Not provided
| ID | Type | Description | Link |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1R01AA024732-01 | U.S. NIH Grant/Contract | View source |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) | NIH |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The purpose of the proposed research is to evaluate whether changes in drinking identity (DI; how much one associates one's self with drinking) can reduce hazardous drinking (HD; heavy alcohol use and negative alcohol-related consequences) among current college students. The study seeks to explore whether manipulating DI among participants will have changes in self-efficacy, craving, and HD. If such an effect can be found, DI may be a mechanism for HD behavior change and will allow researchers to develop and improve interventions aimed at HD behaviors in high-risk young adults.
Experimentally manipulate DI to increase self-efficacy, decrease alcohol craving and reduce HD. We will recruit 328 student hazardous drinkers and use an expressive writing task to manipulate their DI, the salience of their social network, and their writing perspective. The last factor is included because writing in a self-distanced (3rd person) vs. self-immersed (1st person) perspective has been linked to greater cognitive control. We will evaluate the manipulation's immediate effects on DI, self-efficacy, and craving. Participants will also complete two weekly follow-up "booster" sessions. Longer-term effects on DI, self-efficacy, craving and HD will be evaluated at additional 2-week, 1-month, and 3-month follow-ups.
With the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, new subject enrollment was paused between March and September 2020. In light of the continued COVID-19 pandemic, the study team made the decision to move the in-person, lab-based session (where participants completed the writing task) to online sessions as of October 2020. With the move to online sessions, we have discontinued the cue reactivity task and the accompanying craving assessment. Inclusion criteria have shifted slightly -- we now explicitly require participants to be currently living in Washington State (this criterion was implicit in our previous criteria and procedures) . The structure of the study otherwise remains the same.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Drinking; No network; First-person | Experimental | In this narrative writing task, the participant is asked to imagine him/herself as a low-risk drinker and describe this future self; the prompt does not instruct to write about social network (important people, friends, family); participant will write using first-person pronouns. |
|
| Drinking; Network; First-person | Experimental | In this narrative writing task, the participant is asked to imagine him/herself as a low-risk drinker and describe this future self; the prompt instructions include writing about social network (important people, friends, family); participant will write using first-person pronouns. |
|
| Drinking; No network; Third-person | Experimental | In this narrative writing task, the participant is asked to imagine him/herself as a low-risk drinker and describe this future self; the prompt does not instruct to write about social network (important people, friends, family); participant will write using third-person pronouns. |
|
| Drinking; Network; Third-person | Experimental | In this narrative writing task, the participant is asked to imagine him/herself as a low-risk drinker and describe this future self; the prompt instructions include writing about social network (important people, friends, family); participant will write using third-person pronouns. |
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Narrative Writing | Behavioral | An writing task in which participants are given a description of a possible future self (that varies 3 factors: topic; drinking vs. smartphone; perspective: 1st vs. 3rd-person; and social network: specifically asked to be included vs. not specifically asked to be included). Participants are asked to imagine that future self vividly and to write about the thoughts and feeling describe themselves and their experiences, the characteristics they hope or wish they will ideally possess, the characteristics that they would need to have and the roles they will take on or things they will be doing. Participants are given 20 minutes to think and write. They will write and think about the same future on each of three lab-sessions (which occur at 1-week intervals). |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Changes in Implicit Drinking identity | drinking identity implicit association test (IAT) | will be assessed at lab 1, lab 2, lab 2 (weeks 1-3) & long-term follow up (2-week, 1 month, 3 month); data will be reported through study completion (3 month follow up) |
| Changes in Explicit Drinking identity | Alcohol Self-concept Scale; item responses range from -3 to +3; average score on all items is calculated; lower scores represent a better outcome | will be assessed at lab 1, lab 2, lab 2 (weeks 1-3) & long-term follow up (2-week, 1 month, 3 month); data will be reported through study completion (3 month follow up) |
| changes in self-efficacy | drinking refusal self-efficacy questionnaire | will be assessed at lab 1, lab 2, lab 2 (weeks 1-3) & long-term follow up (2-week, 1 month, 3 month); data will be reported through study completion (3 month follow up) |
| cue-related craving | current craving from cue reactivity task; assessed via alcohol urge questionnaire | Cue related craving will be assessed following the cue reactivity task, which occurs during the third and final lab-based session (technically, the third week of the study) |
| changes in past week craving | Penn Alcohol Craving Scale; item responses range from 0 to 6; total score on all items is calculated (can range from 0 to 30); lower scores = better outcome | will be assessed at lab 1, lab 2, lab 2 (weeks 1-3) & long-term follow up (2-week, 1 month, 3 month); data will be reported through study completion (3 month follow up) |
| changes in alcohol consumption |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| changes in future drinking intentions | adapted from daily drinking questionnaire; assesses how much individuals think they will drink each day of the next week | assessed at lab 1, lab 2, lab 3 (weeks 1-3); data will be reported through week 3 |
| changes in frequency of heavy & extreme binge drinking |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Changes in social network composition | Important people measure will ask about the 10 most important individuals in one's social network, including whether or not each one drinks; the variables that are derived include the density of drinkers in the network; higher density = more drinkers (worse outcome) | will be assessed at baseline and 3-month follow up; data will be reported through study completion (3 month follow up) |
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Kristen P Lindgren, PhD | University of Washington | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| University of Washington | Seattle | Washington | 98105 | United States |
We will share responses to questionnaires and writing exercises with co-investigators. We do not currently have plans to store data in a repository/database (for example, via the Open Science Framework [OSF] - https://osf.io/), though we may ultimately do so should this be a condition of publishing in a scientific journal or necessary for other unforeseen reasons. Should we do so, we would not publish or make available or the narrative writing responses verbatim. Similarly, we would also not publish or make available the variables that describe the 10 most important people on the important people measure. No direct identifiers will be included in any data shared.
Data will become available after the grant period of award is completed unless there is a requirement to make data publicly available as a condition of publication.
Data access requests will be reviewed by the PI and study research coordinator. Requestors will be required to sign a data use agreement.
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D006184 | Habits |
| D012933 | Social Identification |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D001519 | Behavior |
| D012919 | Social Behavior |
Not provided
Not provided
Participants are randomly assigned to a condition to receive one of eight writing prompt variants in a 2x2x2 study design. There is also a within subjects component as participants complete the same writing prompt 3 times (once per week over a 3-week period).
Not provided
Not provided
The PI, the project coordinator, and experimenters will not know which participants have been assigned to each condition. Outcomes are assessed via computer/online survey. There is no human outcome assessor in this study.
| Smartphone; No network; First-person | Experimental | In this narrative writing task, the participant is asked to imagine him/herself as someone who has reduced their smartphone usage and describe this future self; the prompt does not instruct to write about social network (important people, friends, family); participant will write using first-person pronouns. |
|
| Smartphone; Network; First-person | Experimental | In this narrative writing task, the participant is asked to imagine him/herself as someone who has reduced their smartphone usage and describe this future self; the prompt instructions include writing about social network (important people, friends, family); participant will write using first-person pronouns. |
|
| Smartphone; No network; Third-person | Experimental | In this narrative writing task, the participant is asked to imagine him/herself as someone who has reduced their smartphone usage and describe this future self; the prompt does not instruct to write about social network (important people, friends, family); participant will write using third-person pronouns. |
|
| Smartphone; Network; Third-person | Experimental | In this narrative writing task, the participant is asked to imagine him/herself as someone who has reduced their smartphone usage and describe this future self; the prompt instructions include writing about social network (important people, friends, family); participant will write using third-person pronouns. |
|
|
Modified timeline follow back will assess past daily alcohol consumption (# standard drinks per day); higher consumption = worse outcomes
| will be assessed at lab 1, lab 2, lab 2 (weeks 1-3) & long-term follow up (2-week, 1 month, 3 month); data will be reported through study completion (3 month follow up) |
| changes in last 3 month alcohol problems | Rutgers Alcohol Problems Inventory (RAPI) will be used to assess alcohol problems; item response options range from 0 to 4; total score ranges from 0 to 100; higher scores = worse outcomes | Assessed at lab 1 (week1) and 3-month follow up; data will be reported through study completion (3 month follow up) |
| changes in last two week alcohol problems | adapted from RAPI & Young Adult Alcohol Problems Screening Test (YAAPST); item responses are 0 (did not happen) or 1 (happened); higher scores (range from 0 to 10) = worse outcomes | assessed at lab 2 and 3 (weeks 2 and 3) and at 2 week and 1 month follow up; data will be reported through 1 month follow up |
frequency of heavy episodic (4/5 or more drinks for women/men on a single occasion) and extreme binge drinking (at least 8/10 drinks or at least 12/15 drinks for women/men on a single occasion); definitions are from the National Institute of Alcohol and Alcoholism |
| assessed at lab 1 (week 1) & |
| Changes in Readiness to Change Drinking | single item about readiness to change one's drinking (from Rollnick, Mason, & Butler, 1999); ranges from 0 to 6; higher scores = more readiness to change one's drinking; higher scores = better outcome | post-writing (lab 1, lab 2, lab 3) long-term follow up (2-week, 1 month, 3 month); data will be reported through study completion (3 month follow up) |
| Changes in single-item assessing self-efficacy to limit one's drinking | Item developed by Cervone & Shadel; item ranges from 0 to10; higher scores = greater self-efficacy to limit one's drinking; higher scores = better outcome | will be assessed at lab 1, lab 2, lab 2 (weeks 1-3) & long-term follow up (2-week, 1 month, 3 month); data will be reported through study completion (3 month follow up) |
| Changes in desire thinking about alcohol | Assessed via the Desire Thinking Questionnaire; response options range from 1 to 4; total scores (range from 10 to 40) indicate amount of desire thinking about alcohol; higher scores = more desire thinking (worse outcome) | assessed at lab 1 (week 1) and long-term follow up (2-week, 1 month, 3 month); data will be reported through study completion (3 month follow up) |
| Changes in smartphone addiction proneness | Assessed via the smartphone addiction proneness scale; will use total score (sum); response options range from 1 to 4; total scores (range from 15 to 60), higher scores = more addiction proneness (worse outcome) | Assessed at lab 1 (week 1) and long-term follow up (2 week, 1 month, 3 month); data will be reported through study completion (3 month follow up) |
| Changes in smartphone use | item assessing frequency of use and length of time not using; higher frequency of use = worse outcome; higher length of time not using = better outcome | Assessed at lab 1 (week 1) and long-term follow up (2 week, 1 month, 3 month); data will be reported through study completion (3 month follow up) |
| changes in affect | State (current) affect will be assessed immediately prior to and after the narrative writing task; two items (one assessing positive affect and one assessing negative affect); item response range from 0 to 100, with 100 indicating greater intensity of feeling; affect will be assess each time participants complete the narrative writing task (i.e. lab 1, lab 2, lab 3); no changes in affect are expected | assessed pre-post-writing during lab 1, lab 2, lab 3 (weeks 1-3); data will be reported through week 3 |
| Manipulation check questions about the narrative writing task | Following the narrative writing task (which occurs at each of the lab session), participants will be asked 5 items about what they wrote and imagined; each item will be evaluated separately; response options range from -3 to +3; items assess how vividly they imagined what they wrote; how easy it was to imagine what they wrote; how much writing made them seem their life differently; how plausible what they imagined was; how relatable what they wrote about was; for all items higher scores = better outcomes | will be assessed and reported for each of the 3 lab sessions (weeks 1, 2, and 3) |
| Changes in single-item assessing self-efficacy to limit one's smartphone use | Item developed by Cervone & Shadel; item response options range from 0 to 10; higher scores = greater self-efficacy to limit one's smartphone use; higher scores = better outcome | will be assessed at lab 1, lab 2, lab 2 (weeks 1-3) & long-term follow up (2-week, 1 month, 3 month); data will be reported through study completion (3 month follow up) |