Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39411094›Full record

ArticlePNAS nexus2024

Descriptive norms can "backfire" in hyper-polarized contexts.

David G Rand, Erez Yoeli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PNAS nexus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

David G RandSloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 100 Main Street, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8975-2783
Erez YoeliSloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 100 Main Street, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Descriptive social norms interventions, where a behavior is promoted by learning that others engage in that behavior, are a cornerstone of behavior change research and practice. Here, we examine the effect of learning about the behavior of outgroup members in a hyper-polarized context: mask-wearing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Contrary to prior findings, we find a descriptive social norm "backfire": Across three experiments, Biden supporters increased their mask-wearing intentions after being informed that most Trump supporters never wore masks. We also provide evidence consistent with a mechanism whereby this effect was driven by changes in perceptions about how negatively ingroup members view nonmask wearing. Finally, in a fourth study, Biden supporters show the traditional descriptive norms effect (rather than a backfire) from the same treatment when in a nonpolarized context: dishonesty in a coin-flipping task. These findings help to clarify why descriptive social norm interventions promote behavior change, and underscore the importance of social norms in motivating prosocial behaviors. They also suggest an update to current best practices in the design of descriptive norm interventions: in polarized contexts, it can be beneficial to publicize antisocial behavior of outgroup members.

Indexed as

descriptive normspolarizationpublic health messagingsocial norms

Identifiers

PMID39411094
PMCPMC11475620

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.