The Influence of Fraternity and Sorority Involvement: A Critical Analysis of Research (1996–2013)

Arria et al. (2011) found membership remained a significant predictor of alcohol dependence (OR = 1.69) after holding other significant predictors constant.

“Among fraternity and sorority members, Arria et al. (2011), using a sample of fourth-year students from a single institution (n = 975), found membership remained a significant predictor of alcohol dependence (OR = 1.69) after holding other significant predictors constant.”

• cites Arria et al. (2011) sourcePartly supported

  The Statistical Analyses section identifies 975 participants with complete data, and the Results section reports that fraternity/sorority involvement was significantly associated with alcohol dependence at the bivariate level. Our copy describes adjusted models but does not report that membership remained significant after adjustment or give an odds ratio of 1.69 for it. (LLM, conf=0.84)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Maggs et al. (2011) found students who never planned to join drank 1/4 drinks fewer per weekday and 9/10 per weekend day in the summer prior to college than students who planned to join.

“More recently, Maggs, Williams, and Lee (2011), drawing on a somewhat smaller single-institution sample (n = 943), found students who never planned to join fraternities or sororities drank 1/4 drinks fewer per weekday and 9/10 per weekend day in the summer prior to college than students who planned to join.”

• cites Maggs et al. (2011) sourcePartly supported

  Results §3.4.1 reports the stated differences—1/4 fewer drinks per weekday and almost 9/10 fewer per weekend day—but compares students who never planned to join with students who became fraternity or sorority members, not all students who planned to join. Methods §2.1 says the drinking diaries were collected in the spring semester from a subset of the 943 students surveyed before college, so the claim also places the drinking measurements in the wrong period. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Park, Sher, and Krull (2009) demonstrated precollege drinking influenced student choices of living environments, including residence halls and fraternity houses.

“Park, Sher, and Krull (2009), using multilevel models with a sample of incoming college students (n = 2,392), demonstrated precollege drinking influenced student choices of living environments, including residence halls and fraternity houses.”

• cites Park, Sher, and Krull (2009) sourceSupported

Park, Sher, and Krull (2009) confirmed future fraternity residents consumed both 5+ and 12+ drinks more often per occasion than future residence hall residents.

“Park, Sher, and Krull (2009) confirmed this finding among future fraternity residents, who consumed both 5+ and 12+ drinks more often per occasion than future residence hall residents.”

• cites Park, Sher, and Krull (2009) sourceSupported

Hummer et al. (2012) found fraternity members self-reported having an average of 20.92 drinks per week versus 11.74 for nonmembers.

“More recently, Hummer, LaBrie, Lac, Sessoms, and Cail (2012) using the DDQ in a single-institution study, found fraternity members self-reported having an average of 20.92 (sd = 14.18) drinks per week versus 11.74 (sd = 9.03) for nonmembers.”

• cites Hummer et al. (2012) sourcePartly supported

  Methods §2.2.3 says the study used the DDQ to calculate self-reported weekly drinks, and Results §3.2 reports that Greek-affiliated men drank significantly more per week than non-Greek men. The passages retrieved do not give the claimed means or standard deviations, so those figures cannot be verified from our copy. Methods §2.1 also says participants were recruited from two campuses, contrary to the citing sentence’s description of a single-institution study; page numbers were not available. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Hummer et al. (2012) found sorority members reported an average of 11.11 drinks per week versus 7.53 among nonaffiliates.

“Sorority members reported an average of 11.11 (sd = 7.29) drinks per week versus 7.53 (sd = 5.95) among nonaffiliates.”

• cites Hummer et al. (2012) sourcePartly supported

  The Results (§3.2 Mean Differences; page unavailable) report that Greek-affiliated women drank significantly more per week than non-Greek women. The retrieved passages do not give the claimed means of 11.11 and 7.53 or the standard deviations of 7.29 and 5.95, so those figures cannot be verified from our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Future fraternity residents had significantly higher frequencies of risky drinking prior to college than future residence hall residents for both 5+ drinks and 12+ drinks.

“Park, Sher, and Krull (2009) found future fraternity residents had significantly higher frequencies of risky drinking prior to college than did future residence hall residents for both 5+ drinks and 12+ drinks.”

• cites Park, Sher, and Krull (2009) sourceSupported

Researchers who introduced controls for peer groups or social capital found comparable or diminished effects when relating fraternity membership to consumption patterns.

“Interestingly, researchers who introduced controls for peer groups or social capital found comparable (Iwamoto et al., 2011) or diminished (Weitzman & Chen, 2005) effects when relating fraternity membership to consumption patterns.”

• cites Iwamoto et al., 2011 sourcePartly supported

  The Results (§3.1; page unavailable) report a strong association between fraternity involvement and drinking to intoxication in a model that also includes perceived peer drinking norms. The Discussion (§4; page unavailable) calls fraternity status the most robust predictor. The paper does not compare the fraternity effect before and after adding peer norms, so the claim that the effects were comparable is not established. (LLM, conf=0.82)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Weitzman & Chen, 2005 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Martinez and Sher (2010) found that among women, 78% of sorority members had a fake ID as opposed to 55% who were not members.

“Among women, 78% of sorority members had a fake ID as opposed to 55% who were not members.”

• cites Martinez and Sher (2010) sourcePartly supported

  The Introduction says Greek-organization membership increases the likelihood of obtaining a fake ID, citing an earlier study. But neither the Introduction nor the Results and Discussion reports the claimed 78% versus 55% comparison among women; this paper reports a 21.0% overall possession rate instead. (LLM, conf=0.83)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Martinez and Sher (2010) found that 21% of students possessed a fake ID.

“Results showed 21% of students possessed a fake ID.”

• cites Martinez and Sher (2010) sourceSupported

Martinez and Sher (2010) found that 55% of fraternity members had a fake ID as opposed to 42% of men who were not members.

“Within the sample, 55% of fraternity members had a fake ID as opposed to 42% of men who were not members.”

• cites Martinez and Sher (2010) sourcePartly supported

  The Introduction says Greek-organization membership increases the likelihood of obtaining a fake ID, supporting the direction of the comparison. But the paper attributes that general finding to earlier research, and its Results and Discussion do not report the claimed 55% and 42% possession rates for fraternity members and nonmember men. (LLM, conf=0.78)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

The review found that both large-and small-scale research about prescription stimulants has shown higher prevalence rates for fraternity/sorority members as compared to nonmembers, especially among resident members.

“Both large-and small-scale research about prescription stimulants has shown higher prevalence rates for fraternity/sorority members as compared to nonmembers, especially among resident members (McCabe, Teter, et al., 2005;McCabe et al., 2006).”

• cites McCabe, Teter, et al., 2005Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites McCabe et al., 2006 sourcePartly supported

  The Results (Table 4; page unavailable) show higher odds of illicit prescription-stimulant use for fraternity/sorority members than nonmembers, and for students living in fraternity/sorority houses than those in residence halls. The paper reports one large university survey; its discussion of smaller studies does not establish the claimed pattern across both large- and small-scale research. It also does not compare resident members directly with nonresident members to support “especially” among residents. (LLM, conf=0.85)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Most research identified for this volume deals with the National Panhellenic Conference, National Pan-Hellenic Council, or North American Interfraternity Conference.

“however, most research identified for this volume deals with these three organizations.”

Research about student characteristics before joining indicates that many fraternity/sorority members already are more experienced drinkers than their nonaffiliating peers.

“Although much of the literature about fraternities and sororities focuses on alcohol, research about student characteristics before joining indicates that many already are more experienced drinkers than their nonaffiliating peers (Elias et al., 1996;Larimer, Anderson, Baer, & Marlatt, 2000).”

• cites Elias et al., 1996Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Larimer, Anderson, Baer, & Marlatt, 2000 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Sorority nonresidents also binged at a lower rate (58%) than resident members (80%).

“Sorority nonresidents also binged at a lower rate (58%) than resident members (80%).”

• cites Wechsler et al., 1996 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Fraternity/sorority members may also be more experienced in sexual activity than their nonaffiliating peers.

“They may also be more experienced in sexual activity than their nonaffiliating peers (Scott-Sheldon, Carey, & Carey, 2008).”

• cites Scott-Sheldon, Carey, & Carey, 2008Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Overall, regardless of the category, after controlling for pre-existing factors and in comparison with the next highest predictor, athletic participation, fraternity membership increased likelihood (odds) of alcohol use, abuse, and consequences.

“Overall, regardless of the category, after controlling for pre-existing factors and in comparison with the next highest predictor, athletic participation, fraternity membership increased likelihood (odds) of alcohol use, abuse, and consequences.”

An overview of rates and statistics from CAS, CORE, DDQ, and related surveys underscores a consistent trend for problematic drinking among fraternity/sorority members.

“An overview of rates and statistics from CAS, CORE, DDQ, and related surveys underscores a consistent trend for problematic drinking among fraternity/sorority members.”

Larimer et al. (2011) found inconsistent reporting for fraternity/sorority members who reported higher estimates of other fraternity/sorority members drinking behaviors.

“In a two-institution study limited to Asian or White students, Larimer et al. (2011) found inconsistent reporting for fraternity/sorority members who reported higher estimates of other fraternity/sorority members drinking behaviors.”

• cites Larimer et al., 2011 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Using the 1993 CAS dataset, Wechsler et al. (1996) differentiated between nonresident fraternity members who binge drank (71%) and resident members (86%).

“Using the 1993 CAS dataset, Wechsler et al. (1996) differentiated between nonresident fraternity members who binge drank (71%) and resident members (86%).”

• cites Wechsler et al., 1996 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

As shown in nearly 100 empirical studies published since 1996, fraternity members drank in greater quantities and more frequently than all other students or student groups.

“As shown in nearly 100 empirical studies published since 1996, fraternity members drank in greater quantities and more frequently than all other students or student groups.”

In a national sample that only included members of a single fraternity distributed across 98 chapters in 32 states (n = 3,406), Caudill et al. (2007) found 86% of members would be classified as binge drinkers.

“Conversely, in a national sample that only included members of a single fraternity distributed across 98 chapters in 32 states (n = 3,406), Caudill et al. (2007) found 86% of members would be classified as binge drinkers.”

• cites Caudill et al., 2007 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Comparing the 1993 and 1997 CAS cohorts, Wechsler, Dowdal, Maenner, Gledhill-Hoyt, and Lee (1998) found higher percentages of fraternity/sorority bingers: 67% in 1993 and 65% in 1997.

“Comparing the 1993and 1997CAS cohorts, Wechsler, Dowdal, Maenner, Gledhill-Hoyt, and Lee (1998) found higher percentages of fraternity/sorority bingers: 67% in 1993 and 65% in 1997.”

• cites Wechsler, Dowdal, Maenner, Gledhill-Hoyt, and Lee, 1998 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

The psychosocial effects of fraternity or sorority membership are difficult to isolate.

“The psychosocial effects of fraternity or sorority membership are difficult to isolate.”

The long-term effects of fraternity or sorority membership tended to be examined at the one-year mark, notably after a new member education period and in incident-based contexts.

“Finally, the long-term effects of fraternity or sorority membership tended to be examined at the one-year mark, notably after a new member education period and in incident-based contexts.”

One well-documented aspect is the self-selection bias of membership.

“One well-documented aspect is the self-selection bias of membership.”

With the exception of Pascarella, Edison, et al. (1996), Pascarella et al. (2001), Martin et al. (2011), Pike (2003), and DeBard and Sacks (2011), most researchers exploring the educational effects of fraternal membership did so in single-institution contexts and/or employed a cross-sectional approach.

“With the exception of Pascarella, Edison, et al. (1996), Pascarella et al. (2001), Martin et al. (2011), Pike (2003), and DeBard and Sacks (2011), most researchers exploring the educational effects of fraternal membership did so in single-institution contexts and/or employed a cross-sectional approach.”

• cites Pascarella, Edison, et al. (1996)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Pascarella et al. (2001) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Martin et al. (2011) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Findings specifically related to academic performance have been inconsistent in the research.

“Findings specifically related to academic performance have been inconsistent in the research.”

A systematic assessment practice at graduation or at particular intervals postgraduation did not appear in the research related to developmental outcomes.

“A systematic assessment practice at graduation or at particular intervals postgraduation did not appear in the research related to developmental outcomes.”

Once students become members, the fraternity and sorority experiences begin to differentiate from each other in terms of psychosocial impact.

“Once students become members, the fraternity and sorority experiences begin to differentiate from each other in terms of psychosocial impact.”

Only a few of the studies were longitudinal in design, following the same group of students over multiple data collection periods.

“Only a few of the studies were longitudinal in design, following the same group of students over multiple data collection periods.”

No empirical examinations of delayed or deferred recruitment policy were found.

“No empirical examinations of this policy were found.”

Overall, research during the last 17 years does not offer conclusive evidence about the educational effects of fraternity/sorority membership.

“Overall, research during the last 17 years does not offer conclusive evidence about the educational effects of fraternity/sorority membership.”

The research reviewed in this monograph was overwhelmingly quantitative in design.

“The research reviewed in this monograph was overwhelmingly quantitative in design.”

Although not pervasive, research about fraternities and sororities is broader and more common than generally perceived.

“Although not pervasive, research about fraternities and sororities is broader and more common than generally perceived (Perkins, Zimmerman, & Janosik, 2011).”

• cites Perkins, Zimmerman, & Janosik, 2011Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Despite imprecision in membership statistics, fraternities and sororities remain a prominent extracurricular outlet for college students.

“Despite this imprecision, it is reasonable to say that fraternities and sororities remain a prominent extracurricular outlet for college students.”

Throughout the examination of fraternities and sororities' impact on individual members, input variables persist and are reinforced throughout the course of membership.

“Throughout the examination of fraternities and sororities' impact on individual members, input variables persist.They simply are reinforced throughout the course of membership.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Membership within fraternities and sororities is based primarily on input variables.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Other input variables that affect both the likelihood of desiring membership in a fraternity or a sorority and the likelihood of being selected for membership include previous academic achievement and family socioeconomic status.

Institutions without fraternities and sororities are almost all smaller private institutions.

“Although there are interactions between organizations and institutions, Hinrichs and Rosenberg noted that institutions without fraternities and sororities are almost all smaller private institutions.”

• cites Hinrichs and Rosenberg, 2008Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Alva (1998) found fraternity and sorority members averaged more drinks per week than nonmembers.

“Statistically significant t-tests showed fraternity and sorority members averaged more drinks per week (e.g., 3.91 vs. 1.75) and per month as well as showed greater likelihood of using alcohol at parties or at fraternity/sorority houses than nonmembers.”

• cites Alva (1998)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

The high standard deviations in Fairlie et al. (2010) make interpreting the statistic problematic.

“Notably, the high standard deviations make interpreting the statistic problematic.”

• cites Fairlie et al. (2010) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Alva (1998) found fraternity and sorority members showed greater likelihood of using alcohol at parties or at fraternity/sorority houses than nonmembers.

“Statistically significant t-tests showed fraternity and sorority members averaged more drinks per week (e.g., 3.91 vs. 1.75) and per month as well as showed greater likelihood of using alcohol at parties or at fraternity/sorority houses than nonmembers.”

• cites Alva (1998)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Alva (1998) found fraternity and sorority members averaged more drinks per month than nonmembers.

“Statistically significant t-tests showed fraternity and sorority members averaged more drinks per week (e.g., 3.91 vs. 1.75) and per month as well as showed greater likelihood of using alcohol at parties or at fraternity/sorority houses than nonmembers.”

• cites Alva (1998)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Alva (1998) found nonmember males reported consuming 2.77 drinks per week versus 1.11 for nonmember females.

“By comparison, nonmember males reported consuming 2.77 drinks per week versus 1.11 for nonmember females.”

• cites Alva (1998)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Alva (1998) found fraternity members self-reported having 5.78 drinks per week versus 2.25 reported by sorority members.

“When disaggregated, fraternity members self-reported having 5.78 drinks per week versus 2.25 reported by sorority members.”

• cites Alva (1998)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Weitzman and Chen (2005) found fraternity/sorority membership was associated with higher odds of drinking problems, alcohol-related harms, or secondhand effects.

“The researchers found fraternity/sorority membership was associated with higher odds of drinking problems, alcohol-related harms, or secondhand effects.”

• cites Weitzman and Chen (2005) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

McCabe et al. (2005) found fraternity and sorority members experienced higher levels of heavy episodic drinking than nonmembers at all three waves.

“McCabe, Schulenberg, et al. (2005), drawing on a nationally representative sample of high school seniors (wave one; modal age 18 years), followed longitudinally across two additional waves during college (modal ages 19/20 and 21/22), found fraternity and sorority members experienced higher levels of heavy episodic drinking than nonmembers at all three waves.”

• cites McCabe et al. (2005) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Nelson et al. (2009) found fraternity/sorority members had consistently high levels of heavy episodic drinking over time, with 75% of members versus 51% nonmembers classified as heavy episodic drinkers across the surveys.

“Among groups with highest episodic drinking, fraternity/sorority members had consistently high levels of heavy episodic drinking over time, with 75% of members (both) versus 51% nonmembers and 85% fraternity/sorority house residents versus 72% nonresidents classified as heavy episodic drinkers across the surveys.”

• cites Nelson et al. (2009) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Nelson et al. (2009) found 85% of fraternity/sorority house residents versus 72% nonresidents were classified as heavy episodic drinkers across the surveys.

“Among groups with highest episodic drinking, fraternity/sorority members had consistently high levels of heavy episodic drinking over time, with 75% of members (both) versus 51% nonmembers and 85% fraternity/sorority house residents versus 72% nonresidents classified as heavy episodic drinkers across the surveys.”

• cites Nelson et al. (2009) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Alva (1998) found at all levels of monthly alcohol use, fraternity members reported higher levels.

“At all levels of monthly alcohol use, fraternity members reported higher levels.”

• cites Alva (1998)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Alva (1998) found 19.3% of fraternity/sorority members reported no alcohol use versus 43.6% of nonmembers who did not use in the past 30 days.

“In terms of monthly use, 19.3% of fraternity/sorority members reported no alcohol use versus 43.6% of nonmembers who did not use in the past 30 days.”

• cites Alva (1998)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Alva (1998) found sorority members (21.9%) were more likely to abstain from alcohol use as compared to fraternity members (16.1%).

“Sorority members (21.9%) were more likely to abstain from alcohol use as compared to fraternity members (16.1%).”

• cites Alva (1998)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

DeSimone (2007, 2009) identified similarities between rate and probability of binge drinking among fraternity men.

“Using two different nationally representative datasets, first the 1995 NCHRBS and then all four cohorts of CAS (1993( , 1997( , 1999( , and 2001( ), DeSimone (2007( , 2009) ) identified similarities between rate and probability of binge drinking among fraternity men.”

• cites DeSimone (2007, 2009)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Theall et al. (2009) found fraternity/sorority participation increased likelihood of heavy episodic drinking (OR = 1.99).

“The same year, Theall et al. (2009) found fraternity/sorority participation increased likelihood of heavy episodic drinking (OR = 1.99); the next closest category was participation in varsity athletics, which also increased likelihood (OR = 1.31).”

• cites Theall et al. (2009) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Nelson et al. (2009) found no significant changes in the groups over time.

“The researchers found no significant changes in the groups over time.”

• cites Nelson et al. (2009) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

McCabe et al. (2005) found heavy episodic drinking increased significantly with age among members of fraternities or sororities relative to nonmembers.

“Heavy episodic drinking also increased significantly with age among members of fraternities or sororities relative to nonmembers.”

• cites McCabe et al. (2005) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Glassman et al. (2010) found nearly a quarter (24.5%) of fraternity/sorority members engaged in ERAC on home college football game day compared to 13.6% of nonmembers.

“Glassman, Dodd, Sheu, Rienzo, and Wagenaar (2010) found nearly a quarter (24.5%) of fraternity/sorority members engaged in Extreme Ritualistic Alcohol Consumption (ERAC), or consumption of 10 or more drinks for men or eight for women in a single day or event, on home college football game day compared to 13.6% of nonmembers.”

• cites Glassman et al. (2010) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Lee et al. (2006) found spring break was not a situational risk factor for riskier and more extreme drinking.

“In a study of first-year students (n = 176), Lee, Maggs, and Rankin (2006) found spring break was not a situational risk factor for riskier and more extreme drinking.”

• cites Lee et al. (2006) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Matthews (2004) found a significant relationship between sorority status and problem drinking status, with a greater percentage of sorority members scoring positively on the AUDIT (8.48%) compared to nonmembers (3.57%).

“Examining only sorority members, Matthews (2004) found a significant relationship between sorority status and problem drinking status, with a greater percentage of sorority members scoring positively on the AUDIT (8.48%) compared to nonmembers (3.57%).”

• cites Matthews (2004) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Larimer et al. (2000) found fraternity members averaged more drinking occasions per week (m = 4.22) than sorority members (m = 2.93).

“Also, fraternity members averaged more drinking occasions per week (m = 4.22, sd = 1.65) than sorority members (m = 2.93, sd = 1.39).”

• cites Larimer et al. (2000) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Larimer et al. (2000) found fraternity members consumed more drinks per week (m = 22.4) than sorority members (m = 9.97).

“These results were consistent with Larimer et al.'s (2000) findings, in another singleinstitution study, that fraternity members consumed more drinks per week (m = 22.4,sd = 11.7)than sorority members (m = 9.97, sd = 8.99).”

• cites Larimer et al. (2000) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Crosse et al. (2006) found members with a house engaged in binging more frequently (both 5+ times and 8+ times) than members with no house.

“Crosse, Ginexi, and Caudill (2006), in a longitudinal study of members from a single national fraternity (n = 3,406; 98 of 99 chapters), found members with a house engaged in binging more frequently (both 5+ times and 8+ times) than members with no house.”

• cites Crosse et al. (2006) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Alva (1998) observed fraternity members drank more than all other students in all levels of monthly alcohol use.

“Alva (1998) observed that fraternity members drank more than all other students in all levels of monthly alcohol use.”

• cites Alva (1998)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Engs et al. (1996) found fraternity/sorority members consumed almost twice as many drinks per week than nonmembers.

“Engs, Diebold, and Hanson (1996), using data derived from the SAQ (1993)(1994) among a sample of 12,081 students from 168 colleges and universities, found fraternity/sorority members consumed almost twice as many drinks per week than nonmembers.”

• cites Engs et al. (1996)Not checked — no full text of the source

Dorsey et al. (1999) found 80% of respondents with fraternity/sorority affiliations reported drinking in excess at a spring semester concert event, as compared with 43% of nonaffiliates.

“Dorsey et al. (1999), in a single-institution study (n = 239 undergraduate students), found 80% of the respondents with fraternity/sorority affiliations reported drinking in excess at a spring semester concert event, as compared with 43% of nonaffiliates.”

• cites Dorsey et al. (1999) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Knight et al. (2002) found membership in fraternity/sorority significantly increased the odds of alcohol abuse (OR = 1.9) or dependence (OR = 1.8) diagnoses.

“Using CAS 1999 data, Knight et al. (2002) found membership in fraternity/sorority significantly increased the odds of alcohol abuse (OR = 1.9) or dependence (OR = 1.8) diagnoses.”

• cites Knight et al. (2002) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Sher et al. (2001) found fraternity/sorority membership significantly predicted heavy drinking even after controlling for precollege levels of alcohol use.

“In one of the few longitudinal studies on this topic, Sher, Bartholow, and Nanda (2001) found fraternity/sorority membership significantly predicted heavy drinking even after controlling for precollege levels of alcohol use.”

• cites Sher et al. (2001) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

DeSimone (2007) found even with controls, fraternity membership increased binge drinking.

“Using a nationally representative subsample of data from the 1995 NCHRBS, DeSimone (2007) introduced controls as an attempt to account for high alcohol consumers being predisposition to join.Results suggested, even with these controls, that fraternity membership increased binge drinking.”

• cites DeSimone (2007) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Martin et al. (2009) found odds of being drunk in the last seven days were slightly higher for active members (OR = 2.32) versus new members (OR = 1.80).

“Martin et al. (2009) conducted a web-based survey among a random sample of 3,634 undergraduate students from two large universities (n = 3,022), finding the odds of being drunk in the last seven days, a self-reported question, were slightly higher for active members (OR = 2.32) versus new members (OR = 1.80).”

• cites Martin et al. (2009) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Theall et al. (2009) found fraternity/sorority participation increased likelihood of dependence (OR = 1.90).

“Theall et al. (2009), using longitudinal data from randomly sampled students (n = 15,875) at 32 institutions, found fraternity/sorority participation also increased likelihood of dependence, but at a slightly higher rate (OR = 1.90); the next closest category was participation in varsity athletics (OR = 1.17).”

• cites Theall et al. (2009) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Glassman et al. (2010) found members were approximately twice as likely to engage in ERAC on game day than nonmembers (OR = 2.06).

“Statistically, members were approximately twice as likely to engage in ERAC on game day than nonmembers (OR = 2.06, 𝛼 = 0.05).”

• cites Glassman et al. (2010) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Oswalt et al. (2006) found a significant relationship between current alcohol use of incoming college students and intent to join a fraternal organization.

“Drawing on a larger sample (n = 2,024), Oswalt, Shutt, and Cooper (2006) used CORE-derived questions to identify a significant relationship between the current alcohol use of incoming college students and intent to join a fraternal organization.”

• cites Oswalt et al. (2006) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Lee et al. (2006) found men, fraternity/sorority members, and students with higher fun expectancies did not increase their alcohol use differentially during the break from classes.

“In addition, men, fraternity/sorority members, and students with higher fun expectancies did not increase their alcohol use differentially during the break from classes.”

• cites Lee et al. (2006) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

DeSimone (2007) found most conservative estimates imply fraternity membership raises prevalence and frequency of binge drinking by 15%-20%.

“Specifically, the most conservative estimates imply fraternity membership raises the prevalence and frequency of binge drinking by 15%-20%.”

• cites DeSimone (2007) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Larimer et al. (2001) found one year later, the men averaged 4.87 drinks per occasion on an average 2.98 occasions per week.

“One year, the men averaged 4.87 (sd = 3.93) drinks per occasion on an average 2.98 (sd = 1.91) occasions per week.”

• cites Larimer et al. (2001) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Borsari and Carey (1999) noted fraternity residences tend to have a greater tolerance of intoxicated behaviors.

“In the review, they noted two considerable problems embedded in the culture of fraternity living: problematic drinkers tend to self-select into residences that enable abusive drinking (see also Park, Sher, & Krull, 2009) and fraternity residences tend to have a greater tolerance of intoxicated behaviors.”

• cites Borsari and Carey (1999) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Caudill et al. (2007) found the percentage of binge drinkers was 88% for off-campus, 84% for residence halls, 89% for fraternity house, and 58% for living with parents.

“Caudill et al. (2007), in a large-scale study of a single fraternity in 2000, found the percentage of binge drinkers was 88% for off-campus, 84% for residence halls, 89% for fraternity house, and 58% for living with parents.”

• cites Caudill et al. (2007) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Researchers examining environmental correlates have shown consistent links between risky consumption and fraternity/sorority residence.

“Researchers examining environmental correlates of alcohol abuse on campus, among both fraternity/sorority members and nonmembers who attend their events, have shown consistent links between risky consumption and fraternity/sorority residence.”

Elias et al. (1996) found new members consumed significantly more drinks per sitting in the 3-5 drink-per-day range.

“New members consumed significantly more drinks per sitting in the 3-5 drink-per-day range.”

• cites Elias et al. (1996)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Borsari and Carey (1999) identified the fraternity house as one of the most consistent sites for the heaviest drinking on campus.

“Borsari and Carey (1999), citing literature from 1980 to 1998, identified the fraternity house as one of the most consistent sites for the heaviest drinking on campus.”

• cites Borsari and Carey (1999) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Borsari and Carey (1999) noted problematic drinkers tend to self-select into residences that enable abusive drinking.

“In the review, they noted two considerable problems embedded in the culture of fraternity living: problematic drinkers tend to self-select into residences that enable abusive drinking (see also Park, Sher, & Krull, 2009) and fraternity residences tend to have a greater tolerance of intoxicated behaviors.”

• cites Borsari and Carey (1999) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Miley and Frank (2006) revealed students average the most drinks per occasion at fraternity socials (5.91), off-campus parties (5.86), and sorority socials (5.23).

“More specifically, Miley and Frank (2006) collected single-institution data using CORE to reveal students average the most drinks per occasion at fraternity socials (5.91), off-campus parties (5.86), and sorority socials (5.23).”

• cites Miley and Frank (2006)Not checked — no full text of the source

Wechsler et al. (1996) observed fraternity and sorority houses were problematic environments for alcohol abuse.

“A significant observation Wechsler et al. (1996) drew from their review of research and empirical data was that fraternity and sorority houses were problematic environments for alcohol abuse.”

• cites Wechsler et al. (1996) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Paschall and Saltz (2007) found attendees of fraternity/sorority parties consumed the highest number of drinks consumed before the event.

“The researchers also found attendees of fraternity/sorority parties consumed the highest number of drinks consumed before the event in comparison with attendees of house parties, campus events, off-campus parties, bars/restaurants, and outdoor events.”

• cites Paschall and Saltz (2007) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Elias et al. (1996) found alcohol use was slightly higher for the new member group (84.4%) versus members (78.6%).

“Elias et al. (1996), in a study of 170 sorority women (n = 58 new members) at a single institution, found alcohol use was slightly higher for the new member group (84.4%) versus members (78.6%).”

• cites Elias et al. (1996)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Wechsler et al. (2000) found 47% of underage and 39% of of-age students engaged in binge drinking at fraternity parties.

“Wechsler, Kuo, Lee, and Dowdall (2000), using data from the 1997 CAS, found 47% of underage and 39% of of-age students engaged in binge drinking at fraternity parties.”

• cites Wechsler et al. (2000) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Durkin et al. (2005) found when variables such as peer association were taken into account, the significant effects of gender and fraternity/sorority affiliation disappeared with regard to heavy consumption.

“Durkin, Wolfe, and Clark (2005) evidenced this conclusion in their examination of binge drinking as moderated by social learning behaviors.Drawing on a sample of 1,459 students enrolled at four institutions of higher education, the researchers found when variables such as peer association were taken into account, the significant effects of gender and fraternity/sorority affiliation disappeared”

• cites Durkin et al. (2005) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Nichter et al. (2010) found fraternity houses were common party locations for freshmen males and females during their first several months on campus, despite freshmen not yet being members.

“Nichter, Nichter, Carkoglu, and Lloyd-Richardson (2010) found similar results using focus group methodology.The researchers found fraternity houses were common party locations for freshmen males and females during their first several months on campus, despite the fact that freshmen are not yet members.”

• cites Nichter et al. (2010) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Phua (2011) found members who socialized together also tended to average the same number of drinks per day.

“Studying 34 fraternity members at joining and four years later, Phua found members who socialized together also tended to average the same number of drinks per day.”

• cites Phua (2011) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Paschall and Saltz (2007) confirmed students consumed more alcohol at fraternity/sorority parties than all other contexts, with the comparable exception of off-campus parties.

“Paschall and Saltz (2007), using a random sample of undergraduate students (n = 10,152) attending 14 California public universities, confirmed students consumed more alcohol at fraternity/sorority parties than all other contexts, with the comparable exception of off-campus parties.”

• cites Paschall and Saltz (2007) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Harford et al. (2002) found heavy drinking was most prevalent for men at fraternity parties, regardless of age or gender.

“In terms of average drinks consumed per location, using longitudinal data from multiple administrations of CAS, Harford, Wechsler, and Seibring (2002) found heavy drinking (i.e., consumption of 5+ drinks in a sitting) was most prevalent for men at fraternity parties, regardless of age or gender.”

• cites Harford et al. (2002) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Larimer et al. (2001) found new members consumed an average of 4.93 drinks per occasion on an average 3.03 occasions per week.

“The researchers found new members consumed an average of 4.93 (sd = 2.73) drinks per occasion on an average 3.03 (sd = 1.51) occasions per week.”

• cites Larimer et al. (2001) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Glindermann and Geller (2003) found students were significantly more intoxicated at fraternity parties than private parties.

“The researchers found students were significantly more intoxicated at fraternity parties than private parties.”

• cites Glindermann and Geller (2003)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

No significant changes in heavy episodic drinking occurred over time when comparing 2005 findings to responses from the same institutions in 1993, 1999, and 2001.

“The researchers found no significant changes in the groups over time when comparing findings to responses (n = 13,254) from same institutions in 1993, 1993, 1999, and 2001.”

• cites Nelson et al. (2009) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Wechsler et al. (2000) found living in a fraternity or a sorority house resulted in a 6.2 higher odds of binging than living in coed residence hall, single-sex residence hall, off-campus residence, or other housing.

“Wechsler et al. (2000) found living in a fraternity or a sorority house resulted in a 6.2 higher odds of binging than living in coed residence hall (OR = 1.7), a single-sex residence hall (OR = 1.0), off-campus residence (OR = 0.08), or other housing (OR = 1.1).”

• cites Wechsler et al. (2000) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Page and O'Hegarty (2006) found students residing in sororities reported consuming substantially more drinks in the past week than females living in residence halls and apartment complexes.

“Students residing in sororities (m = 7.93) reported consuming substantially more drinks of alcohol in the past week than females living in residence halls (m = 4.65) and apartment complexes (m = 3.29).”

• cites Page and O'Hegarty (2006) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Historical comparison of the 1993 and 1997 CAS cohorts revealed fraternity/sorority binge drinking percentages of 67% in 1993 and 65% in 1997.

“Historical comparison of the 1993 and 1997 CAS cohorts (Wechsler et al., 1998) revealed only slightly higher percentages of fraternity/sorority bingers: 67% in 1993 and 65% in 1997.”

• cites Wechsler et al., 1998 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Fraternity/sorority members who are involved in athletics in some way tend to be riskier drinkers.

“Researchers have found varied results when examining consumption patterns between fraternity/sorority members and college athletes; however, members who are involved in athletics in some way tend to be riskier drinkers.”

In much of the fraternity/sorority research, membership is treated as an aggregate variable or at best differentiated by sex.

“In much of the fraternity/sorority research, membership is treated as an aggregate variable (i.e., member of a fraternity or a sorority) or at best differentiated by sex.”

In 2005, among students at 18 colleges with high levels of episodic drinking, 85% of fraternity/sorority house residents versus 72% nonresidents were classified as heavy episodic drinkers.

“Nelson et al. (2009) found 85% of fraternity/sorority house residents versus 72% nonresidents were classified as heavy episodic drinkers among students attending 18 colleges with high levels of episodic drinking (50% or more students identified from the 1993 Harvard CAS Study) in 2005 (n = 4,518).”

• cites Nelson et al. (2009) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Wechsler et al. (2000) found underage fraternity or sorority membership resulted in three times more likelihood of binge drinking than students who were not members.

“Underage fraternity or sorority membership resulted in three times more likelihood of binge drinking than students who were not members.”

• cites Wechsler et al. (2000) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

In the 1997 publication, the majority of men involved in athletics (61%) engaged in binge drinking.

“In the 1997 publication, Wechsler et al. reported the majority of men involved in athletics (61%) engaged in binge drinking.”

• cites Wechsler et al. (1997) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

White men involved in fraternities and/or organized sports were more likely to consume alcohol with greater frequency and intensity than the general student population.

“In general, the researchers found White men involved in fraternities and/or organized sports were more likely to consume alcohol with greater frequency and intensity than the general student population.”

• cites Ward and Gryczynski (2007) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

There were no differences in alcohol behaviors or consequences between leaders and members.

“The researchers found no differences in leader or member alcohol behaviors or consequences.”

• cites Fairlie et al. (2010) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

There was no difference among women at active involvement versus leadership in alcohol use.

“There was no difference among women at active involvement versus leadership.”

• cites Cashin et al. (1998) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Less involvement in fraternities and sororities generally meant less alcohol consumption.

“The researchers showed less involvement generally meant less consumption.”

• cites Sher et al., 2001 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Greater involvement in a fraternity or sorority, compared with lesser or no involvement, was associated with significant increases in drinking and related problems over the first two years of college.

“The researchers found greater involvement in a fraternity or a sorority, as compared with lesser or no involvement, was associated with significant increases in drinking and related problems over the first two years of college.”

• cites Capone, Wood, Borsari, and Laird (2007) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

For alcohol problems, male students who joined fraternities had significantly greater alcohol increases over the freshmen and sophomore years than women.

“For alcohol problems, a significant gender interaction effect suggested male students who joined fraternities had significantly greater alcohol increases over the freshmen and sophomore years, in comparison to women.”

• cites Capone et al. (2007) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Leaders perceived alcohol control policies as stricter than members did (Cohen's d = 0.41 in 2006 and 0.44 in 2007).

“In both years, the survey was administered, leaders perceived alcohol control policies as stricter than did members (Cohen's d = 0.41 and0.44 in 2006 and2007, respectively).”

• cites Fairlie et al. (2010) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Comparing results among all iterations of CAS with their new sample, researchers found an average of 85% of fraternity/sorority house residents versus 72% nonresidents were classified as heavy episodic drinkers across the surveys.

“Comparing results among all iterations of CAS with their new sample, researchers found an average of 85% of fraternity/sorority house residents versus 72% nonresidents were classified as heavy episodic drinkers across the surveys.”

• cites Nelson et al. (2009) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

The more time students spent involved in either fraternity/sororities or other social clubs, the less likely they were to abstain from alcohol.

“The researchers found the more time students spent involved in either fraternity/sororities or other social clubs, the less likely they were to abstain.”

• cites Huang, DeJong, Towvim, and Schneider (2009) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Average number of drinks per week for students with dual leadership roles in minority and religious groups was higher than the rate of drinking for leaders of athletic teams and sororities.

“Specifically, average number of drinks per week for students with dual leadership roles in minority and religious groups (considered low-use organizations) was higher than the rate of drinking for leaders of athletic teams and sororities.”

• cites Spratt and Turrentine (2001)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

The detrimental effects of affiliation related to heavy drinking or alcohol abuse did not appear to persist beyond the immediate exposure to the fraternity/sorority environment.

“In Park et al.'s (2008) examination of involvement as a function of time (e.g., constant members, constant nonmembers, late joiners, and droppers), the researchers found the detrimental effects of affiliation related to heavy drinking or alcohol abuse did not appear to persist beyond the immediate exposure to the fraternity/sorority environment.”

• cites Park et al. (2008) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

College students, including fraternity/sorority members and nonmembers, drank and binged more often in fraternity/sorority houses and at fraternity/sorority parties than other locations in or around campus, including bars, athletic events, and nonfraternity/sorority campus parties.

“College students, including fraternity/sorority members and nonmembers, drank and binged more often in fraternity/sorority houses and at fraternity/sorority parties than other locations in or around campus, including bars, athletic events, and nonfraternity/sorority campus parties.”

Living in a fraternity or a sorority house has been consistently the highest risk factor for problem drinking.

“As noted, living in a fraternity or a sorority house has been consistently the highest risk factor for problem drinking.”

Access to sources of alcohol was ubiquitous across campus from both social and commercial outlets.

“Fabian et al. (2008) found that access to sources of alcohol was ubiquitous across campus from both social and commercial outlets.”

• cites Fabian et al. (2008) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Post hoc tests revealed the two groups with fraternity/sorority members drank more than students who were not involved.

“As expected, post hoc tests revealed the two groups with fraternity/sorority members drank more than students who were not involved.”

• cites Pace and McGrath (2002) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

The same odds ratios for fraternity/sorority participation were higher in every category than for varsity athletics.

“The same odds ratios for fraternity/sorority participation were higher in every category.”

• cites Theall et al. (2009) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Regardless of the measure, fraternity members drank in greater quantities and more frequently than all other students or student groups.

“Regardless of the measure, fraternity members drank in greater quantities and more frequently than all other students or student groups.”

• cites Barry, 2007 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Danielson et al., 2001 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Varsity athletes had lower odds for being drunk in the last seven days (OR = 1.46) compared to fraternity new members (OR = 2.32).

“Martin et al. (2009), in a survey of undergraduate students from two large universities (n = 3,022), revealed a lower odds for being drunk in the last seven days for varsity athlete (OR = 1.46) as compared to fraternity new members (OR = 2.32).”

• cites Martin et al. (2009) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Only fraternity members and leaders drank more in an average week than students who are leaders of both religious and minority organizations.

“By comparison to data from a previous study (Meilman et al., 1999) only fraternity members and leaders drank more in an average week than students who are leaders of both religious and minority organizations.”

• cites Meilman et al., 1999 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Nonfraternity/sorority members who were in volunteer organizations had higher rates of alcohol use during the last 30 days and the last year than students not involved in either organization.

“Nonfraternity/sorority members who were in volunteer organizations had higher rates of alcohol use during the last 30 days and the last year than students not involved in either organization.”

• cites Pace and McGrath (2002) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

The fraternity/sorority environment yielded higher consumption rates, rather than simply availability.

“Although this result seems counterintuitive, a more holistic look at the research (e.g., Borsari & Carey, 1999) suggested the fraternity/sorority environment yielded higher consumption rates, rather than simply availability.”

• cites Borsari & Carey, 1999 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Even controlling for predisposition to drinking prior to college, fraternity membership nevertheless raises the prevalence of risky drinking behavior.

“Even controlling for predisposition to drinking prior to college, others (e.g., DeSimone, 2007) have shown fraternity membership nevertheless raises the prevalence of risky drinking behavior.”

• cites DeSimone, 2007 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Nearly all (nine out of 10) students who are hazed in college do not consider themselves to have been hazed.

“Interestingly, nearly all (nine out of 10) students who are hazed in college do not consider themselves to have been hazed.”

• cites Allan and Madden (2008)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Among sorority members, new sorority members drank at higher or similar rates than members.

“Among sorority members, Elias et al. (1996) found new sorority members drank at higher or similar rates than members, further evidencing this trend.”

• cites Elias et al. (1996)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

In general, researchers showed increases among male and female college student consumption for those who join fraternities and sororities versus those who do not.

“In general, researchers showed increases among male and female college student consumption for those who join fraternities and sororities versus those who do not.”

Researchers tracking long-term effects have confirmed a decrease in consumption over time-down to relatively moderated patterns after graduation and beyond.

“Researchers tracking long-term effects have confirmed a decrease in consumption over time-down to relatively moderated patterns after graduation and beyond (e.g., Bartholow et al., 2003).”

• cites Bartholow et al., 2003 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Huang et al. (2009) showed the more involved students were in any type of social organization, the less likely they were to abstain from alcohol use.

“Analogous with previous studies about membership status, Huang et al. (2009) showed the more involved students were in any type of social organization, the less likely they were to abstain from alcohol use.”

• cites Huang et al. (2009) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Allan and Madden's (2008) findings lent empirical support to the hypothesis that hazing was not limited to fraternal organizations.

“Findings lent empirical support to the hypothesis that hazing was not limited to fraternal organizations.”

• cites Allan and Madden (2008)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Researchers comparing between-group effects with campus organizations generally reported higher consumption among students who were members of fraternal organizations.

“Researchers comparing between-group effects with campus organizations generally reported higher consumption among students who were members of fraternal organizations.”

Less than a third of the students who were subjected to hazing activities identified themselves as having been hazed.

“Less than a third of the students who were subjected to hazing activities identified themselves as having been hazed.”

• cites Hoover and Pollard (2000)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Patterns established during the new member period seem to persist to graduation.

“Notably, patterns established during the new member period seem to persist to graduation.”

Later researchers (Fairlie et al. 2010; Plucker & Teed, 2004) found no differences between leaders and members with regard to consumption.

“Conversely, later researchers (Fairlie et al. 2010;Plucker & Teed, 2004) found no differences between leaders and members with regard to consumption.”

• cites Fairlie et al. 2010 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Plucker & Teed, 2004 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

The most frequently reported hazing behaviors, consistent across all groups, related to alcohol consumption, humiliation, isolation, sleep-deprivation, and sex acts.

“The most frequently reported hazing behaviors, consistent across all groups, related to alcohol consumption, humiliation, isolation, sleep-deprivation, and sex acts.”

• cites Allan and Madden (2008)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

When participation in both a fraternity and a sport was considered, men consumed significantly and considerably more than all other groups.

“When participation in both a fraternity and a sport was considered, men consumed significantly and considerably more than all other groups (see Meilman et al., 1999).”

• cites Meilman et al., 1999 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

More students reported participating in potentially illegal or dangerous activities than being hazed.

“More students reported participating in potentially illegal or dangerous activities than being hazed.”

• cites Hoover and Pollard (2000)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

When dual membership was considered, consumption rates and associated problems became comparable for fraternity/sorority-only students.

“When dual membership was considered, consumption rates and associated problems became comparable for fraternity/sorority-only students (Pace & McGrath, 2002).”

• cites Pace & McGrath, 2002 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Capone et al. (2007) found a positive relationship between increased involvement and alcohol consumption and related problems in the first two years, particularly among males transitioning from freshmen to sophomore year.

“Capone et al. (2007) found a positive relationship between increased involvement and alcohol consumption and related problems in the first two years-particularly among males transitioning from freshmen to sophomore year.”

• cites Capone et al. (2007) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Adams-Curtis and Forbes (2004) found rigid gender roles and traditional sexual scripts are major contributors to sexual coercion.

“rigid gender roles and traditional sexual scripts are major contributors to sexual coercion”

• cites Adams-Curtis and Forbes, 2004 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

In much of the published literature, researchers frequently categorized sorority members as an at-risk group for sexual assault as compared to nonmembers.

“In much of the published literature, researchers frequently categorized sorority members as an at-risk group for sexual assault as compared to nonmembers.”

Adams-Curtis and Forbes (2004) found risk factors for sexual coercion are consistent.

“risk factors are consistent”

• cites Adams-Curtis and Forbes, 2004 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Most often, the effect of fraternity membership on aggression was moderated by a culture emphasizing masculinity.

“Most often, the effect of fraternity membership on aggression was moderated by a culture emphasizing masculinity.”

Adams-Curtis and Forbes (2004) found perpetrators or victims inaccurately label some types of coercive behavior.

“perpetrators or victims inaccurately label some types of coercive behavior”

• cites Adams-Curtis and Forbes, 2004 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Students knowing an adult who had been hazed increased the likelihood of their own participation in hazing activities.

“Interestingly, students knowing an adult who had been hazed increased the likelihood of their own participation in hazing activities.”

• cites Hoover and Pollard (2000)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

High school students (and even younger students) start patterns of hazing participation that predispose them for later recruitment into other hazing activities, including more severe activities and additional violations of law or campus policies.

“High school students (and even younger students) start patterns of hazing participation that predispose them for later recruitment into other hazing activities, including more severe activities and additional violations of law or campus policies.”

Rape myths and bystander intervention, or intent to aid someone in a sexual assault situation, are frequently assessed together.

“Rape myths and bystander intervention, or intent to aid someone in a sexual assault situation, are frequently assessed together.”

Adams-Curtis and Forbes (2004) found incidence of sexual coercion has not changed in the past 50 years.

“Adams-Curtis and Forbes (2004) found incidence of sexual coercion has not changed in the past 50 years”

• cites Adams-Curtis and Forbes, 2004 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

In contrast to the alcohol research, nearly all studies about sexual misconduct involved a single-institution convenience sample.

“In contrast to the alcohol research, however, nearly all studies about sexual misconduct involved a single-institution convenience sample.”

Similar to the research about alcohol consumption, the majority of researchers considering sex-related issues used comparable measures or developed instruments from questions on widely used surveys.

“Similar to the research about alcohol consumption, the majority of researchers considering sex-related issues used comparable measures or developed instruments from questions on widely used surveys.”

The most commonly used instruments in sex-related research were the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES), Burt's Rape Myths Acceptance Scale or Gilmartin-Zena's Acceptance of Rape Myths Scale, the Hostility Toward Women Scale, and the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale.

“The most commonly used instruments were the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES; Koss & Oros, 1982), Burt's (1980) Rape Myths Acceptance Scale or Gilmartin-Zena's (1987) Acceptance of Rape Myths Scale (ARM), the Hostility Toward Women Scale (Check, Malamuth, Elias, & Barton, 1985), and Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (IRMA; Payne, Lonsway, & Fitzgerald, 1999).”

• cites Koss & Oros, 1982 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Burt, 1980 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Gilmartin-Zena, 1987Not checked — no full text of the source

The presence of alcohol consistently has been among the most common correlates to sexual misconduct.

“The presence of alcohol consistently has been among the most common correlates to sexual misconduct (e.g., Larimer, Lydun, Anderson, & Turner, 1999;Nurius, Norris, Dimeff, & Graham, 1996;Schwartz & Nogrady, 1996).”

• cites Larimer et al., 1999 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Nurius et al., 1996 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Schwartz & Nogrady, 1996 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

The most conspicuous fraternity/sorority hazing publications have been books and essay collections.

“The most conspicuous fraternity/sorority hazing publications have been books (Nuwer, 2001) and essay collections (Nuwer, 2004)”

• cites Nuwer, 2001 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Nuwer, 2004 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Students were more likely to be current smokers or lifetime SLT users if they belonged to a fraternity or a sorority.

“In particular, students were more likely to be current smokers or lifetime SLT users if they belonged to a fraternity or a sorority.”

• cites Morrell, Cohen, Bacchi, and West (2005) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

McCabe, Schulenberg, et al. (2005) found that active members of fraternities and sororities had higher levels of annual marijuana use than nonmembers at all waves.

“McCabe, Schulenberg, et al. (2005), in their study of high school seniors followed longitudinally across two follow-up waves during college, found active members of fraternities and sororities had higher levels of annual marijuana use than nonmembers at all waves.”

• cites McCabe, Schulenberg, et al. (2005) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Yacoubian (2003) found that 12-month ecstasy users were significantly more likely to be fraternity/sorority members than nonusers (18% vs. 14%).

“Compared to nonusers, 12-month ecstasy users were significantly more likely to be members of a fraternity/sorority; however, the comparison percentages were relatively small (18% members vs. 14% nonmembers).”

• cites Yacoubian (2003) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Powe, Ross, and Cooper (2007) found that not being a fraternity/sorority member decreased the odds of becoming a lifetime smoker (OR = 6.5) among Black students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

“Powe, Ross, and Cooper (2007) found that not being a fraternity/sorority member decreased the odds of becoming a lifetime smoker (OR = 6.5) among Black students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).”

• cites Powe, Ross, and Cooper (2007)Not checked — no full text of the source

The research on nonmedical prescription drug use is limited by the use of a convenience sample of students (n = 599) at a single institution.

“Unfortunately, the research is limited by the use of a convenience sample of students (n = 599) at a single institution.”

Women were more likely to believe the new member process should be a positive experience.

“Results showed women were more likely to believe the new member process should be a positive experience.”

Fraternity/sorority members were more likely to believe the new member process should be positive than nonmembers.

“Fraternity/sorority members were more positive about the purpose of the new member process and were more likely to believe the process should be positive than nonmembers.”

McCabe, Teter, Boyd, Knight, and Wechsler (2005) found that living in a fraternity/sorority house increased the odds of nonprescription opioid use by 2.00 among past-year users compared to single-sex residence halls.

“Odds ratios showed living in a fraternity/sorority house increased the odds of using by 2.00 among past-year users as compared to single-sex residence halls.”

• cites McCabe, Teter, Boyd, Knight, and Wechsler (2005)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

McCabe, Schulenberg, et al. (2005) found that annual marijuana use increased significantly with age among members of fraternities or sororities relative to nonmembers.

“Annual marijuana use increased significantly with age among members of fraternities or sororities relative to nonmembers.”

• cites McCabe, Schulenberg, et al. (2005) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Scott-Sheldon et al. (2008) found that members did not smoke significantly more cigarettes per day than nonmembers.

“Members did not smoke significantly more cigarettes per day than nonmembers.”

• cites Scott-Sheldon et al. (2008)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Scott-Sheldon et al. (2008) found that fraternity/sorority members were more likely than nonmembers to be frequent cigarette smokers (23% vs. 14% smoked at least weekly in the last month).

“Chisquare tests showed that members were more likely than nonmembers to be frequent cigarette smokers (i.e., 23% vs. 14% smoked at least weekly in the last month) than infrequent/nonsmokers.”

• cites Scott-Sheldon et al. (2008)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Fraternity/sorority members were more positive about the purpose of the new member process than nonmembers.

“Fraternity/sorority members were more positive about the purpose of the new member process and were more likely to believe the process should be positive than nonmembers.”

Morrell, Cohen, Bacchi, and West (2005) found that membership in a fraternal organization and participation in intercollegiate sports predicted tobacco use among college students.

“Results showed membership in a fraternal organization and participation in intercollegiate sports predicted tobacco use.”

• cites Morrell, Cohen, Bacchi, and West (2005) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Lange, Reed, Ketchie Croff, and Clapp (2008) found that 4.4% of college students reported using Salvia at least once within the past 12 months.

“The researchers found 4.4% of students reporting using Salvia at least once within the past 12 months.”

• cites Lange, Reed, Ketchie Croff, and Clapp (2008) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Despite incongruence in smoking findings, membership in a fraternal organization leads to greater exposure to secondhand smoke, as noted by Wolfson, McCoy, and Sutfin (2009).

“Despite this incongruence, membership in a fraternal organization leads to greater exposure to secondhand smoke, as noted by Wolfson, McCoy, and Sutfin (2009).”

• cites Wolfson, McCoy, and Sutfin, 2009 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Single-institution studies examining the sorority sexual assault phenomenon have been more the norm.

“Single-institution studies examining this phenomenon have been more the norm.”

McCabe, Teter, Boyd, Knight, and Wechsler (2005) found no significant difference in nonprescription opioid usage between fraternity/sorority members and nonmembers.

“There was no significant difference in the percentage of fraternity/sorority members and nonmembers in terms of nonprescription opioid usage.”

• cites McCabe, Teter, Boyd, Knight, and Wechsler (2005)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

McCabe, Teter, Boyd, Knight, and Wechsler (2005) found that more students who lived in fraternity/sorority houses (10.3%) illicitly used nonprescription opioids than all other living conditions.

“Results showed more students who lived in fraternity/sorority houses (10.3%) illicitly used nonprescription opioids than all other living conditions.”

• cites McCabe, Teter, Boyd, Knight, and Wechsler (2005)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Nichter et al. (2010) found that upperclass fraternity members made a perceptual distinction between being a smoker and smoking at parties.

“Focus groups among upperclass fraternity members showed a perceptual distinction between being a smoker and smoking at parties.”

• cites Nichter et al. (2010) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

McCabe, Teter, et al. (2005) found that more students who lived in fraternity/sorority houses (13.3%) illicitly used nonprescription stimulants than all other living conditions.

“Results showed more students who lived in fraternity/sorority houses (13.3%) illicitly used nonprescription stimulants than all other living conditions.”

• cites McCabe, Teter, et al. (2005)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Scott-Sheldon et al. (2008) found that fraternity/sorority members reported more lifetime and past 30-day ecstasy use than nonmembers.

“Scott-Sheldon et al. (2008), in a survey of undergraduate students (n = 1,595) in introductory psychology classes, also found members reported more lifetime and past 30-day ecstasy use than nonmembers.”

• cites Scott-Sheldon et al. (2008)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Research about other drug use, like alcohol abuse, has been among the most rigorous in terms of sample and instrumentation.

“Research about other drug use, like alcohol abuse, has been among the most rigorous in terms of sample (i.e., large, multi-institutional, and longitudinal) and instrumentation (i.e., standard measures).”

Vandehey, Diekhoff, and LaBeff (2007) identified fraternity/sorority membership as one of the four group categories consistently related to cheating in all administrations.

“Vandehey, Diekhoff, and LaBeff (2007), in a multiyear, singleinstitution study, identified fraternity/sorority membership as one of the four group categories consistently related to cheating in all administrations.”

• cites Vandehey, Diekhoff, and LaBeff (2007) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Storch and Storch (2002) found that degree of involvement was associated with increased rates of dishonesty.

“Storch and Storch (2002) concluded degree of involvement was associated with increased rates of dishonesty in one of the few studies in which fraternity/sorority membership was differentiated by gender and membership status.”

• cites Storch and Storch (2002)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

McCabe, Teter, et al. (2005) found that more fraternity/sorority members (8.6%) illicitly used nonprescription stimulants than nonmembers (3.5%).

“Further, more members (8.6%) illicitly used than nonmembers (3.5%).”

• cites McCabe, Teter, et al. (2005)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Pino and Smith (2003) found that the predictive effect of fraternity/sorority membership on academic dishonesty disappeared after increased television watching, participation in other student clubs or groups, and having an academic ethic were added to the model.

“Pino and Smith (2003) found the predictive effect of fraternity/sorority membership on academic dishonesty disappeared after increased television watching, participation in other student clubs or groups, and having an academic ethic were added to the model.”

• cites Pino and Smith (2003)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Nguyen, Walters, Rinker, Wyatt, and DeJong (2011) found that just under 8% of students in the sample reported owning a fake ID.

“Just under 8% of students in the sample reporting owning a fake ID.”

• cites Nguyen, Walters, Rinker, Wyatt, and DeJong (2011) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

McCabe, Teter, et al. (2005) found that membership increased the odds of illicit stimulant use by 2.07 among past-year users and 2.04 for past-month users compared to nonmembers.

“Odds ratios showed membership increased the odds of using by 2.07 among past-year users and 2.04 for past-month users, as compared to nonmembers.”

• cites McCabe, Teter, et al. (2005)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Whitley (1998) found a small positive relationship between cheating and fraternity/sorority membership (d = 0.319) calculated from four published studies.

“Findings revealed a small positive relationship between cheating and fraternity/sorority membership (d = 0.319) calculated from four published studies.”

• cites Whitley (1998) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Durkin et al. (1996) found that fraternity/sorority members were much more likely than any other group to report using a fake ID to obtain alcohol.

“Also, fraternity/sorority members were much more likely than any other group to report using a fake ID to obtain alcohol.”

• cites Durkin, Wolfe, and Phillips (1996)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Rockey, Beason, Howington, Rockey, and Gilbert (2005) found that fraternity members (12.3%) had a higher probable pathologic gambling rate than nonmembers (5.8%).

“Fraternity members (12.3%) were found to have a higher probable pathologic gambling rate than nonmembers (5.8%).”

• cites Rockey, Beason, Howington, Rockey, and Gilbert (2005) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Nguyen et al. (2011) found that the odds of owning a fake ID significantly increased with intent to join a fraternity or a sorority (OR = 2.00).

“The odds of owning a fake ID significantly increased with intent to join a fraternity or a sorority (OR = 2.00).”

• cites Nguyen, Walters, Rinker, Wyatt, and DeJong (2011) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Rockey et al. (2005) found that fraternity members (14.8%) had a higher prevalence rate of probable problem gambling than nonmembers (5.4%).

“Fraternity members (14.8%) also had a higher prevalence rate of probable problem gambling than nonmembers (5.4%).”

• cites Rockey, Beason, Howington, Rockey, and Gilbert (2005) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

The review found that a longer-term examination of trends suggested tobacco use was established prior to membership.

“Researchers reported mixed results for fraternity-only smoking rates, but a longer-term examination of trends suggested use was established prior to membership (McCabe, Schulenberg, et al., 2005).”

• cites McCabe, Schulenberg, et al., 2005 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

The review found that the rate of sexual aggression as well as unwanted advances and coercion has been inconsistently linked to fraternity membership.

“Rate of sexual aggression as well as unwanted advances and coercion, has been inconsistently linked to fraternity membership.”

The review found that research about smoking and use of other tobacco products revealed conflicting comparison rates between fraternity/sorority members and nonmembers.

“Research about smoking and use of other tobacco products revealed conflicting comparison rates between fraternity/sorority members and nonmembers.”

The review found that empirical research since 1996 has not supported conclusively the theory of sorority as a higher at-risk group for sexual assault, as compared to nonmembers.

“Empirical research since 1996 has not supported conclusively the theory of sorority as a higher at-risk group for sexual assault, as compared to nonmembers.”

The review found a disconnect between formal definitions of hazing activities and what students viewed as hazing versus harmless initiation rites or team-building activities.

“In general, there was a disconnect between formal definitions of hazing activities and what students viewed as hazing versus harmless initiation rites or team-building activities (e.g., Campo et al., 2005).”

• cites Campo et al., 2005 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

The review found that a lack of substantial empirical research about hazing remains problematic.

“Aside from a few comprehensive, though dated and nonpeer-reviewed efforts (e.g., Allan & Madden, 2008;Hoover & Pollard, 2000), the lack of a substantial empirical research about hazing remains problematic.”

The review found that rape myth research generally has shown fraternity men to be more supportive of false beliefs.

“Rape myth research generally has shown fraternity men to be more supportive of false beliefs.”

Caboni, Hirschy, and Best (2004) found that fraternity members believed disrespectful disruption and insolent inattention were less problematic than sorority members or nonmembers.

“The researchers found fraternity members believed disrespectful disruption and insolent inattention were less problematic than sorority members or nonmembers.”

• cites Caboni, Hirschy, and Best (2004)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

The review found that when variables such as masculine culture and peer norms as well as high-and low-risk perceived environments were controlled, members often were not differentiated from nonmembers on sexual aggression measures.

“When variables such as masculine culture and peer norms (Adams-Curtis & Forbes, 2004) as well as high-and low-risk perceived environments (Humphrey & Kahn, 2000) were controlled, members often were not differentiated from nonmembers on sexual aggression measures.”

• cites Adams-Curtis & Forbes, 2004 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Humphrey & Kahn, 2000 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Perfectionistic pressures lead to internal conflicts between a real and an idealized self-image.

“These perfectionistic pressures lead to internal conflicts between a real and an idealized self-image, which may lead to either shortcuts such as disordered eating or personal outcomes that fall short of health goals for sorority members in comparison to nonsorority members (Allison & Park, 2004;Landa & Bybee, 2007).”

• cites Allison & Park, 2004 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Landa & Bybee, 2007 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

The review found that Khey et al. (2010) found membership significantly decreased an individual's likelihood for cyberstalking, accessing unauthorized files online, and violations of the university's Acceptable Use Policy.

“In terms of cybercrime, Khey et al. (2010) found that membership significantly decreased an individual's likelihood for cyberstalking, accessing unauthorized files online, and violations of the university's Acceptable Use Policy.”

• cites Khey et al., 2010 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

The review found that research on fake ID use and gambling has been linked mostly to fraternity members.

“Research on fake ID use and gambling has been linked mostly to fraternity members.”

The review found that being a member or intending to become a member increased the odds of obtaining false identification.

“Nonetheless, being a member or intending to become a member increased the odds of obtaining false identification.”

The review found that Ryan and Bogart (2001) showed new members become more accurate with beliefs about their own groups, versus others, as they become socialized.

“Lastly, in study of stereotyping, Ryan and Bogart (2001) showed that new members become more accurate with beliefs about their own groups, versus others, as they become socialized.”

• cites Ryan and Bogart, 2001 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Researchers studying sorority leaders and alcohol use did not find significant connections.

“Interestingly, researchers studying sorority leaders and alcohol use did not find significant connections (Plucker & Teed, 2004).”

• cites Plucker & Teed, 2004 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Perfectionistic pressures may lead to shortcuts such as disordered eating or personal outcomes that fall short of health goals for sorority members compared to nonsorority members.

“These perfectionistic pressures lead to internal conflicts between a real and an idealized self-image, which may lead to either shortcuts such as disordered eating or personal outcomes that fall short of health goals for sorority members in comparison to nonsorority members (Allison & Park, 2004;Landa & Bybee, 2007).”

• cites Allison & Park, 2004 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Landa & Bybee, 2007 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Men's attitudes and values focus on conforming to a particular college male archetype.

“A summation of the attitudes and values for women is that of perfectionism (Landa & Bybee, 2007), while for men, the focus was on conforming to a particular college male archetype (Ashmore et al., 2002).”

• cites Ashmore et al., 2002 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Women's attitudes and values are summarized as perfectionism.

“A summation of the attitudes and values for women is that of perfectionism (Landa & Bybee, 2007), while for men, the focus was on conforming to a particular college male archetype (Ashmore et al., 2002).”

• cites Landa & Bybee, 2007 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

The review found that Caboni et al. (2004) found fraternity members found disrespectful disruption and insolent inattention less problematic than sorority members or nonmembers.

“In a different study, Caboni et al. (2004) examined beliefs about disrespectful disruption and insolent inattention in the classroom and found that fraternity members found the behaviors less problematic than sorority members or nonmembers.”

• cites Caboni et al., 2004Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

The review found that the strongest effects linking involvement and leadership were found among fraternity members.

“The strongest effects linking involvement and leadership were found among fraternity members.”

The review found that when other variables such as television watching and involvement in other organizations were added, the effect of fraternity/sorority membership on cheating disappeared.

“Interestingly, when other variables such as television watching and involvement in other organizations (Pino & Smith, 2003) were added, this effect disappeared.”

• cites Pino & Smith, 2003Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

The review found that fraternity members justified nonmedical use of the drugs based on perceived academic benefits, such as increased focus, concentration, and memory.

“Fraternity members justified nonmedical use of the drugs based on perceived academic benefits, such as increased focus, concentration, and memory (e.g., DeSantis et al., 2010).”

• cites DeSantis et al., 2010 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Men in fraternities are surrounded with different attitudes toward women than nonfraternity men.

“Examining fraternity members' behavior toward women, some researchers determined men in fraternities were surrounded with different attitudes toward women, whether depicted in visual or story form, than nonfraternity men (Bleeker & Murnen, 2005;Cohan, 2009).”

• cites Bleeker & Murnen, 2005Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Cohan, 2009 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Men engage in competition with each other in overt ways, including athletics, alcohol consumption, leadership roles, and number of sexual relationships with women.

“Men engage in competition with each other in overt ways, both positive and negative, including the athletic field, the consumption of alcohol, the acquisition of leadership roles within and beyond the organization, and the number of women with whom they have sexual relationships (Nurius et al., 1996).”

• cites Nurius et al., 1996 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Men use alcohol as a way to anesthetize themselves from critical thinking about self-segregation.

“Men use alcohol as a way to anesthetize themselves from critical thinking about this kind of self-segregation (West, 2001).”

• cites West, 2001 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Alcohol use may be heightened in predominately White fraternities as a way to block thoughts about internal conflict over privilege.

“Alcohol use may, in part, be heightened in predominately White fraternities as a way to block thoughts about this internal conflict.”

Men within fraternities navigate identity development in the presence of other men who are likewise navigating these elements.

“Men within fraternities perform this navigation of the vector in the presence of other men who are likewise navigating these elements (Hall & La France, 2007).”

• cites Hall & La France, 2007 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Much of relationship formation for women is along a homosocial line.

“Like men, much of the relationship formation for women is along a homosocial line (Boyd, 1999).”

• cites Boyd, 1999 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Some researchers focused on Southern fraternities, looking at Blackface or parties with racial stereotype themes.

“Some researchers focused on Southern fraternities, looking at elements of Blackface or parties with themes based on racial stereotypes (Patton, 2008).”

• cites Patton, 2008 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Sororities pay attention to ways they believe women can attract positive male attention to their members and organizations.

“Unlike men's organizations, sororities pay attention to the ways in which they believe women can attract positive male attention to their members and their organizations at large (Stombler & Padavic, 1997).”

• cites Stombler & Padavic, 1997 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Researchers have shown fraternity men are often more conservative across the spectrum of identities when viewing other men.

“In general, researchers have shown fraternity men are often more conservative across the spectrum of identities when viewing other men, indicating that they may be challenged in their view of themselves when they see other men expressing their identities in differing ways.”

Hinrichs and Rosenberg (2008) documented fraternity men's lower tolerance of those perceived as different (including bisexual or gay men) more prominently than their reactions to lesbian or bisexual women.

“Hinrichs and Rosenberg (2008) documented fraternity men's lower levels of tolerance or acceptance of those they perceived as different (including bisexual or gay men) more prominently than fraternity men reacted to women who were lesbian or bisexual.”

• cites Hinrichs & Rosenberg, 2008Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Hall and La France determined negative attitudes toward gay and bisexual men rose as concerns with creating a masculine organizational identity increased, particularly for recruiting heterosexual men or attracting positive attention from sororities.

“Hall and La France determined negative attitudes toward gay and bisexual men rose as concerns with creating a masculine organizational identity, particularly for recruiting other, presumably heterosexual, men or attracting positive attention from sororities.”

• cites Hall & La France, 2007 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

For White men, fraternities can create arenas in which fear of giving away privilege can provide a foundation for racist or sexist activities.

“For White men in particular, fraternities can create arenas in which fear of giving away privilege can provide a foundation for racist or sexist activities (Nuwer, 2001).”

• cites Nuwer, 2001 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Within any organization, elements of privilege arise, whether that privilege is conferred by social identities, parental income, or other factors.

Development of self-concept for gay or bisexual men in fraternities, navigating race, masculinity, and hierarchy, can be problematic.

“Development of self-concept for men who identify themselves as gay or bisexual, navigating the intersection of race and masculinity, and the navigation within hierarchy for perception as a stronger man can be problematic.”

This use of alcohol to block critical thoughts about self-segregation may be one factor contributing to alcohol abuse.

“This use of alcohol as a way to block critical thoughts about self-segregation may be one factor contributing to alcohol abuse.”

Women and men are focused on different elements of identity formation.

“Women and men are focused on different elements of identity formation.”

Even in relationships, women defer to men in dictating terms.

“Even in the context of relationships, women defer to men in dictating terms (Danis & Anderson, 2008).”

• cites Danis & Anderson, 2008 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

This differs between historically White and historically Black sororities.

“Interestingly, this differs between historically White and historically Black sororities.”

Basow et al. (2007) found the longer women lived in a sorority house, the higher their scores on Bulimia and Body Dissatisfaction subscales, after controlling for year in school.

“Further, the longer women lived in a sorority house, the higher her scores on the Bulimia and Body Dissatisfaction subscales, after controlling for year in school.”

• cites Basow et al., 2007 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

In Allison and Park (2004), other measures (bulimia, body dissatisfaction, BMI, ideal weights, depression, self-esteem) did not significantly differ.

“Similar to previously cited research, other measures (i.e., bulimia, body dissatisfaction, BMI, ideal weights, depression, and self-esteem) did not significantly differ.”

• cites Allison & Park, 2004 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Women's interactions with men are mediated through alcohol use, perception of social class, and future desires for career and independence.

“Women's interactions with men are mediated through many lenses: alcohol use, perception of social class, and future desires for career and independence.”

Rolnik et al. (2010) found women who participated in recruitment scored higher on self-objectification and eating disordered behavior and attitudes (especially bulimia) compared to nonparticipants.

“The most consistent finding was women who participated in recruitment scored higher on selfobjectification and eating disordered behavior and attitudes (especially regarding bulimia) compared to nonparticipants.”

• cites Rolnik et al., 2010 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

One way the contradiction of friend or competition may be resolved within sororities is through incorporating service into organizational activities.

“One way in which the contradiction of friend or competition may be resolved within sororities is through the incorporation of service into organizational activities (Algoe, Haidt, & Gable, 2008).”

• cites Algoe, Haidt, & Gable, 2008 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Women feel they must make excuses to not have a relationship if a man is pursuing them, rather than simply choosing not to have a relationship.

“They feel that they must make excuses to not have a relationship if a man is pursuing them, rather than simply choosing not to have a relationship (Hamilton & Armstrong, 2009).”

• cites Hamilton & Armstrong, 2009 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source