This article was downloaded by: [Chinese University of Hong Kong]On: 18 December 2014, At: 21:53Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Social Work Practice in theAddictionsPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wswp20

The Influence of Work EnvironmentStressors and Individual SocialVulnerabilities on Employee ProblemDrinkingLisa K. Berger PhD a , Sonya K. Sedivy MS b & Ron A. Cisler PhD ca Associate Professor, Helen Bader School of Social Welfare ,University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee , Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USAb Doctoral Student, Department of Education Psychology, Schoolof Education , University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee , Milwaukee,Wisconsin, USAc Associate Professor, Health Sciences and Health CareAdministration & Informatics, College of Health Sciences , Universityof Wisconsin-Milwaukee , Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USAPublished online: 03 Sep 2009.

To cite this article: Lisa K. Berger PhD , Sonya K. Sedivy MS & Ron A. Cisler PhD (2009) The Influenceof Work Environment Stressors and Individual Social Vulnerabilities on Employee Problem Drinking,Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 9:3, 263-281, DOI: 10.1080/15332560902837483

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332560902837483

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,

systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 21:

53 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

263

Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 9:263–281, 2009Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1533-256X print/1533-2578 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15332560902837483

WSWP1533-256X1533-2578Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, Vol. 9, No. 3, Jul 2009: pp. 0–0Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions

The Influence of Work Environment Stressors and Individual Social Vulnerabilities

on Employee Problem Drinking

Employee Problem DrinkingL. K. Berger et al.

LISA K. BERGER, PHDAssistant Professor, Helen Bader School of Social Welfare, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee,

Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA

SONYA K. SEDIVY, MSDoctoral Student, Department of Education Psychology, School of Education, University

of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA

RON A. CISLER, PHDAssociate Professor, Health Sciences and Health Care Administration & Informatics, College

of Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA

Guided by the social ecological perspective, this investigation exploredrelationships among work environment stressors, individual socialvulnerabilities, and their interactions in the prediction of employeeproblem drinking. This cross-sectional survey of administrativesupport and blue-collar maintenance employees was conducted ata public, urban university in the United States. Data were gatheredfrom self-report mail surveys. Data analyzed were from a weightedsample of 409 employees classified into 1 of 3 drinking groups:abstainers, nonproblem drinkers, and problem drinkers. Multinomiallogistic regression analysis revealed that the interactions of decreasedwork alienation and having met most friends at work as well asdecreased work alienation and participation in nonwork-relatedsocial groups both predicted problem drinking. These results indicatethe usefulness of examining interactions between work environment

Received July 13, 2006; accepted January 4, 2007.The authors wish to thank Michael J. Brondino for his statistical consultation. The

authors also would like to thank the local American Federation of State, County, and MunicipalEmployees union members, union-represented employees, and union officers who made thisstudy possible.

Address correspondence to Lisa K. Berger, Helen Bader School of Social Welfare,University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 2400 E. Hartford Avenue, Enderis Hall #1183, Milwaukee,WI 53211, USA. E-mail: lberger@uwm.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 21:

53 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

264 L. K. Berger et al.

stressors and individual social vulnerabilities in studies ofemployee alcohol problems. Implications for social work practiceare discussed.

KEYWORDS alcohol, employees, problem drinking, social vulner-ability, stress, work

Problem drinking among employees1 is a significant social concern with conse-quences that affect both individual employees and their workplaces. For exam-ple, the economic costs of alcohol abuse2 in 1998 were estimated at $184.6billion, with almost half of these costs attributed to lost productivity due tocauses including alcohol-related illness (Harwood, 2000, based on Harwood,Fountain, & Livermore, 1998). Of these costs, nearly half were estimated to beshouldered by individual alcohol abusers and their families, mostly fromreduced or lost earnings (Harwood, Fountain, & Livermore, 1999). Although theextent to which employers were affected financially was not calculated(Harwood et al., 1999), it can be assumed that the costs were substantial.

In 2004, the year for which the most recent national data are available(based on the National Survey on Drug Use and Health; Interuniversity Con-sortium for Political and Social Research distributor), the prevalence rate ofheavy alcohol use,3 a form of problem drinking, among full- and part-timeemployees aged 18 to 49 was 10.3% and 9.4%, respectively (U.S. Departmentof Health and Human Services, 2004). Although seemingly low, these aver-ages conceal the fact that employee problem drinking varies considerablyby occupation and gender. For example, the occupational category with thehighest prevalence rate of heavy alcohol use among both full-time men andwomen aged 18 to 49 is construction trades and extraction (20.8% for men,15.4% for women).4 In contrast, the occupational categories with the lowestrate of heavy alcohol use among full-time men and women of the same agerange were education and related occupations for men (6.4%), and farming,fishing, and forestry occupations for women (2.6%).

Although most employers attribute an employee’s alcohol problemto individual characteristics, the direction of causal relationships betweenspecific work experiences and employee drinking is unknown (Roman &Blum, 2002). For example, it is unclear whether negative work experi-ences such as stress lead to employee problem drinking, or whether

1 Employee problem drinking here refers to general, nondiagnostic, alcohol-related problems as a result of drinking that might have occurred both on and off the job.2 Alcohol abuse here refers to “any cost-generating aspect of alcohol consumption” (Harwood, 2000).3 Heavy alcohol use here refers to five or more drinks on five or more occasions during the past 30 days.4 The Armed Forces occupational category was excluded from these analyses because of a low number of cases (n = 14 for men, n = 1 for women).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 21:

53 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Employee Problem Drinking 265

employees who drink problematically experience more difficulties at worksuch as increased levels of job stress because of their drinking. Whatmight be more likely is that work environment and individual factors inter-act iteratively to influence the development and maintenance of employeealcohol problems, and if such interactions exist, the implications for socialwork practice are significant in terms of opportunities for workplace alco-hol problem prevention and treatment. Therefore, guided by the socialecological perspective, the purpose of this investigation was to explorerelationships between work environment stressors, individual social vul-nerabilities, and their interactions in the prediction of employee problemdrinking.

Central to the social ecological perspective is the notion of transac-tional causality, implying that at any one point in time, an event or processmight be a cause, whereas at another point it becomes an effect in the con-tinuous circular flow of biological, psychological, and sociocultural processes(Germain & Bloom, 1999). In this view, individuals and environments eachinfluence, shape, and change one another through a series of reciprocalinteractions over time. Furthermore, a primary assumption of the social eco-logical perspective is that the person–environment configuration is the mostappropriate unit of analysis for an applied social science such as the field ofsocial work. Therefore, the person–environment unit of analysis was adoptedin this investigation by examining the interactions of individual social vul-nerabilities and work environment stressors in the prediction of employeeproblem drinking.

Variables that were examined for interactions were based on Ames andJanes’s (1992) conceptualization of alcohol and the workplace, which isconsistent with the person–environment unit of analysis because their con-ceptualization considers various interactions between work and nonworklife and the influence of these interactions on employee drinking patterns.According to these authors, the work environment concepts of stress andalienation in terms of how work tasks are assigned, accomplished, andsupervised, along with the general physical and social environment, mayinfluence employee drinking. Non-work-related concepts also might influ-ence employee drinking and include social vulnerabilities of an employee’sfamily and community life such as a history of heavy drinking in one’s familyand lack of involvement in both family and community activities (Ames &Janes, 1987). More recently, Frone (1999) provided evidence that bothwork stress and alienation should be subsumed under a broader paradigmof work stress. As a result, the work environment variables examined inthis investigation, including alienation, are treated as part of this broaderperspective. Frone’s (1999) work-stress paradigm, like that of Ames andJanes’s (1992) conceptualization, views employee alcohol use as beinginfluenced, at least to some extent, by the stressful conditions of the workenvironment.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 21:

53 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

266 L. K. Berger et al.

Although non-work-related variables can interact with work environ-ment variables to influence employee drinking patterns, the literature con-cerning alcohol and the workplace is mixed in terms of the associationsbetween stressors in the work environment and employee problem drinking.For example, the work environment factors of work stress and work alien-ation have been found to be both associated and not associated withemployee drinking behaviors. In terms of work stress, small but significantrelationships were found between work stress and increased levels ofemployee drinking (Roman & Blum, 2002). This finding contrasts with thatof Cooper, Russell, and Frone (1990), who found no direct relationshipbetween work distress as a result of work stressors and employee alcoholuse, including employee problem drinking. Similarly, in the case of alien-ation, Seeman, Seeman, and Budros (1988) found that powerlessness, aform of psychological alienation, was associated with problem drinkingamong employed men. However, powerlessness in their study was mea-sured as a generalized sense of individual and personal mastery, not alien-ation specific to work.5 Yet, when these authors examined the interaction ofemployee social network engagement with alienation specific to the work-place, they found these variables to mutually predict employee problemdrinking. In another study of work alienation and alcohol problems amongproduction employees, Greenberg and Grunberg (1995) found an associa-tion between employee alcohol problems and job autonomy. However, thisassociation was in the opposite direction than expected, as employees withalcohol problems were found to report higher levels of job autonomy. Like-wise, Martin, Roman, and Blum (1996) found a similar unexpected relation-ship between job autonomy and employee alcohol problems among theirnationally representative employee sample.

The alcohol and workplace literature also is incongruent regardingassociations between the physical and social environment work stressors ofdangerous working conditions and workplace social support, and employeeproblem drinking. For example, Macdonald, Wells, and Wild (1999) foundthat employees with alcohol problems reported more dangerous workingconditions (e.g., danger of injury or illness because of job) when comparedto employees without such problems. However, in an investigation ofmunicipal employees, Lehman and Bennett (2002) concluded that personalbackground factors, in particular employee deviant behavior, could fullyaccount for the observed association between job physical risk and employeeproblem drinking. In terms of workplace social support, in particular, co-worker support, Macdonald et al. (1999) found no differences betweenemployees with alcohol problems when compared to employees without

5 Authors such as Greenberg and Grunberg (1995), however, assume that powerlessness at work translates into a generalized sense of individual powerlessness.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 21:

53 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Employee Problem Drinking 267

such problems, whereas Martinet al. (1996) found some evidence that lackof co-worker support was associated with employee problem drinking.

Finally, in terms of individual vulnerabilities, authors such as Menschand Kandel (1988), who studied a nationally representative sample ofemployees aged 19 to 27, concluded that employees’ use of alcohol andother substances had more to do with attributes of the workforce than withconditions of the workplace.6 Similarly, Ames and Janes (1987), in theirstudy of American blue-collar men, found that employees with family-of-origincharacteristics such as growing up in an environment accepting of heavydrinking, and current social networks that include, for example, most friend-ships made with individuals at work, were more likely to be heavy drinkerswhen compared to their moderate-drinking counterparts. In addition, Amesand Janes (1987) found that moderate-drinking employees were more likelythan heavy-drinking employees to report certain protective factors, such asparticipation with family members in non-work-related social groups. UnlikeMensch and Kandel (1988), however, it should be noted that Ames and Janes(1987) viewed the workplace as a potential influence on problem drinkingwhen employees possess other non-work-related risk factors.

Although the literature concerning alcohol and the workplace is mixedregarding the associations between stressors in the work environment andemployee problem drinking, and although the literature actually might leanmore toward the primacy of associations between various individual vulner-abilities and employee alcohol problems, interaction effects nonethelesscould exist. In fact, much of the previous research either has not examined,or has examined only to a limited extent, the interactions between workenvironment stressors and individual vulnerabilities. Therefore, the purposeof this cross-sectional investigation of university administrative support andblue-collar maintenance employees was to explore work environment stres-sors, individual social vulnerabilities, and their interactions in the predictionof employee problem drinking.

METHODS

Sample

The sample in this cross-sectional study consisted of union-representedadministrative support unit (ASU) and blue-collar (BC) employees of a largepublic, urban university located in the Midwestern United States. The sam-pling frame, obtained from a mailing list of home addresses provided by thelocal union, consisted of 630 employees and was stratified by gender and

6 Although it should be noted that Mensch and Kandel’s conclusion might apply only to younger employees.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 21:

53 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

268 L. K. Berger et al.

occupation into four strata. Because of relatively small numbers of employeesin three of the four strata, these employees were oversampled. Half of theASU women were randomly selected, and all employees from the remainingthree strata (ASU men, BC women, and BC men) were selected for inclusioninto the study. A total sample of 466 ASU and BC employees were selectedfor study participation.

Dillman’s (2000) tailored design method for self-report mail surveyswas used to maximize survey response rate, which included a survey prenoticeletter and other strategies (e.g., a small financial incentive included witheach survey and a second survey mailing). To help maximize the accuracyof survey information, survey instructions encouraged employees to behonest in their reports and informed employees that responses would betreated as confidential. Of the selected employee sample (N = 466), 299completed a usable survey (defined as more than 80% of the 171 surveyitems completed) for a response rate of 64.2%. Sample weights were applied sothat the sample was representative of the population and were assigned byspecifying the population values for each stratum as determined from thesampling frame. This resulted in a weighted sample of 409 employees. Priorto applying the sample weights, the gender and occupations of the sampleparticipants were found to be similar to those of the population, with sampleproportions differing from population proportions in each of these catego-ries by less than 2.5%.

Although represented by the same union, notable differences exist inthe work performed by ASU and BC employees. ASU employees are para-professionals who work in office settings. BC employees have janitorial ormaintenance duties and are assigned to a building or certain building floors.These employees were chosen specifically for this investigation because ofthe type of work and the circumstances under which their work is per-formed. That is, it could be argued that paraprofessional and janitorial ormaintenance jobs might include excessive work (especially in the case ofparaprofessionals), little authority to make decisions, minimal use of skills,exposure to dangerous workplace conditions (janitorial or maintenancework), and in some cases, stressful relationships with supervisors, co-workers,or both—all of which are consistent with Ames and Janes’s (1992) conceptual-ization of alcohol and the workplace and Frone’s (1999) work-stress paradigm.

The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Institutional Review Board forthe Protection of Human Subjects approved this study.

Measures

Several of the study measures utilized in data collection have been used inprevious alcohol and workplace studies (e.g., Ames & Janes, 1987; Davey,Obst, & Sheehan, 2000; Rospenda, Richman, Wislar, & Flaherty, 2000). Thepredictor variables were categorized under the measurement domains of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 21:

53 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Employee Problem Drinking 269

work environment stressors and individual social vulnerabilities, with thecriterion variable categorized under the domain of employee drinking status.Sociodemographics also were collected. Each measure is described nextand alpha reliability coefficients, when appropriate, are reported for theweighted sample.

WORK ENVIRONMENT STRESSORS

Work environment stressor variables were assessed using four specificscales of Karasek’s (1985) validated Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ): Psy-chological Demands, Decision Latitude, Physical Hazards, and Social Support.

First, stress as related to job tasks was measured by the PsychologicalDemands scale. The five-item Psychological Demands scale measures thedegree to which an employee perceives his or her job to involve excessivework, conflicting demands, not enough time to complete work, the need towork fast, and the need to work hard. The scale’s possible range of 12 to 48was constructed according to the JCQ User’s Guide (Karasek, 1985), withhigher scores indicating higher levels of job stress. Karasek and Theorell (1990)reported the Psychological Demands scale as determined by Cronbach’salpha to have marginally acceptable internal consistency reliability. The alphareliability coefficient of the Psychological Demands scale in this study’sweighted sample was .73.

The second aspect of work environment stress measured was alien-ation from work. This was measured by the Decision Latitude scale, whichis comprised of two components—decision authority and skill discretion.Three of the scale’s nine items relate to decision authority, which measuresthe degree to which an employee perceives the authority to make decisionson the job, to decide how to do one’s work, and to have a say about howthe job is done. The scale’s remaining six items address skill discretion, thedegree to which an employee perceives the job to involve learning newthings, a lack of repetitive work, creativity, a high level of skill, the perfor-mance of a variety of different things, and opportunities to develop specialabilities. The Decision Latitude’s possible scale range of 24 to 96 (decisionauthority, 12–48, plus skill discretion, 12–48) was constructed according tothe JCQ User’s Guide (Karasek, 1985), with higher scores indicating lowerlevels of alienation from work. Karasek and Theorell (1990) reported theDecision Latitude scale as determined by Cronbach’s alpha to have accept-able internal consistency reliability. The alpha reliability coefficient of theDecision Latitude scale in this study’s weighted sample was .81.

Dangerous working conditions as a third aspect of work environmentstress were measured by the eight-item Physical Hazards scale, which is madeup of two components, hazardous conditions and toxic exposures. Thisscale measures the extent to which an employee perceives that he or she isexposed problematically to either hazardous conditions (dangerous equipment;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 21:

53 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

270 L. K. Berger et al.

dangerous work methods; things placed or stored dangerously; fires, burns,or shocks; and dirty or badly maintained areas) or workplace toxins (dangerouschemicals, air pollution, and risk of catching diseases). The Physical Hazardspossible scale range of 0 to 24 (hazardous conditions, 0–15, plus toxic expo-sures, 0–9) was constructed according to the JCQ User’s Guide (Karasek, 1985),with higher scores indicating greater exposure to dangerous working condi-tions. Karasek and Theorell (1990) reported the Physical Hazards scale asdetermined by Cronbach’s alpha to have acceptable internal consistencyreliability. Coefficient alpha reliability of the Physical Hazards scale in thisstudy’s weighted sample was .88.

Workplace social support, the fourth and final aspect of work environ-ment stress, was measured by the eight-item Social Support scale, whichincludes two components—co-worker support and supervisor support. TheSocial Support scale measures the degree to which an employee perceivessupport from his or her co-workers (i.e., co-workers are competent in theirjobs, they take a personal interest in me, are friendly, and are helpful in gettingthe job done). The scale also measures the degree to which an employeeperceives support from his or her supervisor (i.e., my supervisor is con-cerned about the welfare of his or her employees, pays attention to what Ihave to say, is helpful in getting the job done, and is successful in gettingpeople to work together). The Social Support scale’s possible range of 8 to 32(co-worker support, 4–16, plus supervisor support, 4–16) was constructedaccording to the JCQ User’s Guide (Karasek, 1985), with higher scores indi-cating higher levels of workplace social support. Karasek and Theorell(1990) reported the Social Support scale was determined by Cronbach’salpha to have acceptable internal consistency reliability. Coefficient alphareliability of the Social Support scale in this study’s weighted sample was .90.

INDIVIDUAL SOCIAL VULNERABILITIES

Respondents answered the following five yes–no questions that were basedon previous research by Ames and Janes (1987):

• In your opinion, was heavy drinking both common and socially acceptedin your family of origin?

• In your opinion, was heavy drinking both common and socially acceptedin your community of origin?

• Did you meet most of your friends at work or in a work-related context?• Is the majority of your leisure time spent outside of the home with pre-

dominately male friends?• Are the majority of your leisure activities work-oriented?

Answers of “yes” on any of these items are considered indicative of an indi-vidual’s social vulnerability to problem drinking. Respondents also answered

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 21:

53 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Employee Problem Drinking 271

the following three yes–no questions that also were based on Ames andJanes’s (1987) previous research:

• Do you regularly attend religious activities (e.g., church services)?• Do you participate in non-work-related groups, clubs, or organizations?• Are the majority of your leisure activities family-oriented?

Answers of “no” on any of these items are considered to be indicative of anindividual’s social vulnerability to problem drinking.

EMPLOYEE DRINKING STATUS

Employee drinking status was measured by the Alcohol Use Disorders Iden-tification Test (AUDIT), a 10-item screening instrument developed and vali-dated by the World Health Organization (Saunders, Aasland, Babor, de laFuente, & Grant, 1993). The AUDIT screens for hazardous and harmfuldrinking patterns, and includes three dimensions: alcohol consumption(three questions), drinking behavior (three questions), and alcohol-relatedproblems (four questions). The scale’s possible range is 0 to 40. Respon-dents answered the AUDIT questions in reference to their experiences duringthe past year, and based on their AUDIT scores, employees were classifiedinto one of three employee drinking groups—abstainers (AUDIT score of 0for either men or women), nonproblem drinkers (AUDIT score < 8 for menand < 7 for women), or problem drinkers (AUDIT score > 8 for men and > 7for women). These AUDIT cut-point criteria were adopted because of theirability to identify hazardous and harmful alcohol use, including possiblealcohol dependence (Babor, Higgins-Biddle, Saunders, & Monteiro, 2001).In their review of research that employed the AUDIT measure, Reinert andAllen (2002) found that the median reported Cronbach’s alpha was in the.80s. Coefficient alpha reliability of the AUDIT in this study’s weighted samplewas .82.

SOCIODEMOGRAPHICS

Respondents were asked to report their gender, age, race, educationalattainment, relationship status, and family income. Another sociodemographicvariable included was occupation category.

Data Analyses

Because sample weights were applied, data analyses were performed usingSPSS Complex Samples 13.0, which accounts for sample weights in the cal-culation of standard errors. In addition, missing data were addressed using a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 21:

53 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

272 L. K. Berger et al.

multiple imputation method based on the expectation-maximization algorithm(Klein, 2005). This missing data procedure was performed using LISREL8.54, and only missing data on the work environment stressor variables andthe family income sociodemographic variable were imputed, as these vari-ables were the primary sources of missing data.

To characterize the sample, chi-square analyses were used to test fordifferences in the criterion variable of employee drinking status by eachsociodemographic variable. In addition, because the criterion variable hadmore than two categories, multinomial logistic regression was used to esti-mate the effects of work environment stressors, individual social vulnerabil-ities, and their interactions on employee drinking status as multinomiallogistic regression simultaneously estimates binary logits for all comparisonsamong the categories of the dependent variable (Long, 1997). In this inves-tigation, the multinomial logistic regression analysis provided the followingcomparisons: (a) problem drinkers versus abstainers, (b) problem drinkersversus nonproblem drinkers, and (c) nonproblem drinkers versus abstain-ers. In preparation for this analysis, a three-step process was used to deter-mine which variables to include in the model. First, only those workenvironment stressors or their components, individual social vulnerabilities,and sociodemographics found to be statistically related to the criterion vari-able at a p value < .20 were included in the model. Use of the .20 level wasbased on Hosmer and Lemeshow’s (1989) model-building steps, which rec-ommend that any variable whose univariate test has a p-value < .25 be con-sidered for inclusion in the multivariate analysis. The rationale for the use ofthe more conservative criterion level in this investigation was to reduce thepotential of committing a Type I error. Second, only variables that alsoexplained at least 1% of the variance in the criterion variable of employeedrinking status as determined by separate multinomial logistic regressionanalyses were included in the model. Third, the multinomial logistic regres-sion model was trimmed by removing the least significant variable until allremaining variables were significant at a p value < .05. The remaining indi-vidual social vulnerability variables were then interacted with the remainingwork environment stressor variables. Finally, the sociodemographic vari-ables in the multinomial logistic regression model were treated as statisticalcontrols.

RESULTS

Prevalence Estimates of Employee Drinking

Looking at employee drinking status for both ASU and BC employees whohad complete AUDIT data (n = 397), approximately 33% (95% CI: 28, 38)were classified as abstainers, 58% (95% CI: 53, 63) as nonproblem drinkers,and 9% (95% CI: 6, 12) as problem drinkers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 21:

53 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Employee Problem Drinking 273

Differences in Employee Drinking Status by Sociodemographics

Chi-square analyses were used to test for differences in employee drinkingstatus by each sociodemographic variable. BC employees (14.7%) weremore likely than ASU employees (5.3%) to be classified as problem drinkers,c2(2, 397) = 15.67, p < .001, and in terms of gender, male employees(16.7%) were more likely than female employees to be classified as problemdrinkers (5.2%), c2(2, 397) = 14.56, p = .001. Although there were no largedifferences between Whites and non-Whites on employee problem drinking(9.7% and 7.4%, respectively), non-Whites (44.3%) were more likely thanWhites (27.0%) to be classified as abstainers, c2(2, 389) = 11.44, p = .003.For educational attainment, employees with a high school education or less(12.3%) or an associate’s degree (10.6%) were more likely than employeeswith a bachelor’s degree or higher (3.8%) to be classified as problem drink-ers, c2(4, 387) = 11.01, p = .026. Employees with annual family incomes of$30,000 or less were more likely to be classified as abstainers (45.3%) thanemployees with higher incomes (31.7% with incomes of $30,001–$50,000;20.4% with incomes greater than $50,000), and employees with incomesbetween $30,001 and $50,000 (12.2%) were more likely to be classified asproblem drinkers than employees with incomes of $30,000 or less (7.3%) orincomes greater than $50,000 (8.3%), c2(4, 368) = 19.21, p = .001. Finally, norelationships were found between age or relationship status and employeedrinking status.

The Influence of Work Environment Stressors and Social Vulnerabilities on Problem Drinking

Table 1 presents the results of the final multinomial logistic regressionmodel, c2(16, 386) = 75.09, p < .001, Nagelkerke R2 = .22. Being a male ratherthan a female employee increased the odds of being a problem drinkerrather than an abstainer or nonproblem drinker (OR = 7.32 and OR = 7.85,respectively). Having a history of heavy drinking in one’s family of originrather than not increased the odds of an employee being a problem drinkerrather than an abstainer or nonproblem drinker (OR = 3.59 and OR = 4.13,respectively). Perceiving one’s work environment as less alienating (as rep-resented by higher skill discretion scores) and reporting having met mostfriends at work rather than perceiving work as alienating and not havingmet most friends at work increased the odds of an employee being a prob-lem drinker rather than an abstainer or nonproblem drinker (OR = 1.14 andOR = 1.13, respectively; see Figure 1). That is, for every unit increase in skilldiscretion among employees who reported having met most of their friendsat work, there was a 13% to 14% increase in the odds of being a problemdrinker. Similarly, perceiving one’s work environment as less alienating andreporting participation in non-work-related social groups rather than perceiving

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 21:

53 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

274

TA

BLE

1M

ulti

nom

ial Lo

gist

ic R

egre

ssio

n R

esults

of In

tera

ctio

n E

ffec

ts o

n E

mplo

yee

Drinki

ng

Stat

us

Pro

ble

m d

rinke

rs (

vs. ab

stai

ner

sa )Pro

ble

m d

rinke

rs

(vs.

nonpro

ble

m d

rinke

rsa )

Nonpro

ble

m d

rinke

rs

(vs.

abst

ainer

sa )

Var

iable

BSE

OR (

95%

CI)

BSE

OR (

95%

CI)

BSE

OR (

95%

CI)

Gen

der

b1.

99**

*0.

407.

32 (

3.34

, 16

.02)

2.06

***

0.40

7.85

(3.

58, 28

.11)

−0.0

70.

210.

93 (

0.62

, 1.

41)

Hea

vy d

rinki

ng

in fam

ily o

f origi

nc

1.28

***

0.38

3.59

(1.

71, 7.

52)

1.42

***

0.36

4.13

(2.

03, 8.

37)

−0.1

40.

270.

87 (

0.51

, 1.

48)

Met

most

frien

ds

at w

ork

c−1

.61

1.32

0.20

(0.

02, 2.

66)

−1.2

61.

270.

28 (

0.02

, 3.

42)

−0.3

51.

260.

70 (

0.08

, 8.

32)

Par

ticip

ate

in n

on-w

ork

-rel

ated

gro

upsc

−3.6

0*1.

490.

03 (

0.00

, 0.

51)

−3.9

9**

1.39

0.02

(0.

00, 0.

28)

0.39

1.08

2.45

(0.

18, 12

.27)

Skill

dis

cret

ion

−0.2

3***

0.04

0.80

(0.

73, 0.

87)

−0.2

0***

0.04

0.82

(0.

75, 0.

90)

0.03

0.03

0.97

(0.

92, 1.

03)

Soci

al s

upport

0.07

0.04

1.08

(0.

99, 1.

17)

0.01

0.04

1.01

(0.

93, 1.

10)

0.06

*0.

031.

07 (

1.01

, 1.

12)

Skill

dis

cret

ion ×

Frien

ds

at w

ork

0.13

*0.

051.

14 (

1.03

, 1.

26)

0.12

*0.

051.

13 (

1.02

, 1.

24)

0.01

0.05

1.01

(0.

92, 1.

11)

Skill

dis

cret

ion ×

Non-w

ork

-rel

ated

gro

ups

0.17

**0.

061.

19 (

1.05

, 1.

33)

0.15

**0.

061.

16 (

1.03

, 1.

31)

0.02

0.04

1.02

(0.

94, 1.

10)

Not

e. M

ulti

colli

nea

rity

was

ass

esse

d u

sing

the

Var

iance

Inflat

ion F

acto

r (V

IF), w

hic

h found n

one

of th

e va

riab

les

to e

xcee

d a

VIF

of 2.

0 (K

lien, 20

05). N

= 3

86.

a Ref

eren

ce g

roup.

bRef

eren

ce c

ateg

ory

is

fem

ale.

c Ref

eren

ce c

ateg

ory

is

no.

*p <

.05

. **

p < .01

. **

*p <

.00

1.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 21:

53 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Employee Problem Drinking 275

work as alienating and reporting a lack of participation in non-work-relatedsocial groups increased the odds of an employee being a problem drinkerrather than an abstainer or nonproblem drinker (OR = 1.19 and OR = 1.16,respectively; see Figure 2). That is, for every unit increase in skill discretionamong employees who reported participation in non-work-related social

FIGURE 1 Influence of the interaction of work alienation (skill discretion) and individualsocial vulnerability (having met friends at work) on problem drinking. Note. Higher skilldiscretion scores represent lower levels of work alienation.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

No YesMet Most Friends at Work

Ski

ll D

iscr

etio

n (

aver

age

sco

re)

Problem Drinkers

Nonproblem Drinkers

Abstainers

FIGURE 2 Influence of the interaction of work alienation (skill discretion) and individualsocial vulnerability (participation in non-work-related social groups) on problem drinking.Note. Higher skill discretion scores represent lower levels of work alienation.

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

No YesParticipate in Nonwork-Related Groups

Ski

ll D

iscr

etio

n (

aver

age

sco

re)

Problem Drinkers

Nonproblem Drinkers

Abstainers

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 21:

53 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

276 L. K. Berger et al.

groups, there was a 16% to 19% increase in the odds of being a problemdrinker. Finally, the only variable that discriminated between employeesclassified as abstainers and those classified as nonproblem drinkers wassocial support. Perceiving higher levels of workplace social support in one’swork environment rather than perceiving lower levels of workplace socialsupport increased the odds of an employee being a nonproblem drinkerrather than an abstainer (OR = 1.07). That is, for every unit increase in socialsupport, there was a 7% increase in the odds of being a nonproblemdrinker.

DISCUSSION

Guided by the social ecological perspective and consistent with Ames andJanes’s (1992) conceptualization of alcohol and the workplace and Frone’s(1999) work-stress paradigm, this investigation sought to explore interac-tions between stressors in the work environment and individual social vul-nerabilities in the prediction of employee problem drinking. The rationalefor such an exploration, as supported by the social ecological perspective’sperson–environment unit of analysis, is that stressors in the work environ-ment and individual social vulnerabilities can interact iteratively in thedevelopment and maintenance of employee alcohol problems.

When controlling for gender, this investigation found that certain workenvironment and individual social vulnerabilities interacted to influenceemployee problem drinking status. Specifically, employees who perceivedtheir work environments as less alienating and who reported having metmost friends at work were more likely to be problem drinkers than abstainersor nonproblem drinkers. This finding is both consistent and inconsistentwith previous research. For example, in terms of alienation, this finding isinconsistent in that Seeman et al. (1988) found employees who were alien-ated from work to exhibit high problem drinking scores. However, it shouldbe noted that this was only the case for those employees engaged in com-munity social networks, which might or might not have included friendsfrom work. Yet, in terms of alienation, this finding also is consistent in thatboth Greenberg and Grunberg (1995) and Martin et al. (1996) found posi-tive associations between decreased levels of work alienation (as measuredby job autonomy) and employee alcohol problems. In terms of having metmost friends at work, the preceding finding in this investigation also is con-sistent with previous research in that employees whose friendships weremade predominately with co-workers have been found to be at greater riskfor drinking problematically (Ames & Janes, 1987). Therefore, the interac-tion effect of less alienating work and having met most friends at workmight highlight an additional risk factor in the prediction of employee problemdrinking. This finding also highlights that less alienating work could contribute

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 21:

53 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Employee Problem Drinking 277

to employee problem drinking status, which was an unexpected finding,and challenges the understanding of the role of work alienation in employeeproblem drinking. As a result, further research is needed to understand morefully the role of work alienation in employee alcohol problems.

Employees who perceived their work environments as less alienatingand who reported participation in non-work-related social groups also weremore likely to be problem drinkers than abstainers or nonproblem drinkers.This finding again is both consistent and inconsistent with previous research.In terms of alienation, this finding is inconsistent in that Seeman et al.(1988) found alienated employees to have high problem drinking scoresamong those engaged in community social networks, which might or mightnot have involved non-work-related social group activity. Yet again, thisfinding is consistent in that Greenberg and Grunberg (1995) and Martin et al.(1996) found employee reports of decreased work alienation (as measuredby job autonomy) to be associated with employee alcohol problems. Interms of participation in non-work-related social groups, the preceding find-ing in this investigation also is inconsistent with previous research. That is,problem-drinking employees, when compared to moderate-drinking employees,have been found to be more likely to report a lack of participation in suchgroups (Ames & Janes, 1987). Therefore, the interaction effect of less alien-ating work and participation in non-work-related social groups also mighthighlight an additional risk factor in the prediction of employee problemdrinking. In addition, the finding that non-work-related social group partici-pation might contribute to employee problem drinking status was unex-pected, and as a result, further research is needed to more fully understandthe role of this social factor in employee problem drinking. Taken together,the interaction effect findings of this investigation suggest that employeesmost at risk for problem drinking as related to aspects of the work environ-ment are those who perceive their work as less alienating or more fulfilling,and who are involved socially with their work peers or in social groups out-side of work.

More generally, the results of this investigation found that employeeswho reported a history of heavy drinking in their family of origin were morelikely to be problem drinkers than abstainers or nonproblem drinkers,which is consistent with previous research (e.g., Ames & Janes, 1987). Finally,employees who perceived higher levels of social support in their work envi-ronments were more likely to be nonproblem drinkers than abstainers. Thismight be the result of an increase in work-related social opportunities availableto employees who drink socially, which in turn could foster social cohesionand support.

The findings from this investigation are important for several reasons.First, the findings might help to address the incongruent results found inprevious studies regarding the associations between work environment stres-sors and employee alcohol problems. That is, this investigation specifically

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 21:

53 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

278 L. K. Berger et al.

focused on the interaction effects of work stressors and individual socialvulnerabilities in the prediction of employee problem drinking and foundinteraction effects between less alienating work conditions and certain indi-vidual social factors to be associated with employee problem drinking sta-tus. Therefore, future alcohol and workplace examinations should considerthe interaction effects of aspects of the work environment and individualsocial or psychosocial factors. Second, the association found in this investi-gation between a history of heavy drinking in one’s family of origin andemployee problem drinking supports previous alcohol and workplace find-ings (e.g., Ames & Janes, 1987), thus reinforcing this individual social vul-nerability as a risk factor in employee alcohol problems. Third, the findingsfrom this investigation are important because this study included employeeabstainers in the analyses. Previous investigations have removed employeeabstainers from data analyses based on the rationale that these employeesare not likely to use alcohol to cope with stressors in the work environment(e.g., Rospenda et al., 2000). Although this might be appropriate in certaininstances, it does not allow for comparisons among all employees in termsof their perceptions of work environment stressors and their individualsocial vulnerabilities. In addition, by removing employee abstainers fromthe analyses, new and important findings might be missed, such as the onein this investigation of the differences found in perceived social supportbetween employee abstainers and employee nonproblem drinkers.

Finally, the findings of this investigation are subject to replication as thestudy focused on administrative support and blue-collar maintenanceemployees of a large public, urban university in the United States. Replica-tion studies of employees in other occupations and other types of workplacesettings are needed to determine the generalizability of this investigation’sfindings. Some caution also should be employed in the interpretation ofthese results because of the self-report, cross-sectional nature of the data.That is, there was no corroboration of employee self-report in terms of theAUDIT questions. However, in the alcohol research field, self-report meth-ods of alcohol consumption are generally accepted to be both reliable andvalid when appropriate administration situations are implemented to reduceresponse bias (e.g., Del Boca & Noll, as cited in Del Boca & Darkes, 2003).In this investigation, such administrative procedures included encouragingemployees to be honest in their reports and assurances of confidentiality.Furthermore, because of the cross-sectional nature of the study data, thedirection of causal relationships could not be determined. For example, thisinvestigation did not determine whether or not employee problem drinkingshapes perceptions of work to be less alienating among employees involved infriendships with work peers, or alternatively if less alienated employeesseek out work friendships, which in turn might facilitate problematic alcoholuse. Future longitudinal research could help to establish the chronology andthereby the causal relationships among these factors.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 21:

53 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Employee Problem Drinking 279

Implications for Social Work Practice

The influence of the workplace is an important consideration in attempts toprevent and treat employee alcohol problems (Trice, 1992). Therefore, thefindings of this investigation have several important implications for socialwork practice. First, social workers involved in workplace alcohol problemprevention (e.g., social workers who work in employee assistance programs)should consider delivering prevention messages to workforces that includeU.S. low-risk drinking guidelines. These guidelines for men are no morethan 14 drinks7 per week or 4 drinks per occasion, and for women no morethan 7 drinks per week or 3 drinks per occasion (U.S. Preventive ServicesTask Force, 2004). Second, social workers involved in alcohol probleminterventions also might want to consider exploring with employees theimpact that work social groups might have on their alcohol use. For example,this investigation, as well as previous research (Ames & Janes, 1987), hasfound that when work friendships are prominent among blue-collar employees,they are more likely than their fellow workers to be problem drinkers.Third, for social workers involved in the assessment or treatment of employeeswith alcohol problems, the risk factors identified in this investigation couldbe assessed, and if indicated, should be considered when establishing treat-ment plans and treatment approaches. In conclusion, although the relationshipbetween work alienation and employee problem drinking in this investiga-tion was found to be in the opposite direction of what was expected, thisinvestigation nonetheless supports the importance of the often overlookedrole that work environment might have on the development and mainte-nance of employee alcohol problems.

REFERENCES

Ames, G. M., & Janes, C. R. (1987). Heavy and problem drinking in an American blue-collar population: Implications for prevention. Social Science and Medicine, 25,949–960.

Ames, G. M., & Janes, C. R. (1992). A cultural approach to conceptualizing alcoholand the workplace. Alcohol Health and Research World, 16, 112–119.

Babor, T. F., Higgins-Biddle, J. C., Saunders, J. B., & Monteiro, M. G. (2001). AUDIT:The alcohol use disorders identification test: Guidelines for use in primaryhealth care. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

Cooper, M. L., Russell, M., & Frone, M. R. (1990). Work stress and alcohol effects: A testof stress-induced drinking. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 31, 260–276.

7 A “drink” or standard drink in the United States is generally considered to be any alcoholic drink that contains approximately 14 g of ethanol. Common standard drink equivalents include one 12 oz. can of beer (∼5% alcohol content), one 5 oz. glass of wine (∼12% alcohol content), and 1.5 oz. of hard liquor or spirits (∼40% alcohol content; National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2005).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 21:

53 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

280 L. K. Berger et al.

Davey, J. D., Obst, P. L., & Sheehan, M. C. (2000). Developing a profile of alcoholconsumption patterns of police officers in a large scale sample of an Australianpolice service. European Addiction Research, 6, 205–212.

Del Boca, F. K., & Darkes, J. (2003). The validity of self-reports of alcohol con-sumptions: State of the science and challenges for research. Addiction, 98(Suppl. 2), 1–12.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.).New York: Wiley.

Frone, M. R. (1999). Work stress and alcohol use. Alcohol Research and Health, 23,284–291.

Germain, C. B., & Bloom, M. (1999). Human behavior in the social environment.New York: Columbia University Press.

Greenberg, E. S., & Grunberg, L. (1995, March). Work alienation and problem alcoholbehavior. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 83–102.

Harwood, H. (2000). Updating estimates of the economic costs of alcohol abuse inthe United States: Estimates, update methods, and data. Bethesda, MD: TheLewin Group for the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

Harwood, H., Fountain, D., & Livermore, G. (1998). The economic costs of alcoholand drug abuse in the United States 1992 (NIH Pub. No. 98–4327). Rockville,MD: National Institutes of Health.

Harwood, H. J., Fountain, D., & Livermore, G. (1999). Economic cost of alcohol anddrug abuse in the United States, 1992: A report. Addiction, 94, 631–635.

Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (1989). Applied logistic regression. New York:Wiley.

Karasek, R. A. (1985). Job content questionnaire and user’s guide (revision 1.1). LosAngeles: University of Southern California.

Karasek, R. A., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and thereconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books.

Klein, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.).New York: Guilford.

Lehman, W. E. K., & Bennett, J. B. (2002). Job risk and employee substance use:The influence of personal background and work environment factors. TheAmerican Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 28, 263–286.

Long, J. S. (1997). Advanced quantitative techniques in the social sciences: Regres-sion models for categorical and limited dependent variables (Vol. 7). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Macdonald, S., Wells, S., & Wild, T. C. (1999). Occupational risk factors associatedwith alcohol and drug problems. American Journal of Drug and AlcoholAbuse, 25, 351–369.

Martin, J. K., Roman, P. M., & Blum, T. C. (1996). Job stress, drinking networks, andsocial support at work: A comprehensive model of employees’ problem drink-ing behaviors. The Sociological Quarterly, 37, 579–599.

Mensch, B. S., & Kandel, D. B. (1988). Do job conditions influence the use ofdrugs? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 29, 169–184.

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (2005). Helping patients whodrink too much: A clinician’s guide (NIH Pub. No. 05–3769). Rockville, MD:National Institutes of Health.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 21:

53 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Employee Problem Drinking 281

Reinert, D. F., & Allen, J. P. (2002). The alcohol use disorders identification test(AUDIT): A review of recent research. Alcoholism: Clinical and ExperimentalResearch, 26, 272–279.

Roman, P. M., & Blum, T. C. (2002). The workplace and alcohol problem prevention.Alcohol Research & Health, 26, 49–57.

Rospenda, K. M., Richman, J. A., Wislar, J. S., & Flaherty, J. A. (2000). Chronicity ofsexual harassment and generalized work-place abuse: Effects on drinking out-comes. Addiction, 95, 1805–1820.

Saunders, J. B., Aasland, O. G., Babor, T. F., de la Fuente, J. R., & Grant, M. (1993).Development of the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT): WHOcollaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol con-sumption—II. Addiction, 88, 791–804.

Seeman, M., Seeman, A. Z., & Budros, A. (1988). Powerlessness, work, and commu-nity: A longitudinal study of alienation and alcohol use. Journal of Health andSocial Behavior, 29, 185–198.

Trice, H. (1992). Work-related risk factors associated with alcohol abuse. AlcoholHealth and Research World, 16, 106–119.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and MentalHealth Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies. (2004). Nationalsurvey on drug use and health [Computer file]. Research Triangle Park, NC:Research Triangle Institute [producer], 2005. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-universityConsortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. (2004). Screening and behavioral counselinginterventions in primary care to reduce alcohol misuse: Recommendation state-ment. Annals of Internal Medicine, 140, 554–556.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 21:

53 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014