Event-Specific Drinking and Protective Behavioral Strategy Use among College Students

Abstract

Background

Event-specific drinking occasions (e.g. holidays, special occasions, school breaks) have been associated with heavy drinking and negative alcohol-related consequences among college students. The current study extends prior research by examining understudied holidays and changes in protective behavioral strategy use during these event-specific drinking occasions.

Method

Participants were 537 college students between the ages of 18 and 24 who retrospectively reported drinking in the past two weeks. Several alcohol use variables (e.g., frequency, quantity, heavy episodic drinking frequency), negative alcohol-related consequences, and protective behavioral strategies were assessed for the previous 14 days. Ten event-specific drinking occasions were coded for the 14-day reporting period. A series of Analysis of Covariance models were conducted to examine differences on alcohol use variables, negative consequences, and protective behavioral strategies for weeks that included an event-specific drinking occasion relative to a no holiday reference timeframe.

Results

Compared to the no holiday reference group, several event-specific drinking occasions (e.g., Labor Day, Martin Luther King Day) were associated with greater alcohol use, negative consequences, and protective behavioral strategy use. In contrast, other occasions were determined to be low-risk holidays (e.g., Veterans Day) when protective behavioral strategies were less frequently used. Some occasions (e.g., spring break) did not exhibit the expected clear pattern of risk.

Conclusions

College students’ alcohol use, negative consequences, and protective behavioral strategy use vary across event-specific drinking occasions. Determining which event-specific drinking occasions are associated with risky alcohol use and the lowest use of harm reduction strategies is important for prevention and intervention programs.

Alcohol use is a major public health concern among college students. Findings from the 2017 National Survey on Drug Use and Health revealed that those enrolled in college (aged 18 to 22) were more likely to report alcohol use (53.6%), binge drinking (34.8%), and heavy drinking (i.e., binge drinking on five or more days; 11.0%) in the past month compared with their non-college attending peers (alcohol use: 48.2%, binge drinking: 32.8%, heavy drinking: 9.8%; Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, 2018). Additionally, alcohol-related consequences (e.g., missing class, academic problems, blackouts, and sexual assault; see White & Hingson, 2013 for a review) have been well-documented among this group. Drinking may be particularly high during event-specific drinking occasions (e.g., holidays, special occasions, and school breaks). Moreover, students may be less willing to use strategies to mitigate harms associated with alcohol use during these occasions if they do not align with their goals. The current study examines college student alcohol use during event-specific drinking occasions, including multiple indicators of high-risk drinking as well as the use of strategies to minimize harms.

College students report elevated alcohol consumption, higher blood alcohol concentration (BAC), and more alcohol-related negative consequences on event-specific drinking occasions (e.g., Spring Break, New Year’s Eve, July 4th; Neighbors et al., 2011). Spring Break is consistently supported as a high-risk event-specific drinking occasion (Riordan, Flett, Lam, Conner, & Scarf, 2016). For instance, among a sample of female college students, participants reported drinking more often, binge drinking more frequently (i.e., consuming four or more drinks), and were more likely to ride in a car with an impaired driver during Spring Break, as compared to the 30 days prior to Spring Break (Ragsdale et al., 2012). Similarly, in a study of student drinking across their first year of college, fewer students abstained from drinking and more students engaged in binge drinking during Spring Break (Del Boca, Darkes, Greenbaum, & Goldman, 2004). Further, among undergraduate college students who recently turned 21 years old, several holidays, including Spring Break, were associated with a greater likelihood to drink and higher BAC compared to their typical weekend drinking (Neighbors et al., 2011). However, not all holidays are associated with increased alcohol involvement. For example, Neighbors et al. (2011) also found that Memorial Day was associated with a lower likelihood to drink and lower BAC. In another study of emerging adults (both college students and non-students), drinking during the weeks of Labor Day and Memorial Day was not associated with increased alcohol use (Goldman, Greenbaum, Darkes, Brandon, & Del Boca, 2011). To the best of our knowledge, other federal holidays (e.g., Columbus Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day) where school may be closed have not been examined as event-specific drinking occasions in prior literature.

Elevated drinking also occurs on other event-specific drinking occasions involving celebration, such as St. Patrick’s Day and Halloween (Tremblay et al., 2010; Martell et al., 2006; Neighbors et al., 2011). For example, among a sample of college students, alcohol use was greater during the week of St. Patrick’s Day than the week before (Tremblay et al., 2010). Findings for drinking during Halloween among college students are mixed, as some studies indicate a higher likelihood to drink and greater weekly alcohol quantity (Martell et al., 2006; Tremblay et al., 2010) while another study found a lower likelihood of drinking and alcohol quantity (Woodyard & Hallam, 2010). Another event-specific occasion involving celebration, the Super Bowl, was associated with a lower likelihood of drinking (Neighbors et al., 2011). In addition, other holidays that may influence drinking (e.g., Veterans Day, Presidents’ Day, etc.) remain unexplored. Thus, scant and inconsistent research on these holidays warrant further investigation.

Protective behavioral strategies (PBS), defined as behaviors that individuals engage in to reduce excessive alcohol use and/or negative consequences (e.g., alternating between alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks, having a designated driver; Martens et al., 2004) are one way students may protect themselves against the harms associated with alcohol use. Prior research has shown that, within-person, more PBS use is associated with less drinking and fewer negative alcohol consequences that day (Araas & Adams, 2008; Braitman, Henson, & Carey, 2015; Kenney & LaBrie, 2013; Lewis et al., 2012; Martens et al., 2004; Pearson, D’Lima, & Kelley, 2013). Further, a recent study among Greek-life affiliated college students revealed that positively framing messages about PBS subsequently increased the likelihood of using PBS harm reduction strategies during Spring Break (Sargent, Kilwein, Dvorak, Looby, Stevenson, & Kramer, 2018). In turn, this decreased alcohol consequences, and this effect was strongest for those who did not believe that PBS use common during Spring Break. However, it is unknown if PBS use changes without implementation of an intervention for event-specific occasions considered higher or lower risk for drinking (e.g., holidays, spring break). Despite the increased attention on prevention and intervention programs, rates of alcohol use among college students have remained stable or only slightly declined (Dawson, Goldstein, Saha, & Grant, 2015; Schulenberg et al., 2018). Therefore, continuing to develop an understanding of variables that may influence alcohol use among college students, such as identifying high-risk event-specific drinking occasions and PBS use during these occasions, is important to reduce negative alcohol-related consequences.

Due to the mixed findings in event-specific drinking literature and in order to expand our knowledge, it is important to replicate prior research as well as examine a variety of as yet unexplored federal holidays (e.g., Presidents’ Day) that may be associated with more risky drinking and negative alcohol-related consequences among college students. Moreover, it is important to examine if there are event-specific drinking occasions when students reduce their use of PBS to minimize harm. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to examine differences across non-holiday and event-specific drinking timeframes on several alcohol use indicators, negative alcohol-related consequences, and PBS.

Method

Participants and Procedures

Participants for the current study were 537 college students who participated in a larger trial examining the effectiveness of post-intervention booster feedback for reducing alcohol use. See Braitman and Lau-Barraco 2018 for details. To be eligible for the original study, students had to be ages 18 to 24 and report consuming at least one alcoholic drink in the past two weeks. Participants reported an average age of 19.65 (SD = 1.67), were primarily female (67.4%, n = 362), White (49.8%, n = 262) or Black (35.8%, n = 201), not Hispanic (89.7%, n = 479), single (73.4%, n = 394) or in a committed relationship (23.8%, n = 128), lived in an on-campus dormitory (50.0%, n = 268), off-campus house or apartment (31.0%, n = 166), or with family (14.0%, n = 75), and were not part of a Greek sorority/fraternity (90.3%, n = 484). The current examination uses only data that was collected at baseline prior to the alcohol-focused intervention. All procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the participating university.

Materials

Alcohol use

A modified version of the Daily Drinking Questionnaire (i.e., DDQ; Collins, Parks, & Marlatt, 1985) was used to assess number of standard drinks consumed each day of the past two calendar weeks (14 days). Seven indices of drinking were calculated. Alcohol quantity was the total number of drinks consumed and alcohol frequency was the total number of days reported drinking in the past 14 days. Participants also reported the peak number of drinks and the peak number of hours they drank in a single day during the past 14 days. Typical and peak BAC in the past 14 days were also calculated (Matthews & Miller, 1979). Heavy episodic drinking (HED) frequency was calculated as the number of days in the past 14 that females/males reported consuming 4+/5+ standard drinks. The DDQ has shown good convergent validity (Collins et al., 1985) and reliability using collateral reports (Marlatt et al., 1998).

Alcohol consequences

The Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire (YAACQ; Read, Kahler, Strong, & Colder, 2006) is a 48-item measure used to examine negative alcohol-related consequences in the past 14 days. Participants indicated yes (1) or no (0) if they experienced each alcohol consequence. A total score was computed by summing together all affirmative responses with higher scores indicating more alcohol consequences in the past two weeks (α = .88). The YAACQ has demonstrated high internal-consistency, test-retest reliability, concurrent and predictive validity among college student samples (Dvorak et al., 2014; Read, Merrill, Kahler, & Strong, 2007).

Protective behavioral strategies

The Strategy Questionnaire (SQ; Sugarman & Carey, 2007) is a 21-item measure used to examine what strategies the participant used (if any) to reduce alcohol use and related consequences in the past 14 days. Participants responded to each item indicating the exact frequency of using each strategy, including 0, 1 time, 2 times, 3 times, etc., through more than 10 times in the past two weeks. The SQ includes three subscales: Selective Avoidance, Strategies While Drinking, and Alternatives to Drinking. Consistent with recommendations by Braitman, Henson, and Carey (2015), values for the Selective Avoidance and Strategies While Drinking subscales were divided by the number of drinking days reported by each participant to yield a more precise measure contingent on alcohol use frequency. A total score was computed by summing together the Alternatives to Drinking subscale and the modified scores of the Selective Avoidance and Strategies While Drinking subscales. The total score was used for the current study where higher scores indicated more PBS use in the past two weeks (α = .94). Prior research using the modified scoring of the SQ has shown good internal consistency among college students (Braitman et al., 2015; Carey, Lust, Reid, Kalichman, & Cary, 2016).

Holidays

Following a Timeline Follow-back approach (TLFB; Sobell & Sobell, 1992), participants reported about their drinking behavior for the 14 days prior to starting the study. Trained research assistants coded the event-specific occasions that occurred during the 14-day reporting period for each participant. Data collection occurred over one full calendar year, allowing the capture of many holidays. Focusing on unaggregated (day-specific) data was considered, as well as a shorter timeframe (i.e., one week). However, it was determined to aggregate across all 14 days reported because: (a) drinking celebrations may occur at a time more convenient to the student rather than on the holiday in which it falls, and (b) this celebration may be in a different calendar week than the actual holiday (e.g., on Friday or Saturday prior to a Monday holiday rather than on the holiday itself). Examining data across a 14-day period is similar to prior research (e.g., Del Boca et al., 2004; Goldman et al., 2011). Because of this approach, some holidays occurred during the same 14-day reporting period for some participants but not others, so several combinations of event-specific occasions were created. The event-specific occasions included in the current study were: (1) Martin Luther King Jr. Day (MLK) only, (2) the Superbowl, (3) MLK Day and the Superbowl, (4) the weekend before Presidents’ Day, (5) Presidents’ Day only, (6) Spring Break and St. Patrick’s Day, (7) Labor Day, (8) fall holiday and Columbus Day, (9) Halloween, and (10) Veteran’s Day. Thanksgiving, Independence Day, Memorial Day, and the weekend before Labor Day were coded, but not included in the current analyses due to low participant frequency (< 10 people completed the survey during each of these dates). A single event-specific occasion variable was created to indicate each of the ten holidays/groupings as well as completing the study during a period with no holidays (reference group).

Data Analysis

First, outliers were identified and Winsorized to the next highest value. Variables were normally distributed after addressing outliers. A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were computed with event-specific occasion (i.e., holiday) entered as a predictor variable and each alcohol variable (alcohol quantity, alcohol frequency, peak drinks, peak hours, typical BAC, peak BAC, HED frequency, alcohol consequences, and PBS) as the outcome variable. Sex, age, race, marital status, and Greek sorority/fraternity membership were included as covariates in all models due to their associations with the outcomes of interest. Rather than focus on the omnibus tests, the current study focused on the adjusted means estimated for each event-specific occasion, accounting for the control variables. Additionally, confidence intervals were estimated for each event-specific occasion, including the no holiday reference group. The adjusted mean for each event-specific occasion was compared with the confidence interval of the no holiday reference group. Holidays/occasions were determined to be significantly different if the adjusted mean for the event-specific occasion did not fall within the confidence interval for the no holiday reference group.

Results

Descriptive information of the total sample indicated that participants reported drinking an average of 17.58 (SD = 16.91) drinks and 3.88 (SD = 2.41) days in the past 14 days. The average typical BAC of the total sample was .069 (SD = .056). The average peak number of drinks consumed by the total sample was 6.08 (SD = 4.18), peak hours drank was 3.66 (SD = 2.40), and peak BAC was .111 (SD = .092). Participants reported an average of 1.91 (SD = 2.02) days of HED. Further, participants reported an average of 6.87 (SD = 6.00) alcohol consequences and average PBS use was 33.48 (SD = 26.34).

Table 1 contains the adjusted means for each event-specific coding (including no holiday) across all outcomes. Values in bold font are significantly different from the no holiday reference, with underlines indicating higher than the confidence interval, and italics indicating lower than the confidence interval. Figures 1 and 2 display the mean and confidence interval for the no holiday reference group, and the means for each event-specific drinking occasion for alcohol quantity, peak BAC, alcohol consequences, and PBS use. Values that fall outside of the confidence interval (i.e., dashed lines) are considered significantly different from the no holiday reference group. As shown in Table 1 (bold font and italics), some event-specific drinking occasions represent lower risk. For example, the weekend before Presidents’ Day as well as Veterans Day resulted in less risky drinking (e.g., lower quantity, typical BAC, peak number of drinks, peak BAC, fewer drinking days, and fewer HED days) and fewer alcohol consequences. PBS use was also higher on the weekend before Presidents’ Day. Results were less clear-cut for MLK Day-only, with peak number of drinks being lower and PBS use being higher than the no holiday reference group, but many outcomes not being significantly different, and frequency of HED actually being higher.

Table 1.

Adjusted Means for Alcohol Use, Alcohol Problems, and Protective Behavioral Strategies Based on Holiday

	n	Quant	Freq	Typical BAC	Peak Drinks	Peak Hours	Peak BAC	HED Freq	Conseq	PBS
No Holiday (reference group)	181	17.94	3.94	.073	6.25	3.71	.117	1.92	6.92	33.60
No Holiday CI: lower limit		15.66	3.60	.065	5.69	3.38	.104	1.64	6.05	29.72
No Holiday CI: upper limit		20.22	4.28	.081	6.81	4.04	.130	2.21	7.79	37.48
MLK Day only	16	18.43	4.06	.076	5.56	3.02	.117	2.41	7.75	42.34
Superbowl	42	17.36	3.86	.067	5.86	3.70	.103	1.95	6.40	33.47
MLK Day + Superbowl	20	19.55	4.73	.069	6.19	4.02	.122	1.79	6.18	36.36
Weekend before Presidents’ Day	11	11.71	2.73	.061	5.12	2.89	.083	1.14	6.62	50.50
Presidents’ Day only	30	19.16	3.93	.074	6.29	3.22	.114	2.17	7.64	27.07
Spring Break + St. Patrick’s Day	32	18.43	4.01	.080	6.58	3.68	.132	1.80	6.67	31.68
Labor Day	60	18.99	3.93	.071	6.91	3.56	.128	2.00	8.83	34.54
Fall holiday + Columbus Day	33	18.02	3.75	.075	6.38	4.09	.117	1.90	7.16	33.99
Halloween	43	20.11	4.17	.067	6.14	3.98	.101	2.39	6.63	35.97
Veterans Day	43	11.72	2.98	.059	4.76	2.83	.087	1.40	4.30	26.88

Note. All models controlled for sex, age, race, marital status, and Greek status. CI = 95% confidence interval. Values indicate means adjusted for sex, age, race, marital status, and Greek sorority/fraternity membership. Bold values indicate significantly different from the no holiday reference group. Underlined values indicate significantly higher than the no holiday reference group, and values in italics indicate significantly lower than the no holiday reference group. Quant = alcohol quantity, Freq = alcohol frequency, BAC = estimated blood alcohol concentration, peak drinks = number of drinks on highest drinking occasion, peak hours = number of hours that passed on that occasion, peak BAC = BAC on that occasion, HED Freq = heavy episodic drinking frequency, Conseq = negative alcohol consequences, PBS = protective behavioral strategies.

Figure 1.

Mean alcohol quantity and peak blood alcohol concentration (BAC) for each event-specific drinking occasion compared to the no holiday reference group. The solid line indicates the mean and the dashed lines represent the upper and lower limit of the confidence intervals for the no holiday reference group.

Figure 2.

Mean alcohol consequences and protective behavioral strategy (PBS) use for each event-specific drinking occasion compared to the no holiday reference group. The solid line indicates the mean and the dashed lines represent the upper and lower limit of the confidence intervals for the no holiday reference group.

In contrast, several event-specific drinking occasions were associated with greater alcohol use and consequences (see Table 1, bold font and underlined). Compared to the no holiday reference group, alcohol frequency was higher for those who participated in the study during MLK Day and the Superbowl combined. Further, the peak number of drinks was higher for those who participated during Labor Day, and peak BAC was higher for those who participated during Spring Break and St. Patrick’s Day combined, relative to the no holiday reference group. Similarly, compared to the no holiday reference group, frequency of HED was higher during Halloween. Alcohol consequences were higher for those who participated during Labor Day, compared to the no holiday reference group. Additionally, compared to the no holiday reference group, participants reported using fewer PBS during Presidents’ Day as well as Veteran’s Day.

Discussion

Risky drinking among college students may be more likely to occur during event-specific drinking occasions such as celebratory events and federal holidays when college students may have off from school and fewer academic responsibilities. Despite some research focusing on celebratory holidays such as Spring Break and St. Patrick’s Day (e.g., Neighbors et al., 2011; Ragsdale et al., 2012; Riordan et al., 2016; Tremblay et al., 2010), few studies have focused on federal holidays (e.g., Presidents’ Day) that may also impact alcohol use. Further, there is a dearth of research focused on whether PBS use varies across non-holiday and holiday alcohol use occasions. The current study revealed that some holidays such as weeks that included MLK Day only, MLK Day and the Superbowl, Labor Day, and Presidents’ Day were associated with greater alcohol use and related consequences, or reduced PBS use, relative to timeframes without holidays or other special occasions.

Findings from the current study revealed that compared to drinking during weeks with no holidays, alcohol frequency was higher for those who participated during the week of MLK Day and the Superbowl combined. Further, Labor Day was associated with greater peak drinking and experiencing more negative alcohol-related consequences. Prior research has found that alcohol use and negative consequences are higher at the beginning of the semester when students may have fewer academic responsibilities (Barnett et al., 2014; Beets et al., 2009). This may explain findings from the current study because MLK Day, the Superbowl, and Labor Day fall near the beginning of the semester. Additionally, participants in the current study who participated during fall holiday break and Columbus Day reported higher peak drinking hours on a single occasion. It is plausible that students may have more time to drink during these holiday breaks because they may not have other responsibilities such as academic coursework.

Findings also showed that those who drank during the combined holidays of Spring Break and St. Patrick’s Day had a higher peak BAC on a single occasion, but not higher risk drinking for other indicators (e.g., HED, negative consequences, etc.). This was surprising given prior research indicating greater alcohol frequency, quantity, HED, and negative consequences during Spring Break (e.g., Del Boca et al., 2004; Neighbors et al., 2011; Riordan et al., 2016); moreover, the higher peak BAC in the current study cannot be disentangled from the overlap of Spring Break with St. Patrick’s Day. That is, participants were not necessarily drinking heavily more days during this period than non-holiday weeks, but instead they may have had one day where they engaged in more risky drinking, which may have been a St. Patrick’s Day celebration. Both Spring Break and fall holiday are extended vacation periods that students may use catch up on their academics, work for their employer, or spend time with family and away from their school friends. Thus, drinking may depend on the type of students at the university and perhaps those who have other responsibilities (e.g., work, family) take these opportunities to work at their job for extra money which may serve as a protective factor for drinking. However, students may have a single day that they choose to celebrate during these holiday breaks. Although employment status was not examined in the current study, future research should consider examining event-specific drinking behaviors among employed versus unemployed students.

Our findings on alcohol use during Halloween were mixed. Peak BAC was lower during Halloween compared to non-holiday occasions, but HED frequency was higher during Halloween. Students may celebrate Halloween across multiple days (e.g., over the weekend on Friday and Saturday) and thus, engage in HED more frequently during a Halloween drinking occasion. Given that the present study defined HED as 4+/5+ drinks on an occasion for women/men and did not specify a time frame (e.g., two hours), students may have consumed heavy levels of alcohol but over an extended period of time, whereby higher BACs were not achieved. This idea is supported with number of hours for their heaviest drinking occasion being slightly higher than the no holiday reference group, though not significantly so. Findings that Halloween was associated with heavy drinking is consistent with previous research (e.g., Del Boca et al., 2004; Martell et al., 2006; Tremblay et al., 2010) indicating that it may be a particularly risky holiday for student drinkers.

Two holidays were consistently low risk in the present study. Specifically, all alcohol use indicators and negative consequences were lower for Veterans Day in the current study, a holiday never previously explored in the literature. However, participants also reported using fewer PBS during this event-specific drinking occasion. Veterans Day is a holiday where campus does not close, and during the data collection period it fell during the week (Monday and Tuesday). Additionally, it is important to note that 25% of students at the participating university are affiliated with the military (Old Dominion University, 2019), that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Allied Command Transformation center and the largest naval base in the world are located in the same metropolitan area, and that an air force and an army base are located approximately 25–35 miles from the university. Thus, for participants in the current study, Veterans Day may hold particular importance and serve as a holiday for remembrance rather than for drinking. They also may participate in military-sponsored events that do not involve alcohol use. PBS use was also lower for Presidents’ Day. The majority of PBS are used during drinking situations. Perhaps college students are less likely to be in drinking situations during these holidays. Therefore, PBS use is not as critical. Interestingly, the weekend before Presidents’ Day was associated with lower drinking (e.g., lower alcohol quantity, frequency, BAC) as well, but was also associated with greater PBS use. Given that this is a weekend that occurs a few weeks into the semester, students may be in drinking environments but engage in greater levels of PBS (e.g., alternating alcoholic and nonalcoholic drinks) use to avoid risky drinking due to academic obligations.

The current findings complement the clinical relevance of prior research. Previous intervention studies suggest that it is important to consider students’ normative perceptions of PBS use. For example, Dvorak, Pearson, Neighbors, and Martens (2015) found that college students’ PBS use increased which in turn resulted in lower alcohol consumption when those who held low PBS use norms received a positively framed message about PBS, and those who held high PBS use norms received a negatively framed message. It could be that participants want to be viewed positively by their peers and therefore engage in behavior that they believe is desirable. Specifically, if they held beliefs that other students do not use PBS but then receive messaging that those who use PBS are viewed more positively by their peers, they may increase PBS use to stand out in a way that may be viewed positively. Similarly, for those who hold beliefs that PBS use is common, if they receive messages that not using PBS is undesirable then they may engage in PBS use to avoid standing out in a way that is viewed negatively. This type of normative PBS use intervention can also be effective by focusing on specific holidays (e.g., Sargent et al., 2018). Perhaps event-specific positively framed messages about those who use PBS would be beneficial at increasing PBS use and decreasing alcohol consumption. Although our results suggest that peak drinking was lower when PBS use was high during MLK Day only, HED frequency was higher during this same period. Students may be using PBS which decreases single-day peak drinking; however, they may be consuming greater alcohol use (e.g., 4+/5+ drinks) across several days during this time period. Therefore, PBS interventions that integrate normative information may need to also focus on using these strategies across multiple days during specific holiday periods.

The present study has limitations. Data were collected at a single mid-size public university, and thus, it is unclear whether similar patterns of drinking may be observed at other types of universities (e.g., liberal arts, large schools). Drinking data were also self-report and might be susceptible to retrospective recall biases. Additionally, daily-level event-specific drinking occasions were not examined. Instead, data were aggregated into 14-day blocks to compare timeframes that included event-specific drinking occasions and those that did not. This is similar to prior research (e.g., Del Boca et al., 2004; Goldman et al., 2011). Future research could collect more detailed information (e.g., drinking location, out of town) and examine daily data. Participants were young adults (18 to 24 years old) and were recruited based on recent drinking, but not based on alcohol quantity cutoffs. Results may be different among non-traditional students (e.g., older students), or a heavier drinking sample.

Conclusions

Overall, the present study extended prior research by demonstrating that students’ alcohol use, negative consequences, and PBS use may vary over time and across specific events. The present study also furthered this area of research by examining federal holidays never previously studied in the literature, such as Presidents’ Day and Veterans Day, given that these days are also recognized by universities. Findings suggested that specific holidays (i.e., MLK Day only, MLK Day and the Superbowl, Labor Day, and Presidents’ Day) were associated with greater alcohol use, negative consequences, and PBS use, whereas other holidays are associated with markedly lower risk (i.e., Veterans Day, the weekend before Presidents’ Day). Further, Spring Break did not exhibit the expected pattern of consistently higher risk drinking. Future research should examine why alcohol use behaviors (i.e., use, consequences, and PBS) on these event-specific occasions occur (e.g., specific motives) to determine which occasions pose greatest risk for young adult drinkers and inform targeted prevention and intervention efforts.