Psychology of Addictive Behaviors Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association

2007, Vol. 21, No. 4, 498 –507 0893-164X/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0893-164X.21.4.498

The Theory of Planned Behavior as a Model of Heavy Episodic Drinking

Among College Students
Susan E. Collins and Kate B. Carey
Syracuse University

This study provided a simultaneous confirmatory test of the theory of planned behavior (TPB) in
predicting heavy episodic drinking (HED) among college students. It was hypothesized that past HED,
drinking attitudes, subjective norms, and drinking refusal self-efficacy would predict intention, which
would, in turn, predict future HED. Participants consisted of 131 college drinkers (63% women) who
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

reported having engaged in HED in the previous 2 weeks. Participants were recruited and completed
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

questionnaires within the context of a larger intervention study (see Collins & Carey, 2005). Latent factor
structural equation modeling was used to test the ability of the TPB to predict HED. Chi-square tests and
fit indices indicated good fit for the final structural models. Self-efficacy and attitudes but not subjective
norms significantly predicted baseline intention, and intention and past HED predicted future HED.
Contrary to hypotheses, however, a structural model excluding past HED provided a better fit than a
model including it. Although further studies must be conducted before a definitive conclusion is reached,
a TPB model excluding past behavior, which is arguably more parsimonious and theory driven, may
predict HED among college drinkers better than a model including past behavior.

Keywords: college drinking, alcohol use, theory of planned behavior, heavy episodic drinking, college
students

Ajzen’s (1988) theory of planned behavior (TPB) has been
widely used to describe health behaviors over which one has
volitional control (Godin & Kok, 1996). Researchers over the past
decade have applied this theory to describe the psychological
sequelae involved in college drinking. Most studies to date, how-
ever, have focused on contributions of individual model compo-
nents instead of evaluating simultaneous model fit, and the results
of some of these studies have not been entirely consistent with the
predicted model (e.g., Wall, Hinson, & McKee, 1998). Moreover,
the role of past behavior in the TPB has not been adequately
defined and remains somewhat controversial (Ajzen, 2002c). Fi-
nally, although the theory has been applied to college drinking
(Conner, Warren, Close, & Sparks, 1999; O’Callaghan, Chant,
Callan, & Baglioni, 1997), it has been used less often to describe
the occurrence of heavy episodic drinking (HED) among college
students (see Johnston & White, 2003; Norman, Bennett, & Lewis,
1998; Wall et al., 1998). Because HED can be particularly harmful
to college students (Clements, 1999; Hingson, Heeren, Zakocs,
Kopstein, & Wechsler, 2002), it deserves further examination. To
Susan E. Collins and Kate B. Carey, Center for Health and Behavior,
Syracuse University.
Susan E. Collins is now at the Smoking Cessation Research Group,
University Hospital Tübingen.
This research was supported by a Creative Research Grant from the
College of Arts and Sciences, Syracuse University, to Susan E. Collins and
by National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Grants R01-
AA12518 and K02-AA15574 to Kate B. Carey.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Susan E.
Collins, Arbeitskreis Raucherentwöhnung, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen,
Herrenbergerstr. 23, D-72070 Tübingen, Germany. E-mail:
susan.collins@gmx.net
address these issues, we used longitudinal, simultaneous, and
confirmatory model testing to examine the ability of the TPB to
predict intention and HED among college drinkers.
TPB
According to the TPB, a certain set of motivational factors leads
to an intention to act in a certain way (Ajzen, 1991). Given the
right opportunity, people will translate this intention into behavior.
The role of intention in this model is believed to be twofold:
Attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control
should predict intention, and intention, in turn, should predict
behavior. Several studies focusing on college drinkers have estab-
lished the prediction of behavior by intention (Armitage, Norman,
& Conner, 2002; Conner et al., 1999; O’Callaghan et al., 1997).
Attitudes refer to people’s evaluation of their own behavior.
Attitudes concerning alcohol use appear to be important in con-
currently predicting drinking quantity and frequency (Leigh,
1989). Further, longitudinal evidence has shown that positive
attitudes toward alcohol use are positively correlated with future
alcohol use among college drinkers (Stacy, Bentler, & Flay, 1994).
The subjective norm is a target person’s perception of others’
evaluations of the target person performing a behavior (Ajzen,
1991). This construct may be broken down into two components:
(a) perception of others’ evaluations (also referred to as normative
beliefs) and (b) the importance of the others’ opinions to the target
person (representing motivation to comply with perceived norms).
In other words, a person is more likely to perform a behavior if
others, whose opinions the person values, approve of the person
performing the behavior. A conceptualization of HED among
college students that includes subjective norms is important be-
cause adolescents and college students report being influenced

498
 THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR AND COLLEGE DRINKING
more by their peers than by adults (Beck & Treiman, 1996;
Perkins, 2002). Injunctive norms, as commonly conceptualized in
the college drinking literature, resemble the evaluative component
of subjective norms in the TPB, and ample evidence has linked not
only descriptive norms (perceptions of how others drink) but also
injunctive norms (perceived peer approval of drinking) to college
drinking (Larimer, Turner, Mallett, & Geisner, 2004; Perkins,
2003).
Perceived behavioral control, or the perceived ease or difficulty
of performing a behavior, is believed to both indirectly (through its
association with intentions) and directly influence behavior
(Ajzen, 1988, 1991). Both self-efficacy, which has been defined as
one’s perceived control over a certain behavior in a specific
situation (Bandura, 1977; Marlatt & Gordon, 1985), and control-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
lability beliefs, or beliefs that the performance of a behavior
depends on the individual alone, make up the concept of perceived
behavioral control (Ajzen, 2002b). Perceived behavioral control
and drinking refusal self-efficacy have been supported in the
literature as strong predictors of college drinking, such that greater
drinking refusal self-efficacy and perceived behavioral control
predict lower drinking quantity, decreased frequency, and fewer
problems (Johnston & White, 2003; Young, Connor, Ricciardelli,
& Saunders, 2006).
TPB and Past Drinking Behavior
Including past behavior in the TPB model may improve the
prediction of future behavior, but this modification has engendered
controversy. The debate regarding the role of past behavior in TPB
models typically centers on challenges in defining the past behav-
ior construct and the relative importance of including a significant
yet perhaps atheoretical predictor of future behavior. Contrasting
arguments for and against the inclusion of past behavior in TPB
models are presented below.
First, it has been asserted that consistent performance of a
behavior represents habit, which may be a relevant predictor of
various types of behavior (Ouellette & Wood, 1998). The results of
a meta-analysis of 64 studies, which evaluated past behavior
prediction of future behavior, indicated that past behavior was a
stronger predictor than intention of behaviors repeated on a weekly
basis in stable, conducive contexts (rs ⫽ .45 and .27, respectively;
ps ⬍ .001; Ouellette & Wood, 1998). For behaviors that were not
performed regularly, such as voting or getting a flu shot, past
behavior was a weak predictor of future behavior relative to
intention (rs ⫽ .12 and .82, respectively; ps ⬍ .001). Another
study found that past or habitual behavior significantly predicted
future behavior even after controlling for a range of other cognitive
components, including attitude accessibility, self-concept, intent,
attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control
(Ouellette, 1996). These authors have argued that, taken together,
this evidence supports past behavior as a habit construct that may
be helpful in understanding longitudinal behavior patterns.
However, it has been argued that the habitual nature of partic-
ular behaviors may not be assumed simply because they are
regularly performed or because other variables do not account for
the variance in future behavior (Ajzen, 2002c). Instead, it has been
proposed that a direct measure of habit should be used to establish
its role in behavior prediction (Ajzen, 2002c; Verplanken, Aarts,
van Knippenberg, & van Knippenberg, 1994). Measures of habit,
499
however, have been difficult to develop because it is unclear
whether people can accurately judge the habituality of their own
behavior (Ouellette & Wood, 1998). Difficulties defining and
directly testing past behavior as a measure of habit have thus
complicated the interpretation of past behavior as a predictor in
TPB models.
Second, proponents of the inclusion of past behavior have
asserted that it is a consistently strong predictor of future behavior
that should be accounted for (e.g., Stacy et al., 1994). In the
interest of correct model specification or the inclusion of all
variables known to be important in predicting a dependent vari-
able, it can be argued that past behavior should be included in
models of TPB. However, it has been asserted that past behavior’s
predictive strength may be due to a methodological artifact: com-
mon method variance, or the correlation between identical indica-
tors repeatedly assessed using the same method (Ajzen, 2002c). To
test the effect of common method variance when predicting future
behavior on the basis of past behavior, researchers in one study
used both self-report and observation methods in the alcohol-use
assessment (Conner et al., 1999). Contrary to hypotheses, past
drinking explained variance above and beyond the TPB variables
even when common method variance was eliminated. This study,
however, did not use a simultaneous confirmatory test of the TPB
and did not focus on HED specifically. Considering these differing
perspectives and findings, an empirical comparison of competing
theoretical models (inclusion vs. exclusion of past HED) would be
a helpful addition to the literature.
TPB and HED
Three studies to date have examined the influence of attitudes,
subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control on intention to
engage in HED (also referred to as “to drink too much” and “binge
drinking” in Johnston & White, 2003; Norman et al., 1998; Wall
et al., 1998). Wall et al. (1998) used stepwise or statistical regres-
sions (conducted separately by gender) to test the ability of con-
currently assessed TPB variables to predict intention and HED. For
women, attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and sociability
expectancies predicted intention, whereas attitudes, perceived be-
havioral control, and subjective norms predicted intentions in men.
Intentions, perceived behavioral control, and assertiveness expect-
ancies predicted HED among women, whereas intentions and
expectancies of higher sexual functioning predicted HED among
men.
Another study used partial correlations and regressions to test
the concurrent associations among attitudes, perceived behavioral
control, subjective norms, beliefs (i.e., behavioral, normative, and
control beliefs), and HED (Norman et al., 1998). In this study,
gender explained 9% and TPB variables an additional 29% of the
variance in HED. Of the TPB variables, only perceived behavioral
control and positive control beliefs reached significance. Thus, in
spite of its high multiple correlation, this study provided only
partial support for the concurrent prediction of HED by TPB
variables.
Finally, a more recent study used a longitudinal model to test the
prediction of intentions and HED by TPB variables (Johnston &
White, 2003). The results of the multiple regression indicated that
attitudes, subjective norms, and self-efficacy significantly pre-
dicted 69% of the variance in intention to engage in HED. Addi-
 500 COLLINS AND CAREY
tionally, intention predicted HED assessed 2 weeks later and
accounted for 51% of the variance.
Although these studies provided information on TPB variables
as predictors of HED among college drinkers, they also evinced
notable methodological limitations. Perhaps the most striking lim-
itation in the first two studies was the concurrent assessment of the
TPB variables and HED. Because the theory posits that TPB
variables at Time 1 predict Time 2 behavior, a simple prospective
design would provide a better test of model prediction. Further, all
three studies used regression models to test the contributions of
TPB variables to the prediction of intentions and HED but did not
simultaneously test the TPB model as a whole. Because the TPB
is clearly defined and well-researched (e.g., Godin & Kok, 1996),
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
a confirmatory and simultaneous testing method (e.g., latent factor
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
structural equation modeling) would provide a more appropriate
test of the model. Finally, despite the fact that research supports a
strong correlation between past and future drinking behavior (Con-
ner et al., 1999; McMillan & Conner, 2003; O’Callaghan et al.,
1997), none of the studies mentioned above accounted for this
effect.
Proposed Study
The TPB is a potentially useful conceptual framework for un-
derstanding drinking among college students. The studies that have
tested the prediction of HED by TPB model components have not
provided methodologically optimal tests of the theory. Our goal in
this study was therefore to improve on the methodology used in
previous studies by using a longitudinal design, a simultaneous and
confirmatory rather than an exploratory testing method, and error-
free latent factors (i.e., latent factors from which measurement
error is estimated and removed). Further, in this study, we com-
pared models including and excluding the potential contribution of
past HED to the prediction of future HED in the context of the
TPB. In doing so, we aimed to provide a better test of whether past
HED, attitudes, self-efficacy, and subjective norms predict behav-
ioral intention and future HED among college students.1
Hypotheses
The first set of hypothesized models included a past HED factor
(Time 1 HED). As shown in Figure 1, it was predicted that Time
1 HED, subjective norms, drinking refusal self-efficacy (referred
to from this point as self-efficacy), and attitudes would predict
Time 1 intention. In turn, Time 1 HED and intention would predict
future HED (Time 2 HED). To test Ajzen’s (1991) assertion that
self-efficacy both indirectly (via intention) and directly predicts
behavior at Time 2, we also used nested models to test whether
direct effects of self-efficacy on Time 2 HED would improve
model fit over a reduced model in which self-efficacy served as an
indirect explanatory variable via intention (represented by a dotted
line in Figure 1). The second set of models excluded Time 1 HED.
It was hypothesized that self-efficacy, attitudes, and subjective
norms would predict intention, which would, in turn, predict Time
2 HED (see Figure 2). It was further predicted that the model
containing Time 1 HED would be a better fitting model than the
model excluding Time 1 HED.
Method
Participants
Participants (N ⫽ 131) consisted of students (63% women, n ⫽
83) enrolled in introductory psychology classes at Syracuse Uni-
versity. All participants were at least 18 years of age (M ⫽ 18.95
years, SD ⫽ 2.67 years). Most participants were freshmen or
sophomores in college (93%, n ⫽ 122) and lived on campus (90%,
n ⫽ 118). Hispanic/Latino students represented 2%, White stu-
dents 92%, Asian students 5%, and self-described multiracial
students 1% of the sample.
Measures
Demographic information. The Personal Information Ques-
tionnaire was used to assess participants’ age, gender, year in
college, ethnicity, residence, and membership in an on-campus
Greek organization.
Intention factor. Intentions were measured by the Behavioral
Intentions Questionnaire (BIQ; Neal & Carey, 2004). The BIQ
consists of seven items asking participants to rate their intentions
of increasing and decreasing their drinking quantity or frequency,
peak drinking, and HED in the next 2 weeks. Responses were
scored on a scale of 1 to 6, where 1 ⫽ definitely will not do and
6 ⫽ definitely will do. Questions 2, 4, and 6, which assessed the
probability of decreased alcohol use, were reverse scored. The BIQ
was supplemented with an item that asked participants to use the
6-point scale described above to rate the probability of their
drinking to get drunk in the next 2 weeks.
At the suggestion of the scale’s author (D.J. Neal, personal
communication, November 7, 2005), the seventh BIQ item was
used separately from its original scale. An exploratory principal
components analysis was conducted on the modified six-item scale
and indicated a one-factor solution (eigenvalue ⫽ 3.82), which
accounted for 64% of the variance and evinced acceptable internal
consistency (␣ ⫽ .88). In the analyses, three indicators represented
Time 1 intention: (a) the sum of the six BIQ items, (b) participants’
intention to engage in a heavy-drinking episode (as defined by
Wechsler et al., 2002) in the next 2 weeks, and (c) participants’
intention to drink to get drunk in the next 2 weeks. The internal
consistency of the three indicators was acceptable (␣ ⫽ .83).
Attitudes factor. The two attitude indicators in the current
study were selected from the Global Attitude Scale (AS; Simons
and Carey, 1998). The AS has previously evinced good reliability
(␣ ⱖ .91) and discriminant validity (Simons & Carey, 1998).
Participants rated their overall opinions about drinking to get
drunk along an unnumbered, 9-point scale framed by two opposing
word pairs on either end. The two global attitude word pairs used
in the current study were like and dislike and desirable and
undesirable. In this study, higher attitude scores represented more
positive attitudes toward drinking. These items evinced good in-
ternal consistency (␣ ⫽ .87).
Subjective norms factor. Two items from the Subjective
Norms Questionnaire (SNQ; based on guidelines from Ajzen,
1
In the current study, self-efficacy, but not beliefs about controllability,
was directly assessed. Thus, perceived behavioral control was operation-
alized as a unitary self-efficacy factor in this study and is referred to as
such from this point forward.
 THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR AND COLLEGE DRINKING 501

T1 HED

+
+ D D
ATT
+
+
INT T2 HED
+

NORMS - -
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

SE
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

.38*
T1 HED

.20 .38*
ATT .23*

.26*
-.24* INT T2 HED
.47*
.19
D D
NORMS -.32*

-.52*
SE

-.46*

Figure 1. Top panel: Hypothesized model including Time 1 drinking. ⫹ ⫽ hypothesized positive association;
- ⫽ hypothesized negative association; D ⫽ disturbance (unexplained variance in endogenous latent factors); T1
HED ⫽ Time 1 heavy episodic drinking; ATT ⫽ Time 1 attitudes; NORMS ⫽ Time 1 subjective norms; SE ⫽
Time 1 self-efficacy; T2 HED ⫽ Time 2 heavy episodic drinking. Double-headed arrows imply nondirectional
covariance between the variables. The dotted line represents the nested model including a direct effect for SE
on T2 HED. For ease of interpretation, measured indicators are not shown. Bottom panel: Final model including
Time 1 drinking. *p ⫽ .05.

2002a) served as indicators of the subjective norms latent factor.
Participants reported how much an average American college
student and their closest friend would approve or disapprove of
their drinking to get drunk on a 5-point Likert-type scale, where
1 ⫽ highly disapprove and 5 ⫽ highly approve. Next, participants
rated the importance of these individuals’ opinions to them on a
scale ranging from 1 ⫽ highly unimportant to 5 ⫽ highly impor-
tant. Subjective norm indicators were ascertained for each group
by multiplying the approval of the target group by the participants’
report of the importance of the target group’s opinion (Ajzen,
1991, 2002a). The average American college student and closest
friend indictors evinced good reliability (␣ ⫽ .91).
Self-efficacy factor. Total scores for the Social Pressure and
Emotional Relief Scales of the Drinking Refusal Self-Efficacy
Questionnaire (DRSEQ; adapted from Young, Tian, & Crook,
1991) served as two of the three indicators of the self-efficacy
factor. On a 6-point Likert-type scale, participants indicated their
confidence they could resist drinking to get drunk in each of the
hypothetical situations presented. Good internal consistency (␣s ⫽
.87–.94) and concurrent and discriminant validity have been es-
tablished for this measure (Baldwin, Tian, & Young, 1993; Young
et al., 1991). In this study, summary scores for the Social Pressure
and Emotional Relief Scales were formed, such that higher scores
indicated higher self-efficacy to resist drinking to get drunk (␣s ⫽
.88 and .93, respectively).
For the third indicator of this factor, participants answered the
question “How confident are you that, if you wanted to, you could
cut down on your drinking?” Responses were made on a 7-point
Likert-type scale, where 1 ⫽ not at all confident and 7 ⫽ very
confident. Pilot testing indicated that higher scores on this item
were significantly associated with lower 1-week drinking quantity
and fewer drinks consumed on the heaviest drinking day (rs ⫽
 502 COLLINS AND CAREY

ATT
D
D
+

+
+ INT T2 HED
NORMS

-
-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

SE
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

.49*
ATT

.33*

.14 .46*
-.53* NORMS INT T2 HED

-.34*
D D
-.48* SE

Figure 2. Top panel: Hypothesized model excluding Time 1 drinking. ⫹ ⫽ hypothesized positive association;
- ⫽ hypothesized negative association; D ⫽ disturbance (unexplained variance in endogenous latent factors);
ATT ⫽ Time 1 attitudes; NORMS ⫽ Time 1 subjective norms; SE ⫽ Time 1 self-efficacy; T2 HED ⫽ Time
2 heavy episodic drinking. Double-headed arrows imply nondirectional covariance between the variables. The
dotted line represents the nested model including a direct effect for SE on T2 HED. For ease of interpretation,
measured indicators are not shown. Bottom panel: Final model excluding Time 1 drinking. *p ⫽ .05.

⫺.33 and ⫺.34, respectively, ps ⬍ .05). The alpha coefficient for
all three indicators indicated an internal consistency of .65.
HED factors. Two open-ended quantity and frequency items
measured by the F-Q questionnaire (adapted from Collins, Carey,
& Sliwinski, 2002) served as the indicators for Time 1 and Time
2 HED: number of drinks consumed during the peak drinking
occasion in the past 2 weeks and number of heavy-drinking epi-
sodes. Heavy-drinking episodes were assessed using two gender-
specific items and were defined as having consumed five or more
drinks on one occasion for men and four or more drinks on one
occasion for women (Wechsler et al., 2002). The internal consis-
tencies of the Time 1 and Time 2 HED indicators were good (␣s ⫽
.78 and .82, respectively).
Procedure
College students (N ⫽ 234) who signed up to participate in an
alcohol-use study gave written, informed consent and filled out all
questionnaires listed in the Measures section as part of a larger
questionnaire battery (see Collins & Carey, 2005). Participants
who reported having experienced a heavy-drinking episode in the
past 2 weeks (n ⫽ 131) were randomized to receive no treatment
or one of two minimal interventions involving single-session de-
cisional balance exercises (see Collins & Carey, 2005). Approxi-
mately 2 weeks after the interventions, all participants attended a
posttest questionnaire session. Participants were given course
credit for their participation.
Data Analysis Plan
The main hypotheses in this study were tested with a series of
latent factor structural equation models (SEMs) using the EQS 6.1
program (Bentler, 2004). This type of analysis allows for simul-
taneous confirmatory model testing, which was deemed appropri-
ate for evaluating an established model like the TPB. All models
except the multiple indicators and multiple causes (MIMIC) model
described below made use of the full information maximum like-
lihood method to estimate parameters and standard errors for the
entire data set. Two types of model fit assessment were used in the
current study: (a) descriptive goodness-of-fit indices (comparative
 THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR AND COLLEGE DRINKING 503

fit index [CFI] ⱖ .95 and root-mean-square error of approximation
[RMSEA] ⱕ .06 were interpreted as indications of close model fit;
Hu & Bentler, 1999) and (b) exact model testing using the model
chi-square. Traditionally, exact fit is determined when the null
hypothesis is accepted using the model chi-square test (Hayduk &
Glaser, 2000). Although exact fit is the recognized term for meet-
ing this criterion, it does not imply perfect model fit and is not
interpreted as such in this article.
The SEM analyses were conducted according to the two-step
modeling approach (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Pentz & Chou,
1994). In the first step, saturated measurement models, which are
essentially confirmatory factor analyses, were used to test the
relationships of the measured variables to their hypothesized latent
constructs. After the appropriateness of the measurement model
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
preliminary independence SEMs, which tested the hypothesis that
the variables were uncorrelated, were easily rejected (all ps ⬍
.001).
Models Including Time 1 HED
Evaluation of the measurement models. The baseline measure-
ment model included the following five latent factors (measured
indicators in parentheses): attitudes (AS dislike–like, AS
desirable– undesirable), subjective norms (SNQ college student,
SNQ closest friend), self-efficacy (DRSEQ social, DRSEQ emo-
tional, general self-efficacy), Time 1 HED (number of drinks
consumed on the peak drinking occasion, frequency of heavy-

drinking episodes), and intentions (BIQ, intention to drink to get

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

was established, hypothesized relationships among the latent fac-
tors were tested in the second step.
Results
Exploratory Data Analysis
At the baseline assessment, participants reported having con-
sumed an average of 28.24 (SD ⫽ 25.39) drinks and having
experienced 2.62 (SD ⫽ 2.23) heavy-drinking episodes in the past
2 weeks. On their peak drinking occasion, participants reported
having consumed 8.95 drinks (SD ⫽ 5.77).
The HED variables (i.e., number of drinks consumed at the peak
drinking occasion and number of heavy-drinking episodes) exhib-
ited positively skewed distributions and were therefore trans-
formed using a square-root transformation for the main analyses.
Other variables (i.e., the subjective norm variables, the Emotional
Drinking Scale of the DRSEQ, and two intentions items) did not
exhibit normal distributions but could not be successfully trans-
formed. For this reason, only robust statistics (i.e., Santorra–
Bentler T and other tests using robust standard errors) are reported
(Bentler, 2004).
As shown in Table 1, bivariate Spearman correlations between
the measured variables provided further support for the construct
validity of the proposed factors. Although not reported here, all
drunk, intention to engage in a heavy-drinking episode). All latent
factors were initially allowed to covary. To ensure model identi-
fication, we placed equality constraints on the error variances of
the indicators of subjective norms, attitudes, and Time 1 HED,
respectively.
The first model tested was the baseline measurement model.
Although fit indices indicated good fit of the hypothesized model,
CFI ⫽ .97, RMSEA ⫽ .05, the robust scaled chi-square test did not
indicate exact fit, T(47, N ⫽ 131) ⫽ 65.38, p ⫽ .04. To improve
model fit, we examined the multivariate Wald test and, accord-
ingly, dropped a nonsignificant covariance path, ␸F1F3 (Time 1
drinking, subjective norms), from the model. The resulting hypoth-
esized model evinced adequate fit, T(48, N ⫽ 131) ⫽ 65.68, p ⫽
.05, CFI ⫽ .97, RMSEA ⫽ .05.
The next step confirmed the appropriateness of the longitudinal
measurement model. Except for the addition of the Time 2 HED
factor, the measured indicators and latent factors were identical to
those in the baseline model. When using a longitudinal model, one
must also run tests of measurement invariance to ensure that
factors represent the same constructs across time and may be
consistently interpreted (Grouzet, Otis, & Pelletier, 2006; Little,
1997). In accordance with these standards, the final measurement
model fulfilled the criteria for configural, metric, and partial scalar
invariance (see Thompson & Green, 2006) and exhibited good

Table 1
Bivariate Spearman’s Rho Correlations Between Model Indicators

Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1. Int: Heavy-drinking episode —

2. Int: Drinking to get drunk .72** —
3. Int: Overall .45** .49** —
**
4. Attitude: Like–dislike .30 .41** .22* —
5. Attitude: Desirable–undesirable .32** .46** .28** .76** —
6. SE: Social ⫺.33** ⫺.44** ⫺.24** ⫺.40** ⫺.38** —
7. SE: Emotional ⫺.24 ⫺.32 ⫺.15 ⫺.22 ⫺.29**
** ** *
.65** —
8. SE: General ⫺.04 ⫺.11 ⫺.07 ⫺.03 ⫺.11 .18* .24** —
9. SN: College student .06 .24** .01 .27** .23** ⫺.33** ⫺.21* .003 —
10. SN: Closest friend .23** .36** .09 .37** .35** ⫺.27** ⫺.13 .02 .48** —
11. Time 1: Peak drinks .42** .30** .04 .15 .16 ⫺.11 ⫺.04 ⫺.16 ⫺.04 ⫺.02 —
12. Time 1: Heavy-drinking episode .35** .22* .09 .22* .32** ⫺.24** ⫺.18* ⫺.11 .06 .11 .49** —
13. Time 2: Peak drinks .41**
.35**
.22*
.23 **
.23* ⫺.15 ⫺.20* ⫺.17 .04 .12 .50** .27** —
14. Time 2: Heavy-drinking episode .33** .38** .20* .38** .39** ⫺.29** ⫺.23** ⫺.18* .10 .17 .38** .37** .66** —

Note. Int ⫽ intention; SE ⫽ self-efficacy; SN ⫽ subjective norms.

*
p ⫽ .05. ** p ⫽ .01.
 504 COLLINS AND CAREY
model fit, T(66, N ⫽ 131) ⫽ 81.03, p ⫽ .10, CFI ⫽ .98,
RMSEA ⫽ .04.
MIMIC model. Because the second data collection period in-
volved a treated sample, a preliminary model was run to test the
appropriateness of collapsing across treatment conditions. It was
hypothesized that no group effects would be found on Time 2
HED, as observed in a previous study (Collins & Carey, 2005). To
test this hypothesis, we ran a MIMIC model, which is the SEM
equivalent of multiple regression with dichotomous predictors
(Hancock, 2004). MIMIC models allow for the inclusion of one or
more dummy-coded variables to test population differences on a
specific dependent variable within an SEM model. This procedure
was deemed appropriate because (a) the sample size in the current
study was too small to conduct a structured means analysis, (b) any
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
potential group differences would occur late in the recursive model
and would thus not influence previous model factors, and (c) there
was no indication that the groups had different covariance struc-
tures (Hancock, 2001).
The MIMIC model examined the structural relationships among
the Time 1 latent factors (attitudes, subjective norms, Time 1 HED,
self-efficacy, and intention), the two dummy-coded group assign-
ment variables (intervention effects), and the Time 2 HED factor.
If group was not a significant predictor of Time 2 HED, the groups
would be collapsed for the longitudinal models. Although this
analysis would not rule out Group ⫻ TPB Variable interactions, it
would rule out the more plausible and critical intervention effects
on Time 2 HED. The covariance structure was analyzed using the
maximum likelihood estimation method. No means were estimated
for this preliminary model.
The hypothesized model indicated close but not exact fit, T(94,
N ⫽ 120) ⫽ 122.07, p ⫽ .03, CFI ⫽ .95, RMSEA ⫽ .05. The
dummy-coded group variables did not predict Time 2 HED (writ-
ten motivational intervention vs. no-contact control, ␥ ⫽ ⫺.05;
in-person motivational intervention vs. no-contact control, ␥ ⫽
⫺.02; ps ⬎ .05). Because of the lack of association between the
groups and Time 2 HED, this model was rejected, and the groups
were collapsed for the main outcome analyses.
Evaluation of the structural models. The first structural model
tested the effects of attitudes, self-efficacy, Time 1 HED, and
subjective norms on intention and the effects of intention and Time
1 HED on Time 2 HED (see Figure 1 for the hypothesized model).
The hypothesized model test indicated exact fit, T(70, N ⫽ 131) ⫽
86.73, p ⫽ .09, CFI ⫽ .98, RMSEA ⫽ .04. As shown in the bottom
panel of Figure 1, significant direct effects on intention were
found, including attitudes (␥F5F2 ⫽ .23) and self-efficacy (␥F5F4 ⫽
⫺.32). These variables accounted for 47% of the variance in
intention. Further, as predicted, Time 1 intention and Time 1 HED
significantly predicted Time 2 HED (␤F6F5 ⫽ .26 and ␥F6F1 ⫽ .38,
respectively) and accounted for 29% of the variance.
A further nested model was tested to examine the hypothesis
that self-efficacy may also have had a direct effect on Time 2 HED
(represented by the dotted line in Figure 1). The hypothesized
model met the criterion for exact fit, T(69, N ⫽ 131) ⫽ 84.66, p ⫽
.10, CFI ⫽ .98, RMSEA ⫽ .04. However, the direct effect of
self-efficacy on Time 2 HED was nonsignificant (␥F6F4 ⫽ ⫺.17,
p ⬎ .05). Further, a chi-square difference test (Td), which was
corrected for use with the scaled robust chi-square statistic (Satorra
& Bentler, 2001), indicated that the model including the direct
effect did not significantly improve model fit, Td(1) ⫽ 1.95, p ⬎
.10. Finally, the multivariate Lagrange multiplier (LM) test, which
is a modifier index indicating possibilities for improving model fit,
revealed a nonsignificant improvement in fit with the addition of
the direct self-efficacy effect, ␹2(70, N ⫽ 131) ⫽ 2.34, p ⫽ .13. On
the basis of these tests, this model was rejected.
Models Excluding Time 1 HED
The next set of models tested the TPB excluding Time 1 HED
(see Figure 2 for the hypothesized model). Tests of the saturated
measurement model indicated exact fit, T(N ⫽ 131, df ⫽ 46) ⫽
47.93, p ⫽ .39, CFI ⫽ 1.00, RMSEA ⫽ .01. No post hoc modi-
fications were made. Structural model tests indicated that the
hypothesized model evinced exact fit, T(N ⫽ 131, df ⫽ 49) ⫽
54.91, p ⫽ .26, CFI ⫽ .99, RMSEA ⫽ .03. As shown in the bottom
panel of Figure 2, the path coefficients were similar to those found
in the previous model including Time 1 HED. Lower self-efficacy
and more positive attitudes regarding HED significantly predicted
higher intention and accounted for 45% of the variance. Intention,
in turn, predicted greater levels of Time 2 HED and accounted for
21% of the variance.
A further nested model tested the addition of a direct effect of
self-efficacy on Time 2 HED. The hypothesized model evinced
good fit indices, CFI ⫽ .99, RMSEA ⫽ .03, and met the criterion
for exact fit, T(48, N ⫽ 131) ⫽ 54.17, p ⫽ .25. However, the direct
effect of self-efficacy on Time 2 HED was nonsignificant (␥F6F4 ⫽
⫺.14, p ⬎ .05). Further, the scaled chi-square difference test
indicated that the larger model did not significantly improve model
fit, Td(1) ⫽ 0.80, p ⬎ .25. The LM test for the original model also
revealed a nonsignificant improvement in fit with the addition of
the direct effect, ␹2(49, N ⫽ 131) ⫽ 0.98, p ⫽ .32. On the basis of
these tests, the model including the direct self-efficacy effect was
rejected.
Model Comparison: Inclusion and Exclusion of Time 1
HED
The Akaike information criterion (AIC; Akaike, 1974) and
Bayesian information criterion (BIC; Schwarz, 1978) were used to
compare the structural models including and excluding Time 1
HED. AIC and BIC values may be used to compare the goodness
of fit of nonnested models and take both parsimony and descriptive
accuracy into account (Wagenmakers & Farrell, 2004). Because
AIC and BIC values contain arbitrary constants and are difficult to
interpret alone, the raw AICc (AIC corrected for small sample
sizes; Burnham & Anderson, 2004) and BIC scores were converted
into weighted scores (i.e., wAICc and wBIC; Wagenmakers &
Farrell, 2004) and compared (see Table 2). The weighting proce-
dure normalizes the values and results in an estimate of the
probability that a particular model provides the best fit (Wagen-
makers & Farrell, 2004). Both wAICc and wBIC values indicated
probabilities of at least .99 that the model excluding Time 1 HED
provided a better fit than the model including Time 1 HED.
Discussion
In the current study, we explored the ability of the TPB to
predict intention and HED among college students. In all models,
results indicated that attitudes and drinking refusal self-efficacy
 THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR AND COLLEGE DRINKING
Table 2
Nonnested Model Comparisons
Model AICc ⌬AICc wAICc BIC ⌬BIC wBIC
1 25.926 25.017 ⬇0 60.879 13.07 .001
2 0.909 0 ⬇1 47.809 0 .999
Note. Model 1 ⫽ structural model including Time 1 HED; Model 2 ⫽
structural model excluding Time 1 HED; AICc ⫽ Akaike information
criterion corrected for smaller sample sizes (Burnham & Anderson, 2004);
⌬AICc ⫽ AICci ⫺ AICc minimum or the difference between the AICc of
the ith model and the lower AICc; wAICc ⫽ rounded weighted AICc or the
probability that the ith model is the better fitting model; BIC ⫽ Bayes
information criterion; ⌬BIC ⫽ BICi ⫺ BIC minimum; wBIC ⫽ rounded
weighted BIC or the probability that the ith model is the better fitting
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
model; HED ⫽ heavy episodic drinking.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
predicted intention. Further, intention and Time 1 HED predicted
Time 2 HED. This study therefore provided some support for the
TPB in predicting intention and HED among college drinkers.
Despite its significant correlation with intent in the baseline and
longitudinal measurement models (rs ⫽ .48 and .45, respectively;
ps ⬍ .05), the subjective norm factor did not significantly predict
intention in the structural models and was thus the only aspect of
the TPB that was not confirmed in this study. This finding was
somewhat surprising in light of previous research that has found
subjective norms to be a predictor of HED among college students
(e.g., Johnston & White, 2003). It is possible that the significant
moderate correlation of the subjective norms factor with attitudes
and self-efficacy suppressed the subjective norms effects. How-
ever, this pattern of findings, in which all variables except subjec-
tive norms contribute to the model, has been observed in previous
TPB research (Ajzen, 1991). It may be that more proximal, intra-
personally generated components, such as attitudes and self-
efficacy, have a more direct and salient effect on intention to
engage in HED than do more distal and interpersonally dependent
components, such as subjective norms.
In the current study, we also addressed a controversial issue in
the TPB literature: the relative merits of including and excluding
past behavior in the prediction of future behavior. Initial findings
supported the inclusion of past HED by evincing good overall
model fit and a significant path from past to future HED. Addi-
tionally, analyses indicated a larger effect for past HED than for
intention on future HED, which replicated findings reported in a
previous meta-analysis (Ouellette & Wood, 1998). According to
Ouellette and Wood (1998), this pattern of findings would suggest
that HED represented habitual behavior, particularly because HED
in this sample was reportedly repeated on a weekly basis. Another
potential reason for the weaker intention effect is that intention
may have simply represented participants’ prediction of their fu-
ture behavior on the basis of their previous behavior (Ouellette &
Wood, 1998).
However, intention was a significant predictor of future HED,
and cognitive factors—not past behavior—predicted intention.
Specifically, stronger intentions to engage in HED were predicted
by more positive attitudes and lower levels of self-efficacy regard-
ing HED. Thus, as a group, heavy-drinking students acknowledged
feeling relatively positive about HED yet indicated that they were
not fully in control of their drinking. The fact that this discrepancy
could be identified and verbalized indicates there is a role for
505
cognitive factors in predicting HED. Further, 95% of college
students included in the current study were not of legal drinking
age, which presents an external barrier to the habitual use of
alcohol. To minimize this barrier to drinking, students must, to a
greater or lesser extent, plan their HED. For example, students
have to frequent the “right” parties, bars, and stores and associate
with the “right” peers to ensure access to alcohol. Taken together,
the findings for cognitive factors in this study indicate that more
than automatic habitual behavior is at play in predicting HED
among college students.
This point may also help explain the next finding, which was
contrary to hypotheses and to initial model findings: The model
excluding past behavior provided a comparatively better statistical
fit to the data than the model including past behavior. This finding
corroborates Ajzen’s (2002c) assertions by suggesting that the
more parsimonious and theory-driven model better predicted fu-
ture behavior. Comparing the squared multiple correlation statis-
tics from the two models reveals that the addition of past behavior
added only 2% explained variance to the baseline model and 8% to
the longitudinal model. Further, it is difficult to attribute the effect
of past drinking on intention and future drinking to habitual
behavior without having included a direct measure of habit (Ajzen,
2002c). Thus, these findings indicate that the model including past
behavior was, in this study, neither statistically nor theoretically
superior to a model comprising solely cognitive TPB predictors.
Considering the preliminary and somewhat conflicting findings
of this study, however, these results should be replicated before a
definitive conclusion is reached as to the potential role for past
behavior in the TPB model of college drinking. Further, the current
study sample consisted of college drinkers endorsing relatively
high levels of HED, and thus these findings may not be applicable
to college drinkers in general. To determine the generalizability of
these results, researchers should replicate this type of study with
college drinkers who evince greater variability in drinking habits.
Some limitations of the current study deserve mention. First,
perceived behavioral control was represented by a unitary self-
efficacy factor. Controllability beliefs, which are hypothesized to
be an additional component of perceived behavioral control, were
not directly measured in this study. It may therefore be argued that
the self-efficacy factor included in its place did not fully represent
participants’ perceived behavioral control. However, the self-
efficacy factor was highly predictive of intention, which is con-
sistent with the findings of other studies involving substance
misuse (Godin & Kok, 1996). Further, a number of other studies
including both components of perceived behavioral control found
self-efficacy to be a significant predictor of intention, whereas
controllability had no significant effect (Armitage & Conner,
1999a, 1999b; Terry & O’Leary, 1995). Future studies should,
however, assess both self-efficacy and beliefs about controllability
to further test their relative contributions to the model.
Next, the small sample size (N ⫽ 131) did not ensure adequate
power to optimally test the model. In fact, power analyses based on
RMSEA estimates indicated that the structural models including
and excluding Time 1 HED would have required 200 and 248
participants, respectively, to achieve a power of .80 (Kim, 2005).
The fact that the TPB models tested provided so-called exact fit to
the current data may be interpreted in two ways. On the one hand,
it indicated evidence of model robustness in predicting HED in a
small sample of college students. On the other hand, exact chi-
 506 COLLINS AND CAREY
square testing can benefit from smaller sample sizes because the
associated lower power is more likely to produce nonsignificant
effects. Thus, despite these encouraging findings, future studies
using SEM to replicate these results should clearly aim for larger
sample sizes.
Finally, the fact that this study was conducted using data from
a randomized study complicates the prediction of Time 2 HED.
Specifically, participants underwent a brief intervention for at-risk
drinking between Times 1 and 2. The preliminary MIMIC model
confirmed the Collins and Carey (2005) findings that there were no
significant group differences in participants’ Time 2 drinking.
However, this analysis could not rule out Group ⫻ TPB Variable
interactions or undetected differences in covariance structures.
Despite its limitations, this study provided overall support for
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
the TPB in predicting HED among college drinkers. It also pro-
vided the first simultaneous confirmatory test of the TPB in
predicting HED among college students and empirically compared
TPB models including and excluding the influence of past behav-
ior. In future studies, researchers may replicate these findings
using a larger sample size to ensure greater power and may further
probe the importance of subjective norms and past HED in the
TPB model as applied to college drinkers.
References
Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Chicago: Dorsey
Press.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179 –211.
Ajzen, I. (2002a). Constructing a TpB questionnaire: Conceptual and
methodological considerations. Retrieved July 20, 2006, from http://
www.people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf
Ajzen, I. (2002b). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of
control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 32, 665– 683.
Ajzen, I. (2002c). Residual effects of past on later behavior: Habituation
and reasoned action perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 6, 107–122.
Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716 –723.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in
practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological
Bulletin, 103, 411– 423.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (1999a). Distinguishing perceptions of
control from self-efficacy: Predicting consumption of a low-fat diet
using the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psy-
chology, 29, 72–90.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (1999b). The theory of planned behaviour:
Assessment of predictive validity and “perceived control.” British Jour-
nal of Social Psychology, 38, 35–54.
Armitage, C. J., Norman, P., & Conner, M. (2002). Can the theory of
planned behavior mediate the effects of age, gender and multidimen-
sional health locus of control? British Journal of Health Psychology, 7,
299 –316.
Baldwin, A. R., Tian, O. P. S., & Young, R. (1993). To drink or not to
drink: The differential role of alcohol expectancies and drinking refusal
self-efficacy in quantity and frequency of alcohol consumption. Cogni-
tive Therapy and Research, 17, 511–530.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior
change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Beck, K. H., & Treiman, K. A. (1996). The relationship of social context
of drinking, perceived social norms, and parental influence to various
drinking patterns of adolescents. Addictive Behaviors, 21, 633– 644.
Bentler, P. M. (2004). EQS 6 structural equations program manual.
Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2004). Multimodal inference: Under-
standing AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods &
Research, 33, 261–304.
Clements, R. (1999). Prevalence of alcohol-use disorders and alcohol-
related problems in a college student sample. Journal of American
College Health, 48, 111–118.
Collins, S. E., & Carey, K. B. (2005). Lack of effect for decisional balance
as a brief motivational intervention for at-risk college drinkers. Addictive
Behaviors, 30, 1425–1430.
Collins, S. E., Carey, K. B., & Sliwinski, M. J. (2002). Mailed personalized
normative feedback as a brief intervention for at-risk college drinkers.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63, 559 –567.
Conner, M., Warren, R., Close, S., & Sparks, P. (1999). Alcohol consump-
tion and the theory of planned behavior: An examination of the cognitive
mediation of past behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29,
1676 –1704.
Godin, G., & Kok, G. (1996). The theory of planned behavior: A review of
its applications to health-related behaviors. American Journal of Health
Promotion, 11, 87–98.
Grouzet, F. M. E., Otis, N., & Pelletier, L. G. (2006). Longitudinal
cross-gender factorial invariance of the Academic Motivation Scale.
Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 73–98.
Hancock, G. R. (2001). Effect size, power, and sample size determination
for structured means modeling and MIMC approaches to between-
groups hypothesis testing of means on a single latent construct. Psy-
chometrika, 66, 373–388.
Hancock, G. R. (2004). Experimental, quasi-experimental, and nonexperi-
mental design and analysis with latent variables. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), The
SAGE handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences (pp.
317–334). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hayduk, L. A., & Glaser, D. N. (2000). Jiving the four-step, waltzing
around factor analysis, and other serious fun. Structural Equation Mod-
eling, 7, 1–35.
Hingson, R. W., Heeren, T., Zakocs, R. C., Kopstein, A., & Wechsler, H.
(2002). Magnitude of alcohol-related mortality and morbidity among
U.S. college students ages 18 –24. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63,
136 –144.
Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alterna-
tives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Johnston, K. L., & White, K. M. (2003). Binge-drinking: A test of the role
of group norms in the theory of planned behaviour. Psychology &
Health, 18, 63–77.
Kim, K. H. (2005). The relation among fit indexes, power, and sample size
in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 12,
368 –390.
Larimer, M. E., Turner, A. P., Mallett, K. A., & Geisner, I. M. (2004).
Predicting drinking behavior and alcohol-related problems among fra-
ternity and sorority members: Examining the role of descriptive and
injunctive norms. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18, 203–212.
Leigh, B. C. (1989). Attitudes and expectancies as predictors of drinking
habits: A comparison of three scales. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 50,
432– 440.
Little, T. D. (1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of
cross-cultural data: Practical and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behav-
ioral Research, 32, 53–76.
Marlatt, G. A., & Gordon, J. R. (Eds.). (1985). Relapse prevention:
Maintenance strategies in the treatment of addictive behaviors. New
York: Guilford Press.
McMillan, B., & Conner, M. (2003). Using the theory of planned behav-
iour to understand alcohol and tobacco use in students. Psychology,
Health & Medicine, 8, 317–327.
 THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR AND COLLEGE DRINKING
Neal, D. J., & Carey, K. B. (2004). Developing discrepancy within self-
regulation theory: Use of personalized normative feedback and personal
strivings with heavy-drinking college students. Addictive Behaviors, 29,
281–297.
Norman, P., Bennett, P., & Lewis, H. (1998). Understanding binge drink-
ing among young people: An application of the theory of planned
behavior. Health Education Research, 13, 163–169.
O’Callaghan, F. V., Chant, D. C., Callan, V. J., & Baglioni, A. (1997).
Models of alcohol use by young adults: An examination of various
attitude– behavior theories. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 58, 502–507.
Ouellette, J. A. (1996). How to measure habit? Subjective experience and
past behavior (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, 1996).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 4093.
Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life:
The multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Psychological Bulletin, 124, 54 –74.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Pentz, M. A., & Chou, C.-P. (1994). Measurement invariance in longitu-
dinal clinical research assuming change from development and interven-
tion. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 450 – 462.
Perkins, H. W. (2002). Social norms and the prevention of alcohol misuse
in collegiate contexts. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Suppl. 14, 164 –
172.
Perkins, H. W. (Ed.). (2003). The social norms approach to preventing
school and college age substance abuse: A handbook for educators,
counselors, and clinicians. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test
statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507–514.
Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of
Statistics, 6, 461– 464.
Simons, J., & Carey, K. B. (1998). A structural analysis of attitudes toward
alcohol and marijuana use. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
24, 727–735.
507
Stacy, A. W., Bentler, P. M., & Flay, B. R. (1994). Attitudes and health
behavior in diverse populations: Drunk driving, alcohol use, binge
eating, marijuana use, and cigarette use. Health Psychology, 13, 73– 85.
Terry, D. J., & O’Leary, J. E. (1995). The theory of planned behavior: The
effects of perceived behavioural control and self-efficacy. British Jour-
nal of Social Psychology, 34, 199 –220.
Thompson, M. S., & Green, S. B. (2006). Evaluating between-group
differences in latent variable means. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller
(Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 119 –169).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Verplanken, B., Aarts, H., van Knippenberg, A., & van Knippenberg, C.
(1994). Attitude versus general habit: Antecedents of travel mode
choice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 285–300.
Wagenmakers, E., & Farrell, S. (2004). AIC model selection using Akaike
weights. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 192–196.
Wall, A.-M., Hinson, R. E., & McKee, S. A. (1998). Alcohol outcome
expectancies, attitudes toward drinking and the theory of planned be-
havior. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 59, 409 – 419.
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
prevention efforts. Journal of American College Health, 50, 203–217.
Young, R. M., Connor, J. P., Ricciardelli, L. A., & Saunders, J. B. (2006).
The role of alcohol expectancy and drinking refusal self-efficacy beliefs
in university student drinking. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 41, 70 –75.
Young, R. M., Tian, O. P. S., & Crook, G. M. (1991). Development of a
drinking self-efficacy questionnaire. Journal of Psychopathology and
Behavioral Assessment, 13, 1–15.
Received September 19, 2006
Revision received February 6, 2007
Accepted February 8, 2007 䡲