Misperceiving the college drinking norm and related problems: a nationwide study of exposure to prevention information, perceived norms and student alcohol misuse.
Abstract
Objective This study examined (1) the prevalence of misperceptions of college student drinking norms across campuses nationwide, (2) the importance of perceived norms in predicting high-risk drinking, (3) the association of exposure to alcohol education information with students' perceptions of campus drinking norms and (4) the differences in high-risk drinking rates between schools where exposure to alcohol information is associated with more accurately perceived norms and schools where exposure to information is unrelated to perceptions or is associated with greater misperceptions. Method Multivariate analyses were used to analyze an aggregate database of the National College Health Assessment survey administered to 76,145 students from 130 colleges and universities nationwide from spring 2000 through spring 2003. Results Regardless of the actual campus drinking norm, a consistently large percentage of students nationwide overestimated the quantity of alcohol consumed by their peers. Students' perception of their campus drinking norm was the strongest predictor of the amount of alcohol personally consumed in comparison with the influence of all demographic variables. Perception of the norm was also a much stronger predictor when compared with the actual campus norm. Reduced levels of high-risk drinking and negative consequences were found among students attending the relatively few schools where exposure to prevention information was associated with less exaggerated percept…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Some studies indicate that social-norms marketing campaigns have actually increased the undesirable behaviors and misperceptions they set out to decrease.
“In fact, some studies indicate that social-norms marketing campaigns have actually increased the undesirable behaviors and misperceptions they set out to decrease (e.g., Perkins, Haines, & Rice, 2005;Wechsler et al., 2003;Werch et al., 2000).”
From The Constructive, Destructive, and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms (2007) · cites this paper as Perkins, Haines, & Rice, 2005
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 32 · Cited by 467
- Authors
- Perkins, H. W., Haines, M. P., & Rice, R.
- Affiliations
- Hobart and William Smith Colleges (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Studies on Alcohol
- Publisher
- Alcohol Research Documentation, Inc.
- Published
- 2005-07
- Volume
- 66
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 470-478
- ISSN
- 0096-882X (ISSN-L)
- 1934-2683
- OpenAlex
- W2104437866
- Cited by
- 467
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 27
- FWCI
- 10.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Studies on Alcohol (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Northern Illinois University
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Media Influence and Health
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health and Lifestyle Studies
- Keywords
- college drinking, perceived social norms, hazardous drinking, alcohol abuse, alcohol prevention education, alcohol-related consequences, university students
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Alcohol Drinking, Attitude, Female, Humans, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Social Perception, Social Values, Students, United States, Universities, Alcohol-Related Disorders, Information Dissemination
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review