A multisite randomized trial of normative feedback for heavy drinking: Social comparison versus social comparison plus correction of normative misperceptions.

OBJECTIVE: Given widespread alcohol misuse among college students, numerous intervention programs have been developed, including personalized normative feedback (PNF). Most research evaluating PNF assumes that presenting one's own perceived norms is necessary to correct normative misperceptions and thereby reduce drinking. Alternatively, simply providing social comparison information showing that one drinks more than others may be sufficient. The present study evaluated the efficacy of full PNF (one's own drinking, campus drinking rates, and perceived norms) and a partial personalized social comparison feedback (PSCF; one's own drinking and campus drinking rates) in a randomized trial among heavy-drinking college students. METHOD: Participants included 623 heavy-drinking students from 3 universities. Assessments occurred at baseline and 3- and 6-months postbaseline. RESULTS: Primary analyses examined differences across 4 drinking outcomes (drinks per week, total drinks past month, frequency of past month drinking, and negative alcohol-related consequences) at 3- and 6-month follow-ups controlling for the baseline variable. Results revealed significant reductions across all alcohol consumption outcomes at 3 months in both intervention conditions compared to attention-control. Mediation analyses demonstrated significant indirect effects of the intervention on 6-month drinking through changes in perceived norms at 3 months. Moreover, evidence emerged for changes in drinking at 3 months as a mediator of the association between PSCF and 6-month perceived norms. CONCLUSIONS: The present research suggests PNF may not require explicit consideration of one's perceived norms to be effective and that direct social comparison provides an alternative theoretical mechanism for PNF efficacy.

A longitudinal test of video game violence influences on dating and aggression: a 3-year longitudinal study of adolescents.

BACKGROUND: In 2011 the field of video game violence experienced serious reversals with repudiations of the current research by the US Supreme Court and the Australian Government as non-compelling and fundamentally flawed. Scholars too have been calling for higher quality research on this issue. The current study seeks to answer this call by providing longitudinal data on youth aggression and dating violence as potential consequences of violent video game exposure using well-validated clinical outcome measures and controlling for other relevant predictors of youth aggression. METHOD: A sample of 165, mainly Hispanic youth, were tested at 3 intervals, an initial interview, and 1-year and 3-year intervals. RESULTS: Results indicated that exposure to video game violence was not related to any of the negative outcomes. Depression, antisocial personality traits, exposure to family violence and peer influences were the best predictors of aggression-related outcomes. INTERPRETATION: The current study supports a growing body of evidence pointing away from video game violence use as a predictor of youth aggression. Public policy efforts, including funding, would best be served by redirecting them toward other prevention programs for youth violence.