Psychopharmacology
Psychopharmacology58, 35-41 (1978)
9 by Springer-Verlag 1978
Experimental Analysis of the 'Happy Hour': Effects of Purchase Price on Alcohol Consumption Thomas F. Babor*, Jack H. Mendelson, Isaac Greenberg, and John Kuehnle Alcoholand DrugAbuseResearchCenter,HarvardMedicalSchool- McLeanHospital,115MillStreet,Belmont,Massachusetts02178,U.S.A.
Abstract. An experimental analogue of a discount drink policy known as the 'happy hour' was used to study the effects of purchase price on drinking behavior. Male volunteers with a prior history of either casual (N = 20) or heavy ( N = 14) drinking were given free access to beverage alcohol during a 20-day period. Approximately half the subjects could purchase alcohol under a single-price condition (50 C/drink), while a matched group was given a price reduction daily (25 C/drink) during a three-hour period in the afternoon. The results demonstrated that the afternoon price reduction significantly increased alcohol consumption in both casual and heavy drinkers. Reinstatement of the standard purchase price effectively suppressed drinking in both groups. The findings are discussed in terms of the theoretical and research implications of environmental influences on drinking. Key words: Alcohol - Drinking behavior - Purchase price - Casual drinkers - Heavy drinkers
It has been observed (Jones and Parsons, 1975) that the cocktail party may be the most common form of organized drug taking in the Western world. Despite the pervasiveness of this ritual and its many variations in American culture (e,g., 'the social hour', the 'happy hour,' etc.), few students of drinking behavior have addressed themselves to the social or economic factors that account for its popularity. Lolli (1961) has classified under the term cocktail hour "all those drinking experiences which occur after the daily activities have ended and before the evening meal is eaten" (p. 83). The present research examined experimentally one variation of this popular custom known commercially as the 'happy hour.' * To whomoffprintrequests shouldbe sent
The origin of the term happy hour may derive as much from its economic as its social connotations. One explanation (Levey, 1976), which may be apocryphal, attributes it to a discount drink policy that, because of legal restrictions on advertising alcoholic beverages, could only be publicized under the euphemism 'happy hour.' Like its more generic counterpart the cocktail hour, the happy hour typically occurs in the afternoon during the off-peak hours of a drinking establishment. In addition to the reduced drink prices, an informal survey of establishments in the Boston area (Levey, 1976) revealed such variations as free drinks with the standard cover charge, a free drink with each third purchase (referred to as 'buy backs'), and, in one tavern, a roulette wheel which set the drink price each quarter hour. Whatever its varieties, the happy hour provides a context for socializing, an opportunity to consume alcohol at bargain prices, and, presumably, a greater volume of business for the entrepreneur. Although there has been a great deal of research on the physical and personal determinants of drinking behavior, there has been considerably less attention to the environmental factors that affect consumption. On the societal level, epidemiological and cross-cultural researchers have identified several consistent correlates of excessive drinking among population subgroups, Popham et al. (1975) found that per capita consumption is usually high in societies where alcoholic beverages are inexpensive relative to disposable income. Other writers (Bales, 1946; Blacker, 1966)have stressed the influence of sociocultural factors, arguing that excessive drinking is more prevalent in societies where social norms governing the use of alcohol are either inconsistent or permissive. Despite advances in the sociology of alcoholism, it was not until the advent of experimental research on alcoholic drinking patterns (Mendelson and Mello, 1966) that investigators began to examine the empirical relations between drinking and environment. There is
0033-3158/78/0058/0035/$1.40
36 n o w a g r o w i n g literature on the e x p e r i m e n t a l analysis o f a l c o h o l i c d r i n k i n g b e h a v i o r (Mello, 1972; Bigelow et al., 1975), which d e m o n s t r a t e s the extent to which beverage cost, setting events, a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l contingencies affect the initiation, m a i n t e n a n c e , a n d suppression o f drinking. Mello et al. (1968) c o m p a r e d d r i n k i n g p a t t e r n s o f 14 male alcoholics in a research w a r d setting u n d e r two cost-effort contingencies. Subjects who were required to w o r k twice as h a r d for their a l c o h o l d r a n k h a l f as m u c h as c o m p a r a b l e subjects in a n identical situation. Similarly, Bigelow a n d L i e b s o n (1972), using a withinsubjects design, d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t d r i n k i n g by alcoholics can be r e d u c e d in p r o p o r t i o n to the effort required to earn drinks. O t h e r researchers have shown t h a t d r i n k i n g by alcoholics can be suppressed b y such factors as c o n t i n g e n t loss o f privileges ( C o h e n et al., 1971 a), c o n t i n g e n t isolation f r o m social i n t e r a c t i o n (Griffiths et al., 1974), a n d financial incentives for abstinence ( C o h e n et al., 1971 b). These studies represent a significant c o n t r i b u t i o n to c u r r e n t t h i n k i n g on a l c o h o l i c d r i n k i n g b e h a v i o r b y d e m o n s t r a t i n g the degree to which such b e h a v i o r can be b r o u g h t u n d e r c o n t r o l by social a n d e c o n o m i c contingencies. While initial research on ethanol selfa d m i n i s t r a t i o n has u n d e r s t a n d a b l y c o n c e n t r a t e d on factors t h a t suppress d r i n k i n g in d i a g n o s e d alcoholics, only recently have investigators t u r n e d their a t t e n t i o n to factors t h a t initiate d r i n k i n g in n o n a l c o h o l i c drinkers. M c C l e l l a n d a n d his colleagues (1972) have r e p o r t e d t h a t social d r i n k e r s m a y intensify their d r i n k ing in situations a n d settings t h a t a r o u s e ' p o w e r ' m o t i v a t i o n . Other researchers have o b s e r v e d increases in free-choice d r i n k i n g b e h a v i o r following the a r o u s a l o f fear o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l e v a l u a t i o n (Higgins a n d M a r l a t t . 1975), e x p o s u r e to a h e a v y d r i n k i n g m o d e l (Caudill and M a r l a t t . 1975), a n d p r o v o c a t i o n to anger u n d e r c o n d i t i o n s n o t allowing r e t a l i a t i o n ( M a r l a t t et al., 1975). In spite o f these initial c o n t r i b u t i o n s , there is still a p a u c i t y o f e x p e r i m e n t a l d a t a o n factors c o n t r o l l i n g a l c o h o l use a m o n g n o r m a l drinkers. T h e present research was designed to o b t a i n a c o m p r e h e n s i v e picture o f the effects o f v a r i a t i o n s in p u r c h a s e price on alcohol c o n s u m p t i o n within small g r o u p s o f casual a n d heavy drinkers. In o r d e r to p r o v i d e an e x p e r i m e n t a l a n a l o g u e to a real-life situation, the cost o f alcohol was r e d u c e d for a t h r e e - h o u r p e r i o d each a f t e r n o o n d u r i n g a 20-day p e r i o d o f a l c o h o l availability. A l t h o u g h the discount d r i n k policy was a n a l o g o u s to t h a t a d v e r t i s e d by m a n y c o m m e r c i a l establishments as a ' h a p p y h o u r , ' the social context o f the research w a r d r e m a i n e d c o n s t a n t except for the price variation. It was expected t h a t the aftern o o n price r e d u c t i o n w o u l d affect the a l l o c a t i o n o f available income, as well as the q u a n t i t y a n d t e m p o r a l
Psychopharmacology 58 (1978) p a t t e r n i n g o f b o t h d r i n k i n g a n d intoxication. A second area o f interest was to d e t e r m i n e whether a l c o h o l c o n s u m p t i o n d u r i n g a p e r i o d o f r e d u c e d cost w o u l d have a k i n d l i n g or ' p r i m i n g ' effect on subsequent d r i n k i n g , a n d whether casual a n d h e a v y users w o u l d be differentially affected b y this c o n d i t i o n .
Materials and Methods Subjects. Thirty-four adult males were recruited through newspaper advertisements soliciting volunteers for alcohol research. Applicants were first screened by a comprehensive drinking history questionnaire that included items on quantity and frequency of alcohol consumption (Jessor et al., 1968), personal and legal complications due to drinking, social and 'escape' reasons for drinking (Cahalan et al., 1969), frequency of drunkenness, and use of marihuana and other illegal drugs. Applicants were further screened by a psychiatrist to evaluate medical and psychological status, probable adjustment to ward routine, and veracity of questionnaire responses. Subjects who were in good health and who showed no evidence of prior drug addiction, alcohol dependence, or psychiatric abnormalities were classified as either casual or heavy drinkers. Casual drinkers (N = 20) were persons who defined themselves as light or fairly light alcohol users, and who reported an average daily consumption of less than 2 oz, with less than five episodes of drunkenness per month. Heavy drinkers (N= 14) were persons who defined themselves as heavy or fairly heavy alcohol users, and who fulfilled two of the following criteria: an average daily consumption greater than 2 oz per day, more than 15 drinking occasions per month, more than five episodes of drunkenness per month, a score of 9 or greater on the scale measuring 'escape' reasons for drinking (Cahalan et al., 1969). The subjects were primarily middle class single males in their early 20's. The average age of both groups was 24 years. Intelligence level was above average and all except three had graduated from high school. Casual drinkers reported significantly more years of formal education than heavy drinkers (15.2 vs. 12.3 years, t = 5.58, P
Psychopharmacology58, 35-41 (1978)
9 by Springer-Verlag 1978
Experimental Analysis of the 'Happy Hour': Effects of Purchase Price on Alcohol Consumption Thomas F. Babor*, Jack H. Mendelson, Isaac Greenberg, and John Kuehnle Alcoholand DrugAbuseResearchCenter,HarvardMedicalSchool- McLeanHospital,115MillStreet,Belmont,Massachusetts02178,U.S.A.
Abstract. An experimental analogue of a discount drink policy known as the 'happy hour' was used to study the effects of purchase price on drinking behavior. Male volunteers with a prior history of either casual (N = 20) or heavy ( N = 14) drinking were given free access to beverage alcohol during a 20-day period. Approximately half the subjects could purchase alcohol under a single-price condition (50 C/drink), while a matched group was given a price reduction daily (25 C/drink) during a three-hour period in the afternoon. The results demonstrated that the afternoon price reduction significantly increased alcohol consumption in both casual and heavy drinkers. Reinstatement of the standard purchase price effectively suppressed drinking in both groups. The findings are discussed in terms of the theoretical and research implications of environmental influences on drinking. Key words: Alcohol - Drinking behavior - Purchase price - Casual drinkers - Heavy drinkers
It has been observed (Jones and Parsons, 1975) that the cocktail party may be the most common form of organized drug taking in the Western world. Despite the pervasiveness of this ritual and its many variations in American culture (e,g., 'the social hour', the 'happy hour,' etc.), few students of drinking behavior have addressed themselves to the social or economic factors that account for its popularity. Lolli (1961) has classified under the term cocktail hour "all those drinking experiences which occur after the daily activities have ended and before the evening meal is eaten" (p. 83). The present research examined experimentally one variation of this popular custom known commercially as the 'happy hour.' * To whomoffprintrequests shouldbe sent
The origin of the term happy hour may derive as much from its economic as its social connotations. One explanation (Levey, 1976), which may be apocryphal, attributes it to a discount drink policy that, because of legal restrictions on advertising alcoholic beverages, could only be publicized under the euphemism 'happy hour.' Like its more generic counterpart the cocktail hour, the happy hour typically occurs in the afternoon during the off-peak hours of a drinking establishment. In addition to the reduced drink prices, an informal survey of establishments in the Boston area (Levey, 1976) revealed such variations as free drinks with the standard cover charge, a free drink with each third purchase (referred to as 'buy backs'), and, in one tavern, a roulette wheel which set the drink price each quarter hour. Whatever its varieties, the happy hour provides a context for socializing, an opportunity to consume alcohol at bargain prices, and, presumably, a greater volume of business for the entrepreneur. Although there has been a great deal of research on the physical and personal determinants of drinking behavior, there has been considerably less attention to the environmental factors that affect consumption. On the societal level, epidemiological and cross-cultural researchers have identified several consistent correlates of excessive drinking among population subgroups, Popham et al. (1975) found that per capita consumption is usually high in societies where alcoholic beverages are inexpensive relative to disposable income. Other writers (Bales, 1946; Blacker, 1966)have stressed the influence of sociocultural factors, arguing that excessive drinking is more prevalent in societies where social norms governing the use of alcohol are either inconsistent or permissive. Despite advances in the sociology of alcoholism, it was not until the advent of experimental research on alcoholic drinking patterns (Mendelson and Mello, 1966) that investigators began to examine the empirical relations between drinking and environment. There is
0033-3158/78/0058/0035/$1.40
36 n o w a g r o w i n g literature on the e x p e r i m e n t a l analysis o f a l c o h o l i c d r i n k i n g b e h a v i o r (Mello, 1972; Bigelow et al., 1975), which d e m o n s t r a t e s the extent to which beverage cost, setting events, a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l contingencies affect the initiation, m a i n t e n a n c e , a n d suppression o f drinking. Mello et al. (1968) c o m p a r e d d r i n k i n g p a t t e r n s o f 14 male alcoholics in a research w a r d setting u n d e r two cost-effort contingencies. Subjects who were required to w o r k twice as h a r d for their a l c o h o l d r a n k h a l f as m u c h as c o m p a r a b l e subjects in a n identical situation. Similarly, Bigelow a n d L i e b s o n (1972), using a withinsubjects design, d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t d r i n k i n g by alcoholics can be r e d u c e d in p r o p o r t i o n to the effort required to earn drinks. O t h e r researchers have shown t h a t d r i n k i n g by alcoholics can be suppressed b y such factors as c o n t i n g e n t loss o f privileges ( C o h e n et al., 1971 a), c o n t i n g e n t isolation f r o m social i n t e r a c t i o n (Griffiths et al., 1974), a n d financial incentives for abstinence ( C o h e n et al., 1971 b). These studies represent a significant c o n t r i b u t i o n to c u r r e n t t h i n k i n g on a l c o h o l i c d r i n k i n g b e h a v i o r b y d e m o n s t r a t i n g the degree to which such b e h a v i o r can be b r o u g h t u n d e r c o n t r o l by social a n d e c o n o m i c contingencies. While initial research on ethanol selfa d m i n i s t r a t i o n has u n d e r s t a n d a b l y c o n c e n t r a t e d on factors t h a t suppress d r i n k i n g in d i a g n o s e d alcoholics, only recently have investigators t u r n e d their a t t e n t i o n to factors t h a t initiate d r i n k i n g in n o n a l c o h o l i c drinkers. M c C l e l l a n d a n d his colleagues (1972) have r e p o r t e d t h a t social d r i n k e r s m a y intensify their d r i n k ing in situations a n d settings t h a t a r o u s e ' p o w e r ' m o t i v a t i o n . Other researchers have o b s e r v e d increases in free-choice d r i n k i n g b e h a v i o r following the a r o u s a l o f fear o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l e v a l u a t i o n (Higgins a n d M a r l a t t . 1975), e x p o s u r e to a h e a v y d r i n k i n g m o d e l (Caudill and M a r l a t t . 1975), a n d p r o v o c a t i o n to anger u n d e r c o n d i t i o n s n o t allowing r e t a l i a t i o n ( M a r l a t t et al., 1975). In spite o f these initial c o n t r i b u t i o n s , there is still a p a u c i t y o f e x p e r i m e n t a l d a t a o n factors c o n t r o l l i n g a l c o h o l use a m o n g n o r m a l drinkers. T h e present research was designed to o b t a i n a c o m p r e h e n s i v e picture o f the effects o f v a r i a t i o n s in p u r c h a s e price on alcohol c o n s u m p t i o n within small g r o u p s o f casual a n d heavy drinkers. In o r d e r to p r o v i d e an e x p e r i m e n t a l a n a l o g u e to a real-life situation, the cost o f alcohol was r e d u c e d for a t h r e e - h o u r p e r i o d each a f t e r n o o n d u r i n g a 20-day p e r i o d o f a l c o h o l availability. A l t h o u g h the discount d r i n k policy was a n a l o g o u s to t h a t a d v e r t i s e d by m a n y c o m m e r c i a l establishments as a ' h a p p y h o u r , ' the social context o f the research w a r d r e m a i n e d c o n s t a n t except for the price variation. It was expected t h a t the aftern o o n price r e d u c t i o n w o u l d affect the a l l o c a t i o n o f available income, as well as the q u a n t i t y a n d t e m p o r a l
Psychopharmacology 58 (1978) p a t t e r n i n g o f b o t h d r i n k i n g a n d intoxication. A second area o f interest was to d e t e r m i n e whether a l c o h o l c o n s u m p t i o n d u r i n g a p e r i o d o f r e d u c e d cost w o u l d have a k i n d l i n g or ' p r i m i n g ' effect on subsequent d r i n k i n g , a n d whether casual a n d h e a v y users w o u l d be differentially affected b y this c o n d i t i o n .
Materials and Methods Subjects. Thirty-four adult males were recruited through newspaper advertisements soliciting volunteers for alcohol research. Applicants were first screened by a comprehensive drinking history questionnaire that included items on quantity and frequency of alcohol consumption (Jessor et al., 1968), personal and legal complications due to drinking, social and 'escape' reasons for drinking (Cahalan et al., 1969), frequency of drunkenness, and use of marihuana and other illegal drugs. Applicants were further screened by a psychiatrist to evaluate medical and psychological status, probable adjustment to ward routine, and veracity of questionnaire responses. Subjects who were in good health and who showed no evidence of prior drug addiction, alcohol dependence, or psychiatric abnormalities were classified as either casual or heavy drinkers. Casual drinkers (N = 20) were persons who defined themselves as light or fairly light alcohol users, and who reported an average daily consumption of less than 2 oz, with less than five episodes of drunkenness per month. Heavy drinkers (N= 14) were persons who defined themselves as heavy or fairly heavy alcohol users, and who fulfilled two of the following criteria: an average daily consumption greater than 2 oz per day, more than 15 drinking occasions per month, more than five episodes of drunkenness per month, a score of 9 or greater on the scale measuring 'escape' reasons for drinking (Cahalan et al., 1969). The subjects were primarily middle class single males in their early 20's. The average age of both groups was 24 years. Intelligence level was above average and all except three had graduated from high school. Casual drinkers reported significantly more years of formal education than heavy drinkers (15.2 vs. 12.3 years, t = 5.58, P
