Content uploaded by Robert O Pihl
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Robert O Pihl
Content may be subject to copyright.
Psychology
of
Addictive Behaviors Copyright
2000
by the
Educational
Publishing
Foundation
2000,
Vol.
14, No. 3,
231-242
0893-164X/00/$5.00
DOI:
10.I037//0893-164X.I4.3.231
Efficacy
of
Brief Coping Skills Interventions That
Match
Different
Personality
Profiles
of
Female
Substance
Abusers
Patricia
J.
Conrod
Sherry
H.
Stewart
State
University
of New
York
at
Stony Brook Dalhousie
University
Robert
O.
Pihl
Sylvana
Cote,
Veronique Fontaine,
McGill
University
and
Maurice Dongier
McGiU
University-Douglas Hospital Alcohol
Research Program
Female substance abusers recruited
from
the
community were randomly assigned
to
receive
1 of 3
brief interventions that differentially targeted their personality
and
reasons
for
drug
use.
The
90-min
interventions were:
(a)
a
motivation-matched
intervention involving personality-specific motivational
and
coping skills training,
(b)
a
motivational control intervention involving
a
motivational
film and a
sup-
portive discussion
with
a
therapist,
and (c) a
motivation-mismatched intervention
targeting
a
theoretically
different
personality
profile.
Assessment
6
months later
(N
=
198)
indicated that only
the
matched intervention proved
to be
more
effective
than
the
motivational control intervention
in
reducing frequency
and
severity
of
problematic alcohol
and
drug
use and
preventing
use of
multiple medical services.
These
findings
indicate promise
for a
client-treatment
matching strategy that
focuses
on
personality-specific motives
for
substance abuse.
A
very
recent
shift
in
research
on
treatment
of
al.,
1994).
Although many therapy approaches
the
substance-abusing client
has
been toward have been
found
to be
effective
in the
treatment
the
investigation
of the
effectiveness
of
client-
of
substance abusers,
few
treatments have
dem-
treatment
matching
strategies
(e.g.,
Mattson
et
onstrated
any
differential
effectiveness when
evaluated
across
undifferentiated,
heteroge-
neous groups
of
substance abusers (Miller
&
Patricia
J.
Conrod, Department
of
Psychology,
Hester
'
1989
)-
^
notion
of
treatment match-
State University
of New
York
at
Stony Brook; Sherry
mg
posits that therapeutic impact
can be
in-
H.
Stewart, Department
of
Psychology
and
Depart-
creased
among clients
who are
appropriately
ment
of
Psychiatry, Dalhousie University, Halifax,
matched
to
treatments, relative
to
clients
who
Nova Scotia, Canada; Robert
O.
Pihl,
Department
of
„&
not
so
matched (Miller
&
Cooney
1994)
Psychology
and
Department
of
Psychiatry, McGill
TWs
was
^
desi
used
in
^
recent
p^^
MauS
MATCH,
a
tnuhisite
collaborative
tria,
of
McGill
University-Douglas
Hospital
Alcohol
Re-
client-treatment
matching (Project MATCH
search Program, Verdun, Quebec, Canada.
Research Group, 1998).
In
this study,
undiffer-
This
research
was
partially
funded
by the
National
entiated
alcoholic clients were
randomly
as-
Health
and
Research Development Program, Health
signed
to one of
three therapy
modalities
(i.e.,
Canada.
12-step
facilitation,
cognitive-
behavioral
ther-
Correspondence
concerning
this article should
be
Qr
mot
i
vat
ional-
enhancement
therapy).
Lit-
addressed
to
Patncia
J.
Conrod, Department
of
Psy-
,
„
,
...
,
.
.
5.
'
.
chology,
State University
of New
York
at
Stony
de
SQ
PP
ort
for
me
™tchmg
hypothesis
has
thus
Brook, Stony Brook,
New
York
11794-2500.
far
been accumulated through Project MATCH,
Electronic mail
may be
sent
to
pconrod@ms.cc.
in
that
few
individual-difference variables have
sunysb.edu.
proven
useful
in
predicting
differential
respon-
231
232
CONROD
ET
AL.
siveness
to the
treatments investigated (Project
MATCH Research Group,
1998).
However,
a
major
criticism
of the
Project MATCH
findings
is
that
the
therapies
chosen
did not
specifically
target
the
different
therapy needs
of
individual
substance-abusing
clients.
All
therapies investi-
gated
in
Project MATCH were generic therapies
that
were designed
to
target pathological fea-
tures
common
to all
alcoholics. Moreover,
the
particular motivations
of
different
subtypes
of
substance
abusers were
not
specific targets
of
intervention.
Motivational theories
of
substance abuse vul-
nerability generally propose that individual dif-
ferences
in
personality produce
different
sus-
ceptibilities
to the
reinforcing properties
of
drugs
of
abuse
(Cloninger,