Journal of consulting and clinical psychology · 2026
A randomized controlled trial of injunctive norms feedback with and without motivational interviewing to reduce alcohol use and negative consequences among college students.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Neighbors Clayton, Rodriguez Lindsey M, Rinker Dipali V, Young Chelsie M, DiBello Angelo M, Swanson Alex, Krieger Heather, Tomkins Mary, Cronce Jessica M, Knee C Raymond, Lewis Melissa A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Personalized normative feedback interventions targeting perceived descriptive norms (perceptions of how much or how often other people drink) have repeatedly been shown to reduce problem drinking among young adults. Less work has targeted perceived injunctive norms (perceptions of others' approval of drinking), possibly due to the potential for reactance to feedback, which communicates that others disapprove of intervention recipients' drinking. Motivational interviewing (MI) is a nonjudgmental clinical approach that diffuses reactance by emphasizing empathy and autonomy. This study evaluated the efficacy of in-person computer-delivered injunctive personalized normative feedback (IPNF) and facilitator-delivered IPNF with MI (IPNF + MI) in reducing alcohol consumption (past month drinking, typical weekly drinking, and maximum drinks consumed on one occasion) and two indices of alcohol-related consequences.
METHOD: Participants included 605 heavy-drinking college students from two large universities who were randomized to receive either IPNF, IPNF + MI, or attention control feedback. Participants completed 3- and 6-month follow-up surveys.
RESULTS: Findings revealed no significant reductions in alcohol outcomes for IPNF relative to control. Results showed significant reductions for IPNF + MI relative to control in drinks per week and both indices of alcohol-related consequences. The effect of IPNF + MI was significantly stronger than IPNF for one index of consequences. There were no between-condition effects for peak drinks consumed or past month drinking after correcting for multiple comparisons. Mediation results revealed indirect effects of both IPNF conditions versus control through reductions in injunctive norms on all outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Results provide modest evidence for injunctive norms-based feedback as an intervention strategy for heavy-drinking students only when MI-delivered. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
METHOD: Participants included 605 heavy-drinking college students from two large universities who were randomized to receive either IPNF, IPNF + MI, or attention control feedback. Participants completed 3- and 6-month follow-up surveys.
RESULTS: Findings revealed no significant reductions in alcohol outcomes for IPNF relative to control. Results showed significant reductions for IPNF + MI relative to control in drinks per week and both indices of alcohol-related consequences. The effect of IPNF + MI was significantly stronger than IPNF for one index of consequences. There were no between-condition effects for peak drinks consumed or past month drinking after correcting for multiple comparisons. Mediation results revealed indirect effects of both IPNF conditions versus control through reductions in injunctive norms on all outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Results provide modest evidence for injunctive norms-based feedback as an intervention strategy for heavy-drinking students only when MI-delivered. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).