Do Drinking Norms, Motives, and Drinking Behaviors Differ by Age Group among Korean Women?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, I find the manuscript to be well-written and easy to follow. The topic is interesting and the research design was executed soundly. There are still some areas I feel the authors could further strengthen. I hope the authors would find my comments below helpful.

I find the introduction provided relevant background information of the research project but I also find it readers would benefit from a more mature research rationale. Specifically, I find the authors could discuss relevant studies that have already been done in other contexts and how might this presents study differ from them. Thus, illustrating the contribution of this research beyond the context of Korea alone.

Another area that the authors could consider improving would be the implications. In other words, what key stakeholders can learn from the findings of this research. Furthermore, the authors could also explain how the findings may be useful for other societies apart from Korea to help enhance the generalizability of the study.

I also suggest making a dedicated subheading for implications within the discussion chapter. This will not only help highlight the implications but also break down the relatively long discussion chapter for easier reading.

I also find the references are rather limited and encourage the authors to read a broader range of literature. Especially relevant research from other countries/societies. Ultimately, I believe they will help enrich the discussions of the present study.

Author Response

Thank you for your review comments. 

1.   We added other national research content to the background.

I added a study [15] explaining the necessity of research on motivation for drinking motives and behavior across different age groups, especially middle-aged and older-aged adults The existing research on drinking motives tend to study on young adults or college students, so studies on middle-aged or older aged groups are few and insufficient to understand how drinking motives related to risky drinking behavior. Also, we added to two studies on Americans [16] and Finns [17] targeting the elderly that there were differences in drinking motives and drinking behaviors by age.

(p.2, line 84-88) Since many studies on drinking motives tend to focus on college-aged students or adolescents [15], more evidence is necessary to understand how drinking motives relate to drinking behavior such as drinking frequency and quantity across different age groups, especially middle-aged and older-aged adults. Some studies have shown that the drinking motives of the younger-aged elderly are different from those of the older-aged elderly [16,17].

￰ Added Reference

[15] Skinner, K.D.; Veilleux, J.C. The interactive effects of drinking motives, age, and self-criticism in predicting hazardous drinking. Subst Use Misuse. 2016, 51, 1342-1352.

[16] Merrick, E.L.; Horgan, C.M.; Hodgkin, D.; Garnick, D.W.; Houghton, S.F.; Panas, L.; Saitz, R.; Blow, F.C. Unhealthy drinking patterns in older adults: prevalence and associated characteristics J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008, 56, 214-223. https://doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01539.

[17] Immonen, S.; Valvanne, J.; Pitkala, K. Prevalence of at-risk drinking among older adults and associated sociodemographic and health-related factors.  J Nutr Health Aging. 2011, 15, 789-794. https://doi: 10.1007/s12603-011-0115-4. 

2. I added other national findings in the discussion. 

I added a study which was consistent with our results of drinking motives by age group. (p.11, line 403-406). In the study conducted on Americans, middle-aged adults' external motives (conforming motive and social motive) were negatively related to risk drinking [15].

A study conducted on Americans showed that conformity and social motives had different relationships by age groups. In the study, confomity motives predicted greater hazardous drinking for younger-aged adults while conformity and social motives predicted less hazardous drinking for middle-aged adults [15].

3. Subheadings were added for discussions to improve readability. 

￰ I added four sub-titles: ' 4.1 Drinking behaviors ', ' 4.2 Drinking norms ', ' 4.3 Drinking motives ', and ' 4.4 limitations.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The author had made an attempt to revise the manuscript following feedback from peer reviewers. However, the authors did not follow the Instructions for Authors, especially reference style. Points to note are:

Results

1. Page 4, line 195: ‘(12.9% + 27.3% + 16.2%)’ Where do these percentages come from?
2. Page 6, lines 231-234: The author did not comment on the statement ‘Crimes committed while being intoxicated can receive less severe sentences’. Was there a significant difference between younger respondents and older respondents?
3. Page 6, line 235: 3.2 should be 3.3
4. Page 6, lines 236-238: ‘Female drinkers in their 50s… other age groups’ This statement is incorrect with no data to support from Table 3.
5. Page 6, lines 238-241: ‘Among female drinkers in their 20s,… (52.1%)’ This statement is incorrect as these percentages did not come from 20s.
6. Page 6, lines 241-242: ‘The other age groups showed the same order…’ This statement is incorrect with no data to support from Table 3.

References

7. References 19 and 20 are in the wrong order. Cooper 1994 should be reference 19 and linked to line 140. Nam 2021 should be reference 20 and linked to line 146.
8. Journal name should be abbreviated. Therefore, errors in references 5, 15, 16, 20.
9. Reference 20: Last page number is missing.

Author Response

Thank you for your detailed comments. 

1.   Page.4, line 199: ' (12.9% + 27.3% + 16.2%)' Where do these percentages come from? 

￰  '(12.9% + 27.3% + 16.2%)' means the percentage of drinking frequency more than once a month in Table1. Once a month Drinking 12.9%, drinking two to four times a month 27.3%, 16.2% of those who drink more than once a week are combined, which means 56.4% of the monthly drinkers. 

￰ Since these percentages were right from the figures and contents, we did not edit them.  

 2.   Page 6, lines 234-237: The author did not comment on the statement 'Crimes committed while intoxicated can receive less severe sentences. Was there a significant difference between younger respondents and older respondents?

In that question, we already stated that there was no significant difference between the younger and older respondents. However, we edited more clearly as the following. 

For all statements, except “Crimes committed while drunk can be forgiven” and “It is discourteous to refuse a drink offered by someone else,” respondents in their 20s and 30s were more likely to agree significantly than those in their 40s and 50s (p < .001).

 3.   Page 6, line 235: 3.2 should be 3.3

￰ It’s corrected (p.6 line 238).  3.2 --> 3.3

 4.   Page 6, lines 239-252: 'Female drinkers in their 50s… other age groups' This statement is incorrect with no data to support from Table 3.

5.   Page 6, lines 239-252: 'Among female drinkers in their 20s, (52.1%)' This statement is incorrect as these percentages did not come from the 20s.

Thanks for your attentive comments. Using Table 3, I made accurate corrections and made efforts to write in detail. Thanks for your attentive comments. 

 The drinking motives of each age group are presented in Table 3. Among female drinkers in their 20s, the highest number of participants agreed with “to become friends quickly and to get along with them” (61.8%) followed by “it lifts the mood of the meeting” (60.8%), "to feel good and happy" (58.5%), and “to overcome work and life stress” (54.7%). Among those in their 30s, the highest number of participants agreed with "to feel good and happy" (60.9%) followed by “to overcome work and life stress” (58.0%), “to become friends quickly and to get along with them” (48.3%), and “it lifts the mood of the meeting” (47.8%). Among those in their 40s, the highest number of participants agreed with "to feel good and happy" (58.1%) followed by “it lifts the mood of the meeting” (55.9%), “to become friends quickly and to get along with them” (50.5%), and “to overcome work and life stress” (49.8%). Among those in their 50s, the highest number of participants agreed with “it lifts the mood of the meeting” (57.3%) followed by "to feel good and happy" (52.2%), “to become friends quickly and to get along with them” (51.2%), and “to overcome work and life stress” (48.1%). The means of five-dimensional motives for all age groups were in the same order.

6.   Page 6, lines 252-253: 'The other age groups showed the same order… ' This statement is incorrect with no data to support from Table 3.

 I described the results focusing on the comparison of the mean of 5-dimensional motives for all age groups.

 This statement was correct, but it made a confusion, so I edited the following.  The means of five-dimensional motives for all age groups were in the same order.

￰  7. References 22 and 23 are in the wrong order. Cooper 1994 should be reference 22 and linked to line 142. Nam 2021 should be reference 23 and linked to line 148.

 It’s corrected.

8. Journal name should be abbreviated. Therefore, errors in references 5, 18, 19, 22.

-> [ 5] Korean J Health Educ Promot 

-> [18] Subst Use Misuse

-> [19] Int. J. Environ. Res. public health

-> [22] Psychol Assess

 9.   Reference 22: Last page number is missing.

 --> 117-128

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

(1) The key words drinking norms (descriptive norms and injunctive) are not very clearly to understand. Are they academic or traditional norms in Kearea?

(2) Motives are subjective, and an important variable, I think the author should explain more about it, here the author use five dimensions to show it, are there any theoretical or practical basics in doing so? Or it is a popular method? Reference 16 may be a proof of it, but I think it is not enough just to use it in paper without an explanation.

(3) 2.2.1 L120-L121 mentioned COVID-19 influence on drinking, but I did not find it is necessary to do so.

(4) In the tables, some variables may have be processed result by the author, for example in table one monthly drinker, and put the processed variables with the direct result from the questionnaire together without explaining seems improper.

(5) Some variables may be the calculation results from the five dimensions, it is better if the author show the process and method of it.

(6) L59, relationship may be a spelling mistake.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Point (1) The key words drinking norms (descriptive norms and injunctive) are not very clearly to understand. Are they academic or traditional norms in Kearea?
Response 1:  I  appreciated this comment. I add the definition (Line 131 to 133)
Point (2) Motives are subjective, and an important variable, I think the author should explain more about it, here the author use five dimensions to show it, are there any theoretical or practical basics in doing so? Or it is a popular method? Reference 16 may be a proof of it, but I think it is not enough just to use it in paper without an explanation.
Response 2:  I  appreciated this comment. I explained 
Point (3) 2.2.1 L120-L121 mentioned COVID-19 influence on drinking, but I did not find it is necessary to do so.
Response 3:  I  appreciated this comment. I removed it .
Point (4) In the tables, some variables may have be processed result by the author, for example in table one monthly drinker, and put the processed variables with the direct result from the questionnaire together without explaining seems improper.
Response 4:  I  appreciated this comment. I explained more clearly more  (Line 185 to 190, 193 to 195)
Point (5) Some variables may be the calculation results from the five dimensions, it is better if the author show the process and method of it.
Response 5  I  appreciated this comment. I explained more clearly (Line 150 to 153)
(6) L59, relationship may be a spelling mistake.
Response 6  I  appreciated this comment. I corrected it. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript reports a cross-sectional study on drinking norms, motives and behaviors among Korean women. Points to note are:

Introduction

1. Page 2, lines 50-60: Two types of norms (descriptive and injunctive) were mentioned. Definition of descriptive norm was provided but not injunctive norm.
2. Page 2, line 93: ‘I examed’ should be ‘I examined’
3. Literature review has not included relevant and recent literature; e.g. Kim and Kim 2008 (PMID: 18649231); Kim, Park and Kim 2021 (PMID: 34444638).

Materials and Methods

4. Page 3, line 114: Has this questionnaire been validated? Any pilot study before the online survey?
5. Page 3, line 115: This reference number (2-104078-AB-N-01-2017105HR) is the same as the number in the paper published by Ko and Sohn 2018 (PMID: 30186812)? Why?

Results

6. Page 4, line 190: Why used the figure 31.1%? Should it be 22.2%?
7. Page 5, line 207: ‘… 2-3 times per week…’ should be ‘… 2 or more times per week…’
8. Page 5, line 207: Table 1 should be Table 2
9. Page 6, lines 221-224: This sentence is incorrect. Two exceptions were mentioned. How about the statement ‘Lower punishments are acceptable for crimes committed while drunk’? Is this statement also an exception?
10. Page 6, lines 231-232: ‘The other age groups… level of agreement…’ The statement is incorrect because the other age groups did not show the same order.
11. Page 7, line 238: (M = 2.85) should be (M = 2.18)
12. Page 8, lines 260-262: ‘… descriptive norms… for most age groups.’ Why most age groups? Should this be all age groups?
13. Page 8, line 276: ‘… in their 20s and 30s…’ Should 40s also be included?
14. Page 9, line 295: ‘marital status’ (p<.001)…’ should be ‘marital status (p<.05)…’
15. Page 9, lines 299-301: Coping and environmental should also be included because they were not significantly related to high-risk drinking.

Tables

16. Table 1: These two rows ‘Two or more times per week’ and ‘Two or more times per week drinker’ are virtually the same but with different numbers. This can cause confusion to the readers.

Author Response

Introduction
Page 2, lines 50-60: Two types of norms (descriptive and injunctive) were mentioned. Definition of descriptive norm was provided but not injunctive norm. 
Response:  I appreciated this comment. I add the definition (Line 131 to 133)

Page 2, line 93: ‘I examed’ should be ‘I examined’   corrected 
Literature review has not included relevant and recent literature; e.g. Kim and Kim 2008 (PMID: 18649231); Kim, Park and Kim 2021 (PMID: 34444638). 

Materials and Methods
Page 3, line 114: Has this questionnaire been validated? Any pilot study before the online survey?  Response:  I  appreciated this comment. I add the definition (Line 131 to 133)

Page 3, line 115: This reference number (2-104078-AB-N-01-2017105HR) is the same as the number in the paper published by Ko and Sohn 2018 (PMID: 30186812)? Why? - Response:  I  appreciated this comment. I did a mistake. I changed to 2-1040781-A-N-012021023HR (line 113,  417)

Results
Page 4, line 190: Why used the figure 31.1%? Should it be 22.2%?  Response:  I  appreciated this comment. I corrected it. 
Page 5, line 207: ‘… 2-3 times per week…’ should be ‘… 2 or more times per week…’ 
Response : I appreciated this comment. I explained more clearly (Line 150 to 153)

Page 5, line 207: Table 1 should be Table 2   -corrected
Page 6, lines 221-224: This sentence is incorrect. Two exceptions were mentioned. How about the statement ‘Lower punishments are acceptable for crimes committed while drunk’? Is this statement also an exception?  corrected (Crimes committed while drunk can be punished at a lower level)
Page 6, lines 231-232: ‘The other age groups… level of agreement…’ The statement is incorrect because the other age groups did not show the same order.  I changed the word (same --> similar) 
Page 7, line 238: (M = 2.85) should be (M = 2.18)  -->  corrected
Page 8, lines 260-262: ‘… descriptive norms… for most age groups.’ Why most age groups? Should this be all age groups?  corrected
Page 8, line 276: ‘… in their 20s and 30s…’ Should 40s also be included?  --> corrected
Page 9, line 295: ‘marital status’ (p<.001)…’ should be ‘marital status (p<.05)…’ -->  corrected
Page 9, lines 299-301: Coping and environmental should also be included because they were not significantly related to high-risk drinking.  corrected
Tables
Table 1: These two rows ‘Two or more times per week’ and ‘Two or more times per week drinker’ are virtually the same but with different numbers. This can cause confusion to the readers.  I appreciated this comment. I deleted the row . 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx