Cited by 221Psychology of Social InfluenceBehavioral Health and InterventionsDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Trending Norms: A Lever for Encouraging Behaviors Performed by the Minority

Mortensen, Chad R., Neel, Rebecca, Cialdini, Robert B., Jaeger, Christine M., Jacobson, Ryan P., Ringel, Megan M.·2019·Social Psychological and Personality Science

Abstract

If many people currently engage in a behavior, others are likely to follow suit. The current article extends research on these descriptive norms to examine the unique effect of trending norms: norms in which the number of people engaging in a behavior is increasing—and even if this is only among a minority of people: trending minority norms. The current research shows people conform more to these trending minority norms than a minority norm alone, or a no norm control condition—even though the norms addressed behaviors that differed from the target behavior. This demonstrates a distinct effect of trends and a strategy for leveraging normative information to increase conformity to behaviors not yet performed by a majority. Findings support that this increased conformity emerges because people predict the increase in prevalence will continue. An internal meta-analysis examining all data we collected on this topic supports these conclusions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1948550617734615

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Mortensen et al. found that students told only a minority of peers engaged in water conservation increased their water use compared with controls.

    “students told that only a minority of their peers engaged in water conservation subsequently increased the amount of water they used compared to controls (Mortensen et al. [2019]).”

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

  • Some kinds of descriptive norms, such as dynamic norms or don't-versus do-norms, have been found to be more powerful than others.

    “And some kinds of descriptive norms (for example, dynamic norms, or don't-versus do-norms) have been found to be more powerful than others (Sparkman and Walton [2017]; Bergquist and Nilsson [2019]; Mortensen et al. [2019]).”

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mortensen, C. R., Neel, R., Cialdini, R. B., Jaeger, C. M., Jacobson, R. P., & Ringel, M. M.
Affiliations
  • Metropolitan State University of Denver (US)
  • University of Iowa (US)
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • California State University, San Marcos (US)
  • University of New Mexico (US)
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
Corresponding author
Mortensen, Chad R.
Venue
Social Psychological and Personality Science
Published
2017-12-27
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
201-210
ISSN
  • 1948-5506 (ISSN-L)
  • 1948-5514
OpenAlex
W2778068175
Cited by
221
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 1
FWCI
23.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Social Psychological and Personality Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Psychology of Social Influence
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
descriptive norms, conformity, social influence, normative information, behavior change, trend forecasting

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