HEALTH COMMUNICATION, 19(3), 209219 Copyright 2006, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS CAMPO AND CAMERON OF SOCIAL NORMS CAMPAIGNS

Differential Effects of Exposure to Social Norms Campaigns: A Cause for Concern

Shelly Campo
Department of Community and Behavioral Health Department of Communication Studies University of Iowa

Kenzie A. Cameron
Program in Communication & Medicine, Division of Internal Medicine Northwestern University

College students processing of alcohol social norms messages, related effects on normative judgments, attitudes toward their own behaviors, and perception of undergraduate attitudes were examined using expectancy violation theories and social norms marketing. Data were collected from 2 universities (N = 393). Following message exposure, the majority moved their normative judgments toward the statistic provided in the message. Slight attitude change occurred but not always in the desired direction. Those most likely to develop unhealthier attitudes drank more than those who developed healthier attitudes, consistent with psychological reactance to the messages. Therefore, the effects of social norms campaigns on those at greatest risk for primary and secondary alcohol effects due to their increased alcohol consumption could lead to increased risk for those participants, indicating that the widespread use of social norms campaigns needs to be scrutinized.

In 1994, Wechsler, Davenport, Dowdall, Moeykens, and Castillo published a landmark study noting that binge drinking on college campuses existed at alarming rates, with 44% of students surveyed nationwide reporting having been involved in binge drinking, and that it was significantly related to the likelihood of negative consequences (Wechsler, Dowdall, Maenner, Gledhill-Hoyt, & Lee, 1998; Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, & Lee, 2000; Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, et al., 2002; Wechsler et al., 2003). Binge drinking was defined as five or more drinks per sitting for males and four or more drinks per sitting for females. Wechslers data from the past decade indicate that, despite increased interventions, college drinking levels remained fairly constant. High-risk drinking results in damages to self, others, and institutions (Perkins, 2002). For example, excessive drinking among college students leads to 1,400 deaths per year nationwide and thousands of injuries (Hingson, Heeren, Zakocs, Kopstein, & Wechsler, 2002). In the United States, 49% of all alcohol is consumed by those aged 18 to 29, who represent just 27% of the population (Greenfield & Rogers, 1999).
Correspondence should be addressed to Shelly Campo, Department of Community and Behavioral Health, University of Iowa, 200 Hawkins Drive, E237 GH, Iowa City, IA 52242. E-mail: shelly-campo@uiowa.edu

Recent rises in riots on campuses and surrounding communities have been fueled by alcohol (Kaplowitz & Campo, 2004). Despite the widespread belief that alcohol consumption in college is a rite of passage that will be temporary, college alcohol consumption has a significant impact on future drinking patterns (Jackson, Sher, Gotham, & Wood, 2001; ONeil, Parra, & Sher, 2001), which can lead to lifelong consequences. SOCIAL NORMS, HARM REDUCTION, AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL APPROACH Most college campuses have relied heavily on education to discourage binge drinking. Many universities have taken a harm reduction approach, promoting messages of moderation rather than abstinence. One such approach, social norms campaigns, is based on pluralistic ignorance, the idea that individuals are unable to accurately judge the social norm (Allport, 1924; Fields & Schuman, 1976; Prentice & Miller, 1993). The campaigns rely on the idea that people are not good at judging normative behavior (Fields & Schuman, 1976; Ross, Greene, & House, 1977). Social norms campaigns assume that once the perceived norm is corrected to

210

CAMPO AND CAMERON

match the true norm, individuals will alter their behavior accordingly (Perkins & Berkowitz, 1986). These social norms campaigns thus provide students with the correct statistic (i.e., the true campus average), typically about a normative behavior, for example, 66% of students drink three or fewer when they party. Such campaigns have been adopted widely; 48% of college campuses are using social norms campaigns (Wechsler, Seibring, Lui, & Ahl, 2004). Despite their popularity, their efficacy remains in question (Keeling, 2000). Although studies report a persuasive effect of presentation of statistical evidence (Allen, Bruflat, & Fucilla, 2000; Boster et al., 2000; Slater & Rouner, 1996), the effects of these campaigns when applied to alcohol are controversial and findings have been mixed (Campo et al., 2003; Perkins, 2002; Rimal & Real, 2003; Wechsler et al., 2003). Social norms campaigns are considered to be beneficial for targeting persons who overestimate the true norm (Wechsler & Kuo, 2000). However, on any campus, there will be some who overestimate (overestimators), some who underestimate (underestimators), and a small number who accurately perceive the norm (Campo, Cameron, Brossard, & Frazer, 2004). Perkins and Berkowitz (1986) found that college students had inaccurate perceptions regarding student alcohol consumption, most overestimating the norm, and suggested that correcting the misperception would lead to behavior change. Early social norms campaign adopters reported 29% to 44% decreases in heavy alcohol consumption (Frauenfelder, 2001; Haines & Spear, 1996; Johannessen, Collins, Mills-Novoa, & Glider, 1999). Perkins and Wechsler (1996) surveyed 140 colleges, finding variation of perceptions of student norms between and within universities. Even when controlling for personal attributes, perceived student norms do predict personal alcohol use. Similarly, Clapp and McDonnell (2000) found a significant relationship between misperceptions of alcohol use and a students own use. Conversely, several studies that argue for the effectiveness of social norms campaigns have not found data consistent with behavior change (c.f. Perkins and Berkowitz, 1986; Perkins, Mielman, Leichlier, Cashin, & Presley, 1999; Pollard, Freeman, Ziegler, Hersman, & Gross, 2000). Despite the lack of direct effects, they all call for the use of social norms campaigns. Campo et al. (2003) failed to find support for the premises of social norms campaigns. They found that neither the direction (over- or underestimators) nor size of the misperception (how far the estimate was from the actual statistic) of the typical college students drinking were related to ones own drinking behavior. Real and Rimal (2001) found that perceived prevalence of alcohol use was not predictive of alcohol consumption when other normative mechanisms were included and when controlling for student social networks, peer communication patterns, Greek affiliation, place of residence, and age. Similarly, Baer and Carney (1993) found that misperceptions of drinking behaviors were not related to per-

sonal alcohol consumption, contrary to the assumptions of social norms. A study of 140 universities that compared those that used social norms with those that did not found data inconsistent with the efficacy of the social norms approach (Wechsler et al., 2003). Studies using control groups have found that misperceptions are corrected, but drinking behavior is not affected (e.g., Barnett, Far, Mauss, & Miller, 1996; Steffian, 1999; Werch et al., 2000). Moreover, most studies of social norms campaigns have not used a control group. This fact is problematic because, in nearly all cases in which social norms campaigns have been deemed successful, multiple interventions have been used simultaneously. In a study of 734 college presidents, Wechsler, Kelley, Weitzman, Giovanni, and Seibring (2000) found that those presidents who perceived greater alcohol use put more resources toward educational efforts, campaigns, counseling services, and task forces. Although norms play a role in affecting behavior, this approach may be overly simplistic. For example, if students are embedded in heavy drinking groups, it is difficult to disrupt this pattern through a media campaign because they want to drink like their friends (Campo et al., 2003; Dorsey, Scherer, & Real, 1999). Keeling (1999, 2000) called for more rigorous testing of social norms marketing, citing poor measurement; however, current trends show increases in use of such marketing with messages based on behaviors (e.g., 66% of students drink three or fewer when they party) and attitudes (e.g., 66% of students believe drinking to get drunk is a bad idea). Attitude-based messages have been minimally tested and compared with behavior-based messages (Campo et al., 2004).

COMMUNICATION LITERATURE AND THE EFFICACY OF SOCIAL NORMS Within the communication literature, expectancy violation theory (EVT) can be drawn on for the testing needed to address Keelings (1999, 2000) call for empirical testing. Social norms marketing suggests audiences will experience a violation of their expectation of the actual behavioral norm. Communication research has studied expectancies regarding language and message development (M. Burgoon, 1995; M. Burgoon & Miller, 1985) as well as the function of nonverbal expectations (c.f. J. K. Burgoon & Hale, 1988). The resulting theoretical framework, EVT, suggests that, when expectations regarding others nonverbal behaviors are violated, a corresponding shift in attitudes will be observed (J. K. Burgoon, 1978; J. K. Burgoon & Hale, 1988; J. K. Burgoon, Newton, Walther, & Baesler, 1989). It has been suggested that EVT be applied to examine message effects. J. K. Burgoon, Dunbar, and Segrin (2002) discuss expectations as related to marketing and sales research and practice, and Siegel and Burgoon (2002) suggest expanding into health messages. They contend that by violat-

DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF SOCIAL NORMS CAMPAIGNS

211

ing a receivers expectations in a message, an orienting response will be created, leading to an increased focus on message content. Once receivers focus on the message, they will be forced evaluate it. As expectancy theories advocate that those experiencing positive and negative violations will respond to messages differently, it naturally follows that those underestimating or overestimating the true statistic will respond differentially to social norms message exposure. Therefore, we ask: RQ1: What proportion of those exposed to the message will move toward the normative statistic provided in the message based on whether they (a) underestimated the correct statistic or (b) overestimated the correct statistic? RQ2: What proportion of those exposed to the message reported healthier, unhealthier, and no change in perceptions of undergraduates attitudes toward drinking based on whether they (a) underestimated the correct statistic or (b) overestimated the correct statistic? RQ3: What proportion of those exposed to the message reported healthier, unhealthier, and no change in attitudes toward their own drinking based on whether they (a) underestimated the correct statistic or (b) overestimated the correct statistic?

PSYCHOLOGICAL REACTANCE Another theoretical basis for attitude and behavior change is that of psychological reactance. Agostinelli and Grube (2002) suggest that to minimize the effects of alcohol advertising, public service announcements should present factual information and persuasive messages. They note that some evidence supports the effectiveness of factual campaigns, although findings are mixed and typically limited by audience, message, and source. They also suggest researchers need to understand the processes contributing to or limiting the effectiveness of these campaigns. One potential limitation is the process of psychological reactance, or boomerangs, on the part of the intended audience. Reactance theory posits that campaigns and other attempts to prevent alcohol consumption among underage college students will create reactance motivation, leading to increased drinking. Whenever people feel their freedom is threatened, they will be likely to enter into a reactance motivational state and act to regain control of their environment by not complying or doing the opposite of what has been advocated (Brehm, 1966; Engs & Hanson, 1989; Fogarty, 1997; Grandpre, Alvaro, Burgoon, Miller, & Hall, 2003). Persuasive communication campaigns, according to psychological reactance, pose a potential threat to freedom. Such a threat not only increases the attractiveness of that freedom but also the attempts to exercise that freedom (Fogarty, 1997).

Hovland, Janis, and Kelley (1953) contend that a boomerang effect may occur when the audience anticipates that the conclusions drawn by a source having perceived low credibility will be counter to their interests. Campus administrators often are not seen as credible; attempts to limit college students drinking may well be perceived as counter to students interests. Adolescents often question authority in an attempt to gain autonomy and become adults; hence, their message receptivity decreases drastically. Adolescents are much more likely to experience reactance to antidrug messages than preadolescents or more mature adults (Grandpre et al., 2003). Audiences aware of an attempt to persuade on the part of the message source will be less likely to be persuaded (Walster & Festinger, 1962). Feingold and Knapp (1977) contend that extensive money has been spent by government and public-minded groups to produce advertising to convince people, primarily youth, to avoid harmful drugs. However, they suggest that little research indicates whether these antidrug efforts are producing desired effects. The researchers tested antidrug messages on high school students and found that exposure to the messages decreased students negative attitudes toward drugs rather than increasing them, indicating a boomerang effect. Brown (2001) suggests that reactance tends to occur with emotionally manipulative messages and calls for health promotion messages to be less emotional because the results can be counterproductive. Although many believe that boomerang effects and psychological reactance occur, and are often tested, with dogmatic messages (e.g. Bensley & Wu, 1991), that might not be the only case in which reactance occurs. Campaign designers need to be aware that the potential costs of oppositional attitudes caused by the boomerang effect may outweigh potential gains (Ringold, 2002). Ringold argues that even the simplest alcohol messages, believed to be neutral, need to be tested to discover actual effects and potential differential effects. She suggests evaluation of attitudes and behaviors must accommodate the possibility of unintended boomerang effects. Recent research suggests that messages perceived as ineffective by the target population are unlikely to prevent, and may actually facilitate, risky behavior (Fishbein, Hall-Jamieson, Zimmer, von Haeften, & Nabi, 2002). Anecdotal evidence suggests that college students perceive social norms campaigns to be ineffective. It is not unusual to hear from students that these campaigns do not work, that the statistics provided must be false, and that those producing them are out of touch (Campo et al., 2003). Social norms messages are targeted at those with moderate behavior. However, messages are received by abstainers, light drinkers, moderate drinkers, and excessive drinkers. Given that there is a possibility of psychological reactance, we ask: RQ4: What is the relationship between past behavior and attitude change on ones own drinking behavior?

212

CAMPO AND CAMERON

METHOD Participants Participants were 393 college students drawn from university populations at two universities, The University of Georgia (UGA; n = 168) and Cornell University (n = 225). Cornell had used social norms campaigns on its campus and UGA had not. Participants were students in introductory public-speaking courses, which contain a cross-section of majors as well as upper-level communication courses. Communication majors represented 26% of the sample. Fifty-three percent of the participants were women. The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 31 (M = 20.16, SD = 1.61). In addition, 6.6% of the sample were African American/Black, 80.8% were White, 6.4% were Asian/Asian American, 0.5% were American Indian/Native American, 1.8% were biracial, 2.6% were Chicano/Hispanic, and 1.3% reported other racial backgrounds. Message Creation Two alcohol messages were created. One message provided the normative statistic regarding undergraduate attitudes toward a health behavior, whereas the second message provided the normative statistic regarding reports of undergraduate participation in these unhealthy/healthy behaviors. The statistics came from previous university-based survey data and were virtually identical at both universities. Therefore, the same messages were used at both universities. Messages mimicked the content of social norms campaigns currently in use. Messages were attributed to the Harvard School of Public Health, which is commonly cited in social norms campaigns. The message presented the normative statistic regarding attitudes or behaviors of other undergraduates at the university. For ethical purposes, all of the messages were framed such that healthier behaviors were presented (e.g., the majority of college students drink in moderation). The attitude message given was: Drinking to get drunk is not considered a cool thing to do among UGA/Cornell undergraduate students. According to a study conducted at the University of Georgia/Cornell in April 2001 by the Harvard School of Public Health, 66% of UGA/Cornell University undergraduates think that it is important to avoid drinking to get drunk. Results are based on a randomly selected representative sample of 1,499 participants (margin of error 4%). The alcohol behavior message took a similar form: The majority of UGA/Cornell undergraduate students do not consume a large number of alcoholic drinks per week. According to a study conducted at the Univer-

sity of Georgia/Cornell in April 2001 by the Harvard School of Public Health, 66% of UGA/Cornell University undergraduates drink less than 5 alcoholic drinks a week. Results are based on a randomly selected representative sample of 1,499 participants (margin of error 4%). Procedure Participants received either course credit or extra credit for participating. They were administered the study in groups. Participants arrived at the classroom and were told that researchers wanted to learn their opinions regarding a series of health-related messages under consideration for use at their university. Participants were advised that the questionnaire would take approximately 30 min to complete and then were given one of six versions of the questionnaire. Following completion, participants were debriefed and provided with the researchers contact information. Questionnaire Several questionnaire versions were developed such that each student read and responded to two messages. The full study included exercise and tobacco social norms messages in addition to alcohol; only alcohol-related information is presented in this article. Questionnaires were randomized based on message topic (i.e., alcohol, smoking, exercise) and message type (i.e., attitudinal, behavioral). Each student was given one attitudinal and one behavioral message about two of the three topics (e.g., alcohol attitude, smoking behavior) such that no one received an attitudinal and behavioral message on the same health topic. The first part of the questionnaire included measures of the participants own behaviors related to alcohol use; measures of the participants expectation of other undergraduates behaviors; a scale assessing their attitudes toward their own drinking behaviors; and a scale assessing their perception of other undergraduates attitudes toward the behavior. After completion of this portion of the questionnaire, participants read the message. Following the message, the students again provided answers regarding their judgments of and attitudes toward their own and perception of other students attitudes regarding drinking. The questionnaire concluded with demographic questions.

Drinking behaviors. Before receiving the message, participants were asked to provide estimates of their drinking behavior. Behaviors were measured by a two-item scale measuring situational drinking behavior (On average, how many alcoholic drinks do you consume when you socialize in a setting with alcohol? and Within the last two weeks, how many times have you had five or more alcoholic drinks in a sitting? = .78) as well as a one-item measure assessing the total number of alcoholic drinks the student reported consuming per week.

DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF SOCIAL NORMS CAMPAIGNS

213

Normative judgments/expectancy violation measures. Expectancy violations were calculated such that there were two violations (one regarding attitudinal violations, one regarding behavioral violations). For participants receiving an alcohol attitude message, prior to reading the message they had indicated their normative judgment as to what percentage of undergraduate students at the university think it is important to avoid drinking to get drunk. Those participants who received an alcohol behavior message indicated their normative judgment as to what percentage of undergraduate students at the university drink less than five alcoholic drinks a week. After identification of each of these judgments, the statistic given in the message was subtracted from each judgment to obtain the corresponding expectancy violation. Participants who had given the correct response within 5 percentage points were removed from the sample; the remaining respondents were divided into those who had overestimated and those who had underestimated the correct statistic. Normative judgment change measures. As EVT and social norms marketing focus on changes in individual perceptions, a change variable was created for each judgment. Change scores were calculated by subtracting the judgment of the participants after reading the message from the judgment provided before reading the message. Two normative judgment change scores were used in analyses: (a) participants judgments of the norm of undergraduates attitudes toward drinking to get drunk and (b) judgments of the norm of undergraduates drinking behavior following receipt of the message. Attitude measures. Ones own attitude toward drinking was measured using three items on a 5-point scale (I dont have to get drunk to have a good time, I think drinking to get drunk is a bad idea, and I feel better when I do not drink.). These items fit a single factor (premessage = .60; postmessage = .62). Perceptions of undergraduate attitudes was measured using XXX university undergrads think that drinking to get drunk is a bad idea.

Attitude change measures. Attitudinal change scores were calculated such that the expressed attitude of the participants following their reading of the message was subtracted from the expressed attitude provided prior to reading the experimental message.

RESULTS There were no significant differences for any of the study variables between the two university samples, thus the data were collapsed. Results indicated overall that the majority of the respondents moved toward the statistic provided in the message and developed healthier attitudes following message exposure. However, in all cases there were respondents who experienced no change, respondents who experienced a healthy change, and respondents who experienced an unhealthy change in judgments and behaviors. Normative Judgment Change Those exposed to the message (either attitudinal or behavioral) tended to move toward the normative statistic provided in the message. RQ1a and RQ1b addressed over- and underestimators movement toward the normative statistic provided. As Table 1 shows, with both the behavioral and attitudinal messages at least one half of the participants moved toward the statistic provided and another one fourth experienced no change. Those who moved away from the statistic provided were all underestimators. Attitude Change Toward Ones Perception of Undergraduates Attitudes Toward Drinking The proportion of those exposed to the message who reported healthier, unhealthier, and no change in attitudes toward undergraduates drinking based on whether or not they underor overestimated the correct statistic was the topic of RQ2. Table 2 shows that for the alcohol attitude message among those who underestimated (RQ2a), nearly one half reported more positive health attitudes, a large percentage reported no

TABLE 1 Normative Judgment Change Regarding Attitudes and Behaviors n Alcohol attitude message Underestimatorsa Overestimatorsb Alcohol behavior message Underestimatorsa Overestimatorsb % Moved Toward Statistic in Message % No Change % Moved Away From Statistic in Message

121 9 105 25

61.5 66.7 57.0 64.0

23.7 33.3 28.0 36.0

14.8 0.0 15.0 0.0

Note. N = 132. Participants who accurately perceived the norm (5) are not reported in this table and numbered 5 or fewer in each condition. aUnderestimators experienced positive violations. bOverestimators experienced negative violations.

214

CAMPO AND CAMERON TABLE 2 Attitudes Toward Undergraduates Perceptions of Drinking Behavior n Alcohol attitude message Underestimatorsa Overestimatorsb Alcohol behavior message Underestimatorsa Overestimatorsb % Reporting More Positive Health Attitudes % No Change % Reporting More Negative Health Attitudes

121 9 105 25

48.8 77.8 42.9 52.0

42.1 11.1 52.4 44.0

9.1 11.1 4.7 4.0

Note. N = 132. Participants who accurately perceived the norm (5) are not reported in this table and numbered 5 or fewer in each condition. aUnderestimators experienced positive violations. bOverestimators experienced negative violations. TABLE 3 Attitudes Toward Own Drinking Behavior n Alcohol attitude message Underestimatorsa Overestimatorsb Alcohol behavior message Underestimatorsa Overestimatorsb % Reporting More Positive Health Attitudes % No Change % Reporting More Negative Health Attitudes

121 9 105 25

59.0 44.4 61.3 80.8

7.4 11.2 7.5 7.7

33.6 44.4 31.2 11.5

Note. N = 132. Participants who accurately perceived the norm (5) are not reported in this table and numbered 5 or fewer in each condition. aUnderestimators experienced positive violations. bOverestimators experienced negative violations. TABLE 4 Comparison of Health Behaviors of Those With Unhealthy, No, and Healthy Attitude Change Healthy Attitude Change Alcohol Messages Drink scale score Number of drinks per week N 159 159 M 2.42b 6.64b SD 2.18 9.12 N 20 20 No Attitude Change M 3.31ab 10.55ab SD 2.93 15.08 N 79 81 Unhealthy Attitude Change M 4.46a 13.56a SD 2.61 13.18

Note. Means in the same row that do not share subscripts differ at p < .01.

change, and approximately 10% developed unhealthier attitudes. Among overestimators (RQ2b), approximately three fourths developed more positive health attitudes. In the alcohol behavior message condition, for both over- and underestimators the patterns were extremely similar, with fairly equal distribution of more positive health attitudes and no change in attitudes. Less than 5% developed more negative health attitudes following message exposure.

divided between developing healthier and unhealthier attitudes toward their own drinking behavior. Among those exposed to the alcohol behavior message, the majority developed more healthy attitudes among both over- and underestimators. However, the underestimators were more likely to develop more negative health attitudes.

Relation Between Past Behavior and Attitude Change Attitude Change Toward Own Drinking by Over- and Underestimators As shown in Table 3, in the alcohol attitude message condition, underestimators were more likely to develop more positive health attitudes than overestimators, and one third of respondents developed more negative health attitudes (RQ3a and RQ3b). Among overestimators, respondents were evenly RQ4 asked about the relation between attitude change toward ones own behavior and ones past drinking behavior. Table 4 shows that healthy attitude change occurred among those drinking the least, no attitude change occurred among those drinking a bit more, and unhealthy attitude change occurred for those drinking the most. Table 4 shows the means with the attitude and behavior messages collapsed, as the pattern was

DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF SOCIAL NORMS CAMPAIGNS

215

the same for both. This pattern is consistent with the process of psychological reactance.

DISCUSSION This study examined the processing of normative statistical messages on judgments and attitudes. Both behavioral and attitudinal messages were used, and effects on multiple judgments and attitudes were examined for underestimators and overestimators. Messages were tested at two universities, with no significant differences in the persuasive process found between locations. This result was surprising because one university from which a sample was drawn for this study had a recent social norms campaign related to alcohol, whereas the other university had not. The lack of difference suggests that the results are generalizable and that the cognitive processing of the messages is similar. It also demonstrates that even following a massive blanketed social norms campaign, the response of students is no different than if those messages had never been viewed. Thus, it is not the case that the messages are processed differently due to overexposure. Most respondents underestimated the true normative statistic. Results suggest that the majority of respondents moved toward the statistic provided in the message, developing healthier attitudes following message exposure. Social norms marketing holds for judgment: Being provided with the normative statistic appears to influence receivers to adjust their judgments toward that statistic. This finding is consistent with some previous literature. However, this change in judgment does not necessarily result in attitude change; previous literature has failed to find a relation with drinking behavior as well (e.g., Campo et al., 2003). Although this finding may be favorable to the use of social norms campaigns, a closer examination suggests concern, as respondents moved both toward and away from the message statistic and developed healthier, unhealthier, or no attitude change following message exposure. Further examination of normative judgment change revealed that all who moved away from the statistic being advocated were underestimators. Results for attitude change toward undergraduate attitudes varied some by type of message and by over- and underestimators, although most developed healthier attitudes toward undergraduate attitudes. Very few developed unhealthier attitudes in either message condition. However, when examining change in attitude toward ones own behavior, differences are apparent. A significant number of respondents developed more negative health attitudes in both the attitudinal and the behavioral message conditions. The alcohol attitude message results in one third (underestimators) to 44% (overestimators) developing more negative health attitudes. In the alcohol behavior condition more underestimators (31%) developed negative health attitudes than overestimators (11.5%). Overestimators had more

positive attitude change compared with underestimators. These patterns suggest that when exposed to these messages, underestimators and overestimators respond somewhat differently. This result is consistent with Wechsler and Kuo (2000), who advised that norms campaigns are only useful for those who are inaccurate in one direction. A strength of this study is that messages related to both normative attitudes and normative behaviors of undergraduates were used. Most research on social norms has used behavior messages; in practice, attitudinal messages are also being disseminated. Future studies may want to continue to explore the effects of using attitude or behavior messages. What raises concern is the examination of alcohol use behaviors and their relation to attitude change following message exposure. Those with positive attitude change (i.e., moving in a healthier direction) drank the least per week and per sitting. Those drinking at more moderate levels experienced no attitude change, and those drinking the most experienced negative attitude change. Although the average amount drunk by those developing unhealthier attitudes was not overly excessive (M = 4.5 drinks per sitting), given that 53% of our respondents were women, it is at the level of binge drinking (four drinks per sitting for women and five for men). Although the five/four measure has been criticized for not taking into account duration of consumption (e.g., Jung, 2003), it is clearly associated with increased risk of damages to self and others (Wechsler & Austin, 1998; Wechsler, Dowdall, Davenport, & Rimm, 1995; Wechsler & Nelson, 2001). Those respondents who drank the most experienced unhealthy attitude change, whereas those who drank the least experienced healthy attitude change. This finding existed for both universities: the one that had used social norms campaigns and the one that did not. These data are consistent with psychological reactance. Whereas psychological reactance has been shown previously to affect college students processing of dogmatic alcohol prevention messages (Bensley & Wu, 1991), it has not been discovered previously in cases of more neutral messages. In addition, much of the previous research on psychological reactance with substance abuse messages focuses on younger populations, although cases of psychological reactance have been documented among adult populations, particularly those with substance abuse issues (e.g., Compton, 2000; Karno, Beutler, & Harwood, 2002; D. P. Rice & Schoenfeld, 1975). Because social norms campaigns are received by the entire student population, including nondrinkers, light or moderate drinkers, and heavy drinkers, the possibility exists that over time and with repeated message exposure heavy drinkers will increase their alcohol use (Bensley & Wu, 1991). Moreover, anecdotal evidence from the university using social norms campaigns suggests that students are responding to these campaigns in unhealthy ways. For example, some students have turned the universitys social norms campaign (Most students drink zero to three drinks when they party into a drinking game

216

CAMPO AND CAMERON

I can drink zero to three in 5 min, 1 min, etc.). Several years ago, at a popular spring event signaling the end of classes, one student organization wore T-shirts declaring they were proud to be among the 33% who are binge drinkers. Using the rubric of EVT, we identified those participants who had underestimated the norm, experiencing a positive violation, and those participants who had overestimated the norm, experiencing a negative violation. Recall that the messages were worded in the positive direction, such that if one underestimated the norm, one believed that more students drank more than what the message indicated. Although most participants were underestimators, identification of the overestimators raises the question as to what may occur to their judgments over time. Our data indicate that those experiencing a negative violation, that is, the message indicated that more students drank than expected, moved toward the advocated statistic in the message. This result, if continued, suggests a dangerous pattern: Those who initially believe students are drinking less than they actually are may be influenced by a message, which could result in a detrimental change in judgments, attitudes and behaviors. More research to explore this possibility is needed. Limitations In practice, social norms campaigns provide multiple exposures to the same message. This study provided a single exposure prior to assessing judgment and attitude change. Participants in this study had forced exposure to the messages; the majority of social norms campaigns allow for selective exposure. This study focused on message content, not graphic design. As this study was not longitudinal, we were unable to assess delayed attitude change or future behavioral change, although attitudes are typically thought of as significant predictors of behavior (e.g., Kim & Hunter, 1993a, 1993b). An instance in which it would be interesting to view corresponding behavior change is if the heavy drinkers reporting negative attitude change would also experience negative behavior change (i.e., engage in more high-risk drinking). There was a one-item measure of perception of undergraduate attitudes toward alcohol use. Future studies may wish to enhance this measure. Although the sample size was adequate for testing significant differences in health behaviors when collapsing the attitude and behavior messages (see Table 4), a larger sample is needed to test significant differences between over- and underestimators, as the number of respondents overestimating was small. Implications Social norms messages had limited desired effects in the case of alcohol when overall patterns are examined. However, when considering previous alcohol behavior, the messages may not be having the desired effect. Those drinking little or

in moderation experience limited or no attitude change, whereas those drinking the most experience negative attitude change. Although in the main the campaigns may be positively affecting some individuals, there is a potential for these campaigns to produce boomerang effects for those most at risk. Any campaign has the potential for unintended consequences, even if it is developed with the best of intentions (Wang, 1998), and campaign researchers argue for adequate testing to determine and minimize these risks (Fishbein et al., 2002; R. E. Rice & Atkin, 2001). Guttman and Ressler (2001) advise against the overuse of campaigns targeting individual behavior when it can be translated as blaming the victim rather than examining societal facilitators. For similar reasons, and because of evidence suggesting that environmental approaches are more effective, several college alcohol scholars now argue for a more environmental approach. Moreover, nondrinkers are more likely to take up drinking in wet environments that have higher bar density, drink specials, underage bar entry, and high drinking rates than in than dry environments (Weitzman, Nelson, & Wechsler, 2003). This pattern suggests that choosing to drink is not solely based on individual preferences, as Guttman and Ressler suggest. In addition to efforts at alcohol education, many colleges are taking an environmental approach including increased alcohol counseling, punishments for underage drinking, and changes in campus and community policies to restrict drinking to change the overall drinking culture. This approach can successfully affect behavior (Alamani et al., 2000; Gebhardt, Kaphingst, & DeJong, 2000; Giesbrecht & Rankin, 2000; Hingson & Howland, 2002; Holder, 2000; Toomey & Wagenaar, 2002; Wechsler, Lee, et al., 2000; Weitzman, Nelson, Lee, & Wechsler, 2004; Ziemelis, Bucknam, & Elfessi, 2002). Changes in bar density and access restriction have been found to have the greatest impact on heavy drinking (Babor, Aguirre-Molina, Marlatt, & Clayton, 1999; Casswell & Zhang, 1997; Casswell, Zhang, & Wyllie, 1993; Holder, 1993; Reynolds, Holder, & Gruenewald, 1997; Wechsler, Kuo, Lee, & Dowdall, 2000; Wechsler, Lee, Nelson, & Kuo, 2002; Weitzman, Folkman, Folkman, & Wechsler, 2003). Although increasing restrictions can lead to decreased consumption and has been found to be more effective than social norms campaigns, it is not without its own risk of psychological reactance. Engs and Hanson (1989) suggested that changing the legal drinking age also may have sparked psychological reactance among college students. Caution and adequate testing are advised regardless of the approach taken by campuses and local communities wishing to combat this problem (Fishbein et al., 2002).

CONCLUSION This study found that (a) social norms messages result in a normative judgment change toward the statistic given in the

DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF SOCIAL NORMS CAMPAIGNS

217

majority of cases regardless of whether the respondents overor underestimated the correct statistic; (b) in all cases, there were respondents who developed healthier, unhealthier, or no attitude change following message exposure; and (c) those who drank the most were the most likely to develop unhealthier attitudes following message exposure. Based on these findings, it is advisable to be wary of blindly accepting the statement that social norms marketing is effective in reducing high-risk attitudes and behaviors or increasing healthy attitudes and behaviors. Future research should continue to explore theoretical explanations and conditions under which statistical normative messages are effective or ineffective in altering judgments, attitudes, and behaviors. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors contributed equally to this article. This research was supported in part by the Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station federal formula funds, Project NYC 131401, received from Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. We are grateful to Somjen Frazer and Dominique Brossard for their help with data collection, data entry, and study design. The authors wish to thank Esther Baker, Baseema Banoo, Deanna Caputo, Sarah Doherty, Erin Payne, and Tommy Wood for their assistance. A version of this article was presented at the annual National Communication Association Conference, held in Miami, Florida, in November 2003. REFERENCES
Agostinelli, G., & Grube, J. W. (2002). Alcohol counter-advertising and the media: A review of recent research. Alcohol Research and Health, 26, 1521. Alamani, A., Casswell, S., Graham, K., Holder, H. D., Hilmila, M., Larsson, S., et al. (2000). Introduction: Community action research and the prevention of alcohol problems at the local level. Substance Use and Misuse, 35, 110. Allen, M., Bruflat, R., Fucilla, R., Kramer, M., McKellips, S., Ryan, D. J., et al. (2000). Testing the persuasiveness of evidence and combining narrative and statistical forms. Communication Research Reports, 17, 331336. Allport, F. H. (1924). Social psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Babor, T. F., Aguirre-Molina, M., Marlatt, G. A., & Clayton, R. (1999). Managing alcohol problems and risky drinking. American Journal of Health Promotion, 14, 98103. 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, 5460. Barnett, L. A., Far, J. M., Mauss, A. L., & Miller, J. A. (1996). Changing perceptions of peer norms as a drinking reduction program for college students. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 41, 3962.

Bensley, L. S., & Wu, R. (1991). The role of psychological reactance in drinking following alcohol prevention messages. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 11111124. Boster, F. J., Cameron, K. A., Campo, S., Liu, W. Y., Lillie, J. K., Baker, E. M., et al. (2000). The persuasive effects of statistical evidence in the presence of exemplars. Communication Studies, 51, 296306. Brehm, J. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic. Brown, S. L. (2001). Emotive health advertising and message resistance. Australian Psychologist, 36, 193199. Burgoon, J. K. (1978). A communication model of personal space violations: Explication and initial test. Human Communication Research, 4, 129142. Burgoon, J. K., Dunbar, N. E., & Segrin, C. (2002). Nonverbal influence. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 445473). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors. Communication Monographs, 55, 5879. Burgoon, J. K., Newton, D. A., Walther, J. B., & Baesler, E. J. (1989). Nonverbal expectancy violations and conversational involvement. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13, 97119. Burgoon, M. (1995). Language expectancy theory: Elaboration, explication, and extension. In C. R. Berger & M. Burgoon (Eds.), Communication and social influence processes (pp. 3358). East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. Burgoon, M., & Miller, G. R. (1985). An expectancy interpretation of language and persuasion. In H. Giles & R. St. Clair (Eds.), Recent advances in language, communication, and social psychology (pp. 199229). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Campo, S., Brossard, D., Frazer, S., Marchell, T., Lewis, D., & Talbot, J. (2003). Are social norms campaigns really magic bullets? Assessing the effects of students misperceptions on drinking behavior. Health Communication, 15, 481497. Campo, S., Cameron, K. A., Brossard, D., & Frazer, M. S. (2004). Social norms and expectancy violation theories: Assessing the effectiveness of health communication campaigns. Communication Monographs, 71, 127149. Casswell, S., & Zhang, J. F. (1997). Access to alcohol from licensed premises during adolescence: A longitudinal study. Addiction, 92, 737745. Casswell, S., Zhang, J. F., & Wyllie, A. (1993). The importance of amount and location of drinking for the experience of alcohol-related problems. Addiction, 88, 15271534. Clapp, J. D., & McDonnell, A. L. (2000). The relationship of perceptions of alcohol promotion and peer drinking norms to alcohol problems reported by college students. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 1926. Compton, P. (2000). Perceptual reactance, drug preference, and electrodermal activity in treatment-seeking substance abusers. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 21, 109125. Dorsey, A. M., Scherer, C. W., & Real, K. (1999). The college tradition of drink til you drop: The relation between students social networks and engaging in risky behaviors. Health Communication, 11, 313334. Engs, R., & Hanson, D. J. (1989). Reactance theory: A test with collegiate drinking. Psychological Reports, 64, 10831086. Fields, J. M., & Schuman, H. (1976). Public beliefs about the beliefs of the public. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40, 427448. Feingold, P. C., & Knapp, M. L. (1977). Anti-drug abuse commercials. Journal of Communication, 27, 2028. Fishbein, M., Hall-Jamieson, K., Zimmer, E., von Haeften, I., & Nabi, R., (2002). Avoiding the boomerang: Testing the relative effectiveness of antidrug public service announcements before a national campaign. American Journal of Public Health, 92, 238245. Fogarty, J. S. (1997). Reactance theory and patient noncompliance. Social Science and Medicine, 45, 12771288. Frauenfelder, M. (2001, December 9). The year in ideas: A to Z. Social-norms marketing. New York Times Magazine, p. 100.

218

CAMPO AND CAMERON campus alcohol education programming. The International Journal of the Addictions, 21, 961976. Perkins, H. W., Meilman, P. W., Leichlier, J. S., Cashin, J. R., & Presley, C. A. (1999). Misperceptions of the norms for the frequency of alcohol and other drug use on college campuses. Journal of American College Health, 47, 253258. Perkins, H. W., & Wechsler, H. (1996). Variation in perceived college drinking norms and its impact on alcohol abuse: A nationwide study. Journal of Drug Issues, 26, 961974. Pollard, J. W., Freeman, J. E., Ziegler, D. A., Hersman, M. N., & Gross, C. W. (2000). Predications of normative drug use by college students: False consensus, false uniqueness, or just plain accuracy? Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 14, 512. 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, 243256. 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, GA. Reynolds, R. I., Holder, H. D., & Gruenewald, P. J. (1997). Community prevention and alcohol retail access. Addiction, 92(Suppl. 2), S261S272. Rice, D. P., & Schoenfeld, L. S. (1975). Aversive conditioning and cognitive mediators with alcoholic respondents. British Journal of Addiction, 70, 165174. Rice, R. E., & Atkin, C. K. (Eds.). (2001). Public health campaigns (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rimal, R. N., & Real, K. (2003). Understanding the influence of perceived norms on behaviors. Communication Theory, 13, 184203. Ringold, D. J. (2002). Boomerang effects in response to public health interventions: Some unintended consequences in the alcoholic beverage market. Journal of Consumer Policy, 25, 2763. Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The false consensus effect: An egocentric bias in social perception and attributional process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279301. Siegel, J. T., & Burgoon, J. K. (2002). Expectancy theory approaches to prevention: Violating adolescent expectations to increase the effectiveness of public service announcements. In W. D. Crano & M. Burgoon (Eds.), Mass media and drug prevention: Classic and contemporary theories and research (pp. 163186). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Slater, M. D., & Rouner, D. (1996). Value-affirmative and value-protective processing of alcohol education messages that include statistical evidence or anecdotes. Communication Research, 23, 210235. Steffian, G. (1999). Correlation of normative misperceptions: An alcohol abuse prevention program. Journal of Drug Education, 29, 115138. Toomey, T. L. & Wagenaar, A. C. (2002). Environmental policies to reduce college drinking: Options and research findings. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 14, 193205. Walster, E., & Festinger, L. (1962). The effectiveness of overheard persuasive communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 285290. Wang, C. G. (1998). Portraying stigmatized conditions: Disabling images and public health. Journal of Health Communication, 3, 149159. Wechsler, H., & Austin, S. B. (1998). Binge drinking: The five/four measure. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 59, 122123. Wechsler, H., Davenport, A., Dowdall, G., Moeykens, B., & Castillo, S. (1994). Health and behavioral consequences of binge drinking in college: A national survey of students at 140 campuses. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272, 16721677. Wechsler, H., Dowdall, G. W., Davenport, A., & Rimm, E. B. (1995). A gender-specific measure of drinking among college students. American Journal of Public Health, 85, 982985. Wechsler, H., Dowdall, G. W., Maenner, G., Gledhill-Hoyt, J., & Lee, H. (1998). Changes in binge drinking and related problems among American college students between 1993 and 1997: Results of the Harvard School of

Gebhardt, T. L., Kaphingst, K., & DeJong, W. (2000). A campus-community coalition to control alcohol-related problems off campus: An environmental management case study. Journal of American College Health, 48, 211215. Giesbrecht, N., & Rankin, J. (2000). Reducing alcohol problems through community action research projects: Contexts, strategies, implications and challenges. Substance Use and Misuse, 35, 3153. Grandpre, J., Alvaro, E. M., Burgoon, M., Miller, C. H., & Hall, J. R. (2003). Adolescent reactance and anti-smoking campaigns: A theoretical approach. Health Communication, 15, 349366. Greenfield, T. K., & Rogers, J. D. (1999). Who drinks most of the alcohol in the U.S.? The policy implications. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 60, 7889. Guttman, N., & Ressler, W. H. (2001). On being responsible: Ethical issues in appeals to personal responsibility in health campaigns. Journal of Health Communication, 6, 117136. Haines, M., & Spear, S. F. (1996). Changing the perception of the norm: A strategy to decrease binge drinking among college students. Journal of American College Health, 45, 134140. Hingson, R., Heeren, T., Zakocs, R., Kopstein, A., & Wechsler, H. (2002). Magnitude of alcohol-related mortality and morbidity among U.S. college students ages 1824. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63, 136144. Hingson, R. W., & Howland, J. (2002). Comprehensive community interventions to promote health: Implications for college-age drinking problems. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 14, 226240. Holder, H. D. (1993). Changes in access to and availability of alcohol in the United States: Research and policy implications. Addiction, 88(Suppl. 1), 67S74S. Holder, H. D. (2000). Community prevention of alcohol problems. Addictive Behaviors, 25, 843859. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Jackson, K. M., Sher, K. J., Gotham, H. J., & Wood, P. K. (2001). Transitioning into and out of large-effect drinking in young adulthood. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 378391. Johannessen, K., Collins, C., Mills-Novoa, B., & Glider, P. (1999). A practical guide to alcohol abuse prevention: A campus case study in implementing social norms and environmental management approaches. Tucson: University of Arizona, Campus Health Services. Jung, J. R. (2003). Changing the focus of college alcohol prevention programs. Journal of American College Health, 52, 9295. Kaplowitz, S. A., & Campo, S. (2004). Drinking, alcohol policy, and attitudes toward a campus riot. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 501515. Karno, M. P., Beutler, L. E, & Harwood, M. (2002). Interactions between psychotherapy procedures and patient attributes that predict alcohol treatment effectiveness: A preliminary report. Addictive Behaviors, 27, 779797. Keeling, R. P. (1999). Proceed with caution: Understanding and changing norms. Journal of American College Health, 47, 243246. Keeling, R. P. (2000). Social norms research in college health. American Journal of College Health, 49, 5356. Kim, M. S., & Hunter, J. E. (1993a). Attitude-behavior relations: A metaanalysis of attitudinal relevance and topic. Journal of Communication, 43, 101142. Kim, M. S., & Hunter, J. E. (1993b). Relationships among attitudes, behavioral intentions, and behavior: A meta-analysis of past research, part 2. Communication Research, 20, 331364. ONeil, S. E., Parra, G. R., & Sher, K. J. (2001). Clinical relevance of heavy drinking during college years: Cross-sectional and prospective perspectives. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 15, 350359. Perkins, H. W. (2002). Surveying the damage: A review of research on consequences of alcohol misuse in college populations. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 14, 91100. Perkins, H. W., & Berkowitz, A. D. (1986). Perceiving the community norms of alcohol use among students: Some research implications for

DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF SOCIAL NORMS CAMPAIGNS Public Health college alcohol study. Journal of American College Health, 47, 5768. Wechsler, H., Kelley, K., Weitzman, E. R., Giovanni, J. P. S., & Seibring, M. (2000). What colleges are doing about student binge drinking: A survey of college administrators. Journal of American College Health, 48, 219226. Wechsler, H., & Kuo, M. (2000). College students define binge drinking and estimate its prevalence: Results of a national survey. Journal of American College Health, 49, 5764. Wechsler, H., Kuo, M., Lee, H., & Dowdall, G. W. (2000). Environmental correlates of underage alcohol use and related problems of college students. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 19, 2429. Wechsler, H., Lee, J. E., Kuo, M., & Lee, H. (2000). College binge drinking in the 1990s: A continuing problem, results of the Harvard School of Public Health 1999 college alcohol study. Journal of American College Health, 48, 199210. Wechsler, H., Lee, J. E., Kuo, M., Seibring, M., Nelson, T. F., & Lee, H. (2002). Trends in college binge drinking during a period of increased prevention efforts. Journal of American College Health, 50, 203217. Wechsler, H., Lee, J. E., Nelson, T. F., & Kuo, M. (2002). Underage college students drinking behavior, access to alcohol, and the influence of deterrence policies. Journal of American College Health, 50, 223235. Wechsler, H., & Nelson, T. F. (2001). Binge drinking and the American college student: Whats five drinks? Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 15, 487491.

219

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, 484494. Wechsler, H., Seibring, M., Liu, I. C., & Ahl, M. (2004). Colleges respond to student binge drinking: Reducing student demand or limiting access. Journal of American College Health, 52(4), 159168. Weitzman, E. R., Folkman, A., Folkman, K. L., & Wechsler, H. (2003). The relationship of alcohol outlet density to heavy and frequent drinking and drinking-related problems among college students at eight universities. Health and Place, 9, 16. Weitzman, E. R., Nelson, T. F., Lee, H., & Wechsler, H. (2004). Reducing drinking and related harms in college: Evaluation of the A Matter of Degree program. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 27, 187196. Weitzman, E. R., Nelson, T. F., & Wechsler, H. (2003). Taking up binge drinking in college: The influences of person, social group, and the environment. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32, 2635. Werch, C. E., Pappas, D. M., Carlson, J. M., DiClemente, C. C., Chally, P. S., & Sinder, J. A. (2000). Results of a social intervention to prevent binge drinking among first-year residential college students. Journal of American College Health, 49, 8592. Ziemelis, A., Bucknam, R. B., & Elfessi, A. M. (2002). Prevention efforts underlying decreases in binge drinking at institutions of higher education. Journal of American College Health, 50, 238252.