ERIC EJ795812: Game-Day Survey Results: Looking at Football Fan Alcohol-Related Behaviors

2007·0.06 MB·English

by  ERIC

Research Articles
Game-Day Survey Results: Looking
at Football Fan Alcohol-related Behaviors
Jolie Haun, Tavis Glassman, Virginia J. Dodd, and Gail C. Dale Young
ABSTRACT
On college campuses, alcohol abuse is a challenge particularly on football game days. From previous research, it
is known that fans drink more and are more affected by excessive alcohol consumption than non-fans. This study
explored age and gender issues regarding behaviors and consequences of typical game-day alcohol consumption. A
self-administered paper-pencil survey, given to 497 respondents, evaluated alcohol consumption behaviors of fans
“tailgating” at a college football game. A descriptive discriminant analysis was conducted with data from respondents
who reported drinking (N=352). Three discriminant variables interpreted from data suggest the following: (1) males
drink more than females, but females have more adverse consequences when drinking on game days; (2) respondents
ages 21–26 years drink more alcohol and are more likely to perceive that friends drink excessively versus other age
groups; and (3) respondents ages 24–26 years were more aware than other groups of anti-alcohol campus campaigns,
but drink more on game days, and are more likely to frequent bars and tailgating areas. A “one-size-fi ts-all” approach
to intervention is not adequate for college campus population needs. It is important to identify target populations for
tailored intervention efforts concerning outcomes of excessive drinking during game days.
INTRODUCTION humiliating others or damaging property.2 accidents. Alcohol consumption is a factor in
Alcohol misuse is a serious health issue Further, in 2002 the National Institute on fan/spectator aggression.7 Since 1999, more
for colleges and universities around the Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) than a dozen disruptive and even deadly
country.1 Surveys indicate that the majority estimated that there are over 1,400 student documented events have occurred among
of college students drink regardless of their deaths, 500,000 injuries, and 600,000 assaults college sports spectators. Alcohol-induced
ageand that approximately two out every annually associated with excessive alcohol riots, stampedes, fi ghts, and fatal beatings

five college students binge drink.2 Binge consumption. 5 These statistics illustrate the
drinking or heavy episodic drinking is de- serious consequences of alcohol abuse on Jolie Haun, MS, EdS, is a doctoral candidate
fi ned by Wechsler and colleagues as having college campuses throughout the country. in the Department of Health Education &
fi ve or more drinks in one sitting for men Throughout the United States, high- Behavior, University of Florida, 4100 SW
and four or more for women, at least once risk drinking on campuses during college 20th Avenue G-25, Gainesville, Florida 32607;
in the past two weeks. Binge drinking is football games, also known as game days, is E-mail: [email protected]. Tavis Glass-
associated with unintentional injury (e.g., a challenge. Research indicates that sports man, MSEd, MPH, CHES, Room 302, Infi r-
motor vehicle crashes, falls, and drowning), fans typically drink more than non-fans mary Building, PO BOX 117500, Gainesville, FL
sexually transmitted diseases, unintended and thus are more likely to be affected by 32611-7500. Virginia J. Dodd, PhD, MPH, Room
pregnancy, sexual assault, violence, and poor the behavior-altering effects of alcohol 65, Florida Gym, P.O. Box 118210, Gainesville,
academic performance.3,4 Moreover, binge consumption.6 College football games pose FL 32611-8210. Gail C. Dale Young, MA, is
drinkers affect others by interrupting sleep a considerable increase in the probability of a PhD student in the Department of Health
or study, having to be taken care of, mak- excessive drinking and negative outcomes, Education & Behavior, University of Florida,
ing unwanted sexual advances, insulting or such as violence, sexual assault, and vehicle P.O. Box 118210, Gainesville, FL 32611-8210.
American Journal of Health Education — March/April 2007, Volume 38, No. 2 91
Jolie Haun, Tavis Glassman, Virginia J. Dodd, and Gail C. Dale Young
involving rowdy spectators have become all were read a brief statement about the study items related to attitudes about game-day
too frequent occurrences.8 emphasizing that participation was volun- drinking alternatives. The survey items and
Though previous studies have assessed tary and anonymous, and upon consent each response means for males and females by age
alcohol use and the negative outcomes respondent was provided with a clipboard group can be seen in Table 1. An item analy-
associated with excessive drinking, little is and attached survey for completion. If the sis was conducted to test for internal validity
known about the tailgating behaviors of person declined to participate, the volunteer on items related to alcohol consumption,
college football fans, including college stu- thanked him or her and sought another consequences to alcohol consumption, and
dents, alumni, and others. This study seeks to participant. In an attempt to avoid potential social norms related to alcohol consump-
address the following questions concerning confrontation and minimize risk, volunteers tion. Cronbach’s alphas were all acceptable:
college football fans and their typical game- were instructed to refuse administration of alcohol consumption items (.859), con-
day drinking behaviors: (1) Is age related to the survey to respondents who appeared to sequences to alcohol consumption items
game day alcohol consumption behaviors be belligerent or otherwise compromised (.822), and social norms related to alcohol
and consequences of consumption? (2) Is by alcohol consumption. Due to the sub- consumption of others items (.842).
gender related to game-day alcohol con- jective nature of determining one’s level of The survey was completed by 497 partici-
sumption behaviors and consequences of intoxication, data collectors were directed pants. However, 352 were used to analyze the
consumption? (3) Are gender and age related to use their best judgment to determine if data of respondents who reported game-day
to one’s alcohol consumption? This research potential respondents were intoxicated as drinking. Pre-game nondrinkers represented
is unique in that the Game-Day Survey uti- to not jeopardize the perceived safety and nearly a third of the sample (N=145). Of
lized in this study was created specifi cally to comfort of the data collectors. The volunteer the non-drinkers, 54.5% were female and
measure typical student drinking behaviors data collectors, upon debriefi ng with the PI, 45.5% were male. Consistent with current
associated with college football game days. reported no encounters with intoxicated in- literature, the survey indicated that females
dividuals, or anyone who appeared to avoid, are more likely to abstain from drinking
METHODS or seek out, the data collectors. than males. However, more than two-thirds
In November 2003, on a game-day af- The paper-based Game-Day Survey was (N=352) of respondents reported drinking
ternoon, a self-administered paper-based designed and employed to evaluate knowl- at pre-game events.
survey was distributed to a convenience edge, perceptions, and typical behaviors Participants who indicated not drinking
sample of 497 fans at popular on-campus related to alcohol use by football game on game days were removed from the analy-
tailgating areas at a large Southeastern attendees. This survey was designed for sis because they do not pose a health risk to
university. Tailgating areas were defi ned as campus health data collection, pilot tested themselves or others. The sample of those
areas with large gatherings of fans socializing and revised by a panel of experts in alcohol reporting pre-game drinking consisted of
in the general area of campus parking lots. and other areas of drug prevention. Survey 22.4% alumni; 21% undergraduates; 11.1%
Inclusion criteria for respondents included items were modifi ed and adapted from the graduate students; 9.9% visiting fans; 8.2%
those fans that were not visibly intoxicated, standardized and nationally recognized Core other; 1.4% employees of the university; and
present at tailgating areas on campus, and Alcohol and Drug Survey Long Form.9 The 26% fans who did not identify with any of
voluntarily consenting to completing the Game-Day Survey consisted of 30 items: the other categories. Interestingly 44.6% of
survey. All respondents completed the survey three demographic items (age, gender, at- the participants were age 27 or older, with
in the tailgating areas. Survey administration tendee status [undergraduate, graduate, the remaining age distribution of 20.5%
began approximately three hours before employee, UF Alumni, Gators fan, visiting between the ages of 18–20 years; 21.6%
the scheduled football game and ended at fan, other]); thirteen dichotomous items between the ages of 21–23 years, and 13.4%
game time. with “yes” and “no” response options (four between the ages of 24–26 years, as seen in
Fifteen undergraduate volunteers were related to campus alcohol and drug cam- Table 2. Of the participants who reported
recruited to administer the Game-Day Sur- paign recognition and nine related to drink- pre-game drinking, pre-game males rep-
vey. Prior to game day, the principal inves- ing consequences); three seven-point Likert resented 58.5% of the sample and females
tigator provided training to the volunteers nominal scale items related to geographic represented the remaining 41.5%.
relating to recruiting participants, as well settings for alcohol consumption (home,
as details concerning the informed consent friend’s house, restaurant, bar, tailgate area, RESULTS
process. Volunteers were instructed to dis- other); four seven-point Likert interval scale A multivariate statistical analysis was
tribute the survey in popular tailgating areas items related to alcohol consumption; three conducted to determine the number of new
on campus prior to the game to individuals fi ve-point Likert interval items related to discriminant variables required to evaluate
who were tailgating. Potential participants social norms related to alcohol consumption differences among groups. Multivariate dis-
were approached by trained volunteers; they of others; and four fi ve-point Likert ordinal criminant statistical analysis is an advanced
92 American Journal of Health Education — March/April 2007, Volume 38, No. 2
Jolie Haun, Tavis Glassman, Virginia J. Dodd, and Gail C. Dale Young
Table 1. Game-Day Drinking Response Means by Gender and Age Group

Ages 18-20 Ages 21-23 Ages 24–26 Ages 27 or older
Mean (STD) Mean (STD) Mean (STD) Mean (STD)
Variable
Males Females Males Females Males Females Males Females
Item Type N = 40 N = 32 N = 42 N = 34 N = 29 N = 18 N = 95 N = 62
4.–7. Composite Sore: Total Dichoto- 6.28 6.41 6.71 6.82 6.79 6.61 6.37 6.69
awareness score of campus mous (1.01) (1.21) (1.24) (1.06) (1.05) (1.14) (1.19) (1.05)
campaigns and “school” code
of conduct.
8. Where do you spend ma- Nominal 4.00 3.03 5.19 4.24 5.52 5.33 4.58 4.02
jority of time drinking before (2.40) (2.38) (1.73) (2.32) (1.45) (1.57) (2.25) (2.42)
game on game day?
9. Where do you spend Nominal 2.55 1.75 3.05 2.32 3.69 2.22 2.22 1.90
majority of time drinking dur- (2.52) (1.78) (2.56) (2.00) (2.75) (2.37) (2.25) (1.92)
ing game?
10. Where do you spend Nominal 3.25 2.91 3.62 2.85 3.83 3.50 3.07 3.21
majority of time drinking after (2.06) (2.07) (2.05) (1.69) (2.09) (2.09) (2.29) (2.23)
the game?
11. How many drinks do you Interval 2.83 1.88 4.55* 2.44 4.34* 3.78* 2.91 2.02
typically have before game? (1.80) (1.10) (1.67) (1.33) (1.88) (1.96) (1.85) (0.97)
12. How many drinks do you Interval 1.50 1.31 2.19 1.50 1.97 1.89 1.51 1.27
typically have during game? (1.40) (1.09) (1.89) (0.90) (1.53) (1.75) (1.28) (0.71)
13. How many drinks do you Interval 3.03 1.75 4.24* 2.35 3.55 3.17* 2.25 1.74
typically have after the game? (2.01) (1.02) (2.27) (1.43) (2.05) (1.92) (1.73) (0.85)
14. Not including game day, Interval 3.48 2.88 4.93* 3.06* 5.21* 4.28* 2.99 2.73
how many alcoholic drinks (2.21) (1.45) (1.89) (1.37) (1.80) (1.56) (1.72) (1.13)
did you have the last time
you partied?
15–23. Composite Score: Dur- Dichoto- 16.68 17.53 15.88 17.24 15.79 16.78 17.20 17.63
ing football season did you ex- mous (2.20) (1.08) (2.22) (1.23) (2.47) (1.52) (1.63) (0.96)
perience adverse consequences
due to drinking on game day?
24. Estimate the percentage Interval 2.98 2.59 3.79 3.18 3.55 3.50 2.34 1.97
of friends who have 5 or (1.53) (1.29) (1.39) (1.36) (1.15) (1.25) (1.48) (1.32)
more drinks on game day.
25. Estimate the percentage Interval 2.95 3.19 3.36 3.74 3.14 3.44 2.57 2.81
of “school” students who (1.26) (1.12) (1.21) (0.99) (1.16) (0.98) (1.24) (1.21)
have 5 or more drinks on
game day.
26. Estimate the percentage Interval 3.05 3.38 3.40 3.38 3.34 3.50 2.63 2.58
of “school” fans that have 5 or (1.40) (1.31) (1.21) (1.13) (1.14) (1.30) (1.30) (1.24)
more drinks on game day.
27. I would support a Ordinal 3.68 4.19 3.33 4.00 3.66 3.44 4.27 4.35
public relations campaign to (1.35) (0.78) (1.41) (0.85) (1.14) (1.30) (0.95) (0.75)
encourage fans to celebrate
responsibly on game day.
28. I would support alcohol- Ordinal 3.10 3.22 2.17 3.06 2.38 2.67 3.31 3.60
free alternatives. (1.45) (1.18) (1.34) (1.37) (1.37) (1.24) (1.47) (1.23)
29. I would support designat- Ordinal 3.80 3.94 3.69 4.35 3.79 4.50 3.73 4.15
ed tailgating areas where open (1.42) (0.95) (1.70) (0.98) (1.47) (1.04) (1.48) (1.20)
containers are illegal.
30. I would support increased Ordinal 2.85 2.91 2.26 3.21 2.76 3.11 3.78 3.98
enforcement of underage drink- (1.49) (1.33) (1.48) (1.30) (1.53) (1.45) (1.21) (1.15)
ing laws on game day.
*Participant reports indicate high-risk drinking.
American Journal of Health Education — March/April 2007, Volume 38, No. 2 93
Jolie Haun, Tavis Glassman, Virginia J. Dodd, and Gail C. Dale Young
statistical method that allows for the analysis cally signifi cant discriminant functions are the alcohol culture variable indicated statis-
and interpretation of multiple independent defi ned in the following paragraphs. The tically signifi cant group differences between
and dependent variables within one analysis. fi rst age discriminant variable accounts for respondents ages 21–23 and respondents
This analysis is appropriate when comparing 63.81% of the differences among the group ages 27 or older [t (351) = 6.06, p = <.0001].
several groups that are measured on several means. The second age discriminant variable The remainder of pairwise comparisons did
variables. Means and standard deviations for accounted for another 29.11% of variance, not indicate signifi cant results. Not only did
participant scores on the original variables totaling 92.92% of the differences among these two age groups (21–23 and 24–26)
are provided in Table 1. the group means. The third age discriminant report drinking more on game days, they
A multivariate analysis of variance variable was not statistically signifi cant [F reported perceiving that their friends drink
(MANOVA) indicated signifi cant gender dif- (14, 331) = 0.89, p = .5708]. The statistical more. Results also show that fans ages 18–20
ferences [F (16, 329) = 5.67, p < .0001]. The analysis results of the age*gender interac- report drinking signifi cantly less on game
discriminant variable for gender accounts tion discriminant functions indicated no days, tailgate less, and are less aware of cam-
for 100% of the differences among the group statistical signifi cance, [F (48, 813) = 1.14, pus alcohol-intervention campaigns.
means. This gender discriminant variable was p .2485]. The second age discriminant function
interpreted as “alcohol consumption and The fi rst age discriminant variable was was interpreted as “game-day alcohol-re-
consequence contrast”; the marginal means interpreted as “alcohol culture variable,” lated behavior and awareness variable.” The
suggest that males reported drinking more which suggests respondents between ages marginal means suggest that respondents
than females, but females reported more 21–26 drink more and perceive that their between ages 24–26 drink more in general
adverse consequences of drinking on game friends drink more alcohol than those and pre-game on game days, and more often
days. High scores on the gender discrimi- respondents in the age groups 18–20 and frequent bars and tailgating areas, though
nant variable indicate low consumption 27 and older. Further, descriptive statistics they are more aware of campus prevention
but high consequences; low scores indicate suggest both males and females between campaigns. Following, respectively, are re-
high consumption and low consequences. the ages of 21–26 indicate binge drinking in spondents in the age groups 21–23, respon-
Marginal means on the canonical variable their reports of typical alcohol consumption dents aged 27 or older, and the respondents
“alcohol consumption and consequence (Table 1). A t-test comparing the average aged 18–20, which scored the lowest.
contrast” were 3.37 for males and 2.90 for of the means for the 21–23 and 24–26 year Pairwise comparisons t-tests were also
females. These adverse consequences include old groups to the average of the means for conducted to compare the four groups on
hangovers, vomiting, driving under the the other groups was signifi cant [t (344) = the second discriminant variable, “game-day
infl uence, blackouts, injury, fi ghts, sexual 6.61, p = <.0001], based on Roy’s largest alcohol-related behavior and awareness.”
assault, or trouble with police. These results root critical value (+ 5.90). This suggests Statistically signifi cant group differences
are consistent with the national trends that that respondents between ages 21–26 drink were found between respondents between
indicate females suffer adverse consequences more and perceive that their friends drink 18–20 and respondents aged 24–26 [t
from alcohol consumption at disproportion- more alcohol than those respondents in the (351) = 6.63, p = <.0001]. The remainder
ately high rates.10 both younger (18–20) and older (27 and of pairwise comparisons did not indicate
Results of the statistical analysis for the older) age groups. Pairwise comparisons signifi cant results. Results for comparison
age groups indicate the fi rst two discrimi- were conducted to analyze group differences of the two middle-age groups and the oldest
nant functions were statistically signifi cant on the fi rst age discriminant variable, alcohol and youngest groups on the alcohol culture
[F (48, 979) = 3.52, p < .0001] and [F (30, culture. The post-hoc t-critical value was cal- variable were statistically significant, [t
660) = 2.08, p = .0007]. These two statisti- culated and found to be +/- 5.90. Results for (351) = -6.61, p = <.0001] and statistically
Table 2. Demographics of Game-Day Survey Respondents
Drinkers Non-Drinkers
Age Group Males Females N Males Females N (%)
18–20 40 32 72 (20.5%) 15 21 36 (24.8%)
21–23 42 34 76 (21.6%) 4 14 18 (12.4%)
24–26 29 18 47 (13.4%) 3 2 5 (3.4%)
27 and older 95 62 157 (44. 6%) 44 42 86 (59.4%)
Total 206 146 352 (100%) 66 79 145(100%)
94 American Journal of Health Education — March/April 2007, Volume 38, No. 2
Jolie Haun, Tavis Glassman, Virginia J. Dodd, and Gail C. Dale Young
signifi cant differences were found on the These adverse consequences include having fi nding is consistent with Neighbors and
game-day alcohol-related behavior and a hangover, vomiting, driving under colleagues (2006) research, that students
awareness variable, [t (351) = -6.11, p = the infl uence, experiencing a blackout, overestimate the quantity of drinking,
<.0001]. These results indicate that even becoming injured, fi ghting, being vic- among their peers that takes place on
though fans between ages 24–26 reported timized sexually, or getting into trouble game days. These misperceived drink-
they recognized prevention messages more with police. These results are consistent ing rates may be justifi cation for a social
than the other age groups, these messages with national trends, indicating that norms intervention.
did not infl uence their drinking patterns, as females are suffering disproportionately Due to study limitations, fi ndings must
they reported drinking more than the other high rates of adverse consequences relating be interpreted cautiously. The fi ndings are
age groups. to alcohol consumption.11–13 These results based on self-report data which inherently
provide implications for identifying both produce bias. However, self reported data
DISCUSSION genders as priority populations for game- are commonly used to obtain health in-
This research contributes to the limited day interventions. These fi ndings point to formation and alcohol consumption, and
body of knowledge describing college foot- the need for tailored, gender-specifi c mes- are generally considered valid.14, 15 Another
ball fans and game-day drinking behavior. sages aimed at game-day drinking. Addition- limitation of this study is that the data pre-
This study is unique because a customized ally, the effects of increased alcohol-industry sented in these fi ndings are based on a con-
instrument was created and administered advertising efforts, specifically targeting venience sample; consequently, inferences
to college football fans tailgating before a females, needs to be further explored. Lastly, must be made with caution. This sample was
college football game. This technique en- the game-day drinking behavior of females drawn from a large school in the Southeast
abled researchers to obtain data regarding who try to “keep up” or match their male and drinking patterns at this college may
typical game-day drinking behaviors from counterparts’ alcohol consumption should not be refl ective of other colleges. Further,
college students, alumni, visiting fans, and also be addressed. the cross-sectional survey design prevents
home fans while tailgating. The results of Statistically signifi cant age differences in us from determining causal patterns. In
the Game-Day Survey indicate that, among drinking rates, perceptions, and recognition other words, we are unable to determine if
drinkers, heavy episodic drinking is com- of game day public relations efforts were also game days cause heavy drinking or if heavy
mon on game days and, not unlike what present. Fans aged 18–20 years report drink- drinkers participate in game-day activities.
occurs in other drinking venues, gender and ing signifi cantly less on game days, tailgating Because we surveyed people in the act of
age are associated with differing drinking less, and less awareness of campus alcohol- tailgating, it is possible that any respondent
rates. From a health promotion standpoint, intervention campaigns. This result may be could have answered our questions inac-
it is encouraging to note that a third of the due to increased vigilance toward underage curately in an attempt to provide a socially
participants surveyed did not drink at all drinking by bar/restaurant owners, campus desirable response. Since data supporting
on game days, and another one-third drink police, and others on game days. These or refuting this claim are not available, this
in moderation. Conversely, one-third of the results are somewhat reassuring given the must be cited as a study limitation and
sample drinks excessively. The results of this fact that individuals between the ages 18–20 interpretations must be made with this in
study provide evidence needed by campus are not legally permitted to drink alcohol. mind. Lastly, it is possible that response
administrators and health educators when Yet, this group’s reported poor recognition validity could have been compromised due
creating interventions and messages specifi c of safety messages indicates the need for to undetected alcohol impairment.
to game-day alcohol consumption. Reducing improved campaign efforts or health mes-
the heavy episodic drinking rate on game sage design. Indeed, fans aged 21–23 years TRANSLATION TO HEALTH
days may help universities to lower their indicated a greater awareness of prevention EDUCATION PRACTICE
overall high-risk drinking rates, especially messages, but evidently these messages do Decreasing high-risk or binge drinking
during the fall semester. not infl uence their drinking patterns. This is among adults is a prominent health objec-
Gender differences in drinking an area for health message designers to care- tive in both Healthy People 2010 and Healthy
behaviors and adverse alcohol-related fully consider. Moreover, fans aged 21–23 Campus 2010. Clearly, reducing high-risk
consequences were an important fi nd- years and 24–26 years drank signifi cantly drinking on game days is fundamental to
ing in this study. Table 1 illustrates the more than the younger (18–20 years) and reducing binge drinking rates on college
high-risk drinking rates between males and older (27 years or older) respondents as campuses. These fi ndings provide implica-
females within the various age groups. It seen in Figure 1. Not only did these two tions for a need to refi ne policies relating
appears that while males drink more age groups, between the ages of 21 and 26, to the university and game-day activities,
alcohol, females suffer more consequences report drinking more on game days, but they as well as public policy for local drinking
from consuming alcohol on game days. perceived that their friends drink more. This establishments. Suggestions for promoting
American Journal of Health Education — March/April 2007, Volume 38, No. 2 95
Jolie Haun, Tavis Glassman, Virginia J. Dodd, and Gail C. Dale Young
Waryold D. College sports and fan aggression:
Figure 1. Perceived Alcohol Use by Others Implications for residence hall discipline. Jour-
and Game-Day Drinking Behavior nal of College Student Development. 1995;36:
587–593.
8. National Collegiate Athletic Association.
Report on the sportsmanship and fan behavior
summit, 2003. Available at: http://www.ncaa.
org/sportsmanship/sportsmanshipFanBehav-
ior/report.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2004.
9. Core Institute. Alcohol and Drug Survey
Long Form. Available at http://www.siu.edu/
departments/coreinst/public_html/. Accessed
July 25, 2006.
10. Presley CA, Pimentel E. The introduction
of the heavy and frequent drinker: A proposed
classifi cation to increase accuracy of alcohol as-
sessments in postsecondary educational settings.
J Stud Alcohol. 2006; 67:324–331.
a healthy game-day environment include qualitative inquiry, will allow health educa- 11. Clarke M. Women and alcohol, a gender
but are not limited to: alcohol-free pre- tors to present persuasive messages to their difference? Available at: http://www.oznet.ksu.
and post-game-day activities, increased audiences more effectively. edu/humannutrition/_timely/ALCOHOL.htm.
enforcement of underage drinking and Accessed July 1, 2004.
open container laws, limiting the number REFERENCES 12. Korcuska JS, Thombs DL. Gender role
of tailgating hours, and having designated 1. Walters ST, Bennett ME, Noto JV. Drinking confl ict and sex-specifi c drinking norms: Rela-
tailgating areas on campus. It is clear that on campus. What do we know about reducing tionship to alcohol use in undergraduate women
different groups of people have different alcohol use among college students? J Subst Abuse and men. Journal of College Student Development.
prevention needs and that a “one-size- Treat. 2000;19:223–8. 2003;44:204–216.
fits-all” prevention message will not 2. Weschler H, Lee JE, Kuo M, et al. Trends 13. Thomas BC. Rape at U.S. Colleges Often
work for everybody. The results found in in College Binge Drinking During a Period of Fueled by Alcohol. JAMA. 2006;296:504–505.
this study indicate that females and persons Increased Prevention Efforts: Findings from 4 14. Presley CA, Meilman PW. Develop-
aged 21–26 years are most in need of tailored Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol ment of the core alcohol and drug survey:
prevention messages concerning game-day Study Surveys: 1993–2001. J Am Coll Health. Initial fi ndings and future decisions. J Am
activities and the adverse outcomes associ- 2002; 50: 203–217. Coll Health. 1994;42:248–255.
ated with excessive drinking. However, this 3. Naimi TS, Brewer RD, Mokdad A, et 15. Midanik L. Validity of self report alcohol
does not preclude the need for tailored mes- al. Bing Drinking Among U.S. Adults. JAMA. use: a literature review and assessment. Br J Ad-
sages targeting males who drink on game 2003;289:70–75. dict. 1988;83:1019–1030.
days. Further research in the area of targeted 4. Kuo M, Wechsler H, Greenberg P, et
message design is necessary. Hence, health al. The marketing of alcohol to college stu-
educators developing game-day messages dents: the role of low prices and special promo-
should be cognizant of these fi ndings when tions. Am J Prev Med. 2003;25: 204–11.
developing messages for their campuses. 5. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and
Health educators should work diligently to Alcoholism. A call to action: changing the culture
focus their efforts and tailor messages toward of drinking at U.S. colleges, NIH Publication.
different populations according to needs and No. 02-5010. Available at: http://www.college-
relevance. This study contributes to the body drinkingprevention.gov/NIAAACollegeMate-
of knowledge used to guide practitioners in rials/TaskForce/TaskForce_TOC.aspx. Accessed
their efforts to reduce high-risk drinking December 12, 2006.
behaviors and related adverse consequences. 6. Weschler H, Nelson TF. School Spirits:
Continued work in this area is needed if the Alcohol and Collegiate Sports Fans. Addict Behav.
adverse effects of game-day behavior are to 2002; 28: 1–11.
be alleviated. Further research, specifi cally 7. Coons CJ, Howard-Hamilton M,
96 American Journal of Health Education — March/April 2007, Volume 38, No. 2