904 PALUCK AND SHEPHERD The term social referent does not indicate a static student trait p and s tis ca cial ref by gaining ties.For the purpo h skit fir al refe ts,three girls and tw nf the as whether the of inter ention so zed her hos e of students.We find that they did no One of the boys related a stor about gettin I at sch ch perpetu 0ng01 cycle rse of the year. ative spoke a bout the ncepts of hy cial refe nal nool s.We stratified the pool by on his or tion program.S of these students refu ed participation in the stop to th below).leaving 24 social referent students who onnected to the intervention social re to the firs dely udents and nd eight s small 31k0 ys:19 sopho n we of follow-up events during the scho who wer for the p ent m es Inter ention social referent ialrefereatsndcntswhe from the pool of eligibl social referents. ted a MES Intervention cial refer nts al The NAMES eir NAMES assment to the student body and to facilitate public discussion nt sloga ocal referents de cat the des rintive idea tha cribed their own harassment and invited and the ring the spring.intervention social referents sold wrist tor from ment message they had se nent at their hool.Students were asked to identify vents)an"all Behavioral Outcome Measures nts dis t in and Behavior reported by teachers.Before the of th onsultation with ADl facilitators s survey to all teachers at the school and to administrative staff who e read by the The argets an The ent ted by fellow student ed by other stu on the rumor.the girl is publically defamed with the word slut in cords of all disciplinary events receiving administrative attentionThe term social referent does not indicate a static student trait, but rather a dynamic social status. Students can lose social referent status by losing friendship and status ties to other students over time, or become social referents by gaining ties. For the purposes of studying the influence of the social referents who were ran￾domly assigned to participate in the intervention program, our primary concern was whether the interactions of intervention so￾cial referents would change to a significantly different degree than those of control social referent students. We find that they did not; Table 4A (Appendix) illustrates that, as a group, the intervention and control students maintained their social referent status over the course of the year. Random assignment of social referents to intervention. The final pool contained 83 eligible social referent students: 42 widely known students and 41 clique leaders. We stratified the pool by type of student and by grade level, and used a random number to select 30 students, 15 of each type, to participate in the interven￾tion program. Six of these students refused participation in the program (we address the modeling complications of noncompli￾ance below), leaving 24 social referent students who participated in the intervention (13 widely known students and 11 clique leaders; 16 girls and eight boys; eight sophomores, eight juniors, and eight seniors), and 53 control social referent students who did not participate in the intervention program (27 widely known student alternates and 26 clique leader alternates; 31 girls and 22 boys; 19 sophomores, 11 juniors, and 23 seniors). Below, when we refer to control social referents, we mean those social referent students who were not randomly selected for the program; by intervention social referents, we mean social referent students who were randomly assigned to participate in the intervention program from the pool of eligible social referents. Intervention The NAMES assembly program functions as a platform to broadcast certain students’ experiences with and reactions to ha￾rassment to the student body, and to facilitate public discussion about harassment among students. During the schoolwide assem￾bly conducted in October, the intervention social referents de￾scribed their own harassment experiences and invited other stu￾dents to do the same. Intervention social referents first participated in two training sessions to prepare for the assembly. A facilitator from the ADL led activities that prompted reflection on the nature and effects of harassment at their school. Students were asked to identify the various roles that students can play in harassment (e.g., an “ally” to targeted students or a “bystander” to events). Intervention social referents discussed and wrote essays about their own experiences of harassment in these various roles. Teachers from the school, in consultation with ADL facilitators, selected five of these essays to be read by the student authors at the assembly. The essays were selected to represent the perspective of students who had been both targets and perpetrators. The other intervention social referents wrote and performed a skit illustrating common types of harass￾ment at the school and ways to speak out against it. On the day of the assembly, the intervention social referents performed the skit, in which they acted out a rumor spreading to other students about a girl being a “slut.” Both girls and boys pass on the rumor, the girl is publically defamed with the word slut in the school hallway, boys make advances on the girl, and the audience observes the girl’s emotional turmoil. In the concluding scene, another girl defends the girl who has been targeted. After the skit, five of the intervention social referents, three girls and two boys, read their essays on stage. One girl’s essay described the experience of switching elementary schools because a girl had mobilized her group of friends to continuously harass her, whereas another girl spoke of her own insecurities that lead her to make fun of other students. One of the boys related a story about getting in a physical fight at school, which perpetuated an ongoing cycle of aggression. In between the intervention social referents’ perfor￾mances, an ADL representative spoke about the concepts of by￾stander, ally, and perpetrator, and the effects of harassment. At the end of the assembly, there was an open microphone session in which any student could share his or her own experi￾ences with harassment. Twenty-four students from the audience volunteered to speak at the microphone. Many echoed the inter￾vention social referents’ call for tolerance and a stop to the “drama.” Over half the students who spoke were not socially connected to the intervention social referents, according to the first social network survey, indicating that the group of speakers rep￾resented diverse positions in the school social network. After the assembly, all students at the school were divided into small groups to discuss the assembly. Intervention social referents and adult supervisors facilitated these small-group sessions. A number of follow-up events during the school year reinforced this association between the intervention social referents and anti￾harassment messages. Intervention social referents read announce￾ments regarding the consequences of harassment over the loud￾speaker during morning announcements for several weeks, and designated a special “NAMES” table at lunch period two times during the year where they sat to eat and chat with any passersby about ways to report harassment or concerns about harassment. Intervention social referents also created a series of magenta￾colored posters that each featured a different photo of intervention social referents wearing their NAMES t-shirts, and one of several anti-harassment slogans such as “Whatever your story, I’ll listen” and “People who spread rumors are no friends of mine.” The slogans were designed to communicate the descriptive idea that intervention social referents behaved in a tolerant manner and the prescriptive idea that they would sanction harassment behavior. Finally, during the spring, intervention social referents sold wrist￾bands for $1 featuring an anti-harassment message they had se￾lected (“Don’t stand by, be an ally”). Behavioral Outcome Measures Behavior reported by teachers. Before the start of the NAMES program and at the end of the year, we administered a survey to all teachers at the school and to administrative staff who worked closely with students. Teachers and administrators used the school roster to nominate students who they perceived as popular, respected by fellow students, and harassed by other stu￾dents. They also nominated students who defended those who were harassed, and students who “contributed to a negative school environment.” Students received 1 point in each of these categories for each nomination from a teacher or an administrator. Disciplinary records. We obtained the complete school re￾cords of all disciplinary events receiving administrative attention 904 PALUCK AND SHEPHERD 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