Social influence on health and environmental behaviours Flashcards
Social influences on behaviour
Social influence = Changes in thoughts, feelings, attitudes or behaviours that result from interaction with another individual or a group (Rashottes, 2007)
Types:
- Modelling
- Social norms
- Social facilitation
- Group pressures
-Social support
Modelling alcohol intake (Larsen et al, 2009)
135 participants
Confederate ordered first and either had 2 fizzy drinks (Control), one alcohol and 2 fizzy drinks (light drinking) or 3 or 4 alcoholic drinks (heavy drinking)
Looking at how many alcoholic drinks were consumed
Ps in the heavy condition consumed significantly more alcohol compared to ps in the control and light conditions
Limitations and strengths of Larsen et al’s (2009) study
Modelling and eating behaviours
Cruwys et al (2015)
65/69 studies reported that social modelling influenced food choice/intake
Moderators for social modelling
Effect of social influence can depend on:
1) High need for social acceptance
Low self esteem and high empathy associated with greater modelling (Robinson et al, 2011)
2) Body weight
Greater modelling if the social cues is the same weight as the p
Explanations for social modelling
Social approval
Conformity to a social model is more pronounced when concerns are about affiliation are increased (Robinson et al, 2011)
Information influence
Accurate decision making
Others provide a point of reference for appropriate behaviours
Automatic mimicry
Mimic and conform to those with whom we identify, communicating liking and a desire to affiliate
Chartrand & Lakin, 2013)
Social norms
Social norms = unwritten rules about how to behave (Cialdini & Trost, 1998)
Descriptive = perceptions about what other people tend to do
Injunctive = perceptions of what others approve of
Prescriptive = focus on what others do or approve of doing
Proscriptive = focus on what others don’t do
Can be delivered through social norms marketing or perceived normative feedback (PNF)
Descriptive social norms
Goldstein, Cialdini & Griskevicius (2008)
Can descriptive norm messages increase towel reuse?
2 different messages (one control and one descriptive)
433 guests
Findings
Descriptive norm message increased towel use compared to a control message
Found in similar pro-environmental behaviours (Robinson et al, 2013)
Social norms and student binge drinking (Smith et al, 2018)
Social norms have been developed and applied to reduce problematic student drinking
96 students
Conditions :
- No messages
- Campaign only (Think before you drink)
- Descriptive norm only (65% of students do not down drinks on a night out)
- Both
Findings :
A sensible drinking campaign with a descriptive norm message reduced intentions to down drinks
Strengths and limitations of Smith et al (2018)
Strengths
- Used random allocation
- Used an experimental design (effect of only descriptive norms could be measured)
Limitations
- Only looked at intentions and not behaviour (intentions don’t always translate into behaviour)
- Used self report (could lie)
- Generalisation (only UK)
- Only found a small effect (might not correspond to much change)
- Individual alcohol intake was not actually taken
Explanations : Descriptive vs injunctive
Descriptive and injunctive norms may be effective for different reasons
Descriptive norms
Informational influence
Guide on the appropriate way to act
Tend to be more effective in unfamiliar or ambiguous situations (Griskevicius et al, 2006)
Injunctive norms
Social approval
Enable affiliation with social group
Boomerang effect (Miller & Prentice, 2016)
Unintended negative consequences of social norm messages
Engagement in targeted desired behaviours reduces for some individuals after the intervention
Schultz et al (2007)
290 households
Half received descriptive norm message about energy use and half received a descriptive norm message with a :) or :( depending on if they were low or high energy users
Looked as subsequent household energy use
Interventions need to be designed with care to avoid boomerang effects
Message framing = praise those who engage in behaviour rather than risk resentment
Shared group membership
The influence of group norms are stronger if individuals identify with the referent group (Johnstone & White, 2003)
Implications for interventions:
- Care is need to ensure the group norm is desirable
Theoretical approaches
- The theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991)
- Focus theory of normative conduct = Motives for conforming (Cialdini et al, 1990)
- Theory of normative behaviour = the influence of descriptive norms is moderated by injunctive norms, group membership, etc (Lapinski & Rimal, 2005)
