Advertisement

Alcoholics Anonymous Outcomes and Benefits

  • J. Scott Tonigan
Chapter
Part of the Recent Developments in Alcoholism book series (RDIA, volume 18)

Introduction

Strong opinions, both pro and con, have been voiced about AA. It has been argued that AA is the most effective method to arrest alcoholism (e.g., Snyder, 1980). In contrast, it has also been argued that AA is helpful to only 5% of the people who choose to affiliate with the organization (Bufe, 1998). McCrady and Miller (1993) suggested that 1 in 10 Americans will attend a twelve-step meeting in their lifetime, but Bufe (1998) asserted that a majority of individuals who seek relief from alcohol-related problems by attending AA are coerced to do so, with fewer than 1 in 30 remaining in AA after 1 year. Finally, a majority of outpatient and inpatient alcohol treatment programs in the United States routinely include referral to AA, with one survey indicating that 79% of all Veteran Affairs substance abuse programs in the United States make such referrals (Humphreys et al., 1999). Mandated AA attendance, however, has been successfully challenged as unconstitutional in the...

Keywords

Substance Abuse Treatment Meeting Attendance Complete Abstinence Inpatient Treatment Program Standard Smoking Cessation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bobo, J. K., & Davis, C. M., (1993). Cigarette smoking cessation and alcohol treatment. Addiction, 88, 405–412.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bogenschutz, M., & Tonigan, J. S. (2007). Counseling, A.A., and medical treatment in problem drinkers. American Association of Addiction Psychiatry. San Jose, CA. Google Scholar
  3. Brandsma, J. M., Maultsby, M. C., Jr., & Welsh, R. J., (1980). Outpatient treatment of alcoholism: A review and comparative study. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bufe, C. (1998). Alcoholics Anonymous: Cult or Cure? San Francisco: Sharp Press.Google Scholar
  5. Byrne, B. M.(1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic concepts, Applications, and Programming. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Google Scholar
  6. Carroll, S. (1993). Spirituality and purpose in life in alcoholism recovery. Journal of Studies in Alcohol, 54, 297–301.Google Scholar
  7. Connors, G. J., Tonigan, J. S., & Miller, W. R. (2001). A longitudinal model of A.A. affiliation, participation, and outcome: Retrospective study of the project MATCH outpatient and aftercare samples. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 62, 817–825.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Crumbaugh, J. C., & Henrion, R. (1988). The PIL test: Administration, interpretation, uses theory and critique. International Forum for Logotherapy, 11, 76–88.Google Scholar
  9. Ditman, K. S., Crawford, G. G., Forgy, E. W., Moskowitz, H., & MacAndrew, C. (1967). A controlled experiment on the use of court probation for drunk arrests.American Journal of Psychiatry, 124, 160–163.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Emrick, C. D., Tonigan, J. S., Montgomery, H. A., & Little, L. (1993). Alcoholics Anonymous: What is currently know? In B. S. McCrady, & W. R. Miller (Eds.), Research on Alcoholics Anonymous: Opportunities and alternatives (pp. 41–76). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Center on Alcohol Studies.Google Scholar
  11. Fiorentine, R., & Hillhouse, M. P. (2000). Drug treatment and 12-step program participation: The additive effects of integrated recovery activities. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 18, 65–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gilbert, F. S. (1991). Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52(4), 353–360. Google Scholar
  13. Hsieh, S., Hoffman, N. G., & Hollister, C. D. (1998). The relationship between pre-, during, post-treatment factors, and adolescent substance use behaviors. Addictive Behaviors, 23(4), 477–488.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hughes, J. R., Novy, P., Hatsukami, D. K., Jensen, J., & Callas, P. W. (2003). Efficacy of nicotine patch in smokers with a history of alcoholism. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 27(6), 946–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Humphreys, K., Huebsch, P. D., Finney, J. W., & Moos, R. H. (1999). A comparative evaluation of substance abuse treatment: V. Substance abuse treatment can enhance the effectiveness of self-help groups. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 23, 558–563.Google Scholar
  16. Humphreys, K., Mavis, B. E., & Stoffelmayr, B. E., (1994). Are twelve step programs appropriate for disenfranchised groups? Evidence from a study of posttreatment mutual help involvement. Prevention in Human Services, 11(3), 165–179.Google Scholar
  17. Humphreys, K., & Noke, J. M. (1997). The influence of posttreatment mutual help group participation on the friendship networks of substance abuse patients. American Journal of Community Psychology, 25, 1–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kaskutas, L. A., Bond, J., & Humphreys, K. (2002).Social networks as mediators of the effect of Alcoholics Anonymous. Addiction, 97, 891–900.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kelly, J. F., Myers, M. G., & Brown, S. A. (2000). A multivariate process model of adolescent 12-step attendance and substance use outcome following inpatient treatment. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 14, 376–389. Google Scholar
  20. Kelly, J., Myers, M. G., & Brown, S. (2002). Do adolescents affiliate with 12-step groups? A multivariate process model of effects. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63, 293–304.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Kelly, J. F., Stout, R., Zywiak, W., & Schneider, R. (2006). A 3-Year study of addiction mutual-help group participation following intensive outpatient treatment. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 30, 1381–1392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kownacki, R. J., & Shadish, W. R. (1999). Does Alcoholics Anonymous work? The results from a meta-analysis of controlled experiments. Substance Use and Misuse, 34, 1897–1916.Google Scholar
  23. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1st. ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  24. Lemke, S., & Moos, R. H., (2003). Outcomes at 1 and 5 years for older patients with alcohol use disorders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 24, 43–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McCrady, B. S.,& Miller, W. R. (Eds.). (1993). Research on Alcoholics Anonymous: Opportunities and alternatives. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers Center for Alcohol Studies.Google Scholar
  26. McCown, W. (1989). The relationship between impulsivity, empathy and involvement in twelve-step self-help substance abuse treatment groups. British Journal of Addiction, 84, 391–393.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McKeller J., Stewart, E., & Humphreys, K. (2003). Alcoholics Anonymous involvement and positive alcohol-related outcomes: Cause, consequence, or just a correlate? A prospective 2-year study of 2,319 alcohol-dependent men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(2), 302–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Miller, W. R., Tonigan, J. S., & Longabaugh, R. (1995). The Drinker Inventory of Consequences (DrInC): An instrument for assessing adverse consequences of alcohol abuse. Test Manual, (Volume 4, Project MATCH Monograph series). Rockville MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.Google Scholar
  29. Montgomery, H. A., Miller, W. R., & Tonigan, J. S. (1995). Does Alcoholics Anonymous involvement predict treatment outcome? Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 12(4), 241–246.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moos R. H., & Moos B. S. (2005a). Paths of entry into alcoholics anonymous: consequences for participation and remission. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 29, 1858–1868.Google Scholar
  31. Moos, R. H., & Moos. B. S. (2005b). Sixteen-year changes and stable remission among treated and untreated individuals with alcohol disorders. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 80, 337–348.Google Scholar
  32. Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (2006). Participation in treatment and Alcoholics Anonymous: A 16-year follow-up of initially untreated individuals. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62, 735–750.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Morgenstern, J., & Bates M. E. (1999). Effects of executive function impairment on change processes and substance use outcomes in 12-Step treatment. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 60, 846–855.Google Scholar
  34. Ouimette, P. C., Finney, J. W., & Moos, R. H. (1997). Twelve-step and cognitive-behavioral treatment for substance abuse: A comparison of treatment effectiveness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 230–240.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Patten, C. A., Martin, J. E., Calfas, K. J., Lento, J., & Wolter, T. D. (2001). Behavioral treatment for smokers with a history of alcoholism: Predictors of successful outcome. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69(5), 796–801.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Project Match Research Group (1997). Matching alcoholism treatments to client heterogeneity: Project MATCH Posttreatment drinking outcomes. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 58, 7–29.Google Scholar
  37. Project Match Research Group (1998). Matching alcoholism treatments to client heterogeneity: Project MATCH three-year drinking outcomes. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 22, 1300–1311.Google Scholar
  38. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002).Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2 nd ed.). Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  39. Snyder, S. H. (1980). Biological aspects of mental disorders. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Sobell, L., & Sobell, M. (2004). Assessment of drinking behavior, In J. Allen, & J. Fertig (Eds.), NIAAA Treatment Handbook Series 2: Alcoholism Treatment Assessment Research Instruments. Rockville MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.Google Scholar
  41. Timko, C., Moos, R. H., Finney, J. W., & Lesar, M., (2000). Long-term outcomes of alcohol use disorders: Comparing untreated individuals with those in Alcoholics Anonymous and formal treatment, Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 61, 529–540.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Tonigan, J. S. (2001). Benefits of Alcoholics Anonymous attendance: Replication of findings between clinical research sites in Project MATCH. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 19, 67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tonigan, J. S. (2003). Changing A.A. practices and outcomes: Project MATCH three-year follow-up, Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 27, 526–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tonigan, J. S., Connors, G. J., & Miller, W. R. (2003). Participation and involvement in Alcoholics Anonymous. In T. F. Babor, & F. K. Del Boca (Eds.), Matching alcoholism treatments to client heterogeneity: The results of Project MATCH. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Tonigan, J. S., Connors, G., & Miller, W. R. (1996). The Alcoholic Anonymous Involvement Scale (AAI): Reliability and norms. Psychology of Addictive Behavior, 10, 75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tonigan, J. S., Miller, W. R., & Connors, G. J. (2001). Prior Alcoholics Anonymous involvement and treatment outcome. In R. Longabaugh & P. W. Wirtz (Eds.), Project MATCH hypotheses: Results and causal chain analyses (pp. 276–284). Project MATCH Monograph Series, Vol. 8. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.Google Scholar
  47. Tonigan, J. S., Miller, W. R., & Schermer, C., (2002). Atheist, Agnostics and Alcoholics Anonymous, Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63(5), 534–541.Google Scholar
  48. Tonigan, J. S., Miller W. R., & Vick, D. H. (2000). Psychometrics on the general Alcoholics Anonymous Tools of Recovery (GAATOR 2.1). Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 24 (Supplement), (Abstract).Google Scholar
  49. Tonigan, J. S., Toscova, R., & Miller, W. R. (1996). Meta-analysis of the Alcoholics Anonymous Literature: Sample and study characteristics moderate findings. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 57, 65–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Vaillant, G. E. (1983). Natural history of alcoholism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Weiss, R. D., Griffin, M. L., Gallop, R. J., Najavits, L. M., Frank, A., Crits-Christoph, P., et al. (2005). The effect of 12-step self-help group attendance and participation on drug use outcomes among cocaine-dependent patients. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 77, 177–184.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zweben, A., & Cisler, R. (1996). Composite outcome measure in alcoholism treatment research: Problems and potentialities. Substance Use & Misuse, 31, 1783–1805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center on Alcoholism, Substance Abuse, and AddictionsUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations