Peer Preview Assignment | Online Homework Help

peer preview on a psychology research proposal. check attachments for further instructions

 

How Does Sobriety Affect Social Interaction?

Teresa Fultz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How Does Sobriety Affect Social Interaction?

Introduction:

Alcohol is as ubiquitous in our society today as it has been for centuries. We see it on billboards, in magazines, in movies & television and pretty much at any social setting from bars, to restaurants to nightclubs. Whether we are tailgating, playing poker, joining our gal pals for happy hour, or meeting a potential love interest for drinks, alcohol is ever present providing much needed social lubrication. Regardless of the reasons why people drink, its prevalence in our society remains to be unavoidable. For those that choose to abstain from alcohol, this can pose quite a challenge when navigating dating, relationships, workplace comradery and just socialization in general.

There are a variety of empirical studies that investigate alcohol and how it affects people. However, there are far fewer that focus on how it affects social interaction in particular. The APA Dictionary of Psychology explains that social interaction is “…any process that involves reciprocal stimulation or response between two or more individuals. These can range from the first encounters between parent and offspring to complex interactions with multiple individuals in adult life. Social interaction includes the development of cooperation and competition, the influence of status and social roles, and the dynamics of group behavior, leadership, and conformity. Persistent social interaction between specific individuals leads to the formation of social relationships. It is only through close observation of social interaction that social organization and social structure can be inferred.” (“Social Interaction”) With that in mind, I ask, how does sobriety affect social interaction? As a person who previously was a heavy drinker and is now sober for nearly 3 years, I know my own personal experience with the changes in social dynamics considering both sides. Though, as a student, I am curious to know what other’s experiences have been like in comparison to my own. Considering that I did not find very many empirical studies on the subject, I feel it is one that is worth looking into.

The following two articles take the ideas mentioned above into account and focus on social interactions on college campuses in relation to non-drinkers. One highlights connections to ideals of masculine identity, while the other focuses primarily on inclusive vs exclusive behavior toward non-drinkers. The other articles and references contained within are from a variety of sources that provide statistical data and the basis for claims made in relation to the study.

Article Reviews:

Article One

Before I tell you about the two studies I examined, I will add a note that I feel is necessary as a precursor. I do realize that the sample in this first study is quite small but included it because a) there were not many empirical studies about the subject and b) because of the particular approach and discursive nature of the study itself. I felt it provided an interesting perspective and was conducted in such a way that the findings they concluded with their study have merit. “The current study was designed to explore the discursive construction of non-drinking and non-drinkers to elucidate how non-drinking is maintained within cultural understandings (e.g., Burr, 2003) and the normative implications of these construal’s for young men. A qualitative approach was warranted given the investigative focus on examining forms of discursive practice evident in speech and text. Following Seidler’s (1997) ‘self and other’ dichotomies, it was anticipated that constructions of male non-drinkers may strive to achieve particular discursive goals, reflecting two levels of ‘deviance’ through firstly, rejecting drinking as a widespread social custom among young people and secondly, rejection of alcohol as a key device for asserting masculine identity. It was expected that there would be more moderate consequences of non-drinking for women than for men.” (Conroy, Visser, 2013) To explore these ideas and verify whether the expected results were accurate, the authors of our first study surveyed 12 undergraduate participants on their drinking habits in relation to their gender, perceived sociability in connection to non-drinkers and whether this had any positive or negative association for the participants.

Conroy and Visser conducted a study titled, “Man up!”: discursive constructions of non-drinkers among UK undergraduates” in which they examine how not drinking alcohol construed with masculine identity in particular. Both men and women were surveyed individually in an effort to minimize conditions of social pressure. Twelve undergraduate participants age 20-29 were interviewed with the defining factor that they consumed alcohol on a consistent basis. For the purpose of this study, that was identified as some variance of weekly consumption of alcohol. Seven male and five female participants were paid for their time and approached on campus, with the ethical approval of the institution where they were surveyed. Interviews ranged from 45-70 minutes and included only the interviewer and the interviewee. The questions asked covered non-drinkers, gender and were made to guide the discussion with what participants brought to the conversation. Debriefing provided the participant with the rationale of the study and an opportunity to ask any questions they may have concerning the study. When measuring the answers among participants, Conroy and Visser used Jefferson transcript notation when transcribing the interviews.

The findings point out three things. “First, non-drinking was constructed as something strange requiring explanation. Second, contradictory discourses constructed non-drinking as, simultaneously, unsociable yet reflective of greater sociability. Third, non-drinking was constructed as something which has greater negative social consequences for men than for women.” (Conroy, Visser, 2013) These three discursive patterns among the study findings when examined more closely illustrate firstly that the lifestyle choice of abstaining rather than partaking is indeed an atypical one and considers what bearing that choice has on the assimilation within a culture where drinking is the assumed typical lifestyle choice. Second, that the unsociable consideration of non-drinkers is contradictory with the concept that sober individuals uphold greater sociability compared to their drinking counterparts. Third, that non-drinking has greater negative social consequences for men when you consider the role that alcohol consumption plays within the ideals of hegemonic masculinity that shape the socialization of men and their subsequent relationships with their male peers. Since women do not have to conform to the ideals of hegemonic masculinity in the same fashion, they do not face the same type of negative consequences as men. The study found that women that were surveyed tended to regard women that were non-drinkers as someone deserving of support or solidarity. Often making comments such as “she’s looking after herself” or “good for her.” (Conroy, Visser, 2013)

Article Two

The second article I examined takes a look at socialization in relation to non-drinkers on U.S. college campuses which provides a nice comparison with that of the first study which only focused on U.K. college campuses. For this study, a team of individuals set out to describe the differences between the social networks of drinkers and non-drinkers among college students, and to assess any perceived exclusion on a social level among non-drinkers within that setting. “We expected the following: 1. Nondrinkers will have lower in degree, a measure of network prominence, defined as the number of friendship nominations a participant receives. Indegree is a common indicator of popularity (Valente, 2010), which has been associated with more drinking among adolescents (Balsa et al.,2011).2. Nondrinkers and drinkers will have a significantly higher proportion of their ties matching their own drinking status based on previous work that has found drinking homophily among college students (Barnett et al., 2014; Christakis &Fowler, 2008; Rosenquist et al., 2010).” (Balestrieri et al, 2013) The authors of this study “…also had three exploratory aims. They are as follows: 1. to determine if nondrinkers and drinkers differ in their number of social ties to (a) other students in the first-year class and (b) ties to individuals outside of the first-year class, 2. to investigate nondrinkers’ perceived social exclusion and whether nondrinkers’ perceived social exclusion differs depending on their proportion of ties to other nondrinkingstudents,3. to determine if living in substance-free housing is associated with less perceived social exclusion among non-drinking students.” (Balestrieri et al, 2013)

Participants were first-year college students chosen from a private university within the United States living in dorms on campus. Of those students surveyed, 1,342 of the students completed the survey while one was excluded from the sample due to missing drinking data. Recruitment for the study included materials sent to either a home or campus address, via email and in-person at campus events. Every participant that was 18 years of age or older and provided either written or online consent to participate and those under age 18 provided parental consent to participate. Each student was sent a link to the survey with instructions to complete it within a two-week time frame. Each student that completed the survey was compensated with a $50 Amazon gift card. Demographic information including birth sex, ethnicity, athletic status, and first-generation status were provided by each participant and other information including dorm assignment and substance free floor designation within the dorm was provided by the university.

Alcohol use was measured within a 30-day period of time (within the past 30 days) and was defined using the parameters of a standard drink equal to a 12 oz beer, a 5 oz glass of wine or a 1 oz shot of liquor. Any student who indicated one or more drinking days within that period were labeled “drinkers.” Any student who indicated zero drinking days within that period were labeled “non-drinkers.” Participants were asked to name 10 students within their social network of other first year students and 10 people outside of their first-year peers that were important to them. Data was then collected where each participant estimated the drinking habits of the people on their lists. The interviewers developed three measures to assess how a non-drinker was perceived by others.

T-tests and chi-square tests were conducted to measure demographic differences between non-drinkers and drinkers. Network auto correlation models using z-scores, t-tests or chi-square tests were conducted to test the differences in the social network characteristics between the two groups. Race, first-generation status, substance free status and athletic status were controlled across the board. Perceived social exclusion and the drinking status of peers reviewed were calculated using bivariate correlations. There is a table included with the study with a breakdown of the data for review.

As expected, non-drinkers held fewer central positions among their first-year peers when compared to the social network of drinkers. This holds steady with the perceived popularity bias that non-drinkers are less popular than drinkers. Consistent with other findings, drinkers tended to associate with higher numbers of other drinkers, while non-drinkers tended to affiliate with higher numbers of other non-drinkers.

Limitations:

In Conroy, Visser (2013), there are two limitations that I would like to point out. One of which the researchers pointed out at the end of their study. That being, the sole interviewer was male. This fact could have affected the discussion and answers that male participants chose to share due to the discursive nature of the study itself and the correlation with ideals of masculinity. In turn, that could call the construct validity of the study into question. To improve on this or remedy this limitation, one could appoint a female interviewer as the sole interviewer. Another option to remedy this limitation could be to appoint one male interviewer for female participants and one female interviewer for male participants, a mix of either interviewer for either male or female participants, or running a test to see if there are any differences between the two to weed out possible bias, interference or suggestive implications concerning the study. The second limitation of this study is the sample size itself. Considering that it is such a small sample, the external validity might not be as strong as a researcher would like it to be when trying to represent the larger population. To address this limitation, one would need to recreate the study on a larger scale or simply run multiple trials with sample sizes that vary so that one might be able to get a better picture of how these findings apply to the larger population.

For Balestrieri et al (2013), there are three limitations to be discussed. The researchers point out that their analysis was made of cross-sectional data. That being said, it is difficult to infer causality or how relationships can change over a period of time. In this respect, the internal validity of a causal association is undetermined and would need further study to stipulate. To address this issue, a new study could be conducted with a more experimental approach in which assignment to groups or the use of a balanced Latin square might construct better statistical analysis. Another area of difficulty surrounds the time frame measured when drinking occurred. A thirty-day period does not take into account their history long term or even their drinking habits at the beginning of the semester compared to recently. This calls the statistical validity into question as their data might not accurately measure their participants. A way to remedy this would be to measure their drinking habits over a longer period of time to get a more accurate representation of the participant’s behavior and attitudes and how that may change over a longer period. The last limitation in this study is the sample itself. It was comprised of undergraduate students from a private university in a particular part of the US. Because of this, the data might not be applicable to other college samples were a comparison made between the two. To address this last limitation, one would need to recreate the study in a variety of other schools from different areas of the country and represent a sample that is inclusive of private and public institutions to bolster external validity within the study. I do not believe that the limitations discovered for either study cause concern as to the validity of the studies themselves. But more so that there would need to be adjustments made to account for and address them.

Synthesis:

The two studies looked at bring merit to the ideas surrounding my research question. They both support that non-drinking is looked at as a behavior that is atypical in comparison to the typical behavior of its drinking counterpart and that it often requires explanation to those offering alcohol to non-drinkers. While I do not believe that either of these studies answer my question: How does sobriety affect social interaction? I do believe that it is a step in the right direction to get those answers. Both studies support each other with the findings being similar in respect one another. Though the differences have more to do with the exact nature of the studies themselves and what questions they were attempting to answer. Considering that one focuses mostly on the relationship to masculine identity and is of a discursive nature and the other is more broadly geared toward first year undergraduate students in particular and their attitudes toward drinking.

 

Hypothesis:

Considering the data from these two studies and my own ideas on the subject, I propose the following as a new hypothesis. One that seeks to answer my question: How does sobriety affect social interaction? My hypothesis is: Sobriety affects the nature in which we relate to others (both drinkers and non-drinkers) and creates challenges to navigating the social dynamics of everyday life including, but not limited to, dating, friendship, workplace interaction and ultimately how we engage on a social level. Both pulling from the research here and my own personal experiences with sobriety and socialization compared to socialization as a drinker, there are clear differences between the two that deserve to be studied. The psychological impact this topic has on a person choosing to abstain (for whatever reason) is clear and evident. I would like to delve further into that to answer my own question, as I am sure I am not the only one asking this question.

Methods:

This study will be experimental. The participants chosen to take part in this study will be comprised of a convenience sample of adults over the age of 21 (since 21 is the legal drinking age). It will encompass a variety of participants from varying backgrounds, with varying ethnicities and will include people who drink, people who have never drank and people who previously were drinkers and are now sober. To prove, or disprove, my hypothesis I will be focusing on the variables of sobriety and drinking in relation to social interaction. I plan to use a self-report measure in the form of a questionnaire, a physiological measure in the form of a test while in an fMRI machine, and an observational measure in the form of observing the participants in a social setting where alcohol is being consumed. The questionnaire will consist of 15 questions asking participants about their relationship with alcohol, their attitude toward non-drinkers and drinkers alike and identifying questions that describe our sample. This questionnaire can be completed by the participant either online or in person. The fMRI test will have each participant lay in an fMRI machine while we ask the same questions in our original questionnaire with the exception of the first three identifying questions. The participants will be observed by our research assistant (with their consent) at a social event where alcohol is being consumed. They won’t know who is observing them as they will not meet the research assistant. That way he/she can observe them in a natural setting of their choice without bias and without their behavior being affected. The research assistant will be paying particular attention to how many drinks our drinking partcipants consume along with the attitudes of others around that participant. For non-drinkers, the research assistant will be paying attention to how many times the non-drinker’s status is brought up, addressed, explained or questioned and the attitudes of others around that participant. Each participant will be compensated $15 for each measure they participate in. If they participate in all three, they will be paid $50 for their time. The goal is to have 100 participants that participate in all three measures (since we have a budget of $5,000), however, that will vary depending on how many measures each participant agrees to complete.

Data analysis will consist of finding the mean and standard deviation for the questionnaire to measure differences and similarities between participants. We will compare that data to the data collected from the fMRI to see what happens in the brain when asked the questions on the questionnaire. Our goal of which would be to find the correlation, if there is one, between sobriety and socialization.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

“Social Interaction.” APA Dictionary of Psychology, American Psychological Association, 2020, https://dictionary.apa.org/social-interactions. Accessed 20, March 2020.

 

“Man up!”: Discursive Constructions of Non-Drinkers Among UK Undergraduates, Journal of Health Psychology, 18(11): 1432-44. (2013). Conroy, D. and de Visser, R.O., https://core.ac.uk/reader/219373519

 

“U.S. College Students’ Social Network Characteristics and Perceived Social Exclusion: A Comparison Between Drinkers and Perceived Social Exclusion: A Comparison Between Drinkers and Nondrinkers Based on Past Month Alcohol Use” (2013), Statistical and Data Sciences: Faculty Publications, Smith College, Balestrieri, Sara G.; DiGuiseppi, Graham T.; Meisel, Matthew; Clark, Melissa A.; Ott, Miles Q.; and Barnett, Nancy P., https://scholarworks.smith.edu/sds_facpubs/10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendices

Budget: $5000

• Goal: 100 participants that complete all three measures being paid $50 each
• Any remainder not paid to participants only participating in one or two measures can be applied to additional participants as needed
• fMRI machine provided at no cost
• Research assistant provided at no cost
• Researcher is donating time to this study at no cost

Questionnaire:

1. What is your age?
2. a) 21-30
3. b) 31-40
4. c) 41-50
5. d) 51-60
6. e) 60 plus
7. f) Prefer not to answer
8. What is your ethnicity?
9. a) White/Caucasian
10. b) Hispanic
11. c) African American
12. d) American Indian/Alaskan Native
13. e) Asian/Pacific Islander
14. f) Prefer not to answer
15. What is your gender?
16. a) Male
17. b) Female
18. c) Transgender Male
19. d) Transgender Female
20. e) Gender Non-Conforming/Non-Binary
21. f) Prefer not to answer
22. Have you ever consumed alcohol?
23. a) Yes
24. b) No
25. How often do you consume alcohol?
26. a) Daily
27. b) 3-5 times per week
28. c) Once a week
29. d) Only on weekends
30. e) On special occasions
31. f) I don’t consume alcohol
32. Why did you start consuming alcohol? (Choose as many as apply)
33. a) Curiosity
34. b) Because you were bored
35. c) Peer Pressure
36. d) I was influenced by someone older than you
37. e) I wanted to get drunk
38. f) I have never consumed alcohol

 

7. Do you engage in binge drinking (5 or more drinks in a sitting)?
8. a) Yes
9. b) No
10. What are your thoughts/feelings on consuming alcohol in the presence of non-drinkers in a social setting? (Choose as many as apply)
11. a) I don’t think twice about it
12. b) I feel uncomfortable
13. c) I feel guilty
14. d) I wish they weren’t there
15. e) I don’t consume alcohol
16. Do you ever feel uncomfortable in a social setting due to the fact that you don’t consume alcohol? (Choose as many as apply)
17. a) Yes, because I don’t consume alcohol
18. b) Yes, because it poses a risk of being tempted to consume alcohol (when I do not)
19. c) No, because I DO consume alcohol
20. d) No, I feel totally comfortable in any social setting regardless of whether there is alcohol present
21. Do you avoid certain social situations or places because you don’t consume alcohol?
22. a) Yes
23. b) No
24. c) Not applicable as I do consume alcohol
25. Do you feel the need to explain why you aren’t consuming alcohol to others in a social situation? (Choose as many as apply)
26. a) Yes, I disclose it on the basis of a medical condition or medication I am taking
27. b) Yes, I feel the need to explain my status to those that ask or offer me a drink
28. c) No, I do not wish to disclose my sober status to others in a social setting
29. d) No, it’s none of their business
30. e) No, I don’t abstain from consuming alcohol
31. When considering dating someone, would them being a non-drinker be a deal-breaker for you?
32. a) Yes
33. b) No
34. When considering dating someone, would them being a drinker be a deal-breaker for you?
35. a) Yes
36. b) No
37. Do you feel apprehensive about disclosing your non-drinking status to others?
38. a) Yes, I am afraid they won’t accept me
39. b) Yes, I am afraid they won’t want to hang out with me because I don’t consume alcohol
40. c) No, I consume alcohol
41. d) No, I feel confident in my status as a non-drinker
42. e) No, it has no bearing on the interactions I have with others
43. Do you find yourself hanging out with a majority of friends that are:
44. a) non-drinkers
45. b) drinkers
46. c) both

 

SANTA MONICA COLLEGE, SANTA MONICA

 

PERMISSION TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

SOBRIETY AND SOCIALIZATION

You are being asked to participate in a research study conducted by Teresa Fultz and Colin Clark, and associates from the Department of Psychology, at Santa Monica College, Santa Monica.  You were selected as a possible participant in this study because you are of legal drinking age and wish to participate. Your participation in this research study is voluntary.

Why is this study being done?

This research study is being conducted to measure the affects of sobriety on social interaction.

What will happen I take part in this research study?

If you agree to participate in this study, we would ask you to:

1. Complete a questionnaire. This questionnaire can be completed online or in person.

   2. Answer a series of questions while in an fMRI machine. The fMRI machine test will be conducted at our state of the art facility where the fMRI machine is located. You will be given instructions on where to go and how to check in for the test. We ask that you inform the researcher of any medical conditions such as health problems, recent surgeries, allergies, whether there is a possibility that you are pregnant and whether you have any metal implants in your body. You will be asked to remove any jewelry and we instruct you to wear loose, comfortable clothing for this test. If you do not feel comfortable leaving jewelry or other valuables in the lockers provided, we ask that you leave them at home. Please notify the researcher of any history of anxiety or claustrophobia and any current medications being taken as they may interfere with or affect the outcome of the scan.

   3. Allow our researchers to conduct an observational test in a social setting of their choosing where alcohol is being consumed.

If for any reason the participant is uncomfortable with being in a social setting where alcohol is present, they do not have to participate in the third measure.

How long will the research study take?

Participation in the study will be broken into three parts. The questionnaire should take 10-15 minutes to complete. The fMRI test should take an hour or less to complete though timing can vary. The observational test will be anywhere between 1 and 3 hours depending on how long the participant is present at the venue of their choosing.

Are there any potential risks or discomforts that I can expect from this study?

The fMRI poses almost no risk to the average patient. Though some participants with cochlear implants, some participants with certain types of clips used for brain aneurysms, some participants with metal coils placed within blood vessels and some participants with older cardiac defibrillators and pacemakers may interfere with the exam or pose a risk.

For those that are sober, participating in the third measure may cause discomfort or put them in a position where they may be tempted to consume alcohol. If such a situation poses a problem for the participant, we respect your right to not take part in the third measure.

Are there any potential benefits if I participate?

Participation in the study does not necessarily provide any potential benefits to the participant on a personal level. Though your assistance in researching this topic will be used to further study in this field and may help gain better understanding when it comes to the topic being studied.

Alternatives to participation

You may choose not to participate in the study. You may also choose to participate in only one measure of this study, only two measures of this study, or all three.

Will I receive any payment if I participates in this study?

You will be compensated $15 for each measure completed. If you complete all three, you will be compensated $50 for your time.

Will information about my participation be kept confidential?

Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can identify you will remain confidential. It will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law. Confidentiality will be maintained by means of linking your name to a subject number.  The subject number will be used to identify data, and the document linking the number to your name will be destroyed after the study is complete.  Electronic data will be kept on a secure computer and paper data will be kept in a locked office.  Only the experimenters will have access to the data.

Withdrawal of participation by the investigator

The investigator may withdraw you from participating in this research if circumstances arise which warrant doing so. If you become ill or have to miss one of the sessions for some other reason during the course of the study, you may have to drop out, even if you would like to continue. The investigator will make the decision and let you know if it is not possible for you to continue. The decision may be made to protect your health and safety, or to ensure the accuracy of the data.

What are my rights if I take part in this study?

You may withdraw your permission at any time and discontinue your participation. If you discontinue your participation in any measure of the study without completing that measure, you will forfeit compensation for that particular measure.

Who can answer questions I might have about this study?

If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the research, you can talk to the one of the researchers. Please contact Colin Clark at (562) 606-9379 (email: ctclark@gmail.com) or Teresa Fultz at (310) 280-8433 (email: fultz_teresa_marie@student.smc.edu).

If you wish to ask questions about your rights as a research participant or if you wish to voice any problems or concerns you may have about the study to someone other than the researchers, please contact the Institutional Review Board at Santa Monica College via email at research@smc.edu.

SIGNATURE OF PARTICIPANT

I understand the procedures described above.  My questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study.  I have been given a copy of this form.

Name of Participant
Signature of Participant		Date

 

Ethical Declarations

• All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
• Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants involved in the study.
• The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest