Wall 2006 OnLineAlcoholHealthEducationCurriculumEval PDF

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity Advisors
Vol. 2, Iss. 1, February 2006
Table of Contents
iii EDITORIAL TEAM
iv GENERAL INFORMATION
v GUEST EDITORIAL
A READER-CENTERED APPROACH: MAKING SENSE OF RESEARCH
ARTICLES
Andrew Wilson
1 FAKE-ID USE AMONG FRATERNITY/SORORITY MEMBERS

William R. Molasso
The author explores differences among fraternity/sorority members and nonmembers in the use of and
attitudes about fake IDs. Data from this study of 3,780 students from 12 institutions across the country
indicate that fraternity/sorority affiliated students were almost three times as likely to have a fake ID
and maintain less healthy attitudes about them when compared to non-affiliated students. The
researcher identifies recommendations for professionals working with this community.
8 GAY MALES IN FRATERNITIES

Jack Trump and James A. Wallace
The experiences of gay men in college social fraternities serve as the focus of this study. Representing
five inter/national fraternities and five colleges and universities, five men share their coping strategies,
homosexual identity development, and the reactions of their fraternity brothers to their coming out.
29 ONLINE ALCOHOL HEALTH EDUCATION CURRICULUM EVALUATION:

HARM REDUCTION FINDINGS AMONG FRATERNITY AND SORORITY
MEMBERS
Andrew Wall
This study examines the use of technology as a tool in the broad-based delivery of alcohol health
education within fraternities and sororities. Building on the promise of multimedia education, this
evaluation examines an alcohol abuse prevention program delivered through an interactive web-based
format for reducing the harm associated with alcohol abuse. The evaluation uses a clustered randomly
assigned post-test only evaluation design with 3,552 individuals in 340 chapters to examine differences
between individuals who have and who have not received the educational curriculum. The outcome of
the study is building evidence that technology-delivered alcohol education has potential to modestly
impact academic and personal harm associated heavy alcohol use.
46 DEFINITIONS OF HAZING: DIFFERENCES AMONG SELECTED STUDENT

ORGANIZATIONS
Chad W. Ellsworth
Fraternities, sororities, military organizations, athletic groups, and marching bands commonly are
associated with hazing activities. Although such organizations have been linked to hazing activities, the
fact that different entities and organizations have different definitions and perceptions of hazing has
hindered any real effort to challenge and combat such activities. The purpose of this study was to
-i-
investigate whether the activities students define as hazing differed among the selected student
organizations. This study discovered statistically significant differences (p<.05) among the selected
student organizations for physical hazing activities and psychological hazing activities, as well as
statistically significant differences (p<.05) between women and men for physical hazing activities,
psychological hazing activities, and other hazing activities. This study also identified 10 activities
students in all groups identified as hazing, which moves us toward a common definition of hazing.
61 EFFECTS OF FRATERNITY/SORORITY MEMBERSHIP AND

RECRUITMENT SEMESTER ON GPA AND RETENTION
Suzy M. Nelson, Silas Halperin, Timothy H. Wasserman, Corinne Smith, and Peter Graham
The researchers assess the relationship of fraternity/sorority membership and semester of recruitment
on grade point average (GPA) and student retention, adjusting for covariates through sub classification
by propensity score. The findings suggest a consistent positive relationship between fraternity/sorority
membership and retention and a varying relationship between fraternity/sorority membership and GPA.
Fraternity/sorority membership has a negligible effect on GPA over time, with the exception of the
recruitment and pledging semester.
- ii -
EDITORIAL TEAM
EDITOR ASSOCIATE EDITOR
Grahaeme A. Hesp Daniel Bureau
The Florida State University University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
ADVISORY BOARD
Rosalind Alderman Debbie Heida Mary Beth Seiler
St. Marys University NASPA Gamma Sigma Alpha
Mari Ann Callais, Ph.D. Larry Lunsford Allison Swick-Duttine
Theta Phi Alpha Fraternity Order of Omega Perspectives Editor
Charles Eberly, Ph.D. William Molasso, Ph.D. Brian Tenclinger.
Center for the Study of the College Northern Illinois University Association of Fraternity Advisors
Fraternity Foundation
Eric Norman, Ph.D.
ACPA: College Student Educators
International
EDITORIAL BOARD
Jim Barber Denny Bubrig Amber Garrison Andrew Wilson
University of Michigan Auburn University Florida State University Emory University
Patrick Biddix Michelle Espino Tim Haskell

Washington University University of Arizona Santa Clara University
PEER REVIEW BOARD

Ron Binder, Ed.D. Iowa State University
Bowling Green State Robert Kerr Laura Osteen, Ph.D.
University Marilyn Fordham Oregon State University Florida State University
National Panhellenic
Gary Bonas Conference Susan Komives, Ed.D. David Persky, Ph.D., J.D.
Villanova University University of Maryland St. Leo University
Adam Goldstein, Ph.D.
Michael Bowie, Ph.D. Florida State University Stanley Levy, Ph.D. Sparky Reardon, Ph.D.
University of Florida University of Illinois University of Mississippi
David Grady, Ph.D.
Matthew Caires University of Iowa John Wesley Lowery, Dennis Roberts, Ph.D.
University of Wyoming Ph.D. Miami University
Dennis Gregory, Ph.D. University of South
Mari Ann Callais, Ph.D. Old Dominion University Carolina Larry Roper, Ph.D.
Theta Phi Alpha Oregon State University
Fraternity Bridget Guernsey Tisa Mason, Ed.D., CAE
Riordan, Ph.D. University of Wisconsin Joel Rudy
James Caswell, Ed.D. Emory University Whitewater Phi Kappa Tau
Southern Methodist Fraternity
University Lori Hart Ebert, Ph.D. Malinda Matney, Ph.D.
Pi Kappa Phi Fraternity University of Michigan Penny Rue, Ph.D.
Kathleen Cramer Randall University of Virginia
University of Alabama John Hayek, Ph.D. Richard McKaig, Ed.D.
Kentucky Office of Indiana University Esther Thorson, Ph.D.
George Dickson Higher Education University of Missouri
Kappa Sigma Fraternity William Molasso, Ph.D.
Debbie Heida Northern Illinois Heather Wilson, Ed.D.
Charles Eberly, Ph.D. Berry College University Alpha Chi Omega
Eastern Illinois Fraternity
University Joan Hirt, Ph.D. Larry Moneta, Ed.D.
Virginia Polytechnic Duke University Terry Zacker, Ph.D.
Shannon Ellis, Ph.D. Institute and State University of Maryland
University of Nevada University William Nelson, Ph.D.
Reno University of Iowa
Thomas B. Jelke, Ph.D. Hank Nuwer
Nancy Evans, Ph.D. tjelke solutions Franklin College
- iii -
GENERAL INFORMATION
Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity Advisors advances the study of
college fraternities and sororities through a peer reviewed academic journal promoting scholarly
discourse among partners invested in the college fraternal movement. The vision of Oracle: The
Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity Advisors is to serve as the premier forum for
academic discourse and scholarly inquiry regarding the college fraternity and sorority movement.
Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity Advisors is published biannually.
Members of the Association receive Oracle as a benefit of membership and can access the Oracle
archives on the Association's Members Only website.
Copyright:
Copyright 2006 Association of Fraternity Advisors, Inc. (AFA). All material contained in this
publication is the property of AFA. The opinions expressed in Oracle do not necessarily reflect
those of AFA. Requests for permission to reprint should be sent to the AFA Central Office at
info@fraternityadvisors.org or 317/876-1632.
Subscriptions:
Subscriptions may be purchased by contacting the Central Office. Single issues are available for
$20; a one-year subscription is $35; a two-year subscription is $50.
Submissions:
Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity Advisors accepts
submissions focused on articulating research involving fraternity and sorority members at the
collegiate, alumni, inter/national organization, and volunteer advisory levels. Manuscripts should be
written for the student affairs generalist who has broad responsibility for educational leadership,
policy, staff development, and management. Articles on specialized topics should provide the
generalist with an understanding of the importance of the program to student affairs overall and
fraternity/sorority advising specifically.
Research articles for Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity Advisors should
stress the underlying issues or problems that stimulated the research; treat the methodology
concisely; and, most importantly, offer a full discussion of results, implications, and conclusions. In
the belief that AFA readers have much to learn from one another, we also encourage the submission
of thoughtful, documented essays or historical perspectives.
Visit http://www.fraternityadvisors.org/resources/oracle/oracle.htm for more detailed submission

guidelines.
- iv -
GUEST EDITORIAL
A READER-CENTERED APPROACH:
MAKING SENSE OF RESEARCH ARTICLES
Andrew Wilson
Just as educational researchers often struggle making their findings accessible to a wide audience,
student affairs practitioners frequently find difficulty with research articles in terms of clarity and
understanding. Recent scholarly articles suggest student affairs practitioners rethink our work (Love
& Estanek, 2004; National Association of Student Personnel Administrators & ACPA, 2004). In
addition, there is external pressure to produce learning outcomes by applying newly generated
knowledge in the practical realm. Given the reader-centered approach of Oracle: The Research
Journal of the Association of Fraternity Advisors, this guest editorial shares advice on navigating
research journal articles. These tips will aid in the understanding and practical application of
research in student affairs.
Why are you reading the article?

Identifying your rationale for reading an article guides your understanding. For instance, readers
hoping an article provides advice on a particular campus problem will differ in their reading
approach from those seeking to remain current on new research. Practitioners wanting to learn more
about a specific campus issue would benefit from a review of the literature and recommendations on
the topic from a wide range of journals. Meanwhile, readers seeking broad information for ongoing
professional development are likely to benefit from the variety of articles published in journals such
as Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity Advisors. Knowing the purpose
for reading frames how you approach the article.
What are you reading?

Researchers utilize various research methods and study highly specific topics. Regardless of the
rationale for reading an article, reading the literature review can certainly help in building
knowledge of a particular topic. In addition, articles typically include introductions that explain the
importance of the research and help frame the significance of the new findings. If a readers goal is
simply to understand the article then he or she should pay closer attention to discussion sections
rather than methods sections. However, when evaluating an article, readers should spend ample
time focusing upon methods and findings as well as the other sections.
How should a reader decide if this is a high-quality journal article?

While we hope journal editors would only publish articles that use rigorous methods and with
interesting findings, there are a myriad of reasons why questionable scholarship sometimes appears
in print. Readers seeking to inform practice using research articles must acquire a critical reading
eye. To hone evaluative skills related to research, readers should rely on researchers who typically
know more about a topic than they do. For example, readers who want to replicate a study or better
understand how a researcher analyzed data should utilize a graduate student, a colleague, and/or a
faculty member with knowledge of educational research design. Authors provide contact
information to serve as resources and typically welcome dialogue on their materials. Even
practitioners who have completed courses in advanced research design and statistics can find
-v-
approaching researchers very helpful because they typically remain more current than busy
practitioners.
In addition to understanding design and analysis, readers should pay close attention to study
limitations. Authors outline limitations to indicate how studies may have limited use given different
institutional context. For instance, if data collection occurred at a large, public institution, a
practitioner at a small, private campus may want to consider institutional type before implementing
the same study. Since every study has limitations, readers must determine the extent to which such
limitations may affect the stated findings or maybe even discredit the research. Depending upon a
readers purpose for examining a study, some limitations may be more tolerable than others. A
reader should call upon the expertise of resources such as graduate students and faculty members to
assist in assessing limitations, if necessary.
How do you apply what you are reading?

While readers should never rely upon any single section of an article, discussion sections remain
filled with useful applications for practitioners and scholars. Discussion sections typically include
recommendations for practice and suggestions for future research. This may be the most important
part of the article for busy practitioners. In addition, context is important to consider. For example,
in EFFECTS OF FRATERNITY/SORORITY MEMBERSHIP AND RECRUITMENT
SEMESTER ON GPA AND RETENTION, Nelson et al., provide data to assist the reader in
understanding the impact of deferred recruitment. The data, collected in the early 1990s, still has
pertinence today since the issue of deferred recruitment remains a debated topic in the fraternal
world. This article provides history to assist campus practitioners conducting their own research on
the role of deferred recruitment. Reading research articles conducted on specific topics over a long
period can allow us to evaluate how the context has changed and the issue has evolved.
Application of recommendations to Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity

Advisors
We hope you will apply these strategies as you read this issue of Oracle: The Research Journal of
the Association of Fraternity Advisors. In this issue, Dr. William Molasso examines fake
identification use among college students with a particular focus on fraternity and sorority
members; Jack Trump and Dr. James Wallace present a qualitative study on gay males in
fraternities that includes rich quotations from participants describing their experiences; to add to our
knowledge of alcohol intervention strategies, Dr. Andrew Wall evaluates the impact on fraternity
and sorority members of a widely-used online alcohol education tool; Chad Ellsworth investigates if
the activities students define as hazing differed among fraternities, sororities, Reserve Officer
Training Corps, NCAA athletic teams, and marching bands; finally, Suzy Nelson, Silas Halperin,
Timothy Wasserman, and Peter Graham assess the relationship between fraternity/sorority
membership and semester of recruitment on academic achievement.
Each article presents an overview, an in-depth literature review, and offers discussions that include
recommendations for future practice and research and implications for practitioners. A variety of
research methods and analyses are utilized in these studies.
We hope you continue to use Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity
Advisors to grow professionally and propel forward the fraternity movement.
- vi -
References
Love, P. G., & Estanek, S. M. (2004). Rethinking student affairs practice. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
National Association of Student Personnel Administrators and ACPA: College Student Educators
International. (2004). Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide focus on the student
experience. Washington, DC: Author.
Andrew Wilson is Assistant Dean for Campus Life at Emory University. He may be contacted via
email at andy.wilson@emory.edu.
- vii -
FAKE-ID USE AMONG FRATERNITY/SORORITY MEMBERS
William R. Molasso
The author explores differences among fraternity/sorority members and nonmembers in the
use of and attitudes about fake IDs. Data from this study of 3,780 students from 12
institutions across the country indicate that fraternity/sorority affiliated students were
almost three times as likely to have a fake ID and maintain less healthy attitudes about them
when compared to non-affiliated students. The researcher identifies recommendations for
professionals working with this community.
The continued evolution of risk management policies of inter/national organizations and local
campus fraternity/sorority governing boards has had a significant impact on the social environment
associated with alcohol in fraternity/sorority communities. However, professionals working with
fraternity/sorority communities continue to struggle with the use and abuse of alcohol by members
and guests. One area of concern for fraternity/sorority advisors, inter/national staff, and volunteer
leaders is access to alcoholic beverages by those students under the minimum legal drinking age.
The information derived from this study can help constituents of the fraternal movement address
underage drinking.
Since the passage of the 1984 Federal Minimum Purchase Age Act, states have established a
minimum drinking age of 21. Despite this law, studies have shown that students under 21 have
continued to gain access to alcoholic beverages, making underage drinking a major problem at
American colleges and universities (Wechsler, Lee, Nelson, & Kuo, 2002). Wechsler et al., found
that a majority (50.9%) of underage students indicated it was very easy to obtain alcohol. To
address this problem, Wechsler, Moeykens, and DeJong (1995) recommended that college
administrators and security chiefs take three steps to enforce the minimum drinking age more
effectively: taking legal action against those providing alcoholic beverages to minors; establishing a
zero-tolerance policy for students using fake IDs; and implementing greater punishment for
underage students involved in alcohol-related incidents. This study examined the second
recommendation of Wechsler, Moeykens, and DeJong related to the use of fake or counterfeit IDs.
For the purposes of this study, fake IDs refer to the use of an identification of someone else that
indicates a minimum age necessary to purchase alcoholic beverages. This may include borrowing
someone elses drivers license that looks like the person, but is older than the minimum drinking
age. It may also include purchasing a counterfeit identification card that uses the persons picture,
but changes the age of the individual to something over the minimum drinking age required. I
selected the term fake ID for this study based on use of this terminology in the previous published
articles on this issue.
After an extensive search, very little research on the prevalence of fake IDs was found in the
literature. These few previous studies indicated that nearly half of all college students used fake IDs,
and that White men under the age of 21 were most likely to have one. Durkin, Wolfe, and Phillips
(1996) found that 46% of the respondents in their study of undergraduates in a sociology class
reported using a fake ID to obtain alcohol. Lotterhos, Glover, Holbert, and Barnes (1988) studied
the likelihood that students between the ages of 18 and 21 would get a fake ID after the state raised
-1-
the minimum drinking age to 21. They discovered that White, male students with high grade-point
averages were the most likely to say they planned to get a fake ID after the law changed. Goldsmith
(1989) found that 13% of community college students had a fake ID, although the sample size of his
study was limited. In a more recent analysis, Wechsler et al., (2002) found that 17.8% of students
used fake IDs to obtain alcohol. These results indicate that the use of fake IDs may be a primary
means for underage students to obtain alcohol.
The purpose of this study was to assess the prevalence of fake IDs among fraternity/sorority
members. This study assists fraternity/sorority advisors, inter/national staff, and volunteer leaders in
understanding better the magnitude of the problem in this community. This study sought to answer
two questions:
1. Are there differences in fake ID use among fraternity/sorority members and nonmembers?
2. Are there differences in general attitudes about fake ID use among fraternity/sorority
members and nonmembers?
Answering these questions provides fraternity/sorority advisors, inter/national staff, and volunteer
leaders with the information they need to improve their ability to address drinking among underage
members.
Methods
This investigation used data from a multi-institutional study of off-campus parties that utilized the
Off-Campus Party Study Survey Questionnaire in fall 2003. The research team constructed the
survey because no literature was identified on parties that occur in the off-campus apartments and
houses of students, and no other instrument was available to explore the phenomena.
An institutional panel of staff from student affairs and health education and scholars from the
Colleges of Education and Communication served as the coordinating research team. To ensure that
validity of the overall survey, several stages of testing and piloting were completed before finalizing
the instrument. Initially, the team of faculty and staff collaborated during a series of meetings and
conversations about the purpose of the study and the kinds of questions needed to achieve that
purpose. After an initial instrument was created, a small number of students (less than 20) were
asked to complete the survey in a preliminary screening. After they completed the instrument,
students were asked to indicate any questions they found difficult to complete, did not understand,
or found overly intrusive. After compiling this feedback, a final draft of the instrument was created
and piloted in spring 2003.
The pilot study of 186 students was administered in several courses of the faculty members familiar
with the study on the campus of the research team. The purpose of the pilot study was to provide an
initial collection of data to determine if the format and questions asked would achieve adequately
the purposes of the study. After compiling the data of the pilot study, the researchers modified the
format and language of several questions to reflect better the necessary outcomes. The instrument
was then forwarded to several scholars and practitioners with expertise in student issues of this
nature to ensure the accuracy of the instrument. The researchers then finalized the questionnaire,
which included a range of questions examining the phenomenon of off-campus parties. A subset of
those questions asked students about their use of fake IDs, which formed the basis for this study.
-2-
On the survey, students were asked to indicate yes or no to the question: Do you have a fake ID?
Those who indicated they did were asked to select from three reasons for using the fake ID: to
purchase beer or wine, to buy liquor, or to get into a bar or club. Students were asked to indicate
their belief with a 4-point scale (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or strongly agree) on the
following questions: Most of my friends have fake IDs; There is nothing wrong with using a
fake ID; You really need a fake ID to have an active social life; and My friends discourage my
use of a fake ID. The study also included questions about student demographics and alcohol use.
They included the variables of gender, race/ethnicity, age, residence, membership in a student
organization, fraternity/sorority affiliation, and frequency of alcohol consumption in the past 30
days.
While the instrument was under testing, research team members began to contact staff at other
higher education institutions who could be interested in participating in the multi-institutional study.
From this recruitment effort, 12 institutions of higher education from across the country voluntarily
participated in the fall 2003 study. These institutions represented a range of institutional locations
(urban, suburban, rural), type (public, private), and geographic region of the country.
Each institution developed its own data collection procedures based on institutional norms and
obtained institutional review board approval for the study. All 12 institutions used random sampling
methods, surveying between 1,100 and 1,500 students each. Nine institutions used a direct mail
approach to their randomly selected sample, with at least one follow-up. Three institutions used
online data collection methods. Over 3,700 students completed and returned the survey. Of those
students who responded, 59% indicated they were under the age of 21, 42% were men, 19% were
students of color, and 9% indicated they were a member of a fraternity/sorority. Chi square analysis
indicated that the demographic characteristics of age, race, and gender did not vary statistically
significantly from the demographics of population frame.
Data Analysis
To answer the research questions, I used descriptive statistics, chi-square procedures, and t tests to
compare data from students who indicated they were members of a fraternity/sorority with
nonmembers. Descriptive statistics on each of the independent and dependent variables were
computed. Then I analyzed fraternity/sorority affiliation with the categorical dependent variable of
having a fake ID using cross-tabular chi-square analysis. Finally, I explored differences of opinions
on fake ID with fraternity/sorority affiliation using t tests.
Using chi-square analysis, the proportion of fraternity/sorority members who had a fake ID was
compared to nonmembers. This study indicated the proportion of fraternity/sorority members that
had fake IDs (14%) was almost three times that of nonaffiliated students (5%). This difference was
statistically significant (X2(1) = 46.72, p < .001) (Table 1). The strength of this relationships was
statistically not strong ( = -.17). However, the actual difference in proportions between the two
groups was relatively large for a sample of this size, and showed an importance that the statistical
strength did not demonstrate. Chi-square analysis indicated no statistical difference between men
and women having a fake ID, regardless of fraternity/sorority membership.
-3-
Table 1
Comparison of Proportions of Fraternity/Sorority Members and
Nonmembers on Prevalence and Use of Fake IDs
Members Nonmembers
Item n % n %
Have a Fake ID 47 14% 160 5%
Used To
Purchase Beer/Wine* 34 74% 107 67%
Purchase Liquor* 27 60% 89 56%
Get Into a Bar/Club* 43 92% 136 85%
* Of those who have fake ID.
(X2(1) = 46.72, p < .001, < .001)
Next, I explored differences in how fraternity/sorority members used their fake IDs compared to
nonmembers. Affiliated members were slightly more likely to use their fake ID to purchase
beer/wine (74%) and liquor (60%) than nonmembers were to purchase beer/wine (67%) and liquor
(56%). Additionally, a greater percentage of affiliated members who had fake IDs used them to get
into a bar/club (92%) when compared to nonmembers (85%).
Four questions related to attitudes about Fake IDs were asked of the participants. Students
responded to each question on a four-point scale of 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, and
4=strongly agree. Differences between the means of fraternity/sorority members and nonmembers
were analyzed using t test procedures (Table 2).
On the scale provided, fraternity/sorority affiliated students were much more likely to believe most
of the friends have fake IDs (m = 2.10, sd = 0.89) than nonmembers (m = 1.65, sd = 0.76). This
difference was statistically significant (t(3,610) = -10.14, p < .01). A statically significant difference
(t(3,590) = -4.91, p < .01) was also discovered among fraternity/sorority members (m = 2.24, sd =
0.80) in believing nothing is wrong with using a fake ID when compared to nonmembers (m = 2.00,
sd = 0.85), as well as a statistically significant difference in friends discouraging the participants
use of a fake ID. Fraternity/sorority members (m = 2.01, sd = 0.97) were less likely discouraged by
friends to use one than nonmembers (m = 2.21, sd = 1.03). Fraternity/sorority members (m = 1.74,
sd = 0.77) were more likely to believe you needed a fake ID to have an active social life, when
compared to nonmembers (m = 1.50, sd = 0.68). Although t tests indicated this difference was
statistically significant (t(3,601) = -6.18, p < .01), the raw means for both groups was relatively low.
Table 2
Comparison of Four Fake ID Attitudes of Fraternity/Sorority Members and Nonmembers
Members Nonmembers
Attitudes Statement n m sd n m sd df t
Most of my friends have fake IDs. 339 2.10 0.89 3,273 1.65 0.76 3,610 -10.14 *
There is nothing wrong with using a
337 2.24 0.80 3,255 2.00 0.85 3,590 -4.91 *
fake ID.
You really need a fake ID to have an
337 1.74 0.77 3,266 1.50 0.68 3,601 -6.18 *
active social life.
My friends discourage my use of a
292 2.01 0.97 2,838 2.21 1.03 3,128 3.10 *
fake ID.
Scale: 1=Strongly Disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Agree; 4=Strongly Agree.
* Significant difference at the p < .01 level.
-4-
Discussion
This study found that the overall use of fake IDs by college students was very low when compared
to the findings of the few previous studies on this issue. However, it is notable that
fraternity/sorority members were almost three times as likely to have a fake ID when compared to
nonmembers, with no significant differences among fraternity men and sorority women. While
generally most students did not have a fake ID, fraternity/sorority members were much more likely
to have one than nonaffiliated students. This may indicate that characteristics of the
fraternity/sorority community may encourage the possession of a fake ID. While it would be easy to
simply look at the low raw percentage of fraternity/sorority members and nonmembers and
conclude that fake IDs are not a significant issue, that fraternity/sorority members were so much
more likely to have a fake ID than nonmembers is very concerning.
As fraternity/sorority members were more likely to have a fake ID, they were also more likely
actually to use that ID. Data from this study indicated that fraternity/sorority members were more
likely than nonmembers to use a fake ID to purchase beer, wine, or liquor. Fraternity/sorority
members were also more likely to use a fake ID to get into a bar or club compared to nonmembers.
Almost all fraternity/sorority members who have a fake ID used it to get into a bar or club.
In the general attitudes about fake ID use, fraternity/sorority affiliated students consistently held
less favorable or unhealthy attitudes about this illegal behavior. Fraternity/sorority members are
more likely to believe their friends have a fake ID, less likely to be discouraged by their friends in
using one, and more likely to see nothing wrong with this behavior. Additionally, fraternity/sorority
members were significantly more likely to believe you needed a fake ID to have an active social
life, when compared to nonmembers.
Other studies have drawn inferences from the literature related the alcohol-centric nature of
fraternities and sororities as the reason for increased fake ID use (see Durkin, Wolfe & Phillips,
1996; Engs & Hanson, 1985). Although this is one logical conclusion to draw from the studies, the
prevalence of fake IDs among fraternity and sorority members may also be explained by a recent
shift in the risk management policies of the organizations. In the past five years, an increasing
number of inter/national organizations and campus governing councils have instituted policies
prohibiting social events involving alcohol at fraternity chapter houses. As a result, these parties
have been transferred to licensed third-party vendors such as bars and clubs. Because many bars and
clubs that provide alcoholic beverages often limit entrance to those over the age of 21, this creates a
new problem for underage members of fraternities and sororities who want to attend these events. If
the chapters host social functions in third-party venues without making special accommodations for
those who are underage, the younger members may need to use fake IDs to attend these events. This
study, thus, has important implications for leaders of the fraternity and sorority movement.
Implications
This study found that fraternity/sorority members were much more likely to have a fake ID and
have more unhealthy attitudes about their use. These outcomes have a number of implications for
fraternity/sorority advisors, inter/national staff, and volunteer leaders as they continue to address
problems associated with alcohol abuse among fraternity/sorority communities.
-5-
Campus-based professionals, inter/national staff, and volunteer leaders should target education
programs related to this specific issue more effectively. The use of fake IDs are illegal and provide
the means for underage students to violate further alcohol consumption laws and ordinances. Clear
and consistent messages about fake IDs should be included in educational programs and policies on
all levels of the fraternity movement. This may include a new or expanded section in risk
management educational manuals and workshops or a specific policy statement about the use of
fake IDs by members and guests. Although this problem may have only been superficially
addressed in the past, this study indicates that the issue of fake IDs should be prioritized in the
future.
Leaders of the fraternity and sorority movement should also examine fraternity parties held in age-
restricted establishments. Fraternity/sorority advisors and volunteer leaders working with local
establishments to develop a system that would allow underage students into their bar or club to
attend the party, but not to provide alcohol to minors, is critical to the long-term success of recent
efforts to move social functions out of chapter houses. These efforts may be limited because of state
laws and local ordinances or the relatively small size of many establishments surrounding college
campuses. However, where possible, efforts of this type could have a significant impact in the rate
of fake ID use among fraternity/sorority members. Campus officials should research all of the
options for having undergraduate student leaders host functions in establishments that are not age-
restricted. In assessing efforts to ensure access to events by students under the age of 21, campus
based professionals should consider the following questions:
Can your underage members easily get into establishments for chapter social events (but not get
served)?
Have all available venue-options been aggressively explored and information provided widely
to chapters?
Do local establishments need outreach educational efforts on why and how underage members
can attend social events in their area without risk of serving alcohol to minors?
Campus based professionals, inter/national staff, and volunteer leaders working with the
fraternity/sorority movement on a local and national level should be concerned about the issue
of fake IDs among the membership. Educational and policy efforts on this issue are important
to consider and expand in the future. Additionally, ensuring that underage students have access
to social events, but not be served alcoholic beverages, is critical to the overall success of
recent policy changes that shift social events out of chapter houses.
Limitations
The design of this study had notable limitations. Although all of the institutions used a random-
sample design for the collection of data, each established unique collection methodologies specific
to their campus situations. Future multi-institutional studies with identical sampling and
implementation procedures would strengthen the accuracy of the results.
Language is increasingly important in the design of research. This study used similar language to
the few studies that had been completed and published in the literature. However, future studies of
this issue should consider extending the category for those who use fake IDs or counterfeit IDs to
include those who use or borrow IDs from someone over the age of 21. Additionally, the nuance
of having and using a fake ID should be examined.
-6-
Summary
Wechsler et al., (1995) gave college administrators and security chiefs three recommendations for
addressing underage drinking. Those recommendations included focusing efforts on those who
provide alcohol to minors, addressing the use of fake IDs, and taking stronger action against
underage students involved in alcohol-related incidents. This study examined their second
recommendation by assessing the differences in fake ID use and attitudes among fraternity/sorority
members and nonmembers. Findings clearly indicated fraternity/sorority members are at greater risk
of violating fake ID laws and policies than nonmembers. As fraternity/sorority advisors,
inter/national staff, and volunteer leaders continue to deal with the problems associated with alcohol
abuse by members of the community, efforts addressing illegal use of fake IDs should be expanded
and prioritized.
References
Durkin, K.F., Wolfe, T.W., & Phillips III, D.W. (1996). College students use of fraudulent
identification to obtain alcohol: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Alcohol and Drug
Education, 41, 92-104.
Engs, R.C., & Hanson, D.J. (1988). Gender differences in drinking patterns and problems among
college students: A review of the literature. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 35(2),
36-47.
Goldsmith, H. (1989). Alcohol procurement by underage persons: Prevention implications and

strategies for melioration. Journal of Offender Counseling, Services and Rehabilitation, 13(1),
133-162.
Lotterhos, J.F., Glover, E.D., Holbert, D., & Barnes, R. C. (1988). Intentionality of college students
regarding North Carolinas 21-year drinking age law. The International Journal of Addictions,
23(6), 629-647.
Wechsler, H., Lee, J.E., Nelson, T.F., and Kuo, M. (2002). Underage college students' drinking
behavior, access to alcohol, and the influence of deterrence policies: Findings from the
Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study. Journal of American College Health,
50(5), 223-36.
Wechsler, H., Moeykens, B.A., & DeJong, W. (1995). Enforcing the minimum age drinking age
law: A survey of college administrators and security chiefs. A publication of the Higher
Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, Newton, MA.
William R. Molasso, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Counseling, Adult and
Higher Education at Northern Illinois University, outside of Chicago. He served as a
fraternity/sorority advisor for over ten years prior to becoming a faculty member in student affairs
and higher education. William may be contacted via email at BillyM@niu.edu.
-7-
GAY MALES IN FRATERNITIES
Jack Trump and James A. Wallace
The experiences of gay men in college social fraternities serve as the focus of this study.
Representing five inter/national fraternities and five colleges and universities, five men
share their coping strategies, homosexual identity development, and the reactions of their
fraternity brothers to their coming out.
As undergraduates, students face personal, professional, social, and emotional challenges that cause
them to reconsider their self-perceptions, develop new skills, and master developmental tasks
(Levine & Evans, 1991, p.1). This process often becomes especially complicated for those students
who are gay, for they have challenges not met by their heterosexual counterparts (Stevens, 1997).
Gay adolescents face discrimination, isolation, and often their own internalized homophobia
(Johnson, 1996). Subsequently, students who are submersed in environments that might not offer
any support or validation for being gay experience the difficult, if not impossible, process of
developing a homosexual identity.
Quite likely, the American college fraternity is a prime bastion of a collegiate environment that
exudes heterosexism (Bryan, 1987). Subsequently, gay males who join college social fraternities
may face adversity because of the values, attitudes, beliefs, and prejudices held by society and
merely reflected in fraternities. Although college social fraternities are generally unsupportive of
homosexuality, there seems to be a significant number of gay males who are active fraternity
members (Case, 1996; Case, Hesp, & Eberly, 2005; Windmeyer, 2005).
Affirming that gay men achieve membership in fraternities, Windmeyer and Freeman (1998) and
Windmeyer (2005) gave voice to the lived experiences of selected fraternity men and their
involvement as gay males in a college social fraternity. Similarly, Case (1996) distributed a national
survey to lesbian, bisexual, gay (lesbigay) fraternity and sorority members, with over 90 percent of
the more than 500 participants being non-heterosexual male members of college social fraternities.
These efforts reflect that many gay males are active fraternity members.
This study details the self-described experiences of five gay males who joined fraternities and came
out to fellow members of their fraternities while undergraduates. Specific attention is devoted to
their use of coping strategies (e.g., behaviors and attitudes connected with heterosexism and
homophobia), the variables that facilitated their coming out (i.e., prevailing diversity within
chapters, levels of homosexual identity development, belief in brotherhood, pent-up frustrations),
and their individual coming out processes (e.g., sharing ones sexual identity with individuals or
entire fraternity memberships).
Homophobia and Heterosexism

To understand the phenomenon of why gay individuals would willingly submerse themselves into
what may be considered a stereotypically heterosexist institution, one must first recognize the
impact of homophobia and heterosexism and the effect of internalized homophobia on gay men.
Adams, Bell and Griffin (1997) defined heterosexism as the societal/cultural, institutional, and
-8-
individual beliefs and practices that assume that heterosexuality is the only natural, normal,
acceptable orientation (p. 62). Homophobia, as described by Adams, et al., is
The fear, hatred, or intolerance of lesbians, gay men, or any behavior that is outside the boundaries of
traditional gender roles. Homophobia can be manifested as fear of association with lesbian or gay
people or being perceived as lesbian or gay. Homophobic behavior can range from telling jokes about
lesbian and gay people to physical violence against people thought to be lesbian or gay (p.162).
Coping Strategies
Upon recognizing that one might be attracted to persons of the same gender, learning how to cope
becomes an essential task for the young adolescent trying to survive in a society perpetuating
homophobia and heterosexism. Many gay males are able to manage the pressures that result from
being rejected and marginalized (Boies, 1997; Lasser, 1999; Mahan, 1998) by adopting specific
strategies that help them cope in certain situations. Mahan asserted that coping should be viewed as
contextual, referring to the individuals thoughts and behaviors within a specific context (p. 51).
Simply put, coping is a function of both the person and the environment. Thus, two gay people
immersed in the same environment may employ different coping strategies. On the other hand, a
gay person might use the same coping strategy in different environments (Windmeyer, 2005) or
different coping strategies in different environments.
Case (1996) estimated that the majority (70%) of gay males who joined fraternities chose not to
come out because they encountered homophobic or heterosexist attitudes within their chapter,
usually in the form of derogatory jokes or comments. Homophobia was also frequently evidenced in
membership selection. Case chronicled what happened when a potential member was rumored or
perceived to be gay. Almost universally, members of the chapter in question were likely to
summarily vote against offering him a bid to join. Likewise, if chapter members discovered or
believed a pledging member to be gay, the chapters members were inclined to dismiss the new
member. More often than not, the closeted initiated gay members would voice no opposition to the
discrimination, fearing that to do so might cause other members to question their motivation.
A number of gay males in college social fraternities could successfully conceal their sexuality, yet
make a conscious decision to disclose their sexuality (i.e., come out) in spite of possible adverse
reactions and conditions occurring. This article contributes to the literature addressing the
experiences of gay males in fraternities who have come out to other fraternity members while still
enrolled as undergraduate students. The primary researcher investigated four research questions:
1. What is the perceived atmosphere within college fraternities in regard to sexuality?
2. What are the coping strategies of gay males in college social fraternities prior to coming
out?
3. What variables facilitate gay men coming out to their fraternity?
4. What specific approaches do gay males employ as a means of coming out to their fraternity?
Method
This is a phenomenological study (Jones, 2002) of the coping strategies of self-disclosed gay males
in college social fraternities. The constructivist perspective allowed the gathering of data to
determine the socially constructed reality of this group (Guido-DiBrito, Chavez, & Lincoln, 2006).
In addition, the selection of in-depth interviews permitted examination of the experiences of the
participants from their own perspectives.
-9-
Selection of Participants
In concert with purposive sampling (Patton, 1990), participants consisted of individuals who self-
identified as gay, are/were active members of a college social fraternity, and who disclosed their
sexuality to other members within their fraternity while undergraduate chapter members. The
primary author collected data via one-on-one unstructured interviews. Audio-recordings of the
interviews were transcribed verbatim and narratives were analyzed in search of patterns and themes
to formulate interpretations.
Studying such hidden populations as gay males in fraternities can often create unique research
issues that complicate participant recruitment and research design. According to Case (1996) and
Case, Hesp, and Eberly (2005), the number of gay men who disclose their sexual orientation to their
fraternity as undergraduate chapter members is difficult to estimate. Case and Case, Hesp, and
Eberly referred to this group as hidden members, suggesting that the recruitment of a useful sample
could be difficult to obtain. Thus, the primary researcher encountered several obstacles when trying
to locate participants who specifically (a) fit the criteria, (b) were willing to participate in a research
study, and (c) were within a reasonable distance to be able to participate in a face-to-face interview.
To locate a sample of the population that would fit the scope of this research, a call-for-participants
email was developed that, through the help of a few colleagues, was sent out over a number of
sizeable listservs that focused on issues pertaining either to fraternity men, gay men, or gay
fraternity men. In a period of 3 weeks, 19 individuals responded to the call-for-participants email.
Six individuals met the criteria of this study, while also being within the desired driving distance
from the primary researcher. The primary author then sent an email to the interested individuals
stating that they had been selected as participants for the study. Each selected participant was asked
to reply to the email and include both contact information and his choice from a selection of
available interview dates provided. Five of the six selected individuals responded. Each of the
interviews took place during early March 2003.
All five participants in this study were White males who attended five different Midwestern
colleges or universities and were members of five different North-American Interfraternity
Conference (NIC) campus chapters. Each participant had completed his groups pledging processes
and was an initiated member prior to his decision to come out. Four of the five participants were out
to the entire chapter membership; one participant was out to some, but not all of his fraternity
brothers at the time of the interview; and two participants were still undergraduate students at the
time of their interview. Each participant joined his fraternity during his first year and all but one
elected to come out to his entire chapter or selected individuals during the junior years.
The first participant attended a midsize public university. At the time of the interview, he was a
junior in college and had only come out to three fraternity members. However, he planned to be out
to the entire brotherhood before the end of his next semester. A second participant obtained his
undergraduate degree from a small private university and had since completed a masters program
at a large public university. He joined his fraternity the sixth week of his first year but did not come
out to his fraternity brothers until the fall semester of his junior year. The third participant attended
a midsize public university and was a sophomore at the time of the interview. This participant
joined his fraternity the summer before he began college but waited until the second semester of his
first year before coming out to half of his chapter. The following summer he came out to the
remaining members of his chapter. The fourth participant attended a large public university and he
joined his fraternity the first week of his first year. This participant came out to his fraternity
- 10 -
brothers near the end of his junior year and had graduated at the time of the interview. The fifth
participant attended a small private liberal arts college. At the time of the interview, this participant
was a doctoral candidate at a large prestigious private university. This participant joined his
fraternity his first year but waited until the beginning of his junior year to come out to his fraternity
brothers.
Results
Student Voices
Qualitative analysis provided rich description as to how five gay males managed their sexuality
within their fraternities prior to coming out within their respective chapters. Several themes
emerged as participants discussed the complexities of their lives. Four of the five respondents
indicated perceiving the environments within their fraternity as homophobic. One participant
recalled his initial impression of the fraternity as a fairly open and accepting place but when I
got there and was ready to move in, the first day I heard so many gay jokes and anti-gay slurs and I
was just instantly back in the closet. I didnt even think about coming out for the next month or
two. This experience was echoed by other participants who claimed that it was essentially
impossible to avoid hearing their fraternity brothers make negative comments about gay people in
some fashion, whether it was in the form of a joke or through the excessive use of slurs. One
participant, who was still in the process of coming out to his entire chapter, shared his reservations
about coming out based on his perceptions of the existing homophobia:
I hoped it would be all good but I knew it wouldnt. I knew there would probably be some guys in the
house that wouldnt be able to accept it. So I knew our relationships would change in a way. I
hoped it would all be positive, but I knew it wouldnt.
As participants involvement in their fraternities increased, their perceptions of what was previously
thought to be overt homophobia began to change. While they did not deny the existence of
homophobia within their fraternities, they initially attributed the homophobic comments or gestures
as more out of habit. One participant asserted, theyre just a bunch of normal teenage guys with
the same kind of macho, swaggering attitudes most teenage guys do. They could just as easily have
said youre an idiot, as youre gay, and it didnt matter.
Heterosexism
All participants had a clear understanding that heterosexuality was the only accepted form of
sexuality within their fraternity. One participant stated:
I was in a Greek1 [sic] system that had very clear, defined gender roles. On that campus, there was the
kind of subtle reinforcement that heterosexuality was right and what was necessary to be successful.
Such feeling was reinforced through the expectation that a brother bring a female date to all
fraternity socials. Although one participant claimed his fraternity was not homophobic, he still
thought it was only proper to tell his fraternity brothers in advance, should he ever bring a male date
to a fraternity function, exclaiming, You need to prepare them for something like that. Another
claimed that his fraternity not only expected, but also subtly imposed, heteronormality. He felt that
he had to have an actual dating relationship with a female or others would begin to have suspicions
as to whether or not he might be gay.
1
Since not all organizations adopted Greek letters, it is now customary to refer to such groups as fraternities rather than
Greek-letter or Greek organizations.
- 11 -
In addition to a pervasive atmosphere of heterosexism, one participant explained that it was very
common for certain members of the fraternity to be teased about their sexuality, even though it was
never suspected that anyone in the fraternity was actually gay. Said one participant:
I think these were a bunch of men, who, just because of their lack of exposure to homosexuality,
didnt have a conception that there really were gay people, that there would be gay people who would
join the fraternity.
Another participant adopted a similar viewpoint after coming out to one of his brothers whom he
suspected to be least accepting of homosexuality. This participant realized that the person was not
necessarily homophobic but simply unaware that he would be actually offending someone by his
words and actions:
One guy in particular, I was scared of him. He was this huge football player who lifted weights all the
time and talked about gay people all the time faggot, queer. He always called everybody else that.
He always told jokes, stuff like that. I was really afraid of what he was going to think because he was
kind of perceived as a little mean, and not very approachable. Now he is one of my good friends. Its
really weird. Right after my coming out to him, he said, You do realize I dont care. You are
probably a better friend now because I know more about you.
Coping Strategies
Participants levels of homosexual identity development appeared to be a contributing factor in
determining the type of coping strategy used. Three primary themes emerged from the data:
avoidance, passing, and assimilation. Avoidance referred to either running away from or not dealing
with an issue. A perceived lack of control in a given situation often warranted using avoidance as a
way of coping with undesirable thoughts, comments, or behaviors. Coping through avoidance was
manifested in three distinct forms: repression, deflection, and separation.
Avoidance-Repression. When the primary researcher asked participants why they repressed their
sexuality, the typical response was that it was easier to keep it hidden or pushed down rather than
deal with any pain of rejection. All but one participant had an early awareness of their sexual
orientation. Three mentioned wanting to explore their sexuality when going away to college, but
soon learned that, after joining their fraternities, the desire to advance in their stages of homosexual
identity development would need to be put on hold. One participant stated he specifically went out
of state to college to explore his sexual orientation, but that his sexuality was very quickly
repressed, or pushed aside, after joining the fraternity:
I knew I was gay but I thought I was still not going to act on it when I went to college. That was my
thing. I knew what I was and that I could do nothing about it, so I decided I needed to just get over it.
Avoidance-Deflection. Deflection, another type of avoidance strategy, meant ignoring comments or

behaviors that participants perceived as homophobic or pertaining to homosexuality in some
fashion. Growing up, participants learned not to acknowledge the homophobic statements that were
prevalent within larger society. One reason for not acknowledging such statements within their
fraternities was the realization that homophobic comments or behaviors often resulted from mere
ignorance or unawareness. With increasing expectation that such comments would be included in
everyday banter among male peers, it became easier for the participants eventually to train
themselves to focus their attention elsewhere. One participant noted:
I think a lot of the time I just sort of trained myself to block it out and just completely ignore it. I
never ever went along with anything or laughed at any gay jokes. But, I wouldnt necessarily
acknowledge them either. I would just ignore people. So, I couldnt tell you what processes were
going on in my head because, as far as I know, there wasnt one.
- 12 -
Another participant echoed this response, claiming that he had become so accustomed to hearing
negative comments about homosexuality that it no longer affected him:
I just tend to pass it off. I dont really think about it. Ive just been used to it my whole life. And,
when I hear things like that, those kind of terms and little phrases, lately, it kind of rolls off my back.
Avoidance-Separation. Separating from the fraternity was another strategy participants used to
keep their sexual identities concealed. As one participant stated, Sometimes there is a wall on what
you let other people see and what you dont. Constructing walls within the fraternity chapters
allowed participants to create artificial senses of closeness with others. For instance, one participant
said he would listen to any of his brothers if they needed to talk about their relationships with
women, but he would never reciprocate any of his own personal information. Another participant
stated, I never talked to anybody about my relationships or lack thereof, or never talked to anybody
about who I thought was cute.
Participants also created separation from their fraternities by limiting interactions with specific
members; especially any member they feared would be able to detect their sexual orientation. One
participant mentioned keeping a safe distance from someone who would always find ways to tease
people about being gay. Oftentimes, this participant would go so far as to find an excuse to leave
the room for fear of having to interact with this member.
Rather than just avoiding specific members, another way participants would create separation was
to avoid their chapters as a whole. One participant stated, I was sort of a recluse for the first two
months because I didnt want people to know that I was gay. I sort of spent most of my time in my
room and didnt really connect with anybody. Another participant explained that he had minimal
contact with his fraternity his first year as a way of limiting any suspicions that others might have
about his sexual orientation. One participant explained that he had only spent a total of four hours
with his fraternity before his pledge induction. He stated, In those four hours I didnt say a lot.
If someone talked to me, I talked to them.
Passing
When a gay male is able to camouflage himself in such a way that others are unsuspicious of his
homosexuality, he is said to have the ability to pass. In this context, passing is defined as being
observably heterosexual either by consciously altering ones behavior or by deliberately creating an
image through deceit or the manipulation of convenient circumstances. Two sub-themes of passing
emerged from the data: censoring behavior and fabricating an image.
Passing-Censoring Behavior. One participant was proud of how he could walk past a total
stranger on the campus and not be viewed by that person as someone who would be gay:
I really try to get rid of peoples pre-conceived notions of how gay guys should look and act. I guess
when I came out to people it surprised them, because I dont really come off as gay most of the time. I
dont really fit most of the stereotypes.
Other participants who self-described as not fitting most of their perceived gay stereotypes received
similar reactions upon coming out from their fraternity brothers. One participant admitted
consciously not censoring his behavior, claiming there was no reason for him to pass because he did
not even realize until his junior year that he was gay. In contrast, other participants were quite aware
of being different early in life, and went to great lengths to modify their behavior. For example,
when visiting his fraternity house, one participant tried to be more macho, or to maybe watch the
- 13 -
things that I would say or the way that I would act, or try to not necessarily have them suspect that I
would be gay. For two of the participants, it was not necessarily as important to be more macho
as it was to just be mindful of not discussing issues that could be seen as stereotypically gay. Not
discussing issues, in this context, should not be confused as being an avoidance strategy, as
previously discussed. The difference is that participants were not necessarily avoiding certain types
of conversation but rather just being careful to edit the content of their dialogue. For example, rather
than not talking about a significant other, they might instead use non-specific gender pronouns or
alter the he to a this person, or they.
Participants were also more careful about bringing up certain topics they felt their brothers would
not be interested in discussing. One participant stated:
I often would not talk about some of the activities I was involved with, such as the theatre, because
with my fraternity brothers, I either didnt think they would be interested or thought that they would
think it to be gay for me to talk about being interested in the theatre.
Passing-Fabricating an Image. You cant stop people from guessing. If they want to assume, they
can, but you cant stop them from guessing about your sexuality. While this may have been the
viewpoint of one participant, the others seemed to think otherwise. As mentioned previously, all
participants prided themselves on being non-stereotypical in that others would generally not be
able to detect their homosexuality. However, one way for the participants to ensure against the
possibility of being found out was to fabricate an actual image of being heterosexual by purposely
engaging in heterosexual behaviors with the awareness that others would become knowledgeable of
such behavior. One example shared involved deliberately engaging in intimate activities with a
female for the sole purpose of proving an interest in women to others:
Mmm yeah, on New Years Eve of my sophomore year I made out with this girl just to make out with
her [laugh]. She was another fraternity guys ex girlfriend. So, I thought, well, this will be good
because she will go tell him and nobody will suspect anything. And, it was just like that, I could say I
had this crush on this girl and stuff I would tell my fraternity brothers about how I thought she was
cute and wanted to date her and blah blah blah. And it was all bullshit, I mean [smirk] it was just an
act. I really didnt have any deep down desire for her. I thought maybe I could have some type of
feeling if [pause] I wasnt gay. [Laugh] I mean, its really pathetic to say that, but I mean, I did it and
thats how I proceeded at the time.
It was common for participants to go so far as to make up elaborate stories. However, participants
often felt that just bringing a female date to fraternity functions would suffice. This was indeed the
case for one participant who said, The fact that I had a friend who was a woman and that I brought
her to events was a good enough cover. However, some participants took a slightly different
approach. Rather than bringing a female date and having to play the role of showing interest in her,
one participant explained how he learned to play the system. He indirectly avowed that there were
definite advantages to his leadership position:
I was social chairman and I planned all parties. And, for course, the social chairman can never date
because they are too busy running the parties, so that was fine I mean, when you are social chair of
a house and you are expected to put on parties every weekend, how the hell do you have time to date
when you are supervising parties? Making sure that the kegs are there, and the band is on time, and
this person is happy, and this person isnt throwing up in the bathroom, and this person isnt passing
out, so you would never bring a date to a party because there just wasnt time to pay attention to them.
While this rationalization seemed legitimate with no pretenses, it was not completely without
underlying intentions. This participant appeared to be very knowledgeable of the convenience that
his position afforded him. When asked what he would have done if he was not social chair, his
- 14 -
response was, I probably would have just brought a friend that was a girl, until I was ready to tell
them.
Assimilation
In simple terms, to assimilate means to become like or to be incorporated. Assimilation is an
appropriate term for one method in which participants were able to manage their sexuality prior to
coming out. Two sub-themes of assimilation emerged from the data: blending and fusing. Although
these sub-themes existed apart from one another, a pattern emerged suggesting that participants first
attempted to blend before becoming fully incorporated within their fraternities.
Assimilation-Blending. In reference to blending, one participant believed it was more a matter of

instinct. He associated gay men with chameleons, claiming that gay people have acquired the ability
to change their skin and their colors in different situations. They have already been doing this their
whole lives without their knowledge. Its something thats inherent and intuitive. This participant
provided an explanation about why he thought being a chameleon was intuitive rather than a matter
of conscious thought:
Its a matter, of course, that youre born [gay], but the way youre raised doesnt nurture you to be gay
or straight. What I should say is, youre born gay, in my opinion, but your parents raise you as
straight. You dont question your parents, theyre your parents, and you dont know what gay is
because they are your parents and unless youve got two daddies or two mommies, you wouldnt
know that is okay too. So you spend your whole life pretending, but youre really not pretending
because thats really your skin. And then you figure out who you are and your skin changes to that
different hue. But there are many hues in the coming out process and by the time you come out you
can go to any color of the rainbow, that chameleon adaptation, because it is something that is inherent
in you. Its the way you are raised. Youre raised as an individual that turns out to be the individual
that you were raised to be. So your whole life has been this alternating universe, you know, here and
there and you dont realize what those colors were until youre like, Oh my God, Im gay, but
youve already been through all the colors.
While this explanation seems logical and believable, numerous inconsistencies within the data
suggested that the participants were distinctly aware of their efforts to blend. For instance, when
talking about his fears of being noticed as being gay, one participant stated, I tend to look around
the room and stuff like that to make sure people stand out, claiming that he needed to get a feel for
the atmosphere in his fraternity before he could be comfortable. Another participant who also had
concerns about being comfortable in his fraternity stated, I wanted to pick a fraternity that maybe I
could blend into without necessarily sticking out as someone who would be potentially gay. For
these participants, blending was something consciously and purposely done to not draw attention to
themselves.
Seeking others who shared commonalities within the fraternity was another way in which
participants initially blended. A participant who was also a guitar player stated:
One of the guys played guitar and he was teaching me to play guitar as well, so it was like, I had an
upperclassman on my side before pledgeship even got into the thick of things. So it was ... it was just
a smart move.
Another participant commented on not being all that good at sports, so he opted not to play on any
of the fraternity sports teams. However, he did not want to seem standoffish or uninvolved in the
fraternity so he found other ways to connect with his brothers. This participant stated, I went to all
the community service projects, like the fundraisers, campus sings, talent shows and I always did
stuff like that.
- 15 -
Essentially, these participants sought out ways to participate within the fraternity without
necessarily standing out or isolating themselves in such a way that anyone would begin to have
suspicions of their sexual orientations. While some participants were able to find successful ways to
effectively blend in as just another brother, their blending efforts seemed to have a reversal effect in
that the participants became highly recognized by their fellow chapter members as possessing
desirable qualities of leadership. Thus, it was not long before the participants of this study began to
take on leadership positions within their fraternities.
Assimilation-Fusing. Fusing means ingraining oneself into the formal structure of the fraternity.
Although similar to blending, fusing is distinctively different. One aspect that makes fusing
different is that the person actually holds a formalized leadership position within the chapter. What
also sets blending and fusing apart is that fusing means having an automatic, unquestioned degree
of connection with the fraternity. Conversely, blending involves seeking out ways in which to
connect as a means of drawing attention away from oneself. As such, all five participants
successfully fused with their fraternity. One person stated:
When I first joined [my involvement] was very little, but after the second semester, I became pretty
deeply involved with things. I still wasnt out, but I became the secretary for the house and I took over
the alumni relations committee and was pretty heavily involved with the other groups too, with the
social committee and the entry house rush committee, and all that.
This participant also reported that had his chapter not closed when it did, he would have been the
next president of his fraternity chapter. Another participants response for having such a high level
of involvement within his fraternity was, You must learn to play the system, and I learned to play
the system early on. President of his pledge class and social chair, this participant had accumulated
the most chapter points by his senior year, which afforded him the luxury of having the largest room
in the house with a private bathroom. A similar experience was shared by another participant who
held an office every year in the fraternity I was four officers during my undergraduate years.
Variables that Facilitate Gay Men Coming Out to their Fraternity
Gay men in fraternities make a conscious decision to come out for a multitude of reasons. Six
variables were influential in facilitating the participants of this study coming out to their respective
chapters: (a) the enmeshed nature of fraternity life; (b) prevailing diversity within the chapter; (c)
participants level of homosexual identity development; (d) belief in the concept of brotherhood; (e)
reflections of previous coming out experiences; and (f) pent-up frustrations. Each of the variables
mentioned was common to at least four participants. Furthermore, the six variables differed
significantly in relevance to each participants experience.
Enmeshed Nature of Fraternity Life

Fraternity life appeared to be the primary social outlet for the majority of the participants. One
explained that on his campus the first thing that you would say when you would talk about other
people on campus was what house they were in, not what their major is, or where were from, or
anything like that. This participant, as well as others, felt as if there was literally no sense of
separation from being a college student and being a member of a fraternity. According to one
participant, The Greeks [sic] were so infused in the workings of the university, in the academic
part of it and in the social part of it, that you never got away from it. Another participant echoed
this: You see them every waking hour of the day. It was common for participants to eat most
meals with their brothers or to sit next to some of them in classes.
- 16 -
As previously mentioned, all five participants in this study ascribed to a high level of involvement
in their fraternities. This often meant an increased level of interaction with the brothers to the point
where participants felt as if they literally could not keep their personal lives private. One participant
explained the complexities of trying to date:
If you try to leave to meet a gay friend at midnight, you are not going to get off campus without
somebody asking where you are going. And people are going to think its weird if you pop in at 3:00
a.m. and have class the next day. They are going to ask you, Why were you out so late? So not
being out was always hard because I had to make up so many lies on where I was, what I was doing,
and who, if anybody saw you out with somebody that they didnt know. If I was out with a gay
friend or a boyfriend or something, they would always want to know. They would ask, Oh, well how
do you all know each other? And you would have to make up this big elaborate story. So, yeah, it
was hard. You had to be creative.
For some participants, the major issue was not necessarily that the fraternity was an enmeshing
experience; the enmeshment of the fraternity within the campus culture simply exaggerated matters.
Participants felt the need to remain secretive about their personal lives for fear of rejection from
their fraternity brothers. Had the brothers been perceived as more accepting, participants would
have felt less stress trying to keep their personal lives concealed. Thus, the greater issues were the
perceptions of homophobia and heterosexism, whether real or merely imagined.
Prevailing Diversity Within Chapters

One element common to all participants was the observation that a high level of diversity existed
among the brotherhood. Participants were quick to assert that their chapters included more diversity
in comparison to the other chapters on their respective campuses. As such, participants avowed that
homosexuality was just one more form of diversity.
We had a number of international students and African Americans. We also had people from lower
socioeconomic backgrounds, which was not quite as common at the university because it is a fairly
expensive private university. So, I think that the diversity of my chapter within the strict confines of it
being presumably all heterosexual men I think it was a fairly diverse group of people, and so that
made me feel comfortable being a part of them.
This response was common among the participants, as they each explained how their chapter
seemed to be more inclusive of diversity than other chapters on campus. One participant said that
members of his chapter used to make many jokes about Jewish people. After discovering that one of
the brothers was Jewish, the members made a concerted effort to be more respectful toward him.
This same participant assumed that a similar level of respect would be given to him when he came
out to the chapter members. As such, this participant felt that his fraternity was more heterocentric
and less homophobic. He stated, I learned that calling each other fag and homo was just part of
the common banter between the guys. I think had they known previously that I was gay, they might
not have used those words.
Participants Levels of Homosexual Identity Development

It was apparent that all five of the participants were highly developed in their homosexual identity
prior to coming out to other fraternity members. As discussed previously, it was common for the
participants to repress their homosexuality because of not feeling able to explore being gay while
concurrently being a member of a fraternity. However, despite not being able to outwardly express
their sexual orientation, these participants managed to progress in their homosexual identity
development.
- 17 -
A major indication of having a high level of homosexual identity development is not only having an
awareness of, but also being able to admit being homosexual to oneself (Johnson, 1996). One
participant stated, I am gay its just who I am. Its part of me. Similar responses were
expressed by the other participants who claimed to also be comfortable admitting being gay to
themselves prior to coming out within the fraternity.
All five participants had come out to at least one person prior to coming out to their fraternity
brothers. The simple act of coming out to at least one person indicated a milestone in development,
for it is at this point when ones sexual orientation is no longer a self-kept secret. All the
participants were very aware that telling someone else meant relinquishing a certain degree of
control. One stated:
I mean, as much as I love these people, they are going to talk to each other about things, and if I didnt
want anybody to know, I would not have told anybody. You know, I was smart enough not to say
anything before.
Another participant explained he purposely set a goal to come out to one of his friends upon
arriving back at campus after being away and having time to reflect all summer. Hence, the
participants previous coming out experiences were not happenstance. These participants were very
aware of the possible consequences of coming out to others, but were at a point in their lives when
it was becoming personally important to be more open with their sexual orientation.
The time span between achieving a high level of homosexual identity development and actually
coming out to other fraternity members varied from participant to participant and appeared to be
highly dependent on the perceived level of acceptance by the other fraternity brothers. One
participant who claimed to be very comfortable with his homosexuality prior to joining his
fraternity stated:
I was walking into the house preparing to, you know, not necessarily say, Hey, Im gay, but not be
discrete or closeted about it either. And, people are already there making fag jokes and calling people
queer and I was like, alright, thats not going to happen.
Another participant claimed suddenly to become aware of his sexuality while on vacation. This
participant seemed to have an instantaneous acceptance of himself as being homosexual and
claimed that the only reason he did not share his new awareness with his fraternity brothers directly
upon arriving back to campus was because he thought it would be more respectful to come out to
his parents first. The participant who had yet to come out to his entire chapter stated:
If someone was questioning my sexuality, I would hope that they would at least come and ask me. I
wont defend it if someone asks me anymore. And I will not lie to them. There is no one that I dont
want to know Im gay.
Brotherhood
For these participants, brotherhood authenticity meant more than just camaraderie and fun.
Brotherhood was a very sacredly held aspect of fraternity life. One participant defined brotherhood
as a very deep understanding of the other person and how they work and what makes them tick.
Another shared a similar definition:
Brotherhood is loyalty like no other. Its kind of like being siblings. You can yell at this person for
doing something stupid, but ten minutes later, you can be like, Hey, lets go get a slice of pizza, and
everything is forgiven. Its a bond that we share, and unless you go through it, you really dont know.
Subscribing to such an altruistic ideal of brotherhood carried with it a certain degree of skepticism
for study participants. They often thought that if true brotherhood actually existed, their fraternity
- 18 -
brothers would be able to look past their prejudices to see more than just sexuality. In this sense,
participants felt that coming out to their fraternity brothers was one way of evaluating the
authenticity of brotherhood. As one participant put it:
I was sick and tired of it. I told too many lies and was recapitulating them in my head over and over. I
said to myself, Okay, these people are preaching this brotherhood thing, and I bought into it this far.
And you know what, either its true or its not, and if its not, then Im getting the hell out of here, and
if it is, then Im going to stay.
Some participants relied on brotherhood to be the redeeming feature when coming out to fraternity
brothers during a chapter meeting:
I stood up and I said, You know, guys, I was home over spring break and I told my parents
something. If you really are a fraternity, and you really are my brothers, then youll be fine with what
I am going to tell you. And if not, then Ill leave. And I said, Im gay. I got the snaps after about
30 seconds of silence because no one knew what the hell to do [laugh].
This participant went on to explain that being accepted by his fraternity gave him a sense of
reassurance because he really wanted to believe in this thing called brotherhood. Another
explained that he was not necessarily testing the authenticity of brotherhood; rather, he just wanted
to be authentic himself:
These guys were becoming my really good friends and they were some of the best guy friends that I
had had. And, I really liked that, and they really liked me for, what I thought, was for who I was. But,
they really didnt know all of who I was.
Reflections on Previous Coming out Experiences

One factor that seemed to have an impact on whether participants came out to their fraternity
brothers was previous coming out experiences. Coming out was usually considered a process of trial
and error. In this sense, participants often evaluated their own previous coming out experiences to
determine whether it would be beneficial to continue coming out to different people. One
participant stated that he was more apt to come out to his fraternity brothers after having a good
coming out experience with one of his female friends:
I met this friend of mine and she was the first one, the first person I told openly that I really thought
that I was gay. She treated me no different. She treated me as a friend. And knowing that people
wont change how they act around you, I just didnt care anymore if people knew.
In addition to evaluating coming out experiences, participants were often very attentive to any
information regarding past coming out experiences of other fraternity members in an attempt to
make it work. One participant sought out a past non-disclosed gay member of his fraternity to ask
his advice on coming out. It was after having the conversation that this participant deemed it
appropriate to come out to the fraternity:
Another big catalyst for me [to come out] was that our alumni board president was an openly gay guy.
Well, I didnt know that he was openly gay until somebody said some snide remark. But, he was one
of those guys who was not your typical queen, I guess, at all. And so, I just always thought that he
was straight or whatever. But when I found out, I was like, okay, so I need to talk to this guy [Laugh].
So we set out to dinner. He told me what it was like when he was in the fraternity, and he didnt come
out until way after college. And, he said, There have always been gay people in fraternities. When I
was there, I knew of a guy that was gay in my same pledge class and nothing was ever said. And I
asked, Do you look back on what you have done and ever wonder, and say, Wow, you know, I wish
I would have come out to them. He said, Sometimes, but the time wasnt right. And the society
wasnt right for it and it would have had nothing but negative results. So after talking with him, I
said to myself, You can do this. I mean, yeah, some people have kind of come out but they have
never made it work. You can make it work. You can change these peoples attitudes. You may be
giving up something. You may be giving it up if it turns out wrong, but you need to give it a shot
- 19 -
because gay people need to give it a shot, because its not going to change on its own. You have to do
it yourself. And that was what I told myself.
Pent-up Frustrations
Some participants discussed having an overwhelming sense of frustration toward their fraternity
brothers just prior to coming out. One participant explained that he was tired of hiding himself and
that he was just as equal as they were. Another participant expressed his level of frustration
regarding the senseless homophobic jokes when he stated, After a while, I just got really fed up.
Still another participant felt as if he had earned his right to be accepted by the fraternity:
I thought, okay, give me a break here Im really unhappy right now and I thought, I pay money
for functions. Why in the hell cant I bring my boyfriend to a function? I pay for it just as much in
dues as they do. I go to all this stuff. Im a damn officer, and I was getting real hostile over it.
Specific Approaches to Coming Out to the Fraternity

All but one of the five participants had come out to their entire chapter brothers, but even this
participant had come out to several fraternity members but was not out to his entire chapter at the
time of the interview. The data gathered from the five participants revealed there was not one
specific approach that gay males exercised as a means of coming out. Rather, one of three basic
approaches to coming out within a fraternity was used: (a) member specific approach, (b)
systematic approach, and (c) passive/reactive approach. The participants used a combination of the
three approaches, suggesting that perhaps these approaches co-existed as concentric circles.
Member Specific Approach. The member specific approach involved coming out only to specific
members. Often, participants would come out to specific members based on three criteria: formal
status, perceived level of acceptance, and degree of familial attachment.
Member Specific Approach Formal Status. Two participants shared their reasons for first coming
out to their fraternity presidents:
I take a lot of pride in the letters I wear. And not to say that I would disgrace them, being gay, I just
didnt want to disgrace them and I didnt know what the whole fraternity standpoint on it was. So, I
wanted to see what he thought about it whether I should deactivate or not. Had he suggested it, I
pride those letters so much that I would have deactivated.
Member Specific Approach Perceived Level of Acceptance. Another participant explained that he
came out to someone because he perceived him to be very accepting. More specifically, he thought
the person to be gay himself, but later found out that this member was just very open-minded. This
participant believed that telling others whom he felt most accepting to be the best approach.
Fortunately, the only reactions received were either of acceptance or of indifference.
Member Specific Approach Degree of Familial Attachment. Two participants first came out to
others with whom they felt a strong attachment. When explaining why he first came out to a
specific member, one participant stated, I came out to him because he is the one Im closest with in
the fraternity. He was just the person that I felt the strongest connection with.
Systematic Approach. Participants who used a step-by-step approach viewed coming out as having
a specific order of events, rather than just knowing to whom the participants wanted to come out, as
in the member specific approach. The systematic approach involved elements of the specific
member approach, in that these participants often came out to one person and then a small group of
people at the same time. Extending beyond the member specific approach was the notion of having
- 20 -
a pre-set plan of not only who to come out to, but also in what sequence. One participant explained
how he first told his president on a Friday, discussed it with his fellow executive board members on
Saturday, and on Sunday brought it up during the new business discussion at the chapter meeting.
This participant stated, Im an orderly person and I like things to go in a calm fashion. I wanted to
get their feedback on it. It was testing the waters.
Another participant went so far as to outline a strategic plan, stating:

I made a list. Drew up a list of people who I was sort of worried about coming out to and then went
through and actually sort of discretely talked with each of them. Over the course of several months, I
worked on the people who would be least safe. I wanted to make sure they wouldnt have excessively
negative reactions. And, then I sort of went for all the neutral people.
Passive/Reactive Approach. The passive/reactive approach involved setting the stage to come out
indirectly to members within the fraternity. For example, one participant who had a gay affiliated
magazine sitting on his desk did not attempt to hide it when one of his brothers stopped by to hang
out. As he described the situation:
I had a subscription to the Out Magazine sitting on my desk. So he picks it up and starts to flip
through it as he is talking to me [Laugh]. And then, I could see on his face that it dawned on him that
what he was looking at was a gay magazine. He was surprised, and as he put it down, he said, What
is this? And I said, Well, its a magazine. Its a, you know, gay magazine. He said, Why do you
have a gay magazine? And I said, Well, you know, because Im gay. And so our conversation
kind of ended, and at that moment I knew it was really going to get back to the rest of my fraternity
brothers.
Another participant set the stage by involving a female friend. The plan was for the female friend in
the sorority to tell some of her sorority sisters, knowing that these sisters would discuss it with their
boyfriends. Hence, it was not long before the brothers who became privy to such information spread
the news throughout the chapter.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to identify existing themes in the experiences of gay males who
concealed their sexual orientation prior to coming out as undergraduate fraternity members. The
results of this study have been compared with the existing literature and the following is an
interactive discussion addressing the lead researchers conclusions as derived from the analysis of
these comparisons.
The scope of this study did not include reasons why gay males join fraternities. However, it is
perplexing to think that someone would purposely put himself in a potentially hostile (homophobic)
environment. Hughes and Winston (1987) reported, Promoters of the Greek [sic] system praise
fraternities for encouraging the formation of same-sex friendships (p. 405). Likewise, the
participants of this study expressed having a desire to increase their number of male friends, even if
it meant keeping their sexual orientation concealed. Similarly, Hughes and Winston claimed,
Members, through their identification with the fraternity, are willing to make sacrifices and
contributions to the group at the expense of their own freedoms of action (p. 409). This may be one
explanation of why the study participants were able to endure the open homophobia they
experienced.
- 21 -
Bryan (1987) stated that fraternities cannot be defined as bastions of tolerance when it comes to
sexual preference [sic] (p. 47). The participants initial perceptions of their fraternities supported
this claim; a majority describing that upon joining their fraternities they felt as if there was no
possibility of ever coming out to anyone in the chapter. Participants claimed that other members
were very blatant about their homophobia, often telling, Fag jokes and making fun of anyone in
the fraternity who acted gay. In addition to these perceptions of homophobia, there was also an
intense pressure to conform to the heterosexual norms and practices set forth by the fraternity
members. It was not enough to attend fraternity functions alone; participants often brought a female
date to fraternity functions for fear that others would develop suspicions if they did not.
Although initial perceptions of acceptance of gay sexual orientation by fraternity brothers were
often disconcerting, it appeared as if the participants perceptions evolved over time to seeing their
fraternity brothers as being less homophobic and more heterocentric. In this sense, it might not be
that fraternity members are intolerant of differences, as Bryan (1987) asserted, but instead just
ignorant to the possibility that some members are gay, or that they do not understand how their
language reflects intolerance. Supporting this idea are the reactions the study participants received
from their fraternity brothers upon coming out. For instance, one participant claimed to be shocked
when the one person he thought to be the most bigoted was actually very accepting. Other
participants reported similar reactions, claiming to have mostly positive coming out experiences.
Nevertheless, participants employed a variety of coping strategies in attempts to keep their sexual
orientation concealed until they resolved coming out to their fraternities.
Mahan (1998) asserted that coping is contextual (p. 51) and that individuals adjust coping efforts
from context to context depending on whether they appraise the stressful event as a harmless threat
or a challenge (p. 52). Mahans explanation of coping appeared to be consistent with the findings
of the present study. For instance, participants mentioned having friends outside the fraternity who
were both aware of and accepting of their sexuality. As such, they felt it unnecessary to employ any
coping strategies in this external context. At the same time, participants reported using a variety of
coping strategies to conceal their sexuality from fraternity members.
Woods (1992) reported that gay males in the corporate world used three basic coping strategies to
manage their sexuality: avoiding a sexual identity, counterfeiting an identity, and integrating an
identity and this study produced similar results. For example, participants would intentionally avoid
issues of sexuality or fabricate an image of being heterosexual to dispel any suspicions that others
might have had. Although the participants in this study integrated an identity by coming out to
other fraternity members, this was not considered a coping strategy as defined in the context of the
present study because coming out is the opposite of concealing ones sexuality.
Case (1996) reported that a large number of participants surveyed had a tendency toward
overachievement (p. 2). Each participant of this study held at least one executive position in his
fraternity chapter and one participant held four executive positions during his undergraduate
experience. Another participant claimed to have had the most points earned in his fraternity chapter
by his senior year. Case also noted that over 20 percent of those he surveyed had been either the
president or vice president of their fraternities. Furthermore, of the thirty coming out stories
chronicled in Windmeyer and Freeman (1998) and the twenty-six in Windmeyer (2005), a strong
majority contained references to the writers as officers or leaders. Likewise, one participant of this
study held the position of vice president of his chapter. Had his fraternity not closed when it did, he
was very confident that he would have been elected as the next president.
- 22 -
This tendency toward overachievement, Case (1996) reasoned, may reflect a desire for
validation and acceptance by the group (p. 2). Desiring acceptance appeared to be a distinct
possibility as to why the participants of this study attained executive status (fused) within their
fraternities. As such, all five of the participants appeared to follow the reaction pattern of what
Johnson (1996) called the best little boy on the face of the earth (p. 38). One participant cemented
this claim when he stated, Before I began college, who was I? I was the oldest child, practically
perfect in every way.
Some participants described themselves as chameleon. One participant stated that gay people
have always had to learn to change their skin and their colors in different situations to survive.
This same participant asserted, You must learn the system, and I learned to play the system early
on. Other participants also referred to playing the system. From a social perspective, fusing
appears to be less of a reaction pattern and more in line with what Cox and Gallois (1996)
described as a social change strategy (p. 20). One such social change strategy is to select new
comparison groups against which favorable comparisons can be made (p. 20). Essentially, the
focus of this strategy is on intragroup comparisons, whereby a gay male seeks ways in which to
compare himself with other gay males. For example, a gay male who not only gains membership
but also attains a high status within his fraternity may look down upon other gay males who are
unable to attain fraternity membership. As such, this gay male might perceive himself as being
closer to what he perceives as normal because he has mastered the ability to assimilate into the
dominant group (i.e. heterosexual and high performing males). Often, there was an air of
pretentiousness among the participants as they repeatedly stressed being unlike the stereotype.
Supporting this analysis, one of the respondents in Dilleys (2002) study of non-heterosexual
college men from 1945-2000 stated, Over the years, Ive come to realize that I joined the Greek
[sic] system to prove to myself that I wasnt gay. My being a fraternity member would alleviate
anyones doubts, if they thought I was gay (p. 76).
The gay stereotype was defined by one participant as someone who lisps and is very flamboyant.
As observed in the interviews, the mannerisms exhibited by the participants of this study appeared
to be dissimilar to this definition of the stereotype. However, while the participants may have
perceived themselves to be atypical, it appeared as if the process by which four of the participants
developed their homosexual identity was very typical. In many ways, these participants
developmental processes were similar to those outlined by Cass (1979) and based on two
assumptions. One assumption was that locus for stability of, and change in, behavior lies in the
interactive process that occurs between individuals and their environments (p. 219). Incidentally,
this assumption precedes five of the six variables that facilitated the gay males of the present study
to come out to their fraternities. As such, these five variables, when examined collectively,
illustrated the participants yearning for congruency between their public and private lives.
Having a high level of identity development was thought to be the most significant variable that
facilitated participants to come out to their fraternities. This is not surprising, for Cass (1979)
explained that it is in the final level, stage six, when a persons personal and public sexual identities
synthesize into one sexual identity. Moreover, stage six is when people recognize that
homosexuality is only one aspect of who they are. Similarly, the participants in the present study
often stated, Being gay is only one part of who I am.
- 23 -
Reflections on coming out experiences facilitated participants to come out to their fraternities. Cass
(1979) explained that reflecting upon ones own coming out experiences is part of the
developmental process. However, what distinguishes this variable from the previously mentioned
variable is that participants would often reflect upon their own experiences but also on the specific
coming out experiences of others. One participant explained that someone had come out to his
fraternity prior to his own revelation, but it didnt work. I thought I could make it work.
Boschini and Thompson (1998) asserted, If Greek-letter [sic] organizations are to survive and
flourish within the modern college and university, it is imperative that they understand the
importance of diversity (p. 19). The participants of this study avowed that a sizable amount of
diversity was prevalent in their chapters. Often, participants would assert that being gay was just
one more form of diversity. As such, the participants were hopeful that their fraternity brothers
would have a similar view. Interestingly, some participants mentioned that when deciding on which
fraternity to join, they purposefully sought out fraternities that included diversity. One participant
stated, I think it was a fairly diverse group of people, and so that made me feel comfortable being a
part of them.
As discussed previously, participants may have fused with their fraternities as a way of achieving
validation and acceptance by the group (Case, 1996, p. 2). As a result, some participants
expressed feeling as if they were always in the spotlight. For instance, one participant explained that
it got to the point where he had to cautiously date males from other campuses and then make up
stories as to where he was and what he was doing. Interestingly enough, some participants
expressed feeling as if the fraternity life on their campuses was so enmeshed with the campus
culture that they felt no possibility of escape from their fraternity identities. As expressed by one
participant, The Greeks [sic] were so infused in the workings of the university and in the academia
part of it and in the social part of it that you never got away from it. It is confounding to think that
someone who feels no escape from an environment chooses to become even more immersed within
that environment. As such, becoming even more immersed might further substantiate the notion that
fusing was a coping strategy. Nevertheless, participants indicated the enmeshed fraternity
environment was one of the deciding factors that led to their coming out.
Prior to coming out, participants reported struggling with mixed views of brotherhood. It was
common for participants to have feelings of guilt because of not being very honest (authentic) with
their brothers. This desire to be authentic equates to stage six of Cass (1979) model, suggesting that
these participants were highly developed in their homosexual identity. On the other hand,
participants claimed that while they wanted to believe in the concept of brotherhood, there was only
one way to feel certain of whether this whole idea of brotherhood was real or not. The
participants rationale was that acceptance meant proof that brotherhood was real. Moreover,
brotherhood appeared to be used as the participants artillery in coming out. Upon coming out to his
fraternity, one participant stated, If you are really a fraternity, and you really are my brothers, then
youll be fine with what I am going to tell you. Thus, brotherhood emerged as one of the variables
facilitating participant coming out to their fraternities.
The motivations behind the five aforementioned variables appear to be consistent with what Cox
and Gallois (1996) described as striving to become whole (p. 9). Explained differently,
participants were seeking acceptance to enhance their self-esteem. In this sense, continued
acceptance upon coming out to ones fraternity would mean not only gaining true acceptance but
also experiencing a sense of completeness. As such, the sixth variable facilitating participants to
- 24 -
come out, pent-up frustrations, does not equate with the presumed motivations of the other
variables. Rather, this variable appears to be more in line with what Cox and Gallois described as a
social change strategy because it was an attempt to level the social status of the minority group
with the dominant group (p. 9). The basis of this observation stems from the response of one
participant who was very expressive about his level of frustration that resulted from feeling
constrained in his sexuality. Specifically, this participant stated, Why in the hell cant I bring my
boyfriend to a function? I pay for it just as much as they do. I pay my dues. I go to all this stuff. Im
a damn officer, and I was getting real hostile over it.
Cass (1979) observed coming out as a milestone of development. Coming out to someone does
signify a higher order of development. However, coming out to others might be about more than
just development; it may also serve as a means of affecting change. Cox and Gallois (1996) asserted
that social competition was the only way to affect actual change between the minority group
(homosexuals) and the dominant group (heterosexuals). They also stated, Direct competition with
the dominant group is required (p. 20). From this perspective, it may be that a gay male
(representing the minority group) divulges his sexuality to his fraternity (dominant group) for
reasons other than what Case (1996) proposed as validation and acceptance by the group (p. 2). It
may be that someone comes out to his fraternity in an effort to level the social status of the
minority group with the dominant group (Cox & Gallois, 1996, p. 9). While it might be that the
participants of the present study did not come out to their fraternities for this reason, it certainly
appears to be a distinct possibility. Regardless, four of the five participants of this study were out to
their entire chapter and the fifth participant was out to several members of his chapter at the time of
the interviews.
Previous studies focusing on approaches of gay males who come out to their fraternities were not
obtainable. In this study, the primary researcher observed that participants exercised a combination
of three basic approaches when coming out to their fraternities: (a) member specific, (b) systematic,
and (c) passive/reactive. These three approaches appeared to have a significant connection to the six
variables identified as facilitating the process of coming out to other fraternity members. It is
therefore possible that these three approaches co-exist as concentric circles. However, the question
arises as to what persuaded a participant to use one approach more so than another approach.
The answer to the question as to which path to take presumably lies somewhere between the
intersection of the various coping strategies employed and the variables that facilitated the
participants to come out to their fraternities. Furthermore, additional factors appeared to affect a
participants decision to use one approach moreso than others. One example of an additional factor
that was highly significant was timing. Four of the five participants joined in their first year of
college, but came out during their junior year of college. However, one participant explained that he
did not plan a specific time in which he was going to come out. He stated, I just knew that when
the time was right I was going to let them know. Another significant factor appeared to be the
contextual backdrop. One participant explained that he intentionally waited until the summer to
begin coming out to his fraternity members because he knew there would be fewer of them staying
in the house over the summer. Hence, he felt it easier to concentrate on a select few rather than the
entire group at once.
- 25 -
Recommendations
The findings in the current study are consistent with those of similar studies of gay students, their
sexual identity development (Dilley, 2002), and coping strategies and coming out experiences
(Case, Hesp, & Eberly, 2005; Windmeyer, 2005). The recommendations of the findings in this
study for professionals involved with campus social fraternities include:
(a) The necessity for an awareness of the dynamics of each students sexual identity development
stage;
(b) The ability to recognize psychological and sociological coping strategies specific to sexually
repressed groups;
(c) An awareness of issues surrounding the coming out process for gay males who are members of
social fraternities on campuses where heterosexism dominates the dynamics of fraternity life;
and
(d) The inevitable changes that take place as fraternities evolve and exhibit acceptance of members
of sexually diverse orientations.
Should this study be replicated, attention should be given to the following suggested modifications
and recommendations.
1. Future studies should include gay males who attend college in other geographical regions to
determine if similar patterns of coping and coming out exist;
2. This study examined the experiences of gay males in fraternities only from the perspective of
the gay male member. A stronger research design could include the perceptions of other, non-
gay fraternity members who experienced someone coming out amongst them;
3. Participants in this study expressed receiving mostly positive reactions upon coming out to
fraternity members. Another study of gay males who did not receive positive reactions from
their fraternity brothers upon voluntarily coming out or who were involuntarily outed to their
brothers is recommended. A comparative analysis of the three coming out processes and
outcomes will aid in determining the effectiveness of individual coping strategies and coming
out approaches;
4. All participants in this study came out to their fraternities after at least one semester of initiation
into full membership. A future study could include the lived experiences of gay males who
come out prior to becoming an initiated member to determine if participants share similar
pledging experiences and relations with non-gay brothers;
5. Participants in this study were highly involved, having held at least one executive board position
in their fraternities. A replication study might include participants who held an executive
position and those who did not hold an executive position, to determine whether the level of
fusing and coming out affects the reactions of fraternity members;
6. Researchers and practitioners know little about the effects on the organization as a whole when
members learn that a gay member is within its ranks. Another study could focus on the short-
term and long-term effects that may occur within the culture of a fraternity because of someone
coming out within the organization;
7. Similar studies could be conducted into gay males who are members of other all-male college
sub-cultures (e.g., athletic teams, musical organizations, and residence hall communities) to
identify possible consistencies or disparities in the coping strategies that are employed by gay
members within the groups;
8. A cross generational qualitative study focusing specifically on gay fraternity men using Dilleys
(2002) methodology would help in our understanding both the changing atmosphere within the
- 26 -
college fraternity in regard to sexuality across time and the comfort level required for gay men
to reveal their sexuality within the context of fraternity;
9. Participants in the current study were White males. A similar study should investigate members
of historically African American, Latino, and/or other culturally-based college fraternities,
among others; and
10. Whereas this study explored issues of sexuality only from the gay male perspective, similar
studies should be conducted within womens collegiate sororities and fraternities.
References
Adams, M., Bell, L. A., & Griffin, P. (1997). Teaching for diversity and social justice: A
sourcebook. New York: Routledge.
Boschini, V., & Thompson, C. (1998). The future of the Greek experience: Greeks and diversity. In
E.G. Whipple (Ed.), New Challenges for Greek letter organizations: Transforming
fraternities and sororities into learning communities, pp. 19-27. [New Directions for Student
Services, 81]. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Boies, S. C. (1997). Community participation, identity development and psychological well-being in

young gay men: Exploring expressions of gay self-concept in community interactions.
Unpublished dissertation, The Wright Institute, Berkeley, CA.
Bryan, W. A. (1987). Contemporary fraternity and sorority issues. In R. B. Winston Jr., W. R.

Nettles III, & J. H. Opper, Jr. (Eds.), New Directions for Student Services, 40, (pp. 37-56).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Case, D. N. (1996). A glimpse of the invisible membership: A national survey of

lesbigay Greek members. Perspectives, 23, 5-8.
Case, D. N., Hesp, G. A., & Eberly, C. (2005). An exploratory study of the experiences of gay,
lesbian and bisexual fraternity and sorority members revisited. Oracle: The Research
Journal of the Association of Fraternity Advisors, 1(1), 24-47.
Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of

Homosexuality, 4, 219-235.
Cox, S., & Gallois, C. (1996). Gay and lesbian identity development: A social identity perspective.
Journal of Homosexuality, 30(4), 1-29.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln, Handbook of qualitative research (2nd Ed.). pp. 1-28.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dilley, P. (2002). Queer man on campus: A history of non-heterosexual college men,

1945-2000. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
- 27 -
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college: Theory,
research and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Guido-Dibrito, F., Chavez, A. F., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Student Affairs scholarship in a new
universe: Beyond Newton and a quantum age. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Johnson, D. (1996). The developmental experience of gay/lesbian youth. Journal of

College Admissions, 152-153, 38-41.
Lasser, J. S. (1999). Managing their visibility: A qualitative study of sexual minority youth and their
experiences. Unpublished dissertation, The University of Texas,
Austin.
Levine, H., & Evans, N. J. (1991). The development of gay, lesbian, and bisexual identities. In N. J.
Evans & V. A. Wall (Eds.), Beyond tolerance: Gays, lesbians and bisexuals on campus (pp.
1-24). Alexandria, V A: American College Personnel Association.
Mahan, V. J. (1998). Heterosexism within educational institutions: Coping efforts of lesbian, gay,
and bisexual students in west Texas. Unpublished dissertation, Texas Tech University,
Lubbock, TX.
Patton, J. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd Ed.). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Stevens, A. (1997). Critical incidents contributing to the development of lesbian identities in

college. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
Windmeyer, S. L. (2005). Brotherhood: Gay life in college fraternities. New York: Alyson Books.
Windmeyer, S. L., & Freeman, P. W. (1998). Out on fraternity row: Personal accounts of being gay
in a college fraternity. Los Angeles: Alyson Books.
Woods, J. (1992). The corporate closet: Managing gay identity on the job (Self disclosure).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(5), 1325A. (UMI No. AAC-9227785).
Jack Trump works for the Office of Residence Life and New Student Programs at Miami
University, where he is also the advisor for Chi Psi Fraternity. He is a member of ACPA and
an initiate of Phi Kappa Tau at Indiana State University. He may be contacted at
trumpj@muohio.edu.
James A. Wallace is assistant professor of Counseling and student development at Eastern

Illinois University. He may be contacted at cfjaw2@eiu.edu.
- 28 -
ON-LINE ALCOHOL HEALTH EDUCATION CURRICULUM

EVALUATION: HARM REDUCTION FINDINGS AMONG FRATERNITY
AND SORORITY MEMBERS
Andrew Wall
This study examines the use of technology as a tool in the broad-based delivery of alcohol
health education within fraternities and sororities. Building on the promise of multimedia
education, this evaluation examines an alcohol abuse prevention program delivered through
an interactive web-based format for reducing the harm associated with alcohol abuse. The
evaluation uses a clustered randomly assigned post-test only evaluation design with 3,552
individuals in 340 chapters to examine differences between individuals who have and who
have not received the educational curriculum. The outcome of the study is building evidence
that technology-delivered alcohol education has potential to modestly impact academic and
personal harm associated heavy alcohol use.
The values espoused by fraternal organizations speak to service, leadership, and academic
excellence, but are challenged in practice, by a hedonistic fraternal culture. Membership in
fraternities and sororities can represent the best of what it is to be a college student, yet all too often
members are simultaneously plagued with problematic heavy alcohol use. Harm related to alcohol
in fraternal organizations mirrors overall harm to college students that ranges from annoying noise,
interpersonal violence, property damage, and occasionally alcohol related fatalities (Hingson,
Heeren, Zakocs, Kopstein, & Wechsler, 2002; Perkins, 2002). Fraternities and sororities are
frequently identified by researchers as being among the highest risk groups in college for harm
related to alcohol (Baer et al., 1995; Nelson et al., 2001; Presley et al., 2002; Wechsler et all., 2000).
Fraternal organizations are an identified population for prevention services, but campus
professionals working with these groups face few clear program or policy options that have
displayed evidence of effectiveness with at risk students (Walters, Bennett & Noto, 2000).
Administrators and advisors are particularly in need of proactive, preventive interventions that are
palatable for students and at the same time can reach members with efficiency and integrity.
The most promising prevention program options to date are one-to-one or small group interaction
that has limited economy of scale (Hunter & Mazurek, 2004; McNally & Palfai, 2003). Program
formats such as brief screening and feedback of heavy drinking have strong evidence of efficacy for
heavy college drinkers, specifically with fraternity and sorority affiliated students, but are limited in
their scale by resource intensity. Efforts that have a greater economy of scale such as social
marketing and alcohol alternative events have far more mixed evaluation findings as to their impact
(Wechsler et. al., 2003).
In the Internet era, online preventive educational interventions hold special promise. Interactive
technology as an out-of-class learning modality has economy of scale, consistent education
messages and can be interactive with messages geared to the interests and information needs of a
given user (Reis, Riley, Lokman, & Baer, 2000; Wall & Cox, 2001). Location of delivery is far
more flexible than other types of presentations as they can take place anywhere a personal computer
can be connected to the Internet.
- 29 -
In fulfilling a duty to care, be it on academic achievement, public health, or legal grounds, advisors
of fraternal organizations have a special challenge and opportunity (Bickel & Lake, 1999; Powell &
Wechsler, 2003: Wechsler et. al., 1999). The challenge exists in addressing students who are the
most likely to experience harm associated with alcohol use (Wechsler, et al., 1998). The opportunity
exists in the ability to target resources and programs toward students who are known to be in need,
thus having greater opportunity to prevent possible harm. While affiliated members have been
shown to heavily consume alcohol more often than many of their college attending peers,
fraternities and sororities can be strong social networks with a rich opportunity to utilize education
as a tool to combat potential harm from alcohol misuse and abuse (Presley et al., 2002; Wechsler et
all., 2000). Fraternity and sorority affiliated members are also unique in that they can be served by
both campus staff members where they have residence (horizontal access), or via the inter/national
organization of which their local chapter is a part (vertical access). The use of technology is a
unique format that allows inter/national fraternities and sororities access to their members
throughout the United States and Canada. On campus, technology as a delivery mechanism for
alcohol education holds promise in that participation can be tracked centrally and implementation
does not require a fleet of faculty, staff, or student peer educators in order to reach a geographically
dispersed fraternity and sorority population.
Program Description
This report summarizes evidence on the short-term impact of a commercially available online
alcohol prevention program called AlcoholEdu that was delivered to fraternity and sorority
affiliated members during the 2003-04 academic year. AlcoholEdu provides students with feedback
about their alcohol behavior, information about alcohol use, skill development for functioning in a
social environment, and reflection of how alcohol fits into an individuals life (Agostinelli, Brown,
& Miller, 1995; Baer et al., 2001; DAmico & Fromme, 2000; Kivlahan et. Al. 1990; Marlatt et al.,
1998; McNally & Palfai, 2003; Peeler et al., 2000, Wall, 2005; Walters, Bennett, & Miller, 2000).
The curriculum builds upon previous technology used to deliver alcohol education such as Alcohol
101, a broadly adopted and conceptually promising alcohol education tool (Michael, 2000; Sharmer,
2001; Reis, Riley & Baer, 2000). Past technology delivered alcohol education curriculums have
used CDs or disks to facilitate student interaction with the program, while AlcoholEdu utilizes a
web interface.
Students progress through AlcoholEdu by opening up their web browser, logging on to the program,
and completing a pre-survey of their alcohol attitudes and beliefs. Following the pre-survey,
students complete five online learning chapters plus a pre-course introduction, a journal, two
knowledge tests, followed by a post-survey immediately upon course completion. A follow-up
survey is completed four to six weeks after course completion.
The AlcoholEdu curriculum is built on three domains, all of which are documented as predictive
factors in the extensive literature on young adults and alcohol use. Two chapters (one and three)
address alcohol expectancies as related to peer influence, advertising, and behavioral and legal
consequences of excessive use. Chapters two and four introduce the user to concepts of Blood
Alcohol Concentration and the physiological parameters of alcohol use. The final chapter presents
ideas of self-efficacy as related to safe and responsible drinking.
The content of the five chapters within AlcoholEdu is experienced in a linear fashion through
streaming video, static content information, interactive web pages including decision trees and brief
feedback, and reflective journaling. The intent of the program is to deliver each of the five chapters
- 30 -
to students using varied learning approaches that program developers described as following the
Bloom (1956) taxonomy of learning. Learning is facilitated by utilizing the taxonomy in the
curriculum by presenting information related to alcohol and cognitive functioning as an example of
cognitive knowledge acquisition, then examined in post information questions to indicate
application and synthesis of the information. Interactive case studies related to social situations are
used to provide opportunities to apply knowledge and examine attitudes and values that students
experience in making alcohol related choices. Reflection through journaling further facilitates
knowledge synthesis and personal skill integration.
Even with varied learning approaches, the program is linear in that individuals progress sequentially
from chapter one to five. Within this linear design, there is customization of chapters by gender and
drinking status of participants. Customization creates four unique paths through the program,
including: (1) men who report consuming; (2) men who report abstaining; (3) women who report
consuming; and (4) women who report abstaining from alcohol. Examples of customization would
include shifting scripted language for individuals who are abstainers of alcohol as compared to self-
reported consumers. Consumers of alcohol receive a message of moderating consumption, while an
abstainer receives messages reinforcing their choice to refrain from alcohol use. Customization by
gender would include comparison points in feedback associated with blood alcohol level whereby a
female student would be compared to other females and male to other males. Program content
concludes with a knowledge quiz, or test, to assure a minimum level of comprehension prior to
students logging off their online experience.
Methods
Results for fraternity and sorority affiliated members are a subset of a larger evaluation study of
AlcoholEdu that involved 23,127 student responses. For this study, online surveys were completed
by college students at institutions of higher education as part of the AlcoholEdu online alcohol
education program during the 2003-04 academic years. Program participants completed three
attitudinal and behavior based surveys with the timing of survey administration being: (1) A 36
question pre-survey completed prior to commencing the program: (2) A post-survey completed
immediately after completing the curriculum; and (3) A 21 question follow-up survey completed
four to six weeks after completing the program (Table 1). All surveys were completed using a web
page survey format. Data for the analysis presented here are from 4,552 sorority and fraternity
students documented to have completed all program elements and all surveys. The students
responses used in this study represent individuals from 340 different fraternity and sorority chapters
(campus level chapter groupings) from institutions of higher education in the United States and
Canada.
A post-test only design was constructed after one year of deployment of the AlcoholEdu program.
Students were randomly assigned each month of the 2003-2004 academic year to the pre-
intervention group or the intervention group. Thus, the analysis compares the follow-up survey
responses of the intervention group, with the pre-survey responses of the comparison group at
similar time points across the 2003-04 academic year. The 4,552 students were randomly assigned
to study groups by chapter and campus affiliation. The 340 identified fraternity and sorority
chapters reflect the naturally occurring learning environments in which AlcoholEdu was used by the
students.
- 31 -
Table 1
Negative Consequence Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Variables (N=23,127) Factor Loading
1 2 3 4 5
Academic Negative Consequences
(Cronbach Alpha = .830)
Miss a class? .770
Find yourself unfocused in class? .804
Attend a class unprepared? .795
Miss a deadline for a class? .693
Attend a class drunk? .680
Attend a class hung over? .727
Negative Consequences Physical Health or Work
Perform poorly in athletics? .671
Vomit in public? .617
Deliberately vomit to get rid of alcohol and continue to drink? .651
Injure yourself? ..514
Get into a physical fight? .668
Miss going to work? .644
Drinking and Driving
Drive while impaired from alcohol or intoxicated? .851
Drive after or while drinking? .897
Hangover/ Mental Impact
Have a hangover .735
Have to be prompted to remember something you did? .842
Awaken from a night of drinking not able to remember things .793
that you did or places that you went?
Negative Sexual Consequences
Have a one-night stand with a casual sexual partner? .777
Have sexual intercourse when you ordinarily would not? .812
Fail to use safer sex practices when you ordinarily would have? .741
For the purpose of this study, it was assumed that the two surveys (pre-survey and post-survey)
administered immediately prior to and after the online instruction have a programmatic, or
intervention, effect on the follow-up survey results for the intervention group. The programmatic
effect is not distinguished from the potential press for social acceptability, boredom, or other factors
that may occur due to the completion of multiple similar surveys.
Six dependent variables were examined in the analysis. Five measures were derived from 20 items
related to self-reported negative consequences that follow the stem question, In the past two
weeks, if you were drinking, did you . . .? The twenty items were conceptually grouped and then
confirmatory factor analysis was conducted as reported in Table 1. Scales were created using the
entire study dataset (N=23,127) in a summative format due to the dichotomous coding of original
items. The scales developed include: (1) Negative academic consequences; (2) Negative physical or
work consequences; (3) Drinking and driving; (4) Hangover/mental impact and (5) Negative sexual
consequences. The scales had Cronbach alphas ranging from .830 to .755.
The sixth dependent measure, incidents of heavy alcohol consumption, was created from the self-
reported number of drinks each individual had over the past two weeks. Students were asked to
- 32 -
indicate how many times in the past 14 days they had consumed 5 or more drinks in one sitting. A
two-week average was then computed from all days reported with this amount of consumption
(each day with five plus drinks coded as one).
The general pattern of individuals background characteristics shows similarities between the
intervention and comparison groups (see Table 2). The majority of the participants (89% & 90%)
were under the age of 21 and Caucasian (90% & 93%). The intervention group had a lower
percentage of men (43%) than the comparison group (51%). When looking at the living
arrangements, the intervention group differed from the comparison group in the percentage of
students living in a residence hall on campus (51% versus 42%) and percent living in a fraternity or
sorority facility (16% versus 26%). Otherwise, the two groups were roughly equal in the percentage
of students living in substance free housing (6%), in apartments (18%) or at home (3%). Science
was the most frequently cited major, (26% & 27%), followed by business (20% & 21%) and the
social sciences (16% & 17 %).
Table 2
Background Variables in Study Data
Background Variable Percentage N Conceptual
Rationale
for
Inclusion
Intervention Comparison Intervention Comparison
Gender Past prevalence research has
Male 43.1 50.5 891 986 shown gender to be associated
Female 56.9 49.5 1176 967 with alcohol use and related
behavior.
Age Past prevalence research has
18 36.4 29.6 753 579 shown age to be associated with
19 35.0 33.9 724 663 alcohol use and related behavior,
20 14.5 18.1 300 353 specifically use increases from
21 9.6 11.3 198 221 18 to 21 then levels off.
22 3.1 5.8 65 114
23 1.3 1.2 27 23
24 or older - - - -
Race/Ethnicity Past prevalence research has
White/Caucasian 92.7 89.6 1916 1749 shown race/ethnicity to be
Black/African American 1.1 1.4 23 27 associated with alcohol use and
Asian/Pacific Islander 4.3 7.2 89 141 related behavior. White or
Hispanic/Latino 3.3 3.6 68 71 Caucasian background is
Indian/Native American .8 .6 16 11 positive associated with alcohol
use and related behavior.
GPA Past prevalence research has
A+ 3.5 3.1 72 60 shown self-reported GPA to be
A 18.4 15.2 381 296 associated positively with
A- 22.4 23 462 450 alcohol use and related behavior.
B+ 19.6 19.3 406 376
B 18.9 21.9 391 427
B- 8.9 9.2 183 179
C+ 5.1 5.1 105 100
C 2.6 2.7 54 52
C- .4 .5 9 9
D .1 .2 3 4
F .0 .0 1 -
- 33 -
Table 2, cont.
Background Variables in Study Data
Background Variable Percentage N Conceptual
Rationale
for
Inclusion
Intervention Comparison Intervention Comparison
Abstainer From Alcohol 2.9 12.7 57 249 The prevalence of self-described
abstainers from alcohol is an
important variable to control for
in the study groups.
Living arrangements for Past prevalence research has
college shown that college living
College residence hall 51.4 42.3 1062 827 arrangements to be associated
Substance-free residence 6.0 5.7 124 111 with alcohol use and related
hall behavior. Specifically living in
Fraternity or sorority 16.1 26.0 333 507 college residence hall and
On-campus apartment or 3.5 5.1 72 99 fraternity or sorority have been
house positively associated with
Off-campus apartment or 15.1 13.3 312 259 alcohol use and related behavior,
house while living in substance-free
At home with family 2.9 2.7 60 53 housing is negatively associated.
Other .3 .2 6 4
Major Past prevalence research has
Sciences 27.4 26.3 566 513 shown academic engagement,
Social sciences 15.8 17.1 327 333 sometimes measured by
Humanities 9.0 8.8 185 172 curriculum to be associated with
Business 19.5 21.3 403 416 alcohol use and related behavior.
Undecided 9.7 8.9 201 174 Major is used as a proxy here for
Other 13.4 12.4 276 243 academic engagement.
In this analysis, all surveys included a time stamp, denoting the day of the year that a particular
survey was completed. The time stamp was used to group survey responses into four-week time
intervals, to allow for comparison of survey responses at similar points time during the 2003-04
academic year. The time blocks used in this analysis began July 1, 2003 and ended June 20, 2004.
There were 13 time blocks created, numbering 1 to 13 as denoted in Tables 3 and 4. Time stamping
allowed for a comparison of individuals who had completed the program, called the intervention
group, to those who have not yet completed the program, called the comparison group, at similar
time points. Tables 3 and 4 provide a description of the trends associated with the six dependent
measures in the study across time blocks: (1) incidents of negative academic consequences; (2)
incidents of hangover/mental impact; (3) incidents of heavy consumption days; (4) drinking and
driving; (5) negative incident physical or work related; and (6) negative sexual consequences. The
trends revealed that when considering the mean responses within a four-week time block, the
intervention group trend was generally lower on the first three of these measures than the
comparison group and the remaining three measures did not have a trend. Both groups reported
increased incidents of negative consequences and heavy consumption from the beginning of 2003
until well into 2004.
- 34 -
Table 3
Time Blocks and Incidents of Heavy Alcohol Consumption and Negative Consequence Scales
Incidents of consuming
Negative Academic Negative Consequence five or more drinks in one
Consequence Scale Hangover/ Mental Impact day over past two weeks
Time Time
N Intervention Comparison Intervention Comparison Intervention Comparison
Framea Period
1st 2 7/1/03 - Excludedb Excludedb Excludedb Excludedb Excludedb Excludedb
7/20/03
2nd 12 7/21/03 - Excludedb Excludedb Excludedb Excludedb Excludedb Excludedb
8/17/03
3rd 158 8/18/03 - Excludedb Excludedb Excludedb Excludedb Excludedb Excludedb
9/14/03
4th 619 9/15/03 - 0.71 0.85 0.75 0.85 2.73 1.99
10/12/03
5th 667 10/13/03 - 0.47 0.78 0.56 0.90 1.57 1.70
11/9/03
6th 524 11/10/03 - 0.44 0.85 0.58 1.13 1.48 1.74
12/7/03
7th 225 12/8/03 - 0.17 0.97 0.46 0.97 1.29 2.06
1/4/04
8th 341 1/5/04 - 0.29 0.74 0.57 0.97 1.43 1.58
2/1/04
9th 297 2/2/04 - 0.65 0.77 0.58 0.96 1.52 2.17
2/29/04
10th 556 3/1/04 - 0.96 0.71 0.96 0.83 2.23 2.49
3/28/04
11th 323 3/29/04 - 0.66 0.88 0.69 .072 1.90 2.09
4/25/04
12th 258 4/26/04 - Excludedb Excludedb Excludedb Excludedb Excludedb Excludedb
5/23/04
6/20/04
a
Four-week time block.
b
Excluded for less than 20 individual responses in either intervention or comparison cell in this time block.
- 35 -
Table 4
Time Blocks and Incidents of Heavy Alcohol Consumption and Negative Consequence Scales
Negative sexual Negative consequences
consequences Drinking and driving physical or work
Time Time
N Intervention Comparison Intervention Comparison Intervention Comparison
Framea Period
b b
1st 2 7/1/03 - Excluded Excluded Excludedb Excludedb Excludedb Excludedb
7/20/03
2nd 12 7/21/03 - Excludedb Excludedb Excludedb Excludedb Excludedb Excludedb
8/17/03
3rd 158 8/18/03 - Excludedb Excludedb Excludedb Excludedb Excludedb Excludedb
9/14/03
4th 619 9/15/03 - 0.27 0.17 0.13 0.15 0.38 .026
10/12/03
5th 667 10/13/03 - 0.10 0.13 0.1 0.11 0.15 0.19
11/9/03
6th 524 11/10/03 - 0.10 0.20 0.09 0.13 0.21 0.16
12/7/03
7th 225 12/8/03 - 0.09 0.14 0.10 0.06 0.11 0.97
1/4/04
8th 341 1/5/04 - 0.09 0.10 0.13 0.07 0.16 0.19
2/1/04
9th 297 2/2/04 - 0.12 0.25 0.16 0.12 0.26 0.23
2/29/04
10th 556 3/1/04 - 0.17 0.13 0.11 0.19 0.36 0.23
3/28/04
11th 323 3/29/04 - 0.11 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.26 0.19
4/25/04
5/23/04
6/20/04
a
Four-week time block.
b
Excluded for less than 20 individual responses in either intervention or comparison cell in this time block.
Results
Linear regression analysis was conducted for the six dependent variables. The regression model was
theoretically driven and then modified for parsimony based upon results of each analysis. Model
development included four-week time blocks, background and environmental variables (see Table 2
for background and environmental variables). Effect of group assignment was assessed with the
study group variable for which the intervention group was coded as 1 and the comparison group
was coded as 0. The four-week time blocks with at least 20 responses in both the intervention and
comparison group were included as variables in the analysis to control for the time of year each
survey was completed (N=4,552). Each four-week time block was coded as 1 for survey being
completed during that period or 0 for survey not completed during that period. Time blocks 4 to 11
were included in one analysis (see Table 3 for corresponding calendar dates). A second set of results
are reported that compare men to men and women to women over the same time block.
Background independent variables in the analysis included: gender (1= female, 0= male); age (1=18
to 7=24 and above); grade point average (1=A to 11=F); White, non-Hispanic (1= yes, 0= no); and
business major (1= yes, 0= no). Environmental independent variables in analysis included: living in
- 36 -
a fraternity or sorority facility (1= yes, 0= no); living at home (1= yes, 0= no); and living in a
substance free residence hall (1= yes, 0= no). The final independent variable in analysis denoted
those individuals who self-reported being abstainers (1= yes, 0= no) of alcohol. It is interesting to
note that approximately 95% of those who reported abstaining from alcohol also self-reported
having no alcohol in the past two weeks, thus in part substantiating the validity of student self
report.
The results of the regression analyses for the six dependent variables are summarized in Tables 5, 6,
and 7.
Table 5
Regression Findings for Negative Academic Consequences and Five or More Drinks In a Day over Past
Two Weeks Dependent Variables
Negative academic consequences Five or more drinks per day in past two weeks
Fraternity & Male fraternity Female sorority Fraternity & Male fraternity Female sorority
sorority students students students sorority students students students
Variable B B B B B B
Constant .446* .614** .282 2.343** 1.191* .914*
Study Group -.260** -.095 -.214* -.079 -.356** -.138 -.271* -.054 -.255 -.045 -.348* -.083
Time Block
3rd
4th .041 .011 -.042 -.007
5th -.116 -.034 -.182 -.052 -.296* -.045 -.536* -.073
6th -.204* -.054 -.176 -.044 -.093 -.027 -.299 -.041 -.469 -.055 -.102 -.018
7th -.419** -.079 -.467* -.075 -.277* -.057 -.413* -.040 -.347 -.027 -.273 -.034
8th -.241* -.054 -.208 -.031 -.167 -.045 .277 -.032 -.757* -.055 .004 .006
9th -.099 -.021 .043 .009 -.130 -.026 -.027 -.003 -.148 -.016 .142 .018
10th .079 .022 -.081 -.024 .343* .089 .311* .044 .053 .008 .689* .011
11th .43 .009 -.080 -.017 .166 .037 .038 .004 -.351 -.036 .424* .058
Individual
background
factors
Gender .046 .018 -.834** -.166
White or .231 .050 .217* .051 .325* .064 .692** .077 .780** .089 .600* .072
Caucasian
Age -.021 -.020 -.033 -.031 .010 .007 .005 .002 .011 .005 -.001 .000
GPA .064** .083 .045* .062 .079** .088 .120** .080 .184** .121 .039 .027
Business major .154* .048 .259* .082 .047 .014 .428** .068 .635** .097 .137 .025
Environmental
factors
Fraternity or .027 .009 .031 .011 -.016 -.004 .025 .004 .133 .023 -.038 -.005
sorority
At home with -.244 -.031 -.362* -.050 -.095 -.011 -.540* -.035 -.590 -.039 -.607 -.043
family
Substance free -.138 -.025 -.296 -.042 -.050 -.010 -.471* -.045 -.520 -.036 -.384* -.049
hall
Abstain from -.629* -.131 -.421** -.087 -.800** -.162 1.671** -.182 -1.87** -.187 -1.45** -.182
alcohol use
R .224 .205 .254 .211 .326 .295 .249
R2 .050 .042 .065 .045 .106 .087 .062
*p < .05. **p < .000.
a
When value is blank, this variable not included in the model.
- 37 -
Table 6
Regression Findings for Negative Consequences Hangover/Mental Impact and Negative Sexual
Consequences Dependent Variables
Negative consequence hangover/mental impact Negative sexual consequences
Constant .636** .810** .699** .053 .064 -.043
Study Group -.351** -.165 -.288** -.138 -.422** -.195 -.013 -.013 .015 .012 -.041 -.045
Time Block
3rd
4th -.102 -.032 .049 .036 .013 .009
5th -.021 .059 -.122 -.045 -.085 -.055
6th -.014 .068 -.074 -.024 .007 .002 .010 .007 -.089 -.051 .024 .019
7th -.148 .083 -.186 -.039 -.148 -.036 -.022 -.010 -.142 -.052 .002 .001
8th -.007 .070 -.112 -.022 -.027 -.009 -.010 -.006 -.080 -.028 -.036 -.028
9th .060 .073 .045 .013 .011 .003 .097 .052 .047 .024 .070 .040
10th .162* .062 -.023 -.009 .309* .095 .021 .015 -.038 -.026 .004 .003
11th .076 .077 -.136 -.038 .171 .045 -.016 -.009 -.081 -.039 -.039 -.025
Individual
background
factors
Gender .084 .040 -.053* -.051
White or .277** .073 .264* .081 .327* .076 .090* .049 .070 .038 .116* .065
Caucasian
Age -.048* -.055 -.066* -.082 -.010 -.009 -.007 -.017 -.013 -.028 .000 .000
GPA .026* .041 .032* .056 .022 .029 -.022** .071 .024* .076 .018* .058
Business major .146* .055 .205* .084 .118 .041 .082** .064 .163** .118 -.008 -.007
Environmental
factors
Fraternity or -.043 .017 .052 .024 .059 .016 .005 .004 .006** .005 .018 .011
sorority
At home with -.231* -.036 -.259 -.047 -.217 -.030 .016 .0053 .001 .000 .020 .007
family
Substance free -.141* -.032 -.220 -.041 -.065 -.016 .068 -.031 -.078 -.026 -.062 -.037
hall
Abstain from -.823** -.182 -.702** -.189 -.940** -.227 -.078 -.041 -.039 -.019 -.115* -.066
alcohol use
R .287 .290 .297 .154 .172 .134
R2 .082 .084 .088 .024 .029 .018
*p < .05. **p < .000.
a
- 38 -
Table 7
Regression Findings for Drinking and Driving and Negative Consequences Physical or Work
Dependent Variables
Drinking and driving Negative Consequences Physical or Work
Constant .063 .023 -.071 .259* .359* .062
Study Group -.020 -.024 -.052 -.050 .011 .017 .022 .015 .058 .035 -.014 -.012
Time Block
3rd
4th .026 .023 .001 .001 .106* .056 -.015 -.008
5th -.036 -.027 -.214* -.099
6th -.004 -.003 -.032 -.040 .001 .001 .014 .007 -.182* -.073 .002 .001
7th -.013 -.007 -.104 -.044 .008 .006 -.055 -.019 -.248 -.065 -.073 -.032
8th -.010 -.007 -.056 -.022 -.003 -.003 .041 .017 -.131 -.032 -.008 -.004
9th .001 .001 -.025 -.014 -.017 -.013 .073 .028 -.094 -.033 .040 .017
10th .025 .021 -.002 -.001 -.006 -.006 .116* .059 -.058 -.027 .093 .052
11th -.024 -.016 -.051 -.029 -.047 -.040 .072 .029 -.096 -.033 .031 .015
Individual
background
factors
Gender -.071** -.083 -.090* -.063
White or .044 .029 .028 .017 .071* .052 .065 .026 .059 .022 .086 .036
Caucasian
Age .017* .048 .020 .049 .010 .028 -.030* -.051 -.046 -.071 -.007 -.012
GPA .023** .088 .028 .100 .017* .072 .020* .048 -.018 .040 .024* .058
Business major .009 .008 .035 .029 -.023 -.026 .042 .024 .129* .066 -.051 -.032
Environmental
factors
Fraternity or -.052* -.050 -.057* -.053 -.039 -.033 .001 .001 .023 .013 -.044 -.021
sorority
At home with .095* .037 .145* .053 .018 .008 .073 .017 .069 .015 .057 .014
family
Substance free -.048 -.027 -.092 -.035 -.033 -.026 -.013 -.004 -.014 -.003 -.071 -.003
hall
Abstain from -.100** -.062 -.120* -.066 -.066* -.051 -.118* -.044 -.045 -.015 -.200** -.087
alcohol use
R .187 .187 .123 .125 .138 .134
R2 .035 .035 .015 .016 .019 .018
*p < .05. **p < .000.
a
The regression analyses using all fraternity and sorority affiliated members responses (N=4,552)
showed a negative association of the intervention to five of the six independent variables. This
indicated that among fraternity and sorority affiliated members in the study, the intervention group
had fewer negative consequences and heavy alcohol consuming days than the comparison group,
when other variables in the model were controlled. The only variable that was not negatively
associated with the intervention was negative physical or work consequences. The negative
association between study groups was statistically significant for three of the six dependent
variables including: (1) incidents of negative academic consequences; (2) incidents of
hangover/mental impact; and (3) and incidents of having five or more drinks in a day over the past
two weeks. The regression analysis confirmed the descriptive analysis that students participating in
the AlcoholEdu intervention reported lower numbers of negative incidents, only some negative
consequences, and fewer heavy alcohol use days than the comparison group of students who had
not yet completed the curriculum at a similar time point in the 2003-04 academic year.
- 39 -
Examination of the standardized coefficients of independent variables in the regression models that
examined all fraternity and sorority affiliated members in the study pointed to the strength of the
study group variable. Specifically in relationship to negative consequences that are academic,
negative consequences that are mental or hangover related and heavy alcohol use dependent
variables. The strength of the study group variable in the models for academic negative
consequences, hangover/mental impact, and incidents of drinking five or more drinks in a day over
past two weeks indicated that for these three regression models the study group was one of the
strongest independent variables. Among the other models (dependent variables), the study group
variable was not as strong a relative independent predictor.
Results of the incidents of consuming 5 or more drinks a day over the past 2 weeks showed an
overall mean of 2.343 for the intervention group and comparison group combined in the models that
included the fourth through eleventh time blocks with the unstandardized coefficient predicting that
the intervention group will have a .271 lower incidence of heavy consumption days than the
comparison, when other independent variables were held constant. This finding extrapolated over a
six-week period would suggest that intervention group participants would experience just under one
less day of heavy drinking on average over that period. The unstandardized results associated with
the negative academic consequences scale of the full model indicated an overall mean of .446 with
the intervention group predicted to have a .260 lower mean incidence of negative academic
consequences as measured on the scale. Similar results are found for the negative consequences
hangover/mental impact where the overall mean was .636 and the intervention group is predicted to
have a .351 lower incidents of hangover/mental impacts as measured on the scale in the model
including time blocks 4 to 11. Other dependent variables had a less significant predicted decrease as
seen in either the standardized or the unstandardized coefficients.
A second set of analyses were done to examine the use of AlcoholEdu with male or female students
who were in fraternities and sororities. Results of gender specific sub-analyses compared men who
reported taking AlcoholEdu as part of their fraternity experience to men who were affiliated with a
fraternity and had not yet taken AlcoholEdu but who would eventually complete the program. A
similar analysis was done for women affiliated with a sorority. This analysis pointed to three
important results: (1) the study group variable was negatively associated with four of the six
dependent variables for men and five for women; (2) Among men, the only model where the study
group was statistically significant was for the dependent variables negative academic consequences
and negative consequences that are mental or hangover related. Among women, there were three
dependent variable models where the study group variable was a significant predictor. The
dependent variables where the study group was significant for women included negative academic
consequences, negative consequences that are mental or hangover related and five or more drinks in
a day over the past two weeks; and (3) It is clear from examination of standardized coefficients for
models in which the study group variable was statistically significant that the study group variable
was a stronger predictor among women than among men.
A final element of the analysis of the regression models was the examination of overall model
strength with variance predicted by each model. In all models, variance predicted in the dependent
variable by the independent variables was small (R2= .106 to .015). It can be noted that the strongest
three predictive dependent variable models (R2= .106 to .05) paralleled the models where the study
group variable was a strong predictor of the dependent variable (i.e. negative academic
consequences, hangover/mental impact and drinking 5 or more drinks in a day over the past 2
weeks).
- 40 -
Discussion
The intervention group participants experienced fewer negative consequences and incidents of
heavy drinking than a comparison group as measured four to six weeks after program completion.
The difference in negative events and drinking patterns was maintained throughout much of the
school year even though across the seven months there was a steady increase in both incidents and
amount of alcohol consumed for both groups. It is also notable that the intervention effect held for
two negative consequences across gender, with incidents of heavy consumption not holding
statistical significance for male fraternity members in the study.
The results speak first to the potential value of a brief, computer supported preventive intervention
tailored to the interests and learning needs of fraternity and sorority affiliated members. Second, the
longitudinal pattern of drinking and outcomes raises a series of questions including the timing of
such an intervention within the academic year, the role of booster experiences designed to maintain
the initial intervention effect, and how gender should be considered in intervention efforts. These
issues would be best addressed in a prospective study with random assignment to the program and a
delayed control group. Such a study design would build on the cross-sectional data reported here.
Additionally a design might be instituted controlling for the possibility of students thinking they
should provide socially acceptable responses.
The causal ordering of change cannot be ascertained from this cross-sectional analysis, but
following the logic of alcohol use, it is likely that a decrease in episodic heavy drinking preceded
the self-reported negative consequences. Findings here suggest that even small decreases in heavy
episodic consumption may result in decreases in personal harm that are important for fraternal
organizations looking to limit the impact of heavy alcohol use.
Among independent variables in the study, several important notes can be made about research
participants. First, men consumed more and reported experiencing more negative consequences due
to their alcohol use. Second, White or Caucasian individuals, who were about 90% of the study
population, consumed more and reported experiencing more negative consequences from use.
Those who hold a higher GPA reported lower consumption and negative consequences. Living
conditions were also an important variable in this study, with men who lived in a fraternity facility
reporting elevated consumption and negative consequences, while women living in a sorority
facility reported lower consumption with less consistent negative consequence findings.
Implications for Policy and Practice
The potential of increasing technological capacity in alcohol education is that educational messages
can be scalable for delivery and yet have interactive customizations that allow for individual
educational experiences. While this vision of technology delivered health education has yet to be
fully realized, this evaluation report summarizes the application of one curriculum that has been
delivered to fraternity and sorority affiliated members and has moved toward individual
customization. The evidence herein supports the continued efforts of fraternities and sororities to
apply evolving technology as a tool in addressing short-term harm associated with heavy alcohol
use.
This study has implications that inform policy and practice related to alcohol abuse prevention in
fraternal organizations on college and university campuses. First, likely changes in consumption
- 41 -
and harm from the use of an online alcohol prevention curriculum are modest to small.
Administrators working with fraternities and sororities should be aware that small measurable
changes are a significant step forward in alcohol abuse prevention, but that expectations for the
implementation of AlcoholEdu or like interventions should be calibrated with the evidence of likely
change in behavior and related harm. Second, technology delivered alcohol education has potential
for fulfilling the moral or legal duty a fraternal organization or campus has to provide a common
level of knowledge related to alcohol abuse prevention. Technology can document program
completion and comprehension through online knowledge tests to ensure a basic level of
knowledge. Ensuring program completion that establishes a basic level of knowledge about alcohol
use and abuse is an important effort in taking reasonable steps to ensure students have information
to make responsible decisions with alcohol.
Beyond the reasonable duty a fraternal organization or campus has to address alcohol abuse, a
common level of knowledge related to alcohol use creates a platform for building a multifaceted
alcohol abuse prevention program. Results of this evaluation suggest that the use of AlcoholEdu, or
like technology delivered alcohol education, should be utilized in conjunction with strategies that
foster an environment that uses alcohol responsibility. Encouraging participation in community
service activities, limits to alcohol access, brief screening and motivational interviewing with heavy
alcohol users, and enhancing academic engagement are all strategies showing evidence or
conceptual promise to foster responsible alcohol environments. AlcoholEdu should be seen as part
of a multifaceted approach to prevent harm in fraternities and sororities related to alcohol use.
The results of this study support the continued use of online alcohol abuse prevention programs to
affect modestly the harm seen to students from alcohol use within fraternal organizations.
Specifically, the study points to reductions in academic negative consequences and
hangovers/mental impacts associated with heavy alcohol use across gender, but with more limited
findings of decreasing heavy consumption among men as compared to women. Implementation of
alcohol abuse prevention efforts among fraternity men specifically should be multifaceted, on going
and, optimally, student supported given the prevalence of use.
Findings from this study are important in providing evidence of the impact of technology as a tool
in shifting the culture of alcohol abuse and related harm that is too often present in campus
fraternities and sororities. Findings from this study are also important in showing that evaluation
studies among and across fraternal organizations can be conducted. This study portrays how data
can be used as a tool to illuminate program functioning. It also serves as an invitation to do
additional research into the challenges that fraternity and sorority organizations face in ensuring
their missions to engage students in service, leadership, and academic excellence.
- 42 -
References
Agostinelli, G., Brown, J. M., & Miller, W. R. (1995). Effects of normative feedback on
consumption among heavy drinking college students. Journal of Drug Education, 25(1). 31-
40.
Baer, J. S., Kivlahan, D. R., & Marlatt, G. A. (1995). High-risk drinking across the transition from
high school to college. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, 19(1), 54-61.
Baer, J. S., Kivlahan, D. R., Blume, A. W., McKnight, P., & Marlatt, B. A. (2001). Brief
intervention for heavy-drinking college students: 4-year follow-up and natural history.
American Journal of Public Health, 91(8), 1310-1316.
Bickel, R. & Lake, P. (1999). The Rights and Responsibilities of the Modern University: Who
Assumes the Risk for College Life? Carolina Academic Press: Durham, North Carolina.
Bloom B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain.

New York: David McKay Co Inc.
DAmico, E. J. & Fromme, K. (2000). Implementation of the risk skills training program: A brief
intervention targeting adolescents participating in risk behaviors. Cognitive Behavior &
Practice, 7, 101-117.
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(2), 136-145.
Hunter, F. J., & Mazurek, M. B. (2004). The effectiveness of intervention studies to decrease
alcohol use in college undergraduate students: An integrative analysis. Worldviews on
Evidence-based Nursing, 1(2), 102-119.
Kivlahan, D. R., Marlatt, G. A., Fromme, K., Coppel, D. B., & Williams, E. (1990). Secondary
Prevention with College Drinkers: Evaluation of an Alcohol Skills Training Program,
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, 805-810.
Marlatt, G. A., Baer, J. S., Kivlahan, D. R., Dimeff, L. A., Larimer, M. E., Quigley, L. A.,
Somers, J. M., & Williams, E. (1998). Screening and brief intervention for high-risk college
student drinkers: Results from a 2-year follow-up assessment. Journal of
Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 66(4), 604-615.
McNally, A. M., & Palfai, T.P. (2003). Brief group alcohol interventions with college students:
Examining motivational components. Journal of Drug Education, 33(2), 159-176.
Nelson, T. F., & Wechsler, H. (2001). Alcohol and college athletes. Medicine & Science in Sports
& Exercise, 33(1), 43-47.
- 43 -
Michael, M. E. (2000). Attitudes and perceived behavioral control of first-year college students
alcohol use: A study of an instructional software intervention. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 61(05), 2495.
Peeler, C.M., Far, J., Miller, J., & Brigham, T.A. (2000). An analysis of the effects of a program to
reduce heavy drinking among college students. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education,
45(2), 39-54.
Perkins, H. W. (2002). Surveying the damage: A review of research on consequences of alcohol

misuse in college populations. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 14, 91-100.
Powell, W. J. & Wechsler, H. (2003). Does Alcohol Consumption Reduce Human Capital
Accumulation? Evidence from the College Alcohol Study. Applied Economics, 35(10),
1227-1239.
Presley, C. A., Meilman, P. W., & Leichliter, J. S. (2002). College factors that influence drinking.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 14, 82-90.
Reis, J., Riley, W., & Baer, J. (2000). Interactive multimedia preventive alcohol education: An
evaluation of effectiveness with college students. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 23(1), 41-65.
Reis, J., Riley, W., Lokman, L., & Baer, J. (2000). Interactive multimedia preventive alcohol
education: A technology application in higher education. Journal of Drug Education, 30(4),
399-421.
Sharmer, L. (2001). Evaluation of alcohol education programs on attitude, knowledge, and self-
reported behavior of college students. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 24(3), 336-357.
Wall, A. (2005). On-line health education curriculum evaluation: Differential findings among
college students. Unpublished Dissertation. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.
Wall, A. & Cox, E. (2001). Technology in housing alcohol education. ACUHO-I Journal, 29(1), 11-
14.
Walters, S. T., Bennett, M. E., & Miller, J. H. (2000). Reducing alcohol use in college students: A
controlled trial of two brief interventions. Journal of Drug Education, 30(3), 361-372.
Walters, S. T., Bennett, M. E., & Noto, J. V. (2000). Drinking on campus: What do we know about
reducing alcohol use among college students? Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 19(3),
223-228.
Wechsler, H., Dowdall, G. W., & Maenner, G. (1998). Changes in binge drinking and related
problems among American college students between 1993 and 1997: Results of the Harvard
School of Public Health college alcohol study. Journal of American College Health, 47, 57-
68.
- 44 -
Wechsler, H., Molnar, B. E., Davenport, A. E., & Baer, J. S. (1999). College alcohol use: A full or
empty glass? Journal of American College Health, 47, 247-252.
Wechsler, H., Kuo, M., Lee, H., & Dowdall, G. W. (2000). Environmental correlates of underage
alcohol use and related problems of college students. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 19(1), 24-29.
Wechsler, H., Nelson, T. E., Lee, J. E., Seibring, M., Lewis, C., & Keeling, R. P. (2003).
Perception and reality: A national evaluation of social norms marketing interventions to
reduce college students heavy alcohol use. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64(4), 484-494.
Andrew Wall, a researcher with the Center for Educational Studies in the College of Education and
Professional Studies at Eastern Illinois University, currently teaches in the college student affairs
masters program at EIU. He may be contacted at cfafw@eiu.edu.
- 45 -
DEFINITIONS OF HAZING:
DIFFERENCES AMONG SELECTED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS1
Chad W. Ellsworth
Fraternities, sororities, military organizations, athletic groups, and marching bands

commonly are associated with hazing activities. Although such organizations have been
linked to hazing activities, the fact that different entities and organizations have different
definitions and perceptions of hazing has hindered any real effort to challenge and combat
such activities. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the activities students
define as hazing differed among the selected student organizations. This study discovered
statistically significant differences (p<.05) among the selected student organizations for
physical hazing activities and psychological hazing activities, as well as statistically
significant differences (p<.05) between women and men for physical hazing activities,
psychological hazing activities, and other hazing activities. This study also identified 10
activities students in all groups identified as hazing, which moves us toward a common
definition of hazing.
Although hazing has been a part of the culture of higher education, especially in some student
organizations, for hundreds of years, it has become increasingly dangerous and deadly, and has
become a serious concern for administrators and authorities (Nuwer, 1999). Between 1838 and
1969, 35 deaths that resulted from alcohol abuse and hazing were recorded. In the thirty years
thereafter, a staggering 210 such deaths were reported.
Fraternities are the entities most frequently identified with the deadly outcomes of reckless hazing
activities. However, sororities, military organizations, athletic teams, and marching bands also are
receiving considerable attention (Crow & Rosner, 2002; Hollmann, 2002; Hoover, 1999; Hoover &
Pollard, 2000; Novak, 2000; Nuwer, 1990, 1999; Shaw, 1992; Wegener, 2001; Winslow, 1999).
According to Hollmann (2002) and Crow and Rosner (2002), institutions of higher education are
more likely to be sued because of an alcohol- or hazing-related death. In an increasingly litigious
society, administrators must be proactive and seek to address more effectively dangerous and
increasingly deadly hazing activities. Courts have ruled that administrators of colleges and
universities have a duty of care to defend and promote the safety of their students, even though
the long-held idea of in loco parentis, the idea that an institution should have a parental role in
students lives, was rejected in Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education (1961). In two
important hazing-related decisions, Furek v. University of Delaware (1991) and Knoll v. Board of
Regents of the University of Nebraska (1999), a duty of care on the part of the institutions was
1
This research study was summarized in two previous publications:
Ellsworth, C.W. (Winter 2005), Learning Opportunities: Understanding Students Definitions of Hazing. Perspectives.
Indianapolis, IN: Association of Fraternity Advisors.
Ellsworth, C.W. (2005), Learning Opportunities: Understanding Students Definitions of Hazing. In Association of
Fraternity Advisor (Ed.), Issues in Focus: Hazing on Campus. Indianapolis, IN: Association of Fraternity
Advisors.
- 46 -
inferred (Crow & Rosner, 2002). The fact that the university administrators knew hazing was
involved was enough for the courts to rule that they should have acted to combat hazing (Hollmann,
2002; Reisberg, 1999). Finally, Butler and Glennen (1991) suggested that, if institutions sanctioned
initiation rituals, administrators could match the social needs met by hazing activities and limit the
risk associated with more dangerous alcohol- and hazing-related rites of passage.
Despite evidence that suggests higher education administrators should take action against hazing
activities, staff continue to confront confusion, myths, and misperceptions. Hollmann (2002) argued
that the lack of a common definition of hazing limits the effectiveness of anti-hazing action,
legislation, and policies. The author further suggested that until there is consensus about the
definition of hazing and student support for action against hazing, the problem will persist. For the
purposes of this study, I compared laws and policies from different functional areas and
geographical regions, and differences remain. Although some states recognize physical and
psychological hazing activities, others recognize only physical hazing activities, or recognize hazing
activities only in post-secondary institutions but not military or occupational settings. Likewise,
some states have felony and misdemeanor penalties for hazing activities while others have only
misdemeanor penalties (StopHazing.org, 2003).
Review of Literature
In recent years, Novak (2000) and Wegener (2001) began exploring differences by student
organization affiliation at Texas A&M University and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln,
respectively. Novaks study demonstrated that fraternity and sorority affiliated members received
more education about hazing activities than non-affiliated students do, and that more fraternity and
sorority affiliated students than non-affiliates thought that hazing did not occur in their fraternal
organizations. Novak also surveyed Texas A&Ms Corps of Cadets and 70% either agreed or
strongly agreed that some hazing activities associated with tradition continued even though
administrators know about them, although only 57.4% of non-Corps of Cadets students surveyed
agreed.
Similarly, Wegener (2001) found that both fraternity and sorority affiliated members and members
of the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) agreed that some hazing activities associated with
tradition continued even though University administrators know about them. Wegener stated that
more fraternity and sorority affiliated members reported knowledge of university and state policies
against hazing when compared to ROTC students. Although minorities of both groups reported
being involved in hazing activities as a perpetrator or victim, most respondents said fraternities and
sororities were most likely to have occurrences of hazing.
Psychological and sociological research studies have demonstrated that hazing activities are part of
the social and cultural fabric of higher education, and that such activities have important, if
misappropriated, roles in institutions and organizations (Aronson & Mills in Aronson, Wilson, &
Akert, 1999; Butler & Glennen, 1991; Jones, 2000; Lodewijkx & Syroit, 2001; Schachter in
Lodewijkx & Syroit, 2001; Schopler & Bateson, 1962; Sweet, 1999). Studies have also suggested
that hazing activities mark transitions, provide ways for members to test newcomers in
organizations, provide ways for newcomers to prove worthiness of membership, and provide ways
for organizations to indoctrinate newcomers. The severity-attraction hypothesis proposed by
Aronson and Mills stated that the more effort an individual puts toward reaching a goal or object,
the more the individual will rationalize the goal or object as being worthy of such effort. Similarly,
- 47 -
Schachter proposed that when individuals face stressful or threatening situations, they would
identify with other individuals, especially those who have gone through similar situations.
Hollman (2002) found that although hazing activities are functional in that they foster affiliation
and identity in group members, they remain dangerous, harmful, and mostly secretive.
Organizations have become more effective in carrying out and hiding hazing activities and students
who are perpetrators or victims of hazing are reluctant to report such activities to authorities.
Currently, 42 states and most colleges and universities have laws and policies against hazing, but a
great amount of discrepancy remains. To confront hazing effectively, a common definition and set
of perceptions about hazing, as well as common standards of unacceptable hazing activities should
be established across functional areas and geographical regions.
Method
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the activities that students define as hazing
differ among student organizations. Specifically, this study investigated how those activities
differed among fraternity members, sorority members, ROTC members, student athletes, and
members of the marching band. The null hypothesis that guided this study was that student
definitions of hazing activities do not differ among fraternity members, sorority members, ROTC
members, student athletes, and members of the marching band. This was a quantitative study with a
descriptive, cross-sectional design. The design included a comparison of student definitions for
hazing activities among selected student organizations in order to describe how perceptions of
hazing activities differed by student organization affiliation.
The variables for this study included student organization affiliation (independent variable) and the
activities students defined as hazing activities (dependent variables). The independent variable was
represented by categorical affiliation data such as fraternity member, sorority member, ROTC
member, student athlete, or marching band member. The dependent variables, activities students
defined as hazing activities, were represented by continuous data. For this study, I asked
participants to complete a researcher-designed web-based survey, which consisted of 49 items. For
42 of these items, students indicated to what degree they agreed that each of the 42 items was a
hazing activity. Responses were recorded on a five-point Likert scale. The remaining seven items
asked for demographic information.
Of the 42 items that did not ask for demographic information, 5 items were identified as physical
hazing, 2 items as psychological hazing, 9 items as both physical and psychological hazing, 8 items
as other hazing, and 8 items as non-hazing activities by expert reviewers. In this way, the instrument
measured respondents definitions and perceptions of hazing activities according to the standard
that was determined under an expert review. The experts who reviewed the instrument included the
institutions Acting Director of the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Life, a Captain from the Army
ROTC, and an Associate Athletic Director, as well as two prominent authors in the area of hazing
research. The remaining ten items were not identified by at least three of the experts with one of the
above categories.
Examples of the 42 items included, Complete a specific number of community service hours,
Drink or eat substances not intended for normal consumption, and Perform chores or tasks for
others. The items were not identified in any way as physical hazing, psychological hazing, or non-
hazing on the instrument. Respondents were asked: What activities, when done to or required of
- 48 -
members or newcomers in your organization, do you agree are hazing activities? Please indicate to
what degree you agree that each activity is a hazing activity.
Sample
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether activities that students defined as hazing
behavior differed by student organization affiliation. Therefore, it was important to identify and
include those student organizations most commonly associated with hazing activities. A stratified
sampling technique was used and the population included fraternity members, sorority members,
ROTC members, student athletes, and members of the marching band from a large, public, four-
year research institution in the Mid-Atlantic region.
To control against heterogeneity of variance, it was important to have comparable sizes for each of
the groups in the sample. The researcher selected a random sample from each of the above
organizations through a systematic technique, in which every nth person was chosen. The smallest
group in the population was the ROTC members, which included 32 students. Thus, the researcher
sought to obtain approximately 30 usable responses from each of the groups. The total population of
usable cases was 114 students.
Data Collection and Analysis

The data for this study were collected using a web-based survey instrument created and monitored
by the researcher, and was hosted by software provided by Educational Benchmarking, Inc.
The data for this research were analyzed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) procedures. The
mean differences of the activities students defined as hazing activities (dependent variable) were
analyzed among student organizations (independent variable). Because the sample sizes of each of
the student organizations differed, Levenes test was used to test against heterogeneity of variance.
Composite variables, including physical hazing activities, psychological hazing activities, both
physical and psychological hazing activities, other hazing activities, and non-hazing activities were
examined, as well as individual items. The mean scores for each activity (dependent variables) for
each of the five groups (independent variables) were compared through a complex contrasts
ANOVA in order to determine if significant differences existed among the five groups. For each
significant difference, a Dunn (Bonferroni) test was used in order to determine which of the mean
scores were significantly different. The significance level sought was p<.05.
Results
The results of this study indicated a number of contextual and cultural differences among the
selected student organizations, which can inform administrator practice and future research. Most
significantly, a number of differences between women and men were identified with regard to
definitions and perceptions of hazing activities. The results have been presented in the groupings
identified through the expert review.
Physical Hazing Activities

In the expert review, five items were identified as physical hazing activities: consume alcoholic
beverages; deprived of beverages or food by others; do calisthenics for excessive amounts of time
or to excessive levels; forced to consume excessive amounts of alcoholic beverages; and march,
walk, or run for excessive amounts of time or for excessive distances. For the composite variable
- 49 -
that consisted of all of the activities identified by the expert reviewers as physical hazing activities,
there was a statistically significant difference between the mean scores for the five groups, F(4, 94)
= 2.90, p<.05. The mean scores for each of the five groups were M = 4.04 (SD = 0.87) for fraternity
members; M = 4.39 (SD = 1.00) for sorority members; M = 3.47 (SD = 1.02) for ROTC members;
M = 3.88 (SD = 0.80) for student athletes; and M = 4.17 (SD = 0.51) for marching band members.
A mean score of 4 indicated that a group agreed that the activities were hazing activities, whereas a
standard deviation of 1 suggested scores were as low as 3 (neutral), or as high as 5 (strongly agree).
A Dunn (Bonferroni) post hoc test revealed that there was a statistically significant difference
between sorority members and ROTC members. In addition, for the composite variable physical
hazing activities, there was a significant difference t(85) = 2.33, p<.05, between women (M = 4.23,
SD = 0.92) and men (M = 3.78, SD = 0.89).
In the mean scores for the five groups, statistically significant differences were discovered (p<.01)
for do calisthenics for excessive amounts of time or to excessive levels, F(4,99) = 4.01, and march,
walk, or run for excessive amounts of time or for excessive distances, F(4,99) = 4.77 (see Table 1).
Table 1
Mean Scores for Physical Hazing Activities
Marching
Hazing Activity Fraternity Sorority ROTC NCAA Band F(x)
Consume alcoholic beverages M = 3.69 M = 4.40 M = 3.93 M = 3.62 M = 4.14 2.05
M = 3.93 SD = 1.30 SD = 1.10 SD = 1.44 SD = 1.14 SD = 0.69
SD = 1.20
Deprived of beverages or food by M = 4.60 M = 4.38 M = 3.69 M = 4.12 M = 4.43 1.58
others SD = 0.74 SD = 1.27 SD = 1.40 SD = 1.07 SD = 0.79
M = 4.22
SD = 1.15
Do calisthenics for excessive M = 3.80 M = 4.33 M = 2.88 M = 3.69 M = 4.25 4.01*
amounts of time or to excessive SD = 1.15 SD = 1.24 SD = 1.54 SD = 1.16 SD = 0.89
levels
M = 3.81
SD = 1.30
Forced to consume excessive M = 4.67 M = 4.37 M = 4.06 M = 4.49 M = 5.00 1.00
amounts of alcoholic beverages SD = 0.62 SD = 1.38 SD = 1.48 SD = 1.09 SD = 0.00
M = 4.45
SD = 1.17
March, walk, or run for excessive M = 3.47 M = 4.10 M = 2.44 M = 3.58 M = 3.25 4.77*
amounts of time or for excessive SD = 1.51 SD = 1.26 SD = 1.15 SD = 1.16 SD = 1.16
distances
M = 3.51
SD = 1.33
1 = Strongly disagree that each activity is a hazing activity, 5 = Strongly agree
* p<.05, ** p<.01, ***p<.001
A Dunn (Bonferroni) post hoc test revealed that there were statistically significant differences
between sorority members (M = 4.33, SD = 1.24) and ROTC members (M = 2.88, SD = 1.54) for
do calisthenics for excessive amounts of time or to excessive levels, and between sorority members
(M = 4.10, SD = 1.26) and ROTC members (M = 2.44, SD = 1.15), and ROTC members and
student athletes (M = 3.58, SD = 1.16), for march, walk, or run for excessive amounts of time or for
excessive distances.
- 50 -
With regard to the differences between women and men, there were statistically significant
differences (p<.01) for the two groups for the two physical hazing activities do calisthenics for
excessive amounts of time or to excessive levels t(90) = 3.22, and march, walk, or run for excessive
amounts of time or for excessive distances t(90) = 3.89. In both cases, the mean scores for women M
= 4.14 (SD = 1.18) and M = 4.02 (SD = 1.19), respectively were higher than those for men M = 3.31
(SD = 1.30) and M = 3.00 (SD = 1.33).
Psychological Hazing Activities

The expert reviewers categorized two items, perform in public, such as dancing or singing and
subjected to verbal abuse or harassment, as psychological hazing activities. For the composite
variable that consisted of all of the activities identified by the expert reviewers as psychological
hazing activities, there was a statistically significant difference between the mean scores for the five
groups, though a Dunn (Bonferroni) post hoc test did not reveal for what groups there was a
significant difference.
In addition, for the composite variable psychological hazing activities, there was a significant
difference, t(90) = 3.29, p<.001, between women (M = 3.87, SD = 1.07) and men (M = 3.13, SD =
1.07).
Although only the second psychological hazing activity, subjected to verbal abuse or harassment,
showed a significant difference among the selected student organizations, both psychological
hazing activities showed statistically significant differences (p<.05) between women and men. For
perform in public, such as dancing or singing, t(93) = 2.47, whereas for subjected to verbal abuse or
harassment, t(91) = 3.00. In both cases, the mean scores for women (M = 3.43, SD = 1.31) and (M =
4.22, SD = 1.12), respectively, were higher than those for men (M = 2.79, SD = 1.22) and (M = 3.48,
SD = 1.25), respectively.
Table 2
Mean Scores for Psychological Hazing Activities
Marching
Perform in public, such M = 2.94 M = 3.45 M = 3.13 M = 3.30 M = 2.50 1.11
as dancing or singing SD = 1.34 SD = 1.36 SD = 1.20 SD = 1.20 SD = 1.51
M = 3.20
SD = 1.30
Subjected to verbal M = 3.40 M = 4.28 M = 3.31 M = 4.00 M = 3.25 2.91*
abuse or harassment SD = 1.40 SD = 1.19 SD = 1.25 SD = 1.11 SD = 1.04
M = 3.83
SD = 1.24
* p<.05, ** p<.01, ***p<.001
Physical and Psychological Hazing Activities

The nine activities identified as both physical and psychological hazing activities included: deprived
of sleep by others; drink or eat substances not intended for normal consumption; handcuffed or tied
to a building or structure; kidnap a current member of ones organization; participate in streaking
or other activities while naked; perform feat of strength or physical activity for excessive amounts
of time; perform sexual acts; receive a brand or tattoo; and struck by an object, such as a ball,
baton, fist, or paddle. The composite variable that consisted of all of the activities identified by the
- 51 -
expert reviewers as both physical and psychological hazing activities did not indicate a statistically
significant mean difference, F(4, 90) = 2.08, p<.05.
Table 3
Mean Scores for Both Physical and Psychological Hazing Activities
Marching
Deprived of sleep by others M = 4.40 M = 4.16 M = 3.94 M = 4.09 M = 4.43 0.44
M = 4.16 SD = 0.83 SD = 1.27 SD = 1.29 SD = 1.11 SD = 1.13
SD = 1.14
Drink or eat substances not M = 4.20 M = 4.33 M = 3.75 M = 4.32 M = 4.86 1.25
intended for normal SD = 1.01 SD = 1.40 SD = 1.29 SD = 1.09 SD = 0.38
consumption
M = 4.25
SD = 1.19
Handcuffed or tied to a M = 4.29 M = 4.52 M = 4.19 M = 4.12 M = 4.71 0.65
building or structure SD = 1.27 SD = 1.24 SD = 1.38 SD = 1.23 SD = 0.49
M = 4.31
SD = 1.22
Kidnap a current member of M = 3.29 M = 3.90 M = 3.25 M = 3.86 M = 3.00 1.79
ones organization SD = 1.44 SD = 1.29 SD = 1.18 SD = 1.17 SD = 1.07
M = 3.63
SD = 1.26
Participate in streaking or M = 4.00 M = 4.52 M = 3.93 M = 3.89 M = 4.38 1.42
other activities while naked SD = 1.32 SD = 1.24 SD = 1.28 SD = 1.04 SD = 0.92
M = 4.13
SD = 1.18
Perform feat of strength or M = 3.47 M = 4.21 M = 2.94 M = 3.47 M = 4.13 3.38*
physical activity for excessive SD = 1.46 SD = 1.29 SD = 1.09 SD = 1.25 SD = 0.83
amount of time
M = 3.64
SD = 1.30
Perform sexual acts M = 4.07 M = 4.48 M = 3.79 M = 4.20 M = 4.43 0.85
M = 4.22 SD = 1.33 SD = 1.33 SD = 1.19 SD = 1.23 SD = 0.79
SD = 1.24
Receive a brand or tattoo M = 3.93 M = 4.55 M = 4.00 M = 4.31 M = 4.57 1.10
M = 4.30 SD = 1.44 SD = 1.15 SD = 1.36 SD = 0.95 SD = 0.53
SD = 1.14
Struck by an object, such as a M = 4.00 M = 4.41 M = 4.00 M = 4.51 M = 4.63 0.99
ball, baton, fist, or paddle SD = 1.41 SD = 1.18 SD = 1.41 SD = 1.04 SD = 0.52
M = 4.34
SD = 1.18
* p<.05, ** p<.01, ***p<.001
For perform feat of strength or physical activity for excessive amounts of time, a significant
difference at p<.05 was found (see Table 3). A Dunn (Bonferroni) post hoc test showed that the
difference was between sorority members (M = 4.21, SD = 1.29) and ROTC members (M = 2.94,
SD = 1.09). Similarly, there was a significant difference between women and men for perform feat
of strength or physical activity for excessive amount of time, t(90) = 2.75, p<.01; the means and
standard deviations were M = 4.06 (SD = 1.24) and M = 3.36 (SD = 1.21) for women and men,
respectively.
- 52 -
Other Hazing Activities

During the expert review, three of the five expert reviewers identified eight activities as physical
hazing, psychological hazing, or both physical and psychological hazing, though they did not agree
on a specific type of hazing activity. Such activities, which were identified as other hazing
activities, included: blindfolded during activities; participate in an activity against your will;
participate in drinking games; perform chores or tasks for others; shave ones head or other part of
ones body; stand in line for excessive amounts of time; steal an item; and stranded alone or with
other newcomers. For the composite variable that consisted of all of the activities identified by the
expert reviewers as other hazing activities, there was not a statistically significant mean difference,
F(4, 94) = 2.07, p<.05.
In addition, for the composite variable other hazing activities, there was a significant difference,
t(85) = 2.91, p<.01, between women (M = 3.85, SD = 0.97) and men (M = 3.29, SD = 0.82). Of the
eight activities that were identified as other hazing activities, ANOVA analysis indicated one
statistically significant difference, participate in drinking games (p<.05). The Dunn (Bonferroni)
test showed that there were significant differences between sorority members and ROTC members,
and sorority members and student athletes (see Table 4).
Table 4
Mean Scores for Other Hazing Activities
Marching
Blindfolded during activities M = 2.47 M = 3.12 M = 2.73 M = 3.08 M = 2.00 2.30
M = 2.88 SD = 1.13 SD = 1.48 SD = 1.03 SD = 0.97 SD = 0.76
SD = 1.19
Participate in an activity against M = 3.31 M = 4.03 M = 3.37 M = 3.92 M = 3.71 1.43
your will SD = 1.25 SD = 1.30 SD = 1.26 SD = 1.14 SD = 1.38
M = 3.76
SD = 1.24
Participate in drinking games M = 3.12 M = 4.17 M = 3.00 M = 3.27 M = 3.38 3.41
M = 3.47 SD = 1.59 SD = 1.05 SD = 1.15 SD = 1.26 SD = 1.41
SD = 1.31
Perform chores or tasks for others M = 3.31 M = 3.93 M = 3.50 M = 3.43 M = 3.38 1.01
M = 3.56 SD = 1.20 SD = 1.22 SD = 1.21 SD = 1.26 SD = 0.92
SD = 1.21
Shave ones head or other part of M = 3.71 M = 4.34 M = 3.47 M = 3.56 M = 4.00 2.00
ones body SD = 1.20 SD = 1.14 SD = 1.42 SD = 1.34 SD = 1.15
M = 3.82
SD = 1.30
Stand in line for excessive amounts M = 2.87 M = 3.77 M = 3.00 M = 3.32 M = 3.50 1.61
of time SD = 1.41 SD = 1.33 SD = 1.41 SD = 1.18 SD = 1.20
M = 3.35
SD = 1.31
Steal an item M = 3.50 M = 4.31 M = 3.69 M = 4.03 M = 4.63 1.81
M = 4.03 SD = 1.22 SD = 1.20 SD = 1.45 SD = 1.23 SD = 0.74
SD = 1.25
Stranded alone or with other M = 3.53 M = 3.97 M = 3.19 M = 3.62 M = 3.38 1.05
newcomers SD = 1.25 SD = 1.32 SD = 1.38 SD = 1.34 SD = 0.74
M = 3.62
SD = 1.30
* p<.05, ** p<.01, ***p<.001
- 53 -
Even though there was only one statistically significant difference among the five groups for the
eight activities identified as other hazing activities, there were five significant differences between
women and men for those activities. The activities blindfolded during activities and perform chores
or tasks for others were significant at p<.05, while participate in an activity against your will was
significant at p<.01, and shave ones head or other part of ones body, and stand in line for
excessive amounts of time were significant at p<.01, For these activities, the mean scores for women
were: M = 3.11 (SD = 1.22); M = 3.69 (SD = 1.24); M = 4.16 (SD = 1.20); M = 4.16 (SD = 1.11);
and M = 3.56 (SD = 1.27), respectively. For men, the mean scores were M = 2.56 (SD = 1.07); M =
3.17 (SD = 1.08); M = 3.47 (SD = 1.20); M = 3.22 (SD = 1.35); and M = 2.78 (SD = 1.11).
Non-Hazing Activities
Finally, although this study first focused on the activities students defined as hazing activities, it
also was important to examine the activities that were not considered hazing activities. According to
the expert review, eight activities were non-hazing activities. Those activities included: attend
educational presentations or programs; attend mandatory study halls; complete a specific number
of community service hours; learn historical facts about ones organization; maintain a minimum
grade point average;, memorize and recite facts about ones organization; study a specific amount
of time; and wear a specific clothing item or color of clothing item.
For the composite variable that consisted of all of the activities identified by the expert reviewers as
non-hazing activities, there was a statistically significant mean difference, F(4, 99) = 3.40, p<.05.
The mean scores for each of the five groups were M = 1.90 (SD = 0.62) for fraternity members; M
= 2.09 (SD = 0.68) for sorority members; M = 1.98 (SD = 0.73) for ROTC members; M = 2.03 (SD
= 0.50) for student athletes; and M = 1.23 (SD = 0.37) for marching band members. A mean score
of 2 indicated that a group disagreed that the activities were hazing activities, whereas a standard
deviation of 1 suggested scores were as low as 1 (strongly disagree), or as high as 3 (neutral).
All Hazing Activities

A continuum of the mean scores for hazing activities for the five student organizations included in
this research would demonstrate that fewer ROTC members identified activities as hazing activities,
whereas more sorority members identified such activities as hazing activities. For all hazing
activities, including physical, psychological, both physical and psychological, and other hazing
activities, the mean score for ROTC members was 3.47, whereas for sorority members it was 4.17.
For fraternity members, it was 3.67 while for student athletes and members of the marching band, it
was 3.83 and 3.91, respectively.
Summary
Although only a few statistically significant differences in the activities students defined as hazing
activities were discovered, there were some statistically significant differences, most of which were
between sorority members and ROTC members and such differences were present for three of the
five types of hazing activities. Those types included physical hazing activities, both physical and
psychological hazing activities, and other hazing activities. Physical hazing activities where
significant differences were present included do calisthenics for excessive amounts of time or to
excessive levels, both physical and psychological hazing activities included perform feat of strength
or physical activity for excessive amounts of time, and other hazing activities included participate in
drinking games.
- 54 -
The data collected in this study suggested that there were significant differences in the activities
students defined as hazing activities among the selected student organizations. The data showed
that, for the composite variables physical hazing activities and psychological hazing activities, there
were significant differences among the selected student organizations. Thus, the null hypothesis that
the activities students defined as hazing activities do not differ among fraternity members, sorority
members, ROTC members, student athletes, and members of the marching band was rejected.
For the entire sample, there were ten activities that the respondents agreed, as evidenced by mean
scores greater than four, were hazing activities when done to or required of members or newcomers.
They included: forced to consume excessive amounts of alcoholic beverages; struck by an object,
such as a ball, baton, fist, or paddle; handcuffed or tied to a building or structure; receive a brand
or tattoo; drink or eat substances not intended for normal consumption; deprived of beverages or
food by others; perform sexual acts; participate in streaking or other activities while naked;
deprived of sleep by others; and steal an item.
There were two statistically significant differences between ROTC members and student athletes.
Such differences were evident for the physical hazing activity, march, walk, or run for excessive
amounts of time or for excessive distances, and one other hazing activity, participate in drinking
games.
In addition, a number of statistically significant differences were present between women and men,
including significant differences in four of the five types of hazing activities, including physical
hazing activities, psychological hazing activities, both physical and psychological hazing activities,
and other hazing activities. Such hazing activities included: do calisthenics for excessive amounts of
time or to excessive levels; march, walk, or run for excessive amounts of time or for excessive
distances; perform in public, such as dancing or singing; subjected to verbal abuse or harassment;
perform feat of strength or physical activity for excessive amount of time; blindfolded during
activities; perform chores or tasks for others; participate in an activity against your will; shave
ones head or other part of ones body; and stand in line for excessive amounts of time.
Discussion
Until recently, researchers have not paid a great amount of attention to differences in perceptions
toward hazing activities across different student organizations. This study supports the findings of
previous research. For example, Novak (2000) and Wegener (2001) concluded that fraternity and
sorority members demonstrated considerable knowledge about hazing activities. By comparing the
mean scores, which reflect the extent to which a respondent agreed that selected activities were
hazing, there was compelling evidence that fraternity and sorority members had more knowledge
about, and tended to agree with the activities that were identified as hazing activities, when
compared to the other student organizations included in this study.
This study demonstrated that there are some activities that were identified as hazing activities
among the majority of respondents, regardless of group affiliation. An analysis of the overall mean
scores indicated that students in this study possessed some common definition of hazing activities.
Beginning with the activities students most strongly agreed were hazing activities, they included:
forced to consume excessive amounts of alcoholic beverages; struck by an object, such as a ball,
baton, fist, or paddle; handcuffed or tied to a building or structure; receive a brand or tattoo; drink
or eat substances not intended for normal consumption; deprived of beverages or food by others;
- 55 -
perform sexual acts; participate in streaking or other activities while naked; deprived of sleep by
others; and steal an item.
In this study, some of the differences among the selected student groups may be due to the activities
that are inherent to those organizations. In such cases, those activities may be considered necessary
components of the organizational culture, and not necessarily hazing activities. For example, while
sorority members agreed that to march, walk, or run for excessive amounts of time or for excessive
distances was a hazing activity (M = 4.10, SD = 1.26), ROTC members did not think that activity
was a hazing activity (M = 2.44, SD = 1.15). For the ROTC, such activities are necessary parts of
the organizations training. Similarly, some activities, whether or not those activities are hazing
activities, are not part of the culture of some student organizations. For example, the mean scores
and standard deviations for the items forced to consume excessive amounts of alcoholic beverages
and drink or eat substances not intended for normal consumption for members of the marching
band suggested that those students strongly identified such activities as hazing activities with very
little variance in their opinions. In this way, the findings also suggest that hazing activities may
have contextual elements, as evidenced by the fact that some student organizations strongly agreed
that activities were hazing activities when others did not.
The most important findings of this study were the significant differences between women and men
with regard to defining hazing activities. For the composite variables physical hazing activities,
psychological hazing activities, and other hazing activities, as well as for a number of the individual
activities, there were significant differences between women and men. According to Gilligans
theory of womens moral development (1982), the care orientation and the focus on relationships
and responsibility suggest that, for many women, moral thinking is different from mens, which
relies on individual rights and justice. In such a way, the moral thinking and ways in which women
relate to others may explain differences between women and men with regard to perceptions of
hazing activities. If the results of this study are contextualized with Gilligans theory, perhaps
womens moral thinking may preclude many of the hazing activities that are more accepted in
groups of men and in male-dominated organizations, such as fraternities and military organizations.
Nonetheless, Shaw (1992) reported that a significantly higher number of women participated in
hazing activities as both new members and affiliated members than did not, and that a higher
number of women did not define such activities as hazing.
This study offers evidence that (1) students definitions of hazing activities can be strongly
influenced by ones group affiliation or gender; and (2) students, regardless of group membership,
for the most part are in agreement that certain behaviors are definable as hazing activities.
Moreover, this study contributes a deeper understanding of the complex topic of hazing to the
developing literature.
Limitations
A primary limitation of this study was the low response rate (26%) of the total population surveyed.
The respondents included 16 fraternity members, 36 sorority members, 17 ROTC members, 37
student athletes, and 8 members of the marching band. In addition, there were a number of
limitations that resulted from the context within which this study was conducted. For example, the
Army ROTC was a relatively new student organization at the institution where this study was
conducted, so traditions may not have been as entrenched as those of other ROTC organizations at
other institutions with a longer history. In addition, the respective programs of the Office of
- 56 -
Fraternity and Sorority Life, Athletic Department, Music Department, and Division of Student
Affairs may be different from those at other institutions. Therefore, caution is advised before
generalizing the results of this study to other campuses.
Areas for Future Research
With some knowledge about the activities students define as hazing, future research studies should
explore whether or not such activities are harmful or inappropriate, whether or not students have
been victims or have participated in such activities, and whether or not students would report or
seek to intervene in such activities. Similarly, because this study examined definitions and
perceptions of hazing only through the eyes of students who were members of the selected student
organizations, it would be useful to explore the definitions and perceptions of hazing through the
eyes of administrators, faculty and staff members, as well as students who are not involved with any
of the student organizations selected for this study. Because this study also demonstrated the
differences between women and men with regard to definitions and perceptions of hazing activities,
it may be beneficial for future research to explore the reasons for such differences. One possible
explanation may be tied to the differences in moral and ethical development of women and men as
proposed by Gilligan (1982).
In addition, it would be beneficial for administrators and advisors to explore why students
participate in hazing activities, and what outcomes students seek through participation in them. In
such a way, administrators and advisors would be able to design and implement alternative,
appropriate initiation rituals and rites of passage for the students with whom they work, while
eliminating or limiting the danger and risk associated with inappropriate hazing activities.
References
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1988). Intense loyalty in organizations: A case study of college athletics.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 401-417.
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (1999). Social psychology (3rd Ed.). New York:
Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers.
Butler, E. R., & Glennen, R. E. (1991, April). Initiations rituals: Sanctioning rites of passage
rituals to increase involvement. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American
Association for Counseling and Development, Reno, NV.
Carini, R. M., Hayek, J. H., Kuh, G. D., Kennedy, J. M., & Ouimet, J. A. (2003). College student
responses to web and paper surveys: Does mode matter? Research in Higher Education, 44,
1-19.
Cokley, K., Miller, K., Cunningham, D., Motioke, J., King, A., & Awad, G. (2001). Developing an
instrument to assess college students attitudes toward pledging and hazing in Greek letter
organizations. College Student Journal, 35, 451-456.
Crow, R. B., & Rosner, S. R. (2002). Institutional and organizational liability for hazing in
intercollegiate and professional team sports. St. Johns Law Review, 76, 87-114.
- 57 -
Drout, C. E., & Corsoro, C. L. (2003). Attitudes toward fraternity hazing among fraternity
members, sorority members, and non-Greek students. Social Behavior and Personality, 31,
535-544.
Farrey, T. (2003). Athletes abusing athletes. Retrieved January 8, 2004, from

http://espn.go.com/otl/hazing/monday.html
General Accounting Office, Division of National Security and International Affairs. (1992). DOD
service academies: Status report on reviews of student treatment. Statement of Paul L.
Jones, Director, Defense Force Management Issues, National Security and International
Affairs Division. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Manpower and Personnel,
Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate. (EDRS Publication No. GAO/T-NSIAD-92-41).
Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. General Accounting Office.
General Accounting Office, Division of National Security and International Affairs. (1992). DOD
service academies: More changes needed to eliminate hazing. Report to Congressional
Requesters. (EDRS Publication No. GAO/NSIAD-93-36). Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. General
Accounting Office.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and womens development.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gunn, H. (2002). Web-based surveys: Changing the survey process. First Monday, 7(12). Retrieved
January 8, 2004, from http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue7_12/gunn.
Hollmann, B. B. (2002). Hazing: Hidden campus crime. In C. K. Wilkinson & J. A. Rund (Eds.),
Addressing contemporary campus safety issues (pp. 11-23), New Directions for Student
Services, 99. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hoover, J., & Milner, C. (1998). Are hazing and belongingness related to love and belongingness?
Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Problems, 7, 138-141.
Hoover, N. C. (1999). Initiation rites and athletics: A national survey of NCAA sports teams. Final
report. Alfred, NY: Alfred University.
Hoover, N. C., & Pollard, N. J. (2000). Initiation rites in American high schools: A national survey.
Final report. Alfred, NY: Alfred University.
Hunt, G. P., & Laidler, K. J. (2001). Alcohol and violence in the lives of gang members. Alcohol
Research & Health, 25(1), 66-71.
Jones, R. L. (2000). The historical significance of sacrificial ritual: Understanding violence in the
modern Black fraternity pledge process. The Western Journal of Black Studies, 24, 112-124.
- 58 -
Kimbrough, W. M. (1995). Self-assessment, participation, and value of leadership skills, activities,

and experiences for Black students relative to their membership in historically Black
fraternities and sororities. The Journal of Negro Education, 64(1), 63-74.
Kimbrough, W. M. (1997). The membership intake movement of historically Black Greek-letter

organizations. NASPA Journal, 34, 229-239.
Kimbrough, W. M. (2003). Black Greek 101. Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.
Lodewijkx, H. F. M., & Syroit, J. E. M. (2001). Affiliation during naturalistic severe and mild
initiations: Some further evidence against the severity-attraction hypothesis. Current
Research in Social Psychology, 6(7), 90-107.
Manley, R. E. (2003, November). Hazing plagues Greeks. The Fraternal Law, 86, 1-4.
MacLachlan, J. (2000). Dangerous traditions: Hazing rituals on campus and university liability.
Journal of College and University Law, 26, 511-548.
McCoy, A. W. (1995). Same banana: Hazing and honor at the Philippine Military Academy. The
Journal of Asian Studies, 54, 689-726.
McKenzie v. State of Maryland, 748 A.2d 67 (Md. App. 2000).
Novak, K. (2000). [Texas A&M University campus assessment on hazing]. Unpublished raw data.
Nuwer, H. (1990). Broken pledges: The deadly rite of hazing. Atlanta, GA: Longstreet Press.
Nuwer, H. (1999). Wrongs of passage: Fraternities, sororities, hazing, and binge drinking.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Nuwer, H. (2003, May 17). Hank Nuwers unofficial clearinghouse to track hazing deaths and
incidents. Retrieved December 1, 2003 from http://hazing.hanknuwer.com.
Ostvik, K., & Rudmin, F. (2001). Bullying and hazing among Norwegian army soldiers: Two
studies of prevalence, context, and cognition. Military Psychology, 13(1), 17-39.
Reisberg, L. (1999, November 12). Court says U. of Neb. had duty to protect pledge from hazing.
The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A55-58.
Ruffins, P., & Evelyn, J. (1998, June 25). The persistent madness of Greek hazing. Black Issues in
Higher Education, pp. 14-18.
Schopler, J., & Bateson, N. (1962). A dependence interpretation of the effects of a severe initiation.
Journal of Personality, 30, 633-649.
Shaw, D. L. (1992). A national study of sorority hazing incidents in selected land-grant institutions
of higher learning. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 1077.
- 59 -
Shaw, D. L., & Morgan, T. E. (1990). Greek advisors perceptions of sorority hazing. NASPA
Journal, 28(1), 60-64.
StopHazing.org. (2003). StopHazing.org: Educating to eliminate hazing. Retrieved December 1,

2003, from http://www.stophazing.org.
Sweet, S. (1999). Understanding fraternity hazing: Insights from symbolic interactionist theory.
Journal of College Student Development, 40, 355-364.
University of Maryland. (2003, December). Hazing policy. Retrieved January 8, 2004, from
http://www.jpo.umd.edu/related/hazing.html.
Wegener, C. J. (2001). Perceptions of hazing among Greek and ROTC students at the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln,
Nebraska.
Winslow, D. (1999). Rites of passage and group bonding in the Canadian Airborne. Armed Forces
& Society, 25, 429-457.
Chad Ellsworth is the Student Activities Advisor for Greek Affairs at the University of Minnesota. A
member of the Association of Fraternity Advisors since 2002, he has served the association through
the Hazing Think Tank, Membership Work Group, and Pre-Conference Committee. In addition, he
is a member of Theta Chi Fraternity and has served as a Regional Counselor since 2003. Chad may
be contacted at ellsw017@umn.edu.
- 60 -
EFFECTS OF FRATERNITY/SORORITY MEMBERSHIP AND

RECRUITMENT SEMESTER ON GPA AND RETENTION
Suzy M. Nelson, Silas Halperin, Timothy H. Wasserman, Corinne Smith, and

Peter Graham
The researchers assess the relationship of fraternity/sorority membership and semester of

recruitment on grade point average (GPA) and student retention, adjusting for covariates
through sub classification by propensity score. The findings suggest a consistent positive
relationship between fraternity/sorority membership and retention and a varying
relationship between fraternity/sorority membership and GPA. Fraternity/sorority
membership has a negligible effect on GPA over time, with the exception of the recruitment
and pledging semester.
Since their founding in the early 1800s, social fraternities and sororities have been a vibrant but
often controversial component of the landscape of higher education. According to Helen Horowitz
(1987), the fraternity had great appeal. For those undergraduates with the wealth, inclination, and
leisure to join, the new Greek-letter [sic] organizations gave an arena of privacy away from college
eyes (p. 36). Fraternities and sororities are student-centered organizations, often separate from the
academic community and disliked by faculty, while drawing support from alumni and parents.
Public opinion strongly favored these new associations. The early fraternities bore much
resemblance to Masonic lodges, and retain elements of this in their ritual and symbolism
(Horowitz, p. 38). As more institutions examine ways to connect faculty with students outside of the
classroom and enhance student learning, the debate continues over the relevance of fraternities and
sororities on todays campuses. Are these organizations merely an anachronism, propping up
outdated notions of class, gender, and racial segregation or can they offer students a rich learning
experience?
From the onset, the fraternity/sorority experience has provided students with a welcomed social
outlet from the rigors of academic life. Involvement in a fraternity or sorority has long been linked
to college satisfaction and retention (Astin, 1977; Pennington, Zvonkovic, & Wilson, 1989; Tinto,
1993). Alexander Astin (1977) found that membership in a fraternity or sorority has a substantial
positive effect on persistence, overall satisfaction with college, and satisfaction with instruction and
social life (p. 222). Despite these positive attributes, fraternities and sororities have been criticized
as promoting values that are antithetical to the overall mission of the university and academic
agenda (Kuh, Pascarella, & Wechsler, 1996; McCabe & Bowers, 1996; Pascarella, et. al., 1996).
Often, the focus of this criticism is the negative influence that fraternity/sorority membership is
presumed to have on academic performance (Kuh, et al., 1996). However, research on the academic
achievement of fraternity/sorority members is inconsistent. In terms of grade point average (GPA),
several early studies found that fraternity/sorority membership does not have a negative impact on
academic performance (Baird, 1969; Crookston, 1960; Kaludis, & Zatkin, 1966; Pike & Askew,
1990; Porta, 1991; Prusok & Walsh, 1964; Willingham, 1962). Further, a chapters academic
success, especially for sororities, is highly related to selectivity in membership recruitment (Shaffer,
1983).
- 61 -
Recognizing learning as not singularly defined by GPA, other studies have examined the impact of
fraternity/sorority affiliation on the development of intellectual values. Again, the findings are
inconsistent. Research indicates that fraternity/sorority membership is not consistent with the
academic agenda of personal and intellectual development (Baier & Whipple, 1990; Kuh,
Pascarella, & Wechsler, 1996; Pascarella, et al., 1996; Wechsler, Kuh, & Davenport, 1996). In
contrast, there is evidence to suggest that membership in a fraternity or sorority has a positive
influence on members within its community, and if the values, mission, and goals of fraternities and
sororities are aligned with those of the institution, then the fraternity/sorority communities can
foster valuable out-of-class learning (Jakobsen, 1986; Kuh & Lyons, 1990; Pike & Askew, 1990;
Strange, 1986).
These equivocal findings represent the contradictions inherent in the fraternity/sorority experience,
and therein lies the enigma. Fraternities and sororities can embody anti-intellectualism, elitism, and
inappropriate behavior such as hazing and substance abuse. Consequently, faculty and
administrators struggle with a course of action related to fraternities and sororities on their
campuses. Several institutions have implemented self-studies in an effort to evaluate their
fraternity and sorority communities and realign organizations with academic values (e.g., Colby
College, 1984; Franklin and Marshall College, 1988; Colgate University, 1990; Cornell University,
1994; Syracuse University, 1995; University of Maryland at College Park, 1995). In a few cases
(e.g., Colby College and Franklin & Marshall College), the outcome of such evaluations was to ban
or withdraw recognition of fraternities and sororities on campuses. However, in most cases, these
reviews have resulted in sweeping organizational reforms of the fraternity and sorority community
in the areas of facility and financial management, residential living environments, social policy,
new member recruitment and education, and membership education and programming.
The latter approach, enhancing the physical, organizational, and cultural aspects of the
fraternity/sorority environment, plays a key role in improving the individual members learning
experience (Jakobsen, 1986; Kuh & Arnold, 1993; Kuh & Lyons, 1990; Strange, 1986). Robert
Shaffer (1983) attributed differences in fraternity and sorority communities to environmental
factors: As there are enormous differences among colleges and universities, so are there enormous
differences within the Greek [sic] system not only from campus to campus but also from chapter to
chapter on any one campus (Shaffer, 1983, p. 6). Shaffer further claimed that the quality of the
fraternity and sorority experience is most influenced by local factors and conditions such as
housing, academic selectivity, organizational strength, and student leadership. One institutional
practice implemented to minimize problems associated with recruitment and joining a fraternity or
sorority is deferring recruitment until the second semester of the first year or to the sophomore year.
It is assumed that deferred recruitment permits students to become academically successful and
better acclimated to the campus, particularly to academic life, before being diverted by membership
in a fraternity or sorority.
As institutions grapple with policy reform related to fraternity and sorority communities, it is
prudent to examine the effects of fraternity/sorority membership and the semester of recruitment on
GPA and retention. Admittedly, GPA and retention are not the only outcome measures that should
be considered, but they are two important considerations. One might expect differences between
students who join fraternities and sororities and those who do not; these differences could positively
influence persistence of fraternity and sorority members, assuming joiners have better financial
means (membership is costly) and a higher GPA prior to joining (recruitment is academically
selective). A limitation of previous studies on the effects of fraternity/sorority membership on
- 62 -
academic achievement is the methodology used to control for confounding variables (Baird, 1969;
Crookston, 1960; Kaludis & Zatkin, 1966; Porta, 1991; Prusok & Walsh, 1964; Willingham, 1962;).
Our study controls for confounding factors, specifically academic preparedness for college, college
major, and financial need.
The focus of this study was guided by two research questions:

1. Does fraternity/sorority membership affect GPA and retention after controlling for admission
ratings, SAT scores, financial need, and college choice?
2. Does the time of recruitment, first or second semester of the first year, have an effect on GPA
and retention, after controlling for admission rating, SAT scores, financial need, and college
choice?
Method
Using several criteria, we chose participants from institutional data at a large, private university in
the northeastern region of the United States. First, to ensure that comparable longitudinal data
regarding GPA, retention, and graduation existed for all students studied, the population was
restricted to first-time, full-time students. The selection of this restricted group offered the benefit of
comparable study of similarly restricted groups at other institutions, relative to the student
population as a whole. A second criterion was the semester of recruitment into the fraternity and
sorority community, specifically the fall semester in the first year (traditional recruitment) as
opposed to the spring semester of the first year (deferred recruitment). Therefore, we selected two
separate cohort groups: one prior to the implementation of the deferred recruitment policy (fall
1991) and one after deferred recruitment was implemented (fall 1993).
The study population was restricted to U.S. citizens and students who self-identified as Caucasian.
Initially, students of all racial and ethnic groups were considered for the study, with the provision
that minority and non-minority students were analyzed separately to ensure that between-group
differences would not confound the findings. However, due to the relatively small number of
fraternity and sorority members of color at the sample institution, and due to the use of statistical
techniques that required large group sizes, a proper comparison of fraternity and sorority members
of color and non-affiliated students of color was not feasible. The overall study group thus consisted
of Caucasians who entered the university in either fall 1991 or fall 1993 as first time, full-time
students.
The research design was an observational study. William Cochran (1983) defined an observational
study as,
one for which (1) the objective is to study the causal effects of certain agents, procedures, treatments,
or programs; and (2) for one reason or another, the investigator cannot use controlled
experimentation; that is, the investigator cannot impose on a subject, or withhold from the subject, a
procedure or treatment whose effects he/she desires to discover, or cannot assign subjects at random
to different procedures (p. 1).
We did not perform significance testing because there was no random assignment of students for
treatment, or random selection of students from a larger sampling. The greatest threat to validity of
an observational study is bias due to uncontrolled covariates. Several methods of statistical analysis
were suggested to reduce potential bias in observational studies, such as the analysis of covariance
and blocking on covariates. The disadvantages of using this method were that it was based on a
- 63 -
complex model, required stringent assumptions (linearity, homogeneity of slope), and, because it
was developed for randomized experiments, provided no means for verifying its success on
reducing the bias due to the covariates. In regards to blocking on covariates, if one covariate was
identified, subclasses could be formed and incorporated into the statistical analysis. For example, if
SAT Mathematics was found to be an important covariate, that variable could be sub classified into
a number of different levels. As a result, fraternity/sorority and non-affiliated students could be
compared within each of these sub classification levels. This could ensure that fraternity/sorority
and non-affiliated differences could not be attributed to differences in SAT Mathematics.
Often, in studies of this type, there is more than one covariate. In the current study, 43 potential
covariates were identified. By examining descriptive statistics, we found that SAT Mathematics,
SAT Verbal, Financial Need, Admission Rating, and College of Admission were important
covariates. To block on these covariates, 8x8x4x4x9 = 9,216 sub classification levels would be
required. Clearly, this would be impossible even with a large sample.
Sub classification by propensity score, a technique for observational studies, was developed to
provide protection against bias from many covariates. The method of sub classification by
propensity score was demonstrated in the work of Paul Rosenbaum and Donald Rubin (1984) who
found that the propensity score is the conditional probability that a unit with vector x of observed
covariates will be assigned to treatment 1. They demonstrated that sub classification on the
propensity score would balance the covariates in the sense that, within subclasses that were
homogeneous in the propensity score, the distribution of each covariate was the same for treated
and control units.
Propensity scores can be estimated by a regression model where a binary treatment (e.g.,
fraternity/sorority = 1 and non-affiliated = 0) is regressed on the covariates. A logistic model was
recommended for the regression because treatment was binary. Propensity scores were estimated as
the predicted values from the logistic regression. The estimated propensity scores were then sub
classified into intervals and used as a blocking variable in the statistical analysis. Rosenbaum and
Rubin (1984) showed approximately 90 percent of the bias due to covariates could be removed by
sub classifying at the quintiles of the distribution of the propensity score for the total group
(fraternity/sorority and non-affiliated combined).
There are many desirable features to sub classifying into five levels on the propensity score. First,
sub classifying on the propensity score allowed a simple presentation of results; there is no need to
explain complex models laden with assumptions. All that was required was a simple table with two
treatments (e.g., fraternity/sorority, non-affiliated) and five subclasses. Each cell contained a
statistic summarizing an outcome variable (i.e., average GPA, or retention percent). Second,
interactions between the treatments (fraternity/sorority compared to non-affiliated) and the
subclasses (i.e., how treatment differences vary from one subclass to another) were estimated. If
interactions were negligible, parsimony could be served by calculating the weighted average of the
five-subclass entries in each row (fraternity/sorority, non-affiliated) of the summary table. To avoid
bias, averaging was standardized by using the same weights for fraternity/sorority members and
non-affiliated students. This procedure is known as direct standardization (Mosteller & Tukey,
1977). In this study, interactions were negligible, so the fraternity/sorority and non-affiliated
summary statistics were averaged across subclasses. We used equal weights because the five
subclasses were of equal size (quintiles).
- 64 -
The next feature is that sub classification on the propensity score, which makes it possible to assess
how much the bias had been reduced. The expression bias indicates that fraternity/sorority
members and non-affiliated students have different averages for some covariates. Effect sizes
(Cohen, 1988) provided a means to standardize the covariate differences between fraternity/sorority
members and non-affiliated students. Box-and-whisker plots (Mosteller & Tukey, 1977) allowed us
to compare the effect sizes prior to sub classification to those after sub classification. The box-and-
whisker plot depicted the distribution of the effect sizes for all covariates combined. The middle 50
percent of the distribution extended from the lower portion of the box (first quartile) to the upper
portion of the box (third quartile). The box-and-whisker plots in the figure below indicated that the
effect sizes were much smaller after adjusting for sub classification. The stars indicated outlying
effects that occurred where there was an empty cell (i.e., no females were represented in the School
of Architecture). Finally, sub classification on the propensity score did not require the stringent
assumption of competing strategies (e.g., analysis of covariance).
Box-and-Whisker Plot of
Covariate Effect Size Before (PRE) and After (POST)
Adjustment from Sub classification on the Propensity Score
0.5
0.4
0.3
Effect
Size
0.2
0.1
0.0
PRE POST
Results
As stated above, our study focused on two questions regarding the impact of fraternity/sorority
membership on GPA and retention.
Does fraternity/sorority membership have an impact on GPA?

Tables 1 through 4 are comparisons within the 1991 and 1993 cohort groups between fraternity and
sorority affiliated members and non-affiliated students. Tables 1 and 2 indicate that, after adjusting
for the covariates, there are no noticeable differences in GPA when fraternity/sorority cohorts and
non-affiliated cohorts were compared in semesters 1, 4, and 10. While the fraternity/sorority
members may begin their first semesters with a slightly higher GPA than the non-affiliated students,
the gap in GPA narrowed by semester 10, with the fraternity/sorority members retaining a slight
advantage. Sorority women had a higher GPA than fraternity men, non-affiliated men, and non-
affiliated women, with the exception of the 1993 semester 1 GPA for fraternity men (Table 2).
- 65 -
T a b le 1
S o ro r ity M e m b e r /N o n -A ffilia ted F e m a le
A d ju ste d M e a n G P A W ith in C o h o r t C o m p a r iso n
1991 and 1993
3 .4
3 .2
3 S e m 1 (c u m )
2 .8 S e m 4 (c u m )
2 .6 S e m 1 0 (c u m )
2 .4
2 .2
2
S o ro rity N o n -A ffil S o ro rity N o n -A ffil
1991 1991 1993 1993
T a b le 2
F r a t e r n i t y M e m b e r /N o n - A f f i li a t e d M a l e
A d j u s t e d M e a n G P A W it h in C o h o r t C o m p a r i s o n
1991 and 1993
3 .4
3 .2
3
S em 1 (cu m )
2 .8 S em 4 (cu m )
2 .6 S e m 1 0 (c u m )
2 .4
2 .2
2
F r a t e r n it y N o n - A f f il F r a t e r n it y N o n -A ffil
1991 1991 1993 1993
Does membership have an impact on retention?

Tables 3 and 4 indicate that after adjustment for the covariates, fraternity and sorority members in
both the 1991 and 1993 cohorts had far greater retention rates through their second and fourth fall
semesters than their non-affiliated counterparts. Sorority member persistence into the senior year
was 93 percent for the 1991 cohort, compared to 67 percent for the non-affiliated female cohort.
The sorority and non-affiliated female senior retention rate figures for 1993 were 95 percent and 71
percent respectively. Men showed a similar retention advantage when joining a fraternity. In their
fourth fall semester, 88 percent of fraternity members in the 1991 cohort persisted at the institution,
in contrast to 72 percent of non-affiliated men. The same comparison for the 1993 cohort was 93
percent for fraternity men and 73 percent retention for non-affiliated men.
- 66 -
Table 3
Sorority Member/Non-Affiliated Female
Adjusted Retention Rate Within Cohort Comparison
1991 and 1993
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Sorority 1991 Non-Affil 1991 Sorority 1993 Non-Affil 1993
2nd Fall 4th Fall
T ab le 4
F ratern ity M em b er/N on -A ffiliated M ale
A d ju sted R eten tion R ate W ith in C oh ort C om p arison
1991 an d 1993
10 0 %
8 0%
6 0%
4 0%
2 0%
0%
F raternity 1991 N on-A ffil 1991 Fraternity 1993 N on-A ffil 1993
2nd F all 4th F all
Does the time of recruitment (fall or spring) have an effect on GPA?

Tables 5 through 8 illustrate comparisons between the 1991 and 1993 cohorts. The time of
recruitment for the 1991 cohort was the fall semester and the spring semester for the 1993 cohort.
Tables 5 and 6 indicate that, after adjustment for the covariates, GPAs for the fraternity/sorority and
non-affiliated 1993 cohorts were generally higher than they were the 1991 cohorts. The one
exception occurred among the sorority women during Semester 2, where the difference slightly
favored the 1991 cohort (2.92 vs. 2.91). In Table 5, 1991 sorority women who joined in the first
semester compared with 1993 sorority women who joined in the second semester had a slightly
higher GPA (2.99 vs. 2.91). However, when recruitment did not occur during the first semester, the
1993 female cohort performed better than did the 1991 cohort (3.18 vs. 2.99). Following new
member education for the 1993 cohort, during the second semester, GPA declined dramatically
from 3.18 (Semester 1) to 2.91 (Semester 2).
- 67 -
T a b le 5
S o r o r it y M e m b e r /N o n - A f f ilia t e d F e m a le
A d j u s t e d M e a n G P A B e t w e e n C o h o r t A n a ly s is
1991 and 1993
3 .4
3 .2
3 S o r o r ity 1 9 9 1
2 .8
S o r o r ity 1 9 9 3
N o n - A f f il 1 9 9 1
2 .6 N o n - A f f il 1 9 9 3
2 .4
1st 2nd 4 th 1 0 th
Sem Sem Sem Sem
For male students (Table 6), the cohort differences were more variable. The largest 1993 cohort
advantage of .39 occurred among fraternity men for Semester 1. During that semester, the 1993
cohort of fraternity men had a GPA of 3.15 and their 1991 counterparts had a GPA of 2.76, which
was the recruitment semester for the 1991 cohort. During the 1993 recruitment semester (Semester
2), the 1993 male cohort had a higher GPA (2.86) than the GPA for 1991 fraternity men (2.76),
during their recruitment semester (Semester 1).
T a b le 6
F r a te r n ity M e m b e r /N o n -A ffilia te d M a le
A d ju ste d M e a n G P A B e tw e e n C o h o r t A n a ly s is
1991 and 1993
3 .4
3 .2 F ra te rn ity 1 9 9 1
3 F ra te rn ity 1 9 9 3
2 .8 N o n -A ffil 1 9 9 1
2 .6 N o n -A ffil 1 9 9 3
2 .4
1st 2nd 4 th 1 0 th
Sem Sem Sem Sem
Does the time of recruitment (fall or spring) have an effect on retention?

Tables 7 and 8 indicate no substantial cohort effect for retention. By the fourth fall semester,
fraternity/sorority members in the 1991 and 1993 cohorts were as likely to persist at the university
(93 percent and 90 percent, respectively). Similarly, for non-affiliated students, there was a
negligible difference between the 1991 and 1993 cohorts and their persistence to the fourth fall
semester (67 percent and 70 percent, respectively).
- 68 -
T a b le 7
F e m a le A d ju ste d R eten tio n R a te
B etw e e n C o h o r t A n a ly sis
1991 and 1993
1 0 0 .0 0 %
8 5 .0 0 %
7 0 .0 0 % S o ro rity 1 9 9 1
S o ro rity 1 9 9 3
5 5 .0 0 %
N o n -A ffil 1 9 9 1
4 0 .0 0 % N o n -A ffil 1 9 9 3
2 5 .0 0 %
1 0 .0 0 %
2 n d F all 4 th F all
T able 8
M ale A djusted R etention R ate
B etw een C ohort A nalysis
1991 and 1993
100.00%
85.00% Fraternity 1991
70.00% Fraternity 1993
55.00% N on-A ffil 1991
40.00% N on-A ffil 1993
25.00%
10.00%
2nd Fall 4th Fall
Discussion
One limitation of this study is the unavailability of data on fraternity and sorority members of color
and it would be advantageous to examine the same questions in a separate study. Further, our
findings indicate that membership in a fraternity or sorority has a dramatic effect on persistence and
a negligible effect on mean GPA over time, with the exception of the pledging semester. There
seemed to be a modest drop between Semesters 1 and 2 for all groups (Table 5 and 6); however,
there was a noticeable drop for the 1993 fraternity and sorority cohorts that joined in Semester 2.
The 1993 cohort of sorority women that joined during Semester 2 had a more noticeable decline in
average GPA from Semester 1 to Semester 2 (.27 point decrease from 3.18 to 2.91) than the 1991
group (.07 point decrease from 2.99 to 2.92). Likewise, the fraternity men in the 1993 cohort had a
high average GPA of 3.15 coming prior to recruitment, but their average GPA dropped noticeably
during the semester they joined (Semester 2), by .29 points to 2.86. Although the male GPA
- 69 -
dropped sharply when recruitment occurred in the spring semester, the absence of fall recruitment
may give male students an opportunity to become more academically successful before joining
fraternities, as fraternity men in 1993 had the highest GPA of all groups. We speculate fall
recruitment would work for women because the fall 1991 semester GPA for female new members
was slightly higher (2.99) than the spring 1993 semester new member GPA (2.91). However, this
did not account for the value of deferring recruitment to allow new students time to acclimate to
college life prior to membership in a fraternity or sorority. The more troubling finding was that the
recruitment semester appeared to have a negative impact on GPA, especially for the 1993 female
cohort and for both the 1991 and 1993 male cohorts.
While fraternity/sorority affiliation may have a negative effect on GPA during the recruitment
semester, we found that fraternity/sorority membership had a dramatically positive effect on
persistence to graduation: 90 percent of fraternity/sorority members compared to 70 percent of non-
affiliated students were enrolled during their senior year. This is further evidence that, as a co-
curricular experience, membership in a fraternity or sorority promotes involvement and student
retention but does not necessarily support student learning. Substance abuse and hazing flourish in
some chapter environments and belie the achievements of fraternity and sorority communities.
Vincent Tinto (1993) acknowledged that subcultures in which students become involved during the
college years may enhance retention, yet the likelihood that members of the subculture persist and
benefit academically from their college experience often hinges on how consistent the subculture is
with the mainstream of institutional life:
Other things being equal, the closer one is to the mainstream of the academic and social life of the
college, the more likely is one to perceive oneself as being congruent with the institution generally.
That perception impacts in turn upon ones institutional commitment (Tinto, 1993, p. 60).
If fraternities and sororities are true to their missions and are high performing, they are optimal
environments for student growth and development. What students find most appealing about
fraternities and sororities is that they are student-centered and self-governing organizations.
Students direct involvement in chapter management and leadership opportunities allows for
practical experience that complements classroom instruction. The challenge to faculty and staff is to
examine the fraternity and sorority subculture and to support that which benefits student
development, while curbing behavior that thwarts learning. If properly directed, fraternities and
sororities can positively influence peer behavior, promote loyalty to an alma mater, and increase
student involvement and persistence to graduation.
References
Astin, A. W. (1977) Four critical years. San Francisco & London: Jossey-Bass.
Baier, J., & Whipple, E. (1990). Greek values and attitudes: A comparison with independents.
NASPA Journal, 28, 43-53.
Baird, L., (1969). The effects of college residence groups on students self-concepts, goals, and
achievements. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 47, 1015-1021.
- 70 -
Cochran, W. G. (1983). Planning and analysis of observational studies. New York: Wiley.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Crookston, B. B. (1960). Academic performance of fraternity pledges. Journal of College Student

Personnel, 1, 19-22.
Greek Relations Committee. (1994). Executive summary of Greek relations committee report.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Horowitz, H. L. (1987). Campus life: undergraduate cultures from the end of the eighteenth
century to the present. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Jakobsen, L. (1986). Greek affiliation and attitude change: developmental implications. Journal of
College Student Personnel, 27, 523-527.
Kaludis, G., & Zatkin, K. (1966). Anatomy of a pledge class. Journal of College Student Personnel,
7, 282-284.
Kuh, G. D., & Arnold, J. C. (1993). Liquid bonding: a cultural analysis of the role of alcohol in
fraternity pledgeship. Journal of College Student Development, 34, 327-333.
Kuh, G., Davenport, A. E., & Wechsler, H. (1996). Fraternities, sororities and binge drinking:
results from a national study of American colleges. NASPA Journal, 33, 260-279.
Kuh, G. D., & Lyons, J. W. (1990). Fraternities and sororities: lessons from the college experiences
study. NASPA Journal, 28, 20-29.
Kuh, G. D., Pascarella, E. T., & Wechsler, H. (1996, April 19). The questionable value of
fraternities. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A68.
Maisel, J. M. (1990). Social fraternities and sororities are not conducive to the educational process.
McCabe, D. L. & Bowers, W. J. (1996). The relationship between student cheating and college
fraternity or sorority membership. NASPA Journal, 33, 280-291.
Mosteller, F., & Tukey, J. W. (1977). Data analysis and regression: a second course in statistics.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Neuberger, C. G. & Hanson, G. S. (1997). The Greek life self-study: a powerful process for change
on campus. NASPA Journal, 34, 91-110.
Office of Residence Life. (1990). Report of the special committee on residential life to the Colgate
university board of trustees. Hamilton, NY: Colgate University.
Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs (1995). Fraternity and sorority life: a foundation
for the future. Baltimore: University of Maryland at College Park.
- 71 -
Pascarella, E., Edison, M., Whitt, E. J., Nora, A., Hagedorn, L. S., & Terenzini, P. (1996).
Cognitive effects of Fraternity and sorority affiliation during the first year of college.
Pennington, D. C., Zvonkovic, A. M., Wilson, S. L. (1989). Changes in college satisfaction across
an academic term. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 528-535.
Pike, G. R & Askew, J. W. (1990). The impact of fraternity or sorority membership on academic
involvement and learning outcomes. NASPA Journal, 28, 13-19.
Porta, A. D. (1991). Independents, actives, and pledges: a comparison of academic achievement.

Unpublished manuscript, Murray State University, Kentucky.
Prusok, R. E. & Walsh, W. B. (1964). College student residence and academic achievement. The
Journal of College Student Personnel, 5, 180-184.
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1984). Reducing bias in observational studies using sub
classification on the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association,
79(387), 516-523.
Shaffer, R. H. (1983). Review of research in Greek affairs. In W.A. Bryan & R.A. Schwartz (Eds.),
The eighties: Challenges for fraternities and sororities (pp. 6-30). Carbondale, IL:
Southern Illinois University Press.
Strange, C. (1986). Greek affiliation and goals of the academy: a commentary. The Journal of
College Student Personnel, 27(6), 519-523.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd Ed.).
Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Trustee Commission on Campus Life. (1984). The report of the trustee commission on campus life.
Waterville, ME: Colby College.
Trustee Student Life Committee. (1988). Report of the trustee student life committee. Lancaster,
PA: Franklin and Marshall College.
University Board of Trustee Committee on Greek Life. (1995). The Syracuse University Greek
system review. NY: Syracuse University.
Wilder, D. H., Hoyt, A. E., Surbeck, B. S., Wilder, J. C. & Carney, P. I. (1986). Greek affiliation
and attitude change in college students. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27, 510-519.
Willingham, W. W. (1962). College performance of fraternity members and independent students.

Personnel and Guidance Journal, 22, 29-31.
- 72 -
Suzy M. Nelson is Associate Dean for Residential Life at Harvard College of Harvard University.
She may be contacted via email at smnelson@fas.harvard.edu.
Silas Halperin is Professor of Psychology at Syracuse University. He may be contacted via email at
halperin@syr.edu.
Timothy H. Wasserman is Assistant Director of the Center for Support of Teachers and Learning at
Syracuse University. He may be contacted via email at thwasser@syr.edu.
Corinne Smith is Professor of Education at Syracuse University. She may be contacted via email at
crsmith@syr.edu.
Peter Graham was University Librarian at Syracuse University. Sadly, he passed away before this
article was published.
- 73 -

Wall 2006 OnLineAlcoholHealthEducationCurriculumEval PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Wall 2006 OnLineAlcoholHealthEducationCurriculumEval PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity Advisors

Vol. 2, Iss. 1, February 2006

iii EDITORIAL TEAM

1 FAKE-ID USE AMONG FRATERNITY/SORORITY MEMBERS

8 GAY MALES IN FRATERNITIES

29 ONLINE ALCOHOL HEALTH EDUCATION CURRICULUM EVALUATION:

46 DEFINITIONS OF HAZING: DIFFERENCES AMONG SELECTED STUDENT

61 EFFECTS OF FRATERNITY/SORORITY MEMBERSHIP AND

Patrick Biddix Michelle Espino Tim Haskell

PEER REVIEW BOARD

Visit http://www.fraternityadvisors.org/resources/oracle/oracle.htm for more detailed submission

Why are you reading the article?

What are you reading?

How should a reader decide if this is a high-quality journal article?

How do you apply what you are reading?

Application of recommendations to Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity

FAKE-ID USE AMONG FRATERNITY/SORORITY MEMBERS

Goldsmith, H. (1989). Alcohol procurement by underage persons: Prevention implications and

GAY MALES IN FRATERNITIES

Jack Trump and James A. Wallace

Homophobia and Heterosexism

Avoidance-Deflection. Deflection, another type of avoidance strategy, meant ignoring comments or

Assimilation-Blending. In reference to blending, one participant believed it was more a matter of

Variables that Facilitate Gay Men Coming Out to their Fraternity

Enmeshed Nature of Fraternity Life

Prevailing Diversity Within Chapters

Participants Levels of Homosexual Identity Development

Reflections on Previous Coming out Experiences

Specific Approaches to Coming Out to the Fraternity

Another participant went so far as to outline a strategic plan, stating:

Boies, S. C. (1997). Community participation, identity development and psychological well-being in

Bryan, W. A. (1987). Contemporary fraternity and sorority issues. In R. B. Winston Jr., W. R.

Case, D. N. (1996). A glimpse of the invisible membership: A national survey of

Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of

Dilley, P. (2002). Queer man on campus: A history of non-heterosexual college men,

Johnson, D. (1996). The developmental experience of gay/lesbian youth. Journal of

Stevens, A. (1997). Critical incidents contributing to the development of lesbian identities in

James A. Wallace is assistant professor of Counseling and student development at Eastern

ON-LINE ALCOHOL HEALTH EDUCATION CURRICULUM

Implications for Policy and Practice

Bloom B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain.

Perkins, H. W. (2002). Surveying the damage: A review of research on consequences of alcohol

Fraternities, sororities, military organizations, athletic groups, and marching bands

Data Collection and Analysis

Physical Hazing Activities

Psychological Hazing Activities

Physical and Psychological Hazing Activities

Other Hazing Activities

All Hazing Activities

Areas for Future Research

Farrey, T. (2003). Athletes abusing athletes. Retrieved January 8, 2004, from

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and womens development.

Kimbrough, W. M. (1995). Self-assessment, participation, and value of leadership skills, activities,

Kimbrough, W. M. (1997). The membership intake movement of historically Black Greek-letter

McKenzie v. State of Maryland, 748 A.2d 67 (Md. App. 2000).

StopHazing.org. (2003). StopHazing.org: Educating to eliminate hazing. Retrieved December 1,

EFFECTS OF FRATERNITY/SORORITY MEMBERSHIP AND

Suzy M. Nelson, Silas Halperin, Timothy H. Wasserman, Corinne Smith, and

The researchers assess the relationship of fraternity/sorority membership and semester of

The focus of this study was guided by two research questions:

Does fraternity/sorority membership have an impact on GPA?

Does membership have an impact on retention?

Does the time of recruitment (fall or spring) have an effect on GPA?