The perception of drinking roles by recovering problem drinkers

Abstract

SynopsisThe perception of and attitude to drinking patterns in recovering problem drinkers (N= 29) is analysed, utilizing a similar methodology to that of Richard & Burley (1978). Fault is found, however, in the latter study both in a failure to define variables and in the authors' statistical handling of the results. In the present study, it was found that controlled drinking is only seen as close to the problem drinker's concept of himself when it entails reasonably high levels of consumption. The importance of this finding for therapy is outlined. The possible negative effects of role conflict are mentioned. It is also found that problem drinkers perceive themselves as having quite different characteristics from those they themselves attribute to alcoholics. This finding is interpreted in terms of the fundamental attribution error (Jones & Nisbett, 1972).

Identifying the Structure and Effect of Drinking-Related Self-Schemas

“…The remaining three studies lend some insight as to the content of the drinking-related self-schema among heavy drinkers. McCartney and O’Donnell (1981) was the first of the studies to associate traits and attributes with drinking-related self-conceptualizations. Researchers had 29 men and women, admitted to inpatient treatment for an AUD, rate how they perceived their own personality traits and personal attributes on a set of bipolar adjective pairs, as well as how they perceived the disposition of drinking roles—including total abstainer, heavy controlled drinker, light controlled drinker, and alcoholic—by ascribing specific traits and attributes to a variety of drinking roles, and then used a formula to calculate psychological distance.…”

“…Researchers had 29 men and women, admitted to inpatient treatment for an AUD, rate how they perceived their own personality traits and personal attributes on a set of bipolar adjective pairs, as well as how they perceived the disposition of drinking roles—including total abstainer, heavy controlled drinker, light controlled drinker, and alcoholic—by ascribing specific traits and attributes to a variety of drinking roles, and then used a formula to calculate psychological distance. Results indicated that the greatest psychological distance existed between the traits ascribed to oneself and those attributed to the conceptualization of alcoholic, and the closest distance was between one’s self and heavy controlled drinker (McCartney & O’Donnell, 1981). The authors concluded that men and women with a diagnosable AUD were most likely to see one’s self as a heavy controlled drinker, and were least likely to see one’s self as alcoholic.…”

“…Casey and Dollinger (2007) and Dollinger et al (1993) were assigned the grade of fair because the methodology used to operationalize availability of a self-schema is not traditionally used within the self-schema literature, raising validity concerns. The study by McCartney and O’Donnell (1981) was assigned a fair grade due to an unusually small sample size for schema literature ( n = 29), and having a sample composed of all men, limiting generalizability.…”

“…The disparate nature of the body of research has resulted in inconsistent use of terminologies for important variables. For example, the term “self-schema,” could be used to refer to a generalized notion of one’s self within a specific domain as employed by Casey and Dollinger (2007), Dollinger et al (1993), and Gray et al (2011), or to a group of attributes or self-descriptors within a single domain as was detailed by Daeppen et al (1999), Doebrick and Todman (2003), and McCartney and O’Donnell (1981). Traditionally, within the broader body of self-schema literature, the term self-schema is used to refer to a single domain-specific organization of knowledge comprised of traits or attributes drawn out of personal experiences within the domain (Markus, 1977; McConnell & Strain, 2007).…”

“…Lindgren, Neighbors, Westgate, and Salemink (2014) 12. McCartney and O'Donnell (1981) drinking-related self-schemas are detailed in Table 3, and the publications are discussed and integrated below.…”