Is Bringing One’s Own Alcohol to Parties Protective or Risky? A Prospective Examination of Sexual Victimization Among First-Year College Women

Abstract

Objective:

This study assessed whether college women who bring their own alcohol to parties (BYOB) are less vulnerable to sexual victimization (SV).

Participants:

Participants were 652 female freshmen (M age = 18.04 years) at a large, public university.

Methods:

Women were recruited by email to complete online surveys of their drinking-related behaviors and sexual experiences in September (T1) and November (T2) of their first college semester.

Results:

Approximately 47% of our sample reported BYOB. Women who reported BYOB more frequently at T1 were more likely to report SV at T2 when accounting for risk factors, including prior SV, heavy episodic drinking, and hookups. Specifically, BYOB predicted contact and rape, but not coercion.

Conclusions:

Findings suggested BYOB does not prevent college SV, but rather may increase risk. We encourage college health professionals and researchers to target BYOB to better understand this common behavior and help students recognize potential for associated harm.

An estimated 20% of college women experience sexual victimization (SV), or sexual assault.¹ Female students are five times more likely to be victimized than male students,² making them an important target for prevention efforts. Studies commonly examine different SV types, such as contact (unwanted kissing or touching), coercion (verbally pressured intercourse, oral sex, or other sex acts), and rape (incapacitated or physically forced intercourse, oral sex, or other sex acts).³ SV is associated with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and health risk behaviors that predict revictimization, including heavy drinking, drug use, and risky sex.^3–6

Alcohol consumption is strongly associated with SV.⁷ At least 50% of college SV incidents involve alcohol consumption by the victim, perpetrator, or both.⁸ Heavy episodic drinking (HED) is particularly risky because it impairs risk perception⁹ and resistance of unwanted sexual advances.¹⁰ Although some perpetrators may covertly administer drugs as a rape tactic, few SV incidents result from having one’s drink spiked with drugs such as Rohypnol (“roofies”).^11–14 Most college rapes are committed when the victim is incapacitated from voluntary alcohol intoxication.¹⁵

College students express disproportionate fears of drink spiking,^16,17 which lead them to engage in behaviors designed to prevent drugging. For example, students report watching drinks, not accepting drinks from strangers, and drinking fast to avoid leaving drinks unattended, the last of which paradoxically may lead to greater intoxication.¹⁶ Colleges warn women against consuming premixed drinks (“jungle juice”), which may contain unknown amounts of alcohol or drugs.¹⁷ In response, women may view bringing their own drinks to parties as a way to bypass potentially dangerous drinks and reduce SV risk.

Bringing your own alcoholic beverage (BYOB) is common at college parties. Nearly two-thirds of college partygoers BYOB,¹⁸ and students drink more heavily at BYOB parties than at parties with host-provided alcohol.^19,20 To our knowledge, no published studies have examined associations between BYOB and SV. The current study examined whether BYOB prospectively predicts SV in first-year female college students, who are at greater SV risk than returning students.^21,22 The study had two aims. First, we assessed whether BYOB predicted any SV. To the extent that BYOB prevents exposure to drugged drinks or “jungle juice”, it may reduce SV risk. However, alcohol may be more accessible to students when they supply it themselves, potentially resulting in heavy drinking which is a strong SV predictor.^7,15 Thus, we tested competing hypotheses that BYOB is protective (reduces risk) and risky (increases risk). Second, we explored associations between BYOB and specific SV types (contact, coercion, rape³). Analyses accounted for known college SV predictors, including previous SV,²³ HED,²⁴ and hookups (sexual activity outside of committed relationships).²⁵

Method

Procedures and participants

Participants were recruited from the incoming class at a large, public Northeastern university to participate in two online surveys during their first semester. Recruitment emails were sent to all entering female students aged 18–19 who were United States residents (N = 1,203). Students arrived on campus in late August 2018 and were invited to complete an online survey of their drinking-related behaviors and sexual experiences in early September 2018 (T1). A follow-up survey occurred in November 2018 (T2). Survey invitations included a unique link to a secure website where students could input their IDs and provide consent. Women who did not initially respond received up to four reminders. Participants were paid $25 per survey. Procedures were approved by the University’s Institutional Review Board.

The T1 response rate was 63.2% (n = 760). Over 86% of participants completed T2 (n = 654). The analytic sample consisted of 652 women (M age = 18.04 years) with complete data on both surveys. Racial/ethnic groups included White (58.5%), Asian (23.0%), African American (9.6%), mixed/other (8.9%), and Hispanic (7.5%). Participants identified as heterosexual (84.0%), bisexual/questioning (13.7%), or lesbian (2.3%). Most lived on campus (78.2%). The sample’s racial/ethnic distribution was similar to that of the freshman class as a whole.

Individuals who engage in casual sex are at increased risk for SV.^25–28 Victimization risk during hookups is particularly heightened for women,^29,30 especially when consuming alcohol.³¹ As such, the original study involved a randomized controlled trial of a brief intervention designed to prevent SV by reducing female students’ casual sex partners.³² At the conclusion of the T1 survey, half the participants were randomly assigned to receive normative information regarding peers’ sexual behavior. The intervention had no direct effects on T2 hookups or SV.³²

Measures

SV

At T1 and T2, women completed a 12-item version of the Revised Sexual Experiences Survey.³ T1 assessed SV since age 14, while T2 assessed SV during the first college semester (August to November). Three potential perpetrator tactics (verbal coercion, physical harm/threats of harm, incapacitation) served as stems, followed by four potential unwanted sexual experiences (contact, attempted intercourse, completed intercourse, oral sex/other sex acts). Women who endorsed any item were coded as experiencing SV. Although it was possible for participants to report multiple SV types, women’s experiences were scaled according to one type of violence: no SV, contact, coercion, or attempted/completed rape. This method is consistent with traditional scoring,³³ but these categorizations do not necessarily reflect women’s subjective ratings of trauma severity.^34,35

BYOB

At T1, women indicated how often they bring their own alcohol to parties, on average. Responses ranged from 0 (Never) to 6 (All the time) (M = 1.89, SD = 2.30).

HED

At T1, women reported the average number of days per month they: 1) consume 4+ alcoholic drinks and 2) drink enough to feel drunk/intoxicated. These highly correlated items (r = 0.88) were averaged to create a composite HED frequency score³⁶ (M = 1.68, SD = 2.67).

Hookups

At T1, women reported the number of hookups they had since beginning college. Hookups were defined as sexual encounters between strangers, friends, or acquaintances—people not in a relationship together—where physical interaction (e.g., kissing) is typical and may/may not involve intercourse³⁷ (M = 0.36, SD = 0.78).

Analytic plan

Responses were open-ended for HED and hookups, yielding a few extreme values. These variables were Winsorized at the 97^th percentile. Two separate sets of models were estimated. First, we performed stepwise binomial logistic regression to predict the odds of experiencing any SV at T2. We entered prior SV, T1 HED frequency, and T1 hookups on Step 1 as control variables, followed by T1 BYOB frequency on Step 2. Second, we used multinomial logistic regression to predict the odds of experiencing contact, coercion, or rape at T2, relative to no SV (reference group), when accounting for T1 BYOB frequency and the same control variables. We controlled for the intervention in all analyses. It had no significant effects and is omitted from results for parsimony.

Results

Preliminary analyses

At T1, 28.8% of participants (n = 188) reported prior SV. At T2, 12.7% (n = 83) reported college SV. Categorizations among those who reported college SV included contact (43.4%; n = 36), coercion (32.5%; n = 27), and rape (24.1%; n = 20). At T1, 46.5% of participants (n = 303) reported BYOB. Of these, 27.7% (n = 84) reported BYOB “all the time”. BYOB was correlated with prior SV (r = .17), college SV (r = .24), HED (r = .53), and hookups (r = .30), all ps < .01.

Does BYOB predict SV?

Results for models predicting any T2 SV are presented at the top of Table 1. Step 1, which included prior SV, HED, and hookups, accounted for 21% of the variance in T2 SV, X² (4) = 77.59, p < .001, Nagelkerke R² = .21. Step 2, which added BYOB, accounted for an additional 3% of the variance, X² (5) = 87.34, p < .001, Nagelkerke R² = .24. BYOB was positively associated with T2 SV. Women who reported bringing their own drinks more frequently were more likely to experience SV. With each one-unit increase in BYOB frequency, SV odds increased by 21%, b = 0.19, SE = 0.06, p = .002, Exp(b) = 1.21.

Table 1.

Logistic regression models predicting T2 SV (N = 652).

								95% CI
Any T2 SVa		b	SE	Wald	df	p	Exp(b)	Lower	Upper
1	(Constant)	−2.96	0.25	143.77	1	.000	0.05
	Prior SV	1.46	0.26	32.42	1	.000	4.32	2.61	7.14
	T1 HED	0.11	0.04	6.91	1	.009	1.12	1.03	1.21
	T1 hookups	0.50	0.13	14.29	1	.000	1.65	1.27	2.13
2	(Constant)	−3.31	0.29	133.54	1	.000	0.04
	Prior SV	1.45	0.26	31.35	1	.000	4.25	2.56	7.06
	T1 HED	0.05	0.05	0.99	1	.319	1.05	0.96	1.15
	T1 hookups	0.46	0.13	12.31	1	.000	1.59	1.23	2.05
	T1 BYOB	0.19	0.06	9.78	1	.002	1.21	1.07	1.36
								95% CI
Type of T2 SVb		b	SE	Wald	df	p	Exp(b)	Lower	Upper
T2 contact	(Intercept)	−4.36	0.44	99.90	1	.000
	Prior SV	1.37	0.37	14.07	1	.000	3.93	1.92	8.04
	T1 HED	0.10	0.06	2.78	1	.096	1.11	0.98	1.25
	T1 hookups	0.26	0.19	1.96	1	.162	1.30	0.90	1.89
	T1 BYOB	0.22	0.09	6.54	1	.011	1.25	1.05	1.48
T2 coercion	(Intercept)	−4.05	0.44	85.99	1	.000
	Prior SV	1.42	0.42	11.28	1	.001	4.15	1.81	9.53
	T1 HED	0.05	0.08	0.37	1	.541	1.05	0.90	1.22
	T1 hookups	0.70	0.19	13.47	1	.000	2.01	1.38	2.91
	T1 BYOB	0.00	0.10	0.00	1	.973	1.00	0.82	1.23
T2 rape	(Intercept)	−5.08	0.61	69.07	1	.000
	Prior SV	1.57	0.49	10.24	1	.001	4.80	1.84	12.57
	T1 HED	−0.06	0.09	0.44	1	.506	0.94	0.79	1.12
	T1 hookups	0.45	0.23	3.80	1	.051	1.58	1.00	2.49
	T1 BYOB	0.38	0.12	10.76	1	.001	1.46	1.17	1.83

Note. SV = sexual victimization; HED = heavy episodic drinking; BYOB = bringing your own alcoholic beverage. The reference category for prior SV is none.

^a1 = any, 0 = none.

^bThe reference category is no SV.

Does BYOB predict specific SV types?

Results for models predicting SV type at T2 are shown at the bottom of Table 1. After accounting for prior SV, HED, and hookups, bringing drinks more frequently was associated with increased odds of experiencing contact or rape, relative to no SV. Each one-unit increase in BYOB frequency was associated with 25% increased odds of being in the contact group, b = 0.22, SE = 0.09, p = .011, Exp(b) = 1.25, and 46% increased odds of being in the rape group, b = 0.38, SE = 0.12, p = .001, Exp(b) = 1.46. BYOB did not predict coercion.

Alternative models

In the above models, BYOB frequency was recoded to 0 for 167 women (80.8% non-drinkers) who indicated that BYOB was not applicable, allowing use of the full sample. We repeated analyses without these women and obtained identical results. To account for a wider range of drinking patterns, we also estimated models that controlled for number of drinks consumed on typical occasions (rather than HED frequency) and obtained identical findings.

Comment

The current study used a prospective longitudinal design to explore whether BYOB at the beginning of the first college semester predicted SV at the end of the same semester. We used a sizable female sample recruited from the incoming class at a large, public university. Despite being underage, nearly half the women reported BYOB. Almost one-third of those who reported BYOB said they did it all the time, consistent with prior research suggesting BYOB is common among college students.¹⁸

Although women may believe BYOB is protective given well-publicized risks of drink spiking,¹⁷ women who engaged in this behavior more often were at greater SV risk. Results were obtained after controlling for prior SV, HED, and hookups, suggesting BYOB conferred additional risk beyond known risk factors. When we looked at specific SV types, BYOB increased risk of contact and rape but not coercion. A possible explanation for the null finding is that, compared to other SV types, coercion is more likely to occur in dating relationships and less likely to involve alcohol use.^38,39

Surprisingly, HED did not predict SV when controlling for BYOB. It is possible that BYOB is a proxy for other risky alcohol-related behaviors that may account for more variance in SV, such as pregaming,^40,41 party attendance,²¹ and underage acquisition of alcohol.^42–44 Future research should examine how much BYOB overlaps with other risk behaviors. Perhaps women who BYOB are highly motivated to drink and use this strategy to ensure that their preferred alcoholic beverage is available. Paradoxically, research has demonstrated that engaging in behaviors designed to prevent SV may lead to greater alcohol consumption. For example, women have been found to drink more on days when they use more sexual assault protective behavioral strategies, including walking home with friends and meeting dates in public.⁴⁵ Research has also established associations between SV-related PTSD and drinking to cope.^46,47 PTSD was beyond the study’s scope, but it is plausible that some women in our sample may have been drinking to cope with prior SV. Future studies should examine how prior SV, PTSD, and drinking behaviors collectively influence revictimization risk.

Limitations

Our single-item measure assessed BYOB frequency. Future research may elucidate why BYOB seems to increase SV risk by assessing how women implement this strategy (e.g., type, quantity of alcohol brought) and examining other variables that may account for this relationship (e.g., pregaming; drinking motives). Additionally, the current study did not use event-level data and we do not know whether women were victimized on the same occasions when they brought alcohol. Future research could inform college SV prevention efforts by examining event-level associations among BYOB and SV and identifying contextual risk factors that are present on occasions when women are victimized.

Conclusions

Findings suggested BYOB does not prevent college SV, but rather may increase risk. Interventions to reduce drinking and related consequences (e.g., brief motivational interviews) may benefit from incorporating content that helps students to understand BYOB’s potential risks. Meanwhile, more research is needed to clarify BYOB’s role in SV, particularly whether it is a unique risk behavior or a proxy for other risk behaviors.