Secondhand effects of student alcohol use reported by neighbors of colleges: the role of alcohol outlets
Introduction
In 1993, the Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study (CAS) found that two in five US college students were binge drinkers (Wechsler, Davenport, Dowdall, Moeykens, & Castillo, 1994) and this rate remained constant in two follow up surveys (1997 and 1999) over a 6-year period (Wechsler, Dowdall, Maenner, Gledhill-Hoyt, & Lee, 1998, 2000a). Among the problems associated with these high levels of alcohol use are what we have termed “secondhand” effects. Wechsler, Moeykens, Davenport, Castillo, and Hansen (1995b) found that non-binge drinking students residing on campuses where more than half of students were binge drinkers were twice as likely to experience secondhand effects than non-binge drinkers living on campuses with fewer binge drinkers. These secondhand effects include having sleep or study interrupted, having to take care of a drunken student, being insulted or assaulted, being the victim of unwanted sexual advances, or having personal property vandalized.
Heavy alcohol consumption by college students and others may be encouraged by a “wet” environment, that is, an environment in which alcohol is prominent and easily accessible (Edwards et al., 1995). Physical, social, and economic availability of alcohol is associated with alcohol consumption among the general population (Parker, Wolz, & Harford, 1978; Rush, Steinberg, & Brook, 1986; Abbey, Scott, Olinsky, Quinn, & Andreski, 1990; Abbey, Scott, & Smith, 1993; Gruenewald, Madden, & Janes, 1992; Gruenewald, Miller, & Treno, 1993) and among young adolescents and older teenagers (O’Malley & Wagenaar, 1991; Wagenaar, 1993; Wagenaar et al., 1996; Jones-Webb et al., 1997). High density of alcohol outlets has been found to be associated with higher rates of alcohol-related health and social problems such as homicide (Scribner, Cohen, Kaplan, & Allen, 1999), assaultive violence (Alaniz, Parker, Gallegos, & Cartmill, 1996; Alaniz, Cartmill, & Parker, 1998; Gorman, Speer, Labouvie, & Subaiya, 1998a; Scribner, MacKinnon, & Dweyer, 1995; Speer, Labouvie, & Ontkush, 1998), domestic violence (Gorman, Labouvie, Speer, & Subaiya, 1998b), traffic safety outcomes (Rabow & Watts, 1982; Jewell & Brown, 1995; Scribner et al., 1994), and mortality, morbidity and economic costs (Tatlow, Clapp, & Hohman, 2000; Mann, Smart, Anglin, & Adlaf, 1991; Rabow & Watts, 1982; Scribner, Cohen, & Farley, 1998; Gorsky, Schwartz, & Dennis, 1988; Smart, Mann, & Suurvali, 1998). Alcohol outlets and advertising appear to be over-concentrated in ethnic minority communities (Alaniz, 2000; Hackbarth, Silvestri, & Cosper, 1995; Altman, Schooler, & Basil, 1991; LaVeist and Wallace, 2000), implying that it is necessary to understand the socio-demographic and economic background of a community in coping with drinking problems.
As Gruenewald and others (1995) have pointed out, most of these studies find relationships between outlets, demographics, and drinking patterns, but most do not provide a theoretical basis for understanding such interrelations. One such theoretical approach receiving increased attention recently is the “routine activities” theory (Fox & Sobol, 2000). Most commonly applied to crime victimization, routine activity theorists find that more frequent “going out” increases one's risk of victimization (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 1998). In the context of college drinking, one might argue that high rates of heavy drinking and alcohol-related problems among college students are “simply” the result of their frequent and routine activity of going out, particularly to bars and nightclubs. Thus, just as time spent walking the street increases exposure to risk of (one type of) assault, time spent in bars increases exposure to the risk of experiencing secondhand effects of heavy drinking. The point remains, however, that a high density of bars and clubs around campuses may encourage heavier drinking among students.
Alcohol use rates and related problems have been reduced by strategies to restrict alcohol availability. Coate and Grossman (1988) reported that as alcohol excise taxes increased, youth drinking rates and deaths resulting from motor vehicle accidents significantly decreased. O’Malley and Wagenaar (1991) found that as states increased minimum drinking age laws, alcohol use and problems associated with it significantly decreased. Chiu, Perez, and Parker (1997) reported that an alcohol ban, its lifting, and its re-imposition had statistically significant effects on the number of alcohol-related outpatient visits in a geographically isolated community. Restrictive alcohol control policies significantly affected injury death rates in a population with extremely high injury mortality (Berman, Hull, & May, 2000).
Colleges with large numbers of binge drinkers are characterized by greater visibility and availability of alcohol in their environment. College students’ binge drinking is associated with the degree of ease of access to alcohol (Wechsler, Kuo, Lee, & Dowdall, 2000b), location of a bar within a mile from campus (Wechsler et al., 1994), price (Chaloupka, Grossman, & Saffer, 1998; Wechsler et al., 2000b), and state alcohol control policies (Chaloupka et al., 1998).
Clearly, drinking levels and rates of alcohol-related problems are associated with state and local policies as well as alcohol availability, price, and marketing practices. For many dimensions of the policy and marketing environment (e.g., alcohol taxes, drinking age), we know that the causal influence runs from policy to drinking. For others (e.g., outlet density), the causal influences may be reciprocal, with the environment encouraging drinking, and heavy drinking encouraging deterioration of the community environment. The current study examines the interrelationships between a community environment that encourages drinking and a concentration of heavy drinkers (on college campuses) that shape the community environment. Specifically, we used surveys of community residents around colleges, along with surveys of student behavior on those campuses to answer the following questions:
- •
Are there more alcohol outlets in neighborhoods near colleges than in similar neighborhoods which are not near colleges?
- •
Do residents living in communities near a college experience more secondhand effects of alcohol use than residents of similar areas not near a college?
- •
Are the increased secondhand effects related to more alcohol outlets near a college?
- •
Do residents of areas near colleges with high levels of binge drinking experience more secondhand effects than residents of areas near colleges with low levels of binge drinking?
Section snippets
Study procedure
We conducted a telephone survey of adult residents of the contiguous United States plus the District of Columbia using a stratified list-assisted random digit dialing (RDD) sample purchased from Genesys Sampling Systems.1 The list-assisted method used covers an estimated 96.5% of all households with telephones (Brick, Waksberg, & Starer, 1995). Actual coverage may be higher because the sample was selected at multiple points in
Community Background
Income was significantly lower among respondents living within a mile than those living more than 1 mile from a college (Table 1). More African Americans, fewer whites, and, as expected, more young people aged 18–24 lived within a mile from the college. Areas within a mile of a college had a lower prevalence of homeowners.
On-premise (bars/nightclubs) and off-premise (liquor stores) alcohol outlets were more often located within a mile from a college. Ninety-two percent of residents living
Discussion
A survey of a national sample of households revealed significant correlations between the distance from the nearest college and such secondhand effects of heavy alcohol use as noise, litter, and vandalism. Respondents residing near a college were at higher risk of experiencing such secondhand effects. They were also more likely to have alcohol outlets located near them. Path analysis indicated that residing near a college does not appear to be sufficient for experiencing high rates of
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Elissa R. Weitzman in the development of the survey questionnaire. This study was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
References (62)
- et al.
Commercial availability of alcohol to young peopleResults of alcohol purchase attempts
Preventive Medicine
(1995) - et al.
The mortaility, morbidity, and economic costs of alcohol abuse in New Hampshire
Preventive Medicine
(1988) - et al.
Health risk and inequitable distribution of liquor stores in African American neighborhood
Social Science and Medicine
(2000) - et al.
Policing underage alcohol sales
Journal of Safety Research
(1994) - et al.
Environmental correlates of underage alcohol use and related problems of college students
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
(2000) - et al.
Subjective, social, and physical availability. II. Their simultaneous effects on alcohol consumption
International Journal of Addiction
(1990) - et al.
Physical, subjective, and social availabilityTheir relationship to alcohol consumption in rural and urban areas
Addiction
(1993) Designing and conducting health surveys
(1989)Community-identified alcohol issues in the Mexican American communityResearch design and utilization
Substance Use and Misuse
(2000)- et al.
Immigrant and violenceThe importance of neighborhood context
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences
(1998)
Alcohol and cigarette advertising on billboards
Health Education Research: Theory and Practice
Significance test and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures
Psychological Bulletin
Alcohol control and injury death in Alaska native communitiesWet, damp and dry under Alaska's local option law
Journal of Student Alcoholism
The value of interrupted time series experiments for community intervention and policy research
Prevention Science
Bias in list-assisted telephone samples
Public Opinion Quarterly
The effects of price on the consequences of alcohol use and abuse
Recent Developments in Alcoholism
Impact of banning alcohol on outpatient visits in Barrow, Alaska
Journal of the American Medical Association
Effects of alcohol beverage prices and legal dinking ages on youth alcohol use
Journal of Student Alcoholism
Truth or consequencesThe validity of self-report data in health services research on addictions
Addiction
Drinking patterns, social interaction, and barroom behaviorA routine activities approach
Deviant Behavior
The Report of the CASRO Task Force on Response Rates
Alcohol availability and domestic violence
American Journal of Drug Alcohol Abuse
Concentration of liquor outlets in an economically disadvantaged city in the Northeastern United States
Substance Use and Misuse
Risk of aussaltive violence and alcohol availability in New Jersey
American Journal of Public Health
Alcohol availability and formal power and resources of state alcohol beverage control agencies
Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research
Alcohol availability and the ecology of drinking behavior
Alcohol Health and Research World
Routine activities and alcohol use-constraints on outlet utilization
Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research
Tobacco and alcohol billboards in 50 Chicago neighborhoodsMarket segmentation to sell dangerous products to the poor
Journal of Public Health Policy
Cited by (119)
Negative alcohol-related consequences experienced by young adults in the past 12 months: Differences by college attendance, living situation, binge drinking, and sex
2020, Addictive BehaviorsCitation Excerpt :On the other hand, living on campus, in particular, increases exposure to peers and opportunities for socializing, including fraternities/sororities that are associated with higher alcohol use, high-risk drinking, and more frequent negative consequences (McCabe et al., 2005, 2018; Presley et al., 2002). Living on or near college campuses also is associated with higher alcohol outlet density and exposure to other pro-alcohol factors such as public drunkenness (Wechsler, Lee, Hall, Wagenaar, & Lee, 2002). Exposure to social, residential, and market promotion of alcohol use has been linked to college student binge drinking (Kuo, Wechsler, Greenberg, & Lee, 2003; Weitzmann, Nelson, & Wechsler, 2003).
Psychometric evaluation of the drinking refusal self-efficacy scale - revised with college students in the United States
2018, Addictive BehaviorsCitation Excerpt :It is estimated that over 80% of students have consumed alcohol at least once while in college, with nearly half engaging in heavy episodic drinking behaviors at least once over a two-week period (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [NIAAA], 2012). The sheer volume of consumption brings cause for concern due to the variety of physical (e.g. hangovers and sexual victimization), mental (e.g. memory loss), and academic (e.g. missing class) alcohol-related negative consequences that can occur for college student drinkers and non-drinkers (Wechsler, Lee, Hall, Wagenaar, & Lee, 2002; White & Hingson, 2014). In response, alcohol researchers and interventionists endeavor to identify safe drinking behaviors and cognitions that can reduce consumption and alleviate consequences (Ehret, Ghaidarov, & LaBrie, 2013).
Perceived Gambling Availability and Adolescent Gambling Behavior: the Moderating Role of Self-Efficacy
2023, International Journal of Mental Health and AddictionCHANGING THE CULTURE OF HIGH-RISK DRINKING
2023, Creating and Maintaining Safe College Campuses: A Sourcebook for Evaluating and Enhancing Safety ProgramsTHE MEDIATING ROLE OF DRINKING MOTIVES ON THE LINK BETWEEN ALCOHOL USE AND PERSONALITY FACTORS
2023, Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling