Mindsets and the Effectiveness of a Brief Intervention - Replication
Condition: Alcohol Drinking; Cannabis Use
MeSH terms: Alcohol Drinking
Study type: Interventional

Summary: 
      Brief Interventions (BI) based on Motivational Interviewing are effective in reducing alcohol
      use. In this study, the investigators test the hypothesis that mindsets increase the positive
      effects of BI among a student sample of risky drinkers.

      Subjects will be students with risky alcohol use as identified by the AUDIT. All participants
      receive the World Health Organization's (WHO) ASSIST-linked BI in one of two forms. Either
      with or without a decisional balance element (Steps 6-9 from the ten steps of the
      intervention). Before the ASSIST-linked BI, participants are randomly assigned to one of
      three mindset conditions. They either deliberate upon an unsolved problem (deliberative
      mindset), plan the implementation of a set goal (implemental mindset), or perform a control
      task (control condition).

      The investigators measure the change in alcohol-related risk perceptions, treatment
      motivation, and alcohol drinking as assessed via the timeline follow-back method. The
      investigators also assess THC consumption during the study.
    

Detailed description: 
      In this study, the investigators will try to advance our understanding of the effects of
      mindset inductions for coping with motivational interventions in hazardously drinking
      students. In an earlier study, the investigators found an interactive effect of implemental
      mindsets with motivational interviewing on actual risk behavior but not risk perception. The
      investigators will target potential underlying processes (e.g., resistance to change,
      commitment), as well as compensation and generalization effects by including the assessment
      of consumption of alternative risky substances.

      The investigators target consumption-related risks and address interactions between mindsets
      and motivational interviewing. Combining a mindset induction with a Screening and Brief
      Intervention tool in which the risk status of the individual was assessed, and the
      interventionist provided feedback, conducted a decisional balance exercise, and used
      techniques from motivational interviewing, the investigators found effects on risk taking but
      not risk perception. Neither general risk taking in the subscales of the Domain-Specific
      Risk-Taking Scale nor alcohol-related risk perception in a specific questionnaire was
      significantly affected by our manipulations. Still, participants in an implemental mindset
      managed to reduce their monthly alcohol consumption on average by about 7 to 8 standard units
      (equates to roughly five glasses of wine) while participants in a deliberative mindset
      actually increased their alcohol consumption by a similar amount. The investigators want to
      replicate the earlier findings while simultaneously enriching our research design with a) a
      control condition to test whether the implemental mindset decreased drinking, the
      deliberative mindset increased drinking, or both happened concurrently, b) test for
      compensation and/or generalization effects by including the assessment of another substance,
      namely Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), to see if participants may compensate their reduced
      alcohol consumption by enhanced consumption of substitutes or if they can self-regulate the
      consumption of both, and c) to test whether the decisional balance element of the
      ASSIST-linked brief intervention is driving the differences between mindsets.

      Design. The experiment follows a 3 between (Mindset: deliberative vs. implemental vs.
      control) x 2 between (Brief Intervention: short-form [without decisional balance] vs.
      long-form [with decisional balance]) factorial experimental design. Main dependent variables
      are the Timeline Followback (TLFB)-based self-reports of substance consumption,
      alcohol-related risk perception, and moderating/mediating variables related to the brief
      intervention itself (e.g., commitment, openness, resistance to change).

      Hypotheses. In the control condition, the investigators expect to see similar results to
      earlier work on the effectiveness of motivational interviewing in reducing alcohol. In the
      deliberative and implemental mindset condition, however, the investigators expect to see a
      more nuanced picture, similar to our previous experiment. To better disentangle this, the
      investigators will include specific resistance and commitment ratings during the brief
      intervention session after the personalized feedback and after the decisional balance
      exercise that follows, the two subsequent parts of the brief intervention. The investigators
      hypothesize that deliberative mindset participants would show low resistance during
      personalized feedback but high resistance after the decisional balance exercise, and the
      opposite pattern for commitment. Implemental mindset participants, on the other hand, are
      expected to show the opposite pattern for resistance and commitment after the decisional
      balance exercise; it remains unclear, however, how this group will respond to the
      personalized feedback procedure. Furthermore, the investigators want to explore whether the
      reduction/increase in consumption is specific to the one substance that is addressed in the
      brief intervention or whether regulation of consumption also affects alternative substances
      in terms of generalization or compensation. The investigators use THC as a model substitute
      because of the high prevalence (e.g., 64% in an earlier study.

      Procedure. The procedure will be very similar to our previous experiment. Participants will
      first be screened using an online questionnaire, and only at-risk drinking individuals (as
      indicated by the AUDIT) will be invited to the first lab session. Participants then receive
      the mindset manipulation. The investigators will ensure that the interventionist will be
      blind to the participants' mindset condition and that the mindset manipulation will involve a
      problem or project that is not related to substance use. Thereafter, the interventionist will
      assess the individuals' risk behavior regarding a set of substances (using the WHO's ASSIST
      manual) in an interview setting and will give the participants individualized feedback on
      their consumption (i.e., the first phase of the brief intervention). The interventionist will
      then conduct a motivational interview about the participants' personal alcohol consumption
      (i.e., the second phase of the brief intervention). Afterward, the interventionist will rate
      how resistant the participants behaved during the intervention. Thereafter participants
      report their alcohol and THC consumption for the last four weeks using the TLFB and fill out
      a series of questionnaires. Four weeks later, participants are back for a second lab session
      in which they again fill out the same battery of questionnaires to assess their
      (alcohol-specific) risk perception and to assess their alcohol and THC consumption, again
      using the TLFB.
    

Intervention name(s): ASSIST-linked Brief Intervention; Mindset Intervention
Intervention type(s): Other; Other
Intervention description(s): WHO's ASSIST-linked Brief Intervention (with and without Steps 6-9, the decisional balance element); Standard mindset manipulation as used in research by Peter M. Gollwitzer and colleagues
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention model: Factorial Assignment
Masking: Double (Participant, Investigator)
Primary purpose: Basic Science