Is social norms marketing effective?

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to present details of a large-scale experiment that evaluated the impact of communicating two types of feedback to householders regarding their domestic electricity consumption: feedback on their own consumption and feedback of both their own consumption and that of others in their locality. Design/methodology/approach -Digital technologies were used to automatically measure and communicate the electricity consumption of 316 UK residents for a period of 16 weeks. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions: one involving no feedback; one involving feedback about a household's own usage, and one involving a household's own usage plus social norms feedback (the average consumption of others in the locality). At the end of the study, a selection of participants took part in interviews or focus groups. Findings -Both types of feedback (individual and individual-plus-social-norms) led to reductions in consumption of about 3 per cent. Those receiving social norms feedback were significantly more likely to engage with the information provided. However, the social norms information had no additional impact on consumption. Survey and interview data confirmed that participants from both conditions had been encouraged to adopt new energy-saving practices. The study concludes that near real-time individual feedback can be sufficient for usage reduction if it is provided in a historical format. It also suggests that the impact of social norms information may previously have been confounded with that of individual feedback. Originality/value -This is the first time that a controlled experiment in the field of domestic electricity consumption has compared the impact of real-time social norm information with that of information that only contains individual household usage.

Effectiveness of a smartphone app in increasing physical activity amongst male adults: a randomised controlled trial

“…An alternative interpretation, however, is that this finding indicates issues with the design of the social feedback used. Practitioners of the social norms approach argue that the most effective reference group consists of those that participants consider most like themselves [23, 46, 47]. Although all participants were of the same gender and of approximately the same age, the social feedback might have been more effective if the age-band had been narrower or if a distinction had been made between, for example, those in physically active occupations and those doing more sedentary work.…”

Are we all environmental tourists now? The role of biases in social comparison across and within tourists, and their implications

“…Miller & Prentice, 2016). The fact that participants were aware that the presented information was part of a scientific inquiry might have contributed further to lowering the level of perceived trustworthiness (see also Harries, Rettie, Studley, Burchell, & Chambers, 2013). Whereas this offers an explanation for why exposure to social comparison feedback may fail to produce the desired results, it does not account for the differences found across the two studies.…”

“…This was not the case in the study by Toner et al (2014), in which the feedback was provided individually whilst participants sat in front of a computer. Furthermore, research has shown that people become more engaged in seeking information about their current consumption patterns when individual feedback is combined with group feedback, compared with when they receive only the former (Harries et al, 2013).…”

Can Social Comparison Feedback Affect Indicators of Eco-Friendly Travel Choices? Insights from Two Online Experiments

“…Without rejecting the idea that perceived efficacy may help to explain feedback effects in some contexts, there is room to consider alternative explanations. Other mechanisms that could account (at least partly) for the effects of norm-based interventions are that they induce negative emotions such as guilt or shame, particularly in public settings [45], or that they stimulate information-seeking behaviour [48].…”