English HW

acom_reading.pdf

“Above the Influence”: How College Students Communicate About the Healthy Deviance of Alcohol Abstinence

Lynsey Kluever Romo Department of Communication Studies

University of Texas at Austin

Consumption of alcohol is widespread in U.S. culture, particularly among college stu- dents. Using a communication privacy management framework (Petronio, 2002), this study examined how college students who abstain from alcohol negotiate communication of their nondrinking status and establish meaning in a culture in which drinking is the norm. Through 25 face-to-face interviews, this article explores the experiences of “healthy deviants”—individuals who engage in healthy behavior that violates traditional norms. Interviews identified that participants relied on privacy rules when determining whether and how to disclose their nondrinking status. If participants perceived more costs from the dis- closure than rewards, they did not disclose. Participants enacted specific strategies to manage (non)disclosure of their abstinence from alcohol, providing practical ways for people who engage in healthy deviance to avoid or manage stigma.

THE PREVALENCE OF COLLEGE DRINKING

From celebrating special events to sealing business deals, drinking alcohol plays a significant role in how people relate and spend time with one another. As omnipresent as alco- hol is in everyday life (approximately 61% of U.S. adults drink; Schoenborn & Adams, 2010), the prevalence of drink- ing is even more pronounced in college (Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2007). Alcohol is a large compo- nent of college culture (Lederman & Stewart, 2005) and the most abused substance on college campuses (Perkins, 2002). It is also one of the most dangerous. Alcohol use is associ- ated with such negative outcomes as death (1,825 college students died from unintentional alcohol-related injuries in 2005, up 3% from 1998) and physical and sexual assault (Hingson, Zha, & Weitzman, 2009).

Despite these risks, approximately 82% of college stu- dents have consumed alcoholic beverages in the past year and roughly 65% have drunk them in the past 30 days, with nearly 48% getting intoxicated during that time (Johnston et al., 2007). Although public health campaigns emphasize

Correspondence should be addressed to Lynsey Kluever Romo, Department of Communication Studies, The University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station A1105, Austin, TX 78712. E-mail: lynseykromo@ mail.utexas.edu

the number of students who do not drink or who drink in moderation (Lederman & Stewart, 2005), binge drinking levels have remained constant since 2001. Just over 40% of college students report consuming five or more consecu- tive drinks over the previous 2 weeks (Johnston et al., 2007). Despite the pervasiveness of college drinking, nearly 20% of college students abstain from drinking alcohol (Wechsler, Gledhill-Hoyt, Dowdall, Maenner, & Lee, 1998). These students do not drink for a variety of reasons, including religious or moral motivations, a desire to avoid negative consequences, the cost of alcohol, a desire to stay in con- trol, or their upbringing (Epler, Sher, & Piasecki, 2009). Because these students (except for students at highly reli- gious institutions in which drinking is not the norm) are going against societal drinking norms by abstaining from alcohol, there is the potential for both felt and enacted stigma (Goffman, 1963). Communication is necessary in order to manage stigma. However, while past communi- cation research on drinking has focused on the strategies students can use to resist drinking (e.g., Harrington, 1995), as well as on compliance-gaining strategies used by college students to persuade peers to drink (e.g., Harrington, 1997), little research has examined the communication involved in abstinence from alcohol. The existing research explores how nondrinking college students talk about being a nondrinker and how they negotiate their nondrinking role.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [S

ta te

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f N ew

Y or

k at

A lb

an y]

a t 0

5: 34

2 2

Ja nu

ar y

20 13

NONDRINKING COLLEGE STUDENTS 673

Knowledge of students’ disclosure patterns can help illu- minate how students negotiate their interactions with oth- ers while maintaining their nondrinking lifestyles. Such an understanding may provide insight as to how others can resist drinking, minimizing the risk of adverse alcohol- related consequences. Using the lens of Communication Privacy Management Theory (Petronio, 2002), this study examines the context and the process of managing infor- mation about abstinence from alcohol. This investigation is built on the following three assumptions: Not drinking in college is outside the norm, and thus a form of deviance; nondrinkers are stigmatized in some ways; and nondrinkers would be motivated to carefully manage their communica- tion about their choices pertaining to alcohol. The following sections elaborate on these premises.

NONDRINKERS AS DEVIANTS

In college, social norms (Neighbors, Lee, Lewis, Fossos, & Larimer, 2007) and peer pressure (cf. Borsari & Carey, 2001) are the biggest predictors of drinking. Historically, people who violate norms, or deviants, have been consid- ered “the objectionable, the forbidden, the disvalued,” and viewed as “offensive, disgusting, contemptible, annoying or threatening,” evoking fear and hatred in others and resulting in punishment and isolation (Dodge, 1985, p. 25). Deviance has also been defined to include people who “depart signif- icantly from social situational expectations” (Dodge, 1985, p. 22). The very act of violating expectations can be consid- ered deviance, and deviance need not be “naturally bad” or have “no positive function” (Clinard, 1974, p. 30).

Much of the literature exploring alcohol and deviance has focused on public drunkenness and alcoholism (e.g., Fortney et al., 2004). Depending on the culture’s drinking norm, though, drinking can be a form of deviance (in the case of the alcoholic), or not drinking can be considered deviant behavior (Clinard, 1974). Paton-Simpson (2001) explored the experiences of nondrinking and lighter-drinking New Zealand men (whom he designated “underdrinkers,” by New Zealand standards) and found that because drinking is “socially obligatory,” through “underconsumption” of alco- hol the men were violating society’s norms and thus deviant. Paton-Simpson (1995) termed this type of deviance “benefi- cial deviance,” deviance that is “positive in effect” (p. 49). Paton-Simpson was not the first to suggest a reconceptual- ization of deviance. Dodge (1985) referred to people who deviate from norms in ways that are approved, or even pro- moted by society (e.g., someone who is more honest, more ambitious, or more intelligent than the norm), as repre- senting a form of “positive deviance.” Although negative deviance is considered nonconformity (violating norms) and adherence to norms is conformity, positive deviance can be viewed as “supraconformity” (exceeding norms). More recently, the concept of “healthy deviance” has emerged to

describe behavior that is generally perceived as healthy yet is looked down upon by mainstream society (e.g., a vegetarian lifestyle; Romo & Donovan-Kicken, in press).

THE STIGMA OF THE NONDRINKER

Deviating from social norms has the potential to result in stigma, a lack of social acceptance by greater society (Goffman, 1963). Traditionally, stigma involves a nega- tive divergence from society’s norms and expectations, and applies to those upon whom society looks down for hav- ing undesirable traits (Birenbaum, 1976), such as a physi- cal abnormality or an individual character flaw (Goffman, 1963). As with beneficial or healthy deviance, it is also possible to be stigmatized for violating society’s norms by possessing positive characteristics (Dodge, 1985; Heckert, 1998). For example, people who are too attractive, too smart, or too healthy can be viewed as a threat to normal society, as they may stand out or be perceived as flaunting their superi- ority (Huryn, 1990). In order to assimilate into society, it is best for people to be “innocuous, invisible and thus normal” (Posner, 1976, p. 142).

While alcoholism is stigmatized in society, abstaining from alcohol entirely may also be stigmatized, as people may view nondrinkers as antisocial, deviant, or as recovering alcoholics (Posner, 1976). Even though “right is on his side” (that drinking can be unhealthy, cause hangovers, is expen- sive, and can lead to drinking and driving) the nondrinker is still stigmatized (Posner, 1976, p. 143). Indeed, Paton- Simpson (1995, 2001) found that the male underdrinkers he interviewed were stigmatized by drinkers. His participants reported being ostracized, being teased, and being con- fronted with drinkers’ negative verbal and nonverbal reac- tions. These reactions ranged from nonverbal expressions of unacceptance (e.g., sneers, raised eyebrows) to negative comments, even physical aggression. Underdrinkers were told that they were unsociable, unsophisticated, immature, not real men, and not “fun.” In the face of such stigma, it is important to explore how people who abstain from alco- hol negotiate communication about this deviant behavior and what motivates them to disclose their nondrinking status.

COMMUNICATION PRIVACY MANAGEMENT THEORY

As disclosure of one’s nondrinking status is a privacy man- agement issue, which is enacted and regulated through communication, this study used Communication Privacy Management Theory (CPM; Petronio, 2002) as a lens to examine how abstainers talked about their nondrinking sta- tus. CPM has previously examined disclosure by such stig- matized groups as people with HIV/AIDS (e.g., Greene, 2000; Yep, 2000) and couples who are voluntarily childless

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [S

ta te

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f N ew

Y or

k at

A lb

an y]

a t 0

5: 34

2 2

Ja nu

ar y

20 13

674 ROMO

(Durham, 2008), as well as disclosure about such taboo topics as money (Romo, 2011). CPM helps explain why, how, and in what circumstances people reveal or conceal private information, and how this disclosure process is coor- dinated. CPM is based on three assumptions. First, people own their personal information and are torn about whether to disclose it (Petronio, 2002). Second, people create metaphor- ical boundaries around this information to determine with whom and the degree to which they will (not) disclose (Petronio, 2002). When a person discloses private informa- tion to another person, the confidant becomes a co-owner of the information and is connected to the discloser’s privacy boundary, giving both the discloser and the confidant control over the private information (Petronio, 2002). Third, peo- ple decide whether to reveal or conceal private information based on rules, which are based on several principles, includ- ing risk-benefit criteria. Risk-benefit involves weighing the anticipated advantages and disadvantages of the disclosure before revealing. When people perceive more costs from revealing than rewards, they are likely to feel vulnerable and are less inclined to disclose (Petronio, 2002). Specific risks include face risks, whereby revealing could threaten the discloser or disclosee’s desired self-image, and role risks, in which disclosing could undermine the discloser and/or the discloser’s relationship with the confidant. Specific ben- efits include relational development (e.g., fostering trust) and social control, whereby the discloser can influence the confidant in some way (Petronio, 2002).

The current study was designed to explore the chal- lenges facing nondrinking college students, particularly how nondrinkers communicatively negotiate their day-to-day drinking habits in a college culture in which drinking alcohol is the norm. The following research question was explored through interviews of nondrinking college students:

RQ1: How are not drinking in college, and its potential stigma, negotiated communicatively by students who abstain from alcohol?

METHOD

Participants

Undergraduate students at a large Southwestern university who abstained from alcohol participated in face-to-face, semistructured interviews to discuss how it felt to abstain from alcohol in college and how they talked about being a nondrinker with their peers. In addition to attending college, where drinking alcohol is prevalent and very much the norm (Lederman & Stewart, 2005), the students’ university con- sistently ranks as one of the nation’s top 10 “party schools” (e.g., Franek, Meltzer, Maier, & Olson, 2009). According to a recent survey of 858 students at this university, approxi- mately 81% of its students drink (70% had consumed alco- hol in the past 30 days). An estimated 22% of students drank

more than 5 drinks in a sitting 1–2 times over the previous 2 weeks (American College Health Association, 2010).

With drinking came serious consequences. As a result of their own drinking, for example, approximately 34% of stu- dents surveyed at this university reported “doing something they later regretted,” just over 30% reported “forgetting where they were or what they had done,” 16% reported engaging in unprotected sex, approximately 14% said they were physically injured, and nearly 4% reported that drink- ing affected their academics (American College Health Association, 2010). According to this university’s health education coordinator, the institution is actively engaged in efforts to educate students about responsible drinking and to clear up misperceptions that everyone in college drinks and that everyone drinks in excess (personal communication, February 10, 2010). For example, while 19% of students sur- veyed reported never drinking alcohol, students perceived that approximately 1% of students abstained from alcohol (American College Health Association, 2010).

Participants in the current study were recruited through e-mail announcements to university student organizations, to students living in an on-campus dormitory, and to specific students whom the author’s undergraduate research assistant personally knew did not drink. In order to recruit additional students from the general student body, the author sent an e-mail announcement to two large undergraduate communi- cation classes. These students were awarded minimal extra credit for their participation. Further, the author made an in-person announcement to an on-campus alcohol peer edu- cator group. Snowball sampling was also used to recruit participants.

Twenty-five students were interviewed for this study. The participants considered themselves to be nondrinkers in that they either completely or mostly abstained from drinking alcohol (e.g., they drank one alcoholic beverage a few times a year). Sixteen of the participants had drunk alcohol before (ranging from one drink to drinking heavily), and the same number planned to drink moderately once they legally could. Participants who expected to drink in the future were not excluded from the study, as its goal was to examine the experiences of students who were currently abstaining from alcohol in college.

Sixty percent of the participants (n = 15) were female and 40% (n = 10) were male. Participants’ rationales for abstaining included personal choice (e.g., wanting to stay in control, not liking the taste), and religious, health, and legal (e.g., waiting until they could legally drink or because they witnessed or personally experienced alcohol-related legal problems) reasons. Eight of the participants were Asian or Pacific Islander (32%), one participant was Black (4%), 12 were Caucasian or White (48%), and four were Hispanic or Latino (16%). The participants’ grade point averages (GPAs) ranged from under 2.0 to 3.8–4.0, with a mode of 3.0–3.4. Four of the participants (16%) qualified for need-based financial aid. Sixteen participants (64%)

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [S

ta te

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f N ew

Y or

k at

A lb

an y]

a t 0

5: 34

2 2

Ja nu

ar y

20 13

NONDRINKING COLLEGE STUDENTS 675

were active in religious organizations at their university or in the community and seven (28%) were involved in Greek (sorority or fraternity) and/or spirit organizations.

The participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 26 years (M = 20.6). Although drinking alcohol under the age of 21 is ille- gal in the United States, this study had no minimum age requirements. Because of the strong “drinking culture” in college (Task Force of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2002, p. 1), there is often an expectation that both underage and of-age students will drink (Schulenberg et al., 2001), and research finds that this is indeed the case. In fact, underage students consume nearly half of the alcohol drunk in college and engage in more binge drinking than their 21- to 23-year-old peers (Wechsler, Lee, Nelson, & Kuo, 2002). Binge drinking among freshmen is particularly rampant (White, Kraus, & Swartzwelder, 2006). In a national study, half of underage students reported that it was “very easy” to obtain alcohol in college, suggesting that alcohol is readily available to students of all ages (Wechsler et. al, 2002).

Procedure

After the participants were selected, the author and her research assistant confirmed a date, time, and place for the interviews. Due to the focused nature of the questions, inter- views lasted approximately 30 minutes. Interviews were conducted at a location of the participants’ choosing, gener- ally on campus. After administering one interview together and then debriefing, each researcher independently con- ducted subsequent interviews. Participants were interviewed individually to ensure openness of responses, and the inter- views were audio recorded for transcription and analysis. The researchers fully transcribed each interview. To pro- tect the participants’ privacy, participants were assigned pseudonyms during transcription, and after the researchers transcribed and analyzed the interviews, the audio files were destroyed.

Instruments and Analysis

After obtaining the participants’ consent, the researchers began the interviews by informing the participants that they were conducting a study about how nondrinking col- lege students talk about abstaining from alcohol. Next, the researchers asked whether the participants had ever drunk alcohol and when, why they currently abstained, what it was like not to drink at the university, and how they felt as a nondrinker. The researchers subsequently asked how the par- ticipants talked about not drinking (e.g., what they said when someone offered them a drink or when someone asked if they did not drink, and in what cases they brought up the fact that they did not drink, and why). Both researchers fol- lowed a standardized interview schedule but asked follow-up questions and delved deeper on questions as opportunities

naturally emerged. At the end of the interview, participants completed a short demographic questionnaire.

The researchers transcribed the interviews shortly after they were conducted, analyzing the data as they were col- lected so that new themes could be incorporated into future interviews. After reviewing the transcripts at least twice, the researchers used the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Lincoln & Guba, 1985) to organize, interpret, and code the data. The researchers used CPM as a sensi- tizing concept (Blumer, 1954) to examine how abstainers talked about their nondrinking status. While the researchers came into the interviews interested in disclosure and specific communication processes, codes were not predetermined but emerged naturally from the data. Using open coding, the author and her research assistant independently analyzed all of the transcripts and, by comparing the transcripts to each other, generated themes, incorporating relevant excerpts from the transcripts. In order for themes to emerge, recur- rence (the same topic must surface at least twice), repetition (the same phrases must be repeated), and forcefulness (par- ticular text must be emphasized) had to exist (Owen, 1984). The researchers then met to collectively establish and refine the themes.

The author returned to the data another time to con- duct second-order data analysis by comparing the codes and themes to each other in order to reduce the themes. The author then used axial coding, in which she further reduced the themes by collapsing them into major cate- gories. For example, the themes “seeking drinkers’ accep- tance,” “affirming drinkers’ choices,” and “wanting to fit in” were assigned the conceptual label Saving drinkers’ face while maintaining their own. Theoretical saturation was attained when no new novel ideas emerged from the inter- views (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In order to determine the validity of the study’s findings, the author engaged in mem- ber checking, “the most crucial technique for establishing credibility” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 314). The author e-mailed the study’s main findings to the participants for whom she had current contact information and asked to what extent the results captured the reality of being a nondrinking college student. The six participants who responded (20% of the total sample) reported that the findings accurately reflected their experiences.

RESULTS

The goal of this study was to explore how nondrinking col- lege students negotiated communication about a potentially stigmatized behavior—abstinence from alcohol.

Nondrinking as Stigmatized

Interviews revealed that, consistent with existing literature, abstaining from alcohol was “rare” and that drinking was the

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [S

ta te

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f N ew

Y or

k at

A lb

an y]

a t 0

5: 34

2 2

Ja nu

ar y

20 13

676 ROMO

norm in college in general and at their university. As Angela, 20, who abstained for religious reasons, explained, “Lots of people I don’t even think realize it’s [not drinking in college] a choice. [They think you] have to drink to enjoy yourself, to have friends, to be successful, whatever it is you’re trying to do.” While some nondrinkers experienced positive reactions, such as awe and respect, from peers who were surprised they could abstain from drinking in col- lege, nearly every participant recounted feeling stigmatized to some extent for electing not to drink alcohol. As Nate, 21, who abstained for health reasons, explained, “If you don’t drink, then you are definitely in the minority and kind of ostracized.” Stigma was most greatly manifested when participants were excluded from social activities in which alcohol was served or from conversations about friends’ weekend drinking activities, when participants were interro- gated at parties for not drinking, or when they were openly mocked or given “weird looks” from drinkers. Dalal, 20, who abstained for religious and cultural reasons, said that when she would attend parties:

Everyone, they’ll just be like, “Why don’t you drink? Don’t you want to have fun?” They’ll just always be on you; “Do you still not drink?” It’s very awkward. They look at you differently and they feel like there’s something maybe wrong with you. It’s just hard to deal with. You always feel like an outsider.

Because Dalal was not drinking, she stood out from her peers, who perceived her as being abnormal. As Holly, 19, who abstained for religious reasons, said, “If you are at a mixer and you are with a bunch of people who are drinking, you kind of feel like a loser.” Participants said that drinkers negatively labeled nondrinkers as unable to have fun, nerdy, afraid to drink, judgmental, antisocial, lame, prudish, “super conservative and religious,” or “goodie two shoes.” Not drinking often created a clear divide between nondrinkers and students who were drinking, making nondrinkers feel like outcasts and making it harder for them to connect with their drinking peers. Male participants said they felt espe- cially stigmatized because of societal expectations that men not only drink, but drink heavily in college.

Within this drinking culture, this study found that par- ticipants managed stigma by (1) asserting a positive or healthy nondrinking identity, (2) saving drinkers’ face while maintaining their own, and (3) concealing their nondrinking status.

Theme 1: Asserting a Positive or Healthy Nondrinking Identity

One way in which some participants negotiated the stigma of not drinking was by asserting a positive identity as a nondrinker. Despite the threat of stigma, participants who viewed their nondrinking status as a core part of their

self-image were frequently open that they abstained from alcohol in order to reinforce this positive identity. The ben- efit of being true to themselves outweighed the risks. For example, Dalal acknowledged that although she felt like an “outcast,” she was up front about her nondrinking status because she wanted to be accountable to her beliefs and val- ues. Despite the stigmatization Dalal felt and experienced as a nondrinker, she said, “I never try to hide it; it’s not something that I’ll avoid.” Rosina, 21, who abstained due to alcoholism in her family and because she wanted her younger siblings to be able to look up to her, reported that she sometimes corrected people who wrongly assumed that because she attended a party where everyone was drunk, she was also intoxicated; “I wasn’t drunk, you were drunk,” she would clarify. Setting people straight was important to Rosina because “they’re talking about how stupid everyone was and I don’t want to be included in that stupidity.” The benefit of preserving her nondrinking identity outweighed potential social risks.

Other participants were open to serve as positive role models and to meet nondrinking friends. Mai, 19, drank in high school, but after nearly suffering from alcohol poi- soning decided to abstain in college to stay in control and for religious reasons. She said that she was honest about not drinking to inspire other students and to demonstrate that it was indeed possible to attend college parties and not drink. As she explained: “I hope that in me not drink- ing, maybe someone’s out there that night seeing like, ‘Oh she’s not drinking,’ and then maybe they think . . . ‘It’s okay not to drink; you don’t have to drink every time you go out.’” In disclosing, Mai was also able to stay accountable to her beliefs and show others that socializing with drinkers and being a nondrinker were not mutually exclusive. An additional benefit of staying true to their identity was that nondrinkers were able to befriend other nondrinkers. For example, Holly said not drinking allowed her to be more selective about her friendships. “It leads you to be friends with the kind of people you want be with . . . it’s something I can identify with them. It’s also a good conversation starter.” Consistent with CPM, by pub- licly asserting their identity as a nondrinker, participants maintained permeable boundaries around their nondrinking status, revealing because the rewards—being honest about personal choices and ideals, serving as a role model, and bonding with other nondrinkers—outweighed the risk of potential stigma.

Because they were violating their university’s norms by not drinking, which participants considered to be healthy behavior, some participants also assumed an identity as a “healthy deviant” (Romo & Donovan-Kicken, in press). At the same time they chose to deviate from their univer- sity’s drinking norms, participants recounted ways in which abstaining from alcohol made them feel physically, men- tally, and spiritually healthier. As Angela explained, by not drinking:

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [S

ta te

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f N ew

Y or

k at

A lb

an y]

a t 0

5: 34

2 2

Ja nu

ar y

20 13

NONDRINKING COLLEGE STUDENTS 677

I feel good about myself. I feel healthy on a day-to-day basis. I never wake up with a hangover. I can always go to class on time. I feel good about myself physically and I feel good about myself spiritually. I feel confident in who I am as a person and the choices I make . . . I feel safe in my car, I feel safe at home, I feel good about who I am.

Some participants felt so good about not drinking that they wanted to share their healthy lifestyle with others. Nate said that he wanted to encourage his friends to live healthier lives and would be sure to suggest alternatives to drinking so that he could “practice what [I] preach. I’m always like, ‘Hey guys, we could always get some juice or food. We don’t have to get alcohol.’” Shawn, 20, who primarily abstained for his health, said that as a nondrinker, “I’ve always been above the influence. . . . None of my decision making’s ever been cloudy. I haven’t gotten myself into any kind of trou- ble.” Instead of being under the influence, Shawn was able to stay in control of his life by not drinking. Abstaining also enabled participants to keep their attention on school. Annie, 20, who did not drink because of family alcohol problems (her parents were heavy drinkers and her brother was con- stantly in and out of jail for alcohol abuse), said that because she abstained:

I’m much more focused. I’ve been able to get all my eggs in a basket before a lot of other people have. I’ve added another major and I’m still graduating within four years. So it [not drinking] gives me more time to do what I need to do and I’m really career-driven and focused on what’s going to happen after college. . . . It gives me more time to really think about that and start planning things versus, you know, not worry about it and just having a good time. I still have a good time but also I’m concerned for the future.

As CPM would predict, healthy deviants were generally open about not drinking because they perceived multi- ple benefits from disclosure, including holding themselves accountable for maintaining their health, framing not drink- ing as a healthy decision they chose for themselves, and potentially encouraging others to make healthier drinking decisions.

Theme 2: Saving Drinkers’ Face While Maintaining Their Own

Because of the risks inherent in openly abstaining from alcohol in college (e.g., coming across as morally superior, being stereotyped or stigmatized), most participants did not proactively disclose their nondrinking status to drinkers. As Susie, 21, who abstained for self control and religious reasons, explained, “I’m not ashamed or whatever but I won’t bring it up out of the blue. I’m not going to stand on a soap box and be like, ‘I’m not drinking! You shouldn’t either!’” Pursuant to the principles of CPM, participants were strategic about their disclosure. If they were directly asked if they drank or if they were offered alcohol, many participants would reveal their nondrinking status, provided

they perceived more rewards (e.g., being included in social activities with drinkers) than costs (being ostracized) from the disclosure. Although face risks can be an impediment to disclosure (Petronio, 2002), participants in the current study were able to minimize risks and maximize benefits by disclosing their drinking habits in ways that saved drinkers’ positive and negative face and maintained their own (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Examining facework in the context of CPM provides a nuanced way to interpret nondrinkers’ disclosure motivations.

One strategy many nondrinkers used to protect drinkers’ positive face was rejecting the drink, not the drinker. This tactic conveyed a sense of acceptance of drinkers’ choices and affinity for drinkers. Several participants acknowledged that inherent within rejecting a drink was the risk of also rejecting the person who offered the beverage. As Susie mentioned, alcohol is not generally the focus of parties; it is just the easiest way to initiate and sustain conversation. In other words, when someone refuses a drink, the offerer can feel offended, as if he or she were being dismissed as a person:

[When you reject a drink, the people who offered you the drink] assume you are shutting down conversation so they kinda walk away thinking, “Oh, she must not be interested in talking with me because she doesn’t wanna drink.” For guys, especially . . . offering a drink is kind of like a way to open up conversation and be friendly. So if you deny the drink you are kinda denying the conversation with them.

Many participants demonstrated acceptance of drinking and positive regard for the drinker by politely saying that they did not drink and immediately transitioning the focus of the conversation from alcohol to introductions if they were meeting someone for the first time, or asking about the per- son’s week if they had previously met. As Susie explained, the communication goal should be to make drinkers “real- ize you really do want to talk to them but just didn’t want it to be focused on alcohol.” Another way participants accom- plished this objective was by thanking people who offered drinks for their generosity and thoughtfulness, appealing to offerers’ need to be respected. Shawn said that he always thanked drinkers for offering, “to make sure that they know that their offer’s appreciated. If the circumstances were that I did drink I would accept; I appreciate them thinking about me, thinking to offer me a drink, but I don’t drink, so . . .” Genuinely thanking drinkers enabled nondrinkers to demon- strate that they accepted drinkers’ choices and liked them as people, but that they just preferred not to drink. This strat- egy in turn maintained nondrinkers’ face as agreeable and reasonable people, minimizing social risks.

An additional issue participants faced in disclosing their nondrinking status was avoiding coming across as judgmen- tal. As Holly explained:

They [drinkers] are a little bit intimidated or they might feel bad around me. People always tell me, “Oh my gosh, you

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [S

ta te

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f N ew

Y or

k at

A lb

an y]

a t 0

5: 34

2 2

Ja nu

ar y

20 13

678 ROMO

are so perfect, you don’t do anything wrong.” But that’s not true. I feel like it’s nothing bad; it’s just I don’t want them to think of me like that, or think I’m judging them. That’s the main thing; I don’t want them to think I’m judging them.

Participants were careful to save drinkers’ negative face by clearly conveying that although they did not drink, they did not judge drinkers for their choices and did not want to come off as “hostile or arrogant or holier than thou to anyone,” as Shawn put it. By conveying an accepting and open-minded attitude, nondrinkers were able to help themselves fit in socially while safeguarding drinkers’ desire for autonomy and freedom to act without imposition. For example, Mai said that her drinking friends were reluctant to invite her to parties with them until she reassured them that she did not judge them for drinking:

I said [to my drinking friends] straight up, “I don’t judge you,” and I think just hearing me say that and in return seeing that I didn’t judge them, seeing that I didn’t treat them dif- ferently or that I didn’t like feel awkward or give them dirty looks when they were drinking really reinforced the fact that, “Hey, I really don’t mind as long as you’re being safe and you know I’ll always take care of you if you need me to.”

Similarly, Andy, 20, who stopped drinking after getting into alcohol-related legal trouble in high school and for religious reasons, was direct in saying that he did not judge drinkers. “I have to tell them that [I’m not judging] because . . . I just assume that they think I am judging them,” he said. As he explained:

I have one friend that I have made recently and we study together a lot and she’s a Christian girl and this tends to be the most intense conversation because I decided not to drink. I mean, she kinda lashed out in a very biting tone and said, “Oh, that’s so stupid.” I knew what she was thinking and I said, “Do you really think I’m judging you when I decided not to drink?” It dropped there and we changed topics.

Being up front that the nondrinker did not care if the drinker drank conveyed open-mindedness and, according to sev- eral participants, resulted in the added benefit of drinkers being receptive to the nondrinkers’ choices. As Mai pointed out, judging is a “two way street.” Not judging helped nondrinkers project their desired image of tolerance.

Participants also said that it was not enough to directly state that they did not judge drinkers unless their nonverbal communication also reflected open-mindedness. Participants reported that it was essential that nondrinkers monitor their nonverbal communication in social situations that involved drinking, ensuring that their nonverbal cues conveyed accep- tance and comfort around drinkers. As Susie explained:

It’s just a matter of you not, you know, scouring at them [drinkers] if they try to offer you a drink. [Instead you could say] “Oh, I’m not drinking but I’m just here to have fun and hang out.” As long as you’re not like the girl in the corner who isn’t drinking and making it a pity party.

Many participants said that they made a conscious effort to show their drinking friends that they were having a good time with them, even though they were not drinking. This sense of acceptance put participants’ friends at ease and minimized the threat of stigma. Consistent with CPM, par- ticipants used rule-benefit criteria to determine whether and how to disclose. Engaging in facework enabled participants to disclose their nondrinking status in a calculated way that maximized rewards for both drinkers and nondrinkers while minimizing their risks.

Another way participants demonstrated that they did not judge drinkers was by framing their decision to abstain from alcohol as a personal choice. As Shawn explained:

For me, not drinking alcohol is like someone else who doesn’t smoke, which is like someone else who doesn’t eat meat, which is like someone else who doesn’t like milk, you know? So it’s just part of who I am.

Making the decision not to drink an individual preference and not a moral stance against the drinker made it less threatening for nondrinkers to disclose their nondrinking habits because it became acceptable for nondrinkers and drinkers to engage in diverging behaviors. No one was bet- ter or wrong; they were just making different choices. For example, Janette, 20, who abstained to stay in control, said that she would tell people she did not drink because “it’s not a part of me and my personality.” Other participants mentioned how much better they felt not drinking and how abstaining kept them from gaining weight. These explana- tions were effective because they took the focus away from any condemnation of the drinker and made it about what was right for the nondrinker. It was difficult to argue with someone’s personal values.

Similarly, offering specific reasons for not drinking that involved health (e.g., an alcohol allergy, early-morning ath- letic practice, being on a diet, taking medication), prior negative experiences involving alcohol, or a person’s faith were other ways that nondrinkers conveyed that they did not drink while saving drinkers’ face and maintaining their own. This strategy also reduced peer pressure to drink, because health and faith, even school-related “excuses,” were diffi- cult to dispute and “gets [people] out of drinking” as Andy said, unlike less legitimate reasons for not drinking, such as not liking the taste of alcohol or serving as a designated driver. In the former case, drinkers would urge nondrinkers to try a different drink, or in the case of the latter, to drink in moderation.

Theme 3: Concealing Their Nondrinking Status

When asked whether they drank, or when they were offered a drink, some participants chose to conceal their nondrinking status because, consistent with CPM, participants perceived more risks than rewards. For these participants, being a nondrinker was not a significant part of how they defined themselves and/or they worried that if drinkers discovered

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [S

ta te

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f N ew

Y or

k at

A lb

an y]

a t 0

5: 34

2 2

Ja nu

ar y

20 13

NONDRINKING COLLEGE STUDENTS 679

they did not drink, they would be viewed as judgmental, a stereotype they greatly wanted to avoid. Additionally, sev- eral participants did not disclose because they wanted to avoid positive nondrinking labels, such as “responsible.” While some participants embraced the “responsible” stereo- type and used it to hold themselves accountable and serve as a role model, others said they resented the fact that, once drinkers learned they did not drink, the nondrinker often became the de facto designated driver and caretaker. These participants felt as though they could not attend events where alcohol was served without assuming the responsibil- ity of watching out for their drinking friends. As Katie, 20, who abstained for religious reasons and to stay in control, explained, “Everyone will say I am like the mom, the respon- sible one. And it then becomes your label and you are like, ‘Okay, but I’m just here to have fun with y’all too.’”

Participants who concealed their nondrinking status did so by maintaining impermeable privacy boundaries in order to protect themselves from drinkers’ labels and to minimize the risk of stigma. For these students, it was preferable to say nothing about their drinking habits than risk offending others, damaging relationships, incurring greater responsi- bility, or becoming potentially ostracized. These participants did not want to be known as a nondrinker; they just wanted to assimilate into college culture without drawing attention to themselves. This finding also aligns with CPM’s rule- making criteria, in that people weigh the risks and benefits of disclosure. Because abstaining from alcohol was not the norm at their university, many participants felt less vulner- able concealing their status than being up front and having to negotiate potential risks. Participants managed the threat of disclosure by intentionally keeping their drinking sta- tus vague. In this way, participants subtly misled drinkers into thinking that they drank and were thus part of the mainstream. This enabled nondrinkers to socialize in places where alcohol was served without worrying about offending drinkers or being stigmatized.

Deliberately keeping participants’ drinking status vague emerged as a common strategy for concealing their nondrinking status. This technique allowed drinkers to assume that the nondrinker drank, which enabled nondrinkers to assimilate into a drinking culture and min- imized their risk of stigma. For example, Katie said that she frequently attended parties where alcohol was served. Her peers assumed she drank and she did not correct them because she did not want to stand out. Many participants had this mind set. As Grace, 19, who abstained because she did not enjoy the taste of alcohol and was underage, explained, “I think most people assume that if you’re in college, you’re drinking. But unless you really announce that you’re not a drinker or anything, people don’t really care to ask half the time.” Even if they were directly offered a drink, it was very common for participants to say any of the following— “I don’t feel like it right now,” “I’m okay, thank you,” “I’m good, thanks,” “I just really want water,” “I just prefer juice,” or “I don’t really drink, thanks, though”—rather than reveal

to people that they never drank. As Nate said, “I’m usually not real direct. I just play it off real nicely.” By “playing off” their drinking status by being elusive, participants could avoid being labeled as a nondrinker and prevent others from thinking they were judging.

Another example of how participants asserted an ambigu- ous drinking status was by passing as a drinker. Passing is a strategy used by stigmatized people to assimilate into main- stream society (Goffman, 1963). In this study, passing was most commonly enacted via nondrinkers deliberately hold- ing a cup at parties. Participants explained that they held a cup for three reasons: to signify that they were drinking something (which peers generally assumed was alcohol), to reduce or eliminate drink offers, and to help them fit in (holding a cup “diverts attention away from you,” as Dalal explained, because nondrinkers were holding something like everyone else). In the words of Kristen, 21, a varsity athlete who abstained for sport performance reasons and to stay in control, when people hold and drink from a cup:

It doesn’t have to be like oh, the spotlight’s on you and you’re not drinking. They’re [drinkers] not going to come up and be like, “Where’s your drink? Do you want a drink?” You know, it’s like they see it as, “Oh, you’re fine.”

Kristen was “fine” because she was holding a cup. Even though the cup was filled with juice, not alcohol, she con- veyed the impression that she was drinking and was thus part of the in group. Similarly, Nate said he held a cup at parties for “comfort. It’s something to do with my hands. It’s kind of like reciprocity. Other people are doing some- thing so you want to fit in with them. But usually people don’t look into the cup.” Some participants said they made it a point to always bring their own drink to parties, for exam- ple, a bottle of water (with potentially nebulous contents) or an energy drink (which is commonly mixed with alcohol). Participants speculated that just holding something in their hand lessened the possibility of drink offers. Additionally, other participants passed as drinkers by accepting an alco- holic drink, not drinking from it, and then discreetly putting it down or giving it to a friend. Consistent with CPM, by concealing their nondrinking status, participants were able to minimize potential social risks.

DISCUSSION

Faced with the strong drinking culture of college and the threat of enacted or felt stigma, this study pro- vided a unique look at how nondrinking college students used communication to negotiate their minority status, finding that participants managed stigma by (1) assert- ing a positive or healthy nondrinking identity, (2) saving drinkers’ face while maintaining their own, and (3) con- cealing their nondrinking status. Using Communication Privacy Management Theory (CPM; Petronio, 2002) as a sensitizing concept (Blumer, 1954), the communication

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [S

ta te

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f N ew

Y or

k at

A lb

an y]

a t 0

5: 34

2 2

Ja nu

ar y

20 13

680 ROMO

processes involved in the negotiation of stigma were exam- ined. Consistent with the tenets of CPM, this study found that participants used CPM’s risk-benefit criteria in deciding whether and how to manage their nondrinking status.

After considering the risks, the investigation found that some participants perceived the benefits of disclosing their nondrinking status as outweighing possible costs. As a result, pursuant to the principles of CPM, instead of con- cealing their lifestyle to avoid coming across as different, these participants asserted a nondrinking identity. Some nondrinkers even viewed themselves as healthy deviants, people who violated the norm in a healthy way (Romo & Donovan-Kicken, in press). The benefits of disclosing, such as staying true to themselves, serving as a role model for other students, and bonding with nondrinkers, outweighed such potential social risks as stigma.

Conversely, because of the risk of stigma, some par- ticipants were less willing to proactively reveal their nondrinking status but strategically revealed when they were directly asked whether they drank or offered a drink and they perceived that they could achieve more benefits than risks through the disclosure. This finding directly aligns with CPM’s assumption that people consciously weigh the pros and cons of disclosing and choose to disclose when they can protect their vulnerability. These participants disclosed in ways that saved drinkers’ positive and negative face while maintaining the nondrinkers’ own, conveying a sense that although they personally elected not to drink, they were accepting, not judgmental, of drinkers, and held drinkers in positive regard. Specifically, these participants rejected the drink, not the drinker; conveyed that they did not look down upon drinkers (by explicitly saying that they did not judge or through their nonverbal cues); and made their reason for not drinking about them, not the drinker. These strategies enabled participants to be open about abstaining from alco- hol while minimizing the risk of conveying that they were judging or rejecting drinkers in any way.

For other participants, particularly those for whom being a nondrinker was not a significant part of their identity and who were worried about coming off as judgmental or stereotyped by drinkers, it was often less risky to conceal their nondrinking status. Because they perceived more costs in a heavy drinking culture than rewards, these participants took the safer route of not disclosing, supporting CPM as well as prior research that people conceal information to protect themselves and their relationships (Afifi, Olson, & Armstrong, 2005). This concealment was reinforced by participants’ communication strategies to keep their drinking status vague, including passing as a drinker. These participants commonly made statements like “I’m not drinking tonight” or “I’m good” when offered drinks and/or held cups instead of disclosing their drinking habits. In this way, concealing their nondrinking status minimized the risk of participants coming across as judgmental or “holier than thou” and enabled nondrinkers to better assimilate into social situations.

Contributions and Future Directions

A unique contribution of this study is the insight it provides into how nondrinking college students negotiate stigma in a culture in which drinking is normative. The investigation finds that nondrinkers must first decide whether and next decide how to (not) disclose their nondrinking status while minimizing social risks. This study sheds light on a series of deliberate strategies nondrinkers used to manage communi- cation about their nondrinking status depending on whether they wanted to reveal or conceal.

Alcohol use is a serious problem on college campuses (Perkins, 2002). As social norms (Neighbors, Lee, Lewis, Fossos, & Larimer, 2007) and peer pressure (cf., Borsari & Carey, 2001) are the biggest predictors of college drinking, equipping nondrinkers or potential nondrinkers with practi- cal communication skills can provide them with the courage and confidence to maintain or enact beneficial lifestyles, while minimizing the negative outcomes that can result from drinking. These strategies could also be adapted and applied to additional realms in which people engage in healthy behavior that violates norms, providing other healthy deviants with tangible ways to use communication to min- imize their own and others’ potential discomfort. Further, this study introduced the concept of nonverbal communica- tion as a privacy management strategy. Traditionally, CPM has focused on the verbal strategies people enact to conceal or reveal personal information. With the participants’ focus on such nonverbal techniques as holding a cup or monitor- ing their nonverbal mannerisms, CPM can be extended to a realm in which nonverbal communication can serve as a (non)disclosure strategy as well. Additionally, this investiga- tion explored how participants used facework in determining how to disclose their nondrinking status (Brown & Levinson, 1987). As face risks can be threatening (Petronio, 2002), participants in the current study turned to politeness norms to determine how to reveal, strategically disclosing in ways that minimized threats to drinkers’ positive and negative face while maximizing nondrinkers’ social rewards.

Limitations

While this study provided a glimpse into how nondrinking college students negotiated disclosure about abstaining from alcohol, these findings do not represent the experiences of all college students. Further, four of the participants were members of an alcohol peer educator group, which may have equipped them with more sophisticated communication skills. Additionally, the study collectively captured the com- munication of students who were both underage and of legal drinking age, which could have altered the findings. Future research should separately study the experiences of under- age and of-age students to uniquely capture the perspectives of both groups and determine whether any age-based dif- ferences exist. Last, the current study only examined the experiences of nondrinkers. Forthcoming research could

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [S

ta te

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f N ew

Y or

k at

A lb

an y]

a t 0

5: 34

2 2

Ja nu

ar y

20 13

NONDRINKING COLLEGE STUDENTS 681

incorporate a transactional perspective whereby drinkers’ perspectives of nondrinking college students would also be solicited. Additionally, it would be useful to study how adults who abstain from alcohol outside of college man- age communication around alcohol and the extent to which not drinking in the “real world” is socially acceptable, particularly in the workplace.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author would like to thank the participants for sharing their experiences, the anonymous reviewers for their valu- able feedback, and associate editor Laura Ellingson for her commitment to the betterment of the article.

REFERENCES

Afifi, T. D., Olson, L., & Armstrong, C. (2005). The chilling effect and fam- ily secrets: Examining the role of self protection, other protection, and communication efficacy. Human Communication Research, 31, 564–598.

American College Health Association. (2010). American College Health Association-National College Health Assessment II: University X Executive Summary. Linthicum, MD: American College Health Assessment.

Birenbaum, A., & Sagarin, E. (1976). Norms and human behavior. New York: Praeger.

Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review, 19, 3–10.

Borsari, B., & Carey, K. B. (2001). Peer influences on college drinking: A review of the research. Journal of Substance Abuse, 13, 391–424.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Clinard, M. B. (1974). Sociology of deviant behavior (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Dodge, D. (1985). The over-negativized conceptualization of deviance: A programmatic exploration. Deviant Behavior, 6, 17–37.

Durham, W. T. (2008). The rules-based process of revealing/concealing the family planning decisions of voluntarily child-free couples: A commu- nication privacy management perspective. Communication Studies, 59, 132–147.

Epler, A. J., Sher, K. J., & Piasecki, T. M. (2009). Reasons for abstaining or limiting drinking: A developmental perspective. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 23, 428–442.

Fortney, J., Mukherjee, S., Curran, G., Fortney, S., Han, Xiaotong, & Booth, B. M. (2004). Factors associated with perceived stigma for alcohol use and treatment among at-risk drinkers. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 31, 418–429.

Franek, R., Meltzer, T., Maier, C., & Olson, E. (2009). The best 371 col- leges. New York: Princeton Review.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Goffman, E. (1963). Interaction ritual. New York: Anchor Books. Greene, K., & Faulkner, S. (2002). Expected versus actual responses to

disclosure in relationships of HIV-positive African American adolescent females. Communication Studies, 53, 297–317.

Harrington, N. G. (1995). The effects of college students’ alcohol resistance strategies. Health Communication, 7, 371–391.

Harrington, N. G. (1997). Strategies used by college students to persuade peers to drink. Southern Communication Journal, 62, 229–242.

Heckert, M. D. (1998). Positive deviance: A classificatory model. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 26, 23–30.

Hingson, R. W., Zha, W., & Weitzman, E. R. (2009). Magnitude of and trends in alcohol-related mortality and morbidity among U.S. college stu- dents ages 18–24, 1998–2005. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 16, 12–20.

Huryn, J. S. (1990). Giftedness as deviance: A test of interaction theories. In C. D. Bryant (Ed.), Deviant behavior: Readings in the sociology of norm violations (pp. 166–176). New York: Hemisphere.

Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2007). Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2006: Volume II, College students and adults ages 19–45. NIH publication no. 07-6206. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Lederman, L. C., & Stewart, L. P. (2005). Changing the culture of college drinking: A socially situated health communication campaign. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Neighbors, C., Lee, C. M., Lewis, M. A., Fossos, N., & Larimer, M. E. (2007). Are social norms the best predictor of outcomes among heavy- drinking college students? Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68, 556–565.

Owen, W. F. (1984). Interpretative themes in relational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 274–287.

Paton-Simpson, G. (2001). Socially obligatory drinking: A sociological analysis of norms governing minimum drinking levels. Contemporary Drug Problems, 28, 133–177.

Paton-Simpson, G. R. (1995). Underconsumption of alcohol as a form of deviance—Minimum drinking norms in New Zealand society and the implications of their production and reproduction during social occasions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Auckland.

Perkins, H. W. (2002). Surveying the damage: A review of research on con- sequences of alcohol misuse in college populations. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 14, 91–139.

Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Posner, J. (1976). The stigma of excellence: On being just right. Sociological Inquiry, 26, 141–144.

Romo, L. K. (2011). Money Talks: How parents reveal or conceal finan- cial information to their children. Journal of Family Communication, 11, 264–281.

Romo, L. K., & Donovan-Kicken, E. (in press). Communication about vegetarianism: Disclosing a healthy deviance. Communication Studies.

Schoenborn, C. A., & Adams, P. F. (2010). Health behaviors of adults: United States, 2005–2007. DHHS publication no. PHS 2010–1573. Washington, DC: National Center for Health Statistics.

Schulenberg, J., Maggs, J. L., Long, S. W., Sher, K. J., Gotham, H. J., Baer, J. S., . . . Zucker, R. A. (2001). The problem of college drink- ing: Insights from a developmental perspective. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 25, 473–477.

Task Force of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (2002). A call to action: Changing the culture of drinking at U.S. colleges. NIH publication no. 02-5010. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

Wechsler, H., Gledhill-Hoyt, J., Dowdall, G. W., Maenner, G., & Lee, H. (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. College Health, 47, 57–68.

White, A. M., Kraus, C. L., & Swartzwelder, H. (2006). Many college fresh- men drink at levels far beyond the binge threshold. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 30, 1006–1010.

Yep, G. (2000). Disclosure of HIV infection in interpersonal relationships: A communication boundary management approach. In S. Petronio (Ed.), Balancing the secrets of private disclosures (pp. 83–96). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [S

ta te

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f N ew

Y or

k at

A lb

an y]

a t 0

5: 34

2 2

Ja nu

ar y

20 13