Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education (JADE)

Drug Education: The Effects of Giving Information

Author(s): KEITH PICKENS
Source: Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Spring, 1985), pp. 32-44
Published by: Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education (JADE)
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/45091539
Accessed: 06-03-2024 14:58 +00:00

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education (JADE) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education

This content downloaded from 196.4.80.2 on Wed, 06 Mar 2024 14:58:42 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Drug Education: The Effects of Giving Information
KEITH PICKENS
New Zealand Council for Educational Research
Wellington , N.Z.

Introduction

One of the legacies of the 1960s and early 1970s is a healthy mistrust of
factual' or 'informative' drug education. During those years, while programmes
based on information proliferated, young people continued to use and experi-
ment with drugs at a seemingly ever increasing pace. Indeed, so marked were
these two trends that more than a few began to wonder whether drug education
of this particular type might not itself be an important cause of adolescent drug
misuse.

Suspicions of this kind, plus the obvious evidence of programme ineffective-

ness, led to a search for methods or approaches that were not so information-
oriented. The ones that eventually emerged did shift the focus in a very
significant way away from information about substances to the development of
the individual, or to the nature of the drug-using situation itself. Yet, for all the
very praise worthy activity that went into developing new packages and tech-
niques, only programmes of the alternatives variety were, in general, able to
eschew information-giving completely. Most of the others contained a drug
information component, incorporated with but incidental to the main thrust, be
it values clarification, decision-making, personal development, or attitude
change.
But whether they avoided information-giving entirely, or regarded it as a
necessary evil, to be given no special emphasis, second generation drug educa-
tion activities have been no more successful in achieving the desired objectives
than the programmes they replaced. They may have done little harm either, of
course. Be that as it may, a third generation of drug education programmes
now seems to be emerging, and there are indications that these programmes or
at least some of them, regard information-giving in a positive way, and give it
considerable prominence. For example, a new programme from the Institute
for the Study of Drug Dependence contains a set of pupil fact sheets, describing
the methods of ingestion for different drugs, and the kinds of effects these drugs
produce, categories of information for students that, in the past, have often
been frowned upon. Yet the programme is research-based, and commonsense in
the extreme. How can one educate about drugs without talking about drugs?
Already the ISDD approach has made its way to the Antipodes (Department
of Education, 1982), suggesting that its particular approach to the role of
information-giving in drug education may be the wave of the future.
If information-giving is coming into vogue again, then it is time to examine
the evidence on the effects of giving information about drugs as part of drug
education, as a way of evaluating what the significance and possible impact of
this new trend might be.

32

This content downloaded from 196.4.80.2 on Wed, 06 Mar 2024 14:58:42 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Impact of Information on Knowledge
Studies of drug education programmes that include the giving of information
about drugs or drug use invariably report that students exposed to these pro-
grammes increase their knowledge scores. It should be noted, however, that in
almost all cases measurement occurred immediately after the completion of the
programme, when recall could be expected to be at its highest. The findings of
the handful of studies that have followed this initial post-test with later mea-
surements suggests that there will be little fall off in knowledge during the first 3
months following the programme (Beai, 1977; Engs et al., 1978; but cf. De Haes
and Schuurman, 1975), that there will probably be some reduction after 6 to 12
months (Smart et al., 1976; Simon and Moyer, 1976) and that difficult concepts
or ideas will not be retained as well as information of a less complex type
(Simon and Moyer, 1976).
There is nothing very unusual about these findings. All they say is that if
long term maintenance of the initial knowledge gain is required then there must
be regular testing, to determine where the losses have occurred, and provision
made for relearning as and when this is found to be necessary.
Do some methods or approaches produce a greater initial learning gain than
others? The research is inconclusive on this point, probably because the handful
of studies (Pethel, 1971; Benberg, 1973; Smith, 1973; Sadler and Dillard, 1978;
Hewitt and Nutter, 1979) that raise the question do not take into account fac-
tors like the age or ability of the students, the length of the learning period, the
kind of information being conveyed, or the skill or attitudes of the teacher. If
we ignore this limitation, and simply take the relevant studies one by one, the
following possibilities suggest themselves.

1. Planned programmes will be more effective than informal ones (Benberg,

1973).

2. Informal approaches will work better with older students (Benberg, 1973;
Pethel, 1971; Sadler and Dillard, 1978; Smith, 1973).

3. Longer programmes will have more impact than shorter ones (Degnan,
1971; Sohn, 1976).

4. Multi-media methods will be more effective than traditional methods with

below average students (Young, 1973).

5. Certain characteristics of the group, for example, the number of drug

users present, may be more important than the method of delivery (Con-
nor, 1974; Smart and Krakowski, 1972).
One needs only a nodding acquaintance with the research on learning theory
or teaching styles to see that this fits the general pattern. In any case, the really
important questions are not concerned with how the information gain is pro-
duced but with the impact of increased information about drugs on attitudes to
drugs, and the nature of the relationship between information about drugs and
drug use.

33

This content downloaded from 196.4.80.2 on Wed, 06 Mar 2024 14:58:42 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Impact of Information on Attitudes
Studies of the impact of information on attitudes (Figure 1) suggest that
pro-drug attitudinal changes may be as likely as anti-drug changes, and that on
some occasions there may be no discernible impact at all.

FIGURE 1

The Effects of Drug Information on Drug Attitudes: 26 Studies

Results

Study Knowledge Attitudes Use

Adams (1976) Increase NS Decrease
Amendolara (1973) Increase Anti NM
Barresi and Giglotti (1975) NS NS NM
Beai (1977) Increase Anti NM
Booher (1974) Increase NS NM
Bruett (1972) NS Pro NS
Connor (1974) Increase NS NM
De Haes and Schuurman (1975) Increase NS NS
English (1972) NM Anti NM
Frederick (1975) Increase NS NM
Galvin and Starkey (1971) NM Anti NM
Goodstadt et al. (1978) Increase Pro/ Anti NM
Haskins (1979) NM NS NM
Irwin (1975) Increase Anti NM
Johnson (1972) NM Pro/ Anti NM
Jones (1974) Increase NS NM
Korn and Goldstein (1975) Increase Anti NS
Mascoll (1976) Increase Pro NS
Mason (1972) Increase Pro NM
Pethel (1971) NS NS NS
Pipher (1977) NS NS NS
Schmidt et al. (1977) NM Anti NM
Simon and Moyer (1976) Increase NS NM
Swisher and Crawford (1971) Increase NS NM
Swisher and Horman (1970) Increase Anti NM
Tandy (1972) Increase Anti NS
Note: Includes only studies 1970-1979 using a
attitudinal change as a main or only objec
NM Not measured Pro Pro-drug attitudinal change
NS Not significant Anti Anti-drug attitudinal change

No doubt differences in the kind of information, the credibility of the present-

er, the means of presentation and the characteristics of the students (particular-
ly their receptiveness), as well as differences in the way attitude 'change' is
measured, and attitudes identified as either 'pro' or 'anti,' accounts for these
contradictory results. Whatever the explanation, the main point is that at the

34

This content downloaded from 196.4.80.2 on Wed, 06 Mar 2024 14:58:42 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
present time no certain way of producing negative attitudes, however these may
be defined, in young people towards drug use or drug users via the giving of
information is known. Further, there may be, in any case, no necessary rela-
tionship between drug knowledge and drug attitudes, or between attitudes to
drugs and drug use.

The Impact of Information on Behaviour

Giving young people information about drugs can have, as far as drug-using
behaviour is concerned, three results (Figure 2). First, there may be no effect at
all, that is, drug users do not increase or decrease their use, and non-users
exposed to drug education become users at much the same rate as non-users
who are not recipients of this information. Second, there may be a clear effect
on behaviour - either a reduction in drug use, or an increase. Finally, there may
be a mixed result, that is, some students increase use while others decrease their
use, or the use of some drugs increase while other drugs become less popular.
Cook and Morton (1975), Davidson and Fletcher (1974), Dorn (1977), Jack-
son and Calsyn (1977), Pemberton (1976), Pipher (1977), Sine (1976), Tandy
(1972) and Toennies (1971) all produced results of the first kind, that is, an
information gain without any apparent effect on drug-using behaviour.

FIGURE 2

The Effects of Drug Information on Drug Use: 14 Studies

Study Results Substance
Cook and Morton (1975) NS Drugs
Davidson and Fletcher (1974) NS Tobacco
Pemberton (1976) NS Tobacco
Pipher (1977) NS Alcohol
Sine (1976) NS Tobacco
Tandy (1972) NS Tobacco
Toennies (1971) NS Drugs
Stuart (1974) Increase Drugs
Weaver and Tennant (1973) Increase Drugs
Adams (1976) Decrease Alcohol
Evans and Borgatta (1970) Decrease Tobacco
Tennant et al. (1974) Decrease Drugs
Blum et al. (1976) Increase/ Decrease Drugs
Blum et al. (1978) Increase/ Decrease Drugs
Note: Includes only studies 1970-1979 using an information stra
behavioural change as a main or only objective.
NS Not significant

Apart from this similarity, what do these studies have in com

begin with, most of them are concerned with either alcohol or
drugs which are widely accepted, used and available in western
are also drugs which take some time to produce permanent and

35

This content downloaded from 196.4.80.2 on Wed, 06 Mar 2024 14:58:42 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
rious effects. All of these things make them, one could argue, very elusive
targets for drug education.
Secondly, with some exceptions, all of the studies were of subjects who were
already drug users. The suggestion is that information approaches may be of
little value once a habit of use has been firmly established - especially if the
drugs are alcohol or tobacco.
The kind of information conveyed is, of course, a very relevant consideration
and in this particular set of studies the commonest form of information appears
to have been information about the physiological effects of the drugs. Given
that the subjects were already users, and that the drugs in question are widely
used, it is arguable if information of this kind could be expected to have any
impact on levels of use.
Another possibility is that the programmes in question were simply of too
short a duration to have much effect on behaviour. Some took less than 3
hours, most probably falling within the 5 to 10 hour bracket. Other variables
that might have influenced the outcome include teacher training and teacher
commitment. And it is always possible, of course, that the programmes were
not implemented correctly, destroying whatever integrity they may have had.
Finally, deficiencies in design may have obscured the outcome. For example,
most studies measured the effects as soon as the programme was completed or,
at the most, within a few months. This may not have given time for any behav-
ioural changes to emerge. And in at least three cases (Cook and Morton, 1975;
Davidson and Fletcher, 1974; Sine, 1976) there was no control group, making
the assessment of effects problematic.
It is worth pointing out that we can't be sure that these programmes had no
effects on behaviour - only that behavioural changes of an expected or antici-
pated kind did not emerge during the time span considered.
Two studies (Stuart, 1974; Weaver and Tennant, 1973) reported an increase in
drug use following drug education using an information approach. However, it
is difficult to be sure that the increased use revealed by post-tests was genuine,
and not merely a result of faulty design or, if it was genuine, that the increase
was due to the nature of the intervention (Goodstadt, 1974). Indeed, the prob-
lems of interpretation are such that all we can say with certainty of these studies
is that they raise the possibility that under some circumstances information
approaches to drug education may be counter-productive.
Unfortunately, the suggestion that drug education of this kind may actually
exacerbate drug use can be supported by anecdotal evidence (Stickgold and
Brovar, 1978), and perhaps also by the research on the characteristics of drug
users. This invariably shows that drug users possess more knowledge about
drugs than non-drug users. Now it may be that users of drugs actively seek such
information. It may be that knowledge about drugs and use of drugs are not
directly, that is, causally related but appear to be so because of the presence of
some other hidden or unmeasured condition or characteristics, for example, a
willingness to take risks.

36

This content downloaded from 196.4.80.2 on Wed, 06 Mar 2024 14:58:42 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FIGURE 3

Three Possible Explanations of the Relationship Between

Drug Knowledge and Drug Use or Experimentation
1. Drug Use or Produces a desire Information
Experimentation or interest in About Drugs
2. Information Drug Use
About Produces or
Drugs Experimentation
3. Information If associated with other Drug Use
About factors such as peer use, or
Drugs or availability, produces Experimentation

But it could also be that giving certain kinds of information or giving

mation in a particular way or at a particular time lead on to drug
example, there is some reasons to suppose that information of the foll
kinds, may, in certain circumstances, act more like drug instruction t
education.

1. Information about methods of ingestion.

2. Information that allows a pupil to precisely identify different kinds of
pills, or commercial products that can be used for sniffing.
3. Information about drugs that are available to, but not in wide use among,
the target population.
4. Information about the physiological effects of different drugs.
Three studies (Adams, 1976; Evans and Borgatta, 1970; Tennant, 1974) re-
ported a decrease in drug use following information-based drug education pro-
grammes. Unfortunately, the populations treated differed widely, and there are
the usual difficulties of interpretation caused by deficiencies and differences in
the research /evaluation designs. Consequently, all that one can say of these
three studies is that they raise the possibility that under certain conditions, as
yet undefined, some kinds of drug information may produce a reduction in the
use of drugs, or restrain expansion of drug use.
The majority of the studies available indicate that drug information has no
effect on drug use. A few reports suggest that drug information can, in some
circumstances, reduce drug use. Others raise the possibility that the opposite is
also true. And there are still other studies that indicate that drug information
education can produce both effects simultaneously.
Blum et al. (1976), in a very well designed and managed study, measured the
impact of three different drug education strategies. A scale ranging from 1
(Abstainers) to 9 (high heroin/ cocaine use) was used to assess stability and
spread, that is, changes in kind and frequency of drug use.
Blum and his associates found that drug education, compared to no drug
education, had a de-stabilizing effect on patterns of drug use. That is, children
exposed to drug education tended to either increase their frequency of use

37

This content downloaded from 196.4.80.2 on Wed, 06 Mar 2024 14:58:42 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
and /or moved on to progressively 'harder' substances. However, an informa-
tion strategy reduced spread, that is, changes in frequency of use and /or the
extent to which new drugs were tried, more than a programme employing dis-
cussion focused on decision-making and values clarification.
The overall effects of the information strategy, in other words, were to stimu-
late the use of the common substances alcohol and cannabis, while, at the same
time, retarding the use of less common substances, and restraining increases in
the frequency of drug use.
Blum et al. also found that the strongest effects seemed to occur with chil-
dren who began their drug education around the age of 1 1 years, younger, and
older, students showing less sign of being influenced.
A follow-up study (Blum et al., 1978) concentrated its attention on children
of the age group (11 years) found to be most susceptible in the previous study,
and on the effects, once again, of an information strategy. The findings were in
general terms similar to those of the earlier study, but with some refinements.
For example, it was discovered that the impact of the information approach
depended, at least in part, on the nature of the target audience. For children
with lesser experience of alcohol/ tobacco information-giving tended to be asso-
ciated with greatest stability and reduced spread, that is, the children's pattern
of drug use, both with regard to frequency of use and kinds of drugs used,
tended to stay the same; those students who did change their patterns of use did
not do so in an extreme way. On the other hand, among more experienced
children, stability was enhanced by minimal drug education, that is, by provid-
ing as little education as possible. However, those children in the minimal drug
education experience who did change their patterns of use tended to show the
greatest degree of spread, increasing their frequency of use, and the range of
drugs used, in a far more extreme way than any of the children in the other
experimental groups. Spread was reduced, among more experienced children,
by an approach that combined discussion emphasizing decision-making with
information. This kind of approach, however, also produced the greatest
instability - the net result being that while use of the common substances -
alcohol, tobacco, cannabis - was stimulated, a restraining influence was exerted
on the use of hard drugs - amphetamines, barbiturates, hallucinogens, heroin
and cocaine. This was a replication of the basic findings of the earlier study.
Blum and his associates also detected a teacher effect, in that it appeared that
the combined discussion/information approach worked best with skilled and
enthusiastic teachers, the information strategy producing better results in cases
where the teachers were less skilled and less committed to the programme. The
Blum studies are of particular importance for the following reasons:

1. They indicate that information approaches (and indeed all approaches) to

drug education are likely to have mixed, that is, both positive and nega-
tive effects. This finding is supported by several other studies (notably de
Haes and Schuurman, 1975; Sieber et al., 1978 and Swift et al., 1974).

2. They indicate that the prior drug experience of the target group is an

38

This content downloaded from 196.4.80.2 on Wed, 06 Mar 2024 14:58:42 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 important determinant of the kind of educational strategy that should be
employed.
3. They suggest that the skill and enthusiasm of the teacher has a significant
effect on the ouctome of a drug education programme.
4. They suggest that drug education will have most impact if it coincides
with the period of development during which young people both began to
make significant use of legal drugs and start to have significant degrees of
contact with illegal drugs. Before this stage drug education will be
irrelevant - after it it will be ineffective.

5. They provide a possible explanation for the handful of studies that pro-
duced only negative or positive results, as well for the larger number of
studies that report no effects at all. For example, if drug education tends
to increase or stimulate the use of commoner substances like alcohol,
tobacco or cannabis while decreasing or restraining the use of more exotic
drugs, then studies which examine the effects on the use of drugs at only
one end of the soft-hard spectrum are likely to give a false impression of
the results of education. Similarly, if the timing of the intervention is
important, then programmes that begin too soon, or too late, will be
ineffectual. By the same token, if the drug experience of the subjects, and
the skill and commitment of the teachers, influence the outcome of educa-
tion then programmes that take no account of these factors may have no,
or a much reduced, impact.

Summary
Giving young people information about drugs does make them, at least in
the short term, more knowledgeable about drugs. However, the information
anyone has about drugs or a specific drug is only one of the factors that influ-
ences a decision to experiment with that drug, to begin to use it regularly or to
increase the frequency of use or the amount used. Further, some studies suggest
that variables like parent attitudes (Davidson and Fletcher, 1974; Tandy, 1972),
age and race (Cook and Morton, 1975) or peer use (Swisher et al., 1972) are
more influential in decisions of these kinds than the level of information an
individual has. It is always important to remember that non-use of drugs tends
to be correlated with lack of information rather than the reverse.

Giving young people information about drugs does not necessarily make
them anti-drug; in a number of cases pro-drug attitudinal changes have oc-
curred.

Banishing information from drug education programmes completely is, how-

ever, not a viable proposal since information about drugs, of varying degrees of
accuracy and completeness, will always be available to young people from their
peers, the media, or other sources (Taqu, 1972; Fejet et al., 1971).
The kind of information, its perceived relevance, the timing and medium of
presentation, the credibility of the source and the age and drug experience of
the audience are just some of the variables that seem to influence the outcome
of information-giving as an approach to, or component of, drug education. The

39

This content downloaded from 196.4.80.2 on Wed, 06 Mar 2024 14:58:42 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
actions and interactions involved are, however, little understood. For this rea-
son the effects of drug information on behaviour are best regarded as unpredict-
able. An increase in drug use may be as probable an outcome as a decrease:
mixed results may be more likely than either a purely negative or positive
outcome.

FIGURE 4

Variables Influencing the Outcome of Information Strategies

1 Source - Characteristics and Credibility
Examples of Sources Some Source Characteristics
Teachers Status
Peers Personal Attractiveness
Parents Expertness
Experts Age
Ex-Addicts Ethnicity
2 Message - Characteristics and Tone
Some Message Formats Some Message Types
One-Sided Fear Arousing
Multi-Faceted Humorous
Emotional

3 Medium - Channel or Modality

Some Media Types Some Reception Modes
Films Watching
Oral Face-to-Face Interactive
Tapes Listening
Printed Material Reading
Mass Media

4 Audience - Characteristics and Size

Some Audience Characteristics Some Audience Sizes
Age One to One
Sex Small Group
Drug Experience Class Size
Knowledge Lecture Size
Social Class Mass Audience

5 Goal - Objectives and Purposes

Some Goal Types
To increase knowledge about drug
To increase knowledge about a spe
To change attitudes
To suppress use of illegal drugs
To minimize use of heroin
To enhance decision-making skills

Based on Smart, R. G. and Fejer, D. Drug Education: An Information Proc-

essing Approach, in Drug Education : Current Issues, Future Directions, Toron-

40

This content downloaded from 196.4.80.2 on Wed, 06 Mar 2024 14:58:42 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
to, Addiction Research Foundation, 1974 and Einstein, S. Drug Abuse Preven-
tion: Issues, Problems and Alternatives, in The Community's Response to Drug
Use, New York, Pergamon Press, 1980. Adapted and used with permission.

References

Adams, D. B. (1976) "Evaluation of an educational program for juvenile alco-

hol offenders and their parents." Ph.D., University of Utah.
Amendolara, F. R. (1973) "Modifying attitudes toward drugs in seventh grade
students." Journal of Drug Education, 3 (Spring): 71-78.
Barresi, C. M. and Giglioni, R. J. (1975) "Are drug education programmes
effective?" Journal of Drug Education, 5 (4): 301-316.
Beai, L. E. (1977) "Youth education about alcohol: evaluation of a multi-level
program conducted by teachers and peer leaders." Ph.D., University of
Pittsburgh.
Benberg, T. E. (1973) "The effects of a planned curriculum on correlates of
drug-abuse behaviour." Ed.D., East Texas State University.
Blum, R. H., Blum, E. and Garfield, E. (1976) "Drug education: results and
recommendations." Lexington, Mass.: Lexington.
Blum, R. H., Garfield, E. F., Johnstone, J. L. and Magistad, J. (1978) "Drug
education: further results and recommendations." Journal of Drug Issues, 8
(4): 379-426.
Booher, D. B. (1974) "An evaluation of certain aspects of a Dade county public
schools' drug education program: grades four, five, six." Ed.D., University of
Miami.
Bruett, T. L. (1972) "Predicting drug abuse and evaluating selected educational
approaches to preventing drug abuse." Ed.D., University of Georgia.
Connor, B. C. (1974) "An evaluation of alcohol education methods." Ph.D.,
University of Pittsburgh.
Cook, R. F. and Morton, A. S. (1975) "An assessment of drug education-
prevention programs in the U.S. army." Washington, D.C.: United States
Army Research Institute for the Behavioural and Social Sciences. Technical
Paper 261.
Davison, R. L. and Fletcher, S. M. (1974) "Education about smoking among
young adults: a study in a college of further education." U ICC Technical
Report Series 2, 11: 24-29.
Degnan, E. J. (1971) "An exploration into the positive relationship between
depression and a positive attitude toward drugs in young adolescents and an
evaluation of a drug education program." Ed.D., Rutgers University.
De Haes, W., Schuurman, J. (1975) "Results of an evaluation study of three
drug education methods." International Journal of Health Education, 17 (4):
1-16.

Department of Education (1982) "Health Education Resources Project Drug

Education." Wellington: Department of Education.
Dorn, N. et al. (1977) "The DEDE project." London: Health Education Coun-
cil/ Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence.

41

This content downloaded from 196.4.80.2 on Wed, 06 Mar 2024 14:58:42 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Einstein, S. (1980) "Drug abuse prevention: issues, problems and alternatives."
Pp. 201-241 in S. Einstein (ed.) "The Community's Response to Drug
Abuse." New York: Pergamon.
English, G. E. (1972) "The effectiveness of emotional-appeal versus fact-giving
drug educational films." Journal of School Health, 42 (9): 540-541.
Engs, R. C. et al. (1978) "The drinking behaviour of college students and cogni-
tive effects of a voluntary alcohol education program." NASPA Journal, 15
(3): 59-63.
Evans, R. R. and Borgatta, E. F. (1970) "An experiment in smoking dissuasion
among university freshmen: a follow up." Journal of Health and Social Be-
haviour, 11 (1): 30-36.
Fejer, D. et al. (1971) "Sources of information about drugs among high school
students." Public Opinion Quarterly, 35 (19): 235-241.
Fredericks, J. (1975) "Community alcohol education and prevention program."
Ph.D., Utah State University.
Galvin, B. and Starkey, J. (1972) "A study of attitude change concerning mari-
juana in the fourth grade." De Kalb: Northern Illinois University. (Ed
062640)
Goodstadt, M. S. (1974) "Myth and methodology in drug education: a critical
review of the research evidence." Pp. 113-146 in M. S. Goodstadt (ed.) "Re-
search on Methods and Programs of Drug Education." Toronto: Addiction
Research Foundation.

Goodstadt, M. S. (1975) "Impact and roles of drug education in drug educa-

tion." Journal of Drug Education, 5 (3): 223-234.
Goodstadt, M. S., Sheppard, M. A. and Crawford, S. H. "Development and
evaluation of two alcohol education programs for the Toronto Board of
Education." Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation.

Haskins, J. B. (1979) "Evaluating the effect of a one-day drug education pro-

gram for high school journalists." Journal of Drug Education, 9 (3): 263-271.
Hewitt, D. and Nutter, R. W. (1979) "A comparison of three drug information
presentations." Journal of Drug Education, 9 (1): 79-90.
Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence (1982) "Facts and Feelings about
Drugs But Decisions About Situations." London: Institute for the Study of
Drug Dependence.
Irwin, R. P. (1975) "Classroom teaching about cigarette smoking." Cancer Fo-
rum, 5: 240-243.
Jackson, J. and Calsyn, R. J. (1977) "Evaluation of a self-development ap-
proach to drug education some mixed results." Journal of Drug Education,
7 (1): 15-26.
Johnson, D. P. (1972) "A study of relationships between drug abuse education
and attitudes toward six classes of abused drugs." D.S.W., Tulane University
School of Social Work.

Jones, W. L. (1974) "A study of tenth grade student attitudes toward and drug

42

This content downloaded from 196.4.80.2 on Wed, 06 Mar 2024 14:58:42 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 knowledge of drug abuse when related to a drug education program."
Ed.D., University of Southern Mississippl.
Korn, J. H. and Goldstein, J. W. (1973) "Psychoactive drugs: a course evalua-
tion." Journal of Drug Education, 3 (4): 353-368.
Mascoll, S. H. (1976) "The effect of alcohol education programs on the knowl-
edge, attitudes, and intended behaviour of eighth grade students." Ed.D.,
Columbia University Teachers College.
Mason, M. L. (1972) "Drug education effects." Ph.D., The University of
Florida.

Pemberton, J. (1976) "Smoking surveys at the Royal Belfast academical institu-

tion." Health Education Journal, 35 (2): 175-179.
Pethel, D. L. (1971) "Comparison of two approaches to instruction on drug
abuse." School Health Review, 2 (2): 9-11.
Pipher, J. R. (1977) "An evaluation of an alcohol course for junior high school
students: an examination of differential course effectiveness as associated
with subject characteristics." Ph.D., University of Nebraska.
Sadler, O. W. and Dillard, N. R. (1978) "A description and evaluation of
trends: a substance abuse education program for sixth graders." Journal of
Educational Research, 71 (3): 171-175.
Schmidt, W. K., Burchiel, S. W. and Meyers, F. H. (1977) "The pharmacology
of drug abuse: a novel approach to drug education at San Quentin." Drug
and Alcohol Dependence, 2 (3): 175-183.
Sieber, J. E., Clark, R. E., Smith, H. H. and Sanders, N. (1978) "Warranted
uncertainty and student's knowledge and use of drugs." Contemporary Edu-
cational Psychology, 3 (3): 246-264.
Simon, R. K. and Moyer, D. H. (1976) "A preliminary assessment of a cooper-
ative drug education pilot project in the middle school." Journal of School
Health, 46 (6): 325-328.
Sine, R. L. (1976) "The comparative effect of a values approach with a factual
approach on the drug abuse and smoking behaviour of college students."
Journal of the American College Health Association, 25 (2): 113-116.
Smart, R. G., Bennett, C. and Fejer, D. (1976) "A controlled study of the peer
group approach to drug education." Journal of Drug Education, 6 (4): 305-
311.

Smart, R. G. and Fejer, D. (1974) "Research into what influences the effective-
ness of drug information communications." Pp. 22-28 in R. G. Smart and
D. Fejer (eds.) "Drug Education: Current Issues, Future Directions." Toron-
to: Addiction Research Foundation.

Smart, R. G., Krakowski, M. (1972) "Selective exposure to information about

the harmful effects of marijuana and tranquilizers." Journal of Drug Educa-
tion, 2 (3): 279-288.
Smith, B. C. (1973) "Values clarification in drug education: a comparative
study." Journal of Drug Education, 3 (4): 369-376.

43

This content downloaded from 196.4.80.2 on Wed, 06 Mar 2024 14:58:42 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Sohn, M. F. (1976) "Change in factual knowledge and reported use of illicit
drugs resulting from the viewing of a motion picture." Ph.D., University of
Maryland.
Stickgold, A. and Brover, A. (1978) "Undesirable sequelae of drug abuse educa-
tion." Contemporary Drug Problems, 7 (1): 99-115.
Stuart, R. B. (1974) "Teaching facts about drugs: pushing or preventing?" Jour-
nal of Educational Psychology, 66 (2): 189-201.
Swift, B., Dorn, N. and Thompson, A. (1974) "Evaluation of drug education:
findings of a national research study of effects of secondary school students
of five types of lessons given by teachers. London: Institute for the Study of
Drug Dependence.
Swisher, J. D. and Crawford, J. L. (1971) "An evaluation of a short-term drug
education programme." School Counselor, 18 (1): 265-272.
Swisher, J. D. and Horman, R. E. (1970) "Drug Abuse prevention." The Jour-
nal of College Student Personnel, 11 (5): 337-341.
Swisher, J. D., Warner, R. W. and Herr, E. L. (1972) "Experimental compari-
son of four approaches to drug abuse prevention among ninth and eleventh
graders." Journal of Counseling Psychology, 19 (4): 328-332.
Tandy, R. E. (1972) "Smoking among teen-agers: effects of programmed in-
struction on attitudes, behaviour and knowledge." International Journal of
Health Education, 15 (2): 106-112.
Taqi, S. (1972) "The drug cinema." Bulletin on Narcotics, 24: 19-29.
Tennant, F. S., Möhler, P. J., Drachler, D. H. and Silsby, H. D. (1974) "Effec-
tiveness of drug education classes." American Journal of Public Health, 64
(5): 422-426.
Toennies, J. E. (1971) "Effectiveness of selected treatments in a drug education
program for university freshmen." H.S.D., Indiana University. 123 pp.
Weaver, S. C. and Tennant, F. S. (1973) "Effectiveness of drug education pro-
grams for secondary school students." American Journal of Psychiatry, 130
(7): 812-814.
Young, L. W. (1973) "An analysis of the comparative effectiveness of pro-
grammed multimedia teaching and traditional teaching of drug information
to junior high school students." Ed.D., Oregon State University.

44

This content downloaded from 196.4.80.2 on Wed, 06 Mar 2024 14:58:42 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms