METHOD
PARTICIPANTS
Initially, I identified 963 individuals to participate in the study. The number reduced to 876 after cleaning and identifying those that were not truthful. Eventually, I settled on a filtered sample of 625 participants. I noted the participant sample size both initially and after data cleaning. The inclusion method involved the responses from the participants. Additionally, Psychology 105 students were included in the study. The exclusion criteria involved the participants who did not respond randomly. Eligibility of participants varied from the demographics, to timeline follow back to the AEAS. Firstly, the participants were to be of both genders. They were to be both international or domestic students with diverse ethnicity including Anglo-Australian, Aboriginal, Asian, European, Middle Eastern, African and others. The participants were to be in all years of their tertiary education from year 1 to year 7. Participants were to be either full time or part time students. Participants were of all religious beliefs. 98.7% of the participants who had drunk alcohol ever were selected with 75.1% of them having consumed energy drinks in the past 28 days.
For the AEAS, I identified relevant words potentially related to consumption of alcohol and established normative information concerning arousal and valence. Study participants were 50 students with an average age of 21 years. However, they were only eligible if they were at least 18 years. Study measures included demographics, timeline follow back and the AEAS. I did not include certain demographics in identifying participants. Some of the demographics I neglected include the relationship status, religious beliefs and sexual orientations of the participants.
Reliability and validity: To ensure reliability and validity in my study, I collected data anonymously. That is; the participants did not have to provide their personal details such as names or locations (Schry & Norberg, 2013, p. 17). I also sought consent and got approval from the HREC to conduct my study. As such, my study assured the participants of the existence and upholding of ethical measures.
Recruitment details: I recruited participants for my study during tutorials and followed their eligibility for the study. Additionally, the recruitment was random to ensure diversity of the participants and to meet eligible ones.
Survey administration: I conducted my survey over a continual period. My surveys lasted for 20-30 minutes as I interviewed the participants over that period.
RESULTS
The descriptive data for the study was collected with clear means and confidence intervals for the variables use in the collection (Skewes, Decou & Gonzalez, 2013, p. 5).. 865 results for the sex were valid while 11 were missing. For the ethnicity, the results were 876. For the international and domestic students, the results were 100 percent. The descriptive statistics also revealed that 876 of the participants, which represents 100 %. The frequency of the sex of the participants varied with valid percentage. For the male participants, they had a cumulative percentage of 25.4. For the female participants, their valid percentage was 74.2 with a cumulative percentage of 99.7. 0.3 of the participants preferred not to answer. For the case processing, valid results for age were 99.7%, 0.3% for the missing. The female AMED high pos immediate also varied with valid and missing. The valid percentage was 65.6% while the missing percentage was 34.4%. For the male AMED high positive immediate, the valid results amounted to 26.2% while the missing percentage was 73.8%. The female AMED low negative immediate were 64.6% for the valid and 35.4% for the missing. The male AMED low negative immediate were 26.1% for the valid and 73.9% for the missing. On the other hand, the AEAS had different results. Several of the AEAS items were distributed non-normally (Striley & Khan, 2014, p.28). Therefore, the estimation used was the robust maximum likelihood, which produced a range of fit indexes that were elemental to determine the structure of the latent factor (Ham & Hope, 2003, p.14). Given my hypothesized factor solution, I anticipated that there would be as the association between the existent latent factors based on the shared arousal and valence. For instance, the HIGH would be sociable consequences while the LOW would be relaxed consequences (Droste, Tonner, Zinkiewicz, Pennay, Lubman, Miller, 2014, p.25)..
The two positive factors including the LOW and HIGH and the LOW factor corresponded to my hypothesized quadrant of affective spaces; all the LOW positive items fell within my anticipated quadrant (Morean, Corbin & Treat, 2012, p. 25). Moreover, the HIGH positive factor had a single borderline item that I rated as falling slightly within the LOW positive quadrant (Huntley & Juliano, 2012, p.27). That is carefree consequences. On the other hand, the LOW negative quadrant comprised of two borderline items namely drunk and dizzy that fell just within the quadrant of high arousal (Peacock, Pennay, Droste, Bruno & Lubman, 2014, p. 11). However, the HIGH negative effects did not correspond with my anticipated quadrant of affective. This factor had two items namely depression and lonely.
DISCUSSION
The results from this study do not support my hypotheses. Firstly, I hypothesized that that individuals who score higher on the high positive ascending limb subscale of the AEAS for AMEDs will report more personal consequences than those who score low on the same subscale. However, from the results it is evident that the results are structured non-normally (Mallet, Marzell, Scaglione, Hultgren & Turrisi, 2014, p.28). That is; there is no clear speculation and identification of the consequences of the individuals in relation to scores on the positive ascending limb subscale for the AEAS (Varvil-Weld, Marzell, Turrisi, Mallet & Cleveland, 2013, p.28).. Secondly, I hypothesized that I hypothesize that individuals who score lower on the low negative ascending limb subscale of the AEAS for AMEDs will report more physical consequences than those who score high on the same subscale (Verster & Scholey, 2014, p.16).. From my results, it was suggestive that the consequences were more personal including depressions unlike anticipated physical in the hypothesis (Kypri, Cronin & Wright, 2005, p.16).
Various current findings like Kypri et al 2005, Morean et al 2012, and Mallet et al, differ with this study because the results from the studies suggest that the high scores for the HIGH positive translate to personal consequences (Verster, Aufricht, & Alford, 2012, p. 28). Additionally, the findings reveal that the scores for the LOW negative translate to physical consequences.
The strength of this study is that it uses a random approach in selecting participants for the study. As such, the generalization of the results of this study is made possible (Cronce, Larimer, 2011, p. 22). However, the weakness is that the difference in percentage between the male and female filtered participants denies the accuracy of the results.
Future studies of this topic would ensure equal percentage between the male and female percentages after filtering to allow for the diversity of the results (NSW, 2013, p. 18).
TABLES
DEMOGRAPHICS
AEAS
The AEAS results are on a scale of 0-10 rate of the extent of the effects.
References
Carey, K. B., Scott-Sheldon, L. A., Carey, M. P., & DeMartini, K. S. (2007). Individual-level interventions to reduce college student drinking: A meta-analytic review.Addictive Behaviors. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.05.004
Cronce, J. M., & Larimer, M. E. (2011). Individual-focused approaches to the prevention of college student drinking. Alcohol Research and Health, 34, 210-221. Retrieved from http://www.niaaa.nih.gov//journals/alcohol-research
Droste, N., Tonner, L., Zinkiewicz, L., Pennay, A., Lubman, D. I., & Miller, P. (2014). Combined alcohol and energy drink use: Motivations as predictors of consumption patterns, risk of alcohol dependence, and experience of injury and aggression. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/acer.12438
Ham, L. S., & Hope, D. A. (2003). College students and problematic drinking: A review of the literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 719-759. doi:10.1016/S0272-7358(03)00071-0
Heinz, A. J., Wit, H., Lilje, T. C., & Kassel, J. D. (2013). The combined effects of alcohol, caffeine, and expectancies on subjective experience, impulsivity,and risk-taking. Clin Psychopharmacol, 22, 222-234.
Huntley, E. D., Juliano, L. M. (2012). Caffeine expectancy questionnaire (CaffEQ): Construction, psychometric properties, and associations with caffeine use, caffeine dependence, and other related variables. Psychological Assessment, 24, 592-607. doi:10.1037/a0026417
Kypri, K., Cronin, M., & Wright, C. S. (2005). Do university students drink more hazardously than their non-student peers? [Letter to the editor]. Addiction, 100, 713-717. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01116.x
Mallet, K. A., Marzell, M., Scaglione, N., Hultgren, B., & Turrisi, R. (2014). Are alcohol and energy drink users the same? Examining individual variation to alcohol mixed with energy drink use, risky drinking, and consequences. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 28, 97-104. doi:10.1037/a0032203
Morean, M. E., Corbin, W. R., & Treat, T. A. (2012). The anticipated effects of alcohol scale: Development and psychometric evaluation of a novel assessment tool for measuring alcohol expectancies. Psychological Assessment, 24, 1008-1023. doi:10.1037/a0028982
NSW. (2013). Alcohol and Energy Drinks in NSW: Research.
Peacock, A., Pennay, A., Droste, N., Bruno, R., & Lubman, D. I. (2014). 'High' risk? A systematic review of the acute outcomes of mixing alcohol with energy drinks. Addiction. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/add.12622
Reis, J., & Riley, W. L. (2000). Predictors of college students’ alcohol consumption: Implications for student education. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 16(3), 282 – 291.
Schry, A. R., & Norberg, M. M. (2013). Factor structure of the modified Timeline Followback: A measure of alcohol-related consequences. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 74, 803-809. Retrieved fromhttp://www.jsad.com/
Skewes, M. C., Decou, C. R., & Gonzalez, V. M. (2013). Energy drink use, problem drinking and drinking motives in a diverse sample of Alaskan college students. International Journal of Circumpolar Behavioral Health, 72, 194-199. doi:10.3402/ijch.v72i0.21204.
Striley, C. W., & Khan, S. R. (2014). Review of the energy drink literature from 2013: Findings continue to support most risk from mixing with alcohol. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 27, 263-268. doi:10.1097/YCO.0000000000000070
Varvil-Weld, L., Marzell, M., Turrisi, R., Mallet, K. A., & Cleveland, M. J. (2013). Examining the relationship between alcohol-energy drink risk profiles and high-risk drinking behaviors. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 37, 1410-1416. doi:10.1111/acer.12102
Verster, J. C., Benson, S., & Scholey, A. (2014). Motives for mixing alcohol with energy drinks and other nonalcoholic beverages, and consequences for overall consumption. International Journal of General Medicine, 7, 285-293. doi:10.2147/IJGM.S6)
Verster, J. C., Aufricht, C., & Alford, C. (2012). Energy drinks mixed with alcohol: misconceptions, myths, and facts. International Journal of General Medicine.
Wechsler, H., Lee, J. E., Nelson, F. N., & Kuo, M. (2002). Underage college students’ drinking behavior, access to alcohol, and the influence of deterrence policies. Journal of American College Health, 50(5), 223 – 236.
