Relaxation Exercise. Seek friend. Watch Tv/read. Slerp. COPING. Thoughts ofltried suicide. Fight involving violence. Pulled an all-nighter. Engage in risky activity.
HEALTH RISK BEHAVIORS: A COMPARISON OF FIVE CAMPUSES JoYce Morrus, PllD' CHES DoNA SCIINEIDER, PliD, MPH Rutgcrs UniversitY
fcw sludies have camous environment influcnces sludcnl bchavior' but eflvircnmcnl' iJiJJit-rto*' tt"or,rt behaviors are utto6;31sd wilh camous of lm studcnls on cach of five fir'u"Oy a".p""a rhc hcald bchaviors a larec univcrsily 'Ihc hcallh bchavior ptofilcs o[ de live wili lic differcnt campus cnvironnrenls' orir"i"",,
""-."."t'"f iLirli, *.
",,,.16icd
associate Particular behaviors wi(h Panicu-
Introduction
lar environments. This study attemPts to
In developing programming, colleges often assume thal students have similar health behavior practices because most students
determine what types of health risk behavior seem to be associated with different campus environments at a major university'
adulthood. Students are drawn to a college campus because of the physical environmeni, as well as the social, economic, and psychological characteristics it possesses' The characleristics of the student in tum are influenced by the environment of that
The survey was conducted at four undergraduate colleges (5 campuses) of a large northeastem university College l, a land-
are moving from adolescence to young
Methods
qrant college, is a professional school of isriculrural, environmental, and life sciences' S!venty percent of College I's 2,800 srudents
campus. The educational setting, t}ten, makes a difference
both socially and academically
live on campus. College II is a large women's liberal ans college with about 3,400 students' The mission al this college is to develop leadershiP skills in women. College III is a relatively new college with 3,500 undergraduates and a mission to bring together a diverse sroup of srudents, faculty, and staff' While it
in students' lives (Moos, 1987). The campus environment has also been shown to be associated with physical and emodonal symptoms and subsequent health services utilization (Moos and Van Dort, 197'l , l9't9). For example, students may exhibit signs of stress such as ulcer pain' headaches or nausea and seek medical attention at student heallh sewices. At the extreme' some may attempt suicide, requiring emergency medical treatment. A Previous study showed 0tat students living in dormitories
im
matured into
a
standard liberal ans
college, it still maintains a focus on cultural and ethnic diversity College IV with over 8,000 srudents is an academically rigorous inslirution with a long history. lt has two
Draclice fewer risky health behaviors than do srudents who live off campus (Scl'neider
and Morris. l99l). Although it is acknowledged that differences in environment influence risk-taking behavior. little work has been done to try to
camDuses
- one the original liberal arts col-
lege campus (A) and the other (B) a new rapidly developing science and engineering ca mPus.
The study employed a quota sampling lechnique to oblain an equal representation
390
Health Risk Behavlors . . . /391
from each campus. One hundred undergraduate students were chosen on each of the five campuses. To control for the effect of living anangemerrt, half of the students sampled on each campus were dormitory residents and half were commuters. A research assistant solicited dormitory students at the cafeteria on each campus. Commuter respondents were solicired in the respective comrnuter lounges. Ninety-five percent of the solicited students elected to complete the survey. Srudents refusing to complete tle survey were similar to respondents on sex and ethnic background. Among respondents, if the population of Campus II (women's college)is excluded, $ere were no significant differences in gender distribution among the remaining four campus samples. If Campus In (multicultural) is excluded, there were no significant differences racial/ethnicity between the remaining four campus samples. Overall, the sample was l2Vo Asian, 227o black, llVo Hispanic, 547o white and ZVo
other. No significant differences were found between campus samples on class level or credit load. Information from student health services, housing, and the registrars were combined with previous sludies to develop a 49 item questionnaire. In addition to 9 demo' graphic questions, fony questions dealt with risky behaviors, especially stress, smoking, drinking, drugs, sex, and dieting. Dieting behaviors are not reponed here because of the gender differential in dieting behaviors. Data were complete for all items excepl. coping behaviors, discuss sexual health, and always practice safe sex. Cross-tabulations were performed. Significance testing (Chi square) was used where numbers were suffi-
ciently large. RF^sULTS
in
Stress and Coping
Behaviors
The three mos( popular coping behaviors on all carnpuses were seeking out a friend,
Table
I
Stress and Coping Behaviors by Campus, Percent
II
III
9
3
3
I
I
'1
I 4
2
l6
5
l0
z7
IVA IVB
TOTAL
STRESS
Go drinking Take drugs Eat food Exercise
Relaxation Exercise Seek friend
!;;i
ii
i'l
i j:i
*
i
3
I
I
3
0
0
6
27
30
30 44 22
I
I
5
23
0 0
Watch Tv/read
I8
36
27
38
Slerp
23
20
28
27
Thoughts ofltried suicide
5
4
6
1
t6
lt
9
I
0 0
3
Fight involving violence Pulled an all-nighter
79
86
9l
86
100
88
in risky activity
l0
3
4
9
9
7
33
26
COPING
Engage
7
r ., .,"
i
r:; .r.,;:'
392 / College Studont Journal
flt:t
watching TV or reading, and slecping (Table I ). Alftough walching TV and sleeping may be negative behaviors when engaged in excess, for tle purposes of tiis study they were considered positjve. College students oflen try to be full-time studenb, full-time socialites, and some try to be part-time employees as well. Anything which slowed a student down to relax, then, was viewed as positive. Campus I (land-grant) students were most likely to use negative coping behaviors such as alcohol, drugs, or food. They were also most likely to use physical or relaxation exercises, the coping behaviors most often suggested by college personnel and health experts university-wide. It is unclear whether students have not been reached by educational programs or whether they have chosen to use other coping mechanisms. Students on Campus I (land-grant) and Campus II (women) were most Iikely to have thought seriously about commining suicide. One of the surveyed students on Campus II had tried to commit suicide. Although only five percent of the students on Campus I have scr-iously thought abour suicide, rhis is significant because ir is an extreme reaction to stress
Students on Campus I (land-grant) and ll (women) were the most likely to
Campus
be involved in
s violent
encounter. While
Campus IVB (new) students had not been in any fightJ involving violence in tie past school
year, they
all indicated that they pulled at least one all-nighter during the pas! academic year. Smoking
Although all campus smoking rates were high in relation to national rates, Campus II (women) and Campus IVA (original) were significantly higher than the other three campuses (Table 2). Of those who smoke, almost
two-thirds on Campus
IIi
(multicultural)
and Campus IVA (original) smoke at least one pack of cigarettes per day. Other forms of tobacco were more likely to be used by
I (land-granr) and Campus III (multicultural) students. Campus
Alcohol
Almost all Campus IVA (original)
Table 2 Smoking Behaviors by Campus, percent
II
III
?o
4t
23
44
a9
u
pacVday
2A
5l
'14
'70
29
52
Other Tobacco
7
0
5
0
3
:.1
Current Smoker ..,
)
!i::i
*2
I
,1,;
tiri
tr nl
*Current smokers only
};i
Chi sqare (cunent smoker)
.tri
si -t
\:i
ffi si fii .tj ,1
Chi square (2
I
-
10.963, p. = .0Zl
pUday) = 30.753, p =.002
and
Campus IVB (new) srudents drink alcohol regularly (Table 3). On the other three campuses more tban ten percent of l}re students do not drink ar all. Slightly less than ten
IVA IVB TOTAL
:t't--l
H
':.[
lli
Health Risk Behaviors . .
i-
. /393
\i:l 't:,
Table 3
Alcohol Related Behaviors by Campus, Percent .:
1.,
II
III
IVA IVB
TOTAL
DRINKING BEHAVIOR
'l)',
i;, i.+,
Do Not Drink
t2
l3
l4
0
2
8
Drink Occasionally
2t
9
5
0
0
7
Drink Regularly
ffi
't7
80
99
98
83
7
4
I
0
2
Drink Daily
;! .:;
'x j'
ASSOCIATED BEHAVIORS
Drinking
'l
l6
5
tl
8
20
l8
5
l0
ll
Drove Under
l6
t2
18
14
t5
Passenger
Influence 16 w/Drunk Driver n
29
12
ll
l3
t7
Injured While
Missed Class Due to
Drinking
:
t ";*:li ',s!
Chi square (DUI) = 1.614, p =.806 Chi square (Passenger)
=
16.300, p = .003
percent of t}re students on Campus I (landgrant) drink daily, while less than five per-
been a passenger
cent were daily drinkers on Campus II (women) or IU (multicultural). Despile the large numbers of students on Campus IVB (new) who drink on a regular basis, few have been injured while drinking or have missed class due to drinking. About one-fifth of the srudents on Campus I (land-
largest numbir of students driving under the influence, almost one-fifth, were on Campus IVA (original). One-lifth of the students on Campus I (land-grant) and almost one-tlird of the students on Campus II (women) reponed having been a passenger in a car where the driver was drunk.
grant) and Campus II (women) have missed at least one class due to drinking. Almost
Drugs
der the influence of alcohol or that thev had
tobacco commonly used on any of the campuses was marijuana (Table 4). The lowest (new) and the usage was on Campus highest was on Campuses I (land-grant) and
one-fifth of Campus II (women) students also have injured themselves while drinking. AII campuses had over ten percent of students reporting that they had driven un-
in a car where the driver of alcohol. The
was under the influence
The only drug other than alcohol
M
and
394 / Col169e Studont Journal Table 4
Drug Use by Campus, Percent
II
III
IVA IVB TOTAL 0
0
LSD 32
29
Cocaine
9
Crack
23