Advertisement

Prevention Science

, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 267–273 | Cite as

A Comparison of Two Measures of Low Response to Alcohol Among Heavy Drinking Male College Students: Implications for Indicated Prevention

  • Ray Daugherty
  • Norm Van Tubergen
Article

Abstract

Low response (LR) to alcohol is a risk factor that strongly predicts later problems. This study compares subjective measures of high tolerance (HT) to measures of LR, using the Self-Rating of Effects of Alcohol (SRE) form. First-year heavy drinking students (N = 250) at an all-male college completed a survey during a mandatory class that included the SRE, past month peak consumption, 2-week heavy episodic use, family history, self-reported high tolerance, and whether it takes more alcohol to become impaired compared to others. The SRE identified LR for 96.7% of those reporting HT and 100% of those reporting both HT and that it takes comparatively more alcohol to become impaired. The measure of HT correlated more with heavy drinking than did that of LR (peak of 14.5 drinks and 4.3 occasions of heavy episodic drinking vs. 12.6 and 3.7) whereas those identified as not LR drank less than those who reported no HT (peak of 6.1 drinks and 1.3 occasions of heavy episodic drinking vs. 9.6 and 2.4). Those reporting uncertainty about HT averaged peaks of 10 drinks and 3.13 occasions of heavy episodic drinking; 73.6% scored LR on the SRE. These data suggest that, at least in a heavy drinking group, the SRE may be most effective as a selected follow-up to an initial two-question screening. Self-reporting a high tolerance provides as much information as the 12-question SRE and is associated with heavier use. The SRE may provide corrective feedback to those who report uncertainty about HT or who give conflicting responses to the two screening questions.

tolerance low response SRE perception of risk 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Bachman, J. G., Johnston, L. D., & O'Malley, P. M. (1988). Explaining the recent decline in marijuana use: Differentiating the effects of perceived risks, disapproval, and the general lifestyle factors. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 29, 92–112.Google Scholar
  2. Bachman, J. G., Johnston, L. D., & O'Malley, P. M. (1998). Explaining recent increases in students' marijuana use: Impacts of perceived risk and disapproval, 1976 through 1996. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 887–892.Google Scholar
  3. Bailey, S. L., Flewelling, R. L., & Rachal, J. V. (1992). Predicting continued use of marijuana among adolescents: The relative influence of drug-specific and social context factors. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 33, 51–66.Google Scholar
  4. Daugherty, R. P., & Leukefeld, C. (1998). Reducing the risks for substance abuse: A life span approach. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  5. Daugherty, R., & O'Bryan, T. (1992). Talking about alcohol and drugs series. Lexington, KY: Prevention Research Institute.Google Scholar
  6. Daugherty, R., & O'Bryan, T. (1998). PRIME for life series. Lexington, KY: Prevention Research Institute.Google Scholar
  7. Feldman, L., Harvey, B., Holowaty, P., & Shortt, L. (1999). Alcohol use beliefs and behaviors among high school students. Adolescent Health, 24, 48–58.Google Scholar
  8. Greenfield, T.K., & Rogers, J.D. (1999). Alcoholic beverage choice, risk perception, and self-reported drunk driving: Effects of measurement on risk analysis. Addiction, 94, 1735–1744.Google Scholar
  9. Heath, A. C., Madden, P. A., Bucholz, K. K., Dinwiddie, S. H., Slutske, W. S., Beirut, L. J., Rohrbaugh, J. W., Statham, D. J., Dunne, M. P., Whitfield, J. B., & Martin, N. G. (1999). Genetic differences in alcohol sensitivity and the inheritance of alcoholism risk. Psychological Medicine, 29, 1069–1081.Google Scholar
  10. Nelson, J. L., Hirsch, J. A., Pendergast, D. R., & Glavy, J. S. (1999). Factors associated with planned avoidance of alcohol-impaired driving in high-risk men. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 60, 407–412.Google Scholar
  11. Pollock, V. E. (1992). Meta-Analysis of Subjective Sensitivity to Alcohol in Sons of Alcoholics. American Journal of Psychiatry, 149, 1534–1538.Google Scholar
  12. Rodriguez, L. A., Wisons, J. R., & Nagoshi, C. T. (1993). Does psychomotor sensitivity to alcohol predict subsequent alcohol use? Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research, 17, 155–161.Google Scholar
  13. Schuckit, M. A. (1994a). A clinical model of genetic influences in alcohol dependence. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 55, 5–17.Google Scholar
  14. Schuckit, M. A. (1994b). Low level of response to alcohol as a predictor of future alcoholism. American Journal of Psychiatry, 151, 184–189.Google Scholar
  15. Schuckit, M. A. (1998). Biological, psychological, and environmental predictors of the alcoholism risk:Alongitudinal study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 59, 485–494.Google Scholar
  16. Schuckit, M. A., & Smith, T. L. (1996). An 8-year follow-up of 450 sons of alcoholic and control subjects. Archives of General Psychiatry, 53, 202–210.Google Scholar
  17. Schuckit, M. A., & Smith, T. L. (2001). Correlates of Unpredicted Outcomes in Sons of Alcoholics and Controls. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 62, 477–485.Google Scholar
  18. Schuckit, M. A., Smith, T. L., Kalmijn, J., Tsuang, J., Hesselbrock, V. M, & Bucholv, K. (2000). Response to alcohol in daughters of alcoholics: A pilot study and a comparison with sons of alcoholics. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 35, 242–248.Google Scholar
  19. Schuckit, M. A., Smith, T. L., & Tipp, J. E. (1997a). The self-rating of the effects of alcohol (SRE) form as a retrospective measure of the risk for alcoholism. Addiction, 92, 979–988.Google Scholar
  20. Schuckit, M. A., Tipp, J. E., Smith, T. L., Wiesbeck, G. A., & Kalmijm, J. (1997b). The relationship between self-rating of the effects of alcohol and alcohol challenge results in ninetyeight young men. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 58, 397–404.Google Scholar
  21. Sjöberg, L. (1998). Risk perception of alcohol consumption. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 22, 277S-284S.Google Scholar
  22. Straus, R. (1983). Types of alcohol dependence. In B. Kissin & H. Begleiter (Eds.), The biology of alcoholism (Vol. 6, pp. 1–16). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  23. Volavka, J., Czobor, P., Goodwin, D. W., Gabrielli, W. F., Jr., Penick, E. C., Mednick, S. A., Jensen, P., Knop, J., & Schulsinger,F. (1996). The electroencephalogram after alcohol administration in high-risk men and development of alcohol use disorders 10 years later: Preliminary findings. Archives of General Psychiatry, 53, 258–263.Google Scholar
  24. Wechsler, H., Lee, J. E., Meichun, K., & Hang, L. (2000). College binge drinking in the 1990s: A continuing problem. Journal of American College Health, 48, 199–210.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Prevention Research 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ray Daugherty
    • 1
  • Norm Van Tubergen
    • 2
  1. 1.Prevention Research InstituteLexington
  2. 2.Department of CommunicationsUniversity of KentuckyLexington

Personalised recommendations