Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Adolesc. 2010 Jun 18;34(5):1103–1106. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.05.015

Brief Report: Tailgating as a unique context for parental modeling on college student alcohol use

Caitlin Abar 1, Rob Turrisi 1, Beau Abar 1
PMCID: PMC2944009  NIHMSID: NIHMS210075  PMID: 20561673

Abstract

Little attention has been directed toward potential differential effects of the various contexts in which parents model alcohol use. The present study examined college football tailgating as a potential context in which parental modeling may be more or less risky. 290 college freshmen were assessed for perceptions of their parents’ drinking and tailgating behaviors, individual alcohol use and consequences. Hierarchical multiple regressions were performed and results revealed that parental tailgating accounted for a significant increase in the variance explained in each of the student drinking measures. Parental drunkenness at tailgates predicted college student drinking and negative consequences, over and above the influence of typical parental heavy episodic drinking. The specific context in which students perceive their parents as drinking heavily may impact their own drinking. Tailgating at sporting events appears to be one such context where students perceive alcohol behaviors which they later model.

Keywords: College Students, Alcohol Use, Parental Influence

Research over the past decade has examined numerous ways in which parents may impact college student alcohol use (Abar, Abar, & Turrisi, 2009; Abar & Turrisi, 2008; Patock-Peckham & Morgan-Lopez, 2006; Wood, Read, Mitchell, & Brand, 2004). Parental modeling of alcohol use, in particular, has been identified as a strong influence on student alcohol use and related negative consequences (e.g., White, Johnson, & Buyske, 2000).

The processes by which social influence factors, such as parental modeling, contribute to college drinking have been described using Social Learning Theory (SLT) (Bandura, 1977, 1982; Larimer, Irvine, Kilmer, & Marlatt, 1997; Read, Wood, & Capone, 2005; Wood, Read, Palfai, & Stevenson, 2001), such that students are thought to observe parental alcohol use and, as a result, imitate these modeled behaviors. Implicit in SLT is that modeling occurs within a given context. Previous research on contextual influences on alcohol use have focused either on more macro-contexts of development, such as neighborhood crime, family poverty, and/or family size (Chuang, Ennett, Bauman, & Foshee, 2005; Pedersen & McCarthy, 2008; Reifman et al., 1998), or on more micro-contexts, such as fraternity parties, known drinking holidays, and/or spring break (Greenbaum et al., 2005; Martinez, Sher, & Wood, 2008; Mattila et al., 2001). The current study examined a specific micro-context in which parental modeling of alcohol use tends to occur: tailgating events on college campuses.

Tailgating on college campuses has been shown to be high risk in terms of alcohol misuse (Coons, Howard-Hamilton, & Waryold, 1995; Neighbors, Oster-Aaland, Bergstrom, & Lewis, 2006). Neal and Fromme (2007) found that student drinking rates at tailgates were roughly equivalent to those endorsed on known risky drinking days, such as New Year’s Eve and Halloween. At many universities with large athletic programs, tailgating before sporting events has become not only a student ritual (Neal & Fromme, 2007; Neighbors et al., 2006) but also a multi-generational family tradition. This is particularly true at the university where this study was conducted, such that over 100,000 people attend football games and a large portion tailgates before and/or after the games. Given this relatively common practice, the current study investigated the potential impact on college student drinking behaviors that parents might have through participation in this context. Specifically, the present study examined whether parental modeling of alcohol use in the context of tailgating was predictive of student alcohol use and consequences, over and above the effects of general reports of alcohol modeling.

Method

Participants

As part of a larger study, a random sample of 500 freshmen students at a large, Mid-Atlantic, public university was invited to complete a survey regarding student alcohol use and parent characteristics. Two-hundred and ninety (58% response rate) students consented and completed the entire survey during the fall of their freshman year (i.e., during tailgating season). To participate, students had to have been at least 18 years-old (M = 18.6, SD = .50). Roughly 61% was female, most self-identified as White (88.9%), and lived on campus (97.2%).

Measures

Paternal and Maternal Heavy Episodic Drinking (HED)

Students reported on parental HED in the past year using a single item: “How often do you think that your father/mother has had five or more drinks in a two hour period (9-point scale; 0 = not at all, to 8 = everyday)?”

Parental Tailgating Behaviors

Three single-item measures indexed parental tailgating. Students responded on a 5-point scale (never to always) to the following statements: “My parent(s) tailgate at football games,” “My parent(s) drink alcohol when they tailgate at football games,” and, “My parent(s) get drunk when they tailgate at football games?”

Student Drinking Behaviors

Weekend drinking was the sum of two items: “How many drinks do you have on a typical Friday?” and “How many drinks do you have on a typical Saturday?” (r = .93, p < .001). Student frequency of drunkenness was indexed by a single item: “During the past month, how many times have you gotten drunk, or very high from alcohol (6-point scale; 0 = Never to 5 = 9 + times)?”

Negative Consequences of Alcohol Use

A subset of 26 items pertaining to negative consequences of one’s own use in the past year was adapted from the Young Adult Alcohol Problems Screening Test (Hurlbut & Sher, 1992) (Cronbach’s α =.88).

Results

Approximately 27% of mothers and 48% of fathers were perceived as engaging in HED in the past year, with ~19% and ~31%, respectively, perceived as having engaged in this behavior between 1 and 11 times in the past year. In addition, 42% of students reported that their parents tailgated, 38% reported that their parents drank at tailgates, and 21% reported that their parents got drunk at tailgates. In terms of student drinking, the average number of drinks consumed across a typical Friday and Saturday was 9.14 (S.D. = 7.98), and students got drunk from alcohol an average of 1.86 times in the past month (S.D. = 1.65). The mean level of experienced negative consequences was 18.90 (S.D. = 16.44).

Bivariate correlations indicated that gender and parental HED were consistently associated with student outcomes (see Table 1). Males drank more and experienced greater consequences than females. In addition, higher parental HED and drunkenness at tailgates were associated with higher student drinking, drunkenness, and negative consequences.

Table 1.

Bivariate correlations between predictors and outcomes

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Predictors
1. Gender 1
2. SES .10 1
3. Paternal HED .05 −.03 1
4. Maternal HED .09 −.06 .44** 1
5. Tailgating .09 .15* .19* .13* 1
6. Drink at Tailgates .07 .14* .30** .20* .78** 1
7. Drunk at Tailgates .12 .09 .34** .26** .54** .63** 1
Teen Outcomes
Weekend Drinking .34** .16* .27** .20* .14* .12* .26**
Frequency of Drunkenness .06 .14* .26** .17* .10 .11 .25**
Negative Consequences .22** .09 .30** .13* .21* .22* .39**
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05,

**

p < .001

Three hierarchical multiple regressions were performed predicting student outcomes. Step 1 controlled for student gender and socioeconomic status. Step 2 added maternal and paternal HED, and Step 3 added parental tailgating measures.

Results indicated that student demographics (Step 1) accounted for significant variance in student weekend drinking, drunkenness, and consequences (see Table 2). The inclusion of step 2 was shown to account for a small yet significant amount of variance in each of the student outcomes over and above student demographics (ΔR2‘s between .06 and .08). When holding all other predictors constant, higher typical paternal HED was associated with higher student drinking, frequency of drunkenness, and experienced consequences. Finally, the inclusion of step 3 accounted for an additional small yet significant amount of variance in each outcome over and above steps 1 and 2 (ΔR2‘s between .04 and .10). When holding all other predictors constant, more frequent parental drunkenness at tailgates was associated with higher student weekend drinking, frequency of drunkenness, and experienced consequences. Colinearity diagnostics were performed in order to explore potential multi-colinearity concerns. Diagnostics indicated that the variance inflation factors (VIFs) and tolerances were acceptable for each predictor (VIFs < 2.85 and tolerances > .35; O’Brien, 2007), implying limited multi-colinearity.

Table 2.

Standardized Hierarchical regression coefficients predicting college student outcomes

Weekend
Drinking		 Frequency of
Drunkenness		 Negative
Consequences
Step 1 R2 = .13*** R2 = .03* R2 = .06**
   Gender .33*** .03 .23**
   SES .13 .18** .08
Step 2 Δ R2 = .06*** Δ R2 = .08*** Δ R2 = .07***
   Maternal HED .08 .09 .00
   Paternal HED .21** .23** .27***
Step 3 Δ R2 = .04** Δ R2 = .05** Δ R2 = .10***
   Tailgating .07 .04 .07
   Drink at Tailgates −.19 −.17 −.13
   Drunk at Tailgates .25** .27** .38***
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05,

**

p < .01,

***

p < .001

Discussion

The present study examined whether parental modeling of alcohol use in the context of tailgating at college football games predicted college student alcohol use and related negative consequences, over and above the influence of more typical parental modeling. Results indicated that parental drunkenness at tailgates was a potential risk factor for college student alcohol misuse, such that perceiving one’s parent(s) as drunk in a collegiate, athletic, and public context appeared to have a modest unique effect on college student alcohol use. Due to the relatively frequent endorsement of this behavior (~21%), further research is warranted to better understand why this context, in particular, is predictive of student alcohol use. For example, by perceiving their parents to be drunk at tailgates, students may learn to associate social or sporting events with heavy drinking. It is also possible that perceptions of parental drunkenness on campus are more salient than more typical modeling, making them easier to recall when making alcohol-related decisions. Understanding these potential mechanisms may help enhance existing parent-based interventions (e.g., Turrisi et al., 2001) by providing parents with specific information about how their own alcohol use in particular contexts may impact student use.

There are several limitations of the current study. First, the cross-sectional nature of the study limited our ability to imply directionality and draw causal inferences. Future work should seek to examine the impact of parental modeling context using longitudinal and/or experimental designs. Second, the current study relied on student perceptions of parental behaviors at tailgates. While these perceptions were predictive, future work should seek to incorporate either (a) explicit measures of student observations of parent behaviors or (b) parent reports of their own behaviors. Third, since differential effects of parental HED were found, it may be important to examine the impact of parent-specific drunkenness at social events. Fourth, other common contexts in which students perceive their parents drink alcohol should be studied in order to explore the potential uniqueness of the tailgating context. Finally, the current sample was largely homogeneous, such that replication/expansion using a more representative sample (e.g., race, SES, family-structure, etc) would increase the generalizability of these results.

It appears the context in which parents model alcohol use may play a role in student alcohol misuse and should be further explored by prevention scientists seeking to provide parents with suggestions on how to decrease college alcohol misuse. Providing more detailed behavioral and contextual prevention guidelines tends to be strongly related to the success of prevention efforts (Domitrovich & Greenberg, 2000).

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.

Contributor Information

Caitlin Abar, Email: cabar@psu.edu.

Rob Turrisi, Email: rturrisi@psu.edu.

Beau Abar, Email: bwa117@psu.edu.

References

  1. Abar C, Abar B, Turrisi R. The impact of parental modeling and permissibility on alcohol use and experienced negative drinking consequences in college. Addictive Behaviors. 2009;34:542–547. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.03.019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Abar C, Turrisi R. How important are parents during the college years? A longitudinal perspective of indirect influences parents yield on their college teens’ alcohol use. Addictive Behaviors. 2008;33:1360–1368. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2008.06.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological Review. 1977;84:191–215. doi: 10.1037//0033-295x.84.2.191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bandura A. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist. 1982;37:122–147. [Google Scholar]
  5. Chuang Y, Ennett ST, Bauman KE, Foshee VA. Neighborhood influences on adolescent cigarette and alcohol use: Mediating effects through parent and peer behaviors. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2005;46:187–204. doi: 10.1177/002214650504600205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Coons CJ, Howard-Hamilton M, Waryold D. College sports and fan aggression: Implications for residence hall discipline. Journal of College Students Development. 1995;36:587–593. [Google Scholar]
  7. Domitrovich CE, Greenberg MT. The study of implementation: Current findings from effective programs that prevent mental disorders in school-aged children. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation. 2000;11:193–221. [Google Scholar]
  8. Greenbaum PE, Del Boca FK, Darkes J, Wang C, Goldman MS. Variation in the drinking trajectories of freshmen college students. Journal of Consulting and clinical Psychology. 2005;73:229–238. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.73.2.229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Larimer ME, Irvine DL, Kilmer JR, Marlatt GA. College drinking and the Greek system: Examining the role of perceived norms for high-risk behavior. Journal of College Student Development. 1997;38:587–598. [Google Scholar]
  10. Martinez JA, Sher KJ, Wood PK. Is heavy drinking associated with attrition from college? The alcohol-attrition paradox. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2008;22:450–456. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.22.3.450. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Mattila AS, Apostolopoulos Y, Sonmez S, Yu L, Sasidharan V. The impact of gender and religion on college students’ spring break behavior. Journal of Travel Research. 2001;40:193–200. [Google Scholar]
  12. Neal DJ, Fromme K. Hook ‘em horns and heavy drinking: Alcohol use and collegiate sports. Addictive Behaviors. 2007;32:2681–2693. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.06.020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Neighbors C, Oster-Aaland L, Bergstrom RL, Lewis MA. Event- and context-specific normative misperceptions and high-risk drinking: 21st birthday celebrations and football tailgating. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2006;67:282–289. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2006.67.282. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. O’Brien RM. A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity. 2007;41:673–690. [Google Scholar]
  15. Patock-Peckham JA, Morgan-Lopez AA. College drinking behaviors: Mediational links between parenting styles, impulse control, and alcohol-related outcomes. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2006;20:117–125. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.20.2.117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Pedersen SL, McCarthy DM. Person-environment transaction in youth drinking and driving. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2008;22:340–348. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.22.3.340. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. 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]
  18. Reifman A, Barnes GM, Dintcheff BA, Farrell MP, Uhteg L. Parental and peer influences on the onset of heavier drinking among adolescents. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1998;59:311–317. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1998.59.311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Turrisi R, Jaccard J, Taki R, Dunnam H, Grimes J. Examination of the short-term efficacy of a parent-based intervention to reduce college student drinking tendencies. Psychology of Addictive Behavior: Special Issue on Understanding Binge Drinking. 2001;15:366–372. doi: 10.1037//0893-164x.15.4.366. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. White HR, Johnson V, Buyske S. Parental modeling and parenting behavior effects on offspring alcohol and cigarette use: A growth curve analysis. Journal of Substance Abuse. 2000;12:287–310. doi: 10.1016/s0899-3289(00)00056-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. 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]
  22. Wood MD, Read JP, Palfai TP, Stevenson JF. Social influence processes and college student drinking: The mediational role of alcohol outcome expectancies. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2001;62:32–43. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2001.62.32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES