Examining Alcohol-Related Expectancies within College Class Standing 
 
by 
 
Aileen Cleyvis Perez 
 
 
 
 
A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of 
Auburn University 
in partial fulfillment of the 
requirements for the Degree of 
Doctor of Philosophy  
 
Auburn, Alabama 
May 6, 2012 
 
 
 
 
Keywords: alcohol, expectancies, valuations, college, class, ethnicity 
 
 
Copyright 2012 by Aileen Cleyvis Perez 
 
 
Approved by 
 
James E. Witte, Chair, Professor, Educational Foundations, Leadership & Technology 
 Maria M. Witte, Associate Professor, Educational Foundations, Leadership & Technology 
David C. DiRamio, Associate Professor, Educational Foundations, Leadership & Technology
ii 
 
Abstract 
 
 
 Alcohol is the most widely abused substance among America?s youth (Department of 
Health and Human Services, 2007). A significant portion of alcohol abuse occurs in college. 
College is often symbolized by a tradition of drinking that is entrenched in every level of a 
student?s environment. The purpose of this study was to examine alcohol expectancies of college 
students. This study compared alcohol expectancies between sophomore, junior, and senior 
students and how these expectancies vary across gender and ethnicity. 
The participants of this study were selected from a large, research university in the 
southeastern United States that serves approximately 25,000 students. The participants consisted 
of 310 sophomore, junior, and senior students (103 males and 207 females) enrolled in physical 
activity and wellness courses in the fall 2011 and spring 2012 semesters. Expectancy and 
valuation were measured by using the Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol (CEOA) questionnaire. 
The instrument is comprised of 76 items and three demographic questions. The study 
investigated the relationship between class standing, gender, and ethnicity and alcohol 
expectancy and valuation.  
  A one-way multivariate analysis of variance was used for each of the three research 
questions. The MANOVA result revealed there is not a statistically significant effect of class 
iii 
 
standing on expectancy and valuation. There is no relationship between class standing and 
expectancy and valuation. The MANOVA result revealed there is a statistically significant effect 
of gender on expectancy and valuation. Male and female college students have different alcohol 
expectancies and valuations. The MANOVA result revealed there is a statistically significant 
effect of ethnicity on expectancy and valuation. But there is something to note about the 
significance ethnicity has on expectancy and valuation. The variable ?others? was created to 
combine the varying ethnicities (African-American, Hispanic/Latino, American-Indian, and 
Asian). If these ethnicities were separated, ethnicity would not have had an effect on expectancy 
and valuation. Combining these races into ?others? provided a stronger result than separating 
each race individually.  
iv 
 
Acknowledgments 
 
 
 I would like to humbly thank God for providing me with the wisdom, guidance, and 
determination to achieve my dreams.  
Phillippians 4:13 I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.  
To my grandmother, Paula Perez, I dedicate this degree to you. You were a pillar of 
support to our entire family and you always pushed us to become better individuals. I will always 
cherish the times we spent together and I know you are dancing in Heaven. I am extremely 
blessed to have had a strong woman like you as a grandmother and role model. Que Dios 
siempre te tenga en Su Gloria! Bendicion, Mama. 
  To my parents, Hercida, Jose, & Julio, the three of you migrated from Dominican 
Republic in search of a better life. You also quickly understood the importance of an education 
leading to a prosperous career. You all worked (and continue to work) hard to provide for your 
children regardless of the measures it takes. I hope that this accomplishment is exactly what you 
envisioned for me while I was growing up. Just as you provided me with what little you had, 
now it is my turn to provide for you. THANK YOU for all you have done and continue to do. 
You all are my rock and I hope that this accomplishment makes you proud.  
  Thank you to my siblings, Jovanny, Jesenia, and Emilio. This is a family achievement 
and I thank you for the support. Our family has faced many battles and struggles, but through it 
v 
 
all we continue to push forward. Let us continue to succeed in our future endeavors and always 
remember that family comes first.  
  To my extended family, thank you for the countless words of encouragement. I love each 
of you and I am blessed to be a part of this family. 
  To my best friends, Nicole, Carolyn, and Yamilee?words cannot express the tremendous 
amount of love, gratitude, respect, and sincere thanks I have for your endless support, words of 
encouragement and simply putting up with me. Through thick and thin you all have shown me 
that I could count on you for whatever I needed. You all are not only my friends, but my sisters. I 
pray that God grants all of your hearts? desires both personally and professionally. Cheers to us 
and the bond that we have established! 
  To Lamarcus, thank you, thank you, and thank you. I love you with all my heart and I 
take solace in knowing that this is the beginning of a wonderful life together. I cannot thank God 
enough for placing you in my life. Let us enjoy what He has in store for us?  
  A special thanks to each of my committee members.  Dr. James Witte, thank you for the 
countless hours of advice and guidance via email, phone, or in person. You encouraged me to 
pursue this degree before I even fathomed attaining a doctorate. You are not only a great 
committee chair, but an avid supporter of student success. This program would not be the same 
without your valuable insight and input. Again, I thank you. Dr. Maria Witte, I could always 
count on you for a sincere smile and a ?you can do it!? Your cheerfulness is a valuable gift that 
vi 
 
motivates everyone to continue following their dreams. Dr. David DiRamio, thank you for the 
faith that you had in believing that I could accomplish this tremendous feat. Lastly, thank you to 
Dr. Jared Russell. You have been a blessing since the beginning, dating back to the doctoral 
seminars. You were always there for the minority graduate students and constantly reminding us 
that we could achieve anything we wanted to. More importantly, you guided my data collection 
process from beginning to end. I sincerely could not imagine this dissertation being completed 
without all of your help. You are truly a representation of what it means to give back and help 
others along the way. I hope I can be of service to other doctoral students as you were to me.  
  To the ladies of Delta Sigma Theta, Tau Eta Chapter--let this degree mean much more 
than my individual accomplishment. This degree represents the importance of perseverance, 
dedication, determination and achievement. Let us continue to strive towards our dreams and 
build legacies of excellence?  
  Lastly, thank you to everyone that ever believed in me.
vii 
 
Table of Contents 
 
 
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... ii 
Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................... v  
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ x  
Chapter 1. Introduction  ................................................................................................................ 1 
 Introduction   ..................................................................................................................... 1 
 Statement of the Problem   ................................................................................................ 2 
            Purpose of the Study   ....................................................................................................... 5 
            Significance of the Study   ................................................................................................ 6 
            Research Questions   ......................................................................................................... 7 
            Limitations   ...................................................................................................................... 7 
            Assumptions   .................................................................................................................... 8 
            Definition of Terms  ......................................................................................................... 8 
            Organization of the Study   ............................................................................................... 9 
Chapter 2. Review of Literature ................................................................................................. 10 
 Introduction   ................................................................................................................... 10 
 Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................... 10 
 Research Questions   ....................................................................................................... 11 
 Motives for College Student Drinking   .......................................................................... 11 
        Social  ...................................................................................................................... 12
viii 
       Developmental   ........................................................................................................ 16 
       Family History    ....................................................................................................... 17 
       Situational   ............................................................................................................... 18 
       Campus Environment  .............................................................................................. 21 
       Abstinence  ............................................................................................................... 23 
 Possible Consequences of Alcohol Abuse   .................................................................... 25 
      Academic   ................................................................................................................. 26 
      Personal   .................................................................................................................... 28 
      Legal   ........................................................................................................................ 31 
 Alcohol Expectancy   ...................................................................................................... 31 
           Alcohol Expectancy Theory   .................................................................................... 31 
      Positive Expectancy    ................................................................................................ 34 
      Negative Expectancy   ............................................................................................... 35 
      Valuations   ................................................................................................................ 36 
      Age   ........................................................................................................................... 36 
      Gender   ...................................................................................................................... 37 
      Ethnicity   ................................................................................................................... 40 
 Summary   ....................................................................................................................... 43 
Chapter 3. Methods  .................................................................................................................... 45 
 Introduction   ................................................................................................................... 45 
 Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................... 45 
 Research Questions   ....................................................................................................... 46 
 Participants   .................................................................................................................... 46 
ix 
 Procedures   ..................................................................................................................... 47 
 Instrumentation   ............................................................................................................. 48 
 Reliability & Validity   ................................................................................................... 52 
 Analysis of Data   ............................................................................................................ 54 
 Summary   ....................................................................................................................... 56 
Chapter 4. Findings   ................................................................................................................... 57 
 Introduction   ................................................................................................................... 57 
 Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................... 57 
 Research Questions   ....................................................................................................... 58 
 Demographic Results   .................................................................................................... 58 
      Class Standing   .......................................................................................................... 59 
      Gender    ..................................................................................................................... 59 
      Ethnicity   ................................................................................................................... 60 
 Data Analysis   ................................................................................................................ 61 
      Class Standing   .......................................................................................................... 61 
      Gender    ..................................................................................................................... 64 
      Ethnicity   ................................................................................................................... 67 
            Summary   ....................................................................................................................... 70 
Chapter 5. Summary, Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations     .............................. 71 
 Introduction   ................................................................................................................... 71 
 Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................... 71 
 Research Questions   ....................................................................................................... 72 
 Summary   ....................................................................................................................... 72
x 
 Conclusions   ................................................................................................................... 74 
 Implications  ................................................................................................................... 75 
 Recommendations   ......................................................................................................... 79 
References   ................................................................................................................................. 81 
Appendix A Site Permission Letter   .......................................................................................... 98 
Appendix B Information Letter   .............................................................................................. 101 
Appendix C Survey Instrument   .............................................................................................. 104 
Appendix D Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol Scoring Scale   ............................................. 109 
 
Appendix E Institutional Review Board Approval Letter  ....................................................... 112
xi 
 
List of Tables 
 
Table 1 Distribution of Participants by Class Standing  ............................................................. 58 
Table 2 Distribution of Participants by Gender .......................................................................... 59 
Table 3 Distribution of Participants by Ethnicity ....................................................................... 59 
Table 4 Mean and Standard Deviation for Class Standing ......................................................... 61 
Table 5 Between Groups Homogeneity of Variance and Covariance  ....................................... 62 
Table 6 Summary of MANOVA Test ......................................................................................... 62 
Table 7 Summary of ANOVA Test  ........................................................................................... 63 
Table 8 Mean and Standard Deviation for Gender ..................................................................... 64 
Table 9 Between Groups Homogeneity of Variance and Covariance ........................................ 65 
Table 10 Summary of MANOVA Test ....................................................................................... 66 
Table 11 Summary of ANOVA Test .......................................................................................... 66 
Table 12 Mean and Standard Deviation for Ethnicity ................................................................ 67 
Table 13 Between Groups Homogeneity of Variance and Covariance ...................................... 68 
Table 14 Summary of MANOVA Test ....................................................................................... 69 
Table 15 Summary of ANOVA Test  ......................................................................................... 69
1 
 
 
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 
Alcohol is the most widely abused substance among America?s youth (Department of 
Health and Human Services, 2007). A significant portion of alcohol abuse occurs in college. 
College is often symbolized by a tradition of drinking that is entrenched in every level of a 
student?s environment. Approximately 1,825 college students between the ages of 18-24 die each 
year from alcohol-related injuries (Hingson, Heeren, Zakocs, Kopstein, Wechsler, 2009). 
Alcohol not only causes long-term consequences but also immediate consequences, such as 
driving under the influence, assault, rape, and academic consequences. Five hundred and ninety-
nine thousand students between the ages of 18-24 are injured under the influence of alcohol 
(Hingson et al., 2009). Three million and three hundred sixty thousand students between the ages 
of 18-24 drove under the influence of alcohol in 2001 (Hingson et al., 2009). Approximately 
25% of students report academic consequences due to drinking (i.e. missing class, doing poorly 
on exams/papers, receiving lower grades, etc.) (Engs, Diebold, Hansen, 1996). Lastly, more than 
696,000 students between the ages of 18-24 report being assaulted by another student who is 
under the influence of alcohol (Hingson et al., 2009).
2 
 
In addition, college drinking also has an effect on the economy. Underage drinking 
accounted for 22.5 billion dollars in the alcohol industry in 2001 (Foster, Vaughan, Foster, 
Califano, 2006). Collegiate alcohol abuse is detrimental not only to a student?s health and 
academics but also poses a risk to society as a whole.  
  The Secretary of Health and Human Services, Honorable Michael O. Leavitt, issued a 
charge in the Surgeon General?s Call to Action to Prevent and Reduce Underage Drinking. His 
message included some of the following: 
This Call to Action is a reminder that underage drinking has serious social costs and often 
tragic personal consequences. More than that, this Call to Action demonstrates that each 
of us has the opportunity to prevent underage drinking. The Call to Action also offers a 
way forward through the collaborative effort of societal change involving parents, police 
officers, colleges, and communities. This type of societal change requires the discipline 
and determination to take small steps toward reducing underage drinking each day. Many 
of these efforts are already underway, but much more must be done. The time to act is 
now. (Department of Health and Human Services, 2007, p. iii-iv) 
This charge prefaced the Call to Action urging parents, administrators, legislators, students, and 
society to make a difference regarding adolescent drinking. The Call to Action is one of many 
strategic plans aimed in reducing and preventing collegiate drinking.  
Statement of the Problem 
 College drinking has garnered significant attention throughout the nation. An 
organization that served as the impetus to prevent and reduce college student drinking was the 
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) created in 1976 (National 
3 
 
Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2002). The NIAAA is a renowned institution that 
focuses on alcohol abuse from a global perspective. After releasing one report discussing college 
student drinking, NIAAA quickly realized the need for more research on the culture of college 
drinking. A task force was established to address college student drinking specifically. The 
product of that task force is A Call to Action: Changing the Culture of Drinking at U.S. Colleges 
(National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2002). This report elaborates on drinking 
behaviors of college students as well as the consequences it has on drinkers and non-drinkers. 
The report serves to analyze and emphasize the consequences that a culture of college drinking 
has on university campuses nationwide. The former president of the University of Vermont states 
?underage drinking and excessive drinking have negative effects on everything we?re trying to 
do as a university. They compromise the educational environment, the safety of our students, the 
quality of life on campus, town/gown relationships, and our reputation? (Task Force of the 
National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2002, p. 1). After three years of 
research and discussions, A Call to Action outlines a series of recommendations for universities, 
researchers, and the NIAAA. Because of this report, NIAAA has committed $8 million dollars to 
address college drinking. They are also collaborating with college presidents to establish 
effective polices to reduce college drinking. Thus, this report is integral in understanding and 
analyzing the effects of college drinking for students and other stakeholders.  
In addition to A Call to Action: Changing the Culture of Drinking at U.S. Colleges, there 
have also been legislative attempts to address underage drinking. One such act is the minimum 
legal drinking age (MLDA) of 1984. During the early 1970s, states began lowering the minimum 
legal drinking age to 18, 19, or 20. Research began suggesting that motor vehicle accidents 
involving teens increased significantly (Higher Education Center, 2010). Advocacy groups began 
4 
 
petitioning legislators to raise MLDA back to 21. This prompted the Uniform Drinking Age Act 
of 1984 (Higher Education Center, 2010). Nevertheless, MLDA brings about many debates. 
Some argue that maintaining the MLDA at 21 only causes legal-aged individuals to illegally 
provide alcohol to under age teens. Yet others argue that MLDA being set at 21 established an 
alcohol control policy. Thus, MLDA and campus prevention/reduction policies can help to 
effectively combat underage drinking on college campuses.   
 Another act that addresses college drinking is the Drug-Free Schools and Communities 
Act (DFSCA). DFSCA amends the Higher Education Act of 1965. The Act requires institutions 
of higher education that receive federal funding to establish a drug and alcohol abuse program. 
An institution must also inform both faculty and students in writing of the program (Higher 
Education Center, 2011). If an institution fails to comply with the Act, they may lose federal 
funding (Higher Education Center, 2011). Institutions must 1) annually notify each employee 
and student in writing of standards of conduct, 2) develop a sound method for distributing annual 
notification information to every student and staff member each year, 3) conduct a biennial 
review on the effectiveness of its alcohol and other drug (AOD) and sanction enforcement, and 
4) maintain its biennial review material on file (Higher Education Center, 2011).  
This Act signified significant progress of legislators taking a stance regarding college 
student drinking and emphasizing the institution?s responsibility on curbing alcohol consumption 
on their campus. The message was clear: in order to continue receiving federal funding, an 
alcohol and drug abuse program had to be implemented and evaluated to ensure its effectiveness.  
Therefore, many institutions have implemented drug and alcohol programs since the 
establishment of DFSCA. For example, a large, public research university in the southeastern 
5 
 
United States has developed extensive drug and alcohol programs. These programs fall into three 
categories: information/education/referral, self-help, and professional treatment. Specifically, the 
following are provided at this institution: employee assistance program, student counseling 
services, and the regional hospital?s mental health center. In addition to these programs, the Code 
of Student Discipline prohibits students from illegal alcohol and/or drug use. Faculty must also 
adhere to the University?s Drug Free-Campus and Workplace Policy Statement that details 
standards of conduct and disciplinary sanctions. This university has made sufficient progress to 
ensure a drug free campus at all times.  
Thus, college drinking has been on the forefront of many legislative policies both at the 
state and federal level. Institutions have also taken preventive measures to address college 
drinking on their campuses. Collegiate alcohol drinking has not only been analyzed on a global 
level, but also on an individual level. For example, research has addressed individual motives for 
drinking, expectancies, contexts, familial history, and other topics that help identify drinking on 
a personal or individual level. One specific topic, alcohol expectancies, has been researched for 
several years to help address college student drinking. But although there is abundant research on 
college drinking, the research is mixed regarding alcohol expectancies of college students and 
their connection to college student drinking.  
Purpose of the Study 
 The purpose of this study was to examine alcohol expectancies of college students. 
Students drink for various reasons. Drinking motives can be defined as ?the need or 
psychological function that alcohol consumption fulfills and are typically assessed by responses 
of students to questionnaires about their reasons for drinking? (Baer, 2002, p. 45). Brennan et al. 
6 
 
(1986) identified two general types of drinking motives: drinking for social purposes and 
drinking for emotional escape. Once students engage in drinking in a social context, the student?s 
expectancies or effects of alcohol vary from individual to individual. Thus, a connected concept 
to drinking motives is alcohol expectancies. Alcohol expectancies can be defined as ?specific 
beliefs about the behavioral, emotional, and cognitive effects of alcohol? (Baer, 2002, p. 45).  
This study compared alcohol expectancies between sophomore, junior, and senior 
students and how these expectancies vary across gender and ethnicity. Alcohol consumption can 
alter a student?s behavioral, emotional, and cognitive actions that can result in positive or 
negative effects. Expectancies can also increase a student?s use of alcohol and increase risks 
associated with alcohol. Understanding a student?s alcohol expectancy is critical in 
comprehending college student drinking and attempting to curb alcohol abuse. This study 
provides a better understanding of the differences in alcohol expectancies between sophomore, 
junior, and senior students by gender and ethnicity. 
Significance of the Study 
 The significance of the present study was to provide higher education administrators with 
information regarding alcohol expectancies and its relationship with class standing, gender, and 
ethnicity. Alcohol expectancies have been measured using the Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol 
(CEOA) questionnaire (Fromme, Stroot, & Kaplan, 1993). This study serves to expand the 1993 
study by analyzing the different expectancies varied within college standing, gender, and 
ethnicity. In addition, the study was conducted using a different population in the southern region 
than the mid-Atlantic students that participated in the 1993 study.  
7 
 
Furthermore, alcohol expectancies can have positive and negative reinforcement on why 
students choose to drink and consequently abuse alcohol. Research suggests that expectancies 
decrease over time with prolonged, heavy alcohol use (Sher, Wood, Wood, & Raskin, 1996; 
Smith, Goldman, Greenbaum, & Christiansen, 1995). Therefore, understanding the various 
expectancies between students and how these expectancies differ between males/females and 
ethnicity is integral in trying to understand the risks associated with college drinking.  
Research Questions 
 The following research questions were used in this study: 
1. What is the relationship between class standing and alcohol expectancy and valuation as 
measured by the Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol (CEOA) questionnaire? 
2. What is the relationship between gender and alcohol expectancy and valuation as 
measured by the Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol (CEOA) questionnaire? 
3. What is the relationship between ethnicity and alcohol expectancy and valuation as 
measured by the Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol (CEOA) questionnaire? 
Limitations 
The first limitation is that this study was conducted in a large, public, research university. 
Students in this institution are predominantly Caucasian as they account for 81% of the student 
population. These institutional demographics may affect generalizing to diverse campuses or 
other institutions such as Masters Universities or Baccalaureate university granting institutions. 
Smaller, private, and/or diverse institutions can replicate this study to determine if there is a 
relationship between class standing, gender, and ethnicity at their institution. Second, this study 
8 
 
was conducted using only the Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol (CEOA) questionnaire. Further 
research can use other surveys or scales to measure alcohol expectancies. Furthermore, the 
sensitive nature of the research may impact the overall number of student responses. Lastly, the 
data gathered were self-reported by students. 
Assumptions 
 The following assumptions were made in this study: 
A. The students involved in this study are representative of future enrollees at this institution 
in physical activity and wellness program.  
B. Sophomore, junior, and senior students are equally qualified to complete the survey 
instrument. 
C. Participants answered the survey honestly and consistently.  
D. Participants were able to identify and report their alcohol expectancies.  
E. Participants were able to report their class standing.  
Definition of Terms 
? Adolescent ? young person who is developing into an adult 
? Alcohol abuse ? recurrent use of alcohol resulting in interference with work, school, or 
home 
? Alcohol consumption ? frequency (how often a person drinks) and quantity (how much a 
person drinks) 
? Alcohol dependence ? need for increased amounts of alcohol to achieve desired effect 
? Alcohol expectancy ? specific beliefs about the behavioral, emotional, and cognitive 
effects of alcohol 
9 
 
? Alcohol motives ? need or psychological function that alcohol consumption fulfills 
? AOD ? alcohol and other drugs  
? Binge drinking ? consuming five or more drinks in a row for men; four or more drinks in 
a row for women 
? Class standing ? sophomore, junior, and senior students 
? Expectancy ? relationship between an event or object and a situation 
? Expectancy valuations ? desirability of an expected drinking outcome 
? GPA ? grade point average 
? Hispanic/Latino ? Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, or other Central American and South 
American descent 
? Party school ? reputation for large availability of alcohol with minimal consequences 
? Wet environment ? alcohol is prominent and easily accessible 
Organization of the Study 
 This study was divided into five chapters. The first chapter is an introduction of the 
study. Chapter 2 is a review of the literature related to college students? alcohol expectancies 
(motives for college student drinking, possible consequences of alcohol abuse, and alcohol 
expectancies). Chapter 3 includes a discussion of the methods employed to conduct the 
quantitative study. Chapter 4 describes the results of the study. Lastly, Chapter 5 incorporates a 
discussion of the results in relation to implications for higher education. Limitations and 
recommendations are also included.
10 
 
 
CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 
Introduction 
Chapter 1 addressed the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the 
significance of the study, the research questions, the limitations and assumptions of the study, 
and the definition of terms. Chapter 2 reviews the literature which considered college students? 
motives for alcohol consumption, possible consequences associated with alcohol abuse and 
alcohol expectancies.  
Purpose of the Study 
The purpose of this study was to examine alcohol expectancies of college students. 
Students drink for various reasons. Drinking motives can be defined as ?the need or 
psychological function that alcohol consumption fulfills and are typically assessed by responses 
of students to questionnaires about their reasons for drinking? (Baer, 2002, p. 45). Brennan et al. 
(1986) identified two general types of drinking motives: drinking for social purposes and 
drinking for emotional escape. Once students engage in drinking in a social context, the student?s 
expectancies or effects of alcohol vary from individual to individual. Thus, a connected concept 
to drinking motives is alcohol expectancies. Alcohol expectancies can be defined as ?specific 
beliefs about the behavioral, emotional, and cognitive effects of alcohol? (Baer, 2002, p. 45).  
This study compared alcohol expectancies between sophomore, junior, and senior 
students and how these expectancies vary across gender and ethnicity. Alcohol consumption can 
alter a student?s behavioral, emotional, and cognitive actions that can result in positive or 
11 
 
negative effects. Expectancies can also increase a student?s use of alcohol and increase risks 
associated with alcohol. Understanding a student?s alcohol expectancy is critical in 
comprehending college student drinking and attempting to curb alcohol abuse. This study 
provides a better understanding of the differences in alcohol expectancies between sophomore, 
junior, and senior students by gender and ethnicity. 
Research Questions 
The following research questions were used in this study: 
1. What is the relationship between class standing and alcohol expectancy and valuation 
as measured by the Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol (CEOA) questionnaire? 
2. What is the relationship between gender and alcohol expectancy and valuation as 
measured by the Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol (CEOA) questionnaire? 
3. What is the relationship between ethnicity and alcohol expectancy and valuation as 
measured by the Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol (CEOA) questionnaire? 
Motives for College Student Drinking 
College students drink for a variety of reasons; such as celebrating, spending time with 
friends, unwind, relieve stress, etc. Drinking motives can be defined as ?the psychological needs 
or functions that drinking provides? (Westmaas, Moeller, & Woicik, 2007, p. 228). Drinking 
motives can be the direct link between intent and actual behavior (Westmaas et al., 2007). It is 
important to understand college students? drinking motives in order to determine alcohol 
consumption and consequent alcohol-related problems (Cooper, Russell, Skinner, & Windle, 
1992). Motives can be either positive or negative. Wills and Shiffman (1985) developed a model 
12 
 
hypothesizing that individuals use alcohol to reduce negative emotions or to enhance positive 
emotions. Therefore, alcohol can reduce or increase positive or negative emotions.  
Cooper et al. (1992) developed a three-dimensional measure of drinking motives. The 
three measures were: coping (negative), social motives (positive), and to enhance positive affect 
(positive). The measure was equal across gender and race. Their results suggested that social and 
enhancement motives were associated with drinking in a social environment. On the other hand, 
coping motives were associated with drinking alone or with a partner. The study also suggests 
that individuals who drink in a social setting are likely to drink more heavily than those who 
drink to reduce negative emotions. These students were more likely to drink with same-sex 
friends and use drugs to enhance positive emotions. Nevertheless, students who drink alcohol to 
cope may become more dependent on alcohol and have less control of their drinking. In turn, 
these individuals may develop more self-destructive patterns of alcohol abuse and suffer more 
consequences.  
In addition, Dowdall and Wechsler (2002) have identified several critical factors that 
contribute to drinking motives for college students. These factors are based on the individual 
level. These factors are: previous drinking history, age of first drink, high risk behavior, and 
social network. The social motive for college student drinking will now be discussed; followed 
by developmental, family history, situational, campus environment and abstinence.  
Social  
 Abar and Maggs (2010) suggested that the most important reason adolescents drink is the 
need for social approval by their peers. College is a social environment symbolized with parties, 
gatherings, and mingling with friends. Typically, these gatherings include the consumption of 
13 
 
alcohol. Males predominantly drink in same-sex groups whereas females drink in mixed-groups 
or with a male drinker (Harford, Wechsler, & Rohman, 1983). Drinking for social reasons 
increases positive effects and increases the opportunity of having fun (Westmaas et al., 2007).  
Drinking in social settings also makes students friendlier and energetic (Westmaas et al., 2007). 
In essence, alcohol can be viewed as a social lubricant for many students (Westmaas et al., 
2007).  
Social or peer influence is a strong predictor of college-age alcohol use and abuse (Abar 
& Maggs, 2010). This is especially true for Latino students. Peer alcohol use has been 
consistently linked to alcohol use in Latino adolescents (Segura, Page, Neighbors, Nichols-
Anderson, & Gillaspy, 2003). Specifically, 22% to 23% of Latino adolescent alcohol use is 
attributed to peers? alcohol use (Frauenglass, Routh, Pantin, & Mason, 1997; Walter, Vaughan, 
& Cohall, 1993). Dusenberry, Epstein, Botvin, and Diaz (1994) found that Latino adolescents 
were 23.3 times more likely to drink if their peers drank.   
Thus, social or peer influence may lead to binge drinking. Binge drinking is defined as 
consuming ?five or more drinks in a row for men and four or more drinks in a row for women 
within a 2-week period? (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2002, p. 5). 
Binge drinking increases the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) to 0.08 after consuming alcohol 
in a two-hour period (Higher Education Center, n.d.). Wechsler et al. (1994) estimated binge 
drinking will occur at the rate of 50% for college men and 39% for college women. Students 
most likely to binge drink are members of fraternities and sororities that live in fraternity and 
sorority housing, Whites, male students, and students that were binge drinkers in high school 
(Wechsler et al., 2000). Students least likely to binge drink are African-Americans and Asians, 
students 24 years and older, married students, and students that were not binge drinkers in high 
14 
 
school (Wechsler et al., 2000). Lastly, the breakdown by ethnicity for binge drinking is as 
follows: American Indian students (52.6%), Whites (50.2%), Hispanics (49.3%), Asian/Pacific 
Islander (33.7%), and African-American (23.3%) (The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and 
Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention, 2008). 
Binge drinking within the college student population is higher than any other age group 
in the United States (Quigley & Marlatt, 1996). Constant access to alcohol, high alcohol use 
among peers, less parental supervision, and being away from home all contribute to detrimental 
alcohol abuse (Carey, 1993, 1995; Dreer, Ronan, Ronan, & Dush, 2004; LaBrie, Hummer, & 
Pedersen, 2007). Nevertheless, students find drinking as part of the college socialization process 
(Dreer, Ronan, Ronan, & Dush, 2004) and engage in frequent alcohol consumption.  
 Another social motive to drink is social context. Social context refers to the ?immediate 
situational, temporal, and motivational factors? (Beck, Arria, Caldeira, Vincent, O?Grady, & 
Wish, 2008, p. 421) which affect drinking. Beck et al. (2008) developed a social context scale 
identifying six different social contexts that influence drinking. These contexts include: social 
facilitation, peer acceptance, emotional pain, family drinking, sex seeking, and driving in motor 
vehicles. The above scale was used to conduct a study with 1,253 college students. The study 
concluded that the factor most relevant to distinguish problem drinkers from non-problem 
drinkers was social facilitation. In addition, common motivations for drinking in a social context 
were well-being, conviviality, and social interactions. A study conducted by Ichiyama and Kruse 
(1998) using the Beck et al. social context scale concluded that freshmen students that binge 
drink were more motivated to drink to gain acceptance from their peers. Thus, college drinking 
is, to a large extent, socially motivated. Another conclusion determined from the study yielded 
that freshmen binge drinkers were impulsive and thrill-seekers and these characteristics may 
15 
 
account for heavy drinking. Binge drinkers were also more motivated to drink in order to 
enhance their social interactions with peers. College students drink for many reasons that vary 
according to the situation or context.  
Social motives also vary by gender. A study conducted by O?Callaghan & Callan (1992) 
concluded that males drink to relieve social pressures because males prefer to drink in groups of 
two or more males. In addition, drinking is more self-defining for men (Prentice & Miller, 1993). 
For example, some of the most common effects of drinking include feeling ?powerful, unafraid, 
sociable, daring, tough, aggressive, and sexual? (Neighbors, Walker, & Larimer, 2003, p. 293). 
These characteristics are typically expected in men. Furthermore, Ichiyama and Kruse (1998) 
revealed that frequent male binge drinkers were more prone to use alcohol for sex-seeking. Thus, 
male binge drinkers are more likely to engage in high-risk sexual behaviors, such as unplanned 
and/or unprotected sex. In a study conducted by Edwards and Jones (2009), male participants 
revealed that they were expected to believe college represented ?four years of freedom? (p. 217). 
Males are expected to party to assert their masculinity (Edwards & Jones, 2009).  
On the other hand, females have different drinking motives and the rate of female binge 
drinkers is increasing (LaBrie, Hummer, & Pedersen, 2007). One reason females drink is to 
establish intimate relationships (Vince-Whitman & Cretella, 1999). This can result in negative 
consequences that would not occur for males (LaBrie, Hummer, & Pedersen, 2007). In a study 
conducted by LaBrie et al. (2007), some of the negative consequences females experienced were 
forced sexual intercourse and regrettable intercourse. But, the study also revealed that females 
would accept negative consequences if drinking provided intimate relationships, making friends, 
and social interactions. Furthermore, in a study by Smith & Berger (2010), they concluded that 
females cited merriment, meeting others, mating and men, mood management, and ?being me? 
16 
 
as reasons for drinking. Females base their decision to drink on their attitude and preferences 
(Budd & Spencer, 1984).   
Developmental 
 College represents a new developmental phase for students. College provides newfound 
freedom away from parents and home. This new environment is also marked by high 
consumption of alcohol (Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, Seibring, Nelson, & Lee, 2002). Being that alcohol 
symbolizes a level of maturity (Sadava, 1995), students need to master appropriate alcohol 
consumption (Demb & Campbell, 2009). This may become quite a developmental task for 
students (Sadava, 1995). College student development can be simplified into two areas: 
psychosocial and cognitive. Each area will be discussed further.  
 The first developmental task for college students is psychosocial. This begins with 
students establishing an identity for themselves (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). Research suggests 
that identity development is related to lower levels of alcohol consumption (Bishop, Weisgram, 
& Hollique, 2005). Therefore, the closer a student gets to establish his or her identity, the less 
alcohol consumption occurs. Identity development also involves autonomy. This autonomy is 
tested by challenging authority (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). Students increase their risk-taking 
and sensation seeking which may lead to violence, unintentional injuries, risky sexual behavior, 
homicide, and suicide (Dahl, 2004). Research suggests that there is a relationship between 
alcohol and risk taking and the greater the perception of risk, the greater the alcohol consumption 
(Lewis, 2007). Although students are aware of the risks associated with alcohol, awareness is not 
enough to minimize drinking and they ultimately accept those risks (Lewis, 2007). Perceptions 
of risk are especially critical for women because the greater the perceived risk of harm or loss, 
17 
 
the more alcohol is consumed (Lewis, 2007). Therefore, alcohol use plays a role in challenging 
boundaries and developing self-autonomy.  
 Students also have to balance peer influence. Peer influence shows significant effects on 
alcohol consumption (Borsari & Carey, 2006). A student with a peer network containing many 
drinkers increases the chances of a student not graduating from college (Demb & Campbell, 
2009). In addition to peer influence, students also have to balance emotions. Students often turn 
to alcohol to learn how to balance emotions (Schulenburg & Maggs, 2002). Students using 
alcohol to cope increases the likelihood of alcohol consumption (Demb & Campbell, 2009). 
Despite the psychosocial tasks that a student undergoes, becoming older and establishing 
competence causes a decrease in alcohol consumption. Life events, such as graduating from 
college, new job, and marriage all contribute to a student maturing and consuming less alcohol 
(Demb & Campbell, 2009).  
 College students also undergo cognitive development. A student?s way of thinking begins 
to shift as they graduate from high school and enter college. Whereas alcohol is viewed as 
negative and prohibited in high school, students will begin to view alcohol positively in college 
(Schulenberg & Maggs, 2002). This is especially true for women. For example, if their peers are 
drinking alcohol, then they are more likely to consume alcohol to maintain the relationship 
(Gleason, 1994). In conclusion, students seem to struggle with alcohol use to establish their 
identity, autonomy, and maintain relationships but then control alcohol use as they grow older.  
Family History 
 Families have a strong influence in a college student?s life. Thus, family history is 
associated with first alcohol use (Windle & Zucker, 2010). Jackson, Sher, Gotham, and Wood 
18 
 
(2001) found that those students with a family history of alcohol abuse are more likely to abuse 
alcohol. Age of first drink is a predictor of later drinking behavior (Gonzalez, 1989; Humphrey 
& Friedman, 1986; Lewis, 2007; Thombs, 2000). Thus, adolescent drinking is significantly 
influenced by the drinking patterns of their parents (DeVore & Ginsburg, 2005; Dishion & 
McMahon, 1998; Windle, 1996). Parents setting positive examples for their adolescent may 
prevent early alcohol use.  
Situational 
 Another motive for college student drinking is centered on an event or situation. Causes 
for celebrations on college campuses are tailgating (drinking before a sporting event), holidays, 
and special events (Woodyard & Hallam, 2010). Also, high levels of consumption occur during 
Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year?s Eve, and Spring Break (Woodyard & Hallam, 2010). 
Research suggests that celebratory events signify greater alcohol consumption by college 
students (Glindemann, Wiegand, & Geller, 2007). When consuming alcohol on celebratory days, 
students consume alcohol for longer periods of time and larger quantities (Woodyard & Hallam, 
2010). Student sports fans report more incidents of drinking alcohol, binge drinking, heavy 
drinking, and alcohol-related problems (Nelson & Wechsler, 2003). Even students who are not 
sports fan report drinking more heavily on game days than on non-game days (Neal, Sugarman, 
Hustad, Caska, & Carey, 2005). Both home and away football games are associated with heavy 
alcohol consumption (Woodyard & Hallam, 2010). Heavy alcohol consumption is especially true 
for high-profile football games (Woodyard & Hallam, 2010). Thus, collegiate sports present a 
heavy drinking social environment.  
19 
 
Weekend drinking is also prevalent on college campuses. Weekends are associated with 
leisure and an increase in alcohol consumption (Fortenberry, Orr, Zimet, & Blythe, 1997). 
Research conducted by Maggs, Williams, and Lee (2011) studied alcohol drinking days. The 
study suggested that students drank more on weekends, specifically, Fridays and Saturdays 
(Maggs et al, 2011). Students were also more prone to drink excessively to the point of 
unconsciousness on weekends. Weekends signify heavy alcohol consumption for most college 
students. 
 Not only do students drink on the weekends, but the weekend is also a contributor to 
pregaming. Pregaming can also be referred to as pre-partying or pre-bar and occurs when 
students drink alcohol before a social gathering or event (Zamboanga, Schwartz, Ham, Borsari, 
& Van Tyne, 2010). Students typically consume multiple shots of liquor, beers, or other 
alcoholic beverages when pregaming. Overall, pregaming is the practice of consuming heavy 
alcohol at a fast pace (Pedersen & LaBrie, 2007). Approximately 75% of students pregamed at 
least once in the past month (Pedersen & LaBrie, 2007). But prepartying does not preclude 
alcohol consumption for the remainder of the day/evening.  The social gathering or event may 
involve the consumption of more alcohol (Pedersen & LaBrie, 2007). Therefore, some negative 
consequences of pregaming including drinking more than intended, physical and/or verbal 
confrontations, and unwanted sexual encounters (LaBrie & Pederson, 2008).  
A motive for pregaming is availability of alcohol. Students are concerned with not being 
able to obtain alcohol once they arrive at the social event (Pedersen & LaBrie, 2007). Alcohol 
may be prohibited based on age, availability, or cost. Students pregame before an event to 
minimize the cost of consuming alcohol at the intended destination, such as a bar or club (Read, 
Merrill, & Bytschkow, 2010). In addition, students pregame because they are under the legal 
20 
 
drinking age and will not be served alcohol at the destination (Read, Merrill, & Bytschkow, 
2010). Cost and legal age were the two primary reasons why students reported pregaming (Read, 
Merrill, & Bytschkow, 2010). But, Pedersen and LaBrie (2007) determined that students 
continue drinking at their destination despite age and cost. In some manner students are still 
obtaining alcohol and increasing their high intoxication levels. Subsequently, more than 60% of 
underage students (18-20) reported last obtaining alcohol from legal aged people (Brown, 
Matousek, & Radue (2009). Sources of illegal provision of alcohol include: legal-age friends, 
parents/siblings, false identification cards, and lenient underage drinking enforcement practices 
(Fabian, Toomey, Lenk, & Erickson, 2008). Availability of alcohol is a large impetus for 
pregaming practices.  
Another social motive for pregaming is to ease the tension of meeting new people at the 
expected social gathering (Pedersen & LaBrie, 2007). Students begin the social interaction with 
their friends to alleviate the awkwardness of meeting new people. If a student expects that 
meeting new people would be easier, then they would be more likely to pregame (Zamboanga, 
Schwartz, Ham, Borsari, & Van Tyne, 2010). Therefore, both males and females use pregaming 
as social lubrication. 
 In addition, research suggests that there is no gender difference with pregaming. The data 
from the LaBrie and Pedersen (2008) study revealed that although men drink more often than 
women when pregaming, men and women consume similar amounts of alcohol during 
pregaming. Women were drinking more to fit in and be attractive to males. But, there is a 
concern in these drinking practices. Females metabolize alcohol differently than males. Women 
can achieve higher intoxication levels than men because of physiological differences (LaBrie & 
Pederson, 2008). These physiological differences include higher female body fat, less water to 
21 
 
dilute alcohol, less of the stomach enzyme that breaks down alcohol, and fluctuating hormones 
(Frezza, DiPadova, Pozzato, Terpin, Baraona, & Lieber, 1990). These physiological differences 
are areas of concern for women?s pregaming practices.   
Campus environment 
 Campus environment is another motive for college student drinking. Alcohol has become 
a permanent figure in college life (Cooney & Nonnamaker, 1992). Average students are 
consuming about 4.5 drinks per week and approximately 20% of students consume alcohol three 
or more times per week (Presley, Derman, & Driscoll, 1994). There are various environmental 
factors that influence college drinking. Some of these factors include: membership in 
fraternities/sororities, athletics, size of institution, and location (National Institute on Alcohol 
Abuse and Alcoholism, 2002). Fraternities provide a substantial portion of alcohol to students 
(DeSimone, 2009). Research suggests that fraternity and sorority members drink more frequently 
and heavily than non-Greeks (Lo & Globetti, 1995, Werner and Greene, 1992; Alva, 1998; 
Cashin, Presley, & Meilman, 1998; Sher, Bartholow, & Nanda, 2001). Greeks are also more 
likely to drink and drive than non-Greeks (The National Center on Addiction and Substance 
Abuse at Columbia University, 2007). Drinking is embedded in the Greek system through its 
values, traditions, and culture (Kuh & Arnold, 1993). Greeks find alcohol use socially acceptable 
to establish friendships, conduct social activities, and establish sexuality (Cashin et al, 1998). 
Hence, Greek affiliation is related to alcohol abuse and is common in a socially-centered 
environment (Juth, Smyth, Thompson, & Nodes, 2010).  
Another environmental factor that influences alcohol consumption on college campuses 
is the concept of alcohol being a rite of passage. Some adults believe that this rite of passage is a 
22 
 
phase and students would pass through this phase without great injury or harm (Jessor & Jessor, 
1975). Thus, excessive drinking in college is deemed acceptable by many adults (National 
Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2002). Approximately 38% of college 
administrators name rite of passage as a significant barrier in effective alcohol prevention 
strategies on campus (The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia 
University, 2007). This culture of excessive drinking is prevalent throughout campus and 
imbedded within students and adults. For example, peers reinforce excessive college drinking as 
being a part of college life (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2002). Alumni 
then reinforce this environment by drinking at sports and social events (National Institute of 
Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2002). And lastly, the community sells alcohol on or near 
campus and depends on college students for their financial success (National Institute on Alcohol 
Abuse and Alcoholism, 2002). As a result, college students are viewing alcohol being consumed 
by their peers and adults. This constant consumption ultimately alters students? perceptions and 
they perceive alcohol as being socially tolerated. This provides mixed-messages for students 
when told by administrators not to drink. Even if a student chooses to minimize or abstain from 
alcohol consumption, some college environments are powerful enough to influence almost 
everyone (Moos, 1976).  The campus culture may negatively impact a student?s perception of 
alcohol. Healthy People 2010 reports: 
The perception that alcohol use is socially acceptable correlates with the fact that more 
than 80% of American youth consume alcohol before their 21st birthday, whereas the lack 
of social acceptance of other drugs correlates with comparatively lower rates of use. 
Similarly, widespread societal expectations that young persons will engage in binge 
23 
 
drinking may encourage this highly dangerous form of alcohol consumption. (USDHHS, 
2000, p. 946) 
Campus environment may also be affected by a wet environment. A wet environment is 
an area where alcohol is prominent and easily accessible (Edwards et al., 1995). High density of 
bars and clubs may attribute to heavier alcohol consumption (Wechsler, Lee, Hall, Wagenaar, & 
Lee, 2002). Wet environments provide ease of access to alcohol. Liquor stores also provide ease 
of access to college students (Wechsler, Lee, Hall, Wagenaar, & Lee, 2002). Alcohol outlets are 
typically found in areas near colleges (Wechsler, Lee, Hall, Wagenaar, & Lee, 2002). Therefore, 
higher alcohol outlets increase availability of alcohol and alcohol consumption (Wechsler, Lee, 
Hall, Wagenaar, & Lee, 2002). 
 Campus environment is also affected by the term party school. Schools known as party 
schools have a reputation for large availability of alcohol with minimal consequences (Sullivan 
& Risler, 2002). A study conducted by Wechsler (1996) concluded that students living at a party 
school are three times more likely to experience a problem related to another student?s drinking. 
A party reputation may negatively affect both students and the institution?s image.  
Abstinence 
Although the literature provides ample research on motives for college student drinking, 
there are students that choose to abstain from alcohol consumption. Approximately, 65.5% of 
students are abstaining from all alcohol use (The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other 
Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention, 2008). Because abstinence is not a high concern for 
college administrators, there is limited literature on the reasons why students do not engage in 
alcohol consumption (Klein, 1990). Nevertheless, understanding why students do not drink is 
24 
 
essential in obtaining a holistic picture regarding college drinking. The following studies have 
been conducted to identify the reasons why some individuals abstain from alcohol consumption. 
Hilton (1986) surveyed 1,782 life-long alcohol abstainers. He cited four reasons why individuals 
did not drink: morality, adverse consequences, inconsequential (not liking the idea/taste of 
alcohol), and background (Hilton, 1986). Greenfield et al. surveyed 2,482 college students in 
1989. These students identified self-control, upbringing, self-reform, and performance as the 
reasons why they limit their alcohol consumption (Greenfield, 1989). Klein conducted a study 
with 526 college students (Klein, 1990). He concluded that the most common reason cited as a 
motive for abstaining was staying in control (Klein, 1990). Two other reasons included dislike of 
alcohol effects and negative experiences with those students who do consume alcohol (Klein, 
1990). Lastly, Johnson and Cohen (2004) concluded that reasons for non-drinking include 
disapproval of alcohol use, bad experiences, loss of control, and no exposure to alcohol. These 
studies help to provide a clearer picture of the motives for abstinence in college students.  
In conclusion, social, developmental, family history, situational, and campus environment 
provide a brief snapshot of motives associated with college student drinking. These motives vary 
according to each student and the context. The following passage can provide a summary of 
motives for college student drinking. 
Adolescence is the extraordinary period of dynamic change when a person moves from 
childhood to adulthood. During this transition, adolescents must cope with dramatic 
changes in their bodies, feelings, perspectives, and environments. They face new sexual 
and aggressive urges, the drive for autonomy, and the demands of their peer groups as 
they seek to develop a stronger sense of themselves. They will experience unfamiliar 
situations, pressures, desires, and challenges for which they have no prior frame of 
25 
 
reference and often are not fully prepared to deal with effectively on their own. 
Furthermore, adolescence is associated with increased freedom, decreased monitoring by 
adults, and an increased affiliation with peers. (U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services, 2007, p. 16) 
Thus, motives initiate behavior of alcohol consumption which may lead to negative 
consequences. Negative alcohol consequences can then affect a student?s life in various ways.  
Possible Consequences of Alcohol Abuse 
 Drinking motives can be the direct link between motives and actual behavior (Westmaas 
et al., 2007) and research suggests that the first six-weeks of enrollment are critical to first year 
success (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2002). Data suggest that freshmen 
report drinking alcohol more frequently and in higher levels than sophomores, juniors, or seniors 
(Ham & Hope, 2003; Strano, Cuomo, & Venable, 2004). Males report consuming twice as much 
alcohol than females within the first two months of college (Kidorf, Sherman, Johnson, & 
Bigelow, 1995). This time frame results in heavy consumption in first year students and can 
result in moderate to extreme consequences. Heavy alcohol drinkers are 21 times more likely to 
experience five or more alcohol-related consequences than moderate or light drinkers (Wechsler 
et al, 2000). Physical consequences can range from medical problems to death from alcohol 
poisoning (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2007). Other physical consequences 
include physical and sexual assaults, injuries, and suicide (U.S. Department of Health and 
Human Services, 2007). These consequences are experienced not only by students that consume 
alcohol, but also students who do not drink or engage in alcohol abuse. These consequences are 
then identified as secondhand (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2002). 
Secondhand consequences include car crashes, physical and sexual assaults, damaged property, 
26 
 
having to care for a drunken student, humiliation or insults, unwanted sexual advances, disrupted 
sleep, and disrupted study habits (Hingson et al., 2002; Wechsler et al., 1995, 2000; U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services, 2007, Higher Education Center, n.d.). 
Approximately 77% of college students experience secondhand consequences (Juth, Smyth, 
Thompson, & Nodes, 2010). Secondhand effects are typically higher in fraternity or sorority 
houses than in residence halls (Wechsler et al., 2002). Wechsler et al. (1995) found that students 
that do not engage in binge drinking, where more than half of the student population were binge 
drinkers, are twice as likely to experience secondhand consequences.  
In addition, consequences are not solely based on the amount of alcohol consumed. These 
consequences are predominantly based on the psychological consequences rather than the actual 
amount consumed (Bonin, McCreary, & Sadava, 2000; Park, 2004). Alcohol-related 
consequences, both first and secondhand, can affect a student in various ways.  
Academic 
 Alcohol abuse can lead to academic consequences for students. The inverse relationship 
between alcohol abuse and GPA can be depicted as follows: "A" average students consume an 
average of approximately 3.4 drinks per week; "B" average students consume 4.5 drinks per 
week; "C" average students consume 6.1 drinks per week; "D" or "F" average students consume 
9.8 drinks per week (Presley, Meilman, & Cashin, 1996). The same relationship between weekly 
drinks and GPA was found by Engs et al. (1996). Wechsler et al. (1994) found that binge 
drinkers were up to 16 times more likely to have missed class or gotten behind on school work. 
Other academic consequences include performing poorly on a test and lower grades (Dunn & 
Goldman, 1998; Leigh & Stacy, 2004). A study conducted by Kremer (2005) found that GPA 
27 
 
distribution was related to alcohol and living arrangements. For example, living with a roommate 
that drank in high school reduces GPA by 0.43 points (Kremer, 2005). In addition, students who 
themselves drank in high school are also affected by roommates that drink frequently (Kremer, 
2005). For these students, GPA may decrease up to a full point if their roommate drank 
constantly prior to college. But, that relationship is only evident for males. Kremer found no 
association between females? GPA and a roommates? drinking prior to college.  
 Academic performance is also related to heavy drinking and age. For example, research 
suggests that poor academic performance is stronger for underage students than legal-aged 
students (Wolaver, 2002). Thus, freshman and sophomore students are particularly at risk for 
poor academic performance due to heavy drinking. Research also suggests that heavy drinking 
may have an adverse effect on studying (Wolaver, 2002).  
On the other hand, research conducted by Paschall & Freisthler (2003) concluded that 
heavy alcohol use does not have a significant effect on academic performance in college. These 
results are consistent with research conducted by Wood et al. (1997) that found no association 
between problem drinking and academic problems in a freshman college sample. Nevertheless, it 
can be argued that missing class, falling behind in schoolwork and performing poorly on tests are 
academic consequences even if they do not affect GPA (Paschall & Freisthler, 2003). 
Furthermore, a sample of students rated alcohol use as one of the top 10 challenges regarding 
academic performance (American College Health Association, 2006).  
 Academic consequences can include student attrition. Approximately 57% of college 
students leave college without obtaining a degree (Tinto, 1987). Many variables affect student 
persistence and one of these variables can be associated with alcohol. Martinez, Sher and Wood 
28 
 
(2008) concluded that heavy drinking does relate to student attrition. College administrators 
reported that alcohol is a contributing factor for student dropouts (Higher Education Center, 
n.d.). Specifically, alcohol is a factor for almost one-third of the dropout rate for first-year 
students (Shutt, Oswalt, & Cooper, 2006). Alcohol is also associated with academic failure for 
Latino students (Walter, Vaughan, & Cohall, 1993). Thus, research suggests that there may be a 
relationship between alcohol and academic consequences.  
Personal 
 Approximately 60% of males and 30% of females experience an adverse life 
consequence as a result of alcohol (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Personal 
consequences can significantly impact a student?s life. One such personal consequence is 
unintended and/or unprotected sexual activity. A study conducted by Perkins (1992) found that 
one-fourth of students reported unintended or unprotected sexual activity due to alcohol 
consumption. Wechsler and Isaac (1992) found that heavy episodic drinkers were about three-
times more likely to engage in unplanned sexual activity. Meilman (1993) found that one in five 
students admitted to engaging in sexual activity due to drinking. Poulson et al. (1998) concluded 
that two-thirds of students acknowledged that drinking had a negative consequence for them 
sexually. Lastly, Anderson and Mathieu (1996) found that 33% of men and 17% of women drank 
more than usual to make sex easier. Drinking can lead to dire sexual consequences that students 
would not normally experience if they were not under the influence of alcohol. 
 Another significant personal consequence that students may face after heavy alcohol 
consumption is sexual assault. Alcohol is a factor in most college rapes (Mohler-Kuo, Dowdall, 
Koss, & Wechsler, 2004). Approximately 12% of women reported being sexually assaulted due 
to their drinking (Presley et al., 1996). Sixty-percent of women reported their judgment being 
29 
 
impaired at the time of the assault due to alcohol consumption (Frintner & Rubinson, 1993). 
Sexual assaults are more likely to occur for college women that are binge drinkers, were binge 
drinkers in high school, use drugs, and under the legal age (Mohler-Kuo et al., 2004).  
There are some possible explanations for the association between female student drinking 
and sexual assault. The following explanations attempt to summarize female student drinking 
and sexual assault.  
1. Increased consensual sexual activity prior to the forced activity, as alcohol contributes to 
more casual sexual behavior that may be misinterpreted by the male as an invitation to 
further sexual contact; 
2. The cultural stereotype of a drinking woman as ?loose? and therefore more desirous of 
sexual contact; 
3. The victim?s diminished ability to communicate clearly her choice to reject sexual 
advances when she is intoxicated; and 
4. The diminished ability of the victim to defend herself physically or flee from an 
aggressor. (Perkins, 2002, p. 94)  
These assumptions help to explain how alcohol consumption can impede a woman?s ability to 
protect herself from sexual assaults. In addition to the above statements, the following 
assumptions provide an explanation of sexual assaults from the male perspective. 
1. Men?s expectations that alcohol increases their sexual arousal; 
2. Men?s misperception of women?s sexual intent which increases if the woman is drinking; 
and  
30 
 
3. The possibility that alcohol may serve as a defense to justify the perpetrator?s behavior. 
(Rauch & Bryant, 2000, p. 242) 
Additionally, although White college students are more likely than any other ethnic group to 
experience sexual assaults due to alcohol consumption (Abbey, Ross, McDuffie, & McAuslan, 
1996), sexual assault is also prevalent in non-Whites. Sorenson and Siegel (1992) found that 
Hispanic women report lower rates of sexual victimization than Whites. Yet, other studies have 
found that Hispanic women are victim to more recurrent victimization than other ethnic groups 
(Arroyo, Simpson, & Aragon, 1997; Shaw, Lewis, Loeb, Rosado, & Rodriguez, 2001). A study 
conducted by Monks et al. (2010) revealed that 52% of Hispanic college males and 59% of 
Hispanic college females had been sexually assaulted. These rates were higher than the 1999 
study conducted by Larimer, Lydum, Anderson, & Turner. Larimer et al. (1999) found that 21% 
Hispanic college males and 28% Hispanic females had been sexually assaulted. But, one factor 
present with conducting research on Hispanic sexual assault victims is the low number of 
participants (Monks et al., 2010). Furthermore, sexual assault research tends to focus on males 
being perpetrators rather than victims; thus more research on male sexual victimization should be 
explored (Monks et al., 2010).  
Personal consequences due to alcohol consumption can also affect general quality of life. 
For example, a study conducted by Murphy et al. (2006) concluded that students that experience 
alcohol-related problems have diminished general satisfaction of life. Lack of general 
satisfaction of life can be found for both men and women. This dissatisfaction can be observed in 
academic performance, living environment, and family relations. In turn, these problems can lead 
to depression, stress, anxiety, lower self-esteem, and lower life satisfaction (Murphy et al., 2006). 
Alcohol use also correlates with gang involvement, anxiety, and depression amongst Latino 
31 
 
adolescents (Alva, 1995; Frauenglass, Routh, Pantin, & Mason, 1997). Personal consequences 
can interfere with a student?s way of life.  
Legal  
Legal problems are another possible consequence due to heavy alcohol consumption. 
Approximately 5% to 12% of students report legal trouble with police or campus authorities 
(Engs & Hanson, 1994). Furthermore, 95% of all violent crimes on campus involve the use of 
alcohol (Murphy, Hoyme, Colby, & Borsari, 2006). Arrest rates for students tend to increase 
during leisure time (Juth, Smyth, Thompson, & Nodes, 2010). Arrest rates also increase during 
weekends, football game days, and rush week (Juth, Smyth, Thompson, & Nodes, 2010). Juth, 
Smyth, Thompson, & Nodes (2010) found that social and environmental factors increase legal 
infractions; such as driving under the influence (DUI), minor in possession of alcohol, open 
container, minor consuming alcohol, and minor entering a liquor establishment citations. 
Overall, there was a 21% increase from 2001-2005 in the average number of arrests due to 
alcohol consumption (The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia 
University, 2007). Approximately 83% of campus arrests were alcohol related (The National 
Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, 2007). Criminal charges may 
result from alcohol-related legal infractions. Thus, academic, personal, and legal consequences 
are some of the alcohol-related consequences that students may face.  
Alcohol Expectancy  
Alcohol Expectancy Theory 
There is little difference between motives and expectancies (Goldman et al., 1999). But the 
primary difference between motives and expectancies is that motives ask individuals why they 
drink or how much they drink; whereas expectancy asks what happens when they drink 
32 
 
(Goldman et al., 1999). Also, motives for drinking are believed to mediate the effects of 
expectancies and the closest predictor of behavior (Cooper, Frone, Russell, & Mudar, 1995; Cox 
& Klinger, 1988). Motives are assumed to be the final link towards alcohol use (Catanzaro & 
Laurent, 2004; Cronin, 1997). In essence, motives for drinking are related yet distinct from 
expectancies (Patrick & Schulenberg, 2011).  
The term expectancy is cognitive in nature. Expectancy occurs when there is a relationship 
between an event or object and a situation (Goldman, Brown, & Christiansen, 1987). The 
relationship becomes stored information and the stored information is the expectancy (Smith & 
Goldman, 1994). Thus, the relationship becomes an if-then concept establishing a causal status 
(Goldman et al., 1987). In his 1932 work, Tolman began explaining expectancy theory (Tolman, 
1932). Tolman argues that human behavior encompasses stimuli and responses. MacCorquodale 
and Meehl (1954) further refined Tolman?s expectancy theory by arguing that humans learn the 
relationship between the stimulus, the response, and the outcome. Therefore, the individual may 
learn what the relationship is without actually performing the action. Bolles (1972) then argues 
against expectancies simply being formed by reinforcement. Instead he argues that expectancies 
relate environmental cues and responses to consequences. In 1977, Bandura then categorized 
expectancies into two types: outcome and efficacy. Bandura wanted to differentiate between 
behaviors and desired outcomes and an individual?s belief that he could perform these behaviors. 
In essence, expectancies are learned behaviors that result from repetition and integral in the 
learning process.  
 Alcohol can influence expectancies. Alcohol use is a learned behavior (Goldman et al., 
1987). In turn, alcohol forms alcohol expectancies (Goldman et al., 1987). Alcohol expectancy 
theory states that ?pre-drinking expectancies form positive outcomes from drinking, lead to more 
33 
 
positive initial drinking experiences, which in turn lead to still more positive expectancies, and 
so forth? (Smith & Goldman, 1994, p. 232). In essence, when individuals consume alcohol, they 
have outcome expectations (Jones, Corbin, & Fromme, 2001). These outcomes can be either 
desirable or unwanted outcomes (Agrawall, Dick, Bucholz, Madden, Cooper, Sher, & Heath, 
2008). An individual simply needs to possess the belief or expectation (Jones et al., 2001). 
Moreover, alcohol expectancies can be triggered by the belief that one has consumed alcohol 
(Norris, Davis, George, Martell, & Heiman, 2002). Alcohol expectancies can form without actual 
alcohol consumption. Goldman and colleagues (1987) revealed six alcohol expectancies:  
1. Global positive change 
2. Enhanced sexuality 
3. Physical and social pleasure 
4. Increased social assertiveness 
5. Relaxation and tension reduction 
6. Arousal and power. (Goldman et al., 1987, p. 206) 
A major conclusion found in this study was that expectancies could be verbalized (Goldman et 
al., 1987). Researchers no longer had to infer alcohol expectancies. Alcohol expectancies could 
then be better assessed in future studies. Furthermore, the most important contribution of alcohol 
expectancies is their ability to predict changes in drinking and the development of alcohol 
problems (Jones, Corbin, & Fromme, 2001). Alcohol expectancies predict changes in drinking 
by expanding on initiation and maintenance of drinking patterns (Jones et al., 2001).  
Alcohol expectancies have a greater relationship to quantity than to frequency of 
consumption (Leigh, 1989). Expectancies are the strongest predictors of drinking, even after 
controlling for other variables (Goldman, Del Boca, & Darkes, 1999). Alcohol expectancies also 
34 
 
predict behavior while drinking (George & Marlatt, 1986; Rohsenow, 1983) and future drinking 
(Brown, 1985). But, the most important contribution of alcohol expectancies is their ability to 
predict changes in drinking (Jones, Corbin, & Fromme, 2001).  
Positive expectancy 
 Alcohol expectancy can be categorized into positive and negative expectancies. A 
positive expectancy is a belief that alcohol will stimulate or enhance a positive affective 
experience (Read, Wood, LeJuez, Palfai, & Slack, 2004). Positive alcohol expectancies have 
been stronger predictors of drinking behavior (Lee, Greely, & Oei, 1999; Leigh & Stacy, 1993; 
Patrick, Wray-Lake, Finlay, & Maggs, 2010) and some studies have found links between 
expectancies and drinking behavior (McCarty, Morrison, & Mills, 1983; Rohsenow, 1983; Stacy, 
Widaman, & Marlatt, 1990; Wood, Nagoshi, & Dennis, 1992). Positive expectancies may even 
predict college drinking one month later (Carey, 1995). Those individuals that believe that 
alcohol will have a positive effect will be more likely to consume alcohol (Neighbors, Walker, & 
Larimer, 2003). Also, individuals that have positive expectancies are more likely to view 
consuming alcohol as a positive experience (Smith & Goldman, 1994). Thus, heavy drinkers 
tend to endorse positive expectancies (Brown et al, 1980; Mooney, Fromme, Kivlahan, & 
Marlatt, 1987; Rohsenow, 1983). Overall, positive alcohol expectancies have been associated 
with increased drinking experiences (Jones et al., 2001).  
 Positive expectancies have been researched more than negative expectancies (Jones et al., 
2001). This may be due to the belief that positive consequences are more likely to affect 
behavior more strongly than delayed negative effects (Rohsenow, 1983). In addition, positive 
35 
 
expectancies are more easily retrieved from memory than negative expectancies (Stacy, 
Widaman, & Marlatt, 1990).  
Negative expectancy 
 Although positive expectancies have received more research attention, increasing 
research suggests the importance that negative expectancies have on drinking behavior (Adams 
& McNeil, 1991). Negative expectancy is the belief that alcohol will decrease an aversive 
affective stimulus (Read, Wood, LeJuez, Palfai, & Slack, 2004). These stimuli include tension 
reduction, stress, or anxiety (Read, Wood, LeJuez, Palfai, & Slack, 2004). Lee et al. (1999) 
suggest that whereas positive expectancies may initiate drinking, negative expectancies may 
limit the amount consumed. But, literature has been mixed on negative expectancies. For 
example, some studies have found men to report greater tension reduction expectancies than 
women (Brown et al., 1980; Rohsenow, 1983) whereas other studies have not demonstrated this 
relationship (Mooney et al., 1987; O?Hare, 1990). Research has also been mixed on whether or 
not negative expectancies are truly negative. This can be due to negative effects being delayed 
consequences (Leigh, 1989). Some studies suggest that although negative effects are assumed to 
be negative, individuals may report negative expectancies as positive (Fromme, Stroot, & 
Kaplan, 1993; Valdivia & Steward, 2005). Others may not even experience negative effects 
(Goldman et al., 1999). Zamboanga (2006) found that not all female college students perceive 
negative expectancies as being negative. This, in turn, may place females at an increased risk for 
higher consumption of alcohol (Zamboanga, 2006). Findings regarding negative expectancies 
appear to be inconsistent because of the different scales used and measuring techniques. 
Nevertheless, negative expectancies may be essential in reducing or stopping alcohol 
consumption.   
36 
 
Valuations 
 Researchers argue that measuring expectancies is not sufficient (Goldman et al., 1999). 
Expectancy scales only measure the endorsement or likelihood of alcohol effects (Jones et al., 
2001). Yet, individuals may have different subjective values they assign to expectancies 
(Fromme et al., 1993; Grube et al., 1995; Leigh, 1989). Some studies reflect the importance of 
evaluations above expectancies in predicting alcohol use (Burden & Maisto, 2000; Burden, 
Maisto, & Wolfe, 1998). But others argue that measuring valuations adds little information 
beyond expectancy measures (Fromme et al., 1993; Grube et al., 1995). This is especially true if 
the expectancy scale has strong predictive powers (Goldman et al., 1999). Thus, research 
regarding the importance of measuring valuations of expectancies is mixed.  
Age 
 Age has been found to be a moderator between expectancies and drinking (Dunn & 
Goldman, 1998; Leigh & Stacy, 2004). Alcohol expectancies form at a young age (Goldman, 
Brown, & Christiansen, 1987). Alcohol expectancies may even form before an individual 
consumes their first drink (Kraus, Smith, & Ratner, 1994). Children learn about alcohol 
expectancies through observation, learning, and stereotypes (Critchlow, 1986). Hence, 
expectancies can be learned vicariously (Goldman et al., 1999). These expectancies are 
predominantly negative (Jahoda & Cramond, 1972). But as children mature, alcohol 
expectancies become more positive (Dunn & Goldman, 1998). Expectancies also change with 
drinking experience. As drinking experiences increase, expectancies change (Leigh & Stacy, 
2004). Adolescents with more drinking experience may result in a stronger relationship between 
expectancies and behavior (Leigh & Stacy, 2004). Therefore, alcohol expectancies at the 
beginning of a college student?s freshman year are related to drinking levels and subsequent 
37 
 
problems at the end of the academic year (Werner, Walker, & Greene, 1995). But, alcohol 
expectancies decrease over the four years of college (Sher et al., 1996). Being that alcohol 
expectancies decrease over time, the first year of college is critical in addressing alcohol 
expectancies (Thompson, Spitler, McCoy, Marra, Sutfin, Rhodes, & Brown, 2009). Sher et al. 
(1996) concluded that changes in expectancy and drinking parallel.  
 Furthermore, there has been little expectancy research conducted comparing different age 
groups. One challenge is the difference in samples (Leigh & Stacy, 2004). Thus far, research has 
been conducted with college students (Leigh & Stacy, 1993) and adolescents (Smith, Goldman, 
Greenbaum, & Christiansen, 1995). Lundahl, Davis, Adesso, & Lukas (1997) conducted a study 
with college students over the age of 20 versus under the age of 20. Students under 20 had higher 
global positive effects, sexual enhancement, increased power and aggression, and social assertion 
than students over 20 (Lundahl et al., 1997). Another challenge is the scale used to measure 
alcohol expectancies (Leigh & Stacy, 2004). There are a variety of alcohol expectancy scales; the 
most common being the Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire (AEQ) (Brown, Christiansen, & 
Goldman, 1987). But, the AEQ has two versions?adolescent and adult. The adult version only 
measures positive expectancies while the adolescent version measures both positive and negative 
expectancies. Thus, more research is needed comparing alcohol expectancies between age 
groups.  
Gender 
Gender is an individual difference that affects expectancies. Expectancies vary by gender 
according to what is acceptable or desirable for each gender (Windle & Davies, 1999). Findings 
regarding gender differences and expectancies have been mixed (Neighbors, Walker, and 
38 
 
Larimer, 2003). For example, men typically have stronger positive and weaker negative 
expectancies than women (Jones, Corbin, Fromme, 2001; Patrick & Maggs, 2008). But Carey 
(1995) found no significant gender differences in alcohol expectancies between male and female 
college students. Neighbors, Walker, and Larimer (2003) concluded that men and women held 
the same beliefs about the effects of alcohol, but men determined the effects to be more 
favorable. On the other hand, O?Callaghan and Callan (1992) concluded that males were more 
likely to believe that alcohol would result in negative outcomes. Brown, Goldman, Inn, and 
Anderson (1980) found that women held positive expectancies and men endorsed arousal and 
aggression. Thus, men and women may hold different expectancy sets (Brown et al., 1980). 
Rohsenow (1983) found that women expected less positive social and physical pleasure effects 
and greater impairment effects than men. Leigh (1987) also concluded greater impairment effects 
for women. Sher, Walitzer, Wood, & Brent (1991) found that men reported greater social 
lubrication and performance enhancement than women. Johnson (1994) found that anticipated 
positive expectancies for females were associated with more frequent drinking. Hence, findings 
regarding gender differences are mixed for males and females. The only consistent finding is that 
females report greater expectations of impairment (Sher, Wood, Wood, & Raskin, 1996).  
Alcohol expectancies can also have an effect on sexual victimization. There has been 
mixed support regarding alcohol expectancies and sexual situations (Davis, Norris, Hessler, 
Zawacki, Morrison, & George, 2010). LaBrie, Grant, and Hummer (2011) found that males and 
females endorsed more positive sexual expectancies and males reported higher liquid courage. 
Davis et al. (2010) revealed that alcohol expectancies do not increase women?s risky sexual 
behavior directly. But alcohol myopia theory (AMT) argues against this. Alcohol myopia theory 
describes how alcohol affects attention cues in the environment (Steele & Josephs, 1990). This 
39 
 
theory suggests that as an individual continues drinking, he or she may ignore cues in the social 
environment which may lead them to danger. Alcohol expectancies and AMT can combine 
together to create sexual risks. For example, if a male has strong sexual expectancies after 
consuming alcohol, he may become more prone to focus on sexual cues in the environment 
(Monks, Tomaka, Palacios, & Thompson, 2010). This may lead to him becoming sexually 
aggressive towards a female (Monks, Tomaka, Palacios, & Thompson, 2010). Alcohol 
expectancies may lead an individual to seek and expect positive effects in sexual situations 
(Palmer, McMahon, Rounsaville, & Ball, 2010). Alcohol expectancies and alcohol myopia 
theory can result in a potentially dangerous situation for both males and females.  
Additionally, sex-related alcohol expectancies are a significant predictor of unwanted 
situations (Dermen & Cooper, 1994). Corbin, Bernat, Calhoun, McNair, and Seals (2001) found 
that women with severe histories of sexual assaults tended to have increased alcohol 
expectancies such as sexual enhancement, tension reduction, and global positive change. These 
expectancies resulted in increased drinking, sexual partners, and sexual activity (Corbin et al., 
2001). Marx, Nichols-Anderson, Messman-Moore, Miranda, and Porter (2000) concluded that 
women who had been sexually assaulted had higher alcohol expectancies such as power, 
aggression, unconcern, relaxation, tension reduction, sexual enhancement, social expressiveness, 
social and physical pleasure, and global positive expectancy. These expectancies resulted in 
higher quantity and frequency of alcohol consumption. Klassen and Wilsnack (1986) found that 
alcohol expectancies enhances women?s sexual performance and initiation and slows their 
decision making process. Then, Rauch and Bryant (2000) studied the relationship between 
context and alcohol expectancies. They found that women have greater variability of alcohol 
expectancies in dating situations. For example, one partner may view alcohol consumption as an 
40 
 
invitation for sexual contact whereas the other partner simply views alcohol as a means of 
relaxation (Rauch & Bryant, 2000). In turn, this leads to miscommunication and unwanted sexual 
contact. This is especially risky when the female is in an unfamiliar dating situation (Rauch & 
Bryant, 2000). Thus, research suggests that the strength and pattern of alcohol expectancies 
change according to context (Rauch & Bryant, 2000). Alcohol expectancies may contribute to 
sexual assaults.  
Consequently, alcohol expectancies may have negative effects upon males. For example, 
college men that drink more tend to have higher alcohol expectancies and report sexual coercion 
(Wilson, Calhoun, & McNair, 2002). Furthermore, perpetrators have multiple alcohol-related 
expectancies that may result in aggression and disinhibition (Abbey, Zawacki, Buck, Clinton, & 
McAuslan, 2004). Alcohol expectancies may result in problem drinking for males (Thompson et 
al., 2009). Nevertheless, research suggests that alcohol expectancies may be more predictive of 
alcohol consumption in males than females (Kidorf, Sherman, Johnson, & Bigelow, 1995; Read 
et al., 2004; Thompson et al., 2009). In a mixed group study, Palmer et al. (2010) found that 
those individuals that had experienced sexual assault had higher alcohol expectancies, consumed 
more alcohol, experienced negative consequences, and used fewer protective strategies. Those 
findings are consistent with prior literature suggesting that alcohol expectancies result in 
increased alcohol use and negative consequences.  
Ethnicity 
Alcohol expectancies can also be analyzed according to ethnicity. Research has been 
mixed on the relationship between alcohol expectancies and ethnicity (Chung, Hipwell, Loeber, 
White, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 2008). For example, alcohol expectancies and alcohol use were 
41 
 
lower among African-American college women in comparison to other ethnic groups (Randolph, 
Torres, Gore-Felton, Lloyd, & McGarvey, 2009). In this study, African-American women also 
reported less positive expectancies, less use of alcohol, and fewer binge drinking episodes than 
Whites (Randolph et al., 2009). Daisy (1989) also found less positive expectancies for African 
Americans. Whites also had higher positive alcohol expectancies in comparison with Hispanics 
and African-Americans in a study conducted by Chartier, Hesselbrock, and Hesselbrock (2009). 
Slutske, Cronk, Sher, Madden, Bucholz, & Heath (2002) also reported lower positive 
expectancies for African-Americans adolescents in comparison to Whites. On the other hand, 
Meier, Slutske, Arndt, & Cadoret (2007) reported lower positive expectancies for Whites in 
comparison to African-American and Hispanic adolescents.   
But, research measuring alcohol expectancies and use for Latino students is lacking 
(Segura et al., 2004). Hispanic or Latino typically refers to Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, or 
other Central American and South American descendants (Zamboanga, 2005). There is empirical 
evidence that links alcohol expectancies with drinking behaviors for Latino populations 
(Zamboanga, 2005). For example, research suggests that expectancies are linked to alcohol use 
for those individuals of Mexican backgrounds (Corbett, Mora, & Ames, 1991; Gilbert, Mora, & 
Ferguson, 1994; Marin, 1996;). Gilbert et al. (1994) found that alcohol expectancies were 
positively associated with alcohol use for Mexican American women. Zamboanga (2005) also 
found that Mexican American college students view alcohol as a social agent. He found that 
positive alcohol expectancies were associated with drinking in social contexts and alcohol-
related problems for Mexican American students. He also found that expectancies affect sexual 
experiences and increase risky behavior for males. In addition, a study conducted by Segura et al. 
(2004) studied alcohol expectancies in Latino adolescents. They found that Latino students may 
42 
 
be more likely to use alcohol if he or she believes that alcohol will enhance their social behavior 
around peers. On the other hand, if Latino students believed that alcohol will impede their social 
behavior, they may be less likely to consume alcohol. Thus, data suggest that alcohol 
expectancies revolve around peer acceptance for Latino adolescents.  
Alcohol expectancies vary within the different Latino subgroups. Mills and Caetano 
(2010) conducted research to measure predictors of alcohol expectancies with different Hispanic 
subgroups. The researchers found that Hispanic subgroup was a significant predictor of both 
positive and negative expectancies, e.g. Cuban-Americans had the lowest expectancies and 
Mexican-Americans had the highest expectancies. Puerto Rican-Americans also had both high 
positive and negative expectancies. Overall, research suggests that there may be some 
differences in alcohol expectancies between Latino subgroups (Mills & Caetano, 2010) and 
further research should be explored.  
Mitchell, Beals, and Kaufman (2006) measured alcohol use and outcome expectancies in 
American Indian youth. They found significant relationships between positive expectancies and 
alcohol use (Mitchell et al., 2006). In this study, increases in expectancies resulted in greater 
alcohol use. Further research measuring alcohol expectancies in American Indian students should 
be explored.  
Lastly, Asian-American alcohol expectancies have been measured. Asian-Americans 
drink less than Caucasians (Akutsu, Sue, Zane, & Nakamura, 1989; Zane & Sasao, 1992). There 
are fewer alcohol problems in the Asian American community than other ethnic communities 
(Yu & Liu, 1986/1987). Han and Short (2009) conducted a study comparing Asian American and 
Caucasian college students. They concluded that Asian American students drank less in general, 
43 
 
drank less frequently, and had fewer binge drinking episodes than White students (Han & Short, 
2009). The researchers also found that Asian Americans had significantly less positive and 
negative expectancies than Caucasians. Thus, Asian American students expected fewer positive 
and negative effects. Daisy (1989) also found less positive expectancies in Asian Americans than 
Whites. Research suggested that positive expectancies are associated with increased drinking 
whereas negative expectancies are associated with decreased drinking (Reese, Chassin, & 
Molina, 1994; Sher et al., 1996). Yet in the Han and Short (2009) study the results were 
different. Negative expectancies were related to increased consumption suggesting that Asian 
Americans drink despite anticipating negative effects. Thus, further research should be 
conducted to determine what other factors affect Asian-American expectancies.  
Summary 
Motives for drinking, possible alcohol-related consequences and expectancies all shape a 
college student?s drinking behavior. Motives, consequences, and expectancies vary according to 
age, gender, and ethnicity. The literature is mixed regarding alcohol expectancies and age, 
gender, and ethnicity and further research should be explored to better understand college student 
drinking. For example, age has been found to be a moderator between expectancies and drinking 
(Dunn & Goldman, 1998; Leigh & Stacy, 2004). As drinking experiences increase, expectancies 
change (Leigh & Stacy, 2004). Adolescents with more drinking experience may result in a 
stronger relationship between expectancies and behavior (Leigh & Stacy, 2004). But, there has 
been little expectancy research conducted comparing different age groups. Further research 
should be explored to determine the strength of the relationship between age and expectancies. 
Expectancies also vary by gender according to what is acceptable or desirable for each gender 
(Windle & Davies, 1999). Findings regarding gender differences and expectancies have been 
44 
 
mixed (Neighbors, Walker, and Larimer, 2003). Men and women may hold different expectancy 
sets (Brown et al., 1980). Findings regarding gender differences are mixed for males and 
females. The only consistent finding is that females report greater expectations of impairment 
(Sher, Wood, Wood, & Raskin, 1996). Lastly, research has been mixed on the relationship 
between alcohol expectancies and ethnicity (Chung, Hipwell, Loeber, White, & Stouthamer-
Loeber, 2008). Some studies concluded that alcohol expectancies were lower for African-
American females than any other ethnic groups (Daisy, 1989; Randolph, Torres, Gore-Felton, 
Lloyd, & McGarvey, 2009; Slutske, Cronk, Sher, Madden, Bucholz, & Heath, 2002). On the 
other hand, Meier, Slutske, Arndt, & Cadoret (2007) reported lower positive expectancies for 
Whites in comparison to other ethnic groups. In addition, research measuring alcohol 
expectancies and use for Latino, American-Indian, and Asian-American, students is lacking 
(Akutsu, Sue, Zane, & Nakamura, 1989; Han & Short, 2009; Mills & Caetano, 2010; Mitchell et 
al., 2006; Reese, Chassin, & Molina, 1994; Segura et al., 2004; Sher et al., 1996; Zane & Sasao, 
1992) and research comparing ethnicity and alcohol expectancies should be explored.  
45 
 
CHAPTER 3. METHODS 
Introduction 
Chapter 1 addressed the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the 
significance of the study, the research questions, the limitations and assumptions of the study, 
and the definition of terms. Chapter 2 reviewed the literature which considered college students? 
motives for alcohol consumption, possible consequences associated with alcohol abuse, and 
alcohol expectancies.  
This chapter also reiterates the purpose of the study and the research questions. This 
chapter will then address participants, procedures, and instrumentation?the Comprehensive 
Effects of Alcohol (CEOA) questionnaire. Reliability and validity of the Comprehensive Effects 
of Alcohol (CEOA) questionnaire are discussed and the chapter concluded with a description of 
the analysis of the data.  
Purpose of the Study  
The purpose of this study was to examine alcohol expectancies of college students. 
Students drink for various reasons. Drinking motives can be defined as ?the need or 
psychological function that alcohol consumption fulfills and are typically assessed by responses 
of students to questionnaires about their reasons for drinking? (Baer, 2002, p. 45). Brennan et al. 
(1986) identified two general types of drinking motives: drinking for social purposes and 
drinking for emotional escape. Once students engage in drinking in a social context, the student?s 
46 
 
expectancies or effects of alcohol vary from individual to individual. Thus, a connected concept 
to drinking motives is alcohol expectancies. Alcohol expectancies can be defined as ?specific 
beliefs about the behavioral, emotional, and cognitive effects of alcohol? (Baer, 2002, p. 45).  
This study compared alcohol expectancies between sophomore, junior, and senior 
students and how these expectancies vary across gender and ethnicity. Alcohol consumption can 
alter a student?s behavioral, emotional, and cognitive actions that can result in positive or 
negative effects. Expectancies can also increase a student?s use of alcohol and increase risks 
associated with alcohol. Understanding a student?s alcohol expectancy is critical in 
comprehending college student drinking and attempting to curb alcohol abuse. This study 
provides a better understanding of the differences in alcohol expectancies between sophomore, 
junior, and senior students by gender and ethnicity. 
Research Questions 
The following research questions were used in this study: 
1. What is the relationship between class standing and alcohol expectancy and valuation as 
measured by the Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol (CEOA) questionnaire? 
2. What is the relationship between gender and alcohol expectancy and valuation as 
measured by the Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol (CEOA) questionnaire? 
3. What is the relationship between ethnicity and alcohol expectancy and valuation as 
measured by the Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol (CEOA) questionnaire? 
Participants 
The participants of this study were selected from a large southeastern university in the 
southeastern United States that serves approximately 25,000 students. The university granted 
47 
 
permission to conduct this research (see Appendix E). The participants consisted of 310 
sophomore, junior, and senior students enrolled in physical activity and wellness courses in the 
fall 2011 and spring 2012 semesters. The students were over the age of 19 and demonstrated 
willingness to participate in this study.  
Physical activity and wellness courses were selected from the College of Education based on 
the variety of students that enroll in physical activity and wellness courses. The university allows 
a maximum of four physical activity and wellness credits towards an undergraduate degree. 
Thus, students from all disciplines and majors enroll in physical activity and wellness courses. In 
addition, students from diverse ethnicities enroll in these courses. Lastly, a vast majority of 
males and females partake in physical activity and wellness courses. This discipline allows for a 
wide variety of sophomore, junior, and senior students with diverse gender and ethnicities.  
Procedures 
The faculty supervisor over the teaching assistants in physical activity and wellness courses 
was contacted and given an overview of the study, a copy of the survey instrument, as well as a 
projected timeline for data collection. The faculty supervisor scheduled a meeting with all of the 
teaching assistants to have the researcher discuss the survey instrument and subsequent research 
protocols. Teaching assistants in physical activity and wellness courses use Blackboard with 
each of their courses. Therefore, the faculty advisor then asked all of the teaching assistants to 
add the survey instrument to Blackboard. Blackboard is an educational system that  
works with our clients to develop and implement technology that improves every aspect of 
education. We enable clients to engage more students in exciting new ways, reaching them 
48 
 
on their terms and devices ? connecting more effectively, keeping students informed, 
involved, and collaborating together (Blackboard, 2011).  
Teaching assistants were encouraged to inform students and invite participation in completing 
the survey.  
The survey instrument was available on Blackboard for completion. In order to assess the 
relationship between class standing, gender, and ethnicity, students were also asked to respond to 
several demographic questions that were included within the survey. The three demographic 
questions asked for the student?s class standing, gender, and ethnicity.  
An information letter was also available on the survey for students to read before completing 
the survey (See Appendix B). Once the survey was completed by the student, the link was closed 
and the student could no longer retrieve the instrument.  
The survey was available online the last four weeks in the 2011 fall semester and the first 
two weeks in the 2012 spring semester. After the six week window, the survey was removed 
from Blackboard. The data were collected by the researcher and secured in a locked cabinet in 
the researcher?s office.  
Instrumentation 
 
Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol Questionnaire  
Anticipated positive and negative consequences of drinking affect drinking decisions 
(Cox & Klinger, 1990). Thus, expectancy assessment involves the measurement of positive and 
negative outcome expectancies. Available expectancy questionnaires, such as the Alcohol 
Expectancy Questionnaire (AEQ) and the Alcohol Effects Scale (AES), have the tendency of 
being either ?exclusively or heavily weighted toward assessment of positive expectancies? 
49 
 
(Fromme et al., 1993. p. 20). Although positive alcohol expectancies have been stronger 
predictors of drinking behavior (Lee, Greely, & Oei, 1999; Leigh & Stacy, 1993; Patrick, Wray-
Lake, Finlay, & Maggs, 2010), negative expectancies may limit or cease the amount consumed 
(Lee et al., 1999). Therefore, assessing positive and negative expectancies and valuations is 
critical in understanding drinking behavior.  
Fromme, Stroot, and Kaplan (1993) developed the Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol 
(CEOA) questionnaire. The questionnaire was first implemented in 1993 with 829 participants 
from a mid-Atlantic university to assess alcohol expectancies. Specifically, the questionnaire 
measures ?expectations of physiological, psychological, and behavioral outcomes associated 
with drinking alcohol? (Fromme et al., 1993, p. 19).  The CEOA is comprised of two parts: 
expectancy and valuations. The first part is expectancy. The instrument has 38 items measuring 
expected effects of alcohol. Each response is based on a Likert scale. The Likert scale is as 
follows: 1 = Disagree, 2 = Slightly Disagree, 3 = Slightly Agree and 4 = Agree.  
In addition to expectancies, the questionnaire also measures valuations. Measuring 
expectancies is not sufficient because individuals may have different subjective values they 
assign to expectancies (Fromme et al., 1993; Grube et al., 1995; Leigh, 1989). Considerable 
variability exists between an individual?s judgments about the desirability of particular effects of 
drinking (Fromme et al., 1993). This portion of the questionnaire also has 38 items measuring 
valuations. Valuation refers to the importance placed on an expected outcome (Fromme et al., 
1993). Each response is also based on a Likert scale. The Likert scale is as follows: 1 = Bad, 2 = 
Slightly Bad, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Slightly Good and 5 = Good. A copy of the instrument is included 
in Appendix C.  
50 
 
 The authors of the instrument also developed a scoring scale for data analysis. Four 
scales measure positive alcohol expectancy effects (sociability, tension reduction, liquid courage, 
sexuality) and three scales measure negative expectancy effects (cognitive and behavioral 
impairment, risk and aggression, self-perception). Each scale has several response items that 
relate to the respective scale. The following is the breakdown of each scale for both the positive 
and negative factors: 
Positive Factors 
Sociability 
 
I would act sociable  
It would be easier to talk to people  
I would be friendly  
I would be talkative  
I would be outgoing  
I would be humorous  
It would be easier to express feelings  
I would feel energetic  
Tension Reduction 
 
I would feel calm  
I would feel peaceful  
My body would feel relaxed  
Liquid Courage  
 
I would feel courageous  
I would feel brave and daring  
I would feel unafraid  
51 
 
I would feel powerful  
I would feel creative  
Sexuality 
 
I would be a better lover  
I would enjoy sex more  
I would feel sexy  
It would be easier to act out my fantasies  
 
Negative Factors 
 
Cognitive and Behavioral Impairment 
 
I would be clumsy  
I would feel dizzy  
My head would feel fuzzy  
My responses would be slow  
I would have difficulty thinking  
My writing would be impaired  
I would feel shaky or jittery the next day  
My senses would be dulled  
I would neglect my obligations 
Risk and Aggression 
 
I would take risks  
I would act aggressively  
I would be loud, boisterous, or noisy  
I would act tough  
I would feel dominant  
52 
 
Self-Perception 
 
I would feel moody  
I would feel guilty  
I would feel self-critical  
My problems would seem worse  
The scoring scale also includes instructions on how to calculate the expectancy scores. The 
scores can be calculated in several ways and the researchers provided instructions for each 
method. A copy of the scoring scale is included in Appendix D.  
Reliability & Validity 
Reliability is generally defined as the measure to the extent that two different researchers 
come to the same conclusions using the same procedures (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996). One form 
of measuring reliability is using a test-retest method. Test- retest reliability for the CEOA 
questionnaire over two months ranged from r = 0.66 to 0.72 for positive expectancy, r = 0.59 to 
0.78 for positive valuations, r = 0.75 to 0.81 for negative expectancy, and r = 0.53 to 0.65 for 
negative valuations (Fromme et al., 1993).  
Validity is generally defined as the degree to which a test measures what is claims to 
measure. Thus, when measuring a new instrument for validity, the most important type of 
validity is construct validity. Litzinger, Lee, Wise, and Felder (2007) define construct validity as 
?evidence that the instrument is measuring the construct that it is intended to measure? (p. 311). 
Construct validity for the CEOA questionnaire was measured using an exploratory factor 
analysis and a confirmatory factor analysis. The exploratory factor analysis yielded that the 
positive factor structure accounted for 55.9% of the total variance and eigenvalues ranged from 
7.5 to 1.4 (Fromme et al., 1993). The negative factor structure accounted for 46.3 % of the 
variance and eigenvalues ranged from 4.9 to 1.6. Also, the confirmatory factor analysis yielded 
53 
 
that the positive factors were x? (164, N = 485) = 438.11, p < .001 and the negative factors was x? 
(132, N = 485) = 334.96, p < .001 (Fromme et al., 1993).  
Another study that has validated reliability for the entire instrument is the study 
conducted by Fromme and D?Amico (2000). Using Cronbach?s alpha, internal reliabilities for the 
CEOA ranged from 0.59 to 0.89. Cronbach?s alpha ranges from 0?1. An internal consistency of 
.90 and higher on Cronbach?s alpha indicates an excellent reliability (Shannon & Davenport, 
2001).Then a test-retest over a three-month period yielded 0.41 to 0.66 for expected effects and 
.41 to .66 for valuations.  
Satre and Knight (2001) have also measured reliability for the instrument as a whole. 
This study compared alcohol expectancies to age and sex differences. For the older participants 
(ages 55-89), alphas ranged from 0.78 to 0.97. For the younger participants (ages 17-32), alphas 
ranged from 0.61 to 0.95.  
Monks et al. (2010) have also utilized the entire CEOA questionnaire to measure 
expectancies. They reported overall positive expectancies and negative expectancies of 0.90 and 
0.86. Neighbors et al. (2003) reported 0.93 and 0.91 for both positive and negative expectancies. 
Alphas were 0.93 and 0.91 for positive and negative valuations.  
But, some studies have only analyzed specific sections of the CEOA questionnaire. For 
example, Ham, Zamboanga, Olthuis, Casner, and Bui (2010) conducted research using the 38-
item expectancy portion of the CEOA. Specifically, they investigated three out four positive 
factors (Tension Reduction, Sociability, and Liquid Courage). Cronbach?s alpha was 0.66 for 
Tension Reduction, 0.87 for Sociability, and 0.82 for Liquid Courage. Valdivia and Stewart 
(2005) further examined the internal consistency of the CEOA questionnaire using a specific 
section of the instrument. They only analyzed Cognitive and Behavioral Impairment, Risk and 
54 
 
Aggression, and Self-Perception. Each factor (Cognitive and Behavioral Impairment, Risk and 
Aggression, and Self-Perception) ranged from 0.66 to 0.83 for both expectancies and valuations. 
Read et al. (2004) assessed Social Enhancement and Tension Reduction. The alphas for Social 
Enhancement was 0.88 (expectancy) and 0.87 (valuation). The alphas for Tension Reduction was 
0.65 (expectancy) and 0.67 (valuation). In essence, the instrument demonstrates adequate 
internal consistency, test-retest reliability, construct validity, and criterion validity (Fromme & 
D?Amico, 2000; Fromme et al., 1993; Palmer et al., 2010; Zamboanga, 2006). 
The researcher conducted an analysis of reliability for the CEOA questionnaire using 
Cronbach?s Alpha for the dependent variables, expectancy and valuations. The Cronbach?s 
Alpha for expectancy for this study was .91. The Cronbach?s Alpha for valuation was .95. An 
internal consistency of .90 and higher on Cronbach?s alpha indicates an excellent reliability 
(Shannon & Davenport, 2001). Overall, the CEOA showed excellent reliability.  
Analysis of Data 
The three independent variables (IV) investigated in this study were class standing, 
gender, and ethnicity. The first independent variable was class standing. Age has been found to 
be a moderator between expectancies and drinking (Dunn & Goldman, 1998; Leigh & Stacy, 
2004). As drinking experiences increase, expectancies change (Leigh & Stacy, 2004) and 
changes in expectancy and drinking parallel (Sher et al., 1996). As such, the researcher compared 
alcohol expectancies between sophomore, junior, and senior students. Data on freshmen students 
was not collected.  
 The second independent variable was gender. Expectancies vary by gender according to 
what is acceptable or desirable for each gender (Windle & Davies, 1999). As a result, men and 
55 
 
women may hold different expectancy sets (Brown et al., 1980). Alcohol expectancies were 
compared for both males and females.  
 Lastly, the third independent variable was ethnicity. Expectancies vary according to the 
different ethnic groups. The researcher compared alcohol expectancies for White/Caucasian, 
Black/African Americans, Hispanic/Latino, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Asian students.  
 There were two dependent variables (DV) for the study. The dependent variables are the 
domains analyzed in the CEOA questionnaire?expectancies and valuations. Expectancies can 
be comprised of positive and negative expectancies. Positive alcohol expectancies have been 
stronger predictors of drinking behavior (Lee, Greely, & Oei, 1999; Leigh & Stacy, 1993; 
Patrick, Wray-Lake, Finlay, & Maggs, 2010) and many studies have found links between 
expectancies and drinking behavior (McCarty, Morrison, & Mills, 1983; Rohsenow, 1983; Stacy, 
Widaman, & Marlatt, 1990; Wood, Nagoshi, & Dennis, 1992). On the other hand, Lee et al. 
(1999) suggested that whereas positive expectancies may initiate drinking, negative expectancies 
may limit the amount consumed. In addition, researchers argue that measuring expectancies is 
not sufficient (Goldman et al., 1999) and expectancies and valuations should be measured 
together.  
 Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was used to analyze the data gathered in 
the study. A MANOVA is an extended analysis form of a one-way Analysis of Variance 
(ANOVA). The ANOVA is used to analyze the effects of two or more independent variables 
(Corston & Colman, 2000). A MANOVA has multiple independent variables and multiple 
dependent variables (French, Macedo, Poulsen Waterson & Yu (2008). The difference between a 
one-way ANOVA and a MANOVA is the inclusion of interaction between variables (Corston & 
56 
 
Colman, 2000). A one-way ANOVA fails to account for possible interaction effects which can 
impact significance of the variables (Corston & Colman, 2000).  
The data in this study were analyzed using a one-way multivariate analysis of variance 
(MANOVA) design with a p < .05 level of statistical significant difference. Data were analyzed 
using SPSS 19, a statistical software package that is used in social sciences research projects and 
that reports quantitative results. All data were handled in compliance with the Institutional 
Review Board at the university (see Appendix E). 
Summary 
 This chapter reiterated the purpose of the study and the research questions. The study 
examined alcohol expectancies by comparing expectancies between sophomore, junior, and 
senior students across gender and ethnicity. Further, this chapter described the participants of the 
study. The students were sophomore, junior, and senior students who were 19 years of age and 
older enrolled in physical activity and wellness courses. The students were solicited from 
physical activity and wellness courses at a large, southeastern university in the United States. 
The procedures for collecting data and the instrument, the Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol 
(CEOA) questionnaire were discussed. The reliability and validity of the Comprehensive Effects 
of Alcohol (CEOA) was investigated and discussed. The instrument demonstrated adequate 
internal consistency, test-retest reliability, construct validity, and criterion validity (Fromme & 
D?Amico, 2000; Fromme et al., 1993; Palmer et al., 2010; Zamboanga, 2006). Lastly, the data 
dictated that a one-way MANOVA design be used. The results of the study are presented in 
Chapter 4.
57 
 
CHAPTER 4. FINDINGS 
Introduction 
Chapter 1 addressed the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the 
significance of the study, the research questions, the limitations and assumptions of the study, 
and the definition of terms. Chapter 2 reviewed the literature which considered college students? 
motives for alcohol consumption, possible consequences associated with alcohol abuse, and 
alcohol expectancies. Chapter 3 then addressed participants, procedures and instrumentation?
Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol (CEOA) questionnaire for the study. Chapter three also 
discussed the reliability and validity of the questionnaire and concluded with the analysis of the 
data. Chapter 4 also reiterated the purpose of the study and the research questions. The chapter 
then addressed the demographic results and data analysis.  
Purpose of the Study 
The purpose of this study was to examine alcohol expectancies of college students. 
Students drink for various reasons. Drinking motives can be defined as ?the need or 
psychological function that alcohol consumption fulfills and are typically assessed by responses 
of students to questionnaires about their reasons for drinking? (Baer, 2002, p. 45). Brennan et al. 
(1986) identified two general types of drinking motives: drinking for social purposes and 
drinking for emotional escape. Once students engage in drinking in a social context, the student?s 
expectancies or effects of alcohol vary from individual to individual. Thus, a connected concept 
58 
 
to drinking motives is alcohol expectancies. Alcohol expectancies can be defined as ?specific 
beliefs about the behavioral, emotional, and cognitive effects of alcohol? (Baer, 2002, p. 45).  
This study compared alcohol expectancies between sophomore, junior, and senior 
students and how these expectancies vary across gender and ethnicity. Alcohol consumption can 
alter a student?s behavioral, emotional, and cognitive actions that can result in positive or 
negative effects. Expectancies can also increase a student?s use of alcohol and increase risks 
associated with alcohol. Understanding a student?s alcohol expectancy is critical in 
comprehending college student drinking and attempting to curb alcohol abuse. This study 
provides a better understanding of the differences in alcohol expectancies between sophomore, 
junior, and senior students by gender and ethnicity. 
Research Questions 
The following research questions were used in this study: 
1. What is the relationship between class standing and alcohol expectancy and valuation as 
measured by the Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol (CEOA) questionnaire? 
2. What is the relationship between gender and alcohol expectancy and valuation as 
measured by the Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol (CEOA) questionnaire? 
3. What is the relationship between ethnicity and alcohol expectancy and valuation as 
measured by the Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol (CEOA) questionnaire? 
Demographic Results 
Demographic characteristics for all participants enrolled in physical activity and wellness 
classes used in this study were summarized in terms of students? class standing, gender, and 
ethnicity toward expectancy and valuation as measured by the CEOA questionnaire.  
59 
 
A total of 310 participants were asked to respond to demographic questions including class 
standing, ethnicity, and gender. All 310 eligible participants responded by completing the survey 
under established guidelines and protocols. 
Class Standing 
 The first demographic question in the survey asked for the participants? class standing. 
There were 310 students that participated in this study. Of the 310 students, there were 112 
sophomores (36%). Next, there were 71 juniors (23%). Lastly, there were 127 seniors (41%). 
This study did not include freshmen participants. Distribution of participants within class 
standing is provided in Table 1. 
 
Table 1 
Distribution of Participants by Class Standing 
 
Class Standing Frequency Percent 
Sophomore 112 36 
Junior 71 23 
Senior 127 41 
TOTAL 310 100 
 
Gender 
 The second demographic question in the survey asked for participants? gender. This study 
was composed of 310 participants in a large, southeastern university. Females comprised the 
largest gender within the study with 207 (67%) female participants. There were 103 (33%) male 
participants. Distribution of participants by gender is provided in Table 2. 
 
 
60 
 
Table 2 
 
Distribution of Participants by Gender 
 
Gender Frequency Percent 
Male 103 33 
Female 207 67 
TOTAL 310 100 
 
Ethnicity 
 The last demographic question in the survey asked for the participants? ethnicity. 
Ethnicity was categorized into the following races: White/Caucasian, Black/African Americans, 
Hispanic/Latino, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Asian. Of the 310 participants, the largest 
race that participated in the study was White/Caucasian with 243 (78%) students. Because of the 
small number of participants for Black/African Americans, Hispanic/Latino, American 
Indian/Alaska Native, and Asian, these races were combined together to form a new category of 
?other? races. Distribution of participants by ethnicity is provided in Table 3.  
Table 3 
 
Distribution of Participants by Ethnicity 
 
Ethnicity Frequency Percent 
White/Caucasian 243 78 
Other 67 22 
TOTAL 310 100 
 
 
61 
 
 
Data Analysis 
Research Question 1: What is the relationship between class standing and expectancy and 
valuation as measured by the Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol (CEOA) questionnaire? 
Class Standing 
The first research question inquired about the relationship between class standing and 
alcohol expectancy and valuation. A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was 
conducted to undertake the research question of the relationship between class standing (IV) and 
expectancy (DV) and valuation (DV). The MANOVA was tested at the .05 level of significance. 
MANOVA (multivariate analysis of variance) is used to ?analyze data that involves more than 
one dependent variable at a time. MANOVA allows us to test hypotheses regarding the effect of 
one or more independent variables on two or more dependent variables? (Statistically Significant 
Consulting, Inc., 2012). The MANOVA was chosen because it incorporates the relationship 
among dependent variables (expectancy and valuation).  
By administering the descriptive statistics a mean and standard deviation was established 
for class standing (sophomore, junior, and senior). The mean of expectancy for sophomores was 
105.86; juniors were 107.80; and seniors were 103.07. The mean of valuation for sophomores 
was 103.32; juniors were 105.47; seniors were 97.61. Table 4 displays the mean and standard 
deviation results.
62 
 
Table 4 
 
Mean and Standard Deviation for Class Standing 
 Class Standing M SD 
Expectancy Sophomore 105.86 18.37 
 Junior 107.80 15.49 
 Senior 103.07 14.69 
Valuation Sophomore 103.32 24.45 
 Junior 105.47 20.69 
 Senior 97.61 22.00 
 
N=310 
 
 An assumption for the MANOVA is the homogeneity of covariance matrices for 
normality. Violations of homoscedasticity can be determined by interpreting the results of the 
Box?s Test. A non-significant Box?s M, (p=0.648) signified that the homogeneity of variance-
covariance matrix assumption was not violated and equal variances can be assumed (see Table 
5).  
Table 5 
Between Groups Homogeneity of Variance and Covariance 
 
Box?s M 8.74 
F 1.44 
df1 6 
df2 762156.25 
Sig. .19 
 
 The research question addressed whether there was a relationship between class standing 
and expectancy and valuation. Because Box?s Test was not violated, Wilks? Lambda statistic was 
used to interpret the result of the MANOVA. Wilks? Lambda is the most commonly used statistic 
for MANOVA (Polit, 1996). The MANOVA result revealed there is not a statistically significant 
63 
 
effect of class standing on expectancy and valuation, Wilks? ?=.974, F (4,612) =2.05, p=.086, 
multivariate ??=.013. A summary of the MANOVA table is included in Table 6.  
Table 6 
Summary of MANOVA test 
 
Multivariate Effects  Class Standing 
Wilks? Lambda (?)  .97 
df 4,612 
df error 612 
p  0.09 
Eta squared (??) .01 
 
The one-way MANOVA was then followed with a univariate test (ANOVA) for each 
dependent variable. Grimm and Yarnold (1995) stated that  
in the ANOVA there is a continuous dependent variable and one or more 
categorical independent variables. The purpose of the ANOVA is to determine 
whether the means of the dependent variable for each level of an independent 
variable are significantly different from each other. An interaction addresses 
whether the influence of one independent variable is altered by the level of 
another independent variable. (p. 250) 
 
The ANOVA results indicated no statistical significant effect of class standing on expectancy, F 
(2,307) =2.076, p=.127, partial ??=.013. On the other hand, the effect of class standing on 
valuation was significant, F (2,307) =3.329, p<.037, partial ??=.021. The ANOVA test results 
are reported in Table 7. 
 
 
64 
 
Table 7 
Summary of ANOVA test 
 
Univariate Effects Expectancy Valuation 
F 2.08 3.33 
p  .13 .04 
Eta Squared (??) .01 .02 
p<0.05 
Because univariate significance was demonstrated for valuation, a post hoc test was used 
to reveal which groups are significantly different for each dependent variable. The Bonferroni 
post hoc analysis revealed that students who were juniors and seniors significantly differ from all 
other class standing categories.  
Research Question 2: What is the relationship between gender and expectancy and 
valuation as measured by the Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol (CEOA) questionnaire? 
Gender 
The second research question addressed the relationship between gender and expectancy 
and valuation. A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to 
undertake the research question of the relationship between gender (IV) and expectancy (DV) 
and valuation (DV). The MANOVA was tested at the .05 level of significance. MANOVA 
(multivariate analysis of variance) is used to ?analyze data that involves more than one 
dependent variable at a time. MANOVA allows us to test hypotheses regarding the effect of one 
or more independent variables on two or more dependent variables? (Statistically Significant 
65 
 
Consulting, Inc., 2012). The MANOVA was chosen because it incorporates the relationship 
among dependent variables (expectancy and valuation).  
By administering the descriptive statistics a mean and standard deviation was established 
for gender (male, female). The mean of expectancy for males was 105.77; females were 104.86. 
The mean of valuation for males was 107.05; females were 98.70. Table 8 displays the mean 
results. 
Table 8 
 
Mean and Standard Deviation for Gender 
 
 Gender M SD 
Expectancy Male 105.77 16.59 
 Female 104.86 16.25 
Valuation Male 107.05 17.75 
 Female 98.70 24.51 
N=310 
 
An assumption for the MANOVA is the homogeneity of covariance matrices for 
normality. Violations of homoscedasticity can be determined by interpreting the results of the 
Box?s Test. A significant Box?s M, (p<0.004) signified that the homogeneity of variance-
covariance matrix assumption was violated and equal variances cannot be assumed (see Table 9). 
Because Box?s M was significant (p<0.004) and group sample size are extremely unequal 
(male=103, female=207), then robustness cannot be assumed due to unequal variances among 
groups. These results are uncharacteristic of the population distributed at the university. The 
male to female percentage at the university is 51% male, 49% female. This study yielded an 
unequal distribution of male and female participants.  
66 
 
Therefore, a more robust MANOVA test statistic is required. This test statistic is the 
Pillai?s Trace instead of the Wilks? Lambda which is normally used when equal variances are 
assumed.  
Table 9 
 
Between Groups Homogeneity of Variance and Covariance 
Box?s M 13.48 
F 4.46 
df1 3 
df2 1034085.30 
Sig. .004 
 
The research question addressed whether there was a relationship between gender and 
expectancy and valuation. Because Box?s Test was violated, Pillai?s Trace statistic was used to 
interpret the result of the MANOVA. The MANOVA result revealed there is a statistically 
significant effect of gender and expectancy and valuation, Pillai?s=.031, F (2,307) =4.94, p<.008, 
multivariate ??=.031. A summary of the MANOVA table is included in Table 10.  
Table 10 
Summary of MANOVA test 
 
Multivariate Effects  Gender 
Pillai?s Trace .03 
df 2 
df error 307 
p  .008 
Eta squared (??) .03 
 
67 
 
 The one-way MANOVA was then followed with a univariate test (ANOVA) for each 
dependent variable. The ANOVA results indicated no statistical significance of expectancy on 
gender, F (1,308) =.214, p=.644, partial ??=.001. On the other hand, gender was statistically 
significant for valuation, F (1,308) =9.486, p<.002, partial ??=.030. The ANOVA test results are 
reported in Table 11. 
Table 11 
Summary of ANOVA test 
 
Univariate Effects Expectancy Valuation 
F .21 9.49 
p  .64 .002 
Eta Squared (??) .001 .03 
p<0.05 
Research Question 3: What is the relationship between ethnicity and expectancy and 
valuation as measured by the Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol (CEOA) questionnaire? 
Ethnicity 
The second research question addressed the relationship between ethnicity and 
expectancy and valuation. A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was 
conducted to undertake the research question of the relationship between ethnicity (IV) and 
expectancy (DV) and valuation (DV). The MANOVA was tested at the .05 level of significance. 
MANOVA (multivariate analysis of variance) is used to ?analyze data that involves more than 
one dependent variable at a time. MANOVA allows us to test hypotheses regarding the effect of 
one or more independent variables on two or more dependent variables? (Statistically Significant 
68 
 
Consulting, Inc., 2012). The MANOVA was chosen because it incorporates the relationship 
among dependent variables (expectancy and valuation).  
By administering the descriptive statistics a mean and standard deviation was established 
for ethnicity (whites, others). Table 12 displays the mean results. 
Table 12 
 
Mean and Standard Deviation for Ethnicity 
 
 Ethnicity M SD 
Expectancy Whites 107.69 14.82 
 Others 96.01 18.33 
Valuation Whites 102.05 22.84 
 Others 99.38 22.72 
N=310 
 
An assumption for the MANOVA is the homogeneity of covariance matrices for 
normality. Violations of homoscedasticity can be determined by interpreting the results of the 
Box?s Test. A non-significant Box?s M, (p = .108) signified that the homogeneity of variance-
covariance matrix assumption was not violated and equal variances can be assumed (see Table 
13).  
 
 
 
 
69 
 
Table 13 
Between Groups Homogeneity of Variance and Covariance 
Box?s M 6.15 
F 2.03 
df1 3 
df2 215030.51 
Sig. .108 
 
The research question addressed whether there was a relationship between ethnicity and 
expectancy and valuation. Because Box?s Test was not violated, Wilks? Lambda statistic was 
used to interpret the result of the MANOVA. The MANOVA result revealed there is a 
statistically significant effect of ethnicity on expectancy and valuation, Wilks? ?=.910, F (2,307) 
= 15.44, p<.001, multivariate ?? =.090. A summary of the MANOVA table is included in Table 
14. 
Table 14 
Summary of MANOVA test 
 
Multivariate Effects Ethnicity 
Wilks? ?  .91 
df 2 
df error 307 
p  .001 
Eta squared (??) .09 
 
 The one-way MANOVA was then followed with a univariate test (ANOVA) for each 
dependent variable. The ANOVA results indicated statistical significant effect of ethnicity on 
expectancy, F (1,308) =29.24, p<.001, partial ?? =.087. But, ethnicity did not have a statistically 
70 
 
significant effect on valuation, F (1,308) =.716, p=.398, partial ??=.002. The ANOVA test results 
are reported in Table 15. 
Table 15 
Summary of ANOVA test 
 
Univariate Effects Expectancy Valuation 
F 29.24 .72 
p  .001 .40 
Eta Squared (??) .09 .002 
p<0.05 
Summary 
A one-way MANOVA design was conducted for each of the independent variables to test 
whether there were significant differences between class standing, gender, and ethnicity (IVs) 
and expectancy and valuation (DVs). Reliability analyses were also conducted to assess the 
reliability of the instrument used in the study. Cronbach?s Alpha coefficient was .91 for 
expectancy and .94 for valuation, thus indicating that the instrument was reliable. 
The results indicated that there was not a statistically significant effect of class standing 
on expectancy and valuation. On the other hand, the results indicated that there is a statistically 
significant effect of gender and ethnicity and their relationship with expectancy and valuation. 
Chapter 5 will present the summary, conclusion, implications and recommendations to the study.
71 
 
CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
Introduction 
Chapter 1 addressed the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the 
significance of the study, the research questions, the limitations and assumptions of the study, 
and the definition of terms. Chapter 2 reviewed the literature which considered college students? 
motives for alcohol consumption, possible consequences associated with alcohol abuse, and 
alcohol expectancies. Chapter 3 then addressed participants, procedures and instrumentation?
Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol (CEOA) questionnaire for the study. Chapter 3 also discussed 
the reliability and validity of the questionnaire and concluded with the analysis of the data. 
Chapter 4 addressed the demographic results and data analysis. Research findings addressing the 
three research questions with statistical evidence are also discussed in this chapter. Chapter 5 
provided the summary, conclusions, implications, and recommendations for future research. 
Purpose of the Study 
The purpose of this study was to examine alcohol expectancies of college students. 
Students drink for various reasons. Drinking motives can be defined as ?the need or 
psychological function that alcohol consumption fulfills and are typically assessed by responses 
of students to questionnaires about their reasons for drinking? (Baer, 2002, p. 45). Brennan et al. 
(1986) identified two general types of drinking motives: drinking for social purposes and 
drinking for emotional escape. Once students engage in drinking in a social context, the student?s 
72 
 
expectancies or effects of alcohol vary from individual to individual. Thus, a connected concept 
to drinking motives is alcohol expectancies. Alcohol expectancies can be defined as ?specific 
beliefs about the behavioral, emotional, and cognitive effects of alcohol? (Baer, 2002, p. 45).  
This study compared alcohol expectancies between sophomore, junior, and senior 
students and how these expectancies vary across gender and ethnicity. Alcohol consumption can 
alter a student?s behavioral, emotional, and cognitive actions that can result in positive or 
negative effects. Expectancies can also increase a student?s use of alcohol and increase risks 
associated with alcohol. Understanding a student?s alcohol expectancy is critical in 
comprehending college student drinking and attempting to curb alcohol abuse. This study 
provides a better understanding of the differences in alcohol expectancies between sophomore, 
junior, and senior students by gender and ethnicity. 
Research Questions  
The following research questions were used in this study: 
1. What is the relationship between class standing and alcohol expectancy and valuation as 
measured by the Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol (CEOA) questionnaire? 
2. What is the relationship between gender and alcohol expectancy and valuation as 
measured by the Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol (CEOA) questionnaire? 
3. What is the relationship between ethnicity and alcohol expectancy and valuation as 
measured by the Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol (CEOA) questionnaire? 
Summary 
The participants of this study were selected from a large southeastern university in the 
southeastern United States that serves approximately 25,000 students. Participants consisted of 
73 
 
310 sophomore, junior, and senior students enrolled in physical activity and wellness courses in 
the fall 2011 and spring 2012 semesters. Students were randomly selected based on being over 
the age of 19 and the willingness to participate in the study.  
In order to assess the relationship of class standing, gender, and ethnicity with expectancy 
and valuation, the Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol (CEOA) questionnaire was utilized. The 
first part of the CEOA measures expectancy. This portion of the questionnaire is composed of 38 
items. The 38 items measure expected effects of alcohol. The second part measures valuations. 
This portion of the questionnaire is also composed of 38 items. The 38 items measure the 
importance placed on an expected outcome. Participants completed the survey in the fall 2011 
and spring 2012 semesters. Participants also completed the survey reflecting their class standing, 
gender, and ethnicity. 
The quantitative data revealed the following from the three research questions by using a 
one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). Research question 1 addressed the 
relationship of class standing on expectancy and valuation as measured by the Comprehensive 
Effects of Alcohol (CEOA) questionnaire. The MANOVA result revealed there is not a 
statistically significant effect of class standing on expectancy and valuation, Wilks? ?=.974, F 
(4,612) =2.05, p=.086, multivariate ?? =.013. There is no relationship between class standing and 
expectancy and valuation.  
Research question 2 investigated the relationship of gender on expectancy and valuation as 
measured by the Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol (CEOA) questionnaire. The MANOVA result 
revealed there is a statistically significant effect of gender on expectancy and valuation, 
Pillai?s=.031, F (2,307) =4.94, p<.008, multivariate ?? =.031. There is a relationship between 
74 
 
gender and expectancy and valuation. Males and female college students have different alcohol 
expectancy and valuation. This supports the finding that men and women hold different 
expectancy sets (Brown et al., 1980).  
Research question 3 addressed the relationship of ethnicity on expectancy and valuation. The 
MANOVA result revealed there is a statistically significant effect of ethnicity on expectancy and 
valuation, Wilks? ?=.910, F (2,307) =15.44, p<.001, multivariate ?? =.090. There is a 
relationship between ethnicity and expectancy and valuation. This supports the finding that 
ethnicity is a factor for alcohol expectancies. But there is something to note about the 
significance ethnicity has on expectancy and valuation. The variable ?others? was created to 
combine the varying ethnicities (African-American, Hispanic/Latino, American-Indian, and 
Asian). If these ethnicities were separated, ethnicity would not have had an effect on expectancy 
and valuation. Combining these races into ?others? provided a stronger result than separating 
each race individually.  
Conclusions 
To the extent that the data collected for this study were valid and reliable and the 
assumptions of the study were appropriate and correct; the following conclusions may be made. 
Based on the results of this study, it may be concluded that there were statistically significant 
differences of college students? alcohol expectancy and valuation based on gender and ethnicity. 
Additionally, it may be concluded that there were no statistically significant differences of 
college students? alcohol expectancy and valuation based on class standing.  
 
 
75 
 
Implications 
 The review of the literature discussed in Chapter 2 established that alcohol expectancies 
and valuations together are strong predictors of drinking behavior. Alcohol expectancies can 
initiate, maintain, and reduce drinking patterns (Lee et al., 1999; Jones et al., 2001) whereas 
valuations explain the subjective values attached to alcohol consumption (Fromme et al., 1993; 
Grube et al., 1995; Leigh, 1989).  
A factor that may influence alcohol consumption is age. There has been little research 
conducted to assess the relationship between age and expectancies. Some researchers believe that 
age has been found to be a moderator between expectancies and drinking (Dunn & Goldman, 
1998; Leigh & Stacy, 2004). Specifically, as students become older, alcohol expectancies 
decrease over time (Sher et al., 1996). But, the results in this study did not reveal this 
relationship between age and expectancies. There is no statistical significant difference between 
sophomores, juniors, and seniors and their effect on expectancies and valuations. Although 
research has revealed that age has been found to be a moderator for expectancies, this study does 
not support this finding.  
The alcohol expectancies or drinking patterns for the students in this study did not 
decrease over time.  Because there is no difference between sophomores, juniors, and seniors and 
alcohol expectancies, university administrators have to place emphasis on safe consumption 
practices. Alcohol consumption has not decreased for the students in the various age groups. 
Students from all age groups are maintaining the same alcohol consumption patterns throughout 
the latter part of their academic years. These alcohol consumption patterns may pose dire 
consequences for students.  
76 
 
One consequence of high alcohol consumption is found in the academics area. This may 
include performing poorly on a test or low grades (Dunn & Goldman, 1998; Leigh & Stacy, 
2004) and missing class and getting behind on school work (Wechsler et al., 1994). Other 
consequences include personal, such as unintended/unprotected sexual activity and sexual 
assaults, (Anderson & Mathieu, 1996; Meilman, 1993; Mohler-Kuo, Dowdall, Koss, & 
Wechsler, 2004; Perkins, 1992; Poulson et al., 1998; Wechsler & Isaac, 1992). Students may also 
face legal troubles due to alcohol consumption. Approximately 95% of all violent crimes on 
campus involve the use of alcohol (Murphy, Hoyme, Colby, & Borsari, 2006). Academic, 
personal, and legal consequences can be some of the consequences that students may be exposed 
to because of alcohol consumption. Thus, administrators must try to implement strategies to 
reduce alcohol consumption on campus. These strategies may include informational campaigns, 
social norms, alcohol abuse interventions, parental notifications, and more. University attempts 
to address alcohol abuse will benefit the entire community.  
Another factor that may influence alcohol expectancies is gender. Expectancies vary by 
gender according to what is acceptable or desirable for each gender (Windle & Davies, 1999). 
Findings regarding gender differences and expectancies have been mixed (Neighbors, Walker, & 
Larimer, 2003). For example, Carey (1995) found no significant gender differences in alcohol 
expectancies between male and female college students. But Neighbors, Walker, & Larimer 
(2003) concluded that men and women held the same beliefs about the effects of alcohol, but 
men determined the effects to be more favorable. Thus, men and women may hold different 
expectancy sets (Brown et al., 1980).  
This study found that gender does have a significant effect on expectancy and valuation. 
Men and women do have varying alcohol expectancies. Specifically, men and women have 
77 
 
different valuations in this study. Valuations are the different subjective values assigned to 
expectancies (Fromme et al., 1993; Grube et al., 1995; Leigh, 1989). Thus, in this study, there is 
a difference whether an expected alcohol effect is rated positive or negative by males and 
females. University administrators must take into account these varying alcohol expectancies 
between men and women because alcohol expectancies can affect sexual situations (Davis, 
Norris, Hessler, Zawacki, Morrison, & George, 2010). Males and females can interpret sexual 
situations differently while under the influence of alcohol. These sexual situations can lead to 
sexual risks which in turn can lead to sexual assaults. Sexual assaults pose a serious threat to 
campus safety and wellness.  
In addition to posing threats on campus, sexual assaults also violate Title IX federal 
legislation. Title IX states that  
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), 20 U.S.C. ?? 1681 et 
seq., and its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. Part 106, prohibit discrimination 
on the basis of sex in education programs or activities operated by recipients of 
Federal financial assistance. Sexual harassment of students, which includes acts of 
sexual violence, is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title IX. (Dear 
Colleague Letter, 2011, p.1) 
The U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has taken great measures to 
address campus sexual violence with the ?Dear Colleague? Letter issued on April 4, 2011. The 
letter proscribes the guidelines that universities must take in order to successfully address sexual 
harassment/assault on campus and remain in compliance with Title IX.  
Furthermore, the same day that the ?Dear Colleague? Letter was released, Vice President 
Biden announced in a speech on April 4, 2011 that ?student[s] across the country deserve the 
78 
 
safest possible environment in which to learn. That?s why we?re taking new steps to help our 
nation?s schools, universities, and colleges end the cycle of sexual violence on campus.? Thus, 
colleges and universities have to ensure a safe campus environment void of discrimination for 
compliance with the Department of Education. The university can promote safe sexual practices, 
especially when alcohol is involved.  
Ethnicity is also a factor that influences alcohol expectancies. Research has been mixed 
on the relationship between alcohol expectancies and ethnicity (Chung, Hipwell, Loeber, White, 
& Stouthamer-Loeber, 2008). Some studies have found that expectancies have been lower for 
African-Americans and Hispanics than Whites (Chartier, Hesselbrock, and Hesselbrock, 2009; 
Daisy, 1989; Randolph, Torres, Gore-Felton, Lloyd, & McGarvey, 2009; Slutske, Cronk, Sher, 
Madden, Bucholz, & Heath, 2002). Other studies have found that Whites have lower 
expectancies than African Americans or Hispanics (Meier, Slutske, Arndt, & Cadoret, 2007).  
Furthermore, research measuring alcohol expectancies and use for Latino (Segura et al., 2004), 
American-Indian (Mitchell et al., 2006), and Asian-American students (Akutsu, Sue, Zane, & 
Nakamura, 1989; Yu & Liu, 1986/1987; Zane & Sasao, 1992) is lacking.  
This study adds to the body of literature regarding ethnicity and the effects on expectancy 
and valuation. This study found that ethnicity, for Whites, African-Americans, Hispanics, Native 
American-Indian, and Asian-Americans, does have a significant effect on expectancy and 
valuation. Specifically, there is a difference of ethnicity for expectancies but not for valuations. 
The expected effects of alcohol vary according to ethnicity, but ethnicity does not affect how the 
valuation is rated positively or negatively. Thus, university administrators can use this 
information to address drinking practices and patterns prevalent for each race. If students are 
properly informed about the alcohol consumptions patterns within their own race, they are more 
79 
 
likely to be receptive of the information. But, universities must be careful in the presentation of 
this information to avoid racial profiling or other drinking stereotypes for the various races.  
Recommendations 
 This study was conducted to assess the relationship of class standing, gender, and 
ethnicity with expectancy and valuation. There are several recommendations for the replication 
of the study.  
 The first recommendation is to conduct this study with freshman students. This study was 
conducted with sophomore, juniors, and senior students. The study found that there was no 
statistical significant effect of class standing on expectancy and valuation. The results may differ 
if the freshman student population was added with the other class standing.  
 This study could also be replicated by comparing age of students rather than class 
standing. The literature discussed in Chapter 2 argues that alcohol expectancies decrease over the 
period of four years for college students (Sher et al., 1996). The literature comparing two or 
more age groups is lacking (Leigh & Stacy, 2004) and replicating this study would add to this 
small body of literature.  
 Another recommendation would be to conduct this study using another alcohol 
expectancy scale. There are a variety of alcohol expectancy scales; the most common being the 
Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire (AEQ) (Brown, Christiansen, & Goldman, 1987). This study 
utilized the Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol questionnaire that measured expectancies (both 
positive and negative) and valuations.  
 In addition, the survey would be valuable if students from diverse backgrounds were 
surveyed. The population consisted of 310 participants; however there was a lack of diverse 
80 
 
ethnic backgrounds. There were 243 Whites/Caucasians. The remaining ethnic groups (African-
Americans, Hispanic/Latino, American-Indian, and Asian) were combined to comprise the 
remaining 67 participants in this study. Although the results yielded that ethnicity does have a 
statistically significant effect on expectancy and valuation, if the ethnicity were divided, the 
results would not be significant. Together all of the ethnicities are significant, but would not 
yield significance if separated. Therefore, by duplicating this study with a more heterogeneous 
population (among ethnicity) the results may be enhanced. 
 The location of the university is another factor to consider when replicating this study. 
The study was conducted in a large southeastern university in the Southeast. The study can be 
replicated in another region of the United States to possibly produce different results. The study 
can also be replicated at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) or private 
institutions. Changing the composition of the university may yield different results.
81 
 
REFERENCES 
 
Abar, C. C., & Maggs, J. L. (2010). Social influence and selection processes as predictors 
 of normative perceptions and alcohol use across the transition to college. Journal of
 College Student Development, 51(5), 496-508.  
Abbey, A., Ross, L. T., McDuffie, D., & McAuslan, P. Alcohol and dating risk factors for
 sexual assault among college women. Psychol. Women Q., 20, 147-169.  
Abbey, A., Zawacki, T., Buck, P. O., Clinton, A. M., & McAuslan, P. (2004). Sexual assault and
 alcohol consumption: What do we know about their relationship and what types of
 research are still needed? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 271-303.  
Adams, S. L., & McNeil, D. W. (1991). Negative alcohol expectancies reconsidered.
 Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 5, 9-14.  
Agrawall, A., Dick, D. M., Bucholz, K. K., Madden, P., Cooper, M. L., Sher, K. J., & Heath, A.
 C. (2008). Drinking expectancies and motives: A genetic study of young adult women.
 Addiction, 103(2), 194-204.  
Akutsu, P., Sue, S., Zane, N., & Nakamura, C. (1989). Ethnic differences in alcohol
 consumption among Asians and Caucasians in the United States: An investigation of
 cultural and physiological factors. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 50, 261-267.  
Ali, R. (2011). Dear Colleague Letter: Sexual Violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
 Education. 
Alva, S. A. (1995). Psychological distress and alcohol use in Hispanic adolescents.
 Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 481-497.  
Alva, S. A. (1998). Self-reported alcohol use of college fraternity and sorority women.
 Journal of College Student Development, 39, 3-10.  
American College Health Association (2006). American College Health Association
 National College Health Assessment (ACHA-NCHA) spring 2005 reference group data
 report (abridged). Journal of American College Health, 55(1), 5-16.  
82 
 
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
 disorders (DSM-IV). Washington, DC: The Association. 
Anderson, P. B., & Mathieu, D. A. (1996). College students? high-risk sexual behavior following
 alcohol consumption. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 22, 259-264. 
Arroyo, J., Simpson, T., & Aragon, A. (1997). Childhood sexual abuse among Hispanic and
 non-Hispanic White college women. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 19, 57-68. 
Baer, J. S. (2002). Student Factors: Understanding individual variation in college drinking.
 Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 14, 40-53. 
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 
Beck, K. H., Arria, A. M., Caldeira, K. M., Vincent, K. B., O?Grady, K. E., & Wish, E. D.
 (2008). Social context of drinking and alcohol problems among college students.
 American Journal of Health Behaviors, 32(4), 420-430.  
Biden, J. (2011, April). Ending Sexual Violence: One Student on One Campus at a Time. Speech
 presented at the University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH.  
 
Bishop, D. I., Weisgram, E. S., & Hollique, K. M. (2005). Identity development and alcohol
 consumption: Current and retrospective self-reports by college students. Journal of
 Adolescence, 28(4), 523-533.  
Blackboard. (2011). Retrieved August 28, 2011, from http://www.blackboard.com/About
 Bb/Company.aspx 
Bolles, R. C. (1972). Reinforcement, expectancy, and learning. Psychological Review, 79, 394-
 409.  
Bonin, M. F., McCreary, D. R., & Sadava, S. W. (2000). Problem drinking behavior in two
 community-based samples of adults: Influence of gender, coping, loneliness, and
 depression. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 14, 151-161.  
Borsari, B., & Carey, K. (2006). How the quality of peer relationships influences college alcohol
 use. Drug and Alcohol Review, 25, 361-370.  
Brennan, A. F., Walfish, S. & AuBuchon, P. (1986). Alcohol use and abuse in college
 students: A review of individual and personality correlates. International Journal of the
 Addictions, 21, 449-474. 
Brown, S. A. (1985). Reinforcement expectancies and alcoholism treatment outcome after a one
 year follow-up. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 46, 304-308.  
83 
 
Brown, R. L., Matousek, T. A., & Radue, M. B. (2009). Legal-Age Students? Provision of
 Alcohol to Underage College Students: An Exploratory Study. Journal of American
 College Health, 57(6), 611-618. 
Brown, S. A., Christiansen, B. A., & Goldman, M. S. (1987). The Alcohol Expectancy
 Questionnaire: an instrument for the assessment of adolescent and adult alcohol
 expectancies. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 48, 483-491.  
Brown, S. A., Goldman, M. S., Inn, A., & Anderson, L. R. (1980). Expectations of
 reinforcement from alcohol: Their domain and relation to drinking patterns.
 Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 419-426.  
Budd, R. J., & Spencer, C. P. (1984). Predicting undergraduates? intentions to drink.
 Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 45, 179-183.  
Burden, J. L., & Maisto, S. A. (2000). Expectancies, Evaluations and Attitudes: Prediction
 of college student drinking behavior. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 61(2), 323-331. 
Burden, J. L., Maisto, S. A., & Wolfe, W. L. (1998). Expectations and Evaluations:
 Looking at college student drinking patterns. Unpublished manuscript.  
Carey, K. B. (1993). Situational determinants of heavy drinking among college students.
 Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40, 217-220. 
Carey, K. B. (1995). Alcohol-related expectancies predict quantity and frequency of heavy
 drinking among college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 9, 236-241.  
Carey K. B. (1995). Heavy drinking contexts and indices of problem drinking among college
 students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 56, 287-292.  
Cashin, J. R., Presley, C. A., & Meilman, P. W. (1998). Alcohol use in the Greek system: Follow
 the leader? Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 59, 63-70.  
Catanzaro, S. J., & Laurent, J. (2004). Perceived family support, negative mood regulation
 expectancies, coping, and adolescent alcohol use: Evidence of mediation and moderation
 effects. Addictive Behaviors, 29, 1779-1797.  
Chartier, K. G., Hesselbrock, M. N., & Hesselbrock, V. M. (2009). Ethnicity and Adolescent
 Pathways to Alcohol Use. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 70, 337-345.  
Chickering, A., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and Identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey
 Bass.  
84 
 
Chung, T., Hipwell, A., Loeber, R., White, H. R., & Southamer-Loeber, M. (2008). Ethnic
 differences in positive alcohol expectancies during childhood: The Pittsburgh Girls
 Study. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research., 32, 966-974.  
Cooney, S. R., & Nonnamaker, J. B. (1992). Alcohol behavior: Commuting versus
 resident students. Journal of College Student Development, 33, 395-402.  
Cooper, M. L., Russell, M., Skinner, J. B., & Windle, M. (1992). Development and
 validation of a three-dimensional measure of drinking motives. Psychological
 Assessment, 4(2), 123-132. 
Cooper, M. L., Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Mudar, P. (1995). Drinking to regulate
 positive and negative emotions: A motivational model of alcohol use. Journal of
 Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 990-1005.  
Corbett, K., Mora, J., & Ames, G. (1991). Drinking patterns and drinking-related problems of
 Mexican American husbands and wives. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52, 215-223.  
Corbin, W. R., Bernat, J. A., Calhoun, K. S., McNair, L. D., & Seals, K. L. (2001). The role of
 alcohol expectancies and alcohol consumption among sexually victimized and
 nonvictimized college women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 297 311.  
Corston, R. & Colman, A. (2000). A Crash Course in SPSS for Windows. Malden, MA:
 Blackwell Publishers, Inc.  
Cox, W. M., & Klinger, E. (1988). A motivational model of alcohol use. Journal of
 Abnormal Psychology, 97, 168-180.  
Critchlow, B. (1986). The powers of John Barleycorn: beliefs about the effects of alcohol on
 social behavior. American Psychologist, 41, 751-764. 
Cronin, C. (1997). Reasons for drinking versus outcome expectancies in the prediction of college
 student drinking. Substance Use Misuse, 32, 1287-1311.  
Dahl, R. E. (2004). Adolescent brain development: A period of vulnerabilities and  opportunities.
 Keynote address. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1021, 1-22.  
Daisy, F. S. S. (1989).  Ethnic differences in alcohol outcome expectancies and drinking
 patterns. Dissertations & Theses: A&I. (Publication No. AAT 9006945). 
 
Davis, K. C., Norris, J., Hessler, D. M., Zawacki, T., Morrison, D. M., & George, W. H. (2010).
 College women?s sexual decision making: Cognitive mediation of alcohol expectancy
 effects. Journal of American College Health, 58(5), 481-489.  
85 
 
Demb, A., & Campbell, C. M. (2009). A new lens for identifying potential adult persistent
 problem drinkers during college. Journal of College Student Development, 50(1), 1-18.  
Dermen, K. H., & Cooper, M. L. (1994). Sex-related alcohol expectancies among adolescents:
 Prediction of drinking in social and sexual situations. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,
 8, 161-168.  
Desimone, J. (2009). Fraternity membership and drinking behavior. Economic Inquiry, 47(2),
 337-350.  
DeVore, E. R., & Ginsburg, K. R. (2005). The protective effects of good parenting. Current
 Opinion in Pediatrics, 17, 460-465.  
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
 Disorders (4th ed.). Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association 
Dishion, T. J., & McMahon, R. J. (1998). Parental monitoring and the prevention of child and
 adolescent problem behavior: a conceptual and empirical formulation. Clinical Child and
 Family Psychology Review, 1(1), 61-75. 
Dowdall, G. W., & Wechsler, H. (2002). Studying college alcohol use: Widening the lens,
 sharpening the focus. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 14, 14-22.  
Dreer, L. E., Ronan, G. F., Ronan, D. W., & Dush, D. M. (2004). Binge drinking and college
 students: An investigation of social problem-solving abilities. Journal of College Student
 Development, 45(3), 303-315. 
Dunn, M. E., & Goldman, M. S. (1998). Age and drinking-related differences in the
 memory organization of alcohol expectances in 3rd-, 6th-, 9th-, and 12th-grade
 children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 579-585.  
Dusenberry, L., Epstein, J. A., Botvin, G. J., & Diaz, T. (1994). Social influence predictors of
 alcohol use among New York Latino youth. Addictive Behaviors, 19, 363-372.  
Engs, R. C., Diebold, B. A., & Hansen, D. J. (1996). The drinking patterns and problems of a
 national sample of college students. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 41(3), 13-
 33. 
Engs, R. C., & Hanson, D. J. (1994). Boozing and brawling on campus: A national study of
 violent problems associated with drinking over the past decade. Journal of Criminal
 Justice, 22, 171-180. 
Edwards, G., Anderson, P., Babor, T. F., Casswell, S., Ferrence, R., & Giesbrecht, N. (1995). 
 Alcohol policy and the public good. New York: Oxford University Press.  
86 
 
Edwards, K. E., & Jones, S. R. (2009). ?Putting my man face on?: A grounded theory of college
 men?s gender identity development. Journal of College Student Development, 50(2), 210-
 228.  
Fabian, L. E. A., Toomey, T. L., Lenk, K. M., & Erickson, D. J. (2008). Where do 
 underage college students get alcohol? Journal of Drug Education, 38, 15-26.  
Foster, S. E., Vaughan, R. D., Foster, W. H., & Califano, J. A. (2006). Estimate of the
 commercial value of underage drinking and adult abusive and dependent drinking to the
 alcohol industry. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 160(5), 473-478.  
Fortenberry, J. D., Orr, D. P., Zimet, G. D., & Blythe, M. J. (1997). Weekly and seasonal
 variation in sexual behaviors among adolescent women with sexually transmitted
 diseases. Journal of Adolescent Health, 20, 420-425.  
Frauenglass, S., Routh, D. K., Pantin, H. M., & Mason, C. A. (1997). Family support
 decreases influence of deviant peers on Hispanic adolescents? substance use.
 Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 26(1), 15-23.  
French, A., Macedo, M., Poulsen, J., Waterson, T., and Yu, A. (2008). Multivariate
 Analysis of Variance (MANOVA). Retrieved January 20, 2011,
 http://online.sfsu.edu/~efc/classes/biol710/manova/manovanewest.htm 
 
Frezza, M., DiPadova, C., Pozzato, G., Terpin, M., Baraona, E., and Lieber, C. S. (1990). High
 blood alcohol levels in women: The role of decreased gastric alcohol dehydrogenase
 activity and first-pass metabolism. The New England Journal of Medicine, 322, 95-99. 
Frintner, M. P., & Rubinson, L. (1993). Acquaintance rape: The influence of alcohol,
 fraternity membership, and sports team membership. Journal of Sex Education and
 Therapy, 19, 272-284.  
Fromme, K., & D?Amico, E. J. (2000). Measuring Adolescent Alcohol Outcome Expectancies.
 Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 14(2), 206-212.  
Fromme, K., Stroot, E., & Kaplan, D. (1993). The Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol:
 Development and psychometric assessment of a new expectancy questionnaire.
 Psychological Assessment, 5, 19-26.  
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R, & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th ed.). New
 York: Longman Publishers. 
 
George, W. H., & Marlatt, G. A. (1986). The effects of alcohol and anger on interest in
 violence, erotica, and deviance. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 150-158.  
87 
 
Gilbert, J. M., Mora, J., & Ferguson, L. (1994). Alcohol-related expectations among
 Mexican American women. International Journal of the Addictions, 29, 1127-1147.  
Gleason, N. A. (1994). College women and alcohol: A relational perspective. Journal of
 American College Health, 42(6), 279-290.  
Glindemann, K. E., & Wiegand, D. M., & Geller, E. S. (2007). Celebratory drinking and
 intoxication: a contextual influence on alcohol consumption. Environment and Behavior,
 39, 352-366. 
Goldman, M. S., Brown, S. A., & Christiansen, B. A. (1987). Expectancy Theory: Thinking
 about drinking. In H. T. Blane & K. E. Leonard (Eds.). Psychological theories of
 drinking and alcoholism (pp. 181-226). New York: Guilford Press.  
Goldman, M. S., Del Boca, F. K., & Darkes, J. (1999). Alcohol Expectancy Theory: The
 application of cognitive neuroscience. In K. E. Leonard & H. T. Blane (Eds.),
 Psychological Theories of Drinking and Alcoholism (2nd ed.) (pp. 203-246). New York:
 Guilford Press. 
Gonzalez, G. M. (1989). Early onset of drinking as a predictor of alcohol consumption and
 alcohol-related problems in college. Journal of Drug Education, 19, 225-230.  
Greenfield, T. K., Guydish, J., Temple, M. T. (1989). Reasons students give for limiting
 drinking: A factor analysis with implications for research and practice. Journal of Studies
 on Alcohol, 50, 108-115.  
Grimm, L., & Yarnold, P. (1995). Reading and understanding multivariate statistics. Easton,
 MD: Easton Publishing Services. 
 
Grube, J. W., Chen, M., & Madden, P. (1995). Predicting adolescent drinking from alcohol
 expectancy values: A comparison of additive, interactive, and nonlinear models. Journal
 of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 839-857.  
Ham, L. S., & Hope, D. A. (2003). College students and problematic drinking: A review of the
 literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 719-759.  
Ham, L. S., Zamboanga, B. L., Olthuis, J. V., Casner, H. G., & Bui, N. (2010). No fear, just
 relax and play: Social anxiety, alcohol expectancies, and drinking games among college
 students. Journal of American College Health, 58(5), 473-479. 
Han, S. C., & Short, J. L. (2009). Alcohol expectancies as a mediator of the relation
 between impulsivity and alcohol consumption in Asian Americans. Journal of
 Ethnicity in Substance Abuse, 8(2), 178-200.  
88 
 
Harford, T. C., Wechsler, H., & Rohman, M. (1983). The structural context of college
 drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 44, 722-732.  
Hilton, M. E. (1986). Abstention in the general population of the U.S.A. British Journal of
 Addiction, 81, 95-112.  
Hingson, R. W, Heeren T., Zakocs, R. C., Kopstein, A., & Wechsler, H. (2002). Magnitude of
 alcohol-related mortality and morbidity among U.S. college students ages 18-24. Journal
 of Studies on Alcohol, 63(2), 136-144.  
Humphrey, J. A., & Friedman, J. (1986). The onset of drinking and intoxication among
 university students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 47, 455-458.  
Ichiyama, M. A., & Kruse, M. I. (1998). The social contexts of binge drinking among private
 university freshmen. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 44(1), 18-33.  
Jackson, K. M., Sher, K. J., Gotham, H. J., & Wood, P. K. (2001). Transitioning into and out of
 large-effect drinking in young adulthood. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 378-
 391.  
Jahoda, G., & Cramond, J. (1972). Children and Alcohol: a Developmental Study in
 Glasgow. London: HMSO.  
Jessor, R., & Jessor, S. L. (1975). Adolescent development and the onset of drinking. Journal of
 Studies on Alcohol, 36, 27-51.  
Johnson, P. B. (1994). Alcohol expectances and reaction expectancies: Their impact on student
 drinking. Journal of Alcohol & Drug Education, 40(1), 57-68.  
Johnson, T. J. & Cohen, E. A. (2004). College students? reasons for not drinking and not playing
 drinking games. Substance Use & Misuse, 39(7), 1137-1160.  
Johnston, L. D., O?Malley, P. M., & Bachman, J. G. (2001). Monitoring the future national
 survey results on drug use, 1975-2000. Volume II: college students and adults ages 19
 40. NIH Publication No. 01-4925. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.  
Jones, B. T., Corbin, W., & Fromme, K. (2001). Conceptualizing addiction: A review of
 expectancy theory and alcohol consumption. Addiction, 96, 57-72.  
Juth, V., Smyth, J. M., Thompson, K., Nodes, J. (2010). Social and environmental predictors of
 alcohol-related legal infractions in college students. Journal of College Student
 Development, 51(4), 373-384.  
89 
 
Kidorf, M., Sherman, M. F., Johnson, J. G., & Bigelow, G. E. (1995). Alcohol expectancies and
 change in beer consumption of first-year college students. Addictive Behaviors, 20, 225-
 231.  
Klein, H. (1990). The exceptions to the rule: Why nondrinking college students do not drink.
 College Student Journal, 24, 57-71. 
Kraus, D., Smith, G. T., & Ratner, H. H. (1994). Modifying alcohol-related expectancies in
 grade-school children. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 55, 535-542.  
Kuh, G. D., & Arnold, J. C. (1993). Liquid bonding: A cultural analysis of the role of alcohol in
 fraternity pledgeship. Journal of College Student Development, 34, 327-334.  
LaBrie, J. W., Hummer, J. F., & Pedersen, E. R. (2007). Reasons for drinking in the college
 student context: The differential role and risk of the social motivator. Journal of Studies
 on Alcohol and Drugs, 68,393-398.  
LaBrie, J. W., Pedersen, E. R. (2008). Prepartying promotes heightened risk in the college
 environment: An event-level report. Addictive Behaviors, 33, 955-959.  
Larimer, M., Lydum, A., Anderson, B., & Turner, A. (1999). Male and female recipients of
 unwanted sexual contact in a college student sample: prevalence rates, alcohol use, and
 depression symptoms. Sex Roles, 40(3), 295-308.  
Lee, N. K., Greely, J., & Oei, T. P. S. (1999). The relationship of positive and negative alcohol
 expectancies to patterns of consumption of alcohol in social drinkers. Addictive
 Behaviors, 24, 359-369.  
Leigh, B. C. (1987). Beliefs about the effects of alcohol on self and others. Journal of Studies on
 Alcohol, 48, 467-475.  
Leigh, B. C. (1989). In search of the seven dwarves: issues of measurement and meaning in
 alcohol expectancy research. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 361-373.  
Leigh, B. C., & Stacy, A. W. (1993). Alcohol outcome expectancies: scale construction and
 predictive utility in higher order confirmatory models. Psychological Assessment, 5, 216-
 229.  
Leigh, B. C., & Stacy, A. W. (2004). Alcohol expectancies and drinking in different age groups.
 Society for the Study of Addiction, 99, 215-227.  
Lewis, T. F. (2007). Perceptions of risk and sex-specific social norms in explaining alcohol
 consumption among college students: implications for campus interventions.
 Journal of College Student Development, 48(3), 297-310.  
90 
 
Litzinger, T. A., Lee, S. H., Wise, J. C., & Felder, R. M. (2007). A psychometric study of the Index
 of Learning Styles. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 309-319. 
 
Lo, C. C., & Globetti, G. (1995). The facilitating and enhancing roles Greek associations play in
 college drinking. International Journal of the Addictions, 30, 1311-1322.  
Lundahl, L. H., Davis, T. M., Adesso, V. J., & Lukas, S. E. (1997). Alcohol expectancies: effects
 of gender, age, and family history of alcoholism. Addictive Behaviors, 22, 115-125.  
MacCorquodale, K. M., & Meehl, P. E. (1954). Preliminary suggestions as to a formalization of
 expectancy theory. Psychological Review, 60, 53-60, 125-129.  
McCarty, D., Morrison, S., & Mills, K. C. (1983). Attitudes, beliefs and alcohol use: An
 analysis of relationships. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 44, 328-341.  
Maggs, J. L., Williams, L. R., & Lee, C. M. (2011). Ups and downs of alcohol use among first
 year college students: Number of drinks, heavy drinking, and stumble and pass out
 drinking days. Addictive Behaviors, 36, 197-202.  
Marin, G. (1996). Expectancies for drinking and excessive drinking among Mexican
 Americans and non-Hispanic Whites. Addictive Behaviors, 21, 491-507.  
Martinez, J. A., Sher, K. J., & Wood, P. K. (2008). Is heavy drinking really associated with
 attrition from college? The alcohol-attrition paradox. Psychology of Addictive
 Behaviors, 22(3), 450-456.  
Marx, B. P., Nichols-Anderson, C., Messman-Moore, T., Miranda, R., & Porter, C. (2000). 
 Alcohol consumption, outcome expectancies, and victimization status among female
 college students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1056-1070. 
Meilman, P. W. (1993). Alcohol-induced sexual behavior on campus. Journal of American
 College Health, 42, 27-31.  
Meier, M. H., Slutske, W. S., Arndt, S., & Cadoret, R. J. (2007). Positive alcohol expectancies
 partially mediate the relation between delinquent behavior and alcohol use:
 Generalizability across age, sex, and race in a cohort of 85,000 Iowa school children.
 Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 21, 25-34.  
Mills, B. A., & Caetano, R. (2010). The Hispanic Americans Baseline Alcohol Survey
 (HABLAS): Predictors of alcohol attitudes and expectancies in Hispanic national groups.
 Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 34(5), 790-799.  
Mitchell, C. M., Beals, J., & Kaufman, C. E. (2006). Alcohol use, outcome expectancies, and
 HIV risk status among American Indian youth: A latent growth curve model with parallel
 processes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 729-740.  
91 
 
Mohler-Kuo, M., Dowdall, G.W., Koss, M., & Wechsler, H. (2004). Correlates of rape while
 intoxicated in a national sample of college women. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64(1),
 37-45.  
Monks, S. M., Tomaka, J., Palacios, R., & Thompson, S. E. (2010). Sexual victimization in
 female and male college students: Examining the roles of alcohol use, alcohol
 expectancies, and sexual sensation seeking. Substance Use & Misuse, 45, 2258-2280.  
Mooney, D. K., Fromme, D. R., Kivlahan, D. R., Marlatt, G. A. (1987). Correlates of alcohol
 consumption: sex, age, and expectancies relate differentially to quantity and frequency.
 Addictive Behaviors, 12, 235-240.  
Moos, R. H. (1976). The Human Context: Environmental Determinants of Behavior. New York:
 John Wiley & Sons. 
Murphy, J. G., Hoyme, C. K., Colby, S. M., & Borsari, B. (2006). Alcohol consumption, alcohol
 related problems, and quality of life among college students. Journal of College Student
 Development, 47(1), 110-121.  
Neal, D. J., Sugarman, D. E., Hustad, J. T. P., Caska, C. M., & Carey, K. B. (2005). It?s all fun
 and games?or is it? Collegiate sporting events and celebratory drinking. Journal of
 Studies on Alcohol, 66, 291-294.  
Neighbors, C., Walker, D. D., & Larimer, M. E. (2003). Expectancies and Evaluations of
 Alcohol Effects among College Students: Self-Determination as a Moderator. Journal of
 Studies on Alcohol, 64, 292-300.  
Nelson, T. F., & Wechsler, H. (2003). School spirits: Alcohol and collegiate sports fans.
 Addictive Behaviors, 28, 1-11. 
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (2002). A Call to Action: Changing the
 Culture of Drinking at U.S. Colleges. Washington, DC: Task Force of the National
 Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. 
Norris, J., Davis, K. C., George, W. H., Martell, J., & Heiman, J. R. (2002). Alcohol?s direct
 and indirect effects on men?s self-reported sexual aggression likelihood. Journal of
 Studies on Alcohol, 63, 688-695.  
O?Callaghan, F. V., & Callan, V. J. (1992). Young adult drinking behavior: a comparison of
 diary and quantity-frequency measures. British Journal of Addiction, 87, 723-732.  
O?Hare, T. M. (1990). Drinking in college: Consumption patterns, problems, sex differences,
 and legal drinking age. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 51, 536-541.  
92 
 
Palmer, R. S., McMahon, T. J., Rounsaville, B. J., & Ball, S. A. (2010). Coercive sexual
 experiences, protective behavioral strategies, alcohol expectancies and consumption
 among male and female college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(9),
 1563-1578 
Park, C. (2004). Positive and negative consequences of alcohol consumption in college
 students. Addictive Behaviors, 29, 311-321.  
Paschall, M. J., & Freisthler, B. (2003). Does heavy drinking affect academic performance
 in college? Findings from a prospective study of high achievers. Journal of Studies on
 Alcohol, 64, 515-519.  
Patrick, M. E., & Maggs, J. L. (2008). Short-term changes in plans to drink and importance of
 positive and negative alcohol consequences: between-and within person predictors.
 Journal of Adolescent Health, 31, 307-321.  
Patrick, M. E., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2011). How trajectories of reasons for alcohol use relate
 to trajectories of binge drinking: National panel date spanning late adolescence to early
 adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 47(2), 311-317.  
Patrick, M. E., Wray-Lake, L., Finlay, A. K., & Maggs, J. L. (2010). The long arm of
 expectancies: Adolescent alcohol expectancies predict adult alcohol use. Alcohol &
 Alcoholism, 45(1), 17-24.  
Pedersen, E. R., & Labrie, J. W. (2007). Partying before the party: Examining prepartying
 behavior among college students. Journal of American College Health, 56, 237-245.  
Perkins, H. W. (1992). Gender patterns in consequences of collegiate alcohol abuse: A 10-year
 study of trends in an undergraduate population. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 53, 458-
 462.  
Perkins, H. W. (2002). Surveying the damage: A review of research on consequences of alcohol 
 misuse in college populations. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 14, 91-100.  
Polit, D. F. (1996) Data Analysis and Statistics for Nursing Research. Stamford, Connecticut:
 Appleton and Lange.  
Poulson, R. L., Eppler, M. A., Satterwhite, T. N., Wuensch, K. L., & Bass, L. A. (1998). Alcohol
 consumption, strength of religious beliefs, and risky sexual behavior in college students.
 Journal of American College Health, 46(5), 227-32. 
Presley, C. A., Derman, D., & Driscoll, T. (1994). Alcohol and other drug use on North Dakota 
 college campuses: Use, consequences, and perceptions of the campus environment.
 Grand Forks, ND: University of North Dakota Office of Substance Abuse Prevention.  
93 
 
Presley, C. A., Meilman, P. W., & Cashin, J. R. (1996). Alcohol and drugs on American college
 campuses: Use, consequences and perceptions of the campus environment, Volume IV:
 1992-1994. Carbondale, IL: Core Institute, Southern Illinois University. 
Quigley, L. A., & Marlatt, G. A. (1996). Drinking among young adults: Prevalence,
 patterns, and consequences. Alcohol Health & Research World, 20, 185-191.  
Randolph, M. E., Torres, H., Gore-Felton, C., Lloyd, B., & McGarvey, E. L. (2009).
 Alcohol use and sexual risk behavior among college students: Understanding 
 Gender and Ethnic Differences. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 35,
 80-84.  
Rauch, S. A., & Bryant, J. B. (2000). Gender and context differences in alcohol expectancies.
 The Journal of Social Psychology, 140(2), 240-253. 
Read, J. P., Merrill, J. E., & Bytschkow, K. (2010). Before the party starts: Risk factors and
 reasons for ?pregaming? in college students. Journal of American College Health, 58(5),
 461-472.  
Read, J. P., Wood, M. D., Lejuez, C. W., Palfai, T. P., & Slack, M. (2004). Gender, alcohol
 consumption, and differing alcohol expectancy dimensions in college drinkers.
 Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 12(4), 298-308.  
Reese, F. L., Chassin, L., & Molina, B. S. G. (1994). Alcohol expectancies in early
 adolescents: Predicting drinking behavior from alcohol expectancies and parental
 alcoholism. Journal on Studies of Alcohol, 55, 276-284.  
Rohsenow, D. J. (1983). Drinking habits and expectancies about alcohol?s effects for self-versus
 others. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 752-756.  
Sadava, S. W. (1995). Introduction to the special issue: Developmental perspectives on
 addictive behaviors. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 9(1), 3-7.  
Satre, D. D., & Knight, B. G. (2001). Alcohol expectancies and their relationship to alcohol use:
 age and sex differences. Aging & Mental Health, 5(1), 73-83.  
Schulenberg, J. E., & Maggs, J. L. (2002). A developmental perspective on alcohol use and
 heavy drinking during adolescence and the transition to young adulthood. Journal of
 Studies on Alcohol, 14, 54-70. 
Segura, Y. L., Page, M. C., Neighbors, B. D., Nichols-Anderson, C., & Gillaspy, S. (2003). The
 importance of peers in alcohol use among Latino adolescents: The role of alcohol
 expectancies and acculturation. Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse, 2(3), 31-49.  
94 
 
Shannon, D., & Davenport, M. A. (2001). Using SPSS to solve statistical problems: A self
 instruction guide. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall 
 
Shaw, J., Lewis, J., Loeb, A., Rosado, J., & Rodriguez, R. (2001). A comparison of
 Hispanic and African-American sexually abused girls and their families. Child Abuse and
 Neglect, 25, 1363-1379.  
Sher, K. J., & Bartholow, B. D., & Nanda, S. (2001). Short- and long-term effects of
 fraternity and sorority membership on heavy drinking: A social norms perspective.
 Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 15(1), 42-51.  
Sher, K. J., Walitzer, K. S., Wood, P. K., & Brent, E. E. (1991). Characteristics of children of
 alcoholics: Putative risk factors, substance use and abuse, and psychopathology. Journal
 of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 427-448.  
Sher, K. J., Wood, M. D., Wood, P. K., & Raskin, G. (1996). Alcohol outcome expectancies
 and alcohol use: A latent variable cross-lagged panel study.  Journal of Abnormal
 Psychology, 105(4), 561-574.  
Slutske, W. S., Cronk, N. J., Sher, K. J., Madden, P. A., Bucholz, K.K., & Heath, A. C. (2002).
 Genes, environment, and individual differences in alcohol expectancies among female
 adolescents and young adults. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 16, 308-317.  
Smith, G. T., Goldman, M. S., Greenbaum, P. E., & Christiansen, B. A. (1995). Expectancy for
 social facilitation from drinking: The divergent paths of high expectancy and low
 expectancy adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 32-40.  
Smith, G. T., & Goldman, M. S. (1994). Alcohol Expectancy Theory and the identification of
 high-risk adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4(2), 229-247.  
Sorenson, S., & Siegel, J. (1992). Gender, ethnicity, and sexual assault: findings from a Los
 Angeles study. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 93-104.  
Stacy, A. W., Widaman, K. F., & Marlatt, G. A. (1990). Expectancy models of alcohol use.
 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 918-928.  
Steele, C. M., & Josephs, R. A. (1990). Alcohol myopia: its prized and dangerous effects.
 American Psychologist, 45(8), 921-933.  
Statistically Significant Consulting, LLC. (2012). MANOVA. Retrieved on February 29, 2012
 from http://www.statisticallysignificantconsulting.com/Manova-Statistic-SPSS.htm  
Strano, D. A., Cuomo, M. J., & Venable, R. H. (2004). Predictors of undergraduate student binge
 drinking. Journal of College Counseling, 7(1), 50-63.  
95 
 
Sullivan, M., & Risler, E. (2002). Understanding college alcohol abuse and academic
 performance: Selecting appropriate intervention strategies. Journal of College
 Counseling, 5, 114-123. 
The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug and Violence Prevention. (2008,
 August). Alcohol and Other Drugs on Campus: The Scope of the Problem (ED-99-CO
 0094). Newton, Massachusetts: Kapner, D.A.  
 
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (2007).
 Wasting the Best and Brightest. Retrieved on June 16, 2011 from
 http://www.casacolumbia.org/templates/printarticle.aspx?articleid+477&zoneid=5 
The U.S. Department of Education?s Higher Education Center for Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and
 Violence Prevention. (n.d.). Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (DFSCA) and
 Drug and Alcohol Abuse Prevention Regulations. Retrieved on August 17, 2011 from
 http://www.higheredcenter.org/mandates/dfsca 
 
The U.S. Department of Education?s Higher Education Center for Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and
 Violence Prevention. (n.d.). Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (DFSCA) and
 Drug and Alcohol Abuse Prevention Regulations. Retrieved on July 27, 2011 from
 http://www.higheredcenter.org/high-risk/alcohol/mlda 
The U.S. Department of Education?s Higher Education Center for Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and
 Violence Prevention. (n.d.). Secondary Effects of Alcohol Abuse. Retrieved on
 December 10, 2010 from
 http://www.higheredcenter.org/highrisk/alcohol/consequences/secondary-effects 
The U.S. Department of Education?s Higher Education Center for Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and
 Violence Prevention. (n.d.). Scope of the Alcohol Problem among College Students.
 Retrieved on December 10, 2010 from
 http://www.higheredcenter.org/highrisk/alcohol/scope 
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2000). Healthy People 2010 
 (conference edition, Vol. II). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human
 Services. 
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2007). The Surgeon General?s Call to
 Action To Prevent and Reduce Underage Drinking. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
 Health and Human Services.  
Thombs, D. L. (2000). A test of the perceived norms model to explain drinking patterns among
 university student athletes. Journal of American College Health, 49, 75-83.  
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving College. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  
96 
 
Tolman, E. G. (1932). Purposive behavior in animals and man. New York: Appleton
 Century-Crofts. 
Valdivia, I., & Stewart, S. H. (2005). Further examination of the psychometric properties of the
 Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol questionnaire. Cognitive Behavior Therapy, 34, 22-
 33.  
Vince-Whitman, C. & Cretella, M. (1999). Alcohol use by college women: Patterns,
 reasons, results, and prevention. Catalyst, 5(2), 4-5. 
Walter, H. J., Vaughan, R. D., & Cohall, A. T. (1993). Comparison of three theoretical models
 of substance use among urban minority high school students. Journal of the American
 Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 32, 975-981.  
Wechsler, H. (1996). Alcohol and the American college campus. Change, 28, 20-25.  
Wechsler, H., Davenport, A., Dowdall, G., Moeykens, B., & Castillo, S. (1994). Health and
 behavioral consequences of binge drinking in college: A national survey of students at
 140 campuses. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272, 1672-1677.  
Wechsler, H., Dowdall, G. W., Davenport, A., & Castillo, S. (1995). Correlates of college 
 student binge drinking. American Journal of Public Health, 85, 921-926.  
Wechsler, H., & Isaac, N. (1992). ?Binge? drinkers at Massachusetts colleges: Prevalence,
 drinking style, time trends, and associated problems. Journal of the American Medical
 Association, 267, 2929-2931.  
Wechsler, H., Lee, J. E., Hall, J., Wagenaar, A. C., & Lee, H. (2002). Secondhand effects of
 student alcohol use reported by neighbors of colleges: the role of alcohol outlets. Social
 Science & Medicine, 55, 425-435.  
Wechsler, H., Lee, J. E., Kuo, M., Lee, H. (2000). College binge drinking in the 1990s: A
 continuing problem. Results of the Harvard School of Public Health 1999 College
 Alcohol Survey. Journal of American College Health, 48(5), 199-210.  
Wechsler, H., Lee, J. E., Kuo, M., Seibring, M., Nelson, T. F., & Lee, H. (2002). Trends in
 college binge drinking during a period of increased prevention efforts; findings from four
 Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study Surveys: 1993-2001. Journal of
 American College Health, 50(5), 203-215.  
Wechsler, H., Moeykens, B., Davenport, A., Castillo, S., & Hansen, J. (1995). The
 adverse impact of heavy episodic drinkers on other college students. Journal of Studies
 on Alcohol 56(6), 628-634.  
97 
 
Werner, M. J., & Greene, J. W. (1992). Problem drinking among college freshmen.
 Journal of Adolescent Health, 13, 487-492.  
Werner, M. J., Walker, L. S., & Greene, J. W. (1995). Relationship of alcohol expectancies to
 problem drinking among college women. Journal of Adolescent Health, 16, 191-199.  
Westmaas, J., Moeller, S., & Woicik, P. B. (2007). Validation of a measure of college
 students? intoxicated behaviors: Associations with alcohol outcome expectancies,
 drinking motives, and personality. Journal of American College Health, 55(4), 227-237.  
Wills, T. A., & Shiffman, S. (1985). Coping and substance use. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. 
Wilson, A. E., Calhoun, K. S., & McNair, L. D. (2002). Alcohol consumption and expectancies
 among sexually coercive college men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 1145-1159. 
Windle, M. (1996). Effects of parental drinking on adolescents. Alcohol Health and
 Research World, 20, 181-184.  
Windle, M., & Davies, P. T. (1999). Developmental theory and research. In K.E. Leonard & H.T.
 Blane (Eds.), Psychological Theories of Drinking and Alcoholism (2nd ed.) (pp. 164-202).
 New York: Guilford Press.  
Windle, M. & Zucker, R. A. (2010). Reducing underage and young adult drinking: How to
 address critical drinking problems during this developmental period. Alcohol Research
 and Health, 33, 1-2.  
Wolaver, A. M. (2002). Effects of heavy drinking in college on study effort, grade point
 average, and major choice. Contemporary Economic Policy, 20, 415-428.  
Wood, M. D., Nagoshi, C. T., & Dennis, D. A. (1992). Alcohol norms and expectations as
 predictors of alcohol use and problems in a college student sample. American Journal of
 Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 18, 461-476.  
Wood, P. K., Sher, K. J., Erickson, D. J. & Debord, K. A. (1997). Predicting academic
 problems in college from freshman alcohol involvement. Journal of Studies on Alcohol
 and Drugs, 58, 200-210.  
Woodyard, C. D., & Hallam, J. S. (2010). Differences in college student typical drinking and
 celebration drinking. Journal of American College Health, 58(6), 533-538.  
Yu, E., & Liu, W. (1986/1987). Alcohol use and abuse among Chinese-Americans.
 Alcohol Health and Research World, 11, 14-61.  
Zamboanga, B. L. (2005). Alcohol expectancies and drinking behaviors in Mexican
 American college students. Addictive Behaviors, 30, 673-684.  
98 
 
Zamboanga, B. L. (2006). From the eyes of the beholder: Alcohol expectancies and
 valuation as predictors of hazardous drinking behaviors among female college
 students. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 32, 599-605.  
Zamboanga, B. L., Schwartz, S. J., Ham, L. S., Borsari, B., & Van Tyne, K. (2010).
 Alcohol expectancies, pregaming, drinking games, and hazardous alcohol use in a
 multiethnic sample of college students. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 34, 124-133. 
Zane, N., & Sasao, T. (1992). Research on drug abuse among Asian Pacific Americans. Drugs &
 Society, 6, 181-219. 
99 
 
Appendix A 
Site Permission Letter
100 
 
 
101 
 
 
102 
 
Appendix B 
Information Letter
103 
 
 
104 
 
 
105 
 
Appendix C 
Survey Instrument
106 
 
 
107 
 
 
108 
 
 
109 
 
 
110 
 
 
Appendix D 
Survey Instrument Scoring Scale
111 
 
 
 
112 
 
113 
 
 
 
Appendix E 
Institutional Review Board Approval Letter
114