Transcript power point slide show

Social Norms and
Alcohol:
The Small Groups
Norms-challenging Model
Jeanne M. Far, Ph. D.
John A. Miller, M. S., M. Ed.
Washington State University
Small Group Model NormsChallenging Intervention Projects
•Greek System
•Summer Orientation
•Curriculum Infusion - Classrooms
•Athletic Teams
•Residence Halls
Social Norms Theory:
Students misperceive others’ attitudes,
values, and behaviors
 These misperceptions affect one’s own
beliefs and behaviors
 Correcting misperceptions empowers
healthy values and supports healthy
behaviors

Social Norms Theory
•Human beings experience basic needs to:
belong – have a sense of community, of
connectedness to others
be somebody – have a sense of purpose and value,
of making a meaningful contribution
•We are social creatures who are influenced by:
what others say, do or believe
what we think others say, do or believe
Social Norms Theory
•One way to satisfy these needs is to adopt the
attitudes, expectations and behaviors or our
reference group and conform to some degree
with those of our peers.
•These become our “norms” – unspoken social
rules or codes about how we are supposed to
behave and what we are supposed to believe to
fit in and belong.
Peer Influence
•Young people, particularly those away from home
such as students at residential college campuses, tend
to adopt peer attitudes and behaviors as contact with
peers is close and frequent.
•Peers set standards of acceptable and valuable
behavior, and students tend to think and act like their
peers.
•This holds true for AOD use attitudes and behaviors.
The Misperception Hypothesis
•Norms are not explicitly taught or explained.
•Consequently, our perceptions of the attitudes
and behaviors of our peers are not always
accurate.
•Accurate or not, our perceived norms become
our reality and we adjust our behavior
accordingly.
The Misperception Hypothesis
•This holds true for AOD use attitudes and
behaviors. (Graham et al, 1991; Prentice & Miller,
1993)
•Students misperceive the alcohol use norms of
their peers, believing most students drink, and
approve of drinking, more than they really do.
(Perkins & Berkowitz, 1986)
•As a result, they raise their alcohol use level to
conform to these “inaccurate realities,” and
student drinking increases.
How Misperceptions Work:
Public Conversation
•We tend to focus on and remember unusual, exceptional, or
sensational behaviors; they leave vivid impressions.
•We tend to focus on and talk about these behaviors with our
peers while not focusing on or talking about the typical or usual
behaviors that were also present.
•The behavior becomes more sensational in the telling.
•In a short time, it sounds like most people were engaging in the
sensational behavior.
•This distorts the actual reality, or normative behavior, of the
event and enhances the misperception of what actually took
place.
How Misperceptions Work:
The Media
•Local media tend to focus on sensational, negative or
problematic behavior and events.
•Repeated focus on the sensational, negative or problematic to
the exclusion of more usual, non-problematic behavior, creates
a distorted perception that this behavior is normative. The
behavior becomes more sensational in the telling.
•This contributes to our misperceptions of actual events,
attitudes and behaviors.
How Misperceptions Work - Summary
•Attitudes and behaviors are misperceived; the misperception
becomes the reality.
•People adjust their attitudes and behaviors accordingly.
•A “reign of error” is produced, creating a self-fulfilling
prophecy which has a snowball effect.
•Those who disagree with what they misperceive to be the
normative behavior believe there is little support for their
point of view – “pluralistic ignorance”
•Opposition is discouraged from speaking out for fear of
criticism and/or rejection – “bystander phenomenon”
•Students and others buy into the misperception and become
“carriers” of the inaccurate reality, passing it on to others.
The Good News
•We may reverse this process by providing
students with accurate information through
social norms interventions (Hansen & Graham,
1991) that aim to
Correct students’ misperceptions of student
alcohol use attitudes and behaviors
Highlight the proportion of students who
consume moderately and responsibly (or do not
drink at all).
The Small Group Intervention
Background/Theory:
• Reference Group/Membership
Group Identification
• Motivational Interviewing Theory
• Cognitive Dissonance
• Bystander Phenomenon
• Social Norms Discussion
Major Theoretical Influences
on Presentation Style and Format


Critical Task: avoid arousing defensiveness and
blocking change
Festinger: Cognitive dissonance and
disconfirming information


Rokeach: Values, stability, and change


“Flying saucer people”
“Great American Values Test”
Motivational Interviewing and Stages of Change

Exploring and resolving ambivalence
Cognitive Dissonance



Violating one’s own values feels bad
How to reconcile behavior, misperceptions, and
values?
Changing to avoid dissonance
 Men - tend to internalize new values, change
behavior to match misperceptions
 Women - tend NOT to internalize new values,
but change behavior to match misperceptions
anyway
 Whatever the outcome, it isn’t desirable
Rokeach: Respect Allows
People to Change



After watching a TV show about values, people
changed their behavior (donating to political causes).
Rokeach hypothesized that the people who changed
CHOSE to change after learning the new values
information - their behavior shifted to match their new
values.
The TV format allowed “confrontation” to happen in
the privacy of people’s own minds. It was respectful
and didn’t force them to protect their old beliefs and
behaviors in order to “save face” - even to themselves.
Motivation and Precontemplation




In “precontemplation” people are not yet aware of a
problem and so are not yet considering change.
We want to raise doubts or concerns about person’s
current behavior - is it in line with values (is there
discrepancy or dissonance)?
We want to mobilize people’s intrinsic values and
goals to stimulate behavior change.
“Denial of a problem” is primarily a reaction to the
behavior of the “messenger.”
The “Spirit” of
Motivational Interviewing (1)



Motivation comes from within the person, not
from without (our efforts to change them).
It is up to the person to recognize and resolve
ambivalence (dissonance).
Direct persuasion is not an effective method for
examining and resolving ambivalence
(dissonance). Trying too hard will increase
resistance and diminish the probability of
change.
The Spirit of
Motivational Interviewing (2)




The most effective style is quiet and eliciting: the
person’s own desire to change is primary.
Providing the opportunity to be aware of
dissonance is our best strategy.
Readiness to change is strongly affected by
presenter style.
The most helpful “relationship” is that of partners
in exploring information, rather than “expert” and
“student.”
Facilitating vs Presenting

Be a Facilitator:




Follow “Far’s First Law” (“You can lead a
perfectly adequate 2-hour discussion without
even knowing what the topic is.”)
Ask, don’t tell.
Draw out others’ knowledge and thoughts.
Don’t be a Presenter:



Presenters are expert sources of information.
Presenters provide a set body of knowledge.
Presenters are “talking heads.”
Theory into Practice: Facilitator Style

Avoid arousing defensiveness


Presenting disconfirming information


Don’t cause anyone to “lose face”
Columbo: “Gee, I wonder how that happened?”


Game show host: “Here’s what it really is!”
Empowering change


Don’t confront or argue with anyone
You’re not the expert, the participants are
The Magician: Keep up the “patter”

Protect people from public confrontations and give
them the time/space/privacy to change
Avoid arousing defensiveness:



Don’t be drawn into arguments if people
disagree with the data or other elements of the
presentation. Instead, refer them to the
“authorities” who developed the material.
Don’t ask people specifically what they did or
what they think. Instead, ask open-ended
questions of the group in general.
Don’t make any behaviors or numbers look
“bad.” Instead, let people look and then make
their own judgements.
Presenting disconfirming information:
Let the information speak for itself



Don’t ever read the overheads to people - everyone is
going to read them anyway (we’re wired that way), and
you don’t want to bore people or sound like an
“instructor.”
Think of yourself as a “Game Show Host” who is
giving just having fun with people.
People will be pretty surprised when they see their own
misperceptions:


“Well, isn’t that just amazing?”
“Everybody gets this wrong - wonder how that
happens?”
Empowering Change



As Facilitators, we truly believe that people
have good values and want to live by them.
This program is based on RESPECT. We’re not
telling people made-up stuff in order to change
their minds. We’re giving them accurate
information and letting them decide what they
want to do with it.
Allowing people to “save face” gives them more
opportunity to become their best selves.
Columbo the Detective: “Gee, I
wonder how that happened?”



Columbo just wandered around looking clueless,
and so no one found him threatening. Let yourself
NOT KNOW ALL THE ANSWERS.
Experts put people on their guard as they wait to be
shown as wrong or stupid.
You just sort of scratch your head and say
“Aw
shucks, look at that!” when showing people their
numbers. That way, their numbers are “OK” no
matter how they answered the surveys.
The Magician: Keep up the “patter”



We want to allow the numbers to sink in without
arousing defensiveness, so we distract people and
avoid arguments with “entertainment.”
Magicians keep you busy watching their left hands (or
the smoke or doves or assistants) while they “do the
magic” with their right hands.
We keep people busy with “patter” - asking openended questions, making general comments, eliciting
feedback - so they can take in the numbers without
feeling directly confronted or threatened.
Points to Remember



Norms are powerful influences on people’s
behavior. You don’t have to convince
anyone about the materials or numbers.
Good facilitators aren’t experts - they just
have information to share, and want
everyone to contribute to the discussion.
When people have accurate information,
they will make good, healthy decisions for
themselves. You can let them do that.