































Graduate Student Journal of  Psychology
2014, Vol. 15

Copyright 2014 by the Department of  Counseling and Clinical Psychology
Teachers College, Columbia University

47

Short-Term Longitudinal Peer Influence Processes 
Associated with Binge Drinking Among First Year 

College Students

Adam Bryant Miller
George Mason University

Mitchell J. Prinstein
University of  North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Christianne Esposito-Smythers
George Mason University

This study examined the influence of  peer selection and socialization effects on binge drinking (BD) behaviors during 
the transition to college. Participants included 196 first-year college students (72.9% female) from a large Southeast-
ern public university who reported BD pre-college (Time 1) and three months post-matriculation (Time 2). At Time 
2, participants identified their closest new college friend whose data was linked to the participant. We hypothesized 
that matriculating college students would select peers with similar pre-college BD and that peers’ pre-college BD 
would predict post-matriculation BD. Results from regression analyses suggested that first-year students chose 
friends with similar pre-college BD and maintain their BD commensurately with their new best friend’s prior BD. 
Given support for peer influence, implications regarding prevention strategies and future research are discussed.

A Prospective Study of  Peer Influence Processes 
Associated with Binge Drinking Among First-
Year College Students
 Emerging adulthood is a distinct developmental 
period between adolescence and young adulthood 
(ages 18-25; Arnett, 2000) that has been associated 
with increases in and maintenance of  health risk be-
haviors (White et al., 2006; White, Fleming, Kim, Cat-
alano, & McMorris, 2008). Binge drinking, defined as 
consumption of  five or more drinks over a short pe-
riod of  time (two hours), has been the focus of  much 
attention in this area. Up to 25.5% of  high school 
seniors reported engaging in binge drinking within a 
30-day period (Eaton et al., 2010). Further, approxi-
mately two out of  five (44.4%) college students can 
be categorized as binge drinkers (Johnston, O’Mal-
ley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2011). Binge drinking 
during early emerging adulthood is associated with lat-
er alcohol dependency and other mental health prob-

lems (Chassin, Pitts, & Prost, 2002; Viner & Taylor, 
2007). The purpose of  the present study is to exam-
ine potential mechanisms through which college stu-
dents develop relationships with binge drinking peers.
 Many emerging adults transition into college 
during this developmental period.  This transition 
is associated with increases in binge drinking be-
haviors as well as the formation of  new social net-
works (Schulenberg & Maggs, 2002). As such, peer 
influence is particularly salient when considering 
the rise in binge drinking rates among first year col-
lege students. While research on peer influence and 
alcohol use behaviors among emerging adults has 
been growing (Pandina, Johnson, & White, 2010), 
research on the effects of  the college transition on 
alcohol-related behaviors has been relatively limited. 
Researchers have investigated peer influence mecha-
nisms from multiple theoretical perspectives to help 
explain the increase in binge drinking rates during the 
college transition. Two well-studied areas include al-
cohol expectancies and perceptions of  social norms. 
Alcohol expectancies, or the belief  that alcohol use 
will lead to positive or negative outcomes (e.g., in-
creased comfort in social situations) have been shown 
to predict levels of  drinking (Chen, Grube, & Madden, 
1994), mediate patterns of  drinking (Darkes, Green-

 This research was supported in part by a grant from the Office 
of  Undergraduate Research, the Kimball King Undergraduate Re-
search Award, and a donation from the Office of  the Dean of  Stu-
dents, all from the University of  North Carolina at Chapel Hill.   
 Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed 
to Adam B. Miller, Department of  Psychology, MS 3F5, George 
Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030. Email: amillec@gmu.edu.



48

baum, & Goldman, 2004), and alter binge drinking 
rates (Labbe & Maisto, 2011). Relatedly, Neighbors 
et al. (2007) found that among first-year-undergradu-
ate college students, perceived social norms of  alco-
hol use predicted higher alcohol consumption, even 
above alcohol expectancies.  Another study found 
that perceived social norms also predict severity 
of  drinking behaviors (Lewis & Neighbors, 2004). 
 As is evident, college students’ perceptions of  
the social facilitative effects of  drinking and general 
peer use patterns influence drinking behavior.  How-
ever, the manner in which college students’ percep-
tions of  peer alcohol use and associated behaviors af-
fect the development of  binge drinking peer groups 
has received less attention in the research literature. 
One potential way to categorize friendship formation 
is to examine the role of  selection and socialization 
effects. Selection effects refer to individuals’ choice 
of  friends whom they perceive to be similar to them-
selves in attitudes and beliefs (Kandel, 1978). Social-
ization effects refer to the processes wherein individ-
uals implicitly and explicitly influence each other to 
engage in similar behaviors (Kandel, 1978; Prinstein 
& Dodge, 2008). This influence may serve to increase 
or maintain a maladaptive behavior, such as binge 
drinking. These processes, examined together, may 
help explain how first year college students befriend 
individuals whom they perceive to have similar binge 
drinking behaviors, and how these new friendships 
are associated with the maintenance or increase in 
each individual’s binge drinking (White et al., 2008).
 Previous studies yield support for peer influence 
on alcohol use behaviors during the college transition. 
Leibsohn (1994) found that first year students reported 
befriending college peers with similar drinking habits 
as themselves. Read, Wood, and Capone (2005) sug-
gested that adolescents’ perceptions of  their friends’ 
drinking behaviors and attitudes were associated with 
increases in their own drinking during the first year 
of  college. White et al. (2008) found that adolescents 
who drank heavily in high school were more likely 
to perceive that their new (post-high school) friends 
possessed pro-alcohol values which predicted in-
creases in adolescents’ own drinking behavior. Thus, 
some studies have suggested that both selection and 
socialization effects may be relevant for understand-

ing alcohol use among first year college students. 
 Despite significant advances in this area, much 
of  the research on peer socialization and selection 
effects is hampered by a number of  methodolog-
ical limitations.  First, most prior studies examine 
selection effects by measuring newly formed friend-
ships within a context of  familiar peers (i.e., among 
already-acquainted grademates; White et al., 2008). 
Such examinations of  selection effects are confound-
ed by adolescents’ prior knowledge of  their peers’ 
reputations. A more rigorous examination of  selec-
tion effects involves assessing newly formed dyadic 
friendships among unfamiliar peers (e.g., during col-
lege transition). Second, past work has suggested that 
college students provide poor estimates of  their peers’ 
drinking behavior (Borsari & Carey, 2006; Neighbors 
et al., 2007; Prinstein & Wang, 2005), thereby lim-
iting conclusions that can be reached.  Finally, past 
studies have often been cross sectional and thus 
causal inferences cannot be drawn (Leibsohn, 1994). 
 To address limitations of  prior research, the cur-
rent study examined peer socialization and selection 
effects using first-year college students’ peer nomina-
tions of  new college friends and these friends’ own 
reported behaviors of  prior drinking experiences. 
Thus, actual drinking behaviors, rather than estima-
tions, of  each person in a dyadic friendship were 
compared.  This study also employed a prospective 
design to more accurately characterize friendship for-
mation and binge drinking over a short, ecologically 
valid time frame. We hypothesized that: 1) matricu-
lating college students would choose friends with 
similar levels of  pre-college binge drinking (selection 
effects); and 2) students’ binge drinking post-matric-
ulation at Time 2 (T2) would be predicted by their 
new best friends’ Time 1 (T1) binge drinking behav-
ior over and above prior binge drinking experiences 
(socialization effects). Finally, given that males have 
been shown to binge drink more frequently than fe-
males (Borsari & Carey, 2001), we hypothesized that 
gender would moderate both selection and social-
ization effects. Specifically, males will be more likely 
than females to choose peers with similar rates of  pri-
or binge drinking experience, and males will be more 
likely than females to be influenced by their new best 
friends’ binge drinking behaviors post-matriculation. 

MILLER, PRINSTEIN, ESPOSITO-SMYTHERS



49

PEER INFLUENCE AND COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING

Method

Participants
 Participants included 196 first-year students 
(72.9% female) at a large Southeastern universi-
ty in the United States. The ethnic distribution 
of  this sample was 80.6% White, 6.8% Black, 
5.2% Asian, 4.7% Latino/a, and 2.6% other/
mixed race and matched that of  the university 
population. Females were overrepresented in this 
sample compared to the overall gender distribu-
tion from the university population (see below).

Measures
 Binge drinking. Questions regarding binge 
drinking were created for the present study and mir-
rored well-established alcohol use measures included 
in the National Longitudinal Study of  Adolescent 
Health (Add Health; Harris et al., 2009). At T1 before 
starting college in the fall, students were asked, “In 
the last six months, how often did you have five or 
more alcohol drinks on a single occasion (within a few 
hours)?” Responses were recorded using a Likert-type 
scale (i.e., 1 = 0 times, 2 = 1-2 times, 3 = 3-9 times, 4 
= 10-19 times, and 5 = 20 or more times). At T2, par-
ticipants reported the frequency of  their binge drink-
ing in the past three months using the same scale.
 Best friend’s alcohol use. At T2, participants 
were asked to rank order an unlimited number of  
friends in college (using first and last names) and indi-
cate whether each listed friend was a “new” friend (also 
a first-year student) since starting college. The name 
and data of  the new best friend (highest-ranked new 
friend) who was also a part of  this research study was 
linked to the participant via each person’s university 
identification number. Names of  the participants and 
new best friends were matched (twice for accuracy) 
using official university records of  first year students’ 
names and identification numbers. Friends’ responses 
to the same T1 question served as an independent 
report of  college friends’ pre-college binge drinking.

Procedure 
 Incoming first-year students were told that they 
could voluntarily participate in a research study de-
signed to understand the health behaviors of  incom-

ing first year students. They were assured that all of  
their information would be kept strictly confidential. 
Trained research assistants distributed a survey to 
incoming first-year students during the first day of  
summer orientation sessions (T1). Students provid-
ed only their unique university identification number 
rather than their name, and returned their form in 
a sealed, confidential folder to facilitate honest re-
sponding. The paper and pencil survey took 10-15 
minutes to complete, and students were allowed to 
complete these forms in the privacy of  their dorms 
overnight. Additional measures were administered 
three months after the start of  the school year (T2) 
using a secure online survey. Three months was cho-
sen in order to provide adequate time for students 
to select new peers and establish drinking behaviors. 
All who completed the T1 assessment were eligible 
to participate in the T2 measurement. Of  the 4,000 
incoming first year students, 25% (n= 1,000) were un-
der 18 and ineligible to participate in the study. Of  
the remaining 3,000 eligible students, 52% (n = 1,574 
[65% female]) returned their T1 surveys. The gender, 
ethnic distribution, and geographic origin of  this 
T1 sample did not differ significantly from the total 
population of  the full first year class. Of  all T1 par-
ticipants, 53.2% (n = 837) completed the T2 survey. 
 Students with data at T1 and T2 had to 
meet two criteria to be included in final analyses. 
 First, only students who selected a new best 
friend with T1 data (i.e., also a study participant with 
T1 data) were included to ensure actual reported 
behavior of  the friend. In other words, participants 
had to be in a newly formed dyad, and both mem-
bers of  this dyad had to have T1 data. Second, to 
eliminate concerns of  data duplication and resulting 
inflated associations, each participant was included 
as a best friend only once within the data set. In the 
T2 sample, 9.26% (n = 20) of  the participants were 
doubly nominated as best friends. In such cases, one 
participant who had nominated the same best friend 
as another participant was excluded at random from 
study analyses. In total, 196 participants met all cri-
teria necessary for inclusion.  This procedure for ex-
amining newly formed friendships (e.g., including un-
limited friend nominations, linking dyadic data, and 
ensuring that participants are only included once in 



50

analyses) is consistent with that employed in previous 
research examining best friend relationships (Prin-
stein & Dodge, 2008). Affiliated University Institu-
tional Review Board provided approval for this study.

Data Analysis
 Descriptive analyses, including frequencies and 
bivariate correlations, were conducted first. Two sep-
arate hierarchical multiple regression analyses were 
used to examine primary hypotheses. In the first mod-
el testing selection effects, college friend’s pre-college 
(T1) binge drinking was entered as the dependent 
variable. Participants’ pre-college (T1) binge drinking 
and gender were entered as predictors on the initial 
step of  the regression, with their interaction entered 
on the second step. To examine socialization effects, 
participants’ post-matriculation (T2) binge drinking 
frequency was entered as the dependent variable. In 
order to show the unique effects of  socialization, 
pre-college (T1) binge drinking was controlled in an 
initial step. The new friends’ pre-college (T1) binge 
drinking and gender of  the participant were entered 
in the next step.  Finally, the interaction between new 
friends’ pre-college (T1) binge drinking and gen-
der of  the participant were entered in the final step.

Results 

Preliminary Results
 Participants with T1 data only (n = 701) report-
ed higher levels of  binge drinking than participants 
who provided data at both T1 and T2 (t (1548) = 
2.93, p < .05. More females than males completed the T2 
follow-up (x2(1, 1558) = 7.83, p < .05). At the T2 fol-
low-up, students who did not list a best friend at all 
(n = 109) and students who did not list a best friend 
that also was in the study (n = 512) were ineligible for 
final analysis, but did not differ significantly from the 
overall T2 sample. However, participants who picked 
a best friend that was also in the original sample at 
T1 (n = 216) engaged in binge drinking less frequent-
ly than those who did not list a best friend in the 
original sample (t (1,553) = 1.91, p < .05). Females 
(72.9%) were more likely than males to list a best 
friend who also was in the study (x2(1,789) = 6.32, p< 
.05) and were overrepresented in the follow-up study.

Bivariate Analyses
 Bivariate correlations and descriptive statistics, 
including means and standard deviations, of  all vari-
ables are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Figure 1 rep-
resents the frequency of  binge drinking in the prior 
six months of  the final sample. Males engaged in 
binge drinking more frequently than females at both 
T1 and T2. Previous binge drinking (T1) was posi-
tively associated with binge drinking behaviors at T2. 

Selection Effects
 Results from regression analyses showed a main 
effect of  friends’ binge drinking at T1 on the par-
ticipants’ pre-college binge drinking (T1). Consis-
tent with selection effects, results suggested that 
higher levels of  participants’ pre-college binge 
drinking was significantly associated with high-
er levels of  pre-college binge drinking (T1) of  the 
participants’ new best friend (see Table 3). There 
was no main effect of  gender for participants’ T1 
pre-college binge drinking.  Despite males report-
ing higher binge drinking rates than females (Table 
1), gender did not moderate the relationship be-
tween participants’ pre-college binge drinking and 
their new best friends’ pre-college binge drinking. 

Socialization Effects
 Results from regression analyses suggested that 
pre-college binge drinking behaviors explained ap-
proximately half  of  the variance in binge drinking 
during the fall semester of  college (see Table 3). 
Consistent with socialization effects, pre-college 
(T1) binge drinking of  participants’ new best friend 
predicted the participants’ current binge drinking. 
Specifically, higher levels of  binge drinking report-
ed by the new best friend at T1 predicted higher 
levels of  binge drinking of  the participant at T2 
over and above prior binge drinking behaviors of  
the participant.  There was no main effect of  gen-
der, and gender did not moderate this association. 

Discussion 
 A primary goal of  this study was to examine the 
influence of  peer selection and socialization effects 
on binge drinking among college students.  To ad-
dress limitations of  prior research, this study assessed 

MILLER, PRINSTEIN, ESPOSITO-SMYTHERS



51

	
  	
   Peer influence and college binge drinking 22 

  

Table 1.   Means and Standard Deviations for Primary Variables (N = 196)	
  

	
  

	
   Males	
   Females	
   t (df)	
  

Time 1	
   	
   	
   	
  

Binge Drinking	
   2.22 (1.33)	
   1.51 (.85)	
   -4.22** (178)	
  

Friend’s Binge Drinking	
   1.96 (1.23)	
   1.61 (.95)	
   -2.06* (179)	
  

Time 2	
   	
   	
   	
  

Binge Drinking	
   2.10 (1.20)	
   1.51 (.87)	
   -3.69** (186)	
  

	
   	
   	
   	
  

Note. * p< .05; ** p< .001	
  

  

	
  	
   Peer influence and college binge drinking 23 

 

Table 2.   Bivariate Associations Among Primary Variables (N = 196) 

	
  

	
   T1 Binge 

Drinking	
  

T1 Friend’s Binge 

Drinking	
  

T2 Binge 

Drinking	
  

T1 Binge Drinking	
   --	
   .28**	
   .70**	
  

T1 Friend’s Binge 

Drinking	
  
.25	
   --	
   .34**	
  

T2 Binge Drinking	
   .65**	
   .30*	
   --	
  

	
   	
   	
   	
  

Note. Correlations below the diagonal represent males, and values above the diagonal 

represent females. * p< .05; ** p< .001	
  

 

 

 

  

 

PEER INFLUENCE AND COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING



52

	
  	
   Peer influence and college binge drinking 21 

   

Figure 1.

 

  

61% 
19% 

11% 

7% 

2% 

Binge Drinking at Time 1, N = 196 

0 times 

1-2 times 

3-9 times 

10-19 times 

20 or more times 

First Year Students’ Binge Drinking 24 
 

Table 3. Multiple Linear Regression Analysis Testing Selection Effects (1) and Socialization 

Effects (2) (N = 196) 

 

 

Predictor	
   B	
   SE B	
   ß	
   p	
   Δ R2	
  

1. Friend’s Time 1 (T1) Behavior 	
   	
   	
   	
   	
  
Step 1 Gender	
   -.16	
   .18	
   -.07	
   .377	
   .09**	
  
 Participant Binge Drinking T1	
   .27	
   .07	
   .27**	
   .001	
   	
  
Step 2 Participant Binge Drinking T1 x Gender	
   .09	
   .16	
   .14	
   .567	
   .09	
  

2. Participant Binge Drinking at Time 2 (T2) 	
   	
   	
   	
   	
  
Step 1 Participant Binge Drinking T1	
   .68	
   .05	
   .70**	
   <.000	
   .50**	
  
Step 2 Gender	
   -.10	
   .13	
   -.05	
   .417	
   .02*	
  
 Friend’s Binge Drinking at T1	
   .15	
   .05	
   .15*	
   .007	
   	
  
Step 3  Friend’s Binge Drinking T1 x Gender	
   .04	
   .11	
   .07	
   .735	
   .00	
  

MILLER, PRINSTEIN, ESPOSITO-SMYTHERS



53

college students’ binge drinking behaviors pre- and 
post-college matriculation and compared it to their 
new best friends’ actual reports of  binge drinking.  It 
also employed a prospective, 3-month design.  Similar 
to past work, results suggested that prior binge drink-
ing was a strong predictor of  future binge drinking 
behavior (White et al., 2008). Importantly, results are 
consistent with prior research (Leibsohn, 1994; Read 
et al., 2005; White et al., 2008) and provide evidence 
that both peer selection and socialization effects may 
account for some of  the binge drinking behaviors 
reported by students during their college transition. 
 The college transition is typically characterized by 
numerous opportunities for substance use (Pandina 
et al., 2010).  One pathway to college students’ binge 
drinking may be through the selection of  friends who 
have similar past binge drinking experiences as them-
selves.  Our results also yield preliminary evidence to 
suggest that new college friends may influence the 
maintenance of  binge drinking behavior. This finding 
is consistent with prior studies that have found that 
emerging adults are influenced by the behaviors of  
their friends (Allen, Porter, & McFarland, 2006; Co-
hen & Prinstein, 2006).  While experimental alcohol 
use is considered to be normative during the first year 
of  college, friendships that form around and facilitate 
binge drinking are concerning and deserve attention.  
Study results can be further interpreted through 
the lens of  social learning theory (SLT). Ac-
cording to the SLT of  alcohol, social reinforce-
ment and modeling are central concepts for un-
derstanding binge drinking during the college 
transition (Borsari & Carey, 2006). The college tran-
sition provides an ideal social environment to facili-
tate alcohol use.      
 In the context of  SLT, peers serve as models for 
binge drinking and simultaneously provide social re-
inforcement. Binge drinking facilitates contact and 
acceptance among peers, provides pleasant shared 
experiences, and increases intimacy, closeness, and 
support among newly forming friendships (Borsa-
ri & Carey, 2006). Thus, individuals transitioning to 
college who have already experienced the positive 
social aspects associated with binge drinking may 
select peers with similar past experiences and mu-
tually engage in binge drinking as a means to de-

velop a close friendship.  Indeed, previous studies 
have shown that incoming college students appear 
to binge drink to make friends rather than to cope 
with negative affect (Reifman & Watson, 2003). As 
a friendship continues to develop, peers may main-
tain binge drinking behaviors as both members of  
the dyadic relationship experience similar posi-
tive reinforcement for binge drinking and drink as 
a means to maintain shared behaviors and beliefs. 

Implications for Prevention
 Results suggest that a tiered approach to alcohol 
prevention may be effective.  Given that past drinking 
behaviors were associated with future binge drinking, 
interventions designed to address the health risks 
associated with binge drinking among incoming col-
lege students are indicated.  Recent research suggests 
that psychoeducational alcohol prevention programs 
on college campuses hold promise in the short-
term.  In a randomized clinical trial that included 
30 universities, the use of  an online, internet-based 
alcohol misuse prevention program, referred to as 
“AlcoholEdu for College”, was associated with a 
significant reduction in the frequency of  past-30 
day binge drinking in the fall semester upon course 
completion (Paschall, Antin, Ringwalt, & Saltz, 
2011). However, these results did not persist into 
the spring semester, highlighting the potential need 
for booster sessions or other prevention approaches.
 The results of  the present study suggest that 
incorporating peer related factors into alcohol pre-
vention programming may prove to be fruitful.  
Peers’ drinking prior to college matriculation was 
found to predict binge-drinking behaviors during 
the first few months of  college, above and beyond 
past drinking history.  Thus, programs that promote 
physical health but also teach peer alcohol resistance 
skills during the first few weeks of  college may help 
combat binge drinking on college campuses.  Peer-
led prevention programs or the use of  well-respect-
ed peer actors in online materials may also help in-
crease the salience of  prevention programming.
 For those students who do not respond to univer-
sal (or broad) prevention efforts, and form mutually 
supportive social relationships around binge drink-
ing, selective or indicated prevention programming 

PEER INFLUENCE AND COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING



54

may be warranted.  A number of  studies have found 
that peer-led interventions utilizing motivational in-
terviewing techniques with college students have 
been successful in reducing alcohol use (Larimer, 
Cronce, Lee, & Kilmer, 2004; Tevyaw, Borsari, Colby, 
& Monti, 2007).  Future development and work in 
the area of  peer-led interventions appears warranted. 

Limitations and Future Directions
 Though the present study uniquely builds upon 
existing literature in the area of  peer influences on 
college student drinking behavior, it also has a num-
ber of  limitations. Data at both time points were 
collected from a small subset of  incoming first year 
students, limiting generalizability. Efforts to enroll all 
incoming first year students for participation in fu-
ture research in this area would be beneficial.  De-
spite assurances of  confidentiality, it is also possi-
ble that students under-reported their alcohol use 
given that they were under the legal drinking age. 
 Alternative explanations for the binge drinking 
behaviors in the current sample should also be con-
sidered.  Drinking behavior was only measured be-
tween two friends in this sample. The influence of  
other peers, or non-interpersonal factors, was not 
assessed in this study.  For example, students’ Greek 
affiliation, a known influence on binge drinking (Mc-
Cabe et al., 2005) was not assessed. Although the 
majority of  students (> 75%) at the university where 
this study was conducted live on campus their first 
year, it is possible that students living on campus 
may drink more than students that live off  campus 
or vice versa.  Further, some studies have shown 
that for males, having a roommate who was a binge 
drinker in high school is related to increases in drink-
ing behaviors in college (Duncan, Boisjoly, Kremer, 
Levy, & Eccles, 2005). Future research would ben-
efit from examining these alternative explanations 
and other potential reasons that friendships may 
form other than around binge drinking behaviors.
 Another important issue in this study was the 
attrition rate from T1 to T2. Students with the high-
est binge drinking rates at T1 were the least likely 
to complete the follow-up survey at T2. The final 
sample for analysis included mostly females and less 
frequent binge drinkers compared to the T1 sample. 

Importantly, even among this small sample, peer in-
fluence mechanisms still accounted for a significant 
portion of  the variance in binge drinking behaviors. 
Future research with more frequent binge drinkers 
might find stronger peer influence effects. Specif-
ically, it would be useful to examine whether fre-
quent binge drinkers are more strongly affected by 
peer influence than individuals without a history of  
binge drinking. It would also be important to study 
individuals who are abstainers to understand conti-
nuities and discontinuities in their college drinking 
behaviors (Hersh & Hussong, 2006). It is also im-
portant to note that the current study only included 
participants who made new best friendships over the 
course of  the first three months of  college. Thus, 
study participants may be higher in various types of  
socially facilitative personality traits, such as extrover-
sion, compared to excluded individuals. Finally, this 
study used a single item to measure binge-drinking 
behaviors at both Time 1 and 2, which temper con-
clusions. Future research would benefit from using 
validated measures of  binge drinking behaviors.

Conclusion 

This study offers further evidence to suggest that 
peer influence processes are relevant for under-
standing binge drinking on college campuses. The 
current study improves upon prior research meth-
odology by examining actual peer reports of  sub-
stance use behaviors rather than estimations by the 
study participant. Results highlight the potential 
benefit of  using developmental theories, methods, 
and ecologically valid time points to understand 
peer influence effects on college binge drinking. 

 
References

Allen, J. P., Porter, M. R., & McFarland, F. C. (2006). 
Leaders and followers in adolescent close friend-
ships: Susceptibility to peer influence as a predic-
tor of  risky behavior, friendship instability, and 
depression. Development and Psychopathology, 
18, 155–172. doi:10.1017/S0954579406060093

Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory 

MILLER, PRINSTEIN, ESPOSITO-SMYTHERS



55

of  development from the late teens through the 
twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469–480. 
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469

Borsari, B., & Carey, K. (2006). How the quality of  
peer relationships influences college alcohol 
use. Drug and Alcohol Review, 25, 361–370. 
doi:10.1080/09595230600741339

Borsari, B., & Carey, K. B. (2001). Peer influences on 
college drinking: A review of  the research. Journal 
of  Substance Abuse, 13, 391–424. doi:10.1016/
S0899-3289(01)00098-0

Chassin, L., Pitts, S. C., & Prost, J. (2002). Binge 
drinking trajectories from adolescence to emerg-
ing adulthood in a high-risk sample: Predic-
tors and substance abuse outcomes. Journal of  
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 67–78. 
doi:10.1037/0022-006X.70.1.67

Chen, M.-J., Grube, J. W., & Madden, P. A. (1994). Al-
cohol expectancies and adolescent drinking: Dif-
ferential prediction of  frequency, quantity, and 
intoxication. Addictive Behaviors, 19, 521–529. 
doi:10.1016/0306-4603(94)90007-8

Cohen, G. L., & Prinstein, M. J. (2006). Peer con-
tagion of  aggression and health risk behavior 
among adolescent males: An experimental in-
vestigation of  effects on public conduct and pri-
vate attitudes. Child Development, 77, 967–983. 
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00913.x

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. 
(2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation 
analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd edition). 
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Darkes, J., Greenbaum, P. E., & Goldman, M. S. 
(2004). Alcohol expectancy mediation of  biopsy-
chosocial risk: Complex patterns of  mediation. 
Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 
12, 27–38. doi:10.1037/1064-1297.12.1.27

Duncan, G. J., Boisjoly, J., Kremer, M., Levy, D. M., 
& Eccles, J. (2005). Peer effects in drug use and 
sex among college students. Journal of  Abnor-
mal Child Psychology, 33, 375–385. doi:10.1007/
s10802-005-3576-2

Eaton, D. K., Kann., L., Kinchen, S., Shanklin, S., 
Ross, J., Hawkins, J., et al. (2010). Youth risk 
behavior surveillance—United States, 2009.  
MMWR Surveillance Summary, 59,1-142. 

Harris, K. M., Halpern, C. T., Whitsel, E., Hussey, J., 
Tabor, J., Entzel, P., & Udry, J. R. (2009). The Na-
tional Longitudinal Study of  Adolescent Health: 
Research Design. Retrieved from http://www.
cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/design.

Hersh, M. A., & Hussong, A. M. (2006). High school 
drinker typologies predict alcohol involvement 
and psychosocial adjustment during acclimation 
to college. Journal of  Youth and Adolescence, 
35, 738–751. doi:10.1007/s10964-006-9067-0

Johnston, L.D., O’Malley, P.M., Bachman, J.G., & 
Schulenberg, J.E. (2009). Monitoring the future 
national survey results on drug use, 1975-2008: 
Volume I. Secondary school students (NIH Pub-
lication No. 09–7402) Bethesda, MD: National 
Institute on Drug Abuse.

Kandel, D. B. (1978). Homophily, selection, and so-
cialization in adolescent friendships. American 
Journal of  Sociology, 84, 427–436.

Labbe, A. K., & Maisto, S. A. (2011). Alcohol expec-
tancy challenges for college students: A narrative 
review. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 673–683. 
doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2011.02.007

Larimer, M. E., Cronce, J. M., Lee, C. M., & Kilmer, 
J. R. (2004). Brief  intervention in college settings. 
Alcohol Research & Health, 28, 94–104.

Leibsohn, J. (1994). The relationship between drug 
and alcohol use and peer group associations of  
college freshmen as they transition from high 
school. Journal of  Drug Education, 24, 177–192.

Lewis, M. A., & Neighbors, C. (2004). Gender-spe-
cific misperceptions of  college student drinking 
norms. Psychology of  Addictive Behaviors, 18, 
334–339. doi:10.1037/0893-164X.18.4.334

McCabe, S. E., Schulenberg, J. E., Johnston, L. D., 
O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Kloska, D. 
D. (2005). Selection and socialization effects of  
fraternities and sororities on US college student 
substance use: A multi-cohort national longitudi-
nal study. Addiction, 100, 512–524.

Neighbors, C., Lee, C. M., Lewis, M. A., Fossos, N., & 
Larimer, M. E. (2007). Are social norms the best 
predictor of  outcomes among heavy-drinking 
college students? Journal of  Studies on Alcohol 
and Drugs, 68, 556–565.

Pandina, R. J., Johnson, V. L., & White, H. R. (2010). 

PEER INFLUENCE AND COLLEGE BINGE DRINKING



56

Peer influences on substance use during adoles-
cence and emerging adulthood. In Handbook of  
drug use etiology: Theory, methods, and empir-
ical findings. (pp. 383–401). Washington, DC: 
American Psychological Association.

Paschall, M. J., Antin, T., Ringwalt, C. L., & Saltz, R. F. 
(2011). Evaluation of  an internet-based alcohol 
misuse prevention course for college freshmen: 
Findings of  a randomized multi-campus trial. 
American Journal of  Preventive Medicine, 41, 
300–308. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2011.03.021

Prinstein, M. J., & Dodge, K. A. (Eds.). (2008). Un-
derstanding peer influence in children and ado-
lescents. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Prinstein, M. J., & Wang, S. S. (2005). False consen-
sus and adolescent peer contagion: Examining 
discrepancies between perceptions and actual re-
ported levels of  friends’ deviant and health risk 
behaviors. Journal of  Abnormal Child Psycholo-
gy, 33, 293–306. doi:10.1007/s10802-005-3566-4

Read, J. P., Wood, M. D., & Capone, C. (2005). A pro-
spective investigation of  relations between social 
influences and alcohol involvement during the 
transition into college. Journal of  Studies on Al-
cohol, 66, 23–34.

Reifman, A., & Watson, W. K. (2003). Binge drink-
ing during the first semester of  college: Contin-
uation and desistance from high school patterns. 
Journal of  American College Health, 52, 73–81. 
doi:10.1080/07448480309595727

Schulenberg, J. E., & Maggs, J. L. (2002). A devel-
opmental perspective on alcohol use and heavy 
drinking during adolescence and the transition to 
young adulthood. Journal of  studies on alcohol. 
Supplement, 54–70.

Tevyaw, T. O., Borsari, B., Colby, S. M., & Monti, P. M. 
(2007). Peer enhancement of  a brief  motivation-
al intervention with mandated college students. 
Psychology of  Addictive Behaviors, 21, 114–119. 
doi:10.1037/0893-164X.21.1.114

Viner, R. M., & Taylor, B. (2007). Adult outcomes 
of  binge drinking in adolescence: findings from 
a UK national birth cohort. Journal of  Epide-
miology & Community Health, 61, 902–907. 
doi:10.1136/jech.2005.038117

White, H. R., Fleming, C. B., Kim, M. J., Catalano, 
R. F., & McMorris, B. J. (2008). Identifying two 
potential mechanisms for changes in alcohol use 
among college-attending and non-college-attend-
ing emerging adults. Developmental Psychology, 
44, 1625–1639. doi:10.1037/a0013855

White, H. R., McMorris, B. J., Catalano, R. F., Flem-
ing, C. B., Haggerty, K. P., & Abbott, R. D. (2006). 
Increases in alcohol and marijuana use during 
the transition out of  high school into emerging 
adulthood: the effects of  leaving home, going to 
college, and high school protective factors. Jour-
nal of  Studies on Alcohol, 67, 810–822.

MILLER, PRINSTEIN, ESPOSITO-SMYTHERS


