Social-norms interventions for light and nondrinking students

Abstract

Social-norms approaches to alcohol prevention are based on consistent findings that most students overestimate the prevalence of drinking among their peers. Most interventions have been developed for heavy-drinking students, and the applicability of social-norms approaches among abstaining or light-drinking students has yet to be evaluated. The present research aimed to evaluate the impact of two types of online social-norms interventions developed for abstaining or light-drinking students. Identification with other students was evaluated as a moderator. Participants included 423 freshmen and sophomore college students who reported never or rarely drinking at screening. Students were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (a) personalized-norms feedback, (b) social-norms marketing ads, or (c) attention control. Data were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models. Results provided some support for both interventions but were stronger for social-norms marketing ads, particularly among participants who identified more closely with other students.

Prevalence and Psychosocial Correlates of Party-Drug Use and Associated Problems among University Students in the Netherlands

“…For instance, Stock, Vallentin-Holbech, and Rasmussen (2016) created a program in which pupils first indicate their own substance use and perceived norms through online questionnaires, and subsequently receive corrective information about substance use rates and social norms of their peers. Similarly, Neighbors et al (2011) found that college students in the control condition consumed more alcohol weekly than participants receiving corrective information about peers' alcohol consumption. Social norms interventions adapted specifically for party-drugs may be promising to prevent or decrease party-drug use among college students.…”

Defining and characterizing differences in college alcohol intervention efficacy: A growth mixture modeling application.

“…Several potential intervention moderators of alcohol-related outcomes have been examined among college students. These include historical variables, such as age of drinking onset (Mallett, Ray, Turrisi, Belden, Bachrach, & Larimer, 2010) and family history of alcohol abuse (LaBrie, Feres, Kenney, & Lac, 2009), stable individual difference variables, such as gender (Carey, Henson, Carey, & Maisto, 2009; Carey, Carey, Henson, Maisto, & DeMartini, 2011), self-regulation (Carey, Henson, Carey, & Maisto, 2007) and self-determination (Neighbors, Lewis, Bergstrom, & Larimer, 2006), and more malleable variables, such as identification with the typical college student (Neighbors, Jensen, Tidwell, Walter, & Fossos, 2011) and readiness to change (Carey et al, 2007; Tomaka, Palacios, Morales-Monks, & Davis, 2012). Briefly, some interventions have been found to be more effective for more at-risk students including students with an earlier age of drinking onset (Mallett et al, 2010) or with a positive family history of alcohol abuse (LaBrie et al, 2009).…”

Personalized Feedback as a Universal Prevention Approach for College Drinking: A Randomized Trial of an e-Mail Linked Universal Web-Based Alcohol Intervention

“…The utility of electronic screening and brief intervention (eSBI) as a universal prevention strategy has not been well explored. With a few exceptions (e.g., Larimer et al, 2007; Neighbors et al, 2011), there is relatively little evidence that supports feedback-based approaches as a prevention strategy for those who are light or non-drinkers (Elliot, Carey, & Bolles, 2008). Moreover, there is concern that the use of screening and personalized normative feedback as a universal prevention strategy may be irrelevant for non-drinking students or, given some evidence of the potential for iatrogenic effects of these alcohol prevention programs (Werch & Owen, 2002), may even have negative consequences.…”