| Title |
Community Norms, Enforcement of Minimum Legal Drinking Age Laws, Personal Beliefs and Underage Drinking: An Explanatory Model
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Community Health, February 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10900-010-9229-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sharon Lipperman-Kreda, Joel W. Grube, Mallie J. Paschall |
| Abstract |
Strategies to enforce underage drinking laws are aimed at reducing youth access to alcohol from commercial and social sources and deterring its possession and use. However, little is known about the processes through which enforcement strategies may affect underage drinking. The purpose of the current study is to present and test a conceptual model that specifies possible direct and indirect relationships among adolescents' perception of community alcohol norms, enforcement of underage drinking laws, personal beliefs (perceived parental disapproval of alcohol use, perceived alcohol availability, perceived drinking by peers, perceived harm and personal disapproval of alcohol use), and their past-30-day alcohol use. This study used data from 17,830 middle and high school students who participated in the 2007 Oregon Health Teens Survey. Structural equations modeling indicated that perceived community disapproval of adolescents' alcohol use was directly and positively related to perceived local police enforcement of underage drinking laws. In addition, adolescents' personal beliefs appeared to mediate the relationship between perceived enforcement of underage drinking laws and past-30-day alcohol use. Enforcement of underage drinking laws appeared to partially mediate the relationship between perceived community disapproval and personal beliefs related to alcohol use. Results of this study suggests that environmental prevention efforts to reduce underage drinking should target adults' attitudes and community norms about underage drinking as well as the beliefs of youth themselves. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 70 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Unknown | 19 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 16 | 22% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Unknown | 21 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 February 2014.
All research outputs
#5,690,544
of 22,745,803 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Community Health
#330
of 1,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,459
of 165,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Community Health
#3
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,745,803 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,212 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 165,215 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.