Special issue of Psyecology: social norms and
environmental behaviour / Número especial de
Psyecology: normas sociales y comportamiento
ambiental

Christophe Demarque, Maria-Luisa Lima

► To cite this version:

Christophe Demarque, Maria-Luisa Lima. Special issue of Psyecology: social norms and environmental behaviour / Número especial de Psyecology: normas sociales y comportamiento ambiental. PsyEcol- ogy. Revista Bilingüe de Psicología Ambiental / Bilingual Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2017, 8 (3), pp.257 - 266. 10.1080/21711976.2017.1363132. hal-01659986

HAL Id: hal-01659986

https://hal.science/hal-01659986

Submitted on 25 Jun 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Deposited in *Repositório ISCTE-IUL*:
2018-01-16

Deposited version:
Post-print

Peer-review status of attached file:
Peer-reviewed

**Citation for published item:**

Demarque, C. & Lima, M.-L. (2017). Special issue of Psyecology: social norms and environmental behaviour / Número especial de Psyecology: normas sociales y comportamiento ambiental. PsyEcology. 8 (3), 257-266

Further information on publisher's website:
10.1080/21711976.2017.1363132

Publisher's copyright statement:

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Demarque, C. & Lima, M.-L. (2017). Special issue of Psyecology: social norms and environmental behaviour / Número especial de Psyecology: normas sociales y comportamiento ambiental. PsyEcology. 8 (3), 257-266, which has been published in final form at https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21711976.2017.1363132. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with the Publisher's Terms and Conditions for self-archiving.
Deposited in *Repositório ISCTE-IUL*:
2018-01-16

Deposited version:
Post-print

Peer-review status of attached file:
Peer-reviewed

Citation for published item:
Demarque, C. & Lima, M.-L. (2017). Special issue of Psyecology: social norms and environmental behaviour / Número especial de Psyecology: normas sociales y comportamiento ambiental. PsyEcology. 8 (3), 257-266

Further information on publisher's website:
10.1080/21711976.2017.1363132

Publisher's copyright statement:
This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Demarque, C. & Lima, M.-L. (2017). Special issue of Psyecology: social norms and environmental behaviour / Número especial de Psyecology: normas sociales y comportamiento ambiental. PsyEcology. 8 (3), 257-266, which has been published in final form at https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21711976.2017.1363132. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with the Publisher's Terms and Conditions for self-archiving.
**Special issue of Psyecology: Social norms and environmental behaviour**

Christophe Demarque and Maria Luisa Lima

**Abstract:** In the last years there are growing expectations from policy makers towards social sciences in order to reach sustainability goals. Research on social norms is often used to promote changes in pro-environmental behaviour. However, the underlying social psychological mechanisms that explain those changes are not well described yet. This special number puts together four papers that, from different perspectives, contribute to innovate in this field, proposing theoretically relevant mediators and contextual moderators.

**Keywords:** social norms; pro-environmental behaviour
**Special issue of Psyecology: Social norms and environmental behaviour**

Christophe Demarque and Maria Luisa Lima

**Abstract:** In the last years there are growing expectations from policy makers towards social sciences in order to reach sustainability goals. Research on social norms is often used to promote changes in pro-environmental behaviour. However, the underlying social psychological mechanisms that explain those changes are not well described yet. This special number puts together four papers that, from different perspectives, contribute to innovate in this field, proposing theoretically relevant mediators and contextual moderators.

**Keywords:** social norms; pro-environmental behaviour
Humanity deals with challenges of, probably, unequalled extent and complexity, such as climate change or the current loss of biodiversity. Consequently, environmental issues have been very present in public debates during the last three decades; from the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, and the recognition of sustainable development; the creation of Agenda 21, the Kyoto protocol, up to the Conference of Parties in Paris, in 2015. These events pointed towards a New Ecological Paradigm (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig & Jones, 2000) and gave rise to a strong social movement in pro-environmentalism (e.g., Félonneau & Becker, 2008). At the European Union level, the necessity for a transition towards a low-carbon economy is now an official objective, with a cut to greenhouse gas emissions of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. In this regard, we may observe growing expectations from policy makers towards Social Sciences and Humanities in order to help reach these goals (e.g. 7th Framework Programme, Horizon 2020). In psychology, social influence is one of the preferred fields, specially the influencing of social norms, as they are well identified as an efficient lever for behavioural changes in individuals.

Indeed, the seminal work by Cialdini and colleagues (1990), proposing the differential impact of descriptive and injunctive norms on individual behaviour, initiated a strong diffusion within the general public and policy makers. This research paradigm has been applied to many environmental behaviours such as, for example, energy saving (Nolan, Schultz, Cialdini, Griskevicius & Goldstein, 2008; Schultz, Estrada, Schmitt, Sokoloski & Silva-Send, 2015), sustainable transportation (Kormos, Gifford & Brown, 2015) and consumption (Demarque, Charalambides, Hilton & Waroquier, 2015) or recycling behaviour (Bohner & Schluter, 2014; Reese, Loew & Steffgen, 2014). A noteworthy illustration of this diffusion is the adaptation of the results of Schultz, Nolan, Cialdini, Goldstein and Griskevicius (2007) by the Opower Company. The recent emergence of the fashionable concept of “nudges” (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008) also expanded the study of social norms to related disciplines such as behavioural economics, consecrating the use of focus theory of normative conducts as one of the most promising way for changing individuals’ environmental behaviours.

## ...At the cost of complexity?

These considerations rouse some questions. On the one hand, that a psychological paradigm of social norms goes beyond disciplinary boundaries is an indication of its
Humanity deals with challenges of, probably, unequalled extent and complexity, such as climate change or the current loss of biodiversity. Consequently, environmental issues have been very present in public debates during the last three decades; from the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, and the recognition of sustainable development; the creation of Agenda 21, the Kyoto protocol, up to the Conference of Parties in Paris, in 2015. These events pointed towards a New Ecological Paradigm (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig & Jones, 2000) and gave rise to a strong social movement in pro-environmentalism (e.g., Félonneau & Becker, 2008). At the European Union level, the necessity for a transition towards a low-carbon economy is now an official objective, with a cut to greenhouse gas emissions of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. In this regard, we may observe growing expectations from policy makers towards Social Sciences and Humanities in order to help reach these goals (e.g. 7th Framework Programme, Horizon 2020). In psychology, social influence is one of the preferred fields, specially the influencing of social norms, as they are well identified as an efficient lever for behavioural changes in individuals.

Indeed, the seminal work by Cialdini and colleagues (1990), proposing the differential impact of descriptive and injunctive norms on individual behaviour, initiated a strong diffusion within the general public and policy makers. This research paradigm has been applied to many environmental behaviours such as, for example, energy saving (Nolan, Schultz, Cialdini, Griskevicius & Goldstein, 2008; Schultz, Estrada, Schmitt, Sokoloski & Silva-Send, 2015), sustainable transportation (Kormos, Gifford & Brown, 2015) and consumption (Demarque, Charalambides, Hilton & Waroquier, 2015) or recycling behaviour (Bohner & Schluter, 2014; Reese, Loew & Steffgen, 2014). A noteworthy illustration of this diffusion is the adaptation of the results of Schultz, Nolan, Cialdini, Goldstein and Griskevicius (2007) by the Opower Company. The recent emergence of the fashionable concept of “nudges” (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008) also expanded the study of social norms to related disciplines such as behavioural economics, consecrating the use of focus theory of normative conducts as one of the most promising way for changing individuals’ environmental behaviours.

## ...At the cost of complexity?

These considerations rouse some questions. On the one hand, that a psychological paradigm of social norms goes beyond disciplinary boundaries is an indication of its
relevance. On the other hand, the idea of the effects of social norms, mainly in terms of
limited rationality and cognitive miser (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974; Fiske & Taylor, 1984) –
which are dominant among upholders of nudges approaches and, consequently, among policy
makers –, presents a risk of reductive vision of social complexity in environmental
behaviours. This could fuel the idea of norm-based generic solutions that would not be
context-dependent. Yet, without reconsidering the potential efficiency of social norms, some
field studies showed that normative messages should not be considered as “magic bullets”.
For instance, Allcott’s study (2011) on a 300 thousand household sample, using descriptive
and injunctive norms feedback, showed a 2% average reduction of energy consumption. The
different categories of injunctive norms used to reduce unwelcome boomerang effects played
an insignificant role. Moreover, the aims of behavioural change are generally insufficiently
discussed, and could make more or less sense, depending on the priorities and stakes of the
populations in question (e.g., energy conservation amongst people in situations of fuel
poverty). In a nutshell, “What the cognitive miser perspective overlooks is the fact that
humans are social beings who derive meaning and direction from groups whose norms they
embrace and enact, and who derive significant value – not only socially, but also intellectually
– from identity-affirming behaviour” (Mols, Haslam, Jetten & Steffens, 2015, p.89).

In other words, it is important to develop more societal approaches (Himmelweit &
Gaskell, 1990) alongside the study of social norms in social and environmental psychology in
order to come to a better understanding of environmental behaviours in their full complexity.
This is the purpose of a second line of research, linking social norms to social representations
of environmental issues, and thusly to the groups' dynamic constructions of meaning (Castro,
2015). This perspective takes into consideration both the position of individuals in a complex
inter-group context and the conflicting and simultaneously social norms that are available
within society at any given moment (cf. Batel & Devine-Wright, 2015; Bonaiuto, Carrus,
Martorella & Bonnes, 2002). These two main lines of research are represented in this special
issue on *Social norms and environmental behaviour* relationships. Both have been developed
independently, but could be complementary for a better understanding of sustainable practices
and more effective promotion.

Social norms and environmental behaviour: Four contributions
relevance. On the other hand, the idea of the effects of social norms, mainly in terms of
limited rationality and cognitive miser (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974; Fiske & Taylor, 1984) –
which are dominant among upholders of nudges approaches and, consequently, among policy
makers –, presents a risk of reductive vision of social complexity in environmental
behaviours. This could fuel the idea of norm-based generic solutions that would not be
context-dependent. Yet, without reconsidering the potential efficiency of social norms, some
field studies showed that normative messages should not be considered as “magic bullets”.
For instance, Allcott’s study (2011) on a 300 thousand household sample, using descriptive
and injunctive norms feedback, showed a 2% average reduction of energy consumption. The
different categories of injunctive norms used to reduce unwelcome boomerang effects played
an insignificant role. Moreover, the aims of behavioural change are generally insufficiently
discussed, and could make more or less sense, depending on the priorities and stakes of the
populations in question (e.g., energy conservation amongst people in situations of fuel
poverty). In a nutshell, “What the cognitive miser perspective overlooks is the fact that
humans are social beings who derive meaning and direction from groups whose norms they
embrace and enact, and who derive significant value – not only socially, but also intellectually
– from identity-affirming behaviour” (Mols, Haslam, Jetten & Steffens, 2015, p.89).

In other words, it is important to develop more societal approaches (Himmelweit &
Gaskell, 1990) alongside the study of social norms in social and environmental psychology in
order to come to a better understanding of environmental behaviours in their full complexity.
This is the purpose of a second line of research, linking social norms to social representations
of environmental issues, and thusly to the groups’ dynamic constructions of meaning (Castro,
2015). This perspective takes into consideration both the position of individuals in a complex
inter-group context and the conflicting and simultaneously social norms that are available
within society at any given moment (cf. Batel & Devine-Wright, 2015; Bonaiuto, Carrus,
Martorella & Bonnes, 2002). These two main lines of research are represented in this special
issue on *Social norms and environmental behaviour* relationships. Both have been developed
independently, but could be complementary for a better understanding of sustainable practices
and more effective promotion.

Social norms and environmental behaviour: Four contributions
As such, this special issue aims to draw together work on each of these lines, to further
theoretical and methodological knowledge on this topic. Despite the focus theory of
normative conducts already evoked showing its potential efficiency for behavioural change;
the underlying mechanisms are not always well understood. Some contributions presented
here are interesting from this point of view. In the first paper, **Moussaoui and Desrichard**
evidence the mediating role of outcome expectancy in the link between descriptive norms and
behaviours. This mediation only appeared in the case of collective goals, suggesting that,
beyond the classical informational or normative explanations (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955), the
effect of descriptive norms occurs when people may consider that their actions will have an
impact. These results notably have implications for the framing of normative messages.

As for those, **Corrégé, Clavel, Christophe** and **Ammi** focus on the use of injunctive norms for incentivizing energy-efficient building renovation. This is an important topic, as increasing existing buildings' energy efficiency could allow the significant decrease of both energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Even if the external validity could be improved in future research, the paper suggests that a prominent injunctive norm could have an effect on a costly and complex behaviour. Moreover, it opens promising interdisciplinary perspectives of collaboration with software designers.

In line with the importance of external validity, **Rubens et al.** present a study with occupants of energy-efficient houses. The aim was to test the efficiency of normative descriptive feedbacks in this kind of building. This study highlights the importance of mixing quantitative and qualitative approaches in field studies for a better understanding of the way people receive and deal with feedback, according to past experience and level of knowledge. One of the conclusions is that normative feedback must be clear, practical, personalised and contextualised, showing the limitations of generic signals. Finally, the paper underlines the need to clearly identify the correct significant others within the situation, when intending to activate a relevant comparison (on this question, cf. also Hamann, Reese, Seewald & Loeschinger, 2015). Is there a clear representation of who the “neighbourhood” is? Is there a sufficient feeling of belonging to this group?

In the fourth paper, **Mouro and Castro** examined how law-community norms conflicts amongst residents of Portuguese Natura 2000 sites related to different stages of engagement in conservation action. Referring to the Trans-Theoretical Model (Proshaska & Di Clemente, 1983), the aim was to clarify how two types of conflicts – between law and community descriptive/injunctive norms, and the latter two – were associated to transitions from awareness to engagement in defence of the lynx, an at-risk local species. The authors
As such, this special issue aims to draw together work on each of these lines, to further
theoretical and methodological knowledge on this topic. Despite the focus theory of
normative conducts already evoked showing its potential efficiency for behavioural change;
the underlying mechanisms are not always well understood. Some contributions presented
here are interesting from this point of view. In the first paper, Moussaoui and Desrichard
evidence the mediating role of outcome expectancy in the link between descriptive norms and
behaviours. This mediation only appeared in the case of collective goals, suggesting that,
beyond the classical informational or normative explanations (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955), the
effect of descriptive norms occurs when people may consider that their actions will have an
impact. These results notably have implications for the framing of normative messages.

As for those, Corrégé, Clavel, Christophe and Ammi focus on the use of injunctive norms for incentivizing energy-efficient building renovation. This is an important topic, as increasing existing buildings' energy efficiency could allow the significant decrease of both energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Even if the external validity could be improved in future research, the paper suggests that a prominent injunctive norm could have an effect on a costly and complex behaviour. Moreover, it opens promising interdisciplinary perspectives of collaboration with software designers.

In line with the importance of external validity, Rubens et al. present a study with occupants of energy-efficient houses. The aim was to test the efficiency of normative descriptive feedbacks in this kind of building. This study highlights the importance of mixing quantitative and qualitative approaches in field studies for a better understanding of the way people receive and deal with feedback, according to past experience and level of knowledge. One of the conclusions is that normative feedback must be clear, practical, personalised and contextualised, showing the limitations of generic signals. Finally, the paper underlines the need to clearly identify the correct significant others within the situation, when intending to activate a relevant comparison (on this question, cf. also Hamann, Reese, Seewald & Loeschinger, 2015). Is there a clear representation of who the “neighbourhood” is? Is there a sufficient feeling of belonging to this group?

In the fourth paper, Mouro and Castro examined how law-community norms conflicts
amongst residents of Portuguese Natura 2000 sites related to different stages of engagement in
conservation action. Referring to the Trans-Theoretical Model (Proshaska & Di Clemente,
1983), the aim was to clarify how two types of conflicts – between law and community
descriptive/injunctive norms, and the latter two – were associated to transitions from
awareness to engagement in defence of the lynx, an at-risk local species. The authors
highlight the interest in distinguishing between pre-action and post-action stages, for
examining the evolution of conflicts before and after the action takes place. Results showed
stronger normative conflicts at pre-action (versus post-action) stages. Furthermore, conflict
between descriptive and injunctive community norms is lower and more invariant across
stages than conflict between community norms and the law. For the authors, it suggests a
higher relevance of this later conflict for engagement/disengagement in action. This stage
perspective could notably be useful for policy makers when implementing new conservation
laws.

Overall, we hope the papers presented in this special issue make a significant contribution, both for researchers, social practitioners, and policy makers, at a very particular moment. Indeed, the economic crisis rekindled the supposed opposition between economical and environmental issues. Additionally, the recent election of Donald Trump in the United States, despite controversial declarations, could be the starting point of a new cycle, less favourable to pro-environmentalism. This should lead not to consider pro-environmentalism automatically as a dominant norm in all social fields, and has consequences for our research practices. Many studies using the focus theory start from a pre-supposed pro-environmental injunctive norm, whereas a more systematic analysis of their genesis would be useful to understand some contradictory results. From this perspective, qualitative approaches appear relevant, for instance, for a better understanding of feedback reception. In the future, crossing focus theory and societal approaches would be particularly useful both to understand and stimulate social change and innovation.
highlight the interest in distinguishing between pre-action and post-action stages, for
examining the evolution of conflicts before and after the action takes place. Results showed
stronger normative conflicts at pre-action (versus post-action) stages. Furthermore, conflict
between descriptive and injunctive community norms is lower and more invariant across
stages than conflict between community norms and the law. For the authors, it suggests a
higher relevance of this later conflict for engagement/disengagement in action. This stage
perspective could notably be useful for policy makers when implementing new conservation
laws.

Overall, we hope the papers presented in this special issue make a significant contribution, both for researchers, social practitioners, and policy makers, at a very particular moment. Indeed, the economic crisis rekindled the supposed opposition between economical and environmental issues. Additionally, the recent election of Donald Trump in the United States, despite controversial declarations, could be the starting point of a new cycle, less favourable to pro-environmentalism. This should lead not to consider pro-environmentalism automatically as a dominant norm in all social fields, and has consequences for our research practices. Many studies using the focus theory start from a pre-supposed pro-environmental injunctive norm, whereas a more systematic analysis of their genesis would be useful to understand some contradictory results. From this perspective, qualitative approaches appear relevant, for instance, for a better understanding of feedback reception. In the future, crossing focus theory and societal approaches would be particularly useful both to understand and stimulate social change and innovation.