Abstract
-
Purpose
This study aimed to identify distinct subjective viewpoints regarding the perceived effects of energy drink consumption among South Korean male high school students.
-
Methods
Using Q methodology, a concourse of statements was developed through interviews and literature reviews, and refined into 35 Q samples. Forty male high school students were recruited via snowball sampling to reflect diverse consumption patterns and attitudes. Participants sorted the Q samples using a forced distribution procedure. Data were analyzed using the PC-QUANL program.
-
Results
Four distinct groups of male adolescents were identified based on their perceived effects of energy drink consumption: (1) effect-oriented experience sharers, (2) ambivalent recognizers of experience, (3) alternative-seeking evaluators, and (4) emotionally reactive responders. These groups’ perceptions were shaped by peer influence, personal consumption experiences, and levels of self-regulation.
-
Conclusion
By typifying the subjective perceptions of Korean male high school students regarding energy drink consumption, this study provides a foundational understanding of how adolescents interpret and respond to such health behaviors. These insights can guide the development of tailored health education programs that address the unique needs and attitudes of each group.
-
Key words: Adolescent; Behavior; Consumption; Energy drinks; Qualitative research
INTRODUCTION
Adolescence is a period of rapid physical, emotional, and cognitive development, during which adequate nutrition, sufficient sleep, and balanced lifestyle habits are essential to maintaining health. However, intense academic competition and rigid school schedules in South Korea often result in reduced physical activity, sleep deprivation, and irregular meals, all of which negatively affect adolescents’ overall well-being [
1].
In recent years, the consumption of high-caffeine energy drinks among adolescents has increased significantly. These beverages are often used for combating fatigue, enhancing concentration, and relieving stress—especially during exam periods. This pattern reflects the growing normalization of energy drink use as a coping mechanism for academic pressure [
2]. Energy drinks typically contain stimulants such as caffeine, guarana, taurine, ginseng, and vitamins, and are classified as high-caffeine beverages when they contain more than 0.15 mg of caffeine per 1 mL [
3-
5]. According to the Korea Consumer Agency, the caffeine content in commonly sold energy drinks ranges from 1.0 to 162.4 mg per can, with an average of 58.1 mg [
6].
Caffeine stimulates the central and peripheral nervous systems, thereby reducing fatigue and increasing alertness and performance [
7]. Due to these perceived benefits, energy drinks are widely consumed not only by adults but also by adolescents. However, excessive intake can lead to health problems such as palpitations, insomnia, nervousness, and mood instability. These side effects pose particular risks for adolescents, whose developing bodies and minds are more vulnerable to external stimuli [
8,
9].
Although research has examined the physiological and behavioral effects of high-caffeine beverages, much of it focuses on adults, with relatively limited investigation into adolescents’ consumption patterns. Moreover, existing studies tend to highlight behavioral outcomes—such as increased impulsivity, sleep disorders, and depressive symptoms—without adequately exploring how adolescents themselves subjectively understand and interpret their energy drink use [
10-
16].
Importantly, energy drink consumption among adolescents is not just a matter of individual behavior but is shaped by a broader socio-cultural context. Media advertising, peer influence, and a performance-oriented academic environment contribute to a “culture of energy drink consumption,” encouraging habitual use [
17-
21]. Despite these dynamics, most existing research has relied on quantitative methods, which often fail to capture the nuanced attitudes, values, and contextual meanings behind adolescents’ choices.
To address these gaps, the present study collects original data using Q methodology, a mixed-methods approach uniquely suited to exploring the diversity of subjective perspectives. Unlike purely quantitative designs, Q methodology enables the systematic classification of shared viewpoints and reveals the complex thought structures underlying individual behaviors. This method is especially appropriate for examining how adolescents perceive and rationalize energy drink use within their personal and social contexts.
Accordingly, this study aims to (1) identify and classify distinct subjective viewpoints on energy drink consumption among South Korean male high school students and (2) analyze the behavioral and attitudinal characteristics associated with each perception type. By doing so, it provides a deeper understanding of adolescent perceptions and offers a practical foundation for developing targeted health interventions.
METHODS
Ethical statements: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Cheongam University (IRB number: CA-17-250326-HR-002-01). Informed consent was obtained from all participants.
1. Study Design
This study is an exploratory investigation utilizing Q methodology, designed to systematically identify and categorize the subjective perceptions of energy drink consumption among South Korean male high school students. This paper was composed according to the guidelines outlined in the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research reporting guidelines [
22].
1) Selection of Q samples
To generate the Q population (concourse), data were collected from 16 male high school students from two schools (A and S) in Seoul between January 3 and February 6, 2025. Participants responded to four open-ended questions: (1) “What positive effects do you think energy drinks have?”, (2) “What negative effects do you think energy drinks have?”, (3) “What are your thoughts on energy drinks?”, and (4) “What effects do you think occur in the body if you don’t consume energy drinks?” Based on their responses, in-depth interviews were conducted with all 16 students to explore their subjective experiences and perceptions in greater detail. These interviews continued until data saturation was reached—when no new insights were emerging. Each session lasted 1–2 hours and was recorded and transcribed with participants’ consent.
In parallel, approximately 350 preliminary Q statements were extracted through a comprehensive review of domestic and international literature, professional reports, and academic sources. Following iterative refinement involving three nursing faculty members with expertise in Q methodology, a Q population of 150 statements was finalized.
To select the final Q samples, the statements were reviewed, categorized by thematic relevance, and reduced with the aim of capturing diverse yet coherent perspectives. The categorization process was conducted to ensure coverage of different content domains, not to predefine participant types. Care was taken to balance positive and negative phrasing, ensure conceptual clarity, and tailor the wording to the cognitive level of adolescents. After additional expert review, 35 Q samples were selected, representing a comprehensive range of attitudes toward energy drink consumption.
2) Selection of P samples
Q methodology does not require large sample sizes, as its purpose is to explore the range of subjectivity rather than generalize across populations. Increasing the number of P samples beyond necessity may dilute distinct factor structures. Accordingly, this study followed the conventionally recommended range: 20–60 [
23]. The P sample consisted of 40 male high school students in Seoul, Suwon, Yeoju, recruited via snowball sampling through health teachers in seven schools (two in Seoul, three in Suwon, two in Yeoju). The inclusion criteria were: male students without diagnosed chronic illnesses or physical/mental developmental conditions, and deemed by school health records to be in good health. The 16 students who participated in the Q statement generation phase were included in the final P sample. Diversity was ensured across age, grade level, birth order, and self-reported health status. The researchers had no prior relationship with the participating students, and the recruitment was facilitated through school health teachers to minimize potential bias and ensure voluntary participation.
The Q sorting process was conducted from April 2 to April 30, 2025. Each participant received the 35 Q samples and was instructed to sort them using a quasi-normal forced distribution grid across a 9-point scale ranging from –4 (most disagree) to +4 (most agree). Initially, they grouped the statements into three broad categories: positive, neutral, and negative. They then assigned individual cards to specific slots within the forced distribution, starting from the extremes.
After completing the sort, participants were asked to explain their reasoning for the two most agreed (+4) and two most disagreed (–4) items. These qualitative responses were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed to support the interpretation of each identified factor. The Q-sorting and follow-up interviews were conducted in a quiet and private setting (e.g., a separate classroom space, school health room, meeting room, or lounge) to ensure participants’ comfort and minimize external distractions.
4. Data Analysis
The Q-sort data were entered into the PC-QUANL program for analysis. Factor extraction was based on centroid factor analysis, followed by varimax rotation. Factors were retained if their eigenvalues exceeded 1.0, and solutions with varying numbers of factors were compared. A four-factor solution was selected based on interpretability and explained variance.
Analysis included examining Z-scores (standardized scores) and factor loadings for each item across the four types. The interpretation of each factor was informed by: (1) the distinguishing statements (items with high or low Z-scores), (2) the consensus statements (similar scores across types), and (3) the qualitative comments provided by participants on their extreme item choices.
Participants with the highest factor loadings for a given type—known as exemplars or defining sorts—were used to construct the narrative and interpret the subjective meaning behind each viewpoint [
24,
25].
RESULTS
1. Formation of Perception-Based Types
Q factor analysis identified four distinct participant types reflecting different perceptions regarding the effects of energy drink consumption among Korean male high school students. These four types explained a cumulative 43.1% of the total variance, with the following distribution: Type I, 17.8%; Type II, 10.7%; Type III, 8.3%; and Type IV, 6.3% (
Table 1). Correlation coefficients between types ranged from .12 to .52, with the highest correlation observed between Type I and Type II, and the lowest between Type I and Type IV (
Table 2).
The P sample included 40 male high school students. Among them, 17-year-olds constituted the largest group (n=16; 40.0%), and the most common age of first energy drink consumption was 13–15 years (n=19; 47.5%). Based on factor loadings, participants were classified as follows: Type I (n=7), Type II (n=10), Type III (n=10), Type IV (n=3). The characteristics and factor weights (defining sorts) are presented in
Table 3.
Defining statements for each type were selected based on Z-scores ≥+1.00 or ≤–1.00. Statements with statistically distinct Z-scores across types were also examined to clarify defining viewpoints.
Table 4 summarizes these defining statements by type, and consensus items are shown in
Table 5.
1) Type I: effect-oriented experience sharers
This group predominantly perceived positive functional effects of energy drinks. They described experiences of increased concentration and stimulation, often reinforced by peer influence. They showed strong agreement with statements “Q6. Drinking energy drinks helps me stay focused for longer (Z=1.25)” and “Q30. I experienced an unusual sensation the first time I drank an energy drink (Z=1.23).” Peer influence was also evident through high agreement with “Q5. I get information about energy drinks from friends (Z=1.19)” and “Q4. Since my friends drink it, I do too ? without really thinking about it (Z=1.14).”
Participant #36, who showed the highest factor loadings (1.42) in Type I, most strongly agreed with “Q6. Drinking energy drinks helps me stay focused for longer” and “Q4. Since my friends drink it, I do too—without really thinking about it.” Conversely, they most strongly disagreed with “Q35. Cold water, gum, or vitamins can also help fight drowsiness instead of energy drinks” and “Q18. I habitually reach for energy drinks.” These findings indicate that this group perceives significant positive effects from energy drink consumption and is influenced by their social environment, but demonstrates low awareness of potential health risks—highlighting the need for targeted educational interventions.
2) Type II: ambivalent recognizers of experience
These participants held mixed views, acknowledging both performance benefits and physical/mental side effects. These participants exhibited high agreement with statements indicating perceived functional advantages, such as “Q10. My activity level improves (Z=2.10)” and “Q9. I can stay focused and study for extended hours (Z=2.07),” suggesting they view energy drinks as helpful for boosting physical energy and study endurance. At the same time, they also acknowledged drawbacks, showing strong agreement with “Q11. I experience side effects like stomachache, heart palpitations, and dizziness (Z=1.15),” Q12. I feel mentally exhausted, but I still can’t fall asleep (Z=1.21),” and “Q8. I feel less tired (Z=1.10),” highlighting a balanced awareness of both relief from fatigue and resulting discomfort.
Participant #38, who had the highest factor weight (1.13) in Type II, agreed with both the positive effects of energy drinks on study performance and activity level (Q9, Q10) and with their physical side effects and impact on sleep (Q11, Q12). They most strongly disagreed with Q2. I seek out energy drinks to stay awake and Q27. I learned about the negative effects of energy drinks through parents or teachers.
Overall, Type II acknowledges the functional benefits of energy drinks while maintaining a clear awareness of their side effects. This suggests a cautious use pattern and a greater likelihood of being receptive to educational messages or health warnings.
3) Type III: alternative-seeking evaluators
This group evaluated energy drinks critically, acknowledging temporary effects while expressing openness to alternatives. They showed the highest agreement with “Q35. Cold water, gum, or vitamins can also help fight drowsiness instead of energy drinks (Z=2.10),” indicating a willingness to consider non-caffeinated substitutes. However, they also expressed a degree of psychological reliance, agreeing with “Q34. I feel anxious that my focus and energy will drop if I don’t drink energy drinks (Z=1.60),” and acknowledged effectiveness through “Q29. Compared to other supplements (gum, vitamins, etc.), energy drinks are more effective (Z=1.37, difference=1.54),” suggesting that psychological dependence and high expectations coexist.
Participant #9, who showed the highest factor weight (0.74) in Type III, agreed with statements on effectiveness (Q29), alternative options (Q35), unconscious consumption (Q33), and psychological anxiety (Q34), while showing relatively low awareness of sleep-related side effects (Q12).
Taken together, this suggests that Type III acknowledges the partial effectiveness of energy drinks while recognizing alternative options and shows signs of habitual consumption and performance-related anxiety. Therefore, health education for this group should focus on self-regulation strategies and promoting clear, practical alternatives.
4) Type IV: emotionally reactive responders
Participants in this group clearly recognized emotional instability and negative aftereffects of energy drinks. They strongly agreed with “Q17. My mood swings become more severe (Z=1.85)” and “Q16. I become more sensitive and easily irritated (Z=1.47)” indicating that they experience emotional instability and reduced concentration after consumption. Interestingly, they showed contradictory responses to “Q6. My concentration lasts longer when I drink energy drinks (Z=1.10)” and “Q19. I can’t concentrate better even after drinking energy drinks (Z=–1.00),” indicating an ambivalent perception of the effects. This reflects a complex attitude in which, despite recognizing the side effects, they still expect temporary effects within the context of psychological habituation through repeated consumption.
Participant #7, who showed the highest factor loading (0.46) in Type IV, agreed with the concentration-enhancing effect (Q6), while also recognizing mood swings (Q17) and nervous sensitivity (Q16). However, they showed low agreement with items related to self-regulation (Q31) and physical discomfort (Q21).
Taken together, this data suggests that Type IV is exposed to emotional instability and habitual consumption issues, indicating the need for future health education focused on stress management and self-regulation strategies. They are experiencing emotional instability and habituation problems caused by energy drink consumption, suggesting the need for psychological counseling or concurrent stress management education.
4. The Items Agreed or Disagreed upon by Every Type
The statement commonly disagreed upon across all types was “Q2. I seek out energy drinks to stay awake (Z=–0.41).” This indicates that male high school students tend not to use energy drinks as a means of relieving drowsiness, suggesting that they consume them for other purposes or due to different factors.
DISCUSSION
This study employed Q methodology to classify adolescents’ subjective perceptions of energy drink consumption into four distinct types. Unlike earlier quantitative investigations that mainly focused on consumption frequency, adverse effects, or risk awareness [
1,
2,
10,
16], the present study sought to capture how adolescents themselves interpret and rationalize their use within social and psychological contexts. In doing so, it provides a more nuanced understanding of the motivations underlying energy drink consumption, moving beyond simple prevalence or outcome-based descriptions.
The four perception types identified here show that adolescents’ use of energy drinks is far from uniform; rather, it reflects a multifaceted interplay of peer influence, functional ambivalence, openness to alternatives, and emotional reactivity. These findings are consistent with prior research suggesting that consumption is often reinforced by peer culture [
17,
19], but they go a step further by illuminating the diverse subjective meanings attached to this behavior. Notably, the recognition of alternative-seeking attitudes and emotionally reactive responses represents an extension of the literature, as earlier work has tended to focus more narrowly on physiological or behavioral risks [
4,
8,
14].
From a practical perspective, the results underscore the importance of tailored health education. Adolescents who emphasize performance and peer approval may benefit from peer-led and experiential programs, while those with ambivalent views could be supported through case-based learning that promotes informed decision-making [
26-
28]. For those open to alternatives but still experiencing anxiety about reduced focus, interventions should reinforce self-regulation and encourage sustainable substitute behaviors [
7,
20]. Meanwhile, adolescents who report emotional instability in relation to energy drink use may require programs that integrate stress management, emotional awareness training, and, where appropriate, psychological counseling [
9,
18].
The key contribution of this study lies in its interpretive approach: energy drink consumption among adolescents is not simply an issue of knowledge deficit or individual choice, but rather one embedded in broader socio-cultural contexts, lifestyle routines, and psychological expectations. By identifying distinct perception types, this research expands the scope of adolescent health studies and offers a practical foundation for the development of perception-based educational and policy interventions that better reflect the lived realities of youth.
Several limitations should be noted. The study involved only male high school students from a limited number of regions, which restricts the generalizability of its findings. In addition, factors such as family dynamics, media exposure, and school environments were not fully addressed. Finally, given its cross-sectional design, this study was unable to track changes in perceptions over time. Future research would benefit from including more diverse populations, incorporating female adolescents, and employing longitudinal approaches to better capture the evolving dynamics of energy drink consumption.
CONCLUSION
This study employed Q methodology to classify Korean male high school students’ perceptions of energy drink consumption into four distinct types and to identify the defining characteristics of each. The perceptions were categorized as follows: (1) effect-oriented experience sharers, (2) ambivalent recognizers of experience, (3) alternative-seeking evaluators, and (4) emotionally reactive responders. The findings indicate that these perception types are shaped by a range of factors, including peer relationships, individual consumption experiences, and varying levels of self-regulation ability.
Based on the findings of this study, the following implications are proposed. First, the development of tailored health education programs is essential, taking into account the distinct characteristics and motivational patterns of each identified perception type related to energy drink consumption. Second, for adolescents exhibiting challenges in self-regulation and emotional control, comprehensive intervention programs should be designed. These should incorporate components such as emotional awareness training, stress management techniques, and behavioral monitoring specifically targeting energy drink use. Future research is needed to refine and validate the structure and effectiveness of such programs. Third, a multisystemic approach involving coordinated support from schools, families, and peer networks is recommended through health promotion initiatives. This approach would help foster and maintain healthy dietary behaviors as a part of adolescents’ everyday lives.
ARTICLE INFORMATION
Table 1.Eigen value, explained variance, and cumulative variance of Q factors (N=40)
|
Variable |
Type I |
Type II |
Type III |
Type IV |
|
Eigen value |
7.18 |
4.27 |
3.32 |
2.52 |
|
Variance (%) |
17.8 |
10.7 |
8.3 |
6.3 |
|
Cumulative variance (%) |
17.8 |
28.5 |
36.8 |
43.1 |
Table 2.Correlation coefficients between types (N=40)
|
Variable |
Type I |
Type II |
Type III |
Type IV |
|
Type I |
1.00 |
|
|
|
|
Type II |
.52 |
1.00 |
|
|
|
Type III |
.28 |
.36 |
1.00 |
|
|
Type IV |
.12 |
.22 |
.15 |
1.00 |
Table 3.Demographic characteristics and factor weight for P-sample (N=40)
|
Type |
Sample no. |
Factor weight |
Age (yr) |
Age at first energy drink consumption (yr) |
Average daily intake (# of bottles) |
Has disease |
|
Type I (n=7) |
3 |
0.06 |
19 |
16–17 |
2 |
N |
|
8 |
0.36 |
17 |
12–10 |
1 |
N |
|
14 |
1.01 |
19 |
16–17 |
2 |
N |
|
16 |
0.62 |
17 |
16–17 |
3 |
N |
|
28 |
0.34 |
18 |
16–17 |
1 |
N |
|
29 |
0.09 |
17 |
18–19 |
3 |
N |
|
36 |
1.42 |
17 |
13–15 |
2 |
N |
|
Type II (n=20) |
2 |
0.56 |
17 |
16–17 |
2 |
N |
|
4 |
0.37 |
18 |
13–15 |
2 |
N |
|
5 |
0.13 |
19 |
16–17 |
2 |
N |
|
10 |
0.62 |
17 |
18–19 |
2 |
N |
|
11 |
0.27 |
18 |
13–15 |
1 |
N |
|
12 |
0.22 |
18 |
13–15 |
1 |
N |
|
13 |
0.28 |
19 |
16–17 |
2 |
N |
|
19 |
0.33 |
18 |
13–15 |
<1 |
N |
|
20 |
0.37 |
17 |
13–15 |
<1 |
N |
|
21 |
0.12 |
19 |
13–15 |
2 |
N |
|
23 |
0.28 |
17 |
16–17 |
3 |
N |
|
24 |
0.19 |
17 |
18–19 |
3 |
N |
|
25 |
0.24 |
18 |
13–15 |
1 |
N |
|
26 |
0.24 |
17 |
18–19 |
2 |
N |
|
30 |
0.38 |
18 |
13–15 |
1 |
N |
|
31 |
0.96 |
19 |
13–15 |
2 |
N |
|
32 |
0.09 |
19 |
13–15 |
1 |
N |
|
35 |
0.50 |
19 |
13–15 |
2 |
N |
|
37 |
0.07 |
19 |
13–15 |
2 |
N |
|
38 |
1.13 |
17 |
16–17 |
3 |
N |
|
Type III (n=10) |
1 |
0.53 |
19 |
16–17 |
2 |
N |
|
9 |
0.74 |
19 |
16–17 |
2 |
N |
|
15 |
0.10 |
17 |
16–17 |
2 |
N |
|
17 |
0.06 |
19 |
16–17 |
2 |
N |
|
18 |
0.45 |
18 |
13–15 |
1 |
N |
|
22 |
0.24 |
18 |
13–15 |
2 |
N |
|
27 |
0.20 |
17 |
13–15 |
2 |
N |
|
34 |
0.14 |
17 |
16–17 |
3 |
N |
|
39 |
0.63 |
19 |
13–15 |
2 |
N |
|
40 |
0.57 |
18 |
16–17 |
2 |
N |
|
Type IV (n=3) |
6 |
0.31 |
18 |
13–15 |
1 |
N |
|
7 |
0.46 |
18 |
13–15 |
1 |
N |
|
37 |
0.07 |
17 |
10–12 |
<1 |
Y |
Table 4.
|
No. |
Q statements |
Z-score |
|
Ⅰ (n=7) |
Ⅱ (n=20) |
Ⅲ (n=10) |
Ⅳ (n=3) |
|
1 |
Drinking energy drinks during exam periods is considered normal. |
2.99 |
0.48 |
4.78 |
5.99 |
|
2 |
I seek out energy drinks to stay awake. |
1.28 |
2.06 |
1.12 |
3.49 |
|
3 |
It’s convenient because I can easily purchase it anywhere. |
0.51 |
0.14 |
–0.52 |
–0.16 |
|
4 |
Since my friends drink it, I do too—without really thinking about it. |
1.57 |
–1.50 |
1.76 |
0.16 |
|
5 |
I get information about energy drinks from friends. |
–0.51 |
0.14 |
–0.52 |
–0.16 |
|
6 |
Drinking energy drinks helps me stay focused for longer. |
–1.61 |
1.32 |
–2.33 |
–2.04 |
|
7 |
I feel like I’m more awake when I drink energy drinks. |
2.30 |
1.32 |
3.94 |
5.78 |
|
8 |
I feel less tired. |
2.47 |
–0.16 |
3.20 |
3.88 |
|
9 |
I can stay focused and study for extended hours. |
–3.67 |
–0.63 |
–5.84 |
–7.37 |
|
10 |
My activity level improves. |
0.48 |
2.19 |
1.33 |
3.35 |
|
11 |
I experience side effects like stomachache, heart palpitations, and dizziness. |
0.91 |
1.15 |
1.43 |
2.25 |
|
12 |
I feel mentally exhausted, but I still can’t fall asleep. |
–0.88 |
–0.99 |
–1.27 |
–2.83 |
|
13 |
My daily routine is disrupted by staying up at night. |
1.18 |
–1.21 |
1.31 |
0.21 |
|
14 |
I struggle to stay awake in class the next day. |
4.76 |
–0.01 |
6.78 |
7.95 |
|
15 |
I have trouble focusing late at night. |
–0.06 |
0.09 |
–1.12 |
–1.09 |
|
16 |
I get more emotionally sensitive and easily irritated. |
3.68 |
–1.05 |
4.29 |
4.14 |
|
17 |
My emotional ups and downs become more extreme. |
0.37 |
–0.06 |
–0.71 |
–0.01 |
|
18 |
I habitually reach for energy drinks. |
–2.90 |
0.85 |
–4.26 |
–4.54 |
|
19 |
Energy drinks actually make it harder for me to concentrate. |
1.66 |
–1.37 |
2.54 |
1.35 |
|
20 |
I feel mentally foggy and can’t concentrate, even though I’m awake. |
0.46 |
1.53 |
0.33 |
2.60 |
|
21 |
I feel like my blood circulation is poor. |
–0.69 |
0.55 |
–1.06 |
–1.39 |
|
22 |
I’ve experienced symptoms like headache, stomach pain, increased heart rate, and hand tremors. |
0.72 |
–0.11 |
2.51 |
2.25 |
|
23 |
I struggle to speak smoothly all the way through a sentence. |
0.45 |
1.22 |
0.44 |
2.20 |
|
24 |
I’ve felt strong palpitations like my heart would explode. |
0.38 |
0.85 |
–0.53 |
0.46 |
|
25 |
I learned about the dangers of energy drink overuse from the news or online articles. |
–0.60 |
1.04 |
–1.71 |
–0.81 |
|
26 |
I learned about the risks for teens from energy drinks via social media platforms. |
–0.11 |
3.24 |
0.04 |
3.14 |
|
27 |
I learned about the negative effects of energy drinks through parents or teachers. |
–1.45 |
0.40 |
–2.20 |
–2.83 |
|
28 |
I heard about physical side effects from friends. |
2.36 |
–0.30 |
2.30 |
2.83 |
|
29 |
Compared to other supplements (gum, vitamins, etc.), energy drinks are more effective. |
0.68 |
-0.11 |
1.10 |
0.06 |
|
30 |
I experienced an unusual sensation the first time I drank an energy drink. |
2.29 |
1.33 |
3.38 |
4.98 |
|
31 |
I didn’t try to limit how much I consumed. |
–0.72 |
–2.78 |
–1.68 |
–4.83 |
|
32 |
I missed the right moment to stop. |
0.22 |
–0.43 |
–0.87 |
–0.88 |
|
33 |
I drink energy drinks without much thought, like a regular beverage. |
3.64 |
0.75 |
5.08 |
7.27 |
|
34 |
I feel anxious that my focus and energy will drop if I don’t drink energy drinks. |
0.95 |
0.35 |
1.52 |
1.91 |
|
35 |
Cold water, gum, or vitamins can also help fight drowsiness instead of energy drinks. |
–0.44 |
1.90 |
–0.41 |
1.29 |
Table 5.Representative Q-samples and Z-scores in types (N=40)
|
Type |
Sample no. |
Q-statement |
Z-score |
Average |
Difference |
|
Type I. Effect-oriented experience sharers (n=7) |
6 |
Drinking energy drinks helps me stay focused for longer. |
1.25 |
1.35 |
2.17 |
|
30 |
I experienced an unusual sensation the first time I drank an energy drink. |
1.23 |
1.33 |
0.80 |
|
5 |
I get information about energy drinks from friends. |
1.19 |
1.19 |
0.68 |
|
29 |
Compared to other supplements (gum, vitamins, etc.), energy drinks are more effective. |
1.18 |
1.18 |
0.59 |
|
7 |
I feel like I’m more awake when I drink energy drinks. |
1.15 |
1.15 |
1.36 |
|
4 |
Since my friends drink it, I do too—without really thinking about it. |
1.14 |
1.05 |
1.30 |
|
8 |
I feel less tired. |
1.13 |
–1.30 |
0.24 |
|
3 |
It’s convenient because I can easily purchase it anywhere. |
1.11 |
–1.13 |
–0.60 |
|
35 |
Cold water, gum, or vitamins can also help fight drowsiness instead of energy drinks. |
1.05 |
–1.58 |
–0.63 |
|
2 |
I seek out energy drinks to stay awake. |
–1.01 |
–1.75 |
–0.56 |
|
18 |
I habitually reach for energy drinks. |
–1.23 |
–1.60 |
–0.35 |
|
25 |
I learned about the dangers of energy drink overuse from the news or online articles. |
–1.40 |
–0.75 |
–0.63 |
|
19 |
Energy drinks actually make it harder for me to concentrate. |
–1.58 |
0.90 |
0.22 |
|
24 |
I’ve felt strong palpitations like my heart would explode. |
–1.73 |
0.82 |
0.19 |
|
20 |
I feel mentally foggy and can’t concentrate, even though I’m awake. |
–1.75 |
0.93 |
0.25 |
|
26 |
I learned about the risks for teens from energy drinks via social media platforms. |
–2.00 |
–1.16 |
–1.72 |
|
Type II. Ambivalent recognizers of experience (n=20) |
10 |
My activity level improves. |
2.10 |
–1.10 |
1.57 |
|
9 |
I can stay focused and study for extended hours. |
2.07 |
–1.90 |
–0.92 |
|
11 |
I experience side effects like stomachache, heart palpitations, and dizziness. |
1.99 |
–0.43 |
0.33 |
|
12 |
I feel mentally exhausted, but I still can’t fall asleep. |
1.21 |
–0.11 |
1.33 |
|
8 |
I feel less tired. |
1.10 |
–1.14 |
0.25 |
|
3 |
It’s convenient because I can easily purchase it anywhere. |
–1.02 |
–1.20 |
0.18 |
|
33 |
I drink energy drinks without much thought, like a regular beverage. |
–1.10 |
–1.20 |
–1.23 |
|
27 |
I learned about the negative effects of energy drinks through parents or teachers. |
–1.15 |
0.10 |
–0.84 |
|
30 |
I experienced an unusual sensation the first time I drank an energy drink. |
–1.28 |
0.40 |
–0.37 |
|
2 |
I seek out energy drinks to stay awake. |
–1.74 |
0.45 |
–0.39 |
|
Type III. Alternative-seeking evaluators (n=10) |
35 |
Cold water, gum, or vitamins can also help fight drowsiness instead of energy drinks. |
2.10 |
0.33 |
0.27 |
|
34 |
I feel anxious that my focus and energy will drop if I don’t drink energy drinks. |
1.60 |
0.20 |
0.17 |
|
29 |
Compared to other supplements (gum, vitamins, etc.), energy drinks are more effective. |
1.37 |
–1.08 |
1.54 |
|
33 |
I drink energy drinks without much thought, like a regular beverage. |
1.32 |
–0.60 |
0.10 |
|
28 |
I heard about physical side effects from friends. |
1.09 |
–1.53 |
–0.57 |
|
31 |
I didn’t try to limit how much I consumed. |
1.00 |
–1.13 |
0.27 |
|
12 |
I feel mentally exhausted, but I still can’t fall asleep. |
–1.13 |
–1.45 |
–0.15 |
|
9 |
I can stay focused and study for extended hours. |
–1.42 |
–0.50 |
–0.30 |
|
27 |
I learned about the negative effects of energy drinks through parents or teachers. |
–1.46 |
0.60 |
–0.18 |
|
2 |
I seek out energy drinks to stay awake. |
–1.55 |
0.30 |
–0.50 |
|
Type IV. Emotionally reactive responders (n=3) |
17 |
My emotional ups and downs become more extreme. |
1.85 |
0.40 |
–0.45 |
|
16 |
I get more emotionally sensitive and easily irritated. |
1.47 |
0.20 |
0.09 |
|
15 |
I have trouble focusing late at night. |
1.36 |
0.15 |
0.10 |
|
32 |
I missed the right moment to stop. |
1.20 |
–1.10 |
0.14 |
|
33 |
I drink energy drinks without much thought, like a regular beverage. |
1.13 |
–0.55 |
0.17 |
|
6 |
Drinking energy drinks helps me stay focused for longer. |
1.10 |
–1.20 |
–0.13 |
|
31 |
I didn’t try to limit how much I consumed. |
1.06 |
–1.30 |
0.04 |
|
19 |
Energy drinks actually make it harder for me to concentrate. |
–1.00 |
–1.10 |
0.32 |
|
2 |
I seek out energy drinks to stay awake. |
–1.01 |
–0.24 |
–1.51 |
|
21 |
I feel like my blood circulation is poor. |
–1.27 |
–0.59 |
–1.01 |
REFERENCES
- 1. Oh YJ. Consumption status and experience of adverse effects of high-caffeine energy drink among high school students. J Converg Inf Technol. 2019;9(6):35-43. https://doi.org/10.22156/CS4SMB.2019.9.6.035
- 2. Park SH, Lee SH, Chang KJ. Intake-related factors and educational needs regarding energy drinks in female high school students in the Incheon area. J Nutr Heal. 2017;50(5):460-471. https://doi.org/10.4163/jnh.2017.50.5.460
- 3. Choi J. Influence of psychosocial factors on energy drink consumption in Korean nursing students: never-consumers versus ever-consumers. Child Health Nurs Res. 2019;25(1):48-55. https://doi.org/10.4094/chnr.2019.25.1.48
- 4. Curran CP, Marczinski CA. Taurine, caffeine, and energy drinks: reviewing the risks to the adolescent brain. Birth Defects Res. 2017;109(20):1640-1648. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdr2.1177
- 5. Kwak HK, Sa J, Choe S, Chaput JP, Chung J, Cummings G, et al. Prevalence and correlates of highly caffeinated beverage consumption among Korean adolescents. Osong Public Health Res Perspect. 2021;12(6):374-384. https://doi.org/10.24171/j.phrp.2021.0013
- 6. Jeong HH, Kim KB. Comparison information of energy drink. Consumer 24; 2016.
- 7. Souza DB, Del Coso J, Casonatto J, Polito MD. Acute effects of caffeine-containing energy drinks on physical performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nutr. 2017;56(1):13-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-016-1331-9
- 8. Li P, Haas NA, Dalla-Pozza R, Jakob A, Oberhoffer FS, Mandilaras G. Energy drinks and adverse health events in children and adolescents: a literature review. Nutrients. 2023;15(11):2537. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15112537
- 9. Maraqa B, Fasfoos A, Alami M, Banat N, Amr O, Saraheen A. Energy drinks, depression, insomnia, and stress in Palestinian adolescents: a cross-sectional study. Int J Adolesc Med Health. 2025;37(1):35-43. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijamh-2024-0178
- 10. Park JS, Lee EJ, Lee CY, Jung HS. Consumption status, risk awareness, and experience of adverse effects of high-caffeine energy drink among university students. J Heal Nurs. 2015;29(1):102-114. https://doi.org/10.5932/JKPHN.2015.29.1.102
- 11. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. Survey on safety of energy drink. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety; 2013.
- 12. Kim SD, Yun ES, Chang MS, Park YA, Jung SO, Kim DG. Survey of daily caffeine intakes from children’s beverage consumption and the effectiveness of nutrition education. J Soc Sci Nutr. 2009;38(6):709-720. https://doi.org/10.3746/jkfn.2009.38.6.709
- 13. Giles GE, Mahoney CR, Brunyé TT, Kanarek RB. Cautiously caffeinated: does caffeine modulate inhibitory, impulsive, or risky behavior? J Caffeine Res. 2017;7(1):7-17. https://doi.org/10.1089/jcr.2016.0018
- 14. Kristjansson AL, Kogan SM, James JE, Sigfusdottir ID. Adolescent caffeine consumption and aggressive behavior: a longitudinal assessment. Subst Abus. 2021;42(4):450-453. https://doi.org/10.1080/08897077.2021.1876810
- 15. Seo EJ, Choi HS. High caffeine drink intake reduces sleep duration in high school students. Asiapac J Multimed Serv Converg Art Humanit Sociol. 2016;6(12):69-78. https://doi.org/10.35873/ajmahs.2016.6.12.007
- 16. Ryu SH. Energy drink consumption status and associated factors among male and female high school students in the Daejon area. J Nutr. 2016;29(6):899-910. https://doi.org/10.9799/ksfan.2016.29.6.899
- 17. Jin MJ, Yoon CH, Ko HJ, Kim HM, Kim AS, Moon HN, et al. The relationship of caffeine intake with depression, anxiety, stress, and sleep in Korean adolescents. Korean J Fam Med. 2016;37(2):111-116. https://doi.org/10.4082/kjfm.2016.37.2.111
- 18. Ali F, Rehman H, Babayan Z, Stapleton D, Joshi DD. Energy drinks and their adverse health effects: a systematic review of the current evidence. Postgrad Med. 2015;127(3):308-322. https://doi.org/10.1080/00325481.2015.1001712
- 19. Buchanan L, Yeatman H, Kelly B, Kariippanon K. Digital promotion of energy drinks to young adults is more strongly linked to consumption than other media. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2018;50(9):888-895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2018.05.022
- 20. Costa BM, Hayley A, Miller P. Young adolescents’ perceptions, patterns, and contexts of energy drink use: a focus group study. Appetite. 2014;80:183-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.05.013
- 21. Yun HS. Analysis of relationship between physical activity and energy drinks consumption in Korean adolescents. J Soc Sch Heal. 2018;31(3):196-202. https://doi.org/10.15434/kssh.2018.31.3.196
- 22. Giorgi A. The theory, practice, and evaluation of the phenomenological method as a qualitative research procedure. J Phenomenol Psychol. 1997;28(2):235-260. https://doi.org/10.1163/156916297X00103
- 23. Cox C. Custodial grandparents: policies affecting care. J Intergener Relat. 2009;7(2-3):177-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/15350770902851221
- 24. Kim HG. Understanding of Q-methodology for the study of subjectivity. Seoul J Nurs. 1992;6(1):1-11.
- 25. Kim HG. Concept of Q methodology and data collection In: Kim HG, editors. Q methodology: philosophy, theories, analysis, and application. Communication Books; 2008. p. 78-191.
- 26. Yang YM, Huh E, Jeong E, Lee JJ, Choi EJ. An analysis of consumption patterns of high-caffeinated energy drinks and adverse effects by surveys from students at middle and high schools in Korea. Yakhak Hoeji. 2014;58(6):387-396.
- 27. Yoo HS, Sim KH. Survey on the high-caffeine energy drink consumption status of university students in Seoul. J Soc Diet Life. 2014;24(3):407-420.
- 28. Ra JS, Yoon HK, Kim HS, Ryu JL. Associated factors on energy drink consumption among Korean high school students. J Soc Sch Heal. 2017;30(1):48-58. https://doi.org/10.15434/kssh.2017.30.1.48
