Alcohol Drinking in College
Conditions
Brief summary
Brief Interventions (BI) based on Motivational Interviewing are effective to reduce alcohol use. In this study the investigators test the hypothesis that that an open Mindset increases the positive effects of BI. University students take part in a voluntary screened for risky alcohol use. All students with risky alcohol use are eligible to the study and all receive the WHO's ASSIST-linked BI. Participants receive a brief Mindset induction prior to receiving BI. They are are randomly assigned to either the induction of an open or a closed mindset according to the Mindset theory of action phases (Gollwitzer & Keller (2016). Mindset Theory. In: V. Zeigler-Hill, T.K. Shackelford (eds.), Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences. New York: Springer). The investigators measure the change in alcohol-related risk perception, treatment motivation and real alcohol drinking after the Brief Intervention in relation to the mindset induced before receiving the intervention.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALInduction of Implemental Mindset
This induction of a psychological state was extensively studied in basic cognitive science. Gollwitzer & Keller (2016, p.3): The implemental mindset is evoked by asking participants to think of a personal project for which they have already made the decision to act but did not initiate any action yet. Subsequently, participants are asked to list the steps necessary for successful goal attainment and to plan out in detail when, where, and how they intend to act on each of these steps.
BEHAVIORALInduction of Deliberative Mindset
This induction of a psychological state was extensively studied in basic cognitive science. Gollwitzer & Keller (2016, p.3): The deliberative mindset is evoked by asking participants to (a) name an unresolved, important personal problem that is causing rumination but for which they have not made a decision yet and (b) reflect on whether to take action or not. Further, to enhance the depth of reflection, participants are requested to list a number of positive and negative, short- and long-term consequences of both deciding to act and deciding not to act; indicating the probability of the occurrence of each of these consequences is required.
Sponsors
University of Konstanz
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 65 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* student status at University of Konstanz * risky alcohol use in past 12 months
Exclusion criteria
* acute psychosis, acute suicidality, illiteracy
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Questionnaire on Alcohol-related Risk Perception | 4 weeks | Self-Report Measure that is filled out by the participant. This German questionnaire was developed by Klepper, Odenwald & Rockstroh (2016). |
| Alcohol Time-line Follow Back | 4 weeks | Self-reported amount of standard alcohol units consumed. The assessment is made with the calendar method developed by Sobell & Sobell (1995) |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| SOCRATES | 4 weeks | Questionnaire: The Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale (SOCRATES, Miller, W. R., & Tonigan, J. S. (1996). Assessing drinkers' motivation for change: The Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale (SOCRATES). Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 10, 81-89. |
Countries
Germany
Outcome results
None listed