Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs logoLink to Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs
. 2024 Mar 11;85(2):201–209. doi: 10.15288/jsad.23-00137

Sober Curiosity and Participation in Temporary Alcohol Abstinence Challenges in a Cohort of U.S. Emerging Adults

Daniel Siconolfi a,,*, Joan S Tucker b, Eric R Pedersen c, Lilian G Perez b, Michael S Dunbar a, Jordan P Davis b, Anthony Rodriguez d, Rachana Seelam b, Elizabeth J D'Amico b
PMCID: PMC10941816  PMID: 37917023

Abstract

Objective:

Thus far, behavioral health research in the United States has not explored the prevalence or correlates of sober curiosity (SC; exploratory or experimental abstinence or moderation) or temporary alcohol abstinence challenges (TAACs; e.g., “Dry January”), despite significant attention in media and popular discourse. We explored these activities in a sample of U.S. emerging adults (e.g., ages 18–29), a population with higher-risk drinking behavior yet some of the lowest rates of treatment engagement for alcohol use problems.

Method:

Survey data were collected in 2021–2022 among participants (n = 1,659; M age = 24.7 years). We assessed SC awareness/engagement and past-year TAAC participation, and differences across demographics and behavioral characteristics.

Results:

Overall, 9% of emerging adults were familiar with SC and 7% had participated in a TAAC in the past year. Half of TAAC participants reported drinking less after the TAAC, and 15% remained abstinent after the TAAC ended. SC familiarity and TAAC were both associated with past-month heavy drinking, cannabis use, higher Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) scores, more past-year alcohol and cannabis consequences, past-year substance use treatment, and greater readiness to quit alcohol.

Conclusions:

Both SC and TAACs may have potential to engage young people with a desire to moderate or eliminate their alcohol consumption. This may occur directly through use of these strategies or by helping them connect to additional services. Future research can help the field understand the uptake of SC and TAACs, gauge efficacy, and identify avenues to link young people to resources and interventions.

As a population, emerging adults (typically defined as the developmental period spanning the late teens through late 20s; i.e., ages 18–29 years; Arnett et al., 2014) in the United States are at risk for alcohol use problems and simultaneously experience low rates of treatment uptake for alcohol use problems. For example, data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health indicate that half of U.S. emerging adults report alcohol use in the past month, 29% report heavy episodic drinking in the past month (also referred to as binge drinking), and 7% report heavy drinking on 5 or more days in the past month (Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, 2022). Yet few emerging adults in the United States receive treatment for problems with alcohol or substance use (Arterberry et al., 2020; Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, 2022). For example, less than 1% of emerging adults received treatment for alcohol use in the past year, and less than 1% received combined treatment for illicit drug use and alcohol use, despite 15% of this population being classified as needing alcohol use treatment (Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, 2022).

At the same time, longitudinal trends suggest that alcohol use norms may be shifting and improving in this population. For example, between 2002 and 2018, an increasing proportion of U.S. emerging adults reported abstaining from alcohol use (e.g., 28%–30%) and fewer evidenced an alcohol use disorder (e.g., 9%–10%; McCabe et al., 2021). In general, rates of adolescent and emerging adult drinking have also declined in developed nations, with the strongest evidence pointing to changing parenting attitudes and practices in recent decades and mixed evidence for alcohol policy (Caluzzi et al., 2022; Corre et al., 2023; Vashishtha et al., 2020). Emerging adults' internalization of wellness movements and notions of personal responsibility for health may also contribute to these declines (Caluzzi et al., 2021). Kraus et al. (2020) have also argued that multiple social and cultural factors have led to an overall “devaluation” of alcohol among contemporary youth, and Caluzzi et al. (2022) suggest that there has been a “denormalization of drinking” and a “normalization of non-drinking.”

In the United States more broadly, there has been growing attention to a “sober curious” (SC) movement, also sometimes referred to as “sober sometimes” or “mindful drinking” (Blum, 2021; Warrington, 2018; Wilson, 2022). Popular framing of the SC movement appears to generally fall into two partially overlapping categories. In the first, SC has been discussed as a form of abstinence or moderation by persons who may be concerned with their alcohol use and its consequences. In the second, SC has been framed as a more general wellness trend and reassessment of alcohol consumption norms, in step with growing evidence that low or moderate levels of alcohol consumption may lack benefits or may be harmful (GBD 2016 Alcohol Collaborators, 2018; Stockwell et al., 2016). To date, social science research on SC is limited, and what is known about this phenomenon largely comes from popular media coverage and literature in the personal growth and memoir genres.

A conceptually related but distinct practice is a temporary alcohol abstinence challenge (TAAC; de Visser et al., 2016). Common examples include “Sober October” or “Dry January.” TAACs typically involve a predefined period (e.g., 1month) during which individuals abstain from alcohol or moderate their intake. Research from international contexts, primarily in the United Kingdom and Australia, has found that TAAC participants may be motivated by concerns about health effects of alcohol and that TAAC participants report benefits such as positive effects on sleep, weight, and self-rated health, and reduced levels of alcohol consumption following the TAAC (Butters et al., 2023; de Ternay et al., 2022; de Visser & Nicholls, 2020; de Visser et al., 2017). One of the most striking differences between the United States and these international contexts is the extent to which there are large-scale, high-visibility social marketing and registration programs around TAACs such as Dry January internationally (Butters et al., 2023; de Visser, 2019; de Visser & Nicholls, 2020; de Visser et al., 2017); however, these efforts are largely non-existent in the United States.

Thus far, we are not aware of any behavioral health research in the United States that has examined prevalence or correlates of SC or TAACs, especially among U.S. emerging adults who show evidence of higher risk drinking behavior during this developmental period (Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, 2022). It is also unknown whether participating in the SC movement or in TAACs is associated with sustained reductions in alcohol intake or alcohol-related problems once the predefined period of alcohol reduction or abstention has concluded. Data on substitution effects specifically in the context of SC or TAACs are also lacking. Specifically, emerging adults have increasing access to cannabis through medical use and/or legalization of recreational use, and some individuals may substitute cannabis for alcohol (Gunn et al., 2022), also colloquially referred to as California sober (Lhooq, 2019) or semi-sobriety (Cleveland Clinic, 2021). However, we are not aware of any research that has examined prevalence of TAAC among U.S emerging adults or cannabis use in the context of SC or TAACs among U.S. populations, including emerging adults. This information is crucial for prevention and intervention programming for this developmental age group, particularly given that increased rates of substance use during this period couple with lower rates of accessing treatment for problems with use (Arterberry et al., 2020; Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, 2022).

To address these gaps, we examined SC and TAACs in a contemporary cohort of 1,659 U.S. emerging adults and assessed potential differences across demographic characteristics and substance use behavior. This work is an important first step in a trajectory of research assessing the potential viability of SC and TAAC practices as public health campaigns or as components of intervention work with emerging adults.

Method

Data originate from a cohort study of emerging adults initially enrolled in an adolescent substance use prevention program based in 16 southern California middle schools more than 14 years ago (D'Amico et al., 2012). Intervention effects dissipated after the first year and were no longer significant (D'Amico et al., 2015). The cohort has since been followed into emerging adulthood, with annual survey waves from 2008 to 2022. Participants received $50 for completing each web-based survey. Individuals who miss a given wave are eligible to resume participation at the next wave; retention from the prior wave to the current wave was 90%, in line with extremely high retention over the past several years at about 90% or greater (Siconolfi et al., 2023). In the current wave, 91% of participants still resided in California. The cohort is described in greater detail in publicly available documents (D'Amico et al., 2012, 2016). All participants provided informed consent, and study materials and procedures were approved by the Human Subjects Protection Committee at RAND.

The analytic sample included participants who completed surveys at Wave 14 (2021–2022) and who reported any alcohol use in the preceding survey wave (at Wave 13; 2020–2021). The goal was to establish a sample that was not already abstaining from alcohol consumption. Approximately 70% of the total Wave 14 sample met criteria for inclusion in these analyses, and this yielded a sample of 1,659 emerging adults (i.e., individuals ages 18–29), with a mean age of 24.73 years (SD = 0.83).

Dependent variables

Sober curious awareness and engagement. Participants were asked, “Have you heard of the ‘sober curious’ or ‘sober sometimes’ movement?” Mutually exclusive response options included no; yes—I've heard of it, but I'm not sure what it is; yes—I've heard of it, and I know what it is; and yes—I've tried it, attended an event, or participated in some way. Because of very small cell sizes (Table 1), we created a dichotomous variable for analysis comparing the “no” group and those who selected any of the “yes” responses, who were categorized as having awareness of SC.

Table 1.

Sober curious awareness descriptives (n = 1,659)

graphic file with name jsad.23-00137tbl1.jpg

Variable % n
Sober curious awareness
 None 90.60% 1,503
 Any 9.40% 156
  Heard of it, but I'm not sure what it is 5.12% 85
  Heard of it, and I know what it is 3.50% 58
  Tried it, attended an event, or participated in some way 0.78% 13
Open in a new tab

Temporary alcohol abstinence challenge participation. Participants were asked, “In the past year, have you participated in a ‘Dry January,’ ‘Sober October,’ or another defined period of time like this when the goal was to avoid drinking alcohol?” (yes/no). Those who participated in TAAC were presented with a list of researcher-generated items assessing motivation(s) for participating, with multiple selections allowed. Response choices are shown in Table 1. TAAC participants were also asked whether they resumed drinking alcohol after the challenge (no; yes—I drank less afterward; yes—I drank the same afterward; yes—I drank more afterward).

Independent variables

Demographic characteristics. We examined differences in SC awareness and TAAC participation by key demographics. These included race and ethnicity (non-Hispanic White [reference], non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, non-Hispanic Asian, and non-Hispanic multiracial/other), gender identity (man [reference], woman, nonbinary, transgender, or another identity), sexual minority identity (persons who identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or another identity other than “straight” and/or reported same-sex sexual behavior), and educational attainment (less than a high school diploma or General Educational Development [GED] credential [reference]; high school diploma, GED, or some college; associate's degree, bachelor's degree, or certificate; master's, professional, or doctoral degree).

Substance use characteristics. We also examined differences in SC and TAAC participation by substance use behavior variables. Participants reported the number of days in the past month for heavy episodic drinking (5+ drinks on a single occasion; also referred to as binge drinking) and cannabis use. We computed scores on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT; Saunders et al., 1993) and the Cannabis Use Disorders Identification Test (CUDIT; Bonn-Miller et al., 2016); higher scores indicate greater risk. We also calculated the total number of times a participant experienced alcohol-related and cannabis-related consequences in the past year (e.g., negative impacts on relationships; D'Amico et al., 2018; Kahler et al., 2005; Simons et al., 2012; Tucker et al., 2003).

Participants also reported whether they had received substance use treatment in the past year (services, counseling, or prescription medication for alcohol or any other drug, not including cigarettes; Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, 2018). Finally, we measured participants' readiness to quit drinking and readiness to quit using cannabis with separate standardized quit ladder questions in which a lower score indicates greater readiness to quit (i.e., fewer rungs to descend; Biener & Abrams, 1991).

Analysis

We calculated descriptives for each variable. We tested for differences in SC awareness and TAAC participation using a chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, t test, or analysis of variance as appropriate for a given independent variable. Associations were considered statistically significant at p < .05.

Results

Among this sample of emerging adults, 9% were at least somewhat aware of SC, and 7% had participated in a TAAC. Only 2% of the full sample endorsed both being aware of SC and participating in a TAAC. Among the subsample who endorsed either SC awareness or TAAC participation, only 14% endorsed both. Given this very limited overlap, we examined these separately.

Sober curious awareness

Descriptives for SC awareness are shown in Table 1, and differences in SC awareness by demographics and substance use characteristics are shown in Table 3. Participants of multiple/other races and ethnicities (19%) had the greatest proportion of SC awareness relative to non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic Asian participants, for whom awareness ranged from 3% to 12% (p = .008). Transgender and nonbinary participants (26%) had the greatest SC awareness, relative to women (11%) or men (6%; p < .0001). Finally, sexual minority persons had greater awareness (16%) than non-sexual and gender minority participants (7%; p < .0001). There were no differences by educational attainment.

Table 3.

Sample demographics and behavioral health, overall and by outcomes of focus

graphic file with name jsad.23-00137tbl3.jpg

Variable Sample % (n) or M (SD) SC awareness % (n) or M (SD) TAAC participation % (n) or M (SD)
No Yes No Yes
Race/ethnicity χ2(4) = 13.68, p = .008 χ2(4) = 8.60, p = .072
 Non-Hispanic White 26.22% (435) 88.28% (384) 11.72% (51) 90.57% (394) 9.43% (41)
 Non-Hispanic Black 1.93% (32) 96.88% (31) 3.13% (1) 96.88% (31) 3.13% (1)
 Hispanic/Latino 45.69% (758) 91.95% (697) 8.05% (61) 93.14% (706) 6.86% (52)
 Asian 22.00% (365) 91.78% (335) 8.22% (30) 95.62% (349) 4.38% (16)
 Multiracial/other 4.16% (69) 81.16% (56) 18.84% (13) 92.75% (64) 7.25% (5)
Gender χ2(2) = 26.07, p < .0001 χ2(2) = 2.21, p = .331
 Man 40.20% (557) 93.85% (626) 6.15% (41) 92.80% (619) 7.20% (48)
 Woman 56.72% (941) 89.16% (839) 10.84% (102) 93.52% (880) 6.48% (61)
 Transgender, nonbinary, etc. 3.07 (51) 74.51% (38) 25.49% (13) 88.24% (45) 11.76% (6)
Sexual minority χ2(1) = 28.51, p < .0001 χ2(1) = 2.09, p = .148
 No 76.79% (1.274) 92.70% (1,181) 7.30% (93) 93.56% (1,192) 6.44% (82)
 Yes 23.21% (385) 83.64% (322) 16.36% (63) 91.43% (352) 8.57% (33)
Educational attainment χ2(3) = 1.27, p = .737 χ2(3) = 3.45, p = .327
 Less than HS diploma/GED 0.48% (8) 87.50% (7) 12.50% (1) 87.50% (7) 12.50% (1)
 HS diploma/GED/some college 27.12% (450) 91.56% (412) 8.44% (38) 93.11% (419) 6.89% (31)
 Associate/Certificate/Bachelor 65.10% (1080) 90.46% (977) 9.54% (103) 93.52% (1010) 6.48% (70)
 Master/Professional/Doctorate 7.29% (121) 88.43% (107) 11.57% (14) 89.26% (108) 10.74% (13)
Heavy drinking, past month χ2(1) =7.31, p = .007 χ2(1) = 6.89, p = .009
 No 56.07% (929) 92.36% (858) 7.64% (71) 94.51% (878) 5.49% (51)
 Yes 43.93% (728) 88.46% (644) 11.54% (84) 91.21% (664) 8.79% (64)
Cannabis use, past month χ2(1) = 12.54, p < .0001 χ2(1) = 11.64, p = .0006
 No 66.65% (1105) 93.21% (1030) 6.79% (75) 94.57% (1045) 5.43% (60)
 Yes 33.35% (553) 85.35% (472) 14.65% (81) 90.05% (498) 9.95% (55)
Substance use treatment, past year χ2(1) = 42.13, p < .0001 p = .002 (Fisher's exact test)
 No 96.31% (1590) 91.70% (1458) 8.30% (132) 93.58% (1488) 6.42% (102)
 Yes 3.69% (61) 67.21% (41) 32.79% (20) 81.97% (50) 18.03% (11)
AUDIT score t(151.82) = -3.34, p = .001 t(1463) = -3.89, p = .0001
 M (SD) 4.73 (4.48) 4.58 (4.32) 6.24 (5.61) 4.61 (4.41) 6.43 (5.06)
CUDIT score t(613) = -2.85, p = .005 t(613) = -1.08, p = .280
 M (SD) 1.50 (2.57) 1.39 (2.52) 2.23 (2.76) 1.47 (2.55) 1.85 (2.74)
Alcohol Quit Laddera t(1462) = 3.94, p < .0001 t(1462) = 3.24, p = .0012
 M (SD) 7.39 (2.59) 7.47 (2.55) 6.56 (2.85) 7.45 (2.57) 6.57 (2.79)
Cannabis Quit Laddera t(926) = 2.04, p = .042 t(926) = 1.20, p = 0.232
 M (SD) 6.52 (3.23) 6.59 (3.21) 5.92 (3.33) 6.56 (3.23) 6.09 (3.25)
Alcohol consequences, past year t(170.25) = -3.93, p = .0001 t(1656) = -2.25, p = .025
 M (SD) 12.98 (6.64) 12.71 (6.31) 15.60 (8.92) 12.88 (6.60) 14.33 (7.11)
Cannabis consequences, past year t(169.44) = -3.78, p = .0002 t(122.52) = -2.15, p = .033
 M (SD) 16.81 (8.93) 16.46 (8.44) 20.26 (12.24) 16.64 (8.61) 19.15 (12.27)
Open in a new tab

Notes: Bold indicates statistical significance. SC = sober curious; TAAC = temporary alcohol abstinence challenge; HS = high school; GED = General Educational Development credential; AUDIT = Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test; CUDIT = Cannabis Use Disorders Identification Test.

a

For Quit Ladders, a lower score indicates greater readiness to quit.

Emerging adults with SC awareness were more likely to report heavy drinking in the past month compared with those without awareness (p = .007). Those who were SC aware also reported greater prevalence of past-month cannabis use than those who were not aware (p < .0001). Compared with those who were not aware of SC, emerging adults who were SC aware had higher past-year AUDIT (p = .001) and CUDIT scores (p = .005) and reported experiencing a greater number of both past-year alcohol (p = .0001) and cannabis consequences (p = .0002).

Finally, emerging adults who were aware of SC were more likely to have received past-year substance use treatment (p < .0001). They were also more motivated to quit drinking alcohol (p < .0001) and to quit cannabis use (p = .042) compared with peers who were not aware of SC.

Past-year temporary alcohol abstinence challenge participation

Results for TAAC participation, motivations, and drinking behavior after the TAAC are shown in Table 2. About 7% of the sample reported participating in a TAAC in the past year. Of those who did participate in a TAAC, 85% abstained from drinking alcohol for the entire period. The most common motivations were related to general health: to start or improve healthy habits (48%) or to “detox,” lose weight, or quickly change something about one's health or body (47%). About one in five TAAC participants (19%) believed they had been drinking too much or too frequently. After the TAAC period ended, about half (52%) reported drinking less, and 15% did not resume drinking. One third (32%) resumed drinking at the same level as before the experimental period. Less than 1% perceived an increase in their drinking after a TAAC.

Table 2.

Temporary alcohol abstinence challenge (TAAC) engagement (n = 1,659)a

graphic file with name jsad.23-00137tbl2.jpg

Variable % n
Participated in Dry January, Sober October, or similar event in past year
   No 93.07% 1,544
   Yes 6.93% 115
     Abstained from drinking during TAAC (n = 113)b
       No 15.04% 17
       Yes 84.96% 96
     Reason(s) for TAAC participation (n = 113)b,c
       Start/improve healthy habits in general 47.83% 55
       “Detox,” lose weight, quickly change health/body 46.96% 54
       Felt was drinking too much or too often 19.13% 22
       Other reason 15.65% 18
       Decrease my tolerance 13.91% 16
       Negative event (e.g., accident, injury, etc.) attributed to drinking 7.83% 9
       Other people were doing it; part of team, pledge, fundraiser, etc. 6.96% 8
       Religious or spiritual reasons (e.g., Lent) 2.61% 3
     Perceived drinking behavior after period of abstinence (n = 113)b
       None, did not resume drinking 15.04% 17
       Drank less afterward 52.21% 59
       Drank the same afterward 31.86% 36
       Drank more afterward 0.88% 1
Open in a new tab
a

Indented rows reflect the smaller numerators/denominator of persons who engaged in a TAAC;

b

two respondents had missing data for this item;

c

responses are not mutually exclusive.

Differences in TAAC participation by demographics and substance use characteristics are shown in Table 3. There were no differences in TAAC participation by sociodemographics. Emerging adults who had engaged in a TAAC were more likely than their non-TAAC peers to have engaged in past-month heavy drinking (p = .009) and to have used cannabis in the past month (p = .006). Those who participated in TAAC also reported higher past-year AUDIT scores (p = .0001) and a greater number of both alcohol (p = .025) and cannabis consequences (p = .033) in the past year. However, there was not a group difference on CUDIT scores.

TAAC participants reported a greater prevalence of pastyear substance use treatment (Fisher's exact test p = .002). TAAC participants had greater readiness to quit drinking alcohol than nonparticipants (p = .0012); however, readiness to quit cannabis use was not different across the two groups.

Discussion

The current study begins to address the dearth of research on the SC movement and TAAC participation among U.S. adults, specifically emerging adults with a recent history of alcohol use. Overall, there was low prevalence of SC awareness or engagement. However, it is possible that emerging adults have indeed engaged with aspects of SC (e.g., mindful drinking, self-assessment of alcohol consumption and consequences) without having labeled it as such. Our survey question only referred to “sober curious” and “sober sometimes,” without defining these terms, and the low rates observed here could reflect a lack of familiarity with terminology rather than a lack of familiarity with the underlying tenets.

Recent participation in a TAAC (e.g., Dry January) was also uncommon (7%). The prevalence of TAAC participation in the current sample appears much lower than the only other published U.S. estimate. A recent market research–based poll reported that 19% of Millennials reported engaging in a Dry January TAAC (Moquin, 2023). However, this poll's estimate includes persons who planned to drink in moderation as Dry January participants (i.e., participation was not limited to abstinence) and relatively little other methodological information is publicly available (e.g., the age range used by the poll to define Millennials). The cohort described in our analysis was on the cusp of the divide between Millennials (born 1981–1996) and “Gen Z” designation (born 1997 or later) at the time of the survey (Dimock, 2019). Therefore, we caution against direct comparison of these estimates.

Despite the relatively low prevalence of SC and TAACs in this sample of emerging adults, we identified a number of interesting differences that warrant future exploration and highlight the importance of understanding correlates of SC and TAACs among this developmental age group. These included motivations for TAAC participation, effects of TAAC participation, and substance use characteristics that suggest ongoing unmet needs (e.g., greater substance use and experienced consequences).

Of note, the primary motivations for engaging in a TAAC were related to general health and well-being rather than a belief that one was drinking too much or having experienced a consequence attributed to drinking. Findings therefore suggest that promotion of TAACs for this age group may have greater appeal in the context of general health and wellness. Prior research with U.K.-based Dry January participants found that emerging adults endorsed some TAAC motivations more strongly than other adults (to save money; for charity) and some TAAC motivations less strongly than other adults (for health reasons; to lose weight); no difference existed for “giving my body a break from booze,” “to prove that I can,” or “for energy, for sleep, or concern about one's drinking” (de Visser, 2019). Given the low rates of treatment seeking for alcohol use problems among emerging adults in the United States (Arterberry et al., 2020; Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, 2022), general health and wellness-based messages as reasons to reduce drinking may be more likely to resonate with emerging adults who do not perceive their alcohol use as risky, despite evidence to the contrary (e.g., higher AUDIT scores, greater alcohol consequences).

The predominant endorsement of health and wellness motivations in this sample may also reflect greater awareness of alcohol's health effects, possibly a result of growing evidence of alcohol's potential harms even at low levels of consumption (GBD 2016 Alcohol Collaborators, 2018; Stockwell et al., 2016). In addition, these motivations appear to align with other research exploring reasons for declines in emerging adult alcohol consumption, such as internalization of health and wellness movements (Caluzzi et al., 2021). Finally, we note that about 1 in 6 TAAC participants selected an “other” motivation, and we did not include a free-response field to capture these other motivations. Future qualitative research should systematically elicit motivations because they could provide insight for motivational interventions.

The majority of TAAC participants successfully completed the period without drinking; about half of TAAC participants reported drinking less after the experimental period, and an additional 15% stopped drinking afterward, suggesting potential for a brief period of sobriety to help individuals reduce or cease their alcohol intake. This finding aligns with research in other regions, whereby TAAC participants have subsequently reported increased drink refusal self-efficacy, reduced alcohol consumption, and reduced AUDIT scores (de Ternay et al., 2022). Other potential benefits of TAAC participation include more specific aspects of health and well-being (e.g., improved sleep, energy levels, and weight loss) and financial savings (de Ternay et al., 2022). Similar findings were reported in a prospective cohort study including a control group of non-TAAC participants, such that adults who completed a Dry January TAAC experienced improvements in health and mental well-being, increases in drink refusal self-efficacy, and reductions in AUDIT-C scores at 1- and 6-month follow-ups (de Visser & Piper, 2020). This finding has implications for public health campaigns that may seek to promote TAACs.

It is also important to note that TAAC participants in the present sample were still more likely to report heavy drinking in the past month compared with their peers who did not participate. This suggests that there is room for further reductions in alcohol consumption. It also suggests the possibility that heavier drinkers may be more inclined to reduce their drinking. First, there may be utility in providing sustained behavioral support beyond the TAAC period (e.g., ongoing informational and motivational boosters; referrals to resources or treatment for alcohol use problems). Second, this finding speaks to the need to address other social and environmental factors (e.g., alcohol availability and outlet characteristics, state alcohol policy) that may be associated with higher-risk alcohol use (Dimova et al., 2023; Murphy & Dennhardt, 2016).

It is important to remember that SC awareness and TAAC participation are distinct but related constructs. This was also borne out in the data, in which there was limited overlap in endorsement of SC and TAAC. At the same time, substance use correlates of both constructs were strikingly similar with few exceptions. There are at least two potential explanations for similarities. First, it is possible that these are indeed two unique but behaviorally similar groups of emerging adults (i.e., those who are aware of or engaged with SC; TAAC participants). Second, it is possible that TAAC participants may simply lack familiarity with the term sober curious, as referred to by the survey question. Nevertheless, our findings indicate that SC awareness and TAAC participation were more common among emerging adults reporting substance use problems, those who had engaged in substance use treatment, and those who reported greater readiness to change their alcohol use. This aligns with prior research showing that TAAC participants report both objective indicators of higher risk drinking (i.e., AUDIT-C scores) and subjective indicators (i.e., concerns about control over one's own drinking; de Visser & Piper, 2020).

As described earlier, the field lacks data on the extent to which SC persons or TAAC participants may substitute cannabis for alcohol. Although our cross-sectional data cannot directly assess substitution or temporality, emerging adults who were SC aware were also more likely to use cannabis in the past month, as were those who engaged in a TAAC in the past year. These two groups also experienced a greater number of cannabis-related consequences in the past year, relative to their peers who were not aware of SC or had not engaged in a TAAC. Further research is needed to understand potential substitution (Gunn et al., 2022), such as the California sober phenomenon, along with co-use of alcohol and cannabis (i.e., nonsubstitution), which has been associated with greater consequences (Tucker et al., 2021; Yurasek et al., 2017).

Findings should be considered in light of limitations. First, these cross-sectional analyses consist of simple, bivariate comparisons. Our goal was to identify directions for more nuanced research. In the future, longitudinal measurement can provide more granular insights into behavioral characteristics and directionality. Second, our operationalization of SC awareness was fairly broad and included persons who had heard of SC but may not have understood its meaning, in addition to those who were confident in their understanding of the term and/or had themselves engaged with SC (e.g., had practiced mindful drinking). Third, the facets of SC and TAAC that we measured differ. For example, we measured awareness of SC, but we did not measure awareness of TAAC (for which we only assessed participation). For TAAC, we measured motivations for participation, but we did not assess motivations for SC. Fourth, the question assessing changes in alcohol use following a TAAC did not specify a time frame, and we are therefore unable to describe durability of changes. Fifth, the sample is largely California-based (91%) and may not be representative. Finally, the correlates we examined were sociodemographic and behavioral in nature; there are other multilevel factors that could be examined in future research (e.g., social and environmental characteristics reflecting access to alcohol and/or cannabis).

Conclusions

Although SC and TAAC participation were relatively uncommon in this sample of emerging adults with a recent history of alcohol use, we believe that future research on both SC and TAACs is warranted given the potential promise for reaching emerging adults who may be interested in reducing their alcohol use. Both appeared to resonate with persons evidencing higher-risk alcohol and cannabis use, and among emerging adults with greater readiness to change their use.

With a potentially lower bar to entry (e.g., less stigma, wider social uptake and participation), coordinated TAAC initiatives could integrate referrals to sustained, evidence-based interventions that support persons in reducing or eliminating their alcohol consumption during and after the TAAC period. Both SC and TAACs share tenets with contemporary positive psychology-based interventions, such as a focus on well-being and the benefits of behavior change, rather than a harms- or deficit-based orientation (Carr et al., 2021; Stone, 2022). SC and TAACs may also align well with evidence-based brief motivational interventions (e.g., motivational interviewing) because of the focus on reflection, working with ambivalence, and moving toward change. These types of brief interventions are appropriate, versatile, and effective for this age group (Becker et al., 2022; DiClemente et al., 2017; Halladay et al., 2019; National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2019).

A third strength of SC and TAACs are their inherent connection to social and behavioral norms. For example, social norms marketing campaigns could promote Dry January and Sober October as popular trends, potentially increasing their appeal and reach. TAAC research in England showed a 1,400% increase from 2013 to 2016 in the number of adults registering for a Dry January TAAC, and that approximately 2 million adults tried to abstain in January 2016, amidst a large promotional and registration campaign in 2015 (de Visser et al., 2017). However, we are not aware of these types of campaigns in the United States; thus, this may represent an opportunity for future broad population-level impact on alcohol-associated harms in the United States.

Prior research has found that social barriers to a successful personal TAAC (i.e., not linked to a calendar month, like Dry January) include stress, the ubiquity of alcohol in social settings, negative reactions from others, and feeling pressured by others to drink (Pennay et al., 2018). At the same time, a content analysis of Dry January–related Tweets found that the vast majority (75%) had a positive or neutral sentiment toward Dry January; only 27% contained negative sentiments (Russell et al., 2023). This suggests the need for high-visibility, positive framing that encourages participation; for example, focusing on norms of health and well-being could increase participation in TAACs.

Other ways to engage emerging adults in TAACs could include promotional campaigns paired with registration or a pledge. Studies have shown that this approach can enable ongoing coaching support during the TAAC (e.g., SMS messages), engender a sense of peer accountability and support, and may aid social diffusion; such registries can also enable formal research seeking to evaluate and bolster the potential impacts of campaigns (Butters et al., 2023; de Visser et al., 2017). Registration and use of these resources has been associated with a greater likelihood of successful TAAC completion and reduced subsequent consumption (Butters et al., 2023; de Visser, 2019; de Visser & Nicholls, 2020). However, one study found that when comparing emerging adults and older adults, emerging adults had less engagement with supportive emails and perceived the messages as less helpful (de Visser, 2019). Thus, rigorous formative research is needed to inform effective recruitment messaging, support modalities, such as online communities (Pennay et al., 2018), and supportive messages for an emerging adult–focused TAAC campaign (de Visser, 2019).

In sum, SC or TAACs may be widely appealing, alternative approaches to support young people with ambivalence or a desire to moderate or eliminate their alcohol consumption. The present research is an important first step in understanding both the prevalence and correlates of TAACs, given the lack of U.S.-based data, especially among emerging adults. There is much that could be adapted from international contexts. Continued work is needed to help the field understand the uptake of SC and TAACs, gauge their efficacy, and identify avenues to link this developmental age group to resources and interventions.

Footnotes

The authors thank David Klein for statistical and programming support. Work on this article was supported by grants from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01AA016577, R01AA020883, R01AA025848, and R01AA02881) to Elizabeth D'Amico and supplemental funds for research on sexual and gender minority populations to Elizabeth D'Amico. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

References

  1. Arnett J. J., Žukauskien R., Sugimura K. The new life stage of emerging adulthood at ages 18-29 years: Implications for mental health. The Lancet. Psychiatry. 2014;1(7):569–576. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(14)00080-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Arterberry B. J., Boyd C. J., West B. T., Schepis T. S., McCabe S. E. DSM-5 substance use disorders among college-age young adults in the United States: Prevalence, remission and treatment. Journal of American College Health. 2020;68(6):650–657. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2019.1590368. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Becker S. J., Scott K., Elwy A. R. You have an effective brief intervention (BI) for young adults, now what? Concrete strategies to advance BI implementation in usual care settings. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2022;36(6):724–735. doi: 10.1037/adb0000731. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Biener L., Abrams D. B. The Contemplation Ladder: Validation of a measure of readiness to consider smoking cessation. Health Psychology. 1991;10(5):360–365. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.10.5.360. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Blum D. ‘Sober curious’? How to embrace mindful drinking. The New York Times. 2021 December 23; https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/23/well/dry-january-mindful-drinking.html [Google Scholar]
  6. Bonn-Miller M. O., Heinz A. J., Smith E. V., Bruno R., Adamson S. Preliminary development of a brief cannabis use disorder screening tool: The Cannabis Use Disorder Identification Test Short-Form. Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research. 2016;1(1):252–261. doi: 10.1089/can.2016.0022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Butters A., Kersbergen I., Holmes J., Field M. Temporary abstinence challenges: What do we need to know? Drug and Alcohol Review. 2023;42(5):1087–1091. doi: 10.1111/dar.13625. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Caluzzi G., Livingston M., Holmes J., MacLean S., Lubman D., Dietze P., Vashishtha R., Herring R., Pennay A. Declining drinking among adolescents: Are we seeing a denormalisation of drinking and a normalisation of non-drinking? Addiction. 2022;117(5):1204–1212. doi: 10.1111/add.15611. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Caluzzi G., MacLean S., Livingston M., Pennay A. “No one associates alcohol with being in good health”: Health and wellbeing as imperatives to manage alcohol use for young people. Sociology of Health & Illness. 2021;43(2):493–509. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.13237. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Carr A., Cullen K., Keeney C., Canning C., Mooney O., Chinseallaigh E., O'Dowd A. Effectiveness of positive psychology interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Positive Psychology. 2021;16(6):749–769. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2020.1818807. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. 2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH): Final CAI specifications for programming (English version) 2018. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/cbhsq-reports/NSDUHmrbCAISpecs2019.pdf
  12. Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. Results from the 2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Detailed tables. 2022. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/report/2021-nsduh-detailed-tables
  13. Cleveland Clinic. What is the ‘California Sober’ approach to substance use? 2021. Oct 18, https://health.clevelandclinic.org/what-is-cali-sober/
  14. Corre T., Barrense-Dias Y., Surís J. C. The growing trend of young people abstaining from drinking alcohol: A literature review. Substance Use & Misuse. 2023;58(1):77–84. doi: 10.1080/10826084.2022.2148479. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. D'Amico E. J., Miles J. N., Tucker J. S. Gateway to curiosity: Medical marijuana ads and intention and use during middle school. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2015;29(3):613–619. doi: 10.1037/adb0000094. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. D'Amico E. J., Rodriguez A., Tucker J. S., Pedersen E. R., Shih R. A. Planting the seed for marijuana use: Changes in exposure to medical marijuana advertising and subsequent adolescent marijuana use, cognitions, and consequences over seven years. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2018;188:385–391. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.03.031. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. D'Amico E. J., Tucker J. S., Miles J. N., Ewing B. A., Shih R. A., Pedersen E. R. Alcohol and marijuana use trajectories in a diverse longitudinal sample of adolescents: Examining use patterns from age 11 to 17 years. Addiction. 2016;111(10):1825–1835. doi: 10.1111/add.13442. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. D'Amico E. J., Tucker J. S., Miles J. N., Zhou A. J., Shih R. A., Green H. D., Jr. Preventing alcohol use with a voluntary after-school program for middle school students: Results from a cluster randomized controlled trial of CHOICE. Prevention Science. 2012;13(4):415–425. doi: 10.1007/s11121-011-0269-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. de Ternay J., Leblanc P., Michel P., Benyamina A., Naassila M., Rolland B. One-month alcohol abstinence national campaigns: A scoping review of the harm reduction benefits. Harm Reduction Journal. 2022;19(1):24. doi: 10.1186/s12954-022-00603-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. de Visser R. Young people and temporary alcohol abstinence during Dry January. In: Conroy D., Measham F., editors. Young adult drinking styles: Current perspectives on research, policy and practice. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan; 2019. pp. 253–272. [Google Scholar]
  21. de Visser R. O., Nicholls J. Temporary abstinence during Dry January: Predictors of success; impact on well-being and self-efficacy. Psychology & Health. 2020;35(11):1293–1305. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2020.1743840. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. de Visser R. O., Piper R. Short- and longer-term benefits of temporary alcohol abstinence during ‘Dry January’ are not also observed among adult drinkers in the general population: Prospective cohort study. Alcohol and Alcoholism. 2020;55(4):433–438. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agaa025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. de Visser R. O., Robinson E., Bond R. Voluntary temporary abstinence from alcohol during “Dry January” and subsequent alcohol use. Health Psychology. 2016;35(3):281–289. doi: 10.1037/hea0000297. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. de Visser R. O., Robinson E., Smith T., Cass G., Walmsley M. The growth of ‘Dry January’: Promoting participation and the benefits of participation. European Journal of Public Health. 2017;27(5):929–931. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckx124. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. DiClemente C. C., Corno C. M., Graydon M. M., Wiprovnick A. E., Knoblach D. J. Motivational interviewing, enhancement, and brief interventions over the last decade: A review of reviews of efficacy and effectiveness. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2017;31(8):862–887. doi: 10.1037/adb0000318. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Dimock M.Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins. 2019. Jan 17, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/
  27. Dimova E. D., Lekkas P., Maxwell K., Clemens T. L., Pearce J. R., Mitchell R., Emslie C., Shortt N. K. Exploring the influence of local alcohol availability on drinking norms and practices: A qualitative scoping review. Drug and Alcohol Review. 2023;42(3):691–703. doi: 10.1111/dar.13596. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. GBD 2016 Alcohol Collaborators. Alcohol use and burden for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2016: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. The Lancet. 2018;392(10152):1015–1035. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31310-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Gunn R. L., Aston E. R., Metrik J. Patterns of cannabis and alcohol co-use: Substitution versus complementary effects. Alcohol Research. 2022;42(1):04. doi: 10.35946/arcr.v42.1.04. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Halladay J., Scherer J., MacKillop J., Woock R., Petker T., Linton V., Munn C. Brief interventions for cannabis use in emerging adults: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and evidence map. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2019;204:107565. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.107565. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kahler C. W., Strong D. R., Read J. P. Toward efficient and comprehensive measurement of the alcohol problems continuum in college students: The Brief Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 2005;29(7):1180–1189. doi: 10.1097/01.ALC.0000171940.95813.A5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Kraus L., Room R., Livingston M., Pennay A., Holmes J., Törrönen J. Long waves of consumption or a unique social generation? Exploring recent declines in youth drinking. Addiction Research & Theory. 2020;28(3):183–193. doi: 10.1080/16066359.2019.1629426. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Lhooq M.Getting ‘California Sober’ showed me a kinder, gentler way to do drugs. 2019. Apr 29, https://www.vice.com/en/article/a3xvga/california-sober-quitting-drugs-alcohol-weed
  34. McCabe S. E., Arterberry B. J., Dickinson K., Evans-Polce R. J., Ford J. A., Ryan J. E., Schepis T. S. Assessment of changes in alcohol and marijuana abstinence, co-use, and use disorders among US young adults from 2002 to 2018. JAMA Pediatrics. 2021;175(1):64–72. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3352. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Moquin E.Dry January participation dips in 2023. 2023. Jan 10, https://morningconsult.com/2023/01/10/dry-january-participation-dips-2023/
  36. Murphy J. G., Dennhardt A. A. The behavioral economics of young adult substance abuse. Preventive Medicine. 2016;92:24–30. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.04.022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Planning alcohol interventions using NIAAA's CollegeAIM Alcohol Intervention Matrix. 2019. https://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/CollegeAIM/Resources/NIAAA_College_Matrix_Booklet.pdf
  38. Pennay A., MacLean S., Rankin G., O'Rourke S. Hello Sunday morning: Strategies used to support temporary alcohol abstinence through participation in an online health promotion program. Health Promotion Journal of Australia. 2018;29(3):321–327. doi: 10.1002/hpja.22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Russell A. M., Montemayor B. N., Chiang S. C., Milaham P. J., Barry A. E., Lin H.-C., Bergman B. G., Massey P. M. Characterizing Twitter chatter about temporary alcohol abstinence during “Dry January.”. Alcohol and Alcoholism. 2023;58(6):589–598. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agad057. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Saunders J. B., Aasland O. G., Babor T. F., de la Fuente J. R., Grant M. Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO Collaborative Project on Early Detection of Persons with Harmful Alcohol Consumption—II. Addiction. 1993;88(6):791–804. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1993.tb02093.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Siconolfi D., Davis J. P., Pedersen E. R., Tucker J. S., Dunbar M. S., Rodriguez A., D'Amico E. J. Trajectories of emerging adults' binge drinking and depressive symptoms and associations with sexual violence victimization: Examining differences by sexual and gender minority status. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2023;38(7–8):6085–6112. doi: 10.1177/08862605221128052. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Simons J. S., Dvorak R. D., Merrill J. E., Read J. P. Dimensions and severity of marijuana consequences: Development and validation of the Marijuana Consequences Questionnaire (MACQ) Addictive Behaviors. 2012;37(5):613–621. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.01.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Stockwell T., Zhao J., Panwar S., Roemer A., Naimi T., Chikritzhs T. Do “moderate” drinkers have reduced mortality risk? A systematic review and meta-analysis of alcohol consumption and all-cause mortality. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2016;77(2):185–198. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2016.77.185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Stone B. M. Positive psychology for substance use disorders: A rationale and call to action [Letter to the Editor] Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2022;83(6):959–961. doi: 10.15288/jsad.22-00259. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Tucker J. S., Orlando M., Ellickson P. L. Patterns and correlates of binge drinking trajectories from early adolescence to young adulthood. Health Psychology. 2003;22(1):79–87. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.22.1.79. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Tucker J. S., Rodriguez A., Davis J. P., Klein D. J., D'Amico E. J. Simultaneous trajectories of alcohol and cannabis use from adolescence to emerging adulthood: Associations with role transitions and functional outcomes. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2021;35(6):628–637. doi: 10.1037/adb0000744. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Vashishtha R., Livingston M., Pennay A., Dietze P., MacLean S., Holmes J., Herring R., Caluzzi G., Lubman D. I. Why is adolescent drinking declining? A systematic review and narrative synthesis. Addiction Research & Theory. 2020;28(4):275–288. doi: 10.1080/16066359.2019.1663831. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Warrington R. Sober Curious: The blissful sleep, greater focus, limitless presence, and deep connection awaiting us all on the other side of alcohol. New York, NY: HarperCollins; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  49. Wilson J. From Dry January to fake cocktails, inside the new Temperance Movement. The Washington Post. 2022 July 25; https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2022/07/25/cocktails-sober-curious-drinking-alcohol/ [Google Scholar]
  50. Yurasek A. M., Aston E. R., Metrik J. Co-use of alcohol and cannabis: A review. Current Addiction Reports. 2017;4(2):184–193. doi: 10.1007/s40429-017-0149-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs are provided here courtesy of Rutgers University. Center of Alcohol Studies

RESOURCES