» Articles » PMID: 29355331

A Qualitative Examination of Contextual Influences on Negative Alcohol Consequence Evaluations Among Young Adult Drinkers

Overview
Specialties Psychiatry
Psychology
Date 2018 Jan 23
PMID 29355331
Citations 12
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Alcohol misuse and associated negative consequences experienced by college students persists as a public health concern. Quantitative studies demonstrate variability in subjective evaluations of consequences, and how positively or negatively consequences are evaluated is associated with drinking behavior. Lacking is a qualitative exploration of how drinkers evaluate consequences and what influences those evaluations. We conducted a series of single-gender focus groups (13 groups; 3-7 per group; n = 62, 48% female) with college student drinkers. Questions focused on: (a) types of negative and positive consequences experienced (b) personal perceptions of negative consequences and (c) factors influencing those perceptions. Verbatim transcripts were content analyzed using applied thematic analysis with NVivo software. Several negative consequences not included in current assessment tools emerged. Reactions to these "negative" consequences of alcohol misuse were not labeled as uniformly negative by participants. Contextual influences on reactions to consequences included: social factors (e.g., normative perceptions, social context, discussions with friends), level of intoxication, concurrent positive consequences, time, and alcohol as an excuse. Future research should focus on consequence measure development and examine interactions between contextual and individual influences on subjective consequence evaluations. (PsycINFO Database Record

Citing Articles

Alcohol Feedback, Reflection, and Morning Evaluation (A-FRAME): Refining and testing feasibility and acceptability of a smartphone-delivered alcohol intervention for heavy-drinking young adults.

Merrill J, Gebru N, Peterson R, Lopez G, Lau-Barraco C, Barnett N Alcohol Clin Exp Res (Hoboken). 2024; 48(10):1951-1964.

PMID: 39306826 PMC: 11636549. DOI: 10.1111/acer.15424.


Discussion of alcohol consequences during a brief motivational intervention session: Comparing those who do and do not increase readiness to change.

Merrill J, Lopez G, Stevens A, Singh S, Laws M, Mastroleo N Addict Res Theory. 2023; 30(4):279-287.

PMID: 37180491 PMC: 10181841. DOI: 10.1080/16066359.2021.2021401.


Subjective effects of simultaneous alcohol and cannabis versus alcohol-only use: A qualitative analysis.

Waddell J, Merrill J, Okey S, Woods-Gonzalez R, Corbin W Psychol Addict Behav. 2023; 37(7):906-917.

PMID: 36757980 PMC: 10409872. DOI: 10.1037/adb0000908.


Negative but Not Positive Alcohol-Related Consequences Tend to Occur Above the Heavy Episodic Drinking Threshold: A Daily Study of Young Adult Heavy Drinkers.

Merrill J, Labhart F, Perks S Alcohol Alcohol. 2022; 58(2):190-197.

PMID: 36573295 PMC: 10008103. DOI: 10.1093/alcalc/agac066.


An application of moderated nonlinear factor analysis to develop a commensurate measure of alcohol problems across four alcohol treatment studies.

Richards D, Pearson M, Hallgren K, Heather N, Witkiewitz K Drug Alcohol Depend. 2021; 229(Pt A):109068.

PMID: 34628095 PMC: 8671250. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.109068.


References
1.
Knight J, Wechsler H, Kuo M, Seibring M, Weitzman E, Schuckit M . Alcohol abuse and dependence among U.S. college students. J Stud Alcohol. 2002; 63(3):263-70. DOI: 10.15288/jsa.2002.63.263. View

2.
Barnett N, Merrill J, Kahler C, Colby S . Negative evaluations of negative alcohol consequences lead to subsequent reductions in alcohol use. Psychol Addict Behav. 2015; 29(4):992-1002. PMC: 4892499. DOI: 10.1037/adb0000095. View

3.
Terry D, Garey L, Carey K . Where do College Drinkers Draw the Line? A Qualitative Study. J Coll Stud Dev. 2016; 55(1):63-74. PMC: 4748378. DOI: 10.1353/csd.2014.0006. View

4.
Read J, Wardell J, Bachrach R . Drinking consequence types in the first college semester differentially predict drinking the following year. Addict Behav. 2012; 38(1):1464-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.07.005. View

5.
Peterson C, Borsari B, Mastroleo N, Read J, Carey K . How does the Brief CEOA match with self-generated expectancies in mandated students?. Addict Behav. 2012; 38(1):1414-7. PMC: 3493850. DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.07.009. View