1 / 25

SOCIAL NORMS 101

SOCIAL NORMS 101. AN INTRODUCTION TO THEORY AND RESEARCH. SOCIAL NORMS APPROACH TO AT-RISK BEHAVIOR PREVENTION. An increasingly popular universal prevention technique based upon sociological/psychological theory and supported by an extensive empirical study

meira
Download Presentation

SOCIAL NORMS 101

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SOCIAL NORMS 101 AN INTRODUCTION TO THEORY AND RESEARCH

  2. SOCIAL NORMS APPROACH TO AT-RISK BEHAVIOR PREVENTION • An increasingly popular universal prevention technique based upon sociological/psychological theory and supported by an extensive empirical study • An “environmental” approach based upon sharing accurate information with students • Compatible with other prevention strategies

  3. PURPOSE OF THIS PRESENTATION • Introduce the theoretical and research underpinnings of social norms strategies and the reasons they work • Help identify the best way to use the social norms approach as described in the Social Norms Tool Kit with your students • Provide practical implementation advice for developing a local social norms campaign • Provide information on evaluating the success of a school’s social norms campaign

  4. SOME DEFINITIONS • Social Norms Approach: a proactive prevention program that communicates the “truth about peer norms in terms of what the majority of students actually think and do, all on the basis of credible data drawn from the student population that is the target.” (Perkins, 2003). • Misperception: the “gap between the perceived and the actual.” • Bullying: “systematically and chronically inflicting physical hurt and/or psychological distress on one or more students” (National Education Association, 2008).

  5. SOME DEFINITIONS, CONT. • Bullying: “systematically and chronically inflicting physical hurt and/or psychological distress on one or more students” (National Education Association, 2008). • Binge Drinking or Heavy Episodic Drinking: The consumption of four or five drinks in a row in a short period of time.

  6. AN ENVIRONMENTAL FOCUS • Contemporary, evidence-based prevention strategies emphasize the importance of environmental strategies for effecting positive behavior change

  7. THE THEORY BEHIND SOCIAL NORMS STRATEGIES • Our behavior is influenced by our perceptions of what others think and do … BUT • These perceptions are often inaccurate • If we can correct the “misperceptions” that exist, over the course of time behavior should reflect the more accurate (and healthier) norms

  8. EVIDENCE FOR THE IMPACT OF NORMS ON BEHAVIOR • Social Comparison Theory: We continuously compare ourselves to others in our social group. If discrepancies exist, we become motivated to reduce the discrepancies, thus, bringing our behavior into congruence with the norm, Festinger (1957).

  9. SOCIAL COMPARISONS ARE OFTEN BIASED • “Pluralistic ignorance”…Everybody else is different from me! I am the only one who is NOT doing it…(“Gee, I’d better do it.”) • But in reality there is typically much greater similarity between one’s self and others

  10. SOCIAL NORMS MAY BE ESPECIALLY INFLUENTIAL FOR YOUNG PEOPLE • Peers become increasingly influential starting in late childhood (beginning at age 10 or so) • Peer group norms are likely to dictate much pre-adolescent and adolescent behavior • Adolescents want and need to be accepted by their peers, and will work toward this goal

  11. THE REALITY OF MISPERCEPTIONS • Over 50 published studies document the existence of misperceptions (National Social Norms Institute, University of Virginia) • Earliest was Perkins and Berkowitz (1986) – College students believed peer norms for alcohol consumption were much higher than they actually were

  12. A MORE SPECIFIC EXAMPLE • Perkins, Haines & Rice (2005); • 76,145 college students from 140 colleges and universities nationwide • 71% misperceived the amount of alcohol consumed by peers, overestimating both the quantity consumed by peers and the frequency with which they drank

  13. MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS ARE SIMILARLY AFFECTED • Perkins and Craig (2003) • Web-based survey of 8,860 middle and high school students • Actual alcohol use in middle school was 7%;Perceived use in middle school was 23% • Actual use in high school was 29%; Perceived use in high school was 60%

  14. MISPERCEPTIONS ABOUT BULLYING • Perkins and Craig (2006) • Survey of 578 middle school students • 63% did NOT tease others; 83% believed that their peers DID • 74% did NOT push or hit others; 83% believed that their peers DID • The gaps noted in the figures above clearly indicate the existence of misperceptions in this population

  15. WHY DO MISPERCEPTIONS EXIST? • The “vividness effect” – behavior that stands out in some way is better remembered and more often discussed • Media depictions and even educational material perpetuate the notion that “everyone” is drinking

  16. MISPERCEPTIONS AND BEHAVIOR • Empirical research confirms that misperceptions correlate with behavior • In a nationwide sample of college students, student perception of the drinking norm was the strongest predictor of personal consumption (Perkins et al., 2005) • Among 29,976 NJ college students surveyed from 1998-2007, those who misperceived the peer norm as 7+ drinks were twice as likely to drink heavily themselves (LaMastro & LaMastro, 2007)

  17. MISPERCEPTIONS AND BEHAVIOR: MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS • “Higher peer perceptions of alcohol use were associated with subsequent escalations of personal drinking.” (HS students) (D’Amico et al., 2001) • Estimates of peer alcohol use predicted one’s own alcohol use one year later (Marks et al., 1992)

  18. THE KEY QUESTION: Does reducing or correcting misperceptions change behavior? • Given sufficient time and a strong social norms marketing campaign, research suggests that the answer is “YES” • Research with college students revealed a 10% campus-wide decrease in high-risk drinking over the campaign period (Perkins & Craig, 2002) • The percentage of college students with Blood Alcohol Content over .05% declined 8% during the campaign period (Foss et el., 2003)

  19. AMONG MS AND HS STUDENT • In the “MOST of us” campaign in Montana: 10% of 12-17 year olds in the campaign counties initiated smoking, versus 17% in control (non-campaign) counties • Reductions in high-risk drinking among MS students was associated with accurate perceptions of peer norms following a two-year campaign,(Botvin et al., 2001)

  20. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON ALCOHOLISM AND ALCOHOL ABUSE: • “Initial results from programs adopting an intensive social norms approach are promising. Several institutions that persistently communicated accurate norms have experienced reductions of up to 20% in high risk drinking over a relatively short period of time…together these findings provide strong support for the potential impact of the social norms approach.” (NIAAA, pg. 13, 2002)

  21. REFERENCES Botvin, G.J., Sussman, S. & Biglan, A. (2001). The Hutchison smoking prevention project: A lesson on inaccurate media coverage and the importance of prevention advocacy. Prevention Science, 2, 67-70. D’Amico, E.J. (2001). Progression into and out of binge drinking among high school students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 15, 341-349. Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

  22. REFERENCES • Foss, R., et al. (2004). Social norms program reduces measured and self-reported drinking at UNC-CH. The Report on Social Norms: Working Paper #14. Little Falls, NH, Paper Clip Communications. • LaMastro, V. & LaMastro, R. (2007). Looking back, looking forward: Social norms programming at New Jersey state colleges and universities, 1997 to 2007. Monograph, New Jersey Higher Education Consortium.

  23. REFERENCES • Marks, G., Graham, J.W., & Hansen, W.B. (1992). Social Projection and Social Conformity in Adolescent Alcohol Use: A Longitudinal Analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 96-101. • NIAAA (2002). How to Reduce High Risk College Drinking: Use Proven Strategies, Fill Research Gaps. Final Report of the Panel on Prevention and Treatment, Task Force of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Washington, DC. National Institutes of Health.

  24. REFERENCES • Perkins, H.W. & Berkowitz, A.D. (1986). Perceiving the community norms of alcohol use among students: Some research implications for campus alcohol education programming. International Journal of the Addictions, 21, 961-976. • Perkins, H.W. (Ed.) (2003). The Social Norms Approach to Preventing School and College Age Substance Abuse. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass.

  25. REFERENCES • Perkins, H.W., Haines, M.P., & Rice, R. (2005) Misperceiving the college drinking norm and related problems: A nationwide study of exposure to prevention information, perceived norms, and student alcohol misuse. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 66 470-478. • Perkins, H.W., & Craig, D.W. (2003). The imaginary lives of peers: Patterns of substance use and misperceptions of norms among secondary school students. In The Social Norms Approach to Preventing School and College Age Substance Abuse. H.W. Perkins (Ed.), San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

More Related