‘Being a non-drinking student: An interpretative phenomenological analysis.’
Conroy, Dominic and de Visser, Richard Oliver
Psychology & Health, 29(5): 536-551. DOI: 10.1080/08870446.2013.866673
Recent research suggests that safer student alcohol consumption might be assisted by
understanding how social occasions are managed by non-drinkers. In-depth, semi-structured
interviews with five 19-22 year old non-drinking English undergraduates were subjected to
interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). We present five inter-linked themes: ‘living
with challenges to non-drinking’; ‘seeing what goes on in drinking environments’; ‘dealing
with conversations about non-drinking (‘making excuses vs. coming out’)’; ‘knowing which
friends care about you’; and ‘the importance of withholding “legroom” for peer pressure’.
Participants felt under persistent peer scrutiny (as a form of peer pressure) and could feel
alienated in drinking environments. Talking about non-drinking was characterised by whether
to ‘come out’ (as a non-drinker) or ‘fake it’ (e.g., ‘I’m on antibiotics’). Loyal friendships were
reported as particularly important in this context. The decision not to drink was experienced
as providing a successful buffer to peer pressure for former drinkers. Our findings unsettle
traditional health promotion campaigns which advocate moderate drinking among students
without always suggesting how it might be most successfully accomplished, and offer
tentative guidance on how non-drinking during specific social occasions might be managed
more successfully. Findings are discussed in relation to extant literature and future research
directions are suggested.
Key words: alcohol, interpretative phenomenological analysis, non-drinkers, peer pressure,
student, university
Promoting healthier alcohol consumption among young people and student populations in
England is an on-going challenge (Plant & Plant, 2006) and, relative to other European
countries, heavy drinking patterns in these demographics are pronounced (e.g., Fuhr & Gmel,
2011; Plant & Miller, 2001). The central position of alcohol in university cultures is of
particular concern (Gill, 2002; Griffin, Szmigin, Hackley, Mistral & Bengry-Howell, 2009;
Smith & Foxcroft, 2009). To address this, identifying predictors of harmful drinking
behaviour among students and understanding how attitudes towards more moderate
approaches to drinking might be encouraged has received substantial attention in
psychological research (e.g., Atwell, Abraham, & Duka, 2012; Barry & Goodson, 2010;
1
Clark, Tran, Weiss, Caselli, Nikcevic & Spada, 2012; Green, Polen, Janoff, Castleton &
Perrin, 2007). Many studies highlight the significant influence of social norms, peer pressure
and peer conformity on drinking behaviour among young people and students (e.g., Brown,
Clasen, & Eicher, 1986; Nash, McQueen, & Bray, 2005; Santor, Messervey, & Kusumakar,
2000). However, fewer studies have examined the experiences of those who do not drink
alcohol in social contexts where heavy drinking may be normative (Nairn, Higgins,
Thompson, Anderson, & Fu, 2006; Piacentini & Banister, 2009; Piacentini, Chatzidakis, &
Banister, 2012). Greater understanding of non-drinkers’ experiences in university social
contexts might be suggestive of new ways to challenge normative pressure to drink alcohol
among students.
In 2009, approximately 20% of young people (16-24 year olds) in England were non-
drinkers (National Health Service Information Centre for Health & Social Care, 2012), with
evidence that this number increased during the 2000s (Measham, 2008). Promoting non-
drinking as a health goal would be an unrealistic or even undesirable health promotion
objective (Pederson, Heitmann, Schnohr, & Grønbaek, 2008), yet learning how to empower
student drinkers to manage the dynamic and challenges of not drinking during some social
situations would be desirable. Addressing situational non-drinking in this way is arguably an
important and over-looked feature of strategies designed to successfully promote moderate
drinking.
There is only a small body of literature on non-drinking. Drawing on interviews with nine
non-drinkers, Piacentini and Banister (2009) reported significant tensions in the successful
social management of ‘anti-consumption’ and discussed the usefulness of different coping
strategies such as challenging stereotypes of non-drinkers. These authors also described
‘counter-neutralisation techniques’ used by non-drinkers to protect themselves from peer
intolerance of counter-normative student lifestyles: for example, by acknowledging dangers
of heavy drinking or by derogating drunken behaviour (Piacentini et al., 2012). Nairn et al.
(2006) identified diverse subject positions young non-drinkers in New Zealand adopted to
explain their counter-normative position. These included: (i) positions regarded as socially
legitimate in terms of their lifestyle (e.g., sporty; healthy) or cultural basis (e.g., religious);
(ii) alternative leisure activities such as daytime café meetings; (iii) constructing alcohol
consumption as infantilising or character-changing; and contrastingly, (iv) ‘passing’ as a
drinker in social contexts through actions such as pretending to be holding an alcoholic drink.
Recently, the social experiences of non-drinkers have been described in UK research
reports, providing evidence relating to young people’s decision-making around alcohol use
2
(Seaman & Ikegwuonu, 2010) and the processes of becoming and being a non-drinker
(Herring, Bayley, & Hurcombe, 2013). These studies revealed that peer tolerance of non-
drinking was maximised where individuals strategically deployed ‘legitimate’ reasons,
whether dispositional (e.g., ‘don’t like the taste’) or circumstantial (e.g., ‘on medication’,
‘designated driver’) in nature. Both studies also emphasised the importance of dealing with
the difficulties of non-drinking at a life stage where everyone seems to be drinking and in
social environments where alcohol consumption is particularly prominent (e.g., parties,
clubs). Evidence specific to non-drinkers has indicated diverse potential strategies for non-
drinkers to use in social settings, including: rejecting stereotypical labels (e.g., ‘boring’);
adopting alternative identities; ensuring that drinkers do not feel judged; alleviating
situational tension using humour; boundary-setting for being out; and being assertive or
resolute in how non-drinking is spoken about (Herring et al., 2013). Notably, Seaman and
Ikegwuonu (2010) found that non-drinkers expressed pride in their minority status.
Sampling approach and focus
Studies exploring the experiences of young adult non-drinkers provide varied operational
definitions of the behaviour. For example, infrequent drinkers are included alongside non-
drinkers by some authors (Nairn et al., 2006), while others integrate light and non-drinkers
within the category ‘anti-consumers’ – orientating their enquiry towards individuals
understood to operate outside of student norms more generally (Piacentini & Banister, 2009).
Studies focussing exclusively on non-drinkers have excluded individuals abstaining for
religious reasons, either to explore less obvious reasons for not drinking alcohol (Herring et
al., 2013) or for unspecified reasons (Seaman & Ikegwuonu, 2010). While all approaches
have their merits, we suggest that a more conservative sampling approach is of particular
appeal from a health promotion viewpoint. Specifically, we propose an original distinction
between individuals who do not drink for reasons that are culturally unsanctioned - i.e., those
who choose not to drink primarily because they dislike its effects on themselves or others –
and those who abstain for reasons that are culturally sanctioned- i.e., those who choose not to
drink primarily for culturally-recognisable reasons such as religion, physical illness or prior
dependence. While similar distinctions between individuals with different kinds of reasons
for non-drinking have informed previous sampling approaches (e.g., Herring et al., 2013), we
provide an explicit, conceptually informed distinction based on an underlying health
promotion rationale and, as such, offer an original extension to this emerging literature.
We suggest that investigating the experiences of culturally unsanctioned non-drinkers is
more valuable to health promotion initiatives designed to reduce student consumption levels
3
given that they can be more meaningfully applied to the broader student population than
those which examine the experiences of non-drinkers en masse. For example, the culturally
sanctioned non-drinker may respond to the question ‘Why don't you drink?’ by providing an
irrefutable reason (e.g., ‘I have an autoimmune liver condition’). In contrast, the culturally
unsanctioned non-drinker may have to do more work to convince others of the validity of
his/her decision not to drink. This distinction is not intended to provide a reified taxonomical
account of non-drinking motivations and in so doing to falsely simplify complex issues of
social approval, cultural acceptance and personal choice involved in the decision not to drink
alcohol. Instead, our distinction is intended to provide a pragmatic focus on non-drinkers
whose experiences may be of most relevance to the broader student population.
Originally with this literature, we provide a subtle but important explicit emphasis on non-
drinkers whose behaviour is the least readily defensible (in normative terms), yet arguably
carries the broadest applicability from a health promotion perspective. Indeed, investigating
culturally unsanctioned non-drinkers holds relevance to any university student motivated to
drink alcohol more moderately yet who would be required to defend the decision not to drink
during a social occasion in the absence of a culturally sanctioned reason for such action. This
study presents data collected from interviews with five individuals who have chosen not to
drink alcohol and was structured around two broad research questions: (1) why have
individuals chosen not to drink alcohol?; (2) what kind of social experiences do culturally
unsanctioned non-drinkers have in university settings?
Method
Sampling
All participants were recruited from a survey study of 609 drinkers and non-drinkers. Of 60
non-drinking respondents, 12 did not drink for culturally unsanctioned reasons (e.g., disliking
alcohol’s effects on others) rather than culturally sanctioned reasons (i.e., religious;
physiological). Of these individuals, 5 were willing to be interviewed (Table 1). Both lifelong
non-drinkers and former drinkers (abstinence of ≥6 months) were interviewed. The sample
was not designed to be representative of either non-drinking students or culturally
unsanctioned non-drinkers, but rather to focus on the varied and intricate experiences of these
particular individuals who had chosen to not drink alcohol.
<insert Table 1>
Procedure and interview
4
Ethical approval was acquired from the host institution. An interview schedule started with
general items (e.g., ‘how do you like to spend your leisure time?’) before turning to non-
drinking items that were both broad (e.g., ‘tell me about your experiences as a non-drinker’)
and more specific (e.g., ‘describe how you have historically dealt with drink offers’). Semi-
structured interviews took place on university campuses or at interviewee’s homes after
obtaining written informed consent. Where possible, throughout interviews, terms such as
‘non-drinker’ or ‘non-drinking’ were avoided in an effort to minimize the presence of rigid
labels indicative of social categories or lifestyle choices. No fixed interview structure was
followed, enabling participants to discuss those experiences which held most personal
relevance in an order of their own choosing. Post-interview, participants were asked if there
was anything concerning their non-drinking not covered during the interview that they would
like to discuss. Recordings of interviews were transcribed verbatim. In this manuscript [...]
indicates the deletion of material not pertinent to analysis.
Analysis
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA: Smith & Osborn, 2003) was used as a
guiding framework. IPA entails a fine-grain account of individual lived experience. It was
well-suited to the current research enquiry given its focus on a homogenous group of
individuals who share a common life phenomenon. Small sample sizes are typical of IPA
studies and highly congruent with its methodological emphasis: the in-depth investigation of
a shared aspect of lived experience. Recent IPA studies of drinking behaviour among young
people (e.g., Shinebourne & Smith, 2009; de Visser & Smith, 2006, de Visser & Smith,
2007a; de Visser & Smith, 2007b) have demonstrated the inherent value of recognizing
complex links between drinking behaviour and issues of self and identity among young
people. Similarly, we sought to explore the phenomenology of the decision not to drink
alcohol as something that might be expected to hold implications for self and identity given
its counter-normative association. Analysis involved two broad phases. In the first
phenomenological phase, features of each individual’s experience, alongside both their and
the interviewer’s meaning-making interpretative activities, were carefully detailed. This
process was repeated across transcripts, and was followed by the second phase of
interpretation in which convergences and divergences within and between individual
accounts were recorded. The second author assessed the credibility of data interpretation, the
final thematic structure and the suitability of transcript excerpts appearing within themes,
consistent with suggested quality guidelines (Willig, 2008).
5