CHAPTER-IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/27566/13/13_chapter 4.pdf4.7 ANOVA results for AUDIT based on their socio - demographic variables before

CHAPTER-IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

CHAPTER- IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.0 Introduction 101

4.1 The socio demographic details of the

respondents

102

4.2

Analysis of Drinking Motives Questionnaire-

Revised (DMQ-R) on its sub scales

105

4.3

The percentage score of respondents on

Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test

(AUDIT)

127

4.4

Effect of psychosocial education tested by

Paired‘t’ test

139

4.5

Effect of intervention tested by Paired t test on

Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT)

145

4.6

ANa ANOVA results for DMQ-R based on the socio-

demographic variables before and after psychosocial

147

97-192

4.7

ANOVA results for AUDIT based on their socio-

demographic variables before and after

psychosocial education

153

4.8

Chi-Square test results of DMQ-R

157

4,9 Chi -Square test results of AUDIT questions 160

4.10 The results of the relationship with various socio-

demographic variables on DMQ-R before


162

4.11 Results of the drinking levels of the respondents

on DMQ-R sub scales

164

4.12

Percentage score on drinking levels in conformity

(CON) motives by Year of graduate study before &

after psychosocial education

174

4.13

Results of the respondents drinking levels on

AUDIT before and after psychosocial education

175

4.14 Regression Analysis

181

.4.15. Summary of the hypotheses test 183

4.16 Conclusion

185

CHAPTER - 4

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.0. INTRODUCTION

The application of statistical techniques in analyzing and interpreting the collected data plays

an important role in any research study. The data must be carefully processed, systematically

classified and tabulated and scientifically analyzed to arrive at logical conclusions. The current

chapter deals with the analysis of the data collected and interpretations. Mean and standard deviation

for the tool was calculated. Based on mean and standard deviation scores t-values were computed to

know the significant difference, if any, between them.

This chapter deals with the analysis and interpretation of the data. All the details are presented

below with appropriate tables, charts and the respective discussions

The main objective of this particular investigation is to find out the efficacy of psychosocial

education in drinking related problems among undergraduate students. In Indian colleges it is not

mandatory to give education in alcohol. There may be education about overall health issues and

remedies. The researcher wants to convey a message that a minimal form of alcohol education can

make a big difference among college students because they are the most vulnerable category among

alcohol users. The various reasons were discussed in the previous chapters. Accordingly, 225 male

under graduate students aged 18 to 23 as study subjects filled up background questionnaire, Drinking

motives questionnaire-revised (DMQR) and Alcohol use disorders identificationtest (AUDIT). Its

known fact, alcohol consumption depends on different motives and this in turn leads to addiction. The

researcher found these two tools suitable for alcohol misuse prevention. The individual scores for all

the variables were obtained and later individual sessions on psychosocial education were assigned.

After the sessions, each student was asked to fill up another round of the questionnaires, i.e., the two

tools, the DMQR and the AUDIT. The researcher completed the sessions and the questionnaires with

225 students within a year’s time.

225 male students, the age group of 18 to 23 were subjects for this intervention study. The socio-

demographic details are depicted in table 4.1.

Table 4.1. The socio-demographic details of the respondents

Socio- demographic details Number of respondents Percentage

Gender

Male

225

100%

Age

18

19

20

21

22

23

40

55

53

42

16

19

17.8%

24,4%

23.6%

18.7%

7.1%

8,4%

Year

1st year

2nd year

3rd year

75

75

75

33.3%

33.3%

33.3%

Course

BCOM

75

33.3%

Only male students were considered since they are more in number and are addicted to alcoholism.

Pradeep and colleagues study included only males because majority of patients who came with

alcohol related problems were males, 20 to 50 year old men, at an urban teaching hospital in

Bangalore, (Pradeep et al 2010)1 to compare among men and women about their alcohol use in India,

faces difficulties, because male drinking is far higher than female drinking. So the present study can

be very similar in this area with that of Pradeep and others study.

Majority of the respondents (64%) belong to age group 18-20 and the rest 21 -23. Recent surveys in

India have showed that the percentage of drinking alcohol is much higher in rates in city colleges,

especially the age 18 to 23, and have forced the researcher to take up this particular age for this study.

Researchers have found a strong association with this study. Hingson and colleagues (2005) 2 study

on students, between ages of 18 and 24, on the death rate of students in colleges changed from the

year 1998 to 2001. Their results has showed that the injuries and death from colleges because of

BBM

BCA

75

75

33.3%

33.3%

Livingwith the family or not

Yes

No

72

153

32.0%

68%

Type of family

Nuclear

Joint family

Extended family

167

27

31

74.2%

12.0%

13.8%

alcoholism has increased to 6% during this period which has become a great concern for proper

preventive measures.

The students are equally distributed (33.33% each) in the three years of graduate studies and from the

three disciplines of the study, some of the points are quite similar to the previous study by Kraus and

colleagues, they also done on undergraduate students. (Kraus L et al 2005)3 also another study by

Grant Valerie et al 2007 4 supports the present study we have seen from the above table (table 4.1)

that 72 (32%) of the students stay with the family and the rest away from family. This means more

students (68%) are staying away from parents definitely have an influence from their peers. This may

be an important factor for their alcohol misuse.

A large number of students come from nuclear family - 167 (74.2%) then comes the extended family

with - 31 (13.8%) students and from joint family - 27 (12%) students.

Sharma and his colleagues study strongly support the present study on nuclear family base. The units

of the study were 14 to 19 years old adolescents studying in various schools and colleges in South

Delhi. Three-fourths belonged to a nuclear family and the remaining were part of a joint family, and

boys are more likely than girls to smoke, drink, and use drugs. (Sharma Rahul , Grover L Vijay ,

ChaturvediSanjay, April2010)5

The results are primarily depended on the data analysis from the Drinking motives scale and Alcohol

use scale and socio-demographic details handed over to each student by the researcher. Psychosocial

education was imparted to students after detailed explanation and elucidation of each question. Their

doubts were clarified to perceive and understand the relevance of this education. Both DMQ-R and

AUDIT questionnaires are widely used in college population to assess their drinking habits and to

prepare them for preventive measures to avoid alcohol misuse.

Kuntsche and others investigated cross-national differences (1) in the four-dimensional factor

structure of drinking motives; (2) in the mean levels of enhancement, coping, social, and conformity

motives; and (3) in the association of these motives with adolescent alcohol use, risky single-occasion

drinking, and alcohol-related problems. (Kuntsche, Stewart, Cooper 2008).6 Another study

byCarey and Correia’s (1997)7 Their research work on ‘Drinking motives predict alcohol-related

problems in college students’ supported the present study findings, in their study result supported

the utility of motivational models of alcohol use in understanding alcohol-related problems in college,

same result was observed from this study also. On AUDIT, the researcher found that Kokotailo et

al’s (2004)8study on Validity of the alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test in College Students was

very supportive. The researcher also found these questionnaires most suited for this study to assess the

drinking patterns and provide them remedial measures. The education mainly stressed on the causes

of drinking and its bad effects. The same questionnaires were used to find out changes if any, in their

attitude to drinking.

Reliability test

Reliability test were conducted for both the research tools. DMQ-R tool the data shows Chronbavh’s

alpha is 0.757 which is significantly high and AUDIT scale the value is 0.535 which is also

significantly high

The results are discussed with reference to the objectives and hypothesis formulated in the

present study. The Analysis & Interpretations of the study are discussed as follows:

4.2 Analysis of Drinking Motives Questionnaire-Revised (DMQ-R) on its sub scales

The detailed analysis of the results of the DMQR consists of 20 items on 4 sub scales, rated on a 5-

point Likert scale as follows:

The percentage of students calculated for each question covered and what they reported before and

after the intervention is illustrated in the tables and figures given below.

Table- 4.2.1 The percentage scores of respondents on DMQ-R-on sub scale coping motives

(COP) – before psychosocial education

COP before

education

Q1 Q4 Q6 Q15 Q17

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Never (1) 7 3.1% 18 8.0% 15 6.7% 11 4.9% 4 1.8%

Some of the

time (2) 28 12.4%

Half of the

time (3) 39 17.3%

Most of the

time (4) 42 18.7%

Almost always

(5) 109 48.4%

n 225 100.0

Mode 5.00

Figure- 4.2.1 The percentage scores of

motives(COP)–before psychosocial education

The values in the table & column chart above indicate motivation for drinking in the coping domain to

forget their worries (The percentage

worries - on sub scale coping motives

them using various options like- almost, always and most of the time

67.1% (extreme), 17.3% (moderate) and (12.4+3.1= 15.5%) 15.5 %( low) drinkers. The assessment

above shows that they are not aware of the dangers of alcohol use. They often get upset and anxious

for silly reasons and turn to alcohol for relief and become addicts in due course of time. At

psychosocial education can serve them to control and command their instinct.

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

Q.1 Q4

33 14.7% 27 12.0% 37 16.4% 49

29 12.9% 17 7.6% 66 29.3% 60

44 19.6% 84 37.3% 63 28.0% 73

101 44.9% 82 36.4% 48 21.3% 39

225 100.0 225 100.0 225 100.0 225

5.00 4.00 3.00 4.00

scores of respondents on DMQ-R-on sub scale coping



The percentage scores of respondents on DMQR- question no.1 -

n sub scale coping motives (COP) - before psychosocial education) When we categorize

almost, always and most of the time (49% + 19% = 67.1%), we get

e) and (12.4+3.1= 15.5%) 15.5 %( low) drinkers. The assessment


for silly reasons and turn to alcohol for relief and become addicts in due course of time. At

psychosocial education can serve them to control and command their instinct.

Q6 Q15 Q17

Never (1)

Some of the time (2)

Half of the time (3)

Most of the time (4)

Almost always (5)

49 21.8%

60 26.7%

73 32.4%

39 17.3%

225 100.0

4.00

n sub scale coping


to forget one’s

When we categorize

(49% + 19% = 67.1%), we get

e) and (12.4+3.1= 15.5%) 15.5 %( low) drinkers. The assessment


for silly reasons and turn to alcohol for relief and become addicts in due course of time. At this stage,

Never (1)




Almost always (5)

The percentage scores of respondents on DMQR-question no.4- Does drinking helps you when you

feel depressed or nervous, on sub scale coping motives (COP) before psychosocial education, the

results reveal that when students are depressed or nervous they opt drinking to cope up stress,

depression and nervousness. 45% of students chose drink always option and 19.6 selected most of

the time. The nature of drinking can be observed from the above table & figures. The startling fact

that alcohol acts as a central nervous system depressant and damages the brain functions. The

findings from a study by Brown and his colleagues reveal that adolescents might be able to stay

awake and move even with higher blood alcohol levels than adults with an equivalent history of

alcohol exposure. At the same time, they are exposed to greater alcohol-induced cognitive

impairments and possibly, more injury to the brain following high alcohol exposure levels. (Brown,

S.A., Tapert, S.F., Granholm, E., and Delis, D.C. 2000) 9

It’s clear from the above table & charts that before psychosocial education, students drank to

cheer up themselves, (DMQ-R question no 6 on COP when they are in a bad mood) 36% chose

almost/always and 37.3% chose most of the time. These two value score on the higher side needs to

be taken care of. While answering this question, 73.7% of the students out of 225 of the total students

are on the higher side of drinking motives. The mode scores of respondents are five before education.

Coping motives refer to drinking that

is motivated by a desire to escape internal negative experiences such as anxiety, depression, or

uncertainty. The present study is supported byNeighbors et al. (2004) 10 study titled ‘Feeling

Controlled and Drinking Motives among College Students: Contingent Self-Esteem as a Mediator’,

which explains about using different ways of interventions to prevent alcohol misuse.

The percentage scores of respondents on DMQ-R- question no.15 Does drinking makes you confident

on sub scale coping motives (COP) before psychosocial educationillustrates that a wrong belief or

myth about alcohol guided them to drink it for self confidence. Almost (28+21.3=49.3) 50% of the

students are on the higher side in this question before education. The result of the study is also in line

with the view point of a study by Stewarts and Chambers on Drinking motives and restraint,

according to them coping motives scores have been found to be directly associated with increased

alcohol problems even after levels of consumption are controlled(S.H. Stewart, Chambers Laura

2000) 11

The percentage scores of respondents on DMQ-R question no.17 to forget about your problems on

sub scale coping motives (COP)before psychosocial educationshows that 32.4% of the students drink

most of the time to forget their problems. If we take the higher side values (32.4+17.3=49.7) 49.7% of

the students had drinking habits

Table 4.2.2 The percentage scores of respondents on DMQ-R on sub scale coping

motives (COP) after psychosocial education

COP after

education

Q1 Q4 Q6 Q15 Q17

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Never (1) 183 81.3% 181 80.4% 168 74.7% 202 89.8% 207 92.0%

Some of the

time (2) 39 17.3%

41 18.2% 51 22.7% 20 8.9% 18 8.0%

Half of the

time (3) 3 1.3%

2 .9% 5 2.2% 3 1.3% 0 0%

Most of the

time (4) 0 0%

1 .4% 1 .4% 0 0% 0 0%

Almost always

(5) 0 0%

0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

n 225 100.0 225 100.0 225 100.0 225 100.0 225 100.0

Mode 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Figure- 4.2.2 The percentage scores of respondents on DMQ


The percentage scores of respondents on DMQR

sub scale coping motives (COP) after

acts as a central nervous system depressant and damages the brain functions, changed the

attitude of students towards alcohol use. The t

Students were able to switch on to moderate levels. More than 80% of students, who

underwent the intervention, changed their habit of alcohol consumption as a relief for their

worries. This finding is in consonanc

et al 2007 studies examined the relationship between motives for drinking and use of alcohol

may depend on the protective behavior of the college students. This protective behavior

strategy positively reflected on social and enhancement motives and not mediated the

relationship with alcohol related problems and coping motives on negative side also.

(Martens P. Matthew, Ferrier G. Amanda, Cimini Dolores M (2007)

It has been found out from the above table

significant reduction insub scale coping motives on depressed or nervous students.

The results reveal that when students are depressed or nervous they opt drinking to cope up

stress, depression and nervousness. If the above reasons are accountable for drinking

occasionally, the researcher feels that education will surely help them .It should be noted that

special consultation and rehabilitation should follow education. After the education they

realized that drinking can be dangerous to their health and 80% of the stu

attitude towards drinking. . Later it is evident that students viewed alcohol to be a drug that

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

1 2

scores of respondents on DMQ-R on sub scale coping


scores of respondents on DMQR- question no.1 - to forget one’s worries

(COP) after psychosocial education,the startling fact that alcohol


attitude of students towards alcohol use. The table is suggestive of the above statement.



worries. This finding is in consonance with the results obtained from the studies of

studies examined the relationship between motives for drinking and use of alcohol




Martens P. Matthew, Ferrier G. Amanda, Cimini Dolores M (2007)12

It has been found out from the above table-4.2.2 that after psychosocial education there is a

t reduction insub scale coping motives on depressed or nervous students.



ionally, the researcher feels that education will surely help them .It should be noted that


realized that drinking can be dangerous to their health and 80% of the students changed their


3 4 5

Never (1)




Almost always (5)

on sub scale coping

forget one’s worries - on

the startling fact that alcohol


able is suggestive of the above statement.



e with the results obtained from the studies of Matthew

studies examined the relationship between motives for drinking and use of alcohol




4.2.2 that after psychosocial education there is a

t reduction insub scale coping motives on depressed or nervous students.



ionally, the researcher feels that education will surely help them .It should be noted that


dents changed their





Almost always (5)

can depress the central nervous system and slow down the brain functions. They became

conscious of its ill effects and how they turned alcoholic. The above table indicates that

74.7% of students stopped drinking after the alcohol education. The mode scores of

respondents is one after the education

Findings of Longabaugh Richard and Morgenstern Jon (1999)13in their study reported

that alcohol abuse might be effectively prevented among high risk individuals with a brief CB

coping skills therapy approach targeting high Anxiety Sensitivity, and that anxiety sensitivity

may operate as one underlying determinant of dysfunctional drinking behavior. The brief

cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) intervention was conducted and proved that 50% of

reduction was noticed in their study.

In question no.15 does drinking makes you confident or sure of yourself on sub scale coping motives

(COP) after psychosocial educationillustrates that 89.8% of the students stopped drinking for this

particular reason

On DMQ-R question 17 to forget about your problems on sub scale coping motives (COP)after

alcohol education 92% of the students stopped drinking and started alternative ways to cope up with

their daily issues. Careys and Correia study concluded that motives worked as leading to heavy

drinking and to account for drinking problems. (Carey K B, C J Correia 1997) 7The findings of the

present study indicate the same as Careys and Correia study conclusions. Cooper, Frone, Russell,

and Mudar (1995)14 established that coping motives were more proximal determinants of alcohol

consumption and related problems in adolescents and adults from the general community than the

negative mood states thought to underlie coping drinking, but in the present study the respondents

scored on social motives than coping motives.

Table-4.2.3the percentage scores of respondents on DMQ-R- on sub scale Conformity motives.

(CON)before psychosocial education

CON- before

education

Q2 Q8 Q12 Q19 Q20

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Never (1) 6 2.7% 13 5.8% 1 .4% 6 2.7% 4 1.8%

Some of the

time (2)

21 9.3% 33 14.7% 4 1.8% 36 16.0% 15 6.7%

Half of the

time (3)

40 17.8% 35 15.6% 9 4.0% 45 20.0% 43 19.1%

Most of the

time (4)

74 32.9% 75 33.3% 123 54.7% 75 33.3% 87 38.7%

Almost always

(5)

84 37.3% 69 30.7% 88 39.1% 63 28.0% 76 33.8%

n 225 100.0 225 100.0 225 100.0 225 100.0 225 100.0

Mode 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

Figure-4.2.3the percentage scores of respondents on DMQ-R- on sub scale Conformity motives.

(CON)before psychosocial education

The percentage scores of respondents on DMQ

scale Conformity motives. (CON)before psychosocial education,

students said that always they were pressurized by their friends.


so they don’t kid on you about not drinking on sub scale Conformity motives. (CON)

psychosocial education on the above table

others or show other students that they also drink and retain friendship. They say that it made them

feel proud, 30.7 percent students drank almost always and 33.3 percent students drank alcohol most of

the time for this reason on conformity motives.

On DMQ-R question no. question 12

motives. (CON), it is to be noticed that before education, more than 54% of the students agreed that

they drink in the interest of others. Most of the time they felt that it is better to have fun with t

friends.


conformity motives. (CON)before psychosocial education

of student towards drinking. They stated that acceptanc

important for them

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

1 2

scores of respondents on DMQ-R question no.2- friend’s pressure to drink

before psychosocial education, it has been found that 37% of the

students said that always they were pressurized by their friends.

scores of respondents on DMQ-R question no.8- If accompany friends in drinking

about not drinking on sub scale Conformity motives. (CON)

psychosocial education on the above tableexplains that students drank most of the time to be with

they also drink and retain friendship. They say that it made them


the time for this reason on conformity motives.

R question no. question 12- to be in with a group you like, on sub scale Conformity

t is to be noticed that before education, more than 54% of the students agreed that

they drink in the interest of others. Most of the time they felt that it is better to have fun with t

scores of respondents on DMQ-R question no. 19- to be liked on sub scale

before psychosocial education on the table above highlights the attitude

of student towards drinking. They stated that acceptance and recognition within the group is very

3 4 5

Never (1)




Almost always (5)

friend’s pressure to drink on sub

it has been found that 37% of the

If accompany friends in drinking

about not drinking on sub scale Conformity motives. (CON) before

explains that students drank most of the time to be with

they also drink and retain friendship. They say that it made them


be in with a group you like, on sub scale Conformity

t is to be noticed that before education, more than 54% of the students agreed that

they drink in the interest of others. Most of the time they felt that it is better to have fun with their

to be liked on sub scale

on the table above highlights the attitude

e and recognition within the group is very

Never (1)




Almost always (5)

On DMQ-R question no. 20- so you won’t feel left out (CON) before psychosocial education, the

percentage scores of respondents on most of the time were 38.7% and 33.8% on almost always they

drink for this reason. So a total of 72% of students scored on the highest side. This shows that

drinking became an important part of students’ life to have to be with their peers.

Table-4.2.4the percentage scores of respondents on DMQ-R- on sub scale Conformity motives.

(CON)after psychosocial education

CON after

education

Q2 Q8 Q12 Q19 Q20

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Never (1) 59 26.2% 151 67.1% 179 79.6% 166 73.8% 157 69.8%

Some of the

time (2)

138 61.3% 66 29.3% 41 18.2% 51 22.7% 65 28.9%

Half of the

time (3)

21 9.3% 5 2.2% 4 1.8% 8 3.6% 3 1.3%

Most of the

time (4)

6 2.7% 2 .9% 1 .4% 0 0% 0 0%

Almost always

(5)

1 .4% 1 .4% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

n 225 100.0 225 100.0 225 100.0 225 100 225 100.0

Mode 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Figure-4.2.4the percentage scores of respondents on DMQ

(CON)after psychosocial education


to drink on sub scale Conformity motives. (CON)

revealed that 26.2% of the students stopped drinking and 61.35% tasted it occasionally with

their friends.

According to Cooper 199415study on

and validation of a four-factor model in journal Psychological

conformity (external/negative) motives aim to avoid unpleasant social situations (e.g. rejection by a

valued group) and to obtain social rew

be an outsider, this is clearly evident in the results from the present study also.


on sub scale Conformity motives. (CON)

drinking level reduced and 67.1% of students stopped completely. A significant reduction in alcohol

intake is visible from the table given

Mezquita L. et al (2011)16in their study reported that the relationship between conformity motives

and alcohol use variables has been studied mainly among adolescents. Although conformity motives

may hypothetically be positively related to alcohol use, some studies have foun

association with drinking levels, but a positive association with alcohol

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

1 2

scores of respondents on DMQ-R- on sub scale Conformity motives.


scores of respondents on DMQ-R question no.2 Does friends pressure you

on sub scale Conformity motives. (CON)after psychosocial education,

that 26.2% of the students stopped drinking and 61.35% tasted it occasionally with

study on Motivations for alcohol use among adolescents: Development

factor model in journal Psychological Assessment, explained about


valued group) and to obtain social rewards. This is the typical situation is of ’drinking in order not to

be an outsider, this is clearly evident in the results from the present study also.

scores of respondents on DMQ-R question no.8, If you drink others won’t kid you

scale Conformity motives. (CON) after educating them about alcohol and its effects, their


intake is visible from the table given above.

in their study reported that the relationship between conformity motives


may hypothetically be positively related to alcohol use, some studies have foun

association with drinking levels, but a positive association with alcohol-related problems. It is

3 4 5

Never (1)




Almost always (5)

on sub scale Conformity motives.

Does friends pressure you

after psychosocial education,the results

that 26.2% of the students stopped drinking and 61.35% tasted it occasionally with

adolescents: Development

Assessment, explained about


ards. This is the typical situation is of ’drinking in order not to

others won’t kid you

after educating them about alcohol and its effects, their


in their study reported that the relationship between conformity motives


may hypothetically be positively related to alcohol use, some studies have found a negative

related problems. It is




Almost always (5)

therefore possible that the role of conformity motives may vary across different alcohol related

behaviors, environments, or stages of drinking history. For instance, they may be important in

adolescents, probably in an interaction with specific contexts, such as drinking at parties, or drinking

to fit into a peer group that acts violently. They may also be quite important in causing relapses

among recovering alcoholics since clinical patients have reported relapses due to social pressure to

resume alcohol consumption. The evidence derived from clinical practice therefore shows that

training in drink refusal skills can be useful in helping prevent relapses among treated alcoholics. This

suggests that conformity motives should receive increased attention in the adult alcohol use literature.

Here in the present study we noticed that psychosocial education helped students to decrease their

alcohol consumption.

The table results above On DMQ-R question no. question 12 to fit in with others you drink, on sub

scale Conformity motives. (CON) after psychosocial education, show that a significant portion of

students reduced their drinking habits after education even they realized that they should abandon

alcohol drinking and not fall prey to alcohol. So 79.6 % of students stopped drinking. Once they

understood that the same fun can lead to addiction of alcohol, a major threat to their life. They

reduced their intake frequency and quantity and followed other alternative measures to fit into peer

group

Another research work by Nemeth Zsofia (2011),17The role of motivational components of alcohol

use among youth in different settings and cultures, based on the comparison of adolescents and

college students it was revealed that teenagers endorse significantly more motives with negative

outcome such as conformity and coping motives than young adults. This suggests that to fit into a

valued group and to escape from problems are important reasons for drinking among adolescents

compared to college students, also similar but it is shown more in adolescents.

The percentage scores of respondents on DMQ-R question no.20- If you don’t drink do you feel left

out (CON) after psychosocial education, the table above highlights the attitude of student towards

drinking. They stated that acceptance and recognition within the group is very important for them.

After explaining about how it can lead to alcoholism, they accepted their ignorance about drinking

and addiction. They assured that they would keep away from alcohol which ruins their lives and

69.8% of them decided no to alcohol drinking.

A study by Kuntsche, Stewart, and Cooper 20086on How Stable Is the Motive–Alcohol Use Link?

Indicates that the rank order in mean levels of motive endorsement was the same across countries i.e.,

highest for social, followed by enhancement, coping, and conformity. The present study the highest

score same as theirs on social motives but second highest score not on enhancement but on

conformity motives. This shows that motives for drinking influence the culture of the people.

Table-4.2.5 the percentage scores of respondents on DMQ-R on sub scale social motives (SOC)

before psychosocial education

SOC before

education

Q3 Q5 Q11 Q14 Q16

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Never (1) 18 8.0% 12 5.3% 1 .4% 1 .4% 2 .9%

Some of the

time (2)

21 9.3% 26 11.6% 40 17.8% 17 7.6% 7 3.1%

Half of the

time (3)

40 17.8% 7 3.1% 59 26.2% 24 10.7% 3 1.3%

Most of the

time (4)

65 28.9% 71 31.6% 69 30.7% 109 48.4% 61 27.1%

Almost always

(5)

81 36.0% 109 48.4% 56 24.9% 74 32.9% 152 67.6%

n 225 100.0 225 100.0 225 100.0 225 100.0 225 100.0

Mode 5.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 5.00

Figure-4.2.5 the percentage scores of respondents on DMQ

before psychosocial education

Table-4.2.5 and figures on DMQ-

before psychosocial education it is seen that alcohol is served lavishly in all functions. It has become

a common practice among all sections of society. It is a false notion that alcohol helps people to

enjoy a party. More than 64% of the students on the higher side were dr

needed psychosocial education is to spell out doubts and myths about alcohol. So they stay away from

alcohol misuse.

OnDMQ-R 5- To be sociable on social motives (SOC) before psychosocial education

students believed that it helps socializing. In reality it adversely affected their lives

study on Social Norms and the Prevention of Alcohol Misuse in Collegiate Contexts given greater

ideas about how students influenced by their peers

importance in "peer-intensive" college contexts, for example, undergraduate and residential

institutions where students lack frequent contact with parents

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

1 2

scores of respondents on DMQ-R on sub scale social motives

-R 3- Is drinking helps enjoying a party on social motives (SOC)

it is seen that alcohol is served lavishly in all functions. It has become


enjoy a party. More than 64% of the students on the higher side were drinking for this reason. Here


To be sociable on social motives (SOC) before psychosocial education

ved that it helps socializing. In reality it adversely affected their lives One of Perkins


ideas about how students influenced by their peers. Furthermore, peer norms may be of particular

intensive" college contexts, for example, undergraduate and residential

institutions where students lack frequent contact with parents (Perkins Wesley H. 2002

3 4 5

Never (1)




Almost always (5)

R on sub scale social motives (SOC)

Is drinking helps enjoying a party on social motives (SOC)

it is seen that alcohol is served lavishly in all functions. It has become


inking for this reason. Here


To be sociable on social motives (SOC) before psychosocial education 48.4 % of the

One of Perkins


peer norms may be of particular

intensive" college contexts, for example, undergraduate and residential

Perkins Wesley H. 2002)18

Never (1)




Almost always (5)

On DMQ-R question no.11- Does drinking makes social gatherings more fun on social motives

(SOC) before psychosocial education on the above table proves the social motives of drinking. Prior

to education the students reported that gatherings are fun filled with drinks like alcohol. They

admitted to having kept no control over themselves and this disrupted their normal work, the next

day. They told that, in the above mentioned situations, they didn’t drink often but rarely as it excited

them .Fifty four percent was on the higher side (most of the time30.7% and almost always24.9%). A

study byCarey, Social gatherings and drinking make students enjoy and this is directly linked to high

risk drinking among college. (Carey, K. B. 1995). 19

Table-4.2.5 the percentage scores of respondents on DMQ-R 14- Does drinking improves parties

and celebrations on social motives (SOC) before psychosocial education students were under the

impression that parties and celebrations are more fun with alcohol servings. There were many students

on the higher side of drinking, most of the time- 48.4% and almost always -32.9%. The picture

before education - at the higher level 80%, at the moderate level is 10.7% and at the lower side was

(some of the time) 7.6%. According to Stewart and others sharing a social occasion motivates the

students to drink and celebrate. When it becomes a regular habit among students they may get in to

problems. (Stewart S H et al, 1996) 20these same findings we see inCooper’s study also. (Cooper

1994) 15 their findings were very much similar to the present study.

Table-4.2.5 the percentage scores of respondents on DMQ- 16 Drinking in celebrating a special

occasion with friends on social motives (SOC) before psychosocial education explains about special

occasions with friends as the social motive that initiates students to drinking. This question scored the

highest with respect to other questions. 27.1 % chose the option - most of the time and 67.6%

chose- almost always option. The total percent on high drinking (27.1+67.6) is 94%. Alcohol offers

represent a more direct form of social pressure that may uniquely motivate drinking behaviors (Read

et al. 2003), 21 this was an obvious statement that reflected in the present study also.

Table-4.2.6 the percentage scores of respondents on DMQ-R on sub scale social motives (SOC)


SOC after

education

Q3 Q5 Q11 Q14 Q16

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Never (1) 144 64.0% 129 57.3% 150 66.7% 152 67.6% 49 21.8%

Some of the

time (2)

73 32.4% 76 33.8% 55 24.4% 58 25.8% 83 36.9%

Half of the

time (3)

6 2.7% 16 7.1% 19 8.4% 14 6.2% 84 37.3%

Most of the

time (4)

2 .9% 1 .4% 1 .4% 1 .4% 4 1.8%

Almost always

(5)

0 0% 3 1.3% 0 0% 0 0% 5 2.2%

n 225 100.0 225 100.0 225 100.0 225 100.0 225 100.0

Mode 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00

Figure-4.2.6 the percentage scores of respondents on DMQ-R on sub scale social motives (SOC)


Table-4.2.6 & figures on DMQ-R question no.3

motives (SOC) after psychosocial education

habits. Psychosocial education helped them to understand about alcohol problems.

According to Kuntsche Emmanuel

Ther factors like hisory, present situation and thinking patterns influences the chemical effects of

drinking. Also, drinking when eating food may have less chemical effects but again the frequency

and the quantity of drinking may again cotribute to negative effects on the health of the person.

Table-4.2.6 & figures on DMQ-R question no.5

motives (SOC) after psychosocial education they understood

about the facts and myths about alcohol use.. Real facts changed their belief about alcohol

changed their drinking habits on social motives.

On DMQ-R 11- drinking in social gatherings makes fun (SOC)

said that they drank within limits and their report also showed reduction in their drinking levels i.e.

66.7 %.

The percentage scores of respondents on DMQR

(SOC),Drinking in limited quantity is fun, is a common thought but in most cases alcohol takes

control of the drinkers. After explaining about how alcohol mi

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

1 2 3

R question no.3- Does drinking helps you enjoy a party on social

motives (SOC) after psychosocial education a good proportion of students reduced their drinking

helped them to understand about alcohol problems.

Emmanuel, Knibbe, R., Gmel, G., &Engels., R. (2005).22




R question no.5 – Does drinking makes to be sociable on social

motives (SOC) after psychosocial education they understood about alcohol related problems and

about the facts and myths about alcohol use.. Real facts changed their belief about alcohol

changed their drinking habits on social motives.

drinking in social gatherings makes fun (SOC)after psychosocial education


scores of respondents on DMQR-14 Drinking improves parties and celebrations

Drinking in limited quantity is fun, is a common thought but in most cases alcohol takes

control of the drinkers. After explaining about how alcohol misuse can play havoc in their lives,

3 4 5

Never (1)




Almost always (5)

Does drinking helps you enjoy a party on social

a good proportion of students reduced their drinking




to be sociable on social

about alcohol related problems and

about the facts and myths about alcohol use.. Real facts changed their belief about alcohol and they

after psychosocial education they


14 Drinking improves parties and celebrations

Drinking in limited quantity is fun, is a common thought but in most cases alcohol takes

suse can play havoc in their lives,

students changed their attitude and they decided they will not misuse alcohol. Quite a lot of students

reduced their drinking level to moderate level.

On DMQR- 16 to celebrate a special occasion with friends (SOC)after psychosocial education, it

may be rare, but if they drink above standard level, it will be dangerous for their health.

Psychosocial education explained how alcohol misuse can lead to problems. If alcohol or beverages

are wisely used it will not cause problems. The results of above table denote that education did not

have much impact on respondents but they well understood about alcohol misuse and its

consequences. Above table shows that on special occasion students like to enjoy drinking along with

friends in a moderate way. It occurs once in a while.

Table-4.2.7 the percentage scores of respondents on DMQ

(ENH) before psychosocial education

ENH before

education

Q7

No. %

Never (1) 13 5.8%

Some of the

time (2)

43 19.1%

Half of the

time (3)

27 12.0%

Most of the

time (4)

93 41.3%

Almost always

(5)

49 21.8%

n 225 100.0

Mode 4.00

Fugure-4.2.7 the percentage scores of respondents on DMQ

motives (ENH) before psychosocial education

On DMQ-R question 7 because you like the feeling on enhancement motives

psychosocial education we understand that 41.3% of students like the feeling

question reveals how easily people become alcohol addicts. Binge drinking and its consequences are

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

50.00%

1 2

scores of respondents on DMQ-R on sub scale enhancement motives


Q9 Q10 Q13 Q18

No. % No. % No. % No.

15 6.7% 20 8.9% 2 .9% 6

41 18.2% 98 43.6% 4 1.8% 20

56 24.9% 47 20.9% 44 19.6% 55

83 36.9% 39 17.3% 100 44.4% 81

30 13.3% 21 9.3% 75 33.3% 63

225 100.0 225 100.0 225 100.0 225

4.00 2.00 4.00 4.00

scores of respondents on DMQ-R on sub scale enhancement


because you like the feeling on enhancement motives

we understand that 41.3% of students like the feeling - most of the time, this


3 4 5

Never (1)




Almost always (5)

R on sub scale enhancement motives

Q18

No. %

6 2.7%

20 8.9%

55 24.4%

81 36.0%

63 28.0%

225 100.0

4.00

scale enhancement

(ENH) before

most of the time, this


Never (1)




Almost always (5)

common among people of this sort. It is here that education plays a major role in preventing such

problems.

On DMQR- 9 Drinking makes exciting on ENHbefore psychosocial education36.9% students who

drank most of the time for getting excitement

On DMQR- 10 to get high (ENH) before psychosocial education shows that there is a significant

reduction in alcohol use after education. From the above table it is clear that sometimes very few

students drink to get high, for fun or in the face of depression or anger. In these situations they are

unaware of the harmful effects of drinking. Read et al. 200321 study on examining the Role of

Drinking Motives in College Student Alcohol Use and Problems; certain character in students like

impulsive behavior or sensation seeking, can always leads heavy drinking or risk drinking

On DMQR-13 Drinking for pleasant feeling (ENH)before psychosocial education 44.4% of students

drank most of the time on this reason.

The percentage scores of respondents on DMQR 18- Does drinking is fun (ENH)before psychosocial

education 36.0% on most of the time and 28.0% on almost always, they drank for this reason.

Table-4.2.8 the percentage scores of respondents on DMQ-R on sub scale enhancement motives

(ENH) after psychosocial education

ENH after

education

Q7 Q9 Q10 Q13 Q18

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Never (1) 95 42.2%

Some of the

time (2)

91 40.4%

Half of the

time (3)

24 10.7%

Most of the

time (4)

10 4.4%

Almost always

(5)

5 2.2%

n 225 100.0

Mode 1.00

Figure-4.2.8 the percentage scores of respondents on DMQ

(ENH) after psychosocial education

On DMQ-R question 7 when you drink

psychosocial education, the percent went down to 4.4% on most of the time and 2.2% on almost

always. This question reveals how easily people become alcohol addicts. Binge drinking and its

consequences are common among people because they like drinking. It is here that education plays a

major role in preventing such problems

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

1 2

170 75.6% 202 89.8% 106 47.1% 174

50 22.2% 23 10.2% 102 45.3% 31

3 1.3% 0 0% 16 7.1% 18

2 .9% 0 0% 1 .4% 1

0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1

225 100.0 225 100.0 225 100.0 225

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

scores of respondents on DMQ-R on sub scale enhancement


R question 7 when you drink you like the feeling on enhancement motives

the percent went down to 4.4% on most of the time and 2.2% on almost

als how easily people become alcohol addicts. Binge drinking and its


major role in preventing such problems

3 4 5

Never (1)




Almost always (5)

174 77.3%

31 13.8%

18 8.0%

1 .4%

1 .4%

225 100.0

1.00

R on sub scale enhancement motives

you like the feeling on enhancement motives (ENH) after

the percent went down to 4.4% on most of the time and 2.2% on almost

als how easily people become alcohol addicts. Binge drinking and its


On DMQR- 9 Drinking is exciting on ENHafter psychosocial education has come down to 9%.

Above table results show how students changed their mindset after the psychosocial education. They

considered drinking to be a normal affair, a means to enjoyment and merrymaking, despite all

problems. . They would consider the frequency of intake and only moderate quantity will be

consumed.

On DMQR- 10 Do you drink to get high (ENH) after psychosocial education shows that there is a

significant reduction in alcohol use after education

On DMQR-13 is drinking gives you a pleasant feeling (ENH)after psychosocial education came down

to.4% after education. Most of the time they drank alcohol beverages to feel good. Once they

understood the consequences of continuous drinking they reduced their drinking to a low level. The

percentage scores of respondents on DMQR 18- Drinking is fun (ENH)after psychosocial education

drinking came down to .4%. Alcohol addiction is common among people but once they are aware of

the dangers involved, they are open to other positive alternatives. They show readiness stop alcohol

misuse. Observations from the above table results clearly state that alcohol education can make a

change in the attitude of college students. Drinking to have fun and to get drunk, motives as predictors

of weekend drinking over and above usual drinking habits, Drug and Alcohol dependence, points to a

heavy episodic weekend drinking culture of young people who drink large quantities on Friday and

Saturday nights apparently because they are seeking fun and excitement. Preventive measures should

aim to counteract young people's drinking at peak times and in high-risk situations.

Kuntsche and colleagues article on why do young people drink? In this article they have reviewed

student’s attitudes to drinking and its consequences. They calculated 15 years of studies in students

drinking and have come to a conclusion that social motives are used for moderate drinking and

enhancement motives are used for heavy drinking. (Kuntsche, E., Knibbe, R., Gmel, G., &Engels.,

R. 2005).22 this insight was very much helped the present study to use appropriate way to find out the

accurate results.

Another study by Kuntsche Emmanuel, Stewart, and Cooper 20086 also given valued

pointsto put in to the present study. According to famous researchers findings in this field

is that drinking motives can be considered proximal antecedents of drinking behavior and

have been shown to predict alcohol consumption and alcohol-related consequences

(Cooper, Frone, Russell, &Mudar, 1995) 14 encouraged the researcher in this work.

4.3 The percentage score of respondents on AUDIT (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test)

In the AUDIT, Questions 2 and 3 assume that a standard drink equivalent is 10 grams of alcohol

What’s a Low-Risk Limit?

* No more than two standard drinks a day

* Do not drink at least two days of the week

But remember. There are times when even one or two drinks can be too much – for example:

* When driving or operating machinery.

* When pregnant or breast feeding.

* When taking certain medications.

* If you have certain medical conditions.

* If you cannot control your drinking.

Ask your health care provider for more information.

What is Low-Risk Drinking?

Low-risk drinking involves limiting alcohol use to an amount and pattern that is unlikely to cause

harm to oneself or others. Scientific evidence indicates that the risk of harm increases significantly

when people consume more than two drinks per day and more than five days per week. Moreover,

even smaller amounts of alcohol pose risks in certain circumstances. Following the simple rules given

below can reduce the risk to your health and the possibility of hurting others.

� An average of two drinks a day

� In a week keep moderate drinking, maximum of 5 days in a week.

No to alcohol

� When driving

� When operating machinery

� When pregnant or breast feeding

� Under treatment conditions

� When unable to control drinking

Descriptive analysis of frequencies and mode scores of each item covered and reported them

from AUDIT as follows:

Table-4.3.1 the percentage of students (frequency distribution) scores on AUDIT-1

Question No.1 Before psychosocial

education

After psychosocial education

How often do you have a drink

containing Alcohol No. of

Respondents

Percentage No. of

Respondents

Percentage

Never (1) 0 0 66 29.3%

Monthly or less (2) 63 28.0% 144 64.0%

2 -4 times a month (3) 136 60.4% 15 6.7%

2-3-times a week (4) 26 11.6% 0 0

4 or more times a week (5) 0 0 0 0

n 225 100.0 225 100.0

Mode 3.00 2.00

From the above table and pie chart we observe that, before education the frequency of drinking was 3

or 4 times a month, undoubtedly a high score. This finding illustrates that 60% of the respondents fall

in this category. The option, some of the time, was chosen by 28% and11.6% of the respondents

showed preference for two to three times a week. After education, the alternative some of the time

scored 64%, a high score. Before education the mode score on the higher side was 3 and after

education the mode score was 2.

Alcohol awareness education may help to understand what level for the people to continue their

drinking when they are in the range of 8 to 15. This range may not be harmful but long time drinking

may cause chronic problems in their health. Some times without knowing they may increase their

drinking and this will cause harm to them. (BaborF. Thomas and Higgins-Biddle C. John 2001) 23The study material Babor and co workers has been most useful for the psychosocial education in the

present study.

Table-4.3.2the percentage of students (frequency distribution) scores on AUDIT-2

Question No. 2 Before psychosocial

education


please tick on the amount of

drinks on a day when you drink

No. of

Respondents

Percentage No. of

Respondents

Percentage

1or2 (1) 37 16.4% 216 96.0%

3or4 (2) 150 66.7% 9 4.0%

5or6 (3) 34 15.1% 0 0

7-9 (4) 4 1.8% 0 0

10 or more (5) 0 0 0 0

n 225 100.0 225 100.0

Mode 2.00 1.00

More than 66% of respondents used a minimum number of 3 or 4 drinks on a typical day for the past

one year. But it is observed that a huge majority of 96% came down in the number of drinks

consumed after the intervention. (After education, 96% of the respondents scored 1 or 2, at low levels.

The mode score was 2 before education and after education it dwindled to 1. Above table and pie

charts reveal that quantity in drinking came down to 96.0% among students.

The Audit questions 1 and 2 are very important in diagnosis and treatment process because this

quantity is calculated whether the person is under risk or not. (BaborF. Thomas and Higgins-Biddle

C. John 2001)23Similar way considered and given guidance to them.

Table- 4.3.3the percentages of students (frequency distribution) scores on AUDIT-3

Question No 3 Before psychosocial

education

After psychosocial

education Do you drink 6 or more drinks and

how often?

No. of

Respondents

Percentage No. of

Respondents

Percentage

Never (1) 14 6.2% 225 100.0

less than monthly (2) 190 84.4% 0 0

Monthly (3) 20 8.9% 0 0

Weekly (4) 1 .4% 0 0

Daily or almost daily (5) 0 0 0 0

n 225 100.0 225 100.0

Mode 2.00 1.00

With regard to the question asked the score for the options once in a month or less than

monthly is 84.4% in the past year. It shows the frequency in drinking is less than one month and

after psychosocial education it was reduced to never 100%. If a person drink more than 60 grams of

pure alcohol per occasion at any time of his drinking session, he needs to be given proper guidance

that it can lead to harm.. (BaborF. Thomas and Higgins-Biddle C. John 2001)23Education

concentrated on the above and removed the danger in drinking episodes.

Table-4.3.4The percentage of students (frequency distribution) scores on AUDIT-4

Before psychosocial education After psychosocial education

Q. 4 How often during the

past year have you found that

you were not able to stop

drinking once you had

started?

No. of Respond

ents

Percentage Percentage No. of

Respondent

s

Never (1) 19 8.4% 225 100.0


Monthly (3) 71 31.6% 0 0

Weekly (4) 17 7.6% 0 0


n 225 100.0 225 100.0

Mode 2.00 1.00

Above table explain that, before education, the score for less than monthly and monthly drinking was

a high of 52.4% and 31.6% respectively. But after education the score on never was 100%. Mode

score was 2 before and 1 after education.

Table-4.3.5the percentage of students (frequency distribution) scores on AUDIT-5

Question No.5- During the past

years, how often have you failed

to do what was normally

expected of you?

Before psychosocial

education

After psychosocial

education

No. of

Respondents

Percentage Percentage No. of

Respondents

Never (1) 72 32.0% 225 100.0


Monthly (3) 13 5.8% 0 0

Weekly (4) 0 0 0 0


n 225 100.0 225 100.0

Mode 2 1

Quite a lot of respondents, 62% of them chose not weekly or monthly but once or twice in the past

year and agreed to having failed to do what was normally expected of them. But after education,

drinking came down to the score nil 100%). The mode score on before psychosocial education was 2

that is 1 more than after psychosocial education.


Question No.6During the past year

did you need a first drink in the

morning to get yourself going after

a heavy drinking at night?

Before psychosocial

education

After psychosocial

education

No. of

Respondents

Percentage No. of

Responde

nts

Percentage

Never (1) 210 93.3% 225 100.0


Monthly (3) 0 0 0 0

Weekly (4) 0 0 0 0


n 225 100.0 225 100.0

Mode 1.00 1.00

As seen in above table and charts, before education, respondents on less than monthly scored 6.7%

and on never scored 93.3% and after education the highest score was on never.


Question No.7- during the

past year did you feel guilt

or remorse after drinking?

Before psychosocial

education


No. of

Respondents

Percenta

ge (%)

No. of

Respondent

s

Percentage

( %)

Never (1) 191 84.9% 225 100.0%


Monthly (3) 7 3.1% 0 0

Weekly (4) 0 0 0 0


n 225 100.0 225 100.0

Mode 1.00 1.00

Above table results shows that before education score for less than monthly is 12% and monthly score

is 3.1%. After education the highest score showed on never.


Question No. 8 Before psychosocial

education

After psychosocial

education How often during the past year have you

been unable to remember what happened

the night before because you had been

drinking?

No. of

Responde

nts

Percentag

e

No. of

Respon

dents

Percenta

ge

Never (1) 201 89.3% 224 99.6%

less than monthly (2) 23 10.2% 1 .4%

Monthly (3) 1 .4% 0 0

Weekly (4) 0 0 0 0


n 225 100.0 225 100.0

Mode 1.00 1.00

A few of the respondents felt that they were unable to remember what happened the night before

because they had been drinking. The score for less than monthly is 10.2% but after education the

score was 100% on never.

Table-4.3.9The percentage of students (frequency distribution) scores on AUDIT-9.Because of

your drinking did you cause injury to self or others?

Question No. 9Because of your

drinking did you cause injury to

self or others?

Before psychosocial

education


No. of

Respondents

Percentage No. of

Respondents

Percentage

No (1) 196 87.1% 225 100.0%

yes but not in the past year (2) 15 6.7% 0 0

Yes but during the past year (3) 14 6.2% 0 0

n 225 100.0 225 100.0

Mode 1.00 1.00

The options past year and not in the past year scored 7%, before education caused injury to others

because of their drinking.


Question No. 10 - Anybody said

that you are consuming alcohol is

harmful and you should cut down

on drinking?

Before psychosocial

education


No. of

Respondent

s

Percentage No. of

Respondent

s

Percentage

No (1) 192 85.3% 225 100.0%

yes but not in the past year (2) 12 5.3% 0 0

Yes but during the past year(3 21 9.3% 0 0

n 225 100.0 225 100.0

Mode 1.00 1.00 Mode 1.00

The above table results clearly shows that 9.3% scored on yes during the past year and the option

notpast year scored 5.3% only.

The 1st three questions measure the quantity and frequency and the next 3 questions concentrated on

how far depended on drinking and the final 4 items concentrated on an inquiry about the recent

developments on lifelong alcohol related problems.

From the above results the overall AUDIT score stands for the first three questions with options -

moderate to high, before education, and after education all students to turn to low drinking. The

overall result of the other 7 questions did not score high. This means education is necessary for

students to understand their drinking habits and make changes in their alcohol intake. Heavy drinking

is associated with alcohol related disorders. Hingson et al. 2005, 2 Wechsler et al. 2002, 24 Perkins,

2002)18

These consequences show that education was essential for college students. The next two questions

also scored more than 60% on - less than monthly or monthly. This shows there was a possibility of

dependence on alcohol before education, except in the 6th question. In the last four questions scores

were low so there is no serious life time problem for the majority. Many research studies at college

level on alcohol use revealed that risk drinking should be controlled and regulated through proper

intervention and remedial measures. Some of the important one’s are as follows (Larimer et al 2002, 25 Kokotailo et al 2004,8 Nancy P Barnett 2007, 26 Monti et al 2005, 27 Peter Finn 1997, 28 Ralph

et al 2009)29

The question no. 4 - How often during the past year have you found that you were not able to stop

drinking once you had started? If we observe the results from table 4.2 4 and chart 4.2.7 we can see

that less than monthly score is 118 (52.4%) and monthly score is 71 (31.6) and weekly score is 17

(7.6), before psychosocial education. It reveals that almost all of the respondents were not able to

control their drinking. This indicates that they may face serious alcohol problems at any time. After

examining the questions and answers, the researcher provided appropriate education to make them

alert and conscious. This Endeavour made them aware of the consequences of uncontrollable

drinking. The researcher felt the need analyze this particular question, because dealing with this

question almost solved other problems.

4.4 Effect of psychosocial education tested by Paired‘t’ test

What is paired t-test?

A Paired is a statistical test that is performed if there is a significant difference between average

outcome measurements made before and after and intervention.

Paired t-test is used when following conditions exists.

Measurements must be made before and after an intervention on the same subjects, and

Measurements must be on a continuous scale and normally distributed

The paired t-test is used when measurements are taken from the subject before and after educational

sessions, questions and answers. In this study the researcher distributed questionnaire before and after

the psychosocial education among 225 male under graduate students chosen from a college to study

alcohol related problems. Testing, using this procedure eliminates individual sampling variations

because of the feasible sample and the observations on each person in the sample are taken before and

after the experiment.

It is necessary to check the normality assumption for each group separately.

Table-4.4.1

Effect of psychosocial education tested by Paired‘t’ test on each questions of Drinking Motives

Questionnaire Revised (DMQR) before and after the psychosocial education as follows:

Null hypothesis: the psychosocial education had no effect

Alternative Hypothesis: the psychosocial education has helped to reduce alcohol consumption

significantly.

Sl. No. Details of Questions Before and after psychosocial education t p

value

Pair 1

Do you drink to forget your worries (COP)- before and after

psycho social education

33.133 .000

Pair 2 Does your friends pressure you to drink (CON) Before and after

Psychosocial education

23.809 .000

Pair 3 Do you feel it helps you enjoy a party (SOC)- Before and after


25.476 .000

Pair 4 Does it help you when you feel depressed or nervous? (COP)

Before and after Psychosocial education

24.837 .000

Pair 5 Drinking helps you to be sociable (SOC) Before and after


26.499 .000

Pair 6 Does it cheer you up when you are in a bad mood (COP)


27.786 .000

Pair 7 Do you drink because you like the feeling (ENH) Before and

after Psychosocial education

18.758 .000

Pair 8 Others won’t kid you about not drinking (CON) Before and


25.796 .000

Pair 9 Do you feel drinking is exciting (ENH) Before and after


23.375 .000

Pair 10 Do you drink to get high (ENH) Before and after Psychosocial

education

21.051 .000

Pair 11 Do you think it makes social gatherings more fun (SOC) Before

and after Psychosocial education

27.046 .000

Pair 12 Do you drink to fit in with a group you like (CON) Before and


53.697 .000

Pair 13 Because it gives you a pleasant feeling (ENH) Before and after


38.397 .000

Pair 14 Do you think it improves parties and celebrations (SOC) Before

and after Psychosocial education

46.220 .000

Pair 15 Do you feel more self-confident and sure of yourself (COP)


31.721 .000

Pair 16 You drink to celebrate a special occasion with friends (SOC)


34.233 .000

Pair 17 Do you drink to forget about your problems (COP) Before and


32.654 .000

Pair 18 Do you feel drinking is fun (ENH) Before and after Psychosocial

education

29.234 .000

Pair 19 To be liked (CON) Before and after Psychosocial education 28.788 .000

Pair 20 If you drink you won’t feel left out (CON) Before and after


39.885 .000

All p values are < 0.01

From the above table- 4.3.1, it is observed that‘t’ test scores on all the 20 questions on DMQR before

after education were significant , and all the P values are less than 0.01.

When we observe the t score of question number 12 – ‘Do you drink to fit in with a group you like

(CON) Before and after Psychosocial education, t = 53.697 was the highest score in comparison to

other questions. For question number 7- ‘Do you like the feeling?’ (ENH) we find that the lowest

score as 18.758.

In all the questions p value is < 0.01which suggests rejection of null hypothesis and acceptance of

alternative hypothesis. This implies that psychosocial education has significantly brought down the

level of consumption of alcohol among the sample. Findings from other studies supported that

interventions carried out in college students had positive effects. (McBride Nyanda et al. 2004)30

Paired difference of scores on Respondents drinking levels on 4 sub scales (coping motives

(COP), conformity motives (CON), social motives (SOC) & enhancement motives (ENH) of Drinking

Motives Questionnaire revised (DMQR) before and after psychosocial education as follows

Table-4.4.2

Drinking motives

ques. Revised

(DMQR)- Subscales

Before psychosocial

education

After psychosocial

education

‘t’ value

P

value Mean S.D Mean S.D

Coping motives

(COP)(5ques.) 18.4667 4.30220

5.8933 1.04249 41.064 .000

Conformity motives

(CON)(5ques.)

19.5556 2.76260 7.1244 1.47980 59.189 .000

Social motives

(SOC)(5ques.)

20.0667 3.02519 8.0356 1.97045 53.458 .000

Enhancement motives

(ENH)(5ques.)

17.2400 3.54628 7.1556 1.91977 36.016 .000


The above table result shows that there are significant differences in the scores on all the 4

subscales of DMQR before and after education (P values are less than 0.01) It is observed from the

above table that the mean values of coping motives 18.4667, conformity motives 19.5556, social

motives 20.0667 and enhancement motives 17.2400 before education were higher than that of on

coping motives 5.8933, conformity motives 7.1244, social motives 8.0356 and enhancement motives

7.1556 after education.

For the four subscales the alternative hypothesis is accepted at 1% level of significance. (p value

<0.01) this substantiates the above mentioned result that intervention education and personal

counseling helps students in having a healthy control over their consumption of drinks.

Drinking behavior is closely related to the mood, mostly negative emotions for heavy episodes of

drinking among college students. (Kuntsche, Emmanuel.,Knibbe, R., Gmel, G., & Engels., R.

(2005).22 Their study was an eye opener for the researcher to understand the student’s problems.

It may be concluded from the above table analysis that before psychosocial education, the motives

like coping, conformity, enhancement and social motives were related to high motives for alcohol

consumption and most probably there are chances for alcohol-related problems. Grant Valerie et al

200933 study on Coping-anxiety and coping-depression motives predict different daily mood-drinking

relationships, this finding is consistent with the present study and also similar to those of Hingson et

al. 2005,2 Wechsler et al. 200224,and Perkins, 200218 Their study also identified that heavy

drinking episodes among students are linked to all adverse outcomes in their life. The core problems

explained in many studies for preventing the young adults from alcohol misuse. (Borsari, Brian et al

2005, 31 Gilder and coworkers 2008, 32 Grant Valerie et al 2009, 33 Masayo Geshi et al,(2007,34

McCarty Dennis et al 2006, 35 Murphy et al, 2006, 36 Thadani et al 2009). 37

Enhancement and social motives have been found to predict negative alcohol-related consequences

indirectly. The relationship between these motives and consequences is mediated by amount of

alcohol consumed (Cooper et al., 1995, 14 Read et al., 2003)19. However, coping motives also predict

consequences directly proposed that individuals who drink to cope with negative affect should have

less control over cessation of drinking and therefore hypothesized the direct relationship between

drinking to cope and alcohol problems.

4.5Effect of intervention tested by Paired t teston Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test

(AUDIT)

Null hypothesis: the intervention did not have a significant influence on the drinking habits.

Alternative hypothesis: the intervention had a significant influence on the reducing the frequency

and quantity of alcohol consumption.

Table-4.5.1 Paired t test on each questions of Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT)

before and after psychosocial education

Sl.No. Details of Questions Before and after psychosocial education t P

value

Pair 1 How often do you have a drink containing alcohol? Before and after


18.851 .000

Pair 2 How many drinks containing alcohol do you have on a typical day when

you are drinking?

22.752 .000

Pair 3 How often do you have 6 or more drinks on 1 occasion? 37.855 .000

Pair 4 Have you found that in past years you were not able to stop drinking

once you had started?

27.741 .000

Pair 5 During the past years, how often have you failed to do what was

normally expected of you?

19.864 .000

Pair 6 How often during the past years have you had a first drink in the

morning to get yourself going after heavy drinking at night?

4.000 .000

Pair 7 Did you feel guilt or remorse after drinking during the past year? 5.934 .000


To test the efficacy of the psycho social education, paired t test was carried out for all the dependent

variables/ motives of drinking. All the variables show a significant difference between before and

after scores on AUDIT questions. (All p values < 0.05)

The above table results show there is a significant difference between responses and scores, before

and after the psychosocial education in alcohol related problems. All the questions are significant at

the degrees of freedom 224. The hypothesis that psychosocial education can bring down drinking

levels among college students is accepted. From the above table observations, psychosocial education

can play a significant role in eliminating drinking habits in college students. Creating awareness and

consciousness among students will reduce the wrong beliefs about alcohol. The disease aspect of

alcoholism gives a new hope to the students about their recovery process. Some of the research work

showed the similar results. (Hingson et al. 2005, 2 Weinrieb, R.M., and O’Brien, C.P. 1997) 38

According to Catherine and colleagues some students begin college with a habit of heavy drinking

but many others start drinking as soon as they enter the college. Results revealed from these results

that students who had a previous drinking history did report greater decreases in heavy drinking and

negative alcohol related consequences. (LovecchioP.Catherine, Wyatt, Todd M, DeJong, William

2010).39This study is similar in many points when comparing to the present study. Therefore the

researcher concludes that the psychosocial education was effective in this particular study.

Pair 8 How often during the past year have you been unable to remember

what happened the night before because you had been drunk?

4.748 .000

Pair 9 Have you or has someone else been injured as a result of your drinking? 5.415 .000

Pair 10 Anybody said that you are consuming alcohol is harmful and you should

cut down on drinking?

5.913 .000

4.6 ANOVA results for DMQ-R based on the socio-demographic variables before and after psychosocial

education

Here the researcher is taken Drinking motives questionnaire revised (DMQ-R) on its subscales COP

(coping motives), CON (conformity motives), SOC (social motives) and ENH (enhancement motives)


Table 4.6.1

ANOVA results for the DMQR on its sub scale, based on their socio-demographic variable ‘age’



Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

COP 245.141 6 40.857 2.283 .037* COP 21.298 6 3.550 3.483 .003*

CON 186.218 6 31.036 4.442 .000* CON 21.990 6 3.665 1.705 .121

SOC 139.101 6 23.184 2.645 .017* SOC 30.093 6 5.015 1.302 .257

ENH 235.357 6 39.226 3.312 .004* ENH 23.170 6 3.862 1.049 .394

A p-value of 0.05 was taken to indicate statistical significance. All p-values less than 0.05 were considered

statistically significant

P=.05 *significant

From the above table we observed that subscale coping motives (COP) before education (.037) and after education

(.003) were statistically significant. The mean score was 40.857 and F value 2.283 with the difference of freedom

6 for before education which was higher than 3.550 as mean score and F value 3.483 and the same difference of

freedom level 6 after education on coping motives.

On conformity motives (CON) before education it was statistically significant (.000) in relation to age .But on the

same after education it was not statistically significant (.121) in relation to age. On social motives (SOC) before

education it was statistically significant (.017) in relation to age But on the same after education it was not

statistically significant (.257) in relation to age. On enhancement motives (ENH) before education it was

statistically significant (.004) in relation to age. But on the same after education it was not statistically significant

(.394) in relation to age. So before education age and all the subscales were statistically significant and after

education age and all the sub scales were not statistically significant except COP. COP which were statistically

significant in both before and after education.

Table 4.6.2

ANOVA results for the DMQR on its sub scale, based on their socio-demographic variable

‘Year’ before and after psychosocial education


Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

COP 1011.920 2 505.960 35.839 .000* COP 12.827 2 6.413 6.174 .002*

CON 406.996 2 203.498 34.683 .000* CON 7.476 2 3.738 1.718 .182

SOC 383.227 2 191.613 25.521 .000* SOC 22.569 2 11.284 2.957 .054*

ENH 518.827 2 259.413 25.058 .000* ENH 88.222 2 44.111 13.281 .000*

*P<0.05

On coping motives for drinking (COP) before education it was statistically significant (.000) in relation to socio-

demographic variable year and after education also it was statistically significant (.002) in relation to year.

On conformity motives (CON) before education it was statistically significant (.000) in relation to year

But on the same after education it was not statistically significant (.182) in relation to year. On social motives

(SOC) before education it was statistically significant (.000) in relation to year and after education also it was

statistically significant (.054) in relation to year. On enhancement motives (ENH) before education it was

statistically significant (.000) in relation to year and after education also it was statistically significant (.000) in

relation to year. This indicates that ‘year of study’ plays a key role in deciding motives like social motives,

enhancement motives, conformity motives and coping motives to take drinks to a harmful level. It can be

observed that it is the final year graduates

Table 4.6.3

ANOVA results for the DMQR on its sub scale, based on their socio-demographic variable course before

and after psychosocial education


Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

COP 213.680 2 106.840 6.032 .003* COP .107 2 .053 .049 .953

CON 106.889 2 53.444 7.403 .001* CON 1.182 2 .591 .268 .765

SOC 52.907 2 26.453 2.941 .055* SOC .116 2 .058 .015 .985

ENH 52.080 2 26.040 2.091 .126 ENH 27.449 2 13.724 3.818 .023*

*P<0.05

On COP before education it was statistically significant (.003) in relation to socio-demographic variable course

undergoing- B.Com, BBM or BCA’ but on the same after education it was not statistically significant (.953) in

relation to course

On conformity motives (CON) before education it was statistically significant (.001) in relation to course But on

the same after education it was not statistically significant (.765) in relation to course. On social motives (SOC)

before education it was statistically significant (.055) in relation to course But on the same after education it was

not statistically significant (.985) in relation to course On enhancement motives (ENH) before education it was not

statistically significant (.126) in relation to course and after education it was statistically significant (.023) in

relation to course

Table 4.6.4

ANOVA results for the DMQR on its sub scale, based on their socio-demographic variable

‘staying’ with the family or not’ before and after psychosocial education


Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

COP 3.778 1 3.778 .203 .652 COP .911 1 .911 .838 .361

CON 1.001 1 1.001 .131 .718 CON .179 1 .179 .081 .776

SOC 30.748 1 30.748 3.396 .067 SOC .259 1 .259 .066 .797

ENH 1.759 1 1.759 .139 .709 ENH .944 1 .944 .255 .614

On COP before education it was not statistically significant (.652) in relation to socio-demographic variable

staying with family or not staying with family and on the same after education also it was not statistically

significant (.361) in relation to staying with family or not staying with family

On conformity motives (CON) before education it was not statistically significant (.718) in relation to staying

with family or not staying with family and on the same after education also it was not statistically significant

(.776) in relation to staying with family or not staying with family . On social motives (SOC) before education it

was not statistically significant (.067) in relation to staying with family or not staying with family and on the same

after education also it was not statistically significant (.797) in relation to staying with family or not staying with

family On enhancement motives (ENH) before education it was not statistically significant (.126) in relation to

staying with family or not staying with family and after education it was statistically significant (.614) in relation

to staying with family or not staying with family

We may conclude that the influence of drinking motives on these youth does not differ significantly based on

whether they stay with their family or away from the family. It is indeed a depressing fact that the family members

are not able to control and guide many of the times when their ward is in need of a moral support.

Similar finding found in Perkins Wesley H. 200218 studies on Social Norms and the Prevention of Alcohol

Misuse in Collegiate Contexts It was observed that friends have more influence on their behavior pattern than

family members.

Table 4.6.5

ANOVA results for the DMQR on its sub scale, based on their socio-demographic variable ‘type of

family’ before and after psychosocial education


Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

COP 286.262 2 143.131 8.232 .000* COP 3.300 2 1.650 1.525 .220

CON 149.900 2 74.950 10.668 .000* CON .737 2 .368 .167 .846

SOC 3.785 2 1.893 .205 .815 SOC 15.152 2 7.576 1.968 .142

ENH 138.208 2 69.104 5.727 .004* ENH 10.287 2 5.144 1.401 .249

*P<0.05

On COP before education it was statistically significant (.000) in relation to socio-demographic variable types of

family but on the same after education it was not statistically significant (.220) in relation to types of family

On conformity motives (CON) before education it was statistically significant (.000) in relation to types of

family and on the same after education it was not statistically significant (.846) in relation to types of family

On social motives (SOC) before education it was not statistically significant (.815) in relation to types of family

and on the same after education it was not statistically significant (.142) in relation to types of family

On enhancement motives (ENH) before education it was statistically significant (.004) in relation to types of

family and after education it was statistically significant (.023) in relation to types of family

4. 7 ANOVA results for AUDIT based on their socio-demographic variables before and after


Table 4. 7.1

Socio-demographic variablesAge with AUDIT- Before psychosocial education

Socio-demographic variablesAge with AUDIT - Before psychosocial education

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 22.422 6 3.737 .631 .705

Within Groups 1290.173 218 5.918

Total 1312.596 224

Socio-demographic variablesAge with AUDITafter psychosocial education


Between Groups 1.279 6 .213 .609 .723

Within Groups 76.250 218 .350

Total 77.529 224

Socio-demographic variablesYear with AUDIT -Before psychosocial

education


Between Groups 44.329 2 22.164 3.88

0

.022*

Within Groups 1268.267 222 5.713

Total 1312.596 224

Socio-demographic variablesYear with AUDIT -After psychosocial education


Between Groups .329 2 .164 .473 .624


Total 77.529 224

Socio-demographic variablescourse with AUDIT -Before psychosocial

education


Between Groups 88.382 2 44.191 8.014 .000*

Within Groups 1224.213 222 5.514

Total 1312.596 224

Socio-demographic variablescourse with AUDIT -After psychosocial

education


Between Groups .436 2 .218 .627 .535


Total 77.529 224

Socio-demographic variablesstaying with Family or not with AUDIT -

Before psychosocial education


Between Groups 16.847 1 16.847 2.899 .090

Within Groups 1295.748 223 5.811

Total 1312.596 224

Socio-demographic variablesstaying with Family or not with AUDIT -After



Between Groups .706 1 .706 2.050 .154


Total 77.529 224

Socio-demographic variablesType of family with AUDIT -Before



Between Groups 18.579 2 9.290 1.594 .205

Within Groups 1294.016 222 5.829

Total 1312.596 224

Socio-demographic variablesType of family with AUDIT -After psychosocial

education


Between Groups 1.043 2 .521 1.513 .223


Total 77.529 224

*P<0.05

From the above ANOVA table results, Year with AUDIT and Course with AUDIT before education, were

statistically significant. All other variables like age, staying with family or not, types of family with AUDIT

questions before and after education were not statistically significant. It was observed from the above table

results that after education none of these were significant. Most of the students who drink were staying away

from family. It was also observed from the table 4.4, that the socio demographic details of the respondents,

68% of them were not staying with family and 74.2% of the respondents were from nuclear family. The

results indicate that the type of family causes significant variation in the response to various responses to

AUDIT questions later on, after education they reduced drinking.

The results indicates that peer pressure, social gatherings, having fun to drink high, parties etc caused

drinking in frequency and quantity than the socio-demographic variables in the responses to the AUDIT

questions, later on, after education they reduced drinking. A study by Kokotailo and colleagues on Validity

of the alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test in College Students, also similar like this present study, they

also used the sample size and the use of students from a single health center attached to the universities. Their

study findings also indicated that students mostly influenced by their friends. (Kokotailo et al 2004).8

Similar opinions found in another study on preventing Alcohol Related Problems on Campus- Substance Free

Residence Halls (Peter Finn 1997)28 that strict monitoring can reduce alcohol misuse among college students.

Plant Moira’s “Risk-takers” also explained about the influence of peers in drinking habits (Plant Moira

1992)40

Social Norms and the Prevention of Alcohol Misuse in Collegiate Contexts by Perkins also explained very

clearly about peer norms influences (perceived friends' drinking norm and fraternity membership) alcohol

consumption than any other factors including religion, gender and parents' attitudes. (Perkins Wesley H.

2002)2

4.8 Chi -Square test results of DMQ-R

Chi -Square test was applied to find out whether there is any significant association

betweensociodemographic variables and DMQ-R before and after psychosocial education

Chi-square gives a measure of association between two variables.

The chi square test does not prove that a hypothesis is correct but it evaluates to what extent the data and the

hypotheses have a good fit

4. 8.1 Chi -Square test results for the sub scales of the drinking motives before and afterpsychosocial

education, based on their socio-demographic variables

AGE with DMQR


Test

applied

Value df Significance

level


level

Chi-

Square

45.823a 36 .126 122.165a 96 .037*

COURSE with DMQR


Test

applied


level


level

Chi-

Square

19.177a 12 .084 56.574a 32 .005*

YEAR with DMQR


Test

applied


level


level

Chi-

Square

32.743a 12 .001* 119.685a 32 .000*

Living with family or not with DMQR


Test

applied


level


level

Chi-

Square

8.521a 6 .202 24.831a 16 .073

Type of family with DMQR


Test

applied


level


level

Chi-

Square

16.766a 12 .159 55.545a 32 .006*

*P<0.05

The Chi -Square tests above was applied to find out whether there exists any significant association

between factors like the age, course, year, living with family or not , type of family of college students

and the drinking motives questionnaire( revised DMQR), before and after the psychosocial education.

Here the researcher is trying to study whether any association exits between socio-demographic

variables and DMQR, before and after psychosocial education.

From the chi-square test output table it is clear that some of the motives has achieved a significance

level of 0.05 where p≤ 0.05., before and after education. This means the chi-square test is showing a

systematic association between the above variables at 95 % confidence level. Hence the null hypothesis

is rejected and we conclude that at 95% confidence level, Age, Year of study, course, family

background has all got an influence on the drinking motives.

While using these sample data, some of the results are not strong enough to conclude that there exists

statistically significant relationship between some of the socio-demographic variables with DMQR &

AUDIT, before and after psychosocial education. There seems to be a significant, but not strong

association between living withfamily with DMQR & AUDIT, before and after psychosocial

education

4. 9 Chi -Square test results of AUDIT questions

Table 4.9.1 Chi -Square test results for the AUDIT before and after psychosocial education,

based on their socio-demographic variables

AGE with AUDIT


Test

applied


level


level

Chi-

Square

85.016a 84 .448 11.001a 18 .894

Year with AUDIT


Test

applied


level


level

Chi-Square 54.668a 28 .002* 4.408a 6 .622

Course with AUDIT


Test

applied


level


level

Chi-Square 41.967a 28 .044* 10.473a 6 .106

Living with family or not with AUDIT


Test

applied


level


level

Chi-Square 10.683a 14 .711 2.280a 3 .516

Type of family with AUDIT


Test

applied


level


level

Chi-Square 44.695a 28 .024* 3.904a 6 .690

*P<0.05

From the above table values we observe that some of the socio-demographic variables

like age and living with family or not living with family, are not statistically significant

before and after education. On the other hand, we notice that other variables such as year,

course and type of family exhibit statistical significance before or after psychosocial

education. If we look at the variable year with AUDIT, we observe that there is statistical

significance in the score obtained - (.002), before psychosocial education. In the same

way we notice that variables like course and type of family with AUDIT scores (.044,

.024) respectively display statistical significance before education.

Another important factor we notice is that there is no statistical significant result in the

socio-demographic variables with AUDIT questions after education. Notable significance

was seen before education within year of study (.002), course (.

(.024)

4.10 The results of the relationship with various socio


Figure-4.10.1 the relationship with Age & Staying with family or not on DMQR before


The investigator investigated about the age of students and their living conditions, for further

observation and studies. The above bar chart shows a significant difference in the drinking motives of

the students in DMQR when compared to age, living

shows that if students stay with their family, there is a control in their drinking attitudes. Being with

friends motivates them to indulge in drinking for pleasure, since there is no elder or other family

member to take control over happenings.

Just for observation and for further studies the investigator investigated about the students’ age and

their living conditions. The above bar chart shows there is a significant difference in the drinking

motives of the students in DMQR when comparing with their age and living with the family and

living away from family. It shows if the students stay with family means there is a control in their

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

18 19sta

y w

ith

fa

mil

y a

nd

aw

ay

fro

m f

am

ily Relationship with age & Stay with family or not on DMQR

Live with family

demographic variables with AUDIT questions after education. Notable significance

was seen before education within year of study (.002), course (.044) and type of family

4.10 The results of the relationship with various socio-demographic variables on DMQ

4.10.1 the relationship with Age & Staying with family or not on DMQR before



the students in DMQR when compared to age, living with the family and living away from family. It



mber to take control over happenings.



the students in DMQR when comparing with their age and living with the family and


19 20 21 22 23 24

Age

Relationship with age & Stay with family or not on DMQR

Live with family Live away from family

demographic variables with AUDIT questions after education. Notable significance

044) and type of family

demographic variables on DMQ-R before

4.10.1 the relationship with Age & Staying with family or not on DMQR before



with the family and living away from family. It





the students in DMQR when comparing with their age and living with the family and


drinking attitudes. Probably when they are out of family and being with f

drinking.

A final social factor to consider is living situation. Researchers have found that living environment

affects drinking behaviors. Students with more supervision in their living environments, such as living

at home or a residence hall, were less likely to binge drink than those with little or no supervision in

their living environments

Figure-4.10.2

P > 0.05

From the above bar chart we observe that there is no significant(P > 0.05) difference

between their courses namely ,BCOM, BBM, and BCA) and corresponding levels of

study (1st year, 2nd year, and 3rd year).

4.11. Results of the drinking levels of the respondents on DMQ

Below tables and charts explains the drinking levels of respond

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

First year

11.11

Course and year of study of the students on DMQR

drinking attitudes. Probably when they are out of family and being with friends motivates them for



a residence hall, were less likely to binge drink than those with little or no supervision in

From the above bar chart we observe that there is no significant(P > 0.05) difference

their courses namely ,BCOM, BBM, and BCA) and corresponding levels of

study (1st year, 2nd year, and 3rd year).

4.11. Results of the drinking levels of the respondents on DMQ-R sub scales

Below tables and charts explains the drinking levels of respondents on 4 sub scales

Second year Third Year

11.11 11.11

Course and year of study of the students on DMQR

BBM

B.Com

BCA

riends motivates them for



a residence hall, were less likely to binge drink than those with little or no supervision in

BBM

B.Com

BCA

(coping motives (COP), conformity motives (CON), social motives (SOC) &

enhancement motives (ENH) of Drinking Motives Questionnaire revised (DMQR),

before and after psychosocial education as follows

Please notice the values for low drinking, moderate drinking and high drinking.

Low drinking- 1 &2 (Never, Sometimes)

Moderate drinking- (3) Half of the time

High drinking- 4&5 (Most of the time, Almost or always)

Table- 4.11.1 Percentage of drinking levels of respondents on sub scale coping motives (COP) of

the DMQR before psychosocial education

Before psychosocial education on sub

scale coping motives (COP) on DMQR Respondents Percentage

High drinking 116.00 51.56

Moderate drinking 93.00 41.33

Low drinking 16.00 7.11

Grand Total 225.00 100.00

Figure-4.11.1

The above table and bar charts explain about coping motives, before education. The highest scores for

different levels are as follows: High drinking

drinking - 7.11%. The previous tables on coping motives namel

mood, scored the highest for its motivation to drink. For this reason, they drank

the time. The second factor that motivated drinking was

helps when you feel depressed or nervous, the forth was to feel more self

assurance and fifth was to forget about your problems. The above mentioned are the factors on sub

scale coping motives (COP). If we compare it with other subscales of DMQR we obse

students motivated to drink on social motives scored the highest 68%, second highest on conformity

motives 58.67%, third highest on coping motives 51.56, lastly on enhancement motives 26.22%

respectively.

Drinking for a longer period of time

drinking motives and helping them, may reduce dependence. Previous studies revealed that proper

education can reduce drinking (Cooper et al., 1992,

Table- 4.11.2 Percentage of drinking levels of respondents

the DMQR after psychosocial education


scale coping motives (COP) on DMQR

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

High drinking Moderate

drinking

51.56%

Percentage of drinking levels of respondents on COP

(coping motives) before education


different levels are as follows: High drinking - 51.56%, Moderate drinking - 41.33% and Low

7.11%. The previous tables on coping motives namely, to cheer up when you are in a bad

mood, scored the highest for its motivation to drink. For this reason, they drank always or most of

. The second factor that motivated drinking was - to forget your worries, the third was

l depressed or nervous, the forth was to feel more self-confident and self


scale coping motives (COP). If we compare it with other subscales of DMQR we obse



Drinking for a longer period of time definitely leads to dependence on alcohol. Concentrating on their


Cooper et al., 1992,41 Stewart et al., 1996,20Cooper, 1994).

4.11.2 Percentage of drinking levels of respondents on sub scale coping motives (COP) of

DMQR after psychosocial education


scale coping motives (COP) on DMQR Respondents Percentage

Moderate

drinking

Low drinking

41.33%

7.11%

Percentage of drinking levels of respondents on COP

(coping motives) before education


41.33% and Low

y, to cheer up when you are in a bad

always or most of

to forget your worries, the third was - it

confident and self-


scale coping motives (COP). If we compare it with other subscales of DMQR we observe that



definitely leads to dependence on alcohol. Concentrating on their


Cooper, 1994).15

on sub scale coping motives (COP) of

High drinking

Moderate drinking

Low drinking

Grand Total

Figure-4.11.2

In the above table results, showing drinking levels of respondents on coping motives after

education, low drinking scored the highest. This is a clear indication of ignorance on the part of

respondents about motivational intentions of drinking, before

how education can work out wonders to prevent alcohol misuse.


(CON) of the DMQR before psychosocial education

Before psychosocial

education on Conformity Respondents

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

High drinking Moderate

drinking

0.00

Percentage of drinking levels of respondents on coping


0.00 0.00

2.00 0.89

223.00 99.11

225.00 100.00



respondents about motivational intentions of drinking, before education. The above table shows that


4.11.3 Percentage of drinking levels of respondents on sub scale conformity motives

DMQR before psychosocial education

Respondents Percentage

Moderate

drinking

Low drinking

0.89

99.11

Percentage of drinking levels of respondents on coping




education. The above table shows that

on sub scale conformity motives

motives (CON)

High drinking 132.00

Moderate drinking 84.00

Low drinking 9.00

Grand Total 225.00

Figure-4.11.3

On conformity motives (CON), we observe that the score on high drinking is 58.67%, we on

moderate drinking is 37.33% and on low drinking is 4.00%. When we look at motives for drinking

among college students conformity motive scores come second. We see

happens for social motives and conformity motives.


(CON) of the DMQR after psychosocial education

0.00 10.00

High drinking

Moderate drinking

Low drinking4.00%

Percentage in drinking levels of respondents on CON

(conformity motives) Before Psychosocial education

132.00 58.67

84.00 37.33

9.00 4.00

225.00 100.00



among college students conformity motive scores come second. We see that most of the drinking

happens for social motives and conformity motives.

4.11.4 Percentage of drinking levels of respondents on sub scale conformity motives


20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00

58.67%

37.33%

4.00%

Percentage in drinking levels of respondents on CON

(conformity motives) Before Psychosocial education



that most of the drinking

on sub scale conformity motives

After psychosocial education on

Conformity motives (CON)

High drinking

Moderate drinking

Low drinking

Grand Total

Figure-4.11.4

In the above table results, showing drinking levels of respondents on Conformity motives (CON)

after education, low drinking scored the highest. This is a clear indication of ignorance on the part of

respondents about motivational intentions of drinkin


On conformity motives, in response to the first question (if your friends pressurize you to drink), 69%

of respondents scored on most of the time

education. While replying to the second question on Conformity motives (others won’t kid you about

not drinking), 63% of the respondents scored on

question on conformity motives (to fit in with a group you like), 93% of the respondents agreed on

0.00 20.00

High drinking

Moderate drinking

Low drinking

0.00

2.22

Percentage in drinking levels of respondents on CON (conformity

motives) After Psychosocial education

Respondents Percentage (%)

0.00 0.00

5.00 2.22

220.00 97.78

225.00 100.00



respondents about motivational intentions of drinking, before education. The above table shows that



most of the time. This states that they drank mostly for this reason


not drinking), 63% of the respondents scored on most of the time and always options. On third

stion on conformity motives (to fit in with a group you like), 93% of the respondents agreed on

20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00

97.78

Percentage in drinking levels of respondents on CON (conformity

motives) After Psychosocial education



g, before education. The above table shows that


mostly for this reason before


options. On third

stion on conformity motives (to fit in with a group you like), 93% of the respondents agreed on

this reason. On fourth question (to be liked)

the given motive and to the fifth question

that they drank for this reason. Conformity motives, on drinking for social reasons, which are often

reported by students are likely to weaken their maturity (


the DMQR before psychosocial education

Before psychosocial education on

Social motives (SOC)

High drinking

Moderate drinking

Low drinking

Grand Total

Figure- 4.11.5

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

High drinking

68.00

Percentage in drinking levels of respondents on SOC (social motives)

Before Psychosocial education

this reason. On fourth question (to be liked) - on Conformity motives 61% of respondents agreed with

the given motive and to the fifth question- (so you won’t feel left out), 71% of respondents replied


reported by students are likely to weaken their maturity (Cooper, 1994).15

4.11.5 Percentage of drinking levels of respondents on sub scale social motives (SOC) of



153.00 68.00

55.00 24.44

17.00 7.56

225.00 100.00

Moderate drinking Low drinking

24.44

7.56

Percentage in drinking levels of respondents on SOC (social motives)

Before Psychosocial education

on Conformity motives 61% of respondents agreed with

eel left out), 71% of respondents replied


on sub scale social motives (SOC) of

From the above table & figure we observe that 68% of the respondents used to drink most of the time

or always for social based motives before psychosocial education. In this particular study, the results

show that the highest number of respondents

question scores on this sub scale social motives. To begin with, the first question

enjoy a party scored 64% on the higher side (most of the time and almost/always) the second

question- To be sociable 79% scored

gatherings more fun scored 54%, the fourth question

80%, and the fifth question- To celebrate a special occasion with friends scored 94% respectively.

the respondents scored on the option mostly they drink for social reasons.


the DMQR after psychosocial education


Social motives (SOC)

High drinking

Moderate drinking

Low drinking

Grand Total

Figure-4.11.6

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

High drinking

0.00

Percentage in drinking levels of respondents on SOC (social

motives) After Pstchosocial education

figure we observe that 68% of the respondents used to drink most of the time


show that the highest number of respondents is on social motives. Now let us move on to

question scores on this sub scale social motives. To begin with, the first question- It helps you


To be sociable 79% scored on the higher side, the third question- It makes social

gatherings more fun scored 54%, the fourth question- It improves parties and celebrations scored

To celebrate a special occasion with friends scored 94% respectively.

the respondents scored on the option mostly they drink for social reasons.

4.11.6 Percentage of drinking levels of respondents on sub scale social motives (SOC) of




0.00 0.00

14.00 6.22

211.00 93.78

225.00 100.00

Moderate

drinking

Low drinking

6.22

93.78

Percentage in drinking levels of respondents on SOC (social

motives) After Pstchosocial education

figure we observe that 68% of the respondents used to drink most of the time


move on to look at each

It helps you to


It makes social

It improves parties and celebrations scored

To celebrate a special occasion with friends scored 94% respectively. So

on sub scale social motives (SOC) of

The above table & figure results shows that after education, the percentage score on social motives

came down to 93.78%. All the respondents changed their drinking habits and preferred the option

some of the time to most of the time

Table- 4.11.7

Percentage of drinking levels of respondents



Enhancement motives (ENH)

High drinking

Moderate drinking

Low drinking

Grand Total

Figure-4.11.7

The above table results show that on Enhancement Motives, the highest score 52.89% is on moderate

drinking, before education. It is also clear from the above tables that none of the sub scale motive

show such low scores. All scored on higher side, before e

52.89

20.89

Percentage in drinking levels of respondents on ENH

(enhancement motives) Before Psychosocial education

figure results shows that after education, the percentage score on social motives


some of the time to most of the time

evels of respondents on sub scale enhancement motives (ENH) of




59.00 26.22

119.00 52.89

47.00 20.89

225.00 100.00



show such low scores. All scored on higher side, before education. In response to the first question on

26.22

52.89

20.89


(enhancement motives) Before Psychosocial education

High drinking

Moderate drinking

Low drinking

figure results shows that after education, the percentage score on social motives


on sub scale enhancement motives (ENH) of the



ducation. In response to the first question on

Enhancement Motives- You like the feeling score on the higher side is 62% for the option (most of

the time and almost always), to the second question

question- To get high – the score is 26%, on the fourth question

score is77% and on fifth question-

options (most of the time and almost always) scored on drinki

education. Drinking for enhancement or coping motives always leads to heavy alcohol use and

alcohol-related problems (Grant 2009

and if students drink alcohol, this good feeling of drinking may lead to risk drinking.

and Kalsher, M.J. (1990) 42

Table- 4.11.8



After psychosocial éducation on

Enhancement motives (ENH)

High drinking

Moderate drinking

Low drinking

Grand Total

Figure-4.11.8

From the above tables and figures it seems that after the

more aware and conscious about alcohol use and misuse and so they started drinking in low levels

4.00

96.00


(enhancement motives) After Psychosocial education

You like the feeling score on the higher side is 62% for the option (most of

the time and almost always), to the second question- It is exciting – the score is 49%, on the third

the score is 26%, on the fourth question - It gives you a pleasant feeling

It is fun – the score is 64% respectively. On the higher side the

options (most of the time and almost always) scored on drinking motives scale, before psychosocial


Grant 2009)33 Enhancement motives always represent a positive thinking

, this good feeling of drinking may lead to risk drinking.

Percentage of drinking levels of respondents on sub scale enhancement motives (ENH) of


ial éducation on


0.00 0.00

9.00 4.00

216.00 96.00

0.00

From the above tables and figures it seems that after the psychosocial education, students became



(enhancement motives) After Psychosocial education

High drinking

Moderate drinking

Low drinking

You like the feeling score on the higher side is 62% for the option (most of

the score is 49%, on the third

It gives you a pleasant feeling– the

the score is 64% respectively. On the higher side the

ng motives scale, before psychosocial


Enhancement motives always represent a positive thinking

, this good feeling of drinking may lead to risk drinking. (Geller, E.S.,

on sub scale enhancement motives (ENH) of the

psychosocial education, students became


0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

High

drinking

High

drinking

Moderate

drinking

con before con after con before

22.22%26.22%

10.22%

0.00

year of study on conformity motives before and after psychosocial

4.12 Percentage score on drinking levels in conformity (CON) motives by Year of graduate

study before & after psychosocial education

CON

Before

Education

CON After

Education

High

drinking

High

drinking

year of

graduate

studies percentage percentage

1ST YEAR 22.22 0.00

2ND

YEAR 26.22 0.00

3RD

YEAR 10.22 0.00

Figure-4.12

Moderate

drinking

Moderate

drinking

Low

drinking

Low

drinking

con before con after con before con after

11.11%7.11

19.11%0.00%0.00%

0.02%

0.00%0.00%

4.00%

75.00%74.00%

71.00%

year of study on conformity motives before and after psychosocial

education

Percentage score on drinking levels in conformity (CON) motives by Year of graduate

ial education

CON After

Education

CON

Before

Education

CON After

Education

CON

Before

Education

CON After

Education

drinking

Moderate

drinking

Moderate

drinking

Low

drinking

Low

drinking

percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage

11.11 0.00 0.00 75.00

7.11 0.00 0.00 74.00

19.11 0.02 4.00 71.00

Percentage score on drinking levels in conformity (CON) motives by Year of graduate

CON After

Education

Low

drinking

percentage

75.00

74.00

71.00

In the above table we observe that there are statistically significant differences, in drinking on

conformity motives, between before and after education. This is due to the influence of education

imparted to them during the period of study. The students (1st year, 2nd year, and 3rd y

low drinkers in conformity motives, after psychosocial education.

4.13 Results of the respondents drinking levels on AUDIT before and after psychosocial

education


drink containing alcohol before and after psychosocial education

never

Monthly or less 18

2-4 times a month 37

2-3 times a week 11

Grand Total 66

Figure-4.13.1

0

20

40

60

80

100

never Monthly

or less

18

1

45

How often do you have a drink containing alcohol on AUDIT Before & After


that there are statistically significant differences, in drinking on


imparted to them during the period of study. The students (1st year, 2nd year, and 3rd y

low drinkers in conformity motives, after psychosocial education.


4.13.1 Percentage of drinking levels of respondents on AUDIT -1 how ofte

drink containing alcohol before and after psychosocial education

1 1

45 63

84 14 135

14 1 26

144 15 225

2-4 times a

month

2-3 times a

week

37

11

84

1414

1

How often do you have a drink containing alcohol on AUDIT Before & After


low drinking

moderate drinking

high drinking

that there are statistically significant differences, in drinking on


imparted to them during the period of study. The students (1st year, 2nd year, and 3rd year) became


1 how often you have a

moderate drinking

While addressing the question on the frequency of (How often they drink) drinking, 84% of the

respondents come under the category of drinking

This is the score before education. Those who drank alcohol on

education is 14%. In this study social motives scored high among the students who took to drinking.

Another study by Schroeder and colleagues

alcohol use among college students found that social influence was behind the drinking behavior.

(Schroeder M. Christine and Prentice A. Deborah 1998).

study and the goals of their study were the same. They investigated about the effects of

among undergraduate students and proved that education was effective. The present study also

showcases similar results.

Table- 4.13.2


do you have on a typical day when you are drinking before and after education

1 or 2 16.44%

3 or 4 63.11%

5 or 6 14.67%

7-9 1.78%

Grand Total 96.00%

Figure-4.13.2

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

1 or 2 3 or 4

16.44%

63.11%

0.00% 3.56%

How many drinks containing alcohol do you have on a typical day when

you are drinking on AUDIT Before & After psychosocial education


respondents come under the category of drinking - more than 2 times and less than 4 times a month.

This is the score before education. Those who drank alcohol on a basis of 3 times a week before


and colleagues on an article exposing pluralistic ignorance to reduce

e students found that social influence was behind the drinking behavior.

Schroeder M. Christine and Prentice A. Deborah 1998).43It is worthy to note that the present

study and the goals of their study were the same. They investigated about the effects of


Percentage of drinking levels of respondents on AUDIT- 2 how many drinks containing alcohol

typical day when you are drinking before and after education

0.00% 16.44%

3.56% 66.67%

0.44% 15.11%

0.00% 1.78%

4.00% 100.00%

5 or 6 7-9

14.67%1.78%

3.56% 0.44% 0.00%

How many drinks containing alcohol do you have on a typical day when

you are drinking on AUDIT Before & After psychosocial education

low drinking

moderate drinking


more than 2 times and less than 4 times a month.

a basis of 3 times a week before


exposing pluralistic ignorance to reduce

e students found that social influence was behind the drinking behavior.

It is worthy to note that the present

study and the goals of their study were the same. They investigated about the effects of education


2 how many drinks containing alcohol

moderate drinking

This table illustrates the amount or quantity of alcohol intake on a typical day. They drank at

least 3 or 4 drinks mostly once scored before education. Each and every time a motive governed them

and depending on the nature of that motive there is variatio

that some kind of motive drives them to drinking habits. The motives mentioned in this study are

coping, conformity, social or enhancement and so on. This study was designed to explore the

behavioral and psychological consequences of correcting the misconceptions of students about their

attitudes towards drinking. After education, it is worthy to note that all of them changed their

attitudes towards drinking and drinking levels fell considerably.

Table- 4.13.3


drinks on 1 occasion before and after education?

never 6.22%

less than monthly 84.44%

monthly 8.89%

weekly 0.44%

Grand Total 100.00%

Figure-4.13.3

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

never less than

monthly

6.22%

84.44%

How often do you have 6 or more drinks on one occasion on

AUDIT Before & After Psychosocial education



and depending on the nature of that motive there is variation in their drinking levels. It was observed



gical consequences of correcting the misconceptions of students about their


attitudes towards drinking and drinking levels fell considerably.

Percentage of drinking levels of respondents on AUDIT -3 how often do you have 6 or more

drinks on 1 occasion before and after education?

6.22%

84.44%

8.89%

0.44%

100.00%

monthly weekly

8.89%0.44%

How often do you have 6 or more drinks on one occasion on

AUDIT Before & After Psychosocial education

low drinking



n in their drinking levels. It was observed



gical consequences of correcting the misconceptions of students about their


3 how often do you have 6 or more

Responding to this question, 84.44% of the respondents scored on less than monthly (not even a

month). They revealed that at times they faced difficulty to cut down on drinking, so the counts

sometimes went up. At other times they had to cope with negative

changed not to drink above 4 or more and less than monthly, after education

Table- 4.13.4


you found that you were not able to stop

education

never 8.44%


monthly 31.56%

weekly 7.56%

Grand Total 100.00%

Figure-4.13.4

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

never less than

monthly

8.44%

52.44%

How often during the past year have you found you were not able

to stop drinking once you had started on AUDIT Before & After



sometimes went up. At other times they had to cope with negative effects and peer pressure. They

changed not to drink above 4 or more and less than monthly, after education

Percentage of drinking levels of respondents on AUDIT- 4 how often during the past year have

you found that you were not able to stop drinking once you had started? Before and after

8.44%

52.44%

31.56%

7.56%

100.00%

less than

monthly

monthly weekly

52.44%

31.56%

7.56%

How often during the past year have you found you were not able

to stop drinking once you had started on AUDIT Before & After


low drinking



effects and peer pressure. They

4 how often during the past year have

drinking once you had started? Before and after

low drinking

52.44% of the respondents couldn’t stop their drinking

and 31.56% scored monthly before education, but after education all the respondents scored nil in this

particular question.

Table- 4.13.5


you failed to do what was normally expected of you because of drinking? Before and after

education

never 32.00%


monthly 5.78%

Grand Total 100.00%

Figure-4.13.5

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

never

32.00%

How often during the past year have you failed to do what was

normally expected of you because of drinking on AUDIT Before

and After Psychosocial education.

52.44% of the respondents couldn’t stop their drinking once they started drinking - less than monthly


Percentage of drinking levels of respondents on AUDIT-5 how often during the past year have


32.00%

62.22%

5.78%

100.00%

less than

monthly

monthly

62.22%

5.78%

How often during the past year have you failed to do what was

normally expected of you because of drinking on AUDIT Before

and After Psychosocial education.

low drinking

less than monthly


during the past year have


low drinking

From this study it is observed that a few students followed harmful drinking habits. After education,

they started to consume alcohol moderately. This proves that education can wipe away unwanted

habits to a great extent of drinking (McBride Nyanda et al., 2004).30 Some research results show

that those who do not attend college have greater drinking levels (O’Malley P. M & Johnston L. D.

2002).44The researcher concentrated only on male students, because the most problematic drinking in

colleges has been documented among men. Overall, male students tend to drink alcohol more

frequently and in larger quantities than female students. (Clements, 1998)45 Thus heavy drinking put

these students at the risk of negative alcohol-related consequences, during their college years.

Greater frequency of binge drinking has been associated with greater alcohol-related problems

(Carey, K. B. 199546,Wechsler et al. 2000) 47

On AUDIT questions 6, 7, 8, 9, &10 didn’t make much difference in before and after psychosocial

education. This revealed that from this small sample study, most of the students are in control of their

drinking but some of them were misused alcohol. But after education they also realized that they

should not indulge in harmful drinking.

4.14 Regression Analysis

Regression Analysis was performed to find out the dependency of drinking motives on drinking

disorder.

In an attempt to relate the various motives for a person to consume alcohol, the drinking motive

variables are regressed on the scores of AUDIT tool. AUDIT score is taken as dependent variable and

motives as independent variables, a multiple regression analysis is conducted to probe the influence of

the independent variables. Stepwise regression was performed using SPSS software. Step wise

regression will exclude irrelevant variables.

Here the findings are about what is the statistical significance between DMQR and AUDIT questions

before psychosocial education. For psychosocial education it was very necessary to know about the

particular motives behind their alcohol use.

1. COP �AUDIT

AUDIT =0.507 + 15.062 COP (DMQ-R question no. 17)

COP (Coping motives) on DMQ-R question no. 17 ‘To forget one’s problems’ have

significant influence on drinking disorder (To forget about your problems had a significant

regression coefficient 0.507 with AUDIT variables) All the other 4 questions were excluded

because they didn’t have significant regression with alcohol use before psychosocial

education.

2. CON � AUDIT

AUDIT =0.33 + 14.375 + 0.307 CON (DMQ-R question no.2 and 8)

CON (conformity motives) on DMQ-R question no.2 ‘because friend’s/ peer pressure to

drink’ and question no. 8 ‘so that others won’t kid you about not drinking’ shows a significant

correlation with drinking disorder; the regression coefficient 14.375 (question no.2 ‘because

friend’s/ peer pressure to drink’) also was significant.

Yet another concern was that ‘others won’t kid you about not drinking’ which has regression

coefficient + 0.307 on AUDIT questions. All the other 3 questions on CON were excluded

because they didn’t have significant regression with alcohol use before psychosocial

education.

3. SOC�AUDIT

AUDIT = 0449 + 0.475 + 13.043 SOC (Social motives) on DMQ-R question no.5

‘To be sociable’ shows a significant cause for drinking disorder with regression coefficient

+0.475 and question no. 14 ‘because it improves parties and celebrations’ +13.043 has a

regression coefficient +0.449 which implies that these are the two factors which

instigates drinking among adolescent

4. ENH�AUDIT

AUDIT = 0.378 + 0.393 +14.156

ENH (Enhancement motives) on DMQ-R question no. 10 ‘to get high’

The most significant motive happens to be ‘To get high’ with regression coefficient +0.393

and the second significant variable was question no.13 ‘because it gives you a pleasant

feeling’ with a coefficient +0.378.

When it came to regression after psychosocial education no variable became relevant for

any of the 4 sub scales of DMQR and AUDIT questions.

Table 4.15

SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES TEST

No HYPOTHESES

OF THE STUDY

TEST

APPLIED

SIGNIFI-CANCE LEVEL

DMQ-R AUDIT

Before

edu

After

edu

Before

edu

After

edu.

1 There are no significant differences

between the graduate students of 1st

year, 2nd year and 3rd year regarding

effects of alcohol usage.

Chi - Square * * * NS

2 There is no significant relationship

between alcohol consumption and their

living conditions

Chi - Square NS NS NS NS

3 There is no significant difference

between their age and alcohol drinking

motives

Chi - Square NS * NS NS


between family status and alcohol

drinking motives and misuse of

alcohol.

Chi - Square NS

* * NS


with the type of course and alcohol

drinking motives and misuse of

alcohol.

Chi - Square NS

* * NS

6 There is a significant association

between psychosocial education in

alcohol related problems and change in

the attitude towards drinking among

students.

Chi - Square * *

7 There is a significant association

between psychosocial education in

alcohol related problem and its effects

in reducing alcohol misuse among

college students

Chi - Square * *

*Significant, NS- Not significant

The Mainhypothesis is that psychosocial education in alcohol related problems can make significant

difference in drinking habits among college students. The results clearly show that there is a

significant reduction in their drinking habits after psychosocial education.

From the previous chapters explained about parents influence on their children at the stage of college

level reduces and the children behave that they are grown up. Here they are more influenced by their

peers. The researcher firmly believes this is one of the main reasons why they misuse alcohol.

Keeping in mind this reason the researcher constructed the hypotheses that there may not be much

influence on living with family or not, type of family, course, year etc

4.16Conclusion

The researcher feels that since the study focused only on alcohol promoted honest responding from

students. The students had many queries about alcohol misuse during their psychosocial education

period. When myths were bursted and real facts were revealed about how alcohol use turns into

addiction, they promised never to be alcoholics. The students also said that the two questionnaires

(Drinking motives questionnaire revised (DMQR) and Alcohol use disorder identification test

(AUDIT) helped them to identify their motives and was used for understanding their attitudes towards

drinking. They would able to correct themselves from alcohol misuse. We observe from the results

that the psychosocial education has shown efficacy in reducing risky drinking (risk drinking leads to

severe heath problems even death) among college students.

The findings and the suggestions are presented in the following Chapter -V.

REFERENCES

1. Pradeep et al (2010). Severity of alcoholism in Indian males: Correlation with age of onset

and family history of alcoholism. Indian J Psychiatry; 52:243-99.

2. Hingson et al. (2005) Magnitude of alcohol-related mortality and morbidity among U.S.

college students ages 18-24: Changes from 1998 to 2001.Annual Review of Public Health.

26:259-279.

3. Kraus L et al, (2005)"Inconsistencies Between Actual and Estimated BAC Levels in a Field

Study of College Students: Do Students Really Know How Much They Drink? Alcoholism:

Clinical & Experimental Research, Vol 29, No 9, 1672–1676

4. Grant Valerie et al (2007), psychometric evaluation of the five-factor Modified Drinking

Motives Questionnaire--Revised in undergraduates, Addictive behaviors. 32(11):2611-32.

5. Sharma Rahul , Grover L Vijay , ChaturvediSanjay (April2010)Tobacco use among

adolescent students and the influence of role models, Indian Journal of Community medicine,

Vol. 35 (2), 272-275,http://www.ijcm.org.in/article

6. Kuntsche, Stewart, Cooper (2008) How stable is the motive-alcohol use link? A

Cross- National Validation of the Drinking Motives Questionnaire Revised among

Adolescents from Switzerland, Canada, and the United States, Journal Studies

Alcohol Drugs, 69(3):388-96, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

7. Carey K B, C J Correia. (1997) Drinking motives predict alcohol-related problems in college

students, Journal of studies on alcohol. 58(1):100-5.

8. Kokotailo et al (2004), Validity of the alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test in College

Students, Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, Vol. 28, No, 6, 914-920.

9. Brown, S.A., Tapert, S.F., Granholm, E., and Delis, D.C. 2000. Neurocognitive functioning of

adolescents: Effects of protracted alcohol use. Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental

Research, 24: 164–171.

10. Neighbors et al. (2004), Feeling Controlled and Drinking Motives Among College

Students: Contingent Self-Esteem as a Mediator, Self and Identity, 3: 207–224,

Copyright # 2004 Psychology Press, ISSN: 1529-8868 print/1529-8876 online

DOI: 10.1080/13576500444000029

11. S.H. Stewart, Chambers Laura (2000), Drinking motives and restraint, Addictive Behaviors,

Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 269–274

12. Martens P. Matthew, Ferrier G. Amanda, Cimini Dolores M (2007), Psychology of

Addictive behaviors, journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive

Behaviors. 01/09/2007; 21(3):307-15, ISSN: 0893-164X, DOI: 10.1037/0893-

164X.21.3.307

13. Longabaugh Richard and Morgenstern Jon (1999), Cognitive-Behavioral Coping-Skills

Therapy for Alcohol Dependence, Alcohol Research & Health, Vol. 23, No. 2, Pages 78-85

14. Cooper, M.L., Frone, M.R., Russell, M., &Mudar, P. (1995). Drinking to regular positive and

negative emotions: A motivational model of alcohol use. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 69, 990–1005.

15. Cooper, M.L. (1994) Motivations for alcohol use among adolescents: Development and

validation of a four-factor model. Psychological Assessment, 6, 117-128.

16. Mezquita et al.(2011) Drinking Motives in Clinical and General Populations,

European Addiction Research, 17:250–261, DOI: 10.1159/000328510

17. Nemeth Zsofia(2011), The role of motivational components of alcohol use

among youth indifferent settings and cultures, Doctoral thesis Booklet.

http://pszichologia.phd.elte.hu/vedesek/thesis_EN_final.pdf

18. Perkins Wesley H. (2002) Social Norms and the Prevention of Alcohol Misuse in Collegiate

Contexts, Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Supplement No. 14: 164- 172.

19. Carey, K. B. (1995). Alcohol-related expectancies predict quantity and frequency of heavy

drinking among college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 9(4), 236–241.

20. Stewart S H et al, (1996), Examination of a three-dimensional drinking motives questionnaire

in a young adult university student sample, Behaviour research and therapy. 34(1):61-71.

21. Read et al. (2003), Examining the Role of Drinking Motives in College Student Alcohol Use

and Problems, Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, Vol. 17, No. 1, 13–23

22. Kuntsche, E., Knibbe, R., Gmel, G., &Engels., R. (2005). Why do young people drink? A

review of drinking motives. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 841-861.

23. BaborF. Thomas and Higgins-Biddle C. John (2001) Brief intervention for Hazardous and

Harmful Drinking, Department of Mental Health and Substance Dependence,

WHO/MSD/MSB/01.6b World Health Organization

24. Wechsler, H.; Lee, J.E.; Kuo, M.; et al. (2002), Trends in college binge drinking during a

period of increased prevention efforts: Findings from four Harvard School of Public Health

study surveys, 1993–2001. Journal of American College Health 50(5):203–217.

25. Larimer et al (2002) Identification, Prevention and Treatment: A Review of Individual-

Focused Strategies to Reduce Problematic Alcohol Consumption by College Students. J.

Stud. Alcohol, Supplement No. 14: 148-163

26. Nancy P Barnett, James G Murphy, Suzanne M Colby, Peter M Monti. (2007) Efficacy of

counselor vs. computer-delivered intervention with mandated college students, Addictive

behaviors. 32(11):25-29

27. Monti M Peter Tevyaw , Tracy O’Leary., and Borsari Brian, (2004/2005), Drinking Among

Young Adults, Screening, Brief Intervention, and Outcome, Alcohol Research & Health Vol.

28, No. 4, -236-244.

28. Peter Finn (1997) preventing Alcohol Related Problems on Campus- Substance Free

Residence Halls, Abt. Associates Inc. A publication of the Higher Education Center for

Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention, Education Development Center,

Inc.55 Chapel Street, Newton, MA 02458-1060

29. Ralph et al (2009) Magnitude of and Trends in Alcohol-Related Mortality and Morbidity

among U.S. College Students Ages 18-24, 1998-2005, J Stud Alcohol Drugs Suppl. 2009

July; (Supplement no. 16): 12–20.

30. McBride Nyanda et al., (2004) Harm minimization in school drug education: final results of

the School Health and Alcohol Harm Reduction Project (SHAHRP), Society for the Study of

Addiction, Addiction, 99, 278–291

31. Borsari, Brian et al (2005), Two brief alcohol interventions for mandated college students,

Psychology of addictive behaviors: journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive

Behaviors. 19(3):296-302.

32. Gilder et al (2008), Factors Associated With Remission from Alcohol Dependence in an

American Indian Community Group, Am J Psychiatry ; 165:1172–1178,

ajp.psychiatryonline.org.

33. Grant Valerie et al (2009). Coping-anxiety and coping-depression motives predict different

daily mood-drinking relationships, Psychology of addictive behaviors: journal of the Society

of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors. 23(2):226-37

34. Masayo Geshi et al, (2007) Effects of alcohol-related health education on alcohol and

drinking behavior awareness among Japanese junior college students:A Randomized

controlled trial, Department of Hygiene and Preventive Medicine, Okayama University

Graduate School of Medicine, Acta Med. Okayama,. Vol. 61, No.6, pp.345-354

35. McCarty Dennis, Edmundson Eldon, Hartnett Tim (2006), Charting a Path Between

Research and Practice in Alcoholism Treatment Alcohol Research & Health, Vol. 29, No. 1,

36. Murphy et al, (2006), Alcohol-related and alcohol-free activity participation and enjoyment

among college students: behavioral theories of choice analysis, Experimental and clinical

psychopharmacology; 14(3):339-49

37. Thadani, Vandana; Huchting, Karen; LaBrie, Joseph (Aug 2009),Alcohol-Related

Information in Multi-Component Interventions and College Students' Drinking Behavior

(EJ871307) Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, v53 n2 p31-51

38. Weinrieb, R.M., and O’Brien, C.P. (1997), Naltrexone in the treatment of alcoholism. Annual

Review of Medicine, 48: 477–487.

39. Lovecchio p. Catherine, Wyatt M Todd and DeJongWilliam (2010) Reductions in Drinking

and Alcohol-Related Harms Reported by First-Year College Students Taking an Online

Alcohol Education Course: A Randomized Trial, Journal of Health Communication,

15(7):805-19.

40. Plant Moira (1992) Risk-takers “Alcohol, drugs, sex and youth”, Routledge, London.

41. Cooper, M.L., Russell, M., Skinner, J.B., &Windle, M. (1992). Development and validation

of a three-dimensional measure of drinking motives. Psychological Assessment, 4, 123- 132.

42. Geller, E.S., and Kalsher, M.J. (1990), Environmental determinants of party drinking:

Bartenders versus self-service. Environment and Behavior, 22: 74–90.

43. Schroeder M. Christine and Prentice A. Deborah (1998), Exposing pluralistic ignorance to

reduce acohol use among college students, Journal of applied social psychology, 28, 23, pp

2150-2180.

44. O’Malley, P. M., & Johnston, L. D. (2002). Epidemiology of alcohol and other drug use

among American college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, S14, 23–39.

45. Clements, R. (1998). A critical evaluation of several alcohol screening instruments using the

CIDI-SAM as a criterion measure. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 22, 985–

993.

46. Carey, K. B. (1995). Alcohol-related expectancies predict quantity and frequency of heavy

drinking among college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 9(4), 236–241.

47. Wechsler et al (2000), College Binge Drinking in the 1990s: A Continuing Problem. Journal

of American College Health; v.48, 5, 199-208

Documents

CHAPTER-IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/27566/13/13_chapter 4.pdf4.7 ANOVA results for AUDIT based on their socio - demographic variables before