Cited by 32Colorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionMedia Influence and HealthGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

The impact of descriptive norms on motivation to participate in cancer screening – Evidence from online experiments

Open access
von Wagner, Christian, Hirst, Yasemin, Waller, Jo, Ghanouni, Alex, McGregor, Lesley M., Kerrison, Robert S., Verstraete, Wouter, Vlaev, Ivo +2 more·2019·Patient Education and Counseling

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The current study tested in two online experiments whether manipulating normative beliefs about cancer screening uptake increases intention to attend colorectal screening among previously disinclined individuals. METHODS: 2461 men and women from an Internet panel (Experiment 1 N = 1032; Experiment 2, N = 1423) who initially stated that they did not intend to take up screening were asked to guess how many men and women they believe to get screened for colorectal cancer. Across participants, we varied the presence/absence of feedback on the participant's estimate, as well as the stated proportion of men and women doing the screening test. RESULTS: Across the two experiments, we found that receiving one of the experimental messages stating that uptake is higher than estimated significantly increased the proportion of disinclined men and women becoming intenders. While, we found a positive relationship between the communicated uptake and screening intentions, we did not find evidence that providing feedback on the estimate has an added benefit. CONCLUSION: Screening intention can be effectively manipulated through a high uptake message. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Communication of high screening uptake is an easy and effective way to motivate disinclined individuals to engage in colorectal cancer screening.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pec.2019.04.001

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • This meta-analysis and individual experimental studies suggest that descriptive norms often exert a significant causal influence on behaviour.

    “This meta-analysis and several individual experimental studies that manipulated the scope of descriptive norms to track causal normbehaviour links (Kormos et al. [2015]; von Wagner et al. [2019]) suggest that descriptive norms do often exert a significant causal influence on behaviour.”

    From Science Communication and the Problematic Impact of Descriptive Norms (2023) · cites this paper as von Wagner et al. [2019]

  • A wider descriptive norm produces a stronger impact on people's intention to act.

    “the broader the scope of the descriptive norm (for example, 50% versus 80%), the stronger the effect on intention to act(Kormos et al. [2015];von Wagner et al. [2019]).”

    From Science Communication and the Problematic Impact of Descriptive Norms (2023) · cites this paper as von Wagner et al. [2019]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
von Wagner, C., Hirst, Y., Waller, J., Ghanouni, A., McGregor, L. M., Kerrison, R. S., Verstraete, W., Vlaev, I., Sieverding, M., & Stoffel, S. T.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
Venue
Patient Education and Counseling
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-09
Volume
102
Issue
9
Pages
1621-1628
ISSN
0738-3991 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2935359073
Cited by
32
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3
FWCI
1.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Patient Education and Counseling (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
  • CLOK (University of Central Lancashire) (acceptedVersion)
  • Open Research (University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
  • Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Cancer Research UK (UK C1418/A14134)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Media Influence and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
descriptive norms, cancer screening, colorectal cancer screening, screening uptake, screening intention, health behavior change, normative beliefs, health communication
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Motivation, Colorectal Neoplasms, Internet, Intention, Early Detection of Cancer, Social Norms

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review