Table 5.

Differences in theoretical correlates of en bloc (“blackouts”) and fragmentary blackouts (“brownouts”) among male (n = 153) versus female (n = 197) college students with past-year history of alcohol-induced memory impairment.

			Blackout					Brownout
			Women	Men	Difference			Women	Men	Difference
Determinant (scale range)			M (SE)	M (SE)	F(345)	p		M (SE)	M (SE)	F(345)	p
Outcome beliefs (1–5)
	Good things would happen.		1.67 (0.07)	1.97 (0.09)	6.63	.01		2.25 (0.08)	2.46 (0.09)	2.80	.10
	Bad things would happen.		4.01 (0.08)	3.80 (0.09)	2.69	.10		3.46 (0.08)	3.54 (0.09)	0.48	.49
Attitudes (1–5)			1.70 (0.07)	1.98 (0.08)	7.03	.01		2.34 (0.07)	2.32 (0.08)	0.05	.82
Injunctive norms (1–5)
	Personal approval		1.95 (0.08)	2.27 (0.09)	5.77	.02		2.55 (0.08)	2.68 (0.09)	1.04	.31
	Perceived other approval		2.86 (0.08)	3.07 (0.09)	2.55	.11		3.35 (0.08)	3.36 (0.09)	.001	.98
Female descriptive norms (0–100)
	% by end of senior year		62.07 (1.62)	54.46 (1.86)	8.70	.003		75.74 (1.65)	63.25 (1.89)	22.60	<.001
	% in a typical month		38.50 (1.60)	41.38 (1.84)	1.28	.26		52.20 (1.63)	49.07 (1.87)	1.46	.23
Male descriptive norms (0–100)
	% by end of senior year		71.24 (1.67)	62.87 (1.92)	9.90	.002		77.01 (1.66)	68.88 (1.91)	9.49	.002
	% in a typical month		49.73 (1.70)	50.85 (1.95)	0.17	.68		60.54 (1.61)	56.18 (1.85)	2.89	.01
Self-efficacy (0–100%)			83.04 (1.79)	76.58 (2.06)	5.12	.02		74.78 (1.83)	73.54 (2.10)	0.18	.67
Intentions (1–6)			1.66 (0.10)	2.46 (0.12)	24.02	<.001		2.29 (0.11)	2.67 (0.13)	4.36	.04

Note. Estimated means and between-group effects, controlling for group differences in age, drinks per week, and alcohol-related consequences. Between-group differences that are significant at p ≤ .005 are highlighted in gray. Within male and female groups, all paired-sample comparisons of psychosocial correlates of blackouts versus brownouts were significant (p < .02).