Thanksgiving Day Alcohol Use: Associations With Expectations and Negative Affect

Abstract

Thanksgiving is known for celebration, indulgence, and, unfortunately, alcohol-related consequences. No research to date, however, has explored predictors of Thanksgiving drinking that may help to explain the risky behaviors commonly observed over this holiday. We examined whether Thanksgiving Day drinking is related to expectations about the holiday and negative affect, as well as gender differences in these associations. This study is the first to examine Thanksgiving as a high-risk drinking event and to focus exclusively on U.S. non-college adults. Two hundred eight participants recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk completed online surveys one week before, one day before, and one day after Thanksgiving 2016. Measures included expectations about Thanksgiving, daily anxiety, depressed affect, stress, and alcohol use. Logistic and Poisson regressions were used to predict whether participants drank and how much they drank on Thanksgiving Day, respectively. Choosing to drink on Thanksgiving was associated with higher daily anxiety but not with daily depressed affect or stress. Among men who drank on Thanksgiving, higher daily depressed affect was associated with more consumption, especially for men with positive expectations about Thanksgiving. Among women who drank on Thanksgiving, higher daily depressed affect was associated with more consumption for women with negative expectations about Thanksgiving but less consumption for women with positive expectations. These findings suggest that negative affect experienced during Thanksgiving is relevant to event-specific alcohol use. This study also underscores the importance of research that focuses on specific, high-risk drinking events, and uses samples of non-college U.S. adults.

Keywords

Alcohol Thanksgiving holiday expectations gender differences

Introduction

Excessive alcohol use is associated with a litany of negative outcomes, including blackouts, injuries, alcohol poisoning, physical and sexual assault, unprotected sex, suicide attempts, and death (Rehm, Gmel, Sempos, & Trevisan, 2003; White & Hingson, 2013). Although many studies relate individuals’ propensity to drink to excess with their experience of alcohol-related consequences over time, examination of specific, high-risk drinking events is warranted (Glassman, Dodd, Sheu, Rienzo, & Wagenaar, 2010). When considering how to understand and disrupt opportunities for excessive and dangerous drinking, holidays are of particular interest given converging evidence illustrating their high-risk nature.

In the United States, alcohol sales spike near major holidays, notably around the Fourth of July and from Thanksgiving through New Year’s Eve (United States Bureau of the Census, 2018). According to Nielsen (2017), U.S. alcohol sales can increase by over 250% around the winter holidays. Data from BACtrack (2014), creator of a smartphone-based breathalyzer, indicate that days with the highest average blood-alcohol content mostly fall near holidays: Thanksgiving, New Year’s Eve, the Super Bowl, Valentine’s Day, St. Patrick’s Day, and Cinco de Mayo. Studies of U.S. college students and other emerging adults document excessive alcohol use and risk-taking during New Year’s Eve, Halloween, and the Super Bowl (Beets et al., 2009; Del Boca, Darkes, Greenbaum, & Goldman, 2004; Goldman, Greenbaum, Darkes, Brandon, & Del Boca, 2011; Greenbaum, Del Boca, Darkes, Wang, & Goldman, 2005). And excessive drinking is not exclusive to U.S. holidays—similar patterns of behavior have been observed around the world (Bellis et al., 2015; Kushnir & Cunningham, 2014; Lloyd, Matthews, Livingston, Javasekara, & Smith, 2013; Poikolainen, Leppänen, & Vuori, 2002). In this study, we examined event-specific alcohol use among U.S. adults during an understudied yet problematic U.S. holiday: Thanksgiving.

Alcohol use around Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving is the second most popular holiday in the United States next to Christmas, and for many people represents a time for family, gratitude, and cheer (Wallendorf & Arnould, 1991). Unfortunately, Thanksgiving is also associated with increased risk for alcohol-related consequences. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Thanksgiving sees more automobile-related fatalities than any other national holiday, and more than 40% of those fatalities are related to drunk driving, a rate far higher than the annual average of approximately 28% (Diamond, 2014). Although increased travel and inclement weather may play a role in this spike, such conditions are not unique to Thanksgiving, suggesting that a distinct pattern of alcohol use may be relevant. In addition to problems on the road, some individuals experience a cardiac arrhythmia from excessive alcohol use, a condition so connected with the holiday season that it has been dubbed the “holiday heart syndrome” (Tonelo, Providência, & Gonçalves, 2013).

Despite Thanksgiving’s reputation for alcohol-related problems, no published studies have focused solely on predictors of drinking during this period. Although modest increases in alcohol use have been observed during Thanksgiving (Beets et al., 2009; Del Boca et al., 2004; Greenbaum et al., 2005), with one study finding decreased levels of drinking (Goldman et al., 2011), these studies included only college students. For many students, Thanksgiving is spent at home with family, a circumstance that may depress their alcohol use compared with what they are accustomed to at college (Woodyard & Hallam, 2010). Thanksgiving is likely experienced much differently by non-college adults for whom the holiday may be more stressful than it is for students on break from college.

Expectations and negative affect around Thanksgiving

One reason why Thanksgiving is likely much different for non-college adults is because it can be fraught with expectations. Although Americans tend to have a “rosy view” of Thanksgiving, associating the holiday with joyful family reunions and delicious food, people often expect it to be more pleasant than it actually is (Mitchell, Thompson, Peterson, & Cronk, 1997). Indeed, Thanksgiving can be a stressful time filled with difficult conversations, unwelcome opportunities for indulgence, and increased responsibilities (e.g., for those in charge of hosting meals) (Wallendorf & Arnould, 1991). In fact, when controlling for feelings of gratitude, Thanksgiving is associated with overall lower life satisfaction and lower positive affect (Allan, Steger, & Yeon Shin, 2013). Moreover, depression around holidays, also known as the “holiday blues,” is commonly recognized in the general population (American Psychological Association [APA], 2006; Baier, 1987).

Considering the aversive emotions that many people experience during Thanksgiving, drinking during this holiday could be uniquely problematic if done to cope with those negative feelings (Cooper, Frone, Russell, & Mudar, 1995). People are generally more likely to drink, and drink more, on days when they experience negative affect, such as anxiety, sadness, and stress (Grant, Stewart, & Mohr, 2009; O’Hara, Armeli, & Tennen, 2014; Park, Armeli, & Tennen, 2004). Drinking in response to negative affect can trigger a “downward spiral” in which attempts to cope using alcohol backfire, fatigue and stress-reactivity accumulate over time, and further drinking ensues (Armeli, O’Hara, Covault, Scott, & Tennen, 2016; Armeli, O’Hara, Ehrenberg, Sullivan, & Tennen, 2014). This process may increase risk for alcohol-related consequences, because drinking to cope uniquely predicts drinking problems beyond level of consumption (Cooper et al., 1995; Simons, Gaher, Correia, Hansen, & Christopher, 2005).

In the context of Thanksgiving, some of the negative emotions that people experience may stem from their expectations. A wealth of research makes clear that people’s expectations have a strong influence on how they behave, in general (Downey, Freitas, Michaelis, & Khouri, 1998; Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996), and related specifically to drinking (Jones, Corbin, & Fromme, 1991). As noted, people tend to have an optimistic view of Thanksgiving (Mitchell et al., 1997), which, if violated, may produce sufficient negative affect to trigger alcohol use. On the other hand, some individuals may expect Thanksgiving to be stressful and foster a negative mood in preparation, setting the stage for alcohol use as part of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Thanksgiving experiences may also differ between men and women. Although no empirical research to date has examined this idea, women generally shoulder a heavier burden than do men on Thanksgiving with regard to cooking, hosting, and cleaning, and often experience the day as hurried and exhausting (Wallendorf & Arnould, 1991). Men, however, are more likely to experience Thanksgiving as a day of rest, including abundant consumption of food, alcohol, and sports. Whether and how these expectations are met likely influence people’s levels of stress and negative affect on Thanksgiving. Prior research is ambivalent, however, on whether men or women demonstrate stronger associations between negative affect and drinking (Breslin, O’Keeffe, Burrell, Ratliff-Crain, & Baum, 1995; Cooper, Russell, Skinner, Frone, & Mudar, 1992; Dvorak & Simons, 2014; Nolen-Hoeksema, 2004; Park et al., 2004).

Current aims

This study builds on our knowledge of drinking behavior in a number of important ways. First, the vast majority of research on high-risk drinking events has focused on U.S. college students (e.g., Beets et al., 2009; Del Boca et al., 2004; Greenbaum et al., 2005). Although some studies suggest that non-college populations show similar patterns of alcohol use during high-risk events, these studies used samples from outside of the United States (Bellis et al., 2015; Kushnir & Cunningham, 2014; Lloyd et al., 2013; Poikolainen et al., 2002), similar in age to college students (Goldman et al., 2011), or recruited at a college event (Glassman et al., 2010). By examining patterns among a less circumscribed population of U.S. adults, results of this study may be more generalizable and have greater impact on our understanding of drinking around U.S. holidays.

Second, despite evidence that Thanksgiving is a high-risk drinking event, no study to date has focused solely on this holiday. Third, most studies have only recorded patterns of alcohol use around holidays, neglecting to explore psychological antecedents of holiday-related drinking. We anticipated that those who experience stronger negative affect (i.e., anxiety, depressed affect, and stress) both before and on Thanksgiving would be more likely to drink and would consume more alcoholic beverages on Thanksgiving. Moreover, we expected those who held more negative expectations about Thanksgiving would be more likely to drink and to drink more on Thanksgiving. Finally, we explored whether these associations differed between men and women.

Method

Procedure

The Institutional Review Board at the senior author’s university approved all procedures, and all APA ethical guidelines for human research were followed. As part of a large-scale project to investigate attitudes and consumptive behavior during the Thanksgiving holiday, we surveyed Amazon Mechanical Turk workers in the United States four times during the two weeks surrounding Thanksgiving 2016. During informed consent, workers were asked not to participate if they were under the age of 18 years, residing outside of the United States, or planning to have a Thanksgiving experience that was atypical for them. We recruited 392 participants during the first session and issued them each a unique code to enter when they responded in later sessions. Workers earned $2 for each survey completed and an additional $2 for completing all four surveys, for a maximum possible remuneration of $10.

Surveys were distributed via Qualtrics online surveying software one week before Thanksgiving 2016 (November 17), the day before Thanksgiving (November 23), the day after Thanksgiving (November 25), and one week after Thanksgiving (December 1). Participants took 15 to 18 minutes on average to finish each survey. We do not use any measures from the fourth survey in this study and thus do not further consider it. The second and third surveys asked participants to reflect on their experiences over the past 24 hours, so conceptually these reports covered the four days that comprise the Thanksgiving holiday (Tuesday–Friday). Participants under the age of 21 years were asked not to answer questions about alcohol use and were thus dropped from this study. We also embedded attention-check questions into the second and third surveys in order to remove participants whose responses may not be genuine. Any participant who missed both attention check questions and failed to provide open-ended responses when prompted were removed from the analysis. Finally, we removed any participants who completed their surveys from an IP address outside of the United States (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

CONSORT diagram showing flow of attrition in study.

Our sample for analysis included 208 participants (116 women and 92 men). The average age of participants was 37.42 years (SD = 11.72, range = 21–75), the majority was white (87.9%), and the median yearly household income fell between $30,000 and $50,000. Included participants were slightly older compared to those who were excluded from the analysis (M = 33.26, SD = 9.99), t(380) = 3.75, p < .001. Women were more likely than men to be included in the final sample (63.7% vs. 47.4%), χ²(2) = 11.42, p = .001, and whites were more likely to be included than people of color (57.4% vs. 41.0%), χ²(2) = 6.63, p = .01. The sample for analysis did not have a higher annual income or differing expectations about Thanksgiving compared to those who were excluded.

Measures

First survey (November 17)

Participants responded to demographic questions including age, race, and income. They also rated on seven-point Likert-type scales their attitude toward Thanksgiving (1 = hate it to 7 = love it), experience from last year’s Thanksgiving (1 = negative to 7 = positive), and their anticipation for this year’s Thanksgiving (1 = negative to 7 = positive). These three items were averaged to create an Expectations about Thanksgiving scale, Cronbach’s alpha = .89.

Second and third surveys (November 23 and November 25)

Participants reported the number of drinks (defined in the questionnaire as 12 oz. of beer, 5 oz. of wine, or 1.5 oz. shots of liquor) consumed in the past 24 hours, and the number of drinks consumed in four different social contexts (alone, with others, in a private place, and in a public place). Because the vast majority of drinking occurred with others and in public places, we only used participants’ overall consumption as our outcome variable. Participants also responded to 12 items adapted from Bolger and Zuckerman (1995) pertaining to their mood within the last 24 hours, using a four-point scale (1 = not at all to 4 = very much). Among these items, we focused on internalizing responses that map most closely to traditional measures of drinking to cope (Cooper, 1994)—three items tapped anxiety (“on edge,” “uneasy,” and “nervous”) and three tapped depressed affect (“sad,” “hopeless,” and “discouraged.”). Cronbach’s alphas for daily anxiety were .87 and .89, and for daily depressed affect were .88 and .78. Finally, participants completed the Daily Stress Inventory (Brantley, Waggoner, Jones, & Rappaport, 1987). This questionnaire measures the number and relative impact of 58 minor stressors frequently experienced in everyday life. We added four items that we anticipated would be relevant to the Thanksgiving experience: “made a mistake in food preparation,” “ate more than I should have,” “had an awkward social interaction,” and “did something those around me did not approve of.” Participants indicated whether each potentially stressful experience occurred and how much stress it caused (0 = did not occur, 1 = not stressful, 7 = caused me to panic). Daily stress was calculated as a sum of scores for all items.

Analysis

We used logistic regression to predict whether participants drank on Thanksgiving (coded 0 = did not drink, 1 = did drink) from their gender (coded 0 = female, 1 = male), age, expectations about Thanksgiving, pre-Thanksgiving drinking, daily anxiety, daily depressed mood, and daily stress. We then used the same set of predictors in a Poisson regression to estimate participants’ quantity of alcohol consumed given the choice to drink on Thanksgiving. In other words, we predicted how much people drank on Thanksgiving independent of their decision whether or not to drink. A Poisson model was most appropriate because it provides more reliable estimates than a linear model when the outcome is a count variable, such as number of drinks consumed (Coxe, West, & Aiken, 2009). In both models, interaction terms were created by z-scoring variables of interest (i.e., expectations about Thanksgiving, daily anxiety, daily depressed mood, and daily stress) and multiplying each by values for gender (Aiken & West, 1991).

Results

Descriptive statistics

Descriptive statistics and correlations between variables of interest are presented in Table 1, broken down by gender. Of the 208 participants, 64 (30.8%) reported alcohol use on Thanksgiving Day, with an equal distribution of men and women. The average age of those who drank on Thanksgiving (M = 37.36, SD = 11.41) was similar to those who did not (M = 37.45, SD = 11.89), t(206) = 0.05, p = .96, d = −0.01. Among those who consumed alcohol on Thanksgiving, the average amount consumed was 3.36 drinks (SD = 2.07), and consumption did not significantly differ between men (M = 3.41, SD = 2.16) and women (M = 3.31, SD = 2.01), t(62) = 0.19, p = .85, d = 0.05. Ten men and 15 women (39% of those who drank on Thanksgiving) consumed enough alcohol to qualify as binge drinking (5+ drinks for men, 4+ drinks for women; National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2004), although we did not measure the length of time over which participants drank.

Table 1.

Correlations between variables of interest.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	M	SD
1. Expectations about Thanksgiving		−.02	−.32**	−.19	−.03	−.08	−.28**	−.18	−.45*	5.67	1.25
2. Pre-Thanksgiving anxiety	−.31***		.68***	.58***	.01	.50***	.35**	.49***	.20	1.45	0.59
3. Pre-Thanksgiving depressed affect	−.36***	.70***		.43***	−.01	.48***	.54***	.43***	.23	1.40	0.65
4. Pre-Thanksgiving daily stress	−.16	.35***	.32***		.01	.44***	.33**	.84***	.12	40.67	45.52
5. Pre-Thanksgiving drinking	.01	.01	−.05	−.12		−.06	−.07	.08	.26	0.66	2.00
6. Thanksgiving Day anxiety	−.34***	.62***	.48***	.26**	.03		.46***	.55***	.10	1.31	0.51
7. Thanksgiving Day depressed affect	−.34***	.65***	.68***	.22*	.05	.61***		.31**	.50**	1.17*	0.35
8. Thanksgiving Day stress	−.29**	.37***	.18	.68***	−.10	.53***	.28**		.07	32.97	44.26
9. Thanksgiving Day drinking^a	−.42*	.25	.31	.02	.41*	.22	.44**	.26		3.41	2.16
M	5.59	1.46	1.44	45.00	0.44	1.45	1.32**	33.63	3.31
SD	1.24	0.69	0.69	47.92	1.07	0.73	0.60	40.08	2.01

Note: Men (n = 96) above the diagonal, women (n = 116) below the diagonal. Asterisks next to mean values indicate a significant difference between men and women. Expectations about Thanksgiving measured one week before Thanksgiving; Pre-Thanksgiving variables measured one day before Thanksgiving; Thanksgiving Day variables measured one day after Thanksgiving.

^aIncludes only Thanksgiving Day drinkers: men, n = 29; women, n = 35.

*p ≤ .05; **p ≤ .01; ***p ≤ .001.

Participants reported relatively positive expectations about Thanksgiving (M = 5.63, SD = 1.24) and relatively low levels of daily anxiety and depression (both Ms < 1.5, both SDs < 0.7). Women reported significantly higher depression on Thanksgiving Day (M = 1.32, SD = 0.60) than did men (M = 1.17, SD = 0.35), t(206) = 2.33, p = .02, d = 0.33; no other gender differences were observed. No significant differences in Thanksgiving expectations or daily mood were found between individuals who consumed alcohol on Thanksgiving versus those who abstained.

Predicting the decision to drink on Thanksgiving

Our first model predicted whether participants chose to drink on Thanksgiving Day (yes/no). This logistic regression model was significant, χ²(10) = 65.39, p < .001 (Table 2). According to guidelines set forth by Ferguson (2009), this model produced an effect of moderate size (Cox & Snell R² = .27; Nagelkerke R² = .38). The model correctly predicted 164 out of 208 cases (78.8%): 134 out of 144 cases (93.1%) of participants who abstained from drinking on Thanksgiving but only 30 of 64 cases (46.9%) of participants who drank.

Table 2.

Predictors of decision to consume alcohol on Thanksgiving Day (N = 208).

	B	SE	Exp(B)
Constant	−3.57	1.45	0.03
Time 1 predictors^a
Gender^b	0.05	.37	1.06
Age^c	−0.01	.02	1.00
Expectations about Thanksgiving	0.27	.17	1.31
Time 2 predictors^d
Pre-Thanksgiving drinking	2.83	.49	16.88***
Pre-Thanksgiving depressed affect	−0.71	.43	0.49
Pre-Thanksgiving anxiety	1.08	.47	2.95*
Pre-Thanksgiving daily stress	−0.01	.01	0.99
Time 3 predictors^e
Thanksgiving Day depressed affect	−0.85	.53	0.43
Thanksgiving Day anxiety	1.17	.47	3.22*
Thanksgiving Day stress	−0.01	.01	0.99

^aMeasured one week before Thanksgiving.

^bMen = 1, Women = 0.

^cRange = 21–75.

^dMeasured one day before Thanksgiving.

^eMeasured one day after Thanksgiving.

*p ≤ .05; **p ≤ .01; ***p ≤ .001.

Participants who felt more anxious both before (B = 1.08, SE = .47) and on Thanksgiving (B = 1.17, SE = .47) were between 2.5× and 3.5× more likely to consume alcohol on Thanksgiving. The only other significant predictor was pre-Thanksgiving drinking (B = 2.83, SE = .49). We found no significant main effects for gender, age, daily depressed mood, daily stress, or expectations about Thanksgiving, nor any interactions between gender and any variables of interest.

Predicting how much people drink on Thanksgiving

Our second model focused on the 64 participants who consumed alcohol on Thanksgiving and predicted how much they drank that day. This Poisson regression showed good fit with the data, χ²(14) = 34.74, p = .002; deviance χ²(49) = 41.00, p = 0.78 (Table 3). With regard to main effects, only daily depressed affect experienced on Thanksgiving approached significance (B = 0.22, SE = .12, p = .054), but this effect was subsumed by a significant three-way interaction between Gender, Expectations about Thanksgiving, and daily depressed affect on Thanksgiving Day, p = .007. To probe this interaction, we conducted separate Poisson regressions for men and women who drank on Thanksgiving and used free software available online to plot the two-way interactions (Dawson, n.d.).

Table 3.

Predictors of number of drinks consumed by Thanksgiving Day drinkers (N = 64).

	B	SE	Exp(B)
Intercept	1.05	0.29	2.84
Time 1 predictors^a
Gender^b	0.23	.16	0.80
Age^c	0.01	.01	1.00
Expectations about Thanksgiving	−0.16	.11	0.86
Time 2 predictors^d
Pre-Thanksgiving drinking	0.10	.06	1.10
Pre-Thanksgiving depressed affect	0.05	.11	1.05
Pre-Thanksgiving anxiety	0.01	.12	1.00
Pre-Thanksgiving daily stress	−0.04	.12	0.96
Time 3 predictors^e
Thanksgiving Day depressed affect	0.23	.12	1.25
Thanksgiving Day anxiety	−0.09	.13	0.91
Thanksgiving Day stress	0.13	.14	1.14
Interaction terms
Gender × Expectations	0.29	.18	1.33
Gender × T3 depressed affect	−0.27	.18	0.77
Expectations × T3 depressed affect	0.23	.12	1.26
Gender × Expectations × T3 depressed affect	−0.42	.15	0.66**

^aMeasured one week before Thanksgiving.

^bMen = 1, Women = 0.

^cRange = 23–70.

^dMeasured one day before Thanksgiving.

^eMeasured one day after Thanksgiving.

*p ≤ .05; **p ≤ .01.

The Poisson model for men provided adequate fit to the data, χ²(10) = 16.67, p = 0.08; deviance χ²(18) = 22.86, p = 0.20. As shown in the top panel of Figure 2, at low levels of daily depressed affect, men who held more negative expectations about Thanksgiving consumed about 1.5 more drinks that day than men who held more positive expectations. As daily depressed affect increased, men’s Thanksgiving Day drinking increased but at a higher rate among men with positive Thanksgiving expectations. At higher levels of depressed affect, men were estimated to consume close to four drinks regardless of their expectations.

Figure 2.

Gender × Expectations × Daily depressed affect interaction predicting number of alcoholic drinks consumed on Thanksgiving.

The Poisson model for women only showed good fit with the data, χ²(10) = 21.39, p = 0.02; deviance χ²(24) = 14.78, p = 0.93. As seen in the bottom panel of Figure 2, women, like men, exhibited the most pronounced differences in drinking based on Thanksgiving expectations when depressed affect was low. But opposite to men, women who held more positive expectations about Thanksgiving were estimated to consume about four drinks, two more than women with negative expectations. As depressed affect increased on Thanksgiving, drinking was reduced among women with positive expectations but increased among women with negative expectations, until both groups were estimated to consume around three drinks.

Discussion

Despite burgeoning evidence that national holidays pose a particular risk for excessive drinking that can lead to serious alcohol-related consequences, few published studies have examined event-specific drinking among U.S. non-college adults. Moreover, despite its notoriety for excessive alcohol consumption and drunk driving, no study has examined factors associated with drinking during the Thanksgiving holiday. This study breaks new ground by examining this high-risk holiday by using a sample of non-college U.S. adults and by including cognitive and affective predictors of drinking rather than just chronicling levels of use.

Consistent with motivational models of alcohol use, people who experienced higher anxiety both before and on Thanksgiving were more likely to drink that day (O’Hara et al., 2014). Together with the fact that levels of daily depressed affect and daily stress did not predict people’s decision to drink on Thanksgiving, these results support earlier findings that alcohol use differs in response to particular forms of negative affect (Grant et al., 2009). Given the anxiety associated with Thanksgiving for many U.S. adults (Allan et al., 2013; Mitchell et al., 1997), this emotion may help to explain patterns of alcohol use observed over the Thanksgiving holiday. To the degree that Thanksgiving alcohol use is driven by coping—which is uniquely associated with alcohol-related consequences (Cooper et al., 1995; Simons et al., 2005)—these models could help explain the higher incidence of drunk driving common during this holiday.

More complex are the relations we observed between daily depressed affect and the amount of alcohol consumed on Thanksgiving. Men displayed a mostly linear relationship in which higher levels of depressed affect were associated with increased drinking, indicative of a classic drinking-to-cope process (Cooper et al., 1995). Moreover, men who expected Thanksgiving to be unpleasant reported higher consumption, suggestive both of drinking to cope and a self-fulfilling prophecy. Women, on the other hand, differed in their reactions to depressed affect. Women who expected Thanksgiving to be a positive experience tended to drink the most, perhaps suggesting social or enhancement motives for alcohol use (Cooper, 1994). Experiencing depressed affect on Thanksgiving, which would violate those positive expectations, seemed to attenuate these women’s alcohol use, perhaps by undermining social or enhancement motives. When women expected Thanksgiving to be a negative experience, however, increased levels of depressed affect led to higher consumption, suggesting that only when the day’s experience matched women’s a priori attitudes did more drinking ensue.

This study has several limitations worth mentioning. First, our analysis is based on a relatively small convenience sample recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk: out of a total of 208 participants, only 64 reported drinking on Thanksgiving. Future studies should be based on larger samples that exhibit a wider range of drinking behavior. One reason for our relatively small sample was attrition, as nearly half of our recruited participants were excluded from the analysis, mostly for non-adherence to study protocol. Moreover, included participants tended to be slightly older, female, and white, restricting the representativeness of our final sample. This differential attrition compounds the fact that convenience and online samples are unlikely to be representative of the population in the first place, although data collected using Mechanical Turk have been shown to be more representative of the U.S. population than are in-person convenience samples and U.S. college samples (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011; Paolacci, Chandler, & Ipeirotis, 2010).

Second, alcohol use was self-reported retrospectively on the day following Thanksgiving, and we were unable to collect detailed, moment-to-moment information about participants’ activities during Thanksgiving (e.g., hosting a family dinner; watching football with friends), drinking motives, and consequences. Prior research has demonstrated that event-specific drinking motives can reveal much about the context surrounding drinking events (O’Hara, Armeli, & Tennen, 2015) and that individual differences exist in which negative emotions are likely to trigger drinking to cope (Grant et al., 2009). Future studies could employ ecological momentary assessment to identify discrete events and specific emotions that are associated with drinking during Thanksgiving. And although predicting drinking during high-risk events is an important first step, ultimately we want to understand when and why drinking-related consequences occur and, more importantly, how to prevent them. Future research should, therefore, measure pertinent outcomes such as drunk driving and cardiac disturbances so we can delineate the full process from antecedents to outcomes.

Finally, Thanksgiving Day itself may not be a particularly high-risk holiday, with much of the heavy drinking occurring the night before (i.e., “Black Wednesday”) and potentially driven by college students who likely do not face the same holiday-related stressors experienced by older adults (e.g., being in charge of family gatherings; having to balance family and work) (Beets et al., 2009; Goldman et al., 2011; Woodyard & Hallam, 2010). Future research should measure alcohol use that occurs the night before Thanksgiving, as well as in the days following Thanksgiving. These data would allow us to understand drinking that may occur as a reaction to the conclusion of holiday-related stress (Breslin et al., 1995), and whether drinking associated with the Thanksgiving holiday can trigger a “downward spiral” (Armeli et al., 2014, 2016).

Drinking related to negative affect may be an important factor in the excessive use and associated risk-taking indelibly linked to Thanksgiving. Future research should explore adults’ specific motives for drinking on and around Thanksgiving, and how those experiences differ between men and women. These efforts will be an important next step in understanding why people engage in excessive alcohol consumption around holidays and how to design prevention efforts that can curb such behavior and save lives.

Footnotes

Article Notes

References

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Allan

B. A.

Steger

M. F.

Yeon Shin

(2013). Thanks? Gratitude and well-being over the Thanksgiving holiday among college students. Journal of Positive Psychology, 8, 91–102.

American Psychological Association (2006, December 12). Holiday stress. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2006/12/holiday-stress.pdf

Armeli

O'Hara

R. E.

Covault

Scott

D. M.

Tennen

(2016). Episode-specific drinking-to-cope motivation and next-day stress-reactivity. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 29(6), 673–684.

Armeli

O’Hara

R. E.

Ehrenberg

Sullivan

T. P.

Tennen

(2014). Episode-specific drinking-to-cope motivation, daily mood, and fatigue-related symptoms among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 75(5), 766–774.

BACtrack. (2014). BACtrack® consumption report. Retrieved from https://www.bactrack.com/pages/bactrack-consumption-report-winter-2014

Baier

(1987). The “holiday blues” as a stress reaction. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 24(2), 64–68.

Beets

M. W.

Flay

B. R.

Vuchinich

K.-K.

Acock

Snyder

F. J.

, & the Tobacco Etiology Research Network (TERN). (2009). Longitudinal patterns of binge drinking among first year college students with a history of tobacco use. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 103, 1–8.

Bellis

M. A.

Hughes

Jones

Morleo

Nicholls

McCoy

, . . . Sumnall

(2015). Holidays, celebrations, and commiserations: Measuring drinking during feasting and fasting to improve national and individual estimates of alcohol consumption. BMC Medicine, 13, 113–124.

10.

Bolger

Zuckerman

(1995). A framework for studying personality in the stress process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 890.

11.

Brantley

P. J.

Waggoner

C. D.

Jones

G. N.

Rappaport

N. B.

(1987). A daily stress inventory: Development, reliability, and validity. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 10, 61–73.

12.

Breslin

F. C.

O'Keeffe

M. K.

Burrell

Ratliff-Crain

Baum

(1995). The effects of stress and coping on daily alcohol use in women. Addictive Behaviors, 20(2), 141–147.

13.

Buhrmester

Kwang

Gosling

S. D.

(2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5.

14.

Cooper

M. L.

(1994). Motivations for alcohol use among adolescents: Development and validation of a four-factor model. Psychological Assessment, 6, 117–128.

15.

Cooper

M. L.

Frone

M. R.

Russell

Mudar

(1995). Drinking to regulate positive and negative emotions: A motivational model of alcohol use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 990–1005.

16.

Cooper

M. L.

Russell

Skinner

J. B.

Frone

M. R.

Mudar

(1992). Stress and alcohol use: Moderating effects of gender, coping, and alcohol expectancies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101(1), 139–152.

17.

Coxe

West

S. G.

Aiken

L. S.

(2009). The analysis of count data: A gentle introduction to Poisson regression and its alternatives. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 121–136.

18.

Dawson

(n.d.). Interpreting interaction effects. Retrieved from http://www.jeremydawson.co.uk/slopes.htm

19.

Del Boca

F. K.

Darkes

Greenbaum

P. E.

Goldman

M. S.

(2004). Up close and personal: Temporal variability in the drinking of individual college students during their first year. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 155–164.

20.

Diamond

(2014, November). The U.S. death rate spikes on Thanksgiving. Here’s why. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2014/11/26/the-u-s-death-rate-spikes-on-thanksgiving-heres-why/#70ac905624c6

21.

Downey

Freitas

A. L.

Michaelis

Khouri

(1998). The self-fulfilling prophecy in close relationships: Rejection sensitivity and rejection by romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 545–560.

22.

Dvorak

R. D.

Simons

J. S.

(2014). Daily associations between anxiety and alcohol use: Variation by sustained attention, set shifting, and gender. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 28(4), 969–979.

23.

Ferguson

C. J.

(2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(5), 532–538.

24.

Glassman

T. J.

Dodd

V. J.

Sheu

J.-J.

Rienzo

B. A.

Wagenaar

A. C.

(2010). Extreme ritualistic alcohol consumption among college students on game day. Journal of American College Health, 58, 413–423.

25.

Goldman

M. S.

Greenbaum

P. E.

Darkes

Brandon

K. O.

Del Boca

F. K.

(2011). How many versus how much: 52 weeks of alcohol consumption in emerging adults. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 25, 16–27.

26.

Grant

V. V.

Stewart

S. H.

Mohr

C. D.

(2009). Coping-anxiety and coping-depression motives predict different daily mood-drinking relationships. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 23, 226–237.

27.

Greenbaum

P. E.

Del Boca

F. K.

Darkes

Wang

C.-P.

Goldman

M. S.

(2005). Variation in the drinking trajectories of freshmen college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 229–238.

28.

Jones

B. T.

Corbin

Fromme

(1991). A review of expectancy theory and alcohol consumption. Addiction, 96, 57–72.

29.

Kushnir

Cunningham

J. A.

(2014). Event-specific drinking in the general population. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 75, 968–972.

30.

Lloyd

Matthews

Livingston

Jayasekara

Smith

(2013). Alcohol intoxication in the context of major public holidays, sporting and social events: A time-series analysis in Melbourne, Australia, 2000–2009. Addiction, 108, 701–709.

31.

Mitchell

T. R.

Thompson

Peterson

Cronk

(1997). Temporal adjustments in the evaluation of events: The “rosy view. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 421–448.

32.

Murray

S. L.

Holmes

J. G.

Griffin

D. W.

(1996). The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 79–98.

33.

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (2004). NIAAA newsletter ( Vol. 3). Washington, DC: Office of Research Translation and Communication.

34.

Nielsen. (2017). Americans jump-start the holidays with their favorite bottle of vino. Retrieved from https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2017/americans-jump-start-the-holidays-with-their-favorite-bottle-of-vino.html

35.

Nolen-Hoeksema

(2004). Gender differences in risk factors and consequences for alcohol use and problems. Clinical Psychology Review, 24, 981–1010.

36.

O’Hara

R. E.

Armeli

Tennen

(2014). Drinking-to-cope motivation and negative mood drinking contingencies in a daily diary study of college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 75, 606–614.

37.

O'Hara

R. E.

Armeli

Tennen

(2015). College students’ drinking motives and socialcontextual factors: Comparing associations across levels of analysis. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 29(2), 420–429.

38.

Paolacci

Chandler

Ipeirotis

P. G.

(2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411–419.

39.

Park

C. L.

Armeli

Tennen

(2004). The daily stress and coping process and alcohol use among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 65, 126–135.

40.

Poikolainen

Leppänen

Vuori

(2002). Alcohol sales and fatal alcohol poisonings: A time-series analysis. Addiction, 97, 1037–1040.

41.

Rehm

Gmel

Sempos

C. T.

Trevisan

(2003). Alcohol-related morbidity and mortality. Alcohol Research & Health, 27(1), 39–51.

42.

Simons

J. S.

Gaher

R. M.

Correia

C. J.

Hansen

C. L.

Christopher

M. S.

(2005). An affective-motivational model of marijuana and alcohol problems among college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 19(3), 326–334.

43.

Tonelo

Providência

Gonçalves

(2013). Holiday heart syndrome revisited after 34 years. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia, 101, 183–189.

44.

United States Bureau of the Census. (2018). Retail sales: Beer, wine, and liquor stores. Retrieved from https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MRTSSM4453USN#0

45.

Wallendorf

Arnould

E. J.

(1991). “ We gather together”: Consumption rituals of Thanksgiving Day. The Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 13–31.

46.

White

Hingson

(2013). The burden of alcohol use: Excessive alcohol consumption and related consequences among college students. Alcohol Research: Current Reviews, 35(2), 201–218.

47.

Woodyard

C. D.

Hallam

J. S.

(2010). Differences in college student typical drinking and celebration drinking. Journal of American College Health, 58, 533–538.