![Sample our Behavioral Sciences journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110801/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Behavioral-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
Three field experiments are reported on the ability of printed normative messages to influence conservation behavior among hotel guests. While prior research has shown that social norms can both guide and spur behavior, there are a number of questions about the generality of the effects, the impact of aligning descriptive and injunctive norms, and the relative impact of normative information about a specific versus general referent group. In the first experiment we demonstrate the basic influence of printed normative messages designed to promote towel reuse among a sample of hotel guests, and also that aligning the injunctive and descriptive elements of a normative message increases its impact on behavior. Experiment 2 extends this finding to guests staying in timeshare condominium units. In Experiment 3 we again replicate the effect, and also show that normative information about both generic and specific reference groups can affect behavior. Results are interpreted within the focus theory of normative conduct, and directions for future research are discussed.
Funding for this study was provided by a grant from the Hewlett Foundation (2001‐7396). Our appreciation goes to Randy Chapin for his support of these studies. We would also like to acknowledge the work of Jennifer Tabanico, Joy Francisco, Jodian Tyler, Michelle Hynan, and Leilani Lumaban on these experiments, and to Robert Cialdini and Noah Goldstein for their collaboration, critiques, and suggestions throughout these studies.
Portions of this paper were presented at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Los Angeles, 2003, and at the American Psychological Society, Los Angeles, 2005. Study 1 was the Masters Thesis for Azar Khazian.
Notes
1. Treating each night as a separate data point would violate independence of observations, and averaging towels used across all nights of the stay would involve comparisons of disparate scores (ranging from single data points, to the average of 55 nights).
Note 1: For comparison, we also ran the analysis as a Hierarchical Linear Model, with towel use clustered within hotel room, and multiple observations within room. The intercept from the unconditional means ANOVA was 1.61, and the ICC was .05. Then we entered baseline towel use as a fixed factor, along with the dummy‐coded experimental condition (1 = combined norms, 0 = all other conditions) as level 2 predictors. As expected, the baseline covariate was statistically significant (γ01 = .73), t(48.85) = 6.78, p < .001, but the condition effect was not significant (γ02 = −.16), t(49.85) = −1.44; p = .15.
Note 2: As with Experiment 1, we also ran the analysis as a Hierarchical Linear Model, with towel use as continuous dependent variable, clustered within condo unit. In the unconditional means random effects ANOVA, the intercept was 1.80 and the ICC was .07. When the dichotomous experimental condition variable was added as a fixed factor at level 2, it was statistically significant (γ01 = −.57), t(142.14) = −3.25, p < .001.
Note 3: For comparison, the analyses were again run as a Hierarchical Linear Model, with towel use clustered within condo room. The unconditional means model resulted in an intercept of 2.22 and an ICC of .05. We proceeded to test directly the three planned comparisons: generic versus control, specific versus control, and generic versus specific. The first (generic versus control) was statistically significant (γ01 = −.42), t(64.65 = −2.73; p < .01. The second (specific versus control; γ01 = −.24), t(84.77) = −1.72, p = .09 approached significance, and the comparison of general versus specific was not significant (γ01 = .17), t(84.38) = 1.19, p = .24.