Brief motivational intervention and alcohol expectancy challenge with heavy drinking college students: A randomized factorial study

Wood, Mark D.; Capone, Christy; Laforge, Robert G.; Erickson, Darin J.; Brand, Nancy H.

doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.06.018

Cited by 102 publications

(107 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It appears, for example, that expectancy challenge interventions (e.g., Darkes & Goldman, 1998) may be more appropriate for social and enhancement drinkers and less effective for coping drinkers. The fact that these challenges are often applied universally to students and not according to their drinking motives might be the reason why these programs have demonstrated limited efficacy so far (e.g., van de Luitgaarden, Wiers, Knibbe, & Candel, 2007;Wiers & Kummeling, 2004;Wiers, van de Luitgaarden, van den Wildenberg, & Smulders, 2005;Wood, Capone, Laforge, Erickson, & Brand, 2007). For coping drinkers, it may be more effective to intervene at the level of drinking motives and related factors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Same wording, distinct concepts? Testing differences between expectancies and motives in a mediation model of alcohol outcomes.

Kuntsche

Wiers

Janssen

et al. 2010

Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Per definition, alcohol expectancies (after alcohol I expect X), and drinking motives (I drink to achieve X) are conceptually distinct constructs. Theorists have argued that motives mediate the association between expectancies and drinking outcomes. Yet, given the use of different instruments, do these constructs remain distinct when assessment items are matched? The present study tested to what extent motives mediated the link between expectancies and alcohol outcomes when identical items were used, first as expectancies and then as motives. A linear structural equation model was estimated based on a national representative sample of 5,779 alcohol-using students in Switzerland (mean age ϭ 15.2 years). The results showed that expectancies explained up to 38% of the variance in motives. Together with motives, they explained up to 48% of the variance in alcohol outcomes (volume, 5ϩ drinking, and problems). In 10 of 12 outcomes, there was a significant mediated effect that was often higher than the direct expectancy effect. For coping, the expectancy effect was close to zero, indicating the strongest form of mediation. In only one case (conformity and 5ϩ drinking), there was a direct expectancy effect but no mediation. To conclude, the study demonstrates that motives are distinct from expectancies even when identical items are used. Motives are more proximally related to different alcohol outcomes, often mediating the effects of expectancies. Consequently, the effectiveness of interventions, particularly those aimed at coping drinkers, should be improved through a shift in focus from expectancies to drinking motives.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Same wording, distinct concepts? Testing differences between expectancies and motives in a mediation model of alcohol outcomes.

Kuntsche

Wiers

Janssen

et al. 2010

Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A variety of current interventions targeting college student drinking includes expectancy challenge components alone or in combination with other intervention techniques, as either didactic content presented via video or in-person discussion of alcohol's physiological versus psychological effects (e.g., Larimer et al, 2001;Marlatt et al, 1998), or in vivo (experiential) expectancy challenge involving actual alcohol/placebo administration to participants (e.g., Darkes & Goldman, 1993;Musher-Eizenman & Kulick, 2003;Wiers & Kummeling, 2004;Wiers et al, 2005;Wood et al, 2007). Although promising, results of research on the efficacy of alcohol expectancy challenge as a standalone intervention have been mixed.…”

Section: Theoretical and Clinical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Daily Measure of Positive and Negative Alcohol Expectancies and Evaluations: Documenting a Two-Factor Structure and Within- and Between-Person Variability

Lee

Atkins

Cronce

et al. 2015

J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Objective: Despite the documented importance of alcohol outcome expectancies in predicting alcohol use and related consequences, little research has explored within-person variability in expectancies. This article details the construction and psychometric analysis of a measure of alcohol expectancies specifically designed for daily assessment. Method: We developed a 15-item instrument to measure the likelihood of experiencing various outcomes from drinking, as well as the subjective evaluation of these outcomes. College students (N = 352; mean age = 19.7 years, SD = 1.26; 53.4% female) participated in a yearlong study wherein they completed three computerized interviews daily via mobile phones for 2 weeks in each academic quarter. Multilevel exploratory factor analysis was used to examine dimensionality at between-person and within-person levels, and generalizability coefficients were calculated to establish reliability. Results: Intraclass correlation coefficients were generally between .30 and .40, demonstrating both between-person and within-person variability. Exploratory factor analysis resulted in a two-factor solution of positive and negative effects of alcohol, and two items with equivocal loadings were dropped from the final scale. The two subscales showed excellent reliabilities at within-and between-person levels, and the measure demonstrated good convergent and discriminant validity with a commonly used expectancy measure. Conclusions: Drinkers hold many expectations about the effects of alcohol, and measures are needed that are designed to capture both stable and context-dependent aspects of these beliefs. Results demonstrated significant day-to-day variation in the strength and valuation of alcohol expectancies, and the scale demonstrated good psychometric properties that establish its appropriateness for use in daily process studies of alcohol use. (J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs, 76, 326-335, 2015)

show abstract

“…The Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students (BASICS; Dimeff et al, 1999;Marlatt et al, 1998) has been extensively evaluated (Baer et al 2001;Borsari and Carey, 2000;Carey et al, 2006;Wood et al 2007), designated a Tier I intervention strategy by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (Task Force of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2002), and identifi ed as a Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services model program. BASICS is an individually delivered, brief feedback-and-skills intervention.…”

Section: Effi Cacy Of Interventions For College Populationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating a Combined Alcohol Intervention for High-Risk College Students

Turrisi¹,

Larimer

Mallett

et al. 2009

J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs

181

195

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Objective:The current study is a multisite randomized alcohol prevention trial to evaluate the effi cacy of both a parenting handbook intervention and the Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students (BASICS) intervention, alone and in combination, in reducing alcohol use and consequences among a high-risk population of matriculating college students (i.e., former high school athletes). Method: Students (n = 1,275) completed a series of Web-administered measures at baseline (in the summer before starting college) and follow-up (after 10 months). Students were randomized to one of four conditions: parent intervention only, BASICS only, combined (parent and BASICS), and assessment-only control. Intervention effi cacy was tested on a number of outcome measures, including peak blood alcohol concentration, weekly and weekend drinking, and negative consequences. Hypothesized mediators and moderators of intervention effect were tested. Results:The overall results revealed that the combined-intervention group had signifi cantly lower alcohol consumption, high-risk drinking, and consequences at 10-month follow-up, compared with the control group, with changes in descriptive and injunctive peer norms mediating intervention effects. Conclusions: The fi ndings of the present study suggest that the parent intervention delivered to students before they begin college serves to enhance the effi cacy of the BASICS intervention, potentially priming students to respond to the subsequent BASICS session. (J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs 70: [555][556][557][558][559][560][561][562][563][564][565][566][567] 2009)

show abstract

Brief motivational intervention and alcohol expectancy challenge with heavy drinking college students: A randomized factorial study

Cited by 102 publications

References 54 publications

Same wording, distinct concepts? Testing differences between expectancies and motives in a mediation model of alcohol outcomes.

Same wording, distinct concepts? Testing differences between expectancies and motives in a mediation model of alcohol outcomes.

A Daily Measure of Positive and Negative Alcohol Expectancies and Evaluations: Documenting a Two-Factor Structure and Within- and Between-Person Variability

A Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating a Combined Alcohol Intervention for High-Risk College Students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About