Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2012 Dec 19;37(Suppl 1):E404–E413. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2012.01932.x

Alcohol Marketing Receptivity, Marketing-specific Cognitions and Underage Binge Drinking

Auden C McClure *,†, Mike Stoolmiller ^, Susanne E Tanski *,†, Rutger C M E Engels /, James D Sargent *,†
PMCID: PMC3548023  NIHMSID: NIHMS397225  PMID: 23256927

Abstract

Background

Exposure to alcohol marketing is prevalent and is associated with both initiation and progression of alcohol use in underage youth. The mechanism of influence is not well understood, however. This study tests a model that proposes alcohol-specific cognitions as mediators of the relation between alcohol marketing and problematic drinking among experimental underage drinkers.

Methods

This paper describes a cross-sectional analysis of 1734 U.S. 15–20 year old underage drinkers, recruited for a national study of media and substance use. Subjects were queried about a number of alcohol marketing variables including television time, internet time, favorite alcohol ad, ownership of alcohol branded merchandise (ABM), and exposure to alcohol brands in movies. The relation between these exposures and current (30 day) binge drinking was assessed, as were proposed mediators of this relation, including marketing-specific cognitions (drinker identity and favorite brand to drink), favorable alcohol expectancies and alcohol norms. Paths were tested in a structural equation model that controlled for socio-demographics, personality and peer drinking.

Results

Almost one-third of this sample of ever drinkers had engaged in 30 day binge drinking. Correlations among mediators were all statistically significant (range 0.16 – 0.47) and all were significantly associated with binge drinking. Statistically significant mediation was found for the association between ABM ownership and binge drinking through both drinker identity and having a favorite brand, which also mediated the path between movie brand exposure and binge drinking. Peer drinking and sensation seeking were associated with binge drinking in paths through all mediators.

Conclusions

Associations between alcohol marketing and binge drinking were mediated through marketing-specific cognitions that assess drinker identity and brand allegiance, cognitions that marketers aim to cultivate in the consumer.

Keywords: Adolescent, young adult, alcohol, advertising, marketing, binge drinking

INTRODUCTION

Alcohol use in underage youth is prevalent and associated with serious negative health consequences (Federal Trade Commission, 2008). Alcohol is also heavily marketed; in 2005, 12 companies, representing 73% of sales by volume, reported to the Federal Trade Commission expenditures of just over $3 billion in U.S advertising and promotions.(Federal Trade Commission, 2008). Alcohol companies are bound only by voluntary codes and advertise broadly in many venues accessible to underage youth. Two comprehensive reviews (Anderson, 2009; Smith and Foxcroft, 2009) demonstrated, across 13 longitudinal studies, consistent prospective associations between exposure to alcohol marketing and underage drinking, and findings confirmed in a recent UK cohort (Gordon et al., 2010). The individual studies varied widely in their focus and measurement approach and offered mixed results beyond the overall conclusions presented in the reviews. For example, some associations pertained only to certain age or gender subsets (Casswell et al., 2002; Connolly et al., 1994)or applied only to certain types of alcohol(Collins et al., 2007; Ellickson et al., 2005)or drinking outcomes(Henriksen et al., 2008; Robinson et al., 1998). In addition, the reviews combined studies of movie alcohol portrayals with studies of commercial marketing. Studies of alcohol marketing per se varied widely on how the exposure was measured. This is not meant to be a critique of the literature, but to point out the complexity of this particular area of research, reflecting the broad scope of alcohol marketing in the context of the development of drinking behavior and different theoretical approaches to conceptualizing marketing influences.

A number of theoretical models describe how advertising exposure could affect behavior. These are based largely on social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) and message interpretation processing models (Austin et al., 2006; Fleming et al., 2004; McGuire, 1985; Unger et al., 2003), which suggest that the way in which individuals interpret and respond to advertising is as important as the exposure itself (Casswell and Zhang, 1998; Grube and Wallack, 1994). Austin and colleagues concluded that exposure measures were weaker predictors of progression to alcohol use than response variables, such as ad identification and liking of beer brands(Austin et al., 2006). Such attitudinal responsiveness to advertising is termed marketing receptivity, as operationalized by Pierce (Pierce et al., 1998) for studies of tobacco marketing and adapted for alcohol by Unger (2003) and Henriksen (2008). In these studies, marketing receptivity was viewed as a series of steps, each representing higher involvement with marketing. “Low receptivity” was characterized by brand recognition and recall (awareness), “moderate receptivity” by endorsing a favorite alcohol ad, and ”high receptivity” by owning or wanting to own branded clothing or other merchandise. This theoretical approach suggests that young people are exposed to alcohol marketing, become aware of and receptive to that marketing and ultimately develop an interactive relationship with the brand. Thus, there is evidence to support the idea that a pure measure of marketing exposure, while important, may be a weaker predictor of behavior than a measure of an affective or cognitive response. Thus, the difference in the way marketing is assessed could explain some of the heterogeneity of results in the alcohol marketing studies cited above.

The intent of marketing is to increase demand by prompting the purchase of the product being advertised and to cultivate brand allegiance. This is accomplished by building brand equity, attributing meaning and emotion to the brand through imagery that associates the brand with lifestyles appealing to the target population (Casswell, 2004; Keller, 2008). Although alcohol marketing may not be aimed at underage drinkers, they are nevertheless exposed to and affected by it (Anderson, 2009; Chung et al., 2010; Smith and Foxcroft, 2009). Young people are highly susceptible to image appeals because of their preoccupation with personal image and identity (Giles and Maltby, 2004; Kroger, 2007). They constantly question who they are, how they look, and how they are perceived by their peers (Finkenauer et al., 2002)as they develop a concept of self. Adolescence and young adulthood is often characterized by increased admiration of famous persons (Giles and Maltby, 2004). Alcohol marketing to youth focuses heavily on lifestyle elements and involves popular culture role models, elements that resonate with these young consumers (Chen et al., 2005).

The aim of the present research is to better understand how alcohol marketing is associated with underage drinking. A causal interpretation for the association would gain plausibility if the relation was mediated by cognitions that marketers aim to instill in the target population, such as the development of drinker identity or alcohol brand allegiance. As young people identify themselves with the attractive features of the social lifestyle portrayed in alcohol commercials (Morgenstern et al., 2011a, b)they might be more likely to adopt favorable attitudes and begin drinking. Chen et al demonstrated that affective response to ads related to portrayed lifestyle elements, and that liking an ad was associated with ad effectiveness as defined by likelihood of buying/wanting to buy the product(Chen et al., 2005). In a reciprocal process, as experimental drinkers gain experience with drinking and become more interested in advertising, they may be more likely to identify themselves as being a drinker (Gerrard et al., 1996). Similarly, adoption of a favorite brand could be influenced by exposure to alcohol marketing, as young people incorporate imagery and attributes associated with a certain brand into their own sense of self (Austin et al., 2006; Casswell, 2004; Casswell and Zhang, 1998). We have previously demonstrated that two-thirds of U.S. underage drinkers had a favorite brand to drink, and that the preferred brands were those with highest advertising expenditures. In addition, having a favorite brand was associated with substantially higher binge drinking rates compared to youth who did not have a favorite (Tanski et al., 2011). Among experimental drinkers, these marketing-specific cognitions could mediate the pathway between exposure or receptivity to alcohol marketing and heavy alcohol use but this has not, to our knowledge, been tested.

Social-cognitive theoretical models explaining young people’s alcohol use have thus far focused on normative beliefs, prototypes, refusal self-efficacy and alcohol expectancies (Austin et al., 2006; Brown et al., 1987; Dal Cin et al., 2009; Tickle et al., 2006). Alcohol-related cognitions have been assumed to be one of the most proximal predictors of both initiation and maintenance of alcohol use in youth. Expectancies about the pros and cons of drinking are related to drinking in adolescents (Jones et al., 2001; Wiers et al., 1997) and young adults (Bot et al., 2005; Fleming et al., 2004). Further, perceived peer norms on drinking are related to heavy drinking and problem drinking in late adolescence and young adulthood (Borsari and Carey, 2003; Bot et al., 2007; LaBrie et al., 2010). As these are robust, well-established predictors of drinking, it is important to examine marketing-specific cognitions in the context of these predictors. If marketing-specific cognitions mediate the relation between alcohol marketing and binge drinking, above and beyond established alcohol-related cognitions, this would underscore their relevance in alcohol marketing models of behavior.

We offer a heuristic model of alcohol marketing receptivity (Figure 1) that addresses some of these considerations. We posit marketing receptivity as a continuous process that develops side-by-side with the progression of experimental drinking during the underage period. Beginning with distal advertising exposures, receptivity to marketing progresses to noticing and remembering advertising, then active involvement. We hypothesize that distal measures of advertising exposure will be less strongly associated with behavior than proximal ones. Accordingly, we predict a stronger association between owning ABM and binge drinking compared to, for example exposure to alcohol brands in movies, based on the assumption that the former reflects an affective response (willingness to wear the logo), not just exposure to the marketing. The model also incorporates marketing-specific cognitions (drinker identity and favorite brand to drink) hypothesized to mediate the association between alcohol marketing and drinking. We assume that marketing-specific cognitions have additional value beyond outcome expectancies and social norms. This study is a first empirical test of this model by assessing measures of alcohol marketing exposure and receptivity in a cross-sectional study of underage drinkers.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Heuristic Marketing Receptivity Model

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Recruitment

A description of original recruitment methods has been published (Sargent et al., 2005). Briefly, in 2003, 6522 10–14 year olds were recruited from the U.S. via random-digit-dialing (RDD) for a longitudinal study of media and substance use. Due to loss to follow-up, a supplementary sample of 598 African American youth was added in 2007. Surveys were conducted by Westat, a survey research company. Permission was obtained from participants 18 years and older; parental permission and adolescent assent were obtained for those under 18 years. To protect confidentiality, adolescents entered responses to sensitive questions using the telephone touch pad. Surveys were approved by the Dartmouth Human Subjects Protection Committee. There was substantial attrition from baseline (65%); participants lost to follow-up were more likely to be minority, older, of lower SES, and higher in sensation seeking. This study uses data from the sixth wave of the survey, collected from July to October 2009. Although no longer nationally representative, this cross-sectional sample included 2718 14–21 year old respondents from all 50 U.S. states, of whom 1734 ever-drinkers, aged 15–20 years are the subject of this analysis (the two 14 year olds in the study did not report ever drinking).

Measures

Outcome measure

The primary outcome measure was current binge drinking (“How many times in the past month have you had 5 or more drinks of alcohol in a row?”), referred to hereafter as “binge drinking” (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010).

Exposure measures - marketing receptivity variables

Two proximal measures that captured a mix of exposure and attitudinal response to advertising were adapted from Pierce’s measures of alcohol marketing receptivity (Henriksen et al., 2008; Pierce et al., 1998; Unger et al., 2003)and included having a favorite alcohol ad (“Think about alcohol ads you have seen. Do you have a favorite?”) and ABM ownership (“Do you own something with an alcohol brand on it?”). The more distal measures assessed only exposure to alcohol advertising and varied in their specificity. Hours of internet use (“How much time in a typical day do you spend on the internet?”) and of TV viewing (“On week days, how many hours a day do you usually watch TV?”) were relatively non-specific for advertising; each of these would reflect exposure only to the extent that they included programs with alcohol portrayals or advertisements. A more specific measure, exposure to movie alcohol brand placements, was estimated using previously validated methods (Dal Cin et al., 2008). In brief, top-grossing box office hits for the 2 years prior to the survey were selected and content coded for alcohol use, intoxication, timed alcohol use and alcohol brand appearances. A random sample of 50 titles, stratified by MPAA rating, was selected for each participant who was asked if he/she had seen each movie. Reliability of recall was previously demonstrated (Sargent et al., 2008). An exposure score was created by dividing alcohol brand appearances seen by each respondent, based on movies seen, by the number of appearances possible in the 50 movies queried.

Mediators

Two variables were hypothesized to mediate advertising-specific pathways: identifying oneself as a drinker (“I see myself as a drinker”, “Drinking is part of my personality”, “Drinking is part of who I am” [3 items, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.84]) and identifying a favorite alcohol brand (“What is your favorite brand of alcohol to drink?”). Two other cognitive mediators were assessed: positive alcohol expectancies (e.g., “I think drinking alcohol would make me have more fun at parties” [8 items, alpha = 0.89) and alcohol norms (“How many people your age do you think have been drunk at least once?”).

Covariates

The multivariate path model included all of the socio-demographic and psychosocial risk factors described below as covariates. Socio-demographics included age, gender, and socioeconomic status (SES). SES was derived from parent-reported education and household income, as assessed in the 2007 survey [2 items, alpha = 0.60]. Parent education was assessed by “What is the highest grade or year of school that you (parent) completed?” (13 categories including grade school, HS, college or Voc/Tech, Associates or Bachelor’s Degree, Professional Degree); and household income by “Please tell me which group best describes the total income of all persons living in this household over the past year?” (<=$10,000, $10,000–$20,000, $20,000–$30,000, $30,000–$50,000, $50,000–$75,000, >=$75,000). We examined other variables associated with binge drinking, including depression (e.g., “During the past two weeks, have you ever felt down, depressed or hopeless?” [2 items, alpha= 0.63]) (Richardson et al., 2010), sensation-seeking (e.g., “I like new and exciting experiences…” [6 items, alpha = 0.73]) (Sargent et al., 2010), self-esteem (e.g., “On the whole I am satisfied with myself”, [5 items, alpha = 0.82]) (Sargent et al., 2010), peer alcohol use (“How many of your friends drink alcohol?”) and video game use (“Do you play videogames?”). We considered the addition of parenting (for participants under 18 years) and parent drinking as covariates but did not based on previous research with this cohort showing that they had little influence on the transition from experimentation to binge drinking (Stoolmiller et al., 2012). We did, however, conduct sensitivity analyses reported below to verify the previously reported results.

Statistical Analysis

First we assessed bivariate associations between the above variables and binge drinking using chi-square testing for dichotomous and ordered variables, and correlations for scaled variables. We then examined correlations between marketing variables and mediators. For the path model we used robust, normal, full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation (Yuan and Bentler, 2000), even though not all dependent variables were continuous and normally distributed. We chose this approach because the output is richer for mediation pathways using normal FIML methods, while the robust property helps protects against inaccurate p-values. The model was fit using M-plus (Muthen and Muthen, 2010) software to determine mediating pathways between the five marketing exposure variables, the four attitudinal mediators, and binge drinking, net covariates. This mediational model was saturated--all possible paths were included. Thus, overall fit is not an issue, because the illustrated pathways represent paths net all other possible paths and therefore provide conservative estimates of effects sizes. For the pair-wise correlations and the mediation path model, continuous variables were Winsorized to the 5th and 95th percentiles to limit outlier influence (Shete et al., 2004). To simplify interpretation, predictors and mediating variables were scaled from 0 to 1, thus the estimate reflects the increase in the outcome given an increase from low to high for each predictor. Of 1,734 participants, 33 (less than 2%) were dropped completely due to missing covariate data.

RESULTS

Description of sample and two-way association between variables and binge drinking (Table. 1)

Table 1.

Sample Characteristics and Unadjusted Association with Binge Drinking in Previous Month**

Exogenous Variables n or median* (%) or IQR* Binge Drinking (% or correlation*) P
Age p<0.0001
 15 21 1% 19%
 16 256 15% 20%
 17 320 19% 28%
 18 416 24% 33%
 19 440 25% 36%
 20 281 16% 42%
Gender p<0.0001
 Male 882 51% 39%
 Female 852 49% 25%
Socioeconomic Status 0.3* −0.5,0.8* 0.10* p=0.003
Depression p=0.46
 None 852 49% 31%
 One positive 437 25% 32%
 Two positives 445 26% 34%
Sensation Seeking 15* 13, 17* 0.28* p<0.0001
Self-esteem 17* 16, 19* 0.03* p=0.258
Peer Drinking p<0.0001
 None 40 2% 3%
 A Few 431 25% 10%
 More Than A Few 451 26% 24%
 Most 812 47% 50%
Video Game Time p=0.610
 No 884 51% 32%
 Yes 850 49% 33%
Marketing Exposure
Owns ABM p<0.0001
 No 1,162 67% 25%
 Yes 571 33% 46%
Favorite Alcohol Ad p=0.001
 No 1,418 82% 30%
 Yes 314 18% 40%
Movie alcohol brand exposure 139 81, 217 0.08* p=0.001
Internet time p=0.37
 No Time 108 6% 35%
 Less Than 1 Hour 347 20% 34%
 1 to 2 Hours 727 42% 33%
 3 to 4 Hours 345 20% 31%
 More Than 4 hours 206 12% 26%
TV time p=0.020
 None 92 5% 34%
 Less Than 1 Hour 215 12% 41%
 1 to 2 Hours 735 42% 33%
 3 to 4 Hours 440 25% 30%
 More Than 4 hours 251 15% 27%
Cognitions
Drinker Identity 4 3, 6 0.47* p<0.0001
Favorite Alcohol Brand p<0.0001
 No 1,181 68% 11%
 Yes 553 32% 42%
Alcohol Expectancies 22 19, 24 0.36* p<0.0001
Alcohol Norms (Friends have been drunk)
 None 8 0.50% 0% p<0.0001
 A few 95 6% 8%
 Some 220 13% 16%
 Most 875 51% 31%
 Almost All 536 31% 45%
Outcome
Last Month Binge Drinking
 None 1,177 68%
 Once 190 11%
 2 to 3 times 172 10%
 4 to 5 times 79 5%
 5+ times 114 7%
Open in a new tab
*

indicates a continuous variable; n, proportions and chi-square used for categorical variables; median, interquartile range, and correlation used for continuous variables.

**

The sample description includes the population of 1734 ever-drinkers included in the analyses

Bolded values: p<0.05

The 1734 ever-drinkers ranged from 15 to 20 years of age (65% were 18 to 20), and 51% were male. Half of respondents reported videogame use, half reported depressive symptoms in the past two weeks, and 73% reported that many/most friends drank.

Participants reported varying levels of involvement with alcohol marketing. Some 33% owned ABM and 18% reported having a favorite alcohol ad. The pool of 226 movies contained 499 alcohol brand appearances, being present in 35.3%, 59.1% and 54.9% of PG, PG-13 and R movies respectively. Median exposure to alcohol brand appearances was 139 (inter-quartile range 81, 217). Most respondents reported at least one hour of internet and TV time daily (94% and 95% respectively); 32% reported over 3 hours daily of internet use, and 40% more than 3 hours of TV.

The mediating variables are also described in Table 1 for drinkers under 21 years old. With respect to drinker identity items, 20% agreed that they saw themselves as a drinker, 11% that drinking is “part of who I am”, and 8% that drinking is part of my personality” (data not shown). Some 32% reported a favorite alcohol brand, 82% of teens believed that most/all of their friends had been drunk (positive norms). Many participants endorsed positive expectancies: 54% agreed/strongly agreed that “alcohol is relaxing”, and 49% agreed it “would make me more likely to have sex” (data not shown).

The prevalence of current binge drinking was 32% in this sample of underage drinkers and 12% had binged 4 or more times in the past month. Binge drinking was more prevalent among older youth and among males. Binge drinking was also associated with peer drinking and moderately correlated with sensation seeking. Several measures of marketing exposure were significantly associated with binge drinking in bivariate analysis including ownership of ABM, having a favorite alcohol ad, higher movie alcohol brand exposure and greater weekday TV time. All four cognitions were also significantly associated with binge drinking in bivariate analysis.

Correlation matrix

All correlations among the cognitive mediators were statistically significant (Table 2), with the highest correlation being between drinker identity and alcohol expectancies (0.47). Ownership of ABM showed significant correlations with all 4 cognitions, the highest with drinker identity (0.19) and favorite alcohol brand (0.20). Favorite alcohol ad was correlated with alcohol expectancies (0.09) and alcohol norms (0.07), but not with drinker identity or having a favorite brand. Movie alcohol brand exposure was correlated with drinker Identity (0.05), having a favorite brand (0.10) and alcohol norms (0.07). Surprisingly, higher television time was associated with less endorsement of alcohol expectancies (−0.11). Among the marketing exposure variables, the highest correlations were between having a favorite alcohol ad and ABM ownership (0.13), and between TV and internet time (0.13).

Table 2.

Correlation Matrix

Mediators Marketing Variables
Drinker Identity Has Favorite Brand Alcohol Expectancies Alcohol Norms Owns ABM Has Favorite Alcohol Ad Movie alcohol Brand Exposure Internet Time TV Time
Drinker Identity 1
Has Favorite Brand 0.29*** 1 *** P<0.0001
Alcohol Expectancies 0.47*** 0.26*** 1 ** P<0.001
Alcohol Norms 0.16*** 0.19*** 0.21*** 1 * P<0.05
Owns ABM 0.19*** 0.20*** 0.13*** 0.13*** 1
Favorite Alcohol Ad 0.02 0.03 0.09** 0.07*** 0.13*** 1
Movie Alcohol Brand Exposure 0.05* 0.10*** 0.04 0.07*** 0.09*** 0.06* 1
Internet Time 0.01 0.02 0.01 −0.02 −0.07*** 0.04 −0.001 1
TV Time −0.02 0.03 −0.11*** −0.02 −0.05 0.03 0.10*** 0.13*** 1
Open in a new tab

Bolded values: p<0.05

Multivariate association between marketing exposure, alcohol cognitions and binge drinking

Figure 2 illustrates significant pathways from the five marketing variables to binge drinking (for ease of interpretation, covariate paths are not depicted; see Table 3 for complete data). There were multiple pathways from ownership of ABM to binge drinking, including a direct and two mediated pathways (ABM→drinker identity→binge drinking; ABM→favorite brand→binge drinking). There was a mediated pathway from movie alcohol brand exposure through favorite brand to binge drinking. There was no relation between having a favorite alcohol ad, TV time or internet time and binge drinking.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Mediational Path Model of Alcohol Marketing Receptivity

Numbers are unstandardized path coefficients; all variables scaled so that a one-point increase represents going from lowest to highest risk (5th to 95th percentile for continuous predictors). All illustrated paths drawn are significant; paths not drawn were estimated but not significant in the case of all other marketing to drinking pathways. Pathways for background covariates were also not included in the diagram but can be determined from Table 3

Table 3.

Multivariate Association between Marketing Exposures, Mediators and Binge Drinking

PREDICTOR DEPENDENT VARIABLE [Multivariate Least Squared Regressions]
Primary Outcome Mediators
BINGED IN LAST MONTH DRINKER IDENTITY FAVORITE BRAND ALCOHOL NORMS ALCOHOL EXPECTANCIES
Est. S.E. p Est. S.E. p Est. S.E. p Est. S.E. p Est. S.E. p
Exogenous Age −0.02 0.08 0.82 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.24 0.03 <0.001 0.12 0.02 <0.001 0.04 0.02 0.02
Gender (girl) −0.19 0.06 0.001 −0.07 0.02 <0.001 −0.01 0.02 0.57 0.03 0.01 0.04 −0.09 0.01 <0.001
Socioeconomic Status 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.07 0.002 0.04 0.95 −0.03 0.02 0.26 0.15 0.02 <0.001
Depression −0.06 0.06 0.39 −0.04 0.02 0.07 −0.001 0.03 0.96 0.01 0.02 0.66 0.05 0.02 0.001
Sensation Seeking 0.52 0.09 <0.001 0.19 0.03 <0.001 0.14 0.04 0.001 0.13 0.02 <0.001 0.18 0.02 <0.001
Self Esteem 0.35 0.10 <0.001 −0.19 0.03 <0.001 −0.06 0.04 0.14 0.01 0.02 0.59 −0.22 0.02 <0.001
Peer Drinking 0.49 0.06 <0.001 0.21 0.02 <0.001 0.25 0.03 <0.001 0.20 0.02 <0.001 0.17 0.02 <0.001
Video game time −0.03 0.06 0.55 −0.05 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.04 −0.02 0.01 0.08 −0.03 0.01 0.01
Marketing Owns ABM 0.24 0.06 <0.001 0.08 0.02 <0.001 0.13 0.02 <0.001 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.39
Favorite Alcohol Ad 0.06 0.07 0.39 −0.03 0.02 0.11 −0.04 0.03 0.12 0.02 0.02 0.16 0.02 0.02 0.34
Movie Alcohol Brand Exposure 0.07 0.09 0.40 0.003 0.03 0.90 0.09 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.15 0.01 0.02 0.81
Internet time −0.15 0.10 0.12 −0.001 0.03 0.98 −0.01 0.04 0.84 −0.05 0.02 0.051 −0.01 0.02 0.60
TV time −0.16 0.10 0.11 0.03 0.03 0.34 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.002 0.02 0.93 −0.07 0.02 0.01
Mediators Drinker Identity 1.05 0.09 <0.001
Favorite Brand 0.24 0.05 <0.001
Alcohol Expectancies 0.25 0.09 0.01
Alcohol Norms 0.25 0.08 0.003
Open in a new tab

Bolded values: p<0.05

Table 3 shows the multivariate regressions that form the basis for the structural model. The table describes the results for five regressions, one for binge drinking and one for each of the four mediators. All regressions include the alcohol marketing variables and covariates. Mediating cognitions are also included in the model that predicts binge drinking. In this model, ownership of ABM was the only marketing receptivity variable with an independent association with binge drinking, indicating a direct pathway. All four mediating variables showed an independent association with binge drinking. With respect to mediating variable regressions, ownership of ABM was associated with drinker identity and having a favorite brand, movie alcohol brand exposure was associated with having a favorite brand, and television time was associated with alcohol expectancies. With respect to covariates, sensation seeking and friend drinking showed strong associations with all dependent variables, and age/gender with almost all. All exogenous covariates were associated with alcohol expectancies.

Finally, to support our approach, which emphasized stage of alcohol use rather than age, we conducted a sensitivity analysis to examine whether key theoretical paths were moderated by age and found that, with one exception, they were not. The association between drinker identity and binge drinking was positive and strongly significant (p <0.001) for both age groups but was significantly stronger (0.01 < p <0.05) for older (age 18–20, Est. = 1.20, p <0.001) compared to younger teens (age 15–17, Est. = 0.74, p <0.001). In a separate sensitivity analysis, we added parenting (for age 15–17) and parent drinking to the mediation model. None of the key theoretical direct or indirect paths shown in Figure 2 changed appreciably in magnitude. Although the p-value for the association between internet time and less favorable alcohol norms changed from 0.051 to 0.049 and the p-value for the association between higher TV time and favorite brand dropped from 0.059 to 0.043, these two indirect paths to binge drinking were not statistically significant.

DISCUSSION

This study provides evidence to suggest a marketing-relevant mechanism that explains the relation between alcohol marketing and heavy drinking. As hypothesized, associations between engagement with marketing and drinking were mediated through marketing-specific cognitions (drinker identity and favorite alcohol brand), rather than through alcohol expectancies and norms, although all four cognitions were associated with binge drinking. The mediational analysis provides a rationale for policies to limit exposure to alcohol marketing for underage populations. Confirmation of this mediating process in a longitudinal study would also increase the plausibility of a causal interpretation, since marketing-specific cognitions are endpoints that marketers aim to instill in the target population.

The findings underscore that when testing the role of alcohol marketing in underage drinking from a social-cognitive perspective, it is relevant to assess marketing-specific cognitions as mediators. These cognitions may also be important when studying self-efficacy or drinking motives. Although the alcohol-specific cognitions we assessed in this study (expectancies and norms) are robust, theory-based correlates of alcohol use (Patrick et al., 2010), exclusively focusing on those factors in alcohol marketing research might underestimate mediating pathways, as we have shown in this study.

The study provides initial evidence to support the heuristic model of advertising receptivity as a continuous process, whereby the adolescent/young adult goes through cycles of exposure and response in which advertising messages are internalized and incorporated into his or her identity. We suggest the process begins with alcohol advertising exposure and proceeds to awareness, cognitive response, and engagement with interactive marketing, a process that proceeds in a reciprocal fashion along with higher stages of alcohol use. This process is independent of age in the underage drinker group that we studied, but further research, especially in early adolescents, would be needed to confirm this.

As hypothesized by the model, the strength of the association with behavior was stronger for ownership of ABM, a proximal measure that captured both exposure and a positive affective reaction to marketing, compared to more distal, yet specific, exposure measures like movie alcohol brand exposure, which assessed only marketing exposure. From a theoretical standpoint, the stronger correlation between proximal advertising receptivity measures (owning ABM), as opposed to more distal measures is logical, given that the latter captures only exposure and not the individual’s engagement in the marketing process. In addition, among exposure measures, the better-specified movie alcohol brand exposure retained an association with behavior while a poorly specified one, internet time, did not.

A policy-relevant issue is whether certain more proximal marketing exposures such as ownership of ABM are a cause of binge drinking or simply a marker for an attitudinally susceptible individual. Our previous longitudinal study used a cross-lagged prospective analysis to demonstrate a reciprocal relationship between attitudinal susceptibility to drinking, ABM ownership and future drinking (McClure et al., 2006). In that analysis, we found that ownership of ABM was both a risk factor and a marker of an attitudinally susceptible youth, thus implicating the marketing strategy in the development and progression of problem drinking. Such longitudinal research will be pivotal as marketing evolves to be more interactive.

There were findings that we did not expect. Exposure to alcohol brands in movies was more strongly associated with cognitions and behavior than having a favorite alcohol ad. Past studies have shown that liking an ad is associated with an affective response to marketing and a change in behavior (Austin et al., 2006; Casswell, 2004; Casswell and Zhang, 1998; Fleming et al., 2004; Unger et al., 2003), and yet choosing a favorite ad (a hypothesized marker of marketing receptivity) in this study was associated with none of the mediators, or with binge drinking, net covariates. This could be explained if having a favorite ad mainly taps the entertainment value of the advertisement. For instance, a teen may like a particular Super Bowl ad even if he or she has no particular allegiance to the brand being advertised. In addition, the null finding for TV time and internet time should be interpreted with caution. Each was a single item measure and subject to measurement error. More importantly, the fact that these measures are not associated with mediating cognitions in the full sample should not be taken to mean that television or internet alcohol advertising is not important. Both were general measures that included exposure to a broad range of programming as well as commercial alcohol advertising. It is plausible that the specific influence of TV or internet commercial advertising remains a risk factor. Given the multiple programming and viewing options for TV, more specific measures of the alcohol content embedded in this medium are needed. Cued-based recall measures (Morgenstern et al., 2011a, b), could be a promising method of capturing specific TV and internet alcohol marketing exposure. Methods for capturing brand placement in television programming might also prove to be important. Future studies should focus on assessing marketing exposure and receptivity more specifically, and study additive effects.

Considering the evolving mix of alcohol marketing, including product placement in movies, print ads, branded merchandise, TV commercials, and marketing on the internet including interactive games and promotions, future studies are warranted that focus on cumulative rather than individual effects of alcohol marketing. The complexity of alcohol marketing research lies in assessing the full exposure and the affective and cognitive impact that has on young people (Meier, 2011). As it is impossible to gather complete data on exposure, it is relevant to focus research on articulated themes. First, elucidating how context alters marketing effects is pivotal. For example, how would the impact of seeing a movie with alcohol brand placement in a movie theater with friends differ from watching it alone on TV at home? Second, some marketing exposures might have interaction or additive effects. Showing alcohol ads during commercial breaks in movies containing ample alcohol cues (Engels et al., 2009)might produce different effects than ads interspersed within a sports game or a National Geographic documentary. Third, it is unknown whether marketing influences population subsets differentially, based on age, gender, interests, and brand preference. Although it seems likely, for example, that image-based lifestyle marketing focused on younger age groups (such as an urban party scene) would have a stronger impact on underage drinkers than those targeting older age groups (such as beer ads that emphasize quality of ingredients); this has not been well studied. Hence, we know little about how the fit between brand, type of alcohol and target group affects drinking (Engels and Koordeman, 2011). Fourth, the impact of alcohol marketing on young people’s drinking, especially that which appeals to affective and emotional aspects, could be mediated both through explicit cognitions as we tested in the current study, but also through more implicit, automatic processing (Wiers et al., 2007). This is worthy of further exploration. Finally, there is little research that triangulates on different approaches to study the same question; further insight could be gained by combining epidemiological with experimental-observational designs and experimental research in which the direct, immediate effects of alcohol marketing on behavior (alcohol use) and physiology can be tested stringently. Experimental research could also provide the opportunity to test mediators and moderators in a causal design and fMRI studies may be able to add to biological plausibility of a causal interpretation (Ariely and Berns, 2010).

Limitations

The cross-sectional design of this study limits the ability to show that exposure precedes the development of favorable alcohol cognitions or binge drinking. The sample, while national, was not representative and may be less generalizable to minority groups. Moreover, because the analysis was limited to underage youth, who had already begun to experiment with alcohol, the results do not apply to drinking onset but only to the transition from onset to binge drinking. Drinker identity and having a favorite brand to drink would probably be less relevant to nondrinkers, because some experience with drinking is needed for an individual to access these cognitions. Although we controlled for a number of covariates, it is possible that an unmeasured confounder exists that might further explain the relationship between marketing exposures, mediating cognitions, and drinking behaviors. The finding that age was not a moderator in this group of underage drinkers does not mean that age should not be considered; further studies of this model for young adolescents is indicated. Finally, as discussed, the measures of TV and internet advertising exposure available for use in this study were relatively non-specific time based-measures and may not have captured specific marketing exposure. Hence, the lack of an association with drinking should not be taken to mean that such exposures are not important or influential.

Conclusions

Given the serious negative outcomes associated with binge drinking, and its growing prevalence, this study and the proposed theoretical model, represents an important step in understanding the continuum between marketing exposure, receptivity, development of important marketing cognitions, such as drinker identity and brand allegiance, and their influence on problematic drinking behaviors. If longitudinal studies confirm that the association between alcohol marketing exposures and binge drinking is mediated through marketing-specific cognitions, this would enhance support for a causal mechanism. Thus, a better understanding of these processes could guide prevention efforts through education and media literacy, and support limits on the reach of alcohol marketing in the underage segment.

Acknowledgments

Funding: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism grant # AA015591-07

Footnotes

Conflict of interest: The above authors report no conflict of interest

CONTRIBUTORS STATEMENT

All authors have contributed significantly to this paper by making substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data, by drafting and critically reviewing the manuscript.

References

  1. Anderson P. Impact of alcohol advertising and media exposure on adolescent alcohol use: A systematic review of longitudinal studies. Alcohol Alcohol. 2009;44:1–15. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agn115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ariely D, Berns GS. Neuromarketing: the hope and hype of neuroimaging in business. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2010;11:284–292. doi: 10.1038/nrn2795. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Austin EW, Chen MJ, Grube JW. How does alcohol advertising influence underage drinking? The role of desirability, identification and skepticism. J Adolesc Health. 2006;38:376–384. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.08.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bandura A. A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action. [Google Scholar]
  5. Borsari B, Carey KB. Descriptive and injunctive norms in college drinking: A meta-analytic integration. J Stud Alcohol. 2003;64:331–341. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2003.64.331. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bot S, Engels R, Knibbe R, Meeus W. Sociometric Status and Social Drinking: Observations of Modelling and Persuasion in Young Adult Peer Groups. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2007;35:929–941. doi: 10.1007/s10802-007-9144-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bot SM, Engels RCME, Knibbe RA. The effects of alcohol expectancies on drinking behaviour in peer groups: observations in a naturalistic setting. Addiction. 2005;100:1270–1279. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01152.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown SA, Christiansen BA, Goldman MS. The Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire: an instrument for the assessment of adolescent and adult alcohol expectancies. J Stud Alcohol. 1987;48:483–491. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1987.48.483. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Casswell S. Alcohol brands in young peoples’ everyday lives: new developments in marketing. Alcohol Alcohol. 2004;39:471–476. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agh101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Casswell S, Pledger M, Pratap S. Trajectories of drinking from 18 to 26 years: identification and prediction. Addiction. 2002;97:1427–1437. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.00220.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Casswell S, Zhang JF. Impact of liking for advertising and brand allegiance on drinking and alcohol-related aggression: a longitudinal study. Addiction. 1998;93:1209–1217. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.1998.93812099.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Centers For Disease Control And Prevention. [Accessed February 10 2012];Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance-United States 2009 [Online] 2010 Available: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss5905.pdf.
  13. Chen MJ, Grube JW, Bersamin M, Waiters E, Keefe DB. Alcohol advertising: what makes it attractive to youth? J Health Commun. 2005;10:553–565. doi: 10.1080/10810730500228904. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Chung PJ, Garfield CF, Elliott MN, Ostroff J, Ross C, Jernigan DH, Vestal KD, Schuster MA. Association between adolescent viewership and alcohol advertising on cable television. Am J Public Health. 2010;100:555–562. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.146423. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Collins RL, Ellickson PL, McCaffrey D, Hambarsoomians K. Early adolescent exposure to alcohol advertising and its relationship to underage drinking. J Adolesc Health. 2007;40:527–534. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.01.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Connolly GM, Casswell S, Zhang JF, Silva PA. Alcohol in the mass media and drinking by adolescents: a longitudinal study. Addiction. 1994;89:1255–1263. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1994.tb03304.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. DalCin S, Worth KA, Dalton MA, Sargent JD. Youth Exposure to Alcohol Use and Brand Appearances in Popular Contemporary Movies. Addiction. 2008;103:1925–1932. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02304.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. DalCin S, Worth KA, Gerrard M, Gibbons FX, Stoolmiller M, Wills TA, Sargent JD. Watching and Drinking: Expectancies, Protypes, and Friends’ Alcohol Use Mediate the Effect of Exposure to Alcohol Use in Movies on Adolescent Drinking. Health Psychol. 2009;28:473–483. doi: 10.1037/a0014777. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Ellickson PL, Collins RL, Hambarsoomians K, McCaffrey DF. Does alcohol advertising promote adolescent drinking? Results from a longitudinal assessment. Addiction. 2005;100:235–246. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.00974.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Engels RCME, Hermans R, VanBaaren RB, Hollenstein T, Bot SM. Alcohol Portrayal on Television Affects Actual Drinking Behaviour. Alcohol Alcohol. 2009;44:244–249. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agp003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Engels RCME, Koordeman R. Do alcohol portrayals in movies and commercials directly affect consumption? Addiction. 2011;106:472–473. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03237.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Federal Trade Commission. FTC Reports on Alcohol Marketing and Self-Regulation. Washington, DC: 2008. [Google Scholar]
  23. Finkenauer C, Engels R, Meeus W, Oosterwegel A. Self and identity in early adolescence: The pains and gains of knowing who and what you are. In: LIPKA TMBRP, editor. Understanding early adolescent self and identity: Applications and interventions. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  24. Fleming K, Thorson E, Atkin CK. Alcohol advertising exposure and perceptions: links with alcohol expectancies and intentions to drink or drinking in under aged youth and young adults. J Health Commun. 2004;9:3–29. doi: 10.1080/10810730490271665. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Gerrard M, Gibbons FX, Benthin AC, Hessling RM. A longitudinal study of the reciprocal nature of risk behaviors and cognitions in adolescents: what you do shapes what you think, and vice versa. Health Psychol. 1996;15:344–354. doi: 10.1037//0278-6133.15.5.344. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Giles DC, Maltby J. The role of media figures in adolescent development: Relations between autonomy, attachment, and interest in celebrities. Personality and Individual Differences. 2004;36:813–822. [Google Scholar]
  27. Gordon R, MacKintosh AM, Moodie C. The Impact of Alcohol Marketing on Youth Drinking Behaviour: A Two-stage Cohort Study. Alcohol Alcohol. 2010;45:470–480. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agq047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Grube JW, Wallack L. Television beer advertising and drinking knowledge, beliefs, and intentions among schoolchildren. Am J Public Health. 1994;84:254–259. doi: 10.2105/ajph.84.2.254. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Henriksen L, Feighery EC, Schleicher NC, Fortmann SP. Receptivity to alcohol marketing predicts initiation of alcohol use. J Adolesc Health. 2008;42:28–35. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.07.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Jones BT, Corbin W, Fromme K. A review of expectancy theory and alcohol consumption. Addiction. 2001;96:57–72. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2001.961575.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Keller KL. Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kroger J. Identity development: adolescence through adulthood. Sage Publications, Inc; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  33. Labrie JW, Hummer JF, Neighbors C, Larimer ME. Whose opinion matters? The relationship between injunctive norms and alcohol consequences in college students. Addict Behav. 2010;35:343–349. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.12.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. McClure AC, DalCin S, Gibson J, Sargent JD. Ownership of Alcohol-Branded Merchandise and Initiation of Teen Drinking. Am J Prev Med. 2006;30:277–283. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2005.11.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. McGuire WJ. Attitudes and attitude change. In: Lindzey G, Aronson E, editors. Handbook of social psychology. 3. New York: Random House; 1985. [Google Scholar]
  36. Meier PS. Alcohol marketing research: the need for a new agenda. Addiction. 2011;106:466–471. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03160.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Morgenstern M, Isensee B, Sargent JD, Hanewinkel R. Attitudes as Mediators of the Longitudinal Association Between Alcohol Advertising and Youth Drinking. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2011a;165:610–616. doi: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2011.12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Morgenstern M, Isensee B, Sargent JD, Hanewinkel R. Exposure to alcohol advertising and teen drinking. Prev Med. 2011b;52:146–151. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.11.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus User’s Guide. 6. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 1998–2010. [Google Scholar]
  40. Patrick ME, Wray-Lake L, Finlay AK, Maggs JL. The long arm of expectancies: Adolescent alcohol expectancies predict adult alcohol use. Alcohol Alcohol. 2010;45:17–24. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agp066. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Pierce JP, Choi WS, Gilpin EA, Farkas AJ, Berry CC. Tobacco industry promotion of cigarettes and adolescent smoking. JAMA. 1998;279:511–515. doi: 10.1001/jama.279.7.511. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Richardson LP, McCauley E, Grossman DC, McCarty CA, Richards J, Russo JE, Rockhill C, Katon W. Evaluation of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 Item for Detecting Major Depression Among Adolescents. Pediatrics. 2010;126:1117–1123. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-0852. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Robinson TN, Chen HL, Killen JD. Television and music video exposure and risk of adolescent alcohol use. Pediatrics. 1998;102:E54. doi: 10.1542/peds.102.5.e54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Sargent JD, Beach ML, Adachi-Mejia AM, Gibson JJ, Titus-Ernstoff LT, Carusi CP, Swain SD, Heatherton TF, Dalton MA. Exposure to movie smoking: its relation to smoking initiation among US adolescents. Pediatrics. 2005;116:1183–1191. doi: 10.1542/peds.2005-0714. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Sargent JD, Worth KA, Beach M, Gerrard M, Heatherton TF. Population-based assessment of exposure to risk behaviors in motion pictures. Commun Methods Meas. 2008;2:134–151. doi: 10.1080/19312450802063404. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Sargent JD, Tanski S, Stoolmiller M, Hanewinkel R. Using sensation seeking to target adolescents for substance use interventions. Addiction. 2010;105:506–514. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02782.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Shete S, Beasley TM, Etzel CJ, Fernández JR, Chen J, Allison DB, Amos CI. Effect of winsorization on power and type 1 error of variance components and related methods of QTL detection. Behav Genet. 2004;34:153–159. doi: 10.1023/B:BEGE.0000013729.26354.da. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Smith LA, Foxcroft DR. The effect of alcohol advertising, marketing and portrayal on drinking behaviour in young people: systematic review of prospective cohort studies. BMC Public Health. 2009;9:51. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-9-51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Stoolmiller M, Wills TA, McClure AC, Tanski SE, Worth KA, Gerrard M, Sargent JD. Comparing media and family predictors of alcohol use: a cohort study of US adolescents. BMJ Open. 2012 Feb 20;2:e000543. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000543. Print 2012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Tanski SE, McClure AC, Jernigan DH, Sargent JD. Alcohol brand preference and binge drinking among adolescents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2011;165:675–676. doi: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2011.113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Tickle JJ, Hull JG, Sargent JD, Dalton MA, Heatherton TF. A Structural Equation Model of Social Influences and Exposure to Media Smoking on Adolescent Smoking. Basic Appl Soc Psych. 2006;28:117–129. [Google Scholar]
  52. Unger JB, Schuster D, Zogg J, Dent CW, Stacy AW. Alcohol Advertising Exposure and Adolescent Alcohol Use: A Comparison of Exposure Measures. Addiction Research & Theory. 2003;11:177–193. [Google Scholar]
  53. Wiers RW, Bartholow BD, Van DenWildenberg E, Thush C, Engels RCME, Sher KJ, Grenard J, Ames SL, Stacy AW. Automatic and controlled processes and the development of addictive behaviors in adolescents: A review and a model. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2007;86:263–283. doi: 10.1016/j.pbb.2006.09.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Wiers RW, Hoogeveen K-J, Sergeant JA, Gunning WB. High- and low-dose alcohol-related expectancies and the differential associations with drinking in male and female adolescents and young adults. Addiction. 1997;92:871–888. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Yuan K-H, Bentler PM. Three Likelihood-Based Methods For Mean and Covariance Structure Analysis With Nonnormal Missing Data. Sociol Methodol. 2000;30:165–200. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES