Oracle: Volume 14, Issue 1, Summer 2019

Vo l u m e 1 4 , I s s u e 1 , S u m m e r 2 0 1 9

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 a

TABLE OF CONTENTS iv

EDITORIAL TEAM

v

GENERAL INFORMATION

vi

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR

1

BEHAVIORS VIEWED AS DEPLORABLE BY PEERS: A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO PROGRAMMING TO CURB UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIORS IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES Gordon W. Maples, Vanderbilt University, emily perrin britt, University of Kentucky, John M. Braxton, Vanderbilt University, and Amy S. Hirschy, University of Louisville This article posits a different approach to social norm programming by presenting a targeted approach that centers attention on the degree to which members of a fraternity or sorority disdain excessive alcohol use, drug use, sexual assault, racism, and homophobia rather than a focus on the frequency of such behaviors of their peers. An appendix to this article provides a survey instrument for fraternity/sorority advisors to gauge the social norms of their chapters in regards to a handful of specific illicit behaviors – homophobia, racism, sexual assault, drug use, and alcohol use.While social norms interventions have met with limited success historically with fraternity and sorority members, this instrument and its proposed implementation are designed to evade the pitfalls of past fraternity/sorority-focused programs.

23

NEEDS AND STRESS IN FRATERNITY AND SORORITY LIFE: EVIDENCE OF SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL DIFFERENCES AMONG SORORITY AND FRATERNITY MEMBERS Gabriel Serna, Michigan State University, Dawn Wiese, Plaid, and Stephen Simo, University of Rhode Island The article provides an evidence-based overview of unique research on social and behavioral differences between self-identified sorority women and fraternity men in their need and stress behaviors as measured by the Birkman assessment. The data allow campus-based professionals to understand how they may approach educational programs differently for fraternity men and sorority women based on their social and behavioral differences. The differences between sorority women and fraternity men demonstrate how these populations may respond differently to educational programming because of the measured behavioral and social differences.

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 ii

40

ASSESSINGTHE ONLINE MANAGEMENT OF ALCOHOL POLICIES AND ALCOHOL EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING AMONG GREEK STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS – A CONTENT ANALYSIS Jill Russett, Christopher Newport University, and Kaitlyn Oates, Hospital For Behavioral Health College student drinking remains a public health concern and Fraternity/Sorority organizations have consistently documented higher rates of alcohol use than their peers. However, these groups are also likely to be proactive in addressing risk management of alcohol use.The authors conducted a content analysis of nationally recognized fraternity/sorority websites, aimed at identifying harm reduction strategies in place among these groups.While the majority of fraternities/sororities reviewed had readily accessible alcohol related policies, fewer organizations were identified as having adapted alcohol related education programs.

Best practices suggest having strong policies and educational programming lead to reduced consequences related to alcohol use.

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 iii

2019 EDITORIAL TEAM EDITOR James P. Barber, Ph.D. William & Mary

ASSISTANT EDITOR Kate Steiner, Ph.D. Radford University

EDITORIAL ASSISTANT Johann Ducharme William & Mary

ASSOCIATE EDITORS Donald “DJ” Mitchell, Ph.D. Bellarmine University

DIRECTOR OF MARKETING & COMMUNICATIONS Andrea Starks-Corbin Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors

Jennifer Plagman-Galvin, Ph.D. Iowa State University PEER REVIEW BOARD Cassie Barnhardt, Ph.D. University of Iowa

Steven M. Janosik, Ed.D. Virginia Tech

Tara Leigh Sands Lycoming College

J. Patrick Biddix, Ph.D. University of Tennessee

Matthew Johnson, Ph.D. Central Michigan University

Denny Bubrig, Ph.D. University of Southern Mississippi

S. Brian Joyce, Ph.D. Dartmouth College

Pietro Sasso, Ph.D. Southern Illinois University Edwardsville

Daniel Bureau, Ph.D. University of Memphis

John Wesley Lowery, Ph.D. Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Mari Ann Callais, Ph.D. Delta Delta Delta

Travis Martin Northwestern University

Trace Camacho, Ph.D. California State University, Long Beach

Malinda Matney, Ph.D. University of Michigan

Brandon Common, Ph.D. Illinois Wesleyan University Charles Eberly, Ph.D. Eastern Illinois University Michael Giacalone Rhode Island College David L. Grady, Ph.D. University of Alabama Dennis Gregory, Ed.D. Old Dominion University Jodi Jabs, Ed.D. Campbell University

Adam McCready, Ph.D. Salem State University Gentry McCreary, Ph.D. Dyad Strategies, LLC Kahlin McKeown University of Maryland Andy Morgan, Ph.D. Indiana State University Kimberly Nehls, Ph.D. University of Nevada, LasVegas

Joshua Schutts, Ph.D. University of West Florida Michele D. Smith, Ph.D. Missouri State University Dianne Timm, Ph.D. Eastern Illinois University Teniell Trolian, Ph.D. University at Albany Anthony Vukusich Delta Tau Delta Educational Foundation Carolyn Whittier, Ph.D. Valparaiso University Viancca Williams University of South Florida Robert Wood, Ph.D. Joint Staff, Department of Defense

Eric Norman, Ed.D. Purdue University FortWayne

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 iv

GENERAL INFORMATION Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors advances the study of college fraternities and sororities through a peer reviewed academic journal promoting scholarly discourse among partners invested in the college fraternal movement. The vision of Oracle:The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors is to serve as the premier forum for academic discourse and scholarly inquiry regarding the college fraternity and sorority movement.

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors is published biannually. Past issues of Oracle are available on the AFA website. The ISSN is 2165-785.

Copyright: Copyright Š 2019 Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, Inc. (AFA). All material contained in this publication is the property of AFA. The opinions expressed in Oracle do not necessarily reflect those of AFA. Requests for permission to reprint should be sent to the AFA Central Office at info@ afa.1976.org or 970.797.4361.

Submissions: Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors accepts submissions focused on articulating research involving fraternity and sorority members at the collegiate, alumni, inter/ national organization, and volunteer advisory levels. Manuscripts should be written for the student affairs generalist who has broad responsibility for educational leadership, policy, staff development, and management. Articles on specialized topics should provide the generalist with an understanding of the importance of the program to student affairs overall and fraternity/sorority advising specifically.

Research articles for Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors should stress the underlying issues or problems that stimulated the research; treat the methodology concisely; and, most importantly, offer a full discussion of results, implications, and conclusions. In the belief that AFA readers have much to learn from one another, we also encourage the submission of thoughtful, documented essays or historical perspectives.

Visit www.afa1976.org for more detailed submission guidelines.

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 v

CREATING MEANINGFUL CHANGE FOR FRATERNITY AND SORORITY COMMUNITIES James P. Barber, Editor

As we come to the close of the academic year, it is a natural time for reflection. The summer generally brings a slower pace, with fewer events (and crises) on campus. There is finally a chance for college educators (both in academic affairs and student affairs) to breathe, think about the past year, and plan for the future.

I am thinking about two major developments that happened last year in the fraternity/sorority movement, and their implications for the future of fraternity/sorority advising and research. The first is the situation at Swarthmore College. In April 2019, a four-day student protest resulted in the two fraternities at Swarthmore disbanding and surrendering their campus-owned lodges. Swarthmore is a highly selective, private liberal arts college outside of Philadelphia.

Following the release of racist, homophobic, and misogynistic documents and videos from a local fraternity named Phi Psi, including jokes about sexual assault, a student group called the Coalition to End Fraternity Violence staged a sit-in at the Psi Phi house on campus. Undergraduate students took over the space and committed to stay until the college disbanded the two fraternities on campus and reallocated their campus houses to serve minoritized student groups.

Four days later, Phi Psi voluntarily disbanded, as did Delta Upsilon. This effectively ended fraternity/sorority experience at Swarthmore. A May 10th message from the college president stated firmly that “fraternities and sororities will no longer exist at the College.”1 Swarthmore’s only sorority chapter, Kappa Alpha Theta, will be allowed to continue with its existing members through 2022 when the youngest members graduate, but they are not permitted to recruit any new members moving forward.

It’s significant that undergraduate students made this change happen. Students were successful in ending fraternity/sorority life at Swarthmore. The college administration did not act against the fraternities when the documents were initially released, instead opting to wait for a task force report that was expected later in the week. But students didn’t wait. After years of allegations of discrimination, hazing, and assault, and a perceived lack of discipline by the college, students took matters into their own hands and began protesting at Phi Psi. It was the protesters who held their peers accountable. This was grassroots activism by undergraduates – not a top-down mandate from administrators. It is a clear message that if advisors, administrators, and faculty do not act to assure that health and safety are the utmost priority, our students will.

The case at Swarthmore is a reminder of the power that students have through activism. Students, individually and collectively, have a great ability to create change. It’s often underestimated by students and educators alike, but it’s unmistakable.

Although this case demonstrated the ways that students can effect change, educators should not be sidelined in these important situations. College educators in faculty, student affairs, administrative, and coaching roles have a responsibility to address student behavior that is violent, dangerous, and discriminatory.

The second major development in fraternity/sorority life I have been reflecting on is the establishment of the Timothy J. Piazza Center for Fraternity and Sorority Research and Reform. This research center, housed at Penn State University, is the next evolution of the Center for the Study of the College Fraternity, founded in 1979 at Indiana University (and later renamed the Center for Fraternity and Sorority Research). The center is named in memory of Timothy Piazza, a sophomore 1

https://www.swarthmore.edu/presidents-office/student-social-events-and-community-standards-update Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 vi

who died following a hazing incident at the Penn State Beta Theta Pi chapter in 2017.

The Piazza Center is expected to have an $8M endowment to fund its mission of creating positive change in fraternity/sorority communities. We have never before seen this level of support and resources for fraternity/sorority research. The Piazza Center will study the practices that influence individual student behavior and fraternity/sorority chapter culture and figure out how higher education institutions can replicate that work broadly across campuses. The resources afforded to the Piazza Center are truly transformational to the field of fraternity/sorority research, and we at Oracle support it’s work enthusiastically.

The student protesters at Swarthmore and the Piazza Center have very similar goals. They want to create meaningful change that will influence student behavior and ultimately create safer campus environments. The three articles in this edition of Oracle also speak to this notion of influencing and improving student behavior. Gordon W. Maples, emily perrin britt, John M. Braxton, and Amy S. Hirschy offer an approach to decrease behaviors such as homophobia, racism, sexual assault, drug use, and alcohol use within fraternity/sorority communities. Gabriel Sema, Dawn Wiese, and Stephen Simo examine how fraternity men and sorority women may respond to educational programming based on gendered social and behavioral differences. Lastly, Jill Russett and Kaitlyn Oates provide a content analysis of the strategies fraternity/sorority headquarters use in alcohol education, and how many of these programs are based on evidence.

Enjoy this edition of Oracle, and have a restful and productive summer!

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 vii

BEHAVIORS VIEWED AS DEPLORABLE BY PEERS: A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO PROGRAMMING TO CURB UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIORS IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES Gordon W. Maples, Vanderbilt University, emily perrin britt, University of Kentucky, John M. Braxton, Vanderbilt University, and Amy S. Hirschy, University of Louisville This article posits a different approach to social norm programming by presenting a targeted approach that centers attention on the degree to which members of a fraternity or sorority disdain excessive alcohol use, drug use, sexual assault, racism, and homophobia rather than a focus on the frequency of such behaviors of their peers. An appendix to this article provides a survey instrument for fraternity/sorority advisors to gauge the social norms of their chapters in regards to a handful of specific illicit behaviors – homophobia, racism, sexual assault, drug use, and alcohol use.While social norms interventions have met with limited success historically with fraternity and sorority members, this instrument and its proposed implementation are designed to evade the pitfalls of past fraternity/sororityfocused programs.

Social fraternities, and to a lesser degree sororities, have historically been shown to be havens for numerous negative behaviors on American college campuses. Whether in regard to excessive alcohol use, drug use, sexual assault, racism, or homophobia, findings have repeatedly shown that a litany of negative behaviors can occur within the confines of single-sex social fraternities and sororities with affiliations with national/international organizations, creating social norms within these groups (Biddix, 2016). Defined sociologically as beliefs about expected or desired behaviors shared among a specific social population, social norms present as patterned behaviors for group members (Braxton, 2010; Gibbs, 1981; Rossi & Berk, 1985). Social norms provide a social group, such as a fraternity or sorority, with moral boundaries, and reflect the group’s collective conscience (Braxton, 2010; Caboni et al., 2005; Durkheim, 1982; Merton, 1968). In highly insular and intimate social groups, the power and influence of social norms on college student behavior is significantly amplified, making problematic social norms in such groups crucial to confront and mitigate (Chickering, 1969; Milem, 1998;

Perkins, 2002; Pettigrew, 1998). We elaborate further on each of the aforementioned student conduct issues within fraternities and sororities and then propose an instrument that can be used to audit the prevailing norms that proscribe behaviors regarding excessive alcohol use, drug use, sexual assault, racism, or homophobia espoused by members of chapters of fraternities and sororities. The information gained from such normative audits can be used in chapter-level behavioral interventions.

Student Conduct Issues In the following paragraphs, we expound on the student conduct issues of excessive alcohol use, drug use, sexual assault, racism, or homophobia as they pertain to fraternities and sororities. We devote a sub-section to empirical findings about each of these conduct issues.

Alcohol Use There is a long history of documentation of and research into the custom of excessive alcohol abuse within fraternities and sororities.

Culturally, the image of the alcohol-centric

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 1

fraternity dates to Prohibition-era literature, and this reputation has gained steam in popular culture ever since (Hevel, 2014; Jakeman, 2012; Phillips & Heesacker, 1992). Corroborating this image, a 2006 survey of nearly 100 fraternity chapters found that 97% reported being drinkers, and 83% met the criteria for heavy drinking (Caudill et al., 2006; Wall, Hazen, Trockel, & Markwell, 2008). Moreover, evidence abounds that excessive alcohol use is higher among fraternity and sorority members than their unaffiliated peers (Abar & Maggs, 2010; Alva, 1998; Biddix, 2016; Larimer, Irvine, Kilmer & Marlatt, 1997; Sher, Bartholow, & Nanda, 2001). Excessive drinking has also been shown to be a more socially acceptable behavior within these organizations than outside of them, as it is often regarded as central to the fraternity/ sorority socialization process (LaBrie, Huchting, Pedersen, Hummer, & Shelesky, 2007; Larimer et al., 1997; Sasso, 2015; Wall et al., 2008).

However, research findings consistently reveal that sorority members consume alcohol at less extreme rates than fraternity members, though at higher rates than non-affiliated students (Alva, 1998; LaBrie et al., 2007). One contributing factor to a lower rate of consumption is the difference in the social pressure experienced by women and men, as fraternity members have reported more social pressure to drink excessively in order feel socially accepted. In contrast, women report social pressure to not drink excessively because of the more severe perceived consequences for doing so than their male counterparts (Suls & Green, 2003). These same-sex drinking norms have been shown to be strong predictors of problematic drinking, and have led some researchers to recommend sex-specific, norms-based drinking prevention/ intervention programs (Korcuska & Thombs, 2003; Lewis, 2007; Lewis & Neighbors, 2004; Russett, 2017).

Drug Use The literature on drug use in fraternities

and sororities is sparser than documentation and research examining alcohol use. However, consistent findings indicate more frequent and heavier drug use among fraternity and sorority members than among nonmembers. To elaborate, fraternity members have been found to be more likely to smoke marijuana than other students (Biddix, 2016; Collins & Liu, 2014), and fraternity/sorority members in general are more likely to partake in using cocaine, amphetamine, ecstasy, and hallucinogens than nonmembers (Biddix, 2016; McCabe, Teter, Boyd, Knight, & Wechsler, 2005). Additionally, fraternity members generally express less social disapproval of drug use than other college student populations (Caboni et al., 2005).

Sexual Assault The issue of sexual assault on college campuses is pervasive, but nowhere else is it as notable as within fraternities and sororities.

Fraternity men and sorority women are more likely than other students to be perpetrators and survivors of sexual assault, respectively (Bannon, Brosi, & Foubert, 2013). Fraternity members have been found to be three times as likely as non-members to commit sexual assault (Foubert, Tatum, & Godin, 2010; Loh, Gidycz, Lobo, & Luthra, 2005). Sorority members are 74% more likely to experience rape than other college women, and that number spikes to 300% for sorority members who live in sorority houses (Bannon et al., 2013). Studies indicate that the fraternity culture as a whole includes group norms that encourage and perpetuate sexual coercion against women, reinforcing rape culture, and promoting rape myths (Boswell & Spade, 1996; Foubert, Garner, & Thaxter, 2006; Martin & Hummer, 1989). Moreover, fraternity houses can create conditions where gang rape is both “feasible and probable� (Martin & Hummer, 1989, p. 458) as indicated by the estimate that over half of gang rapes on college campuses are committed by fraternity members (Foubert et al., 2006). However, a recent study indicated

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 2

that the general acceptance of rape myths is dropping among college students, including among fraternity and sorority members; in fact, sorority members are more likely to reject rape myths than non-sorority members (Navarro & Tewksbury, 2017). Should this trend continue, norm-based programs could be even more effective in the future as fewer chapter members hold negative beliefs.

Racism Predominantly white fraternities and sororities are often regarded as environments where unchallenged negative racial attitudes thrive among members, and perpetuate through overtly exclusive recruiting practices (Grasgreen, 2013), racist party themes, and prejudiced behaviors (Morgan, Zimmerman, Terrell, & Marcotte, 2015). Overtly racist behaviors, such as chants featuring racist slurs, have also surfaced from predominantly white fraternities and sororities in recent years (Jaschik, 2014; Mendoza, 2018; Rivero, 2017; Whitford, 2018). Sororities have been notably criticized for reinforcing white standards of beauty, which contributes to a culture of racial exclusivity (Worthen, 2014). However, one study indicates that fraternity and sorority members do not differ from their unaffiliated peers on their development of intercultural competence, given that multicultural educational experiences have a positive outcome on sorority and fraternity leaders (Martin, Parker, Pascarella, & Blechschmidt, 2015).

Homophobia Social fraternities are regarded as bastions of homophobic thought, given that they are singlesex organizations that have a reputation for upholding traditional gender roles and lauding heterosexual norms such as hetero-masculinity (Boswell & Spade, 1996; Hall & LaFrance, 2007; Hesp & Brooks, 2009; Kaloff & Cargill, 1991; Metzger, Williams, Chen, & Chartier, 2006; Trump & Wallace, 2006; Worthen, 2014). In particular, queer stereotypes and

crass derogatory terms and actions have been found to be pervasive within fraternities (Hall & LaFrance, 2007; Rivero, 2007; Trump & Wallace, 2006; Whitford, 2018; Worthen 2014). Studies indicated that while sororities and fraternities do not have exclusionary clauses banning members of specific sexual orientations, most gay and lesbian chapter members conceal their sexual orientations from their peers, out of fear of social repercussions (Case, Hesp, & Eberly, 2005; Trump & Wallace, 2006). Interestingly, the handful of surveyed fraternity/sorority members who did come out as queer reported positive experiences in doing so, and subsequent alterations in the negative verbal behaviors of their peers (Trump &Wallace, 2006). Particularly in the case of fraternities, Trump and Wallace (2006) concluded that the use of gay slurs occurs as the result of ignorance regarding the effects of their language, rather than from deep-seated intolerance within the individuals.

Sororities have been shown to be more accepting of gay, lesbian, and bisexual peers than fraternities, given that sorority women have individually claimed to believe that “same-sex attraction is not inconsistent with sorority values (sic.)� (Neumann, Kretovics, & Roccoforte, 2013, p. 1). However, sororities are still regarded as highly heteronormative in their selective offers of membership, as they have been shown to seek stereotypically feminine members (Worthen, 2014). There is very little research to be found regarding fraternity/sorority acceptance of bisexual individuals, and even less on transgender individuals, which are both areas which direly require further exploration in order to assess potential prejudices (Worthen, 2014).

To sum up, excessive alcohol use, drug use, sexual assaults, racism and homophobia occur more frequently in fraternities and sororities than in other student groups. However, excessive alcohol use and homophobia tend to be less problematic in sororities than in fraternities.

Given these particulars, we turn our attention to prevention and intervention programs designed

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 3

to deter excessive alcohol use, drug use, sexual assaults, racism, and homophobia among fraternities and sororities.

Prevention & Intervention Programs Most prevention and intervention programs aimed at lessening any number of these behaviors (including punitive actions) on college campuses have met with disappointing success within the fraternity/sorority population, leading to numerous calls from researchers for new methods of programming (Alva, 1998; Ametrano, 1992; Collins & Liu, 2014; Hamm, 2016; Jakeman, 2012; Larimer et al., 1997; Martin & Hummer, 1989; Phillips & Heesacker, 1992; Russett, 2017; Sasso, 2015). Specifically, because of the social and peer-centric nature of fraternity and sorority behaviors, many researchers point to the potential of targeted interventions and education based on social norms (Alva, 1998; Baer, Stacy, & Larimer, 1991; Bannon et al., 2013; Collins & Liu, 2014; Gidycz, Orchowski, & Berkowitz, 2011; Larimer et al., 1997; Perkins, 2002; Sasso & Schwitzer, 2016; Sher et al., 2001; Suls & Green, 2003; Wall et al., 2008; Wechsler & Kuo, 2000), to create a new culture and environment in these organizations (Collins & Liu, 2014; Quintana, 2017; Zamudio-Suarez, 2017).

Social Norms Programming As mentioned previously, social norms are defined as beliefs about expected or desired behaviors in a given situation shared among a specific social population, which present as patterned behaviors for members of said population (Braxton, 2010; Gibbs, 1981; Rossi & Berk, 1985). Social norms provide a social group with moral boundaries, and reflect the group’s collective conscience (Braxton, 2010; Caboni et al., 2005; Durkheim, 1982; Mayhew et al., 2016; Merton, 1968). In highly insular and intimate social groups, such as fraternities and sororities, it is believed that the power and influence of social norms on college student

behavior is significantly magnified (Chickering 1969; Milem, 1998; Perkins, 2002; Pettigrew, 1998). The confrontation and re-appraisal of ingroup norms and customs constitutes a crucial step in effective prejudice reduction (Mayhew et al., 2016; Pettigrew, 1998).

Prevention programs using social norms often utilize the fact that individuals consistently overestimate the frequency and extent of negative behaviors of their peer groups and justify their own negative behaviors in turn (Baer et al., 1991; Borsari & Carey, 2001; Larimer et al., 1997; Lewis & Neighbors, 2004; Perkins, 2002).

Such programs posit that confronting individuals with the real, misperceived norms of behavior of their peer group will lead to a reduction in their personal negative behaviors, out of a desire to fit in with their corrected view of their peer network norm (Stein, 2007; Wechsler & Kuo, 2000). While some poorly-targeted and ill-assessed norm-based programs have met criticism, particularly for their ineffectiveness at altering fraternity/sorority behaviors (Campo, Brossard, & Frazer, 2003; Carter & Kahnweiler, 2000; Keeling, 2000), other norms-based programs have shown noted success (Perkins, 2002). Many successful bystander intervention programs for preventing sexual assault include education about social norms, which have significantly decreased acceptance of rape myths among sorority members and shown a decrease in sexual aggression among male participants (Bannon et al., 2013; Banyard, Moynihan, & Crossman, 2009; Gidycz et al., 2011). Likewise, norms-based prevention programs have been effective at curbing eating disorders among college women (Sasso & Schwitzer, 2016).

Still, only a small fraction of universities have implemented programs based on social norms (Wechsler & Kuo, 2000).

Two key themes emerged in the prior research related to social norms prevention/intervention programming and fraternities/sororities. First, more studies are required to test the efficacy of norm-based programs for curbing negative

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 4

behaviors in these populations. Second, bettertargeted implementations are necessary to determine if norms-based programs can work within specific fraternity/sorority chapter populations.

A Different Approach to Social Norm Targeting We address herein the second theme of prior research on the efficacy of social norms-based prevention and intervention programming for fraternities and sororities. We address this second theme by presenting a targeted approach that centers attention on the degree to which members of a fraternity or sorority disdain excessive alcohol use, drug use, sexual assault, racism, and homophobia rather than a focus on the frequency of such behaviors of their peers.

Put differently, the approach we advance focuses on the extent to which members of fraternities or sororities espouse norms that rebuke these negative behaviors. Behaviors viewed as highly inappropriate meet criteria for designation as a proscriptive norm based on Merton’s (1968; 1973) definition of a norm as prescribed (promoted) and proscribed (banned) patterns of behavior. Centering attention on the proscriptive norms held by members of a fraternity or sorority provides a robust approach to the deterrence of these problematic behaviors. Deterrence of problematic behaviors more likely occurs because social norms provide a social group with moral boundaries by providing guidelines for appropriate and inappropriate student behavior and, in this case, the behavior of members of a fraternity or sorority (Braxton, 2010; Caboni et al., 2005; Merton, 1968). Norms denote behaviors important to most group members (Hackman, 1976). Moreover, enforcement of group norms, and by extension conformity to the norms by group members, occurs if adherence to the norms fosters the survival of the group (Feldman, 1984).

Consequently, the approach we assert entails an audit of the prevailing proscriptive norms

regarding excessive alcohol use, drug use, sexual assault, racism, and homophobia espoused by members of fraternities and sororities. Such an audit would provide fraternity/sorority professionals with a knowledge of the extent to which norms that disdain such negative student behaviors exists among members of the fraternity/sorority community at their college or university or for specific chapters.

Accordingly, we recommend that fraternity/ sorority professionals conduct such normative audits of the membership of all fraternity/ sorority communities, or the membership of specific fraternities or sororities at their college or university. The choice to conduct audits of all fraternities or sororities or specific fraternities or sororities depends on the degree to which the student conduct issues occur across an entire fraternity/sorority system or within specific chapters.

The Normative Audit Instrument In the Appendix to this article, we provide an instrument for fraternity/sorority professionals to conduct audits to determine the existence of norms that rebuke excessive alcohol use, drug use, sexual assault, racism, and homophobia.

This instrument uses empirically derived norms patterns for student behavior which provide empirical grounding for it.

Four empirically derived proscriptive normative patterns afford such empirical grounding (Caboni et al., 2005). Predatory Sexual Advances, Homophobia, and Intrusive Substance Abuse constitute three empirically derived inviolable proscriptive norm patterns (Caboni et al., 2005). Inviolable norms denote behaviors that undergraduate college students view as warranting severe sanctions such as the student should be removed from the college or the student should be excluded from the group (e.g., class, organization, or peer group).

Students also viewed Verbalized Racial/Queer Intolerance1 as a normative orientation toward

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 5

behaviors befitting some level of rebuke but not the severity of actions suitable for inviolable norms (Caboni et al., 2005).

Put differently, students regarded this normative pattern as admonitory. All four of these norms directly relate to the student conduct issues of excessive alcohol use (Intrusive Substance Abuse), drug use (Intrusive Substance Abuse), sexual assault (Predatory Sexual Advances), racism (Verbalized Racial/Queer Intolerance) and homophobia (Verbalized Racial/Queer Intolerance and Homophobia).

Each of the specific behaviors that comprise the proscriptive normative patterns of Predatory Sexual Advances, Homophobia, and Intrusive Substance Abuse meet the criterion for designation as an inviolable norm, requiring the most severe consequences. Each of the specific behaviors that make up the normative pattern of Verbalized Racial/Queer Intolerance meet the criterion for designation as an admonitory norm.2 Admonitory norms require a response but not one as severe as inviolable normative behaviors trigger.

Thus, each of these specific behaviors also justify designation as proscriptive norms.

Caboni et al. (2005) report the twelve specific proscriptive norms that comprise one of the four normative patterns. They note that the normative pattern of Predatory Sexual Advances includes the proscribed behavior of a student rapes another person, a student date rapes another person, and a student sexually assaults another student. The normative array of Homophobia includes the proscribed behaviors of a student physically assaults someone of a different sexual orientation, and a student posts derogatory comments or materials on the door of a queer student (Caboni et al., 2005).

The proscribed behaviors of a student drinks

to excess and drives others, a student comes to class obviously high on drugs, a student urinates in public, and a student sells marijuana comprise the normative configuration of Intrusive Substance Abuse (Caboni et al., 2005). Caboni et al. (2005) indicate that the normative pattern of Verbalized Racial/Queer Intolerance consists of such rebuked behaviors as a student verbally abuses someone of a different sexual orientation, a student makes intolerant remarks about someone of a different race, and a student makes intolerant remarks about someone of a different sexual orientation.

Caboni et al. (2005) empirically derived the four normative patterns and their specific proscribed behaviors using a sample of 214 undergraduate students enrolled at a highly selective, residential, private research university.

These norms emerged from the responses of the 214 students to “The College Student Behaviors Inventory.” This instrument was designed to identify behaviors that meet criteria for designation as a norm. Proscriptive norms emerged from student responses to this instrument because this instrument consists of items negatively worded following Durkheim’s (1951) contention that norms are best recognized when they are violated. Violations of norms provoke varying degrees of outrage or anger that signify its social significance (Durkheim, 1912/1995). Outrage or anger manifests itself in the responses students register about the negatively-worded behaviors of “The College Student Behaviors Inventory” by indicating the degree to which they viewed them as being inappropriate behaviors and the action that should be taken because of the behavior (Caboni et al., 2005).

An additional study offers empirical backing for the norms of Predatory Sexual Advances,

Caboni, et al. (2005) named this norm Verbalized Racial/Homosexual Intolerance. We changed the name of this norm to Verbalized Racial/ Queer Intolerance because homosexual is a dated and somewhat limited as it excludes sexual orientations such as pansexual and asexual behaviors, both of which may be considered “different” as described in several specific instrument items that comprise the norm. “Queer” is a more inclusive term.

2 We refer readers to Caboni et al. (2005) for a more detailed description of the methodology and statistical procedures (including the factor analyses and Cronbach alpha for each normative pattern) used to derive these four norms as such a description lies outside the scope of this article.

1

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 6

Homophobia, Intrusive Substance Abuse, and Verbalized Racial/Queer Intolerance (Akin & Park, 2015) in a very different institutional setting than a highly selective research university.

Akin and Park conducted their study in a rural community college, and yielded empirically identified norms very similar in their composition of the specific behaviors to those identified by Caboni et al. (2005). In the development of the normative audit instrument displayed in the Appendix, we use the previously delineated 12 specific behaviors that comprise each of the four empirically discerned normative patterns by Caboni et al. (2005) as the foundation for this instrument.

The normative audit instrument uses a fivepoint scale for students to register their degree of outrage or anger evoked by each of the twelve specific behaviors of this instrument. This fivepoint scale is as follows: (1) very inappropriate behavior, the student should be removed from the college; (2) very inappropriate behavior, the student should be excluded from the group (class, organization, or peer group); (3) inappropriate behavior, someone should talk to the student about the behavior and suggest change or improvement; (4) mildly inappropriate behavior, generally to be ignored; and (5) behavior which is neither appropriate nor inappropriate.3 A pilot test of the normative audit instrument exhibited in the Appendix has not been conducted. However, we assert that fraternity/ sorority professionals can use the instrument with confidence for two reasons. First, the normative audit instrument was designed to identify specific behaviors that meet the criterion for designation as a norm. This criterion stems from Durkheim’s (1951) assertion that norms are best recognized when they are violated. Accordingly, the specific behaviors of the normative audit instrument take a negatively worded form. Violations of norms provoke varying degrees of outrage or anger

that signifies its social significance (Durkheim, 1912/1995). Outrage or anger manifest itself in the responses students convey about these negatively stated behaviors by indicating the degree to which they viewed them as being inappropriate behaviors and the action that should be taken because of the behaviors (Caboni et al., 2005). Studies used this approach to empirically identify specific highly rebuked behavior and the underlying proscriptive normative patterns for college and university presidents (Fleming, 2010), academic deans (Bray, 2010), faculty (Braxton & Bayer, 1999; Braxton, Proper, & Bayer, 2011), institutional advancement officers (Caboni, 2010), admissions and recruitment officers (Hodum & James, 2010), graduate teaching assistants (Hellend, 2010), and housing and residence life professionals (Hirschy, Wilson, & Braxton, 2015).

Another reason for use of the normative audit instrument without the results of a pilot test centers on the empirical backing for each of the twelve specific behaviors of the instrument as meeting the criterion for designation as a proscriptive norm. This empirical support stems from the research of Caboni et al., (2005) and Akin and Park (2015) in two different institutional settings. Put differently, the utility of the instrument to the work of fraternity/ sorority professionals does not depend on the instrument as a totality, as fraternity/sorority professionals may choose to focus their attention on particular problematic behaviors pertaining to excessive alcohol use drug use, sexual assault, racism, or homophobia. For example, if date rape constitutes a significant problem, the administration of the normative audit instrument enables fraternity/sorority life professionals to ascertain the degree of disdain members of fraternities and sororities view such a behavior.

This five-point scale differs from the nine-point scale (1=very inappropriate to 9=very appropriate) used by Caboni et al. (2005) and Akin and Park (2015). We chose to use the five-point scale because of its use for consistency with other studies designed to empirically delineate proscriptive normative patterns for other constituents of colleges and universities (Fleming, 2010; Bray, 2010; Braxton & Bayer, 1999; Braxton et al., 2011; Caboni, 2010; Hodum & James, 2010); Hellend, 2010; and Hirschy, Wilson, & Braxton, 2015).

3

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 7

Administration of the Normative Audit The development of normative profiles of the membership of all fraternities and sororities of the fraternity/sorority community, or the membership of specific fraternities or sororities at their college or university, constitutes the primary objective of the administration of the normative audit. We discuss the development of normative profiles in a subsequent section of this article.

The administration of the normative audit instrument to the membership of all fraternities and sororities permits the identification of specific behaviors of the four normative patterns that evoke levels of distain that warrant status as a violable norm. The decision by fraternity/ sorority professionals to administer the normative audit instrument to the membership of specific fraternities or sororities at their college or university depends on the degree to which student conduct violations occur across an entire fraternity/sorority system or chapters of specific fraternities or sororities.

We recommend that the normative audit instrument be administered anonymously to the entire membership of the focal fraternities or sororities. We recommend the use of a webbased platform, such as SurveyMonkey, to assure respondents a degree of privacy while completing the instrument. If the normative audit instrument was administered during a chapter meeting, then privacy for respondents may be problematic. Moreover, the social desirability of responses to each of the behaviors that comprise each of the four norms might be more problematic given the group setting of a chapter meeting. For these reasons, we do not recommend the in-person administration of the instrument. Fraternity/sorority professionals may possess the needed technical skills to carry out the administration and computation of the level of disdain expressed for Predatory Sexual Advances, Homophobia, Intrusive Substance 4 5

Abuse, and Verbalized Racial/Queer Intolerance.

However, we recommend that fraternity and sorority life professionals partner with research units within the division of student affairs or the institution’s institutional research office to share responsibility for these tasks. We make this recommendation to increase the response rate to the instrument as well as to enhance the veracity of the level of disdain fraternity and sorority members express for the behaviors that comprise the normative audit instrument.4 Because of the level of suspicion with which some fraternity and sorority members may view their offices of fraternity/sorority life professionals, students might choose not to complete the normative audit instrument or to express spuriously high levels of disdain for the behaviors of this instrument to avoid reprisals against their chapter by either fraternity/sorority life professionals or by the administration of their college or university.

In addition to the above considerations, the administration of the normative audit instrument gives rise to several issues meriting attention. The first issue pertains to the timing of the administration of the normative audit instrument.5 We recommend that fraternity and sorority life professionals use their professional judgment in consultation with student leaders to determine effective timing for administering the instrument (Blimling, 2011). For example, if all chapter members were invited to participate, scheduling the audit every two or three years would ensure that each student member would have at least one opportunity to participate, and the process may be more manageable to collect, analyze, and report the findings than an annual audit. Additionally, certain times of the year such as during mid-term examinations, final examination periods, and before and after vacations might lead to lower response rates.

Another strategy is to administer the instrument when higher levels of disdain for one or more of the four norms have a high probability

We wish to express our gratitude to one of the anonymous reviewers of this manuscript for raising this particular issue.

We wish to express our gratitude to one of the anonymous reviewers of this manuscript for raising this particular issue.

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 8

of occurrence. This perspective resonates with Durkheim’s (1951) assertion that norms are best recognized when they are violated. Moreover, norms emerge from the consequences of the behavior of others (Demsetz, 1967). Behaviors that result in harm might evoke high levels of disdain for such behaviors (Horne, 2001).

Members of fraternities or sororities who either directly or indirectly experience the harm such behavior afflict on other students may express high levels of disdain for the specific behaviors that comprise the norms of Predatory Sexual Advances, Homophobia, Intrusive Substance Abuse, and Verbalized Racial/Queer Intolerance. Thus, the administration of the normative audit instrument could occur after an incident of excessive alcohol use, drug use, sexual assault, racism, and homophobia within a specific fraternity or sorority or across an entire fraternity/sorority system. Alternately, the administration of the instrument could be scheduled during a semester when a large number of new members enter fraternities and sororities, or during a subsequent semester after new members have more interactions to learn what behaviors are acceptable and not acceptable in their chapters.

Another issue concerns individual chapters of fraternities or sororities that achieve a low response rate to the normative audit instrument by their members. A response rate of two thirds or 66.5% stand as an optimum for inclusion in the compilation of results. In his study of campus climates, Pace (1969) asserted that the college rather than the individual student constitutes the appropriate unit of analysis for the depiction of particular attributes of campus climates. If two thirds or more of individual students agree with a particular statement about the climate of their college or university, then that statement depicts an aspect of the college’s climate (Pace, 1969). By extension, we posit the application of this optimum response rate to the normative audit instrument to the compilation of results for individual chapters as

well as for the determination the existence of each of the four norms patterns and each of their specific behaviors as meeting the criterion for designation as a norm. The application of the two thirds threshold also permits the administration of the normative audit instrument to chapters of fraternities and sororities with a small numbers of members.

To reiterate, we present this rate as an optimum level of response given the contentions of Pace (1969). However, we fully realize that the attainment of a response rate of 66% or greater seldom occurs in the administration of surveys to undergraduate college students.

When much lower response rates occur, the existence of a sufficient number of responses for statistical analyses becomes the primary criterion for the use of the results of the normative audit.

Nevertheless, the organizational unit (e.g., research unit within the division of student affairs or the institution’s institutional research office) charged with the administration of the instrument should work to achieve the highest response rate possible.

Development of Normative Profiles The development of normative profiles entails the calculation of the level of disdain expressed for Predatory Sexual Advances, Homophobia, Intrusive Substance Abuse, and Verbalized Racial/Queer Intolerance. Such a computation summarizes an individual’s level of disapproval for each specific behavior of these four patterns of behavior as indicated by their response to the five-point scale previously described divided by the total number of specific behaviors that comprises each of the four patterns of behavior.

Table 1 (on the next page) displays the specific behaviors that make-up each of norms of Predatory Sexual Advances, Homophobia, Intrusive Substance Abuse, and Verbalized Racial/Queer Intolerance. We derived these specific behaviors from the research of Caboni et al. (2005) and Akin and Park (2015).

Inviolable or admonitory norm status is

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 9

Table 1 The Four Norms and Their Specific Behaviors Predatory Sexual Advances a student rapes another person a student date rapes another person a student sexually assaults another Homophobia a student physically assaults someone of a different sexual orientation a student posts derogatory comments or materials on the door of a homosexual student Intrusive Substance Abuse a student drinks to excess and drives others a student comes to class obviously high on drugs a student urinates in public a student sells marijuana Verbalized Racial/Queer Intolerance a student verbally abuses someone of a different sexual orientation a student makes intolerant remarks about someone of a different race, a student makes intolerant remarks about someone of a different sexual orientation Source: Caboni et al. (2005); Akin & Park (2015).

obtained using the means computed for each of these four patterns of behavior exhibit in Table 1. We posit the use of the mean values used by Fleming (2010), Bray (2010), Hodum and James (2010), Hellend (2010), Braxton and Bayer (1999), Braxton et al. (2011), and Hirschy et al. (2015) to allocate inviolable or admonitory norm status to both each of the four patterns of behavior as well as the specific behaviors that comprise each of these behavioral configurations.

A mean value of 4.00 or higher warrants designation as an inviolable norm whereas a mean value of 3.00 to 3.99 defines a behavioral pattern as an admonitory norm.

Normative Profiles can be formed using the mean values, standard deviations, and inviolable or admonitory norm determination for Predatory Sexual Advances, Homophobia, Intrusive Substance Abuse, and Verbalized Racial/Queer Intolerance for each specific

fraternity or sorority. In addition to means and standard deviations, Cronbach alpha estimates of internal consistency reliability should also be computed for each of these behavioral patterns.

Such a normative profile could also include the mean values, standard deviations, and inviolable or admonitory norm designation for each of the 12 behaviors that comprise the four patterns of behavior. The institutional research office or the student affairs assessment unit that conducts the administration of the normative audit instrument should also develop these normative profiles.

Fraternity/sorority professionals can use these Normative Profiles to answer the following questions: 1. What is the average level of disdain members of fraternities and sororities within the fraternity/sorority community of a college or university espouse for Predatory Sexual Advances, Homophobia,

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 10

2.

3.

4.

5.

Intrusive Substance Abuse, and Verbalized Racial/Queer Intolerance?

What is the average level of disdain members of fraternities and sororities within the fraternity/sorority community of a college or university espouse for such behaviors as a student rapes another person, a student date rapes another person, a student sexually assaults another student, a student physically assaults someone of a different sexual orientation, a student posts derogatory comments or materials on the door of a queer student, student drinks to excess and drives others, a student comes to class obviously high on drugs, a student urinates in public, a student sells marijuana, a student verbally abuses someone of a different sexual orientation, a student makes intolerant remarks about someone of a different race, and a student makes intolerant remarks about someone of a different sexual orientation?

Do members of sororities differ from members of fraternities on their level of disdain for Predatory Sexual Advances, Homophobia, Intrusive Substance Abuse, and Verbalized Racial/Queer Intolerance?

Do specific chapters of fraternities or sororities have higher or lower levels of disdain for Predatory Sexual Advances, Homophobia, Intrusive Substance Abuse, and Verbalized Racial/Queer Intolerance?

Do specific chapters of fraternities or sororities have higher or lower levels of disdain for such behaviors as a student rapes another person, a student date rapes another person, a student sexually assaults another student, a student physically assaults someone of a different sexual orientation, a student posts derogatory comments or materials on the door of a queer student, student drinks to excess and drives others, a student comes to class obviously high on drugs, a student urinates

in public, a student sells marijuana, a student verbally abuses someone of a different sexual orientation, a student makes intolerant remarks about someone of a different race, and a student makes intolerant remarks about someone of a different sexual orientation?

Uses of the Normative Profiles Fraternity/sorority professionals can use Normative Profiles for each fraternity and sorority at their college or university to advise on institutional policies and practices and for consultations with specific chapters of fraternities or sororities. Moreover, a Normative Profile aggregated for the fraternity and sorority community of a college or university can also be compiled. The use of the Normative Profiles depends on answers to the above questions.

Institutional policies and practices. If fraternity/ sorority campus-based professionals are held accountable for the actions of members of fraternities and sororities regarding current institutional policies and practices that exist to address excessive alcohol use, drug use, sexual assault, racism, or homophobia then they can explain the effectiveness of such policies and practices.To elaborate, the effectiveness of extant institutional policies and practices in reducing the occurrence of these behaviors by members of fraternities or sororities depends to some extent on the existence of norms espoused by members of fraternities and sororities that are supportive of such policies and practices. This assertion stems from Durkheim’s (1951) contention that nonconformity is the normal human condition and that conformity is abnormal. Thus, norms are needed to assure conformity. In this case, norms supportive of institutional policies and practices are needed to assure adherence to them (Reiss, 1951).

If the normative profiles indicate that inviolable or admonitory norm status exists for Predatory Sexual Advances, Homophobia, Intrusive Substance Abuse, or Verbalized Racial/

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 11

Queer Intolerance, then some confidence in the efficacy of institutional policies and practices results. In contrast, if inviolable or admonitory norm status does not exist for any of these four proscribed behavior patterns then such policies and practices are likely to be ineffective in reducing the occurrences of targeted student behaviors such as excessive alcohol use, drug use, sexual assault, racism, or homophobia by members of fraternities or sororities.

The absence of supportive norms suggests that fraternity/sorority campus-based professionals should develop programs to encourage the development of inviolable or admonitory norms held by members of fraternities and sororities. We recommend that such programs develop activities that help program participants understand the harmful effects of excessive alcohol use, drug use, sexual assault, racism, or homophobia on the victims of such behaviors. Our recommendation stems from the perspective that norms emerge because of the behavior of others (Demsetz, 1967).

Some behaviors might evoke approval because of benefits derived from the behavior. In contrast, other behaviors may result in harm and elicit disapproval (Horne, 2001). By extension, the development of inviolable or admonitory norms results from the awareness of the harm that results from such student behaviors as excessive alcohol use, drug use, sexual assault, racism, or homophobia.

The fraternity and sorority community. Portfolio advising models are becoming more common in fraternity and sorority life departments.

This model has a staff member working with a council, but also advising a group of chapters from all councils. Portfolio advising enables larger campuses to support their chapters more directly, as well as providing staff with a more comprehensive focus on the entire fraternity and sorority community instead of a singular council. The norms audit results could inform the advising staff style in two ways: a. Prioritizing the groups that need support

– if the department staff cannot manage assigning all chapters in a portfolio, the norms data would allow them to identify groups that need the most support.

Balancing the other things known about a group and context with these data would provide more advanced insight into how to make those decisions. b. Improved coaching – The resources can be more specifically matched to the group based on the results of the normative audit. Instead of focusing on the general needs of a group, the resources can be tailored to match the chapter culture. For example, the norms data can help advisors pinpoint groups who may be more open to change or ready to receive a well-timed intervention.

The normative profiles created for each chapter can be taken in aggregate to understand the dynamics within a council and full community. This usage has a broad impact to the way that campus-based professionals do their daily work. Specifically, programmatic goals from learning outcomes can be adjusted to the campus culture so that professionals are neither over estimating or under estimating the readiness of their communities for change.

The normative profiles about the fraternity and sorority community specifically could help to address broader campus goals in a variety of ways.

Alcohol and other drug educators frequently use norms for passive programming and marketing campaigns aimed at addressing student substance use. These data can help administrators target a known community with higher risk behaviors around alcohol and other drugs in a traditional norms campaign. Additionally, knowledge about the norms could help inform work done both proactively with diversity and inclusion as well as in response to bias incidents. For example, a fraternity and sorority life office could work with other departments supporting students of color or queer students to provide collaborative programs with groups who show a low tolerance

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 12

for discrimination. Alternatively, this might help to focus interventions on groups who have higher levels of tolerance for discriminatory practices.

Alumni advisors represent an important stakeholder group in working with fraternity and sorority communities. They tend to have a different, and sometimes unheard, perspective on the strengths and weaknesses of chapters, councils, and the community. Sharing the normative profiles both specific to their chapter and more broadly for the campus could help advance their buy-in to new or revised programs, approaches, and interventions with groups. This process could also help address the generational gap between advisors and students by painting a more realistic picture for the group they are working with now.

Individual chapters of fraternities and sororities.

Fraternity/sorority professionals may choose to have consultations with the leadership of the chapters of specific fraternities or sororities in which problematic levels of excessive alcohol use, drug use, sexual assault, racism, or homophobia occur. Fraternity/sorority campusbased professionals can use the normative profiles developed for the focal chapter as a basis for their consultation. If the normative profiles for a focal chapter indicates that inviolable or admonitory norms prevail for Predatory Sexual Advances, Homophobia, Intrusive Substance Abuse, or Verbalized Racial/Queer Intolerance, then fraternity/sorority campusbased professionals can provide the leadership of the focal chapter with such information for them to use in conversations with their members who frequently violate these norms and place the chapter at risk for institutional action. In their conversations with frequent offenders, chapter leaders could use the normative profile to show such individuals that other members of their chapter disapprove of behaviors such as Predatory Sexual Advances, Homophobia, Intrusive Substance Abuse, or Verbalized Racial/ Queer Intolerance or of such specific behaviors as a student date rapes another person, a student

sexually assaults another student, a student physically assaults someone of a different sexual orientation, student drinks to excess and drives others, a student sells marijuana, and a student makes intolerant remarks about someone of a different race. If an offending individual fails to change their behavior, then punitive action might occur.

Moreover, an educational conduct process and philosophy can benefit from better understanding a chapter’s culture. Educational programs and interventions can be more specifically aligned with the norms within the chapter. Additionally, this helps to guide the decisions of institutional leaders wrestling with the balance of restorative to the chapter and protecting the community from harm. Institutional leaders can examine where educational interventions can more likely influence behavior and places where restrictions and administrative actions, such as probation, are more apt. For example, in a case with an alcohol policy violation, chapters that demonstrate higher levels of disdain for substance abuse can cue the conduct officer to assign outcomes that address bystander intervention specific to alcohol abuse. In contrast, a similar violation with a chapter that has low levels of disdain in the same scale may require social restriction or similar administrative functions to reinforce the need for a culture change.

Normative profiles that indicate that Predatory Sexual Advances, Homophobia, Intrusive Substance Abuse, or Verbalized Racial/ Queer Intolerance do not have admonitory status in specific chapters of fraternities or sororities presents a different situation to fraternity/ sorority professionals. For this situation, we recommend fraternity/sorority campusbased professionals require the membership of such specific chapters to participate in the norm development program described under Institutional Policy and Practices.

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 13

Concluding Thoughts We present a different approach to using social norms to deter or reduce excessive alcohol use, drug use, sexual assault, racism, or homophobia by members of fraternities or sororities. Rather than focusing on the frequency in which peers engage in such behaviors, the approach we offer centers attention on the degree to which peers espouse strong disapproval of such behaviors.

This approach requires that fraternity/sorority professionals conduct normative audits to provide such information to the leaderships of chapters for consultations with offending members of their fraternity or sorority. In the Appendix to this article, we provide an instrument for fraternity/sorority professionals to conduct the necessary normative audits.

Because of the importance of norms to members of social groups such as fraternities and sororities and the concomitant desire to comply with them, individual fraternity or sorority members who frequently engage in such problematic behaviors as excessive alcohol use, drug use, sexual assault, racism, or homophobia may cease their engagement in such behaviors.

Accordingly, we highly recommend this approach to fraternity/sorority campus-based professionals.

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 14

Appendix This survey is being conducted to help identify member opinions about specific fraternity/ sorority behaviors and expectations. You are asked to participate in the study. This survey consists of a list of behaviors related to being a member of a fraternity or sorority. Some behaviors may appear to be appropriate and/or inappropriate to some students but not to others. Using the response codes listed below, give your opinion on each of the behaviors as you think they might ideally apply to a member of your specific chapter. There are no right or wrong answers, only your much-needed opinions. All responses will be treated confidentially and will in no way be traceable to individual respondents.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Response categories 1 = very inappropriate behavior, the student should be removed from the college 2 = very inappropriate behavior, the student should be excluded from the group (class, organization or peer group) 3 = inappropriate behavior, someone should talk to the student about the behavior and suggest change or improvement 4 = mildly inappropriate behavior, generally to be ignored 5 = behavior which is neither appropriate nor inappropriate

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 15

very inappropriate behavior, the student should be removed from the college

very inappropriate behavior, the student should be excluded from the group (class, organization or peer group)

inappropriate behavior, someone should talk to the student about the behavior and suggest change or improvement

mildly inappropriate behavior, generally to be ignored

behavior which is neither appropriate nor inappropriate

1

A student makes intolerant remarks about someone of a different race

1

2

3

4

5

2

A student date rapes another person

1

2

3

4

5

3

A student makes intolerant remarks about someone of a different sexual orientation

1

2

3

4

5

4

A student sexually assaults another

1

2

3

4

5

5

A student posts derogatory comments or materials on the door of a homosexual student

1

2

3

4

5

6

A student drinks to excess and drives others

1

2

3

4

5

7

A student comes to class obviously high on drugs

1

2

3

4

5

8

A student urinates in public

1

2

3

4

5

9

A student physically assaults someone of a different sexual orientation

1

2

3

4

5

10

A student rapes another person

1

2

3

4

5

11

A student verbally abuses someone of a different sexual orientation

1

2

3

4

5

12

A student sells marijuana

1

2

3

4

5

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 16

References Abar, C., & Maggs, J. (2010). Social influence and selection processes as predictors of normative perceptions and alcohol use across the transition to college. Journal of College Student Development, 51, 496-508. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2010.0005 Akin, R., & Park, T. J. (2015). What community college students value: Delineating a normative structure for community college students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 40, 439-451. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2015.1066721 Alva, S. A. (1998). Self-reported alcohol use of college fraternity and sorority members. Journal of College Student Development, 39, 3-10.

Ametrano, I. M. (1992). An evaluation of the effectiveness of a substance-abuse prevention program. Journal of College Student Development, 33, 507-515.

Baer, J. S., Stacy, A., & Larimer, M. E. (1991). Biases in the perception of drinking norms among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52, 580-586. https://doi.org/10.15288/ jsa.1991.52.580 Bannon, R. S., Brosi, M. W., & Foubert, J. D. (2013). Sorority women’s and fraternity men’s rape myth acceptance and bystander intervention attitudes. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 50(1), 72-87. https://doi.org/10.1515/jsarp-2013-0005 Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., & Crossman, M. T. (2009). Reducing sexual violence on campus: The role of student leaders as empowered bystanders. Journal of College Student Development, 50, 446-457. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0083 Biddix, J. P. (2016). Moving beyond alcohol: A review of other issues associated with fraternity membership with implications for practice and research. Journal of College Student Development, 57, 793-809. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2016.0079 Blimling, G. S. (2011). Developing professional judgment. In P. M. Magolda & M. B. Baxter Magolda (Eds.), Contested issues in student affairs: Diverse perspectives and respectful dialogue (pp. 4253). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Borsari, B., & Carey, K. B. (2001). Peer influences on college drinking: A review of the research.

Journal of Substance Abuse, 13, 391-424. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0899-3289(01)00098-0 Boswell, A. A., & Spade, J. Z. (1996). Fraternities and collegiate rape culture. Gender & Society, 10(2), 133-147. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124396010002003 Braxton, J. M. (2010). Norms and the work of colleges and universities: Introduction to the special issue - Norms in academia. The Journal of Higher Education, 81, 243-250. https://doi. org/10.1353/jhe.0.0097 Braxton, J. M., & Bayer, A. E. (1999). Faculty misconduct in collegiate teaching. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Braxton, J. M., Proper, E. M., & Bayer, A. E. (2011). Professors behaving badly: Faculty misconduct in graduate education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bray, N. (2010). The deanship and its faculty interpreters: Do Mertonian norms of science translate into norms for administration? Journal of Higher Education, 81, 284–316. https://doi. org/10.1353/jhe.0.0092 Caboni, T. C. (2010). The normative structure of college and university fundraising behaviors.

Journal of Higher Education, 81, 339–365. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.0.0094 Caboni, T. C., Braxton, J. M., Deusterhaus, M. D., Mundy, M. E., McClendon, S. A., & Lee, S. D. (2005). Toward an empirical delineation of a normative structure for college students. The Journal of Higher Education, 76, 519-544. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2005.0034 Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 17

Campo, S., Brossard, D., & Frazer, M. S. (2003). Are social norms campaigns really magic bullets?

Assessing the effects of students’ misperceptions on drinking behavior. Health Communication, 15, 481-497. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327027hc1504_06 Carter, C. A., & Kahnweiler, W. M. (2000). The efficacy of the social norms approach to substance abuse prevention applied to fraternity men. Journal of American College Health, 49(2), 66-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448480009596286 Case, D. N., Hesp, G. A., & Eberly, C. G. (2005). An exploratory study of the experiences of gay, lesbian, and bisexual fraternity and sorority members revisited. Oracle:The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 1(1), 15-31.

Caudill, B. D., Crosse, S. B., Campbell, B., Howard, J., Luckey, B., & Blane, H. T. (2006). High-risk drinking among college fraternity members: A national perspective. Journal of American College Health, 55(3), 141-155. https://doi.org/10.3200/jach.55.3.141-155 Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Collins, C. S., & Liu, M. (2014). Greek environments: An update on the effects of fraternities and sororities on health-related behaviors. Journal of College and Character, 15(2), 87-101. https://doi. org/10.1515/jcc-2014-0013 Demsetz, H. (1967). Toward a theory of property rights. The American Economic Review, 57, 347-359.

Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide: a study in sociology. (J. A. Spaulding and G. Simpson, Trans.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press. (Original work published in 1897).

Durkheim, E. (1982). The rules of the sociological method. New York, NY: Free Press.

Durkheim, E. (1995). The elementary forms of religious life. (K. E. Fields, Trans.). New York, NY: Free Press. (Original work published in 1912).

Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of Management Review, 9, 47-53. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1984.4277934 Fleming, J. C. (2010). Faculty expectations for college presidents. Journal of Higher Education, 81, 251–283. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.0.0091 Foubert, J. D., Garner, D. N., & Thaxter, P. J. (2006). An explanation of fraternity culture: Implications for programs to address alcohol-related sexual assault. College Student Journal, 40, 361-373.

Foubert, J. D., Tatum, J. L., & Godin, E. E. (2010). First-year male students’ perceptions of a rape prevention program 7 months after their participation: Attitude and behavior changes. Journal of College Student Development, 51, 707-715. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2010.0021 Gibbs, J. (1981). Norms, deviance, and social control: Conceptual matters. New York, NY: Elsevier.

Gidycz, C. A., Orchowski, M. L., & Berkowitz, A. D. (2011). Preventing sexual aggression among college men: An evaluation of a social norms and bystander intervention program. Violence Against Women, 17, 720–742. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801211409727 Grasgreen, A. (2013, September 19). It’s not just Alabama. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from: http:// www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/09/19/segregated-sororities-not-limited-alabamaexperts-say Hackman, J. R. (1976). Group influences on individuals. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, (pp. 1455-525). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Hall, J., & LaFrance, B. (2007). Attitudes and communication of homophobia in fraternities: Separating the impact of social adjustment function from hetero-identity concern. Communication Quarterly, 55(1), 39-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370600998673

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 18

Hamm, K. J. (2016). Just the facts, bro: Developing a successful alcohol education program for fraternity members. Oracle:The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 11(1), 46-59.

Hellend, P. (2010). Espousal of undergraduate teaching normative patterns of first-year teaching assistants. Journal of Higher Education, 81, 394–415. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.0.0096 Hesp, G. A., & Brooks, J. (2009). Heterosexism and homophobia on fraternity row: A case study of a college fraternity community. Journal of LGBTYouth, 6, 395-415. https://doi. org/10.1080/19361650903297344 Hevel, M. S. (2014). Setting the stage for Animal House: Student drinking in college novels, 18651933. Journal of Higher Education, 85, 370-401. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2014.0016 Hirschy, A. S., Wilson, M. E. & Braxton, J. M. (2015). Identifying inviolable behavioral norms of campus housing and residential life professionals. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 52, 359-373. https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2015.1067225 Hodum, R. L., & James, G. W. (2010). An observation of normative structure for college admission and recruitment officers. Journal of Higher Education, 81, 317–338. https://doi.org/10.1353/ jhe.0.0093 Horne, C. (2001). Sociological perspectives on the emergence of social norms. In M. Hechter & K. Opp (Eds.), Social norms (pp. 3-34). New York, NY: Russell Sage.

Jakeman, R. C. (2012, September 17). Focus on party hosts. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from: https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2012/09/17/essay-urges-colleges-seeking-curbdangerous-drinking-focus-educating-party-hosts Jaschik, S. (2014, February 24). Fraternity students linked to noose incident at Ole Miss. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from: http://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2014/02/24/ fraternity-students-linked-noose-incident-ole-miss Kalof, L., & Cargill, T. (1991). Fraternity and sorority membership and gender dominance attitudes. Sex Roles, 25, 419-425. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00292531 Keeling, R. P. (2000). Social norms research in college health. Journal of American College Health, 49, 53-56. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448480009596284 Korcuska, J. S. & Thombs, D. L. (2003). Gender role conflict and sex-specific drinking norms: Relationships to alcohol use in undergraduate women and men. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 204-216. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2003.0017 LaBrie, J. W., Huchting, K., Pedersen, E. R., Hummer, J. F., & Shelesky, S. T. (2007). Female college drinking and the social learning theory: An examination of the developmental transition period from high school to college. Journal of College Student Development, 48, 344-356. https:// doi.org/10.1353/csd.2007.0026 Larimer, M. E., Irvine, D. L., Kilmer, J. R., & Marlatt, G. A. (1997). College drinking and the Greek system: Examining the role of perceived norms for high-risk behavior. Journal of College Student Development, 38, 587-598.

Lewis, M. A., & Neighbors, C. (2004) Gender-specific misperceptions of college student drinking norms. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18, 334-339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893164x.18.4.334 Lewis, T. F. (2007). Perceptions of risk and sex-specific social norms in explaining alcohol consumption among college students: Implications for campus interventions. Journal of College Student Development, 48, 297-310. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2007.0028

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 19

Loh, C., Gidycz, C. A., Lobo, T. R., & Luthra, R. (2005). A prospective analysis of sexual assault perpetration: Risk factors related to perpetrator characteristics. Journal of InterpersonalViolence, 20, 1325-1348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260505278528 Martin, G. L., Parker, G., Pascarella, E. T., & Blechschmidt, S. (2015). Do fraternities and sororities inhibit intercultural competence? Journal of College Student Development, 56, 66-72. https://doi. org/10.1353/csd.2015.0010 Martin, P.Y., & Hummer, R. A. (1989). Fraternities and rape on campus. Gender and Society, 3, 457473. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124389003004004 Mayhew, M. J., Rockenbach, A. N., Bowman, N. J., Seifert, T. A., Wolniak, G. C., Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2016). How college affects students: 21st century evidence that higher education works.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

McCabe, S., Teter, C. J., Boyd, C. J., Knight, J. R., & Wechsler, H. (2005). Nonmedical use of prescription opioids among U.S. college students: Prevalence and correlates from a national survey. Addictive Behaviors, 30, 789-805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2004.08.024 Mendoza, M. (2018, June 22). Texas Tech University condemns ‘frat chat’ which mentioned shooting immigrants for ‘sport’. San Antonio Express-News. Retrieved from: https://www. mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Texas-Tech-University-condemns-Frat-Chatwhich-13018177.php Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York, NY: Free Press.

Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science:Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Metzger, J., Williams, P., Chen, M., & Chartier, G. (2006). Gender presentation and membership bias in Greek organizations. University of Central Florida Undergraduate Research Journal, 2, 20-26. https://doi.org/10.18833/curq/36/4/6 Milem, J. F. (1998). Attitude change in college students: Examining the effect of college peer groups and faculty normative groups. Journal of Higher Education, 69, 417-440. https://doi. org/10.2307/2649203 Morgan, D. L., Zimmerman, H. B., Terrell, T. N., & Marcotte, B. A. (2015).”Stick with yourselves; It’s what’s normal”: The intergroup racial attitudes of senior, white, fraternity men. Journal of College and Character, 16(2), 103-119. https://doi.org/10.1080/2194587x.2015.1024796 Navarro, J. C., & Tewksbury, R. (2017). Mythbusters: Examining rape myth acceptance among U.S. university students. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 54, 343-356. https://doi.org/10 .1080/19496591.2017.1289094 Neumann, D. C., Kretovics, M. A., & Roccoforte, E. C. (2013) Attitudes and beliefs of heterosexual sorority women toward lesbian and bisexual chapter members. Oracle:The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 8(1), 1-15.

Pace, C. R. (1969) College and University Environment Scale. Technical Manual (2nd Ed.). Princeton, N.J.: Educational Test Service.

Perkins, H. W. (2002). Social norms and the prevention of alcohol misuse in collegiate contexts.

Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 14, 164-172. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsas.2002.s14.164 Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65-85. https:// doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65 Phillips, J. C., & Heesacker, M. (1992). College student admission of alcoholism and intention to change alcohol-related behavior. Journal of College Student Development, 33, 403-410.

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 20

Quintana, C. (2017, November 6). Florida State U. suspends fraternities and sororities after pledge’s death. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from: https://www.chronicle.com/ article/Florida-State-U-Suspends/241690 Reiss, A. J. (1951). Delinquency as the failure of personal and social control. American Sociological Review, 16(April), 196-207. https://doi.org/10.2307/2087693 Rivero, A. (2017, November 5). Opinion: Fraternity culture is a hotbed for racism, misogyny and homophobia. Affinity. Retrieved from: http://affinitymagazine.us/2017/11/05/opinionfraternity-culture-is-a-hotbed-for-racism-misogyny-and-homophobia/ Rossi, P., & Berk, R. (1985). Varieties of normative consensus. American Sociological Review, 50, 333347. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095543 Russett, J. (2017). Sorority women, drinking, and context: The influence of environment on college student drinking. Oracle:The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 12(1), 49-61.

Sasso, P. (2015). White boy wasted: Compensatory masculinities in fraternity alcohol use. Oracle:The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 10(1), 14-31.

Sasso, P., & Schwitzer, A. M. (2016). Examining social desirability orientation and alcohol use expectations as factors in fraternity drinking. Oracle:The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 11(1), 17-35.

Sher, K. J., Bartholow, B. D., & Nanda, S. (2001). Short- and long-term effects on fraternity and sorority membership on heavy drinking: A social norms perspective. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 15(1), 42-51. https://doi.org/10.1037//0893-164x.15.1.42 Stein, J. L. (2007). Peer educators and close friends as predictors of male college students’ willingness to prevent rape. Journal of College Student Development, 48, 75-89. https://doi. org/10.1353/csd.2007.0008 Suls, J., & Green, P. (2003). Pluralistic ignorance and college student perceptions of gender-specific alcohol norms. Health Psychology, 22, 479-486. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.22.5.479 Trump, J., & Wallace, J. A. (2006). Gay males in fraternities. Oracle:The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 2(1), 8-28.

Wall, A., Hazen, L., Trockel, M., & Markwell, B. (2008). Developing, implementing, and evaluating innovative sorority substance abuse prevention in the evidence-based era. Oracle:The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 3(1), 13-26.

Wechsler, H., & Kuo, M. (2000). College students define binge drinking and estimate its prevalence: Results of a national survey. Journal of American College Health, 49, 57-64. https://doi. org/10.1080/07448480009596285 Whitford, E. (2018, June 11). Fraternity members suspended for racist, homophobic video. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/06/11/syracusesuspends-fraternity-students-after-racist-homophobic-anti-semitic-videos Worthen, M. G. F. (2014). Blaming the jocks and the Greeks? Exploring collegiate athletes’ and fraternity/sorority members’ attitudes toward LGBT individuals. Journal of College Student Development, 55, 168-195. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2014.0020 Zamudio-Suaréz, F. (2017, November 14). Texas State U. is the latest campus to suspend Greek life after a fraternity death. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from: https://www.chronicle. com/article/Texas-State-U-Is-the-Latest/241770

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 21

Author Biographies Gordon W. Maples is an M.Ed student studying Higher Education Administration at Vanderbilt University’s Peabody College of Education and Human Development, where he serves in positions within the Vanderbilt University Office of Assessment and Special Projects and the Vanderbilt University Office of the University Chaplain and Religious Life. In addition to fraternity and sorority behaviors, his research interests include religious/spiritual/secular identity development, studentathlete experiences, and public perceptions of higher education. emily perrin britt currently works at the University of Kentucky as an Assistant Director of Fraternity and Sorority Life. She completed her undergraduate degree in Sociology at Centre College in Danville, Kentucky where she joined Kappa Kappa Gamma. She is completing her Ph.D. in College Student Personnel at the University of Louisville. Emily’s research interests include the impact of sorority membership on student growth and student leadership training in fraternity and sorority life.

John M. Braxton is Professor Emeritus of Leadership, Policy and Organizations, Higher Education Leadership and Policy Program, Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. Some of Professor Braxton’s current research and scholarship; centers on a knowledge and use of normative structures of students and normative structures in student affairs, and theory and practice related to college student persistence.

Amy S. Hirschy is an associate professor in the College of Education and Human Development at the University of Louisville. She holds degrees from Vanderbilt University, the University of South Carolina, and Stetson University, where she joined Zeta Tau Alpha. Experiences at private liberal arts colleges and larger state institutions inform both her research and teaching. Hirschy’s research interests include socialization to the student affairs profession, normative structures in student affairs, and college student persistence and retention theories.

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 22

NEEDS AND STRESS IN FRATERNITY AND SORORITY LIFE: EVIDENCE OF SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL DIFFERENCES AMONG SORORITY AND FRATERNITY MEMBERS Gabriel Serna, Michigan State University, Dawn Wiese, Plaid, and Stephen Simo, University of Rhode Island The article provides an evidence-based overview of unique research on social and behavioral differences between self-identified sorority women and fraternity men in their need and stress behaviors as measured by the Birkman assessment. The data allow campus-based professionals to understand how they may approach educational programs differently for fraternity men and sorority women based on their social and behavioral differences. The differences between sorority women and fraternity men demonstrate how these populations may respond differently to educational programming because of the measured behavioral and social differences.

College fraternities and sororities were founded on the shared values of fellowship, leadership, scholarship, and community service.

Fraternities and sororities have grown to be among the largest values-based organizations on campuses with value statements that complement institutional academic missions (North-American Interfraternity Conference, 2011; National Panhellenic Conference, 2016).

Nonetheless, according to a report of the NorthAmerican Interfraternity Conference (NIC), higher-risk behaviors have played a significant role in serving to unravel the fabric of many fraternities and sororities nationwide.

Education targeting the reduction of higherrisk behaviors such as alcohol abuse, drugs, hazing, and sexual misconduct is available to college students, including those in fraternities and sororities. However, little of that education considers how fraternity and sorority members may differ from one another in their view of and response to education. Likewise, education does not necessarily pay heed to individual mindset or idiosyncrasies when such information is imparted.

This study explores how those who identify as fraternity and sorority members may differ from one another based upon responses to a personality assessment inventory. Specifically, the study explores how fraternity and sorority

members differ from one another based on need and stress conditions and considers the possible resulting behaviors of these groups. Taking a sample from fraternity and sorority members across the United States on 371 campuses, both small and large, as well as from different NIC and National Panhellenic Conference (NPC) organizations, it employs an adapted difference in means test for two groups. The findings suggest that there are baseline differences across the two groups that may result in different behaviors. Our study adds to the research literature on fraternity and sorority life by examining how under conditions of need and stress, programming might be adapted to meet the differential needs of each group.

Literature Review National fraternity and sorority leaders promote the notion that fraternities and sororities offer members fellowship, leadership, scholarship, and community service opportunities. It is this underlying ethos that has led to them be considered the largest valuesbased organizations on American college and university campuses (NIC, 2011). The NPC (2016) states that sororities exist because they “offer a good, democratic social experience, provide lifelong value, create, through their

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 23

ideals, an ever-widening circle of service beyond membership, develop an individual’s potential through leadership opportunities and group efforts, and fill the need of belonging” (p. 10).

Research related to fraternity and sorority membership indicates differences between fraternity and sorority and non-fraternity and non-sorority students in terms of campus engagement and learning outcomes (Astin, 1977, 1993; Baier & Whipple, 1990; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Pike & Askew, 1990; Pike, 2003; Thorson, Powell, Sarmany-Schuller & Hampes, 1997). Moreover, research has shown that students’ predisposition, personality traits, learning styles, and intrinsic motivation are also related to academic achievement and learning (Clark & Shroth, 2010; Komarrajua, Karau, & Schmeck, 2009; Komarrajua, Karau, & Schmeck, Avdic, 2011). Since the inventory employed here seeks to capture many of these traits, in addition to sorority and fraternity membership, it could potentially allow practitioners and policymakers to respond to students and stress behaviors.

Relatedly, student engagement on campuses has been shown to matter for student success (Kahu & Nelson, 2018; Kuh, Cruce, Shoup, Kinzie, & Gonyea, 2008; Quaye & Harper, 2014) As noted previously, members of Greek Life often seek out these opportunities to have a more fulfilling college experience.

Taking this research into account, it would be reasonable to expect higher, not lower, levels of learning and development for fraternity and sorority members (Winston & Saunders, 1987). While these claims have been studied, alcohol abuse and other higher-risk behaviors cast a shadow over the fraternity and sororitylife movement (Bennett, 2014; Flanagan, 2014; North, 2015; Reilly, 2016). Discovering methods to deal with higher-risk actions of fraternity and sorority members and other college students is desperately needed, especially with regard to the often differential contexts facing those who are members of a fraternity or sorority. Besides reducing institutional liability,

higher education leaders have a vested interest in a well-functioning, viable fraternal community.

“A thriving fraternity and sorority community can enhance student learning and leadership, build strong ties between the institution and its future alumni, and develop well-rounded students who value community and citizenship” (Franklin Square Group, 2003, p. 4).

There is a clear need to address areas of concern while improving the operationalization of fraternity and sorority-life’s stated mission.

Evaluative prevention program research concerning substance abuse and other high-risk behavior among fraternity and sorority members is limited (NIC, 2006); even though, during college fraternity and sorority membership is associated with higher levels of alcohol consumption and related problems (Cashin, Presley, & Meilmen, 1998; Sher, Bartholow, & Nanda, 2001). In many cases, campus professionals are engaged in treating high-risk behaviors and their symptoms, but the research literature suggests that the underlying causes related to such behavior remain unexplored (Biddix, Matney, Norman, & Martin, 2014).

Still, stress and anxiety have emerged as problems for fraternity and sorority leaders (Simo, 2011); this may contribute to behaviors including higher alcohol consumption and other negative consequences (Vohs, 2008).

There have been calls for campuses to implement a public health approach based on environmental management to prevent alcohol abuse and other related higher-risk behavior (DeJong & Saltz, 2007). The elements of environmental design and management appear to affect human behavior concerning health, physical fitness choices, social connectedness, and resource availability (Srinivasan, O’Fallon, & Dearry, 2003). This approach is powerful but also must be accompanied by student buy in (Baxter Magolda, 2001). Moreover, great variability exists among campus fraternity and sorority populations and among chapters which complicates a universal program design (Fairlie,

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 24

DeJong, Stevenson, Lavigne, & Wood, 2010; Larimer, Irvine, Kilmer, & Marlatt, 1997). The assessment tool used for this study, The Birkman Method, addresses much of this variability by dealing with undergraduate members at the chapter level (Birkman Fink & Capparell, 2013).

Specifically, the Birkman assessment (Birkman Fink et al., 2013) identifies stress behaviors and suggests individual mitigation techniques that influence group behavior.

The Birkman Method is a personality, social perception, and occupational interest assessment consisting of scales measuring a person’s interests, effective behaviors, interpersonal, and environmental expectations as well as less effective behaviors (Birkman Fink et al., 2013). It is the only personality assessment tool that measures underlying individual needs and the resulting stress if needs are not met.

The Birkman assessment has been primarily used in the corporate sector with an exception of being in higher education through some MBA programs with Emory University and the University of South Carolina, as examples (The Birkman Method, 2016).

The construction and comparative analysis of the Birkman assessment is designed to provide insight into what specifically drives a person’s behavior, with the goal of creating greater choice and more self-responsibility.

It attempts to measure social behaviors, underlying expectations of actions and potential stress responses to unmet expectations and organizational strengths. Scale development and maintenance has been empirically supported by both reliability and validity studies including exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, item response theory (IRT) and classical test theory (CTT). Scales have test-retest reliabilities averaging .85 and coefficient alphas averaging .80. Face, convergent and divergent construct, and criterion-related validities have been established for The Birkman Method (2016).

The Birkman Method has been further studied in educational and psychological research

(Wadlington, Elizondo & Wadlington, 2012; Wadlington & Wadlington, 2012; Huang et al., 2016; Ott-Holland, Huang, Ryan, Elizondo, & Wadlington, 2013; Ott-Holland, Huang, Ryan, Elizondo, & Wadlington, 2014); and hence, provides a useful and novel tool for examining fraternity and sorority populations. This study is unique in that undergraduate students, in particular fraternity and sorority members, were only recently exposed to this assessment tool.

The Study This study’s sample consists of 2,378 fraternity and sorority members at 371 colleges and universities, all of whom participated in programs targeting culture change within their chapters or within the fraternal community. The culture change program is designed for college students to assist students in understanding how to achieve culture change by understanding individual behaviors and how individual behavior shapes organizational culture. However, the goal of this study is not to evaluate the effectiveness of the culture change component of the program, but rather to examine baseline behavioral differences among fraternity and sorority members whose chapters have chosen to participate. Hence, The Birkman Method is used to provide a framework to discuss individual behaviors. The framework provides individual results through descriptors of: Interests – an individual’s interests; Usual Behavior – an individual’s strengths or good day behavior; Needs – what an individual needs to achieve Usual Behavior; Stress Behavior – the resulting behavior when Needs are not met. (The Birkman Method, 2016) In the case of fraternity or sorority students, for example, a student who normally is dependable and trustworthy may exhibit distinct behaviors when confronted with a stressful situation. This is indicative of the student moving

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 25

into Stress Behavior or Condition because Needs were not met. Previous studies have not considered how the behavior of fraternity and sorority membership may change when under stress nor has it taken into account the way in which individuals best (or need to) receive information and education for optimal learning.

Using the Birkman assessment, we can consider this through determination of Need and Stress behaviors before participation in a culture change program.

The scores for Usual Behavior, Needs, and Stress Behaviors are compiled through scores from 11 relational components (Birkman Fink et al., 2013). Components are behavioral patterns that explain different aspects of personality.

Those 11 components include: Self Consciousness – Use of sensitivity when communicating with others; Social Energy – Sociability, approachability, and preference for group and team; Insistence – Approach to details, structure, follow-through, and routine; Assertiveness – Tendency to speak up and express opinions openly and forcefully; Incentives – Drive for personal rewards or preference to share in group rewards; Physical Energy – Preferred pace for action and physical express of energy; Emotional Energy – Openness and comfort with expressing emotion; Thought – Decision making process and concern with consequences for making the right; Freedom – Desire for personal independence; Restlessness – Preference to focus attention or change focus and seek varied activities; and, Challenge – how one applies self-imposed demands. (The Birkman Method, 2016) Each of these behavioral components is discussed below in greater detail. These specific behaviors are further defined as (Birkman Fink et al., 2013):

Self Consciousness The Self Consciousness component measures a construct of shyness and self-consciousness.

Individuals with a high Usual Self Consciousness score self-identify as being self-conscious or selfmonitoring. Self-conscious people put energy into processing how others perceive them. This makes them much more intentional about what they say and how they say it, especially when communicating one-on-one. Individuals with high Self Consciousness know and understand this about themselves.

Social Energy The Social Energy component measures how much energy a person invests in being sociable.

People with high scores display a lot of Social Energy, while people with low scores use their Social Energy more sparingly. When considering Needs, it explains how an individual recharge him or herself, by being around people or having time alone.

Insistence This construct relates to an individual’s preference for systems and procedures. A person with a high Insistence score prefers orderly and calm environment with strong systems in place. Conversely a lower score may signify lack of a specific system. This does not mean a person with low Insistence scores lacks organizational skills; rather, the individual is more comfortable with flexible and fluid systems of rules and procedures.

Assertiveness This construct addresses the approach to directing and controlling or persuading others in verbal exchanges. High scores reflect persuasive, competitive, forceful behavior, a preference for strong give and take about issues and a tendency to become argumentative and domineering when stressed by perceived lack of engagement (or listening) by others. The individual responds forcefully if he or she feels others are trying

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 26

to “win the argument.” Low scores reflect agreeable, easy going, low-key behavior, a preference for nonaggressive interactions about ideas and a tendency to appear to give in or disengage when stressed by perceived aggression or argumentativeness from others.

Incentives This construct includes strong drive for personal advancement (over advancement of the group), cautiousness about giving trust, interest in money (as incentive), and their polar opposites. This construct addresses the approach to idealism and team versus individual approaches to winning competitions and incentives. High scores reflect competitive, opportunity-minded and money-conscious behaviors, a preference for careful establishment of trust in relationships with personalized incentive and a tendency to become overly pessimistic, distrusting, and “win-at-allcosts” oriented when stressed by perceptions that others may take advantage or win rewards coveted by the individual. Low scores reflect team-minded, idealistic behavior, a preference for relationships in which trust is high and a tendency to appear naïve and excessively selfsacrificing under the stress of perceiving others

as not being trustworthy or perceptions that selfinterest (especially monetary self-interest) will control a relationship or interaction.

Physical Energy The Physical Energy score measures physical participation. A person with high Physical Energy scores needs an environment that provides physical movement and activity while a person with low Physical Energy scores is more accepting of sitting quietly for prolonged periods of time.

Individuals with low Physical Energy are still active, but this activity will likely be seen in the mind or through emotions. Physical Energy speaks to preferred pace for physical activity.

Emotional Energy This construct involves emotional expressiveness. Emotional Energy addresses comfort with emotional expression and involvement of feelings in thinking and attitude.

High scores reflect emotionally expressive, emotionally creative behaviors, a preference for open expression of emotions and open involvement with emotional issues and a tendency to appear overly emotional when stressed by a perceived lack of attention to

Table 3 Demographics ofValid and Invalid Respondents Demographic

Valid respondents

Invalid respondents

n

%

n

%

White

331

78.62%

90

21.38%

Students of Color

113

77.93%

32

22.07%

Ethnicity

Chi Square 0.03

Living situation

1.74

Live-in

132

81.99%

29

18.01%

Live-out

317

76.94%

95

23.05%

Class academic standing

5.61**

Freshmen & Sophomores

294

75.77%

94

24.23%

Juniors & Seniors

166

84.26%

31

15.74%

*p < .10, **p < .05, ***p < .01 Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 27

emotions or excessive demands for pragmatism and urgency of action. Low scores reflect unemotional, optimistic behavior, a preference for practical tasks and unemotional relationships and a tendency to be unfeeling or to avoid emotional issues when stressed by encounters with emotional behavior or issues.

Thought The Thought construct involves cautiousness toward decision making, concern for making the right decision the first time and worry over consequences and their polar opposites.

The Thought construct addresses approach to deciding and action versus thought orientation.

High scores reflect cautious decision-making, consideration of many options, a preference for time to think, need for an abundance of information to evaluate options and a tendency to appear indecisive and anxious when stressed by a perceived pressure to decide (or act) or inadequate information. Low scores reflect quick decision making, ease of changing decisions, a preference for action over cautious consideration of many options and a tendency to appear rash or impulsive when stressed by perceived lack of action by others or complicated risk factors and options.

Freedom The Freedom construct is based on conventional or unconventional answering patterns across The Birkman instrument. The scale involves content from several of the other constructs with emphasis on agreeing or disagreeing with conventional responses to the content of these constructs. The construct addresses independence of thought and personal independence and also shares meaning with the Incentives construct. High scores reflect independence of thought and action, taking initiative, a preference for tasks that allow freedom from control and a tendency to appear rebellious and self-protective when stressed by a perceived control by others or restrictive policy and procedure. Low scores reflect group

oriented or conventional thought and action, a preference for tasks and involvement based on precedence and agreement and a tendency to appear overly constrained by precedent or group pressure when stressed by a perceived lack of control or idiosyncratic approaches by others.

Restlessness The Restlessness construct is based on restlessness and excitability. It involves changeable interests, quickly changing focus, working fast and their polar opposites. Restlessness addresses dealing with change of current focus or change of attention but not resistance to or comfort with structural or organizational change. High scores reflect quickly shifting attention, attending to intrusions easily, a preference for many quick, attention shifting tasks and a tendency to appear excessively restless and unfocused when stressed by tasks perceived as boring or that demand focus on one goal for long periods of time. Low scores reflect patient attention to task, resistance to distraction, a preference for tasks that allow protection from interruption and a tendency to appear resistant to demands for shifts of attention or demands for quick shifts of goals.

Challenge The Challenge construct addresses an individualâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s need to present oneself in a positive light to others. A person with a high Challenge score experiences more difficulty presenting self to others while a person with a low Challenge score appears calm and comfortable with others putting those around them at ease as well.

Data & Methods This study employs Birkman score data on 1,738 fraternity members and 640 sorority members for a total sample of 2,378 on the 11 relational component measures presented previously at 371 colleges and universities across the United States. All measures are scored on an index from 1-99 in which 1 is equal to the least

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 â&#x20AC;˘ Spring 2019 28

likely outcome and 99 to most likely outcome.

Moreover, the index measures indicate that as participants move from 1 to 99 they exhibit behaviors related to each measure at a more significant level – behaviors with a score of 1 are equally as intense as scores of 99; however, the behaviors are opposites. Data were sampled from a population of fraternity and sorority members at colleges and universities throughout the United States of varying size, both public and private institutions. Additionally, data were coded in a binary fashion where “sorority membership” was set to unity and “fraternity membership” to 0.

To reiterate, the measures seek to capture social and behavioral aspects before being exposed to any intervention, hence the focus on baseline differences in the presentation of the results.

The analysis first examines the mean difference for “Need” conditions followed by “Stress” conditions using a two-sided t-test that assumes no directionality of the mean difference and employs the following general equation with one caveat (Bowen, 2016, p. 266).

(1)

Because the sample sizes for fraternity and sorority members are not equal, we have employed the assumption of unequal variances or, ; and hence, we have imposed Satterthwaite’s approximated degrees of freedom. This equation (Bowen, 2016, p. 267), which calculates the estimated standard error of the mean differences under conditions in which pooled variance is an inappropriate assumption takes the following general form such that: (2)

and where

(3)

as well as

(4)

By adjusting the degrees of freedom in this manner the test for statistical significance becomes more conservative and requires a higher level of evidence before rejecting the null hypothesis (Bowen, 2016). Hence, we are confident that the presented results are more robust based on this modification; though, we are also cognizant that these initial findings represent correlation, rather than causal, results.

Findings Based on the results presented in Tables 1 and 2, a few findings warrant discussion. First under “Need” conditions, seven of the 11 measures returned results showing statistically significant mean differences at the .05 level. Please note that because of the coding process, all results are interpreted with sorority membership as the reference group.

First, the mean Self Consciousness score was statistically significantly higher for sorority members than for fraternity members by 5.57 points. Next, Assertiveness scores were just over 7 points lower for sorority members as compared to the fraternity counterparts. Emotional Energy, and Thought scores were each nearly 4 points higher for sorority members, 3.73 and 3.96 respectively, than fraternity members while Restlessness scores were nearly 7 points higher at 6.94. Of the last two statistically significant measures both Freedom and Challenge mean scores were lower for sorority members by 3.49 and 3.51 points, respectively. Each of these results holds at the .05 level and often at the .001 level as well. For the measures Social Energy, Insistence, Physical Energy, and Incentives sorority and fraternity members shared no statistically significant mean differences under “Need” conditions.

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 29

Table 1 Baseline Statistical Results for t-tests under “Need” Conditions1 Mean Scores-Need

Mean Difference

t-statistic

P-Value

-5.57***

-4.169

0

1.32

-1.331

0.183

1.8

1.407

0.16

7.06***

6.321

0

0.97

1

0.317

-0.499

-0.416

0.678

-3.73***

-4.216

0

-3.96***

-4.134

0

3.49**

3.456

0.001

-6.94***

-7.34

0

3.51**

2.59

0.01

Self Consciousness Fraternity Sorority

51.06 56.63 Social Energy

Fraternity Sorority

55.86 57.61 Insistence

Fraternity Sorority

44.08 42.28 Assertiveness

Fraternity Sorority

75.81 68.74 Incentives

Fraternity Sorority

75.11 74.15 Physical Energy

Fraternity Sorority

45.62 46.12 Emotional Energy

Fraternity Sorority

78.34 82.06 Thought

Fraternity Sorority

77.26 81.22 Freedom

Fraternity

80.75

Sorority

77.26 Restlessness

Fraternity

74.86

Sorority

81.8 Challenge

Fraternity

49.75

Sorority

46.24

***p-value<.001; ** p-value<.01; *p-value<.05 Readers should note that the Challenge score is the same across Need and Stress Conditions because this score is unique from the others in that a separate score is not figured for each condition. The reason a separate score is not figured is because Challenge is unique among the other components in that it is an “attitude” which does not change based on condition as opposed to a “behavior” which can change based on Need and Stress. This accounts for the same results across conditions and the reason for non-reporting of related results.

1

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 30

Next, we turn to the findings presented in Table 2 under “Stress” conditions. In this instance, eight of 11 measures returned statistically significant results; one more than under the “Need” conditions. Under “Stress” conditions there is also a pattern of higher overall scores for

both groups, though in most instances the mean difference became smaller. Of the statistically significant differences across means, three behavioral components: Self Consciousness and Freedom as well as the newly significant Social Energy measure, returned results that showed

Table 2 Baseline Statistical Results for t-tests under “Stress” Conditions Mean Scores-Need

Mean Difference

t-statistic

P-Value

-5.57***

-4.169

0

1.32

-1.331

0.183

1.8

1.407

0.16

7.06***

6.321

0

0.97

1

0.317

-0.499

-0.416

0.678

-3.73***

-4.216

0

-3.96***

-4.134

0

3.49**

3.456

0.001

-6.94***

-7.34

0

3.51**

2.59

0.01

Self Consciousness Fraternity Sorority

51.06 56.63 Social Energy

Fraternity Sorority

55.86 57.61 Insistence

Fraternity Sorority

44.08 42.28 Assertiveness

Fraternity Sorority

75.81 68.74 Incentives

Fraternity Sorority

75.11 74.15 Physical Energy

Fraternity Sorority

45.62 46.12 Emotional Energy

Fraternity Sorority

78.34 82.06 Thought

Fraternity

77.26

Sorority

81.22 Freedom

Fraternity Sorority

80.75 77.26 Restlessness

Fraternity

74.86

Sorority

81.8 Challenge

Fraternity

49.75

Sorority

46.24

***p-value<.001; ** p-value<.01; *p-value<.05

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 31

a larger difference in the means under “Stress” conditions, while four showed decreases in the mean differences across sorority and fraternity members’ scores including Assertiveness, Self Consciousness, Thought, and Restlessness. Again, of the statistically significant scores, only Social Energy was new in the second set of estimations and in fact, was the only one that exhibited lower mean scores overall.

The mean difference in the Self Consciousness score rose to 6.72 from 5.57, or a statistically significantly higher score difference for sorority members as compared to fraternity members of 1.15 points again. This suggests that, generally speaking, sorority members from this sample have higher average mean scores on this measure as compared to fraternity members.

Additionally, the results show that as compared to “Need” conditions, not only did the mean difference rise, but so too did the index scores.

For fraternity members it was higher by 6.43 points and for sorority members by 7.57 points.

The scores on Freedom shared a similar pattern.

To illustrate, mean Freedom scores were 1.75 points higher for fraternity members and 1.72 points higher for sorority members. The average mean difference in these scores is larger under “Stress” conditions, but only marginally so by .02 points with sorority members exhibiting a 3.51 point, up from a 3.49 point, lower mean score than fraternity members on this measure. Finally, Social Energy returned lower mean scores under these conditions, but since the scores were not statistically significant under “Need” conditions.

It is not appropriate to compare these scores to those in Table 1. In any event, the direction and statistical significance of the other relationships holds at the same level and in the same direction as under “Need” conditions.

Next, Assertiveness, Emotional Energy, Thought, and Restlessness scores shared similar patterns to one another. Again, each of these findings holds at the .05 level and as before, often at the .001 level. For Assertiveness the mean difference between fraternity and sorority members fell

from 7.06 points in Table 1, to 5.86 points in Table 2 or a lower mean score difference of 1.2 points under “Stress” conditions with sorority members having a lower average score. Emotional Energy, Thought, and Restlessness all dropped to 2.64, 3.19, and 4.29 from 3.73, 3.96, and 6.94 respectively. This suggests that on each of these measures sorority members, as compared to fraternity members in the sample, had higher mean scores on each of these measures.

However, it is necessary once more to note that mean differences became smaller for Emotional Energy, Thought, and Restlessness by 1.09, .77, and 2.65 points respectively, while overall mean scores rose. As before, for the measures Insistence, Physical Energy, and Incentives, fraternity and sorority members shared no statistically significant mean differences under “Stress” conditions when compared to “Need” conditions.

Implications & Discussion Statistically significant “Stress” scores tend to be higher on the index than those under “Need” except for Social Energy in Table 2 which is lower than those scores reported in Table 1.

As is apparent from Pike and Killian (2001), Pike (2003) and Strange and Banning (1986), fraternities and sororities play a significant role in socialization, and this may have an impact on the compacting of mean differences. In other words, past research reveals that sorority and fraternity members are different than those not in sororities and fraternities in their socialization, and this may affect how they appear to behave more alike or less differently under “stress.”

Baseline motivational and behavioral differences as indicated by the Birkman assessment components described earlier, under the Need construct, reveal statistically significant behavioral differences (see Table 1): Self Consciousness – Sorority members experience a higher need for diplomacy when dealing with each other than fraternity members who are more likely to

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 32

exhibit behaviors of frankness and candor.

Emotional Energy – Sorority members experience greater comfort with feelings and expressing emotion while fraternity members are more likely to not reveal feelings.

Thought – Sorority members are more likely than fraternity members to be deliberate in decision making while fraternity members are more likely to make impulsive decisions.

Restlessness – Sorority members are more comfortable with many things happening simultaneously and enjoy this pace while fraternity members prefer predictability.

Freedom – Fraternity members have a greater need for independence from one another while sorority members are more likely to conform to group norms.

Challenge – Fraternity members have less need for external affirmation, praise and recognition than sorority members.

Assertiveness – Fraternity members are more likely to lead, and respond to being led, in a more authoritarian manner than sorority members who prefer a more egalitarian approach.

Likewise, under the Stress construct, meaning individual needs are not met and stress behavior occurs, baseline behavioral differences as indicated by the Birkman assessment appear as statistically significant between fraternity and sorority members (see Table 2). However, it should be noted that the level of significance for Stress behaviors is not as high as the level of significance under the Need construct, but under both results statistical significance is at least the .05 level: Self Consciousness – Sorority members are more easily embarrassed, can become evasive and overly sensitive to real or perceived criticism than fraternity members.

Freedom – Sorority members are more likely to conform to group norms and

become overly constrained by what has worked in the past.

Social Energy – Sorority members are more likely than fraternity members to be dependent on group approval.

Restlessness – Fraternity members are more likely than sorority members to disregard external affirmation during stressful periods.

Assertiveness – Sorority members are more likely than fraternity members to avoid open disagreement.

Emotional Energy – Fraternity members are more likely than sorority members to become concrete and detached in times of stress and not display emotion.

Thought – Fraternity members are more likely than sorority members to become impulsive and rash in decision making.

Restlessness – Fraternity members are more likely than sorority members to resist change and adjust to new demands.

With the idea of smaller mean differences in mind, one might conclude that fraternity and sorority members behave more like one another because they are in a fraternity or sorority (Pike, 2000). Through socialization, it may be the case that these groups are more prone to behave like one another because they are fraternity and sorority members (Astin & Antonio, 2012; Kuh, Vesper, Conolly, & Pace, 1997; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Or, there may be something about students who are pre-disposed to joining fraternity and sorority organizations that results in them exhibiting certain behaviors. Again, we must highlight that our study provides only initial, but nonetheless, useful evidence that developing a deeper understanding of differences between fraternity and sorority members and non-affiliated students may provide insights into the behaviors in which they engage.

It should be noted that the Acceptance measure only becomes statistically significant under “Stress” conditions. Could this mean disengagement with groups or withdrawal?

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 33

What does this mean for practice and future research? Why do the mean scores for both groups return not only a statistically significant difference? Why are they lower than under “Need” conditions? Moreover, mean differences and direction maintain the same direction of difference under both conditions providing some evidence that on at least seven to eight measures, sorority and fraternity members in our sample share some baseline behavioral differences under

both conditions as measured here.

An additional avenue worthy of exploration is how fraternity and sorority members may differ from the general population. For example, looking only at fraternity members, if we measure scores of fraternity members versus all who have taken the Birkman assessment (societal norm), we find that fraternity members vary greatly from the societal norm (see Table 3) (Birkman, 2016). To help illustrate, one simply

Table 3 Mean Scores for “Usual,”“Need” and “Stress” – Birkman Social Norm and Treatment Sample Birkman Norm Self-Consciousness

Normal

Usual

Need

Stress

Usual

Need

Stress

23

54

54

24.94361

51.06214

57.48792

Social Energy

77

55

55

78.05984

55.85616

48.49079

Insistence

70

53

53

72.57595

44.07883

39.01784 79.57537

Assertiveness

51

55

55

71.14327

75.80552

Incentives

20

55

55

40.90219

75.11335

76.52762

Physical Energy

80

54

54

70.88608

45.62313

39.98677

Challenge

50

50

50

49.74856

49.74856

49.74856

Emotional Energy

39

66

66

60.95972

78.33659

80.50403

Restlessness

55

57

57

68.09609

74.86018

79.64557

Freedom

36

55

55

54.03797

80.75489

82.49597

Thought

38

57

57

58.40334

77.25777

81.02071

need consider the following: Emotional Energy – Fraternity members have a higher need to share feelings and demonstrate higher stress if unable to express feelings.

Restlessness – Fraternity members have a higher need for novelty and variety in activities and can become unfocused and restless when under stress.

Thought – Fraternity members have greater need for time when making complex decisions and can become indecisive when pressured.

Assertiveness – Fraternity members demonstrate a greater need to debate, and can become argumentative and controlling when under stress.

Freedom – Fraternity members have a

greater need for self-expression and may resist ideas from others without thinking when under stress.

While fraternity and sorority members may differ under these same parameters, the differences may not be as significant as the differences between fraternity members and the societal norm or sorority membership and the societal norm. With that said, this study does not address a way to isolate differences – or segment out other causal relationships - between the societal norm and fraternity or sorority members, index scores. Still, we suggest that these findings indicate a need to delve more deeply into this topic. This will be further discussed in limitations of the study. As noted earlier, the Birkman Method, is a personality, social perception, and occupational interest

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 34

assessment that seeks to measure a person’s interests, effective behaviors, interpersonal and environmental expectations in addition to less effective behaviors. At the time of this writing this appears to be the only personality assessment tool that measures underlying individual needs and the concomitant stress when these needs are not met.With regard to policy, relying upon such an inventory to guide policy decisions around interactions with students and practitioners in a way that considers the levels of stress resulting from unmet needs might provide a mechanism for better customizing policy responses to less desirable behavior and even to employing policy that aims to enhance campus features to meet student needs more readily.

Turning to practice, it is possible that the Birkman assessment, when used as a tool for understanding the underlying needs and stresses of different groups, could provide a new implement in the toolkit practitioners use to respond to fraternity and sorority members’ needs. In other words, using the general scores resulting from the inventory could offer direction to those charged with working with these populations and responding to their differential needs.

Finally, we argue that this tool could offer a novel approach for researching looking to better understand student engagement, personalities, needs, and stresses, and their effects on academic success. Indeed, as noted in our literature review, these factors are some of the most salient for student success so introducing a new inventory that seek to more deeply understand the student perspective will likely provide fruitful lines of research in future.

Limitations & Future Research Care should be taken not to overgeneralize these results. This study was based on the Birkman assessment data of fraternity and sorority members attending 371 colleges and universities in the United States. Although the

results for fraternity and sorority members from these colleges and universities are more likely to be generalizable to other institutions than the results of a single institution study, the 371 institutions included in the current research may not be typical of all four-year colleges and universities.

Given the students are not divided into class years or age for the purpose of this study, one does not know how results may differ over the course of a student’s college career. Only a longitudinal design could provide a complete description of outcomes that demonstrate differences, if any.

While we know there are statistically significant differences between fraternity and sorority members, we do not know how these differ from the general population or societal norms. While sorority members may, for example, be more likely to conform to group norms than fraternity members, we do not know how either group compares to the larger population. This provides an additional avenue for future research.

Given that statistically significant “Stress” scores tend to be higher on the index than those under “Need” (except for Social Energy in Table 2, which is lower than those scores reported in Table 1), we know that fraternity and sorority members are more likely to be alike than different when under stress. This provides a future avenue for research to better understand why the difference lessens between fraternity and sorority members when under stress. Likewise, a future avenue for research is of fraternity and sorority members versus those students not affiliated with fraternities and sororities. Do these same differences hold among fraternity and sorority members and non-affiliated students or is there something significant happening within the fraternity and sorority population?

Given the Social Energy measure only becomes statistically significant under “Stress” conditions, additional avenues of research may explore why this is the case. Are fraternity

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 35

and sorority members more likely to not seek external affirmation when under stress? How do fraternity and sorority members differ from students not affiliated with fraternities and sororities? Could this mean disengagement with groups or withdrawal? What does this mean for practice and future research? Why do the mean scores for both groups return not only a statistically significant difference, but why are they lower than under “Need” conditions?

From this study we know that, for example, fraternity and sorority members respond differently to authority figures and that sorority members are more likely than fraternity members to conform to group pressure; furthermore, that behavior may differ even more so when under stress. Many campus-based professionals have known this intuitively based on their day-today work. Much educational programming for college students is based on a one-size-fits-all model. This study suggests that such education will only reach a segment of the population as it does not take into account the differing ways students may respond to education and advising. This also demonstrates that campusbased professionals can benefit from personality assessment when working with both fraternity and sorority members, and college students more broadly, to better understand barriers which may exist when working with students, how those barriers may change when students’ needs are not met or students are under stress.

It also suggests that it is possible to approach concerns with strategies that will better reach students and prevent higher-risk behaviors. If the goal is to affect positive individual growth and organizational change, this study suggests that doing so without knowing where barriers exist may limit educators in their ability to affect change.

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 36

References Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critical years: Effects of college on beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college?: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A. W., & Antonio, A. L. (2012). Assessment for excellence:The philosophy and practice of assessment and evaluation in higher education (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Baier, J. L., & Whipple, E. G. (1990). Fraternity and sorority values and attitudes: A comparison with independents. NASPA Journal, 28(1), 43-53.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher education to promote self-development. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Bennett, J. (2014, December). The problem with frats isn’t just rape. It’s power. Time. Retrieved from http://time.com/3616158/fraternity-rape-uva-rolling-stone-sexual-assault/ Biddix, J. P., Matney, M., Norman, E., & Martin, G. (2014). The influence of fraternity and sorority involvement: A critical analysis of research (1996-2013). ASHE Higher Education Report Series. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Birkman Fink, S., & Capparell, S. (2013). The Birkman Method:Your personality at work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bowen, C. (2016). Straightforward statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Cashin, J. R., Presley, C. A., & Meilman, P. W. (1998). Alcohol use in the Fraternity and sorority system: Follow the leader? Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 59(1), 63-70. https://doi.org/10.15288/ jsa.1998.59.63 Clark, M., & Schroth, C. (2010). Examining relationships between academic motivation and personality among college students. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(1), 19-24.https://doi. org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.10.002 DeJong, W., & Saltz, R. (2007). Removing the barriers to effective prevention on campus. Prevention File Special Edition: Prevention in Higher Education. San Diego, CA: Silver Gate Group.

Fairlie, A. M., DeJong, W., Stevenson, J. F., Lavigne, A. M., & Wood, M. D. (2010). Fraternity and sorority leaders and members: A comparison of alcohol use, attitudes, and policy awareness. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 36, 187-193. https://doi.org/10.3109/00952990.201 0.491878 Flanagan, C. (2014, March). The dark power of fraternities. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http:// www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/03/the-dark-power-of-fraternities/357580/ Franklin Square Group. (2003). A call for values congruence report. Retrieved from www.aascu.org/ media/pdf/05_values_congruence.pdf Huang, J., Bramble, R., Liu, M., Aqwa, J., Ott-Holland, C., Ryan, A.M., Lounsbury, J., Elizondo, F., & Wadlington, P. (2016). Rethinking the association between extraversion and job satisfaction: The role of interpersonal job context. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89, 683-691. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12138 Kahu, E., & Nelson, K. (2018). Student engagement in the educational interface: understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(1), 58-71. https:// doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1344197 Komarraju, M., Karau, S., & Schmeck, R. (2009). Role of the Big Five personality traits in predicting college students’ academic motivation and achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(1), 47-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.07.001 Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 37

Komarraju, M., Karau, S., Schmeck, R., & Avdic, A. (2011). The Big Five personality traits, learning styles, and academic achievement. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(4), 472-477. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.019 Kuh, G., Cruce, T., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), 540-563. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.0.0019 Kuh, G. D., Vesper, N., Connolly, M. R., Pace, C. R. (1997). College Student Experiences Questionnaire: Revised norms for the third edition. Bloomington, IN: Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning, School of Education, Indiana University.

Larimer, M. E., Irvine, D. L., Kilmer, J. R., & Marlatt, G. A. (1997). College drinking and the Fraternity and sorority system: Examining the role of perceived norms for high-risk behavior.

Journal of College Student Development, 38, 587–598.

North, A. (2015, January). Is college sexual assault a fraternity problem? NewYork Times. Retrieved from http://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/29/is-college-sexual-assault-a-fraternityproblem/?_r=0 National Panhellenic Conference. (2016). Mission and values. Retrieved from https://www. npcwomen.org/about.aspx North-American Interfraternity Conference. (2006). Alcohol and recruitment report. Presented at Fraternity Executives Association Conference, Tucson, AZ. Retrieved from http://www.nicindy. org or www.fea-inc.org North-American Interfraternity Conference. (2011). Standards. Retrieved from http://www. nicindy.org/about/standards Ott-Holland, C., Huang, J., Ryan, A.M., Elizondo, F., & Wadlington, P. (2013). Culture and vocational interests: The moderating role of collectivism and gender egalitarianism. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(4), 569-581. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033587 Ott-Holland, C., Huang, J., Ryan, A.M., Elizondo, F., & Wadlington, P. (2014). The effects of culture and gender on perceived self-other similarity in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 53, 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.07.010 Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Pike, G. R. (2000). The influence of fraternity or sorority membership on students’ college experiences and cognitive development. Research in Higher Education, 41, 117-139. https://doi. org/10.1023/a:1007046513949 Pike, G. R. (2003). Membership in a fraternity or sorority, student engagement, and educational outcomes at AAU public research universities. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 369-382. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2003.0031 Pike, G. R., & Askew, J. W. (1990). The impact of fraternity or sorority membership on academic involvement and learning outcomes. NASPA Journal, 28, 13-19.

Pike, G. R., & Killian, T. S. (2001). Reported gains in student learning: Do academic disciplines make a difference? Research in Higher Education, 42, 429-454. https://doi. org/10.1023/a:1011054825704 Quaye, S., & Harper, S. (2014). Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations. New York, NY: Routledge.

Reilly, K. (2016, August). College of Charleston bans fraternities after ‘party school’ ranking. Time.

Retrieved from http://time.com/4474508/college-of-charleston-fraternity-alcohol-ban/ Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 38

Srinivasan S., O’Fallon, L.R., & Dearry, A. (2003). Creating healthy communities, healthy homes, healthy people: Initiating a research agenda on the built environment and public health. American Journal Public Health, 93(9), 1446-1450. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.93.9.1446 Simo, S. J. (2011). Assessing leadership strategies for alcohol abuse prevention among fraternity and sorority students. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Johnson & Wales University, Providence, RI. Sher, K. J., Bartholow, B. D. and Nanda, S. (2001). Short- and long-term effects of fraternity and sorority membership on heavy drinking: A social norms perspective. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 15(1), 42-51. https://doi.org/10.1037//0893-164x.15.1.42 Strange, C. C., & Banning, J. H. (2001). Educating by design: Creating campus learning environments that work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

The Birkman Method. (2016). Technical Fact Sheet. Houston, TX. Thorson, J. A., Powell, F. C., Sarmany-Schuller, I., & Hampes, W. P. (1997). Psychological health and sense of humor. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53, 605–619. https://doi.org/10.1002/ (sici)1097-4679(199710)53:6<605::aid-jclp9>3.0.co;2-i Vohs, C. J. (2008). Anxiety and depression as comorbid factors in drinking behaviors of undergraduate college students attending an urban private university in the northeastern United States. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Johnson & Wales University, Providence, RI. Wadlington, E., Elizondo, F., & Wadlington, P. (2012). Working with adolescents more productively. Academic Exchange Quarterly, Summer, 74–79.

Wadlington, E., & Wadlington, P. (2012). Teacher dispositions: Implications for teacher education.

Childhood Education, 87(5), 323-326. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2011.10523206 Winston, R. B., & Saunders, S. A. (1987). The Greek experience: Friend or foe of student development? New Directions for Student Services, 1987(40), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/ ss.37119874003 Author Biographies Dr. Gabriel Serna is an assistant professor of Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education at Michigan State University. He has formerly worked in administrative positions at New University of Kentucky as well as on the faculty at Virginia Tech where he also served as program director.

Dr. Dawn Wiese is vice president and partner at Plaid (www.beingplaid.com), an Atlanta-based management consulting firm that serves, in part, higher education. Wiese was formerly a campusbased professional including at the vice-presidential level.

Dr. Stephen Simo serves as Assistant Dean of Students at the University of Rhode Island. Among his responsibilities, Simo supervises the fraternity/sorority community.

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 39

ASSESSING THE ONLINE MANAGEMENT OF ALCOHOL POLICIES AND ALCOHOL EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING AMONG GREEK STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS – A CONTENT ANALYSIS Jill Russett, Christopher Newport University, and Kaitlyn Oates, Hospital For Behavioral Health College student drinking remains a public health concern and Fraternity/Sorority organizations have consistently documented higher rates of alcohol use than their peers.

However, these groups are also likely to be proactive in addressing risk management of alcohol use.The authors conducted a content analysis of nationally recognized fraternity/ sorority websites, aimed at identifying harm reduction strategies in place among these groups.

While the majority of fraternities/sororities reviewed had readily accessible alcohol related policies, fewer organizations were identified as having adapted alcohol related education programs. Best practices suggest having strong policies and educational programming lead to reduced consequences related to alcohol use.

For decades, college student drinking has been at the forefront of public health concerns among American colleges and universities as well as a primary focus of research. Among the leading concerns for this group continues to be rates of alcohol consumption, including binge drinking, and associated consequences of alcohol use (Wechsler et al., 2002). According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) almost 60% of college students ages 18-22 drank alcohol in the past month (SAMHSA, 2014) and about 20% of college students meet the criteria for an Alcohol Use Disorder (Blanco et al., 2008). Additionally, national survey results report 30% to 40% of college students engage in episodes of binge drinking (CORE, 2014; Johnston et al., 2015; SAMHSA, 2014), operationally defined in the research literature as “the consumption of five or more alcoholic beverages in a sitting by men and four or more in a sitting by women” (SAMHSA, 2014). Finally, consequences related to underage college drinking have been well documented, including academic concerns, health problems, accidental injuries, assault, sexual assault, and death (Hingson et al., 2005;Thombs et al. 2009).

Despite ongoing concerns, positive trends have also emerged over the years. For example,

Monitoring the Future (MFT), a long-term epidemiological study of substance use among adolescents and young adults, showed college student binge drinking rates has dropped from 44% in 1980 to 35% in 2014 (Johnston et al., 2015).While a number of factors may contribute to this change, significant attention has been given to developing effective, evidence based, alcohol prevention, and education programs aimed at college-aged students. Programs deemed as evidence-based (EBP) have demonstrated the highest level of effectiveness and are most likely to produce positive outcomes if implemented with adherence to the developer’s model (SAMSHA, 2017).

Among the identified areas of best practices associated with reducing consequences related to college alcohol use is the integration of welldefined alcohol use policies combined with targeted alcohol educational programming (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2015). As such, the researchers set out to explore what policies and educational or evidence-based programs exist specifically within fraternities and sororities to address alcohol use. One means of communicating this information is through organizational websites, where essential information such as the mission

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 40

and values of the organization are promoted.

Thus, a content analysis of fraternity and sorority websites was assessed with the goal of exploring these topics and learning how they are promoted to members.

Greek Letter Organizations in Higher Education Fraternity/Sorority organizations are significant in their historical and modernday functions within the United States higher education system. They have existed as an integral part of the college culture, including engagement in the campus community, philanthropy, and leadership roles, for more than two centuries (CAS, 2014; North-American Interfraternity Conference [NIC], 2014-2015; National Panhellenic Conference [NPC], 20162017). Social fraternities and sororities in the North American fraternity system include those that do not promote a particular profession or academic discipline (CAS, 2014) and are the focus of this study.

Fraternity and sorority systems are comprised of individual chapters often affiliated with national or international organizations, and for the purpose of this study, will focus on social GLO’s situated on several hundred campuses in North America. Specifically, this study focuses on groups affiliated with the NIC and the NPC, and did not include other Greek letter organizations affiliated with other governing bodies (e.g., National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC), National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations (NALFO), National APIDA Panhellenic Association (NAPA), etc).

In order to further understand the Greek organizational structure, the major governing bodies of the fraternity and sorority systems are introduced. For men, this is identified as the NIC. Founded in 1909, NIC currently has 64 affiliated fraternities, with 5,500 chapters in North America on 800 different campuses (NIC, 2017). The purpose of NIC is to

provide consistent operational, academic, and achievement standards for all of the chapters, as well as advocating for the needs of its members (Gohn & Albin, 2006, p. 241). For women, Greek letter organizations fall under the NPC. This organization was founded in 1902, and is the umbrella for 26 sororities, 2,908 individual chapters on more than 620 campuses (NPC, 2016-2017). The purpose of the NPC is “to promote the values of and to serve as an advocate for its member groups in collaboration with those members, campuses, and communities” (Gohn & Albin, 2006, p. 242).

Alcohol Use by Students of Greek Letter Organizations As noted earlier, the concern of underage college drinking is well known, and its impact on fraternities and sororities are of no exception.

With regard to alcohol consumption, past research clearly indicates members of social fraternities and sororities consume more alcohol more frequently, in larger quantities, and experience more alcohol related problems than non-members (Borsari & Carey, 1999; Borsari, Hustad, Capone, 2013; Danielson, Taylor, Hartford, 2001; Turrisi, Mallett, & Mastroleo, 2006; Wechsler, Kuh, & Davenport, 1996). For instance, binge drinking is higher among students in the fraternity and sorority community (Barry, 2007; Chauvin, 2012; Wechsler et al., 1996), and students who join a fraternity or sorority in their first year significantly increased their drinking and experienced more alcohol related consequences compared to those who do not join (Park, Sher, & Krull, 2008). Students in Greek social organizations were at a particularly high risk for alcohol related consequences due to heavy and frequent drinking patterns (O’Malley & Johnston, 2002; Presley, Cheng, & Pimentel, 2004; Wechsler et al. 2002).

College Alcohol Related Policies and Programming Institutions of higher education have a

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 41

responsibility to implement evidenced-based practices to address underage drinking, and many have made significant strides in changing the campus drinking culture. While we assess the role of North American fraternities and sororities in addressing policy and educational programming, it is by no means their sole responsibility. Also, it is significant to note the 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act prohibits persons under 21 years of age from purchasing or possessing alcoholic beverages (Toomey, Nelson, & Lenk, 2009), and much of the college population falls below the legal drinking age. Likewise, college campuses often impose additional regulations and consequences regarding alcohol consumption and use in an effort to prevent underage drinking (Nelson, Toomey, Lenk, Erickson, & Winters, 2010).

Policies and programming established within fraternities and sororities work closely with already existing efforts on campus.

In 2002, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) published findings and recommendations in A Call to Action: Changing the Culture of Drinking at U.S. Colleges, both with regard to the relevance of interventions to college students and the degree to which they are empirically based. According to this report, the most promising approaches are multifaceted. Specifically, it identifies theoretical perspectives that incorporate motivational enhancement interventions, cognitive-behavioral skills, and normative clarification (NIAAA, 2002). In addition, this report found programming that was grounded in theory supported brief interventions, including motivational interviewing, that incorporates knowledge and education on alcohol use, skills training, and personalized, nonjudgmental feedback to enhance motivation, can be effective when utilized in a group format (NIAAA, 2002).

Some of the most common alcohol education and prevention programs for college-aged students include harm reduction strategies; a public health approach to reduce the harmful consequences

for both the user and the community; social norms strategies; a method which emphasize discrepancies between student-perceived levels of alcohol consumption and most actual reported consumption, and protective alcoholuse behaviors such as alternating non-alcoholic drinks with alcoholic beverages, minimizing drinking games, and pacing drinking (Zografos, Krenz,Yarmo, & Alcala, 2015).

Building on these recommendations, in 2015 the NIAAA introduced College AIM (Alcohol Intervention Matrix) for higher education officials to use as a guide in selecting effective evidenced-based prevention and intervention efforts to combat underage use.

The guide provides a comprehensive list of effective strategies within two domains: one for environmental-level interventions that target the campus community as a whole and the other for interventions that target individual students, including higher risk groups.

The first domain, environmental-level interventions, aims at reducing underage and excessive drinking by changing key variables (i.e. places, settings, occasions, etc.) and the context in which alcohol use occurs, thereby reducing consequences (NIAAA, 2015).

Embedded in environmental-level strategies are the use of established policies to support these interventions. While some strategies in this domain pertain more specifically to the campus as a whole, others that are identified as being most effective relate to smaller groups such as fraternities and sororities. Some of these include: restricting access to alcohol by enforcing the age-21 drinking age, enacting rules on social host provisions, endorsing responsible beverage service training, prohibiting alcohol use/service at social events, establishing amnesty policies, implementing safe-ride programs, and conducting social norms campaigns.

The second domain, individual-level strategies, aim to change studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to alcohol use.

This strategy includes education and awareness

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 â&#x20AC;˘ Spring 2019 42

programs (values clarification programs such as Alone), cognitive-behavioral skills-based approaches (Alcohol 101 Plus, Alcohol Skills Training Program), motivation and feedback related approaches (Brief Motivational Intervention, AlcoholEdu, CheckYourDrinking, and College Drinker’s Check-up), and behavioral interventions facilitated by health care professionals (screening and medication assisted treatments) (NIAAA, 2015).

Alcohol policies and programming related to fraternities and sororities College Aim suggests the greatest likelihood of creating a safer campus comes from combining both individual and environmentallevel interventions (NIAAA, 2015). Therefore, it is important to first understand how these domains apply to fraternities and sororities. To begin, fraternities and sororities ascribe to risk management policies or specific standards, often set up by their national organization, to ensure the safety and well-being of their affiliated students are met. Often these policies are tied to insurance as a means to manage personal or institutional liability. For example, one insurance company reported 89 claims from campus fraternities and sororities within a four-year period, ranging from serious wrongdoings, to physical and sexual assault, to alcohol poisoning and hazing incidents, with 14% resulting in a monetary award settlement (Broe, 2009).

While the focus of this study will review policies specifically related to alcohol use, risk management policies also encompass related concerns in such areas as hazing, sexual abuse and harassment, and fire, health, and safety.

The Fraternal Information and Programming Group (FIPG) is a primary leader in addressing risk management policies among fraternities and sororities, with nearly 50 partners. First established in 1987 and after multiple revisions to its purpose, FIPG established its mission in 2001 to “promote sound risk management policies and practices and to be the leading resource of risk

management education, programming and information to the broad-based constituency involved in all aspects of Greek life” (FIPG, 2013, p. 4, italics in original).

In addition to guidance from FIPG, the NIC and the NPC have proposed specific provisions to minimize the risk associated with alcohol use and other behaviors.

While addressing alcohol use through policy standards is not new, there have been new developments endorsed by the NIC to further address alcohol abuse within fraternities. In 2015, NIC established five strategic priorities to address the baseline health and safety of its members. In particular, it stated NIC member fraternities will provide educational programming including, but not limited to, a minimum focus on alcohol and drugs (including the prohibition of the use of alcohol and drugs in new member education and recruitment activities). Furthermore, NIC has developed enhanced health and safety standards to reduce the frequency and volume of alcohol associated with the fraternity experience.

Building on these efforts, at the 2017 annual meeting, members endorsed the standard prohibiting hard alcohol from fraternity chapter facilities and events. Under this resolution, members will implement a policy by September 2019 that prohibits alcohol products above 15% alcohol by volume at any chapter event, except when served by a licensed third-party vendor (NIC, 2017). The newly endorsed standards were implemented on pilot campuses in 2017 with additional groups added in 2018 and anticipation of full participation by 2019 (NIC, 2017). It is significant to recognize the effort made at the national level to integrate research from substance abuse experts, best practices in educational programming, and continual assessment of program implementation. While these steps are noteworthy in creating a safer environment, little guidance is provided about how to implement these practices. For example, fraternities are required to provide educational programming to include select topics, however, no educational programs are identified by name,

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 43

presumably allowing each chapter to identify programs suitable for their needs.

For women, the NPC (2016-2017) “aims to partner with institutions of higher education to make campuses safe for all who attend”. NPC promotes their membership with the College of Higher Education Association for Substance Abuse Prevention (CoHEASAP) founded in 1983 to promote education, prevention, research, networking, and national initiatives to help eliminate substance abuse on college campuses (NPC, 2016-2017). Further investigation of the task force revealed scarce information on best practices or resources for educational programming. One of their primary initiatives is to encourage members to participate in National Collegiate Health and Wellness Week (with a focus on drug and alcohol education) during the second week of October, in which 800 campuses participate. In 2003 (revised 2014), NPC adopted standards with minimum expectations that each member organization would “educate its chapter members on all inter/national policies and expectations pertaining to alcohol, substance abuse and underage drinking.” (p. 2).

Furthermore, the standards “encourage alcoholfree social activities and requires a policy of alcohol-free facilities for all housed chapters” (NPC, 2016-2017, p. 2). These standards go on to describe how frequent programming should occur (at least once per term) and that members should be held accountable for their behavior.

However, similar to the NIC, no educational programs are specified by name or are suggested for implementation, leaving these decisions to the individual chapters. Similarly, it is unclear how these programs are funded, presumably these are the inherent responsibility of the individual chapters to support.

Returning to FIPG, they too have established a goal to become a resource for risk management education. However, similar to the national governing bodies for fraternities and sororities, FIPG does not promote or offer any guidelines for specific alcohol prevention/education

programming. While these influential entities support the provision for alcohol related programming, the groups provide limited or no information on how to go about selecting or implementing evidenced based programming despite the wealth of information available on this topic.

Purpose of the Study While extensive guidelines exist for risk management policies related to alcohol use among fraternities and sororities, there are limited (if any) recommendations about standards for selecting and implementing alcohol education/prevention programming for this population. With this in mind, the authors sought to identify what alcohol prevention and education strategies are most often utilized within fraternity/sorority organizations, and to what extent these approaches are evidencebased. In doing so, they sought to add to the knowledge base of professionals working with these groups and provide pragmatic resources for program implementation.

Based on the review of literature, it is evident national organizations supporting fraternities and sororities recognize the importance of risk management, as well as promoting substance use education to reduce potential associated risk. While delving deeper into this topic, what became more obscure was understanding what strategies were being used to address substance use, how members were receiving education or prevention programming, and how (or what) programs were selected. Through this inquiry, the following research questions emerged: 1. What risk management policies specific to alcohol education and prevention programs exist?

2. What evidence-based alcohol education and prevention programs are implemented in fraternities and sororities?

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 44

Methodology Data was obtained by conducting a content analysis of 71 websites using a representative sample of fraternity and sorority organizations across the United States. This study explored the type and extent to which alcohol programming is provided to students affiliated with undergraduate fraternities/sororities. To better understand these policies and programs, data were collected for this study using a content analysis of websites of identified national sorority and fraternity chapters. As an empirically grounded method, content analysis has been described by Krippendorff (2004) as “a research technique for making inferences from texts (or other meaningful matter) to the contexts of their use” (p. 18). In this instance, analytical constructs arise in the form of specified websites. Risk management policies are often easily recognized links embedded on each website, and, as noted

by Saichaie and Morphew (2014), “institutional websites are vehicles of communication that employ textual and visual components, content analysis is well-suited to attend to these artifacts” (p. 506).

Data were collected on websites for fraternities and sororities administered by their national offices. Both the NPC and NIC serve as national associations for the largest groups in postsecondary education; and while membership in these organizations is not a requirement, they provide guidance for review. Active sorority chapters identifying as members of the NPC, the umbrella organization for 26 national and international autonomous social organizations, were included in this study (n=26). Active fraternity organizations identifying as current members of the NIC, or those who held prior member were also included in this study.

Initially, the authors included 66 fraternities that identified as social organizations and serve the broad student body. Next, we removed any fraternity promoting a particular profession, academic discipline, or emphasis on a specific

religious or ethnic background which left us with a total of 45 fraternities (n=45).

Each researcher completed an initial independent examination of selected sorority and fraternity websites, systematically reviewing individual risk management policies and education programs related to alcohol use.

Most often, these could be found on the website under a tab identified as programs/policies or a general information tab about the organization.

A database was developed where all identified programs or policies were systematically documented. To support internal validity, all websites were reviewed independently by each researcher on separate occasions with researchers coming together weekly to discuss findings.

When reviewing websites, researchers paid particular attention to the language and terminology used in the literature related to alcohol education and prevention programming and related policies. As such, terms used in the review specified alcohol, drinking, underage drinking, prevention, education, policy, and risk management. Though related terms such as drugs and substance use did arise, these were not the primary focus. College AIM provides a valuable summary of best practices and their level of effectiveness (NIAAA, 2015). For example, alcohol education and prevention programming falls under individual-level strategies with the specific aim to produce changes in attitudes and behaviors related to actual alcohol use among individual college students. Whereas, policy development and implementation fall under environmental-level strategies that aim to reduce underage and excessive drinking at the population level by changing the context in which alcohol use occurs (NIAAA, 2015).

Results Finding information on individual chapter websites related to programming and/or risk management policies and procedures specific

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 45

to alcohol proved challenging. Most times this information was neither explicitly stated nor listed on a primary page of the website, but rather was found well embedded within other tabs or within multiple additional links within the website pages. Most frequently, content was found under terms related to collegiate

members, resources, programs, education or policies (see Table 1 and 2 for identifying links).

A few sites included a search box which helped to more readily find related documents through a simple search or using key terms such as alcohol, drinking, policy or risk management.

Policies were most often listed under a separate

Table 1 Fraternity Alcohol Risk Management Policies and Education Programs Number of Active Chapters

Content located on Website

Policy

Alcohol Use Education & Prevention

Alpha Chi Rho

29

Resources

-Risk Management Policy -Informational link to addiction

N/A

Alpha Delta Phi

32

Resources/ Member Toolkit

-Risk Management Policy -NIC BYOB Guidelines -Party Themes -Pub/Bar Crawls -Sober Monitors -Tailgate

-Resource sheet “Caring for someone who has had too much to drink” -Resource sheet: “College drinking facts sheet”

Alpha Kappa Lambda

42

National Operations/ Resource Library

Risk Management Policy

N/A

Alpha Sigma Phi

115

N/A

N/A

N/A

Alpha Tau Omega

141

N/A

N/A

N/A

Beta Theta Pi

138

Resources/ Chapter Resources

Risk Management Policy

-Sober Monitor Resource -Substance Free Housing Transition Guide -BYOB checklist

Chi Phi

50

Resources/ Fraternity polices

Risk Management Policy

GreekLifeEdu

Chi Psi

32

N/A

N/A

N/A

Delta Chi

53

Programs/ Resources

Risk Management Policy

GreekLifeEdu

Delta Kappa Epsilon

53

N/A

N/A

N/A

Delta Sigma Phi

106

Programs

-Risk Management Policy -Policy prohibiting alcohol above 15% ABV

Greek Life Edu Substance free housing

Delta Tau Delta

130

Programs

-Risk Management Policy

Greek Life EDU (Called Delts Talking About Alcohol, DTAA)

Delta Upsilon

76

About/ Laws and Policies/ Programs

-Risk Management Policy

Greek Life EDU Substance Free Housing (2020)

FarmHouse

34

Resources

-Risk Management Policy

Substance Free Housing

Kappa Alpha Order

118

Active member

-Risk Management Policy

N/A

Kappa Delta Phi

14

Member Resources

-Risk Management Policy

N/A

Kappa Delta Rho

37

N/A

N/A

N/A

Kappa Sigma

321

N/A

N/A

N/A

Lambda Chi Alpha

195

Resources/ Harm Reduction

-Risk Management Policy

N/A

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 46

Phi Delta Theta

190

Health and Safety

-Risk Management Policy

Alcohol free housing

Phi Gamma Delta

160

Undergraduate/ Education/ Health & Safety

-Risk Management Policy

Alcohol free housing ASTP GreekLifeEdu

Phi Kappa Psi

105

Undergraduate/ Resources

-Risk Management Policy

GreekLifeEdu

Phi Kappa Sigma

42

Undergraduate/ Manage Risk

-Risk Management Policy

GreekLifeEdu

Phi Kappa Tau

86

About/ Prevention and Wellness

-Risk Management Policy

GreekLifeEdu

Phi Lambda Chi

20

N/A

N/A

N/A

Phi Mu Delta

49

Undergraduate/ Risk Management/ Programs

-Risk Management Policy -BYOB Guide

N/A

Phi Sigma Kappa

81

Undergraduates/ Resources

-Risk Management Policy

GreekLifeEdu

Phi Sigma Phi

11

N/A

N/A

N/A

Pi Kappa Alpha

225

Health & Safety

-Risk Management Policy

General information on alcohol and other drugs on the website

Pi Kappa Phi

178

Student experience/ Member development

-Risk Management Policy

N/A

Pi Lambda Phi

33

N/A

N/A

N/A

Psi Upsilon

50

Undergraduate/ Policy

-Risk Management Policy

N/A

Sigma Alpha Epsilon

219

Resources/ Health & Safety

-Risk Management Policy

ASTP

Sigma Alpha Mu

49

Resources/ The fraternity/ Educational Programs

-Risk Management Policy

GreekLifeEdu

Sigma Chi

242

Resources/ Health & Safety

-Risk Management Policy

N/A

Sigma Nu

135

Collegiate Members/ Educational Programs

-Risk Management Policy

GreekLIfeEdu

Sigma Phi Epsilon

213

Resources

-Risk Management Policy

Substance Free Housing (2020)

Sigma Pi

116

About/ Policies

-Risk Management Policy

N/A

Sigma Tau Gamma

71

Fraternity/ Member Safety & Wellness

-Risk Management Policy

N/A

Tau Kappa Epsilon

241

Resources

-Risk Management Policy -Policy to ban possession and/or consumption of “hard alcohol” while on Chapter property; alcohol over 15% ABV/30-proof

Information on alcohol and other drugs on the website

Theta Chi

160

Collegians/ resources

-Risk Management Policy

N/A

Theta Delta Chi

29

Resources and Services/ Policies

-Risk Management Policy

N/A

Theta Xi

47

Undergraduates/ Risk management

-Risk Management Policy

N/A

Zeta Beta Tau

90

About/Governance/ Programs/ Health and Safety

-Risk Management Policy

ASTP GreekLifeEdu

Zeta Psi

51

About/Policies

-Risk Management Policy

N/A

Data points are from January 2019 and are exclusive to substance use. It should be noted other programming may address this issue as well.

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 47

Table 2 Sorority Alcohol Risk Management Policies and Education Programs Number of Active Chapters

Content located on Website

Policy

Alcohol Use Education & Prevention

Alpha Chi Omega

194

Resource center; governing/ membership experience/ programming

-Risk Management Policy

ASTP

Alpha Delta Pi

154

N/A

N/A

N/A

Alpha Epsilon Phi

50

N/A

N/A

N/A

Alpha Gamma Delta

190

N/A

N/A

N/A

Alpha Omicron Pi

138

About/ Policies

-Risk Management Policy -Alcohol policy -Drug policy

N/A

Alpha Phi

164

N/A

N/A

N/A

Alpha Sigma Alpha

185

Collegians/ Chapter Commitments/ Policy

-Risk Management Policy

N/A

Alpha Sigma Tau

90

Collegians/ Programming

N/A

GreekLifeEdu

Alpha Xi Delta

127

About/ Policies

-Risk Management Policy -BYOB Procedures

GreekLifeEdu

Chi Omega

181

Educational Resources/ Policies

-Risk Management Policy

N/A

Delta Delta Delta

145

N/A

N/A

N/A

Delta Gamma

150

News/Resources/ Programs

-Risk Management Policy

ASTP

Delta Phi Epsilon

110

N/A

N/A

N/A

Delta Zeta

165

Global Citizens

N/A

National Collegiate Alcohol Awareness Week

Gamma Phi Beta

141

Real Leadership/ Member Programs

N/A

REAL Leaders Practice Safe Drinking

Kappa Alpha Theta

135

Members/ Programs/ About Theta

-Risk Management Policy

ASTP

Kappa Delta

163

N/A

N/A

N/A

Kappa Kappa Gamma

140

N/A

N/A

N/A

Phi Mu

139

N/A

N/A

N/A

Phi Sigma Sigma

115

About us/ Policies

-Risk Management Policy -Alcohol/Drug Policy

Pi Beta Phi

208

Collegians / Policy and Position Statement

-Risk Management Policy

N/A

Sigma Delta Tau

106

N/A

N/A

N/A

Sigma Kappa

124

Collegiate / Membership Responsibilities

-Risk Management Policy

N/A

Sigma Sigma Sigma

112

Meet Sigma, Sigma, Sigma/ What we Stand for

-Risk Management Policy -Alcohol/Drug Policy

GreekLifeEdu Alcohol Abuse Prevention (Prevention Institute)

Theta Phi Alpha

53

N/A

N/A

N/A

Zeta Tau Alpha

168

About/ Programming

Generation Rx GreekLifeEdu

Data points are from January 2019 and are exclusive to substance use. It should be noted other programming may address this issue as well.

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 â&#x20AC;˘ Spring 2019 48

tab, most explicitly stating alcohol policy or found under risk management or were embedded in the mission, vision, and values of the chapter. Of the 26 sororities, 15 (or 57%) did not have readily accessible policies, meaning they were either not included on the website or were not able to be located. Of the 45 fraternities examined, nine (or 20%) did not have explicit policies; again, with likelihood they do exist but are not readily accessible. While most alcohol policies were related to risk management, some chapters did include more specific policies including for example: drug and alcohol use, bring your own beverage (BYOB), parties, tailgating, Good Samaritan policy, and designating alcohol by volume (ABV).

Alcohol related policies were found to follow the Risk Management Policy of the Fraternal Information and Programming Group (FIPG).

As discussed earlier, nearly 50 fraternities/ sororities partner with FIPG, which operates as group purchaser of insurance to address risk management policies among fraternities and sororities. While the majority of risk management policies followed FIPG guidelines verbatim, some chapters also included additional information in their policy statement pertaining to state or local laws such as in line with local laws and the rules of the host institution, or all applicable laws of the state, province, county, city and university apply.

With regard to alcohol prevention or education programs, both individual and environmental strategies were identified.

Individual strategies defined by NIAAA (2015) are those aimed at decreasing an individualâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s alcohol use (e.g., frequency, quantity, or blood alcohol concentration) and were predominately identified by two well-known evidencebased programs in which six sororities (23%) and sixteen fraternities (35%) participated.

Programs specified for sororities included Alcohol Skills Training Program (ASTP) (three sororities); GreekLifeEdu (two sororities) and one sorority included a combination of ASTP

and GreekLifeEdu. No other programs targeting substance use specifically were identified with the exception of one sorority that offered Generation Rx, a program that targets the misuse of prescription medication including mixed use of prescriptions and alcohol. A greater number of evidence-based alcohol prevention or education programs were identified among fraternities (36%). Thirteen fraternities (28.88%) identified as participating in GreekLifeEdu and three fraternities (7%) participated in ASTP. Other strategies found at the individual level included efforts at increasing individual knowledge base and providing information and awareness. This was facilitated by providing informational content on topics such as how to care for someone who has had too much to drink, sober monitoring resources, how to identify alcohol poisoning, and other general fact sheets on the risks of college drinking.

Environmental strategies defined by NIAAA (2015) are those aimed at reducing underage and excessive drinking at the population level by changing the context, such as places, settings, occasions, and circumstances, in which alcohol use occurs. The most significant evidence of this was ascribing to substance free housing. While all 26 NPC groups have maintained alcoholfree housing for many years, fraternities are just coming on board. To date, seven fraternities (16%) explicitly stated they provide alcohol free housing or plan to do so by the year 2020.

Other programs and policies were identified that although are not exclusively related to alcohol use, could impact alcohol-related negative consequences or outcomes due to the correlation between the consumption or abuse of alcohol and behaviors. For instance, one fraternity has a designated program called My Brotherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Keeper which focuses on four domains of healthy behavior (alcohol abuse, drug use, dating violence, and mental health) but did not specify the use of evidence-based programming.

Many other fraternities and sororities also have programming and policies that address issues

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 â&#x20AC;˘ Spring 2019 49

including hazing, sexual assault, mental health, and suicide risk, all behaviors that could be impacted by alcohol use. Additionally, overall larger chapters were more likely found to have multi-leveled programming.

Discussion Reports from NIAAA (2002) recognize successful interventions in reducing high risk college drinking among college students must include multiple strategies across different domains, including individuals, student groups, and the greater college community. Upon reviewing chapter websites of fraternities and sororities, it makes logical sense that strategies are primarily geared toward the student group as a whole. One of the recommended approaches

by NIAAA (2002) includes developing and implementing explicit policies related to substance use. This is a strength for Greek letter organizations as nearly a quarter of the sororities (24%) and the majority of fraternities (84 %) reviewed that had readily identifiable policies related to alcohol use were found to have policies. It is also quite likely given the majority of fraternities/sororities are affiliated with FIPG that most, if not all, have existing policies, but that they were just not as easily identified or publicly acknowledged.

Another recommendation by NIAAA (2002) is the implementation of evidence-based substance use programming. Although more fraternities than sororities were found to promote the use of alcohol education programs, overall relatively few (31%) included these programs on their websites. Of those that did, sixteen fraternities and six sororities identified GreekLifeEdu and Alcohol Skills Training Program (ASTP) as programs used. It should be noted the use of specific programming identified may be a result of the availability of what is offered or accessible to Greek student organizations, as well as funding available to provide these programs. Likewise, campuses offer a range of customized programs

that may not be noted on the chapter websites and health educators or other professionals on campus may offer additional programming to the campus at large at the same time. Finally, these results should not be an endorsement for these particular programs, as other evidence-based programs do exist, but rather a recognition that the two programs discussed are the most wellknown programs for this population.

GreekLifeEdu: This is a commercially available online program that addresses alcohol awareness, in addition to sexual assault, and hazing. The program provides interactive scenarios and feedback embedded in health behavior change theory. Through the interactive web-based services, students gain information about alcohol use and its consequences, develop skills to practice safer decision making in social environments, and reflect on individual values and strengths and how the use of alcohol fits into an individualâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s life. Wall (2007) found highrisk student populations (such as individual members of fraternity/sorority organizations) who participated in GreekLifeEdu received fewer negative consequences related to alcohol, engaged in fewer days of heavy consumption, exhibited lower intentional risky behavior, and were more likely to disagree with the positive expectations of alcohol use.

Alcohol Skills Training Program (ASTP): This program is based in the premise that college students drink and rather than imposing an abstinence-based perspective, ASTP recognizes any steps toward reduced risk are steps in the right direction. ASTP is grounded in cognitive behavioral skills training and motivational interviewing techniques designed to help students develop tools to change their behavior.

The curriculum includes basic information on alcohol use combined with cognitive-behavioral skills training and is offered in a style that is engaging and meets students where they are with regard to their drinking behavior. Results from this program demonstrate a decrease in alcohol consumption and consequences for high-risk

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 â&#x20AC;˘ Spring 2019 50

drinkers (Parks & Woodford, 2005).

Finally, a shift with endorsing substance free housing is noted. While sororities have had a long-standing recognition of this policy, fraternities are just beginning to make this shift.

Research indicates the location where drinking occurs, specifically in fraternity/sorority housing, is associated with higher risk drinking and increased frequency of drinking (Lewis et al., 2011, Park et al., 2008; Turrisi et al., 2006) and students attending these events have been found to have higher blood alcohol concentration (BAC) levels (Glindemann & Geller, 2003).

Additionally, with the exception of off-campus parties, students consume larger quantities of alcohol at fraternity/sorority parties than any other context (Paschall & Saltz, 2007).

With seven fraternities either already offering substance free housing or transitioning to do so by 2020, the context of drinking in fraternity housing is changing.

Recommendations Fraternities and sororities each have their own means of ensuring members are informed of the risks associated with alcohol use and adopting their own methods to safeguard their members through alcohol education programming.

As high-risk drinking remains a concern among college aged students, having solid and transparent policies combined with educational programming is essential. By adopting these best practices and acknowledging them publicly, fraternities and sororities are demonstrating their responsibility and dedication to protect their members from potential harm. While the majority of organizations (66%) had identifiable policies related to alcohol use, it is recommended these policies are positioned on chapter websites in a way that makes them more transparent and readily accessible to members and the greater community. This simple step may help sororities and fraternities demonstrate their commitment to keeping their members safe. It

also acknowledges the role of alcohol use among members and presents a unified front among all fraternities and sororities. A potential implication in doing so may result in chapter’s experiencing less stigma associated with promoting and/or condoning alcohol use and presenting a cohesive message.

As fraternity/sorority organizations are often perceived, accurately or not, as the conduit for social events on campus. As Danielson et al. (2001) denote “the perceptions of many within and outside academia place Greeks at the center of alcohol problems, especially binge drinking” (p. 451). As such, the university has a responsibility to support alcohol programming for all students.

A second area to consider is the expansion of the use of evidence-based alcohol education programming such as GreekLifeEdu and ASTP. Research supports such programs as promoting significant positive results, both to affiliated members and to the campus at large, yet more chapters could be committed to these programs.

One potential barrier to implementation may be the cost associated with these programs. Perhaps with the membership fees provided to NIC and NPC, the national organizations could develop a program utilizing the identified concepts posed through best practices and tailoring a program to meet member needs. As more programs are implemented, further research needs to be conducted to compare the rates of alcohol use and consequences of fraternities and sororities that engage in such programming with those that do not. Furthermore, given what is known about the efficacy of these programs as a whole, they should be promoted and encouraged that all sororities and fraternities to adapt such programming, or other comparable programs.

Similarly, with emerging substance free housing being endorsed among some fraternities by 2020, it will be important to assess how these changes impact alcohol use and related consequences. It would seem using substance-free residence halls as a comparative sample may provide further

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 51

insight into its effectiveness.

While this study provides a broad overview of some policies and educational programming occurring among fraternities and sororities at a national level through a content analysis, closer examination of individual chapterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s is warranted. This could occur by investigating a single sorority or fraternity across the United States and comparing programming within, or by assessing multiple Greek letter organizations within a single state and integrating interrelated state policies.

Limitations As with any study, several limitations are noted.

The experiences of the researchers contributed to the development, data collection, and interpretation of the study as both professional/ student and affiliated/non-affiliated sorority membership. The selected sample is restricted to fraternities and sororities with a primary social focus and is not representative of all fraternities and sororities. With regard to methodology, the content analysis relied on web-based sources including only information obtained from electronic websites which are restricted both to a particular point in time as well as content deemed appropriate or necessary by site administrators.

The analysis of content on websites does not provide a comprehensive assessment of what organizations are doing to address alcohol use among its members, additionally, there are often member-only pages that could not be accessed.

It is unknown how programming is funded, whether institutionally, nationally, or by other means; therefore, programming may vary based on level of monetary investment. Finally, there are likely chapters using a variety of tools which are not publicly acknowledged or promoted on the website, as well as campus-based education and prevention programs embedded into the college culture that are not accounted for; therefore, it is impossible to capture all of the efforts through a website analysis. The content analysis is not

meant to provide a complete picture of all the efforts taking place among fraternities and sororities but does provide a glimpse into how these efforts are publicly promoted.

Conclusions Fraternity/Sorority organizations have worked hard to protect their members from the potential risks of alcohol use by developing strong policies and guidelines. Central to abiding by the risk management procedures includes alcohol education and prevention programs.

Several national evidenced-based alcohol education and prevention programs have been identified as demonstrating potential efficacy for change among secondary education institutions, however, are sparsely implemented across fraternity/sorority organizations. As sorority and fraternities continue to serve an essential role in the social community among college campuses, further development of best practices for harm reduction related to alcohol use among college students is essential in creating a safe environment.

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 â&#x20AC;˘ Spring 2019 52

References Barry, A. E. (2007). Using theory-based constructs to explore the impact of Greek membership on alcohol- related beliefs and behaviors: A systematic literature review. Journal of American College Health, 56, 307– 315. doi:10.3200/JACH.56.3.307-316 Blanco, C., Okuda, R. S., Wright, C., Hasi, D. S., Grant, B. F., Liu, S. M., & Olfson, M. (2008).

Mental health of college students and their non-college-attending peers: Results from the national epidemiologic study on alcohol and related conditions. Archives of General Psychiatry, 65 (12), 14291437 Borsari B. & Carey K. B. (1999). Understanding Fraternity Drinking: Five Recurring Themes in the Literature, 1980–1998. Journal of American College Health, 48(1), 30–37.

Borsari, B., Hustad, J. T., & Capone, C. (2013). Alcohol Use in the Greek System, 1999-2009: A Decade of Progress. Current drug abuse reviews, 2(3), 216-255.

Broe, Karen, A. (2009). Student organizations and activities: Managing the risks. Risk Research Bulletin.

United Educators. www.ue.org Chauvin, C. D. (2012). Social norms and motivations associated with college binge drinking.

Sociological Inquiry, 82, 257–281. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.2011.00400.x Council for the Advancement of Standard in Higher Education (CAS). (2014). CAS standards and guidelines. CAS Professional standards for higher education. Retrieved from http://standards.cas.edu/ getpdf.cfm?PDF=E86B4AB0-F173-3390-D037EC8471C252D5 Danielson C,Taylor S.H., & Hartford M. (2001). Examining the complex relationship between Greek life and alcohol: A literature review. NASPA Journal, 38(4), 451–65.

FIPG Risk Management Manual (2013), A risk management association of men’s and women’s national and international fraternities and sororities. FIPG, Inc. http://0104.nccdn. net/1_5/161/330/2d3/FIPG_MANUAL.pdf Glindemann, K. E., & Geller, E. S. (2003). A systematic assessment of intoxication at university parties: Effects of the environmental context. Environment and Behavior, 35, 655–664. doi: 10.1177/0013916503254751 Gohn, L. A. & Albin, G. R. (eds.) (2006). Understanding college student subpopulations: A guide for student affairs professionals. National Association of Student Affairs Personnel Administrators (NASPA), Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.

Hingson, R., Heeren, T., Winter, M., & Wechsler, H. (2005). Magnitude of alcohol-related mortality and morbidity among U.S> college students ages 18-24: changes from 1998 to 2001. Annual Review of Public Health, 26, 259-279.

Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P.M., Bachman, J. G., Schulenberg, J. E., Miech, R. A. (2015). Monitoring the future national survey results on drug use, 1975-2014. Volume 2 college students and adults ages 19-55. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lewis, M. A., Litt, D. M., Blayney, J. A., Lostutter, T. W., Granato, H., Kilmer, J. R., & Lee, C. M. (2011). They drink how much and where? Normative perceptions by drinking contexts and their association to college students’ alcohol consumption. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 72 (5), 844-853. http://dx.doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2011.72.844 National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (2002). How to reduce high-risk college drinking.

Use proven strategies, fill research gaps. Final report of the panel on Prevention and Treatment www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov.

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 53

National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (2015). Planning alcohol intervention using NIAAA’s college AIM alcohol intervention matrix, NIH, Publication No.15 -AA-8017, Bethesda MD, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and alcoholism. Available at https://www. collegedrinkingprevention.gov/CollegeAIM/Resources/NIAAA_College_Matrix_Booklet.pdf National Panhellenic Conference (2016-2017). Retrieved from https://npcwomen.dynamic. omegafi.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2037/2017/10/2017- Annual-Survey-Fast-Facts.pdf Nelson, T. F., Toomey, T. L., Lenk, K. M., Erickson, D. J., Winters, K. C. (2010). Implementation of NIAAA college drinking task force recommendations: How are colleges doing 6 years later? Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 34(10), 1687-1693. doi: 10.1111/j.15300227.2010.012682.x.

North-American Interfraternity Conference (2014-2015). Retrieved from http://nicindy.org/ press/fraternity-statistics/ North-American Interfraternity Conference (2017). NIC adopts enhanced health and safety standards. Retrieved from https://nicfraternity.org/tag/standards/ O’Malley, P. M., & Johnston, L. D. (2002). Epidemiology of alcohol and other drug use among American college students. Journal of Alcohol Studies, Supplement, (14), 23-39.

Park, A., Sher, K. J., & Krull, J. L. (2008). Risky drinking in college changes as fraternity/sorority affiliation changes: A person-environment perspective. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 22, 219– 229. doi:10.1037/0893-164X.22.2.219 Parks, G. A., & Woodford, M. S. (2005). CHOICES about alcohol: A brief alcohol abuse prevention and harm reduction program for college students. In G. R. Walz & R. K. Yep (Eds.), VISTAS: Compelling perspectives on counseling, 2005 (pp.171-174). Alexandria,VA: American Counseling Association.

Paschall, M. J., & Saltz, R. F. (2007). Relationships between college settings and student alcohol use before, during and after events: A multi-level study. Drug and Alcohol Review, 26, 635–644. doi: 10.1080/09595230701613601 Presley, C., Cheng, Y., & Pimentel, E. (2004). Alcohol and drugs on American college campuses: A report to college presidents: Fourth in a series, 1998, 1999, and 2000. CORE Institute.

Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.

Saichaie, K., & Morphew, C. C. (2014). What college and university websites reveal about the purposes of higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(4), 499–530.

SAMHSA (2017, September 20). Evidence Based Practices Web Guide, Substance abuse prevention evidence-based practices (EBP). Retrieved from https://www.samhsa.gov/ebp-web-guide/substanceabuse-prevention#TOP Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2014). Results from the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings, NSDUH Series H-48, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 14-4863. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Thombs, D. L., Olds, R. S., Bondy, S. J.,Winchell, J., Baliunas, D., & Rehmn, J. (2009). Undergraduate drinking and academic performance: A prospective investigation with objective measures. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 70 (5), 776-785.

Toomey, T. L., Nelson, T. F., Lenk, K. M. (2009). The age-21 minimum legal drinking age: a case study linking past and current debates. Addiction, 104 (12), 1958-1965. doi:10.1111/j.13600443.2009.02742.x.

Turrisi R, Mallett K. A, & Mastroleo, N.R., & Larimer, M. E. (2006). Heavy Drinking in College Students: Who is at Risk and What is Being Done About It? Journal of General Psychology, 133(4), 401–20.

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 54

Wall, A. F. (2007). Evaluating a Health Education Web Site: The Case of AlcoholEdu. NASPA NASPA Journal, 44 (4), 692-714.

Wechsler, H., Kuh, G. & Davenport, A. E. (1996). Fraternities, sororities, and binge drinking: Results from a national study of American colleges. NASPA Journal, 33, (4), 260-279.

Wechsler, H., Lee, J. E., Kuo, M. Seibring, M., Nelson, T. F., & Lee, H. (2002). Trends incollege binge drinking during a period of increased prevention efforts: Findings from four Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study surveys: 1993-2001. The American Journal of College Health, 50, (5), 203-217.

Zografos, K., Krenz, Yarmo, K. & Alcala, E. (2015). College students’ utilization of protective alcohol-use behaviors: Effects of age, gender, and year in school. Californian Journal of Health Promotion, 12(3), 49-58.

Author Biographies Dr. Jill Russett is an Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology, Social Work, and Anthropology at Christopher Newport University. Jill has a Bachelor’s degree in Rehabilitation Services from Syracuse University, a Master of Social Work from Virginia Commonwealth University, and a Ph.D. in Counselor Education with a concentration in Addictions from the College of William and Mary. She is Licensed Professional Counselor and Master Addiction Counselor. Jill is an alumni of Delta Phi Epsilon sorority.

Kaitlyn Oates graduated from Christopher Newport University in 2018 with a Bachelor of Art in Psychology. Although she was not a member of a sorority at CNU, she was immersed in the sorority and fraternity culture. Currently, she is working a hospital for behavioral health in Williamsburg, VA.

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 • Spring 2019 55

Editors of Oracle:The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Grahaeme Hesp, Ed.D. (Founding Editor, 2005-2006) Daniel Bureau, Ph.D. (Founding Associate Editor, 2005-2006) Eric Norman, Ph.D. (2007-2009) J. Patrick Biddix, Ph.D. (2010-2013) Georgianna L. Martin, Ph.D. (2014-2017) James P. Barber, Ph.D. (2018-Present)

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 â&#x20AC;˘ Spring 2019 56

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 14, Issue 1 â&#x20AC;˘ Spring 2019 57