College students lack knowledge of standard drink volumes: implications for definitions of risky drinking based on survey data
- PMID: 15834229
- DOI: 10.1097/01.alc.0000158836.77407.e6
College students lack knowledge of standard drink volumes: implications for definitions of risky drinking based on survey data
Abstract
Background: College students tend to pour single servings of beer and liquor that are larger than commonly used standards. The reasons for this are unknown. Students might overpour because they lack knowledge of standard serving sizes. Alternatively, they might know how much alcohol to pour but simply have difficulty pouring the correct amounts. Misperceptions of standard serving sizes could lead to inaccuracies in self-reported consumption. If this is the case, then the validity of students' responses on alcohol surveys and the definitions of risky drinking that are based on them would be called into question. This study examined how college students define standard drinks, whether their definitions are similar to the definitions commonly used by alcohol researchers and government agencies, and whether their definitions of standard drinks are related to the sizes of the drinks that they pour. The study also examined whether feedback regarding the accuracy of their definitions of standard drinks leads students to alter their self-reported levels of consumption.
Methods: Students (N = 133) completed an alcohol survey and performed tasks that required them to free-pour a single beer, glass of wine, shot of liquor, or the amount of liquor in a mixed drink. Roughly half of the students received feedback regarding their definitions of standard drinks. All students then were resurveyed about their recent levels of consumption.
Results: With the exception of beer, students incorrectly defined the volumes of standard servings of alcohol, overestimating the appropriate volumes. They also overestimated appropriate volumes when asked to free-pour drinks. Positive relationships existed between students' definitions of standard drinks and the sizes of the drinks that they free-poured. Feedback regarding misperceptions of standard drink volumes led to an increase in levels of self-reported consumption, suggesting that students' original estimates of their alcohol consumption were too low.
Conclusions: Despite the recent focus on alcohol education and prevention at the college level, college students have not been taught how to define standard drinks accurately. They tend to overstate the appropriate volumes, leading them to overpour drinks and underreport levels of consumption. Self-reported consumption levels are altered by feedback regarding the accuracy of students' definitions of standard drinks. The findings raise important questions about the validity of students' responses on alcohol surveys and the definitions of risky drinking that are based them.
Similar articles
-
Do college students drink more than they think? Use of a free-pour paradigm to determine how college students define standard drinks.Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2003 Nov;27(11):1750-6. doi: 10.1097/01.ALC.0000095866.17973.AF. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2003. PMID: 14634490
-
Singaporean college students overpour drinks similar to Western populations: influence of peer presence in a simulated alcohol-pouring task.Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2013 Nov;37(11):1963-70. doi: 10.1111/acer.12178. Epub 2013 Jul 26. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2013. PMID: 23888884
-
Pour Convergence: College Students' Definitions and Free-Poured Volumes of Standard Alcohol Servings.J Drug Educ. 2017 Mar-Jun;47(1-2):36-50. doi: 10.1177/0047237917744329. Epub 2017 Dec 8. J Drug Educ. 2017. PMID: 29231063
-
"My drink is larger than yours"? A literature review of self-defined drink sizes and standard drinks.Curr Drug Abuse Rev. 2008 Jun;1(2):162-76. doi: 10.2174/1874473710801020162. Curr Drug Abuse Rev. 2008. PMID: 19630715 Review.
-
Energy Drink and Alcohol mixed Energy Drink use among high school adolescents: Association with risk taking behavior, social characteristics.Addict Behav. 2017 Sep;72:93-99. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.03.016. Epub 2017 Mar 27. Addict Behav. 2017. PMID: 28388494 Review.
Cited by
-
How adverse childhood experiences relate to single and multiple health risk behaviours in German public university students: a cross-sectional analysis.BMC Public Health. 2018 Aug 13;18(1):1005. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5926-3. BMC Public Health. 2018. PMID: 30103728 Free PMC article.
-
Adolescent Binge Drinking.Alcohol Res. 2018;39(1):5-15. Alcohol Res. 2018. PMID: 30557142 Free PMC article. Review.
-
A comparison between brand-specific and traditional alcohol surveillance methods to assess underage drinkers' reported alcohol use.Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2014 Nov;40(6):447-54. doi: 10.3109/00952990.2014.938160. Epub 2014 Jul 25. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2014. PMID: 25062357 Free PMC article.
-
Under-estimation of Alcohol Consumption among Women At-risk for Drinking during Pregnancy.Contemp Drug Probl. 2008 Spring;35(1):37-58. doi: 10.1177/009145090803500103. Contemp Drug Probl. 2008. PMID: 20589228 Free PMC article.
-
Understanding standard drinks and drinking guidelines.Drug Alcohol Rev. 2012 Mar;31(2):200-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-3362.2011.00374.x. Epub 2011 Nov 3. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2012. PMID: 22050262 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical