The Influence of Social Norms on Consumer Behavior: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social norms shape consumer behavior. However, it is not clear under what circumstances social norms are more versus less effective in doing so. This gap is addressed through an interdisciplinary meta-analysis examining the impact of social norms on consumer behavior across a wide array of contexts involving the purchase, consumption, use, and disposal of products and services, including socially approved (e.g., fruit consumption, donations) and disapproved (e.g., smoking, gambling) behaviors. Drawing from reactance theory and based on a cross-disciplinary data set of 250 effect sizes from research spanning 1978–2019 representing 112,478 respondents from 22 countries, the authors examine the effects of five categories of moderators of the effectiveness of social norms on consumer behavior: (1) target behavior characteristics, (2) communication factors, (3) consumer costs, (4) environmental factors, and (5) methodological characteristics. The findings suggest that while the effect of social norms on approved behavior is stable across time and cultures, their effect on disapproved behavior has grown over time and is stronger in survival and traditional cultures. Communications identifying specific organizations or close group members enhance compliance with social norms, as does the presence of monetary costs. The authors leverage their findings to offer managerial implications and a future research agenda for the field.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".