Social influence in the theory of planned behaviour: The role of descriptive, injunctive, and in‐group norms

Abstract

The present research investigated three approaches to the role of norms in the theory of planned behaviour (TPB). Two studies examined the proposed predictors of intentions to engage in household recycling (Studies 1 and 2) and reported recycling behaviour (Study 1). Study 1 tested the impact of descriptive and injunctive norms (personal and social) and the moderating role of self-monitoring on norm-intention relations. Study 2 examined the role of group norms and group identification and the moderating role of collective self on norm-intention relations. Both studies demonstrated support for the TPB and the inclusion of additional normative variables: attitudes; perceived behavioural control; descriptive; and personal injunctive norms (but not social injunctive norm) emerged as significant independent predictors of intentions. There was no evidence that the impact of norms on intentions varied as a function of the dispositional variables of self-monitoring (Study 1) or the collective self (Study 2). There was support, however, for the social identity approach to attitude-behaviour relations in that group norms predicted recycling intentions, particularly for individuals who identified strongly with the group. The results of these two studies highlight the critical role of social influence processes within the TPB and the attitude-behaviour context.

Socio-Spatial Factors Affecting Household Recycling in Townhouses in Pretoria, South Africa

“…Similarly, both recyclers and non-recyclers felt social pressure to recycle, although perhaps less so than what their own positive attitude may cause them to do. Previous studies also confirm that positive attitudes have a more significant effect on recycling than social norms [18,24,41].…”

Learning behaviour and learning outcomes: the roles for social influence and field of study

“…McGarty, Reynolds, & Muntele, 2006;McGarty, Bliuc, Thomas, & Bongiorno, 2009;Musgrove & McGarty, 2008;Postmes, Haslam, & Swaab, 2005;Postmes, Spears, Sakhel, & deGroot, 2001;Thomas, McGarty, & Mavor, 2009a, 2009bTurner, 1991;White, Smith, Terry, Greenslade, & McKimmie, 2009). With the inclusion of social identification and norms in our understanding of the learning process, we can then draw on this social influence literature to improve the effectiveness of the ways in which we attempt to shape student approaches to learning and educational outcomes.…”

Embodied uncertainty: living with complexity and natural hazards

“…Social identities include social norms, which are rules for behaviour that are constructed within a group or culture, as people endorse or passively impose normative behaviours on their members (Solberg, Rossetto, and Joffe 2010). Social norms influence attitudes and behaviour (Terry, Hogg, and White 1999;White et al 2009). Attributions of responsibility (who is responsible), and trust are also important mediators that underpin whether actions are taken to adjust to an identified risk (Terry, Hogg, and White 1999;Paton 2008).…”