Barry D. Caudill

High-risk drinking among college fraternity members: A national perspective

Abstract. This survey, with its 85% response rate, provides an extensive profile of drinking behaviors and predictors of drinking among 3406 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.

DWI prevention: profiles of drinkers who use designated drivers

The effectiveness of designated driver (DD) use in preventing driving while intoxicated (DWI) depends on whether drinkers at risk for DWI use DDs. Bivariate and logistic regression analyses conducted on data from 1,391 Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviews (CATIs) and from 902 barroom patron surveys showed that DD users, compared to nonusers, tended to be at-risk, heavier drinkers. For example, logistic regression using the CATI sample indicated that DD users were more likely to drink more often outside the home, to achieve higher blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) when drinking outside the home, to ride with intoxicated drivers (RID), and to be heavy drinkers on D. Cahalan et al.s (1969) Quantity-Frequency-Variability (QFV) index. Similarly, logistic regression using the barroom sample showed that DD users tended to be heavy drinkers on the QFV index, and were more likely to drive after drinking and to ride with intoxicated drivers. Additional analyses showed that DD users also were more likely than nonusers to engage in other behavior to avoid DWI, such as drinking less, waiting to drive until the effects of alcohol diminish, walking home, and staying overnight. These results are consistent with other findings from a related study by the current authors which showed that at-risk drinkers also used free safe (taxi) rides to avoid DWI, however were still more likely to report DWI and RID behavior (B. D. Caudill, W. M. Harding, & B. Moore, in press). Consequently, DWI prevention efforts may be improved by future research aimed at learning why such at-risk drinkers sometimes take steps to avoid DWI and sometimes do not.

DWI prevention: profiles of drinkers who serve as designated drivers

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.

Examining the Effects of a National Alcohol-Free Fraternity Housing Policy

This investigation examined the effectiveness of an alcohol-free fraternity housing policy on the risky alcohol use of members of a national fraternity (N=718). Comparisons of members in chapters with fraternity housing (FH) and those in chapters without housing (NFH) over time revealed no policy-related effects on measures of alcohol use. Among FH members, comparisons of those who lived in fraternity housing and those who lived in other housing also found no effects. FH members reported that the policy was implemented moderately well; however, it may have shifted alcohol use from fraternity housing to other settings.Editors’ Strategic Implications: The results of this study will be of interest to national and local fraternity administrators, campus student affairs and dean of students offices, and substance use counselors in various settings. For fraternity and possibly other college student populations, an alcohol-free housing policy appears to be a strategy that does not work.

Avoiding DWI Among Bar-room Drinkers: Strategies and Predictors

We examined the prevalence and predictors of 11strategies to avoid driving when feeling intoxicated among 561 bar-room patrons in two medium-sized Maryland communities. Logistic regression analyses identified demographic, behavioral, and attitudinal predictors of avoidance strategies and interactions among predictors. Overall, 89% reported one or more DWI avoidance actions in the past year, and 38% reported driving intoxicated during that time. Average frequencies of avoidance behavior and intoxicated driving increased significantly as drinking level increased. However, the higher the drinking level, the smaller the ratio of avoidance actions to DWI experiences, highlighting the vulnerability of heavy drinkers who had driven intoxicated. Using a sober driver or one who allegedly drank less than the respondent were the most popular and frequent strategies, but paying for a cab, walking, and using a bus or free cab were relatively unpopular. Higher drinking levels predicted significantly higher odds of using avoidance approaches, as did intoxicated driving. Confidence in driving safely when intoxicated was positively related to drinking level and intoxicated driving, but it tended to predict lower odds of avoidance actions. Similarly, marital status, age, gender, and location influenced the odds of avoidance behaviors. Interventions should be strategically tailored to exploit or counter drinker predilections among avoidance options.