Previous research indicates that brief motivational interventions for college student drinkers may be less effective in group settings than individual settings. Social psychological theories about counterproductive group dynamics may partially explain this finding. The present study examined potential problems with group motivational interventions by comparing outcomes from a standard group motivational intervention (SGMI; n = 25), an enhanced group motivational intervention (EGMI; n = 27) designed to suppress counterproductive processes, and a no intervention control (n = 23). SGMI and EGMI participants reported disruptive group dynamics as evidenced by low elaboration likelihood, production blocking, and social loafing, though the level of disturbance was significantly lower for EGMI individuals (p = .001). Despite counteracting group dynamics in the EGMI condition, participants in the two interventions were statistically similar in post-intervention problem recognition and future drinking intentions. The results raise concerns over implementing individually-based interventions in group settings without making necessary adjustments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
WechslerH.LeeJ. E.KuoM.SeibringM.NelsonT. F., and LeeH., Trends in College Binge Drinking during a Period of Increased Prevention Efforts, Journal of American College Health, 50, pp. 203–217, 2002.
2.
KnightJ. R.WechslerH.KuoM.SeibringM.WeitzmanE. R., and ShuckitM., Alcohol Abuse and Dependence among U.S. College Students, Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63, pp. 263–270, 2002.
3.
DimeffL. A.BaerJ. S.KivlahanD. R., and MarlattG. A., Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students (BASICS): A Harm Reduction Approach, Guilford Press, New York, 1999.
4.
MillerW. R. and RollnickS., Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People for Change (2nd Edition), Guilford Press, New York, 2002.
5.
BaerJ. S.MarlattG. A.KivlahanD. R.FrommeK.LarimerM. E., and WilliamsE., An Experimental Test of Three Methods of Alcohol Risk-Reduction with Young Adults, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, pp. 974–979, 1992.
6.
BaerJ. S.KivlahanD. R.BlumeA. W.McKnightP., and MarlattG. A., Brief Intervention for Heavy-Drinking College Students: 4-Year Follow-Up and Natural History, American Journal of Public Health, 91, pp. 1310–1316, 2001.
7.
BorsariB. and CareyK. B., Effects of a Brief Motivational Intervention with College Student Drinkers, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, pp. 728–733, 2000.
8.
MurphyJ. G.DuchnickJ. J.VuchinichJ. W.KargR. S.OlsonA. M.SmithA. F., and CoffeyT. T., Relative Efficacy of a Brief Motivational Intervention for College Student Drinkers, Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 15, pp. 373–379, 2001.
9.
WaltersS. T.BennettM. E., and MillerJ. H., Reducing Alcohol Use in College Students: A Controlled Trial of Two Brief Interventions, Journal of Drug Education, 30, pp. 361–372, 2000.
10.
WaltersS. T., In Praise of Feedback: An Effective Intervention for College Students Who are Heavy Drinkers, Journal of American College Health, 48 pp. 235–238, 2000.
11.
ProchaskaJ. O. and DiClementeC. C., The Transtheoretical Approach: Crossing Traditional Boundaries of Therapy, Dow Jones/Irwin, Homewood, Illinois, 1984.
12.
ProchaskaJ. O. and DiClementeC. C., Toward a Comprehensive Model of Change, in Treating Addictive Behaviors: Processes of Change (1st Edition), MillerW. R. and HeatherN. (eds.), Plenum Press, New York, pp. 3–27, 1986.
13.
ProchaskaJ. O.DiClementeC. C., and NorcrossC., In Search of How People Change: Applications to Addictive Behaviors, American Psychologist, 47, pp. 1102–1114, 1992.
14.
PettyR. E. and CacioppoJ. T., Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1986.
15.
FazioR. H.ChenJ.McDonelE., and ShermanS. J., Attitude Accessibility, Attitude-Behavior Consistency, and the Strength of the Object-Evaluation Association, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, pp. 339–357, 1982.
16.
DiehlM. and StroebeW., Productivity Loss in Brainstorming Groups: Toward the Solution of a Riddle, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, pp. 497–509, 1987.
17.
DiehlM. and StroebeW., Productivity Loss in Idea-Generating Groups: Tracking Down the Blocking Effect, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, pp. 392–403, 1991.
18.
LammH. and TrommsdorffG., Group versus Individual Performance on Tasks Requiring Ideational Proficiency (Brainstorming), European Journal of Social Psychology, 3, pp. 361–387, 1973.
19.
BouchardT. J. and HareM., Size, Performance, and Potential in Brainstorming Groups, Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, pp. 51–55, 1970.
20.
SealD. W.BogartL. M., and EhrhardtA. A., Small Group Dynamics: The Utility of Focus Group Discussions as a Research Method, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2, pp. 253–266, 1998.
21.
FooteJ.DeLucaA.MaguraS.WarnerA.GrandA.RosenblumA., and StahlS., A Group Motivational Treatment for Chemical Dependency, Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 17, pp. 181–192, 1999.
22.
LataneB.WilliamsK., and HarkinsS., Many Hands Make Light the Work: The Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, pp. 822–832, 1979.
23.
LataneB., The Psychology of Social Impact, American Psychologist, 36, pp. 343–356, 1981.
24.
HarkinsS. G. and PettyR. E., Effects of Task Difficulty and Task Uniqueness on Social Loafing, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, pp. 1214–1229, 1982.
25.
ComerD. R., A Model of Social Loafing in Real Working Groups, Human Relations, 48, pp. 647–667, 1995.
26.
ForsythD. R., Group Dynamics, Brooks/Cole Publishing, Belmont, California, 1990.
27.
SobellL. C.SobellM. B.KlajnerF., and PavenD., The Reliability of a Timeline Method for Assessing Normal Drinker College Students' Recent Drinking History: Utility for Alcohol Research, Addictive Behaviors, 11, pp. 149–161, 1986.
28.
WhiteH. R. and LabouvieE. W., Towards the Assessment of Adolescent Problem Drinking, Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 50, pp. 30–37, 1989.
29.
FrommeK.StrootE. A., and KaplanD., Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol: Development and Psychometric Assessment of a New Expectancy Questionnaire, Psychological Assessment, 5, pp. 19–26, 1993.
30.
MillerW. R. and ToniganJ. S., Assessing Drinker's Motivation for Change: The Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale (SOCRATES), Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 10, pp. 81–89, 1996.
31.
MarlattG. A. (ed.), Harm Reduction: Pragmatic Strategies for Managing High-Risk Behaviors, Guilford Press, New York, 1998.
32.
SingleE., Defining Harm Reduction, Drug and Alcohol Review, 14, pp. 287–290, 1995.
33.
SingleE., The Concept of Harm Reduction and Its Application to Alcohol: The 6th Dorothy Black Lecture, Drugs: Education, Prevention, and Policy, 4, pp. 7–22, 1997.
34.
HoyleR. H.GeorgesenJ. C., and WebsterJ. M., Analyzing Data from Individuals in Groups: The Past, the Present, and the Future, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5, pp. 41–47, 2001.
35.
BurlingameG.KircherJ., and TaylorS., Methodological Considerations in Group Psychotherapy Research: Past, Present, and Future Practices, in Handbook of Group Psychotherapy: An Empirical and Clinical Synthesis, FuhrimanA. and BurlingameG. (eds.), Wiley, New York, pp. 41–80, 1994.
36.
NezlekJ. B. and ZyzniewskiL. E., Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling to Analyze Grouped Data, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2, pp. 313–320, 1998.
37.
PollackB. N., Hierarchical Linear Modeling and the “Unit of Analysis” Problem: A Solution for Analyzing Responses of Intact Group Members, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2, pp. 299–312, 1998.
