Changes in attitudes towards restrictive alcohol policy measures: the mediating role of changes in beliefs

Figures & data

Table 1.  Changes in attitudes and beliefs during the period 2005–2009.

	2005	2005	2006	2008	2009	Change?
Year	Aug	Dec	Oct	Jul	Feb	OR
Attitudes: the proportion who totally/partly disagreed with the following statements (lowest N = 7191)
Alcohol is too expensive in Norway	26	30	28	40	41	1.23*
It should be possible to buy wine in grocery stores	30	33	29	38	39	1.14*
It should be possible to buy spirits in grocery stores	74	78	78	81	82	1.12*
It is too difficult to buy alcohol	76	81	79	84	80	1.10*
Beliefs in effectiveness: the proportion who believed that the following measures to a very/fairly high degree could contribute to curb alcohol-related harm (lowest N = 7143)
High prices/taxes on alcohol	25	28	28	32	33	1.11*
Wine and spirits are only sold at Vinmonopolet^a, b	31	32	32	36	40	1.10*
Rules for serving alcohol such as closing times of licenced premises	35	44	40	43	46	1.08*
Belief in the harm caused by drinking: the proportion who to a very/fairly high degree believed that the following statement is true (N = 6758)
Increased per capita alcohol consumption will result in a significant increase in deaths due to disease, murders, suicide and accidents	38	45	39	48	50	1.13*

Notes: *p < 0.001.

^aVinmonopolet is the state-owned wine and spirits monopoly.

^bIn 2005 the wording was “Alcohol is only sold at Vinmonopolet”.

Table 2.  Correlations among predictors, mediators and dependent variables (lowest N = 6648).

	Time elapsed	Attitudes	Belief in effectiveness	Belief in harm from drinking
Time elapsed	–
Attitudes	0.129*	–
Belief in effectiveness	0.080*	0.561*	–
Belief in harm from drinking	0.074*	0.488*	0.482*	–

Note: *p < 0.001.

Table 3.  Mediation of the effect of time elapsed on attitudes towards regulation of price and restriction of availability through belief in the effectiveness of such measures and the harm caused by drinking (N = 6576).

				Bootstrapping
		Product of coefficients		Percentile 99% CI		BC 99% CI		BCa 99% CI
	Point estimate	SE	Z	Lower	Upper	Lower	Upper	Lower	Upper
Indirect effects
Effectiveness	0.027	0.003	8.19	0.019	0.036	0.019	0.035	0.018	0.035
Harm from drinking	0.016	0.002	7.16	0.010	0.022	0.010	0.022	0.010	0.022
Total	0.043	0.005	9.16	0.031	0.054	0.031	0.055	0.031	0.055
Contrasts
Effectiveness vs. harm from drinking	0.011	0.003	3.58	0.003	0.019	0.003	0.019	0.003	0.019

Note: BC, bias corrected; BCa, bias corrected and accelerated, 5000 bootstrap samples.