The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of modeling influences upon social drinking behavior. Male college students classified as heavy social drinkers (N = 48) were assigned to one of six groups in a 3 X 2 factorial design. The first factor consisted of three modeling conditions: exposure to a model who was a "heavy" consumer of alcohol; a "light" drinking model; and a. no-model control condition. For the second factor, subjects engaged in a brief prior social interaction with the model who played a role that was either warm or cold in emotional quality. Modeling effects were then assessed in a laboratory wine-tasting task in which the subject and the model participated together. Subjects exposed to the heavy drinking model drank significantly more alcohol than subjects in the low-consumption model and nomodel conditions, which did not differ from each other. The prior interaction conditions did not affect drinking behavior. The results are discussed within a theoretical framework that emphasizes the social learning determinants of drinking behavior.

Objective: The potential effectiveness of two group-administered social-skills training interventions for reducing high-risk drinking behavior was evaluated through a prospective randomized intervention trial with 3,406 members of a national college fraternity. Method: Ninety eight of 99 chapters of a national fraternity were randomly assigned, within three strata, to receive (1) a 3-hour baseline intervention, (2) the same baseline intervention plus two booster sessions, or (3) assessments only. The current article emphasizes a rigorous intent-to-treat analysis model that compares outcomes among members assigned to receive study interventions (vs assessment-only sites) regardless of whether they actually did receive them; it also includes individuals at intervention sites even if they did not participate. This model allows us to address a social policy issue regarding the effect that introducing such an intervention may have in changing the high-risk normative drink-

This survey, with its 85% response rate, provides an extensive profile of drinking behaviors and predictors of drinking among 3,406 members of one national college fraternity, distributed across 98 chapters in 32 states. Multiple indexes of alcohol consumption measured frequency, quantity, estimated blood alcohol concentration levels (BACs), and related problems. Among all members, 97% were drinkers, 86% binge drinkers, and 64% frequent binge drinkers. On the basis of self-reports concerning the 4 weeks preceding the time of survey, the authors found that members drank on an average of 10.5 days and consumed an average of 81 drinks. Drinkers had an average BAC of 0.10, reaching at least 0.08 on an average of 6 days. These fraternity members appear to be heavier drinkers than previously studied fraternity samples, perhaps because they were more representative and forthright. All 6 preselected demographic attributes of members and 2 chapter characteristics were significantly related to the drinking behaviors and levels of risk, identifying possible targets for preventive interventions.

No abstract

This study was designed to profile drinkers who serve as designated drivers (DDs) and to determine if drinkers who are at risk for driving while intoxicated (DWI) serve as DDs. Bivariate and logistic regression analyses on data from 1,393 computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATIs) and 913 bar-room surveys showed that DDs, relative to non-DDs, tend to be at-risk, heavier drinkers. Logistic regression using CATI data showed that DDs were more often heavy drinkers and reported higher levels of driving after drinking and riding with intoxicated drivers (RID). Logistic regression using bar-room data showed that DDs reported more driving after drinking, in spite of drinking less often outside the home. DDs were also much more likely to have used a DD. These findings are consistent with those from several related studies that showed that drinkers who used DDs or free safe (taxi) rides tended to be heavier drinkers who reported more DWI and RID (B. D. Caudill, W. M. Harding, & B. Moore, in press-a, in press-b). Future research may benefit from examining why at-risk drinkers take steps to avoid DWI on some occasions but not others.