150 likes | 302 Views
The Effect that Binge Drinking has on Social Support in College Students. Thea Vance Hanover College. Introduction. Social Support Intimacy & Binge Drinking Nezlek (1993) Binge Drinking and General Social Support. Hypothesis.
E N D
The Effect that Binge Drinking has on Social Support in College Students Thea Vance Hanover College
Introduction • Social Support • Intimacy & Binge Drinking • Nezlek (1993) • Binge Drinking and General Social Support
Hypothesis • Moderate binge drinkers will report more social support than low or high binge drinkers.
Method • 26 Participants • 9 males, 17 females • Age M=20.19 • 14 Greek affiliated, 12 non-affiliated
Multi-Dimensional Social Support • 6 Single-Item Measures (Winefield, et. al) • Attentiveness social support • How often do your friends really listen to you when you talk about concerns? • Empathetic social support • How often do you feel that your friends are really trying to understand your problems? • Distraction social support • How often do your friends try to take your mind off your problems by telling jokes or chattering about things? • Attachment social support • How often do your friends make you feel loved? • Instrumental social support • How often do they help you in practical ways? • Direct information • How often do they answer you questions or give you advice about problem solving?
General Perceived Social Support • General Perceived Social Support (Procidano, Heller) • 9 item scale • E.g., I have a deep sharing relationship with a number of friends.
Binge Drinking • Male or woman who consumes 5-6 alcoholic beverages in three hours • Low (n = 4) • 1 binge drinking episode per week • Moderate (n= 5) • Female/Male with two binge drinking episodes per week. • High (n = 5) • Female/Male with three binge drinking episode per week.
Results • Descriptives: • General Soc. Supp. (1-9) M=6.23 SD=2.49 • Attentiveness (1-5) M=3.50 SD=.58 • Empathetic M=3.27 SD=.74 • Distraction M=2.65 SD=.76 • Attachment M=3.20 SD=.76 • Instrumental M=2.73 SD=.92 • Direct Info. M=3.00 SD=.75
Results • One way ANOVAs with binge drinking as predictor and each of 7 social support as outcome variables • No significant findings • Created new variable: • Do binge (high, moderate, low; n = 14) • Don’t binge (n = 12)
Exploratory Analyses • Several 2-Way ANOVAs • Sex x Binge • Greek x Binge • No significant results
Chi Square • Chi-Square (2 = 3.17, p < .10) • Proportionally, men are more likely to binge than women
Exploratory Regression Analysis • Outcome variable - total # of drinks consumed in an average week. • M = 8.19, SD = 8.03 • Predictor variables are the 7 social support variables • General, Attentiveness, empathy, distraction , attachment, instrumental help, direct information
Social Support & Total # Drinks • More general social support = more drinks • (Beta = .46, t= 1.89, p< .08). • Surprisingly, • Less attention from friends = more drinks • (Beta = -.56, t= -2.01, p<.07)
General Discussion • Low power • Small campus • Social support may not be derived from alcohol consumption • Close-knit friendships based on major, dorm living, clubs, affiliation • Students at tough school are studying rather than binging
Future Research • Is there a split in underclassmen and upperclassmen found in social support and binge drinking? • How much social support do Freshman receive their first year and is that correlated with binge drinking?