4.6 Article

Declining drinking among adolescents: Are we seeing a denormalisation of drinking and a normalisation of non-drinking?

期刊

ADDICTION
卷 117, 期 5, 页码 1204-1212

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/add.15611

关键词

Adolescent; alcohol; declining drinking; denormalisation; non-drinking; normalisation

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [160101380, 190101074]
  2. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Career Development Fellowship [1133840]
  3. NHMRC Senior Research Fellowship [1136908]
  4. Wellcome Trust [208090/Z/17/Z]
  5. Wellcome Trust [208090/Z/17/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The decline of adolescent drinking in Western countries is attributed to the denormalisation of drinking and normalisation of non-drinking. Normalisation theory serves as a useful tool in understanding this trend.
Background In the early 2000s, alcohol use among young people began to decline in many western countries, especially among adolescents (ages between 12-17 years old). These declines have continued steadily over the past two decades, against the backdrop of much smaller declines among the general population. Argument Hypotheses examining individual factors fail adequately to provide the necessary 'big picture' thinking needed to understand declines in adolescent drinking. We use the normalisation thesis to argue that there is strong international evidence for both processes of denormalisation of drinking and normalisation of non-drinking occurring for adolescents in many western countries. Conclusions Research on declining adolescent drinking provides evidence of both denormalisation of alcohol consumption and normalisation of non-drinking. This has implications for enabling policy environments more amenable to regulation and increasing the acceptability of non-drinking in social contexts. Normalisation theory (and its various interpretations) provides a useful multi-dimensional tool for understanding declines in adolescent drinking.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据