THINGS THAT GO BUMP IN THE NIGHT: APPLYING LABELING THEORY TO PARANORMAL BELIEFS AND SUBSTANCE USE
Amanda Heitkamp
A Thesis
Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
May 2021
Committee:
Thomas Mowen, Advisor
John Boman
Stephen Demuth © 2021
Amanda Heitkamp
All Rights Reserved iii
ABSTRACT
Thomas Mowen, Advisor
Numerous surveys have demonstrated the common nature of paranormal beliefs, as well as the popularity of substance use in American society, particularly among college students.
Studies have also linked substance use to negative consequences including decreased academic performance, cognitive functioning, physical and sexual violence, and even death. Although paranormal beliefs are relatively common, there is a theoretical justification that belief in the paranormal and substance use may be correlated. Drawing from labeling theory, I examine if individuals who embrace paranormal beliefs experience negative label internalization, and if this leads to elevated levels of substance use. Multivariate analysis of an original dataset of college students from a Midwestern public university revealed that respondents who internalized a negative label due to their paranormal beliefs reported elevated levels of substance use.
Moreover, contrary to expectations, individuals who reported believing that society assigns a negative label to paranormal beliefs reported lower levels of substance use. An interaction effect between the internalized variable and external views was positive and marginally significant, indicating that greater external labels and negative internalization of the label of paranormal beliefs magnify in their effects on substance use. Given the widespread concern of substance use among college students and the co-occurring broad acceptance of paranormal beliefs, understanding the empirical linkage between these two dimensions is a key first step to address this critical gap in literature. iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to give special thanks to my advisor, Thomas Mowen, along with my committee members John Boman and Stephen Demuth for their countless hours of edits, navigation, and encouragement. In particular, Thomas, for always taking time out of his busy schedule to read every single draft I gave him. I could not have done this without him. Last but not least, thank you to my sister, my family, and my friends for being so supportive during my first two years of grad school. It takes a village. v
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
INTRODUCTION ...... 1
LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 4
Substance Use in College ...... 4
Theoretical Orientation: Labeling Theory ...... 7
Paranormal Beliefs ...... 9
CURRENT STUDY ...... 12
METHODS ...... 14
Data ...... 14
Dependent Variable: Substance Use ...... 15
Focal Independent Variable: Labeling ...... 15
Paranormal Exposure ...... 16
Academic Controls ...... 17
Demographic Controls ...... 18
ANALYTIC STRATEGY ...... 19
RESULTS ...... 21
DISCUSSION ...... 24
REFERENCES ...... 29
APPENDIX A. TABLES ...... 44 INTRODUCTION
Alcohol and drug use among college students are well-documented and persistent
issues (Skidmore, Kaufman and Crowell 2016). Substances including alcohol, tobacco,
marijuana, and amphetamines are used by college students at rates much higher than their non-
college attending peers (Merrill and Carey 2016; Schulenberg and Patrick 2012; Silverstri et al.
2015). Significant negative effects associated with drug and alcohol use include poor school
performance (Arria et al. 2013), traffic accidents (Borges and Hansen 1993), sexual abuse
(Abbey 2002), verbal and physical fights (Mustaine and Tewksbury 1998; Roth 1994), and even
death (Hingson, Zha and Weitzman 2009). Additional negative behaviors can arise from the
college atmosphere of drugs and binge drinking, studies have shown that substance use from
college can remain a lingering problem even after graduation (Jennsion 2004). With about 19.9
million students attending college in 2019 (National Center for Education Statistics 2020),
substance use is an issue that affects a significant portion of the population in the United States.
One key criminological perspective that has emerged as a fruitful explanation for
substance use is labeling theory (Kaplan, Martin and Robbins 1982; Li and Moore 2001).
Labeling theory suggests that society assigns deviant labels to particular sets of behavior or acts.
These ‘problem behaviors’ are defined by Jessor and Jessor (1997: 33) as “behavior that is
socially defined as a problem, source of concern, or as undesirable by the norms of conventional
society and the institutions of adult authority, and its occurrence usually elicits some kind of
social control response.” There is a stigma (Goffman 1963) placed on individuals who engage in
deviant behavior, and these individuals subsequently internalize this stigma (Link and Phelan
2001). This internalization can have serious negative consequences for the emotional well-being of individuals (Schroeder and Mowen 2014). Work on stigma has found that stigmatized people 2
deal with a multitude of adverse consequences including unfavorable self-image (Westbrook,
Bauman and Shinnar 1992), decreased employment opportunities (Link 1982; 1987), feelings of
blame (Gerstel 1987), depression and anxiety (Lee, Kochman and Sikkema 2002), and other
psychological issues (Gilbert and Walker 2010; Monroe and Peterman 1988). Previous work
applying labeling theory has shown that individuals who suffer from the stigma of food allergies
(Schroeder and Mowen 2014), depression (Wang, Burton and Pachankis 2017) and disabilities
(Li and Moore 2001) report using alcohol and other substances due to negative self-perceptions.
Although labeling theory has been implemented to explain substance use in a variety of contexts,
it has never been applied to understanding how paranormal beliefs might function as a label
towards substance use, highlighting a major shortcoming in both the application of labeling
theory and understanding the correlates of substance use.
Broadly defined, paranormal beliefs tend to describe occurrences or phenomena that go
beyond human ability, are physically impossible, or have no scientific explanation (Thalbourne
2003). Surveys have identified broad public support for the paranormal (Markovsky and Thye
2001). For example, Rice (2003) conducted a survey using 1,200 random-dialed telephone
interviews throughout the U.S. and found that 60% of respondents believed in extra sensory
perception, 59% believed in psychic healing, 42% believed in ghosts, and 40% believed in
UFOs. More recently, a survey conducted by Chapman University (2018) found that over 3/4ths
of Americans believe in at least one type of paranormal phenomenon. Additionally, this same survey reported higher paranormal beliefs than results from the previous year (Chapman
University 2017), indicating that belief in the paranormal is seemingly on the rise. However, despite a significant portion of the U.S. reporting a belief in some form of paranormal (Chapman
University 2017; 2018), the term “para” normal implies that belief in these events/experiences 3
are non-normative. This is evidenced by the relatively small sector of academic work on paranormal beliefs. To this point, Castro, Burrows and Wooffitt (2014: 33) highlight,
“…sociologists have not really been concerned with paranormal experiences [because] sociologists may be wary of engaging with the paranormal for fear of damaging their professional standing.”
Drawing from the literature on similarly common yet stigmatized identities such as
cancer (Purohit and Rabari 2020), disabilities (Li and Moore 2001), and women who are
involuntarily childless (Miall 1985), I suggest that individuals with paranormal beliefs also fall
into this category. In other words, despite paranormal beliefs being relatively widespread
(Chapman University 2017; 2018), there is still a label attached to those who believe and, as a
result, individuals with paranormal beliefs internalize this stigma. By applying the concept of stigma (Goffman 1963) and drawing from labeling theory (Lemert 1951), the goal of this study is to examine the extent to which individuals who feel stigmatized by their paranormal beliefs engage in substance use. More specifically, I expect that individuals who engage in the primary deviance of paranormal beliefs will internalize this stigmatized label and, in turn, I expect that these negative labels will result in secondary deviance via elevated levels of substance use. 4
LITERATURE REVIEW
Substance Use in College
College is a period in which young people are beginning their transition into adulthood, and thus is marked by more independence and less parental oversight (Lipari and Jean-Francois
2010). As a result of this new independence, college is the place where many students experiment with drugs and alcohol. There have been a number of nationally representative studies detailing how alcohol use is particularly high among college students (Fuertes and
Hoffman 2016; Johnston et al. 2004; Schulenberg and Clapp 2006), and the majority of college students not only drink but drink more heavily than their counterparts who do not attend college
(Merrill and Carey 2016). According to the Monitoring the Future study from 2003, 86.2% of college students reported lifetime alcohol consumption, as well as 66.2% reporting use in the past 30 days (Johnston et al. 2004). Additionally, of those who reported recent use, 38.5% said that within the last two weeks they had engaged in heavy episodic drinking (HED), which is defined as having 5 or more drinks at one time (Johnston et al. 2004). As described by the
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), college students ages 18 to 24 who have reported engaging in HED grew from 41.7% in 1998 to 44.7% in 2005 (Mitka 2009).
Research suggests that many college students are drinking at double this rate (having 8 to 10 drinks or more), which is classified as high-intensity drinking (Linden-Carmichael et al. 2017).
Moreover, 1 in 5 college students drink at diagnosable levels, despite the fact that college students overwhelmingly do not believe that they have a drinking problem (Mitka 2009).
While alcohol is the most used substance by college students, marijuana is close behind
(Schulenberg and Patrick 2012). Marijuana was found to be used by 50.7% of full-time college students (Johnston et al. 2004). In a study conducted using 1113 randomly selected college 5 students, Shillington and Clapp (2006) found that alcohol and marijuana users — categorized as dual users — were at greater risk for alcohol and other drug problems compared to those who only used alcohol. This finding persisted even after controlling for demographics and alcohol use behaviors like heavy drinking (Shillington and Clapp 2006). In their study on college students from 11 colleges from around the United States, Pearson, Liese, and Dvorak (2017) found that
26.2% of respondents reported marijuana use in the past two weeks, and 53.3% reported lifetime use. Furthermore, Bell, Wechsler and Johnston (1997) found that heavy episodic drinking was a predictor of marijuana use.
Drugs like stimulants (i.e. cocaine), amphetamines (i.e. Adderall, Ritalin), and sedatives
(i.e. Xanax, Valium), are also used at particularly high levels among college students (Kasperski et al. 2011; Silverstri et al. 2015). Multiple studies (Johnston et al. 2015; McCabe et al. 2019) reveal that amphetamines (including Adderall and Ritalin) taken without a doctor’s prescription are used at a higher rate among college students compared to their non-college attending peers.
This is likely the case due to the effects from amphetamines of staying alert and awake that aid college students in their coursework (McCabe et al. 2019). Notably, 8.5% of college students reported using amphetamines in 2018, compared to only 4.8% of their non-college attending peers (McCabe et al. 2019). In addition, Kasperski and colleagues (2011) found in their study on college students that a large number of students were offered cocaine (36% of those interviewed), and that most cocaine users (69%) started using cocaine after starting college.
Overall, non-medical prescription drug use (NMPDU) has been on the rise but is especially pervasive on college campuses (DuPont 2010; McCabe et al. 2014), and rates of substance abuse disorder for individuals ages 18 to 25 are significantly higher (17.3%) than those younger (5.2%) 6 and older (7.0%, see Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMSHA]
2014).
Perhaps unsurprisingly, substance use among college students is linked to a number of negative consequences. Alcohol use is associated with receiving lower grades and skipping class
(Arria et al. 2013; Kilmer and Geisner 2013), changes in brain function, memory blackouts, lingering cognitive deficits (White and Hingson 2013), violence (Roth 1994; Mustaine and
Tewksbury 1998), physical fighting, sexual abuse, accidents, and death (Hingson, Zha and
Weitzman 2009). As reported by Hingson, Zha, and Smyth (2017) in their study analyzing data from college enrollment, census, and coroner statistics, alcohol-overdose hospitalizations increased by 26% per 100,000 from 1998 to 2014. Additionally, alcohol-related overdose deaths skyrocketed from 207 in 1998, to 891 in 2014 (Hingson, Zha and Smyth 2017). For some individuals, patterns of alcohol use in college are difficult to break after leaving school (Jennison
2004). According to Fillmore and Midanik (1984), the group of individuals likely to age out of problem drinking is upwardly mobile college students, while downwardly mobile students who do not graduate are not as likely to age out. Thus, drinking in college can lead to on-going problems in adulthood. Similarly, marijuana use is also linked with receiving lower grades and skipping class (Arria et al. 2013; Hingson, Zha and Weitzman 2009), in addition to procrastination, lowered productivity, and memory difficulties (Buckner, Ecker and Cohen
2010). A longitudinal study done by Flory and colleagues (2004) revealed that youth who used marijuana had increased rates of arrests and antisocial symptoms. The findings from Walters and colleague’s (2018) study on mental illness and substance use showed that depressive symptoms were linked with the use of tobacco, marijuana, sedatives, hallucinogens, and amphetamines. As 7 is clear, substance is an issue that has both immediate and long-term consequences among the college population in the United States.
Theoretical Orientation: Labeling Theory
Originally developed by Emile Durkheim (1897) in his pivotal work on suicide, crime was not thought of as a violation of existing laws, but instead was described as matters that outraged society. Durkheim proposed that labeling actions as ‘criminal’ or ‘deviant’ allows for society to control said behavior (Durkheim 1897). Consequently, things like alcoholism, delinquency, and suicide were marked as deviant (Durkheim 1897). Individuals who engage in deviant behavior are stigmatized by society (Becker 1963). Erving Goffman (1963: 3) described stigma in his seminal piece Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, as “an attribute that is deeply discrediting” assigned to individuals who have deviated from society's expectations. Through this externalization process individuals develop an understanding of what is, and what is not normative behavior. To this, Cooley (1902) asserts that individuals are not being influenced by the actual opinion of others, but rather by what they perceive of others’ opinions. Thus, individuals judge themselves based on their perceptions of appropriate behavior
(see Cooley 1902).
Although Cooley (1902) demonstrates how individuals judge themselves based on broader external social standards, labeling theory (Lemert 1951) explicates the process through which individuals internalize these external messages. The initial step of labeling theory, primary deviance, is an original act of deviance driven by “a variety of social, cultural, psychological, and physiological factors,” but has little impact on identity (Lemert 2006: 273). Primary deviance has only marginal implications for the individual, but becomes more impactful once there is a societal reaction (Lemert 2006). Individuals who commit deviant acts are seen as 8 quintessentially different from ‘normal’ people in society (Becker 1963); and as a result, these individuals internalize this deviant label and their “life and identity are organized around the fact of deviance.” (Lemert 1951: 63; see also Becker 1963). According to Schultz (2014), symbolic labels like a criminal record are imposed upon deviant individuals, which in turn stigmatizes these individuals on a societal level. Social interactions between the stigmatized individuals and others are commonly characterized by embarrassment, uneasiness, and employment of extreme efforts at impression management (Goffman 1963). Stigmatized individuals may go so far as to avoid non-stigmatized individuals and may become involved in social groups made up of other stigmatized or deviant individuals (Lemert 1951). Persons labeled as deviant are thus unable to continue to act in moral ways, and as a result might violate other significant rules (Becker 1963). Secondary deviance occurs after the individual commits deviant acts as a way of attack, defense, or adjustment to society’s reaction (Lemert 2006); thus, the repeated deviance performed by the individual is driven by societal response to the initial deviance (Lemert 1951).
While labeling theory has varied in popularity over the decades, recent developments of methodology, clarity of theory, and availability of longitudinal data have allowed for a significant breadth of empirical work in recent years (Bernberg 2019). Studies have found that individuals who feel stigmatized are more likely to experience higher levels of anxiety and depression (Gilbert and Walker 2010), lower levels of self-esteem (Westbrook, Bauman and
Shinnar 1992), and feelings of self-blame (Turan et al. 2016). Moreover, individuals assigned with stigma can form corresponding behaviors in order to deal with the stigma (Link and Phelan
1999; Murphy et al. 2000; Sharp 2009; Westbrook, Bauman and Shinnar 1992), understood through labeling theory as secondary deviance. This is illustrated by Link and colleague’s (1989) 9 study on mental illness, where they found that individuals internalized the negative labels of mental illness and developed coping mechanisms like withdrawal and secrecy to ease these unfavorable feelings. In another example, Tewksbury (2012) found that individuals convicted of sexual offenses internalized damaging labels, and consequently harbored personal feelings of hopelessness, fear and shame. Studies have applied labeling theory to explain a number of different matters such as disabilities (Li and Moore 2001), delinquency (Klein 1986), mental illness (Link et al. 1989; Pasman 2011), learning disabilities (Shifrer 2013) and obesity (Dejong
1980). Furthermore, the concept of stigma has been used to illustrate behaviors such as welfare stigma leading to increased welfare use (Walsgrove 1987), understanding the experiences of wheelchair users (Cahill and Eggleston 1995), and health-related stigmas such as contracting genital herpes (Lee and Craft 2002). However, to date, no prior study has evoked the concepts of labeling theory to explain the linkage between paranormal beliefs and deviant behavior, which I turn to now.
Paranormal Beliefs
Beginning in the 1970s, the media, the public, and even academia explored the topic of paranormal beliefs (Brodin and Goode 2001). The New Age movement, which can be broadly defined as an interest in spiritualism, environmentalism, and as an alternative to Western culture, has created a mass market of products, publications, and seminars (Gardner 1991; Stenger 1990).
In addition, celebrities are also voicing their opinions on the paranormal. Tom DeLonge, front man for the musical group Blink-182, organized a group of scientists, engineers, and activists that became known as To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science in an effort to pressure the
American government to be more transparent about UFOs (Taylor 2019). Perhaps most surprisingly, even politicians have publicly supported the idea of the paranormal. Ronald and 10
Nancy Reagan used astrologers to guide them in making decisions for the nation (Gardner 1992),
Bill Clinton was advised by New Age gurus and prominent psychics (Woodward 1996); and, more recently, both presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton (2016) and Bernie Sanders (2020) revealed in interviews that they would investigate UFOs (Chozick 2016; Folley 2019). Even if these endorsements do not influence the public directly, at a minimum they set a tone that
“legitimizes paranormal solutions to life’s problems, however small or large.” (Markovsky and
Thye 2001: 22).
An increasing number of individuals from different backgrounds, race/ethnicities, genders, ages, and social positions are believing in the paranormal including crystal powers, lucky numbers, life after death, astrology, ghosts, and UFOs (Brodin and Goode 2001). Over
90% of Americans report belief in the supernatural, paranormal, and occult, and the rates have been steadily increasing (Gallup 1979, 1997; Gallup and Newport 1990). A study conducted by
Chapman University (2018) asked Americans about their thoughts on seven paranormal beliefs: places can be haunted by spirits; ancient, advanced civilizations like Atlantis once existed; aliens have visited Earth in our recent past; aliens have come to Earth in modern times; some individuals can move objects with their minds; bigfoot is a real creature; and fortune tellers or psychics can foresee the future. Results indicated that only 24.1% of Americans did not hold any of the seven beliefs, which was down the previous year (25.3%), indicating that paranormal beliefs are becoming more widespread (Chapman University 2017). Though popularity of paranormal beliefs is apparent, few studies have ventured to examine how paranormal beliefs correlate with substance use.
Despite what appears to be broad range support and engagement with the paranormal in the
United States, it is unlikely that individuals who embrace a wide range of paranormal beliefs 11
completely avoid the stigma associated with “para” normal beliefs. For example, while cancer is
not traditionally considered deviant, a plethora of studies have found that individuals dealing
with cancer experience feelings of stigma, perceived blame, and self-blame (Cho et al. 2013;
Kim and Yi 2014; Phelan et al. 2011). Likewise, Schroeder and Mowen (2014) found in their
study on individuals living with celiac disease, one of the most common autoimmune disorders
in the United States, that individuals employed a number of stigma-management strategies to conceal their identities, in addition to having issues with social activities, perceived stigma, and interpersonal relationships. Similarly, while the act of divorce is quite common in the United
States, with nearly half of marriages ending in divorce (Kennedy and Ruggles 2014), those experiencing divorce harbor feelings of embarrassment, failure, self and public stigma (Konstam et al. 2016). In fact, it has even been evidenced that this perceived stigma surrounding divorce has a deterrent effect for individuals considering divorce (Kim and Kim 2002). Thus, I hypothesize that while paranormal beliefs are widespread, individuals will still report experiencing a stigma due to their beliefs. I further speculate that the primary deviance of paranormal beliefs is likely to lead to label internalization about those beliefs, which will then promote the secondary deviance of substance use 12
CURRENT STUDY
As highlighted above, substance use among college students remains a pressing concern among researchers, school officials, and policy makers alike. At the same time, although belief in the paranormal is seemingly widespread among this population, it is entirely possible that paranormal beliefs may present a stigma to individuals. When placed within the context of labeling theory (Lemert 1951), individuals who embrace paranormal beliefs may experience negative label internalization which may promote substance use as a secondary outcome. Given the widespread concern about substance use among college students and the co-occurring common embracement of paranormal beliefs, understanding the theoretical and empirical linkage between these two dimensions is a key first step to address this pressing gap in research, policy, and practice.
Drawing from labeling theory (Lemert 1951), the current study uses an original sample of college students surveyed about their paranormal beliefs, feelings of stigma surrounding paranormal beliefs, and their levels of substance use to examine the interrelationships among these key constructs. Specifically, my study poses three research questions and corresponding hypotheses. I first explore the extent to which individuals perceive negative external social views about paranormal beliefs (e.g., Cooley 1902) and ask: Do college students who feel that paranormal beliefs are non-normative have elevated levels of substance use? Accordingly, I hypothesize that respondents who believe paranormal beliefs are non-normative will report higher levels of substance use. Second, in a test of one of the primary tenets of labeling theory, I ask: Do individuals internalize a negative label due to their own paranormal beliefs, and does this produce elevated levels of substance use? Consequently, I hypothesize that individuals that report a stigma regarding their paranormal beliefs will also describe higher levels of substance 13 use. And finally, given the importance of both external messages (perceptions of others’ opinions) and internalization of these messages (e.g., labeling), the third research question asks:
Is there an interaction effect between external perceptions and the internalized feelings of paranormal beliefs on substance use? Subsequently, I hypothesize that there will be an interaction effect between these two constructs on substance use. 14
METHODS
Data
To date, no existing data set has allowed for the empirical test of the relationship between paranormal beliefs and substance abuse; due, in large part, to sociologists being reticent to explore paranormal beliefs (Castro, Burrows and Wooffitt 2014). Accordingly, an original data collection was necessary to address the research questions of this thesis. I worked with two professors from the Sociology Department on a survey aimed at assessing how criminological theories relate with paranormal beliefs. The data was gathered in spring of 2020 in a convenience sample of college students from a mid-sized school in the Midwest. After receiving Institutional
Review Board (IRB) approval, the primary investigator of the study recruited participants by contacting professors from a range of colleges and departments including business, psychology, computer science, education, English, sociology, criminal justice, political science and social work. This was intended to create a wide range of students in the study. The professors were asked to post a link to the survey onto their course website. Students who participated were entered into a raffle to win a gift card for a local restaurant. In total, 441 students finished the survey.
The survey consisted of 113 questions concerning paranormal beliefs, criminological theories, and demographic factors. Demographic characteristics like age, race, gender, social status, and academic characteristics were also collected. In order to capture a broad spectrum of paranormal beliefs, 19 paranormal questions were drawn from a previous study testing paranormal beliefs (Wilson 2018). Examples include: there is a large primate (often called
Bigfoot) living in North America; the number 13 is unlucky; some people are able to accurately predict the future; it is possible to communicate with the dead; and some people have been 15 abducted by space aliens. Responses were scored on a Likert-type response scale where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree. Other questions specific to this study included labeling questions and substance use, which I turn to now.
Dependent Variable: Substance Use
The dependent variable in this study is a measure of substance use, which consists of alcohol, marijuana, ecstasy (i.e. molly, MDMA), amphetamines (i.e. unprescribed Ritalin or
Adderall), and cocaine. The questions all followed the same format of “In the past 12 months, how often have you used alcohol?” with possible answers including (1) never, (2) 1-2 times, (3)
3-4 times, (4) once a month, (5) a few times a week, (6) every day. A mean score was compiled by adding up the answers to the five substances (mean = 9.162, standard deviation = 3.551), with an observed minimum of 5 (no substance use) and an observed maximum of 25 (substance use every day). Descriptive statistics for this measure, and for all other measures used in this study are shown in Table 1 below.
Focal Independent Variable: Labeling
Two independent variables accessing labeling are used. First, to analyze respondents' feelings of broader societal perceptions, the external label variable was created. This is indicated by the question: I believe that people attach a stigma or label to people who believe in the paranormal. Possible answers included (1) strongly disagree, (2) somewhat disagree, (3) somewhat agree, (4) strongly agree, and (5) I do not have any paranormal beliefs. Individuals who reported having no beliefs were dropped from the analysis. The minimum value was 1, indicating that respondents strongly disagreed, while the maximum value was 4, indicating that 16
respondents strongly agreed (mean = 2.706, standard deviation 0.924). Second, to examine if
individuals internalize a negative label due to their paranormal beliefs, the internalized label
variable was created. This consisted of the questions: people who know about my paranormal
beliefs treat me differently; I avoid telling others about my paranormal beliefs; I often feel
negatively judged for my belief in the paranormal; I often feel different from others because of
my paranormal beliefs; I feel like people get uncomfortable when I bring up my paranormal
beliefs; I am often embarrassed about my paranormal beliefs; and it does not really matter what I
say about my paranormal beliefs because people usually have their minds made up. The alpha among these seven items was 0.8405 (Cronbach 1951), indicating these items load very well together. Possible answers included (1) strongly disagree, (2) somewhat disagree, (3) somewhat agree, (4) strongly agree, and (5) I do not have any paranormal beliefs. Again, individuals who reported no paranormal beliefs in response to this answer were not included in the analysis. A mean score was compiled, with a minimum of 7 and a maximum of 28. The mean score for internalized label is 12.540, and the standard deviation is 4.063.
Paranormal Exposure
To control for the levels of paranormal belief held by individuals close to the respondent, we included two measures of paranormal exposure. This measure was created as an attempt to
control for respondents simply adopting the same beliefs as those close to them. The first
variable captures family belief of paranormal, which included three questions: 1) how many of
your family members believe in the paranormal, 2) how many of your family members believe in
astrology, and 3) how many of your family members are superstitious. Possible answers were 1 =
none, 2 = a few, 3 = most, and 4 = all. The alpha among these three items was 0.7127 (Cronbach
1951), specifying that the items load well together. These three items were summed in order to 17 create a measure of family beliefs, which had a minimum of 3, indicating no beliefs, and a maximum of 12, indicating high beliefs (mean = 5.692, standard deviation = 1.697).
The second variable captures peer belief of the paranormal, which were identical to the family belief questions, but asked about beliefs of the respondent’s peers. The alpha was 0.6121 for these three items. While this is slightly lower than the family belief measures, it is still at an acceptable level of inter-item reliability (Cronbach 1951), especially considering there are only three items in the scale. Thus, these three items were summed in order to create a measure of peer beliefs with a minimum of 3, indicating no beliefs, and a maximum of 10, indicating high beliefs (mean = 6.424, standard deviation = 1.384).
Academic Controls
Considering the nature of our sample, a variety of academic characteristics and experiences are also controlled. First was whether or not the respondent was a member of a sorority/fraternity. Overall, 16.3% of the sample reported being a member of a Greek organization on campus. Theoretical justification for this variable is backed up by numerous studies detailing the relationship between Greek life and high levels of substance use (see
Danielson, Himbeault, and Hartford 2001). Second, respondents were asked to report their academic performance based on their grade point average (GPA). They were given a 4-point scale (0 = under 2.0, 1 = 2.0-2.49, 2 = 2.5-2.99, 3 = 3.0-3.49, 4 = 3.5 or higher). The mean GPA in this sample is 3.287 (standard deviation = 0.912) indicating that students in this sample had around a B average GPA. Third, respondents were asked about which college their major was located in. Because there were hundreds of likely combinations of academic majors, asking instead about colleges was aimed at alleviating this issue. In the event of having multiple majors, respondents were asked to choose their ‘home’ college. Overall, 40.6% of respondents reported 18
being in the College of Arts and Sciences (the largest college on the campus) and 25.8%
reporting being in the college of Health and Human services, in contrast to 33.6% reported being
in some other college on campus. Finally, we also asked respondents to report their class
standing. Overall, 51.9% reported being freshman or sophomores in contrast to 48.1% who
reported being in another category (e.g., junior, senior, non-degree seeking, graduate student).
Demographic Controls
Lastly, respondents were asked about a variety of demographic questions. Race was
measured as a series of binary variables signifying if the respondent was White (84.3%), Black
(4.1%), or Other race (11.6%). Gender was also a series of binary variables indicating males
(25.6%), non-binary/other (3.0%) in comparison to females (71.4%). There have been empirical
linkages to substance use among college students in regards to race and gender, with a repeated
finding being that White males use substances at the highest rates (LaBrie et al. 2011). Age was a semi-continuous variable measured as 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, or 24 years and older. The mean of this measure was 20.054 (standard deviation = 1.563) indicating that respondents are, on average, 20 years old. Finally, respondents were asked about their social class (1 = working class, 2 = lower-middle class, 3 = middle class, 4 = upper-middle class, 5 = upper class). This measure has an overall mean of 3.028 (standard deviation = 0.855) indicating that most respondents reported being in the middle class. 19
ANALYTIC STRATEGY
In order to address the research questions of this study, I employ a multivariate statistical approach. The dependent measure, substance use, is relatively normally distributed. Thus, ordinary least squares (OLS) regression is used as well as a model building procedure. In order to study the first research question, whether college students in this sample believe that the broader society labels paranormal beliefs as non-normative and if that leads to elevated levels of substance use, Model 1 presents a multivariate regression using the externalized label question along with covariates. In order to address the second research question, if individuals internalize a negative label due to their own paranormal beliefs and if this leads to increased levels of substance use, Model 2 presents a multivariate regression using internalized labels with the same covariates. Finally, to address the last research question, if there is an interaction between internalized labels and the external label and whether that leads to elevated levels of substance use, Model 3 presents a multivariate regression containing the internal label, the external label, and an interaction term, while controlling for the same covariates. The interaction term was created by grand mean centering both the internal and external label, then multiplying them together (see Paccagnella 2006). Finally, all independent variables in the forthcoming analysis are standardized to understand the robustness of their effects.
Of the total sample of 441 respondents, I analyze data from 335 individuals. Respondents who answered “I do not have any paranormal beliefs” to the questions concerning labeling were excluded from the analysis. This decision was based on the fact that the labeling questions were specific to individuals with paranormal beliefs. Because the third research question uses an interaction between the internalized label and externalized label, only individuals who reported 20 paranormal beliefs could be included so that the samples would be the same. Therefore, individuals without paranormal beliefs were not included in the analysis. 21
RESULTS
Model 1 examines the link between external labels and substance use, net the effect of the control variables. Overall, the R² shows that about 18% of the variation in substance use is explained by the covariates in this model. Substantive findings indicate that external labels are negatively related to substance use with one standard deviation higher score on external labels being associated with a 0.371 unit reduction in substance use. This finding is contradictory with the hypothesis that respondents who believe paranormal beliefs are non-normative will report
higher levels of substance use. Results also show that being in a sorority or fraternity was
positively associated with substance use, with respondents in Greek life reporting a 1.586 unit
higher score on the substance use scale compared to their non-Greek peers. GPA had a negative
association with substance use, meaning that individuals with higher GPAs used substances at
lower levels than those with lower GPAs. Specifically, one standard deviation higher on GPA
was associated with a 0.473 unit decrease in substance use. Being an underclassman was also
negatively associated with substance use, meaning that underclassmen in relation to others (e.g.,
juniors, seniors, non-degree seeking, graduate students) scored 1.236 units lower on substance use than their counterparts. Controlling for covariates, Black respondents reported significantly greater levels of substance use relative to White respondents, with Black respondents scoring
1.685 units higher than White respondents on substance use. Lastly, results show that peer beliefs are significantly associated with substance use, with respondents with a greater proportion of peers who believe in the paranormal report significantly elevated substance use relative to those with fewer peers who believe in the paranormal. Specifically, one standard deviation higher score of friends with paranormal beliefs was associated with a 0.474 unit increase in substance use. 22
Model 2, shown in Table 2, examines the link between internal labeling and substance use. The R² shows that 18% of the variation in substance use is explained by the covariates in this model. Results are supportive of the hypothesis that individuals who internalize a negative label due to their paranormal beliefs use substances at increased levels. Specifically, a one standard deviation higher score on internal labels is associated with a 0.096 unit increase in substance use. Similar to Model 1, being in a sorority/fraternity, Black respondents relative to
White respondents, and respondents with more peers having paranormal beliefs were all statistically significant and correlated with increased substance use. Being an underclassman and having a higher GPA were associated with lower levels of substance use. In addition, Model 2 shows that social class is positively associated with substance use, with one standard deviation increase in social class being associated with 0.508 increase in substance use.
Finally, Model 3 addresses the third research question: “Is there an interaction effect between external perceptions and the internalized feelings of paranormal beliefs on substance use?” by including the internal label, the external label, and an interaction effect between the two. The R² shows that 20% of the variation in substance use is explained by the covariates in this model. Findings reveal that the internal label and external label retained significance, along with the interaction effect being positive and marginally significant (b = 0.097; SE = 0.057; p =
0.088). This indicates that individuals who internalized a negative label due to their paranormal beliefs, in addition to reporting a belief that the larger society views paranormal beliefs as deviant, reported increased levels of substance use. Thus, the internal and external labels are not independent of each other at the p < .10 level. 23
Lastly, because the dependent variable is comprised of five substances, I ran sensitivity tests in order to assess if a specific substance (i.e. alcohol) was driving these results. This was done by running five separate regressions with a single substance as the dependent variable.
Findings indicated that marijuana and ecstasy (i.e. Molly, MDMA) were still statistically significant, while alcohol, amphetamines (i.e. Adderall, Ritalin), and cocaine were no longer significant in the multivariate models. This suggests that respondents used specific drugs
(marijuana and ecstasy) in response to internalized and externalized labels of paranormal beliefs.
This finding is discussed in more detail below. 24
DISCUSSION
In this study I sought to examine the potential link between paranormal beliefs and substance use using an original sample of college students. By applying labeling theory as the theoretical orientation, I examined if respondents experienced negative label internalization from their paranormal beliefs, promoting substance use as a secondary outcome. I now turn back to my research questions in order to discuss the findings.
The first research question asked: “Do college students who feel that paranormal beliefs are non-normative have elevated levels of substance use?” which tapped into whether individuals perceived negative external social views about paranormal beliefs (e.g. Cooley 1902). Results from the analysis were not supportive of the hypothesis that respondents who thought society viewed paranormal beliefs as deviant would have increased levels of substance use. In fact, the opposite relationship was found. That is, individuals who reported thinking that paranormal beliefs were non-normative reported lower levels of substance use. Cooley (1902) detailed how individuals develop an understanding of what is, and what is not normative behavior based on their perception of others' opinions. Through this lens, the finding that individuals who perceived paranormal beliefs to be deviant by society’s standards engaged in lower levels of substance use could be indicative of a perception of society viewing substance use as deviant. When individuals perceive negative evaluations of others it discourages them from engaging in deviant behavior (Kim and Kim 2002). Therefore, though the findings were inconsistent with the initial hypothesis, results are consistent with previous work on stigmatized behaviors (Cooley 1902;
Goffman 1963; Kim and Kim 2002). Simply put: Those who believe that society stigmatizes paranormal beliefs may also believe that society stigmatizes substance use. 25
The second research question assessed one of the main tenets of labeling theory by
asking: “Do individuals internalize a negative label due to their own paranormal beliefs, and
does this produce elevated levels of substance use?” Findings were supportive of the hypothesis
that individuals who internalize a negative label of paranormal beliefs used substances at increased rates. By applying labeling theory, individuals internalize the negative label of their paranormal beliefs (initial deviance), which leads to increased levels of substance use (secondary deviance). Findings are consistent with numerous other studies assessing stigmatized behaviors
and identities such as individuals with depression (Wang, Burton and Pachankis 2017),
disabilities (Li and Moore 2001), and food allergies (Schroeder and Mowen 201) using
substances as a coping mechanism or an outcome of the internalization of a negative social
label.
Lastly, due to the importance of both external messages (perceptions of others’ opinions)
and internalization of these messages (e.g., label internalization), the last research question asked
“Is there an interaction effect between external perceptions and the internalized feelings of
paranormal beliefs on substance use?” Results indicated that the internal and external variables
did interact in their effects on substance use (p < .10). In other words, individuals who perceived
negative external labels about paranormal beliefs, in addition to internalizing a negative label due
to their own paranormal beliefs, engaged in even higher levels of substance use. This result is
important in that it identifies how external labeling and internalization of negative labels are not
independent from each other. This interaction is particularly important as the main effect of
external labels was protective against substance use. However, when combined with negative
label internalization, negative external labels exacerbate substance use. Thus, while negative
perceptions of external labels reduces substance use, findings tend to show that this is only the 26 case for individuals who have not negatively internalized a label about their paranormal beliefs
(e.g., a looking-glass self-process, Cooley 1902).
In addition to theory, this study raises some intriguing policy implications. First, school officials, politicians and activists have long been aware of the problems associated with rampant substance use on college campuses; however, there have been little improvements in this area, with data documenting how some substance use issues are even on the rise (Hingson, Zha, and
Smyth 2017). Findings from this study point to the fact that unconventional variables (e.g., personal paranormal beliefs and perceptions of society’s view about paranormal beliefs) are significantly related to trends in substance use among college students. Thus, results move the area of substance use by college students forward, and encourage an examination of further unconventional variables. Put differently, while it may seem radical to suggest that school officials and policy makers consider paranormal beliefs in their efforts to reduce problematic substance use on college campus, traditional efforts – by and large – have largely failed to address collegiate substance use issues. Findings from this study suggest that administrators think “outside the box” towards more unconventional correlates of substance use.
Further relating to the issue of substance use, sensitivity tests revealed that respondents did not use all five drugs (alcohol, marijuana, amphetamines, ecstasy, and cocaine) equally in response to stigma. Rather, it appears that marijuana and ecstasy were driving the significant results. This finding is important for a number of reasons. First, while there are numerous studies documenting how individuals use substances in an attempt to cope with stigma, most of this literature either employs a blanket term of substances, or studies examine specific substances like alcohol or opioids (Ford and Schroeder 2007; Li and Moore 2001; Murphy, Austin, and
Greenwell 2007; Wang, Burton, and Pachankis 2018). By breaking down the substance category 27
in this study, I was able to see a more complete picture of the drugs driving this effect: marijuana
and ecstasy. Second, these two drugs in particular are curious in the sense that there is emerging
literature detailing their beneficial effects. For example, Mithoefer and colleagues (2016)
detailed how ecstasy use has been linked with helping individuals with social anxiety, anxiety
due to life-threatening illnesses, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Similarly, Metrik and colleagues (2011) found that smoking marijuana was associated with decreased anxiety, increased arousal, and increased positive affect. What’s more, the expansion of the legalization of marijuana around the United States allows for more individuals to use marijuana in a safe and legal fashion. Additional research should assess this finding to better understand why respondents use increased levels of marijuana and ecstasy over other substances, and further examine the potential benefits of use.
Despite the contributions of this research, it is not without both methodological and theoretical limitations. Towards the former, while the research questions posed by this study warranted an original data set, this Midwestern sample may not be representative of the total college population in the United States. Future research should use this study as an example to empirically test other populations. For example, do college students in the southern United States have similar feelings about paranormal beliefs and levels of substance use? How do individuals across different socioeconomic statuses compare? Additionally, longitudinal research concerning paranormal beliefs would be useful in determining temporal ordering, and how paranormal beliefs and levels of substance use change over time. Moreover, qualitative studies concerning paranormal beliefs and deviant behaviors could help us better understand the feelings and behaviors of individuals in this population and provided key conceptual information. 28
There are also important theoretical limitations and directions for future research. While this study was largely based in symbolic interactionism, other theoretical orientations may prove fruitful in understanding the linkage between paranormal beliefs and substance use. Future research should consider social learning, social control, and general strain perspectives in understanding the relationship between feelings of paranormal beliefs and substance use.
Further, while this study found a link between labels and substance use, future research should examine other outcomes such as crime/violence, mental health, and family/peer relationships.
Despite the limitations of this study, the results of this study move the literature on paranormal beliefs, labels, and substance use forward in key ways. Although paranormal beliefs are relatively common and seemingly on the rise (Chapman University 2017; 2018), sociologist’s general lack of engagement with this topic have left us little understanding on how paranormal beliefs may influence other key social behaviors (Castro, Burrows and Wooffitt
2014). Findings from this study indicate that respondent’s perceptions of societal labels of paranormal beliefs, as well as the internalization of negative labels of paranormal beliefs are both correlated with substance use. Social scientists must continue to develop a greater theoretical and empirical understanding of the importance of paranormal beliefs in our society. Failing to do so could mean that when asked about the key role of paranormal beliefs on social and behavioral outcomes, social scientists may only be able to offer a popular phrase from a well-known 1960s cartoon: “Looks like we’ve got another mystery on our hands.” 1
1 A phrase often spoken by Velma in “Scooby-Doo.” 29
REFERENCES
Abbey, Antonia. 2002. “Alcohol-Related Sexual Assault: A Common Problem among College
Students.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 14: 118-28.
Arria, Amelia M., Holly C. Wilcox, Kimberly M. Caldeira, Kathryn B. Vincent, Laura M.
Garnier-Dykstra, and Kevin E. O’Grady. 2013. “Dispelling the Myth of ‘Smart Drugs’:
Cannabis and Alcohol Use Problems Predict Nonmedical Use of Prescription Stimulants
for Studying.” Addictive Behaviors 38: 1643-50.
Becker, Howard. 1963. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York, NY: Free
Press of Glencoe.
Bell, Rick, Henry Wechsler, and Lloyd D. Johnston. 1997. “Correlates of College Student
Marijuana Use: Results of a US National Survey.” Addiction 92: 571-81.
Bernberg, Jon Gunnar. 2019. “Labeling Theory.” Pp. 179-196 in Handbook on Crime and
Deviance. Springer Nature.
Borges, Nicole J. and Sarah L. Hansen. 1993. “Correlation Between College Students’ Driving
Offenses and their Risks for Alcohol Problems.” Journal of American College and
Health 42: 79-81.
Brodin, Jenny-Ann and Erich Goode. 2001. “Paranormal Beliefs: A Sociological Introduction.”
Contemporary Sociology 30: 262-63. 30
Buckner, Julia D., Anthony H. Ecker, and Alex S. Cohen. 2010. “Mental Health Problems and
Interest in Marijuana Treatment among Marijuana-Using College Students.” Addictive
Behaviors 35: 826-33.
Cahill, Spencer E. and Robin Eggleston. 1995. “Reconsidering the Stigma of Physical Disability:
Wheelchair Use and Public Kindness.” The Sociological Quarterly 36: 681-98.
Castro, Madeleine, Roger Burrows, and Robin Wooffitt. 2014. “The Paranormal is (Still)
Normal: The Sociological Implications of a Survey of Paranormal Experiences in Great
Britain.” Sociological Research Online 19: 30-44.
Chapman University. 2017. “Paranormal America 2017” Available at:
https://blogs.chapman.edu/wilkinson/2017/10/11/paranormal-america-2017/
Chapman University. 2018. “Paranormal America 2018.” Available at:
https://blogs.chapman.edu/wilkinson/2018/10/16/paranormal-america-2018/
Cho, Juhee, Eun-kyung Choi, So Young Kim, Dong Wook Shin, Be-Long Cho, Chang-hoon
Kim, Dai Ha Koh, Eliseo Guallar, Wayne A. Bardwell, Jong Hyock Park. 2013.
“Association Between Cancer Stigma and Depression among Cancer Survivors: A
Nationwide Survey in Korea.” Psycho-Oncology 22: 2372-78.
Chozick, Amy. 2016. “Hillary Clinton Gives U.F.O. Buffs Hope She Will Open the X-Files.”
The New York Times, May 10. 31
Cooley, Charles Horton. 1902. Human Nature and the Social Order. New York, NY: Charles
Scribner’s Sons.
Cronbach, Lee J. 1951. “Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests.” Psychometrika
16: 297-334.
Danielson, Cherry, Simone Himbeault, and Maureen Hartford. 2001. “Examining the Complex
Relationship Between Greek Life and Alcohol: A Literature Review.” Journal of Student
Affairs, Research, and Practice 38: 451-465.
Dejong, William. 1980. “The Stigma of Obesity: The Consequences of Naïve Assumptions
Concerning the Causes of Physical Deviance.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 21:
75-87.
Dupont, Robert L. 2010. “Prescription Drug Abuse: An Epidemic Dilemma.” Journal of
Psychoactive Drugs 42: 127-32.
Durkheim, Emile. 1897. Suicide.
Fillmore, Kaye M. and Lorraine Midanik. 1984. “Chronicity of Drinking Problems among Men:
A Longitudinal Study.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 45: 228-36.
Flory, Kate, Donald Lynam, Richard Milich, Carl Leukefeld, and Richard Clayton. 2004. “Early
Adolescent through Young Adult Alcohol and Marijuana Use Trajectories: Early 32
Predictors, Young Adult Outcomes, and Predictive Utility.” Development and
Psychopathology 16: 193-213.
Folley, Aris. 2019. “Sanders Pledges to Let Americans in on Aliens, UFOs If Elected President.”
The Hill, August 8.
Ford, Jason A. and Ryan D. Schroeder. 2007. “Academic Strain and Non-Medical Use of
Prescription Stimulants among College Students.” Deviant Behavior 30: 26-53.
Fuertes, Jairo N. and Alexander Hoffman. 2016. “Alcohol Consumption and Abuse among
College Students: Alarming Rates among the Best and the Brightest.” College Student
Journal 50: 236-40.
Gallup, George H. 1979. The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion, 1978. New York: Random House.
Gallup, George H. 1979. The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion, 1996. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly
Resources.
Gallup, George and Frank Newport. 1990. “Belief in Psychic and Paranormal Phenomena
Widespread among Americans.” Gallup Poll Monthly 299: 35-44.
Gardner, Martin. 1991. The New Age: Notes of a Fringe Watcher. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.
Gardner, Martin. 1992. On the Wild Side. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus. 33
Gerstel, Naomi. 1987. “Divorce and Stigma.” Social Problems 34: 172-86.
Gilbert, Leah and Liz Walker. 2010. “‘My Biggest Fear was that People would Reject Me if
They Knew My Status...’ Stigma as Experienced by Patients in an HIV-AIDS Clinic in
Johannesburg, South Africa.” Health and Social Care in the Community 18: 139-146.
Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York:
Simon and Schuster.
Hingson, Ralph, Wenxing Zha, and Daniel Smuth. 2017. “Magnitude and Trends in Heavy
Episodic Drinking, Alcohol-Impaired Driving, and Alcohol-Related Mortality and
Overdose Hospitalizations among Emerging Adults of College Ages 18-24 in the United
States, 1998-2014.” Journal of Studies of Alcohol and Drugs 78: 540-48.
Hingson, Ralph W., Wenxing Zha and Elissa R. Weitzman. 2009. “Magnitude of and Trends in
Alcohol-Related Mortality and Morbidity among U.S. College Students Ages 18-24,
1998-2005.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 16: 12-20.
Jennison, Karen M. 2004. “The Short-Term Effects and Unintended Long-Term Consequences
of Binge Drinking in College: A 10-Year Follow-Up Study.” The American Journal of
Drug and Alcohol Abuse 330: 659-84.
Jessor, Richard and Shirley L. Jessor. 1997. Problem Behavior and Psychosocial Development:
A Longitudinal Study of Youth. New York: Academic Press. 34
Johnston, Lloyd D., Patrick M. O’Malley, Jerald G. Bachman, and John E. Schulenberg. 2004.
Monitoring the Future National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975-2003: Volume II,
College Students and Adults Ages 19-45. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Use.
Johnston, Lloyd D., Patrick M. O’Malley, Jerald G. Bachman, and John E. Schulenberg, and
Richard A. Miech. 2015. “Monitoring the Future National Survey Results on Drug Use,
1975-2014. Volume II, College Students & Adults Ages 19-55.” The University of
Michigan Institute for Social Research 2: 1-377.
Kaplan, Howard B., Steven S. Martin, and Cynthia Robbins. 1982. “Application of a General
Theory of Deviant Behavior: Self-Derogation and Adolescent Drug Use.” Journal of
Health and Social Behavior 23: 274-94.
Kasperski, Sarah J., Kathryn B. Vincent, Kimberly M. Caldeira, Laura M. Garnier-Dykstra,
Kevin E. O’Grady, and Amelia M. Arria. 2011. “College Students’ Use of Cocaine:
Results from a Longitudinal Study.” Addictive Behaviors 36: 408-411.
Kennedy, Sheela and Steven Ruggles. 2014. “Breaking Up is Hard to Count: The Rise of
Divorce in the United States, 1980-2010.” Demography 51: 587-98.
Kilmer, Jason R. and Irene M. Geisner. 2013. “Substance Use and Mental Health Issues on the
College Campus.” in Principles of Addiction: Comprehensive Addictive Behaviors and
Disorders, ed P. Miller (London: Academic Press), 597-604. 35
Kim, Jeong-Yoo and Hyunju Kim. 2002. “Stigma in Divorces and Its Deterrence Effect.” The
Journal of Socio-Economics 31: 31-44.
Kim, Min Ah and Jaehee Yi. 2014. “Life After Cancer: How Does Public Stigma Increase
Psychological Distress of Childhood Cancer Survivors?” International Journal of
Nursing Studies 51: 1605-14.
Klein, Malcolm W. 1986. “Labeling Theory and Delinquency Policy.” Criminal Justice and
Behavior 13: 47-79.
Konstam, Varda, Samantha Karwin, Teyana Curran, Meaghan Lyons, and Selda Celen-Demirtas.
2016. “Stigma and Divorce: A Relevant Lens for Emerging and Young Adult Women?”
Journal of Divorce & Remarriage 57: 173-194.
LaBrie, Joseph W., Andrew Lac, Shannon R. Kenney, and Tehniat Mirza. 2011. “Protective
Behavioral Strategies Mediate the Effect of Drinking Motives on Alcohol Use Among
Heavy Drinking College Students: Gender and Race Differences.” Addictive Behaviors
36: 354-361.
Lee, James D. and Elizabeth A. Craft. 2002. “Protecting One’s Self from a Stigmatized Disease...
Once One Has It.” Deviant Behavior 23: 267-299.
Lee, Rachel S., Arlene Kochman, and Kathleen J. Sikkema. 2002. “Internalized Stigma among
People Living with HIV-AIDS.” AIDS and Behavior 6: 309-19. 36
Lemert, Edwin. 1951. Social Pathology: A Systematic Approach to the Theory of Sociopathic
Behavior. McGraw-Hill.
Lemert, Edwin. 1952. “Primary and Secondary Deviance.” Pp. 273-76 in Criminological Theory:
Past to Present.
Li, Li and Dennis Moore. 2001. “Disability and Illicit Drug Use: An Application of Labeling
Theory.” Deviant Behavior 22: 1-21.
Linden-Carmichael, Ashley N., Sara A. Vasilenko, Stephanie T. Lanza, and Jennifer L. Maggs.
2017. “High-Intensity Drinking Versus Heavy Episodic Drinking: Prevalence Rates and
Relative Odds of Alcohol Use Disorder Across Adulthood.” Alcoholism: Clinical and
Experimental Research 41: 1754-59.
Link, Bruce. 1982. “Mental Patient Status, Work, and Income: An Examination of the Effects of
a Psychiatric Label.” American Sociological Review 47: 202-215.
Link, Bruce. 1987. “Understanding Labeling Effects in the Area of Mental Disorders: An
Assessment of the Effects of Expectations of Rejection.” American Sociological Review
52: 96-112.
Link, Bruce and Jo C. Phelan. 1999. “Labeling and Stigma.” Pp. 481-494 in The Handbook of
the Sociology of Mental Health, edited by Carol Aneshensel and Jo Phelan. New York:
Plenum. 37
Link, Bruce Jo C. Phelan 2001. “Conceptualizing Stigma.” Annual Review of Sociology 27: 363-
85.
Lipari, Rachel N. and Beda Jean-Francois. 2010. “A Day in the Life of American Adolescents:
Substance Use Facts Update.” Available at:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK385060/
Markovsky, Barry and Shane R. Thye. 2001. “Social Influence on Paranormal Beliefs.”
Sociological Perspectives 44: 21-44.
McCabe, Sean Esteban, Brady T. West, Christian J. Teter, and Carol J. Boyd. 2014. “Trends in
Medical Use, Diversion, and Nonmedical Use of Prescription Medications among
College Students from 2003 to 2013: Connecting the Dots.” Addictive Behaviors 39:
1176-82.
McCabe, Sean Esteban, Philip Veliz, Carol J. Boyd, Ty S. Schepis, Vita V. McCabe, and John E.
Schulenberg. 2019. “A Prospective Study of Nonmedical Use of Prescription Opioids
during Adolescence and Subsequent Substance Use Disorder Symptoms in Early
Midlife.” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 194: 377-85.
Merrill, Jennifer E. and Kate B. Carey. 2016. “Drinking Over the Lifespan: Focus on College
Ages.” Alcohol Research: Current Reviews 38: 103-114. 38
Metrik, Jane, Christopher W. Kahler, John E. McGeary, Peter M. Monti, and Damaris J.
Rohsenow. 2011. “Acute Effects of Marijuana Smoking on Negative and Positive
Affect.” Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy 25.
Miall, Charlene E. 1985. “Perceptions of Informal Sanctioning and the Stigma of Involuntary
Childlessness.” Deviant Behavior 6: 383-403.
Mitka, Mike. 2009. “College Binge Drinking Still on the Rise.” Jama 302: 836-37.
Monroe, Scott M. and Amy M. Peterman. 1988. “Life and Psychopathology.” Pp. 25-36 in Life
Events and Psychological Functioning: Theoretical and Methodological Issues, edited by
Lawrence H. Cohen. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Murphy, Debra A., Barbara Moscicki, Sten Vermund, and Larry R. Muenz. 2000. “Psychological
Distress Among HIV+ Adolescents in the REACH Study: Effects of Life Stress, Social
Support, and Coping.” Journal of Adolescent Health 27: 391-98.
Murphy, Debra A., Erika Laine Austin, and Lisa Greenwell. 2007. “Correlates of HIV-Related
Stigma Among HIV-Positive Mothers and Their Uninfected Adolescent Children.”
Women and Health 44: 19-42.
Mustaine, Elizabeth Ehrhardt and Richard Tewksbury. 1998. “Specifying the Role of Alcohol in
Predatory Victimization.” Deviant Behavior 19: 173-99. 39
National Center for Education Statistics. 2020. “National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
Home Page, Part of the U.S. Department of Education.” Available at: https://nces.ed.gov
Paccagnella, Omar. 2006. “Centering or Not Centering in Multilevel Models? The Role of the
Group Mean and the Assessment of Group Effects.” Evaluation Review 30: 66-85.
Pasman, Joelle. 2011. “The Consequences of Labeling Mental Illnesses on the Self-Concept: A
Review of the Literature and Future Directions.” Social Cosmos 2: 122-27.
Pearson, Matthew R., Bruce S. Liese, and Robert D. Dvorak. 2017. “College Student Marijuana
Involvement: Perceptions, Use, and Consequences across 11 College Campuses.”
Addictive Behaviors 66: 83-89.
Phelan, Sean M., Joan M. Griffin, George L. Jackson, S. Yousuf Zafar, Wendy Hellerstedt,
Mandy Stahre, David Nelson, Leah L. Zullig, Dianna L. Burgess, and Michelle Van Ryn.
2011. “Stigma, Perceived Blame, Self-Blame, and Depressive Symptoms in Men with
Colorectal Cancer.” Psycho-Oncology 22: 65-73.
Purohit, Chandrashekhar and Rushi Rabari. 2020. “Stigma, Shame, and Blame Experienced by
Patients with Lung Cancer: A Qualitative Study.” IP Indian Journal of Immunology and
Respiratory Medicine 5: 75-77.
Rice, Tom W. 2003. “Believe It or Not: Religious and Other Paranormal Beliefs in the United
States.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 42: 95-106. 40
Roth, Jeffrey A. 1994. Psychoactive Substances and Violence. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept.
of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
SAMHSA. 2014. “Results from the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary
of National Findings.” Available at:
https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUHresultsPDFWHTML2013/Web/
NSDUHresults2013.pdf
Schroeder, Ryan D. and Thomas J. Mowen. 2014. “‘You Can’t Eat WHAT?’ Managing the
Stigma of Celiac Disease.” Deviant Behavior 35: 456-74.
Schulenberg, John E. and Megan E. Patrick. 2012. “Historical and Developmental Patterns
of Alcohol and Drug Use among College Students: Framing the Problem.” Pp. 13–35
in College Drinking and Drug Use. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Schultz, Carla. 2014. “The Stigmatization of Individuals Convicted of Sex Offenses: Labeling
Theory and The Sex Offense Registry.” Research Journal of Justice Studies and Forensic
Science 2: 62-81.
Sharp, Shane. 2009. “Escaping Symbolic Entrapment: Maintaining Social Identities.” Social
Problems 56: 267-284.
Shifrer, Dara. 2013. “Stigma of a Label.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 54: 462-80. 41
Shillington, Audrey M. and John D. Clapp. 2006. “Heavy Alcohol Use Compared to Alcohol and
Marijuana Use: Do College Students Experience a Difference in Substance Use
Problems?” Journal of Drug Education 36: 91-103.
Silvestri, Mark M., Holly Knight, Jessica Britt, and Christopher J. Correia. 2015. “Beyond Risky
Alcohol Use: Screening Non-Medical Use of Prescription Drugs at National Alcohol
Screening Day.” Addictive Behaviors 43: 25-27.
Skidmore, Chloe R., Erin A. Kaufman, and Sheila E. Crowell. 2016. “College Use among
College Students.” Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America 25: 735-
53.
Stenger, Victor J. 1990. Physics and Psychics: The Search for a World Beyond the Senses.
Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.
Thalbourne, Michael A. 2003. A Glossary of Terms Used in Parapsychology. Charlottesville,
VA: Puente Publications.
Taylor, Derrick B. 2019. “How Blink-182's Tom DeLonge Became a U.F.O. Researcher.” The
New York Times, September 26.
Tewksbury, Richard. 2012. “Stigmatization of Sex Offenders.” Deviant Behavior 33: 606-23. 42
Turan, Bulent, Henna Budhwani, Pariya L. Fazeli, Wesley R. Browning, James L. Raper,
Michael J. Mugavero, and Janet M. Turan. 2016. “How Does Stigma Affect People
Living with HIV? The Mediating Roles of Internalized and Anticipated HIV Stigma in
the Effects of Perceived Community Stigma on Health and Psychosocial Outcomes.”
AIDS and Behavior 21: 283-91.
Walsgrove, Derek. 1987. Policing Yourself: Social Closure and the Internalization of Stigma. In
Manufacture of Disadvantage, ed. G Lee, R Loveridge. Philadelphia: Open University
Press.
Walters, Kenneth S., Sandra Minor Bulmer, Peter F. Troiano, Uzoma Obiaka, and Rebecca
Bonhomme. 2018. “Substance Use, Anxiety, and Depressive Symptoms Among College
Students.” Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse 27: 103-11.
Wang, Katie, Charles L. Burton, and John E. Pachankis. 2017. “Depression and Substance
Use: Towards the Development of an Emotion Regulation Model of Stigma
Coping.” Substance Use & Misuse 53: 859-66.
Westbrook, Lauren E., Laurie J. Bauman, and Shlomo Shinnar. 1992. “Applying Stigma
Theory to Epilepsy: A Test of a Conceptual Model.’’ Journal of Pediatric Psychology 17:
633-49. 43
White, Aaron and Ralph Hingson. 2013. “The Burden of Alcohol Use: Excessive Alcohol
Consumption and Related Consequences among College Students.” Alcohol Research:
Current Reviews 35: 201-18.
Wilson, James A. 2018. “Reducing Pseudoscientific and Paranormal Beliefs in University
Students Through a Course in Science and Critical Thinking.” Science & Education 27:
183-210.
Woodward, Bob. 1996. The Choice. New York: Simon and Schuster 44 APPENDIX A. TABLES
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of the Sample
Variable Mean SD Min. Value Max. Value
Dependent Measure
Substance Use 9.162 3.551 5 25
Independent Focal Independent Measure
External Labels 2.706 0.924 1 4
Internal Labels 12.540 4.063 7 28
Paranormal Exposure
Family Beliefs 5.692 1.697 3 12
Peer Beliefs 6.424 1.384 3 10
Academic Controls
Fraternity/Sorority
Greek 0.165 0.371 0 1
GPA 3.301 0.905 0 4
College Major
Arts and Sciences 0.409 0.492 0 1
Class Standing
Underclassman 0.513 0.500 0 1
Demographics
Race/Ethnicity
Black 0.042 0.202 0 1
White 0.845 0.363 0 1 44
Other Race 0.113 0.317 0 1
Gender
Male 0.249 0.433 0 1
Female 0.720 0.450 0 1
Social Class 3.028 0.855 1 5 45
Table 2. OLS regressing substance use onto predictors; n = 335.
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Variable b SE b SE b SE
Focal Independent
Measures
External Labeling -0.371 0.174* - - -0.527 0.242*
Internal Labeling - - 0.096 0.047* 0.119 0.061*
External*Internal Interaction - - - - 0.097 0.057+
Paranormal Exposure
Family Beliefs 0.132 0.113 0.144 0.132 0.135 0.131
Peer Beliefs 0.474 0.138*** 0.450 0.163** 0.423 0.161**
Academic Controls
Fraternity/Sorority
Greek 1.586 0.434*** 1.406 0.497** 1.346 0.491**
GPA -0.473 0.185** -0.463 0.224* -0.450 0.221*
College Major
Arts and Sciences 0.282 0.331 0.119 0.392 0.277 0.392
Class Standing
Underclassman -1.236 0.323*** -1.342 0.384*** -1.327 0.380
Demographics
Race/Ethnicity
Black 1.685 0.809* 2.323 0.950* 2.403 0.941**
Other Race 0.640 0.509 0.678 0.598 0.694 0.591 46
Gender
Male 0.647 0.377 0.684 0.463 0.569 0.458
Social Class 0.208 0.191 0.508 0.235* 0.461 0.232*
Intercept 7.254 1.375*** 4.460 1.646** 5.662 1.676***
F-Test 8.52** 6.36*** 6.33***
R² 0.18 0.18 0.20
+ p < .10 * p ≤ .05 ** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001