Alcohol Drinking in CollegeNCT05208593
Alcohol PBS and Thinking About the Past
A study testing Negative Event + Counterfactual Task, Personalized Normative Feedback and Negative Event + Factual Thinking Task in people with Alcohol Drinking in College, run by Texas A&M University at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
Individuals often think of how a situation or outcome could have turned out differently -- if only something was different or something had changed, then the outcome could have been better or worse. This is a common type of thinking, known as counterfactual thinking, that often takes the form of "if only" statements. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Alcohol Drinking in College
- What is being tested?
- Negative Event + Counterfactual Task, Personalized Normative Feedback and Negative Event + Factual Thinking Task
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 413 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 15 Feb 2022to 30 Dec 2022
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- minimum age of 18 years
Who cannot join
- no exclusions at baseline
- participants who do not follow the instructions for the specific writing task will be unable to sign-up for the remaining follow up sessions (Parts 2-6) and will be excluded the final data analyses
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Alcohol Protective Behavioral Strategies and Thinking About the Past
Individuals often think of how a situation or outcome could have turned out differently -- if only something was different or something had changed, then the outcome could have been better or worse. This is a common type of thinking, known as counterfactual thinking, that often takes the form of "if only" statements. These thoughts are frequent after negative events, but have also been found to occur after positive events and 'near misses'. Research has shown that their evaluative nature elicits a variety of consequences, such as biased decision making, changes in an event's meaningfulness, heightened positive or negative affect, and future behavioral changes (such as intentions, motivation, persistence/effort. Specifically, many areas of research involving counterfactuals have often looked into key elements that are often discussed in other health behavior literature, such as self-efficacy, motivation, and intentions. One such area that incorporates these elements is health promotion literature, such as Protective Behavioral Strategies (PBS) and alcohol consumption. The objectives of this study are laid out as such: First, to further explore the role counterfactuals play in increasing an individual's intentions toward behavioral change. Second, to further elucidate the inner and outer workings of Protective Behavioral Strategies for increasing positive health behaviors. Finally, to address the applicability of a counterfactual intervention on promoting intentions to use PBS.
- Conditions
- Alcohol Drinking in College
- Being tested
- Negative Event + Counterfactual Task, Personalized Normative Feedback, Negative Event + Factual Thinking Task, Negative Event Only
- Medical subject headings
- Alcohol Drinking in College
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Negative Event + Counterfactual TaskBehavioural
Participants will complete a counterfactual based intervention where they come up with three if only..then statements about how a past drinking behavior could have been altered to be better and to think about protective behavioral strategies that they could use in a future similar situation to make the outcome better.
Personalized Normative FeedbackBehavioural
Participants will be asked to rate the frequency and quantity of students who use protective behavioral strategies while drinking. They will be given feedback on how close their estimate is from the national averages.
Negative Event + Factual Thinking TaskBehavioural
Active Control condition where participants write about a negative event and list three facts about it
Negative Event OnlyBehavioural
Participants are asked to write about a negative event related to alcohol and write about it
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Negative Event Only | Placebo comparator | Participants will be asked to think of a specific example of the most (or one of the most) negative, unpleasant event with alcohol they have experienced; the event they choose must have occurred at least a year ago. Or they will be asked to think of the most significant event that has occurred in the past year. After thinking of a specific event, they will be given three minutes to write about their experience. The writing prompt will ask that they express the event information in a few sentences. This writing prompt will help participants place themselves back into that moment and access salient emotions and cognition about it. Similar negative event prompts have been used in counterfactual thinking studies (McFarland \& Alvaro, 2000; White \& Lehman, 2005). Receives: Behavioral: Negative Event Only |
| Negative Event + Factual Thinking Task | Active comparator | Participants in this group, the event plus the factual thinking task condition, will be told the following after completing the negative event writing task, "After disappointing and/or negative experiences like the one you described on the previous page, people often think about the details of the situation. For example, when it happened, who was involved, and what happened right before or after the incident occurred. In the space below please provide examples of some of these details.." There will be 10 blank boxes below the instructions and participants will be asked to provide some examples of details from their traumatic event. They will be asked to only list as many as they can naturally recall without repeating any. This procedure is derived from Kray and colleague's (2010) study on counterfactual thinking and meaning in life. Receives: Behavioral: Negative Event + Factual Thinking Task |
| Negative Event + Counterfactual Task | Experimental | Participants will be told after completing the negative event writing task, "After disappointing and/or negative experiences like the one you described, people sometimes cannot help thinking "what if…" or "if only…" and imagining how things might have gone differently. That is, if only I had done something differently, the negative drinking situation could have been avoided or turned out better. In the box below please identify things that, had they been different, would have improved the outcome of the negative drinking situation you described earlier and briefly describe how the outcome would have been better." Participants will be asked to list three counterfactuals about the event. Participants will also be asked to think of situations where these strategies could be used, to list out any obstacles that might prevent them from implementing these strategies and to indicate their intention to use each strategy over the next week. Receives: Behavioral: Negative Event + Counterfactual Task |
| Personalized Normative Feedback | Experimental | Participants in this group, the personalized normative feedback, will be asked to rate the frequency and quantity of TAMU students that use PBS when drinking. Receives: Behavioral: Personalized Normative Feedback |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Change in Protective Behavioral Strategies-20
The Protective Behavioral Strategy-20 measure is a 20-item questionnaire assessing the use of three types of Protective Behavioral Strategies: serious harm reduction (8 items), stopping/limiting drinking (7 items), and manner of drinking (5 items). Each item has response options consisting of 1 (Never), 2 (Rarely), 3 (Occasionally), 4 (Sometimes), 5 (Usually), 6 (Always); there is also a Do not wish to respond option. Protective Behavioral Strategy Use scores are average scores for each subscale, with minimum scores of 0 and maximum scores of 6. Higher scores indicate greater use of protective behavioral strategies.
Measured: Weeks 1 - 6
Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire
The Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire is a 48-item questionnaire assessing problems from alcohol consumption within the last three months. Each item is categorized into one of eight problem domains: social/interpersonal, academic/occupational, risky behavior, impaired control, poor self-care, diminished self-perception, blackout drinking, and physiological dependence. For each item, participants select Yes, No, or Do not wish to respond to indicate whether they have experienced each problem from alcohol consumption (e.g., "I have become very rude, obnoxious or insulting after drinking"). If a participant selects Yes that is indicative of the participant having experienced that specific consequence from alcohol consumption.
Measured: Week 1
Alcohol Use Contemplation to Change Ladder
To assess an individual's contemplation to change their alcohol drinking behavior, a Contemplation to Change Ladder (Biener \& Abrams, 1991) will be used. This ladder displays response options on a ladder graphic, with rungs starting at 0 and ending at 10; each rung increases by one point value as you go up the ladder. Anchors with text descriptions are located at points 0 (No thought of quitting), 2 (Think I need to consider quitting someday), 5 (Think I should quit but not quite ready), 8 (Starting to think about how to change my drinking patterns), and 10 (Taking action to quit e.g., cutting down, enrolling in a program). The higher a participant selects a rung on the ladder, the higher the contemplation to change their alcohol drinking behavior.
Measured: Week 1
Change in Indication of Drinking and Strategy Use
A measure that assesses an individual's ability to avoid alcohol if they wanted to as well as binge-drinking or the ability to drink less in the next week
Measured: Week 2 - Week 6
Secondary outcomes (6)
Change in Perceived Behavioral Control
The Perceived Behavioral Control questionnaire measure is made up of six items. Three items assess the individual's ability to avoid alcohol if they wanted to and three items assess binge-drinking or the ability to drink less than 7(females) or 10 (males) units in a single session in the next week. Each item is scored on separate 7-point bipolar adjective scales (e.g., "For me to avoid drinking alcohol is…" very difficult to very easy). The six items will be averaged together to obtain an overall score for Perceived Behavioral Control. Higher scores indicate greater perceived behavioral control to control drinking behavior.
Measured: Week 1 and Week 2
Change in Delay Discounting
A measure of the amount participants discount delayed rewards
Measured: Week 1, Week 4 and Week 6
Change in Counterfactual Use and Intentions
Participants responses about whether they did counterfactuals in the past week and their intentions to use those behaviors in the next week.
Measured: Week 2 - Week 6
Change in Personal Assessment of Responsible Drinker Identity Scale
Participants are asked to indicate how true each statement in the Personal Assessment of Responsible Drinker Identity Scale is of the participant's experiences overall. Each item of this measure has response options ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (completely true). Higher scores reflect greater agreement with identifying as a responsible drinker.
Measured: Week 1, Week 4 and Week 6
Change in Perceptions of Protective Behavioral Strategies
Questions about the percentage and frequency of use of protective behavioral strategies among college students.
Measured: Week 1 - Week 6
Change in Contemplation to Change Ladder
To assess an individual's contemplation to change their alcohol drinking behavior, a Contemplation to Change Ladder (Biener \& Abrams, 1991) will be used. This ladder displays response options on a ladder graphic, with rungs starting at 0 and ending at 10; each rung increases by one point value as you go up the ladder. Anchors with text descriptions are located at points 0 (No thought of quitting), 2 (Think I need to consider quitting someday), 5 (Think I should quit but not quite ready), 8 (Starting to think about how to change my drinking patterns), and 10 (Taking action to quit e.g., cutting down, enrolling in a program). The higher a participant selects a rung on the ladder, the higher the contemplation to change their alcohol drinking behavior.
Measured: Week 1 and Week 2
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted26 Jan 2022
- Study start15 Feb 2022
- Primary completion20 Nov 2022
- Study completion30 Dec 2022
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (10)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Alcohol Drinking in CollegeStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 413 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Texas A&M University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Central Florida
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Sherecce A Fields, Texas A&M University
- Investigators
- Rob Dvorak, PhD, Principal investigator, University of Central FloridaRachel Smallman, PhD, Principal investigator, Texas A&M UniversitySherecce Fields, PhD, Principal investigator, Texas A&M University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05208593
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- IRB20201070D
- Status last verified
- Apr 2023
- First submitted
- 14 Sep 2021
- Last updated
- 13 Apr 2023
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Publications
Ajzen, I., & Sheikh, S. (2013). Action versus inaction: Anticipated affect in the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(1), 155-162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00989.x
Cooke R, Sniehotta F, Schuz B. Predicting binge-drinking behaviour using an extended TPB: examining the impact of anticipated regret and descriptive norms. Alcohol Alcohol. 2007 Mar-Apr;42(2):84-91. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agl115. Epub 2006 Dec 21.
PubMed 17185302Coolidge T, Skaret E, Heima M, Johnson EK, Hillstead MB, Farjo N, Asmyhr O, Weinstein P. Thinking about going to the dentist: a Contemplation Ladder to assess dentally-avoidant individuals' readiness to go to a dentist. BMC Oral Health. 2011 Jan 27;11:4. doi: 10.1186/1472-6831-11-4.
PubMed 21272356Epstude K, Roese NJ. The functional theory of counterfactual thinking. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2008 May;12(2):168-92. doi: 10.1177/1088868308316091.
PubMed 18453477Hogue A, Dauber S, Morgenstern J. Validation of a contemplation ladder in an adult substance use disorder sample. Psychol Addict Behav. 2010 Mar;24(1):137-44. doi: 10.1037/a0017895.
PubMed 20307121McGee R, Williams S, Kypri K. College students' readiness to reduce binge drinking: criterion validity of a brief measure. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010 Jun 1;109(1-3):236-8. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.12.009. Epub 2010 Jan 27.
PubMed 20106607Roese, N. J., Epstude, K. (2017). The functional theory of counterfactual thinking: New evidence, new challenges, new insights. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 1-79.
Smallman R, Roese NJ. Counterfactual Thinking Facilitates Behavioral Intentions. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2009 Jul;45(4):845-852. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.002.
PubMed 20161221Tal-Or, N., Boninger, D. S., & Gleicher, F. (2004). On becoming what we might have been: Counterfactual thinking and self-efficacy. Self and Identity, 3(1), 5-26.
Wong, E. M. (2007). Narrating near-histories: The effects of counterfactual communication on motivation and performance. Management & Organizational History, 2(4), 351-370. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744935907086119
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 13 Apr 2023. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Alcohol Protective Behavioral Strategies and Thinking About the Past
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05208593
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- IRB20201070D
- Conditions
- Alcohol Drinking in College
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 413 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Texas A&M UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Central Florida
- Study start
- 15 Feb 2022 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 20 Nov 2022 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Dec 2022 (actual)
- First posted
- 26 Jan 2022 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Individuals often think of how a situation or outcome could have turned out differently -- if only something was different or something had changed, then the outcome could have been better or worse. This is a common type of thinking, known as counterfactual thinking, that often takes the form of "if only" statements. These thoughts are frequent after negative events, but have also been found to occur after positive events and 'near misses'. Research has shown that their evaluative nature elicits a variety of consequences, such as biased decision making, changes in an event's meaningfulness, heightened positive or negative affect, and future behavioral changes (such as intentions, motivation, persistence/effort. Specifically, many areas of research involving counterfactuals have often looked into key elements that are often discussed in other health behavior literature, such as self-efficacy, motivation, and intentions. One such area that incorporates these elements is health promotion literature, such as Protective Behavioral Strategies (PBS) and alcohol consumption. The objectives of this study are laid out as such: First, to further explore the role counterfactuals play in increasing an individual's intentions toward behavioral change. Second, to further elucidate the inner and outer workings of Protective Behavioral Strategies for increasing positive health behaviors. Finally, to address the applicability of a counterfactual intervention on promoting intentions to use PBS.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 4
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Negative Event Only | Placebo comparator | Behavioral: Negative Event OnlyParticipants will be asked to think of a specific example of the most (or one of the most) negative, unpleasant event with alcohol they have experienced; the event they choose must have occurred at least a year ago. Or they will be asked to think of the most significant event that has occurred in the past year. After thinking of a specific event, they will be given three minutes to write about their experience. The writing prompt will ask that they express the event information in a few sentences. This writing prompt will help participants place themselves back into that moment and access salient emotions and cognition about it. Similar negative event prompts have been used in counterfactual thinking studies (McFarland \& Alvaro, 2000; White \& Lehman, 2005). |
| Negative Event + Factual Thinking Task | Active comparator | Behavioral: Negative Event + Factual Thinking TaskParticipants in this group, the event plus the factual thinking task condition, will be told the following after completing the negative event writing task, "After disappointing and/or negative experiences like the one you described on the previous page, people often think about the details of the situation. For example, when it happened, who was involved, and what happened right before or after the incident occurred. In the space below please provide examples of some of these details.." There will be 10 blank boxes below the instructions and participants will be asked to provide some examples of details from their traumatic event. They will be asked to only list as many as they can naturally recall without repeating any. This procedure is derived from Kray and colleague's (2010) study on counterfactual thinking and meaning in life. |
| Negative Event + Counterfactual Task | Experimental | Behavioral: Negative Event + Counterfactual TaskParticipants will be told after completing the negative event writing task, "After disappointing and/or negative experiences like the one you described, people sometimes cannot help thinking "what if…" or "if only…" and imagining how things might have gone differently. That is, if only I had done something differently, the negative drinking situation could have been avoided or turned out better. In the box below please identify things that, had they been different, would have improved the outcome of the negative drinking situation you described earlier and briefly describe how the outcome would have been better." Participants will be asked to list three counterfactuals about the event. Participants will also be asked to think of situations where these strategies could be used, to list out any obstacles that might prevent them from implementing these strategies and to indicate their intention to use each strategy over the next week. |
| Personalized Normative Feedback | Experimental | Behavioral: Personalized Normative FeedbackParticipants in this group, the personalized normative feedback, will be asked to rate the frequency and quantity of TAMU students that use PBS when drinking. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- minimum age of 18 years
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- no exclusions at baseline
- participants who do not follow the instructions for the specific writing task will be unable to sign-up for the remaining follow up sessions (Parts 2-6) and will be excluded the final data analyses
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Negative Event + Counterfactual TaskParticipants will complete a counterfactual based intervention where they come up with three if only..then statements about how a past drinking behavior could have been altered to be better and to think about protective behavioral strategies that they could use in a future similar situation to make the outcome better. | Behavioural | Negative Event + Counterfactual Task |
| Personalized Normative FeedbackParticipants will be asked to rate the frequency and quantity of students who use protective behavioral strategies while drinking. They will be given feedback on how close their estimate is from the national averages. | Behavioural | Personalized Normative Feedback |
| Negative Event + Factual Thinking TaskActive Control condition where participants write about a negative event and list three facts about it | Behavioural | Negative Event + Factual Thinking Task |
| Negative Event OnlyParticipants are asked to write about a negative event related to alcohol and write about it | Behavioural | Negative Event Only |
Primary outcome
Change in Protective Behavioral Strategies-20
Time frame: Weeks 1 - 6
The Protective Behavioral Strategy-20 measure is a 20-item questionnaire assessing the use of three types of Protective Behavioral Strategies: serious harm reduction (8 items), stopping/limiting drinking (7 items), and manner of drinking (5 items). Each item has response options consisting of 1 (Never), 2 (Rarely), 3 (Occasionally), 4 (Sometimes), 5 (Usually), 6 (Always); there is also a Do not wish to respond option. Protective Behavioral Strategy Use scores are average scores for each subscale, with minimum scores of 0 and maximum scores of 6. Higher scores indicate greater use of protective behavioral strategies.
Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire
Time frame: Week 1
The Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire is a 48-item questionnaire assessing problems from alcohol consumption within the last three months. Each item is categorized into one of eight problem domains: social/interpersonal, academic/occupational, risky behavior, impaired control, poor self-care, diminished self-perception, blackout drinking, and physiological dependence. For each item, participants select Yes, No, or Do not wish to respond to indicate whether they have experienced each problem from alcohol consumption (e.g., "I have become very rude, obnoxious or insulting after drinking"). If a participant selects Yes that is indicative of the participant having experienced that specific consequence from alcohol consumption.
Alcohol Use Contemplation to Change Ladder
Time frame: Week 1
To assess an individual's contemplation to change their alcohol drinking behavior, a Contemplation to Change Ladder (Biener \& Abrams, 1991) will be used. This ladder displays response options on a ladder graphic, with rungs starting at 0 and ending at 10; each rung increases by one point value as you go up the ladder. Anchors with text descriptions are located at points 0 (No thought of quitting), 2 (Think I need to consider quitting someday), 5 (Think I should quit but not quite ready), 8 (Starting to think about how to change my drinking patterns), and 10 (Taking action to quit e.g., cutting down, enrolling in a program). The higher a participant selects a rung on the ladder, the higher the contemplation to change their alcohol drinking behavior.
Change in Indication of Drinking and Strategy Use
Time frame: Week 2 - Week 6
A measure that assesses an individual's ability to avoid alcohol if they wanted to as well as binge-drinking or the ability to drink less in the next week
6 secondary outcomes
Change in Perceived Behavioral Control
Time frame: Week 1 and Week 2
Change in Delay Discounting
Time frame: Week 1, Week 4 and Week 6
Change in Counterfactual Use and Intentions
Time frame: Week 2 - Week 6
Change in Personal Assessment of Responsible Drinker Identity Scale
Time frame: Week 1, Week 4 and Week 6
Change in Perceptions of Protective Behavioral Strategies
Time frame: Week 1 - Week 6
Change in Contemplation to Change Ladder
Time frame: Week 1 and Week 2
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 13 Apr 2023.
- BackgroundAjzen, I., & Sheikh, S. (2013). Action versus inaction: Anticipated affect in the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(1), 155-162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00989.x
- Background: PubMed 17185302Cooke R, Sniehotta F, Schuz B. Predicting binge-drinking behaviour using an extended TPB: examining the impact of anticipated regret and descriptive norms. Alcohol Alcohol. 2007 Mar-Apr;42(2):84-91. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agl115. Epub 2006 Dec 21.
- Background: PubMed 21272356Coolidge T, Skaret E, Heima M, Johnson EK, Hillstead MB, Farjo N, Asmyhr O, Weinstein P. Thinking about going to the dentist: a Contemplation Ladder to assess dentally-avoidant individuals' readiness to go to a dentist. BMC Oral Health. 2011 Jan 27;11:4. doi: 10.1186/1472-6831-11-4.
- Background: PubMed 18453477Epstude K, Roese NJ. The functional theory of counterfactual thinking. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2008 May;12(2):168-92. doi: 10.1177/1088868308316091.
- Background: PubMed 20307121Hogue A, Dauber S, Morgenstern J. Validation of a contemplation ladder in an adult substance use disorder sample. Psychol Addict Behav. 2010 Mar;24(1):137-44. doi: 10.1037/a0017895.
- Background: PubMed 20106607McGee R, Williams S, Kypri K. College students' readiness to reduce binge drinking: criterion validity of a brief measure. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010 Jun 1;109(1-3):236-8. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.12.009. Epub 2010 Jan 27.
- BackgroundRoese, N. J., Epstude, K. (2017). The functional theory of counterfactual thinking: New evidence, new challenges, new insights. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 1-79.
- Background: PubMed 20161221Smallman R, Roese NJ. Counterfactual Thinking Facilitates Behavioral Intentions. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2009 Jul;45(4):845-852. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.002.
- BackgroundTal-Or, N., Boninger, D. S., & Gleicher, F. (2004). On becoming what we might have been: Counterfactual thinking and self-efficacy. Self and Identity, 3(1), 5-26.
- BackgroundWong, E. M. (2007). Narrating near-histories: The effects of counterfactual communication on motivation and performance. Management & Organizational History, 2(4), 351-370. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744935907086119
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Related trials for Alcohol Drinking in College
Not yet recruitingEarly Phase 1
Examining the Role of Sensitivity to Uncertain Threat and Alcohol Response in Risk for Alcohol Use Disorder Following Sexual Assault in College Women
Sexual Assault, Alcohol Intoxication
Recruiting
Momentary Coping Prompts and Hair Steroids in College Students
Emotional Regulation, Alcohol Drinking in College
Recruiting
Just-in-Time Coping Prompts for Reactive Digital Behavior in College Students
Emotional Regulation, Alcohol Drinking in College
Recruiting
Greek Connections Study
Heavy Episodic Drinking, Problem Drinking
Not yet recruiting
Integrative Alcohol and Risky Sex Feedback for College Students
Alcohol Drinking in College, Sexual Behavior
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Rob Dvorak, PhD principal investigator
University of Central Florida
Rachel Smallman, PhD principal investigator
Texas A&M University
Sherecce Fields, PhD principal investigator
Texas A&M University
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Negative Event + Counterfactual Task, Personalized Normative Feedback and Negative Event + Factual Thinking Task in people with Alcohol Drinking in College, run by Texas A&M University at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 13 Apr 2023. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Change in Protective Behavioral Strategies-20 (time frame: Weeks 1 - 6). The study lists 4 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05208593, which also lists 10 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 13 Apr 2023.