Alcohol use remains a prominent feature of American collegiate social life. Emerging technological developments, particularly the proliferation of mobile phone cameras and the easy sharing of digital images on social network sites (SNS), are now widely integrated into these drinking practices. This article presents an exploratory study examining how 40 students on a midsized college campus in the interior Pacific Northwest incorporate these technologies into their drinking activities. Data from semistructured interviews are considered within the theoretical framework of “affordances,” which classifies material technologies (camera phones, SNS) as simultaneously inhabiting the role of artifact shaped by human action and of object that influences human conduct. Our data suggest that although contemporary college drinking reflects long-standing practices, cameras, digital images, and social media introduce new dimensions to college alcohol consumption and memory-making processes. These technologies are used to chronicle and archive the festive, social aspects of drinking; commemorate the good times that make up the college experience; and capture proud or incautious displays of excessive drinking. Our examination of emergent college drinking practices seeks to extend understandings of contemporary trends in collegiate alcohol use beyond the discourse of risk and indiscretion to include other important social and cultural dimensions of these phenomena, including pro-social aspects of these practices and the social affordances provided by digital image sharing and reminiscing.
ArnettJ. J. (2005). The developmental context of substance use in emerging adulthood. Journal of Drug Issues, 32, 235–254.
2.
BackettK. C.DavisonC. (1995). Lifecourse and lifestyle: The social and cultural location of health behaviors. Social Science and Medicine, 40, 629–638.
3.
BeckerH. S. (1996). The epistemology of qualitative research. In JessorR.ColbyA.ShwederR.A. (Eds.), Ethnography and human development (pp. 53–71). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
4.
BoydD. (2007). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. In BuckinghamD. (Ed.), MacArthur Foundation series on digital learning—Youth, identity, and digital media volume (pp. 119–142). Cambridge, England: MIT Press.
5.
BoydD. (2010). Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In PappachirisiZ. (Ed.), A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites (pp. 39–58). New York, NY: Routledge.
6.
BoydD.EllisonN. B. (2008). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210–230.
7.
BrownR. (2013). A picture tells a thousand stories: Young women, mobile technology, and drinking narratives. In MistralW. (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on substance misuse (pp. 55–79). Chichester, England: John Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781118306604.ch4
8.
BrownR.GreggM. (2012). The pedagogy of regret: Facebook, binge drinking and young women. Continuum, 26, 357–369. doi:10.1080/10304312.2012.665834
9.
BucholtzM. (2000). The politics of transcription. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1439–1465.
10.
CampbellS. W. (2007). A cross-cultural comparison of perceptions and uses of mobile telephony. New Media and Society, 9, 343–363.
11.
CockerH. L.BanisterE. N.PiacentiniM. G. (2012). The dirty pint: Consumption objects in young people’s extreme alcohol consumption and enactment of self. Research in Consumer Behavior, 14, 333–351.
12.
DavisJ. L.ChouinardJ. B. (2016). Theorizing affordances: From request to refuse. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 36, 241–248.
13.
DemantJ. (2009). When alcohol acts: An actor-network approach to teenagers, alcohol and parties. Body & Society, 15, 25–46.
14.
DemantJ.ØstergaardJ. (2007). Partying as everyday life: Investigations of teenagers’ leisure life. Journal of Youth Studies, 10, 517–537.
15.
DirA. L.CydersM. A.CoskunpinarA. (2013). From the bar to the bed via mobile phone: A first test of the role of problematic alcohol use, sexting, and impulsivity-related traits in sexual hookups. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1664–1670.
FraserS.TreloarC.GenderaS.RanceJ. (2017). ‘Affording’ new approaches to couples who inject drugs: A novel fitpack design for hepatitis C prevention. International Journal of Drug Policy, 50, 19–35.
18.
GibsonJ. J. (1979). The ecological approach to perception. London, England: Houghton Mifflin.
19.
GlassmanT. (2012). Implications for college students posting pictures of themselves drinking alcohol on Facebook. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 56, 38–58.
20.
GrossR.AcquistiA. (2005). Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. In AtluriV.De Capitani di VimercatiS.DingledineR. (Eds.), Proceedings of the ACM workshop on privacy in the electronic society (pp. 71–80). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
21.
HartM. (2017). Being naked on the internet: Young people’s selfies as intimate edgework. Journal of Youth Studies, 20, 301–315.
22.
HineC. (2015). Ethnography for the internet: Embedded, embodied and everyday. London, England: Bloomsbury.
23.
HutchbyI. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35, 441–456.
24.
JohnsonJ. C. (1990). Selecting ethnographic informants. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
25.
KettJ. F. (1977). Rites of passage: Adolescence in America 1790 to the present. New York, NY: Basic Books.
26.
LatourB. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
27.
LawJ. (1999). After ANT: Complexity, naming and topology. In LawJ.HassardJ. (Eds.), Actor network theory and after (pp. 1–14). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
28.
LipscombT. J.TottenJ. W.CookR. A.LeschW. (2007). Cellular phone etiquette among college students. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31, 46–56.
29.
LivingstoneS. (2008). Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: Teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New Media & Society, 10, 393–411.
30.
LyngS. (2004). Edgework: The sociology of risk-taking. Routledge.
31.
MartinicM.MeashamF. (2008). Swimming with crocodiles: The culture of extreme drinking. Routledge.
32.
MendelsonA. L.PapacharissiZ. (2010). Look at us: Collective narcissism in college student Facebook photo galleries. In PapacharissiZ. (Ed.), The networked self: Identity, community and culture on social network sites (pp. 251–273). Abingdon, England: Routledge.
33.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34.
MorenoM. A.EganK. G. (2011). Alcohol references on undergraduate males’ Facebook profiles. American Journal of Men’s Health, 5, 413–420.
35.
MorenoM. A.ParksM.RichardsonL. P. (2007). What are adolescents showing the world about their health risk behaviors on MySpace?Medscape General Medicine, 9, 9.
36.
ParadiseA. (2012). Picture perfect? College students’ experiences and attitudes regarding their photo-related behaviors on Facebook. In WankelL. A.WankelC. (Eds.), Misbehavior online in higher education (pp. 261–292). Bingley, England: Emerald Group.
37.
PeluchetteJ.KarlK. (2010). Examining students’ intended image on Facebook: “What were they thinking?!”Journal of Education for Business, 85, 30–37.
38.
RaceK. (2014). Complex events: Drug effects and emergent causality. Contemporary Drug Problems, 41, 301–334.
RenfrowD. G.RolloE. A. (2014). Sexting on campus: Minimizing perceived risks and neutralizing behaviors. Deviant Behavior, 35, 903–920.
41.
RyanG. W.BernardH. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15, 85. doi:10.1177/1525822X02239569
42.
SchrockA. R. (2015). Communicative affordances of mobile media: Portability, availability, locatability, and multimediality. International Journal of Communication, 9, 1229–1246.
43.
SchulenbergJ.MaggsJ. L.LongS. W.SherK. J.GothamH. J.BaerJ. S.…ZuckerR. A. (2001). The problem of college drinking: Insights from a developmental perspective. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 25, 473–477.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basic of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46.
StutzmanF. (2006). An evaluation of identity-sharing behavior in social network communities. International Digital and Media Arts Journal, 3, 10–18.
47.
TrotterR.NeedleR. H.GoosbyE.BatesC.SingerM. (2001). A methodological model for rapid assessment, response, and evaluation: The RARE program in public health. Field Methods, 13, 137–159.
