COMMUNITY HEALTH STUDIES VOLUME IX, NUMBER 3, 1985

UNIVERSITY STUDENTS KNOWLEDGE OF ALCOHOL AND DRINK STEREOTYPES

Jeffrey Wilks

Department of Psychology, University of Queensland. St. Lucia, 4067.

Abstract First year university students were surveyed

about their knowledge of alcohol and its effects, their stereotypes of alcoholics and perceptions of drinkers according to the type of beverage they drink. Students held several myths about drinking and showed a poor knowledge of the way in which the body metabolizes alcohol. Stereotypes of alcoholics were generally favourable with alcoholism perceived as a disease from which a person could recover. Perceptions of those people who drank various popular forms of alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages revealed stereotypes which parallel images promoted by the mass media. The influence of the media in promoting certain images of drinkers is discussed.

Introduction Expectations about the effects of alcohol and

subsequent alcohol-related stereotypes appear t o be learned from an early age. Such expectancies are modified and reassessed as the child passes through adolescence and into adulthood. Previous studies have shown that by six years of age most children had some knowledge of adult drinking norms’ and that twelve year olds had formed stereotypes about the effects of alcohol on adults.2 Social drinkers were characterized by more moderate stereotypes, while alcoholics were labelled as loud, unpleasant and sloppy. In our own cross-cultural research of the alcohol-related attitudes and stereotypes of high school youth we have found that non-drinkers were perceived as healthy, well-behaved, sensible and happy, whereas heavy drinkers were labelled as unhealthy, wasting money, causing family problems, and being more prone to car accidents.3

The mass media, especially television, is a main source of information about drinking as it often presents drinking scenes not only as advertising but as part of the entertainment context.4,5 Many of the drinking situations and references to drinking presented on television are also very subtle. Indeed, even trained observers can be so culturally conditioned to accept drinking as

WILKS 23 1

normative behaviour that they fail to report a drinking event as they watch it on television.6 While the mass media and advertising agencies constantly use status and prestige or associate more favourable elements or events in our society with alcohol use, researchers have been slow to investigate the persuasive effects of such media strategies in selling types of alcoholic beverages.

The amount of money spent on developing a certain image for different alcoholic drinks is indicative of taste being not the only criterion by which people choose their alcoholic beverage. Through the media we are told of other benefits. Some drinks are associated with glamour, and financial or non-financial success; other drinks such as beer are associated with mateship, or as just reward for a hard days work.’ Despite the Senate S tanding Commit tee on Social Welfare recommendations that Commonwealth and State governments ban the advertising of alcoholic beverages,s a multi-million dollar advertising campaign continues; mostly with the task of creating images of the type of people associated with specific drinks.

This s tudy examines young people’s perceptions of the types of people who drink various popular forms of alcohol and alcohol- substitute drinks. The opinions of young people are significant as they are typically the targets of advertising campaigns. Moreover, several studies have found that many teenagers and young adults consider the media to be a trusted and influential source of information about alcohol and drugs.9.10 Since the success of such media campaigns can be attributed, in part, to the lack of understanding young people have about alcohol, this study also explored the degree of student knowledge about the effects of alcohol, as well as their drinking habits and stereotypes of alcoholics.

Method Sample characteristics

One hundred and two (30 male, 72 female) introductory psychology students at the University

COMMUNITY HEALTH STUDIES

of Queensland participated in the study t o gain course credit. As the study was part of a larger project investigating parental influences on the drinking behaviour and attitudes of young adults,I’ only those students who had both parents participating in the project were included in the sample. The relatively small number of males also reflects, in part, the larger ratio of female to male students enrolled in the introductory psychology courses.

Female students were on average 17.9 years of age (SD = 1.6, range 17-24) and males averaged 19.5 years (SD = 2.0, range 17-25).* Eighty-two per cent of the students had been living at home during the six months prior t o the survey and 61 per cent were still living a t home. Only two students were married. Students were overwhelmingly from middle class family backgrounds.

The instruments Included in a battery of questionnaires were

measures of drinking behaviour, attitudes toward alcohol, stereotypes about specific types of drinks and drinkers, knowledge items, stereotypes of alcoholics and perceptions of the appropriateness of drinking in different contexts. This report focuses on students’ knowledge of alcohol and its effects, student perceptions of alcoholics, and their stereotypes of drinkers according to drink type.

All students completed a 40 item Likert-type scale in which they indicated their amount of agreement with each statement about the effects of alcohol and consequences of drinking. For each item, 1 represented ‘strongly agree’, 2 ‘slightly agree’, 3 ‘slightly disagree’, and 4 represented ‘strongly disagree’. The knowledge items were adopted from previous studies.12-14 To determine attitudes toward alcoholics, students completed ratings of agreement on 16 statements with I representing ‘strongly agree’ and 4 ‘strongly disagree’. These s ta tements were initially developed and field-tested for another stigmatizes group, namely the mentally ill. I 3

I n t h e perceptions-of-drinkers measure, students were asked t o rate each of 13 types of alcoholic drinks and one non-alcoholic alternative beverage in terms of 16 personality characteristics

* More recent sampling of first year psychology students during 1984 ( ~ 2 3 2 ) revealed similar mean ages for female (E 18.0 years) and male fi = 19.1 years) and subjects. The age difference between the sexes, while significant, appears to have little impact on the pattern of responses for males and females in this study.

WILKS 23 2

of those who drink them. Beverages included beer, wines, fortified wines, liqueurs and distilled spirits. The 16 semantic differential type scales were young-old, educated-uneducated, powerful- powerless, religious-nonreligious, helpful- unhelpful, industrious-lazy, likeable-unlikeable, big-little, dependable-undependable, friendly- unfriendly, good-bad, beautiful-ugly, intelligent- s tupid, active-passive, pleasant-unpleasant, strong-weak. Several of these adjective pairs were chosen from the original form of the semantic differential which found that across studies human judgments were well described by factors of Evaluation (for example, good-bad), Potency (strong-weak), and Activity (active-passive).16

To control f o r ’ possible order effects in presentat ion, the following procedure was adopted. The adjectives were randomly assigned a position in a master list. This order remained constant for each of the 14 drink types. Students rated these adjective pairs on a six point scale with six representing the positive pole in half the pairs and the negative pole for the rest. The poles were again randomly assigned in the master list. Finally, the 14 drink types were presented to each student, one beverage to a page, in a random order.

A11 students were tested during mid-1983. On average the measures were completed in 75 minutes with some students requiring up t o 90 minutes. It should be noted that this is a small sample of undergraduate students and while there is no reason to believe that they are significantly different f rom other ter t iary youth, any generalizations beyond this sample should be made with caution.

Results Most students reported that they had

previously drunk beer, wine or spirits, (93 per cent of males, 92 per cent of females) and 80 per cent (70 per cent of males, 85 per cent of females) labelled themselves as current drinkers. Most current drinking was done with friends (70 per cent for males, 68 per cent for females). However 18 per cent of females, but no males, reported that current drinking was with parents or relatives only. Half of the students reported that they had been drunk, with the incidence of drunkenness being higher for males (60 per cent) than for females (46 per cent). Asked the type of drink they most preferred, the majority of students cited spirits (56 per cent).

Knowledge of alcohol and its effects Out of a possible score of 40 on the knowledge

scale, males had an average score of 29.6 and

COMMUNITY HEALTH STUDIES

females 30.1. These scores indicated that 74 and 75.3 per cent respectively of the statements were correctly scored. Male scores ranged between 23 and 36, and females scored from 24 to 37. Over fifty per cent of the respondents answered four items incorrectly. Fifty-nine per cent of the students believed that alcohol was a chemical stimulant; 86 per cent thought that mixing different kinds of drinks can increase the effects of alcohol; 72 per cent suggested that some cures for hangovers are better than others; and the statement, ‘If a bottle of whisky says 86 proof on the label, that means it is 43 per cent alcohol’ was incorrectly answered as false by 51 per cent of students.

To determine specific differences in male and female ratings a multiple discriminant analysis” was conducted on student ratings for the full set of knowledge statements. The discriminant analysis

revealed a significant multivariate effect ( F = 2.6, df 40, 61; p < .OOl), while the discriminant function was also significant &* = 79.8, df 40; p < .OOl). Table 1 presents mean ratings on the knowledge items which discriminated between male and female students. Males were more likely than females to correctly answer statements about the possibility of excessive drinking leading to death; t h e rate of metabolizing alcohol being approximately equal to an 8-02 glass of beer every hour; that alcohol was not a chemical stimulant; and that drinking coffee would not sober a person up. Females were more likely than males to correctly report that alcohol was not a valuable food; that it is dangerous to drive after drinking; that people can become physically dependent on alcohol; and that heavy drinking does not usually make one very hungry.

TABLE 1

Mean ratings, correlations with the discriminant function and univariate F-ratios on selected knowledge statements

Statements MdtS Females F-ratlo Dkrim. Correl.

Alcohol is a valuable food

It is not dangerous to drive when you have been drinking alcohol

You can drink yourself to death if you take too much alcohol too quickly

The body can handle the amount of alcohol in an 8 oz. glass of beer every hour

Alcohol is a chemical stimulant

People can become physically dependent on alcohol

People usually become very hungry when they drink a lot of alcohol

The caffeine in a couple of cups of strong coffee will help sober a person up

3.0 3.5 10.2#

3.3 3.8 9.7#

1.2 1.8 9.7#

1.7 2.2 7.6#

2.9 2.2 7.3#

1.8 1.3 6.3+

2.3 2.8 5.6+

3.4 3.0 4.5+

.38

.38

.37

.34

-.33

-.3I

.29

-.26

+ p < . 0 5

Lower ratings indicate stronger agreement with the statement

# p <.Ol

WILKS 233 COMMUNITY HEALTH STUDIES

Stereotypes of alcoholics To further examine differences between males

and females, a second multiple discriminant analysis was conducted on student ratings of 16 statements about alcoholism and alcoholics. The discriminant. analysis revealed a significant multivariate effect (F = 2.2, df 16, 85; p C .O l ) , while the discriminant function was also significant &2 = 32.5, df 16; p < .01). Univariate F-tests revealed that males were more likely than females to agree that almost all alcoholics are men; most alcoholics are over 50 years of age; you can tell a person is an alcoholic just from looking at them; alcoholics should be put in an institution for their own good; and there are more alcoholics in this country than drug addicts.

On various “social distance” type items included in the measure, males were more likely than females to agree that most alcoholics are good people and that they would be prepared to marry someone who was once an alcoholic. But both sexes would not lend money to someone who had been an alcoholic. ,Overall, alcoholism was perceived as a disease by both groups. Males and females agreed that most alcoholics were not dangerous, and that most were not skid row bums. In addition, both groups held a good prognosis for alcoholics. They disagreed strongly with the adage ‘once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic’, or that once people became alcoholics it is too late to help them, while strongly supporting the suggestion that alcoholics can recover.

Perceptions of drinkers by type of drink To reduce the semantic differential to a more

workable set of variables, a principal axis analysis with oblique rotation was conducted on the full set of responses for the total sample of students. A three factor solution, which explained 49 per cent of the total variance, had the most interpretable factor structure. A comparison of solutions obtained with oblique and orthogonal rotations revealed identical factor structures except that one adjective ‘intelligent’ had a split loading on the orthogonal rotation whereas following oblique rotation it loaded clearly on the second factor.

Eight adjectives loaded highly (> + .40) on the first factor: good (.83); friendly (31); pleasant (.75); helpful (.72); likeable (.67); beautiful (3); dependable (.53); and industrious (.45). This first dimension was labelled favourability. Four adjectives loaded on the second factor including educated (.79); powerful 1.72); intelligent (54); and old (52). This factor seemed to represent a power orpotency dimension. Finally, the three adjectives

WILKS 234

which loaded on the third factor were strong (.72); active (.53); and big (.45). This factor was named dynamism as physical strength and activity are highlighted.

Factor scores were next calculated for each subject on the three dimensions of favourability, potency and dynamism. For the favourability dimension scores range from 8 (very favourable) to a maximum score of 48 (very unfavourable); with potency, factor scores are from 4 (high in potency) to 24 (low in potency); and with dynamism the scores range from 3 (high in dynamism) to 18 (low in dynamism).

AS can be seen from Table 2, drinkers of Claytons (a non-alcoholic beverage widely promoted in the media as a socially acceptable alternative for men to beer or spirits) received high ratings on all three dimensions. On the other hand, gin drinkers received consistently low ratings on the three dimensions. Generally speaking, those beverage types whose drinkers received higher favourability ratings were seen as having the least dynamic characteristics, while the results on the potency dimension were mixed but more similar to those of favourability. Some stereotypes emerged. Beer drinkers, in particular, were rated high in dynamism (being strong, active and big) but comparedto other drinkers were also perceived as having less favourable characteristics and being less powerful or potent (that is, educated, powerful, intelligent and old). Drinkers of champagne, liqueurs and white wine were rated high in potency and favourability but were perceived as less dynamic than drinkers of whisky, rum and beer. Overall there appeared to be a tendency for wine and fortified wine drinkers to receive high ratings on the favourability and potency dimensions whereas distilled spirit drinkers were perceived as having more dynamic characteristics.

Student ratings on the three dimensions were also analysed separately by means of a 2 x 14 factorial analysis of variance. Sex of subject was a between-subjects variable, and the 14 drink types were repeated measures. Results on the favourability dimension revealed a significant main effect for the type of drink (F = 15.7, df 13,1300; p < .001) but the main effect for sex of subject was not significant (F = 0.1, df 1,100; ns). The interaction was also not significant (F = 1.5, df 13,1300; ns). Follow-up tests (Newman-Keuls) revealed that drinkers of Claytons, white wine, sherry, champagne, liqueur and red wine received significantly (p C .01) more favourable ratings than did drinkers of rum, vodka, beer and gin.

COMMUNITY HEALTH STUDIES

TABLE 2

Mean ratings of drink types on dimensions of f8vourrbility, potency and dyn8mism+

Drink type Favourability+ Drink type Potency+ Drink type D ynimbm+

Claytons White wine Sherry Champagne Liqueur Red wine Cider Brandy Port Whisky Rum Vodka Beer Gin Range

20.5 21.5 22.7 22.7 22.9 23. I 23.9 24.3 24.5 24.5 26.1 26.3 26.5 26.6 8-48

Champagne Liqueur Red wine White wine Claytons Port Whisky Brandy Rum Vodka Cider Sherry Gin Beer Range

11.3 11.5 11.6 11.7 11.9 12.3 12.7 12.8 13.0 13.3 13.6 13.6 14.1 14.2 4 2 4

Whisky Rum Beer Port Claytons Brandy Vodka Red Wine Champagne White wine Cider Liqueur Gin Sherry Range

9.1 9.2 9.3 9.3 9.4 9.7 9.7

10.2 10.2 10.6 10.7 10.9 11.3 11.9 3-18

Lower ratings indicate higher favourability, potency and dynamism.

+ Rounded to one decimal place

Results for the potency dimension revealed a significant main effect for drink type ( F = 15.6, df 13,1300; p <.001) but thesex ofsubject maineffect was not significant ( F = 2.7, df 1,100; ns). Also significant was the drinker by subject sex interaction (F = 2. I , df 13, I300 p < .05). Follow- up tests for the interaction revealed that males and females differed in their perceptions of drink types on the potency dimension. Two types of drink, liqueurs(F= 11.7,df 1,10O;p<.Ol)andport(F= 15.1, df 1,100; p <.001) weresignificantlydifferent from the others. Follow-up tests revealed that female students rated people who drink port and liqueurs as more potent (that is, educated, powerful, intelligent and old) than did male students. Additional testing for the drink-type main effect showed that drinkers of champagne, liqueur, red and white wine, and Claytons received significantly (p < .01) higher potency ratings than did drinkers of cider, sherry, gin and beer.

Finally, the results on the dynamism dimension revealed a significant main effect for the typeofdrink(F= 16.6,df 13,13OO;p<.OOl)while the sex of subject main effect was again not significant ( F = 1. I , df 1,100; ns). The drinker type by subject sex interaction was significant ( F = 2.5,

df 13,1300; p < .01). Follow-up tests revealed that males and females differed on their perceptions of two drink types: liqueurs ( F = 12.0, df 1,100, p < .Ol)andClaytons(F=7.6,df l,loO,p<.O1). Again female students rated people who drank liqueurs and Claytons as more dynamic (that is, strong, active a n d big) than did male students. Examination of the drink types for males and females combined revealed that drinkers of whisky, rum, beer, port and Claytons were rated as significantly (p < .01) more dynamic than were drinkers of cider, liqueur, gin and sherry.

Discussion That a quarter of the knowledge statements

were incorrectly answered by students in this study suggests that more factual information about alcohol and its effects should be made available to university students if we expect them to make responsible decisions about their drinking. Several myths about alcohol were highlighted. The majority of respondents considered alcohol to be a stimulant; only a third of American college students have this misperception.l* On the other hand, only 19 per cent of the American students knew the legal definition for intoxication when

WILKS 235 COMMUNITY HEALTH STUDIES

driving in most American states (that is, 0.1 per cent Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC)). Almost all of the students in this investigation were aware of the legal limit in the State of Queensland. Recent legislation reducing the legal limit from .08 per cent t o .05 per cent BAC, and the extensive media coverage of this legislation, have obviously been effective in promoting awareness of the current laws among university youth. In addition, Australian university students falsely held that mixing drinks increased the effects of alcohol, and that some cures for hangovers were better than others . Apparent ly s tudents have a poor understanding of the functions of the body’s metabolism. The majority believed that it was possible t o speed up the sobering process by taking cold showers, drinking hot coffee or getting a breath of fresh air. While these activities help a person feel more awake they don’t increase the rate a t which the body metabolizes alcohol. Male and female students differed in ratings on only eight of the forty knowledge items. American research findings are mixed, some finding males to be more knowledgeable than females about drugs and alcoholl*, 19 while other reports have suggested the reverse.Z0,21 The relatively small sample size in the present study makes conclusions about similar levels of knowledge about alcohol more suggestive than definitive.

T h e s tereotypes of alcoholics measure revealed several differences between male and female student perceptions. However both groups held a good prognosis for alcoholics. Alcoholism was perceived as a disease from which a person could recover. In another recent study, first-year Australian human-service students were also more likely to support a medical illness approach to alcoholism than were final-year students. In addition, social work and psychology students had the most humanistic view toward alcoholics.22 While the attitudes toward alcoholics in this study appeared generally favourable, both male and female students agreed that they would not lend money to someone who had been an alcoholic. The development of personal and professional values among students in the helping professions is particularly important since many of these young men and women may later have contact with drug- dependent people. In addition to questions about the etiology of alcoholism and the delivery of professional care, other measures of personal and social distance should be considered in future studies to investigate the development of students’ attitudes and stereotypes.

WILKS 236

The inclusion of the perceptions of drinkers measure in this study was largley exploratory. However, t h e results have revealed some interesting trends. The validity of the measure is suggested both by the clear factor structure obtained and also by the high factor loadings on the three dimensions of favourability, potency and dynamism. Osgood and his colleagues have previously suggested t h a t this ‘factorial composition’ should be the first criterion for the selection of semantic differential scales. 16 These researchers also note that the semantic differential is “ .... a highly generalizable technique of measurement which must be adapted to the requirement of each research problem to which it is applied” (p. 76). Drug and alcohol research in this country can undoubtedly benefit from the development and further refinement of these scales.

The results of the present study suggest that stereotypes of drinkers according to their preferred drink type d o exist. Gin, a beverage sometimes associated with ‘cupboard’ drinking, received low ratings on all three dimensions of favourability, potency and dynamism. The media images of the association of champagne, liqueur and wine drinkers with sophistication and success were highlighted by their high ratings on the potency dimension. The strong, active, masculine image of whisky, rum and beer drinkers also emerged on the dimension labelled dynamism. The relative success of establishing the non-alcoholic Claytons as a socially acceptable alternative to these drinks can be seen by the high ratings it received across all three dimensions, whereas whisky, rum and beer received lower ratings on the dimensions of favourability and potency. The few sex-differences found in this study further suggests that there are common stereotypes associated with particular beverage types and those who drink them. The media are obviously promoting these particular images7 and future studies must look beyond the more standard classification of beer, wine and spirit drinkers if we are to more fully understand the reasons behind particular beverage choice and the expectations people have when drinking.

That a non-alcoholic beverage like Claytons can be promoted by the media as a socially acceptable alternative to beer and spirits provides some encouragement for the marketing of other related beverages such as non-alcoholic wines. Given the right media strategy, other beverages can be promoted without the stigma sometimes attached to those drinkers who choose not to have an alcoholic drink.

COMMUNITY HEALTH STUDIES

References

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

I I .

Jahoda G, Cramond J. Children and Alcohol: A Developmental Study in Glasgow. Vol 1. An Inquiry for the Scottish Home and Health Department, London: HM Stationery Office, 1972. Isaacs, M. Stereotyping by children of the effects of drinking on adults. J Stud Alcohol

Wilks J , Callan VJ. Alcohol-related attitudes and stereotypes: teenagers in Australia, Papua New Guinea and the United States. J Drug Educ 1984;

Lowery SA. Soap and booze in the afternoon: an analysis of the portrayal of alcohol use in daytime serials. J Stud

Macdonald PT. The “dope” on soaps. J Drug Educ 1983; 13:359-369. Garlington WK. Drinking on television: a preliminary study with emphasis on method.

Sargent M. Drinking and Alcoholism in Australia: A Power Relations Theory. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire, 1979. Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare. Drug Problems in Australia - An Intoxicated Society? Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1977. Adler PT, Lotecka L. Drug use among high school students: patterns and correlates. Int J Addict 1973; 8537-548. Sheppard MA. Sources of information about drugs. J Drug Educ 1980; 10:257-262. Wilks J , Callan VJ. Similarity of university students’ and their parents‘ attitudes toward alcohol. J Stud Alcohol 1984; 45326-333.

1977; 38: 913-921.

14: 1 19- 132.

Alcohol 1980; 41:829-838.

J Stud Alcohol 1977; 38:2199-2205.

12.

13.

14.

IS.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

Turner TJ, McClure L. Alcohol and Drug Use by Queensland School Children. Brisbane: Department of Education, 1975. Buckalew LW. An instructional instrument for increasing alcohol awareness. J Alcohol Drug Educ. 1980; 25:l-5. Wilks J, Callan VJ. Drinking habits and alcohol-related beliefs of Australian, Papua New Guinean and American youth. Br J Addict 1984; 79;419-424. Callan VJ, Wilks J , Forsyth SJ. Cultural perceptions of the mentally ill: Australian and Papua New Guinean high school youth. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 1983; 17:280-285. Osgood CE, Suci GJ, Tannebaum PH. The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1957. Cooley WW, Lohnes PR. Multivariate Data Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1971. Engs RC. College students’ knowledge of alcohol and drinking. J A m CON Health

Engs RC, Kirk RH. The health knowledge of crisis intervention volunteers. Res Quart

Campbell DE, Early RG. Comparison of health knowledge of young adults and their parents.Res Quart 1969; 40:67&681. Buckalew LW. Alcohol: a description and comparison of recent scientific vs public knowledge. J CIin Psycho1 1979; 353459-463. Engs RC. Drinking patterns and attitudes toward alcoholism of Australian human- service students. J Stud Alcohol 1982;

1978; 26~189-193.

1976; 47:121-125.

43:5 17-53 1.

WILKS 237 COMMUNITY HEALTH STUDIES