People often judge how embarrassing an activity or condition is on the basis of its perceived prevalence. They infer prevalence in part by considering how often they hear other people discussing it. But how often a condition is discussed is a function not only of its prevalence but also of how embarrassing it is. If people fail to take this into account, they will tend to judge embarrassing conditions as being rarer, which will accentuate their embarrassment, and, in turn, further amplify their reluctance to disclose those conditions - a “spiral“ of shame and silence. We present results from two studies that support the existence of such a feedback process. The first, a cross-sectional survey study, asked respondents a series of questions about different embarrassing and non-embarrassing conditions. Respondents (1) indicated whether they had the conditions, (2) judged how embarrassing the conditions were, (3) reported whether they had disclosed, or would disclose, having the conditions to others, and (4) estimated what fraction of survey respondents had the conditions. As predicted, reports of disclosure were negatively related to judgments of embarrassment, and when embarrassment was greater, estimates of prevalence were lower, both for conditions that respondents had and for conditions they did not have. The second, an experimental study, manipulated whether people received a high or low estimate of population prevalence for 5 different conditions, and found that receiving a high prevalence estimate reduced embarrassment and increased self-reported willingness to disclose the condition to others, and vice versa.

To meet UK Net-Zero emissions targets, meat consumption must decrease. We present results from two studies evaluating interventions to reduce purchasing of meat-containing meals across university cafeterias in Oxford, UK. Study 1 tested whether two dynamic descriptive norm messages changed meal purchasing. Over eight weeks, four cafeterias displayed a norm message incorporating a socially ‘close’ referent group and three cafeterias displayed a message incorporating a socially ‘distant’ referent group. Two cafeterias were assigned a no-message control condition. A generalised linear mixed effect model suggested both messages decreased odds of cafeteria diners purchasing vegetarian meals, in comparison to control, 'Close' Message: Ratio of Odds Ratios (ORs)=0.79, 95% 95% CI [0.72, 0.86]; 'Remote' Message: Ratio of ORs=0.84, 95% CI [0.76,0.92]. Study 2 involved three pre-post experiments testing whether different interventions changed meal purchasing: re-positioning vegetarian products, increasing vegetarian availability, and introducing vegetarian defaults. Generalised linear models suggested each intervention was associated with significant increases in odds of diners purchasing vegetarian meals, Positioning: OR=1.33, 95% CI [1.24,1.44]; Availability: OR=1.60, 95% CI [1.45, 1.75]; Defaults: OR=1.77, 95% CI [1.61, 1.95]. These study results could be due to norm messaging being less effective at promoting vegetarian meals than interventions in availability, defaults, and positioning. But, given the study designs, they could instead be due to self-selection effects, or regression to the mean.

The current paper explains how modern technology interacts with human psychology to create a funhouse mirror version of social norms.

Mercier and Sperber prefer the term “myside bias.” Humans, they point out, aren’t randomly credulous. Presented with someone else’s argument, we’re quite adept at spotting the weaknesses. Almost invariably, the positions we’re blind about are our own.

Key opinion leaders - focused on medical

this study presents a measurement instrument for evaluating susceptibility to seven social influence principles, namely social learning, social comparison, social norms, social facilitation, social cooperation, social competition, and social recognition. Each principle is represented by a construct containing six theory-driven items, both positively and negatively framed. Further, the study introduces a social influence research model that describes how the seven social influence constructs are correlated and impact each other.

This article reviews 10 techniques used to identify opinion leaders to promote behavior change. Opinion leaders can act as gatekeepers for interventions, help change social norms, and accelerate behavior change. Few studies document the manner in which opinion leaders are identified, recruited, and trained to promote health. The authors categorize close to 200 studies that have studied or used opinion leaders to promote behavior change into 10 different methods. They present the advantages and disadvantages of the 10 opinion leader identification methods and provide sample instruments for each. Factors that might influence programs to select one or another method are then discussed, and the article closes with a discussion of combining and comparing methods.

Iceland went from 42% of its 15 and 16 year olds having been drunk in the past month in 1998 to only 5% in 2018. This change is a great case study in offering alternative behaviors and shifting social norms on a national scale.

So Limaye and Johns Hopkins have created a free two-hour course on the online platform Coursera that's open to anyone. It's called COVID Vaccine Ambassador Training: How to Talk to Parents. Their goal is to prepare everyone, from principals to PTA presidents, to counter misinformation with empathy and, ultimately, to move more people to seek out the lifesaving vaccine.

“This research shows that the reward system has an important function in helping behavior and if we want to increase the likelihood of pro-social behavior, we must reinforce a sense of belonging more than a sense of empathy.

case study of anti-smoking program for kids that backfired

Book Chapter from “Norms in the Wild“

behavioral contagion

A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL AND BEHAVIOUR CHANGE PROGRAMMING Corrected URL: https://www.unicef.org/mena/reports/behavioural-drivers-model

a measurement instrument for evaluating susceptibility to seven social influence principles, namely social learning, social comparison, social norms, social facilitation, social cooperation, social competition, and social recognition

IRH, with support from the USAID-funded Passages project and members from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation-funded Learning Collaborative to Advance Normative Change, developed the Social Norms Exploration Tool (SNET), a participatory guide and set of tools to translate theory into practical guidance to inform a social norms exploration. Download the Social Norms Exploration Tool Step-by-step guidance, exercises, and templates in the toolkit can help program implementers: Understand social norms theory and concepts Prepare staff to identify and investigate social norms Engage community members using participatory learning exercises to 1) identify Reference Groups, and 2) explore social norms influencing behaviors of interest Analyze information with project team and communities Use findings to inform the design of norms-shifting activities and develop norms-focused evaluation tools

Addressing the Social Proof Question The online fundraising team often receives questions and comments about the use of negative social proof in our fundraising messages. Social proof is the phenomenon that people are prone to copy the actions of others; for example, if an individual is exposed to a group of people doing or buying something, they are more likely to do so themselves. One of the most recognizable phrases in our fundraising banners takes the opposite approach, stating: “... fewer than 1% of readers give.” and/or “... 99% of readers don’t give.” The online fundraising team has tested, dozens of times, removing this fact from our materials. Our donation rate drops when we try. This past year we engaged with some experts in the field and asked them to explore further why we consistently see this finding. Is there something about a non-profit or a donation context that alters the rules of social proof? We plan on continuing to conduct tests this coming year in hopes of finding conclusions around the fundraising and non-profit context of social proof.

interactive videos give viewer a chance to take action

positive deviance in action

Aspirational Communication, an approach that seeks to motivate and mobilize people to support a cause by connecting it to the audience’s aspirations for their own lives. I specifically suggest a six-step framework based on the approach that can help social movements to drive durable attitude change.