“Be Careful What You Say”: The role of psychological reactance on the impact of pro-environmental normative appeals

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

“Be Careful What You Say”: The role of psychological reactance on the impact of pro-environmental normative appeals ⁎

Christos Kavvourisa, , Polymeros Chrysochoua,b, John Thøgersena a b

Department of Management, Aarhus University, Denmark Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science, School of Marketing, University of South Australia, Australia

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Normative appeals Psychological reactance Self-construal Pro-environmental behaviors

In this paper, we investigate the impact of psychological reactance produced by normative appeals on the intention to behave sustainably. Across four studies, we demonstrate that freedom threat is an antecedent of psychological reactance to a pro-environmental normative appeal. We further show that the impact of proenvironmental normative appeals on behavioral intentions is serially mediated through freedom threat and counterarguing. Descriptive (injunctive) normative appeals produce lower (higher) psychological reactance, which subsequently leads to higher (lower) behavioral intentions. Finally, we provide evidence that the above relationships depend on self-construal, with descriptive normative appeals provoking lower psychological reactance than injunctive normative appeals only when the interdependent self is activated. We discuss implications for theory and practice.

1. Introduction Campaigns promoting pro-social behavior by employing descriptive norms (i.e., providing information on what is the common behavior) can be effective. In the US, for example, campaigns based on descriptive normative appeals managed to reduce energy consumption among 600,000 households by two percent (Allcott, 2011), drinking and driving by 14 percent (see Linkerbach & Perkins, 2005) and heavy alcohol consumption by more than 20 percent (Glider, Midyett, MillsNovoa, Johannessen, & Collins, 2001). However, sometimes descriptive normative appeals yield the opposite results, causing a boomerang effect (Schultz, Nolan, Cialdini, Goldstein, & Griskevicius, 2007). More specifically, several studies employing descriptive normative appeals have identified groups of individuals who either engage in the opposite behavior or are not affected by the appeal (Allcott, 2011; Schultz et al., 2007; Yakobovitch & Grinstein, 2016). Injunctive normative appeals (i.e., providing information on which behavior is desirable or undesirable) may prove more efficient (Cialdini, 2003). They are more appropriate in cases where deliberation is unlikely (Melnyk, van Herpen, Fischer, & van Trijp, 2011), their influence is more robust overtime (Reno, Cialdini, & Kallgren, 1993), and they mitigate boomerang effects when used in tandem with descriptive normative appeals (Allcott, 2011; Schultz et al., 2007). However, individuals may dislike being told what to do and may be skeptical

towards campaigns in general. In fact, research in the field of advertising has shown that even if assertive slogans in ads are common practice, individuals rate assertive ads lower and react to them more negatively in comparison to non-assertive ads (Kronrod, Grinstein, & Wathieu, 2012; Zemack-Rugar, Moore, & Fitzsimons, 2017). Thus, there may be a discrepancy between what a campaign aims to communicate and how individuals perceive the message and react to it. When a campaign strongly suggests a desired action, individuals may react negatively. Social norms campaigns are no different. However, injunctive normative appeals (i.e., what others think is appropriate to do) and descriptive normative appeals (i.e., what others typically do) differ in how explicitly they call for action (Jacobson, Mortensen, & Cialdini, 2011). Psychological reactance theory posits that any attempt to persuade individuals to change their current attitude or behavior may be perceived as a threat to their individual agency and thus as a threat to their freedom to choose (Brehm, 1966). Consequently, knowledge on how individuals react to pro-environmental messages in certain situations is crucial to make social norms campaigns more efficient. When targeting audiences with normative appeals, campaign designers must pay attention to and tailor the appeal to the audiences’ specific characteristics (Cialdini et al., 2006; Melnyk et al., 2011; White & Simpson, 2013). For example, past findings suggest that the effectiveness of injunctive and descriptive normative appeals (see Cialdini,

⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Management, Aarhus BSS, School of Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University, Fuglesangs Allé 4, 8210 Aarhus V, Denmark. E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Kavvouris).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.018 Received 31 October 2018; Received in revised form 10 October 2019; Accepted 11 October 2019 0148-2963/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Christos Kavvouris, Polymeros Chrysochou and John Thøgersen, Journal of Business Research, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.018

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

C. Kavvouris, et al.

and a positive descriptive norm can result in the adoption of pro-environmental behavior (Elgaaied-Gambier et al., 2018). The literature, however, also identifies the possibility of a boomerang effect (see Clee & Wicklund, 1980) when using descriptive norms in an environmental context (Allcott, 2011; Schultz et al., 2007; Yakobovitch & Grinstein, 2016). Individuals assess the appropriateness of their behavior by comparing it to the standard provided by the descriptive norm, from which they do not want to deviate (Schultz et al., 2007). Schultz et al. (2007) suggest that this holds true for individuals irrespective of whether they are above or below the norm. The boomerang effect is evident for those who are already engaging in the intended pro-environmental behavior more than the norm suggests, and thus they feel licensed to do it less, or for those who are already avoiding a negative – towards the environment – behavior more than the norm suggests, who then feel licensed to do the behavior more (Schultz et al., 2007). In such cases, appeals employing injunctive norms may be more efficient (Cialdini, 2003). Although social norms are influential in encouraging pro-social behavior (Goldstein, Cialdini, & Griskevicius, 2008; Thøgersen, 2008), research suggests that injunctive and descriptive normative appeals make individuals think about different sets of goals and motivate them via different routes (Cialdini et al., 1990; Jacobson et al., 2011). More specifically, injunctive normative appeals relate to both interpersonal (i.e., gaining social approval) and intrapersonal goals (i.e., behaving accurately and efficiently), whereas descriptive normative appeals relate only to the latter. Furthermore, injunctive normative appeals contain an explicit request to behave accordingly, and thus they urge individuals to seek motivation from outside the behavior itself (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). Hence, injunctive normative appeals may cause conflict in situations where interpersonal and intrapersonal goals are both relevant but point in different directions. This is not the case for descriptive normative appeals since they only relate to intrapersonal goals (Jacobson et al., 2011).

Reno, & Kallgren, 1990) depends, among other things, on self-construal (i.e., the level at which the self is construed; Singelis, 1994). Extant research identifies two divergent levels of self-construal: the independent (i.e., individuals who focus only on themselves) and the interdependent (i.e., individuals who focus only on themselves and their social peers) (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Singelis, 1994). Therefore, individuals can be expected to react differently to a message about the environment when the independent or the interdependent self is activated. In this paper, we investigate the underlying reaction mechanisms responsible for differences in individuals’ compliance to descriptive and injunctive normative appeals encouraging pro-environmental behavior. We make use of social norms transmitted through appeals addressing the individuals’ social network as a whole (i.e., operating at societal level) (see Lapinski & Rimal, 2005). Across four studies, we explore the impact of psychological reactance produced by the two types of normative appeals on intentions to behave sustainably. We demonstrate that freedom threat is an antecedent of psychological reactance to a pro-environmental normative appeal. Furthermore, we show that the impact of pro-environmental normative appeals on behavioral intentions is serially mediated through freedom threat and counterarguing. We find that descriptive normative appeals provoke lower freedom threat and consequently lower counterarguing, subsequently leading to higher behavioral intentions than injunctive normative appeals. Finally, we examine the moderating role of self-construal on this relationship. The current work contributes to the field of research on several fronts. First, we show that freedom threat (an important antecedent of psychological reactance) mediates the effect of pro-environmental normative appeals on counterarguing (the main cognitive component of psychological reactance in the environmental realm) and thus contributes to a body of research addressing whether and how psychological reactance can be measured (Dillard & Shen, 2005). Second, we contribute to the extant literature exploring the effectiveness of injunctive and descriptive normative appeals in encouraging pro-environmental behavior. We show that descriptive normative appeals consistently provoke lower psychological reactance than injunctive normative appeals, contributing to research on the effectiveness of descriptive norms (Elgaaied-Gambier, Monnot, & Reniou, 2018) and on the boomerang effects of appeals employing social norms (Schultz et al., 2007; Yakobovitch & Grinstein, 2016). Third, we contribute to the literature that explores the role of self-construal on the effectiveness of normative appeals on pro-environmental behavior (White & Simpson, 2013). Overall, this work contributes to research on psychological factors encouraging sustainable behaviors (see White, Habib, & Hardisty, 2019).

2.2. Psychological reactance Psychological reactance theory (Brehm, 1966) posits that any attempt aimed at changing or controlling someone’s current attitude or behavior may be perceived as a threat to their individual agency and thus as a threat to their freedom. The individual reacts to keep or reattain the threatened freedom and may respond in a variety of ways, including ignoring the intervention, feeling more attracted to constrained behavior, or derogating the source (Brehm, 1966; Burgoon, Alvaro, Grandpre, & Voulodakis, 2002; Silvia, 2006). The construct has recently attracted attention in the fields of advertising (e.g., Edwards, Li, & Lee, 2002; Zemack-Rugar et al., 2017) and sustainable behavior (e.g., Kronrod et al., 2012). Dillard and Shen (2005), in their work on the nature of psychological reactance in health communications, operationalized psychological reactance as an amalgam of affect (e.g., anger) and cognition (e.g., counterarguing); in other words, as an “intermingling of negative cognition and anger”. More specifically, by comparing four different mediation models, they find that a composite measure of affect and cognition (i.e., the intertwined process of the cognitive-affective model) captures psychological reactance to health communications most effectively. In contrast, with health communications, pro-environmental communications refer to a topic that is less central to an individual’s life. We therefore believe that, compared to health communications, pro-environmental communications are less likely to provoke strong affect, such as anger. Thus, we propose counterarguing as the main component of psychological reactance to a pro-environmental normative appeal and freedom threat as an antecedent of psychological reactance. Agreeing with Brehm (1966), we assess both freedom threat and counterarguing as distinct constructs in our empirical studies. Since it is likely that normative appeals are perceived by individuals as attempts to control or change their attitude or behavior, we contend that the

2. Theoretical background 2.1. Social norms Normative information about the actions of others (strangers or acquaintances) can influence behavior (Lapinski & Rimal, 2005). In the environmental field, social norms are found to be indirect determinants of pro-environmental behaviors (Bamberg & Möser, 2007; Peattie, 2010). Social psychology research focusing on social norms and their persuasive power identifies two main normative appeals: (a) injunctive, where the focus lies on what others approve or disapprove of (i.e., what we ‘ought’ to do); and (b) descriptive, where the emphasis is on what the majority of our peers do (i.e., what others typically do) (Cialdini et al., 1990). Injunctive norms entail social sanctions; individuals are driven by the perceived pressure to conform because of their desire to avoid social sanctions for not complying with the norm (Lapinski & Rimal, 2005). Descriptive norms drive individuals to comply with the norm by expecting that if the majority of people engage in a certain behavior, it should be the best or the right thing to do (Fekadu & Kraft, 2002). Descriptive norms should be framed positively (see Cialdini, 2003), 2

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

C. Kavvouris, et al.

Fig. 1. Conceptual framework.

Past research on pro-environmental behavior has identified selfconstrual as a moderator for the effectiveness of social norms on intentions and behavior; however, this has been shown to work only under specific circumstances regarding unfamiliar and ambiguous sustainable behaviors (White & Simpson, 2013). As proposed in our second hypothesis, descriptive normative appeals should, in general, provoke lower psychological reactance than injunctive normative appeals. We expect that this effect will be more profound for individuals activated with an interdependent self-construal than for individuals primed with an independent self-construal since the descriptive normative appeal will be aligned with their communal motivation in the former case. We therefore propose the following:

effect of pro-environmental normative appeals on behavioral intentions is mediated through perceived freedom threat and counterarguing. Therefore, we propose the following: H1. Freedom threat and counterarguing serially mediate the effect of pro-environmental normative appeals on behavioral intentions. Considering that injunctive normative appeals contain a request for what one should do, it is likely that individuals perceive an injunctive normative appeal message as an attempt to limit their freedom and exhibit higher psychological reactance than when presented with a, by nature, less coercive descriptive normative appeal. Hence, it is likely that individuals perceive the overt influence of injunctive normative appeals as more coercive than that of descriptive normative appeals (Jacobson et al., 2011). The literature suggests that the greater the coercive pressure to comply, and thereby the higher the freedom threat, the greater the psychological reactance (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Furthermore, injunctive normative appeals may generate both favorable and unfavorable thoughts about the behavior in question, while descriptive normative appeals have been found to only generate favorable thoughts (Melnyk et al., 2011). Thus, descriptive normative appeals should provoke a lower freedom threat than injunctive normative appeals. Therefore, we propose the following:

H3. The mediated effect of pro-environmental normative appeals on behavioral intentions through freedom threat and counterarguing is moderated by self-construal. When the interdependent self-construal is activated, individuals will exhibit lower psychological reactance when presented with descriptive normative appeals than when presented with injunctive normative appeals.

2.4. Conceptual model and overview of studies The above hypotheses can be summarized in the conceptual model that we outline in Fig. 1 and empirically tested by the means of four studies. In Study 1, we provide evidence that pro-environmental normative appeals provoke psychological reactance. We further test H2, suggesting that descriptive normative appeals provoke lower freedom threat and that freedom threat mediates the effect of pro-environmental normative appeals on counterarguing. In Studies 2A and 2B, we test H1, suggesting that the impact of pro-environmental normative appeals on behavioral intentions is serially mediated by freedom threat and counterarguing, across two different types of behavior and cultural settings. Finally, in Study 3, we test H3, suggesting a moderating effect of situationally induced self-construal.

H2. Individuals will perceive lower freedom threat when presented with pro-environmental descriptive normative appeals than when presented with pro-environmental injunctive normative appeals.

2.3. The moderating role of self-construal Research on self-definition suggests that individuals construe the self at two different levels, namely the independent self and the interdependent self (Singelis, 1994). In practice, individuals use both and may switch from one to the other depending on the context (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). The independent self is characterized as separate from the social context, with a sense of uniqueness and promoting one’s own goals, while the interdependent self focuses on relationships with others, on a need to belong and having a sense that the self and others are intertwined (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Singelis, 1994). How an individual views the self might predict pro-environmental behaviors (White et al., 2019). The activation of an independent or interdependent level of the self (Singelis, 1994), when situationally primed, may have an impact on the effectiveness of a normative appeal (White & Simpson, 2013). Getting to know what most other people do or think may have a weaker effect on behavioral intentions for people with a stronger independent self – i.e., more individualistically oriented people (Lapinski, Rimal, Devries, & Lee, 2007). Lapinski et al. (2007) attribute this to individualistically oriented people identifying with a minority instead of the majority and thus expressing behavioral intentions consistent with this minority.

3. Study 1: Psychological reactance to pro-environmental normative appeals In Study 1, we test whether individuals perceive less freedom threat when presented to pro-environmental descriptive normative appeals. Furthermore, we investigate whether freedom threat mediates the effect of pro-environmental normative appeals on counterarguing. 3.1. Participants, methods, and design Four hundred and five US-based participants (46.7% females; Mage = 31.4, SDage = 10.3) were recruited from Prolific Academic and asked to report their perceived freedom threat and counterarguing following a message communicating a social norm about recycling 3

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

C. Kavvouris, et al.

electronics. In this and subsequent studies, all participants provided their consent to participate and were compensated for their time. We employed a between-subjects design by randomly assigning participants to either a descriptive normative appeal condition or an injunctive normative appeal condition. The message containing the descriptive normative appeal, entitled “Most US citizens recycle their electronics,” read: “A recent nationwide survey among US citizens showed that a large majority of participants recycle their electronics (computers, mobile phones, TVs, etc.)”. The message containing the injunctive normative appeal, entitled “Most US citizens think that everyone should recycle their electronics,” read: “A recent nationwide survey among US citizens showed that a large majority of participants think that everyone should recycle their electronics (computers, mobile phones, TVs, etc.)”. After reading the message, participants were asked to report their answers to the following constructs: (a) perceived freedom threat, with a four-item 9-point Likert scale (e.g., “The message threatened my freedom to choose”; 1 = Strongly disagree; 9 = Strongly agree) (α = 0.83, M = 2.52, SD = 1.62; adapted from Dillard & Shen, 2005), and (b) counterarguing, with a four-item 9-point Likert scale (e.g., “While reading this message, you were thinking of points that went against the author’s arguments”; 1 = Strongly disagree; 9 = Strongly agree) (α = 0.87; M = 2.26, SD = 1.63; adapted from Silvia (2006)). Next, participants responded to an attention check, asking them to confirm whether the message was about what most US citizens (a) want everyone to do or (b) are doing. Finally, participants were asked to report their age and gender.

Fig. 2. Descriptive normative appeals provoking lower freedom threat compared to injunctive normative appeals. Note: Error bars denote standard deviations.

counterarguing through perceived freedom threat (ab = −0.22, SE = 0.11; 95% LLCI = −0.431, 95% ULCI = −0.009). To ensure that freedom threat precedes counterarguing but not vice versa, we also ran a mediation analysis (10,000 bootstrap samples) with counterarguing as a mediator and freedom threat as the dependent variable, which revealed no significant indirect effect (ab = 0.04, SE = 0.11; 95% LLCI = −0.161, 95% ULCI = 0.253). 3.3. Discussion In this study, we find that descriptive normative appeals provoke lower freedom threat than injunctive normative appeals, providing support for H2. We further confirm that freedom threat and counterarguing are two distinct constructs, with freedom threat mediating the effect of pro-environmental normative appeals on counterarguing. This study is a first step to support H1 that freedom threat and counterarguing serially mediate the effect of norm appeals on behavioral intentions.

3.2. Results In this and all subsequent studies, prior to the analysis, we performed the following steps: (a) we removed participants who failed the normative appeals attention check (N = 55); (b) we identified speedy participants by using a timer that was set in the background on the page where participants read the message and answered the related questions and removed those who took less than 10 s (N = 2); and (c) we inspected for outliers by regressing a random normally distributed variable to the measured constructs of our model and calculating the Mahalanobis distance (N = 2). This data cleaning resulted in the retention of 346 participants for subsequent analysis. The first step in our analysis was to estimate the discriminant validity of freedom threat and counterarguing. Following the extant literature (Devellis, Bickman, & Rog, 2003), we performed a confirmatory factor analysis in SmartPLS 3 (Ringle, Wende, & Becker, 2015). We assessed discriminant validity using the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations (Henseler, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2014). The value of HTMT between the two constructs was 0.73, which is below the critical value of 0.90 (Henseler et al., 2014). We therefore conclude that the two constructs are empirically distinct. An independent samples t-test with perceived freedom threat as the dependent variable and normative appeals as the independent variable revealed a significant difference in the main effect of normative appeals, t(3 4 4) = 2.01, p = .045, with the descriptive normative appeal (M = 2.36, SD = 1.60) provoking a significantly lower freedom threat than the injunctive normative appeal (M = 2.71, SD = 1.63) (Fig. 2). An independent samples t-test with counterarguing as the dependent variable did not reveal significant results, t(3 4 4) = -0.42, p = .677. A linear regression analysis with counterarguing as the dependent variable revealed a significant relation with perceived freedom threat, β = 0.61, p < .001, with an R2 of 0.37. To test whether perceived freedom threat mediates the effect of normative appeals on counterarguing, we conducted a mediation analysis (PROCESS v.3.3 Model 4; Hayes, 2018). We used bootstrapping to generate a 95% confidence interval around the indirect effect of freedom threat, where mediation occurs if the confidence interval excludes zero (Hayes, 2018). The analysis (10,000 bootstrap samples) revealed a significant indirect effect of normative appeals on

4. Studies 2A and 2B: Behavioral intentions following psychological reactance provoking pro-environmental normative appeals In Studies 2A and 2B, we test H1 and examine whether the effect of pro-environmental normative appeals on behavioral intentions is serially mediated by freedom threat and counterarguing. Study 2A provides empirical evidence regarding intentions to recycle electronics among UK citizens and Study 2B regarding intentions to recycle single-use batteries among US citizens. With Study 2A, we extend our findings to a different cultural setting and with Study 2B to a different behavior. 4.1. Study 2A: Recycling electronics in the UK This study measures freedom threat, counterarguing and behavioral intentions following pro-environmental normative appeals encouraging consumers to recycle electronics among citizens of the UK. 4.1.1. Participants, methods, and design Two hundred ninety-nine UK-based participants (65.2% females; Mage = 34.6, SDage = 10.9) were recruited from Prolific Academic. Similar to the previous study, participants were randomly assigned to either a descriptive normative appeal condition or an injunctive normative appeal condition in a between-subjects design. The message in the descriptive normative appeal condition, entitled “Most UK citizens recycle electronics,” read: “A recent nationwide survey among UK citizens showed that a large majority of participants recycle their electronics (computers, mobile phones, TVs, etc.)”. The message in the injunctive normative appeal condition, entitled “Most UK citizens think that everyone should recycle electronics,” read: “A recent nationwide survey among UK 4

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

C. Kavvouris, et al.

Freedom threat had a significant positive relation with counterarguing (d = 0.56, SE = 0.05), which, in turn, had a significant negative relation with behavioral intentions (b = −0.50, SE = 0.09). We further examined the indirect effects testing the mediating role of freedom threat (ab = −0.10, SE = 0.08; 95% LLCI = −0.280, 95% ULCI = 0.030) and counterarguing (ab = 0.12, SE = 0.08; 95% LLCI = −0.036, 95% ULCI = 0.293) on behavioral intentions. In both cases, the confidence interval crossed zero, providing evidence that the impact of normative appeals on behavioral intentions is serially mediated through freedom threat and counterarguing.

citizens showed that a large majority of participants think that everyone should recycle their electronics (computers, mobile phones, TVs, etc.)”. After being presented with the message, participants were asked to report their intentions to recycle their electronics in the future with a single 9-point item scale (“How likely are you to recycle electronics in the future?”; 1 = Not at all; 9 = Very much; M = 7.13, SD = 1.90). Next, they were asked to report their (a) perceived freedom threat with a four-item 9-point Likert scale (e.g., “The message threatened my freedom to choose”; 1 = Strongly disagree; 9 = Strongly agree) (α = 0.88, M = 3.13, SD = 1.92; adapted from Dillard & Shen, 2005), and (b) counterarguing (i.e., psychological reactance to the message) with a four-item 9-point Likert scale (e.g., “While reading this message you were thinking of points that went against the author’s arguments”; 1 = Strongly disagree; 9 = Strongly agree) (α = 0.88, M = 2.56, SD = 1.68; adapted from Silvia (2006)). Next, participants were introduced to a similar attention check as in Study 1. Finally, participants were asked to report their age and gender.

4.2. Study 2B: recycling single-use batteries in the US The objective of this study is to replicate the results of Study 2A with a different target behavior, namely recycling single-use batteries, and on a different setting, namely the US. 4.2.1. Participants, methods, and design Three hundred twenty-three US-based participants (51.1% females; Mage = 39.1, SDage = 12.5) were recruited from Mturk. Similar to the previous studies, participants were randomly assigned to either a descriptive normative appeal condition or an injunctive normative appeal condition in a between-subjects design. The message in the descriptive normative appeal condition, entitled “Most US citizens recycle their single-use batteries,” read: “A recent nationwide survey among US citizens showed that a larger majority of participants recycle their single-use batteries”. The message in the injunctive normative appeal condition, entitled “Most US citizens think that everyone should recycle their single-use batteries,” read: “A recent nationwide survey among US citizens showed that a large majority of participants think that everyone should recycle their single-use batteries”. After being presented with the message, participants were asked to report their intentions to recycle their single-use batteries in the future with a single 9-point item scale (“How likely are you to recycle your single-use batteries in the future?”; 1 = Not at all; 9 = Very much; M = 5.94, SD = 2.50). Then, they were asked to report their (a) perceived freedom threat with a four-item 9-point Likert scale (e.g., “The message threatened my freedom to choose”; 1 = Strongly disagree; 9 = Strongly agree) (α = 0.89, M = 2.99, SD = 2.04; adapted from Dillard & Shen, 2005), and (b) counterarguing (i.e., psychological reactance to the message) with a four-item 9-point Likert scale (e.g., “While reading this message, you were thinking of points that went against the author’s arguments”; 1 = Strongly disagree; 9 = Strongly agree) (α = 0.87, M = 2.60, SD = 1.77; adapted from Silvia (2006)). Next, participants were introduced to a similar attention check as in previous studies. Finally, participants were asked to report their age and gender.

4.1.2. Results Following the same steps as reported in Study 1 for data cleaning, 233 participants were retained for subsequent analysis. An independent samples t-test with behavioral intentions as the dependent variable and normative appeals as the independent variable revealed no difference in the main effect of normative appeals, t(2 3 1) = −0.28, p = .778. An independent samples t-test with perceived freedom threat as the dependent variable revealed a significant effect of normative appeals, t (2 3 1) = 3.66, p < .001, with the descriptive normative appeal (M = 2.65, SD = 1.61) provoking lower freedom threat than the injunctive normative appeal (M = 3.55, SD = 2.07). An independent samples t-test with counterarguing as the dependent variable revealed a significant effect of normative appeals, t(2 3 1) = 3.41, p < .001, with the descriptive normative appeal (M = 2.16, SD = 1.28) provoking lower counterarguing than the injunctive normative appeal (M = 2.90, SD = 1.91). A linear regression analysis with counterarguing as the dependent variable and freedom threat as the independent variable revealed a significant relation, β = 0.57, p < .001 with an R2 of 0.43. A linear regression analysis with behavioral intentions as the dependent variable and counterarguing as an independent variable revealed a significant relation, β = −0.40, p < .001 with an R2 of 0.13. We then conducted a mediation analysis (PROCESS v.3.3 Model 6; Hayes, 2018). The analysis (10,000 bootstrap samples) revealed a significant indirect effect (adb = 0.25, SE = 0.09; 95% LLCI = 0.098, 95% ULCI = 0.442), providing evidence for the hypothesized serial mediation. As indicated by the path coefficients (Fig. 3), normative appeals (i.e., a descriptive appeal vs. an injunctive appeal) had a significant negative effect on perceived freedom threat (a = −0.90, SE = 0.25).

Fig. 3. The mediation model for studies 2A and 2B (using PROCESS v3.3, model 6, bootstraps = 10,000). Note: Path coefficients are unstandardized; CI = Confidence Interval; adb = indirect effect; c = total effect; ns p > .05, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. 5

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

C. Kavvouris, et al.

5.1. Participants, methods, and design

4.2.2. Results Following the same steps as reported in previous studies for data cleaning, 280 participants were retained for subsequent analysis. An independent samples t-test with behavioral intentions as the dependent variable and normative appeals as the independent variable revealed no difference in the main effect of normative appeals, t(278) = 0.20, p = .845. An independent samples t-test with perceived freedom threat as the dependent variable revealed a significant difference in the effect of normative appeals, t(278) = 2.73, p = .007, with the descriptive normative appeal (M = 2.66, SD = 1.90) provoking a lower freedom threat than the injunctive normative appeal (M = 3.31, SD = 2.13). An independent samples t-test with counterarguing as the dependent variable did not reveal any significant difference in the main effect of normative appeals, t(278) = 1.19, p = .236. A linear regression analysis with counterarguing as the dependent variable and freedom threat as the independent variable revealed a significant relation, β = 0.63, p < .001 with an R2 of 0.53. A linear regression analysis with behavioral intentions as the dependent variable and counterarguing as an independent variable revealed a significant relation, β = −0.45, p < .001 with an R2 of 0.10. We then conducted a mediation analysis (PROCESS v3.3 model 6; Hayes, 2018). As shown in Fig. 3, the results were similar to study 2A. The analysis (10,000 bootstrap samples) revealed a significant indirect effect (adb = 0.17, SE = 0.09; 95% LLCI = 0.030, 95% ULCI = 0.366), providing evidence for the hypothesized serial mediation. As indicated by the path coefficients, normative appeals (i.e., a descriptive appeal vs. an injunctive appeal) had a significant negative effect on perceived freedom threat (a = −0.66, SE = 0.24). Freedom threat had a significant positive effect on counterarguing (d = 0.64, SE = 0.04), which, in turn, had a significant negative effect on behavioral intentions (b = −0.40, SE = 0.12). We further examined the indirect effects testing the mediating role of freedom threat (ab = 0.04, SE = 0.09; 95% LLCI = −0.117, 95% ULCI = 0.234) and counterarguing (ab = −0.07, SE = 0.07; 95% LLCI = −0.218, 95% ULCI = 0.047) on behavioral intentions. In both cases, the confidence interval crossed zero, providing evidence that the impact of normative appeals on behavioral intentions is serially mediated through freedom threat and counterarguing.

One thousand one hundred ninety-eight Danish participants (43.4% females; Mage = 46.8, SDage = 16.7) were drawn from an online pool of a professional marketing agency. The experiment, which was part of a larger survey measuring consumers’ healthy eating behaviors and preferences, asked participants to report their perceived behavioral intentions, freedom threat and counterarguing following a message communicating a social norm about expired medicine. Prior to the task, participants had to report on a 10-point scale (1 = Never, 10 = Always) how often they performed a number of pro-environmental behaviors (e.g., recycling paper, recycling glass, etc.). One of the statements asked how often they dispose of unused or expired medicine in the trash (M = 3.59, SD = 3.19), which is our measure of past behavior. Participants were randomly assigned to a condition in a 2 (selfconstrual: independent vs. interdependent) × 2 (normative appeals: injunctive vs. descriptive) between-subjects design. Self-construal was primed on a separate task, during which respondents were instructed to read a short paragraph about a “trip to the city”, and report the total number of pronouns that appeared in the text (adapted from Brewer & Gardner, 1996). The text in both paragraphs was identical, except that the pronouns used in the independent self-condition were “I”, “my”, and “myself”, whereas in the interdependent self-condition, the pronouns were “we”, “our”, and “ourselves”. To ensure that the prime of the self-construal was successful, participants were asked if they were focused on themselves (i.e., independent self-primed) or on themselves and their social peers (i.e., interdependent self-primed) and rated each of the four statements on a 9-point scale (1 = Not at all, 9 = A lot) (Aaker & Lee, 2001). We then averaged the first two items (α = 0.89, M = 3.88, SD = 2.42) to form an independent self-measure and the last two items (α = 0.92, M = 4.11, SD = 2.51) to form an interdependent self-measure. Participants were next presented with the normative appeals manipulation. The first part of the message was informative and identical in both conditions: “Medicine – Hazardous Waste: Toxic for the environment. Medical waste is sorted at pharmacies and sent for correct destruction at Kommunekemi in Nyborg”. The descriptive normative appeal condition read: “Most Danish citizens agree on returning their expired medicine to the pharmacy. A recent nationwide survey among Danish citizens showed that a large majority of participants agree on returning their expired medicine to the pharmacy.” The injunctive normative appeal condition read: “Most Danish citizens think everybody should return their expired medicine to the pharmacy. A recent nationwide survey among Danish citizens showed that a large majority of participants think that everybody should return their expired medicine to the pharmacy”. After reading the text, participants reported (a) intentions towards the target behavior on a single 9-point item scale (1 = Not at all; 9 = Very much; M = 7.64, SD = 2.10;), (b) perceived freedom threat on a four-item 9-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 9 = Strongly agree; α = 0.89, M = 3.22, SD = 2.16; adapted from Dillard & Shen, 2005), and (c) counterarguing to the message on a four-item 9-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 9 = Strongly agree; α = 0.91, M = 2.59, SD = 1.91; adapted from Silvia (2006)). The attention check of normative appeals took place at the end of the experiment.

4.3. Discussion The findings of Studies 2A and 2B provide further evidence that descriptive normative appeals provoke lower freedom threat than injunctive normative appeals. In addition, we validate that freedom threat and counterarguing are two distinct and serially related constructs. Finally, we provide support for H1 and demonstrate that the impact of pro-environmental normative appeals on behavioral intentions is serially mediated by freedom threat and counterarguing. Overall, the results of Studies 2A and 2B provide support for H1 and H2 in two different cultural settings and with two different target behaviors. 5. Study 3: The moderating role of self-construal Although our earlier studies provide support for our hypothesized relationships, they have two drawbacks. First, the samples were drawn from crowdsourcing platforms compromising the external validity of the findings. Second, we did not control for participants’ past behavior. We consider this important since for individuals who already perform the behavior, the normative appeals manipulation should not have any effect (assuming that their past behavior predicts their future behavior). In Study 3, we aim to address these weaknesses. In addition, we test the impact of situationally induced self-construal as a potential moderator. Thus, we examine whether the impact of normative appeals differs when individuals are primed with an independent versus an interdependent self-construal.

5.2. Results Following the same steps as reported in previous studies for data cleaning, 727 participants were retained for subsequent analysis. Compared to previous studies, a relatively larger number of participants failed the attention check, especially those in the descriptive normative appeal condition. We speculate that this was mainly due to the length of the survey (the study was part of a bigger survey and participants might have been fatigued), as well as differences in language. Nevertheless, with this limitation in mind, we proceeded with the analysis. In addition, prior to our analysis, we tested the efficacy of the self-construal 6

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

C. Kavvouris, et al.

normative appeals on behavioral intentions through freedom threat and counterarguing was nonsignificant (adb = 0.03, SE = 0.03, 95% LLCI = −0.018, 95% ULCI = 0.093). In addition, the additional two indexes of moderated mediation related to the two alternative simple mediation paths (either from freedom threat or counterarguing) were not significant since the confidence intervals crossed zero (Freedom threat as mediator: adb = 0.05, SE = 0.04, 95% LLCI = −0.017, 95% ULCI = 0.143; Counterarguing as mediator: adb = −0.04, SE = 0.04, 95% LLCI = −0.141, 95% ULCI = 0.035).

prime by running a repeated measures ANCOVA with the interdependent and independent self-measures being treated as repeated measures, the self-construal prime condition and the normative appeals as between-subjects variables and the past behavior on medicine disposal as a covariate. As expected, we found a significant interaction effect between the self-construal prime condition and the self-measures (F(1, 722) = 9.43, p < .001). Respondents in the interdependent prime condition focused more on themselves and their social peers (Mind = 3.16, Minter = 4.10; p < .001). However, respondents in the independent prime condition did not focus more on themselves (Mind = 4.15, Minter = 4.15; p = .957). All other effects were found to be insignificant. Hence, it appears that the prime was successful in activating an interdependent self-construal, while it did not successfully activate the independent one. Our analysis followed similar steps as in previous studies, with the only difference being that we included the past behavior on medicine disposal as a covariate in our analysis. An ANCOVA with behavioral intentions as the dependent variable revealed a main effect of normative appeals, F(1, 722) = 4.05, p = .045, a nonsignificant main effect of self-construal, F(1, 722) = 0.21, p = .649, and a nonsignificant interaction effect between normative appeals and self-construal, F(1, 722) = 0.05, p = .826. There was also a significant main effect of past behavior of medicine disposal, F(1, 722) = 160.16, p = < 0.001. An ANCOVA with perceived freedom threat as the dependent variable revealed a main effect of normative appeals, F(1, 722) = 14.88, p < .001, with freedom threat being significantly higher for individuals presented with the injunctive normative appeal (M = 3.41, SD = 2.19) than when presented with the descriptive normative appeal (M = 2.78, SD = 2.03). There was no main effect of self-construal, F(1, 722) = 0.42, p = .516, but a significant interaction effect between normative appeals and self-construal, F(1, 722) = 4.49, p = .035. A comparison of the means using Bonferroni correction showed that when participants were primed with the interdependent self, freedom threat was higher in the injunctive normative appeal condition (Minj = 3.68, SDinj = 2.22) than in the descriptive normative appeal condition (Mdes = 2.67, SDdes = 1.96; p < 0.001). In contrast, when participants were primed with the independent self, no significant differences were observed between the means of the two normative appeals (Minj = 3.18, SDinj = 2.14; Mdes = 2.89, SDdes = 2.10; p = .236). A linear regression analysis with freedom threat and past behavior on medicine disposal as the independent variables and counterarguing as the dependent variable revealed a significant effect of freedom threat (β = 0.56, p < .001) and past behavior (β = 0.07, p < .001) with an adjusted R2 of 0.44. Furthermore, a linear regression analysis with counterarguing and past behavior on medicine disposal as the independent variables and behavioral intentions as the dependent variable revealed a significant effect of counterarguing (β = −0.25, p < .001) and past behavior (β = −0.24, p < .001) with an adjusted R2 of 0.23. The above results provide an initial indication that self-construal acts as a moderator through freedom threat since the interaction on freedom threat was significant, while the interaction on behavioral intentions was insignificant. To test H3, we conducted a moderated mediation analysis using a custom model in PROCESS v. 3.3 (Hayes, 2018). The analysis (10,000 bootstrap samples; 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals; controlling for past behavior on medicine disposal as a covariate) revealed that the index of moderated mediation for the two-step serial mediation model was significant, (adb = 0.08, SE = 0.04, 95% LLCI = 0.006, 95% ULCI = 0.173). Overall, the indirect effect of normative appeals on behavioral intentions through freedom threat and counterarguing is significant. We further examined the conditional indirect effects at different levels of self-construal. When participants were primed with an interdependent self, the indirect effect of normative appeals on behavioral intentions through freedom threat and counterarguing was significant, (adb = 0.11, SE = 0.04, 95% LLCI = 0.038, 95% ULCI = 0.176). However, when participants were primed with an independent self, the indirect effect of

5.3. Discussion Study 3 provides further support for the hypothesized mediating role of freedom threat and counterarguing for the impact of normative appeals on behavioral intentions, this time with a more representative sample, in a third cultural setting (Denmark) and with a different proenvironmental behavior. We further show that this relationship depends on activated self-construal. More specifically, the hypothesized relationships appeared only for those participants that were primed with an interdependent self-construal. Nevertheless, we provide support that self-construal may act as a moderator, as we propose in H3. 6. General discussion Our work contributes to the body of literature that investigates different drivers of sustainable behavior change (White et al., 2019) and, more specifically, the impact of normative appeals on pro-environmental behaviors (e.g., Baek, Yoon, & Kim, 2015; ElgaaiedGambier et al., 2018; White & Simpson, 2013). We extend previous research by contributing to understanding how injunctive and descriptive normative appeals encourage pro-environmental behaviors. Across four studies, we demonstrate that the impact of pro-environmental normative appeals on behavioral intentions is mediated though freedom threat (i.e., an antecedent of psychological reactance) and counterarguing (i.e., psychological reactance). We find that, in comparison with injunctive normative appeals, descriptive normative appeals provoke lower freedom threat and consequently counterarguing, which subsequently increase behavioral intentions. This finding is consistent across different pro-environmental behaviors and cultural settings. Our theoretical account is that the gentler nature of descriptive normative appeals leads individuals to experience lower pressure to comply, and therefore they exhibit lower psychological reactance. Lower psychological reactance means more positive reactions towards the communication (Brehm, 1966; Dillard & Shen, 2005; Pavey & Sparks, 2009). Conversely, injunctive normative appeals are more likely to be perceived as coercive (i.e., they exert a higher pressure to comply) and therefore are interpreted as a threat to an individual’s freedom. This is an addition to the literature on possible boomerang effects of descriptive normative appeals, which points to the drawbacks of using descriptive normative appeals and the benefits of using injunctive normative appeals (see Schultz et al., 2007; Yakobovitch & Grinstein, 2016). The findings of this study point to a latent risk of psychological reactance when using injunctive normative appeals. The question of whether and how psychological reactance can be measured has been discussed mainly in the field of health communications (Dillard & Shen, 2005). In our paper, we provide a measurement of psychological reactance in the environmental realm consisting only of a cognitive component, namely counterarguing. We also provide evidence that freedom threat is indeed an antecedent of psychological reactance. Our work further shows that the mediating role of psychological reactance on the impact of pro-environmental normative appeals on behavioral intentions is not universal. In our last study, we demonstrate the impact of self-construal as one such potential moderator. Descriptive normative appeals provoke lower psychological reactance 7

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

C. Kavvouris, et al.

role of self-construal should not be generalized, but instead they should be interpreted with care and in the setting of where the study has taken place. Since past research suggests that the effect of self-construal may be culturally dependent (Cross, Hardin, & Gercek-Swing, 2011; Gardner, Gabriel, & Lee, 1999; Markus & Kitayama, 1991), future research should test its moderating impact on other cultural settings. Past research proffers that societies in small and densely populated countries (e.g., Denmark) could be more resource conscientious than societies in large and resource-rich countries (e.g., the U.S.A.) (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). Exploring possible discrepancies related to self-construal and the use of social norms between the two types of countries would be an interesting avenue for future research. Third, future research should examine the circumstances under which the boomerang effect appears and disappears by also taking into account differences in psychological reactance. Finally, we intentionally avoided using actual percentages in the messages and instead referred to the majority, which is more subjective in terms of interpretation by participants. Future research should explore whether indicating the exact percentage of individuals who perform a pro-environmental behavior leads to different results.

than injunctive normative appeals only when the interdependent self is activated, that is, when individuals focus not only on themselves but on themselves and their social peers. This suggests an alignment between the communal motivation of collectively oriented individuals and descriptive normative appeals. Prior work suggests that individuals with interdependent self-construal activated may be more inclined to engage in pro-environmental behavior (Arnocky, Stroink, & DeCicco, 2007). Additionally, apart from the lack of successful activation of independent self-construal, the reason for this finding may be culturally specific since the Danish society (in which Study 3 was conducted) is organized in a collective way (Thomsen, Sidanius, & Fiske, 2007). 6.1. Theoretical implications Understanding how psychological reactance to normative appeals works has important theoretical implications. Our work provides new insights into how social norms influence behavioral intentions indirectly through psychological reactance. This is an important contribution, especially considering the consistent absence of a direct effect of normative appeals on behavioral intentions across all studies. Finally, our work demonstrates that this relationship is not universal and may be moderated by several factors, such as self-construal, that may explain the boomerang effect of descriptive normative appeals. Thus, our findings support that self-construal has a moderating effect on the relationship between social norms, psychological reactance and behavioral intentions, and extends past research (White & Simpson, 2013).

Acknowledgement This research received funding from the Interacting Minds Center (IMC), Aarhus University (Seed Number: 26118). Data of this paper are available through Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/s3gqz/? view_only=1e1901af454e4ec5bc12a769510f7ee0).

6.2. Practical implications

Appendix A. Supplementary material

Awareness of the role of consumers’ psychological reactance to a message employing social norms can aid campaign designers in the development of more effective campaigns. Given the consistently lower psychological reactance and higher behavioral intentions following descriptive normative appeals, as evidenced by the studies in this work, practitioners should note that individuals seem to prefer appeals that provide information on what is usually done rather than appeals that dictate what should be done. Our work provides vital knowledge on how the psychological reactance mechanism works and offers valuable new insights for campaign message designers who aim to design persuasive messages that will activate the least reactance possible. The above suggests that, in practice, and when not in conflict with reality (e.g., Cialdini et al., 2006), designing campaigns based on descriptive normative appeals appears to be the most preferred way, as there will be higher chances to encourage individuals to behave proenvironmentally. However, practitioners need to pay attention to other factors that may influence the effectiveness of their campaigns. For instance, whether the campaign is addressed to individual consumers themselves in particular or to a wider collective (e.g., consumers and their families and friends) may lead to different results. It appears that in a cultural setting such as Denmark, a campaign based on descriptive normative appeals would be particularly effective when it activates the individual’s interdependent self.

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.018. References Aaker, J. L., & Lee, A. Y. (2001). “I” seek pleasures and “we” avoid pains: The role of selfregulatory goals in information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 33–49. Allcott, H. (2011). Social norms and energy conservation. Journal of Public Economics, 95(9–10), 1082–1095. Arnocky, S., Stroink, M., & DeCicco, T. (2007). Self-construal predicts environmental concern, cooperation, and conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(4), 255–264. Baek, T. H., Yoon, S., & Kim, S. (2015). When environmental messages should be assertive: Examining the moderating role of effort investment. International Journal of Advertising, 34(1), 135–157. Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 14–25. Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press. Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83–93. Burgoon, M., Alvaro, E., Grandpre, J., & Voulodakis, M. (2002). Revisiting the theory of psychological reactance: Communicating threats to attitudinal freedom. In J. P. Dillard, & M. Pfau (Eds.). The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 213–232). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(4), 105–109. Cialdini, R. B., Demaine, L. J., Sagarin, B. J., Barrett, D. W., Rhoads, K., & Winter, P. L. (2006). Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Social Influence, 1(1), 3–15. Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621. Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015–1026. Clee, M. A., & Wicklund, R. A. (1980). Consumer behavior and psychological reactance. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(4), 389. Cross, S. E., Hardin, E. E., & Gercek-Swing, B. (2011). The what, how, why, and where of self-construal. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(2), 142–179. Devellis, R. F., Bickman, L., & Rog, D. J. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Dillard, James Price, & Shen, L. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs, 72(2), 144–168. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

6.3. Limitations and future research directions Our research is not free of limitations that point to future research directions. First, our studies report behavioral intentions and not actual behavior. Although we have no reason to question that a real campaign similar to those tested here would provoke lower psychological reactance and be more persuasive if based on descriptive normative appeals than on injunctive normative appeals, we deem it necessary that future studies validate our results with a real-life social norms campaign and support the ecological validity of our work. Thus, it is vital that future research focuses on measuring actual behavior change by, for example, running field studies. Second, our results on the moderating 8

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

C. Kavvouris, et al.

Reno, R. R., Cialdini, R. B., & Kallgren, C. A. (1993). The transsituational influence of social norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(1), 104–112. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH, http://Www.Smartpls.Com. Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH. Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). Research Article: The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18(5), 429. Silvia, P. J. (2006). Reactance and the dynamics of disagreement: Multiple paths from threatened freedom to resistance to persuasion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(5), 673–685. Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580–591. Thøgersen, J. (2008). Social norms and cooperation in real-life social dilemmas. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29(4), 458–472. Thomsen, L., Sidanius, J., & Fiske, A. P. (2007). Interpersonal leveling, independence, and self-enhancement: A comparison between Denmark and the US, and a relational practice framework for cultural psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(3), 445–469. White, K., Habib, R., & Hardisty, D. J. (2019). How to SHIFT consumer behaviors to be more sustainable: A literature review and guiding framework. Journal of Marketing, 83(3), 22–49. White, K., & Simpson, B. (2013). When do (and don’t) normative appeals influence sustainable consumer behaviors? Journal of Marketing, 77(2), 78–95. Yakobovitch, N., & Grinstein, A. (2016). Materialism and the boomerang effect of descriptive norm demarketing: Extension and remedy in an environmental context. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 35(1), 91–107. Zemack-Rugar, Y., Moore, S. G., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2017). Just do it! Why committed consumers react negatively to assertive ads. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(3), 287–301.

Edwards, S. M., Li, H., & Lee, J.-H. (2002). Forced exposure and psychological reactance: Antecedents and consequences of the perceived intrusiveness of pop-up ads. Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 83–95. Elgaaied-Gambier, L., Monnot, E., & Reniou, F. (2018). Using descriptive norm appeals effectively to promote green behavior. Journal of Business Research, 82, 179–191. Fekadu, Z., & Kraft, P. (2002). Expanding the theory of planned behaviour: The role of social norms and group identification. Journal of Health Psychology, 7(1), 33–43. Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S., & Lee, A. Y. (1999). “I” value freedom, but “ we ” value relationships : Self-construal priming mirrors cultural differences in judgment. Psychological Science, 10(4), 321–326. Glider, P., Midyett, S. J., Mills-Novoa, B., Johannessen, K., & Collins, C. (2001). Challenging the collegiate rite of passage: A campus-wide social marketing media campaign to reduce binge drinking. Journal of Drug Education, 31(2), 207–220. Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in Hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 472–482. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in varianced-based structural equation modelling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. Jacobson, R. P., Mortensen, C. R., & Cialdini, R. B. (2011). Bodies obliged and unbound: Differentiated response tendencies for injunctive and descriptive social norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 433–448. Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people behave environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour. Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260. Kronrod, A., Grinstein, A., & Wathieu, L. (2012). Go green! Should environmental messages be so assertive? Journal of Marketing, 76(1), 95–102. Lapinski, M. K., & Rimal, R. N. (2005). An explication of social norms. Communication Theory, 15(2), 127–147. Lapinski, M. K., Rimal, R. N., Devries, R., & Lee, E. L. (2007). The role of group orientation and descriptive norms on water conservation attitudes and behaviors the role of group orientation and descriptive norms on water conservation attitudes and behaviors. Health Communication, 22(2), 133–142. Linkerbach, J. & Perkins, H. (2005). Montana’s most of us don’t drink and drive campaign: A social norms strategy to reduce impaired driving among 21-34-year-olds, (No. HS-809 869). Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. Melnyk, V., van Herpen, E., Fischer, A. R. H., & van Trijp, H. C. M. (2011). To think or not to think: The effect of cognitive deliberation on the influence of injunctive versus descriptive social norms. Psychology and Marketing, 28(7), 709–729. Pavey, L., & Sparks, P. (2009). Reactance, autonomy and paths to persuasion: Examining perceptions of threats to freedom and informational value. Motivation and Emotion, 33(3), 277–290. Peattie, K. (2010). Green consumption: Behavior and norms. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 35, 195–228.

Christos Kavvouris, is a PhD student at the Department of Management, Aarhus BSS, Aarhus University. His research interests cover consumer behavior, social norms, prosocial behaviors, consumer psychology. Polymeros Chrysochou, PhD, is an Associate Professor in Marketing and Consumer Behavior at MAPP Centre and the Department of Management, Aarhus BSS, Aarhus University, and an Adjunct Senior Lecturer at the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science, School of Marketing, University of South Australia. His research interests focus on areas of food marketing and consumer behavior, with emphasis on brand loyalty, organic food, packaging and healthy eating practices. John Thøgersen, PhD, is professor of economic psychology at Department of Management, Aarhus BSS, Aarhus University. He is coordinator of the Marketing and Sustainability Research Group at the Department of Management, Aarhus BSS. His research interests cover consumer behavior, social and environmental marketing, and consumer and environmental protection.

9