Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Apr 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Am Coll Health. 2022 Apr 15;72(3):889–896. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2022.2060043

Alcohol and Marijuana Use, Consequences, and Perceived Descriptive Norms: Differences between Two- and Four-year College Students

Jennifer C Duckworth a, Devon A Abdallah b, Michael S Gilson b, Christine M Lee b
PMCID: PMC9568620  NIHMSID: NIHMS1803607  PMID: 35427455

Abstract

Objective.

Among two-year college students, alcohol and marijuana use, related consequences, and risk factors for use are not well understood. We examined differences between two- and four-year students in alcohol and marijuana use, consequences, and perceived descriptive norms, and explored whether two-year status moderated associations between norms and use.

Participants.

Data were drawn from a cross-sectional subsample of two- and four-year students aged 18–23 (n=517) participating in a longitudinal study on alcohol use.

Results.

Four-year students reported greater alcohol use and consequences than two-year students; two-year students reported greater marijuana use than four-year students. Perceived alcohol and marijuana norms were positively related with use; two-year status did not moderate these associations.

Conclusions.

Perceived alcohol and marijuana norms function similarly for two- and four-year students in terms of associations to actual use. Adapting normative interventions for two-year students may be an effective strategy for reducing high-risk use among this underserved population.

Keywords: Alcohol, marijuana, perceived norms, community college students

Introduction

Alcohol and marijuana use are significant public health concerns in the United States with approximately $440 billion spent annually on costs related to health care, crime, and lost work productivity due to alcohol and drug use.1 Extensive research documents that college students are at heightened risk of engaging in high-risk alcohol and marijuana use and experiencing negative consequences related to use.2–5 According to 2019 data from Monitoring the Future,4 62% of college students in the United States reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 days and nearly 35% had been drunk. One-third of college students reported heavy episodic drinking (HED) in the past 2 weeks (operationalized as 5+ drinks in a row).4 Regarding marijuana use, 26% of college students used marijuana in the past 30 days and 6% reported daily marijuana use.4 Alcohol and marijuana use among college-aged young adults have been positively associated with a range of adverse outcomes, including poor academic performance, driving while intoxicated, traffic accidents, unintentional injuries and fatalities, and high rates of alcohol and substance use disorder.2, 6–9 A better understanding of substance use and risk factors for use among college students has great public health significance.

Although extensive research examines alcohol and marijuana use and effective interventions among four-year college students, little is known about use among two-year and community college students and even less about effective prevention and intervention strategies.(c.f., 10-12) This is surprising given that 40% of undergraduates in the United States are enrolled in two-year institutions and that enrollment rates at two-year institutions are outpacing those of four-year institutions.13–15 Two-year and community college students are also distinct from four-year college students. For example, two-year students are more likely than four-year students to be part-time students and full-time employees.16–18 Two-year students are older on average than four-year students, however, the majority of two-year students are young adults (average age is 28, median age is 24), a developmental period associated with high-risk substance use.5, 17, 19 Importantly, two-year colleges often have low tuition rates, open enrollment polices, and geographic proximity to home, making two-year colleges an important pathway to college education for many underrepresented and often marginalized populations, including individuals from racial and/or ethnic minoritized groups, first-generation college students, and students from low-resource families, neighborhoods, and schools.20 These differences between two- and four-year college students may impact alcohol and marijuana use and risk factors for use.

Limited research suggests that two- and four-year students differ in terms of their alcohol and marijuana use.21, 22 For example, two-year students may drink less frequently than four-year students,4, 21, 23, 24 however, two-year students are not necessarily at lower risk. Indeed, two-thirds of two-year students report alcohol use in the past month, between 25% and 50% engaged in HED, and two-year students are as likely as four-year students to report drinking-related consequences such as problems with school, relationships, and work due to alcohol use.11, 22, 25 Furthermore, two-year students may be at increased risk of any and heavy marijuana use relative to 4-year students,21, 26 particularly among two-year students who drink heavily,21 although null findings have also been reported27 and more research is needed. In a recent study using the same data examined here, Cadigan and colleagues21 conducted a latent class analyses to identify unique classes of past month alcohol, marijuana, and simultaneous alcohol and marijuana use with analyses run separately for two- and four-year students. Four unique latent classes were identified for both two- and four-year college students; however, the classes were qualitatively different. Among four-year students, the four latent classes included nonuse, light alcohol use, heavy alcohol use, and heavy alcohol with light marijuana and simultaneous alcohol and marijuana use whereas among two-year students, the four latent classes included nonuse, light alcohol use, light alcohol with heavy marijuana use, and heavy alcohol with heavy marijuana and simultaneous alcohol and marijuana use. Two-year students were more likely to belong to the nonuse and light alcohol use classes than four-year students, however, two-year students also tended to use marijuana heavily and often coupled marijuana use with heavy drinking whereas four-year students were at greater risk of heavy drinking.21

Perceived descriptive alcohol and marijuana norms

The great majority of prevention efforts aimed at decreasing high-risk alcohol and marijuana use were developed for four-year students.11, 12 However, given differences between two- and four-year college students in terms of demographics (e.g., race, ethnicity, age, socio-economic status), social roles (e.g., part-time student, parent, employee), educational goals (e.g., obtain associates degree, transfer to a four-year institution), and substance use, programming may need to be adapted to meet the needs of two-year students. Substantial research with four-year students indicates that perceived descriptive norms are among the strongest predictors of use28–32 and many effective four-year student interventions incorporate a social norms approach to reducing high-risk substance use, especially alcohol use.33, 34 Social Norms Theory35 explains how an individual’s attitudes regarding substance use are shaped by one’s perception of peer behaviors. Perceived descriptive norms refer to an individual’s perception about others’ behaviors such as how much and how often they think their peers drink alcohol or use marijuana. Most social norms research focuses on alcohol use among four-year students with findings suggesting that perceptions of others’ substance use behaviors are often inaccurate and that higher perceived norms are linked with increased use.28 Indeed, four-year college students tend to overestimate how much and how often their peers drink and four-year students also tend to perceive others are drinking more than they themselves are drinking.28, 29, 36, 37 Similar findings have been documented for marijuana use38–41 although far fewer studies have investigated these associations.

The present study

Given that 40% of undergraduates in the United States are enrolled in two-year colleges,14 the absence of research examining alcohol and marijuana among this population represents a significant gap in research. There is limited research that has examined normative perceptions of alcohol or marijuana use as potential risk factors for use among two-year college students. Given the significant differences between two- and four-year students and institutions reviewed above,16–18 research confirming similar associations between perceived norms and substance use among two-year students are needed and can inform prevention strategies specific for two-year college students.

The present study extends prior work to investigate alcohol and marijuana use, related consequences, and perceived descriptive norms among two- and four-year college students. The present study (1) examined potential differences between two- and four-year college students in alcohol and marijuana use, related consequences, and perceived alcohol and marijuana norms. Next, we (2) examined associations between perceived alcohol and marijuana norms and actual use, exploring (3) whether associations between perceived alcohol and marijuana norms and actual use were moderated by two-year college status. Based on prior research, we expected that four-year students would report greater alcohol use and related-consequences than two-year students, two-year students would report greater marijuana use and related-consequences than four-year students, and that positive associations between perceived alcohol and marijuana norms and actual use would be observed when controlling for college status. We considered tests of differences in associations between perceived alcohol and marijuana norms and actual use by college status as exploratory as there is no previous research to guide hypotheses.

Methods

Participants and procedures

Participants (N=517) were a subsample of young adult two- and four-year college students participating in a longitudinal study on social role transitions and alcohol use in the greater Seattle metropolitan area in Washington State. Eligibility criteria for the larger study included being between 18 to 23 years of age at screening, having reported drinking at least one alcoholic beverage in the past year, living within 60 miles of the study office located in Seattle, WA, and willing to come to the office for consent, identity/age verification, and completion of the baseline assessment (see Patrick et al., 2018 for further details about the larger study).42 The analytic sample was limited to two- and four-year college students who completed the baseline assessment and who reported on past month alcohol and marijuana use and consequences, and perceived descriptive alcohol and marijuana norms. Mean age of participants was 20.15 (SD=1.58), 53.5% were female, 55.9% self-identified as White, 19.7% as Asian, and 24.4% as a race Other than White or Asian, and 10.3% self-identified as Hispanic/Latino. At enrollment, 31.7% (n=164) of the analytic sample were two-year/community college students and 68.3% (n=353) were four-year college students. See Table 1 for additional descriptive statistics.

Table 1.

T-test comparisons of demographic characteristics and alcohol and marijuana use, consequences, and norms, separately by full sample, 2-year students, and 4-year students

Full sample n=517 2-year students n=164 4-year students n=353 2-year vs. 4-year
M (SD) or n (%) M (SD) or n (%) M (SD) or n (%) t statistic p-value
Age 20.15 (1.58) 20.28 (1.63) 20.10 (1.56) −1.23 .218
Female 272 (53.75) 76 (48.41) 196 (56.16) 1.62 .106
Race
 White 286 (55.86) 93 (57.76) 193 (54.99) (ref)
 Asian 101 (19.73) 17 (10.56) 84 (23.93) 3.36 <.001
 Other 125 (24.41) 51 (31.68) 74 (21.08) −1.62 .106
Hispanic ethnicity 53 (10.29) 25 (15.24) 28 (7.98) −2.30 .023
Alcohol use
 Drinks per week 6.28 (9.20) 3.87 (6.00) 7.39 (10.17) 4.90 <.001
 Heavy episodic drinking 1.20 (1.36) 0.69 (1.11) 1.41 (1.40) 5.73 .002
 Consequences 3.47 (3.99) 2.50 (3.35) 3.93 (4.19) 4.15 <.001
 Perceived drinks per week 11.23 (7.34) 10.33 (7.61) 11.64 (7.19) 1.87 .062
Marijuana use
 Days using marijuana 5.71 (9.32) 8.30 (11.23) 4.48 (7.98) −3.40 <.001
 Hours high per week 4.86 (11.14) 8.06 (15.05) 3.38 (8.40) −3.70 <.001
 Consequences 5.49 (9.62) 6.84 (11.28) 4.86 (8.69) −1.97 .05
 Perceived hours high per week 10.14 (10.01) 13.47 (13.23) 8.62 (7.67) −4.33 <.001
Open in a new tab

Participants were a community sample of young adults recruited through various methods, including flyers, friend referral, outreach at community events, and online, social media, and print advertisements. Interested individuals completed a brief confidential online screening survey to determine initial eligibility. Eligible individuals were invited to attend an in-person session in the local study office, which lasted between 1.5 and 2 hours. At the in-person session, the participants’ identity and age were verified by a member of the research team, informed consent was obtained, and the study design and incentive structure were explained. Participants then completed a baseline assessment which assessed demographic characteristics, alcohol and marijuana use, and additional health behaviors. Participants received a $40 Amazon gift card upon completion. Study procedures were approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board. No adverse consequences were reported.

Measures

Demographic characteristics.

In the baseline assessment, participants reported their race, ethnicity, and biological sex at birth. Age was calculated based on date of birth.

College status.

Participants reported current educational status during the baseline assessment. Individuals who reported attending community college, two-year college, vocational school, or technical school were considered a two-year college student. Those who reported attending a four-year college or university were considered a four-year college student. Two-year college students were coded as 1 with four-year college students comprising the reference group.

Alcohol use.

Past month drinking was assessed with the Daily Drinking Questionnaire (DDQ).43 Participants reported how many drinks they consumed on a typical day during a typical week. For example, “On a typical Sunday, I had…drinks”. For each participant, the total number of drinks in a typical week was calculated as a sum score.

Heavy episodic drinking.

Frequency of past month heavy episodic drinking was measured with the item: “During the past month, how often did you have 4/5 or more drinks containing any kind of alcohol within a two-hour period?”44 Four or five drinks was used as the threshold for females and males, respectively, with sex determined by sex at birth.44

Alcohol consequences.

Past month alcohol consequences were assessed with the Brief Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire.45 The measure presents 24 possible consequences (e.g., “I have felt badly about myself because of my drinking”, “I have had a hangover (headache, sick stomach) the morning after I had been drinking”) with the participant indicating whether they experienced each one. Endorsed items were summed with sum scores ranging from 0 to 24.

Perceived descriptive drinking norms.

Descriptive drinking norms were evaluated with the Drinking Norms Rating Form.32 Participants were asked to estimate drinking behaviors of a typical person their age in the past month. Similar to the DDQ, participants indicated their perception of the number of drinks consumed on a typical day during a typical week for a typical female/male their age. The total number of perceived drinks per week were summed.

Marijuana use.

Past month marijuana use was assessed by asking the number of days participants used marijuana in the past 30 days ranging from zero to 30 and with the Daily Marijuana Questionnaire (DMQ).46 Similar to the DDQ, for the DMQ participants reported how many hours they were high (from marijuana) on a typical day during a typical week in the past month. For each participant, the total hours high were summed for a sum score.

Marijuana consequences.

Participants’ past month marijuana consequences were assessed with the Marijuana Consequences Checklist.47 The measure asked participants how many times they had experienced 26 possible consequences in the past month as a result of their marijuana use (e.g., “Had trouble sleeping”, “Felt dizzy or sick”, “Had the munchies”). Response options ranged from 0 (0 times) to 4 (more than 10 times) with total scores summed.

Perceived descriptive marijuana norms.

Marijuana norms were assessed by asking participants to estimate how many hours a typical person their age is high from marijuana in a typical week during the past month. Like the DNRF, participants reported peer estimates on each day of a typical week. The perceived total hours high in a typical week among their peers were calculated as a sum score.

Analytic strategy

All analyses were conducted using SAS 9.4.48 Descriptive statistics were examined as part of preliminary analyses. Independent samples t-tests and Chi-square tests of independence were conducted to assess mean differences in alcohol and marijuana use, consequences, and perceived descriptive alcohol and marijuana norms among two- and four-year college students and to assess if perceived alcohol and marijuana norms were different from actual alcohol and marijuana use, respectively. The three alcohol outcomes (i.e., past month typical drinks per week, HED, and alcohol-related consequences) and the three marijuana outcomes (i.e., past month typical hours high per week, days of marijuana use, and marijuana-related consequences) were positively skewed. Therefore, negative binomial regression models were conducted to examine associations between perceived alcohol norms and alcohol outcomes and associations between perceived marijuana norms and marijuana outcomes,49 controlling for biological sex, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, and two-year college status. Next, to examine two-year college status as a potential moderator, interactions between two-year status and perceived alcohol and marijuana norms were included in models examining alcohol and marijuana outcomes, respectively. Interaction models controlled for biological sex, age, race, and Hispanic ethnicity.

Results

Differences by college status

Significant demographic differences by college status were observed as presented in Table 1. Two-year students were less likely than four-year students to be Asian (10.6% of two-year students compared to 23.9% of four-year students), but more likely to report Hispanic ethnicity (15.2% of two-year students compared to 8.0% of four-year students). Significant differences by college status in past month alcohol and marijuana use, consequences, and perceived norms were also observed. Compared to two-year college students, four-year college students reported greater past month drinks per week [two-year students: M = 3.9 (SD = 6.0), four-year students: M = 7.4 (SD = 10.2), p = <.001], HED [two-year students: M = 0.7 (SD = 1.1), four-year students: M = 1.4 (SD = 1.4), p < .01], and alcohol consequences [two-year students: M = 2.5 (SD = 3.4), four-year students: M = 3.9 (SD = 4.2), p < .001]. No significant differences between two- and four-year college students were observed for perceived drinks per week [two-year students: M = 10.3 (SD = 7.6), four-year students: M = 11.6 (SD = 7.2), p = .062], however, perceived drinks per week were higher than actual drinks per week for both two-year students [perceived drinks: M = 10.3 (SD = 7.6), actual drinks: M = 3.9 (SD = 6.0), p < .05] and four-year students [perceived drinks: M = 11.6 (SD = 7.2), actual drinks: M = 7.4 (SD = 10.2), p < .05]

Two-year students reported using marijuana on a greater number of days in the past month than four-year students [two-year students: M = 8.3 (SD = 11.2), four-year students: M = 4.5 (SD = 8.0), p < .001], more hours high per week [two-year students: M = 8.1 (SD = 15.1), four-year students: M = 3.4 (SD = 8.4), p < .001], and higher perceived hours high per week [two-year students: M = 13.5 (SD = 13.2), four-year students: M = 8.6 (SD = 7.7), p < .001]. Perceived hours high per week were higher than actual hours high per week for both two-year students [perceived hours high: M = 13.5 (SD = 13.2), actual hours high: M = 8.1 (SD = 15.0), p < .05] and four-year students [perceived hours high: M = 8.6 (SD = 7.7), actual hours high: M = 3.4 (SD = 8.4), p < .05]. No significant differences between two- and four-year college students were observed for marijuana consequences [two-year students: M = 6.8 (SD = 11.3), four-year students: M = 4.9 (SD = 8.7), p = .05].

Associations between perceived alcohol and marijuana norms, use, and consequences

Results of negative binomial regression models examining associations between perceived alcohol norms and alcohol outcomes and perceived marijuana norms and marijuana outcomes are in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. Results are presented as rate ratios (RR), with RR > 1 indicating an increased likelihood of substance use and consequences, RR < 1 indicating a reduced likelihood of substance use and consequences, and RR = 1 indicating no difference in likelihood of substance use and consequences. Pooling across college status and controlling for age, biological sex, race, and Hispanic ethnicity, two-year college status was associated with fewer drinks per week, decreased HED, and fewer alcohol related consequences (p’s < .01) and perceived alcohol norms were associated with greater drinks per week, increased HED, and greater alcohol related consequences (p’s <.001). In subsidiary analyses, no significant interactions between college status and perceived alcohol norms were observed for any of the three alcohol outcomes.

Table 2.

Rate ratios (and 95% CIs) for alcoholic drinks per week, heavy episodic drinking, and alcohol-related consequences according to college status and perceived alcohol norms

Drinks per week Heavy episodic drinking Alcohol-related
consequences
RR (95% CI) RR (95% CI) RR (95% CI)
Age 1.10** (1.03, 1.18) 0.95 (0.89, 1.02) 1.08* (1.01, 1.16)
Female 0.68** (0.54, 0.87) 0.95 (0.76, 1.18) 0.88 (0.70, 1.10)
Race
 White (ref) (ref) (ref)
 Asian 0.60*** (0.45, 0.79) 0.71* (0.53, 0.94) 0.88 (0.67, 1.15)
 Other 0.76* (0.57, 0.99) 0.91 (0.69, 1.19) 0.88 (0.67, 1.15)
Hispanic ethnicity 0.78 (0.52, 1.16) 0.94 (0.64, 1.39) 0.61* (0.41, 0.90)
2-year student status 0.51*** (0.40, 0.66) 0.49*** (0.37, 0.64) 0.68** (0.53, 0.86)
Perceived drinks per week 1.05*** (1.04, 1.07) 1.03*** (1.02, 1.05) 1.03*** (1.02. 1.05)
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05

**

p < .01

***

p < .001

Table 3.

Rate ratios (and 95% CIs) for days of marijuana use, hours high per week, and marijuana-related consequences according to college status and perceived marijuana norms

Days using marijuana Hours high per week Marijuana-related consequences
RR (95% CI) RR (95% CI) RR (95% CI)
Age 1.05 (0.94, 1.18) 1.10 (0.95, 1.28) 1.10 (0.96, 1.25)
Female 0.71 (0.48, 1.03) 0.52 ** (0.32, 0.82) 0.70 (0.46, 1.07)
Race
 White (ref) (ref) (ref)
 Asian 0.59* (0.35, 0.99) 0.46* (0.25, 0.85) 0.55* (0.31, 0.95)
 Other 0.48** (0.31, 0.76) 0.45** (0.25, 0.79) 0.60 (0.36, 1.02)
Hispanic ethnicity 0.76 (0.40, 1.46) 0.86 (0.38, 1.93) 0.68 (0.32, 1.45)
2-year student status 1.58* (1.03, 2.43) 1.71* (1.02, 2.88) 1.23 (0.76, 1.99)
Perceived hours high per week 1.03* (1.01, 1.05) 1.05*** (1.02, 1.08) 1.02 (1.00, 1.05)
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05

**

p < .01

***

p < .001

For marijuana outcomes, again, pooling across college status and controlling for age, biological sex, race, and Hispanic ethnicity, two-year college status was associated with more days using marijuana in the past month and more hours high per week (p’s < .05). Perceived marijuana norms were also associated with more days using marijuana in the past month and more hours high per week (p’s < .05). Neither two-year status nor perceived norms were significantly associated with marijuana-related consequences. In subsidiary analyses, no significant interactions between college status and descriptive marijuana norms were observed for any of the three marijuana outcomes.

Discussion

The present study addresses a significant gap in research by examining alcohol and marijuana use, consequences, and perceived alcohol and marijuana norms among both two- and four-year college students, the former a large and often overlooked population. A limited but growing body of research documents differences in alcohol and marijuana use between two- and four-year college students, with most studies focusing on alcohol use.21, 22 Although perceived alcohol and marijuana norms are a strong predictor of substance use among four-year students,30, 34 it is unclear how perceived norms are related to use among two-year students who are much more diverse than four-year college students in terms of age, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, adult social roles.16–18 A better understanding of the associations between perceived alcohol and marijuana norms and actual use could inform intervention strategies aimed at decreasing high-risk use.

As hypothesized, four-year college students reported greater drinks per week, HED, and alcohol-related consequences than two-year students, whereas two-year students reported more days using marijuana in the past month and greater number of hours high from marijuana per week than four-year students. Differences in alcohol and marijuana use by college status may be partially due to differences in campus norms around substance use. For example, given that a greater proportion of four-year college students live near or on campus than two-year college students, and four-year students are more likely to be involved in activities near campus, four-year students may have more opportunities to socialize with one another and attend events near campus where alcohol use is common (e.g., fraternity parties, house parties). It may also be that motivations for alcohol and marijuana use (e.g., social motives, coping motives) differ for two- and four-year students, resulting in differences in use. For instance, two-year students who are more likely than four-year students to live off campus, attend college part-time, and be employed, may be motivated to use alcohol and marijuana for different reasons than four-year students. Future research could examine if alcohol and marijuana motives differ for two- and four-year students and findings could inform interventions aimed at decreasing hazardous substance use.

The elevated rates of marijuana use and number of hours high among two-year college students suggests both that this population is in greater need of study and that it may be particularly suitable for targeted marijuana prevention programs. Washington State legalized the use of non-medical marijuana in 2012 and, since then, the total number of states that have legalized non-medical marijuana has risen to 18 plus the District of Columbia. As legalization continues to spread and as marijuana gains greater acceptance and receives greater mainstream advertising, the potential for greater acceptability and increased use continues to grow. Students at two-year colleges represent a population that appears predisposed to greater marijuana use. This population may be particularly vulnerable to elevated levels of use and may benefit from prevention efforts. Future research is needed to examine the characteristics and mechanisms behind elevated rates of marijuana use in two-year college students. Identification of these risk factors may permit earlier identification of high-risk populations and appropriate interventions.

Findings also suggest that perceived alcohol and marijuana norms and actual use were positively associated for both two- and four-year students, consistent with prior research focused primarily on four-year students.28–32 Further, while rates of substance use differed among two- and four-year college students, the relationship between perceived norms and actual use was not moderated by two-year college status. In other words, just like four-year college students, two-year college students reported significantly higher perceived norms for both alcohol and marijuana use among their peers compared to actual use. As such, interventions containing personalized normative feedback aimed at correcting misperceived substance use norms may be equally effective in targeting alcohol and marijuana use within a two-year college population as has been found among four-year college populations. Indeed, among four-year college students, personalized normative feedback interventions have been especially efficacious both as a stand-alone intervention and as a piece of a multi-component motivational interventions.34, 50–52 Personalized normative feedback interventions often present information about the student’s perceptions of relevant peers’ alcohol or marijuana use, actual use among the targeted group, and their own personal behavior. The goal of these interventions are to correct the misperceptions of peer use (i.e., lower overestimations) by correcting discrepancies and providing accurate information.

Limitations and future directions

Despite numerous strengths, including extending prior research to an understudied population with significant implications for interventions aimed at reducing high-risk alcohol and marijuana use, the present study should be considered in light of limitations including the cross-sectional nature of the study and limits to generalizability. The study was conducted in the greater Seattle, WA metropolitan area (a state with legalized non-medical marijuana use for adults aged 21 and older) and results may not generalize to other areas of the country. Further, the study utilized a convenience sample which also may not generalize to young adults across the United States. We were also unable to control for potential confounding variables, such as year of undergraduate education, Greek membership, and residential status. The study inclusion criteria required young adults to report drinking at least one alcoholic drink in the past year; thus, past year and lifetime abstainers were excluded from the study which may have biased both perceived alcohol and marijuana norms and rates of actual use. The measurement of perceived alcohol norms was gender-specific, however the perceived marijuana norms assessed the typical student and was not gender-specific.

Future work should examine how perceived peer attitudes toward alcohol and marijuana use (i.e., injunctive norms)28 relate to actual alcohol and marijuana use among two-year college students. It is also important for future research to consider the role of the reference group in assessing perceived norms among two-year college students. The majority of the research and interventions, which focus on four-year college student, uses the “typical college student” or gender-specific versions of this as the peer reference group when assessing perceived descriptive and injunctive norms.34, 52–56 However, given that two-year students are distinct from four-year students and that two-year students are more likely to have adopted other social roles in addition to being a student (e.g., full-time employee, parent, spouse), it is worth exploring potential reference groups among two-year students (e.g., typical community college student, typical full-time employee, typical young adult). It may also be that some two-year students strongly identify as a two-year student whereas others do not. Better understanding potentially salient reference groups among two-year students can inform and enhance personalized normative feedback interventions adapted for two-year students.

In conclusion, four-year students reported greater alcohol use and consequences, two-year students reported greater marijuana use, and perceived alcohol and marijuana norms were positively related to actual use for both two- and four-year students. The relationship between perceived norms and actual use was not moderated by two-year college status suggesting that perceived alcohol and marijuana norms function similarly for two- and four-year students in terms of their relationship to actual use. Adapting normative feedback interventions for two-year students may be an effective strategy for reducing high-risk use among two-year college students, a large and growing underserved population.

Acknowledgments

Data collection and manuscript preparation were supported by National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) Grant R01AA022087 awarded to C. M. Lee. Manuscript preparation was also supported by NIAAA Grants F32AA025263 (PI: Duckworth), R01AA027496 (PI: Lee), and T32AA007455 (PI: Larimer). The content of this manuscript is solely the responsibility of the author(s) and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIAAA or the National Institutes of Health.

References

  • 1.National Institute on Drug Abuse. Costs of substance abuse, in Trends and statistics. 2017, National Institue on Drug Abuse. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.White AM, Hingson RW. The burden of alcohol use: excessive alcohol consumption and related consequences among college students. Alcohol Res. 2013;35(2):201–218. doi: 10.1037/t69599-000. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Cadigan JM, Duckworth JC, Parker ME, Lee CM. Influence of developmental social role transitions on young adult substance use. Curr Opin Psychol. 2019;30:87–91. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.03.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Schulenberg JE, Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, et al. Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2019: Volume II, College students and adults ages 19–60. 2020, Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan: Ann Arbor. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bachman JG, Wadsworth KN, O’Malley PM, Johnston LD, Schulenberg JE. Smoking, drinking, and drug use in young adulthood: The impacts of new freedoms and new responsibilities. 2013, New York: Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hingson RW, Zha W, Smyth D. Magnitude and trends in heavy episodic drinking, alcohol-impaired driving, and alcohol-related mortality and overdose hospitalizations among emerging adults of college ages 18–24 in the United States, 1998–2014. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2017;78(4):540–548. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2017.78.540. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.White AM, Hingson RW, Pan I-j, Yi H-Y. Hospitalizations for alcohol and drug overdoses in young adults ages 18–24 in the United States, 1999–2008: results from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2011;72(5):774–786. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2011.72.774. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Grant BF, Goldstein RB, Saha TD, et al. Epidemiology of DSM-5 alcohol use disorder: Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions III. JAMA Psychiatry. 2015;72(8):757–766. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.0584. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Grant BF, Goldstein RB, Chou SP, et al. Sociodemographic and psychopathologic predictors of first incidence of DSM-IV substance use, mood and anxiety disorders: Results from the Wave 2 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Molecular Psychiatry. 2009;14(11):10–51. doi: 10.1038/mp.2008.41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Carter AC, Brandon KO, Goldman MS. The college and noncollege experience: A review of the factors that influence drinking behavior in young adulthood. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2010;71(5):742–750. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sheffield FD, Darkes J, Del Boca FK, Goldman MS. Binge drinking and alcohol-related problems among community college students: Implications for prevention policy. J Am Coll Health. 2005;54(3):137–141. doi: 10.3200/JACH.54.3.137-142. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Eren C, Keeton A. Invisibility, difference, and disparity: Alcohol and substance abuse on two-year college campuses. Community College Journal of Research and Practice. 2015;39(12):1125–1136. doi: 10.1080/10668926.2014.939786. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ginder SA, Kelly-Reid JE, Mann FB. Enrollment in postsecondary institutions, fall 2013; Financial statistics, fiscal Year 2013; And employees in postsecondary institutions, fall 2013. First look (provisional data). NCES 2015–012, in National Center for Education Statistics. 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Juszkiewicz J. Trends in Community College Enrollment and Completion Data, 2017. 2017, American Assocation of Community Colleges. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Hussar WJ, Bailey TM. Projections of education statistics to 2022. NCES 2014–051, in National Center for Education Statistics. 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ginder SA, Kelly-Reid JE, Mann FB. Enrollment and Employees in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2016; and Financial Statistics and Academic Libraries, Fiscal Year 2016. First Look (Provisional Data). NCES 2018–002. National Center for Education Statistics. 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Mullin CM. Why access matters: The community college student body. AACC Policy Brief 2012–01PBL, in American Association of Community Colleges (NJ1). 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Wall AF, BaileyShea C, McIntosh S. Community college student alcohol use: Developing context-specific evidence and prevention approaches. Community College Review. 2012;40(1):25–45. doi: 10.1177/0091552112437757. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Schulenberg JE, Maggs JL. A developmental perspective on alcohol use and heavy drinking during adolescence and the transition to young adulthood. J of Stud on Alcohol, Supplement. 2002;(14):54–70. doi: 10.15288/jsas.2002.s14.54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ma J, Baum S. Trends in community colleges: Enrollment, prices, student debt, and completion, in College Board Research Brief. 2016, Urban Institute. p. 1–23. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Cadigan JM, Dworkin ER, Ramirez JJ, Lee CM. Patterns of alcohol use and marijuana use among students at 2-and 4-year institutions. J Am Coll Health. 2018;1–8. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2018.1484362. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Velazquez CE, Pasch KE, Laska MN, et al. Differential prevalence of alcohol use among 2-year and 4-year college students. Addict Behav. 2011;36(12):1353–1356. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.07.037. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Schulenberg JE, Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, et al. Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2017: Volume II, college students and adults ages 19–55. 2018, Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Fleming CB, White HR, Haggerty KP, Abbott RD, Catalano RF. Educational paths and substance use from adolescence into early adulthood. J Drug Issues. 2012;42(2):104–126. doi: 10.1177/0022042612446590. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Blowers J. Common issues and collaborative solutions: A comparison of student alcohol use behaviors at the community college and four-year institutional levels. J of Alcohol & Drug Ed. 2009;53(3). [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ryan BE. Alcohol and other drugs: Prevention challenges at community colleges. 1998, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention: Newton, MA. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.O’Brien F, Simons-Morton B, Chaurasia A, et al. Post-high school changes in tobacco and cannabis use in the United States. Subst. Use Misuse. 2018;53(1):26–35. doi: 10.1080/10826084.2017.1322983. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Borsari B, Carey KB. Descriptive and injunctive norms in college drinking: A meta-analytic integration. J Stud Alcohol. 2003;64(3):331–341. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Borsari B, Carey KB. Peer influences on college drinking: A review of the research. J. Subst. Abuse. 2001;13(4):391–424. doi: 10.1016/S0899-3289(01)00098-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Neighbors C, Lee CM, Lewis MA, Fossos N, Larimer ME. Are social norms the best predictor of outcomes among heavy-drinking college students? J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2007;68(4):556–565. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Perkins HW. Social norms and the prevention of alcohol misuse in collegiate contexts. J of Studies on Alcohol, Supplement. 2002;(14):164–172. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Baer JS, Stacy A, Larimer ME. Biases in the perception of drinking norms among college students. J Stud Alcohol. 1991; 52(6):580–586. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Moreira MT, Smith LA, Foxcroft D. Social norms interventions to reduce alcohol misuse in university or college students. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2009;(3). doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006748.pub2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Lewis MA, Neighbors C. Social norms approaches using descriptive drinking norms education: A review of the research on personalized normative feedback. J Am Coll Health. 2006;54(4):213–218. doi: 10.3200/JACH.54.4.213-218. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Berkowitz AD. The social norms approach: Theory, research, and annotated bibliography. 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Perkins HW, Wechsler H. Variation in perceived college drinking norms and its impact on alcohol abuse: A nationwide study. J Drug Issues. 1996;26(4):961–974. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Baer JS. Effects of college residence on perceived norms for alcohol consumption: An examination of the first year in college. Psychol Addict Behav. 1994;8(1):43. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kilmer JR, Walker DD, Lee CM, et al. Misperceptions of college student marijuana use: Implications for prevention. J Stud Alcohol. 2006;67(2):277–281. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2006.67.277. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Neighbors C, Geisner IM, Lee CM. Perceived marijuana norms and social expectancies among entering college student marijuana users. Psychol Addict Behav. 2008;22(3):433. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.22.3.433. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.LaBrie JW, Hummer JF, Lac A. Comparing injunctive marijuana use norms of salient reference groups among college student marijuana users and nonusers. Addict Behav. 2011;36(7):717–720. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.02.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Napper LE, Hummer JF, Chithambo TP, LaBrie JW. Perceived parent and peer marijuana norms: The moderating effect of parental monitoring during college. Prev. Sci, 2015;16(3):364–373. doi: 10.1007/s11121-014-0493-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Patrick ME, Rhew IC, Lewis MA, et al. Alcohol motivations and behaviors during months young adults experience social role transitions: Microtransitions in early adulthood. Psychol Addict Behav, 2018;32(8):895. doi: 10.1037/adb0000411. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Collins RL, Parks GA, Marlatt GA. Social determinants of alcohol consumption: the effects of social interaction and model status on the self-administration of alcohol. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1985;53(2):189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.National Institutes of Alcohol and Alcohol Abuse. Recommended Alcohol Questions. 2003. https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/research/guidelines-and-resources/recommended-alcohol-questions
  • 45.Kahler CW, Strong DR, Read JP. Toward efficient and comprehensive measurement of the alcohol problems continuum in college students: The Brief Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2005;29(7):1180–1189. doi: 10.1097/01.ALC.0000171940.95813.A5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Lee CM, Kilmer JR, Neighbors C, et al. Indicated prevention for college student marijuana use: A randomized controlled trial. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2013;81(4):702. doi: 10.1037/a0033285. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Lee CM, Kilmer JR, Neighbors C, et al. A marijuana consequences checklist for young adults with implications for brief motivational intervention research. Prev Sci, 1–11. doi: 10.1007/s11121-020-01171-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.SAS, Base SAS 9.4 Procedures Guide: Statistical Procedures. 2014, SAS Institute. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Atkins DC,Gallop RJ. Rethinking how family researchers model infrequent outcomes: A tutorial on count regression and zero-inflated models. J of Fam Psych. 2007;21(4):726. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.726. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Larimer ME, Lee CM, Kilmer JR, et al. Personalized mailed feedback for college drinking prevention: A randomized clinical trial. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2007;75(2):285. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Neighbors C, Larimer ME, Lewis MA. Targeting misperceptions of descriptive drinking norms: Efficacy of a computer-delivered personalized normative feedback intervention. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2004;72(3):434. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.72.3.434. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.LaBrie JW, Lewis MA, Atkins DC, et al. RCT of web-based personalized normative feedback for college drinking prevention: Are typical student norms good enough? J Consult Clin Psychol. 2013;81(6):1074. doi: 10.1037/a0034087. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Neighbors C, Jensen M, Tidwell J, et al. Social-norms interventions for light and nondrinking students. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 2011;14(5):651–669. doi: 10.1177/1368430210398014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Lewis MA, Neighbors C, Gender-specific misperceptions of college student drinking norms. Psychol Addict Behav. 2004;18(4):334. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.18.4.334. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Neighbors C, LaBrie JW, Hummer JF, et al. Group identification as a moderator of the relationship between perceived social norms and alcohol consumption. Psychol Addict Behav. 2010;24(3):522. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Lewis MA, Neighbors C. Who is the typical college student? Implications for personalized normative feedback interventions. Addict Behav. 2006; 31(11):2120–2126. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.01.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES