The Constructive, Destructive, and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms P

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article The Constructive, Destructive, and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms P. Wesley Schultz,1 Jessica M. Nolan,2 Robert B. Cialdini,3 Noah J. Goldstein,3 and Vladas Griskevicius3 1California State University, San Marcos; 2University of Arkansas; and 3Arizona State University ABSTRACT—Despite a long tradition of effectiveness in Tabanico, & Rendoń, in press). Such social-norms marketing laboratory tests, normative messages have had mixed campaigns have emerged as an alternative to more traditional success in changing behavior in field contexts, with some approaches (e.g., information campaigns, moral exhortation, fear- studies showing boomerang effects. To test a theoretical inducing messages) designed to reduce undesirable conduct account of this inconsistency, we conducted a field exper- (Donaldson, Graham, Piccinin, & Hansen, 1995). iment in which normative messages were used to promote The rationale for the social-norms marketing approach is household energy conservation. As predicted, a descriptive based on two consistent findings: (a) The majority of individuals normative message detailing average neighborhood usage overestimate the prevalence of many undesirable behaviors, produced either desirable energy savings or the undesir- such as alcohol use among peers (e.g., Borsari & Carey, 2003; able boomerang effect, depending on whether households Prentice & Miller, 1993), and (b) individuals use their percep- were already consuming at a low or high rate. Also as tions of peer norms as a standard against which to compare their predicted, adding an injunctive message (conveying social own behaviors (e.g., Baer, Stacy, & Larimer, 1991; Clapp & approval or disapproval) eliminated the boomerang McDonell, 2000; Perkins & Berkowitz, 1986). Social-norms effect. The results offer an explanation for the mixed marketing campaigns seek to reduce the occurrence of delete- success of persuasive appeals based on social norms and rious behaviors by correcting targets’ misperceptions regarding suggest how such appeals should be properly crafted. the behaviors’ prevalence. The perception of prevalence is commonly referred to as the descriptive norm governing a behavior (Cialdini et al., 1991). Social-norms marketing campaigns have been deemed so full After several decades of controversy over the role of norms in of promise that nearly half of 746 U.S. colleges and universities predicting behavior, the research has clearly established that surveyed by the Harvard School of Public Health in 2002 had social norms not only spur but also guide action in direct and adopted them in some form to combat collegiate binge drinking meaningful ways (Aarts & Dijksterhuis, 2003; Cialdini, (Wechsler et al., 2003). However, despite the widespread Kallgren, & Reno, 1991; Darley & Latane´, 1970; Goldstein, adoption of social-norms marketing campaigns, evidence for the Cialdini, & Griskevicius, 2006; Kerr, 1995; Terry & Hogg, success of such programs has been surprisingly mixed. Although 2001). Given this asserted power of social norms, during the past many studies appear to confirm the effectiveness of the social decade there has been a surge of programs that have delivered marketing approach (e.g., Agostinelli, Brown, & Miller, 1995; normative information as a primary tool for changing socially Haines & Spear, 1996; Neighbors et al., 2004), other studies significant behaviors, such as alcohol consumption, drug use, have failed to produce substantial changes in behavior (e.g., disordered eating, gambling, littering, and recycling (e.g., Clapp, Lange, Russell, Shillington, & Voas, 2003; Granfield, Donaldson, Graham, & Hansen, 1994; Larimer & Neighbors, 2005; Peeler, Far, Miller, & Brigham, 2000; Russell, Clapp, & 2003; Neighbors, Larimer, & Lewis, 2004; Schultz, 1999; Schultz, DeJong, 2005; Werchet al., 2000). In fact, some studies indicate that social-norms marketing campaigns have actually increased the undesirable behaviors and misperceptions they set out to Address correspondence to Wesley Schultz, Department of Psy- chology, California State University, San Marcos, CA 92078, e-mail: decrease (e.g., Perkins, Haines, & Rice, 2005; Wechsler et al., [email protected]. 2003; Werch et al., 2000). Volume 18—Number 5 Copyright r 2007 Association for Psychological Science 429 Social Norms A closer analysis of social-norms theory and research provides performed a field experiment examining the effects of normative a potential explanation for the lack of effects and suggests the information on household energy consumption. All households possibility of boomerang effects. Descriptive norms provide a received feedback about how much energy they had consumed standard from which people do not want to deviate. Because in previous weeks and descriptive normative information about people measure the appropriateness of their behavior by how far the average consumption of other households in their neigh- away they are from the norm, being deviant is being above or borhood. Households were divided into two categories at each below the norm. For example, although the majority of college observation period: those with energy consumption above av- students do overestimate the prevalence of alcohol consumption erage for the community and those with energy consumption on campus (see Berkowitz, 2004, for a review), a substantial below average for the community. Households were matched proportion of them—as many as one fifth by some estimates (e.g., on a baseline measure of energy consumption, and then half of Perkins et al., 2005) and nearly one half by others (e.g., Wechsler the households were randomly assigned to receive only the & Kuo, 2000)—actually underestimate its prevalence. Because a descriptive normative information. The other half received the social-norms marketing campaign provides specific descriptive descriptive normative information plus an injunctive message normative information that can serve as a point of comparison conveying that their energy consumption was either approved or for an individual’s own behavior, the descriptive norm acts as a disapproved; specifically, households that consumed less than magnet for behavior for individuals both above and below the the average received a message displaying a positively valenced average. Consequently, a college campaign targeting alcohol emoticon ( ), whereas those that consumed more than the av- consumption might motivate students who previously consumed erage received a message displaying a negatively valenced less alcohol than the norm to consume more. Thus, although emoticon ( ). The dependent measure was residents’subsequent providing descriptive normative information may decrease an actual household energy consumption. undesirable behavior among individuals who perform that be- We had three main predictions. First, we expected that de- havior at a rate above the norm, the same message may actually scriptive normative information would decrease energy con- serve to increase the undesirable behavior among individuals who sumption in households consuming more energy than their perform that behavior at a rate below the norm. neighborhood average. Such a result would be indicative of the Social-norms campaigns are intended to reduce problem be- constructive power of social norms, demonstrating that normative haviors (or increase prosocial behavior) by conveying the mes- information can facilitate proenvironmental behavior. Second, we sage that deleterious behaviors are occurring less often than expected that descriptive normative information would increase most people think. But for individuals who already abstain from energy consumption—that is, produce an undesirable boomerang the undesirable behavior, such normative information can pro- effect—in households consuming less energy than their neigh- duce unintended and undesirable boomerang effects. Is there borhood average. Such a result would be indicative of the a way to eliminate them? According to the focus theory of nor- destructive power of social norms, demonstrating that a well-in- mative conduct (Cialdini et al., 1991), there is a second type of tended application of normative information can actually serve to social norm, in addition to the descriptive norm, that has a decrease proenvironmental behavior. Third, we expected that powerful influence on behavior—the injunctive norm. Whereas providing both descriptive normative information and an in- descriptive norms refer to perceptions of what is commonly done junctive message that other people approve of low-consumption in a given situation, injunctive norms refer to perceptions of behavior would prevent the undesirable boomerang effect in what is commonly approved or disapproved within the culture households consuming less energy than their neighborhood av- (Reno, Cialdini, & Kallgren, 1993). Focus theory predicts that if erage; that is, we expected these households to continue to con- only one of the two types of norms is prominent in an individual’s sume at low rates. Such a result would be indicative of the consciousness, it will exert the stronger influence on behavior reconstructive power of injunctive messages to eliminate the (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). Thus, in situations in which untoward effects of a descriptive norm. descriptive normative information may normally produce an undesirable boomerang effect, it is possible that adding an injunctive message indicating that the desired behavior is Method approved may prevent that effect. Participants and Design

Load more