71*** .79*** .68*** .82*** 1
23. Individual Alcohol Use (3) −.10 −.37*** .06 .00 .13* −.17** −.19*** −.20** .58*** .55*** .54*** .54*** .57*** .61*** .60*** .61*** .61*** .70*** .70*** .74*** .81*** .80*** 1
Mean 1.97 1.89 .20 .28 .36 1.52 1.52 1.58 2.21 1.56 1.53 1.03 1.19 1.91 2.36 1.95 1.78 2.05 2.13 2.27 2.28 2.36 2.29
(SD) (.17) (.32) (.30) (.32) (.49) (.64) (.61) (.62) (1.34) (1.38) (1.36) (2.21) (2.38) (1.36) (1.41) (1.50) (1.45) (2.96) (3.06) (1.59) (3.34) (3.37) (1.56)
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05

**

p < .01

***

p < .001

The fit of the hypothesized model to the data was acceptable, χ2 (198) = 452.77, p < .001, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .06. Although the chi square statistic was significant, this was most likely due to the moderately large sample used, as the chi square is largely influenced by sample size. This assertion is further supported by the additional indices mentioned that indicate an acceptable fit to the data. Results indicated that all factor loadings modeled were significant, p’s < .001, as were all modeled covariances, p’s < .01. While this model fit the data well, an examination of the estimated beta weights revealed an unexpected positive relationship between parental monitoring and friend alcohol use during the first semester of college, β = .34, t = 7.28, p < .01. This was unexpected as the latent bivariate association between parental monitoring and friend use during the first semester of college was negative and non-significant, r = −.02. An exploratory examination of the scatterplots between the items associated with parental monitoring and the items associated with friend use showed each of the associations to be non-linear, with high and low levels of parental monitoring associated with high friend use and average parental monitoring associated with low levels of friend use. In order to account for this quadratic association, the indicators of the parental monitoring were squared, with the latent factor now representing squared parental monitoring.

This new model also fit the data well, χ2 (205) = 446.65, p < .001, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .06 (see Figure 2). Non-significant factor covariances and residual direct effects were deleted from the model in the interest of parsimony. In regard to the hypothesized paths, parental knowledge during the summer predicted friend use during the first semester, such that the more parents knew about what their teen was doing in his/her free time, the less his/her friends tended to use alcohol, β = −.29, t = −1.99, p < .05. Squared parental monitoring also predicted friend use during the first semester, such that the more parents attempt to know what their children are doing in their free time, the less his/her friends tended to use alcohol, β = −.96, t = −2.37, p < .05. In addition, the alcohol use of one’s friends in high school predicted the alcohol use of one’s friends during the Fall semester, β = .91, t = 14.64, p < .001, such that higher friend use in high school predicted high friend use in college. Parental approval of alcohol use and baseline use were not significantly predictive of friend use.

Figure 2. Final model with beta weights.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

χ2 (205) = 446.65, p < .001; CFI = .96; RMSEA = .06

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Note: All factor loadings modeled were significant, p < .001 (see Appendix A).

All residual covariances modeled were significant, p < .05.

The item residuals associated with parental approval were held equal for identifiability reasons.

Factor covariances between parental approval and baseline use, parental approval and friend use, squared parental monitoring and parental knowledge, parental knowledge and baseline use, parental knowledge and friend use, and friend use and baseline use were all significant, p < .001, and were not included in the figure in order to avoid clutter. The covariance between the residuals of friend use and individual alcohol use at time 2 was also significant, p < .001. All other covariances were fixed to zero.

Parental monitoring at baseline was also predictive of an individual’s use of alcohol during the first semester of college, with higher monitoring predicting decreased alcohol consumption, β = −.87, t = −2.07, p < .05. Friend use and one’s own alcohol use at baseline also predicted an individual’s use during the first semester of college, such that greater use by one’s self and one’s friends during high school is associated with greater use in college, β friend = .38, t = 6.44, p < .001; β own = .63, t = 7.74, p < .001. Parental knowledge and approval were not predictive of one’s own drinking during the first semester

A significant association was also shown between friend alcohol use during the first semester and an individual’s use during the second semester, such that the more one’s friends tended to use alcohol, the more an individual tended to use alcohol during the second semester of college, β = .14, t = 2.75, p < .01. There was also significant stability of alcohol use across the first two semesters of college, such that heavy using individuals during the first semester tended to continue to use heavily during the second semester, β = .70, t = 11.78, p < .001. Finally, there was a significant residual direct effect of parental approval during the summer on an individual’s alcohol use during the second semester of college, such that the more disapproving a parent was of alcohol use, the less an individual tended to drink, β = −.68, t = −3.19, p <.01.

The mediation of parenting practices on alcohol use during the second semester of college through friend use during the first semester was tested using the adjustment to the test distribution of the Sobel test (1982) described by MacKinnon and colleagues (2002). Results indicate that the effects of parental knowledge and parental monitoring on their children’s use of alcohol during the second semester of college is significantly mediated by the alcohol use of their children’s friends during the first semester, Sobel knowledge = −1.62, p < .01, Sobel monitoring = −1.80, p < .01.

4 Discussion

The purpose of this study was to explore the indirect influence of particular parenting characteristics on teen alcohol use through the teen choice of alcohol using peers in college. Specifically, friend alcohol use was examined as a mediator of the relationship between parental monitoring, parental knowledge, parental approval of alcohol use, and individual alcohol use in college. Results suggested that parenting behaviors have a direct impact on their teens’ selection of friends during college, even after accounting for the influence of one’s prior drinking and one’s previous friends (high school). It appeared that the more students reported their parents knowing about the ways in which they spent their free time and the more they report their parents try to know about their free time activities, the less an individual tended to associate with heavy drinking peers in college and the less they drank themselves. These results appeared to support the notion that the selection of low alcohol using friends in college may represent teen internalization of parental perceived values. This pathway represents a legitimate mechanism by which parents can and do maintain influence on their teens while they are away at college. The finding that parental monitoring and parental approval also directly affect teen drinking in college also supports the notion of parents influence across the transition to college. Results of this nature are encouraging to both parents and intervention scientists aiming to reduce alcohol misuse at the college level. Specifically, findings suggest that parents and prevention programs should work toward actively increasing parental knowledge and monitoring of teen behaviors, while fostering parental disapproval of alcohol misuse. This study shows that efforts of this kind at the high school level will impact college behaviors.

There are a few limitations to the present study which should be addressed in the future. First, students from this sample lived primarily on campus, away from their parents. It would be interesting to examine potential differences in the effects of these parenting characteristics on a sample of students that are living at home and commuting to campus. Second, the sample was largely homogenous in regard to ethnicity (90% Caucasian). It is important to test these hypotheses among a more diverse and representative sample, as research has shown parenting characteristics to have differential effects across ethnicity (Mason & Buttler, 2004). Third, this study relied exclusively on data from the perspective of the teen. In terms of designing programs to assist parents in the prevention of alcohol misuse in college, student retrospective data does not allow researchers to distinguish between instances where parents are engaging in monitoring behaviors but their teen does not perceive it, and where parents are engaging in monitoring behaviors, and their teens perceive it. The present study only shows us that student perceptions of these behaviors have significant and observable effects. Future work may also benefit from examining the quality of the monitoring behaviors being perceived, in regard to whether the teen understands, appreciates, and internalizes the behaviors or is irritated and views the monitoring as an intrusion in their lives. The quality of monitoring behavior may be crucial for parental behaviors to have a positive influence on teen choices and actions. Future studies should delineate between the different types and quality of monitoring. Further, resulting teen behaviors and the internalization of parent values in college are most likely due to an interaction between parenting and particular characteristics of the teen. An examination of how particular teen characteristics interact with different parenting behaviors would serve as an important addition to the current college literature. Finally, additional longitudinal work needs to be done examining the impact of parenting practices throughout child development. Doing so would help delineate the differential impact of early and later parenting practices.

In conclusion, results from this study are consistent with a growing literature showing that parents are a critical vessel of influence on their teens (Lehr, Dilorio, Dudley, & Lipana, 2000; Turrisi et al., 2001; Wood, Read, Mitchell, & Brand, 2004), even in this relatively late stage of development. Future research should examine other ways in which parents can impact their teens during this important developmental transition.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by grant R01 AA 12529 from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and grant T32 DA017629 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The authors would like to thank Beau Abar, Peter Molenaar, and Jerod Stapleton for early manuscript assistance and methodological consultation.

Appendix A

Measured Variables and Factor Loadings

Parental Approval of Alcohol Use

A1, How would your parents feel if you drank one or two drinks nearly every day?

  • (approve, wouldn’t care, disapprove), λ1,1 = .17***

A2, How would your parents feel if you had five or more drinks once or twice each weekend?

  • (approve, wouldn’t care, disapprove), λ2,1 = 1.00

Parental Monitoring

B1, How hard do your parents try to know where you go at night?

  • (don’t try, try a little, try a lot), λ3,2 = 1.12***

B2, How hard do your parents try to know what you do with your free time

  • (don’t try, try a little, try a lot), λ4,2 = .84***

B3, How hard do your parents try to know where you are most afternoons after school

  • (don’t try, try a little, try a lot), λ5,2 = 1.00

Parental Knowledge

C1, How well do your parents know where you go at night?

  • (don’t know, know a little, know a lot), λ6,3 = .95***

C2, How well do your parents know what you do with your free time?

  • (don’t know, know a little, know a lot), λ7,3 = .99***

C3, How well do your parents know where you are most afternoons after school?

  • (don’t know, know a little, know a lot), λ8,3 = 1.00

Friend Alcohol Use

D1, F1, How many of your close friends drink alcohol?

  • (none, some, half, most, nearly all), λ9,4 = .99***, λ15,6 = .90***

D2, F1, How many of your close friends get drunk on a regular basis (at least once a month)?

  • (none, some, half, most, nearly all), λ10,4 = 1.07***, λ16,6 = 1.00

D3, F1, How many of your close friends drink primarily to get drunk?

  • (none, some, half, most, nearly all), λ11,4 = 1.00, λ17,6 = .93***

Personal Alcohol Use

E1, G1, H1, Given that it is a typical week, please write the number of drinks you probably would have on a Friday, λ12,5 = 1.79***, λ18,7 = 1.97***, λ21,8 = 2.19***

E2, G2, H2, Given that it is a typical week, please write the number of drinks you probably would have on a Saturday, λ13,5 = 1.95***, λ19,7 = 2.00***, λ22,8 = 2.18***

E3, G3, H3, During the past 30 days (about 1 month), how many times have you gotten drunk, or very high from alcohol? (never, 1 or 2, 3 or 4, 5 or 6, 7 or 8, 9 or more), λ14,5 = 1.00, λ20,7 = 1.00, λ23,8 = 1.00

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

References

  1. The American College Health Association. The American College Health Association National College Health Assessment (ACHA - NCHA), Spring 2003 reference group report. Journal of American College Health. 2005;53:199–210. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ary DV, Duncan TE, Duncan SC, Hops H. Adolescent problem behavior: The influence of parents and peers. Behavioral Research and Therapy. 1999;37:217–230. doi: 10.1016/s0005-7967(98)00133-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baer JS. Student factors: Understanding individual variation in college drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2002;14:40–53. doi: 10.15288/jsas.2002.s14.40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Borsari B, Carey KB. Two brief alcohol interventions for mandated college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2005;19:296–302. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.19.3.296. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Brown BB, Mounts N, Lamborn SD, Steinberg L. Parenting practices and peer group affiliation in adolescence. Child Development. 1993;64:467–482. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb02922.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Davis-Kean PE. The influence of parent education and family income on child achievement: The indirect role on parental expectations and the home environment. Journal of Family Psychology. 2005;19:294–304. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.294. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. DeJong W, Langford LM. A typology for campus-based alcohol prevention: Moving toward environmental management strategies. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Supp. 2002;14:140–147. doi: 10.15288/jsas.2002.s14.140. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Fass ME, Tubman JG. The influence of parental and peer attachment on college students’ academic achievement. Psychology in the Schools. 2002;39:561–573. [Google Scholar]
  9. Fromme K, D’Amico E. Measuring adolescent alcohol outcome expectancies. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2000;14:206–212. doi: 10.1037//0893-164x.14.2.206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Galen LW, Rogers WM. Religiosity, alcohol expectancies drinking motives and their interaction in the prediction of drinking among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2004;65:469–476. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2004.65.469. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. George R, Kaplan D. A structural model on parent and teacher influences on science attitudes of eighth graders: Evidence from NELS: 88. Science Education. 1998;82:93–109. [Google Scholar]
  12. Hawkins JD, Catalano RF, Miller JY. Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin. 1992;112:64–105. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hingson RW, Heeren T, Winter M, Wechsler H. Magnitude of alcohol-related mortality and morbidity among US college students ages 18–24: Changes from 1998–2001. Annual Review of Public Health. 2005;26:259–279. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144652. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hingson RW, Howland J. Comprehensive community interventions to promote health: Implications for college-age drinking problems. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2002 Supplement No. 14:226–240. doi: 10.15288/jsas.2002.s14.226. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Jones BT, Corbin W, Fromme K. A review of expectancy theory and alcohol consumption. Addiction. 2001;96:57–72. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2001.961575.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Kahler CW, Read JP, Wood MD, Palfai TP. Social environmental selection as a mediator of gender, ethnic, and personality effects on college student drinking. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2003;17:226–234. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.17.3.226. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Kandel DB, Andrews K. Processes of adolescent socialization by parents and peers. International Journal of Addictions. 1987;22:319–342. doi: 10.3109/10826088709027433. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Larimer ME, Turner AP, Anderson BK, Fader JS, Kilmer JR, Palmer RS, Rebekka S, Cronce JM. Evaluating a brief alcohol intervention with fraternities. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2001;62:370–380. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2001.62.370. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Lehr ST, Dilorio C, Dudley WN, Lipana J. The relationship between parent-adolescent communication and safer sex behaviors in college students. Journal of Family Nursing. 2000;6:180–196. [Google Scholar]
  20. MacKinnon DP, Lockwood CM, Hoffman JM, West SG, Sheets V. A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods. 2002;7:83–104. doi: 10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.83. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Mason HO, Buttler ST. The effects of parenting styles on child behavioral outcomes. Poster presented at the APA annual convention; Honolulu, HI. 2004. [Google Scholar]
  22. Read JP, Wood MD, Capone C. A prospective investigation of relations between social influences and alcohol involvement during the transition into college. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2005;66:23–34. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2005.66.23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Read, JP, Wood MD, Davidoff OJ, McLacken, J, Campbell JF. Making the transition from high school to college: The role of alcohol-related social influence factors in students' drinking. Substance Abuse. 2002;23:53–65. doi: 10.1080/08897070209511474. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Rutledge PC, Sher KJ. Heavy drinking from the freshman year into early young adulthood: The roles of stress, tension-reduction drinking motives, gender and personality. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2001;62:457–466. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2001.62.457. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Schulenberg J, Maggs JL, Dielman TE, Leech SL, Kloska DD, Shope JT, Laetz VB. On peer influences to get drunk: A panel study of young adolescents. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 1999;45:108–142. [Google Scholar]
  26. Turrisi R. Cognitive and attitudinal factors in the analysis of alternatives to binge drinking. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1999;29:1510–1533. [Google Scholar]
  27. Turrisi R, Jaccard J, Taki R, Dunnam H, Grimes J. Examination of the short-term efficacy of a parent intervention to reduce college student drinking tendencies. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2001;15(4):366–372. doi: 10.1037//0893-164x.15.4.366. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Turrisi R, Padilla K, Wiersma K. College student drinking: An examination of theoretical models of drinking tendencies in freshman and upperclassmen. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2000;61:598–602. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2000.61.598. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Walters ST, Bennett ME. Addressing drinking among college students: A review of the empirical literature. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly. 2000;18:61–77. [Google Scholar]
  30. Warr M. Making delinquent friends: Adult supervision and children’s affiliations. Criminology. 2005;43:77–106. [Google Scholar]
  31. Weitzman E, Nelson T, Wechsler H. Taking up binge drinking in college: The influences of person, social group, and environment. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2003;32:26–35. doi: 10.1016/s1054-139x(02)00457-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Windle M. Parental, sibling, and peer influences on adolescent substance use and alcohol problems. Applied Developmental Science. 2000;4:98–110. [Google Scholar]
  33. Wintre MG, Yaffe M. First-year students’ adjustment to university life as a function of relationships with parents. Journal of Adolescent Research. 2000;15:9–37. [Google Scholar]
  34. Wood MD, Hevey CA, Laird RD, Stevenson JF, Mitchell RE. Prospective examination of relations between social influences and alcohol use among college students: Evidence for reciprocal influences. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Research Society on Alcoholism; June 24 – 29, 2000; Denver, CO. 2000. Jun, [Google Scholar]
  35. Wood MD, Read JP, Mitchell RE, Brand NH. Do parents still matter? Parent and peer influences on alcohol involvement among recent high school graduates. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2004;18:19–30. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.18.1.19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Wood MD, Read J, Palfai T, Stevenson JF. Social influences and alcohol use and misuse among college students: The mediational role of alcohol outcome expectancies. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2001;63:32–43. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2001.62.32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES