SALIENCE OF SOCIAL REFERENTS 907 Table2 of Collective Norms of Ha ease Significantly Among Suudents With More Ties to Social Referents Collective norms:The number of students at this school who believe Cle friend wwn busines Variable Waves 1-2 Waves 1-2 Waves 1-2 Waves 1-2 Waves 2-3 Waves 2-3 Waves 2-3 Wave 3 -02013-04017-030(01-0401039020-0380.20-06302-035016 ded last year 0.060.14 0590.48) 9046 0.026 .043 004 0.022 0.02 with with any ge from the 200 -2010ch vear.T p<10.·p<0s for the social collective intervention student referents seem t SE =0.22.ns).or with respect to voting for a similar anti oher students able in the school.Our next stion is whether changes in membered slogans from intervention ugh the y:Individual beliefs, experiences,and attitude d no smentas problem schoo n social referen eferents were sment and anti-hara rassment behavior is along with cach their perceived collective norms about harassment om Wave I o Wave nd Behavior In april.6 months after the interver Students in general re ported signific ntly more per tion.teacherswere more likely to nominate more ti with tions (B33.18.p06:see Table ention social referents as studen s who contribute to a nes We found no shool environment (08.SE-0.36.p02) elfect of the inter Disciplinary act to believing that the NAMES important (7 for the social collective. Intervention student referents seem to have drawn other students’ attention to harassment, and changed their perceptions of whether harassment was accept￾able in the school. Our next question is whether changes in norms due to interaction with intervention social referents are accompanied by changes in personal beliefs, experiences, and attitudes. Personal beliefs and experiences. Prior to the intervention, having more ties to intervention social referents was unrelated to students’ personal beliefs about harassment as a problem at school, to their beliefs about the emotional harm of harassment, or to their personal experience of harassment. We did not find any effect of ties to intervention social referents on changes in students’ per￾sonal beliefs that harassment is a problem or that students are negatively emotionally affected by harassment. At each wave, the total sample of students reported a signifi￾cantly greater belief that gossip and drama was a problem at the school (a 26% increase from Wave 1 to Wave 2, and an 11% increase from Wave 2 to Wave 3; see Table 1A in the Appendix), which reflects the overall pattern of perceived descriptive norms of harassment. Students in general reported significantly more per￾sonal problems with harassment at Waves 2 and 3; students with more ties to intervention social referents report marginally fewer personal problems with harassment at Wave 3 compared with Wave 1 (
0.25, SE
0.15, p
.09), and significantly fewer problems at Wave 3 compared with Wave 2 (
0.33, SE
0.15, p
.03). Program endorsement and cognitive salience. We found no effect of the intervention social referents on their ties with respect to believing that the NAMES program was important (
0.27, SE
0.22, ns), or with respect to voting for a similar anti￾harassment program the following year (
0.20, SE
0.21, ns). More students tied to intervention social referents correctly re￾membered slogans from intervention posters hung around the school at Wave 3, though the effect was not significant when demographic controls were added. Summary: Individual beliefs, experiences, and attitudes. Although social referents influence perceptions of collective norms over the school year, they did not influence students’ personal beliefs about harassment or their attitudes toward the anti-harassment intervention. In terms of how they experience the school environment, students with more ties to intervention social referents were significantly less likely to report personal trouble with harassment. We now turn to the question of whether students’ harassment and anti-harassment behavior is affected along with their perceived collective norms about harassment. Behavior Teacher nominations. In april, 6 months after the interven￾tion, teachers were more likely to nominate students with more ties to intervention social referents as students who defend other stu￾dents from harassment, controlling for preintervention nomina￾tions (
0.33, SE
0.18, p
.06; see Table 3). Teachers were significantly less likely to nominate students with more ties to intervention social referents as students who contribute to a neg￾ative school environment (
0.88, SE
0.36, p
.02), controlling for preintervention nominations. Disciplinary actions. According to year-long school disci￾plinary records, students with more ties to intervention social Table 2 Perceptions of Collective Norms of Harassment Decrease Significantly Among Students With More Ties to Intervention Social Referents Collective norms: The number of students at this school who believe . . . Close friend norms It is normal to start drama It’s weird to not defend friends It’s normal to mind your own business People are seriously affected by harassment People are seriously affected by harassment It is impt. to defend friends It is weird to ignore rumors about self Combined close friend norms: Variable Waves 1–2 Waves 1–2 Waves 1–2 Waves 1–2 Waves 2–3 Waves 2–3 Waves 2–3 Wave 3 Ties to intervention social referents 0.27
(0.13) 0.41
(0.17) 0.30‡ (0.15) 0.41
(0.16) 0.39‡ (0.20) 0.38‡ (0.20) 0.65
(0.25) 0.35
(0.16) Total number ties 0.01 (0.02) 0.05‡ (0.03) 0.03 (0.02) 0.02 (0.02) 0.04‡ (0.02) 0.05
(0.02) 0.05‡ (0.03) 0.03 (0.02) Male 0.35 (0.21) 0.02 (0.28) 0.03 (0.25) 0.26 (0.26) 0.18 (0.25) 0.44‡ (0.24) 0.31 (0.32) 0.20 (0.20) Attended last year 0.23 (0.21) 0.01 (0.28) 0.76
(0.25) 0.18 (0.25) 0.04 (0.25) 0.00 (0.24) 0.34 (0.32) 0.19 (0.20) GPA 0.10 (0.14) 0.26 (0.18) 0.16 (0.16) 0.03 (0.16) 0.34
(0.17) 0.09 (0.16) 0.21 (0.21) 0.06 (0.14) Ign. rumors Wave 1 0.10 (0.11) Constant 0.32 (0.41) 0.21 (0.54) 0.33 (0.48) 0.53 (0.48) 0.59 (0.48) 0.02 (0.46) 0.06 (0.68) 2.52
(0.39) N 193 185 189 187 174 173 156 184 Adj. R2 0.060 0.026 0.043 0.004 0.022 0.022 0.006 0.002 Note. Coefficients are regression coefficients. Standard errors are provided in parentheses. Ties to intervention social referents is a count variable of the number of times respondents indicated that they spent time with an intervention student. Total ties is a count variable of the number of times a respondent indicated that they spent time with any other student at the school. “Male” is a dummy variable (0
female, 1
male), as is “Attended last year,” (0
no, 1
yes), which captures sophomores and students who attended a different school the previous year. “GPA” is a continuous variable measuring students’ grade-point average from the 2009 –2010 school year. The regression includes fixed effects: six dummy variables (not shown) that index for each individual whether their total number of ties to intervention and control social referents at Wave 1 was zero, one, two, three, four, five, or six. Fixed effects account for the fact that individuals in the network have a different probability of exposure to the treatment social referents. impt.
important; Ign.
Ignore. ‡ p  .10.
p  .05. SALIENCE OF SOCIAL REFERENTS 907 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.