Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T20:15:38.168Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Putting Text in Context: The Conflict between Pro-Ecological Messages and Anti-Ecological Descriptive Norms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

Luis Oceja  and
Jaime Berenguer
Luis Oceja*
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain)
Jaime Berenguer
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Luis Oceja, Departamento de Psicología Social y Metodología. Facultad de Psicología. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. 28049 Madrid, (Spain). Phone: +34-914977674; Fax: +34-914975215; E- mail: luis.oceja@uam.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the present work we test whether the effectiveness of ecological messages may be canceled out when they conflict with the descriptive norm that is salient in the situation. In two studies, participants were unobtrusively observed while performing an ecologically relevant behavior: leaving lights on or off when exiting a public space. The results of Study 1 showed in two different settings (i.e., public washrooms of a university and of a restaurant) the powerful influence of focusing a descriptive norm that refers to such behavior, even when this descriptive norm is not sustained by the injunctive norm. The results of Study 2 showed the overall ineffectiveness of ecological messages when the information in the message was in conflict with the descriptive norm made salient by the context. Additionally, the results of a Follow-up Study suggested that vividness-congruency may increase the effectiveness of the message. Both the theoretical and practical implications of these results are discussed.

En este trabajo se comprueba si los mensajes de tipo ecológico pierden efectividad cuando entran en conflicto con la norma descriptiva; es decir, la percepción sobre cómo se comportan las personas en una situación concreta. En dos estudios se observó la conducta de dejar las luces apagadas o encendidas al salir de un espacio público. En dos contextos diferentes (i.e., los servicios de una universidad y de un restaurante) los resultados del Estudio 1 mostraron como el comportamiento se ajusta a la norma descriptiva saliente. Los resultados del Estudio 2 mostraron que los mensajes ecológicos no son efectivos cuando la información contenida en dichos mensajes entra en conflicto con la norma descriptiva saliente. Además, los resultados de dos estudios complementarios mostraron que la influencia de la norma descriptiva era independiente de la norma prescriptiva, y que la efectividad del mensaje ecológico puede incrementarse si despierta una imagen clara y coherente con el comportamiento que se pretende provocar (i.e., vividness-congruency).

Keywords

focus theorydescriptive norminjunctive normecological behaviorvividness-congruencyteoría focalnorma descriptivanorma prescriptivaconducta ecológica
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , November 2009 , pp. 657 - 666
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aarts, H., & Dijksterhuis, A.(2003). The silence of library: environment, situational norm, and social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 18–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broemer, P. (2004). Ease of imagination moderates reactions to different framed health messages. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherubini, P., Rumiati, R., Rossi, D., Nigro, F., & Calabrò, A. (2005). Improving attitudes toward prostate examination by loss-framed appeals. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 732–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cialdini, R. B.(2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 105–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement under evaluation of the norms in human behavior. In Zanna, M. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, (Vol. 24, pp. 201–234). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social Influence: Social Norms, Conformity and Compliance. In Gilbert, D. Fiske, S. & Lindzey, G. (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology, (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 151–192). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cialdini, R. B.; Demaine, L. J.; Sagarin, B. J.; Barrett, D. W.; Rhoads, K.L.; & Winter, P. L. (2006). Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Social Influence, 1, 3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennis, M. L., Sonderstrom, E. J., Kocinski, W. S., & Cavanaugh, B. (1990). Effective dissemination of energy-related information. Applying Social Psychology and evaluation research. American Psychologist, 45, 1109–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E.(1991). Social Cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Geller, E. S., Winett, R. A., & Everett, P. B. (1982). Preserving the environment. Strategies for behavior change. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Joly, J. F., Staple, D. A., & Lindenberg, S. M. (2008). Silence and table manners: when environments activate norms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1047–1056.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kallgren, C. A., Reno, R. R., & Cialdini, R. B. (2000). A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: When norms do and do not affect behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1002–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurz, T., Donaghue, N., & Walker, I. (2005). Utilizing a social-ecological framework to promote water and energy conservation: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 1281–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nisbett, R.E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcoming of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Norman, P., Clark, T., & Walker, G. (2005). The theory of planned behavior, descriptive norms, and the moderating role of group identification. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 1088–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oceja, L.V., & Jiménez, I. (2001). Hacia una clasificación psicológica de las normas (Toward a psychosocial typology of norms). Estudios de Psicología, 22, 227–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrova, P., & Cialdini, R. B. (2005). Fluency of consumption imagery and the backfire effects of imagery appeals. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 517–533.Google Scholar
Reno, R.R., Cialdini, R.B., & Kallgren, C.A. (1993). The transsituational influence of social norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 104–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhoads, K., & Cialdini, R. (2001). Figural vividness and persuasion: Capturing the “elusive” vividness effect. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Schultz, P.W. (1999). Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: A field experiment of curbside recycling. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21, 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, P.W., Nolan, J.M., Cialdini, R.B., Goldstein, N.J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18, 429–434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheeran, P., & Orbell, S. (1999). Augmenting the theory of planned behavior: Roles for anticipated regret and descriptive norms. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2107–2142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, S.M., & Shaffer, D.R. (2000). Vividness can undermine or enhance message processing: The moderating role of vividness congruency. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 769–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, S.H., & Howard, J.A. (1982). Helping and cooperation: A self-based motivational model. In Derlege, V.J., & Gizelack, J. (Eds.) Cooperation and Helping Behavior: Theories and Research, (pp.327–353). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, S.E., & Thompson, S.C. (1982). Stalking the elusive “vividness” effect. Psychological Review, 89, 155–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thøgersen, J. (2006). Norms for environmentally responsiblebehaviour: An extended taxonomy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 247–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaz, L., & Kanekar, S. (1992). Gender differences in likelihood estimates and recommendations regarding antinormative behavior in different ethical contexts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1688–1701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar