Addressing Parental Supply of Alcohol to Teens: Development and Message Testing of the Keep Their Future Bright Campaign

ABSTRACT

Issue Addressed

Due to potential harm to the developing brain, alcohol is not recommended before age 18, even in small quantities. With parents being a key source of alcohol supply to their teenagers, changing parental attitudes towards underage drinking is key to reducing alcohol‐related harm in young people. This study provides an overview of the development and message testing of the ‘Keep Their Future Bright’ campaign, aimed at discouraging parents from supplying alcohol to children.

Methods

Phase 1—Development of message guide: Scoping activities included a literature review, qualitative interviews with 15 alcohol and other drug harm prevention advocates, and discourse analysis of 2227 text samples from media and other public sources. Data from eight focus groups (n = 72) and an online survey with parents of teenagers (n = 1728) were integrated with findings from scoping activities to create the message guide. Phase 2—Generation of campaign materials: these were informed by the message guide created in Phase 1. Phase 3—Message testing: Pre‐post national survey among parents to test message effectiveness (n = 817).

Results

Phase 1: Differences were identified between the views of alcohol and other drug harm prevention advocates and the dominant public narrative. Parents expressed concern about brain development, mental health, and the carcinogenic effects of alcohol. Phase 3: After viewing the campaign, there were reductions in the proportion of parents who agreed that (1) it was acceptable to supply children with alcohol in the home and (2) intended to provide alcohol in the future. Compared to pre‐exposure, more parents agreed that underage alcohol consumption was associated with (1) disruptions to brain development, (2) poor mental health, (3) accidents, (4) embarrassing behaviour, (5) sexual assault and (6) risk of developing cancer.

Conclusions

The message testing demonstrated that emphasising the harms of moderate alcohol consumption and challenging perceptions that parental supply is protective was persuasive.

So What?

Evidence‐based communication strategies and public health campaigns are needed to address broader cultural perceptions and support long‐term behavioural change.

1. Introduction

In Australia, national drinking guidelines [1] recommend that children under 18 years should not consume any alcohol. Heavy drinking is harmful to the adolescent brain, implicated in structural changes and impairments in attention, processing, learning and memory [2]. Alcohol use is linked to multiple cancers [3] and early onset use of alcohol is associated with increased risk of dependency in adulthood [4]. Promisingly, trends in youth drinking have been declining in recent decades, with statistics showing stabilisation in alcohol consumption among 14–17‐year‐olds since 2016 [5]. Despite the risk of alcohol‐related harms to children and young people, parents are a common source of supply [6]. Research has shown that older parents, people who use alcohol at risky levels and those who are unaware of the alcohol guidelines for underage drinking are more likely to provide alcohol to minors [7]. Among Australian high school students, 47% of current drinkers obtained their last alcoholic beverage from their parents [8] and this strategy appears to be driven from a place of care and concern [9]. This evidence indicates the need for public health campaigns to target those most likely to support underage provision of alcohol.

Changing parental attitudes to supply is a key initiative in reducing underage drinking and protecting children from first‐hand alcohol‐related harm. Alcohol harm reduction campaigns aimed at adults have typically been most successful when they highlight the reasons 'why’ people should change their drinking behaviour [10], or a combination of 'why' and 'how' to change [11]. This 'why' and 'how' communication strategy may be useful in connecting with parent's personal values to reduce supply to their children. Values‐based messaging is a communication strategy that focuses on appealing to an audience's core values [12]. The approach connects with the audience on a deeper level, rather than simply providing facts or information about the topic in question, creating an emotional motivation for change [13]. Values‐based messaging has shown to be persuasive in public health campaigns such as smoking cessation and prevention, climate change and broader social and political topics [12]. It has also shown promising results in adolescent behaviour change with social media use [14], highlighting its applicability across age groups.

Previous research on public health interventions targeting parental supply of alcohol have indicated mixed results. A mass media campaign that focused on the effects of alcohol on the developing brain achieved increased levels of parental awareness of alcohol harms and of national drinking guidelines [15]. The campaign was also associated with some parental behaviour change at follow‐up, with an increase in parent–child conversations about alcohol harms, but it did not result in reduced parental supply of alcohol [15]. In a separate study, researchers compared a fear‐based media campaign focusing on alcohol harms with one that used a first‐person narrative to appeal emotionally to the audience [16]. Both campaigns took a negative framing approach and resulted in reduced parental intention to supply alcohol to their underage children. However, intention change does not necessarily translate into sustained behaviour change [17]. Although limited, the studies outlined provide initial evidence of the effects of public messaging campaigns on parental behaviour change. Collectively, these findings suggest that increasing knowledge or eliciting fear may be insufficient to shift entrenched social norms and parental decision‐making around alcohol provision, highlighting the need for alternative communication approaches. An approach that explicitly engages parents' and carers' core values and identity as caregivers may therefore offer a novel and potentially more effective strategy for reducing secondary supply.

For the current study, a values‐based behaviour change campaign, ‘Keep Their Future Bright’, was developed to discourage parents from supplying alcohol to their adolescents. The current paper describes the key processes in the development of the ‘Keep Their Future Bright’ campaign and briefly presents results from message testing.

2. Materials and Methods

Formal human research ethics approval was not obtained because the campaign was developed and tested by external market research companies using standard commercial practices and adherence to privacy legislation. In line with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research [18], such low‐risk quality assurance and message testing activities can be exempt from HREC review, as no identifiable personal information was collected or retained. Data collection, management and storage adhered to the Australian Privacy Principles contained in the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and the Australian Privacy Principles, which includes the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. The research also adhered to the global standard ISO 20252:2019 for quality management systems in organisations conducting market, opinion, and social research and the Privacy (Market and Social Research) Code 2021. Consent was obtained prior to participation. This study was conducted in three phases: see Figure 1 for the study overview.

FIGURE 1.

Study overview including phases and steps.

2.1. Phase One

The Alcohol and Drug Foundation (ADF) ‐ a health‐focused non‐for‐profit ‐ commissioned Common Cause Australia (CC) ‐ a values‐based messaging and communications consultancy ‐ to develop a values‐based messaging guide ‘Parental supply of alcohol message guide’ (see Supporting Information) for alcohol and other drug (AOD) harm prevention advocates to encourage parents not to supply alcohol to children. CC used a three‐step mixed method design for developing the guide, including (1) scoping activities, (2) qualitative and (3) quantitative data collection and analysis (see Supporting Information for more details). The three‐step mixed‐method design ensured the message guide was evidence‐informed, practice‐informed, and grounded in real‐world context. Scoping activities (literature review, advocate interviews, and discourse analysis) established the empirical, policy, and narrative context; qualitative research explored parental values and refined messaging; and quantitative survey data facilitated audience segmentation and identification of the most persuasive approaches for campaign targeting. The data collection for this phase occurred between February and July 2023.

2.1.1. Step 1

Scoping activities included a review of existing research on the issue (Step 1a), elicitation interviews with 15 AOD harm prevention advocates from various disciplines (Step 1b) and discourse analysis of 2227 unique text samples from over 250 national media and other public sources (Step 1c). For Step 1b, AOD harm prevention advocates were invited to participate in 30‐min semi‐structured online interviews if they (1) had demonstrated active engagement in the topic, and (2) had topic‐relevant policy, leadership, or direct experience working with young people or parents/carers. The ADF selected 24 advocates to invite based on 40 advocates long listed by CC. Participants were recruited directly by CC, with 15 of the 24 approached agreeing to participate in interviews. Interview questions were designed to help build an understanding of how people passionate about not supplying alcohol to young people thought about the issue. Questions ranged from advocates' understanding of the role of parents, why young people drink, why parents supply alcohol and what should be done about it.

2.1.2. Step 2

The qualitative research consisted of eight online focus groups (nine participants per group on average, n = 72) among parents of secondary school children (13–17 years) from across all states and territories in Australia, segmented by their beliefs on secondary supply of alcohol. Two groups specifically contained parents from the Southeast New South Wales (SE NSW) region. Focus groups were approximately 90 min and covered parents' attitudes on underage drinking, secondary supply of alcohol to children and tested topline messaging. Interviews and focus groups were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis [19]. Findings from the scoping review informed initial coding; however, themes were developed iteratively through reflexive engagement with the data. Coding incorporated theoretically informed (deductive) and data‐driven (inductive) approaches, allowing for the identification of novel themes.

2.1.3. Step 3

Quantitative data collection was a 15‐min online survey to parents and carers of secondary school aged children aged 12–17 years, recruited via online commercial panels. The survey aimed to assess attitudes towards underage alcohol consumption and parental supply in order to inform campaign development. The survey included demographic and behavioural items (e.g., parents' own alcohol consumption), attitudinal measures (e.g., beliefs regarding underage drinking and the acceptability of secondary supply), and forced‐choice items requiring respondents to select between pro‐ and anti‐supply statements. The survey assessed alcohol use and risk of experiencing harms from drinking with the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test—Lite (ASSIST‐Lite). Responses were used to categorise low, moderate and high‐risk of experiencing harms from alcohol use [20]. For this study, moderate and high scores were both classified as ‘risky alcohol use’. The measure contains four items specific to alcohol use in the past 3 months. For example, ‘In the past 3 months did you have a drink containing alcohol?’, and ‘In the past 3 months has someone expressed concern about your use?’ with an option to select yes or no. Each ‘yes’ response scored 1 point. Participants were considered low risk of harm if they scored 0–1 points, moderate with 2 points, high risk with 3–4 [20]. It also incorporated a message testing component, in which participants listened to audio‐recorded messages and provided continuous real‐time agreement ratings by adjusting an on‐screen dial. The survey was commenced by 4840 parents and carers, of whom 1728 completed the survey (35.70% completion rate). Of those who commenced the survey, 2820 were deemed ineligible based on screening questions (58.26%) and 292 did not complete the survey (6.03%). Among the 1728 parents and carers who completed the survey, participants were segmented into three groups: supporters, persuadables and opponents. Supporters (25%, n = 434) were those who strongly believed it was wrong for children aged under 18 to consume alcohol and did not think parents should supply them with alcohol. Persuadables (57%, n = 985) agreed to a lesser extent that children under 18 should not consume alcohol, yet many nominated an age under 18 when children should be allowed to drink under supervision. While they found anti‐supply arguments the most convincing, they also agreed with pro‐supply messaging overall. Opponents (18%, n = 309) were least likely to agree that underage drinking is wrong. They thought parents should supply alcohol to children under 18 and were more convinced by pro‐supply arguments than anti‐supply messages (see Supporting Information for more details). Respondents were asked what health problems parents were most concerned about using a 1–5 scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree (see Supporting Information for survey items).

2.2. Phase Two

After receiving the message guide from CC, the ADF briefed media agencies (OMD and Reef Digital) and a creative agency (Icon Agency) to generate campaign materials targeting persuadable parents of 12–17‐year‐olds who supply alcohol, with the aim of encouraging reflection and cessation of this behaviour. The campaign was publicly released in SE NSW only (due to funding constraints), with a targeted media strategy supported by OMD and Reef Digital.

2.3. Phase Three

The ADF commissioned market research firm Verian to test the message effectiveness of the campaign materials in shaping parental intention to supply alcohol to children and awareness of the harms associated with alcohol use. Verian conducted a national online pre‐ and post‐campaign survey of 817 parents of children aged 12–17 between February and March 2024 (note, sample was entirely independent of that in Phase 1). Sample data were unweighted as quotas were broadly met across jurisdiction, gender of parents and age of their children.

Parents were administered the survey, then shown materials from the campaign, and then immediately re‐administered the survey. A range of media was tested, including still imagery, online image carousels, and a 30‐s video (see Supporting Information for images and procedure). The survey also quantitatively assessed changes in attitudes towards supplying alcohol and future intentions, and knowledge of harms and qualitatively explored participants' understanding of the messages to determine if messages were being interpreted as intended. Sub‐audience differences (e.g., male parents vs. female parents, parents with young children vs. parents with older children) were also examined (see Supporting Information for more details on the survey questions).

3. Results

3.1. Phase One

3.1.1. Step 1: Scoping Activities

A rapid review of the literature on parental alcohol supply identified existing evidence and gaps, which informed the subsequent project methodology (the review itself is beyond the scope of the current publication).

The analyses of the AOD harm prevention advocate interviews and public discourse analysis indicated the dominant frames people in Australia use to think and talk about parents, underage children and their use of alcohol, with some aligned ideas and some strongly opposed ideas. The three primary themes that aligned between the advocates and the public discourse were: drinking alcohol under the age of 18 years carries many risks; parents can help to prevent these harms with open and honest communication and role modelling; and there are limitations to what parents can do when information is contradictory, when adolescents experience peer pressure and when parents cannot control what happens outside of the home.

The broad difference between the AOD harm prevention advocates and the public discourse was that advocates felt parents and carers should never supply any amount of alcohol to children under 18, whereas the dominant public discourse suggests that parents can supply alcohol to children under their supervision. Advocates emphasise that the adolescent brain is still developing, making it particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of alcohol, whereas public discourse frequently downplays this, suggesting teenagers process alcohol similarly to adults. In relation to alcohol supply, advocates argue that children who drink at home are more likely to also drink outside the home, leading to greater overall consumption. By contrast, the public often supports the idea that it is safer for young people to drink in a controlled environment, such as at home with parents, rather than in unregulated settings like parties or parks. Finally, advocates maintain that young people's drinking is not primarily driven by alcohol being taboo; instead, it reflects the broader social acceptability of drinking, a message reinforced by alcohol industry marketing. Public discourse, however, tends to suggest that allowing children to drink at home reduces the sense of taboo and, in turn, decreases the likelihood of excessive or rebellious drinking outside the home.

3.2. Step 2: Focus Groups

Focus groups were conducted with participants who had expressed some level of support for the parental supply of alcohol. Emergent themes are outlined below (see Table 1 for quotes associated with each theme).

TABLE 1.

Focus groups emergent themes, associated quotes and characteristics of focus groups (N = 72).

Themes	Quotes	Focus groups characteristics
Harms perceived through excessive consumption and short‐term risks	It's when they can go to excess…when it's uncontrolled…that's a bigger worry	Wavering, men, 13–15‐year‐old children
	The number of times per week they're drinking would raise alarm bells…how much and how often	Pro‐supply, men, 13–15‐year‐old children
	It's about the decision‐making process	High‐risk drinking, men, 13–15‐year‐old children
	You worry about their safety, on the road or in a punch‐up, being taken advantage of. I have two teenage daughters, it's the biggest (concern)	Wavering, women, 13–15‐year‐old children
	Health and safety first. I am not worried about their development (of dependency on alcohol)	Wavering, women, 15–17‐year‐old children
	I didn't realise that alcohol was considered a Class One carcinogen	Pro‐supply, men 15–17‐year‐old children
Alcohol is supplied because of its perceived lack of dangers	I don't think anyone would be upset if their children didn't drink at all	Pro‐supply, men, 13–15‐year‐old children
	It's a balancing act between exposure to alcohol and setting a good example of moderation…	Pro‐supply, men, 15–17‐year‐old children
	The difference is that alcohol is controlled…	Pro‐supply, men, 15–17‐year‐old children
Cultural narratives are deeply entrenched.	I'd be horrified if someone under 16 was drinking…closer to 18 the better for me	Wavering, women, 13–15‐year‐old children
	My parents trusted I'm going to drink this amount…I've done the same with my son…	Pro‐supply, women, 15–17‐year‐old children
	Australia has a drinking culture…It would be difficult for children to say they don't drink…	Wavering, women, 13–15‐year‐old children
Opportunities exist to reframe the issue	Like packaging for cigarettes. Would it be as appealing if you just had plain label on alcohol, no pretty colour?	Pro‐supply, women, 13–15‐year‐old children
	If [campaigns] have strategies for us that will help our children, many parents will be open to listening to them	Pro‐supply, women, 15–17‐year‐old children

3.2.1. Harms Perceived Through Excess Consumption and Short‐Term Risks

While individual attitudes, beliefs and behaviours around parental supply varied, a dominant narrative emerged among parents who support parental supply of alcohol. This narrative framed alcohol‐related harm through the lens of excessive consumption, with ‘moderate’ alcohol use perceived as relatively safe. Parents predominantly expressed concerns about the short‐term acute impacts, such as impaired decision‐making leading to accidents, sexual and physical assault, and social media‐related humiliation. Notably, no parents were aware that alcohol is classified as a Group 1 carcinogen, and very few believed that drinking small amounts of alcohol could increase the risk of future alcohol dependency. Parents found initial messaging focused on long‐term chronic harms, including impacts on brain development, to be less persuasive.

3.2.2. Alcohol Supplied Because of Its Perceived Dangers

A key theme was that parents chose to supply alcohol because of its perceived dangers, not despite it. Parents perceived supplying small quantities of alcohol at home as a protective strategy, with an opportunity to model moderation, normalise alcohol, and reduce the appeal of unsupervised experimentation. Interestingly, parents strongly rejected a comparison to introducing their children to cigarettes or illicit drugs like cannabis or cocaine at home. Cigarettes were associated with cancer and passive smoking harms, while drugs like cocaine were viewed by parents as illegal, dangerous and unregulated. In contrast, alcohol was seen as safely regulated and socially acceptable.

3.2.3. Cultural Narratives Are Deeply Entrenched

Many parents expressed a desire for their children to abstain entirely from alcohol, but viewed this as unrealistic given Australia's entrenched drinking culture. Several entrenched cultural narratives underpinned parents' beliefs and made shifts in their perspectives challenging. These including commonly held views like: ‘everything is fine in moderation’, ‘say “no” and they'll do it behind your back’ and ‘supervision creates safety’—dangerous things introduced in smaller quantities build protective skills. A transition into drinking from age 16–17 was believed to be safest. Many parents had already supplied alcohol to underage older siblings or consumed it themselves during adolescence, which created cognitive dissonance and resistance to acknowledging potential harms.

3.2.4. Opportunities Exist to Reframe the Issue

While participants in focus groups suggested it is difficult to shift parents who were open to alcohol supply away from the dominant frame, they identified several promising strategies. Shifting the blame to the alcohol industry appeared to reduce parental defensiveness and their openness to taking on new information. Drawing parallels with changes in societal attitudes towards cigarettes based on growing evidence of their harm led some parents to reflect on how societal norms around alcohol may change in the future. Talking about how parenting practices adapt over time in response to new evidence led to a reduction in push‐back to key facts around brain development and cancer. Promoting proactive parenting strategies approaches—like open communication, encouraging help‐seeking, and de‐emphasising alcohol as a necessity for socialising and having fun—was more effective than negative messaging focused on what parents should not do. Highlighting that most parents do not supply alcohol and most children do not drink helped normalise non‐supply and non‐drinking, leading parents to express hope.

3.3. Step 3: Online Survey

In total, 1728 parents of children aged 12–17 participated in the online survey. Participants were from a nationally representative sample, including a boost of 150 additional people who drink at risky levels to facilitate meaningful analyses of this target group. Data were weighted by gender, risky drinking status and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status (see Supporting Information for demographic characteristics by supporters, persuadables and opponents).

Results showed that people in regional areas were more likely to be pro‐supply and persuadable, that fathers were more likely to be pro‐supply than mothers and more persuadable, and that parents of younger children were more likely to be pro‐supply. People who think ‘moderate drinking’ is safe were more likely to be pro‐supply.

3.3.1. Perceived Harm of Alcohol Consumption

Views on alcohol harm varied by group. Overall, 38% (n = 665) of respondents believed alcohol is harmful even in moderation, 56% (n = 962) only in excess, and 6% (n = 101) not harmful. Among supporters, a majority (53%, n = 230) saw harm in moderation, while 45% (n = 196) only in excess, and 1% (n = 8) saw no harm. Persuadables mirrored overall results: 37% (n = 364) in moderation, 57% (n = 562) in excess, and 6% (n = 59) not harmful. Opponents were least likely to see alcohol as harmful in moderation (23%, n = 71) and most likely to say it is harmful only in excess (66%, n = 204), with 11% (n = 34) stating that alcohol is not harmful at all (Table 2).

TABLE 2.

Parental alcohol harm and secondary supply perceptions by supporters, persuadables and opponents (N = 1728).

	Overall n (%)	Supporter n (%) (n = 434)	Persuadable n (%) (n = 985)	Opponent n (%) (n = 309)
Is alcohol harmful? a
Even in moderation	665 (38)	230 (53)	364 (37)	71 (23)
Only in excess	962 (56)	196 (45)	562 (57)	204 (66)
Not harmful	101 (6)	8 (1)	59 (6)	34 (11)
Is it wrong for children to drink, even small amounts?
Agree	1140 (66)	421 (97)	680 (69)	59 (19)
Neutral	363 (21)	0 (0)	237 (24)	114 (37)
Disagree	225 (13)	13 (3)	69 (7)	136 (44)

^a Participants could select one of the three options.

3.3.2. Underage Drinking

Overall, 66% (n = 1140) agreed it is wrong for children to drink even small amounts of alcohol, 21% (n = 363) were neutral and 13% (n = 225) disagreed. Among supporters, 97% agreed, with only 3% (n = 13) disagreeing. Persuadables were more split: 69% (n = 680) agreed, 24% (n = 237) were neutral and 7% (n = 69) disagreed. Opponents were much less supportive: 19% (n = 59) agreed, 37% (n = 114) were neutral and 44% (n = 136) disagreed (Table 2).

3.3.3. Parental Concerns From Underage Drinking

Across all domains, supporters expressed the strongest agreement with parental concerns related to underage drinking, including impacts on brain development, impacts on mental health, industry marketing, and cancer risks. Persuadables showed moderate agreement, and opponents were consistently less convinced; see Figure 2A.

FIGURE 2.

Parent's level of agreement (mean) with statements about the harm associated with underage drinking and strategies to reduce parental supply (N = 1728).*Scale: 1 = strongly disagree/5 = strongly agree.

3.3.4. Strategies to Reduce Parental Supply

Parents were also asked the extent to which they agree or disagree with various statements regarding possible solutions to address parental supply of alcohol to children. Supporters demonstrated the strongest agreement that parents should teach teenagers to have fun without alcohol, that families should create a culture where underage drinking is not accepted and is unhealthy, and that parents shouldn't supply alcohol because they want to make a stand against industry or because they wouldn't supply tobacco. Similar, albeit lower, levels of agreement were reported by persuadables and opponents. Unlike persuadables and opponents who agreed, supporters disagreed that parents should teach responsible drinking or that it was safe to supply alcohol if supervised, see Figure 2B.

3.4. Phase Two

The findings from Phase One were synthesised into a message guide intended for advocates working to encourage parents and carers to refrain from secondary alcohol supply to young people in their care. The message guide included four key recommendations. The recommendations included embedding facts into an emotive narrative that can engage helpful values (e.g., ‘as parents we can let our children know we'll always be there for them, no matter what situation they find themselves in’). Another recommendation was to focus on a narrative rather than myth‐bust (e.g., ‘talking to your children openly about alcohol's harms and refusing to supply it, will help them keep themselves and their friends safe’). The message guide also indicated that all four messages tested were well received by persuadable parents and could be combined in communications, namely: good relationships, healthy ideas, new information and brain development (see Supporting Information for the full guide).

The message guide was provided to external agencies that initially submitted campaign concepts to the ADF. The lead researcher from CC participated in the selection of an agency with the ADF, providing feedback on the concepts based on their alignment with the findings from Phase One and recommendations in the message guide. The selected agency (Icon Agency) translated the messaging recommendations into campaign materials, using a strengths‐based approach aligned with parents' values of protecting their adolescent children. Three guiding principles shaped the campaign: connect with parents through core values, use emotive storytelling rather than myth‐busting, and provide a solution‐focused, empathetic vision to support parent–teen discussions. The campaign specifically encouraged parents to engage in conversations about alcohol, including messages such as ‘open up the conversation about no alcohol today’, to discourage the supply of alcohol to their children.

Icon Agency created the ‘Keep Their Future Bright’ concept, emphasising adolescence as a crucial time for brain development, and parents' desire to set their teens up for success. The campaign visualised this by depicting a brain in the night sky, symbolising the potential and vulnerability of the adolescent brain in relation to alcohol use [see Supporting Information for campaign images].

3.5. Phase Three

Participants (n = 817) tended to be aged between 35 and 54 years (78%, n = 637), male (55%, n = 449), located in metro areas (59%, n = 482), and work full time (51%, n = 417). Seven per cent (n = 57) identified as Aboriginal and 13% (n = 106) spoke a language at home other than English. Fathers tended to provide alcohol to their children more frequently than mothers, both in the home and/or purchased from a bottle shop. No differences were observed in the supply of alcohol by parents of children of different ages.

3.6. Perceptions of Age When Alcohol Can Be Safely Supplied

After being shown the campaign, the proportion of parents who believed it was acceptable to supply their children with alcohol (including just a sip or a taste) at home when their child is under 18 dropped from 55% (n = 449) to 33% (n = 270) and increased for 18 or over from 34% (n = 278) to 48% (n = 392). The proportion of parents who would never supply their children with alcohol at home increased from 11% (n = 90) to 19% (n = 155) (Table 3).

TABLE 3.

Supply beliefs, knowledge of harms and intention to supply alcohol among parents (N = 817) – responses pre and post exposure to campaign materials.

	Pre n (%)	Post n (%)
At what age is it ok to supply children with alcohol at home
Child is < 18	449 (55%)	270 (33%)
≥ 18	278 (34%)	392 (48%)
Never	90 (11%)	155 (19%)
Harms associated with alcohol a
Brain development	645 (79%)	711 (87%)
Mental health	621 (76%)	686 (84%)
Accidents, injuries, and fights	719 (88%)	735 (90%)
Embarrassing behaviour	703 (86%)	735 (90%)
Sexual assault	637 (78%)	678 (83%)
Risk of developing cancer	368 (45%)	433 (53%)
Likelihood of providing alcohol in future
Very/likely	256 (31%)	163 (20%)
Very/unlikely	261 (32%)	310 (38%)
Not at all	172 (21%)	237 (29%)
Don't know	128 (16%)	107 (13%)

^a Only those responding agree or strongly agree are presented.

3.7. Perceptions of Potential Harms Associated With Underage Alcohol Consumption

Compared to pre‐testing, more parents agreed/strongly agreed in post‐testing that underage alcohol consumption is associated with: disruption to brain development (pre: 79% vs. post: 87%); poor mental health (pre: 76% vs. post: 84%); accidents, injuries and fights (pre: 88% vs. post: 90%); embarrassing behaviour (pre: 86% vs. post: 90%); sexual assault (pre: 78% vs. post: 83%); and risk of developing cancer (pre: 45% vs. post: 53%).

3.8. Future Intentions to Provide Alcohol

The proportion of parents who were likely/very likely to provide alcohol to their children declined from 31% (n = 253) pre‐test to 20% (n = 163) post‐test, with a greater decline seen in male parents over females. Parents who were unlikely/very unlikely to provide alcohol increased from 32% (n = 261) to 38% (n = 310), and those who would not supply alcohol in future increased from 21% (n = 172) to 29% (n = 237) (Table 3).

3.9. Changing Attitudes and Behaviours Among Those Likely to Supply Alcohol

Among those parents who responded in the pre‐campaign survey that they were likely/very likely to supply alcohol to their children in the future (n = 256), one in two (47%, n = 120) were reconsidering their attitudes after seeing the campaign. Just over a third (38%, n = 97) of parents did not change their mind and the remaining 14% (n = 36) were unsure. Of those parents who were reconsidering supplying alcohol in the future, when asked what they will do differently, common free‐text responses included: discussing negatives of alcohol consumption with their children; saying no to alcohol for their children; sharing what they learnt with their children; and avoiding purchasing/consuming alcohol around their children.

3.10. Message Interpretation (Qualitative)

All parents were asked an open‐ended question about what they perceived the main messages of the campaign to be. Parents' reflections were generally in line with the intended messaging of the campaign, including ‘children under 18 should not consume alcohol’ and ‘alcohol is harmful to a child's brain development and emotions’.

4. Discussion

The aim of the current study was to describe the key processes in the development of the 'Keep Their Future Bright' campaign and provide message testing insights into campaign effectiveness. In summary, the development of the campaign included initial scoping activities, qualitative focus groups and a quantitative survey to inform the message guide. This formative research identified persuadable parents whose values and concerns indicated that messages emphasising adolescent brain development, parental protection, and practical strategies for discussing alcohol were likely to resonate. Interestingly, initial message testing on the harms associated with brain development was less persuasive, though this was listed as the second greatest concern for persuadable parents during later research steps. The message guide was explicitly informed by the overall findings, particularly the identification of the three parent segments (supporters, persuadables and opponents) and evidence that persuadables were most responsive to re‐framed, values‐based messaging. Campaign principles and materials were designed in line with the message guide, which were then tested through an online national mixed‐method survey. The campaign focused on the assumption that parents want their teenagers to make the most of their potential. The campaign materials focused on the idea of a universe as an analogy for the teenage brain, which was used to explain how parents could help protect it from alcohol by having a conversation with their child. Overall, testing indicated that the campaign positively shifted parental knowledge, beliefs, attitudes and intentions regarding the supply of alcohol to teenage children in almost half of the parents who participated.

The scoping activities indicated that public discourse was in conflict with those who work in AOD and advocate for reducing parental supply of alcohol. Public discourse often frames underage drinking as inevitable, socially acceptable, and out of parents' control. It also tended to frame parental supply as the responsible thing to do to teach moderation and reduce alcohol as a taboo or rebellious act. Similar findings have been documented in the UK, whereby members of the public tended to focus on the positives of alcohol or only individual instances of harm, in contrast to AOD public health experts, who expressed a broader understanding of alcohol harms. These differences between discourse in the public and that by AOD harm prevention advocates and experts could in part be due to industry‐funded campaigns that emphasise individual responsibility and moderation, while minimising population‐level harms. Research shows that alcohol communications developed by the alcohol industry tend to minimise community opinions of alcohol harms, whilst creating perceptions of a responsible industry [21]. Indeed, in Australia, support for alcohol harm minimisation policies has been declining since 2013, highlighting the potential negative impacts of industry lobbyists and mixed messaging [22]. These findings emphasise the importance of formative target audience research when developing values‐based public health campaigns, particularly where entrenched cultural narrative conflicts with evidence. By targeting persuadable parents and carers and reframing alcohol supply as inconsistent with other parenting values, the campaign moved beyond education and addressed a previously underexplored area of messaging.

Few parents were aware of links between alcohol and cancer, which could be an important facilitator of behaviour change. US research has shown that support for alcohol reduction policies was greater among those who knew about the carcinogenic effects of alcohol compared to those who did not [3]. In the current study, messages about alcohol being a carcinogen led many parents to rethink its safety at lower dosages. Therefore, messages that demonstrate that alcohol is harmful even in moderation are important in convincing parents. In practice, this means messages about the harms of alcohol that occur due to excess consumption, such as accidents and injuries, are less helpful to foreground than those that show alcohol can be harmful even at low levels of consumption, such as impaired brain development, poor mental health and cancer. These findings also align with recent cross‐sectional research that found parents who viewed alcohol as harmful to adolescent health were less likely to supply alcohol [23].

The independent message testing indicated that the campaign had a positive impact on parents' understanding of most harms associated with underage drinking, including drinking small amounts or sips. It also led to a change in belief of the acceptable age to supply alcohol to children. Furthermore, another positive outcome was that nearly half the parents who were likely to supply young people with alcohol reconsidered their attitudes after viewing the campaign. However, further research is required to examine whether these changes in beliefs lead to changes in parental behaviours. In our sample, 38% of parents (likely opponents) who intended to supply their children with alcohol did not change their minds after seeing the campaign. Similarly, during focus groups, many parents still believed that supplying alcohol to their children was a responsible approach to parenting, despite reading and discussing several messages to the contrary.

4.1. Strengths and Limitations

The development of the ‘Keep Their Future Bright’ campaign used a comprehensive mixed methods design using focus groups followed by online surveys that specifically targeted the intended audience, parents of teenagers. The robust methodology has been used widely in various public health messaging campaigns. This approach identified values and beliefs that mattered most to parents and enabled the development of tailored messaging to build trust and reduce parental defensiveness. On the other hand, the development was time consuming and resource intensive, requiring the expertise of several stakeholders. In addition, while this study provided valuable insights into the development and potential impact of the campaign, the message testing did not capture behavioural change, only behavioural intentions. Finally, participants viewed the campaign materials in a test environment and captured their immediate reactions only, which is not reflective of how the campaign would be experienced in real‐world conditions.

4.2. Implications for Practice and Future Research

The study provides a framework for developing and testing a values‐based behaviour change campaign that could be applied to other alcohol and other drug topics. It also provides an example of how to navigate through complex and conflicting values that parents hold and how to overcome resistance or defensiveness to deeply held social norms. Parents would also benefit from support to build their skills and confidence to have conversations with their children around the harms of drinking alcohol and the benefits of delaying use. Future research should also further explore the feasibility of how to change behaviour in parents most likely to supply alcohol to children. Further research should explore attitudinal and behavioural change over time, evaluating the campaign using a pre–post follow‐up design following real‐world implementation.

5. Conclusion

This paper addresses a gap in the literature in describing the development and message testing of a positive values‐based messaging to develop a campaign to reduce parental supply of alcohol to underage children. Unlike previous studies that have predominantly employed negative framing, this work offers an alternative approach to addressing this complex and emotionally charged issue for some parents. Dominant narratives around underage drinking included notions that everything is safe in moderation and that parental supervision of alcohol consumption is safe. Despite this, the campaign impacted knowledge, attitudes, and behavioural intentions among a substantial proportion of participants during message testing. Message testing demonstrated that values‐based messaging—particularly emphasising the harms associated with moderate alcohol consumption and challenging the misconception that parental supply is protective—effectively prompted many parents to re‐evaluate their long‐held beliefs. However, a sizable proportion of parents remained resistant to change, underscoring the entrenched nature of social norms around alcohol and the influence of industry messaging. Sustained, evidence‐based and tailored messaging through resources, education and media are needed to address broader cultural perceptions and facilitate long‐term behavioural change.

Author Contributions

Natasha Harding: writing – original draft; writing – review and editing; visualisation. Mark Chenery: methodology; formal analysis; investigation; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. Skye McPhie: conceptualization; methodology; project administration; writing – review and editing. Sophie Fredheim: project administration; writing – review and editing. Nataly Bovopoulos: writing – review and editing. Craig Martin: conceptualization; funding acquisition; writing – review and editing. Cinzia Marrocco: conceptualization – funding acquisition – project administration; writing – review and editing.

Funding

This work was supported by a grant via the Baker Foundation, the Brian M Davis Charitable Foundation, and COORDINAIRE—South Eastern New South Wales Primary Health Network.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supporting information

Table S1: The three‐step method to develop the messaging guide.

Table S2: Sample characteristics by supporters, persuadables, and opponents (N = 1728).

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.