Social norms are an effective pathway for promoting pro-environmental behavior. Prior research has shown that injunctive normative beliefs about social approval or disapproval can activate emotional responses. However, the emotional underpinnings of descriptive norms have not been systematically studied, and there are theoretical grounds for predicting that emotions may not mediate behavioral responses induced through descriptive social norms. This research addresses this gap by examining how descriptive social norms influence emotional responses, and in turn, how emotions influence pro-environmental behaviors. Through a pre-registered experimental study, the present research investigates how exposure to descriptive norm information (support for Sustainable Energy Technologies SETs) can evoke emotions that motivate or inhibit energy-related pro-environmental actions. In a sample of California residents ( N = 600), a 2x2x2 factorial design is employed to analyze the effect of the descriptive norm on individuals’ emotional responses and engagement with SETs. Findings indicate that descriptive norms (unlike injunctive norms) do not influence general positive affect. On the other hand, descriptive normative information was found to selectively trigger surprise – a neutral valence, high-arousal emotional response – particularly among above-average SETs supporters. Additional analyses show that the emotional response of surprise mediates the relationship between the descriptive norm and task engagement, especially when normative expectations are negatively violated. No direct effect of the descriptive norm on behavior is observed. • Descriptive norms influence surprise but not broad emotional responses. • Surprise increases PEBs only among below-average SETs supporters. • Above-average supporters show stronger positive and negative emotional reactions. • The type of technology impacts emotional responses to the descriptive norm. • Descriptive norms impact behavior indirectly through surprise.
Milani et al. (Sun,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: