Everybody Thinks We Should but Nobody Does: How Combined Injunctive and Descriptive Norms Motivate Organ Donor Registration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The potential for deceased‐donor organ transplants to save lives is severely limited by the number of people registered as donors around the world. Various national and regional health organizations often emphasize low registration rates (i.e., low descriptive norms) in an effort to demonstrate need and encourage registration. However, we predict and find that combining low descriptive norms with high injunctive norms, making salient the discrepancy between what people think they should do and what they actually do, results in greater organ donor registrations than communicating either descriptive or injunctive norms separately. We demonstrate these effects across three focal studies and two follow‐up studies conducted online, in the laboratory, and in the field, and show that the findings are mediated by feelings of responsibility. We also demonstrate that making the situation feel psychologically close increases responsibility and intentions to register for low descriptive and high injunctive norms, to the level of combined norms. Our research contributes to the literature on norms and responsibility and can help policymakers and marketers design more effective communication strategies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".