Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 May 1.
Published in final edited form as: Addict Behav. 2019 Dec 24;104:106267. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.106267

Situational context and motives of alcohol use among graduate student drinkers

Hannah K Allen a,*, Angelica L Barrall b, Kenneth H Beck c, Kathryn B Vincent b, Amelia M Arria b
PMCID: PMC7024021  NIHMSID: NIHMS1067618  PMID: 31931405

Abstract

Extensive research has examined alcohol use context and motives among undergraduates, but less is known about where, when, and why graduate students drink. The current study aimed to describe the motives and situational context of graduate student alcohol use, identify demographic and program characteristics associated with alcohol use motives and context, and assess how alcohol use motives and context are associated with alcohol use behavior. A sample of master’s and doctoral-level students who drank during the past month (n=2,091; 63% female) completed an online survey. An exploratory factor analysis yielded two situational context factors: drinking in social situations (e.g., with friends, at a bar) and non-social situations (e.g., alone, at home). Graduate students most frequently endorsed social and enhancement drinking motives. Results of multivariate linear regression models showed that age, sex, race/ethnicity, and international student, marital, parental, and employment status were all associated with motives and context. Drinking for enhancement and drinking to cope were the motives most strongly associated with increased alcohol quantity and frequency, respectively. Drinking in social contexts was positively associated with alcohol quantity and frequency, and drinking in non-social contexts was positively associated with alcohol use frequency but inversely related to alcohol quantity. Graduate students who drink for enhancement reasons and in social situations might be at increased risk for higher quantity alcohol use, or graduate students who drink for coping reasons and in non-social situations might be at increased risk for more frequent alcohol use. Future longitudinal research is needed to explore whether drinking in certain contexts and with certain motivations is predictive of alcohol problems during and after graduate school.

Keywords: alcohol use, motives, context, graduate students

1. Introduction

Excessive drinking is a significant public health concern among young adults, with a third of 19 to 30 year olds drinking five or more drinks in a row during the past two weeks (Schulenberg et al., 2018). Of particular concern are college students, who are more likely to engage in heavy drinking than their non-college-attending peers (Schulenberg et al., 2018). Among college students, heavy alcohol use is linked to a multitude of negative consequences, including decreased academic achievement, injury, sexual assault, cognitive deficits, and death (White & Hingson, 2013). An extensive amount of research has been conducted to better understand why college students consume alcohol (motives) and the types of environments and situations where high-risk alcohol use occurs (context).

Generally, drinking motives have been categorized as social motives (e.g., drinking to enhance social confidence or affiliate with others), enhancement motives (e.g., drinking to celebrate or to get high), conformity motives (e.g., drinking because of peer pressure), and coping motives (e.g., drinking to avoid or regulate unpleasant emotions [Cooper, 1994; Kuntsche, Knibbe, Gmel, & Engels, 2005]). Specific motives for alcohol consumption are associated with particular alcohol use behaviors, with social motives generally associated with moderate alcohol use and enhancement motives associated with heavy alcohol use (Kuntsche et al., 2005). Several studies have found that social and enhancement motives appear to have strong relationships with alcohol use behavior, while drinking to cope and to conform are more strongly associated with alcohol-related problems (Cooper, 1994; Magid, Maclean, & Colder, 2007; Martens et al., 2008a; White, Anderson, Ray, & Mun, 2016). While these relationships have been studied among several populations including adolescents, young adults, and older adults (Beck, Zanjani, & Allen, 2019; Kuntsche et al., 2005), there has been an intensive focus on the drinking motives of undergraduates (Beck et al., 2008; Beck, Caldeira, Vincent, & Arria, 2013; Goldstein, Flett, & Wekerle, 2010; Grant, Stewart, O’Connor, Blackwell, & Conrod, 2007; Ham, Zamboanga, Bacon, & Garcia, 2009; Hasking, Lyvers, & Carlopio, 2011; Martens et al., 2008a; Martens, Rocha, Martin, & Serrao, 2008b; Merrill & Read, 2010; Molnar, Sadava, DeCourville, & Perrier, 2010; Patrick, Lee, & Larimer, 2011a) to inform prevention efforts to decrease heavy drinking among this high-risk population.

Alcohol consumption is influenced by the immediate environmental or situational context (Cox & Klinger, 1988), and prior studies have emphasized the importance of studying both drinking motives and drinking context, as they are often related (Cooper, 1994; O’Hara, Armeli, & Tennen, 2015). Similar to alcohol use motives, specific contexts of drinking are related to certain alcohol use behaviors among college students. Drinking contexts associated with heavy drinking and alcohol use consequences among college students include Greek houses, residence halls, on-campus events, and off-campus residences, parties, and bars (Buettner, Khurana, & Slesnick, 2011; Harford, Wechsler, & Muthen, 2003; Marzell, Bavarian, Paschall, Mair, & Saltz, 2015). Paschall and Saltz (2007) assessed the relationship between setting and alcohol use among college students and observed that the heaviest drinking occurred at off-campus parties, residence halls, and fraternity/sorority parties.

Compared with what is known about the relationship between alcohol use context and motives with alcohol consumption among undergraduates, our understanding of these variables in relation to graduate student alcohol use is less clear. Graduate students are becoming an increasingly large proportion of the student population on college campuses, as more than a third of college graduates enroll in graduate school within four years of college graduation (Baum & Steele, 2017). Research studies examining alcohol use among graduate students estimate that about 80% of graduate students consume alcohol (English, Rey, & Schlesselman, 2011; Frank, Elon, Naimi, & Brewer, 2008; Shah, Bazargan-Hejazi, Lindstrom, & Wolf, 2009; Stecker, 2004), and yet little research has described the motives and context of graduate student alcohol use.

Graduate students are similar to undergraduates in that they are members of the university environment, which typically is a high-risk environment for drinking. However, differences between undergraduate and graduate student characteristics and experiences might contribute to differences in alcohol use motives, context, and behavior between these two student populations. Graduating from college and enrolling in graduate school typically occur during young adulthood, and about half of graduate students are 29 years old or younger (Bell, 2009). The timing of typical graduate school enrollment coincides with other situational and social role transitions such as marriage and parenthood. The acquisition of these social roles is often accompanied by a decline in heavy drinking (Eitle, Taylor, & Eitle, 2010; Haberstick et al., 2014; Kerr, Capaldi, Owen, Wiesner, & Pears, 2011; Oesterle, Hawkins, & Hill, 2011) and might also be linked to changing drinking motives. The contexts in which graduate students drink might vary from undergraduates as well. Whereas undergraduates might be likely to drink at parties or in residence halls, graduate students might be more likely to drink with other graduate students, at home with their spouse, or while doing schoolwork. To inform campus alcohol use prevention efforts for graduate students, additional research is needed on the motives and context of alcohol use among graduate students, how these relate to alcohol use behavior, and graduate student subgroups who might be more likely to drink for certain reasons or in certain contexts.

This study aimed to: 1) describe alcohol use motives among graduate student drinkers, including frequency of drinking for enhancement, social, conformity, and coping reasons; 2) identify the situational context of alcohol use among graduate student drinkers (i.e., where, when, and with whom they drink); 3) explore demographic and program characteristics associated with alcohol use motives and context; and 4) assess how alcohol use motives and context are associated with alcohol consumption. We hypothesize that social motives and drinking in social contexts will be strongly associated with high frequency and high quantity alcohol use.

2. Methods

2.1. Study sample and data collection

In the fall of 2017, email invitations were sent to all currently enrolled graduate students at two large, public universities in the mid-Atlantic region of the US (N=16,775). Graduate students were eligible for participation in the study if they were: 1) 18 years old or older, and 2) currently enrolled in a graduate degree program at the master’s or doctorate-level at either university. Students were invited to take an online survey consisting of an eligibility screener and 64 survey questions. The final sample consisted of n=2,683 graduate students. For the current study, the analytic sample was restricted to graduate students who indicated that they had consumed alcohol during the past month (n=2,091).

Each participant provided informed consent, and approval was obtained by the Institutional Review Boards at both participating universities.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Demographic and program characteristics.

Standard questions were used to collect data on age, sex, race/ethnicity, international student status, employment status, marital status, number of children currently living at home, and graduate degree type.

2.2.2. Alcohol consumption.

Frequency of alcohol use was measured by the number of days during the past month alcohol was consumed, and quantity of alcohol use was measured by the number of alcoholic drinks a participant drank on a typical drinking day during the past month.

2.2.3. Alcohol use motives.

Alcohol use motives were assessed using the 12-item Drinking Motive Questionnaire Revised Short-Form (DMQ-R SF [Kuntsche & Kuntsche, 2009]). The scale consists of four subscales of three items each, measuring enhancement motives (i.e., it’s fun; I like the feeling; to get high), social motives (i.e., it makes social gatherings more fun; it improves parties and celebrations; it helps me enjoy a party), conformity motives (i.e., to fit in with a group I like; so I won’t feel left out; to be liked), and coping motives (i.e., to cheer me up when I’m in a bad mood; it helps me when I feel depressed or nervous; to forget about my problems). Response options for each item were never (0), sometimes (1), or almost always (2), and a mean score for each of the four motive subscales was computed. The enhancement, social, conformity, and coping motives subscales have high levels of internal consistency, with respective Cronbach’s alphas of 0.70, 0.77, 0.78, and 0.83 found in prior research (Kuntsche & Kuntsche, 2009), and Cronbach’s alphas of 0.59, 0.85, 0.72, and 0.80 found in the current study.

2.2.4. Situational context of alcohol use.

Alcohol use context was assessed using 14 items. Because no known measure to assess context of alcohol use among graduate students exists, four items were derived from the Social Context of Drinking Scale–College Version (i.e., on campus, with a small group of friends, with a large group of friends, with family members [Beck et al., 2008]) and eight items were derived from a survey used by Paradis et al. (2011) (i.e., alone, at home, at someone else’s home, at a restaurant, at a party, at a bar/nightclub, on weekdays, on weekends). Two additional items were added based on anecdotal knowledge of the graduate school experience, including drinking while doing schoolwork and drinking with other graduate students. Each item was scored on a scale from 0 (never) to 3 (frequently).

2.3. Statistical analyses

In the complete study sample, 28% of participants had missing data, and analyses of complete and non-complete cases revealed that the data were not missing completely at random (Rubin, 1976). Therefore, missing data were handled using multiple imputation of five complete datasets, and statistics were obtained by averaging the results across all imputed datasets (Li, Stuart, & Allison, 2015; Rubin, 1987).

Descriptive statistics were computed to describe the frequency with which participants consumed alcohol in each situational context. An exploratory principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation was conducted with all 14 situational context items. Factor criteria included having an eigenvalue of greater than one and being above the bend in the Scree plot (Kaiser, 1960; Yong & Pearce, 2013). For ease of factor interpretation, complex items that loaded onto more than one factor were excluded (Yong & Pearce, 2013). Cronbach’s alpha was used to determine the internal consistency of the items for each situational context factor. The correlations between the factors were tested, and the correlations between the alcohol use motives scales and the situational context factors were also analyzed.

A series of multivariate linear regression models was used to analyze the associations between age, sex, race/ethnicity, international student status, employment status, marital status, children, and degree type with the mean scores for each alcohol use motive and situational context factor. All independent variables were added into each model together. These analyses controlled for past-month alcohol use frequency and quantity in order to determine if the relationships between demographic and program characteristics and alcohol use context and motives were independent of typical alcohol consumption behavior, a statistical approach used in prior research on alcohol use context and motives (Beck et al., 2008; Beck et al., 2013). Multivariate linear regression models were used to analyze the associations between alcohol use motives and situational context factors with past-month alcohol use frequency and alcohol quantity. These models adjusted for demographic and program characteristics and controlled for the other alcohol use motive and context variables. The model predicting alcohol quantity controlled for alcohol use frequency, and the model predicting alcohol use frequency controlled for alcohol quantity.

SPSS Version 25.0 was used for all analyses, and the alpha level was set at 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Sample characteristics and alcohol consumption

Demographic and program characteristics are presented in Table 1. Based on study inclusion criteria, every participant had consumed alcohol during the past month. Mean past-month alcohol use frequency was 7.3 days (SD=6.6), and mean past-month alcohol quantity was 2.2 drinks per drinking day (SD=1.5).

Table 1.

Sample characteristics (n=2,091)

Mean (SD)
Age 27.6 (5.4)
n (%)
Sex
 Male 774 (37.0)
 Female 1,317 (63.0)
Race/Ethnicity
 Non-Hispanic white 1,360 (65.0)
 Non-Hispanic other race 536 (25.6)
 Hispanic/Latino 100 (4.8)
 More than one race/ethnicity 95 (4.5)
International Student
 Yes 269 (12.9)
 No 1,822 (87.1)
Marital Status
 Never married 1,539 (73.6)
 Married 500 (23.9)
 Widowed/divorced/separated 52 (2.5)
Children
 Yes 183 (8.8)
 No 1,908 (91.2)
Employment Status
 Not currently employed 411 (19.7)
 Employed part-time 316 (15.1)
 Employed full-time 393 (18.8)
 University assistantship 970 (46.4)
Degree Type
 Master’s degree 897 (42.9)
 Doctoral degree 1,194 (57.1)
Open in a new tab

3.2. Alcohol use motives

The most common motive for drinking was for social reasons, with a mean social motives score of 0.88 (SD=0.63; data not shown in table). The second most common motive for drinking was for enhancement reasons (Mean=0.79; SD=0.49), followed by coping motives (Mean=0.47; SD=0.53) and conformity motives (Mean=0.27; SD=0.41).

3.3. Situational context of alcohol use

The factor analysis yielded three factors that had eigenvalues of greater than 1.0. However, only one item (drinking on campus) met the criteria for loading onto the third factor, so it was excluded. Four items did not meet criteria for loading onto any one specific factor and were also excluded from further analyses (i.e., drinking on weekends, drinking with family members, drinking with other graduate students, and drinking while doing schoolwork). The two resulting factors accounted for a cumulative variance of 48%. The six items that loaded onto the first factor were labeled “social situations”, and the three items that loaded onto the second factor were labeled “non-social situations”.

The means of the summed scores of the items in the social situations factor and non-social situations factor were 1.55 (SD=0.67) and 1.23 (SD=0.78), respectively. Reliability tests confirmed that both factors were internally consistent. The items in the social situations factor had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.82, and the items in the non-social situations factor had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.78. The factors were reasonably uncorrelated with each other (r=0.25, p<0.001). Drinking in social situations was moderately correlated with drinking frequently for enhancement reasons (r=0.43, p<0.001) and social reasons (r=0.50, p<0.001). Drinking in non-social situations was moderately correlated with drinking frequently for coping reasons (r=0.37, p<0.001). Table 2 presents the frequencies for consuming alcohol in each context.

Table 2.

Situational context of alcohol use among graduate student drinkers (n=2,091)

Never Seldom Occasionally Frequently
n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)
Social Situations (α=0.82)
 With a small group of friends 119 (5.7) 437 (20.9) 1,027 (49.1) 508 (24.3)
 At a bar or nightclub 518 (24.8) 513 (24.5) 712 (34.1) 348 (16.6)
 At a restaurant 213 (10.2) 524 (25.1) 1,034 (49.5) 319 (15.3)
 At a party 473 (22.6) 560 (26.8) 748 (35.8) 309 (14.8)
 With a large group of friends 485 (23.2) 621 (29.7) 766 (36.6) 220 (10.5)
 At someone else’s home 332 (15.9) 642 (30.7) 926 (44.3) 191 (9.1)
Non-social Situations (α=0.78)
 At home 302 (14.4) 522 (25.0) 779 (37.3) 488 (23.3)
 On weekdays 429 (20.5) 915 (43.8) 570 (27.3) 177 (8.5)
 Alone 1,046 (50.0) 606 (29.0) 308 (14.7) 131 (6.3)
Open in a new tab

3.4. Associations between demographic characteristics and situational context and motives

Drinking for social reasons was associated with being younger, female, unmarried, and not having children (Table 3). Drinking for conformity reasons was associated with being an international student and unmarried, and drinking for coping reasons was associated with being female, other race/ethnicity, an international student, and unemployed.

Table 3.

Results of linear regression models of the associations between demographic and program characteristics and alcohol use motives and situational context among graduate student drinkers (n=2,091)

Alcohol Use Motives Situational Context
Enhancement
Motives		 Social
Motives		 Conformity
Motives		 Coping
Motives		 Social
Situations		 Non-social
Situations
B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) B (SE)
Age 0.00 (0.00) −0.01 (0.00)* 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) −0.01 (0.00)* 0.01 (0.00)*
Sex (Ref=Male)
 Female 0.04 (0.02) 0.10 (0.03)* −0.03 (0.02) 0.17 (0.02)* 0.12 (0.03)* −0.01 (0.03)
Race/Ethnicity (Ref=Non-Hispanic white)
 Other race/ethnicity 0.04 (0.02) 0.00 (0.03) 0.00 (0.02) 0.09 (0.03)* −0.04 (0.03) −0.05 (0.03)
International Student (Ref=No)
 Yes 0.05 (0.03) 0.04 (0.04) 0.14 (0.03)* 0.07 (0.04)* −0.09 (0.04)* −0.08 (0.04)
Marital Status (Ref=Unmarried)
 Married −0.04 (0.03) −0.11 (0.04)* −0.09 (0.02)* −0.05 (0.03) −0.16 (0.04)* 0.01 (0.03)
Children (Ref=No)
 Yes −0.05 (0.04) −0.12 (0.05)* −0.03 (0.04) 0.06 (0.05) −0.17 (0.05)* 0.08 (0.05)
Employment Status (Ref=Unemployed)
 Employed −0.05 (0.03) −0.05 (0.03) −0.04 (0.02) −0.08 (0.03)* 0.00 (0.03) 0.02 (0.03)
Degree Type (Ref=Master’s degree)
 Doctoral degree 0.01 (0.02) 0.03 (0.03) 0.01 (0.02) −0.01 (0.02) 0.01 (0.03) −0.03 (0.03)
Open in a new tab
*

p<0.05

Note. “Other race/ethnicity” includes those who identified as non-Hispanic other race, Hispanic/Latino, and more than one race/ethnicity. ‘Unmarried” includes participants who are never married or widowed/divorced/separated. “Employed” includes participants who are employed full-time, part-time, and through a university assistantship.

SE=Standard error. Estimates control for all other demographic and program characteristics as well as past-month alcohol use frequency and quantity.

Drinking in social situations was associated with being younger, female, a domestic student, unmarried, and not having children. Drinking in non-social situations was associated with being older.

3.5. Associations between situational context, motives, and alcohol consumption

Controlling for alcohol quantity and all other alcohol use motives and contexts, coping motives were positively associated with alcohol use frequency and conformity motives were inversely associated with alcohol use frequency. While drinking in both social situations and non-social situations were positively associated with alcohol use frequency, non-social contexts were more strongly associated with alcohol use frequency (B=4.69; SE=0.16, p<0.001) than social contexts (B=1.62; SE=0.20, p<0.001).

With the exception of conformity motives, all motive categories were associated with increased alcohol quantity. Enhancement motives were most strongly related to alcohol quantity (B=0.70; SE=0.08, p<0.001). Drinking in social contexts was associated with increased alcohol quantity (B=0.30; SE=0.05, p<0.001) and drinking in non-social contexts was associated with decreased alcohol quantity (B=−0.21; SE=0.05, p<0.001).

4. Discussion

This study advances our understanding of the motives and situational contexts associated with alcohol consumption among graduate students. Compared with undergraduate drinkers who tend to drink at higher quantities (Lipari & Jean-Francois, 2016), alcohol use among this sample of graduate student drinkers was lower risk, with a mean past-month frequency of about seven days and a mean past-month quantity of about two drinks per drinking day. Similar to undergraduates, social and enhancement drinking motives were more frequently endorsed than conformity and coping motives (Arbeau, Kuiken, & Wild, 2011; Grant et al., 2007; Martens et al., 2008a; Molnar et al., 2010). Results support that graduate students drink for similar reasons as undergraduates, namely for fun. However, there was a generally low endorsement of drinking motives among this sample, with the majority of participants indicating that they drank for a particular reason either sometimes or never, as opposed to almost always. This finding is consistent with prior research that found that the majority of reasons for drinking alcohol decrease in prevalence with age (Patrick et al., 2011b). Situational context of drinking among graduate students differs from undergraduates, as the study results show that graduate students drank most frequently at home and with a small group of friends. Future studies that compare undergraduate and graduate students on frequency of endorsing particular alcohol use motives and contexts might lead to better understanding of differences between student subgroups on college campuses.

Higher quantity drinking was most strongly associated with enhancement motives for alcohol use, which include drinking because it’s fun, they like the feeling, and to get high. Graduate students might feel as though they have to drink in higher quantities to achieve the desired enhancement effects, and students might associate heavy drinking with having a good time. Additionally, foundational work on drinking motives by Cooper et al. (1992) found that enhancement motives for alcohol use predicted drinking in social situations and at parties, which are environments that might encourage high quantity drinking. The results of the current study support this explanation, as we found that drinking in social situations was positively associated with alcohol quantity, and drinking in social situations was moderately correlated with drinking frequently for enhancement reasons.

While enhancement and social motives were positively associated with alcohol quantity, coping motives and drinking in non-social situations were positively associated with alcohol use frequency. Prior research among middle-aged adults has found that coping motives are associated with drinking alone or with a significant other (Cooper et al., 1992), situations that might suggest lower quantity alcohol consumption that happens on a frequent basis (e.g. having a drink in the evening to cope with particularly stressful days). Graduate student drinkers who are experiencing symptoms of anxiety or depression might be using frequent alcohol consumption as a maladaptive coping strategy (Bolton, Robinson, & Sareen, 2009). About a quarter of graduate students meet criteria for a mental health problem, with depression more common than anxiety (Lipson, Zhou, Wagner, Beck, & Eisenberg, 2016). Future research among graduate students should continue to examine the relationship between coping motives for alcohol use and alcohol consumption, distinguishing between coping with anxiety and coping with depression. As opposed to the four-factor model used in the current study, an interesting line of research has used a five-factor model for drinking motives, with coping for anxiety and coping for depression as separate constructs. Studies using this five-factor model have shown that drinking to cope with depression is predictive of higher drinking quantity as well as alcohol-related problems (Grant et al., 2007; Vernig, 2015).

Because enhancement motives and drinking in social situations appear to be markers of heavier alcohol use, interventions to reduce drinking might incorporate this information in clinical settings. Results showed that drinking in social situations and for social reasons was generally more common among graduate students who were younger, unmarried, and did not have children. Getting married and having children bring new responsibilities that might be incompatible with drinking at parties and in other social settings including bars or nightclubs. In addition, these family role transitions are often associated with declines in heavy drinking during young adulthood (Staff et al., 2010), behavior that was associated with drinking in social environments among our sample. Graduate students who are unmarried and non-parents might represent a subset of young adults who are delaying acquisition of these typical developmental milestones and maintaining similar alcohol use motives, contexts, and consumption across young adulthood. These graduate students are a unique subset of this population who might benefit from targeted alcohol use prevention efforts that address their endorsement of motives and contexts associated with heavier drinking.

Results of this study should be interpreted in light of the study limitations. Because the sample was derived from two universities, the results might not be generalizable to other graduate student populations. While the response rate of 23% is similar to what is achieved in contemporary survey research (American College Health Association, 2018), there is potential bias if responders and non-responders differed from each other in meaningful, but unknown, ways. Additional analyses of the entire study sample assessed whether the analytic sample for the current study (i.e., past-month drinkers) differed from non-drinkers by age, sex, and race/ethnicity. Results showed that past-month drinkers were younger and more likely to be non-Hispanic white than the remainder of the sample, suggesting that the sample might not be representative. The assessment used in this study did not include complex measures of alcohol use, limiting analyses to measures of alcohol use frequency and quantity. Future studies should assess graduate students on additional measures of alcohol use such as heavy episodic and high-intensity drinking, meeting criteria for alcohol use disorder, and alcohol-related consequences, so that relationships between these variables and alcohol use motives and context can be explored. Additionally, graduate students might drink for other reasons and in other contexts that were not assessed in the present study, and the cross-sectional design did not allow for the examination of the directionality between alcohol use context and motives and alcohol consumption.

5. Conclusions

These findings add to existing evidence of the importance of alcohol use motives and context in better understanding alcohol use behavior. Graduate students are becoming an increasingly large proportion of the young adult population, and universities have a unique opportunity to provide behavioral health resources while students are enrolled in graduate programs on campus. Alcohol use context and motives are potentially modifiable risk factors for heavy and frequent drinking and should be a focus of such resources and prevention efforts. Of particular interest is addressing graduate students who are drinking to cope, as frequent or high-quantity alcohol use might be a maladaptive way of dealing with the stress and rigor of graduate school. Future research should assess the relationships between graduate student mental health, drinking motives and context, and alcohol use behavior, given the potential link between mental health and particular alcohol use motives among the graduate student population. Universities could enhance access to mental health and substance use treatment for graduate students by directing students to available health and counseling resources or by incorporating discussion about alcohol use into career and professional development programs, such as orientation or graduate student seminars. Graduate students should be the target of substance use screening efforts, and university administrators should ensure that campus substance use resources not only address alcohol consumption but also alcohol use context and motives.

The graduate student experience is unique, and future research should continue to study substance use among graduate students, particularly the relationship between substance use and graduate student academic, health, and social outcomes. Nationally representative, multi-campus studies that include graduate students from varied degree types and academic disciplines would be particularly informative, as the majority of existing research studies in this area are single-campus studies of graduate students from specific academic disciplines. Of highest priority should be longitudinal research to explore the continuity of alcohol use motives, context, and consumption from college to graduate school as well as the long-term impact of alcohol use on functioning before, during, and after graduate school.

Table 4.

Results of linear regression models of the associations between alcohol use motives and situational context and alcohol consumption among graduate student drinkers (n=2,091)

Alcohol Use Frequency Alcohol Quantity
B (SE) B (SE)
Alcohol Use Motives Mean Score
 Enhancement Motives [0-2] 0.48 (0.29) 0.70 (0.08)*
 Social Motives [0-2] −0.41 (0.23) 0.20 (0.06)*
 Conformity Motives [0-2] −0.62 (0.28)* −0.04 (0.08)
 Coping Motives [0-2] 1.06 (0.24)* 0.29 (0.06)*
Situational Context Mean Score
 Social Situations [0-3] 1.62 (0.20)* 0.30 (0.05)*
 Non-social Situations [0-3] 4.69 (0.16)* −0.21 (0.05)*
Open in a new tab
*

p<0.05

Note. Range of possible mean scores is indicated in brackets.

Alcohol use frequency and quantity are past-month measures.

SE=standard error.

Estimates control for demographic and program characteristics (age, sex, race/ethnicity, international student status, employment status, marital status, children, and degree type), alcohol use frequency, alcohol quantity, and all other motive and context factors.

Highlights.

  • We examined alcohol use motives and context among graduate student drinkers.

  • Graduate students most frequently drank for social and enhancement reasons.

  • Demographic and program characteristics were associated with motives and context.

  • Enhancement motives and social motives/contexts associated with binge drinking.

  • Coping motives and nonsocial contexts associated with increased drinking frequency.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Brittany Bugbee for her assistance with developing the data collection instrument.

Role of Funding Source

This project was supported by the Prevention and Methodology Training Program (T32 DA017629; PI: L.M. Collins), with funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Additional support was provided by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse under Grants R01 DA014845 (PI: A.M. Arria) and U01 DA040219 (PI: A.M. Arria). The findings and conclusions of this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIDA had no role in the study design, collection, analysis or interpretation of the data, writing the manuscript, or the decision to submit the paper for publication.

Footnotes

Conflicts of Interest

No conflicts declared.

References

  1. American College Health Association. (2018). American College Health Association - National college health assessment II: Reference group executive summary fall 2017. (p. 9). Hanover, MD: American College Health Association. [Google Scholar]
  2. Arbeau KJ, Kuiken D, & Wild TC (2011). Drinking to enhance and to cope: a daily process study of motive specificity. Addictive Behaviors, 36(12), 1174–1183. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.07.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baum S, & Steele P (2017). Who goes to graduate school and who succeeds? Washington, DC: Urban Institute. [Google Scholar]
  4. Beck KH, Arria AM, Caldeira KM, Vincent KB, O’Grady KE, & Wish ED (2008). Social context of drinking and alcohol problems among college students. American Journal of Health Behavior, 32(4), 420–430. doi: 10.5993/AJHB.32.4.9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Beck KH, Caldeira KM, Vincent KB, & Arria AM (2013). Social contexts of drinking and subsequent alcohol use disorder among college students. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 39(1), 38–43. doi: 10.3109/00952990.2012.694519. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Beck KH, Zanjani F, & Allen HK (2019). Social context of drinking among older adults: relationship to alcohol and traffic risk behaviors. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 64, 161–170. doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2019.05.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bell NE (2009). Data sources: Non-traditional students in graduate education. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bolton JM, Robinson J, & Sareen J (2009). Self-medication of mood disorders with alcohol and drugs in the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Journal of Affective Disorders, 115(3), 367–375. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2008.10.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Buettner CK, Khurana A, & Slesnick N (2011). Drinking at college parties: Examining the influence of student host-status and party-location. Addictive Behaviors, 36(12), 1365–1368. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.08.002s. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cooper ML (1994). Motivations for alcohol use among adolescents: development and validation of a four-factor model. Psychological Assessment, 6(2), 117–128. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.6.2.117. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cooper ML, Russell M, Skinner JB, & Windle M (1992). Development and validation of a three-dimensional measure of drinking motives. Psychological Assessment, 4(2), 123–132. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.4.2.123. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cox WM, & Klinger E (1988). A motivational model of alcohol use. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97(2), 168–180. doi: 10.1037/0021-843x.97.2.168. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Eitle D, Taylor J, & Eitle TM (2010). Heavy episodic alcohol use in emerging adulthood: the role of early risk factors and young adult social roles. Journal of Drug Issues, 40(2), 295–320. doi: 10.1177/002204261004000203. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. English C, Rey JA, & Schlesselman LS (2011). Prevalence of hazardous alcohol use among pharmacy students at nine U.S. schools of pharmacy. Pharmacy Practice, 9(3), 162–168. doi: 10.4321/S1886-36552011000400009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Frank E, Elon L, Naimi T, & Brewer R (2008). Alcohol consumption and alcohol counselling behaviour among US medical students: cohort study. British Medical Journal, 337(a2155), 1–10. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a2155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Goldstein AL, Flett GL, & Wekerle C (2010). Child maltreatment, alcohol use and drinking consequences among male and female college students: An examination of drinking motives as mediators. Addictive Behaviors, 35(6), 636–639. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2010.02.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Grant VV, Stewart SH, O’Connor RM, Blackwell E, & Conrod PJ (2007). Psychometric evaluation of the five-factor Modified Drinking Motives Questionnaire: revised in undergraduates. Addictive Behaviors, 32(11), 2611–2632. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.07.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Haberstick BC, Young SE, Zeiger JS, Lessem JM, Hewitt JK, & Hopfer CJ (2014). Prevalence and correlates of alcohol and cannabis use disorders in the United States: Results from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 136, 158–161. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.11.022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Ham LS, Zamboanga BL, Bacon AK, & Garcia TA (2009). Drinking motives as mediators of social anxiety and hazardous drinking among college students. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 38(3), 133–145. doi: 10.1080/16506070802610889. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Harford TC, Wechsler H, & Muthen BO (2003). Alcohol-related aggression and drinking at off-campus parties and bars: A national study of current drinkers in college. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64(5), 704–711. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2003.64.704. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hasking P, Lyvers M, & Carlopio C (2011). The relationship between coping strategies, alcohol expectancies, drinking motives and drinking behaviour. Addictive Behaviors, 36(5), 479–487. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.01.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Kaiser HF (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141–151. doi: 10.1177/001316446002000116. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Kerr DC, Capaldi DM, Owen LD, Wiesner M, & Pears KC (2011). Changes in at-risk American men’s crime and substance use trajectories following fatherhood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73(5), 1101–1116. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00864.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Kuntsche E, Knibbe R, Gmel G, & Engels R (2005). Why do young people drink? A review of drinking motives. Clinical Psychology Review, 25(7), 841–861. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2005.06.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kuntsche E, & Kuntsche S (2009). Development and validation of the drinking motive questionnaire revised short form (DMQ–R SF). Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 38(6), 899–908. doi: 10.1080/15374410903258967. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Li P, Stuart EA, & Allison DB (2015). Multiple imputation: a flexible tool for handling missing data. JAMA, 314(18), 1966–1967. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.15281. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Lipari RN, & Jean-Francois B (2016). A day in the life of college students aged 18 to 22: substance use facts. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Lipson SK, Zhou S, Wagner B III, Beck K, & Eisenberg D (2016). Major differences: variations in undergraduate and graduate student mental health and treatment utilization across academic disciplines. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 30(1), 23–41. doi: 10.1080/87568225.2016.1105657. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Magid V, Maclean MG, & Colder CR (2007). Differentiating between sensation seeking and impulsivity through their mediated relations with alcohol use and problems. Addictive Behaviors, 32(10), 2046–2061. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.01.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Martens MP, Neighbors C, Lewis MA, Lee CM, Oster-Aaland L, & Larimer ME (2008a). The roles of negative affect and coping motives in the relationship between alcohol use and alcohol-related problems among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 69, 412–419. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2008.69.412. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Martens MP, Rocha TL, Martin JL, & Serrao HF (2008b). Drinking motives and college students: Further examination of a four-factor model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(2), 289–295. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.55.2.289. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Marzell M, Bavarian N, Paschall MJ, Mair C, & Saltz RF (2015). Party characteristics, drinking settings, and college students’ risk of intoxication: A multi-campus study. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 36(4), 247–258. doi: 10.1007/s10935-015-0393-4s. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Merrill JE, & Read JP (2010). Motivational pathways to unique types of alcohol consequences. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 24(4), 705–711. doi: 10.1037/a0020135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Molnar DS, Sadava SW, DeCourville NH, & Perrier CP (2010). Attachment, motivations, and alcohol: testing a dual-path model of high-risk drinking and adverse consequences in transitional clinical and student samples. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 42(1), 1–13. doi: 10.1037/a0016759. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. O’Hara RE, Armeli S, & Tennen H (2015). College students’ drinking motives and social-contextual factors: Comparing associations across levels of analysis. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 29(2), 420–429. doi: 10.1037/adb0000046. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Oesterle S, Hawkins JD, & Hill KG (2011). Men’s and women’s pathways to adulthood and associated substance misuse. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 72(5), 763–773. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2011.72.763. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Paradis C, Demers A, Nadeau L, & Picard E (2011). Parenthood, alcohol intake, and drinking contexts: occasio furem facit. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 72(2), 259–269. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2011.72.259. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Paschall MJ, & Saltz RF (2007). Relationships between college settings and student alcohol use before, during and after events: A multi level study. Drug and Alcohol Review, 26(6), 634–644. doi: 10.1080/09595230701613601. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Patrick ME, Lee CM, & Larimer ME (2011a). Drinking motives, protective behavioral strategies, and experienced consequences: identifying students at risk. Addictive Behaviors, 36(3), 270–273. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2010.11.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Patrick ME, Schulenberg JE, O’Malley PM, Maggs JL, Kloska DD, Johnston LD, & Bachman JG (2011b). Age-related changes in reasons for using alcohol and marijuana from ages 18 to 30 in a national sample. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 25(2), 330–339. doi: 10.1037/a0022445. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Rubin DB (1976). Inference and missing data. Biometrika(3), 581–592. doi: 10.1093/biomet/63.3.581. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Rubin DB (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  43. Schulenberg JE, Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG, Miech RA, & Patrick ME (2018). Monitoring the Future: National survey results on drug use, 1975–2017: Volume 2, College students and adults ages 19–55. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. [Google Scholar]
  44. Shah AA, Bazargan-Hejazi S, Lindstrom RW, & Wolf KE (2009). Prevalence of at-risk drinking among a national sample of medical students. Substance Abuse, 30(2), 141–149. doi: 10.1080/08897070902802067. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Staff J, Schulenberg JE, Maslowsky J, Bachman JG, O’Malley PM, Maggs JL, & Johnston LD (2010). Substance use changes and social role transitions: proximal developmental effects on ongoing trajectories from late adolescence through early adulthood. Development and Psychopathology, 22(4), 917–932. doi: 10.1017/S0954579410000544. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Stecker T (2004). Well-being in an academic environment. Medical Education, 38(5), 465–478. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2929.2004.01812.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Vernig PMO, S. M.. (2015). Drinking motives and college alcohol problems: a prospective study. Journal of Substance Use, 20(5), 340–346. doi: 10.3109/14659891.2014.923053. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. White A, & Hingson R (2013). The burden of alcohol use: Excessive alcohol consumption and related consequences among college students. Alcohol Research: Current Reviews, 35(2), 201–218. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. White HR, Anderson KG, Ray AE, & Mun E-Y (2016). Do drinking motives distinguish extreme drinking college students from their peers? Addictive Behaviors, 60, 213–218. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.04.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Yong AG, & Pearce S (2013). A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 9(2), 79–94. doi: 10.20982/tqmp.09.2.p079. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES