Spring Break Versus Spring Broken: Predictive Utility of Spring Break Alcohol Intentions and Willingness at Varying Levels of Extremity
- 469 Downloads
Within the domain of risk-related behavior, many times the decision to engage is not a product of premeditation or intention. The prototype willingness model was created to capture and explain the unintended element of risk behavior. The present study aimed to evaluate the importance of willingness versus intention, two important constructs within the prototype willingness model, in relation to spring break drinking behavior when assessed at both high and low extremities. College undergraduates (N = 275) completed questionnaires prior to spring break regarding their anticipated spring break activities. Willingness and intention were assessed for different levels of risk. Specifically, participants indicated the extent to which they intended to (a) get drunk and (b) drink enough to black out or pass out; and the extent to which they were willing to (a) get drunk and (b) drink enough to black out or pass out. When classes resumed following spring break, the students indicated the extent to which they actually (a) got drunk and (b) drank enough to black out or pass out. Results demonstrated that when the health-related risk was lower (i.e., getting drunk), intention was a stronger predictor of behavior than was willingness. However, as the level of risk increased (i.e., getting drunk enough to black out or pass out), willingness more strongly predicted behavior. The present study suggests that willingness and intentions differentially predict spring break alcohol-related behavior depending on the extremity of behavior in question. Implications regarding alcohol interventions are discussed.
KeywordsSpring break Alcohol use Prevention Intentions Willingness
Data collection and manuscript preparation were supported by National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Grants K99AA020869, K01AA016966, R01AA016099, and R03AA018735.
- Borsari, B., Neal, D. J., Collins, S. E., & Carey, K. B. (2001). Differential utility of three indexes of risky drinking for predicting alcohol problems in college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 15, 321–324.Google Scholar
- Collins, R. L., Parks, G. A., & Marlatt, G. A. (1985). Social determinants of alcohol consumption: The effects of social interaction and model status on the self-administration of alcohol. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 189–200. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.53.2.189.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
- Gibbons, F. X., Gerrard, M., & Lane, D. J. (2003). A social reaction model of adolescent health risk. In J. M. Suls & K. Wallston (Eds.), Social psychological foundations of health and illness. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Neighbors, C., Walters, S. T., Lee, C. M., Vader, A. M., Vehige, T., Szigethy, T., & DeJong, W. (2007b). Event-specific prevention: Addressing college student drinking during known windows of risk. Addictive Behaviors, 32, 2667–2680. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.05.010.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Neighbors, C., Lee, C. M., Lewis, M. A., Fossos, N., & Walter, T. (2009). Internet-based personalized feedback to reduce 21st-birthday drinking: A randomized controlled trial of an event-specific prevention intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 51–63. doi: 10.1037/a0014386.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar