Correcting Exaggerated Drinking Norms With a Mobile Message Delivery System
Phase: NA
Conditions: College Drinking
Sponsor: Brown University

Text-based Alcohol Prevention for First Year College Students 
21 September 2020 
 
 
 
 
 
Text-based Alcohol Prevention for First Year College Students 
  
National Clinical Trial (NCT) Identified Number:  NCT03864237 
Principal Investigator: Kate B. Carey 
Sponsor: Brown University 
Grant Title: Correcting Exaggerated Drinking Norms with Mobile Message 
Delivery System 
Grant Number: R21AA024771 
Funded by: NIAAA 
Submitted: 21 September 2020 
 

Text-based Alcohol Prevention for First Year College Students 
01 September 2020 
 
 
 
1 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
1. RESEARCH TEAM  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 2 
2. PROJECT SUMMARY   .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 2 
3. STUDY RATIONALE  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 2 
4. AIMS AND ENDPOINTS  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 5 
5. STUDY DESIGN .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 5 
6 STUDY POPULATION  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 5 
 
6.1 Target Sample   .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .   5 
 
6.2 Inclusion Criteria  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 5 
 
6.3 Exclusion Criteria    .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .   5 
7. ENROLLMENT   .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 5 
 
7.1 Recruitment and Enrollment Procedures  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 6 
 
7.2 Orientation   .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 6 
 
7.3 Retention Plan .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 6 
8 INTERVENTIONS  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 7 
 
8.1 Experimental Group Message Content  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 7 
 
8.2 Control Group Message Content  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  7 
 
8.3 Message delivery and process assessment  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 7 
9  STUDY ASSESSMENTS AND PROCEDURES  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 7 
 
9.1 Screening  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .   7 
 
9.2 Baseline Assessment  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 7  
 
 
9.2.1  Descriptive measures   .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 7 
 
 
9.2.2  Primary and secondary outcomes  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .   8 
 
 
9.2.3  Potential moderators .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 9 
 
 
9.2.4  Exploratory measures  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 9 
 
9.3  Follow-up Assessments  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .   9 
10 STATISTICAL CONSIDERATIONS    .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .   10 
 
10.1 Sample Size .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  10 
 
10.2 Analysis Plan  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 10 
11  RISK/BENEFIT ASSESSMENT   .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 10 
 
11.1. Possible Risks   .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 10 
 
11.2 Protection against Possible Risks  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 11 
 
11.3  Expected Benefits   .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 11 
 
11.4  Data Safety and Monitoring Plan   .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  11 
 
11.5 Adverse Events and Serious Adverse Events    .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 12 
 
11.6 Monitoring of Study Progress   .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  12 
12 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 12 
 
12.1 Consent  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 12 
 
12.2 Research Material Obtained from Human Subjects   .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 13 
 
12.3 Access to Individually Identifiable Information   .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 13 
 
12.4 Programming Technology and Web Security .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 14 
 
12.5 Protocol Amendment History .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 14 
13 REFERENCES .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 15 
Appendix A. Content of Alcohol Norms Text Messages Sent to Experimental Group .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 18 
Appendix B. Content of “This day in history” Text Messages Sent to Control Group  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 21 
 
 

Text-based Alcohol Prevention for First Year College Students 
01 September 2020 
 
 
 
2 
1. RESEARCH TEAM 
 
Kate B. Carey, PhD 
Principal Investigator 
Jennifer E. Merrill, PhD 
Co-Investigator 
Nancy Barnett, PhD 
Co-Investigator 
Holly Boyle, ScM 
Project Coordinator 
Miranda L. Lauher, ScM 
Graduate Research Assistant 
Oliver S. Fox, ScM 
Graduate Research Assistant 
2. PROJECT SUMMARY 
 
Using mobile technology that most students already have in their pockets, we propose a novel use of SMS 
text messages to change campus drinking norms. We aim to correct exaggerated perceptions of drinking 
norms, and thereby reduce excessive drinking, by delivering push notifications representing accurate, 
campus-specific, pro-moderation descriptive norms (what others do) and injunctive norms (what others 
approve of). We predict that with repeated exposure over time, this information will compete with other 
sources of normative information to which students are exposed during their first year of college. In this 
exploratory R21, we will develop and refine message content and pilot test the delivery methods. First, 
with input from student advisors, we will survey a representative sample of 300 students about personal 
behaviors and attitudes, and perceived descriptive and injunctive norms, for a wide range of alcohol-
related behaviors and protective strategies. Extending the range of behaviors previously studied in the 
norms literature, these data will yield campus-specific norms and identify items with the largest self-other 
discrepancies as potential sources of corrective feedback. Second, we will translate the content into a pool 
of text messages and solicit feedback, iteratively, from approximately 40 first-year students. Third, we 
will conduct a pilot test of the SMS-delivered pro-moderation norms intervention to evaluate the effect of 
receiving these text messages on perceived peer norms, and high-volume drinking and consequences. 
First year students (N=120) who are underage but report risky drinking (>4/day or >14/week for men; 
>3/day or >7/week for women) will be randomly assigned to two conditions differing by text content: 
alcohol norms or control. All will receive 5-6 text messages per week over 12 weeks. Process measures, 
3-month post-test, and 3-month follow-up assessments will yield feasibility, acceptability, and 
preliminary outcome data to inform future larger scale randomized trials. We predict that the 
experimental condition will be acceptable and interesting, will protect against increases in pro-drinking 
perceived norms, and will result in less risky drinking and fewer alcohol consequences, relative to control. 
This project has public health significance because high volume drinking has harmful consequences to 
self and others, and has proven to be hard to change on college campuses; individual-level interventions 
typically have limited reach, and environmental policy changes can be hard to implement. This mHealth 
intervention offers a novel approach to prevention during a period of transition, and this study will 
provide proof-of-concept that SMS text messages can be used over time to correct exaggerated alcohol 
norms, a mechanism known to reduce excessive drinking and its negative consequences. 
 
3. STUDY RATIONALE 
 
Freshman year in college is a time of transition as students learn how to make friends, and socialize in 
a new environment. The theory of emerging adulthood (ages 18-25) identifies key tasks of exploration 
and crafting an adult identity (Arnett, 2005). This period is associated with both onset of and increases in 
high risk drinking (Merrill & Carey, 2016).  Because high-volume drinking, emergency transports, and 

Text-based Alcohol Prevention for First Year College Students 
01 September 2020 
 
 
 
3 
sexual assault occur at alarming levels in the first year, freshmen have been identified as a high-risk 
priority subgroup for college alcohol prevention (Perkins, 2002). During times of transition, social 
influence can be strong and social norms provide informative guideposts. 
Perceived norms predict drinking, both concurrently and prospectively. One of the strongest 
predictors of high-risk drinking among young college-attending adults is perceived norms (Perkins, 
2002). Descriptive norms (DN, what others do) and injunctive norms (IN, what others approve of) are 
positively associated with drinking (Borsari & Carey, 2003), accounting for more variance than other 
established cognitive predictors (Neighbors et al., 2007). Further, there is evidence that college student 
drinking conforms to perceived norms over time (Lewis et al., 2015). 
Perceived norms tend to be exaggerated relative to actual norms. Ample evidence documents 
self-other discrepancies with regard to drinking behaviors; estimates of others’ drinking (DN) usually 
exceed reports of one’s own behavior, and estimates of others’ approval of drinking behaviors (IN) are 
usually more permissive than one’s own attitudes (Borsari & Carey, 2003). Self-other discrepancies in the 
perceived approval of campus drinking (Lewis et al., 2015) and drinking consequences (DeMartini et al., 
2011) have been documented. In contrast, students endorse more personal approval of protective 
behavioral strategies than they ascribe to others (DeMartini et al., 2011). The observation that privately 
held attitudes tend to be more conservative than perceived peer attitudes is known as “pluralistic 
ignorance.”   
Exaggerated perceived norms can have adverse effects on individuals and the community. Self-
other differences in DN predict increased drinking over time, suggesting that students conform to their 
(mis)perception that peers are engaging in heavier drinking than they really are (Carey et al., 2006). 
Perceptions of self-other differences in IN can also serve to perpetuate a permissive drinking 
environment, whereby individual students who do not share the perceived approval of excessive drinking 
feel in the minority, and those holding pro-moderation attitudes do not express their opinions for fear of 
social isolation (Prentice & Miller, 2006). Over time opinions perceived to be in the majority are 
expressed while those perceived to be in the minority are not (Matthes, 2015). Exaggerated perceived 
norms are thereby perpetuated and continue to influence drinking decisions. Ample evidence supports the 
efficacy of interventions designed to correct exaggerated DN, and a growing body of literature suggests 
that correcting exaggerated IN may also be a viable prevention strategy (both summarized next).  
Changing exaggerated descriptive norms reduces drinking behavior. Several reviews and meta-
analyses document that personalized normative feedback is included in many of the efficacious 
interventions designed to reduce college student drinking; this feedback typically is delivered via 
computer screen or in person (e.g., Carey et al., 2007). Nearly all of these have provided accurate 
descriptive norms to correct misperceptions of peer drinking behavior, in one or two exposures. 
Importantly, mediation analyses consistently support DN as a mechanism of change; reducing 
exaggerated DN leads to lower alcohol consumption (Reid & Carey, 2015).   
Correcting exaggerated perceived injunctive norms is promising but understudied. Relatively 
few prevention interventions have employed IN feedback with the goal of reducing risky drinking. A 
recent review of college drinking interventions found weak evidence for mediation by IN (Reid & Carey, 
2015). However, most of the reviewed interventions did not attempt to change IN, and those that included 
IN manipulations failed to successfully change IN (i.e., the “a” path in mediation); thus strong tests of the 
potential for a successful IN manipulation to facilitate change in drinking are missing.  Recently, two 
studies from our group demonstrate the malleability of IN. Manipulating informational content embedded 
in a survey (Prince & Carey, 2010), we demonstrated that IN changed immediately following presentation 
of corrective information about college students’ attitudes about drinking. Similarly, a recently completed 
RCT documents that IN feedback, when delivered face-to-face, reduced perceptions of IN and 
consumption and consequences at a 1-month follow-up, relative to an assessment-only control (Prince et 
al., 2015). Taken together, correcting inaccurate IN is a promising direction for college alcohol abuse 
prevention. 
Addressing both DN and IN within one intervention has high potential. This innovative focus is 
grounded in theory. The focus theory of normative conduct (Cialdini et al., 1991) holds that norms are 

Text-based Alcohol Prevention for First Year College Students 
01 September 2020 
 
 
 
4 
likely to influence behavior when they are made a salient focus of attention, which we aim to do with 
repeated text messages. The notion of pluralistic ignorance asserts that even when engaging in behavior 
consistent with prevailing DN, individuals privately endorse more conservative attitudes and can 
experience discomfort with social pressures to drink (Prentice & Miller, 1996). Importantly, norms 
feedback is most persuasive when DN and IN align in presenting a consistent message (Reid et al., 2010). 
Thus, correcting both exaggerated DN and IN has a sound theoretical basis as a prevention strategy, 
but this combination strategy has been underutilized in alcohol abuse prevention interventions.  
Freshman year is an optimal time to deliver a corrective norms intervention. The new college 
environment provides ample sources of information about the prevalence and acceptability of drinking, 
due to selective exposure to and sharing of pro-drinking norms (Merrill & Carey, 2016). Further, there is 
suggestive evidence of an evolution towards greater acceptance of excessive drinking as students spend 
time in college (DeMartini et al., 2011). Correcting exaggerated DN and IN during the formative first 
year may reduce the perceived peer expectations for high risk drinking, which may reduce future harms.   
New prevention strategies targeted to freshmen are needed. Meta-analysis shows that existing 
alcohol prevention programs targeted to freshmen produce significant but small effects, but most rely on 
traditional in-person or computer-delivered formats (Scott-Sheldon et al., 2014). Therefore, we propose a 
novel approach to prevention: regular exposure via SMS text messages to accurate descriptions of peer 
behaviors and peer beliefs, including peer use and endorsement of protective behavioral strategies.  
Text messaging affords a cost-effective opportunity to promote health behavior change, with 
nearly universal reach. Nearly all (98%) young adults ages 18-29 own cell phones, and 97% of cell 
phone users receive or send texts (Pew Research Internet Project, 2014). Also, 9/10 young adults own 
smartphones, and 100% of smartphone users aged 18-29 used text messaging on their phone in the last 
week (Smith, 2015) Reviews document the efficacy of text-based interventions on a variety of health 
outcomes (Cole-Lewis & Kershaw, 2010); there is limited but growing support for text interventions to 
reduce alcohol use (Suffoletto et al., 2014). In this context, text messaging has advantages over other 
digital media, as it is accessed daily and via one's mobile  phone; and does not involve user-generated 
content, which may be contraindicated for a behavior driven by exaggerated perceptions of peer norms. 
Further, young adult drinkers say text messages are a preferred mode of intervention contact (Bendtsen & 
Bendtsen, 2014). Thus, a text-based intervention can reach students in the context of their daily lives with 
messages designed to compete with exposure to risky drinking and peer approval that maintains 
exaggerated unhealthy norms. A norms correction intervention delivered via text during the first year may 
be a welcome tool for campus educators, who must fit increasing amounts of prevention content into 
orientation sessions conducted at the beginning of the semester. 
Summary of Scientific Premise and Overall Impact. The state of the science suggests that 
correcting exaggerated drinking norms is a sound strategy for reducing hazardous drinking, with strong 
support for DN feedback and promising preliminary evidence for supplementing it with IN feedback. To 
date, delivery format has been limited to one or two doses of computerized or in-person personalized 
normative feedback. We propose an alternate method of delivering corrective norms that is low threshold, 
offers multiple exposures to pro-moderation content, and is scalable. This project has potential for impact 
because of when and how it aims to modify hazardous drinking among underage college students. The 
“when” is targeting the first year of college, a high-risk period of time for excessive drinking and negative 
consequences. This is an opportune time to present accurate information about peer drinking behaviors 
and attitudes because beliefs about the norms of the new campus community are being formed. The 
“how” is text-delivered normative feedback to correct exaggerated DN and IN about alcohol use, 
consequences, and protective strategies. Such a preventive intervention requires few resources beyond the 
mobile phones that nearly all students already possess, does not require students attend a prevention 
program, consists of information about peers that is inherently interesting and relevant to emerging adults, 
and delivers pro-moderation messages repeatedly in the natural environment. This content and delivery 
system has potential to counteract unhealthy campus norms in a way that a one-shot prevention program 
cannot. Our intervention is designed to challenge and compete with perceptions of peer approval of 
excessive drinking, and support the private, typically more conservative beliefs of many first-year 

Text-based Alcohol Prevention for First Year College Students 
01 September 2020 
 
 
 
5 
students. The work described in this R21 proposal will lay the groundwork for a larger RCT with more 
participants (and power) and longer follow-ups to demonstrate the durability of effects.  
 
4. AIMS AND ENDPOINTS 
 
This protocol addresses Aim 3 of our R21 grant, namely: To conduct a pilot test of the efficacy of an 
SMS-delivered pro-moderation drinking norms intervention for first-year students. We will 
randomize ~120 students who meet inclusion criteria to either the norms text message condition or the 
attention-control condition. All will receive 7 texts per week throughout 10 weeks within the first 
semester of college (late September through early December). Assessments at baseline, post-test 
(December) and 3-month follow-up (March) will allow us to test the hypotheses that the corrective norms 
intervention will reduce (a) perceived descriptive and injunctive norms, (b) drinking behavior (including 
high-volume drinking and risky consumption practices), and (c) alcohol-related consequences, and 
increase (d) protective behavioral strategies, relative to the control condition.  
 
5. STUDY DESIGN 
 
The design is a randomized controlled design with two groups (attention control and experimental) and 3 
assessment points. Random assignment within sex will be conducted using random numbers tables such 
that each male and each female recruit has equal chance of assignment to either condition; in past this 
approach has resulted in equivalent numbers of males and females across conditions. Participants in both 
conditions will complete a baseline survey; they will receive and respond to ten weeks of daily text 
messages; and complete follow-up surveys after the completion of ten weeks of text messages (post-test, 
3 months after baseline), and again 3 months later (follow-up, 6 months after baseline).  The only 
difference between conditions is the content of the texts received: Participants in the experimental group 
(n~60) will receive daily text messages that include campus-specific descriptive and injunctive norms 
information, whereas participants in the contact control group (n~60) will receive daily text messages that 
include facts on the “this day in history.” Primary outcomes will be assessed at post-test; maintenance 
will be assessed at follow-up. 
 
6. STUDY POPULATION 
 
6.1. Target Sample. The target sample for analyses is N=100 college student drinkers from Brown 
University, a residential 4-year colleague with ~6,300 undergraduate students. Like many residential 
colleges in the Northeastern US, it has many characteristics associated with higher risk for alcohol misuse 
(e.g., Greek system, athletic tradition); indeed at Brown students report high rates of drinking: 85% of 
first-year students report drinking in the past 3 months, and 50% endorse risky drinking practices such as 
pre-gaming. We plan to randomize at least 120 first-year students to conditions, to account to attrition 
from participants who may withdraw from the study.  
 
6.2. Inclusion Criteria. Eligibility criteria consist of being a male or female (a) first-year student who (b) 
meets NIAAA criteria for risky drinking (for men, >4 drinks in a day or >14 in a week; for women >3 
drinks in a day or >7 in a week), (c) has a mobile phone with text messaging capacity, and (d) uses text 
messaging at least weekly. Participants must also be age 18-20. 
 
6.3. Exclusion Criteria.  Exclusion criteria are: (a) engagement in treatment or indication of others 
suggesting need for treatment for alcohol or drug disorders; and (b) plans to be without cellular service 
for more than 3 days during the fall semester. 
 
7. ENROLLMENT 
 

Text-based Alcohol Prevention for First Year College Students 
01 September 2020 
 
 
 
6 
7.1 Recruitment and Enrollment Procedures 
We will recruit female and male Brown University students through multiple methods including hanging 
and distributing flyers/table slips in first year dorms and other locations around campus, announcements 
in classrooms, advertisements on university listservs (e.g., Today@Brown, pending approval by 
university officials) and on social media (e.g., facebook advertisements), and distributions via email 
announcements on university listservs (e.g., pending approval, directly from us via a first year class list or 
facilitated by freshman dorm resident life advisors or VP for the Office of Campus Life or other 
designated administrator). Also we will conduct snowball recruitment including asking those who enroll 
in our study to share this research opportunity with those they think may be interested in participating. 
The flyer/table slips will include a URL to the online survey as well as a QR code and the online 
advertisements will include a link to access the online survey. Interested participants will complete an 
online screener, and eligible participants will be redirected to an online consent form. If a person consents 
to the study, they will be asked to provide their contact information and then study staff will email them a 
link to complete a baseline questionnaire. 
 
7.2. Orientation 
Participants will be asked to attend an in-person, group study orientation, which will take place within 
two weeks of the baseline survey. At this meeting, Research Assistants (RAs) will (a) orient participants 
to the experimental phase of the study, (b) send a welcome text to each participant, who will be asked to 
reply with a practice evaluation rating, (c) instruct participants to identify the study telephone/text 
numbers with the FACT22 Study name, and (d) distribute Clincards that are used to issue study 
payments. They will be reminded that responses to study-sent texts will not be actively monitored, and 
they can text STOP to discontinue at any time. The 10-week intervention period will begin once all 
participants have been consented, oriented, and randomized, allowing for a uniform 10-week intervention 
period. 
 
7.3. Retention Plan  
 
Reimbursement. Participants can earn a total of $90 for their participation. Participants will 
receive $25 for completing the baseline survey and $30 and $35 (respectively) for completing the post-
intervention and 3-month follow-ups. In addition, all participants who rate at least 90% of the daily text 
messages will be entered to win one of four $50 bonus payments, to be raffled off at the end of the 10 weeks. 
We will reimburse participants using the ClinCard program provided by Brown University as a means of 
subject payment. Using this system will allow us to electronically pay our participants. We have added 
the approved language to our consent form, and will provide participants with the ClinCard FAQs 
provided by the IRB along with the consent form in person at the orientation session. 
 
Participant communication. We plan to communication with participants primarily via email. 
We drafted an introductory invitation email to send to potentially interested individuals (e.g., identified in 
snowball sampling); this email will contain the link to the screening survey. After participants consent 
and provided contact information, we will email them with a link to the baseline assessment. We will 
send reminder emails to those who do not complete the baseline email in a timely manner. After 
completing the baseline assessment, they will indicate preference for a time slot to attend an orientation 
session. We plan to send an email reminder the day before their scheduled orientation session with 
information regarding the time and location. For anyone who does not show up to their assigned 
orientation session, we will send an email/text to have these participants reschedule an orientation time at 
their earliest convenience. We also plan to send emails to participants in order to invite them to complete 
the follow-up survey at the end of the 10-week texting period, and again 3 months later. This email will 
contain the link to the follow-up survey for the participants to access. Additionally, we have drafted a 
second email and text message to serve as reminders if participants have not completed the follow-up 
surveys. Upon completing each follow-up survey, participants will receive an email notification that we 

Text-based Alcohol Prevention for First Year College Students 
01 September 2020 
 
 
 
7 
have added payment to their Clincards. We have drafted an email to send to unresponsive participants 
who have not engaged with our text messages. We also have drafted emails to inform participants of the 
results of the study raffle. Finally, to keep participants engaged with the research team for the duration of 
the study, we have drafted an encouraging email to send at the half-way point (5-weeks into the text 
intervention), as well as an email half-way through the follow-up (~ Feb 1) to remind them of their 
participation in the study and to wish them a good spring semester. 
 
8. INTERVENTIONS 
 
8.1. Experimental Group Message Content. The text messages represent accurate and pro-moderation 
DN and IN based on data collected from a campus-wide normative survey collected in spring of 2017. 
These messages were created during previous phases of this R21 research, with the help of an 
undergraduate Student Advisory Group and additional feedback was provided from heavy drinking first 
year students via an online survey. See Appendix A for our experimental text message library. 
 
8.2. Control Group Message Content. Based on suggestions from our Student Advisory Group, we 
assembled 70 “this day in history” facts, reproduced in Appendix B. 
 
8.3. Message delivery and process assessment. We will send text messages once per day (between 4-
8pm) for 10 weeks (70 messages) using Qualtrics, a program which will allow us to upload recipients’ 
information and pre-program the content and timing of messages. Each day, participants in the 
experimental group will be sent an initial text with a piece of normative feedback information (e.g., “Be a 
part of the 92% of Brown students that use a sober designated driver while they are out drinking”). 
Participants in the control group will receive daily texts with a fact “in this day in history” (e.g., “Today 
in 1985 the first Blockbuster store opened”) Participants in both groups will be asked to respond with a 
rating for each text message from 1 (not at all interesting) to 5 (very interesting). Ratings are used to 
prompt attention, to document receipt, and to gather feedback on interest in specific message content.  
Response rate, participant ratings, message status (sent, failed, delivered, undelivered) with any error 
messages will be stored in a database to evaluate intervention implementation (message delivery and 
exposure) and engagement (interest ratings).   
 
9. STUDY ASSESSMENTS AND PROCEDURES 
 
9.1. Screening. The screening questionnaire, to be administered online, will include demographic and 
eligibility criteria, as well as some filler items so that participants cannot readily determine eligibility 
criteria.  Eligibility screening data will be anonymous and retained only to document which 
inclusion/exclusion criteria resulted in eligibility for the study. Eligible students will be directed to the 
consent form of the study and if they consent to participate they will be asked to provide contact 
information. Participants will then be emailed a link to the baseline survey. 
 
9.2. Baseline Assessment. Assessments will be administered remotely via web-based survey software. 
Primary outcome measures (alcohol consumption and consequences) and secondary outcomes (e.g., 
injunctive and descriptive norms) as well as potential moderators (e.g., willingness to drink) will be 
repeated at both follow-ups. The baseline and follow-up surveys will take between 30-45 minutes to 
complete. Following emerging online survey best practices, we will insert up to 5 attention check 
questions into each of the 3 surveys. At each assessment point, participants will have the option to 
download a Resource Sheet with contact information for substance abuse and mental health services. 
 
9.2.1. Descriptive measures 
Demographics will include gender, sex, age, weight, race/ethnicity, class year, international student 
status, athlete status, and planned involvement in Greek system.  

Text-based Alcohol Prevention for First Year College Students 
01 September 2020 
 
 
 
8 
Other substance use questions will include items about cigarette use including (a) whether or not 
participants have ever tried cigarettes, (b) frequency of cigarette use in the past 30 days, (c) amount of 
cigarettes smoked in the past 30 days. We also ask about the frequency of use of electronic vapor 
products, and the frequency of use of other tobacco products (i.e., cigars, chewing tobacco). We also ask 
about marijuana. We ask whether people have ever used marijuana and if so the frequency of use in the 
past 30 days and how it was used. These items were adapted from the CDC Youth Risk Behavior Survey. 
Intentions to use marijuana over the next 3 months will be assessed using 1 item (“I will use marijuana” 
1=definitely will to 7=definitely will not). 
 
9.2.2.  Primary and secondary outcomes 
Alcohol use will be assessed with the daily drinking questionnaire (DDQ)(Collins, Parks, & Marlatt, 
1985). For each of the seven days of a typical week in the past 30 days, participants record the number of 
standard drinks (12 oz beer, 5 oz wine, 1.5 oz liquor). They will also be asked (a) frequency of alcohol 
use, (b) frequency of binge drinking (4+/5+ drinks on a single occasion for women/men), (c) peak number 
of drinks on a single occasion in the past 30 days and hours over which they were consumed allowing 
calculation of estimated BACs. Additional high-risk drinking behaviors include frequency of and typical 
quantity consumed when: (a) pregaming, defined as drinking, typically in one’s home or room, before 
going out for the night (Borsari, Merrill, Yurasek, Miller, & Carey, 2016) and (b) playing drinking games, 
defined as a high-risk, social drinking activity with certain rules (Zamboanga, Audley, Iwamoto, Martin, 
& Tomaso, 2013).  Intentions to drink over the next 3 months will be assessed using 5 items representing 
intentions to engage in drinking behaviors during the fall semester (and then again from December to 
March). 
In addition, we will administer the Timeline Follow Back (TLFB) assessment (Sobell & Sobell, 
1992), adapted for online use, to get detailed daily information on drinking patterns in the past month. 
Participants see a calendar representing the past 30 days, and the indicate (a) on which days they drank 
alcohol, and for those days (b) how many standard drinks they consumed, and (c) time elapsed from first 
to last drink. 
Alcohol consequences in the past month will be assessed with the 24-item Brief Young Adult Alcohol 
Consequences Questionnaire (B-YAACQ) (Kahler, Strong, & Read, 2005) which has been modified to 
include 3 additional items (25-27) adapted from the YAAPST (Hurlbut and Sher, 1992). One YAAPST 
item asks about unwanted sex, and another item was divided into two items separately asking about birth 
control and condom use.  
Drinking motives. It is possible that the intervention will be more or less effective as a function of 
one’s motivations for consuming alcohol. As such, we will assess drinking motives with the well-
validated and reliable Drinking Motives Questionnaire-Revised (Cooper, 1994). Twenty items assess 
frequency of drinking for each reason, forming subscales for motives related to coping, conformity, 
enhancement, and social facilitation.  
Protective behavioral strategies will be assessed with the modified Strategy Questionnaire (Sugarman 
& Carey, 2007).  
Alcohol-Induced Amnesia will be assessed using the alcohol-induced amnesia severity scale (Miller et 
al., 2019).  
Descriptive norms will be assessed using a 7-day grid (Baer, Stacy, & Larimer, 1991) to estimate 
drinks consumed per typical day for a typical Brown student of the same gender. Standard drinks are 
summed across days to yield the (a) perceived drinks per week for the group. We also ask participants to 
indicate their perception of (b) how often they think a typical Brown student consumes alcohol and the (c) 
maximum number of drinks a typical Brown student of one’s gender drank on a given day. Also, to align 
the descriptive norms assessment with intervention content, we will also assessed descriptive norms for 
the (d) behaviors derived from the PBS strategy questionnaire and (e) consequences from the BYAACQ 
that were represented in the text messages (e.g., how many of your peers at Brown… spaced drinks over 
time:  1=all, 2=most, 3=over half, 4=about half, 5=under half, 6=very few, 7=none). 

Text-based Alcohol Prevention for First Year College Students 
01 September 2020 
 
 
 
9 
Injunctive norms and personal attitudes will be assessed by asking about participants own approval 
and their perception of Brown students’ approval of (a) drinking as measured by number of drinks 
acceptable to consume each day of a typical week, (b) frequency of drinking, and (c) maximum number 
of drinks to consume on a given occasion (Krieger, Neighbors, Lewis, LaBrie, Foster, & Larimer, 2016). 
Also, to align the injunctive norms assessment with intervention content, we assess perceived peer 
approval toward the behaviors derived from the (d) PBS strategy questionnaire and the (e) BYAACQ that 
were represented in the text messages also will be assessed (e.g., To what extent to do your peers approve 
of the following experiences related to drinking ……Passing out from drinking: Strongly Disapprove =1, 
Moderately Disapprove =2, Slightly Disapprove =3, Slightly Approve =4, Moderately Approve =5, 
Strongly Approve =6. Additionally, we will assess generalized attitudes toward moderate and heavy (5+ 
for men/4+ for women) drinking ( Norman, 2011; DiBello, Miller, Neighbors, Reid, & Carey, 2018) 
using 5-point Likert scales for each of 5 items (e.g., enjoyable-unenjoyable, bad-good).  
 
9.2.3.  Potential moderators 
Drinker identity. The influence of norms on drinking behavior may depend on degree to which 
alcohol use is integrated into a person’s self-identity. We assess this using a validated 5-item measure 
(Lindgren et al., 2013) where participants will be asked to respond to statements (i.e., “drinking is a part 
of my self-image.”) using a 7-point scale (1=Strongly Disagree, 4=Neutral, 7=Strongly Agree).  
Beliefs about the role of alcohol in college life will be assessed using the College Life Alcohol 
Salience Scale (CLASS) (Osberg et al., 2010) consisting of 15 items (i.e., Parties with alcohol are an 
integral part of college life) where participants are asked to select how strongly they disagree or agree 
with each statement (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 =Strongly Agree).  
Willingness to experience alcohol-related consequences & engage in particular drinking levels may 
moderate the influence of norms on drinking behaviors. We adapted an assessment (Mallett et al., 2011) 
of 4 items related to willingness to experience consequences to also include 3 items related to level of 
drinking. Participants respond to each of the 7 items by selecting how willing they are to have each 
experience from 1=Not at all willing to 4 = Extremely willing.  
Group identification. The influence of norms on behavior can depend on group identification (Reed, 
Lange, Ketchie, & Clapp, 2007), so participants will rate how much they identify with students at Brown. 
By indicating their level of agreement with the statement ‘I identify with students at Brown” from 1 = 
Fully Disagree to 7=Fully Agree.  
Iowa-Netherlands Comparison Orientation Measure (INCOM). According to social comparison 
theory (Festinger, 1954), individual behaviors are guided by how one compares him/herself to others, and 
greater orientation toward social comparison is related to higher salience of perceived peer behaviors. 
Therefore we plan to administer the validated 11-item Iowa-Netherlands Comparison Orientation 
(INCOM) Scale (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999). Participants will be asked to indicate how much they agreed 
with each statement (e.g., “I always pay a lot of attention to how I do things compared with how others do 
things,” “I always like to know what others in a similar situation would do.”) on a scale of 1 (strongly 
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).   
 
9.2.4.  Exploratory measures 
Mental and Physical Health measures include the 4-item perceived stress scale (Cohen, Williamson, 
1988; Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983) to measure one’s level of stress, the PH-4, a 4-item 
measure for detecting anxiety and depressive symptoms (Kroenke, Spitzer, Williams, & Lowe, 2009). We 
also include measures on sleep including the 9-item Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (Buysse et al., 1989), 
and a set of items assessing sleep habits and situations where one had struggled to fall asleep and stay 
awake in the past 2 weeks (personal communication, Mary Carskadon).  
 
9.3. Follow-up Assessments. At the end of the 10-week intervention, participants will complete an online 
post-intervention survey, repeating all or a subset of baseline measures except demographics in addition 
to a number of post-assessment questions about (a) percentage of text messages received and read, (b) 

Text-based Alcohol Prevention for First Year College Students 
01 September 2020 
 
 
 
10 
sharing of text message content between participants, and (c) acceptability of text-message-based norms 
intervention. A second online follow-up survey will be completed 3 months later, repeating all or a subset 
of the baseline measures except demographics.  
 
10. STATISTICAL CONSIDERATIONS 
 
10.1.  Sample Size. We will recruit 120 students, and anticipating 15% study attrition we should have 
complete data on 100 students. 50 in each condition exceeds the recommended sample size for Stage IB 
development work (15 to 30 participants per cell) and should provide relevant information to demonstrate 
promise for the intervention. 
 
10.2.  Analysis Plan. To examine feasibility, we will consider the recruitment, consent, and retention 
rates, response rates to text messages, and reasons for study termination. To assess acceptability, we will 
examine qualitative and quantitative feedback from RCT participants. 
 
To characterize intervention effects, we will calculate within-group effect sizes and 95% CIs for change 
in self-reported alcohol consumption and alcohol-related consequences at post-intervention. Cohen’s d, 
adjusted for pre-test scores, will be calculated to examine the magnitude of between-group differences at 
the follow-up assessment. We will use ANCOVAs or regressions with baseline levels of the outcome as a 
covariate to compare conditions on post-test and follow-up means; we will include sex as a biological 
variable and will conduct exploratory analyses to determine if sex interacts with the experimental 
conditions. We expect that, relative to controls, participants assigned to the intervention will report lower 
mean levels of drinking and consequences and greater use of protective strategies. Analyses will be 
intent-to-treat, so we will examine (a) exposure (based on response rates), and (b) attrition bias. Variables 
associated with attrition will be included in the models. 
 
Though underpowered for tests of mediation or moderation, exploratory analyses will determine if 
experimental condition is associated with change in measures of global DN and IN, the hypothesized 
mediating variables. If the experimental condition is lower on both types of norms and alcohol outcomes, 
ANCOVA can evaluate whether change in DN or IN statistically accounts for change in alcohol 
outcomes. Exploratory analyses can also address whether associations between DN or IN change and 
outcome are moderated by exposure, attitudes, and/or group identification. 
 
11. RISK/BENEFIT ASSESSMENT 
Overall, this is a low risk study. Both the attention control arm and the experimental arm consist of 
receiving daily (non-personalized) text messages for 10 weeks. Participants are young adults in college 
who regularly send and receive text messages. Thus, we anticipate that participants will incur minimal 
risks by participation in this study. 
 
11.1. Possible Risks. The risks of this study are minimal and include: 
Subjective discomfort/distress from answering questions. It is possible that a focus on one’s 
drinking behavior and the consequences of one’s drinking could produce some distress. The likelihood of 
experiencing distress from answering assessment questions is low, as none of the participants in 
comparable studies have reported discomfort nor been observed to be concerned about answering the 
questions contained in the study.  
Breach of confidentiality. It is possible that data collection could result in breach of 
confidentiality. For participants under the legal drinking age, breach of confidentiality in self-report data 
could reveal that they have engaged in illegal behavior (i.e., breaking laws against underage possession of 
alcohol in Rhode Island). However, the risk of breach of confidentiality is also modest, given the 
safeguards protecting the participants’ data.  
 

Text-based Alcohol Prevention for First Year College Students 
01 September 2020 
 
 
 
11 
11.2. Protection against Possible Risks 
Any subjective discomfort from answering questions will be minimized by assurances that 
participants can refuse to answer any particular question that they do not feel comfortable addressing and 
that they may withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. It is also possible that some 
participants may experience distress from reading one of the text messages that suggests a 
behavior/attitude they hold is in the minority on campus. Some subjective sense of discrepancy is to be 
expected and is the reason why normative correction works to reduce risky behaviors. Participants can 
ignore or delete up to 10% of the daily text messages and still be eligible for the $50 incentive for rating 
>90% of the text messages. In the event that participation in this study triggers the desire for participants 
to further discuss their alcohol use or other issues with a professional, all participants will be provided 
with a referral list at the time of the online consent and at each assessment point, containing contact 
information for the Brown Counseling and Psychological Services Center and other student resources. 
 
The risk of breach of confidentiality, including the possibility for this breach to reveal illegal 
behavior (i.e., underage possession of alcohol) will be handled by emphasizing that all information 
obtained during the screening, self-monitoring, and laboratory sessions is confidential, and will be used 
solely for research purposes. Eligibility screening data will be anonymous and aside from the 
inclusion/exclusion criteria determining eligibility for the study, screening data will be destroyed once 
eligibility is determined. The confidentiality of data provided after consent will be protected by: 
numerically coding all research data, separating all identifying information from data (only numerical 
codes will identify data collected via computer), and keeping the data in password-protected computer 
files. All passwords are only known to project personnel directly involved in the administration and 
oversight of the data collection. Information collected via online surveys and text-messaged responses 
will be hosted on a secure and password-protected server at Qualtrics.  These data will be available for 
secure viewing and downloading on a specialized Qualtrics website.  This information will be accessible 
only to the PIs or the RAs, who will complete Brown University human subjects training to ensure 
familiarity with rights of research participants and protection of confidentiality. No names, only 
identification codes, will be used in presenting data in lectures, seminars, and papers. Confidentiality will 
be protected to the extent allowable by law. 
 
11.3. Expected Benefits. Participants in the experimental condition may benefit from reductions in 
perceived drinking norms on campus and potentially a reduction in drinking behavior, which could 
positively impact their well-being. Participants in the control condition may not directly benefit; however, 
it is possible that assessments completed will result in raised awareness of one’s own drinking and its 
consequences, which has potential to lead to self-initiated change in problematic drinking (Walters, 
Vader, Harris, & Jouriles, 2009). This benefit in part can mitigate the impact of the above-mentioned 
risks. However, most benefits of the proposed research are to others and society in general in the form of 
the potential to inform future treatment. 
 
The degree of risk to which study participants will be exposed in the proposed protocol is low. By 
contrast, the potential benefit for some participants and the benefits to science are substantial, Because of 
the minimal risks to participants, the risk-benefit ratio is favorable. 
 
11.4 Data Safety and Monitoring Plan. The Data Safety and Monitoring Plan (DSMP) is commensurate 
with a Phase I survey and formative research, including a small clinical trial implemented with 120 
participants, where risks to participants are expected to be minimal. PI Dr. Kate Carey and the IRB at 
Brown University will share primary responsibility for monitoring the trial. Plans have been established 
for both the monitoring of the trial and the reporting of adverse events. 
Dr. Carey, whose office is located at CAAS where all data collection will occur, will provide daily 
monitoring of the formative research and the intervention pilot to ensure that study personnel are carefully 
supervised, participants are safe, data collection is progressing on time, study procedures and protocols 

Text-based Alcohol Prevention for First Year College Students 
01 September 2020 
 
 
 
12 
are being followed, and the data being collected are valid. Dr. Carey is trained as a clinical psychologist 
and has relevant experiences in clinical research, and staff training and supervision. Her presence 
provides high quality assurance and immediate availability in the event of any clinical or research 
concern. All project staff will be carefully trained to immediately report to Dr. Carey any deviations from 
protocol, concerns about patient safety, and concerns about study validity. In addition, Dr. Carey’s 
presence at the data collection site will allow her to observe practices, procedures, and problems (if they 
arise). Dr. Carey will review collected data weekly, to ensure that there are no problems with data 
integrity, and will monitor weekly study progress. Dr. Carey will consult with the Co-Investigators as 
needed. 
In addition, the Brown University IRB will initially approve the study and will provide ongoing 
monitoring throughout the study to ensure patient safety. After initial study approval, the IRB will 
annually review the study, including recruitment, protocols, preliminary data, and any new research 
relevant to the study, to determine whether study approval will continue. If the IRB takes any actions as a 
result of the annual review, Dr. Carey will report these actions to the NIH project officer within 72 hours. 
 
11.5. Adverse Events and Serious Adverse Events. All research staff will be carefully trained by Dr. 
Carey to recognize and report any adverse events to her. In the proposed study we will use the FDA 
definition of adverse events. An adverse event is any untoward (unexpected and undesirable) physical or 
psychological harm, serious and non-serious, experience by a participant that has a temporal relationship 
with study participation. During participant interactions, research staff will be trained to observe and 
report any adverse reaction reported by participants to the PI. The PI will review the information and 
classify the relationship of the study protocol to the event as: 
• 
Not related: The event is clearly related to the participant’s clinical state, not with the study 
protocol 
• 
Remote: Event was most likely related to the participant’s clinical state, not with the study 
protocol 
• 
Possible: Event follows a reasonable temporal sequence associated with participating in the study 
but is possibly related to the participant’s clinical state. 
• 
Probable: Event follows a reasonable temporal sequence associated with participating in the 
study and cannot be explained by the participant’s clinical state. 
Although deemed unlikely given the study procedures, if a study-related adverse event should occur, Dr. 
Carey will submit a written report describing the adverse event to the Brown University IRB, within 48 
hours of the initial reporting of the event.  An annual report will be submitted to the NIAAA project 
officer summarizing all adverse events. In addition, the consent form will include the contact phone 
numbers for Dr. Carey and the appropriate Brown University IRB personnel so that participants can 
directly report any complaints or potential adverse events. In our previous research in similar research 
projects at similar venues with over 2200 student participants, no adverse events occurred; therefore, in 
the proposed project, we anticipate the likelihood of an adverse event to be minimal. 
 
11.6. Monitoring of Study Progress. The research team meet weekly to review study progress. The 
Project Coordinator (PC) reports on enrollment, participation, and assessment completion data. The PC 
will download data from the Qualtrics website, and upload it to the secure Brown servers, on a weekly 
basis; she will examine completeness, and spot check data quality, and summarize to investigators. 
Adjustments to survey administration will be made as needed. At the completion of each assessment, the 
PC conducts data cleaning and produces data summaries. 
 
12. REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS 
 
12.1. Consent. Potential participants will complete an online screener that they can accessed by clicking 
on an emailed link or typing in the url or scanning a QR code. They will first be asked to complete a 
screener to determine their eligibility for the study. Ineligible participants will receive the automated 
message “Unfortunately, you are not eligible for this study. We thank you for your time spent taking this 

Text-based Alcohol Prevention for First Year College Students 
01 September 2020 
 
 
 
13 
survey.” At the end of the screener, eligible participants will receive the message “We thank you for your 
time spent completing the screening questions. We have determined that you are eligible for the FACT22 
study. Please read more about the study below and decide whether you consent to participate.” They will 
then be directed to the consent form. If they consent, they will be asked to submit contact information, 
including both email (to deliver baseline survey and follow-up assessment reminders) and mobile phone 
number (for text delivery). The research team will then send an email with a link directing participants to 
the baseline survey to complete.  
 
Informed consent will be obtained using an online consent form, which will be reviewed during in-person 
orientation sessions. Eligible participants interested in the study will be presented with an online informed 
consent document to read. After reading the document they will be asked to confirm their understanding 
of the study and their rights as study participants, as well as their interest in being in the study by clicking 
“Yes, I agree to participate in this study”. If a prospective participant does not understand the study or the 
participant rights they would respond “No, I do not want to be in this study” and would be exited from the 
study. In the unlikely event that a participant may need professional support, the location and phone 
number of Counseling and Psychological Services at Brown University as well as other relevant resources 
will be provided. The essential elements of consent will be highlighted during the in-person orientation, 
including participants’ rights to discontinue the study at any time. 
 
A waiver of written consent was requested so that participants can complete the baseline measure prior to 
attending orientation. This study is minimal risk because (a) both the experimental manipulation and the 
control condition involves the receipt of informative text messages and there is no deception or collection 
of any information aside from self-report survey responses and text message interest ratings; and (b) all 
responses will be anonymized. Furthermore, (c) the online consent makes completion of the baseline 
assessment more convenient for the participants, as they complete the baseline at a time that works best 
for them and they can complete it in a private location of their choosing. The waiver should not adversely 
affect participants’ rights and welfare because participants will still be offered all the same information 
they would have been offered in the consent processes with a signed consent form. They will not be 
required to answer any questions they do not want to and they can still stop participation at any time.  
 
12.2. Research Material Obtained from Human Subjects. Participants will be the sole source of data 
for this study and all data will be obtained specifically and exclusively for research purposes. Data 
collection will take place remotely via online surveys or responses to text messages.  All collected data 
will be held confidential. Survey software Qualtrics ensures protection of information through its firewall 
systems and regular scans for vulnerabilities. The confidential system component design restricts access 
to outside parties and Qualtrics’ use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) encryption protects all transmitted 
data.    
 
12.3. Access to Individually Identifiable Information. All participants will be assigned a unique ID. 
These IDs will be used to identify all participants on all research materials, surveys, tracking forms, as 
well as the database. Participants’ names will never appear in any report resulting from the project. 
Separate from research records, an identifier key will be created that will link the participant ID to subject 
names and contact information, to facilitate follow-up with participants; contact information will have 
participant ID numbers but will not have any data. All data will be stored separately from identifying 
documents (e.g., participant tracking data base with names and phone numbers). Only the PIs and the 
research assistants will have access to project data until it is de-identified. Electronic data will be secured 
and accessible only through password protected computers. We will adopt the following measures to 
safeguard the data and participant confidentiality:  
• 
All staff will be trained in procedures for maintaining confidentiality of participant information 

Text-based Alcohol Prevention for First Year College Students 
01 September 2020 
 
 
 
14 
• 
Electronic data collection forms will be identified by a unique identification number linked to an 
identifier list;  
• 
The identifier key will be stored separately from the data collection forms and accessible by the 
only the research staff;  
• 
Participants will be instructed to password protect their mobile phone to prevent viewing of study 
text messages. 
• 
Data will be stored on our password-protected computers and backed up to a secure server. Access 
to this server is password protected and only known to the PIs and RAs and backed up daily. 
12.4. Programming Technology and Web Security.  Information submitted via web-based surveys at 
baseline and at the follow-up assessments will be stored in a secure server at Brown University.  The 
technology for transmitting and storing data includes Transport Layer Security (TLS) encryption (also 
known as HTTPS) and firewalls to protect the data and to prevent unauthorized access.  Information 
collected via text message will be hosted on a secure and password-protected server through Qualtrics. 
These data will be available for secure viewing and downloading on a specialized website created by 
Qualtrics.  We will download data from the Qualtrics website, and upload it to the secure Brown servers, 
on a weekly basis. When the study is over, we will ensure that the data are all removed from Qualtrics 
servers. 
 
12.5. Protocol Amendment History 
Version 
Date 
Description of Change  
Brief Rationale 
Original 
IRB 
approval 
8/14/2018 
Approval of Protocol Entitled: 
Correcting Exaggerated Drinking 
Norms with a Mobile Message 
Delivery System; Aim 3: Pilot 
Intervention (public name: FACT22 
Study) (#1807002145) 
 
Modification 
1 
12/3/2018 
Varying attention check items on the 
post-test and follow-up assessments 
So that participants would not see 
the same attention check 
questions and to preserve their 
ability to prompt careful attention 
to the surveys 
 
 
Addition of a Participant Opinion 
Survey to be sent after the post-test 
survey 
To gather additional open-ended 
on what participants liked and 
disliked about the text messages. 
 
 
Addition of 3 questions to the post-
test and follow-up surveys assessing 
use of campus support services 
To determine if participants in the 
experimental condition sought out 
help at health or counseling 
services 
Modification 
2 
3/8/2019 
Add a phone call reminder (in 
addition to email and text reminders) 
To add the option for an 
additional prompt to complete the 
final follow-up, using a different 
communication modality 
 
 
Minor wording changes to 6-month 
follow-up 
To clarify the timeframe covered 
by the 6-month survey 
 
 
Minor modifications to email/text 
follow-up reminders, adding 
participants’ names to reminders 
To enhance completion of the 
final assessment by personalizing 
the request 
 

Text-based Alcohol Prevention for First Year College Students 
01 September 2020 
 
 
 
15 
 
13. REFERENCES 
 
Arnett, J. J. (2005). The developmental context of substance use in emerging adulthood. Journal of drug 
issues, 35(2), 235-254 
Baer, J. S., Stacy, A., & Larimer, M. (1991). Biases in the perception of drinking norms among college 
students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52(6), 580-586.  
Bendtsen, M., & Bendtsen, P. (2014). Feasibility and user perception of a fully automated push-based 
multiple-session alcohol intervention for university students: randomized controlled trial. JMIR 
mHealth and uHealth, 2(2), e30. 
Borsari, B., & Carey, K. B. (2003). Descriptive and injunctive norms in college drinking: a meta-analytic 
integration. Journal of studies on alcohol, 64(3), 331-341. 
Borsari, B., Merrill, J.E., Yurasek, A., Miller, M.B., & Carey, K.B. (2016). Does a Brief Motivational 
Intervention reduce frequency of pregaming in mandated students? Substance Use and Misuse, 51, 
1056-1066. 
Buysse, D. J., Reynolds, C. F., Monk, T. H., Berman, S. R., & Kupfer, D. J. (1989). The Pittsburgh Sleep 
Quality Index: a new instrument for psychiatric practice and research. Psychiatry research, 28(2), 
193-213. 
Carey, K. B., Scott-Sheldon, L. A., Carey, M. P., & DeMartini, K. S. (2007). Individual-level 
interventions to reduce college student drinking: A meta-analytic review. Addictive behaviors, 32(11), 
2469-2494. 
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling 
the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of personality and social 
psychology, 58(6), 1015. 
Cohen, S. and Williamson, G. Perceived Stress in a Probability Sample of the United States. Spacapan, S. 
and Oskamp, S. (Eds.) The Social Psychology of Health. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1988.  
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health 
and Social Behavior, 24, 385-396. 
Cole-Lewis, H., & Kershaw, T. (2010). Text messaging as a tool for behavior change in disease 
prevention and management. Epidemiologic reviews, 32(1), 56-69. 
Cooper, M.L. (1994).  Motivations for alcohol use among adolescents: development and validation of a 
four-factor model.  Psychological Assessment, 6, 117-128. 
Collins, R. L., Parks, G. A., & Marlatt, G. A. (1985). Social determinants of alcohol consumption: The 
effects of social interaction and model status on the self-administration of alcohol. Journal of 
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53(2), 189-200. doi: 10.1037/0022-006x.53.2.189 
DeMartini, K. S., Carey, K. B., Lao, K., & Luciano, M. (2011). Injunctive norms for alcohol-related 
consequences and protective behavioral strategies: Effects of gender and year in school. Addictive 
behaviors, 36(4), 347-353. 
DiBello, A. M., Miller, M. B., Neighbors, C., Reid, A., & Carey, K. B. (2018). The relative strength of 
attitudes versus perceived drinking norms as predictors of alcohol use. Addictive behaviors, 80, 39-
46.  
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human relations, 7(2), 117-140. 
Gibbons, F. X., & Buunk, B. P. (1999). Individual differences in social comparison: Development of a 
scale of social comparison orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 129-142. 
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.129 
Hurlbut, S. C., & Sher, K. J. (1992). Assessing alcohol problems in college students. Journal of American 
College Health, 41(2), 49-58. 
Kahler, C. W., Strong, D. R., & Read, J. P. (2005). Toward efficient and comprehensive measurement of 
the alcohol problems continuum in college students: The Brief Young Adult Alcohol Consequences 
Questionnaire. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 29(7), 1180-1189. doi: 
10.1097/01.alc.0000171940.95813.a5 

Text-based Alcohol Prevention for First Year College Students 
01 September 2020 
 
 
 
16 
Krieger, H., Neighbors, C., Lewis, M. A., LaBrie, J. W., Foster, D. W., & Larimer, M. E. (2016). 
Injunctive norms and alcohol consumption: A revised conceptualization. Alcoholism: Clinical & 
Experimental Research, 40(5), 1083-1092. doi:10.1111/acer.13037 
Kroenke, K, Spitzer, R.L., Williams, J.B., & Löwe B. (2009). An ultra-brief screening scale for anxiety 
and depression: the PHQ-4. Psychosomatics, 50, 613. 
Lewis, M. A., Litt, D. M., & Neighbors, C. (2015). The chicken or the egg: Examining temporal 
precedence among attitudes, injunctive norms, and college student drinking. Journal of studies on 
alcohol and drugs, 76(4), 594-601. 
Lindgren, K. P., Neighbors, C., Teachman, B. A., Wiers, R. W., Westgate, E., & Greenwald, A. G. 
(2013). I drink therefore I am: Validating alcohol-related implicit association tests. Psychology of 
addictive behaviors, 27(1), 1-13. 
Mallett, K. A., Varvil-Weld, L., Turrisi, R., & Read, A. (2011). An examination of college students' 
willingness to experience consequences as a unique predictor of alcohol problems. Psychology of 
Addictive Behaviors, 25(1), 41-47. 
Matthes, J. (2015). Observing the “spiral” in the spiral of silence. International Journal of Public Opinion 
Research, 27(2), 155-176. 
Merrill, J. E., & Carey, K. B. (2016). Drinking over the lifespan: Focus on college ages. Alcohol 
research: current reviews. 
Miller, M. B., DiBello, A. M., Merrill, J. E., & Carey, K. B. (2019). Development and initial validation of 
the alcohol-induced blackout measure. Addictive behaviors, 99, 106079. 
 Neighbors, C., Lee, C. M., Lewis, M. A., Fossos, N., & Larimer, M. E. (2007). Are social norms the best 
predictor of outcomes among heavy-drinking college students?. Journal of studies on alcohol and 
drugs, 68(4), 556-565. 
Norman, P. (2011). The theory of planned behavior and binge drinking among undergraduate students: 
Assessing the impact of habit strength. Addictive Behaviors, 36(5), 502-507. doi: 
10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.01.025 
Osberg, T. M., Atkins, L., Buchholz, L., Shirshova, V., Swiantek, A., Whitley, J., ... & Oquendo, N. 
(2010). Development and validation of the College Life Alcohol Salience Scale: A measure of beliefs 
about the role of alcohol in college life. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 24(1), 1. 
Perkins, H. W. (2002). Surveying the damage: a review of research on consequences of alcohol misuse in 
college populations. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, supplement, (14), 91-100. 
Pew Research Internet Project. Cell Phone and Smartphone Ownership Demographics. 2014; 
http://www.pewinternet.org/data-trend/mobile/cell-phone-and-smartphone-ownershipdemographics/. 
Accessed 4/7/14. 
Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1996). Pluralistic ignorance and the perpetuation of social norms by 
unwitting actors. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 28, pp. 161-209). Academic 
Press. 
Prince, M. A., & Carey, K. B. (2010). The malleability of injunctive norms among college 
students. Addictive Behaviors, 35(11), 940-947. 
Prince, M. A., Maisto, S. A., Rice, S. L., & Carey, K. B. (2015). Development of a face-to-face injunctive 
norms brief motivational intervention for college drinkers and preliminary outcomes. Psychology of 
addictive behaviors, 29(4), 825. 
Reed, M. B., Lange, J. E., Ketchie, J. M., & Clapp, J. D. (2007). The relationship between social identity, 
normative information, and college student drinking. Social Influence, 2(4), 269-294. doi: 
10.1080/15534510701476617 
Reid, A. E., & Carey, K. B. (2015). Interventions to reduce college student drinking: State of the evidence 
for mechanisms of behavior change. Clinical psychology review, 40, 213-224. 
Reid, A. E., Cialdini, R. B., & Aiken, L. S. (2010). Social norms and health behavior. In Handbook of 
behavioral medicine (pp. 263-274). Springer, New York, NY. 

Text-based Alcohol Prevention for First Year College Students 
01 September 2020 
 
 
 
17 
Scott-Sheldon, L. A., Carey, K. B., Elliott, J. C., Garey, L., & Carey, M. P. (2014). Efficacy of alcohol 
interventions for first-year college students: a meta-analytic review of randomized controlled 
trials. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 82(2), 177. 
Smith A. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2015/ 
Sugarman, D. E., & Carey, K. B. (2007). The relationship between drinking control strategies and college 
student alcohol use. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 21(3), 338-345. doi:10.1037/0893-
164X.21.3.338 
Sobell, L. C., & Sobell, M. B. (1992). Timeline follow-back. In Litten R.Z., Allen J.P. (eds) Measuring 
alcohol consumption (pp. 41-72). Humana Press, Totowa, NJ. 
Walters, S. T., Vader, A. M., Harris, T. R., & Jouriles, E. N. (2009). Reactivity to alcohol assessment 
measures: An experimental test. Addiction, 104(8), 1305-1310. doi: 10.1111/j.1360 
0443.2009.02632.x 
Zamboanga, B. L., Pearce, M. W., Kenney, S. R., Ham, L. S., Woods, O. E., & Borsari, B. (2013). Are 
“extreme consumption games” drinking games? Sometimes it’s a matter of perspective. The 
American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 39(5), 275-279. Doi: 10.3109/00952990.2013.827202 
 
 
 

Text-based Alcohol Prevention for First Year College Students 
01 September 2020 
Appendix A 
 
 
18 
APPENDIX A. Content of Alcohol Norms Text Messages Sent to Experimental Group 
 
Note: This document conveys the final alcohol norms messages delivered in the experimental condition for the Aim 3 
RCT supported by R21AA024771. These data were derived from the Aim 1 Campus Norms Survey, and translated to text 
message format by a Student Advisory Group. Text messages are organized by date of delivery, as described in Carey, K. 
B., Merrill, J. E., Boyle, H. K., & Barnett, N. P. (2020). Correcting exaggerated drinking norms with a mobile message 
delivery system: Selective prevention with heavy-drinking first-year college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 
34(3), 454–464. https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000566. 
 
Text messages organized by date of delivery, showing data source and norm type (DN=descriptive norms; IN= 
injunctive norms). 
 
Date 
Text 
Norm 
Type 
Friday, September 28, 2018 
Be one of the 98% of Brown students who respect other folks’ decision to drink or 
not. 
DN 
Saturday, September 29, 2018 
Brown students who drink go for a buzz not a blackout. The average number of 
drinks students reported consuming on a night out was only around 3. 
DN 
Sunday, September 30, 2018 
Do you remember what you did last night? Most (>80%) of Brown students are 
opposed to getting black out drunk. 
IN 
Monday, October 1, 2018 
Don't feel guilty about grabbing a condom off your RPL's door, 85% of Brown 
students have never taken the risk of unprotected sex even while drunk. 
DN 
Tuesday, October 2, 2018 
96% of Brown students say it is not a good idea to go further in a hookup than you 
wanted while intoxicated, let alone sober. 
IN 
Wednesday, October 3, 2018 
You can go to parties without drinking! The majority of Brown students have 
attended a party before and chosen not to drink. 
DN 
Thursday, October 4, 2018 
The majority of Brown students agree that it is a good idea to limit yourself to one 
drink an hour. 
IN 
Friday, October 5, 2018 
Drink responsibly and take care of yourself. Be a part of the 96% of Brown students 
that have not passed out from drinking in the past 30 days. 
DN 
Saturday, October 6, 2018 
Time management is key in college. Nearly 95% of Brown students would not 
recommend spending too much time drinking. 
IN 
Sunday, October 7, 2018 
Over 90% of Brown students report they can AND do have a good time with friends 
without consuming alcohol. 
DN 
Monday, October 8, 2018 
Do not let your perceptions persuade you into drinking more. The average Brown 
student believes their peers drink twice as much as they actually do. 
DN 
Tuesday, October 9, 2018 
About half of Brown students don't think it's acceptable to be seen drunk in public. 
IN 
Wednesday, October 10, 2018 
Over half of the drinkers have NEVER taken additional drugs when drinking -- don't 
feel pressured to do both.  
DN 
Thursday, October 11, 2018 
Nearly all (99%) of Brown students think it is unacceptable to try to force someone 
into unwanted sexual contact, drunk or sober. 
IN 
Friday, October 12, 2018 
Using condoms can prevent many STIs. Around 94 percent of Brown students have 
reported using protection with a sexual partner when they were drinking. 
DN 
Saturday, October 13, 2018 
96% of Brown students believe it is a good idea to keep track of the number of 
drinks they consume in a night out. Count your caps! 
IN 
Sunday, October 14, 2018 
You're not just putting your life at risk. Don't be a part of the 6% of Brown students 
who have driven a car when they've had too much to drink to drive safely. 
DN 
Monday, October 15, 2018 
Be part of the 96% of Brown students who do not let their drinking habits affect the 
quality of their schoolwork. 
IN 
Tuesday, October 16, 2018 
Nearly 4 out of 5 Brown students believe that you should not drink alcohol when 
you are anxious, angry, or sad. 
IN 
Wednesday, October 17, 2018 
It's not every weekend, half of Brown students drink less than once a week. 
DN 

Text-based Alcohol Prevention for First Year College Students 
01 September 2020 
Appendix A 
 
 
19 
Thursday, October 18, 2018 
Think wild nights, major cleanups, and broken items are the norm? 87% have never 
done something disruptive when drunk. 
DN 
Friday, October 19, 2018 
Use protection! 99% of Brown students believe it is important to have protected sex 
even when drinking. 
IN 
Saturday, October 20, 2018 
8 out of 10 Brown students have at some point chosen to limit themselves to a set 
number of drinks for a night out. 
DN 
Sunday, October 21, 2018 
Plan ahead: 9 out of 10 Brown students think it's a good idea to set a limit on how 
many drinks they have before going out. 
IN 
Monday, October 22, 2018 
Academics are important. 7 out of 10 Brown students never miss classes because of 
drinking. 
DN 
Tuesday, October 23, 2018 
Who likes vomiting? Around 90% of Brown students do not think it is okay to drink to 
the point of getting sick or throwing up. 
IN 
Wednesday, October 24, 2018 
Can you have a good time at a party without getting wasted? 9 out of 10 of your 
peers think so. 
IN 
Thursday, October 25, 2018 
More than one third of Brown students did not drink heavily (4+/5+) in the last 
month. 
DN 
Friday, October 26, 2018 
84% of Brown students reported never forcefully encouraging someone to drink 
more than they want. 
DN 
Saturday, October 27, 2018 
98% of Brown students believe it is not ok to become verbally aggressive while 
intoxicated. 
IN 
Sunday, October 28, 2018 
Brunonians look out for each other: more than 9 in 10 students have made a plan 
with a friend to keep each other safe on a night out. 
DN 
Monday, October 29, 2018 
Stay hydrated! 96% of Brown students believe drinking water while drinking 
alcohol is a good idea. 
IN 
Tuesday, October 30, 2018 
Keep it chill. Only 17% of Brown students say they became rude, obnoxious, or 
insulting after drinking. 
DN 
Wednesday, October 31, 2018 
99% of Brown students say it is unacceptable to neglect familial and academic 
obligations because of drinking. 
IN 
Thursday, November 1, 2018 
Go Bruno! 95% of Brown students agree that the academic experience outweighs 
the need to drink & party. 
IN 
Friday, November 2, 2018 
More than half of Brown students consumed 5 or fewer drinks on their HEAVIEST 
drinking day. It is the norm to drink safely and in moderation. 
DN 
Saturday, November 3, 2018 
Most (62%) of Brown students would not recommend hooking up with someone you 
just met while drunk. 
IN 
Sunday, November 4, 2018 
More than 8 out of 10 of Brown students eat before or while they drink at least half 
the time to avoid getting too intoxicated. 
DN 
Monday, November 5, 2018 
Don't be afraid to switch it up! More than 9 out of 10 Brown students suggest 
alternating alcoholic beverages with non-alcoholic ones. 
IN 
Tuesday, November 6, 2018 
84% of your peers have not thrown up or felt sick to their stomach after drinking in 
the past month 
DN 
Wednesday, November 7, 2018 
97% of Brown students would prefer not to drink to the point of getting into sexual 
situations they later regret. 
IN 
Thursday, November 8, 2018 
97% of current Brown students choose ways to de-stress without alcohol. 
DN 
Friday, November 9, 2018 
Just because it is the weekend does not mean you have to drink. 30 percent of Brown 
students did not consume any alcohol on a Friday. 
DN 
Saturday, November 10, 2018 
Nearly all (98%) Brown students think damaging property while intoxicated is not 
okay. 
IN 
Sunday, November 11, 2018 
Be a part of the 92% of Brown students that use a sober designated driver while they 
are out drinking. 
DN 
Monday, November 12, 2018 
Over 3 out of 4 Brown students believe it is a good idea to stop drinking at a 
predetermined time. 
IN 
Tuesday, November 13, 2018 
Blackouts aren’t the norm. Only 15% of Brown students report having blacked out 
in the last month. 
DN 
Wednesday, November 14, 2018 
Know your limit. Nearly 9 out of 10 Brown students agree that it is not ok to pass 
out from drinking. 
IN 

Text-based Alcohol Prevention for First Year College Students 
01 September 2020 
Appendix A 
 
 
20 
Thursday, November 15, 2018 
6 out of 10 Brown students who pregame reported consuming 3 or less drinks while 
pregaming. 
DN 
Friday, November 16, 2018 
Keep calm and carry on: 99% if Brown students think it is unacceptable to become 
physically aggressive when intoxicated. 
IN 
Saturday, November 17, 2018 
9 out of 10 Brown students who drink go for the quality of the experience, rather 
than the quantity. 
DN 
Sunday, November 18, 2018 
Why waste your college years on nights you won't remember? 95% of Brown 
students place quality of experience over quantity of drinks. 
IN 
Monday, November 19, 2018 
8 out of 10 Brown students don't think it's good to drink to the point of needing to be 
EMS'ed. 
IN 
Tuesday, November 20, 2018 
The majority of Brown students drink fewer than 7 drinks in one week. 
DN 
Wednesday, November 21, 2018 
Nearly all (96%) of Brown students think it is never okay to pressure someone into 
drinking more. 
IN 
Thursday, November 22, 2018 
Puking isn’t fun, a great way to avoid it is by spacing out your drinks! Around 90 
percent of Brown students have reported spacing out their drinks over time. 
DN 
Friday, November 23, 2018 
Don't want to pregame? Don't have to! 96% of Brown students think it's okay to 
choose not to pregame. 
IN 
Saturday, November 24, 2018 
Almost 9 out of 10 Brown students think it is not ok to drink to the point of blacking 
or browning out. 
IN 
Sunday, November 25, 2018 
87% of Brown students think it is not a good idea to get so drunk that you have 
difficulty walking. 
IN 
Monday, November 26, 2018 
98% of Brown students think it is wise to space out your drinks over time. Take it 
easy. 
IN 
Tuesday, November 27, 2018 
The more you drink, the more you build your tolerance. 3 out of 4 Brown students think 
it's a bad idea to need increasingly more drinks to feel a buzz. 
IN 
Wednesday, November 28, 2018 
Don't lower your own standards - around 9 out of 10 Brown students believe that 
you shouldn't hook up with someone while drunk if you wouldn't when sober. 
IN 
Thursday, November 29, 2018 
Let's hit up Jo's tonight! 100% of Brown students say it's a good idea to eat 
something before or during drinking. 
IN 
Friday, November 30, 2018 
Did you know that students who drink average less than 3 drinks on a Friday night? 
Binge drinking is the exception, not the norm. 
DN 
Saturday, December 1, 2018 
68% of Brown students drink fewer than 4 drinks on a typical Saturday. 
DN 
Sunday, December 2, 2018 
The vast majority of us (98%) agree that drinking cannot excuse rude, obnoxious, or 
insulting behavior. 
IN 
Monday, December 3, 2018 
More than 96% of Brown students agree that it is not OK to damage valuable items 
when intoxicated. 
IN 
Tuesday, December 4, 2018 
Don't live with regrets. 88% of Brown students say it is not a good idea to hook up 
with someone you wouldn't if sober. 
IN 
Wednesday, December 5, 2018 
More than 8 out of 10 Brown students agree that it is not okay to cheat on a 
significant other when drunk or sober. 
IN 
Thursday, December 6, 2018 
99% of Brown students agree that it is unacceptable to do something disruptive, 
even when drunk. 
IN 

Text-based Alcohol Prevention for First Year College Students 
01 September 2020 
Appendix H 
 
 
21 
APPENDIX B. Content of “This day in history” Text Messages Sent to Control Group 
 
Note: This document conveys the “This day in history” messages selected to be delivered in the control condition for the 
Aim 3 RCT supported by R21AA024771, as described in Carey, K. B., Merrill, J. E., Boyle, H. K., & Barnett, N. P. 
(2020). Correcting exaggerated drinking norms with a mobile message delivery system: Selective prevention with heavy-
drinking first-year college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 34(3), 454–464. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000566. 
 
Date 
Control Text 
1. September 10 
Today in 1991 Nirvana’s “Smells Like Teen Spirit” was released as a single 
2. September 11 
Today in 1987 the film Fatal Attraction premiered 
3. September 12 
Today in 1988 Hurricane Gilbert slammed Jamaica 
4. September 13 
Today in 1996 Tupac Shakur died 
5. September 14 
Today in 1927 Dancer Isadora Duncan was killed in car accident 
6. September 15 
Today in 1954 the famous Marilyn Monroe “skirt” scene filmed 
7. September 16 
Today in 1993 The show Frasier debuted 
8. September 17 
Today in 1996 Oprah launched her influential book club 
9. September 18 
Today in 1973 President Carter files official report on UFO sighting 
10. September 19 
Today in 2000 Michael Chabon's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel "The Amazing Adventures of 
Kavalier & Clay" debuted 
11. September 20 
Today in 1975 The Bay City Rollers made their U.S. debut on Saturday Night Live with Howard 
Cosell 
12. September 21 
Today in 1904 The great Nez Perce leader Chief Joseph died in Washington 
13. September 22 
Today in 1598 Playwright Ben Jonson was indicted for manslaughter 
14. September 23 
Today in 1972 Mac Davis earned one of the 70s’ most head-scratching #1 hits with “Baby Don’t 
Get Hooked on Me” 
15. September 24 
Today in 1966 “Last Train to Clarksville” gave the made-for-TV Monkeys a real-life pop hit 
16. September 25 
Today in 1970 The Partridge Family premiered on ABC television 
17. September 26 
Today in 1969 The Brady Bunch premiered on TV 
18. September 27 
Today in 1930 Bobby Jones won the U.S. Amateur title 
19. September 28 
Today in 1918 British soldier allegedly spared the life of an injured Adolf Hitler 
20. September 29 
Today in 1913 “Message filmmaker” Stanley Kramer was born 
21. September 30 
Today in 1955 James Dean died in car accident 
22. October 1 
Today in 1890 Yosemite National Park was established 
23. October 2 
Today in 1971 Musician Rod Stewart earned his first #1 hit with “Maggie May” 
24. October 3 
Today in 1967 Writer, singer and folk icon Woody Guthrie died 
25. October 4 
Today in 1955 the so-called Brooklyn bums won their first World Series in baseball 
26. October 5 
Today in 2011 Apple founder Steve Jobs died 

Text-based Alcohol Prevention for First Year College Students 
01 September 2020 
Appendix H 
 
 
22 
27. October 6 
Today in 1866 The Reno brothers carried out the first train robbery in U.S. history 
28. October 7 
Today in 1983 Sean Connery played Bond in the film “Never Say Never Again” 
29. October 8 
Today in 1957 Musician Jerry Lee Lewis recorded “Great Balls Of Fire” in Memphis, Tennessee 
30. October 9 
Today in 1976 Disco/Classical hybrid “A Fifth of Beethoven” was the #1 song on the U.S. pop 
charts 
31. October 10 
Today in 1957 Braves beat the Yanks and won the World Series in baseball 
32. October 11 
Today in 1975 Saturday Night Live debuted 
33. October 12 
Today in 2007 Al Gore won the Nobel Prize in the wake of his film “An Inconvenient Truth” 
34. October 13 
Today in 1975 Singer Charlie Rich protested John Denver’s big win at the CMA Awards 
35. October 14 
Today in 1957 “Wake Up Little Susie” became the Everly Brothers’ first #1 hit 
36. October 15 
Today in 1930 Duke Ellington recorded his first big hit, “Mood Indigo” 
37. October 16 
Today in 1976 “Disco Duck” hit the #1 spot on the U.S. pop chart 
38. October 17 
Today in 1960 R&B legends the Drifters earned #1 pop hit with "Save the Last Dance for Me" 
39. October 18 
Today in 1968 John Lennon and Yoko Ono were arrested for drug possession 
40. October 19 
Today in 1985 “Take on Me” music video helped Norway’s a-Ha reach the top the U.S. pop 
charts 
41. October 20 
Today in 1977 Three members of the southern rock band Lynyrd Skynyrd died in a Mississippi 
plane crash 
42. October 21 
Today in 1959 Guggenheim Museum opened in New York City 
43. October 22 
Today in 1952 Actor Jeff Goldblum was born 
44. October 23 
Today in 1976 Chicago had its first #1 hit with “If You Leave Me Now” 
45. October 24 
Today in 1962 James Brown recorded his breakthrough Live at the Apollo album 
46. October 25 
Today in 1881 Pablo Picasso was born in Malaga, Spain 
47. October 26 
Today in 1985 Whitney Houston earned her first #1 hit with “Saving All My Love For You” 
48. October 27 
Today in 1970 Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber released Jesus Christ Superstar 
49. October 28 
Today in 1998 President Bill Clinton signed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act into law 
50. October 29 
Today in 1966 The song “96 Tears” became a #1 hit for the band “? and the Mysterians” 
51. October 30 
Today in 1864 The city of Helena, Montana, was founded after miners discover gold 
52. October 31 
Today in 1963 Ed Sullivan witnessed Beatlemania firsthand, paving the way for the British 
Invasion 
53. November 1 
Today in 1512 Sistine Chapel ceiling opened to the public 
54. November 2 
Today in 1960 Lady Chatterley’s Lover obscenity trial ended 
55. November 3 
Today in 1962 The Crystals earned a #1 hit with “He’s A Rebel” 
56. November 4 
Today in 1978 Anne Murray earned a #1 pop hit with “You Needed Me” 
57. November 5 
Today in 1938 Samuel Barber’s Adagio For Strings received its world premiere on NBC radio 

Text-based Alcohol Prevention for First Year College Students 
01 September 2020 
Appendix H 
 
 
23 
58. November 6 
Today in 1917 the Bolsheviks revolted in Russia 
59. November 7 
Today in 1980 “King of Cool” Steve McQueen died 
60. November 8 
Today in 1887 Doc Holliday died of tuberculosis 
61. November 9 
Today in 1990 Willie Nelson’s assets were seized by the IRS 
62. November 10 
Today in 1969 Sesame Street debuted 
63. November 11 
Today in 1942 The US Army draft age was lowered to 18 
64. November 12 
Today in 1954 Ellis Island closed 
65. November 13 
Today in 1953 Indiana Textbook Commission member charged that Robin Hood was 
communistic 
66. November 14 
Today in 1941 Cary Grant starred in Hitchcock’s Suspicion 
67. November 15 
Today in 1965 Craig Breedlove set new land-speed record 
68. November 16 
Today in 1959 The Sound of Music premiered on Broadway 
69. November 17 
Today in 2003 “The Terminator” Arnold Schwarzenegger became “The Governator” of 
California 
70. November 18 
Today in 1996 High-profile expert on exotic birds was sentenced for smuggling parrots 
71. November 19 
Today in 1985 Reagan and Gorbachev held their first summit meeting 
72. November 20 
Today in 1955 Bo Diddley made his national television debut on The Ed Sullivan Show 
73. November 21 
Today in 1967 Westmoreland told the media the communists are losing 
74. November 22 
Today in 1975 KC and the Sunshine band toped the U.S. pop charts with “That’s The Way (I Like 
It)” 
75. November 23 
Today in 1936 Blues legend Robert Johnson made first-ever recording 
76. November 24 
Today in 1947 “Hollywood 10″ cited for contempt of Congress 
77. November 25 
Today in 1999 This day became the international day to eliminate violence against women 
78. November 26 
Today in 1941 Japanese task force left for Pearl Harbor 
79. November 27 
Today in 1942 Jimi Hendrix was born 
80. November 28 
Today in 1989 Czechoslovakian Communist Party gave up its monopoly on political power 
81. November 29 
Today in 1775 Congress created the Committee of Secret Correspondence 
82. November 30 
Today in 1974 Elton John’s "Greatest Hits" album became #1 in the US 
83. December 1 
Today in 1955 Rosa Parks ignited a bus boycott 
84. December 2 
Today in 1972 The Temptations earned their final #1 hit with “Papa Was A Rolling Stone” 
85. December 3 
Today in 1967 The first human heart transplant was done 
86. December 4 
Today in 1956 The “Million Dollar Quartet” convened at Sun Studios in Memphis, Tennessee 
87. December 5 
Today in 2000 The "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" soundtrack was released 
88. December 6 
Today in 1992 Jerry Rice scored a record-breaking touchdown 
89. December 7 
Today in 1941 Pearl Harbor was bombed 

Text-based Alcohol Prevention for First Year College Students 
01 September 2020 
Appendix H 
 
 
24 
 
 
90. December 8 
Today in 1941 Roosevelt asked Congress to declare war on Japan 
91. December 9 
Today in 1854 “The Charge of the Light Brigade” by Alfred Lord Tennyson was published 
92. December 10 
Today in 1901 First Nobel Prizes were awarded 
93. December 11 
Today in 1944 Toronto endured a record snowstorm 
94. December 12 
Today in 627 The Byzantines, under Heraclius, crushed the Persians in the Battle of Nineveh 
95. December 13 
Today in 2000 Al Gore conceded the 2000 US presidential election 
96. December 14 
Today in 1977 Saturday Night Fever got its world premiere and launched a musical juggernaut 
97. December 15 
Today in 1944 Legendary bandleader Glenn Miller disappeared over the English Channel 
98. December 16 
Today in 1914 Germans bombarded the English ports of Hartlepool and Scarborough 
99. December 17 
Today in 1777 France formally recognized the United States 
100.December 18 
Today in 1946 Director Steven Spielberg was born 
101.December 19 
Today in 2005 Ahmadinejad banned all Western music in Iranian state television and radio 
broadcasts 
102.December 20 
Today in 1963 Berlin Wall opened for first time