The Influence of Social Norms on College

Student Alcohol and Marijuana Use

Todd F. Lewis and Elysia Clemens
The Alcohol and Other Drug survey (adapted from D. Thombs, 1999) was administered to 235 under-
graduates at a southeastern university to assess the influence that gender-specific normative perceptions
have on 2 substance abuse patterns. Multiple regression analyses confirmed that gender-specific normative
beliefs accounted for variance in alcohol use intensity and frequency of marijuana use beyond the variance
accounted for by sociodemographic variables. Implications for college counselors are discussed.

A
recent survey by the Core Institute (2004) indicated that alcohol and
marijuana are college students’ substances of choice. For example, related
to alcohol consumption, 8 out of 10 college students (84.7%) reported
drinking in the year previous to the survey administration; 7 out of 10 (72.0%)
reported drinking in the previous month; and almost half (48.8%) reported
binge drinking, defined as consuming five or more drinks in a row during the
previous 2 weeks for men and four drinks for women (Core Institute, 2004).
Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug among college students
(Core Institute, 2000, 2004): One third (33.3%) of students reported use in
the previous year and almost one fifth (18.9%) reported use in the previous
month (Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2005).
Despite a preponderance of research highlighting the prevalence estimates
of alcohol and marijuana use as well as numerous prevention initiatives, the
rates of alcohol consumption have remained stable and marijuana use has risen
steadily over the past decade and a half (Core Institute, 2004; Wechsler, Lee,
Kuo, & Lee, 2000; Wechsler et al., 2002). The scope of the problem related
to alcohol and marijuana use among college students can be further gauged by
recent studies highlighting the prevalence and danger of excessive consump-
tion. For example, Knight et al. (2002) found that nearly one third (31%) of
college students reported engaging in drinking behaviors that were consistent
with the criteria for alcohol abuse. Violent behavior, physical assault, injuries,
and death are associated with drinking alcohol (Hingson, Heeren, Winter, &
Wechsler, 2005). According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, Office of Applied Studies (2006), the highest rates of emergency
room visits related to marijuana abuse were among traditional-age college students
(i.e., 18- to 24-year-olds). Among the notable consequences for both alcohol and
marijuana use by students are engaging in high-risk behaviors, such as driving
under the influence or unsafe sexual behavior (Hingson, Heeren, Zakocs, Kop-
stein, & Wechsler, 2002; National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA], 2005b) and
academic problems (Engs, Diebold, & Hansen, 1996; NIDA, 2005a; Wechsler
et al., 2002). Clearly, continued research into the risk factors associated with
Todd F. Lewis and Elysia Clemens, Department of Counseling and Educational Development, The University of North
Carolina at Greensboro. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Todd F. Lewis, Department
of Counseling and Educational Development, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 219A Curry Building,
School of Education, Greensboro, NC 27402 (e-mail: tflewis@uncg.edu).

© 2008 by the American Counseling Association. All rights reserved.

Journal of College Counseling  ■  Spring 2008  ■  Volume 11 19

alcohol and marijuana use is needed to inform intervention and prevention
strategies designed to curb this threat on U.S. college campuses.
The myriad problems related to college student alcohol and marijuana use
have prompted researchers to continue exploring explanatory frameworks to
help guide substance-related interventions. One promising framework is social
norm theory, or, simply, social norms (Berkowitz, 2004). Social norm theory
is based on the premise that “our behavior is influenced by incorrect percep-
tions of how other members of our social groups think and act” (Berkowitz,
2004, p. 5). Misperception is the discrepancy between actual behaviors and
what individuals perceive the norm for such behaviors to be. The idea that
college students misperceive the frequency of high-risk behavior is well estab-
lished in the literature (Berkowitz, 2004) and has been a guide for promot-
ing college health among several colleges and universities (Berkowitz, 2004;
Keeling, 2000). Indeed, several educational institutions in the United States
have reported reductions in alcohol use, drinking and driving, and high-risk
sexual behavior through individual counseling interventions and campuswide
campaigns grounded in social norm theory (Berkowitz, 2004; Fabiano, 2003;
Gilder, Midyett, Mills-Novoa, Johannessen, & Collins, 2001).
An issue that has arisen in the literature, however, is identifying what consti-
tutes the most salient of the normative misperceptions. In this context, salience
refers to which type of social normative beliefs—those related to behavior of
closest friends (also referred to as proximal peer networks) or those related to
behavior of the typical student (also referred to as distal peer networks)—exerts
the greatest influence on personal substance use behavior. Increasing evidence
suggests that college students’ use of marijuana and alcohol is more highly
correlated with perceptions of closest friends’ use of these substances than
with perceptions of the typical student’s use (Borsari & Carey, 2003; Kilmer
et al., 2006; Korcuska & Thombs, 2003; M. A. Lewis & Neighbors, 2006).
The relative strength of the relationship between personal substance use and
closest friends’ use (vs. typical student’s use) is significant because it highlights
a potential weakness in the current social norm intervention. Generally, social
norm campus campaigns rely on correcting students’ misperceptions of the
behavior of the typical student (or distal peer groups) on campus (M. A.
Lewis & Neighbors, 2004), yet the closest friends (or proximal peer groups)
seem to be the most influential (Borsari & Carey, 2003; Kilmer et al., 2006;
Korcuska & Thombs, 2003; M. A. Lewis & Neighbors, 2004).
A related area of debate within the social norm literature is the relative
importance of examining reference groups (proximal or distal) from a gender-
specific perspective. In this view, the strength of influence of social norms may
depend on whether the reference group is the same or the opposite gender.
The scant amount of research on this topic has produced equivocal results. In
one study, college students tended to overcalculate the quantity and frequency
of alcohol consumption of their same-gender peers (M. A. Lewis & Neigh-
bors, 2004), whereas in another study, proximal peer norms of the opposite
gender had unique relationships with three measures of alcohol use (quantity
of consumption, frequency of consumption, and frequency of drunkenness;

20 Journal of College Counseling  ■  Spring 2008  ■  Volume 11

Thombs, Ray-Tomasek, Osborn, & Olds, 2005). These findings suggest that
further research is needed to clarify which gender-specific social norms have
the greatest influence on drinking behavior. Furthermore, gender-specific
normative belief patterns with marijuana use are unknown.
Incorporating gender-specific normative information in the context of tar-
geting influential proximal peer groups may strengthen social norm campus
campaigns designed to reduce substance use among college students (Korcuska
& Thombs, 2003). Such information may help colleges and universities develop
more sophisticated, effective social norm campus campaigns and refine substance
use interventions for individuals and small groups. In addition to campuswide
interventions, campus counselors may be able to use gender-specific social
norms as a starting point in the process of correcting students’ misperceptions
and helping them to generate their own standards of behavior.
The specific aim of this study was to assess and compare the relative impact
that gender-specific normative perceptions have on two substance use pat-
terns—alcohol use intensity and frequency of marijuana use—among a sample
of college students. The main research questions were (a) Do gender-specific
social norms account for more variance in alcohol and marijuana use than
do sociodemographic variables? and (b) Are the patterns of gender-specific
normative influences the same for alcohol use intensity and frequency of
marijuana use among college students? Given the relative strength of associa-
tion between norms and substance use that has been indicated in previous
research, we predicted that gender-specific norms would account for more
variance than would sociodemographic variables. We further hypothesized
that perceptions of the substance use behavior of closest friends of the same
gender would emerge as the dominant norm measure predicting alcohol use
intensity and frequency of marijuana use for self, respectively.

Method
Participants and Procedure
Data were collected from a convenience sample of 235 undergraduates from a
medium-sized university in the Southeast. Trained research assistants approached
undergraduate classes in the School of Education to solicit participation. The School
of Education classes were selected because they have traditionally included a diverse
sample of individuals with various academic majors and class ranks. Data were also
collected from focus groups solicited by the Student Health Department at the
university. The focus groups were designed to question undergraduates about the
effectiveness of social norm campus campaign messages the university was beginning
to use as well as to collect survey data for this study. Academic majors represented
in the sample included nutrition, deaf education, social work, education, psychol-
ogy, criminal justice, business, nursing, and undecided.
Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire that queried them
regarding recent substance use patterns and behaviors. Participation was vol-
untary, and, to ensure their anonymity, we asked students to place completed

Journal of College Counseling  ■  Spring 2008  ■  Volume 11 21

surveys in a box provided by the research assistants. Participants were told
that they could withdraw at any time without repercussion. The survey took
approximately 15 minutes to complete.
In the total sample, 72.3% were women and the mean age was 21.2 years. The
majority (74.0%) of participants identified themselves as White, followed by African
American (19.1%), other (2.6%), Asian American (2.1%), Latino American (1.3%),
and multiracial (0.4%; percentages do not equal 100% because of rounding). The
participants were distributed relatively evenly across academic class rank, with
freshmen constituting 29.4% of the sample, sophomores 25.5%, juniors 25.1%,
and seniors 18.7% (3 participants did not provide class rank). Of the participants,
10% identified themselves as a fraternity or a sorority member.

Instrument
The Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) survey is a 32-item questionnaire adapted
from the work of Thombs (1999) and designed to assess a broad range of alco-
hol and other drug use behaviors among college students, including measures
of quantity and frequency of alcohol and marijuana use and perceptions of peer
substance use. In addition to items assessing substance use, several sociodemo-
graphic items were assessed, including gender, ethnicity, living quarters, member of
fraternity or sorority, member of athletic team, hours per week hanging out with
friends, hours per week at a job for pay, hours per week spent on academic tasks,
boyfriend/girlfriend frequency of alcohol use in past 30 days, boyfriend/girlfriend
frequency of marijuana use in past 30 days, and grade point average (GPA).

Gender-Specific Social Norm Questions

Related to alcohol use. Gender-specific social norm composite variables for alcohol
use were generated from the AOD survey. Specifically, four gender-specific so-
cial norm variables were created using closest friend (same gender and opposite
gender) and typical student on campus (same gender and opposite gender) as
the reference groups. Two questionnaire items assessed the variable perceived
alcohol use intensity of closest friend–same gender: one item gauged perceived
frequency of alcohol use of closest friend (“Think of your closest friend on cam-
pus who is the same sex. How often do you think he or she drinks?”) and one
measured perceived quantity of alcohol use of closest friend (“Think of your
closest friend on campus of the same sex. How much do you think he or she
drinks on a typical occasion?”). For perceived frequency of alcohol use of clos-
est friend, responses were rated on a scale that ranged from 1 (once a month or
less) to 8 (7 times a week). For perceived quantity of alcohol use of closest friend,
responses were rated on a scale that ranged from 1 (one drink or less) to 8 (12 or
more drinks). Scores on these two items were summed for an overall composite
norm score (ranging from 2 to 16). The same pattern for scoring was followed
for the other alcohol normative variables: perceived alcohol use intensity of closest
friend–opposite gender, perceived alcohol use intensity of typical student–same
gender, and perceived alcohol use intensity of typical student–opposite gender.
Alpha reliabilities for these variables ranged from .70 to .78 (see Table 1).

22 Journal of College Counseling  ■  Spring 2008  ■  Volume 11

 Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Alpha Reliabilities of Social Norms and
Alcohol and Marijuana Use in a Sample of College Students (N = 235)
Possible
Measure Range M SD a
Perceived alcohol use intensity of closest friend
Same gender 2–16 6.61 3.67 .76
Opposite gender 2–16 7.50 3.90 .78
Perceived alcohol use intensity of typical student
Same gender 2–16 7.69 3.19 .70
Opposite gender 2–16 8.60 3.48 .70
Perceived frequency of marijuana use by closest frienda
Same gender 1–6 2.04 1.45
Opposite gender 1–6 1.92 1.34
Perceived frequency of marijuana use by typical studenta
Same gender 1–6 2.44 1.00
Opposite gender 1–6 2.72 1.03
Alcohol use intensity for self 2–16 5.59 3.40 .78
Frequency of marijuana use for selfa 1–6 1.36 0.98
a
Single-item measure, no alpha.
Related to marijuana use. As with alcohol use, four gender-specific social norm
variables were created using closest friend (same gender and opposite gender) and
typical student on campus (same gender and opposite gender) as the reference
groups. However, because of the difficulty of gauging quantity of marijuana use in
a self-report measure (students would most likely be unaware of how much THC
they ingested), all questions related to marijuana use only pertained to frequency
of use. Perceived frequency of marijuana use by closest friend–same gender was as-
sessed by the single questionnaire item “During the past 30 days, how many times
do you think your closest friend of the same gender used marijuana?” Responses
were rated on a scale that ranged from 1 (none) to 6 (40 or more times). The other
marijuana normative variables (perceived frequency of marijuana use by closest
friend–opposite gender, perceived frequency of marijuana use by typical student–
same gender, and perceived frequency of marijuana use by typical student–opposite
gender) were also assessed by single questionnaire items.

Alcohol Use Intensity and Frequency of Marijuana Use

One drink was defined for participants as equivalent to one 12-ounce can or bottle
of beer, one 4-ounce glass of wine, one mixed drink containing 1 ounce of liquor,
or one “shot” of liquor. Measurement for the variable alcohol use intensity for
self was a composite score of responses to two questions designed to parallel the
perceived norms questions related to alcohol use: quantity of use for self (“How
many drinks do you have on a typical occasion?”) and frequency of use for self
(“How often do you drink?”). For quantity of use for self, responses were rated
on a scale that ranged from 1 (none) to 8 (12 or more); for frequency of use for
self, responses were rated on a scale that ranged from 1 (once a month or less) to
8 (7 times a week). Previous research (Korcuska & Thombs, 2003; Thombs &
Briddick, 2000; Thombs, Olds, & Ray-Tomasek, 2001) has demonstrated that

Journal of College Counseling  ■  Spring 2008  ■  Volume 11 23

the combination of quantity and frequency measures of alcohol use usually results
in high internal consistency. The alpha reliability for alcohol use intensity for self
in the current study was .78 (see Table 1). The variable frequency of marijuana
use for self was assessed by the following single question: “During the past 30
days, on how many occasions (if any) have you smoked marijuana?” Responses
were rated on a scale that ranged from 1 (none) to 6 (40 or more times).

Analytic Strategy
Two separate stepwise multiple regression analyses were run to address the research
questions. In these analyses, two criterion variables were used; each was regressed
one at a time on the predictor variables: alcohol use intensity (composite score
of frequency of alcohol consumption and quantity of alcohol consumption) and
frequency of marijuana use. Several sociodemographic variables (entered first)
and gender-specific social norms served as the predictor variables. The gender-
specific norms in each predictor set corresponded to the substance in question.
That is, in predicting alcohol use intensity, normative variables related to students’
perceived alcohol consumption of peers, and in predicting frequency of marijuana
use, normative variables related to students’ perceived marijuana use of peers. We
sought to examine the relative influence of gender-specific norms on alcohol and
marijuana use for self as compared with several sociodemographic variables that are
commonly associated with alcohol use in student populations and that have been
used in previous research (T. F. Lewis, Thombs, & Olds, 2005; Perkins, Haines,
& Rice, 2005; Wechsler et al., 2002). These sociodemographic variables were
the same for each regression model: gender, ethnicity, living quarters, member
of fraternity or sorority, member of athletic team, hours per week hanging out
with friends, hour per week at a job for pay, hours per week spent on academic
tasks, boyfriend/girlfriend frequency of alcohol use in past 30 days, boyfriend/
girlfriend frequency of marijuana use in past 30 days, and GPA. Because of their
use in previous research, these variables were believed to provide a basis from
which the explanatory power of gender-specific norms could be gauged.

Results
Representativeness of Study Sample
The most current, large-scale national study using a representative sample of
college students comes from the Harvard School of Public Health College
Alcohol Survey, which is an ongoing assessment of alcohol use patterns, be-
haviors, and attitudes among college students in the United States (Wechsler
et al., 2002). In the most recent report, Wechsler et al. (2002) found that
heavy, episodic drinking was indicated by 44% of the sample. The rate of
heavy, episodic drinking for the current study sample was slightly higher at
48.6%. Wechsler et al. (2002) also found that 22.8% of the national sample
reported frequent heavy, episodic drinking (i.e., engaging in a binge-drinking
episode three or more times in the previous 2 weeks), compared with 20.9%
of the current sample. Thus, in terms of drinking behavior, the sample of
24 Journal of College Counseling  ■  Spring 2008  ■  Volume 11
college students in the current study is similar to (although is not identical
to) a large, national sample of U.S. college students in general.
Comparisons with Wechsler et al. (2002) can be made for other character-
istics. For example, women were overrepresented in the current study sample
(72.3% in the current study sample vs. 64% in the national sample). The same
percentage of White students (74.0%) emerged in both the study sample and
the Wechsler et al. (2002) sample. The study sample consisted of a higher
percentage of freshmen (29.4%) and sophomores (25.5%) compared with
Wechsler et al.’s (2002) national sample (23% and 22%, respectively). Data were
not provided for juniors and seniors in the Wechsler et al. (2002) study.
Women in the current study sample were slightly overrepresented (72.3%) com-
pared with the proportion of women enrolled at the university during the time
of data collection (68%); however, the proportion of African American students
in the current study sample (19.1%) was similar to the proportion campuswide
(20%). Although numerous academic majors and programs were included in the
current study sample, there was underrepresentation from the schools of Health
and Human Performance, Music, and Human Environmental Sciences.

Alcohol Use Intensity

Of the total sample of 235 participants, 2 cases were dropped because of excessive
missing data, resulting in 233 usable cases for the regression analysis predicting alcohol
use intensity. Table 1 summarizes the descriptive statistics and the alpha reliabilities
of the measures. The regression results related to this dependent measure are sum-
marized in Table 2. Overall, the predictor set (multiple R = .80) had a significant
impact on alcohol use intensity, F(3, 230) = 137.36, p < .001. In combination,
the predictor variables of perceived alcohol use intensity of closest friend–same
gender, class rank, and perceived alcohol use intensity of closest friend–opposite
Table 2
Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis of Gender-Specific Social
Norms and Sociodemographic Variables Predicting Alcohol Use
Intensity and Frequency of Marijuana Use
Significant Predictor at Final Step b p<
Alcohol use intensity (R 2 = .64, overall F = 137.36, p < .001)
Perceived alcohol use intensity of closest friend
Same gender .66 .001
Opposite gender .16 .05
Class rank –.13 .05
Frequency of marijuana use (R 2 = .43, overall F = 42.07, p < .001)
Perceived frequency of marijuana use by closest friend
Same gender .37 .05
Opposite gender .27 .05
Perceived frequency of marijuana use by typical student
Opposite gender –.15 .05
Boyfriend/girlfriend frequency of marijuana use in past 30 days –.14 .05

Note. n = 233 undergraduates for alcohol use intensity analysis; n = 224 undergraduates for
frequency of marijuana use analysis.

Journal of College Counseling  ■  Spring 2008  ■  Volume 11 25

gender accounted for 64.2% of the variance in alcohol use intensity. An examina-
tion of the beta weights in Table 2 demonstrates that the two norm measures were
positively associated with the dependent variable, whereas class rank was negatively
associated. The following variables also were in the alcohol use intensity analysis but
did not have regression coefficients significantly different from 0: gender, ethnicity,
living quarters, member of fraternity or sorority, member of athletic team, hours per
week hanging out with friends, hour per week at a job for pay, hours per week on
academic tasks, perceived alcohol use intensity of typical student–opposite gender,
perceived alcohol use intensity of typical student–same gender, boyfriend/girlfriend
frequency of alcohol use in past 30 days, and GPA.

Frequency of Marijuana Use

From the total sample, 11 cases were dropped from the regression analysis
predicting frequency of marijuana use because of excessive missing data, result-
ing in 224 usable cases. Table 2 summarizes the regression results related to
frequency of marijuana use. Overall, the predictor set (multiple R = .66) had a
significant impact on frequency of marijuana use, F(4, 220) = 42.07, p < .001.
Perceived frequency of marijuana use by closest friend–same gender, perceived
frequency of marijuana use by closest friend–opposite gender, boyfriend/girlfriend
frequency of marijuana use in past 30 days, and perceived frequency of mari-
juana use by typical student–opposite gender explained 43.3% of the variance
in frequency of marijuana use. The beta weights in Table 2 indicate that the
two proximal peer norm measures of the frequency of marijuana use (closest
friend of the same and of the opposite gender) were positively associated with
the dependent variable, whereas boyfriend/girlfriend frequency of marijuana
use in past 30 days and the one significant distal peer norm measure, perceived
frequency of marijuana use by typical student–opposite gender, were negatively
related. The following 11 variables also were in the frequency of marijuana use
analysis but did not have regression coefficients significantly different from 0:
gender, ethnicity, class rank, living quarters, member of fraternity or sorority,
member of athletic team, hours per week spent on academic tasks, hours per
week hanging out with friends, hour per week at a job for pay, GPA, and per-
ceived frequency of marijuana use by typical student–same gender.

Discussion
We predicted that (a) gender-specific social norms would account for more
variance in alcohol and marijuana use compared with sociodemographic
variables and (b) perceived alcohol use intensity and perceived frequency of
marijuana use of closest friend of the same gender would emerge as the domi-
nant norm measure for both alcohol and marijuana use for self. The results
supported both hypotheses. Normative beliefs accounted for a full 62.8% of
the variance in alcohol use intensity above and beyond the variance accounted
for by sociodemographic variables and 41.8% of the variance in frequency of
marijuana use beyond that accounted for by sociodemographic variables. The
norm measures associated with closest friend of the same gender produced the

26 Journal of College Counseling  ■  Spring 2008  ■  Volume 11

greatest unique impact in both regression models (see observed beta weights,
Table 2). Typical student of the opposite gender emerged as an additional
norm measure predicting only frequency of marijuana use; however, the beta
weight indicated that this relationship was negative. Thus, the normative pat-
tern becomes slightly different when examining frequency of marijuana use.
College students may be influenced by perceptions beyond those related to
closest friends when it comes to smoking marijuana, and these perceptions
may actually have a limiting effect on marijuana use. Future research is needed,
however, to confirm this finding.
The results support previous research that personal alcohol use is more
strongly associated with close-knit, proximal peer norms compared with
distal peer norms (Borsari & Carey, 2003; Kilmer et al., 2006; Korcuska &
Thombs, 2003; M. A. Lewis & Neighbors, 2006). These findings also suggest
that proximal peer influence may extend across different substance classes.
Much of the research on the social norm phenomenon has been with alcohol
consumption. Our results demonstrate that proximal peer norms can have an
important influence on frequency of marijuana use as well.
Additionally, these results help clarify which gender-specific social norms
have the greatest impact on drinking behavior as well as offer a first look at
the gender-specific normative patterns with marijuana use. Our findings are
consistent with those of M. A. Lewis and Neighbors (2004), who found that
college students tended to overcalculate the quantity and frequency of alco-
hol consumption of same-gender peers, and those of Korcuska and Thombs
(2003), who found that same-gender norms for closest friends were stronger
predictors than were same-gender norms for typical students. The results of
the current study expand on those of M. A. Lewis and Neighbors (2004) by
comparing both gender-specific proximal and distal reference groups and by
using a more diverse sample of college students. The Korcuska and Thombs
study did not incorporate opposite-gender norms as a basis for comparison
with same-gender norms, something addressed by the current study. How-
ever, because of the relatively limited number of studies that have examined
gender-specific norms and their relation to collegiate substance use, additional
studies are needed to substantiate the finding that same-gender proximal peer
groups exert the greatest influence on alcohol consumption and marijuana
use among college students.
The findings from this study are qualified by several limitations of the meth-
odology. First, the AOD survey is a self-report instrument, thus increasing
the chances of possible biased or random response patterns, although par-
ticipants were assured of their anonymity and of the voluntary nature of the
study. Second, the cross-sectional, correlational nature of this study precludes
firm conclusions regarding causal influences among the variables of interest.
Third, the retroflective, self-report nature of this study does not allow for an
examination of how the predictor variables influence actual substance-related
behaviors as they are occurring in the moment. Finally, the nonprobability
sample was from one region of the country, thus weakening external validity.
However, this limitation is mitigated somewhat by proportional similarities

Journal of College Counseling  ■  Spring 2008  ■  Volume 11 27

among drinking variables and other characteristics between the current sample
and a national probability sample. Convenience sampling was deemed appro-
priate in this study because of the adequate student body representativeness
achieved in the School of Education elective classes and because this research
represents a first step in determining the impact of gender-specific norms on
substance use. Unfortunately, perfect representativeness was not achieved
(e.g., lack of representation of all schools at the university, overrepresentation
of women), which raises questions about how the variables of interest apply
outside of the study sample.

Implications for College Counselors

Despite these limitations, the implications of this study are substantive at the
institutional, small-group, and individual client levels. College counselors can
use the information from this study as a reference for the design and imple-
mentation of social norm campus campaigns and for interventions to reduce
alcohol and marijuana use as part of their harm prevention work.
Counselors who serve as substance abuse task force or committee members
may wish to emphasize the importance of normative campus campaigns that
address proximal student groups and that such programs can be enhanced by
generating messages to same-gender peers (e.g., athletes, fraternity or sorority
members). Most normative campus campaigns, although effective to some
extent, focus exclusively on distal peer norms (M. A. Lewis & Neighbors,
2004), thus ignoring the increasingly robust finding that proximal peer groups
exert a greater influence on student drinking behavior. Although generating
normative campus campaigns to address proximal peer groups has its chal-
lenges (Thombs et al., 2005), college counselors are in a unique position to
help students become aware of the influences of the alcohol and marijuana
use of their closest friends. College counselors can also educate university
administration and personnel about the realities of campus alcohol-related
problems and garner administration backing for such normative campus cam-
paigns, given that denial of alcohol issues and lack of administration support
are two major reasons why prevention and intervention efforts meet with
limited success (Wechsler & Wuethrich, 2003).
Individual and group counseling interventions based on normative feedback can
be an important emphasis for college counselors (Berkowitz, 2004). Berkowitz
suggested sharing normative information in a nonjudgmental way consistent with
the principles of motivational interviewing, a counseling style designed to reduce
client resistance, resolve ambivalence about changing problematic behaviors, and
assist in increasing one’s intrinsic motivation to change negative habits (Miller
& Rollnick, 1991). Motivational interviewing adopts a gentle, persuasive style;
avoids argumentation; and supports a client’s self-efficacy in making positive
changes and thus seems well-suited for college students struggling with substance
use problems (Berkowitz, 2004). Specifically, college counselors might choose
to engage clients in an exploration of the drinking (or marijuana use) habits of
closest friends of the same gender, thus garnering clues as to alcohol use (or

28 Journal of College Counseling  ■  Spring 2008  ■  Volume 11

marijuana use) habits for self. This may also lead to useful discussions about how
peer pressure contributes to substance use, how the client may be engaging in a
false consensus by trying to match a false norm, and how to build confidence in
setting personal standards of conduct rather than relying on inaccurate perceptions
of others. The exploration of information from a motivational interviewing per-
spective can help to reduce negative reactions or resistance, avoid argumentation,
and help students generate their own internal motivations to change. Overall,
individualized interventions based on normative feedback have been found to
be successful in reducing high-risk drinking behavior among college students
(Agostinelli, Brown, & Miller, 1995; Berkowitz, 2004; Fromme, Marlatt, Baer,
& Kivlahan, 1994; Larimer & Cronce, 2002).
The results of the current study offer two extensions to normative campus cam-
paigns and individual/group interventions on college campuses. First, they suggest
that the content of the normative feedback could make these interventions even
more effective. That is, rather than presenting information regarding substance use
patterns of the typical student (information that might not be very meaningful to
students), counselors could assess students’ perceptions of the substance use habits of
closest friends of the same gender and pose challenges to those misperceptions that
arise. Second, similar normative content could prove useful in addressing substance
problems beyond alcohol consumption, such as frequency of marijuana use.

Implications for Future Research

Future research is needed to determine the effectiveness of normative campus
campaigns that focus on proximal, gender-specific peer groups. This more spe-
cialized normative feedback could also be compared with traditional interven-
tions at the individual counselor level to determine its effectiveness in reducing
student substance use. Another important area for future research would be to
compare gender-specific normative patterns between college men and women.
The rationale for comparing genders stems from many findings demonstrating
that college men tend to drink, engage in binge drinking, and experience nega-
tive consequences associated with drinking more often than do college women
(Engs et al., 1996; Schall, Kemeny, & Maltzman, 1992; Wechsler et al., 2000;
Wechsler et al., 2002). These insights may lead to specific normative-based
interventions and feedback tailored for men and for women.

Conclusion
This research extends the literature by illustrating the impact of gender-specific
normative variables across two classes of substances. The findings provide fur-
ther support that proximal peer norms exert considerable influence on student
drinking behavior and revealed these norms as an important explanatory vari-
able for frequency of student marijuana use. College counselors are in a unique
position to use interventions based on social norms with individual clients as
well as to advocate for refining normative campus campaigns to reflect greater
attention to proximal, same-gender peer groups.

Journal of College Counseling  ■  Spring 2008  ■  Volume 11 29

 References
Agostinelli, G., Brown, J. M., & Miller, W. R. (1995). Effects of normative feedback on consump-
tion among heavy drinking college students. Journal of Drug Education, 25, 31–40.
Berkowitz, A. D. (2004). The social norms approach: Theory, research, and annotated bibliography.
Retrieved June 26, 2006, from http://www.alanberkowitz.com/articles/social_norms.pdf
Borsari, B., & Carey, K. B. (2003). Descriptive and injunctive norms in college drinking: A
meta-analytic integration. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64, 331–341.
Core Institute. (2000). Statistics on alcohol and other drug use on American campuses. Carbon-
dale, IL: Author.
Core Institute. (2004). Core Alcohol and Drug Survey (National sample aggregate data historical
files; prevalence data, 2004). Retrieved June 26, 2006, from http://www.siu.edu/departments/
coreinst/public_html/
Engs, R. C., Diebold, B. A., & Hansen, D. J. (1996). The drinking patterns and problems of
a national sample of college students, 1994 [Electronic version]. Journal of Alcohol and Drug
Education, 41, 13–33.
Fabiano, P. (2003). Applying the social norms model to universal and indicated alcohol interven-
tions at Western Washington University. In H. W. Perkins (Ed.), The social norms approach to
preventing school and college age substance abuse: A handbook for educators, counselors, clinicians
(pp. 83–99). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fromme, K., Marlatt, G. A., Baer, J. S., & Kivlahan, D. R. (1994). The Alcohol Skills Training Program: A
group intervention for young adult drinkers. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 11, 143–154.
Gilder, P., Midyett, S., Mills-Novoa, B., Johannessen, K., & Collins, C. (2001). Challenging the
collegiate rite of passage: A campus-wide social marketing media campaign to reduce binge
drinking [Electronic version]. Journal of Drug Education, 31, 207–220.
Hingson, R., Heeren, T., Winter, M., & Wechsler, H. (2005). Magnitude of alcohol related
mortality and morbidity among U.S. college students ages 18–24: Changes from 1998–2001
[Electronic version]. Annual Review of Public Health, 26, 259–279.
Hingson, R. W., Heeren, T., Zakocs, R. C., Kopstein, A., & Wechsler, H. (2002). Magnitude of
alcohol-related mortality and morbidity among U.S. college students ages 18–24 [Electronic
version]. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63, 136–144.
Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2005). Monitoring the
future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2004: Volume II. College students and adults ages
19–45 (NIH Publication No. 05-5728). Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Keeling, R. P. (2000). Social norms research in college health [Electronic version]. Journal of
American College Health, 79, 53–57.
Kilmer, J. R., Walker, D. D., Lee, C. M., Palmer, R. S., Mallett, K. A., Fabiano, P., & Larimer,
M. E. (2006). Misperceptions of college student marijuana use: Implications for prevention
[Electronic version]. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 67, 277–281.
Knight, J. R., Wechsler, H., Kou, M., Seibering, M., Weitzman, E. R., & Schuckit, M. A. (2002).
Alcohol abuse and dependence among U.S. college students [Electronic version]. Journal of
Studies on Alcohol, 63, 263–270.
Korcuska, J. S., & Thombs, D. L. (2003). Gender role conflict and sex-specific drinking norms:
Relationships to alcohol use in undergraduate women and men [Electronic version]. Journal
of College Student Development, 44, 204–216.
Larimer, M. E., & Cronce, J. M. (2002). Identification, prevention, and treatment: A review of
individual-focused strategies to reduce problematic alcohol consumption by college students.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol, (Suppl. 14), 148–163.
Lewis, M. A., & Neighbors, C. (2004). Gender-specific misperceptions of college student drink-
ing norms [Electronic version]. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18, 334–339.
Lewis, M. A., & Neighbors, C. (2006). Social norms approaches using descriptive drinking norms
education: A review of the research on personalized normative feedback [Electronic version].
Journal of American College Health, 54, 213–218.

30 Journal of College Counseling  ■  Spring 2008  ■  Volume 11

Lewis, T. F., Thombs, D. L., & Olds, R. S. (2005). Profiles of alcohol and marijuana-impaired
adolescent drivers. Addiction: Research and Theory, 13, 145–154.
Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (1991). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people to change ad-
dictive behavior. New York: Guilford Press.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2005a). Research report series—Marijuana abuse: How does
marijuana use affect school, work, and social life? Retrieved June 28, 2006, from http:/​/​www.
drugabuse.gov/​ResearchReports/​Marijuana/​Marijuana4.html
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2005b). Research report series—Marijuana abuse: What are
the acute effects of marijuana use? Retrieved June 28, 2006, from http:/​/​www.drugabuse.gov/​
ResearchReports/​Marijuana/​Marijuana3.html#acute
Perkins, H. W., Haines, M. P., & Rice, R. (2005). Misperceiving the college drinking norm and
related problems: A nationwide study of exposure to prevention information, perceived norms,
and student alcohol misuse. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 66, 470–478.
Schall, M., Kemeny, A., & Maltzman, I. (1992). Factors associated with alcohol use in university
students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 53, 122–136.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration, Office of Applied Studies. (2006).
Drug Abuse Warning Network, 2004: National estimates of drug-related emergency department
visits (DAWN Series D-28, DHHS Publication No. SMA 06-4143). Retrieved February 7,
2008, from http:/​/​dawninfo.samhsa.gov/files/DAWN2k4ED.pdf
Thombs, D. (1999). The Alcohol and Other Drug survey (Unpublished survey used for the col-
laborative project of the Kent State University Advisory Committee on Alcohol Issues and the
Office of Institutional Research and Decision Support, April 2000). Kent, OH: Kent State
University.
Thombs, D. L., & Briddick, W. C. (2000). Readiness to change among at-risk Greek student
drinkers. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 313–321.
Thombs, D. L., Olds, R. S., & Ray-Tomasek, J. (2001). Adolescent perceptions of college student
drinking. American Journal of Health Behavior, 25, 492–501.
Thombs, D. L., Ray-Tomasek, J., Osborn, C. J., & Olds, R. S. (2005). The role of gender-
specific normative beliefs in undergraduate alcohol use. American Journal of Health Behavior,
29, 342–351.
Wechsler, H., Lee, J. E., Kuo, M., & Lee, H. (2000). College binge drinking in the 1990’s: A
continuing problem [Electronic version]. Journal of American College Health, 48, 199–210.
Wechsler, H., Lee, J. E., Kuo, M., Seibring, M., Nelson, T. F., & Lee, H. (2002). Trends in
college binge drinking during a period of increased prevention efforts [Electronic version].
Journal of American College Health, 50, 203–217.
Wechsler, H., & Wuethrich, B. (2003). Dying to drink: Confronting binge drinking on college
campuses. Emmaus, PA: Rodale.

Journal of College Counseling  ■  Spring 2008  ■  Volume 11 31