An Explication of Social Norms

Abstract

This article identifies four factors for consideration in norms‐based research to enhance the predictive ability of theoretical models. First, it makes the distinction between perceived and collective norms and between descriptive and injunctive norms. Second, the article addresses the role of important moderators in the relationship between descriptive norms and behaviors, including outcome expectations, group identity, and ego involvement. Third, it discusses the role of both interpersonal and mass communication in normative influences. Lastly, it outlines behavioral attributes that determine susceptibility to normative influences, including behavioral ambiguity and the public or private nature of the behavior.

Thou Shalt Not Steal: Effects of Normative Cues on Attitudes towards Theft

“…However this current research went further by examining if there was any difference in the level of influence exerted between the two types of settings. The notion for this extension was based upon suggestions made by Lapinski and Rimal (2005) that the level of normative influence exercised would be dependent on the level of privacy of an environment. Our finding is in line with the notion that injunctive norms will exercise little influence over attitudes and behavior when behavior is not observable and therefore cannot be scrutinized (Lapinski & Rimal, 2005).…”

“…The notion for this extension was based upon suggestions made by Lapinski and Rimal (2005) that the level of normative influence exercised would be dependent on the level of privacy of an environment. Our finding is in line with the notion that injunctive norms will exercise little influence over attitudes and behavior when behavior is not observable and therefore cannot be scrutinized (Lapinski & Rimal, 2005). Because norms will mainly influence behavior when focal (Cialdini et al, 1991), in a private setting the non-observable character will make the anti-theft injunctive norm less focal than in a public setting hereby inhibiting its potential influence on attitudes towards theft.…”

“…The injunctive anti-theft norm is most salient in public environments where behavior is observable and can be scrutinized than in private settings where this is less the case (Lapinski & Rimal, 2005). The influence of the value of the stolen item on attitudes towards theft is based on the level of expected social sanctions (Reno et al, 1993) which may also make the antitheft injunctive norm focal.…”

“…Results of studies by Cialdini and colleagues (1990) indicate that an injunctive anti-litter norm is not as influential in this "conflicting" setting as it is in a setting where the descriptive norm supports the injunctive norm. Therefore, descriptive and injunctive norms should be aligned to be able to exert the strongest normative influence on attitudes and behavior (Lapinski & Rimal, 2005;Schultz & Tabanico, 2009). When the descriptive and injunctive norms are not aligned, the descriptive norm will overpower the injunctive norm.…”

“…We therefore assume that the perceived social sanctions of the theft of high value items are perceived to be more severe than the theft of low value items: people will have more negative attitudes towards theft if a higher value item is stolen than when a lower value item is stolen (Hypothesis 1). Lapinski and Rimal (2005) focus on another type of normative cue that may strengthen the influence of social norms on attitudes towards theft, that is, the extent to which an environment in which the theft takes place is private or public. They suggest that injunctive norms will exercise little influence over attitudes and behavior when behavior is not observable and therefore cannot be scrutinized.…”