《社会心理学》课程教学资源（文献资料）conformity——Bodies Obliged and Unbound - Differentiated Response Tendencies for Injunctive and Descriptive Social Norms

JACOBSON.MORTENSEN.AND CIALDINI le whether a string of letters re ented a meaningful of word prime appro hed significance in this key on t 166 60,p1 m2= nd tare vords chosen at tandom without re lacen ded norms word prime that ms.Prev s research (e.g.. 997 uracy/efficiency goa d les the ately fo owing the masking stimulu n.ared unti tion effect for both ti ccuracv efed foll ving completion of the ta Results e in co nparison to nding on the he two classes of goal words. The mean for Discussion sequent analyses (76%of resp The results of Experiment 1 support our that indi es).Trials in onwords were not included in Nomainorinteraction of particp the a began by submitting the data to a 3(word prime:descriptive norm. predicted that the descriptive norm primes would increase re and Standard Deviations for Prime-Targe Trial Categories i Experiment2 Neutral prime Target word (goals) SD SD SD y 728594 6m3;1809%68947769

Procedure. Participants received instructions to complete a lexical decision task. Their objective was to indicate, as quickly as possible, whether a string of letters represented a meaningful English word (by pressing the 5 key on their keyboard) or repre￾sented a nonword (by pressing the A key). All participants com￾pleted 72 trials, made up of 36 words (18 words related to the goal of accuracy/efficiency and 18 words related to the goal of social approval) and 36 filler nonwords. Within each of the three target word categories, individual trials were paired in equal numbers with the three types of word primes. For each trial, word primes and target words/nonwords were chosen at random without re￾placement from within each of the categories. Thus, nine distinct types of prime–target pairs were presented to each participant. All task stimuli were presented and response times recorded using DirectRT v2006 software (Jarvis, 2006a). Each trial started with a fixation point (“
”) presented on the center of the computer screen for 1,000 ms. This was immediately followed by a masking stimulus (“X”) that appeared for 70 ms, a word prime that ap￾peared for 35 ms, and a masking stimulus that again appeared for 70 ms. Previous research (e.g., Wittenbrink, Judd, & Park, 1997) has indicated that prime words are detectable but not identifiable at similar stimulus intervals. Target letter sequences were presented immediately following the masking stimulus and appeared until participants made a word/nonword decision. A 1,500-ms pause separated each decision from the beginning of the next trial. All participants were fully debriefed following completion of the task. Results Initial considerations. We excluded three participants with accuracy below 60% in identifying words/nonwords (three stan￾dard deviations below the mean) due to random responding on the task. The mean percentage of correct responses for the 84 remain￾ing participants was 95%. We excluded all incorrect lexical deci￾sions from subsequent analyses (7.6% of responses). Additionally, based on considerations for response time data discussed by Bargh and Chartrand (2000), we excluded decisions with response times less than (i.e., faster than) 300 ms and those greater than (i.e., slower than) three standard deviations above the mean (2.3% of responses). Trials involving nonwords were not included in sub￾sequent analyses. In this and all subsequent experiments, we examined the data for possible gender effects before testing our primary hypotheses. No main or interaction effects of participant gender were found in Experiment 1 or in subsequent experiments. Thus, this variable was not included in tests of our primary hypotheses. Hypothesis tests. Mean response times and standard devia￾tions for each prime-target category are presented in Table 1. We began by submitting the data to a 3 (word prime: descriptive norm, injunctive norm, neutral) 2 (goal target: accuracy/efficiency, social approval) within-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA). The main effect of word prime approached significance in this analysis, F(2, 166) 2.60, p .078, p 2 .030, and the main effect of goal target was significant, F(2, 166) 75.82, p  .001, p 2 .477. However, as predicted, these effects were qualified by a significant interaction between word prime and goal target, F(2, 166) 17.20, p  .001, p 2 .172. We then proceeded to a set of planned comparisons designed to compare response times for goal targets in the neutral prime condition against response times for those targets in the descriptive and injunctive norm conditions (i.e., the comparisons were focused on the facilitative/suppressive effects of the normative primes on response times). On the basis of theory, priming with words related to descriptive norms should facilitate response times for words related to an accuracy/efficiency goal but should not facilitate response times for words related to a social approval goal. Sup￾porting these predictions, when preceded by descriptive norm primes, participants responded more quickly (in comparison to neutral primes) to words related to the accuracy/efficiency goal, F(1, 83) 12.77, p .001, p 2 .133. In contrast, participants actually responded less quickly to words related to the social approval goal when these were preceded by descriptive norm primes, F(1, 83) 6.78, p .011, p 2 .076. For injunctive norms, we hypothesized a facilitation effect for both the accuracy/ efficiency and social approval classes of goal words. Supporting this prediction, participants responded more quickly to goal targets when these had been preceded by an injunctive in comparison to a neutral prime, F(1, 83) 8.28, p .005, p 2 .091. Figure 1 depicts the facilitative/suppressive effects of the norm primes for the two classes of goal words. Discussion The results of Experiment 1 support our contention that indi￾viduals associate descriptive information primarily with the goal of accuracy/efficiency but associate injunctive information with the dual goals of accuracy/efficiency and social approval. Following subliminal presentation of norm-related words, word/nonword re￾sponses for the goal of accuracy/efficiency were faster than control in both the descriptive and injunctive norm conditions. For the goal of social approval, responses were slower than control in the descriptive norm condition and faster than control in the injunctive norm condition. Thus, thoughts about making accurate and effi￾cient decisions appear particularly likely following the salience of a descriptive norm, whereas thoughts about both accuracy/ efficiency and social approval are likely to follow from the sa￾lience of an injunctive norm. Although we had not explicitly predicted that the descriptive norm primes would increase re￾Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations for Prime-Target Trial Categories in Experiment 2 Target word (goals) Descriptive norm prime Injunctive norm prime Neutral prime M SD M SD M SD Accuracy/efficiency 607.28 159.14 663.53 141.02 696.47 216.56 Social approval 721.97 224.84 618.35 100.76 659.94 170.12 438 JACOBSON, MORTENSEN, AND CIALDINI This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

RESPONSES TO INJUNCTIVE AND DESCRIPTIVE NORMS 439 Target Word (Goal) Metho Participants and design. Participants were 80 students (49 xneriment Experiment sessions included roups of two to eight participants o were seated at privat 32.9 .41.50 (nom type:injunctive or descriptive) Intrapersonal versus interpersonal self-awareness. This 983D Injunctive ences and asked to c al prime (negative value ngular pronc (eg. n plura e.g po pronou consistentith the idea that descriptivenorms are per Four self-re sider tems ofa potentialy competin but not partic ularly relevant,goal. d三 about the Experiment 2 g the tu-iem he po Experiment 2 had two primary objectives.First.we sought Clark. evalid.then ught tha as well activating som fest itself as n the cTmtgal-relaticdconcepts.Pa PANAS-e( 10040 additionl six-item subscale measuring the emotic of self decreased confidence or boldness)than those expe nt predicted differ conflict.For all PAN Amiresponded-point of norms Because info ion stimulates MediaLab s ing ks. ot the d ld lend that th degree of decision-mak ichen the beha ywould have the optior advocate the same behavior (in this case.volunteering to complete the form of independentt-mnsurveys that were part of an

sponse times for social approval-related concepts (we had only predicted that they would not facilitate these responses), this remains consistent with the idea that descriptive norms are per￾ceived as relevant to intrapersonal goals and not necessarily to interpersonal goals. Potentially, a dissociation between social ap￾proval concepts and descriptive norms could make these norms more effective by decreasing the likelihood that individuals con￾sider the norm in terms of a potentially competing, but not partic￾ularly relevant, goal. Experiment 2 Experiment 2 had two primary objectives. First, we sought additional evidence to support our contention that the two norms lead individuals to focus on somewhat different goals. If our hypotheses regarding the norms’ cognitive effects are valid, then one might also expect exposure to the norms to stimulate some￾what different forms of self-awareness as well as activating some￾what different goal-related concepts. Particularly, to the extent that injunctive but not descriptive norms engage a concern with social approval as well as with accuracy/efficiency, they should lead to a greater focus on interpersonal aspects of self (e.g., group member￾ships, social roles, interpersonal relationships) than descriptive norms. Thus, evidence to support this proposition would provide converging support for the theorized effects of the norms on goal-related cognition. Second, we also tested in this experiment predicted differences in the affective experiences that follow from exposure to the two types of norms. Because injunctive information stimulates thoughts about dual/dueling goals but descriptive information does not, the decision to follow or disregard the norm should lead to a greater degree of decision-making conflict when the behavior is framed as an injunctive norm than as a descriptive norm. As we have argued, this should be the case even when the two norms advocate the same behavior (in this case, volunteering to complete extra surveys) due to differences in the response tendencies asso￾ciated with these two normative frames. Method Participants and design. Participants were 80 students (49 women, 31 men) from introductory psychology classes who re￾ceived partial credit toward a class research requirement for their involvement in the experiment. Experiment sessions included groups of two to eight participants who were seated at private computer workstations and visually shielded from one another by partitions. The experiment was a single factor, two-cell, between￾subjects design (norm type: injunctive or descriptive). Measures. Intrapersonal versus interpersonal self-awareness. This construct was measured using Wegner and Giuliano’s (1980, 1983) pronoun selection task. For this widely used measure (e.g., Silvia, Phillips, Baumgaertner, & Maschauer, 2006; Stephenson & Wicklund, 1984), participants are given 20 fill-in-the-blank sen￾tences and asked to complete each by choosing one of three pronouns. These include first-person singular pronouns (e.g., I, me, my, or mine) that reflect a more intrapersonal focus and third-person singular/plural (e.g., hers, them) or first-person plural (e.g., we, our) pronouns that reflect a more interpersonal focus. An example item reads, “Someone stopped (them, me, us) to get directions to the stadium.” The interpersonally oriented pronoun selections (20 possible) were summed to provide an overall score. Conflict over the conformity decision. Four self-report indi￾ces were used to measure the level of conflict participants expe￾rienced when deciding to conform/nonconform following the nor￾mative message. For the primary measure, participants were asked directly about their experience of conflict over the decision. Par￾ticipants responded to this item, “Right now, I feel conflicted about the decision to either complete or not complete extra surveys” on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In addition, the two 10-item subscales of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) were used to create indices of general positive and negative emotionality. Although these measures offered somewhat less direct assessments of the phenomena of interest, it was thought that conflict over the conformity/nonconformity decision might mani￾fest itself as lower positivity and/or higher negativity on these general emotional indices. Three items were also included from the larger PANAS-X scale (Watson & Clark, 1994) to provide an additional six-item subscale measuring the emotion of self￾assurance (i.e., these were added to three existing self-assurance items from the PANAS). Particularly, it was thought that individ￾uals experiencing a high degree of conflict over the conformity decision would be likely to report feeling less self-assured (i.e., decreased confidence or boldness) than those experiencing less conflict. For all PANAS items, participants responded on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (disagree) to 7 (agree). Procedure. MediaLab software (Jarvis, 2006b) was used to administer all instructions, tasks, and measures. Participants first received information that the primary experimental session tended to end about 20 –25 min early and that they would have the option of either leaving the lab at that time or staying to complete extra questionnaires. It was explained that the questionnaires would take the form of independent 1- to 2-min surveys that were part of an -89.18 -32.94 62.85 -41.59 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 Descriptive Injunctive Accuracy/Efficiency Social Approval Target Word (Goal) Response Time Facilitation / Suppresion (inms) Figure 1. Facilitation/suppression of target word response times as a function of norm type in Experiment 2. Values reflect deviations (in milliseconds) from the neutral prime condition (negative values indicate response time facilitation). RESPONSES TO INJUNCTIVE AND DESCRIPTIVE NORMS 439 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly