CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,772Environmental Education and SustainabilityPsychology of Social InfluenceBehavioral Health and Interventions

Normative social influence is underdetected

Open access
Nolan, Jessica M., Schultz, P. Wesley, Cialdini, Robert B., Goldstein, Noah J., Griskevicius, Vladas·2008·Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
DOI 10.1177/0146167208316691
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The present research investigated the persuasive impact and detectability of normative social influence. The first study surveyed 810 Californians about energy conservation and found that descriptive normative beliefs were more predictive of behavior than were other relevant beliefs, even though respondents rated such norms as least important in their conservation decisions. Study 2, a field experiment, showed that normative social influence produced the greatest change in behavior compared to information highlighting other reasons to conserve, even though respondents rated the normative information as least motivating. Results show that normative messages can be a powerful lever of persuasion but that their influence is underdetected.

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 · 10.1177/0146167208316691

Cites

57 of 57 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?

  • Normative social influence is significantly more motivating in stimulating energy conservation behavior than environmental, financial or societal benefits.

    “normative social influence has been shown to be significantly more motivating in stimulating energy conservation behavior than environmental, financial or societal benefits [10].”

    From Electricity and Water Conservation on College and University Campuses in Response to National Competitions among Dormitories: Quantifying Relationships between Behavior, Conservation Strategies and Psychological Metrics (2015) · cites this paper as [10]

    In Study 2’s Meter readings section (page unavailable), the normative message produced greater short-term energy conservation than the environmental, financial, and societal-benefit messages, and its difference from the combined other conditions was statistically significant. The copy does not report significant differences against each of those three messages individually; the corresponding long-term contrast was not significant. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Normative variables were significantly more motivational than financial considerations.

    “we found that normative variables were significantly more motivational than financial considerations.”

    From Electricity and Water Conservation on College and University Campuses in Response to National Competitions among Dormitories: Quantifying Relationships between Behavior, Conservation Strategies and Psychological Metrics (2015) · cites this paper as [10]

    In “Meter readings,” the paper reports significantly lower short-term electricity use after a descriptive-norm message than after the other messages combined, including the money-saving appeal. It does not report a significant comparison with the financial appeal alone, and the longer-term contrast was not significant. The “Results and Discussion” also report that participants did not rate the norm message as significantly more motivational than the self-interest message. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • A charge may be more effective than a discount because it communicates that bringing a reusable cup is the norm.

    “Another reason that a charge may be more effective than a discount is that the former communicates that bringing a reusable cup is the norm.”

    From Promoting the Use of Reusable Coffee Cups through Environmental Messaging, the Provision of Alternatives and Financial Incentives (2018) · cites this paper as [32]

    The Meter readings and General Discussion sections report that a message describing neighbors’ conservation behavior increased household energy conservation more than other appeals, including an appeal to save money (page numbers unavailable). The paper does not test reusable-cup charges against discounts or establish that a charge communicates that bringing a reusable cup is the norm. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The independent and interactive effects of injunctive and descriptive norms have been demonstrated in the environmental domain including in relation to littering, towel reuse, energy conservation, recycling, eco-friendly consumer behavior, and intentions to take part in a neighborhood climate protection group.

    “The independent and interactive effects of these norms has been demonstrated in the environmental domain including in relation to littering (Cialdini et al., 1990), towel reuse in hotels (Goldstein et al., 2008), energy conservation behavior (Nolan et al., 2008; Dwyer et al., 2015), recycling behavior (Fornara et al., 2011; Long et al., 2014; Schwab et al., 2014), eco-friendly consumer behavior (K”

    From A Social Identity Analysis of Climate Change and Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors: Insights and Opportunities (2016) · cites this paper as Nolan et al., 2008

    The Study 2 and Meter readings sections show that a descriptive-norm message increased household energy conservation relative to the comparison messages. The paper does not demonstrate an injunctive-norm effect or an interaction between injunctive and descriptive norms in energy conservation. No page numbers were provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 6

  1. [10]10. Bowers, K. S. (1984). On being unconsciously influences and informed. In K. S. Bowers & D. Meichenbaum (Eds.), The uncon-scious reconsidered (pp. 227-273). New York: John Wiley.
  2. [16]16. Crano, W. D. (2001). Social influence, social identity, and ingroup leniency. In C.K.W. de Dreu & N. K. de Vries (Eds.), Group consen-sus and minority influence (pp. 122-143). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
  3. [17]17. Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1970). Norms and normative behavior: Field studies of social interdependence. In J. Macaulay & L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior (pp. 83-102). New York: Academic Press.
  4. [18]18. De Dreu, C.K.W., De Vries, N. K., Gordijn, E. H., & Schuurman, M. S. (1999). Convergent and divergent processing of majority and minority arguments: Effects on focal and related attitudes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 329-348.
  5. [32]32. Maass, A., & Clark, R. D. (1984). Hidden impacts of minorities: Fifteen years of minority influences research. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 428-450.
  6. [43]43. Schultz, P. W. (2002). Knowledge, information, and household recy-cling: Examining the knowledge-deficit model of behavior change. In T. Dietz & P. Stern (Eds.), Education, information, and volun-tary measures in environmental protection (pp. 67-82). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Nolan, J. M., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V.
Affiliations
  • University of Arkansas at Fayetteville (US)
  • California State University, San Marcos (US)
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • University of Chicago (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
Nolan, Jessica M.
ORCID
Venue
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2008-05-09
Volume
34
Issue
7
Pages
913-923
ISSN
  • 0146-1672 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7433
DOI
10.1177/0146167208316691
OpenAlex
W2077676995
Cited by
1,772
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 61 · 2025: 110 · 2024: 106 · 2023: 129 · 2022: 119 · 2021: 121 · 2020: 108 · 2019: 136 · 2018: 115 · 2017: 119 · 2016: 127 · 2015: 130 · 2014: 115 · 2013: 84 · 2012: 70
FWCI
192.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • John Spoor Broome Library Institutional Repository (California State University) (submittedVersion)
  • CSUN ScholarWorks (California State University, Northridge) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental Education and Sustainability
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Psychology of Social Influence
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
normative influence, descriptive norms, persuasiveness, energy conservation, normative beliefs, persuasion, behavior change
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, California, Conservation of Natural Resources, Culture, Data Collection, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Persuasive Communication, Social Conformity, Social Identification

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