Efficacy of counter-attitudinal advocacy and personalized feedback for heavy-drinking college students.

IF 4.5 1区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL

Journal of consulting and clinical psychology Pub Date : 2025-03-13 DOI:10.1037/ccp0000949

Kate B Carey, Angelo M DiBello, Melissa R Hatch, Andrew P Weinstein, Clayton Neighbors

{"title":"Efficacy of counter-attitudinal advocacy and personalized feedback for heavy-drinking college students.","authors":"Kate B Carey, Angelo M DiBello, Melissa R Hatch, Andrew P Weinstein, Clayton Neighbors","doi":"10.1037/ccp0000949","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Young adults in college engage in risky drinking that results in alcohol-related harms. Most evidence-based prevention interventions recommended for this population rely on correcting exaggerated drinking norms via personalized normative feedback (PNF). Informed by an extensive literature linking alcohol attitudes and drinking behavior, we adapted a brief counter-attitudinal advocacy (CAA) task to the alcohol prevention context. The goal of this study is to evaluate the ability of CAA in changing drinking and related consequences and to explore the comparative efficacy of CAA versus PNF.Method: This two-site randomized controlled trial had two experimental conditions (CAA and PNF) and an assessment-only control condition. Participants were 585 students who reported heavy episodic drinking and ≥ 2 alcohol-related negative consequences. Alcohol outcomes were assessed at 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-ups to test hypotheses that the CAA and PNF manipulations will decrease drinks per week, typical drinks per day, peak blood alcohol concentration, and alcohol consequences, relative to control.Results: Participants reported reductions in drinks per week, typical drinks, and alcohol consequences. Those who received PNF reported significantly fewer drinks per week than controls, whereas those who received CAA reported significantly fewer consequences than controls. The CAA and PNF conditions did not differ from one another.Conclusions: This study demonstrates an application of attitude change theory and CAA methods to the alcohol prevention context, across demographically different settings. The novel CAA task had a harm reduction effect on consequences but not consumption. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":15447,"journal":{"name":"Journal of consulting and clinical psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of consulting and clinical psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000949","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Young adults in college engage in risky drinking that results in alcohol-related harms. Most evidence-based prevention interventions recommended for this population rely on correcting exaggerated drinking norms via personalized normative feedback (PNF). Informed by an extensive literature linking alcohol attitudes and drinking behavior, we adapted a brief counter-attitudinal advocacy (CAA) task to the alcohol prevention context. The goal of this study is to evaluate the ability of CAA in changing drinking and related consequences and to explore the comparative efficacy of CAA versus PNF.

Method: This two-site randomized controlled trial had two experimental conditions (CAA and PNF) and an assessment-only control condition. Participants were 585 students who reported heavy episodic drinking and ≥ 2 alcohol-related negative consequences. Alcohol outcomes were assessed at 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-ups to test hypotheses that the CAA and PNF manipulations will decrease drinks per week, typical drinks per day, peak blood alcohol concentration, and alcohol consequences, relative to control.

Results: Participants reported reductions in drinks per week, typical drinks, and alcohol consequences. Those who received PNF reported significantly fewer drinks per week than controls, whereas those who received CAA reported significantly fewer consequences than controls. The CAA and PNF conditions did not differ from one another.

Conclusions: This study demonstrates an application of attitude change theory and CAA methods to the alcohol prevention context, across demographically different settings. The novel CAA task had a harm reduction effect on consequences but not consumption. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of consulting and clinical psychology PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-

CiteScore

9.00

自引率

3.40%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology® (JCCP) publishes original contributions on the following topics: the development, validity, and use of techniques of diagnosis and treatment of disordered behaviorstudies of a variety of populations that have clinical interest, including but not limited to medical patients, ethnic minorities, persons with serious mental illness, and community samplesstudies that have a cross-cultural or demographic focus and are of interest for treating behavior disordersstudies of personality and of its assessment and development where these have a clear bearing on problems of clinical dysfunction and treatmentstudies of gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation that have a clear bearing on diagnosis, assessment, and treatmentstudies of psychosocial aspects of health behaviors. Studies that focus on populations that fall anywhere within the lifespan are considered. JCCP welcomes submissions on treatment and prevention in all areas of clinical and clinical–health psychology and especially on topics that appeal to a broad clinical–scientist and practitioner audience. JCCP encourages the submission of theory–based interventions, studies that investigate mechanisms of change, and studies of the effectiveness of treatments in real-world settings. JCCP recommends that authors of clinical trials pre-register their studies with an appropriate clinical trial registry (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov, ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu) though both registered and unregistered trials will continue to be considered at this time.