(PS1-24) Examining the Unique Impact of “drinking Buddy” Descriptive Norms on Individual Alcohol Consumption

Introduction: Peer descriptive norms, or perceptions of how much one’s close peers drink, are well-supported as salient predictors of individual drinking outcomes. Prior work has highlighted a specific subset of peers in one’s social network known as drinking buddies (i.e., DBs; individuals in one’s network with whom one drinks with) as particularly risky. Research supports that more DBs in one’s network confers additional risk for individual drinking, even when controlling for the number of drinkers in one’s network. Despite evidence pointing to their risky impact, little research has compared the impact of DBs to that of non-DB drinkers (NDBD) in one’s network. Additionally, no research has compared these two unique groups of peers in the context of descriptive norms. As a result, it is unclear whether it is NDBD norms, or DB descriptive norms specifically, that are particularly impactful. This is significant, as it is possible that DB norms exclusively are driving prior findings on the impact of drinking peers. As such, this study aimed to assess the unique impact of DB descriptive norms, beyond general peer drinking norms, on individual drinking quantity (Aim 1), binge drinking frequency (Aim 2), and drinking consequences (Aim 3).

Methods: Participants were N = 462 college student drinkers (84.6% female; 36.4% white; M_age = 19.87 [SD = 1.90]) who responded to an online, cross-sectional survey. Measures included the typical number of standard drinks participants consumed on each day of the week, past-month drinking consequences, and a social network map.

Results: Stepwise regression analyses were conducted using SPSS v28. Prior to analyses, NDBD and DB norms were confirmed to independently predict outcome variables. For all analyses, NDBD norms were entered at step one, and NDBD and DB norms were entered in step two. For Aim 3, drinking quantity was included as a covariate. Findings indicated that for Aim 1, NDBD norms predicted drinking quantity (B=.12, SE=.04, p=.007,) as did DB norms (B=.42, SE=.04, p< .001). After accounting for DB norms, the R²_adjusted value increased from .108 to .319 (p< .001). Similarly, for Aim 2, NDBD norms predicted binge drinking frequency (B=.07, SE=.03, p=.017), as did DB norms (B=.15, SE=.02, p< .001). After accounting for DB norms, the R²_adjusted value increased from .058 to .131 (p< .001). For Aim 3, NDBD norms no longer predicted drinking consequences (B=.05, SE=.03, p=.084). However, DB norms predicted drinking consequences (B=.07, SE=.03, p=.005). After accounting for DB norms, the R²_adjusted value increased from .179 to .191 (p=.005).

Discussion: Findings highlight the salience of DB descriptive norms in predicting drinking. Specifically, findings suggest that DB descriptive norms explain unique variance, above and beyond NDBD in one’s network, and are particularly relevant in predicting riskier drinking outcomes (i.e., consequences) compared to NDBD alone. Results indicate that drinking interventions targeting peer descriptive norms may benefit from focusing specifically on DB norms, particularly in the context of risky drinking outcomes. Future research should explore mechanisms underlying DB versus NDBD impact on individual drinking outcomes.