evaluation of social norms marketing campaigns: five sites across 8 years adrienne keller, ph.d....
TRANSCRIPT
Evaluation of Social Norms Marketing Campaigns: Five Sites across 8 Years
Adrienne Keller, Ph.D.National Social Norms InstituteUniversity of [email protected]
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?
4.1
5.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Drinks Last Time Partied
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
ANTICIPATEDOUTCOMES
Misperceived norm
Correct perception
of norm
INTERVENTIONGOAL
IDENTIFIED ISSUES
Personal alcohol misuse
Misperceived norm
INTERVENTIONSTRATEGY
Social norms
marketing campaign
Characteristics of
Social Norms Marketing
PositiveInclusiveEmpowering
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
Site nMean Age
% Female
% White
% Res Hall
% Frat/ Soro
Schl 1 3491 23.23 70.6 43.1 7.7 6.7
Schl 2 5293 20.57 69.5 74 20.8 14.8
Schl 3 2171 19.84 63.6 75.8 60.7 5.3
Schl 4 3579 20.35 57.7 84.7 48.8 7.6
Schl 5 7014 21.3 66.4 64.5 26.6 6.3
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
SourceNumerator
dfDenominator
df F Sig.
Year of survey
7 21364.143 37.585 .000
school 4 183.655 18.099 .000
Results for Actual Drinks Changes
Type III Tests of Fixed Effectsa
SourceNumerator
dfDenominator
df F Sig.
Percvd drinks
1 27.070 190.796 .000
Year of survey
7 8043.173 22.001 .000
school 4 6046.947 30.466 .000
Duh…Beautiful Stats…
But what do they mean?
Mean Perceived Drinks 2002-2009
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Schl 1 Schl 2 Schl 3 Schl 4 Schl 5
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Schl 1 Schl 2 Schl 3 Schl 4 Schl 5
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Mean Actual Drinks 2002-2009
Mean Perceived-Actual Drinks 02-09
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Schl 1 Schl 2 Schl 3 Schl 4 Schl 5
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
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 ???