Heather Krieger

Alcohol evaluations and acceptability: examining descriptive and injunctive norms among heavy drinkers.

OBJECTIVES This study assessed descriptive and injunctive norms, evaluations of alcohol consequences, and acceptability of drinking. METHODS Participants were 248 heavy-drinking undergraduates (81.05% female; Mage=23.45). RESULTS Stronger perceptions of descriptive and injunctive norms for drinking and more positive evaluations of alcohol consequences were positively associated with drinking and the number of drinks considered acceptable. Descriptive and injunctive norms interacted, indicating that injunctive norms were linked with number of acceptable drinks among those with higher descriptive norms. Descriptive norms and evaluations of consequences interacted, indicating that descriptive norms were positively linked with number of acceptable drinks among those with negative evaluations of consequences; however, among those with positive evaluations of consequences, descriptive norms were negatively associated with number of acceptable drinks. Injunctive norms and evaluations of consequences interacted, indicating that injunctive norms were positively associated with number of acceptable drinks, particularly among those with positive evaluations of consequences. A three-way interaction emerged between injunctive and descriptive norms and evaluations of consequences, suggesting that injunctive norms and the number of acceptable drinks were positively associated more strongly among those with negative versus positive evaluations of consequences. Those with higher acceptable drinks also had positive evaluations of consequences and were high in injunctive norms. CONCLUSIONS Findings supported hypotheses that norms and evaluations of alcohol consequences would interact with respect to drinking and acceptance of drinking. These examinations have practical utility and may inform development and implementation of interventions and programs targeting alcohol misuse among heavy drinking undergraduates.

Injunctive Norms and Alcohol Consumption: A Revised Conceptualization

BACKGROUND Injunctive norms have been found to be important predictors of behaviors in many disciplines with the exception of alcohol research. This exception is likely due to a misconceptualization of injunctive norms for alcohol consumption. To address this, we outline and test a new conceptualization of injunctive norms and personal approval for alcohol consumption. Traditionally, injunctive norms have been assessed using Likert scale ratings of approval perceptions, whereas descriptive norms and individual behaviors are typically measured with behavioral estimates (i.e., number of drinks consumed per week, frequency of drinking). This makes comparisons between these constructs difficult because they are not similar conceptualizations of drinking behaviors. The present research evaluated a new representation of injunctive norms with anchors comparable to descriptive norms measures. METHODS A study and a replication were conducted including 2,559 and 1,189 undergraduate students from 3 different universities. Participants reported on their alcohol-related consumption behaviors, personal approval of drinking, and descriptive and injunctive norms. Personal approval and injunctive norms were measured using both traditional measures and a new drink-based measure. RESULTS Results from both studies indicated that drink-based injunctive norms were uniquely and positively associated with drinking, whereas traditionally assessed injunctive norms were negatively associated with drinking. Analyses also revealed significant unique associations between drink-based injunctive norms and personal approval when controlling for descriptive norms. CONCLUSIONS These findings provide support for a modified conceptualization of personal approval and injunctive norms related to alcohol consumption and, importantly, offer an explanation and practical solution for the small and inconsistent findings related to injunctive norms and drinking in past studies.

An introduction to body vandalism: What is it? Who does it? When does it happen?

A number of typical consequences for alcohol and other substances have been well documented. However, a specific category of consequences which has received no attention in the existing literature includes acts (other than sexual assault) committed upon incapacitated individuals. We have termed this behavior body vandalism (BV), defined as the direct manipulation of an incapacitated individual through the addition of markings, objects or substances, removal of property or hair, or relocation of a body. The purpose of this paper is to provide a preliminary examination of rates of experiencing and variations in positive and negative perceptions of this behavior from the victims perspective. A pilot study was conducted aimed at examining the rates and demographic characteristics of body vandalism in a national sample of 981 adults. The majority of individuals had witnessed BV, half had perpetrated, and over 40% had been a victim in their lifetime. Rates of lifetime victimization and perpetration were low (1-2 times). Perpetrators most often targeted their friends and alcohol was typically a factor in victimization. Over half of victims reported experiencing positive social outcomes as a result of being victimized and about a third reported negative emotional outcomes. Findings suggest that experiences of body vandalism are relatively common, especially in young adults, associated with alcohol consumption, and result in both positive and negative outcomes for victims. This study offers evidence for BV as an outcome of social drinking, suggests contexts that increase the risk of BV occurrence, and provides a foundation from which future studies can build.

The Role of Self-Efficacy for Bystander Helping Behaviors in Risky Alcohol Situations

We examined the role of self-efficacy in preventing bystander inaction in dangerous alcohol situations. Participants (N = 504) completed an online survey that assessed whether they had previously witnessed or intervened in alcohol-related emergencies, their self-efficacy for intervening, and their likelihood of intervening in the future. Previously intervening was positively associated with self-efficacy and likelihood of intervening in the future. Furthermore, self-efficacy mediated the association between previously intervening and likelihood of intervening in the future. In conclusion, self-efficacy for intervening in social situations is associated with intervening in alcohol-related emergencies and is an important factor to consider when designing bystander interventions.