their sexual behavior?
Recent research by Canadian economists Anindya Sen and May Luong seeks the answer to these questions by testing to see if there is a relationship between beer prices and the rate of sexually transmitted diseases. They find that a 1 percent increase in the price of beer lowers gonorrhea and chlamydia rates by about 0.8 percent. So it would appear that in Canada, higher beer prices do reduce risky sexual behavior.
A second study by Harrell Chesson, Paul Harrison, and William Kassler using U.S. data also finds striking evidence that people respond to increases in alcohol prices by reducing both their consumption of alcohol and their risky sexual behavior. Taking advantage of state-by-state differences in taxes onalcohol, they find that a $1 increase in the liquor tax reduces gonorrhea rates by 2 percent and that a tax increase of just $0.20 per six-pack reduces gonorrhea rates by 9 percent and syphilis rates by 33 percent.
To put these results into context, the authorsâ calculations suggest that an increase in beer taxes of just $0.20 per six-pack in the United States would annually reduce new HIV cases by 3,400, cases of infertility caused by pelvic inflammatory disease by 8,900, and new cases of cervical cancer by 700.
Finally a third study, by Bisakha Sen, finds that an increase in beer taxes has no effect on births to adolescent mothers, but that a 100 percent increase in beer taxes reduces teen abortion rates by about 7 to 10 percentâsuggesting a small but still significant reduction in the number of unwanted pregnancies.
When talking specifically about college student behavior, however, there is a reason to be a bit skeptical that an increase in drink prices would change student sexuality as dramatically as in the general population. The reason goes back to what I said earlier about income and price elasticity: the percent change in demand for drinks when the price increases by 1 percent.
Students may not have high incomes, but they tend to consume like people who earn much more than they actually do. The reason why they spend more is that university students expect to earn more in the future than they do in the present and, as a result, they consume more today relative to other people with similar current income levels; they essentially eat (and sometimes drink) part of their future income, today. This makes me think that students donât reduce their alcohol consumption by as much as other people in their income group when the drink prices increase.
If students donât reduce their drinking in bars, or if they just drink at home before heading out, then it is unlikely that higher drink prices have much of an effect on their sexual behavior.
SEXUALLY STIMULATED MEN ARE IMPATIENT TO CONSUME
Several studies by marketing professors have found that men who are sexually stimulated by pictures of scantily clad women, the type of pictures that surround us every day, are not only impatient to consume but more willing to accept unfair offers.
One such study by researchers Bram Van den Bergh, Siegfried Dewitte, and Luk Warlop asked participants to choose between receiving ⬠15 today or some other amount one week in the future. The monetary amount chosen in the future then gave researchers a measure of how impatient the participant was to consume. Someone who is very impatient, for example, would want far more than â¬15 in one week â s timeâmaybe even â¬30. Someone else who is more patient would need very little more to encourage him or her to waitâperhaps close to â¬0 more.
Students in general are impatient to consume because they expect to have higher incomes in the future and are, therefore, less concerned about saving today. It is this fact that explains why students are less likely to respond to an increase in alcohol prices the same way as other people with similar incomes.
In this study the male participants, after being exposed to different
Recent research by Canadian economists Anindya Sen and May Luong seeks the answer to these questions by testing to see if there is a relationship between beer prices and the rate of sexually transmitted diseases. They find that a 1 percent increase in the price of beer lowers gonorrhea and chlamydia rates by about 0.8 percent. So it would appear that in Canada, higher beer prices do reduce risky sexual behavior.
A second study by Harrell Chesson, Paul Harrison, and William Kassler using U.S. data also finds striking evidence that people respond to increases in alcohol prices by reducing both their consumption of alcohol and their risky sexual behavior. Taking advantage of state-by-state differences in taxes onalcohol, they find that a $1 increase in the liquor tax reduces gonorrhea rates by 2 percent and that a tax increase of just $0.20 per six-pack reduces gonorrhea rates by 9 percent and syphilis rates by 33 percent.
To put these results into context, the authorsâ calculations suggest that an increase in beer taxes of just $0.20 per six-pack in the United States would annually reduce new HIV cases by 3,400, cases of infertility caused by pelvic inflammatory disease by 8,900, and new cases of cervical cancer by 700.
Finally a third study, by Bisakha Sen, finds that an increase in beer taxes has no effect on births to adolescent mothers, but that a 100 percent increase in beer taxes reduces teen abortion rates by about 7 to 10 percentâsuggesting a small but still significant reduction in the number of unwanted pregnancies.
When talking specifically about college student behavior, however, there is a reason to be a bit skeptical that an increase in drink prices would change student sexuality as dramatically as in the general population. The reason goes back to what I said earlier about income and price elasticity: the percent change in demand for drinks when the price increases by 1 percent.
Students may not have high incomes, but they tend to consume like people who earn much more than they actually do. The reason why they spend more is that university students expect to earn more in the future than they do in the present and, as a result, they consume more today relative to other people with similar current income levels; they essentially eat (and sometimes drink) part of their future income, today. This makes me think that students donât reduce their alcohol consumption by as much as other people in their income group when the drink prices increase.
If students donât reduce their drinking in bars, or if they just drink at home before heading out, then it is unlikely that higher drink prices have much of an effect on their sexual behavior.
SEXUALLY STIMULATED MEN ARE IMPATIENT TO CONSUME
Several studies by marketing professors have found that men who are sexually stimulated by pictures of scantily clad women, the type of pictures that surround us every day, are not only impatient to consume but more willing to accept unfair offers.
One such study by researchers Bram Van den Bergh, Siegfried Dewitte, and Luk Warlop asked participants to choose between receiving ⬠15 today or some other amount one week in the future. The monetary amount chosen in the future then gave researchers a measure of how impatient the participant was to consume. Someone who is very impatient, for example, would want far more than â¬15 in one week â s timeâmaybe even â¬30. Someone else who is more patient would need very little more to encourage him or her to waitâperhaps close to â¬0 more.
Students in general are impatient to consume because they expect to have higher incomes in the future and are, therefore, less concerned about saving today. It is this fact that explains why students are less likely to respond to an increase in alcohol prices the same way as other people with similar incomes.
In this study the male participants, after being exposed to different
Similar Books
