social influences on health + environmental behaviours

what are pro-health/environment behaviours

purposeful action that can reduce a negative impact on one’s health or the environment

why promote pro-health behaviours

changing the infrastructure/environment that people live in to instigate positive health behaviours (e.g. physical activity, good diet) can minimise the effects of public health issues e.g. COPD → increases people’s wellbeing, quality + longevity of life

why promote pro-environment behaviours

each person’s individual behavioural impact can reduce carbon emissions/wastage, e.g. through recycling, minimising energy use, in order to slow the climate crisis

what is Rashottes (2007)’s definition of social influence + how does this relate to health + environmental behaviours

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

• people may or may not be physically present to influence behaviour → general societal norms can change behaviour

people’s pro-health/environmental behaviours can be influenced by different types of social influence, including modelling + social norms

how did Larsen et al. (2009) study modelling alcohol intake

used experimental study in a naturalistic bar setting → good methodology due to isolating social influence as IV (while maintaining ecological validity)

• 135 participants were shown TV adverts, then met a confederate who ordered first at the bar + either got 2 fizzy drinks (control), 1 alcoholic + 2 fizzy drinks (light) or 3/4 alcoholic drinks (heavy)

• DV was the number of alcoholic drinks consumed by participant after

participants in the heavy condition consumed significantly more alcohol compared to participants in control + light condition

what 3 other health behaviours are affected by modelling according to research

• eating behaviours → Cruwys (2015) found in a review that in 65/69 studies, social modeling influenced food choice/intake, whether confederates were live or remote (still influenced behaviour by knowledge of what others have done)

  • used experimental (gold standard methodology for studying modelling) + observational (correlational findings) designs

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

• cigarette smoking (Harakeh et al., 2007)

what are two possible moderators of social modelling (Cruwys et al., 2015)

moderators vary the magnitude of the variable we are investigating → effect of social influences can depend on:

• high need for social acceptance/wanting to be part of a social group → more likely to copy the behaviour of others

  • low self-esteem + high empathy associated with greater modelling

• body weight → greater modelling if the social other is the same weight as the participant, compared to with someone of a different body weight

what are 3 possible explanations of social modelling

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

• informational influence → the assumption that others know more than you do in an ambiguous situation; modelling others provides a point of reference for appropriate behaviour

• automatic mimicry → mimicing the behaviour of those with whom we identify, like + desire to affiliate with without conscious, deliberative thought

  • there is debate on whether this is actually automatic

what are 2 limitations of Larsen et al.’s study

• not a repeat measures design → individual differences (e.g. how much regularly drank) between participants may be confounding variables

• findings are not generalisable → confederates are strangers, so may be more/less likely to be modelled off than someone the participant knows

how do Cialdini + Trost (1998) define social norms + how do they relate to health/environmental behaviour

unwritten rules about how to behave → social norms/people’s perception of norms may not always be accurate, so challenging misconceptions about norms is important to changing health/environmental behaviours

what is the difference between descriptive + injunctive norms

• descriptive → perceptions about what other people tend to do (e.g. most people eat their 5 a day)

• injunctive → perceptions of what other people approve of (think you ought to do/not do, e.g. my friends think it’s good to recycle)

what is the difference between prescriptive vs proscriptive norms

• prescriptive norms → focuses on what others do/approve of doing, e.g. encouraging behaviour

• proscriptive norms → prohibitive; focuses on what others do not do/approve of, e.g. discouraging behaviour

in what 2 ways can social norms be delivered

• social norms marketing → one-size-fits-all message displayed to a target group, referring to what most other people do

• personalised normative feedback (PNF) → gives individual people comparisons of what they do compared to what others do, highlighting differences in participants’ behaviour

how did Goldstein et al. (2008) investigate effect of descriptive norms on hotel towel reuse + what were the findings

placed descriptive norm message on tags used on bathroom doors of hotel guest rooms. tags were either:

• control condition → encourages towel reuse for the environment

• descriptive norm condition → sets a standard of behaviour by referring to how many other guests reuse their towels

found descriptive norm message significantly increased percentage of towel use compared to control → this finding has been replicated for other pro-health/environment behaviours

wed did Borsari + Carey (2003) find in relation to perceptions of drinking norms

found university students (tend to drink more than average) have inaccurate perceptions of drinking norms amongst their age group

• students overestimate how much peers drink/peer support for drinking, which increases problematic drinking behaviour (negative health consequences)

social psychologists therefore wish to change social norm perception to reduce problematic student drinking

how did Smith et al. (2018) investigate effects of descriptive norms on problematic drinking + using what 4 conditions

96 UK students randomly allocated to one of 4 conditions; exposed to:

• no message

• communications campaign message only, e.g. ‘think before you drink’

• descriptive norm message only, e.g. 65% of students do not down drinks on a night out’

• campaign + descriptive norms message

studied conditions’ effects on intentions to down drinks

what were the results of Smith et al. (2018)’s study

found the campaign + descriptive norm message was the only condition that found significant reductions in intentions to down drinks in the next week

what are 3 limitations of Smith et al. (2018)’s research

• measured self-reported intentions rather than actual downing behaviour → relates to intention-behaviour gap problem; findings lack generalisability

• no data on participants’ alcohol intake pre-manipulation, so difficult to assess effect of change between conditions

• other social norms literature has found mixed results (either no or counteractive results) on effects of descriptive norms

how did Patel et al. (2024) investigate effect of descriptive norms on sustainable diets

recorded proportion of meat (resource-intensive + environmentally impactful) + meatless food purchases at 3 time points at 3 university food outlets:

• pre-intervention (week)

• intervention (week) → descriptive social norm message was displayed on outlet’s story + outside the venue

• post-intervention (week)

what were Patel et al. (2024)’s findings + what are the implications of this

found no significant differences between conditions on amount of meatless purchases → aligns with other findings that descriptive norms = not always effective

• important to note that norm used was proscriptive (targeted discouraging a behaviour), so changing the wording so intervention was prescriptive may have been more effective

how did Reid + Aiken et al. (2013) use effects of injunctive norms on health behaviour

assessed sun-protective behaviours in Arizona → provided PNF comparing individual’s perceived norms (‘you estimated that valley girls rate protecting their skin to be quite important’) vs true norms (‘women actually rated sun protection as being very important’)

• collected intentions to engage in sun-protective behaviours + current self-report measures at baseline

• received either standard health info (control condition) or injunctive norm (experimental PNF condition), then measured effect on intentions to use sun-protective behaviour post-intervention

what were Reid + Aiken et al. (2013)’s findings post-test

• found overall, perceptions that other women thought tanned skin was positive were overestimated, while perceptions about support to use sun cream was underestimated

• immediately post-test → participants in injunctive norm condition reported greater intentions to engage in sun-protective behaviour

• 4 weeks follow-up → injunctive group still had stronger intentions + self-reported more use of sun hats compared to control

provides evidence of use of injunctive norms being effective at changing health behaviours

why do Cialdini et al. (1990) believe descriptive norms are effective

informational influence → guide people to the appropriate way to act, as they tend to be more effective in unfamiliar or ambiguous situations

why do Cialdini et al. (1990) believe injunctive norms are effective

social approval → enable affiliation with social group by conforming to their beliefs

what is the boomerang effect + how can social norm messages result in this

the unintended negative consequences of social norm messages → engagement in targeted desired behaviours reducing for some individuals after the social norm message intervention

• results in mixed findings in research

what 2 reasons do Miller + Prentice (2016) give as to why the boomerang effect occurs

• some realise an undesirable behaviour is more common than they realised (creates new perceived norm of undesirable behaviour), so are more tempted to engage in that behaviour

• individuals who already engage in the desirable behaviour reduce it due to realising they are exerting more effort than others → other people in society are receiving benefits for their hard work

how did Schulz et al. (2007) study effects of descriptive norms message on energy use

recruited 290 households that were either low or high energy users

• half received a descriptive norm message about neighbourhood energy use (control)

• half received a descriptive norm message with either 🙂 or ☹ (added injunctive norm) depending on if they were low or high energy users

measured subsequent energy use after the intervention

what were the findings of Schulz et al. (2007)’s study + what did this imply

• descriptive norm condition → found boomerang effect occurred, as there was an increase in the amount of energy used after intervention in the low-energy participants (due to finding out average person uses more energy than them)

• descriptive + injunctive norm condition → found no significant boomerang effect in low-energy users, as they were positively reinforced for good behaviour

shows injunctive norms in interventions = effective at reducing boomerang effect + baseline behaviour is important to record before an intervention

what are the implications for avoiding the boomerang effect in interventions (Miller + Prentice, 2016)

social norm message-based interventions need to be designed to avoid boomerang effects via message framing:

• praise those who engage in the positive behaviour already in order to avoid inadvertently promoting undesirable behaviour

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

how does shared group membership affect social norm interventions

the influence of group norms are stronger if the individuals identify with the referent group + can explain reactance against group norms if norm is made salient by an undesirable group

• care is needed to ensure the group norm is desirable/from a desirable source one identifies with

what 3 theoretical approaches contribute to social norm messaging

• the theory of planned behaviour → subjective norms = important component in what motivates people to perform an action

• focus theory of normative conduct (Cialdini et al., 1990) → discusses motivations for conforming to social norms, e.g. informational, social approval + positive self image

• theory of normative behaviour (Lapinski + Rimal, 2005) → believes influence of descriptive norms is moderated by injunctive norms, group membership, behaviour identification + outcome expectations