Evaluation of Social Norms Marketing Campaigns: Five Sites across 8 Years Adrienne Keller, Ph.D. National Social Norms Institute University of Virginia

Social Norms Interventions  What they do NOT do  What they DO  Why they work  Characteristics  Evidence of effectiveness  Limitations  Conclusions

Social Norms Interventions What They Do NOT Do

Social Norms Interventions What They Do

Most (83%) Adults in Illinois Don’t Smoke* *Source: Centers for Disease Control, 2008 Tobacco Use in Illinois Adults

Teach

Promote Self-Efficacy

Why do social norms interventions change behavior? Think about “peer pressure” And how others’ choices influence our own…

BUT… Perceptions may not conform to reality

Source: NCHA, Spring 2008, n= 80,121 Q.: How many alcoholic drinks did you have the last time you “partied” or socialized? Q.: How many alcoholic drinks do you think the typical student at your school had the last time they “partied” or socialized?

AND… We don’t like contradictions.

a MINORITY of our youth  Are addicted to tobacco  Do use drugs  Do have a serious problem with alcohol. MOST of our youth  Don’t smoke cigarettes  Don’t do drugs  Don’t use alcohol or have an alcohol problem.

Harm Reduction: Decrease alcohol-related morbidity & mortality DESIRED IMPACT Decrease Alcohol Use ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES Misperceived norm Correct perception of norm INTERVENTION GOAL IDENTIFIED ISSUES Personal alcohol misuse Misperceived norm INTERVENTION STRATEGY Social norms marketing campaign

Characteristics of Social Norms Marketing

Positive Inclusive Empowering

Evidence of Effectiveness Good theory…great media… But does it work?

Participating Schools  Five universities  4 public; 1 private  Thru-out USA  Between 14K to 46K students  Funding: Anhauser-Busch Fndtn  ACHA’s NCHA  2002 through 2009: some years

Social Norms Campaigns  Each university developed its own campaign using the five step model

Five Step Model Choose the Audience Gather & Evaluate Data Develop & Test Message Implement Campaign Evaluate Effectiveness

Sample Characteristics Siten Mean Age % Female % White % Res Hall % Frat/ Soro Schl Schl Schl Schl Schl

But did the samples change over the years?

YES for 1 and 2  Schl 1: Race/Ethnicity only % White  % Hispanic   Schl 2: Everything! Age  % Female  % White  % in Res Hall  % Frat/Soro 

YES for 3 and 4  Schl 3: Residence only % in Res Hall   Schl 4: Sex, Race, Residence % Female  % White  % in Res Hall 

and YES for 5  Schl 5: Everything! Age  % Female  % White  % in Res Hall  % Frat/Soro   So, we controlled for everything in our analyses.

Linear Mixed Effects Models  Did perceptions change across years? Perception: ACHA-NCHA question Controlled for demographics Within each school  Did use change across years? Use: ACHA-NCHA question Controlled for demographics Within each school By perception

Results for Perception Changes Type III Tests of Fixed Effects Source Numerator df Denominator dfFSig. Year of survey school

Results for Actual Drinks Changes Type III Tests of Fixed Effects a Source Numerator df Denominator dfFSig. Percvd drinks Year of survey school

Duh…Beautiful Stats… But what do they mean?

Mean Perceived Drinks

Mean Actual Drinks

Mean Perceived-Actual Drinks 02-09

Limitations  Internal Validity Exposure not included in analysis Other interventions not included Related events not included Moderate to low sample response rates  External Validity Population characteristics Environmental characteristics Implementation fidelity

Conclusions  Misperceptions in all 5 schools Real world settings Diverse schools Actual drinks decreased in 4 of 5 “Gap” decreased in 2 of 5  Importance of longitudinal data Single year results unclear Effects & relationship only become clear over the years

Thank You Questions, Comments ???