1

Please quote this paper as: Páez, D., Basabe, N., Igartua, J. J. , Iraurqui, J. & Valdoseda, M. (1998) Social Representations of Drinking and Youth Behavi or: Comparing Surveys and Focus Group Data on Social Beliefs. En S.Moscovici, I.S. Markantonis, A.V. Rigas & N Vilias (Eds) Social Representations and Contemporay social Problems. Athens/Paris: D.Danias/Maison des Sciences de l`Hom me. LC .

SOCIAL REPRESENTATIONS OF DRINKING AND YOUTH BEHAVIOR: COMPARING SURVEYS AND FOCUS GROUP DATA ON SOCIAL BELIEFS

COMMUNICATION TO THE MEETING APPLICATION OF SOCIAL REPRESENTATIONS TO SOCIAL PROBLEMS UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS LABORATORY OF EXPERIMENTAL PEDAGOGY Athens, 9 - 10, October, 1995 Authors: Dario Paez, Nekane Basabe, Juan J. Igartua, Joseba Iraurgui, Maite Valdoseda Department of Social Psychology, University of the Basque Country, Spain Peter M. Bentler Department of Psychology University of California, Los Angeles

1

ABSTRACT The relevance of sociodemographic factors in alcoho l consumption

has been well established by researchers in this fi eld. In this study we intend to study alcohol consumption f rom the perspective of the theory of Social Representations . Controlling for social demographical variables, sha red beliefs and expectancies held about alcohol and its e ffects can be used to predict the way it is consumed. Data obtained from a study carried out amongst young peo ple confirm this hypothesis. The presence of socially s hared beliefs is verified through the structural modellin g of a survey and also using a qualitative technique (focu sed group discussions). Comparing results from surveys with group accounts we found that beliefs about positive a lcohol effects were shared and avaliable both in group acc ounts and in individual responses. Negative effects were shared "privately" but were not displayed in group discuss ions. Structural causal modelling with survey data show tha t only positive beliefs were related to the degree of drin king. The same ocurred when analysing group accounts. Hig her age group (higher level of drinking) shared more belief s (largest group's mean) in positive effect. Triangul ationn between individual responses (survey), content anal ysis of group accounts and agreggated data analysis (group as unit of analysis) confirmed that beliefs about positive effects circulated more or were not only avalaible "in the head", but were also accesible in social discourse. These accesible and more actively distributed positive be liefs were more related to behaviour than the negative on es. The triangulation between structural modelling, discuss ion group and previous questionnaire results, allows us to be sure of the social and explanatory character of the se beliefs - and to verify them as social representations. Our research has partially supported a preventive campa ign, showing the heuristic value of the social represent ations approach in order to cope with social problems.

KEY WORDS: Alcohol Youth Social Representations Beliefs

1

Excessive youth drinking during week - ends is perceived in Spain as a problem both by adults and by health aut horities. Probably, this concern may be due to the fact that this pattern is associated with an increase in car accidents - one of the most important causes of death in young people. But , we must also bear in mind that this excessive youth drinkin g is perceived as a problem because of its "deviance" fr om past cultural mediterranean rules - associated with regularly drinking wine in meals. Superficially, this new yout h pattern of drinking is a deviance from the traditional importa nce attached to sociability, controlled and regular drinking, or wine and alcohol acting as a "medium" and a "milieu" for soc ial interaction. For young people week - end drinking is partially supported by a socially shared knowledge that helps give this practice a satisfactory meaning. In other words, by social representations about alcohol and drinking. In this chapter we will examine some aspects of this young peoples ∩ social representations of drinking in order to help improv e preventive campaigns. Social representations of alcohol refers to the soc ial knowledge originated, used and shared in order to g uide social responses to a social object (which in this specifi c case would be alcohol). Moscovici (1988) defined "social repre sentation" as a cognitive product about a social object created b y, and used to communicate among, a group. For a social represe ntation to exist it must not be limited only to a series of be liefs or cognitive schema liberally extended through the soc ial ecology. A social representation refers to a series of scrip ts for interaction and the theories which are implicit in them, and are publicly acted out. These beliefs are not only tied to forms of strategic interaction but they also hold social fun ctions, such as defending the subjects'social identity, explaini ng socially relevant events, and justifying and guiding actions in their light. Apart from being socially shared, originated and used, and taking as objects only events of a certain soci al weight, these beliefs must be structured. These beliefs are based on ideologies and values and are also emotionally char ged (Doise & Palmonari, 1986; Doise, 1988; Di Giacomo, 1987; Ele jabarrieta, 1991; Farr, 1987; Ibáñez, 1988; Jodelet, 1991; Páez, 198 7; for a critical view Jahoda, 1988; Potter & Wetherell, 198 7). In other words, while researching the social representations of alcohol we will be interested i n how different social groups, defined by their proximity to the social object (alcohol consumption) have different beliefs about the effects of alcohol. There is evidence to corrob orate our view on this point - differences have been found between alcoholics and light drinkers as to what they belie ve the effects of alcohol are. Alcoholics and heavy drinke rs expected more globally - positive changes, more assertiveness and more intense physical and social pleasures when compared to lighter drinkers (Brown, Goldman & Christiansen, 1985). It h as also been found, proving the normative or prescriptive charac ter of

1

beliefs about alcohol, that the level of consumptio n considered to be normal varied according to the drinker's sex and age. The most negative opinions about consumption were held by the very young and by women (Franco, Gili, Giner, et al., 19 88). When studying social representations of alcohol it is important to mention the concept of "expectancies a bout the effects of alcohol". Brown, Goldman, Inn, et al. (1 980) define expectancies about alcohol as the beliefs that a su bject has with regard to the effects of this substance. There is a lin e of thought which has led to studies trying to discover the predictive value of expectancies or beliefs about a lcohol when compared to consumption levels (Cárdenas & Moreno - Jiménez, 1990; Christiansen & Goldman, 1983; Leigh, 1989; Rohsenow , 1983; Stacy, Widaman & Marlatt, 1990). The study of alcohol expectancies has been carried out mainly using field studies. Of the existing instrume nts the most popular is the AEQ (Alcohol Expectancy Questionnair e) developed by Brown, Goldman, Inn, et al. (1980). It is compos ed of 90 items and the various factorial analyses which has been applied to it have produced six belief dimensions, on the e ffects of alcohol: global positive changes; social and physic al pleasure; sexual enhancement; social assertion; tension reduc tion and arousal with feelings of power. Other authors have added two new factors which refer referring to negative expectanc ies: alcohol as an inducer of cognitive - motor deterioration and personal irresponsability (Rohsenow, 1983). Cárdenas & Moreno - Jiménez (1990) found that in Spain the dimensions were more of a global nature than those of Brown, Goldman, Inn, et al. (1980). The factors found were : a) alcohol as an agent of positive individual change (on cogni tive, behavioural, emotional and well - being levels); b) alcohol as an agent of negative individual change (cognitive and motor impairment, loss of control, irresponsability and a gressive behaviour); c) alcohol as a modifying factor in soc ial intercourse. The results of both longitudinal and cross - sectional studies (Brown, 1985; Christiansen & Goldman, 1983; Christiansen, Smith, Roehling, et al., 1989) have c onfirmed that beliefs about alcohol's effects are related to cons umption. In particular, positive effects are better predictors of future consumption than negative ones (Cárdenas & Moreno - Jiménez, 1990; Christiansen, Goldman & Inn, 1982; Leigh, 1989). Social Representations and Justification of Alcohol Consumption The use of structured and closed instruments (scale s, questionnaires) in psychological research has been acknowledged as limiting. Focus discussion groups and in - depth interviews, so long as the content analysis codes are validated, a llow a triangulation of empirical results, in other words, it allows us to compare questionnaire results with open and inte nsive research methods. The motivational and dynamic (pro cessual) elements of the phenomena are also better appreciat ed using qualitative methods (Schwartz & Jacobs, 1984; Taylo r & Bogdan,

1

1986). Research in social representations tries to correlate quantitative and qualitative views of group beliefs and attitudes. To summarize previous literature (Jodelet, 1991; Do ise & Palmonari, 1986; Di Giacomo, 1987) we will be able to talk abo ut social representations, and not just about expectan cies (individual beliefs) or collective representations (shared beliefs) or ideologies (dominant beliefs), if the be liefs have a structure, if they have emotional or affective reso nances, if they are associated to different social behaviours and groups, and if they are reproduced publicly in group situat ions as justifications of when, how and why we think or beh ave in (such a way in) response to a social object or event. If these conditions are fulfilled one can talk abou t social representations of alcohol. These beliefs would the n be useful in order to explain drinking patterns and to plan public h ealth, or specifically anti - alcohol, campaigns. Sex, Age, Social Integration, Previous Behavior and Alcohol Consumption Sociodemographic variables of sex and age have repe atedly showed their capacity to predict alcohol consumptio n. There is evidence to show that men drink more alcohol, and m ore often, than women. However, recently this difference has b egun to disappear (Alvira, 1986; Comas, 1985; Elzo, Gonzále z de Audikana, Ayestrán et al., 1990). With regard to ag e, it has been found that the youngest age group (15 - 17 years of age) has the largest percentage of non - drinkers and the lowest percentage of heavy drinkers (Elzo, González de Audikana, Ayest arán, et al. 1990). It is also noteworthy that the fundamental c hange in the consumption pattern of alcohol takes place from the age of 16 onwards (Ajanguiz, Apodaka, González, et al., 1988) . Turning to social integration, various studies have suggested a relationship between alcohol consumptio n by the young, and the socialization process (Hualde, 1990) . Supporting this, Seeman & Anderson (1983) found that being part of a soci al network correlated positively with higher alcohol c onsumption. Newcomb & Bentler (1988, 1989) show that alcohol co nsumption is positively related to social integration in teenage rs - in this research the scale of alcohol consumption has a cei ling effect, (because higher ranks are «to drink one or more tim e by day»). Finally, research on attitudes shows that previous practices is one of the strongest predictors of behaviours (Bent ler & Speckart, 1981). It is possible to speculate that p ositive beliefs about the effects of alcohol are rationaliz ations and justifications post hoc, a secondary phenomena with out explanatory power. We will examine the explanatory power of shared beliefs, confirming his structured and publi cly displayed features, and statistically controling the influenc e of sociodemographic factors. Study 1: Quantitative Research Method

1

Subjects and Procedur e Data was obtained from 430 youngsters as part of a bigger sample which was obtenied using a random selection procedure (proportional and stratified by age, sex and distri ct). The age ranged between 13 and 25 years and average age was 19 years and 11 months. The sex distribution was 49.9% men and 5 1.1% women. Sample error was estimated at 3.5% with a confidenc e level of 95.5%. Data was collected by means of a personal in terview held at home. Measures For this study we have used models from other longi tudinal studies already mentioned. Four are presented: 1) Sociodemographic variables (age, sex). Sex as a dichotomous variable (1=men;2=women). 2) Social integration and social support : a measurement of social integration - number of friends - («How many friends can you usually count on to go out with to have fun?») rang ed from 1 (from 0 to 2 friends) to 4 (9 or more friends); and a scale of social support (Vaux, Phillips, Holly, et al., 1986 ), composed of two dimensions: family relationships and peer re lationships, which had both 5 items and ranged from 1 (low suppo rt) to 4 (high support). 3) A scale of expectancies and beliefs about the effec ts of alcohol . A synthesis of the main items of the AEQ scale developed by Brown, Goldman, Inn, et al. (1980), th e Rohesnow scale (Rohsenow, 1983) and Christiansen & Goldman's AEQ- A scale (Christiansen & Goldman, 1983) has been used. The f inal scale was composed of 34 items (the answer format was, 1= «totally disagree» to 5=«totally agree»). A previous explora tory factor analysis was extracted nine factors (Basabe & Páez, 1992), in this study and for the confirmatory factor analysis were selected the four main dimensions, composed by 20 i tems. 4) Alcohol consumption variables . Habitual consumption (frequency of alcohol use during the last month, ra nging from 1=«never» to 3=«four or more times»), this is a mea sure used in the Basque Health Survey (Gobierno Vasco, 1987). Co nsumption of alcohol on weekends (refering to quantity or amount of alcohol drunk during the last weekend) (and measured by c.c . of alcohol). Three items from a scale about frequency and circumstances surrounding alcohol use (Franco, Gili , Giner, et al., 1988): habitual consumption with friends, at pa rties and at family gatherings. These items ranged from 1=«never drink» to 5=«always drink»; and finally a scale of drinking p roblems during the last year (Robbins, 1984), with four ite ms: discussions or fights with the family, peer and other peo ple and health problems, these items ranged from 1=«never» to 3=«some times». Analytical Procedure Direct effects of sex, age, social support and expect ancies

1

about the effects of alcohol on «social youth drink ing» and on «drinking problems» were analyzed using a structura l - equation modeling (SEM) procedure (e.g. Bentler, 1989; Bentl er & Bonett, 1980). The EQS program (Bentler, 1989) was used for all SE M procedures using the maximum likelihood (ML) estima tion. Three i ndexes of model fit from this program, the normed f it index (NFI), the nonnormed fit index (NNFI) and the compa rative fit index (CFI) were used to evaluate the fit of the mo dels. The chi - square test was used for the overall fit of the mo del. The Bentler -B onett normed fit index (NFI) takes the sample size int o account and acceptable values of the NFI should equ al at least 0.90 (Bentler & Bonett, 1980). Results Confirmatory Factor - Analysis Measurement Models Before the structural models of effects were examin ed, initial measurement models were estimated to evalua te the latent construct. A confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate the adequacy of factor structures of family support , peers' support, beliefs about alcohol, social youth drinki ng and drinking problems variables. We present the models corresponding to the latent variables, in accordance with the notes given out b y the EQS programme, the observed variables appear as «V» and the latent variables as «F», the notes «E» correspond to the m easurement errors and the residual variances of the observed v ariables. Neither model reached statistical nonsignificance, except the latent construct «drinking problems», but the f it indixes are higher than 0.90, in every case and for the dif ferent indixes of adjustment which have been used (see graphics 1, 2 , 3 for the confirmatory factor analysis of the measure ment models). Social support is composed of two dimensions, socia l support from family and integration into peer group. Goodness of fit indexes are 0.91 for NFI and 0.93 for CFI (see Graphic 1). Social youth drinking is characterized by alcohol u se at parties, with friends, habitual consumption, alcoho l use on weekends and use at family gatherings. The fit indexes ar e high, NFI=0.98 and CFI=0.98 (see Graphic 2). The drinking problems construct includes fights wit h other people and with peers, and with smaller factor load ings, health problems and fights with the family. The fit indexe s are NFI=0.98 and CFI=0.99 (see Graphic 3). INSERT GRAPHICS 1,2,3 Dimensions of Beliefs Held About Expected Effects o f Alcohol: Confirmatory Factor Analysis:"Beliefs About Expecte d Effects of Alcohol" INSERT TABLE 1 The confirmatory factor analysis is composed of the four main dimmensions extracted in a previous explorator y factor analysis (Basabe & Páez, 1992) (see Table 4 for the confir matory

1

factor analysis of the beliefs about alcohol). The first factor, termed belief in the individually disinhibiting effects of alcohol, refers to a serie s of effects such as: alcohol is a good antidote for shyness (V 21), it helps overcome bashfulness and inability to talk (V 27), it makes us happy and joyful (V 25), it helps to express feelings (V 11) and with alcohol is easier to chat with others (V 14). Other items have smaller factor loadings (see results for V 23, V 29, V 24, V 15 and V 17). The second factor (beliefs in positive psychologica l and interpersonal effects) is defined as the belief in the expected positive effects such as: becoming more optimistic (V 1), makes us feel good (V 6), people are more more amusing (V 2), feeling better or it's a pick - me- up (V 9), alcohol helps flirting (V 29) and it gives us more self - confidence (V 17). Other beliefs are less important (see results for V 23, V 4, V 14, V 32 and V 31), we should mention that negative beliefs have negative and small loadings. The third factor (negative effects at the cognitive level and predisposition towards social rule breaking) ha s as it basis the idea that alcohol has negative consequences, bo th at the cognitive - it is difficult to know what are you doing (V 12), cannot understand others (V 13) nor think clearly (V 10)- and social level - break rules (V 24), have fights (V 31) and disobey (V 15)- . The last item (V 21)- «alcohol is a good antidote to shyness» - has small loading. The fourth factor (alcohol produces aggression and feel ings of power) is defined as believing that alcohol indu ces aggressive behaviour: breaking rules (V 24), disobey (V 15), to mistrust and be suspicious of others (V 32), feel more powerful (V 4), to have a fight (V 31). Less important is the belief that people are not more amusing with alcohol (V 2). Finally, beliefs about disinhibiting effects and th e positive psychological and interpersonal effects ar e correlated. There is a covariation between positive beliefs (F 2, F 1). Structural Model Analyses A structural model analysis was carried out to veri fy the hypothesis as to which specific group of beliefs be st predicted future alcohol use and the impact of different form s of social integration and support - negative influence of family support and positive influence of peer support and integrati on on social youth drinking. The dependant variable was «social youth drinking» and predictive variables were those assoc iated with the extent of beliefs about alcohol, an index of so cial integration, social support and the sociodemographi c variables sex and age. The confirmatory structural model posits that socia l youth drinking is influenced by the following latent vari ables: positive and negative beliefs about effects of alco hol (expectancies), social support -f amily and peer - ; and observed variables: number of friends, age and sex. The general hypothesis states that the social youth

1

drinking increases the lower the family support is, and the hihger the support and integration into peer groups is. It also increases the higher the number of friends is. More over, consumption is higher the stronger the positive beli efs are, and the weaker the negative beliefs about alcohol are. Men show higher social youth drinking than women, and it als o increases as age increases. It is in this group of young peop le in which we may find higher social youth drinking. In a second general model drinking problems were in cluded. In other words, the latent dependent variable drink ing problems was introduced into the previous model. In this cas e, we posit that higher social youth drinking will positively i nfluence the higher number of problems related with alcohol cons umption. Also, less family integration (family support) will influence a higher amount of problems rel ated to social youth drinking. In order to know the impact of the variables posite d, we analyzed the different models, starting off with the most simple one and finally finishing with the most complete on e. In this way, we can check the direct effects of the indepen dent variables, and the percentage of explained and non - explained (or residual D 1) variance of the latent dependent variable «social youth drinking» when we include step by step each e xplanatory variable. INSERT GRAPHIC 4, 5, 6 We can see (Graphics 4, 5, 6) that from model numbe r 1 to model number 3 the explained variance of the latent variable «social youth drinking» increases. In model number 1 we only include variables such as age, sex and number of fr iends, in model number 2 we added family support and group of peers, and in model number 3 we also included the four dimensi ons of the positive and negative beliefs on alcohol (see the d ecrease of the residual D 1 for the three models). In model number 3 (see Graphic 6), the only signifi cant effect of the four dimensions of beliefs on alcohol on social consumption is related to variable «Beliefs 2» (t=6 .1 p<0.05), which includes positive personal and interpersonal expectations on the effects of alcohol. The remaining coefficien ts are not significant (the coefficients of «Beliefs 1» t=1.2, «Beliefs 3» t= - 0.5 and «Beliefs 4» t= - 1.5 are non significant, t < 2, p<0.05). The multivariate wald test also shows that these parameters may be eliminated, restricted to zero, a nd that this will not affect the model's fit. Reformulated Models By examining selected Langrage multiplier modificat ion indexes, in models 2 and 3, there is some covarianc es not included in the initially postulated models, these are covariances between predictor variables. The parame ters have been freed in order to improve the model's fit, and we have seen that this modification does not alter in any significant way the estimations of the remaining parameters of the mode l. The free parameters have been the following covariances:

1

(F 3,F 2)=(Family Support, Peers Support); (V 48,V 34)=(Nº of friends, Sex); (V 48,V 33)=(Nº of friends, Age); (F 3,V 48)=(Peers Support, Nº of friends); (F 5,V 34)=(Positive Beliefs, Sex); (F 2,F 5)=(Family Support, Positive Beliefs). INSERT GRAPHIC 7 We have also eliminated from the model those dimens ions of beliefs on alcohol which do not significant effects on social youth drinking. In model number 4 (reformulated, se e Graphic 7) we study the effects of the following variables, ag e, sex, number of friends, family support, peer and friend' s support, and positive beliefs on the effects of alcohol, we also studied the covariances of these explanatory variables. Mod el number 5 (see Graphic 8) is similar to number 4, but it inco rporates the construct «problems related to alcohol consumption or drinking problems». Model number 5 posits that the increase in social youth drinking may be explained by be a higher inte gration in the peer's group and a lower family integration, by a stronger presence of positive personal and interpersonal bel iefs on the effects of alcohol. Moreover, a higher presence of problems related to alcohol consumption (refering to family fights, fights with friends, with other people and health p roblems) increases as the social youth drinking increases, an d the family integration is lower. In the final structural model (see Graphic 8), we f ound that social youth drinking increased with the integr ation in the peer group and the number of friends to go out with to hav e fun, and with the decrease of family support, and with higher b eliefs about the positive psychological and interpersonal effects of alcohol. Social youth drinking is higher amongst me n than women and increases with age amongst young people. On the other hand, drinking problems increased with social youth drink ing and with less family support. Beliefs (expectations) about alcohol do not directl y influence the higher presence of problems, in fact beliefs will act indirectly stressing a higher social consumptio n, and this factor would influence problems (see Graphic 8). It has been noted that the best predictive variable is holding beliefs about positive effects of alcohol, both at the psychological (feel optimistic, good, amusing, high er self - esteem) and interpersonal levels (easier to chat wi th others, alcohol helps flirting). Only positive beli efs appear related to drinking, and beliefs about the negative effects (cognitive, social rules breaking, aggresion) do no t have a significant influence. Other variables that are rel iable predictors are: age (more important the older one ge ts), sex (higher amongst men than women) and social integrat ion (more important amongst those more integrated in peer gro ups and less in family). INSERT GRAPHIC 8

1

Discussion The analysis carried out on the AEQ version used in this study of the extent of beliefs shows a similar stru cturing to that found in other studies (Brown, 1985; Brown, Go ldman, Inn, et al., 1980; Rohsenow, 1983). In particular, simil ar results were found in the extent of beliefs in positive eff ects (generally speaking, heightened social experience a nd assertiveness, heightened sexual experience) and ex pected negative effects (arousal of aggressive behaviour, cognitive and motor impairment and social irresponsability). I t has been shown that the predominant youth drinkin g pattern is influenced by a series of beliefs in the beneficial effects of alcohol: positive psychological ones (fe el good, have fun), interpersonal ones (easier to speak to others , helps flirting). Causal modelling confirms that the belie f in a positive effect has a specific influence on drinkin g. Similarly, the fact that social integration into a peer group is a factor that positively influences social youth drinking is further proof of the socializing nature of this type of drinking a mongst the young. By contrast, integration in the family i s related to less social youth drinking. According to Dusenbury & Botvin (1992) peer influences to experiment with drugs bec omes more salient during adolescence and adolescents rely les s on their parents and more on their peers for validation and direction. Low parental support during adolescence is a factor which increases the risk of problematic behaviors, like s ubstance abuse (Schinke, Botvin & Orlandi, 1991). In this st udy we have demostrated that low family support is specifically associated with the increase of social youth drinking and with drinking problems. Study 2: Qualitative Research Method Subjects A total of 64 respondents, distributed in 8 discuss ion groups composed of 8 people (4 girls and 4 boys) of similar ages and in which there were both teetotallers and drink ers (Table 8). To form these groups different educational cent res (Comprehensive Colleges «Institutos», Technical Col leges «Centros de Formación Profesional», University) and youth groups were invited to collaborate. INSERT TABLE 2 Procedure The aim of this stage was to carry out a more in - depth study of young people's beliefs, activities, motiva tions and attitudes towards alcohol consumption and leisure t ime. To achieve this we prepared an open interview format w hich covered various aspects related to alcohol consumption amon g the young (eg. the role alcohol plays in their spare time, so cial

1

relations, why they drink, what happens when a memb er of the group does not drink, etc.). The discussions were l ed by two monitors trained in group dynamics. The conversatio ns were recorded on tape so that the contents could be late r transcribed. Group Interviews Analytical Procedure The 34 items of the AEQ version used in the questio nnaire were taken as the category codes when we analyzed t he subject content of the group interviews. The category «othe rs» was used for those ideas about alcohol which did not appear in the said questionnaire. Later the «others» category was anal yzed and broken down into new categories which contained ide as about alcohol not contained in the AEQ. In the end we obt ained a classification system composed of 60 keys. All in a ll 264 ideas were identified, the average per group was 33 and t he range per group was from 18 to 46. Average interjudge agreeme nt was 0.71 (Benett reliability coefficient). Later, as a way of validating the results of the quantitative study, the degree of coincidence betwe en the 34 AEQ items in the survey and their appearance in the gro up conversations was analyzed. Finally, a multidimensi onal scaling procedure was carried out, including 28 categories as variables (the ideas that referred to AEQ items were grouped into the 9 factors discovered in the previous exploratory fact or analysis of the quantitative study) and taking the group as the unit of analysis (ALSCAL sub - program of the SPSS - X). The initial matrix consisted of similarity scores between the ideas, c reated with the PROXIMITIES sub - programme of the SPSS - X. Results The following table (3) shows the frequency of the ideas grouped into the 9 AEQ factors and the ideas found in group discussion and not covered in the AEQ. INSERT TABLE 3 What unfolds is a complex theory about alcohol use. An implicit theory which takes the shape of a social repr esentation in as much as it is shared by a heavy - drinking group and therefore serves as a model or plan of action and g ives us a yardstick to measure this substance. This social re presentation has as its pillars the following facets: 1. - Starting and maintaining consumption . There are different reasons which lead to start drinking or, in other cases, make it a habit. While some reasons are related to trying to accept an adult identity, drinking to «look like a grown up», which appear as the motive for starting to drink, others such as «to be with my friends» and «not to feel out of place» are what seem to be at the root of habitual drinking. 2. - Intergroup comparison according to sex and age . The self - image that a young person holds (young people as a social grou p) is tied to a responsability model, the older you ar e the more responsible you are. Therefore the young people are more «over

1

the top» in their drinking whereas older people are more self - controlled, they know how to drink. Likewise a model of sex stereotyping with regard to drinking appears less frequently. It is assumed tha t girls have more self - control over their drinking as it affects them more than it affects boys. Boys will compete for leaders hip when it comes to drinking (see who lasts longer); however girls w ill not compete but rather look after each other when they feel ill. It is also more acceptable to see a boy drinking/drunk than a gir l. However it is now believed that sex differences are begin ning to disappear among young people when it comes to drink ing. 3. - Beliefs in the short and long term positive and neg ative effects of alcohol . Some short term positive effects of alcohol (feeling less inhibited and shy, cheerfulness, pick ups, etc.) appear very often, which ties in with what appeared in the survey. Short term negative effects, such as annoyi ng others when drunk, aggression, physical distress due to dr inking etc. are recognised but less expounded than positive eff ects. Finally, long term negative effects, such as believ ing that alcohol leads to serious health problems are less n oticeable in the groups than in the survey. We think that the subjects do not believe in them because there is no personal evidence to s upport them, something which does not happen with the shor t term positive (and negative) effects. 4. - The role of alcohol in intergroup relations . Alcohol is seen in the group as something which unites friends (pos itive socialization) and also as something which is impos ed on all members of the group (pressure to drink). Non - drinkers are not accepted in a drinkers' group, this means there is a lot of pressure put on that individual to drink. The non - drinker interiorises the belief that not drinking ostracize s him/her, that he/she is «weird» and therefore feels bad if n ot drinking alcohol. 5. - Alcohol as a producer of emotions and as a way of confronting emotions . There is the belief that alcohol is a source of positive emotions and is a way to forget about negative emotions in the short term, and also produ ces negative long term emotions (guilt, remorse). Whilst it is t rue that drinking leads to positive short term emotions (gaie ty etc.) and provides a way of confronting negative emotions (em barrassment etc.), it must also be noted that excessive drinkin g (which produces untypical behaviour) produces negative emo tions like guilt and remorse. 6. - Alcohol and free time . Group drinking shelters behind it the belief that it only happens at weekends, you «have a good time» and is not alcoholic, and done during our spare tim e. On the other hand, individual drinking is seen as negative . It is assumed that «drinking to forget» is typical of the solitary drinker, that he/she is trying to «drown» their pro blems in alcohol and so get rid of the tension that these pr oblem produce. 7. - Alcohol consumption as a social ritual . The most common form of drinking among young people is the «poteo». This Basque Country habit means having one drink in a bar and then movin g on

1

to other bars. This is perceived as being culturall y dominant, traditional and normal, there is also a strong cont rast between this habit and the stereotyped image of the alcohol ic as an outcast from society, dirty, abnormal and antisocia l. Young people clearly differentiate between their self - image and the alcoholic's. We think that this type of belief has the function of maintaining a positive self - image. Similarly, subjects also agreed with the idea that they used to drink more i n the past than now. 8. - Alcohol consumption as a skill you learn . Group discussions mentioned the idea of «controlled drinking». This c ontrol is gained quicker by drinking more, and more often. We noted the existence of an implicit theory of the «more practi ce, more control» type. This «prototheory» is probably based on the experience of learning other skills. However, in th e case of addictive substances like alcohol, this logic is co mpletely mistaken. Despite holding this conception they also mention alcohol's addictive powers - on the one hand they affirm it is easy not to drink if you do not start young, on the other hand they say that it is difficult to stop drinking once you have started. A Comparison of The Questionnaire and Group Discuss ion Results We carried out a comparison between the survey resu lts (percentage agreement with each item) and the discu ssion group's results (see Table 4). INSERT TABLE 4 We found that there was a high level (over 60%) of agreement in the survey, and among the groups (4 or more group s) with the notions of positive effects, such as alcoh ol makes us feel less shy or embarrassed, it helps overcome bas hfulness and inability to talk and in celebrating special occasi ons, and it makes us happy and joyful. Other positive effects a re mentioned by a minority in the survey and are very present am ong young people. These beliefs are: alcohol makes us feel go od, it is easier to speak to people under its effects, it hel ps pick - ups, it helps flirting, people are more amusing after drinkin g and it also helps one to forget problems. Finally, there a re a series of beliefs in positive effects which are mentioned by a mi nority both in the survey and in the groups: believing tha t alcohol makes people feel more optimistic, it generates hea t, it makes people feel more powerful, it acts as a medicine, i t makes you feel better, it is easier to express feelings after ingestion, it makes problems appear less important, it gives u s more self - confidence, it makes people romantic, sex is more f un, social encounters are more effusive with alcohol, a nd it is an aid for sleeping better. With regard to beliefs on negative effects, there i s a marked tendency: while they are often cited by a high prop ortion of people in the survey, they are almost non - existent in the discussion groups. This tendency can be observed in the following items: believing that alcohol increases m ale aggressiveness, that it is difficult to think straig ht under its

1

effects, knowing exactly what you are doing, unders tanding others. On the other hand it is easy to disobey, br eak rules, fall or trip, say stupid things, have a fight and i t also produces serious health problems. However, both in the survey and the groups, alcohol's depressor effect (feeling sad, lonely and isolated) was not mentioned too much, as was that it induc es mistrust and suspicion of others. Two researchers came to an agreed classification of the ideas as being neutral, positive (an expected positi ve effect of alcohol) and negative (an expected negative effect of alcohol). Comparing the proportion of ideas that had to do wi th positive effects (average=0.52) with the proportion referrin g to negative ones (average=0.18), significant differences in fav our of the former were found (t(7)= - 5.50, p<0.01). There were also more positive than neutral ideas (average= 0.29; t(7)=3. 31, p<0.05) and more neutral than negative ones (t(7)= - 2.58, p<0.05) - all the t - tests are two - tailed). In wiew of these results, the social representation that the studied subjects hol d of alcohol is very much of a positive nature. Multidimensional Scaling Analysis and Associations among Alcohol Beliefs A multidimensional scaling was carried out. The obt ained cognitive map was satisfactory because the two dime nsions extracted by using ALSCAL explained 99% of the vari ation in proximity - distance among the beliefs (stress=0.096). The firs t dimension (horizontal) is defined by two amply - shared, positive beliefs (effects of freedom from inhibition and pos itive, subjective and interpersonal changes). At the other extreme there are minority beliefs, more descriptive and/or questioning drinking (I now drink less than I used to, the grou p does not pressure me to drink, if you drink it affects you, one drink s to pass the day). The second dimension (vertical) cont rasts drink's more psychological effects (positive and negative) with its normative and social elements. As will be appreciat ed the cognitive map is constructed around area opposition s (private vs. social) and shared opinions vs. minority ones. Drink's positive - negative character does not structure this map. We have placed beliefs on a two dimensional map and draw attention to any significant association between va riables, in order to obtain an over - all diagramatic picture, which compensates the impression of distance between vari ables through the presence of associations. When we examined the significant associations among alc ohol beliefs (phi(7)=0.81, or over; p<0.01; see graphic 9), we found that the older the group members are, the more they agree with the idea that people drink to be sociable, that drinking is do ne out of norm and cultural habit, that the underage d rink less, and that more alcohol is consumed than soft drinks because it is cheaper. There are also associations between the id ea that people drink to be sociable and the belief in alcoh ol's ability to remove inhibitions and as well, that regular dri nking («poteo») is not alcoholism.

1

INSERT GRAPHIC 9 Discussion If one examines young people's opinions a number of dimensions, which structure alcohol's social repres entations among heavy - drinking youths, are found. Basically the groups share a vision of drinking as something normal, con nected to social activities, of a controlled manner and not n egative. At the same time, it has been possible to verify this opinion as being more prominent, or central, as a social repre sentation among older youths. The descriptions of the positive and negative effec ts of alcohol consumption given by the subjects in group discussions have shown to coincide with those found in AEQ scal e field studies. However the positive aspects and effects o f drinking alcohol are more noticeable and frequent than the n egative ones in young people's comments. General Discussion Including beliefs about alcohol's effects in the an alysis of young people's drinking patterns gives us a more realistic view of the situation. This leads us to adopt an ex planatory model which will include both the classic macrosoci al variables (age and sex) and microsocial ones (alcohols's soci al representations). This is even more important if we remember that alcohol is the drug which is best accepted and seen as having the most positive qualities in our sociocult ural environment. In fact, we can almost talk about the existence of a «culture» which extols the virtues of alcohol. Th is culture establishes a series of «implicit theories» about t his substance and as a result drinking bahavioural norms are also es tablished. It has been seen that these beliefs are strongly held in heavi er drinking groups which maintain a socionormative vie w of alcohol. It should also not be forgotten that the drinking c ulture is transmitted by social representations throught the socialisation process. As a matter of fact, there is evidence to suggest that young people, before they start drinking (adopting a consumption model), already possess structured beliefs about al cohol's effects -s o these beliefs become a causal background to consumption (Christiansen, Goldman & Inn, 1982; Cár denas & Moreno - Jiménez, 1990). In short, to believe that alcohol h as more positive than negative effects (personal desin hibition, it is fun, it helps social intercourse, it makes you « adult») is one of the fundamental factors which triggers off c onsumption. This is backed up by the qualitative results where there is a positive connection between age and the belief that drinking is normal, habitual, social and self - controlled. Comparing results obtained from the survey with the group accounts we found that beliefs about positive alcohol effects or expectati ons (i.e. drinking helps social interaction and helps one to have more confidence in him/herself) were shared and avalaibl e both in group accounts and in individual responses. Negativ e effects

1

were shared «privately» but were not displayed in g roups discussions. Even more interestingly we found whils t conducting a structural causal modelling, that only positive b eliefs were related to the degree of drinking, and that the sam e ocurred when analysing group accounts and group average age (higher age groups shared more beliefs.i.e. higher means of pos itive ideas about alcohol than the younger ones). Triangulation between survey, causal modelling of individual responses, content analysis of groups ac counts and agreggated data analysis (group as unit of analysis ) confirmed that beliefs about positive effects (personal and interpersonals) were more related to behaviour than the negatives ones. We can speculate that the fact that positive belief s «circulated more» or were not only avalaible «in th e head», but were accesible in the social discourse explain part ially this association. Accesible and more actively distribute d positive beliefs because of his social shared attribute infl uences more social behaviour. This chapter makes it clear that quantitative metho dology should be combined with a qualitative approach, esp ecially when the aim is to analyse beliefs or social representat ions of objects which are of great import for certain group s. If the results are not «triangulated» much is left unexpla ined. Thus, although most of the people who answered the questi onnaires admitted alcohol had negative effects (especially a s regards deterioration of social conduct and cognition), the se effects were hardly mentioned by young people in the discussion g roups - something which did not happen with the beliefs in positive effects. A preventive campaign on youth drinking applies par tially previous results. Main alocohol positive effects we re matched with pictures depicting negative effects of excessi ve drinking: a) "I drink to be happy" coupled with a girl crying , b) "I drink to feel better" with a young with physi cal problems, c) "I drink in oder to know friends" with a young m an in anger and arguing, d) "I drink no to be alone" with a lonely and tired young. This preventive campaign, partially supported by ou r research, shows the heuristic value of the social representat ions approach in order to cope with social problems.

1

References Ajanguiz, R., Apodaka, P., González, R. et al. (198 8): La

juventud de Bilbao. Consumo de drogas, tiempo libre , autoconcepto y rendimiento escolar (1983 - 1985) . Bilbao: Instituto de Ciencias de la Educación.

Alvira, F. (1986): Cambios en el consumo de bebidas alcohólicas en España. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas , 34, 111 - 130.

Basabe, N. & Paez, D. (1992): Los jóvenes y el consumo de alcohol. Representaciones sociales . Madrid: Fundamentos & Ayuntamiento de Bilbao.

Bentler, P.M. (1989): EQS structural equations program manual . Los Angeles: BMDP Statistical Software.

Bentler, P.M. & Bonett, D.G. (1980): Significance t ests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance struc tures. Psychological Bulletin, 88 , 588 - 606.

Bentler, P.M. & Speckart, G. (1981): Attitudes "cau se" behaviors: a structural equation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 40, 226 - 238.

Brown, S.A. (1985): Expectancies versus background in the prediction of college drinking patterns. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53 , 1, 123 - 130.

Brown, S.A., Goldman, M.S. & Christiansen, B.A. (19 85): Do alcohol expectancies mediate drinking patterns of a dults?. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53 , 4, 512- 519.

Brown, S.A., Goldman, M., Inn, A. & Anderson, L. (1 980): Expectations of reinforcement from alcohol: their d omain and relation to drinking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48 , 419 - 426.

Cárdenas, C. & Moreno - Jiménez, B. (1990): Las expectativas asociadas al alcohol en edades tempranas. Boletín de Psicología , 27, 33 - 54.

Christiansen, B. & Goldman, M. (1983): Alcohol rela ted expectancies versus demographic/background variable s in the prediction of adolescent drinking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 51, 249 - 257.

Christiansen, B., Goldman, M. & Inn A. (1982): Deve lopment of alcohol - related expectancies in adolescents: Separating pharmacological from social - learning influences. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50 , 3, 33 -6- 344.

Christiansen, B.A., Smith, G.T., Roehling, P.V. & G oldman, M.S. (1989): Using alcohol expectancies to predict drink ing behavior after one year. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57 , 1, 93 - 99.

Comas, D. (1985): El uso de drogas en la juventud . Madrid: Informe de Juventud en España, Ministerio de Cultur a.

DiGiacomo, J.P. (1987): Teoría y métodos de análisi s de las representaciones sociales. In D. Paez (Ed.): Pensamiento, individuo y sociedad . Madrid: Fundamentos.

Doise, W. (1988): Les représentations sociales: un label de qualité. Connexions, 51 , 99 - 113.

Doise, W. & Palmonari, A. (1986): L' étude des représentations

1

sociales . Neuchatel: Delachaux et Niestlé. Dusenbury, L. & Botvin, G.J. (1992): Applying the c ompetency

enhancement model to substance abuse prevention. In M. Kessler, S.E. Goldston, J.M. Joffe (Eds.): The present and the future of prevention . Newbury Park: SAGE.

Elejabarrieta, F. (1991): Las representaciones soci ales. In A. Echebarría (Ed.): Psicología social sociocognitiva . Bilbao: Desclée de Brouwer.

Elzo, J., González de Audikana, M., Ayestarán, S. et al. ( 1990): Jóvenes vascos 1990 . Bilbao: Deiker - Universidad de Deusto, Eusko Jaurlaritza.

Farr, R. (1987): Social representations: a french t radition of research. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 17 , 343- 369.

Franco, D., Gili, M., Giner, J. et al. (1988): Acti tudes y normas culturales ante la bebida. Resultados de una encuesta de población en la provincia de Sevilla. Revista Española de Drogodependencias, 13, 3, 173 - 182.

Gobierno Vasco (1987): Encuesta de Salud de la C.A.V. . Vitoria - Gasteiz: Servicio Central de Publicaciones Departamento de Sanidad y Consumo.

Jahoda, G. (1988): Critical notes and reflections o n "social representations". European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 3, 195 - 209.

Jodelet, D. (1991): Representaciones sociales: un á rea en expansión. In D. PAEZ et al. (Eds): SIDA: Imagen y prevención . Madrid: Fundamentos.

Hualde Urralburu, G. (1990): Rasgos del Contexto Es tructural del Consumo de Drogas en los Jóvenes. Comunidad y Drogas, Monografía 10 , 75 - 97.

Ibáñez, T. (1988): Ideologías de la vida cotidiana . Barcelona: Sendai.

Leigh, B.C. (1989): In search of the seven dwarves: issues of measurement in alcohol expectancy research. Psychological Bulletin, 105 , 3, 361 - 373.

Leigh, B.C. & Stacy, A.W. (1991): On the scope of a lcohol expentacy research: remaining issues of measurement and meaning. Psychological Bulletin, 110 , 1, 147 - 154.

Moscovici, S. (1988): Notes towards a description o f social representations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18 , 3, 211 - 250.

Newcomb, M.D. & Bentler, P.M. (1988): Impact of ado lescent drug use and social support on problems of young adults: a longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97 , 1, 64- 75.

Newcomb, M.D. & Bentler, P.M. (1989): Substance use and abuse among children and teenagers. American Psychologist, 44 , 2, 242- 248.

Paez, D. (1987): Pensamiento, individuo y sociedad. Cognición y representación social . Madrid: Fundamento.

Paez, D., Echebarría, A., Valencia, J., Romo, I., San Juan, C . & Vergara, A. (1991): AIDS social representations: Co ntents and processes. Journal of Community and Applies Social Psychology, 1 , 89 - 104.

1

Paez, D., San Juan, C., Romo, I., & Vergara, A. (19 91): Sida. Imagen y prevención . Madrid: Fundamentos.

Potter, J. & Whetherell, M. (1987): Discourse and social psychology. Beyond attitude and behavior . London: SAGE.

Robbins, C. (1989): Sex Differences in Psychosocial Consequences of Alcohol and Drug Abuse. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 30 , 117 - 130.

Rohsenow, D.J. (1983): Drinking habits and expectan cies about alcohol's effects for self versus others. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51 , 5, 752 - 756.

Rohsenow, D.J. & Bachorowski, J.A. (1984): Effects of alcohol and expectancies on verbal agression on men and wom en. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93 , 4, 418 - 432.

Schinke, S.P., Botvin, G.J. & Orlandi, M.A. (1991): Substance abuse in children and adolescents. Evaluation and intervention . London: Sage.

Schwartz, H. & Jacobs, J. (1984): Sociología cualitativa . México: Trillas.

Seeman, M. & Anderson, C.S. (1983): Alienation and Alcohol: The Role of Work, Mastery and Community in Drinking Beh avior. American Sociological Review, 48 , 60 - 77.

Stacy, A.W., Newcomb, M.D. & Bentler, P.M. (1991): Personality, problem drinking and drunk driving: mediating, mode rating and direct - effects models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60 , 5, 795 - 811.

Stacy, A.W., Newcomb, M.D. & Bentler, P.M. (1992): Interactive and higher - order effects of social influences on drug use. The Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 33 , 3, 226 - 241.

Stacy, A.W., Widaman, K.F. & Marlatt, G.A. (1990): Expectancy models of alcohol use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58 , 5, 918 - 928.

Taylor, S.J. & Bogdan, R. (1986): Introducción a los métodos cualitativos de investigación . Buenos Aires: Paidós.

Vaux, A., Phillips, J., Holly, C., Thompson, B., Wi lliams, D. & Stewart, D. (1986): The social support Appraisals ( SSA) Scale: Studies of reliability and validity. American Journal of Community Psychology, 14 , 195 - 219.

1

Table 1: Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Beliefs about Expected Effects of Alcohol

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬───────┐ │ Belief Items on Alcohol │ F1 │ F2 │ F3 │ F4 │Errors* │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼───────┤ │V1. - "It makes one feel more optimistic" │ │ 0.67 │ │ │ 0.74 │ │V2. - "people are more amusing" │ │ 0.62 │ │- 0.18 │ 0.75 │ │V4. - "makes people feel more powerful" │ │ 0.27 │ │ 0.36 │ 0.88 │ │V6. - "It makes us feel good" │ │ 0.66 │ │ │ 0.74 │ │V9. - "If you feel down, it makes you feel better" │ │ 0.62 │ │ │ 0.78 │ │V10. - "it is more difficult to think straight" │ │ │ 0.45 │ │ 0.89 │ │V11. - "alcohol helps to express one's feelings" │ 0.49 │ │ │ │ 0.87 │ │V12. - "it is difficult to know what are you doing" │ │ │ 0.72 │ │ 0.68 │ │V13. - "it is more difficult to understand others" │ │ │ 0.75 │ │ 0.66 │ │V14. - "it is easier to speak to others" │ 0.42 │ 0.24 │ │ │ 0.80 │ │V15. - "it is easier to disobey" │ 0.31 │ │ 0.42 │ 0.38 │ 0.75 │ │V17. - "it gives us more self - confidence" │ 0.15 │ 0.40 │ │ │ 0.86 │ │V21. - "feel less shy or embarrassed" │ 0.71 │ │ 0.20 │ │ 0.67 │ │V23. - "social gatherings are more lievlier" │ 0.35 │ 0.29 │ │ │ 0.82 │ │V24. - "it is easier to break rules" │ 0.32 │ │ 0.35 │ 0.48 │ 0.72 │ │V25. - "it makes us happy and joyful" │ 0.52 │ │ │ │ 0.84 │ │V27. - "alcohol helps overcome bashfulness andfell less │ 0.72 │ │ │ │ 0.68 │ │ tongue - tied" │ │ │ │ │ │ │V29. - "alcohol helps flirting" │ 0.25 │ 0.51 │ │ │ 0.73 │ │V31. - "it is easier to get into a fight" │ │- 0.14 │ 0.31 │ 0.33 │ 0.87 │ │V32. - "it is easier to mistrust and be suspicious of oth ers" │ │- 0.16 │ │ 0.39 │ 0.90 │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┴─

5

────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴───────┤ │Covariance (F2,F1) = 0.50 │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │NFI=0.86; NNFI=0.90; CFI=0.92; ÷²=318.3; 153 d.f.; p < 0.001 │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Factor 1: Disinhibiting Effects Factor 2: Positive Psychological and Interpersona l Effects Factor 3: Negative Cognitive Effects and Social R ule Breaking Factor 4: Aggresive Behaviour and Feelings of Pow er * Errors=Measurement errors of the observed variabl es Standarized Solution

5

Table 2: Descriptive Data of Discussion Groups

╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗

║ Establishment Course Age Range Average Age ║

╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣

║ Youth Group (*) Not studying 18-23 X=20 ║

║ Technical College 1 3º F.P. 16-20 X=17.6 ║

║ Comprehensive College 1 1º B.U.P. 14-16 X=14.6 ║

║ Technical College 2 4º F.P. 18-21 X=20.1 ║

║ Comprehensive College 2 3º B.U.P. 16-17 X=16.1 ║

║ Comprehensive College 3 1º R.E.M. 14-16 X=15.1 ║

║ University Basque Country University 20-24 X=21.5 ║

║ Private Religious College 6º Form 17 X=17 ║

╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝

(*). This group was made up of youngsters from a working-class district of

Bilbao (city) who were involved in YMCA-like activities.

Table 3: Frequency of The Beliefs on Alcohol of The Discussion Groups

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Beliefs on Alcohol (*) Nº of groups in which Nº of times the % times in which it appears

the idea appears idea appears in relation to the total (**)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

1.- Disinhibiting Effects (F.1).................... 8 33 12

2.- Positive Psychological and Interpersonal

Effects (F.2).................................. 7

5

40 11 3.- Negative Cognitive Effects and

Social Rule Breaking (F.3)..................... 3

9 2 4.- To Avoid Problems (F.4)........................ 8

17 6 5.- Aggresive Behaviour and Feelings of Power (F.5) 2

4 1 6.- Positive Sexual Effects (F.6).................. 0

0 0 7.- Negative Health Effects (F.7).................. 5

12 4 8.- Depressive Effect (F.8)........................ 0

0 0 9.- Medicinal Effects (F.9)........................ 0

0 0 10.- Drinking at Parties and Celebrations........... 6

11 4 11.- Not Effective in Forgetting Problems........... 1

1 1 12.- It isn't easier to get into a fight............ 1

1 1 13.- It's associated with having a good weekend..... 7

11 4 14.- There is peer pressure to drink................ 7

11 4 15.- There isn't peer pressure to drink............. 1

1 1 16.- People drink out of habit...................... 5

7 3 17.- One drinks in order to pass the day............ 2

7 3 18.- There are age differences in drinking

(the younger people drink more)................ 6

9 3 19.- Young people go out to have drinks............. 5

9 3 20.- We drink in order to follow the norm........... 5

13 5 21.- Alcohol as an addictive substance.............. 1

2 1 22.- The more you drink the more you learn how to

drink (one can stand more drinks).............. 4

6 2 23.- After drinking one regrets what

happened (we do not remember it)............... 4

5 2 24.- Regular drinking (poteo) is not alcoholism..... 3

5 2 25.- Alcohol is cheaper than soft drinks............ 3

3 1 26.- There are sexual differences in drinking

5

(boys drink more).............................. 6

10 4 27.- Nowadays People start drinking at an earlier age 3

4 1 28.- We drink in a group in order to get together.... 7

13 5 29.- Now I drink less than I used to................. 2

2 1 30.- Drinking to "feel grown-up or adult"............ 4

5 2 31.- If you do not drink you feel out of place....... 4

9 3 32.- A couple going out together drink less.......... 1

1 1 33.- The person who is able to drink more will be

the group leader................................ 3

3 1 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

──────────────────────────────────────────────── (*) 33 codes = 24 discussion groups codes which were not

included in the AEQ + 9 factors which group the 34 AEQ items. (**) Represents the percentage of times in which the idea appears in the groups, with regard to the total number of

ideas which appeared (264).

6

Table 4: Percentage of Agreement with The Survey Items, Number of Groups in which They Appear and Number of Times in which Each Item Appears in The Groups

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Belief Items on Alcohol % agreement in Nº of groups in which Nº of times in which the

item the survey

the item appears appears in the groups(*) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

1.- Becoming more optimistic.................... 30 0 0

2.- People are more amusing..................... 40 6 12

3.- It keeps us warm ........................... 45 0 0

4.- It makes people feel more powerful.......... 52 0 0

5.- It's a way of forgetting problems........... 32 4 6

6.- It increases male aggressivness............. 76 0 0

7.- It make us feel good........................ 22 6 15

8.- It may act as a medicine.................... 33 0 0

9.- It is a nice way of celebrating

special occasions........................... 73 4 5

10.- It's a pick-me-up/feeling better........... 25 2 2

11.- It's difficult to think straight........... 76 0 0

12.- It hepls one to express feelings........... 55 1 1

13.- It's difficult to know what are you doing.. 81 1 1

14.- It's difficult to understanding others..... 75 0 0

15.- It's easier to chat to others.............. 54 7 13

16.- It's easier to disobey..................... 78 1 2

17.- It makes problems worry us less important.. 40 2 2

18.- It makes one feel sad...................... 24 0 0

19.- It gives more self-confidence.............. 35 0 0

20.- It produces serious health problems........ 85 3 4

21.- People are more romantic after a few drinks. 26 0 0

6

22.- After drinking it is easier to fall or stumble 89 0 0

23.- Feel us less shy or embarrased............. 76 5 7

24.- You enjoy sex more......................... 15 0 0

25.- Social encounters are more effusives....... 56 1 1

26.- It's easier to break rules................. 81 0 0

27.- It makes us happy and joyful............... 64 5 8

28.- It helps us to sleep better................ 24 0 0

29.- It helps overcome bashfulness and

inability to converse...................... 70 4 7

30.- It's easier to say inconvenient things..... 81 1 1

31.- It's helps flirting........................ 36 6 9

32.- After drinking you feel lonely and isolated 27 0 0

33.- It's easier to have a fight................ 77 2 3 34.- It's easier to mistrust and

suspicion of others........................ 33

0 0 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

─────────────────────────────────────────── (*) Represents the percentage of times in which the item

appears in the groups with regard to the total number of ideas (108) which were found in the AEQ items.

Note . The total number of ideas which appeared in the groups was of 264. Of these 108, in accordance with the agreed

classification of two judges, correspond with the AEQ items. The other 156 correspond to the other codes.

6

Social Support V 51= "My friends respect me" V 52= "My family worries about me much" V 53= "My family values me highly" V 54= "I can trust in my friends" V 55= "My family loves me much" V 56= "My family trusts me" V 57= "I have strong affective bond with my friends" V 58= "My friends and I are really important to each ot hers" V 59= "I feel make up to a group of persons" V 60= "I do not feel near to my family" Social Youth Drinking V 35= "Alcohol on weekends" V 38= "Frequent use - Habitual consumption" V 39= "Frequent use with friends" V 40= "Frequent use at family gatherings" V 41= "Frequent use at parties" Drinking Problems V 42= "Fights with family" V 43= "Fights with peers" V 44= "Health problems" V 45= "Fights with other people"

6

Table 1: Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Social Support

────────────────────────────────────────────────

V 52=0.83 F 1+0.55 E 52 / V 51=0.46*F 2+0.88 E 51

V 53=0.76*F 1+0.64 E 53 / V 54=0.61*F 2+0.78 E 54

V 55=0.81*F 1+0.57 E 55 / V 57=0.86 F 2+0.50 E 57

V 56=0.72*F 1+0.68 E 56 / V 58=0.84*F 2+0.52 E 58

V 60=0.30*F 1+0.95 E 60 / V 59=0.64*F 2+0.76 E 59

────────────────────────────────────────────────

F 1= Family Support / F 2= Peers Support

────────────────────────────────────────────────

NFI=0.91; NNFI=0.91; CFI=0.93

────────────────────────────────────────────────

÷² =146.6; 35 d.f.; p < 0.001

────────────────────────────────────────────────

Standarized Solution

V 51= "My friends respect me"

V 52= "My family worries about me much"

V 53= "My family values me highly"

V 54= "I can trust in my friends"

V 55= "My family loves me much"

V 56= "My family trusts me"

V 57= "I have strong affective bond with my friends"

V58= "My friends and I are really important to each ot hers"

V 59= "I feel make up to a group of persons"

V 60= "I do not feel near to my family"

Table 2: Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Social Youth Drinking

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "Alcohol on weekends" V 35=0.65 F 1+0.75 E 35 "Frequent use - Habitual consumption" V 38=0.78*F 1+0.61 E 38 "Frequent use with friends" V 39=0.89*F 1+0.45 E 39 "Frequent use at family gatherings" V 40=0.54*F 1+0.83 E 40 "Frequent use at parties" V 41=0.90*F 1+0.42 E 41 ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── F 1=Social Youth Drinking ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── NFI=0.98; NNFI=0.97; CFI=0.98 ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── ÷²=20.0; 5 d.f.; p < 0.001 ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Standarized Solution Table 3: Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Drinking Problems

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────

"Fights with family" V 42=0.36 F 1+0.93 E 42

"Fights with peers" V 43=0.59*F 1+0.80 E 43

8

"Health problems" V 44=0.37*F 1+0.92 E 44

"Fights with other people" V 45=0.77*F 1+0.63 E 45

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────

F 1=Drinking Problems

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────

NFI=0.98; NNFI=0.99; CFI=0.99

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────

÷²=2.4; 2 d.f.; p < 0.296

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Standarized Solution

8

8

Table 5: Structural Models Analysis (Models 1,2,3)

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Statistics: Model - Fit Indexes and Residuals ( D1)

NFI NNFI CFI ÷² d.f. prob D 1

Model(1) 0.91 0.90 0.92 113.0 20 < 0 .001 0.90

Model(2) 0.88 0.91 0.92 374.7 133 < 0 .001 0.84

Model(3) 0.80 0.89 0.90 1165.1 644 < 0 .001 0.76

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Structural Equations (standarized solution; Direc t effects)

Model (1):

F 1=0.34*V 33 - 0.19*V 34 +0.18*V 48 + 0.90 D 1

Model (2):

F1=0.35*V33 - 0.19*V34 +0.17*V48 - 0.29*F2 +0.13*F3 + 0.84 D1

Model (3):

F 1=0.35*V 33 - 0.15*V 34 +0.15*V 48 - 0.18*F 2 +0.11*F 3 +0.07*F 4

+0.38*F 5 - 0.02*F 6 - 0.09*F 7 +0.76 D 1

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Structural Model 3: Construc Equations with

Standard Errors and Test Statistics (*)

F 1= 0.13*V 33 - 0.41*V 34 +0.21*V 48 - 0.39*F 2 +0.24*F 3

0.016 0.108 0.059 0.094 0.090

8.514 - 3.856 3.689 - 4.231 2.681

+0.14*F 4 +0.54*F 5 - 0.03*F 6 - 0.23*F 7 + 1.000 D 1

0.117 0.090 0.070 0.152

1.225 6.087 - 0.489 - 1.512

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

F1=Social Youth Drinking / V 33= Age / V 34=Sex / V 48=Nº of friends

F2=Family Support / F 3=Peers Support

F4=Positive Beliefs (Disinhibiting Effects)

F5=Positive Beliefs (Positive Psychological and Inter personal Effects)

F6=Negative Beliefs (Negative Cognitive Effects and S ocial Rule Breaking)

F7=Negative Beliefs (Aggresive Behaviour and Feelings of Power)

(*)Significance level determined by a critical rati o

of the unstandarized parameter estimate by its stan dard error

Table 6: Structural Models Analysis: Models 4,5

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Reformulated Models: Model - Fit Indexes and Residuals (D 1,D 2)

NFI NNFI CFI ÷² d.f. prob D 1 D 2

Model(4) 0.85 0.91 0.92 689.1 368 < 0.0 01 0.74 --

Model(5) 0.81 0.89 0.90 944.1 484 < 0.0 01 0.74 0.80

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Structural Equations (standarized solution; Direc t effects)

Model (4):

F 1=0.34*V 33 - 0.14*V 34 +0.15*V 48 - 0.16*F 2 +0.11*F 3 +0.43*F 4 +0.74 D 1

10

F 1=Social Youth Drinking / V 33= Age / V 34=Sex / V 48=Nº of friends

F 2=Family Support / F 3=Peers Support

F 5=Positive Beliefs (Positive Psychological and Inter personal Effects)

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Model (5):

F 1=0.34*V 33 - 0.14*V 34 +0.15*V 48 - 0.16*F 3 +0.11*F 4 +0.43*F 5 +0.74 D 1

F 2=0.48*F 1 - 0.23*F 3 +0.80 D 2

F 1=Social Youth Drinking / V 33= Age / V 34=Sex / V 48=Nº of friends

F 3=Family Support / F 4=Peers Support

F 5=Positive Beliefs (Positive Psychological and Inter personal Effects)

F2=Drinking problems

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Table 7: Structural Model (5) Analysis

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Structural Equations (standarized solution)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Social youth drinking (F 1)

V35=0.67*F 1+0.74 E 35

V 38=0.79*F 1+0.61 E 38

V 39=0.89*F 1+0.45 E 39

V 40=0.54*F 1+0.84 E 40

V 41=0.90 F 1+0.43 E 41

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Drinking problems (F 2)

V42=0.42*F 2+0.90 E 42

V 43=0.60*F 2+0.79 E 43

V 44=0.46*F 2+0.88 E 44

V 45=0.65 F 2+0.75 E 45

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Family Support (F 3)

V52=0.82 F 3+0.57 E 52

V 53=0.76*F 3+0.64 E 53

V 55=0.81*F 3+0.58 E 55

V 56=0.73*F 3+0.67 E 56

V 60=0.29*F 3+0.95 E 60

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Peers Support (F 4)

V51=0.45*F 4+0.89 E 51

V 54=0.61*F 4+0.79 E 54

V 57=0.86 F 4+0.50 E 57

V 58=0.84*F 4+0.54 E 58

V 59=0.65*F 4+0.75 E 59

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Positive Beliefs about Alcohol (F 5)

V1= 0.65 F 5+0.75 E 1

10

V 2= 0.63*F 5+0.77 E 2

V 4= 0.22*F 5+0.97 E 4

V 6= 0.65*F 5+0.75 E 6

V 9= 0.60*F 5+0.79 E 9

V 14= 0.50*F 5+0.98 E 14

V 17= 0.50*F 5+0.86 E 17

V 23= 0.50*F 5+0.86 E 23

V 29= 0.67*F 5+0.73 E 29

V 31=- 0.19*F 5+0.98 E 31

V 32=- 0.19*F 5+0.98 E 32

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Structural Equations (standarized solution; Direct effects)

F 1=0.34*V 33 - 0.14*V 34 +0.15*V 48 - 0.16*F 3 +0.11*F 4 +0.43*F 5 +0.74 D 1

F 2=0.48*F 1 - 0.23*F 3 +0.80 D 2

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Covariances

(F 3,F 2)=(Family Support, Peers Support)=0.31

(V 48,V 34)=(Nº of friends, Sex)= - 0.24

(V 48,V 33)=(Nº of friends, Age)= - 0.11

(F 3,V 48)=(Peers Support, Nº of friends)=0.19

(F 5,V 34)=(Positive Beliefs, Sex)= - 0.13

(F 2,F 5)=(Family Support, Positive Beliefs)= - 0.29

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

F1=Social Youth Drinking / V 33= Age / V 34=Sex / V 48=Nº of friends

F3=Family Support / F 4=Peers Support

F5=Positive Beliefs (Positive Psychological and Inter personal Effects)

F2=Drinking problems

D1=Residual of F 1; D 2=Residual of F 2