The effects of drinking alcohol extend beyond the individuals concerned to the wider community. While there is recognition of such a global implication, currently no study has quantified the impact of alcohol consumption on aggregate wellbeing. This study aims to address this gap and attempts to investigate the impact of various levels of alcohol consumption on aggregate happiness.
Methods:
The study was carried out on a random selection of participants (n = 1,817) drawn from the 3Di consumer panel, comprising over 170,000 New Zealanders aged 18 and above. Using a subjective happiness scale (SHS) in conjunction with the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), investigation was carried out to find whether drinking behaviour affected aggregate happiness.
Results:
SHS and AUDIT scores were negatively correlated and the strength of the correlation increased with the intensity of problematic drinking. Regression analysis showed that the beta coefficient was positive for the low-risk (.074) and negative for the high-risk (−.081) category, suggesting approaches to intervene with the growing problem of alcohol consumption in modern societies.
Conclusion:
Measurements of happiness can explain the global implication of alcohol in wellbeing terms. The findings of this study indicated that low-risk drinkers affected aggregate happiness positively, whereas high-risk drinkers affected aggregate happiness negatively. While the latter observation is not new, the former raises the need to promote moderation in drinking alcohol for the common good of everyone.
WoodKPattersonCKatikireddiSVHiltonS.Harms to ‘others’ from alcohol consumption in the minimum unit pricing policy debate: A qualitative content analysis of UK newspapers (2005–12). Addiction2013; 109: 578–84.
2.
CasswellSYouRQHuckleT.Alcohol’s harm to others: Reduced wellbeing and health status for those with heavy drinkers in their lives. Addiction2010; 106: 1087–94.
3.
LaslettAMRoomRFerrisJWilkinsonCLivingstonMMugavinJ.Surveying the range and magnitude of alcohol’s harm to others in Australia. Addiction2011; 106: 1603–11.
4.
BoucheryEEHarwoodHJSacksJJSimonCJBrewerRD.Economic costs of excessive alcohol consumption in the U.S., 2006. American Journal of Preventive Medicine2011; 41(5): 516–24.
5.
RehmJRoomRGrahamKMonteiroMGmelGSemposCT.The relationship of average volume of alcohol consumption and patterns of drinking to burden of disease – An overview. Addiction2003; 98: 1209–28.
6.
RehmJMonteiroM.Alcohol consumption and burden of disease in the Americas: Implications for alcohol policy. Pan American Journal of Public Health2005; 18(4–5): 241–8.
7.
NuttDJKingLAPhillipsLD.Drug harms in the UK: A multicriteria decision analysis. Lancet2010; 376: 1558–65.
8.
Ministry of Health. Annual Update of Key Results 2014/15: New Zealand Health Survey. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Health, 2015.
BaumS.Drink driving as a social problem: Comparing the attitudes and knowledge of drink driving offenders and the general community. Accident Analysis & Prevention2000; 32(5): 689–94.
11.
ConnorJCasswellS.The burden of road trauma due to other people’s drinking. Accident Analysis & Prevention2009; 41: 1099–103.
12.
TestaMKubiakAMAQuigleyBMHoustonRJDerrickJLLevittAet al. Husband and wife alcohol use as independent or interactive predictors of intimate partner violence. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs2012; 73(2): 268–76.
13.
ParackalSMParackalMKHarrawayJA.Prevalence and correlates of drinking in early pregnancy among women who stopped drinking on pregnancy recognition. Maternal Child Health Journal2013; 17(3): 520–9.
14.
StadeBUngarWJStevensB.Cost of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder in Canada. Canadian Family Physician2007; 53: 1303–4.
15.
PopovaSStadeBBekmuradovDLangeSRehmJ.What do we know about the economic impact of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder? A systematic literature review. Alcohol and Alcoholism2011; 46(4): 490–7.
GiesbrechtNCukierSSteevesD.Collateral damage from alcohol: Implications of ‘second-hand effects of drinking’ for populations and health priorities. Addiction2010; 105: 1323–5.
18.
DienerE.Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. The American Psychologist2000; 55(1): 34–43.
19.
DolanPLayardRMetcalfeR.Measuring subjective well-being for public policy: Recommendations on measures. Special paper no 23, 2011. London: Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics and Political Science. Available online at: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/special/cepsp23.pdf
20.
DietzePStoovéMMillerPKinnerSBurnoRAlatiRet al. The self-reported personal wellbeing of a sample of Australian injecting drug users. Addiction2010; 105(12): 2141–8.
21.
BeattieMCLongabaughR.Interpersonal factors and post-treatment drinking and subjective wellbeing. Addiction1997; 92(11): 1507–21.
22.
LivingstonMWilkinsonCLaslettA.Impact of heavy drinkers on others’ health and well-being. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs2010; 71(5): 778–85.
23.
CumminsRA.Subjective wellbeing, homeostatically protected mood and depression: A synthesis. Journal of Happiness Studies2009; 11(1): 1–17.
24.
CumminsRA.The subjective well-being of people caring for a severely disabled family member at home: A review. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability2001; 26: 83–100.
25.
VeenhovenR.Social equality and state-welfare-effort: More income-equality, no more equality in quality-of-life. In: Proceedings of the towards the good society, Rotterdam, 25–26 June 1992.
26.
MastekaasaAMoumT.The perceived quality of life in Norway: Regional variations and contextual effects. Social Indicators Research1984; 14(4): 385–419.
27.
InglehartRKlingermannHD.Genes, culture, democracy and happiness. In: DienerEDSuhEM (eds) Culture and Subjective Well-Being. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000, pp. 165–183.
28.
HallerMHadlerM.How social relations and structures can produce happiness and unhappiness: An international comparative analysis. Social Indicators Research2006; 75(2): 169–216.
29.
GundelachPKreinerS.Happiness and life satisfaction in advanced European Countries. Cross-Cultural Research2004; 38: 359–86.
30.
AngnerE. The politics of happiness: Subjective vs. economic measures as measures of social well-being. In: BortolottiL (ed.) Philosophy and Happiness. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009, pp. 149–166.
31.
MooreDW.Measuring new types of question-order effects: Additive and subtractive. The Public Opinion Quarterly2002; 66(1): 80–91.
LooR.A caveat on using single-item versus multiple-item scales. Journal of Managerial Psychology2002; 17(1): 68–75.
34.
CumminsRAWeinbergMK.Multi-item measurement of subjective well-being: Subjective approaches (2). In: GlatzerWCamfieldLMollerVRojasM (eds) Global Handbook of Quality of Life. Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media, 2014, pp. 239–68.
35.
CumminsRA.International well-being index. In: MichalosAC (ed.) Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Rotterdam: Springer, 2014, pp. 3336–41.
36.
TomynAJCumminsRA.Subjective wellbeing and homeostatically protected mood: Theory validation with adolescents. Journal of Happiness Studies2011; 12: 897–914.
37.
LyubomirskySLepperHS.A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research1999; 46: 137–55.
38.
ExtremeraNFernandez-BerrocalP.The Subjective Happiness Scale: Translation and preliminary psychometric evaluation of a Spanish version. Social Indicators Research2014; 119: 473–81.
39.
MoghnieLKazarianSS.Subjective happiness of Lebanese college youth in Lebanon: Factorial structure and invariance of the Arabic Subjective Happiness Scale. Social Indicators Research2012; 109: 203–10.
40.
SpagnoliPCaetanoASilvaA.Psychometric properties of a Portuguese version of the Subjective Happiness Scale. Social Indicators Research2012; 105: 137–43.
41.
ParackalM.A global happiness scale for measuring wellbeing: A test of immunity against hedonism. Journal of Happiness Studies2015; 16(4): 1–17.
42.
ShimaiSOtakeKUtsukiNIkemiALyubomirskyS.Development of a Japanese version of the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS), and examination of its validity and reliability. Japanese Journal of Public Health2004; 51: 845–53.
43.
SwamiV.Translation and validation of the Malay Subjective Happiness Scale. Social Indicators Research2008; 88: 347–53.
44.
SwamiVStiegerSVoracekMDresslerSGEismaLFurnhamA.Psychometric evaluation of the Tagalog and German subjective happiness scales and a cross-cultural comparison. Social Indicators Research2009; 93(2): 347–53.
GatsonisCSampsonAR.Multiple correlation: Exact power and sample size calculations. Psychological Bulletin1989; 106(3): 516–24.
48.
ReinertDFAllenJP.The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): A review of recent research. Alcohol Clinical Experimental Research2002; 26(2): 272–9.
49.
WalkerDDVennerKHillDEMeyersRJMillerWR.A comparison of alcohol and drug disorders: Is there evidence for a developmental sequence of drug abuse?Addict Behaviors2004; 29(4): 817–23.
50.
DziubanCDShirkeyEC.When is a correlation matrix appropriate for factor analysis? Some decision rules. Psychological Bulletin1974; 81(6): 358–61.
51.
KaiserHFRiceJ.Little Jiffy Mark IV. Educational and Psychological Measurement1974; 34: 111–7.
52.
Ministry of Health. Alcohol Use 2012/13: New Zealand Health Survey. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Health, 2015.
53.
EriksonEHEriksonJM.The Life Cycle Completed. New York: W. W. Norton, 1998.
54.
ShieldsALCarusoJC.Reliability generalization of the alcohol use disorders identification test. Educational and Psychological Measurement2003; 63(3): 404–13.
55.
DienerEScollonCNLucasRE.The evolving concept of subjective well-being: The multifaceted nature of happiness. Social Indicators Research Series2009; 39: 67–100.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
