Running head: GENDER AND RISK FOR COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING

Gender and Risk for College Binge Drinking Audra Roemer Zach Walsh University of British Columbia

Running head: GENDER AND RISK FOR COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING

Abstract The current study seeks to better understand the relationship among personality factors and parenting on college drinking behaviors. This study will compare the drinking behaviors to determine the influence of impulsivity, self-esteem and parenting styles on alcohol use and alcohol-related problems among university students. We will also examine differences between males and females to determine the extent to which the influence of these factors varies according to gender. The participants will be university students between the ages of 18 and 35. Questionnaires will be used to determine demographics, parenting styles, self-esteem, impulsivity, and the drinking behaviours of participants. We expect that lower self-esteem will be associated with higher rates of alcohol use and alcohol-related problems, with a stronger link existing in females. Higher impulsivity will be associated with more alcohol use and alcoholrelated problems, and males and females will compared to determine if differences exist. We also expect that more restrictive parenting will be associated with lower self-esteem, higher impulsivity, and predict higher rates of drinking. Authoritative parenting will be associated with higher self-esteem and predict lower rates of drinking.

Running head: GENDER AND RISK FOR COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING

Gender and Risk for College Binge Drinking Introduction Binge drinking is widely recognized issue and is associated with many risks. Some of these risks include, but are not limited to: injury, assault, abuse, vandalism and property damage, drunk driving, and death. The college-aged population may be more at risk as young adulthood is the period of life when substance use disorders are at peak prevalence (Patock-Peckham, Morgan-Lopez, 2009). It is estimated that the total annual cost of alcohol use by the college-age population is $61.9 billion (Miller, Levy, Spicer, & Taylor, 2006). Furthermore, students have reported that the transition from high school to college has been followed by an increase in alcohol consumption and the adverse effects associated with drinking including: fatigue, increased illness, lack of motivation, and an overall decrease in grades (Leeman, & Wapner, 2001). Due to the magnitude and costs of college drinking, the behavior has been widely studied in attempts to identify factors that contribute to alcohol use (AU) and alcohol-related problems (AP) that would be helpful in designing effective interventions for high-risk drinking. In the present study we seek to determine the influence of impulsivity, self-esteem and parenting styles on (AU) and (AP). We also examine differences between males and females to determine whether these influential factors vary according to gender. Numerous studies have identified predictive relationships between a number of factors including parenting styles (Patock-Peckham & Morgan-Lopez, 2009, 2007, 2006), impulsivity, and self-esteem (Buri, Louiselle, Misukanis, & Mueller, 1988; Schuckit & Smith, 2006).

Running head: GENDER AND RISK FOR COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING Parenting styles can have a direct impact on drinking behaviors, but they also have a lasting influence on ones character dispositions and behaviour, and can influence AU and AP (PatockPeckham & Morgan-Lopez, 2001). In addition to the direct effects of these factors, personality

traits such as self-esteem and impulsiveness may also mediate the relationship between parenting styles and college drinking behaviors (Patock-Peckham & Morgan-Lopez, 2006, 2007). Finally, differences between males and females have been identified concerning the impact of parenting styles on alcohol use as well as the predictive value of impulsiveness and self-esteem on drinking behaviors (Corbin, Mcnair, & Carter, 1996; Patock-Peckham & Morgan-Lopez, 2006). Impulsivity and alcohol use Impulsivity is characterized by a tendency for risk taking, non-planning, and liveliness and has been linked to certain traits like neuroticism and deceitfulness (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1978). Impulsivity is associated with measures of poor inhibitory control (Pietrzak, Sprague, & Snyder, 2008) and increased alcohol consumption. It has been proposed that a failure to selfmonitor appropriate behaviors may underlie the association between impulsivity and AU (Patock-Peckham & Morgan-Lopez, 2006). In examining the link between impulsiveness and binge drinking in university students, research has indicated that impulsiveness can significantly predict binge drinking frequency, even after controlling for demographic variables. The authors explained that binge drinking is a form of uninhibited alcohol involvement; individuals high in impulsiveness may find it more difficult to refrain from drinking even when there are potentially negative consequences (Carlson, Johnson, & Jacobs, 2010). The influence of impulsivity has been linked not only to higher levels of alcohol use, but also higher levels of alcohol-related problems. Furthermore, this influence may also vary across different types of drinkers, such as hazardous drinkers, who display heavy levels of alcohol use and alcohol-related problems, and

Running head: GENDER AND RISK FOR COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING social drinkers. A sample of undergraduates was examined to compare levels of impulsivity between hazardous drinkers and social drinkers and hazardous drinkers had higher levels of impulsivity. This was interpreted to indicate that impulsiveness was more strongly associated with misuse of alcohol not just use (MacKillop, Mattson, Mackillop, Castelda, & Donovick, 2007).

Impulsivity is associated with alcohol consumption in both males and females, but gender has also been proposed to moderate the association between impulsivity and drinking behaviors. However, there have been mixed results regarding gender differences and the strength of the impact of impulsivity on drinking behaviors. One study reported that impulsiveness was correlated with positive alcohol expectancies and AP in men and women, but AU in women only. Furthermore, there was a direct impact of impulsivity on AU among females, where as impulsivity only affected AU through positive alcohol expectancies among males (Fu et al., 2007). Contrary to this, a study by Baker and Yardley (2002) found that among individuals with low levels of impulsivity there were no significant difference between males and females on AU and misuse. Among individuals with high levels of impulsivity both males and females showed higher levels of AU compared to their low impulsivity counterparts. However, males had significantly higher levels of AU and misuse compared to females. These results illustrate impulsivity is linked to AU in both genders, but at high levels of impulsiveness the association is stronger in males. Finally, a study examining impulsivity as a predictor of smoking and alcohol consumption found that although impulsivity predicted smoking behaviors only in females, the association between impulsivity and alcohol consumption was not dependent on gender (Grano, Virtanen, Vahtera, Elovainio, & Kivimaki, 2004). In sum, the mixed findings regarding the influence of impulsivity and gender requires further research to clarify gender variations across

Running head: GENDER AND RISK FOR COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING levels of impulsivity and alcohol consumption. Self-esteem and alcohol use Self-esteem is defined as the global, subjective evaluations one makes about the quality

of their behavioral traits (Glindemann, Geller, & Fortnery, 1999). Rosenberg (1965) explains that high self-esteem is indicative of a sense of self-respect and self-worth; where as low self-esteem indicates self-rejection and self-dissatisfaction. Low self-esteem has been implicated as risk factor for risky drinking behaviors among college students (Corbin et al., 1996; Glindemann et al., 1999; Walitzer & Sher, 1996) and various explanations have been provided to explain this association. In examining the link between self-esteem, drinking motives, and drinking behaviors individuals with low self-esteem have been found to consume alcohol to regulate affect, gain social approval or avoid social rejection, and to maintain or enhance ones self-esteem (Neighbors, Larimer, Geisner & Knee, 2004). It is also argued that people with low self-esteem may consume more alcohol because it provides a rationalization for poor performance (Seeman & Seeman, 1992) or to cope with anxiety and reduce stress levels (Pullen, 1994). The direct effect of self-esteem on AU and AP has been widely reported however, there also seems to be an indirect effect with gender acting as a possible moderator. Males and females have been compared to determine the stability of the link between self-esteem and AU and AP across gender. A study that examined gender differences in the link between self-esteem and problem drinking across 6 categories of drinkers (abstinent, light, moderate, light heavy, heavy, and very heavy) reported that the relationship between self-esteem and alcohol consumption was moderated by gender; specifically, among females heavy drinkers had the lowest self-esteem scores, whereas among males there was a trend of heavier drinkers to have slightly higher selfesteem scores (Corbin et al., 1996). Similarly, a longitudinal study of college students reported

Running head: GENDER AND RISK FOR COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING that low-self esteem was particularly relevant to the development of AP in women and that baseline self-esteem predicted alcohol problems over the course of the study. Moreover, among

participants without an alcohol use disorder, no significant gender differences were found in selfesteem, suggesting that gender differences in self-esteem may exist in regards to AP, but not AU (Walitzer & Sher, 2006). In sum, the relationship between self-esteem and AU and AP does vary according gender and therefore, gender should be taken into consideration when examining association between self-esteem and drinking behaviors. Parenting styles and alcohol use Parenting styles, which are defined as the extent to which parents decide to monitor their child (Baumrind, 1971) and different styles have been implicated as determinants of drinking behaviors. Baumrind (1971) developed three general categories of parenting styles: authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative. According to these typologies, authoritarian parenting is rule driven, directive, and lacking in feelings of warmth. It is characterized as low in acceptance and involvement, high in coercive control, and low in autonomy granting. Parents of this style have a tendency to use punitive measures to control their children and value unquestioned obedience. Authoritarian parenting has been associated with negative outcomes for children; adolescents with authoritarian parents had higher levels maladjustment and problems compared to adolescents reared by authoritative parents (Baumrind, Larzelere, & Owens, 2010). Further, authoritarian parenting has been associated with higher levels of obedience and conformity to adults expectations, and lower levels of self-confidence and self-reliance (Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, and Dornbusch, 1991). These adverse outcomes may be explained by the fact that authoritarian parenting promotes subordination and minimizes opportunities for children to learn successful coping skills. The second type described by Baumrind (1971) is permissive parenting,

Running head: GENDER AND RISK FOR COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING which is characterized by warmth and acceptance, but also non-involvement. Permissive parents

allow their children to regulate their own activities with little monitoring and few rules, demands, or punishments. Permissive parents tend to treat their children more like friends and allow their children to make decisions that are more generally reserved for adults. Lamborn et al. (1991) found that adolescents reared by permissive parents scored high on social competence and selfconfidence, but also showed disengagement from school and more involvement in deviant behaviors. The third type is authoritative parenting, which is defined by high acceptance and involvement, adaptive control techniques, and appropriate autonomy granting. Authoritative parents provide children with firm and clear direction, but also moderate with warmth, reason, flexibility, and verbal give and take. Authoritative parenting is considered to reflect the most positive style of parenting (Baumrind, 1971). Compared to other parenting styles, adolescents with authoritative parents tend to do better in school, be more self-reliant, report less psychological distress, and engage in less delinquent activity (Baumrind, 2010; Lamborn et al., 1991). Further, a recent review examining the relationship between parenting styles and healthrisk behaviors in adolescent health reported that adolescents reared by authoritative parents consistently demonstrated fewer risk behaviors than adolescents reared by non-authoritative parents (Newman, Harrison, Dashiff, & Davies, 2008). Many studies have looked at the direct and indirect effects of parenting styles on alcohol related problems. In a review examining the relationship between parenting styles and adolescent outcomes, adolescents reared by permissive or authoritarian parents were at an increased risk for drinking compared to adolescents reared by authoritative parents (Newman et al., 2008). A study of college students found that overprotective parenting predicted AP and higher rates of depression via decreased autonomy and lower levels of self-esteem. The authors of the study

Running head: GENDER AND RISK FOR COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING explained that overprotecting parenting implies a lack of confidence and sends a message that their child is not ready to be an adult (Patock-Peckham and Morgan-Lopez, 2009). Further, Parenting styles can also indirectly affect drinking behaviors, as they are influential on personality traits such as self-esteem and impulsivity. Past research examining the effects of parenting style on the self-esteem of college students indicated that authoritarian parenting leads to lower levels of self-esteem than authoritative parenting (Buri et al., 1988). A study examining cross-cultural differences in the relationship between parenting style and self-esteem in adolescence reported similar results. The study compared Anglo-Australian to Vietnamese Australian adolescents and found that across both cultures authoritarian parenting style was related to lower levels of self-esteem (Herz & Gullone, 1999). As mentioned previously, lower levels of self-esteem can predict alcohol use and alcohol related problems (Corbin et al., 1996; Glindemaan et al., 1999; Walitzer & Sher, 1996). Parenting styles have also been related to impulsivity. A study of university students that examined the link between parenting styles and impulsiveness reported that authoritative parenting was associated with lower levels of impulsiveness (Patock-Peckham, King, Morgan-Lopez, Ulloa, & Moses, 2011). Another study examining the relationship between parenting styles and self-regulation in college students reported that permissive parenting was associated with lower levels of self-regulation (PatockPeckham, Cheong, Balhorn, & Nagoshi, 2001). The studies described above support the idea that different parenting styles can have a direct impact on an adolescents personality, which in turn may affect drinking behaviors; however, research has also been done to directly test whether self-esteem and impulsivity mediate the effect of parenting styles on drinking behaviors. A study that examined self-esteem as a possible mediator between parenting styles and alcohol related problems reported that

Running head: GENDER AND RISK FOR COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING 10 authoritarian parenting contributed to lower levels of self-esteem, which in turn predicted increased depressive symptoms and increased alcohol-related problems (Patock-Peckham and Morgan-Lopez, 2009). These results may be partially due an element of warmth that authoritative and permissive parenting styles, which may be lacking in the authoritarian parenting style. This feeling of warmth was found to increase feelings of autonomy; increased autonomy was associated with higher levels of self-esteem, which has been found to be a protective factor in the pathway between depression and alcohol-related problems (PatockPeckham & Morgan-Lopez, 2009). Impulsiveness has also been examined as a mediating factor between parenting styles and alcohol-related problems. An examination of impulse control as a mediator of the association between parenting styles and college drinking behaviors found that permissive parenting by ones same gender parent increased impulsiveness, which in turn decreased drinking control and increased AU and AP. The study also identified authoritative parenting of ones same gender parent was negatively related to impulsiveness, therefore acting as a protective factor against AP (Patock-Peckham & Morgan-Lopez, 2006). The results provide further support for the idea that parenting styles are influential factors in determining drinking behaviours of college students. The results of these studies indicate that gender may mediate the association between parenting and drinking behaviors (King & Chassin, 2004; Patock-Peckham & Morgan-Lopez, 2007; Patock-Peckham & Morgan-Lopez, 2006). The relationship each individual has to each parent may play unique roles in alcohol-related behaviors. Specifically, Patock-Peckham and Morgan-Lopez (2006; 2007) found that a negative parental bond with an authoritarian father more strongly impacts females alcohol consumption, and having a same-sex permissive parent can directly influence impulse control and indirectly influence alcohol-related behaviors.

Running head: GENDER AND RISK FOR COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING 11 Moreover, a stronger link has identified between parenting styles and self-esteem in females compared to males (Buri, et al., 1988). In addition, there are gender differences in alcohol related behaviors and in the factors associated with alcohol consumption. Alcohol consumption and high-volume drinking tends to be more prevalent among males, and alcohol absenteeism is higher among women (Wilsnack, Wilsnack, Kristjanson, Vogeltanz-Holm, & Gmel, 2009). Furthermore, women tend to consume more alcohol in response to negative emotions and interpersonal conflicts, and their consumption is more strongly mediated by depression severity (Lau-Barraco, Skewes, & Stasiewicz, 2009). Given these findings, it seems that examining males and females separately may provide clearer understanding in the how parenting and individual factors are associated with college drinking behaviors.

Limitations of Past Research National differences The majority of research on college drinking behaviors has been conducted in the United States with American students. However, differences between the drinking behaviors of Canadian and American students have been identified. Specifically, a study comparing American and Canadian university students reported that Canadian students have significantly higher rates of lifetime and past-year alcohol use, whereas male American students have higher rates of heavy alcohol use than their Canadian counterparts. Furthermore, female students in the U.S show slightly higher lifetime and past-year alcohol use compared to males, but males were more likely to engage in heavy alcohol use. In Canada, there were no significant gender differences in heavy alcohol use. Finally, the protective effect of living at home with parents was found to be greater among American students than Canadian students (Kuo, et al., 2002). These national

Running head: GENDER AND RISK FOR COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING 12 differences may be partially attributed to the differences in minimum legal drinking age. The legal drinking age is lower in Canada and therefore alcohol is more accessible to Canadian undergraduate students. This could lead to increased drinking as well as an increase in risk factors associated with drinking. However, the effect of the minimum legal drinking age on alcohol use has not been conclusively determined (Kuo et al., 2002). Given these important differences, the generalizability of studies done in American universities to Canadian universities may be limited. Further research in Canadian universities is required to gain more knowledge on the drinking behaviours and factors associated with alcohol use of Canadian students. If significant differences are found between the two countries, it could have implications for future research such that research done in American universities may have limited generalizability. Furthermore, comparisons across different countries can further our knowledge in how variations in cultural, political, social, and environmental factors can influence drinking behaviors. Drinking Measures Most of the research on drinking behaviors has relied on self-report measures of drinking (Ham et al., 2009; Neighbors et al., 2004; Patock-Peckham et al., 2001). However, a review examining the validity of self-reported alcohol consumption and alcohol related problems found there was variation in the validity of which self-report measures. While recent reports of alcohol consumption were found to be fairly reliable and valid, measuring long-term drinking practices was associated with more problems (Midanik, 1982). Furthermore, most studies employ quantity frequency measures, which require blending drinking behaviors over time to obtain an estimate of typical drinking patterns (Collins, Kashdan, Koutsky, Morheimer, & Vetter, 2008). However, drinking patterns have found to vary according to situational factors among college students (Del Boca, Darkes, Greenbaum, & Goldman, 2004). Therefore, using quantity frequency measures

Running head: GENDER AND RISK FOR COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING 13 may not result in the most accurate picture of drinking patterns among college students. In response to this, the present study seeks to use improved methodology in order to derive more accurate reports of drinking patterns. The improved methodology the current study will be using is called the Timeline Followback method. During an interview, participants are asked to provide retrospective estimates of their daily drinking over the past year, which are recorded on a calendar. Memory aids are used to help participants recall the past year. For example, key dates (e.g. birthdays, weddings, exam dates, holidays) can act as anchors and the interviewer employs motivational interviewing techniques to enhance recall. This method is recommended by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) and has been shown to have good psychometric properties. Furthermore, because this methods allows for a collection of drinking behaviors over the period of a year, it yields a more accurate and complete picture of drinking behaviors (NIAAA, n.d.) Aims and Implications The current study seeks to gain a better understanding of the factors that influence college drinking behaviors and how these factors may vary according to gender. This new understanding can be used to increase campus and public awareness of drinking and alcohol-related problems. We are particularly interested in preventing binge drinking and decreasing the adverse outcomes associated with drinking among university populations. If gender differences are identified, this could have implications for differential treatment in interventions for treating alcohol-related problems. Furthermore, the current study improves on the methodology of prior studies. Where as prior studies have relied on self-report and quantity frequency measures, in the current study we will be using the Timeline Followback, a more precise method to measure drinking (NIAAA,

Running head: GENDER AND RISK FOR COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING 14 n.d.). This method is a valid and reliable measure that previous studies of attachment and college drinking have not used (Ham et al., 2009; Neighbors et al., 2004; Patock-Peckham et al., 2001). Based on previous research (Carlson et al., 2010; MacKillop et al., 2007), we predict that higher levels of impulsivity will be associated with higher levels of alcohol consumption. Gender differences of impulsivity will also be examined to provide clarification of previous mixed findings. Furthermore, lower levels of self-esteem will be associated with higher rates of drinking and AP, with a stronger link among females. We also predict that authoritarian parenting styles will be associated with higher levels of alcohol consumption and the authoritative parenting style will be linked with lower levels of alcohol consumption. We also seek to examine mediations between parenting styles and self-esteem and impulsivity on drinking behaviors and AP. Based on past research, we predict that authoritarian parenting will be associated with lower levels of self-esteem, which will in turn predict higher levels of AU and AP. The authoritative parenting style will be associated with lower levels of impulsivity and higher levels of self-esteem, which will in turn predict lower levels of AU and AP.

Method Participants A university sample of 139 students was recruited from University of British Columbia Okanagan through the SONA research pool and recruitment across campus. Participants must have been raised by two parents and had English as their first language. The data was collected over the course of three semesters, beginning in May 2010 and ending February 2011. In the first semester, there was no exclusion criterion in regards to alcohol consumption. In the following semesters we excluded potential participants who had consumed less than 3 three drinks in the

Running head: GENDER AND RISK FOR COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING 15 previous 3 months in order to increase the ratio of participants who consumed alcohol on a regular basis. The sample consists of a range of drinkers (from abstainers to heavy binge drinkers). Each participant received either credit or $15 for participating in the study.

Measures Parenting styles. The Parental Authority Questionnaire (Buri, 1991) is a 60-item questionnaire that yields permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative scores for both the mother and the father (30-items per parent). Participants were asked to report on a 5-point scale the extent to which they agree with the statements (1 = strongly disagree-5 = strongly agree). Participants filled out a separate questionnaire for each parent. The questionnaire has been shown to be psychometrically sound and a valid measure of Baumrinds parental authority prototypes. There were a relatively low number of permissive parents so in order to create roughly equivalent groups and maximize power participants were recoded into two groups. If participants had both parents scoring as authoritative they were coded as being in the authoritative parent group (AP), and if they had one or both parents scoring as authoritarian or permissive, they were coded as being in the nonauthoritative parenting group (NAP). Impulsiveness. The Barratt Impulsiveness Scale is a 30-item self-report questionnaire using a 4point Likert scale (1 = rarely/never - 4 = almost always/always). The scale has been found to a reliable and valid measure of impulsiveness (Stanford et al., 2009). The scale also results in an overall impulsiveness score with a possible maximum score of 120. Self-esteem. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale is a 10-item self-report questionnaire using a 4point Likert scale (0 = strongly agree 3 = strongly disagree). Participants are asked to respond to the items with regard to the extent that the item agrees with their general feelings of their self.

Running head: GENDER AND RISK FOR COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING 16 The scale is a widely used measure of self-esteem. Alcohol-related problems. The Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index (RAPI) is a 23-item measure designed to assess problems associated with alcohol use. Items include descriptions of problems that may be associated with alcohol use and participants are asked to rate the past year frequency of each problem on a 4-point scale (0 = never - 3 = more than 5-times). Drinking. The Timeline Followback uses a calendar and a structured interview to obtain retrospective reports of daily alcohol consumption within the last year; this method allows one to take into account situational variations in alcohol use (Collins et al., 2008). A drink is defined as a 12oz can or bottle of beer, 5oz glass of wine, or a drink with one 1.5oz shot of liquor or spirits. This method is a valid and reliable alternative to quantity frequency measures (Collins et al., 2008) and has been recommended by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Procedure The study consisted of two separate components: an online portion and an interview portion. Participants first completed an online survey, which consisted of the Parental Authority questionnaire, Barratt Impulsiveness scale, the Rosenberg Self-esteem scale, and the RAPI. After completing the online questionnaires, participants were asked to book an appointment for the interview component of the study. The response rate of participants was approximately 80%. Participants provided informed consent prior to the online portion and then provided with an additional consent prior to beginning the interview. The structured interview took approximately 45 minutes to complete. Using the Timeline Followback method, participants were asked how often in the last 12 months had they consumed alcohol and how much alcohol they consumed on each occasion. Analytical Approach All analyses were conducted using PASW Statistics 18.0. In order to examine gender

Running head: GENDER AND RISK FOR COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING 17 differences analyses were run separately on males and females. Total scores were calculated for self-esteem, impulsiveness, and RAPI. Separate scores on the Parental Authority Questionnaire for each parenting style were calculated and parents were classified as permissive, authoritative, or authoritarian based on their highest score. After the Timeline Followback calendar had been completed, total drinking days and total binge drinking days were calculated. A drinking day was considered any day that the participant consumed one or more alcoholic beverage and binge drinking was defined as four or more drinks for females and five or more drinks for males in a two-hour period. This definition is recommended by the NIAAA and is supported by the finding that women who typically drink four or more drinks have the same likelihood of experiencing AP as men who typically consume five or more drinks (Wechsler, Davenport, & Rimm, 1995). Univariate analyses were conducted to determine the effect of parenting on binge drinking, total drinking days, RAPI scores, self-esteem, and impulsiveness. Correlations were then conducted to examine the bivariate associations among dichotomous variables. Finally, given that past research has reported that self-esteem (Patock-Peckham & Morgan-Lopez, 2009) and impulsiveness (Patock-Peckham & Morgan-Lopez, 2006) can act as mediators between parenting styles and drinking behaviors, multiple linear regressions were conducted to determine if such mediations occurred within our sample.

Results Descriptives There were 139 participants, 37% male and 63% female, from the University of British Columbia Okanagan. Participants ranged between the ages of 17 35 (M = 21.67, SD = 3.34). Drinking levels ranged from abstinence to heavy drinking, (Table 1). The data indicated that all

Running head: GENDER AND RISK FOR COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING 18 three types of parenting styles were present in our sample: 7.5% permissive, 54.5 % authoritative, and 38% authoritarian. Once participants were re-coded as being in the authoritative parent group (AP) 47.5%, or in the non-authoritative parenting group (NAP) 52.5%.

Outliers Values 3 standard deviations above or below the mean were classified as outliers. We identified 4 outliers on binge drinking, 5 on total drinking days, and 4 on RAPI scores. The outliers were transformed into the next highest score, which involves converting the outliers into one score higher than 3 standard deviations above the mean (Field, 2005). Normality A normality test was used to test the null hypothesis that the sample distribution does not differ from the population distribution. The test indicated non-significance therefore, it is reasonable to assume the sample is normally distributed. Gender Differences A univariate analysis of variance was conducted to examine gender difference in drinking behaviors. Gender differences were found on binge drinking days and total drinking days. Binge drinking days, drinking days, and RAPI scores for males and females are reported in (Table 2). Males reported more total binge drinking days than females, F(1, 137) = 6.24, p < .05. Males also reported more total drinking days than females, F(1, 137) = 11.96, p < .01. No gender differences existed on the RAPI, F(1, 137) = .71, p = .40, self-esteem, F(1, 137) = .07, p = .79, or impulsivity, F(1, 137) = .98, p = .32. Parenting Styles A univariate analysis of variance was conducted to examine the differences between

Running head: GENDER AND RISK FOR COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING 19 parenting groups on drinking behaviors, self-esteem, and impulsivity. Drinking behaviors, selfesteem scores, and impulsiveness scores of males and females across parenting styles is reported in (Table 2). Results for males are as follows; the AP group reported more total drinking days the NAP group, F(1, 49) = 4.16, p < .05. There was also a slight trend with the AP group showed higher levels of binge drinking than the NAP group F(1, 49) = 3.45, p = .07. However, parenting groups did not differ on RAPI scores F(1, 49) = .10, p < = .76, self-esteem F(1, 49) = 1.01, p = . 32, or impulsiveness, F(1, 49) = .22, p = .64. In females, parenting groups did not differ on binge drinking F(1, 86) = 1.99, p = .16, drinking days F(1, 86) = .96, p = .33, RAPI scores F(1, 86) = .66, p = .42, or impulsiveness F(1, 86) = 1.32, p = .25. However, the AP group showed higher levels of self-esteem than the NAP group F(1, 86) = 4.13, p < .05. Correlational Analyses Correlations were conducted to examine the bivariate associations between parenting style, self-esteem, impulsiveness, and drinking variables. Parenting styles were coded as NAP = 0 and AP = 1. The correlations are reported in table 3. In males, there was a positive relationship between parenting style and drinking days. Further, self-esteem was negatively correlated with scores on the RAPI. In females, there was a positive relationship between parenting and selfesteem. Lastly, impulsiveness was positively correlated with RAPI scores, binge drinking, and total drinking days. Multiple Regression Linear regressions were conducted to determine if self-esteem or impulsiveness mediated the association between parenting style and drinking days and binge drinking days. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), mediation requires there to be an association between the independent variable and the mediator, an association between the mediator and the dependent variable, and

Running head: GENDER AND RISK FOR COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING 20 for the association between the independent and the dependent variable to no longer be significance once the first two associations are controlled for. The results indicated that selfesteem did not mediate the effect of parenting style on drinking behaviors among males ( = .95 R = .03, p = .20), or females ( = .85 R = .00, p = .20). Impulsiveness also did not mediate the effect of parenting style on drinking behaviors among males ( = .64 R = .01, p = .53), or females ( = -.15 R = .00, p = .82).

Discussion Our findings suggest that alcohol use and related problems are influenced by gender, parenting styles, impulsivity, and self-esteem. However, our findings provided mixed support for our hypotheses. We predicted that higher levels of impulsivity would be associated with higher levels of alcohol consumption. This hypothesis was supported, but not among males. Our second hypothesis was that lower levels of self-esteem would be associated with higher rates of drinking and alcohol-related problems, with a stronger link among females. This hypothesis was partially supported; lower levels of self-esteem were found to be associated only with higher rates of alcohol-related problems, but not among females. Our third hypothesis that the authoritative parenting style would be linked with lower levels of alcohol consumption was not supported; the authoritative parenting style was associated with more alcohol consumption in males and this relationship and was unrelated among females. Finally, we predicted that self-esteem and impulsivity would mediate the effects of parenting style on alcohol consumption and alcoholrelated behaviors; this was also not supported as no mediation was found. Our findings of inconsistencies across gender are not without precedent as mixed findings have been found regarding gender differences on the impact of impulsiveness on drinking

Running head: GENDER AND RISK FOR COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING 21 behaviors. One study found impulsivity to be correlated with alcohol use only among females (Fu et al., 2007), where as another study found the link between impulsiveness and alcohol use to be stronger among males (Baker & Yardley, 2002). Finally, another study found that the association between impulsiveness and alcohol use was not dependent on gender (Grano et al., 2004). Our findings supported previous findings of a stronger association between impulsiveness and alcohol consumption among females relative to males (Fu et al., 2007). There are several possible explanations for this association. One study that examined the role of impulsivity and expectancies in alcohol use college students found a direct effect of impulsiveness and alcohol use among females; however there was also an indirect effect in both genders via positive alcohol expectancies. Positive alcohol expectancies mediated the relation between impulsiveness and alcohol use, meaning that more impulsive individuals were more likely to learn from positive experiences, which in turn leads to more alcohol use (Fu et al., 2007). This implies that impulsiveness may be associated with alcohol consumption in males, but through a third variable such as alcohol expectancies that was not examined in our study. Another study examining impulsiveness and risk-taking behavior in high school and college students found the association between higher levels of impulsiveness and risk-taking behaviors to be stronger in females. The authors proposed that generally higher levels of impulsivity and risk taking might have led ceiling effects that could mask associations (Stanford, Greve, Boudreaux, Mathias, & Brumbelow, 1996). This is evident in our study as males scored higher than females in impulsivity, therefore potentially masking the effects of impulsivity on their drinking behaviors. Future research that employs more sensitive measures of impulsivity is needed to clarify the link between impulsiveness and drinking behaviors and to determine the stability of its predictive value across gender.

Running head: GENDER AND RISK FOR COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING 22 The present study confirmed the link between self-esteem and alcohol related problems; however, it was surprising that this relationship appeared only among males, as this is inconsistent with previous reports that self-esteem is more strongly associated with alcohol related problems in females (Corbin et al., 1996; Walitzer & Sher, 2006). A possible explanation for this is that males have been found to describe more positive effects of drinking on self-esteem compared to females (Orford & Keddie, 1985). If drinking is used as a form of self-esteem enhancement in males it is possible that males with lower levels of self-esteem may continue to drink past moderate levels in attempts to raise their self-esteem. Drinking for reasons of enhancement or coping have been found to be associated with alcohol related problems (Lyvers, Hasking, Hani, Rhodes, & Trew, 2010). However, the lack of association found between selfesteem and drinking among females is surprising, as previous research reports that low-self esteem is relevant to the development of AP among women (Walitzer & Sher, 2006). Therefore, further research will be important in determining the role of self-esteem in alcohol consumption across gender. The association between parenting style and drinking behaviors is not consistent with previous research. Authoritative parenting has been reported to be associated with lower levels of alcohol consumption, where as authoritarian and permissive parenting have been linked with higher levels of alcohol consumption and related problems (Lamborn et al., 1991; Newman et al., 2008; Patock-Peckham & Morgan-Lopez, 2006, 2007, 2009). However, our surprising finding is not without precedent; a longitudinal study examining the role of parental alcohol-specific communication in early adolescents alcohol use found that more alcohol specific communication predicted more alcohol use. Further, the impact of alcohol-specific communication on later alcohol was stronger in males, especially moderate to heavy drinking

Running head: GENDER AND RISK FOR COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING 23 males (Vorst, Burk, & Engels, 2010). Therefore, our results could be explained by the communication that occurs between parents and adolescents. The authoritative parenting style is characterized by warm, open, and flexible communication (Baumrind, 1971). Adolescents with authoritative parents are more likely to have a positive relationship with their parents and are therefore more likely to communicate with their parents about alcohol use (Patock-Peckham & Morgan-Lopez, 2007). Although this has been proposed to be generally positive, alcohol related communication could lead to an increase in alcohol use and alcohol-specific communication may lead to increased heavy drinking males. However, it is important to note that although authoritative parenting was associated with more alcohol consumption, it was not related to alcohol-related problems. This could imply that those with authoritative parents may drink more frequently, but in a manner that does not lead to alcohol-related problems. Again, drinking motives may play an important role in explaining our results. Those with authoritative parents are likely to be well-adjusted and more likely to drink for social motives; social motives have been found to be associated with alcohol consumption, but not hazardous drinking (Kuntsche & Cooper, 2010). There are some limitations to the present study. The Parental Authority Questionnaire relies exclusively on childrens self-reported recollections of parenting style. Supplementing this assessment with parental or other informant reports might increase the validity of the assessment. Indeed, a study examining these discrepancies found that parents tended to perceive themselves as being higher in demandingness, responsiveness, and involvement compared to their adolescents children (Paulson & Sputa, 1996). Nonetheless, the PAQ is a well-validated measure of parenting styles and evidence and theory both highlight the importance of adolescent perception in predicting behavior than the parents perception (Buri, 1991). Another limitation of

Running head: GENDER AND RISK FOR COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING 24 our study was the low level of the permissive parenting style in the sample, which limited the comparisons to authoritative versus an aggregate of non-authoritative parenting groups. This approach is not unusual in that the authoritative parenting is style is often reported in a way that compares it to the other parenting styles, with the other parenting styles being viewed together in a more negative light (Buri et al., 1988; Lamborn et al., 1991; Newman et al., 2008). However, essential differences between the permissive and authoritarian parenting styles remain and the examination of these styles may yield further insights into problematic drinking among college students. Future research with a large sample yielding all three parenting styles would be helpful in teasing apart the different outcomes regarding drinking behaviors. Although there are limitations to our study, there are also strengths. The sample size was quite large, which allowed for an increased power and accuracy. Furthermore, our improved methodology allowed for a more accurate measure of drinking behaviors. As mentioned previously, most studies employ quantity frequency measures (Collins, Kashdan, Koutsky, Morheimer, & Vetter, 2008) that do not allow situational factors to be taken into account. The Timeline Followback method allows for collection of data over a longer period of time and therefore provides a more accurate and complete picture of drinking behaviors. The findings from the present study have clinical and academic implications. First, the results indicate the importance of considering gender when dealing with alcohol-related problems, as the pathways to these problems may differ according to gender. If the pathways to the problems differ, perhaps the approaches to treatment could also be different. Second, risk factors such as self-esteem and impulsivity should be taken into consideration as they may play a key role in the development and maintenance of hazardous drinking behaviors. It may be important to focus on low self-esteem when dealing with males, where as impulsiveness may be

Running head: GENDER AND RISK FOR COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING 25 a key focus when dealing with females. This leads to the suggestion that the same treatment program may not be effective for all individuals; perhaps more individualized treatment programs should be considered. Further, the knowledge that these factors, along with parenting style can influence drinking behaviors can be helpful in prevention or awareness campaigns regarding risky drinking behaviors. Risky drinking is a common practice among college campuses and providing knowledge to parents, students, and faculty about ways to reduce the harm associated with drinking is important. The results of the study also suggest that further research is required to better parse the factors that underlie the important issue of problematic drinking behaviors. First, impulsivity needs to be further examined to determine the stability of its predictive power across gender. Second, future research would also be helpful in examining the role self-esteem has in the development of alcohol-related problems in males. Finally, parenting styles may also need to be re-examined, especially in terms of comparing how the pathway to light, social drinking may differ from the path to hazardous drinking.

Running head: GENDER AND RISK FOR COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING 26 References Baker, J. R. & Yardely, J. K. (2002). Moderating effect of gender on the relationship between sensation-seeking impulsivity and substance use in adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Chemical Dependency, 12, 27-43. doi:10.1300/J029v12n01_02. Baron, R. B. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). Moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology, 4, 1103. doi:10.1037/h0030372. Baumrind, D., Larzelere, R. E., & Owens, E. (2010). Effects of preschool parents power assertive patterns and practices on adolescent development. Parenting: Science and Practice, 10, 157-201. doi:10.1080/15295190903290790. Buri, J. R. (1991). Parental authority questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 110119. Buri, J. R., Louiselle, P. A., Misukanis, T. M., & Meuller, R. A. (1988). Effects of parental authoritarianism and authoritativeness on self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 271-283. doi:10.1177/0146167288142006. Carlson, S. R., Johnson, S. C., & Jacobs, P. C. (2010). Disinhibited characteristics and binge drinking among university student drinkers. Addictive Behaviors, 35, 242-251. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.10.020. Collins, R. L., Kashdan, T. B., Koutsky, J. R., Morsheimer, E. T., & Vetter, C. J. (2008). A selfadministered Timeline Followback to measure variations in underage drinkers alcohol intake and binge drinking. Addictive Behaviors, 33, 196-200.

Running head: GENDER AND RISK FOR COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING 27 doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.07.001. Corbin, W. R., Mcnair, L D., & Carter, J. (1996). Self-esteem and problem drinking among male and female college students. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 42, 1-14. Retrieved from:http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/. Del Boca, F. K., Darkes, J., Greenbaum, P E., & Goldman, M. S. (2004). Up close and personal: Temporal variability in the drinking of individual college students during their first year. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 155-164. doi:10.1037/0022006X.72.2.155. Eysenck, S. B. & Eysenck, H. J. (1978). Impulsiveness and venturesomeness: Their position in a dimensional system of personality description. Psychological Reports, 43, 1247-1255. Fu, A., Ko, H., Wu, J. Y., Cherng, B., & Cheng, C. (2007). Impulsivity and expectancy in risk for alcohol use: Comparing male and female college students in Taiwan. Addictive Behaviors, 32, 1887-1896. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.01.003. Glindemann, K. E., Geller, E. S., & Fortnery, J. N. (1999). Self-esteem and alcohol consumption A study of college drinking behavior in a naturalistic setting. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 45, 60-71. Grano, N., Virtanen, M., Vahtera, J., Elovainio, M., & Kivimaki, M. (2004). Impulsivity as a predictor of smoking and alcohol consumption. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1693-1700. doi:10.1016/l.paid.2004.03.004. Herz, L. & Gallone, E. (1999). The relationship between self-esteem and parenting style: A cross-cultural comparison of Australian and Vietnamese Australian adolescents. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 742-761. doi:10.1177/0022022199030006005. King, K. M., Jr., & Chassin, L. (2004). Mediating and moderating effects of adolescent

Running head: GENDER AND RISK FOR COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING 28 behavioral undercontrol and parenting in the prediction of drug use disorders in emerging adulthood. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18, 239-249. doi:10.1037/0893164X.8.3.239. Kuntsche, E. & Cooper, M. L. (2010). Drinking to have fun and to get drunk: Motives as predictors of weekend drinking over and above usual drinking habits. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 110, 259-262. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.02.021. Kuo, M., Adlaf, E., Lee, H., Gilksman, L., Demers, A., & Wechsler H. (2003). More Canadian students drink but American students drink more: Comparing college alcohol use in two countries: Corrigendum. Addiction, 98, 1583-1592. Retrieved from: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/cas/Documents/Canadian1/CanadaPaper.pdf. Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch S. M. (1991). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents form authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62, 1049-1065. doi:10.2307/1131151. Lau-Barraco, C., Skewes, M. C., & Stasiewicz, P. R. (2009). Gender differences in high-risk situations for drinking: Are they mediated by depressive symptoms? Addictive Behaviors, 34, 68-74. doi:10.1016/jaddbeh.2008.09.002. Leeman, R. F. & Wapner, S. (2001). Some factors involved in alcohol consumption of first-year undergraduates. Journal of Drug Education, 31, 249-262. doi:10.2190/T3HB-7J57KG3T-3BL0. Lyvers, M., Hasking, P., Hani, R., Rhodes, M., & Trew, E. (2010). Drinking motives, drinking restraint and drinking behavior among young adults. Addictive Behaviors, 35, 116-122. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.09.011.

Running head: GENDER AND RISK FOR COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING 29 MacKillop, J., Mattson, R. E., Mackillop, E. A., Castelda, B. A, & Donovick, P. J. (2007). Multidimensional assessment of impulsivity in undergraduate hazardous drinkers and controls. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 68, 785-788. Retrieved from: http://www.psychology.uga.edu/ecpl/publications/pdf/MacKillop. Midanik, L. (1982). The validity of self-reported alcohol consumption and alcohol problems: A literature review. British Journal of Addiction, 77, 357-382. doi:10.1111/j.13600443.1982.tb02469.x. Miller, T. D., Levy, D. T., Spicer, R. S., & Taylor, D. M. (2006). Societal costs of underage drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 67, 519-529. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (n.d.). Alcohol Timeline Followback. Retrieved June 17, 2011, from http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/assesing %20alcohol/InstrumentPDFs/13_TLFB.pdf Neighbors, C., Larimer, M. E., Geisner, I. M., & Knee, C. R. (2004). Feeling controlled and drinking motives among college students: Contingent self-esteem as a mediator. Self and Identity, 3, 207-224. doi:10.1080/13576500444000029. Newman, K., Harrison, L., Dashiff, C., & Davies, S. (2008). Relationships between parenting styles and risk behaviors in adolescent health: An integrative literature review. Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem, 16, 142-150. doi:10.1590/S010411692008000100022. Orford, J. & Keddie, A. (1985). Gender differences in the functions and effects of moderate and excessive drinking. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24, 265-279. Patock-Peckham, J. A., Cheong, J., Balhorn, M. E., & Nagoshi, C. T. (2001). A social learning perspective: A model of parenting styles, self-regulation, perceived drinking control, and

Running head: GENDER AND RISK FOR COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING 30 alcohol use and problems. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 25, 12841292. doi:10.1111/j.1530-0277.2001.tb02349.x. Patock-Peckham, J. A., King, K. M., Morgan-Lopez, A. A., Ulloa, E. C., & Moses, J. M. (2011). Gender-specific meditational links between parenting styles, parental monitoring, impulsiveness, drinking control, and alcohol-related problems. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 72, 247-258. Patock-Peckham, J. A. & Morgan-Lopez, A. A. (2001). A social learning perspective: A model of parenting styles, self-regulations, perceived drinking control, and alcohol use problems. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 25, 1284-1292. doi:10.111/j.1530-0277.2001.tb02349.x. Patock-Peckham, J. A. & Morgan-Lopez, A. A. (2006). College drinking behaviors: Mediational links between parenting styles, impulse control, and alcohol-related outcomes. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 20, 117-125. doi:10.1037/0893-164X.20.2.117. Patock-Peckham, J. A. & Morgan-Lopez, A. A. (2007). College drinking behaviors: Mediational links between parenting styles, parental bonds, depression, and alcohol problems. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 21, 297-306. doi:10.1037/0893-164X.21.3.297. Patock-Peckham- J. A. & Morgan-Lopez, A. A. (2009). Mediational links among parenting styles, perceptions of parental confidence, self-esteem, and depression on alcohol-related problems in emerging adulthood. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 70, 215-226. Patton, J. H., Stanford, M. S., & Barratt E. S. (1995). Factor structure of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 768-774. Paulson, S. E. & Sputa, C. L. (1996). Patterns of parenting during adolescence: Perceptions of adolescents and parents. Adolescence, 31, 369-381. Retrieved from:

Running head: GENDER AND RISK FOR COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING 31 http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca Pietrak, R. H., Sprague, A., & Snyder, P. J. (2008). Trait impulsiveness and executive function in healthy young adults. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1347-1351. doi:10.1010/j.jrp.2008.03.004. Pullen, L. M. (1994). The relationships among alcohol abuse in college students and selected psychological/demographic variables. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 40, 3650). Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Schuckit, M. A. & Smith, T. L. (2006). The relationship of behavioral undercontrol to alcoholism in higher-functioning adults. Drugs and Alcohol Review, 25, 393-402. doi:10.1080/09595230600876697. Seeman, M. & Seeman A. (1992). Life strains, alienation, and drinking behaviors. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 16, 199-205. doi:10.1111/j.15300277.1992.tb01364.x. Stanford, M. S., Greve, K. W., Boudreaux, J. K., & Mathias, C. W. (1996). Impulsiveness and risk-taking behavior: Comparison of high-school and college students using the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Retrieved from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science. Stanford, M. S., Mathias, C. W., Dougherty, D. M., Lake, S. L., Anderson, N. E., & Patton, J. H. (2009). Fifty years of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale: An update and review. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 385-395. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.04.008. Vorst, V. D., Burk, W. J., & Engels, R. C. (2010). The role of parental alcoholic-specific communication in early adolescents alcohol use. Drug and Alcohol Dependence,

Running head: GENDER AND RISK FOR COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING 32 Walitzer, K. S. & Sher K. J. A prospective study of self-esteem and alcohol use disorders in early adulthood: Evidence for gender differences. (1996). Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 20, 1118-1124. doi:10.1111/j.1530-0277.1996.tb01956.x. Wechsler, H., Davenport, D., & Rimm, E. (1995). A gender-specific measure of binge drinking among college students. American Journal of Public Health, 85, 982-985. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615545/. Wilsnack, R. W., Wilsnack, S. C., Kristjanson, A. F., Vogeltanz-Holm, N. D., & Gmel, G. (2009). Gender and alcohol consumption: Patterns from the multinational GENACIS project. Addiction, 104, 1487-1500. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02696.x. White, H.R. & Labouvie, E.W. (1989). Toward the Assessment of Adolescent Problem Drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 50, 30-37. Retrieved from: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index4200EN.html

Table 1

Running head: GENDER AND RISK FOR COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING 33 Descriptive Statistics of Drinking Variables Min Total Binge Days/Year Total Drinking Days/Year RAPI Problem Score 0 0 0 Max 106 144 30 M 23.24 48.37 8.63 SD 26.43 34.60 7.14

Note: Transformed

Table 2 Reported Alcohol Consumption and Alcohol-Related Problems In Males and Females Across Parenting Styles Males Females Authoritative (N=26) M Binge Drinking Drinking Days RAPI Scores 39.35 75.85* 9.37 SD 38.18 45.16 7.17 NonAuthoritative (N=25) M 22.44 50.52* 9.00 SD 25.23 43.44 9.35 Total Authoritative (N=40) M SD 22.07 27.79 6.89 NonAuthoritative (N=48) M 16.13 38.46 7.75 SD 22.70 31.20 6.64 Total 18.95* 40.97* 8.24

30.63* 22.90 61.16* 44.70 9.29 8.93

* Indicate significant differences at .05 level (2-tailed)

Table 3

Running head: GENDER AND RISK FOR COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING 34 Summary of Correlations Between Parenting, Self-Esteem, Impulsiveness, Alcohol Consumption and Alcohol-Related Problems Males Parenting Style Self-Esteem Impulsiveness Females Parenting Style Self-Esteem Impulsiveness SelfImpulsiveness Binge Esteem Drinking .14 .21* -.07 -.51** -.12 -.19 .26 .01 .09 .15 -.05 .29** Drinking Days .28* .19 .06 .10 -.03 .34** RAPI Scores .045 -.32* .23 .09 -.03 .42**

* Correlations significant at the .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlations significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)