OBJECTIVE: Intervention studies using normative feedback have reported changes in motivation for changes in alcohol use. The relevancy of the social comparison group of the feedback has not yet been examined. The purpose of this study was to examine whether varying the relevancy of the comparison group would result in greater motivation for changes in alcohol use. METHOD: Participants completed the AUDIT and then read one of three intervention pamphlets: (i) Canadian population drinking patterns; (ii) Canadian university students' drinking patterns; or (iii) American university students' drinking patterns. Afterwards, participants completed the recognition and ambivalence subscales of SOCRATES and rated their overall impressions of the pamphlet. RESULTS:Participants identified as problem drinkers who read the American university students pamphlet reported significantly higher recognition ratings, compared to problem drinkers who read one of the other two pamphlets. CONCLUSIONS: Explanations for the unanticipated findings are discussed. The authors speculate that participants may have relied on their knowledge of perceived drinking patterns as opposed to relevancy of the feedback in making their social comparison.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Intervention studies using normative feedback have reported changes in motivation for changes in alcohol use. The relevancy of the social comparison group of the feedback has not yet been examined. The purpose of this study was to examine whether varying the relevancy of the comparison group would result in greater motivation for changes in alcohol use. METHOD:Participants completed the AUDIT and then read one of three intervention pamphlets: (i) Canadian population drinking patterns; (ii) Canadian university students' drinking patterns; or (iii) American university students' drinking patterns. Afterwards, participants completed the recognition and ambivalence subscales of SOCRATES and rated their overall impressions of the pamphlet. RESULTS:Participants identified as problem drinkers who read the American university students pamphlet reported significantly higher recognition ratings, compared to problem drinkers who read one of the other two pamphlets. CONCLUSIONS: Explanations for the unanticipated findings are discussed. The authors speculate that participants may have relied on their knowledge of perceived drinking patterns as opposed to relevancy of the feedback in making their social comparison.