Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Alcohol and Alcoholism (Oxford, Oxfordshire) logoLink to Alcohol and Alcoholism (Oxford, Oxfordshire)
. 2014 Jun 12;49(5):563–571. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agu034

The Relationships Between Alcohol Source, Autonomy in Brand Selection, and Brand Preference Among Youth in the USA

Sarah P Roberts 1,*, Michael B Siegel 1, William DeJong 1, Timothy S Naimi 2, David H Jernigan 3
PMCID: PMC4128668  PMID: 25113176

Abstract

Aims: We aimed to describe the sources from which youth in the USA commonly obtain alcohol, their role in selecting the brands they drink and the relationship of these variables to their indicated alcohol brand preferences. Methods: We recruited 1031 underage drinkers in the age range of 13–20 through an internet panel managed by Knowledge Networks. Respondents completed an online survey assessing their recent brand-specific alcohol use, the source of their most recently consumed alcohol and whether the respondent or another person selected the brand they drank. Results: Alcohol sources were more often passive than transactional. Nearly equal proportions of youth reported that they did versus did not choose the brand of their most recent drink. Analysis revealed that the brand preferences of passive versus active source drinkers were highly similar, as were the brand preferences of respondent versus non-respondent choice drinkers. Stratification of respondents by age did not significantly change these results. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that youth are consuming a homogenous list of preferred brands regardless of the source of their most recently obtained alcohol or who selected the brand they drank.

INTRODUCTION

Alcohol consumption among adolescents is a significant public health concern worldwide. A substantial body of literature has documented the negative developmental, physiological and psychosocial outcomes linked to youth drinking (Mannenbach et al., 1997; Spirito et al., 2000; Madan et al., 2001; Stueve and O'Donnell, 2005; Verdurmen et al., 2005; Gil and Molina, 2007; Black et al., 2009; Bye and Rossow, 2009; Masten et al., 2009; Toumbourou et al., 2009; Committee on Substance Abuse, 2010; Mason et al., 2011), yet alcohol use remains prevalent among children and adolescents (The Lancet, 2008; Johnston et al., 2011; Currie et al., 2012; Hibell, 2012; Talley et al., 2013). While many factors contribute to drinking behavior, one prominent and well-researched influence is youth exposure to alcohol marketing. Although analysis of population-level econometric data yields complex findings about the relationship between alcohol advertising and consumption (Saffer, 1996, 2002; National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2000), numerous studies of children and adolescents suggest that exposure to alcohol marketing is associated with intended or actual alcohol use (Grube and Wallack, 1994; Collins et al., 2005; Ellickson et al., 2005; Van Den Bulck, 2005; Hurtz et al., 2006; McClure et al., 2006, 2009; Sargent et al., 2006; Snyder et al., 2006; Hanewinkel et al., 2007; Anderson et al., 2009; Engels et al., 2009; Smith and Foxcroft, 2009; Gordon et al., 2010; Grenard et al., 2013).

A key aspect of successful alcohol marketing is the promotion of brand capital, a concept first articulated by economist Henry Saffer to refer to the positive associations and characteristics that consumers are led to attribute to a specific brand (Saffer, 2002). To do this, alcohol producers attempt to cultivate a unique brand ‘personality’ that will appeal to particular consumer subgroups (Saffer, 2002; Casswell, 2004; Keller and Lehmann, 2006; Grier and Kumanyika, 2010). The industry is adept at building brand capital among youth through messaging that celebrates music, athleticism, sexuality, and depicts self-confident drinkers in social situations (Casswell, 2004; Chen et al., 2005; Austin et al., 2006; Gordon, 2011; Mosher, 2012).

One way to examine whether alcohol marketing has been effective in developing brand capital among youth is to assess the brand preferences of underage drinkers. Existing research suggests that, whether directly or indirectly targeted, adolescents do view a substantial amount of alcohol brand advertising (Jackson et al., 2000; Casswell, 2004; Jernigan et al., 2004; Chen et al., 2005; Collins et al., 2005; Hastings et al., 2005; Nelson and McLeod, 2005; Dal Cin et al., 2008; King et al., 2009; Chung et al., 2010; Grier and Kumanyika, 2010; Gordon, 2011; Primack et al., 2012; Ross et al., 2014). Importantly, youth who exhibit high levels of brand-consciousness are more likely to endorse positive perceptions of and attitudes towards alcohol and are more likely to report intentions to drink as an adult (Aitken et al. 1988; Grube and Wallack, 1994; Casswell, 2004). One longitudinal study of New Zealand youth even tied alcohol brand allegiance and favorable perceptions of alcohol advertisements to long-term increases in beer consumption and alcohol-related aggressive behavior (Casswell and Zhang, 1998).

Together, this body of research suggests that youth are not only frequently exposed to alcohol marketing, but may even develop positive attitudes towards and preferences for the brands most heavily advertised to them. On the other hand, youth under age 21 in the USA cannot legally purchase or possess alcohol and have limited discretionary income. Thus, it could instead be possible that youth are opportunistic consumers who drink whatever they can get. Supporting this contention is the fact that underage drinkers are more likely to obtain alcohol from social sources, such as family, peers or friends, than from commercial sources like bars, restaurants, liquor outlets and convenience stores (Wagenaar et al., 1993, 1996; Harrison et al., 2000; Williams and Mulhall, 2005; Hearst et al., 2007; Paschall et al., 2007; Treno et al., 2008; Chen et al., 2009; Gilligan et al., 2012). Their apparent reliance on passive sources of alcohol raises the following question: do underage drinkers, with limited agency in their choice of alcohol type and brand, engage in a pattern of indiscriminate rather than brand-preferential alcohol consumption? This is a critical question to address, not only as a method of better characterizing the landscape of alcohol consumption among a vulnerable population, but also as a strategy to examine whether underage drinkers appear responsive to alcohol brand marketing or if they are simply undiscerning alcohol users.

Until now, there were no nationally representative data on the brand preferences of underage drinkers, and no answer to the question of whether the brands youth consume reflect the source of their alcohol (i.e., a peer, an adult, a store) or their ability to choose what brands they are drinking, or neither. Recently, we surveyed a national sample of underage drinkers in the USA regarding their alcohol brand preferences and consumption behavior and how and from whom they obtained alcohol (Siegel et al., 2013a).

Working with this data set, the aims of this paper are to: (a) describe the prevalence of different alcohol sources among a national sample of underage drinkers; (b) determine the proportion of underage drinkers who chose the brand of their most recently consumed alcohol; and (c) examine the relationship between what brands of alcohol youth report drinking, how they obtained the alcohol they most recently drank, and who was responsible for selecting those alcohol brands.

METHODS

We have reported the details of the survey methodology previously (Siegel et al., 2013a). Our protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Boston University Medical Center.

In sum, we utilized a pre-recruited internet panel managed by Knowledge Networks (Palo Alto, CA, USA) (Knowledge Networks, 2013) to survey 1031 male and female underage drinkers in the age range of 13–20. Younger youth (in the age range of 13–17) were recruited by emailing a parent member of the Knowledge Networks panel, while older youth (in the age range of 18–20) were emailed directly with information about the study. Before participating, respondents completed a multi-question screening questionnaire that did not reveal the survey's purpose. Only youth who reported drinking alcohol in the past month were eligible to participate in the survey. Those who met this criterion and were otherwise eligible reviewed and signed an online informed consent form and then completed the online survey. After participating in the study, respondents received a $25 payment.

Sample

The Knowledge Networks internet panel consists of ∼50,000 adults ages 18 and older who have agreed to be invited to participate in occasional online surveys (Knowledge Networks, 2013). Households are recruited to the Knowledge Panel® from a sampling frame that includes 97% of US households through the use of random digit dialing (RDD) and address-based sampling (ABS) methods (Knowledge Networks, 2013). To ensure adequate representation of panelists across race/ethnicity, Knowledge Networks oversampled telephone numbers from phone banks with higher proportions of Blacks and Hispanics. Additionally, to ensure adequate participation across levels of socioeconomic status, the company provides subjects who did not have an internet connection with WebTV, internet access and training at no cost (Siegel et al., 2013a).

Comparison of respondents and non-respondents

The older youth sample (18- to 20-year-olds) was drawn from existing Knowledge Networks panelists, which allowed us to compare the demographic factors of respondents and non-respondents to help assess the nature of potential non-response bias. We conducted chi-square tests to analyze the significance of observed differences and found that non-respondents were slightly older (P < 0.05), but similar in gender (P = 0.41); non-respondents were also more likely to be Black (P < 0.0001), to come from lower income households (P < 0.01), and not to have had prior internet access (P < 0.0001). We found no meaningful differences by region (P = 0.11). Since youth in the age range of 13–17 were recruited through a parent or guardian, we were unable to compare respondents to non-respondents for this group (Siegel et al., 2013a).

Response rate

We employed a modification (Callegaro and DiSogra, 2009) of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) standards for response rate reporting, as the AAPOR guidelines do not address internet panels. The older youth sample had the following participation rates: 46.2% for screening (2288 invitations, 1058 completed screenings) and 93.8% for survey completion (705 eligible respondents, 661 completed surveys), for an overall response rate of 43.4% (46.2% multiplied by 93.8%). The parent completion rate for the younger youth sample was 49.2% (∼4757 eligible households with at least one youth, with 2341 parents giving consent). The participation rates for younger youth were as follows: 94.0% for screening completion (2341 invitations, 2201 teens screened) and 95.9% for survey completion (387 eligible respondents, 371 completed surveys), for an overall response rate of 44.4% (49.2% multiplied by 94.0% multiplied by 95.9%) (Siegel et al., 2013a).

Measures

The online, self-administered survey asked respondents on how many of the past 30 days they consumed at least one alcoholic beverage and the average number of drinks they had on a day when they drank. To assess brand-specific alcohol consumption, we provided respondents with an extensive list of alcohol brands available in the USA (898 total); the process of ascertaining these brands has been reported previously (Siegel et al., 2011, 2013a). For each category of alcohol (beer, wine, spirits, etc.) the respondents indicated which brands they drank in the past 30 days; if one of their brands was not listed, respondents identified it using as specific a name as possible. After identifying the brands they had consumed, the respondents then reported on how many of the past 30 days they had consumed each brand and then the average number of drinks of each brand they typically consumed on a day when they drank that brand (Siegel et al., 2013a).

We employed the NIAAA definition of a ‘standard drink,’ which contains 14 grams of pure alcohol (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), 2014). Examples of equivalent beverage types/sizes include a 12-ounce can or bottle of beer; a 5-ounce glass of wine or champagne; an 8.5-ounce flavored alcoholic beverage; or 1.5 ounces of liquor.

To assess the source of respondents' most recently consumed alcohol, we asked them how they got the alcohol they drank most recently. The response options included: ‘Bought it at a store’, ‘Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club’, ‘Bought it at a public event’, ‘Gave someone else money to buy it for me’, ‘An adult age 21 or older gave it to me’, ‘Someone under age 21 gave it to me’, ‘Someone I don't know gave it to me’, ‘I shoplifted it from a store’, ‘I took someone's alcohol without their knowledge’, ‘I don't know how I got it’.

To assess who made the brand choice for respondents' most recently consumed alcohol, we asked ‘When you drank most recently, who made the choice about the brand of alcohol that you drank?’ The response options included: ‘I made the choice’, ‘An adult age 21 or older made the choice’, ‘Someone under age 21 made the choice’, ‘I can't remember or don't know’.

Validation of methodology

We have described our methodology validation elsewhere (Siegel et al., 2013a). Briefly, previous studies have demonstrated that behavioral data obtained from a Knowledge Networks sample are very similar to data collected through more traditional survey methods, such as national household, telephone, or in-person surveys (Smith, 2003; Bethell et al., 2004; Novak et al., 2007; Heeren et al., 2008; Chang and Krosnick, 2009; Yeager et al., 2011). The similarity of these results indicates that the Knowledge Networks panel is an appropriate alternative to telephone and in-person survey methods.

Additionally, in a full pilot test (Siegel et al., 2011) of the present study, we found that the results for 18- to 20-year-olds were concordant with findings from the 2007 MRI Survey of the Adult Consumer, which provides information about type-specific alcohol beverage preferences (Siegel et al., 2011). The similarity of the results from these two sources offers further support to the validity of our methodology for identifying type-specific alcohol consumption data among underage youth, thus supporting the use of these methods for examining brand-specific consumption.

Weighting procedures

To account for selection deviations and to ensure that the sample was representative of the population, Knowledge Networks applied statistical weighting adjustments to account for different selection probabilities related to the nature of ABS- and RDD-samples as well as the oversampling of minority communities. The weights also adjusted for non-response to panel recruitment and panel attrition (DiSogra, 2009). Furthermore, post-stratification weights were added to reflect the demographic distributions from the Current Population Survey (CPS) conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. These weights adjusted for gender, age, race/ethnicity, metropolitan area, census region, home ownership status, household size and household income.

Statistical analysis

Prior research with alcohol consumers has typically categorized consumers' sources of alcohol as ‘social’ (made available by friends, family, or at a party) or ‘commercial’ (purchased or taken from a store, restaurant, bar, or other commercial setting) (Wagenaar et al., 1996; Harrison et al., 2000; Williams and Mulhall, 2005; Hearst et al., 2007; Paschall et al., 2007; Treno et al., 2008; Chen et al., 2009). For the purpose of this analysis, we adjusted these categories to reflect the degree to which respondents’ would be likely, in each situation, to exercise autonomy in choosing the alcohol type or brand they consumed. Respondents could only choose one response for this survey question, which allowed us to sort responses into mutually exclusive categories.

Transactional sources reflect an exchange of money for alcohol (via payment to another person or purchase at a commercial location such as a liquor store or restaurant) or in the case of shoplifting, acquisition of alcohol from a retail source without payment. This method of obtaining alcohol suggests, but does not guarantee, youth agency in the selection of the alcohol type or brand. Specifically, respondents who reported obtaining their most recently consumed alcohol by visiting a store, a restaurant, bar, or club, or a public event, giving someone else money to purchase it, or shoplifting were grouped into the ‘transactional source’ category (n = 406).

Passive sources, on the other hand, reflect situations where respondents' most recently consumed alcohol was provided by another person—implying that someone other than the respondent was responsible for selecting the alcohol type or brand. We grouped those who reported that they were given their most recently consumed alcohol by an adult of age 21 or older, someone under age 21, or someone the respondent did not know into the ‘passive source’ category (n = 532).

Youth who reported obtaining their most recently consumed alcohol by taking someone's alcohol without their knowledge, or not knowing how they got it, were grouped into the source category ‘other’ (n = 88).

To analyze who participated in selecting respondents' most recently consumed brand of alcohol, we separated respondents who reported choosing the alcohol brand themselves (‘respondent choice,’ n = 444) from respondents stating that an adult of age 21 or older or another underage person chose the brand or that they did not know or could not remember who chose the brand (‘Non-respondent choice’, n = 580).

We examined the frequencies of respondents' reported sources of and participation in choosing their most recently consumed alcohol brand, stratified by sex and age. We then calculated the prevalence of reported brand consumption among respondents who obtained their most recently consumed alcohol from a transactional versus a passive source, as well as the prevalence of brand consumption among respondents who chose the brand of their most recently consumed alcohol versus those who did not choose the brand. Next, we examined the consumption prevalence for the top ten most consumed brands among underage drinkers (Siegel et al., 2013a), stratified by source of alcohol and participation in brand choice.

Finally, in order to assess the concordance between the brand preferences of youth who obtained alcohol from transactional versus passive sources, we calculated Pearson's correlation coefficients. To ensure that these results were not distorted by use of a limited brand list, we calculated correlations for all brands listed in the survey, then for brands with 1% prevalence or higher, brands with 2.5% prevalence or higher and brands with 10% prevalence or higher. We used a similar set of analyses to assess the relationship between brand preferences of youth who participated in choosing their most recently consumed alcohol brand and the preferences of respondents who did not choose their most recent brand. Correlations for both alcohol source and participation in brand choice were stratified by age, with results for respondents in the age range of 13–17 reported separately from those in the age range of 18–20. For these analyses, we employed this dichotomous variable due to the lack of sufficient sample sizes needed to compare smaller age segments (i.e., 13–15, 16–18, 19–20).

RESULTS

Table 1 illustrates the reported prevalence of different alcohol sources and participation in brand selection among our sample. Just over half of the respondents (51.9%) were given their most recently consumed alcohol by an adult of age 21 or over, another underage youth, or a person unknown to the respondent (i.e., passive sources). In comparison, 39.7% of respondents obtained their most recently consumed alcohol from a transactional source, primarily by giving someone else money to buy it (19.7%) or purchasing it at a store (14.5%). Transactional sources of alcohol were cited by 17.9% of 13- to 15-year-olds. This figure increased linearly with respondents' age, with 30.8% of 16- to 18-year-olds and 50.7% of 19- to 20-year-olds obtaining their most recently consumed alcohol in this way. Male and female respondents reported similar rates of transactional (40.7% of males, 38.5% of females) versus passive (49.5% of males, 54.4% of females) sources of alcohol.

Table 1.

Reported source of and role in brand selection for most recently consumed alcohol, underage drinkers in the age range of 13–20

Overall prevalence (%) Male (%) Female (%) Age 13–15 (%) Age 16–18 (%) Age 19–20 (%)
Reported source
Transactional
 Bought it at a store (n = 148) 14.5 12.1 16.9 3.5 6.5 22.6
 Bought at a restaurant, bar, or club n = (45) 4.4 2.5 6.4 0.2 2.2 6.9
 Bought it at a public event (n = 6) 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.4 1.0 0.3
 Gave someone else money to buy it (n = 202) 19.7 24.9 14.2 13.2 20.1 20.7
 Shoplifted it from a store (n = 5) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 1.0 0.2
  Transactional source total: 39.7 40.7 38.5 17.9 30.8 50.7
Passive
 An adult of age 21 or older gave it to me (n = 392) 38.2 36.3 40.2 33.7 42.0 36.3
 Someone under age 21 gave it to me (n = 127) 12.4 11.5 13.3 31.4 16.4 5.5
 Someone who I don't know gave it to me (n = 13) 1.3 1.7 0.9 0.6 1.4 1.3
  Passive source total: 51.9 49.5 54.4 65.7 59.8 43.1
Other
 I took someone's alcohol without their knowledge (n = 45) 4.4 4.7 4.0 10.6 5.4 2.4
 I don't know how I got it (n = 43) 4.1 5.1 3.2 5.8 4.1 3.9
  Other source total 8.5 9.8 7.2 16.4 9.5 6.3
Role in brand selection
Who made brand choice
 Respondent made the choice (n = 444) 43.4 42.7 44.0 24.6 33.0 54.9
 Someone else made the choicea (n = 457) 44.7 44.6 44.6 57.1 51.6 37.0
 I cannot remember or do not know (n = 123) 12.0 12.6 11.3 18.3 15.5 8.1
Open in a new tab

aRespondent reported an adult of age 21 or older or another underage youth chose the brand of their most recently consumed alcohol.

In terms of respondents' reported role in choosing the brand of their most recently consumed alcohol, the proportions of youth reported that they made the choice (43.4%) and did not make the choice (44.7%) were nearly equal. Just 24.6% of the 13- to 15-year-old respondents chose the brand of their most recently consumed alcohol. The prevalence of respondent brand selection increased with age (to 33.0% of 16- to 18-year-olds and 54.9% of 19- to 20-year-olds).

Top 20 most consumed brands

We compared a list of the top 20 alcohol brands among youth who obtained their most recently consumed alcohol from a transactional source to a list of the top 20 alcohol brands among youth who obtained their alcohol from a passive source (Table 2). Overall, 16 out of 20 brands were the same across both lists. The #1 alcohol brand on both lists was Bud Light, which was consumed by 32.4% of youth who reported a transactional alcohol source and 25.3% of youth who reported a passive source. Other commonly consumed brands on both lists included Smirnoff Malt Beverages, Budweiser Beer and Coors Light.

Table 2.

Top 20 alcohol brands among underage drinkers in the age range of 13–20 by source of most recently consumed alcohol

Transactional source
 Passive source
Top 20 alcohol brands Consumption prevalencea, % (n) Top 20 alcohol brands Consumption prevalenceb, % (n)
Bud Light 32.4 (132) Bud Light 25.3 (134)
Smirnoff Malt Beverages 23.7 (97) Smirnoff Vodkas 14.1 (75)
Budweiser Beer 18.0 (73) Smirnoff Malt Beverages 12.7 (68)
Coors Light 17.2 (70) Budweiser Beer 11.6 (62)
Heineken 14.4 (59) Mikes 11.4 (61)
Jack Daniels Whiskeys 14.0 (57) Coors Light 11.2 (60)
Captain Morgan Rums 13.8 (56) Absolut Vodkas 9.4 (50)
Corona Extra 13.5 (55) Corona Extra 9.0 (48)
Absolut Vodkas 12.7 (52) Jack Daniels Whiskeys 8.9 (48)
Smirnoff Vodkas 12.1 (49) Captain Morgan Rums 8.3 (44)
Mikes 11.9 (48) Bacardi Rums 8.1 (43)
Bacardi Rums 11.8(48) Keystone Light 7.8 (41)
Blue Moon 10.5 (43) Blue Moon 7.5 (40)
Patron Tequilas 10.0 (41) Bacardi Malt Beverages 6.8 (36)
1800 Tequilas 9.7 (40) Heineken 6.7 (35)
Four Loko 9.6 (39) Jose Cuervo Tequilas 6.6 (35)
Hennessy Cognacs 9.4 (38) UV Vodkas 6.4 (34)
Jose Cuervo Tequilas 9.1 (37) Baileys Irish Cream Liqueurs 6.2 (33)
Malibu Rums 9.0 (37) Miller Lite 5.7 (31)
Bacardi Malt Beverages 8.9 (36) Malibu Rums 5.0 (27)
Open in a new tab

aWeighted prevalence calculated for 20 most consumed brands among respondents who obtained their most recently consumed alcohol from a transactional source: bought at a store, bought at a restaurant/bar/club, bought at a public event, gave someone else money to buy the alcohol, or shoplifted from a store.

bWeighted prevalence calculated for 20 most consumed brands among respondents who obtained their most recently consumed alcohol from a passive source: given alcohol by an adult of age 21+, given alcohol by someone under age 21, or given alcohol by someone unknown to the respondent.

We next compared a list of the top 20 alcohol brands among youth who chose the brand of their most recently consumed alcohol to a list of the top 20 alcohol brands among youth who did not choose the brand (Table 3). All told, 15 out of 20 brands were the same across both lists. Mirroring the top 20 lists of alcohol brands by source, the #1 brand on both lists was Bud Light (consumed by 29.2% of youth who selected their alcohol brand, and 26.9% of youth who did not). Much like the list of top 20 brands by alcohol source, we found that other prevalent brands among both youth who did and those who did not participate in brand selection were Smirnoff Malt Beverages, Coors Light and Budweiser Beer.

Table 3.

Top 20 alcohol brands among underage drinkers in the age range of 13–20 by role in brand selection for most recently consumed alcohol

Respondent chose brand
 Respondent did not choose brand
Top 20 alcohol brands Consumption prevalencea, % (n) Top 20 alcohol brands Consumption prevalenceb, % (n)
Bud Light 29.2 (130) Bud Light 26.9 (158)
Smirnoff Malt Beverages 25.0 (111) Budweiser Beer 13.7 (80)
Smirnoff Vodkas 17.2 (76) Jack Daniels Whiskeys 11.8 (69)
Coors Light 16.5 (73) Smirnoff Malt Beverages 11.0 (64)
Budweiser Beer 15.9 (71) Corona Extra 10.5 (61)
Absolut Vodkas 13.5 (60) Coors Light 9.9 (58)
Heineken 12.6 (56) Mikes 9.5 (56)
Mikes 12.5 (56) Smirnoff Vodkas 9.4 (55)
Corona Extra 12.3 (55) Captain Morgan Rums 9.3 (55)
Captain Morgan Rums 11.8 (52) Jose Cuervo Tequilas 8.0 (47)
Bacardi Rums 11.2 (50) Blue Moon 7.9 (46)
Jack Daniels Whiskeys 11.0 (49) Miller Lite 7.8 (46)
Bacardi Malt Beverages 9.6 (42) Bacardi Rums 7.8 (46)
Patron Tequilas 8.6 (38) Heineken 7.5 (44)
Blue Moon 8.5 (38) Absolut Vodkas 7.5 (44)
Barefoot Wines 8.4 (37) Grey Goose Vodkas 7.1 (42)
Ciroc Vodkas 8.1 (36) Bacardi Malt Beverages 6.9 (40)
Jose Cuervo Tequilas 8.1 (36) Keystone Light 6.7 (39)
Four Loko 8.0 (35) Malibu Rums 5.9 (35)
Hennessy Cognacs 7.7 (34) Baileys Irish Cream Liqueurs 5.4 (32)
Open in a new tab

aWeighted prevalence calculated for 20 most consumed brands among respondents who chose the brand of their most recently consumed drink.

bWeighted prevalence calculated for 20 most consumed brands among respondents who did not choose the brand of their most recently consumed drink, or who did not know or could not remember who chose the brand.

Comparison of drinkers vs. non-drinkers of the top 10 brands

We have previously identified the top 10 most consumed alcohol brands among underage drinkers in this sample (Siegel et al., 2013a). Table 4 compares the proportions of drinkers and non-drinkers of these brands who reported obtaining their most recently consumed alcohol from a transactional versus passive source. Additionally, we calculated the proportions of drinkers and non-drinkers of these brands who reported selecting the brand of their most recently consumed alcohol versus not choosing the brand.

Table 4.

Top 10 brands overall by source of alcohol and role in brand selection at most recent alcohol consumption, underage drinkers in the age range of 13–20

Brand Respondents who obtained alcohol from a transactional sourcea, % (n) Respondents who chose specific brandb, % (n)
Bud Light
 Brand Userc 49.5 (132) 45.1 (130)
 Non-Brand User 40.9 (275) 42.3 (314)
Smirnoff Malt Beverages
 Brand User 58.8 (97) 63.3 (110)
 Non-Brand User 40.0 (310) 38.9 (333)
Budweiser
 Brand User 54.2 (73) 46.9 (71)
 Non-Brand User 41.5 (334) 42.4 (373)
Smirnoff Vodkas
 Brand User 39.7 (49) 58.1 (76)
 Non-Brand User 43.9 (357) 40.9 (368)
Coors Light
 Brand User 54.1 (70) 55.8 (73)
 Non-Brand User 41.6 (337) 41.2 (371)
Jack Daniels
 Brand User 54.5 (57) 41.4 (49)
 Non-Brand User 41.9 (350) 43.3 (395)
Corona Extra
 Brand User 53.2 (55) 47.1 (55)
 Non-Brand User 42.1 (352) 42.5 (391)
Mike's
 Brand User 44.2 (48) 50.0 (55)
 Non-Brand User 43.2 (359) 42.2 (388)
Captain Morgan Rums
 Brand User 55.8 (56) 49.0 (52)
 Non-Brand User 41.8 (351) 42.4 (391)
Absolut Vodka
 Brand User 50.8 (52) 57.7 (60)
 Non-Brand User 42.4 (355) 41.4 (384)
Open in a new tab

aWeighted prevalence calculated for 10 most consumed brands among respondents who obtained their most recently consumed alcohol from a transactional source: bought at a store, bought at a restaurant/bar/club, bought at a public event, gave someone else money to buy the alcohol, or shoplifted from a store.

bWeighted prevalence calculated for 10 most consumed brands among respondents who chose the brand of their most recently consumed drink.

cWeighted prevalence calculated among respondents who did (Brand User) or did not (Non-Brand User) consume this brand in the past 30 days.

On the whole, drinkers of the top 10 brands were more likely than non-drinkers of those brands to report having obtained their most recent drink via a transactional source and having made an autonomous brand choice. The proportion of drinkers who obtained their most recent drink via a transactional source was higher than the proportion among non-drinkers for nine of the 10 top brands. Similarly, the proportion of drinkers who chose their most recent drink brand was higher than the same proportion among non-drinkers, again for nine of the top 10 brands.

Correlational analyses

Table 5 shows the Pearson's correlation coefficients calculated for the overall sample, for youth in the age range of 13–17 and for youth in the age range of 18–20. All of the analyses comparing the brand-level consumption preferences of transactional source drinkers and passive source drinkers yielded strong, positive correlations, both for the overall sample (range r = 0.85 to r = 0.91) and for the two age groups (range r = 0.77 to r = 0.79 for respondents in the age range of 13–17; range r = 0.79 to r = 0.89 for respondents in the age range of 18–20). Similarly positive correlations emerged from all of the analyses comparing the brand-level consumption preferences of respondents who did versus respondents who did not choose the brand of their most recent drink, again for the overall sample (range r = 0.80 to r = 0.91) and the two age groups (range r = 0.70 to r = 0.76 for respondents in the age range of 13–17; range r = 0.74 to r = 0.88 for respondents in the age range of 18–20).

Table 5.

Correlations among alcohol brand consumption prevalence by source of most recently consumed alcohol and identity of person who selected the brand, underage drinkers in the age range of 13–20

Brands included (n)a Correlations between brand preferences among those obtaining alcohol from transactionalb vs. passivec sources
 Correlations between brand preferences among respondents who didd and did note choose their alcohol brand
Overall Ages 13–17 Ages 18–20 Overall Ages 13–17 Ages 18–20
All brands (n = 951) 0.91 0.77 0.89 0.91 0.76 0.88
Prevalence ≥1% (n = 155) 0.90 0.79 0.88 0.90 0.75 0.86
Prevalence ≥2.5% (n = 86) 0.88 0.79 0.86 0.87 0.73 0.83
Prevalence ≥10% (n = 14) 0.85 0.77 0.79 0.80 0.70 0.74
Open in a new tab

aPearson's correlation coefficients calculated among all brands on survey, brands with a prevalence of 1% or higher, brands with a prevalence of 2.5% or higher and brands with a prevalence of 10% or higher.

bWeighted prevalence calculated for brands consumed by respondents who obtained their most recently consumed alcohol from a transactional source: bought at a store, bought at a restaurant/bar/club, bought at a public event, gave someone else money to buy the alcohol, or shoplifted from a store.

cWeighted prevalence calculated for brands consumed by respondents who obtained their most recently consumed alcohol from a passive source: given alcohol by an adult of age 21+, given alcohol by someone under age 21, or given alcohol by someone unknown to the respondent.

dWeighted prevalence calculated for brands consumed by respondents who chose the brand of their most recently consumed drink.

eWeighted prevalence calculated for brands consumed by respondents who did not choose the brand of their most recently consumed drink, or who did not know or could not remember who chose the brand.

DISCUSSION

Youth have considerable influence over which alcohol brands they consume: nearly 40% of alcohol acquisitions are transactional, and about half of underage youth report choosing their most recently consumed brand. While passive sources of alcohol were reported most frequently in the overall sample, utilization of transactional alcohol sources appears more frequently among older respondents.

The brand-level consumption preferences of respondents who obtained their most recently consumed alcohol from transactional versus passive sources were very similar. Likewise, the preferences of respondents who reported choosing their most recently consumed brand were similar to the preferences indicated by respondents who reported that another person had chosen for them. Although the various respondent groups had somewhat different consumption profiles, the general similarity of those profiles is striking: whether purchasing alcohol themselves or accepting it from social sources, underage drinkers are consuming a similar set of brands.

Importantly, we did find that, for nine of the top 10 youth brands, the proportion of drinkers who obtained their most recent drink via a transactional source was higher than the proportion among non-drinkers. Stated differently, drinkers of these 10 brands are more likely to be youth who exercise autonomy in their brand decisions. This result suggests that had we restricted our survey to respondents who make their own brand choices, we would have found that the top 10 youth brands were even more popular than they are among our full national sample.

In a separate publication, Siegel and colleagues (Siegel et al., 2014) compared our survey data on the brands preferred by youth to those shown to be preferred by adults. They found that, although most alcohol brands that are popular among underage drinkers are also relatively popular among adult drinkers, there were 15 brands that are disproportionately consumed by youth. Comparing that list of 15 brands to the present study's lists of top brands for each the respondent subgroups reveals seven overlapping brands: Smirnoff Malt Beverages, Jack Daniel's Whiskey, Mike's, Absolut Vodkas, Heineken, Bacardi Malt Beverages and Malibu Rums. Six out of these seven brands (all but Bacardi Malt Beverages) were recently cited by Ross and colleagues as alcoholic beverages whose television advertising appeared to target viewers between the age of 18 and 20 (Ross et al., 2014).

The results of the present study, paired with these additional findings, suggest that if we are to understand the alcohol consumption behavior of underage youth, then some other key influence beyond alcohol source and participation in brand choice must be identified. Since alcohol advertising has been shown to generate brand capital among youth (Grube and Wallack, 1994; Saffer, 2002; Casswell, 2004; Saffer and Dave, 2006; Anderson et al., 2009; Smith and Foxcroft, 2009; Morgenstern et al., 2011), the possible role of alcohol marketing in creating brand awareness and brand identity among underage drinkers is worthy of continued exploration. There are, of course, additional factors to be considered apart from the potential influence of alcohol marketing, including differential brand availability by geographic region, parental and peer alcohol brand preferences, retail pricing, and beverage flavor/taste. We have published analyses of alcohol price data and youth versus adult alcohol preferences elsewhere (DiLoreto et al., 2012; Albers et al., 2013; Siegel et al., 2013b, 2014).

Further exploration of these topics is needed to identify the causal antecedents of youth alcohol brand consumption. First, qualitative data collection with underage drinkers would be helpful to better capture the nuanced contexts in which youth perceive and engage with alcohol brands. Second, future research should include longitudinal analysis of adolescent media exposure (and/or other potential predictors of alcohol use) and subsequent reported brand preferences and consumption patterns. Finally, to maximize the public health impact of this data, future research should test methods of counteracting predictors of brand-level alcohol use among youth. The nature of such interventions would stem naturally from the findings of future studies, but may include conducting counter-advertising campaigns, teaching media literacy modules in US high schools, or disseminating study results to alcohol companies as a catalyst for additional corporate responsibility efforts to prevent underage drinking.

Limitations

This study is subject to two important limitations. First, we captured each respondent's brand-specific drinking behavior for a recall period of 30 days, while the survey items we used to analyze respondents' alcohol source and participation in brand selection referred to their most recently consumed drink. The brand profiles we reported reflect the respondents' overall brand-consumption patterns and may not actually correspond to the respondents' most recently consumed brands.

Additionally, the study is limited by the relatively low response rates among both younger and older youth (44 and 43%, respectively) in our sample. This is an important concern, particularly because of the potential misrepresentation of Black and lower-income youth who were less likely to have finished the survey. To address this potential issue and reduce the likelihood of non-response bias, we weighted survey responses from Black and lower-income respondents more heavily via post-stratification adjustments.

CONCLUSIONS

This study contributes to the literature on adolescent substance use by offering a unique, comprehensive approach to measuring and interpreting how and from what sources youth in the age range of 13–20 obtain alcohol, their autonomy in alcohol brand selection and their brand-level alcohol consumption. Our data reveal that a particular set of brands is preferred by underage drinkers, regardless of how or from whom they obtained their most recent drink. This finding suggests that rather than drinking whatever they can get, youth elect to consume a very specific and relatively narrow list of brands. Why these particular brands are so appealing to underage drinkers is likely driven by many potential influences that merit further study, including the possible impact of alcohol brand advertising on youth and their extended social networks.

Funding

This work was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (grant number R01 AA020309-01).

Conflict of interest statement

None declared.

REFERENCES

  1. Aitken PP, Leathar DS, Scott AC. Ten- to sixteen-year-olds’ perceptions of advertisements for alcoholic drinks. Alcohol Alcohol. 1988;23:491–500. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Albers AB, DeJong W, Naimi TS, et al. Minimum financial outlays for purchasing alcohol brands in the U.S. Am J Prev Med. 2013;44:67–70. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.08.026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson P, de Bruijn A, Angus K, et al. Impact of alcohol advertising and media exposure on adolescent alcohol use: a systematic review of longitudinal studies. Alcohol Alcohol. 2009;44:229–43. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agn115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Austin EW, Chen M-J, Grube JW. How does alcohol advertising influence underage drinking? The role of desirability, identification and skepticism. J Adolesc Health. 2006;38:376–84. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.08.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bethell C, Fiorillo J, Lansky D, et al. Online consumer surveys as a methodology for assessing the quality of the United States health care system. J Med Internet Res. 2004;6:e2. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6.1.e2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Black K, Asbridge M, Lea S. An overview of injuries to adolescents and young adults related to substance use: data from Canadian emergency departments. CJEM. 2009;11:330–6. doi: 10.1017/s1481803500011374. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bye EK, Rossow I. The impact of drinking pattern on alcohol-related violence among adolescents: an international comparative analysis: drinking patterns and violence in adolescence. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2009;29:131–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-3362.2009.00117.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Callegaro M, DiSogra C. Computing response metrics for online panels. Public Opin Q. 2009;72:1008–32. [Google Scholar]
  9. Casswell S. Alcohol brands in young people's everyday lives: new developments in marketing. Alcohol Alcohol. 2004;39:471–6. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agh101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Casswell S, Zhang JF. Impact of liking for advertising and brand allegiance on drinking and alcohol-related aggression: a longitudinal study. Addiction. 1998;93:1209–17. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.1998.93812099.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chang L, Krosnick JA. National surveys via RDD telephone interviewing versus the Internet: comparing sample representativeness and response quality. Public Opin Q. 2009;73:641–78. [Google Scholar]
  12. Chen M-J, Grube JW, Bersamin M, et al. Alcohol advertising: what makes it attractive to youth? J Health Commun. 2005;10:553–65. doi: 10.1080/10810730500228904. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Chen M-J, Gruenewald PJ, Remer LG. Does alcohol outlet density affect youth access to alcohol? J Adolesc Health. 2009;44:582–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.10.136. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Chung PJ, Garfield CF, Elliott MN, et al. Association between adolescent viewership and alcohol advertising on cable television. Am J Public Health. 2010;100:555–62. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.146423. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Collins RL, Ellickson PL, McCaffrey DF, et al. Saturated in beer: awareness of beer advertising in late childhood and adolescence. J Adolesc Health. 2005;37:29–36. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.08.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Committee on Substance Abuse. Alcohol use by youth and adolescents: a pediatric concern. Pediatrics. 2010;125:1078–87. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-0438. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Currie C, Zanotti C, Morgan A, et al. Social Determinants of Health and Well-Being among Young People: Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children (HBSC) Study : International Report From the 2009/2010 Survey. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  18. Dal Cin S, Worth KA, Dalton MA, et al. Youth exposure to alcohol use and brand appearances in popular contemporary movies. Addiction. 2008;103:1925–32. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02304.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. DiLoreto JT, Siegel M, Hinchey D, et al. Assessment of the average price and ethanol content of alcoholic beverages by brand—United States, 2011. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2012;36:1288–97. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2011.01721.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. DiSogra C. Overview of KnowledgePanel(R) Weighting Protocol. Menlo Park, CA: Knowledge Networks; 2009. Available at http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/docs/kn-weighting-synopsis.pdf. (17 October 2013, date last accessed) [Google Scholar]
  21. Ellickson PL, Collins RL, Hambarsoomians K, et al. Does alcohol advertising promote adolescent drinking? Results from a longitudinal assessment. Addiction. 2005;100:235–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.00974.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Engels RCME, Hermans R, van Baaren RB, et al. Alcohol portrayal on television affects actual drinking behaviour. Alcohol Alcohol. 2009;44:244–9. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agp003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Gil AI, Molina JA. Human development and alcohol abuse in adolescence. Appl Econ. 2007;39:1315–23. [Google Scholar]
  24. Gilligan C, Kypri K, Johnson N, et al. Parental supply of alcohol and adolescent risky drinking: parental supply of alcohol and adolescent drinking. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2012;31:754–62. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-3362.2012.00418.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Gordon R. An audit of alcohol brand websites. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2011;30:638–44. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-3362.2010.00257.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Gordon R, MacKintosh AM, Moodie C. The impact of alcohol marketing on youth drinking behaviour: a two-stage cohort study. Alcohol Alcohol. 2010;45:470–80. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agq047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Grenard JL, Dent CW, Stacy AW. Exposure to alcohol advertisements and teenage alcohol-related problems. Pediatrics. 2013;131:e369–79. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-1480. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Grier SA, Kumanyika S. Targeted marketing and public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2010;31:349–69. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.012809.103607. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Grube JW, Wallack L. Television beer advertising and drinking knowledge, beliefs, and intentions among schoolchildren. Am J Public Health. 1994;84:254–9. doi: 10.2105/ajph.84.2.254. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hanewinkel R, Tanski SE, Sargent JD. Exposure to alcohol use in motion pictures and teen drinking in Germany. Int J Epidemiol. 2007;36:1068–77. doi: 10.1093/ije/dym128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Harrison PA, Fulkerson JA, Park E. The relative importance of social versus commercial sources in youth access to tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs. Prev Med. 2000;31:39–48. doi: 10.1006/pmed.2000.0691. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Hastings G, Anderson S, Cooke E, et al. Alcohol marketing and young peoples drinking: a review of the research. J Public Health Policy. 2005;26:296–311. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jphp.3200039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Hearst MO, Fulkerson JA, Maldonado-Molina MM, et al. Who needs liquor stores when parents will do? The importance of social sources of alcohol among young urban teens. Prev Med. 2007;44:471–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.02.018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Heeren T, Edwards EM, Dennis JM, et al. A comparison of results from an alcohol survey of a prerecruited Internet panel and the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2008;32:222–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2007.00571.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Hibell B. Stockholm: The Swedish Council for Information on Alcohol and Other Drugs (CAN); 2012. The 2011 ESPAD Report: substance use among students in 36 European countries. [Google Scholar]
  36. Hurtz SQ, Henriksen L, Wang Y, et al. The relationship between exposure to alcohol advertising in stores, owning alcohol promotional items, and adolescent alcohol use. Alcohol Alcohol. 2006;42:143–9. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agl119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Jackson MC, Hastings G, Wheeler C, et al. Marketing alcohol to young people: implications for industry regulation and research policy. Addiction. 2000;95:597–608. doi: 10.1080/09652140020013809. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Jernigan DH, Ostroff J, Ross C, et al. Sex differences in adolescent exposure to alcohol advertising in magazines. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004;158:629. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.158.7.629. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Johnston LD, O'Malley PM, Bachman JG, et al. Monitoring the Future National Results on Adolescent Drug use: Overview of key Findings, 2010. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  40. Keller KL, Lehmann DR. Brands and branding: research findings and future priorities. Market Sci. 2006;25:740–59. [Google Scholar]
  41. King C, Siegel M, Jernigan DH, et al. Adolescent exposure to alcohol advertising in magazines: an evaluation of advertising placement in relation to underage youth readership. J Adolesc Health. 2009;45:626–33. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Knowledge Networks. KnowledgePanel(R) Design Summary. 2013 Available at http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/knpanel/docs/KnowledgePanel%28R%29-Design-Summary-Description.pdf. (17 October 2013, date last accessed) [Google Scholar]
  43. Madan A, Beech DJ, Flint L. Drugs, guns, and kids: the association between substance use and injury caused by interpersonal violence. J Pediatr Surg. 2001;36:440–2. doi: 10.1053/jpsu.2001.21599. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Mannenbach MS, Hargarten SW, Phelan MB. Alcohol use among injured patients aged 12 to 18 years. Acad Emerg Med. 1997;4:40–4. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.1997.tb03641.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Mason WA, Toumbourou JW, Herrenkohl TI, et al. Early age alcohol use and later alcohol problems in adolescents: Individual and peer mediators in a bi-national study. Psychol Addict Behav. 2011;25:625–33. doi: 10.1037/a0023320. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Masten A, Faden V, Zucker R, et al. A developmental perspective on underage alcohol use. 2009. Available at http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/65129. (14 January 2014, date last accessed) [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  47. McClure AC, Dal Cin S, Gibson J, et al. Ownership of alcohol-branded merchandise and initiation of teen drinking. Am J Prev Med. 2006;30:277–83. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2005.11.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. McClure AC, Stoolmiller M, Tanski SE, et al. Alcohol-branded merchandise and its association with drinking attitudes and outcomes in US adolescents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2009;163:211. doi: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2008.554. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Morgenstern M, Isensee B, Sargent JD, et al. Exposure to alcohol advertising and teen drinking. Prev Med. 2011;52:146–51. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.11.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Mosher JF. Joe Camel in a bottle: Diageo, the Smirnoff brand, and the transformation of the youth alcohol market. American Journal of Public Health. 2012:102. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300387. Available at http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300387. (9 October 2013, date last accessed) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Washington, DC: 2000. Alcohol and Health, 10th Special Report to Congress. [Google Scholar]
  52. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) What is A Standard Drink? National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Rockville, MD: 2014. Available at http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/Practitioner/pocketguide/pocket_guide2.htm. (23 January 2014, date last accessed) [Google Scholar]
  53. Nelson MR, McLeod LE. Adolescent brand consciousness and product placements: awareness, liking and perceived effects on self and others. Int J Consum Stud. 2005;29:515–28. [Google Scholar]
  54. Novak SP, Kroutil LA, Williams RL, et al. The nonmedical use of prescription ADHD medications: results from a national Internet panel. Subst Abuse Treat Prev policy. 2007;2:32. doi: 10.1186/1747-597X-2-32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Paschall MJ, Grube JW, Black C, et al. Is commercial alcohol availability related to adolescent alcohol sources and alcohol use? Findings from a multi-level study. J Adolesc Health. 2007;41:168–74. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.03.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Primack BA, Nuzzo E, Rice KR, et al. Alcohol brand appearances in US popular music: alcohol brand appearances. Addiction. 2012;107:557–66. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03649.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Ross CS, Ostroff J, Jernigan DH. Evidence of underage targeting of alcohol advertising on television in the United States: lessons from the Lockyer v. Reynolds decisions. J Public Health Policy. 2014;35:105–18. doi: 10.1057/jphp.2013.52. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Saffer H. Studying the effects of alcohol advertising on consumption. Alcohol Health Res World. 1996;20:266–72. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Saffer H. Alcohol advertising and youth. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2002;(14):173. doi: 10.15288/jsas.2002.s14.173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Saffer H, Dave D. Alcohol advertising and alcohol consumption by adolescents. Health Econ. 2006;15:617–37. doi: 10.1002/hec.1091. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Sargent JD, Wills TA, Stoolmiller M, et al. Alcohol use in motion pictures and its relation with early-onset teen drinking. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2006;67:54. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2006.67.54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Siegel M, DeJong W, Naimi TS, et al. Alcohol brand preferences of underage youth: results from a pilot survey among a national sample. Subst Abuse. 2011;32:191–201. doi: 10.1080/08897077.2011.601250. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Siegel M, DeJong W, Naimi TS, et al. Brand-specific consumption of alcohol among underage youth in the United States. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2013a;37:1195–203. doi: 10.1111/acer.12084. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Siegel M, Grundman J, DeJong W, et al. State-specific liquor excise taxes and retail prices in 8 US States, 2012. Subst Abuse. 2013b;34:415–21. doi: 10.1080/08897077.2013.792314. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Siegel M, Chen K, DeJong W, et al. Differences in alcohol brand consumption between underage youth and adults--United States, 2012. Subst Abuse. 2014 doi: 10.1080/08897077.2014.883344. in press. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Smith TW. An experimental comparison of knowledge networks and the GSS. Int J Public Opin Res. 2003;15:167–79. [Google Scholar]
  67. 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]
  68. Snyder LB, Milici FF, Slater M, et al. Effects of alcohol advertising exposure on drinking among youth. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006;160:18. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.160.1.18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Spirito A, Jelalian E, Rasile D, et al. Adolescent risk taking and self-reported injuries associated with substance use. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2000;26:113–23. doi: 10.1081/ada-100100594. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Stueve A, O'Donnell LN. Early alcohol initiation and subsequent sexual and alcohol risk behaviors among urban youths. Am J Public Health. 2005;95:887–93. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2003.026567. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Talley AE, Hughes TL, Aranda F, et al. Exploring alcohol-use behaviors among heterosexual and sexual minority adolescents: intersections with sex, age, and race/ethnicity. Am J Public Health. 2013:e1–9. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301627. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. The Lancet. Calling time on young people's alcohol consumption. Lancet. 2008;371:871. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60386-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Toumbourou JW, Hemphill SA, McMorris BJ, et al. Alcohol use and related harms in school students in the USA and Australia. Health Promot Int. 2009;24:373–82. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dap037. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Treno AJ, Ponicki WR, Remer LG, et al. Alcohol outlets, youth drinking, and self-reported ease of access to alcohol: a constraints and opportunities approach. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2008;32:1372–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2008.00708.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Van Den Bulck J. Television and music video exposure and adolescent alcohol use while going out. Alcohol Alcohol. 2005;40:249–53. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agh139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Verdurmen J, Monshouwer K, van Dorsselaer S, et al. Alcohol use and mental health in adolescents: interactions with age and gender-findings from the Dutch 2001 Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children survey. J Stud Alcohol. 2005;66:605–9. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2005.66.605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Wagenaar AC, Finnegan JR, Wolfson M, et al. Where and how adolescents obtain alcoholic beverages. Public Health Rep. 1993;108:459–64. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Wagenaar AC, Toomey TL, Murray DM, et al. Sources of alcohol for underage drinkers. J Stud Alcohol. 1996;57:325–33. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1996.57.325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Williams SS, Mulhall PF. Where public school students in Illinois get cigarettes and alcohol: characteristics of minors who use different sources. Prev Sci. 2005;6:47–57. doi: 10.1007/s11121-005-1252-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Yeager DS, Krosnick JA, Chang L, et al. Comparing the accuracy of RDD telephone surveys and Internet surveys conducted with probability and non-probability samples. Public Opin Q. 2011;75:709–47. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Alcohol and Alcoholism (Oxford, Oxfordshire) are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES