Why Do University Students From Australia,New Zealand,and Argentina Play Drinking Games? A Mixed-Method Cross-Country Study

Abstract

Qualitative work suggests that young people’s motives for playing drinking games (DGs) extend beyond those assessed in the Motives for Playing Drinking Games (MPDG) measure. Using a mixed-methods approach, we tested whether the 7-factor model of the MPDG would emerge among university students from Australia, New Zealand, and Argentina, and whether their open-ended responses regarding their reasons for playing would map onto the MPDG subscales. Students (N = 895; ages = 18–30 yrs) completed the MPDG-33 measure and an open-ended-question regarding their reasons for playing DGs. We found support for the 7-factor model of the MPDG among students across sites. Open-ended responses revealed that students were motivated to play for a variety of reasons, some of which overlapped with the MPDG subscales while others did not. We present a conceptual model that considers motives specific to alcohol consumption in the context of a DG and reasons/possible motives for playing a DG given its specific features.

Keywords

drinking games drinking game motives drinking motives alcohol use mixed-methods cross-country university students

University students are at risk for heavy drinking and negative alcohol-related consequences (Carter et al., 2017; Pilatti et al., 2017; Whatnall et al., 2020), and playing drinking games (DGs) can add to this risk. DGs are rule-based, social drinking activities that often encourage heavy alcohol consumption among participants (Zamboanga et al., 2013). A large body of research indicates that DGs participation is linked to increased alcohol consumption and related negative health outcomes (George & Zamboanga, 2018; Zamboanga et al., 2014; Zamboanga, Napper, et al., 2019; Zamboanga, Newins, et al., 2021). For example, results from a study with emerging adults in the U.S. indicated that half or more reported that they said/did embarrassing things, experienced a hangover, felt sick or vomited, had difficulties limiting drinking while playing, and/or had less energy from playing DGs (Zamboanga, Napper, et al., 2019). Given the negative consequences that can result, we need to understand the reasons university students play DGs.

Research suggests that while students recognize the health risks stemming from heavy drinking, this does not discourage them from playing DGs (George et al., 2023); the positively reinforcing social features of DGs can draw students to participate. For example, students play DGs to get to know others better, bond with people they want to become closer to, and/or compete against other players (Zamboanga, Audley, et al., 2019). DGs can also serve as an icebreaker activity during social events with casual acquaintances (George et al., 2023). As such, it is not surprising that young drinkers from different countries report having played a DG (e.g., Australian university students: 69% played at least once within 6 months, George & Zamboanga, 2018; New Zealand adolescents/emerging adults: ∼59% played at least occasionally, Bavin & Owens, 2016; Argentinian university students: 27% played at least once within 30 days, Zamboanga, George, et al. 2021¹; see also Zamboanga et al., 2023).

A motivational theoretical framework of alcohol use (Cooper et al., 2016; Cox & Klinger, 1988; Kuntsche et al., 2005) can help explain why emerging adults might generally consume alcohol, as well as drink in the context of a DG. According to this theoretical framework, individuals are motivated to consume alcohol to enhance and/or improve their affect. These motives to drink are informed by learned experiences, expectations about the effects of alcohol, and incentives to drink within a given situation (Cox & Klinger, 1988). People’s motives to imbibe are also likely to be influenced by the drinking norms of their cultural environment (Cox & Klinger, 1988); indeed, sociocultural norms around alcohol use can differ between countries (Gordon et al., 2012; Room et al., 2019). Cooper’s (1994) Drinking Motives Questionnaire-Revised (DMQ-R) measures drinking motives derived from the motivational theory of alcohol use. The DMQ-R consists of four distinct motives to drink including two positively reinforcing motives, social (e.g., “Because it helps you enjoy a party”) and enhancement (e.g., “Because it gives you a pleasant feeling”), and two negatively reinforcing motives, coping (e.g., “To forget your worries”) and conformity (e.g., “To fit in with a group you like”). The source of reinforcement for social and conformity motives is external whereas the source of reinforcement for enhancement and coping motives is internal. Grant et al. (2007) modified the DMQ-R (i.e., M-DMQ-R) by separating coping motives into two subscales: coping-depression (e.g., to numb one’s pain) and coping-anxiety (e.g., to lessen one’s anxiety). Drinking motives are particularly important as (a) researchers posit that they are “the final pathway to alcohol use” (Cox & Klinger, 1988, p. 178; see also Cooper et al., 2016; Kuntsche et al., 2005), and (b) studies suggest that different motives are associated with different patterns of alcohol use (Bresin & Mekawi, 2021).

In line with the motivational theory of alcohol use, research suggests that emerging adults drink alcohol in the context of a DG for social, enhancement, and conformity motives² (e.g., George et al., 2018, 2023; Zamboanga, Audley, et al., 2019). However, research also suggests that university students may endorse motives (or reasons) to play DGs that are not captured by the DMQ-R and M-DMQ-R. For instance, they may play DGs to compete with others, pass time, experience something new, and/or “put the moves on someone” (George et al., 2018; Johnson & Sheets, 2004; Zamboanga, Audley, et al., 2019). Qualitative studies conducted in Australia and New Zealand also indicate that university students play DGs as a way to predrink or bond with others (Dresler & Anderson, 2018; George et al., 2023). Because these findings do not align with established motives to drink, they raise questions about the distinction between a motive to consume alcohol in the context of a DG versus a reason to play a DG given the specific features of a game. For example, competition motives may influence whether students will play a DG but may not explain their motivation for drinking alcohol in the context of a DG. Thus, in this regard, DGs may serve as a means to an end for consuming alcohol or they may supplement or enhance students’ drinking experience.

The distinction between a reason to drink and a motive to drink is subtle and underlies the concepts of specificity and generality, respectively (Kuntsche et al., 2005). According to Kuntsche et al. (2005), “drinking reasons appear to imply a rational process based on practical facts, whereas drinking motives appear to be more general and also incorporate unconscious and automatized causes” (p. 845). Kuntsche et al. (2005) further noted that motives encompass items that fall under a broad drinking motive category or dimension (e.g., social, enhancement, coping, or conformity) while a “reason” to drink is more specific. Reasons to drink could be classified under a motive category or dimension, or they may fall outside these boundaries. Thus, some reasons to play DGs, such as to strengthen social bonds or reduce social tension, could be classified under motive categories (social or coping motives, respectively, in the case of these examples). In contrast, other reasons to play DGs, such as to compete with others or as a protective drinking strategy, may represent specific reasons to play a DG that do not fit a broad drinking motive category or dimension; thus, these specific reasons for playing DGs would not be classified under a motive category or dimension.

Johnson and colleagues published the first set of measures (Johnson et al., 1999; Johnson & Sheets, 2004) assessing “motives” specific to playing DGs. In a sample of U.S. university students, Johnson and Sheets (2004) found support for an 8-factor model of “motives” for playing DGs. Using a large U.S. sample of emerging adults, a follow-up study by Zamboanga, Audley, et al. (2019) found support for a 7-factor model which did not include coping and included the following subscales: competition, enhancement/thrills, conformity, social lubrication, novelty, sexual pursuit, and boredom [modified scale referred to as the Motives for Playing Drinking Games (MPDG) measure]. This 7-factor model was replicated with university students in Australia (George et al., 2018). In short, although the available research suggests that there could be seven, instead of eight “motives” to play DGs, it is not yet clear whether these do in fact represent motives or whether some “motives” (i.e., competition) better reflect reasons for game play. Our review of the DGs literature suggests that the distinction between a motive and a reason to play a DG may not be well understood. Thus, in the present study, we used an open-ended question format to query students about their reasons for playing a DG so we can better understand, and differentiate, their reasons and motives to participate in this risky drinking practice.

Like the general drinking motives literature (Bresin & Mekawi, 2021; Cooper et al., 2016; Kuntsche et al., 2005), certain “motives” identified on the MPDG are associated with different patterns of DG behaviors and related consequences. For instance, research with university students in Australia (George et al., 2018) indicated that while controlling for age, gender, and general alcohol use, motives to play DGs for enhancement/thrills were positively related to DG consumption whereas conformity, enhancement/thrills, and sexual pursuit were positively associated with negative DG consequences. Research with university students in the U.S. has also shown that enhancement/thrills was positively associated with DG frequency and consumption while playing for competition was positively related to DG frequency, even after controlling for age, gender, typical alcohol use, and general drinking motives (Zamboanga et al., 2018). In short, students who endorse certain types of motives to play DGs seem at risk for more frequent DG participation, increased consumption, and negative DG consequences. Further knowledge of university students’ motives for playing DGs across different countries can help to inform prevention and intervention programming within these populations.

Study Aims

Researchers’ and practitioners’ understanding of emerging adults’ motives to play DGs outside a U.S. context is limited in two important ways. First, the MPDG was developed and revised among university students in the U.S. (Johnson et al., 1999; Johnson & Sheets, 2004; Zamboanga, Audley, et al., 2019) with only minimal replication (Australia: George et al., 2018) in other countries. Thus, our first study aim was to test the 7-factor structure of the MPDG-333 using confirmatory factor analysis among university students from Australia, New Zealand, and Argentina. Recent qualitative findings (Dresler & Anderson, 2018; George et al., 2023) with Australian and New Zealand university students regarding motives for playing DGs that are not assessed by the MPDG served as the impetus for our second study aim. We conducted a qualitative analysis to (a) identify other reasons or motives to play DGs among university students from Australia, New Zealand, and Argentina and, for the first time, (b) formulate a conceptual model (see Figure 1) that differentiates students’ motives to drink in the context of a DG from their reasons to play a DG.

Figure 1.

Conceptual model of motives for consuming alcohol in the context of a drinking game and reasons or possible motives for playing drinking games. Note. This figure conceptually displays the results of qualitative analyses aimed at identifying reasons for playing drinking games that may underlie motivations to consume alcohol in the context of a drink game. The left half of the figure shows motives for consuming alcohol in the context of a drinking game. The numbers appearing in superscripts indicate with which of the four general drinking motives (Cooper et al., 1994) each motive for consuming alcohol during a drinking game best corresponds: 1 = enhancement, 2 = social, 3 = coping, and 4 = conformity. The right half of the figure shows reasons for playing drinking games that may or may not (with further research) underlie motives to play drinking games; for example, a desire to compete against others may influence whether someone will play a drinking game but may not explain their motivation to drink alcohol in the context of a drinking game.

We focused our investigation on Australia, New Zealand, and Argentina because Australia and New Zealand are geographically distant and culturally different with respect to cultural customs and language relative to Argentina. Despite these cultural and geographical differences, these countries also share features that may impact alcohol use among university students. For instance, these three countries share a minimum legal age for purchasing alcohol (i.e., 18 years) and a lack of fraternities/sororities at their postsecondary institutions. These shared and unique elements might influence alcohol drinking practices and motives to drink alcohol. Indeed, past research indicated that drinkers from these countries differ in their experience of alcohol-related consequences (Graham et al., 2011). It is important and needed to study alcohol-related variables across different countries and cultures. The present study aimed to address the limited research in this area. It is conceivable that university students’ motives or reasons to play DGs, which can be influenced by the cultural drinking norms of their environment (Cox & Klinger, 1988), differ between these sites. Thus, differences in the factor structures of the MPDG and their reasons for playing DGs might be expected between Argentinean students and those from Australia and New Zealand. Given the geographical proximity and cultural similarities between Australia and New Zealand, similar factor structures of the MPDG for playing DGs might be expected between students from these sites.

Method

Participants and Procedures

University students (N = 700) from one public institution in Australia (n = 260), New Zealand (n = 214), and Argentina (n = 226) completed confidential online surveys (see Table 1 for descriptives). The study sample for the quantitative analysis consisted of students who reportedly consumed at least one drink in the past month⁴ and played a DG at least once in the past year. For qualitative analyses, participants who provided at least one reason for playing DGs to an open-ended response question were included (302 from Australia, 272 from New Zealand, and 321 from Argentina).⁵ In total, 14, 22, and 26 responses were excluded, respectively, due to lack of clarity on what was meant by the open-ended answer (e.g., “I don’t like them”). Because individuals could provide up to 3 responses, the exclusion of these items only slightly altered the final number of participants who provided qualitative reasons for playing DGs (i.e., the participant did not have at least one codable response). Thus, the final sample for the Australia and New Zealand sites did not change; however, the final data analytic sample from Argentina was 312 participants. The total number of reasons provided by participants that were coded across the 3 sites was 2387 (n_NZ = 740, n_ARG = 811, n_AUS = 836). Ethics review boards at each institution approved study protocols for this investigation (see Zamboanga, George, et al., 2021, for further details on sampling methodologies).

Table 1.

Descriptives.

Variable	Australia	New Zealand	Argentina	Cronbach’s Alpha
Variable	N = 260	N = 214	N = 226	Cronbach’s Alpha
Demographics
Age	20.30 (2.55)	20.21 (2.54)	21.59 (2.50)	—
Women	201 (77.3%)	140 (65.4%)	170 (75.2%)	—
Motives for playing drinking games
Conformity	1.86 (.67)	1.83 (.74)	1.61 (.61)	.84
Social lubrication	2.34 (.72)	2.26 (.74)	1.89 (.69)	.86
Enhancement/thrills	2.68 (.67)	2.71 (.74)	2.46 (.62)	.84
Competition	2.01 (.86)	2.29 (.91)	1.37 (.63)	.82
Boredom	1.88 (.69)	2.04 (.74)	2.09 (.68)	.69
Novelty	2.44 (.72)	2.30 (.81)	1.91 (.69)	.84
Sexual pursuit	1.26 (.52)	1.29 (.53)	1.27 (.47)	.89

Note. Values represent means or counts. Standard deviation or percentage are reported in parentheses.

Measures

Motives for Playing Drinking Games (MPDG-33) ³

Students reported the importance (1 = not at all important, 2 = somewhat important, 3 = moderately important, 4 = very important) of each motive in their decision to play DGs on the MPDG (Zamboanga, Audley, et al., 2019). Descriptives for each subscale are provided in Table 1. In Argentina, the original English version was translated into Spanish by three psychologists who were proficient in English and Spanish, and knowledgeable of the scale’s rationale. Versions were compared and subjected to discussion until consensus was reached. A Spanish–English bilingual psychologist back-translated this version (Spanish to English). All experts belonged to the same Argentinian geographic and ethnic community as the present sample.

Reasons to Play Drinking Games

Using an open-ended response format, we asked participants to indicate their top three reasons for playing DGs.

Analytic Approach

Quantitative Analyses

Considering the number of items (33) and factors (7) that constitute the current version of the MPDG, the country-specific sample sizes available for the present study are likely insufficient to support a formal assessment of metric (cross-group equivalence of factor loadings) or scalar (equivalence of factor loadings and intercept/threshold parameters) invariance across countries. Instead, multiple group ordinal factor analyses were conducted using Mplus 8.8 (Muthén & Muthén, 2018) to evaluate the tenability of a model with the same factor structure across groups, also known as configural invariance (Horn & McArdle, 1992). The multi-group ordinal Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was specified based on the factor structure identified by previous research (Zamboanga, Audley, et al., 2019), using the default probit link function and weighted least-squares mean and variance adjusted estimator.

Qualitative Analyses

Responses from participants were first condensed while maintaining the meaning of the participants’ responses (Erlingsson & Brysiewicz, 2017). Of note, open-ended responses from the Argentinian site were provided in Spanish and translated into English by the PI from the respective site and revised by one undergraduate student who is bilingual in English and Spanish. Three coders (Zamboanga, Ford, and Bacon) with familiarity in drinking motives research then used a hybrid coding approach (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006) to determine the extent to which the open-ended responses for participants’ self-reported reasons to play DGs mapped onto existing MPDG subscales while also allowing for creation of new codes. The initial codebook was developed a priori based on the seven MPDG subscales (Zamboanga, Audley, et al., 2019). Coders applied the initial codebook to a randomly selected subsample of 10 responses to make appropriate edits, which was then reviewed on 10 more responses to ensure reliability above 85%. Following the initial reviews of the 10 responses, responses were coded by all 3 coders for the presence of the MPDG subscales and any new codes. All discrepancies were discussed until consensus was met.

New codes that arose were discussed with other coauthors/project collaborators (George, Olthuis, Pilatti, and Dresler) with research expertise in motives for playing DGs and refined accordingly. Following this task, the same coders also mapped the open-ended responses for reasons to play DGs onto the subscales of the DMQ-R (Cooper, 1994) and M-DMQ-R (Grant et al., 2007) to determine the extent to which the responses for playing DGs matched onto motives to drink alcohol. This was done in an effort to address the distinction between motives to consume alcohol (measured by the DMQ and M-DMQ-R) while playing DGs versus reasons for playing DGs that may be unrelated to drinking. For example, the research team noticed that competition motives may influence whether someone will play a DG but may not explain their motivation for consuming alcohol. In this sense, DGs may just be a means to an end for drinking alcohol and/or a way to supplement/enhance students’ drinking experience. The full research team then met again to discuss, and agree upon, the updated codes which were applied to the data.

Results

Quantitative Findings

Standardized factor loadings from a multiple-group CFA are provided in Table 2. Analyses revealed that all loadings were significant (ps < .001) across all countries. Closer examination of the loadings for each item indicated the magnitudes were very similar across countries (within±.162). Evaluation of fit indices suggest that the configural invariance model provided a reasonable fit to the observed sample data [χ² (1606) = 3370.36, RMSEA = .069 90%CI: .065,.072, CFI = .925, TLI = .926]. Taken together, the present analyses indicate that the criterion of configural invariance is well satisfied for the MPDG-33 across Australia, New Zealand, and Argentina.

Table 2.

Standardized Loadings From Multiple-Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Motives for Playing Drinking Games (MPDG-33) Measure.

MPDG Subscale		Item	Australia^a	New Zealand^b	Argentina^c
Conformity	1	Because I don’t want to feel left out	.775	.757	.773
	11	To blend in with the crowd	.900	.878	.831
	14	To fit in	.901	.904	.889
	19	Because I am afraid I’ll look silly if I don’t	.751	.871	.790
	26	Because other people are playing them	.708	.866	.738
Social lubrication	2	To make it easier to talk to someone	.736	.763	.601
	7	To learn things about others	.700	.644	.627
	15	As a way of getting to know other people	.823	.756	.902
	27	To meet interesting people	.856	.857	.920
	28	As a way to build new friendships^d	.794	.832	.853
	29	As a way of strengthening my friendships^d	.740	.859	.768
Enhancement/thrills	3	To have a good laugh	.681	.614	.766
	5	To liven up a boring party	.685	.718	.685
	13	Because it is a more exciting way to drink	.810	.852	.794
	21	To get drunk	.745	.785	.706
	22	Because they are fun	.760	.662	.702
	23	To just go wild	.751	.819	.764
	25	To get a buzz	.828	.842	.692
Competition	4	To get practice at that game	.832	.857	.774
	6	For the competition	.831	.822	.965
	24	Because I want to win	.853	.872	.931
Boredom	8	When there is nothing else to do	.778	.743	.661
	17	Because I don’t know what else to do for fun	.737	.789	.841
	20	To kill time	.629	.720	.755
Novelty	9	Because it is a new experience	.790	.811	.801
	12	To try something different	.735	.812	.812
	30	To drink in a different way than I usually do^d	.807	.889	.832
	31	To do something out of the ordinary^d	.776	.884	.799
Sexual pursuit	10	In order to have sex with someone	.935	.836	.872
	16	As a way to get a date	.946	.944	.939
	18	To work up the courage to put the moves on someone	.901	.899	.751
	32	As a way of expressing romantic interest in someone^d	.929	.925	.934
	33	As a way of expressing sexual interest in someone^d	.924	.886	.915

Note. Factor loading estimates are fully standardized. All loadings are significant at p < .001 level.

^aλMedian = .790, λMin = .629, λMax = .946.

^bλMedian = .836, λMin = .614, λMax = .944.

^cλMedian = .794, λMin = .601, λMax = .965.

^dNew item.

Qualitative Findings

A large proportion (88.3%) of participants’ responses aligned with the seven subscales on the MPDG. The most frequently endorsed subscale across each country was Enhancement/Thrills (53.6%; n_NZ = 359, n_ARG = 435, n_AUS = 487; e.g., “they’re fun”), followed by Social Lubrication (17.8%; n_NZ = 109, n_ARG = 154, n_AUS = 163; e.g., “liven up a party”). The remaining subscales were endorsed less frequently: Conformity (5.7%; n_NZ = 19, n_ARG = 73, n_AUS = 44; e.g., “peer pressure”), Competition (3.9%; n_NZ = 23, n_ARG = 17, n_AUS = 52; e.g., “enjoy the competition”), Novelty (2.3%; n_NZ = 9, n_ARG = 23, n_AUS = 23; e.g., “different ways to drink”), and Sexual Pursuit (.2%; n_NZ = 3, n_ARG = 0, n_AUS = 1; e.g., “sexual interest”).

Five additional codes not captured by the MPDG also emerged: Financial (7.3%; n_NZ = 170, n_ARG = 5, n_AUS = 0; e.g., “save money/cheap,”), Affect Change (1.6%; n_NZ = 10, n_ARG = 17, n_AUS = 13; e.g., “adrenaline”), Pregaming/Predrinking (1.1%; n_NZ = 3, n_ARG = 17, n_AUS = 7; e.g., “arrive drunk”), Routine/Habit (1.1%; n_NZ = 2, n_ARG = 8, n_AUS = 0; e.g., “it just happens”), and Protective Behavioral Strategies (.5%; n_NZ = 1, n_ARG = 9, n_AUS = 1; e.g., “safe drinks/no spiked drinks”). See Table 3 for an overview of all codes and descriptions.

Table 3.

Overview of Codes, Descriptions, and Sample Responses From a Qualitative Analysis of Participants’ Motives or Possible Reasons for Playing Drinking Games (DG).

MPDG Subscales	Description	Sample Responses
Competition	To compete against other players and/or win while presently playing DGs or practicing for subsequent games	To compete; enjoy the competition; challenge
Conformity	To fit in and to feel included and/or to not feel excluded or stand out from the rest of the group	Everyone is playing; fit in; friends asked you to; peer pressure
Enhancement/thrills	To liven up the party, have fun, and/or a good laugh which can involve varying levels of intoxication. This also includes a motivation to play DGs to drink in exciting ways	Liven up a party; get drunk quicker; to laugh; persuade friends to drink; hear funny stories
Social lubrication	To facilitate meeting and making personal connections with others	Meet new people; get to know others; ice-breaker; inclusive
Novelty	To try something different and to experience something new	Different way of drinking; try something new; like to try/taste
Sexual pursuit	To express interest in developing a romantic or sexual relationship with another player	Guys love girls who play; sexual interest
Boredom	To pass time when other activities are perceived to be unavailable or options are limited	Bored; kill time; something to do; nothing else to talk about
New Codes	Description	Sample Responses
Affect change	To alter an emotional state, including both increases, such as gaining confidence or getting in a party mood, and decreases, such as relaxing, to an emotion	Give me confidence; atmosphere is tense; forget problems; adrenaline
Pregaming/predrinking	To pregame or predrink or to serve any of the functions pregaming/predrinking behaviors do such as drinking before going out or passing time until the evening begins	Drink before going out
Protective behavioral strategy	To remain safe while drinking	Safe drinks/no spiked drinks; way to control consumption; know my limits
Routine/habit	As a habitual or routine part of the evening	It just happens; a custom; by chance
Financial	To save money. This can include saving money by either sharing the cost or drinking someone else’s liquor	Save money/cheap; they are cheap

Mapping open-ended responses onto existing motivational theories of alcohol use revealed that almost half of the responses were reasons for playing DGs (48.8%; e.g., “something to do”, “adrenaline”, “everyone is playing”) rather than motives for consuming alcohol as conceptualized by the DMQ-R or the M-DMQ-R (i.e., coping, conformity, social, enhancement).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to further researchers’ and practitioners’ understanding of Australian, New Zealand, and Argentinean university students’ motives to play DGs and to delineate motives from reasons for participation. Our quantitative analysis showed new evidence to support the 7-factor structure model of the MPDG-33 among university students from New Zealand and Argentina. Consistent with prior work (George et al., 2018), we also replicated this 7-factor structure among Australian students. Although our sample size precluded us from conducting a formal examination of metric or scalar invariance of the MPDG-33, findings suggest that configural invariance was met for this measure across all sites. Most students’ open-ended responses regarding their reasons for playing DGs also aligned with the seven MPDG subscales with many reporting Enhancement/Thrills as the most common motive for playing DG, followed by Social Lubrication. Conformity, Competition, and Novelty were endorsed less frequently, and Sexual Pursuit was the least reported motive to play DGs. To some extent, the former findings align with other work with university samples from non-U.S. countries which indicated that a higher proportion of students reported playing “to get drunk” or “to meet people” as a “very important” reason to play DGs, especially compared to other reasons (i.e., “to get someone else drunk”, “to control others”, “peer pressure”) to play DGs (McInnes & Blackwell, 2021). Based on our findings and prior work (George et al., 2018), it appears that the MPDG-33 can be used with Australian students. While further psychometric studies on the MPDG-33 with New Zealand and Argentinian students are needed, our preliminary results suggest that this measure can also be used with university students from these countries.

While a substantial proportion of participants’ qualitative responses aligned with the pre-existing MPDG subscales, five additional codes emerged from the qualitative data suggesting additional reasons for playing DGs that are not captured by the MPDG. One of these codes was Affect Change which entailed playing DGs to increase or decrease a participant’s affect (e.g., loosen up, feel more confident, relax/destress, and/or to get in a party mood). These motives reflect a desire to improve or enhance one’s emotional state and as such, are consistent with Cox and Klinger’s (1988) motivational framework of alcohol use. Students also reported that they played DGs as a way to pregame/predrink or to pass time before the night began. Drinking before going out (i.e., pregaming/predrinking) has been well-documented in studies conducted with emerging adult samples in Australia (George et al., 2023), New Zealand (e.g., Dresler & Anderson, 2018), and Argentina (e.g., Pilatti & Read, 2018). It is worth noting that the Affect Change motives that we identified in the present study appear to overlap with certain items (e.g., loosening up/relaxing before going to a social event/gathering; increase one’s self-confidence before going out) on the Preparty Motives Inventory (LaBrie et al., 2012), the Predrinking Motives Questionnaire (Labhart et al., 2017), the Pregaming Motives Measure (Bachrach et al., 2012), and the Argentinean-version of the Pregaming Motives Questionnaire (Pilatti & Read, 2018). In situations where emerging adults and university students are playing DGs while pregaming/predrinking (e.g., Ford et al., 2022; Hummer et al., 2013), it is possible that their motives or reasons to play DGs or pregame/predrink may intersect. Thus, when assessing students’ motives or reasons for playing DG, researchers and practitioners could also consider motives for pregaming/predrinking as these two risky drinking practices can co-occur.

Playing DGs as a protective drinking strategy also emerged as a reason for playing DGs from qualitative data. Students reported that the drinks they consumed while playing a DG were safe (e.g., no spiked drinks) and participating allowed them to learn their limits and control their drink consumption. Similar findings were reported in a recent qualitative study among Australian university students who acknowledged that they were unaware of their alcohol tolerance but, over time, consuming alcohol in the context of a DG allowed them to become more cognizant of their drink tolerance and limits (George et al., 2023). This perception conveyed by students should, however, be interpreted in the context of the well-established link between DGs participation and increased alcohol consumption and negative drinking consequences (Zamboanga, Newins, et al., 2021), and prior qualitative work with Australian young women who indicated that they experienced difficulties keeping track of how much they drink while playing DGs given the fast rate at which DGs are played (Murugiah, 2014). To help reduce students’ risk for DGs harm, practitioners could leverage students’ perceptions of the protective function of playing DGs by encouraging them to use protective behavioral strategies (e.g., limiting one’s drinks) in the context of a DG (see Stephens et al., 2022).

Finally, qualitative findings also identified Routine/Habit and Financial reasons for DG participation. Regarding Routine/Habit (i.e., playing due to custom or chance factors), perhaps students find that repeated exposure to and practice with playing DGs helps reduce the amount of effort needed to make group gatherings flow more smoothly and as such, this practice becomes built into their typical get-together protocol. Over time, this may lead to perceived norms whereby the practice is accepted and not questioned. Financially, students reported playing DGs to save money by sharing drink costs and/or consuming alcoholic beverages provided by others. Given that emerging adults also report cost as one of their reasons or motives for pregaming/predrinking (Foster & Ferguson, 2014; Labhart et al., 2017; O’Neil et al., 2016; Pilatti & Read, 2018), university students may use DGs as a method of pregaming/predrinking so they can save money.

Taken together, the additional identified reasons (or potential motives) beyond the MPDG suggests that the MPDG does not fully capture the motives or specific reasons for playing DGs among students from Australia, New Zealand, and Argentina. Researchers could modify and improve the MPDG by (a) including items that reflect the five additional motives/reasons that emerged in the present study, and (b) testing its psychometric properties with a sample of Australian, New Zealand, and Argentinean university students and other populations of interests. We developed a conceptual model (Figure 1) to serve as a roadmap to modify the MPDG or curate a more comprehensive DG motives measure which could include reasons to play a DG due to the specific feature(s) of the game.

Proposed Conceptual Model

We incorporated the knowledge obtained from our qualitative findings to create a conceptual model that differentiates between university students’ (a) motivations to drink in the context of a DG, and (b) reasons (that may be a DG motive with further research) to play a DG given the specific features of the game [i.e., even competition (e.g., beer pong/die), communal (e.g., Never Have I Ever), targeted/skills (e.g., quarters) games; LaBrie et al., 2013]. On the left side of Figure 1, we note that specific motives to consume alcohol in the context of a DG may underlie the four broad motivations to drink alcohol on the DMQ-R (Cooper, 1994). For example, playing DGs to reduce social tension, alleviate boredom, and/or to feel more disinhibited may underlie drinking to cope, particularly in social settings. Students may also participate in a DG because (a) their friends or other people are playing them and they were invited to play, (b) it was suggested by someone, and/or (c) they perceive DGs as an inclusive group activity. These reasons to play a DG may underlie drinking to conform. Finally, playing DGs as way to drink and become disinhibited, get others to drink, and/or as a method to pregame/predrink may underlie enhancement drinking motives.

The right side of Figure 1 focuses on students’ reasons or possible motives (with further research) to play certain types of DGs due to the specific feature(s) of the game. For example, students may play DGs to compete against others and participate in a team building activity by playing an even competition game (e.g., beer pong; LaBrie et al., 2013). Others may play DGs because they are novel, enjoyable, and entertaining. By definition, DGs are a social activity (Zamboanga et al., 2013) and as a result, people may also be motivated to play a DG with acquaintances or friends in order to get to know people better or as a means to strengthen their bonds with people they already know. Some students may play DGs because participating in certain types of DGs serves a protective function (e.g., Never Have I Ever whereby players can keep a close eye on their drinks) or is cost-effective (e.g., everyone contributes to the drink costs or the host provides free drinks), while others might play different types of DGs due to chance factors (e.g., people at a party were playing them). As shown in Figure 1, other students may play a targeting/skills game (e.g., quarters; LaBrie et al., 2013) so they can select someone to drink when given the opportunity to do so. Some may play a DG because they see it as an activity that requires everyone to focus on a specific task (e.g., listen to the lyrics of a song while playing a music DG). This may appeal to students who seek to divert their attention away from their social environment (possibly due to awkward social experiences) to the specific game task (Kilmer et al., 2014). Finally, some may play a targeting/skills game as a means to get someone to drink whom they are sexually attracted to.

In summary, students play certain types of DGs for a variety of reasons, and these may reflect possible motives for game play. Indeed, some of these reasons overlapped with the seven subscales on the MPDG, although some did not (i.e., the five additional dimensions). Given the possibility that some students may be motivated to play DGs given the specific features of the game itself (e.g., targeting/skills games, even competition games; LaBrie et al., 2013), game type should be considered in future modifications of the MPDG or the development of a new DG motives measure. Perhaps moving forward, researchers could consider conducting higher order factor analysis and testing whether students’ reasons to play DGs load onto broad motives to drink (e.g., DMQ-R, Cooper, 1994; M-DMQ-R, Grant et al., 2007) and motives to play DGs (e.g., MPDG; George et al., 2018; Zamboanga, Audley, et al., 2019).

Study Limitations and Conclusions

The current findings should be considered in light of several limitations. Our cross-sectional data consisted of convenience samples of students at a single university in each country. We also recognize the limitations involved in using self-report methods to gather data (e.g., accuracy in memory recall) and that asking students to list their reasons for participating in DGs may not necessarily have reflected their motives for game play. However, the present study contributes to the alcohol literature by advancing researchers’ and practitioners’ understanding of university students’ motives for playing DGs by showing new evidence to support the 7-factor model of the MPDG-33 among university students from New Zealand and Argentina, and replication of the 7-factor model with Australian students (George et al., 2018). Students from these countries also reported reasons and potential motives for playing DGs not currently assessed by the MPDG. As such, the present findings highlight the need to expand researchers’ and practitioners’ conceptualizations of DG motives by considering motives specific to alcohol consumption in the context of a DG, as well as reasons or possible motives for playing a DG for its specific features (e.g., to compete against others; select others to drink). Participants provided information regarding their reasons for playing DGs via open-ended responses to an online survey rather than an interview. Thus, future qualitative studies could employ interview-based methods designed to differentiate students’ motives to consume alcohol in the context of a DG from their reasons to play certain types of DGs given their specific features. We hope that researchers will build on our study and utilize the information presented in our conceptual model to develop a more comprehensive way to assess DG motives while also providing clarity in the distinction between motives and reasons for alcohol consumption to help guide clinical practice.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Why Do University Students From Australia, New Zealand, and Argentina Play Drinking Games? A Mixed-Method Cross-Country Study

Supplemental Material for Why Do University Students From Australia, New Zealand, and Argentina Play Drinking Games? A Mixed-Method Cross-Country Study by Byron L. Zamboanga, Kayla Ford, Amanda M. George, Miller Bacon, Janine V. Olthuis, Robert E. Wickham, Angelina Pilatti, Kathryne Van Hedger, and Emma Dresler in Emerging Adulthood.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Inquiries concerning the quantitative statistical analyses for this study should be addressed to Dr Robert E. Wickham (robert.wickham@nau.edu).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: A Fulbright Australia Scholar Award (funded by the University of Canberra) to Prof. Byron L. Zamboanga supported his contributions to this article.

Transparency and Openness Statement

The data, analysis codes, and coding manual used in this study are not openly available but could be made available upon request to the corresponding author and approval from all co-authors.

ORCID iD

Byron L. Zamboanga

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

Byron L. Zamboanga, PhD, is a Professor in the Department of Psychological Science at the University of Arkansas. His primary research program focuses on drinking motives, drinking game and pregaming/predrinking behaviors, and alcohol protective strategies among emerging adults (including NCAA student-athletes) in the United States and other countries including Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, and Canada. His secondary research program focuses on cultural correlates (acculturation and related constructs, alcohol-specific masculine norms) of drinking behaviors among emerging adults.

Kayla Ford, MA, is a doctoral student in Clinical Psychology at the University of Arkansas. Her research focuses on the prevention of sexual assault through the lens of bystander intervention and examines psychosocial and cognitive correlates of problematic alcohol use and consequences.

Amanda M. George, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Canberra on Ngunnawal Country, Australia. Her research focuses on risk-taking behaviours among young adults, including risky alcohol use and associated consequences among university students (e.g., drinking game participation). Amanda is particularly interested in identifying modifiable factors that can reduce alcohol-related harm, such as protective behavioral strategies and drinking motives.

Miller Bacon, was an Undergraduate Research Assistant in Dr. Zamboanga’s Psychology Research Lab at the University of Arkansas. While working in Dr. Zamboanga’s lab, he studied college students’ drinking game behaviors in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the role of living situation in their decision to play drinking games. Miller is currently a first-year law student at the University of Virginia.

Janine V. Olthuis, PhD, is an Associate Professor at the University of New Brunswick. Her research focuses on ways to increase access to psychological interventions with a focus on anxiety, posttraumatic stress, and related disorders. She studies distance-delivered interventions, transdiagnostic interventions, and the use of physical exercise in mental health treatment. She also researches psychosocial risk factors for alcohol use among adolescents and young adults, with a particular focus on athletes.

Robert E. Wickham, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychological Sciences and the Center for Health Equity Research at Northern Arizona University. His research focuses on the evaluation of health and housing programs, as well as the development of methodological techniques for complex research designs.

Kathryne Van Hedger, PhD, is a Postdoctoral Fellow with BrainsCAN and the Western Institute for Neuroscience at Western University in London, Ontario, Canada. Her research interests are in stress and substance use, with an emphasis on risky drinking practices among young adults.

Angelina Pilatti, PhD, is an Independent Researcher of the National Council of Research of Argentina (CONICET) and Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, National University of Cordoba, Cordoba, Argentina. Her research interests include analysis of risk factors associated with alcohol or marijuana initiation and alcohol/marijuana consumption during childhood, adolescence and youth. An important part of her research aims at identifying subpopulations of individuals with differential susceptibility to exhibit problematic alcohol consumption or marijuana use.

Emma Dresler, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer in Marketing at Massey University, New Zealand, and her work focuses on consumer psychology. She is particularly interested in the issues surrounding consumer health and consumption patterns. Her research projects aim to develop theories, assess practices, and provide recommendations on young people’s consumption practices that are associated within wider sets of social meanings, especially knowledge, access, affordability, and health.

References

Bachrach

R. L.

Merrill

J. E.

Bytschkow

K. M.

Read

J. P.

(2012). Development and initial validation of a measure of motives for pregaming in college students. Addictive Behaviors, 37(9), 1038–1045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.04.013

Bavin

L. M.

Owens

R. G.

(2016). Impact of an alcohol poisoning storyline in a fictional television program: An experimental study with a live-to-air stimulus. Health Communication, 31(10), 1258–1265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2015.1055537

Bresin

Mekawi

(2021). The “why” of drinking matters: A meta‐analysis of the association between drinking motives and drinking outcomes. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 45(1), 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/acer.14518

Carter

Filoche

McKenzie

(2017). Alcohol and young people: A review of New Zealand and other international literature. Report commissioned by the health promotion agency. Health Promotion Agency.

Collins

R. L.

Parks

G. A.

Marlatt

G. 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

Cooper

L. M.

Kuntsche

Levitt

Barber

L. L.

Wolf

(2016). Motivational models of substance use: A review of theory and research on motives for using alcohol, marijuana, and tobacco. In Sher

K. J.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of substance use disorders (Vol. 1, pp. 375-421). Oxford University Press.

Cooper

M. L.

(1994). Motivations for alcohol use among adolescents: Development and validation of a four-factor model. Psychological Assessment, 6(2), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.2.117

Cox

W. M.

Klinger

(1988). A motivational model of alcohol use. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97(2), 168–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.97.2.168

Dresler

Anderson

(2018). Friends drinking together: Young adults’ evolving support practices. Health Education, 118(3), 212–226. https://doi.org/10.1108/HE-06-2017-0031

10.

Erlingsson

Brysiewicz

(2017). A hands-on guide to doing content analysis. African Journal of Emergency Medicine: Revue Africaine de la Medecine d’urgence, 7(3), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afjem.2017.08.001

11.

Fereday

Muir-Cochrane

(2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107

12.

Ford

Zamboanga

B. L.

Ham

L. S.

(2022). Playing drinking games as a typical form of prepartying among young adults. Substance Use and Misuse, 57(6), 853–856. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2022.2046095

13.

Foster

J. H.

Ferguson

(2014). Alcohol ‘pre-loading’: A review of the literature. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 49(2), 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/agt135

14.

George

A. M.

Zamboanga

B. L.

(2018). Drinking game participation and outcomes in a sample of Australian university students. Drug and Alcohol Review, 37(5), 599–606. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dar.12811

15.

George

A. M.

Zamboanga

B. L.

Martin

J. L.

Olthuis

J. V.

(2018). Examining the factor structure of the motives for playing drinking games measure among Australian university students. Drug and Alcohol Review, 37(6), 782–788. https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.12830

16.

George

A. M.

Zamboanga

B. L.

Scholz

(2023). “It breaks the ice”: A qualitative examination of drinking game motives, harms and protective behavioral strategies among university students in Australia. Substance Use & Misuse, 58(3), 419–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2023.2165412

17.

Gordon

Heim

MacAskill

(2012). Rethinking drinking cultures: A review of drinking cultures and a reconstructed dimensional approach. Public Health, 126(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2011.09.014

18.

Graham

Bernards

Knibbe

Kairouz

Kuntsche

Wilsnack

S. C.

GreenfieldDietze

T. P.

Obot

Gmel

(2011). Alcohol-related negative consequences among drinkers around the world. Addiction, 106(8), 1391–1405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03425.x

19.

Grant

V. V.

Stewart

S. H.

O’Connor

R. M.

Blackwell

Conrod

P. J.

(2007). Psychometric evaluation of the five-factor modified drinking motives questionnaire--Revised in undergraduates. Addictive Behaviors, 32(11), 2611–2632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.07.004

20.

Horn

J. L.

McArdle

J. J.

(1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18(3–4), 117–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610739208253916

21.

Hummer

J. F.

Napper

L. E.

Ehret

P. E.

LaBrie

J. W.

(2013). Event-specific risk and ecological factors associated with prepartying among heavier drinking college students. Addictive Behaviors, 38(3), 1620–1628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.09.014

22.

Johnson

T. J.

Hamilton

Sheets

V. L.

(1999). College students’ self-reported reasons for playing drinking games. Addictive Behaviors, 24(2), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4603(98)00047-1

23.

Johnson

T. J.

Sheets

V. L.

(2004). Measuring college students’ motives for playing drinking games. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18(2), 91–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.18.2.91

24.

Kilmer

J. R.

Cronce

J. M.

Logan

D. E.

(2014). Seems I’m not alone at being alone:” contributing factors and interventions for drinking games in the college setting. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 40(5), 411–414. https://doi.org/10.3109/00952990.2014.930150

25.

Kuntsche

Knibbe

Gmel

Engels

(2005). Why do young people drink? A review of drinking motives. Clinical Psychology Review, 25(7), 841–861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2005.06.002

26.

Labhart

Kuntsche

(2017). Development and validation of the predrinking motives questionnaire. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47(3), 136–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12419

27.

LaBrie

J. W.

Ehret

P. J.

Hummer

J. F.

(2013). Are they all the same? An exploratory, categorical analysis of drinking game types. Addictive Behaviors, 38(5), 2133–2139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.12.002

28.

LaBrie

J. W.

Hummer

J. F.

Pedersen

E. R.

Lac

Chithambo

(2012). Measuring college students’ motives behind prepartying drinking: Development and validation of the prepartying motivations inventory. Addictive Behaviors, 37(8), 962–969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.04.003

29.

McInnes

Blackwell

(2021). Drinking games among university students in five countries: Participation rates, game type, contexts, and motives to play. Addictive Behaviors, 119, 106940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2021.106940.

30.

Murugiah

Scott

(2014). Drinking games participation among female students at a regional Australian university. Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse, 13(2), 139–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332640.2014.892462

31.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998-2018). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.

32.

O’Neil

A. I.

Lafreniere

K. D.

Jackson

D. L.

(2016). Pre-drinking motives in Canadian undergraduate students: Confirmatory factor analysis of the prepartying motivations inventory and examination of new themes. Addictive Behaviors, 60, 42–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.03.024.

33.

Pilatti

Read

J. P.

(2018). Development and psychometric evaluation of a new measure to assess pregaming motives in Spanish-speaking young adults. Addictive Behaviors, 81, 134–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.01.019.

34.

Pilatti

Read

J. P.

Pautassi

R. M.

(2017). ELSA 2016 cohort: Alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use and their association with age of drug use onset, risk perception, and social norms in Argentinean college freshmen. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1452. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01452.

35.

Room

Kuntsche

Dietze

Munné

Monteiro

Greenfield

T. K.

(2019). Testing consensus about situational norms on drinking: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 80(6), 651–659. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2019.80.651

36.

Stephens

C. A.

Eamiello

M. L.

Venditti

L. F.

Piibe

A. N.

Zamboanga

B. L.

Reid

A. E.

(2021). Will others approve? Effects of an injunctive norms intervention on intentions to use protective behavioral strategies during drinking games. Addiction Research and Theory, 30(2), 149–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/16066359.2021.1970748

37.

Whatnall

M. C.

Patterson

A. J.

Brookman

Convery

Swan

Pease

Hutchesson

M. J.

(2020). Lifestyle behaviors and related health risk factors in a sample of Australian university students. Journal of American College Health, 68(7), 734–741. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2019.1611580

38.

Zamboanga

B. L.

Audley

Olthuis

J. V.

Blumenthal

Tomaso

C. C.

Bui

Borsari

(2019). Validation of a seven-factor structure for the motives for playing drinking games measure. Assessment, 26(4), 582–603. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117701191

39.

Zamboanga

B. L.

George

A. M.

Van Hedger

Olthuis

J. V.

Pilatti

Dresler

(2021). Participation in drinking games and predrinking among university students in Argentina, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 56(6), 683–688. https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/agaa141

40.

Zamboanga

B. L.

Napper

L. E.

George

A. M.

Olthuis

J. V.

(2019). Examining drinking game harms as a function of gender and college student status. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 33(8), 685–696. https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000520

41.

Zamboanga

B. L.

Newins

A. R.

Cook

M. A.

(2021). A meta-analysis of drinking game participation and alcohol-related outcomes participation and alcohol-related outcomes. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 35(3), 263–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000670

42.

Zamboanga

B. L.

Olthuis

J. V.

Kenney

S. R.

Correia

C. J.

Van Tyne

Ham

L. S.

Borsari

(2014). Not just fun and games: A review of college drinking games research from 2004 to 2013. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 28(3), 682–695. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036639

43.

Zamboanga

B. L.

Pearce

M. W.

Kenney

S. R.

Ham

L. S.

Woods

O. E.

Borsari

(2013). Are “extreme consumption games” drinking games? Sometimes it’s a matter of perspective. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 39(5), 275–279. https://doi.org/10.3109/00952990.2013.827202

44.

Zamboanga

B. L.

Van Hedger

George

A. M.

(2023). Prologue to the special issue on predrinking and drinking game behaviors among adolescents and young adults in the United States and across the globe: Definitions and overview of prevalence. Addictive Behaviors, 144, 107731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2023.107731.

45.

Zamboanga

B. L.

Zhang

Olthuis

J. V.

Kim

S. Y.

(2018). Understanding drinking game behaviors: A consideration of alcohol expectancies and motives to play and drink. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 42(3), 302–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-017-9886-1

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.10 MB

Why Do University Students From Australia,New Zealand,and Argentina Play Drinking Games? A Mixed-Method Cross-Country Study

Abstract

Keywords

Study Aims

Method

Participants and Procedures

Measures

Motives for Playing Drinking Games (MPDG-33) 3

Reasons to Play Drinking Games

Analytic Approach

Quantitative Analyses

Qualitative Analyses

Results

Quantitative Findings

Qualitative Findings

Discussion

Proposed Conceptual Model

Study Limitations and Conclusions

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Why Do University Students From Australia, New Zealand, and Argentina Play Drinking Games? A Mixed-Method Cross-Country Study

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Transparency and Openness Statement

ORCID iD

Supplemental Material

Notes

Author Biographies

References

Supplementary Material

Motives for Playing Drinking Games (MPDG-33) ³