Student Perceptions of a New Campus Alcohol Policy: Linking Deterrence and Blame Attribution

• Date: 01 July 2017
• DOI: 10.1177/0022042617699195
• Published date: 01 July 2017
• Author: Margaret S. Kelley
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0022042617699195

Journal of Drug Issues

2017, Vol. 47(3) 411 –432

© The Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0022042617699195

journals.sagepub.com/home/jod

Article

Student Perceptions of a New

Campus Alcohol Policy: Linking

Deterrence and Blame Attribution

Margaret S. Kelley1

Abstract

How do students make judgments about their future behaviors involving the use of alcohol? The

present study advances deterrence theory by introducing elements of attribution theory while

examining the perceived deterrent effects of a newly instituted dry policy on a college campus.

A phone survey of 508 full-time undergraduate students between the ages of 18 and 26 was

conducted 1 year following the ban on alcohol. Hypotheses are presented in two models and

predict that deterrence (surveillance and enforcement) and blame explain intentions to violate

the alcohol policy. These relationships are expected to be mediated by problem attribution and

shame and are moderated by gender. Results show that perceived peer surveillance does reduce

intentions to violate the policy in the future but formal enforcement does not. Findings further

indicate that attributing blame acts to increase the likelihood of experiencing shame, therefore,

reducing intentions to violate the alcohol policy. Gender conditioned the effects of surveillance

and shame (stronger for females) on future policy violations. Problems that arise from drinking

can be understood as another form of attribution that acts to mediate surveillance. Surveillance

and blame contribute to the judgment process as students think about violating the alcohol

policy, and shame emerges as the key link between deterrence and attribution.

Keywords

blame attribution, shame, surveillance, deterrence, alcohol policy, gender

Introduction

The primary objective of this article is to contribute to ongoing efforts to understand and regulate

problem drinking in college through the examination of the perceived deterrence effects of a

recently enacted dry policy at a large southwestern state university. Existing research on the

impact of this policy has used deterrence theory as the framework for examining the formal and

informal sanctions embedded in it, concluding that the informal sanction of shame is more effec-

tive than the potential formal consequences of getting caught (Kelley, Miyuki, Spivak, & Payne,

2009). In addition, it was revealed that religiosity increased perceived threats of shame and

embarrassment, which in turn reduced the likelihood of anticipated policy violations (Spivak,

Fukushima, Kelley, & Sanford-Jenson, 2011).

1University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA

Corresponding Author:

Margaret S. Kelley, University of Kansas, Department of American Studies, 1440 Jayhawk Blvd., Lawrence, KS 66045,

USA.

Email: mskelley@ku.edu

699195JODXXX10.1177/0022042617699195Journal of Drug IssuesKelley

research-article2017

412 Journal of Drug Issues 47(3)

In the current analysis, I extend my examination of the campus alcohol policy by analyzing a

second wave of trend data collected a year after the policy was put into place (N = 508). I exam-

ine the linkage between formal and informal sources of social control in the tradition of studies

in perceptual deterrence (Anderson, Harris, & Miller, 1983; Nagin, 1998) and introduce two new

categories of variables. Perceptual deterrence allows us to evaluate intentions to comply with or

violate rules and regulations, also known as projected offending, and deterrence theory has been

tested by examining perceptions of punishment and law violations (Klepper & Nagin, 1989;

Lanza-Kaduce, 1988; Liska & Messner, 1999; Nagin & Pogarsky, 2003; Pogarsky, 2004). Future

intentions are recognized as a legitimate way of operationalizing some types of behavior, although

predictions by respondents are not assumed to be completely accurate (Alreck & Settle, 2004).

First, derived from deterrence theory, I use perceived surveillance, enforcement, and shame to

predict intentions to violate. Second, from attribution theory, I incorporate measures of blame

attribution. These together paint a unique picture of the ways that deterrence theory works in the

decision making of young people about their drinking behaviors.

Problem Drinking

Problems with alcohol on college campuses are certainly not new. Indeed, drinking is often con-

sidered a rite of passage into college life and plays a central role in the college experience

(Inciardi, 2002; Kuo, Wechsler, Greenberg, & Lee, 2003; Straus & Shelden, 1953; Workman,

2001). Because of widespread American acceptance of drinking as a part of college life, college

students tend to show a strong resistance toward policies regulating alcohol use on campus

(Harris, Sherritt, Van Hook, Wechsler, & Knight, 2010; Wechsler, Lee, Gledhill-Hoyt, & Nelson,

2001), even when confronted with problems associated with drinking and “living the party life.”

Binge drinking, or heavy episodic drinking, has commonly been defined by researchers as the

consumption of five or more drinks on a single occasion for males and four or more for females

(a more technical definition takes into account blood alcohol concentration levels; Inciardi, 2002;

Lange et al., 2002; National Institutes of Health, 2007; Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, & Lee, 2000). Binge

drinking as a public health threat on campus has captured increasing attention in recent years

(Chaloupka & Wechsler, 1996; Wechsler, Dowdall, Davenport, & DeJong, 1993; Wechsler,

Dowdall, Maenner, Gledhill-Hoyt, & Lee, 1998; Williams, Chaloupka, & Wechsler, 2005).

Today, virtually every university in the United States provides some kind of alcohol intervention

program for students. One way to categorize popular efforts to control consumption is as using

dry or wet policies. A dry policy is developed with punishments designed to curb drinking behav-

iors, similar to Prohibition. Other schools implement a wet policy, which provides a controlled

environment for students to learn to drink responsibly (Workman, 2001).

There may be unintended consequences of broad bans against alcohol use on campus. For

example, some research shows that rather than growing the number of careful and responsible

drinkers, bans had a polarizing effect (Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, & Seibring, 2002). Yes, more students

abstained, but more moderate drinkers crossed over into excessive and problem drinking. The

literature is clear that the more students drink, the more likely they are to experience problems in

their lives directly related to their use of alcohol. Schools are very interested in minimizing harm

to students by decreasing the negative impact of excessive drinking.

Informal Deterrence and Alcohol Policies

We know that informal sanctions, such as the negative consequences deriving from reactions of

others close to the individual, appear to have a stronger deterrent effect on individuals than for-

mal sanctions (Foglia, 1997; Tittle & Paternoster, 2000). Research in deterrence theory has con-

cluded that “the extralegal consequences of crime seem at least as great a deterrent as do the legal