“You should (not) do that”: An Evaluative Model of Normative Appeals (EMNA)

Abstract

Normative appeals refer to those messages that indicate that one should (or should not) engage in a certain action in a given situation. According to the psychosocial research, the decision to fulfill a normative appeal depends on both the extent to which it has captured our attention and the evaluation of what we may gain or lose by doing so. However, according to the Evaluative Model of Normative Appeals (EMNA), between these two processes we carry out an evaluation (normative appraisal) that strongly influences the decision that is ultimately made. Specifically, this normative appraisal, which is done in accordance with the dimensions of formality and protection, transforms the appeal into a particular normative representation (i.e., custom, coercive law, prescription, or legitimate law) that, in turn, influences the willingness toward compliance or violation. The results of three studies support these basic premises of EMNA.

Towards a model of normative diagnosis in the organizational context: The evaluative model of normative appeals

“…Therefore, objectively speaking, the "federated strike" proposal is both formal and protective. However, regarding the use of the EMNA as a normative diagnostic model, we test whether the level of adherence does not depend as much on this apparent objective character as it does on how it is actually perceived by those who are compelled to comply with it (MacCoun, 1993;Oceja et al, 2016).…”

“…Secondly, the authors establish that the willingness to comply is related to both formality and protection, but to a greater extent with protection due to its relationship with the self-regulatory system (Higgins, 2012). Consequently, the EMNA considers that the four normative categories are related to the willingness to comply in an ascending continuum that goes from use, to coercive, to prescriptive, to legitimate (Oceja et al, 2016). Previous research provided evidence that support the premises of the EMNA.…”

“…Within this field, the present work considers a topic that has received little attention in the literature: normative diagnosis. Specifically, we contribute new empirical evidence to a recently proposed model: The Evaluative Model of Normative Appeals (EMNA) (Oceja, Villegas, Beramendi & Salgado, 2016).…”

“…Previous research provided evidence that support the premises of the EMNA. In the first study presented by Oceja et al (2016), the participants evaluated the level of formality and protection of 28 normative appeals. The results showed that based on this evaluation, the perception of the normative appeals can be classified into the four categories of the model: legitimate, prescription, coercive and use.…”

“…The present work complements the previous research in two aspects. First, in Oceja et al (2016), the relationship of the model categories with the different levels of adherence was determined at an inter-subject level. In this work, this relationship was analyzed at an intra-subject level, which made it possible to directly verify the relationship between the normative appraisal proposed by the EMNA (i.e., the perception of formality and protection that results in four normative categories) and the level of adherence with the appeal (organized in ascending continuum that goes from use, to coercive, to prescription, to legitimate).…”