Emily Voelkel, B.S. Thesis Defense June 2010

1. Sensation Seeking, Drinking Motives, and Perceived Norms as Mediators of the Association Between College Major and Drinking Patterns Emily Voelkel, B.S. Thesis Defense June 2010

2. Introduction • Numerous studies suggest that college drinking is a problem nationwide (National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2002; Vik et. al., 2000; Wechsler et al., 1999). • A wide variety of factors are associated with drinking (Ham & Hope, 2003) • Of interest for this study included: drinking motives (social & enhancement), perceived norms, sensation seeking, anxiety, and psychopathy (primary & secondary)

3. Introduction Continued • Drinking Motives • Motives for alcohol consumption suggested to be predictive of drinking behavior (Carey & Correia, 1997; Cooper, 1994) • Perceived Norms • Students’ perceptions of peer drinking behaviors influence personal consumption (e.g., Berkowitz, 2004; Schultz & Neighbors, 2007). • Such perceived norms have been found to be uniquely associated with drinking among college students (Neighbors et al., 2007).

4. Introduction Continued • Sensation Seeking • Associated with substance use (Cloninger & Sigvardsson, 1988; Grucza et al., 2006) • The constructs “sensation seeking” and “novelty seeking” highly correlated; terms often used synonymously • Trait Anxiety—mixed findings • Associated with alcohol use disorders (e.g., DeHaas, Calamari, & Bair, 2002; Willinger et al., 2002) • Nonstudent samples = does not independently predict alcohol use disorders (Schmidt, Buckner, & Keough, 2007; Teichman, Barnea, & Rahav, 1989b

5. Introduction Continued • Psychopathy • Primary = arrogance, callousness, manipulativeness, lying, low anxiety, high sensation seeking, low guilt and empathy • Secondary = impulsivity, boredom proneness, irresponsibility, lack of long-term goals; show more empathy, guilt, and anxiety than primary • Persons characterized as psychopaths are more likely than others to abuse alcohol (Lewis & Cloninger, 1983) and to have an alcohol abuse/dependence diagnosis (Gacono, 2000).

6. Introduction Continued • Some studies suggest that business students consume alcohol more frequently and in higher amounts than other students (Markland et al., 2008; Vansteenkiste et al., 2006). • Some studies also suggest that personality differences exist between business students and other students (e.g., Skinner 1981, 1983; Tobacyk & Cieslicka 2000a, 2000b).

7. Hypotheses 1. Business majors would score higher than arts and sciences majors on measures of binge drinking frequency, drinking frequency, and drinking problems. 2. Group differences in major would exist on the five hypothesized mediator variables such that business majors would score higher on measures of sensation seeking, social motives, enhancement motives, perceived drinking norms for their major, and primary psychopathy in comparison to arts and sciences majors.

8. Hypotheses Continued 3. When statistically controlling for major, the relationship between the hypothesized mediators and each of the criterion variables would remain. 4. When statistically controlling for sensation seeking, both motives, perceived drinking norms, and primary psychopathy, the relationship between major and the criterion variables would decrease.

9. Hypotheses Continued 5. There would be no difference between majors on measures of anxiety or secondary psychopathy. 6. Anxiety and secondary psychopathy would be related to increased binge drinking frequency, drinking frequency, and drinking problems regardless of undergraduate major.

10. MethodParticipants • 169 (Males = 46%, Females = 54%)undergraduate students at the University of Dayton • Recruited from Introduction to Psychology subject pool and one extracurricular club for business majors • Average age was 19 years (SD = 1.16), with a range from 18 to 23 years of age • Majority were Caucasian (92%); 3% African American; 3% Asian; 1% Latino; 1% other • Approximately half of the participants were from the College of Arts and Science (49%) and half were from the School of Business Administration (51%).

11. Method • Participants first completed Demographic Sheet. • Participants then completed the following self-report measures in randomized order with rotation (e.g., CBA, BAC, ACB): • Levenson’s Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (psychopathy measure) • The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (anxiety measure) • Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (social desirability measure) • Arnett Inventory of Sensation Seeking (sensation seeking measure) • Drinking Motives Measure (motives for drinking measure) • University of Dayton Alcohol Survey (alcohol consumption frequency and amount)

12. Results • H1, MANCOVA conducted: • Results indicated that there was not a significant main effect, F(3, 154) = 1.48, p > .05, for major. • Should not have proceeded since the omnibus F of the main effect for major was not significant. • Continued for learning purposes and to explore future directions. • Thus, interpret with caution. • The univariate results of this MANCOVA revealed that the two majors significantly differed only in binge drinking frequency F(1, 159) = 4.22, p < .05. • BUS (M = 6.69, SD = 3.90) scored higher than A&S students (M = 5.54, SD = 4.27) on binge drinking frequency.

13. Results Continued • H 2 & 5: MANCOVA conducted • As predicted for H5, results indicated no significant group differences in major on secondary psychopathy or anxiety. • The main effect for major was significant, F(12, 139) = 2.36, p < .01. • Results revealed that the two majors significantly differed in sensation seeking, F(1, 154) = 7.19, p < .01, and perceived norm that students in the same major drink per week,F(1, 154) = 9.02, p < .001. • A&S (M = 35.00, SD = 7.41) scored higher on sensation seeking than BUS (M = 32.37, SD = 7.64). • BUS (M = 24.21, SD = 10.61) had higher estimates for amount of drinks same major peers consumed per week than A&S (M = 19.18, SD = 10.14).

14. Results Continued • H 3 & 4: Hierarchical multiple regression • The results revealed a significant R2 change value (R2 = .38, p < .001) and an adjusted R2 value of .37, F(4, 154) = 24.06, p < .001, on the second step. • Results indicated that perceived norms was a significant predictor ( = .59, p < .001)of binge drinking frequency. • Sensation seeking not a significant predictor • Beta weight for major no longer significant ( = .02, p > .05) • The Sobel test • Results suggested that perceived norms significantly mediated (z = 2.91, p < .01) the relationship between choice of major and binge drinking frequency.

15. Table 6

16. Results Continued • H6: Correlation matrix between anxiety, secondary psychopathy, and criterion variables • Secondary psychopathy was significantly positively related to all three criterion variables (i.e., participants high in secondary psychopathy were more likely to binge drink, drink frequently, and have drinking problems). • Contrary to predictions, trait anxiety was not significantly related to any of the three criterion variables.

17. Discussion • Reminder to interpret with caution • Partial support found for hypothesis that business students and arts and sciences students would differ on alcohol measures • BUS and A&S differed only in binge drinking frequency. • Small sample size and/or changing drinking patterns over time may account for results

18. Discussion Continued • Contrary to hypotheses, A&S students scored higher than BUS on measures of sensation seeking. • Possible explanation could be overrepresentation of accounting majors • That is, due to the nature of their occupations, one could assume that accounting majors might not score as highly on measures of sensation seeking as some other business majors.

19. Discussion Continued • Results supported the hypothesis that BUS and A&S would not differ significantly on anxiety or secondary psychopathy measures. • Arguably, the most interesting result was that perceived drinking norms fully mediated the relationship between choice of major and binge drinking frequency. • Suggests that while BUS did report engaging in binge drinking more frequently, they may also be overestimating the actual amount of alcohol others in their major consume. • Therefore, they may consume more alcohol themselves to match their perceptions of others’ drinking habits.

20. Discussion Continued • Also interesting that “perceived norm for amount that students of the same major drinkper week” mediated the association between choice of major and drinking behavior while “perceived norm for amount that students of the same major drinkper occasion” did not. • Perhaps undergraduate students are not as proficient at accurately estimating what their peers drink per week as what they are at estimating what their peers drink per occasion.

21. Treatment Implications • Education regarding perceived versus actual drinking norms to increase awareness about realistic drinking patterns of others • Research suggests that education regarding perceived versus actual norms reduces alcohol consumption (Brown & Miller, 1995; DeMartini, Carey, & Carey, 2009; Lewis & Neighbors, 2006). • Treatment focused on changing the culture surrounding alcohol consumption for BUS • Examples of potential university interventions