The document summarizes a proposed study that aims to investigate the relationship between perceived academic pressure and non-prescription stimulant use among college students. The study would use a survey to collect data on students' perceived academic pressure and frequency of non-prescription stimulant use. The hypothesis is that there is a positive correlation between perceived academic pressure and use of non-prescription stimulants. If validated, the findings could help universities better understand factors influencing illegal stimulant use and provide appropriate support for students.

1. Christian Austin
Perceived Academic Pressure and
Non-Prescription Stimulant Use Among College Students
Introduction: Problem to be investigated and literature review
The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between
perceived academic pressure on the part of college students and the use of non-
prescription stimulants on college campuses. In the past decade the number of
adults prescribed stimulants has increased drastically, and one in ten college
students has obtained and illegally used non-prescription stimulants (Desantis &
Hane 2010). In the college culture, stimulants are becoming increasingly prevalent
and are viewed as innocuous by most students (Stock 2013). It is important that we
understand the factors that have contributed to this trend as these drugs pose
potential mental and physical health issues to those who abuse/misuse them.
Because many students justify non-prescription stimulant use for academic reasons,
it is vital that we uncover their motives for doing so. Hence, the current study seeks
to investigate if there is a relationship between the academic pressure perceived by
students and the prevalence of non-prescription stimulant use. In doing so, we can
better understand why a student feels stimulant use is beneficial and/or necessary
for academic success, and better tailor appropriate resources to help them succeed
in a healthy way.
Literature Review
The following studies were read and examined in order to inform our current
research proposal.
DeSantis, A. D., & Hane, A. C. (2010). “Adderall is definitely not a drug”: Justifications
for the illegal use of ADHD stimulants. Substance use & Misuse, 45(1-2), 31-46.
The purpose of this study was to investigate college students’ perceptions toward
the illegal use of prescription stimulants on college campuses. Findings indicate that
the majority of students interviewed believed illegal stimulant use to be morally
justifiable and physically innocuous. The study considered students’ justification for
stimulant use by coding for the various types of arguments they gave. One such
argument coding, “I’m-doing-it-for-the-right-reasons,” justified stimulant use for the
betterment of oneself academically. However, it did not indicate if academic
pressure was underlying this desire to better oneself academically.
Stock, M. L., Litt, D. M., Arlt, V., Peterson, L. M., & Sommerville, J. (2013). The
prototype/willingness model, academic versus health‐risk information, and
risk cognitions associated with nonmedical prescription stimulant use among
college students. British Journal of Health Psychology, 18(3), 490-507.

2. 2
This study examined cognitions associated with nonprescription stimulant use
among US college students. The primary perception among stimulant users was that
the drugs provide an easy and safe way to improve academic performance. The
second part of the study examined perceptions toward future stimulant use in two
groups: one was given information on the negative health and academic outcomes of
non-prescription stimulant use while the other was not. Results indicate that the
control group reported higher willingness to use stimulants in the future than the
group given stimulant-related health information. This was the only one of the
studies included here that examined how students’ perceptions could be affected by
educating them on stimulant use.
Low, K. G., & Gendaszek, A. E. (2002). Illicit use of psychostimulants among college
students: A preliminary study. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 7(3), 283-287.
In this study, questionnaires were distributed to a group of college students to
examine prevalence of non-prescription stimulant use and motives for use. Results
indicate that roughly 10% of students in the sample were monthly users of non-
prescription stimulants. Primary motives were recreational use (often in
combination with alcohol), and academic motives. Similar to the results from
Desantis and Hane (2010), academic motives involved increasing efficiency and
optimizing one’s scholastic potential. Yet the study does not indicate whether this
desire for increased efficiency stems from academic pressure, or simply from a
desire to complete schoolwork in a more timely manner.
White, B. P., & Becker-Blease, K.A. (2006). Stimulant medication use, misuse, and
abuse in an undergraduate and graduate student sample. Journal of American
College Healther, 54(5), 261-268
This study examined the motives for stimulant use on college campuses. Similar to
the other studies in this literature review, results indicate that the primary motives
for illegal stimulant use on college campuses are increasing concentration and
improving grades, in addition to getting a high and partying with these drugs. Again,
the study does not appear to examine the underlying reasons behind the desire for
increased academic performance via stimulant use.
Hartung, C. M., Canu, W. H., Cleveland, C. S., Lefler, E. K., Mignogna, M. J., Fedele, D. A.,
. . . Clapp, J. D. (2013). Stimulant medication use in college students:
Comparison of appropriate users, misusers, and nonusers. Psychology of
Addictive Behaviors, 27(3), 832-840.
The purpose of this study was to examine characteristics of those who use
stimulants appropriately vs. those who use them illegally. Nonprescription
stimulant users were more likely to exhibit concurrent alcohol and marijuana use
than appropriate users. Overall, non-prescription users scored lower than
prescription users on inattention, hyperactivity, and perfectionism. The findings

3. 3
seem to suggest that many non-prescription users taking stimulants for academic
reasons are less “in need” of them than those who have a prescription.
Summary: The findings concerning the motives for college students to use non-
prescription stimulants are fairly consistent. The studies considered in this
literature review place them in two main categories: recreational (i.e. “to get high”
or “to party”) and academic (i.e. “to concentrate” or “to reach one’s full academic
potential.”) The latter category is where there seems to be gaps in the research. It is
understood and accepted that students view stimulants as a way to boost academic
performance. But what is the underlying cause of the need to boost one’s
performance in the first place? Is it low self-efficacy? Is it laziness, and stimulants
are seen as an easy way to get an A? Or is it that students perceive high pressure to
perform academically, and worry that they can’t do so without aid from stimulants?
While each of these questions is important to consider, the latter is the one that this
study seeks to highlight. In essence, this study seeks to understand one possible
motive behind the decision to use non-prescription stimulants for academic
purposes.
Research Question
What is a relationship between perceived academic pressure and non-prescription
stimulant among college students?
Hypothesis
The following is a proposed directional research hypothesis for the study:
There is a positive correlation between perceived academic pressure and use of
non-prescription stimulants.
Proposed methods
Sample
The proposed sample for the study consists of undergraduate college
students. The ideal sample size will be at least 400 students. The proposed sampling
method is a stratified random sample. The strata will represent a chosen set of
majors/ areas of study. This is in order to compare our data across majors, and also
to avoid potential bias by collecting excessive data from students in any one area of
study that may have unusually high or low academic stress. In order to do this,
deans of the various schools within a university will be contacted to acquire an
appropriate proportion of email addresses for any given major. In many colleges
there is little racial/ socioeconomic diversity. This could present another potential
source of bias. For example, race could factor into the amount of perceived academic
pressure. Further, socioeconomic factors could affect how likely a student is to have
access and or the funds necessary to acquire non-prescription stimulants. Ideally, in
an effort to control for the bias, the study will take place at a large public institution
that is racially and socioeconomically diverse. Since the target population is college
students as a whole, a school that most proportionally reflects accounts for various

4. 4
groups of students will provide data that can better be extended to the whole
population.
Instrumentation and variables
The central variables of interest in this study are perceived academic pressure and
use of non-prescription stimulants. In this study, perceived academic pressure is
defined by two criterion: the perceived level of expectations one’s family and peers
have about one’s academic performance, and the level to which negative
repercussions are believed to result if expectations are not met. Non-prescription
stimulant use is defined as the frequency with which a student uses non-
prescription stimulants for academic reasons. Perceived academic pressure will be
used as a quantitative variable, and will be quantified via multiple items using a
Likert scale. Frequency of non-prescription stimulant use will also be a quantitative
variable. There will be items in the instrument to distinguish between non-
prescription stimulant use for academic purposes and recreational purposes. In our
analysis, we will be able to examine the data with and without recreational use
included, as this may have an important effect on the correlation. The instrument to
be used was created specifically for this study, and a sample questions have been
included in the appendix.
Validity and reliability
The main potential threat to validity in this study is a Subject Characteristics Threat.
It is possible that the subjects in the study vary in ways that aren’t anticipated. This
could mean differing attitudes toward academic pressure and toward use of non-
prescription drugs across different groups. Students from different racial and
socioeconomic backgrounds may differ drastically in these areas. The main remedy
for this threat is to obtain more information on the subjects that can then be used to
analyze the data more thoroughly. In a practice this means there will be a short
supplement to our instrument asking for basic demographic information such as
race and family income.
The Equivalent Forms Method will be used in the study’s reliability analysis. After
both the academic pressure and stimulant use portions have been completed, a
second round of both sections, designed to sample the same material, will be
administered. In this way a reliability coefficient can be determined to indicate how
consistent the instrument is.
In order to measure validity of the instrument in this study, an effort will be made to
find content related evidence of validity. This makes use of expert opinion to
determine, based on operational definitions of variables, if this instrument can
obtain the data we want it to. Perhaps an adult psychologist who is an expert in
understanding academic pressure for college students could determine if the
instrument will accurately measure it. Further, someone who has performed
medical studies could determine if our instrument would get accurate results about
how frequently non-prescription stimulants are used.

5. 5
Procedures
We will administer our survey via email since a list of all students enrolled in a university
with their school email address is often accessible to researchers. This way we will be
able to increase the size of our sample as it is easier to email the survey to a large group
of students than to administer it in person. Subjects are not assigned to groups, but rather
the test will be administered to an appropriate number of students in the various majors at
the university. However, emailing the survey does raise the issue of nonresponse. In order
to deal with potential nonresponse we will provide an incentive for students to return the
survey. The email addresses of students who return the survey will be entered into a
raffle. The prize from the raffle can depend upon the school, but would be something
along the lines of a gift certificate to the bookstore or a free ticket to the big, upcoming
sports event. The survey will be between 15-20 questions, all of which will be close-
ended. Therefore it should take no more than 15 minutes.
It was easy to eliminate the use of experimental design in our study due to ethical issues.
We cannot create a treatment group and require them to take non-prescription stimulant
drugs. A descriptive study could be done but would not be as beneficial. The use of non-
prescription stimulants is rather new and we think it would be better to begin exploring
potential causes as opposed to simply describing the behaviors of these students. Since
we are trying to discover a factor that leads to the use of these stimulants, quantitative
design is more appropriate than qualitative design. A multi-method approach did not
seem necessary. Ultimately the decision came down to conducting a causal-comparative
study or a correlational study. A correlational study is more appropriate for our research
question. Both of our variables, academic pressure and use of non-prescription
stimulants, is going to measured quantitatively. Correlational studies examine the
relationship between two quantitative variables while causal-comparative studies usually
have one qualitative variable. The other factor that went in to our decision is that we are
going to be looking at and comparing the scores of academic pressure compared to the
scores of use of non-prescription stimulants of each individual. Causal-comparative
studies are used to study group averages while correlational studies are used to study
individual scores. Therefore we believe a correlational study is most appropriate for our
research question.
Analysis
One potential method for analyzing data in this study is a correlation. This will allow
us to better understand the strength of association between the two quantitative
variables, perceived academic pressure and frequency of non-prescription stimulant
use. Further, we will be able to examine the how the correlation differs if we choose
to include or exclude users who report non-prescription stimulant use for
recreational purposes. Finally, based on responses from subjects in different majors,
we will be able to examine how the correlation between perceived academic
pressure and non-prescription use varies across different areas of study.

6. 6
Again, our research question asks, “what is a relationship between perceived
academic pressure and non-prescription stimulant among college students?”
Determining a correlation coefficient is one way to help answer this question. If the
coefficient is close to positive one, we can determine that there is a strong
relationship between the two variables (i.e. if there is high perceived academic
pressure among students, there a high frequency of non-prescription stimulant use
as well.) If the correlation is close to zero, we can infer that there is likely no
relationship between the two variables. It is important to be clear, however, that our
research question is not looking for causation of non-stimulant use, and in fact
correlation does not imply causation. That is why it is a useful form of analysis for
this proposed study.
Significance
Conclusions
While much research has focused on the motives for non-prescription
stimulant use among college students, there is a dearth of information on the
underlying academic motivations. Most existing research lumps motives into simply
“academic” or “recreational” categories. It is important to begin to understand at
what point a student feels stimulants are beneficial and/or necessary to his or her
academic performance. As most students use non-prescription stimulants for the
first time in college, we can begin to uncover what changes or stimuli illicit the
desire to use these drugs. In general this is an important issue to study because any
time someone takes a drug without a prescription, there are potentially serious side
effects. And stimulants are no exception.
If we understand how academic pressure may lead a student to take
stimulants in order to achieve at an appropriate level, schools can better serve the
student with appropriate and healthy resources. While in this study, the analysis
focused primarily on differences in these variables across academic majors, it would
be beneficial to perform more in-depth research on how these variables change
across race and SES. Further it is important that research continues on the
underlying motives for academic non-prescription stimulant use, such as laziness,
ease of access to stimulants or low self-efficacy.

7. 7
Appendix
Instrument Sample
1. How many times in the past month have you used or taken non-prescription
stimulant drugs? (Please choose one.)
0 1-3 4-7 8-10 11+
2. How many times in the past month have you taken non-prescription drugs for
academic reasons? (Please choose one.)
0 1-3 4-7 8-10 11+
3. How many times in the past month have you taken non-prescription drugs for
recreational use? (Please choose one.)
0 1-3 4-7 8-10 11+
Please indicate how strongly you agree with the following statements on a scale of 1-5 (1
= strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) :
4. I consider my academic institution to be highly competitive
1 2 3 4 5
5. At times I feel anxious that I can’t achieve what is expected of me academically
1 2 3 4 5
6. I feel pressure from my family to do well academically
1 2 3 4 5

8. 8
Works Cited
DeSantis, A. D., & Hane, A. C. (2010). “Adderall is definitely not a drug”: Justifications
for the illegal use of ADHD stimulants. Substance use & Misuse, 45(1-2), 31-46.
Low, K. G., & Gendaszek, A. E. (2002). Illicit use of psychostimulants among college
students: A preliminary study. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 7(3), 283-287.
Stock, M. L., Litt, D. M., Arlt, V., Peterson, L. M., & Sommerville, J. (2013). The
prototype/willingness model, academic versus health‐risk information, and
risk cognitions associated with nonmedical prescription stimulant use among
college students. British Journal of Health Psychology, 18(3), 490-507.
White, B. P., & Becker-Blease, K.A. (2006). Stimulant medication use, misuse, and
abuse in an undergraduate and graduate student sample. Journal of American
College Healther, 54(5), 261-268
Hartung, C. M., Canu, W. H., Cleveland, C. S., Lefler, E. K., Mignogna, M. J., Fedele, D. A.,
. . . Clapp, J. D. (2013). Stimulant medication use in college students:
Comparison of appropriate users, misusers, and nonusers. Psychology of
Addictive Behaviors, 27(3), 832-840.