Y

R
E
V
O
C
E
R
E
S
U
B
A
E
C
N
A
T
S
L : U
B

SA N S

PO SI
O N
PR
O L
IS I
L

CH
R G
A D
P
R
A
E
M
E A O H
R

S C T

E
.
L W
R CI A
M
E
S

O A
S J
y
b
FAILED DRUGS POLICY
1. In Juarez Mexico, “widely believed to be the most dangerous city on earth” two
dozen killings in single day due to drug violence are not uncommon (Putzel
2011).
2. In London cocaine is more popular than methamphetamine, ecstasy, and heroin
combined. (Putzel 2009).
3. Prescription drug overdose has exceeded automobile accidents as the leading
cause of accidental death in the USA (LA County ADA, Murray v CA).
4. One million citizens a year are incarcerated as a consequence of interdiction
policies (Grinspoon et al 1994).
5. Legal drugs destroy the lives of more than all illegal drugs combined. (Cave
2008, New York Times).
HARM REDUCTION—A NEW APPROACH
1. Harm Reduction strategies seek to mitigate harm from drug use and abuse
through education and treatment.

2. Worldwide move to adopt harm reduction strategies (Tautman, 2011, UNODC

Conference).

3. Current treatment strategies largely ineffective with many relapses (SROS

Study, NIDA 1998).

4. Better treatment outcomes needed for full implementation of Harm Reduction

strategies.
CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL RECOVERY
1. Despite years of study, little is known about why some individuals recover from
substance abuse disorder while others do not.

2. National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study (NTIES) sought to discover

if patient characteristics or treatment units had effects on treatment outcomes.
(1997).

3. NTIES failed to significantly correlate patient characteristics such as age,

gender, legal pressures, and problem severity to outcome.
WHAT ABOUT INTERNAL CHARACTERISTICS?
1. Understanding the Social and Psychological characteristics of those successful in
recovery may be useful.

2. Strategies employed in successful recoveries may be identified, understood, and

implemented.

3. What characteristics are of interest?

SELF-ESTEEM
1. Low self-esteem identified as one of the most important psychological issues
facing substance abusers (Babcock & Conner, 1981; Beckman, 1975; Beckman
1978; Sandmair, 1980; Wilsnack, 1984).

2. Raising self-esteem may be necessary to recovery from alcoholism (Beckman

1975).

3. Finding effective ways of raising alcoholics' self-esteem is critical to developing

effective treatment strategies (Clarke 1974; Beckman 1975).

4. How do we raise self-esteem?

SOCIAL COMPARISON MAY HOLD ANSWER
1. Social Comparison: The "process of thinking about information about one or more other people in
relation to the self” (Wood 1996).

2. We compare abilities and opinions (Festinger 1954).

3. Humans engage in comparison activities on a daily basis—the ability to assess one's abilities and
opinions in relation to others is critical (Festinger 1954).

4. Comparison realities may be subjective rather than objective; we may imagine a comparison reality
that fits our comparison purposes (Messick & Allison 1991; Orive 1988; Suls 1986; Suls and Wan
1987).

5. Through social comparison, one may implement strategies to improve self-esteem in the absence of
any real improvements in one's abilities (Messick & Allison 1991).
COMPARISON EFFECTS
1. Unfavorable upward comparison may cause jealousy, hostility, frustration, and
lowered self-evaluations.

2. Evidence indicates when individuals feel threatened or experience misfortune,

they tend to compare themselves with others who are inferior or less advantaged
(Wills 1981 ).

3. Low self-esteem subjects experienced increased positive affect from downward

comparisons while high self-esteem subjects showed no evidence of changed
affect (Gibbons & McCoy 1991).
CONSTRUCTS OF INTEREST
1. Social Comparison Orientation (SCO): the frequency of comparisons.

2. Social Comparison Direction (SCD): the relationship of comparer to comparison

target.

a. Upward Comparison (UC): comparing to those doing better than oneself, normal
adult pattern as part of a "unidirectional drive upward," (Wills, 1981). |

b. Downward comparison (DC): comparing to those not doing as well as oneself,

typical pattern in the youth identity formation developmental stage .
HYPOTHESES
1. Recovering substance abusers make more downward social comparisons than
non-recovering substance abusers and those with no history of abuse.

2. Non-recovering substance abusers make more upward comparisons than

recovering substance abusers and those with no history of abuse.

3. Recovering and non-recovering substance abusers make more frequent

comparisons than other groups.

4. Comparison orientation and direction change in relation to recovery state and

length of time in recovery.
SAMPLING
Primary Sample (Random)
1. Web based data collection method .
2. Visit randomly selected Substance Abuse Treatment groups, to announce study,
gather email addresses, and post notices.
3. Email pre-notifications, followed 7 days later by the first of up to 3 invitations to
participate on 14 day schedule with opt-out.
Secondary (Snowball)
4. Responders to notices .
5. Respondents asked to invite others they think may have interest in participating.
6. Email pre-notifications, followed by up to 3 invitations to participate on a 14 day
schedule with opt-out.
SAMPLE SIZE
Calculate sample size a priori method, given α, power, and effect size:
Effect size f = 0.25
α err prob = 0.05
Power (1-β err prob) = 0.95
Number of groups = 24
Noncentrality parameter λ = 34.5000000
Critical F = 1.5497617
Numerator df = 23
Denominator df = 528
Total sample size = 552
Actual power = 0.9578973
SAMPLING DISTRIBUTION

critical F 1.54976
=

0.5

β α
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
INSTRUMENT
1. Demographics: Age. Sex, Ethnicity, Recovering/Non-Recovering, length of time
in treatment /recovery.
2. Likert Scale:

a. Iowa-Netherlands Comparison Orientation Measure (INCOM), one of

two directional subscales (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999).

b. Questions modeled after the INCOM measuring in group comparison

orientation, one of two directional subscales .

3. Qualitative: three open ended questions about substance abuse and recovery
related experiences.
RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY
1. The INCOM demonstrates good reliability .The internal consistency has a Cronbach's
alpha that ranges from .78 to .85 in all the samples (Gibbons & Buunk 1999 ).

2. The INCOM has been shown to possess good construct validity in known-groups
validation (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999).

3. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis show the INCOM to be “valid and
reliable” (Schneider & Schupp 2011).

4. New questions will be subjected to reliability testing for Cronbach’s alpha with inter-
item correlations and alpha if missing. Factor analysis will be performed on the in group
SCO scale to look for two dimensional model fit for the underlying abilities and opinions
constructs.
DATA ANALYSIS
1. Primary and secondary samples examined for homogeneity.

a. Descriptives.
b. Two-way ANOVA.
c. Wald-Wolfowitz Runs.
2. If no significant differences, aggregate samples for further analysis.
3. One way ANOVA by recovery state, form used, sex, age group.
4. Correlations of SCO and SCD by recovery state, age group, sex, ethnicity.
5. Multivariate Linear Regression of SCO and SCD by time in recovery with sex, age, ethnicity
groupings . In this test recovering/non-recovering SCO and SCD values are aggregated.
6. Series of weighted means t tests against Gibbons & Buunk parameters.
7. Qualitative/quantitative analysis of open ended questions using data mining techniques to
identify clusters, groupings, anomalies--unlikely to have sufficient data for statistical
inference.
TIMELINE
BUDGET
Web Site Cost Estimates
UX Design $250.00
Application Development $1,500.00
Database Design $250.00
Hosting/Domain Registration $75.00
Total $2,075.00

Sampling    
Travel Expenses .50/mile $750.00
Labor Data Collection (25.00 per hour) $2,000.00
Data Entry (15.00 per hour) $150.00
Total $2,750.00

Publicity    
Logo Design $250.00
Photocopying/Printing $250.00
Total $500.00

Data Collection    
Draft email notifications $250.00
manage mailing list $500.00
Total $750.00

Data Analysis  
SPSS Data Analysis 30 hours $750.00
Total  
$750.00
Reporting Results  
Write Up Results with lay version (40 hrs) $1,000.00
Publish results web site $150.00
Total $1,150.00 Web Site
Sampling
Publicity
Data Collection
Data Analysis
Miscellaneous office Expenses
Office Supplies $75.00
Paper $50.00
Total $125.00
     
Total Expenses   $8235.00