The transtheoretical model of change for mutli-level interventions for alcohol abuse on campus.
This paper brings together the pressing problem of alcohol abuse on college campuses on one of the most promising solution--stage-based interventions applied at multiple levels. The interventions fit the Transtheoretical Model, which construes behavior change as a process that unfolds over time and involves progress through a series of stages. Unique to the paper is how the stage paradigm can be applied at four levels of the university (leadership, facility, and staff, students, and alumni) and into the community. This approach to change can produce impressive impacts on alcohol abuse and its serious consequences.
Index Terms: alcohol abuse on campus, Transtheoretical Model, multilevel interventions
Alcohol abuse is considered by college presidents and administrators to be the number one health problem on campuses (Presidents Leadership Group, 1997). One of the most promising approaches to this problem on a population basis is to apply the Transtheoretical Model of Change (TTM) at multiple levels of a campus. TTM construes behavior change as a process that unfolds over time and involves progress through a series of changes: Precontemplation, Contemplation, Preparation, Action and Maintenance (Prochaska, Diclemente, & Norcross, 1992). The TTM is a comprehensive model that integrates ideas from several different theories and approaches to change to explain and predict how and when individuals end high-risk behaviors or adopt health ones. This paper will describe TTM and how it can be applied at four levels (leadership, faculty and staff, students, and alumni). Practical examples will be presented, drawing primarily from experiences at a state university in the northwest that has been part of Weschsler and colleagues' (2002) studies since 1993. Finally, results will demonstrate how an organization and population approach to change can produce impressive impacts on alcohol abuse and its serious consequences.
Alcohol abuse is a major contributing factor to individual and social problems on campuses throughout the United States (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1990; Presley, Meilman, & Lyerla, 1995; U.S. Department of Education Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program, 2000). The first two years of college is a time of transition to independent adulthood for many students, and offers new opportunities to experiment with lifestyles and behaviors that place students at high risk for alcohol abuse. While most traditional college age students cannot drink legally, Wechsler's 2002 Harvard School of Public Health study at 119 nationally representative colleges reported that 44.4 percent of college students admitted binge drinking (five or more drinks in one sitting for males, four for females) in the previous two weeks. Moreover, this percentage remained relatively unchanged from similar Harvard studies by Wechsler and colleagues (Wechsler, Davenport, Dowdall, Moeykens, & Castillo, 1994; Weshsler, Dowdall, Maenner, Gledhill-Hoyt, & Lee, 1998; Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, & Lee, 2000).
Heavy drinking by college students has been consistently associated with higher rates of property damage, driving under influence, injury, behaviors that are regretted, missed classes, interpersonal relationship difficulties, and unprotected or unplanned sex (Johnson, O'Malley, & Bachman, 1996). Wechsler and colleague's (1994) national college study reported that students who binged were at higher risk for experiencing a variety of alcohol related problems than those who drank but did not binge. In that study heavy drinkers were five times more likely than non-binge drinkers to report that they had experienced five or more of twelve alcohol-related problems. A dose response relationship has also been observed, with more frequent bingers experiencing substantially higher risks than less frequent bingers (Johnston et al., 1996). In the 1996, the northeastern university reported that approximately 80% of violations of community standards involved substance use, primarily alcohol abuse (Cohen & Rogers, 1997).
Alcohol abuse is an issue that has concerned the northeast university for many years. For three years during the 90's the Princeton Review college guide listed the university as the nation's top party school. Sixty-seven percent of the students reported that they were binge drinkers, compared to 44% nationally (Wechsler et al., 1994). Healthy people 2010 reports a 1998 baseline rate of 39% for binge drinking among college students with a 2010 target of 20% (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS), 2000). Given the problem on this campus, the President recognized that he needed an intervention strategy that could be applied on a population basis and at multiple levels. As (Wechsler, Nelson, & Weitzman, 2000) encourage, colleges need to move beyond a simple didactic model of education interventions. Some of the strategies that developed over time were based a priori on the Transtheoretical Model, while others will be analyzed post hoe from a Transtheoretical perspective.
The Transtheoretical Model (TTM) is one of the leading intervention models for behavior change (O'Donnell, 1997). It offers a promising approach to behavior change on college campuses. The model systematically integrates four theoretical concepts central to change: (1) Stages of Change (readiness to act); (2) Processes of Change (10 cognitive, affective, behavioral activities that facilitate change); (3) Self-Efficacy (confidence to make and sustain changes in difficult situations); (4) Decisional Balance (pros and cons of changing).
The TTM has been shown to be robust in explaining and facilitating change across a broad range of health behaviors, including smoking cessation, and dietary change (Prochaska, Diclemente, Velicer, & Rossi, 1993; Greene, Rossi, Rossi, Velicer, Fava, & Prochaska, 1999). The model has been applied to organizational change efforts including collaborative service delivery, time-limited therapy, and continuous quality improvement in healthcare (Levesque, Prochaska, & Prochaska, 1999; Prochaska, 2000; Levesque, Prochaska, Dewart, Hornby, & Weeks, 2001).
Stage of Change represents the temporal and motivational dimensions of the change process. Longitudinal studies found that people move through a series of five stages (Prochaska & Diclemente, 1983). In the Precontemplation Stage, individuals deny the problem, are unaware of the negative consequences of their behavior, believe the consequences are insignificant, or have given up on changing because they are demoralized. They are not intending to take action in the next months. Individuals in the Contemplation Stage are likely to recognize more of the pros of changing. However, they overestimate the cons of changing and, therefore, experience ambivalence. They are intending to act within the next six months. Individuals in the Preparation Stage have decided to take action in the next 30 days, and have begun to take small steps toward that goal. Individuals in the Action Stage are overtly engaged in modifying their problems behaviors. Individuals in the Maintenance Stage have been able to sustain action for at least six months, and are striving to prevent relapse. For most people, the change process is not linear, but spiral, with several relapses to earlier stages before they attain permanent behavior change (Prochaska & Diclemente, 1986). The importance of a stage approach can be illustrated by data from the northeast university. A survey that included TTM assessment of stage of change for alcohol abuse was given to approximately 1500 freshman and sophomores and found that about 70% are in the Precontemplation stage and less than 10% were in the Preparation stage for stopping abusing alcohol (Laforge, 2001). If only 10% of students are prepared to take action, it should come as no surprise that many organizational change initiatives fail. Individuals in Precontemplation and Contemplation are likely to see change as imposed, and can become resistant and defensive if forced to take action before they are ready.
Processes of Change. In comparison of 24 systems of therapy, 10 change processes were identified (Prochaska, 1984). Table 1 illustrates how the processes could be applied in interventions for an alcohol free campus.
Research on a variety of health behaviors has identified strategies or processes of change that are employed in each stage to facilitate change. Individuals in the early stages rely more on cognitive, affective and evaluative strategies to change. Individuals in the later stages rely more on behavioral strategies including social support, reinforcement, commitments, and environmental management techniques. For example, the data show that individuals in the Precontemplation stage emphasize Consciousness Raising, Dramatic Relief, and Environmental Reevaluation; individuals in Contemplation emphasize Self-Reevaluation; individuals in Preparation emphasize Self-Liberation; and individuals in Action emphasize Reinforcement Management, Helping Relationships, Counter Conditioning, and Stimulus Control to sustain changes (Prochaska et al., 1992).
Self-efficacy is the confidence to change in challenging situations, such as resistance from students, faculty or alumni. Self-efficacy has been found to increase as people process through the stages of change, with the greatest increases occurring in Action and Maintenance. One way to increase self-efficacy is to apply a stage-based approach that increases confidence as populations progress from one stage to the next.
Decisional Balance. The decision to move towards action is based on the relative weight given to the pros and cons of changing. Across 12 problem behaviors consistent patterns emerged that generate principles for producing progress (Prochaska et al., 1994). In Precontemplation, the cons always outweigh the pros. From Precontemplation to Contemation the pros always increase and the cons consistently decrease from Contemplation to Action. The pros begin to outweigh the cons of changing prior to action being taken. From Precontemplation to Action the pros increase about one standard deviation while the cons decrease one-half standard deviation from Contemplation to Action (Prochaska et al., 1994). Therefore, twice as much emphasis should be placed on increasing appreciation on campus of the pros of changing to an alcohol free campus. The functional relationships of pros and cons across the stages of change have been replicated in separate studies of alcohol abuse among college students, high school students and adults in an HMO population (Prochaska, 2002). Table 2 lists some of the pros and cons that could occur as a result of intervening on alcohol abuse on campus. Cons like a decline in admissions are less likely to occur if the leadership takes care to communicate the way the pros are outweighing the cons.
At the leadership level, considerable time is usually taken debating the pros and cons of adopting a program for reducing alcohol abuse. When the leaders become convinced that the pros clearly outweigh the cons, they are ready to take action. The problem is that other levels of the organization have not gone through this process and are not likely to be prepared to take action. If the leaders launch an action intervention when staff, faculty and students are in Precontemplation, they are highly likely to encounter resistance in their program is likely to fail.
Stage-Matched Versus Action-Oriented Interventions
Research has shown that stage-matched interventions can have greater impacts than action-oriented programs. First, stage-matched interventions cal allow all individuals to participate in the change process, even if they are not prepared to take action. The impact of a program equals participation rate times the efficacy rate (percent of students who take action). Therefore, the more at risk students who are at risk for alcohol who participate the greater the impact the program can be. Second, stage-matched interventions can increase the likelihood that individuals will take action. Stage-matched interventions for smokers more than doubled the efficacy on cessation rates of one of the best action oriented interventions available (Prochaska et al., 1993). Stage-matched interventions have been out-performed one-size-fits-all interventions for exercise acquisition, dietary behavior, and other health behaviors in population-based studies (Diclemente & Hughes, 1990); (Campbell et al., 1994). These findings have important implications for alcohol elimination on campuses. Interventions should be individualized and matched to students' readiness to change to reduce resistance, reduce stress, and reduce the time needed to implement the change by accelerating movement toward the Action stage.
In most TTM research, stage-matched interventions are delivered directly to individuals via counselors, computor-based expert systems, and/or manuals or other tailored communications (Velicer, Prochaska, Fava, Laforge, & Rossi, 1999). However, organizations also can become powerful change agents by creating more optimal conditions for change. If a majority of students are in the Precontemplation stage, universities can facilitate early-stage processes like Consciousness Raising (e.g., by communicating about the change at orientation, convocation, and in the student newspaper) and Dramatic Relief(e.g., by giving examples about the consequences of not changing) to help students progress to the Contemplation stage. If a majority of students are already in Action, universities can facilitate behavioral processes like Counter Conditioning and Stimulus Control (e.g., providing resources like alcohol free events to support the change) and Helping Relationships (e.g., by providing R.A.'s and counselors) to help students make and sustain the changes. Students who are asked to change without adequate information, inspiration, resources, or assistance are more likely to become apathetic, resistant, or resentful.
The TTM can be applied to better understand interventions that were applied at each level of the northeast university--leadership, faculty and staff, and alumni. The change initiative began at the leadership level with the President. The President was leading a campus that received national recognition for being the number one party school in the country. Alcohol abuse was deeply embedded in its history and identity, but this cultural context did not keep this President from declaring at the 1995 convocation ceremonies that "it was time to take a stand" and henceforth "the university would be a university in recovery" (Carothers, 1995). One of the first challenges at the leadership level is to decide on the action criteria for the campus. Unfortunately, there is no consensus about what represents optimum action for a campus. This is not like changing smoking behavior on an individual level, where there is a scientific consensus that abstinence is the appropriate goal. Leaders must debate the pros and cons of alternative goals for their campus. Leadership at the northwest university set an action criteria by adopting a policy of an alcohol free campus. For those who might see an alcohol free campus as regressive like prohibition, there are other action criteria that could be applied. Policies that are being instituted at other campuses include no illegal drinking and no drinking of three or more drinks on any occasion. Further research will need to determine which of the criteria help produce better outcomes. As will be shown, several policies flowed from this first policy of no alcohol on campus. They include such areas as an increase in alcohol free alternative activities, Friday classes, longer library and recreation hours, and the prohibition of alcohol product ads.
To begin to move the faculty staff and students from the Precontemplation stage to Contemplation, the President, who knows TTM well, raised awareness (Consciousness Raising) of the pros of change at all parent/student orientation sessions. This was measured in part by the percent of students aware of alcohol policies (97%). The President also provided inspiration for the change and raised anxiety about the status quo (Dramatic Relief). Then leadership encouraged the faculty, staff and students to imagine how they might think and feel about themselves as part of an alcohol free campus that could become a leader in the field of substance abuse prevention. It was described how an alcohol free campus would produce a healthier environment for the entire campus community. Being a party school and abusing alcohol was shown as inconsistent with having a positive learning setting (Self and Environmental Reevaluation). To demonstrate his commitment the President accepted an appointment to the Higher Education Center for Alcohol Prevention Leadership Group that compiled a report, Be Vocal, Be Visible, Be Visionary. He also joined the NIAAA Advisory Committee on College Drinking where he assumed a leadership role in bringing together leading researchers and university Presidents to evaluate the quality of research on college drinking and to establish the agenda for future research. He helped others realize that social norms were changing in ways to support alcohol risk reduction (Self-Liberation and Social Liberation).
For those students in Preparation, the behavioral processes were used to help them progress to Action. Stimulus Control was applied through the prohibition of alcohol product ads in University publications; the non-availability of alcohol at any campus function; date of birth was placed on student ID cards; and substance free wellness residence halls were created. Contingency Management strategies included reinforcing those who supported an alcohol free campus, discipline and fines for minor infractions with a "three strikes you're out" policy, a judicial system to hear problem cases, and letters sent to students and parents if arrested. A hotline was established to report problems and a Substance Abuse Prevention Director was hired (Helping Relationship). Counter Conditioning was supported through increased non-alcohol entertainment options for students.
Faculty and Staff
While the President provided the leadership, faculty and staff became involved in delivering Consciousness Raising by providing substance abuse educators as guest speakers in academic courses, offering a three credit course to train peer educators, and giving an interactive social norms correction class for freshmen funded by the U. S. Department of Education. In this intervention based on social norms theory, data are collected during a class presentation and correct norm information is fed back to the students in the same period. The class intervention encourages Consciousness Raising, Dramatic Relief and Self-Reevaluation to new students on campus who primarily are in Precontemplation or Contemplation for reducing high risk drinking. Faculty also schedule classes on Fridays to emphasize the importance of academics and discourage the alcohol fueled partying that may occur on Thursday nights if students do not need to attend class on Fridays (Counter Conditioning). Staff keeps the library and recreation facilities open longer (Stimulus Control).
In an effort to provide Helping Relationships to at risk students more ready to take action, the Counseling Center and Substance Abuse Services offer short-term treatment for alcohol abuse and referrals for long-term treatment. Individuals in violation of the alcohol policy are required after two violations to attend an educational meeting to examine their current patterns of alcohol use and to work on strategies for risk reduction. Motivational interviewing based on the TTM is used in the session. Motivational interviewing is a directive, client-centered counseling style of eliciting behavior change by helping clients to explore and resolve ambivalence (Rollnick & Miller, 1995).
An Alcohol Team was formed to apply a range of change strategies and processes. The alcohol Team's goals are to build a unified campus-wide collaborative approach to alcohol abuse prevention and research, reduce harm from abusive use of alcohol, and apply research in its interventions. Team meetings serve as a mechanism for: communication and collaboration between researchers and practitioners, a sounding board for policy revision and implementation, an exchange of information about research and resources, an avoidance of duplication, and pooling budget and space for team efforts. Members are from the Psychology Department, the Cancer Prevention Research Center, marketing, communications, the Counseling Center, Research & Grants, Health Services, Housing and Residential Life, and Student Life.
To create conditions to counter alcohol abuse and substitute healthier alternatives, the faculty has several grants in progress. A five-year project based on social cognitive theory works with approximately 400 students to examine the effects of individualized normative feedback and alcohol expectancy challenges in reducing alcohol abuse. The program is designed to correct first-year students' misperceptions of high risk drinking. The intervention group receives statistics about alcohol intake, thereby debunking the myth that everyone drinks. Among students who learn about their misperceptions, drinking levels decreased about half a drink per week (Caliri, 2001). Those who did not receive the normative correction substantially increased their weekly drinking over the course of the first semester.
A three year program to create peer athlete mentors for athletic teams is underway as well as a three year project on the applicability of TTM tailored communications to college student alcohol abuse. The TTM study is designed to test the efficacy of a low cost and readily disseminable computerized expert system intervention program for college students to reduce high-risk alcohol behaviors and minimize alcohol related problems. The proactive harm reduction intervention consists of three telephone survey assessments at three-month intervals, each followed by mail delivery of an individualized intervention feedback report. Over sixteen hundred students are participating--78% of all eligible freshmen and sophomores. The participation rates are particularly encouraging given that population surveys have indicated that about 70% of at risk students are in the Precontemplation stage and less than 10% are in Preparation (Laforge, 2001).
Students serve as peer educators and provide Consciousness Raising and other processes through workshops on risk reduction to their peers. A Student Against Drunk Driving chapter was formed and helps provide change processes like Dramatic Relief by emphasizing some of the terrible tragedies that could be prevented by zero tolerance for drink driving. To express a firm commitment to act and to encourage other to do so (Self-Liberation) and to help students realize that social norms are changing in ways that help students be free from alcohol on campus (Social Liberation), undergraduate and graduate student interns have initiated and advance abuse prevention and research activities throughout the campus. Counseling, pharmacy, public relations, and public speaking students are all involved in developing prevention programs, creating alternative approaches, and working in the above-mentioned research grants.
For those more ready to change to an alcohol free campus, students are available to provide Helping Relationships and other processes through AA meetings on campus. To substitute healthier alternatives (Counter Conditioning) at the beginning of every academic year, student teams offer "Same Planet, Different World" programs designed to get new students off to a safe start with a variety of non-alcohol entertainment and social options. A month-long series of events aimed at providing "fun without the buzz" include scavenger hunts and Hawaiian luaus on the quad.
In comparison to the leadership, faculty, staff, and students, the alumni appear to be primarily in Precontermplation for being alcohol free on any of the University's campuses. For the first time in the summer of 2001, the alumni magazine included an article on reducing alcohol abuse on the campus. While the intention was to raise the consciousness level of the alumni this was not assessed. Soon after an action plan was mandated. Until 2001, alcohol was tolerated on campus at tailgating activities at Homecoming. When alcohol tailgating was banned in 2001 there was an angry alumni reaction. Being primarily in Precontemplation, the alumni saw the change as imposed and became resistant and defensive. They were not ready to take action to have an alcohol free campus.
Student alcohol use and abuse is a problem of the campus and the entire surrounding community. What is required is community-level action, including the local government, law enforcement, community prevention advocates, owners of local bars and restaurants, realtors, and high schools (Gebhardt, Kaphingst, & DeJong, 2000). In this case study the local town council came to the university President and demanded action. The President quickly responded. Regular town/gown meetings have resulted in enhanced and publicized police enforcement of the age 21 drinking and drunk driving laws, the local police stepping up bar checks, the Realtors Association creating model leases that the university distributes, landlords now being responsible for tenants disturbing the peace, the university listing where students can volunteer in the community, the Neighborhood Associations hosting brunches in September to welcome students who live in their communities. In addition, at college fairs at high schools, university representatives emphasize the university's alcohol policy of no alcohol use on campus.
The university also has three federally funded population based research trails that reach out to all ninth graders in 14 Rhode Island schools, their parents at home, and members of a New England HMO. The adolescent and parents project will intervene on six major behavioral risk factors including alcohol abuse. The HMO project intervenes only on alcohol abuse. Besides reaching the community, these projects have the potential to help the university reduce alcohol abuse by having more high school students, their parents and community members participating in alcohol abuse programs. These populations should provide increasing support for campus-based programs designed to combat alcohol abuse.
Outcomes or Impacts
Leaders at the northeast university knew it was not enough to distribute its alcohol policy printed in the back of a handbook, host a one session alcohol awareness program, offer counseling programs for those who sought them, and expect the alcohol abuse problem to go away. Instead, the university President brought together administrators, faculty and staff, students, parents, alumni and local community members to develop and implement effective policies and programs. The university deceased the availability of alcohol, increased the number and variety of alcohol-free activities, and created a climate that discourages high-risk drinking and reinforces students to abstain or drink legally and moderately. To facilitate change, TTM and other models of behavior change were used at multiple levels. To evaluate how the interventions were working the university leaders needed to look at outcomes from multi levels and multi perspectives. For example, did the decline in binge drinking on campus at the same time increase problem drinking in nearby towns? Among the findings, the following demonstrate that was not the case:
* a 13% decline in binge-drinking (Wechsler, 2002)
* a 39% decline in town police complaints from 1999 to 2000 (Narragansett, 2001)
* fewer alcohol poisonings at Health Services and a local hospital (except Homecoming Day prior to 2001) (Cohen, 1999)
* a rise in simple violations (underage possession or consumption) from 70 to 267 (Cohen, 1999)
* a decline in complex violations (vandalism or endangerment) from 155 to 63 (Cohen, 1999)
* an increased voluntary attendance at drug awareness workshops form 25% to 50% (University of Rhode Island, 1999)
* only 10% of students cited a second time for violations (University of Rhode Island, 1999)
* 97% of students aware of alcohol policies (73% nationwide) (University of Rhode Island, 1999)
* an increase in SAT scores by 140 points (University of Rhode Island, 1999)
* an increase number of faculty and staff committed to alcohol abuse reduction (University of Rhode Island, 1999)
* an increase in research grants and monies (Cohen, 1999).
Current theory is consistent with the lessons that can be learned from this case study. Maximum impacts of major problems like alcohol abuse on campuses can best be accomplished when intervention strategies apply principles and processes that can produce change at each stage of change. An eclectic approach that drives interventions from across a variety of theories is one way of applying multiple principles and processes. In many ways, the case study was more eclectic than systematic. A more systematic and intergrataive approach would be to consistently use a model, like TTM, that is designed to tailor change principles and processes to individuals at each stage of change.
Other universities and colleges will need to experiment with applying TTM more systematically versus eclectically. They will need to experiment with what action criteria fit their campus, e.g., alcohol free versus responsible drinking. They will also need to assess their campus for students' readiness to adopt action criteria for drinking. The more their students are in Precontemplation the more resources they will need to dedicate. With such replication across different campuses we can better learn which approaches to population-based interventions work best for universities and colleges.
Maximum impacts on major problems like alcohol abuse can best be accomplished when principles and processes are applied at multiple levels of change (Institute of Medicine, 2001). While more controlled research to support this conclusion is needed, there is a consensus amongst leaders in behavior change that a multiple level approach is most promising. In the case of the northeast university, the President knew what all Presidents learn: they do not have enough power or influence to transform an organization without bringing on board as many faculty, staff, students and alumni as possible. Some levels of the university will be further along in the stages of change, such at the leaders and the Alcohol Team at this university, while some will be much more in Precontemplation stage, such as the students and the alumni. By applying TTM principles and resources that can be inclusive for people at each stage and each level, interventions of alcohol abuse can maximize participation at each level which can maximize impacts across the organization. This is not to say that the northeast university has recovered. As the President diagnosed it, it is a university in recovery. But it is also a case where many more people at each level of change are participating in the change process and are pulling together to help the university progress toward its goal of being an alcohol free campus.
Table 1. Processes of Change for Becoming an Alcohol Free Campus Processes Illustrations 1. Consciousness Raising Communicating information about the goals and benefits of making a campus alcohol free. 2. Dramatic Relief Generating inspiration for the change and anxiety about the status quo. 3. Self-Reevaluation Encouraging students to imagine how they will think and feel about them- selves as members of a campus that treats alcohol seriously. 4. Environmental Reevaluation Encouraging students to imagine how an alcohol free campus will produce a healthier environment for the entire campus community. 5. Self- Liberation Expressing a firm commitment to act and encouraging others to do so. 6. Helping Relationships Offering social support for the healthy behavioral change and encouraging students to seek support. 7. Counter Conditioning Creating conditions that will counter alcohol use on campus and will substitute healthier alternatives (e.g., wellness dorms). 8. Stimulus Control Removing cues that encourage drinking (e.g., alcohol ads and alcohol in dorms) and providing cues that encourage a healthy alternative (e.g., ads about alcohol free events). 9. Social Liberation Helping students realize that the social norms are changing in ways that will help students be free from alcohol on campus. 10. Contingency Management Reinforcing students and staff for supporting the alcohol free campus (articles about improvement) and punishing students for violating the policies (expulsion after three violations). Table 2. Pros and Cons for Intervening on Alcohol Abuse on Campus * Pros Reduce hangovers, nausea, blackouts Reduce injuries and alcohol poisonings Reduce legal suits Reduce unplanned sex Reduce unwanted pregnancies Reduce drop-outs Reduce crime and violence Increase academic performance Improve community image Bring in resources through grants Become a national leader Bring SAT scores up Reduce property damage Improve town/gown relations Reduce negative publicity * Cons Decline in applications for admission Can lose students at orientation Risk alienating alumni Risk conflict with parents Takes more effort and time Can hurt athletic teams Can have lawsuits
Caliri, M. (2001). Out of harm's way. Quad Angles, 8, 20-21.
Campbell M.K., DeVellis B.M., Strecher V.J., Ammerman A.S., DeVellis R.F., & Sandler R.S. (1994). Improving dietary behavior: the effectiveness of tailored messages in primary care settings. American Journal of Public Health, 85, 783-878.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1990). Campus Life: In search of Community. Princeton, NJ.
Carothers, R. Convocation Speech; University of Rhode Island. 1995. Ref Type: Personal Communication
Cohen, F. The University of Rhode Island addresses substance abuse. 1999. Ref Type: Unpublished Work
Cohen, F. & Rogers, D. (1997). Effects of Alcohol Policy Change. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 42, 69.
Diclemente, C.C. & Hughes, S.O. (1990). Stages of change profiles in outpatient alcoholism treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse, 2, 217-235.
Gebhardt, T.L., Kaphingst, K., & DeJong, W. (2000). A campus-community coalition to control alcohol-related problems off campus: an environmental management case study. Journal of American College Health, 48, 211-215.
Greene G.W., Rossi, S.R., Rossie, J.S., Velicer, W.F., Fava, J.L., & Prochaska, J.O. (1999). Dietary applications of the stages of change model. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 99, 673-678.
Johnston, L.D., O'Malley, P.M., & Bachman, J.G. (1996). National Survey on Drug Use from Monitoring the Future; Volume II: College Students and Young Adults.
Laforge, R. Preliminary report describing research in progess. 2000. Ref Type: Personal Communication
Levesque, D.A., Prochaska, J.M., & Prochaska, J.O. (1999). Stage of change and integrated service delivery. Consulting Psychology Journal." Practice and Research, 51(4), 226-241.
Levesque, D.A., Prochaska, J.M., Prochaska, J.O., Dewart, S.R., Hornby, L.S., & Weeks, W.B. (2001). Organizational stages and processes of change for continuous quality improvement. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 53, 139-153.
Narragansett (2001). Rhode Island Police Department Annual Report.
O'Donnell, M.P. (1997). Editorial: The anatomy of stages of change. American Journal of Health Promotion, 12, 8-10.
Presidents Leadership Group (1997). Be vocal, be visible, be visionary.
Presley, C.A., Meilman, P.W., & Lyerla, R. (1995). Alcohol and Drugs on American College Campuses. Use, Consequences, and Perceptions of the Campus Environment. Volume II: 1990-1992. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.
Prochaska, J.M. (2000). A transtheortical model for assessing organizational change: A study of family service agencies' movement to time-limited therapy, Families in Society, 81, 76-84.
Prochaska, J.O. (1984). Systems of Psychotherapy: A transtheoretical approach. Homewood, IL: Doe Jones Irwin.
Prochaska, J.O. Early findings from unpublished works. 2002. Ref Type: Unpublished Work
Prochaska, J.O., & Diclemente, C.C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 390-395.
Prochaska, J.O. & Diclemente, C.C. (1986). Toward a comprehensive model of behavior change. In W.R. Miller & N. Heather (Eds.) Treating additive behaviors: Processes of change. (pp. 3-27). New York: Plenum Press.
Prochaska, J.O., Diclemente, C.C. & Norcross, J.C. (1992). In search of how people change. Applications to addictive behaviors. American Psychologist, 47, 1102-1114.
Prochaska, J.O., Diclemente, C.C., Velicer, W.F., & Rossi, J.S. (1993). Standardized, individualized, interactive, and personalized self-help programs for smoking cessation. Health Psychology, 12, 399-405.
Prochaska, J.O., W.F., Rossi, J.S., Goldstein, M.G., Marcus, B.H., Rakowski, W., Fiore, C., Harlow, L. L., Redding. C.A., Rosenbloom, D., & Rossi, S.R. (1994). Stages o f change and decisional balance for 12 problem behaviors, Health Psychology, 13, 39-46.
U.S. Department of Education Safe and Drug-Free Schools Programs (2000). Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention on College Campuses (Model Programs
1999 AND 2000). Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). Healthy People 2010. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.
University of Rhode Island. Campus Climate Check-Up: Improving Campus Health. (1999). University of Rhode Island, Substance Abuse Prevention Services.
Velicer, W., Prochaska, J.O., Fava, J.L., Laforge, R.G., & Rossi, J.S. (1999). Interactive versus Non-interactive Interventions and Dose-Response Relationships for Stage Matched Smoking Cessation Programs in a Managed Care Sitting. Health Psychology, 18, 21-28.
Wechsler, H. (2002). Private report to Case Study University for 1997 study.
Wechsler, H., Davenport, A. Dowdall, G., Moeykens, B., & Castillo, S. (1994). Health and behavioral consequences of binge drinking in college. A national survey of students at 140 campuses. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272, 1672-1677.
Wechsler, H., Dowdall, G.W., Maenner, G., Gledhill-Hoyt, J., & Lee, H. (1998). Changes in binge drinking and related problems among American college students between 1993 and 1997. Results of the Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study. Journal of American College Health, 47, 57-68.
Wechsler, H., Lee, J.E., Kuo, M., & Lee, H. (2000). College binge drinking in the 1900's: a continuing problem. Results of the Harvard School of Public Health 1999 College Alcohol Study. Journal of American College Health, 48, 199-210.
Wechsler, H., Nelson, T.F., and Weitzman, E. (2000). From knowledge to action: How Harvard's college alcohol study can help your campus design a campaign against student alcohol abuse. Change, 38-43.
JANICE M. PROCHASKA, MSW, Ph.D *
Pro-Change Behavior Systems, Inc. President & CEO
JAMES O. PROCHASKA, Ph.D
FRANCES C. COHEN, MA
SUSAN O. GOMES, MA
ROBERT G. LAFORGE, ScD
ANDREA L. EASTWOOD, BS
University of Rhode Island
* Contact author: Janice M. Prochaska, MSW, PhD, President & CEO, Pro Change Behavior Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 755, West Kingston, ILI 02892
410-874-4109 (phone) fax 401- 874-4103
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Eastwood, Andrea L.|
|Publication:||Journal of Alcohol & Drug Education|
|Date:||Mar 1, 2004|
|Previous Article:||Optimistic bias and perceived control among cigarette smokers.|
|Next Article:||Alcohol use among fraternity and sorority members: looking at change over time.|