Introduction to Social Introduction to Social NormsNormsDr John McAlaneyUniversity of Bradford

Social normsSocial normsHow we behave as individuals is strongly influenced

by what we perceive to be the norm for our peers

This is especially true for young adults, where perceived norms can actually be the single strongest predictor of behaviours like alcohol and smoking

However, as demonstrated in the American college system and more recently in Europe, people very often misperceive how other people behave

Young adults in particular markedly overestimate substance use in their peers

ExampleExample

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Never orvery rarely

Less thanonce amonth

Once amonth

2 - 3 days amonth

1 day aweek

2 days aweek

3 - 4 days aweek

5 - 6 days aweek

Every day

Frequency of drinking (days per month)

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pons

es

Personal behavior

Perceived norm in other students

Students in the UKStudents in the UK• Survey of university and college students at 200 UK sites

Behaviour/ attitude Reported norm Perceived normFrequency of alcohol consumptionNumber of drinks

Twice a month6 drinks

Three to four days a week8 drinks

Smoking in last 30 days 30% 50 – 59%

Leaving drinks unattendedLeaving belongings unattendedRiding with a drunk driver

NeverNever14%

SometimesSometimes30 – 39%

Cannabis useApproval of cannabis useOther drug useApproval of other drug use

NeverDisapproveNeverStrongly disapprove

Five to six times a yearNeitherRarelyDisapprove

Number of sexual partnersUnsafe sex

1Never

3Three to four times a year

Causes of misperceptionCauses of misperceptionPluralistic ignorance – Individuals believe

themselves to be different than their peers, such as a light, infrequent drinker who observes their peers in a bar and assumes that they are regular drinkers

False consensus – Individuals believe their behaviour to be more common than is the case, such as a heavy drinker believing that most of their peers also drink heavily

Media – TV programmes and news reports may also reinforce misperceptions

Media coverageMedia coverage• Third of Brits binge drink once a week… a

quarter of over 45s drink EVERY day’ – The Sun, UK

• ‘Teens in grip of grog’ – The Herald Sun, Australia

• ‘Danish teenagers drink three times more than Russians’ – Danish news website

Types of normTypes of normDescriptive norms refer to beliefs about what

other people actually do – for example the perception of how many people in your peer group use drugs

Injunctive norms refer to beliefs about the attitudes that other people hold – for example the perception of whether people in your peer group condone drug use

To date research has focussed primarily on descriptive norms but projects which incorporate both types are becoming more common

Traditional approachesTraditional approaches

Traditional approachesTraditional approaches

Traditional approachesTraditional approaches

Social norms approachSocial norms approachTraditional forms of drug education often rely

on depicting extreme negative consequences of drug use

Whilst people may have a high recall rate for these types of messages there is little evidence that they are effective in changing behaviour

The social norms approach uses an alternative technique based on a very simple premise – if you can correct the misperceptions that people hold then alcohol and drug use will fall

Social norms approachSocial norms approach

Social norms approachSocial norms approach

Online and personalised Online and personalised messagesmessages

School activitiesSchool activities

Full report available at www.eudap.net

School activitiesSchool activities

Full report available at www.eudap.net

Social norms approachSocial norms approach There are several key differences between the

social norms approach and traditional behaviour change strategies:

It does not use scare tactics It does not contain a moral undertone on how the

population ‘should’ behave It is a participatory process which includes

members of the target population

Overall the approach operates by praising the healthy behaviour of the majority, rather than focussing on the negative behaviour of the minority

Efficacy of the approachEfficacy of the approachOver a six year period of using the approach

the University of Virginia have noted:

A 113% increase in students experiencing no alcohol-related negative consequences

A 57% decrease in experiencing multiple alcohol-related negative consequences

A 24% decrease in students reaching an eBAC of 0.08 when partying

Further evidence has also been provided by a recent systematic review by Moreira & Foxcroft (2009)

BehavioursBehavioursSocial norms research has now been

conducted on a range of behaviours including –

SmokingDrug useSexual healthCancer screeningBullyingBody imageRecyclingDrivingEnergy conservation

Hotel linen re-useHotel linen re-useGoldstein et al (2007)Goldstein et al (2007)

Cards were left in hotel rooms to encourage linen re-use

Benefit to the hotel card – 16% reductionSocial responsibility card – 30% reductionEnvironmental appeal card – 30% reductionSocial norms card – 44% reduction

The card with the social norms message was the most effective, despite the fact that hotel guests had never met the person who had stayed in the room previously or observed their towel use

Challenges and limitationsChallenges and limitationsThe social norms approach appears to be

effective in changing behaviour in the majority, but it is not intended as a substitute for clinical treatment in the heaviest users of drugs

It is based on a goal of reduction rather than eradication, which may not always be popular with stakeholders

The precise mechanisms through which misperceptions can be created and manipulated are still partly speculative, there is a need for more research

Reactions to the social Reactions to the social norms approachnorms approach ‘Idea of the Year’ – New York Times

Magazine,2001

“…we need to use the strengths of the social norms approach, together with the strengths of other experiences, to overcome huge behavioural challenges” Robert Madelin, EU Director General for Health and Consumer Protection, 2009

“I am convinced that it is a relatively simple and cost-effective means of achieving behavioural change. Most importantly, it is positive rather than negative. It does not condemn, preach or use scare tactics, and it works!” Dr Bill Wilson, MSP, 2008