The Constructive, Destructive, and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms

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 established that social norms not only spur but also guide action in direct and meaningful ways (Aarts & Dijksterhuis, 2003; Cialdini, Kallgren, & Reno, 1991; Darley & Latané, 1970; Goldstein, Cialdini, & Griskevicius, 2006; Kerr, 1995; Terry & Hogg, 2001). Given this asserted power of social norms, during the past decade there has been a surge of programs that have delivered normative information as a primary tool for changing socially significant behaviors, such as alcohol consumption, drug use, disordered eating, gambling, littering, and recycling (e.g., Donaldson, Graham, & Hansen, 1994; Larimer & Neighbors, 2003; Neighbors, Larimer, & Lewis, 2004; Schultz, 1999; Schultz, Tabanico, & Rendón, in press). Such social-norms marketing campaigns have emerged as an alternative to more traditional approaches (e.g., information campaigns, moral exhortation, fearinducing messages) designed to reduce undesirable conduct (Donaldson, Graham, Piccinin, & Hansen, 1995). The rationale for the social-norms marketing approach is based on two consistent findings: (a) The majority of individuals overestimate the prevalence of many undesirable behaviors, such as alcohol use among peers (e.g., Borsari & Carey, 2003; Prentice & Miller, 1993), and (b) individuals use their perceptions of peer norms as a standard against which to compare their own behaviors (e.g., Baer, Stacy, & Larimer, 1991; Clapp & McDonell, 2000; Perkins & Berkowitz, 1986). Social-norms marketing campaigns seek to reduce the occurrence of deleterious behaviors by correcting targets’ misperceptions regarding 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 of promise that nearly half of 746 U.S. colleges and universities surveyed by the Harvard School of Public Health in 2002 had adopted them in some form to combat collegiate binge drinking (Wechsler et al., 2003). However, despite the widespread adoption of social-norms marketing campaigns, evidence for the success of such programs has been surprisingly mixed. Although many studies appear to confirm the effectiveness of the social marketing approach (e.g., Agostinelli, Brown, & Miller, 1995; Haines & Spear, 1996; Neighbors et al., 2004), other studies have failed to produce substantial changes in behavior (e.g., Clapp, Lange, Russell, Shillington, & Voas, 2003; Granfield, 2005; Peeler, Far, Miller, & Brigham, 2000; Russell, Clapp, & DeJong, 2005; Werch et al., 2000). In fact, some studies indicate that social-norms marketing campaigns have actually increased the undesirable behaviors and misperceptions they set out to decrease (e.g., Perkins, Haines, & Rice, 2005; Wechsler et al., 2003; Werch et al., 2000). Address correspondence to Wesley Schultz, Department of Psychology, California State University, San Marcos, CA 92078, e-mail: [email protected]. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Volume 18—Number 5 429 Copyright r 2007 Association for Psychological Science A closer analysis of social-norms theory and research provides a potential explanation for the lack of effects and suggests the possibility of boomerang effects. Descriptive norms provide a standard from which people do not want to deviate. Because people measure the appropriateness of their behavior by how far away they are from the norm, being deviant is being above or below the norm. For example, although the majority of college students do overestimate the prevalence of alcohol consumption on campus (see Berkowitz, 2004, for a review), a substantial proportion of them—as many as one fifth by some estimates (e.g., Perkins et al., 2005) and nearly one half by others (e.g., Wechsler & Kuo, 2000)—actually underestimate its prevalence. Because a social-norms marketing campaign provides specific descriptive normative information that can serve as a point of comparison for an individual’s own behavior, the descriptive norm acts as a magnet for behavior for individuals both above and below the average. Consequently, a college campaign targeting alcohol consumption might motivate students who previously consumed less alcohol than the norm to consume more. Thus, although providing descriptive normative information may decrease an undesirable behavior among individuals who perform that behavior at a rate above the norm, the same message may actually serve to increase the undesirable behavior among individuals who perform that behavior at a rate below the norm. Social-norms campaigns are intended to reduce problem behaviors (or increase prosocial behavior) by conveying the message that deleterious behaviors are occurring less often than most people think. But for individuals who already abstain from the undesirable behavior, such normative information can produce unintended and undesirable boomerang effects. Is there a way to eliminate them? According to the focus theory of normative conduct (Cialdini et al., 1991), there is a second type of social norm, in addition to the descriptive norm, that has a powerful influence on behavior—the injunctive norm. Whereas descriptive norms refer to perceptions of what is commonly done in a given situation, injunctive norms refer to perceptions of what is commonly approved or disapproved within the culture (Reno, Cialdini, & Kallgren, 1993). Focus theory predicts that if only one of the two types of norms is prominent in an individual’s consciousness, it will exert the stronger influence on behavior (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). Thus, in situations in which descriptive normative information may normally produce an undesirable boomerang effect, it is possible that adding an injunctive message indicating that the desired behavior is approved may prevent that effect. THE CURRENT RESEARCH The purpose of the current research was to explore how normative information may differentially affect an important social behavior depending on whether the message recipients’ behavior is above or below the norm. In a California community, we performed a field experiment examining the effects of normative information on household energy consumption. All households received feedback about how much energy they had consumed in previous weeks and descriptive normative information about the average consumption of other households in their neighborhood. Households were divided into two categories at each observation period: those with energy consumption above average for the community and those with energy consumption below average for the community. Households were matched on a baseline measure of energy consumption, and then half of the households were randomly assigned to receive only the descriptive normative information. The other half received the descriptive normative information plus an injunctive message conveying that their energy consumption was either approved or disapproved; specifically, households that consumed less than the average received a message displaying a positively valenced emoticon ( ), whereas those that consumed more than the average received a message displaying a negatively valenced emoticon ( ). The dependent measure was residents’ subsequent actual household energy consumption. We had three main predictions. First, we expected that descriptive normative information would decrease energy consumption in households consuming more energy than their neighborhood average. Such a result would be indicative of the constructive power of social norms, demonstrating that normative information can facilitate proenvironmental behavior. Second, we expected that descriptive normative information would increase energy consumption—that is, produce an undesirable boomerang effect—in households consuming less energy than their neighborhood average. Such a result would be indicative of the destructive power of social norms, demonstrating that a well-intended application of normative information can actually serve to decrease proenvironmental behavior. Third, we expected that providing both descriptive normative information and an injunctive message that other people approve of low-consumption behavior would prevent the undesirable boomerang effect in households consuming less energy than their neighborhood average; that is, we expected these households to continue to consume at low rates. Such a result would be indicative of the reconstructive power of injunctive messages to eliminate the untoward effects of a descriptive norm.