Challenging Dogma

Friday, April 27, 2012

The Shortcomings of the ‘You Drink and Drive You Lose’ Campaign to Reduce Impaired-Driving: A Critique Based on Social and Behavioral Science Theories – Michelle Kielty

Despite the plethora of public service announcements (PSAs) and mass media campaigns that have aimed to address drunk driving in the United States, alcohol-related traffic fatalities have historically been and continue to be a major public health problem. After the record-setting number of alcohol-related traffic fatalities that occurred in 2002 totaling more than 17,000 deaths nation-wide (1), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) developed and sponsored a paid advertising campaign beginning in 2003 known as You Drink and Drive You Lose to address the problem of drunk driving by emphasizing law enforcement crackdowns. The campaign features television advertisements that show drivers being arrested, handcuffed and photographed, as well as messages from state troopers and government officials repeatedly using slogans such as “if you have more than a few drinks and get behind the wheel, you will be arrested”(2) or “If I catch you driving under the influence, you will go to jail”(3). From the $11 million that Congress appropriated for the campaign, NHTSA purchased airtime on national television networks in 13 states with the highest alcohol-related crash rates, and 15 other states participated in the campaign using state funds or other federally appropriated funds (1). Although residents in the participating states demonstrated increased awareness of the campaign and the proposed crackdown (1), evaluations of the You Drink and Drive You Lose campaign have indicated that there was no change in self-reported personal alcohol consumption behavior or perceived additional risk for arrest after drinking and driving (1, 4) among drivers in the participating states.

In this way, the You Drink and Drive You Lose campaign was limited in effectiveness and failed to achieve significant behavioral changes with regards to drinking and driving. Based on a review of the social science literature, it seems that the shortcomings of the campaign can be attributed to 3 main flaws: the existence of powerful psychological reactants in the message, poor selection of communicators to deliver the message, and the lack of an appealing core value or promise within the campaign message.

Critique 1: Powerful Psychological Reactants

By telling viewers not to drink and drive or threatening viewers with the prospect of being arrested, the You Drink and Drive You Lose campaign is utilizing powerful psychological forces, referred to in the social science literature as reactants. These psychological reactants are likely contributing to the overall limitations of the campaign to facilitate behavior change. In essence, telling people what to do – or what not to do in this case – can evoke powerful reactions among members of the target audience who may feel as though their freedom is being challenged by the advertisement’s message. According to Laurin et. Al (2012), “reactance theory suggests that people are motivated to restore restricted freedoms and respond negatively to others’ attempts to constrain their freedoms”(5), so the message to not drink and drive combined with slogans like “you will go to jail” are actually more likely to induce backlash rather than behavioral compliance. In this way, psychological reactants can have powerful implications for public health campaigns like You Drink and Drive You Lose because issuing threats or orders can actually motivate the target to rebel against the source of authority and engage in the behavior they are being told to avoid (5, 6).
As a result of telling viewers that they will go to jail if they drive impaired and by using strong visual imagery of sirens, handcuffs, mug shots, arrests and law enforcement officers, the You Drink and Drive You Lose campaign is sending a message that will likely be perceived by the target audience as a significant threat to freedom. The campaign is not only threatening the viewer’s perceived ability to drink and drive if they choose to, but it is also threatening their physical freedom by asserting that they will be incarcerated if they do not comply. The theory of psychological reactance asserts that the degree to which reactance will be triggered relates directly to how important the behavior being threatened is and to the overall magnitude of the threat (6). Therefore, the threat of arrest represents a fundamental loss of basic freedoms and is therefore likely to evoke a high degree of psychological reactance due to the magnitude of the threat to personal liberty (6, 7).
Furthermore, the theory of psychological reactance also suggests that when freedoms are restricted without proper and legitimate justification, the magnitude of the threat is increased and the threat is likely to arouse a great deal of reactance (6). With regards to the You Drink and Drive You Lose campaign, the advertisements fail to articulate compelling justifications for why it is important that individuals do not drink and drive. Rather than using personal stories, examples, statistics, or other means of support to explicate the importance of sober driving, the commercials overwhelmingly utilize scare tactics to provoke fear of the legal consequences of drinking and driving as a means of deterrence. To this extent, it has been well-documented that “campaigns which attempt to use fear as part of a punishment procedure are unlikely to succeed”(8) and that without appropriate legitimacy and justification, appeals to behavioral change can arouse powerful psychological reactants (6). Although the police officers in the commercials can surely draw on their authority as rule enforcers as a source of legitimacy, their role as dominant controlling forces in the commercial combined with the lack of explicit justification for the anti-drunk driving message detracts from the effectiveness and perceived legitimacy of the campaign. In this way, the You Drink You Drive You Lose campaign fails to provide ample justification for the public health message being offered and uses fear tactics that challenge the legitimacy of the advertisement in a way that will likely invoke a high degree of reactance and make the target audience more likely to continue with the risky behavior of drinking and driving.
Lastly, social science research has demonstrated that the effect of psychological reactants can be exacerbated or minimized based on the similarity of the communicator to the target audience (9). The second section of this paper will further discuss the limitations of this campaign’s choice to use police officers and anonymous narrators to deliver the message, but with regards to psychological reactants, it has been shown that “threatening messages from dissimilar and anonymous communicators create[s] reactance”(9) whereas threatening messages delivered by similar communicators often results in a greater degree of behavioral compliance (9). Given that similarity appears to affect how individuals perceive threats to freedom and therefore has an effect on reactance and likelihood of compliance, it is clear that the You Drink and Drive You Lose campaign’s approach is flawed. The campaign utilizes middle-aged police offers, anonymous narrators, and state governors to deliver the message, and all of these communicators are significantly dissimilar to the campaign’s target audience of 21-34 year old males (4). In this way, by using communicators who are dissimilar to the target audience to deliver threatening messages, the You Drink and Drive You Lose campaign is increasing reactance among viewers in a way that is likely to facilitate resistance and reduce compliance with the anti-drunk driving message.

Critique 2: Poor Selection of Communicators to Deliver the Message

By using middle-aged police officers, anonymous narrators, and state governors to deliver the anti-drunk driving message, the You Drink You Drive You Lose campaign is not only provoking reactance among the target audience, but it is also limiting its overall ability to persuade individuals to change their behavior. According to communications theory, human behavior is influenced by the way a message is communicated and individuals are more likely to change behavior or engage in a particular action if the message is delivered by a familiar, likable, and attractive source (10). Accordingly, an ill-chosen message communicator can actually undermine the target audience’s receptivity to the message (11), especially in the context of a public health intervention that presents ideas that can be perceived as threatening – such as warnings about the legal consequences associated with drinking and driving. Given the importance of likability, credibility, positive associations, and attractiveness in persuasive health communication (10,11,12,15), selecting the appropriate message source is critical. In considering the aforementioned characteristics of an effective message communicator, it seems as though the selected message deliverers in the You Drink and Drive You Lose campaign are inappropriate for the role and could actually deter young people from paying attention to the advertisement’s message.

With regards to the likability, credibility, positive associations, and attractiveness of the You Drink and Drive You Lose message communicators – police officers, anonymous narrators, and state governors – it seems that the selected communicators fall short of the standards set by communications theory for persuasive communication. First, although police officers serve the community as well-respected public servants, their likability ratings are probably relatively low when presented in a dominant, controlling law enforcement capacity as they are in the commercials. The advertisement is highlighting the role of the police officer as a rule enforcer whose job is to arrest people and that is surely going to minimize the likability and consequently the effectiveness of the police officer as a message communicator. Furthermore, the highly authoritative and commanding presence of the uniformed police officers as they arrest drivers during the commercials does not leave viewers with many positive associations and the related negative associations could actually prompt viewers to see the police officers – and the overall message – as extreme and unrealistic (12, 13).

Second, the intense, masculine, anonymous voice that narrates many of the commercials isn’t particularly endearing or likable due to its harsh tone, and in combination with the foreboding imagery and superimposed sirens, the narrative voice actually comes off as threatening rather than likable. Furthermore, the anonymous voice has no face or identity that the target audience could relate to, which could further diminish the credibility of the source and the persuasiveness of the message because anonymity often decreases the perceived trustworthiness of a source (14).
Finally, the state governors who appear in some of the campaign advertisements may be familiar to young people as public figures, but in the absence of any personal connection to the governor, a politician in a suit spewing campaign taglines about drunk driving is not likely to incite feelings of likeability. Furthermore, the use of the governor may actually compromise the credibility and trustworthiness of the campaign message if the governor’s public image does not fit the underlying strategy of the campaign (11). But even more so, if young people perceive that the governor was simply paid to appear in the advertisement or that he or she is a substance user, the use of such a public figure to deliver the message could be overwhelmingly detrimental to the campaign’s efficacy (11).
Additionally, attractiveness is certainly a subjective concept, but research has shown that the attractiveness of the message communicator is an important factor in persuasive communication (12,13,15). Not to say that all state governors or police officers are unattractive, but it is worth noting that a 20-something-year-old male in the target audience would not likely rate the middle-aged male governors or police officers featured in some of the advertisements highly on a scale of attractiveness based simply on demographic factors such as age and gender. In this way, given that research has shown that attractive communicators consistently have positive influences on the products and messages they are associated with (15), the You Drink and Drive You Lose campaign’s choice to use middle-aged men to deliver a message intended to appeal to a target audience of young men overlooks the importance of attractiveness and appeal in message delivery.

In this way, the approach of the You Drink and Drive You Lose campaign to use middle-aged police officers, anonymous narrators, and state governors to deliver a message to young adults in their 20’s or early 30’s disregards the importance of likability, credibility, positive associations, and attractiveness in selecting the appropriate message source. The aforementioned limitations of this approach are barriers to persuasive communication and have likely prevented young people from taking heed to the campaign’s warnings. However, it is also important to reflect on the fact that extensive formative research would be necessary to assess the reality of how the target audience would actually perceive the communicators in terms of likability, credibility, associations, and attractiveness.

Critique 3: Lack of an Appealing Core Value & Promise

By using scare tactics like superimposed siren sound effects, images of drivers being arrested and photographed, and verbal threats of being jailed by domineering police officers, the You Drink and Drive You Lose campaign appeals to fear rather than to any type of compelling core value or promise. According to advertising theory, which public health practitioners are increasingly drawing from to sell ideas, attitudes and lifestyles (16), “promise, large promise, is the soul of an advertisement”(17). In this regard, it is a major limitation of the You Drink and Drive You Lose campaign that there is no compelling promise or underlying core value, as advertising theory suggests that without such promise and value, it will be difficult or even impossible to effectively sell anything (17).

First, in examining the underlying core values of the You Drink and Drive You Lose campaign, the most apparent shortcoming is that the core values being offered are legal and financial security. The campaign is essentially purposing that people should not drink and drive in order to avoid the legal, financial and social consequences of being arrested. Some of the campaign advertisements also offer safety and health as a core values by having the police officers in the advertisements describe gruesome alcohol-related traffic fatalities, but the paramount core value that is a consistent mainstay throughout all of the campaign instruments is the appeal towards legal security. By threatening that “if you have more than a few drinks and get behind the wheel, you will get arrested”(2) and associating the act of being arrested with the act of losing, it is evident that the advertisements are appealing towards the viewer’s inherent desire to maintain legal innocence, security, and stability. Furthermore, taglines such as “if you are arrested you will be prosecuted and likely lose your license, money and car”(18) offer money, stability, and status as core values. However, a review of the social science literature reveals that core values such as money, security, stability, health, and safety are all very weak in comparison to stronger core values such as freedom, love, opportunity, sex appeal, identity, family, reputation, companionship etc. that have the ability to fulfill basic human aspirations and desires (19, 20, 21). In this way, the You Drink and Drive You Lose campaign lacks a compelling core value that would universally appeal to the beliefs, lifestyles and values of the audience and is therefore limited by offering core values that facilitate feelings of anxiety rather than motivation and behavior change.

Second, the promise that is made in the You Drink and Drive You Lose campaign is rather explicit: if you drive impaired, you will go to jail. Given that advertising and marketing principles emphasize the importance of the promise as a vitally important component of any campaign (19, 20) and highlight that the promise should be big and should appeal to the target’s most basic needs and desires (20, 22), it is an obvious shortcoming of this campaign that all it promises is the possibility of going to jail. The promise that you will go to jail if you drive impaired does not offer anything positive or promise anything of value to the viewer for driving sober, so in effect, the promise fails to give the viewer a compelling reason to comply with the recommendation to not drink and drive.

Proposed Intervention: ‘Challenge What the Future Holds’ Commercial

The proposed anti-drunk driving campaign that will be referred to as the ‘Challenge What the Future Holds’ campaign will address the aforementioned shortcomings of the You Drink and Drive You Lose campaign. ‘Challenge What the Future Holds’ will specifically aim to minimize psychological reactants, choose an appropriate message communicator, and offer an appealing core value and promise. The campaign will predominantly be a television-based paid advertising campaign that will air on national television networks.

The commercial will feature a young male of the average target population age (mid 20’s) – a demographic group that experiences the largest number of negative consequences from alcohol-related traffic incidents (4). The advertisement will present a montage of images of the young male participating in important life activities such as playing sports, spending time with family, kissing his girlfriend, hugging a friend, taking an exam, running, accepting an award, and leading a team group at work. For each of the aforementioned images that will flicker on and off the screen, the male protagonist will articulate a catchphrase that corresponds with the related image: “I am an athlete. I am a son. I am a boyfriend. I am a friend. I am a student. I am passionate. I am smart. I am responsible. I am respected.” During this part of the commercial there will be no mention of alcohol or drunk driving, but rather the advertisement will focus on poignant images that portray the young male as respectable, driven, attractive, intelligent, family-man and will emphasize supporting catchwords such as athlete, friend, passionate, smart, responsible, respected.
Following this array of montaged images and catchphrases, the final image will feature the young man driving home with a bunch of friends late at night and signing along to the radio. The corresponding catchphrase for that image will be: “And I am a designated driver.” The commercial will then finish with a close-up of the young man’s face, and he will say: “This is who I am. Who can you be? … Challenge what the future holds.”

Lastly, in addition to the support provided by the visual images and catch phrases/words, the ‘Challenge What the Future Holds’ campaign will also use carefully selected music to support the promise and core values of the commercial. The song “You Gotta Be” by Des’ree will be faded into the background of the commercial and gradually crescendo towards the end of the commercial when the ‘Challenge What the Future Holds’ slogan is articulated. The song features lyrics such as “listen as your day unfolds, challenge what the future holds, try and keep your head up to the sky”(23), as well as other lyrics that encourage listeners to be bold, tough, wise, cool, strong and calm, and to “go ahead release your fears, stand up and be counted”(23). In this way, the music selection is a supporting tool used to creatively back up the commercial’s promise (discussed in the following sections) and to show viewers that they can be hopeful, bold, and free to challenge what the future holds for them.

Intervention Defense 1: Minimizing Psychological Reactants

As is demonstrated by the shortcomings of the You Drink and Drive You Lose campaign, minimizing psychological reactants is an essential component of crafting a persuasive anti-drunk driving intervention targeting young people. As the theory of psychological reactance explicates, telling people what to do or what not to do can induce backlash and can encourage individuals to do the opposite of what they are being told as a means of restoring the freedom that they perceive is being threatened (5, 6). To avoid this boomerang effect, the proposed intervention avoids telling the target audience what to do in any capacity and does not use threats or fear tactics that can ignite reactance (6, 8). As a means of avoiding the powerful negative effects of psychological reactants in response to threats on freedom, the proposed intervention actually offers freedom as a core value and encourages viewers to dream about who they can be rather than telling them who they don’t want to be or what they shouldn’t do. In effect, the key to minimizing psychological reactants in the ‘Challenge What the Future Holds’ campaign is that it promotes freedom instead of threatening to take it away. In this way, the threat to freedom that is acknowledged as the root cause of psychological reactance (5, 6, 7), is omitted entirely from the proposed intervention in order to eliminate the boomerang effect, persuasively articulate a public health message, and promote positive behavior change.

In order to avoid threats to freedom that can stir up psychological reactance among viewers, the proposed intervention intentionally omits any mention of arrest, warnings, negative imagery, or fear-based deterrence tactics that are often perceived as threatening. This strategy is effective not only because such fear-based tactics are overwhelmingly ineffective (8, 24), but also because this strategy reduces the need for justification given that the perceived legitimacy of the campaign is enhanced when the message is not framed as a threat (5). Furthermore, the choice of a similar communicator in the proposed intervention is also a conscious effort to avoid threats to freedom that stir up reactants, as selecting a dissimilar person in a position of authority can be perceived as threatening and can contribute to reactance. In this way, the ‘Challenge What the Future Holds’ campaign minimizes the negative effects of psychological reactants by promoting freedom rather than threatening it and by omitting fear-based appeals and dissimilar communicators that have been shown to arouse reactance in target audiences.

Intervention Defense 2: Selecting Appropriate Message Communicators

As discussed previously, the social science literature clearly demonstrates that the person delivering a campaign message is a critical component of any intervention and often plays a significant role in dictating the extent to which an intervention actually facilitates behavior change (10, 13, 15). The ‘Challenge What the Future Holds’ campaign deliberately utilizes a young man of the target audience’s approximate age and gender to communicate the message and has selected this message deliverer on the basis of his likability, credibility, attractiveness, and related positive associations.

First, to enhance the likability of the message communicator, the similarity between the target audience and the communicator is highlighted (given that they are both approximately the same age and gender) such that the viewer can relate to the communicator as a peer. Studies have demonstrated that “PSA messages directed to young people should feature peers, not adults”(13), so the ‘Challenge What the Future Holds’ campaign will capitalize on the important role that peer influence plays in dictating young adult behavior (13). In doing so, the campaign will also be actively reinforcing its overall credibility, as peer communication tends to be better-received and even valued to a higher degree than non-peer communication– particularly with regards to health behaviors (25, 26). Furthermore, the role the young man plays in the commercial where he is portrayed as a charismatic, cool, responsible, intelligent person is also likely to contribute to his overall likability and effectiveness as a message communicator. This positive characterization of the message deliverer will encourage viewers to associate favorable characteristics not only with the communicator himself, but also with the overall message being communicated (9, 15). Lastly, with regards to attractiveness, the proposed campaign organizers will conduct formative research about the target population of young males and will assess their preferences and visual perceptions of credibility, trustworthiness, and attractiveness to inform the selection of the communicator. In this way, a young man of the target audience’s age and gender is an optimum selection for the role of message communicator in the campaign commercials, and his overall likability, credibility, attractiveness, and the related positive associations as described above will increase the efficacy of the intervention to facilitate changes in risky impaired-driving behaviors.

Intervention Defense 3: Selling a Compelling Core Value with a Promise

As public health practitioners are increasingly drawing on traditional marketing practices to sell health behavior changes, offering a compelling core value and promising a valuable benefit has become an integral part of crafting an effective campaign message. In exercising the principles of advertising theory within a public health framework, the ‘Challenge What the Future Holds’ campaign is playing on viewer’s insecurities, needs, and aspirations to appeal to the universal human desire for freedom, opportunity, identity. By encouraging viewers to consider the possibilities of what it would mean to be athletic, smart, responsible, loved, and respected like the man portrayed in the commercial, the commercial is actually promising that the viewer can be all of these things and more. The commercial is appealing to the most basic human needs and aspirations with the understanding that “people are more likely to attend to and remember messages that meet their needs or support their values”(11), so the message must promote something more than just a product or a behavior. The message has to promise a lifestyle, a value, a way of being. In this way, offering things like health, safety, money, and legal security are lackluster promises are overwhelmingly ineffective in facilitating behavioral changes (11, 19) because the promise is uninspiring and doesn’t necessarily offer anything that appeals to a human’s intrinsic desires and values.

In contrast to typical public health campaigns that offer things like health benefits as core values, the ‘Challenge What the Future Holds’ sells the core values of freedom, opportunity and identity by promising that viewers can be anything they want to be – funny, smart, respectable, attractive, athletic etc. But ultimately, the crux of the commercial is in the implicit assertion that you can be anything and you can challenge the future if you are a designated driver. Logically speaking, this is an absurd promise. However, as advertising theory suggests, the promise doesn’t have to make rational sense to be effective (16, 17, 19, 22). It just has to promise something that people really want and convince people that doing a particular behavior or buying a particular product will deliver that ascribed benefit. In this way, through emphasizing positive associations and characteristics, making a compelling promise that appeals to innate human desires, and using relevant supporting imagery and music to convince the viewer that the promise is true, the ‘Challenge What the Future Holds’ campaign sells important core values and offers viewers a compelling reason to not drink and drive. After watching the commercial, viewers can hope and dream of being bold to challenge what the future holds and imagine what they could be – if only they were a designated driver.

In Conclusion: Suggestions for Public Health Practitioners

In conclusion, the You Drink and Drive You Lose campaign reflects the narrow-mindedness of public health professionals in crafting interventions, as the campaign focuses on scare tactics and fear-based appeals to encourage behavior change, while largely ignoring many of the poignant forces that actually shape human behavior. Through the preceding critique of the main flaws of the You Drink and Drive You Lose campaign – the existence of powerful psychological reactants, the poor selection of message communicators, and the lack of an appealing core value/promise – it is evident that there is much to be learned in the field of public health in terms of facilitating change and promoting health behaviors more effectively. The alternative proposed intervention to address the problem of drunk drinking based on a variety of social and behavioral science theories eliminates many of the problematic features of the You Drink and Drive You Lose campaign and suggests that perhaps public health practitioners should reach outside of the health-based models that we so often rely on and be pragmatic and optimistic about trying to tackle public health problems in new ways.

1. Kentucky Transportation Center. Evaluation of Kentucky’s “You Drink and Drive. You Lose” Campaign. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky College of Engineering, October 2003.

2. National High Way Traffic Safety Administration. You Drink & Drive You Lose Mini-Planner Resources Page.

3. Kentucky State Police. You Drink, You Drive, You Lose Video.

4. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Public Perceptions of the July 2003 You Drink & Drive. You Lose. Crackdown: Telephone Surveys Show the Media Campaign Reaches Target Audience. Washington, DC: Office of Information Technology, March 2004.

5. Laurin K, Kay AC, Fitzsimons GJ. Reactance versus rationalization: divergent responses to policies that constrain freedom. Psychological Science 2012; 23(2): 205-209.

6. Brehm J. A Theory of Psychological Reactance. New York: Academic Press, 1966.

7. Rains S, Turner MM. Psychological reactance and persuasive health communication: A test and extension of the intertwined model. Health Communication Research 2007; 33(2): 241-269.

8. Job R. Effective and ineffective use of fear in health promotion campaigns. American Journal of Public Health 1988; 78(2):163-167.

9. Silvia PJ. Deflecting reactance: The role of similarity in increasing compliance and reducing resistance. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 2005; 27:277-284.

10. Stacks D, Salwen MB. An integrated approach to communication theory and research. New York: LEA, 1996.

11. DeJong W. The role of mass media campaigns in reducing high-risk drinking among college students. Boston, MA: Panel and Treatment of College Alcohol Problems Advisory Council Subcommittee on College Drinking.

12. Siegel M. SPH SB 721 lecture, session 4. Boston, MA: February 9, 2012.

13. DeJong W, Atkin C. A review of national television PSA campaigns for preventing alcohol-impaired driving, 1987 – 1992. Journal of Public Health Policy 1995; 16(1):59-80.

14. Rains SA, Scott CR. To identify or not to identify: A theoretical model of receiver responses to anonymous communication. Communication Theory 2007; 17(1): 61-91.

15. Joseph WB. The credibility of physically attractive communicators: A review. Journal of Advertising 1982; 11: 15-24.

16. Lefebvre RC, Flora JA. Social marketing and public health intervention. Health Education Quarterly 1988; 15(3): 299-315.

17. Ambler T, Vakratsas D. The pursuit of advertising theory. Business Strategy Review 1996; 7(1): 14-23.

18. National High Way Traffic Safety Administration. You Drink & Drive You Lose Mini-Planner Resources Page.

19. Siegel M. SPH SB 721 lecture, sessions 4, 8. Boston, MA: February 9, 2012 & March 8, 2012.

20. Sinkula JM, Baker WE, Noorwedier T. A framework for market-based organizational learning: linking values, knowledge and behavior. Journal of the Academy of Market Science 1997; 25(4): 305-318.

21. Mitchell C. Selling the brand inside. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School. Harvard Business Review, January 2002.

22. Baron P. Threats and promises in advertising appeals. Advances in Consumer Research 1982; 9: 221-227.

23. Des’Ree You Gotta Be Lyrics.

24. Ross LH. Deterring drunken driving: An analysis of current efforts. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 1985; 10: 122-129.

25. Wilton T, Keeble S, Doyal L, Walsh A. The effectiveness of peer education in health promotion: Theory and practice. Bristol: University of West England, South and West. Regional Health Authority, 1995.

26. Finn P. Institutionalizing peer education in the health education classroom. Journal of School Health 1981; 51(2): 91-95.

Labels: ,


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home