The Social Science Journal 54 (2017) 430–437

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Social Science Journal

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soscij

The impact of alcohol and marijuana use on academic

achievement among college students夽
Riane M. Bolin a,∗ , Margaret Pate b , Jenna McClintock c
a
Department of Criminal Justice, Radford University, 801 East Main Street, PO Box 6934, Radford, VA 24142, United States
b
Department of Criminal Justice, Radford University, 801 East Main Street, Radford, VA 24142, United States
c
Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, University of North Carolina — Charlotte, 9201 University City Blvd, Charlotte, NC
28223, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The present study explored the direct and indirect relationship between substance use,
Received 23 December 2016 specifically alcohol and marijuana use, and academic achievement among college students,
Received in revised form 3 August 2017 using skipping class as a mediator. Online self-administered surveys were distributed to
Accepted 11 August 2017
undergraduate students at a mid-size university in the southeast. Individually, both alco-
Available online 30 August 2017
hol and marijuana use significantly predicted GPA; as the frequency of students’ reported
alcohol and marijuana use increased, GPAs decreased. However, when included in the same
Keywords:
model, marijuana use appeared to mediate the relationship between alcohol use and GPA.
Alcohol use
Additionally, it was found that skipping class partially mediated the relationship between
Marijuana use
Skipping class both alcohol use and GPA and marijuana use and GPA. Given the negative relationship that
Academic achievement was found between substance use and academic achievement for all students in our sam-
ple, we highlight the importance of substance use prevention efforts that target students
throughout the entirety of their college careers. We also discuss the limitations of current
prevention efforts across college campuses that focus on alcohol use alone. We recom-
mend that prevention efforts include a focus on marijuana use, in addition to alcohol use,
especially given our current findings for marijuana use.
Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of Western Social Science Association.

1. Introduction
Since the 1990s, substance use among college students
has been steadily increasing in the United States (Johnston,
O’Malley, Bachman, Schulenberg, & Miech, 2015). The two
most prevalent substances being used on college campuses
today are alcohol and marijuana. According to the most
recent data from the 2014 Monitoring the Future survey,
approximately 76% of students reported alcohol use and
34% reported marijuana use within the last year. Though
alcohol use remains more common among college stu-
dents, the trend in marijuana use has been increasing at
a much quicker rate. In fact, when examining daily use,
marijuana has now surpassed alcohol with 5.9% of students
reporting daily use of marijuana compared to only 4.3% for
alcohol.
1.1. The impact of alcohol and marijuana use on
academic achievement

夽 This research was supported in part by a College Research Award from

the Radford University College of Humanities and Behavioral Sciences.
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rbolin1@radford.edu (R.M. Bolin).
The relative popularity of alcohol and marijuana use
among college students has led many researchers to
explore the impact that such use has on a variety of differ-
ent areas of their lives including mental health (Buckner,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2017.08.003
0362-3319/Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of Western Social Science Association.
 R.M. Bolin et al. / The Social Science Journal 54 (2017) 430–437
Ecker, & Cohen, 2010; Perera, Torabi, & Kay, 2011), men-
tal functioning (Caldeira, Arria, O’Grady, Vincent, & Wish,
2008), involvement in risky behaviors (Bell, Weschler, &
Johnston, 1997; Brown & Vanable, 2007; Cooper, 2002;
Shillington & Clapp, 2001), and even death (Hingson, Zha,
& Weitzman, 2009; Hingson, Heeren, Zakocs, Kopstein, &
Wechsler, 2002). One area that has received less atten-
tion has been the impact of alcohol and marijuana use on
academic achievement.
Studies have found mixed results when examining the
relationship between alcohol use and academic achieve-
ment. Some studies have found that a significant negative
relationship exists, with students who reported increased
alcohol use also reporting falling behind in class, missing
class, doing poorly on exams and papers, and having lower
grades/GPA (Aertgeerts & Buntinx, 2002; Burt et al., 2016;
Engs, Diebold, & Hanson, 1996; Piazza-Gardner, Barry,
& Merianos, 2016; Powell, Williams, & Wechsler, 2004;
Singleton, 2007; Singleton & Wolfson, 2009; Thombs et al.,
2009; Wechsler et al., 2000; Wechsler et al., 2002; Wolaver,
2002). However, other studies have found the two were
not significantly related (El Ansari, Stock, & Mills, 2013;
Paschall & Freisthler, 2003).
The research regarding marijuana use seems to be more
consistent. A number of academic problems appear to be
related to college student marijuana use including skip-
ping classes (Arria, Caldeira, Bugbee, Vincent, & O’Grady,
2015; Caldeira et al., 2008), falling behind in schoolwork
(Bell et al., 1997), performing inadequately on exams
(Shillington & Clapp, 2001), receiving lower grades (Arria,
Garnier-Dykstra et al., 2013; Arria, Wilcox et al., 2013; Arria
et al., 2015; Bell et al., 1997; Buckner et al., 2010; Suerken
et al., 2016), and even dropping out of college (Tucker,
Ellickson, Orlando, Martino, & Klein, 2005; Suerken et al.,
2016).
To date, only one study has looked at the combined
effect of alcohol and marijuana use on academic perfor-
mance (Meda et al., 2017). Students were categorized into
three groups of users: (1) non-users or light users of alcohol
and marijuana, (2) moderate/large users of alcohol while
being non-users or light users of marijuana, or (3) heavy
users of both alcohol and marijuana. Individuals in the third
group, heavy users of both alcohol and marijuana, had the
lowest GPA, followed by individuals in group two, those
who used alcohol in moderate/large amounts while not
using marijuana or using marijuana in small amounts. This
study confirmed and added to previous literature, finding
that substance use has a negative influence on academic
performance even when exploring the effects of marijuana
and alcohol together.
1.2. Substance use, skipping class, and academic
achievement
While studies have sought to explore the impact of alco-
hol and marijuana use on academic achievement, many
of these studies are flawed in that they fail to control for
a number of non-substance use related factors found to
impact student success. One particularly important vari-
able that has been largely excluded from the literature is
skipping class. Many studies have found skipping class to
431
be a significant predictor of student success (Dobkin, Gil,
& Marion, 2010; LeBlanc, 2005; Shimoff & Catania, 2001).
Credé, Roch, and Kieszcynka (2010), for example, con-
ducted a meta-analysis of the relationship between class
attendance and both class grades and GPA and found that
class attendance was strongly correlated with both vari-
ables. Based on their findings, they concluded that class
attendance is a better predictor of college grades than any
other known predictor of academic performance. Due to
the importance of class attendance in predicting student
success in the classroom, it can be argued that any study
exploring the relationship between substance use and aca-
demic achievement should control for this variable. More
specifically, we believe that it is important for studies to
determine whether the relationship between substance
use and academic achievement is mediated by class atten-
dance.
To our knowledge, only three studies have been con-
ducted exploring whether skipping class mediates the
relationship between substance use and academic achieve-
ment (Arria, Wilcox et al., 2013; Arria et al., 2015; Conway
& DiPlacido, 2015). Utilizing a sample of first-semester
college students, Conway and DiPlacido (2015) found an
indirect effect of alcohol use on GPA through skipping class.
In their longitudinal prospective study, Arria, Wilcox et al.
(2013) found that skipping class mediated the relation-
ship between both alcohol use and marijuana use and GPA.
Specifically, they found that students who were diagnosed
with either an alcohol use or cannabis use disorder were
more likely to skip class, and, in turn, were more likely to
have lower GPAs. Utilizing the same data, Arria et al. (2015)
explored both the direct and indirect relationship of mar-
ijuana use and GPA, using skipping class as the mediator.
Consistent with their previous findings, it was found that
marijuana use not only had a direct impact on GPA, but an
indirect impact through poorer class attendance as well.
1.3. The current study
The purpose of the current study is twofold. The first
purpose is to examine the relationship between sub-
stance use, specifically alcohol and marijuana use, and
academic achievement among college students. Specifi-
cally, the present study tests the hypothesis that college
students who use alcohol and marijuana on more occa-
sions will have lower GPAs than those students who
report using on fewer occasions. The second purpose is
to expand on prior research in this area by exploring the
potentially mediating role of skipping class on the relation-
ship between substance use and GPA. Due to the limited
amount of research on this topic, we sought to determine
whether findings from previous research on the relation-
ship between substance use, skipping class, and GPA could
be replicated at a mid-size, public university.
2. Method
2.1. Sample and data collection
The sample for the present study consists of under-
graduate students who were enrolled at a mid-size,
432 R.M. Bolin et al. / The Social Science Journal 54 (2017) 430–437

public university in the southeast during the Spring 2016 Table 1

Descriptive statistics for GPAa , substance use variables, and control
semester. A list of student e-mail addresses was obtained
variables.
from the campus directory in February 2016.1 At the time of
the survey, there were 8471 undergraduate students listed Frequency Percent
in the campus directory. Dependent variable
An online questionnaire was used to collect data from Cumulative GPA
the students. Prior to survey administration, the college’s .00–.99 3 0.3
1.00–1.99 18 1.8
institutional review board approved the study. All under-
2.00–2.99 262 26.5
graduate students listed in the campus directory were sent 3.00–3.99 643 66.7
an initial e-mail invitation, which contained an explana- 4.00 52 4.7
tion of the importance of the study and provided a link Independent variables
to the survey. All participants were informed that their Number of occasions of past year alcohol use
responses were anonymous and their participation volun- 0 92 10.1
tary. To further help solicit participation, a week after the 1–2 70 7.7
3–5 86 9.4
initial student e-mail was sent, an e-mail was sent to all
6–9 64 7.0
faculty members listed in the campus directory requesting 10–19 127 13.9
that they consider encouraging their students to partici- 20–39 112 12.3
pate in the study. Approximately three weeks after sending 40 or more 360 39.5
the initial survey, a final reminder e-mail containing a Number of occasions of past year marijuana use
link to the survey was sent to all students. Of the 8471 0 480 52.9
undergraduate students who were administered the sur- 1–2 95 10.5
3–5 57 6.3
vey, 1104 students responded, representing a 13% response
6–9 41 4.5
rate. However, after removing individuals with missing 10–19 33 3.6
data on the key dependent variable, GPA, and both sub- 20–39 24 2.6
stance use measures, our total sample size was 946. The 40 or more 177 19.5
final sample was approximately 33% male, 79% white, 22% Control variables

Greek affiliated, 67% upperclassman, with an average age Frequency of skipping class
of 222 (Table 1). Never 307 32.5
Rarely 448 47.4
Sometimes 174 18.4
2.2. Measures Very often 14 1.5
All of the time 3 0.3
GPA was used to indicate students’ academic achieve-
Gender
ment. To determine GPA, respondents were asked to Male 309 32.7
self-report their current cumulative GPA. We had to rely Female 634 67.0
on students’ self-report of their GPA due to the anony-
Race
mous nature of our study. Our key independent measure White 747 79.0
was substance use, specifically alcohol and marijuana use. Non-white 198 20.9
Consistent with prior studies, self-report measures of past Greek affiliation
year alcohol and marijuana use were utilized.3 Students Greek affiliation 208 22.0
were asked to report the number of occasions that they No Greek affiliation 738 78.0
had engaged in alcohol and/or marijuana use in the past 12 Class standing
Upper classmen 631 66.7
Lower classmen 315 33.3
1
It is important to note that the campus directory only contains contact
Age Mean SD
information for those students who allow their contact information to
21.9 3.8
be included; therefore, not all university student e-mail addresses could
a
be obtained. Further, as the directory is only periodically updated, it is GPA was a continuous measure; however, to more easily show the dis-
also possible that students listed in the directory were no longer at the tribution of GPAs, an ordinal variable was used to compute the descriptive
university due to graduation, transfer, dismissal, etc. statistics. The continuous measure was used for all other analyses.
2
Based upon information retrieved about the population from the uni-
versity’s fact book, t-tests were conducted which confirmed that the
sample is significantly different than the university population. Specifi-
months, based on seven response options ranging from 0
cally, females, Whites, older students, upperclassmen, and Greek affiliated occasions to 40 or more occasions. Both of these variables
students were overrepresented in our sample. Concerns about sample were treated as continuous.
representativeness are addressed in the discussion section. A number of control variables found in prior studies to
3
Response rates for alcohol use and marijuana use were 93.1% and
be related to substance use were included in the analy-
92.7%, respectively. T-tests were conducted to determine whether sig-
nificant differences existed between those who answered the question ses (Table 1) (El Ansari et al., 2013; Arria, Garnier-Dykstra
and those who did not. Significant differences were found for all variables. et al., 2013; Arria et al., 2015; Shillington & Clapp, 2001;
Specifically, those who failed to respond were more likely to be non-white, Singleton & Wolfson, 2009; Suerken et al., 2016). Self-
male, younger, an underclassman, have a lower GPA, skip class more fre- reports were used to assess all of the control variables.
quently and indicate more frequent use of marijuana (if missing alcohol)
or alcohol (if missing marijuana). In regards to Greek affiliation, individu-
Age was coded as the student’s age in years. Gender, race,
als missing alcohol data were less likely to be Greek affiliated, while those and Greek affiliation were dichotomous variables, with
missing marijuana data were more likely to be Greek affiliated. males (=1) compared to females (=0), white students (=1)
 R.M. Bolin et al. / The Social Science Journal 54 (2017) 430–437
Table 2
Correlation matrix of all variables (N = 978)
1 2
1 GPA –
2 Alcohol use −.16*** –
3 Marijuana use −.20*** .43***
4 Skipping class −.27*** .25***
5 Male −.14*** .07*
6 White .12*** .08*
7 Upper class .03 .14***
8 Age .05 −.00
9 Greek −.03 .15***
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
compared to non-white students (=0), and Greek affiliated
students (=1) compared to non-Greek affiliated students
(=0). Class standing was based on students’ self-report of
their current class standing. Responses ranged from fresh-
man (=1) to senior (=4). The variable was collapsed into a
dichotomous variable with juniors and seniors represent-
ing upper classmen (=1) and freshmen and sophomores
representing lower classmen (=0). To measure skipping
class, students were asked to respond, based on a five-point
Likert scale, to the question, “how frequently do you skip
class?” Response options ranged from never (=1) to all of
the time (=5). Higher scores indicate a higher frequency of
skipping class.
2.3. Analytic strategy
In order to examine the relationship between sub-
stance use and GPA, as well as the potential mediating
role of skipping class, data analysis was conducted in three
phases. In phase one, a bivariate correlation analysis was
conducted with all of the independent, control, and depen-
dent measures. Next, three Ordinary Least Squares (OLS)
regressions were conducted in order to further examine
the relationship between each substance use variable and
GPA, as well as the two together, when controlling for
other variables. Finally, mediational analyses were con-
ducted to determine whether skipping class mediated the
potential relationships between the substance use vari-
ables and GPA. Utilizing the PROCESS procedure for SPSS,
all mediational analyses were ran using bias-corrected 95%
confidence intervals via bootstrapping with 10,000 resam-
ples (Hayes, 2013). All analyses were conducted using IBM
SPSS Statistics 22.0. Any individuals with missing data were
automatically removed from the analysis.
3. Results
Almost 75% of the sample reported having a 3.00 or
above GPA. The average GPA for the sample was a 3.21;
thus, our sample consisted largely of above average stu-
dents given that the university’s average undergraduate
GPA during Spring 2016 was 2.928 (t = 15.76, p < .000).
Approximately 90% of the sample reported using alcohol
on at least one occasion during the past 12 months, with
approximately 40% of the sample reporting use on 40 or
more occasions (Table 1). As expected and consistent with
prior findings, substantially fewer students indicated using
433
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
–
.29*** –
.13*** .03 –
−.03 .01 .05 –
−.06 −.01 .05 .14*** –
−.11** −.04 .11** .09** .37*** –
.00 .02 −.04 .04 .08* −.02 –
marijuana. In fact, almost 53% of the sample indicated no
marijuana use in the past 12 months.
3.1. Bivariate correlations
Table 2 displays the results of the bivariate correlations.
As expected, both alcohol and marijuana use were signif-
icantly, negatively correlated with GPA (r = −.16, p < .001;
r = −.20, p < .001, respectively). Individuals who reported
more frequent use of marijuana and/or alcohol were more
likely to report having a low GPA than those individuals
who reported less frequent use. Only two of the control
variables were significantly correlated with GPA. Individu-
als who were white and female were more likely to report
having a high GPA than their counterparts. Additionally,
individuals who reported skipping class less frequently
were more likely to report having a high GPA than those
who reported frequently skipping class.
3.2. Multivariate analysis
In order to examine the relationship between sub-
stance use and GPA more accurately, OLS regressions were
conducted. Table 3 presents the results for all OLS regres-
sions. Model 1 included only the alcohol use variable as
an independent measure of substance use. The overall
model predicting GPA was significant, F (7, 869) = 16.53,
p < .001, and explained 11.8% (R2 = .118; Adjusted R2 = .111)
of the variance in GPA. As shown in the table, alcohol
use remained a significant predictor of GPA (t = −2.92,
p = .004), even when controlling for the other variables,
with students who reported more frequent alcohol use also
reporting lower GPAs. For the control variables, only sex
and race predicted GPA. Male students (t = −4.39, p < .001)
and non-white students (t = 3.74, p < .001) had lower GPAs
than their counterparts. Finally, the frequency of skip-
ping class had a significant, negative relationship with GPA
(t = −7.31, p < .001), indicating that as individuals skipped
class more often, their GPAs tended to be lower. Of these
variables, frequency of skipping class (ˇ = −.24) was the
most important predictor of GPA.
Similar results were found in an OLS regression pre-
dicting GPA with marijuana as the sole substance use
variable (Model 2). The overall model predicting GPA was
significant, F (7, 870) = 17.98, p < .001, and explained 12.7%
(R2 = .127; Adjusted R2 = .120) of the variance in GPA. As
expected, occasions of marijuana use significantly pre-
434 R.M. Bolin et al. / The Social Science Journal 54 (2017) 430–437

Table 3
OLS regressions predicting GPA

Alcohol use (N = 870) Marijuana use (N = 871) Alcohol and marijuana use (N = 836)

b SE ˇ b SE ˇ b SE ˇ

Alcohol use −.03** .01 −.09 – – – −.01 .01 −.04

Marijuana use – – – −.03*** .01 −.12 −.02** .01 −.10
Male −.17*** .04 −.14 −.16*** .04 −.14 −.16*** .04 −.14
White .17*** .05 .13 .16*** .04 .12 .17*** .05 .12
Upper class .02 .04 .02 −.01 .04 −.01 −.00 .04 −.00
Age .01 .01 .03 .00 .01 .03 .00 .01 .02
Greek −.03 .04 −.02 −.05 .04 −.04 −.05 .04 −.04
Skipping class −.18*** .02 −.24 −.17*** .02 −.24 −.17*** .03 −.23
R2 .12 .13 .13
Adjusted R2 .11 .12 .12
F 16.29*** 17.98*** 15.01***

p < .05*, p < .01**, p < .001***.

dicted GPA (t = −3.50, p < .001); students who reported

using marijuana on more occasions also tended to report
having a lower GPA. In Model 2, all control variables found
to be significant in Model 1 remained significant and fol-
lowed the same patterns. As with Model 1, frequency of
skipping class (ˇ = −.24) remained the most important pre-
dictor of GPA.
A third regression analysis (Model 3) was conducted to
determine the effects of each substance use variable, while
controlling for the other. As expected, this model was also
significant, F (8, 835) = 15.09, p < .001), and explained 12.7%
Fig. 1. Mediation between alchol use and GPA marijuana use.
(R2 = .127; Adjusted R2 = .119) of the variance in GPA. While Notes: P < .05*, P < .01**, P < .001***.
both alcohol use and marijuana use were included as inde-
pendent measures, only marijuana use was a significant
predictor of GPA (t = −2.59, p = .01), with students who indi-
cated more frequent marijuana use reporting lower GPAs.
Similar to the regression analysis displayed in Model 2, the
control variables that were significant in Model 1 (sex, race,
and skipping class) also predicted GPA in the same direc-
tion for Model 3. Of these variables, frequency of skipping
class (ˇ = −.23) was again the most important predictor of
GPA.

3.3. Mediation analysis

Fig. 2. Mediation between alchol use and GPA by skipping class.
Notes: P < .05*, P < .01**, P < .001***.
Given that alcohol use became non-significant after
adding marijuana use to the model, the PROCESS procedure
was used to determine whether marijuana use mediated
the relationship between alcohol use and GPA. This pro-
cess revealed that marijuana use mediated the relationship
between alcohol use and GPA, ab = −.02, BCa CI [−.03,
−.01]. (Fig. 1). Specifically, it was found that marijuana use
accounted for a little less than half of the total effect of
alcohol use on GPA, PM = .45.
In order to better understand the relationship between
alcohol use and GPA, we tested skipping class as a media-
tor. The mediational analysis revealed that the frequency of
skipping class partially mediated the relationship between Fig. 3. Mediation between marijuana use and GPA by skipping class.
Notes: P < .05*, P < .01**, P < .001***.
alcohol use and GPA, ab = −.02, BCa CI [−.02, −.01]. Skipping
class accounted for approximately 40% of the total effect of
alcohol use on GPA, PM = .37 (Fig. 2). rect effect of marijuana use on GPA through the frequency
Similarly, we wanted to explore whether the relation- of skipping class, ab = −.02, BCa CI [−.02, −.01]. Skipping
ship between marijuana use and GPA was mediated by the class accounted for approximately 35% of the total effect of
frequency of skipping class. There was a significant indi- marijuana use on GPA, PM = .33 (Fig. 3).
 R.M. Bolin et al. / The Social Science Journal 54 (2017) 430–437
4. Discussion
In the present study, we examined the relationship
between alcohol and marijuana on students’ self-reported
GPA. We did this by conducting separate OLS regression
analyses with alcohol use and marijuana use as predic-
tors, as well as conducting an OLS regression with both
substances included as predictors. It was found that both
alcohol and marijuana use impacted students’ GPA. When
analyzed independent of one another, both alcohol and
marijuana use were found to be negatively related to GPA.
Specifically, consistent with prior research, it was found
that college students who reported using alcohol or mar-
ijuana on more occasions tended to also report having
lower GPAs (Arria et al., 2015; Bell et al., 1997; Buckner
et al., 2010; Engs et al., 1996; Singleton, 2007; Singleton &
Wolfson, 2009; Suerken et al., 2016; Wechsler et al., 2000;
Wechsler et al., 2002; Wolaver, 2002). However, when
both alcohol and marijuana use were included in the same
regression, the effects of alcohol became non-significant.
This non-significance confirmed the need for additional
analyses to explore the potential mediating effects of mari-
juana use on the relationship between alcohol use and GPA.
Marijuana use accounted for just less than half of the
total effect of alcohol use on GPA. The mediation would sug-
gest that individuals who use alcohol are also more likely
to use marijuana, which further impacts their academic
achievement. Surprisingly, alcohol use did not mediate
the relationship between marijuana use and GPA. The
data for the current study were collected through a cross-
sectional design, so it is difficult to establish a time order.
Future research should explore the potential impact both
substances have on one another, and on academic achieve-
ment, in a longitudinal design. To date, only one study has
looked at the comorbidity of alcohol and marijuana use on
academic achievement (Meda et al., 2017).
Another purpose of this study was to continue research
exploring the mechanisms by which substances influence
academic achievement. Previous research has found that
the relationship between alcohol use and GPA is medi-
ated by time spent studying (Williams, Powell, & Wechsler,
2003; Wolaver, 2002). Similarly, more recent research has
found that the relationship between marijuana use and
GPA, as well as alcohol use and GPA, is mediated by class
attendance (Arria, Wilcox et al., 2013; Arria et al., 2015;
Conway & DiPlacido, 2015). Through meditational analy-
ses, we found that skipping class partially mediated the
effects of alcohol use on GPA, accounting for approximately
40% of the relationship, which shows that alcohol use nega-
tively affects GPA partially because it leads students to skip
class more frequently. Similarly, skipping class partially
mediated the effects of marijuana use on GPA, account-
ing for approximately 35% of the relationship. Overall, it
was found that both substances both directly and indirectly
affected GPA.
Several limitations should be considered when inter-
preting these results. One limitation of the study is that
we used self-reported measures of substance use, GPA,
and skipping class. It is possible that alcohol/marijuana
use as well as the frequency of skipping class were under-
reported due to the fact that these behaviors are not
435
considered socially desirable (Akinci, Tarter, & Kirisci,
2001; Gruenewald & Johnson, 2006; Harrison & Hughes,
1997). Previous research has also found that self-reported
GPAs tend to be rounded up or inflated by those with lower
academic performance (Kuncel, Crede, & Thomas, 2005).
However, it was necessary to use self-reported measures
for our study to ensure anonymity. Guaranteed anonymity
may have encouraged participants to be more honest with
their responses (Durant, Carey, & Schroder, 2002; Ong &
Weiss, 2000).
Additionally, it is possible that student recall could be
affected due to the timeframe in which they were asked to
recall their substance use. However, the present study pur-
posefully utilized past year use because we were interested
in exploring student trends in alcohol and marijuana use.
Past thirty-day use limits the ability to accurately assess
trends (Greenfield, 2000; Stockwell et al., 1999) and life-
time use may have a significant impact on student recall
(Cantor, 1984, 1985). Researchers have recommended
using longer reference periods (past year) for assessing
substance use behaviors in countries such as the United
States (Dawson, 2003); thus, consistent with prior studies,
we decided to use past year use. Future research should
explore whether these same relationships exist when look-
ing at both shorter and longer timeframes.
Another limitation of the present study is that several
factors that previous studies have found to be correlated
with academic performance were not included such as
employment (Trockel, Barnes, & Egget, 2000), socioeco-
nomic status (Mushtaq & Khan, 2012), time spent studying
(Lahmers & Zulauf, 2000), time management (Lahmers &
Zulauf, 2000), study habits and skills (Nonis & Hudson,
2010), etc. This may explain why our predictors only
explained a small percentage of the variance in GPA. Future
studies may benefit from the inclusion of a more compre-
hensive set of predictors.
A final limitation is our limited generalizability because
we recruited participants from only one university. We also
only received responses from a small number of the univer-
sity’s students, which further decreases the generalizability
of the results. However, our results are consistent with
other studies on this topic. Our sample may also be lim-
ited due to selection bias; heavy substance users or those
with poor grades may have been more reluctant to partic-
ipate in the study (McCoy et al., 2009). Finally, our sample
has limited generalizability to the population from which
it was drawn. Only 13% of the population responded to
the survey and as noted in the footnote above, the sample
was significantly different from the population on key fac-
tors such as sex, race, and Greek affiliation. Future research
should consider using students from several universities,
both public and private, located in different geographi-
cal areas in order to further increase generalizability. The
use of incentives may also be beneficial in increasing par-
ticipation, reducing selection bias, and ensuring that a
more representative sample is drawn from each univer-
sity (Church, 1993; Edwards et al., 2002; Olsen, Abelsen, &
Olsen, 2012).
Given the negative relationship that was found
between substance use and academic achievement, our
study highlights the importance of prevention efforts
436 R.M. Bolin et al. / The Social Science Journal 54 (2017) 430–437
on college campuses. Such efforts may help to reduce
academic failure and thus increase student retention
(Arria, Garnier-Dykstra et al., 2013; Arria, Wilcox et al.,
2013; Liguori & Lonbaken, 2015; Martinez et al., 2009;
Williams et al., 2003). Often, prevention efforts are largely
aimed at incoming freshmen due to their increased risk
of problematic drinking and drug use behaviors (Grekin
& Sher, 2006; Lewis, Neighbors, Oster-Aaland, Kirkeby,
Larimer, 2007; Schulenberg & Maggs, 2002; Thompson
et al., 2006). For example, many colleges require incom-
ing freshman to complete online educational programs
such as AlcoholEdu, which teaches students about
the risks of engaging in alcohol and substance use
(https://everfi.com/higher-education-old/alcoholedu/).
However, substance use initiation is not limited to fresh-
men; thus, prevention efforts should be focused on the
student body as a whole in order to increase retention.
Many campuses also focus their prevention efforts
solely on the dangers of alcohol use (U.S. Department of
Education, 2008); however, consistent with prior research,
our study confirms the need to also target marijuana users
who may be at risk for poor academic achievement. As
marijuana becomes more readily available and more states
legalize it, it will be important for colleges to consider
how to implement appropriate prevention and interven-
tion strategies for this particular drug, in addition to alcohol
and other drugs that are popular on college campuses.
In addition to implementing campus wide prevention
programs for both alcohol and marijuana use, another
potential solution to help negate the negative impact of
substance use on academic achievement is screening stu-
dents for substance use problems (Larimer & Cronce, 2002;
Marlatt et al., 1998). Due to the fact that students often
develop substance use patterns prior to entering college
(Arria et al., 2008), screening incoming freshman and inter-
vening appropriately may help to increase their likelihood
of academic success (Arria et al., 2015). Based upon the
findings from our study, we also recommend screening
students for drug use problems who are experiencing aca-
demic difficulties as identified by low midterm grades,
being placed on probation, or by visiting academic assis-
tance. Students who are identified based on the screening
as either having a substance use issue or are deemed at
risk could then be referred to the counseling and/or health
center for a brief intervention. Screening and brief inter-
vention models such as what is described above have
received growing support in terms of reducing substance
use and the negative consequences related to such use
(Denering & Spear, 2012; Hingson, 2010; Kazemi, Sun, Nies,
Dmochowski, & Walford, 2011). Thus, college campuses
may benefit from utilizing such a model as decreased sub-
stance use may have a positive impact on student academic
achievement and ultimately student retention.
References
Aertgeerts, B., & Buntinx, F. (2002). The relation between alcohol use or
dependence and academic performance in first-year college students.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 31(3), 223–225.
Akinci, I. H., Tarter, R. E., & Kirisci, L. (2001). Concordance between ver-
bal report and urine screen of recent marijuana use in adolescents.
Addictive Behaviors, 26, 613–619.
Arria, A. M., Caldeira, K. M., Bugbee, B. A., Vincent, K. B., & O’Grady,
K. E. (2015). The academic consequences of marijuana use dur-
ing college. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 29(3), 564–575.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/adb0000108
Arria, A. M., Caldeira, K. M., O’Grady, K. E., Vincent, K. B., Fitzelle, D. B., John-
son, E. P., & Wish, E. D. (2008). Drug exposure opportunities and use
patterns among college students: Results of a longitudinal prospective
cohort study. Substance Abuse, 29, 19–38.
Arria, A. M., Garnier-Dykstra, L. M., Calderira, K. M., Vincient, K. B., Winick,
E. R., & O’Grady, K. E. (2013). Drug use patterns and continuous enroll-
ment in college: Results form a longitudinal study. Journal of Studies
on Alcohol and Drugs, 74, 71–83.
Arria, A. M., Wilcox, H. C., Caldeira, K. M., Vincent, K. B., Garnier-
Dykstra, L. M., & O’Grady, K. E. (2013). Dispelling the myth of smart
drugs: Cannabis and alcohol use problems predict nonmedical use
of prescription stimulants for studying. Addictive Behaviors, 38(3),
1643–1650.
Bell, R., Weschler, H., & Johnston, L. D. (1997). Correlates of college stu-
dent marijuana use: Results of a US national survey. Addiction, 92(5),
571–581.
Brown, J. L., & Vanable, P. A. (2007). Alcohol use, partner type, and risky
sexual behavior among college students: Findings from an event-level
study. Addictive Behaviors, 32(12), 2940–2952.
Buckner, J. D., Ecker, A. D., & Cohen, A. S. (2010). Mental health problems
and interest in marijuana treatment among marijuana using college
students. Addictive Behaviors, 35(9), 826–833.
Burt, T. D., Yadon, C. A., Young-Jones, A. D., Carr, M. T., & Johnston, K. H.
(2016). Satisfaction does not equal success: College alcohol use and
basic psychological needs. College Student Affairs Journal, 34(1), 3–16.
Caldeira, K. M., Arria, A. M., O’Grady, K. E., Vincent, K. B., & Wish,
E. D. (2008). The occurrence of cannabis use disorders and other
cannabis-related problems among first-year college students. Addic-
tive Behaviors, 33, 397–411.
Cantor, D. (1984). Comparing bounded and unbounded three and six month
reference periods in rate estimation. Washington, D.C: Bureau of Social
Science Research.
Cantor, D. (1985). Operational and substantive differences in changing
the NCS reference period. In Proceedings of the American Statistical
Association, social statistics section (pp. 125–137).
Church, A. H. (1993). Estimating the effect of incentives on mail survey
response rates: A meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 62–79.
Conway, J. M., & DiPlacido, J. (2015). The indirect effect of alcohol use
on GPA in first-semester college students: The mediating role of aca-
demic effort. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory &
Practice, 17(3), 303–318.
Cooper, M. L. (2002). Alcohol use and risky sexual behavior among col-
lege students and youth: Evaluating the evidence. Journal of Studies
on Alcohol, (Supp. (4)), 101–117.
Credé, M., Roch, S. G., & Kieszczynka, U. M. (2010). Class attendance in
college: A meta-analytic review of the relationship of class atten-
dance with grades and student characteristics. Review of Educational
Research, 80(2), 272–295.
Dawson, D. A. (2003). Methodological issues in measuring alcohol use.
Alcohol Research and Health, 27(1), 18–29.
Denering, L. L., & Spear, S. E. (2012). Routine use of screening and brief
intervention for college students in a university counseling center.
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 44(4), 318–324.
Dobkin, C., Gil, R., & Marion, J. (2010). Skipping class in college and exam
performance: Evidence from a regression discontinuity classroom
experiment. Economics of Education Review, 29, 566–575.
Durant, L. E., Carey, M. P., & Schroder, K. E. (2002). Effects of anonymity,
gender, and erotophilia on the quality of data obtained from self-
reports of socially sensitive behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Medicine,
25(5), 439–467.
Edwards, P., Roberts, I., Clark, M., DiGuiseppi, C., Pratap, S., Wentz, R., &
Kwan, I. (2002). Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires:
Systematic review. British Medical Journal, 324, 1183–1185.
El Ansari, W. E., Stock, C., & Mills, C. (2013). Is alcohol consumption
associated with poor academic achievement in university students?
International Journal of Preventive Medicine, 4(10), 1175–1188.
Engs, R. C., Diebold, B. A., & Hanson, D. J. (1996). The drinking patterns
and problems of a national sample of college students, 1994. Journal
of Alcohol Drug Education, 41, 13–33.
Greenfield, T. K. (2000). Ways of measuring drinking patterns and the
difference they make: Experience with graduated frequencies. Journal
of Substance Abuse, 12, 33–49.
Grekin, E. R., & Sher, K. J. (2006). Alcohol dependence symptoms among
college freshmen: Prevalence, stability, and person-environment
 R.M. Bolin et al. / The Social Science Journal 54 (2017) 430–437
interactions. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 14,
329–338.
Gruenewald, P. J., & Johnson, F. W. (2006). The stability and reliability of
self-reported drinking measures. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 67(5),
738–745.
Harrison, L., & Hughes, A. (Eds.). (1997). The validity of self-reported drug
use: Improving the accuracy of survey estimates. NIDA Research Mono-
graph No. 167. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Methodology in the social sciences: Introduction to medi-
ation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based
approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Hingson, R. W. (2010). Magnitude and prevention of college drinking and
related problems. Adolescent Research and Health, 33(1–2), 45–54.
Hingson, R. W., Zha, W., & Weitzman, E. R. (2009). Magnitude of and trends
in alcohol-related mortality and morbidity among U.S. college stu-
dents ages 18–24 1998–2005. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs,
(Suppl. 16), 12–20.
Hingson, R. W., Heeren, T., Zakocs, R. C., Kopstein, A., & Wechsler, H. (2002).
Magnitude of alcohol-related mortality and morbidity among U.S. col-
lege students ages 18–24. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63(2), 136–144.
Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., Schulenberg, J. E., & Miech,
R. A. (2015). Monitoring the Future: National survey results on drug
use, 1975–2014: Volume II, College students and adults ages 19–55. Ann
Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor.
Kazemi, D. M., Sun, L., Nies, M. A., Dmochowski, J., & Walford, S. M. (2011).
Alcohol screening and brief interventions for college freshmen. Journal
of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 48(12), 62–63.
Kuncel, N. R., Crede, M., & Thomas, L. (2005). The validity of self-reported
grade point averages, class ranks, and test scores: A meta-analysis and
review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75, 63–82.
Lahmers, A. G., & Zulauf, C. R. (2000). Factors associated with academic
time use and academic performance of college students: A recursive
approach. Journal of College Student Development, 41(5), 544–556.
Larimer, M. E., & Cronce, J. M. (2002). Identification, prevention and treat-
ment: A review of individual-focused strategies to reduce problematic
alcohol consumption by college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol,
(Suppl. 14), 148–163.
LeBlanc, H. P. (2005). The relationship between attendance and grades in
the college classroom. In Paper presented at 17th annual meeting of the
International Academy of Business Disciplines
Lewis, M. A., Neighbors, C., Oster-Aaland, B. S., & Kirkeby Larimer, M.
E. (2007). Indicated prevention for incoming freshmen: Personal-
ized normative feedback and high-risk drinking. Addictive Behaviors,
32(11), 2495–2508.
Liguori, G., & Lonbaken, B. (2015). Alcohol consumption and academic
retention in first-year college students. College Student Journal, 49(1),
69–77.
Marlatt, A. G., Baer, J. S., Kivlahan, D. R., Dimeff, L. A., Larimer, M. E.,
Quigley, L. A., . . . & Williams, E. (1998). Screening and brief inter-
vention for high-risk college student drinkers: Results from a 2-year
follow-up assessment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
66(4), 604–615.
Martinez, J. A., Sher, K. J., & Wood, P. K. (2009). Is heavy drinking really
associated with attrition from college? The alcohol-attrition paradox.
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 22(3), 450–456.
McCoy, T. P., Ip, E. H., Blocker, J. N., Champion, H., Rhodes, S. D., Wagoner,
K. G., . . . & Wolfson, M. (2009). Attrition bias in a U.S. internet survey
of alcohol use among college freshmen. Journal of Studies on Alcohol
and Drugs, 70, 606–614.
Meda, S. A., Gueorguieva, R. V., Pittman, B., Rosen, R. R., Aslanzadeh, F., Ten-
nen, H., . . . & Pearlson, G. D. (2017). Longitudinal influence of alcohol
and marijuana use on academic performance in college students. PLoS
One, 12(3), e0172213.
Mushtaq, I., & Khan, S. N. (2012). Factors affecting students’ academic per-
formance. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 12(9),
17–22.
Nonis, S. A., & Hudson, G. I. (2010). Performance of college students: Impact
of study time and study habits? Journal of Education for Business, 85(4),
229–238.
Olsen, F., Abelsen, B., & Olsen, J. A. (2012). Improving response rate and
quality of survey data with a scratch lottery ticket incentive. BMC
Medical Research Methodology, 12, 52–58.
437
Ong, A. D., & Weiss, D. J. (2000). The impact of anonymity on responses
to sensitive questions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30,
1691–1708.
Paschall, M. J., & Freisthler, B. (2003). Does heavy drinking affect academic
performance in college? Findings from a prospective study of high
achievers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 61, 278–289.
Perera, B., Torabi, M., & Kay, N. S. (2011). Alcohol use, related problems
and psychological health in college students. International Journal of
Adolescent Medicine and Health, 23(1), 33–37.
Piazza-Gardner, A. K., Barry, A. E., & Merianos, A. L. (2016). Assessing drink-
ing and academic performance among a nationally representative
sample of college students. Journal of Drug Issues, 46(4), 347–353.
Powell, L. A., Williams, J., & Wechsler, H. (2004). Study habits and the level
of alcohol use among college students. Education Economics, 12(2),
135–149.
Schulenberg, J. E., & Maggs, J. L. (2002). A developmental perspective on
alcohol use and heavy drinking during adolescence and the transition
to young adulthood. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, (Suppl. 14), 54–70.
Shillington, A., & Clapp, J. (2001). Substance use problems reported by
college students: Combined marijuana and alcohol versus alcohol-
only use. Substance Use & Misuse, 36(5), 663–672.
Shimoff, E., & Catania, A. C. (2001). Effects of recording attendance
on grades in introductory psychology. Teaching Psychology, 28(3),
192–195.
Singleton, R. A. (2007). Collegiate alcohol consumption and academic per-
formance. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68, 548–555.
Singleton, R. A., & Wolfson, A. R. (2009). Alcohol consumption, sleep and
academic performance among college students. Journal of Studies on
Alcohol and Drugs, 70(3), 355–363.
Stockwell, T., Dawson, D., Holder, H., Jernigan, D., Medina-Mora, M. E.,
& Single, E. (1999). International guidelines for monitoring alcohol con-
sumption and harm: Report to the World Health Organization programme
on substance abuse. Perth, Australia: National Centre for Research into
the Prevention of Drug Abuse, Curtin University.
Suerken, C. K., Reboussin, B. A., Egan, K. L., Sutfin, E. L., Wagoner, K. G., Span-
gler, J., & Wolfson, M. (2016). Marijuana use trajectories and academic
outcomes among college students. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 162,
137–145.
Thombs, D. L., Olds, R. S., Bondy, S. J., Winchell, J., Baliunas, D., & Rehm,
J. (2009). Undergraduate drinking and academic performance: A
prospective investigation with objective measures. Journal of Studies
on Alcohol and Drugs, 70(5), 776–785.
Thompson, K. M., Leinfelt, F., & Smyth, J. M. (2006). Self-reported official
trouble and official arrest: Validating a piece of the core alcohol and
drug survey. Journal of Substance Use, 11, 23–26.
Trockel, M. T., Barnes, M. D., & Egget, D. (2000). Health-related vari-
ables and academic performance among first-year college students:
Implications for sleep and other behaviors. Journal of American College
Health, 49(3), 125–131.
Tucker, J. S., Ellickson, P. L., Orlando, M., Martino, S. C., & Klein, D. J. (2005).
Substance use trajectories from early adolescence to emerging adult-
hood: A comparison of smoking, binge drinking, and marijuana use.
Journal of Drug Issues, 35, 307–332.
U.S. Department of Educationn. (2008). Alcohol and other drug
prevention on college campuses.. Retrieved from:. http://www.
alcoholeducationproject.org/DOEModelPrograms2008.pdf
Wechsler, H., Lee, J. E., Kuo, M., & Lee, H. (2000). College binge drinking
in the 1990: A continuing problem. Results of the Harvard School of
Public Health 1999 College Alcohol Study. Journal of American College
Health, 48, 199–210.
Wechsler, H., Lee, J. E., Kuo, M., Seibring, M., Nelson, T. F., & Lee, H. (2002).
Trends in college binge drinking during a period of increased preven-
tion efforts. Findings from 4 Harvard School of Public Health College
Alcohol Study surveys: 1993–2001. Journal of American College Health,
50(5), 203–217.
Williams, J., Powell, L. M., & Wechsler, H. (2003). Does alcohol consump-
tion reduce human capital accumulation? Evidence from the college
alcohol study. Applied Economics, 35, 1227–1239.
Wolaver, A. M. (2002). Effects of heavy drinking in college on study effort,
grade point average, and major choice. Contemporary Economic Policy,
20, 415–428.