Effects of Team Climate on Substance Use Behaviors,

Perceptions, and Attitudes of Student-Athletes at a Large,

Public University

Jennifer E. Tomon, S. Raymond Ting

Journal of College Student Development, Volume 51, Number 2, March/April

2010, pp. 162-179 (Article)

Published by Johns Hopkins University Press

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0126

For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/376345

[ This content has been declared free to read by the pubisher during the COVID-19 pandemic. ]
Effects of Team Climate on Substance Use
Behaviors, Perceptions, and Attitudes of
Student-Athletes at a Large, Public University
Jennifer E. Tomon   S. Raymond Ting
College student-athletes comprise a special
group on the college campus owing to their
dual roles as students and athletes. Although
many positives are associated with being a
student-athlete (Nelson & Wechsler, 2001),
researchers have found that this population
is faced with unique academic, physical,
and social stressors that put student-athletes
at greater risk for substance use than their
nonathlete peers (e.g., Baer, 2002; Hildebrand,
Johnson, & Bogle, 2001; Huang, Jacobs,
Derevensky, Gupta, & Paskus, 2007; Presley,
Meilman, & Leichliter, 2002; Wilson,
Pritchard, & Schaffer, 2004). These studies
have indicated that college student-athletes
binge drink at higher rates than nonathletes
and that binge drinking tends to increase as
participation in athletics increases. In addition,
Leinfelt and Thompson (2004) found that
student-athletes were three times more likely
to be arrested for alcohol-related behaviors
than nonathletes. However, studies comparing
the non-medical drug use of student-athletes
and their peers have been inconclusive, with
Huang and coworkers (2007) and Wechsler,
Davenport, Dowdell, and Grossman (1997)
finding lower rates of drug use among college
student-athletes compared with the findings
of Nattiv and Puffer (1991) and Rockafellow
and Saules (2006), which showed higher
rates of drug use among the student-athlete
population. The work of Rockafellow and
Saules has suggested that extrinsic motivation
Jennifer E. Tomon is Assistant Director of Student Advising Center in School of Education at The University of North
Carolina–Greensboro. S. Raymond Ting is Associate Professor of Curriculum and Instruction at North Carolina
State University.
162 Journal of College Student Development
within the athletic community may impact
the higher rates of substance use among the
student-athlete population.
Bandura’s Social Learning
Theory
Bandura’s Social Learning Theory (1969, 1977)
focused on the idea that people learn within a
social context of observation, imitation, and
modeling (Ormrod, 1999). Bandura’s concept
of reinforcement may provide insight into
the choices student-athletes make in regard
to substance use (Bandura, 1977). Bandura
described three types of reinforcement: vicarious
reinforcement, differential reinforcement, and
self-reinforcement. Diacin, Parks, and Allison
(2003) found that all of the participating
athletes’ responses were consistent with the
different types of reinforcement discussed
by Bandura. Social deviance among student-
athletes explains the relationship between
Bandura’s concepts of reinforcement and the
behaviors and attitudes of student-athletes.
Hughes and Coakley (1991) found that much
of the social deviance that existed within the
college student-athlete population resulted from
overconformity to the norms and values of the
team or sport. Through vicarious reinforcement
and differential reinforcement, the student-
athletes saw overconformity via participation in
behaviors that please coaches and teammates as
a necessary means to success and acceptance.
Team Climate and Student–Athlete Substance Use
Social Norms Approach
The social norms approach (Berkowitz &
Perkins, 1987; Perkins & Berkowitz, 1986)
has become a popular method for reducing
high-risk behaviors on college campuses. The
theoretical basis for the approach stemmed
from the idea that individuals, especially
college students, typically overestimate the
frequency with which their peers engage in
risky behaviors, thus leading to behaviors that
coincide with the individuals’ misperceptions
(Perkins, 2003). Perkins found that when an
individual observed peers using substances and
was unaware of the peers’ typical behavior,
an individual assumed that the peers’ use
of substances was their normal behavior. In
addition, people tended to remember the
negative behaviors (e.g., those getting drunk
versus those not drinking), which contributed
to pluralistic ignorance. This ignorance may
then lead to behaviors consistent with the
perceived norms. For example, Kandel and
Yamaguchi (1999) and Peters and coworkers
(2005) found that the behaviors of one’s peers
were the largest indicators of marijuana use
and ephedrine use, respectively.
The research of Perkins (2003) and
Martens and associates (2006) found that most
college students perceive substantially more
substance use than what really occurs among
college students. The findings also revealed
that students who would normally drink
moderately based on their own inclinations
might drink more heavily if they believe that
to be the expectation of their peer group.
Also, students who are heavy drinkers might
perceive themselves to be in the majority,
thus not seeking to remedy their negative
behaviors. Perkins (2003) found in his own
research and in an extensive review of other
social norms studies that the perception of
substance use behaviors and attitudes of other
college students was a stronger predictor of
M arch /A pril 2010  ◆  vol 51 no 2 163
substance use than gender, Greek affiliation,
or substance availability. Studies also showed
that social drinking motives (as well as coping-
related motives) were associated with negative
substance-related consequences among the
student-athlete population (Brennan, Walfish,
& AuBuchon, 1986; Martens, Cox, & Beck,
2003; Pleck, 1981; Wilson et al., 2004).
In researching the data collected from 100
colleges and universities that participated in
the Core Institute Alcohol and Drug Survey
(Presley & Meilman, 1989), Perkins, Meilman,
Leichliter, Cashin, and Presley (1999) found
that most of the students at all of the institutions
surveyed perceived substantially more alcohol
use among their peers than what actually
occurred. Multiple studies reviewed by Perkins
(2003) demonstrated the influence of norm
perceptions on behavior in both a positive and
negative way. Martens, Page, Mowry, Damann,
Taylor, and Cimini (2006) found that, as in
previous studies of the social norms approach,
students overestimated their peers’ alcohol and
drug use as well as their sexual behaviors. The
researchers also found a positive relationship
between the students’ behaviors and their
perceptions of the norms, again demonstrating
the influence of perceived peer behaviors on
an individual’s actual behaviors.
When the social norms approach was
analyzed with respect to student-athletes,
the results were the same as the previous
social norms studies that were conducted
institution wide. In a study designed to
determine whether or not the social norms
perceptions differed between student-athletes
and nonathletes, Roland (2001) found that
there was no difference between student-
athletes and nonathletes in terms of social
norms perceptions. Roland surveyed 258
student-athletes (all but 12 of the total
student-athlete population) from 11 different
varsity athletic teams and 78 students from the
nonathlete population and found that both

groups on campus overestimated their peers’
alcohol use, which was consistent with previous
research on the social norms approach.
A study of the relationship between team
norms, team cohesion, and performance by
Patterson, Carron, and Loughead (2005)
demonstrated that, on teams with high levels
of cohesiveness, there was more pressure
for teammates to conform to group norms.
In this study, 298 student-athletes from 24
different athletic teams completed the Team
Norm Questionnaire (Carron, Prapavessis,
& Estabrooks, 1999), which was designed
to estimate the strength of team norms,
and the Group Environment Questionnaire
(GEQ; Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985),
which was used to measure perceptions of
team cohesiveness. The results of the surveys
indicated that the perceived social norms of
the teams and the team climates impacted the
behaviors of the team members.
Current Study
Research on Bandura’s (1969, 1977) social
learning theory and the social norms approach
have shown that students’ substance use
behaviors are affected by reinforcement based
on peer influences and perceptions created
by group norms. Despite the evidence that
student-athletes participate in substance use
at higher rates and that these behaviors differ
by team/sport affiliation, no prior research
has been conducted to explain why these
differences in usage rates within the athletic
community occur. From the existing research,
it seems likely that social norms may vary
depending on the team/sport. Some team
climates may condone the use of substances
as a social function or coping mechanism,
whereas others may apply pressure to conform
to the established norms of the team. The
current study sought to determine the impact
that the social context of team climate has
164 Journal of College Student Development
Tomon & Ting
on student-athletes’ substance use behaviors,
perceptions, and attitudes. The hypothesis is
that team climate (as measured by scores on the
enmeshment/influencing and discouraging of
substance use subscales of the Student-Athlete
Team Climate Substance Use Survey) will
have a significant effect on student-athletes’
substance use behaviors, perceptions, and
attitudes. In analyzing other potential effects,
the relationship between several demographic
variables, including team affiliation (team:
e.g., baseball and soccer; and individual: e.g.,
cross-country and diving), sport affiliation
(revenue: football, basketball, and baseball;
and nonrevenue: e.g., track and field, tennis,
and swimming), years of collegiate athletic
participation, gender, race/ethnicity, and
substance use behaviors, perceptions, and
attitudes were also explored.
Methodology
To collect the data for this study, the researchers
adapted the 68-item Student-Athlete Team
Climate and Substance Use Survey (SATCSUS)
from four previous substance use-related
surveys: the Monitoring the Future Survey
(MTF; Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, &
Schulenberg, 2007), the Usage Pattern and
Attitude Scale (UPAS; Marcello, Danish,
& Stolberg, 1989), the Drinking Motives
Measure (DMM; Cooper, 1994; Cooper,
Russell, Skinner, & Windle, 1992) and its
modified version (Martens, Cox, and Beck,
2003), and the GEQ (Carron et al., 1985;
Carron, Brawley, & Widmeyer, 2002).
Monitoring the Future Survey
The MTF Survey (Johnston et al., 2007) is
part of a three-part (cross-sectional, repeated
cross-sectional, and cohort-sequential)
study designed to track trends in substance
use, attitudes, and perceptions over time.
The survey is divided into six different
Team Climate and Student–Athlete Substance Use
questionnaires, with questions ranging from
demographic information to perceptions of
the social environment. The MTF Survey
items are scored on a summative scale from
as low as 1 to as high as 9, varying with
the section of the survey. In all cases, lower
scores indicate lower frequency of substance
use, lower perceived frequency of substance
use, and lower acceptance of substance use.
However, for items related to the potential of
future substance use, lower scores indicate a
greater likelihood of using substances in the
future.
Validity is represented in the low non­
response rate (approximately 4%) to sensitive
questions, such as those dealing with drug
use; the high number of responses admitting
to at least some illicit drug use (up to 66%
of respondents); the parallel between friends’
reported usage and one’s own self-reported
usage; and construct validity based on rela­tion­
ships observed between variables (Bachman,
Johnston, O’Malley, & Patrick, 2006). The
reliability of the survey is evident in the fact
that even as substance use patterns shift each
year, regularity and consistency in the findings
still exist with low variance between schools
ranging from 0.4% to 5% annually (Bachman
et al., 2006).
Usage Pattern and Attitude Scale
The UPAS is a 42-item questionnaire mea­
suring the intensity and frequency of alcohol,
drug, and tobacco use by individuals and
their friends and family as well as one’s
attitude toward alcohol, drug, and tobacco
use (Marcello et al., 1989). In completing
this survey, individuals are asked to indicate
on a 5-point summative scale whether they
“strongly disagree” (scored as a 1) or “strongly
agree” (scored as a 5) with the survey items.
Because the UPAS was adapted from the
Life Skills Training Questionnaire (LSTQ;
Botvin, 1983), no information on its specific
M arch /A pril 2010  ◆  vol 51 no 2 165
psychometric properties is available. However,
the coefficients of test–retest reliability for
the LSTQ range from 0.66 to 0.78 (Botvin,
Baker, Renik, Filazzola, & Botvin, 1984), and
data obtained through the use of the LSTQ
in different settings suggest high construct
validity (MacKillop, Ryabchenko, & Lisman,
2006).
Drinking Motives Measure
The DMM (Cooper, 1994; Cooper et al.,
1992) is a 20-item summative measure to
determine individuals’ motivations for alcohol
use. This measure includes subscales for positive
reinforcement (social and enhancement)
and negative reinforcement (coping and
conformity). To complete this measure,
individuals respond to statements about
reasons for drinking on a 5-point scale, with
a score of 1 indicating “almost never/never”
and a score of 5 indicating “almost always/
always.” Mean scores are then calculated
for each subscale. Martens, Cox, and Beck
(2003) used a modified version of the DMM
with student-athletes based on reliability and
validity studies that supported the construct
and convergent validity and the internal
consistency of a three-factor version of the
DMM that excluded the conformity subscale
and one of the coping subscale items. The
average structure coefficients for the social,
enhancement, and coping subscales were 0.70,
0.79, and 0.67, respectively (Martens, Cox,
Beck, & Heppner, 2003). Both versions of
the DMM were reviewed for creation of the
SATCSUS.
Group Environment Questionnaire
The GEQ (Carron et al., 1985, 2002) is an
18-item, four-scale, Likert-type questionnaire
designed to assess the level of cohesion in
athletic teams. It consists of four subscales
(group integration—task, group integration—
social, individual attractions to group—task,

and individual attractions to group—social),
which include perceptions of the group and
social cohesiveness and personal attractions to
the group. Through content validity projects
involving item deletion and revision by experts
in item writing and psychology and item analysis
using the repeated calculation of Cronbach’s
α (group integration—task subscale: α = 0.70
and 0.67, group integration—social subscale:
α = 0.76 and 0.49, individual attractions to
group–task: α = 0.75 and 0.84, and individual
attractions to group—social: α = 0.64 and
0.62), internal consistency via intrascale and
interscale equivalence was achieved (Salminen
& Luhtanen, 1998; Carron et al., 1985).
The internal consistency and stability across
different samples of sports groups demonstrate
the instrument’s reliability. Additionally, factor
analysis suggests that the GEQ has concurrent,
predictive, and construct validity (Brawley,
Carron, & Widmeyer, 1987).
Instrumentation
Using the validity of these instruments to guide
the creation of the SATCSUS, the content
of the survey consists of five parts ordered to
minimize interaction effects between variables:
demographics, substance use behaviors,
substance use perceptions, substance use
attitudes, and team climate. Because of the
constraints on the target population’s schedules
as well as the focused purpose of this study, it
was not feasible to administer all four of these
surveys to the student-athletes; thus, items
related to substance use behaviors, perceptions,
attitudes, and team climate were selected from
each survey to serve as models to create the
items on the SATCSUS. Because the survey
items were sampled from each of the four
surveys to create the new SATCSUS, a pilot
study was conducted to assess the validity of
the survey.
After creation of the SATCSUS from
the merging of relevant items from the
166 Journal of College Student Development
Tomon & Ting
aforementioned four surveys, a pilot study
was conducted with a sample of 20 student-
athletes from different genders (10 females
and 10 males), year in school (6 first-year, 4
second-year, 4 third-year, 3 fourth-year, and
3 fifth-year undergraduates), races/ethnicities
(8 Caucasians/European Americans, 5 African
Americans, 3 identifying as multiracial/
multi­ethnic, 3 international students, and 1
Hispanic/Latino), and athletic teams (11 from
nonrevenue teams, 9 from revenue teams,
11 from team sports, and 9 from individual
sports). In addition to responding to the pilot
survey items, the student-athletes were also
asked to comment on any items that were
misleading or confusing or that they felt were
missing from the survey. Based on participant
feedback from the pilot study, two items were
revised, a few written directions were reworded,
and two additional items (related to the use
of substances owing to taste) were created for
the final version of the SATCSUS. The final
online SATCSUS included sixty-eight items
with a Likert-type, summative scale.
The 68 items of the SATCSUS were
organized into five content areas: demographic
variables, substance use behaviors, substance
use perceptions, substance use attitudes,
and team climate, which consisted of two
subscales (enmeshment/influencing and
discouraging of substance use behaviors).
Responses to each item in each of the five
content areas were scored using a coded
ranking system from 1 to 5 on which a score
of 1 indicates an infrequent substance use
behavior (“almost never/never” or “strongly
disagree”), a negative attitude toward substance
use (“strongly disagree”), a perception that
student-athlete peers participate in substance
use behaviors less frequently than nonathlete
peers (“less often’), and a team climate
with low levels of enmeshment/influencing
and the discouragement of substance use
(“strongly disagree,” reverse scored). A score
Team Climate and Student–Athlete Substance Use
of 5 indicates high levels of substance use
behaviors (“almost always/always” or “strongly
agree”), perceptions (“more often”), attitudes
(“strongly agree”), and a team climate with
high levels of enmeshment/influencing
and the encouragement of substance use
behaviors (“strongly agree,” reverse scored).
The discouragement of substance use subscale
was reverse scored, meaning that a score of 1
indicates a high level of discouragement of
substance use and a score of 5 indicates a low
level of discouragement of substance use. For
example, a response of “strongly disagree” to
the item “My teammates discourage alcohol
use” would be reverse scored as a 5, indicating
a low level of discouragement of substance
use. Cronbach’s α was calculated for each
scale: substance use behaviors (α = 0.927),
perceptions (α = 0.750), and attitudes (α =
0.958) as well as enmeshment/influencing
team climate (α = 0.717) and discouraging
of substance use team climate (α = 0.881).
Demographic Information. This part of
the survey asks to what team and sport type
individuals belong and the number of years the
individuals have been participating in collegiate
athletics as well as other demographic variables
associated with college students’ substance use
(year in school, gender, race/ethnicity, Greek
membership, living environment, and first
exposure to substances).
Substance Use Behaviors. The second part
of the survey asks questions pertaining to
the participants’ specific use of substances,
frequency and intensity of use, and circum­
stances of use (socially, for coping, etc.).
Examples of items in this section include “How
often do you use alcohol?” and “I have used any
of the aforementioned substances (i.e., alcohol,
tobacco, marijuana, other illicit drugs, and/or
performance-enhancing drugs) because I like
the feeling.” Scores in this section range from
21 to 105, with lower scores indicating lower
frequency of substance use than higher scores.
M arch /A pril 2010  ◆  vol 51 no 2 167
Substance Use Perceptions. In the third
part of the survey, the questions refer to
the participants’ perceptions regarding the
substance use behaviors of student-athletes as
compared with the substance use behaviors
of nonathletes, with scores ranging from 5
to 25. These questions relate to the perceived
frequency and intensity of substance use
among their athlete and nonathlete peers.
Items in this section include “How often
do you think student-athletes drink alcohol
as compared with college nonathletes?” and
“How often do you think student-athletes
use performance-enhancing drugs (e.g.,
anabolic steroids) as compared with college
nonathletes?” Lower scores on the substance
use perceptions scale indicate a perception that
student-athletes use substances less often than
college nonathletes.
Substance Use Attitudes. Questions in this
fourth section of the survey ask about the levels
of acceptance of specific substances and any
circumstances under which substance use is
more or less acceptable. Scores in this section
range from 16 to 80 and include items such as
“It is acceptable for a person to use substances
to cope with stress” and “It is acceptable for a
person to use substances to celebrate a special
occasion.” Lower scores in this section of the
survey equate to less acceptance of substance
use in various circumstances than higher
scores.
Team Climate. The final portion of the
survey, includes questions related to team
climate within two subscales (enmeshment/
influencing and discouraging of substance
use). These questions ask about pressures to
conform, perceived expectations, and group
behaviors. Items within the enmeshment/
influencing subscale pertain to general team
climate, including level of involvement and
behavioral expectations (e.g., “I feel pressure to
conform to the behavioral expectations of my
teammates”). Scores within the enmeshment/

influencing subscale range from 7 to 35, with
lower scores indicating less enmeshment and
influence than higher scores. The discouraging
of substance use subscale includes items
specifically related to team norms regarding
substance use (e.g., “My teammates discourage
marijuana use”). Scores within the discouraging
of substance use subscale range from 6 to 30
and are reverse scored so that lower numbers
indicate higher levels of discouragement of
substance use and higher numbers indicate
lower levels of discouragement of substance
use. The items within the team climate scale
refer to both teammates and coaches.
Participants
The population for this study included all of
the 428 first- through fifth-year scholarship
and walk-on student-athletes participating
on 22 varsity athletic teams at a large, public
university in the southeastern United States.
These sports teams included men’s baseball
(revenue), football (revenue), and wrestling;
women’s gymnastics, softball, and volleyball;
and men’s and women’s basketball (revenue),
cross-country, golf, rifle, soccer, swimming and
diving, tennis, and track and field. Owing to
the sensitive nature of this study, minors were
excluded from participation. However, no
student-athletes were under the age of 18 at
the time this study was conducted.
Out of the 428 student-athletes enrolled
at the university at the start of the 2007–2008
academic year, 363 (84.81%) student-athletes
were reached for participation, with 193 of
the 220 respondents accepting participation
(87.73%). Of the 193 student-athletes agreeing
to participate, 188 completed the survey,
representing 85.45% of the respondents
and 43.93% of the total student-athlete
population. This response rate exceeded the
response rates of other studies utilizing similar
on-line surveys (Cook, Heath, & Thompson,
2000).
168 Journal of College Student Development
Tomon & Ting
In this sample, 85 participants were
female (45.2%) and 103 were male (54.8%)
student-athletes. Of the 188 participants, there
were 133 Caucasian/European Americans
(70.7%), 38 African Americans (20.2%), 4
Hispanics/Latinos (2.1%), 1 Asian American
(0.5%), 6 multiracial/multiethnic (3.2%), and
6 international (3.2%). Seventy-three were
from revenue sports (38.8%) and 115 were
from nonrevenue sports (61.2%). Sixty-two
were from individual sports (33.0%) and 126
were from team sports (67.0%). This sample
was also composed of 77 student-athletes
with 1 year of collegiate athletic experience
(41.0%), 38 with 2 years (20.2%), 37 with 3
years (19.7%), 29 with 4 years (15.4%), and
7 with 5 or more years (3.7%).
Procedure
During the fall semester, the coaches, academic
coordinators, the Director of the Academic
Support Program for Student-Athletes, the
Director of Athletics, and the Associate
Director for Compliance were contacted with
information about the purpose and procedures
of the study. Student-athletes voluntarily
participated in the study and signed an
informed consent form before completion of
the survey. At the start of the spring semester,
all of the academic coordinators and coaches
at a large, public university in the southeast
received an e-mail as well as personal contact
informing them of the purpose of the study
and the timeline for completion of the survey
(2 weeks). All of the student-athletes from
each of the university’s 22 varsity athletic
teams (excluding minors) then received an
email that detailed the purpose of the study,
ensured the anonymity of the participants,
requested the participation of the individuals,
and provided instructions on completing the
survey. Completion of the survey involved
following a link to a web-based survey designed
for this study. The use of a web-based survey
Team Climate and Student–Athlete Substance Use
made the data collection process more efficient
and enabled the participants to complete
the survey in private, away from teammates,
coaches, and support staff. The e-mail link
to the survey ensured that the participants
could only complete the survey once. The
student-athletes received two follow-up e-mails
to encourage participation in the study. One
e-mail was sent at the beginning of the second
week and the final e-mail was sent the day
before the survey ended. Once the surveys
were completed, the data were processed by
SPSS version 16.
Results
To test for the effects of team climate and
demographic variables (independent variables)
on the substance use behaviors, perceptions,
and attitudes (dependent variables) of the
participants in this quantitative study, multiple
analysis of variance (MANOVA) with an
α level of 0.05 was conducted. When two
or more dependent variables are evaluated
simultaneously, a multivariate analysis of
variance design can be used (Kirk, 1969).
Descriptive information of the independent
and dependent variables is listed in Table 1.
Multivariate Tests of Team Climate
To test whether there were differences between
the means of the different groups of student-
athletes on the dependent variables, Wilks’s
lambda was used. Wilks’s lambda is a direct
measure of the proportion of variance in the
combination of dependent variables that is
unaccounted for by the independent variable
(Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1992).
The Wilks’s lambda multivariate test of overall
differences among the enmeshment groups was
not statistically significant—F(6, 354) = 2.03,
p = .06, eta-squared = 0.03—using a critical
α of 0.05. The F statistic for Wilks’s lambda
was exact. However, the Wilks’s lambda
M arch /A pril 2010  ◆  vol 51 no 2 169
multivariate test of overall differences among
the discouraging of substance use groups was
significant—F(6, 354) = 2.33, p = .03—using
a critical α of 0.05 and had a small sized
effect (partial eta-squared = 0.04). Again,
the F statistic for Wilks’s lambda was exact.
In addition, the Wilks’s lambda multivariate
test of overall differences for the interaction
between the enmeshment/influencing groups
and the discouraging of substance use
groups was statistically significant—F(12,
469) = 2.03, p = .02—using a critical α of
0.05 and had a small sized effect (partial eta-
squared = 0.04).
Univariate Tests of Team Climate
Although MANOVA showed that the differ­
ences among the enmeshment groups were not
significant using a critical α of 0.05, univariate
tests were conducted owing to the resulting
significance of 0.06 (close to the critical α
level). Univariate between-subjects tests
showed that enmeshment/influencing team
climates were significantly, although weakly,
related to student-athletes’ substance use
behaviors—F(2, 179) = 4.59, p = .01, partial
eta-squared = 0.05—but not to student-
athletes’ perceptions of—F(2, 179) = 1.64,
p = .20, partial eta-squared = 0.02—and
attitudes toward—F(2, 179) = 1.94, p = .15,
partial eta squared = 0.02—substance use.
Univariate between-subjects tests also showed
that discouraging of substance use team
climates were significantly, although weakly,
related to student-athletes’ perceptions of
substance use—F(2, 179) = 5.05, p = .01,
partial eta-squared = 0.05—whereas, the
relation­ships to substance use behaviors—
F(2, 179) = 0.08, p = .92, partial eta-squared
= 0.00—and attitudes toward substance
use—F(2, 179) = 1.47 p = .23 partial eta-
squared = 0.02—were not significant. The
inter­action between enmeshment/influencing
team climates and discouraging of substance
 Tomon & Ting

Table 1.
Means and Standard Deviations of Team Climate and Demographic Variables
Behaviors Scale Perceptions Scale Attitudes Scale
Substance Use (Mean ± SD) (Mean ± SD) (Mean ± SD)

Team Climate
Enmeshment/Influencing
Low (7–17) 35.40 ± 13.82 9.50 ± 5.32 28.60 ± 15.16
Middle (18–24) 40.51 ± 15.38 11.48 ± 4.03 35.39 ± 15.20
High (25–35) 44.93 ± 14.66 11.13 ± 4.28 35.30 ± 13.69
Discouraging
Low (6–14) 45.69 ± 18.69 13.55 ± 5.52 35.31 ± 15.23
Middle (15–21) 43.59 ± 14.44 11.61 ± 3.75 38.23 ± 15.66
High (22–30) 40.75 ± 14.31 10.33 ± 3.78 33.13 ± 13.41

Demographics
Team Type
Team 42.55 ± 15.44 11.88 ± 4.55 34.17 ± 14.73
Individual 41.97 ± 14.60 9.84 ± 3.06 36.63 ± 13.97
Sport Type
Revenue 39.90 ± 16.77 11.74 ± 4.39 34.04 ± 15.48
Nonrevenue 43.91 ± 13.84 10.87 ± 4.09 35.58 ± 13.87
Years of Collegiate Athletic
Participation
1 39.95 ± 14.61 11.49 ± 4.03 30.53 ± 13.67
2 46.79 ± 14.89 10.71 ± 4.51 37.42 ± 13.50
3 43.62 ± 14.96 11.08 ± 3.90 36.00 ± 15.85
4 48.07 ± 13.70 10.83 ± 4.52 43.21 ± 12.79
≥5 47.43 ± 12.16 13.00 ± 5.51 31.29 ± 11.86
Gender
Female 41.25 ± 13.57 11.60 ± 4.29 34.39 ± 14.13
Male 43.27 ± 16.31 10.88 ± 4.16 35.48 ± 14.83

N = 188.

use team climates was significant in relation Post Hoc Comparisons of

to student-athletes’ perceptions of substance
use—F(4, 179) = 3.72, p = .01, partial eta-
squared = 0.08, weak effect—but not to
student-athletes’ substance use behaviors—
F(4, 179) = 1.44, p = .22, partial eta-squared =
0.03—or attitudes toward substance use—
F(4, 179) = 1.23, p = .30, partial eta-squared
= 0.03. These results appear in Table 2.
Team Climate
Post hoc comparisons between groups using
F statistics and Bonferroni-type simultaneous
confidence intervals based on the student-
athletes’ t-distribution also showed that the
low and high discouraging of substance use
groups (p = .00) were significantly related to

170 Journal of College Student Development

Team Climate and Student–Athlete Substance Use

the student-athletes’ perceptions of substance Multivariate Tests of

use. The direction of the effect shows that
participants in the low discouraging of
substance use group (M = 13.55, SD = 5.52)
scored higher on the perceptions of sub­
stance use scale than the participants in the
high discouraging of substance use group
(M = 10.33, SD = 3.78). The higher score
indicates a greater belief that student-athletes
participate in substance use more than non­
athlete college students.
Demographic Variables
The Wilks’s lambda multivariate tests of over­all
differences among the team type— F(3,  173)
= 4.22, p = .01, partial eta-squared = 0.07
—years of collegiate athletic participation—
F(12,  458) = 3.03, p = .00, partial eta-squared
= 0.07, weak effect—and gender—F(3, 173) =
2.62, p = .05, partial eta-squared = 0.04, weak
effect—groups were statistically significant

Table 2.
Multivariate and Univariate Analyses for Team Climate Subscales
Partial
Wilks’s Eta– Observed
Team Climate Lambda df F Squared Powerb

Intercept 0.14 3 300.59***a .86 1.00

Enmeshment/Influencing 0.94 6 2.03a .03 0.74
*a
Discouraging of Substance Use 0.98 6 2.33 .04 0.81
Enmeshment/Influencing ×
0.88 12 2.03*a .04 0.88
Discouraging of Substance Use
Corrected Model
Behaviors 3746.85 8 2.15* .09 0.84
Perceptions 531.25 8 4.25*** .16 0.99
Attitudes 2476.63 8 1.51 .06 0.66
Intercept
Behaviors 114848.37 1 526.34*** .75 1.00
Perceptions 8678.53 1 554.87*** .76 1.00
Attitudes 78087.83 1 379.87*** .68 1.00
Enmeshment/Influencing
Behaviors 2004.48 2 4.59* .05 0.77
Perceptions 51.39 2 1.64 .02 0.34
Attitudes 795.89 2 1.93 .02 0.40
Discouraging of Substance Use
Behaviors 35.49 2 0.08 .01 0.06
Perceptions 157.83 2 5.05** .05 0.81
Attitudes 605.89 2 1.47 .02 0.31
a
Exact statistic.
b
Computed using α = .05.
*p < .05.  **p < .01.  ***p < .001.

M arch /A pril 2010  ◆  vol 51 no 2 171

 Tomon & Ting

Table 3.
Multivariate and Univariate Analyses for Demographics
Wilks’s Partial Observed
Demographics Lambda df F Eta–Squared Powerb

Intercept 0.41 3 83.39***a .59 1.00

Sport Type 0.96 3 2.42a .04 0.60
a
Team Type 0.93 3 4.22** .07 0.85
Years of Participation 0.82 12 3.03*** .06 0.98
Gender 0.96 3 2.62*a .04 0.63
Race/Ethnicity 0.90 15 1.21 .03 0.72
Corrected Model
Behaviors 8469.55 12 3.60*** .20 0.99
Perceptions 290.97 12 1.40 .09 0.75
Attitudes 4882.55 12 2.07* .12 0.92
Intercept
Behaviors 29600.01 1 150.86*** .46 1.00
Perceptions 2123.91 1 122.27*** .41 1.00
Attitudes 18089.36 1 92.05*** .35 1.00
Sport Type
Behaviors 1130.72 1 5.76* .03 0.67
Perceptions 10.19 1 0.59 .01 0.12
Attitudes 24.45 1 0.12 .00 0.06
Team Type
Behaviors 594.90 1 3.03 .02 0.41
Perceptions 100.69 1 5.80* .03 0.67
Attitudes 105.17 1 .54 .00 0.11
Years of Participation
Behaviors 4174.75 4 5.32*** .11 0.97
Perceptions 51.59 4 0.74 .02 0.24
Attitudes 3483.36 4 4.43** .09 0.93
Gender
Behaviors 861.91 1 4.39* .02 0.55
Perceptions 44.49 1 2.56 .01 0.36
Attitudes 217.16 1 1.11 .01 0.18
a Exact statistic.
b Computed using α = .05.
*p < .05.  **p < .01.  ***p < .001.

using a critical α of 0.05. The F statistics partial eta-squared = 0.04—and race/ethnicity

for Wilks’s lambda were exact for team type —F(15, 478) = 1.21, p = .26, partial eta-
and gender. However, the Wilks’s lambda squared = 0.03—groups were not statistically
multivariate tests of overall differences  among significant using a critical α of 0.05. The F statistic
the sport type—F(3,  173) = 2.42, p = .07, for Wilks’s lambda was exact for sport type.

172 Journal of College Student Development

Team Climate and Student–Athlete Substance Use
Univariate Tests of Demographic
Variables
Univariate between-subjects tests showed that
sport type—F(1, 175) = 5.76, p = .02, partial eta-
squared = 0.03, weak effect—years of collegiate
athletic participation—F(4, 175) = 5.32,
p = .00, partial eta-squared = 0.11, moderate
effect—and gender—F(1, 175) = 4.39,
p = .04, partial eta-squared = 0.02, weak
effect—were significantly related to student-
athletes’ substance use behaviors. (Sport type
was included in the univariate testing due to
its α of 0.07, close to the critical α of 0.05.)
Team type was significantly, albeit weakly,
related to the student-athletes’ perceptions
of substance use—F(1, 175) = 5.80, p = .02,
partial eta-squared = 0.03. In addition to
being significantly related to student-athletes’
substance use behaviors, years of collegiate
athletic participation was also significantly and
strongly related to student-athletes’ attitudes
toward substance use—F(4, 175) = 4.43,
p = .00, partial eta-squared = 0.09. See
Table 3.
Post Hoc Comparisons of
Demographic Variables
Post hoc comparisons between groups related
to the number of years of collegiate athletic
participation using F statistics and Tukey-
type simultaneous confidence intervals based
on the student-athletes’ t-distribution also
showed that 1- and 2-year groups (p = .00)
and 1- and 4-year groups (p = .00) were
significantly related to the student-athletes’
substance use behaviors. The direction of the
effect shows that participants with 1 year of
collegiate athletic participation (M = 36.95,
SD = 14.61) scored lower on the substance
use behaviors scale than the participants with
2 years (M = 46.79, SD = 14.89) and 4 years
of collegiate athletic participation (M = 48.07,
SD = 13.70). Participants with four years
M arch /A pril 2010  ◆  vol 51 no 2 173
of collegiate athletic participation scored
higher than the 1- and 2-year groups on the
substance use behaviors scale (range, 21 to
105), indicating higher reported levels and/
or frequency of substance use than the 1- and
2-year groups.
Post hoc comparisons also showed that 1-
and 4-year groups (p = .00) were significantly
related to the student-athletes’ attitudes toward
substance use. The direction of the effect shows
that participants with 1 year of collegiate
athletic participation (M = 30.53, SD = 13.67)
scored lower on the attitudes toward substance
use scale (range, 16 to 80) than participants
with 4 years of collegiate athletic participation
(M = 43.21, SD = 12.79). The higher scores
for the 4-year group indicate a greater level
of acceptance for substance use in various
circumstances than the level of acceptance
indicated by the 1-year group.
Post hoc comparisons between sport
type groups, team type groups, and gender
groups could not be performed because each
demographic variable consists of only two
groups. Comparison of the means of the sport
type groups (revenue and nonrevenue) shows
that participants from the revenue sports
(M = 39.90, SD = 16.77) scored lower on the
substance use behaviors scale (range, 21 to 105)
than the participants from the non-revenue
sports (M = 43.91, SD = 13.84). Comparison
of the means of the gender groups (female
and male) shows that the female participants
(M = 41.25, 13.57) scored lower than male
participants (M = 43.27, SD = 16.31) on the
substance use behaviors scale (range, 21 to
105). Comparison of the means of the team
type groups (individual and team) shows that
participants from individual sports (M = 9.84,
SD = 3.06) scored lower than participants
from team sports (M = 11.88, SD = 4.55) on
the substance use perceptions scale (range, 5
to 25). These mean comparisons show that
participants from nonrevenue sports and

male gender indicated higher levels and/or
frequency of substance use behaviors than
participants from revenue sports and female
gender, respectively. Participants from team
sports perceived more substance use among
student-athletes as compared with nonathlete
college students than participants from
individual sports.
Discussion
The current study found that team climate
affected student-athletes’ substance use
behaviors and perceptions, but not their
attitudes. This study resulted in some new
findings. First, the results showed that the
levels of enmeshment/influence within the
team climates related to the substance use
behaviors of the student-athletes. Another new
finding from the results of the study is that
the levels of discouragement toward substance
use within the team climates related to the
student-athletes’ perceptions of substance use.
Additionally, the interaction between levels of
enmeshment/influence and discouragement
of substance use was also associated with the
student-athletes’ perceptions of substance
use. However, the relationship between team
climate and the student-athletes’ attitudes
toward substance use was not significant.
Although it was hypothesized that team
climate would affect the student-athletes’
attitudes toward substance use, the lack of
statistical significance between team climate
and attitudes toward substance use is consistent
with previous research. The findings of Tricker
and Connolly (1997) demonstrated that even
though the majority of student-athletes in
their study held negative attitudes toward
substance use, many indicated that one reason
that they might use substances would be if
their teammates used them. This parallels the
results of the current study, which showed that
the student-athletes’ substance use behaviors
174 Journal of College Student Development
Tomon & Ting
were related to team climate, even though their
attitudes were not.
The results of the current study demon­
strated that the substance use behaviors of the
student-athletes were related to the levels of
enmeshment and influence of the team climates
and that the student-athletes’ perceptions
were related to the levels of discouragement
of substance use within their team climates.
Similarly, research conducted by Hughes and
Coakley (1991) and Diacin and colleagues
(2003) on the concepts of social reinforcement
and social norms (Bandura, 1969, 1977)
showed that coaches and teammates influence
the substance use behaviors of student-athletes
and that student-athletes tend to overconform
to the social norms of their athletic teams due
to perceived behavioral expectations.
Research on the social norms approach
(Berkowitz & Perkins, 1987; Perkins &
Berkowitz, 1986) also suggested that the
student-athletes’ perceptions of substance use
may be impacted by the observed behaviors
and attitudes of their peers. This is consistent
with the current findings, which showed that
the student-athletes’ perceptions were related
to the levels of discouragement of substance
use within the team climates as well as the
interaction between levels of enmeshment/
influence and levels of discouragement of
substance use.
The results show that sport type, years of
collegiate athletic participation, and gender
related to the student-athletes’ substance use
behaviors. The results also indicate that team
type was connected with the student-athletes’
perceptions of substance use. Hughes and
Coakley (1991) also suggested that student-
athletes’ conformity to group norms and
substance use behaviors and attitudes are
affected by the time involved in athletics.
The current findings show that the student-
athletes used substances at higher levels and/or
more frequently and were more accepting of
Team Climate and Student–Athlete Substance Use
substance use under a variety of circumstances
the longer they participated in collegiate
athletics. Consistent with the findings of other
research studies exploring the relationship
between gender and substance use behaviors
(Marlatt & VandenBos, 1997; De La Rosa,
Segal, & Lopez, 1999; Raine, 2001), mean
comparisons of the current findings show that
male student-athletes reported higher rates of
substance use than female student-athletes.
The current study found that sport type
(revenue or nonrevenue) affected the student-
athletes’ substance use behaviors, and team
type (team or individual) affected the student-
athletes’ perceptions of substance use. Ford
(2007) also found that the frequency and
intensity of substance use varied by team. The
student-athletes from nonrevenue sports in
the current study showed higher frequency of
substance use than the student-athletes from
revenue sports. Additionally, those student-
athletes participating on team sports reported
higher perceptions of substance use among the
student-athlete population as compared with
college nonathletes than those participating on
individual sports teams. The findings of the
current study have implications for practice,
policy, and future research.
Implications for Practice
The National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA) requires that all college athletic
programs have educational programs related to
substance use. However, the guidelines allow for
variation in the type of programming offered.
Although programs such as the NCAA’s (1996)
Challenging Athlete’s Minds for Personal
Success (CHAMPS/Life Skills) program
and Grossman and Smiley’s (1999) Athletic
Participation, Programming, and Leadership
Education program are used to address some
of the substance use risk factors among the
student-athlete population, the results of this
M arch /A pril 2010  ◆  vol 51 no 2 175
study could lead to the creation of programming
that focuses on the athletic team climates
that discourage substance use and those that
encourage substance use. The findings could
also help to target those teams that are most
at-risk of substance use behaviors.
Because substance use and acceptance of
substance use increase with years of athletic
participation, campus professionals could
create prevention programs for underclassmen,
utilizing the social norms approach to dispel
myths and identify misperceptions. With
higher rates of substance use and levels
of acceptance, upperclassmen may need
to participate in an intervention program
designed to alter negative behaviors and
attitudes. Student-athletes with multiple years
of collegiate athletic involvement also could be
trained to serve as mentors for underclassmen.
As part of this mentorship program, students
would be trained in establishing team norms
that discourage substance use. Separate
workshops for coaches could aim to educate
them of their influence on the substance use
behaviors and perceptions of their athletes
and the importance of sending messages of
intolerance.
Other data, collected but not analyzed
in this study, also could be examined to offer
more insight into the substance use behaviors,
perceptions, and attitudes of student-athletes.
Examining the frequencies of survey responses
could help student affairs professionals to
identify the riskiest behaviors, the most
common misperceptions, and the most
mis­guided attitudes of the student-athlete
population to create individualized substance
use prevention and intervention programs that
target the areas needing the most immediate
attention.
Implications for Policy
Recognizing the impact of team norms on the
student-athletes’ substance use behaviors and

perceptions, college campuses may consider
implementing policies to reduce the risk of
substance use. The NCAA requires random
drug testing of student-athletes throughout
each academic year, but some colleges and
universities have taken this policy a step further
by testing more frequently and testing for cause
(Jackson, 2007). Awareness of current team
climates within an athletic department could
serve to identify teams and/or individuals
that may require more regular drug testing,
serving as both deterrent and intervention.
Identification of substance users provides
opportunities for counseling, education, and
treatment.
Athletic departments and/or coaches also
could establish penalties for teams identified
as sponsoring events or social gatherings
where substance use occurs. Departmental
expectations for coaches also might include
guidelines for implementing appropriate social
activities that promote team unity without the
use of substances.
Implications for Research
Beyond the student-athlete population, the
SATCSUS could be modified for use with
nonathlete populations. This modified version
of the survey could provide insight into the
team climates and substance use behaviors of
other groups on campus, including fraternities,
sororities, and other student groups with
regular meetings and formally or informally
established group norms. Data from the
modified survey could be used by student affairs
professionals to guide in-house workshops or
presentations to student groups throughout
campus.
Future research could focus on the
valid­i ty of the SATCSUS as well as the
administration of the survey to other student-
athlete populations throughout the country.
Because of the limitations associated with the
generalizability of the data, future research
176 Journal of College Student Development
Tomon & Ting
could include a sample of student-athletes
from a variety of institution types, sizes,
and locations. Additionally, sports teams
not available for this study could be added
to future research. It may also be helpful to
explore individual differences between sports
teams to see if variation exists within revenue,
nonrevenue, team, and individual sports.
Limitations and Conclusion
Despite the fact that this study resulted in
findings consistent with prior research related
to student-athletes, substance use, and social
norms, some limitations to this study exist.
First, the data gathered from the survey were
self-reported. Although measures were taken
to ensure anonymity, the student-athletes still
may have answered with socially desirable
responses for fear that the information might
hurt themselves or the images of the teams.
Despite this possible limitation, the use of
self-report questionnaires is a common practice
that has been shown to yield valid results as
long as measures are taken to ensure anonymity
(Calhoun et al., 2000; Cooper, Sobell, Sobell,
& Maisto, 1981; Darke, 1998; Frier, Bell, &
Ellickson, 1991).
Second, as illustrated by research on
social norms, the student-athlete respondents
may have overestimated the substance use
behaviors of their peers. Thus, the participants’
perceptions of student-athletes’ substance use
behaviors as compared with the substance use
behaviors of nonathletes may not accurately
reflect the actual substance use rates for
each group. The third limitation is that the
participants in this study were from a large,
public university, which is located in a city in
a Southeastern state. Also, this study is limited
to the sports/athletic teams available at this
university, which is not all-encompassing.
Consequently, the results of this study may not
be able to be generalized to student-athletes at
Team Climate and Student–Athlete Substance Use
other institutions. Follow-up studies at other
institutions are advisable.
An additional limitation exists within the
statistical analysis. Because statistical strength
diminishes as group sizes become less equal,
the results may differ with differently sized
groups. To protect against this limitation, the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences was
used to adjust for the unequal group sizes.
Despite these limitations, the current
study offers valuable insight into additional
risk factors involved in the prevalence of
substance use among the college student-
athlete population. Along with the substantial
research on peer influences, results from this
study may encourage coaches, administrators,
and support staff to evaluate the team climates
M arch /A pril 2010  ◆  vol 51 no 2 177
of their athletic teams, identify high-risk team
environments, and target misguided attitudes
and perceptions about substance use. Student
affairs professionals can improve the substance
use behaviors of the student-athletes on
campus by utilizing a social norms approach to
educate the students about actual substance use
versus perceived substance use and encouraging
upperclassmen and coaches to help establish
positive team norms that discourage substance
use and other risky behaviors.
Correspondence regarding this paper should be addressed
to Jennifer E. Tomon, School of Education, Student
Advising Center, The University of North Carolina–
Greensboro, P.O. Box 26170, Greensboro, NC 27402-
6170; jetomon@uncg.edu

References
Baer, J. (2002). Student factors: Understanding individual
variation in college drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol,
14(Suppl.), 40-53.
Bachman, J. G., Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Patrick, M.
(2006). The Monitoring the Future Project after thirty-two years:
Design and procedures. (Monitoring the Future Occasional
Paper No. 64) Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
[On-line]. Available: http://monitoringthefuture.org
Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New
York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Berkowitz, A. D., & Perkins, H. W. (1987). Current issues in
effective alcohol education programming. In J. S. Sherwood
(Ed.), Alcohol policies and practices on college and university
campuses (pp. 69-85). Washington, DC: National Association
of Student Personnel Administrators.
Botvin, G. J. (1983). Smoking questionnaire. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University.
Botvin, G. J., Baker, E., Renik, N. L., Filazzola, A. D., & Botvin,
E. M. (1984). A cognitive-behavioral approach to substance
abuse prevention. Addictive Behaviors, 9, 139-147.
Brawley, L. R., Carron, A. V., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1987).
Assessing the cohesion of teams: Validity of the Group
Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology,
9, 275-294.
Brennan, A. F., Walfish, S., & AuBuchon, P. (1986). Alcohol
use and abuse in college students. II. Social/environmental
correlates, methodological issues, and implications for
intervention. International Journal of Addictions, 21(4),
475-493.
Calhoun, P. S., Sampson, W. S., Bosworth, H. B., Feldman,
M. E., Kirby, A. C., Carron, A. V., et al. (1999). Team norm
questionnaire. Unpublished. School of Kinesiology, University
of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., & Widmeyer, W. N. (2002). The
Group Environment Questionnaire test manual. Morgantown,
WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.
Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The
development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport
teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of
Sport Psychology, 3, 244-266.
Cook, C., Heath F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-
analysis of response rates in Web- or Internet-based surveys.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(6), 821-
836.
Cooper, A. M., Sobell, M. B., Sobell, L. C., & Maisto, S. A.
(1981). Validity of alcoholics’ self-reports: Duration data.
International Journal of Addiction, 16, 401-406.
Cooper, M. L. (1994). Motivations for alcohol use among
adolescents: Development and validation of a four-factor
model. Psychological Assessment, 6, 117-128.
Cooper, M. L., Russell, M., Skinner, J. B., & Windle, M.
(1992). Development and validation of a three-dimensional
measure of drinking motives. Psychological Assessment, 4,
123-132.
Darke, J. (1998). Self-report among injecting drug users: A
review. Drug & Alcohol Dependence, 51, 253-263.
178 Journal of College Student Development
Tomon & Ting
De La Rosa, M. R., Segal, B., & Lopez, R. (Eds.). (1999).
Conducting drug abuse research with minority populations:
Advances and issues. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.
Diacin, M. J., Parks, J. B., & Allison, P. C. (2003). Voices of
male athletes on drug use, drug testing, and the existing
order in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport Behavior,
26(1), 1-16.
Ford, J. A. (2007). Substance use among college athletes:
A comparison based on sport/team affiliation. Journal of
American College Health, 55(6), 367-373.
Frier, M. C., Bell, R. M., & Ellickson, P. L. (1991). Do teens tell
the truth? The validity of self-report tobacco use by adolescents.
Santa Monica, CA: Rand Publishers.
Grossman, S. J., & Smiley, E. B. (1999). APPLE: Description
and evaluation of a substance abuse education and prevention
program for collegiate athletes. The Journal of Primary
Prevention, 20(1), 51-59.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tathum, R. L., & Black, W. C.
(1992). Multivariate data analysis with readings (3rd ed.).
New York: Macmillan.
Hildebrand, K. M., Johnson, D. J., & Bogle, K. (2001).
Comparison of patterns of alcohol use between high school
and college athletes and non-athletes. College Student Journal,
35(3), 358-365.
Huang, J., Jacobs, D. F., Derevensky, J. L., Gupta, R., & Paskus,
T. S. (2007). Gambling and health risk behaviors among
U.S. college student-athletes: Findings from a national study.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 40(5), 390-397.
Hughes, R., & Coakley, J. (1991). Positive deviance among
athletes: The implications of overconformity to the sport
ethic. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8, 307-325.
Jackson, M. L. (2007). Substance use/abuse policy. Retrieved
January 30, 2009, from http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/
clem/genrel/auto_pdf/sap_substance_policy.pdf
Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., &
Schulenberg, J. E. (2007). Monitoring the Future national
survey results on drug use, 1975-2006: Volume II, College
students and adults ages 19-45 (NIH Publication No. 07-
6206). Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Kandel, D. B., & Yamaguchi, K. (1999). In P. J. Ott, R. E.
Tarter, & R. T. Ammerman (Eds.), Sourcebook on substance
abuse: Etiology, epidemiology, assessment, and treatment (pp.
50-74). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kirk, R. E. (1969). Experimental design: Procedures for behavioral
science. (2nd ed.). Belmount, CA: Wadsworth.
Leinfelt, F. H., & Thompson, K. M. (2004). College-student
drinking-related arrests in a college town. Journal of Substance
Use, 9(2), 57-67.
MacKillop, J., Ryabchenko, K. A.., & Lisman, S. A. (2006).
Life skills training outcomes and potential mechanisms in
a community implementation: A preliminary investigation.
Substance Use & Misuse, 41(14), 1921-1935.
Marcello, R. J., Danish, S. J., & Stolberg, A. L. (1989). An
evaluation of strategies developed to prevent substance abuse
among student-athletes. Sport Psychologist, 3(3), 196-211.
Marlatt, G. A., & VandenBos, G. R. (Eds.). (1997). Addictive
behaviors: Readings on etiology, prevention, and treatment.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Team Climate and Student–Athlete Substance Use
Martens, M. P., Cox, R. H., & Beck, N. C. (2003). Negative
consequences of intercollegiate athlete drinking: The role
of drinking motives. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64(6),
825-828.
Martens, M. P., Cox, R. H., & Beck, N. C., Heppner, P. P.
(2003). Measuring motivations for intercollegiate athlete
alcohol use: A confirmatory factor analysis of the Drinking
Motives Measure. Psychological Assessment, 15, 235-239.
Martens, M. P., Page, J. C., Mowry, E. S., Damann, K. M.,
Taylor, K. K., & Cimini, M. D. (2006). Differences between
actual and perceived student norms: An examination
of alcohol use, drug use, and sexual behavior. Journal of
American College Health, 54(5), 295-300.
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). (1996).
NCAA CHAMPS/Life skills program. [Brochure]. Overland
Park, KS: Rapid Press.
Nattiv, A., & Puffer J. C. (1991). Lifestyles and health risks of
collegiate athletes. Journal of Family Practice, 33, 585-590.
Nelson, T. F., & Wechsler, H. (2001). Alcohol and college
athletes/Les sportifs universitaires Americains et l’alcool.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 33(1), 43-47.
Ormrod, J. E. (1999). Human learning (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Patterson, M. M., Carron, A. V., & Loughead, T. M. (2005).
The influence of team norms on the cohesion-self-reported
performance relationship: A multi-level analysis. Psychology
of Sport and Exercise, 6, 479-493.
Perkins, H. W. (Ed.). (2003). The social norms approach to
preventing school and college age substance abuse: A handbook
for educators, counselors, and clinicians. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Perkins, H. W., & Berkowitz, A. D. (1986). Perceiving
the community norms of alcohol use among students:
Some research implications for campus alcohol education
programming. International Journal of Addictions, 21,
961-976.
Perkins, H. W., Meilman, P. W., Leichliter, J. S., Cashin, J. R.,
& Presley, C. A. (1999). Misperceptions of the norms for the
frequency of alcohol and other drug use on college campuses.
Journal of American College Health, 47(6), 253-258.
M arch /A pril 2010  ◆  vol 51 no 2 179
Peters Jr., R. J., Adams, L. F., Barnes, J. B., Hines, L. A., Jones,
D. E., Krebs, K. M. A., et al. (2005). Beliefs and social
norms about ephedra onset and perceived addiction among
college male and female athletes. Substance Use & Misuse,
40(1), 125-135.
Pleck, J. H. (1981). The myth of masculinity. Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press.
Presley, C. A., & Meilman, P. W. (1989). The Core Alcohol and
Drug Survey. Carbondale: Core Institute, Southern Illinois
University.
Presley, C. A., Meilman, P. W., & Leichliter, J. S. (2002). College
factors that influence drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol,
14(Suppl.), 82-90.
Raine, P. (2001). Women’s perspectives on drugs and alcohol: The
vicious circle. Hampshire, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Rockafellow, B. D., & Saules, K. K. (2006). Substance use
by college students: The role of intrinsic versus extrinsic
motivation for athletic involvement. Psychology of Addictive
Behaviors, 20(3), 279-287.
Roland, M. M. (2001). Social normative perceptions regarding
alcohol use: An analysis of university student-athletes and
non-student-athletes.  PhD dissertation, University of
Idaho, Moscow, ID. Retrieved October 11, 2007, from
ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No.
AAT 3010904.)
Salminen, S., & Luhtanen, P. (1998). Cohesion predicts
success in junior ice hockey. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
87, 649-650.
Tricker, R., & Connelly, D. (1997). Drugs and the college
athlete: An analysis of the attitudes of student-athletes at
risk. Journal of Drug Education, 27, 105-119.
Wechsler, H., Davenport, A. E., Dowdell, G. W., & Grossman,
S. J. (1997). Binge drinking, tobacco, and illicit drug use
and involvement in college athletics: A survey of students at
140 American colleges. Journal of American College Health,
45(5), 195-200.
Wilson, G. S., Pritchard, M. E., & Schaffer, J. (2004). Athletic
status and drinking behavior in college students: The
influence of gender and coping styles. Journal of American
College Health, 52(6), 269-273.