How Drug Abuse Resistance Education Did Anything But Educate Our Youths to Resist Abusing Drugs - Kevin Rix

How Drug Abuse Resistance Education Did Anything But Educate Our Youths to Resist Abusing Drugs - Kevin Rix

Introduction

A program that is used in 75% of school districts in the United States and 43 countries throughout the world in most cases would be widely considered as one of the most effective public health programs (1). In the case of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) program which was established in 1983 by Police Chief Daryl Gates of the Los Angeles Police, it may be one of the most widely spread failures that has ever existed, and it is still being used today (1). The premise of D.A.R.E. was to have police officers come into schools over a ten-week period and teach students about the dangers associated with the use of illegal drugs. According to D.A.R.E., the group has reached over 36 million students world wide, and 26 million students in the United States (1). Though they’ve been able to reach this many students most research would suggest that this is not a positive thing. In 2001, the United States Surgeon General released a statement that categorized D.A.R.E., as an “ineffective primary prevention program”, and that D.A.R.E. was counterproductive in some communities, which caused graduates to be among the groups who tended to use drugs (4). This became so alarming that as of 2004, D.A.R.E. America is under investigation to lose all governmental funding, because the U.S. Department of education prohibits funding ineffective drug prevention programs, and since this report, D.A.R.E. has lost nearly 80% of its federal funding (15).

            In a 1992 study performed at the University of Illinois at Chicago, graduates of the D.A.R.E. program were found to be at much higher rates of using illegal drugs (2). This was especially prevalent in the use of marijuana, which saw 10.2 percent of 8^th graders in 1991 reported using marijuana to 19.9 percent in 1995 (2). The increase in marijuana use flies directly in the face of the D.A.R.E. program at its apex, with students who were exposed to the program in the late 1980s.  In 1998, psychologist William Colson stated, “As they get older, [students] become very curious about these drugs they’ve learned about from police officers (3). The use of police officers as the messengers was one of  the largest of many mistakes the D.A.R.E. program used in trying to prevent kids from using drugs, because it provided adolescents with a speaker they could not relate to, who could not be a model for them to think about during tough times, and essentially was telling them what to do.

Critique 1- Do Kids Want To Listen to Cops?

            At first glance, having an authority figure who is able to not only explain the dangers of using drugs to kids, but also the legal repercussions that they could face one day if they decided to use drugs. For the most part, police officers are role models for young kids, with position in society school departments would look at them as a group that would be ideal to talk to their developing students on why the use of illegal drugs is going to hinder them in the long run. The major problem and concern is that the use of police officers are not directly relatable to the students they are trying to convey a message to.  By using police officers as the main communicators of the message of trying to prevent kids from using drugs, proponents of the D.A.R.E. program do not adhere to a primary factor in communication theory, of making the speaker relatable or likeable.

            The youth population is among the toughest to reach and relate to in the United States. In most studies conducted, the student’s perspective on how they felt the D.A.R.E. program was being carried out was overlooked, in favor for how the teachers in their classroom were seeing it. In a study in the Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, researchers looked at “Educator perceptions of the D.A.R.E. officer”, to see how those who were delivering the message were received in schools (5). This study showed that the D.A.R.E. program was being seen in a positive light overall, and that approximately 2/3 of educators viewed the D.A.R.E. program as being positive (5). The major problem with this is that it is the educator’s perspective. Teachers evaluated this program based upon how they perceive teaching should go about. This failed to measure student’s perception of the officer’s in their classroom and how they believed their education was going. The message being delivered was a positive one of not taking drugs, but the students were not hearing it from someone they could relate to. A police officer in a classroom setting is another adult teacher to the students. Students exposed to the D.A.R.E. program were mostly in the elementary school level, and those students would grow up to find the drugs they learned about as kids to see the effects they had for themselves (6). The inability for a police officer to relate to a group of nine to thirteen year olds caused the D.A.R.E. program fail the first basic of “communication theory”. Likeability is the first step to being successful at getting a person to change his or her mind about something, D.A.R.E. assuming a cop is likeable enough as a person, did not realize that likeability meant that the kids enrolled in the program needed to accept a police officer not only as a messenger, but someone the students felt would want to like on a personal level.

Critique 2- You know what will get kids on our side…. Taking away Freedom

            In the process of getting youths to avoid using illegal drugs, the D.A.R.E. campaign capitalized on the idea that if the kids were to sign a pledge saying they wouldn’t use drugs, then all the kids the would feel morally obligated to not use drugs. The major problem with the decisions of the D.A.R.E. campaign was that by having the kids sign this pledge, the students were not gaining anything, just losing freedom. D.A.R.E. is a program that is run in the classrooms in the elementary to middle school level. Each student enrolled in the classroom is forced to sign the petition and in return get a free t-shirt that says “D.A.R.E. To Resist The War On Drugs”. Students being told that they are going to be drug free, without making the choice for themselves goes completely against the Psychological Reaction. The people running the D.A.R.E. program failed to give the kids freedom to choose whether they would be drug free, and told the kids these drugs are something you can’t have. Comparatively, The 84 took the exact opposite approach to getting youths to remain cigarette free. The 84 is a group composed of Massachusetts teenagers who comprise the 84% of Massachusetts teenagers who choose not to smoke (7). The key in this group, and how they differ from the D.A.R.E. program was that it empowers the adolescents to choose not to smoke, and become a part of a group much larger than themselves. By providing the group to make decisions for themselves, they remove the psychological reaction of being told they can’t have something. With The 84, no student is told they cannot have a cigarette; each student makes a conscious decision to say that they will not be a smoker, because they know it is bad for them, even though smoking is an available option.

            This point ties into the idea that scarcity will only increase the desire of a group to get something. In an article by Wu and San-san in the Journal of American Academy of Business, they found that, “scarcity enhances value… directly through enhancing quality and symbolic benefits thinking” (8). For signers of the D.A.R.E. pact, illegal drugs are not scarce in the idea that they cannot be easily acquired, they are instead scarce in the fact they have been told to not use them, and then signed a pledge at a younger age saying that they will not use them. This is directly related to the idea that people want what they cannot have. The D.A.R.E. pledges based upon their pledge agreement have created a scarce, “forbidden fruit”, limiting their own personal freedom and choices, because a police officer has come in, told them it was bad, and made them sign something. In a study conducted titled, “Forbidden Fruit and the Prediction of Cigarette Smoking”, researchers looked at the association prospective use of cigarettes and the idea of the forbidden fruit (9). The study suggests that, “adolescents who believed that society views smoking as an adult appropriate behavior that is not youth appropriate, but who personally approved of youth smoking were two and half times more likely to smoke cigarettes (9). This same concept can be used to describe how the D.A.R.E. program created a situation where drugs became the forbidden fruit. The important point to take away from this article is that when an adolescent perceives that society is telling them what is appropriate for them, without regard to how they feel about the topic, they are more likely to partake in that action. With the D.A.R.E. program they put this idea right in the face of the children, by having their teachers and a police officer essentially say, “we don’t want you to do this, so you shouldn’t and won’t”.

Critique 3- Who are the Students suppose to be modeling?

            A third major problem with the D.A.R.E. campaign is that it ineffectively creates a model for students to follow or even see. Social learning theory states that, the emphasis needs to be on “the importance of observing and modeling the behaviors, attitudes, and emotional reactions of others” (10). In other words, people will do what they see, not what they hear. The D.A.R.E. program relies heavily on the statistical figures that officers can present to kids, not a person or group of people who can come in and show the kids why using illicit drugs isn’t a positive thing do. By relying on data to influence an adolescent’s decision to use or not use drugs, the D.A.R.E. program limited themselves with what information a student would used when actually put into the situation of choosing to use drugs or not. When actually placed into a situation, adolescents model their behavior around those who are important to them.

            By not having an effective model for students to follow or copy, the model that adolescents follow is often what their peers are doing (12). In some cases the modeling may even be, what they perceive their friends are doing (13). In a study that looked at the trajectory of peer influences on the projection of drug use, researchers found that marijuana use was most influenced by peers at the middle school level (11).  This speaks directly to the ineffectiveness of D.A.R.E.’s ability to create a model for students to follow. According to the paper, the group that is most affected by peer influence, is the group that D.A.R.E. just had their officers talk to, the years prior. D.A.R.E. relies on the policeman delivering the message, to be the model for the children. Police officers are a good profession for kids to aspire to, but they are not a model for kids to think about when put into the situation of deciding if they want to use drugs. Due to this, the D.A.R.E. program is essentially without a model all together. Without an important person in the adolescent’s life to model him or herself after, they rely on the automatic response humans have associated with social learning theory (14). D.A.R.E. failed to recognize that just because the person who began the program was a police officer, did not mean that students everywhere would want to model their decisions around police officers. D.A.R.E.’s focus remained that if students would see a police officer in their classroom relating to them, they would want to do not only what was best legally, but when faced with a decision, they would think back solely to what the police officer had taught them, as the reasoning for why they would say no to drugs instead of just reacting as people do.

Proposed Intervention-The High School in Your School Intervention

            In seeing how the use of police officers consequently has essentially not only lead to the demise of the D.A.R.E. program, due to their inability to follow basics of social learning theory, communication theory, and psychological reactance a new intervention that uses these theories with the addition of advertising theory and social expectations theory can be put into place to improve on the idea of preventing adolescents from using illegal drugs. This intervention titled, “The High School in Your School”, is a program that focuses on using high school age students as the main message carriers that give a slightly older demographic the same information on not using drugs, but making it much more meaningful to the students receiving the message.

            The premise of the program is to first create a community of high school students in a program in which they become knowledgeable of drug use, as well are able to share stories with one another about their own experiences around drugs. The purpose of this group would be to not only know the dangers of drug use, but at the same time being able to explain that each member has had some kind of story to tell behind it in their lives. The students in the high school, during the school day would then travel to local middle schools, the age in which peer influence on drug use seems to be the highest (11, 12, 13). The group entitled “STUD” which stands for “students together understanding drugs”, would then go into the school dressed in their regular clothes and tell stories to the students on how they have said no to using drugs, and how just a few years ago they were right where the students are sitting now, and successes they’ve had since leaving middle school. They would explain that realistically the drugs are out there, and it’s not about telling the student to never use drugs, but how when they are in a situation where using a drug could arise they are able to resist and say no by their own choice. The students in the middle school class would then all be able to ask questions of the high school students that not only focus around what the drugs themselves do, but anything they wanted to know about the lives the high school students have lived since refusing to use drugs. Each student would then be given the opportunity to join the high school students in becoming “STUDs” without signing anything, but to be able to call themselves equals with the high school students. Each student would be given a shirt saying, “I’m a Stud”, as part of their new membership to the group. Then when they finish, middle/junior high school in one or two years, they will be able to join the “STUDs” and come back and talk to whoever is sitting in their seat then. The high school students would then act as an outreach for any student who they’ve spoken with to come and talk to them about anything.

Defense 1- The Proper Role Model

            The use of high school age students is key to the success of this program, because of the level of comfort they will be able to establish while talking to the middle school age students. Unlike the D.A.R.E. model, using a officer of the law many years the age of an elementary school student, the “STUD” program capitalizes that the presenters are only a few years superior in age, students themselves who are going through trials and tribulations as teenagers just as the students who are sitting there. By using a group that the adolescents can view as their peers, harness the major aspect of communication theory and the use of human persuasion, that the presenter delivering the message is likeable. The program is designed to use local high school students as the messenger; in most local communities there would be at least one face that each student would be able to relate to personally, whether it be a neighbor, sibling, or just someone they know. The program would succeed in creating a face for which the students will be able to model themselves after; there would be a real person who they could talk to regarding any situation that arises in the future.

            In a study conducted on peer relationships and levels of acceptance, it was found significant that students who found themselves socially accepted by their peers were less likely to face depression and less likely to put themselves in harmful positions including the use of drugs as a method of coping (16). Establishing a system where an older generation student already is there to provide a level of acceptance to the student facilitates the idea of reciprocity. The older high school student would be there to give the younger student the acceptance that all students desire, while the younger student would feel the responsibility to do something for the high school student, and in this case, not use drugs (17). This program, is designed to not only tell students they shouldn’t use drugs, but to show real life examples of people who were able to not use drugs in a very similar situation and prosper. This reflects the ultimate idea of modeling, because they are able to see an end result, without needing to go through the situation for themselves yet.

Defense 2- Fulfilling Their Desires

            The second major advantage that this plan offers that the D.A.R.E. project is unable to offer effectively is the use of advertising theory. The basics of advertising theory are that the product being offered fulfills the deepest desires of the person you are trying to target. In this situation, the people you are targeting are really not thinking about their deepest desire, which is social acceptance and the product being sold is being part of this saying no to drugs group. The underlying message is that if you remain drug free, and you remain a “STUD”, then you will be more popular and more successful than if you decide to use drugs.

            The first key to advertising theory in this program is the use of stories being told by high school students. Using stories instead of using the facts about the damaging effects of drug use creates images in the mind of the students they are trying to talk with. It enables the student to visual not only the person telling the story in the situation, but placing him or herself in the story as well. In a paper by Chiu, Hsieh, and Kuo, they looked at the proper way to align stories with the product they were trying to sell. They found that the authenticity of a story was more important to consumers than the actual product being sold, and that if people were able to feel as though the story was authentic enough they would use the product (18). The similarly is what the program is intended to accomplish, the middle school students should feel as though they are encapsulated by the story of the older students, and if they ever found themselves in a similar story they would make the same drug free decision.

            The second key to advertising theory in this program is normalization of the daily lives of the students. Each student dressed in regular clothes and not the t shirt that the kids receive, is to create an idea in the students mind that each of them to start is on the same level as well to allow students to know this is part of every day life. Studies show that students and models that dress in moderately attractive, to average clothing are more effective to adolescents than those who stylize or attempt to become more attractive (19). By advertising with average looking students, the program is designed to make the kid visualize themselves sitting among the panel when they are in high school and coming back. The key is for them to do this they must remain drug free, which not only promotes the product of remaining drug free, but also gives the kids a goal to aspire to. When using advertising theory, the goal is to make the kids believe that, this will be them in a few years provided they decide to not use drugs. Unlike D.A.R.E., advertising theory plays one of the largest roles in helping to determine the success of the students remaining drug free, because it creates something for the students to attain other than being healthy, which is the only main thing D.A.R.E. can offer.

Defense 3- Psychological Reactants/FREEDOM!

            D.A.R.E.’s ultimate fatal flaw, resides in the fact that this program takes away some freedom from a group of people that relish every bit of freedom they can receive. The “STUD” program uses social expectation theory combined with understanding of psychological reactants to make students feel as though the freedom to determine the outcome is completely within their control. Social expectations theory states that perceived social expectations dictate people’s actions. This is especially important when talking about the relationship between adolescents and the adults involved in their lives. A study by Brook et. al, which looked at the relationship between Adolescent Illegal Drug Use and Family and Environment Factors, found that children with any evidence of impulsivity, rebelliousness, or delinquency range 2 times to 5 times the likelihood to use marijuana (20). This is likely to be expected as a way to garner freedom from their parents and the environment they are in. This only compounds social expectation further, because D.A.R.E. is telling the students, drugs are things, you’ve signed that you will not touch, so you cannot have them. This makes the drugs the exact thing they want to attain, because it is the ultimate form of rebellion from their environment, as it was similar to the childhood inaccessible toy experiment (21)

            The “STUD” program, takes the opposite approach to this, because part of discussion is telling the kids if they really want drugs, they are going to be available to them. Informing adolescents drugs are not going to be something they can’t have, rather something they are going to choose to not want to have. The first point is that it takes away the lure behind drugs being this special thing that they have to try when they get the chance. An estimation out of surveys conducted by Columbia University suggests that 1 in 5 teens today smoke or use drugs at school (22) The program also establishes that each student is going to have his or her own personal freedom, to make the decision regarding his or her drug use. According to Christopher Daddis, a researcher at the Ohio State University, “teenage needs for autonomy stems from the desire to establish their own personal domain and own personal worth” (23). The program focuses on helping individuals establish for themselves what is best for them, while looking through a world of new social expectations. In the new program under these new social expectations, self-worth is going to be determined that the only way to really have self-worth is if your reaction when presented with drugs would be to say no, and that this will be your only way to continue to have the extra freedom that was given to you by committing to the “STUD” program.

Conclusion

            The fundamentals of D.A.R.E. are positive, because students not using drugs is better for all of society, but realistically D.A.R.E. only created an environment where students had more information about drugs, but had no real moral obligation or reasoning to not use them other than a paper they signed in 5^th or 6^th grade, when they probably didn’t have access to them. By creating a model for kids to aspire to, and model themselves after, and providing not just health incentives, but freedom and material incentives, there is a way to inspire kids to not use drugs, while playing to all their deepest desires.

REFERENCES

1. D.A.R.E.. About D.A.R.E.. Los Angeles, CA: D.A.R.E.. 2012; www.dare.com/home/about_dare.asp

2. Rosenbaum D. and Hanson G. Assessing the effects of school-based drug education a six year multi-level analysis of project D.A.R.E. Center for Research in Law and Justice. Chicago, IL, 1998.

3. Wolchover N. Was D.A.R.E. Effective?. Life’s Little Mysteries. 2012; www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/2278-effective.html

4.Annoymous. DARE Program Complely Ineffective Says US Gov. Detentionslip.org. 2011; www.detentionslip.org/2011/01/dare-program-completely-ineffective.html#

5. Donnermeyer J. Educator perceptions of the D.A.R.E. officer. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education 1998; 44:1-17.

6. Dukes RL, Steing JA, and Ullman JB. Long-term impact of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.). Results of a 6-year follow-up. Evaluation Review 1997; 12:483-500.

7. The 84. Check Us Out-Join the 84. MA: The84.org. http://www.the84.org/check-us-out/

8. Wu C. and San-San H. Less is More: How Scarcity Influences Consumers’ Value Perceptions and Purchase Intents through Mediating Variables. Journal of American Academy of Business 2006; 9.2:125-132

9. Sussman S., Grana R., Pallav P., Rohrbach L., Sun P. Forbidden Fruit and the Prediction of Cigarette Smoking. NIHPA Author Manuscripts 2010; 45:1683-1693.

10. University of South Alabama. Social Learning Theory. 2007. Online Learning Laboratory. http://www.southalabama.edu/oll/mobile/theory_workbook/social_learning_theory.htm

11. Duan L., Chih-Ping C., Andreeva V., Pentz M. Trajectories of Peer Social Influences as Long-term Predictors of Drug Use from Early Through Late Adolescence. Journal of Youth Adolescence 2009: 454-465.

12. Conrad KM, Flay BR, Hill D. Why children start smoking cigarettes: predictors of onset. British Journal of Addiction 1992; 87:1711-1724.

13. Hawkins JD, Catalano RF, Miller JY. Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin 1992; 112:64-105.

14. Bandura A. Social Learning Theory (Bandura). 1969-1997. Learning-Theories.com. www.learning-theories.com/social-learning-theory-bandura.html

15. D.A.R.E.. Why Does DARE America Need to Fund Raise Documents. Los Angeles, CA. 2011. http://www.dare.com/documents/WhydoesDAREAmericaneedtofundraise.pdf

16. Zimmer-Gembeck M., Hunter T., Pronk R. A model of behaviors, peer relations and depression: Perceived Social Acceptance as a mediator and the divergence of perceptions. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 2007; 27:273-302.

17. Song F. Trust and reciprocity in inter-individual versus inter-group interactions: The effects of social influence, group dynamics, and perspective biases. Journal of Experiment Economics 2006; 9:179-180.

18. Chiu HC, Hsieh YC, Kuo YC, How to Align your Brand Stories with Your Products. Journal of Retailing 2012; 88:262-275.

19. Tsai CC, Chang CH. The effect of physical attractiveness of models on advertising effectiveness for male and female adolescents. Journal on Adolescence 2007; 42:827-836.

20. Brook J., Brook D., De La Rosa M., Whiteman M., Johnson E., Montoya I. Adolescent Illegal Drug Use: The Impact of Personality, Family, and Environmental Factors. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 2001; 24:183-203.

21. Fawcett CA, Markson L. Children reason about shared preferences. Journal of Developmental Psychology 2010; 46:299-309.

22. Terry A. Almost 1 in 5 teens smokes or uses drugs at school, US students report. New York, NY. The Christian Science Monitor. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2012/0822/Almost-1-in-5-teens-smokes-or-uses-drugs-at-school-US-students-report

23. Daddis C. Desire for Increased Autonomy and Adolescents’ Perceptions of Peer Autonomy: “Everyone Else Can; Why Can’t I?”. Journal on Child Development 2011; 82:1310-1326.

Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.): An evaluation of program efficacy based on social science theory and available alternatives--Ashley Thomas

Introduction: The Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) Program

I remember when he first came into our classroom. He was very tall, neatly dressed, and very austere (I didn’t know that word at the time, but it perfectly encapsulates his demeanor). Then again, as a fifth-grader, everyone is very tall, anyone in uniform always appears neatly dressed, and all adults are austere. He quietly sat in the back of the room until our teacher, Mrs. English, introduced him. Despite how vivid all of his physical characteristics and mannerisms still are, I cannot remember his name, so for our purposes, we’ll refer to him as Officer Joe. Officer Joe was a trained officer of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) in-school program, and our classroom was his “beat” for the next few weeks.

Developed in 1983, D.A.R.E. is an in-school curriculum that addresses pressures placed on youth regarding drug use and violence (1). It has since expanded from its original home of Los Angeles to around 80% of United States school districts and 43 countries worldwide (1). Intrinsic to the program, making it unique among other in-school drug resistance education programs, is the incorporation of local law-enforcement personnel (2). Over a series of 16 weekly lessons, the officer charged with educating the students introduces facts about drug use (both underage and otherwise) and violence, while giving the students tools and strategies to employ later on should they be confronted with a, “…high-risk, low-gain choice…” (3)(4). At the program’s culmination, lesson 17, participating students will reflect upon what they have learned and what they hope to carry with them going forward.

The D.A.R.E. program was borne out of Nancy Reagan’s directive to children to, “Just say no!” to drugs and alcohol (5). Despite its current ubiquity, the D.A.R.E. program has been the target of many analyses and criticisms decrying its efficacy. In some cases, it achieves no measurable effect, certainly not enough to warrant the resources necessary for its implementation. While the program has, admirably, evolved significantly in response to these evidence based evaluations, understanding past failed strategies will be integral to creating new, more effective curricula.

In context, as of 2010 (most recently available data), drug and alcohol usage rates among teens and young adults climbed compared to past years. Among youth aged 12-17, the rate of illicit drug use was about 10% and about 7% reported currently using marijuana. The data is much starker when looking at alcohol: 29% of those surveyed reported being current users. Within this category, 25% of those aged 12-17 reported current use, and nearly 50% of those aged 18-20 reported current use in the past month (6). As was demonstrated not only by multiple meta-analyses, but also by the persistence of drug and alcohol use among minors, D.A.R.E. fails to resonate with the students for whom the program is tailored. This failure comes at high cost to the school, the state, and the federal government (7)(8).

This analysis will take a hard look at three specific aspects of the program model and question the social sciences theories from which those elements were derived. The model of the program is predicated on the assumption that, regardless of the situation or background of the student, he or she will be able to reason through a decision relating to drugs, alcohol, or violence. Many of the weaknesses of the earliest iterations of the program were a result of this intense focus on individual linear reasoned behavior. New curricula and lessons still fail to consider the environment in which the student is raised and the modeling that impacts their ultimate choice. Compounding this issue is the fundamental flaw of the program in addressing the normalizing of risky behavior in youth. While “peer pressure” is a focus of the program model, its interpretation within the model is dated and often not applicable to real-world circumstances. Finally, the program assumes that by injecting the students with a bolstered sense of self-esteem, environmental and situational influences will no longer be relevant. Unfortunately, youth and their social situations are much more complex than that.

I.               Criticism of the D.A.R.E. model

A.    Critique 1: What works for one should work for all

In its earliest versions, D.A.R.E. targeted fifth- and sixth-grade students. The goal was to intervene as early as possible to equip students as quickly as possible for any challenges they may face regarding drug or alcohol use, or violence. Even though the program was created for an extremely racially and socioeconomically diverse student population (9), the program takes a homogenous approach to all students, regardless of background.

Simply due to the sheer volume of students exposed to this program regularly, it is unrealistic to assume that all students receive the program in the same way. Based on the social learning theory, some behaviors have likely already been modeled and normalized in the home. While these are not the behaviors targeted by the program, the efficacy of the program is questionable if the students already have a mental construct of the impact of drugs and violence in the home. This mental construct can be healthy or dangerous, but the structure of the D.A.R.E. program does not account for either. The implicit conclusion that follows from the D.A.R.E. model is that any drug or alcohol use should be absolutely avoided. These rigid social norms will conflict with the modeling to which the student has already been exposed, and the desired effect of imparting a zero-tolerance mentality on the student is not just diluted, but also eventually lost (given the brief nature of the program).

In 2001, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released a comprehensive set of “How To” guides around the topic of underage drinking prevention. In it, they mentioned that there are a number of risk factors that are reliable indicators of a student’s likelihood to abuse alcohol underage. These include the following: parental drug use, family structure and function problems, lack of commitment to school, anti-social behavior, and biological predisposition (10). With these in mind, the student who can most benefit from the message given by D.A.R.E. is least likely to engage with the program because she is not in school, nor would it be her first (or most formative) encounter with drug and alcohol use. Because of the program’s structure, however, these differential risks within the student population are masked and unattended. Even if family or friends have not exposed students to any sort of drug culture, they certainly encounter print, media, or Internet advertisements, and each student to varying degrees. Admittedly, singling out students who are at greater risk is not a favorable alternative, but the D.A.R.E. model presumes a homogeneity among students that does not, in fact, exist. If it did, the model would be singularly effective in any setting with any permutation of student representation, including those who’d already tried drugs or alcohol prior to participating in the program.

D.A.R.E.’s disregard for social and environmental pressures is indicative of its baseline belief in the capacity of the individual student to reasonably make a decision regardless of the situational constraints or past experiences. This stringent adherence to the individual level social science model (particularly the Theory of Planned Behavior) is effective in perpetuating the mission of the program but does not successfully equip students and youth with the tools necessary to confront complex situations involving friends and social pressures to conform.

B.    Critique 2: Fitting in is of no concern

In focusing so heavily on the individual agency of the student, the D.A.R.E. model does not effectively confront the realities of tenuous social situations, especially those encountered in groups. D.A.R.E. struggles to address peer pressure, but it does so in ways that neglect the very basic principles of herd behavior and social organization theory. Students are taught strategies and methods to, “Just say no!” but those strategies do not take into account the pressure of group behavior and perceived social roles.

The D.A.R.E curriculum prescribes very vague and general steps towards confronting peer pressure. In their model, they help students to identify characteristics of positive and healthy friendships and encourage them to build social and support networks buttressed by these relationships (3). The difficulty, however, is translating these skills to new environments with new and different potential friends and navigating potentially risky situations while in these novel surroundings.

The herd mentality theory asserts that individual choice is heavily, often imperceptibly, impacted by perceptions of behavior within the same peer group. In this scenario, a young underage student, most likely in high school or early college, attends a party where alcohol is being consumed. She leaves for the party armed with her fifth-grade D.A.R.E. training, but upon encountering a group of like individuals who are drinking, she is more likely to forget Officer Joe and instead join her peers. Thaler and Sunstein document behavioral changes like this not only in underage drinking, but in eating habits, voting patterns, and tax compliance (11). They point out that the notion of “acceptable” or “normal” behavior may, in fact, be based on false information, but the reality is that the group will behave in accordance with the prevailing assumptions. In this case, the prevailing assumption is, when you attend a party, you drink alcohol. What is at play here is an intense desire to conform. If the long-term consequences, however grave or benign, are not frighteningly obvious, conformity to immediate group behavior is inevitable and well documented. This is an insidious form of peer pressure for which the D.A.R.E. model does not account. Its earlier models were actually chastised for hyperbolizing the ever-present threat of drugs and alcohol, counter-intuitively normalizing a behavior that they were trying to stop.

Behaving in accordance with the peer group is not to say that all agency has been stripped from the individual. On the contrary, according to social organization theory, there is an implicit understanding within a group that each individual has a role to play and rules to play by to maintain the order of the social structure (12). As our student example from above is likely the newest member to the social hierarchy, her desire to conform is driven by deeply held socialization that differentiation is the enemy of assimilation. Coupled with her understanding of the rules, as they are manifest by the other, more senior, members of the group, she adheres to the norms established prior to her introduction. If she doesn’t, she runs the risk of being ostracized simply because other members of the group will no longer be able to play by the same set of rules in approaching her as they would if approaching anyone else.

D.A.R.E. scratches the surface of the pressure encountered by young adults on daily basis when confronted with risky decisions. It does not, however, incorporate the pressures of making decisions, as a new actor, within the confines of a group with either limited knowledge or well-earned knowledge. In that scenario, the actor is faced with the seemingly more important decision to either fit in or get out, despite her level self-confidence prior to entering the party.

C.   Critique 3: Self-efficacy will save us all, or at least the children

D.A.R.E. proponents vehemently believe in the Theory of Planned Behavior. The current model is built around the notion that improving a student’s sense of self-efficacy will ultimately empower the student to make the best decision in a high-risk situation, regardless of surroundings. If this is true, then all of the weaknesses noted above are immaterial because the more confident the student is, the less external social and environmental constructs and group behavior will matter. The fatal flaw of this model, however, is the assumption that an agent will always behave rationally.

A hallmark and critical success of the D.A.R.E. model is the focus on the self-esteem of the students. Noted in the same NHTSA guidelines, two additional warning signs for early drug and alcohol abuse are: low self-esteem and shy temperament at a young age (10). This programmatic strength is, unfortunately, only a proximal result of the model: the students reported feeling a bolstered sense of self only immediately after the program’s conclusion (2). If this is a method to counter the impact of the externalities of environment and group behavior, it is ineffective.

This focus appears to be the model’s participation in the transition from the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) to the Theory of Planned Behavior (TRB). Past studies have tried to show that the TRB is a somewhat reliable predictor in the underage use of alcohol, as long as the most compelling factors (e.g. attitude toward alcohol, subjective norms, and prerequisite intention to use) align correctly (13). The researchers firmly asserted that as long as a young adult intended to use alcohol, and all of the other social and personal factors were met, he or she would, indeed use alcohol. Perhaps, then, if the students were taught to no longer intend to use alcohol, the risk would be eliminated.

Unfortunately, what the TRB does not take into account are changes to those critical factors that influence intention, while assuming a strictly linear movement from assessment to intent to action (14). Does this theory hold in the context of our party example from earlier? Does the new student have the time and opportunity to weigh her parents’ opinions, her siblings’ opinions, and her friends’ opinions in a moment after she is asked whether or not she would like a drink? Likely not. D.A.R.E.’s vision to empower the participating students to take greater stock in themselves and have faith in their own self-worth is absolutely essential for healthy development. However, as a means of addressing the rather amorphous concept of “self-efficacy” in an effort to impact a nice, but unrealistic, decision-making model, it is idealistic and poses no real lasting beneficial effect for the students.

II.             Proposed Improvement: Every 15 Minutes and Mariah’s Challenge

As vividly as I remember Officer Joe, I remember a day in May when I was in eighth grade. I had just come home from school and I noticed a newspaper article with my older brother’s photo. The headline read, “High School Junior Dies in Tragic Drunk Driving Accident.” The article talked about all of his achievements, how bereaved our family was, and what a shame it was to have lost him that way. I was confused. While I was reading the article, my brother came bounding in to the kitchen and grabbed a snack from the refrigerator. It was safe to say I had no idea what was going on. I came to find out that my brother was part of the Every 15 Minutes program at his high school.

Every 15 Minutes was developed around the statistic that every fifteen minutes, someone was killed in a drunk driving accident. While this statistic is now dated, and drunken driving fatalities have decreased by more than 50%, underage drinking and driving is still a reality. The CDC reported that in 2011, nearly one million high school aged youth drank and decided to drive (15). Clearly there is still a disconnect in the message being communicated by anti-drug programs and the actual behavior of teens and young adults.

The D.A.R.E. program, in an effort to be comprehensive, attempts to educate students on the dangers of multiple drugs and violent acts. Because the program is limited to 16 lessons, the practitioners cannot delve deeply into specifics about a given drug. These recommendations will focus on adolescent drinking and risky behavior associated with the decision to drink. Here we will critically look at two interventions that successfully use social science models to strengthen and brand community of non-alcohol users: Every 15 Minutes and the Mariah Challenge. An effective intervention targeting underage drinking and risky behavior will combine the key elements of both of these programs and will reach more students and resonate more deeply.

A.    Response to Critique 1: Creation of a new community through shared experience

The Every 15 Minutes campaign is a multi-faceted program incorporating various media to bring the reality of drunk driving directly to a student population through simulation. Students from the school will be selected to participate in a mock car collision, where some will play the victims (both injured and dead) and others will play the perpetrators. The simulated accident will take place on the school grounds, and the car (often a car that was actually involved in a drunk driving accident) will remain on the campus for a specified period of time. Those who have “died” will have obituaries written for them, and the school will hold a memorial assembly in those students’ honors. Parents will be notified of the students’ “deaths” and both students and parents will participate in a letter-writing exercise expressing their feelings surrounding the incident. After the “accident” and prior to the memorial assembly, students involved in the “accident” will be taken off campus to participate in a one evening retreat led by local law enforcement officers and counselors, while their classmates are instructed to reflect on the accident witnessed. Individual schools can choose to incorporate or subtract specific elements from the experience, but overall, the program is the same across schools (16).

The brilliance of this intervention lies in its novelty. No matter what the background or former experiences are of the students participating, the entire community together witnesses and works through a tragic accident. This group-level intervention incorporates multiple members of the community, and serves as a unifying event within the school populations’ collective history. If the school chooses to adopt this same intervention annually, the tragedy is not lost on those who have previously experienced it as different students are selected to participate each year. In contrast to the D.A.R.E. one-size-fits-all model, Every 15 Minutes simulates a difficult and tragic event around which an entire community rallies, effectively and lastingly reaching more students than the D.A.R.E. model structurally could.

Emotional and resonant in nature, Every 15 minutes also capitalizes on one recognized strength for addressing underage drinking through school programming: interaction (17). In this intervention, the students are the very center of the appeal and those who are targeted are the students as well. This dramatization exemplifies the central piece of the communications theory, as the victims of this simulation are those with whom fellow students can identify the most. While the simulation initially is not positive in nature, the reintroduction of the students back into the school population brings a sense of relief. After forcing the students to confront the realities of losing a classmate either to arrest, injury, or death by reckless decision making, that relief is much more profound and persistent over time.

B.    Response to Critique 2: Branding a community of non-users

A sense of relief is a feeling that Leo McCarthy has been trying to regain for the last five years. In 2007, his 14-year-old daughter was struck and killed by an underage drunk driver. While giving his daughter’s eulogy, McCarthy made a commitment to provide scholarships to high school students who pledged not to drink until they are 21, not to get into a car with someone who’d been drinking, and to give back to their communities. The pledge can be taken and signed online and as long as a student has not been convicted of any underage possession related offenses, the student is eligible to receive at $1,000 scholarship upon graduation (18).

Mariah’s Challenge is a grass-roots organization that is built on the fifth premise of alternative social science models, and creates a sense of premature ownership in the students who decide to take the pledge. By incentivizing students with the a potential scholarship, McCarthy is forcing the students to commit to a behavior based on an anticipated, but not guaranteed, pay-off without having to buy into the principles or dogmas that would otherwise lead to the desired behavior change. As the students get closer to graduation, the likelihood of winning the $1,000 scholarship is greater and greater and, based on the theories of ownership, the students are more likely to adhere to the pledge regardless of external pressures.

The intriguing facet about this intervention is that it also builds a branded community. In the way that the popular Livestrong campaign has merchandise and identifiable imagery, Mariah’s Challenge has a very recognizable logo and associated pink merchandise that is quickly and easily linked to the cause. In creating this brand, McCarthy has also created a community of inclusion for the students who choose to pledge. Regardless of where those students go, or with whom they interact, they will always be a part of Mariah’s Challenge. With that brand comes the promise of responsibility. Being armed with that is much more potent in the face of making difficult choices than being taught strategies to deal with one-on-one peer pressure, as the D.A.R.E. model would advocate. A member of this Challenge community will always be a member as long as he or she follows through on his or her pledge. Because it is reinforced in a comfortable setting at first, it is something that can transcend the pressure introduced by novel surroundings, new individuals, or a changed culture of acceptance.

C.   Response to Critique 3: Changing social norms

Both the Every 15 Minutes intervention and the Mariah Challenge are working to change the social norms surrounding underage drinking and driving by approaching the community most affected. It was not until recently that the D.A.R.E. program expanded to include high schools. By the time the graduates of the early D.A.R.E. elementary programs reached high school, the value of the program, if any gained at all, diminished. One could thus surmise that any lessons learned were either forgotten or drowned out by other social pressures, personal experiences, or environmental stressors.

By the time early graduates of the D.A.R.E. program reach high school, they are no longer in control of the social norms surrounding drinking culture. They are subject to them. Interventions like Every 15 Minutes and Mariah’s Challenge are forcing high school students to question two assumptions: that it is permissible to drink underage and that driving after drinking is not a serious offense. Every 15 Minutes combines the gruesome reality of drunk driving accidents with the profound emotional impact of losing a loved one to such a horrific incident. It makes tangible the otherwise easily written off threat that drinking and driving poses. Mariah’s Challenge, borne out of such a tragedy, mobilizes a community of committed students to take ownership of their futures. In doing so, they will first change their behaviors, later change their attitudes, and even further down the line, impact others to do the same. These collective changes serve to impact the culture of drinking in the high school environment by changing the subjective norms on the group level.

Changing the subjective norms, particularly those of immediate peers, surrounding the decision or intention to drink while underage would render the Theory of Planned Behavior moot. At the point where norms are changed, the issue of self-efficacy is no longer relevant. Three independent studies evaluating effective strategies for mitigating underage alcohol consumption have all recommended that a concerted effort be placed on changing the societal and community norms surrounding drinking (19)(17)(10). D.A.R.E.’s insistence on the use of individually focused social science models, particularly the TPB, just speaks to its own inability to adapt and evolve in time with the populations they are most trying to impact.

III.           Conclusion

The United States Surgeon General has issued a comprehensive, multi-tiered plan to address the persistent problem of underage drinking (20). She, a newly appointed official, taking such a bold step towards combating this issue is indication enough that current programming has not been working. One of the most ineffective of all of these currently existing is the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program. It is built using individually focused social science theories and fails to take into consideration the pressures of group behaviors and environmental pressures into its model, and the only group suffering are those for whom it was initially intended.

In its wake, other interventions have arisen to address D.A.R.E.’s shortcomings. Programs like Every 15 Minutes and Mariah’s Challenge have built communities around shared experiences and have branded young students as ambassadors of responsibility, imbuing them with a sense of purpose that transcends peer and social pressures. A program with the brand power and sense of ownership of Mariah’s Challenge coupled with the powerful community building effect of Every 15 Minutes could elicit significant change among high school students and young adults. These programs are specialized to target very specific drug related behaviors, compared to D.A.R.E.’s comprehensive, all-encompassing approach, and create a profound and lasting impression on those who participate, adults and students alike.

CNN recently reported on a young woman who lost her father and older brother to a drunk driver in one evening. She has since become an advocate against the behavior and has told her story to multiple audiences. What she’s realized is that her story is much more powerful than any numbers or fact sheets, and she has committed to continue telling her story as long as it proves beneficial to anyone somewhere (21). I don’t remember Officer Joe’s real name, but I do remember my brother’s “obituary” and I won’t forget Mariah’s story

IV.           References

1.             D.A.R.E. [Internet]. The Official D.A.R.E. Web Site: Drug Abuse Resistance Education. Available from: http://www.dare.com/home/default.asp

2.             Ennett, Susan T., Rosenbaum, Dennis P., Flewelling, Robert L., Bieler, Gayle S., Ringwalt, Christopher L., Bailey, Susan L. Long-Term Evaluation of Drug Abuse Resistance Education. Addictive Behaviors. 1994;19(2):113–25.

3.             Objectives for D.A.R.E. School Curriculum [Internet]. 2012. Available from: http://www.dare.org/officers/Curriculum/Storyf98c.asp?N=Curriculum&M=10&S=12

4.             Rosenbaum, Dennis. Program Profile: Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) [Internet]. University of Illinois at Chicago; Available from: http://crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=99

5.             Drug Abuse Resistance Education: The Effectiveness of DARE [Internet]. Alcohol Abuse Prevention: Some Serious Problems. Available from: http://www.alcoholfacts.org/DARE.html

6.             Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Results from the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings [Internet]. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Substance. Available from: http://www.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2k10NSDUH/2k10Results.htm#3.2

7.             Ringwalt, Christopher, Greene, Jody M., Ennett, Susan T., Iachan, Ronaldo, Clayton, Richard R., Leukefeld, Carl G. Past and Future Directions of the D.A.R.E. Program: An Evaluation Review [Internet]. Research Triangle Institute; 1994 Sep. Available from: https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/darerev.txt

8.             Shephard III, Edward M. The Economic Costs of D.A.R.E. Institute of Industrial Relations; 2001 Nov.

9.             Ethnic Distribution of Pupils by District, Los Angeles County [Internet]. Los Angeles, CA; 1997 2011. Available from: http://www.laalmanac.com/education/ed05_97.htm

10.             Prevention & Education [Internet]. U.S. Department of Transportation; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 2001 Mar. Report No.: 4. Available from: http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/alcohol/Community%20Guides%20HTML/Book4_Prevention.html#Current theories

11.             Thaler, Richard H., Sunstein, Cass R. Chapter 3: Following the Herd. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 2008. page 53–71.

12.             DeFleur, Melvin L., Ball-Rokeach, Sandra J. Chapter 8: Socialization and Theories of Indirect Influence. Theories of Mass Communication (5th edition). White Plains, NY: Longman, Inc.; 1989. page 202–27.

13.             Marcoux, B.C., Shope, J.T. Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior to adolescent use and misuse of alcohol. Health Education Research: Theory and Practice. 1997;12(3):323–31.

14.             Edberg, Mark. Chapter 4: Individual Health Behavior Theories. Essentials of Health Behavior: Social and Behavioral Theory in Public Health. Washington, D.C.: Jones and Bartlett Publishers; 2007. page 191–205.

15.             CDC Vital Signs - Teen Drinking and Driving [Internet]. [cited 2012 Dec 13]. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/TeenDrinkingAndDriving/index.html

16.             Every 15 Minutes - Someone dies from an Alcohol Related Collision [Internet]. [cited 2012 Dec 14]. Available from: http://www.every15minutes.com/aboutus/

17.             Komro, Kelli A., Toomey, Traci L. Strategies to Prevent Underage Drinking. NIAAA Spectrum [Internet]. Available from: http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh26-1/5-14.htm

18.             Grieving father offers teens money not to drink [Internet]. CNN. [cited 2012 Dec 14]. Available from: http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/14/us/cnnheroes-mccarthy-alcohol-challenge/index.html

19.             Holder, Harold D. Community Prevention of Young Adult Drinking and Associated Problems. NIAAA Spectrum.

20.             General S. Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Prevent and Reduce Underage Drinking [Internet]. [cited 2012 Dec 14]. Available from: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/calls/underagedrinking/programs.html

21.             What sways teens not to drink, drive? Stories, not stats [Internet]. CNN. [cited 2012 Dec 13]. Available from: http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/us/cnnheroes-underage-drunken-driving/index.html

D.A.R.E. To Take A New Direction – Alan Breaud

Drug abuse in the United States continues to be an issue that is being inappropriately addressed.  According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the most recent statistics show that close to 22.6 million Americans abused a psychotherapeutic medication or used an illicit drug in 2010 (1).  It is also pointed out, unfortunately, that this drug usage typically begins when people are in their teenage years (under 18 years old) and hits its peak in their late teen years or early twenties (1).  Given that the most prevalent use of these drugs is highest among this particular age group, it would seem logical to develop effective drug resistance programs that target pre-teens.

            One method of addressing this issue has become popular over the past few decades in the form of the D.A.R.E. program.  This program seeks to educate kids on the harmful effects of illegal drugs, tobacco, and abuse of prescription drugs and alcohol.  D.A.R.E., or Drug Abuse Resistance Education, began in 1983 as a result of a collaborative effort between the Los Angeles Unified School District and the Los Angeles Police Department (2).  It is a program that is highly endorsed by law enforcement nationwide, in addition to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Department of Defense and the Department of State (3)(4).  However, the program comes with a heavy cost.  Ten years after its inception in 1983, it was reported that the cost of the program, as a whole, across the country was around $750 million by 1993 (2).  

D.A.R.E. is a school-based education system with a curriculum taught almost entirely by police officers   Their mission, according to the official website, “is to provide children with the information and skills they need to live drug-and-violence free lives” (3).  They delve a little more into this by explaining how important it is to “equip kids with the tools that will enable them to avoid negative influence” and instead focus on their individual talents and gifts (3). 

            While this seems to be excellent intervention geared toward keeping kids off of drugs, research in the field of health communication tends to point to a different conclusion.  Many researchers have found that the D.A.R.E. program is hardly effective at all, despite the overwhelming support it receives from law enforcement nationwide (2).  Results looking at the short-term effects of the program show that the D.A.R.E program had no effect on illegal drug use, alcohol abuse, or even selling and dealing drugs (2).  Long-term studies echo these same results.  A longitudinal study of the program’s effectiveness reported limited success of the program and determined that the curriculum’s effects decay significantly over time (6) .  In the American Journal of Public Health, Drs. Steven West and Keri O’Neal of the Virginia Commonwealth University state very blatantly that “Project D.A.R.E. is ineffective” (7).    

            Because drug abuse is climbing among teenagers and young adults alike, the D.A.R.E. program needs to be completely revamped in order to provide an effective and lasting message that reaches its estimated 300,000 classrooms (3), possibly even by removing the classroom element altogether.  In its current format, the program is almost like an intellectual exercise.  The D.A.R.E. officers are instructed to provide a strict curriculum that includes in-class exercises and homework (4).

The purpose of this paper is to look at several problems in the design of the D.A.R.E. program that are undermining its effectiveness.  First, the framing used by D.A.R.E. will be analyzed, followed by the issues of contributing to misperceptions of social norms and creating psychological reactance that can potentially be causing prevention efforts to backfire.  Then, the paper will look at a new intervention effort and how it will address these problems in order to have a much more effective campaign.

Critique #1 - Improper Framing of the Issue

            One key issue that plagues the D.A.R.E. program is its improper framing of the issues the campaign is trying to address.  Framing refers to the way in which a message is “packaged” (5).  It is more than just a way of arguing a point.  It employs images, symbols, catch phrases, and a strong core position that complements the key core value the communicator is wishing to get across (5).  The key goal of framing, from a health perspective, is to provide a message that encourages one type of behavior over another (8).  In a health context, messages are typically framed to present gains or losses (8).  However, gain frames have been seen to be much more effective in preventative behavior (8). 

            The problem with the D.A.R.E. campaign is that it appeals to the core value of health and make use of loss frames.  They simply relate the risk factors associated with different products and trust that kids and adolescents are going to make the right choice, given that information.  This same idea, for example, is used to try and get people to stop drinking soda.  Everyone knows from his or her doctor or the news that sodas are bad for you because they contain too much sugar and provide empty calories.  However, soda remains widely available because people still like to drink it.  Vending machines are ubiquitous, and soda can be purchased at practically any restaurant and convenience store.  Appealing to the core value of health is just not enough to prevent people from drinking soda.     

The messages coming from D.A.R.E. are always ones of how dangerous various illicit substances are for one’s body.  For example, on the drug information section of their website, all the drug information comes with a “dangers and effects” section that relate the negative consequences of use (3).  While this information is important, it is simply presenting the negatives associated with use, while giving no information on the benefits of non-use.  As Jeffery Hicks points out, youth already know the dangers associated with drugs, alcohol, tobacco, etc. (9).  They want to be left to their own faculties to make a decision for themselves. 

Positive frames, or information presented in a positive light, have a more substantial impact on preventive health behavior (10) compared to negative frames.  For example, a message of self-esteem that was packaged in a positive way has been shown to increase intentions to exercise more often.  When information is given in a positive manner, this gives individuals a more risk averse option and gain-oriented choice (11).  Therefore, while the D.A.R.E. campaign is interested in preventative behavior, they are using the incorrect tone of frames to achieve that goal.    

Critique #2 - Kids Will Try What Their Friends Are Trying

            One of the key problems at the heart of the D.A.R.E. program is that it is conveying a message that illegal drug usage is highly prevalent throughout the school system.  The instruction in the curriculum informs students what to say when offered drugs from their peers and how to avoid negative peer pressure.  Consequently, this turns the issue into a scenario of not if children will be offered illegal drugs, but when it will happen.  This type of language leads to the idea that drugs are much more common than they may actually be.  In fact, several papers have looked at how teenagers and young adults are significantly overestimating the amount of substance abuse that their peers are engaging in.  One study out of Addictive Behaviors journal looked at how college students often overestimate their peers’ drinking habits by as much as 76% (12), a trend that was also seen in middle school and high school students (13).  These inaccurate perceptions can also be extended to tobacco and illicit drug use.  Researchers found that on 100 college campuses, perceived drug and tobacco use was highly exaggerated compared to actual self-reported use (14).  

Unfortunately, since D.A.R.E. is continuously relating a message that drugs are a highly prevalent problem within the school system and social setting, their curriculum may be inadvertently creating a problem that causes more drug use rather than preventing it.  Research out of the School of Public Health at the University of Michigan found that peer usage of alcohol and drugs is positively associated with individual usage of these substances (12).  Studies looking into social norms have shown repeatedly that even perceived prevalence of substance use is an excellent predictor of an individual’s likelihood of experimenting or using that same substance (16) (17).  Likewise, researchers out of the University of Washington, Seattle found that perceptions of friends’ use and descriptive norms regarding marijuana were “most strongly associated with marijuana use” (18).  Therefore, direct exposure is not needed to have a substantial influence.    

            So, beyond seeing friends or peers using marijuana or alcohol, even the perception that a large number of members in a school or social network are using illicit substances can lead to individual usage. Unfortunately, as previously seen, overestimation of drug and substance use is quite substantial.  Therefore, if kids have a skewed idea of the actual amount of drug use their peers are engaging in, then statistically they are going to be more likely to try these substances.  A look into the D.A.R.E. resources and curriculum shows that this skewed idea is exactly what is being relayed to kids and their parents.  According to the D.A.R.E. program’s own website, among other messages, they say “fifty percent of young people have used an illegal drug by the time they leave high school” and there are “over 50 factors that might put someone at risk for drug use” (19).  In terms of alcohol, they claim that 90% of kids graduating from high school have experimented with alcohol (19).  If these kids that are exposed to the D.A.R.E. program are seeing these statistics, they are receiving the message that the prevalence of drug and alcohol use is incredibly high, causing these substances to be perceived as a social norm.  And, as stated earlier, social norms are one of the best predictors of drug and alcohol consumption.   

Critique #3 – There is Possible Reaction to Threats to Freedom

            The D.A.R.E. program curriculum teaches kids skills to avoid the peer pressure of using drugs, alcohol, and even the dangers of involvement in gangs.  According to Jack Brehm, continuously telling an individual not to engage in a particular behavior only encourages that individual to attach a greater importance to that given behavior (20).  When a free behavior, such as the ability to use drugs or smoke tobacco, is taken away or threatened, especially in a situation where an outsider eliminates the choice instead of the individual, then that behavior instead becomes more desirable (20).  The elimination of a perceived freedom creates a state of “psychological reactance,” a psychological state where an individual seeks to re-establish the eliminated freedom (20).  A police officer standing in front of a classroom full of children or young adults who is reiterating the idea over and over again not to engage in marijuana or alcohol use may actually be giving that behavior a greater value in his or her audiences’ minds.  Taking away the freedom to make that choice to engage in the behavior of using a drug or drinking alcohol, for example, can contribute to an individual wanting to, as Dr. Brehms’ theory contests, re-establish the ability to make that choice.    

Research in the Journal for Social Psychology indicates that this psychological reactance tends to be greater in younger subjects compared to older ones (21).  The authors of this theory even noticed this phenomenon in children as young as two years old (22).  The rationale is that the younger population tends to view more situations and behaviors as freedom-threatening (21).  Additionally, these young people also tend to question more, including adult authority (23).  This is problematic for the D.A.R.E. campaign, given that it is taught in a classroom atmosphere by a police officer in uniform to young children.  These officers are trained to teach children how to completely avoid drugs and alcohol.  Additionally, as part of the program, D.A.R.E. highly encourages parents to get involved by setting “no-use” rules regarding alcohol and tobacco and set strict rules regarding their children’s social activities (19).  Unfortunately, research regarding reactance theory would indicate that emphasizing a message of not engaging in a particular behavior to a young audience could actually be counter-productive to the D.A.R.E. mission. 

New Intervention - The D.A.R.E. 75 program: A New Start Tackling One Issue          

In order to address the issues surrounding the effectiveness of the D.A.R.E. campaign, I would propose a new strategy that involves focusing not so much on the individual harms and direct consequences of drugs, alcohol, etc., but rather a design that includes individual as well as group-level factors that appeal to the emotional side of the individual and tries to create a social change rather than an individual one.  This type of approach should be modeled after the Florida “Truth” campaign, which has seen success in getting youth in that state to quit smoking (9).  “Truth” was an anti-tobacco marketing campaign that resulted from a tobacco industry settlement and began in 1998 (9).  The Truth campaign was successfully able to re-frame tobacco use as an issue of the tobacco industry putting limits on kids’ freedom and independence (9).  According to Jeffery Hicks, youth already knew the harmful effects of tobacco.  What youth wanted is to be left to make their own decision after being given the facts (9). 

These implications can be translated to D.A.R.E. in a new, re-vamped media campaign called the D.A.R.E. 75 campaign that re-frames the use of illicit substances as putting restrictions on freedom, as opposed to providing more freedom.  The “75” is a response to a National Survey on Drug Use and Health report that found 25% of kids aged 12 to 20 years old reported drinking alcohol in 2011 (24).  The 75 focuses on the 75% of kids not using alcohol, which can hopefully begin to create a social norm that alcohol prevalence is not what many may think it is.

            This new approach would tailor the D.A.R.E. campaign to look at the use of alcohol only, as opposed to taking up a cause against a variety of harmful substances or behaviors such as drugs, gang violence, tobacco or any other issues.  This would allow D.A.R.E. to focus all their energy on effectively reducing the number of youth who currently use or are thinking about using alcohol in the future.  Part of the Truth campaign success is their ability to focus all their energy simply on reducing tobacco use prevalence in youth (9).  Their interests were not spread out across an array of different causes.       

            Comparable to the Truth campaign, this new approach would be a mass advertising campaign that depicts the alcoholic beverage industry as one that thrives and makes enormous profits off of youth continuing to buy their product.  It would make use of TV slots, billboards, and social media.  This message is intended to relate the idea that alcohol beverage companies are in the business of increasing profit margins.  They thrive on the ability to make a profit off of their customers.  For example, a billboard could be used that shows money going from a young teenager’s pocket to the pockets of well-dressed executives sitting around a conference room with a big “Budweiser” or “Miller-Lite” plaque above their head, indicating they work at that respective company.   

            This approach can address all three issues previously laid out.  It changes the whole issue of alcohol use as not one about how alcohol has detrimental effects on the growing brain, or showing alcohol-related fatalities, but about how the alcohol-producing companies are strictly in the business of providing an alluring product that will undoubtedly bring in a large profit margin.  Thus, the main frame coming across to the youth audience has completely changed to one of empowerment of their individual freedom, while hopefully creating some psychological reactance against the alcohol companies instead of the communicator of the health message.

Defense of Intervention #1 - A Change in Frame

The new campaign would shift the core value of health that D.A.R.E. traditionally uses to the core value of freedom.  As previously seen, the frame is the way information is packaged to convey an underlining meaning of what the message is all about (5).  In the new approach, the core value is taking a dramatic shift from one of health to one of individual freedom (from the alcoholic beverage industry).  As Dr. Siegel points out, the tobacco industry has been really effective in creating a message to the public that has a frame that appeals to individual freedom, an intuitively American core value (5).  This new approach takes that core value over to the D.A.R.E. 75 campaign so they can craft their own message around it, as seen in the Truth campaign.  This new campaign can make use of images depicting rich executives and how they may see youth as just another customer, not a friend or someone they have any invested interest in beyond making money.  In addition, a series of catch phrases, such as “pocket to pocket” or “my good time is not worth giving them my dime,” can be used to support the frame of individual autonomy from the alcohol companies. 

            The key, then, is to provide an emotional appeal to youth so they will refuse to submit to peer pressure and so they will turn away from the harmful effects of alcohol at such a young age.  Kids know they are not supposed to use alcohol.  They have all the information about it, but again, they want to be left to their own faculties as to whether or not to make decisions based on that information (9). Here, the goal of the frame is to tap into youth’s desire to have control, a gain-frame that potentially can appeal more to them and be more effective (8).  Kids are constantly being told what to and what not to do and this is providing that ability to make their own choice, even if the message is making an attempt to sway that decision.            

Defense of Intervention #2 - It’s not as Popular As You Might Think

            The name of the new campaign would be entitled the D.A.R.E. 75 campaign.  Again, this is a play on the statistic that in 2011 it is estimated that 25% of adolescents were using alcohol (24).  As shown previously, social norms can play a significant role in predicting whether or not an individual will choose to adopt a behavior.  In fact, one study looking at college students found social norms to be the biggest predictor of alcohol use (16).  For some reason, young people have a very skewed idea of the actual drinking habits of their friends and peers (17).  Dr. H. Wesley Perkins of Hobart and William Smith Colleges points out how misperceptions can have a strong influence on an individual to drink heavily (12).  He goes on to explain how showing actual drinking rates and numbers are likely to lessen misperceptions help those abstaining from drinking or engaging in healthy drinking habits feel better about their decision (12). 

            Therefore, the key idea in the name is to turn around the misperception of actual drinking rates.  If social norms are a significant predictor of use, then this should be the first key issue to address in the new program.  Kids at a young age are always eager to fit in somewhere.  If the prevailing belief is that all the kids in school are experimenting with alcohol, then research has shown that this belief is very likely to encourage an individual who is contemplating using alcohol.  With this in mind, D.A.R.E. 75 seeks to relate the fact to youth that 75% of adolescents are not using alcohol.  This will hopefully, as Dr. Perkins points out, help those in that tricky youth decision whether to drink or not, feel more at ease in choosing the route of not to drink.

Defense of Intervention #3 - Providing Freedom to Make Their Own Decisions

Driving home the message of the dangers of an illicit substance and telling children not to do something counter-intuitively can create an allure of that substance through psychological reactance (9).  For example, telling a child not to watch a certain range of channels on a television can create an enormous amount of curiosity that can drive that child to see exactly what is on those channels that the adults do not want him or her to see.  This approach of explicitly telling kids exactly what they can and cannot do puts restriction on their freedom.  And as previously found, Hammock and Brehm show that reactance leads to an attempt to re-establish that eliminated freedom (20).  Therefore, a campaign that seeks to show the use of illicit substances putting limits on freedom, as opposed to providing more freedom, should greatly reduce the amount of reactance from the message. 

    According to Jefferey Hicks, what’s important in a message is the tone of what you are trying to get across.  Youth do not want to be preached to with a series of “do’s” and “do nots” (9).  As one could see, a police officer in uniform standing in front of a classroom or auditorium full of young people could easily give off that paternalistic and preaching tone.  Hicks found that youth were using tobacco as a tool of rebellion because they were continuously being told not to do it (9).  The Truth campaign was successfully able to use that tool of rebellion against the big tobacco industry.  The D.A.R.E. campaign needs to show a message that relates drugs, alcohol, or tobacco to be substances that limit their freedom in life.   

            In addition to creating a better tone for the overall messages related by D.A.R.E., Paul Silvia points out that similarity is a good tool to “deflect” reactance (25).  He found through a series of experiments that similarity can have multiple effects that increase effectiveness of the communication of a message, including reducing the negative force towards reactance and increasing positive force by increasing the likeability of the communicator (25).

            This all relates back to D.A.R.E.’s use of a police officer to provide information to young people.  Police officers are people who represent law and authority.  They have very little in common with a classroom full of kids.  Therefore, kids see this situation as an authority figure telling them what not to do.  The communicator needs to be youth providing information to youth.  These communicators also need to be people that youth can relate to and who are going through the same set of social situations and life decisions.  This can immediately provide a more similar communicator that can be more relatable to youth.  Using young people to provide the message of standing up against the alcohol companies has the potential to significantly deflect any reactance to the message.          

Conclusion - A New Step Forward

            The D.A.R.E. 75 campaign can be a significant improvement upon the existing D.A.R.E. model.  While the current program does an excellent job at providing information on a variety of different substances and behaviors, that is simply all it may be doing.  Because of programs such as D.A.R.E, young people are very aware of the dangers of drugs or alcohol, but have not given them the right push to act accordingly.  The D.A.R.E. 75 campaign addresses these issues that have been potential barriers to effectively communicating with the younger generation.  It is a definite improvement and step in the right direction for the D.A.R.E. program.    

REFERENCES

1.  National Institute on Drug Abuse. DrugFacts: Nationwide Trends. http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/nationwide-trends

2.  Hansen, W. B., & McNeal, R. B. (1997). How D.A.R.E. Works: An Examination of Program Effects on Mediating Variables. Health Education & Behavior. 2007. 24(2), 165–176.

3.  D.A.R.E. America. The D.A.R.E. Mission. http://www.dare.com/home/THEDAREMISSION.asp

4.  U.S. Department of Justice (Office of Justice Programs). Implementing Project DARE: Drug Abuse Resistance Education. 2007

5.  Menashe, C. L., & Siegel, M. The power of a frame: an analysis of newspaper coverage of tobacco issues--United States, 1985-1996. Journal of health communication 1998(4), 307–325.

6.  Clayton, R. R., Cattarello, A. M., & Johnstone, B. M. The Effectiveness of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (Project DARE): 5-Year Follow-Up Results. Preventive Medicine 1996. 25(3), 307–318.

7.  West, S. L. O. Project D.A.R.E. Outcome Effectiveness Revisited. American Journal of Public Health 2004. 94(6), 1027–1029.

8.  Myers, R. E. Promoting healthy behaviors: How do we get the message across? International Journal of Nursing Studies 2010. 47(4), 500–512.

9.  Hicks, Jeffrey. The strategy behind Florida's "truth" campaign.  Tobacco Control 2001. 10: 3-5.   

10.  Moorman, M., & van den Putte, B. The influence of message framing, intention to quit smoking, and nicotine dependence on the persuasiveness of smoking cessation messages. Addictive Behaviors 2008. 33(10), 1267–1275.

11. Rothman, A. J., Salovey, P., Antone, C., Keough, K., & Martin, C. D. The Influence of Message Framing on Intentions to Perform Health Behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1993. 29(5), 408–433.

12.  Perkins, H. Wesley. Misperceptions of peer drinking norms in Canada: Another look at the “reign of error” and its consequences among college students. Addictive Behaviors 2007. 32(11), 2645–2656.

13. Thombs, D. L., Wolcott, B. J., & Farkash, L. G. E. Social context, perceived norms and drinking behavior in young people. Journal of Substance Abuse 1997. 9(0), 257–267.

14. Perkins, H. WesleyMeilman. Misperceptions of the Norms for the Frequency of Alcohol and Other Drug Use on College Campuses. Journal of American College Health 1999. 47(6), 253.

15.  Stoddard, S. A., Bauermeister, J. A., Gordon-Messer, D., Johns, M., & Zimmerman, M. A. Permissive norms and young adults’ alcohol and marijuana use: the role of online communities. Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs 2012. 73(6), 968–975.

16.  Neighbors, C., Lee, C. M., Lewis, M. A., Fossos, N., & Larimer, M. E.  Are Social Norms the Best Predictor of Outcomes Among Heavy-Drinking College Students? Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs. 2007. 68(4), 556.

17.  Geisner, I. M., Larimer, M. E., Lee, C. M., Lewis, M. A., & Neighbors, C. Social motives and the interaction between descriptive and injunctive norms in college student drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 2007. 68(5), 714+.

18.  Neighbors, C., Geisner, I. M., & Lee, C. M. Perceived marijuana norms and social expectancies among entering college student marijuana users. Psychology of addictive behaviors: journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors 2008. 22(3), 433–438.

19.  D.A.R.E. America. Resources. http://www.dare.com/parents/Parents_Resources/Defaultbe87.asp?N=Parents_Resources&M=26&S=0

20.  Hammock, T., & Brehm, J. W. The attractiveness of choice alternatives when freedom to choose is eliminated by a social agent1. Journal of Personality 1966. 34(4), 546–554.

21.  Sung-Mook HongGiannakopoulos, E. Psychological Reactance: Effects of Age and Gender. Journal of Social Psychology 1994. 134(2), 223–228.

22.  Brehm, S. S., & Weinraub, M. Physical barriers and psychological reactance: 2-yr-olds’ responses to threats to freedom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1977. 35(11), 830–836.

23.  Miller, C. H., Burgoon, M., Grandpre, J. R., & Alvaro, E. M. (2006). Identifying Principal Risk Factors for the Initiation of Adolescent Smoking Behaviors: The Significance of Psychological Reactance. Health Communication 2006. 19(3), 241–252

24.  CDC - Fact Sheets-Underage Drinking - Alcohol. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control.  http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/underage-drinking.htm

25.  Silvia, Paul. Deflecting Reactance: The Role of Similarity in Increasing

Compliance and Reducing Reactance 2005. 27(3). 277-284.