See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/238429860

How Behaviors are Influenced by Perceived NormsA Test of the Theory of

Normative Social Behavior

Article  in  Communication Research · June 2005

DOI: 10.1177/0093650205275385

CITATIONS READS
385 668

2 authors:

Rajiv N. Rimal Kevin Real

Johns Hopkins University University of Kentucky
141 PUBLICATIONS   4,212 CITATIONS    30 PUBLICATIONS   1,448 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Urban Health Initiative View project

Hazme el Paro!: A Mexico City-based, bystander intervention pilot project to address sexual harassment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rajiv N. Rimal on 23 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 COMMUNICATION RESEARCH
10.1177/0093650205275385
Rimal, Real • Normative • June
Social Behavior 2005
RAJIV N. RIMAL1
KEVIN REAL

How Behaviors are Influenced

by Perceived Norms
A Test of the Theory of
Normative Social Behavior

Normative restructuring strategies currently under way to combat alcohol-

related problems among U.S. college students are based on the idea that stu-
dents harbor inflated perceptions about the prevalence of drinking on campus
and that if these misperceptions can be corrected, then alcohol consumption
will decrease. Evidence for the effectiveness of these strategies is lacking,
and there is little discussion in the literature about how or why people’s nor-
mative beliefs exert influence on their behaviors. The theory of normative
social behavior that is proposed in this article includes three mechanisms—
injunctive norms, outcome expectations, and group identity—that are hypoth-
esized to moderate the influence of descriptive norms on behavior. This theory
is tested through a survey (N = 1,352) conducted among incoming college stu-
dents. Although all normative mechanisms predicted behavioral intention,
four of the six variables also interacted with descriptive norms to influence
intention, with relatively smaller effects. Overall, the model was able to pre-
dict 63% of the variance in intention to consume alcohol. Implications for
health campaigns are discussed.

Keywords: descriptive norms; injunctive norms; outcome expectations; group

identity; alcohol consumption

Excessive alcohol consumption by college students is a significant national

problem (Baer, Stacy, & Larimer, 1991; Wechsler, Molnar, Davenport, & Baer,
1999; West, Moskal, Dziuban, & Rumbough, 1996), and universities have
undertaken a number of campaigns to reduce problem drinking (Haines &

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH, Vol. 32 No. 3, June 2005 389-414

DOI: 10.1177/0093650205275385
© 2005 Sage Publications

389
COMMUNICATION RESEARCH • June 2005

Spear, 1996; Perkins & Berkowitz, 1986). One such approach is based on the
view that because norms influence behavior, if students’ normative beliefs
can be changed, behavioral change will ensue (Perkins & Berkowitz, 1986).
Researchers use multiple terms to describe this underlying idea, some of
which include subjective norms (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen,
1975), social norms (Perkins & Berkowitz, 1986; Perkins, Meilman, Leichliter,
Cashin, & Presley, 1999) or normative influences (Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren,
1990; Deutsch & Gerard, 1955).
Use of these multiple terms in the literature highlights the conceptual
ambiguity surrounding two distinct ideas—descriptive and injunctive
norms—articulated by Cialdini et al. (1990). Descriptive norms refer to indi-
viduals’ beliefs about the prevalence of a behavior. Research has shown that
students tend to harbor exaggerated perceptions about the prevalence of
drinking in their midst (Perkins & Berkowitz, 1986) and that the greater the
prevalence perceived by students, the more likely they are to construe their
own consumption patterns as being normative (i.e., within the prevailing
norms of conduct; Perkins, 1986; Perkins et al., 1999). Injunctive norms, on
the other hand, refer to the extent to which individuals perceive that influen-
tial others expect them to behave in a certain way, and by implication, social
sanctions will be incurred if they do not. Hence, it is possible for individuals to
believe that many others engage in a behavior and simultaneously believe
that others would disapprove of their enacting the behavior. For example, col-
lege students may perceive that most others consume alcohol but that some
of their important social referents (parents, peers) would disapprove if they
consumed alcohol. It is quite often the case that descriptive and injunctive
norms are mutually congruent; after all, by observing what most people do in
a given social setting, individuals perceive, often correctly, that they are
required to do the same. For example, members of Greek organizations in col-
leges may believe that alcohol consumption is rampant (high descriptive
norms) and that they themselves ought to drink (strong injunctive norms) to
maintain friendships. Although the larger norms literature (Cialdini et al.,
1990) makes this distinction, the alcohol consumption literature does not (for
an exception, see Borsari & Carey, 2001). For example, the social norms–
based interventions currently under way in many U.S. campuses are con-
cerned with descriptive norms, as they seek to reduce students’ exaggerated
perceptions about the prevalence of consumption. Ajzen and Fishbein’s
(1980) theory of reasoned action—a commonly used theory to address norma-
tive influences—however, addresses injunctive norms as it conceptualizes
norms as coercive social influences with which individuals feel motivated to
comply. In this article, we conceptualize perceived norms—either individu-
als’ understanding about the prevalence of a behavior or the social approval

390
 Rimal, Real • Normative Social Behavior

for the behavior from important referents—as comprising two distinct ideas,
namely, descriptive norms and injunctive norms, respectively.
Despite the influence of normative beliefs on alcohol behavior (Peeler, Far,
Miller, & Brigham, 2000; Schroeder & Prentice, 1998; Steffian, 1999), the lit-
erature provides little guidance in understanding how or why normative
influences occur. Given the absence of a sound underlying theoretical per-
spective, it is not surprising norms-based interventions on U.S. colleges have
not succeeded in reducing alcohol consumption. A recent evaluation of
norms-based interventions failed to find a significant decline in alcohol con-
sumption (across seven measures) in 37 colleges that used this approach,
compared to 61 that did not (Wechsler et al., 2003). If we are to invest consid-
erable resources in health communication campaigns aimed at behavior
change through the use of normative restructuring strategies, as has been
advocated by some researchers (Haines, 1996; Perkins et al., 1999), it is
important that we develop and test specific hypotheses about the mecha-
nisms underlying the relation between normative perceptions and behavior
change. This is the primary purpose of the research reported in this article.
Based on our prior work (Rimal & Real, 2003), in this article, we propose
the theory of normative social behavior (TNSB) that accomplishes two tasks.
First, it differentiates descriptive from injunctive norms; and, second, it
attempts to explain the underlying cognitive mechanisms that moderate the
relation between descriptive norms and behavioral intentions. As shown in
Figure 1, the TNSB is based on the premise that descriptive norms (people’s
perceptions about the prevalence of a behavior) affect individuals’ own
behaviors through interactions with three normative mechanisms: injunc-
tive norms, outcome expectations, and group identity. Although these norma-
tive mechanisms may exert a direct influence on behaviors, their primary use
in a norms-based approach is the extent to which they heighten the influence
of descriptive norms on behaviors. That is, these normative mechanisms are
hypothesized to act as moderators in the descriptive norms-behavior
relation.

Injunctive Norms

Injunctive norms refer to people’s perceptions that their important referents

expect them to comply with a behavior. Injunctive norms are analogous to the
concept of subjective norms in the theory of reasoned action (TRA; Ajzen &
Fishbein, 1980), which is defined as people’s perceptions about the impor-
tance of others’ beliefs as well as their motivation to comply with those
beliefs. Although both concepts share the common element of pressures that
individuals experience to conform, the difference between them lies in roles

391
COMMUNICATION RESEARCH • June 2005

Descriptive Behaviors
Norms

Normative
Mechanisms

Injunctive Outcome
Norms Group Identity
Expectations
- Social approval - Similarity
- Benefits to oneself - Aspiration
- Benefits to others
- Anticipatory
socialization

Figure 1. Components of the Theory of Normative Social Behavior

that social sanctions are thought to play in the normative influence process.
Bendor and Swistak (2001) note, for example, that it is meaningless to talk
about normative influences without also acknowledging that defiance of
norms incurs some sort of social sanction. Thus, to the extent that injunctive
norms are based on individuals’ perceptions about social approval, an under-
lying assumption in the influence of injunctive norms is that behaviors are
guided, in part, by a desire to do the appropriate thing. As conceptualized in
the TRA, the threat of social sanction, however, is not thought to be a neces-
sary element for subjective norms to exert their influence. In the TRA, subjec-
tive norms are thought to exert their influence because individuals look to
important referents to guide his or her behaviors (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980).
Thus, from a social norms perspective, individuals can enact a behavior
because they believe that people important to them expect them to do so (sub-
jective norms) or because failure to do so will result in social sanctions
(injunctive norms). The common element underlying both types of influences,
however, is that behavior is guided by expectations of others’ beliefs.
Individuals often have direct knowledge about what others expect them to
do, and thus they can develop perceptions about injunctive norms through
experiences with others’ reactions to their behaviors. There are instances,
however, when individuals have to rely on cues other than direct experience

392
 Rimal, Real • Normative Social Behavior

to develop perceptions about injunctive norms. Information about the preva-

lence of the behavior (i.e., a descriptive norm) can serve this function. Social
comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) suggests that we make assessments
about appropriate modes of conduct by comparing ourselves with others in
our social midst. When we are unsure about how to behave in a new or unfa-
miliar situation, we look to the behaviors of others. When others engage in a
behavior, they provide us with social approval cues and we “view a behavior
as correct in a given situation to the degree that we see others performing it”
(Cialdini, 2001, p. 100). Hence, peer norms for alcohol consumption could
signal that drinking is an approved and sanctioned behavior.
However, descriptive norms about peer alcohol consumption are not likely
to be a strong indicator of injunctive norms. Students may perceive strong
disapproval cues from authority figures and society in general. Many univer-
sities are currently running punitively based antialcohol campaigns. In some
cases, they are based on parental notification policies that threaten to notify
parents of minors who are found in violation of drug and alcohol rules.
Researchers report that by January 2000, about 44% of surveyed institutions
had parental notification policies in place, an additional 15% stated that they
notified parents even in the absence of a written policy, and another 25%
stated they were planning to have such policies in place in the future (Palmer,
Lohman, Gehring, Carlson, & Garrett, 2001). Given their strong message of
disapproval, these policies could offset the perception that drinking is an
approved behavior, and we believe that they could moderate the influence of
prevailing norms among students on alcohol consumption.

Hypothesis 1: Descriptive norms about alcohol consumption are positively

related to behavioral intentions, but the magnitude of this association
will become greater as prodrinking injunctive norms become greater.

Outcome Expectations

We believe that three outcome expectations should moderate the relation-

ship between descriptive norms and behavioral intentions. First, according to
social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986), human behavior is governed
by, among other things, individuals’ outcome expectations—beliefs that his or
her actions will lead to benefits. This is also the prediction of the subjective
utility theory (Sutton, 1982) and the health belief model (Rosenstock, 1974,
1990), both of which postulate that individuals will engage in behaviors they
perceive to be beneficial. Students perceive that drinking alcohol is beneficial
and that it can lead to mood enhancement, stress reduction, feelings of happi-
ness, increased affective expression, and greater social interaction (Baum-

393
COMMUNICATION RESEARCH • June 2005

Baicker, 1985; Dufour, 1996; Monahan & Lannutti, 2000; Peele & Brodsky,
2000). To the extent that students perceive that these outcomes will result
from consuming alcohol, they should be more inclined to drink.
However, the behavioral intentions of college students may be influenced
by a second set of expectations: their perceptions that benefits accrue to their
peers who drink. By not engaging in a desirable behavior, individuals may
become fearful that they will be denied important outcomes that others who
engage in the behavior are able to attain. Research indicates that the threat
of a potential loss looms large in people’s minds. Kahneman and Tversky
(1984) and Kahneman, Knetsch, and Thaler (1991) have shown, for example,
that the threat of losing something is a greater motivator of action than is the
potential for gaining something of equal value. Although we are unable to
find studies that have investigated this idea in the context of students’ alco-
hol consumption motivations, we assume that one of the reasons why stu-
dents consume alcohol is their reluctance to deprive themselves of benefits
that they perceive others derive from this behavior. To the extent that this is a
reasonable assumption, we expect the influence of alcohol-related descrip-
tive norms on students’ own behaviors to be positively correlated with beliefs
that others are deriving significant benefits from alcohol consumption.
A final set of outcome expectations results from the belief by college stu-
dents that alcohol is a social lubricant (Borsari & Carey, 1999). As students
prepare to enter college, they formulate strategies about how they intend to
develop and blend into new social circles. Alcohol consumption has been
found to be an important social activity among college students (Dorsey,
Sherer, & Real, 1999), and belief in alcohol’s socializing role is widely shared
among adolescents (Borsari & Carey, 1999). Even as early as third grade, chil-
dren have been found to associate alcohol with positive social benefits (Aus-
tin & Knaus, 2000). Baum-Baicker (1985) reported that conviviality is associ-
ated with low and moderate levels of drinking, and it is likely that this
sociability is part of drinking alcohol in social contexts. To the extent that stu-
dents construe alcohol consumption as a social lubricant and an activity that
allows them to develop friendships and form bonds with their peers (Borsari
& Carey, 1999; Hopkins & Emler, 1990), they are likely to intend to drink.
Our analysis suggests that the three aforementioned expectations should
be positively related to behavioral intentions to consume alcohol. Further-
more, we believe that they should moderate the relationship between
descriptive norms and behavioral intentions. Prior research indicates that
enactment of behaviors is affected by perceptions of volitional control (Ajzen
& Fishbein, 1980; Petty & Cacioppo, 1981) and beliefs that one possesses the
requisite skills (Bandura, 1977). Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) pos-
its that observing others, especially others similar to oneself, enacting a

394
 Rimal, Real • Normative Social Behavior

behavior can strengthen one’s own perceptions of control and ability to enact
the same behavior. However, it is also necessary that one believe that the
behavior will produce positive outcomes. Hence, individuals should be most
likely to consume alcohol when they gain self efficacy from believing that
peers engage in the action and believe that the action will have positive con-
sequences. Hence, when predicting behavioral intentions, there should be an
ordinal interaction between descriptive beliefs and outcome expectations. We
posit the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2a: Outcome expectations regarding alcohol consumption will

be positively associated with behavioral intention.
Hypothesis 2b: The magnitude of the relationship between descriptive
norms and behavioral intention will become greater as outcome expec-
tations become stronger.

Group Identity

Numerous studies have documented the role that individuals’ social net-
works play in initiating and reinforcing both positive (Hibbard, 1985; House,
Landis, & Umberson, 1988; Valente, 1994) and negative behaviors (Donohew
et al., 1999; Dorsey, Sherer, & Real, 1999; Fraser & Hawkins, 1984; Kandel,
1973; Seeman, Seeman, & Sayles, 1985). Although not explicitly stated, the
underlying assumptions—in the notion that group identity influences indi-
vidual behavior—are that the individual feels affinity and desires connection
with the reference group. We construe group identity in terms of individuals’
aspirations to emulate referent others and the extent to which they perceive
similarity between themselves and those referents. According to social cogni-
tive theory (Bandura, 1977), we are influenced by the actions of models whom
we aspire to become. Quigley and Collins (1999) found that modeling had a
significant effect on various measures of consumption, including amount con-
sumed and blood alcohol concentration. Research has shown that we are
influenced not only by the behaviors of others but even more so by behaviors
of similar others (Phillips, 1980; Phillips & Cartensen, 1986) and that when
we conform with in-group members, we experience positive emotions
(Christensen, Rothgerber, Wood, & Matz, 2004). Hence, to the extent that col-
lege students find themselves in an ambiguous social environment (as is the
case, for example, when they first join college and look to establish social net-
works), we can expect them to rely on social cues they receive from others that
they perceive to be similar to themselves.
In the absence of this form of identification, there is no reason to expect
group identity to affect individuals’ behavioral choices. Rather, as people’s
identity with members of their reference group grows stronger, there is an

395
 COMMUNICATION RESEARCH • June 2005

implicit understanding that their compliance with the group behavior will be
observable to other group members and that group members will have access
to information about their expression of group solidarity, which can be
expressed through compliant behavior. Thus, the correlation between group
members’ identification with their referent group and their own intentions to
engage in a behavior should be strengthened by the belief that referent group
members are also engaging in the same behaviors. Hence, we predict an ordi-
nal interaction between descriptive beliefs and group identity.

Hypothesis 3: The magnitude of the relationship between descriptive

beliefs and behavioral intention will become greater as group identity
becomes stronger.

To the extent that injunctive norms, outcome expectation, and group iden-
tity interact with descriptive norms to predict behavior, we also sought to
determine whether and to what extent the three moderators overlap in their
predictive ability. Hence, the research question we pose is

Research Question 1: To what extent do the normative mechanisms inde-

pendently predict alcohol consumption?

Method

To test our hypotheses, we conducted a study focused on alcohol consumption

by incoming college students. We believe that this is an appropriate context
in which to test our hypotheses. For many students, going away to college is
their first experience in a new and unfamiliar social environment, which
means they have to learn new rituals and modes of conduct. Hence, college-
bound students experience a great deal of ambiguity as they cannot rely on
many of the habitual behaviors familiar to them in prior years. The litera-
ture suggests that presence of ambiguity enhances normative influences
(Cialdini, 2001). Furthermore, college life is the beginning of friendships for
many students as they are socialized into a new environment, and one of the
most influential socializing behaviors on campus is alcohol use, which occurs
predominantly in social settings (Haemmerlie, Montgomery, & Saling, 1994).

Sample

Participants (N = 1,352) were incoming students attending the university-

sponsored new student orientation workshop at the University of Texas (UT)
in Austin. Seven workshops were administered during the months of June

396
 Rimal, Real • Normative Social Behavior

and July. On the 1st day of each workshop, researchers handed out a three-
page survey to students who were either waiting in line, waiting for their
friends, or were on their way to making inquiries pertaining to academic
requirements. Most students filled out the survey at tables placed in various
locations in the waiting lounge. To maintain anonymity, no personally identi-
fiable questions were included in the survey instrument, and participants
were asked to return the completed survey by placing it in a box that was kept
at a distance from the researchers. The entire survey took approximately 10
to 15 minutes to complete.
Of the 2,000 surveys handed out, 1,352 (67.6%) were returned. According
to data released by the university, there were 7,208 1st-year students in the
incoming cohort, of which 52% were female students, and 17% joined Greek
organizations. This means that through our convenience sampling proce-
dures, we captured approximately 19% of the total 1st-year population. The
proportions of female students (53.5%) and those joining Greek organiza-
tions (14.5%) in our sample were fairly representative of the new student
population in the university.

Control Variables

To test our hypotheses, we first controlled for known predictors of alcohol con-
sumption. In the literature, students’ social networks (Baer et al., 1991;
Downs, 1987; Goodwin, 1989; Perkins, 1986) and their peer communication
patterns (Dorsey et al., 1999) have been found to be correlated with consump-
tion. Members of Greek organizations typically consume more alcohol than
nonmembers (Cashin, Presley, & Meilman, 1998; Goodwin, 1989; Grenier,
Gorskey, & Folse, 1998; Wechsler, Dowdall, Davenport, & Castillo, 1995), as do
off-campus, compared to on-campus residents (Gliksman, Newton-Taylor,
Adlaf, & Giesbrecht, 1997; Grenier et al., 1998; Prendergast, 1994). In addi-
tion, we also expected legal drinking age status to predict alcohol use (Engs,
Diebold, & Hanson, 1996). Finally, given the strong relationship reported in
the literature between self-efficacy and health behaviors (Bandura, 1977,
1986), we also expected individual’s perceived ability to refrain from alcohol
consumption to be predictive of their consumption. Hence, we used these
variables as controls in the tests of our hypotheses.

Measures

The survey instrument notified participants that researchers were inter-

ested in studying alcohol consumption on campus and that the survey itself
was anonymous.

397
COMMUNICATION RESEARCH • June 2005

Descriptive norms. Participants’ perception about the prevalence of alco-

hol consumption on campus was measured through four questions. Three
questions asked participants to estimate how many drinks a typical student
consumes when he or she “goes to a bar,” “has friends over to his or her apart-
ment for drinks,” and “goes to a party.” Another question asked partici-
pants to estimate how many drinks a typical student consumes “during the
weekend—Friday evening to Saturday evening.” All responses were recorded
on a 5-point scale, ranging from zero drinks to more than six drinks. Partici-
pants were asked to consider one drink being equivalent to a 12-ounce can of
beer, a 4-ounce glass of wine, or a 1.5-ounce glass of liquor. Descriptive norms
was calculated as the average of the four responses (α = .84).

Normative mechanisms. The three normative mechanisms were injunc-

tive norms, outcome expectation, and group identity. We conceptualized
injunctive norms as perceived social approval—students’ perceptions about
the social acceptability of consumption (explained subsequently). Outcome
expectations were conceptualized as comprising three dimensions: benefits to
oneself, benefits to others, and anticipatory socialization. Group identity was
conceptualized as aspiration and perceived similarity. A total of 25 questions
comprised the three normative mechanisms.
Four questions (“It is appropriate for students to drink every weekend,”
“Society in general considers this activity appropriate,” “The University of
Texas administration considers it appropriate,” and “Most people in general
consider it appropriate”) measured social approval. Four questions (drinking
alcohol with friends is rewarding, pleasurable, enjoyable, and fun) measured
benefits to oneself. Four questions (“For most others” drinking alcohol with
friends is rewarding, pleasurable, enjoyable, and fun) measured benefits to
others. And, five questions (drinking alcohol is part of a college experience,
college students are expected to drink alcohol, it is an important social life,
freshmen look forward to being able to drink, and it allows students to make
friends) measured anticipatory socialization. Four questions (the extent to
which participants believed UT students were respectable, believed UT stu-
dents were inspiring, looked up to most UT students, and thought highly of
UT students) measured aspiration. Four questions (how similar do you think
most UT students are to you intellectually, in the way they think, in their val-
ues, and in their behaviors) measured perceived similarity.
Conceptualizing each of the six factors as latent constructs, a confirmatory
factor analysis was also conducted with the 25 measures. One variable, a
measure of social approval (the extent to which drinking alcohol every week-

398
 Rimal, Real • Normative Social Behavior

end was perceived to be appropriate) was associated with large error terms,
and it was dropped from the model. With the remaining 24 variables, the data
were consistent with the proposed six-factor model, in which internal consis-
tency and parallelism yielded small errors.
Each normative mechanism was then calculated as the average value of
the constituent variables. Reliability coefficients were as follows: injunctive
norms, operationalized as social approval (α = .78); outcome expectations,
operationalized as benefits to oneself (α = .95), benefits to others (α = .93), and
anticipatory socialization (α = .84); and group identity, operationalized as
aspiration (α = .89) and perceived similarity (α = .81).

Alcohol consumption. Participants, who were incoming students, were

asked three questions about their intention to consume alcohol: how often
they thought they would; how often they would like to; and how often they
intended to go out drinking alcohol with friends. Responses were scored on a
9-point scale, ranging from never to four or more times a week. Responses to
these three questions (coded such that greater values represented intention
to consume more alcohol) were averaged into an index (α = .98).

Control variables. Age of first alcohol consumption was measured on an 8-

point scale ranging from 11 years or younger to never, such that greater values
represented an older age of first consumption. Membership in Greek organi-
zations was measured by asking participants whether they intended to join
Greek organizations, responses to which were yes (coded as 2), don’t know (1),
and no (0). Efficacy to resist consumption was measured by first describing a
vignette in which the participant’s best friend urged the participant to go out
drinking despite a looming quiz the next day and then asking four questions
about the participant’s ability to not go out drinking and still maintain
friendship with his or her best friend. Responses to the four questions (mea-
sured on a 7-point scale ranging from not at all confident to extremely confi-
dent) were averaged into an index (α = .74).
The distribution of variables used in this study is shown in Table 1. Over-
all, compared to females, males perceived lower resistance efficacy in resist-
ing temptations to consume alcohol, they associated drinking with more per-
sonal benefits, they believed more strongly that society approved students’
alcohol consumption, they believed more strongly that drinking was a vehicle
for socialization on campus, and they intended to consume more alcohol.
Compared to non-Greeks, students who anticipated joining Greek organiza-
tions were associated with more proalcohol attitudes, normative perceptions,

399
400
Table 1
a
Description of the Sample

Gender Greek Membership

Female Male Yes No Overall
Variable M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
b
Age of first drink 3.44a 1.40 3.38a 1.55 3.40a 1.22 3.40a 1.54 3.41 1.44
c
Resistance efficacy 5.75a 1.07 5.42b 1.20 5.66a 1.06 5.58a 1.14 5.60 1.14
d
Descriptive norms 3.71a 0.78 3.75a 0.86 3.88a 0.74 3.68b 0.84 3.73 0.82
e
Social approval 2.84a 1.21 3.16b 1.29 3.18a 1.32 2.98a 1.21 3.01 1.28
e
Benefits to oneself 3.08a 1.64 3.73b 1.80 4.17a 1.63 3.20b 1.75 3.39 1.75
e
Benefits to others 4.45a 1.28 4.56a 1.30 4.71a 1.14 4.48b 1.32 4.51 1.30
e
Anticipatory socialization 2.86a 1.31 3.49b 1.42 3.54a 1.39 3.09b 1.36 3.16 1.40
e
Aspiration 4.47a 1.16 4.38a 1.11 4.64a 1.12 4.37b 1.15 4.44 1.14
e
Perceived similarity 3.97a 0.97 3.92a 1.02 4.06a 0.98 3.85b 1.00 3.96 1.01
f
Alcohol consumption 3.73a 2.29 4.20b 2.50 5.53a 2.26 3.53b 2.27 3.97 2.40

a. Cell entries are from two-tailed t tests between males and females and between Greek members and nonmembers. Entries sharing the same subscript are not different
at p < .05.
b. 1 = younger than 11 years, 2 = between 11 and 12 years, . . . 8 = never.
c. Ability to resist drinking, 7-point scale.
d. Estimate of others’ consumption: 1 = 0 drinks and 5 = more than 6 drinks.
e. 7-point scale.
f. Anticipated alcohol consumption: 1 = never and 9 = 4 or more times a week.
 Rimal, Real • Normative Social Behavior

and intentions. Thus, as has been reported elsewhere (Wechsler et al., 1995),
we, too, found that propensity to consume alcohol on campus was greater for
males than for females and for Greeks than for non-Greeks.

Statistical Analyses

To test our hypotheses, we conducted hierarchical regression analyses with

intention to consume alcohol as the dependent variable; control variables
were age of first drink, gender, Greek membership (3-level variable coded as
0 = intention not to join, 1 = intention to join unknown, and 2 = intention to
join), and resistance efficacy to resist alcohol consumption. After introducing
the control variables in the first block of the regression model, we added
descriptive norms in the second block. In the first test of the third block, we
added one normative mechanism, followed by the normative mechanism ×
descriptive norms interaction term. The latter two variables were then
removed before adding another normative mechanism and its interaction
with descriptive norms as the second test of the third block. This procedure
was repeated until the effects of all normative mechanisms were tested.
Hypothesis testing was done by evaluating the significance of the increment
in explained variance. Following Aiken and West’s (1991) recommendations,
variables were centered on their mean and nonstandardized beta coefficients
were used in interpreting the outcomes.
To answer the research question about the relative strength of each nor-
mative mechanism, we conducted regression equations in which, after first
introducing the control variables, we included descriptive norms, all norma-
tive mechanisms, and the descriptive norms × mechanism interaction terms
as the predictors.

Results

Analyses Common to All Hypotheses

All hypotheses were tested by including control variables—age of first drink,

biological sex, Greek membership, and resistance efficacy—in the first block of
a regression equation that used behavioral intention as the dependent vari-
able. As shown in Table 2, these four variables collectively explained 19.7% of
the variance. Each of the control variables was significantly associated with
intention to consume alcohol: Those who consumed their first drink at
a younger age, male, those who intended to join Greek organizations, and
those with lower resistance efficacy were associated with greater behavioral
intentions.

401
COMMUNICATION RESEARCH • June 2005

Table 2
Normative Predictors of Intention to Consume Alcohol (Each Normative Mechanism
Tested Individually)

Block Total
a b 2 2
r Beta ∆ R (%) R (%)

Block 1: Controls
Age of first drink –.32*** –.22***
Male .10*** .17***
Greek .24*** .36***
Resistance efficacy –.17*** –.13*** 19.7*** 19.7
Block 2: DN .33*** .25*** 6.0*** 25.7
c
Block 3: Mechanisms
3Ai. SA .23*** .15*** 2.2*** 27.9
3Aii. SA × DN interaction .03 .03 0.1 28.0
3Bi. B .76*** .68*** 36.0*** 61.6
3Bii. B × DN interaction .11*** .05* 0.3* 61.9
3Ci. BO .25*** .14*** 1.7*** 27.4
3Cii. BO × DN interaction –.03 .01 0.0 27.4
3Di. AS .49*** .36*** 10.5*** 36.2
3Dii. AS × DN interaction .07* .05* 0.3* 36.5
3Ei. A .15*** .16*** 2.6*** 28.3
3Eii. A × DN interaction .14*** .07** 0.6** 28.9
3Fi. S .16*** .16*** 2.4*** 28.1
3Fii. S × DN interaction .11*** .07** 0.5** 28.6

Note: DN = descriptive norms; SA = social approval; B = benefits to oneself; BO = benefits to others;

AS = anticipatory socialization; A = aspiration; S = similarity.
a. Zero-order Pearson correlation between predictor and intention to consume alcohol.
b. Unstandardized beta from regression equations.
c. All equations in Block 3 (3A through 3F) included variables in Blocks 1 and 2, in addition to one
normative mechanism and one interaction term between the normative mechanism and descrip-
tive norms. Thus, Block 3Ai included the control variables, descriptive norms, and the social
approval main effect; Block 3Aii included all variables in Block 3Ai plus the social approval multi-
plied by descriptive norms interaction term. Block 3Bi did not include the social approval main
effect or the social approval multiplied by descriptive norms interaction term.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

In the second block of the regression equation, we introduced descriptive

norms (centered on the variable’s mean) that explained an additional 6% of
the variance (∆2 = .25; p < .001). Total variance explained was 25.7%. Tests of
each hypothesis were conducted by determining whether the addition of the
normative mechanism and the normative mechanism × by descriptive norms
interaction term resulted in a significant increment in explained variance,
beyond the 25.7% explained by the control variables and the descriptive
norms. Each normative mechanism (and the associated interaction term)
was removed from the model in testing the effects of another normative
mechanism. Given the large sample size, we set 1% increment in explained
variance as the criterion with which to test the significance of the effects of
the interaction terms on the dependent variable.

402
 Rimal, Real • Normative Social Behavior

Effects of Injunctive Norms

Social approval. The main effect of social approval, tested in Step 3Ai, was
significant (β = .15; p > .001; ∆R2 = 2.2%). The social approval multiplied by
descriptive norms interaction term, tested in Step 3Aii, was not significantly
related with behavioral intention (β = .03; p > .05). Thus, Hypothesis 1 was
not supported.

Effects of Outcome Expectations

Benefits to oneself. The main effect of benefits to oneself, tested in Step 3Bi,
was significant (β = .68; p < .001; ∆R 2 = 36.0%), as was the benefits to oneself ×
descriptive norms interaction term (β = .05; p < .05; ∆R 2 = .3%). According to
the criterion set forth to test the significance of the interaction term (a mini-
mal of 1% increment in explained variance), its association with intention to
consume alcohol was judged to be nonsignificant. Hence, Hypothesis 2A
received strong support, whereas Hypothesis 2B was not supported.

Benefits to others. As part of the second test of our second hypothesis, the
main effect of benefits to others was significant (β = .14; p < .001; ∆R 2 = 1.7%),
but the benefits to others × descriptive norms interaction term was not signifi-
cant (∆ = .01; p > .05). Hence, the second test of Hypothesis 2A, but not
Hypothesis 2B, was supported.

Anticipatory socialization. The third test of our second hypothesis

revealed that the anticipatory socialization main effect was significant (β =
.36; p < .001; ∆R 2 = 10.5%), as was its interaction with descriptive norms (β =
.05; p < .05; ∆R 2 = .3%). Here, too, the primary effect of anticipatory socializa-
tion on behavioral intention appears to be because of the main effect and not
the interaction effect.

Effects of Group Identity

Aspiration. The first test of our third hypothesis was conducted by adding
aspiration into the regression equation, followed by the aspiration × descrip-
tive norms interaction term. The main effect of aspiration was significant (β =
.16; p < .001; ∆R 2 = 2.6%). The strength of the interaction with descriptive
norms (β = .07; p < .01; ∆R 2 = .6%) was judged to be nonsignificant as it did not
explain more than 1% of the variance.

403
 COMMUNICATION RESEARCH • June 2005

Similarity. Tests of the effects of similarity showed that the main effect
was significant (β = .16; p < .001; ∆R2 = 2.4%). The strength of the similarity ×
descriptive norms interaction term (β = .07; p < .01; ∆R2 = .5%) was judged not
to be significant as it explained less than 1% of the variance.

Relative Strength of Normative Mechanisms

Our research question was concerned with understanding the relative

strength of the normative mechanisms in explaining intention to consume
alcohol. Table 3 shows the results of the regression equations conducted to
answer this question. The four control variables (age of first drink, gender,
Greek membership, and resistance efficacy), descriptive norms, and the nor-
mative mechanisms were included in the model in the first step. All four con-
trol variables, descriptive norms, and all but two (social approval and aspira-
tion) of the normative mechanisms were significant, and they explained
62.7% of the variance. Two unexpected results were found in this analysis.
First, with other variables in the model, being female was associated with
greater intention to consume alcohol; and second, perception about benefits to
others was negatively associated with behavioral intention. These findings
are discussed subsequently.
Next, we introduced six interaction terms (between the normative mecha-
nisms and descriptive norms). To avoid multicollinearity (because descrip-
tive norms was common in all interaction terms), this portion of the regres-
sion test was conducted in a stepwise fashion. In the second block, the
similarity × by descriptive norms interaction term was significant (β = .05; p <
.01; ∆R2 = .3%), and in the third block, the benefits to oneself × descriptive
norms interaction term was significant (β = .04; p < .05; ∆R2 = .2%). Overall,
our model was able to explain 63.2% of the variance in behavioral intention.

Discussion

Given the widespread acceptance in the literature of the relation between

normative perceptions and health behaviors, the primary purpose of this
article was to introduce and explain three mechanisms that moderate the
relationship between descriptive norms and behavioral intentions, injunc-
tive norms, outcome expectations, and group identity. Each mechanism was a
significant predictor of intention to consume alcohol, even after controlling
for traditional predictors of consumption and descriptive norms. It thus
appears that the widely reported finding in the literature—that college stu-
dents’ alcohol consumption is determined by their normative beliefs (Perkins

404
 Rimal, Real • Normative Social Behavior

Table 3
Normative Predictors of Intention to Consume Alcohol (All Normative Mechanisms
Included Simultaneously)

Block Total
a 2 2
Beta ∆ R (%) R (%)

Block 1: Controls, descriptive norms, and

normative mechanism main effects
Age of first drink –.07***
Male –.10**
Greek .17***
Resistance efficacy –.04*
DN .11***
Social approval .03
Benefits to oneself .65***
Benefits to others –.09***
Anticipatory socialization .08***
Aspiration .03
Similarity .01 62.7*** 62.7
b
Block 2: Similarity × DN interaction .05** 0.3** 63.0
b
Block 3: Benefits to Oneself × DN interaction .04* 0.2* 63.2

Note: DN = descriptive norms.

a. Unstandardized beta from regression equations.
b. Stepwise procedure adopted in Blocks 2 and 3 to include only significant interaction terms
between normative mechanisms and the DN.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

& Berkowitz, 1986)—tells only one, albeit significant, part of the story. In this
article, we found that normative perceptions explained roughly 6% of the
variance in intention to consume alcohol after controlling for the traditional
predictors of consumption. An additional 37% of the variance was explained
by the normative mechanisms. Hence, inclusion of these mechanisms in our
conceptualization of normative influences improved the predictive ability of
our models. With the inclusion of these mechanisms, we were able to explain
63% of the variance in intention to consume alcohol.
This study also showed that although both group identity variables (aspi-
ration and similarity) and two of the outcome expectation variables (benefits
to oneself and anticipatory socialization) interacted with descriptive norms to
influence behavioral intention, the strength of these associations was weak.
Hence, it appears that the primary contribution of these variables in our
model was through their main effects. Our regression equations with all vari-
ables entered into the model showed that the relation between benefits to oth-
ers and behavioral intention was negative. This was in contrast to findings
from the regression equations that included one normative mechanism at a
time. The difference between the two models, of course, is that whereas the

405
COMMUNICATION RESEARCH • June 2005

comprehensive regression model tests for the influence of benefits to others by

taking into account the effect of benefits to oneself, the model with individual
normative mechanisms considers only the former. This leads us to conclude
that although perceptions about benefits that others derive from consump-
tion are associated with students’ own behavioral intention, this effect is
better tested by considering the relative benefits (to oneself vs. others) of con-
sumption. When we controlled for the effects of benefits to oneself, those who
believed that others derived few benefits from consumption had stronger
intentions about drinking. This suggests that perhaps students who intend
to consume alcohol believe that the benefits they derive from this activity is
not shared by others and that they have a special access to benefits unknown
to others. The literature on optimistic bias (Weinstein, 1989; Weinstein &
Klein, 1995) proposes, for example, that, across a variety of health domains,
individuals’ risk perceptions for themselves diverge from risk perceptions
they attribute to others. Specifically, individuals have the propensity to view
themselves, relative to others, as being less vulnerable. We speculate that in
line with this reasoning, students perceive that the detrimental effects of
alcohol, although they apply to the students’ peers, are not applicable to
themselves and that students believe they are able to cope with alcohol-
related problems better than their peers. If so, it would be logical for students
to believe that others suffer from alcohol-related harm but they themselves
not only are immune to such harm but in fact derive substantial benefits
unknown to others.
We also found that contrary to expectations, intention to consume alco-
hol was stronger among female students than among male students when
normative mechanisms were taken into account. Further analyses revealed
that the inclusion of one normative mechanism in particular—benefits to
oneself—reversed the relationship between biological sex and intention to
consume alcohol (males showed stronger intentions without this mechanism
in the model, whereas females showed stronger intentions with this mecha-
nism in the model). Furthermore, males perceived greater benefits from con-
sumption than did females. Path analyses, using perceived benefits as the
mediator in the relationship between being male and intention to consume
alcohol, revealed that the regression coefficient between being male and per-
ceived benefits was .37 (p < .001), that between perceived benefits and inten-
tion to consume alcohol was .77 (p < .001). The relation however, between
being male and intention to consume alcohol, controlling for the effects of per-
ceived benefits, was –.10 (p < .01). Thus, it appears that perception about the
positive benefits of consumption is key: Males are likely to consume more
alcohol than females because they perceive more benefits from consumption.

406
 Rimal, Real • Normative Social Behavior

Implications for Health Campaigns

Reliance on normative restructuring strategies is a rapidly growing move-

ment across American campuses as health educators try to curtail the preva-
lence of drinking by young adults. There is now even what is colloquially
called the Social Norming Conference (National Conference on the Social
Norms Model). This conference brings together educators and researchers
from across the country to share norms-based strategies in their fight against
alcohol. Because strategies to combat alcohol problems on campus conceptu-
alize normative perceptions (solely) in terms of descriptive norms, anti-
alcohol campaigns are rightfully concerned with changing these misper-
ceptions. At the university where this study was conducted, for example,
health educators have undertaken an intensive campaign, entitled 7 out of
10, to show that roughly 70% of students consume only zero to three drinks in
one sitting.
To what extent are these efforts likely to bear fruit? Although we do not
currently have rigorous evaluations of normative restructuring campaigns,
available evidence (Wechsler et al., 2003) indicates that these campaigns
have not been successful in curtailing consumption. Wechsler et al. (2003)
further found that total volume of consumption actually increased in colleges
that had experimented with normative restructuring campaigns. This most
likely reflects selection biases—that colleges with more serious alcohol prob-
lems would be more likely to implement interventions to begin with—but
clearly more studies need to investigate this further.
Findings reported in this article suggest, however, that the effectiveness of
these norms-based campaigns can be improved significantly if we conceptu-
alize norms in terms of perceived prevalence and simultaneously consider
the underlying mechanisms. By taking into account these normative mecha-
nisms, for example, we were able to increase the predictive power of our mod-
els significantly—from 27% to 63% of explained variance. From a practical
perspective, the question then becomes “How can health promotion efforts
incorporate findings from this article to enhance their effectiveness?” Based
on our findings, we propose a number of strategies.
First, our results indicate that the most influential normative mechanism
is students’ perceptions about alcohol-related outcomes. Not only were stu-
dents who perceived more (compared to fewer) benefits more likely to have
stronger intentions about drinking, but this effect was moderately enhanced
if students also believed that most of their peers engaged in drinking. Hence,
it appears that antialcohol campaigns should focus not only on rectifying
misperceptions about the prevalence of consumption (the prevailing prac-
tice), but they should also concentrate on restructuring students’ perceptions

407
COMMUNICATION RESEARCH • June 2005

about consumption-related benefits. At this point in the research, we do not

know the extent to which these perceptions about benefits correspond with
actual benefits that students derive from drinking. Similar to recent research
about the misperceptions associated with the prevalence of drinking, it is per-
haps time to begin conducting research that seeks to determine whether and
to what extent perceived benefits mirror actual benefits. It may well be that
students also harbor exaggerated perceptions about alcohol-related benefits.
If so, antialcohol campaigns could disseminate messages that counter mis-
perceptions about consumption-related benefits. Alternatively, they could
develop messages that portray benefits relative to significant costs associ-
ated with alcohol consumption. The challenge, of course, is to present these
messages in a credible fashion.
Given the strong relation between perceived benefits and consumption
reported in this article, it is possible that messages that do not acknowledge
students’ extant perceptions about benefits (by only focusing on the costs
associated with drinking) will engender strong counterarguments. Perhaps
focusing on the benefits to be derived from not consuming alcohol is a viable
strategy. In other words, if campaigns can disseminate a dual message—that
most students do not drink excessively and that most of them derive signifi-
cant benefits from responsible drinking—we may be able to use the link
between benefits and consumption in a positive way. Furthermore, as sug-
gested earlier, if students believe that most others suffer from alcohol-related
harm, but they themselves remain immune to it and in fact derive benefits
from it, then health promotion efforts could concentrate on correcting this
mismatch between ascribed harm to others and benefits to oneself. The
challenge, it seems, is to be able to accomplish this task in a credible and
persuasive manner.
Second, we observed that descriptive norms and similarity to others also
jointly affected students’ intention to consume alcohol, although this relation
was relatively weaker than the main effects. It appears that the effectiveness
of extant public health efforts to rectify normative misperceptions can be
enhanced if students are persuaded to draw similarities between themselves
and other nondrinking peers. If campaigns are successful in convincing stu-
dents that most of their peers are responsible consumers of alcohol, then stu-
dents who see similarities between themselves and most other students may
curtail their own consumption patterns.
We also observed significant main effects as well as a weak interaction
effect of descriptive norms and anticipatory socialization on students’ inten-
tion to consume alcohol. Perhaps the most striking aspect of this finding has
to do with the fact that participants in our study were not yet university stu-
dents—we conducted the survey among high school graduates who were

408
 Rimal, Real • Normative Social Behavior

preparing to come to the university for the first time. Even among this popu-
lation, perception about alcohol’s function as a social lubricant was signifi-
cantly correlated with intention to consume alcohol. Thus, high school gradu-
ates, before they set foot in college, have already learned to associate alcohol
consumption with significant social benefits—that it “is a part of college
experience” or that “drinking alcohol is an important social life.”3 These per-
ceptions are likely based on their own prior experience. If so, it appears that
colleges that seek to reduce alcohol consumption by their students need to
consider interventions that target students before they come to college,
perhaps by forming coalitions with high schools.

Limitations

One of the primary limitations of this study concerns our dependent variable
intention to consume alcohol. We do not know the extent to which the inten-
tions reported by students in our sample are under- or overreported. Neither
do we know how well these intentions correlate with actual consumption.
There is empirical support, however, that intentions are reasonable proxies
for actual behavior. Kim and Hunter (1993) found, for example, that inten-
tions explained 67% of the variance in behavior. Given that students in our
sample were legally underage, we opted to measure intention (as opposed to
actual consumption) to not put students in an awkward situation where they
would be asked to admit to engaging in an illegal activity. Despite this limita-
tion, we nevertheless believe that it is important to understand the behav-
ioral intentions with which students enter a university for the first time.
The second limitation of this study was its design. We did not manipulate
any of the variables, and so, as with any correlational study, the implied
causal link between norms and behaviors is speculative. It may well be the
case, for example, that students who harbor strong intentions to drink alco-
hol subsequently justify these intentions by construing that most others also
drink. If so, we need to ask questions about where those initial intentions
originate to tackle the problem at the source. Success from norms-based
strategies (Peeler et al., 2000; Steffian, 1999) seems to suggest, however, that
focusing on normative perceptions is likely to bear fruit.

Conclusion

To more fully understand the influence of normative perceptions on human

behavior, Cialdini et al. (1990) made a distinction between descriptive norms
and injunctive norms. Descriptive norms, in their conceptualization, describe
the environment (i.e., they tell us what is), whereas injunctive norms impose

409
COMMUNICATION RESEARCH • June 2005

behavioral guidelines (they tell us what to do). Cialdini et al. proposed that
the cognitive processes that govern the influences of these two types of norms
on behavior are likely different. Whereas behavior changes resulting from
injunctive norms are likely because of social pressures brought to bear by the
presence of others (peer pressure, for example), behavior changes resulting
from informational norms are likely because of changes in individuals’ inter-
nal frames. Hence, whereas external supervision is required for injunctive
norms to influence behavior, informational norms can influence behaviors in
the absence of such supervision. This is in line with Kelman’s (1961) distinc-
tion between persuasion brought about through compliance, which is associ-
ated with coercion, and internalization, which is not.
Although we found that injunctive norms exercised a direct influence on
behavioral intention, they did not interact with descriptive norms. Hence,
evidence from this study indicates that these two processes operate inde-
pendent of each other. This is incongruous with our prior study (Rimal &
Real, 2003), conducted among college students with the use of identical mea-
sures, in which the interaction between injunctive and descriptive norms was
significantly associated with consumption. We suspect that we did not find
the interaction effect in this study for two reasons. First, participants had not
yet lived with members of their social network, as they were incoming stu-
dents. In our prior study, participants were students who had already spent
more than a year on campus. It could be that injunctive and descriptive
norms jointly affect consumption only after social networks have been more
firmly established—when sanctions become meaningful. Second, questions
used in this study asked about perceptions of approval from authority figures
(university administrators, parents, etc.); it is likely that the influence of
injunctive norms are greater when approval cues emanate from members of
students’ social circles. These are issues for further testing and confirmation.
It is likely, however, that an understanding of this distinction between
descriptive and injunctive norms and incorporating it into our health promo-
tion campaigns can enhance their effectiveness. Current norms-based cam-
paigns to reduce alcohol consumption are concerned mainly with descriptive
norms. They have been conducted under the assumption that, by changing
individuals’ perceptions about the prevalence of a behavior—that is by cor-
recting misperceptions about descriptive norms, behavior change will follow.
The TNSB proposed and tested in this article points out, however, that
research that seeks to understand how norms influence behaviors must
make the distinction between descriptive and injunctive norms and take into
account the role of outcome expectations and group identity.

410
 Rimal, Real • Normative Social Behavior

Notes

1. Rajiv N. Rimal, Ph.D. (Stanford University, 1995) is an assistant professor in the

Department of Health Policy and Management at the Bloomberg School of Public
Health, Johns Hopkins University. Kevin Real, Ph.D. (Texas A & M University, 2002) is
an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Ken-
tucky. This research was conducted during the first author’s tenure at the University of
Texas. Authors thank Frances Hamm for her contribution to this research, the anony-
mous reviewers who provided much feedback, and the coeditor, Dr. Roloff, whose input
was invaluable. Please address all correspondence to rrimal@jhsph.edu.
2. Aiken and West (1991) recommend that interaction tests should be conducted by
(a) centering the predictors around their mean, (b) standardizing the predictors and
the criterion variable, and (c) interpreting the unstandardized regression coefficients.
In our analyses, we adopted these procedures for testing the effects of the normative
mechanisms and the effects of the normative mechanism multiplied by descriptive
norms interaction terms.
3. This is consistent with prior research, which has found that by seventh grade,
almost 90% of the students had formed normative perceptions of collegiate drinking
(Thombs, Olds, & Ray-Tomasek, 2001).

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpret-
ing interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting
social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Austin, E. W., & Knaus, C. (2000). Predicting the potential for risky behavior
among those “too young” to drink as the result of appealing advertising.
Journal of Health Communication, 5, 13-27.
Baer, J. S., Stacy, A., & Larimer, M. (1991). Biases in the perception of drinking
norms among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52, 580-586.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood
Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Baum-Baicker, C. (1985). The psychological benefits of moderate alcohol con-
sumption: A review of the literature. Drug & Alcohol Dependence, 15, 305-
322.
Bendor, J., & Swistak, P. (2001). The evolution of norms. American Journal of
Sociology, 106, 1493-1545.
Borsari, B. E., & Carey, K. B. (1999). Understanding fraternity drinking: Five
recurring themes in the literature, 1980-1998. Journal of American Col-
lege Health, 48, 3037.
Borsari, B. E., & Carey, K. B. (2001). Peer influences on college drinking: A
review of the research. Journal of Substance Abuse, 13, 391-424.
Cashin, J. R., Presley, C. A., & Meilman, P. W. (1998). Alcohol use in the Greek
system: Follow the leader? Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 59, 63-70.

411
COMMUNICATION RESEARCH • June 2005

Christensen, P. N., Rothgerber, H., Wood, W., & Matz, D. C. (2004). Social
norms and identity relevance: A motivational approach to normative
behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1295-1309.
Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.). New York:
Harper Collins.
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of norma-
tive conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering public
places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015-1026.
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational
social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 51, 629-636.
Donohew, R. L., Hoyle, R. H., Clayton, R. R., Skinner, W. F., Colon, S. E., & Rice,
R. E. (1999). Sensation seeking and drug use by adolescents and their
friends: Models for marijuana and alcohol. Journal of Studies on Alcohol,
60, 622-631.
Dorsey, A. M., Sherer, C., & Real, K. (1999). The college tradition of “drink ‘til
you drop”: The relationship between students’ social networks and engag-
ing in risky behaviors. Health Communication, 4, 313-334.
Downs, W. R. (1987). A panel study of normative structure, adolescent alcohol
use and peer alcohol use. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 48, 167-175.
Dufour, M. (1996). Risks and benefits of alcohol use over the life span. Alcohol
Health & Research World, 20, 145-151.
Engs, R. C., Diebold, B. A., & Hanson, D. J. (1996). The drinking patterns and
problems of a national sample of college students, 1994. Journal of Alcohol
and Drug Education, 41, 13-33.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Rela-
tions, 7, 117-140.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fraser, M. W., & Hawkins, J. D. (1984). The social networks of opioid abusers.
International Journal of the Addictions, 19, 903-917.
Gliksman, L., Newton-Taylor, B., Adlaf, E., & Giesbrecht, N. (1997). Alcohol
and other drug use by Ontario university students: The roles of gender,
age, year of study, academic grades, place of residence and programme of
study. Education, Prevention and Policy, 4, 117-129.
Goodwin, L. (1989). Explaining alcohol consumption and related experiences
among fraternity and sorority members. Journal of College Student Devel-
opment, 30, 448-458.
Grenier, C. E., Gorskey, E. J., & Folse, D. W. (1998). A survey analysis of alcohol
use at a Black university in the deep South. Journal of Child and Adoles-
cent Substance Abuse, 7, 79-92.
Haemmerlie, F. M., Montgomery, R. L., & Saling, C. (1994). Age of first use and
present use of alcohol by undergraduates. Psychological Reports, 75, 1268-
1270.
Haines, M., & Spear, S. F. (1996). Changing the perception of the norm: A
strategy to decrease binge drinking among college students. Journal of
American College Health, 45, 134-140.

412
 Rimal, Real • Normative Social Behavior

Haines, M. P. (1996). A social norms approach to preventing binge drinking at

colleges and universities. Newton, MA: The Higher Education Center for
Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention.
Hibbard, J. H. (1985). Social ties and health status: An examination of moder-
ating factors. Health Education Quarterly, 12, 23-34.
Hopkins, H., & Emler, N. (1990). Social network participation and problem
behavior in adolescence. In K. Hurrelmann & F. Loesel (Eds.), Health haz-
ards in adolescence: Prevention and intervention in childhood and adoles-
cence (pp. 385-407). Oxford, UK: Walter De Gruyter.
House, J. S., Landis, K. R., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and
health. Science, 241, 540-545.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endow-
ment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic per-
spectives, 5, 193-206.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values and frames. American
Psychologist, 39, 341-350.
Kandel, D. B. (1973). Adolescent marijuana use: Role of parents and peers.
Science, 181, 1067-1069.
Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly,
25, 57-78.
Kim, M., & Hunter, J. (1993). Relationships among attitudes, intentions and
behavior. Communication Research, 20, 331-364.
Monahan, J. L., & Lannutti, P. J. (2000). Alcohol as social lubricant: Alcohol
myopia theory, social self-esteem, and social interaction. Human Commu-
nication Theory, 26, 175-202.
Palmer, C. J., Lohman, G., Gehring, D. G., Carlson, S., & Garrett, O. (2001).
Parental notification: A new strategy to reduce alcohol abuse on campus.
National Association of Student Personnel Administrators Journal, 38,
372-385.
Peele, S., & Brodsky, A. (2000). Exploring psychological benefits associated
with moderate alcohol use: A necessary corrective to assessments of drink-
ing outcomes? Drug & Alcohol Dependence, 60, 221-247.
Peeler, C. M., Far, J., Miller, J., & Brigham, T. (2000). An analysis of the effects
of a program to reduce heavy drinking among college students. Journal of
Alcohol and Drug Education, 45, 39-54.
Perkins, H. W., & Berkowitz, A. D. (1986). Perceiving the community norms of
alcohol use among students: Some research implications for campus alco-
hol education programming. International Journal of the Addictions, 21,
961-976.
Perkins, H. W., Meilman, P. W., Leichliter, J. S., Cashin, M. A., & Presley, C. A.
(1999). Misperceptions of the norms for the frequency of alcohol and other
drug use on college campuses. Journal of American College Health, 47,
253-258.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and
contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.
Phillips, D. P. (1980). Airplane accidents, murder, and the mass media:
Towards a theory of imitation and suggestion. Social Forces, 58, 1001-
1024.

413
 COMMUNICATION RESEARCH • June 2005

Phillips, D. P., & Cartensen, L. L. (1986). Clustering of teenage suicides after

television news stories about suicide. New England Journal of Medicine,
315, 685-689.
Prendergast, M. L. (1994). Substance use and abuse among college students:
A review of recent literature. Journal of American College Health, 43, 99-
113.
Quigley, B. M., & Collins, R. L. (1999). The modeling of alcohol consumption: A
meta-analytic review. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 60, 90-98.
Rimal, R. N., & Real, K. (2003). Understanding the influence of perceived
norms on behaviors. Communication Theory, 13, 184-203.
Rosenstock, I. M. (1974). Historical origins of the health belief model. Health
Education Monographs, 2, 328-335.
Rosenstock, I. M. (1990). The health belief model: Explaining health behavior
through expectancies. In K. Glanz, F. M. Lewis, & B. K. Rimer (Eds.),
Health behavior and health education: Theory, research and practice (pp.
39-62). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schroeder, C. M., & Prentice, D. A. (1998). Exposing pluralistic ignorance to
reduce alcohol use among college students. Journal of Applied Social Psy-
chology, 28, 2150-2180.
Seeman, M., Seeman, T., & Sayles, M. (1985). Social networks and health sta-
tus: A longitudinal analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 237-248.
Steffian, G. (1999). Correction of normative misperceptions: An alcohol abuse
prevention program. Journal of Drug Education, 29, 115-138.
Sutton, S. R. (1982). Fear-arousing communication: A critical examination of
theory and research. In J. R. Eiser (Ed.), Social psychology and behavioral
medicine (pp. 303-337). London: Wiley.
Thombs, D. L., Olds, R. S., & Ray-Tomasek, J. (2001). Adolescent perceptions
of college student drinking. American Journal of Health Behavior, 25, 492-
501.
Valente, T. W. (1994). Network models of the diffusion of innovations. Cres-
skill, NJ: Hampton.
Wechsler, H., Dowdall, G. W., Davenport, A., & Castillo, S. (1995). Correlates
of colleges student binge drinking. American Journal of Public Health, 85,
921-926.
Wechsler, H., Molnar, B. E., Davenport, A., & Baer J. (1999). College alcohol
use: A full or empty glass? Journal of American College Health, 47, 247-
252.
Wechsler, H., Nelson, T. F., Lee, J. E., Seibring, M., Lewis, C. & Keeling, R. P.
(2003). Perception and reality: A national evaluation of social norms mar-
keting interventions to reduce college students’ heavy alcohol use. Jour-
nal of Studies on Alcohol, 64, 484-494.
Weinstein, N. D. (1989). Optimistic biases about personal risks. Science, 246,
1232-1233.
Weinstein, N. D., & Klein, W. M. (1995). Resistance of personal risk percep-
tions to debiasing interventions. Health Psychology, 14, 132-140.
West, G. B., Moskal, P. D., Dziuban, C. D., & Rumbough, L. P. (1996). Gender
and marital differences for risk taking among undergraduates. Psycholog-
ical Reports, 76, 315-320.

414

View publication stats