Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 18, 2026

Modeling Alcohol Consumption in Rodents Using Two-Bottle Choice Home Cage Drinking and Microstructural Analysis
Published on: November 8, 2024
College students lack knowledge of standard drink volumes: implications for definitions of risky drinking based on
Aaron M White1, Courtney L Kraus, Julie D Flom
1Department of Psychiatry, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710, USA. aaron.white@duke.edu
Background:
College students tend to pour single servings of beer and liquor that are larger than commonly used standards. The reasons for this are unknown. Students might overpour because they lack knowledge of standard serving sizes. Alternatively, they might know how much alcohol to pour but simply have difficulty pouring the correct amounts. Misperceptions of standard serving sizes could lead to inaccuracies in self-reported consumption. If this is the case, then the validity of students' responses on alcohol surveys and the definitions of risky drinking that are based on them would be called into question. This study examined how college students define standard drinks, whether their definitions are similar to the definitions commonly used by alcohol researchers and government agencies, and whether their definitions of standard drinks are related to the sizes of the drinks that they pour. The study also examined whether feedback regarding the accuracy of their definitions of standard drinks leads students to alter their self-reported levels of consumption.
Methods:
Students (N = 133) completed an alcohol survey and performed tasks that required them to free-pour a single beer, glass of wine, shot of liquor, or the amount of liquor in a mixed drink. Roughly half of the students received feedback regarding their definitions of standard drinks. All students then were resurveyed about their recent levels of consumption.
Results:
With the exception of beer, students incorrectly defined the volumes of standard servings of alcohol, overestimating the appropriate volumes. They also overestimated appropriate volumes when asked to free-pour drinks. Positive relationships existed between students' definitions of standard drinks and the sizes of the drinks that they free-poured. Feedback regarding misperceptions of standard drink volumes led to an increase in levels of self-reported consumption, suggesting that students' original estimates of their alcohol consumption were too low.
Conclusions:
Despite the recent focus on alcohol education and prevention at the college level, college students have not been taught how to define standard drinks accurately. They tend to overstate the appropriate volumes, leading them to overpour drinks and underreport levels of consumption. Self-reported consumption levels are altered by feedback regarding the accuracy of students' definitions of standard drinks. The findings raise important questions about the validity of students' responses on alcohol surveys and the definitions of risky drinking that are based them.
More Related Videos
05:40The Motivation for Alcohol Reward: Predictors of Progressive-Ratio Intravenous Alcohol Self-Administration in Humans
Published on: April 28, 2022
07:31Murine Drinking Models in the Development of Pharmacotherapies for Alcoholism: Drinking in the Dark and Two-bottle Choice
Published on: January 7, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Hypothesis Test for Test of Independence
H0: The two variables (factors)...
Surveys
Glassware Calibration
Volumetric flasks: Volumetric flasks are designed to prepare aqueous solutions of precise volumes accurately with a calibration line on the neck. To calibrate a volumetric flask, it is important to fill it with distilled...
Estimating Population Mean with Unknown Standard Deviation
William S. Gosset (1876–1937) of the Guinness...
Convenience Sampling Method
Convenience sampling is a non-random method of sample selection; this method selects individuals that are easily accessible and may result in biased data. For example, a marketing...
Introduction to Test of Independence
The test statistic for a test of independence is similar to that of a goodness-of-fit test: