Jonathan K Noel1, Ziming Xuan2, Thomas F Babor1. 1. a Department of Community Medicine and Health Care , University of Connecticut School of Medicine , Farmington , Connecticut , USA. 2. b Department of Community Health Sciences , Boston University School of Public Health , Boston , Massachusetts , USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals who are particularly vulnerable to the influence of alcohol advertising, such as youth, need special protections, yet little research has been done to determine if other vulnerable groups exist. Secondary data analysis was conducted to determine if perceptions of alcohol advertising differ between groups based on their alcohol use and whether the definition of "vulnerable" should be expanded beyond demographic categories. METHODS: Students (n = 326) from 2 U.S. colleges viewed 5 alcohol ads and rated them using a scale designed to detect violations of the alcohol industry's self-regulated marketing codes. Individuals with a history of excessive alcohol use, as measured by the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), were considered potentially vulnerable to alcohol advertising and were compared against individuals without a history of excessive alcohol use. Hierarchical linear modeling was used to determine between-group differences in 4 dependent variables (ad appeal, perceived alcohol consumption, perceived excessive drinking, and perceived responsible drinking). All models were adjusted for age, race, ethnicity, sex, and parental alcohol use. RESULTS: AUDIT risk categories were positively associated with ad appeal (p < 0.001), the amount of alcohol perceived to be consumed (p < 0.01), and perceptions of responsible drinking (p < 0.05). There was no significant associated with perceptions of excessive drinking. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with a history of heavy alcohol use perceived greater alcohol consumption in alcohol ads but perceived this consumption, which often met the definition for binge drinking, to be responsible. Stricter regulations may be needed to protect heavy alcohol users from the effects of alcohol advertising.
BACKGROUND: Individuals who are particularly vulnerable to the influence of alcohol advertising, such as youth, need special protections, yet little research has been done to determine if other vulnerable groups exist. Secondary data analysis was conducted to determine if perceptions of alcohol advertising differ between groups based on their alcohol use and whether the definition of "vulnerable" should be expanded beyond demographic categories. METHODS: Students (n = 326) from 2 U.S. colleges viewed 5 alcohol ads and rated them using a scale designed to detect violations of the alcohol industry's self-regulated marketing codes. Individuals with a history of excessive alcohol use, as measured by the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), were considered potentially vulnerable to alcohol advertising and were compared against individuals without a history of excessive alcohol use. Hierarchical linear modeling was used to determine between-group differences in 4 dependent variables (ad appeal, perceived alcohol consumption, perceived excessive drinking, and perceived responsible drinking). All models were adjusted for age, race, ethnicity, sex, and parental alcohol use. RESULTS: AUDIT risk categories were positively associated with ad appeal (p < 0.001), the amount of alcohol perceived to be consumed (p < 0.01), and perceptions of responsible drinking (p < 0.05). There was no significant associated with perceptions of excessive drinking. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with a history of heavy alcohol use perceived greater alcohol consumption in alcohol ads but perceived this consumption, which often met the definition for binge drinking, to be responsible. Stricter regulations may be needed to protect heavy alcohol users from the effects of alcohol advertising.
Authors: Morgane Guillou-Landreat; Antoine Dany; Jean Yves Le Reste; Delphine Le Goff; Amine Benyamina; Marie Grall-Bronnec; Karine Gallopel-Morvan Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2020-04-07 Impact factor: 3.295