Perceptions of two different alcohol use behaviours in pregnancy: an application of the prototype/willingness model

Figures & data

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics (N = 140).

Demographic measure	‘Ambiguous’ N = 71		‘Small’ N = 69
	N	%	N	%
Age
20–25	19	26.8	25	36.2
26–30	17	23.9	15	21.7
31–35	14	19.7	9	13.0
36–40	10	14.1	9	13.0
41–45	11	15.5	11	15.9
Marital status
Single, never married	31	43.7	36	52.2
Married/de facto	37	52.1	31	44.9
Divorced	2	2.8	0	0.0
Separated	0	0.0	1	1.4
Prefer not to say	1	1.4	1	1.4
Education - highest level
Secondary education	5	7.0	5	7.2
High school diploma	15	21.1	11	15.9
Technical/Community College	5	7.0	2	2.9
Undergraduate degree	30	42.3	39	56.5
Graduate degree	15	21.1	12	17.4
Doctorate degree	1	1.4	0	0.0
Employment status
Employed full-time	43	60.6	41	59.4
Employed part-time	11	15.5	9	13.0
Unemployed looking for work	2	2.8	5	7.2
Stay at home parent	3	4.2	3	4.3
Student	11	15.5	9	13.0
Disability	1	1.4	1	1.4
Prefer not to say	0	0.0	1	1.4
Pregnancy history
Currently pregnant: No	71	100.0	69	100.0
Previously pregnant: Yes	31	43.7	25	36.2
Biological children: Yes	24	33.8	17	24.6
Pregnancy intention
Yes, within the next 2 years	17	23.9	14	20.3
Yes, within the next 5 years	11	15.5	14	20.3
Yes, in 5 years or more	12	16.9	15	21.7
No, never	15	21.1	17	24.6
Unsure	16	22.5	9	13.0
Last drink of alcohol
A week or less ago	46	64.8	44	63.8
Between 2–4 weeks ago	15	21.1	21	30.4
Between 1–3 months ago	4	5.6	2	2.9
Over 3 months ago	6	8.5	2	2.9

Table 2. Words used to describe each prototype (N = 140).

Prototype Exposure
‘Ambiguous’ N = 71			‘Small’ N = 69
Characteristic	N	%	Characteristic	N	%
Irresponsible	30	42%	Selfish	16	23%
Selfish	24	34%	Irresponsible	16	23%
Careless	13	18%	Risky/risk-taker	15	22%
Uneducated	11	15%	Careless	10	14%
Addict	7	10%	Normal	8	11%

Table 3. Descriptive statistics and correlations between the study variables for ‘ambiguous consumption’ prototype (N = 71).

	AGE	CHILD.	LIK.	RES.	SIM.	ACC.	REF.	WILL.	Mean	SD
Age	1	.511*	0.20	0.05	0.12	.285	0.07	0.21	31.21	7.45
Children		1	.387*	0.21	0.21	.340*	−0.06	0.13	N/A	N/A
Likability			1	.445*	.478*	.384*	0.01	0.20	1.97	0.83
Responsibility				1	.495*	.429*	−0.06	0.17	1.68	0.98
Similarity					1	.664*	0.13	.449*	1.76	1.1
Accept						1	0.05	.555*	1.99	1.62
Refuse							1	−0.859	4.79	2.63
Willingness								1	2.59	1.58

Note. Children (Child.), Likability (Lik.), Responsibility (Res.), Similarity (Sim.), Accept (Acc.), Refuse (Ref.), Willingness (Will.), * p < 0.01.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics and correlations between the study variables for ‘small consumption’ prototype (N = 69).

	AGE	CHILD.	LIK.	RES.	SIM.	ACC.	REF.	WILL.	Mean	SD
Age	1	.616*	.263	0.09	0.11	0.12	−0.07	0.02	30.41	7.54
Children		1	0.17	0.13	0.13	0.17	−0.17	−0.04	N/A	N/A
Likability			1	.653*	.680*	.521*	−0.08	.244	3.01	1.02
Responsibility				1	.780*	.623*	−0.02	.353*	2.6	1.27
Similarity					1	.725*	0.04	.456*	2.46	1.45
Accept						1	0.04	.616*	2.41	1.93
Refuse							1	-.810*	4.57	2.56
Willingness								1	2.92	1.64

Note. Children (Child.), Likability (Lik.), Responsibility (Res.), Similarity (Sim.), Accept (Acc.), Refuse (Ref.), Willingness (Will.), * p < 0.01.

Table 5. t-test results comparing prototype exposure, prototype perceptions and willingness.

	‘Ambiguous’		‘Small’		T (df)	p
	M	SD	M	SD
Likeability	1.97	0.83	3.00	1.01	6.58 (138)	<.001
Similarity	1.76	1.10	2.43	1.45	3.09 (126)	0.002
Responsibility	1.68	0.98	2.60	1.27	4.80 (126)	<.001
Willingness	1.60	1.58	2.93	1.63	1.24 (138)	0.218

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, TF, upon reasonable request.