1. (FLASH) is a set of peer-based communication tools, developed over three years by a pilot project.

2. The FLASH model is an environmental strategy based on Social Norms and Stages of Change Theories.

3. The FLASH model addresses high-risk drinking, a widespread, serious problem.

4. The model empowers friends and other peers, who are key, neglected allies.

5. The FLASH Pilot Project developed and tested the methods for supporting this ally.

6. Results from Omnibus Student Surveys 1999-2001

1. The Flashing Your Brights® (FLASH) model is a set of peer-based communication tools, developed over three years by a pilot project.

The model refers to acting on a peer’s high-risk drinking without taking responsibility for it. Drivers often “flash their brights” to warn other drivers about a problem they can’t see.

FLASH consists of five simple and effective communication tools.

1. Say what you see. Be factual with the high-risk drinker.
2. Say how you feel. Express your concern about the problem and the person.
3. Say what you know. Offer good information about alcohol and drugs.
4. Say where your boundaries are. Stop the person’s high-risk drinking from interfering with you.
5. Say there is hope for change. Offer your support for positive change.

These tools empower friends and other peers to influence positive change.

The FLASH Pilot Project is a joint venture of several colleges, community partners, Lincoln Medical Education Foundation, Inc. and Starfish Enterprises Ltd. With funding from the U. S. Department of Education and others, The FLASH Project developed effective methods for communicating these tools to students. Its mission is to reduce high-risk drinking and related behaviors using peer-based communication tools.

2. The FLASH model is an environmental strategy based on Social Norms and Stages of Change Theories.

This model is an environmental strategy. The immediate peer group is an influential part of most high-risk drinkers’ environments.

The model has two theoretical foundations The model is a practical application of Social Norms Theory. Perceived campus norms have a larger effect on personal alcohol abuse than any other factor. Most college students do not accurately perceive the actual drinking attitudes and behaviors of their peers. Probably, nothing has more influence on a student’s perception of the norm than the immediate peer group (Perkins and Wechsler, 1996).

For example, in one study (Alva, 1998), members of fraternities and sororities averaged 3.91 drinks per week. Non-members averaged 1.75 drinks per week. Fraternity and sorority members were more likely to believe that their friends did not disapprove of high-risk drinking. To enable high-risk drinking it is not necessary for friends to approve, only necessary that the student believe that friends do not disapprove.

By giving peers useful tools like Flashing Your Brights®, the students whom we train positively influence the normative beliefs of their peers. Our research indicates that Flashing Your Brights® is one of the few models that sets out to address the friends and other peers of the high-risk drinker.

The model is consistent with Stages of Change Theory, which shows how people make changes gradually in response to a variety of interventions.

3. The FLASH model addresses high-risk drinking, a widespread, serious problem

• 19% of college students binge drank three or more times in the past two weeks (Wechsler et al., 2000).

• 46% of college students characterize themselves as being drunk every time they are under the influence of alcohol (Burrell, 1990).

• 15% of college men and 8% of women believe they have a substance abuse problem (Presley, Meilman, and Cashin, 1996).

• According to Healthy People 2010, in 1998, 8% of adolescents aged 12 to 17 years reported binge drinking, and 3 % were heavy drinkers (five or more drinks on the same occasion on each of 5 or more days in the past 30 days).

• Wechsler’s surveys of over 15,000 students also show that the problem is getting worse.

About 240,000 to 360,000 of the nation’s current college students will die prematurely from alcohol-related causes (Zobeck, Williams, Grant, and Bertolucci, 1990). They won’t die in college, but they will die before their time. Approximately the same number can expect to obtain graduate degrees.

High-risk drinkers also damage their peers. According to Wechsler (1997), for example, 42% of peers reported having their study or sleep interrupted, and 21% reported being insulted or humiliated by a high-risk drinker.

While the FLASH Pilot Project was designing and testing its methods of communication with selected populations, it also took measurements related to alcohol consumption in the general population of its five campuses. Several indicators showed that alcohol related problems remained substantial on these campuses. For example, nearly 3 in 10 students (29.5%) had ridden in a car with a drunk driver (#22) [The numbers in parentheses refer to the results from the FLASH Omnibus Student Surveys at the end of this page].

Perhaps, more significantly, several negative indicators actually increased between 1999 and 2001. Students who reported normally consuming 5 or more drinks when they “partied with their friends” increased from 16.3% to 29.4% (#18). The number of students who “had 5+ drinks of alcohol (if a male) or 4+ drinks (if a female)” on 3 or more occasions during the previous 90 days increased from 18.9% in 1999 to 29.2% in 2001 (#21). These campuses appear to be fairly typical of America’s colleges in the area of alcohol abuse.

4. The model empowers friends and other peers, who are key, neglected allies.

Students seek help from peers.
College students with drinking problems say they are most likely to seek help from friends (Yaccarino, 1996). About two-thirds of respondents (68.1%) in the Flashing Your Brights® surveys (1999 and 2000) of 1,892 students would prefer to seek help from another student, if they were unsure about what to say to a fellow student who tends to drink too much. This number gives a strong indicator of the value of training in intervention for the immediate peer group.

Some peers already intervene
• 37% of high school and junior college students had intervened in friends' high-risk drinking in the previous year (Smart and Stoduto, 1997).
• 78% of college students report intervening in a drunk driving situation.
• 23% intervened in other alcohol-related situations (Thomas and Seibold, 1995).

Many peers do not act because they lack education
• Junior and senior high school students who intervened in any kind of substance abuse by their friends had more exposure to alcohol and drug education (Smart and Stoduto, 1997).
• In fact, self-evaluation as a competent helper may be the major factor in determining whether or not peers intervene (Thomas and Seibold, 1995).

FLASH shows peers that their interventions work
It shows them that very brief, peer interventions can positively influence behavioral change related to alcohol abuse. For example, students who did such things as taking keys and telling a potential drunk driver not to drive were successful 57% of the time (Newcomb, et al., 1997). FLASH helps students understand the influential role of brief interventions in effecting change over time.

FLASH focuses on students who are ready to act
It works with the many students who are already receptive to taking action with their high-risk drinking peers. Between 1999 and 2001 the FLASH project surveyed a total of 4,161 students in five mid-western colleges. According to these surveys, 56.0% of students had been concerned about another student’s use of alcohol in the past 90 days. Moreover, 61.7% of those concerned had already taken specific action with another student.

FLASH helps students become competent to act
It shows students that they are competent to take action. They just don’t know it. Students who bypass chances to intervene often do so because they believe that they are not competent helpers (Thomas and Seibold, 1995).

Many Students have concerns about the high-risk drinking of their friends and other peers. These concerns form the basis for motivating them to act.

Popular campus mythology holds that high-risk drinking is a common activity among the majority of students. The mythology also holds that high-risk drinking enjoys nearly universal approval among students. Consequently, one cannot expect students to intervene with each other.

The reality is that a substantial number of students see themselves as negatively affected by other students’ high-risk drinking. The combined totals from three surveys of 4,159 students taken between 1999 and 2001 on the five project campuses showed that significant numbers of students report being affected by other students high-risk drinking. The following examples illustrate the point.

1. About one student in four (24.2%) reported interruptions in studying (#14).
2. A similar number (25.3)% reported, being prevented “from enjoying social events” (#15).
3. Still more (28.9%) reported, being “concerned about my physical safety” (16).
4. Even alcohol related threats of physical violence were common with one of twelve students (8.1%) reporting such threats in the past 90 days (#17).

Not surprisingly, students who experience interference from others’ high-risk drinking are concerned about it. However, a much greater number report being concerned, apparently for other reasons. Perhaps, they don’t like seeing their friends make fools of themselves or seeing their friends hurt themselves with alcohol. A majority of students (56.0%) reported being “concerned about another student who tends to drink too much,” in the past 90 days (#8).

Moreover, students see such concern as the social norm. Nearly two-thirds of them (66.0%) agreed that, “When a student on this campus drinks too much, other students are likely to express concern to that student about his/her drinking” (#5). By and large, students are not intimidated by possible rejection of high-risk drinkers, with only 17.1% endorsing the statement, “I am afraid to say anything to a student who drinks too much since he or she might disapprove” (#7).

Finally, the project determined that when students were unsure of what to say, they were far more likely to turn to fellow students for support than all other counseling or professional staff people whether on campus or off. Two-thirds of students (68.2% of 1,892) would, “feel comfortable seeking support for myself from another student, if I were unsure of what to day to another student who tends to drink too much” (#11). Thus, the project’s findings indicate that, contrary to popular campus myths, high risk drinking does not enjoy universal approval. Significant numbers of students report that specific incidents of high-risk drinking interfere with them. Furthermore, a majority of students view specific high-risk drinking incidents and behaviors with concern and they see their concerns as normal. Finally, a large majority of students would prefer to seek support for themselves in dealing with these issues from other students.

5. The FLASH Pilot Project developed and tested the methods for supporting this ally.

The successful four-year Flashing Your Brights® project designed and tested methods to help peers of high-risk drinkers do very brief interventions with them. The participating campuses appear to be representative of most American colleges.

In 1997, the FLASH project began to test methods for motivating college students to use its five intervention tools with the high-risk drinking of their friends and other peers. To begin the project, Lincoln Medical Education Foundation, Inc. (LMEF) initiated a coalition of five colleges, six consultants and five community partners. Each college formed a team to explore ways to test methods for communicating the five FLASH tools on its campus. The methods included informational classroom presentations, student-led skits, and a media campaign. Much of the work was done through the support of a two-year grant from the U. S. Department of Education.

Informational classes, student-led skits, and media effectively communicated the FLASH tools to significant numbers of students. These activities had a positive impact on peers’ knowledge, attitude, and behaviors with very brief interventions.

During 1997-98, informational classes on ways to address concerns about a fellow student’s high-risk drinking behaviors showed short-term results. The project introduced 1,320 students to the FLASH model in informational classes lasting 45 to 75 minutes. Pre- and post-tests showed significant short-term gains. Responses to the statement, “I can say or do things to help someone to change who drinks too much,” went from 63.0% to 94.6% indicating more students with positive attitudes about intervening (#24). Responses to the statement, “I know ways to help someone who drinks too much to change,” strongly imply an increase in the participants’ knowledge (#25). Only 37% agreed with this statement in the pre-test, but 92% agreed in the post-test, an increase of 55%. On the post-tests, exactly half of them (50.0%) said that they would “flash their brights” within “a month” or “a few days,” indicating their intent to use the FLASH tools (#26).

In similar classes, from 2000 to 2001, longer-term results were shown in two groups of 367 students whom the project tracked for 90 days. The question, “During the past 90 days, how often were you concerned about another student who tends to drink too much,” brought positive responses from 64.9% of the students on the pre-test. However, the post-test, 90 days later, revealed 72.4% saying, “Yes,” 1 or more times, an increase of 7.5% (#27).

The media campaign was useful for introducing students to the FLASH program and possibly more. The number of students who were aware of the FLASH program doubled largely due to the media campaign from 38.3% in 2000 (N= 1,308) to 81.3% in 2001 (N=1,445) (#23).

Most students were exposed only to the media campaign and they did not attend a specific class. Nevertheless, there were significant long-term gains in knowledge. Students endorsing the statement, “I know of ways to help someone who drinks too much to change,” increased from 33.5% in 1999 (N=1,400) to 58.5% in 2001 (N=1,453), a positive change of 25.1% (#6). Web site hits increased dramatically from 49 in the two months prior to the campaign to 321 during the two months of the campaign (#23).

While the media campaign increased awareness that students could act, classroom instruction showed short and long-term gains in knowledge about how to act and attitude toward taking action. Surveys taken between 1999 (N=1,417) and 2001 (N=1,454) revealed a significant change in students’ behavior. The number of students agreeing with the statement, " I have said something to another student about his/her drinking in the past 90 days," increased from 31.9% to 37.5% over the two-year period (#9). The ratio of concerned students who agreed with the above statement increased from 55.7% in 1999 to 67.4% in 2001 (#10). Some of these gains may be ascribed to the range of other alcohol education activities on some of the project’s campuses. However, FLASH was the only campaign specifically targeting behavior changes in peers of high-risk drinkers.

FLASH is an effective way to support the concerned peers of high-risk drinkers. Adding new components to FLASH programming will ultimately have an impact on the high-risk drinkers themselves.

In summary, the FLASH Project showed that many students have concerns about the high-risk drinking of their friends and other peers. These concerns form the basis for motivating them to act. Several methods are effective for communicating FLASH intervention tools to significant numbers of students. Learning these tools increases the number of very brief interventions that students do with each other.

6. Results from Omnibus Student Surveys 1999, 2000, 2001

Combined results from University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln School of Commerce, Concordia University, Seward, Union College, and Nebraska Wesleyan University. These figures include the 2001 post-tests for both first and second semester at Nebraska Wesleyan but exclude the pre-tests from the second semester.