How can we change social norms, the standards describing typical or desirable behavior? Because individuals' perceptions of norms guide their personal behavior, influencing these perceptions is one way to create social change. And yet individuals do not form perceptions of typical or desirable behavior in an unbiased manner. Individuals attend to select sources of normative information, and their resulting perceptions rarely match actual rates of behavior in their environment. Thus, changing social norms requires an understanding of how individuals perceive norms in the first place. We describe three sources of information that people use to understand norms-individual behavior, summary information about a group, and institutional signals. Social change interventions have used each source to influence perceived norms and behaviors, including recycling, intimate-partner violence, and peer harassment. We discuss conditions under which influence over perceived norms is likely to be stronger, based on the source of the normative information and individuals' relationship to the source. Finally, we point to future research and suggest when it is most appropriate to use a norm change strategy in the interest of behavior and social change.Researchers, policymakers, and practitioners do their best to measure actual rates of behaviors in a community, such as the number of people who engage in recycling, domestic violence, voting, or peer harassment. These rates are often discussed as the community's "norm"-e.g., "it is the norm to recycle here; most citizens recycle," or, "domestic violence is not normative in this community; only 2% of residents report that domestic violence is acceptable."Psychologists focus on measuring a different kind of norm-not the actual norm, but community members' subjective perceptions of the norm. There are two reasons for this focus on subjective perceptions. First, unlike statisticians and policymakers, the average person does not know the actual rates of behaviors or opinions in their community, such as recycling or approval of domestic violence.

We propose that institutions such as the U.S. Supreme Court can lead individuals to update their perceptions of social norms, in contrast to the mixed evidence on whether institutions shape individuals' personal opinions. We studied reactions to the June 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. In a controlled experimental setting, we found that a favorable ruling, when presented as likely, shifted perceived norms and personal attitudes toward increased support for gay marriage and gay people. Next, a five-wave longitudinal time-series study using a sample of 1,063 people found an increase in perceived social norms supporting gay marriage after the ruling but no change in personal attitudes. This pattern was replicated in a separate between-subjects data set. These findings provide the first experimental evidence that an institutional decision can change perceptions of social norms, which have been shown to guide behavior, even when individual opinions are unchanged.

A A A An n n nd d d dr r r re e e ew w w w R R R R. . . . M M M Mo o o or r r rr r r ra a a al l l l, , , , T T T Te e e er r r rr r r ry y y y L L L L. . . . S S S Sc c c ch h h he e e el l l ll l l l, , , , M M M Ma a a ar r r rg g g ga a a ar r r re e e et t t t T T T Ta a a an n n nk k k ka a a ar r r rd d d d in AMERICA INI INI INI INI NITIA TIA TIA TIA TIATIV TIV TIV TIV TIVE C O R P O R A T I O N A P A P A P A P PART ART ART ART R OF OF OF OF F TH TH TH THE R E R E R E R RAND AND AND AND Gun Policy E E E E Limited Print and Electronic Distribution RightsThis document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest.RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR2088z1Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. : 978-1-9774-0030-7 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. ISBN © Copyright 2018 RAND CorporationR® is a registered trademark.iii PrefaceEffective gun policies must balance the constitutional right to bear arms and public interest in gun ownership with concerns about public health and safety. However, current efforts to craft legislation related to guns are hampered by a paucity of reliable information about the effects of such policies. To help address this problem, the RAND Corporation launched the Gun Policy in America initiative. The primary goal of the project is to create resources where policymakers and the general public can access unbiased information that facilitates development of fair and effective firearm policies.This report is one of several research products stemming from the initiative. The report describes a survey of policy experts to identify where access to reliable data would be most useful in resolving policy debates. Based on the results, we also developed a tool that allows users to explore how different combinations of policies are likely to affect a range of outcomes related to gun ownership. Another major study component is a synthesis of the available scientific evidence on how gun policies affect a range of outcomes. In a parallel effort, RAND ...

BackgroundWomen’s economic empowerment has long been assumed to lead to their social empowerment, but systematic tests of this relationship have only recently begun to appear in the literature. Theory predicts that control over resources, as through a savings account, may increase women’s negotiating power and self-efficacy. In this way, “economic empowerment” may lead to “social empowerment,” and have related benefits such as helping to reduce risk of intimate partner violence (IPV). The current study tests effects of an economic empowerment intervention on women’s social empowerment, IPV victimization, and health.MethodsWe conducted an 18-month randomized controlled trial among 1800 urban poor women in Colombia between 2013 and 2015. The trial tested the impact of a savings account offer bundled with health services (vs. health services alone) on social empowerment outcomes, IPV victimization, and health.ResultsThe bundled savings treatment did not have average effects on most outcomes, although it produced a small significant increase in financial participation and decrease in symptoms of depression. Treatment effects on perceived norms, decision-making patterns, self-reported IPV victimization, and health depended on whether women’s partnerships were free of violence when they entered the trial; specifically, women in nonviolent partnerships at baseline showed more positive effects of the intervention.ConclusionsAlthough bundling economic empowerment interventions with support features has been shown to empower poor women, this trial found that a bundled treatment did not on average improve most social and health outcomes of poor women experiencing IPV.Trial registrationRegistered retrospectively, prior to realization of outcomes, 5/29/14: Evidence in Governance and Politics #20140529AA.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12905-019-0717-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Although the question of whether economic policies serve to reduce rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) has long been raised, rigorous tests of this question have only begun to take place recently. Given the mixed evidence to date, much remains unknown about the circumstances in which a positive or negative relationship holds between changes in financial well-being and IPV. We describe an empirically based theoretical model that may link economic empowerment to IPV and that highlights research questions for further testing. This model reflects two theoretical pathways through which economic policies may reduce IPV: A program may activate social and psychological empowerment as protective factors and a program may deactivate cognitive and behavioral risk factors such as stress and substance abuse. We then consider the relevance of each of a range of economic policies and review existing experimental evidence regarding the effect of such programs on IPV. We discuss unconditional and conditional cash transfers, savings programs, microfinance and income generation programs, and economic programs combined with relationship-related training. Gaps in research on this topic and emerging complexities in the literature suggest the following three key areas that would benefit from greater research and evaluation: comparison across programs based on size and design, assessment of the returns to economic empowerment of young adults, and more evaluations in high-income countries.