Alcoholic Nation?

Exploring the Drinking Habits of

Undergraduate Students

Candidate No. 30548

Word Count: 10,378

London School of Economics and Political

Science
Department of Social Psychology
MSc Organisational and Social Psychology
Acknowledgements

This year has been one of the best years of my life; challenging, rewarding and
amazing. Having said that, I’m very very pleased to be handing in my last piece of
university work…ever!

My thanks go to my wonderful classmates who provided much needed

distractions throughout the writing of this report. Also to Jacqui and Daniel, ever patient
with the endless printer credit requests and essay hand-ins.

Thank you to Bradley Franks, my tutor at the start of the year who gave me so
much encouragement, leading me to believe I could actually pull this off.

And last but not least, I would like to say a huge thank you to my project
supervisor, Jan Stockdale, for her continued support, insight and organisation.

2
 ABSTRACT

In recent years press coverage of ‘binge drinking’ in the western world has
escalated. This can be seen particularly in Britain and America, as both countries have
developed reputations for an excessive number of problem drinkers. There are
interventions in place to try and combat this epidemic, including age of consent laws and
treatment programs, yet the issue remains. The question posed therefore, asks whether
anything can be done?
The researcher asserted that by studying learning processes surrounding alcohol
consumption and attitudes towards drinking, together with related behaviours,
suggestions could be made regarding effective preventative strategies. The current study
comprised of both quantitative and qualitative elements. Firstly, 80 undergraduate
students (40 US, 40 UK) answered a questionnaire regarding their socialisation with
alcohol, attitudes towards alcohol (taken from the College Drinking Attitude Scale,
Gonzalez 1990), and their behaviour under the influence of alcohol. Further to this four
focus groups were carried out (two US, two UK) under the same topic areas.
Relevant literature has suggested that socialisation and attitudes will predict
behaviour. The quantitative results found were in support of this, but stated that better
socialisation led to worse behaviour. In contrast, the qualitative part of the study found
that better socialisation and attitudes resulted in better behaviour. Differences observed
between the nationalities and the sexes aided these findings.
After considering the various limitations, it was decided the qualitative results
carried more weight, and these were used to suggest an issues management approach to
tackling alcohol related problems. Further research needs to be conducted in this field to
substantiate the claims made. Of note finally is that where a certain culture is so heavily
ingrained, it will take years for any changes to be visible. The importance of the issue
however is not in question and small changes will eventually affect larger ones.

3
Table of contents:

• Introduction 5
o Cultural context 5
o A Social learning perspective 7
o Attitudes 9
o Taking stock 11
o Gender 12
• Statement of Research 14
o Hypotheses 14
• Methodology 16
o Design 16
o Pilot study 18
o Participants 18
o Materials 19
o Procedure 20
• Results and Interpretation 23
o Descriptive Statistics 23
o Reliability 24
o ANOVAs 24
o Correlational analysis 27
o Multiple regression 29
o Thematic Analysis 30
• Discussion 37
o Summary 37
o Limitations 38
o Implications 40
o Proposal 41
o Conclusion 41
• References 42
• Appendix 1: Questionnaire instructions 46
• Appendix 2: Quantitative informed consent 47
• Appendix 3: Questionnaire 48
• Appendix 4: Debriefing form 50
• Appendix 5: Reliability calculations 51
• Appendix 6: ANOVA outputs 52
• Appendix 7: Correlations 54
• Appendix 8: Regression outputs 55
• Appendix 9: Qualitative instructions 56
• Appendix 10: Qualitative informed consent 57
• Appendix 11: Focus group schedule 58
• Appendix 12: Focus group guide 59
• Appendix 13: Exemplar transcript 61
• Appendix 14: Thematic coding framework 69

4
 ALCOHOLIC NATION? EXPLORING THE DRINKING HABITS OF
UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS

INTRODUCTION

O God, that men should put an enemy in their mouths to steal away their brains! That we
should, with joy, pleasance, revel and applause, transform ourselves into beasts!
William Shakespeare, Othello

In recent years, the subject of alcohol has been given centre stage. All over the
world it has cultural significance such that the amount consumed by how many people for
what reasons has many implications. Two countries which have received much media
attention surrounding alcohol in recent years are the UK and the US, both having
developed reputations for underage drinking.
The current study had two main aims. The first of these was to see if differences
in socialisation, attitudes and behaviour surrounding alcohol could be observed between
the nationalities cited and the sexes. Secondly, socialisation with alcohol and attitudes
towards alcohol were studied as possible predictors of behaviour with the view to
suggesting interventions to combat the alleged problems.

Cultural context
We will begin by focussing on the UK. The observed drinking culture appears to
be different from most of the rest of Europe. On the mainland there is what is known as a
continental drinking culture, where alcohol is consumed slowly and usually accompanies
meals. Drinking to the point of extreme inebriation is deemed socially unacceptable.
Contrastingly, in the UK alcohol is consumed rapidly, especially amongst young adults
where the express purpose of many a night out is to get drunk. The British are thus
developing a reputation for binge drinking, which despite having no British Medical
Association definition, has been termed as more than four drinks in one sitting for
women, and more than five for men by social scientists.

5
 It is in the United States however that so called binge drinking is a well-
established and very real problem among teenagers. ‘Common stereotypical participants
include athletes and fraternity/sorority members, particularly after final examinations,
sporting events and during spring break’ (Coleman, 2005). Politicians and media alike
have begun to take a serious view of binge drinking, not least due to the possible medical
consequences, but as a result of the associated violence and anti-social behaviour.
Several nationwide interventions have been seen in both countries attempting to
curb such behaviour. These include legal restrictions prohibiting drinking at certain ages
(18 in the UK, 21 in most of America), ‘and specialised treatment programmes for
youthful problem drinkers’ (Pandina et al, 1986; cited in Pittman and White, 1991).
However, far from solving this ever growing problem, Heath (2000) observed that in
‘societies where drinking is disallowed for many years a mystique develops, and it holds
the implicit promise of power, sexiness and social skills.’ Under these circumstances it is
often found that ‘young people drink too much too fast or for inappropriate and
unrealistic reasons’ (Heath, 2000). This is particularly true for American teenagers and it
has been suggested that binge drinking occurs ‘not in spite of the strict drinking laws but
because of them’ (Coleman, 2005). So how are appropriate behaviours shaped and
moulded without encouraging rebellion? For the purposes of this investigation two
approaches were taken, one studying socialisation and the other focussing on attitudes. It
can be hypothesised that both of these have an impact on drinking behaviour in each of
the proposed nations of study, and thus could provide the key to tackling the so called
binge drinking epidemic.
Across the cultures a great emphasis is placed upon how children are raised.
Indeed this has been the focus of many developmental psychologists for a number of
years. One of the most ‘difficult’ periods of development has been loosely termed
‘adolescence,’ which in general encompasses teenage years. It then follows that parents
would wish to limit or even prevent behaviours developing in their children that would
threaten the ‘competencies believed to be essential for the assumption and performance
of adult roles’ in later life (Pandina, White and Milgram 1986; cited in Pittman and
White, 1991).

6
A Social Learning Perspective
Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of development states that when studying the learning
process of infants, each individual child cannot be considered in isolation. Many
psychologists are in support of this view including Carter and McGoldrick (1999), who
agreed that learning is an interpersonal, dynamic social event, therefore interactions
between children, their peers and caregivers are crucial to development. White, Bates and
Johnson (1990) assert that social reinforcers (provided by other people) ‘are important
determinants of many human behaviours. These consist broadly of positive (approval
from others) or negative (disapproval from others) reinforcement. If reactions from others
are approving, there is a greater likelihood of the behaviour in question being
perpetuated. If reactions from others are disapproving, the behaviour is less likely to
continue. ‘The idea that consequences of behaviour determine whether new behaviours
will be acquired and existing ones will be modified is’ according to White et al (1990),
‘central to most learning theories.’ Furthermore, theories of social learning also
encompass attitudes, expectancies and the influence of observation. Bandura (1977) more
specifically states that ‘Social Learning Theory approaches the explanation of human
behaviour in terms of a reciprocal interaction between cognitive, behavioural and
environmental determinants.’ It then follows that Social Learning Theory is appropriate
for studying drinking behaviours as the effects are ‘determined by complex interactions
around alcohol, the person who drinks it and the environment’ they learn to drink it in
(Sher, 1985). The person, the environment and the behavioural domains of observational
learning and cognitions and expectancies are affected by and affect one another in a
model of reciprocal determinism (White et al, 1990).
As with any psychological phenomenon the issue of individual differences must
be raised. As far as social learning is concerned, it has been suggested that personality,
however it is constructed, has a twofold effect. Firstly it is said to impose limits on how
things are learned and what in fact can be learned. Secondly, personality will also
influence each individual’s interpretation of specific environments (White et al, 1990).
Equally, the environment one is surrounded by also imposes restrictions on what can be

7
and is eventually learned. Further exploration of these separate factors is however beyond
the scope of this study. The main focus here will be to consider observational learning,
cognitions and expectancies within social learning theory.
Observational learning is learning which occurs in the absence of direct
experience (White et al, 1990). People will use others behaviour as a model for their own
when they perceive that they themselves will experience positive consequences as a result
of those behaviours (Bandura, 1977). This is in keeping with positive reinforcement as
delineated earlier as a core feature of most learning theories (White et al, 1990). It can
thus be theorised that drinking behaviours can be observed in the parents of young
children long before they themselves are exposed to alcohol. Spiegler (1983) for
example, found that by the age of six children are already aware of their parents drinking
and the associated normative behaviours. It is thought that observational learning aids the
acquisition of enduring behaviours and, as part of socialisation, helps alcohol
expectancies develop which as White et al (1990) assert ‘provides a theoretical concept to
link early life experiences to later patterns of use.’
‘Throughout the socialisation process, symbolic representations of experience,
including internalised values, beliefs and expectancies are formed and modified first
through exposure to primary caregivers and later through the influence of other
meaningful agents’ (White et al, 1990). Phrased another way, the broad term of
socialisation refers to the developmental changes that are brought about as a consequence
of interacting with other people (Shaffer, 1993), and thus the child’s culture is allowed to
develop. Vygotsky (1978) stated that ‘a child’s world is refracted through the prisms of
his/her culture,’ suggesting the extreme importance of socialisation. He also asserted that
from birth we are social beings capable of interacting with others, but help is needed to
allow us to do things for ourselves. The child is seen as the ‘apprentice’ and the caregiver
the teacher. One such influence process in cognitive development is a form of teaching
known as scaffolding (Wood, Bruner and Ross, 1976). This is when the level of support
given by the caregiver on a particular task is adjusted in response to the child. More
support is given when the child is having difficulty and less when he/she is successful
(Carter and McGoldrick, 1999). Thus, while teaching the ability to drink responsibly,
caregivers might for example start by allowing their children a glass of wine with dinner.

8
When confident that their child was socialised enough, i.e. could cope with the
physiological effects of alcohol as well as the associated social situation, according to
scaffolding they would perhaps move their child onto two glasses of wine with dinner.
While this technique is usually associated with the development of language (Carter et al,
1999) or motor skills (Wood et al, 1976) it is the writers view that is directly relevant to
the current study. Again this ties in with parental reinforcements, both positive and
negative. Prescribed, socialised behaviours will be rewarded by moving the socialisation
on, whereas if the child were to exceed these limits and for example get drunk before
they had acquired an adequate tolerance, the behaviours exhibited as a consequence
would be negatively reinforced by disapproval. And so, through this socialisation or
enculturation, appropriate cognitions and expectancies surrounding alcohol are formed in
an accepting and caring family context (Houghton and Roche, 2001).
In the past the effects of alcohol have largely been attributed to physiological and
pharmacological factors. However, due to an increasing number of laboratory
experiments using a balanced placebo design, effects from socially mediated cognitions
and expectancies have been given more value (Leigh, 1989). The current literature has
shown ‘the individual’s beliefs about how alcohol affects their thoughts feelings and
emotions are indeed related to drinking habits’ (White et al, 1990). Studies devoted to
examining the development of these beliefs and their impact are therefore crucial as
specific aspects of early experiences can be identified as having a profound effect on
drinking behaviours. Thus the current investigation aims to study aspects of socialisation.
Firstly whether the socialisation process differs due to nationality, and secondly whether
it is indeed a factor that helps to predict drinking behaviour in later life.

Attitudes
The term ‘attitude’ as opposed to ‘socialisation’ is perhaps more of a common-
sensical term (Hogg and Vaughan, 2005) despite social psychologists failing to agree on
a single definition. Allport (1935; cited in Hogg and Vaughan, 2005) claimed that the
attitude is ‘social psychology’s most indispensable concept,’ and has been defined by him
as ‘a mental and neural state of readiness, organised through experience, exerting a
directive or dynamic influence upon the individual’s response to all objects and situations

9
with which it is related’ There have been many variations on this definition, but as it has
been one of the most enduring definitions of the attitude and takes both experience and
situation into account, for the purposes of the current study it is more than adequate for
use.
There has also been some debate over the components that make up attitudes and
what they actually do. Again for the present study we turn to the work of Allport (1935;
cited in Hogg and Vaughan, 2005) and his two-component attitude model. As his
definition delineates, this model highlights mental readiness and evaluative responses.
From this perspective attitudes are unobservable entities, but can be inferred by asking
questions regarding behavioural intentions. Attitudes are then said to have a utilitarian
function of object or situation appraisal (Fazio, 1989; cited in Hogg and Vaughan, 2005).
So what use is the study of attitudes to the current investigation? It has been
asserted for many years that attitudes can be useful in predicting behaviours (Hogg and
Vaughan, 2005), although his school of thought has had its critics. In a related example
Gregson and Stacey (1981; cited in Hogg and Vaughan, 2005) found only a small
positive correlation between attitudes and self-rated alcohol consumption. Moreover there
was no indication that changing people’s attitudes towards drinking would alter their
behaviours. Perhaps the most famous anecdotal evidence against the attitude-behaviour
link is that of LaPiere (1934). He was interested in whether the prejudiced attitudes of
Americans towards the Chinese in the 1930s were reflected in their behaviour towards
two Chinese friends of his. He and his two companions embarked on a sightseeing tour of
America, frequenting many hotels and restaurants. LaPiere was afraid his friends would
not be welcome but to his delight they were only refused admittance to one
establishment. Six months later he sent out questionnaires to all the places they had
visited, asking whether they would accept and serve guests of the Chinese race. 92% of
the respondents stated categorically that they would not admit Chinese customers,
highlighting that discrepancy between attitudes and behaviours.
As a result of this more sophisticated methods were sought as psychologists were
still convinced of a scientific link. Fishbein and Azjen (1975; cited in Hogg and
Vaughan, 2005) thus proposed that behaviour could be predicted from general attitudes
but only if a multiple-act criterion scale was implemented. This is a general behavioural

10
index which combines specific behaviours from various situations. This could be where
LaPiere fell into difficulty as he was comparing general attitudes to one specific
behavioural experience. Thus the door was opened for social psychologists to continue to
explore the link between attitudes and behaviours
It is widely accepted that attitudes are predominantly ‘learned rather than innate’
(Hogg and Vaughan, 2005) and thus are formed through the socialisation process, linking
them to social learning theory mentioned previously (Oskamp, 1977; cited in Hogg and
Vaughan, 2005). This is where the different aspects of this study begin to coincide. There
are several behavioural components to the formation of attitudes, some of which have
already been discussed. Positive and negative reinforcement of behaviours in various
situations for example, allow children to form an attitude pertaining to that situation. As
well as through direct experience, attitudes are also formed through observational
learning. That is, children take on board the attitudes of their primary caregivers which in
turn are likely to have an effect on their attitudes in later life (Allport, 1954; cited in
Hogg and Vaughan, 2005).
So, we have established that attitudes are formed through the socialisation process
and if measured carefully can help predict behaviour. Readers may at this point question
the use of separate measures of socialisation and attitudes, as one apparently leads to the
other. The justification for the researcher’s separation comes from two places. Firstly, the
alleged correlation between socialisation and attitudes is one of the aspects tested for in
the present study. Secondly, caregivers are not the only source from which attitudes can
be learnt. The effects of mass media for example have also been studied in-depth and has
been shown to have a profound impact on attitude formation in children (Hogg and
Vaughan, 2005). So, for analytical purposes, differences in attitudes towards alcohol as a
function of nationality were sought. It was also tested to see if it was a factor in
predicting behaviour

Taking stock
Thus far, reasons for the study of socialisation and attitudes surrounding alcohol
have been delineated as both areas are said to have an effect on drinking behaviour.

11
Unacceptable behaviours as a result of alcohol consumption in the underage are now said
to be common-place in both the UK and the US. Consequently, any studies which might
shed some light on possible target areas to ultimately encourage more healthy drinking
behaviours are vital. As stated previously, it is the writers belief that exploring
socialisation and attitudes may prove useful, hence the use of them both as possible
predictors of behaviour. As Britain and America are separate nations, it then follows that
they will have differences, however slight, in teenage drinking behaviours; therefore
nationality was also tested for a predictive quality. This brings us to the final area for
consideration, gender.

Gender
It has been suggested that ‘learning to drink can be viewed as a subtask in identity
development (Gillmore, Wells, Simpson, Morrison, Hoppe and Wilsdon, 1998). As ones
identity is heavily linked with gender, it then follows that differences between the sexes
can be seen with regard to drinking, a claim that has indeed been supported by Roche and
Watt (1999). Traditionally, men have consumed alcohol to illustrate a right of passage
into adulthood; to mark themselves as ‘true men.’ For women in most societies however,
there have always been fewer socially defined rules surrounding alcohol (Roche and
Watt, 1999). Drinking for women has in the past been actively discouraged and in some
cases restricted access to places where alcohol was sold/consumed has been implemented
(Roche and Watt, 1999), highlighting possible differences in socialisation opportunities
and attitude formation.
In recent years however, as woman’s roles in society have begun to stand on
equal footing with those of their male counterparts, drinking levels and patterns can also
now be seen as comparable (Wilsnack and Wilsnack, 1997; cited in Houghton and
Roche, 2001). For this reason the drinking patterns and styles incorporated by females
will be of much interest to social psychologists in years to come (Plant, 1997). The writer
wondered however how significant these alleged changes were on a wide scale. Rooks
(2007) for example, found that female college students were significantly more
responsible whilst drinking than males. Therefore both socialisation and attitudes were

12
studied for gender differences, and in turn gender was tested for its predictive power
regarding drinking behaviour.

13
 STATEMENT OF RESEARCH

As stated at the beginning of the report, there were two main aims of this study.
The first was to establish whether there were any differences between the US and the UK
and the sexes in terms of alcohol socialisation, attitudes and behaviour. The second was
then to see whether socialisation and attitudes predicted behaviour and therefore could be
useful in helping to tackle alcohol related issues.

Hypotheses
The hypotheses reflected these aims. Firstly a socialisation score was obtained
from each participant to establish any significant differences due to a) nationality and b)
gender for the reasons previously outlined. The same was done for attitude and behaviour
scores once they had been collated (see appendix 3 for questionnaire). Thus our first four
quantitative hypotheses were formed:

1) There will be a significant difference in socialisation with alcohol as a function of

nationality (United Kingdom and United States).
2) There will be a significant difference in socialisation with alcohol as a function of
sex.
3) There will be a significant difference in attitudes towards alcohol as a function of
nationality (United Kingdom and United States).
4) There will be a significant difference in attitudes towards alcohol as a function of
sex.

How the socialisation and attitude scores were obtained is described fully in the
forthcoming methodology section along with justification for the scales used.
A link was also sought directly between socialisation and attitudes:

5) Socialisation with alcohol will be significantly positively correlated with attitudes

towards alcohol.

14
 Finally, all of these aspects were considered for their predictive power in regard to
alcohol related behaviour:

6) Socialisation, attitudes, nationality and sex will all go some way to predicting
drinking behaviour.

Further to these primary hypotheses, investigated by quantitative means, the qualitative

part of this research aimed to go beyond the simplicity of the prescribed measures.
Specifically, the qualitative participants were asked about their socialisation experiences
with alcohol, their current attitudes and their behaviours surrounding alcohol (for details
of focus group guide see appendix 12). The findings were also considered with respect to
the quantitative hypotheses.

15
 METHODOLOGY

Design
After careful consideration the design employed by the experimenter was a non-
experimental fixed design comprising of both quantitative and qualitative elements.

Non-experimental
At first it may seem problematic to label a study which includes hypothesis-
testing as non-experimental. However, this was an appropriate design to use in this
instance as the researcher did not try to change ‘the situation, circumstances or
experience of the participants’ (Robson, 2002). The aspects of interest were the
participants’ alcohol socialisation and attitudes as a function of sex and nationality.

Fixed design
As in this study, fixed designs are concerned with group properties and general
tendencies (Robson, 2002). Fixed designs are theory driven and thus any research carried
out must be linked to a strong theoretical rationale. This was deemed appropriate for the
current study as the variables to be included were initially clearly specified, exact
procedures were delineated before the study began and hypotheses were stated. There are
definite advantages to fixed designs due to their ‘ability to transcend individual
differences and identify patterns and processes’ within the groups under consideration
(Robson, 2002). The majority of fixed designs comprise completely of quantifiable
results, however as Oakley (2000; cited in Robson, 2002) asserts, there is nothing to
prevent the use of qualitative methods. Furthermore, the use of both quantitative and
qualitative methods in conjunction is seen as preferable by Holton III and Burnett (2005)
as they suggest that quantitative instruments should be used to investigate general
phenomenon, then qualitative methods can be employed to attain deeper understanding of
the specifics. Once a fixed design is decided upon it must be piloted in order to tackle any
potential problems or question ambiguities. This will be discussed in the following
section.

16
Quantitative
The general phenomena explored by the quantitative part of the current study are
twofold. The first can be broadly described as ‘learning to drink’ or alcohol socialisation,
the second as attitudes towards alcohol. These are two separate dependent variables each
tested for differences as a function of sex and nationality, the two independent variables.
In further statistical analysis all of the variables mentioned thus far become predictor
variables for the criterion variable of alcohol relater behaviour.
To gather all quantitative data a questionnaire-based survey design was
implemented. As with any form of data collection instrument, there are disadvantages of
using a questionnaire. The data may be affected by individual characteristics of the
respondents. Furthermore attitudes may not be reported accurately, for example there
may be a social desirability bias (Robson, 2002). There can also sometimes be a low
response rate, questions may be misunderstood and there is always the possibility that the
respondents may not take the task seriously (Robson, 2002). There are however many
advantages to the use of questionnaire surveys. They are cost effective, simple and easy
to administer and result in efficiently gathering large sets of standardised information
(Robson, 2002).

Qualitative
The qualitative part of this investigation followed the quantitative and was used to
gain a deeper understanding of the reasons surrounding participants’ socialisation with,
attitudes towards and behaviour surrounding alcohol to see whether the findings from the
quantitative section were supported.
Semi-structured focus groups were conducted. Focus groups were the only
qualitative method used as the amount and range of data was increased by collecting from
several people at once and group dynamics helped important topics to be brought to the
surface quickly (Robson, 2002). The use of ‘semi-structure’ was to allow the researcher
to have a clear list of topics to cover and key questions to ask (as required by a fixed
design), yet still maintain the flexibility to explore any other issues raised by the
participants. The ordering of the topics to be covered was also flexible to allow
conversation to flow more easily (see appendix 12 for focus group guides).

17
Pilot Study
As stated previously, due to the fixed nature of the study extensive piloting was
called for.
Four pilot interviews were conducted to explore the issues raised around the
socialisation of young people with alcohol and their subsequent attitudes towards
drinking which were already identified as dependent variables.
From the observed results the original questionnaire was constructed and piloted
on 20 people as each scale consisted of no more than ten items (Field, 2005). The pilot
study participants were all current undergraduates in keeping with the final study
participants that were subsequently recruited. Several changes were made from the
responses obtained including the re-wording and sometimes total exclusion of various
questions. For example, the question ‘how often did your parents drink while you were
growing up,’ was re-worded to consider both parents separately (‘how often did your
mother drink while you were growing up?’; ‘how often did your father drink while you
were growing up?’) after several respondents noted that their parents drank differing
amounts.

Participants
Quantitative
80 participants (40 US and 40 UK undergraduate students) in total were recruited
through an opportunity sample of friends and acquaintances. Questionnaires were
distributed by the researcher on a face to face basis or via email to try and maximise the
response. Equal number of males and females were also recruited for each nationality so
a sex difference could be tested for as indeed there was evidence for one observed in the
literature. As cited previously, Rooks (2007) found that the respondent’s sex affected the
extent to which they would drink responsibly. The study, carried out on college students,
reported that females were significantly more responsible with alcohol than their male
peers. In the present study the ages of the participants ranged from 18 – 24 (mean age =
20.91, standard deviation = 1.28).

18
Qualitative
Two focus groups were conducted with participants from the UK. In the first
group there were three male and three female participants, five of whom were first year
undergraduates and one who was a third year undergraduate. Their ages ranged from 18 –
22 (mean age = 19.0, standard deviation = 1.55). The second group consisted of six male
third and fourth year undergraduate students. It would of course have been preferable to
have had equal numbers of males and females. Their ages ranged from 21 - 23 (mean age
= 21.5, standard deviation = 0.84).
Two focus groups were also conducted with participants from the US. In the first
group there were three male and three female participants, all of whom were in their
junior year at various American universities. Their ages ranged from 20-21 (mean age =
20.5, standard deviation = 0.55). The second group consisted of four female and two male
participants. Two had just finished their freshmen year, two their sophomore year and
two their junior year. Their ages ranged from 18-21 (mean age = 19.3, standard deviation
= 1.21).

Materials
For the quantitative part of the study, all that was needed was an informed consent
form (see appendix 2), a set of instructions (see appendix 1), a debriefing form (see
appendix 4) and the questionnaire itself (see appendix 3) for each participant. The
questionnaire consisted of an alcohol socialisation scale, an attitude scale and a single
alcohol related behaviour item.
The alcohol socialisation scale was constructed by the researcher as an
appropriate alternative could not be found from the literature and was designed to allow
participants to comment on their socialisation experiences with alcohol throughout
adolescence. The scale consisted of eight items, items 1-6 of which were reverse keyed,
all on a 5 point likert scale. Before analysis of the data collected, reliability calculations
were carried out. The original Cronbach’s alpha was found to be 0.22, far lower than the
0.70 standard criterion (Field, 2005). With the exclusion of items 5, 6 and 8 the
Cronbach’s alpha rose to 0.68 which is seen as acceptable with a low number of items

19
(Cooper, 2000). Thus, the remaining items were clustered together to create a single
alcohol socialisation score for each participant, high scores indicating ‘good’
socialisation and low scores indicating ‘bad’ socialisation, and used for the purpose of
analysis.
The ten items making up the attitude scale, five of which were reverse keyed,
were taken from the College Drinking Attitude Scale (CDAS) (Gonzalez, 1990). Each
item again was answered on a 5 point likert scale. Although this scale had been used in
previous studies (Rooks, 2007) no reliability calculations were carried out. The original
Cronbach’s alpha was found to be 0.70 which as stated previously is the standard
criterion (Field, 2005). This was deemed an appropriate scale to use as it was designed
specifically to attain the attitudes of college students towards alcohol.
Finally question 20 on the questionnaire measured alcohol related behaviour,
again on a 5 point likert scale. Technically this data was ordinal but treated as
interval/ratio for analysis. The item was reverse keyed so the higher the score the better
the behaviour.
For the qualitative part of the study, a quiet room with a central table and the
correct number of chairs for the number of participants was required for the focus groups
(seven). Appropriate recording equipment, including a flat microphone, cassette tape
recorder, cassette tapes and batteries, was also needed. Before each interview could begin
informed consent forms were needed (see appendix 10) as were a set of written
instructions (see appendix 9) and an interview guide (see appendix 12). A watch was also
needed to time the interviews. All participants were presented with a debriefing form
once the interview was over (see appendix 4).

Procedure
Quantitative
Before conducting the investigation, ethics approval was gained according to BPS
guidelines from the ethics committee in the department of Social Psychology at the
London School of Economics. Participants were either approached on Houghton Street
on the LSE campus or via email. In both instances they were asked if they would take
part in a psychology experiment concerning undergraduate drinking and all they would

20
be asked to do was complete a questionnaire which would take no longer than ten
minutes. If the answer was yes they were given an informed consent form to read and
were told that taking part was optional, that they could withdraw from participation at
any time and omit any questions they were not comfortable answering (see appendix 9
for written instructions). Once the form was signed, each participant filled out the
questionnaire. Where the questionnaire was handed out by the researcher, the informed
consent form and questionnaire were able to be retrieved immediately. Where the
questionnaire and from were send out via email, the responses in turn came back via
email. All participants were debriefed once questionnaires had been retrieved.
Once questionnaires were retrieved the raw data entered into an SPSS spreadsheet
for analysis. Socialisation and attitude scores were obtained by reversing the reverse
keyed items and adding the scores for each item together. The behaviour rating was
entered as a single score.

Qualitative
The British group interview participants were recruited through an opportunity
sample of friends while the American group interviewees were approached on Houghton
Street during Summer School fortnight. Every participant was asked whether they would
be willing to take part in a focus group on the subject of undergraduate drinking. If they
said they would they were taken to a quiet room in the Social Psychology Institute. As
with the quantitative section each participant was given an informed consent form to read
and told that taking part was optional and that they could withdraw from the study at any
point. Finally they were told that the interview would be recorded. All participants were
then interviewed for no longer than 45 minutes (four focus groups each consisting of six
participants). Each participant was fully debriefed once the interviews were over.
The recordings were then transcribed and analysed. For this purpose, thematic
analysis was the method chosen for its versatility in investigating what people say and
how and why they say it. It also takes into account the context in which that data is
collected. The interpretation was quite subjective and was aided by the aforementioned
psychological research.

21
 For coding, each transcript was read through without anything being recorded.
They were then read for a second time, considering what aspects of drinking the
participants talked about, to try and establish recurring global themes. There were no
strict rules when looking for these themes. They were simply identified as a result of
intuitive hunches. Each transcript was reviewed at least four times before it was fully
analysed. Once the three global themes of socialisation, attitudes and behaviours had
been obtained from the text, each was split into sub-themes for further analysis. The
global theme of socialisation was split into categories of the types of socialisation
processes undergone by the participants, positive and negative. The global theme of
attitudes was split into categories referring to what circumstances participants claimed to
drink under, and whether they seemed to have positive or negative attitudes towards
drinking. These were social activity, right of passage, peer pressure and rebellion.
Finally, the global theme of behaviour was split into categories referring to the types of
behaviours in evidence, positive behaviours, negative behaviours and problem
behaviours. Thorough discussion then followed.

22
 RESULTS AND INTERPRERTATION

Descriptive Statistics
The descriptive statistics of all socialisation, attitude and behaviour scores are
displayed in table 1 below.

Table 1: Mean and standard deviations of all socialisation, attitude and behaviour scores pertaining to alcohol.

N Sample Scale Mean Std.

range range Deviation
Soc Score 80 6-24 5-25 16.58 3.67
Att Score 80 21-49 10-50 35.53 5.23
Beh Score 80 1-5 1-5 2.23 1.21

Key:
Soc Score = Self-rated socialisation score
Att Score = Self-rated attitude score
Beh Score = Self-rated behaviour score

For the two ANOVA calculations, socialisation with alcohol and attitudes towards
alcohol acted as dependent variables, with sex and nationality as independent variables.
Further, for the linear regression socialisation score, attitude score, sex and nationality all
act as predictor variables while behaviour under the influence of alcohol was the
criterion.
The mean socialisation score was 16.68. As low socialisation scores (<12.5)
represent ‘bad’ socialisation and high socialisation scores (>12.5) represent ‘good’
socialisation, this mean score suggested that overall students from the UK and the US
regardless of sex received a good socialisation experience from their parents whilst
growing up. The standard deviation was 3.67.
The mean attitude score was 35.53. The same classification as above applies to
‘good and bad’ or ‘healthy and unhealthy’ attitudes. As the mean was greater than 25, it
could be concluded that all the sampled students had a generally healthy attitude towards
drinking. The standard deviation was 5.23.

23
 Finally, the mean behaviour score was 2.23. Once again a distinction was made
between acceptable (high scores) and more unacceptable (low scores) drinking
behaviours. As the mean was very close to the scale’s midpoint (2.5) it could be stated
that overall, students reported that they displayed moderate drinking behaviours. The
standard deviation was 1.12.
Two analyses of variance were then carried out along with correlation
calculations and a multiple linear regression to ascertain if differences could be seen as a
function of sex and nationality.

Reliability
The internal reliability of the socialisation scale was found to be 0.68. This was
below the 0.70 standard criterion (Field, 2005), however Cooper (2002) stated that for
scales with a low number of items, a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.60 or above can be deemed
acceptable. For the attitude scale the internal reliability was found to be 0.70, exactly the
standard criterion.

Analysis of Variance 1
To determine the effect of gender and nationality on participants’ socialisation
with alcohol a two-way ANOVA for independent groups was conducted. This was
appropriate as there were two independent variables (sex and nationality) each with two
conditions (sex: 1 = male, 2 = female – nationality: 1 = British, 2 = American). The
dependent variable was socialisation score. As the Levene statistic was not significant
(p=0.052), the variances of the different conditions were assumed to be similar and the
SPSS output could be used to establish any main effects or interactions.
While no main effect of gender (F1,76 = 0.77 p=0.39 n.s.) and no interaction
(F1,76 =0.22 p=0.64 n.s.) were found, a main effect of nationality was observed
(F1,76 =19.13 p<0.001). This indicated that socialisation with alcohol differed
significantly depending on the participants’ nationality. This main affect was then
constructed graphically in order to determine the nature of the difference between British
and American students (see Fig. 1).

24
Figure 1: Mean socialisation scores as a function of nationality

20.00

15.00

Mean Socialisation Score

10.00

5.00

0.00
british american

Nationality

The difference between the socialisation scores for British and American participants’ is
clearly visible. The British participants were seen to have higher socialisation scores
(mean = 18.20, standard deviation = 2.71) than the American participants (mean = 14.95.
standard deviation = 3.80) indicating that the sampled students from the UK had
experienced a better socialisation process with alcohol than their American counterparts.
As p<0.001, we can reject the null hypothesis of no difference between British and
American students with regard to socialisation with alcohol, and be 99.9% confident of
the proposed findings. This is in support of hypothesis 1, and could be because of the
stricter and more prominent laws surrounding alcohol and its consumption in the US
(Coleman, 2005). Hypothesis 2 was not supported as there was no difference found in
socialisation as a function of gender. In this instance then, the researcher failed to reject
the null hypothesis. A possible reason for this is that as male and female roles in society
have converged, they have begun to be treated similarly with regard to alcohol
socialisation (Wilsnack and Wilsnack, 1997; cited in Houghton and Roche, 2001).

25
Analysis of variance 2
The process was then repeated with regard to attitudes. So, determine the effect of
gender and nationality on participants’ attitudes towards alcohol, a two-way ANOVA for
independent groups was conducted. Again the two independent variables were sex and
nationality, each with two levels (sex: 1=male, 2=female – nationality: 1=British,
2=American). The dependent variable was attitude score. The Levene statistic again was
not significant (p=0.117) so the variances of the different conditions were assumed to be
similar.
In this instance there were no main effects found for either gender
(F1,76 =0.52 p=0.47 n.s.) or nationality (F1,76 =1.98 p=0.16 n.s.). It was the case therefore
that hypothesis 3 was not supported; no significant difference in attitudes towards alcohol
was found as a function of nationality, thus the researcher failed to reject the null
hypothesis. This indicated that despite belonging to different drinking cultures, attitudes
did not vary enough to be described as significantly different. Hypothesis 4 was also not
supported, therefore the researcher again failed to reject the hull hypothesis of no
difference in attitudes towards alcohol as a function of gender. It could then be suggested
again that this finding was due to increased societal equality. There was also no
significant interaction found between gender and nationality (F1,76 =0.002 p=0.97 n.s.).

An analysis of variance could not be carried out using behaviour as the dependent
variable as it was not calculated as a result of a multiple-act criterion. The researcher felt
however that it was of use to study mean behaviour scores of the British and American
participants.

26
Figure 2: Mean behaviour scores as a function of nationality

3.00

2.50

Mean Behaviour Score

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
british american

Nationality

It can be seen from the graph that the American participant’s mean score was much
higher than that of the British participants. As lower scores (under 2.5) were identified as
signaling ‘bad’ behaviour and higher scores (above 2.5) ‘good’ behaviour, from the
results obtained the British participants reported bad behaviour, while the American
participants reported good behaviour.

Correlational Analysis
A series of correlational calculations were carried out between the predictor
variables socialisation and attitude and the criterion variable behaviour. A positive
correlation was also sought between socialisation and attitudes to establish the nature of
the possible relationship.
A significant correlation was found between socialisation score (predictor) and
behaviour (criterion) (r (80) = -0.26 p<0.05) as shown by figure 3.

27
Figure 3: Relationship between socialisation with alcohol and alcohol related behaviour

24.00

21.00

Socialisation Score
18.00

15.00

12.00

9.00

R Sq Linear = 0.069
6.00

2.00 4.00

Alcohol Related Behaviour Score

The correlation was negative and so the researcher could say with 95% confidence that as
socialisation scores increased, behaviour ratings also increased.
A significant correlation was also found between attitude score (predictor) and
behaviour (criterion) (r (80) = 0.53 p<0.001) as shown in figure 3.

Figure 4: Relationship between attitudes towards alcohol and alcohol related behaviour

50.00

45.00

40.00
Attitude Score

35.00

30.00

25.00

R Sq Linear = 0.285

20.00

2.00 4.00

Alcohol Related Behaviour Score

In this case the correlation was positive so the researcher could say with 99.9%
confidence that as attitude scores increased, behaviour scores decreased. These findings
provided sufficient grounds for running the multiple linear regression.

28
 There was however no significant correlation found between socialisation and
attitudes, (r (80) =0.03 p=0.79 n.s.), so hypothesis 5 was not supported. Consequently, the
researcher failed to reject the null hypothesis and took this finding as justification of
using separate socialisation and attitude scales. This implied that further benefit was
thought to be gained from conducting a multiple linear regression.

Multiple linear regression

Finally, in order to establish firm links between the criterion variable under
consideration, alcohol related behaviour, and all possible predictor variables in this
investigation (sex, nationality, socialisation, attitudes) a multiple regression analysis was
carried out. This type of analysis is beneficial because is assesses the combined predictive
power of the variables, but also considers their inter-relations and thus also assesses their
unique independent contributions. The number of data cases also had to be considered to
ensure the reliability of the regression. Field (2005) states that in general, the more data
collected the better. To be more specific, the two most common rules of thumb are that
one should have at least 10 or 15 cases of data per predictor. To abide by these standards
the current investigation should have had at least 40 or 60 cases of data to ensure a
reliable regression. As the number of data cases was 80, this was deemed appropriate and
the regression could be calculated.
The results did not show any of the data to be positively or negatively skewed,
there were no outliers and homoscedasticity was present indicating that no data
transformation was needed. The predictor variables for the multiple regression were sex,
nationality, socialisation and attitudes. The criterion variable was behaviour.
As the overall p value of the model was less than 0.001, the researcher could be
99.9% confident of its significance. The R2 value was 0.40, indicating that 40% of the
variance in behaviour could be explained by the model which was a moderate finding.

29
Table 2: Standard multiple regression of sex, nationality, socialisation and attitudes related to behaviour

B Beta Semi-partial SR t-value

Corr. (SR)
Sex 0.35 0.15 0.18 0.03 1.61
Nationality 0.30 0.13 0.14 0.02 1.23
Socialisation -0.08 -0.24 -0.26 0.07 -2.33*
Attitudes 0.12 0.51 0.54 0.29 5.56***

* = significant at the 0.05 level * * = significant at the 0.01 level * * * = significant at the 0.001 level

As shown, socialisation with alcohol and attitudes towards alcohol make significant
contributions to predicting alcohol related behaviour.
Controlling for sex, nationality and attitudes, a one unit increase in socialisation
corresponded to a predicted 0.08 unit decrease in behaviour. This result then implied that
the worse the socialisation experience, the better the subsequent alcohol related
behaviour. The result will be examined further in the discussion section. It can also be
observed from the SR values that socialisation accounted for 7% of the variance in
alcohol related behaviour.
Controlling for sex, nationality and socialisation, a one unit increase in attitudes
corresponded to a predicted 0.12 increase in behaviour. This result implied that the better
the attitude towards alcohol the better that alcohol related behaviour. Further examination
was then carried out which will be discussed later. The SR value in this case showed that
attitudes accounted for 29% of the variance in alcohol related behaviour. This was a very
large proportion of the variance accounted by the whole model (40%). Hypothesis 6 was
thus in part supported.

Thematic analysis
As previously delineated, thematic analysis was the data management technique
of choice. The data was observed and understood and themes were then encoded and
used to interpret the data (Garcia, 2005). Three global themes were identified as
socialisation, attitudes towards drinking and behaviour. Subsequently each of these global

30
themes was split into sub-themes to provide more in-depth information. The following
table (table 3) gives an initial feel for the data, showing counts for each theme and sub-
theme as a function of nationality.

Table 3: Qualitative coding

Global themes Sub-themes UK participants US participants

Socialisation Positive soc 12 3
Negative soc 6 13
Attitudes Social activity 14 6
Right of passage 6 5
Peer Pressure 7 8
Rebellion 8 10
Behaviour Positive 16 1
Negative 12 8
Problem 2 4

Each theme will now be taken in turn, the sub-themes explained and interpretation given.

1. Socialisation
The theme of socialisation was established to shed some light on the respondents’
learning processes surrounding alcohol consumption. Two sub-themes were identified -
positive socialisation and negative socialisation. Positive socialisation was termed to
mean evidence that participant’s parents had on occasion allowed them to try alcohol
while they were growing up, i.e. the participants had been socialised with alcohol
throughout childhood. Negative socialisation was termed to mean evidence that
participant’s parents had discouraged them from socialising themselves with alcohol..
As can be seen in table 3, the UK participants (count of 12) seemed to have had
more positive socialisation with alcohol than the US participants (count of 3). This was
displayed by participants reporting that their parents would allow them to occasionally
have a small amount to drink.

31
 ‘..they always gave me a glass of wine with food.’

There were some UK participants however whose parents actively discouraged drinking
(negative socialisation)...

‘I don’t really associate drinking with my family’

..and the answer for them seemed to be to drink at a friends house whose parents were
more lenient. There appeared to be a general consensus about being able to drink in a safe
environment while they were underage.
This was not found to be the case for the American participants. There were many
more counts of negative socialisation (count of 13) than for the UK participants (count of
6) (see table 3). There was a predominant view that most parents would not allow
underage drinking within the home.

‘…very few parents were willing to throw parties with

alcohol present.’

One American participant even went as far as to say..

‘…you don’t learn how to socially drink through this

system.’ If kids were allowed to drink at home ‘they
might learn their drinking limit early and at a place
where it is safe to do so.’

This view seemed to also be held by the British participants.

‘I think in American societies they don’t become as

accustomed to alcohol as we do, we’re more careful.’

32
 These findings supported the significant result found in the quantitative part of the
study, and indicated that the UK participants underwent more socialisation with alcohol
than the American participants (hypothesis 1).

2. Attitudes
Participants were asked under what circumstances they usually drank alcohol.
Four sub-themes were identified, social activity, right of passage, peer pressure and
rebellion. Social activity was termed to mean evidence that participants drank in
conjunction with social activities in a generally positive way. Right of passage was
termed as evidence that participants drank in a bid to be more ‘grown-up’ and was also
recognised as positive. Peer pressure was termed as any evidence that participants were
forced into drinking when they didn’t want to (negative). Lastly, rebellion was termed as
evidence for alcohol consumption being associated with doing something cool and
dangerous, also deemed a negative attitude to have.
The English participants’ social activity count was their highest in this global
theme (count of 14).

‘It’s an enjoyable social activity.’

It was also seen as a very positive thing..

‘…we want to keep celebrating, if it feels good we

carry on doing it.’

For the US participants it was rebellion, one of the negatively valenced sub-themes that
received the highest count (count of 10). One American participant said that some
students view drinking as..

‘…exciting, we never drank alcohol before and we

really aren’t allowed to do it.’

33
As can be seen from table 3, British and American students had comparable scores for the
peer pressure and right of passage sub-themes.
It would appear from these findings that the British participants on the whole had
healthier attitudes than the American participants, something that was not illustrated by
the quantitative part of this study. This was also in support of hypothesis three.
Another interesting point of note here it that all the counts of right of passage
referred to male students, highlighting evidence for a sex difference still in existence.
This is in support of hypothesis four and implies as Rooks (2007) found that female
students may be more responsible with alcohol than their male peers as ‘right of passage’
was coded as negative.

3. Behaviour
Lastly, participants were asked about their behaviour while drinking alcohol.
Three sub-themes were identified, positive behaviours, negative behaviours and problem
behaviours. Positive behaviours were termed as behaviours which only had agreeable
consequences for the participants. Negative behaviours were those that were deemed
undesirable by the participants. Problem behaviour might at first glance seem to be the
same as negative behaviour. In fact problem behaviour was coded differently as this was
deemed as behaviour that was unacceptable and led to serious consequences.
The British participants spoke of the positive behaviours that can result from
alcohol consumption (count of 16) a great deal more than the American participants
(count of 1).

‘People have more fun because people just relax.’

‘There’ll be one person out of 1000 people that did

something stupid, and there’ll be 999 others having a
good night.’

34
This highlights the view that students who exhibit problem behaviours were in the
minority.
The British participants also had a high count of negative behaviours (count of
12), however they were never talked about in what the researcher would term a serious
manner.

‘You do really stupid stuff all the time, but everyone

has that in their first year.’

In contrast, the American participants seemed to take negative behaviours far more
seriously..

‘It can affect decision making so people will do things

they may not normally do if they’re sober.’

…and spoke of ‘binge drinking’ being a major problem in the US.

‘There is definitely a problem with binge drinking here.

It is in the news every so often with some story about a
party that goes horribly wrong with someone dying
because of drinking…’

British participants reported half as many counts of problem behaviour, and largely
maintained that any alcohol related issues are exaggerated by the media.

‘I think we’ve got to remember as well that a lot of the

media is for older generations and they see it as a
problem of the youth of today rather than getting someone
from our age group, our generation, and seeing what our
view is.’

35
Overall, these findings led the researcher to believe that there were links to be made
between socialisation, attitudes and behaviour surrounding alcohol. The British
participants displayed clear evidence of socialisation processes with alcohol. They also
appeared to predominantly associate drinking with social activities and special occasions.
They were thus deemed to have generally healthy attitudes towards alcohol consumption.
Furthermore, they reported generally positive behaviours. In contrast, the American
participants gave far more evidence of negative socialisation. Following from this, they
appeared to drink or assumed others drank for negative reasons and talked largely of
negative or problem behaviours. On these bases it appeared that hypothesis 5 was
supported as there was a relationship between socialisation and attitudes. Hypothesis 6
was also supported as both socialisation and attitudes seemed to have an influence on
behaviour. The qualitative results however suggested that better socialisation and
attitudes predict better behaviour, while the quantitative results suggested that better
attitudes predict better behaviour, but that better socialisation predicts worse behaviour.
All aspects of the results were then discussed and considered for reliability and validity.

36
 DISCUSSION

Summary
This study examined the relationships between undergraduate students’
socialisation with alcohol, attitudes towards alcohol and behaviour while under the
influence of alcohol. Differences were also sought as a function of sex (male and female)
and nationality (British and American).
The quantitative findings were that there was a difference in participant’s
socialisation as a function of nationality, with the British students displaying higher
socialisation scores than the American students. This was in accordance with hypothesis
one. It was also observed that British participants reported worse behaviour scores than
the American participants. Furthermore, both socialisation and attitudes were predictive
of behaviour, with better attitudes predicting better behaviour, but better socialisation
predicting worse behaviour. This was in keeping with the rest of the quantitative findings
and was in support of hypothesis six.
The qualitative findings were slightly different. Variance was observed as a
function of nationality for both socialisation and attitudes with the British participants
displaying more positive views. This was in support of hypotheses one and three. A sex
difference was also observed with the male participants displaying more negative reasons
for drinking, supporting hypothesis four. Also observable was a difference in behaviour
as a function of nationality, but in the opposite direction to that found in the quantitative
results. Furthermore, both better socialisation and attitudes were seen to predict better
behaviour. This result was in accordance with hypothesis six, and unlike its quantitative
counterpart, was supported by the current literature (Houghton and Roche, 2001; White et
al, 1990).
As the qualitative results were in line with current research, the reliability of the
quantitative findings was called into question. As previously stated, the Cronbach’s alpha
for the socialisation scale was 0.68 which was deemed adequate by Cooper (2000). The
Cronbach’s alpha for the attitude scale was 0.70, which met the standard criterion (Field,
2005). We could assume then for the moment that both scales were reliable.

37
Limitations
In any study carried out at this level there will be several limitations. Firstly, with
both quantitative scales having under 20 items may have made them unreliable (Cooper,
2000) despite the adequate internal reliability scores. It would, in the researcher’s mind,
then be possible to achieve the quantitative significance to back up the qualitative
findings with the use of newly developed scales. Two ways the socialisation scale could
be improved would be firstly to include questions about specific socialisation
experiences, and secondly to acknowledge friends as another source of learning
(Houghton and Roche, 2001).
The measures were also very subjective due to the likert scales used. Hasson and
Arnetz (2005) point out that despite likert scales being easy to construct and complete,
the number of categories must be chosen carefully. Too many and the participants have
too much choice, too few and the scale may not be sensitive enough for what it allegedly
measures. This may lead to a response that does not reflect the true feelings of the
participant.
The issue of individual differences is also raised here as, for example,
participant’s memories may vary which could have led to imprecise responses. Equally
with reference to the attitude scale, one person’s view of being very likely to do
something may be different from the next person’s. This problem has also been identified
by Li (2001), who describes how evaluations may become biased if some participants are
over generous with their ratings, or equally if participants were very conservative. For
example, two participants may have had similar views on each of the situations
delineated in the attitude scale but one simply predisposed to make more extreme
judgements. This could have skewed the results and the outcome may have been different
had the scale been more objective.
Furthermore, the behaviour rating used could also have been unreliable. It may,
for example, have been of more use to use a measure which would produce strictly
interval-ratio data. In fact Pandina (1986) stated that ‘measures of drinking frequency or
quantity of alcohol consumption were insufficient indicators’ of drinking behaviour. He
suggested the use of a more comprehensive behavioural scale (The Adolescent Alcohol
Involvement Scale, Filstead and Mayer, 1980; Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index, White

38
and Labouvie, 1989) but contended that many needed further piloting before being put
into use. Further research should also consider how students perceive ‘healthy drinking
behaviours’ as these may vary considerably.
The question of social desirability may also have been an issue in both sections of
this research. In other words, participants may have answered in a certain way for fear of
how they would be perceived if they didn’t (Franzoi, 2003). One example where this
could have occurred is in the attitude scale, as participants were asked how likely they
were to prevent one of their friends from drink driving. As there is such a social stigma
around this act, the vast majority of responses to this particular item were ‘very likely,’
perhaps whether this reflected their true feelings or not. In future, items such as these
could be replaced with more socially ambiguous statements.
Equally, the well documented experimenter effect could also have been at work
here (Schiltz and Weiseman, 1997). For example, the fact that the experimenter is female
could have led the other female participants to under-report their drinking attitudes and
behaviours for fear of judgement; where as the male participants may have over-reported
with the aim of being perceived as the stereotypical alpha male.
One final confounding variable that applies to the qualitative section of this study
is the fact that the British participants all knew each other. This could either have allowed
the subjects to speak more openly as they felt comfortable with their friends, or it could
have had the opposite effect and people may have been less likely to talk freely. As part
of future research, participants could be asked how comfortable they felt while taking
part in the focus group as a reliability measure. It was also possible that the American
participants could have met before or noticed each other around the LSE campus. If
participants had any preconceptions about their fellow group members it could have
affected their interaction and thus altered what they chose to share. This theory is
consistent with research conducted by King and Pate (2002) on first impressions and their
influence on behaviour and formulating opinions on others. Further research should again
look to measure initial perceptions to minimise bias.

39
Implications
As we have seen, both sections of research (quantitative and qualitative) were
seen as reliable due to internal reliability or previous research. Before conclusions could
be drawn, all possible implications were considered. As delineated in the introduction,
the aim of this investigation was to take two countries where there is evidence of
unacceptable drinking behaviour and consider a) whether this appeared to be the case and
b) suggest ways of combating the escalating problems by studying socialisation and
attitudes.
It is the implications of the regressional analysis that become the most important.
If the quantitative results are to be believed, the British participants who have received
better socialisation, exhibit worse behaviour than the American participants. This implies
that allowing children to learn how to drink within the home could in fact be the cause of
unacceptable behaviour. This gives fuel to those who believe stricter rules should be in
place regarding alcohol in the home. This however a direct contradiction to many
researchers including Coleman (2005). Cited earlier, he stated that teenagers are more
likely to find the opportunity to drink once it is forbidden. Also, the ‘more rules’
approach as stated earlier has already been tried and has failed to make any real impact.
It is the opinion of the researcher however, that as more limitations can be seen
for the quantitative part of the study, the qualitative results provide the most insight. Of
the sampled participants, the British students reported better socialisation and better
attitudes which in turn appeared to lead to better alcohol relate behaviour. Conversely,
the American students reported worse socialisation and worse attitudes leading to more
negative and problem behaviours. As these results were gained from a small sample, they
may not be generalisable to the population as a whole. In other words, not all British
students will behave well under the influence of alcohol, and not all American students
will behave badly under the influence of alcohol. However, it is the researcher’s view that
the results imply that socialisation with alcohol and attitudes towards alcohol should be
seen as key areas in tacking alcohol related problems regardless of country or sex. These
thoughts could be explored further by examining socialisation, attitudes and behaviours
in other countries. This researcher would begin with Europe as have a widely recognised
continental drinking culture, providing stark contrast to Britain and America.

40
Proposal
So what do these results suggest we do? How could learning to drink be used
strategically to improve alcohol related behaviour? The researcher suggests drawing upon
organisational psychology’s issues management and using this as a framework to develop
more plausible interventions.
Issues management is a tool that companies use to identify analyse and manage
emerging issues and respond to them (Cornelissen, 2005). Used in organisational settings,
issues management aims to prevent crises from arising, and is anticipatory and proactive
(Muir, 2007). Furthermore, Jaques (2002) has identified defensive issues management as
focussing on an already prevalent issue – something well known in the public sphere. If
these issues do cross over into the public sphere they then become crises, in some cases
having detrimental effects on the company in question (Cornelissen, 2005). These notions
can be directly linked to the issue of adolescent drinking. It is the writer’s assertion that if
interventions were in place at the issue stage, then far less teenagers would reach the
point of crisis and the problem drinking discussed in this report. ‘An issue ignored is a
crisis ensured,’ (Regester and Larkin, 1997). Moreover, it has been recognised that the
current generation have a declining trust in large corporations (Smola and Sutton, 2002).
This may indicate yet another reason for the failure of large scale crisis prevention
schemes. If the whole issue of alcohol were far more open and allowed to become part of
growing up in a safe and trusting environment, it could be managed more effectively and
avoid as many crises.

Conclusion
The researcher acknowledges that the suggested proposal would take years to be
effective. Drinking cultures are such that in the current climate it would be naïve to think
things could change overnight. By effecting small but significant inroads in the home
however, larger scale change will follow (Weick, 1984).

‘To alcohol, the cause of, and solution to, all of life’s problems.’
Homer Simpson.

41
References

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

Carter, B., & McGoldrick, M. (Eds.). (1999). The Expanded Family Life Cycle:
Individual, Family and Social Perspectives (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Coleman, L. (2005). Underage ‘Risky’ Drinking: Motivations and Outcomes. York:

Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Cornelissen, J. (2005). Corporate Communications: Theory and Practice. London: Sage

Publications Ltd.

Field, A. (2005). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (2nd Ed.). London: Sage Publications
Ltd.

Filstead, W.J., & Mayer, J.E. (1980). Adolescence and Alcohol. Cambridge, MA:
Ballinger.

Franzoi, S.L. (2003). Social Psychology (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Garcia, L. (2005) Methods of Research in Organisational and Social Psychology.

Lecture 5: Thematic Analysis. London School of Economics and Political
Science: October 31, 2005.

Gillmore, M.R., Wells, E.A., Simpson, E.E., Morrison, D.M., Hoppe, M.J., & Wilsdon,
A. (1998). Children’s beliefs about drinking. American Journal of Drugs and
Alcohol Abuse, 24, 131-151.

Gonzalez, G. M. (1990). College Drinking Attitude Scale: A tool for alcohol education
Program assessment. International Journal of the Addictions, 25, 1268 – 1270.

42
Hasson, D., & Arnetz, B.B. (2005). Validation and findings comparing Vas vs Likert
Scales for psychological measurements. The International Electronic Journal of
Health Education, 8, 178-192.

Heath, D.B. (2000). Drinking Occasions: Comparative Perspectives on Alcohol and

Culture. Hove, UK: Brunner/Mazel.

Hogg, M.A., & Vaughan, G.M. (2005). Social Psychology (4th ed). Essex: Pearson
Education Ltd.

Holton III, E. F., and Burnett, M. F. (2005) In Swanson, R. A. & Holton III, E. F. (eds.)
Research in organizations: foundations and methods of inquiry. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Houghton, E., & Roche, A.M. (2001). Learning About Drinking. E. Sussex: Brunner-
Routledge.

Jaques, E. (2002). Social Power and the CEO: Leadership and Trust in a Sustainable
Free Enterprise System. Westpoint, Connecticut: Quarium Books.

King, A.R., & Pate, A.N. (2002). Individual differences in judgment tendencies derived
from first impressions. Personality and Individual Differences, 33(1), 131-145.

LaPiere, R.T. (1934). Attitudes vs actions. Social Forces, 13, 230-237.

Leigh, B.C. (1989). In search of the seven dwarves: Issues of measurement and meaning
in alcohol expectancy research. Psychological Bulletin, 150, 361-373.

Li, L.K.Y. (2001). Some refinements on peer assessment of group projects. Assessment
And Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(1), 5-18.

43
Muir, L. (2007). Corporate Communications. Lecture 5: Issues and Crisis Management.
London School of Economics and Political Science: February 12th 2007.

Pandina, R.J. (1986). Methods, problems and trends in studies of adolescent drinking
practices. Annals of Behavioural Medicine, 8(2-3), 20-26.

Pittman, D.J., & White, H.R. (1991). Society, Culture and Drinking Patterns
Reexamined. New Jersey: Alcohol Research Documentation Inc.

Plant, M. (1997). Women and Alcohol: Contemporary and Historical Perspectives.

London: Free Association Books.

Regester, M., & Larkin, J. (1997). Risk, Issues and Crisis Management. London:
Kogan Page.

Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research (2nd Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Roche, A.M., & Watt, K. (1999). Drinking and university students: From celebration to
inebriation. Drug and Alcohol Review, 18, 625-632.

Rooks, L. M. (2007). Responsible Drinking Attitude Levels and Student’ Involvement in

Social Organisations. Retrieved February 19, 2007 from
http://clearinghouse.missouriwestern.edu/manuscripts/21.asp

Shaffer, D.R. (1993). Developmental Psychology: Childhood and Asolescence (3rd ed.).
Pacific Grove, California: Brooks/Cole.

Sher, K.J. (1985). Subjective effects of alcohol: The influence of setting and individual
differences in alcohol expectancies. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 46, 137-146.

44
Schiltz, M., & Weiseman, R. (1997). Experimenter effects and the remote detection of
staring. The Journal of Parapsychology, 61, 220-221.

Smola, K.W., & Sutton, C.D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational
work values for the new millennium. The Journal of Organisational Behaviour,
23, Special Issue.

Spiegler, D.S. (1983). Children’s attitudes towards alcohol. Journal of Studies on

Alcohol, 44, 545-548.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Weick, K. (1984). Small wins: Redefining the scale of social problems. American
Psychologist, 39(1), 40-49.

White, H.R., Bates, M.E., & Johnson, V. (1990). Social reinforcement and alcohol
consumption. In W.M. Cox (Ed.). Why People Drink: Parameters of Alcohol
as a Social Reinforcer. New York: Gardner Press.

White, H.R., & Labouvie, E.W. (1989). Towards assessment of adolescent problem
drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 50, 30-37.

Wood, D.J., Bruner, J.S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.

45
Appendix 1:

Questionnaire instructions (to be supplied to each participant):

The function of this questionnaire is to collect data for a postgraduate research project.

The questionnaire is about undergraduate drinking – young people’s socialisation with

and current attitudes and behaviours towards alcohol. I would be very grateful if you
would participate.

Completing the questionnaire is optional, thus you are under no obligation to take part in
the study.

If you do decide to participate you may withdraw from the study at any time, for any
reason and you may also omit any questions you do now wish to answer.

If you have read these instructions carefully and wish to take part in the study, please
read and complete the informed consent form.

Thank you.

46
Appendix 2:

INFORMED CONSENT FORM

Title of research : Learning to drink and current attitudes and

behaviours of undergraduate students regarding
alcohol. Contrast between UK and US
undergraduates.

Purpose of research : MSc Organisational and Social Psychology –

Research report

Investigator : ***** ******

Description of procedure : In this investigation you will simply be asked to

complete a questionnaire regarding your
experiences with alcohol and your current attitudes
and behaviours surrounding its consumption.

Aims : To establish a link between early socialisation with

alcohol, and future behavioural patterns and
attitudes towards alcohol in undergraduate
students. Also to observe any differences between
students from the UK and the US.

I understand the procedure that is to be used.

I understand that participation in this study is confidential and my name will not be used
in connection with the results in any way.

I understand that I have to right to obtain information about the findings of the study and
details of how to obtain this information will be given in the debriefing form.

I understand that the data will be destroyed once the study is completed.

Signature of participant ……………………………….

Date ……………………………….

47
 LEARNING TO DRINK AND CURRENT ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOURS OF
UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS REGARDING ALCOHOL

Please circle the most appropriate response for your own experiences:
1. At what age did you first try alcohol?
< 10 10 – 12 13-15 16 – 18 19 +

2. Under what circumstances did you first try alcohol?

At home At a friend’s In a pub In a club Other – please specify below
house

3. Where did most of your early drinking experiences take place?

At home At a friend’s In a pub In a club Other – please specify below
house

4. How would you describe these experiences?

Very positive Positive Neutral Negative Very negative
5. How often did your mother drink while you were growing up?
Never Once a month A few times a month Once a week More than once a week

6. How often did your father drink while you were growing up?
Never Once a month A few times a month Once a week More than once a week

7. To what extent were you encouraged by your parents to become acquainted with alcohol while you were
growing up? Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 A large amount

8. To what extent were you aware of representations of alcohol in the media while you were growing up?
Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 A large amount

9. What other things, if any, influenced your perceptions of alcohol?

Please answer each of the following statements based on your own current beliefs and attitudes. 1 = Very
unlikely, 5 = Very likely. How likely are you to:

10. Use alcohol in addition to another social activity rather than as the primary focus of attention.
Very unlikely Unlikely Neutral Likely Very likely
1 2 3 4 5

11. Provide food when you’re hosting a party where alcohol is being served.
Very unlikely Unlikely Neutral Likely Very likely
1 2 3 4 5
12. Rationalise drinking by such comments as ‘I need one more to relax,’ or ‘how about one for the road’
Very unlikely Unlikely Neutral Likely Very likely
1 2 3 4 5

48
 13. Gulp drinks for the stronger effect
Very unlikely Unlikely Neutral Likely Very likely
1 2 3 4 5

14. Express displeasure to someone who has had too much to drink at your party
Very unlikely Unlikely Neutral Likely Very likely
1 2 3 4 5

15. Drink alone from a desire to escape boredom or loneliness

Very unlikely Unlikely Neutral Likely Very likely
1 2 3 4 5

16. Set limits on how many drinks you’re going to have on a night out
Very unlikely Unlikely Neutral Likely Very likely
1 2 3 4 5

17. Celebrate by drinking when things go well for you

Very unlikely Unlikely Neutral Likely Very likely
1 2 3 4 5

18. Discourage a date or friend who is under the influence of alcohol from driving
Very unlikely Unlikely Neutral Likely Very likely
1 2 3 4 5

19. Drink primarily to get drunk

Very unlikely Unlikely Neutral Likely Very likely
1 2 3 4 5

Please circle the appropriate response:

20. How often do you currently drink alcohol?
Never Once a month A few times a month Once a week More than once a week

Please specify:
21. What is your age (to the nearest year)? ………..………..

Please circle:

22. What is your sex? M F

23. What is your nationality? British American
24. Is there anything else you wish to add?

Thank you for your time.

49
Appendix 4:
DEBRIEFING FORM

Title of research: Learning to drink and current attitudes and behaviours of undergraduate
students regarding alcohol.
Context: MSc Organisational and Social Psychology – Research Report
Investigator: ***** ******
E-mail: **********@lse.ac.uk
Supervisor: Dr Jan Stockdale

Thank you for your participation in this study.

The first aim of this study were to establish whether there were any differences between
the US and the UK and the sexes in terms of alcohol socialisation, attitudes and
behaviour. The second was then to see whether socialisation and attitudes predicted
behaviour and therefore could be useful in helping to tackle alcohol related issues.

All data will remain confidential. If you wish to withdraw your data you can do so by
contacting me at the above e-mail address and quoting your participant number.

If you have any questions about the experiment or would like a summary of the results
please contact me at the above e-mail address.

If you require any form of counseling after participating in this study, please contact the
counseling service provided by the London School of Economics:

LSE Student Counselling Service Tel: 020 7852 3627

Teaching and Learning Centre Fax: 020 7955 6625
U600, Tower One Email: student.counselling@lse.ac.uk
London School of Economics
Houghton Street
London WC2A 2AE

50
Appendix 5:

Reliability analysis for 5 items of the socialisation scale

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Corrected Cronbach's

Scale Mean if Variance if Item-Total Alpha if Item
Item Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Deleted
Soc1R 13.5625 8.680 .480 .606
Soc2R 12.3875 8.747 .496 .598
Soc3R 12.8125 8.787 .448 .621
Soc4R 13.0125 10.443 .348 .662
Soc7 14.5250 9.797 .392 .645

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.679 5

N of cases = 80

Reliability analysis for 10 items of the attitudes scale

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Corrected Cronbach's

Scale Mean if Variance if Item-Total Alpha if Item
Item Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Deleted
Att10 31.5875 26.929 -.036 .734
Att11 31.6875 21.078 .451 .658
Att12R 31.6125 22.063 .500 .653
Att13R 32.2500 19.962 .573 .631
Att14 32.3625 22.715 .339 .681
Att15R 30.9625 25.606 .187 .700
Att16 32.6750 21.058 .483 .652
Att17R 33.3125 22.243 .408 .668
Att18 30.6750 26.501 .206 .700
Att19R 32.6000 21.129 .426 .664

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.699 10

N of cases = 80

51
Appendix 6:

ANOVA - Socialisation

Between-Subjects Factors

Value Label N
Sex 1.00 male 40
2.00 female 40
Nationality 1.00 british 40
2.00 american 40

Descriptive Statistics

Dependent Variable: SocScoreT

Sex Nationality Mean Std. Deviation N
male british 18.0500 2.35025 20
american 14.4500 4.26090 20
Total 16.2500 3.85473 40
female british 18.3500 3.08263 20
american 15.4500 3.31623 20
Total 16.9000 3.48477 40
Total british 18.2000 2.70991 40
american 14.9500 3.80250 40
Total 16.5750 3.66570 80

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances a

Dependent Variable: SocScoreT

F df1 df2 Sig.
2.697 3 76 .052
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the
dependent variable is equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept+Sex+Nationality+Sex * Nationality

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: SocScoreT

Type III Sum
Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 222.150a 3 74.050 6.705 .000
Intercept 21978.450 1 21978.450 1989.948 .000
Sex 8.450 1 8.450 .765 .385
Nationality 211.250 1 211.250 19.127 .000
Sex * Nationality 2.450 1 2.450 .222 .639
Error 839.400 76 11.045
Total 23040.000 80
Corrected Total 1061.550 79
a. R Squared = .209 (Adjusted R Squared = .178)

52
ANOVA – Attitudes

Between-Subjects Factors

Value Label N
Sex 1.00 male 40
2.00 female 40
Nationality 1.00 british 40
2.00 american 40

Descriptive Statistics

Dependent Variable: AttScoreT

Sex Nationality Mean Std. Deviation N
male british 34.2500 3.73990 20
american 35.9500 7.02982 20
Total 35.1000 5.62412 40
female british 35.1500 4.57999 20
american 36.7500 5.08739 20
Total 35.9500 4.84609 40
Total british 34.7000 4.15223 40
american 36.3500 6.07031 40
Total 35.5250 5.23371 80

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances a

Dependent Variable: AttScoreT

F df1 df2 Sig.
2.029 3 76 .117
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the
dependent variable is equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept+Sex+Nationality+Sex * Nationality

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: AttScoreT

Type III Sum
Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 68.950a 3 22.983 .834 .479
Intercept 100962.050 1 100962.050 3662.585 .000
Sex 14.450 1 14.450 .524 .471
Nationality 54.450 1 54.450 1.975 .164
Sex * Nationality .050 1 .050 .002 .966
Error 2095.000 76 27.566
Total 103126.000 80
Corrected Total 2163.950 79
a. R Squared = .032 (Adjusted R Squared = -.006)

53
Appendix 7:

Correlations

Correlations

SocScoreT AttScoreT
SocScoreT Pearson Correlation 1 .030
Sig. (2-tailed) .790
N 80 80
AttScoreT Pearson Correlation .030 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .790
N 80 80

Correlations

SocScoreT Beh20R
SocScoreT Pearson Correlation 1 -.263*
Sig. (2-tailed) .018
N 80 80
Beh20R Pearson Correlation -.263* 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .018
N 80 80
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Correlations

Beh20R AttScoreT
Beh20R Pearson Correlation 1 .534**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 80 80
AttScoreT Pearson Correlation .534** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 80 80
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

54
Appendix 8:

Regression

Variables Entered/Removed b

Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method
1 Sex,
Nationality,
. Enter
AttScoreT, a
SocScoreT
a. All requested variables entered.
b. Dependent Variable: Beh20R

Model Summary

Adjusted Std. Error of

Model R R Square R Square the Estimate
1 .630a .397 .365 .96519
a. Predictors: (Constant), Sex, Nationality, AttScoreT,
SocScoreT

ANOVAb

Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 46.080 4 11.520 12.366 .000a
Residual 69.870 75 .932
Total 115.950 79
a. Predictors: (Constant), Sex, Nationality, AttScoreT, SocScoreT
b. Dependent Variable: Beh20R

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients Correlations
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part
1 (Constant) -1.653 1.023 -1.616 .110
SocScoreT -.078 .033 -.236 -2.327 .023 -.263 -.260 -.209
AttScoreT .118 .021 .509 5.560 .000 .534 .540 .498
Nationality .302 .246 .126 1.230 .223 .311 .141 .110
Sex .350 .217 .146 1.611 .111 .166 .183 .144
a. Dependent Variable: Beh20R

55
Appendix 9:

Focus Group Instructions (to be read to participants before each focus group):

The purpose of this focus group is to explore your socialisation experiences with alcohol
and your current attitudes and behaviours towards drinking.

Taking part is optional.

The focus group will be recorded and will last no longer than one hour.

If you are willing to take part in the focus group then please read and complete the
informed consent form.

Thank you.

56
Appendix 10:
INFORMED CONSENT FORM

Title of research : Learning to drink and current attitudes and

behaviours of undergraduate students regarding
alcohol. Contrast between UK and US
undergraduates.

Purpose of research : MSc Organisational and Social Psychology –

Research report

Investigator : ***** *****

Description of procedure : In this investigation you will be asked to

take part in a focus group regarding your
experiences with alcohol and your current attitudes
and behaviours surrounding its consumption. The
focus group will last no longer than 1 hour.

Aims : To establish a link between early socialisation with

alcohol, and future behavioural patterns and
attitudes towards alcohol in undergraduate
students. Findings from this focus group will be
compared with those from focus groups conducted
on US students.

I understand the procedure that is to be used.

I understand that participation in this study is confidential and my name will not be used
in connection with the results in any way.

I understand that I have to right to obtain information about the findings of the study and
details of how to obtain this information will be given in the debriefing form.

I understand that the data will be destroyed once the study is completed.

Signature of participant ……………………………….

Date ……………………………….

57
Appendix 11: Interview Schedule

Focus Group 1
Date: Monday 9th April ‘07
Time: 3pm
Duration: 45 mins
No. of participants: 6
Nationality: British

Focus Group 2
Date: Saturday 28th April ‘07
Time: 3pm
Duration: 45 mins
No. of participants: 6
Nationality: British

Focus Group 3
Date: Thursday 5th July ‘07
Time 1pm
Duration: 45 mins
No. of participants: 6
Nationality: American

Focus Group 4
Date: Friday 6th July ‘07
Time: 1pm
Duration: 45 mins
No. of participants: 6
Nationality: American

58
Appendix 12:

Interview Guide

Topic 1: Feelings surrounding alcohol

• What images are conjured when you think about alcohol?
• Why do you have these feelings?
• Have any experiences in particular made you feel this way?

Topic 2: Circumstances
• Under what circumstances would you normally drink?
• Celebration/rebellion/peer pressure/social/right of passage?
• Is money a factor?

Topic 3: University
• Do you think university has had an effect on your drinking habits?
• In what way?
• Factor of age or situation?

Topic 4: Friends
• Are you influenced by your friends regarding alcohol?
• In what way?
• Are friends more of an influence than family?

Topic 5: Family
• Do your parents/siblings drink?
• Area/town
• Did they encourage you to drink at all?
• We’re your parents strict?
• Did that create a greater need to drink?

59
Topic 6: Effects
• Positive/negative
• Changes in behaviour

Topic 7: Media
• Do you take any notice of media coverage?
• Is binge drinking seen as a problem?
• Do you think the concerns are valid?

Topic 8: Age of consent

• What affect do you think the age of consent has?
• Is this a good age limit to have?
• Why?
• Should it be changed?

Topic 9: Attitudes
• What is your current attitude towards drinking?
• Why?
• Do you think your attitude matches that of your friends?
• Positive/negative?

60
Appendix 13:
Focus group 2:

S: thank you very much for coming, I’m just going to go round the group and get you all
to introduce yourselves.
P: Hi I’m p***, I’m a third year at the university of Portsmouth
O: Hi I’m o***, I’m a fourth year at the university of Portsmouth
B: I’m B**, I’m a second year and I’m at the university of Portsmouth
Si: Hi I’m S****, I’m a third year at the university of Portsmouth
Se: Hi I’m S***, I’m a third year at the university of Portsmouth.
N: I’m N*** and I’m also a third year at the university of Portsmouth.

S: Great, thank you. I’m going to start by asking you all about your general feelings about
alcohol. What feelings are conjured when you think about alcohol and how does it feel
when you drink it?
O: Yeah it’s great! Alcohol is really good if you do it for the right reasons, like, not just
go out to get really hammered. So what do you think B?
B: I feel regret when I start drinking, inevitably you wake up in the morning and think
‘oh my god,’ you can have a hangover for like, 12 hours or something (laughing), you
feel rough
S: So why did you go out last night?
N: Because, someone was handing in their dissertation, and everyone else handed in their
dissertations aswell.
S: Did you go out drinking in celebration then?
All: Yes
N: If you’ve got money in your wallet, you go out and spend it, you might as well go to
the pub.
P: I think most people go out, I think going to the pub is a) social and b) there’s alcohol
there so you can have a good time.
S: Is the money a big factor in the amount you drink?
All: Of course it is
N: We don’t just go and celebrate, we go to the pub every Monday, just a gathering of
people, there are other ways of entertaining yourself but if you’ve got the money, I’d
rather go out and drink.
All: Yeah
N: The reason people done end up going out in this house is the money
O: Going out once a week is quite a good way of catching up with your mates who you
probably wouldn’t see.
N: It’s a bit different for me because I consider going to work, going out as I work in a
pub, and I always get drunk
Se: So you go out on a random day, to the pub, by yourself?!
N: Yeah, well no (laughter). The only reason I go out there (at work) is because I’ll see
people I know. I’ve got friends at the pub, I wouldn’t go and sit in a pub on my own
where I didn’t know anyone! I wouldn’t go sit in the reg by myself and have a pint. I go
to the dog because I know people there, that’s why I probably drink more, quite a lot.

61
S: Do you think university has had an effect on your drinking habits?
All: Yeah, oh yes!
N: There’s often nothing else to do
P: B why do you get angry when you drink?
B: I don’t
All: You do
P: You went completely mad, you walked outside, got smacked round the head by some
pikeys
B: They stole our favourite big pint glass!!
P: That was like, 5 months ago
S: Let Se speak
Se: I think in answering the question, it’s not that, going to university doesn’t make you
drink, it’s as you’re this age…
N: I disagree with you, I think university has a profound affect on how much you drink,
and it does make you drink more cuz that’s what everyone does, you have this idea that
you’ll go to university and drink a lot, I didn’t really drink in pubs before university.
Se: I’ve got friends at home thought that don’t go to university and I’m sure they drink
the same or more than what I do. So that’s why I think it’s just the age.
O: It’s also that the ago when you go to uni is the same age that you’re legalised to drink.
We go out with different types of people at different times in the week – it’s because our
schedules are different, we have more time than people who work.
N: But there are still people who work 9-5 and still go to the pub every night, I reckon it’s
all part of the social, it’s all part of who your friends are and where your friends go.

S: So would you say that your friends have more of an influence on you than how you’ve
been brought up – your parent’s views?
All: Yeah
N: I always drink with my parents, they always have me a glass of wine with food, I
never really go to pubs with my parents, until I got to that age. I don’t really like drinking
in front of my family to be honest, the affects of alcohol just makes you feel…(lots of
laughter) you have less control, if I go to the pub with my dad I’ll have a few pints and I
wont feel drunk at all, but if I go to the pub with friends, I’ll have a few pints and I’ll
suddenly start to feel, on the way.
P: It’s your frame of mind thought isn’t it, you know when you go out with your dad,
he’ll think that you’re a right little lightweight piss-head, when I drink at home or you’re
at my house, when my parents are around it’s polite chat.
N: Being with your friends gives you an excuse to act stupid.
B: I’d say it’s very different for me, when I go home I don’t act any differently in front of
my parents, partly because I think they’re still quite young at heart, they accept what I’m
acting like, it’s not a bad thing
P: You’re parents are piss-heads though aren’t they?!
N: B’s an alcoholic obviously
S: So B, do you think that way your parents view alcohol has had an affect on the way
you view alcohol?
B: Yeah
S: In what way?

62
B: In a good way because you know how to moderate (laughter), I can moderate, they’ve
always warned me of the dangers, they’re not reckless with it, and have always made sure
I knew that.

S: Let’s talk a bit about the media, there has been a lot of stuff in the media recently
about the whole binge drinking culture and how it’s becoming a really bad thing, what do
you guys think about that?
N: I think it’s a load of rubbish
S: Why do you think that?
N: Technically it means we ‘binge’ every night
S: Yeah because a binge drink is 6 units
P: What?!
B: That’s 3 pints isn’t it?! I know all about keeping yourself safe and healthy, but 3 pints
being classed as a binge drink is stupid really.
Se: Then to tackle binge drinking they open pubs longer!
All: Yeah!
Se: 3 pints as a binge when closing at 11..
N: They did that really to cut down on the violence
B: Well that didn’t really work did it?!
S: Means police have to be around for longer hours. Do you think there’s anything that
would effectively tackle alcohol related violence?
N: Call binge drinking 10 pints! (laughter)
O: One thing they were going to do was up the price of alcohol, to stop people of a
certain amount of income drinking as much.
Se: But if you’re dependent on alcohol it doesn’t really matter how much it costs
P: They’ll work 5 days a week and then maybe go out Friday and Saturday, they’ll still be
binge drinking
Se: But if it was more expensive they’d drink less.
P: How often when you go out and get a bit tipsy or a bit pissed, you think you’ve spent a
certain amount of money but you’ve actually gone to the cash point again and you don’t
remember, and taken a lot more money out. So easy to do.

N: What was the question?

S: About binge drinking, how it’s seen as a problem but perhaps they’re being unrealistic
about what a binge drink actually is?
N: Do you know if it’s the same in every other country?
S: I think it’s more of a non-issue in other countries, in Europe they have this continental
drinking culture where people are perceived to get drunk less, whether they do or not, I’m
not sure.
P: They’re brought up in a way that it’s not perceived by the media as bad, you don’t see
chavs on the street thinking ‘yeah I’m a rude boy.’
Se: I think binge drinking is, in the eyes of the European, has become an English identity.
We’ve been labelled with this stigma.
S: But then, like P was saying do you think it’s something that these young kids are
aspiring to, that it’s being glamorised?

63
Se: I don’t think anyone’s glamorised it, I just think it’s an opportunity to break the rules,
or to have more freedom.
S: Some people have said that’s it’s seen by men as a right of passage?
All: Yeah
Se: Binge drinking means you’re a man?
S: No, starting to drink in general
All: Yeah
P: People who are underage get into that habit because it’s illegal, when I drank
underage, away from my parents, it was a kick, a cool thing to do
N: Like those parties you used to go to when you were 14, trying to get someone to buy
you beer, you love it.
Se: When I was in France, I was 12/13, the friends I was hanging around with were
slightly younger and slightly older, the excitement or thrills wasn’t about drink, because
they were drinking all the time at home with their parents, it was more about what you
had, the clothes you wore, what motorbike you were going to get. It wasn’t so much the
thought of, oh yeah I can go out and drink.

S: We were talking about the fact that you’re not allowed to get drunk in this country
until you’re 18, so before that it’s a bit of a kick because you’re doing something a bit
dangerous, so in that case do you think the law should be changed and possibly you
shouldn’t have an age limit?
Se: I think it would be easy to say reduce the age, but in the culture we’ve got now it
would just give kids an excuse to drink more, as they’re been brought up to see alcohol as
kind of a rebel thing, rebellion. I think if it were to be implemented it would have to be
done gradually
All: Yeah
P: It’d be bringing a whole new culture to something that is so set.
Se: It’s good to have a separate ago for different things. You can drive at 17, if you were
allowed to drink at 16 and drive, there’s obviously ramifications for different problems
that might happen
P: I think it’s quite close anyway with being able to drive at 17 and drink at 18. Where as
in America you can drive at 16 but you cant drink till you’re 21, and I think that’s a really
good mindset.
N: I think the American idea is a little bit too much, there’s so many things you can do, I
mean here you can join the navy at 16, but in America you can do lots of things when
you’re 16, but not drinking till you’re 21 seems a bit ridiculous.
S: Do you think you think that way because you’re so ingrained in this culture?
N: Yes
Se: I’m sure no-one thinks that students in America don’t drink because it’s obvious that
they do
N: At Frat parties
Se: It’s probably quite similar to the youth culture that we’ve got here
B: WKDs and white lightning!

S: But then would most of you say that you’ve had some sort of socialisation with alcohol
in your house? Have any of your parents ever been completely anti-drinking?

64
N: Yes, mine have, but that was only really when I was growing up and underage, as
soon as I became legal they were almost begging me to drink socially, it’s really bizarre
because you go for years with your parents forbidding you alcohol and all of as sudden it
switches, you don’t feel comfortable doing it.
Se: When I was younger if my parents had a party they would keep any alcohol out of
sight, but now as you’re becoming an adult, they want to bond with you.
N: I noticed that change, whenever I was younger and drinking with parents it was only
literally a glass of wine with food, but then recently they’d be having a drink in the
afternoon and they’d say ‘do you want one as well?’
S: Even just that glass of wine over dinner though would help in your learning to drink?
O: That’s true actually, you are impressionable, it’s not something that you want to get
drunk off, perhaps you like the taste of it or perhaps it’s just a traditional custom
S: I would say that it’s possibly different in America than it is over here because as N was
saying the ages are so different, and you cant drink till you’re 21, it’s seen as something
that doesn’t happen in households. Do you guys have any American friends?
N: I had a friend who wasn’t American but went to an American school, he was crazy, an
absolute psycho
S: What do you think that was?
N: Probably because he hadn’t drunk a lot before.
P: I think in American societies they don’t become as accustomed to alcohol as we do,
we’re more careful.

S: So now can we talk a little bit about your attitudes towards drinking at the moment,
would you guys say that you have a healthy attitude towards drinking?
N: If you classify binge drinking as 3 pints, then I think we all have an unhealthy attitude,
except for maybe O.
S: But we’ve established that you all think that what binge drinking is meant to be is a bit
unrealistic..
All: Yeah
N: I’d say more of the time we’re actually quite healthy, not so much the last couple of
weeks because student life is coming to an end so we’re enjoying it while we’ve still got
it.
O: I only go out once of twice a week at the moment.
B: If there’s an excuse to celebrate then you do go out, and celebrating usually means
alcohol because it’s a good activity.
Se: But then we all drink more than 3 pints don’t we
N: That’s because we want to keep celebrating, if it feels good we carry on doing it, so
that’s why we do that.
Se: It’s always good to see your mates in a pub, and if you can get drunk then that’s good
too.
S: All that sounds perfectly fine to me, I don’t necessarily think that drinking a lot
constitutes an unhealthy attitude towards drinking. What do you think?
N: I drink every day of the week probably
S: In what context though?

65
N: Mostly because I work 3/4 nights a week and then we go out on a Monday. I think that
although I probably drink 7 days a week I can still have a healthy attitude towards
drinking.
Se: Could you restrict your drinking to one day a week?
N: No
Se: Why not?
N: Well..
Se: You work in a pub though so you’re in the environment. When you finish work you
have a pint.
N: It’s not just that thought, there’s other people in this focus group, who, are lying (lots
of laughter). Lots of people drink when they don’t need to, like B, you’ll watch football,
you’ll have a drink, you’ll watch a film, you’ll have a drink, doesn’t mean you have an
unhealthy attitude towards it, could you cut your drinking down?
B: I could do if I needed to
O: I’d say one day a week would be alright
N: I’d love to go out more, is that bad?
O: No it’s just expensive! And unhealthy.
B: When me and Suz weren’t drinking for that period, you did give us a lot of stick
Se: So there seems to be a negative impact.
B: N gave me and Suz a lot of negative feedback because we weren’t drinking and yet we
were still socialising.
N: How did I give you negative feedback?
B + O: Everyday!! Every hour!
Se: Why is someone not drinking bad?
N: It’s not, I was probably just taking the piss
P: Once I started working, you go out and sometimes after a long day at work you don’t
want to particularly drink unless you get to the pissed stage, otherwise you’ll just become
more tired, then you get to that stage, don’t have enough sleep and feel really hung-over.
It’d not great having to work through that.
Se: But what about someone who doesn’t want to drink, but then doesn’t have to get up
that early, they can sleep in, and them not drinking is not about waking up early or having
a job, it’s about getting it out of your system, that’s different.
P: I’m not saying that, I’m just saying that you’ve got to the stage now that when I say
I’m not drinking because I had work today and I’ve got work tomorrow, then you’re fine
with that, say that’s cool.
N: When we drink everyone is uplifted and happy

S: There’s been a lot of laughter which is really good, but why do you think it’s a funny
topic?
Se: I think it’s because the more you drink the more you lose your inhibitions, the more
you change as well
N: Lets talk about some of our worst experiences
B: No lets not!
Se: I think drinking is such a funny subject because we learn so much about people when
we drink, it’s like, if you go out for a few pints, and everyone’s had a few pints we all get
on and you lose all your inhibitions. It’s a funny subject because people change so much.

66
P: People come out of their shell as well, some people are quite shy.
N: Look at Se, he’s very shy, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde! Se’s quite reserved when he’s
sober but when he’s inebriated, he’s in your face, he’s slapping you…
P: Simon’s funny, he’ll either go (sad sound) or (happy sound) or smash up the place, or
kick a lamppost..
N: Or sit on his own for hours on end
Si: I was just chilling out!
S: So would you say that your mood definitely has an impact
All: Yes
Se: And that’s why it’s quite humorous to talk about it because sometimes the moods are
quite unflattering
N: Especially if you’ve got someone there who’s absolutely off their face and a few
people who aren’t so bad or are just not drinking, they’ll always be in that position to
remind you of what you did.
B: I hate it when it’s just me drinking, I remember the other day when I walked in and
everyone was stone sober and there was me totally off my face, and then everyone grabs
their camera’s I mean for god’s sake!
N: There’s fighting, there’s wrestling..
O: You wonder where your dignity went
Se: Everyone in here is such a different person when they’re drunk
N: You only see it really, when someone in the group is not drunk, like when we went to
the dog, you and me came back off our faces and Si was sober, we must have seemed like
a right bunch of idiots.
Si: Yeah
P: Last night?
N: That was amusing
P: Waking me up in the middle of the night
N: You moaned that’s why we came in! lots of laughing!
P: No you said ‘I’m gonna go jump on P, I’m gonna go jump on P!’

S: Do you possibly think that finding things funny and laughing about them is your way
of possibly justifying something that you think is a bit unhealthy?
All: No!
S: Why is that?
O: It’s something that happens, we all go out and socialise, good things come from that
really
Se: I think we’re aware that if you get so drunk that your behaviour differs, in any way,
it’s having an adverse affect on your health, I think we are all aware of that, but, we find
it funny because of the way people act. The humour’s not really a cover-up, it’s just a
way that we can make fun of each other.

S: Si, do you think your drinking habits have changed from when you were at home not
now when you’re at uni?
Si: Yeah, well peer pressure is one reason, especially from this lot. In my first year I
didn’t go out drinking a lot until I met B and N
N: What’s what?!

67
Si: So I’d say it was mainly them that got me onto drinking. And someone else in my
second year called S.
P: You really came out of your shell
S: Do you think drinking was a big part of you trying to get to know people when you
first got to uni?
Si: It’s the way people socialise
N: You’ve got to, or you have to quite uni!! (laughter) The best way of getting to know
people is to lose your inhibitions a bit. Otherwise you’ll end up being a loner.

S: Have any of you had a bad experience that’s affected the way you think about alcohol?
N: Only involving sick
B: Just embarrassing stuff, nothing that’s made me think twice, but stuff that’s made me
think, damn, not again!
Se: If you’re drunk it gives people the opportunity to take advantage of you which might
lead to play fighting for example which could lead to an injury.
N: The only bad experiences I’ve had are when I’ve drunk so much that I cant do what I
was meant to be doing that night, like when you’re too drunk to go out. In my first year I
was just so drunk I sat in my bathroom
P: Everyone has that in their first year
N: I was in James Watson and everyone came round to our flat and I ended up drinking
so much because I thought it was cool, and just drank too much and eventually was sick
everywhere and had to stay in. That’s the only time I’ve thought woops I might have
drunk too much. Sometimes, when you’re sick you think, oh, tactical, keep going
(laughter), unless you’re so horribly ill.
O: You do really stupid stuff all the time.

S: Thank you for your time everyone.

68
Appendix 14: Thematic coding framework

Global theme – Socialisation

Sub-theme – Positive socialisation
Codes: 7 [glass of wine with food] [moderate] [warned] [bond] [impressionable] [see him
with a pint] [exposed]
Quotation(s): 15

Sub-theme – Negative socialisation

Codes: 6 [forbidding] [keep alcohol out of sight] [strict] [family pressure] [no learning to
drink] [no moderation]
Quotation(s): 19

Global theme – Attitudes/reasons

Sub-theme – Social activity (positive)
Codes: 4 [social] [gatherings] [sports] [bars/clubs]
Quotation(s): 20

Sub-theme – Right of passage (positive)

Codes: 5 [boys will drink more] [you’re a man now] [social threshold] [adult world]
[right of passage]
Quotation(s): 11

Sub-theme – Peer pressure (negative)

Codes: 5 [wouldn’t have started drinking if my friends hadn’t] [peer pressure] [social
pressure] [obliged to drink] [what everyone does]
Quotation(s): 15

69
Sub-theme – Rebellion (negative)
Codes: 5 [exciting] [never allowed] [forbidden] [cool] [rebellion]
Quotation(s): 18

Global theme – Behaviour

Sub-theme – Positive behaviour
Codes: 4 [laughter] [lose inhibitions] [happy] [relaxed]
Quotation(s): 17

Sub-theme – Negative behaviour

Codes: 5 [angry] [stupid] [violence] [loss of memory] [over-drinking]
Quotation(s): 20

Sub-theme – Problem behaviour

Codes: 4 [binge drinking] [dangerous] [problem] [undesirable]
Quotation(s): 6

70