First Impressions on the Scene: The Influence of the Immediate Reference. Group on Incoming First-year Students Alcohol Behavior and Attitudes

Running head: NORMATIVE INFLUENCE AMONG FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS Tables: 1 Figures: 2 Submitted to JCSD 3/27/2009 Revised and resubmitted 9/27/09 2 nd Revise and Resubmit 12/14/09 First Impressions on the Scene: The Influence of the Immediate Reference Group on Incoming First-year Students Alcohol Behavior and Attitudes Justin F. Hummer, B.A.; Loyola Marymount University, Assistant Director of Heads Up; Department of Psychology; 1 LMU Drive, Suite 4700, Los Angeles, CA 90045; (310) 338-7770. jhummer@lmu.edu Joseph W. LaBrie, Ph.D.; Loyola Marymount University, Associate Professor of Psychology and Director of Heads UP; Department of Psychology; 1 LMU Drive, Suite 4700, Los Angeles, CA 90045; (310) 338-5238. jlabrie@lmu.edu Eric R. Pedersen, M.A.; University of Washington, Graduate Student; Department of Psychology, Center for the Study of Health & Risk Behaviors, 1100 NE 45th St, Suite 300, Box 354944, Seattle, WA 98195 Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Joseph LaBrie, Department of Psychology, Loyola Marymount University, 1 LMU Drive, Suite 4700, Los Angeles, CA 90045. E-mail may be sent to jlabrie@lmu.edu. Phone: 310-338-5238; Fax: 801-469-3189. This research was supported by Grant Q184H070017 from the U.S. Department of Education

Normative influence among first-year students 1 Abstract This study examined incoming first-year students normative perceptions of alcohol use and alcoholrelated attitudes of other students of the same gender living on their residence hall floor. Male and female residents overestimated the alcohol use behavior and related attitudes among their floormates. Results also showed that perceived norms were strongly related to individual drinking behaviors and permissive attitudes toward drinking. Moreover, feelings of connectedness to one s residence hall were found to moderate this relationship. These findings identify a salient reference group to target in initiatives aimed at utilizing normative feedback to reduce alcohol-related risk in the first year of college.

Normative influence among first-year students 2 Introduction Excessive drinking among college students (full- and part-time students attending either 2- or 4- year colleges) is a serious public health concern that not only negatively affects the individual (academic and psychological impairment, addiction, sexual victimization, car accidents, violence, death), but poses significant risks for other students as well as surrounding communities (Hingson, Heeren, Winter, & Wechsler, 2005). First-year students are known to be particularly at-risk for problematic drinking and alcohol-related problems (Grekin & Sher, 2006; Thompson, Leinfelt, & Smyth, 2006). Research among this subgroup reveals that first-year students consume larger amounts of alcohol than their upper-class peers (Turrisi, Padilla, & Wiersma, 2000) and display alcohol dependence symptoms at higher rates than the general adult population (Grekin & Sher, 2006). Thus, the present study was undertaken with two purposes in mind: to identify misperceptions in perceived social norms regarding alcohol use among incoming first-year resident students; to determine how strongly students perceptions of others influence their own alcohol-related behaviors and attitudes, and whether the strength of this influence depends on how connected the student feels to his/her residence hall community. Such information has strong potential for use in prevention and intervention strategies designed to reduce risk and increase health among this population. First-year Students and Transitional Issues. Schulenberg and Maggs (2002) noted that drinking tends to escalate during transitions related to increased independence and decreased parental guidance and support. The transition to college is just such a period. Incoming college students are presented with a range of academic, social, and developmental challenges that must be navigated concomitantly with the sudden increase of autonomy. These challenges include separation/individuation from family of origin, acquisition of independent living skills, questions of identity formation, demands of academics, and the formation of new social networks (Schulenberg, Maggs, & Hurrelmann, 1997). Not surprisingly, mastery of these endeavors is vital to developmental progression, as adaptive habits formed during the transitional period may carry long-term implications. For example, many first-year students do not enroll for their second year, often the result of difficulties with the transition to college (Upcraft, 2002). While a myriad

Normative influence among first-year students 3 of challenges require constant attention, maintaining health and wellness has been identified as a critical component of first-year student success (Upcraft, Garner, & Barefoot, 2005). Unfortunately, students may initiate heavy drinking during the transition to cope with stressors or to fit in, and such drinking may interfere with successful adaptation to the other demands of campus life (Schulenberg et al., 2001). Moreover, heavy drinking among college students has often been attributed to newfound freedom from parental monitoring and immersion into college social cultures that condone and even revere unsupervised underage drinking (Hingson et al., 2005; Toomey, Lenk, & Wagenaar, 2007). Initial heavy drinking patterns are problematic considering that the first six weeks on campus are critical to first-year student success and that drinking patterns formed during these weeks tend to persist throughout a student s collegiate career (NIAAA, 2002). Thus, identifying mechanisms of influence that strongly associate with students alcohol use continues to be a priority for researchers and practitioners seeking to design effective alcohol prevention and intervention programs aimed at reducing risk and increasing health and wellness among first-year students. The Role of Peer Influence Social norms. Traditional and more recent theoretical models of social influence have stressed the role of peers in influencing a wide range of risky health-related behaviors including alcohol use and abuse (e.g. Bandura, 1977; Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller, 1992; Kuther, 2000; Maxwell, 2002). One form of peer influence among the adolescent and young adult populations that has gained widespread attention is the perception of what constitutes typical behavior among other peers (perceived norms). Research has shown that college students tend to overestimate peers drinking behavior, as well as peers approval of such behavior, and these misperceptions influence an individual s own drinking rates (e.g. Borsari & Carey, 2001, 2003). Peer norms have traditionally been segmented into two similar yet conceptually distinct types: descriptive and injunctive norms. Descriptive norms have been characterized as perceptions regarding prevalence of behavior (Borsari & Carey, 2001) whereas injunctive norms have been classified as pertaining to permissiveness or the appropriate course of action in a given situation (attitudes) (Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990).

Normative influence among first-year students 4 Normative feedback interventions and importance of proximity. Because of the consistency and magnitude with which perceived norms are overestimated, these constructs are frequently manipulated in Personalized Feedback Interventions (PFIs; for review, see White, 2006). One example of a PFI is the personalized normative feedback (PNF) intervention, which has been found to reduce alcohol use and alcohol-related problems among college students (for review see Zisserson, Palfai, & Saitz, 2007). Typical PNF contains personal drinking behavior, one s perceptions of others drinking behavior (perceived descriptive norms), and others actual drinking behavior (actual descriptive norm) (Lewis & Neighbors, 2006). By revealing the actual, more modest norm, students may then act or adjust personal beliefs to be more in line with the new, accurate, normative perception. However, in choosing a reference group from which to assess normative perceptions and create a normative intervention, researchers must take into account the relative impact of the reference group from which the norms are derived. For many college students, the average or typical student at their school may not seem to be reflective of themselves, leading to the dismissal of accurate normative information (Borsari & Carey, 2003). Thus, more recent research has begun exploring various referents in an effort to identify the specific groups that certain college students most identify with, so as to design appropriate normative campaigns. Gender is one aspect relevant to the influence of perceived norms. Gender differences in drinking behavior have been well documented (McCabe, 2002; O Malley & Johnston, 2002) and research suggests that normative perceptions may function differently for men and women (Lewis & neighbors, 2004, 2006). These differences may in turn affect the efficacy of PFIs (Lewis & Neighbors, 2007). For example, Lewis, Neighbors, Oster-Aaland, Kirkeby, and Larimer (2007) found that gender-specific first-year student norms were associated with personal drinking behavior, whereas gender-neutral and genderopposite first-year student norms were not. Thus, the current study employs a gender-specific reference group to account for the differences in drinking rates and normative perceptions between genders. Salience and connectedness. In attempting to extend the research on reference group impact among incoming first-year students, it is important to consider the salience of the reference group to the individual. Salience has been found to be an important precondition for normative influence on behavior

Normative influence among first-year students 5 (Cialdini, 2003). For incoming resident students, perceived peer norms may be most salient among students initial immediate social reference group, which is likely to be fellow residents of their residence hall floor. For example, one study showed that students living on the same dorm floor were more similar in drinking attitudes than other students living in the same building (Bourgeois & Bowen, 2001). Thus, when assessing perceived group norms, the current study will focus the gender-specific reference group to include perceptions of students living on the same residence hall floor. According to Social Impact Theory (Latane, 1981), how connected an individual feels to a group influences that individual s behavior and attitudes. This influence of connectedness has been found to be a discriminating factor on the adherence to various norms. For example, Wosinska et al. (2009) found that connectedness to group in workplace relationships created a tendency to act consistently with predominant norms. In another study, connectedness to school and peer norms mediated the influence of family protective factors on alcohol use among adolescent Latinos (Yan, Beck, Howard, Shattuck, & Kerr, 2008). Moreover, in a national longitudinal study of adolescents, Sale, Sambrano, Springer, and Turner (2003) found that levels of connectedness to family and school mediated the influence of parental and peer substance use norms on substance use. Thus, if a student does not feel a sense of connectedness with his/her residence hall floor community, the salience of the norm may diminish. Conversely, if there is a high degree of connectedness with one s floor, the individual may be more influenced by his/her perceptions of normative group behavior. Assessing this distinction was an important focus of the current study. Hypotheses. Based on the above considerations, we sought to examine incoming first-year students perceptions of gender-specific normative behavior and attitudes of a typical student living on their residence hall floor. We expected that incoming students drinking behavior would be influenced by their perceptions regarding alcohol use by the other students of the same gender living on their residence hall floor (descriptive norms). Likewise, we hypothesized that incoming students attitudes toward drinking would be influenced by their perceptions of floormates attitudes toward drinking (injunctive norms). Finally, it was expected that the level of connectedness students feel toward their specific

Normative influence among first-year students 6 residence hall floor would moderate the relationship between perceived descriptive norms and personal behavior, as well as the relationship between perceived injunctive norms and personal attitudes, in that higher connectedness to residence hall and higher perceived norms would combine to accentuate alcoholrelated risk. Method Design and Procedure All 1,014 incoming first-year students at a midsize private university on the west coast were recruited to participate in an Internal Review Board-approved study designed to understand how members of first-year residence hall communities mutually influence one another s behavioral decisions and attitudes about alcohol use via social norms. Data collection for the current study came from a baseline survey administered during the early part of the students first semester. The university where the research was conducted is a medium, full-time, four-year, Master s I university; with majority undergraduate and a more selective, lower transfer-in profile, as designated by the Carnegie Classification (Carnegie Foundation, 2000). Approximately three weeks into the fall 2007 semester, each student was emailed an electronic invitation to participate in the study. If the student chose to participate, he/she clicked on a link to the online survey and was prompted to electronically consent to the study before being directed to the survey itself. Although the majority of students completed the survey following this initial email, attempts were made to continuously recruit non-responders via email invitation throughout a two week period. Students were informed that all responses were confidential and would not be released to any school administrator or residence hall advisor. As an incentive, every student who completed the survey was entered into a raffle for one of ten, $100 credit gift cards. The survey began with an assessment of demographic variables including age, gender, and ethnicity. Standard drinks were then defined for students as a drink containing one-half ounce of ethyl alcohol. Visual examples included a 12 oz. can and bottle of beer, 8 oz. of malt liquor shown in a 12 oz. glass, 4 oz. of table wine, and 1.25 oz. of spirits shown straight and in a highball glass with ice to show the level before adding mixer. Following this description, the survey

Normative influence among first-year students 7 assessed participants drinking behavior, perceived descriptive norms, alcohol-related attitudes, perceived injunctive norms, and overall feeling of connectedness to their residence hall community. Participants There were eight first-year residence halls with a total of twenty-two floors, each occupied by a single gender. Out of the 1,014 students recruited, 644 completed the study, yielding a response rate of 64%. This rate is comparable with other large-scale studies in this population (e.g. McCabe, Boyd, Couper, Crawford, & D'Arcy, 2002; Neighbors, Lee, Lewis, Fossos, & Larimer, 2007). Ninety-four percent of respondents reported being 18 years or younger, 5% were 19 years old, and the remaining 1% were 20 years or older. The majority of the participants were female (65.7%) and Caucasian (59.0%), ratios that accurately represent the makeup of the institution where the research was conducted. Other ethnic representations were as follows: 13.5% Hispanic/Latino, 11.5% Asian, 6.8% African American, 2.3% Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 0.3% American Indian/Alaskan Native, and 6.5% reported other. The majority of the sample (71.0%) reported drinking on at least one occasion in the prior year. Measures Drinking behavior and perceived descriptive norms. Five questions assessed typical frequency of alcohol use, typical amount consumed on a normal drinking occasion (i.e., average drinks), number of drinks consumed during a typical week, maximum number of drinks consumed during one occasion in the past month, and number of times a student engaged in heavy episodic drinking (five or more drinks in a row for men; four or more drinks in a row for women) during a typical two-week period. All items were measured on 9-point Likert type scales and response options for these variables varied from 1 (lowest risk; e.g., 0 drink per occasion, 0 drinks per week) to 9 (highest risk; e.g., 13 or more drinks per occasion, 22 or more drinks per week). 1 Questions were first posed as perceived norms and employed a gender and residence hall floor-specific reference group. For example: How many drinks, on average, does a typical male resident living on your floor in X Residence Hall consume during a typical drinking occasion? The five behavioral questions were then repeated to assess actual drinking behavior of the individual. For 1 Please contact the authors for a full list of questions and response options

Normative influence among first-year students 8 example: How many drinks do you consume during a typical week? Reliability coefficients were acceptable for descriptive norms (α =.91) and individual drinking behavior (α =.94). Attitudes toward drinking and perceived injunctive norms. Five items, each regarding acceptability of specific alcohol-related behaviors, assessed both individual attitudes towards drinking and perceived injunctive norms. Two items were adapted from the House Acceptability Questionnaire (Larimer, 1992) (e.g., becoming intoxicated at a party, and missing a class because you are intoxicated or hung-over ). Three additional items were created for this study (i.e., driving after consuming 3 or 4 drinks, doing things under the influence one wouldn t normally do sober, and not remembering all or part of a night after drinking. Response options for all items ranged from 1 (not acceptable) to 7 (very acceptable). Questions were posed in the same format as the descriptive norms questions. Reliability coefficients were acceptable for injunctive norms (α =.87) and individual attitudes (α =.80). Connectedness to residence hall community was assessed with a researcher generated question. Participants were asked, How connected do you feel toward your residence hall community? Response options were based on an 11 point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all connected) to 10 (extremely connected). Other anchors included 3 (somewhat connected), 5 (neutral), and 7 (very connected). Analytic Plan To help make analyses more parsimonious, we found the mean of the five actual behavior questions and formed an actual behavior composite variable. Likewise, we found the mean of the perceived descriptive norms questions and formed a perceived descriptive norms composite. An actual attitude composite was formed from the mean of the five individual attitude questions and a perceived injunctive norm composite was formed from the mean of the five perceived injunctive norms questions. Means of the actual behavior composite and the actual attitude composite were created for each floor; thus, participants perceived descriptive and injunctive norms were compared to the actual mean behaviors/attitudes of the floor members. Skewness and kurtosis for these variables were adequate (Kline, 1998). Response option means for the individual questions can be found in Figure 1. Effect sizes (d) for

Normative influence among first-year students 9 paired samples t-tests were calculated as the mean difference divided by the standard deviation of the difference, with small effects.2, medium effects.5, and large effects.8 or higher (Cohen, 1988). Results First-year students residence hall floor-specific perceptions: Documentation of misperceptions Paired samples t-tests were conducted on the basis of gender to determine if students misperceived the overall drinking behavior and attitudes of residents of their same gender living on their residence hall floor. Results suggest that male participants overestimated the drinking behavior of fellow male residence hall floor students; perceiving a mean of 3.79 (SD = 1.72) over an actual mean of 2.58 (SD = 1.79), t (217) = 11.14, p <.001, d =.69. Likewise, male participants overestimated the overall attitude toward drinking of fellow male residence hall floor members; perceiving a mean of 3.53 (SD = 1.37) over an actual mean of 2.28 (SD = 1.32), t (217) = 13.63, p <.001, d =.93. For female residents, results suggest that participants overestimated the drinking behavior of fellow female residents on their hall floor; perceiving a mean of 3.39 (SD = 1.51) over an actual mean of 2.27 (SD = 1.33), t (416) = 16.35, p <.001, d =.79. Likewise, female participants overestimated the overall attitude toward drinking of fellow female residence hall floor members; perceiving a mean of 3.02 (SD = 1.31) over an actual mean of 1.94 (SD =.95), t (416) = 17.06, p <.001, d =.94. [INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE] First-year students residence hall floor-specific perceptions predict actual behavior and attitudes A series of two hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to determine the extent that perceived norms of floor-specific behavior and attitudes predicted personal behavior and attitudes of the participants. In addition, connectedness to residence hall was included as a moderating variable. To control for pertinent demographic variables, gender (coded as male = 1, female = 0) and ethnicity (coded as White = 1, other ethnicities = 0) were included as covariates on Step 1 of the two regression models. All variables were standardized and no multicollinearity (as tested by examining the correlations between the independent variables) problems were present in either model. Table 1 contains results from the hierarchical regression analyses. [INSERT TABLE 1 HERE]

Normative influence among first-year students 10 In Model 1, the dependent variable was the actual behavior composite (i.e., the measure of personal drinking behavior). At Step 1, perceived floor-specific descriptive norms, connectedness to residence hall, gender, and ethnicity were entered as independent variables. The former two significantly and positively predicted individual drinking behavior; that is, higher perceived descriptive norms and higher connectedness to one s residence hall associated with higher drinking. Ethnicity also predicted drinking, with White students reporting heavier level of consumption. At Step 2, the interaction between perceived descriptive norms and connectedness to residence hall was entered. The interaction predicted drinking over and above the variables entered at Step 1. The interaction was graphed (see Figure 2, top) using predicted cell means based on parameter estimates where high and low perceived descriptive norms were specified as one standard deviation above and below the mean, respectively (Aiken & West, 1991). Interpretation of the graph indicates that those participants with higher connectedness to residence hall and higher perceived descriptive norms had the highest level of drinking behavior. In Model 2, the actual attitude composite (i.e., the measure of personal attitudes toward drinking) was entered as the dependent variable, with perceived floor-specific injunctive norms, connectedness to residence hall, gender, and ethnicity entered at Step 1. Perceived injunctive norms and ethnicity predicted personal attitudes, while connectedness to residence hall and gender did not. However, the interaction of perceived injunctive norms and connectedness to residence hall entered at Step 2 predicted a unique portion of the variance in personal attitudes over and above the variables entered at Step 1. This interaction was graphed (see Figure 2, bottom) using the method described above. Participants with higher connectedness to residence hall and higher perceived injunctive norms had more permissive attitudes toward drinking. [INSERT FIGURE 2 HERE] Discussion The current study extends extant research on normative influences by documenting normative misperceptions among first-year students regarding the drinking behavior and attitudes of their floormates of the same gender, thus identifying a proximal and highly salient reference group with implications for prevention initiatives. Both male and female residents overestimated typical alcohol use and the

Normative influence among first-year students 11 permissiveness of alcohol-related behaviors among fellow floormates of the same gender. Further, this study examined the prognostic influence of perceived norms on first-year students own attitudes and drinking. Incoming students perceptions of floormates descriptive and injunctive norms associated with their own personal behavior and attitudes toward drinking respectively. Of particular interest in this study, was the anticipated moderating effect of connectedness to residence hall on the relationship between perceived norms and behavioral and attitudinal outcomes. As hypothesized, higher connectedness to residence hall and higher perceived norms combined to accentuate alcohol-related risk for higher use and more permissive attitudes, over and above the unique effect of perceived norms. The results fit well within previous conceptual research suggesting the importance of proximity (Borasri & Carey, 2003), salience (Cialdini, 2003), and connectedness (Latane, 1981) when assessing the degree of normative influence on individuals. One unanticipated finding, however, was the direct effect of connectedness to residence hall floor on drinking behavior outcomes, even while controlling for perceived descriptive norms one of the strongest predictors of college student drinking. Because the data collected were cross-sectional in nature, the directionality of the relationship cannot be determined. Prospective research further examining how feelings of connectedness relate to alcohol use appears warranted and will prove helpful in informing enhanced community development activities. Particularly during the first year of college, student affairs administrators already aim to create feelings of connection in incoming students while promoting community building. Resident advisors and others work to ensure successful integration into campus life. Current findings suggest that efforts to build a sense of community may be enhanced by explicit discussions centered on distinguishing between healthy mechanisms of increased connectedness (i.e. fun and interesting group outings, residence hall competitions, socializing, etc.) and potentially less healthy mechanisms that may be relied on to increase connectedness (i.e. alcohol use and other risky activities). Given that misperceptions already exist among floormates of the same gender near the beginning of one s collegiate experience, college personnel are encouraged to design and implement preventative group-specific personalized feedback interventions (PFIs). Providing first-year students with accurate,

Normative influence among first-year students 12 salient, and credible normative information of their fellow residence floor residents may have positive impacts. Because misperceptions have consistently been shown to influence an individual s own drinking rates (Borsari & Carey, 2001, 2003), attempts to reduce those discrepancies among this at-risk population are warranted. Combating overestimations of others alcohol-related attitudes and behaviors at the onset of the first year, before they become ingrained or serve as a benchmarking effect, may create more accurate perceptions and possibly lead to the development of healthier trajectories of alcohol use for the remaining tenure of the student s college education. As mentioned previously, cost-effective intervention strategies exist, with the potential to incorporate the current findings. For example, the newly identified and influential reference group of first-year resident peers could be employed in PNF strategies with the inclusion of injunctive norms (attitudes) added as additional targeted variables, which has not previously been conducted. While the current findings provide immediate implications to aid in the design of normative feedback strategies, future research is needed to inform such efforts more completely. For example, comparative analyses using several variants of normative reference groups that exist in the first-year student sphere would provide more reliability as to which is most influential. Combinations of levels of specificity could be examined with the inclusion of race, gender, class standing, group membership, residence hall in general (i.e., rather than floor specific), and others. Perhaps students level of connectedness to each group could be assessed, providing valuable data for future prevention and intervention research with groups most salient to individuals. Limitations. The current findings are tempered by several limitations. First, the use of self-report alcohol use measures may be a concern as students may not accurately report on their drinking. However, confidentiality of participants responses was assured and information about standard drink content was provided to help anchor responses. And research suggests that self-report of drinking behavior is generally accurate under these conditions (Babor, Steinberg, Anton, & Del Boca, 2000; Chermack, Singer, & Beresford, 1998). Second, the cross-sectional data reported here prevent making causal statements about relationships between perceived norms, alcohol use, and moderating factors. Future

Normative influence among first-year students 13 research may want to explore how the study variables interact prospectively over the entire first year of college. Another potential limitation is the measure of connectedness to one s residence hall. While the question appears to have good face validity and has a variety of Likert response options, it was not prevalidated and there is no research showing its relationship with other measures of connectedness. Further, future research centered on the ideas presented in the current study should explore other related measures as moderators. For example, one could expand on connectedness by including a measure of group attitudes or a social identity construct. Rimal and Real (2005) found an interaction between identification with other university peers and perceptions of descriptive drinking norms, while Reed and colleagues (2007) found that the extent to which injunctive norms information predicted alcohol use, depended on the strength to which an individual identified with their reference group. A final concern involves the assessment of norms among first-year students so early into their college experience. Their normative beliefs of peer drinking may still be in flux and not completely formed. However, students enter college with preconceived expectations about the college experience, including what drinking will be like. Further, the data in this study confirm that already within the first month of college, students are misperceiving the amount of drinking of their proximal residence hall floormates. The link between misperceptions and drinking coupled with NIAAA s description of the first six weeks of college as a critical period suggest that understanding the normative beliefs of students early into their college experience is important for reducing risk. Conclusion By looking at connectedness to resident peers, the current study provides a valuable contribution to the emerging social norms research identifying whom interventions should be targeted to and how they are expected to operate in conjunction with specific psychosocial factors. The study provides evidence that personal drinking behaviors and attitudes among first-year students are influenced by their perceptions of immediately salient same-gender peers living on their residence hall floor. Even at this level of specificity, documentation of actual drinking behaviors and attitudes can be collected and

Normative influence among first-year students 14 presented to students in social norms interventions to hinder the development of heavy drinking patterns that could continue throughout one s college experience.

Normative influence among first-year students 15 References Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, London: Sage. Babor, T. F., Steinberg, K., Anton, R., & Del Boca, F. (2000). Talk is cheap: Measuring drinking outcomes in clinical trials. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 61, 55-63. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Borsari, B., & Carey, K. B. (2001). Peer influences on college drinking: A review of the research. Journal of Substance Abuse, 13, 391-424. Borsari, B., & Carey, K. B. (2003). Descriptive and injunctive norms in college drinking: A meta-analytic integration. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64, 331-341. Bourgeois, M. J., & Bowen, A. (2001). Self-organization of alcohol-related attitudes and beliefs in a campus housing complex: An initial investigation. Health Psychology, 20, 434-437. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2000). List of institutions by Carnegie classification, control, and state. Downloaded March 3, 2009 from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org Chermack, S., Singer, K., & Beresford, T. (1998). Screening for alcoholism among medical inpatients: How important is corroboration of patient self-report? Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research, 22, 1393-1398. Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 105-109. Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015-1026. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Normative influence among first-year students 16 Grekin, E. R., & Sher, K. J. (2006). Alcohol dependence symptoms among college freshmen: Prevalence, stability, and person-environment interactions. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 14, 329-338. Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Miller, J. A. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 64-105. Hingson, R. W., Heeren, T., Winter, M., & Wechsler, H. (2005). Magnitude of alcohol-related mortality and morbidity among US college students ages 18-24: Changes from 1998 to 2001. Annual Review of Public Health, 26, 259-279. Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press; New York. Kuther, T. L. (2000). Moral reasoning, perceived competence, and adolescent engagement in risky activity. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 599-604. Larimer, M. E. (1992). Alcohol abuse and the Greek system: An exploration of fraternity and sorority drinking. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle. Latane, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36, 343-356. Lewis, M. A., & Neighbors, C. (2004). Gender-specific misperceptions of college student drinking norms. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18, 334-339. Lewis, M. A., & Neighbors, C. (2006). Social norms approaches using descriptive drinking norms education: A review of the research on personalized normative feedback. Journal of American College Health, 54, 213-218. Lewis, M. A., & Neighbors, C. (2007). Optimizing personalized normative feedback: The use of genderspecific referents. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68, 228-237. Lewis, M. A., Neighbors, C., Oster-Aaland, L., Kirkeby, B. S., & Larimer, M. E. (2007). Indicated prevention for incoming freshmen: Personalized normative feedback and high-risk drinking. Addictive Behaviors, 32, 2495-2508.

Normative influence among first-year students 17 Maxwell, K. A. (2002). Friends: The role of peer influence across adolescent risk behaviors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 267-277. McCabe, S. E. (2002). Gender differences in collegiate risk factorsfor heavy episodic drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63, 49-56. McCabe, S. E., Boyd, C. J., Couper, M. P., Crawford, S., & D'Arcy, H. (2002). Mode effects for collecting alcohol and other drug use data: Web and U.S. mail. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63, 755-761. Neighbors, C., Lee, C. M., Lewis, M. A., Fossos, N., & Larimer, M. E. (2007). Are social norms the best predictor of outcomes among heavy-drinking college students? Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68, 556-565. NIAAA. (2002). A call to action: Changing the culture of drinking at US colleges. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. O'Malley, P. M., & Johnston, L. D. (2002). Epidemiology of alcohol and other drug use among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 14, 23-39. Reed, M. B., Lange, J. E., Ketchie, J. M., & Clapp, J. D. (2007). The relationship between social identity, normative information, and college student drinking. Social Influence, 2, 269-294. Rimal, R. N., & Real, K. (2005). How behaviors are influenced by perceived norms: A test of the theory of social normative behavior. Communication Research, 32, 389-414. Sale, E., Sambrano, S., Springer, J., & Turner, C. (2003). Risk, protection, and substance use in adolescents: A multi-site model. Journal of Drug Education, 33, 91-105. Schulenberg, J. E., & Maggs, J. L. (2002). A developmental perspective on alcohol use and heavy drinking during adolescence and the transition to young adulthood. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Supp. No. 14, 54-70. Schulenberg, J. E., Maggs, J. L., & Hurrelmann, K. (Eds.). (1997). Health risks and developmental transitions during adolescence. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Normative influence among first-year students 18 Schulenberg, J., Maggs, J. L., Long, S. W., Sher, K. J., Gotham, H. J., Baer, J. S., et al. (2001). The problem of college drinking: Insights from a developmental perspective. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 25, 473-477. Thompson, K. M., Leinfelt, F. H., & Smyth, J. M. (2006). Self-reported official trouble and official arrest: Validating a piece of the Core Alcohol and Drug Survey. Journal of Substance Use, 11, 33-36. Toomey, T. L., Lenk, K. M., & Wagenaar, A. C. (2007). Enviornmental policies to reduce college drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68, 208-219. Turrisi, R., Padilla, K. K., & Wiersma, K. A. (2000). College students drinking: An examination of theoretical models of drinking tendencies in freshman and upperclassmen. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 61, 598-602. Upcraft, M. L. (2002). Today s first-year students and alcohol. Retrieved September 19, 2008 from http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/supportingresearch/upcraft1.aspx Upcraft, M. L., Gardner, J. N., & Barefoot, B. O. (2005). Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. White, H. R. (2006). Reduction of alcohol-related harm on United States college campuses: The use of personal feedback interventions. International Journal of Drug Policy, 17, 310-319. Wosinska, W., Cialdini, R., Petrova, P., Barrett, D., Gornik-Durose, M., Butner, J., et al. (2009). Resistance to deficient organizational authority: The impact of culture and connectedness in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 834-851. Yan, F., Beck, K., Howard, D., Shattuck, T., & Kerr, M. (2008). A structural model of alcohol use pathways among Latino youth. American Journal of Health Behavior, 32, 209-219. Zisserson, R. N., Palfai, T. P., & Saitz, R. (2007). 'No-contact' interventions for unhealthy college drinking: Efficacy of alternatives to person-delivered intervention approaches. Substance Abuse, 28, 119-131.

Normative influence among first-year students 19 Table 1 Hierarchical regression of final model estimates evaluating behavior and attitudes as a function of perceived norms, gender, ethnicity, and connectedness to residence hall. Model 1 Behavior Hierarchical Regression R 2 change F change R 2 total F total b SE t Step 1.32 (4, 621) =72.60** Perceived descriptive norm 0.49 0.03 15.06 ** Connectedness to residence hall 0.06 0.02 2.73 ** Gender 0.07 0.11 0.62 Ethnicity 0.35 0.11 3.32 * Step 2.03 (1, 616) = 30.31**.35 (5, 621) = 66.90** Perceived descriptive norm X 0.07 0.01 5.51 ** Connectedness to residence hall Model 2 Attitudes Step 1.21 (4, 621) = 41.79** Perceived injunctive norm 0.33 0.03 10.77 ** Connectedness to residence hall 0.01 0.02 0.68 Gender 0.16 0.09 1.90 Ethnicity 0.25 0.08 2.98 * Step 2.01 (1, 616) = 8.46*.22 (5, 621) = 33.89** Perceived injunctive norm X 0.04 0.01 2.91 ** Connectedness to residence hall ** p <.01; * p <.05

Normative influence among first-year students 20 Figure 1. Means for perceived and actual norms for behavior and attitude variables Behavior 5 4 Behavior composite score 3 2 1 Perceived norm Actual norm 0 Frequency Average per occasion Drinks per week Maximum drinks Heavy episodic drinking Attitudes 5 4 Attitude composite score 3 2 1 Perceived norm Actual norm 0 Intoxicated at a party Miss class due to hangover Drive after 3 or 4 drinks Do things not typically do when sober Blackout from drinking

Normative influence among first-year students 21 Figure 2. The relationship between perceived descriptive and injunctive norms and personal behavior and attitudes as a function of connectedness to residence hall Behavior 4 Alcohol behavior composite 3 2 1 Low connectedness to residence hall High connectedness to residence hall 0 Low perceived descriptive norms High perceived descriptive norms Attitudes 4 Alcohol attitude composite 3 2 1 Low connectedness to residence hall High connectedness to residence hall 0 Low perceived injunctive norms High perceived injunctive norms