Using Communication Theory -

to Reduce Dangerous Drinking

on a College Campus

Linda C. Lederman
L e X t? Stewart
Sherry L. S a r r -
Richard L. Po well
Lisa Laitman
Fern Walter Goodhart
- - . .
*,

Dangerous drinking is a serious social issue on college campuses today. For

example, Wechsler, Davenport, Dowdall, Mooykens, and Castillo's (1994)
national study of drinking among college students found that 44% of the
respondents reported a recent episode of dangerous drinking (defined as five or
more drinks in one sitting for males and four or more drinks for females). This
.problem is exacerbated because students consistently overestimate the per-
centage of their peers who engage in dangerous drinking. Thus, one of the most
AUTHORS' NCYIX: Funding for this campaign was provided, in part, by the U.S. Department of Education Safe and
D N Free
~ Schools Prograni, the New Jersey Higher Education Consortium on Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention.
the Rutgers University Health Services, and the Rutgers University Department of Communication.
 A CAMPAIGN SAMPLER

successful approaches to reducing dangerous drinking has been a social norms

approach based on changing students' misperceptions of the prevalence of
dangerous drinking on campus (Berkowitz & Perkins, 1987; Haines,- 1993;
Jeffrey & Negro, 1996).
Rather than examining drinking behavior in isolation, a prevention cam-
paign based on reconceptualizing dangerous drinking as socially situated ex-
periential learning considers drinking in the context of the social interactions
naturally occurring among students (Lederman & Stewart, 1999). In these re-
lationships, students are learning about the social cachet of drinking. They en-
gage in drinking behaviors because they believe everybody else does so. Thus,
drinking dangerously is used as a way to meet the need to belong, to maintain
relationships, and to share a topic of conversation.

-.- -
THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

Communication theory argues that communication is the process through which

social institutions and the norms and customs embedded in these institutions are
created and maintained (Lederman, 1998; Mannis & Meltzer, 1967; Ruben &
Stewart, 1997). Individuals' attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors (here, drinking
related) can'be examined in relation t o m ~ n o t h e and
r as the product of the
interpretive processes of the individual within the sociocultural community.
Experiential l;&rning theory argues that a person has an experience, reflects
on that experience, draws some conclusions about the lessons to be drawn from
that experience, and then uses those lessons as part of his or her basis for reac-
tions to future experiences (Dewey, 1929; Kolb, 1984; Lederman, 1992). For
example, students who engage in risky sexual behavior while drinking d o not
perceive themselves as outcasts in their social circles because, in their every-
day "experience," their behaviors are the norm as they perceive them (Burns,
Ballou, k Lederman, 1991;-Buins & Gdodstadt, 1989).
Social norms theory asserts that students measure themselves against others
in assessing the appropriateness or acceptabiliiy of their own behaviors
(Haines & Spear,h(1996).Often, however, these measures are based- false un-
derstandings of what is normative or misperceptions of others' behavior, such
as the notion that everyone drinks excessively in college. Social norms theory
is employed in prevention campaigns by collecting data on the extent of
misperceptions, successfully communicating this information to a targeted
campus population, assisting them to understand the discrepancies between
fact and myth, and making salient new behaviors and norms associated with
the facts instead of the myths (Berkowitz & Perkins, 1987; Haines, 1993;
Jeffrey & Negro, 1996).
Thus, according to this model, in their interactions with one another, col-
lege students' drinking is reconceptualized as socially situated experiential
learning.
RU SURE? 297

THE R U SURE? CAMPAIGN

We d e s i g n e d t h e RU SURE? c a m p a i g n t o e n c o m p a s s all facets of t h i s model.

T h e p r o j e c t consisted o f t h r e e phases (baseline d a t a collection, c a m p a i g n activi-
ties, a n d evaluation) a n d the follo-w-g components:

n e and norrning dangerous drinking on campus: A Personal

~ a t h e r i n ~ . b a s e l i data
Report of Student Perceptions survey revealed that two thirds of students had three
or fewer drinks the last time they drank, and that one of five'students does not drink
at all (Lederman et al,, 1998). - --

Design and implementation of a media campaign: Two primary mediated mes-

sages were developed for the RU SURE? campaign: the Top Ten Misperceptions at
Rutgers and the RU SURE? logo and message. The Top Ten Misperceptions in-
cluded three alcohol misperceptions accompanied by a norming message (e.g.,-- -
"Everyone who parties gets wasted," with the answer that two thirds of RU stu-
dents stop at three or fewer drinks) as well as seven humorous statements (e-g.,
"It's easy to find a parking space on campus") to get students engaged with the
message process. The RU SURE? logo consists of four beer mugs with the last one
containing the message "RU SURE?" and an additional line, "Yes, 3 or fewer. We
got the stats from you!" to reinforcethe fact that the data were collected from stu-
dents. These messages have been disseminated in the camp& newspaper and on
posters, t-shirts, pens, and other artifacts. Preliminary intercept interviews with
the target population (first-year students living in residence halls) indicate that
84% of respondents can accurately recall the campaign message.
Curriculum infusion: Students in undergraduate communication courses have
been used to design o r pilot test or both all messages, posters, and logos for the
print campaign. TWO purposes are served by this approach. First, because these
students are part of social networks that exchange information about this issue, '
working'with them on the campaign leads to even greater dissemination of accu-
rate information about dangerous drinking on the campus and the misperceptions.
Second, students are highly credible sources of information for other students and
about how messages work for them, so this approach designs messages in the voick
of the students.
Web site design and development: A web site (www.sciZs.rutgers.edu/chi) has
been used to disseminate the misperceptions message and to gather additional data
(see Chapter 29, this volume). Initial analysis of data gathered from this site shows
a high level of awareness of the misperception messages.
Interpersonally based experiential prevention strategies: Given our focus on col-
lege drinking as socially situated experiential learning, we believe -that a
misperceptions campaign cannot be truly effective in changing behavior without
an interpersonal component to the message delivery. Thus, we have included an
experiential component that includes groups of advanced undergraduates working
with first-year students living i n residence halls. The focus of this effort is RU
29 8 A CAMPAIGN SAMPLER

SURE? Bingo, in which students complete a bingo card by finding other students
who fit particular characteristics (e.g., born in a large city, do not drink, and can
recall the misperceptions messages). This activity allows students to have fun and
interact interpersonally with other students, it reinforces the misperceptions mes-
sages, and students model and learn the social skills that they might otherwise be-
lieve they need alcohol to facilitate.
Public relations campaign: A public relations campaign emphasizing the actual
norms of college drinking has resulted in extensive coverage in the student news-
paper, an article in the ~ e York
w Times, and interviews on CNN and several New
Jersey television stations.
Community coalition: A partnership has been formed with local merchants and
civic leaders to address issues of dangerous drinking by college students in the -
community. The focus of this effort has included a health educator communicating
the misperceptions message to this group and community efforts to ensure that un-
derage students will not be served alcohol (see Chapter 27. thisvolume).
Ongoing assessment: All aspects of the campaign are being subjected to ongoing
assessment. Data have been gathered throughout the campaign to determine its
effectiveness both in raising awareness of this issue on campus and in affecting
students' behavior, by means of students' self-reports on the surveys and by envi-
ronmentaldata (such as the amount of alcohol-related vandalism in the residence
halls). Additional data collection and analysis will reveal the extent to which these
rnisperceptid'm have changed and the resultant influence on drinking behavior.

CONCLUSIONS
The goal of this campaign is to create a university environment i n which students
are aware of actual norms of students' drinking behavior, know that everyone
does nQt have to drink to fit in, a n d understand that those whq.chpgse tq d r i n k c-an, . ,

do so m ~ d e r a f e l ya n d still be socially attractive.

REFERENCES -- - <

Berkowitz, A. D., & Perkins, H. W. (1987). Current issues in effective alcohol education
programming. In J. S. Sherwood (JM.), Alcohol policies and practices on college and
university campuses (pp. 69-85). Washington, DC: National Association of Student
Personnel Administrators.
Bums, D., Ballou, J., & Lederrnan, L. (1991). Perceptions of alcohol use and policy on
the college campus: Preventing alcohoVdrug abuse at Rutgers University (Research
Report No. 1). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Center for Communication
and College Health Issues.
Bums, D., & Goodstadt, M. (1989). Alcohol use on the Rutgers University campus: A
study of various communities. Unpublished U.S. Department of Education Fund for
the Improvement of Post Secondary Education (FIPSE) conference paper.
Dewey, J. (1929). Experience and education. New York: Harper.
 RU SURE? 299

- Haines, M. P. (1993). Using media to change students' norms and prevent alcohol abuse:
A tested model. Oregon Higher Education Alcohol & Drug Coordinating Committee,
1(2), 1-3.
Haines, M. P., & Spear, S. F.(1996). Changing the percepfion of the norm: A strategy to
decrease binge drinking among-college students. Journal of American College
Health, 45, 134- 140.
Jeffrey, L. R., & Negro, P. (1996). Contemporary trends in alcohol and other drug use by
college students in New Jersey. Unpublished manuscript, New Jersey Higher Educa-
tion Consortium on Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Education.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as a source of learning. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall:
Lederman, L. C. (Ed.). (1992). Communication pedagogy: Approaches to teaching
undergraduate courses in communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lederman, L. C. (Ed.). (1998). Communicati~ntheory: A reader. Dubuque, IA: Kendall
Hunt.
Lederman, L. C., iPt Stewart, L. P. (1999, November). ReconcepGalizing college drinking
as socially situated experiential learning. Paper presented at the meeting of the
National Communication Association, Chicago.
Lederman, L. C., Stewart, L. P., Kennedy, L., Laitman, L., Powell, R., & Goodhart, F.
(1998). Self report of studentperceptions: An alcohol awareness measure (Research
Report No. 1). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Center for Communication
and C o l l e g e m a l t h Issues.
Mannis, J. G.. & Meltzer, B. (1967). Symbolic interaction: A readek in social psychology.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Ruben, B. D., & Stewart, L. P. (1997). Communication and'human behaviol: Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Wechsler, H., Davenport, A., Dowdall, G., Mooykens, B., & Castillo, S. (1994). Health
and behavior consequences of binge drinking in college. Journal of the American
Medical Association, 272(2 1), 1672- 1677.