This study investigated differences in alcohol protective behavioral strategy (PBSA) use and negative consequences (ARNC) experienced among heavy alcohol users and non-heavy alcohol users, and risky and non-risky drinkers. Participants were from 12 universities in the United States (n = 2,163 college students, Mage = 19.47), predominantly identified as White (74%), and female (68.7%), who completed measures of typical weekly drinking, risky drinking, ARNC, and PBSA use. ANOVAs revealed that the heavy alcohol users and risky drinkers reported significantly fewer total PBSA, subtype strategy use, and greater negative consequences than their counterparts. Harm reduction interventions may benefit from identifying and targeting college students who are engaging in heavy alcohol use and risky drinking regardless of sex.
CollinsR. L.ParksG. A.MarlattG. A. (1985). Social determinants of alcohol consumption: The effects of social interaction and model status on the self-administration of alcohol. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53(2), 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.53.2.189
2.
González-PonceB. M.Rojas-TejadaA. J.Carmona-MárquezJ.Lozano-RojasÓ. M.Díaz-BataneroC.Fernández-CalderónF. (2022). Harm reduction strategies among university students who use alcohol and cannabis, and related psychological variables: A systematic review. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 54(5), 403–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2021.2023240
3.
Higgins-BiddleJ. C.BaborT. F. (2018). A review of the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT), AUDIT-C, and USAUDIT for screening in the United States: Past issues and future directions. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 44(6), 578–586. https://doi.org/10.1080/00952990.2018.1456545
4.
HurlockerM. C.MadsonM. B.LuiP. P., …. & Harm Reduction Research Team. (2023). Mental health risk profiles and related substance use during coronavirus pandemic among college students who use substances. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 21(9), 3641–3658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-022-00813-1
5.
KahlerC. W.StrongD. R.ReadJ. P. (2005). Toward efficient and comprehensive measurement of the alcohol problems continuum in college students: The brief young adult alcohol consequences questionnaire. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, 29(7), 1180–1189. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.alc.0000171940.95813.a5
6.
KimS. K.FrisbyC. L. (2019). Gaining from discretization of continuous data: The correspondence analysis biplot approach. Behavior Research Methods, 51(2), 589–601. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1161-1
7.
LindenC. A. N.CalhounB. H.PatrickM. E.MaggsJ. L. (2019). University students use fewer protective behavioural strategies on high-intensity drinking days. Drug and Alcohol Review, 38(3), 302–305. https://doi.org/https://doi-org.lynx.lib.usm.edu/10.1111/dar.12913
8.
MacCallumR. C.ZhangS.PreacherK. J.RuckerD. D. (2002). On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 19–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.19
9.
MadsonM. B.ArnauR. C.LambertS. J. (2013a). Development and psychometric evaluation of the revised protective behavioral strategies scale. Psychological Assessment, 25(2), 556–567. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031788
10.
MadsonM. B.MoorerK. D.Zeigler-HillV.BonnellM. A.VillarosaM. C. (2013b). Alcohol expectancies, protective behavioral strategies, and alcohol-related outcomes: A moderated mediation study. Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy, 20(4), 286–296. https://doi.org/10.3109/09687637.2013.766788
11.
MadsonM. B.SchuttsJ. W.JordanH. R.Villarosa-HurlockerM. C.WhitleyR. B.MohnR. S. (2020). Identifying at-risk college student drinkers with the AUDIT-US: A receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Assessment, 27(6), 1089–1099. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118792091
12.
MadsonM. B.Zeigler-HillV. (2013). Protective behavioral strategies, alcohol consumption, and negative alcohol-related consequences: Do race and gender moderate these associations?Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse, 12(3), 242–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332640.2013.798848
13.
NapperL. E.KennymS. R.LacA.LewisL. J.LabrieJ. W. (2014). A cross-lagged panel model examining protective behavioral strategies: Are types of strategies differentially related to alcohol use and consequences. Addictive Behaviors, 39(2), 480–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.10.020
PatrickM. E.Terry-McElrathY. M.Evans-PolceR. J.SchulenbergJ. E. (2020). Negative alcohol-related consequences experienced by young adults in the past 12 months: Differences by college attendance, living situation, binge drinking, and sex. Addictive Behaviors, 105(1), 106320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106320
16.
PearsonM. R. (2013). Use of alcohol protective behavioral strategies among college students: A critical review. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(8), 1025–1040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2013.08.006
17.
PetersonR.KramerM. P.PintoD.De LeonA. N.LearyA. V.MarinA. A.CoraJ. L.DvorakR. D. (2021). A comprehensive review of measures of protective behavioral strategies across various risk factors and associated PBS-related interventions. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 29(3), 236–250. https://doi.org/https://doi-org.lynx.lib.usm.edu/10.1037/pha0000498
18.
PrinceM. A.CareyK. B.MaistoS. A. (2013). Protective behavioral strategies for reducing alcohol involvement: A review of the methodological issues. Addictive Behaviors, 38(7), 2343–2351. https://doi.org/https://doi-org.lynx.lib.usm.edu/10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.03.010
19.
SchulenbergJ. E.PatrickM. E.JohnstonL. D.O’MalleyP. M.BachmanJ. G.MiechR. A. (2021). Monitoring the future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2020: Volume II, College students and adults ages 19–60. Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. Available at http://monitoringthefuture.org/pubs.html#monographs.
20.
SchwebelF. J.RichardsD. K.PearsonM. R. (2021a). A test of interaction effects between alcohol protective behavioral strategies and antecedents of alcohol-related consequences. Addictive Behaviors, 114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106707
21.
SchwebelF. J.WeinsteinA. P.RichardsD. K.BravoA. J.PearsonM. R. (2021b). Examining cross-country and sex differences on a comprehensive assessment of protective behavioral strategies for alcohol. Substance Use & Misuse, 57(1), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2021.1990330
22.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2021). Results from the 2020 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Detailed tables. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Retrieved from https://www.samhsa.gov/data/.
23.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2023). Results from the 2022 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Detailed tables. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Retrieved from https://www.samhsa.gov/data/.
24.
TreloarH. R.MartensM. P.McCarthyD. M. (2014). Testing measurement invariance of the protective behavioral strategies scale in college men and women. Psychological Assessment, 26(1), 307–313. https://doi.org/https://doi-org.lynx.lib.usm.edu/10.1037/a0034471
25.
TreloarH.MartensM. P.McCarthyD. M. (2015). The protective behavioral strategies scale-20: Improved content validity of the serious harm reduction subscale. Psychological Assessment, 27(1), 340–346. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000071
26.
TylerK. A.SchmitzR. M.RayC. M.AdamsS. A.SimonsL. G. (2018). The role of protective behavioral strategies, social environment, and housing type on heavy drinking among college students. Substance Use & Misuse, 53(5), 724–733. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2017.1363235
