Social norms approach

Last updated

The social norms approach, or social norms marketing, [1] is an environmental strategy gaining ground in health campaigns. [2] While conducting research in the mid-1980s, two researchers, H.W. Perkins and A.D. Berkowitz, [3] reported that students at a small U.S. college held exaggerated beliefs about the normal frequency and consumption habits of other students with regard to alcohol. These inflated perceptions have been found in many educational institutions, with varying populations and locations. [4] Despite the fact that college drinking is at elevated levels, the perceived amount almost always exceeds actual behavior. [2] The social norms approach has shown signs of countering misperceptions, however research on changes in behavior resulting from changed perceptions varies between mixed to conclusively nonexistent. [5]

Contents

Constructs

The social norms approach is founded upon a set of assumptions that individuals incorrectly perceive that the attitudes or behaviors of others are different from their own, when in reality they are similar. This phenomenon is known as pluralistic ignorance. [6] It is largely because individuals assume the most memorable and salient, often extreme, behavior is representative of the behavior of the majority. This may lead individuals to adjust their behavior to that of the presumed majority by adhering to the pseudo-norms created by observing such memorable behavior. These exaggerated perceptions, or rather misperceptions, of peer behavior will continue to influence the habits of the majority, if they are unchallenged. [2] This means that individuals may be more likely to enact problem behaviors and suppress healthier practices, making support for healthy behaviors much less visible at an aggregate level. This effect has been documented for alcohol, illegal drug use, smoking, other health behaviors, and attitudes, such as prejudice. [6]

A phenomenon known as false consensus is closely related to the idea of pluralistic ignorance, and refers to the incorrect belief that others are similar, when in reality they are not. For example, heavy drinkers will think that most others consume as much as they do, and will use this belief to justify their behavior. Berkowitz, [6] an independent consultant who works full-time to promote these ideas, describes false consensus and pluralistic ignorance as "mutually reinforcing and self-perpetuating...the majority is silent because it thinks it is a minority, and the minority is vocal because it believes that it represents the majority" (p. 194).

These phenomena both have the potential to be addressed by a social norms intervention. Berkowitz [7] describes this possibility in relation to reducing alcohol use:

…social norms interventions have been found to be effective in changing the behavior of the moderate or occasional-drinking majority (pluralistic ignorance) as well as confronting and changing the behavior of the heavy drinking minority (false consensus) (p. 9)

Thus, the social norms approach predicts that an intervention which aims to correct misperceptions by exposing actual norms will benefit society as well as individuals, because it will lead people to reduce problem behaviors or increase participation in healthy behaviors. [6] There have been multiple studies which have indeed shown that social norms campaigns can have such positive effects on target populations. One study in particular, which utilized 18 different colleges over a three-year period, found that social norms campaigns were associated with lower perceptions of student drinking and lower consumption levels. [8] Oddly, when the results of this same study were reported at a conference of alcohol educators, DeJong reported that alcohol consumption increased' among both control participants and among the experimental group (those who got the social norms marketing treatment). This discrepancy in reported findings between a conference paper and published journal paper is difficult to reconcile.

Another intervention designed to reduce drinking amongst student athletes had similar results, reducing misperceptions of alcohol consumption. Also, within the time period of the intervention, there were declines in personal consumption, high risk drinking, and alcohol-related consequences. [9] When critiquing this study, one should ask how many dependent variables were assessed, as this group of researchers often assesses as many as 20 or more outcome variables and finds change in 2 or 3 and calls the program successful.

A recent trial of a live, interactive, normative feedback program in which students used keypads to input information had positive effects in terms of reducing misperceptions and drinking behavior. [10] There are many other examples of successful social norms campaigns, which cover various topics, population sizes, and media through which normative messages are conveyed.

Types of norms

Two types of norms are relevant to a social norms approach: descriptive norms and injunctive norms. Injunctive norms involve perceptions of which behaviors are typically approved or disapproved. They assist an individual in determining what is acceptable and unacceptable social behavior. This would be the morals of your interpersonal networks and surrounding community. Descriptive norms involve perceptions of which behaviors are typically performed. They normally refer to the perception of others' behavior. These norms are based on observations of those around you. [11]

"Both kinds of norms motivate human action; people tend to do what is socially approved as well as what is popular. (105) When put together, these norms have a counterproductive effect. For example a campaign that focuses individuals on the frequent occurrences of an offense against the environment has the potential to increase the occurrence of that offense". [11] These two norms are constructed from three sources: observable behavior, direct/indirect communication and self-knowledge. Miller and Prentice 1996

Borsari and Carey's [12] meta-analysis of studies showed that people misperceive injunctive norms more than they do descriptive norms, and that injunctive norms are more likely to predict drinking behavior and negative consequences of drinking. However, the use of both in social norms campaigns has shown that it is unclear which type of norm is more likely to change behavior. [7]

Assumptions

There are seven assumptions of the social norms approach: [6]

History

Since the 1986 study in which Berkowitz and Perkins reported the misperceptions about alcohol consumption amongst college students, the use and study of the social norms approach has grown. It has been used as a prevention technique for a variety of levels of prevention: universal, with large populations like entire college campuses; selective, with targeted subpopulations, and indicated, with individuals. [6]

The first social norms intervention was implemented in 1989 by Michael Haines at Northern Illinois University, which targeted a universal campus population and over the years has shown significant success in terms of increasing healthy behaviors. [13] This research at Northern Illinois University was done with a $64,000 grant from the U.S.Department of Education Fund for the Improvement of Post Secondary Education (FIPSE). Many other universities have since followed suit and have had similar success in the reduction of high-risk drinking behaviors, such as Hobart and William Smith Colleges, [14] the University of Arizona, [15] and University of North Carolina, [16] to name a few. [3]

Since these achievements have become well-known, the social norms approach has been used successfully to reduce smoking, [17] drinking and driving, [18] and HIV risk behaviors, [19] and to increase seat belt use. [20]

It has also gained widespread use targeting adolescents and high school students, and has been used in an attempt to reduce drinking and smoking behaviors amongst those populations. [13] [21] Recently, interventions have been tested to reduce sexual assault, and the results were reported to be "promising". [22]

Criticisms

The social norms approach is not accepted by all scholars as an effective campaign method. Some criticize the approach by saying that the underlying assumptions are false. One study found that the perceived degree of alcohol use was not predictive of alcohol abuse if other normative influences were considered, [23] and another study found that misperceptions of drinking problems were unrelated to personal alcohol consumption. [24] The findings of both of those studies present opposition to the first assumption of the social norms approach: Actions are often based on misinformation about or misperceptions of others' attitudes and/or behavior.

Other scholars challenge the legitimacy of social norms interventions deemed successful. They say that many of these interventions had methodological problems which could influence the validity of their effectiveness (e.g., they did not control for other variables, did not have comparison groups, etc.). [25] Another common criticism is that they are simply ineffective: a nationwide study, which compared colleges with social norms interventions to those that did not have them, found that schools with interventions showed no decreases in measures of alcohol use, and actually found increased measures in terms of alcohol consumed monthly and total amount consumed. [25] There are also a handful of studies that document failed social norms campaigns at specific colleges. [26] [27] [28]

Lifecycle

A social norms approach determines the exaggerated and actual norms of a population through formative research, and then informs the population of the actual norms through a message campaign. The next step is determining the effectiveness of the messages through a summative evaluation. Finally, the results from the evaluative research can also be used to craft new messages to revise the message campaign, and thus the campaign is cyclical. The following provides a more in-depth description of the steps involved in a social norms campaign.

Formative evaluation

Formative evaluation is the first step in a social norms campaign and consists of surveying the population, as well as message creation based on the survey results. The formative evaluation phase is the time when information regarding perceived norms and actual behaviors is garnered from the audience. In order for a social norms approach to be the appropriate means for intervention, two conditions must first be satisfied:

Surveying

The most effective way to establish the baseline levels of behavior and perceptions is through the use of surveys. Internet surveys, for example, are an often-used method of generating a substantial response rate. They are especially suited for college students because of their familiarity with the technology, the containment of the population (i.e., all are part of a specific community), and the ability of the students to take the survey at their own pace and during the time that works best for them. Not only are web surveys ideal for students, but they are also highly advantageous for researchers. They provide quick turnaround for data analysis, higher response rates, less missing data, and they eliminate interviewer effects. Other possible methods of administering a survey are pencil and paper surveys, phone surveys, or personal interviews.

The following describes a typical and thorough process used to survey a population:

  1. Plan
    • Decide what topics will be covered
    • Decide when to administer the survey
    • Develop useful questions
  2. Acquire incentives to provide for respondents - There are two different types of incentives: Individual rewards and lottery rewards. Individual rewards are given to every person who completes the survey (e.g., a coupon for a free pizza). Lottery rewards are awarded to individuals at random (e.g., 10 people receive a $50 gift certificate). Individual rewards are more expensive but provide higher response rates.
  3. Survey Design
  4. Notifying the Sample – Often, a double-barreled method is used:
    • Pre-letter or pre-email notification – A personalized letter notification delivered several days before the survey opens. The letter includes the purpose and goal of the research, when and at what email address they will receive the email notification, how long the survey will be active, access information (IDs, pass codes), what they will get out of it (i.e., incentives), how their privacy will be protected, and contact information for the surveyors.
    • Email notification – This email repeats much of the information of the original letter, but also provides a link for the survey.
    • Reminder – A reminder often mentions previous notifications, sympathizes about why the respondent might not have completed the survey, mentions the importance of the survey, and includes the incentive information again.

Creating a campaign

After completing data collection, researchers then analyze the data and search for patterns, looking for inconsistencies between actual behavior, attitudes, and perceived norms. When these differences are consistent with the campaign and the majority of students adhere to the beneficial idea, they are then used in the next round of message creation. For example, the data could show that college students report they consumed 0–4 drinks the last time they partied, but they believe that the average student consumed 5 or more drinks. After discovering this statistic, a researcher may craft a message like, "Most students drink 0–4 drinks when they party", to correct the misperceived descriptive norm.

The most important descriptive researchers look for in the data is the 51% or greater statistic, or items where "most" (i.e., over 50%) of the population adheres to the beneficial behavior. These statistics could occur in injunctive norms (i.e., "Most students believe passing out from drinking too much is wrong."), protective/healthy behaviors (i.e., "Most students use a designated driver, even when only having one or two drinks."), or other numerous behaviors.

There are different message components that can be varied, which are experimented with during pre-testing. For example, researchers test different vocabulary (e.g., "66%" vs. "Most" vs. "Majority), using different behaviors to find out which ones are the easiest and most acceptable to perform (e.g., "eating while drinking" vs. "keeping track while drinking"), and using varying degrees of citations (e.g., large citations vs. small citations of data source). These preliminary messages are pretested on small groups in order to refine them before they are presented to the entire population. Other aspects examined in pretesting include which messages are most socially acceptable, which are believed to be the most effective, and which messages have the highest believability.

Believability

Believability is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for an effective campaign. If believability of messages is low, change will probably not occur because the persuasive messages are falling into the audience's latitude of rejection. In other words, the audience will reject the message without even considering it. It is also important to note, however, that if believability is extremely high (e.g., over 90%), change is also unlikely to occur because the message is not challenging enough. In other words, it serves only as a reinforcement rather than an element of change. Thus, while there are no specific guidelines, it is ideal to aim for believability above 50%. [29]

In an assessment of the believability of a social norms campaign, Polonec, Major, and Atwood [30] found that students' own drinking experiences and the experiences of their friends contributed to disbelief in the message "Most students on campus choose to have 0 to 4 drinks when they party." Another study found that disbelief may be due to preconceived notions about drinking that students develop even before they arrive on campus. [31]

Evaluation

After implementing a campaign, researchers then perform a summative evaluation which measures the success of the campaign. This step consists of examining and evaluating the progress made by an intervention through assessing the outcome and impact, cost and benefits, and cost effectiveness of a program. It is typical for researchers to use surveys similar to those used in formative evaluation. The following are questions that a summative evaluation can answer:

An especially important part of summative evaluation is the assessment of market saturation and reach. Clearly, if a social norms campaign does not reach very much of its intended audience, then its potential effectiveness decreases. If researchers can demonstrate that their campaign had high reach, then that strengthens the connection of the intervention to positive outcomes. It also lets researchers know what methods are effective for distributing the campaign. [32] It is necessary for an audience to be exposed to campaign messages frequently to change misperceptions. However, overexposure is possible, leading to a loss of credibility and habituation. [33] Thus, it is important to determine the proper dosage of the campaign in order to achieve maximum effectiveness. Silk et al. [34] provide a comprehensive evaluation of a socials norms campaign related to mental health among college students, revealing positive outcomes for students who were exposed to the social norms campaign (e.g., greater likelihood to visit the university's counseling center).

Once the evaluation is complete, it has the potential to help the intervention. Summative evaluation not only tells whether a program is working, but it can also feed new messages and new campaigns by providing new, updated data.

Glossary

The following are key terms discussed in this article that are relevant to the Social Norms Approach:

See also

Related Research Articles

Social norm group-held belief about how members should behave

Social norms are regarded as collective representations of acceptable group conduct as well as individual perceptions of particular group conduct. They can be viewed as cultural products which represent individuals' basic knowledge of what others do and think that they should do. From a sociological perspective, social norms are informal understandings that govern the behavior of members of a society. Social psychology recognizes smaller group units may also endorse norms separately or in addition to cultural or societal expectations.

Peer pressure is the direct influence on people by peers, or the effect on an individual who gets encouraged to follow their peers by changing their attitudes, values or behaviors to conform to those of the influencing group or individual. This can result in either a positive or negative effect, or both. Social groups affected include both membership groups, in which individuals are "formally" members, and cliques, in which membership is not clearly defined. However, a person does not need to be a member or be seeking membership of a group to be affected by peer pressure. Peer pressure can decrease one's confidence.

Alcohol abuse substance abuse that involves the recurring use of alcoholic beverages despite negative consequences

Alcohol abuse encompasses a spectrum of unhealthy alcohol drinking behaviors, ranging from binge drinking to alcohol dependence, in extreme cases resulting in health problems for individuals and large scale social problems such as alcohol-related crimes.

In social psychology, pluralistic ignorance is a situation in which a majority of group members privately reject a norm, but go along with it because they assume, incorrectly, that most others accept it. This is also described as "no one believes, but everyone thinks that everyone believes". Pluralistic ignorance is a bias about a social group, held by the members of that social group.

Theory of planned behavior in psychology, a theory that links ones beliefs and behavior

In psychology, the theory of planned behaviour is a theory that links one's beliefs and behaviour.

Normality is a behavior that can be normal for an individual when it is consistent with the most common behaviour for that person. Normal is also used to describe individual behaviour that conforms to the most common behaviour in society. Definitions of normality vary by person, time, place, and situation – it changes along with changing societal standards and norms. Normal behavior is often only recognized in contrast to abnormality. In its simplest form, normality is seen as good while abnormality is seen as bad. Someone being seen as normal or not normal can have social ramifications, such as being included, excluded or stigmatized by larger society.

Alcohol education is the practice of disseminating information about the effects of alcohol on health, as well as society and the family unit. It was introduced into the public schools by temperance organizations such as the Woman's Christian Temperance Union in the late 19th century. Initially, alcohol education focused on how the consumption of alcoholic beverages affected society, as well as the family unit. In the 1930s, this came to also incorporate education pertaining to alcohol's effects on health. For example, even light and moderate alcohol consumption increases cancer risk in individuals. Organizations such as the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism in the United States were founded to promulgate alcohol education alongside those of the temperance movement, such as the American Council on Alcohol Problems.

Brief intervention can often be referred to as screening and brief intervention (SBI) or, in England, identification and brief advice (IBA). Brief interventions are a technique used to initiate change for an unhealthy or risky behaviour such as smoking, lack of exercise or alcohol misuse. This page primarily describes brief interventions as applied to alcohol. As an alcohol intervention it is typically targeted to non-dependent drinkers, or drinkers who might be experiencing problems but are not seeking treatment. It is an approach which aims to prevent the acceleration or impact of alcohol problems, and/or to reduce alcohol consumption. It can be carried out in a range of settings such as in primary care, emergency or other hospital departments, criminal justice settings, workplaces, online, university/college settings, and other settings.

Claude Steele American psychologist

Claude Mason Steele is an African-American social psychologist. He was the executive vice chancellor and provost at the University of California, Berkeley, and he currently serves as a professor of psychology at Stanford University.

College health is a desired outcome created by a constellation of services, programs and policies directed at advancing the health and wellbeing of individuals enrolled in an institution of higher education, while also addressing and improving both population health and community health. Many colleges and universities worldwide apply both health promotion and health care as processes to achieve key performance indicators in college health. The variety of healthcare services provided by any one institution range from first aid stations employing a single nurse to large, accredited, multi-specialty ambulatory healthcare clinics with hundreds of employees. These services, programs and policies require a multidisciplinary team, the healthcare services alone include physicians, physician assistants, administrators, nurses, nurse practitioners, mental health professionals, health educators, athletic trainers, dietitians and nutritionists, and pharmacists. Some of the healthcare services extend to include massage therapists and other holistic health care professionals. While currently changing, the vast majority of college health services are set up as cost centers or service units rather than as parts of academic departments or health care delivery enterprises.

Counterproductive norms are group norms that prevent a group, organization, or other collective entities from performing or accomplishing its originally stated function by working oppositely to how they were initially intended. Group norms are typically enforced to facilitate group survival, to make group member behaviour predictable, to help avoid embarrassing interpersonal interactions, or to clarify distinctive aspects of the group’s identity. Counterproductive norms exist despite the fact that they cause opposite outcomes of the intended prosocial functions.

Fear appeal is a term used in psychology, sociology and marketing. It generally describes a strategy for motivating people to take a particular action, endorse a particular policy, or buy a particular product, by arousing fear. A well-known example in television advertising was a commercial employing the musical jingle: "Never pick up a stranger, pick up Prestone anti-freeze." This was accompanied by images of shadowy strangers (hitchhikers) who would presumably do one harm if picked up. The commercial's main appeal was not to the positive features of Prestone anti-freeze, but to the fear of what a "strange" brand might do.

Binge drinking modern epithet for drinking alcoholic beverages with an intention of becoming intoxicated by heavy consumption of alcohol over a short period of time

Binge drinking, or heavy episodic drinking, is a modern epithet for drinking alcoholic beverages with an intention of becoming intoxicated by heavy consumption of alcohol over a short period of time, but definitions vary considerably.

Audience segmentation is a process of dividing people into homogeneous subgroups based upon defined criterion such as product usage, demographics, psychographics, communication behaviors and media use. Audience segmentation is used in commercial marketing so advertisers can design and tailor products and services that satisfy the targeted groups. In social marketing, audiences are segmented into subgroups and assumed to have similar interests, needs and behavioral patterns and this assumption allows social marketers to design relevant health or social messages that influence the people to adopt recommended behaviors. Audience segmentation is widely accepted as a fundamental strategy in communication campaigns to influence health and social change. Audience segmentation makes campaign efforts more effective when messages are tailored to the distinct subgroups and more efficient when the target audience is selected based on their susceptibility and receptivity.

Campus sexual assault is the sexual assault, including rape, of a student while attending an institution of higher learning, such as a college or university. The victims of such assaults are more frequently female, but any gender can be victimized. Estimates of sexual assault, which vary based on definitions and methodology, generally find that somewhere between 19–27% of college women and 6–8% of college men are sexually assaulted during their time in college.

Drunkorexia is a colloquialism for anorexia or bulimia combined with alcohol abuse. The term is generally used to denote the utilization of extreme weight control methods to compensate for planned binge drinking. Research on the combination of an eating disorder and binge drinking has primarily focused on college-aged women, though the phenomenon has also been noted among young men. Studies suggest that individuals engage in this combination of self-imposed malnutrition and binge drinking to avoid weight gain from alcohol, to save money from purchasing alcohol, and to facilitate alcohol intoxication.

The reasoned-action approach (RAA) is an integrative framework for the prediction of human social behavior. The reasoned-action approach states that attitudes towards the behavior, perceived norms, and perceived behavioral control determine people's intentions, while people's intentions predict their behaviors.

Deviance regulation theory (DRT) posits that people choose to stray from social norms in socially attractive ways as well as avoiding socially unattractive behaviors that stray from social norms. These actions are all performed in an effort to preserve a constructive private and public self-image. DRT was proposed by Hart Blanton at the University of Albany in 2003 and has various applications in behavior change including alcohol interventions, inducing creativity, and other uses that are briefly mentioned below. Limitations to this theory have yet to be discovered but with future research Blanton and Christie are sure that boundaries are to be found.

Green Dot Bystander Intervention is a bystander education approach that aims to prevent violence with the help of bystanders. It is built on the premise that violence can be measurably and systematically reduced within a community. Bystander intervention as a way of violence prevention programs are becoming popular within society. Its mission is to reduce power-based violence by being a proactive bystander and a reactive bystander.

Gateway belief model

The gateway belief model (GBM) is a dual process theory in psychology and the communication sciences. The model suggests that public perception of the degree of normative (expert) agreement – or (scientific) consensus – on societal issues, such as climate change, vaccines, evolution, gun control, and GMO's functions as a so-called "gateway" cognition, influencing an individual's personal opinions, judgments, attitudes, and affective dispositions toward various social and scientific issues. The most well-known version of the model was developed by social psychologist Sander van der Linden and colleagues. The conceptual structure of the model is derived from earlier versions and a cumulative body of research.

References

  1. Mark Frauenfelder. "The year in ideas: A TO Z.; Social-norms marketing". New York Times . December 9, 2001.
  2. 1 2 3 Perkins, H. W. (2003). The Social Norms Approach to Preventing School and College Age Substance Abuse: A Handbook for Educators, Counselors, and Clinicians. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003.
  3. 1 2 Montclair-SNorms "Social Norms - Wellness - Montclair State University" [ permanent dead link ], Montclair State University, 2008, states that Alan D. Berkowitz and H. Wesley Perkins first proposed the social norms approach. Alan Berkowitz is an independent "consultant who helps universities, colleges, public health agencies and communities design programs which address health and social justice" issues. Alan Berkowitz is Editor and founder of "The Report on Social Norms". Wes Perkins is a Professor of Sociology and spent much of his professional life studying and evaluating adolescents and young adults. H. Wesley Perkins has been evaluating Social Norms programs for thirty years.
  4. Segrist, D.; Corcoran, K.; Jordan-Fleming, M.; Rose, P. (2007). "Yeah I drink…but not as much as other guys: The majority fallacy among adolescent males". North American Journal of Psychology. 9: 307–320.
  5. Weschler, H; Nelson; Lee, Jae Eun; Sebring; Lewis & Keeling (2003). "Perception and Reality: A National Evaluation of Social Norms Marketing Interventions to Reduce College Students Heavy Alcohol Use" (PDF). Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 64 (4): 484–494. doi:10.15288/jsa.2003.64.484. PMID   12921190. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2016-11-04. Retrieved 2016-11-04.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Berkowitz, A. D. (2005). "An overview of the social norms approach". In L. Lederman & L. Stewart (Eds.), Changing the culture of college drinking: A socially situated health communication campaign (193-214). Creskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press.
  7. 1 2 Berkowitz, A. D. (2004). The Social Norms Approach: Theory, Research and Annotated Bibliography Archived 2008-07-24 at the Wayback Machine . Retrieved 1 July 2008
  8. DeJong, W., Schneider, S. K., Towvim, L. G., Murphy, M. J., Doerr, E. E., Simonsen, N. R., et al. (2006). "A multisite randomized trial of social norms marketing campaigns to reduce college student drinking". Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 67, 868-879.
  9. Perkins, H. W. & Craig, D. W. (2006). "A successful social norms campaign to reduce alcohol misuse among college student-athletes". Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 67, 868-879.
  10. LaBrie, J. W., Hummer, J. F., Neighbors, C., & Pedersen, E. R. (2008). "Live interactive group-specific normative feedback reduces misperceptions and drinking in college students: A randomized cluster trial". Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 22, 141-148.
  11. 1 2 Cialdini, Robert (2003). "Crafting Normative Messages to Protect the Environment". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 12 (4): 105–109. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.579.5154 . doi:10.1111/1467-8721.01242.
  12. Borsari, B. & Carey, K. B. (2003) "Descriptive and Injunctive Norms in College Drinking: A Meta-Analytic Integration". Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64, 331-341.
  13. 1 2 Haines, M. P, Barker, G. P. & Rice, R. (2003). "Using Social Norms to Reduce Alcohol and Tobacco Use in Two Midwestern High Schools". In H. W. Perkins (Ed.), The Social Norms Approach to preventing school and college age substance abuse: A handbook for educators, counselors, clinicians (Chapter 14). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  14. Perkins, H. W. & Craig, D. A. (2003). "The Hobart and William Smith Colleges experiment: A synergistic social norms approach using print, electronic media and curriculum infusion to reduce collegiate problem drinking". In H. W. Perkins (Ed.), The Social Norms Approach to preventing school and college age substance abuse: A handbook for educators, counselors, clinicians (Chapter 3). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  15. Johannessen, K. & Gilder, P. (2003). "The University of Arizona's campus health social norms media campaign" in H. W. Perkins (Ed.), The Social Norms Approach to preventing school and college age substance abuse: A handbook for educators, counselors, clinicians (Chapter 4). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  16. Foss, R., Deikkman, S., Bartley, C. & Goodman, A. (2004). "Social norms program reduces measured and self-reported drinking at UNC-CH". The Report on Social Norms: Working Paper #14, Little Falls, New Jersey, PaperClip Communications. (Available from alan@fltg.net)
  17. Hancock, L. & Henry, N. (2003). "Perceptions, Norms and Tobacco Use in College Residence Hall Freshmen: Evaluation of a Social Norms Marketing Intervention". In H. W. Perkins (Ed.), The Social Norms Approach to preventing school and college age substance abuse: A handbook for educators, counselors, clinicians (Chapter 8). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  18. Hellstrom, D. (2004). "State of Minnesota Department of Public Safety project: The Prevention Collaborative's positive social norming campaign". The Report on Social Norms: Working Paper #7, Little Falls, New Jersey, PaperClip Communications. (Available from alan@fltg.net)
  19. Chernoff, R. A., & Davison, G. C. (2005). "An evaluation of a brief HIV/AIDS prevention intervention for college students using normative feedback and goal setting". AIDS Education and Prevention, 17, 91-104.
  20. Perkins, H. W. & Linkenbach, J. (2004). "Most of Us Wear Seatbelts: The process and outcomes of a three-year statewide adult seatbelt campaign". The Report on Social Norms: Working Paper #14, Little Falls, New Jersey, PaperClip Communications. (Available from alan@fltg.net)
  21. Christensen, S. & Haines, M.P. (2003). "Communities use a social norms approach to reduce teen alcohol and tobacco use: Two case studies". In "Selected Abstracts from the 2004 National Conference on the Social Norms Model." The Report on Social Norms: Working Paper #14, Little Falls, New Jersey: PaperClip Communications. (Available from alan@fltg.net).
  22. Berkowitz, A. D. (2007). "Fostering healthy norms to prevent violence and abuse: The Social Norms Approach" Archived 2008-07-24 at the Wayback Machine . Retrieved 1 July 2008
  23. Real, K.,& Rimal, R. N. (2001, November). "Explaining the influence of perceived norms on behaviors: Implications for campaigns against alcohol abuse by college students". Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Atlanta, Georgia.
  24. Baer, J. S. & Carney, M. M. (1993). "Biases in the perceptions of the consequences of alcohol use among college students". Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 54, p.54-60.
  25. 1 2 Wechsler, H., Nelson, T. F., Lee, J. E., Seibring, M., Lewis, C. & Keeling, R. P. (2003). "Perception and reality: A national evaluation of social norms marketing interventions to reduce college students' heavy alcohol use". Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64, 484-494.
  26. Granfield, R (2002). "Can You Believe It? Assessing the Credibility of a Social Norms Campaign". The Report on Social Norms: Working Paper #2, Little Falls, New Jersey: Paper-Clip Communications.
  27. Werch, CCE, Pappas, DM, Carlson, JM, DiClemente, CC, Chally, PS & Sinder, JA (2000). "Results of a Social Norm Intervention to Prevent Binge Drinking Among First-Year Residential College Students". Journal of American College Health, 49: 85-92.
  28. Clapp, JD, Lange, JE, Russell, C, Shillington, A & Voas, RB (2003). "A Failed Social Marketing Campaign". Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64:409-414.
  29. Smith, S. W., Atkin, C. K., Martell, D., Allen, R., & Hembroff, L. (2006). A Social Judgment Theory approach to conducting formative research in a social norms campaign. Communication Theory, 16, 141-152.
  30. Polonec, L. D., Major, A. M., & Atwood, L. E. (2006). "Evaluating the Believability and Effectiveness of the Social Norms Message "Most Students Drink 0 to 4 Drinks When They Party"." Health Communication, 20, 23-34.
  31. Stewart, L. P., Lederman, L. C., Golubow, M., Cattafesta, J. L., Goodhart, F. W., Powell, R. L., et al. (2002). "Applying communication theories to prevent dangerous drinking among college students: The RU sure campaign". Communication Studies, 53, 381–399.
  32. Perkins, H. W. & Craig, D. A. (2002). A Multi-faceted Social Norms Approach to Reduce High-Risk Drinking: Lessons from Hobart and William Smith Colleges. Newton, Massachusetts: The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention.
  33. Johannessen, K. (2005) ""Turning up the volume" and shining a light: Conducting a campus social norms marketing campaign2. Report on Social Norms, 5. Retrieved July 28, 2008 from http://www.mostofus.org/newsletter/article.php?newsletterID=3&articleID=12%5B%5D
  34. Silk, Kami J.; Perrault, Evan K.; Nazione, Samantha A.; Pace, Kristin; Collins-Eaglin, Jan (2017-02-01). "Evaluation of a Social Norms Approach to a Suicide Prevention Campaign". Journal of Health Communication. 22 (2): 135–142. doi:10.1080/10810730.2016.1258742. ISSN   1081-0730. PMID   28098508.
  35. 1 2 Perkins, H. W. (2002). "Social norms and the prevention of alcohol misuse in collegiate contexts". Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 14, 164-172.
  36. 1 2 Park, H. S., & Smith, S. W. (2007). "Distinctiveness and influence of subjective norms, personal descriptive and injunctive norms, and societal descriptive and injunctive norms on behavioral intent: A case of two behaviors critical to organ donation". Human Communication Research, 93, 194-218.