Police Quarterly

http://pqx.sagepub.com

Police Officers and Their Alcohol Consumption: Should We Be

Concerned?
Vicki Lindsay
Police Quarterly 2008; 11; 74
DOI: 10.1177/1098611107309564
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://pqx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/1/74

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
Police Executive Research Forum
Police Section of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences

Additional services and information for Police Quarterly can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://pqx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://pqx.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://pqx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/11/1/74

Downloaded from http://pqx.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 15, 2009

Police Officers and Their

Alcohol Consumption

Police Quarterly
Volume 11 Number 1
March 2008 74-87
2008 Sage Publications
10.1177/1098611107309564
http://pqx.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com

Should We Be Concerned?
Vicki Lindsay
University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg

Alcohol use by police officers in the United States is theorized to be double that of the
general population, with 20% of those abusing alcohol. However, no known alcohol
consumption study has been conducted within the United States. This study hoped to fill
that void. Full time Mississippi officers from municipal, county, and state departments
totaling 1,328, were asked to complete a 27-item questionnaire containing the World
Health Organizations Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test instrument to determine
alcohol use and risk. The researcher found no difference in use by Mississippi officers
and the general public. Moreover, the researcher identified the officers most at risk for
alcohol problems.
Keywords: police; alcohol; police culture; drinking

hose who comprise the law enforcement community are no less susceptible to
the mental, physiological, and behavioral effects of alcohol than anyone else,
and if available data on social convention and occupational stress are valid, one must
conclude that police officers are perhaps more at risk than any other segment of
American society.
Alcohol consumption by police officers has been attributed to the power needs
endemic to the police personality (Beehr, Johnson, & Nieva, 1995), stimulation during
off-duty down-periods (Bonifacio, 1991), and has been correlated with stress (Beehr
et al., 1995; Violanti, Marshall, & Howe, 1985), most notably by those within the
police community who had the lowest level of job satisfaction (Kohan & OConnor,
2002) or youth (Bonifacio, 1991; Violanti, 2001).
Other researchers depreciate the relationship between stress and alcohol consumption and instead emphasize social phenomena, concluding that policing is
essentially a drinking culture. Kraft, Blum, Martin, and Roman (1993) focused on

Authors Note: The author would like to thank William Banks Taylor for his insight and editing of this
article prior to submission. She would also like to thank the World Health Organization for allowing her
to use, disseminate, and publish their Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test as part of this study.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Vicki Lindsay, PO Box 185, Tupelo, MS
38802; e-mail: Vicki.lindsay@usm.edu.
74
Downloaded from http://pqx.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 15, 2009

Lindsay / Police Officers and Their Alcohol Consumption 75

the variable of gender in their study, noting that policing was a male-dominated
occupation (80%), that males were more apt to bond through the medium of alcohol
than females, and that drinking among police officers was in fact most prevalent
among young males. On the other hand, Pendergrass and Ostrove (1986) found no
relationship between age, rank, and alcohol consumption.
Scholars also do not agree on the extent of drinking among police officers or on
the effects alcohol has on their job performance. Mandell, Eaton, Anthony, and
Garrison (1992) found that drinking by police officers was roughly equivalent to that
of other occupations, and Stinson and DeBakey (1992) generally agreed, noting that
officers drank only slightly more than others. Likewise, Meyers and Perrine (1996)
found no alcohol culture among police officers, noting that consumption was
relatively modest.
However, Blackmore (1978) reported that two police administrators rated alcohol
abuse as the most serious problem confronting law enforcement, estimating that 20%
of the officers in their agencies abused alcohol. Territo and Vetter (1981) arrived at
a similar conclusion, Pendergrass and Ostrove (1986) observed that there were higher
levels of consumption among police officers than among the general population, and
Kirschman (2006) speculated recently that rates of consumption among American
police officers might well double those of the general population. Kirschman also
concluded that alcohol abuse correlated with suicide among police officers: 15% of
those who tried to commit suicide had histories of excessive consumption.
Beutler, Nussbaum, and Meredith (1988) monitored the rates at which police officers
consumed alcohol during their first 4 years of employment. Significantly, they found
that consumption increased progressively each year, with 55% of officers being heavy
drinkers at the end of the 4-year period.
Existing research, then, leads to different conclusions on why American police
officers drink alcohol, the extent to which they drink it, and the effects of alcohol
consumption on their job performance. The disparate research findings arise from
the fact that no comprehensive empirical study has been conducted within the United
States. However, several relatively recent studies conducted in Australia have
produced some enlightening conclusions.
Comparing the data of Australian officers found in their study to that within
Australias National Household Survey, Davey, Obst, and Sheehan (2000a) concluded
that police officers drank less frequently but consumed more alcohol per occasion
than the general population. That finding in itself was significant, but the principal
importance of the study was the data it provided on the most statistically significant
variables in the drinking equation. The most significant variables were marital status
and ageyounger unmarried officers were more inclined to drink at higher levels
than the married, older officers.
Coinciding with these findings were those relating to years of employment and
rank. Officers who were within their first 10 years of service consumed more in a
sitting than others, as did those holding the entry-level rank of constable. Hence, the

Downloaded from http://pqx.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 15, 2009

76 Police Quarterly

profile of the police officer who was most at risk of consuming alcohol at harmful
or hazardous levels was 18 to 25 years old, male, unmarried or separated, and a
constable with 4 to 10 years of service.
The same Australian research team has published three further studies of considerable importance. The first (Davey, Obst, & Sheehan, 2000b) questioned the strength
of the relationship between stress and alcohol consumption and instead emphasized
social phenomena, concluding that policing was essentially a drinking culture.
Davey, Obst, and Sheehan (2001) then elaborated on these findings later in the
year, reporting that fully 30% of the Australian police officers surveyed had scored
harmful drinking levels on Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). They
also correlated alcohol consumption with social interaction among police officers.
The power of alcohol within the social conventions of the police community was
significant. When asked what their colleagues thought of peers who did not drink,
31% of the officers surveyed stated that nondrinkers were viewed as suspicious and
unsociable people.

Method
Participants
The participants in the current study were full-time Mississippi police officers,
sheriffs deputies, and state police officers who self-report their work either as field
officers or administrators. The 82 Mississippi counties covering more than 48,400
miles were stratified by size (populations under 15,000, populations between 15,000
and 40,000, and populations above 40,000) and region (North, Central, and South)
(see Figure 1 for map of regions). A computer generated random sample was
selected (SPSS 12.0, 2003). All known municipal and county departments were
contacted, and the administrator was asked if he or she would allow his or her officers
to participate in the study. The researcher conveniently picked three of the largest
state enforcement agencies to participate in the study. Upon approval of the administrator, the officers received their questionnaires in one of three ways, which was
previously decided on by the administrator. The officers either received their questionnaire in group settings, where the researcher personally distributed and collected
the instrument, the administrator distributed and collected the questionnaire in
sealed envelopes, or the administrator distributed the questionnaire and the officers
returned the questionnaire to the researcher via U.S. mail.

Instrument
A survey instrument was designed to determine the consumption behaviors of law
enforcement officers. The self-report questionnaire contained 12 questions designed

Downloaded from http://pqx.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 15, 2009

Lindsay / Police Officers and Their Alcohol Consumption 77

Figure 1
Maps of Mississippi

Downloaded from http://pqx.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 15, 2009

78 Police Quarterly

Table 1
Reliability of the Survey Instrument
Instrument Section
Reasons to drink alcohol
Scored AUDIT

Number of Complete Responses

Cronbachs Alpha

25
24

.973
.783

to obtain demographics, 5 questions to obtain drinking behaviors, and the World

Health Organizations AUDIT (Babor, Higgins-Biddle, Saunders, & Monteiro, 2001),
which has established validity in identifying persons who have harmful and
hazardous alcohol consumption levels. The AUDIT instrument is a 10-item questionnaire designed in 1989 by the World Health Organization to identify those
people who have harmful or hazardous alcohol consumption before alcohol-related
problems develop (Conigrave, Saunders, & Reznik, 1995). The AUDIT instrument
measures the frequency and amount of alcohol the individual consumes as well as
the behavior and reaction the individual receives because of his consumption. It was
first used in primary health care, but AUDIT has been found to be an appropriate and
reliable measure of alcohol use across gender, age, and race (Powell & McInness,
1994; Steinbauer, Cantor, Holzer, & Volk, 1998; Volk, Steinbauer, Cantor, & Holzer,
1997) as well as an appropriate indicator of alcohol misuse in the United States
(Dawson, Grant, Stinson, & Zhou, 2005) and in the police profession (Davey, Obst, &
Sheehan, 2000c). The responses of each of the 10 questions were scored from 1 to
4. A score of eight or more indicates some risk of harmful alcohol consumption. A
score of more than 15 indicates hazardous alcohol use. Permission to use and publish
the AUDIT screening test was given to the researcher by the World Health
Organization. The entire instruments reliability was determined using Cronbachs
alpha (see Table 1).
The instrument defines a drink to be a 12-ounce can or bottle of beer, a four-ounce
glass of wine, a 12-ounce bottle or can of wine cooler, or a shot of liquor. The
researcher submitted the instrument to the Institutional Review Board of The University
of Southern Mississippi and received approval to distribute the instrument.

Procedures
Upon getting approval from the police administrator, the researcher approached
the group of officers, explained the premise of the study, and asked for their voluntary participation. In a short statement, the researcher assured the officers that their
answers would be held confidential and anonymous. The officers were told that they
and their administrators would be able to obtain a copy of the aggregate study upon
completion. The researcher assured them that the administrator would not be able to

Downloaded from http://pqx.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 15, 2009

Lindsay / Police Officers and Their Alcohol Consumption 79

determine any individual answer from the aggregate results. Besides the oral information, the officers received a paper copy of the informed consent document with
information on how to obtain copies of the results, how to contact the researcher, and
what to do if they felt an adverse reaction to participating in the study. The officers were
notified that consent to participate was assumed from completion and returning of the
questionnaire.
If the administrator decided to personally distribute and collect the questionnaires, the researcher delivered the questionnaires to the administrator in individual
9 12 envelopes. Besides the questionnaire, the envelopes also included the
informed consent form. A letter to the administrator accompanied the envelopes with
a brief description to remind the administrator about the study, instructions to tell the
participants that the questionnaire was purely voluntary, to tell the participants to
keep the cover page for future reference, and to tell the participants to seal the
envelopes, and how to return the questionnaires to the researcher (either through the
administrator or the U.S. mail).
The questionnaire took approximately 10 min of the respondents time. There was
no expense to the respondents. However, because this survey occurred at the agency
or department, the department may have lost personnel time and space during the
administration of the study. The researcher did not reimburse the agencies for this
time or space, and did not offer officers any incentive for participating in the study.

Results
The researcher distributed questionnaires throughout a 3-month data collection
period. Of the 1,328 questionnaires distributed, 663 (49.92%) were returned. Of
those returned, four (0.6%) questionnaires contained more than half of the data missing.
This missing data was attributed to participants who missed pages in the questionnaire
booklet. These questionnaires were retained as part of the study.
The sample consisted of more males (86.6%), Caucasians (70.9%), married
(65.8%), and those who have earned some college education (53.3%). This data was
compared to data from the Mississippi Statistical Analysis Center (Thompson,
Corzine, Carter, & Trowbridge, 2003), and was found to be a good representation of
the Mississippi law enforcement population.
The mean age of the sample was 39.02 years (SD = 10.76) (see Table 2). The officers
had an average of 11 years in law enforcement and worked an average of 46 hr a
week. The Mississippi officers reported drinking an average of 4.82 (SD = 8.42)
times per month. Many of them drank only once monthly or less (n = 317, 46.5%).
However, 24 officers (3.9%) reported drinking 7 days a week or more.
The officers reported drinking an average of 2.79 (SD = 2.89) drinks per occasion.
Many of the officers responded that they did not drink alcohol at the present moment
(n = 157, 23.7%), and most of the officers did not report binge drinking (5 or more

Downloaded from http://pqx.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 15, 2009

80 Police Quarterly

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics of Full Sample

Age
Years in law enforcement
Hours worked per week
Drinking occasions per month
Drinks per occasions
AUDIT score

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Standard Deviation

647
657
652
646
637
606

21
0.08
8
0.00
0.00
0.00

75
43.00
160
80.00
20.00
26.00

39.02
11.3115
46.13
4.8179
2.7936
4.3251

10.759
8.24978
13.126
8.42671
2.88651
3.93185

drinks in a row) during a typical drinking occasion (77.2%). However, numerous

officers did report binge drinking (19.1%) when they did drink alcohol.
The mean AUDIT score for the officers was 4.33 (SD = 3.93). However, many of
the officers (20.1%) had AUDIT scores of zero, which represents very low use or
abstinence from alcohol. Approximately 73.7% of the respondents scored between 0
and 7 which put them at no risk of alcohol problems using the AUDIT instrument.
In addition, 16.8% of the officers scored between 8 and 15 on the AUDIT instrument,
which labeled them to be at a harmful risk level for alcohol problems. Only 1% of
the respondents scored between 16 and 19 on the AUDIT instrument which labeled
them to be at a hazardous risk level for alcohol problems and 0.4% had possible
alcohol dependency scores of 20 or more.
Using AUDITs scores to rank groups (no risk, harmful, and hazardous), chi-square
was utilized to find if any relationships existed. The demographics for these groups
were analyzed. These values are shown in Table 3. The researcher found that there were
significant relationships in demographics between the three groups. Statistically
significant relationships in race, marital status, region, and with whom the offices
drank were found (see Table 4). More White officers were found in the harmful and
hazardous AUDIT ranks than the other races. A higher percentage of single officers
were in the harmful and hazardous ranks.
There was no difference in AUDIT ranks when it came to education, population
of county, if the department worked in shift, or officer rank. However, there was a
significant difference in where the county was located. There were more officers
from the Southern or Coastal region in the harmful risk group (scoring 8-15), and the
majority of officers who made up the hazardous risk group (scoring 16 or higher)
were based in the Northern region. Whether or not the officer worked in a shift was
not significant; however, the time of the shift in which shift the officer worked was
significant (day, evening, midnight). The day shift made up the majority of harmful
and hazardous risk groups. With whom the officers drank showed statistical significance between risk groups. The no risk group either did not drink or drank with
family mostly. The harmful risk group drank mostly with friends who were not
coworkers, and the hazardous risk group drank mostly with coworkers.

Downloaded from http://pqx.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 15, 2009

Lindsay / Police Officers and Their Alcohol Consumption 81

Table 3
Relationship Between AUDIT Score Ranking and Officer Demographics
AUDIT Score Ranking

Gender

No Risk

Harmful
Risk

Male
Female

420
59
479

100
9
109

7
1
8

527
69
596

White
Black
Hispanic
Other

340
136
3
7
486

90
17
2
0
109

6
1
1
0
8

436
154
6
7
603

Single
Married
Divorced
Widowed

95
334
55
2
486

36
58
13
1
108

4
3
1
0
8

135
395
69
3
602

Dont drink
Coworker
Family
Friends who are not
coworkers
When alone

138
65
135
110

0
27
25
35

0
5
1
1

138
97
161
146

22
470

15
102

1
8

38
580

GED
High school diploma
Some college
Bachelors
Graduate degree

27
86
264
91
17
488

4
23
58
24
0
110

0
0
5
2
1
8

31
109
327
117
18
606

Small
Medium
Large

35
78
375
488

3
10
97
110

1
0
7
8

39
88
479
606

Central region (1)

Southern region (2)
Northern region (3)

153
148
187
488

26
51
33
110

1
2
5
8

180
201
225
606

Total
Race

Total
Marital status

Total
With whom they drank

Total
Highest education
completed

Some high school

Total
Size of county

Total
District of county

Total

Hazardous
Risk

Total

(continued)

Downloaded from http://pqx.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 15, 2009

82 Police Quarterly

Table 3 (continued)
AUDIT Score Ranking

No Risk

Harmful
Risk

Yes

455

103

566

No

32
487

3
106

0
8

35
601

8 hr

171

31

207

12 hr
Other

261
29
461

61
13
105

2
1
8

324
43
574

Day
Evening
Midnight

Total

239
79
87
405

48
12
33
93

6
1
0
7

293
92
120
505

What is your current rank Patrol officer

Sergeant
Lieutenant
Captain
Major
Administration
Total

304
76
42
25
1
27
475

77
15
7
6
1
2
108

5
1
2
0
0
0
8

386
92
51
31
2
29
591

Does your department

work in shifts
Total
What type of shift does
your department work

Total
Which shift do you work

Hazardous
Risk

Total

Table 4
Relationship Between AUDIT Score Rank and Demographics
Demographic*Audit Rank
Gender
Race
Marital status
Highest education completed
Population of county
District of county
Type of department
Department works in shifts
Type of shift
Which shift
Rank
With whom they drank

Chi-Square

df

1.437
21.652
14.810
10.105
8.866
12.808
2.618
2.722
8.892
11.45
8.944
69.460

2
6
6
10
4
4
4
2
4
4
10
8

.488
.001***
.022*
.431
.065
.012*
.624
.256
.064
.022*
.537
.000***

*p < .05. ***p < .001.

Downloaded from http://pqx.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 15, 2009

Lindsay / Police Officers and Their Alcohol Consumption 83

Table 5
Means and Standard Deviations of Demographics by AUDIT Score Rank
AUDIT
Score Rank

Mean

Standard
Deviation

Age

1.00
2.00
3.00
Total

41.92
34.92
29.50
36.19

12.457
9.030
5.127
10.715

12
12
8
32

How long have you been in the profession

of law enforcement

1.00

13.2767

11.06054

12

2.00
3.00
Total

10.4658
7.3425
10.7391

5.98765
6.30078
8.40204

12
8
32

1.00

44.33

7.855

12

2.00
3.00
Total

43.00
48.63
44.91

3.275
15.464
9.209

12
8
32

How often do you drink alcoholic beverages

1.00
2.00
3.00
Total

1.7358
16.7500
16.6250
11.0884

1.66601
10.77982
9.72387
10.85116

12
12
8
32

How many drinks do you typically have

1.00
2.00
3.00
Total

2.1667
6.6667
9.0000
5.5625

1.94625
5.12274
2.44949
4.47169

12
12
8
32

Approximately how many hours do you

work as a law enforcement officer in
an average week

The researcher also conducted a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to

find if there was a statistically significant difference between the risk groups according
to age, length of time in law enforcement, number of hours a week working in law
enforcement, number of drinking occasions, and number of drinks per occasion. The
means and standard deviations were found and reported in Table 5.
The tests of homogeneity of variance and covariance were not satisfied so the
researcher took a random sample of 12 officers from the harmful risk group and 12
officers from the hazardous risk group. This sample yielded a statistically significant
difference in the risk group and the demographics of these officers, Pillais F(8, 54)
= 3.174, p < .002. Upon finding significant difference with the overall multivariate
analysis of variance, the protected Fs were viewed. The demographics, such as age
(F(2, 385) = 4.01, p < .029), number of drinking occasions (F(2, 840) = 12.358,
p < .001), and number of drinks per occasion (F(2, 124) = 9.64, p = .001) were all found
to be significantly different based on risk group. The demographics, such as length

Downloaded from http://pqx.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 15, 2009

84 Police Quarterly

Table 6
Means and Standard Deviations of Daily Ethanol Intake by Group

NESARC population
Police sample

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Standard Deviation

43,091
630

.00
.00

76.823
6.73

0.342
0.295

1.244
0.728

in law enforcement profession (F(2, 85) = 1.25, p = .309) and hours worked per
week (F(2, 79) = .928, p = .407) were not found to be statistically different. Tukeys
post hoc showed that people in the hazardous risk group are significantly younger
than the people in the no risk group only. The officers in the no risk group drank less
often than both those in the harmful and hazardous risk groups. The hazardous group
actually drank on fewer occasions than the harmful group, but this difference was not
found to be statistically significant. The officers in the no risk group drank significantly fewer drinks than the other groups, but although the hazardous risk group drank
more than the harmful risk group, the amount was not found to be statistically different.
A single sample t test was then conducted to determine if there is a significant
difference between the police officers daily ethanol intake and the general population
sample found in the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholisms (NIAAA)
2001-2002 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions
(NESARC) survey (2002). The researcher obtained the data from the National
Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholisms 2001-2002 NESARC survey and took
the mean of the daily ethanol intake after checking and deleting two outliers of more
than 100 units daily. The NESARC researchers were able to calculate the daily
ethanol intake of 26,653 drinkers of the original 43,093 randomly selected members
of the U.S. general population. The mean for this group was 0.553 g of ethanol per
day. The group did not include the abstainers so the researcher replaced the missing
answer with zero for those that reported abstaining earlier in the questionnaire. The
mean for this population was 0.342 g per day. The police sample groups daily alcohol
intake was then calculated by multiplying the monthly number of occasions by 12
(months) multiplied by number per occasions by .40 (g) and dividing that number by
365 (days). The means and standard deviations of both groups are found in Table 6.
The researcher conducted the single sample t test and found no difference in the
daily ethanol intake of the sample of officers when compared to the NESARC general
population sample, t(629) = 1.639, p < .102.

Discussion
Although fewer Mississippi officers were found to abstain from alcohol (25%) than
the 31% reported for the general population by Moore et al. in their 2005 general
population study, this researcher found no statistically significant difference in the

Downloaded from http://pqx.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 15, 2009

Lindsay / Police Officers and Their Alcohol Consumption 85

amount of alcohol consumed by police and the general population. Indeed, the researcher
discovered that the general population reported a marginally greater daily alcohol
intake than the police who were surveyed.
Furthermore, the rate of consumption of those police officers who drank was
within the healthy parameters (8 g of ethanol a week) set by Jackson and Beaglehole
(1995). Only a small percentage of the officers ranked in the harmful risk level of
the AUDIT (Babor, Higgins-Biddle, Saunders, & Monteiro, 2001) instrument
(18.2%), and those who ranked in the most hazardous level of alcohol risk and those
who manifested possible alcohol dependency made up only 1.4% of the sample.
These findings contest the police drinking behaviors addressed in most extant
literature (Blackmore, 1978; Kirschman, 2006; Pendergrass & Ostrove, 1986). In
Mississippi at least, the abuse of alcohol within the police community seems to be
marginal, no greater than and in many cases far less than that existing within other
occupations. There are, however, a handful of officers with problem behavior that
demand administrative intervention.
How do the harmful and hazardous risk levels of Mississippi officers compare to
those found in American literature and in the Australian study? American scholars
estimate that 20% of officers have problems with alcohol (Blackmore, 1978), although
they leave the definition of problems unclear. This study found that 19.6% of the
officers recorded scores that equated with AUDITs definition of problems: those
whose consumption of alcohol constitutes possible harmful or hazardous risk of alcohol
use. This percentage is close to that estimated by U.S. literature, but far below the 33.2%
reported by the Australian study (Davey et al., 2000a).
Similar to other studies, this one found that age and marital status were strong
predictors of a police officer being at risk for alcohol problems, and that to a lesser
extent race, region, drinking comrades, the number of occasions of consumption, and
the number of drinks consumed per occasion were significant predictors of alcohol
risk. However, unlike the Australian study, which reported that gender and rank were
significant indicators, gender and rank were not found to be significant among the
population surveyed.
Mississippi officers most likely to be at risk of harmful and hazardous drinking
behaviors are young, white, single officers who work during day shift. Those who
are most likely to be in the harmful risk category are those in the coastal region of
the state who normally drink with friends who are not coworkers; and those who are
most likely to belong in the hazardous risk category are those in the northern portion
of the state who normally drink with coworkers. The officers in the hazardous risk
group actually drank on fewer occasions than the other groups but consumed more
alcohol per occasion. The officers in the hazardous group were also found to drink
with their coworkers more often than with other groups.
In addition, many of the characteristics held by the officers in the harmful and
hazardous risk groups are also held by the general population, most notably college
students. The officers in the study who made up the harmful and hazardous groups

Downloaded from http://pqx.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 15, 2009

86 Police Quarterly

were young, male, and unmarried. Young, single males, particularly those in college,
were found to pick up alcohol while they were also aligning themselves with close
personal groups of friends (Weitzman, Nelson, & Wechsler, 2003). Furthermore, the
officers with the most risk for alcohol problems worked the day shift. These officers
more likely had the chance as well as the opportunity to drink alcohol during the
evening, the typical time of day in which alcohol consumption occurs. Their night
shift colleagues may also see the negative effects of alcohol more often and realize
the detriment that the consumption may place on their lives. As a result, rational
choice theory, or social control theory (Williams & McShane, 1999) may play more
of a role in the officers alcohol consumption than previously expected. The officers
weigh the pros and cons of drinking alcohol. Some officers decide to drink because
of the camaraderie and the availability of the alcohol, which are the positive aspects
of consumption, whereas others see the negative aspects and the lack of open, fun,
alcohol-laced spots and correspond with the contrary result. Therefore, it is believed
that many of these at-risk officers are just following human nature. Their choices,
however harmful they may be, are made as a part of rational human nature depending
on the availability and opportunity that exists during their time away from the uniform.

References
Babor, T. F., Higgins-Biddle, J. C., Saunders, J. B., & Monteiro, M. G. (2001). The alcohol use disorders
identification test: Guidelines for use in primary care (2nd ed.). Geneva: World Health Organization.
Beehr, T. A., Johnson, L. B., & Nieva, R. (1995). Occupational stress: Coping of police and their spouses.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 3-25.
Beutler, L. E., Nussbaum, P. D., & Meredith, K. E. (1988). Changing personality patterns of police officers.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 19, 503-507.
Blackmore, J. (1978). Are police allowed to have problems of their own? Police Magazine, 1(3), 47-54.
Bonifacio, P. (1991). The psychological effects of police work: A psychodynamic approach. New York:
Plenum.
Conigrave, K. M., Saunders, J. B., & Reznik, R. B. (1995). Predictive capacity of the AUDIT questionnaire
for alcohol-related harm. Addiction, 90, 1479-1485.
Davey, J. D., Obst, P. L., & Sheehan, M. C. (2000a). Developing a profile of alcohol consumption patterns
of police officers in a large scale sample of an Australian Police Service. European Addiction Research,
6, 205-212.
Davey, J. D., Obst, P. L., & Sheehan, M. C. (2000b). Work demographics and officers environment which
add to the prediction of at risk alcohol consumption within an Australian police sample. Policing: An
International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 23, 69-81.
Davey, J. D., Obst, P. L., & Sheehan, M. C. (2000c). The use of AUDIT as a screening tool for alcohol
use in the police work-place. Drug and Alcohol Review, 19, 49-54.
Davey, J. D., Obst, P. L., & Sheehan, M. C. (2001, May). It goes with the job: Officers insights into the
impact of stress and culture on alcohol consumption within the policing occupation. Drugs: Education,
Prevention & Policy, 8, 141-149.
Dawson, D. A., Grant, B. F., Stinson, F. S., & Zhou, Y. (2005, May). Effectiveness of the derived Alcohol
Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C) in screening for alcohol use disorders and risk drinking
in the US General Population. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 29, 844-854.

Downloaded from http://pqx.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 15, 2009

Lindsay / Police Officers and Their Alcohol Consumption 87

Jackson, R., & Beaglehole, R. (1995). Alcohol consumption guidelines: Relative safety vs. absolute risks
and benefits. Lancet, 346, 716.
Kirschman, E. (2006). I love a cop: What police families need to know (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Kohan, A., & OConnor, B. P. (2002). Police officer job satisfaction in relation to mood, well-being, and
alcohol consumption. Journal of Psychology, 136, 307-318.
Kraft, J. M., Blum, T. C., Martin, J. K., & Roman, P. M. (1993). Drinking patterns and the gender mix of occupations: Evidence from a national survey of American workers. Journal of Substance Abuse, 5, 157-174.
Mandell, W., Eaton, W. W., Anthony, J. C., & Garrison, R. (1992). Alcoholism and occupations: A review
and analysis of 104 occupations. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 16, 734-746.
Meyers, A. R., & Perrine, M. W. (1996, March). Drinking by police officers, general drivers and late-night
drivers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 57, 187-192.
Moore, A. A., Gould, R., Reuben, D. B., Greendale, G. A., Carter, K., Zhou, K., et al. (2005, March).
Longitudinal patterns and predictors of alcohol consumption in the United States. American Journal
of Public Health, 95, 458-464.
National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (2002). National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and
Related Conditions. Retrieved December 7, 2006, from the NIAAA Website: http//niaaa.census.gov
Pendergrass, V. E., & Ostrove, N. M. (1986). Correlates of alcohol use by police personnel. In J. T. Reese &
H. A. Goldstein (Eds.), Psychological services for law enforcement (pp. 489-495). Washington, DC:
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Powell, J. E., & McInness, E. (1994). Alcohol use among older hospital patients: Findings from an Australian
study. Drug and Alcohol Review, 13, 5-12.
Steinbauer, J. R., Cantor, S. B., Holzer, C. E., & Volk, R. J. (1998). Ethnic and sex bias in primary care
screening tests for alcohol use disorders. Annals of Internal Medicine, 129, 353-362.
Stinson, F. S., & DeBakey, S. F. (1992). Prevalence of DSM-III-R alcohol abuse and/or dependence
among selected occupations. Alcohol Health and Research World, 16, 165-172.
Territo, L., & Vetter, H. J. (1981). Stress and police personnel. Journal of Police Science and Administration,
9, 195-207.
Thompson, R. A., Corzine, E. M., Carter, K. A., & Trowbridge, A. (2003). Results of the 2003 survey of
Mississippi law enforcement agencies. Hattiesburg: Mississippi Statistical Analysis Center.
Violanti, J. M. (2001). Coping strategies among police recruits in a high-stress training environment.
Journal of Social Psychology, 132, 717-729.
Violanti, J. M., Marshall, J. R., & Howe, B. (1985). Stress, coping, and alcohol use: The police connection.
Journal of Police Science and Administration, 13, 106-110.
Volk, R. J., Steinbauer, J. R., Cantor, S. B., & Holzer, C. E. (1997). The Alcohol Use Disorders
Identification Test (AUDIT) as a screen for at-risk drinking in primary care patients of different
racial/ethnic backgrounds. Addiction, 92, 197-206.
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, F. P., & McShane, M. D. (1999). Criminological theory (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.

Vicki Lindsay is new to the field of academia, but not new to the police culture, serving prior time in the
Mississippi Alcoholic Beverage Control for many years.

Downloaded from http://pqx.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 15, 2009