Psychology of Addictive Behaviors Copyright 2005 by the Educational Publishing Foundation

2005, Vol. 19, No. 1, 99 –103 0893-164X/05/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0893-164X.19.1.99

Alcohol Use in College Students: Effects of Level of Self-Esteem,

Narcissism, and Contingencies of Self-Worth
Riia K. Luhtanen and Jennifer Crocker
University of Michigan

The unique effects of level of self-esteem, narcissism, and contingencies of self-worth assessed prior to
college on alcohol use during the freshman year were examined in a longitudinal study of 620 college
students. Narcissism predicted alcohol use, but level of self-esteem did not. Basing self-worth on
appearance predicted more alcohol use, whereas the virtue, God’s love, and academic competence
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

contingencies predicted less alcohol use, independent of other personality measures and joining a sorority
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

or a fraternity. Further, the virtue and academic competence contingencies were associated with
decreases in alcohol use from the 1st to the 2nd semester.

Although most students are under the legal drinking age, alcohol
use is common on college campuses. In a national survey of
students in the United States, Engs, Diebold, and Hanson (1996)
found that 72% used alcohol at least once a year, 20.6% consumed
five or more drinks per occasion once a week or more, and
fraternity and sorority members reported significantly more use
than non-Greek students.
People drink alcohol for various reasons, such as to enhance
positive emotions and experiences or to cope with negative
emotions (Cooper, Frone, Russell, & Mudar, 1995). One source
of negative emotions is threat to self-esteem, or ego threat.
Threatened egotism refers to relatively positive self-views that
are challenged by external events or feedback. In a review,
Baumeister (1997) noted that “threatened egotism has been
shown to be one clear cause of increased drinking” (p. 151).
The present study explores three individual-differences vari-
ables related to the threatened egotism explanation of alcohol
consumption.
Low Self-Esteem
Low self-esteem is associated with negative emotions, which
may lead to behaviors that offer an escape from self-awareness
(Baumeister, 1997). However, threatened egotism does not neces-
sarily imply low trait self-esteem but rather positive self-views that
Riia K. Luhtanen, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan;
Jennifer Crocker, Department of Psychology and Institute for Social Re-
search, University of Michigan.
The research reported in this article was supported by National Institute
of Mental Health Grants R01 MH58869-01 and K02 MH01747-01. We are
grateful to Alexandra Bouvrette for her invaluable assistance in data
collection. The data reported in this article are based on the Adjustment to
College Project, a complex longitudinal study that includes many variables
assessed at various times. Other results from this project have been re-
ported in Crocker et al. (2003) and Crocker and Luhtanen (2003).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Riia K.
Luhtanen or Jennifer Crocker, Research Center for Group Dynamics,
Institute for Social Research, 426 Thompson Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48106.
E-mail: riia@umich.edu or jcrocker@umich.edu
are challenged or vulnerable. From a threatened egotism perspec-
tive, then, it is not surprising that studies investigating the role of
self-esteem in alcohol use yield contradictory and inconclusive
results (Glindemann, Geller, & Fortney, 1999; Pullen, 1994).
Narcissism
Narcissists have exaggeratedly favorable self-views, or in-
flated self-concepts (Raskin & Terry, 1988). Their self-
concepts are grandiose yet vulnerable, and they seek continuous
external self-validation in the form of attention and admiration
from others (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). On the basis of the
threatened egotism hypothesis, we expected that narcissists
would be prone to alcohol use, but we could find no published
studies exploring the relationship between narcissism and alco-
hol use in nonclinical samples.
Contingencies of Self-Esteem
Contingencies of self-worth (CSWs) represent the domains in
which self-esteem is invested and therefore those in which people
are likely to experience threatened egotism (Crocker & Wolfe,
2001). Because CSWs that depend on external validation are
especially vulnerable to threat, the threatened egotism hypothesis
suggests that such CSWs will be associated with alcohol use.
Students who base their self-esteem on appearance, in particular,
spend more time partying (Crocker, Luhtanen, Cooper, &
Bouvrette, 2003) and report more social problems (Crocker &
Luhtanen, 2003) during their first year of college. They are more
likely to be in situations where alcohol is present and may be
motivated to use alcohol to cope with social stress (Baumeister,
1997; Cooper, Agocha, & Sheldon, 2000).
CSWs such as virtue and God’s love, on the other hand, should
be relatively impervious to threat and may even protect against
alcohol use. Religiosity is negatively related to alcohol use (Stew-
art, 2001). Religious beliefs often include norms of abstinence or
at least moderation; thus, for students highly contingent on God’s
love, drinking may pose a threat to self-esteem. Similarly, because
excessive alcohol use is generally viewed negatively, those whose
self-worth is staked on being a virtuous (principled, moral) person

99
 100 BRIEF REPORTS
were expected to refrain from or limit their alcohol use to protect
their self-esteem.
This study examined the unique effects of level of self-esteem,
narcissism, and CSWs on alcohol use in a longitudinal survey of
college freshmen. Seven CSWs were assessed prior to the begin-
ning of college, and students reported their alcohol use for the first
and second semesters of their freshman year. Other personality
variables were also assessed to determine whether they account for
the effects of the main variables of interest on alcohol use. These
data were collected as part of the Adjustment to Collect Project, a
longitudinal study of an ethnically diverse sample of college
freshmen.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Method
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Participants and Procedure
During orientation in the Summer of 1999, incoming University of
Michigan freshmen were invited to participate in the Adjustment to
Collect Project, which consisted of three hour-long surveys, in ex-
change for $50. Of the 795 students who participated at Time 1, 642
(81%) completed all three surveys. The final sample included 254 men
and 372 women: 279 Whites, 113 Blacks, 155 Asian Americans, and 79
Asians (minorities were oversampled; 11 of unknown ethnicity and 11
who failed to respond to the alcohol questions were eliminated).1 All
were assigned random participant ID numbers and assured that their
responses were completely confidential. Students completed the Time 1
survey in August 1999, prior to the start of the freshman year of college.
The Time 2 survey was completed during January 2000, at the begin-
ning of the second semester of college, and the Time 3 survey in April
2000, in the last 2 weeks of the freshman year.
Materials
Demographic information (gender and ethnicity) was collected during
orientation. At Time 2, 11.1% of participants reported that they had joined
a sorority or fraternity, 88.1% had not, and 0.8% did not respond. Parents’
annual income was assessed at Time 3, on a scale from 1 (less than
$10,000) to 14 ($200,000 or more); the mean rating was 10.36 (SD ⫽
2.98), where 10 indicates an income of $60,000 to $74,999.2 Responses to
the other measures (described below) were reverse-scored where appropri-
ate and averaged; alphas are shown in Table 1.
Self-esteem was assessed at Time 1 with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem
Inventory (Rosenberg, 1965), using a scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Narcissism was also measured at Time 1
using a 40-item forced-choice scale requiring respondents to pick the one
statement out of two that better describes them (Raskin & Terry, 1988).
Contingencies of self-worth were assessed at Time 1 with the 35-item CSW
scale (Crocker et al., 2003), which measures seven contingencies on which
college students often base their self-esteem. The 5-item subscales include
Physical Appearance, Approval From Others, Outdoing Others in Compe-
tition, Academic Competence, Family Support, Virtue, and God’s Love.
The Big Five Personality Inventory (John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1992)
was included at Time 2 and assesses five major personality dimensions—
Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Open-
ness— on a response scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree
strongly). Social desirability was also measured at Time 2, with the
Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964), a
33-item forced-choice scale that assesses the extent to which individuals
describe themselves in favorable terms in order to gain approval from
others.
Alcohol use was assessed at Times 2 and 3, with two questions about
drinking during the first and second semesters, respectively. First, partic-
ipants were asked, “Approximately how many alcoholic drinks did you
consume per week (in an average/typical week) during the semester? Note:
one drink ⫽ one 12 oz. can or bottle of beer, one 6 oz. glass of wine, or one
shot of hard liquor.” The response scale was 0 ⫽ none; 1 ⫽ 1–2/week; 2 ⫽
3– 4/week; 3 ⫽ 5– 6/week; 4 ⫽ 7– 8/week; 5 ⫽ 9 –10/week; 6 ⫽ 11–12/
week; 7 ⫽ 13–14/week; 8 ⫽ 15–16/week; 9 ⫽ 17–18/week; 10 ⫽ 19 –20/
week; 11 ⫽ 21–25/week; 12 ⫽ 26 –30/week; 13 ⫽ over 30/week. Second,
participants were asked, “During the semester, how often, on the average,
did you have 5 or more drinks in a row?” The response scale was: 0 ⫽
never; 1 ⫽ once; 2 ⫽ twice; 3 ⫽ three times; 4 ⫽ once a month; 5 ⫽ twice
a month; 6 ⫽ three times a month; 7 ⫽ once a week; 8 ⫽ twice a week;
9 ⫽ three times a week; 10 ⫽ more than three times a week. To reduce
skewness, responses above 8 were coded as 8 for both questions.
Results
During the first and the second semesters, respectively, 52.6%
and 50.5% of participants indicated they drank an average of zero
drinks per week, and 62.1% and 59.2% said they never binged.3
Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations for the main
variables and their zero-order correlations with the drinking
variables.
Binary logistic regressions examined the unique effects of self-
esteem, narcissism, and CSWs on second-semester drinking status
(average of zero drinks per week vs. one or more drinks per week)
and bingeing status (never binged vs. binged at least once). Mul-
tiple regressions examined effects on number of drinks (for drink-
ers only) and frequency of bingeing (for bingers only) during the
second semester. All analyses controlled for gender, ethnicity, and
family income. We focused on second-semester alcohol use in
order to use the corresponding first-semester alcohol use variables
as baseline measures. Self-esteem, narcissism, CSWs, the Big Five
personality factors, social desirability, and sorority or fraternity
(i.e., Greek) membership were entered as predictors at Step 1. The
appropriate first-semester alcohol use variable was entered at Step
1
Students completed surveys either on the World Wide Web or by
mailing in a paper version. Those who completed the paper version were
lower in parental income than those who completed the Web version.
Controlling for income, Web versus paper completers did not differ in any
of the personality variables, but Blacks were more likely to complete paper
than Web versions, and Asians and sorority and fraternity members were
more likely to complete Web than paper versions. Those not included in
this sample (who either did not complete the three surveys or did not
answer one or more of the alcohol use questions) were lower in family,
academic, virtue, and approval CSWs, level of self-esteem, and Conscious-
ness and were higher in narcissism and Neuroticism, as well as more likely
to be Black, but we have no reason to believe that the relationships between
the variables (the focus here) would differ owing to these mean differences
in levels of the variables.
2
At Time 3, of those who responded to a question about their religious
affiliation, 17.1% were Protestant, 15.5% Catholic, 8.1% other Christian,
4.9% Jewish, 3.3% Buddhist, 1.8% Islamic, 14.0% some other religion,
and 12.5% no religion/agnostic/atheist (23% failed to respond). Because
religious affiliation greatly overlapped with ethnic status, we excluded it
from the analyses.
3
These figures are higher than usual (Engs et al., 1996) and may reflect
the high number of minorities (of Whites, an average of 38.45% indicated
they drank none per week and 45.3% indicated they never binged over the
first year) and the fact that the University of Michigan tends to attract
serious students.
 BRIEF REPORTS 101

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliability Coefficients for the Main Variables and Their Zero-Order Correlations With Alcohol Use

First semester alcohol use Second semester alcohol use

Drinking Bingeing Drinks/ Bingeing Drinking Bingeing Drinks/ Bingeing

Variable M SD ␣ n status status weeka frequencyb status status weeka frequencyb

Self-esteem 5.61 0.91 .87 619 .09* .07 .08 .16* .10* .08 .04 .04
Narcissism 0.44 0.17 .85 618 .21*** .23*** .28*** .27*** .22*** .23*** .23*** .18**
CSWs
Appearance 5.13 0.97 .83 620 .16*** .13** .04 .12 .15*** .13** .05 .07
God’s love 4.35 1.78 .96 620 ⫺.22*** ⫺.22*** ⫺.18** ⫺.12 ⫺.21*** ⫺.19*** ⫺.20*** ⫺.15*
Virtue 5.25 0.99 .83 618 ⫺.27*** ⫺.28*** ⫺.25*** ⫺.14* ⫺.27*** ⫺.29*** ⫺.27*** ⫺.17**
Family 5.51 0.88 .84 620 ⫺.02 ⫺.07 ⫺.05 .01 ⫺.02 ⫺.05 ⫺.08 .02
Competition 5.11 0.99 .88 620 .04 .05 .02 .06 .05 .06 ⫺.02 ⫺.05
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Academic 5.58 0.80 .79 620 ⫺.02 ⫺.04 ⫺.14* ⫺.07 ⫺.05 ⫺.09* ⫺.14* ⫺.12
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Approval 4.44 1.17 .81 618 .12** .09* .03 .09 .09* .08* ⫺.01 .04
Extraversion 3.40 0.77 .86 620 .21*** .19*** .26*** .25*** .22*** .19*** .14* .16**
Agreeableness 3.81 0.62 .75 620 ⫺.07 ⫺.09* ⫺.01 .06 ⫺.07 ⫺.10* ⫺.06 ⫺.01
Conscientiousness 3.59 0.66 .79 620 ⫺.04 ⫺.06 ⫺.08 ⫺.06 ⫺.07 ⫺.09* ⫺.09 ⫺.04
Neuroticism 2.97 0.82 .82 620 ⫺.05 ⫺.05 ⫺.11 ⫺.11 ⫺.06 ⫺.04 ⫺.05 ⫺.04
Openness 3.77 0.63 .78 620 .00 .00 ⫺.08 ⫺.03 ⫺.02 ⫺.07 ⫺.14* ⫺.03
Social desirability 0.47 0.15 .72 620 ⫺.16*** ⫺.16*** ⫺.03 ⫺.02 ⫺.16*** ⫺.16*** ⫺.01 ⫺.02
Greek membership 0.11 0.32 — 615 .27*** .28*** .33*** .27*** .26*** .30*** .31*** .22**
First semester alcohol use
Drinking status 0.47 0.50 — 620 .72*** — .32*** .74*** .64*** .32*** .37***
Bingeing status 0.38 0.49 — 620 .42*** — .66*** .70*** .43*** .43***
Drinks/weeka 3.27 2.30 — 294 .75*** .33*** .41*** .75*** .58***
Bingeing frequencyb 4.20 2.62 — 235 .27*** .33*** .61*** .62***
Second semester alcohol use
Drinking status 0.50 0.50 — 620 .71*** — .32***
Bingeing status 0.41 0.49 — 620 .40*** —
Drinks/weeka 3.11 2.29 — 307 .77***
Bingeing frequencyb 4.13 2.58 — 253

Note. CSWs ⫽ contingencies of self-worth.

a
Drinkers only. b Bingers only.
* p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01. *** p ⬍ .001.

2 to investigate what variables predicted changes in drinking status
from first to second semester.
Table 2 presents the results of the logistic regressions at Step 1.
Narcissism, but not level of self-esteem, predicted bingeing status
and marginally predicted drinking status. As expected, appearance
CSW predicted both statuses positively, and virtue and God’s love
CSWs predicted these statuses negatively (the effect of the latter
was marginal for bingeing status). Extraversion, Greek member-
ship, and Conscientiousness also predicted both statuses. Aca-
demic CSW and Openness negatively predicted bingeing status.
When we controlled for first-semester drinking status, however,
only virtue CSW remained a significant predictor of second-
semester drinking status (B ⫽ ⫺0.32, p ⬍ .04). When we con-
trolled for first-semester bingeing status, virtue CSW (B ⫽ ⫺0.39,
p ⬍ .02), academic CSW (B ⫽ ⫺0.59; p ⬍ .01), Extraversion (B ⫽
0.43, p ⬍ .04), and Openness (B ⫽ ⫺0.70, p ⬍ .00) remained
significant predictors of second-semester bingeing status.
Multiple regression indicated that for those who drank, narcis-
sism, virtue CSW, and Greek membership significantly predicted
number of drinks per week (God’s love CSW, Conscientiousness,
and Openness had marginal effects) at Step 1. Only Openness
predicted changes in drinking (B ⫽ ⫺0.34, p ⬍ .05) from first to
second semester (controlling for first-semester drinking at Step 2).
For those who binged, only virtue CSW predicted frequency of
bingeing at Step 1. None of the variables significantly predicted
changes in bingeing (controlling for first-semester bingeing at Step
2); only academic CSW marginally predicted bingeing from first
to second semester (B ⫽ ⫺0.49, p ⬍ .08).
Discussion
On the basis of the threatened egotism hypothesis, we explored
the effects of level of self-esteem, narcissism, and CSWs on
alcohol use in college freshmen, controlling for various other
personality variables. As expected, level of self-esteem did not
uniquely predict students’ alcohol use, but narcissism and the three
hypothesized contingencies (appearance, virtue, and God’s love)
did. Academic CSW also predicted whether students binged, and
marginally predicted decreases in frequency of bingeing from first
to second semester.
Both narcissists and students who base their self-worth on their
appearance have fragile self-views that are dependent on external
validation and easily punctured by others (Crocker et al., 2003;
Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). They may be vulnerable to threatened
egotism or drops in self-esteem in the types of social situations in
which much college student drinking occurs, where they feel
judged by others on the basis of superficial characteristics. Pre-
sumably, these students experience negative self-relevant affect in
these situations and drink to cope with this affect (Cooper et al.,
1995). Future research should assess students’ reasons for drinking
 102 BRIEF REPORTS

Table 2
Binary Logistic and Multiple Regressions Predicting Second Semester Alcohol Use

Drinking status Bingeing status a b

Drinks/week Bingeing frequency
Wald Odds Wald Odds
Variable B SE ␹2 ratio B SE ␹2 ratio B SE ␤ t B SE ␤ t

Self-esteem 0.17 0.14 1.54 1.19 0.15 0.15 1.01 1.16 ⫺0.22 0.20 ⫺.08 ⫺1.12 ⫺0.01 0.25 .00 ⫺0.03
Narcissism 1.20 0.73 2.75 3.33 1.57* 0.75 4.36 4.81 2.49* 0.98 .19* 2.55 1.04 1.33 .08 0.78
CSWs
Appearance 0.37** 0.14 7.36 1.45 0.33* 0.14 5.20 1.12 0.21 0.21 .08 1.02 0.18 0.27 .06 0.66
God’s love ⫺0.12* 0.06 4.07 0.89 ⫺0.12 0.06 3.59 0.89 ⫺0.15 0.09 ⫺.11 ⫺1.69 ⫺0.16 0.12 ⫺.11 ⫺1.33
Virtue ⫺0.60*** 0.12 26.19 0.55 ⫺0.63*** 0.12 26.26 0.53 ⫺0.50** 0.17 ⫺.21** ⫺2.96 ⫺0.49* 0.23 ⫺.19* ⫺2.08
Family 0.08 0.14 0.30 1.08 0.11 0.14 0.63 1.12 0.12 0.20 .04 0.61 0.28 0.27 .09 1.05
Competition ⫺0.14 0.13 1.17 0.87 0.03 0.14 0.05 1.03 ⫺0.07 0.19 ⫺.03 ⫺0.37 ⫺0.06 0.26 ⫺.02 ⫺0.21
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Academic ⫺0.08 0.17 0.25 0.92 ⫺0.35* 0.18 3.88 0.71 ⫺0.20 0.24 ⫺.07 ⫺0.82 ⫺0.43 0.33 ⫺.14 ⫺1.28
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Approval 0.05 0.11 0.22 1.05 0.05 0.11 0.20 1.05 ⫺0.09 0.15 ⫺.04 ⫺0.56 ⫺0.07 0.21 ⫺.03 ⫺0.33
Extraversion 0.56*** 0.15 13.40 1.76 0.54** 0.16 11.01 1.72 0.11 0.25 .03 0.44 0.30 0.34 .09 0.88
Agreeableness 0.11 0.19 0.31 1.11 0.13 0.20 0.39 1.14 0.04 0.29 .01 0.15 ⫺0.03 0.39 ⫺.01 ⫺0.07
Conscientiousness ⫺0.37* 0.18 4.51 0.69 ⫺0.36* 0.18 4.03 0.70 ⫺0.46 0.24 ⫺.13 ⫺1.92 ⫺0.13 0.32 ⫺.04 ⫺0.41
Neuroticism ⫺0.05 0.15 0.08 0.96 0.11 0.16 0.42 1.11 0.13 0.23 .04 0.57 0.08 0.30 .03 0.26
Openness ⫺0.26 0.17 2.38 0.77 ⫺0.46** 0.18 6.88 0.63 ⫺0.46 0.24 ⫺.13 ⫺1.95 ⫺0.22 0.32 ⫺.06 ⫺0.67
Social desirability ⫺1.26 0.81 2.45 0.28 ⫺1.18 0.85 1.94 0.31 1.91 1.23 .11 1.56 1.42 1.64 .08 0.87
Greek membership 1.06** 0.40 7.11 2.89 1.14** 0.38 9.21 3.12 1.01** 0.37 .18** 2.74 0.40 0.47 .07 0.85

Note. Analyses controlled for gender, ethnicity, and parental income. CSW ⫽ contingencies of self-worth.
a
Drinkers only. b Bingers only.
* p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01. *** p ⬍ .001.

and also directly assess self-relevant affect in situations where
students who are highly contingent on appearance and those who
are highly narcissistic drink, to more directly test the threatened
egotism explanation for these effects.
Virtue CSW predicted abstaining and never bingeing, even after
controlling for other personality variables, and further predicted
amount of drinking among the drinkers and frequency of bingeing
among the bingers. God’s love CSW predicted abstinence but did
not predict bingeing or amount of alcohol consumed. Academic
CSW predicted refraining from bingeing and decreases in bingeing
over time. Thus, these contingencies may be desirable in that they
inhibit high-risk behaviors such as alcohol use. Students who stake
their self-worth on academics may realize that alcohol use is
counterproductive to doing well in their studies, whereas those
who base their self-esteem on God’s love and virtue may abstain
or limit their drinking on religious and moral grounds.
Different contingencies had different effects on alcohol use,
with some having no effect. Thus, it is important to distinguish
between the domains on which individuals base their self-worth,
rather than focus solely on how contingent their self-worth is
overall. Further research should investigate how the various con-
tingencies relate to other high-risk behaviors.
The present study is limited by the reliance on correlational data,
which make the causal direction of the effects ambiguous. Previ-
ous alcohol use in high school may shape students’ contingencies
and personality. Controlling for first-semester alcohol use indi-
cated that the virtue and academic competence contingencies pre-
dicted decreased alcohol use over time, consistent with a causal
effect of these contingencies.
The present study relies on retrospective self-reports, which
could be affected by social desirability concerns, self-deception, or
inaccurate recall. Although we controlled for social desirability, it
does not entirely rule out concerns about the accuracy of self-
report. Also, further studies should use more refined measures of
alcohol use (Wechsler & Nelson, 2001).
In sum, these results suggest that self-esteem concerns or threat-
ened egotism may be important motivators of alcohol use, but the
important issue is not whether self-esteem is high or low but rather
whether self-esteem is vulnerable to threat.
References
Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Esteem threat, self-regulatory breakdown, and
emotional distress as factors in self-defeating behavior. Review of Gen-
eral Psychology, 1, 145–174.
Cooper, M. L., Agocha, V. B., & Sheldon, M. S. (2000). A motivational
perspective on risky behaviors: The role of personality and affect reg-
ulatory processes. Journal of Personality, 68, 1059 –1088.
Cooper, M. L., Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Mudar, P. (1995). Drinking to
regulate positive and negative emotions: A motivational model of alco-
hol use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 990 –1005.
Crocker, J., & Luhtanen, R. K. (2003). Level of self-esteem and contin-
gencies of self-worth: Unique effects on academic, social, and financial
problems in college students. Personality and Social Psychology Bulle-
tin, 29, 701–712.
Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R., Cooper, M. L., & Bouvrette, S. A. (2003).
Contingencies of self-worth in college students: Measurement and the-
ory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 894 –908.
Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psycho-
logical Review, 108, 593– 623.
Crowne, D., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in
evaluative dependence. New York: Wiley.
Engs, R. C., Diebold, B. A., & Hanson, D. J. (1996). The drinking patterns
and problems of a national sample of college students, 1994. Journal of
Alcohol and Drug Education, 41, 13–33.
Glindemann, K. E., Geller, E. S., & Fortney, J. N. (1999). Self-esteem and
alcohol consumption: A study of college drinking behavior in a natu-
ralistic setting. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 45, 60 –71.
 BRIEF REPORTS 103

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1992). The “Big Five”
Inventory: Versions 4a and 5. Unpublished manuscript, University of
California, Berkeley.
Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcis-
sism: A dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological In-
quiry, 12, 177–196.
Pullen, L. M. (1994). The relationships among alcohol abuse in college
students and selected psychological/demographic variables. Journal of
Alcohol and Drug Education, 40, 36 –50.
Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the
Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct
validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 890 –902.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Stewart, C. (2001). The influence of spirituality on substance use of college
students. Journal of Drug Education, 31, 343–351.
Wechsler, H., & Nelson, T. F. (2001). Binge drinking and the American
college student: What’s five drinks? Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,
15, 287–291.
Received August 6, 2003
Revision received January 6, 2004
Accepted January 6, 2004 䡲