Results:

First of all, we compared the average consumption rates of males and

females. It is important to note male’s consumed an average of 16.68 alcoholic
beverages per week while females consumed an average of 9.9 alcoholic beverages
per week. Thus, males seemed to consume almost 7 more beverages per week
than females. The total average of both groups was 13.09 beverages a week.

male/female total drinks

consumed a week

Gend Std.
er Mean N Deviation

Male 16.68 52 16.832

Femal 9.19 48 9.169

e

Total 13.09 100 14.143

After realizing how high the average consumption levels were, we then found it
important to analyze how socially acceptable it was to consume alcohol for their
age group (21-24). We asked participants to circle a number on a scale starting
with 1 being the least socially acceptable and 10 being the most. Males, who also
consumed more alcohol on average, were also found to have an average social
acceptability rate of 9.19, indicating they believed consuming alcohol for their age
group was very socially acceptable. Females, who consumed less alcohol than
males, still indicated a rather high social acceptability level of 8.98 out of the 10
point scale. The average between both males and females was 9.09 social
acceptability rate with a standard deviation of 1.64.

Average of how socially acceptable it to drink for your age group (21-24)
 Gend Std.
er Mean N Deviation

Male 9.19 52 2.068

Femal 8.98 48 1.000

e

Total 9.09 100 1.640

While participants believed that alcoholic consumption for their age group (21-24)
was indeed acceptable, we wanted to see if they believed consuming alcoholic had
adverse effects on one’s health. We offered them a likert type scale (1=strongly
agree, 2=agree, 3=neutral, 4=disagree, 5=strongly disagree) and asked them to
circle their appropriate response. Females had a mean response of 1.77 and males
had a mean response of 1.75, which indicated that both genders agreed that
consuming alcoholic beverages did indeed have adverse effects on one’s health.
 Agreement of Importance of adverse
effects of consuming alcohol

Gend Std.
er Mean N Deviation

Male 1.75 52 .738

Femal 1.77 48 .805

e

Total 1.76 100 .767

In regards to the question about the frequency of reading print publications that
contained alcoholic beverage print ads, we compared the means of the scores
where males read an average of 3.15 publications a week whereas females read an
average of 2.33 publications weekly.

female/male, frequency of reading print publications in 1

week
Gender Mean N Std. Deviation
Male 3.15 52 4.385
Female 2.33 48 3.328
Total 2.76 100 3.916

In addition to measuring central tendencies of the mean in regards to female s

and males, we also found it interesting when comparing reading frequency and
consumption levels. We found that those who read more print publications that
contained alcoholic print advertisements actually consumed more alcoholic
beverages. The total average of reading print publications that contained alcoholic
print advertisements was 2.79 publications a week.
 Based on how many publications
one reads a week, does it affect
consumption?

Read Std.
pub Mean N Deviation

0 7.71 21 12.079

1 8.09 23 8.586

2 15.14 21 11.616

3 10.06 8 11.906

4 16.83 6 15.355

5 14.90 10 9.803

6 26.25 4 19.311

7 22.33 3 17.616

8 48.00 1 .

10 10.00 1 .

20 5.00 1 .

30 77.00 1 .

Total 13.09 100 14.143

After comparing number of publications read to consumption rates, we then found it

pertinent to see how much participants knew what was explicitly stated on a
alcoholic warning label. All alcoholic print advertisements by law have the same
warning label administer by the surgeon general: GOVERNMENT WARNING: (1)
According to the Surgeon general, women should not drink alcoholic beverages
during pregnancy because of the risk of birth defects. (2) Consumption of alcoholic
beverages impairs your ability to drive a car or operate machinery, and may cause
health problems. On our questionnaire we had both false and true statements of
what was on a warning label. The incorrect statements were impaired vision, may
cause damage to liver, impaired judgment, impaired hearing, and may cause
drowsiness. The correct statements on our questionnaire were impaired ability to
drive a car, may cause health problems, may cause birth defects in children,
impaired ability to operate machinery, and may cause pregnancy risks. We asked
participants to rate the likelihood of these statements being present on an alcoholic
warning label (1 being definitely not present, 4 being uncertain, 7 definitely
present). The results indicated that most of the participants were uncertain about
every statement being placed on a warning label except “May cause pregnancy
risks,” which received an average of 5.34 out of 7. The statement, “may cause birth
defects in children” came in second, with a mean of 4.93. The statement that
participants most believed to not be on an alcoholic warning label was “Impaired
hearing,” which revealed a mean score of 2.18. From our results, participants who
consume alcohol may not be taking heed in the warning labels because they were
not able to correctly identify what the warning labels contained.

Standard Deviation and Mean on which statements are on alcohol warning

labels.

Im Im
Im car Im vis Health Liver Defects machin judge Im hear Drowsy Preg

N Valid 100 100 100 99 99 100 100 99 100 100

Missing 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0

Mean 4.51 3.45 4.84 3.88 4.93 4.88 3.51 2.18 3.01 5.34

Std. 2.09 1.91 1.46 1.73 1.82 1.822 1.86 1.40 1.82 2.056
Deviation 1 4 8 4 5 7 2 3

Since our results indicated that many did not seem to heed to warning labels on
alcoholic beverages in print publications, we decided to see how effective other
products were in relation to their warning labels. We asked participants to rate the
effectiveness of product warning labels (1 being the least effective and 10 being the
most effective). Our results indicated that participants believed that medicine had
the most effective warning label with a mean of 7.64. Following this value was
chemicals with an average of 6.99, and road signs with an average of 6.95. The
effectiveness of warning labels decreased significantly with electrical appliances
( average 5.32), cigarettes ( 5.15), food packages (4.92), instruction booklets or
manuals (4.78), motorized vehicles (4.70), and toys (4.47). Surprisingly, alcoholic
warning label effectiveness was rated the lowest out of the all the categories with a
mean of 4.13.
Overall and female/male Mean and Standard Deviation of warning label
effectiveness

Alcoho
Toys l Chem Vehics Signs Meds Cigs Appli Food Instruc

Tota Mean 4.47 4.13 6.99 4.70 6.95 7.64 5.15 5.32 4.92 4.78
l
N 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Std. 2.303 2.237 2.111 2.368 2.258 1.883 2.812 2.024 2.182 2.596
Deviation

Standard Deviation of warning label effectiveness of Alcoholic Beverages.

We followed up the questionnaire by asking the participants to rate on a scale from 1 to 5 (1

being the least noticeable and 5 being the most noticeable) where warning labels on
alcoholic print advertisements would be most effective to help us determine where to place
the warning labels during our experiment. Participants believed that placing warning labels
in the center of a print advertisement would be most effective, with a mean of 4.46. This
was followed by the upper right quadrant of a print advertisement with a mean of 3.08.
Bottom left, upper left, and bottom right all seemed to have similar values ranging from
2.08, 2.62, and 2.76, respectively. It is important to note that most alcoholic warning labels
are currently located in the bottom of the advertisement.

Question 7-Where would the label be most

effective?

B
Center B Left U Left Right U Right

N Valid 100 100 100 100 99

Missing 0 0 0 0 1

Mean 4.46 2.08 2.62 2.76 3.08

Std. Deviation 1.039 1.107 1.117 1.264 1.131

After asking participants where labels would be more effective, we were curious to know
about their opinion of the text of warning labels for alcoholic beverages. We asked them to
rate on a likert type scale (a=strongly agree, b=agree, c=neutral, d=disagree, e=strongly
disagree) their opinion of how the text currently looks in these print advertisements. The
mean scores indicated that they agreed that the text on warning labels were too small
(mean 2.40), easy to comprehend (mean 2.33), and lacked color (mean 2.32). Participants
reported a rather neutral value when it came to warnings being easy to remember (mean
3.26), and warning labels being colorful (mean 3.82). Participants believed the text was not
that complex, indicated by a 3.86 average. Finally, participants agreed that the text isn’t
big enough as indicated with an average score of 4.12.

Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of Rating opinion on text in

warning labels.

E E Colorfu Compl H No
Small comp rememb l Big ex rememb color

N Valid 100 99 99 99 100 100 100 100

Missing 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

Mean 2.40 2.33 3.26 3.82 4.12 3.86 2.89 2.32

Std. Deviation 1.137 1.152 1.250 1.265 .967 1.110 1.278 1.355

After gathering information about the text of warning labels, we questioned participants with
a likert type scale (1=strongly agree, 2=agree,3= neutral,4= disagree, and 5= strongly
disagree. ) with the question, “Warning labels in print advertisements should be in pictures
rather than text. Total participants averaged on a neutral opinion of an 2.95. So, according
to our sample, it would have not really made a difference if alcoholic warning labels were in
images rather than text. As discussed in lecture, people are not always aware of why
they behave the way they do, so in our experiment we seek to determine if
pictures are more effective than text and people just aren’t aware of it.

Mean and Standard Deviation of students who believe warning labels should be in pictures
rather than text

Gende
r Mean N Std. Deviation

Male 2.87 52 1.010

Femal 3.04 48 1.051

e

Total 2.95 100 1.029