A comparison of the responsible drinking dimensions among underage and legal drinkers: examining differences in beliefs, motives, self-efficacy, barriers and intentions

Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy

Conrad L Woolsey¹  Michael L Stellefson²  Adam E Barry² 

[1] Nutrition and Human Performance, Logan University, Chesterfield, MO 63017, USA;Department of Health Education & Behavior, University of Florida, P.O. Box 118210, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA

关键词: Minimum legal drinking age;    Amethyst initiative;    College;    Responsible drinking;    Underage drinking;    Alcohol;   

Others  :  833886
DOI  :  10.1186/1747-597X-9-5

 received in 2013-10-18, accepted in 2014-01-06,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

To date, scholarly discourse over the Amethyst Initiative has primarily debated the relative effectiveness of the 21 year-old Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA). Unfortunately, this discourse has failed to account for the Amethyst Initiative’s central tenet/mission: facilitating responsible drinking among college students. This investigation seeks to help fill this gap by quantitatively determining whether a random sample of underage (n = 158) and legal (n = 298) drinkers differed with regard to their alcohol-related behaviors, responsible drinking behaviors, and responsible drinking beliefs.

Findings

Compared to legal drinkers, underage drinkers reported: (a) significantly less confidence to perform responsible drinking behaviors during their next drinking episode [t(446) = -2.97, p < .003; d = -0.297], (b) significantly more perceived barriers to responsible drinking [t(388) = 3.44, p < .001; d = .368], and (c) significantly lower behavioral intentions to perform responsible drinking behaviors the next time they consumed alcohol [t(437) = -3.45, p < .001; d = -0.350]. Each of these differences remained statistically significant, even after controlling for sex and race, in three separate multiple linear regression models.

Conclusion

While college students both above and below the 21 year-old MLDA have similar beliefs regarding what constitutes responsible drinking, students below the current MLDA have less intention to drink responsibly regardless of their behavioral beliefs and/or motives. College/university administrators should consider the negative repercussions that are possible if underage students who are less confident in their ability to drink responsibly are given the legal right to drink on campus.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Barry et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Babor T: Amethyst initiative vs. animal house: What college presidents can learn from research on the Mediterranean drinking style. San Diego, CA: Presented at the annual meeting and expo of the American Public Health Association; 2008.
• [2]Muhlenfeld E: Seeking a drinking age debate. University Business 2008, 53-54.
• [3]Nelson TF: Minimum legal drinking age research: Summary and current conclusions. San Diego, CA: Presented at the annual meeting and expo of the American Public Health Association; 2008.
• [4]Wechsler H, Nelson TF: Will increasing alcohol availability by lowering the minimum legal drinking age decrease drinking and related consequences among youths? Am J Public Health 2010, 100(6):986-992.
• [5]McCartt AT, Hellinga LA, Kirley BB: The effects of minimum legal drinking age 21 laws on alcohol-related driving in the United States. J Safety Res 2010, 41:173-181.
• [6]O’Malley PM, Wagenaar AC: Effects of minimum drinking age laws on alcohol use, related behaviors and traffic crash involvement among American youth: 1976–1987. J Stud Alcohol Drugs 1991, 52(5):478-491.
• [7]Voas RB, Tippetts AS, Fell JC: Assessing the effectiveness of minimum legal drinking age and zero tolerance laws in the United States. Accid Anal Prev 2003, 35(4):579-587.
• [8]Wagenaar AC, Toomey TL: Effects of minimum drinking age laws: Review and analyses of the literature from 1960–2000. J Stud Alcohol 2002, 14:206-225.
• [9]Amethyst Initiative Accessed June 12, 2012. Available at: http://www.theamethystinitiative.org/ webcite
• [10]Barry AE, Howell SM, Dennis M: Evaluating impaired drivers confidence and intention to “(Please) drink responsibly”. J Safety Res 2011, 42:137-142.
• [11]Barry AE, Goodson P: How college student conceptualize and practice responsible drinking. J Am Coll Health 2011, 59(4):304-312.
• [12]Barry AE, Goodson P: Contextual and intrapersonal factors influencing college students’ decision to drink responsibly. Subst Use Misuse 2012, 47:1172-1184.
• [13]Barry AE, Goodson P: Developing and testing the CHORDS: Characteristics of responsible drinking survey. Am J Health Promot 2011, 25(6):e11-e21.
• [14]Rasul JW, Rommel RG, Jacquez GM, Fitzpatrick BG, Ackleh AS, Simonsen N, Scriber RA: Heavy episodic drinking on college campuses: Does changing the legal drinking age make a difference? J Stud Alcohol Drugs 2011, 72(1):15-23.
• [15]Hambleton L: Experts debate merit of making drinking age 21. The Washington Post 2010.
• [16]Reyna VF, Croom K, Lesser ML, Lewis D, Frank J: Endrosement of a personal responsibility to adhere to the minimum drinking age law predicts consumption, risky behaviors, and alcohol-related harms. Psychol Public Policy Law 2013, 19(3):380-394.
• [17]Martinez JA, Munoz Garcia MA, Sher KJ: A new minimum legal drinking age (MLDA)? Some finding to inform the debate. Addict Behav 2009, 24:407-410.
• [18]Carpenter C, Dobkin C: The minimum legal drinking age and public health. J Econ Perspect 2011, 25(2):133-156.
• [19]Subbaraman MS, Kerr WC: State panel estimate of the effects of the minimum legal drinking age on alcohol consumption from 1950 to 2002. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2013, 37(Suppl 1):e291-296.
• [20]Conover E, Scrimgeour D: Health consequences of easier access to alcohol: New Zealand evidence. J Health Econ 2013, 32(3):570-585.
• [21]Fitzpatrick BG, Scribner R, Ackleh AS, Rasul J, Jacquez G, Simonsen N, Rommel R: Forecasting the effect of the amethyst initiative on college drinking. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2012, 36(9):1608-1613.