Brand Loyalty
Running head: BRAND LOYALTY
Brand Loyalty: The Influence of Advertising on Consumption of Beer
Jessica R. Sullivan and Miles V. Condon
University of Florida
1
Brand Loyalty
2
Abstract
This study examined whether brand loyalty has an impact on the consumption of beer.
Participants were divided into 2 groups based on whether or not they had brand loyalty. In order
to test whether brand loyalty had an effect, each group was then subdivided into an additional 2
groups: labeled and unlabeled beer, creating a total of 4 groups. Participants indicating a brand
loyalty drank more than those who did not and participants given labeled bottles drank more than
their unlabeled counterparts. Participants with a brand loyalty drank more regardless of whether
the bottles were labeled. The findings support the hypothesis that brand loyalty increases the
consumption of beer.
Brand Loyalty
3
Introduction
The alcoholic beverage is an icon that represents maturation and adulthood to young
adults, including college students. The message that alcohol equals adulthood is portrayed
through all types of advertising: television, radio ads, billboards, newspapers, magazines, etc.
Children and young adults yearn to grow up and many see these ads as a way to become more
mature, which can lead to risky alcohol-related behaviors.
One of the goals of advertising is to develop a company image that establishes product
personality so that consumers are able to form a bond with that product and will be more likely
to repeatedly purchase it (Casswell, 2004). The idea is that being able to relate, and therefore
bond, to a beverage will increase the consumption rate and will therefore lead to more sales.
Indeed, developing a brand preference at the age of 18, when students enter college, can
significantly impact the drinking behavior of an individual at the age of 21 (Casswell & Zhang,
1998). In fact, simply being in a college atmosphere can lead to higher consumption rates as
those entering college are suddenly surrounded by social pressures that create a drinking
atmosphere.
Although it has been shown that the majority of sales for beer companies come from
consumers who have developed a brand preference, defined as the repeat selection of a particular
brand of beer over all available beer, there has not been any study to see if brand preference
increases the actual amount of beer consumed (McConnell, 1968). The purpose of our study is to
see if having a brand preference for beer actually increases the total amount of beer consumed in
college students ages 21-25 at a college party setting.
Alcohol is visible everywhere in the lives of Americans where advertising is lightly
regulated. Ads are saturated with mature content such as sex and masculinity and are heavily tied
Brand Loyalty
4
to consuming alcohol (Wyllie et al., 1998). Wyllie, Zhang and Casswell (1998) identify children
as being especially vulnerable to advertising because they are likely to model the adults who
have characteristics they and society desire. They view the mature content in alcohol ads and
mimic them in an effort to become more like an adult. Previous research identified by Wyllie et
al. states that children aged 10 to 17 believe that drinking alcohol will make them more like the
characters in the ads. The results of Wyllie et al. also suggest that adolescents who indicated a
liking of alcohol advertisements expected to drink more as adults, especially if they were male.
Gentile, Walsh, Bloomgren, Atti, and Norman (2001) determined that the more television
the adolescent watched, especially sports programs, the more likely he or she would drink
alcohol. Drinking has recently become more salient in the adolescent population (Gentile et al.,
2001). This increase in alcohol consumption by adolescents is presumably because seeing more
television programs increased the exposure to alcohol commercials, making it more likely that
the viewer would consume the product (Gentile et al., 2001). Gentile et al. also found that
adolescents who were more exposed to alcohol commercials were more likely to intend to drink
as adults.
Alcohol advertising companies directly target adolescents. Casswell (2004) states that
advertising for alcohol is 6% higher than ads in any other area and that youth ages 13 to 20 saw
more ads for alcohol than those who were legally allowed to drink. It is speculated that targeting
the youth will allow adolescents to develop a brand loyalty earlier, which could lead to more
sales. Casswell refers to research in which participants were asked to rate beer in terms of their
perceptions of the product after watching advertisements for the products. After viewing these
ads, students indicated that they believed beer was less risky than other drugs and consuming it
would confer many positive characteristics such as “self confidence” (Casswell, 2004). Casswell
Brand Loyalty
5
also found that students believe drinking will make them more popular with their peers.
Interestingly, the student’s ability to recall alcoholic ads has been positively correlated with
heavier drinking by the age of 18 (Casswell, 2004). Moreover, Kidorf, Sherman, Johnson, and
Bigelow (1995) found that having a higher expectancy to drink when older did indeed lead to
higher consumption levels in college.
This perception is made salient in the minds of college students through advertisements
promoting heavy drinking. The perception that peers expect heavy drinking significantly
influences an individual’s drinking behavior in the college atmosphere (Erenberg & Hacker,
1997). Local bars constantly promote this belief through advertising drink specials at their
establishments (Geller & Kalsher, 1990). Such promotions as “happy hours” or “all-you-candrink” specials entice college students into bars, where they are pressured into heavy drinking
through socialization with their peers (Geller & Kalsher, 1990). Together with advertisements,
the large supply of cheap alcohol perpetuates the perception that heavy drinking is to be expected
from a college student (Erenberg & Hacker, 1997). These advertisements often increase alcohol
consumption, but the amount of alcohol readily available also can influence alcohol use.
Lowering the price of beer increases drinking rates, but limiting advertising in the area
decreases the rate of binge-drinking overall (Kuo, Wechler, Greenberg & Lee, 2003). Alcohol is
often packaged in large volumes, such as kegs and liters, seemingly encouraging students to
binge drink (Kuo et al., 2003). Large volumes are sold in party balls, kegs, 24- and 30-can cases
and are readily available in areas of a high college student population. The accessibility of these
items has been correlated with higher binge-drinking rates, which implies that conversely
limiting volume of alcohol in a container to be sold to the public or restricting advertising in the
area can greatly reduce drinking behaviors in the area (Kuo et al., 2003). Advertising can
Brand Loyalty
6
increase the amount of alcohol consumed, but it can also depict a brand with a positive
personality.
Advertising typically creates a personality for a brand that allows the consumer to
identify with it. Dolich’s 1969 study suggests that products chosen by the consumer are selected
based on the congruence of the company’s image with their own self-image. Casswell and Zhang
(1998) found that brand preference and high ratings of enjoyment of alcohol advertising had the
strongest relationship to consumption at age 21. Products advertising characteristics
conventionally desirable to males, such as masculinity or strength, had the highest consumption
levels (Casswell & Zhang, 1998). However, advertising is not the only factor in determining
which brand to consume.
Price is also a strong motivator in brand selection of beer. According to a study by
McConnell (1968), consumers are more likely to develop a brand preference faster when the
price of the product is higher. The strength of the bond between consumer and brand was tested
by giving monetary incentives to persuade the consumer to switch brands (McConnell, 1968).
The results of McConnell’s study indicate that consumers would refuse the incentive most of the
time, but when they did take the money, they tended to revert back to their preferred brand
quickly, demonstrating a very strong bond between brand and consumer.
Another factor that influences brand preference and selection correlates with the image
congruence hypothesis, or the idea that people prefer brands with a perceived image similar to
that of their own self-image (Graeff, 1997). Not only do the consumers look for products that
demonstrate morals that are similar to their own, they choose products whose advertised
personality is most like how they want to be viewed by others. Graeff (1997) studied whether the
choice people make about the brand of beer they drink differs based on the situational influence
Brand Loyalty
7
they are involved in. The study looked at whether Budweiser, a relatively cheap domestic beer,
or Heineken, a more expensive imported beer, was chosen in two environments: out with friends
or out with a new boss (Graeff, 1997). The results of Graeff’s study suggests that participants
choose the brand they prefer by judging how similar their self-image was in comparison to the
situation they were in. Thus, participants more regularly chose Budweiser when given the
scenario of being out with their friends because it was more aligned with their self-image but
chose the more expensive, presumably more sophisticated, brand of Heineken when going out
with their new boss as it portrayed their model self-image, or how they wanted their boss to see
them (Graeff, 1997). These findings suggest that people view themselves differently in a variety
of situations, and that brands are favored based not solely on the individual’s self-image but also
how they want to be viewed by others. Companies also tend to portray their products as having
particular values that the businesses hope will align with the values of its consumers. Casswell
and Zhang (1998) found that brand allegiance is based on how one’s own values align with the
perceived values of the product they choose. Research shows that advertising has little influence
on the population that has already chosen a brand but directly impacts the undecided consumer’s
choice (Casswell & Zhang, 1998).
While advertisements and price are heavily weighed by the consumer when choosing a
product, there are many factors that influence brand preference. According to a survey conducted
by Yang, Allenby, and Fennell (2002), individual preferences for brands depend on the objective
environment they are in. For example, in a friendly and informal setting, one might prefer a
cheaper, local beer whereas that same person might prefer an imported, more expensive beer
while at a business dinner or other formal environment. The situation a person is in can change
Brand Loyalty
8
what brand of beer they prefer to drink. Brand choice can also be influenced by the simple factor
of how the brand is perceived by the consumer.
Although the actual taste of the beer has very little to do with how one goes about
choosing a brand, Allison and Uhl (1964) delivered a six-pack of unlabeled beer to participants
and asked them to rate each beer on taste. After rating the unlabeled bottles, the participants were
instructed to rate another batch containing the exact same beer, but this time in labeled bottles
(Allison & Uhl, 1964). The participants were unable to distinguish between the various beers on
taste alone, but the addition of labels to the bottles had a significant influence on the ratings of
the beer (Allison & Uhl, 1964). In a similar study in which all unlabeled bottles were in fact the
same product, participants praised their preferred brand while claiming that another was
undrinkable, demonstrating the unimportance of taste and the strong influence of advertisement
(McConnell, 1968). Lee, Frederick, and Ariely (2006) found that telling participants they added
balsamic vinaigrette, a seemingly unpalatable addition, to beer caused them to rate the beer lower
than telling them after they had tasted it. The consumer’s expectation of flavor has a higher
influence on the perception of quality of a product than the actual flavor itself.
Being part of a group also plays a role in which brand people prefer. Participants in
Stafford’s 1966 study were more likely to choose a brand of bread when the leader of that group
had chosen it. The more often the leader chose a particular brand the more likely the other
members of the group would select the same brand (Stafford, 1966). One’s preference can be so
greatly influenced that an entire group of people will eventually abandon their own personal
favorite brand in favor of their leader’s choice (Stafford, 1966). However, brand preference is
only one aspect of drinking that can be influenced by situational factors.
Brand Loyalty
9
There are many ways in which a social atmosphere can affect consumption. Drinking
behavior, especially by college students, is highly influenced by the environment they are in. In a
study by Dommermuth and Millard (1967), participants viewed either a lighthearted or a sad
movie and were then asked to rate a brand of soda. The results indicate that the soda rated after
watching the sad movie had significantly lower ratings than the other condition. Thus, the
circumstantial factors in a situation can determine how much a person likes a particular product.
Another situation that has a great impact on the drinking behavior of individuals is the
prevalence of some social organizations on college campuses. College undergraduates who
joined a sorority or fraternity organization were more likely to drink beer and hard liquor than
undergraduates who had not participated (Montgomery & Haemmerlie, 1993). Simply becoming
a member of a social organization such as a fraternity or sorority has the power to increase the
probability of alcohol consumption. However, how the alcohol is served or presented to people
can also influence consumption.
Research has also shown that people given the opportunity to serve alcohol to themselves
at a party were more likely to consume a larger quantity of beer at a faster rate. When served by
a bartender, both the quantity of alcohol and the rate at which it was consumed dropped
significantly (Geller & Kalsher, 1990). This drop in consumption rates indicates that simply
adding a bartender to a party can decrease the risk of alcohol overconsumption. The environment
in which an individual drinks has a large influence on the amount of alcohol that person will
consume. Another influence in drinking consumption and behaviors is how that alcohol is
advertised.
Advertisements can have a tremendous influence on the consumer’s drinking behaviors,
specifically in relation to brand loyalty and the amount of alcohol consumed. Although the
Brand Loyalty
10
drinking behaviors of adolescents are most affected by advertisements, students entering the
college atmosphere are heavily pressured to drink as well. Research about brand loyalty has
shown us that having a preference for a brand can strongly influence a person’s perceptions of
the product and that the brand’s image can directly affect beer consumption (Casswell & Zhang,
1998; McConnell, 1968). It has also been shown that social and individual factors can greatly
affect alcohol consumption and brand choice. Based on this previous research, we hypothesize
that if college students have a preference for a brand of beer, then they will consume more
alcohol in comparison to those who does not have a preference.
Method
Participants
There were 408 total participants in the study, 221 males and 187 females. The sample was
complied of undergraduate college students at the University of Florida who are of legal age to
drink, with a mean age of 22.8. The participants were recruited through The Alligator, the local
paper, a student-focused news website called GatorTimes, and a student-wide email by
introducing a questionnaire given to the entire student population with the purpose of
determining whether they had a preference for a brand of beer. From the people who responded,
specific participants were selected based on a questionnaire, with about 150 participants initially
assigned to each of the four conditions.
The participants were separated into two different groups based on brand preference and
the presence of labeled as opposed to unlabeled bottles of beer. The groups were then further
divided into two more groups to test whether the presence of labeled as opposed to unlabeled
bottles of beer had an effect on consumption levels, for a total of four conditions. In the first
Brand Loyalty
11
condition, group 1, there were 102 (56 males, 46 females) participants with a preference for a
particular brand of beer. The second condition, or group 2, had 100 participants consisting of 48
males and 52 females. In this condition, participants did not have a preference for a particular
brand of beer. In the third condition, group 3, there were 101 participants, 51 males and 50
females, who had a brand preference for beer. The fourth and final condition, group 4, was
compiled of 105 participants (54 males, 51 females) who did not have a preference for a brand of
beer.
Materials/Apparatus
A questionnaire was introduced to all undergraduate students at the University of Florida
aged from 21 to 25 years old through a website on the psychology department’s website. The
questionnaire determined brand preference for beer, and consisted of 20 short answer and
ranking questions ranging from demographics to brand preference. Some questions included,
“How often do you consume beer in a typical week?” “What is your favorite brand of beer that
you can purchase at your local supermarket?” and “How many times a month do you purchase
your favorite brand of beer?” (Appendix A).
A total of four thousand bottles of beer were needed to assure each participant would
have enough to drink. Brands of the bottled beer served at the first party included Budweiser,
Budweiser Light, Corona, Heineken, Heineken Light, Miller Genuine Draft, Miller Lite,
Guinness, Coors, and Coors Light. At a party where unlabeled bottles of beer were served, Miller
and Miller Lite were served, as SABMiller is the largest brewery in the United States.
Punch cards were also used at each party to count and regulate how many bottles of beer
the participants got from the bartenders. Each punch card was a three by five inch index card, in
which a hole punch is used by the bartenders to mark the card.
Brand Loyalty
12
Procedure
A questionnaire determining brand preference was presented to all students at the
University of Florida from Monday to Wednesday through a website in the psychology section
of the university’s website. The web address was posted in the local newspaper The Alligator, as
well as through a student-focused news website called the GatorTimes in order to give all
applicable participants an equal opportunity to complete the questionnaire. Respondents were
assigned to one of four conditions based on the results of the brand preference measure, with the
goal of having at least 100 participants per condition. One hundred fifty respondents of the
questionnaire were selected to be a part of each group. However, as we invited more participants
than necessary to account for ones who did not complete the study, only a total of 408
participants’ data was compiled.
Buses picked up participants at various locations throughout campus, so as to avoid
participants driving to the location of the party. Participants were then invited to one of two
Halloween costume parties at a Gainesville fraternity house located near campus. Two parties
were given on either a Friday or Saturday night; with the difference being the first party had
labeled bottles of beer served to the participants. At the second party, participants were given
unlabeled bottles of beer told the bottles were unlabeled due to legal reasons in terms of the
distribution companies of each brand.
At the parties, bottles of beer were given to the participants at no charge, under the
condition that it would only be served from 11 p.m. until 1 a.m. The purpose of the time limit
was to reduce excessive intoxication. The participants were under the impression that the party
they were assigned to was compensation for filling out the pre-test questionnaire. Also, they
were unaware of the true purpose of the study in order to prevent participant bias by them
Brand Loyalty
13
drinking more or less beer than they usually would at a college party. The participants were told
that they must return their empty beer bottles in order to get a new one, with the intention to
make sure they finished their previous beer.
Ten stations were set up throughout the fraternity house with a trained bartender at each
station. The stations were used to minimize lines, which could deter normal consumption, as well
as to more easily determine how many bottles each participant consumed. In order to acquire a
beer, participants had to go to an assigned station and give their name to the bartender along with
what type of beer they wanted. The bartender got the participants their desired beer and marked
the punch card with a hole punch to count the numbers of bottles of beer consumed. Bartenders
were also used to determine a dangerous level of intoxication in order to prevent alcohol-related
accidents.
Participants were allowed to drink freely until the conclusion of the party at 1 a.m.
Research assistants were used to get the participants safely home by accompanying the
participants either by car, bus, or foot, with the purpose of ensuring safety and eliminating any
possible ethical considerations. A debriefing will be sent out after the parties informing the
participants of the deception used, as well as other information regarding the study. This was not
done at the conclusion of the parties, as we didn't want alcohol consumed by the participants to
negatively influence the understanding of the debriefing.
Results
Table 1 shows the average numeric response to selected questions from the questionnaire
taken by all 408 participants. It illustrates the differences between participants with a preference
for a particular brand of beer and those who demonstrated no preference as determined by the
questionnaire. Table 1 also shows that those with a preference tended to begin drinking at a
Brand Loyalty
14
younger age (13.6) than those without a preference (16.8). Those with a preference tended to
score very high in how often they select their favorite brand of beer in various situations (a bar,
8.4; social event, 9.2; overall purchase, 8.7). Those without a preference, however, indicated that
they do not tend to choose the same beer at these locations (a bar, 2.2; social event, 6.3; overall
purchase, 4.5). Participants demonstrating a preference for a brand also indicated that they drank
slightly more beer at each social event than those without a preference. The average consumption
for beer and the number of social events attended per week are negligible. Also, the results of the
questionnaire question #14, “On a scale of 1-10 where 1 means not at all and 10 means every
time, how often would you select your favorite brand of beer, if available, over all other brands
while at a bar?”, state that people drink their preferred brand 9.2 times out of 10. The results of
our study suggest that they actually drank their preferred brand 9.7 times out of 10 drinks.
Table 1
Comparison of Averages of Participant Responses on Select Survey Questions
Question in Survey
Preference
At what age did you drink your first full
alcoholic beverage?
How often do you consume beer in a typical
week?
On a scale of 1-10 where 1 means not at all
and 10 means every time, how often would
you select your favorite brand of beer, if
available, over all other brands while at a
bar?
How many social events do you attend in a
typical week?
Out of 10 drinks, how many times do you
choose your favorite brand of beer while at
a social event?
How many beers do you typically drink at
each social event?
How many times a month do you purchase
your favorite brand of beer?
13.6
No
Preference
16.8
3.6
3.1
3.35
8.4
2.2
5.3
2.1
2.3
2.2
9.2
6.3
7.75
5.7
3.8
4.75
8.7
4.5
6.6
Average
15.2
Brand Loyalty
15
_____________________________________________________________________________
Figure 1 compares the differences in the number of bottles of beer consumed at a party
between participants who had a preference for a brand of beer and without a preference.
Participants who had a preference for the brand of beer they drank consumed an average of 5.75
bottles of beer in the two-hour time block. In the condition with labeled bottles, participants
drank an average of 6.2 bottles of beer, whereas when the bottles were unlabeled, participants
drank an average of 5.3 bottles. When the participants had no preference for a particular brand of
beer, consumption decreased to an average of 3.4 bottles of beer. An average of 4 bottles of beer
were consumed when participants drank from labeled bottles, compared to an average of 2.8
bottles when beer was drunk from unlabeled bottles. This figure also illustrates the affect that
labels can have on consumption. Participants with a preference for a brand of beer drank an
average of 0.9 fewer bottles of beer if the bottle was not labeled, whereas participants without a
preference drank 1.2 fewer bottles without the label.
7
Labeled
Total Number of Beers Consumed
Not Labeled
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Preference
No Preference
Preference for Brand of Beer
Figure 1. Total number of bottles of beer consumed at a college party for participants who had a
Brand Loyalty
16
preference for a brand of beer as opposed to those who did not, with bottles being either labeled
or unlabeled.
Table 2 shows the breakdown of the average number of bottles of beer consumed in each
condition in comparison to the average answer to the survey question, “How many beers do you
typically drink at each [social] event?” Participants who had a preference for a brand of beer
typically drank 2.35 more bottles than those without a preference. Labeling the bottles also had
an influence on consumption, as there was a 1.05 bottle difference between labeled and
unlabeled bottles.
Participants stated in the pre-test questionnaire that they typically drink an average of 5.6
bottles of beer at a party. However, throughout the study, participants drank an average of 4.6
bottles of beer.
Table 2
Average number of beers consumed by participants who completed a beer preference
questionnaire, participants who had a preference for a brand of beer, as well as those who did
not have a preference.
Conditions
Number of Bottles of Beer Consumed
Questionnaire #19
5.6
Beer Preference, Labeled
6.2
Beer Preference, Not Labeled
5.3
No Beer Preference, Labeled
4
No Beer Preference, Not Labeled
2.8
Mean of Conditions
4.6
Note. Questionnaire #19 refers to the answer participants gave in the brand preference survey for
question #19.
______________________________________________________________________________
Discussion
The results of our study support the hypothesis that college students with a preference for
a brand of beer drink more than those with no preference. Furthermore, college students tend to
Brand Loyalty
17
drink more when the brand label appears on the bottle as opposed to when beer is provided in
unlabeled bottles. These results indicate that advertising and brand image significantly influences
the amount of beer the consumer will drink. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study
of its kind.
Our findings suggest that participants who had a preference for the brand of beer they
drink consumed more bottles than those who did not have a preference. One possible explanation
for this result could be that participants who had a preference for a brand of beer like it more
than those without a preference. Since they like the beer for its taste and effects more than those
who do not particularly prefer beer, they are likely to consume more bottles. Another possible
explanation is that a person prefers not necessarily beer in general but a specific brand of beer,
which could also cause an increase of bottles consumed. Perhaps having a preference is
indicative of an individual’s alcohol tolerance, allowing him or her to drink more bottles to
achieve the same effect as those who drink less.
Our findings support previous research that found drinking at an earlier age correlates to
higher drinking rates in the college-aged population (Casswell & Zhang, 1998). Our findings
show that participants who were found to have a brand preference drank more and began
drinking at an earlier age than those without a preference. This correlation is most likely caused
by the fact that if a person begins drinking at a younger age, he or she is more likely to develop a
taste for and tolerance to beer throughout the maturation process, which could lead to more
consumption throughout their lives.
Participants in both conditions also indicated that they drink more beer at social events
than they actually do. This overestimation of consumption can be attributed to a multitude of
reasons such as wanting to be perceived as a typical, beer-drinking college student or to an
Brand Loyalty
18
inability to keep count of drinks consumed. Also, it is plausible that college students have a
misconception of how much their peers are consuming, causing them to overestimate their own
consumption in order to fit in with their peers.
Males tended to drink more than females, even when there was no preference established.
Females with a brand loyalty drank more than their female counterparts with no preference, but
still drank less than males with no preference. The male’s tendency to out-drink females may be
because in general, males are physically bigger than females, which means that males require
more alcohol to obtain the same effects as females. Males are also more socially pressured to
drink than females in a party setting, which may account for why no-preference males still drank
more than the females.
The questionnaire also indicates that participants attend about the same number of social
events, regardless of their preference condition. Participants in both groups who indicated a
higher number of events attended per week also drank more at each event. This relationship was
true during the study as well—participants who tended to drink more at the study also indicated
that they attended more social events. This increase in consumption of beer may be due to an
increased tolerance to alcohol as they consume it more frequently each week.
Participants attending the party that served unlabeled beer tended to drink much less than
those who were served labeled bottles. Those with a preference drank more when served labeled
bottles than those being served unlabeled beer, but those with a brand preference drank more
despite the presence of labels. The participant’s increase in consumption when labels are present
is a good indication that brand preference directly affects consumption levels: college students
drink more when they have a brand preference.
Brand Loyalty
19
Participants with a preference for a brand of beer believed they drank their preferred
brand 9.2 times out of 10 drinks. In actuality they drank their preferred brand 9.7 times, a 0.5
drink increase. In fact, most people only drank their preferred brand throughout the study. This
could be due to the fact that the beer given was free, so people thought that they should take
advantage of the situation and drink their favorite beer more frequently.
This study does have limitations, however. First, the study cannot be generalized to the
entire population. Only students enrolled in the university, aged 21 to 25, were qualified to
participate, which limited the population. It is probable that adults would have even more
pronounced findings, which could be accounted for by the fact that older adults have more
experience with drinking alcohol. Since older adults have more experience with drinking, they
presumably have stronger preferences for the brands of beer they drink. Thus, they would be
more inclined to stick to their preference and not change brands throughout the duration of a
social event. Besides looking at multiple age groups, the study should also be conducted on
multiple universities around the world in order to be able to fully generalize the findings.
Although it was needed in the study to prevent excessive intoxication, the two hour time
limit most likely had both a positive and negative influence on the consumption of beer. Some
participants may have drunk more than they normally would have at a similar social event
because the beer was free for only two hours. However, given the findings that people believed
they drank an average of one bottle of beer more than they actually did, it is likely that
participants didn’t drink as much as they normally do at an event. The decrease in actual
consumption is probably caused by the fact that participants didn’t have enough time to drink as
much as they normally would.
Brand Loyalty
20
Although our study did have some shortcomings, there were also many strengths that
contributed to reliability and validity. Because we sent out an invitation to participate in the
study to all undergraduates at the university, there was an equal opportunity for the entire student
population to participate. Thus, to our best efforts, the study was a random sample of the
population, which gave us the ability to generalize these findings to the entire University of
Florida student population aged 21 to 25. Another strength to the study is that it was done with a
large sample. A large sample adds to the statistical validity of the study, as more participants
who completed the study equates to a more accurate representation to the actual population.
Lastly, the study contained controls that were implemented to prevent and monitor needless
inebriation. Adding a time limit and transportation served at a precaution in order to ensure the
safety of the participants.
The study could be improved by conducting similar research in different social situations.
A Halloween party at a local fraternity is a situation that strongly induces alcohol consumption,
especially when there is free beer being given out. If the study were conducted in a business
setting in America, there might be a lot less consumption. However, there could be an even
higher amount of consumption in a similar business situation in Japan due to cultural differences.
Research has shown the situational factors can be quite influential in alcohol consumption
(Geller & Kalsher, 1990; Montogomery & Haemmerlie, 1993; Stafford, 1966; Yang, Allenby &
Gennell, 2002). However, more research is needed in order to determine how different situations
can affect alcohol consumption.
Further research should also include different types of alcohol. Although ethical and
safety precautions would have to be seriously taken into account since most alcohols other than
beer have a higher alcohol content, findings would be more comprehensive if different types of
Brand Loyalty
21
alcohol were used. It is possible that the same results would not be obtained for various types of
alcohol, such as wine or specific types of hard liquor. Woodside (1999) stated that hard liquors
aren’t advertised as much as beer or wine which can potentially influence consumption rates.
Also, it is possible that the higher alcohol content will affect consumption, as participants might
drink more because they don’t think they are drinking enough or they might drink less if they are
more aware of the effects alcohol has on their bodies.
The results of the study can be applied to various aspects of college life. They can be
used by college administrations in an attempt to lower alcohol consumption by all college
students. The results could be used in incoming freshman courses designed to educate these
young students on the effects of alcohol and possible factors to look out for while at a party. Bars
could also use these findings to try to increase their sales. These results show the importance of
having a variety of beers in stock. Many times bars provide a limited selection of beer, but by
keeping a wide range of brands of alcohol, it is more likely than not only a patron will drink their
preferred brand more regularly, but they would also consume a higher quantity of that brand.
Brand Loyalty
22
Appendix A
Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability. Please disregard the price of the
product.
1. What is your age?
2. What is your gender?
3. Are you a student?
4. Where do you attend school?
5. What is your marital status?
6. Do you like to drink beer?
7. Does your partner like to drink beer?
8. At what age did you drink your first full alcoholic beverage?
9. Do you prefer to drink beer over most other alcoholic beverages (i.e. spirits, wine)?
10. When visiting a bar, what type of beverage do you usually choose to drink?
11. How often do you consume beer in a typical week?
12. When visiting a bar, which brand of beer do you typically select?
13. What is your favorite brand of beer that you can purchase at your local supermarket?
14. Out of 10 drinks, how many times do you choose your favorite brand of beer while at a
social event?
15. How many social events do you attend in a typical week?
16. At these social events, how often is beer available?
17. How often is your favorite brand of beer available at these events?
18. On a scale of 1-10 where 1 means not at all and 10 means every time, how often do you
choose your favorite brand of beer while at a social event?
19. How many beers do you typically drink at each event?
Brand Loyalty
20. How many times a month do you purchase your favorite brand of beer?
23
Brand Loyalty
24
References
Allison, R. I., & Uhl, K. P. (1964). Influence of beer brand identification on taste perception.
Journal of Marketing Research, 1(3), 36-39. Retrieved September 14, 2007, from JSTOR
database.
Casswell, S. (2004, November/December). Alcohol brands in young peoples' everyday lives:
New developments in marketing. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 39(6), 471-476. Retrieved
September 15, 2007, from EBSCOhost database.
Casswell, S., & Zhang, J.-F. (1998). Impact of liking for advertising and brand allegiance on
drinking and alcohol-related aggression: A longitudinal study. Addiction, 93(8), 12091217. Retrieved September 15, 2007, from Blackwell-Synergy database.
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001, April). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand
affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 8193. Retrieved September 17, 2007, from http://www.atyponlink.com/AMA/doi/abs/10.1509/jmkg.65.2.81.18255
Dolich, I. J. (1969). Congruence relationships between self images and product brands. Journal
of Marketing Research, 6(1), 80-84. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from JSTOR
database.
Dommermuth, W. P., & Millard, W. J., Jr. (1967). Consumption coincidence in product
evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 4(4), 388-390. Retrieved September 23,
2007, from JSTOR database.
Erenberg, D. E., & Hacker, G. A. (1997). Last call: High-risk bar promotions that target college
students. Washington: Center for Science in the Public Interest. Retrieved September 12,
2007, from
http://www.nicpp.org/files/Last_Call_for_High_Risk_Bar_Promotions_That_Target_Coll
ege_Students.pdf
Geller, E. S., & Kalsher, M. J. (1990, January). Environmental determinants of party drinking:
Bartenders vs. self-service. Environment and Behavior, 22(1), 74-90. Retrieved
September 19, 2007, from
http://pao.chadwyck.co.uk/imageConversion.do?method=viewPdf&id=f117-1990-02201000004&pdfPaperSize=letter&pdfFont=&pdfPointSize=&pdfHpadding=&pdfVoffset=&
pdfHeadAllPages=false&pdfPageRange=117&pdfHeader=GELLER%2C%20E.%20SC
OTT%2C%20%3Cbi%3EEnvironmental%
Brand Loyalty
25
Gentile, D. A., Walsh, D. A., Bloomgren, B. W., Jr., Atti, J. A., & Norman, J. A. (2001, April).
Frogs sell beer: The effects of beer advertisements on adolescent drinking knowledge,
attitudes, and behavior. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED461777)
Retrieved September 18, 2007, from
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/19/ca/f4
.pdf
Graeff, T. R. (1997, January). Consumption situations and the effects of brand image on
consumers' brand evaluations. Psychology and Marketing, 14(1), 49-70. Retrieved
September 16, 2007, from EBSCOhost database.
Kidorf, M., Sherman, M. F., Johnson, J. G., & Bigelow, G. E. (1995, March/April). Alcohol
expectancies and changes in beer consumption of first-year college students. Addictive
Behaviors, 20(2), 225-231. Retrieved September 17, 2007, from EBSCOHost database.
Kuo, M., Wechsler, H., Greenberg, P., & Lee, H. (2003). The marketing of alcohol to college
students: The role of low prices and special promotions. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 25(3), 204-211. Retrieved September 16, 2007, from ScienceDirect database.
Lee, L., Frederick, S., & Ariely, D. (2006). Try it, you'll like it: The influence of expectation,
consumption, and revelation of preferences for beer. Psychological Science, 17(12),
1054-1058. Retrieved September 22, 2007, from Blackwell Synergy database.
McConnell, J. D. (1968). The Development of Brand Loyalty: An experimental study. Journal of
Marketing Research, 5(1), 13-19. Retrieved September 15, 2007, from PsycNET
database.
Mitchell, R. J., Toomey, T. L., & Erickson, D. (2005, January/February). Alcohol polities on
college campuses. Journal of American College Health, 53(4), 149-157. Retrieved
September 18, 2007, from EBSCOhost database.
Montgomery, R. L., & Haemmerlie, F. M. (1993, August). Undergraduate adjustment to college,
drinking behavior, and fraternity membership. Psychological Reports, (73), 801-802.
Retrieved September 20, 2007, from
http://www.ammonsscientific.com/c.php?f=UjEzTEEwNzkzWzAwMTQxOQ
Stafford, J. E. (1966). Effects of group influences on consumer brand preferences. Journal of
Marketing Research, 3(1), 68-75. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from JSTOR database.
Woodside, A. G. (1999). Advertising and consumption of alcoholic beverages. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 8(2), 167-186. Retrieved November 8, 2007, from EBSCOhost
Brand Loyalty
26
database.
Wyllie, A., Zhang, J.-F., & Casswell, S. (1998). Responses to televised alcohol advertisements
associated with drinking behaviour of 10-17-year-olds. Addiction, 93(3), 361-371.
Retrieved September 15, 2007, from Blackwell-Synergy database.
Yang, S., Allenby, G. M., & Fennell, G. (2002, Winter). Modeling variation in brand preference:
The roles of objective environment and motivating conditions. Marketing Science, 22(1),
14-31. Retrieved September 18, 2007, from EBSCOhost database.