The DOs and DON’Ts in social norms: A descriptive don’t-norm increases conformity

IF 2.3 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Magnus Bergquist, Andreas Nilsson
{"title":"The DOs and DON’Ts in social norms: A descriptive don’t-norm increases conformity","authors":"Magnus Bergquist,&nbsp;Andreas Nilsson","doi":"10.1002/jts5.43","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Descriptive norms guide social behavior by informing what other people <i>do</i>. In a conceptual proposition, we suggest that descriptive norms also could signal what other people <i>don’t</i> do. Building on the evolutionary predisposition to more urgently attend to negative than positive information, we hypothesize that people are more strongly influenced by choices that other people avoid, than by choices that other people choose. Descriptive data in three experiments consistently demonstrated that more participants conformed to information about what other people don’t do (i.e., the don’t-norm) than information about what other people do (i.e., the do-norm). We found that don’t-norms more strongly influenced pro-environmental choices related to both energy efficiency (Experiment 1) and sustainable food consumption (Experiments 2 and 3). The increased influence of the don’t-norm were supported in two cultures (Sweden and USA), in two decision contexts (accepting and rejecting), and when using two wordings (want vs. avoid and preferred vs. unpreferred). These results suggest that descriptive do- and don’t-norms are conceptually distinct and that don’t-norms exert stronger influential power.</p>","PeriodicalId":36271,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology","volume":"3 3","pages":"158-166"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/jts5.43","citationCount":"22","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jts5.43","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

Abstract

Descriptive norms guide social behavior by informing what other people do. In a conceptual proposition, we suggest that descriptive norms also could signal what other people don’t do. Building on the evolutionary predisposition to more urgently attend to negative than positive information, we hypothesize that people are more strongly influenced by choices that other people avoid, than by choices that other people choose. Descriptive data in three experiments consistently demonstrated that more participants conformed to information about what other people don’t do (i.e., the don’t-norm) than information about what other people do (i.e., the do-norm). We found that don’t-norms more strongly influenced pro-environmental choices related to both energy efficiency (Experiment 1) and sustainable food consumption (Experiments 2 and 3). The increased influence of the don’t-norm were supported in two cultures (Sweden and USA), in two decision contexts (accepting and rejecting), and when using two wordings (want vs. avoid and preferred vs. unpreferred). These results suggest that descriptive do- and don’t-norms are conceptually distinct and that don’t-norms exert stronger influential power.

Abstract Image

社会规范中的注意事项和不注意事项:描述性的不规范会增加一致性
描述性规范通过告知他人的行为来指导社会行为。在一个概念性命题中,我们认为描述性规范也可以表明其他人不做什么。基于对消极信息比积极信息更迫切关注的进化倾向,我们假设人们更容易受到其他人避免的选择的影响,而不是其他人选择的影响。三个实验中的描述性数据一致地表明,更多的参与者遵循其他人不做的信息(即“不规范”),而不是其他人做的信息(即“做规范”)。我们发现,不规范更强烈地影响了与能源效率(实验1)和可持续食品消费(实验2和3)相关的亲环境选择。在两种文化(瑞典和美国)、两种决策环境(接受和拒绝)以及使用两种措辞(想要vs.避免、首选vs.不首选)时,不规范的影响得到了支持。这些结果表明,描述性的“做”规范和“不做”规范在概念上是不同的,“不做”规范具有更强的影响力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology
Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology Psychology-Social Psychology
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信