Table 1.

Demographic, sociocentric, and egocentric network differences between drinkers and nondrinkers

Variable	Drinkers M (SD) or %	Nondrinkers M (SD) or %	t, z, or χ2	df	p
Demographic characteristics
Female	55.1%	55.7%	0.04	1	.84
Non-Hispanic White	52.6%	34.4%	34.30	1	<.001
Race			44.30	7	<.001
White	61.6%	44.4%
American Indian or Alaskan Native	0.8%	1.1%
Asian	19.9%	34.2%
Black or African American	6.1%	9.9%
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander	0.1%	0.6%
Other	0.3%	9.3%
Multi-racial	10.5%	9.3%
Prefer not to answer	0.6%	0.3%
First generation college student	14.8%	22.3%	10.84	1	.001
Athlete status	16.3%	7.8%	15.57	1	<.001
Substance-free floor	5.7%	35.2%	194.68	1	<.001
Sociocentric network characteristics
Indegree	5.89 (3.06)	4.77 (3.11)	5.95	1323	<.001
Outdegree	5.60 (3.01)	5.66 (2.89)	-0.25	1323	.80
Mutuality	0.37%	35%	2.30	1303	.02
Percent of network ties that were perceived by participant as being a drinker	0.83%	44%	4.70	1231	<.001
Percent of network ties who self-reported being a drinker	0.87%	56%	6.53	1323	<.001
Egocentric network characteristics
Total egocentric nominations	3.75 (3.01)	4.28 (3.29)	-1.90	1323	.06
Number of other university students	1.57 (1.88)	1.82 (2.10)	-1.49	1323	.14
Number of nonuniversity peers	1.57 (2.13)	1.57 (2.06)	0.04	1323	.78
Number of parents	0.56 (0.84)	0.75 (0.92)	-3.15	1323	.002
Number of other people	0.06 (0.32)	0.14 (0.44)	-2.68	1323	.007
Percent of university students who were perceived by participant as being a drinker	0.87%	62%	7.85	847	<.001
Percent of nonuniversity peers who were perceived by participant as being a drinker	0.77%	50%	6.74	665	<.001

Note: Nonuniversity peers were peers who were not at the same university but may have been students elsewhere.