L9: Social Influences on Health and Environmental Behaviours

Define and explain the influence of social modelling on health behaviours with reference to empirical research. Distinguish between descriptive and injunctive norms (types and methods of delivery), and critically evaluate the impacts of social norms on health and environmental behaviours. Recognise and describe the ways in which social influences on health and environmental behaviours are moderated by various factors (e.g. individual differences, reference group). Critically evaluate the effectiveness of social norm-based interventions to change health and environmental behaviours. Be aware of social norm theoretical approaches. Describe and critically evaluate methods used to investigate social norm approaches for increasing health and environmental behaviours.

pro-health and pro-environmental behaviours

purposeful action or behaviour that can reduce a negative impact on health or the environment

why promote pro-health and pro-environmental behaviours?

• promote health, wellbeing, quality of life, longevity (e.g. handwashing, alc intake, smoking, physical activity, diet, using sunscreen, attending health checks, etc)

• climate crisis

social influences on behaviour

change in thoughts, feelings, attitudes, or behaviours that result from interaction with another individual or a group (Rashottes, 2007)

different types of social influences

1. modelling

2. social norms

3. social facilitation

4. group pressures

5. social support

Larsen et al., 2009: modelling alcohol intake: procedure

• experimental study using naturalistic bar setting

• Ps: 135 students

• drink orders: confederate ordered first and drank either:

1. two fizzy drinks (control)

2. one alcohol drink and two fizzy drinks (light drinking)

3. three or four alcohol drinks (heavy drinking)

• dv: alc drinks consumed

Larsen et al., 2009: modelling alcohol intake: findings

Ps in heavy condition consumed significantly more alc compared to Ps in light and control drinking condition (p<.001)

modelling + other health behaviours

• eating behaviours

-review: 65/69 studies reported social modelling influenced food choice or food intake (Cruwys et al., 2015)

-studies used live or remote confederates

• sun protective behaviours (Lombard et al., 1991)

• cigarette smoking (Harakeh et al., 2007)

• others

what does the effect of social influences vary depending on?

moderators of social modelling

moderators of social modelling

1. high need for social acceptance

2. body weight

3. group identification

high need for social acceptance

low self-esteem and high empathy associated with greater modelling (Robinson et al., 2011)

body weight

greater modelling if social other is same weight as participant

explanations for social modelling

1. social approval

2. informational influence- accurate decision making

3. automatic mimicry

social approval

• explanation for social modelling

• conformity to a social model more pronounced when concerns about affiliation are increased (Robinson et al., 2011)

informational influence

• explanation for social modelling

• accurate decision making

• others provide point of reference for appropriate behaviours

automatic mimicry

• Chartrand and Lakin, 2013

• mimic and conform to those with whom we identify, communicating liking, and a desire to affiliate

main explanations for social modelling

social approval and informational influence

evidence social modelling occurs automatically

Larsen et al., (2009) study

• on alcohol intake

• dv- units of alc consumed

• conditions- sober, light drinking, heavy drinking

• confed orders first

• heavy → drink more

social norms definition

unwritten rules about how to behave (Cialdini and Trost, 1998)

types of social norms

• descriptive

• injunctive

• prescriptive vs proscriptive

descriptive norms

perceptions about what other people tend to do

injunctive norms

perceptions of what others approve of

prescriptive norms

focus on what others do or approve of doing

proscriptive norms

prohibitive- focus on what others do NOT do or do NOT approve of doing

delivery of social norms

• social norms marketing

• Personalised Normative Feedback (PNF)

Goldstein et al., 2008: descriptive norms + hotel towel use: procedure

• dv: towel reuse (reused, not reused)

• presented with one of two messages:

1. control- help save environment

2. descriptive norm- 75% other guests reuse towel

n = 433 hotel guests

Goldstein et al., 2008: descriptive norms + hotel towel use: findings

descriptive norm message increased towel reuse compared to a control message

(45% vs 35%)

Goldstein et al., 2008: effects

similar effects found for other pro-environmental and health behaviours

social norms and student binge drinking

inaccurate perceptions:

• students overestimate how much peers drink and peer support for drinking

• drives problematic drinking behaviour

• social norms widely developed and applied to reduce problematic student drinking

• binge drinking prevalent in uni students

descriptive norms and problematic student drinking: study 2: procedure

• can descriptive norms reduce intentions to down drinks

• 96 UK students randomly allocated to one of four conditions

• no messages; campaign only (Lash, Banter, Down-it, Error); descriptive norm only (based on data); campaign + descriptive norm

• dv: intentions to down drinks

• campaign: think before you drink

• dn: 65% of students at this uni do not down drinks on night out

Smith, Louis, & Abraha,, 2018

descriptive norms and problematic student drinking: study 2: findings

• sensible drinking campaign WITH a descrptive norm message reduced intentions to down drinks in students

• p<.01

• campaign only- highest

• no messages, second highest

• descriptive norm- just lower than no messages

• campaign and descriptive norm- only one with negative intention to down drinks, pretty much inverse of campaign only

strengths of Smith et al., (2018)

• experimental design- establish effect of descriptive norms

limitations of Smith et al., (2018)

• measured intentions, no actual measure of downing behaviour- IB gap

• no data collected on Ps individual alc intake

other social norms literature on descriptive norms

• mixed findings

• no effects or counteractive results

can descriptive norms be used to encourage sustainable diets at the university? procedure

• pre/post intervention design at three uni food outlets

• pre-intervention- 1 week

• intervention- 1 week

• post-intervention - 1 week

• message: most have reduced or stopped consuming meat for xyz reasons

• measures: proportion of meat/meatless food purchases

Patel, Mirosa, Buckland (2024)

can descriptive norms be used to encourage sustainable diets at the university? findings

• no significant differences found (all p > .05)

• aligns w other findings whereby DSN not always effective

PNF

personalised normative feedback compares individual perceived norms to true norms (applied to descriptive and injunctive)

injunctive norms and sun protection- procedure

• perceptions that other women thought tanned skin was perceived as positive was overestimated

• perceptions about support to use suncream underestimated

• injunctive norm (PNF)

• standard health information

  • PNF (IN) + standard health info = intervention

• n = 189 women

• measures- baseline, intervention, 4 weeks post intervention

• intentions: i plan to stay in shade as much as possible when i am outside

• self-reported sun protection behaviours: use of sunscreen, protective clothing, and shade

Reid and Aiken (2013)

injunctive norms and sun protection- conditions

PNF, injunctive norm condition: “you thought women wld rate having tanned skin to be slightly good. on avg, women acc rated it as neither good nor bad”

injunctive norms and sun protection- results

immediately post test:

• Ps in IN condition reported greater intentions to engage in sun protective behaviour compared to control

at 4 weeks follow up:

• IN group still had stronger intentions to engage in sun protective behaviour AND self-reported more use of sun hats (p < .05) compared to control group

social norms marketing message

• simply says the norm- e.g. X does Y to achieve Z, or X views Y in Z way (d vs i)

personalised normative feedback message

• gives feedback- you thght X but Y is true

why are descriptive vs injunctive norms effective

• may be for different reasons

• dn- informational influence

• in- social norms

why are descriptive norms effective?

• informational influence

• guide on the appropriate way to act

• tend to be more effective in unfamiliar or ambiguous situations

why are injunctive norms effective?

• social approval

• enable affiliation with social group

boomerang effect

• refers to unintended negative consequences of social norm messages

• social norms messages can backfire

• engagement in the targeted desired behaviours reduces for some individuals after the social norm message intervention

(Miller and Prentice, 2016)

why does the boomerang effect happen?

1. realise that an undesirable behaviour is more common than realised e.g. most ppl use more water than they need

2. individuals who already engage in the desirable behaviour reduce it to avoid being a sucker to free riders

Miller and Prentice, 2016

socials norms + boomerang effect: Schultz et al., 2007: methods

• Ps: 290 households in california, low and high energy users

• half received descriptive norm message about neighbourhood energy use

• half receive descriptive norm message with either 🙂 or ☹ (injunctive norm) depending on if they were low or high energy userds

• dv: subsequent household energy use

socials norms + boomerang effect: Schultz et al., 2007: findings

• change in daily energy consumption

• boomerang effect w just descriptive

• no boomerang effective w injunctive too

boomerang effect + implications for interventions

• social norm message based interventions need to be designed with care to avoid boomerang effects

• message framing:

• praise those who engage in the behaviour rather than risk resentment

• avoid inadvertently promoting an undesirable behaviour

• target only those who do not engage in the desired behaviour or engage in low levels

when are the influence of group norms stronger?

if individuals identify with the referent group

group membership- Oyserman, Fryberg, & Yoder, 2007

group membership can explain reactance against group norms if the group norm made salient is from an undesirable outgroup

shared group membership implications for interventions

care needed to ensure the group norm is desirable

theoretical approaches

1. Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991)

2. Focus Theory of Normative Conduct (Cialdini et al., 1990)

• motives for conforming: informational, social approval, positive self-image

3. Theory of Normative Behaviour (Lapinski and Rimal, 2005)

• influence of descriptive norms is moderated by injunctive norms, group membership, behaviour identifcation, and outcome expectations

Farrow, Grolleau, & Ibanez, 2017

Focus Theory of Normative Conduct (Cialdini et al., 1990)

motives for conforming: informational, social approval, positive self-image

Theory of Normative Behaviour (Lapinski and Rimal, 2005)

influence of descriptive norms is moderated by:

• injunctive norms

• group membership

• behaviour identifcation

• outcome expectations

COVID-19 and behaviours re social norms

• handwashing

• not shaking hands

• mask wearing

• hoarding foods

• adhering to lockdown rules

• extensive policy changes mean that norms can shift rapidly