Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse

This article was downloaded by: [Michigan State University]
On: 24 December 2014, At: 11:29

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcas20
Religiousness, Spirituality, and Social Support: How

Are They Related to Underage Drinking Among College
Students?
a a a
Tamara L. Brown PhD , John M. Salsman MS , Emily H. Brechting MS & Charles R. Carlson
a
PhD
a
Department of Psychology , University of Kentucky , Lexington, KY
Published online: 12 Oct 2008.
To cite this article: Tamara L. Brown PhD , John M. Salsman MS , Emily H. Brechting MS & Charles R. Carlson PhD (2008)
Religiousness, Spirituality, and Social Support: How Are They Related to Underage Drinking Among College Students?, Journal
of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 17:2, 15-39, DOI: 10.1300/J029v17n02_02
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J029v17n02_02
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 to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and 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 Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial 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
Religiousness, Spirituality,
and Social Support:
How Are They Related to Underage
Drinking Among College Students?
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 11:29 24 December 2014
Tamara L. Brown
John M. Salsman
Emily H. Brechting
Charles R. Carlson
ABSTRACT. The U.S. Surgeon General has declared underage drink-

ing among college students a major health issue for the nation, making it
imperative that researchers delineate factors which predict and protect
against it. Research suggests religiousness and spirituality might be pro-
tective factors, but methodological limitations make it difficult to know
for sure or under what conditions. This study examined (1) multiple fac-
ets of religiousness and spirituality, (2) their associations with alcohol
use, and (3) whether these facets interact with social support in predicting
use. Findings indicate that religiousness and spirituality are differentially
associated with alcohol use, and that only certain aspects of religiousness
(intrinsic but not extrinsic) are related to lower levels of alcohol use.
Moreover, social support interacts with only certain aspects of religiousness
(extrinsic) and spirituality (universality) in predicting alcohol use and prob-
lems. The importance of distinguishing religiousness from spirituality,
Tamara L. Brown, PhD, John M. Salsman, MS, Emily H. Brechting, MS, and Charles
R. Carlson, PhD, are affiliated with the Department of Psychology, University of Ken-
tucky, Lexington, KY.
Address correspondence to: Tamara L. Brown, PhD, University of Kentucky,
Department of Psychology, 207-C Kastle Hall, Lexington, KY 40506-0044 (E-mail:
Tamara.Brown.uky@gmail.com).
Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, Vol. 17(2) 2007
Available online at http://jcasa.haworthpress.com
© 2007 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1300/J029v17n02_02 15
16 JOURNAL OF CHILD & ADOLESCENT SUBSTANCE ABUSE
assessing multiple facets of each construct, and assessing multiple indica-

tors of alcohol use is discussed. doi:10.1300/J029v17n02_02 [Article cop-
ies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service:
1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Web-
site: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2007 by The Haworth Press. All
rights reserved.]
KEYWORDS. Underage college drinking, religiousness, spirituality,

social support, alcohol use
Drinking among college students is a major national concern (Vicary &

Karshin, 2002). Most college students are under the legal drinking age
of 21. Yet research shows that the ages of 18-21 represent the time of
heaviest alcohol consumption for most drinkers (Chen & Kandel, 1995),
and that heavy drinking is more prevalent among college students than
among nonstudents of the same age (Johnston, O’Malley Bachman, &
Schulenberg, 2004). About 2 in 5 college students engage in heavy epi-
sodic drinking, a style of drinking that has been associated with negative
consequences such as academic difficulties, antisocial behavior, health
and psychosocial problems, high-risk sexual behavior, and other risk
behaviors such as drinking and driving (Wechsler, Lee, Nelson, & Kuo,
2000). Heavy alcohol use also affects people other than the drinker.
Wechsler and colleagues (1995) found that students at schools with high
rates of binge drinking experience more secondhand effects of alcohol
use such as verbal, physical, and sexual assaults, and property damage
than do students at schools where rates are low. While these represent
serious immediate secondhand effects, there is no measure of other kinds
of secondhand effects that drinkers’ behaviors, accidents, and deaths
have on other students and on the campus and community in general. For
example, Vicary and Karshin (2002) point out that there is no way to de-
termine how many students left school or had serious psychological
problems after a friend was seriously injured or died in an alcohol-re-
lated accident. Given the prevalence of alcohol use among underage
college students and the myriad deleterious effects they suffer and inflict
upon those around them, it is not surprising that, in 2000, the U.S. Sur-
geon General declared reducing heavy drinking among college students
a major health goal for the nation (U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, 2000). Discovering ways to reduce underage drinking among
college students and its associated ramifications is, therefore, a research
priority.
Brown et al. 17
Religiousness has been consistently shown to be inversely associated

with alcohol use (Borynski, 2003; Schall, Kemeny, & Maltzman, 1992;
Wallace & Williams, 1997). In a longitudinal study using latent growth
curve modeling, Wills, Yaeger, and Sandy (2003) found that religious-
ness buffers against adolescent substance use. A consistent inverse rela-
tionship has been reported between alcohol use and both frequency of
service attendance (Adlaf & Smart, 1985; Hadaway, Elifson, & Petersen,
1984) and perceived importance of religion (Jessor, Chase, & Donovan,
1980). College students who drink lightly or infrequently cite religious
beliefs as one of the reasons why they do not drink heavily (Slicker,
1997). Religiousness has also been found to be inversely related to alco-
hol problems. In a study investigating college students’ reasons for not
drinking, Strawser, Storch, Geffken, Killiany, and Baumeister (2004)
found that an increase of one standard deviation in religious faith was
associated with a 16% decrease in the likelihood of alcohol problems.
Thus, religiousness may be a factor to target in an effort to reduce under-
age drinking among college students.
Despite the robust nature of the link between religiousness and alcohol
use, the simplistic way religiousness is typically measured has made
it difficult, if not impossible, to understand the nature of this relation-
ship. Most researchers rely on single-item measures such as frequency
of church attendance or a rating of the importance of religion, a measure-
ment approach that has led to conflicting research findings and confusing
theoretical arguments (for a discussion see Corwyn & Benda, 2000). In-
deed, the few studies that have failed to find support for the relationship
between religiousness and substance use almost invariably operational-
ized religiousness with single-item measures (Corwyn & Benda, 2000).
Consequently, while the existence of a link between religiousness and
alcohol use is well-documented, conceptual questions remain about the
nature of this relationship and the conditions under which, and the mech-
anisms whereby, religiousness influences substance use and other health
outcomes. To answer these questions, a clearer understanding of the
religiousness construct is needed.
Research shows that religiousness is a multifaceted construct. For ex-
ample, religiousness has been conceptualized as including such facets
as intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness (Gorsuch & McPherson, 1989), as
well as beliefs, affiliation or denomination, commitment, quest, experi-
ence, well-being, coping, consequences, and subjective religiousness
(Koenig, McCullough, & Larson, 2001). Kendler et al. (2003) conceptu-
alized religiousness as comprising seven facets–general religiosity, social
religiosity, involved God, forgiveness, God as judge, unvengefulness,
and thankfulness–and they found that not all facets were associated with
alcohol use. While it is obvious that single-item measures are poor repre-
sentations of the multi-faceted nature of this construct, what is also clear
is that religion variables cannot simply be combined into a single scale
that examines the effects of a single variable called “religiousness”
(Fetzer Institute, 2003). To accurately understand the relationship be-
tween religiousness and alcohol use, each relevant facet of religiousness
should be examined separately for its effects. The widespread practice
of using a single item or scale to measure religiousness has meant that
some dimensions of religiousness that are arguably among the most ger-
mane to the study of alcohol use have received minimal empirical atten-
tion. In order to address this shortcoming, one aim of the current study
was to investigate the relationship between religiousness and alcohol
use using multi-item measures that assess multiple facets of this con-
struct to determine whether the various facets of religiousness are as-
sociated with alcohol use in the same way.
A second aim of this study was to investigate whether social support
interacts with facets of religiousness in predicting alcohol use. Research
shows there is a link between social support and substance use. For exam-
ple, Newcomb and Bentler (1988), in a longitudinal study of 654 ado-
lescents, reported that social support was inversely related to substance
use during adolescence and young adulthood, and, for substance users,
it was inversely related to drug problems. Among college students,
Leventhal and Cleary (1980) found that peer and family social support
were negatively correlated with substance use. Emotional support,
problem-solving support, and family intimacy have also been linked to
lower levels of substance use in college students (Fondacaro & Heller,
1983). Moreover, research shows that social support reduces the proba-
bility of initiation of substance use, high rates of usage, and high-risk
drug behavior in adolescents and young adults (Willis & Vaughan, 1989;
Zielony, 1988). Thus, with few exceptions, the consistent finding has
been that there is an inverse relationship between social support and sub-
stance use among underage samples.
Research also shows that there is a relationship between social support
and religiousness. Pargament (1997) has reported that people seem to
look to religion in their yearning for closeness. A common theme in his
research on religion and coping has been that members of religious com-
munities are seeking greater intimacy with other members and a sense of
a larger connectedness that transcends the harriedness of everyday life.
According to Pargament (1997), a three-year case study of a small church
located in one of the most depressed and socially fragmented parts of
Brown et al. 19
an inner city, found that members of the church had larger social sup-
port networks than people not affiliated with an area church. Bradley
(1995) and Ellison and George (1994) have also reported that frequent
churchgoers are more likely to report larger social support networks,
more frequent contacts with others, more instrumental and emotional
support, and greater satisfaction with their social support networks com-
pared to nonchurchgoers and less frequent attenders. Based on this and
other research, George, Larson, Koenig, and McCullough (2000) have
suggested that social support may interact with religiousness in predict-
ing positive health outcomes. We investigate this speculation in this

study. In this study, social support referred to “a general perception that
others are available and desire to provide assistance should the individual
need it” (Pierce, Sarason, & Sarason, 1996, p. 435). We focused on per-
ceived–rather than received–support; it has a more extensive record of
showing an inverse relationship with negative outcomes and research
suggests the perception of available support may be more important than
whether support was recently received (Cohen, Underwood, & Gottlieb,
2000).
A third aim of this study was to investigate whether spirituality is as-
sociated with alcohol use in a similar way as religiousness. Researchers
frequently confound religiousness and spirituality. The interchangeable
use of these terms has created confusion and led to the assumption that a
relationship between religiousness and substance use means there nec-
essarily must be a relationship between spirituality and substance use as
well. Although religiousness and spirituality are related constructs, they
are nonetheless distinct (see Hill et al., 2000; Zinnbauer & Pargament,
2005; Zinnbauer, Pargament, & Scott, 1999). Religiousness has specific
behavioral, social, doctrinal, and denominational characteristics because
it involves a system of worship and doctrine that is shared within a group,
whereas spirituality is concerned with the transcendent, addressing ulti-
mate questions about life’s meaning, and the assumption that there is
more to life than what we see or fully understand (Fetzer Institute, 2003).
Indeed, research shows that while it is possible to be both religious and
spiritual, it is also possible to be religious but not spiritual and vice versa
(Marler & Hadaway, 2002). Not only is spirituality distinguishable from
religiousness, but it is itself a multifaceted construct. MacDonald (2000)
suggests that there are five core facets of spirituality: cognitive orientation
toward spirituality, an experiential/phenomenological dimension, exis-
tential well-being, paranormal beliefs, and general religiousness. Alter-
natively, Piedmont (1999) has suggested that spirituality may represent a
sixth factor of personality that is independent of the Big Five personality
traits, and that it includes components such as a sense of meaning and

purpose in life (universality), the degree of interrelatedness or commu-
nity with others (connectedness), and satisfaction experienced through
prayer and meditation (prayer fulfillment). To investigate the relationship
between spirituality and alcohol use in this study, we measured spiritual-
ity using Piedmont’s multi-faceted conceptualization of the construct.
In sum, reducing underage drinking among college students has be-
come a research priority and a major health goal for the nation. Key to
accomplishing this is discovering factors that protect against alcohol use
and research suggests one such factor may be religiousness. Yet, many
questions remain about the nature of the relationship between religious-
ness and alcohol use and between spirituality and alcohol use. Thus, the
purpose of this study was to investigate three questions. First, are differ-
ent facets of religiousness associated with alcohol use in the same way?
Second, does social support interact with facets of religiousness in pre-
dicting alcohol use? Third, are facets of spirituality associated with al-
cohol use in similar ways as religiousness?
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 263 students from the University of Kentucky who
were attending undergraduate classes (55 were males, 207 were females,
1 person did not answer this question). Participants ranged in age from 17
to 20 years, with a mean age of 19.21 years (SD = 0.8). Twenty percent
were first-year students, 40% were second-year students, 32% were
third-year students, and 8% were fourth-year students. Two hundred
thirty-eight participants (90.5%) were Caucasian, nineteen (7.2%) were
African American, five (1.9%) reported other ethnic backgrounds, and
one person (0.4%) did not respond to this item. With regard to religious
affiliation, 142 participants (54%) reported Protestantism, 83 (32%)
reported Catholicism, 5 (2%) reported other religious affiliations,
29 (11%) reported no religious affiliation, and 2 (1%) did not respond
to this question.
Procedures
Participants were recruited through undergraduate psychology courses
(i.e., general psychology, developmental psychology, psychology of ad-
justment) to participate in a study examining lifestyle factors and health.
Brown et al. 21
Faculty announced this study in their courses and offered extra credit to
students who agreed to participate. Students who chose not to participate
in this study were given an alternative extra credit activity. Thus, partici-
pation in this study was completely voluntary. After providing informed
consent, participants were given a questionnaire packet to complete and
were instructed not to write any identifying information on the packets so
their responses would remain anonymous. Upon completion of the ques-
tionnaire packet, participants received course credit for their participation.
The Institutional Review Board of the University of Kentucky approved
the study protocol and the treatment of participants was in accordance with
the ethical standards of the American Psychological Association.
Measures
Demographics. Participants were asked to indicate their age, gender,

religious affiliation, and highest level of education attained. Additionally,
participants were asked to indicate their ethnic background, which was
coded as Caucasian (N = 238) or non-Caucasian (N = 24).
Religiousness. Religiousness was assessed with the Intrinsic/Extrinsic
Religiousness Scale-Revised (Gorsuch & McPherson, 1989), a 14-item
measure based on Allport and Ross’ (1967) Religious Orientation Scale.
It assesses intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for religious beliefs and be-
havior, commonly understood as “living” versus “using” one’s religion.
The intrinsic motivation subscale is comprised of eight items and mea-
sures motivation for engaging in religious behavior that arises from
within one’s faith tradition. Examples of intrinsic items are: “I try hard
to live all of my life according to my religious beliefs” and “I enjoy read-
ing about my religion.” The extrinsic motivation subscale has six items
and measures the degree to which religious behavior arises from utilitar-
ian motivations. Examples of extrinsic items are: “Prayer is for peace and
happiness” and “I go to church mostly to spend time with my friends.”
Participants responded to all items using a 5-point Likert scale that ranged
from “I strongly disagree” to “I strongly agree.” Cronbach’s alphas for
this study indicated good internal consistency: intrinsic subscale ␣ = .88
and extrinsic subscale ␣ = .79.
Spirituality. To assess spirituality, we administered the Spiritual Tran-
scendence Scale (STS; Piedmont, 1999), a 24-item, self-report measure
that conceives of spirituality as a sixth factor of personality, but one that
has a longer developmental course than the personality domains of the
Five Factor Model. Transcendence is understood as a fundamental, in-
trinsic motivation to find a deeper sense of meaning through subjugating
one’s needs to those of a larger group or cause, and spirituality is con-

sidered one pathway through which this innate need for transcendence
is expressed. The STS consists of three subscales: connectedness, which
measures the degree to which an individual feels a sense of community
and relationship with others (e.g., “I feel that on a higher level, all of us
share a common bond”); prayer fulfillment, which is a more traditional
measure of religion or spirituality (e.g., “I have experienced deep fulfill-
ment and bliss through my prayers and meditations”); and universality,
which assesses an individual’s sense of meaning and purpose in life (e.g.,
“I believe there is a larger plan to life”). Cronbach’s alphas for this study
were connectedness = .52, prayer fulfillment = .77, universality = .82,
and total score = .84.
Social support. We administered the Duke-UNC Functional Social Sup-
port Questionnaire (Broadhead, Gehlbach, DeGruy, & Kaplan, 1988), an
eight-item measure of perceived social support comprising two sub-
scales: confidant support (e.g., “I get chances to talk to someone I trust
about my personal and family problems”) and affective support (e.g., “I
get love and affection”). Respondents rate the extent to which a particular
type of social support occurs on a Likert scale ranging from 1 = “much
less than I would like” to 5 = “as much as I like.” Because these subscales
were so highly correlated in this sample (r = .81, p < .01), they were
combined to form a single global score of social support (␣ = .92).
Social desirability. To control for social desirability, we administered
the Marlowe-Crowne Form C (Reynolds, 1982), a 13-item measure that
assess participants’ tendency to engage in impression management. Sam-
ple items include “I sometimes feel resentful when I don’t get my way,”
and “No matter who I’m talking to, I’m always a good listener.” Re-
sponse options are “true” or “false.” Higher scores are indicative of
greater impression management. Cronbach’s alpha in this study was .71.
Alcohol use. Three indicators of alcohol use were used: average alco-
hol consumption, frequency of alcohol use, and problems associated with
alcohol use. Participants indicated the average number of alcoholic bev-
erages consumed per occasion in the last year (e.g., three drinks in one
evening). Responses ranged from zero, indicating no alcohol use in the
last year, to 13, indicating more than 25 drinks on an average drinking
occasion in the past year. However, most of the sample (95%) reported
consuming 10 or fewer drinks per occasion. Participants also reported the
frequency of alcohol consumption during the past year (e.g., once per
week). Responses ranged from zero, indicating no alcohol use during the
past year, to 17, indicating four or more times a day during the past
year. Finally, participants were asked, “have you ever experienced any
Brown et al. 23
problems or objections to your drinking?” Responses ranged from zero,

indicating “no objections or problems,” to four, indicating “frequent ob-
jections or problems.”
Analytic Strategy
Following an analytic strategy set forth by Aiken and West (1991),

analyses were conducted using a three-step hierarchical regression proce-
dure with a selected alpha level of .05. Prior to conducting the regression
analyses, predictor variables were converted into standardized scores and

interaction terms were created using these standardized scores. This was
done to minimize multicollinearity between the main effects and their
interaction term (Aiken & West, 1991). In the first step of each hierarchi-
cal multiple regression, gender, ethnicity, and social desirability scores
were entered as covariates to control for their relationships with the al-
cohol use outcomes. The second step of each regression included the si-
multaneous entry of the social support and the appropriate spirituality or
religiousness variable. The third step involved the entry of the appropri-
ate interaction term. When an interaction term was significant, it was
interpreted by plotting the moderation effect. The slopes of the simple
regression lines were then tested to determine whether the slopes were
significantly different from zero.
RESULTS
Relationships Among Variables
As shown in Table 1, gender was significantly associated with so-

cial desirability (r = ⫺.17, p < .01) and average alcohol use (r = ⫺.23,
p < .001) such that male participants reported more socially desirable
responding and greater average alcohol use than female participants.
Additionally, gender was significantly related to social support (r = .19,
p < .01) such that female participants reported more social support than
male participants. Ethnicity was significantly related to prayer fulfillment
(r = ⫺.23, p < .001) and intrinsic religiousness (r = ⫺.16, p < .05) such
that Caucasian participants reported lower levels of prayer fulfillment
and intrinsic religiousness than participants from other ethnic back-
grounds. Additionally, ethnicity was significantly associated with alco-
hol use frequency (r = .22, p < .001) and alcohol use problems (r = .17, p <
.01) such that Caucasian participants engaged in more frequent alcohol
24
TABLE 1. Relationships Among Variables
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Gender ⫺.03 ⫺.17** .19** ⫺.05 ⫺.01 .10 .07 ⫺.08 ⫺.23*** .08
2. Ethnicity .07 .04 .05 ⫺.23*** ⫺.16* ⫺.08 .22*** .10 .17**
3. Social Desirability .15* .16* .17** .08 .05 ⫺.01 .03 ⫺.08
4. Social Support .13* .22*** .28*** .20** ⫺.07 ⫺.14* ⫺.04
5. Universality .50*** .29*** .24*** .01 ⫺.06 .02
6. Prayer Fulfillment .62*** .47*** ⫺.17** ⫺.14* ⫺.04
7. Intrinsic Religiousness .39*** ⫺.40*** ⫺.40*** ⫺.19**
8. Extrinsic Religiousness ⫺.07 ⫺.09 ⫺.05
9. Alcohol Use Frequency .76*** .57***
10. Average Alcohol Use .52***
11. Problems with Alcohol
*p ⬍ .05, **p ⬍ .01, ***p ⬍ .001.
Brown et al. 25
use and experienced more problems related to their alcohol use than
participants from other ethnic backgrounds. Social desirability was
positively associated with social support (r = .15, p < .05), universality
(r = .16, p < .05), and prayer fulfillment (r = .17, p < .01). Gender, eth-
nicity, and social desirability exhibited associations with key study
variables and, consequently, were entered as control variables in the
regression analyses.
Additionally, social support was positively associated with all of the
spirituality and religiousness measures (rs = .13 to .28, all ps < .05), and
the spirituality and religiousness measures were positively associated

with each other (rs = .24 to .62, all ps < .001). Finally, alcohol use fre-
quency was significantly related to average alcohol consumption (r = .76,
p < .001) and alcohol use problems (r = .57, p < .001), while average al-
cohol consumption was significantly associated with alcohol use prob-
lems (r = .52, p < .001).
Religiousness and Alcohol Use
We examined whether social support interacted with the two facets of

religiousness (i.e., intrinsic and extrinsic) in predicting alcohol use. Anal-
yses were run separately for each of the three indicators of alcohol use:
frequency of alcohol use, average alcohol consumption, and alcohol use
problems. Because the frequency of alcohol use variable was skewed
we ran analyses twice, once with the variable normalized with a square
root transformation to reduce the skewness and once without the correc-
tion. As results were essentially identical, we present the non-transfor-
med results below.
Frequency of alcohol use. There was a significant main effect for
intrinsic religiousness in predicting frequency of alcohol use (Beta =
⫺.377, p = .00). Individuals who were high in intrinsic religiousness
consumed alcohol less frequently. However, there was no main effect
for social support (Beta = ⫺.040, p = .54) nor for extrinsic religiousness
(Beta = ⫺.027, p = .67). Additionally, neither of the interaction terms
was significant.
Average alcohol consumption. There was a significant main effect for
intrinsic religiousness in predicting average alcohol consumption (Beta =
⫺.365, p = .00). Individuals who were high in intrinsic religiousness
had lower average levels of alcohol consumption. However, there was no
main effect for social support (Beta = ⫺.094, p = .14) nor for extrinsic re-
ligiousness (Beta = ⫺.041, p = .51), and neither of the interaction terms
was significant.
Alcohol use problems. There was a significant main effect for intrinsic
religiousness in predicting alcohol use problems (Beta = ⫺.161, p = .01)
such that people who were high in intrinsic religiousness experienced
fewer problems with, and objections to, their alcohol use. However, the
interaction between social support and intrinsic religiousness was not
significant (Beta = .106, p = .11). Though there were no main effects for
extrinsic religiousness (Beta = –.021, p = .74) or social support (Beta =
–.038, p = .56) in predicting alcohol use problems, their interaction was
significant (Beta = –.193, p = .00; see Table 2). This relationship is

depicted in Figure 1. Simple slope analyses revealed that when social
support is high, there is no relationship between extrinsic religiousness
TABLE 2. Extrinsic Religiousness and Social Support Predicting Alcohol Use

Outcomes
Step and Measure R2 ⌬R2 F for ⌬in R2 df Final Beta

Dependent Variable: Alcohol Use Frequency
Step 1: Covariates .055 .055** 4.904 3,254
Step 2: .057 .003 .342 2,252
Extrinsic .023
Social Support .019
Step 3: Extrinsic ⫻ .062 .005 1.244 1,251 .071
Social Support
Dependent Variable: Average Alcohol Consumption
Step 1: Covariates .068 .068*** 6.196 3,254
Step 2: .079 .011 1.532 2,252
Extrinsic .036
Social Support .072
Step 3: Extrinsic ⫻ .085 .005 1.495 1,251 .077
Social Support
Dependent Variable: Alcohol Use Problems
Step 1: Covariates .038 .038* 3.305 3,254
Step 2: .040 .002 .269 2,252
Extrinsic .011
Social Support .018
Step 3: Extrinsic ⫻ .074 .034** 9.252 1,251 .193**
Social Support
*p ⬍ .05, **p ⬍ .01, ***p ⬍ .001.
Brown et al. 27
FIGURE 1. Relationship Between Extrinsic Religiousness and Alcohol Use

Problems Under Conditions of Low and High Social Support
and alcohol use problems (Beta = .161, p = .06). However, there is a rela-
tionship under conditions of low social support (Beta = –.182, p = .03).
Individuals who were low in social support and low in extrinsic religious-
ness experienced alcohol problems, whereas individuals who were low
in social support but high in extrinsic religiousness did not experience al-
cohol problems.
Spirituality and Alcohol Use
We also examined whether social support interacted with the two fac-
ets of spirituality (universality and prayer fulfillment) in predicting alco-
hol use. The facet of connectedness was not examined due to its low
reliability in this sample. Again, analyses were run separately for each
of the three indicators of alcohol use.
Frequency of alcohol use. There were no main effects for social sup-
port (Beta = –.061, p = .34) or universality (Beta = .009, p = .88) in pre-
dicting frequency of alcohol use. However, as can be seen in Table 3,
the interaction between social support and universality was significant
(Beta = –.137, p = .03). This relationship is depicted in Figure 2. Simple
slope analyses revealed that under conditions of low social support, there
was no relationship between universality and alcohol use frequency.
However, individuals high in universality and high in social support
consumed alcohol less frequently than those high in universality and
TABLE 3. Universality and Social Support Predicting Alcohol Use Outcomes
Step and Measure R2 ⌬R2 F for ⌬ in R2 df Final Beta

Dependent Variable: Alcohol Use Frequency
Step 1: Covariates .056 .056** 5.051 3, 257
Step 2: .059 .003 .463 2, 255
Universality .097
Social Support .017

Step 3: Universality ⫻ Social Support .076 .017* 4.610 1, 254 ⫺.137*
Dependent Variable: Average Alcohol Consumption
Step 1: Covariates .062 .062*** 5.666 3, 257
Step 2: .075 .013 1.854 2, 255
Universality .090
Social Support .125
Step 3: Universality ⫻ Social Support .090 .014* 4.020 1, 254 .127*
Dependent Variable: Alcohol Use Problems
Step 1: Covariates .041 .041* 3.684 3, 257
Step 2: .045 .004 .479 2, 255
Universality .046
Social Support .040
Step 3: Universality ⫻ Social Support .048 .003 .911 1, 254 .062
*p ⬍ .05, **p ⬍ .01, ***p ⬍ .001.
low in social support. There was no significant main effect for prayer ful-
fillment (Beta = –.106, p = .10), nor was there a significant interaction be-
tween social support and prayer fulfillment (Beta = –.065, p = .30).
Average alcohol consumption. There were no main effects for social
support (Beta = –.092, p = .15) or universality (Beta = –.066, p = .28) in
predicting average alcohol consumption. However, as can be seen in
Table 3, the interaction between social support and universality was sig-
nificant (Beta = –.127, p = .04). This relationship is depicted in Figure 3.
Much like the findings for frequency of alcohol use, simple slope analy-
ses revealed that individuals who were high in universality and high in
social support consumed less alcohol on average than individuals who
were either high in universality and low in social support (Beta = –.615,
Brown et al. 29
FIGURE 2. Relationship Between Universality and Frequency of Alcohol Use

Under Conditions of Low and High Social Support
FIGURE 3. Relationship Between Universality and Average Alcohol Consump-

tion Under Conditions of Low and High Social Support
p = .01) or low universality and high social support (Beta = –.190, p =

.03). Prayer fulfillment was not a significant predictor of average alcohol
consumption (Beta = –.11, p = .09), nor was there a significant interaction
between social support and prayer fulfillment (Beta = –.084, p = .18).
Alcohol use problems. There were no significant main effects or in-
teractions with spirituality in predicting alcohol use problems.
DISCUSSION
This study sought to answer three questions. The first question was
whether different facets of religiousness were related to alcohol use in
the same way. The answer to this question is no. We assessed two facets
of religiousness: intrinsic religiousness, and extrinsic religiousness.
While extrinsic religiousness was not associated at the bivariate level
with any of the alcohol use variables examined in this study, intrinsic reli-
giousness was with two of them: frequency of alcohol use and average al-
cohol consumption. Specifically, being high in intrinsic religiousness
was associated with less frequent alcohol use, less alcohol consump-
tion on average, and fewer alcohol problems. This pattern of findings
is consistent with existing literature. As in this study, Galen and Rogers
(2004), Storch et al. (2003), and Templin and Martin (1999) found in-
trinsic religiousness to be associated with alcohol use among college
students, but none of these researchers found a relationship between
extrinsic religiousness and alcohol use. The finding of no relation-
ship between extrinsic religiousness and alcohol use is important be-
cause it qualifies past findings that people who are more “religious” tend
to drink less and highlights the importance of assessing multiple facets
of religiousness. Such a multi-faceted measurement approach will help
researchers better understand the nature of the religion-alcohol use link
because it will provide a more refined measure of religiousness–and, con-
sequently, its association with outcomes–than will unidimensional scales
or single-item measures.
In addition to replicating the findings of this study, future research
should investigate other facets of religiousness not examined in this study
(e.g., beliefs about God, vengefulness, and level of religious activity), as
well as other aspects of the religious experience such as beliefs toward
drinking. Clark, Beeghley, and Cochran (1990) have suggested that reli-
gious norms–that is, beliefs about drinking–may be an important determi-
nant of how much or whether a person drinks. To better understand the
nature and conditions under which religiousness is related to alcohol use
Brown et al. 31
among college students, future research should use specific measures of

facets of the religiousness construct such as those examined in this study
rather than single-item or scale measures. Such an approach will provide
more information than rougher estimates like affiliation and attendance
and might help clear up inconsistencies in the extant literature regarding
the relationship between religiousness and substance use.
The second question was whether social support interacts with reli-
giousness in predicting alcohol use. The answer to this question is it de-
pends on the alcohol use variable. While social support did not interact
with religiousness in predicting frequency of alcohol use or average alco-

hol consumption, there was a significant interaction in predicting prob-
lems with alcohol use. Extrinsic religiousness interacted with social
support in predicting alcohol problems but intrinsic religiousness did
not. Specifically, under conditions of low social support, low extrinsic
religiousness was associated with more alcohol problems and high ex-
trinsic religiousness was associated with fewer alcohol problems. In
other words, those who had low social support and used their religion as
a means to an end had fewer problems with alcohol, whereas those with
low social support who did not use their religion as a means to an end
had more problems with alcohol. While these findings are difficult to un-
derstand, it is possible that social support serves as a protective factor
against alcohol problems. Thus, individuals with lower levels of social
support may be using the church setting as an opportunity to increase
their levels of social support (e.g., “I go to church to meet people”) or
they may be using their religion as a means to cope (e.g., “Prayer is for
peace and happiness”) and this, in turn, may be providing a buffering ef-
fect against potential problems associated with their alcohol use. Alter-
natively, those individuals who do not have adequate social support and
who also do not use their religion as a means to an end may be at greater
risk of experiencing problems with their alcohol use. Unfortunately, these
interpretations are speculative since the cross-sectional design of this
study precludes conclusions regarding causality. Future research using
longitudinal designs would help illumine the nature of this relationship.
That social support played no role in predicting frequency of alcohol
use and average alcohol consumption suggests that George and col-
leagues’ (2000) speculation that social support plays a role in the relation-
ship between religiousness and alcohol use may be only partially true.
That is, the role of social support, rather than being universal, may be
limited to certain substance use variables (e.g., alcohol problems rather
than alcohol use) and certain religiousness variables (e.g., extrinsic reli-
giousness rather than intrinsic religiousness). Additional research using
more comprehensive measures of alcohol use and social support is

needed to better understand why social support may be protective in cer-
tain instances and not in others. One possible reason not examined in this
study and therefore warranting investigation concerns the nature of social
support relationships. For example, research shows that while social sup-
port has many beneficial aspects, social support networks characterized
by negativity are associated with physical and mental health problems
(Finch, 1998; Finch, Okun, Pool, & Ruehlman, 1999). An examination
of the nature of college students’ social interactions may more clearly
delineate conditions under which social support has positive versus

harmful effects (Bertera, 2005).
Future research should also examine different types of social support
(e.g., emotional support vs. instrumental support) as well as different
sources of support (e.g., support from family vs. friends). One source of
support that would be particularly informative is religious social support.
Given the potential importance various church and religious groups can
have in providing supportive social networks that serve as protective
factors against underage drinking (Mahoney et al., 2005; Nonnemaker,
McNeely, & Blum, 2005; Wallace, Brown, Bachman, & LaVeist, 2003),
an index of religious social support might be informative. Additionally,
although this study focused on “perceived” social support, research is
needed that investigates whether the same pattern of finding would
emerge for “received” social support. Based on extant research (e.g.,
Cohen, Underwood, & Gottlieb, 2000), we speculate that different pat-
terns might emerge with received support but this is an empirical question
that should be investigated directly.
Despite the fact that “spirituality training” is used by the main drug and
alcohol treatment programs for addiction (Patock-Peckham, Hutchinson,
Cheong, & Nagoshi, 1998), spirituality has been largely ignored by drug
and alcohol researchers. Consequently, we know comparatively little
about the relationship between spirituality and substance use or even if
there is a relationship. Given that spirituality and religiousness are often
confounded in the literature, it is commonly assumed that the relationship
between alcohol use and religiousness is probably the same for spiritual-
ity. Thus, the third question investigated in this study was whether spiri-
tuality is associated with alcohol use in the same way that religiousness
is, and the findings of this study suggest the answer is no. Although both
were associated with alcohol use, the patterns of association were very
different. Moreover, not all of the facets of spirituality were related to
alcohol use in this study. Prayer fulfillment and connectedness were not
associated with any of the alcohol use or alcohol problem variables we
Brown et al. 33
investigated. However, universality was associated with frequency of

alcohol use and average alcohol consumption, though not with alcohol
problems. Thus, whether there is a relationship between spirituality and
alcohol use, like with religiousness, depends on which facet of spiritual-
ity is being investigated.
In this study, universality was associated with frequency of alcohol
use and average alcohol consumption but only under conditions of high
social support. That is, being high in social support and high in universal-
ity was predictive of infrequent alcohol use and lower average alcohol
consumption. Those individuals with greater meaning and purpose in

their lives (i.e., universality) who also reported higher levels of social
support reported less frequent alcohol use and lower levels of consump-
tion relative to those with less meaning and purpose in life. Thus, it
seems plausible that spiritual beliefs that provide meaning and purpose
may have a protective effect for underage college students who drink, but
only for those who have higher levels of social support. Given the sparse
literature on the relationship between spirituality and alcohol use, it is dif-
ficult to understand this finding regarding universality and why other fac-
ets of spirituality were not related to alcohol use at all. One possibility is
that the effects of universality are not strong enough to manifest in the
context of low social support. That is, having spiritual beliefs that provide
meaning and purpose may buttress existing social support resources, but
individuals with low support may remain at risk for alcohol use even if
they have spiritual beliefs that provide them meaning and purpose. An-
other possibility is the universality variable may be related to personal
maturity (e.g., level headedness) such that individuals reporting higher
levels of universality may be more grounded and mature and, therefore,
not need alcohol. Research that explores these two possibilities as well
as other possible explanations for this finding is needed to better under-
stand the relationship between spirituality and social support in predict-
ing alcohol use among college students.
This study advances the literature on alcohol use among underage
college students. Moreover, that we were able to detect the small effects
observed in this study despite our modest sample size and the use of
covariates–factors that make it exceedingly difficult to detect small ef-
fects when they exist–renders the substantive contributions of this study
even more impressive (Prentice & Miller, 1992). However, this study’s
findings must be considered in light of its main limitations. First, the
sample used in this study was predominantly female and while females
typically report stronger religious values and beliefs (Donahue, 1985;
Donahue & Benson, 1995; Gallop & Bezilla, 1992), males tend to engage
in more alcohol use (Johnston et al., 2004). Consequently, a sample that

includes equal representation of males and females would provide more
information about the interaction of religiousness and spirituality with so-
cial support in predicting alcohol use among underage college students.
Second, the sample comprised primarily of Caucasians. Research with
ethnic minorities has consistently demonstrated that they report higher
religious and spiritual beliefs and values than Caucasians (Donahue &
Benson, 1995; Elkind, 1999; Taylor, Mattis, & Chatters, 1999) and they
consume less alcohol and drink less frequently than Caucasians (Beck,
1992; Brown, Parks, Zimmerman, & Phillips, 2001). Thus, it is likely

that the findings that emerged in this study might not generalize to other
ethnic groups. A replication of this study with college students of color
is needed to determine whether the results of this study apply to all col-
lege students or only to Caucasian students.
Third, although it went beyond quantity and frequency measures of
alcohol to ask participants whether they had experienced problems and/
or objections to their alcohol use, this study did not provide information
about the specific nature of the problems and objections participants ex-
perienced. As it is likely that religiousness and spirituality are associated
with some problem areas and not with others, research is needed that
provides a more fine-grained and comprehensive assessment of specific
alcohol problem areas. For example, the Drinker Inventory of Conse-
quences (Miller, Tonigan, & Longabaugh, 1995) provides information
about various aspects of alcohol-related problems (e.g., interpersonal, so-
cial responsibility, and impulse control consequences). Using such mea-
sures would permit the investigation of the ways in which various
alcohol problems are differentially associated with religiousness and
spirituality, and the degree to which third variables like social support
influence the nature of these relationships.
Finally, the cross-sectional design of this study limits inferences about
causality. Although we discussed the possible protective effects of re-
ligiousness and spirituality, language that implies causality, these are
merely speculations as it is not possible to know causality apart from a
randomized, controlled experiment. Unfortunately, and as is commonly
the case in psychology, it is not possible to conduct such an experiment
with regard to the effects of religiousness and spirituality on behavior
since it is not possible to randomly assign people to religions and spiritual
experiences. Thus, we have used the results of this (and other) studies to
speculate about possible causal mechanisms and protective effects. But,
the reader is cautioned that causality cannot be known with certainty
from cross-sectional designs like the one used in this study. In studying
Brown et al. 35
the impact of various factors such as social support, religiousness, and

spirituality on alcohol use, using research designs that can identify
causal pathways would ultimately be more informative.
CONCLUSION
In sum, these data suggest that the relationship between social support
and alcohol use varies as a function of several key variables–the outcome

of interest, whether one is investigating religiousness or spirituality, and
the particular facet of the religiousness and spirituality constructs. Conse-
quently, three key points can be highlighted. First of all, religiousness and
spirituality are related but distinct constructs. Conceptualizing these con-
structs as interchangeable may obscure key contributions that each can
provide to the study of religion, spirituality, and alcohol use. Second, reli-
giousness and spirituality are multifaceted constructs and measures of
these constructs should be multi-item and multi-faceted in order to more
clearly identify the nature of the link between these variables and key al-
cohol variables. Third, the relationship between religiousness and alcohol
problems and between spirituality and alcohol use varies as a function
of the level of social support. Future work examining the link between
religiousness and alcohol use and between spirituality and alcohol use
should continue to incorporate the relevance of moderating and mediat-
ing variables. By understanding the interaction of multiple factors on
underage college student drinking, knowledge about these processes
can be furthered and this information can then be used to guide the design
of successful prevention and intervention approaches.
REFERENCES
Adlaf, E. M., & Smart, R. G. (1985). Drug use, religious affiliation, feelings, and
behavior. British Journal of the Addictions, 80, 163-171.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Beck, K. H., & Zannis, M. (1992). Patterns of alcohol consumption among suburban
adolescent Black high school students. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 37,
1-13.
Bertera, E. M. (2005). Mental health in U.S. adults: The role of positive social support
and social negativity in personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Re-
lationships, 22(1), 33-48.
Borynski, M. L. (2003). Factors related to reductions in alcohol consumption among

college students: The role of religious involvement. Current Psychology:
Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 22(2), 138-148.
Bradley, D. (1995). Religious involvement and social resources: Evidence from the
data set “Americans’ Changing Lives.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
34, 259-267.
Broadhead, W.E., Gehlbach, S.H., DeGruy, F.V., & Kaplan, B.H. (1988). The Duke-
UNC Functional Social Support Questionnaire: Measurement of social support in
family medicine patients. Medical Care, 26, 709-723.
Brown, T. L., Parks, G. S., Zimmerman, R. S., & Phillips, C. M. (2001). The role of
religion in predicting adolescent alcohol use and problem drinking. Journal of Stud-
ies on Alcohol, 62, 696-705.
Chen, K., & Kandel, D. B. (1995). The natural history of drug use from adolescence to
the mid-thirties in a general population sample. American Journal of Public Health,
85(1), 41-47.
Clark, L., Beeghley, L., & Cochran, J. K. (1990). Religiosity, social class, and alcohol
use: An application of reference group theory. Sociological Perspectives, 33,
201-218.
Cohen, S., Underwood, L. G., & Gottlieb, B. H. (2000). Social support measurement
and intervention: A guide for health and social scientists. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Corwyn, R. F., & Benda, B. B. (2000). Religiosity and church attendance: The effects
of use of “hard drugs” controlling for sociodemographic and theoretical factors.
International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 10, 241-259.
Donahue, M. J., (1985). Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: Review and meta-analysis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 400-419.
Donahue, M. J., & Benson, P. L. (1995). Religion and the well-being of adolescents.
Journal of Social Issues, 51, 145-160.
Elkind, D. (1999). Religious development in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 22,
291-295.
Ellison, C. G., & George, L. E. (1994). Religious involvement, social ties, and social
support in a Southeastern community. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
33, 46-61.
Finch, J. F. (1998). Social undermining, support satisfaction, and affect: A domain-
specific lagged effects model. Journal of Personality, 66, 315-334.
Finch, J. F., Okun, M. A., Pool, G. J., & Ruehlman, L. S. (1999). A comparison of the
influence of conflictual and supportive social interactions on psychological distress.
Journal of Personality, 67, 581-622.
Fetzer Institute. (2003). Multidimensional measurement of religiousness/spirituality
for use in health research: A report of the Fetzer Institute/National Institute on
Aging Working Group. Kalamazoo, MI: Fetzer Institute.
Fondacaro, M. R., & Heller, K. (1983). Social support factors and drinking among
college student males. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 12, 285-299.
Galen, L. W., & Rogers, W. M. (2004). Religiosity, alcohol expectancies, drinking
motives, and their interaction in the prediction of drinking among college students.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 65(4), 469-476.
Brown et al. 37
Gallup, G. H., & Bezilla, R. (1992). The religious life of young America. Princeton, NJ:
The George H. Gallup International Institute.
George, L. K., Larson, D. B., Koenig, H. G., & McCullough, M. E. (2000). Spirituality
and health: What we know, what we need to know. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 19, 102-116.
Gorsuch, R. L., & McPherson, S. E., (1989). Intrinsic/extrinsic measurement: I/E-Re-
vised and single-item scales. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28(3),
348-354.
Hadaway, C. K., Elifson, K. W., & Peterson, D. M. (1984). Religious involvement and
drug use among urban adolescents. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 23,
109-128.
Hill, P. C., Pargament, K. I., Hood, R. W., McCullough, M. E., Swyers, J. P., Larson,
D. B., & Zinnbauer, B. J. (2000). Conceptualizing religion and spirituality: Points
of commonality, points of departure. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior,
30(1), 51-77.
Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. C., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2004).
Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug abuse, 1975-2003: Volume
II, college students and adults age 19-45 (NIH Publication No. 04-5508). Bethesda,
MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. Accessed online on May 9, 2005 at http://
www.monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/vol2_2003.pdf.
Jessor, R., Chase, J. A., & Donovan, J. E., (1980). Psychosocial correlates of marijuana
abuse and problem drinking in a national sample of adolescents. American Journal
of Public Health, 70, 604-613.
Kendler, K. S., Liu, X-Q, Gardner, C. O., McCullough, M. E., Larson, D., & Prescott,
C. A. (2003). Dimensions of religiosity and their relationship to lifetime psychiatric
and substance use disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160(3), 496-503.
Koenig, H. B., McCullough, M. E., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Handbook of religion and
health. London: Oxford University Press.
Levanthal, H. & Cleary, P. D. (1980). The smoking problem: A review of research and
theory. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 370-405.
MacDonald, D.A. (2000). Spirituality: Description, measurement, and relation to the
five factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 68, 153-97.
Mahoney, A., Carels, R. A., Pargament, K. I., Wachholtz, A., Leeper, L. E., Kaplar, M.,
& Frutchey, R. (2005). The sanctification of the body and behavioral health patterns
of college students. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 15(3),
221-238.
Marler, P. L., & Hadaway, C. K. (2002). “Being religious” or “being spiritual” in
America: A zero-sum proposition? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
41(2), 289-300.
Miller, W. R., Tonigan, J. S., & Longabough, R. (1995). The Drinker Inventory of
Consequences (DrInC): An instrument for assessing adverse consequences of alco-
hol abuse. Project MATCH Monograph Series, Vol. 4. DHHS Pub No. 95-3911.
Rockville, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
Newcomb, M. S., & Bentler, P. M. (1988). Impact of adolescent drug use and social
support on problems of young adults: A longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal
Nonnemaker, J. M., McNeely, C. A., & Blum R. W. (2005). Public and private do-
mains of religiosity and adolescent health risk behaviors: Evidence from the Na-
tional Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Social Science and Medicine,
57(11), 2049-2054.
Pargament, K. I. (1997). The psychology of religion and coping: Theory, research, and
practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Patock-Peckham, J. A., Hutchinson, G. T., Cheong, J., & Nagoshi, C. T. (1998). Effect
of religion and religiosity on alcohol use in a college student sample. Drug and
Alcohol Dependence, 49, 81-88.
Piedmont, R. L. (1999). Does spirituality represent the sixth factor of personality?

Journal of Personality, 67, 985-1013.
Pierce, G. P., Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (1996). Coping and social support. In
M. Zeidner & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping: Theory, research, and
applications (pp. 434-451). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1992). When small effects are impressive. Psychologi-
cal Bulletin, 112, 160-164.
Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the
Marlowe-Crowne Scale of Social Desirability. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
38(1), 119-125.
Schall, M., Kemeny, A., & Maltzman, I. (1992). Factors associated with alcohol use in
university students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 53, 122-136.
Slicker, E. K. (1997). University students’ reasons for NOT drinking: Relationship to
alcohol consumption level. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 42(2), 83-102.
Storch, E. A., Storch, J. B., Kovacs, A. H., Okun, A., & Welsh, E. (2003). Intrinsic reli-
giosity and substance use in intercollegiate athletes. Journal of Sports and Exercise
Psychology, 25(2), 248-252.
Strawser, M. S., Storch, E. A., Geffken, G. R., Killiany, E. M., & Baumeister, A. L.
(2004). Religious faith and substance problems in undergraduate college students:
A replication. Pastoral Psychology, 53(2), 183-188.
Taylor, R. J., Mattis, J., & Chatters, L. M. (1999). Subjective religiosity among African
Americans: A synthesis of findings from five national samples. Journal of Black
Templin, D. P., & Martin, M. J. (1999). The relationship between religious orientation,
gender, and drinking patterns among Catholic college students. College Student
Journal, 33(4), 488-495.
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). Health people 2010: Under-
standing and improving health and objectives for improving health. 2nd edition,
volume 2, Goal 26-11. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Washington,
DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. Available online at http://www.health.gov/
healthypeople/. Accessed on April 8, 2005.
Vicary, J., & Karshin, C. M. (2002). College alcohol abuse: A review of the problems,
issues, and prevention approaches. Journal of Primary Prevention, 22(3), 299-331.
Wallace, J. M., Brown, T. N., Bachman, J. G., & LaVeist, T. A. (2003). The influence
of race and religion on abstinence from alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana among
adolescents. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64(6), 843-848.
Brown et al. 39
Wallace, J. M., & Williams, D. R. (1997). Religion and adolescent health-compromising

behavior. In J. L. Maggs & J. Schulenberg (Eds.), Health risks and developmental
transitions during adolescence (pp. 444-468). New York, NY: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Wechsler, H., Lee, J. E., Nelson, T. F., & Kuo, M. (2000). Underage college students’
drinking behavior, access to alcohol, and the influence of deterrence policies: Find-
ings from the Harvard School of Public Health college alcohol study. Journal of
American College Health, 50(5), 223-236.
Wechsler, H., Moeykens, B. Davenport, A., Castillo, S., & Hansen, J. (1995). The
adverse impact of heavy episodic drinkers on other college students. Journal of
Studies on Alcohol, 56, 628-634.

Wills, R. A., Yaeger, A. M., & Sandy, J. M. (2003). Buffering effect of religiosity for
adolescent substance use. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 17(1), 24-31.
Wills, T. A., & Vaughan, R. (1989). Social support and substance use in early adoles-
cence. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 12, 321-339.
Zielony, R. (1988). Psychosocial predictors of AIDS risk behavior in methadone
maintenance patients. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Farkauf Graduate School
of Psychology, New York.
Zinnbauer, B. J., & Pargament, K. I. (2005). Religiousness and spirituality. In R. F.
Paloutzian & C. L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spiritu-
ality (pp. 21-42). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Zinnbauer, B. J., Pargament, K. I., & Scott, A. B. (1999). The emerging meanings of
religiousness and spirituality: Problems and prospects. Journal of Personality, 67(6),
889-919.
RECEIVED: 11/10/05
REVISED: 01/17/06
ACCEPTED: 03/07/06
doi:10.1300/J029v17n02_02

Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Michigan State University]

On: 24 December 2014, At: 11:29

Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse

Religiousness, Spirituality, and Social Support: How

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J029v17n02_02

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

ABSTRACT. The U.S. Surgeon General has declared underage drink-

assessing multiple facets of each construct, and assessing multiple indica-

KEYWORDS. Underage college drinking, religiousness, spirituality,

Drinking among college students is a major national concern (Vicary &

Religiousness has been consistently shown to be inversely associated

ing positive health outcomes. We investigate this speculation in this

traits, and that it includes components such as a sense of meaning and

Demographics. Participants were asked to indicate their age, gender,

one’s needs to those of a larger group or cause, and spirituality is con-

problems or objections to your drinking?” Responses ranged from zero,

Following an analytic strategy set forth by Aiken and West (1991),

analyses, predictor variables were converted into standardized scores and

Relationships Among Variables

As shown in Table 1, gender was significantly associated with so-

the spirituality and religiousness measures were positively associated

Religiousness and Alcohol Use

We examined whether social support interacted with the two facets of

significant (Beta = –.193, p = .00; see Table 2). This relationship is

TABLE 2. Extrinsic Religiousness and Social Support Predicting Alcohol Use

Step and Measure R2 ⌬R2 F for ⌬in R2 df Final Beta

FIGURE 1. Relationship Between Extrinsic Religiousness and Alcohol Use

Spirituality and Alcohol Use

TABLE 3. Universality and Social Support Predicting Alcohol Use Outcomes

Step and Measure R2 ⌬R2 F for ⌬ in R2 df Final Beta

Social Support .017

FIGURE 2. Relationship Between Universality and Frequency of Alcohol Use

FIGURE 3. Relationship Between Universality and Average Alcohol Consump-

p = .01) or low universality and high social support (Beta = –.190, p =

among college students, future research should use specific measures of

with religiousness in predicting frequency of alcohol use or average alco-

more comprehensive measures of alcohol use and social support is

delineate conditions under which social support has positive versus

investigated. However, universality was associated with frequency of

consumption. Those individuals with greater meaning and purpose in

in more alcohol use (Johnston et al., 2004). Consequently, a sample that

1992; Brown, Parks, Zimmerman, & Phillips, 2001). Thus, it is likely

the impact of various factors such as social support, religiousness, and

and alcohol use varies as a function of several key variables–the outcome

Borynski, M. L. (2003). Factors related to reductions in alcohol consumption among

Piedmont, R. L. (1999). Does spirituality represent the sixth factor of personality?

Wallace, J. M., & Williams, D. R. (1997). Religion and adolescent health-compromising

Studies on Alcohol, 56, 628-634.

You might also like