Psychometrika

, 72:263 | Cite as

Descriptive Social Norms as Underappreciated Sources of Social Control

Article

Abstract

Böckenholt and van der Heijden’s results regarding compliance with insurance regulations—that the enforcement activities of a regulatory agency were relatively unpredictive of compliance—are consistent with findings from other domains (e.g., tax adherence), where personal factors and informal social controls have been shown to play a more significant role. However, the specific form of informal social control investigated in Böckenholt and van der Heijden’s study (the perceived approval/disapproval of friends and family) is not the only kind of informal social control that has proven effective in spurring compliance. Descriptive social norms, which involve perceptions not of what others approve but of what others actually do, also influence compliance decisions powerfully. Yet, the role of descriptive social norms in rule adherence is often underappreciated by governed and governors alike. The consequences of this relative lack of recognition are discussed within the arena of compliance with pro-environmental regulations and requests.

Key words

social norms social control noncompliance 

References

  1. Brehm, S.S., & Brehm, J.W. (1981). Psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bryan, J.H., & Test, M.A. (1967). Models and helping: Naturalistic studies in aiding behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 400–407.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Burgoon, M., Alvaro, E., Grandpre, J., & Voulodakis, M. (2002). Revisiting the theory of psychological reactance. In J. P. Dillard, & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook (pp. 195–211). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Cialdini, R.B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  5. Cialdini, R.B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 105–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cialdini, R.B., Reno, R.R., & Kallgren, C.A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goldstein, N., Cialdini, R.B., & Griskevicius, V. (submitted). A room with a viewpoint: Using norm-based appeals to motivate conservation behaviors in a hotel setting.Google Scholar
  9. Kahan, D. (1997). Social influence, social meaning, and deterrence. Virginia Law Review, 83, 349–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Larimer, M.E., & Neigbors, C. (2003). Normative misperception and the impact of descriptive and injunctive norms on college student gambling. Psychology of Addictive Behavior, 17, 235–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Le Bon, G. (1895/1960). Psychologie des foules (Psychology of the crowd). New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
  12. MacKay, C. (1841/1932). Popular delusions and the madness of crowds. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.Google Scholar
  13. Milgram, S., Bickman, L., & Berkowitz, L. (1969). Note on the drawing power of crowds of different size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 79–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nisbett, R.E., & Wilson, T.D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal report on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.Google Scholar
  15. Roth, J.A., & Scholz, J.T. (Eds.) (1989). Taxpayer compliance: Social science perspectives. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  16. Schultz, P.W., Nolan, J.M., Cialdini, R.B., Goldstein, N., & Griskevicius, V. (in press). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science. Google Scholar
  17. Van Empelen, P., Schaalma, H.P., Kok, G., & Jansen, M.R.J. (2001). Predicting condom use with casual and steady partners among drug users. Health Education Research: Theory and Practice, 16, 293–305.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychometric Society 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations