FACTORS INFLUENCING YOUTH ALCOHOL CONSUMPTIOM INTENTION: AN APPROACH FROM CONSUMER SOCIALIZATION THEORY Abstract Purpose - This research

analyzes, within the Consumer Socialization Theory (CST) framework, the influence of three socialization agents (parents, peers and advertising as part of media content) over alcohol consumption intentions among young people, differentiating between underage and overage individuals. Design/methodology/approach Structured interviews were performed in both High School and University to analyze the hypothesized model. Findings - The results show that both positive and negative expectancies towards the perceived consequences of consuming alcohol are the main antecedents of consumption intention. Moreover, all three considered agents have either a direct and indirect effect on those expectancies. Moreover, advertising plays a more important role on underage audience intentions to consume alcohol. Practical implications The findings demonstrate that consumption intention among adolescents and young adults is affected by parents, peers and advertising. However, each social agent has a differential effect on young people. Social implications This research highlights the importance of strict regulation (or even restriction) on alcoholic advertising to reduce the effect on youth. Originality/value This research develops a comprehensive model to explain some (of the many) relationships underlying alcohol consumption among young people. Key words Socialization Theory, socialization agents, alcohol consumption, and youth. Paper Type Research paper

INTRODUCTION Determining the factors that influence consumers, their attitudes, consumption and buying patterns is, undoubtedly, the cornerstone of any marketing strategy. The specific environment, where this strategy is developed, is complex and dynamic. For that reason, it is not only important to understand consumer behavior but also to study how individuals learn and adapt future behaviours. This matter takes importance when analyzing risky behaviors among youth, like alcohol, tobacco and drug consumption, and also when studying potential risky sexual patterns. In these cases, it is especially important to understand how these patterns are formed. This understanding is crucial to provide important insights that can be used to minimize the likelihood of future problems. This paper focuses on alcohol consumption among young people. According to the World Health Organization (WHO, 2010) harmful alcohol consumption causes an estimated 2.5 million deaths every year. Notably, a large proportion is young people. The WHO states that young individuals are exposed to different kinds of alcohol marketing that trigger them to initiate alcohol consumption and to adopt risky drinking patterns. In the House Survey about Alcohol and other Drugs (EDADES, 2010), developed by the Spanish Ministry of Public Health, Social Policy and Equality, a survey containing one of the highest samples in Europe, alcohol is the most consumed proactive substance: 63.3% of the Spanish population between 15 and 64 years declared they have consumed alcohol in the last 30 days, and 11% report drinking alcohol daily. According to this survey, abusive consumption has increased in recent years, but especially in young people between 15 and 35 years. As the Spanish Ministry of Public Health and Consumption noted in 2007 (MSC 2007a, MSC 2007b), alcohol consumption has risen among underage people, consumption onset starts at younger ages, and also binge drinking is becoming a more usual behavior among underage people.

Three facts encourage this negative situation: alcohol consumption is nowadays perceived as a non-risky behavior among youth, being considered by most of them as a potential source of pleasure (Szmigin, Griffing, Mistral, Bengry-Howell, Weale & Hackley, 2008), underage people have easy access to alcoholic beverages, and young people have a huge developed stimulus for alcohol (for example, because of advertising). The harmful consequences of drinking alcohol are beyond a doubt. In the face of these facts, it is necessary to understand the determinants of the current behaviour from the point of view of the youth in order to promote the desired ones and benefit them.

Socialization Theory is a useful tool for understanding some of the factors which can influence knowledge, attitudes and behaviors of children and youth. Socialization Theory provides a useful framework to conceptualize the collective processes by which young people acquire consumption styles, skills, knowledge and orientations which are relevant for their performance as consumers in the marketplace (Moschis, 1987; Moschis & Churchill, 1978). Even though the socialization process has been traditionally centered on children, this concept is somewhat wider, since it includes every process by which individuals acquire new patterns and social roles throughout all their lives (Brim, 1966).

Following the model of Consumer Socialization developed by Moschis & Churchill (1978), the variables related to the structure and the social development (antecedent variables) effect the individual. These variables determine the consumer learning process (Shim, 1996). The main agents that influence and ultimately determine the consumer behavior of an individual are: parents, peers and mass media (Moschis, 1987). Logically, the effect of such agents will be different depending on the stage of the individual life cycle (John, 1999) and it will be different for different individuals.

Since the initial formulation of the first Consumer Socialization model, there have been many studies (for example see Gavish, Shoham and Ruvio, 2010; Goodrich and Mangleburg, 2010; Dix, Phau and Pougnet, 2010). Hence, the objective of the present manuscript is to study the influence the main socialization agents, namely parents, peers and media, have on alcohol consumption intentions among young and adolescents, identifying a potential different influence depending on age (underage versus overage individuals). Advertising will be used as a proxy for media content in the current study.

The interest of studying this phenomenon is twofold. On the one hand, consumption of the product under scrutiny, that is alcohol, is increasing and this has dramatic physical, psychological as well as social consequences (Griffing, Bengry-Howell, Hackley, Mistral & Szmigin, 2009). On the other hand, there is a dramatic change in the role that youth play in familiar and commercial issues (Dotson & Hyatt, 2000; 2005); single-parent families, and families where both parents work, are more and more common, despite having important consequences on young individuals. Children may take more responsibility for family decisions (Bakir, Rose & Shoham, 2006), becoming at younger ages active and independent deciders; moreover, they are spending more time exposed to media and interacting with peers, and less time talking and interacting with parents than in our recent past.

In the face of this situation, it is crucial to understand which factors influence the alcohol consumption intention of young people, with the ultimate goal of implementing actions towards reducing such consumption among this sector of the population.

LITERATURE REVIEW Marketing is not the only field of research interested in studying factors that determine alcohol consumption among young people. It is also possible to find relevant literature in other fields, such as medicine, economic theory, psychology or sociology. This review is restricted to the psycho-social perspective. There are three main key agents that are identified in almost every socialization conceptualization, namely: parents, peers and mass media (Moore et al., 2002). From this perspective, the social development of an individual, from a psychological, emotional and moral point of view, is modeled by their interactions and exchanges with other agents, and reinforced by their own personality and identity (Hurrelman, 1988).

Parental influence Many studies, carried out in the seventies and eighties, highlighted that parents exert the main influence on children until they become adolescents. At this stage, peers then exert the greatest influence (Moschis & Moore, 1980). Parents are the primary socialization agents who try to pass on their children and adolescents rational and socially desirable behaviors (Moschis & Churchill, 1978; Moore & Moschis, 1983). Parents have basically two ways of influencing behavior: either directly, by means of specific and explicit guidelines related to their consumption behavior; or indirectly, by means of youth observation of the behaviors of their parents, taking them as models (McNeal, 1987). The direct influence implicitly assumes that parents have some intention, opposed to the indirect influence which is primarily undertook by the youth by observing or mimicking his or her parents behaviors (McNeal, 1987; Neeley, 2005).

Although the influence of parents in childhood and adolescence is evident, it has been shown that parental commitment towards their childrens socialization process, and the kind of 5

influence they exert, may depend on the age of the child (Bank & Gupta, 1980; Neeley, 2005), on the sex (Neeley, 2005; Moore & Smith, 1983), on the social class (Ward & Walkman, 1973), and on the parental orientation (more restrictive or permissive) (Carlson & Grossbart, 1988; Carlson, Laczniak & Walsh, 2001), among many other aspects. These nuances together with changes in family structure (more single-parent families, greater ethnic diversity and mixed-race families, both members working outside, fewer children per family, both members of the couple adding stepchildren to the new family, and so forth) make it necessary to continue to observe the effects of parents on their children as changes may have occurred.

Taking into consideration that young people model their parent behaviours (McNeal, 1987), parental alcohol consumption will increase the alcohol consumption intention of young people. Moreover, the presence of those products in the household can be a peripheral cue that favors individuals ad awareness as well as brand recall: as literature suggests, brand usage will lead to increased accessibility to cognitions of the brands used (Fitzsimons & Morwitz, 1996), and each usage occasion will act as a retrieval cue of previous product related cognitions (Alba, Hutchinson & Lynch, 1991). Summing up these ideas, the first three hypotheses follow: H1: There is a positive relationship between the parental frequency of alcohol consumption (perceived by the youth), and the alcohol consumption intention of the youth. H2: There is a positive relationship between the frequency of the parental alcohol consumption (perceived by the youth), and the alcohol advertising awareness of the youth. H3: There is a positive relationship between the parental frequency of alcohol consumption (perceived by the youth), and the brand recall of alcoholic beverages. 6

On the other hand, it has also been stated that the direct parental influence over youth behavior occurs through conversations and discussions between parents and their children (Moschis, 1985; McNeal, 1987). However, it has been found that, regarding sex education, the dialogue between parents and children is very limited (Pick and Palos, 1995) and the greater the consumer socialization influence on parents, the less adolescents know about sex (Moore, Raymond, Mittlestaedt & Tanner, 2002). It can be due to the fact that many parents think that discussing this matter with their children can push them into such behaviors (Fitzgerald & Fitzgerald, 1987). Moreover, it has been also shown that low quality interactions between parents and children are associated, from the childs point of view, with parental permissiveness (Taris, 2000).

Although alcohol is not the same as sex, some of the previous evidence could be extrapolated, especially due to the fact that many families consider both topics as taboo. Along this line, and despite the fact that there is not clear evidence on how and where expectancies of an specific behavior are generated (Christiansen et al., 1989; Fleming et al., 2004), there is enough evidence to support that the greater the parental approval of the youth consumption, the greater the positive expectancies the youth will have (Grube & Wallack, 1994). In accordance with this idea, it is possible to state that: H4: There is a relationship between the perception of parental approval on alcoholic consumption that the youth has, and the expectancies over his/her alcohol consumption: The higher the perception of the parental approval, (H4a) the higher the positive expectancies and (H4b) the lower the negative expectancies.

Peer influence While peer influence occurs from childhood to adolescence (Moschis & Churchill, 1978), peers are more influential in adolescence relegating parental influence to a secondary place (Moschis & Moore, 1980). During adolescence, teens begin spending more time with their peers than they do with their parents (Dotson & Hyatt, 2005). The peer group exerts a more irrational influence on the youth, derived from the need to be accepted by the group (Dotson & Hyatt, 1994; Moschis & Churchill, 1978). In this sense, it can be considered that the higher the frequency of alcohol consumption by peers, the higher the alcohol consumption intention of the individual, reflecting the indiviudals need to be accepted by the group. Subsequently, we posit the following hypothesis: H5: There is a positive relationship between the peer frequency of alcohol consumption perceived by the young individual, and the alcohol consumption intention of the young individual. When teens are dealing with products such as alcohol that are related to social acceptance, they trust friends and peers more than their parents (Moschis & Moore, 1979; Dekovic, Wissink & Meijer, 2004). Thereby, communication frequency between the teen and his/her peer group has both positive and negative consequences: it has a positive influence on motivation and behavior for socially conspicuous products (Moore & Moschis, 1978; Moschis & Churchill, 1978), it favors positive attitudes towards advertising (Moore & Mochis, 1978) and hence, it reduces the skepticism towards it (Manglebourg & Bristol, 1998), and it also increases brand awareness (Moschis & Moore, 1978).

The empirical evidence highlights that peer alcohol consumption, and the social legitimacy which they give to this consumption, has a clear influence on both the advertising and the expectancies the individual has about consuming alcohol (Grube & Wallack, 1994; Christiansen et al., 1989; Austin & Kanaus, 2000; Martino et al., 2006). Therefore, if young 8

individuals spend a substantial part of their free time with their peers and consume alcohol with the peer group, the presence of the brand will favor the advertising awareness of alcoholic beverages as well as the brand recall of those beverages. Similarly, the presence of alcohol beverages within the household will act as a peripheral cue for advertising awareness and brand recall. Hence, we pose the following hypotheses: H6: There is a positive relationship between the frequency of peer alcohol consumption perceived by the youth and his/her alcoholic beverages advertising awareness. H7: There is a positive relationship between the frequency of peer alcohol consumption perceived by the youth and the brand recall of alcoholic beverages. Empirical research has proved that peer group influences the consumption of alcohol in adolescents (Duarte, Escario, & Molina, 2011). If we also consider that the consumption of alcohol products can help teens to be accepted by the group, his/her alcoholic consumption intention will be affected by the expectancies that the individual perceives; therefore: H8: There is a relationship between the peer alcohol approval perceived by the youth, and his/her expectancies towards consuming alcohol: The higher the perception of the peer approval, (H8a) the higher the positive expectancies and (H8b) the lower the negative expectancies.

Advertising influence Mass media, considered as a socialization agent, has received much attention in Consumer Socialization Theory (e.g. Chandler & Heinzerling, 1999; John, 1999), especially for the risky consequences it has over behaviors and attitudes (e.g. Bush & Boller, 1991; Fox et al., 1998; Peracchio & Luna, 1998; Moore et al., 2002; Henriksen et al., 2008). Its study is relevant as its influence on young people is remains steady over time (Dotson & Hyatt, 2005), unlike parental and peer influence which diminishes and increases, respectively over time (Moschis & Churchill, 1978). 9

Advertising remains the most dominant form of media, and its influence on consumer behavior is unquestionable. It is possible to find recent evidence of the role the advertising exposure plays in the uptake of alcohol drinking (e.g. Collins et al., 2007; Henriksen et al., 2008; Smith & Foxcroft, 2009; Snyder et al., 2006); however, a study by Grube and Wallack (1994) provides some counter evidence. Grube and Wallack (1994) state that alcohol advertising has an effect on the knowledge, expectancies, consumption intention, and consequently on the alcohol consumption of young people, if it is attended and recalled. For that reason, the mere exposition is not enough to cause alcohol attitudinal or behavioral changes, as it has been shown by other researchers (e.g. Atkin, Hocking, & Block, 1984; Fleming, Thorson & Atkin, 2004; Jernigan, Ostroff, Ross & O'Hara, 2004; Miller, 2005).

Within the variables used to evaluate the effectiveness of an advertising campaign, it is possible to talk about advertising (ad) awareness, which is merely a measure of the recall of a particular ad campaign (Macdonald & Sharp, 2003). That recall can come, at a basic level, from the capacity of the audience to recognize once having seen the ad, or at a higher level, from the recall of the ad execution, product category, message or brand appearing in the ad. The relationship between the ad and the brand advertised is nowadays very important if we value the increasing role that brands play in the youths daily lives (Dotson & Hyatt, 2005).

Following the previous statement we propose this hypothesis taking into consideration Grube and Wallacks (1994) research as it is one of the most relevant to the research at hand: H9: There is a positive relationship between the advertising awareness of alcoholic beverages and the brand recall of alcoholic beverages.

10

Analyzing alcoholic beverage advertising, especially mass media, we can possibly identify that most advertising uses imagery to promote the brand with messages implying that social acceptance is achieved by means of consuming alcohol. Further alcohol advertising clearly links alcohol to several successful roles, values and traits (sexual success, sex appeal, romance, adventure, rebelliousness, elegance, sociability) that adolescents admire. By building these associations alcohol marketers increase the positive expectancies and reduce the negative expectancies of alcohol consumption. Research has proved that as children move into adolescence, they develop an appreciation of the symbolism and imagery in commercials (Aitken et al., 1988; Aitken, Leathar, & O'Hagan 1985), and both, children and adolescents, tend to believe that media depicts the real world (Gerbner et al., 1994). Thus, television and other media do not only provide information, but also shape attitudes (Strasburger, 2004). Based on this we propose the following hypothesis: H10: There is a relationship between alcoholic beverage brand recall and the expectancies towards alcohol consumption: The higher the brand recall, (H10a) the higher the positive expectancies and (H10b) the lower the negative expectancies. Hence, it can be said that advertising alcohol transmits the social value of drinking (Henrinksen et al., 2008) to youth. Further as outlined by Grube and Wallack (1994) we consider that the positive expectancies towards alcohol consumption will have an influence, both direct and positive, over the final alcohol consumption intention. For this reason, we propose the following hypothesis: H11: There is a relationship between the expectancies towards alcohol consumption and the alcohol consumption intention of the youth: The higher the positive expectancies, (H11a) the higher the consumption intention, and (H11b) the higher the negative expectancies, the lower the consumption intention. Although brand recall may not be necessary for purchasing, practitioners and consumer researchers have always been interested in indicators of memorability, since brand recall may 11

play an important role in determining whether a product enters the consideration set (Nedungadi & Hutchinson, 1985). In the context of alcohol and youth it has been proved that younger people who are more aware of alcohol advertising have greater intention to drink (Grube, 1999). This statement is the main support for the last hypothesis: H12: There is a direct and positive relationship between alcoholic beverage brand recall and the alcohol consumption intention of the youth. Figure 1 summarizes the stated hypotheses. Additionally, differences will be considered for underage and overage individuals, since it has been mentioned in the literature review that socialization agents can have a different influence depending on the age of the individual.
FIGURE 1

Theoretical model
H1(+)

Parental consumption H3(+) H2(+)

Parental approval H4b(-)

H4a(+)

Positive expectancies F3

H11a(+)

H10a(+) Ad awareness F1 H9(+) Brand recall F2 H12(+)

Consumption intention Actual consumption

H10b(-) H6(+) H7(+) Peer consumption H8a(+) Peer approval Negative expectancies F4 H11b(-) H8b(-)

H5(+)

12

METHODOLOGY A self-administered questionnaire was used in this study on a sample of Spanish residents, with ages ranging from 15 and 25 years old. The respondent selection method was a nonrandom quota sampling. The relevant control variables which defined the quotas were: sex and age. Hence, the selected sample did not statistically differ from the Spanish population proportions in terms of age and sex. The implementation was undertaken in one private highschool, one public high-school and one public University (Alicante, Spain) in the months of May and June. A total of 667 completed questionnaires were obtained, resulting in a total of 304 underage individuals (high school students) and 363 overage (university students) individuals.

To implement the questionnaires, the subjects under study were gathered in a room. No specific information related to the purpose of the study was provided to the individuals. However, general instructions to complete the questionnaire were provided. This study followed the procedure outlines in Grube and Wallacks (1994). Survey respondents were asked to remember and write down the brand names of alcoholic beverages. Next,

respondents were shown a set of images, which were representative of each mainstream alcoholic beverage ad or brand (without showing either the specific product, brand or the logo). The subjects had about ten seconds to recognize if they had seen the ad, and if the answer was positive, to write the product, brand and slogan. This process was repeated with four different alcoholic beverage ads. The next block of items was evaluated with a five point Likert scale, used in Austin et al. study (2006), to measure both the positive and the negative expectancies towards alcohol consumption. Consumption intention (for underage individuals) and real consumption (for overage individuals) was measured for both beer and for liquor using two five point Likert scale items, based on Fleming et al. (2004) and Grube and Wallacks (1994). The final consumption intention/real consumption indicator was a two13

item five point Likert scale, where no distinction was made between beer and liquor, and the average was obtained, for each beverage and for each item. Parental and peer approval were also measured by means of five point Likert scale in accordance with Grube and Wallacks (1994) procedure. Following the procedure used by these authors, the perceived alcohol consumption frequency was ultimately used to measure parental and peer alcohol consumption, and this was also based on a five point Likert scale. The last part of the instrument included several classification variables such as age or sex.

RESULTS This section is organized as follows. Firstly, the validation of the measurement instrument is presented, where the main psychometric features are tested by means of a Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Secondly, the initial stated hypotheses are tested in Structural Equations. Validation of the measurement instrument Several steps were followed to assess the reliability and the validity of the measurement instrument. Firstly and for each subsample (underage and overage individual), the maximumlikelihood estimation was estimated through Confirmatory Factor Analysis for five factors. Those items with factorial loadings lower than 0.6 (Bagozzi & Baumgartner, 1994; Bagozzi & Yi, 1988), or those items suggested by the Lagrange multiplier test (Hatcher, 1994), were deleted in order to assure the convergent validity of the instrument.

The resulting model is depicted in tables 1a and 1b. The chi-squared figure is statistically significant in both cases (2 = 371.76; df =160; p<0.01 for underage individuals and 2 = 493.29; df =160; p<0.01 for overage individuals). However, literature has shown that when the sample size is big, the test tends to reject models that present a fair adjustment, hence, this indicator is considered to be reliable in this case (James, Mulaik and Brett, 1982). Almost all the factorial loads are statistically significant and greater than 0.6 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988), 14

which confirms the convergent validity of the instrument for both underage and overage individuals.
TABLE 1a. Measurement instrument: reliability and convergent validity (under aged individuals)
Latent variable Indicator ADV3 F1. Ad awareness ADV4 ADV5 F2. Brand recall BRA1 BRA2 POS7 POS8 F3. Positive Expectancies POS9 POS10 POS12 POS13 NEG16 NEG17 NEG18 F4. Negative Expectancies NEG19 NEG20 NEG21 NEG22 F5. Consumption Intention CON25 CON28 Stand. load 0.79 0.99 0.79 0.52 0.73 0.79 0.72 0.67 0.67 0.61 0.74 0.64 0.66 0.77 0.69 0.63 0.69 0.61 0.94 0.60 6.81 9.60 10.83 9.96 9.20 9.95 8.97 0.715 0.619 0.756 0.849 0.451 0.851 12.43 11.48 11.61 10.36 12.84 0.850 0.490 0.851 5.24 17.62 15.67 0.505 0.400 0.564 0.888 0.741 0.895 t-value Cronbach Alfa Compound Reliability Index Average Extracted Variance

Chi-squared= 371.76 ( 160 dof; p<0.01); BBNFI=0.859; BBNNFI=0.897; CFI=0.914 ;AGFI= 0.861; SRMR=0.058 ; RMSEA= 0.066 Source: Own elaboration

15

TABLE 1b. Measurement instrument: reliability and convergent validity (over aged individuals)
Latent variable Indicator ADV3 F1. Ad awareness ADV4 ADV5 F2. Brand recall BRA1 BRA2 POS7 POS8 POS9 F3. Positive Expectancies POS10 POS11 POS12 POS13 NEG16 NEG17 F4. Negative Expectancies NEG18 NEG21 NEG22 CON23 F5. Actual consumption CON24 CON26 Stand. load 0.93 0.99 0.83 0.54 0.58 0.83 0.57 0.62 0.84 0.88 0.90 0.80 0.84 0.89 0.71 0.65 0.72 0.82 0.89 0.50 12.39 9.25 0.566 0.574 0.902 20.27 14.90 13.17 15.09 0.878 0.586 0.875 11.45 12.65 19.28 20.73 21.78 18.14 0.919 0.576 0.916 28.38 4.89 0.525 0.310 0.473 t-value 47.09 0.942 0.842 0.941 Cronbach Alfa Compound Reliability Index Average Extracted Variance

Chi-squared= 493.29 ( 160 dof; p<0.01); BBNFI=0.896; BBNNFI=0.914; CFI= 0.927 ;AGFI=0.829; SRMR=0.063; RMSEA=0.076 Source: Own elaboration

As far as the reliability is concerned, almost all the Cronbach Alphas (Cronbach, 1951) are greater than the 0.7 recommended (Churchill, 1979). Given that this coefficient assumes that items are measured without any error, which is not plausible, it tends to underestimate reliability (Bollen, 1989). For that reason, tables 1a and 1b also present the Compound Reliability Index (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), which shows values greater than 0.7 for almost every factor under study. The last column of tables 1a and 1b shows the Average Extracted Variance, which reflects the variance captured by a factor with respect to the variance derived from de measurement error (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). This indicator, quite more demanding, shows that three out of the five factors are closer to the lower limit 0.5, recommended by

16

Fornell and Larcker (1981). Considering all these indicators, it is possible to state that the instruments present acceptable levels of reliability. Note that in both subsamples, brand recall is the construct that has lower levels for Cronbach Alpha, Compound reliability index and Average extracted variance (lower than the accepted level); this can be mainly due to the few number of items that form the scale (just two).

The discriminant validity was next considered following two procedures: (a) on the one hand, by confirming that the confidence interval of the correlation between each pair of factors was not unitary (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988); and (b) on the other hand, by showing that the extracted variance for each factor was not greater than the squared of the correlation between each pair of factors (Fornell & Larker, 1981). Tables 2a and 2b show the indicators for both criteria, and according to the data, the five factors exhibit discriminant validity.
TABLE 2a. Measurement Instrument: Discriminant Validity (underage individuals)
F1 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 1.177 [0.29; 0.51] [-0.17; 0.09] [-0.25; -0.05] [-0.13; 0.16] F2 0.401* 0.271 [0.10; 0.27] [-0.52; -0.35] [0.24; 0.45] F3 -0.044ns 0.185* 0.902 [-0.43; -0.22] [0.36; 0.67] F4 -0.147* -0.433* -0.325* 0.518 [-0.46; -0.24] F5 0.014ns 0.341* 0.514* -0.349* 1.119

**p<0.01; *p<0.05; ns no-significant On the diagonal: extracted variance of the factors Over the diagonal: correlation between estimated factors Below the diagonal: confidence interval for correlations between factors

17

TABLE 2b. Measurement Instrument: Discriminant Validity (overage individuals) F1 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 2.082 [0.20; 0.44] [-0.27; 0.11] [-0.22; 0.18] [-0.12; 0.13] F2 0.320* 0.246 [0.34; 0.14] [-0.45; -0.23] [0.20; 0.33] F3 -0.084ns 0.244* 1.459 [0.33; 0.76] [-0.15; 0.06] F4 -0.018ns -0.341* 0.544* 1.611 [-0.06; -0.30] F5 0.003ns 0.268* -0.048ns -0.180* 0.555

**p<0.01; *p<0.05; ns no-significant On the diagonal: extracted variance of the factors Over the diagonal: correlation between estimated factors Below the diagonal: confidence interval for correlations between factors

Hypotheses testing Once the main psychometric features of the measurement instrument had been assured, the next step was to estimate the Structural model depicted at figure 1 (page 12), which summarizes all the proposed hypotheses for both sub-samples. After identifying the model, it was estimated using the maximum likelihood procedure using EQS 6.1.

The results of the model estimation are presented in table 3, and show a reasonable adjustment level.

18

TABLE 3. Hypotheses testing (revised models) Under age sample (a) Hypotheses H1: Parental consumption --> Consumption intention (F5) H2: Parental consumption --> Ad awareness (F1) H3: Parental consumption --> Brand recall (F2) H4a: Parental approval --> Positive expectancies (F3) H4b: Parental approval --> Negative expectancies (F4) H5: Peer consumption --> Consumption intention (F5) H6: Peer consumption --> Ad awareness (F1) H7: Peer consumption --> Brand recall (F2) H8a: Peer approval --> Positive expectancies (F3) H8b: Peer approval --> Negative expectancies (F4) H9: Ad awareness --> Brand recall (F2) H10a: Brand recall --> Positive Expectancies (F3) H10b: Brand recall --> Negative Expectancies (F4) H11a: Positive Expectancies --> Consumption intention (F5) H11b: Negative Expectancies --> Consumption intention (F5) H12: Brand recall --> Consumption intention (F5) Stand. load --0.047 --0.078 -0.260 0.374 -0.007 0.433 0.300 -0.190 0.369 0.176 -0.393 0.358 -0.131 --t-value --0.81ns --1.33ns -4.33* 7.36* -0.11ns 4.91* 4.97* -3.25* 4.37* 2.35* -4.34* 6.23* -2.33* --Over age sample (b) Stand. t-value load ---------------0.168 0.237 ---0.065 0.034 -0.056 0.048 0.64 -0.84 0.297 -0.611 0.69 ---2.09* 3.87* ---1.02ns 0.76ns -1.79** 0.86ns 3.98* -4.35* 1.68** -3.67* 3.86*

(a) Adjustment under age model: Chi-squared: 636.05 (243 dof. p<0.01); BBNFI:0.791; BBNNFI:0.839; CFI:0.858; AGFI:0.818; SRMR:0.097; RMSEA:0.073 (b) Adjustment over age model: Chi-squared:656.35 (222 dof. p<0.01);BBNFI:0.866; BBNNFI:0.894;CFI:0.907; AGFI:0.819; SRMR:0.072; RMSEA:0.074 ** p<0.1; *p<0.05; ns non-significant --- = non-included at the revised model

According to data the influence of the different socialization agents analyzed over alcohol consumption, differs according to age.

19

Parental influence has very limited impact: no influence has been identified between parental consumption and ad awareness, brand recall or consumption intention/real consumption, neither in underage individuals nor in overage. Hence, hypotheses H1, H2 and H3 are rejected. However, parental approval influences expectancies towards alcohol consumption in both subsamples, but only the negative ones (H4b) and the influence is higher in younger individuals (underage=-0.260; p<0.05 / overage=-0.168; p<0.05): the higher the perceived parental approval by the individual, the lower the negative expectancies towards alcohol consumption. Hypothesis 4 is then partially accepted, as no relationship resulted for positive expectancies (H4a).

On the contrary, peer influence is more visible: perceived peer consumption favors alcohol consumption, as hypothesis H5 stated, especially in the underage sample (underage=0.374; p<0.05 / overage=0.237; p<0.05). No significant relationship has been identified between peer consumption and alcohol beverages ad awareness (H6); however, perceived peer consumption in the underage group also influences positively brand recall (H7, underage=0.433; p<0.05). In terms of peer approval, its influence on expectancies, both positive (H8a) and negative (H8b), is significant in the 15 and 17 year age group (higher influence for positive - underage=0.3000; p<0.05 - than for negative expectancies - underage=-0.190; p<0.05); however, for older individuals peer approval has only a very weak influence over negative expectancies (overage=-0.056; p<0.01).

Advertising also influences and the influence of advertising differs by age group. In fact, ad awareness has a positive influence on brand recall only for younger individuals (H9, underage=0.369; p<0.05) (not for older ones). Moreover, the higher the brand recall, the higher the positive expectancies (H10a, underage=0.176; p<0.05 / overage=0.640; p<0.05) and the

20

lower the negative ones (H10b, underage=-0.393; p<0.05 / (overage=-0.840; p<0.05) for both subsamples, but with a level of influence much higher for individuals between 18 and 25 years old.

Expectancies influence alcohol consumption intentions and self reported alcohol consumption as proposed (H11) for the whole sample (15-25 years old), but the positive relationship between positive expectancies and consumption intention is higher for underage individual (underage=0.358; p<0.05 / overage=0.297; p<0.01), and the negative influence of negative expectancies on consumption is higher for overage individuals (underage=-0.131; p<0.05 / overage=-0.611; p<0.05). Finally, hypothesis H12 is accepted: brand recall only influences older individuals alcohol consumption, thus, having a significant influence (overage=0.690; p<0.05).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Given the results obtained in the previous section, Consumer Socialization Theory can undoubtedly help researchers to understand the formation process of a risky behavior (in this case alcohol) among youth. Therefore, marketing, and concretely social marketing researchers should consider consumer socialization theory.

Nowadays alcohol is seen as a normal part of everyday life, and today alcohol products are much more salient. In a social marketing context, the purpose is not to avoid alcohol drinking at all, but to ensure responsible rather than excessive drinking to reduce the risks associated with drinking alcohol. In order to promote behavior change, it is necessary not only to focus on the actual behavior, but also, as Donovan (2011) points out, to identify what is influencing the specific behavior.

21

Three socialization agents, parents, peers and advertising (a proxy for media), were considered in the present study. Parents, peers and advertising exert influence on alcohol consumption intentions among young people, but their influence varies depending on age of the audience. For adults (in this study, individual between 18 and 25 year old), alcohol consumption is directly and highly determined by brand recall and negative expectancies, and to a lesser extent, by positive expectancies and by peer consumption. It is important to note that brand recall has an important influence on both positive and negative expectancies about alcohol consumption. Perceived parental and peer approval influences alcohol consumption intentions indirectly through negative expectancies.

For younger individuals (15 to 17 year olds), who have not yet reached legal drinking age, the influence differs. The main protagonists in influencing alcohol consumption intention in the underage group are peers (directly with their consumption, and indirectly through their influence on expectancies -mainly positive expectancies) and perceived alcohol expectancies. However, alcohol advertising also plays an important role for this group: the higher the advertising awareness and the higher the brand recall, the higher the youths expectancies. Negative expectancies are also influenced negatively by perceived parental approval about drinking alcohol.

According to these results, several measures are proposed in order to reverse current alcohol drinking trends. Those measures are organized in line with Wymers model (2011), in which two kinds of causal factors of social problems are identified, in order to help social marketers in their tasks. On one hand it is important to remove environmental barriers, which are related to the natural and constructed settings in which the human activities of a community take place (Wymer, 2011, pp. 23). In this sense, two ideas have to be promoted. First of all, and in terms of privation barriers (i.e. variables required for a well-being situation - Wymer, 22

2011), a great parental involvement in youths alcohol consumption education activities is needed: it has been proved that perceived parental approval of alcohol consumption of the young person has a negative influence on the negative expectancies about alcohol consumption, which directly influences alcohol consumption. It is important for the child to know what parents explicitly think about alcohol consumption. Although parents in general have lower influence than peers, these peers would also have parents who can exert a positive influence in the same way. Secondly, and referred to as pathogenic agents (variables present in the environment which do not favor a not well-being situation - Wymer, 2011), law has to be implemented. It has been proved through this research that although underage individuals are not legally the target group of alcoholic beverages ads, they are aware of alcohol advertising, and those ads provide positive expectancies. Therefore, exposure to alcohol advertising, with a wider restriction on the media and contexts where alcohol ads can be displayed is warranted.

The second group of barriers proposed by Wymer (2011) are individual. To knock down the barrier of the ignorance (lack of knowledge about the harmful situation) and motivation parents and communication campaigns can play an important role. It is necessary for the individual to know the real consequences of alcohol misuse. Moreover, parents have to explain to younger individuals, as much as possible, what the goals of advertising are, and how it has to be interpreted, in order to reduce the positive expectancies transmitted by imagery of alcohol beverage advertisements. As a result, a better knowledge of the negative consequences of alcohol use will help individuals to make informed decisions about their own alcohol consumption.

23

The main limitations of the present research are based on data and scales used. It should be necessary to replicate the study in other places, in order to generalize results; moreover, some of the scales used to gather information require improvement, as they exhibit low reliability.

REFERENCES Aitken, P. P., Eadie, D. R., Leathar, D. S., McNeill, E. J., and Scott, A. C. (1988), Television advertisements for alcoholic drinks do reinforce under-age drinking, British Journal of Addiction, Vol. 83, pp. 1399-1419. Aitken, P. P., Leathar, D. S., and O'Hagan, F. J. (1985), Children's perceptions of advertising for cigarettes, Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 21, No. 7, pp. 785-797. Aitken, P.P., Leathar, D.S. and Scott, A.C. (1988), Ten- to sixteen-year-olds perceptions of advertisements for alcoholic drinks, Alcohol and Alcoholism, Vol. 23, No. 6, pp. 491-500. Alba, J., Hutchinson, J.W. and Lynch, J.G.Jr. (1991), Memory and Decision Making, in Handbook of Consumer Research, ed. Thomas S. Robertson and Harold H. Kassarjian, Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 1-49. Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103, No. 3, pp. 411-423. Armeli, S., Mohr, C., Todd, M. and Maltby, N. (2005), Daily evaluation of anticipated outcomes from alcohol use among college students, Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 767-792. DOI: 10.1521/jscp.2005.24.6.767 Atkin. C.K., Hocking, J. and Block, M. (1984), Teenage drinking: does advertising make a difference?, Journal of Communication, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 157-167. DOI: 10.1111/j.14602466.1984.tb02167.x

24

Austin, E.W., Chen, M.J. and Grube, J.W. (2006), How does alcohol advertising influence underage drinking? The role of desirability, identification and skepticism, Journal of Adolescent Health, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 376-384. DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.08.017 Austin, E.W. and Kanaus, C. (2000), Predicting the potential for risky behavior among those too young to drink as the result of appealing advertising, Journal of Health Communication, Vol. 5, No.1, pp. 13-27. DOI: 10.1080/108107300126722 Bagozzi, R.P. and Baumgartner, H (1994), The evaluation of structural equation models and hypothesis testing, in Bagozzi. R. (Eds), Principles of Marketing Research, Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge MA, pp. 386-422. Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), On the evaluation of structural equation models, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 74-94. DOI: 10.1007/BF02723327 Bakir, A., Rose, G.M. and Shoham, A. (2006), "Family communication patterns: mothers' and fathers' communication style and children's perceived influence in family decision making", Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 75-95. Banks, S. and Gupta, R. (1980), Television as a dependent variable for a change, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 7, No. 3 (December), pp. 327-330. DOI:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489017 Bollen, K.A. (1989), Structural Equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Brim, O.G. Jr. (1966), Socialization through the life cycle, in Brim. O.G. & Wheeler. E. (eds.) Socialization after childhood: Two essay, John Wiley & Son, New York, pp. 1-49. Bush, A.J. and Boller, G.W. (1991), Rethinking the role of television advertising during health crises: A rhetorical analysis of the Federal AIDS campaign, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Winter), pp. 28-37. DOI: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4188785

25

Carlson, L. and Grossbart. S.L. (1988), Parental style and consumer socialization of children, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, No. 1 (June), pp. 77-94. DOI: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489174 Carlson, L., Laczniak, R.N. and Walsh, A. (2001) Socializing children about television: An intergenerational study, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 277-289. DOI: 10.1177/03079459994632 Chandler, T.M. and Heinzerling, B.M. (1999), Children and adolescent in the marketplace: twenty five years of academic research, in Ann Arbor. MI: The Pierian Press. Christiansen, B.A., Smith, G.T., Roehling, P.V. and Goldman, M.S. (1989), Using alcohol expectancies to predict adolescent drinking behavior after one year, Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 93-99. Churchill, G.A. (1979), A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 64-73. DOI: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3150876 Collins, R.L., Ellickson, P.L., McCaffrey, D. and Hambarsoomians, K. (2007), Early adolescent exposure to alcohol advertising and its relationship to underage drinking, Journal of Adolescent Health, Vol. 40, No. 6, pp. 527-534. DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.01.002 Cronbach, L.J. (1951), Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests, Psychometrika, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 297-334. DOI: 10.1007/BF02310555 Dekovic, M., Wissink, I.B. and A.M. Meijer (2004): "The role of family and peer relations in adolescent antisocial behaviour: comparison of four ethnic groups", Journal of Adolescence, Vol. 27, pp. 497-514. Dix, S., Phau, I. and Pougnet, S. (2010), Bend it like Beckham: the influence of sports celebrities on young adults, Young Consumers, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 36-46. Donovan, R. (2011), Social marketings mythunderstandings, Journal of Social Marketing, vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 8-16. DOI 10.1108/20426761111104392 26

Dotson, M.J. and Hyatt, E.M. (1994), The Impact of changes in the household on the consumer socialization process, in Proceedings of the Southern Marketing Association, New Orleans, LA, November, pp. 156-60. Dotson, M.J. and Hyatt, E.M. (2000), A comparison of parents' and children's knowledge of brands and advertising slogans in the United States: implications for consumer socialization, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 219-230. DOI:

10.1080/135272600750036346 Dotson, M.J. and Hyatt, E.M. (2005), Major influence factors in childrens consumer socialization, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 35-42. Duarte, R., Escario, J.J. and Molina J.A. (2011), Peer effects, unobserved factors and risk behaviours in adolescents, Revista de Economa Aplicada, Vol. 19, No. 55, pp. 125-152. Dunn, M.E. and Yniguez, R.M. (1999), Experimental demonstration of the influence of alcohol advertising on the activation alcohol expectancies in memory among fourth- and fifthgrade children, Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 473-483. EDADES (2010), Encuesta Domiciliaria sobre Alcohol y otras Drogas, 2009-2010 EDADES 2009, Plan Nacional sobre Drogas, Ministerio de Salud, Poltica social e Igualdad. Available at: http://www.pnsd.mspsi.es/Categoria2/observa/estudios/home.htm (at 1st April 2011) Fitzgerald, M. and Fitzgerald, D. (1987), Parents involvement in sex education of their children, Volta Review, Vol. 89, No. 5, pp. 96-110. Fitzsimons, G.J. and Morwitz V.G. (1996), The effect of measuring intent on brand-level purchase behavior, The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 1-11. Fleming, K., Thorson, E. and Atkin, C.K. (2004), Alcohol adverting exposure and perceptions: Link with alcohol expectancies and intentions to drink or drinking in underage youth and young adults, Journal of Health Communication, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 3-29. DOI: 10.1080/10810730490271665 27

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), Evaluating structural equations models with unobservable variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1 (February), pp. 39-50. DOI: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3151312 Fox, R.J., Krugman, D.M., Fletcher, J.E. and Fischer, P.M. (1998), Adolescents' Attention to Beer and Cigarette Print Ads and Associated Product Warnings, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 57-68. DOI: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4189083 Gavish, Y., Shoham, A. and Ruvio, a. (2010), A qualitative study of mother-adolescent daughter-vicarious role model consumption interactions, The Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 43-56. Gerbner, G., Gross, L. and Morgan, M. (1994), Growing up with television: the cultivation perspective, in Bryant J. Zillmann D. (Ed.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, Hillsdale (NJ), Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 17-41. Goodrich, K. and Mangleburg, T. F. (2010), Adolescent perceptions of parent and peer influences on teen purchase: An application of social power theory, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63, No. 12, pp. 1328-1335. Griffing, C., Bengry-Howell, A., Hackley, C., Mistral, W. and Szmigin, I. (2009), 'Every Time I Do It I Absolutely Annihilate Myself': Loss of (Self-)Consciousness and Loss of Memory in Young People's Drinking Narratives, Sociology: The Journal of the British Sociological Association, Cambridge, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 457-476. Grube, J.W. (1999), Alcohol Advertising and Alcohol Consumption: A review and Recent Research. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism 10th Special Report to Congress on Alcohol and Health, Bethesda (MD): National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Grube, J.W. and Wallack, L. (1994), Television beer advertising and drinking knowledge, beliefs and intentions among schoolchildren, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 84, No. 2, pp. 254-259. 28

Hatcher, L. (1994), A Step by Step Approach to Using the SAS System for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling, Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. Henriksen, L., Feighery, E.C., Scheleicher, N.C. and Fortmann, S.P. (2008), Receptivity to Alcohol Marketing Predicts Initiation of Alcohol Use, Journal of Adolescent Health, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 28-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.07.005 Hurrelman, K. (1988), Social Structure and Personality Development: the individual as productive processor, New York: Cambridge University Press. James, L.R., Mulaik, S.A. and Brett, J.M. (1982), Causal Analysis, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Jernigan, D.H., Ostroff, J., Ross, C. and O'Hara J.A. (2004), Sex Differences in Adolescent Exposure to Alcohol Advertising in Magazines, Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Vol. 158, No. 7, pp. 629-634. John, D.R. (1999), Consumer socialization of children: a retrospective look at twenty-five years of research, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 26, No. 3 (December), pp. 183-213. DOI: 10.1086/209559 Krugman, H.E. (1965), The impact of television advertising: learning without involvement, The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 349-356. Macdonald, E. and Sharp, B. (2003), Management Perceptions of the Importance of Brand Awareness as an Indication of Advertising Effectiveness, Marketing Bulletin, Vol. 14, Article 2, Available at: http://marketing-

bulletin.massey.ac.nz/V14/MB_V14_A2_Macdonald.pdf (16th March 2011). Mangleburg, T.F. and Bristol, T. (1998), Socialization and adolescents skepticism toward advertising, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Autumn), pp. 11-21. DOI: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4189079 Martino, S.C., Collins, R.L., Ellickson, P.L., Schell, T.L. and McCaffrey, D. (2006), Socioenvironmental influences on adolescents alcohol outcome expectancies: a prospective

29

analysis, Addiction (Journal Compilation), Vol. 101, No. 7, pp. 971-983. DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01445.x McNeal, J.U. (1987), Children as consumers: insights and implications, Lexington, M.A.: Lexington Books. Miller, K. E. (2005), Adolescent Exposure to Magazine Alcohol Advertising, American Family Physician, Vol. 71, No. 9, pp. 17-29. Moore, R.L. and Moschis, G.P. (1978), Adolescents reaction to advertising, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 24-30. Moore, R.L. and Moschis, G.P. (1983), Role of mass media and the family in development of consumption norms, Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 80, No. 1, pp. 67-73. Moore, J.N., Raymond, M.A., Mittelstaedt, J.D. and Tanner, J.F. Jr. (2002), Age and consumer socialization agent influences on adolescents' sexual knowledge, attitudes and behavior: Implications for social marketing initiatives and public policy, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 37-52. DOI: 10.1509/jppm.21.1.37.17612 Moore, R.L. and Smith, R.B. (1983), The impact of family communication on adolescent consumer socialization, in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11, pp. 314-319. Ed. Thomas C. Kinnerar, Chicago: Association for Consumer Research. Moschis, G.P. (1985), The role of family communication in consumer socialization of children and adolescents, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11, No. 4 (March), pp. 898913. DOI: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489216 Moschis, G.P. (1987), Consumer socialization, Lexington. Massachusetts: Lexington Books. Moschis, G.P. and Churchill, G.A. Jr. (1978), Consumer socialization: a theoretical and empirical analysis, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 599-609. DOI: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3150629 Moschis, G.P. and Moore, R.L. (1978), An analysis of the acquisition of some consumer competences among adolescents, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 12, pp. 276-291. 30

Moschis, G.P. and Moore, R.L. (1979), Decision making among the young: a socialization perspective, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, No. 2 (September), pp. 101-112. DOI: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2488868 Moschis, G.P. and Moore, R.L. (1980), Purchasing behavior of adolescent consumers, Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, Vol. 45, pp. 89-92. MSC (2007a), Anteproyecto de Ley de medidas sanitarias para la proteccin de la salud y la prevencin del consumo de bebidas alcohlicas por menores, Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo, Available at (accessed

www.msc.es/novedades/docs/Anteproyecto_de_ley_de_medidas_sanitarias.pdf June 10th 2008)

MSC (2007b), Declaracin Los Jvenes y Alcohol. Conferencia Ministerial Europea de la OMS (Stockholm, February 2001), Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo, Available at: www.msc.es/ciudadanos/proteccionSalud/adolescencia/alcohol/declaEsto.htm (accessed June 10th 2008) Nedungadi, P. and Hitchinson, J.W. (1985), The prototypically of brands: relationships with brand awareness, preference and usage, in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 12, eds. Elizabeth C. Hirschman and Morris B. hoolbrook, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, pp. 498-503. Neely, S. (2005), Influences on consumer socialization, Young Consumers: Insight and Ideas for Responsible Marketers, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 63-69. DOI:

10.1108/17473610510701115 Peracchio, L.A. and Luna, D. (1998), The development of an advertising campaign to discourage smoking initiation among children and young, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Autumn), pp. 49-56. DOI: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4189082 Pick, S. and Palos, P.A. (1995), "Impact of the Family on the Sex Lives of Adolescents," Adolescence, Vol. 30 (Fall), pp. 667-75. 31

Ray, M.L. (1973), Marketing communications and the hierarchy of effects, in Clarke. P. (Ed.) New models for mass communication, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Ray, M.L. (1982), Advertising and communication management, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Shim, S. (1996), Adolescent consumer decision-making styles: the consumer socialization perspective, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp. 547-569. DOI:

10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199609) Smith, G.T., Goldman, M.S., Greenbaum, P.E. and Christiansen, B.A. (1995), Expectancy for facilitation from drinking: The divergent paths of high-expectancy and low-expectancy adolescents, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 104, No. 1, pp. 32-40. Smith, L.A. and Foxcroft, D.R. (2009), The Effect of Alcohol Advertising, Marketing and Portrayal on Drinking Behaviour in Young People: Systematic review of Prospective Cohort Studies, BMC Public Health, Vol. 9, No. 51. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-9-51 Snyder, L.B., Milici, F.F., Slater, M., Sun, H. and Strizhakova, Y (2006), Effects of Alcohol Advertising Exposure on Drinking Among Youth, Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, Vol. 160, No. X (January), pp. 18-24. Strasburger, V.C. (2004), Children, Adolescent, and the Media, Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 54-113. DOI:

10.1016/j.cppeds.2003.08.001 Szmigin, I., Griffing, C., Mistral, W., Bengry-Howell, A., Weale L. and Hackley, C. (2008), Re-framing binge drinking as calculated hedonism: Empirical evidence from the UK, The International Journal of Drug Policy, Vol. 19, No. 5, pp. 359-366. Taris, T.W. (2000), Quality of mother-child interaction and the intergenerational transmission of sexual values: a panel study, Journal of Generic Psychology, Vol. 161, No. 2 (June), pp. 169-181. DOI: 10.1080/00221320009596704

32

Ward, S. and Walkman, D.B. (1973), Effects of television advertising on consumer socialization, Cambridge. MA: Marketing Science Institute, September. WHO (2010), Estrategia Mundial para reducir el uso nocivo del alcohol, Organizacin Mundial de la Salud World Health Organization, Available at:

http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/activities/msbalcstrategyes.pdf (1st April 2011) Williams, A and Clark, D. (1998), Alcohol consumption in university students: The role of reasons for drinking, copying strategies, Expectancies and personality traits, Addictive Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 371-378. DOI: 10.1016/S0306-4603(97)80066-4 Wymer, W. (2011), Developing more effective social marketing strategies, Journal of Social Marketing, Vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 17-31. DOI 10.1108/20426761111104400

33