Atlanta University Center
DigitalCommons@Robert W. Woodruff Library, Atlanta
University Center
ETD Collection for AUC Robert W. Woodruff Library
7-1-1991
Alcohol and drug use on an Historically Black
College and University (HBCU) campus
Krishna K. Suryadevara
Clark Atlanta University
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.auctr.edu/dissertations
Part of the Law Commons
Recommended Citation
Suryadevara, Krishna K., "Alcohol and drug use on an Historically Black College and University (HBCU) campus" (1991). ETD
Collection for AUC Robert W. Woodruff Library. Paper 1733.
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@Robert W. Woodruff Library, Atlanta University Center. It has been
accepted for inclusion in ETD Collection for AUC Robert W. Woodruff Library by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Robert W.
Woodruff Library, Atlanta University Center. For more information, please contact [email protected].
ABSTRACT
CRIMINAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Suryadevara. Krishna K.
B.A., Nagarjuna University, 1979.
ALCOHOL AND DRUG USE ON AN HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY
(HBCU) CAMPUS
Advisor: Dr. K. S. Murty
Thesis dated: July 1991
This thesis examines the extent and patterned use of alcohol and other drugs on the
campus of the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff (one of the Historically Black
Colleges and Universities in the United States) during the fall of 1990. The sample
consisted of 245 upper (N=73) and lower (N=167) level students; 126 males and 119
females. The study has two major objectives: (1) The construction of a profile of the
sample along three dimensions (demographic characteristics, use of alcohol and
other drugs, and awareness of alcohol and other drugs); and, (2) Testing of the
following hypotheses: (1) College students use alcohol more frequently for social
reasons than for relieving tension or depression; (2) Males use alcohol more frequently
than females; (3) Males consume alcohol in larger quantities than females in any one
usage situation; (4) Students with a stronger sense of well-being (as measured on the
Generalized Content Scale and Index of Self-Esteem) use drugs and alcohol less
frequently than those with a weaker sense of well-being; (5) Alcohol and drug users
have more positive attitudes toward alcohol and drugs than do non-users; (6)
Students whose parents use drugs and alcohol, use alcohol and drug more frequently
than do students whose parents do not use drugs; and. (7) Students who are products
of two-parent families use alcohol and drugs less frequently than those who are
products of a one-parent family.
Hypotheses 1.2, and 3 were confirmed and 6 was partially confirmed. The most
significant finding was that the use of alcohol and drugs constituted no major campus
problem. A very small proportion used alcohol regularly or heavily and a minuscule
number used other drugs. Furthermore, all students used alcohol and drugs for social
rather than psychological reasons.
ALCOHOL AND DRUG USE ON AN HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGE AND
UNIVERSITY (HBCU) CAMPUS
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF CLARK ATLANTA UNIVERSITY IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS
BY
KRISHNA K. SURYADEVARA
DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
JULY T991
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I express my gratitude Dr. K.S. Murty, the director of this thesis for his guidance in the
preparation of this thesis. I also acknowledge the suggestion of Dr. Julian B. Roebuck.
I thank all my family members for their understanding and emotional support during
this academic pursuit.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
i
USTOFTABLES
iv
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1
Source of Data
1
Thesis Organization
2
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF UTERATURE
3
CHAPTER III
HYPOTHESES AND METHODOLOGY
24
Hypotheses
24
Definition of Terms
24
Study Sample and Data
Collection Procedure
25
Methodology
28
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF DATA
•
PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS
30
■.-
30
Demographic Background
30
Generalized Content Scale
30
Index of Self-Esteem
34
Use of Alcohol
38
ii
Drug Awareness
38
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
47
BIBUOGRAPHY
•
APPENDIX A
67
72
University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff Student
Drug Use Survey Questionnaire
111
UST OF TABLES
IV. 1 Distribution of Sample by Demographic Characteristics
31
IV.2 Distribution of Sample by Generalized Content Scale
32
IV.3 Distribution of Sample by Index of Self-Esteem
35
IV.4 Distribution of Sample by Use of Alcohol and Other Drugs
39
IV.5 Distribution of Sample by Alcohol and Drug Awareness
43
V.I Alcohol Use by Gender
49
V.2 Alcohol User by Gender
50
V.3 Use of Alcohol and Drugs by Generalized Content Scale
and Index of Self-Esteem
52
V.4 Attitudes Toward Alcohol and Drugs by Users and Non-Users
59
V.5 Students' Alcohol Use by Parents' Alcohol Use
63
V.6 Student Alcohol Use by Family Structure
65
IV
CHAPTER I
Introduction
College students comprise an important segment of American youth.
This is
particularly the case for minority groups such as African Americans. The transition to
college constitutes more of a major life-style change for young blacks than for white
youth. There is little research on alcohol and substance use by college students and
virtually none on black college youth. The literature search from 1980 to 1990 does
not offer a single published article on substance use by black collegians (Rebach.
1990).
This study, therefore, examines drug-use patterns among college students at an
historically black college campus, namely. The University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff.
Specifically, the focus is on: (1) the patterns of drug use among college students on
an HBCU campus; (2) reasons for drug use; (3) awareness of drug use; (4) the impact
of a sense of well-being on drug use; (5) relationship of parental use and family
structure to college student's drug use; and, (6) relationship of heavy alcohol use to
other drug usage.
Source of Data
This study utilizes the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff Student Drug Use Survey
data collected by the Office of Counseling and Testing at the University.
These data were collected via personal interview schedules from a randomly
selected sample of 245 students. The interview schedule consisted of five parts: (1)
Personal Information; (2) Generalized Content Scale; (3) Index of Self-esteem; (4) Use
of
Alcohol;
and,
(5)
Alcohol
approximately 50 minutes.
and
Drug
Awareness.
Each
interview
lasted
Thesis Organization
The outline of the thesis is as follows: Chapter II reviews the research literature
related to alcohol and drug use. Chapter III sets forth the hypotheses and the
methodology of the study. Chapter IV presents the profile of sampled respondents
along five dimensions: demographic background, generalized content scale, index of
self-esteem, use of alcohol and other drugs, and alcohol and drug awareness. Finally,
Chapter V summarizes and concludes the findings of this study. The study
questionnaire is included in Appendix A.
CHAPTER II
Review of Literature
The literature on the drug issue is disparate because of the profusion of drug types
and varied drug use. There is great dissonance in the patterns of drug use, the mode
of drug use and drug preference by region, race, gender, and age. Greenberg and
Adler (1974) found that addicts before 1950 did not have prior criminal backgrounds,
were in their middle twenties, were rural white southerners and users of prescription
drugs. Now we have a different kind of drug user. Many are predominantly urban,
black or Spanish-speaking, males and teenagers. Most of the drug users are voluntary
addicts with a criminal history prior to drug use (Dupont and Kozel, 1976).
Drug Use and Crime
Drug addiction and crime are two of the most serious social concerns in the United
States (U.S. Congress, 1984). An association between drug abuse and crime has been
found by many researchers (Inciardi, 1981, 1984; Johnson et al.. 1985; Ball, Rosen,
Flueck and Nurco, 1982; McBride and McCoy, 1981; McGlothin, 1979). Specifically,
previous studies suggest that many criminal offenders use drugs, and that many drug
users commit an enormous amount of crime. Many criminals, perhaps most, engage
in criminal activity before drug use (Speckart, 1986). However, the casual connection
between drug use and crime is unclear. It is safe to assume that (even if drug use
does not cause otherwise law-abiding citizens to become criminals) criminal activity
increases following the use of drugs (Anglin, 1987). Furthermore, an increase in
addiction level is associated with an increase in the frequency and seriousness of
criminality.
In a recent Federal survey of 2.000 men arrested for serious offenses in 12 large
cities. 70 percent tested positive for cocaine use (Criminal Justice Newsletter, 1988). A
1986 Federal survey of state prison inmates found that 35 percent were under the
influence of drugs at the time they committed the crime for which they were
imprisoned; and, that forty-five percent were drug users even before they were
convicted of the instant offense (Christopher, 1988).
The results of several studies clearly show that narcotic addicts commonly commit
more crime on a daily basis when using drugs than during periods of abstinence; and
that addicts commit more crime per individual over a life-time period of addiction
than non users.(Ball et al., 1982; Inciardi, 1986). It is a common finding that the crime
level of addicts during addicted periods are higher than their crime levels reported
during non-addiction periods. Furthermore, high drug users are likely to be involved in
high levels of criminal activities and low rate drug users in low levels of crime
(MvcGolothlin, 1976).
Drug Use and Delinquency
Although adolescent drug use constitutes delinquency in itself, it is also related to
other forms of delinquency. Questions like which comes first, delinquency of drug use,
or whether they concur is of paramount research concern. Many questions are
involved in this relationship. What kind of delinquent acts are associated with what
kind of drug use? In what ways do the delinquent patterns of drug users differ from
5
those delinquents who do not use drugs? What are the drug use patterns of users?
Does delinquent activity increase with the increase of drug use? What socialization
factors are associated with delinquent drug use?
There is little evidence on the issue of whether drug use precedes or follows the
onset of delinquency (Wish and Johnson. 1986). Many researches find that a person
who begins to use drugs or alcohol in the late teens or the early twenties has a greater
chance of becoming an alcoholic or drug addict in later adulthood than one who
begins drug use at a later age (Inciardi. 1981; Clayton and Voss. 1981). Adolescents
who are delinquents in childhood are more likely to use drugs lather than those who
are not delinquents. It is difficult to determine how many crimes committed by
teen-age users result from an underlying predisposition toward deviance and /or
criminal behavior (Robins, 1979).
Elliot and Huisinga (1984) found that serious
drug-alcohol use was related to criminality among youths and that the majority of
serious crimes committed by youths were concentrated among serious delinquents
who were also heavy users of alcohol and other drugs. Two-thirds of non-drug users
and alcohol-only users were found to be 'non-delinquents'. While the serious drug
users were more likely to be multiple index offenders, the majority were minor
offenders or non-delinquents. Among delinquent subgroups annual delinquency rates
exhibited a linear association as drug use became more serious, i.e., within a given
delinquency rate. High involvement in serious drug use was associated with high
delinquency rates. The absence of serious involvement in either of these dimensions
was associated with low delinquency rates. Topics covered in the study of drug abuse
among adolescents include: an overview of adolescent drug use. epidemiology,
personality and sociodemographic factors, family and peer influences on adolescent
drug users, the relationship between delinquency and drug use. and the biomedical
consequences of adolescent drug abuse. The review of each topic is tough, provides
extensive references, and concludes with implications for prevention and directions
for future research.
National Youth Survey
Some
of the
most significant findings
concerning
the
relationship
between
drug-alcohol use and delinquency were disclosed in the National Youth Survey (NYS)
that utilized a probability sample of 1.725 youths aged 11-17 in 1976. These youths
were aged 14-20 showed that less than five percent committed three-fifths of the
index offenses, two-fifths of the minor delinquencies, and three-quarters of the drug
sales (Johnson. 1985). Elliott and Huizinga (1984) utilized the National Youth Survey
data to find how the level of juvenile crime changed in relationships to the change in
the levels of drug use and offender type. They found that about half of the youngsters
who were frequent and multiple drug users had high chances of committing a wide
range of crimes, including serious destructive or assaultive offenses. High involvement
in index offenses and frequency of drug use were found to be associated. The
absence of serious involvement in either of these dimensions was associated with a
low crime rate (Elliot and Elliot, 1985).
Johnson et al., (1983) utilizing the national youth survey data, hierarchically
classified adolescents who non experimentally used drugs in the 'previous year' into
five categories based on the seriousness of drug use: (1) no drug or alcohol use, (2)
only alcohol used on four or more occasions, (3) marijuana used on four or more
occasions, (4) pills used on three or more occasions, (5) cocaine used on three or
more occasions. They found that juvenile crime is closely associated with the level of
drug use. Both alcohol and other drug users were responsible for an average of two or
three minor offenses. The juvenile delinquency among marijuana users was three
times higher than that of non-drug users or of alcohol users. The highest crime rates
were found among youths who were cocaine users. Youths who used cocaine and
committed index offenses constituted only 1.3 percent of the sample in the study, but
they accounted for 40 percent of the index crimes.
Other Delinquency • Drug studies
Many other studies show an association of drug use to delinquency. Youngsters
who use multiple drugs are generally more likely to be serious delinquents than those
who use only aicohol and marijuana (Elliott and Huizinga, 1985; Weis and Sederston,
1981). About half of the youngsters who frequently used multiple drugs were
delinquents before they began illicit drug use (Elliott et al., 1983; Huizinga, 1986). Minor
crimes such as theft often precede or coincide with serious drug involvement. Once
youths begin the frequent use of multiple drugs they will commit a wide range of
crimes, more or less serious. Like the pattern of drug use among users there is a pattern
of delinquency among delinquents. The greater the drug use among youths the
greater the chances of their being involved in serious destructive or assaultive
8
behavior (Elliott and Huizinga, 1985).
Johnson and Martinez (1986) investigated the linkages between alcohol, drugs and
crime
among
youths
in
an
eastern
United
States
community
that
showed
demographic characteristics close to the National mean. A sample of TOO youths was
carefully chosen to represent all youths, delinquent drug users in the community and
officially labeled delinquents. They were intensively interviewed (average five hours
each) between June 1981 and 1981. The transcripts of the interviews were examined
for important themes on several topics. Serious delinquent youths were usually regular
users of drugs and alcohol and demonstrated daily patterns of alcohol and marijuana
use as well as a irregular use of speed, hallucinogens, pills and cocaine. Serious
delinquents perceived their drug and alcohol use as more important to them than
their more sporadic delinquencies. Delinquents who were regular drug users did much
of the drug selling, burglaries, grand larcenies and assault.
Among high risk youths (those who routinely commit crimes and use drugs), the links
between drug use and criminal events have not been specified (Johnson, 1988).
Several
studies
of
delinquents
(Trinklenberg,
1973;
Tinklenberg,
Murphy,
and
Pfefferbaum, Roth, Kipell, and Murphy, 1976) and incarcerated offenders (Bureau of
Justice Statistics, 1983) show that many had been using drugs or alcohol prior to the
crime that led to their detention or incarceration, but previous research has seldom
investigated whether and how drugs or alcohol are involved in specific criminal
events involving youths.
The linkages of drug-alcohol and criminal activities among youth is complex and
assume different meanings for youths depending on time, place, and interactions
with others. The vast majority of drug and alcohol use events occurred without crimes.
and most crimes occurred without (immediate) prior drug use. When drug or alcohol
use occurred prior to or about the same time as criminal events, delinquent youths
reported that such a use was among the least important of many factors influencing
crimes.
Patterns of Drug Use Among Adolescents
Marijuana is a "gateway drug" that opens the way for the use of other drugs (O'
Donnell and Clayton. 1981; Robins and Wish, 1977; Johnson, 1973). All the marijuana
users do not become hard drug users, but the risk of hard drug increases with
marijuana use. There is very little research evidence about the relationship between
marijuana use and crime. One of the problems in assessing the role of marijuana in
relation to crime has been the use of other drugs in combination with marijuana
(Kandel. 1984). Some studies show that marijuana use reduces the inclination toward
serious delinquent acts (Tinklenberg, Roth, et al., 1976; Tinklenberg. Murphy, et al.,
1981). Jessor (1979). Other researchers have found that marijuana use is related to
nonconforming behaviors and delinquency.
Prior involvement in minor delinquent activities, and use of cigarettes, beer, and
wine, are the most important factors for predicting hard drug use (Kandel et al., 1978).
Adolescent beliefs and values favorable to marijuana use and association with
marijuana. Poor relationships with parents, feelings of depression, and exposure to
drug
using peers are predictive indicators into illicit drug use other than marijuana
10
(Kande! et al., 1978). Drug abuse is not limited to illegal narcotic drugs, but includes
socially accepted recreational substances such as smoking tobacco, drinking alcohol
and
medically
prescribed
psychoactive
substances.
However,
Kandel
(1975)
encompassed both types of drugs. Kandel (1975) argued that drug behavior follows
well defined culturally determined developmental stages or sequence like the
sequence in the cognitive, psychological and physiological development in human
beings. In studies of patterns of drug use (both legal and illegal drugs) among high
school seniors using Guttmans scale analysis, Kandel found that "youths at any one
step have used the drug at that particular level as well as all drugs ranked lower, but
they have not used any of the drugs ranked higher".
In an analysis of drug use among two cohorts of New high school seniors Tande!
found clear-cut developmental stages in the adolescent involvement in legal and
illegal drug use: (1) beer or wine, (2) cigarettes or hard liquor, (3) marijuana and (3)
other illicit drugs (Kandel, 1980). Kandel's study reported that whereas 27 percent of
high school students who had smoked and had hard liquor progressed to marijuana
within the five month follow up period, only two percent of those who had not used
any legal substances did so. Marijuana, in turn, was a crucial step on the way to other
illicit drugs. While 26 percent of marijuana users progressed to LSD, amphetamines, or
heroin, only one percent of non-users of any drug and four percent of legal users did
so" (Kandel, 1975). The legal substances were found to be intermediary between
non-use and marijuana. Other studies have found a sequential progression in the use
of drugs from adolescence to young adulthood; i.e., from beer, and wine to
11
marijuana; and from marijuana to hard drug use (Kandel and Logan, 1984).
In the United States, adolescents most often begin using drugs and alcohol
between the ages of 13 to 15 when they are in grades 7,8, or 9 (Elliott and Huizinga,
1985; Johnson, O'Malley and Bachman. 1986).
Reasons for Drug Use
(a) Family
Many researchers have emphasized the role of the family, peers, and the
socialization process in relation to delinquency and drug use. Swell (1963) defines
socialization as the process by which "individuals selectively acquire the skills,
knowledge, attitudes, values, and motives current in the groups of which they are or
will become members". The family is generally considered to be the most important
primary agent of socialization. The family has a significant role in molding the
personality of an individual. Toby (1957) observed: "the family not only transmits
socially acceptable values to the new generation, it also seeks to prevent the child
from being influenced by deviant patterns. The better integrated the family, the more
successful it is as a bulwark against anti-social influences" (Toby. 1957).
The structure of the family and parent-adolescent relationships are crucial
determinations of family influence. The structure of the family affects the socialization
process in different ways. The socialization process is more effective in intact families
than in broken homes. They were more delinquent than those from intact homes.
Rankin (1983) and Nye (1958) found an association between broken homes and minor
delinquencies. Similarly, many studies have found that broken homes were more
12
conducive to girls' delinquencies than boys'. (Nye, 1958; Gold. 1970; Chitton and
Markle. 1972; Datesman and Scarpitti, 1975; Austin, 1978).
(b) Parental relationships and Drug-Use
Many studies have found that the initial drug use of adolescents is associated with
parent-child relationships (Kandel, 1974; Friedman et a!.. 1980). Studies show that
children reared in law-abiding homes where they feel close to their parents will
respect their parents' wishes and stay away from trouble. Similarly, parental love may
reduce delinquency because it is something the child does not want to lose. Sorensen
(1973) found how much children liked or disliked their parents was a predominant
factor in delinquency. Adolescents who feel close to their parents are less likely to use
illicit substances than those who do not feel close to them. The children who tend to
disagree with parental discipline are more likely to begin using drugs than those who
agree with their parental discipline. Parental use of drugs is also found to be an
important predictor of adolescent drug use (Beschner and Friedman, 1986). Rosen
(1985) found that black boys who had little involvement with their father had a higher
rate of delinquency than those who had a close relationship with their father. Many
studies find the importance of mother as a role model in black families than that of
the father even where the father is present (Kerckoff and Ccmbel, 1977).
The National polydrug study found a significant relationship between family
characteristics and the drug use of adolescents: parent's drug problems, alcohol
problem, and problems with the law. Friedman also found a positive correlation
between the number and seriousness of problems reported in families and the
13
number and types of drugs used by the adolescents in these families (Friedman, 1980).
Many researchers have found other family variables to be associated with
adolescent drug use; e.g., absence of parents, lack of parental closeness, deviant
parents, excessively passive mothers, parents' drinking and drug use (Brooke et al.
1980; Jessor, 1977; Kandel, 1982). Bessemer and Friedman (1985) found that among
parents who do not use illicit drugs or alcohol, a number of the following family
characteristics are related to adolescent drug use: (1) parents are divorced or
separated; (2) abusive father; (3) father's rejection; (4) impulsive and aggressive
behavior of father; (5) mothers' ambivalent feelings toward the adolescent; (6) Lack
of communication and trust between parents; (7) lack of understanding between
mother and child; (8) the breakdown of communication between mother and child;
and , (9) the breakdown of communication between the parents regarding the child,
(10) lack of unified approach to dealing with the child, and (11) a lack of reasonable,
consistent, and controlled discipline for the child.
A National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) study (1987) shows that if parents and
older siblings use any drugs including cigarettes and alcohol, teenagers 14 to 17 show
a strong tendency to experiment with a variety of these substances. Similarly,
marijuana use by older family members has a strong influence on the teen's use of
drugs (Gfroerer, 1989).
(c) Peer Influence
Unlike the folk-peasant society where the family and the kin are the major
socializing agents, the young within the modern industrial society are placed within a
^k
differential web of family, kin, peer, school, and other larger societal influences (Won
et al., 1969). Some of the significant studies on youth's drug use have concentrated
on the role of peers in the socialization process. Britain (1963) and Kandel (1980) found
that there is a significant difference between peer and parental influences. Peer
influences are predominant in their current life-style, whereas parental influences are
stronger regarding the adolescents' future life goals (Davis and Kandel, 1981). There is
considerable research knowledge pointing to the influence of parents and peers on
adolescent
behavior
and
drug
use.
adolescence (Douvan and Anderson,
Peer
influence
gains
ascendancy
during
1966) though there is not necessarily any
detachment from parental influence, values and standards at this time (Goffer et al.,
1981). the relative influence of parents and peers varies according to the area of
adolescent concern.
Riesman
(1950) noted that peer groups have become currently more influential
than parents, and that the child has become an unthinking conformist, surrendering
his or her independent judgment to that of peers. Some other significant observations
made by researchers about peer influence are as follows. Peers have their own
subculture (Johnson, 1985; Coleman 1961); and adolescents increasingly spend less
time in the home and more time with peers (Cohen, 1980). Some delinquencies like
using marijuana, and getting drunk are frequently committed with peers and appear
to reflect peer rather than parental influence (Hindelang, 1976; Erickson and Jenson
1977; and, Korn and McCorkle 1959).
A great many studies show that people who use drugs tend to have friends who
15
are also users (Kandel. 1980). Some people who use drugs tend to believe, often
mistakenly, that their peers also use drugs, it is not always true that one of them has
pressured the other into becoming a user. Perhaps both were users first and only
became friends later. Kandel also discovered that the influence of becoming like
another person occurs after meeting; and, that selection of individual associates
occur because they are like each other. Peers frequently engage in similar activities
because they like to engage in the same types of behavior. This is true not only for
drug use, but also for other types of delinquency.
As socializers, parents and peers can act in three distinct ways: as models of
behaviors; beliefs and value system upholders; and through training procedures,
sanctions and relationships (Jessor et al., 1968; Kandel, Kessler. and Margulies, 1976;
Predergast, 1974). Drug abuse generates a complex of interconnected human
problems, social processes, and governmental initiatives. Many users of illicit drugs
commit no other crimes. Many criminals do not use illicit drugs. Although the National
Institute of Justice's Drug Use Forecasting system instructs that large percentages of
arrested felons, as many as 90 percent in some places test positive for drug use. (Wish
and Gropper).
ETHNICITY, AGE, GENDER AND ALCOHOL USE
Two surveys conducted in December of 1988 and February of 1990 at North
Carolina Central University, Durham, North Carolina indicate that the majority of the
NCCU students drink alcohol at least a few times per month, and close to one quarter
use marijuana on occasions; but, few use other drugs. Because the majority (60
16
percent of the student population is younger that the legal drinking age of 21. alcohol
can be viewed as an illegal drug, and students who use it face not only health risks,
but legal ramifications as well. Data show that males drink and use drugs more than
females, and that females perceive a greater risk to be associated with substance
use. Both sexes use alcohol "to have fun", and few respondents drink alone during the
day, or due to boredom, anger, or frustration. Substance use is significantly positively
related to friends use, but does not appear to be related to perceived availability or
age, as indicated by year in school.
Fernande-Pol, et al. (1986) state that black women show significantly less mean of
daily alcohol consumption than other groups (male, female, black, white, and Puerto
Rican), and that all females were older than males at their first intoxication.
Humm-Delgado
and
Delgado (1983)
note
that
male
adolescents engage
in
substance use and abuse more than females, although their research was conducted
with Hispanic youth. Womble and Bakeman (1986) find that black men drive drunk
more frequently than black women. They also point out that alcoholism is often
viewed by white society as being a sickness when it occurs in whites and a crime
when it occurs in blacks. Therefore blacks tend to protect each other from dealing
with authorities or health professionals which may serve to decrease the actual
substance problem among black. Caetano (1984) in his article on ethnicity and
drinking, says that the most powerful predictor of alcohol use in all ethnic groups is a
liberal attitude toward drinking, and the second best predictor is being male. He
further states that black men's frequent heavy drinking increases from the 20s to the
17
30s heavy drinking rates are twice or high for the age group 20 to 30 than for 30 to 39.
In a study of marijuana use. Kaplan et. al. (1986) found that males are more likely
than females to become heavy users, and are less likely to have felt distress around
the first time they tried marijuana. They also found that blacks were less likely than
whites to see trying marijuana as deviant and less likely to experience adverse
consequences from trying it. Blacks and Hispanics were also less likely than whites to
become heavy users. In a study of three racial groups of adults, Kleinman and Lukoff
(1978) note that the largest simple correlate of drug use for all racial groups was
friends drug use. They also state that traditional values and religious values, often held
by those in the U.S. South, serve to control drug use.
Alcohol: The Black Community and Black Campuses
Research by Dawkins (1986) on youthful blacks in an urban setting showed some of
the
reasons why adolescents chose to drink alcohol.
The
majority drank to
experiment, followed by those who used alcohol to "celebrate". He found that most
teens drank as a social activity, since few drank alone, during the day, or when only
their date was present. He also found that the variables most strongly associated with
drinking include parents' income, parental approval, number of friends who drink,
cigarette smoking, male gender and older age. Alcohol abuse is the number one
health problem and the number one social problem of the black community (Harper
and Dawkins, 1977). Bourne, (1973) characterized alcohol abuse as the number one
mental health problem in the black community as a pain reliever, a catalyst for
courage, a solution to anger and frustration as a stimulant for social relations has
18
done much to destroy and oppress blacks. Heavy drinking has become a way of life
among many blacks to the point that little thought is given to the role that alcohol
plays in influencing health and social conditions including accidents, homicides and
illnesses.
Many persons are not aware that alcohol is a drug. Alcohol related homicides in
the black community often occur: during arguments among family members and
loved ones; disagreements and hurt feelings during gambling scenes; quarrels with
friends; street comer fights; muggings; and lovers' quarrels involving jealousness or
psychological and physical pain; recreational pursuits (Harper and Dawkins, 1977).
Harper and Dawkins claim that alcohol abuse in black America has its roots in
American slavery and in the cultural patterns established during the years of racial
segregation. In adjusting to their historical plight many blacks chose heavy drinking as
a means of forgetting and tuning out psychological and physical pain or as a means
of facilitating recreation and social interaction.
In 1986. presidents of many historical Black colleges and universities agreed in
principle with the former Education Secretary. William J. Bennett's suggestion, that the
nation's college presidents strictly enforce a ban on campus drugs. They maintained it
would be virtually impossible to wipe out all drug use at black institutions.
Atlanta
University President Luther Williams said, he was all for the nation's college campuses
banning drugs, but, he added, "I don't know if its practical. It's simply not that
feasible". He added, "It has to be a collaborative effort with the university and the rest
of the community" (Jet. 1987). Taking a look at the self-help (help from within the
19
community) process in the black community, black college students and researchers
could first assess the extent of drug use and abuse on black college campus.
Predominantly Black Colleges could utilize musicians, athletes and educators who
have had substance abuse problems in a preventive program.
Alcohol Use And Crime
About two-thirds of all adults in the United States report that they use alcohol
regularly (Rosenhan & Seligman, 1984). Surveys
estimate that between 12 to 33
percent of the men and 2 and 5 percent of the women drink heavily (Helzer, 1987).
Other surveys indicate that one-third of American families have problems with alcohol
(Peele. 1984). Yet the belief that alcohol is a major cause of crime appears to be
deeply embedded in American society. Surveys, for example, suggest that over 50
percent of the population is convinced that alcohol is a major factor in crimes of
violence (Critchlow, 1986). Alcohol is a "crystal for violence noting that one out of
every three arrests in the United States results from alcohol abuse (Coleman (1976). A
survey of state prisons in 1974 found that 43 percent of all inmates had been drinking
when they committed the crime for which they were serving time (Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration, 1976).
About half of the people arrested on any charge in the United States either under
the influence of alcohol when taken into evidence is quite clear that approximately
half of all offenders who commit violent crime were drinking at the time of offense
and many were highly intoxicated (Glaser 1978, p. 275).
20
Alcohol Use Among High School Students In Mississippi
The National Survey on Alcohol Abuse Among Teenagers found out that alcohol
abuse by youth (12-17 years) is increasing from year to year. Some researchers have
concluded that alcohol use by peers and parents, and the degree of closeness to
family have affected adolescent alcohol consumption (Akers et al.. 1978; Akers et al..
1979; Burkett and Carrithers. 1980; Dembo, Schmeidler. 1979; Dembo, Schmeidler and
Burgos, 1979; Dembo, 1980; Eisterhold et al, 1979; Fishman, 1980; Gleaton and Smith,
1981; Lassey and Carlson, 1979; Mercer et al, 1978; Watkins and McCoy, 1980). A
recent study by Byram and Fly (1981) revealed the existence of racial differences by
concluding that "friends" use of alcohol and closeness to family do not influence
alcohol consumption among non-white as much as among whites. In addition,
parental discipline has a dominant role on alcohol abuse by adolescents (Akers et al.,
1979).
A Mississippi study covering the period from 1977 -79 attempted to ascertain
drinking levels among public school population from 7th grade to 12th grade the
sample included 665 students (K.S. Murty and Gerald O. Windham) who represent the
public school population of 5/482 from 7th through 12th grades. The total number of
variables included in the questionnaire was 228. They found that the drinking levels
were almost uniform, on the average, among all sub groups. Higher means were
observed for the variable of the fathers' occupation held by most of the nonwhite
fathers are less prestigious than the occupations of white fathers since they are coded
in descending order. The inter-group variations were small for the variables- father's
21
drug habits, mother's drug habits, father's discipline, mother's drug habits, father's
discipline, mother's discipline and GPA. Finally nonwhite males and white females
spend higher average amounts of money than the other two groups. Upon examining
the correlations in Appendix A. no strong correlations were found between the
chosen variables, although there was a consistent pattern among them. However,
white males showed a positive correlation between drinking level and GPA was
relatively high (r=.245) followed by fathers' discipline (r=.186) and father's drug habits
(r=.185). The negative correlation was found between the drinking level and the
fathers' occupation (r=.247) and between drinking level and fathers' drug habits
(r-,205) for the subgroup of nonwhite males, while all other variables were positively
associated.
A fathers' drug habits may have a significant impact on fathers' discipline. When
this relationship was observed for each subgroup significant results were still found for
white males. Hence a father who uses drugs and alcohol cannot have control over his
sons. When fathers' occupation was examined a significant negative impact was
found concerning the mother's discipline among nonwhite males. In other words, the
wife of a worker holding an occupation of lower prestige can seldom have control
over her sons. These findings may need further theoretical interpretations. That is, a
person who holds a job of lower prestige and who does not have a sufficiently higher
educational background, is likely to marry a girl with a low educational background.
Accordingly, a woman with a low educational status is not able to realize the ways
and means nor the importance of controlling her sons. When these sons begin high
22
school, it appears to lead to the liberation of the son regarding alcohol use. The
father's discipline had a significant impact on money available for personal
expenditures of the students among nonwhite males. In other words a father who
enforces strict discipline on his son will believe in his son's conduct and permit him to
have more money for personal expenditures.
Finally, GPA had a significant impact on money on the drinking level of white
males. It is probable that if a student is receiving good grades in the class he will be
liked by many of his friends and will be invited to parties. In this social context, high
school students usually believe that drinking alcohol is important. Another possibility is
that as long as the student is receiving good grades, parents do not bother to exert
control over him. Hence, the student exercises more liberty which may lead to alcohol
use.
Further, in a test of regression slope difference by sub-group using analysis of
co-variance procedures (Kerlinger and Pedhazer) the effects of sex and race were
examined. Fewer significant interactions were observed using this method of analysis.
The interactions are indicated by using a, c, and d at appropriate coefficients.
In conclusion, they pointed out that the variables analyzed were not adequate in
themselves to explain the model fully. Variables such as a fathers' education, family
income, effect of peers, and the like, would be of further use in explaining a greater
proportion of variance in the drinking level of students.
23
Conclusion
The foregoing literature review discloses: (1) that there is a drug problem among
youth; (2) alcohol abuse is more frequent than that of narcotic drugs; (3) there is
relationship between the drug use and crime. (4) there is relationship between the
drug use and delinquency; (5) there is a pattern of drug use among youth; (6) there is
a problem of drug and alcohol abuse in the black community; (7) there is relationship
between adolescent drug use and the following variables; (a) family structure, (b)
socialization,
(c)
parental
psychological states.
relationships,
(d)
peer
influences,
and
(e)
social
CHAPTER III
Hypotheses and Methodology
The literature reviewed in chapter II suggests the formulation of seven study
hypotheses. They are:
1.
College
students use alcohol more
reasons
than
for
frequently for
social
relieving tension or depression.
2.
Males use alcohol more
3.
Males consume alcohol
frequently than
in
females.
larger quantities
than
females
in any one usage situation.
4.
Students
with a
stronger
sense
of
measured on Generalized Content
Self-esteem)
those
5.
use drugs
with a weaker
Alcohol
toward alcohol
6.
7.
Students
than
parents
do not
and Index of
less
frequently than
do
positive
attitudes
non-users.
and alcohol,
frequently than do
use
students
whose
use drugs.
who are products
alcohol and drugs
of a
(as
well-being.
whose parents use drugs
and drug more
products
of
have more
and drugs
alcohol
Students
Scale
and alcohol
sense
and drug users
well-being
less
of
two-parent
families
frequently than those
one-parent
who
use
are
family.
Definitions of terms
The operational definitions of selected terms are provided in this section in order to
maintain the clarity of their usage in this study. A drug is considered to be substance
Ik
25
which alters the structure or function of a living organism, for purpose of this study, a
drug user is defined as a person who uses drugs for non-medical purposes. A non-user
is anyone who has never used alcohol or any form of drug (Johnson e±gj.. 1988).
Study sample and Data Collection Procedure
This study utilizes the University of Arkansas at Pain Bluff Student Drug Use Survey
data collected by the Office of Counseling and Testing in 1990.
The data were collected via personal interview schedules from a randomly
selected sample of 239 black freshman students in the Spring of 1989. The schedule
consists of five parts. (1) Personal information; (2) Generalized content Scale; (3) Index
of self-esteem; (4) Use of alcohol and other drugs; (5) drug awareness (see upended
interview schedule). The data were collected in regular freshman classes (which
lasted approximately 50 minutes) by Dr. Patterson (Director) and Mr. Ficklin (statistical
Programmer).
The questionnaire consists of five ports:
A. Personal Information:
(1)
Male
or female
(2)
Single,
(3)
Lower class person or upper class person.
(4)
Lives on campus or off campus.
(5)
Age under 21 years or over 21 years.
(6)
Single parent home or two parent home.
(7)
Present G.P.A.
married or divorced.
above 2.00 or below 2.00.
B. Generalized Content Scale:
(1)
Feeling about
life.
(2)
Restless and can't keep still.
26
(3)
Hard time getting started.
(4)
How
(5)
Feeling that
(6)
Enjoy being active and busy.
future
looks.
appreciated by others.
C. Index of Self Esteem:
(1)
Feel
how
(2)
Feel need more-self
(3)
I
(4)
Feel very self
(5)
People have good time with me.
(6)
Feel
think
competent
I
person.
confidence.
am a dull person.
conscious
with
that pushed around more
strangers.
than
others.
D. Use of olcohol and other Drugs:
(1)
Drink alcoholic beverages or no alcoholic
beverages.
(2)
Use alcohol once a week,
a week,
(3)
every day,
Consider myself
alcohol
user,
at
twice a week,
parties,
light
alcohol drink
none.
occasional
heavy alcohol
is
three times
user,
moderate
user.
(4)
Usual
Beer,
(5)
Started using alcohol before entering college,
after
entering college.
(6)
Drunk
at
(7)
Arrested for drunken driving
once;
(8)
least
once,
Wine,
several times,
Liquor.
or never.
once before;
more
than
and never.
Use alcoholic drinks because;
I
enjoy it;
my
friend
27
drinks too; I party better; I can't do my studies
without it.
(9) Use alcoholic drinks along with other drugs
grass)
(10)
occasionally,
regularly,
(coke,
never.
Knowledge of parents about drinking: they know I
drink;
they do not know I drink.
(11)
Parents drink:
(12)
Drug used with alcoholic drink is grass
Amphetamine
yes;
no.
(Speed);
(Marijuana)
and others.
E. Drug Awareness:
(1)
Alcohol is a drug,
(2)
Marijuana and cocaine are drugs,
know
not drug,
do not know for sure.
not drugs,
do not
for sure.
(3)
Alcohol-use can/can not affect studies.
(4)
Drug-use can/can not affect
(5)
I know
(or do not know)
studies.
enough about alcohol and
drugs.
(6)
I need more information.
(7)
Regular alcohol-use leads
(or does not lead)
dependence.
(8)
Regular drug-use leads
(or does not lead)
to
dependence.
(9)
(10)
Drug-use on campus is
University places
(or is not)
a problem.
(or does not place)
emphasis on student awareness.
enough
to
28
(11) Alcohol-use leads
(12)
(or does not lead)
A relationship exists
to drug-use.
(or does not exist) between
drug and crime.
METHODOLOGY
The data analysis was done in two levels: (1) profile of sampled respondents by
computing frequencies and percentage distribution; and (2) the study hypotheses
were tested by using chi-square and Lambda tests.
(DChi-Square
A fundamental assumption in the use of chi-square is that each observation or
frequency is independent of all other observations, the single variable applications
the chi-square test has been described as a "goodness-of-fit" technique. It permits to
determine whether or not a significant difference exists between the observed
number of cases falling into each category and the expected number of cases,
based on the null hypothesis. In other word it permits us to answer the question. "How
well does our observed distribution fit the theoretical distribution?" If the observed and
expected values for all cells in the table are equal chi-square will read its lower limit of
0. As the discrepancy increases the value of chi-square increases. The larger the
chi-square is the more likely we are to reject the null hypothesis.
An equally important limitation of chi-square stems from the fact that the values of
chi-square is proportional to the sample size.
There are two types of chi-square tests; that is chi-square one-variable test and the
chi-square two variable test.
The chi-square
one variable test has been described as a goodness-of-fit
technique, permitting as to determine whether or not a significant difference exits
29
between the observed number of cases specified under the null hypothesis.
The chi-square test of independence variables may be used to determine whether
two variables may be used top determine whether two variables are related or
independent. If the chi-square value is significant we may conclude that the variables
are interdependent or related.
There
are
three
limitations
on
the
use
of the
chi-
square
test.
In
the
1-degree-of-freedom situation, the expected frequency should equal or exceed 5 to
permit the case of the chi-square test. When df > 1, the expected frequency in 80%
of the cells should equal or exceed 5. A second and most important restriction is that
the frequency counts must be independent of one another. Failure to meet this
requirement results in an error known -as the inflated N and a. may well lead to the
rejection of the null hypothesis when it is true (type 1 error). A third limitation is that
chi-square is directly proportional to N and hence can be misleading.
(2) Lambda
Lambda is a statistic used to evaluate the usefulness of one variable in predicting
another. Lambda is a measure of association for nominal-level variables, based on
the logic of proportional reduction in error known as PRE.
Limitations of the Lambda:
The first is that Lambda has no sign and hence gives us no induction of the
direction of the relationship, a limitation that stems from its use with nominal-level
data. The second limitation results from the prediction rules on which Lambda is
based. Lambda equals 0, yet it is clear that the variables occur in the row containing
the modal category of the dependent variable.
CHAPTER IV
Personal Characteristics
1. Demographic Background
Seven personal characteristics were chosen for this study; sex; marital status, class,
campus living, age. family status and GPA of the students. Out of the 245 students
interviewed 126 (51.4 percent) were male students and the remaining 119 (48.6
percent) were females. The majority of students (65 percent) were under 21 years old
and only 35 percent were over 21. Given the age structure it is not surprising that 92
percent were single; six percent were married and only two percent were divorced.
Over one-half of the students (57 percent) came from two-parent families. 41 percent
from one-parent families and the remaining two percent did not answer the question.
Most of the students (91 percent) reported above 2.00 GPA; five percent below 2.00
GPA, and three percent did not answer the question. Sixty-two percent lived off
campus and 38 percent lived on campus. Thus many students were still under
parental supervision-a fact which might help explain that only 3 percent were heavy
users of alcohol.
2 Generalized Content Scale: (GCS)
Six items are included in this scale; (a) restless and cannot keep still; (b) hard time
to start things; (c) future looks bright; (d) appreciated by others; (e) enjoy activity; (f)
competent.
(a) Restless and can not keep still
Nearly one-third of the students said they were restless sometime and could not
keep still; twenty-six percent said a little of the time; twenty-nine percent none of the
30
31
TABLE IV. 1: DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE BY DEMOGRAPHIC
CHARACTERISTICS
Variable
Number
Percent
(N=245)
SEX
MALE
126
51.,4
FEMALE
119
48..6
226
92. 2
MARITAL STATUS
SINGLE
MARRIED
DIVORCED
14
5. 7
5
2. 0
CLASS
NO REPLY
5
LOWER CLASS
2. 0
167
68. 2
UPPER CLASS
73
29. 8
CAMPUS
LIVING
NO REPLY
ON CAMPUS
OFF CAMPUS
2
8
92
37. 6
151
61. 6
AGE
NO REPLY
1
4
UNDER 21
159
64. 9
85
34. 7
OVER 21
FAMILY STATUS
NO REPLY
5
2. 0
ONE-PARENT
101
41. 2
TWO-PARENT
139
56. 7
GPA
NO REPLY
8
3. 3
ABOVE 2.00
224
91. 4
BELOW 2.00
13
5. 3
32
TABLE IVL2; DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE BY GENERALIZED
CONTENT SCALE
Variable
Number
Percent
(N=245)
FEELING ABOUT LIFE
NO REPLY
RARELY-NONE
LITTLE TIME
SOME TIME
GOOD PART
MOST TIME
2
.8
159
64.9
34
13.9
25
10.2
10
4.1
15
6.1
RESTLESS AND CAN'T KEEP STILL
NO REPLY
RARELY-NONE
2
.8
72
29.4
LITTLE TIME
64
SOME TIME
80
GOOD PART
13
5.3
MOST TIME
14
5.7
26.1
.
32.7
HARD TIME TO START THINGS
NO REPLY
3
1.2
RARELY-NONE
45
18.4
LITTLE TIME
57
23.3
SOME TIME
88
35.9
GOOD PART
33
MOST TIME
13.5
19
7.8
FUTURE LOOKS BRIGHT
NO REPLY
RARELY-NONE
2
.8
11
4.5
LITTLE TIME
12
4.9
SOME TIME
31
12.7
GOOD PART
67
27.3
MOST TIME
122
49.8
APPRECIATED BY OTHERS
NO REPLY
RARELY-NONE
2
.8
14
5.7
LITTLE TIME
17
6.9
SOME TIME
70
28.6
GOOD PART
68
27.8
MOST TIME
74
30.2
33
TABLE NJ2: DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE BY GENERALIZED
CONTENT SCALE (CONTINUED)
Variable
Number
Percent
(N=245)
ENJOY ACTIVITY
NO REPLY
4
1.6
RARELY-NONE
6
2.4
LITTLE TIME
10
4.1
SOME TIME
27
11.0
50
20.4
148
60.4
GOOD PART
MOST
TIME
34
time; five percent a good part of the time; six percent responded most of the time;
and one percent did not respond.
(b) Hard time getting started things that I need to do
Thirty-six percent said some of the time they had a hard time gettting started; 23
percent said a little of the time getting started; 18 percent said rarely or none of the
time had a hard time getting started; 14 percent a good part the time had a hard
time getting started; eight percent most of the time they had a hard time getting
started; and one percent did not respond.
(c) Future looks bright
Twenty-seven percent said that a good part of their future looks bright; 50 percent
said most of the time; 13 percent said some time; five percent said rarely or none of
the time; and one percent did not respond.
fd1) Appreciated
Thirty percent said that they were appreciated by others most of the time; 28
percent a good part of the time; 29 percent some of the time; seven percent little
time; six percent rarely or none of the time; one percent did not respond.
fe) Enjoy Being Active and Busy
Sixty percent said they enjoy being active and busy; 20 percent said a good part
of the time; 11 percent some time; four percent little of the time; two percent rarely or
none of the time; two percent did not respond.
1 Index of Self-Esteem (ISE scale):
Six characteristics were included in this; (1) competence; (2) self confidence; (3)
dull person; (4) self conscious with strangers; (5) people enjoy me; (6) Get pushed
around more than others.
(1) Competence
35
TABLE IV.3: DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE BY INDEX OF
SELF-ESTEEM
Variable
Number
Percent
<N=245)
COMPETENT
NO REPLY
1
.4
RARELY-NONE
6
2 .4
5
2 .0
SOME TIME
31
12 .7
GOOD PART
67
27 .3
MOST TIME
135
55 .1
LITTLE TIME
NEED MORE SELF CONFIDENCE
1
.4
RARELY-NONE
56
22 .9
LITTLE TIME
54
22 .0
SOME TIME
61
24 .9
GOOD PART
44
18 .0
MOST TIME
29
11 .8
NO REPLY
DULL PERSON
2
.8
158
64 .5
LITTLE TIME
47
19 .2
SOME TIME
29
11 .8
GOOD PART
3
1 .2
MOST TIME
6
2 .4
NO REPLY
RARELY-NONE
SELF-CONSCIOUS WITH STRANGERS
2
.8
53
21 .6
LITTLE TIME
64
26 .1
SOME TIME
72
29 .4
GOOD PART
28
11 .4
MOST TIME
26
10 .6
NO REPLY
RARELY-NONE
PEOPLE ENJOY ME
NO REPLY
RARELY-NONE
LITTLE TIME
SOME TIME
GOOD PART
MOST
TIME
2
.8
10
4 .1
6
2 .4
52
21 .2
66
26 .9
109
44 .5
36
TABLE IV.3: DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE BY INDEX OF
SELF-ESTEEM (CONTINUED)
Variable
Number
Percent
(N=245)
FEEL PUSHED AROUND MORE
NO REPLY
2
.8
142
58.0
LITTLE TIME
53
21.6
SOME TIME
25
10.2
GOOD PART
14
5.7
MOST TIME
9
3.7
RARELY-NONE
37
One half (55 percent) said they were competent persons most of the time; 27
percent said a good part of the time; 13 percent said some of the time; two percent
of the time little of the time; two percent said rarely or none of the time; and a few
(0.4 percent) did not respond.
(2) Self Confidence
About one-fourth (23 percent) said they need more self confidence some of the
time; 23 percent rarely or none of the time; 22 percent little of the time; 18 percent a
good part of the time; 12 percent most of the time; and a few (0.4 percent) did not
respond.
(3) Dull Person
About 65 percent think they are dull persons rarely or none of the time; 19 percent
little of the time; 12 percent some of the time; one percent a good part of time; two
percent most of the time; and one percent of the students did not respond.
(4) Self-consciousness with Strangers
Twenty-nine percent said they feel very self conscious when with strangers some of
the time; 26 percent little time; 22 percent rarely or none of the time; 11 percent a
good part of time; 11 percent most of the time; one percent did not respond.
(5) People Eniov Me
Forty-five percent said that people enjoy them most of the time; 27 percent a
good part of the time; 21 percent some of the time; four percent rarely or none of the
time; two percent little of the time; and one percent did not respond.
(6) Get Pushed Around More Than Others
Fifty-eight percent said that they get pushed around more than others rarely none
of the time; 22 percent little of the time; 10 percent some of the time; six percent a
good part of the time; four percent most of the time; and one percent did not
38
respond.
4. Use of Alcohoi
Thirteen items were included in this study; (1)1 drink; (2) frequency of alcohol use by
beverage type; (3) frequency of party attendance; (4) consider myself to be an
occasional, moderate or heavy drinker; (5) type of alcoholic drink (beer, wine liquor
and hard liquor); (6) time started drinking; (7) I got drunk; (8) arrested for drunk driving
(once, more than once or never); (9) reason for drinking (to enjoy, friends drunk, party
better, can't do my studies and work without it); (10) alcohol use with other drugs; (11)
parents' knowledge of alcohol use; (12) parents drink; (13) parents drinking affect you;
(14) other drug use with alcohol.
(1)1 Drink Alcoholic Beverages
About half of the
respondents (N=123)
reported that they drink alcoholic
beverages; 46 percent said they do not drink; and four percent did not respond.
(2) Frequency of Alcohol Use (beer, wine and liquor)
Fifty-nine percent of the alcohol users did not specify the frequency of their use; 24
percent soid that they drink alcohol once in a week; eight percent twice a week; five
percent three or more times a week; five percent every day.
(3) Party Attendance
Sixty-three percent of the users did not respond; 29 percent attended once a
week; five percent twice a week; two percent every day.
(4) Self-rating Drinking Category
Eighty-one percent considered themselves to be occasional drinkers; 14 percent
moderate drinkers; five percent heavy drinkers.
(5) Tvoe of Alcoholic Drink
39
TABLE NA: DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE BY USE OF ALCOHOL
AND OTHER DRUGS
Variable
Number
Percent
(N=245)
I DRINK
NO REPLY
10
3.3
ALCOHOL
123
50.2
NO ALCOHOL
112
45.7
PARENTS DRINK
NO REPLY
30
12.2
YES
67
27.3
148
60.4
NO REPLY
85
34.7
YES
24
9.8
136
55.5
NO
PARENTS'
DRINIKING AFFECTS YOU
NO
(N=123)
FREQUENCY OF ALCOHOL USE
ONCE
WEEK
29
23.6
10
8.1
3 OR MORE TIMES PER WEEK
6
4.9
EVERYDAY
6
4.9
72
58.6
OCCASIONAL USER
99
80.5
MODERATE USER
17
13.8
6
4.9
BEER
67
54.5
LIQUOR
14
11.4
WINE
38
30.9
TWICE WEEK
DK/NA
SELF RATING CATEGORY
HEAVY USER
TYPE OF ALCOHOLIC DRINK
STARTED DRINKING
BEFORE ENTERING COLLEGE
92
74.8
AFTER ENTERING COLLEGE
26
21.1
ONCE
44
35.8
SEVERAL TIMES
35
28.5
NEVER
43
35.0
I GOT DRUNK
TABLE IV.4: DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE BY USE OF ALCOHOL
AND OTHER DRUGS (CONTINUED)
Number
Variable
1Percent
(N=245)
ARRESTED FOR DRUNK DRIVING
4.9
ONCE
6
MORE THAN ONCE
2
1.6
110
89.4
NEVER
REASON FOR DRINKING
ENJOYMENT
75
61.0
GIVE COMPANY TO FRIENDS
19
15.4
BETTER PARTYING
16
13.0
GRASS
19
15.4
SPEED
3
2.4
OTHER
5
4.1
DRUG USED WITH ALCOHOL
FREQUENCY OF DRUG USE
(OTHER THAN ALCOHOL)
OCCASIONALLY
23
18.7
NEVER
97
78.9
1
.8
REGULARLY
PARENTS'
KNOWLEDGE OF RESPONDENT' S ALCOHOL USE
YES
79
64.2
NO
42
34.1
DRUG USED WITH ALCOHOL
GRASS
23
18.7
SPEED
4
3.2
OTHER
5
4.0
91
74.0
NO DRUG
41
Fify-five percent mentioned beer; 31 percent wine; and 11 percent liquor.
(6) Time Started Drinking
Seventy-five percent started drinking before they entered college; 21 percent after
entering college.
(7) I Got Drunk
Thirty-five percent never had been drunk; 36 percent had been drunk once; 29
percent had been drunk several times.
(8) Arrested for Drunk Driving
Eighty-nine percent were never arrested for drunken driving; five percent once;
two percent more than once.
(9) Reason for Drinking
Nearly half (47 percent) did not respond; 35 percent enjoy drinking; 10 percent
drink because of friends; seven percent as a way of better partying; and a few (0.4
percent) drink to study and work.
(10) Alcohol Use with Other Drugs
About three-fourths never used alcohol with other drugs;
16 percent did not
respond; nine percent used alcohol occasionally with other drugs; and one percent
used alcohol with other drugs on a regular basis.
(11) Parents Knowledge of Alcohol Use
Nearly one-third (34 percent) said that their parents do not know about their
drinking; 36 percent said their parents knew; 29 percent did not respond.
(12) Parents Drink
Sixty percent said their parents do not drink; 27 percent said that their parents drink;
12 percent did not respond.
(13) Parents' Drinking Affect
Fifty-six percent said that their parents' drinking did not affect them; 10 percent
said it affected them; 35 percent did not respond.
(14) Other Druq(s) Used with Alcohol
Eighty-seven percent did not respond; nine percent used grass with alcohol; two
percent used speed with alcohol; two percent used other drugs.
5. Drug Awareness
Thirteen items were included in this study; (1) alcohol is; (2) marijuana, cocaine are;
(3) alcohol use can affect; (4) drug use can affect; (5) know enough about drugs; (6)
need more information; (7) regular use of alcohol causes dependency; (8) regular use
of grass, coke causes dependency; (9) drug problem on campus; (10) enough
emphasis on student drug awareness;
(11) attend drug class; (12) relationship
between drug and crime.
(1) Alcohol is a Drug
Eighty-six percent said that alcohol is a drug; six percent said alcohol is not a drug;
three percent did not respond.
(2) Marijuana and Cocaine are drugs
Ninety-six percent said that marijuana and cocaine are drugs; three percent did
not respond; one percent was not sure; four percent said that marijuana and cocaine
are not drugs.
(3) Alcohol Use Can Affect Studies
Eighty-eight percent said that alcohol use can affect studies; five percent said that
alcohol use does not affect studies; four percent said that they are not sure; three
percent did not respond.
(4) Drug Use Can Affect Studies
Eighty-seven percent said that drug use affect studies; three percent said drug use
TABLE IVJ: DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE BY ALCOHOL AND
DRUGAWARENESS
Variable
Number
Percent
(N-245)
ALCOHOL IS
NO REPLY
DRUG
7
2.9
210
85.7
DO NOT KNOW
14
5.7
NOT DRUG
14
5.7
MARIJUANA,
COCAINE ARE
NO REPLY
DRUGS
8
3.3
234
95.5
NOT SURE
2
.8
NOT DRUGS
1
.4
ALCOHOL USE CAN
NO REPLY
AFFECT STUDIES
NO AFFECT
NOT SURE
7
2.9
216
88.2
13
5.3
9
3.7
DRUG USE CAN
NO REPLY
AFFECT STUDIES
NO AFFECT
NOT SURE
8
3.3
214
87.3
7
2.9
16
6.5
KNOW ENOUGH
NO REPLY
YES
NO
21
8.6
214
87.3
10
4.1
NEED MORE INFOMATION
NO REPLY
YES
NO
8
3.3
162
66.1
75
30.6
REGULAR ALCOHOL-USE LEADS TO DEPENDENCE
NO REPLY
7
2.9
YES
105
42.9
NO
133
54.3
REGULAR DRUG-USE LEADS TO DEPENDENCE
NO REPLY
YES
NO
17
6.9
151
61.6
77
31.4
TABLE Nj5: DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE BY ALCOHOL AND
DRUGAWARENESS (CONTINUED)
Variable
Number
Percent
(N=245)
DRUG-USE IS A PROBLEM ON CAMPUS
NO REPLY
YES
NO
15
6.1
156
63.7
74
30.2
ENOUGH EMPHASIS
NO REPLY
YES
NO
25
10.2
175
71.4
45
18.4
ATTEND DRUG CLASS
NO REPLY
15
6.1
YES
56
22.9
174
71.0
NO
ALCOHOL-USE LEADS
TO DRUG-USE
4
1.6
235
95.9
YES
NO
RELATIONSHIP EXISTS BETWEEN DRUG AND CRIME
NO REPLY
YES
NO
11
4.5
156
63.7
78
31.8
does not affect studies; seven percent are not sure; three percent did not respond.
(5) Know Enouoh About Drugs
Eighty-seven percent said they know enough about the drugs; four percent said
they do not know enough; and nine percent did not respond.
(6) Need Mora Information.
Sixty-six percent said they need more information about drugs; thirty-one percent
said they need no more; three percent did not respond.
(7) Regular Use of Alrohol Causes Denenrienrv
Half of the students (54 percent) said regular use of alcohol does not cause
dependency; 43 percent said it causes dependency; three percent did not respond.
(8) Regular Use of Grass and Coke Causes Dependency
Sixty-two percent said that the regular use of grass and coke causes dependency;
thirty-one percent said coke does not cause dependency; seven percent did not
respond.
(9) Drua-use is a Problem on Cnmni is
Sixty-four percent said that drug-use is a problem on campus; thirty percent said
that it is not a problem; six percent did not respond.
(10) Enough Emohosis on Sturipnt Drug Awareness
About two-thirds (71 percent) said they had enough emphasis on student drug
awareness; 18 percent said they do not have enough emphasis; 10 percent of the
students did not respond.
(11) Would Attend o Drug Informotion Clnss
Seventy-one percent would not attend drug information class; 23 percent would;
six percent did not respond.
(12) Relationship Between Drug Use and Crime
Sixty-four percent said there is a relationship between drug use and crime; 32
percent said there is no relationship; five percent did not respond.
Thus, a large majority of students are aware that alcohol, marijuana and cocaine
are drugs and that they can affect their studies. Six out of every 10 students know
that a relationship exists between drug use and crime. Yet. half of them (N=123) drink
alcohol, mostly for social reasons. Nearly 30 percent feel that campus drug use is a
problem, despite the fact that 71 percent agree that the University emphasizes
enough on student drug awareness.
progression from alcohol use to drug use.
Only two percent see the possibility of
CHAPTER V
Summary and Conclusions
This thesis examined: (1) The patterns of alcohol use among college students on an
HBCU campus; (2) Reasons for alcohol use; (3) Awareness of alcohol and other drugs;
(4) Relationship between parents' alcohol use and students' alcohol use; and (5)
Relationship between family structure (single-parent and two-parent families) and
students' alcohol use.
The data for this study were obtained from the 1990 University of Arkansas at Pain
Bluff Student Drug Use Survey (UAPBSDUS). These data were collected via personal
interview schedules from a random sample of 245 students in the Fall of 1990. The
data were analyzed at two levels: (1) The profile of the sampled respondents along
three dimensions (Demographic background; Use of alcohol and other drugs; and,
Drug awareness) was constructed; and. (2) Seven study hypotheses (see Chapter III)
were developed and tested by chi-square and lambda techniques.
The profile analysis (as discussed in Chapter IV) indicated that about half of the
students who participated in the survey drink alcohol; 24 percent of those users drink
once a week, and an additional 10 percent drink every day or every alternate days.
A majority of these alcohol users consider themselves 'occasional users.' Almost all of
them drink for social reasons (enjoyment, for friend's sake, or better way of partying).
Nearly 90 percent of the students know that alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine are
drugs and several of them
are aware that they can affect their studies.
Demographically, many of them were males (51 percent), under 21 years (65
percent), single (92 percent), products of two-parent families (57 percent), with
above 2.00 G.P.A. (91 percent). Sixty-two percent live off campus and 38 percent live
on campus.
Thus one might expect that many students may still under parental
supervision.
The results pertaining to the testing of hypotheses are as follows:
HYPOTHESIS ONE
College students use alcohol more frequently for social reasons rather than for
relieving tension or depression.
This hypothesis is confirmed. All reported drinking
for social reasons: 61 percent for
enjoyment, 15 percent because their friends drink, and 13 percent to party better. No
one listed psychological reasons such as relieving tension or depression (Table IV.4).
HYPOTHESIS TWO
Males use alcohol and drugs more frequently than females.
Table V. 1 shows a breakdown of alcohol use by gender. While 60 percent of males
and 43 percent of females use alcohol, only 18 percent of males and eight percent
of females report using other drugs. Thus males out number females in both alcohol
and drug use. These differences are statistically significant at the 0.05 level. Therefore,
this hypothesis is confirmed.
HYPOTHESIS THREE
Males consume alcohol and drugs in larger quantities than females in any one
usage situation.
Table V.2 consistently shows the preponderance of males in every user category: 59
percent of males and 43 percent of females are occasional alcohol consumers, nine
percent of males and five percent of females are moderate users, and three percent
TABLE V.1: ALCOHOL-USE BY GENDER
-+
|
NO
YES
GENDER
|
TOTAL
I
-+
ALCOHOIjMALE
FEMALE
USE*
74
48
122
|
60.7
39.3
100.0
I
31.5
20.4
51.9
|
49
64
113
|
43.4
56.6
100.0
I
20.9
27.2
48.1
|
DRUG-USEb
MALE
FEMALE
1
22
104
126
17.5
82.5
100.0
|
|
9.0
42.4
51.4
|
10
109
119
I
8.4
91.6
100.0
I
4.1
44.5
48.6
I
a= Chi-square
6.35650;
DF = 1;
Significance =
.0117
b= Chi-square
3.65935;
DF = 1;
Significance =
.0558
50
TABLE V.2: ALCOHOL USERS BY GENDER
I
USER CATEGORY
|
+
VARIABLES*
MALE
FEMALE
+
NO REPLY | OCCASIONAL MODERATE HEAVY |
TOTAL
52
59
11
4
126
41.3
46.8
8.7
3 .2
100.0
21.2
24.1
4.5
1 .6
51.4
68
43
6
2
119
57.1
36.1
5.0
1 .7
100.0
27.8
17.6
2.4
.8
48.6
*= Chi-square = 6.58577; DF = 1;
Significance = .0863
51
of males and two percent of females are alcohol heavy users. These observations
were statistically significant at .08 level. Thus this hypothesis is confirmed as stated that
with 90 percent confidence level, i.e., out of every 10 experiments it is likely that nine
experiments show a pattern of larger consumption of alcohol by males than by
females.
HYPOTHESIS FOUR
Students with a stronger sense of welJ-being as measured on the Generalized
Content Scale and Index of Self-Esteem use drugs and alcohol less frequently than
those with a weaker sense.
Chapter III shows that well being is defined in the context of a sense of powerless,
restless, having a hard time getting started, being dull, future, lack of appreciation by
others and enjoyment of being proclivity to be active and busy. This study observes no
significant differences in terms of alcohol between those students with a sense of
more well being and those with less well being (Table V.3). Therefore, this hypothesis is
rejected and it is concluded that a sense of well being is not a potential predictor of
alcohol and drug use among college student populations. One of the possible
reasons for this lack of relationship may be the lack of a distinct difference between
those who have a sense of more well being and those with less a sense of well-being.
Because they are all college student population. They are all likely to have a minimum
level of a sense of well being, but may vary relatively. In more diverse population
groups this variable may prove significant.
HYPOTHESIS FIVE
Alcohol and drug users have more positive attitudes
toward alcohol and drugs
52
TABLE V.3: USE OF ALCOHOL AND DRUGS BY GENERALIZED CONTENT
SCALE AND INDEX OF SELF-ESTEEM
|
FEEL POWERLESS
HO
YES
TOTAL
ATiCOHOT- tj<5R*
|
1
■
|
I
RARBLY-HONE
LITTLE TIME
1
95
89
184
|
51.6
48.4
100.0
|
40.4
37.9
78.3
|
28
23
51
54.9
45.1
100.0
I
|
11.9
9.8
21.7
|
I
DRUG-USE1*
I
1
■
27
166
193
|
14.0
86.0
100.0
|
11.0
67.8
78.8
I
I
|
RARELY-HOME
I
■
I
5
47
52
|
9.6
90.4
100.0
|
2.0
19.2
21.2
|
I
|
LITTLE TIME
1
■= Chi-square
**= Chi-square
.06528; DF = 1;
.35878; DF = 1;
Significance = .7983
Significance = .5492
53
TABLE V.3: USE OF ALCOHOL AND DRUGS BY GENERALIZED CONTENT
SCALE AND INDEX OF SELF-ESTEEM (CONTINUED)
h;|.
+
H1.
+
+
1
I
FEEL RESTLESS
YES
|
HO
ALCOHOL USE*
|
|
RARELY-NONE
LXTTUB TIME
TOTAL
|
|
66
62
128
|
51.6
48.4
100.0
|
28.1
26.4
54.5
|
57
50
107
|
53.3
46.7
100.0
I
24.3
21.3
45.5
|
DRUG—USE**
|
RARELY-NONB
I
19
117
136
|
14.0
86.0
100.0
|
7.8
47.8
55.5
I
I
I
|
1
LITTLE TIME
13
96
109
|
11.9
88.1
100.0
I
5.3
39.2
44.5
|
Chi-square = .01690; DF = 1; Significance = .8966
Chi-squaxe = .07900; DF = 1; Significance = .7787
TABLE V.3: USE OF ALCOHOL AND DRUGS BY GENERALIZED CONTENT
(CONTINUED)
+
1(.
+
1
I
HARD G8TTIHG STARTED
1
1
I
+
+
t
1
|TOTAL
|
1
|
YES
|
NO
ALCOHOL TTSRa
RARELY-NONE
47
|
47
94
|
50.0
|
50.0
100.0
|
20.0
I
20.0
40.0
|
1
I
LITTLE TIME
76
I
65
141
|
53.9
I
46.1
100.0
|
32.3
I
27.7
60.0
|
DKDG-USB*
12
I
RARBLY-NONB
11.8
4.9
|
|
90
102
|
188.2
100.0
|
136.7
41.6
|
1
20
|
LITTLE TUB
•= Chi-square
**= Chi-square
|
1
123
143
|
14.0
186.0
100.0
|
8.2
150.2
58.4
1
.20541; DF = 1;
Significance =
.6504
.10006; DF = 1;
Significance =
.7518
55
TABLE V.3: USE OF ALCOHOL AND DRUGS BY GENERALIZED CONTENT
SCALE AND INDEX OF SELF-ESTEEM (CONTINUED)
1
I
1
1
FUTURE LOOKS BRIGHT
1
YES
1
|
HO
I
1
TOTAL
ALCOHOL USE*|
|
|
I
1
I
RARELY-NONE
1
I
LITTLE TIMB
12
10
22
|
54.5
45.5
1
100.0
|
5.1
4.3
1
9.4
|
|
111
102
213
52.1
47.9
100.0
|
47.2
43.4
90.6
|
DRUG-USE*
I
1
I
RARELY-NONE
6
17
23
26.1
73.9
100.0
|
6.9
9.4
|
|
2
.4
26
I
LITTLE TIME
|
|
196
222
11.7
88.3
100.0
|
10.6
80.0
90.6
|
|
•s chi-square
*»= chi-square
.00000; DF = 1; significance = 1.0000
2.63238; DF = 1; Significance = .1047
56
TABLE V.3: USE OF ALCOHOL AND DRUGS BY GENERALIZED CONTENT
SCALE AND INDEX OF SELF-ESTEEM (CONTINUED)
1-
+
4
-—H|.
1
1
^PPPttf*T ^|wcti
YES
BIT OTHERS
|
TOTAL
NO
ALCOHOL USEa
|
RARBLY-NONB
|
|
14
1
14
28
|
50.0
1
50.0
100.0
|
6.0
1
6.0
11.9
|
1
i
1
LITTLE TIME
109
1
98
207
|
52.7
1
47.3
100.0
|
46.4
1
41.7
88.1
|
DRUG-USE1*
I
RaRBLT-NONB
1
5
1
26
31
I
16.1
1
83.9
100.0
|
2.0
1
10.6
12.7
|
I
I
a
b
LITTLE TIME
Chi-squaxe =
Chi-squaxe =
.00392;
27
1
187
214
|
12.6
1
8".4
100.0
|
11.0
1
7f .3
87.3
|
DP = 1;
.06616; OF = 1;
Significance =
Significance =
.9501
.7970
57
TABLE V.3: USE OF ALCOHOL AND DRUGS BY GENERALIZED CONTENT
SCALE AND INDEX OF SELF-ESTEEM (CONTINUED)
+
1
|
H
1-
+
1
ENJOY ACTIVE AMD BUSY
|
YES
|
NO
|
TOTAL
ALCOHOL USE*
|
RARELY-HOME
|
I
7
I
8
15
|
46.7
|
53.3
100.0
|
3.0
1
3.4
6.4
|
1
I
LITTLE TIME
116
1
104
220
|
52.7
|
47.3
100.0
|
49.4
|
44.3
93.6
|
DRUG-USE*
|
RARELY-NONE
|
0
I
16
16
|
0.0
I
100.0
100.0
|
0.0
I
6.5
6.5
1
I
LITTLE TIME
a = Ch±-square
b — Chl-squaxe
.03518; DF =
1.48832;
DF
|
1
32
|
197
229
|
14.0
I
86.0
100.0
|
13.1
I
80.4
93.5
|
1;
= 1;
Significance =
Significance =
.8512
.2225
58
than non-users.
Table V.4 evidences a clear pattern of more positive attitudes towards alcohol by
users than by non-users. Those non-users not prepared to take a strong position
against alcohol may have chosen to be neutral by responding "not sure" as to
whether or not alcohol use can have adverse effects on studies. The observed
differences were statistically significant at .01 level for alcohol use indicating that 99
out of every 100 experiments tend to produce the favorable response to alcohol use
by the users than by non-users. However, no statistical significant difference was
observed between the attitude toward drugs by drug users and that by non-users. This
can be largely attributed to the small group of drug users. Of all 245 respondents only
32 reported drug use and the remaining 213 were non-users. It is also generally
expected that alcohol use is the most prevalent problem than drug use on college
campuses.
Given
the
infrequency
and
fewer
number
of
drug
users
it
is
understandable why no statistical significance is observed. Therefore this hypothesis
can be accepted as stated.
HYPOTHESIS SIX
Students whose parents use alcohol and drugs, use alcohol and drugs more
frequently than do students whose parents do not use drugs.
Table V.5 shows that 34 percent of the alcohol users reported that their parents
drink and the remaining 66 percent use alcohol, although their parents do not drink.
Only 26 percent of non-users reported their parents drink and 74 percent of them
know their parents do not drink. Thus, there is some probability of students not using
alcohol while parents do not drink (p=.736). However, the probability remains at the
same level for students who use alcohol even though parents do not drink (p=.661).
59
TABLE V.4: ATTTWDES TOWARD ALCOHOL AND DRUGS BY USERS AND
NON-USERS
y
|
ALCOHOL-USE AFFECTS STUDIES
+
USERS
+
I
HOM-
|
|
USERS
|TOTAL
ALCOHOT- USE*
|
MO REPLY
2
4
6
33.3
66.7
100.0
.9
1.7
2.6
1
I
I
AFFECT STUDIES
|
111
96
207
53.6
46.4
100.0
47.2
40.9
88.1
I
|
|
HO AFFECT
|
6
7
13
46.2
53.8
100.0
2.6
3.0
5.5
1
|
|
MOT SURE
|
TOTAL
Chi-square = 1.42990; DF = 3;
4
5
9
44.4
55.6
100.0
1.7
2.1
3.8
123
112
235
Significance =
.6985
60
TABLE V.4: ATTITUDES TOWARD ALCOHOL AND DRUGS BY USERS AND
NON-USERS (CONTINUED)
DRUG-USE AFFECTS
STUDIES
|
USERS
NON-
1
1
USERS
|TOTAL
|
DRUG USI!a
HO REPLY
AFFECT STUDIES
HO AFFECT
HOT SURE
TOTAL
Chi-square = 5.52374;
DF =3;
1
2
5
7
28.6
71.4
100.0
|
I
.8
2.0
2.9
I
25
191
216
I
11.6
88.4
100.0
1
10.2
78.0
88.2
|
4
9
13
I
30.8
69.2
100.0
I
1.6
3.7
5.3
I
1
8
9
1
11.1
88.9
100.0
I
.4
3.3
3.7
|
32
213
Significance =
245
.1372
61
TABLE V.4: ATTTWDES TOWARD ALCOHOL AND DRUGS BY USERS AND
NON-USERS (CONTINUED)
y
I
REGULAR ALCOHOL USE
+
|
USERS
1
MO REPLY
1
I
I
I
+
|
NON-
1
1
|
USERS
|TOTAL
|
ALCOHOL rone*
|
I
1.
YES
MO
MOT SURE
TOTAL
= Chi-square = 12.89664;
DF
2
5
7
|
28.6
71.4
100.0
|
.9
2.1
3.0
|
110
95
205
|
53.7
46.3
100.0
|
46.8
40.4
87.2
|
7
7
|
100.0
100.0
|
3.0
3.0
|
4
12
16
|
25.0
75.0
100.0
|
1.7
5.1
6.8
1
123
112
235
3 Significance =
.0049
62
TABLE V.4: ATTFFUDES TOWARD ALCOHOL AND DRUGS BY USERS AND
NON-USERS (CONTINUED)
Hy
+
1
MM5nTjm DRUG \JSR
|
LEADS TO DEPENDENCE
+
USERS
+
+
1
HOH-
|
I
|
USERS
|TOTAL
|
DRUG USE*
I
2
6
8
I
HO REPLY
25.0
.8
75.0
100.0
|
2.4
3.3
|
22
192
214
|
Y£S
10.3
89.7
100.0
|
9.0
78.4
87.3
|
|
I
|
|
|
4
3
7
I
|
57.1
42.9
100.0
|
1
1.6
1.2
2.9
|
4
12
16
1
I
25.0
75.0
1100.0
|
1
1-6
1
|
|
HO
HOT SORB
TOTAL
• =
chi-square = 16.44880; DF = 3;
32
1
4.9
213
1
6.5
235
Significance = .0009
63
TABLE V.5: STUDENTS ALCOHOL-USE BY PARENTS'ALCOHOL-USE
hy
+
I
|
H
STODENTS DRINK
PARENTS DRINK*
H
-
YES
40
78
118
I
YES
33.9
66.1
56.5
24
67
91
I
HO
26.4
73.6
43.5
64
145
209
1 M\A
30.6
69.4
100.0
I
= Chi-square = 1.36930;
DP = 1;
|
TOTAL
I
NO
Significance =
.2419
This pattern indicate two important findings: (1) At the college student level the
alcohol consumption or lack of consumption of parents has no significant influence
on students alcohol use; and. (2) The students alcohol use is largely influenced by
peers.
Family socialization is frequently seen as an early socialization variable and peer
socialization as a later socialization variable. Therefore, the parents abstinence from
alcohol use may help in delaying alcohol use by youth. But this does not guarantee
that the youth will escape from peer influence. Thus we can expect the student
alcohol users where the parents do not use alcohol to be late starters than those
where parents use alcohol. Therefore, this hypothesis is rejected.
HYPOTHESIS SEVEN
Students who are products of two-parent families
use alcohol and drugs less
frequently than those who are products of a one-parent family.
Forty-three percent of alcohol users are from single parent families and 57 percent
are from two parent families.
Similarly 40 percent
of non-users come from
single-parent homes and 60 percent came from two-parent homes. No statistical
significance was found between the students of two parent families and single parent
families in terms of their alcohol use. As stated earlier this may be because of
increasing influence from peers and decreasing impact of family socialization
variables on the college students life style (especially at this stage of their life cycle).
Moreover all of them are drinking for social reasons which can be treated as an
important indicator of peer influence. Therefore, this hypothesis is rejected.
Finally, it is worth noticing that alcohol or drug is not a major problem among the
overwhelming number of respondents (college students) in this study. Many of them
65
TABLE V.6: STUDENTS ALCOHOL-USE BY FAMILY STRUCTURE
ALCOHOL URK*
USERS
HOH—USERS
Chi-square =
SINGLE
BOTH
PARENT
PARENT
TOTAL
|
52
68
120
|
43.3
56.7
51.9
|
44
67
111
|
39.6
60.4
48.1
|
.32392; DF = 1;
Significance =
.5693
66
are occasional and social drinkers. This may prove to be the case on other historically
black college and university campuses.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anglin, Douglas M., and George Spoeckart; "The Effect of
Legal Supervision on Narcotic Addiction and Criminal
Behavior," Paper presented at the American Society of
Criminology Meeting,
Austin,
Roy L.
"Race,
Montreal,
Canada;
Father-Absence,
Delinquency," Criminology
15;
1987.
and Female
487-504;
1978.
Ball, John C, Lawrence Rosen; John Hueck, and David Nurco
"Criminality of Heroin Addicts: When Addicted and when
off Opiates," Drug and Dependence.
12;
1982.
Ball, John C, Roxen Lawrence; John Flueck, and David
Nurco; "The Criminality of Heroin Addicts when
Addicted and when off Opiates," In James A. Inciardi
(ed.) The Drugs Crime Connection. Beverly Hills,
Calif.: Sage Publications, 119=142; 1981.
Bescher,
George
Lexington,
Brooke,
J.S.,
and Alfred S.
Mass.:
I.F.
Friedman Teenage Drug Use.
Lexington Books;
Lukoff,
and M.
Adolescent Marijuana Use;"
Psychology.
Carpenter,
137;
Cheryl,
Kids
Drugs
Bruce D.
and Crime.
Conduct,
and the
Classification." American
93-99;
Clayton,
of Sub
Sociological Review 37:
and Harwin
in Manhattan:
Monograph 39.
Drug Abuse;
Datesman,
L.
Voss;
Young Men and
A Causal Analysis.
Rockville,
Md.:
Research
National
Institute of
1981.
Susan and Frank Scarpitti;
and Broken homes," Criminology
Dupont,
Family Disruption,
Effect
1972.
Richard R.,
Drugs
Johnson and
Lexington Mass,:
1988.
Ronald and Gerald Markham;
Delinquent
"Initiation into
General
1980.
Lexington Books;
Chilton,
Whitman
Journal of
Barry Glasser,
Julia Loughlin;
1986.
Ronert L.,
"Female Delinquency
13:
and Nicholas J.
33-55;
Kozel;
1966.
"Heroin Use and
Crime," Paper presented at a meeting of the American
Psychiatric
Association, Miami Beach, Florida; 1976.
Dupont,
Robert
L.,
and M.H.
Heroin Epidemic,"
Greene;
Science
181:
"The Dynamics of
761-722;
67
1976.
a
68
Elliot,
Delbert S.,
David Huizinga and Suzane S.
Explaining Delinquency and Drug Use.
Calif.: Sage Publication; 1989.
Elliot, Delbert S., David Huizinga;
Ageton
Beverly Hills,
"The Relationship
Between Delinquent Behavior and ADM Problem,"
Proceedings of ADAMHA/OJJDP Research conference on
Juvenile Offenders with serious Drug.
Mental Health Problems.
Washington,
Alcohol,
D.C.,
and
OJJDP;
1985.
Frank Furstenberg, et al. "Adolescent Mothers and Their
Children in Later Life," Family Planning Perspectives,
July-August;
Friedman,
Utada,
A.S.,
A.
1987.
E. Pomerance,
R.
Sanders,
Y.
"The Structure and problems of
Santo,
and
the Families
of adolescent Drug Abusers" Contemporary Drug
PrnhlPins,
Gold,
Martin;
Belmont,
Goldstein,
Vr>1 .
IX,
No . 3 . ;
Delinquent
Calif.:
Paul J.;
presented at
1980.
Behavior
Brooks/Cole;
in an American City.
1970.
Drug and Violent Behavior." Paper
the National Annual Meeting of
Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences,
Kentucky;
Greenberg,
the
Louisville,
1982.
Stephanie W.,
and Freda Adler;
"Crime and
Addiction: An Empirical Analysis of the
Literature, 1920-1973." Contemporary Drug Problem 3:
221-270;
1974.
Inciardi, James. Criminal Justice.
Academic Press; 1984.
Orland,
Florida:
Inciardi, James. The Drugs-Crime Connection:
Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications; 1981.
Beverly
Innes,
Christopher A. "Drug Use and Crime." Bureau of
Justice Statistics, Special Report, State Prison
Inmates,
Washington D.C.
1986.
Jessor, Richard; Marijuana: A Review of Recent
Psychosocial Research. Handbook on Drug Abuse: eds.
Robert L Dupont, Avram Goldstein, and John O'Donnell.
Rockville, Md.: National Institute of Drug Abuse;
1979.
Jessor, Richard and S.L. Jessor; Problem Behavior and
Psychological Development - A Longitudinal Study of
69
youth.
Johnson,
New York.
Academic
Press;
1977.
Bruce and Setsuko Mantsunaganishi;
of Minorities and Drug Abuse";
New York,
N.Y.
Problem
Inc;
1976.
Johnson,
Bruce D., Paul Goldstein,
Schmeidler, Douglas S. Lipton,
Miller;
"The
Praeger publishers
Taking Care
by Heroin Abusers.
of
Edward Preble,
Businesses:
Lexington,
James
and Thomas
Barry Spunt,
Economics
Mass.:
of
crime
Lexington Books;
1985.
Johnson,
Bruce D.,
Drugs
Report
for
Alcohol
the
Barry and Julia
in Adolescent
study
to Crime.
of Justice,
Johnson,
Glasser,
and Alcohol
of
the
Relations
Washi ngt-.nn r
Laughlin;
Delinquency:
D.C.
of
Final
Drugs
National
and
Institute
1986.
Bruce D.,
and Julio Martinez;
Crime Rates
Among
Drug Abusing Offenders;
Interdisciplinary Research
Center
the
for the
Study of
Alcohol to Crime,
Research,
Johnson,
Inc;
Kandel,
Denise B.,
Stages
of
Users
Ronald C.
of Drug Use:
Denise B.;
Youth,"
D.
Review
of
Marijuana Users
Inc;
Howard B.;
41:
Kerckoff,
Alan,
pp.
235-285.
Pattern of
Journal
21
Palo
1980.
of
Influences
the American
(4).
in Young Adulthood.
200-209;
Archives
1984.
Juvenile Delinquency,
and Criminal Justice Series,
Publications;
Journal
1978.
Sociology,
Marijuana Use",
General Psychiatry
Kapplan,
1;
Z.
Initiation into
A Development Analysis."
of Child Psychiatry.
B.
and Rebecca
"Inter and Intragenerational
on Adolescent
Kandel,
Subcultures.
1973.
Kessler,
Annual Review
Kandel Denise B.
and
"Drug and Drinking Behavior Among
Annual
Anto Calif.:
Academy
and Drug
"Antecedents of Adolescent
Youth and Adolescence.
Kandel,
of
Marihuana
John Wiley and Sons;
Margulies;
of Drugs
Narcotic and Drug
1986.
Bruce D.;
New York.:
Relations
New York:
vol.
2,
London,
Law
Sage
1984.
and Richard t.
Campbell;
"Race
and Social
Status Difference in the Explanation of Educational
1
70
ambition."
McCutcheon,
Hills,
Marel,
Social
Allan
L.,;
California
Rozanne;
55:
Latent
Sage;
Patterns.
701-714;
Class
Analysisr
Black
McBride,
New York;
Duane C.
B.
Robert
eds.,
McCoy.;
William H.;
L.
Dupont,
Daniel P.;
The Negro Family.
Department
of
Labor;
F.
Ivan.;
York.:
and Gerald 0.
Nye,
F.
Southern
Ivan,
Windham;
al.;
D.C.:
"Alcohol
in Mississippi;"
April
Family Relationships
et
Washington,
sociological
Georgia,
JOhn Wiley;
Md.:
1979.
1965.
Use Among High School Students
Atlanta,
and John O'Donnell,
Rockville,
U.S.
Meeting,
Issues
1981.
Drugs and Crime pp 357-365 inn
Avram Goldstein,
Monihan,
Presented at the
The
of Drug Issues;
Institute of Drug Abuse;
Komanduri S.
of
column
"Crime and Drugs:
Hand book on Drug Abuse.
National
Nye,
and Predictors
1985.
and the Literature." Journal
McCglothin,
Beverly
and White
Correlates,,
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
University,
Murty,
1977.
1987.
Drug Behavior of
Adolescents:
Use;
Forces
Paper
Society
1983.
and Delinquency.
New
1958.
"Socioeconomic
Status
and
Delinquency Behavior." American Sociological Review
63:
381-389;
1958.
O'Donnell, John A., and Richard Clayton; The Steppingstone
hypothesis: A Reappraisal. Chemical Dependence 4;
1981.
Robins,
Lee N.;
Dupont,
addict Careers,
Avram Goldstein,
Book on Drug Abuse.
of Drug abuse;
pp 325-336 in Robert L.
and John O'Donnell,
Rockville,
Md.:
National
eds,
Hand
Institute
1979.
Shaw, Clifford R., and Henry d. McKay; Juvenile
Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press; 1942.
Speckart, George and Douglas M. Anglin; Narcotic Use and
Crime : An Overview of Recent research Advances,"
Contemporary Drug Problems
(13):
741-769;
1986.
71
Tinklenberg,
Jared R.,
Peggy Murphy,
Pattricia L.
Adolescence:
A Replication
Study.;
Psychoactive
Drugs
277-287.
Tinklenberg,
13
Jared R.,
Murphy Cannabis;
(3):
W.T.
Roth,
Use.
Annals
B.S.
alcohol Effects
Adolescent Delinquents,
pp
Journal
Kopell
Murphy,
of
and P.
on Assaultiveness
85-94
in Chronic
of the
New York Academy
R.,
al.
of
in
Cannabis
Sciences;
282,
1976.
Tittle,
Charles
Criminality.™
643-656;
Tucker,
M.
et
of
social
Class
Sociological
Review
43:
and
1978.
Belinda;
U.S.
Ethnic minorities
An Assessment
of
International
Journal
U.S.
"The Myth
American
Congress,
the
Senate;
of
Addiction.
Impact
Session on Examining the
and Crime.
and Drug Abuse:
Science and Practice."
of
Crime,
20;
98th
The
1985.
Cong.
233 Urban Black Men From Birth to
Washington,
D.C.:
U.S.
Second
Relationship Between Drugs
Government
18
Printing Office;
1984.
Voss,
Harvin
L;
in Robert
Behavior.
Triangle
Wilkinson,
Young Men,
ed..
Research
Triangle
Institute;
Karen;
Behavior." pp.
Gottfredson
Hills,
Wish,
Abuse.
1986.
and Crime,
Drug Use
pp.
351-385
and Criminal
Park,
N.C.:
Research
1976.
"The Broken Home
21-42
(eds.),
Calif.:
Eric D.
Another
Drugs
shellow.
in
and Delinquent
Travis
Hirsci
and Michael
Understanding Crime.
Sage;
and Bruce D.
Illicit Drug?
Beverly
1980.
Johnson;
National
REsearch Monograph No.
PCP
and Crime:
Institute
64.;
Just
on Drug
Rockville,
Md;
1990
APPENDIX
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT PINE BLUFF
STUDENT DRUG USE SURVEY
I.
PERSONAL INFORMATION
a)
I am
Male
b)
Female
My marital status Is
Single
c)
Married
I am classified at UAPB as:
d)
Lower Classperson
(Freshman/Sophomore)
Upper Classperson
(Junior/Senior)
At UAPB I live:
On-Campus
e)
Off-Campus
My age is:
Under 21 years
f)
Over 21 years
I am from a:
Single-parent home
g)
H.
Divorced
My
Two-parent home
ipjrSnr GPA is:
Above 2.00
Below 2.00
This portion of the survey is designed to seastirc the degree
of contentment that you feel about your life and surroundings.
It is not a test, so there are no right or wrong'answers.
Answer each item as carefully and accurately as you can by
placing a number besides each one as follows:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Rarely or none of the time
A little of the time
Some of the time
Good part of the time
Most or all of the time
1.
I feel powerless to do anything about my life.
2.
I am restless and can't keep still.
3.
I have a hard time getting started on things
that I need to do.
* II.
4.
I feel that the future looks bright for me.
5.
I feel that I am appreciated by others.
6.
I enjoy being active and busy.
1-6:
Generalized Contentment Scale (GCS)
Copyright c Walter Hudson, 1974.
72
73
IH.
This questionnaire is designed to measure how you see yourself
It is not a test, so there are no right or wrong answers.
Please answer each item as carefully and accurately as you
can by placing a number by each one as follows:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
,
•
Rarely or none of the time
A little of the time
Some of the time
A. good part of the time
Most or all of the time
3
•
...
1.
I feel that I am a very competent person.
2.
I feel that I need more self-confidence.
3.
I think that I am a dull person*- -
4.
m
I feel very self-conscious when I am with
s trangers.
5.
6.
I feel that people have a good time when
they are with me.
I feel that I get pushed around mere than
others.
17.
USE OF ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUGS
Please check one answer only.
a)
I drink:
Alcoholic beverages (beer, wine, liquor)
No alcoholic beverages
b)
(If no skip b, c & d)
My alcohol use (beer, wine, liquor) is: ^ than three
__^__ Once a weefc
—^—^—
Twice a week
Everyday
Three times a week
At parties
C)How often do you attend parties:
^
q)
Twice a week
I consider myself a:
light, occasional alcohol user
moderate alcohol user
heavy alcohol user
d)
* III.
My usual alcohol drink is:
1-6:
Beer
Liquor
Wine
Liquor
Index of Self-Esteem (ISE)
Copyright c Walter V. Hudson,
1974.
Once a week
Everyday
None
74
e)
I started using alcoholic drink(s):
Before I entered College
■ After I entered College
f)
I have been:"
•
•
■
Drunk at laast once berore
Drunk-several tines before
Never drunk before
g)
I have" been arrested for drunken driving:'
'
. Once before
_-More than once before
-■
h)
Never
I use alcoholic drinks because:
I enjoy
'
it
iiy friends drink too
I ?art7 better
I can't do my studies/work'without it
«)
t use alcoholic drinks along with other drugs (grass, coke, etc.):
I
Occasionally
•
*eve=
Regularly
j)
Ky ?arent(s) know that I use alcoholic drinks:
ies
.
So
k)
Do your parents drink ?
.)
Sas that affected'you?
The drug I use (occasionally or otherwise) along with alcoholic
^SGrass (Marijuana)
.
Amphetamine (Speed)
Other (indicate)
7.
DB.UG AWASEHESS
Please check one answer only
a)
Alcohol
is^
doq1 ^ taQw £()r
Not a drug
gura
75
b)
Marijuana, cocaine and amphetamines are:
Drugs
■
Don't know for sure
Not Drugs
c)
Alcohol and other illicit drugs can: '
Harm my body
____ Don't know for sure
Are ^harmless to my body
d)
Regular use of alcohol:
Can affect my studies
Can not affect my studies
Don't know for sure
e)
Regular use of other drugs (grass, coke, speed, etc.):
Can affect my studies
Can not affect my studies
Don't know for sure
f)
I know enough about alcohol and other drugs:
Yes
g)
'
n)
No
I would attend a drug information class/workshop held on campus:
Yes
m)
No
UAPB puts enough emphasis on. student drug awareness:
Yes
1)
No
Drug use on campus is a problem:
Yes
k)
No
With.regular use, I can become dependent on grass, coke or speed:
Yes
j)
No
With regular use, I can become dependent on alcohol:
Yes
i)
No
I need more information about alcohol and other drugs:
Yes
h)
.
No
Regular alcohol use can lead to use of other drugs:
Yes §
No
There is a relationship between drug use and crime.
Yes
No
THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING IN THIS SURVEY.