Search

Three studies examined the behavioral implications of a conceptual distinction between 2 types of social norms: descriptive norms, which specify what is typically done in a given setting, and injunctive norms, which specify what is typically approved in society. Using the social norm against littering, injunctive norm salience procedures were more robust in their behavioral impact across situations than were descriptive norm salience procedures. Focusing Ss on the injunctive norm suppressed littering regardless of whether the environment was clean or littered (Study 1) and regardless of whether the environment in which Ss could litter was the same as or different from that in which the norm was evoked (Studies 2 and 3). The impact of focusing Ss on the descriptive norm was much less general. Conceptual implications for a focus theory of normative conduct are discussed along with practical implications for increasing socially desirable behavior.

Recent research has demonstrated a positive relationship between private self-consciousness and the tendency to self-disclose. These studies have relied exclusively upon self-reports of disclosure. In the present study, Kenny's Social Relations Model (Kenny & La Voie, 1984) was employed to examine the relationship between a subject's self-reports and others' reports of a subject's level of self-disclosure and the relationship of these reports to private self-consciousness, as well as the other traits measured by the self-consciousness scale: public self-consciousness and social anxiety. Unacquainted college women (N = 102) participated in one-on-one interactions in a round-robin design. Subject's self-reports of disclosure and their levels of private self-consciousness correlated positively. The partners' reports of an individual's disclosure, however, were not related to the individual's level of private self-consciousness. The discrepancy between these correlations emphasizes the necessity to ground research in personal relationships on interacting pairs and not only on the self-reports of one member. Future research that would explore this difference is discussed. The examination of the self- and partner reports and subjects' level of public self-consciousness and social anxiety demonstrated that these two traits significantly influence the acquaintance process. Public self-consciousness related positively to subjects' beliefs that they had created consistent impressions upon their partners. Social anxiety correlated negatively with partners' reports of a subject's dyadic involvement and openness.

Two experiments tested the hypothesis that athletes who consult a sport psychologist to improve performance are derogated by the public compared to athletes who attempt to resolve the same issues by working with their coaches. In the first experiment a college quarterback was reported to have worked with either his coaches or a sport psychologist on improving his consistency. The primary dependent variable was how strongly subjects would recommend drafting the player in question. There was a significant main effect for the coach versus sport psychologist variable, no main effect for the type of problem, and no interaction effect. A set of 10 bipolar scales were analyzed to explore the attributions associated with the draft rating. The second experiment investigated whether the negative halo effect would occur in other sports and apply to players in peripheral as well as central positions. The results indicated that the negative halo effect occurred for a basketball guard on the draft rating but not for a center, a pitcher, or an outfielder. However, a MANOVA of the 10 scales revealed a main effect for the consultant variable. The results of the two experiments were discussed in relation to theories of deviance and stigmatization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In three experiments, respondents' behavior conformed to the dictates of a relevant norm (the norm against littering) only under conditions of normative focus. This relationship held true across three types of procedures for producing normative focus (physiological arousal, modeling, and self-directed attention), across two types of settings (public and private), and across two types of norms (social and personal). Moreover, factors that would be expected to affect normative action were influential only when the norm was focal. These factors included the degree to which the action violated the relevant norm (Study 2) and the degree to which an individual subscribed to that norm (Study 3). Implications are discussed for developing camoaigns to encourage prosocial behavior.