Sexual Orientation and Alcohol Use Among College Students: The Influence of Drinking Motives and Social Norms

Jana L. Jasinski and Jason A. Ford Department of Sociology University of Central Florida

Abstract Evidence indicates GLB individuals may be at greater risk for high rates of alcohol consumption; however, few studies have identified specific factors explaining why differences exist. Using data from the 2001 College Alcohol Study, we examined the ability of drinking motives and social norms to explain the relationship between sexual orientation and binge drinking among over 7,000 students. Findings suggest drinking motives and norms are important for all college students and may be more relevant than demographic characteristics such as sexual orientation. Prevention efforts focused on motivations for drinking, therefore, may be effective for all students regardless of sexual orientation. Key Words: Alcohol Use, Sexual Orientation, Drinking Motives, Social Norms

63

64

SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND ALCOHOL USE AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

INTRODUCTION
ollege students are one of the groups at greatest risk for substance use, partic;ularly alcohol misuse. In fact, college students have higher rates of alcohol use and binge drinking than their same-age peers who do not attend college (Gfroerer et al., 1997; Johnston et al., 2006; Paschall & Flewelling, 2002; Slutske et al., 2004). Much of the literature on substance use among college students focuses primarily on binge drinking and as a result many social, psychological and demographic risk factors for this behavior have been identified and are fairly well understood. What is not as clear, however, is whether the conclusions drawn from studies of college students, as a whole, can also be applied to gay, lesbian, and^ bisexual (GLB) students. This is particularly troubling as evidence fi-om several studies indicates that GLB individuals may be at greater risk for high rates of alcohol consumption (Mosbacher, 1993; Diamant et al., 2000; Russell et al., 2002). Moreover, there is growing consensus that rates of binge drinking are higher among lesbians than heterosexual women (Burgard et al., 2005; Hughes & Eliason, 2002) and that bisexual women may be at greater risk for binge drinking (Eisenberg & Wechsler, 2003 a; Eisenberg & Wechsler, 2003b; Trocki et al., 2005). Among men there is less consensus with some researchers finding no sexual orientation differences in binge drinking (Drabble et al, 2005) and others reaching the opposite conclusions (Eisenberg & Wechsler, 2003a). Although the literature is not extensive, emerging research suggests that risk factors for substance use among college students as a whole, may not work in the same manner with GLB college students (Ford & Jasinski, 2006). This suggests that current models developed to explain binge drinking among college students work for heterosexual students, as they makeup the overwhelming majority of students, but may not explain alcohol misuse by GLB students as well. Consequently, prevention programming based on heterosexual models for alcohol use may not be as effective for the GLB population. The current study examines the ability of drinking motives and social norms, two well established predictors of college student binge drinking, to explain the relationship between sexual orientation and binge drinking.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND ALCOHOL USE AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

65

Drinking Motives A number of different types of motivation have been identified as important predictors of binge drinking including coping, conforming, enhancement, and drinking for social reasons (Cooper, 1994). These motives are related to some form of positive or negative reinforcement gained by using alcohol. Furthermore, research indicates that different drinking motives lead to unique patterns of drinking and consequences of use. Drinking to deal with depression or anxiety or using alcohol to regulate negative emotions, is an example of using alcohol to cope (Cooper et al., 1995). Students who drink alcoliol for coping reasons tend to be frequent users, often drink alone, and are more likely to binge drink (Cooper, 1994; Cooper et al., 1995; Williams and Clark, 1998). Second, drinking to conform to the expectations of the social group is also a form of negative reinforcement. It is the fear of being rejected by peers and becoming socially isolated that motivates them to driri; (Cooper, 1994). Individuals who drink in order to confonn are typically not frequent or heavy drinkers (Cooper, 1994). The third motive is enhancement, which is related to positive reinforcement and occurs when individuals use alcohol to enhance their positive mood or well-being (Cooper, 1994). Students who drink in order to enhance a good time report higher quantities of alcohol consumption than students who endorse coping or conforming motives, and are also more likely to report binge drinking (Cooper et al, 1995; Reid et al., 2003; WiUiams and Cllark, 1998). The final motive is drinking for social reasons, which is also related to positive reinforcement (Cooper, 1994). Social drinkers are more comparable to enhancement drinkers than to copers or conformers and thus are likely to be heavy drinkers (Cooper, 1994). Although evidence now exists that motivational models of drinking such as that proposed by Cooper (1994) do work for college students (e.g. Mohr et. al, 2005; Lecci et. al., 2002) much of the research looking specifically at motivations for alcohol consumption does not consider whether motive,? differ based on sexual orientation. It has been hypothesized, that GLB individuals experience more stress and perhaps would be more likely to drink for coping reasons (Drabble et al, 2005; Hughes & Eliason, 2002). In addition, GLB individuals face the added pressure of being a member of a stigmatized group and are more likely to be at risk for harassment. GLB individuals may be at greater risk for using

66

SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND ALCOHOL USE AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

substances such as drugs and alcohol as they may be used to regulate the effects of depression or other emotional disturbances resulting perhaps from harassment and discriminatory treatment (Clifford, et al, 1991; Deykin, Levy & Wells, 1997). However, there is some evidence that stress levels are not significantly different among homosexuals compared to their heterosexual counterparts, but rather alcohol use may be perceived as a more appropriate mechanism for dealing with stress (DeBord, et al., 1998). At the same time greater levels of social drinking have also been hypothesized as one explanation of high rates of alcohol related problems among lesbian and bisexual women (Drabble, et al., 2005). We might expect than, greater endorsement of enhancement motives by lesbian and bisexual women. Social Norms Social norms are also an important factor influencing binge drinking among college students. At the heart of the social norms approach is the notion that group norms regulate and control behavior. For example, college students who believe that binge drinking is a normative part of the college lifestyle, may find it acceptable to drink at increased quantities and frequencies in order to conform to the norms of the group (Arata et al., 2003; Borsari and Cary, 2001; Carter and Kahnweiler, 2000; Thombs et al., 1997). Failure to confonn to group norms, by not using alcohol, may result in rejection by peers and social isolation. Peers are perhaps the most important social reference group in the college environment (Perkins, 1997) and peer norms are a very strong predictor of alcohol use (Clapp and McDonnell, 2000; Nagoshi, 1999; Page et al., 1999; Perkins and Wechsler, 1996). In addition, perceived alcohol use of close friends is more important than use by other students (Beck and Treiman; 1996; Borsari and Carey, 2001; Oulette, 1999). Peer influence is also especially significant for highly integrated groups, college students who report excessive exposure to peers, more close friends and more time spent socializing with peers have higher levels of drinking (Wechsler et al., 1995a). Furthermore, research shows that college students in "peer-intensive" environments are more likely to be influenced by group norms, as individuals feel greater pressure to conform to group expectations of behavior (Perkins, 2002). When alcohol use is normative for the social group, individuals may feel compelled to use in order to avoid negative sanctions by other group members.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND ALCOHOL USE AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

67

Although there is little research that considers the impact of norms on drinking behaviors of GLB individuals some research suggests that the drinking contexts of gay and lesbian communities may provide an environment where drinking is encouraged (Orenstein, 2001; Eisenberg & Wechsler, 2003a). Researchers considering the relevance of drinking context to explain drinking behavior, however, argue that contexts such as parties and bars may serve as entry points to the GLB community but may not be associated with heavy drinking (Trocki, et al., 2005). In addition, although characteristics of students who tend to misperceive and overestimate social drinking norms are knovra, they do not include sexual orientation and most researchers do not investigate whether social norms differ by sexual orientation (Borsari and Carey, 2001; Nagoshi, Wood, Cote, and Abbit, 1994; Weitzman et al., 2003). Limitations of previous research Although the body of empirical literature considering sexual orientation as a potential risk or protective factor for alcohol use is increasing, there are a number of issues yet to be resolved. Much of the research, for example, relies on samples of gay and lesbian individuals that may differ markedly from the general population of homosexuals (Hughes & Eliason, 2002). In addition, few researchers examine the role of risk and protective factors separately by sexual orientation; rather sexual orientation is ofi;en only included as an independent variable. Finally, bisexuals are often grouped together with lesbians or gay men depending on their sex (Hughes & Eliason, 2002). All of these issues make comparisons with research on the heterosexual population difficult. The current study addresses many of these issues by using a national sample of college students with enough diversity to consider gay, lesbian and bisexual students as separate and distinct groups. The goal of this study is to better understand the established relationship between sexual orientation and binge drinking. To this end, we examine two known predictors of binge drinking among college students, drinking motives and social norms, to determine if they explain the relationship between sexual orientation and binge drinking.

68

SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND ALCOHOL USE AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

METHODS
The data for this study, the Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study (CAS), examines alcohol and other health risk behaviors of college students in the United States (Wechsler, 2005). The initial wave of data, 1993, used a nested random sampling design to survey students at 195 four-year colleges/ universities. Administrators at each of the participating schools provided a random sample of 215 students to the researchers, who then mailed a 20-page self-administered questionnaire to the students. Using the same sample of schools, researchers completed follow up surveys in 1997, 1999, and 2001. For additional infonnation on the sampling design and data collection of the CAS, see the work of Henry Wechsler and colleagues (Wechsler et al., 2002; Wechsler et al., 1994). The current study uses data from the 2001 survey, the most current wave available to the public, which contains infonnation on nearly 11,000 students at 119 colleges/universities. There were three major reasons why schools no longer participated in the study: did not provide a random sample of students in a timely manner, response rate was low, or the school chose too no longer participate in the study (Eisenberg & Wechsler, 2003). The final sample for the 2001 CAS is representative of students enrolled full-time at four-year colleges/universities in the U.S. The sample includes students from private and public schools; non-religiously and religiously afliliated schools; large, medium, and small schools; and schools located in urban, suburban, and rural settings. The CAS also samples students' at all female schools and historically black institutions. The independent variable of interest for this study is sexual orientation. Past research suggests that sexual orientation is best conceptualized as a combination of sexual identity, sexual attraction, and sexual behavior (see Hughes & Eliason, 2002). The CAS only measures sexual behavior, so we are somewhat limited in our operationalization of sexual orientation. Sexually active respondents are asked whom they have been sexually active with in their lifetime...only opposite sex partner (heterosexual), only same sex partner (homosexual), or both opposite and same sex partner (bisexual). Our ability to separate bisexuals from homosexuals is an important addition, as researchers often combine these distinct groups (Hughes and Eliason, 2002).

SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND ALCOHOL USE AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

69

The dependent variable, alcohol misuse, is operationalized as binge drinking and is measured as a dichotomous variable (no = 0, yes =1). The CAS defines a male as a binge drinker if he had "five or more drinks in a row in the past two weeks" and a female is a binge drinker if she had "four or more drinks in a row in the past two weeks" (Wechsler et al. 1995b). According to the CAS, one drink equals one 12oz can/bottle of beer, a 4oz glass of wine, a 12oz wine cooler, or a 1.25oz shot of liquor (Wechsler et al. 1995b). A set of measures assessing respondent's drinking motives are also included in the analysis. Students' are asked how important the following reasons or motives for drinking are to them: to get away from problems/troubles, to relax or relieve tension, to get drunk, to have a good time with friends, there is nothing else to do, to celebrate, to help get work done, like the taste, as a reward for working hard, to fit in with friends, to feel more comfortable with the opposite sex, everyone else is drinking, and because it's cheap. These measures are coded as dichotomous variables (0 = not important at all, 1 = somewhat important, important, or very important). A set of measures related to social norms regarding alcohol use and binge drinking are also included in the analysis. Students are asked v/hether parties are an important part of college (1 = not = important to 4 = very important). Another question asks students = if they believe the legal drinking age should be lowered (0 = no, 1 = yes). Two items measure norms regarding the use of alcohol by other students. Respondents are asked what is the maximum number of drinks it is safe to consume for a male and a female (1 = none to 10 = 10 drinks). The students' are also asked about their relationship with friends, how many close friends do you have (0 = none to 5 = 5 or more) and how many hours per day do you spend socializing with peers (0 = 0 hours to 5 = 5 or more hours). Students' are also asked about whether or not their parent s drink (0 = no, 1 = yes) and how their family feels about alcohol use (1 = does not approve, 2 = accept light drinking, 3 = accept heavy drinking). Finally, two measures assess the normative approval of alcohol use among students they go to school with. Do students' approve of someone having 6 drinks at a party and do students' approve of playing drinking games (1 = strongly disapprove to 5 strongly approve). All of the social norms measures are coded

70

SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND ALCOHOL USE AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

S that a higher score refiects an attitude or behavior more acceptO able of alcohol use. Several controls, measured as dichotomous variables, are included in the multivariate models: gender (male =1), race (white = 1), Hispanic ethnicity (yes =1), age (younger than 24-years-old = 1), marital status (never married =1), living arrangement (off campus =1),fi*atemity/sororitymember (yes = 1), intercollegiate athlete (yes = 1), grade point average (B+ or better = 1), and binge drinker in high school (yes =1). These variables and their coding scheme are commonly used when predicting college student substance use among, particularly by researchers using the CAS (Eisenberg & Wechsler, 2003a; Gledhill-Hoyt et al., 2000). Analytic Strategy Data analyses are condu(;ted in two stages. First, a chi-square test examines the bivariat(j relationship between binge drinking and sexual orientation. Based on findings from previous research we expect bisexuals to report the highest prevalence of binge drinking and homosexuals to report the lowest prevalence. Second, a series of logistic regression models are estimated to further examine the relationship between binge drinking and sexual orientation. In these models, our independent variable of interest, sexual orientation, is entered as a categorical predictor with heterosexual respondents as the reference category. The first, or baseline, model includes our independent variable of interest and several controls for binge drinking. We expect homosexuals to be less likely to report binge drinking than heterosexuals, and bisexuals to be more likely to report binge drinking than heterosexuals. In the second model, we add the drinking motives measures to the baseline model, in order to detennine if these measures mediate the relationship between binge drinking and sexual orientation. In the third model, we add a number of measures of social norms to the baseline model, in order to determine if these measures mediate the relationship between binge drinking and sexual orientation. We can state that the drinking motives and/or social norms measures mediate the relationship between binge drinking and sexual orientation if the regression coefficients for sexual orientation are substantially reduced or become non-significant in models 2 and 3. Based on prior research that indicates significant gender differences in the relationship between binge drinking and

SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND ALCOHOL USE AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

71

sexual orientation, analyses are conducted for males and females separately. FINDINGS Descriptive statistics for all variables are shown in Table 1. The sample is primarily white, male, and under the age of 24. For the dependent variable, binge drinking, 43% of the total sample reports binge drinking, and males (48%) report higher rates of binge drinking than females (41%). For the total sample 91.6% of all respondents are classified as heterosexual, compared to 3.9% homosexual and 4.4% bisexual. For female respondents, 90.8% report heterosexual behavior, 3.6% report homosexual behavior, and 5.5% report bisexual behavior. For male respondents, 93.1% report heterosexual behavior, 4.5% report homosexual behavior, and 2.4% report bisexual behavior. The first step in the data analysis is a chi-square test that examines the relationship between binge drinking and sexual orientation. In the total sample (59%) and among females only (60.1%), bisexuals report the highest prevalence of binge drinking. For male students only, heterosexuals report the highest prevalence of binge drinking (58%). These findings are similar to other research on this topic. It is worth noting that in all three chi-square tests, homosexuals report the lowest prevalence of binge drinking. The findings for Model 1, the baseline logistic regression model, are shown in Table 3. In the model with the total sample, homosexuals (O.R. = 0.72) are less likely and bisexuals (O.R. = 1.55) are more likely to report binge drinking than heterosexuals. When this baseline model is estimated separately for males and females it is evident that gender is an important determinant in the relationship between sexual orientation and binge drinking. While female and male homosexuals are less likely to report binge drinking than heterosexuals, the relationship is only statistically significant for males (O.R. = .046). For bisexuals, while female and male bisexuals are more likely to report binge drinking than heterosexuals, the relationship is only statistically significant for females (O.R. = 1.62). The next step in the data analysis process is to add a set of drinking motives predictors to the baseline model, to determine if drinking motives mediate the relationship between sexual ori-

72

SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND ALCOHOL USE AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics

Measure Sexual Urientation Heterosexual Homosexual Bisexual Binge Drinking Controls Gender White Hispanic Under 24 Never Married Live Off Campus Fraternity/Sorority Athlete GPA B+ or better Binge in High School Motives Problems/Troubles Relieve Tension Get Drunk Good Time Friends Nothing Else To Do Celebrate Help Get Work Done Like the Taste Reward Hard Work Fit In With Friends Comfortable Opposite Sex Everyone Else Drinks It's Cheap Normative Parties Important Lower Drinking Age # Drinks Safe Male # Drinks Safe Female Close Friends Socialize with Friends Parents Drink Family Attitude Alcohol Approve 6 Drinks Approve Drinking Game All (N=7,659) 91.6% 3.9% 4.4% 0.43 (0.50) 0.36 (0.48) 0.74 (0.44) 0.08 (0.27) 0.87 (0.34) 0.92 (0.28) 0.58 (0.49) 0.12 (0.33) 0.14(0.35) 0.57 (0.50) 0.26 (0.44) 0.31 (0.46) 0.75 (0.44) 0.47 (0.50) 0.83 (0.38) 0.29 (0.45) 0.85 (0.35) 0.05(0.21) 0.68 (0.47) 0.50 (0.50) 0.21 (0.41) 0.29 (0.45) 0.34 (0.47) 0.18(0.38) 2.07 (0.90) 0.55 (0.50) 4,53 (2.35) 3.26(1.70) 3.66(1.55) 2.67(1.51) 0.60 (0.49) 1.70(0.55) 2.60(0.71) 2.67 (0.65) Females (N=4,9n9) 90.8% 3.6% 5.5% 0.41 (0.49) 0.74 (0.44) 0.08 (0.27) 0.88 (0.33) 0.91 (0.28) 0.57 (0.50) 0.12(0.33) 0.11(0.31) 0.60 (0.49) 0.25 (0.43) 0.30 (0.46) 0.73 (0.45) 0.43 (0.49) 0.81 (0.39) 0.26 (0.44) 0.85 (0.36) 0.03(0.18) 0.67 (0.47) 0.47 (0.50) 0.18(0.39) 0.23 (0.42) 0.31 (0.46) 0.14(0.35) 2.01 (0.88) 0.53 (0.50) 4.33(2.21) 3.18(1.64) 3.63(1.53) 2.65(1.51) 0.62 (0.49) 1.71 (0.55) 2.58 (0.72) 2.67 (0.64) Males (N=2,750) 93.1% 4.5% 2.4% 0.48 (0.50) 0.75 (0.44) 0.08 (0.27) 0.85 (0.36) 0.92 (0.27) 0.59 (0.49) 0.14(0.33) 0.20 (0.40) 0.52 (0.50) 0.27 (0.44) 0.32 0.78 0.54 0.86 0.33 0.86 0.08 0.71 0.56 0.27 0.40 0.39 0.23 (0.47) (0.42) (0.500) (0.34) (0.47) (0.35) (0.26) (0.45) (0.50) (0.44) (0.49) (0.49) (0.42)

2.17(0.93) 0.59 (0.49) 4.87 (2.56) 3.39(1.80) 3.71 (1.58) 2.70(1.51) 0.58 (0.49) 1.67(0.60) 2.64 (0.68) 2.66 (0.67)

Mean and standard deviation are reported for all variables, except sexual orientation.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND ALCOHOL USE AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

73

Table 2: Associations Between Binge Drinking and Sexual Orientation

Heterosexual Total Sample Females Males 51.3% 47.4% 58.0% Homosexual 38.0% 39.7% 35.8% Bisexual Chi-square 28.621*** 21.113*** 23.732***

CA f\Q/ 59.0% 60.1%

54.5%

Proportion of respondents who reported binge drinking is shown in the table (***/7<.OOl).

Table 3: Logistic Regression Model 1 Predicting Binge Drinking (Controts)a

Total Sample B Homosexual'' BisexuaP Controls Male White Hispanic Age (under 24) Never Married Live Off Campus Greek Affiliation Athlete B+ or better Binge Drink in High School Model Chi-Square -2 Log Likelihood R-Square -0.32* 0.44** 0.22*** 0.89*** 0.30* 0.34*** 1.39*** 0.04 0.72*** 0.32*** -0.14** 1.45*** O.R. 0.72 1.55 1.25 2.43 1.35 1.41 3.93 1.04 2.05 1.37 0.87 4.27 Females B -0.05 0.48** O.R. 0.95 1.62 Males
ICD

O.R. 0.46 1.31

-0.77** 0.271

1.11*** 0.44** 0.15 1.42*** -0.01 0.60*** 0.22* -0.24*** 1.36*** 941.75*** 5440.98 0.25

3.04 1.55 1.16 4.12 0.99 1.82 1.24 0.79 3.87

0.52*** 0.04 0.60*** 1.36*** 0.09 0.94*** 0.39** 0.01

1.68 1.05 1.82 3.89 1.09 2.55 1.48 1.01

1493.97*** 8155.85 0.26

1.65*** 5.19 566.46*** 2678.43 0.27

a - Unstandardized regression coefficients and odds ratios are shown in table, b - Heterosexuals are the comparison group for homosexuals and bisexuals. *p<.01, ***p<.001)

74

SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND ALCOHOL USE AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

entation and binge drinking. The findings for Model 2 are shown in Table 4. For the total sample, there are no longer significant differences in binge drinking based on sexual orientation. Thus, we can conclude that drinking motives successfully mediates the relationship between binge drinking and sexual orientation. Several of the drinking motives variables are significantly associated with binge drinking, and the drinking motive with the largest odds ratio (O.R. = 2.60) is drink to get drunk. The drinking motives variables also mediate the relationship between sexual orientation and binge drinking for females, as female bisexuals are no longer significantly more likely to report binge drinking than heterosexuals. As with the total sample several drinking motives are significantly associated with binge drinking for females, and the motive with the largest odds ratio (O.R. = 2.64) is drink to get drunk. The drinking motives variables did not completely mediate the relationship b^etween sexual orientation and binge drinking for male homosexuals, as the coefficient for male homosexuals remains significant. The final step in the data analysis process is to enter a set of social norms predictors to the baseline model. Once again the goal is to determine if the social norms variables mediate the relationship between sexual orientation and binge drinking. In the model with the total sample, the social norms predictors mediate the relationship between binge drinking and sexual orientation for homosexuals but not for bisexuals. There is no longer a significant difference in binge drinking between homosexuals and heterosexuals, but the significant difference between bisexuals and heterosexuals remains. Several of the social norms predictors are significantly associated with binge drinking, believing that parties are an important part of the college lifestyle has the largest odds ratio (O.R. = 2.17). For females, a significant difference in binge drinking between bisexuals and heterosexuals remains, although the unstandardized regression coefficient is slightly reduced. For males, the social norms predictors successfully mediate the relationship between sexual orientation and binge drinking. There is no longer a significant difference in binge drinking between homosexual and heterosexual males in this model. Several of the social norms measures are significant predictors of binge drinking, and the belief that parties are an important part of the college lifestyle had the largest odds ratio (O.R. = 2.13).

SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND ALCOHOL USE AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

75

Table 4: Logistic Regression Model 2 Predicting Binge Drinking (Drinking Motlvesja

Total Sample B Homosexual'' Bisexual'' Controls Male White Hispanic Age (under 24) Never Married Live Off Campus Greek Affiliation Athlete B+ or better Binge Drink in High School Motives Problems/Troubles Relieve Tension Get Drunk Good Time with Notnmg Else to Do To Celebrate Help Get Work Like the Taste Reward for Hard Fit In with Friends Comfortable Opposite Sex Everyone Else Drinljs It s Cheap Model Chi-Square -2 Log Likelihood R-Square -0.27 0.21 0.08 0.66*** 0.27 0.05 0.62*** 0.04 0.53*** 0.33** -0.12 0.86*** O.R. 0.76 1.23 1.08 1.93 1.31 1.05 1.86 1.04 1.70 1.39 0.89 2.36 B -0.09 0.270 Females O.R. 0.91 1.31 B -0.61* 0.04 Males O.R. 0.54 1.04

0.79*** 0.36* -0.15 0.62*** 0.01 0.42*** 0.23 -0.24** 0.83***

2.20 1.43 0.86 1.85 1.00 1.53 1.25 0.79 2.28

0.46** 0.11 0.31 0.69** 0.09 0.77*** 0.45** 0.10 0.93***

1.58 1.12 1.36 1.99 1.10 2.17 1.56 1.11 2.53

-0.03 0.19* 0.95*** 0.68*** 0.47*** 0.46*** 0.22 0.42*** 0.58*** -0.47*** 0.40*** 0.04 0.48*** 2232.23** 6138.30 0.41

0.97 1.20 2.60 1.97 1.60 1.59 1.25 1.52 1.79 0.63 1.49 1.04 1.62

0.03 0.15 0.97*** 0.70*** 0.47*** 0.48** 0.30 0.43*** 0.57*** -0.36** 0.22* 0.05 0.49***

1.03 1.16 2.64 2.02 1.60 1.61 1.35 1.54 1.77 0.70 1.25 1.05 1.64

-0.12 0.25 0.94*** 0.68** 0.47** 0.41* 0.10 0.38** 0.62*** -0.61*** 0.60*** 0.01 0.49** 763.93**' 1913.52 0.43

0.88 1.29 2.55 1.97 1.63 1.51 1.10 1.47 1.87 0.54 1.82 1.01 1.63

1456.36* ** 4195.76 0.40

a - Unstandardized regression coefficients and odds ratios are shown in table, b - Heterosexuals are the comparison group for homosexuals and bisexuals. (*p<.05, **p<.Ol, ***p<.O(n)

76

SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND ALCOHOL USE AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

Table 5: Logistic Regression Model 3 Predicting Binge Drinking (Social Norms)"

Total Samiple B Homosexual'' Bisexual'' Controls Male White Hispanic Age (under 24) Never Married Live Off Campus Greek Affiliation Athlete B+ or better Binge Drink in High School Norms Parties Important Lower Drinking
Agg
A

Females B 0.19 0.42* O.R. 1.21 1.52 B -0.51 0.10

Males O.R. 0.60 1.11

0 ^ 0.94 1.42 1.01 1.82 1.23 0.70 1.85 1.42 1.53 1.19 0.91 2.74 2.17 1.47 1.19 1.17 1.09 1.13 1.03 1.13 1.09 1.18

-0.07 0.35* 0.01 0.60*** 0.21 -0.36** 0.62*** 0.35*** 0.42*** 0.17 -0.10 1.01*** 0.77*** 0.39*** 0.17*** 0.16*** 0.08*** 0.12*** 0.03 0.12 0.09 0.16* 2514.69*** 6080.30 0.45

0.86*** 0.33 -0.60*** 0.65*** 0.34*** 0.35** -0.01 -0.25** 0.91*** 0.79*** 0.47*** 0.10* 0.28*** 0.09** 0.13*** -0.02 0.15 0.09 0.03 1631.68*** 4008.49 0.44

2.36 1.39 0.55 1.92 1.41 1.42 0.99 0.78 2.48 2.21 1.60 1.10 1.33 1.09 1.14 0.98 1.16 1.10 1.03

0.22 -0.00 -0.07 0.68** 0.35** 0.58** 0.33* 0.15 1.19*** 0.75*** 0.26* 0.26*** -0.00 0.06 0.11** 0.13 0.03 0.11 0.38** 921.91*** 2012.32 0.47

1.25 0.99 0.94 1.97 1.42 1.78 1.39 1.16 3.27 2.13 1.30 1.30 0.99 1.06 1.12 1.14 1.03 1.12 1.47

na

# Safe Drinks for # Safe Drinks for Female # Close Friends Socialize with Eriends Family Alcohol Parent''! Drink Approve of 6 Drinks Approve of Drinking Games Model Cbi-Square -2 Log Likelihood R-Square

a - Unstandardized regression coeificients and odds ratios are shown in table, b - Heterosexuals are the comparison group for homosexuals and bisexuals.
(*p<.05, **p<.Ol, ***p<.OOl)

SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND ALCOHOL USE AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

77

DISCUSSION
Findings fi-om the baseline regression model clearly indicate that there are significant differences in the relationship between sexual orientation and binge drinking. Homosexuals are significantly less likely to binge drink than heterosexuals, while bisexuals are significantly more likely to binge drink than heterosexuals. Moreover, it is clear that the relationship between sexual orientation and binge drinking is gender specific. Female bisexuals are significantly more likely to report binge drinking than heterosexuals, while male homosexuals are significantly less likely to report binge drinking than heterosexuals. These findings are similar to research examining differences in binge drinking based on sexual orientation. The main goal of the current research is to explain the relationship between sexual orientation and binge drinking. For females, the findings indicate that bisexuals are more likely to binge drink than heterosexuals because they utilize drinking motives that lead to binge drinking. For males, the findings indicate that homosexuals are less likely to binge drink than heterosexuals because they are less likely to endorse norms that are permissive of binge drinking. Although the current study contributes significantly to the literature on alcohol use and sexual orientation one significant limitation was that we were required to use sexual behavior as a proxy measure for sexual orientation. Prior research (Solarz, 1999) suggests that in addition to sexual behavior, sexual attraction and sexual identity are also important elements of sexual orientation. This strategy also forced us to exclude respondents who had reported no sexual activity in their lifetime from our analysis, because we could not classify them as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. The literature suggests that drinking to cope might be more prominent among GLB individuals as a result of experiencing more stress (Drabble et al, 2005; Hughes & Eliason, 2002) however, the current study suggested otherwise. Drinking to cope motives did not significantly predict binge drinking. In contrast, drinking motives and norms previously identified as important predictors for college student drinking in general emerged here as predictors for GLB students as well. This suggests that prevention efforts focused on motivations for drinking may be effective for all students regardless of sexual orientation. Moreover,

78

SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND ALCOHOL USE AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

our results also suggest that understanding the motives behind heavy drinking may be more important than sexual orientation and that efforts should be made to reduce heavy drinking across all populations of college students. There is a growing body of literature considering sexual orientation and its association with heavy and binge drinking, however, the majority of this work has only considered the existence of differences rather than explanations of these differences. The current study has expanded that literature by considering whether drinking motives and social norms mediate sexual orientation differences in heavy drinking behavior. The findings suggest that drinking motives and norms are important for all college students and that these factors may be more relevant than demographic characteristics such as sexual orientation. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Jana L. Jasinski, Ph.D., Department of Sociology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816-1360; Tel: (407)8236568; email: jjasinsk@mail.ucf edu.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND ALCOHOL USE AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

79

REFERENCES
Arata, CM., Stafford, J., Tims, M.S. (2003). High school drinking and its consequences. Adolescence, 38:567-579. Borsari, B., Carey, K.B. (2001). Peer influences on college drinking: A review of the research. Journal of Substance Abuse, 13:391-424. Burgard, S.A., Cochran, S.D., Mays, V.M. (2005). Alcohol and tobacco use patterns among heterosexually and homosexually experienced California women. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 77:61-70. Carter, C.A., Kahnweiler, W.M. (2000). The efficacy of the social norms approach to substance abuse prevention applied to fraternity men. Journal of American College Health, 49:66-71. Cooper, M.L. (1994). Motivations for alcohol use among adolescents: Development and validation of a four-factor model. Psychological Assessment, 6:117-128. Cooper, M.L., Frone, M.R., Russell, M., Mudar, P. (1995). Drinking to regulate positive and negative emotions: A motivational model of alcohol use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69:990-1005. DeBord, K.A., Wood, P.K., Sher, K.J., Good, G.E. (1998). The relevance of sexual orientation to substance abuse and psychological distress among college students. Journal of College Student Development, 39(2): 157-168. Diamant, A.L., Wold, C, Spritzer, K., & Gelberg, L. (2000). Health behaviors, health status, and access to and use of health care. Archives of Family Medicine, 9, 1043-1051. Drabble, L., Midanik, L.T., Trocki, K. (2005). Reports of alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems among homosexual, bisexual and heterosexual respondents: Results from the 2000 National Alcohol Survey. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 66:111-120. Eisenberg, M.E., Wechsler, H. (2003a). Social influences on substance-use behaviors of gay, lesbian, and bisexual college stu-

80

SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND ALCOHOL USE AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

dents: Findings from a national study. Social Science & Medicine, 57:1913-1923. Eisenberg, M.E., Wechsler, H. (2003b). Substance use behaviors among college students with same-sex and opposite sex experience: Results from a national study. Addictive Behaviors, 28:899-913. Ford, J.A. Jasinski, J.L. (2006). Sexual orientation and substance use among college students. Addictive Behaviors, 31:404-413. Gfroerer, J.C., Greenblatt, J.C., Wright, D.A. (1997). Substance use in the US college-age population: Differences according to educational status and living arrangement. American Journal of Public Health, 87:62-65. Gledhill-Hoyt, J., Lee, H., Strote, J., & Wechsler, H. (2000). Increased use of marijuana and other illicit drugs at US colleges in the late 199O's: Results of three national surveys. Addiction, 95(11) 1655-1667. Hughes, T.L., Eliason, M. (2002). Substance use and abuse in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender populations. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 22:263-298. Johnston, L.D., O'Malley, P.M., Bachman, J.G., Schulenberg, J.E. (2006). Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975-2005: Volume II, College students and adults ages 19-45. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. NIH Publication No. 06-5884. McCabe, S.E., Hughes, TL. Bostwick, W., Boyd, CJ. (2005). Assessment of difference in dimensions of sexual orientation: Implications for substance use research in a college-age population. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 66:620-629. McKirnan, D.J., Peterson, P.L. (1989). Psychosocial and cultural factors in alcohol and drug abuse: An analysis of a homosexual community. Addictive Behaviors, 14:555-563. Mosbacher, D. (1993). Alcohol and other drug use in female medical students: A comparison of lesbians and heterosexuals. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy, 2(1), 37-48.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND ALCOHOL USE AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

81

Nagoshi, C.T., Wood, C.J., Cote, C.C., Abbit, S.M. (1994). College drinking game participation within the context of other predictors of alcohol use and problems. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 8:203-213. Paschall, M.J., Flewelling, R.F. (2002). Postsecondary education and heavy drinking by young adults: The moderating effect of race. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63:447-455. Perkins, W.H., Meilman, P.W., Leichliter, J.S., Cashin, J.R., Presley, C.A. (1999). Misperceptions of the norms for the frequency of alcohol and other drug use on college campuses. Journal of American College Health, 47:253-258. Perkins, W.H., Wechsler, H. (1996). Variation in perceived college drinking norms and its impact on alcohol abuse: A nationwide study. Journal of Drug Issues, 26:961-974. Perkins, W.H. (2002). Social norms and the prevention of alcohol misuse in collegiate contexts. Journal of Studies on Alcohol Supplement, 14:164-172. Russell, S.T., Driscoll, A.K., & Truong, N. (2002). Adolescent samesex romantic attractions and relationships: Implications for substance use and abuse. American Journal of Public Health, 92(2), 198-202. Slutske, W.S., Hunt-Carter, E.E., Nabors-Oberg, R.E., Sher, K.J., Bucholz, K.K., Madden, P., Anokhin, A., Heath AC. (2004). Do college students drink more than their non-college-attending peers? Evidence from a population-based longitudinal female twin study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113:530-540. Thombs, D.L., Wolcott, B.J., Farkash, L.G.E. (1997). Social context, perceived norms, and drinking behavior in young people. Journal of Substance Abuse, 9:257-267. Trocki, K.F., Drabble, L., Midanik, L. (2005). Use of heavier drinking contexts among heterosexuals, homosexuals and bisexuals: Results from a national household probability survey. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 66:105-111.

82

SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND ALCOHOL USE AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

Wechsler, H., Lee, J.E., Kuo, M., Seibring, M., Nelson, T.F., Lee, H. (2002). Trends in colleg;e binge drinking during a period of increased prevention efforts: Findings from 4 Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study Surveys: 1993-200L Journal of American College Health, 50:203-217. Wechsler, H. (2005). Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study, 2001 [Computer file]. ICPSR04291-vl. Boston, MA: Harvard School of Public Health [producer], 2005. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2005-08-08. Wechsler, H. Dowdall, G.W., Davenport, A., Castillo, S. (1995). Correlates of college student binge drinking. American Journal of Public Health, 85:921-926. Weitzman, E.R., Nelson, T.F., Wechsler, H. (2003). Taking up binge drinking in college: The influences of person, social group, and environment. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32:26-35. Williams, A., Clark, D. (1998). Alcohol consumption in university students: The role of reasons for drinking, coping strategies, expectancies and personality traits. Addictive Behaviors, 23:371-378.