Nomothetic militancy toward alcohol use among abstainers

Nomothetic Militancy toward Alcohol Use among Abstainers

MICHAEL J. BERGOB*

Carleton University

This article proposes a reconceptualization of militancy to reflect the nomothetic goals of the new temperance movement. Although the alcohol literature has examined normative militancy toward alcohol use, a nomothetic form has not been previously considered or analyzed. As well, the effect of problems with others' alcohol use on militant attitude formation of either type has been ignored. Therefore, this study examines the effect of selected socio-demographic variables and problems with others' alcohol use on the formation of nomothetic militancy toward alcohol use among a sample of Canadian abstainers (n = 276) and drinkers (n = 922) drawn from the National Alcohol and Other Drugs Survey (1989). The results of the hierarchical regression analysis indicate that problems with others' alcohol use have a small but significant effect on nomothetic militancy toward alcohol use. Gender, religiosity and drinker type were also significantly correlated with nomothetic attitudes toward alcohol and alcohol use. Other socio-demographic variables selected from previous research had no significant effect on nomothetic militancy.

INTRODUCTION Although alcohol use is often cited for its negative consequences, it remains an integral part of the Canadian social milieu. Paradoxically, antipathetic and intolerant attitudes toward alcohol use 1 are often prevalent a m o n g those for w h o m exposure to drinking situations is uncharacteristic. It is a majority of abstainers who disapprove of alcohol and subscribe to old-fashioned values. 2 A m a j o r consequence of the existence of a large n u m b e r of non-drinkers in a drinking society *Direct all correspondence to: Michael J. Bergob, #819-45 Holland Avenue, Ottawa Ontario, Canada KIY 4S3 Telephone: (613) 951-0466. The Social Science Journal, Volume 31, Number 4, pages 335-354. Copyright © 1994 by JAI Press Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0362-3319.

336

THE SOCIAL SCIENCEJOURNAL Vol. 31/No. 4/1994

is that a substantial fraction of the population hold minority views on the propriety of drinking; collectively, these views comprise a militancy toward alcohol use that is more than just a personal choice, it is a prescription for others' behavior) The limited research on abstention has viewed militancy toward alcohol use among abstainers as arising from moralistic principles and objections, 4 but has ignored the effect that exposure to alcohol use situations has had on militant attitude formation. In particular, since problematic encounters with others' alcohol use have not been previously considered or examined, this study analyzes their effect on the formation of militaristic attitudes toward alcohol use. In this instance, militancy is measured by the number of nomothetic alcohol restrictions supported by the various drinker typologies. These nomothetic attitudes are conceptualized as representin~ a form of militancy that reflects the goals of the new temperance movement. It is hypothesized that the more problems that have been experienced with others' alcohol use, the greater the number of these alcohol restrictions supported and hence, the greater the nomothetic militancy toward alcohol u s e . 6 Since abstainers are typically inexperienced with drinking situations, problematic encounters may have a greater impact on their attitude toward drinking behavior than those of current drinkers, who are more experienced with alcohol use situations. If the limited exposure of abstainers to drinking situations has been particularly problematic, then their militant attitude toward alcohol may be well justified by their experience.

Moral Entrepreneur or Legitimate Concern? The normative position occupied by moral entrepreneurs spans a continuum ranging from total freedom to total prohibition. 7 This article addresses whether a prohibitionist stance (or militant attitude toward alcohol use) is justified by personal problematic encounters with others' alcohol use, or whether militant moral entrepreneurs are simply constructing a "socio-political" problem around alcohol use. This article does not refute that alcohol use has been constructed as "problematic" by some groups, 8 or that alcohol use can be problematic, but considers the alternate view that personal experience may be a legitimate basis for militancy toward alcohol use. Problematic experiences with others' alcohol use may precipitate the development of an attitudinal schema in which all drinking behavior is constructed as "problematic". As well, exposure to specific socio-political ideologies (e.g., proscriptive religions) may also sensitize the individual to viewing drinking behavior as a "problem". Socio-political ideologies that view alcohol use as problematic may invoke attitudinal-behavioral responses that seek not only a resolution to specific "problematic" drinking behaviors, but that also seek to resolve the problem of "drinking behavior" in general. 9 Encountering evidence of drinking problems among others coupled with an ideological construct of alcohol use as problematic, may precipitate an attitudinal shift from a normative proscription (i.e., given the opportunity, people should not drink), to a nomothetic prohibition (i.e., people should not be given the opportunity to drink). Thus, this article proposes a reconceptualization of militancy away from a normative definition, toward a form that reflects the nomothetic goals of the new temperance movement.

Nomothetic Militancy toward Alcohol Use among Abstainers

337

The formation of nomothetic militancy will be analyzed through a multivariate regression of specific socio-demographic variables and problems with others' alcohol use. If the results indicate that militants do experience significant problematic encounters with others' alcohol use, then the view that their attitude toward alcohol use is merely a socio-political construct may need to be reconsidered. However, the current and historical socio-political construct of alcohol as a "problem behavior" by some individuals and/or groups also requires further research consideration.

A'I-I'ITUDINAL AND BEHAVIORAL DIMENSIONS OF ABSTINENCE Abstinence is an enigma in a societly° that accepts ~cohol use. Studies have linked abstinence with religious affiliation, self-concept, life events, age and sex and social c l a s s . 14 Abstainers are generally older than drinkers, more likely women, of lesser income and have mothers and fathers who never drank) 5 Although this is not a comprehensive profile of abstainers, it does provide a reasonable description of those individuals most likely to be found in the abstention category of most alcohol studies. However, while this profile represents the characteristic abstainer, these individuals do not comprise a homogeneous group with uniform attitudes toward alcohol and alcohol use. Yet researchers have unceremoniously lumped abstainers together under the rubric of "militant moral entrepreneur. "16 Unlike the difficult differentiation of drinkers by their alcohol use behavior, abstainers are typically defined only by the absence of certain kinds of behavior. 17 Abstaining behavior may not be simply the absence of the consumption of alcohol, but may involve a number of additional attitudinal and behavioral dimensions which emerge from the positive refusal to consume alcohol. 18 The decision to abstain from or to imbibe alcohol differs from the decisions that determine how much a drinker might habitually consume; the model that best predicts abstention differs from one that best predicts consumption. 19 Differences between drinkers and abstainers are evident in the consistent and significant tendency of the latter to disapprove of drinking by others in a variety of situational contexts; 2° this disap~aroval has been correlated with religious and moralistic tenets. Skolnick's study'' of religious affiliation and drinking behavior indicated that different attitudes, more than any other comparable factor, generate discernably measurable differences in drinking behavior according to religious affiliation, behaviors such as childhood use of alcoholic beverages, the places where students initiate drinking, their parent's knowledge of drinking habits, with whom individuals drink, where they drink, how much and how often they drink were statistically significant when correlated with religious ideas about drinking. 22 However, the durability of the relationship between religious affiliation and abstinence was in question since respondents' increasing participation in all aspects and levels of social life was accompanied by the decreasing influence of religion on drinking behavior. 23 Religious affiliation alone does not explain attitudes toward drinking; instead, individuals who accept the use of alcoholic beverages tend to be those who

338

THE SOCIAL SCIENCEJOURNAL Vol. 31/No. 4/1994

participate in associations other than church membership, and who hold leadership positions. 24 Pullman 25 suggests that opposition to drinking comes mainly from lower class members with limited participation in associations other than church clubs. In contrast, Singh and Williams 26 found that religious behavior was a much stronger predictor of abstinence than such variables as age, sex, race or place of residence and that a pattern of abstinence occurs because of one's religious commitment along with such factors as social status and geographic location that may play an important part in determining religious commitments. Overall though, simple direct measures of attitude have strong relationships to drinking behavior; positive attitudes toward alcohol and its use are associated with increased alcohol use and, conversely, negative attitudes toward alcohol use are generally stronger among abstainers than other drinker typologies. 27 Although abstainers do not imbibe alcohol, their minority status in Canadian society precludes their isolation from the alcohol-related behaviors of drinkers. Thus, abstainers' problematic experiences with others' drinking may be more predictive of negative sanctions toward alcohol use than their socio-demographic characteristics. In other words, although abstainers tend to hold more negative attitudes toward alcohol use than current drinkers, it is hypothesized that individuals who have had problems with others' alcohol use will be more militant than those who have never encountered such problems.

DATA AN D METHODS The National Alcohol and Other Drugs Survey is a stratified multi-stage sample of households in ten Canadian provinces collected by the Special Surveys Group of Statistics Canada in March, 1989 for Health and Welfare Canada. 28 Through the use of random-digit dialling methods, most Canadian households (with the exception of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories) were equally likely to be sampled. The sample included persons 15 years of age and older, but excluded residents in dwellings with more than 15 persons. An overall response rate of 78.7% resulted in a national sample of 11,634 Canadian respondents. Statistics Canada provided weights to account for households without phones, persons who did not respond, multiple telephones in households, the number of persons in the household, census projection counts for the provinces, and the age and sex of the population. However, to avoid the inflation of statistical significance, 29 all analytic results are based on non-weighted data. Definitions of some variables were obtained from Statistics Canada; in particular, Life-long abstainers were derived from the combination of a negative response to: "Had a drink in the past 12 months?" with a positive response to: "Never had a drink?". Former drinkers were those who gave a positive response to: "Did not drink in the past 12 months?". These two non-drinking categories were combined into one definition of abstention. Current drinkers were those who gave a positive response to: "Had a drink in the past 12 months?". Since abstention constituted the primary focus of this research, further delineation of drinking categories was not pursued. 3°

Nomothetic Militancy toward Alcohol Use among Abstainers

339

Problems with others' alcohol use were obtained by asking respondents the following: "The next few questions are about your experience with other people's drinking problems. Have you ever ... Been insulted or humiliated by someone who had been drinking? Had a serious argument or quarrels as a result of someone else's drinking? Had friendships break up as a result of someone else's drinking? Had family problems or marriage difficulties due to someone else's drinking? Been a passenger with a driver who had too much to drink? Been in a motor vehicle accident because of someone else's drinking? Had your property vandalized by someone who had been drinking? Been pushed, hit or assaulted by someone who had been drinking? Been disturbed by loud parties or the behavior of people drinking? Had financial trouble because of someone else's drinking?" Respondents were also asked (for each of the above questions): "Was this during the past 12 months?" Support for the restriction of alcohol access and use was obtained by responses to the following: Taxes on alcohol should be increased; Beer and liquor store hours should be decreased; The legal drinking age should be increased; Prevention of serving drunks should be increased; Government advertising against drinking should be increased; Education and prevention programs should be increased; Treatment programs should be increased; Alcohol should not be sold in corner stores; Alcohol should have warning labels; Government should stop advertisements on television; and Government should stop alcohol-sponsored events.

Conceptualizing 'Militancy' Following Hilton, an Index of Militancy31 was constructed from the eleven alcohol restrictions described above. Each response in support of an alcohol restriction was summed to produce a score that ranged between zero and eleven, and "militant" applied to those individuals who supported between nine (80%) and eleven (100%) of the alcohol restrictions. Thus, the use of "militant" or "militancy" specifically describes those individuals who have indicated support for nine or more alcohol restrictions, 32 and who view alcohol use as an activity that should be extensively controlled. While the term 'militancy' was borrowed from Hilton, the indicators of militancy selected here, and described above, fundamentally differ from those used by Hilton. For example, Hilton measured militancy by the number of normatively proscriptive attitudes towards alcohol use and alcohol use situations indicated by respondents. The greater the number of these opinions indicated by an individual, the greater his or her militancy toward alcohol and alcohol use. In particular, Hilton's ninelevel index of militancy described those respondents who indicated eight or nine normatively proscriptive attitudes towards alcohol and alcohol use by others as 'militant'. However, while a negative attitude toward alcohol and alcohol use may be indicative of personal intolerance, it is not necessarily a prescription for what the behavior of others should be. 33 Normative level beliefs regarding the propriety of alcohol use do not necessarily reflect the restriction of alcohol use beyond the personal level. In other words, normative beliefs about alcohol use may reflect a form of group solidarity in which

340

THE SOCIAL SCIENCEJOURNAL Vol. 31/No. 4/1994

most members of the social network share the same attitudes and beliefs regarding alcohol use situations, and in which attitude and behavior toward alcohol use would be relatively consistent. This consistency would be achieved through informal forms of social control generally encountered in small groups or social organizations and social networks comprised of friends, family, peers, and co-workers. In contrast, nomothetic attitudes toward alcohol use do not distinguish the individual in the social network, but apply to all individuals in the society irrespective of their position vis avis the individual or group promoting the restrictions. 34Therefore, nomothetic militancy toward alcohol use can be viewed as a reflection of potential formal social controls that could be constituted and enforced by the government through rules, regulations, legislation and laws. In this manner, nomothetic militants can be conceptualized as ranging from natural libertarians to total prohibitionists in their support of neo-temperance goals. The indicators chosen for this study reflect the political over the personal; i.e., these restrictions are not merely personal behavior choices, or antipathetic attitudes, or a general intolerance of alcohol and alcohol use by others, but a specific prescription for restricting the alcohol-related behavior of others. Furthermore, these indicators of militancy reflect a potential political mobilization of a militant minority similar to the Moral Majority. The well-documented problematic nature of alcohol use may well mobilize special-interest or religious groups to lobby various governmental agencies for an extension of the current restrictions on alcohol and alcohol use that now exist. 35 For example, the posting of signs in some pubs and taverns in British Columbia that warn of the hazards of alcohol use for pregnant women, or the campaign to introduce warning labels on all alcohol products, 36 similar to those now found on tobacco products, are examples of how militancy may be transformed into a politically effective agenda. Given the problematic nature of alcohol use, some restriction of alcohol use is not a negative outcome of militancy; instead, the extensive restriction of the right of a majority to engage in a specific social activity by the beliefs of the minority who do not engage in this behavior can be a potentially negative outcome of militancy.

ANALYSIS Socio-demographic variables that were associated with militancy and abstention were selected from previous research to construct a hierarchical regression model. The regression model was by no means parsimonious, but research had indicated, often without higher-level analyses, that specific socio-demographic variables were related to militancy toward alcohol use. Since the object of the regression analysis was to isolate and examine the effect of these specific variables on militancy toward alcohol use, all the variables were entered into the regression equation in chronological order or in order of effect. Thus, the socio-demographic variables (sex, age, marital status, religion, religiosity, education, region, and income) were entered first, then drinker type (abstainers or current drinkers), and problems with others' drinking ever (but not last year) and problems with others' drinking last year were entered as a set. Sex, marital status, religion, religiosity, region, and drinker type were dummy- or effects-coded to the interval level of analysis. 37 Data

Nomothetic Militancy toward Alcohol Use among Abstainers

341

for Age had been grouped into various categories in the data-set provided, but no provision had been made for disaggregation into individual age levels. Therefore, five-year age interval categories were used in the analysis. 38 Problems with others' drinking (last year and ever-but not last year) were at the interval level. Religion, or religious affiliation, was obtained by asking respondents: What if any is your religion? Responses included: None, Roman Catholic, United Church, Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, Pentecostal, Lutheran, Greek Orthodox, Ukrainian Catholic, Jewish, Jehovah's Witness, Mennonite, Islam, Hindu and Other. Based on Statistics Canada distributions of religions in Canada, 39 these religious denomination categories were combined into the following: None; Roman Catholic; Protestant; 4° and Other. 4~ Respondents who indicated a religious affiliation were also asked: Do you consider yourself to be very religious, moderately religious, or not very religious? There was very little variation, as indicated by partial slopes, between individuals at any level of religiosity and those who indicated that they were not religiously affiliated (i.e., those who responded "None" to the question "What is your religion?"). As a result, the self-rated level of religiosity categories were collapsed, together with the "None" response to religion, into a dichotomous variable representing "religious" and "not religious". Thus, individuals who are religious are also affiliated with a specific religious denomination, while those who are not religious are neither affiliated with a particular religion nor self-rating of their beliefs.

RESULTS The results of the initial hierarchical regression analysis indicated that Age and Education did not achieve significant F change values and were deleted from further analysis. As well, the 95% confidence intervals revealed that all the Regions (Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, Prairies and British Columbia) and all the Religions (None, Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Other) had slope coefficients that may be equal to zero. This indicates that there may be no association between Militancy and Region, and Militancy and Religion despite the significance of the overall Ftest (protected t-test). Therefore, Region and Religion were eliminated from further analysis. A comparison of the total sum of the semi-partial correlations with the overall explained variance revealed the presence of suppression effects. By comparing the standardized beta-weights with the zero-order correlations, it was evident that Marital Status, Income and Problems with other's alcohol use last year were suppressing other variable effects; therefore, they were removed from the regression model. This resulted in the sum of the semi-partial correlations equalling the total explained variance ( E a r 2 = R2), which indicates that the independent variables are orthogonal. The final hierarchical regression model: Ymitit,,ney : 6.56 + (-l.05)sex + • 92religious -}- (-1.07)current drinker "q'-. 16problems- . . . . . indicates that: Women support 1.05 more restrictions than do Men, Religious persons support .92 more alcohol restrictions than Non-Religious persons, Abstainers support 1.07 more restrictions than do Current drinkers, and for every unit increase in the number of problems encountered with others' alcohol use, support for alcohol restrictions increases by. 16 units.

THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL Vol. 31/No. 4/1994

342

Table 1. Variables Sex Religiosity Drinker Type Problems Ever Constant N = 1192 R2 = .12242

Beta -1.047 0.925 -1.066 0.164 6.564

Selected Regression Statistics Beta* -.210 .120 -.180 .121

Zero-order -.247 .157 -.205 .I 24

Semi-partial -.24692 .12819 -.17454 .12066

57 .06097 .01643 .03046 .01456

All results are significant p < .05. Variables are presented in order of entry into hierarchical regression equation.

SaturatedModel:Gender, Marital Status, Religion, Religiosity,Education, Region, Income, Drinker Type, Problemswith Others' Alcohol Use (Last Year and Ever).

The R z value of the hierarchical regression model indicates that 12.2% of the variance in militancy toward alcohol use is explained by its relationship with the linear combination of independent variables in the regression equation. In other words, a medium amount 42 of the variability in militancy toward alcohol and alcohol use is explained by the gender, religiosity, drinker type and number of problems with others drinking, of the population of interest. The regression equation also provides an indication of the relative impact of each individual variable in accounting for the total variance explained in militancy toward alcohol use. The squared values of the semi-partial correlations indicate that gender accounted for 6.0% of the total variance explained in militancy when controlling for the other variables. Drinker type explained 3.0% of the total variance explained in militancy, while Problems with others' drinking ever encountered explained 1.5% of the total variance explained in militancy when controlling for the other variables. Religiosity accounted for 1.6% of the total variance explained in militancy when controlling for the other variables.

MILITANCY, DRINKER TYPE AND GENDER The distribution of the militancy categories by selected socio-demographic characteristics is presented in Table 2. It is apparent that twice as many women as men are highly militant (27.4% v. 13.9%, X2 = 72.9, p = .0000), twice as many abstainers as drinkers are highly militant (36.5% v. 16.6%, X2 = 56.8, p = .0000), and twice as many religious as non-religious persons are also highly militant toward alcohol (22.5% v. 10.7%, X2 = 32.1, p = .0000). Abstentious women are no more militant than abstentious men (36.4% v. 36.6%, X2 = .07, p = .9955), but abstentious women are somewhat more militant than women who currently drink (36.4% v. 24.1%, X2 = 10.5, p = .0145). Abstentious men are over four times more militant than men who currently drink alcohol (36.6% v. 8.8%, X2 = 62.6, p = .0000), and women who currently drink are almost three times as militant toward alcohol use as men who currently drink alcohol (24.1% v. 8.8%, X2 = 83.2, p = .0000).

Nomothetic Militancy toward Alcohol Use amongAbstainers

Table 2.

Levelsof Militancy by Gender, Religiosityand Drinker Type Gender

Level

Women

0-2

3.9 (25) 23.0 (147) 45.6 (291) 27.4 (175) 100.0 (638)

3-5 6-8 9-11

Total

343

Religiosity Men

9.9 (55) 39.4 (218) 36.8 (204) 13.9 (77) 100.0 (554)

chi-squared = 72.9 p = .OO00

Drinker Type

Absent

Present

Abstain

Drink

15.0 (21 ) 40.7 (57) 33.6 (47) 10.7 (I 5) 100.0 (140)

5.6 (59) 29.3 (308) 42.6 (448) 22.5 (237) 1O0.0 (1052)

4.4 (12) 19.7 (54) 39.4 (108) 36.5 (100) 100.0 (274)

7.4 (68) 33.9 (311 ) 42.2 (387) 16.6 (152) 100.0 (918)

chi-squared = 32.1 p = .0000

chi-squared = 56.8 p = .0000

Column figures are in percent (frequencies are in parentheses).

Table 3.

Level of Militancy by Drinker Type and Gender Abstainers

Level 0-2 3-5 6-8 9-11 Total

Women 4.6 19.7 39.3 36.4 100.O

(8) (34) (68) (63) (173)

chi-squared = .07 p = .9955

Drinkers Men

4.0 19.8 39.6 36.6 100.0

(4) (20) (40) (37) (101)

Women 3.7 24.3 48.0 24.1 100.0

(17) (113) (223) (112) (465)

Men 11.3 43.7 36.2 8.8 100.0

(51) (198) (164) (40) (453)

chi-squared = 83.2 p = .0000

When comparing abstentious women and women who drink, then the chi-square = I0.5, p = .0145. When comparing abstentious men and men who drink, then the chi-square = 62.6, p = .0000.

MILITANCY, RELIGIOSITY AND GENDER R e l i g i o u s persons are twice as militant t o w a r d a l c o h o l use than are non-religious persons (22.5% v. 10.7%, X 2 = 32.1, p ---- .0000). A m o n g the non-religious, w o m e n are m o r e than four t i m e s as militant t o w a r d a l c o h o l use as m e n (21.2% v. 4.5%, X = 10.3, p = .0161), while a m o n g the religious, w o m e n are o n l y about twice as militant t o w a r d a l c o h o l use as m e n (28.0% v. 15.7%, X 2 = 6 0 . 9 , p = .0000). R e l i g i o u s w o m e n are o n l y s o m e w h a t m o r e militant than non-religious w o m e n t o w a r d a l c o h o l use (28.0% v. 21.2%, X 2 = 14.1, p = .0028), while religious m e n are m o r e than three times as militant t o w a r d a l c o h o l use as non-religious m e n (15.7% v. 4.5%, X 2 = 14.0, p = .0029).

THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL Vol. 31/No. 4/1994

344

Table 4.

Levelsof Militancy by Religiosity and Gender Non-Religious

Women

Level

9.6 38.5 30.8 21.2 100.0

0-2 3-5 6-8 9-11 Total

(5) (20) (16) (11) (52)

Religious Men

18.2 42.0 35.2 4.5 100.0

Women

(16) (37) (31) (4) (88)

chi-squared = 10.3 p = .0161

3.4 21.7 46.9 28.0 100.0

(20) (127) (275) (164) (586)

Men 8.4 38.8 37.1 15.7 100.0

(39) (181) (173) (73) (466)

chi-squared = 60.9 p = .0000

When comparing religious women and non-religious women, then chi-squared = 14.1, p = .0028. When comparing religious men and non-religious men, then chi-squared = 14.0, p = .0029.

MILITANCY AND PROBLEMS WITH OTHERS' ALCOHOL USE It was hypothesized that the number of problems encountered with others' alcohol use would have a significant effect on militant attitude formation toward alcohol use. The regression analysis indicated that militancy was positively correlated with the number of problems with others' alcohol use ever encountered, and the effect of problems in conjunction with other socio-demographic variables on militant attitude formation is examined in Table 5. In the first rows of the table, it is apparent that women react more militantly to problems they encounter with others' drinking than do men; however, it is also apparent that at each level of problems, women are almost twice as militant toward alcohol use as men. However, while women are significantly more militant toward alcohol use than men, there was no significant difference between men and women in the number of problems with others' alcohol use they had ever experienced (X 2 = 11.9, p ---- .2945). The relationship between religiosity and problems with others' drinking is not as clear, and is difficult to interpret when considering the very small number of individuals who are non-religious in the sub-sample (n = 140). Table 5.

Militancy by Gender, Religiosity and Drinker Type by Level of Problems with Others' Alcohol Use No Problems

Women Men Non-Rel. Religious

Abstainers Drinkers * = non-significant

23.8 11.7 5.2 20.4 32.7 13.4

(58) (23) (3) (78) (37) (44)

One Problem 24.8 13.2 14.3 19.6 36.8 13.9

(32) (17) (4)* (45)* (2]) (28)

Two~Three Problems 30.5 15.8 9.1 25.1 43.5 18.1

(47) (23) (3) (67) (27) (43)

Four or More Problems 34.2 17.] 23.8 27.3 35.7 24.5

(38) (14) (5)* (47)* (15)* (37)*

Nomothetic Militancy toward Alcohol Use among Abstainers

345

The relationship between drinker type and problems with others' drinking indicates that drinkers are more affected in terms of their militancy toward alcohol use than abstainers. However, the results also seem to indicate that abstainers are more sensitive to their encounter with only a few problems, and react by being more militant. In this instance, abstainers seem to require less substantive evidence that alcohol use is problematic to support their militancy toward drinking than do current drinkers, since there is no significant difference between abstainers and current drinkers in the number of problems they have ever experienced with others' alcohol use (X2 = 14.5,p -----.1500). There is a significant difference in the number of problems with others' alcohol use ever experienced by abstentious women and women who drank (X2 ---- 18.8, p -----.0435). However, there is no significant difference between abstentious and imbibing men in the number of problems they had ever experienced with others' alcohol use (X2 = 14.8, p -----.0642). Yet despite the lack of a significant difference in the number of problems experienced with others' alcohol use, abstentious men were four times as militant as men who currently drank alcohol. As well, despite experiencing significantly fewer problems with others' alcohol use, abstentious women are still more militant than women who imbibe alcohol.

A DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS OF THE NATURE OF PROBLEMS WITH OTHERS' ALCOHOL USE Although problems with others' alcohol use have some effect on militant attitude formation toward alcohol use, the effect may not be due to the actual number of problems as originally expected. Instead, it may be the nature of the problems encountered with others' alcohol use that has a substantive effect on militant attitude formation. To examine this hypothesis, discriminant analyses43were used to isolate those problems with others' alcohol use that best discriminated Sex (women and men), Drinker Type (abstainers and current drinkers), and Sex by Drinker Type (male drinkers, female drinkers, male abstainers, female abstainers).

Sex and Problems With Others' Alcohol Use The discriminant analysis of Sex revealed that men and women differ ( 2 _ 7.9%, p ---- .0000) in the nature of the problems with others' alcohol use that they have Table 6.

Selected Discriminant Statisticsfor Problems Ever Encountered with Others' Alcohol Use

Groups Sex Drinker Type Sex by Drinker Type Women: Drinkers and Abstainers Men: Abstainers and Drinkers Abstainers: Men and Women Drinkers: Women and Men

w2

p

N

7.9% 3.1 11.2 7.0 2.1 9.8 8.9

.0000 .0316 .0477 .0067 .8119 .0480 .0000

629 629 629 343 286 185 444

346

THE SOCIAL SCIENCEJOURNAL Vol. 31/No. 4/1994

ever encountered. In particular, the standardized discriminant functions (which can be read as standardized Beta's) indicate that women tend to encounter family problems or marital difficulties due to someone's drinking (.72), financial troubles because of someone's drinking (.29), and have had friendships break up as a result of someone's drinking (.20). Women also tend to be disturbed by loud parties or the behavior of people who have been drinking (.25). By contrast, men tend to be passengers with drivers who have had too much to drink (.48), are often pushed, hit or assaulted by someone who has been drinking (.35), and have been in motor vehicle accidents because of someone's drinking (.23). Men have also had their property vandalized by someone who has been drinking (.22).

Drinker Type and ProblemsWith Others' Alcohol Use The discriminant analysis of Drinker Type revealed that abstainers and current drinkers differ by a small amount (to2 = 3.1%, p = .0316) in the nature of the problems with others' drinking they have ever encountered. Current drinkers tend to be disturbed by loud parties or the behavior of people who have been drinking (.59), and are often passengers with drivers who have had too much to drink (.50). As well, drinkers have been insulted or humiliated by someone who has been drinking (.31). In contrast, abstainers have had friendships break up as a result of someone's drinking (.22) and have been in motor vehicle accidents because of someone's drinking (.27).

Interaction Effects Between Sex and Drinker Type The discriminant analysis of the interaction between Sex and Drinker Type indicated a substantive difference between the groups (o~2 = 11.2%, p = .0477). The major difference isolated by the first significant discriminant function is Sex (oJ2 = 8.2%, p = .0000), and the discriminating variables are identical as those previously discussed for Sex. On the second significant function, the major difference isolated was Drinker Type (oJ2 = 3.8%, p = .0477), with respective discriminant functions as those previously discussed for Drinker Type. Therefore, although the nature of problems with others' alcohol use differs significantly by gender and by drinker typology, the interaction effect between gender and drinker typology is minimal in this analytical modelling technique. Therefore, in order to evaluate the interaction effects between Sex and Drinker Type, the groups were analyzed separately in subsequent discriminant analyses for which Sex and Drinker Type were held constant. When Sex is held constant, the results of the first discriminant analysis indicates that there is no significant difference (o~2 = 2.1%, p -----.8119) between abstentious men and men who currently drink in the nature of the problems that they have ever encountered with others' alcohol use. However, there is a substantive difference between abstentious women and women who currently drink alcohol (oJ2 = 7.0%, p = .0067). In particular, abstentious women have their property vandalized by someone who has been drinking (.34), while women who drink tend to be disturbed by loud parties or the behavior of people who have been drinking (.57). As well, women drinkers are often passengers with drivers who have had too much to drink (.43) and have been insulted or humiliated by someone who has been drinking (.26).

Nomothetic Militancy toward Alcohol Use among Abstainers

347

When Drinker Type is held constant, the results of the second discriminant analysis indicates that there is a substantive difference between abstentious men and abstentious women in the nature of the problems with others' alcohol use that they have ever encountered (to2 = 9.8%, p = .0480). In particular, abstentious men tend to be passengers with drivers who have had too much to drink (.56), are involved in accidents where someone has been drinking (.53) and are often hit, pushed or assaulted by someone who has been drinking (.27). As well, abstentious men are often insulted or humiliated by someone who has been drinking (.22). By contrast, women abstainers tend to have family problems (.59), lose friends (.30), and encounter financial difficulties due to someone's drinking (.20). Although men and women who drink differ substantively in the nature of their problems with others' alcohol use (to2 = 8.9%, p = .0000), women who drink tend to have problems similar to those of abstentious women; in particular, they have family problems due to someone's drinking (.69), are disturbed by loud parties or the behavior of others who have been drinking (.36), and have had financial difficulties due to someone's drinking (.33). Men who drink tend to have problems similar to those of abstentious men; in particular, they have been passengers with drivers who have had too much to drink (.37), they have been hit, pushed or assaulted by someone who has been drinking (.32), and they have had their property vandalized by someone who has been drinking (.30). Therefore, not only do men who drink and men who abstain have about the same number of problems with others drinking, the nature of those problems are also very similar. However, while both abstentious women and women who currently drink alcohol encounter the same types of problems with others' drinking, abstentious women encounter significantly fewer of them than women who currently drink. Overall, irrespective of their drinking behavior, women have family and financial problems due to others' drinking, while men share the problem of being assaulted by someone who has been drinking, or they are often passengers with someone who has had too much to drink. Women and men who drink share the problem of being disturbed by others' drunken behavior, and with being a passenger in a car with someone who has had too much to drink. Abstainers do not share a particular alcohol-related problem, except that those they do encounter are the result of other people's drinking. Thus, abstainers do not avoid the problems other people have with alcohol use, which may justify their particular militant support for the restriction of alcohol.

DISCUSSION This study examined the relationship between specific socio-demographic variables and militant attitude formation toward alcohol and alcohol use. Although it was hypothesized that problems with others' alcohol use would be an important explanatory variable in militant attitude formation, it only accounted for a small amount of the total variance explained in militancy. While there was no significant difference between women and men in the number of problems with others' alcohol use they had ever encountered, the nature of the problems that women encountered substantively differed from those experienced by m e n , 44 and women reacted more

348

THE SOCIAL SCIENCEJOURNAL VoL 31/No. 4/1994

militantly toward these alcohol-related problems. Women may support more alcohol restrictions than men because women often lack the power to protect themselves from alcohol-related problems and thus support alcohol restrictions as a means of gaining some control. However, although abstentious women encounter significantly fewer problems with others' alcohol use than imbibing women, they still supported more alcohol restrictions than did non-abstentious women. There was no significant difference between abstentious men and men who currently drink in the number or nature of the problems with others' alcohol use they had encountered, but abstentious men were four times as militant as men who drank alcohol. In this instance, abstentious men are either extremely intolerant of any form of problematic encounter with alcohol, or men who drink are extremely protective of this social activity and have no motivation to limit it despite the problems it may cause. However, there is a violent component to the problems that men encounter with others' alcohol use, and abstentious men encounter as many of these types of problems as men who currently drink. Therefore, abstentious men, like many women in general, may be more concerned with their own personal safety than with the overall restriction of alcohol use by others, and their support for alcohol restriction is an indication of their frustration with the problems they have encountered with others' alcohol use. Concomitantly, current drinkers of either gender may be more accepting of drinking-related behaviors that are problematic simply because it is an extension of their own general social behavior that on occasion may be problematic to themselves and others. Since prior research has indicated that positive attitudes toward alcohol use are associated with increased drinking behavior, the low level of support for the restriction of alcohol among drinkers is not unexpected. 45 However, that some drinkers do support the restriction of alcohol, and a significant minority who do so can be described as militant toward alcohol, does provide an impetus for further research on this enigmatic and paradoxical attitudinal-behavioral position. Although previous research had isolated religion and region as important explanatory variables in accounting for militant attitude formation, the regression analysis indicated that neither had a significant effect. Thus, while religious affiliation varies significantly by region, 46 militant attitudes remain unaffected by either variable. Religious affiliation may provide the basic tenets of alcohol and alcohol use, but religiosity represents the degree to which these are internalized and incorporated into an attitudinal schema in which militancy is at the apex; as a result, religiosity is a better predictor of militancy toward alcohol use than affiliation with a particular religion. This does not discount the fact that some religions are proscriptive rather than prescriptive toward alcohol use, but the degree to which religiosity represents a commitment to the tenets of a religion is more indicative of militant attitude formation than affiliation with the religion itself. In other words, a non-committal member of an abstinent religion may be no more militant toward alcohol use than a highly committed member of a prescriptive religion. Thus, while religious affiliation has declined, religiosity may gain greater importance as an explanatory variable in militant attitude formation among Canadians. 47 Pittman 48 noted that in contrast to their support of the temperance movement of the first part of the twentieth century, major religious groups have been notably

Nomothetic Militancy toward Alcohol Use among Abstainers

349

silent on this issue; this silence is a new phenomenon. Smart and Ogborne 49 report that debate over biblical support for the temperance movement began early and continued throughout its history. A major problem for the movement, especially among religious fundamentalists, was that Christ gave wine to others to drink and drank wine himself and, at the feast of Cana, his first miracle was to convert water to wine. Also, there are numerous references in the Bible to the value of alcoholic beverages, although drunkenness is reviled. Thus, many religious denominations refused to become involved in the last prohibition movement, and some went so far as to argue against its inception. 5° At the same time, however, many religious groups recognized the problems associated with imbibing and sought solutions that did not rely on reference to the Bible, 51 yet did not concomitantly ignore the value of its religious-moral teachings in controlling alcohol use. For some religious adherents the solution was not to be found in legislated morality, but in a greater emphasis on the development of individual moral control of alcohol use. 52 At present, considering the effect of the last organized attempt to legislate morality through alcohol prohibition, it is not surprising that there may be some hesitation among religious organizations to support a new temperance movement. Overall, however, that no significant difference was found in support of the social control of alcohol between individuals who were and who were not religiously affiliated requires further examination of the individual forms of nomothetic control to explicate this phenomenon. 53

CONCLUSION Militant attitude formation toward alcohol and alcohol use remains an enigma in a society that accepts alcohol use. Individuals who are militant toward alcohol use are predominantly religious and abstinent men and women, who have had some problems with others' alcohol use; however, their militancy is only partially explained by their socio-demographic characteristics or their experience with others' drinking behavior. However, since militants have had significant problematic encounters with others' alcohol use, the view that they are merely constructing alcohol use as a "problematic" behavior needs to be reconsidered. Alcohol use may be individually problematic for a minority of drinkers, but these problems can pervade throughout Canadian society. While it is obvious that an abstentious minority cannot avoid some contact with alcohol use, their attempts to control the problems they encounter seems to be more than a mere social construct. Since this is the first study to use this particular formulation to describe militancy, further research on militant attitude formation is not only recommended, it is essential to understanding the potential for minority-held beliefs to develop into major social movements in the Canadian social milieu. For example, the militancy of non-smokers toward smoking in Canadian society, and the subsequent laws enacted to limit smoking in public places, is a potential indication of how attitudes toward alcohol use could result in an increasingly militant abstinent Canadian population. At present, little has been written on either the historical or contemporary temperance movement in Canada, and whether militant attitudes toward alcohol use will coalesce into a prohibitionist movement remains a task for future research.

350

THE SOCIAL SCIENCEJOURNAL Vol. 31/No. 4/1994

NOTES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11. 12. 13.

14.

Michael E. Hilton, "Abstention in the General Population of the U.S.A.," British Journal of Addiction, 81 (1986): 95-112. Genevieve Knupfer and Robin Room, "Abstainers in a Metropolitan Community," Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 31 (1970): 108-131. Hilton, op. cit., p. 11 I. Hilton, op. cit., p. 111; Knupfer and Room, op. cit. The use of the term'militant' will generally refer to nomothetic attitudes toward alcohol unless otherwise noted. 'Nomothetic' refers to the development of laws or legislation, and is a seemingly appropriate term to describe the overall goals of the new temperance movement. Therefore, 'Nomothetic Militancy' refers to those individuals who support legislative forms of alcohol regulation. Since the survey did not measure the number of times each particular problem was encountered by an individual, the effect of the incidence of problematic encounters on militant attitude formation remains unknown. Therefore, since an individual may experience the same problem with others' alcohol use on multiple occasions, but report only one type of problem encountered, the number of times a problem is encountered by an individual should be included in future research. Armand L. Mauss, "Science, Social Movements, and Cynicism: Appreciating the Political Context of Sociological Research in Alcohol Studies," in Alcohol: The Development of Sociological Perspectives on Use and Abuse, edited by P.M. Roman (New Brunswick, N J: Rutgers Center on Alcohol Studies, 1991), pp. 187-204. See, for example, David J. Pittman, "The New Temperance Movement," in Society, Culture and Drinking Patterns Reexamined, edited by D.J. Pittman and H. Raskin White (New Brunswick, N J: Rutgers Center on Alcohol Studies, 1991), pp. 775-790. The possibility also exists for sensitization and exposure to problematic encounters with alcohol related behaviors to concomitantly occur; e.g., alcohol use by a family member in an otherwise proscriptively abstinent household may reinforce the sociopolitical view of alcohol use as a "problem behavior". Michael R. Nusbaumer, "Religious Affiliation and Abstinence: A Fifteen-Year Change," Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 43 (1982): 301-318; Steven R. Burkett, "Religiosity, Beliefs, Normative Standards, and Adolescent Drinking," Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 41 (1980): 662-671; Jerome H. Skolnick, "Religious Affiliation and Drinking Behavior," Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 19 (1958): 452470. Thomas J. Butler, "Early Adolescent Alcohol Consumption and Self-Concept, Social Class and Knowledge of Alcohol," Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 53 (1982): 603-607. James Alan Neff and Baqar A. Husaini, "Life Events, Drinking Patterns and Depressive Symptomology," Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 43 (1982): 301-318. Allan R. Meyers, Ralph Hingson, Marc Mucatel, and Eli Goldman, "Social and Psychologic Correlates of Problem Drinking in Old Age," Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 30 (1982): 452-456; W.J. Busby, A.J. Campbell, M.J. Borrie, and G.F.S. Spears, "Alcohol Use in a Community-Based Sample of Subjects Aged 70 Years and Older," Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 36 (1988): 301-305. Genevieve Knupfer and Robin Room, "Age, Sex, and Social Class as Factors in Amount of Drinking in a Metropolitan Community," Social Problems, 12 (1964): 224240; Don Cahalan, Ira H. Cisin, and Helen M. Crossley, American Drinking Practices: A National Study of Drinking Behavior (New Brunswick, N J: Rutgers Center on Alcohol Studies, 1969); Raul Caetano, Richard M. Suzman, David H. Rosen, and

Nomothetic Militancy toward Alcohol Use among Abstainers

15.

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

24. 25. 26.

27.

28.

29.

351

Deborah J. Voorees-Rosen, "The Shetland Islands: Drinking Patterns in the Community," British Journal of Addiction, 77 (1982): 415-429; Genevieve Knupfer, "The Prevalence in Various Social Groups of Eight Different Drinking Patterns, from Abstaining to Frequent Drunkenness: Analysis of 10 U.S. Surveys Combined," British Journal of Addiction, 84 (1989): 1305-1318. Eli Goldman and Jackob M. Najman, "Lifetime Abstainers, Current Abstainers and Imbibers: A Methodological Note," British Journal of Addiction, 79 (1984):309-314; Genevieve Knupfer, "Characteristics of Abstainers: A Comparison of Drinkers and Non-Drinkers in a Large California City," in The California Drinking Practices Study, Report No. 3 (Division of Alcoholic Rehabilitation: California State Department of Public Health, 1961); Knupfer and Room, op. cit., 1970; Ira H. Cisin and Don Cahalan, "Comparison of Abstainers and Heavy Drinkers in a National Survey," in Clinical Research in Alcoholism. Psychiatric Research Report #24, edited by J.O. Cole (Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 1968), pp. 10-21. As well, Hilton, op. cit., p. 96 found that abstainers were residents of the Southern, Great Plains and Mountain states, members of abstinent religions and less-well-educated people. Knupfer and Room, op. cit., 1970 and Hilton, op. cit. Knupfer and Room, op. cit., 1970, p. 108. Goldman and Najman, op. cit., p. 309. David J. Armour, Michael Polich and Harriet Stambul, Evaluating Alcoholism Treatment (Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 1976). Hilton, op. cit., p. 95. Skolnick, op. cit. Ibid., p. 469. Nusbaumer, op. cit., p. 130. However, Hilton, op. cit., p. I00, indicated that abstention rates were stable within religious categories and found no support for Nusbaumer's contention that the influence of religion on abstention had declined. Yet, Douglas R. Pullman, "Some Social Correlates of Attitude Toward the Use of Alcoholic Beverages," Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 19 (1958): 623-634, found the presence of essentially moralistic and religious sentiments in the philosophies of those opposed to drinking. Douglas R. Pullman, op. cit. Ibid. Krishna B. Singh and J. Sherwood Williams, "Abstinence from Alcohol: Some Implications for Epidemiology of Alcohol Problems," The International Journal of the Addictions, 17 (1982): 1055-1063. Dennis McCarty, Sherry Morrison and Kenneth C. Mills, "Attitudes, Beliefs and Alcohol Use: An Analysis of Relationships," Journal of Studies on Alcohol 44 (1983): 328-341. Health and Welfare Canada, National Alcohol and Other Drugs Survey: Highlights Report (Ottawa: Health Promotion Directorate, Health Services and Promotion Branch, Health and Welfare Canada, 1990). The use of weighted data may result in the under-estimation of population variance and liberal statistical tests. However, the use of unweighted data can result in bias by not accounting for the complex sampling procedures used instead of random sampling. In the use of unweighted data for the regression analysis, the results are unbiased within the sample, but may not be absolutely representative of the population. However, by relying on effect size rather than statistical significance to determine the importance of a result, the effect of a potential bias is reduced.

352

30. 31. 32.

33. 34.

35.

36.

37.

38. 39.

THE SOCIAL SCIENCEJOURNAL Vol. 31/No. 4/1994

According to Jacob Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (New York: Academic Press, 1977), a benefit of using a smaller sample is that the effect of the size of the sample on statistical significance is minimized (Test Statistic = Effect Size * Sample Size). Using Cohen's 'a priori' power analysis, a required sample size (n*) was calculated and selected based on the following: n* = (L/f2) + k + 1; where (Lift) is the expected effect size; k is the number of independent variables (k -- 27) and the critical value for a two-tail test of significance is p < .05. In order to ensure a minimum 'power' of 80% to detect a 'small' effect size (L/.f = .20) if it exists in the population, the required sample size would be 428 cases (400 + 27 + 1). However, since the ratio of the sample size to number of independent variables should be greater than 40%, a sample size of 428 cases is insufficient (428/27 = 15.9%). To ensure a minimum 'power' of 80% and to meet the 40% n*/k ratio, a random sample of 1,198 cases was selected from the total sample of 11,634 cases. The sample size to number of independent variables ratio exceeds the 40% required (1,198/27 = 44.40%) and ensures adequate power to avoid Type 11 errors in analysis. With the elimination of two outliers, the number of cases used for the regression analysis was 1192. Militancy toward alcohol use among drinkers is examined in a subsequent article by this author. Cronbach's alpha was .7102 for the eleven items comprising the Index of Militancy. The standardized item alpha was .7093. Although "militancy" was measured as a continuous variable in the regression analysis, it was collapsed into four categories for the tabular analysis based on the conception of "militancy" equalling support for 9-11 of the alcohol restrictions. Hilton, op. cit., p. I11, emphasis added. Age, gender and other socio-demographic characteristics have historically been used to restrict the access of some individuals and groups to alcohol. Even the application of rules has been open to interpretation and manipulation: prohibition has been vilified as a failed social experiment in part because of the half-hearted enforcement of restrictive alcohol legislation that may have facilitated the rise of organized crime. See David J. Pittman, Primary Prevention of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism: An Evaluation of the Control of Consumption Policy (St. Louis: Washington University Social Science Institute, 1980) on the emergence of the new temperance movement in the U.S. No similar research on the emergence of the new temperance movement in Canada was found. Canadian exports to the United States carry warning labels to comply with American law. Sharon Kirkey, "Mps want alcohol labels to protect unborn babies," The Ottawa Citizen (June 19, 1992):A3. Sex: female = 0, male --- 1; Marital Status: single = 0, married or living with a partner = 1; Region: Atlantic -- 1, Quebec = 1, Ontario -- 1, Prairies = 1, B.C. -- -1; Religion: Roman Catholic -----1, Anglican, United Church, Other Protestant ----1, Other Religion = 1, No Religion = 0; Religiosity: Non-Religious ----0, Religious = 1; Education: Less than High School = I, High School ---- 1, Post-Secondary Non-University ---- 1, University Degree ----0; Drinker Type: Abstainers = 0, Current Drinkers = 1. 15-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, 40-44, 45-49, 50-54, 55-59, 60-64, 65-69, 70+. According to Statistics Canada, the distribution of the major religious denominations in Canada is as follows: Roman Catholic: 45.7%; Protestant: 36.2%; No Religion: 12.5%; Other: 5.6% (includes: Eastern Non-Christian, 2.8%; Eastern Orthodox, 1.4%; Jewish 1.2%) Statistics Canada, Religions in Canada. (Ottawa: Industry, Science and Technology Canada, 1993. 1991 Census of Canada, Catalogue Number 93-319).

Nomothetic Militancy toward Alcohol Use among Abstainers

40.

41. 42. 43.

44.

45. 46.

353

The Protestant denominations (United Church, Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, Pentecostal, Mennonite and Lutheran) were originally coded separately, but were found to have non-significant partial slopes and were combined into one category of "Protestantism". Greek Orthodox; Ukrainian Catholic; Jewish; Jehovah's Witness; Islam; Hindu; and Other. Jacob Cohen and Patricia Cohen, Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. (Hillsdale, N J: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1983). Discriminant analysis distinguishes between two or more groups by calculating a weighted sum, or linear combination, of the discriminating variables such that the groups are as mathematically distinct as possible. The linear equation can be expressed as a discriminant function (to) that maximally distinguishes between the groups. Each function that is derived from the variables can be expressed as the proportion of variance explained between the groups. In a two-groups analysis, the discriminant function (to) is simply Pearson's ~roduct-moment correlation, and the squared value of the discriminant function (to) is the total discriminatory power of each set of discriminating variables. The number of discriminant functions that can be derived from a set of variables is one less than the number of groups (g -- 1). In a multi-group analysis, the discriminant functions derived are orthogonal. The first linear combination of discriminant variables is the best mathematical representation of the correlation between a group and its discriminant function. When the first discriminant function is partialled out, the entire process is repeated on the residual variables. In each function, new weights are calculated and the residualizing process ensures a condition of orthogonality such that all correlations among the group variables are zero. The relative contribution of each variable to the total explained variance is indicated by the standardized discriminant coefficients, that are analogous to the standardized beta weights in regression analysis, and can be used to identify which discriminating variables contributed most to the differentiation between the groups with the effects of all other variables partialled out. The use of the standardized coefficients is superior for comparative purposes because they are not affected by the variables' unit of measure. Maurice M. Tatsuoka, Discrirninant Analysis: The Study of Group Differences. (Champaign: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, 1970); William R. Klecka, "Discriminant Analysis," in Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, edited by N.H. Nie (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975), pp. 434-467. Carolyn Becker and Sidney Kronus, "Sex and Drinking Patterns: An Old Relationship Revisited in a New Way," Social Problems, 24 (1977): 482-497. The general findings regarding gender differences in the nature of victimization (i.e., problems with others' alcohol use) reported in this study are partially supported by Florence Andrews, Shirley Mills, Suzanne Hill and Ikuko Webster, "Examining Gender Differences in Alcohol-Related Victimization: an Analysis of the 1989 National Alcohol and Drug Survey," Paper presented at the American Sociological Association Meetings, Miami, Florida, August, 1993, who found that gender played a far less important role in alcohol-related victimization than had been proposed in prior research. Instead, they found that drinking problems among close associates were most important in predicting alcohol-involved victimization. I would like to thank the reviewer(s) for bringing this point to my attention. Ellen M. Gee and Jean E. Veevers, "Religiously Unaffiliated Canadians: Sex, Age, and Regional Variations," Social Indicators Research, 21 ( 1989): 611-627, indicate that more Canadians than ever are religiously unaffiliated, but that this phenomenon varies by sex, age and especially region; in particular, western Canadians indicate less religious

354

THE SOCIAL SCIENCEJOURNAL Vol. 31/No. 4/1994

affiliation than their eastern counterparts. However, T.R. Balakrishnan and Jiajian Chen, "Religiosity, Nuptiality and Reproduction in Canada," Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 27 (1990): 316-340, indicate that religious affiliation is less important in determining nuptuality and reproduction than self-disclosed level of religiosity, and predict that religiosity might replace simple religious affiliation as an important determinant of specific socio-demographic characteristics and behaviors. 47. While religion has been an important predictor variable in both quantitative (Knupfer and Room, op. cit., 1970 and Hilton op. cit.) and qualitative analyses of normative militancy toward alcohol use, Reginald G. Smart and Alan C. Ogborne, Northern Spirits: Drinking in Canada Then and Now (Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation, Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation, 1986) and Jack S. Blocker, American Temperance Movements: Cycles of Reform. (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1989), there is no prior research to suggest that affiliation with a specific religious denomination nor the strength of commitment to this religion would be predictive of nomothetic militancy as examined in this article. 48. Pittman, op. cit., 1991, p. 789. 49. Smart and Ogborne, op. cit. 50. According to Smart and Ogborne, op cit., drinking was not actually frowned upon among the clergy and church-goers until the temperance movement: No denomination required abstinence before 1830, even Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians, the eventual supporters of the temperance movement. As well, this support may have been cultural as well as religious, since clergy for these denominations were obtained from the U.S., where support for temperance was more wide-spread. Among denominations who obtained their clergy from Europe, such as the Anglicans from England, typically did not support temperance, nor did the Catholic church. 51. Smart and Ogborne, op. cit. pp. 26-27, note that the Bible seemed to promote drinking and offer no support to the temperance movement. The Canadian who championed this viewpoint was the Reverend Robert Murray, a Scottish Presbyterian from Oakville, Ontario, who published a series of seven lectures on the topic of alcohol and the Bible and went on extensive speaking tours during the 1830's and 1840's. Murray claimed that teetotalism was against Christ's teachings, and that the manufacture and distribution of alcohol were moral since Christ had done both. Further, he maintained that serving alcohol was part of Christian hospitality, as Solomon had advised that "a feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh merry." Temperance societies, according to Murray, were simply not in keeping with the word of God. The arguments of Murray and others of the same persuasion were difficult to counter and cost the temperance movement many supporters. A small sub-industry among temperance workers was started to counter the position of Murray, but many religious persons remained unconvinced. See also Blocker, op. cit., for a discussion of resistance to the American temperance movements. 52. The struggle between church and state in defining and determining the forms of social control in society also needs to be considered, however, it is beyond the purview of this article. 53. This topic is examined by the author in "Nomothetic Attitudes: Evidence of a New Temperance Movement in Canada?" Working Paper. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario.