Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 15 (2012) 292–297
Original research
Alcohol-related aggression and antisocial behaviour in
sportspeople/athletes
Kerry S. O’Brien a,b,∗ , Gregory S. Kolt c , Matthew P. Martens d , Ted Ruffman e ,
Peter G. Miller f , Dermot Lynott g
a
d
School of Political and Social Inquiry, Monash University, Australia
b School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester, UK
c School of Science and Health, University of Western Sydney, Australia
Department of Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology, University of Missouri, USA
e Psychology Dept, University of Otago, New Zealand
f School of Psychology, Deakin University, Australia
g Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, UK
Received 28 July 2011; received in revised form 14 October 2011; accepted 26 October 2011
Abstract
Objectives: There is no empirical research on alcohol-related aggression and antisocial behaviour in non-US collegiate athletes. The present
study addressed this gap by examining these behaviours in Australian university sportspeople.
Design: Cross-sectional.
Methods: University sportspeople and non-sportspeople completed questionnaires on alcohol consumption, aggressive and antisocial
behaviours (e.g., abused, hit or assaulted someone, made unwanted sexual advance, damaged property) when intoxicated. Participants also
reported whether they had been the victim of similar aggressive or antisocial behaviours. Demographic data and known confounders were
collected.
Results: Hierarchical logistic regression models accounting for confounders and alcohol consumption scores found that university
sportspeople were significantly more likely than non-sportspeople to have displayed aggressive behaviour (i.e., insulted or assaulted someone;
OR 1.65, 95% CI: 1.19, 2.28, p = .003), and damaged property (OR 1.98, 95% CI: 1.38, 2.84, p < .0005) in the past year when intoxicated.
Sportspeople were no more likely to have received aggression, had property damaged due to others intoxication (OR 1.21, 95% CI: .90,
1.62, p = .20; and OR 1.10, 95% CI: .79, 1.53, p = .57, respectively), or to have made unwanted sexual advances (OR 1.10, 95% CI: .65, 1.83,
p = .74). Sportspeople were less likely to have reported being sexually assaulted when intoxicated (OR .44, 95% CI: .23, .83, p < .01).
Conclusions: Consistent with work from the US alcohol-related aggressive and antisocial behaviours were greater in male Australian
university sportspeople/athletes than in their female and non-sporting counterparts. There is a need for research explicating the interaction
between alcohol, contextual and cultural aspects of sport, and sport participants.
© 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Sports Medicine Australia.
Keywords: Sport; Drinking; Athletes; Aggression; Sexual assault; Alcohol
1. Introduction
Excessive alcohol consumption and heavy episodic drinking (binge drinking) is associated with a host of negative
consequences for the individual and increased social and
financial burdens for society.1 Heavy episodic drinking is
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (K.S. O’Brien).
increasing among young people,2 and university/college
students,3,4 but is especially problematic in sportspeople
(athletes) where rates of heavy episodic drinking and harm
are consistently higher than non-sporting peers5 and the
general population.6–8 Because alcohol is ranked above all
other illicit drugs in terms of social, health, and financial
costs,9 studies on drinking and harms in young populations such as university students and sportspeople are of
importance.
1440-2440/$ – see front matter © 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Sports Medicine Australia.
doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2011.10.008
K.S. O’Brien et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 15 (2012) 292–297
Although there are a handful of studies in Europe10–12
and Australia and New Zealand13–15 the bulk of research on
hazardous drinking in sportspeople has been in US college
athletes.8,16,17 US research shows that hazardous drinking
in college athletes and goes hand in hand with harmful
behaviours such as, driving while intoxicated and antisocial/violent behaviour.16,18,19 Greater rates of injury and
negative performance outcomes are also reported in university athletes who drink.20,21 A consistent finding is that higher
rates of alcohol-related aggression and antisocial behaviour
(e.g., fighting, unwanted sexual advances, vandalism) are
reported in college athletes who drink, compared to nondrinking athletes, and non-athletes.8,18,19 Surprisingly, there
is no research on alcohol-related aggression or antisocial
behaviour in university sporting populations outside the US,
and only one study in non-university sportspeople.13
While contentious, scholars have suggested that the masculine/macho norms and confrontational nature of some
sports attracts and/or socialises aggression in those who
participate.22–24 A recent review of aggression in sport
highlighted the high prevalence of on-field violence, but
found that the evidence for off-field violence and antisocial
behaviour was sparse and mixed, with little research examining alcohol-related aggression and sexual violence.24 In
one multi-university US study,25 athletes were found to be
involved in 19% of all reported sexual assaults on campuses,
yet athletes made up only 3% of university populations. In
another study, US college athletes 14.0% of male team leaders and 11.1% of team members reported taking advantage
of someone sexually as a result of substance use, compared
to 7.7% of males who did not participate in athletics.16
The absence of research on alcohol-related aggression and
antisocial behaviour in non-US sportspeople is problematic.
Contextually, the US has a higher legal drinking age (21+
years), different structure to collegiate sport programs, a controlled athlete scholarship program, and a strong influence of
fraternities/sororities. These factors mean that the patterns
of drinking and associated harms (e.g., aggressive/antisocial
behaviour) may differ considerably to other nations. University sportspeople in other countries (e.g., Australia, New
Zealand, Germany, and to some extent the UK), typically
participate in non-university sport competitions and leagues,
playing alongside the general population. Thus, US research
may not generalize to non-US sporting populations. The overreliance on US samples, and potential lack of generalizability,
has been criticized by behavioural researchers.26 Indeed, 68%
of all published human behavioural research involves US
undergraduate students, yet the US makes up only 6% of
the world’s population.26
Although not in university sportspeople, an Australian study found that alcohol-related aggression/antisocial
behaviour were common in professional Australian Football
League players, with involvement in fights and/or arguments
reported by 26% of players.13 Given the paucity of research
on alcohol-related aggression and antisocial behaviour in
non-US sportspeople, it seems important to address this
293
gap in the literature. The aim of the present study was to
examine the extent of alcohol-related aggression and antisocial behaviours (e.g., personal aggression, vandalism, sexual
assaults) in a large sample of Australian university sportspeople and non-sportspeople.
2. Methods
University students (N = 1028) over 18 years, with
mean age 20.7 (SD = 3.5 years) were recruited (response
rate ≈ 80%, 1300 approached) from two large multicampus
Australian universities in New South Wales. The sample was
comprised of 596 (58%) females, with 652 (63.4%) in-season
university sportspeople (athletes). Thirty-nine percent of the
sportspeople reported playing individual sports (e.g., running, squash), with the remaining 61% playing team sports
(e.g., rugby, cricket, football).
A questionnaire containing demographic questions (i.e.,
age, gender, sporting participation, and current university
status), the World Health Organisation’s Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), and measures assessing
alcohol-related aggression and antisocial behaviours, was
administered to participants.
The AUDIT is a 10-item questionnaire that was developed to identify persons whose alcohol consumption has
become hazardous or harmful (WHO).27 The AUDIT has 3
subscales assessing: alcohol consumption (AUDIT-C; three
items assessing frequency and quantity of alcohol consumption), symptoms of alcohol dependence (AUDIT-D; 3 items),
and hazardous consequences of drinking (AUDIT-H; four
items that assess the frequency of negative events). The validity and reliability of the AUDIT at specific cut-off scores has
been established with a score of 8+ considered hazardous
drinking.28
Aggressive and antisocial behaviours carried out by the
participants when intoxicated in the past 12 months, and participants reports of being the victim of aggressive and/or
antisocial behaviours due to someone else’s intoxication,
were assessed using questions taken from established measures of alcohol-related second-hand effects used in US
national university alcohol surveys.16,29 Participants were
asked whether they had in the past 12 months, ‘abused,
insulted, or humiliated someone’, ‘hit, pushed or assaulted
someone’, ‘damaged others property’, or ‘made an unwanted
sexual advance’ while intoxicated. Similarly, participants
were asked if they had been the victim of any of the harms
described above in the past 12 months as a result of another
persons intoxication. We also asked participants, ‘have you
been the vicitm of a sexual assault’ due to someone elses
intoxication in the past 12 months.
To reduce the chance of family-wise error in analyses, and
because the questions assessing abused/insult/humiliation,
and pushed/hit/assaulted, represent aggressive behaviour,
we collapsed the items and created two categoricals variables ‘displayed aggression’ and ‘received aggression’.
294
K.S. O’Brien et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 15 (2012) 292–297
Participants who reported humiliating and/or assulting someone while intoxicated where coded as a ‘yes’for having
‘displayed aggression’. Similarly, those reporting being
abused/humiliated/assulted by others where coded as a ‘yes’
for having ‘received aggression’.
Because of problems in gaining approval from sports
administrators to conduct research on alcohol and alcoholrelated aggression via their organisations, we were unable
to gain lists of sporting participants to survey in order to
achieve a theoretically representative sample. Instead, for
sampling we identified sporting venues/grounds where the
sports were played or practiced, and times when young sports
participants would be present. Participants were approached
at community and campus sports grounds (e.g., hockey, football), and non-sporting (e.g., campus food and study spaces)
venues. Upon arrival at data collection venues, researchers
approached the nearest sportsperson(s) and invited him/her
to participate in the study. Following acceptance or rejection of the invitation the data collector again approached
the nearest sportsperson(s) for participation, and so on. The
questionnaire took approximately 10 min to complete. The
Wollongong University human ethics committees reviewed
and granted approval for the study.
Twenty-four participants (2.3%) failed to provide complete data (e.g., response set identified, substantial data
missing from core scales), and abstainers did not respond
to alcohol-related harms questions, thus, differing n’s represent missing data for those participants. Because the AUDIT
does not ask for the specific number of units consumed, we
did not have a count of units that would allow comparison
with recommended drinking levels for the Australian population (e.g., NHMRC guidelines). However, as a crude guide
to heavy episodic drinking, and heavy episodic drinking frequency, AUDIT question 2 (How many drinks containing
alcohol do you drink on a typical day when you are drinking?) and question 3 (How often do you have 6 or more units
of alcohol on one occasion?) were examined individually.
Question 2 of the AUDIT has 5 possible responses: 1–2, 3–4,
5–6, 7–9, and 10 or more. As Question 3 of the AUDIT does
not have an equivalent response option within Question 2 (i.e.,
6 or more units of alcohol on one occasion), we erred on the
conservative side by using 7 or more standard drinks within
one session as a crude indicator of heavy episodic drinking.
The percentage of sport and non-sport participants meeting
this criterion was calculated. For establishing frequent heavy
episodic drinking we calculated the percentage of individuals who had 6 or more drinks on a weekly, or more frequent,
basis (Question 3). SPSS v.16 was used for analyses.
ANCOVA’s and hierarchical logistic regression models
were used to assess differences alcohol-related aggressive/antisocial behaviours. All regression models accounted
for age, gender, location and AUDIT-C scores in the first
step. We controlled for location effects (i.e., rural vs. urban
campuses) because they have been shown to influence drinking and harms via environmental factors.30 Sporting status
(non-sportspeople coded as 0 vs. sportspeople coded as
1) was entered in a second step. In follow-up logistic
regression analyses in sportspeople only, we added an additional variable, whether participants primarily play team or
individual sports. Because the AUDIT total score encompasses measures of negative consequences and dependence
(harms), we use AUDIT-C (alcohol consumption) subscale
scores for alcohol use in regression models. Pearson’s χ2
was used to test for simple differences in proportions.
3. Results
The proportion of alcohol abstainers (non-drinkers) was
similar for sportspeople and non-sportspeople (5.2% vs.
5.9%, p > .05), respectively. Sportspeople had significantly
higher AUDIT total scores than non-sportspeople after
accounting for confounds, with a mean (M) AUDIT total
score and standard deviation (SD) of 10.52, (SD = 6.67)
for sportspeople, and 9.46 (SD = 6.40) for non-sportspeople
(F(4,1022) = 1 1.88, p < .001). Significant gender differences
were found for mean AUDIT total score (males M = 11.60,
SD = 7.23, females M = 8.98, SD = 6.05; F(4,1022) = 39.80,
p < .0001). There was also a significant gender differences
for AUDIT-C subscale scores (males M = 6.43 SD = 2.91,
females M = 5.33, SD = 2.80; F(4,1022) = 37.13, p < .0001)
but not for sportspeople (M = 5.87 SD = 2.88) vs. nonsportspeople (M = 5.66 SD = 2.95, F(4,1022) = 2.62, p = .10).
Hazardous drinking (AUDIT-Total score of ≥8) was
more common in sportspeople (60.2%), and males (65.2%),
than non-sportspeople (55.5%, p < .05), and females (53.2%,
p < .05). Male sportspeople reported the highest rates of hazardous drinking followed by male non-sportspeople, with
female non-sportspeople and sportspeople and having similar rates (68.5%, 61.9%, 53.3%, and 53%, respectively). The
overall sample rates of heavy episodic drinking (7+ drinks in
single session) and frequent heavy episodic drinking (weekly
or more frequent binge drinking) were 38.3% and 31.5%
respectively. Greater rates of heavy episodic drinking were
reported by sportspeople than non-sportspeople (41.4% vs.
34.8%, p < .05), and males had higher rates than females
(48.8% vs. 27.5%, p < .05). Frequent heavy episodic drinking
was similar for sportspeople (29.3%) and non-sportspeople
(30.5%, p > .05), but males reported more frequent heavy
episodic drinking than females (36.6% vs. 24.8%, p < .05).
Table 1 displays the proportions of alcohol-related harms
reported by male and female university sportspeople and
non-sportspeople. Proportionally, male sportspeople reported
approximately 50% more incidents of aggressive behaviour
(hit, pushed someone) than non-sporting males. Male sportspeople also reported damaging others property at over twice
the rate of non-sporting males and unwanted sexual advances
were also approximately a third greater in male sportspeople. Table 1 also shows that a greater proportion of male
sportspeople reported being the victim of aggressive and
antisocial behaviour. Twice the proportion of male sportspeople reported being the victim of assaults (hit/pushed).
K.S. O’Brien et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 15 (2012) 292–297
295
Table 1
Percentage (count) of sportspeople and non-sportspeople reporting having caused and/or been victim of alcohol-related aggressive and/or antisocial behaviour
when intoxicated in past year.
Aggressive and antisocial behaviours
Sportspeople n = 614
% (count)
Non-sportspeople n = 350
% (count)
Males
Females
Total
Males
Females
Total
61.7 (184)
21.5 (64)
47.0 (140)
12.1 (36)
41.9 (132)
9.2 (29)
19.0 (60)
7.6 (24)
51.5 (316)
15.1 (93)
32.6 (200)
9.7 (60)
42.0 (102)
13.2 (32)
16.9 (41)
7.0 (17)
48.6 (52)
11.3 (12)
36.4 (39)
11.2 (12)
44.0 (154)
12.6 (44)
22.9 (80)
8.3 (29)
Received aggressive and/or antisocial behaviour
Was insulted/abused/humiliated
53.2 (159)
39.8 (119)
Was hit, pushed, assaulted
31.4 (94)
Property damaged by others
3.0 (9)
Was sexually assaulted
44.6 (141)
21.5 (68)
23.1 (73)
4.7 (15)
48.8 (300)
30.5 (187)
27.2 (167)
3.9 (24)
47.9 (116)
18.1 (44)
25.1 (61)
6.2 (15)
51.4 (55)
32.7 (35)
23.4 (25)
9.3 (10)
48.9 (171)
22.6 (79)
24.6 (86)
7.2 (25)
Did aggressive and/or antisocial behaviour
Insulted/abused/humiliated others
Hit, pushed, assaulted others
Damaged property of others
Made unwanted sexual advance
As a proportion, female sportspeople reported fewer aggressive and antisocial behaviours overall than the non-sporting
females. The proportion of male and female non-sportspeople
reporting sexual assaults was twice that of sporting males and
females.
Logistic regression models controlling for age, gender,
location, and AUDIT-C drinking scores were conducted for
the dependent variables ‘displayed aggression’ ‘damaged
property’ and ‘made unwanted sexual advance’. Identical
analyses were conducted for the variables where participants
reported being victims of aggression/antisocial behaviour.
Several of the confounders’ were significant predictors in the
regression models and justified their inclusion as controlled
variables in regression models predicting aggressive and antisocial behaviours. AUDIT-C score (alcohol consumption)
was a significant predictor variable in all outcome variables (higher AUDIT-C score associated with greater rates
of aggressive and antisocial behaviours; p < .001) with the
exception of being the victim of a sexual assault (p = .121).
Gender was a significant predictor in aggressive behaviour
(p < .001) and damaging others property (p < .005) with males
overall displaying higher rates than females, but not of other
aggressive and antisocial behaviours. Age had a significant positive relationship to unwanted sexual advances. That
is, the older the participant the greater the rate of making
unwanted sexual advances (p < .05). Sport type (team vs. individual) was not a significant predictor in regression models
(all p’s > .05).
Regression models found that sportspeople were significantly more likely than non-sportspeople to have displayed
aggression against others (i.e., insulted/assaulted someone;
OR 1.65, 95% CI: 1.19, 2.28, p < .005), and damaged others
property while intoxicated in the past year (OR 1.98, 95%
CI: 1.38, 2.84, p < .0005). Sportspeople were no more likely
than non-sportspeople to have been the victims of aggressive behaviours (OR 1.21, 95% CI: .90, 1.62, p = .20), or
to have had property damaged by intoxicated others (OR
1.10, 95% CI: .79, 1.53, p = .57). Sportspeople were also
no more likely than non-sportspeople to report having made
an unwanted sexual advance (OR 1.10, 95% CI: .65, 1.83,
p = .74). However, sportspeople were significantly less likely
to report having been the victim of a sexual assault (OR .44,
95% CI: .23, .83, p < .01).
Follow-up analyses controlling for age, AUDIT-C, location, and sport type (team vs. individual) were conducted to
assess gender differences in sportspeople. Male sportspeople
were more likely than female sportspeople to have displayed
aggression (OR 1.83, 95% CI: 1.27, 2.62, p < .001), and damaged others property (OR 3.03, 95% CI: 2.05, 4.47, p < .001).
Male sportspeople were also more likely than female sportspeople to report having been the victim of aggression from
others (i.e., been insulted/assaulted; OR 1.52, 95% CI: 1.09,
2.14, p = .015). There were no significant gender differences
in sportspeople for having property damaged by others (OR
1.39, 95% CI: .96, 2.01, p = .09), or being the victim of a
sexual assault (OR .58, 95% CI: .24, 1.38, p = .22). Male nonsportspeople were less likely than female non-sportspeople
to have damaged others property (OR .39, 95% CI: .23, .69,
p < .001). No other significant gender differences were found
for non-sportspeople.
In sport by gender analyses, male sportspeople reported
significantly higher rates of displaying aggressive behaviour,
and damaging others property than female non-sportspeople
(OR 2.67, 95% CI: 1.54, 4.61, p < .001, and OR 2.67, 95% CI:
1.54, 4.61, p < .001, respectively). Male sportspeople had significantly lower rates of being sexually assaulted than female
non-sportspeople (OR .23, 95% CI: .08, .64, p < .005). There
were no significant differences between female sportspeople
and male non-sportspeople.
4. Discussion
There is a paucity of empirical research on alcoholrelated aggression and antisocial behaviour in sportspeople,
and none from non-US university sporting samples.
The present exploratory study examined the extent
of alcohol-related aggression and anti-social behaviour
in a large sample of Australian university sportspeople and non-sportspeople. The results show that
296
K.S. O’Brien et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 15 (2012) 292–297
after adjusting for potential confounder’s (i.e., gender,
age, location), level of alcohol consumption, rates of
alcohol-related aggression and antisocial behaviour were
greater in sportspeople than non-sportspeople. Consistent
with US reports,16,24,25 the difference between sportspeople and non-sportspeople was qualified by the significantly
greater rate of aggressive and antisocial behaviours reported
in male sportspeople when intoxicated.
Unlike reports from the US, male sportspeople were no
more likely to report making unwanted sexual advances
or to report being the victim of alcohol-related aggression
or antisocial behaviour.16,19 Indeed, sportspeople reported
lower rates of being the victim of sexual assaults than nonsportspeople. Somewhat surprisingly, we found that female
non-sportspeople were more likely to report damaging other
peoples property than their male counterparts and female
sportspeople, however, these rates were still significantly
lower than male sportspeople.
The rates of aggressive and antisocial behaviour are concerning for the sample as a whole, but are particularly high in
male sportspeople. An Australian Bureau of Statistics report
found in a general population sample of young Australian
men aged 18–24 that 19% reported being physically assaulted
in the past year. Here, 40% of male sportspeople reported
being physically assaulted in alcohol-related incidents alone.
Because male student sportspeople are consistently found to
drink more hazardously,5,7,16 we controlled for alcohol consumption levels. And while drinking levels were a strong
predictor of aggressive and antisocial behaviours, being a
male sportsperson remained a significant predictor in the
models, suggesting other unexamined influences such as,
psychosocial, personality, or cultural factors likely play a part
in the increased rates of aggressive and antisocial behaviours
reported here.
Direct comparisons with US studies can not be made,
however, results from US studies using similar measures
in university sporting populations suggest that the rates
of aggressive and antisocial behaviour reported for male
sportspeople here, appear similar and in one case (damaged others property) greater than those from the US. For
example, here we found that approximately 41%, 47% and
12% of male sportspeople reported displaying aggression,
damaging others property, and making an unwanted sexual advance, respectively. Rates for the same behaviours
in a large national US study were 43%, 22%, and 12%,
respectively.16
A limitation of the present study is the lack of measures assessing the theoretical constructs thought to underpin
aggression and antisocial behaviour in sport (e.g., risk taking behaviour, masculinity, trait aggression/hostility). An
important factor not assessed here, or in other studies is
the severity of the aggression. Clearly, identifying whether
a greater level of physical violence and damage is meted out
by male sportspeople, who may be more physically capable
of causing serious harm, is important. Additionally, although
the study had a high response rate, the sample may not be
representative of the theoretical Australian university sporting or non-sporting population, as such, the present results
may not generalize. Only extensive and expensive nationally
representative surveys can address this, and none have been
conducted in Australia, New Zealand, or the UK.
5. Conclusion
The present study is the first in a non-US collegiate
sport sample. Rates of aggressive and antisocial behaviour
were particularly high in young male university sportspeople.
Research identifying the reasons for alcohol-related aggression and antisocial behaviour in male sportspeople is urgently
needed as are solutions.
6. Practical implications
• The study is the first outside of the US university samples
to examine alcohol related aggression.
• The study found that alcohol-related aggression and antisocial behaviour was higher in male sportspeople compared
to non-sportspeople.
• Sport researchers need to establish whether it is excessive
alcohol consumption, or cultural and psychosocial factors
(e.g., masculinity that underpin these differences).
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Melanie Kingsland and Bosco
Rowland for their helpful comments on the research. We
would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for
their help in improving the paper.
References
1. Rehm J, Mathers C, Povova S, et al. Global burden of disease and injury
and economic cost attributable to alcohol use and alcohol-use disorders.
Lancet 2009;373:2223–2233.
2. Gill JS. Reported levels of alcohol consumption and binge drinking
within the UK undergraduate student population over the last 25 years.
Alcohol Alcohol 2002;37:109–120.
3. Kypri K, Langley JD, McGee R, et al. High prevalence, persistent
hazardous drinking in New Zealand tertiary students. Alcohol Alcohol
2002;37:457–464.
4. Wechsler H, Lee JE, Kuo M, et al. Trends in college binge drinking
during a period of increased prevention efforts: findings from 4 Harvard
School of Public Health College Alcohol Study surveys: 1993–2001. J
Am Coll Health 2002;50:203–217.
5. O’Brien KS, Blackie J, Hunter JA. Hazardous drinking in elite New
Zealand sportspeople. Alcohol Alcohol 2005;40:239–241.
6. O’Brien KS, Ali A, Cotter J, et al. Hazardous drinking in New Zealand
sportspeople: level of sporting participation and drinking motives. Alcohol Alcohol 2007;42:376–382.
K.S. O’Brien et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 15 (2012) 292–297
7. O’Brien KS, Kolt G, Webber A, et al. Alcohol consumption in sport: the
influence of sporting idols, friends and normative drinking practices.
Drug Alcohol Rev 2010;29:676–683.
8. Nelson TF, Wechsler H. Alcohol and college athletes. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 2001;33:43–47.
9. Nutt DJ, King LA, Phillips LD. Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria
decision analysis. Lancet 2010;376:1558–1565.
10. Lorente FO, Peretti-Watel P, Griffet J, et al. Alcohol use and intoxication
in sport university students. Alcohol Alcohol 2003;38:427–430.
11. Hellandsjø Bu ET, Watten RG, Foxcroft DR, et al. Teenage alcohol and
intoxication debut: the impact of family socialization factors, living area
and participation in organized sports. Alcohol Alcohol 2002;37:74–80.
12. Peretti-Watel P, Guagliardo P, Verger P, et al. Sporting activity and drug
use: alcohol, cigarette and cannabis use among elite student athletes.
Addiction 2003;98:1249–1256.
13. Dietze PM, Fitzgerald JL, Jenkinson RA. Drinking by professional Australian Football League (AFL) players: prevalence and correlates of risk.
MJA 2008;189:479–483.
14. O’Brien KS, Miller PG, Kolt G, et al. Alcohol industry and non-alcohol
industry sponsorship of sportspeople and drinking. Alcohol Alcohol
2011;46:210–213.
15. O’Brien KS, Kypri K. Alcohol industry sponsorship of sport
and drinking levels in New Zealand sportspeople. Addiction
2008;103:1961–1966.
16. Leichliter JS, Meilman PW, Presely CA, et al. Alcohol use and related
consequences among students with varying levels of involvement in
college athletics. J Am Coll Health 1998;46:257–262.
17. Martens MP, Dams-O’Connor K, Duffy-Paiement C, et al. Perceived
alcohol use among friends and alcohol consumption among college
athletes. Psych Addict Behav 2006;20:178–184.
18. Martens MP, Cox RH, Beck NC. Negative consequences of intercollegiate athlete drinking: the role of drinking motives. J Stud Alcohol
2003;64:825–828.
19. Nattiv A, Puffer JC. Lifestyles and health risks of collegiate athletes. J
Fam Pract 1991;33:585–590.
297
20. El-Sayed MS, El-Sayed AZ. Interaction between alcohol and exercise: physiological and haematological implications. Sports Med
2005;35:257–269.
21. Barnes MJ, Mündel T, Stannard SR. Acute alcohol consumption aggravates the decline in muscle performance following strenuous eccentric
exercise. J Sci Med Sport 2010;13:189–193.
22. Barber BL, Eccles JS, Stone MR. Whatever happened to the jock, the
brain, and the princess? Young adult pathway linked to adolescent activity involvement and social identity. J Adolescent Res 2001;16:429–455.
23. Fields SK, Collins CL, Comstock RD. Violence in youth sports: hazing,
brawling and foul Play. Br J Sports Med 2010;44:32–37.
24. Adams-Curtis LE, Forbes GB. College womens experiences of sexual coercion: a review of cultural, perpetrator, victim, and situational
variables. Trauma Violen Abuse 2004;5:91–122.
25. Crosset TW, Benedict JR. Male student-athletes reported for sexual
assault: a survey of campus police departments and judicial affairs
offices. J Sport Soc Issues 1995;19:126–140.
26. Arnett J. The neglected 95%: why American psychology needs to
become less American. Am Psychol 2008;63:602–614.
27. Saunders JB, Aasland OG, Babor TF, et al. Development of
the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): World
Health Organisation Collaborative Project on Early Detection of
Persons with Harmful Alcohol Consumption-II. Addiction 1993;88:
791–804.
28. Conigrave KM, Saunders JB, Reznik RB. Predictive capacity
of the AUDIT questionnaire for alcohol-related harm. Addiction
1995;90:1479–1485.
29. Weitzman ER, Chen Y. Risk modifying effect of social capital on
measures of heavy alcohol consumption, alcohol abuse, harms, and
secondhand effects: national survey findings. J Epidemiol Community
Health 2005;59:303–309.
30. Weitzman ER, Folkman A, Lemieux-Folkman K, et al. The relationship
of alcohol outlet density to heavy and frequent drinking and drinkingrelated problems among college students at eight universities. Health
Place 2003;9:1–6.