Chapter Six: Phase I Quantitative Analysis of Cross-Sectional Research
6.3 Sample Characteristics
6.3.1 Gender group profile. In Phase I, N=324 participants took part in the research:
161 males (50%), 159 females (50%).
6.3.2 Age profile. A total of 324 participants aged 18 to 58 have been involved in the research to complete the questionnaire, with a mean age of 23 years (SD=6.7). 10 participants chose not to answer question about their age (see Table 6.1 for age profile of the
participants). Out of the total 338 questionnaires completed by participants, the data of 14 non-drinkers has been excluded from the research for not meeting the exclusion criteria, which reduced the sample size to N=324. In the middle of data collection there was a decision made to boost up the female sample. A slightly higher response rate was observed for males N= 161 (50.3%) compared to females N=159 (49.1%).
Table 6.1
Age of the Participants
N Min Max Mean Standard
Deviation
Age 314 18 38 23.31 6.736
115
6.3.3 Domestic status. Domestic status included married 7% (N=23), not married or cohabiting (but in a steady relationship) 25% (N=79), divorced or separated 2% (N=6) and single 65% (N=210) and 1.9% did not wish to answer this question. Domestic status was not included in the analysis.
6.3.4 Children. The participants’ response showed 10% (N=32) had children and 90% did not. The percentage of the number of children participants had was: no children 92%
(N=283), one child 2% (6), 2 children 3% (N=10), 3 children 2% (N=6).
6.3.5 University year. The sample comprised of first year 33% (N=101), second year 39% (N=120), third year 22% (N=66), Masters 5% (N=16), PhD students 1% (N=3) and 5.6% did not chose to answer this question.
6.3.6 Job outside college hours. The students who had a job outside of university hours: 51% of the students (N=160) were reported to have a job outside of college hours, while 49% of students (N=155) did not. Out of working students 10% (N=31) reported to have full-time and 44% (N=140) part-time jobs. Some of the participants (2.8%) did not wish to answer this question.
6.3.7 Part time or full time. In regard to employment, 44.8 % (N=145) of the participants were not in employment, 9.6 % (N=31) were on a full-time employment, 43.2%
(N=140) on a part-time employment and 2.5% (N= 8) of the participants did not wish to answer this question (see Table 6.2 for employment status).
116 Table 6.2
Employment Status
Employment Participants (%)
No job 44.8
Full-time 9.6
Part-time 43.2
Missing 2.5
6.3.8 Ethnicity. 72.3% (N=) of participants in the study were Caucasian, 15% (N=48) Afro-Caribbean, 9% (N=29) Asian, 1.9% (N=6) from other ethnic backgrounds and 2.8%
(N=9) did not wish to answer this question.
6.3.9 Alcohol consumption. Identify frequency of alcohol use of the students, they were asked to select responses from the following: never, monthly or less, 2-4 times per month, 2-3 times per month, 4 or more times per week. Frequency of alcohol use was as follows: never 1% (N=3), monthly or less 30% (N=94), 2-4 times per month 36% (N=112), 2-3 times per month 23% (N=72), 4 or more times per week 10% (30). Four per cent (N=13) of the student chose not to respond to this question (see Table 6.3 for frequency of alcohol use).
Table 6.3
Frequency of Alcohol Use
How of do you have drink containing alcohol?
Participants (%)
Never 0.9
Monthly or less 29.0
2-4 times per month 34.6
117
2-3 times per week 22.2
4 or more times per week 9.3
Missing 4.0
6.3.10 Units consumed on a single occasion. The number of units consumed on a single occasion were reported to be 1 or 2 36% (N=117), 3 or 4 25% (N=82), 5 or 6 18%
(N=57), 7-9 12% (N=38), 10 or more 5% (N=17), 4% (N=13) chose not to answer to this question (see Table 6.4).
Table 6.4
Number of Units Consumed in a Single Occasion Number of drinks of alcohol consumed
in a drinking session
Participants (%)
1 or 2 36.1
3 or 4 25.3
5 or 6 17.6
7-9 11.7
10 or more 5.2
Missing 4.0
6.3.11 Binging. To identify binging occasion students were asked to report how often they have 6 or more drinks on one occasion. Alcohol use over recommended limits was reported to be never 24% (N=77), less than monthly 30% (N=98), monthly 28% (N=90), weekly 12% (N=40), daily almost daily 2% (N=6), missing 4% (N=13) (see Table 6.5).
118 Table 6.5
Frequency of Binging
Binging (6 or more units in one occasion)
Participants (%)
Never 23.8
Less than monthly 30.2
Monthly 27.8
Weekly 12.3
Daily or almost daily 1.9
Missing 4.0
6.4 Findings
6.4.1 Reliability for measures used. The table above shows internal consistency for the scales are acceptable. Cronbach’s Alpha is considered to be Excellent at α ≥ 0.9; Good at 0.9 > α ≥ 0.8; Acceptable at 0.8 > α ≥ 0.7; Questionable at 0.7 > α ≥ 0.6; Poor at 0.6 > α ≥ 0.5; Unacceptable at 0.5 > α. (Brace, Kemp, & Snelgar, 2006).
6.4.1.1 Prototype willingness model.
Table 6.6
Means, Standard Deviations and Reliability for the Prototype Willingness Constructs
119 6.4.1.2 The theory of planned behaviour.
Table 6.7
Means, Standard Deviations and Reliability for the Theory of Planned Behaviour Constructs
Means Standard Deviations and Reliability for the AUDIT
Construct Mean Standard deviation Cronbach’s Alpha (α =)
AUDIT 17.652 5.430 .855
6.4.1.4 Coping.
Table 6.9
Means, Standard Deviations and Reliability for the Five Coping Styles
120
Accommodation 9.847 2.264 .678
Devaluation 8.414 2.755 .838
Means, Standard Deviations and Reliability for the Self-determination Theory Constructs
121 6.4.1.6 Alcohol expectancies.
Table 6.11
Means, Standard Deviations and Reliability for Positive Alcohol Expectancy Scale
Means Standard Deviations and Reliability for Personality Variables Construct
Means Standard Deviations and Reliability for Impulsivity Scale Construct
122
6.4.1.9 Alcohol consumption and coping (Section 10).
Table 6.14
Means Standard Deviations and Reliability for Drinking to Cope Construct
6.4.1.10 Well-being in general life (General Health Questionnaire 12 item version).
Table 6.15
Means Standard Deviations and Reliability for General Health Questionnaire Construct
6.4.1.11 Willingness to drink.
Table 6.16
Means, Standard Deviations and Reliability for Willingness Construct
123
Willingness 2 7.753 3.818 .87
6.4.1.12 Alcohol consumption.
Table 6.17
Min, Max, Means and Standard Deviations for Frequency, Units Consumed in Single Occasion and Past Binging Behaviour
Construct Min Max Mean Standard
Deviation
Frequency .00 7.00 1.471 1.538
Units
consumed in a single
occasion
.00 50.00 5.838 8.919
Past binging .00 172.00 10.298 21.415
6.5 Correlations
6.5.1 Gender. Gender showed significant positive correlation with intrinsic
motivation, identified regulation, neuroticism, GHQ and significant negative correlation with age, past binging, frequency and AUDIT.
6.5.2 Age. Age significantly positively correlated with expectancy and significantly negatively with past binging, AUDIT, Intention, tension reduction, amotivation, drinking to cope, GHQ and willingness.
6.5.3 Alcohol consumption. Frequency of alcohol use significantly positively correlated with units consumed in a single occasion, past binging, AUDIT, attitude, self-efficacy, intention, neuroticism, impulsivity, drinking to cope, GHQ and willingness.
124
Frequency significantly negatively correlated with subjective norm, intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, positive alcohol expectancies.
Units consumed on a single occasion significantly positively correlated with frequency of alcohol use, past binging, AUDIT, PWM, attitude, self-efficacy, intention, avoidance coping, devaluation coping, extraversion, impulsivity and drinking to cope. GHQ and willingness. The number of units consumed in a single occasion significantly negatively correlated with subjective norm, intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, external regulation and positive alcohol expectancies.
Past binging significantly positively correlated with frequency, units, AUDIT, attitude, self-efficacy, intention, avoidance, devaluation, extraversion, neuroticism, impulsivity, drinking to cope, GHQ and willingness. Past binging significantly negatively correlated with subjective norm, intrinsic motivation, identified regulation and introjected regulation.
AUDIT significantly positively correlated with frequency, units, past binging, PWM, attitude, self-efficacy, intention, devaluation, amotivation, neuroticism, impulsivity, drinking to cope, GHQ and willingness. AUDIT significantly negatively correlated with subjective norm, PBC, intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, introjected regulation and positive alcohol expectancies (see Appendix B.26 for more correlations).