Youth Experiences with Social Norms Feedback: Qualitative Findings from The Drug Prevention Trial the GOOD Life
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. The GOOD Life Intervention
- Face-to-face communication: The programme started at each intervention school with a 45–60 min normative feedback session conducted either in single classes or for a whole grade, enabling interaction with the pupils. This session was facilitated by a member of the research team using web-based polls, where the pupils answered questions during the session regarding perceptions, behaviour and attitudes towards alcohol, smoking and intake of marijuana, among themselves and their classmates. Their answers were compared with the results of the baseline questionnaires, and discrepancies between perceptions and factual data were discussed.
- Print communication: After the feedback session, teachers were asked to display 4–5 posters for each grade. The posters contained school- and grade-specific social norms messages e.g., “8 out of 10 pupils in 8th grade at [school name] have NEVER been drunk”.
- Interactive web application: Pupils were encouraged by teachers and by a poster in the classroom to open a web-based application on either their computer or smartphone. The poster contained a QR code, which made the access quick and easy. The pupils could receive information on the concrete behavioural norms at their school, and classes and could test their norm perceptions in a quiz. The content of social norms messages in this intervention element were similar, but not identical to the previous messages.
2.2. Data Collection
2.2.1. Focus Group Interviews
2.2.2. Participants
2.2.3. Interview Guide
2.3. Transcription
2.4. Qualitative Data Analysis
- -
- Topic 1—Interest in and impact of the intervention: Quotes regarding how the intervention has met the pupils’ interest and whether it had an influence on their norm perceptions.
- -
- Topic 2—Perception of the intervention elements. The analysis schedule was divided into four subthemes: ‘general’, ‘feedback sessions’, ‘posters’, and ‘web application’. The sub-theme ‘general’ included those quotes related to the pupils’ perception towards the intervention in general and not mentioning a particular element.
- -
- Topic 3—Suggestions for improvements of The Good Life. Quotes regarding pupils´ suggestions for improvements of the intervention.
2.5. Ethics
3. Results
3.1. Topic 1: Interest in and Impact of The Intervention
3.1.1. Influence on Norm Perceptions
“I think it was good that we got to do this, because I think there are many—I am really surprised about it—in our class who believe that there are many who drink”.(boy 3, focus group 1)
“The best thing about the project was, that it in some ways was kind of an ‘eye-opener’, since we were forced to think more about the questions being asked. For example: Have I done that? Have I not done that? And have they [the other pupils] done that?”(girl 2, focus group 8)
”I believe that there are some who think that there are not so many who drink after all. So, I believe that it is easier for them to say no to alcohol now.”(girl 2, focus group 2)
“… Well, I don’t care. I haven’t been drinking yet. My plan is to drink New Year’s Eve, but if I see that there is no one who will drink New Year’s Eve, well, that is not going to change my mind ….”(boy 1, focus group 2)
“…But, you can just see, that they [boys] think that it is fun, but it isn’t healthy. I believe that the girls think more about the issue.”(girl 7, focus group 5)
3.1.2. Trustworthiness of The Data Used for The Social Norms Messages
“The percentages that were presented didn’t quite match what I was told by the others”.(girl 4, focus group 1)
“Perhaps it is a good thing that we did not get an accusing finger pointing at us, since some could feel pressured to answer some things that are not true.”(boy 5, focus group 4)
3.1.3. Anonymity and Data Security
“I think that it was quite interesting that you could see what the others have answered without being able toknow who answered what, but it was shown in overall scales.”(boy 2, focus group 2)
” If it wasn’t anonymous I wouldn’t write that I smoke, if I really smoke, so I wouldn’t say it in class, but since it was anonymous on the computer, I could easily do that. So I liked that.”(girl 2, focus group 8)
3.2. Topic 2: Perceptions of The Intervention Elements
3.2.1. Perceptions in General
“I really like that it is about us from this school instead of nationwide. This makes it more relevant and exiting for us, than if it was numbers for all of Denmark.”(boy 3, focus group 2)
“It was also quite cool, that you shouldn’t just answer in regard to your own perception, but also about what you think how the others [the other pupils] perceive things, because then you could see the differences […] I don’t think that they [The GOOD Life intervention team] talked down to us in any way. I think, that it was a funny way of making one’s mind about this issue, since I don’t really believe that we have tried it before.”(girl 2, focus group 3)
“I think that it was a good way of doing it, so that we didn’t get it [the SNA messages] all at once. Compared to the other times [referring to other drug prevention programmes], where we got it all at once, and then you just end up forgetting it all faster.”(girl 5, focus group 5)
3.2.2. Perceptions about The Feedback Session
“I also think that it was really fun, because it became a sport—You wanted to get the right answers and numbers...”(boy 3, focus group 2)
“I think that it was cool—okay, so we have sat here and listened for half an hour, or something like that, but then suddenly, we should use our mobiles […] It was really fun. It was really different than just sitting and listening and listening. Then you got a break, where you should do something else. It was really cool”.(girl 6, focus group 7)
“… I think that there were a lot of cold hard facts all the way through. I was about to doze off […] I think, that it should have been shorter, and if it is possible, the audience should be more included.”(boy 7, focus group 6)
“We sat in those groups, with whom we are also friends with, and then we sat a bit close to each other, and you could look over your shoulders and see what the others are answering. I didn’t really like that.”(girl 2, focus group 8)
“I couldn’t care less if there was someone who looked. I don’t think that there would be someone who would care so much if that was the case”.(boy 4, focus group 2)
3.2.3. Perceptions about The Posters
“I think that it is a cool way they have chosen to illustrate it—for example the one with smoking”.(boy 4, focus group 4)
“…They are placed in a good spot at our school. We have one placed across our door, so when you pass through and are about to enter the classroom you can’t avoid seeing it.”(girl 1, focus group 1)
“I can see the good things about the posters, but at the same time you are afraid that the others think that it is you who has answered this.”(girl 3, focus group 1)
3.2.4. Perceptions about The Web Application
“Well, it was quite unimportant, because I already knew the information, and we have already answered the questions three times before. I just think that it was unnecessary.”(girl 5, focus group 2)
“I actually think that the reason why we didn’t remember it, was because we didn’t receive that much information about what this app was about and could do. I think that we were only told that we could download an app and what it was called—and that was it about it.”(boy 3, focus group 6)
3.3. Topic 3: Suggestions for Improvement of The GOOD Life
“Well, perhaps you could come up with something, like a game, just something that could make us get up and move around. Just a little break, or something like that […] or just use more different methods to explain it. Well, they could for example talk for about 10 min and then they could show us a movie, and then could do the web poll.”(girl 1, focus group 1)
“If other schools are also involved in the intervention, perhaps a competition could be made where the price could be a Segboard, since they are popular now. That would make them download it and be ecstatic about the app, because they could win one.”(boy 1, focus group 6)
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Moore, G.; Audrey, S.; Barker, M.; Bond, L.; Bonell, C.; Cooper, C.; Hardeman, W.; Moore, L.; O’Cathain, A.; Tinati, T.; et al. Process evaluation in complex public health intervention studies: The need for guidance. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2014, 68, 101–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Dempsey, R.C.; McAlaney, J.; Bewick, B.M. A critical appraisal of the social norms approach as an interventional strategy for health-related behavior and attitude change. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 2180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perkins, H.W. The emergence and evolution of the social norms approach to substance abuse. In The Social Norms Approach to Preventing School and College Age Substance Abuse: A handbook for Educators, Counselors, and Clinicians; Perkins, H.W., Ed.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2003; pp. 3–17. [Google Scholar]
- McAlaney, J.; Helmer, S.M.; Stock, C.; Vriesacker, B.; Van Hal, G.; Dempsey, R.C.; Akvardar, Y.; Salonna, F.; Kalina, O.; Guillen-Grima, F.; et al. Personal and perceived peer use of and attitudes toward alcohol among university and college students in seven eu countries: Project SNIPE. J. Stud. Alcohol. Drugs 2015, 76, 430–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gronkjaer, M.; Curtis, T.; de Crespigny, C.; Glümer, C. Acceptance and expectance: Cultural norms for alcohol use in Denmark. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Health Well-Being 2016, 6, 8461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kraus, L.; Leifman, H.; Vicente, J. ESPAD Report 2015: Results from the European School survey Project on Alcohol. and other Drugs; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Stock, C.; Vallentin-Holbech, L.; Rasmussen, B.M. The GOOD life: Study protocol for a social norms intervention to reduce alcohol and other drug use among danish adolescents. BMC Public Health 2016, 15, 704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vallentin-Holbech, L.; Rasmussen, B.M.; Stock, C. Are perceptions of social norms regarding peer alcohol and other drug use associated with personal use in Danish adolescents? Scand. J. Public Health 2017, 45, 757–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vallentin-Holbech, L.; Rasmussen, B.M.; Stock, C. Effects of the social norms intervention The GOOD Life on norm perceptions, binge drinking and alcohol-related harms: A cluster-randomised controlled trial. Prev. Med. Rep. 2018, 12, 304–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Polonec, L.D.; Major, A.M.; Atwood, L.E. Evaluating the believability and effectiveness of the social norms message “Most students drink 0 to 4 drinks when they party”. Health Commun. 2006, 20, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marley, S.; Bekker, H.L.; Bewick, B.M. Responding to personalised social norms feedback from a web-based alcohol reduction intervention for students: Analysis of think-aloud verbal protocols. Psychol. Health 2016, 31, 1007–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malterud, K. Systematic text condensation: A strategy for qualitative analysis. Scand. J. Public Health 2012, 40, 795–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kuckartz, U. Qualitative Text Analysis: A guide to Methods, Practice and Using Software; SAGE Publications: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Quinn, C.A.; Bussey, K. Moral disengagement, anticipated social outcomes and adolescents’ alcohol use: Parallel latent growth curve analyses. J. Youth Adoles 2015, 44, 1854–1870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Immordino-Yang, M.H. Emotions, Learning, and the Brain: Exploring the Educational Implications of Affective Neuroscience; W. W. Norton & Company: New York, NY, USA, 2016; p. 208. [Google Scholar]
- Cuijpers, P. Effective ingredients of school-based drug prevention programs. A systematic review. Addict. Behav. 2002, 27, 1009–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, D.T.; Prentice, D.A. Changing norms to change behavior. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2016, 67, 339–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Neighbors, C.; Lee, C.M.; Lewis, M.A.; Fossos, N.; Walter, T. Internet-based personalized feedback to reduce 21st-birthday drinking: A randomized controlled trial of an event-specific prevention intervention. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 2009, 77, 51–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Johansen, A.; Rasmussen, S.; Madsen, M. Health behaviour among adolescents in Denmark: Influence of school class and individual risk factors. Scand. J. Public Health 2006, 34, 32–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pavis, S.; Cunningham-Burley, S.; Amos, A. Health related behavioural change in context: Young people in transition. Soc. Sci. Med. 1998, 47, 1407–1418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neighbors, C.; Lee, C.M.; Atkins, D.C.; Lewis, M.A.; Kaysen, D.; Mittmann, A.; Fossos, N.; Geisner, I.M.; Zheng, C.; Larimer, M.E. A randomized controlled trial of event-specific prevention strategies for reducing problematic drinking associated with 21st birthday celebrations. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 2012, 80, 850–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vallentin-Holbech, L.; Rasmussen, B.M.; Stock, C. Does level of received intervention dose have an impact on the effectiveness of the social norms alcohol prevention program The GOOD Life? Front. Public Health 2019, 7, 245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Perkins, H.W. The Social Norms Approach to Preventing School and College Age Substance Abuse: A Handbook for Educators, Counselors, and Clinicians; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Stock, C.; Vallentin-Holbech, L. Do boys and girls react differently to social norms based drug prevention? Eur. J. Public Health 2018, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walters, S.T.; Neighbors, C. Feedback interventions for college alcohol misuse: What, why and for whom? Addict. Behav. 2005, 30, 1168–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Focus Group | School | Girls n | Boys n | Total n |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | A | 5 | 3 | 8 |
2 | A | 2 | 4 | 6 |
3 | B | 2 | 2 | |
4 | C | 5 | 5 | |
5 | C | 7 | 7 | |
6 | D | 7 | 7 | |
7 | D | 7 | 7 | |
8 | E | 2 | 2 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Stock, C.; Lavasani Kjær, S.; Rasmussen, B.M.; Vallentin-Holbech, L. Youth Experiences with Social Norms Feedback: Qualitative Findings from The Drug Prevention Trial the GOOD Life. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3200. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093200
Stock C, Lavasani Kjær S, Rasmussen BM, Vallentin-Holbech L. Youth Experiences with Social Norms Feedback: Qualitative Findings from The Drug Prevention Trial the GOOD Life. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(9):3200. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093200
Chicago/Turabian StyleStock, Christiane, Satayesh Lavasani Kjær, Birthe Marie Rasmussen, and Lotte Vallentin-Holbech. 2020. "Youth Experiences with Social Norms Feedback: Qualitative Findings from The Drug Prevention Trial the GOOD Life" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 9: 3200. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093200