The Upside of Change: Finding the Silver Lining

If you always do what you have always done, you will always get what you’ve always gotten. Jessie Potter

In his book, Illusions: The adventures of a reluctant messiah (1977), Richard Bach’s protagonist encounters an enigmatic fellow barnstorming pilot who becomes his mentor. The mentor’s life lessons, collected in a small book with unnumbered pages, the Messiah's Manual & Reminders for the Advanced Soul, is essentially a book of maxims designed to provide the reader with guidance when addressing life’s challenges by simply opening to any page…hence the absence of numbered pages…and then reflecting on the revealed maxim. For example, at one point when Richard, the book’s narrator, is dealing with a vexing challenge, he opens the handbook and reads, There is no such thing as a problem without a gift for you in its hands. You seek problems because you need their gifts (p. 57 in the novel).

 Although I recommend this tome to anyone dealing with the challenges of life[1]—in particular those coming to grips with a substance use disorder—this maxim from the Messiah’s Handbook is of particular interest when considering threats to a personal change plan. Change, while at the same time necessitating the removal of "something," promises to provide by substituting “something else” in its place.  Unfortunately, one of the greatest challenges to a change plan occurs when lamenting the loss resulting from this removal.

Ironically, it is not the abandonment of some “thing” or “activity” that provokes this sense of loss but rather, the resulting void one realizes when following the forfeiture of the usual or go-to means by which to handle pain, stress, anxiety, or any other equally disquieting experience that provokes the need to seek the negative reinforcement provided by the "old behavior." Add to this that the new behaviors implemented to supplant if not block the “maladaptive behavior” are perceived as inconvenient at best and feel awkward or are otherwise viewed as “wrong,” and you have the perfect storm for scuttling even the best-intentioned and well-planned change strategy.

Those successful when implementing a change plan are those who recognize that change “gives something” as well as takes something away. This realization results when conducting something akin to what an economist calls a” cost-benefit analysis.”

Such an analysis quite literally means looking at what it costs to realize some desired outcome, for example, assuage physical or emotional pain, cope with anxiety, or compensate for a perceived defect in character or being. When the cost—and this can just as easily refer to a cost in time, effort, the opinion of others or self-respect as it can to money—of realizing a particular benefit is greater than the benefit itself, then, and only then will the prospect of change become tenable. Put another way, when the cost of the benefit received from continuing to behave in one’s “usual way” is greater than the costs associated with changing, one opts for making the change.

An activity that simplifies this cost-benefit analysis of change options involves the use of a simple 2 X 2 table. When attempting this exercise, referred to as a Decisional Balance exercise by professional counselors, label the columns in the table as "Change” and “Stay the Same” (or “quit smoking/drinking/avoiding exercise/gambling/not taking my meds/whatever” and "keep smoking/drinking/gambling" or "avoid exercise/taking my meds/whatever."

Next, label the rows as “Pros/Benefits” and “Cons/Costs.” Now over the course of several days start to record specifics details associated with each “cell” in the table. NOTE: Doing this over several days rather than “all at once” accommodates changes in mood or insights that may arise from day-to-day. If you are particularly intent on conducting a truly thorough cost-benefit analysis, ask a trusted friend or close family member for her/his input.

When completed, the resulting table provides a more objective, rational “picture” of the costs and benefits associated with both "change" or "no change." Although this certainly does not ensure that change will follow, it does present a clearer picture of “what’s what” regarding one's situation. Not uncommonly, a decision to change just seems to "materialize" when stepping back from the table in order to consider “the big picture.”

Remember...the benefits of changing…or not…can only be assessed by the changer. This means that the motivation to alter one's behavior originates internally. The tipping point for successful change, as Bach suggests in Illusions, occurs when one recognizes that life's problems have their gifts inside, which is why we need them. It would seem that the same can be said of the challenges associated with changing…

What do you think?

Dr. Robert

References

Bach, R. (1981,1977). Illusions: the adventures of a reluctant Messiah. New York: Dell/E. Friede.

[1] I had considered sending a copy of this Bach novel to all members of the U.S. Congress but when realizing the most likely best-case outcome of such an expensive effort would be to just have it assigned to an aide to read, I decided against it.

--> -->

Working with Collegiate Drinkers: The Art of Gentle Persuasion

Initiating conversations with contemporary college students is not as difficult as some may imagine. A number of essays published on this blog have addressed how to increase the likelihood that students will actually talk with and listen to “nonstudents,” A.K.A., counselors, coaches, faculty, parents, health educators, and ‘miscellaneous others.’” This essay will consider employing simple techniques based on principles of social psychology and designed to persuade students to consider acting on our suggestions once we have engaged them in conversation.

We human beings are fascinating creatures. Unique in the animal kingdom for a number of reasons but none more pronounced nor as universally accepted as the presence of our “big brains.” Our ability to think and reason sets us apart from almost all other creatures and our sentience or sense of self-awareness coupled with the ability to grasp our position in the space-time continuum has enabled us to not only think and reason but to connect the past with the future by means of the “thinking” we do in the present. Our ability to do so, as some will surely agree, makes us wonderful storytellers. Some therapists actually refer to the counseling they provide as presenting individuals with a means by which to rewrite their stories thereby making therapy a proactive quest for solutions rather than a reactive post-mortem on problems.

College students, like all of us, are “storytellers,” although frequently they view their lives as a collection of independent short stories rather than an epic novel where each story is but another chapter that contributes to overall plot development. Persuading students to modify their stories in such a way as to reduce the likelihood that the protagonist…our student-hero…avoids experiencing untoward consequences during her or his quest through life helps students avoid writing a tragedy rather than the intended drama. Fortunately, social psychology has provided us with numerous helpful insights to human nature that can guide our work with students.

This first essay in what I intend to be a series concerns itself with two of these insights, the Foot in the Door (FITD) and Door in the Face (DITF) principles of human behavior. Each principle works on the unconscious and tends to affect how we respond to a request received from another. Consequently, understanding these principles and then employing them properly can prepare those who work with college students to persuade students to choose lower-risk options during their collegiate experience. NOTE: The focus is on student choice rather than practitioner coercion.

FITD suggests that by making a small request first, the likelihood that agreement with a subsequent larger request will follow. For example, providing a neighbor with a ride to the local bus stop when asked may result in agreeing to a subsequent request to pick the neighbor up at the airport 20-miles away. This particular persuasive technique might be used by a health educator who is interviewing a college student. Obtaining the student’s permission to conduct a routine health screening as part of an intake may result in the student agreeing to maintain a drinking or smoking log during the time between appointments.

The DITF suggests that when receiving a particularly large request that is refused, a subsequent smaller request, the one the petitioner actually desires, may well be granted. For example, your neighbor asks if he can borrow your car for several hours to drive into the city; you decline. He/she then asks if you will provide a ride to the local metro stop to catch the train and you agree. This persuasive technique might be employed by a counselor in the college counseling center whose client has just acknowledged engaging in unsafe sexual practices. The counselor asks the student if he/she will abstain from sex; the student declines. The counselor then asks if the student will use or insist on the use of a condom; the student agrees.

A case in point: I once saw a graduating senior who opted to meet with me following a minor alcohol violation rather than pay a $200 fine. The student was on the dean’s list, graduating on time, and was offered a position at the company where he did his co-op where his starting salary would be more than I was making with a Ph.D. after 30 years! This student did not have an alcohol problem. That said, he was a very risky drinker. When outlining his risk and suggesting that he reduce his 10-beers, 3X/week to 2 beers on each of no more than 2 outings per week, he respectfully declined. When asked if he would cut his drinking in half—especially after we calculated the number of calories he was consuming when drinking 30 12-oz beers per week—he agreed and together we worked out a plan to accomplish this reduction.

When treated with respect by practitioners who understand some of the basic principles of social psychology, persuading college students to “do the right thing” does not have to be as daunting as it may seem. Although not every student will yield to every technique, strategy, or approach that we employ, enough will so as to make the investment of time and planning worth the effort.

Dr. Robert

Is Preventing College Drinking Like the Tail Wagging the Dog?

For better than 25-years, those concerned about the academic success and well-being of collegians have viewed the prevention of high-risk and dangerous drinking as a top priority. Social scientists have provided valuable insight as to ways to reduce high-risk drinking as well as effective ways to intercede with those students as well as present them with opportunities to review their choices and moderate their consumption. This, as one can imagine, is the "good news" in a good-news-bad-news consideration of contemporary collegiate life. The "bad news," unfortunately, is that high-risk drinking remains near the top of issues that threaten student success in the pursuit of a post-secondary education.

Even a cursory review of the collegiate drinking literature quickly reveals that researchers and student affairs professionals alike have focused almost exclusively on addressing "the problem." Little if any attention is paid to the behavior of those students who are either moderate in their consumption of alcohol or abstain altogether. Ironically, our efforts to develop prevention strategies may well have contributed, albeit unintentionally, to the apparently intractable nature of high-risk and dangerous collegiate drinking.

By exclusively defining prevention as efforts to moderate student consumption and reduce untoward incidents related to drinking, we inadvertently make the behavior of a minority of college students--albeit a sizable minority--the focus of attention and the issue of primacy when considering collegiate drinking. As Jung once famously quipped, that which you resist persists. In essence, all "collegiate drinking" becomes the problem rather than the high-risk and dangerous drinking that some collegians do--to read more on this, see my monograph, When They Drink: Is Collegiate Drinking the Problem We Think It Is? 

To paraphrase an old cliche, to focus all efforts on trying to stop collegiate drinking...or even trying to stop the minority of students who engage in frequent episodes of high-risk and dangerous drinking (1)...is akin to the "tail wagging the dog." There is much we can learn from listening to what the majority of students who use alcohol moderately or not at all can tell us about why they choose to drink moderately or abstain. If we understood those reasons and directed that knowledge toward efforts to promote low-risk drinking--which includes knowing when to abstain as well as how to moderate consumption when choosing to drink--we may well take efforts designed to foster student wellness to the next level. This is a classic example of moving towards the light rather than away from the darkness.

Broadening our focus from exclusively "preventing high-risk behavior" to also pursuing the "promotion of low-risk behavior" may well enable us to move even closer to the "holy grail" of significantly reducing high-risk and dangerous collegiate drinking even further. NOTE: I do not advocate abandoning what preventionists have been doing for decades but rather, broadening the spectrum and adding to it.

Although an optimist, I am also pragmatic. I realize that there will likely never be a time when there is "zero" high-risk and dangerous drinking on college and university campuses. Just as college students have consumed alcohol for the last 300-years, so will they continue to do so in the future. With that continued drinking comes the consequences associated when consuming to excess. That said, if collegiate drinking is not so much the problem but it is the drinking some collegians do that is, then it is entirely possible that although collegiate drinking continues, a quantifiable reduction in high-risk and dangerous drinking can take place. Realizing this change, however, will likely only occur if and when we broaden our approach to addressing issues of collegiate drinking by focusing as much on the promotion of low-risk behaviors as we currently do on preventing the high-risk.

What do you think?

Dr. Robert

__________

1 if you have not already guessed, I loathe the term "binge drinking," defined as 5+ drinks for men and 4+ drinks for women - to read more on this March 2010 blog post

Prevention 2.0: Taking Efforts to Affect Collegiate Drinking to the Next Level

Nudging student behavior is a too often overlooked approach to addressing the prevention of high-risk and dangerous drinking practiced by some collegians. College administrators, student affairs professionals, faculty, and others concerned about the role alcohol plays in contemporary collegiate life have attempted to change the campus drinking culture for years but have done so, primarily, by focusing on preventing the high-risk behavior rather than promoting low-risk.

That said, significant progress in the area of prevention is recorded in the literature with environmental management, social norms marketing, brief motivational interventions, and the use of the ecological model among the more frequently cited strategies that have yielded results. Yet, with all the gains realized to this point, high-risk and dangerous drinking remains at a stubborn, apparently intractable level of “40-some percent” of students reporting consuming in excess of 5-standard drinks on an occasion and “20-some percent” classified as what have been called frequent binge drinkers because of reporting 2 or more such episodes during the 2-weeks prior to completing surveys.

Skeptics tend to look at the apparently intractable nature of this type of drinking and lament, resigning themselves to it being ‘just student nature’ with likely ‘nothing more’ we can do to redress this problem. Those willing to look outside the proverbial box when considering options, however, disagree. Because prevention efforts appear to have reached an impasse, this is no reason to surrender to these percentages and just “learn to live with them.” Other approaches do exist, albeit coming from beyond the traditional student health and wellness purview.

Behavioral economics, a topic about which I have written before, is one of those “other approaches” that can help address this “immutable problem.” This essay began with the notion of “nudging student behavior” so as to increase the likelihood that students will make low-risk choices. As with the old adage about leading horses to water but being unable to make them drink, if we salt the oats, we make the horses thirsty and they will decide of their own accord to drink. (Yes, I realize the analogy may level something to be desired when addressing collegiate drinking, but the principle is sound; present students with an opportunity to view their decision about drinking from a different perspective and they may just come to different conclusions...with different behavioral outcomes.)

Richard Thaler, an economist at the University of Chicago, along with his co-author Cas Sunstein in their book, Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness outline numerous strategies that can “nudge” us to do everything from increase savings for retirement to exercising more to healthier eating. I will mention one example of these “nudges” and speculate on how it may affect student choice regarding alcohol consumption: The anchoring heuristic.

Simply stated, anchoring suggests that when we make numerical estimates we are influenced by available reference points. For example, in one experiment, individuals looking at a menu were asked what they would be willing to spend for a meal in the restaurant. Two separate groups, comprised of randomly selected subjects, were shown the same menu, without prices, in the same setting. The only difference was the name of the restaurant on the menu. For the first group of subjects, the menu was for dishes at “Studio 17”; the name of the second restaurant was “Studio 97.” Subjects looking at “Studio 17’s” menu reported they would pay, on average, $24 for a meal; those looking at “Studio 97’s” menu reported they would pay $32. The difference in the number in the restaurants’ names “nudged” decisions regarding how much subjects were willing to pay for a meal.

Building on this, how can we “nudge” students to make a lower-risk decision about alcohol using anchoring as a “new arrow in the prevention quiver”?

What if…when interviewing a student and taking a drinking history, after asking about the average number of times per week the student drinks we were to ask what percentage of students (in the same school, in the “student’s class,” on the “student’s team,” etc.) drink? Might this create an opportunity for a discussion regarding frequency?

What if…when speaking with students about the typical number of standard drinks consumed when drinking we asked them what percentage of their peers/classmates/teammates/etc. consume that number of drinks or more? Might the result usher in a conversation about consumption and BAC?

What if…after sharing data on actual social norms and asking if the student intends to drink during the coming week we asked: “how many standard drinks do you think you will have when you drink?”

In the 1940s & 1950s, the psychologist Kurt Lewin postulated what he called “field theory.” One aspect of this theory suggested that individuals are influenced by one or both of two forces when making a decision; driving forces that move one in a particular direction and restraining forces that preclude getting there. Historically, those interested in changing behavior have focused on restraining behaviors when targeting change, in this case, high-risk drinking. This is like trying to make the horse drink after leading (forcing?) it to the water. What, however, would happen if we were to better understand what the driving forces are for students to engage in the high-risk behavior in the first place? NOTE: Student reported “driving forces” may be perceived as “dangerous,” “risky,” or otherwise inappropriate; remember, driving force, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Rather than try to prevent students from doing what they want to do because we know it is high-risk, might we be able to move to the next level of prevention…prevention 2.0…if we were to better assess and then understand what motivates their high-risk behavior in the first place and then concentrate on lowering those incentives? NOTE: For more on understanding student motives, reread my previous essay on the art of gentle persuasion.

I do not propose a different course of action for preventionists, just an additional route, another arrow for the prevention quiver if you will. I used to tell my students that there are many ways to get from Philadelphia to New York City aside from I-95—Drexel University is in Philadelphia, about 100-miles from NYC. These many and varied routes not only would result in arriving at the same destination, they afforded the opportunity to avoid trucks and/or tolls, enhance the pleasure of the trip with relaxed driving through scenic country, or any of a number of alternative reasons one might have for taking an alternate route. Students were quick to point out that one could even avoid driving altogether by taking a train, bus, or flying. The point is, if what I want is to get to NYC, there may be other ways to get there aside from the way “everyone else seems to go.”

What if the principles of behavioral economics were coupled with Lewin’s suggestion that understanding one’s motivation to pursue a particular behavior presented additional insight as to how to approach those apparently intractable high-risk drinkers? Carl Jung once said that which you resist persists. Is it possible that we can take prevention to the next level in reducing high-risk drinking by simply expanding our focus rather than insisting students change theirs?

Dr. Robert

The Warm-Cold Variable in First Impressions of Persons[1]: You Never Get a 2nd Chance to Make a 1st Impression

No act of kindness, however small, is ever wasted. Aesop

Four factors seem to capture the essence of effective counseling and therapy. Often referred to as the “common factors,” expectancy, therapeutic model, relationship, and client and extra-therapeutic factors suggest the likely outcome of therapy (see http://bit.ly/2xF156h for a more detailed review of this phenomenon).

What a practitioner expects accounts for 15% of the outcome of therapy, the therapeutic model employed accounts for another 15%, the relationship between the practitioner and client accounts for a full 30%, and client “extra-therapeutic” factors—personality traits like internal strength, environment, support system, etc.—40%. Although these are estimates based on a meta-analysis of empirical studies, they nonetheless suggest that the theoretical orientation of the practitioner contributes less to the outcome than does the simple interpersonal relationship that develops between the client and the practitioner. Put another way, next to those “extra-therapeutic effects” the client brings to treatment, the relationship is the most significant factor in determining the outcome of treatment.

Harold Kelly (1950[2]) found that when two random sets of students in an experiment received the same lecture from the same individual but following different introductions, one indicating the lecturer was a warm and knowledgeable individual in his field and the other that he was somewhat cold but knowledgeable, the students receiving the “warm” intro tended to rate the lecture better than did those receiving it from the “cold” lecturer.

“Warm” and “cold” are what social psychologists refer to as “central traits.” They are of great significance and possess the ability to shape one’s impressions of individuals even when other characteristics such as ability, performance, and reputation are presented. These perceived personal characteristics of “warmth” and “coldness” are so influential that they can affect how we interpret another’s other personal characteristics. In a now famous study conducted by Solomon Asch (1946), he found that when subjects were exposed to a description of someone as “warm and intelligent” or “cold and intelligent,” the actual meaning of the descriptor “intelligent” actually changed, resulting in a different impression of the individual being described.

What does this have to do with interviewing college students regarding their drinking behavior?

When interviewing students mandated to see me following a violation of the university’s alcohol policy, they would frequently show up acting as though they expected a “dad talk” – drinking is bad, you better never do this again, etcetera, etcetera. As we would enter my office, I would start the conversation by asking if they cared for a glass of spring water[3]. Often, they would say yes, perhaps only because they were surprised that I asked. As I went to get the water this left them a moment to look around my office, which was decorated in what I affectionately refer to as a “curio shop motif.” Among the many items in the office were in excess of 120 coffee mugs, hung on the walls, collected over the years and placed there simply because I had run out of shelf space.

When I would return with the water it was not uncommon that a student would say something about my office decor. If mentioning the coffee mugs—a favorite focal point for students—I would say, “Pick one.” The student would often look perplexed while saying, “Excuse me?” to which I would repeat my invitation, informing him or her that I would tell the story of how I got whichever mug was selected. Now, the most risqué story for any mug was rated PG, so these were boring stories. However, the point I make here is that the first 5-7-minutes of the mandated interview were spent treating the student as though she or he was a welcomed guest rather than a mandated client.

It was not uncommon that such students would return for sessions in addition to those mandated by the university, although often to discuss issues other than or in addition to the drinking that warranted the mandate in the first place. My point is, when the “person” who is our client is greeted by the “person” who is her or his counselor, it is at that juncture that the magic in counseling happens. It is the “person-to-person” interaction rather than “client-to-therapist” intervention that sets the stage for effective therapy.

True, I employed techniques heavily influenced by my affinity for CBT and conducted my intercessions[4] in a manner equally influenced by Motivational Interviewing, but the point remains, you sometimes have to give people what they want in order to get the opportunity to give them what they need…and what we all want, always, is to be respected and welcomed when interacting with another…in whatever venue.

What do you think?

__________

References

Asch, S.E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 258-290

Kelly, H.H. (1950). The warm-cold variable in first impressions of persons. Journal of Personality, 18(4), 431-439

Footnotes

[1] Borrowed from Kelly; see citation in the references above

[2] Before rolling your eyes at a 1950 citation, recall how often “old research” continues to inform practice today, consider Pasteur’s work with “germs” or Fleming’s with bacteria.

[3] After moving to the academic side of the street as a professor of behavioral health counseling, I did something similar with students who would stop by my office, only I offered them tea or spring water…something very soothing and “civilized” about proffering a cup of tea :)

[4] I prefer to conduct intercessions to interventions as the latter are too invasive and suggestive of an “us and them” dichotomy. For more on this, read my article in the INCASE Addiction Educator at http://incase.org/attachments/AE-Vol2.pdf See "Is a Rose by any Other Name Still a Rose?: A 21-Century Look at the Utility of Interventions in Addictions Treatment,” p. 4

A Rose by Any Other Name...

The title of this post comes from Romeo and Juliet, Act II, Scene II, by Shakespeare. Although this Shakespearian tragedy has little to do with drinking and nothing to do with collegiate prevention strategies, it makes a point that AOD preventionists may wish to consider when plying their trade on campus.

Few involved in addressing high-risk and dangerous drinking on college campuses are unaware of BASICS, Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students. This is an evidence-based, highly effective strategy for addressing high-risk drinking behaviors with students. Its use enables practitioners to motivate students to make changes in their alcohol use behaviors. That said, most of the students who are exposed to BASICS do so as either the result of a violation of an institution’s alcohol policies or are actually mandated to do so following a particularly untoward consequence of drinking, like hospitalization.

That BASICS exists, to use collegiate vernacular, is “awesome”; that it is primarily used after the fact of an alcohol violation or serious consequence of drinking suggests that it may not be utilized to its full potential. If students are exposed to BASCIS after the fact it is not so much a preventive strategy as a proactive clinical strategy. Do not get me wrong as I am not complaining about BASICS or its use; I was an early user of the practice in 2000 and have had the opportunity to discuss my experiences in its use with some of those who created BASICS and were involved in its rigorous vetting. My point is, perhaps there are ways to expand the approach beyond its current use as a proactive intervention and transform it into an effective intercession with students before untoward consequences of their drinking occur. NOTE: To read more on the difference between an “intervention” and an “intercession” read my article in the June 2016, Vol. 2, Issue 1 edition of The Addiction Educator – pp. 4 – 6: http://www.incase.org/attachments/AE-Vol2.pdf ).

Involving students before they violate institutional policy or find themselves in a situation where they are mandated to complete a BASICS program necessitates students making self-referrals to the program. Although self-referrals can result when individuals find themselves between the proverbial rock and a hard place, most often these referrals happen when there is an equilibrium between student curiosity about a particular behavior and their apprehensions about the process in which they would involve themselves in order to learn more. To that end, the term “BASICS,” when the acronym is spelled out in campus advertising, includes terms that, to be blunt, are off-putting…Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students. Terms such as “screening” and “intervention” are likely red flags for many college students and likely deter self-referrals for many students.

Nancy Reynolds of Ithaca College raised this point in a recent discussion on the BASICS Listserv. She suggested that on her campus, students were “scared off” by such “researchy-clinical terms” when a traditional interpretation of the BASICS acronym was proffered. What she reported doing at Ithaca College is to reinterpret the acronym making BASICS, Balancing Alcohol and Substances to Improve College Success.

Nancy’s suggestion strikes me as not only logical, it is genius in its simplicity as well as sensitivity to how students think. By simply attending to the role language plays in affecting how a program is perceived can likely increase student self-referrals. Students are much more likely to view an intercession as preferable to an intervention, especially in an age when the meaning of “intervention” in cases involving alcohol and other drug use has been determined by cable shows such as A & E’s Intervention and Celebrity Rehab.

Returning to Shakespeare, I wonder if he was not a closet AOD preventionist? We know that “traditional BASICS” works – see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3499225/. If interpreting the acronym for students in such a way as to increase the likelihood that they will engage in self-referral, then I would suggest that indeed, “a rose by any other name DOES smell as sweet.”

What do you think?

Dr. Robert

It Is That Time of the (Academic) Year Again

Well, with the end of August comes the start of a new academic year, at least at schools on the semester system. Along with the start of the new year comes the addition of new recruits to the ranks of collegians...the incoming class of 2021...or 22 or 23 or 24 :)

These new recruits bring with them their high school attitudes, values, and beliefs, which will directly influence the decisions they make, especially during the first 6-weeks and likely through their entire 1st semester. Unfortunately, for some of these students, their "pre-arrival" attitude--and to borrow a quote from Martin Luther King, Jr, although with apologies for its use for purposes other than those intended by Dr. King--that we are...Free at last, free at last. Thank God we are free at last serves to make them vulnerable to the untoward consequences associated with the high-risk and dangerous drinking that too often accompanies no curfews and the absence of parental supervision. 

For others, their value system suggests that as consumers, college is an adventure, purchased like a trip and from which satisfaction is expected...and the guarantee of such the responsibility of campus staff, faculty, and administrators. Like the traveler on a cruise ship having purchased the "free drinks" package, these students expect to be entertained and provided unfettered access to all they have come to expect of their "cruise" through 4-years of college...or 5 or 6 or...

Still, others have unpacked belief systems that suggest, bad things do not happen to good people and because I am good people, bad things cannot happen to me. Unfortunately, this "bubble of security" tends to burst, too often early in their collegiate experience, perhaps as early as 24- to 48-hours after arriving on campus.

Now, with 30+ years of experience in higher ed and 45-years of experience altogether in working with AOD-related issues, I know the students I described above represent the minority. That said, this is a sizable minority nonetheless. As student affairs professionals we often find ourselves struggling to ensure that as few students become disillusioned during their collegiate experience...or more to the point, "injured," either emotionally or/and physically...as possible. For this reason, I have included a link to a workbook I developed, along with Tom Workman who at the time was at the University of Houston - Downtown. This workbook was designed to guide students through a decision-making process in order to minimize the likelihood of experiencing an untoward incident related to choices made during a collegiate experience.

Although the workbook targets "Edgework" specifically - find out more about edgework at http://bit.ly/2xGoZhc - this workbook may be useful as you work with students during the coming year.

If you have the time and believe me, I remember how precious a student affairs professional's time is...and how scarce...at this time of the year, I would love to hear from you regarding what you think of this workbook.

Dr. Robert