Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
(II) Design and Procedure
(IV) Analysis
Study 1B: Inferences from Normative Messages
(A) Methods (I) Participants
(III) Content Analysis
(B) Results
(A) Method (I) Participants
(III) Measurement and Analysis
General Discussion
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Psychology
Cognitive Psychology

Language matters how normative expressio

Profile image of Cristina BicchieriCristina Bicchieri

2024, Philosophical Transactions B

https://doi.org/10.1098/RSTB.2023.0037
visibility

…

description

10 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Previous studies have used various normative expressions such as ‘should’, ‘appropriate’ and ‘approved’ interchangeably to communicate injunctions and social norms. However, little is known about whether people’s interpretations of normative language differ and whether behavioural responses might vary across them. In two studies (total n = 2903), we find that compliance is sensitive to the types of normative expressions and how they are used. Specifically, people are more likely to comply when the message is framed as an injunction rather than as what most people consider good behaviour (social norm framing). Behaviour is influenced by the type of normative expression when the norm is weak (donation to charities), not so when the norm is strong (reciprocity). Content analysis of free responses reveals individual differences in the interpretation of social norm messages, and heterogeneous motives for compliance. Messages in the social norm framing condition are perceived to be vague and uninformative, undermining their effectiveness. These results suggest that careful choice of normative expressions is in order when using messages to elicit compliance, especially when the underlying norms are weak.

Related papers

Eliciting Respect for Social Norms
Erik O Kimbrough

Social Science Research Network, 2016

Recent models of prosociality suggest that cooperation in laboratory games may be better understood as resulting from concern for social norms than from prosocial preferences over outcomes. Underlying this interpretation is the idea that people exhibit heterogeneous respect for shared norms. We introduce a new, abstract task to elicit a proxy for individual normfollowing propensity by asking subjects to choose from two actions, where one is costly. We instruct subjects that "the rule is" to take the costly action. Their willingness to incur such a cost reveals respect for norms. We show that choices in this task are similar across five countries. Rule-following is correlated with norm-consistent behavior in dictator games, providing support for our interpretation.

View PDFchevron_right
Instigation to Goodness: The Role of Social Norms and Interpersonal Influence
Ervin Staub

Journal of Social Issues, 1972

View PDFchevron_right
Do as we say and as we do: The interplay of descriptive and injunctive group norms in the attitude-behaviour relationship
joanne smith

British Journal of Social Psychology, 2008

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society Social influence and the attitude-behaviour relationship In the attitude-behaviour field, the study of social influence has been conducted predominantly within the frameworks of the theories of reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1985). Within these models, social influence is represented by the concept of subjective norm, which describes the amount of pressure that people perceive they are under from significant others to perform a specific behaviour. The subjective norm is seen as a key predictor, along with attitudes and perceived control, of behavioural intentions. Intentions, along with perceived control, in-turn, predict behaviour. Research shows, however, that subjective norms actually have surprisingly little influence on people's intentions to behave in a particular way (see Armitage & Conner, 2001). The weak effects of norms have prompted a number of interpretations, from Ajzen's (1991) conclusion that personal factors (i.e. attitude and perceptions of control) are the primary determinants of behavioural intentions, to the deliberate removal of norms from attitude-behaviour analyses (e.g. Sparks, Shepherd, Wieringa, & Zimmermanns, 1995). One conclusion is that norms may indeed have little influence over one's behaviour. An alternative conclusion is that norms are important, but that they need to be conceptualized in a different manner. In recent years, a number of researchers have begun to reexamine the role of social factors in the attitude-behaviour relationship (e.g.

View PDFchevron_right
The effect of regulatory focus on the influence of injunctive and descriptive social norms
VLADIMIR MELNYK

Advances in Consumer Research, 2012

Consumers face social norms in a variety of situations and contexts where different goals can be dominant. This research examines the differential effect of regulatory focus for both descriptive and injunctive norms. Results show that the effect of descriptive norms on attitudes and behavioral intentions is lower when prevention goals are salient then when promotion goals are salient, whereas injunctive norms are not affected by regulatory focus.

View PDFchevron_right
Understanding the Influence of Perceived Norms on Behaviors
Rajiv Rimal

Communication Theory, 2003

View PDFchevron_right
Bridging the intention–behaviour gap: The role of moral norm
Gaston Godin, Mark Conner

British journal of social …, 2005

This research examined whether intentions aligned with moral norms better predict behaviour compared with intentions aligned with attitudes. Six data sets predicting behaviours in the health domain (smoking, driving over speed limit, applying universal precautions, exercising) were analysed. Moderated regression analysis indicated that participants whose intentions were more aligned with their moral norm were more likely to perform behaviours compared with participants whose intentions were more aligned with their attitude. However, further analysis indicated that this moderation effect was only present when participants construed the behaviour in moral terms. The findings suggest that the theory of planned behaviour should more clearly acknowledge the importance of internalized norms and self-expectations in the development of one's motivation to adopt a given behaviour. subjective norm (SN) refers to perceptions of social pressure from significant others to perform the behaviour. However, the TRA was designed only to predict volitional behaviours, that is, behaviours over which the person has a good deal of control. To overcome this problem, Ajzen (1991) added the construct of perceived behavioural control to the original TRA to deal with determinants of human behaviour that are not under complete volitional control. The reformulated model was called the TPB and proposed that perceived behavioural control constitutes an additional predictor of intention alongside attitude and subjective norm, and of behaviour alongside intentions.

View PDFchevron_right
When combining injunctive and descriptive norms strengthens the hypocrisy effect: A test in the field of discrimination
Cécile Sénémeaud

Frontiers in Psychology

The induced-hypocrisy is a paradigm in which people promote a normative behavior (normative salience step) and then recall their past transgressions (transgression salience step). It is an effective two-step procedure for encouraging prosocial behaviors. This study aims to explore whether discrimination can be reduced using the hypocrisy paradigm combining two kinds of social norms, namely injunctive and descriptive norms. We assigned 80 participants to descriptive norm-related hypocrisy, injunctive norm-related hypocrisy, combined-norm hypocrisy, and control conditions. Results showed that intention to adopt active normative behaviors was higher in the combined-norms than in the single norm hypocrisy conditions. We observed the same pattern in reducing discriminatory behaviors in the Cyberball game, which measures passive discrimination (exclusion). Our findings have both practical and theoretical implications. First, they provide a new and effective means for producing behavioral ...

View PDFchevron_right
Managing social norms for persuasive impact
Kelton Rhoads, Robert Cialdini

Social Influence, 2006

In order to mobilise action against a social problem, public service communicators often include normative information in their persuasive appeals. Such messages can be either effective or ineffective because they can normalise either desirable or undesirable conduct. To examine the implications in an environmental context, visitors to Arizona's Petrified Forest National Park were exposed to messages that admonished against the theft of petrified wood. In addition, the messages conveyed information either about descriptive norms (the levels of others' behaviour) or injunctive norms (the levels of others' disapproval) regarding such thievery. Results showed that focusing message recipients on descriptive normative information was most likely to increase theft, whereas focusing them on injunctive normative information was most likely to suppress it. Recommendations are offered for optimising the impact of normative messages in situations characterised by objectionable levels of undesirable conduct.

View PDFchevron_right
Social Norms, Self-Interest and Ambiguity of Legal Norms: An Experimental Analysis of the Rule vs. Standard Dilemma
Yuval Feldman

Review of Law & Economics, 2000

View PDFchevron_right
Social Norms
Power of PR

2013

ABSTRACT—Despite a long tradition of effectiveness in laboratory tests, normative messages have had mixed success in changing behavior in field contexts, with some studies showing boomerang effects. To test a theoretical account of this inconsistency, we conducted a field experiment in which normative messages were used to promote household energy conservation. As predicted, a descriptive normative message detailing average neighborhood usage produced either desirable energy savings or the undesirable boomerang effect, depending on whether households were already consuming at a low or high rate. Also as predicted, adding an injunctive message (conveying social approval or disapproval) eliminated the boomerang effect. The results offer an explanation for the mixed success of persuasive appeals based on social norms and suggest how such appeals should be properly crafted. After several decades of controversy over the role of norms in predicting behavior, the research has clearly estab...

View PDFchevron_right

References (50)

  1. Bicchieri C. 2006 The grammar of society: the nature and dynamics of social norms. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Cialdini RB. 2003 Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 12, 105-109. (doi:10.1111/1467- 8721.01242)
  3. Silk A. 2017 Normative language in context. In Oxford studies in metaethics 12 (ed. R Shafer-Landau), pp. 206-243. Oxford University Press. (doi:10.1093/oso/9780198805076. 003.0009)
  4. Göckeritz S, Schmidt MFH, Tomasello M. 2014 Young children's creation and transmission of social norms. Cogn. Dev. 30,81-95. (doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2014.01.003) royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rstb Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 379: 20230037
  5. Lohse K, Gräfenhain M, Behne T, Rakoczy H. 2014 Young children understand the normative implications of future-directed speech acts. PLoS ONE 9, e86958. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0086958)
  6. Goldstein NJ, Cialdini RB, Griskevicius V. 2008 A room with a viewpoint: using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. J. Consum. Res. 35, 472-482. (doi:10.1086/586910)
  7. Kallgren CA, Reno RR, Cialdini RB. 2000 A focus theory of normative conduct: when norms do and no not affect behavior. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26, 1002-1012. (doi:10.1177/01461672002610009)
  8. Cook WA. 1978 Semantic structure of the English modals. TESOL Q. 12,5 -15. (doi:10.2307/3585786)
  9. Malle B. 2020 Graded representations of norm strength. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society [Internet], pp. 3342-3348. Seattle (WA).
  10. Mammen M, Köymen B, Tomasello M. 2018 The reasons young children give to peers when explaining their judgments of moral and conventional rules. Dev. Psychol. 54, 254. (doi:10.1037/dev0000424)
  11. Bicchieri C, Xiao E. 2009 Do the right thing: but only if others do so. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 22, 191-208. (doi:10.1002/bdm.621)
  12. Lois G, Wessa M. 2021 Honest mistake or perhaps not: the role of descriptive and injunctive norms on the magnitude of dishonesty. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 34,2 0 -34. (doi:10.1002/bdm.2196)
  13. Krupka EL, Weber RA. 2013 Identifying social norms using coordination games: why does dictator game sharing vary? J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 11, 495-524. (doi:10.1111/jeea.12006)
  14. Aycinena D, Rentschler L, Beranek B, Schulz JF. 2022 Social norms and dishonesty across societies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2120138119. (doi:10. 1073/pnas.2120138119)
  15. Neighbors C, Geisner IM, Lee CM. 2008 Perceived marijuana norms and social expectancies among entering college student marijuana users. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 22, 433-438. (doi:10.1037/0893- 164X.22.3.433)
  16. Göckeritz S, Schultz PW, Rendón T, Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ, Griskevicius V. 2010 Descriptive normative beliefs and conservation behavior: the moderating roles of personal involvement and injunctive normative beliefs. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 514-523. (doi:10.1002/ejsp.643)
  17. Cialdini RB. 2007 Descriptive social norms as underappreciated sources of social control. Psychometrika 72, 263-268. (doi:10.1007/s11336- 006-1560-6)
  18. Cheeseman N, Peiffer C. 2022 The curse of good intentions: why anticorruption messaging can encourage bribery. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 116, 1081-1095. (doi:10.1017/S0003055421001398)
  19. Geber S, Baumann E, Czerwinski F, Klimmt C. 2021 The effects of social norms among peer groups on risk behavior: a multilevel approach to differentiate perceived and collective norms. Commun. Res. 48, 319-345. (doi:10.1177/0093650218824213)
  20. Lin L, McFerran B. 2016 The (ironic) dove effect: use of acceptance cues for larger body types increases unhealthy behaviors. J. Public Policy Mark. 35, 76-90. (doi:10.1509/jppm.14.020)
  21. Bilancini E, Boncinelli L, Capraro V, Celadin T, Di Paolo R. 2020 The effect of norm-based messages on reading and understanding COVID-19 pandemic response governmental rules. J. Behav. Econ. Policy 4,4 5 -55. (doi:10.31234/osf.io/7863g)
  22. Cialdini RB, Demaine LJ, Sagarin BJ, Barrett DW, Rhoads K, Winter PL. 2006 Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Soc. Influ. 1,3 -15. (doi:10. 1080/15534510500181459)
  23. Bacharach M. 2006 Beyond individual choice: teams and frames in game theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  24. Chang D, Chen R, Krupka E. 2019 Rhetoric matters: a social norms explanation for the anomaly of framing. Games Econ. Behav. 116, 158-178. (doi:10.1016/j.geb.2019.04.011)
  25. Liberman V, Samuels SM, Ross L. 2004 The name of the game: predictive power of reputations versus situational labels in determining prisoner's dilemma game moves. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30, 1175-1185. (doi:10.1177/0146167204264004)
  26. Tversky A, Kahneman D. 1981 The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211, 453-458. (doi:10.1126/science.7455683)
  27. Capraro V, Vanzo A. 2019 The power of moral words: loaded language generates framing effects in the extreme dictator game. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 14, 309-317. (doi:10.1017/ S1930297500004356)
  28. Capraro V, Halpern JY, Perc M. 2022 From outcome- based to language-based preferences. J. Econ. Lit. Forthcoming. (doi:10.31234/osf.io/5w9yf )
  29. Eriksson K, Strimling P, Andersson PA, Lindholm T. 2017 Costly punishment in the ultimatum game evokes moral concern, in particular when framed as payoff reduction. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 69,5 9 -64. (doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2016.09.004)
  30. Dana J, Weber RA, Kuang JX. 2007 Exploiting moral wiggle room: experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness. Econ. Theory 33,6 7 -80. (doi:10.1007/s00199-006-0153-z)
  31. Kuang J, Bicchieri C. 2024 How do people interpret social norm messages? Semantic ambiguity and pragmatic inferences. PsyArXiv [Preprint]. (doi:10. 31234/osf.io/zmgjn)
  32. Cheng JS, Ottati VC, Price ED. 2013 The arousal model of moral condemnation. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49, 1012-1018. (doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2013. 06.006)
  33. Cialdini RB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA. 1990 A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58, 1015-1026. (doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.58.6.1015)
  34. Bicchieri C. 2016 Norms in the wild: how to diagnose, measure, and change social norms. New York, NY: Oxford University Press USA.
  35. Bicchieri C, Dimant E, Gächter S, Nosenzo D. 2022 Social proximity and the erosion of norm compliance. Games Econ. Behav. 132,5 9 -72. (doi:10.1016/j.geb.2021.11.012)
  36. Bicchieri C, Maras M. 2022 Intentionality matters for third-party punishment but not compensation in trust games. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 197, 205-220. (doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2022.02.026)
  37. Malle BF, Knobe JM, Nelson SE. 2007 Actor-observer asymmetries in explanations of behavior: new answers to an old question. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 93, 491. (doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.491)
  38. Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. 2005 Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual. Health Res. 15, 1277-1288. (doi:10.1177/ 1049732305276687)
  39. Connor Desai S, Reimers S. 2019 Comparing the use of open and closed questions for web-based measures of the continued-influence effect. Behav. Res. Methods 51, 1426-1440. (doi:10.3758/s13428- 018-1066-z)
  40. Bicchieri C, Xiao E, Muldoon R. 2011 Trustworthiness is a social norm, but trusting is not. Polit. Philos. Econ. 10, 170-187. (doi:10.1177/ 1470594X10387260)
  41. Pittarello A, Schmidt T, Segel A, Mayo R. 2023 Prior behavior and wording of norm nudge requests shape compliance and reciprocity. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 36, e2327. (doi:10.1002/bdm.2327)
  42. Schmidt MFH, Butler LP, Heinz J, Tomasello M. 2016 Young children see a single action and infer a social norm. Psychol. Sci. 27, 1360-1370. (doi:10.1177/ 0956797616661182)
  43. Malle BF. 2021 Moral judgments. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 72, 293-318. (doi:10.1146/annurev-psych- 072220-104358)
  44. Bicchieri C, Kuang J. 2023 Variability and patterns in the inferences from social norms messages. CSNBD paper. Unpublished.
  45. Sternthal B, Phillips LW, Dholakia R. 1978 The persuasive effect of source credibility: a situational analysis. Public Opin. Q. 42, 285-314.
  46. Webb MA, Tangney JP. 2022 Too good to be true: bots and bad data from mechanical turk. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. J. Assoc. Psychol. Sci. 0, 17456916221120028. (doi:10.1177/ 17456916221120027)
  47. Chesney MA et al. 2003 An individually tailored intervention for HIV prevention: baseline data from the EXPLORE study. Am. J. Public Health 93, 933-938. (doi:10.2105/AJPH.93.6.933)
  48. Coupland N. 2007 Style: language variation and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  49. Kuang J, Bicchieri C. 2024 Language matters: how normative expressions shape norm perception and affect norm compliance. OSF repository. (https://osf. io/uj3ad/)
  50. Kuang J, Bicchieri C. 2024 Language matters: how normative expressions shape norm perception and affect norm compliance. Figshare. (doi:10.6084/m9. figshare.c.6980736) royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rstb Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 379: 20230037

Related papers

NORM COMPLIANCE. THE PRESCRIPTIVE POWER OF NORMATIVE ACTIONS
Cristiano Castelfranchi

This analysis shows an interesting consequence of normative acts which is usually overlooked: their power to favour the communication and subsequent diffusion of normative requests. The belief that a behavior is prescribed by a large number of individuals contributes to increase its observance and defence, thereby creating a positive dynamic that guarantees the stability of the whole process. We characterise normative expectations as hybrid mental representations that consist of a belief regarding the existence of a norm and a goal that the norm is observed by those who are subject to it. The realisation of this goal requires an active and constant process of monitoring and of influencing the actions and minds of others. In addition, we have described the mental path through which the normative expectations are able to generate goals in the minds of normative actors, and we have highlighted how it is the recognition of their prescribed nature that allows for the generation and possible adoption of normative goals.

View PDFchevron_right
Bodies obliged and unbound: Differentiated response tendencies for injunctive and descriptive social norms
Robert Cialdini

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2011

The authors suggest that injunctive and descriptive social norms engage different psychological response tendencies when made selectively salient. On the basis of suggestions derived from the focus theory of normative conduct and from consideration of the norms' functions in social life, the authors hypothesized that the 2 norms would be cognitively associated with different goals, would lead individuals to focus on different aspects of self, and would stimulate different levels of conflict over conformity decisions. Additionally, a unique role for effortful self-regulation was hypothesized for each type of norm-used as a means to resist conformity to descriptive norms but as a means to facilitate conformity for injunctive norms. Four experiments supported these hypotheses. Experiment 1 demonstrated differences in the norms' associations to the goals of making accurate/efficient decisions and gaining/maintaining social approval. Experiment 2 provided evidence that injunctive norms lead to a more interpersonally oriented form of self-awareness and to a greater feeling of conflict about conformity decisions than descriptive norms. In the final 2 experiments, conducted in the lab (Experiment 3) and in a naturalistic environment (Experiment 4), self-regulatory depletion decreased conformity to an injunctive norm (Experiments 3 and 4) and increased conformity to a descriptive norm (Experiment 4)-even though the norms advocated identical behaviors. By illustrating differentiated response tendencies for each type of social norm, this research provides new and converging support for the focus theory of normative conduct.

View PDFchevron_right
A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior
Robert Cialdini

Advances in experimental social …, 1991

View PDFchevron_right
Objective and subjective compliance: A norm-based explanation of ‘moral wiggle room’
Arne Weiss

We propose a cognitive-dissonance model of norm compliance to identify conditions for selfishly biased information acquisition. The model distinguishes between objective norm compliers, for whom the right action is a function of the state of the world, and subjective norm compliers, for whom it is a function of their belief. The former seek as much information as possible; the latter acquire only information that lowers, in expected terms, normative demands. The source of ‘moral wiggle room’ is not belief manipulation, but the coarseness of normative prescriptions under conditions of uncertainty. In a novel experimental setup, we find evidence for such strategic information uptake. Our results suggest that attempts to change behavior by subjecting individuals to norms can lead to biased information acquisition instead of compliance.

View PDFchevron_right
Perceived legitimacy of normative expectations motivates compliance with social norms when nobody is watching
Luca Tummolini, Daniela Grieco

Three main motivations can explain compliance with social norms: fear of peer punishment, the desire for others' esteem and the desire to meet others' expectations. Though all play a role, only the desire to meet others' expectations can sustain compliance when neither public nor private monitoring is possible. Theoretical models have shown that such desire can indeed sustain social norms, but empirical evidence is lacking. Moreover it is unclear whether this desire ranges over others' “empirical” or “normative” expectations. We propose a new experimental design to isolate this motivation and to investigate what kind of expectations people are inclined to meet. Results indicate that, when nobody can assign either material or immaterial sanctions, the perceived legitimacy of others' normative expectations can motivate a significant number of people to comply with costly social norms.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Decision Making
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved