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

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

3. Social Norms Interventions What They Do NOT Do

13. Social Norms Interventions What They Do

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

16. Teach

17. Promote Self-Efficacy

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

19. BUT… Perceptions may not conform to reality

20. 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?

21. AND… We don’t like contradictions.

22. 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.

23. 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

24. Characteristics of Social Norms Marketing

25. Positive Inclusive Empowering

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

29. 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

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

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

33. Sample Characteristics Siten Mean Age % Female % White % Res Hall % Frat/ Soro Schl 1349123.2370.643.17.76.7 Schl 2529320.5769.57420.814.8 Schl 3217119.8463.675.860.75.3 Schl 4357920.3557.784.748.87.6 Schl 5701421.366.464.526.66.3

34. But did the samples change over the years?

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

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

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

38. 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

39. Results for Perception Changes Type III Tests of Fixed Effects Source Numerator df Denominator dfFSig. Year of survey 721364.14337.585.000 school4183.65518.099.000

40. Results for Actual Drinks Changes Type III Tests of Fixed Effects a Source Numerator df Denominator dfFSig. Percvd drinks 127.070190.796.000 Year of survey 78043.17322.001.000 school46046.94730.466.000

41. Duh…Beautiful Stats… But what do they mean?

42. Mean Perceived Drinks 2002-2009

43. Mean Actual Drinks 2002-2009

44. Mean Perceived-Actual Drinks 02-09

45. 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

46. 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

47. Thank You Questions, Comments ???