Introduction
Social norms interventions in relation to alcohol use on campus are efforts to change commonplace misperceived student drinking norms. These efforts typically address either overestimation of consumption among peers [a descriptive or behavioral norm] or overestimation of approval for alcohol use among peers [an injunctive or prescriptive, attitudinal norm]. Two further dimensions are only recently starting to come under scrutiny. One is what might be called affective norms, in which there is an excessive attribution to others of personal satisfaction or enjoyment in their own drinking experience (Blanton et al., 2008). Another is that of reflective norms, in which there is an overestimation of the attitudes and behavior one believes their peers of the opposite gender prefer to see one subscribe to (LaBrie et al., 2009).
Underlying corrective attempts is the persuasion that students tend not only to have an exaggerated impression of the degree to which their fellow students indulge in and/or are favorably disposed toward alcohol, but also that such inflated estimations lead students to move in that misguided direction in terms of their own outlook and practice. The positive presupposition, finally, is that countering such misreading of the situation and exposing discrepancies between perceived and more modest actual norms will prompt students to move in the other direction instead, toward less intake and less supportive stances on alcohol use (Berkowitz, 2004, 2005; Perkins, 1997, 2003a; cf. Perkins & Berkowitz, 1986).
What could help explain a propensity toward formation of such undue perceptions in the first place? Students, like others, in the absence of more extended exposure that could indicate otherwise, tend to assume an occasionally observed behavior is typical of a person and reflective of their normal inclination. They also tend to recall more striking incidents of excess and in the repeated retelling foster the impression of normality for such episodes. Moreover, students tend to assume commonality for behaviors featured in advertising and media concentration. Conformity to conduct supposedly enjoying such approbation from peers is a real pull in the process of identity formation for young people in particular (Perkins, 1997, 2002, 2003a).
Social norms initiatives in this context, then, seek to counter the conforming or confirming pull of perceptions that assume more popularity for alcohol than it really enjoys. In recognition of different vantage points, this erroneous impression to be undermined can be further categorized as “pluralistic ignorance” on the part of a moderately minded majority who incorrectly assume they are in the minority, “false consensus” on the part of a more indulgent and endorsing minority who mistakenly (and conveniently) suppose they are more mainstream, or even “false uniqueness” on the part of an abstinent or minimally supportive minority who inaccurately take themselves to be marginal, less represented than they are. The first two of these types of misperception are respectively the most common and challenging to be addressed, and the most influential in their sway (Berkowitz, 2004, 2005; Perkins, 2003a; cf. Prentice & Miller, 1993; Schroeder & Prentice, 1998; Suls & Green, 2003).
Social norms marketing (SNM)
Social norms interventions can take one of two broad forms. One is that of a social norms marketing (SNM) campaign that is more general in its thrust, directed at an entire body of students, engaging in mass communication through media that aim at access by a whole campus community. For example, a statistic like “78% of [institution name] students have four or fewer drinks when they party” could be prominently featured on posters, in student newspapers and on campus radio. These marketing initiatives have the advantage of potentially reaching a large audience at relatively low cost, variously posting a more objective collective picture obtained via a carefully conducted student survey ( e.g., Haines, 1996; Haines & Barker, 2003; Rice & Haines, 2006; Turner, Perkins & Bauerle, 2008).
However, SNM campaigns are as such relatively impersonal efforts which assume that not only will students see the corrective information when it is publicized, but that they will indeed process the clarification in the desired manner by drawing the implied contrast and assimilating their own behavior and/or views to the confirmed norm. The evidence is somewhat equivocal on how effective such widely aimed and tacitly delivered messaging will prove to be (Lewis & Neighbors, 2006; Toomey et al. 2007; Wechsler & Nelson, 2008; DeJong et al., 2006, 2009; Turner, Perkins & Bauerle, 2008). For any sustained impact to be achieved, exponents insist on several steps as necessary in the process: adequate preparation of personnel to knowledgably implement the model; careful collection of pertinent preferably local baseline data; development of a simple, truthful consistent positive message the credibility of which is appropriately indicated in citation, format and graphic representation; delivery of this message in a variety of campus media with commitment to repeated exposure to ensure recall, with rewards as an incentive to retention (Haines, 1996; Perkins, 2003b; Berkowitz, 2005).
Social norms marketing advocates do see opportunity for clarifications to be communicated not just in such universal interventions, but also in more targeted initiatives directed selectively at those comprising student groups recognized as more at-risk, and in indicated prevention efforts with individuals whose use or behavior in regard to alcohol has already been identified as problematic (Berkowitz, 2004, 2005; cf. Fabiano, 2003). Since, however, those narrower contexts are conducive to more contextual and tailored messaging, the question arises as to whether the focused spotlight of a more specific, detailed social norms application might well be more appropriate and productive in those settings than simply announcing to such particular audiences a statistic concerning the larger collective that affords only broader and paler illumination.
Personalized normative feedback (PNF)
That alternative, the other of the two main forms of social norms intervention, is personalized normative feedback (PNF). This initiative explicitly delivers to individual students their own reported behavior and/or opinions with regard to drinking, their expressed impressions or presumptions on what is typical or predominate among their peers in these matters (the perceived norms), and what really characterizes the group’s performance and/or perspective (the actual norms), all again courtesy of a strategic credible survey. It thus not only highlights pertinent discrepancies between perceived and actual social drinking norms, undermining the ignorance that might well have affected a person’s thinking on what was appropriate in the campus context. It also clarifies any real disparity between the individual’s practice and/or position and that of the group, encouraging gravitation to a more moderate norm. The messaging to the effect that most students “don’t drink as much as you think they do, nor as much as you yourself do” or “aren’t as supportive of alcohol use as you suppose they are, nor as favorable to it as you happen to be” invites a shift in orientation (Neighbors et al., 2004, 2006; Lewis & Neighbors, 2006).
Personalized normative feedback can be provided as one component of brief intervention delivered in a motivational interviewing approach. Other elements that might well be offered along with PNF in a combined package would include such items as a review of risks associated with frequent heavy drinking (various negative consequences beginning with acute harms), a review of risk factors (e.g., family history, tolerance, dependence), an expectancy challenge (undermining notions that alcohol itself is responsible for various positively valued outcomes commonly associated with its use), BAC information (e.g., peak levels reached), calculation of money spent in personal purchase of alcohol (plus enumeration of what more needful items could have been obtained with that amount), and other considerations like caloric intake and time expended in drinking and recovering (Lewis & Neighbors, 2006; Walters & Neighbors, 2005; Larimer et al., 2007; White, 2006; Walters & Baer, 2006).
While there is evidence indicating effectiveness for brief interventions which contain individually tailored clarification of discrepancies in norms as an adjunct alongside other items of counsel, there is also formal study support for initiatives that offer PNF as a stand-alone measure, whether delivered in person face to face by campus professionals or peers, or communicated by mail or internet. Usefulness of these latter modes is particularly noteworthy as it bodes well for more efficient, economical and comprehensive provision of this service to students who would benefit from it, readily bringing it to them rather than with difficulty drawing them to it (Larimer & Cronce, 2007; Larimer et al., 2007; White, 2006; Walters & Neighbors, 2005; Neighbors et al., 2006; Walters et al., 2005a,b).
Research into the value of PNF has given more attention to interventions dealing with the descriptive norms of consumption patterns and what can be gained by contrasting one’s acknowledged drinking behavior both with the previously presumed habits of others and their actual practice. Investigation has become increasingly complex into the objects of such intervention, moving beyond the population of students on a campus to target specific sub-sets, with attention paid not only to gender differences but to groups like heavy drinkers, moderate consumers, athletes, dormitory residents, freshmen and (especially in the U.S.) fraternity/sorority members (e.g., Lewis & Neighbors, 2006, 2007; Lewis et al., 2007).
Growing consideration has been given also to the most appropriate reference for actual norms. Feedback on the discrepancy between oneself and others featuring a more distal referent in the “average” student nationally or the typical student on campus will likely enjoy a greater degree of misperception with which to challenge recipients. While the exposed behavioral gap may be more conspicuous and constraining for that reason, the force of that disparity may however be quite mitigated by another distance in the far lesser extent to which a student is inclined to identify with a referent so removed from them relative to their own closer, more influential connections. Conversely, while more familiar with their own circle’s (or circles’) patterns, leaving less discrepancy for normative feedback to play on, recipients may be more attracted by the habits of these more proximal parties who matter more to them. The most immediate referent in close friends’ drinking behavior (and attitudes) is more difficult for investigators to get a handle on. Though presumably strongest on the influence side of things, that referent may be well-enough known among many students as to supply little if any misimpression to seize on (Lewis & Neighbors, 2006; Walters & Neighbors, 2005; Borsari & Carey, 2003; cf. Lee et al., 2007).
Between the two sexes, there is often significant disparity on actual drinking patterns (and attitudes), but not in the impressions they are disposed to hold regarding a typical or average fellow student. A gender-specific referent is being increasingly confirmed as especially germane for feedback to female students, providing a lower real and more pertinent norm for them to relate to. There is a greater discrepancy to capitalize on as well between that more modest actual female practice and the perceived norm collegiate women tend to have, which is an impression of average or typical behavior more influenced, however unconsciously, by apparent elevated intake (and approval) on the part of males. Conversely, a gender non-specific referent for males furnishes a lower actual norm with which to contrast their perception, likewise more affected by a male profile (Lewis & Neighbors, 2004, 2006, 2007).
PNF for student athletes that compares and contrasts them with their fellow participants in collegiate sports, perhaps even team members, will evidently give the most accurate and impactful correction. This appears the case even though it will involve a smaller-scale clarification for a segment that is generally disposed to very mistakenly view itself as drinking less (and approving less of) alcohol than non-athlete students. Continued investigation is being conducted into the value of selected referent groups, but there is a recognition among some researchers that investigator-defined referents may not align with - and so be as relevant as - those connections which students themselves identify as mattering most to (and thus as most influential on) them (Lewis et al., 2007; Lewis & Neighbors, 2006; re athletes, Martens et al., 2006; Dams-O’Connor et al., 2007).
It has been posited and already somewhat formally supported that PNF will prove less effective with those students who are more self-determined and so less controlled, less socially motivated in their drinking practice (Lewis & Neighbors, 2006; Neighbors et al., 2004, 2006; Lee et al., 2007). Those actively identifying with a religious community and sharing its tradition’s negative stance toward drunkenness will also tend to be less affected by a seemingly minority status in regard to alcohol. Other groups may yet be identified as likewise less influenced by an apparently predominate attitude or practice around about them and requiring (or not) different strategies to address their liability to alcohol-related harms.
Norms clarification typically assumes and implicitly encourages conformity in students when drawing their attention to an actually prevailing more modest practice or less approving stance in regard to alcohol. An alternative approach would be to encourage a more critical posture that resists assimilation and adopts its own standards. On the front of affective norms, where individuals presume too much emotional pleasure or contentment in drinking among their peers (or fail to perceive the extent of disappointment and regret they feel), correction could provide disincentive to maintain previous habits (Blanton et al., 2008).
Unless it is subsequently shown to be a very substantially superior mediator of positive attitudinal and behavioral change (over against other feedback elements), PNF is probably best situated as an effective and so very desirable component of brief intervention conducted toward reduction of harms associated with unhealthy use of (and attitudes toward) alcohol in a campus context. Whether employed in universal, selective or indicated intervention, PNF with its greater specificity of content can be expected to deliver more impact than SNM (Neighbors et al., 2004, 2006; Lewis & Neighbors, 2006; Blanton et al., 2008). Though these two modes of norms correction may be rival contenders for funding and support, they are not incompatible options for an awareness initiative. Besides other individually-focused means of prevention (like, e.g., promotion of personal protective behaviors) being available as appropriate elements to stand beside PNF, different environmental strategies are legitimate candidates to consider as supplementary ways of pursuing a safer campus setting. These latter initiatives include measures that can constitute weightier responses in the wider milieu than SNM (Toomey et al., 2007; Wechsler & Nelson, 2008).
References
Berkowitz, A.D. (2005). An overview of the social norms approach. In Lederman, L.C. & Stewart, L.P. (Eds.), Changing the Culture of College Drinking: A Socially Situated Health Communication Campaign (pp.193-214). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Berkowitz, A.D. (2004). The social norms approach: Theory, research, and annotated bibliography.
Blanton, H., Köblitz, A. & McCaul, K.D. (2008). Misperceptions about norm misperceptions: Descriptive, injunctive and affective ‘social norming’ efforts to change health behaviors. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(3), 1379-1399.
Borsari, B. & Carey, K. (2003). Descriptive and injunctive norms in college drinking: A meta-analytic integration. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64(3), 331-341.
Dams-O’Connor, K., Martin, J.L. & Martens, M.P. (2007). Social norms and alcohol consumption among intercollegiate athletes: The role of athlete and nonathlete reference groups. Addictive Behaviors, 32(11), 2657-2666.
DeJong, W., Schneider, S.K., Towvim, L.G., Murphy, M.J., Doerr, E.D., Simonsen, N.R. et al. (2009). A multisite randomized trial of social norms marketing campaigns to reduce college student drinking: A replication failure. Substance Abuse, 30(2), 127-140.
DeJong, W., Schneider, S.K., Towvim, L.G., Murphy, M.J., Doerr, E.E., Simonsen, N.R., Mason, K.E. & Scribner, R.A. (2006). A multisite randomized trial of social norms marketing campaigns to reduce college student drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 67(6), 868-879.
Fabiano, P.M. (2003). Applying the social norms model to universal and indicated alcohol interventions at Western Washington University. In Perkins, H.W. (Ed.), The social norms approach to preventing school and college age substance use: A handbook for educators, counselors, and clinicians (pp.83-99). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Haines, M.P. (1996). A social norms approach to preventing binge drinking at colleges and universities. Newton, MA: Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, US Department of Education.
Haines, M.P. & Barker, G. (2003). The Northern Illinois University experiment: A longitudinal case study of the social norms approach. In Perkins, H.W. (Ed.), The social norms approach to preventing school and college age substance use: A handbook for educators, counselors, and clinicians (pp.21-34). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
LaBrie, J.W., Cail, J., Hummer, J.F., Lac, A. & Neighbors, C. (2009). What men want: The role of reflective opposite-sex normative preferences in alcohol use among college women. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 23(1), 157-162.
Larimer, M.E. & Cronce, J.M. (2007). Identification, prevention, and treatment revisited: Individual-focused college drinking prevention strategies 1999-2006. Addictive Behaviors, 32(11), 2439-2468.
Larimer, M.E., Lee, C.M., Kilmer, J.R. et al. (2007). Personalized mailed feedback for college drinking prevention: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75(2), 285-293.
Lee, C.M., Geisner, I.M., Lewis, M.A., Neighbors, C. & Larimer, M.E. (2007). Social motives and the interaction between descriptive and injunctive norms in college student drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68(5), 714-721.
Lewis, M.A. & Neighbors, C. (2007). Optimizing personalized normative feedback: The use of gender-specific referents. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68(2), 228-237.
Lewis, M.A. & Neighbors, C. (2006). Social norms approaches using descriptive drinking norms education: A review of the research on personalized normative feedback. Journal of American College Health, 54(4), 213-218.
Lewis, M.A. & Neighbors, C. (2004). Gender-specific misperceptions of college student drinking norms. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18(4), 334-339.
Martens, M.P., Dams- O’Connor, K. & Beck, N. (2006). A systematic review of college student-athlete drinking: Prevalence rates, sport-related factors, and interventions. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 31(3), 305-316.
Neighbors, C., Lewis, M.A., Bergstrom, R.L. & Larimer, M.E. (2006). Being controlled by normative influences: Self-determination as a moderator of a normative feedback alcohol intervention. Health Psychology, 25(5), 571-579.
Neighbors, C., Lewis, M.A. & Larimer, M.E. (2004). Targeting misperceptions of descriptive drinking norms: efficacy of a computer-delivered personalized normative feedback intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(3), 434-447.
Perkins, H.W. (2003a). The emergence and evolution of the social norms approach to substance abuse prevention. In Perkins (Ed.), The social norms approach to preventing school and college age substance use: A handbook for educators, counselors, and clinicians (pp.3-17). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Perkins, H.W. (2003b). The promise and challenge of future work using the social norms model. In Perkins (Ed.), The social norms approach to preventing school and college age substance use: A handbook for educators, counselors, and clinicians (pp.280-296). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Perkins, H.W. (2002). Social norms and the prevention of alcohol misuse in collegiate contexts. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Supplement No. 14, 164-172.
Perkins, H.W. (1997). College student misperceptions of alcohol and other drug norms among peers: Exploring causes, consequences, and implications for prevention programs. In Designing alcohol and other drug prevention programs in higher education (pp.177-206). Newton, MA: Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, US Department of Education.
Perkins, H.W. & Berkowitz, A. (1986). Perceiving the community norms of alcohol use among students: Some research implications for campus alcohol education programming. International Journal of the Addictions, 21(9-10), 961-976.
Prentice, D.A. & Miller, D.T. (1993). Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus: Some consequences of misperceiving the social norm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(2), 243-256.
Rice, R. & Haines, M. (2006). The social norms approach to college student drinkers: Its history and implications for college health promotion. In Chapman, R. (Ed.), When they drink: practitioner views and lessons learned on preventing high-risk collegiate drinking (pp.160-169). Glassboro, NJ: Rowan University.
Schroeder, C.M. & Prentice, D.A. (1998). Exposing pluralistic ignorance to reduce alcohol use among college students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(23), 2150-2180.
Suls, J. & Green, P. (2003). Pluralistic ignorance and college student perceptions of gender-specific alcohol norms. Health Psychology, 22(5), 479-486.
Toomey, T.L., Lenk, K.M. & Wagenaar, A.C. (2007). Environmental policies to reduce college drinking: An update of research findings. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68(2), 208-219.
Turner, J., Perkins, H.W. & Bauerle, J. (2008). Declining negative consequences related to alcohol misuse among students exposed to a social norms marketing intervention on a college campus. Journal of American College Health, 57(1), 85-93.
Walters, S.T. & Baer, J.S. (2006). Talking with college students about alcohol: Motivational strategies for reducing abuse. New York: Guilford Press.
Walters, S.T. & Neighbors, C. (2005). Feedback interventions for college alcohol misuse: What, why and for whom? Addictive Behaviors, 30(6), 1168-1182.
Walters, S.T., Hester, R.K., Miller, E. & Chiauzzi, E. (2005). Demon rum: High tech solutions to the age-old problem of college drinking. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, 29(2), 270-277.
Walters, S.T., Miller, E. & Chiauzzi, E. (2005). Wired for wellness: e-Interventions for addressing college drinking. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 29(2), 139-145.
Wechsler, H. & Nelson, T.F. (2008). What we have learned from the Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study: Focusing attention on college student alcohol consumption and the environmental conditions that promote it. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 69(4), 481-490.
White, H.R. (2006). Reduction of alcohol-related harm on United States college campuses: The use of personal feedback interventions. International Journal of Drug Policy, 17(4), 310-319.