FEBRUARY, 2000
MOST OF US
FOCUS GROUP CONTENT ANALYSIS
GROUP SUMMARY
A total of 23 students participated in four separate focus groups conducted on Monday, February 7 and Wednesday, February 9, 2000. Eight graduate student facilitators conducted the groups in pairs. Each facilitator received a 30 minute training and a Facilitator Packet prior to the focus group facilitation. Each group had a main facilitator, a recorder, and a tape recorder.
The participants were recruited from Health 100 classes, residence Hall Directors and random selection from the residence hall directory. The residence halls participating included Garber (n=5), McGraw-Long (n=8), Potomac (n=5) and Hillside (n=10). Each student and facilitator received a monetary award of $10.00 for their time. Grant funds from the VA Department of Alcohol Beverage Control Board were used for this award.
QUESTION SUMMARY
On statistics, the respondents had a consistent response on the statistics in that they were hesitant to believe them. They questioned when the data was gathered and who it was gathered from. On the flyer design, they thought the color contrast was hard to read and they were too busy. On visibility, they saw them all over campus and named residence halls, buses, ISAT and bathrooms as locations.
The students generally thought Flyers A(3 or fewer) and B(Once a Week or Less) were confusing and not believable. The dog in Flyer C was random and hazy and thought that it did not match. Flyers D (Friend) and E (Drink Safely) were "lighter" and made better sense.
The students basically got that the messages were supposed to be positive and not preachy. They saw the friendship theme and responsible drinking theme, although one group thought it was a mixed message.
The flyers really made students think and encouraged them to compare themselves with others. They conveyed a "concerted" effort and helped take pressure off of the freshman. They liked the pictures better than the graphs, and there was one suggestion for a pie chart.
The color scheme and amount of information seem to be the least likable things about the flyers. They wanted shorter, quicker messages. Some thought that because of the color scheme, they did not read all of them because they thought they said the same thing.
The dog and the friends.
There are no other dog posters on campus and the friends poster "applied to me." Also, they were the ones with the least amount of information.
Flyers A and B were consistent across all groups. The color scheme, plus the information was "pointless and hard to read."
Less information; use one main point; a different color scheme.
The charts and statistics in A and B are confusing to all groups. They had to think to get the point of these. One did not see the point of Flyer C (dog.) The source information was good.
The main message at the top and that the color scheme was identifiable as the Most of Us campaign. The messages were not seen "in practice" by some of the students. They liked the facts on D (Friend) and E (Drink Safely.) One thought that more people drank.
D (Friend) and E (Drink Safely) because they think you should look out for your friends and apply to more people. Some said that A and B are useful, but don’t recall this information at a party. Two different groups discussed the fact that information on A and B can relate to non-drinkers and that can be helpful.
B, C and D were mentioned across all groups. D is common knowledge and everyone should know this. (Note that it also had the most useful information according to some.)
There were a range of suggestions including consequences – physical and legal; policies, such as 3 strikes/out; signs of a drinking problem; information on drunk driving fatalities; how many, how often how many is too many in regard to size, weight; and a better definition of a blackout.
The responses centered around scare tactics such as fatal accidents using familiar people and driving while intoxicated and driving with someone who is intoxicated. They also suggested how many people got in trouble (DIPs, etc.) and knowing the consequences that people suffer. They basically said that to deter from drinking and driving or suffering consequences, gore and shock are necessary.
B, C, D, and E were all mentioned. B was mentioned because "people can’t make it all up." C, D and E because this is common knowledge and they can relate to it.
A -because of the statistics; comment from one said they lied to make it look good.
A, B – questioning of the statistics
C – black out should be more specific and in student language
How it relates to personal experiences. A & B seem to be contradictory. The majority of people fall in between.
The statistics do not click with preconceived notions. A suggestion to use just the facts instead of comparing quantity and frequency; separate the numbers. They suggest re-doing the survey and getting different (better, more accurate) statistics. They also suggest doing all students and breaking down into groups, including athletes and Greeks.
The students said to include more information about how the survey was conducted, what halls responded and the number from each hall.
One group wanted a larger sample and knowledge of who it represented. Also, "scarier" information. They also said "what fits our perception."
Most comments centered around the color scheme and readability. There is too much information on the flyers. A few commented on the common knowledge and new information might be better.
There were 2 mentions of the dog; and one comment that blackouts were not appropriate; passing out is worse than a blackout. Overall, there was nothing mentioned that was grossly inappropriate.
Nothing is really offensive; just one comment on "who" polled.
The students generally did not think A and B were talking to them because they do not drink the same every week. D and E speak to them most directly. They make sense and relate to "girl" friends.
A and B may talk to their parents to make them feel better. A and B were "written off" because people are going to drink. They also commented that they speak to the people who made them. They did not speak to the non-drinker.
The students did not want the flyers to say what other students do, that drinking is bad or that they are being judged. Scare tactics do make them defensive. Opinions were not welcomed, just the facts. They also stated that they did not want to be compared to their parents.
There were a range of responses including drinking and driving, real people, blackouts/memory loss, what to do when someone passes out or has alcohol poisoning, when to call 911. Other messages included friends, people dying, health aspects. The most repeated area seems to be the drinking and driving issue. They would also do it for money, phone cards.
The students had good advice including not to focus on numbers in future surveys, give real personal stories, use a different color scheme, use a positive message, address the non-drinkers, keep working at it – don’t stop, don’t put A and B together, advertise things on campus (alternative activities) and make the messages more personal.
Conclusions
In general, the students want to know that the statistics that are being communicated are accurate and represent them. They want to see a brighter color scheme and less information on the flyers. If there is different information, they want it to be "scary" as in fatalities and consequences suffered. They base the believability on the personal emotional level that the information hits. They want the background to match the text (the dog was liked, but did not fit in). They would like to see what else there is to do at JMU. They question why the freshmen were targeted and why not all students or other sub-groups like athletes, Greeks or specific residence halls. They want flyers to be more direct and relate drinking to other aspects of life (judicial, health, academics, etc.) They seem to recognize, and like, the idea of a concerted effort.
FEBRUARY, 2000
MOST OF US
SURVEY GALLERY CONTENT ANALYSIS
Prior to participating in the focus group discussion, students were asked to describe each of the flyers in "Three Words or Less." Following is an analysis of their comments.
The students saw this flyer as catchy, but hard to believe. The statistics were surprising and exaggerated; the flyer had too much information and was busy but it was informative and organized at the same time. Overall not well received.
This flyer is hard to believe, bland, had weird colors, not interesting, plain, unrealistic, skeptical, surprising and confusing. At the same time it was hopeful, gave encouraging statistics and was good visually. Overall not well received.
Most of the comments centered on the dog. Not sure of the relationship to drinking. It is more believable and hopeful that A and B and had good information. Overall average reception.
D. "How to be a Friend"
The information on this flyer was obvious, useful, good, catchy, helpful, true, good
visually, girly, but at the same time caring, fun and friendly. Overall a very good
reception.
This flyer was short & sweet, informative, attention getting with nice guidelines,
good design even though a little hard to read and unclear. It was also hard to believe, lied, pointless and anti-alcohol. There really "is no safe way." It relayed how to handle yourself and one comment on the "best seen." Overall, average reception.
For the next part of the Survey Gallery, students were then asked to describe the message in each flyer in their own words:
Their comments centered on the majority of freshman are not big drinkers, "don’t over do it" and "don’t have to drink." Also, JMU wants to dissuade students from drinking. Many drink 13 or more and the norm isn’t necessarily that everyone drinks and that if they do not drink, they are one of many. Students grasped the idea of this flyer, even though they said they didn’t believe it.
Their comments focused on the majority of freshmen drink only once a week or less, that most don’t drink to have fun that it is ok not to drink, that the majority drink but not heavily and that not every freshman is a constant drinker. Again, students grasped the idea of this flyer even though they did not believe it.
There were several levels of messages drawn from this flyer including moderation and blackouts/memory loss as a problem. Some focused on the moderate drinking statement by saying that most freshmen are somewhat responsible with their drinking. Others focused on the blackouts and stated they are dangerous and a serious problem, but have not affected most freshmen. Some recognized the difference between blackouts, passing out and memory loss and the problems that alcohol can create. If you have experienced blackout or memory loss, you are apt to have a problem. One student commented that it makes memory loss appear as a problem (not a problem for this student, though) Others stated that drinking causes confusion and students control their drinking and not everyone gets completely drunk when they drink encourages. Finally, you are in the minority if you have had a memory loss. They got the point, for the most part.
They saw that it conveyed some ways to be a good friend when drinking, but not necessarily how to be a friend. Comments included how to take care, how to help one another, watch out for drunken friends, how to drink responsibly, JMU students know how to handle situations, don’t let anyone get out of hand and that at least one should be responsible. Students captured the safety message in this flyer
E. "How To Drink Safely"
They commented that students are not mindless, beer guzzling idiots and most saw that it
conveyed things that keep them from getting drunk, that they know how to drink
responsibly and sparingly, and ways to drink so don’t get in trouble and how to avoid
getting a headache. The most telling comment that came out more than once was that
JMU students know this but don’t do it. Students once again captured the safety message
in this flyer.
3/13/00// JMMM