Cited by 1,017Psychology of Social InfluenceEnvironmental Education and SustainabilityBehavioral Health and Interventions

Managing social norms for persuasive impact

Open access
Cialdini, Robert B., Demaine, Linda J., Sagarin, Brad J., Barrett, Daniel W., Rhoads, Kelton, Winter, Patricia L.·2006·Social Influence

Abstract

In order to mobilise action against a social problem, public service communicators often include normative information in their persuasive appeals. Such messages can be either effective or ineffective because they can normalise either desirable or undesirable conduct. To examine the implications in an environmental context, visitors to Arizona's Petrified Forest National Park were exposed to messages that admonished against the theft of petrified wood. In addition, the messages conveyed information either about descriptive norms (the levels of others' behaviour) or injunctive norms (the levels of others' disapproval) regarding such thievery. Results showed that focusing message recipients on descriptive normative information was most likely to increase theft, whereas focusing them on injunctive normative information was most likely to suppress it. Recommendations are offered for optimising the impact of normative messages in situations characterised by objectionable levels of undesirable conduct.

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 · 10.1080/15534510500181459

Cites

48 of 48 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?

  • Environmental messages may be more effective when they appeal to normative values and morality or contain practical information about how to change behaviour, rather than just containing factual information.

    “Environmental messages may be more effective when they appeal to normative values and morality or contain practical information about how to change behaviour, rather than just containing factual information [15][16][17][18][19].”

    From Promoting the Use of Reusable Coffee Cups through Environmental Messaging, the Provision of Alternatives and Financial Incentives (2018) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Conclusion reports that, for messages about theft of petrified wood, an injunctive appeal saying theft was strongly disapproved was more effective than a descriptive message saying theft was frequent. This supports the normative-appeal part of the claim. The paper does not establish that practical instructions outperform factual information, nor does it compare the injunctive appeal with factual information generally. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Previous research often used primes in the form of direct appeals, such as "please do not litter" or "please don't remove the petrified wood from the park".

    “It should be said that previous research often used primes in the form of direct appeals, such as “please do not litter” (Cialdini et al., 1990) or “please don’t remove the petrified wood from the park” (Cialdini et al., 2006).”
  • Conformist behavioural responses to majority information have been found for paying taxes, corrupt behaviour, and readiness to steal.

    “The same type of conformist behavioural response has been found with respect to majority information about various socially highly relevant actions, for instance, paying taxes (Hallsworth et al. [2017]), as well as corrupt behaviour (Köbis et al. [2015]) and even readiness to steal (Cialdini et al. [2006]).”

    From Science Communication and the Problematic Impact of Descriptive Norms (2023) · cites this paper as Cialdini et al. [2006]

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Darley, J. M., & Latane ´, B. (1970). Norms and normative behaviour: Field studies of social interdependence. In J. Macaulay & L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Altruism and helping behaviour (pp. 83-102). New York: Academic Press.
  2. Krull, D. S., & Dill, J. C. (1998). Do smiles elicit more inferences than frowns? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 289-300.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cialdini, R. B., Demaine, L. J., Sagarin, B. J., Barrett, D. W., Rhoads, K., & Winter, P. L.
Affiliations
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • Northern Illinois University (US)
  • Western Connecticut State University (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • US Forest Service (US)
Corresponding author
Cialdini, Robert B.
Venue
Social Influence
Published
2006-03
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
3-15
ISSN
  • 1553-4510 (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-4529
OpenAlex
W2161535853
Cited by
1,017
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 50 · 2025: 72 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 75 · 2022: 101 · 2021: 101 · 2020: 88 · 2019: 59 · 2018: 73 · 2017: 70 · 2016: 54 · 2015: 49 · 2014: 45 · 2013: 39 · 2012: 20
FWCI
35.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Social Influence (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Forest Service
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Psychology of Social Influence
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental Education and Sustainability
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
social norms, descriptive norms, injunctive norms, normative messages, persuasion, Petrified Forest National Park, environmental behaviour, message framing, public service communication

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