Etiology of Campus Binge Drinking Among College Students

A Failed Experiment in Social Control

The consumption of alcohol has always been a focus of government efforts to limit its use, due to the potential for abuse, the financial burden imposed upon social programs, and its association with criminal activity. Between 1920 and 1934 the consumption of alcohol was outlawed in the United States, with the intention of addressing these social problems. During the first year following the enactment of Prohibition, alcohol-related deaths, psychosis, and arrests all declined by 20–40%, but between 1921 and 1927 these measures reveal a sharp increase to near pre-Prohibition levels (Miron and Zwiebel, 1991). By the end of Prohibition, which correlates with the start of the Great Depression, alcohol consumption had leveled out at around 60–70% of pre-Prohibition levels despite costing three times as much per drink. Given the infamous criminal activity that emerged around the illegal manufacture and sale of alcohol, and the modest reduction in alcohol consumption during the Prohibition Era, the overall savings this law was supposed to produce were probably not realized.

The New Prohibition: MLDA-21 and Its Intended Effects

A similar experiment in alcohol prohibition is currently underway in the United States for a limited segment of the population. Beginning in 1984, the federally mandated Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) Act became law, setting the minimum drinking age to 21 for all states that wished to retain 10% of their federal highway funding. This law was designed to reduce the number of highway fatalities and other problems associated with alcohol abuse among adolescents and young adults (Grucza, Norberg, and Beirut, 2009).

One measure of the prevalence of alcohol abuse is binge drinking (BD), which is defined as 5 or more drinks for an adult male, or 4 or more drinks for an adult female, over a period of 2 hours (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2004). When the trends in binge drinking were examined between 1979 and 2006 for 12- to 20-year-olds, there appears to be some evidence that this law has had a positive effect (Grucza, Norberg, and Beirut, 2009, p. 697). Males in this age group experienced a significant decline in the prevalence of BD during this period (p < 0.001), but there was no change in this behavior among females.

The impact of raising the MLDA to 21 also appears to have had a positive effect on traffic fatalities. For all drivers between the ages of 16 and 20 fatally injured in 2008, 33% had a blood alcohol content above the legal limit (McCartt, Hellinga, and Kirley, 2011, p. 174). In 1982, the prevalence of fatally injured drunk drivers in this age group was 61%, which represents a nearly 50% reduction in this traffic statistic over the subsequent decades. This data suggests that raising the legal drinking age to 21 significantly reduced traffic fatalities for this age group.

Unexpected Outcomes of the New Prohibition

In June 2008, a group of 120 college professors from liberal arts colleges released a statement expressing the need to reopen the debate about whether the MLDA of 21 is working, because in their experience it is not (Amethyst Initiative, 2008). This statement caused a stir in the press and was inaccurately restated as an endorsement of lowering the drinking age to 18. The signatories to the Amethyst Initiative cited their concerns about what is a growing culture of clandestine drinking parties, the manufacture of fake identification cards, and other criminal activities on college campuses — not unlike the speakeasies and other criminal activities that emerged during Prohibition. The data appears to support their concerns.

Between the years of 1979 and 2006, male students 18 to 23 years of age experienced a slight, non-significant downward trend in the prevalence of BD (Table 1; Grucza, Norberg, and Beirut, 2009, p. 697). The pattern for female students indicates a move in the opposite direction: between the ages of 18 and 20 the prevalence was unchanged, but for female students between 21 and 23 there was a 2–3 fold increase in BD (p = 0.02). Overall, the prevalence of BD among college students appears to have increased since the MLDA was raised to 21.

The dramatic increase in BD prevalence among female college students is certainly cause for concern, but should there be a similar level of concern about male students? A comparison of BD prevalence among male non-students between the ages of 18 and 20 reveals a significant, 2–3 fold decrease for the period 1979 to 2006 (p < 0.001; Grucza, Norberg, and Beirut, 2009, p. 697). Non-student males between the ages of 21 and 23 also experienced a significant (p = 0.03), but modest, decline in BD. When compared to non-students, being a male college student represents a significant risk factor for engaging in BD.

Female non-students also experienced an increase in BD prevalence between 1979 and 2006, but this modest increase (less than 30%) was limited to the ages of 21–23 (Grucza, Norberg, and Beirut, 2009, p. 697). When compared to the 200–300% increase in BD among female college students in this age group, attending college is also a major BD risk factor for women.

These trends appear to be reflected in the patterns of traffic fatalities for these age groups as well (see Table 1). Although there are no statistics directly comparing traffic fatalities between students and non-students, the 46% decline in drunk driver fatalities between 1982 and 2008 for the age group 16–20 was not replicated for the age group 21–24, which saw only a 17% decline (McCartt, Hellinga, and Kirley, 2011, p. 174). For the age group 25 and above, there was a 29% decline in drunk driver fatalities.

A number of confounding factors are probably contributing to the overall decline in drunk driver fatalities for the period 1982 to 2006, including improvements in vehicle design. If the 29% decline for ages 25 and above is taken to represent the influence of these and similar confounding factors, then drivers between 16 and 20 experienced only a 17% decline in drunk driver fatalities attributable to the MLDA law, and drivers between 21 and 24 experienced a 12% increase. If this calculation is a reasonable estimate of the law's net impact, then there is only a 5% overall reduction in drunk driver fatalities for the ages 16–24. This small difference could easily be due to factors other than raising the MLDA to 21.

Table 1: Historical Change in BD Prevalence Between 1979 and 2006

Sex / Age / Student Status / BD Change / Significance

Male, 12–20: −50% (p < 0.001) | Male, 21–23: −19% (p = 0.049) | Female, 12–20: no change (N/A) | Female, 21–23: +82% (p < 0.001)

Male, 18–20, non-students: −225% (p < 0.001) | Male, 18–20, students: negative trend (N/A) | Male, 21–23, non-students: −24% (p = 0.03) | Male, 21–23, students: negative trend (N/A)

Female, 18–20, non-students: no change (N/A) | Female, 18–20, students: no change (N/A) | Female, 21–23, non-students: +44% (p < 0.001) | Female, 21–23, students: +253% (p = 0.02)

Drunk Driver Fatalities by Age Group (1982–2008): Ages 16–20: −46% | Ages 21–24: −17% | Ages 25 and above: −29%

References

Amethyst Initiative. (2008). Amethyst Initiative: Rethinking the drinking age. Retrieved July 15, 2011 from http://www.amethystinitiative.org/statement/

Beseler, Cheryl L., Taylor, Laura A., and Leeman, Robert F. (2010). Alcohol-use disorder criteria and "binge" drinking in undergraduates. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 71, 418–423.

Grucza, Richard A., Norberg, Karen E., and Beirut, Laura J. (2009). Binge drinking among youths and young adults in the United States: 1979–2006. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 48, 692–702.

Leppel, Karen. (2006). College binge drinking: Deviant vs. mainstream behavior. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 32, 519–525.

McCartt, Anne T., Hellinga, Laurie A., and Kirley, Bevan B. (2011). The effects of minimum legal drinking age 21 laws on alcohol-related driving in the United States. Journal of Safety Research, 41, 173–181.

Miron, Jeffrey A. and Zwiebel, Jeffry. (1991). Alcohol consumption during prohibition. The American Economic Review, 81, 242–247.

Toft, Ulla, Pisinger, Charlotta, Aadahl, Mette, Lau, Cathrine, Linneberg, Allan, Ladelund, Steen, Kristoffersen, Lis, et al. (2009). The impact of a population-based multi-factorial lifestyle intervention on alcohol intake: The Inter99 study. Preventive Medicine, 49, 115–121.

Thio, Alex. (2010). Deviant Behavior, 10th Edition. New York: Pearson.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2004, Winter). NIAAA council approves definition of binge drinking. NIAAA Newsletter, 3, p. 3.

Zimbardo, Phillip. (2007). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. New York: Random House.