Abstract
Individuals learn about the actions or behaviors of other people through the use of descriptive social norms. Previous work has argued that the use of negative descriptive norms (or information indicating many people are not doing something) depresses participation relative to positive descriptive norms. We show that for political actions this is not always correct. Using two experiments, we examine the willingness of individuals to take public action when these requests include either a positive or a negative descriptive norm. In the first, we invite individuals to write a local city official about city policy and in the second, we ask individuals to sign a petition advocating a specific policy at a large public university. We find that individuals are more likely to act when presented with the negative descriptive norm and that this effect stems from the anger negative descriptive norms elicit.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
While others classify descriptive norms as applying to both the individual and group level (Gerber et al. 2008, 2016; Mann 2010), in this paper we focus exclusively on group-level descriptive norms or descriptions of what others in the subject’s community are doing. We believe this fits more consistently with the literature on descriptive and injunctive norms in psychology (Cialdini 2003).
Hassell and Oeltjenbruns (2016) collected a sample of 1400 emails sent out by congressional campaigns in 2012 from 100 randomly selected congressional districts to analyze campaign negativity. Analysis of a randomly selected subset of 100 of those emails shows that 19% of emails sent by congressional campaigns contained norm inducing language. Thirteen of the 19 emails contained negative descriptive norms while 11 contained positive descriptive norms.
Perhaps even more notable than the two quotes that lead this paper was a prominent fundraising email of the 2012 re-election campaign of President Barack Obama which used the subject line “I will be outspent.” This statement not only implied that donors were not giving enough to his campaign, but that many people were giving more to his political opponent, Mitt Romney. In the tests that the Obama campaign ran before sending the email, this appeal outperformed other subject line options by over a half million dollars (Green 2012). While this email could be construed more as an indication of what Obama’s opponents were doing, it is only one example of campaigns’ continued use of negative descriptive norms (the House Majority PAC and NRCC emails described above being others) that are used in political calls to action.
While not explicitly testing social normative messaging, research suggests that the social setting an individual is in can also affect partisanship (Klar 2014; Sinclair 2012) and political activism generally (Han 2008, 2016; Teske 1997). Yet these effects are more likely attributed to personal relationships rather than social norms, although the latter have not been explicitly tested.
Campaigns explicitly play on these purposive motives to arouse emotions. As one ideological donor explained, “I like to read junk mail. It really pumps you up. It’s like, our side is on the march and the other side is scum. I know this is silly, but it makes you want to contribute to the cause” (Francia et al. 2003, p. 95).
Gerber and Rogers (2009) actually note that for those who regularly vote, negative descriptive norms are marginally more effective at increasing vote intentions (but not significantly significant using a very small sample size (n < 80). This may be because descriptions of low turnout raises anger levels for individuals who have a high sense of civic duty. It could be that, for these individuals, civic duty is not a social motivation but rather a purposive motivation. If this is the case, these individuals are more likely to become incensed when they hear that others are not turning out to vote, thus increasing their likelihood of voting. The same would not be the case for those with low levels of civic duty.
As part of the pre-treatment battery of questions, respondents were asked whether they would describe themselves as an activist and were given the options of “No,” “Yes, somewhat,” and “Yes, definitely.” Because there was only a very small percentage that identified “definitely” as an activist (less than 4%), for the purposes of this analysis we have combined those who indicated “Yes, somewhat” and “Yes, definitely” into a single variable indicating that the respondent identified as an activist. We felt that individuals who even somewhat identified as being an activist were likely to have a higher propensity for taking political action than those who did not identify as an activist, while the difference between “somewhat” activists and “definitely” activists was smaller. This measure also shows a high level of consistency (Chronbach’s alpha = 0.96) that other combinations do not.
Full details about the balance of the two groups on a number of different pertinent co-variates is included in the online appendix.
There was no significant difference in the amount of time that individuals in the two groups took to complete the letter and return to the online survey. The group that received the positive social norm took 87.1 s (112.5 s excluding those who spent less than 20 s overall) on average while the group that received the negative social norm treatment took 91.7 s (108.8 s), p < 0.60.
Although organizations regularly use click-through rates to analyze the effectiveness of their messages sent to organizational members (Congressional Management Foundation 2008), because we did not have the ability to assess whether individuals actually signed the petition, we were forced to rely on an assumption that individuals did fill out the form and then returned to the survey. Respondents were asked to fill out their name, address, and to enter a short text to send to their local official. Respondents who spent more than 20 s spent a minute and a half on average before returning to the survey, with the longest spending 6 min filling out the form. Of the 384 individuals who indicated that they were willing to write a letter to their local official, 308 (80%) of them spent twenty-seconds or more. Raising the minimum amount of time necessary to be considered as having completed the form to 30 or 60 seconds or eliminating the minimum time necessary to be counted as having written the local public official (essentially counting click through rates) has no significant effect on the results. More details are available in Table A.3 in the Online Appendix.
Some concerns may arise that efforts to improve respondent attention may increase social desirability bias (Clifford and Jerit 2015) although merely presenting the manipulation check does not (Berinsky et al. 2014). Increasing social desirability bias, however, would merely increase response rates across the board rather than bias response rates for one or the other as the injunctive norms for both treatments are the same. Again, however, if we remove those individuals who failed the manipulation check the results are the same, as seen in Table A.3 in the Online Appendix.
Because our hypotheses are directional, we use one-tail tests as our baseline assumption. However we present data with two-tailed tests to emphasize more confident results. We admit that some will quibble with results that are p < 0.05 on a one tailed test, but we believe the evidence from the two experiments we present here provides a consistent reaction of the substance of the effect.
Another explanation for this positive (but not quite significant) effect is that positive descriptive social norms are most likely to have an effect on those individuals who identify with the group being described (Lapinski et al. 2007). While this might be the case that activists are more likely to act when they hear of other people doing activist type things, the scripts used do not describe activists but rather describe normal people acting or not acting in their community on behalf of an issue (see the print appendix for the full text of the positive and negative descriptive norms).
It is possible the effect of norms could be conditional on age as those who are older might be less susceptible to negative descriptive framings because they are more aware of socially undesirable behavior. While we find no interaction effect of the norm treatment and age on political behavior in the Mechanical Turk sample, we recognize that a sample from Mechanical Turk is younger than the general population and could mask the effects. While we find no effect, we think this would be important to investigate in future studies.
Education and efficacy are strongly correlated with being an activist which may explain their insignificance in the model. Removing the activist variable from the model makes efficiency significant. Efficiency and education are also significant predictors of other past behaviors in our data such as attending a rally, writing a public official, and volunteering for a campaign. Moreover, as demonstrated in model 1 of Table 3, removing these variables from the model has no significant effect on our key variables of interest.
Respondents were asked “How does this make you feel?” and then were told to “Please indicate the extent to which the above statement makes you angry” and to “Please indicate the extent to which the above statement makes you enthusiastic.” For each question respondents were asked to indicate their feelings on a five-point Likert scale ranging from “not at all” to “extremely”
These results are almost identical if we only compare individuals who saw the same type of appeal in the recycling call to action and in the littering descriptive text. Likewise, there is no difference in the relative increase of anger of self-identified activists and non-activists.
We recognize that others may be concerned about the MTurk’s sample and our ability to generalize using that particular population. Our student sample does not explicitly solve that problem. As we explained previously, however, although neither sample may not be entirely representative of the general population, which Mechanical Turk is not, its usefulness depends on the variation along key moderating characteristics (Druckman and Kam 2011). In this case, as shown in Table 1, there is significant similarity between the general population and the MTurk sample as well as substantial variation in the key variables in which we are interested.
While it would have been nice to have measures of activism or emotion in the survey, this was a field experiment with an outside organization which ultimately requires collaborative efforts. The outside organization wanted to keep the survey at no more than eight questions and was only willing to allow us to manipulate the call-to-action portion of the survey.
References
Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1995). Going negative: How campaign advertising shrinks and polarizes the electorate. New York: Free Press.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Baron, R. S., Vandello, J. A., & Brunsman, B. (1996). The forgotten variable in conformity research: Impact of task importance on social influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(5), 915–927.
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s mechanical turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–368.
Berinsky, A. J., Margolis, M. F., & Sances, M. W. (2014). Separating the shirkers from the workers? Making sure respondents pay attention on self-administered surveys. American Journal of Political Science, 58(3), 739–753.
Berinsky, A. J., Margolis, M. F., & Sances, M. W. (2016). Can we turn shirkers into workers? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66(1), 20–28.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.
Burden, B. C. (2000). Voter turnout and the national election studies. Political Analysis, 8(4), 389–398.
Butler, D. M., & Hassell, H. J. G. (2017). On the limits of officials’ ability to change citizens’ priorities: A field experiment in local politics. In: Urban political economy conference. Vanderbilt University.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Cho, T., Wendy, K., Gimpel, J. G., & Tony, W. (2006). Clarifying the role of SES in political participation: Policy threat and Arab American mobilization. Journal of Politics, 68(4), 977–991.
Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(4), 105–109.
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(6), 1015–1026.
Cialdini, R. B., et al. (2006). Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Social Influence, 1(1), 3–15.
Clifford, S., & Jerit, J. (2015). Do attempts to improve respondent attention increase social desirability bias? Public Opinion Quarterly, 79(3), 790–802.
Clifford, S., Jewell, R. M., & Waggoner, P. D. (2015). Are samples drawn from mechanical turk valid for research on political ideology? Research & Politics. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168015622072.
Congressional Management Foundation. (2008). Communicating with Congress: Recommendations for improving the democratic dialogue. Retrieved May 1, 2015 from (http://www.congressfoundation.org/storage/documents/CMF_Pubs/cwc_recommendationsreport.pdf).
Druckman, J. N., & Kam, C. D. (2011). Students as experimental participants: A defense of the ‘narrow data base’. In J. N. Druckman, D. P. Green, J. H. Kuklinski, & A. Lupia (Eds.), Handbook of experimental political science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Francia, P. L., Green, J. C., Herrnson, P. S., Powell, L. W., & Wilcox, C. (2003). The financiers of congressional elections: Investors, ideologues and intimates. New York: Columbia University Press.
Frey, B. S., & Meier, S. (2004). Social comparisons and pro-social behavior: Testing ‘conditional cooperation’ in a field experiment. American Economic Review, 94(5), 1717–1722.
Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., & Larimer, C. W. (2008). Social pressure and voter turnout: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. American Political Science Review, 102(1), 33–48.
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Fang, A. H., & Reardon, C. E. (2016). The comparative effectiveness of communicating positive versus negative descriptive norms on turnout. Yale University Working Paper.
Gerber, A. S., & Rogers, T. (2009). Descriptive social norms and motivation to vote: Everybody’s voting and so should you. Journal of Politics, 71(1), 178–191.
Glynn, C. J., Huge, M. E., & Lunney, C. A. (2009). The influence of perceived social norms on college students’ intention to vote. Political Communication, 26(1), 48–64.
Grant, J. Tobin, & Rudolph, T. J. (2002). To give or not to give: Modeling individuals’ contribution decisions. Political Behavior, 24(1), 31–54.
Green, J. (2012). The science behind those Obama Campaign e-Mails. Bloomberg Business Week, November 29.
Han, H. C. (2008). Does the content of political appeals matter in motivating participation? A Field experiment on self-disclosure in political appeals. Political Behavior, 31(1), 103–116.
Han, H. C. (2014). How organizations develop activists: Civic associations and leadership in the 21st century. New York: Oxford University Press.
Han, H. C. (2016). The organizational roots of political activism: Field experiments on creating a relational context. American Political Science Review, 110(2), 296–307.
Hassell, H. J. G., & Monson, J. Q. (2014). Campaign Targets and Messages in Campaign Fundraising. Political Behavior, 36(2), 359–376.
Hassell, H. J. G., & Oeltjenbruns, K. R. (2016). When to attack: The trajectory of congressional campaign negativity. American Politics Research, 44(2), 222–246.
Hassell, H. J. G., & Settle, J. E. (2016). The differential effects of stress on voter turnout. Political Psychology, 38, 533–550.
Hassell, H. J. G., & Visalvanich, N. (2015). Call to (In)action: The effects of racial priming on grassroots mobilization. Political Behavior, 37(4), 911–932.
Hicks, R., & Tingley, D. (2011). Causal mediation analysis. The Stata Journal, 11(4), 609–615.
Huang, J. L., Curran, P. G., Keeney, J., Poposki, E. M., & Deshon, R. P. (2012). Detecting and deterring insufficient effort responding to surveys. Journal of Business Psychology, 27(1), 99–114.
Imai, K., Keele, L., & Tingley, D. (2010). A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychological Methods, 15(4), 309–334.
Imai, K., Keele, L., Tingley, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2011). Unpacking the black box of causality: Learning about causal mechanisms from experimental and observational studies. American Political Science Review, 105(4), 765–789.
Kallgren, C. A., Reno, R. R., & Cialdini, R. B. (2000). A focus theory of normative conduct: When norms do and do not affect behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(8), 1002–1012.
King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Klar, S. (2014). Partisanship in a social setting. American Journal of Political Science, 58(3), 687–704.
Krupnikov, Y., & Levine, A. S. (2014). Cross-sample comparisons and external validity. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 1(1), 59–80.
LaPiere, R. T. (1934). Attitudes vs. actions. Social Forces, 13(2), 230–237.
Lapinski, M. K., Rimal, R. N., Devries, R., & Lee, E. L. (2007). The role of group orientation and descriptive norms on water conservation attitudes and behaviors. Health Communication, 22(2), 133–142.
Levine, A. S., & Kline, R. (2017). A new approach for evaluating climate change communication. Climatic Change, 142(1), 301–309.
Mann, C. B. (2010). Is there backlash to social pressure? A large-scale field experiment on voter mobilization. Political Behavior, 32, 387–407.
Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (2004). Threat as a motivator of political activism: A field experiment. Political Psychology, 25(4), 507–523.
Mullinix, K. J., Leeper, T. J., Druckman, J. N., & Freese, J. (2016). The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2(2), 109–138.
Murray, G. R., & Matland, R. E. (2014). Mobilization effects using mail: Social pressure, descriptive norms, and timing. Political Research Quarterly, 67(2), 304–319.
Mutz, D. C. (1995). Efects of horse-race coverage on campaign cofers: Strategic contributing in presidential primaries. Journal of Politics, 57(4), 1015–1042.
Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 867–872.
Panagopoulos, C. (2010). Affect, social pressure and prosocial motivation: Field experimental evidence of the mobilizing effects. Political Behavior, 32(4), 369–386.
Panagopoulos, C., Larimer, C. W., & Condon, M. (2014). Social pressure, descriptive norms, and voter mobilization. Political Behavior, 36(2), 451–469.
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Stern, L. N. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 411–419.
Patterson, K. D., & Singer, M. M. (2002). The National Rifle Association in the face of the Clinton challenge. In A. J. Cigler & B. A. Loomis (Eds.), Interest group politics (pp. 60–65). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
Raja, L., Raymond, J., & Wiltse, D. L. (2011). Don’t blame donors for ideological polarization of political parties: Ideological change and stability among political contributors, 1972-2008. American Politics Research, 40(3), 501–530.
Rimal, R. N., & Real, K. (2005). How behaviors are influenced by perceived norms: A test of the theory of normative social behavior. Communication Research, 32(3), 389–414.
Ryan, T. J. (2012). What makes us click? Demonstrating incentives for angry discourse with digital-age field experiments. Journal of Politics, 74(4), 1138–1152.
Schuck, A. R. T., & de Vreese, C. H. (2012). When good news is bad news: Explicating the moderated mediation dynamic behind the reversed mobilization effect. Journal of Communication, 62(1), 57–77.
Schultz, P. Wesley, Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18(5), 429–434.
Sinclair, B. (2012). The social citizen. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Teske, N. (1997). Political activists in America: The identity construction model of political participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Valentino, N. A., Brader, T., Groenendyk, E. W., Gregorowicz, K., & Hutchings, V. L. (2011). Election night’s alright for fighting: The role of emotions in political participation. Journal of Politics, 73(1), 156–170.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wilson, J. Q. (1974). Political organizations. New York: Basic Books.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for the help and assistance of Elissa Karim, Michelle Ngirbabul, and Akash Surti who were part of the Cornell College Labs of Democracy group and provided valuable feedback. We are also grateful for the research assistance of Molly Abbatista and Carmen Black. We are also thankful for the comments and suggestions of Robert Bond, Adam Levine, Lindsay Nielson, and the participants on a panel at the 2016 Midwest Political Science Association Conference. Replication data for this paper is available at https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/HMYNRV.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Appendix: Text of Positive and Negative Descriptive Norm Scripts for All Experimental Treatments
Appendix: Text of Positive and Negative Descriptive Norm Scripts for All Experimental Treatments
Online Survey Experiment Call to Action
The texts of the two calls to action in the survey experiment are below. The italicized portions are the experimentally manipulated sections of the call to action.
Positive Descriptive Social Norm Version
Our communities need to be more sustainable. Many of our natural resources are being depleted faster than they are reproduced. We need to stop that. Recycling helps. Recycling reduces our dependence on raw materials. Recycling is an essential part of maintaining and protecting the earth. It also helps protect us and it provides needed jobs in a struggling economy. By recycling, we reduce the size of landfills, which can contaminate our water supply. If we don’t work to protect the resources we have, we will suffer the consequences. Yet, millions of people across the country are working to better our environment by promoting responsible recycling programs in their local communities. There are lots of people across the country who are taking a stand to better the environment and protect our natural resources. Lots of people realize the importance of this issue and are helping by getting involved in their local community. Will YOU make a difference? We need your help to protect the resources we have and to make a difference in our community. You can make a difference by letting your local public officials know that the public cares about recycling. We need you to act! If you are willing to write a letter to the public officials in your town encouraging them to engage with local waste management companies to provide more recycling options in your community, please check yes below.
If you are willing to write a letter to the public officials in your town encouraging them to engage with local waste management companies to provide more recycling options in your community, please check yes below.
-
Yes, I want to send this message to my local public officials to encourage local waste management companies to provide more recycling options in my community.
-
I am not interested in sending a message to my local public officials.
Negative Descriptive Social Norm Version
Our communities need to be more sustainable. Many of our natural resources are being depleted faster than they are reproduced. We need to stop that. Recycling helps. Recycling reduces our dependence on raw materials. Recycling is an essential part of maintaining and protecting the earth. It also helps protect us and it provides needed jobs in a struggling economy. By recycling, we reduce the size of landfills, which can contaminate our water supply. If we don’t work to protect the resources we have, we will suffer the consequences. Yet, millions of people don’t recycle and aren’t concerned or even aware of the terrible consequences. There are lots of people across the country who just don’t care about the environment or our natural resources and the difference recycling can make. These people don’t care and aren’t helping in their local community. Will YOU make a difference? We need your help to protect the resources we have and to make a difference in our community. You can make a difference by letting your local public officials know that the public cares about recycling. We need you to act! If you are willing to write a letter to the public officials in your town encouraging them to engage with local waste management companies to provide more recycling options in your community, please check yes below.
If you are willing to write a letter to the public officials in your town encouraging them to engage with local waste management companies to provide more recycling options in your community, please check yes below.
-
Yes, I want to send this message to my local public officials to encourage local waste management companies to provide more recycling options in my community.
-
I am not interested in sending a message to my local public officials.
Online Littering Text
The two descriptive texts about littering in the online survey experiment are below. The italicized portions are the experimentally manipulated sections.
Positive Descriptive Norm Version
Litter is a big problem in our communities. Many Americans actively work to limit the amount of littering that occurs in their communities. For some, this includes spreading messages about of the harms of littering, while others join together to act to change behaviors to solve the litter problem that costs the US $11.5 billion a year to clean up.
Negative Descriptive Norm Version
Littering is a big problem in our communities. Many Americans actively ignore, and contribute to, the problem of littering in their communities. For some, this includes ignoring messages about of the harms of littering, while others fail to act to change behaviors in their community, contributing to the litter problem that costs the US $11.5 billion a year to clean up.
Field Experiment Call to Action
The text of the two versions of the field experiment invitation to sign the petition are below. The italicized portions are the experimentally manipulated sections.
Positive Descriptive Social Norm Version
Thousands of students across the country are working to enact change by bringing [policy goal] to their campuses to better our environment and sustainability. Let’s better our community together. If you are in support of getting [policy goal] on campus at [university name], please list your name.
Negative Descriptive Social Norm Version
Because students across the country haven’t cared about [policy goal] on their campuses it is hurting our environment and sustainability. Let’s better our community together. If you are in support of getting [policy goal] on campus at [university name], please list your name.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hassell, H.J.G., Wyler, E.E. Negative Descriptive Social Norms and Political Action: People Aren’t Acting, So You Should. Polit Behav 41, 231–256 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9450-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9450-z