Priming normative influence through observability

Deutch and Gerard’s (1955) theory of informational and normative social

influence is an attempt to distinguish two process underlying social conformity and their distinctive antecedent conditions. Normative influence is defined as social influence that is based on an individual’s need for social approval and acceptance (Miniard & Cohen, 1981; Ryan, 1982). Turner defines normative influence as “socially motivated by a desire for acceptance and approval and to avoid rejection and hostility” (Turner, 1991, p. 37). In contrast, Baumister (1982, p. 9) contends that public conformity as a result of normative influence is “born out of concern with maintaining a desirable public image for oneself rather than out of specific fear or threat of punishment”. In the context of the performance of health behaviors for the benefit of one’s child, the second interpretation appears to be more applicable – parents are more likely to be motivated to conform to the

24 normative influence of other parents (under conditions of surveillance) out of a desire to maintain a positive public image rather than out of fear of overt rejection or hostility.

Deutch and Gerard (1955) consider normative influence as “the type of social influence most specifically associated with groups” (p. 635), and hypothesize that it is increased by group belongingness and social interdependence, surveillance of one’s response by others and social pressure, and reduced by public and private commitment to some other prior course of action producing countervailing expectations in others and oneself (Turner, 1991, p. 35). The causal process of normative influence is as follows (p. 38):

1. The power of others to reward or punish (e.g. to accept into or reject from the group) creates a need for their social approval and a fear of being different. 2. Therefore, under conditions of surveillance by others such that one can be

personally identified and held responsible for any nonconformity,

3. One will tend to comply with the expectations or submit to other group pressures, producing conformity to the group norm.

Informational influence, on the other hand, occurs when people internalize and privately accept information from others because the information provides a basis for correct perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs (Asch, 1952; Deutsch & Gerard, 1955; Kelley, 1952). Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) Theory of Reasoned Action implies a social influence process whereby people bring their behavior into line with the behavioral expectations of important others. Terry, Hogg, & Duck (1999) argue that the underlying

25 social influence process can be categorized as normative influence - as it is public

compliance arising from a need for social approval and acceptance.

Observability of behavior and the effect of injunctive norms on behavioral intention

There is a great deal of support showing that both behavior type as well as

individual dispositions can have important effects on the relative weights of attitudes and injunctive norms (see Trafimow & Finlay, 1996). A wide range of other studies have shown that the relative ability of attitudes versus injunctive norms to predict behavioral intention varies widely across behaviors (e.g. Finlay, Trafimow, & Jones, 1997; Finlay, Trafimow, & Moroi, 1999). The current study focuses on the effects of manipulation of the context of the health behaviors in question, specifically the degree to which the behavior is enacted in a private or public setting.

The extent to which a behavior is enacted in a public or private setting has been shown to moderate normative influences (Bagozzi et al., 2000; Cialdini et al, 1990). For behaviors performed in public, pressures to conform, that is, engage in behaviors

perceived to be acceptable in others’ eyes, are likely to be substantial. This is because a privately performed behavior is not observable for others’ scrutiny and people are less likely to engage in the interrogation of others (Berger & Calabrese, 1975) about largely private behaviors. For publicly performed behaviors in which referent others can observe others’ behaviors, either directly or indirectly, social sanctions can be exercised for violating injunctive norms (Lapinski & Rimal, 2005).

26 The idea that conformity to the group will be greater under public than private conditions, when the group members can observe and identify any deviation, is central to the process of normative influence (Turner, 1991, p. 44). Deutch and Gerard (1955) tested the effect of observability of behavior on conformity to group influence, and found that, in line with the concept of normative influence, subjects showed less conformity to the group in the anonymous (private) then in the face-to-face (public) setting. Allen (1965) has argued that more conformity in public than in private need not always indicate a mere public compliance effect: “in the more public situation the group may be regarded as more convincing, so that actual private change as well as public compliance could be greater in the public than in the private conditions” (p. 146).

The studies described here test whether the extent to which the same health behavior is enacted in an observable or non-observable setting leads to variation in normative influence on intention among parents. It is expected, based on research reviewed here, that parents will report greater intention to perform health behaviors for their child in a setting in which they are told they are in the company of referent others (i.e. other parents), which should increase the extent to which injunctive norms influence intention.

While research has compared the public or private context of different behaviors in relation to the influence of injunctive and descriptive norms on behavior (see

Lapkinski & Rimal, 2005 for a review), to date no study has manipulated this context factor to test its effect on the influence of injunctive norms on intention to perform health

27 behaviors. It is hypothesized, based on research reviewed above, that the effect of

priming observability of the behavioral setting will lead to greater intention to perform health behaviors when the message type is normative (i.e. describes normative pressure), compared with when the message type is attitudinal (i.e. describes health outcomes).

H2: Parents of young children exposed to a normative (vs. attitudinal) message should report greater intention to perform health behaviors when the behavior is observable (i.e. has a normative context) than when it is not observable (i.e. non- normative context).