Endorsement of a Personal Responsibility to Adhere to the Minimum Drinking Age Law Predicts Consumption, Risky Behaviors, and Alcohol-Related Harms.

Despite minimum drinking age laws, underage college students engage in high levels of risky drinking and reach peak lifetime levels of alcohol dependence. A group of presidents of universities and colleges has argued that these laws promote disrespect for laws in general, and do not prevent drinking or related negative consequences. However, no study has investigated the policy-relevant question of whether students who endorse a personal responsibility to obey drinking laws, regardless of their opinions about the laws, are less likely to drink or to experience negative consequences. Therefore, we compared endorsers to non-endorsers, controlling for race, gender, and baseline outcomes, at two universities (Ns = 2007 and 2027). Neither sample yielded a majority (49% and 38% endorsement), but for both universities, all 17 outcome measures were significantly associated with endorsement across all types of analyses. Endorsers were less likely to drink, drank less, engaged in less high-risk behavior (e.g., heavy/binge drinking), and experienced fewer harms (e.g., physical injury), even when controlling for covariates. Racial/ethnic minority groups were more likely to endorse, compared to White students. By isolating a small window of time between high school and college that produces large changes in drinking behavior, and controlling for covariates, we can begin to hone in on factors that might explain relations among laws, risky behaviors, and harms. Internalization of a social norm to adhere to drinking laws could offer benefits to students and society, but subsequent research is needed to pin down causation and causal mechanisms.