Underage Drinking Bibliography - Social Media Campaign

Article

Alcohol Marketing on Twitter and Instagram:

Evidence of Directly Advertising to Youth/

Adolescents

Adam E. Barry1,*, Austin M. Bates2, Olufunto Olusanya2,

Cystal E. Vinal2, Emily Martin2, Janiene E. Peoples2, Zachary A. Jackson2,

Shanaisa A. Billinger2, Aishatu Yusuf2, Daunte A. Cauley2, and

Javier R. Montano2

1Department of Health & Kinesiology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA, and 2Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

*Corresponding author: Department of Health & Kinesiology, Texas A&M University, Mail Stop 4243, College Station, TX 77843, USA. Tel.: +1-979-862-2964; E-mail: [email protected]

Received 6 February 2015; Revised 26 June 2015; Accepted 26 October 2015

Abstract

Aims: Assess whether alcohol companies restrict youth/adolescent access, interaction, and

exposure to their marketing on Twitter and Instagram.

Methods: Employed five fictitious male and female Twitter (n = 10) and Instagram (n = 10) user pro- files aged 13, 15, 17, 19 and/or 21. Using cellular smartphones, we determined whether profiles could

(a) interact with advertising content—e.g. retweet, view video or picture content, comment, share

URL; and/or (b) follow and directly receive advertising material updates from the official Instagram

and Twitter pages of 22 alcohol brands for 30 days.

Results: All user profiles could fully access, view, and interact with alcohol industry content posted

on Instagram and Twitter. Twitter’s age-gate, which restricts access for those under 21, successfully

prevented underage profiles from following and subsequently receiving promotional material/up-

dates. The two 21+ profiles collectively received 1836 alcohol-related tweets within 30 days. All Insta-

gram profiles, however, were able to follow all alcohol brand pages and received an average of 362

advertisements within 30 days. The quantity of promotional updates increased throughout the week,

reaching their peak on Thursday and Friday. Representatives/controllers of alcohol brand Instagram

pages would respond directly to our underage user’s comments.

Conclusion: The alcohol industry is in violation of their proposed self-regulation guidelines for digit-

al marketing communications on Instagram. While Twitter’s age-gate effectively blocked direct to

phone updates, unhindered access to post was possible. Everyday our fictitious profiles, even

those as young as 13, were bombarded with alcohol industry messages and promotional material

directly to their smartphones.

INTRODUCTION

Longitudinal research consistently documents exposure to alcohol ad- vertising as an influential factor on whether youth will initiate alcohol use, and the quantity they will consume if they already drink (Ellick- son et al., 2005; Anderson et al., 2009; Smith and Foscroft, 2009).

Moreover, there appears to be a dose response–relationship between alcohol consumption and exposure to media and commercial commu- nications, such that as exposure to alcohol advertising increases so too does the frequency of a drinker’s consumption, as well as the odds of alcohol initiation (Snyder et al., 2006; Anderson et al., 2009). In

© The Author 2015. Medical Council on Alcohol and Oxford University Press. All rights reserved

Alcohol and Alcoholism, 2016, 51(4) 487–492 doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agv128

Advance Access Publication Date: 22 November 2015 Article

487

a t A

d a m

E llsw

o rth

o n Ju

ly 3 , 2

0 1 6

D o w

n lo

a d e d fro

m

addition to simply considering overall exposure to media, it has been proposed that it is equally important to consider and assess how asso- ciated messages are perceived and interpreted (Austin et al., 2006). When perceived as likeable, alcohol advertisements effectively influ- ence an adolescent’s intention to purchase the brand and products promoted (Chen et al., 2005). Positive intentions and expectations of underage persons to drink alcohol are predicted by their attitudes and perceptions of promotional messages, which alcohol advertising effectively influences (Fleming et al., 2004). Expectancies of underage persons have been found to be not only influenced by logic, but also affect, such that individuals progressively internalize message and sub- sequently employ them in their eventual decisions and also emulate the portrayals observed (Austin et al., 2006). In other words, receptivity to advertising has been proposed to be a continuous iterative process in which youth go through cycles of exposure, internalization, and in- corporation into their identity (McClure et al., 2013). In sum, ‘alcohol ad exposure and the affective reaction to those ads influence some youth to drink more and experience drinking-related problems later in adolescence’ (Grenard et al., 2013, p. e369).

Self-regulation and youth exposure to alcohol

advertising

Despite self-imposed regulations which call for limiting exposure of youth to alcohol advertising content and messages, there is evidence that the alcohol industry purposefully targets those under the min- imum legal drinking age (MLDA; 18–20) (Ross et al., 2014). For in- stance, beer and liquor advertising appear more frequently in magazines with higher adolescent readerships (Garfield et al., 2003; King et al., 2009). Additionally, placement of television advertising appears during television programs with higher percentages of youth viewers than is allowable under alcohol industry voluntary reg- ulations (CDC, 2013). Although alcohol brand websites require visi- tors to enter a birthdate—a content restriction practice known as an ‘age gate’—persons under the age of 21 represent large percentages (upwards of 50–60% for some brands) of the total in-depth visits to alcohol websites (CAMY, 2004).

With the proliferation of internet and social media, the alcohol in- dustry has considerably decreased its advertising expenditures in trad- itional media outlets (e.g. television, radio, magazine) while at the same time substantially increased expenditures for digital and online outlets (FTC, 2014). This is concerning when you couple the alcohol industry’s track record of advertising to youth with the fact that youth account for a large percentage of internet and social media adopters and users (Pew Research Center, n.d.). Approximately 95% of teen- agers (12–17 years) use the internet (Pew Research Center, n.d.). Of these internet users, 81% engage with social media sites, the most popular of which include Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram (Pew Re- search Center, n.d.). As Casswell (2004) contends, new developments in alcohol marketing are most likely to impact adolescents and young adults, as they are more likely to adopt new technology.

With regard to self-regulation, the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS) developed the Guidance Note on Responsible Digital Marketing Communications (2011), which asserts:

(1) Digital marketing communications are intended for adults of legal purchase age.

(2) Digital marketing communications should be placed only in media where at least 71.6% of the audience is reasonably ex- pected to be of the legal purchase age.

(3) Digital marketing communications on a site or web page con- trolled by the brand advertiser that involve direct interaction

with a user should require age affirmation by the user prior to full user engagement of that communication to determine that the user is of legal purchase age.

It should be noted that DISCUS is a trade association which represents the leading producers and marketers of distilled spirits in the USA.

Current investigation

Considering (a) youth and adolescents are highly engaged with social media applications such as Twitter and Instagram, (b) alcohol adver- tisers are expanding their social media presence and (c) advertiser practices have targeted youth and adolescents across more traditional media platforms, it is essential to examine whether youth are able to interact with and/or be advertised to on social media platforms. The current investigation employed fictitious social media profiles between the ages of 13–21 in order to assess whether alcohol companies are adhering to the recommendations outlined in the DISCUS’s Guidance Note on Responsible Digital Marketing Communications (2011) in their marketing practices on the social media platforms of Twitter and Instagram. Twitter and Instagram were specifically chosen for sev- eral reasons. First, the FTC (2014) contends that Facebook effectively restricts access to alcohol industry pages to those over the minimum legal drinking age, and that alcohol advertisements cannot be placed on the pages of persons who are younger than 21. Thus, existing data on Facebook practices eliminated it from consideration. Second, fol- lowing Facebook, Twitter and Instagram are the most popular social media sites among youth between the ages of 12–17 (Pew Research Center, n.d.). Specifically, we examined whether youth could (a) view and interact with online social media alcohol advertising on Twitter and Instagram, and (b) follow and subsequently receive pro- motional materials/messages from alcohol brand profiles on Twitter and Instagram. Based on previous investigations into the efficacy of age gate technology employed on the social media site YouTube (Barry et al., 2015), we hypothesized that youth would have access to, and be able to follow, all alcohol advertising materials/promotions.

METHODS

Creation of user profiles

We created five fictitious male and five fictitious female Twitter (n = 10) and Instagram (n = 10) user profiles, which were each assigned an age of 13, 15, 17, 19 and 21. For each social media platform there was a male and female profile for each age category. We specifically chose to have profiles begin at age 13 since nearly half of American 8th graders (44%) have tried alcohol (Johnston et al., 2005). Additionally, these age ranges were selected because they correspond with several different phases of life: middle-school (age 13), high school (ages 15 and 17), and college (ages 19 and 21). The profiles were assigned first and last names ran- domly selected from the 20 most popular names on the 2010 United States Census. Each fictitious profile was used to interact with both the Twitter and an Instagram social media channels which produced usage and engagement metrics. These metrics were assessed solely via mobile smartphone devices. Thus, it is possible user experiences would be different from those using a desktop/laptop/tablet computer. The only information that was entered during setup of the accounts on Twitter and Instagram was user name, age, and sex.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Data obtained from Twitter and Instagram provided information on the ability of youth to access, view, interact (e.g. re-tweet, ‘like’) and

Alchol and Alcoholism, 2016, Vol. 51, No. 4488

a t A

d a m

E llsw

o rth

o n Ju

ly 3 , 2

0 1 6

D o w

n lo

a d e d fro

m

follow official alcohol brand pages. In order to identify what alcohol companies to examine, we selected the 25 alcohol brands that are most popular/consumed (i.e. highest prevalence of use within the past 30-days) by adolescents in the USA (see Siegel et al., 2013). Brands were excluded if we were unable to identify their official Twitter and Instagram account. Of these 25 brands, only 22 had official pages on both Twitter and Instagram.

Assessment

Data was collected in two phases using Twitter and Instagram mobile applications. Phase 1 focused on analyzing access and interaction. Specifically, for each of the 22 brands, all fictitious profiles attempted to view the official page of each alcohol brand. Next, users attempted to interact with the official page. Interaction was judged to occur if a profile could (a) retweet, (b) view video content, (c) view picture con- tent, (d) like, (e) comment, (f) share URL, and/or (g) share content (e.g. retweet, regram). Phase 2 of data collection focused on whether our fictitious youth profiles could follow and receive direct updates from each of the 22 alcohol brands. Updates were considered any dis- tinct post consisting of either a video, picture, or text. Updates were not classified by type; instead, each new post received was counted as an update. Each fictitious profile recorded data from both Twitter and Instagram for a period of 30 days. Phase 2 focused on the fre- quency with which an alcohol company sent updates (e.g. video, pic- ture or text-based sentences) to our fictitious profiles. It is important to note that for each phase of data collection, all profiles entered their as- signed fictitious birthdate when prompted. The Institutional Review Board determined this research to be exempt from review.

RESULTS

Phase 1 findings

All user profiles, both those under the MLDA of 21 and those of legal drinking age, were able to view, interact, and comment on advertising content from the alcohol companies on both Instagram and Twitter. In other words, all profiles, regardless of age (13–21), could fully interact with Instagram and Twitter content, such as view videos, comment on pictures, forward advertisements to others, like and retweet posts from alcohol industry feeds/pages. Table 1 presents a general overview of findings from Phase 1.

Phase 2 findings

As you will note from Table 1, Twitter’s age-gate only prevented underage profiles from following each of the official alcohol company

pages, and subsequently from receiving direct updates/promotional advertising. However, this feature was not employed on Instagram; thus, all profiles (13–21) on Instagram could receive alcohol industry advertisements directly to their smartphones. Figure 1 outlines the cu- mulative number of Instagram updates received by all profile users over a period of 30 days (total n = 3620). On average, each user re- ceived 362 Instagram updates directly to their smartphone within a month. Given Twitter’s age gate preventing under-age profile users from following and receiving updates from alcohol companies, only our two legal drinking age profiles received direct to consumer promo- tional material (total n = 1836) via their Twitter account during the 30 days of data collection (male n = 917; female n = 919).

On average, all Instagram profiles received 12–13 updates from al- cohol companies each day (approximately 91 per week), regardless of age. Figure 2 outlines the average number of Instagram updates sent to of-age and underage profiles as a function of day of the week. Fre- quency of alcohol advertising updates increased as the week pro- gressed, reaching its peak on Thursday and Friday.

Fortuitous findings

In the process of evaluating the main hypothesis proposed in this study, there were noteworthy exploratory findings that were not con- sidered a priori. As noted above in Phase 1, to fully determine the level of access that our profiles had to alcohol industry pages we sought to see if it was possible to view and interact with (e.g. like, comment, share) promotional material. As a result of this interaction we learned that entities who maintained and controlled the alcohol brand pages would directly interact/correspond with our underage profiles. As noted in Fig. 3, the representative/controller of alcohol brand Instagram accounts would respond directly to our underage profiles. Secondly, alcohol advertisers, representatives, and/or enthusiasts ‘fol- lowed’ our underage profiles. Each of the underage profiles included in this investigation received follow notifications from separate, distinct, and uninitiated alcohol advertisers, representatives, and/or enthusiasts that were not part of our sample of 22 alcohol brands.

DISCUSSION

While there exists a plethora of scholarly investigations which have ex- amined the impact of alcohol advertising transmitted through trad- itional mediums (i.e. television, radio, newspapers), there is much less peer-reviewed literature which examines alcohol advertising on emerging social media platforms. To date, we are aware of only two studies (see Winpenney et al., 2014; Barry et al., 2015) that have

Table 1. Ability of users (aged 13–21) to view and interact with official pages of 22 alcoholic brands on Twitter and Instagram

Age Gender Follow official page View page View video and picture content

Retweet Embed to social media

Share URL

Comment or like

Twitter Instagram Twitter Instagram Twitter Instagram Twitter Instagram Twitter Instagram Instagram

13 Male — ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 13 Female — ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 15 Male — ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 15 Female — ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 17 Male — ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 17 Female — ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 19 Male — ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 19 Female — ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 21 Male ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 21 Female ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Alchol and Alcoholism, 2016, Vol. 51, No. 4 489

a t A

d a m

E llsw

o rth

o n Ju

ly 3 , 2

0 1 6

D o w

n lo

a d e d fro

m

attempted to examine the accessibility of alcohol content to underage persons via social media. Unlike these previous studies, however, this investigation examined Instagram and Twitter in lieu of Facebook and YouTube. Overall, our findings point to the unobstructed accessibility youth have to alcohol advertising and promotion via both Instagram and Twitter. In other words, there was no restriction to viewing and interacting with the content posted on alcohol brand pages. Moreover, in the case of Instagram, age-gate technology did not restrict underage profiles from receiving updates directly to their smartphones. These findings echo Nicholls’ (2012) contention of ‘everyday, everywhere’, such that everyday our fictitious profiles, even those as young as 13, were bombarded with messages and post directly to their personal smartphones.

As alcohol companies are cutting down on traditional advertising, they appear to be increasing their efforts towards online or digital ad- vertising (FTC, 2014). This is concerning for several reasons. First,

youth and adolescents represent a large percentage of internet and technology users (Pew Research Center, n.d.), which would dispropor- tionately expose them to digital alcohol advertisements above and be- yond of-age drinkers. Second, the self-imposed regulations established by the alcohol industry have failed to protect and/or limit youth from exposure to their advertising content via traditional mediums (Anderson, 2009; Tanski et al., 2015). In fact, due to the relative ineffectiveness of the industry’s self-regulation, public health researchers and govern- ment officials in some countries are considering implementing a ban on alcohol advertising (see Jernigan, 2013; Parry et al., 2014). Others have called for imposing a levy on alcohol advertising in order to establish a fund which can be used to develop counter-advertising messages (see Harper and Mooney, 2010). Third, previous research has found systemic code violations with regard to the content depicted in alcohol industry advertising (Vendrame et al., 2010; Babor et al., 2013), as well as the content on their respective websites (Gordon, 2011). While this investigation focused exclusively on access, inter- action, and exposure to alcohol advertising on social media, our findings highlights the need for future research examining the con- tent of the messages sent to underage consumers on social media. In an examination of the marketing content posted on 12 of the lead- ing UK alcohol brand Facebook pages, Nicholls (2012) documented the use of interactive games, links to product advertisements en- couraging viewers to suggest alternative endings to their commer- cials, as well as messages encouraging drinking—regardless of the day of the week. To date, however, examinations of the content on social networking platforms such as Twitter and Instagram are unavailable.

The current investigation highlights the alcohol industry’s use of social media platforms to send direct to consumer advertisements re- gardless of age. In other words, the industry has violated their own marketing code restrictions and ultimately failed to restrict access and exposure of underage persons to their advertising content. More- over, representatives/controllers of their alcohol brand pages are actu- ally communicating directly with persons under the MLDA. We did not, however, measure level of interaction among each of our respect- ive profiles and the alcohol brand pages. Instead, to address our initial research question, we sought to simply determine whether profiles could view and interact with alcohol brand pages. The lack of a meas- ure of interaction for each of our profiles (i.e. how many times each profile liked a post, posted a comment) prohibits us from determining whether involvement resulted in differing quantities and frequencies of updates directly received. Future research, therefore, should seek to de- termine whether differing levels of engagement and interaction among social media users results in altered levels of exposure to alcohol indus- try promotions.

The findings reported herein highlight not only an American public health issue, but an international health concern given the borderless reach of digital media. In fact, in their Global Strategy to Reduce the Harmful Use of Alcohol the World Health Organiza- tion called for a reduction in the number of youth exposed to alcohol advertising (WHO, 2010). Given that alcohol advertising is one of the factors influencing the beliefs and behaviors of young people, and contributing to their decision to consume alcohol despite being below the MLDA (Grube, 2004), our findings demonstrating the ineffectiveness of age-gate technology should serve as a call for (a) greater political advocacy from public health officials and re- searchers, and (b) additional research examining how emerging so- cial media technologies are being leveraged by the alcohol industry in the marketing of their products.

Fig. 1. Cumulative number of Instagram updates sent from 22 alcohol

companies to users (13–21) over a 30-day period.

Fig. 2. Comparison of average weekday Instagram updates received by of-age

profiles and underage profiles within 30-day period.

Alchol and Alcoholism, 2016, Vol. 51, No. 4490

a t A

d a m

E llsw

o rth

o n Ju

ly 3 , 2

0 1 6

D o w

n lo

a d e d fro

m

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors have no conflicts of interest (financial or otherwise) to report.

REFERENCES

Anderson P. (2009) Is it time to ban alcohol advertising? Clin Med 9:1–4. Anderson P, De Bruijn A, Angus K, et al. (2009) Impact of alcohol advertising

and media exposure on adolescent alcohol use: a systematic review of longitudinal studies. Alcohol Alcohol 44:229–43.

Austin EW, Chen MJ, Grube JW. (2006) How does alcohol advertising influ- ence underage drinking? The role of desirability, identification and skepti- cism. J Adolesc Health 38:376–84.

Babor TF, Xuan Z, Damon D, et al. (2013) An empirical evaluation of the US Beer Institute’s self-regulation code governing the content of beer advertis- ing. Am J Public Health 103:e45–51.

Barry AE, Johnson E, Rabre A, et al. (2015) Underage access to online alcohol marketing content: a YouTube case study. Alcohol Alcohol 50:89–94.

Casswell S. (2004) Alcohol brands in young peoples’ everyday lives: new devel- opments in marketing. Alcohol Alcohol 39:471–6.

Center for Alcohol Marketing and Youth. (2004, March). Clicking with Kids: Alcohol Marketing and Youth on the Internet. Retrieved from http://www. camy.org/research/Clicking_with_Kids_Alcohol_Marketing_and_Youth_ on_the_Internet/index.html

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013) Youth exposure to alcohol advertising on television—25 markets, United States, 2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 62: 877–80.

Chen MJ, Grube JW, Bersamin M, et al. (2005) Alcohol advertising: what makes it attractive to youth? J Health Commun 10:553–65.

Distilled Spirits Council of the United States. (2011) Distilled spirit council’s guidance note on responsible digital marketing communications. Code of Responsible Practices. Retrieved from http://www.discus.org/assets/1/7/ DISCUS_Digital_Communications_Guidelines.pdf.

Ellickson PL, Collins RL, Hambarsoomians K, et al. (2005) Does alcohol adver- tising promote adolescent drinking? Results from a longitudinal assessment. Addiction 100:235–46.

Federal Trade Commission. (2014, March) Self-Regulation in the Alcohol Industry. Retrieved from http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/ reports/self-regulation-alcohol-industry-report-federal-trade-commission/ 140320alcoholreport.pdf

Fleming K, Thorson E, Atkin CK. (2004) Alcohol advertising exposure and perceptions: links with alcohol expectancies and intentions to drink or

drinking in underaged youth and young adults. J Health Commun 9:3–29.

Garfield CF, Chung PJ, Rathouz PJ. (2003) Alcohol advertising in magazines and adolescent readership. JAMA 289:2424–9.

Gordon R. (2011) An audit of alcohol brand websites. Drug Alcohol Rev 30:638–44.

Grenard JL, Dent CW, Stacy AW. (2013) Exposure to alcohol advertisements and teenage alcohol-related problems. Pediatrics 131:e369–79. doi:10. 1542/peds.2012–1480.

Grube JW. (2004) Alcohol in the media: drinking portrayals, alcohol advertis- ing, and alcohol consumption among youth. In: Bonnie RJ, O’Connell ME, (eds), Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. National Research Council (US) and Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Devel- oping a Strategy to Reduce and Prevent Underage Drinking. Washington (DC): National Academies Press, pp 597–624.

Harper TA, Mooney G. (2010) Prevention before profits: a levy on food and alcohol advertising. Med J Aust 192:400–2.

Jernigan D. (2013) Why South Africa’s proposed advertising ban matters. Addiction 108:1183–5.

Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG, et al. (2005) Monitoring the Future National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975–2004: Volume I, Secondary School Students (NIH Publication No. 05–5727). Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

King C III, Siegel M, Jernigan DH, et al. (2009) Adolescent exposure to alcohol advertising in magazines: an evaluation of advertising place- ment in relation to underage youth readership. J Adolesc Health 45: 626–33.

McClure AC, Stoolmiller M, Tanski SE, et al. (2013) Alcohol marketing recep- tivity, marketing-specific cognitions, and underage binge drinking. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 37(Suppl 1):E404–13.

Nicholls J. (2012) Everyday, everywhere: alcohol marketing and social media— current trends. Alcohol Alcohol 47:486–93.

Parry C, London L, Myers B. (2014) Delays in South Africa’s plans to ban alcohol advertising. Lancet 383:7–13.

Pew Research Center. (n.d.). Teens Fact Sheet. Retrieved 1 November 2014, from http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/teens-fact-sheet/

Ross CS, Ostroff J, Jernigan DH. (2014) Evidence of underage targeting of alcohol advertising on television in the United States: lessons from the Lockyer v. Reynolds decision. J Public Health Policy 35:105–18.

Siegel M, DeJong W, Naimi TS, et al. (2013) Brand‐specific consumption of alcohol among underage youth in the United States. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 37:1195–203.

Fig. 3. Examples of alcohol industry direct communication/correspondence with underage profiles.

Alchol and Alcoholism, 2016, Vol. 51, No. 4 491

a t A

d a m

E llsw

o rth

o n Ju

ly 3 , 2

0 1 6

D o w

n lo

a d e d fro

m

Smith LA, Foscroft DR. (2009) The effect of alcohol advertising, marketing and portrayal on drinking behavior in young people: systematic review of pro- spective cohort studies. BMC Public Health 9:51.

Snyder LB, Milici FF, Slater M, et al. (2006) Effect of alcohol advertising expos- ure on drinking among youth. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 160:18–24.

Tanski SE, McClure AC, Li Z, et al. (2015) Cued recall of alcohol advertising on television and underage drinking behaviors. JAMA Pediatr. doi:10.1001/ jamapediatrics.2014.3345.

Vendrame A, Pinsky I, e Silva RS, et al. (2010) Assessment of self-regulatory code violation in Brazilian television beer advertisements. J Stud Alcohol Drugs 71:445–51.

Winpenney EM, Marteau TM, Nolte E. (2014) Exposure of children and ado- lescents to alcohol marketing on social media websites. Alcohol Alcohol 49:154–9.

World Health Organization. (2010) Global Strategy to Reduce the Harmful Use of Alcohol. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

Alchol and Alcoholism, 2016, Vol. 51, No. 4492

a t A

d a m

E llsw

o rth

o n Ju

ly 3 , 2

0 1 6

D o w

n lo

a d e d fro

m

Copyright of Alcohol & Alcoholism is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.