Psychological Reporis, 1975, 37, 1095-1098. @ Psychological Reports 1975
RELATIONSHIP OF DRUG INVOLVEMENT T O DROPPING OUT OF COLLEGE MALCOLM KAHN AND FRANCINE KULICK' Unirersity o f Miami Counseling Center Si/mmary.-28 heavy drug users, 32 moderate drug users, and 35 nonusers were compared for how long they stayed in college following their entrance. As predicted, heavy drug users showed the least persistence. This finding was discussed in terms of motivational factors.
With the great increase in campus drug use in recent years, it has become essential to consider the effect of this increase on students' progress toward a degree. The main body of relevant research has attempted to assess che relationship between drug involvement and academic achievement as defined by grade point average. For example, Goode ( 1971) and Kahn and Holroyd ( 1973) found the lowesc grades in their samples among heavy drug users when compared with moderate users and nonusers. This finding has been explained in terms of motivational faccors. The National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse ( 1972) characterized a group of heavy drug users whom they observed as underachievers according to traditional social standards but as actively involved in their own unconventional subculture. Suchman (1968) found evidence for a "hang loose" ethic featuring irreverence for traditional goals and values. Sadava ( 1970) included alienation, rebellion, need for sensory stimulation, hedonism, and curiosity as possible aspects of heavy drug use in college. The fulfillment of such needs in college students is almost contradictory to the zealous pursuit of academic achievement. It would be expected thac the low academic motivation of heavy drug using college students would resulc in a high attrition rate. Because of economic exigencies and increasing enrollment drops, many institutions of higher education are particularly concerned with the bases for student attrition. In the past, accrition rate has been linked co such factors as age at matriculation, size of home town, secondary school preparation, and scholastic aptitude. In reviewing previous research on dropouts, Summerskill (1964) stated that the largest number of dropouts was associated with motivational factors and that further research was needed to understand the relationship. Since heavy drug use has been associated with lack of conventional motivation for academic striving, it seemed reasonable to investigate the hypothesis of a greater attrition rate for heavy drug users than for nonusers or moderate users. Subjects Subjects were members of the freshman class of 2,621 students which T h e authors wish to thank Ronald Houser for help in the statistical analysis.
M. KAHN & F. KULICK
1096
entered the University of Miami in September, 1971. Fifty males and 50 females from this class were randomly selected from the registrar's directory. Of the 100 selected students, 95 actually participated, including all 50 males and 45 females. The mean age for the sample was 18.4 yr. A large majority of the sample came from the upper middle class. The interviews began in November so immediate dropouts were excluded. Each subject was individually interviewed during his freshman year by a graduate student in clinical psychology or a social worker. The interviewing instrument, the College Behavior Questionnaire (Rockway & Kahn, 1971) , is designed to elicit detailed, but quantifiable, data concerning students' drug actitudes and experiences. From data so obtained, each subject was raced from 0 (no involvement with drugs) to 7 (heavy involvement with drugs) on the Drug Involvement Scale (Kahn & Holroyd, 1973). With this scale, ratings of 0 or 1 indicated no drug use or use of alcohol only; ratings of 2 or 3 indicated moderate drug use; and ratings of 4 to 7 indicated heavy drug use. The index of attrition employed was the number of months that each student had remained at the University as of the beginning of the Fall Semester, 1973. Barger and Hall ( 1965 ) have shown the usefulness of time of dropout as an index of attrition. Records were obtained from the registrar. Those subjects who were still in school were labeled "remainers" while those who had left the University were labeled "dropouts." Each remainer was credited with 24 mo. while the length of the stay of the dropouts ranged from 5 to 22 mo. The Cumulative Grade Point Average as of each subject's most recently completed semester was also obtained.
RESULTS Table 1 presents the percentages in the sample who had at least some experience with major types of drugs. The data show that 63% of the sample reported use of at least one illicit drug. The sample was divided into 35 nonusers, 32 moderate users, and 28 heavy users. The over-all attrition rate for the sample at the end of 2 yr. was 44%. TABLE 1
PERCENTAGE OF SAMPLE USINGMAJOR DRUGS Drug Type
No illicit drugs
Marijuana Amphetamines Barbiturates Hallucinogens Opiates
Percentage of Total Sample
1097
DRUGS AND LEAVING COLLEGE
An Table 2 shows the attrition rate and mean months in school for each group. analysis of variance was conducted in order to determine if the three drug groups, nonusers, moderate users, and heavy users, differed in persistence at the University. The data indicate that heavy users had the least mean persistence, 16.36 mo., while moderate users had the most persistence, 21.06 mo. Nonusers had an intermediate score of 19.9 mo. The standard deviations were 7.55 for heavy users, 5.44 for moderate users, and 6.41 for nonusers. The resulting F of 4.23 was statistically srgnificant ( f < .05), suggesting that differential rates of attrition exist for the three groups. A post-analysis t test showed that both the nonusers ( t = 2.14, p < .05) and the moderate users ( t = 2.88, 9 < .01) showed significantly greater persistence at the University than the heavy users. These results confirm the hypothesis.
TABLE 2 MEAN MONTHS I N COLLEGE,A ~ I T I O RATE, N AND GRADE POINT AVERAGEFOR DRUGGROUPS Drug Group
N
Attendance (Mo.)
% Actrition
Grade Point Average
Nonusers Moderate Users Heavy Users
35
19.91 21.06 16.36
40 34 61
2.19 2.34
32
28
2.25
The grade point average mean for the 3 drug use groups, also shown in Table 2, were 2.19 for nonusers, 2.34 for moderate users, and 2.25 for heavy users. The standard deviations were .66 for nonusers, .78 for moderate users, and .91 for heavy users. N o significant differences in grades between groups were found which could be associated with dropping out. These findings suggest that college students who have used drugs heavily are likely to drop out of college more quickly than moderate users or nonusers. Also, a greater over-all attrition rate was found for heavy users than the other nvo groups. These findings corroborate the hypothesis generated from past findings. According to previous research, the most likely basis for these differences was lack of motivation for conventional success reported by Suchman (1968), Sadava (1970), and others. Apparently, heavy drug users fail to make the commiunenc to academic work which would enable them to meet demands. Many students clearly are not ready for the rigors of college life at the age of 18 yr. and may profit from a hiatus from school, a transfer to another school, or a switch to vocational plans which do not require a college education. For example, Kuznik (1973) points to some degree of academic success experienced by "reverse transfers" from a university to a junior college. Of course, while some students may ironically profit in the long run from a failure experience in their first college attempts, the school may be concerned
1098
M. KAHN & F. KULICK
with declining enrollments. To cope with this problem and to reduce the failure experienced by those who are likely to suffer from dropping out of college, procedures may be developed to identify and counsel freshmen who are likely to become dropouts. The counseling could point to the expected consequences in college of certain types of behavior such as steady drug use at self-destructive levels. Perhaps, upperclass peer counselors could be used effectively with freshmen in this manner. It is important to note that moderate drug use was not associated with quick attrition from the University. Thus, as shown in previous research (Holroyd & Kahn, 1974), moderate users and heavy users have very distinctive characteristics. The scope of this study was limited in that dropouts were not followed up. It would be quite valuable to learn the fates of dropouts who have used drugs heavily and the fates of dropouts who have not. A follow-up procedure could be built into a future study by enlisting the cooperation of the subjects in advance. REFERENCES BARGER,B., 8: HALL, E. Time of dropout as a variable in the study of college attrition. College and Universiiy, 1965, Fall, 84-88. GOODE,E. Drug use and grades in college. Nature, 1971, 234, 225-227. HOLROYD,K., & KAHN, M. Personality facrors in student drug use. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1974, 42, 236-243. KAHN, M.,& HOLROYD,K. Comparability of drug abuse rating scales. Psychological Reports, 1973, 33, 699-702. KUZNIK, A. Reverse transfers from university ro community college. Jotlrnal o f College Student Personnel, 1973, 14, 250-253. NATIONALCOMMISSIONON MARIHUANAAND DRUGABUSE. Marihuana, a signal of misunderstanding. New York: New American Library, 1972. ROCKWAY,A,, & KAHN, M. Behavioral and personality dimensions related to undergraduare drug use. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, Miami Beach, May, 1971. SADAVA,S. A field-theoretical study of college drug use. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 1971, 3, 337-346. SUCHMAN, E. A. The hang-loose ethic and the spirit of drug use. Journal o f Health and Social Behavior, 1968, 9, 146-155. SUMMERSKILL,J. Dropouts from college. In N. Sanford (Ed.), T h e American college. New York: Wiley, 1962. Pp. 627-657. Accepted September 8, 1975.
RELATIONSHIP OF DRUG INVOLVEMENT T O DROPPING OUT OF COLLEGE MALCOLM KAHN AND FRANCINE KULICK' Unirersity o f Miami Counseling Center Si/mmary.-28 heavy drug users, 32 moderate drug users, and 35 nonusers were compared for how long they stayed in college following their entrance. As predicted, heavy drug users showed the least persistence. This finding was discussed in terms of motivational factors.
With the great increase in campus drug use in recent years, it has become essential to consider the effect of this increase on students' progress toward a degree. The main body of relevant research has attempted to assess che relationship between drug involvement and academic achievement as defined by grade point average. For example, Goode ( 1971) and Kahn and Holroyd ( 1973) found the lowesc grades in their samples among heavy drug users when compared with moderate users and nonusers. This finding has been explained in terms of motivational faccors. The National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse ( 1972) characterized a group of heavy drug users whom they observed as underachievers according to traditional social standards but as actively involved in their own unconventional subculture. Suchman (1968) found evidence for a "hang loose" ethic featuring irreverence for traditional goals and values. Sadava ( 1970) included alienation, rebellion, need for sensory stimulation, hedonism, and curiosity as possible aspects of heavy drug use in college. The fulfillment of such needs in college students is almost contradictory to the zealous pursuit of academic achievement. It would be expected thac the low academic motivation of heavy drug using college students would resulc in a high attrition rate. Because of economic exigencies and increasing enrollment drops, many institutions of higher education are particularly concerned with the bases for student attrition. In the past, accrition rate has been linked co such factors as age at matriculation, size of home town, secondary school preparation, and scholastic aptitude. In reviewing previous research on dropouts, Summerskill (1964) stated that the largest number of dropouts was associated with motivational factors and that further research was needed to understand the relationship. Since heavy drug use has been associated with lack of conventional motivation for academic striving, it seemed reasonable to investigate the hypothesis of a greater attrition rate for heavy drug users than for nonusers or moderate users. Subjects Subjects were members of the freshman class of 2,621 students which T h e authors wish to thank Ronald Houser for help in the statistical analysis.
M. KAHN & F. KULICK
1096
entered the University of Miami in September, 1971. Fifty males and 50 females from this class were randomly selected from the registrar's directory. Of the 100 selected students, 95 actually participated, including all 50 males and 45 females. The mean age for the sample was 18.4 yr. A large majority of the sample came from the upper middle class. The interviews began in November so immediate dropouts were excluded. Each subject was individually interviewed during his freshman year by a graduate student in clinical psychology or a social worker. The interviewing instrument, the College Behavior Questionnaire (Rockway & Kahn, 1971) , is designed to elicit detailed, but quantifiable, data concerning students' drug actitudes and experiences. From data so obtained, each subject was raced from 0 (no involvement with drugs) to 7 (heavy involvement with drugs) on the Drug Involvement Scale (Kahn & Holroyd, 1973). With this scale, ratings of 0 or 1 indicated no drug use or use of alcohol only; ratings of 2 or 3 indicated moderate drug use; and ratings of 4 to 7 indicated heavy drug use. The index of attrition employed was the number of months that each student had remained at the University as of the beginning of the Fall Semester, 1973. Barger and Hall ( 1965 ) have shown the usefulness of time of dropout as an index of attrition. Records were obtained from the registrar. Those subjects who were still in school were labeled "remainers" while those who had left the University were labeled "dropouts." Each remainer was credited with 24 mo. while the length of the stay of the dropouts ranged from 5 to 22 mo. The Cumulative Grade Point Average as of each subject's most recently completed semester was also obtained.
RESULTS Table 1 presents the percentages in the sample who had at least some experience with major types of drugs. The data show that 63% of the sample reported use of at least one illicit drug. The sample was divided into 35 nonusers, 32 moderate users, and 28 heavy users. The over-all attrition rate for the sample at the end of 2 yr. was 44%. TABLE 1
PERCENTAGE OF SAMPLE USINGMAJOR DRUGS Drug Type
No illicit drugs
Marijuana Amphetamines Barbiturates Hallucinogens Opiates
Percentage of Total Sample
1097
DRUGS AND LEAVING COLLEGE
An Table 2 shows the attrition rate and mean months in school for each group. analysis of variance was conducted in order to determine if the three drug groups, nonusers, moderate users, and heavy users, differed in persistence at the University. The data indicate that heavy users had the least mean persistence, 16.36 mo., while moderate users had the most persistence, 21.06 mo. Nonusers had an intermediate score of 19.9 mo. The standard deviations were 7.55 for heavy users, 5.44 for moderate users, and 6.41 for nonusers. The resulting F of 4.23 was statistically srgnificant ( f < .05), suggesting that differential rates of attrition exist for the three groups. A post-analysis t test showed that both the nonusers ( t = 2.14, p < .05) and the moderate users ( t = 2.88, 9 < .01) showed significantly greater persistence at the University than the heavy users. These results confirm the hypothesis.
TABLE 2 MEAN MONTHS I N COLLEGE,A ~ I T I O RATE, N AND GRADE POINT AVERAGEFOR DRUGGROUPS Drug Group
N
Attendance (Mo.)
% Actrition
Grade Point Average
Nonusers Moderate Users Heavy Users
35
19.91 21.06 16.36
40 34 61
2.19 2.34
32
28
2.25
The grade point average mean for the 3 drug use groups, also shown in Table 2, were 2.19 for nonusers, 2.34 for moderate users, and 2.25 for heavy users. The standard deviations were .66 for nonusers, .78 for moderate users, and .91 for heavy users. N o significant differences in grades between groups were found which could be associated with dropping out. These findings suggest that college students who have used drugs heavily are likely to drop out of college more quickly than moderate users or nonusers. Also, a greater over-all attrition rate was found for heavy users than the other nvo groups. These findings corroborate the hypothesis generated from past findings. According to previous research, the most likely basis for these differences was lack of motivation for conventional success reported by Suchman (1968), Sadava (1970), and others. Apparently, heavy drug users fail to make the commiunenc to academic work which would enable them to meet demands. Many students clearly are not ready for the rigors of college life at the age of 18 yr. and may profit from a hiatus from school, a transfer to another school, or a switch to vocational plans which do not require a college education. For example, Kuznik (1973) points to some degree of academic success experienced by "reverse transfers" from a university to a junior college. Of course, while some students may ironically profit in the long run from a failure experience in their first college attempts, the school may be concerned
1098
M. KAHN & F. KULICK
with declining enrollments. To cope with this problem and to reduce the failure experienced by those who are likely to suffer from dropping out of college, procedures may be developed to identify and counsel freshmen who are likely to become dropouts. The counseling could point to the expected consequences in college of certain types of behavior such as steady drug use at self-destructive levels. Perhaps, upperclass peer counselors could be used effectively with freshmen in this manner. It is important to note that moderate drug use was not associated with quick attrition from the University. Thus, as shown in previous research (Holroyd & Kahn, 1974), moderate users and heavy users have very distinctive characteristics. The scope of this study was limited in that dropouts were not followed up. It would be quite valuable to learn the fates of dropouts who have used drugs heavily and the fates of dropouts who have not. A follow-up procedure could be built into a future study by enlisting the cooperation of the subjects in advance. REFERENCES BARGER,B., 8: HALL, E. Time of dropout as a variable in the study of college attrition. College and Universiiy, 1965, Fall, 84-88. GOODE,E. Drug use and grades in college. Nature, 1971, 234, 225-227. HOLROYD,K., & KAHN, M. Personality facrors in student drug use. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1974, 42, 236-243. KAHN, M.,& HOLROYD,K. Comparability of drug abuse rating scales. Psychological Reports, 1973, 33, 699-702. KUZNIK, A. Reverse transfers from university ro community college. Jotlrnal o f College Student Personnel, 1973, 14, 250-253. NATIONALCOMMISSIONON MARIHUANAAND DRUGABUSE. Marihuana, a signal of misunderstanding. New York: New American Library, 1972. ROCKWAY,A,, & KAHN, M. Behavioral and personality dimensions related to undergraduare drug use. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, Miami Beach, May, 1971. SADAVA,S. A field-theoretical study of college drug use. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 1971, 3, 337-346. SUCHMAN, E. A. The hang-loose ethic and the spirit of drug use. Journal o f Health and Social Behavior, 1968, 9, 146-155. SUMMERSKILL,J. Dropouts from college. In N. Sanford (Ed.), T h e American college. New York: Wiley, 1962. Pp. 627-657. Accepted September 8, 1975.
