• Directories | A to Z | Home

“The Buzz” on Collegiate Social Drinking and Social Support

Karin Devick, Kristin Johnson, Heidi Seltz, and Stacie Theobald

Abstract. Alcohol consumption is a prevalent part of most college students’ lives. Reflecting on the social nature of drinking, this study investigates the relationship between alcohol consumption and social support, particularly emotional support and levels of belonging. Using survey data from an anonymous online survey administered to undergraduate students at a small, private, liberal arts college in the Midwest, we tested three hypotheses: 1) women receive less emotional support from their “drinking buddies” than men receive from theirs, 2) within a group setting, people who consume higher levels of alcohol receive a higher sense of belonging than those who consume lower amounts, and 3) within a group setting, people who consume lower amounts of alcohol experience higher levels of emotional support than those who consume more alcohol.

 

Introduction and Literature Review

Social Support and College Life
Social support has been the subject of much research, investigating both the mental and physical effects on individuals (Eshbaugh 2008).  Social support is defined by various factors, including emotional support, approval and affirmation, experiential guidance, intimacy, and physical affection (Hale, Hannum, and Espelage 2005).  This definition is more easily understood as having someone to communicate with, a sense of belonging, and being provided emotional comfort (Eshbaugh 2008).
College is a transitional period in which students develop new methods for giving and receiving social support.  College students tend to seek out a variety of types of support in order to maximize their well-being.  Some variables affecting the giving and receiving of social support include a sense of belonging to various groups, religion, body image, internet use, the influence of peers and parents, and stimulant use.
One way college students provide and experience social support is through fostering a sense of belonging within a group of people.  Organized activities, such as clubs, sports, and religious groups, have been studied for their influence on social support in college life.  According to Randall and Bonhert (2009), too few or too many hours of organized activity involvement more frequently produce depressive symptoms.  Falci and McNeely (2009) reported similar findings, stating under-integration and over-integration in networks are likely to produce depression.  Ellison and George (1994) explored how participation in religious organizations interacts with people's levels of social support, finding the amount of religious participation is positively associated with the quantity and quality of social support.  Additionally, students with higher levels of religiosity report higher self-esteem and pro-social behaviors (Knox 1998).
Many underlying factors draw individuals into specific social support groups, such as similarities in body-related habits and body image.  Research shows that similar body-related behaviors, such as dieting and exercising, can act as "glue" when forming social support groups in early adolescent females (Hutchinson and Rapee 2007).  Research suggests that body habits are similar within social support systems, even when individuals maintain independent views of body image (Hutchinson and Rapee 2007).
In addition, research has found that past experiences with parental and peer social support influence how students seek out group membership in college.  Adolescents with cohesive, adaptable families tend to have higher peer activity and attachment, meaning the strength of family relationships affects the strength of peer relationships.  Furthermore, these peer relationships affect the quality of a person's social skills (Rutger and Engels 2002).
Friends also offer social support through online networking sites such as Facebook.  Online networking can help create a sense of belonging and may be an effective tool to help boost self-esteem and maintain friendships (Valkenburg, Jochen, and Schouten 2006; Ellison, Steinfield and Lampe 2007).  However, it can also serve as an alternative to face-to-face interactions and thus increase isolation and loneliness (Kraut, Kiesler, Boneva, and Cummings 2002).
College students often find academics conflict with time spent with friends. The use of non-medical stimulants is prevalent on college campuses as a way for students to offset time spent socializing by allowing students to be more focused during their limited study time (Arria, O'Grady, Caldeira, Vincent, and Wish 2008).  Studies have shown that students who use non-medical stimulants are more likely to also use alcohol (Shillington, Reed, Lange, Clapp, Henry 2006).  It is the latter stimulant, alcohol, on which our study focuses.

Social Support and Alcohol Consumption
A study conducted by Park (2004) examined both the positive and negative sides of college students' drinking experiences and how they influenced future drinking decisions.  The positive experiences included having fun, socializing, and meeting new people.  Negative responses most frequently included being sick and hung over (Park 2004).  Although most students reported experiencing more negative than positive effects, they placed more value on the positive experiences, which is why most students stated they decide to continue drinking alcohol.  
There is some blending of these two experiences; when a student drinks to the point of illness, friends can be depended upon to take care of each other and provide safety (Howard, Griffin, Boekeloo, Lake, and Bellows 2007).  Negative experiences influenced students to drink lesser quantities, while positive experiences influenced students to drink more frequently but consume less alcohol per sitting.  Although men and women generally did not differ in their positive and negative experiences of alcohol, women did report that the negative consequences had a stronger influence on their future decisions to drink alcohol (Park 2004).
            Those students who report the most positive experiences with drinking are typically moderate drinkers.  Moderate drinking consistently appears to be associated with a positive mood.  El-Guebaly's study identified six main expectations from drinking moderate amounts of alcohol: a positive transformation of experience, enhanced social and physical pleasure, enhanced sexual performance and experience, increased power and aggression, increased social assertiveness and reduced tension (2007).  Moderate drinkers were more likely to drink for enhanced social and physical pleasure, in comparison with binge drinkers, who are more likely to drink to relieve tension. Binge drinkers also tended not to drink in a social setting.  All participants generally felt a greater sense of euphoria when drinking in a group than when alone (El-Guebaly 2007).  A study by Skogen, Harvey, Henderson, Eystein, and Mykletun (2009) suggests that in Western societies, alcohol consumption is a sign that an individual is integrated into his or her social setting. For example, individuals are more likely to be included in alcohol-related social outings, increasing the amount of social support received. The study found that self-declared "abstainers" from alcohol, as well as low consumers, have higher risk for anxiety and depression. Skogen et al. (2009) also revealed that abstainers reported higher participation in organized social activities, yet reported fewer close friends.  Although these studies provided useful insight into the factors influencing college drinking, there were discrepancies among these studies between the ways alcohol consumption was measured (El-Guebaly 2007; Skogen et al. 2009), which we took into account when creating our own study.
          While positive and negative effects of alcohol consumption are largely based on external factors such as group size, studies suggest there are also internal influences affecting a student's drinking habits.  DeHart, Tennen, Armeli, and Todd (2009) found that students with low self-esteem reported higher levels of drinking when emotionally downtrodden than students with high self-esteem.  Students with high self-esteem reported drinking more when they felt positive interpersonal relations.  The difference between these two reports of increased alcohol consumption is that low self-esteem influenced increased alcohol consumption to ease personal pain, while high-self esteem influenced more alcohol consumption as a celebration of good times with friends.  Self-determination theory also suggests that individuals engage and monitor behavior as a means to fulfill basic psychological needs, such as relatedness, autonomy, and competence.  When such needs are met, a person is more likely to develop self-confidence and seek out others who will encourage and nurture an autonomous orientation.  When the psychological needs of an individual are not met, he or she is more likely to be controlled by others' expectations to gain social approval.  Researchers found healthier drinking habits among autonomous individuals than control-oriented individuals, who showed signs of more probable attraction to situations including heavy drinking and peer pressure (Chawla, Neighbors, Logan, Lewis, and Fossos 2009). 
          One commonality among many of these studies is the importance of gender in drinking-related contexts.  Burda and Vaux (1988) found that college men are more likely to seek social support in drinking situations.  In addition, male respondents stated they were less likely to receive social support from women while consuming alcohol.  Gleason (1994) and Darling, Howard, Olmstead, and McWey (2007) also studied the differences between men and women's drinking experiences.  Darling et al. (2007) found that female students report more stress when dealing with relationships because they feel responsible for maintaining relationships.  The stress of building relationships may contribute to higher levels of drinking in more numerous types of social situations to ease stress (Gleason 1994).

Methods
In order to collect information about college students' drinking habits and social support, we distributed a voluntary online questionnaire in November of 2009, to 703 randomly selected students at a private liberal arts college in Minnesota.  As a part of a larger research project, our survey questions were distributed with questions investigating additional realms of social support, not related to alcohol.
            This study tested three hypotheses: 1) Women receive less emotional support from their "drinking buddies" than men receive from their "drinking buddies" in alcohol-related settings, 2) Students who consume higher levels of alcohol receive a higher sense of belonging from “drinking buddies” than those who consume lower amounts, and 3) Students who consume less alcohol experience higher levels of emotional support from “drinking buddies” than those who consume more alcohol. These hypotheses identify gender and levels of alcohol consumption as independent variables and measurements of social support—emotional support and sense of belonging—as the dependent variables. Other independent variables potentially affecting our hypotheses included the size of the group with whom the respondent was drinking and the day of the week on which alcohol was consumed. Although we did not include hypotheses relating directly to the day of week and group size, questions about both were included in the survey so that they could be treated as potential confounding variables.
            Many studies have examined social support amongst peers, friends, and family.  Because we are interested in the relationship among peers while alcohol is being consumed, we chose to concentrate on “drinking buddies”.  We defined this term as the people with whom one engages in conversation while consuming alcohol.  This was a concept not discussed in our literature review; rather, we created the term to identify the specific social interactions we wanted to measure and to offer clarity to our hypotheses.  The concept, but not the actual term, was included in a short index consisting of questions about the amount of social support received from the group with whom the majority of drinks were consumed.
            As noted in our literature review, previous studies included various measurements of alcohol consumption.  For this reason, we measured alcohol consumption in two ways.  First, we asked the total number of drinks students consumed the last time they drank alcohol.  This question acted as a filter, as students who did not consume alcohol were instructed to skip the survey.  The rest of the study was then focused on drinkers.  Second, we asked respondents' perceived physical state after consuming their last drink.  We provided response categories of "unaffected," "buzzed," "drunk," "completely incapacitated," and "other."  We asked about levels of drinking in this way because the number of drinks consumed might be influenced by the drinker's sex and weight, as well as the amount of time over which they drank. The "other" option included a space to explain, accounting for participants who felt our four response categories did not properly describe their level of inebriation.  These two measures of alcohol consumption allowed for a quantitative answer based on amount consumed and a qualitative measure of personal inebriation. By using both qualitative and quantitative measures, we accounted for variations between these two forms of measurement.
            We narrowed the concept of social support into two categories, belonging and emotional support, which Burda and Vaux stated are the two most common types of support received in college (1988).  We specified belonging as interacting and socializing with a group of people (Hale et al. 2005).  We measured belonging by asking participants to express their level of agreement using a four point scale which included the following statements regarding the last occasion they consumed alcohol: "I felt like a valued member of the group" (Belonging 1), and "I felt awkward in the group" (Belonging 2).  Emotional support was defined as a level of closeness in intimate relationships and an understanding of others, allowing for disclosure of personal information (Hale et al. 2005 and Turner-Cobb 2006). We measured emotional support by asking participants to express their level of agreement with the following statements: "I felt my relationships were enhanced" (Emotional Support 1), and "I felt as though my conversations with others were superficial” (Emotional Support 2).
           We addressed validity throughout our experiment to ensure accurate forms of measurement, agreed upon operational definitions, and attempt creation of a survey compatible with existing measurements of social support and alcohol consumption.  There are three forms of validity as described by Neuman (2007:118), face validity, content validity, and criterion validity.  Face validity is a consensus among the specific group within the scientific community with expertise on the relevant topic, who are able to measure and assess the concepts investigated. We achieved face validity in our study by reviewing literature, conducting a focus group, and distributing a pilot test of our survey questions to our class before finalizing our survey and giving it to our sample population.  These resources were in general agreement about the accuracy the measurements used in our study.
We also achieved content validity, which captures the entire meaning of a concept.  We did so in three ways: (1) by specifying all of the content making up our concepts, (2) by sampling from all areas of our concepts' definitions, and (3) by developing an indicator which measured all aspects of the concepts' definitions (Neuman 2007: 118).  The operational definitions of emotional support and belonging, were developed based on previous literature, and were measured using multiple measures in an index.  There was variation in defining levels of alcohol consumption, requiring us to refine our concept.  We asked two separate questions regarding the amount of alcohol consumed and the level of intoxication felt by participants.  This allowed for comparative analysis between these two categories of alcohol consumption, in an effort to better capture a more complete definition of the concept.  In order to define the concept of drinking buddies we used responses from the focus group.
               We attempted a third form of validity, criterion validity. This form of validity is achieved when an external standard demonstrates that concepts were accurately and effectively measured.  One way to ensure criterion validity is through modeling concepts and questions after well-established research (Neuman 2007:118). Another way to achieve criterion validity is to cross test our measures with others already established, producing similar results.  Because there is a limited amount of research conducted on levels of social support in a college social drinking setting, we attempted, but did not fully achieve, criterion validity.  We worked towards criterion validity by seeking out previous literature, and incorporating relevant ideas into our own study, such as our social support concepts modeled after definitions and measures used by Hale et al. (2005). Unfortunately, due to the design of our class and the limitations of time, we were unable to conduct the cross method test.
            Another way we addressed the soundness of our study is through reliability.  Neuman (2007:116) defines reliability as the dependability or consistency of results.  Reliability can be reached in four ways: clearly conceptualizing concepts, using precise levels of measurement, using multiple indicators, and using pilot tests (Neuman 2007:116).  First we clearly defined our concepts, hypotheses, and objectives. Second, we used multiple indicators of three variables: alcohol consumption, belonging, and motional support.  For our indicators involving emotional support, we asked a positive question regarding the level of agreement to a statement about both emotional support and belonging, followed by a negative question measuring each of the two constructs.  Third, we sought reliability by using many sources to collect information for our study, including our literature review, our focus group, and the consultation of our professor, Dr. Ryan Sheppard, as well as our peers. Fourth we clarified our questionnaire by distributing it to fellow members of the informed scientific community before distributing it to our sample population.  These multiple sources of reliability helped us clarify our research direction and refine our conceptual definitions of the variables.
            We sent out the survey to 703 students, randomly selected by a computer program.  We targeted 25% of the 3,000 member student body as a compromise between Neuman’s recommended 30% for a population size of 1000, and 10% for a population size of 10,000 (2007:162).  Of those receiving the survey, 333 students responded, giving us a response rate of 47.4%. We opted for simple random sampling because it offers all students an equal opportunity of being selected for our survey, producing an accurate representation of the larger student body. Students eliminated from our sampling frame included those currently enrolled in the Research Methods 371 course, participants of our focus group, students on study abroad programs, part-time students, and students under the age of 18.  Sixty-four percent of respondents were female and 31% were male, while two respondents marked the "other" category, and eleven participants (0.03%) chose not to answer this question. The entire student body is approximately 55% female and 45% male.  Responses were more equally distributed along class lines, with 27% first year students, 22% sophomore students, 21% junior students, and 25% senior students, and 2 non-traditional students. Survey respondents were 87% non-Hispanic White, 4% Asian, 2% Hispanic, 1 Black or African American student, and 3% classified as other.  The age of respondents ranged from 18 to 23.
            Before administering our survey and collecting data from human subjects, we sought to address a number of ethical issues, including anonymity, informed consent, and the protection of special populations.  In order to ensure the privacy of participants, an anonymous e-mail alias was created of our sample population.  Because some of our participants were under the age of 21, it was important that we maintained anonymity so that students did not risk any legal ramifications. Also, as St. Olaf is considered a "dry campus,” where alcohol is prohibited on campus, it was important that students not worry about getting in trouble with the institution.  Participants received an introductory email prior to taking our online survey, stating that participation in our survey was completely voluntary and at any point the participant could skip questions or stop taking the survey.  This ensured voluntary consent for our survey.  We identified ourselves as students participating in Foundations of a Social Science Research undergraduate course, and included a brief description of our research.  Our cover letter followed Neuman's guidelines for an informed consent statement (2007:55).  We protected special populations by eliminating participants under the age of 18 from our sampling frame and by asking them not to take the survey. 
            In order to protect the rights and safety of our participants, we pursued an intermediate review and verification of our study from the college's Institutional Review Board. The IRB at St. Olaf College protects the rights and well-being of human subjects by reviewing research proposals prior to conducting the research (St. Olaf Institutional Review Board 2009).  We received an intermediate review so that we could freely report and publish our results beyond the St. Olaf College community, such as at a regional conference or in a public poster session on campus.  The IRB approval helped ensure that we had honored the privacy and ethical concerns of our participants.  By taking these preventative measures, our study was approved by Charles Huff, one of the four members of the St. Olaf Institutional Review Board.

Results
To understand alcohol consumption patterns, we used the computer system SPSS to run frequency tests on our univariate statistics (see Appendices A-J).  Of the 333 students who took the entire survey, 216 (64.9%) students responded they have consumed some amount of alcohol in the past, while 117 (35.1%) abstained from drinking (see Appendix A). This information allowed us to focus the rest of our survey on students who consume alcohol.  The last time students consumed alcohol, 18.2% (39) reported being unaffected, 44.4% (95) were buzzed, 35.0% (75) were drunk, and 2.3% (5) were completely incapacitated (see Appendix B).
Social support was narrowed into two variables: emotional support and belonging.  We measured both variables with two questions, which we summed together to form a composite score for emotional support and a composite score for belonging (see Appendices F and I).  The composite scores ranged from 2 to 8.  Respondents registering a score of 2 on this scale received low levels of support.  Registering a score of 8 suggested respondents received high levels of support.  Most people rated their level of emotional support between 5 and 7, which is moderate-high, and their level of belonging between 6 and 8, which is high.

Hypothesis 1: Women receive less emotional support from their "drinking buddies" than men receive from their "drinking buddies" in alcohol-related settings.
Gender is a nominal variable and emotional support is an ordinal variable, thereby requiring a Lambda measure of association to test for any significant relationship. The Lambda value was .006, p>.05 (.563), meaning that our hypothesis was not supported (see Appendix K). There was no significance between the amounts of emotional support that men and women reported receiving in alcohol situations.  Figure 1 is a clustered bar graph which illustrates that the majority of both genders received moderate-high levels of emotional support (scores of 5 and 6).

Figure 1: Effect of Gender on Emotional Support.

Hypothesis 2: Students who consume higher levels of alcohol receive a higher sense of belonging from “drinking buddies” than those who consume lower amounts.
Both alcohol consumption and belonging are ordinal variables, so gamma and somers' d measures of association were used to test for a significant relationship. Somers' d is a specialized form of the gamma measurement.  The gamma value was .124, p>.05 (.168) and the somers' d value was .062, p>.05 (.346) (see Appendix L). Thus, our second hypothesis was not supported; levels of belonging did not significantly differ among participants who consumed different amounts of alcohol.  Figure 2 shows the majority of belonging occurs at lesser alcohol condition levels.  This illustrates that our hypothesis was not supported.

Figure 2: Effect of Alcohol Consumption on Belonging.

Hypothesis 3: Students who consume less alcohol experience higher levels of emotional support from “drinking buddies” than those who consume more alcohol.
            Again, alcohol consumption and emotional support are ordinal variables, so gamma and somers' d measures of association were used. The gamma value was .002, p>.05 (.989) and the somers' d value was .001, p>.05 (.989), thereby not supporting our hypothesis (see Appendix M).  As Figure 3 indicates, the percentages of levels of belonging were approximately equally distributed amongst the "buzzed" and "drunk" conditions after alcohol consumption.  Because responses were concentrated in these two categories, we were unable to support our hypothesis.

Figure 3: Effect of Alcohol Consumption on Emotional Support.

            Although we did not have a hypothesis involving group size, our data suggested it may have a significant relationship with belonging.  Among those consuming alcohol in a small group (1-6 people), 73.0% reported a composite sense of belonging score of 7 or 8 (high sense of belonging).  Only 60.5% of those drinking in a medium-sized group (7-14 people) and 58.3% of those in a large group (15 or more people) reported a belonging score of 7 or 8.  These results were close to the accepted level of significance, which is a p value of .05.  The somers' d value was -.111, p>.05 (.062) and the gamma value was -.168, p>.05 (.062) (see Appendix N).

Discussion
Our first hypothesis stated women receive less emotional support from their "drinking buddies" than men in alcohol-related situations; this was not supported.  On average, women reported receiving slightly higher amounts of emotional support than men while consuming alcohol.  One possible reason our hypothesis was not supported is that due to space constraints on the survey, we only used two indicators to measure emotional support.  Also, women comprised 64.9% of survey respondents, when in reality they comprise 55% of the student body. The percentage of male respondents was lower than the student body composition. Because of this discrepancy, our respondents may not be representative of the school's population.  Future research should strive to represent a more accurate composition of the student body, and should also aim to use a larger number of indicators to measure emotional support.
Contrary to our second hypothesis, people who consumed higher amounts of alcohol did not perceive a higher sense of belonging than people who consumed lower amounts. This may be because we only provided respondents with four possible categories of intoxication.  With the majority of respondents categorizing themselves as "buzzed" or "drunk," it was difficult for us to find a significant correlation using only these two values. The majority of respondents reported feeling a moderate to high sense of belonging while drinking.  This could have been influenced by the size of the group in which they were drinking.  The majority of respondents indicated that they drank with a small group of one to six people, which could have been comprised of close friends with whom they were comfortable.  Therefore, group size, rather than amount of alcohol consumed, could have influenced their level of belonging. Additionally, there were only two indicators on the survey to measure belonging due to limited space.  
We were unable to support our third hypothesis, which stated people who consume less alcohol receive higher levels of emotional support from "drinking buddies" than those who consume more alcohol.  The majority of respondents receiving high levels of emotional support were affected moderately by alcohol. However, the results were not significant.  Our inability to support this hypothesis may be because we only used two items on our survey to measure emotional support. Also, results may have been more likely to support our hypothesis if our survey had been administered to participants closer to the occasion on which they drank. This would ensure that memory was not a limitation.
We were surprised to find that none of these hypotheses were supported, because they were based on findings of past research and suggestions offered by our focus group.  The possible explanations for the insignificance of our findings suggest there may be connections between these ideas that this survey was unable to identify.  More research will need to be conducted to better investigate the relationship between alcohol and social support.

Conclusion
            In our study of college alcohol consumption, we examined the amount of emotional support and sense of belonging that students received while drinking.  After running measures of association, we found no significance between the amount of emotional support received by men and women when drinking, the levels of alcohol consumed and emotional support received, or the levels of alcohol consumed and sense of belonging.
Although our data did not allow us to support our hypotheses, our study has multiple strengths that will assist researchers interested in alcohol and social support.  We found from our focus group and our larger campus community that the topic of alcohol and social support sparks strong fascination and is one which students are interested in investigating further. Another strength of our study is that it investigated alcohol use at small colleges, a perspective not examined in our review of literature.  Many studies about college alcohol consumption have been conducted on larger university campuses, which are less likely to have "dry campus" policies and may include Greek systems. 
While it is a strength to add information about small campuses to the scientific literature about this subject, the fact that there was a lack of such information about small campuses made it challenging to conduct a thorough and relevant literature review.  Another limitation to our study included the finding that the nature of belonging and emotional support was difficult to gauge given a limited amount of space on a survey questionnaire.
One way to combat this problem would be to conduct a longer survey with more measures of social support in the future.  Also, future research should include a pretest, so measurements of social support can be compared before and after alcohol consumption. 
Finally, conducting the survey closer to the time students drank will increase accurate results.
One contribution our study offered the St. Olaf community was the opportunity for participants to gain insight into how they relate alcohol with social support, with these insights possibly impacting their future drinking decisions. Also, our research allows school administrators to view the levels of intoxication students are reaching and what social support motivations they have for drinking. The administration could use this information when creating policies and educational forums regarding student alcohol consumption.

Appendices

Appendix A: Alcohol Consumption Patterns

 

Appendix B: Condition after Alcohol Consumption

 

 

Appendix C: Gender Ratio of Reported Alcohol Consumers

 

Appendix D: Emotional Support 1: Relationships Enhanced

 

Appendix E: Emotional Support 2: Conversations were Superficial

 

Appendix F: Composite Level of Emotional Support after Last Drink

 

Appendix G: Belonging 1: Valued as Group Member

Appendix H: Belonging 2: Awkward in the Group

 

Appendix I: Composite Level of Belonging after Last Drink

 

Appendix J: Group Size

Appendix K: Gender and Emotional Support

 

Appendix L: Condition and Belonging

 

 

Appendix M: Condition and Emotional Support

 

 

Appendix N: Group Size and Composite Belonging

 

Works Cited

Arria, Amelia M., Kevin E. O'Grady, Kimberly M. Caldeira, Kathryn B. Vincent, and Eric D. Wish. 2008. "Nonmedical Use of Prescription Stimulants and Analgesics: Associations with Social and Academic Behaviors among College Students." Journal of Drug Issues 38:1045-1060.

Burda, Philip, and Alan C. Vaux. 1988. "Social drinking in supportive contexts among college males." Journal of Youth and Adolescence 17:165-171.

Chawla, Neharika, Clayton Neighbors, Diane Logan, Melissa Lewis, and Nicole Fossos. 2009. “Perceived Approval of Friends and Parents as Mediators of the Relationship Between Self-Determination and Drinking.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 70:92-100.

Darling, Carol A, Stacy N. Howard, Spencer B. Olmstead, and Lenore M. McWey. 2007. “College Student Stress: The Influence of Interpersonal Relationships on Sense of Coherence.” Stress and Health 23:215-229.

DeHart, Tracy, Howard Tennen, Stephen Armeli, and Michael Todd. 2009. "A Diary Study of Implicit Self-Esteem, Interpersonal Interactions and Alcohol Consumption in College Students." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45:720-730.

El-Guebaly, Naly. 2007. “Investigating the Association Between Moderate Drinking and Mental Health.” Annals of Epidemiology 17:55-62.

Ellison, Christopher G. and Linda K. George. 1994. "Religious Involvement, Social Ties, and
            Social Support in a Southeastern Community.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 33:1-15.

Ellison, Nicole, Charles B. Steinfield, and Cliff Lampe. 2007.  “The Benefits of Facebook ‘Friends’: Social Capital and College Students' Use of Online Social Network Sites.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12(4). Retrieved September 18, 2009 ("http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html).

Eshbaugh, Elaine M.  2008. “Brief Report: Gender, social Support, and Loneliness Among Residence Hall Students.”  The Journal of College and University Student Housing 35:24-33.

Falci, Christina and Clea McNeely. 2009. “Too Many Friends: Social Integration, Network Cohension and Adolescent Depressive Symptoms.” Social Force 87:2031-2061.

Gleason, Nancy. 1994. “College women and alcohol: A relational perspective.” Journal of American College Health 42:279-289.

Hale, Cara J., James W. Hannum, and Dorothy L. Espelage. 2005. "Social Support and
Physical Health: The Importance of Belonging." Journal of American College Health 53:276-284. 

Howard, Donna Elise, Melinda Griffin, Bradley Boekeloo, Kristin Lake, and Denise Bellows.  2007. “Staying Safe While Consuming Alcohol: A Qualitative Study of the Protective Strategies and Informational Needs of College Freshmen.”  Journal of American College Health 56:247-254.

Hutchinson, Delyse M. and Ronald M. Rapee. 2007. "Do friends share similar body image and eating problems? The role of social networks and peer influences in early adolescence." Behavior Research and Therapy 45:1557-1577.

Knox, David, Steven Langehough, Conner Walters, and Michael Rowley. 1998. “Religiosity and Spirituality Among College Students.” College Student Journal 32:430-438.

Kraut, Robert, Sara Kiesler, Bonka Boneva, Jonathon Cummings, Vicki Helgeson, and Anne Crawford. 2002. “Internet Paradox Revisited.” Journal of Social Issues 58:49-74.

Neuman, W. Lawrence. 2007. Basics of Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative
            Approaches. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Park, Crystal L. 2004. “Positive and Negative Consequences of Alcohol Consumption in College Students.” Addictive Behaviors 29:311-321.

Randall, Edin T. and A. M. Bohnert. 2009. “Organized Activity Involvement, Depressive Symptoms, and Social Adjustment in Adolescents: Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status as Moderators.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 38:1187-1198.

Rutger, C. and M. E. Engels. 2002. “Parenting Practices, Social skills and Peer Relationships in Adolescence.” Social Behavior and Personality 30:3-18.

Shillington, Audrey M., Mark B. Reed, James E. Lange, John D. Clapp, and Susan Henry. 2006. “College Undergraduate Ritalin Abusers in Southwestern California: Protective and Risk Factors.” Journal of Drug Issues 36: 999-1014.

Skogen, Jens C., Samuel Harvey, Max Henderson, Eystein Stordal and Arnstein Mykletun. 2009. "Anxiety and Depression Among Abstainers and Low Level Alcohol Consumers: The Nord-Trøndelag Health Study". Addiction 104:1519-1529.

"St. Olaf Institutional Review Board." 2009. St. Olaf College. Retrieved October 28, 2009
            (http://www.stolaf.edu/academics/irb/).

Valkenburg, Patti M., Peter Jochen, and Alexander P. Schouten. 2006. “Friend Networking Sites and Their Relationship to Adolescents’ Well-Being and Social Self-Esteem.” CyberPsychology & Behavior 5:584-590.