SOLUTION: social influence to promote conservation | My Assignment Tutor

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=psif20Social InfluenceISSN: 1553-4510 (Print) 1553-4529 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/psif20Using normative social influence to promoteconservation among hotel guestsWesley P. Schultz , Azar M. Khazian & Adam C. ZaleskiTo cite this article: Wesley P. Schultz , Azar M. Khazian & Adam C. Zaleski (2008) Usingnormative social influence to promote conservation among hotel guests, Social Influence, 3:1, 4-23,DOI: 10.1080/15534510701755614To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510701755614Published online: 19 Feb 2008.Submit your article to this journalArticle views: 2172Citing articles: 147 View citing articles# 2008 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa businesshttp://www.psypress.com/socinf DOI: 10.1080/15534510701755614Using normative social influence to promoteconservation among hotel guestsP. Wesley Schultz, Azar M. Khazian and Adam C. ZaleskiCalifornia State University, San Marcos, CA, USAThree field experiments are reported on the ability of printed normativemessages to influence conservation behavior among hotel guests. While priorresearch has shown that social norms can both guide and spur behavior, thereare a number of questions about the generality of the effects, the impact ofaligning descriptive and injunctive norms, and the relative impact of normativeinformation about a specific versus general referent group. In the firstexperiment we demonstrate the basic influence of printed normative messagesdesigned to promote towel reuse among a sample of hotel guests, and also thataligning the injunctive and descriptive elements of a normative messageincreases its impact on behavior. Experiment 2 extends this finding to guestsstaying in timeshare condominium units. In Experiment 3 we again replicatethe effect, and also show that normative information about both generic andspecific reference groups can affect behavior. Results are interpreted within thefocus theory of normative conduct, and directions for future research arediscussed.Keywords: Social norms; Energy; Conservation; Normative influence.The world faces a daunting energy crisis. As the demand for energy continues to rise, the supply has not kept pace. The result has been a sharpincrease in the costs of oil, natural gas, and electricity, and increased attention to issues of conservation. But how do we persuade people to conserve?Address correspondence to: Wesley Schultz, Department of Psychology, California StateUniversity, San Marcos, CA 92078, USA. E-mail: wschultz@csusm.eduFunding for this study was provided by a grant from the Hewlett Foundation (2001-7396).Our appreciation goes to Randy Chapin for his support of these studies. We would also like toacknowledge the work of Jennifer Tabanico, Joy Francisco, Jodian Tyler, Michelle Hynan, andLeilani Lumaban on these experiments, and to Robert Cialdini and Noah Goldstein for theircollaboration, critiques, and suggestions throughout these studies.Portions of this paper were presented at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology,Los Angeles, 2003, and at the American Psychological Society, Los Angeles, 2005. Study 1 wasthe Masters Thesis for Azar Khazian.SOCIAL INFLUENCE, 2008, 3 (1), 4–23Indeed, applications of psychological theory to promote conservation canbe traced back to the 1970s, when the energy crisis of the time promptedhundreds of studies on conservation behavior (cf. Cunningham & Lopreato,1977; Seligman, Darley, & Becker, 1978; Sonderegger, 1978). Although thecrisis of the 1970s spurred creative and innovative approaches to understanding energy use and promoting conservation, few new interventionstrategies have been developed since. In the current paper we summarizethree studies in which we integrate principles of normative social influenceinto messages intended to promote conservation among hotel guests.PROMOTING ENERGY CONSERVATIONBy far the most commonly used strategy for promoting conservation isinformation dissemination. The approach is based on the assumption thatpeople don’t conserve because they don’t know that they should, or thatthey don’t know how to do it (Schultz, 2002). From this basic assumption,the way to increase conservation rates is to distribute educational materials.This knowledge-deficit model of behavior change leads to the hypothesis thatincreasing knowledge about conservation will cause a change in conservation behavior. Unfortunately, reviews of the research literature are clear inshowing that the knowledge-deficit model of behavior change is faulty(Geller 1992; McKenzie-Mohr & Smith, 1999; Schultz, 2002). The problemappears to be not a lack of knowledge but rather a lack of sufficientmotivation to act. The reason that information campaigns are oftenineffective is that they ignore the motives behind behavior (see Costanzo,Archer, Aronson, & Pettigrew, 1986).Yet even programs that provide a motive for action often fail to changebehavior. In a random-digit dialing survey of Californians, Nolan, Schultz,Cialdini, Goldstein, and Griskevicius (2007) found that conserving energy athome was perceived by the public to be a socially desirable behavior. Whenasked about the importance of energy conservation, 90% of respondentsindicated that it was ‘‘very’’ (42%) or ‘‘extremely’’ (48%) important. Andwhen asked about various reasons for energy conservation, environmentalprotection was rated as the most important, followed by social responsibility, and finally saving money (see also Samuelson & Biek, 1991).However, when the researchers conducted field experiments promotingenergy conservation, messages about environmental protection or socialresponsibility were not effective at changing behavior (Nolan et al., 2007).AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH: NORMATIVESOCIAL INFLUENCEAlthough information dissemination and messages trumpeting environmental protection or social responsibility are commonly used to promotePROMOTING CONSERVATION IN HOTEL GUESTS 5conservation, they are substantially limited in their ability to producechanges in behavior. It is interesting to point out that this conclusion wasknown from the research conducted in the 1970s, but needed to berediscovered in the context of the current energy crisis.One potentially new strategy for promoting conservation can be found intheories and research on normative social influence (Cialdini, 2003).Although there exists little research involving the use of normative messageto promote conservation actions, an examination of norms seems warrantedby their demonstrated ability to regulate social behavior in other contexts.Social norms are ‘‘rules and standards that are understood by members of agroup, and that guide and/or constrain human behavior without the force oflaws’’ (Cialdini & Trost, 1998, p. 152). Social norms are generally viewed asa result of social interaction: conforming to social norms is generallyadaptive, and deviating from the norm can lead to sanctions and socialdisapproval (Schultz, Tabanico, & Rendo´n, in press). Recent socialpsychological literature has distinguished between different types of socialnorms: an injunctive norm, which involves an individual’s beliefs about thelevel of approval or disapproval of others for a specific course of action; andthe descriptive norm, which refers to beliefs about the actual behavior ofothers. For example, an individual might believe that others will approve ofturning off lights when she leaves a room (an injunctive norm), but at thesame time believe that most people don’t turn off the lights when they leave aroom (a descriptive norm).Normative beliefs cause behaviorMore than 70 years of social psychological research have shown the powerof social norms to influence behavior (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004; Goldstein& Cialdini, 2007). Witnessing the behavior of others can lead to increases insimilar behavior among observers and a generally unstated pressure toconform to the norm (Asch, 1956; Darley & Latane´, 1968; Lewin, 1952;Milgram, Bickman, & Berkowitz, 1969). However, normative socialinfluence can also occur when messages are presented more indirectly, suchas computerized feedback (Neighbors, Larimer, & Lewis, 2004), printedmessages (Buunk, Van den Eijnden, & Siero, 2002; Schultz, 1999; Schultz,Nolan, Cialdini, Goldstein, & Griskevicius, 2007), or newspaper stories(Blanton, Stuart, & Van den Eijnden, 2001).In applied areas, normative messages are being increasingly used (and lesswidely evaluated) as an approach to reduce substance use (Agostinelli,Brown, & Miller, 1995). The social norms approach has emerged as analternative to more traditional efforts like information campaigns, moralexhortation, or scare tactics to reduce substance use among students(Donaldson, Graham, & Hansen, 1994; Donaldson, Graham, Piccinin, &6 SCHULTZ, KHAZIAN, ZALESKIHansen, 1995; Haines & Barker, 2003; Perkins, 2002, 2003; Perkins &Berkowitz, 1986). The cornerstone of the approach is the consistent findingthat many students overestimate the prevalence and approval of alcohol useamong peers (Borsari & Carey, 2003). Because of this erroneous normativebelief, both descriptive and injunctive, students are less likely to view theirown alcohol use as problematic, and to feel pressure to use alcohol in orderto gain acceptance by peers. A growing body of intervention work hasattempted to change normative beliefs, with the ultimate goal of changinglevels of substance use.While the results from this line of research are encouraging, there aresome failed examples of normative interventions. For example, Clapp,Lange, Russel, Shillington, and Voas (2003) reported results from a quasiexperiment with two college residence halls. The intervention used variousmedia to convey messages indicating that most students have only a fewdrinks: ‘‘Seventy-five percent of [school name] students drink 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4drinks when they party.’’ The results showed that the messages wereeffective at changing normative beliefs, but were ineffective at changingbehavior. In fact, the results showed a trend toward an increase in thenumber of drinking days in the past month. Similarly, Wechsler et al. (2003)reported a nationwide survey of colleges and universities that made use of anorms marketing approach to reduce alcohol use. The results from a crosssection of 118 schools showed no significant difference pre–post for schoolsthat used social norms interventions versus schools that did not use a socialnorms approach.While there is a sizable body of research on social norms and normativebeliefs, there are a number of applied and theoretical questions that remainto be answered. In the current paper we seek to examine three researchquestions. First, will normative messages be an effective tool at promotingconservation behavior among hotel guests? Second, what is the relativeimpact of a normative-alone, descriptive-alone, and a combined normsmessage? And finally, does the norm referent used in the message alter themessage’s influence? To address these research questions, we conducted aseries of experiments with hotel guests, using normative messages printed onin-room displays.EXPERIMENT 1The first experiment was designed to test the ability of printed normativemessages to influence conservation behavior among hotel guests.Participants in this study were hotel guests who were provided with arandomly assigned printed message containing procedural and normativeinformation urging them to reuse their bath towels. The study was part of alarger project examining the role of normative messages on conservationPROMOTING CONSERVATION IN HOTEL GUESTS 7behaviors. The signs replaced an existing towel reuse/energy conservationprogram that the hotel initiated approximately 3K years earlier. The oldprogram utilized printed door hangers that were placed on the insidebathroom door of each room and had a message that appealed toenvironmental protection and social responsibility.ParticipantsSample characteristics. Guests in 62 hotel rooms at an upscale beachresort were participants in this field experiment.Sample size. The 62 hotel rooms varied along a number of dimensions,including size (one or two beds), smoking or non-smoking, and availablekitchenettes. Each room was randomly assigned to one of six differentconditions. Across all of the rooms, data from a total of 3210 guest stayswere obtained. In this study, and throughout the manuscript, a stay isdefined as the total number of nights that the guest remained in the hotel.For the purposes of conservation, only guests who stayed for 2 or morenights were analyzed (2 nights were required in order to reuse room towels).After omitting guest stays of only a single night, our final working samplefor the experiment was 2359.MaterialsSix different messages concerning towel reuse were printed on signs andplaced in visible locations in the hotel bathrooms: (1) a high injunctive normfor towel reuse, (2) a low injunctive norm, (3) a high descriptive norm, (4) alow descriptive norm, (5) a combined high descriptive and high injunctivenorm, and (6) control. On the back of each sign, the phrase ‘‘Please ReuseThe Towels’’ was printed in mirror-inverted font so that its reflection in thebathroom mirror would catch guests’ attention and increase the likelihoodthat they would notice and read the message.High injunctive: Many of our guests have expressed to us their approvalof conserving energy. Because so many guests value conservation andare in the habit of conserving, this hotel has initiated a conservationprogram.Low injunctive: Some of our guests have expressed to us their approval ofconserving energy. Because some guests value conservation, this hotel hasinitiated a conservation program.High descriptive: Nearly 75% of hotel guests choose to reuse their towelseach day. To support our guests who want to conserve, this hotel hasinitiated a conservation program.8 SCHULTZ, KHAZIAN, ZALESKILow descriptive: Nearly 25% of guests choose to reuse their towels eachday. To support our guests who want to conserve, this hotel has initiated aconservation program.Combined message: included both the high injunctive and highdescriptive message.Control: This hotel has initiated a conservation program.Beneath each of the respective messages, standard procedural informationwas provided (drawn from the language used in the hotel’s existingprogram):Washing towels every day uses a lot of energy, so reusing towels is one wayyou can conserve. If you would like your towels replaced, please leave yourused towels in the basket on the bathroom floor. Towels left hanging on thetowel rack tell us that you want to reuse them.In addition to the printed messages, data-recording sheets were developedand utilized by the housekeeping staff to record relevant information, suchas the specific staff member’s name, the date, room number, number ofoccupants, whether they checked in or out that specific day, and the numberof bath towels, hand towels, and wash cloths both placed in and taken out ofthe room per day.ProcedureBaseline. Prior to our intervention, baseline towel usage data for eachroom were recorded by housekeeping staff as they made their cleaningrounds for 8 consecutive weeks. The staff used recording sheets to note thenumber of bath towels taken out of each room, per day. In addition toproviding baseline data of towel usage for each of the rooms without thesigns, this recording procedure enabled the staff to become accustomed tocollecting the information before the intervention period.For the first 2 weeks of baseline data collection, a researcher shadowedthe housekeeping staff to ensure that the correct protocol was beingfollowed, and that accurate information was being recorded. In addition,the Executive Housekeeper, who served as the primary gatekeeper in thisfield experiment, enforced proper tracking and recording of towel usage inthe weekly staff briefings. Baseline data were recorded daily, and the datasheets were copied and collected by a researcher on a weekly basis.Experiment. Each of the 62 hotel rooms was randomly assigned to one ofthe six different messages, with efforts made to match by room type. ThePROMOTING CONSERVATION IN HOTEL GUESTS 9signs were placed in the rooms by both a researcher and the housekeepingstaff, and sporadic weekly visits were made by a research assistant to ensurethat the signs were placed in the correct rooms and location. Across all ourverifications, not one sign was misplaced throughout the experiment.As with the baseline data, the number of towels replaced in each roomwas recorded daily by the housekeeping staff, photocopied, and collectedweekly by the research team. Signs were placed in the rooms in July anddata collection lasted 9 months.ResultsThe final sample was 2359 stays. Frequencies indicated that 410 cases werein the high injunctive condition, 374 were in the low injunctive, 396 were inthe high descriptive, 413 were in the low descriptive, 394 were in thecombined message condition, and 372 were randomly assigned to thecontrol.Descriptive statistics showed that guests stayed an average of 3.40 nights(SD52.52), with a minimum stay of 2 nights and a maximum stay of 55nights (single nights were excluded because they did not give the opportunityto reuse). The dependent variable was the total number of towels taken outof each guest’s room on their first opportunity to conserve. Using data fromthe second night provided comparable, and independent, data points acrossthe experimental conditions.1 Across all conditions, the mean number oftowels taken out of the rooms on the second day (their first opportunity toreuse) was 1.63 (SD51.45). There was a maximum of four towels in eachroom, but occasionally a guest would request additional towels, so a fewdata points were larger than 4; these scores were recoded to the maximumvalue of 4 (winsorized). In addition, there was a minimum of zero towelstaken from each room, but the zero scores could occur for a variety ofreasons. On the one hand, it could mean perfect reuse. But zero scores couldalso occur for reasons other than reuse, including refused service or privacyrequested. In the analyses reported here, the zero scores are included. It isuseful to note that excluding the zero scores serves to increase the size of theeffect, and in both cases, the conclusions are similar.Effectiveness of the messages. A one-way Analysis of Covariance(ANCOVA) was conducted to examine differences in conservationefforts among guests who received different normative appeals to reusetheir towels. The number of towels replaced in each of the rooms during1 Treating each night as a separate data point would violate independence of observations,and averaging towels used across all nights of the stay would involve comparisons of disparatescores (ranging from single data points, to the average of 55 nights).10 SCHULTZ, KHAZIAN, ZALESKIthe baseline period was entered as a covariate to remove any varianceassociated with room type. Findings from the ANCOVA revealed asignificant difference in conservation efforts for the omnibus analysis, F(5,2352)52.37, p5.037; g25.01. In addition, results showed that the covariateexplained a significant amount of variance, F(1, 2352) 5 97.42, p , .001;g2 5 .04.Planned comparisons were conducted to test the effectiveness of eachmessage versus the control condition. While several of these pairwisecomparisons approached significance, we focused our attention on thepairwise contrast of the combined message (Madjusted51.51; SE5.07) versusall other conditions (Madjusted51.67; SE5.03). This comparison wasstatistically significant, t(2356)54.02; p , .05 (see Endnote 1).EXPERIMENT 2The results from Experiment 1 were mixed. Overall, the findings suggest thataligning a descriptive and injunctive normative message produced areduction in the number of towels replaced in each room, but we failed tofind effects for descriptive or injunctive norm messages presented inisolation. This finding is consistent with recent work on the focus theory ofnormative conduct, showing that aligning a descriptive and injunctivemessage can be more powerful than either alone (Cialdini, 2005). In order toreplicate the findings from the first experiment in a different setting, and tomore clearly demonstrate the impact of normative messages on behavior, weproceeded to conduct a second experiment. In this experiment, we utilizedthe 132 condominium units at the same beach resort. The condo units wereoperated by the same company, but located in separate buildings on theproperty. The condo units offered several advantages over the hotel rooms.First, guests arrive and depart on the same day in the week (with a fewexceptions), and all rooms are cleaned on a fixed interval (i.e., Tuesday andThursday). As a result, it is unusual for a room to refuse service (thusremoving the ambiguity of the zero scores reported in our hotel data).Second, the rooms are nearly identical, thereby reducing the error varianceassociated with the physical features of the room. Finally, the staff wereexperienced in working with us, and we were able to add a binary measureof towel reuse for each room (yes or no). Given the results from the previousstudy, we chose to focus our efforts on the combined message (versus acontrol).ParticipantsSample characteristics. Participants in the field experiment were guestsstaying in timeshare condominium units at a beach resort. According to thehotel management, guests who stayed in the condo units were primarilyPROMOTING CONSERVATION IN HOTEL GUESTS 11middle to upper class in socioeconomic status, but unlike the hotel sampleconsisted primarily of families on vacation.Sample size. Prior to the intervention period, 132 condo units wererandomly assigned to one of two different conditions. The condo units werelocated on three separate floors; 10 units on each floor were randomlyassigned to receive a control message, whereas the remaining 34 units oneach floor received the combined message. Consequently, this resulted in atotal of 30 condo units with the control message, and 102 condo units withthe combined message. The larger number of rooms assigned to thecombined message condition occurred at the request of the resort in order tomaximize energy savings. A sample of 30 rooms was determined to providea stable control group and sufficient power to detect our anticipated effects.Across all of the rooms, data from a total of 1078 stays were obtained.Again, a stay represents the total number of nights that a guest remained inthe unit. Cases in which guests stayed fewer or more than 7 nights wereomitted from further analyses. Consequently, a total of 794 stays served asthe final working sample.MaterialsTwo different messages concerning towel reuse were printed on signs andplaced in visible locations in the bathrooms. The messages were: (1) acombined high descriptive and high injunctive norm for towel reuse, and (2)a control. The messages were slight modifications of those used in Study 1.The normative aspect of the combined message read:Many of our hotel guests have expressed to us their approval of conservingenergy. When given the opportunity, nearly 75% of hotel guests choose toreuse their towels each day. Because so many guests value conservation andare in the habit of conserving, this hotel has initiated a conservationprogram. If you would like your towels replaced, please leave your usedtowels on the bathroom floor. Towels left hanging on the towel rack tell usthat you want to reuse them.The control read simply: ‘‘If you would like your towels replaced, pleaseleave your used towels on the bathroom floor. Towels left hanging on thetowel rack tell us that you want to reuse them.’’ On the back of each sign,the phrase ‘‘Please Reuse The Towels’’ was printed in mirror invertedfont so that its reflection in the bathroom mirror would catch guests’attention and increase the likelihood that they would notice and read themessage.12 SCHULTZ, KHAZIAN, ZALESKIProcedureData were recorded by the housekeeping staff as they made their cleaningrounds. Specifically, the staff used the data-recording sheets to note thenumber of bath towels replaced in each bathroom, per cleaning day. Thedata sheets were copied and collected by a researcher on a weekly basis. It isworthwhile to note that the same staff members were involved inExperiment 1, thus they were already familiar and accustomed to the datacollection procedures. In addition, the Executive Housekeeper consistentlyenforced appropriate tracking and recording of towel reuse.As previously mentioned, 30 of the condo units were randomly assignedto receive the control message, whereas the remaining 102 units received thecombined message. The signs were placed in the rooms by the housekeepingstaff, and sporadic visits were made by a research assistant to ensure thesigns were placed in the correct rooms and location. As with Experiment 1,not one sign was misplaced throughout the experiment. Signs were placed inthe rooms in January, and data collection proceeded for approximately 4months.ResultsThe final working sample consisted of 132 condominium units, whichresulted in 794 seven-night stays. The dependent variable was the meannumber of towels taken out of each guest’s room on their first opportunityto conserve. Across all conditions, the mean number of towels taken out ofthe rooms on the first cleaning was 1.84 (SD51.72).Towel use and the normative messages. A one-way Analysis of Variance(ANOVA) was conducted to examine differences in conservation effortsamong guests who received the combined message and those who receivedthe control message. As predicted, findings revealed that guests who wereexposed to the combined message used significantly fewer towels (M51.74,SD51.69; N5655) than guests exposed to the control message (M52.32,SD51.80; N5135); F(1, 792)513.40, p , .001; partial g25.02 (see Endnote 2).Towel reuse. Binary indications of reuse (towels explicitly left on the rackfor reuse) were also tracked and recorded by the housekeeping staff. Anindication to reuse was coded as 1, whereas no indication to reuse was codedas 0. A Pearson’s correlation revealed a strong, negative correlation amongthis measure of reuse, and the number of towels used (r52.47, p , .001;N5689). The negative correlation provides convergent evidence for thevalidity of our measures—guests who were coded as reusing had fewertowels replaced in their room. A 2 (condition)62 (reuse) chi-square revealedno significant difference in reuse (x251.12; p5.30), although the pattern ofPROMOTING CONSERVATION IN HOTEL GUESTS 13means showed that guests who received the combined message were morelikely to reuse (62%) than those who received the control message (57%).EXPERIMENT 3: SPECIFIC NORMATIVEINFORMATIONFindings from Experiment 1 revealed an overall trend of lower towel useamong hotel guests who received a combined normative message.Experiment 2 was an extension of the first study, and also revealed asignificant difference, such that a message combining a descriptive andinjunctive message produced significantly less towel use among resortguests. In order to replicate the findings from the previous studies, and toextend them in a new direction, we conducted a third experiment. Inaddition to replicating the basic effect from Experiment 2, we wanted to testthe impact of a specific reference group (previous guests who stayed in thisroom) against the generic reference group (i.e., guests at this hotel) used inthe previous studies.While the question of referent group in normative messages has not beenthoroughly explored in the research literature, there is some evidence tosuggest that normative information about an outgroup does not producechanges in behavior, while normative information about an in-group does(Abrams, Wetherell, Cochrane, Hogg, & Turner, 1990; Ellemers, Spears, &Doosje, 2002; Hogg, 2003; Siegel & Siegel, 1957; Terry & Hogg, 1996).However, research in this area has also shown that behavior change can beinduced by normative information about either a generic referent group(e.g., the general public) or a specific referent group (e.g., other students on aneighboring campus with the same major). While it seems reasonable topredict that normative information about a close referent would be moreinfluential, this effect has not been clearly established (Ando, Ohnuma, &Chang, 2007; Goldstein, Cialdini, & Griskevicius, 2007; Rimal, Lapinski,Cook, & Real, 2005).ParticipantsSample. Participants in the field experiment were guests staying in thetimeshare condominium units at the resort. (Experiment 3 was conducted 6months after we completed the second experiment.) The 132 condo unitsreported in Experiment 2 were randomly assigned to one of three differentconditions. A total of 30 condo units were in the control condition, 30 unitswere in the specific normative message condition, and the remainder (N572)were in the generic normative message condition. Because of our previousfindings showing the combined normative message to be an effective tool forreducing towel use, a larger number of rooms were assigned to the generic14 SCHULTZ, KHAZIAN, ZALESKInormative message condition at the request of the resort in order tomaximize energy (and cost) savings. While we hypothesized that the specificnorm message would result in even greater levels of conservation, the hotelmanagement requested that we assign the larger number of rooms to thegeneric norm condition because it had already been shown to be moreeffective than the control.A total of 1256 stays were recorded across all rooms over the duration ofthe 5-month experiment. As with our previous study, only cases whereguests stayed the full 7 nights were analyzed, yielding a final working sampleof 865 stays. The dependent variable was the mean number of towelsreplaced in each room, on the first opportunity to conserve. Thus data wererecorded from each family only once per stay.MaterialsThree different messages concerning towel reuse were printed on signs andplaced in visible locations in the condo bathrooms. The control messagecontained only basic information describing how to reuse your towel: ‘‘Ifyou would like your towels replaced, please leave your used towels on thebathroom floor. Towels left hanging on the towel rack tell us that you want toreuse them … PLEASE REUSE YOUR TOWELS.’’ The generic normativemessage described overall past guests’ behavior along with the generalinformation described in the control message:Many of our guests have expressed to us the importance of conservingenergy. When given the opportunity, nearly 75% of hotel guests choose toreuse their towels each day. Because so many guests value conservation andwant to conserve, this resort has initiated a conservation program. Washingtowels every day uses a lot of energy, so reusing towels is one way you canconserve. If you would like your towels replaced, please leave your usedtowels on the bathroom floor. Towels left hanging on the towel rack tell usthat you want to reuse them … PLEASE REUSE YOUR TOWELS.The specific normative condition described past guests’ behavior specificto the room number that the new guest was staying in, along with thegeneral information described in the control:Many of our guests have expressed to us the importance of conservingenergy. When given the opportunity, ___% of guests in this room (condo#____) chose to reuse at least one of their towels each day. Because somany guests value conservation and want to conserve, this resort hasinitiated a conservation program. Washing towels every day uses a lot ofenergy, so reusing towels is one way you can conserve. If you would likePROMOTING CONSERVATION IN HOTEL GUESTS 15your towels replaced, please leave your used towels on the bathroom floor.Towels left hanging on the towel rack tell us that you want to reusethem…PLEASE REUSE YOUR TOWELS.On the back of each sign, the phrase ‘‘Please Reuse the Towels’’ wasprinted so its reflection in the bathroom mirror would catch guests’attention and increase the likelihood that they would notice and read themessage. The ___ lines shown in the message above represent the actualpercentages for each room, using data obtained in Experiment 2. Thepercentages were handwritten by the researchers, with a unique sign madefor each room. The percentages ranged from a low of 33%, to a high of 92%.ProcedureThe signs were placed in the rooms by the housekeeping staff, and sporadicvisits were made by a research assistant to ensure that the signs were placedin the correct rooms and location. The number of towels replaced in eachroom was recorded by the housekeeping staff at the mid-week cleaning. Theexperiment began in November and observations lasted 5 months.ResultsThe sample included 132 rooms that yielded 1256 total stays. Only gueststhat stayed for a total of 7 days were included in the analysis (N5865).Within the final working sample of 865 stays, 187 stays were in the controlcondition, 152 were in the specific normative message condition, and 403were in the generic norm condition. Out of the 865 stays, 48% of the guestsindicated that they wanted to reuse their towel (i.e., towels were placed onthe rack on cleaning day).The normative messages. The mean number of towels replaced by thecleaning staff on the first cleaning day was 2.22 (SD51.40). The meannumber of towels replaced in the control condition was 2.44 (SD51.55),specific normative condition 2.19 (SD51.41), and generic normativecondition 2.02 (SD51.14). A one-way ANOVA was conducted and thedifference between the three groups was significant, F(2, 739)54.09, p5.02;g25.01. The number of towels for the control condition was significantlydifferent than the generic normative message, F(1, 739)52.79, p , .01 andthe specific normative message, F(1, 739)52.12, p , .05. The generic andspecific conditions did not differ significantly from each other (see Endnote3). Mean scores are shown in Figure 1.Additional analyses examined the binary variable of reuse. A Pearsoncorrelation coefficient showed a negative relationship between the numberof towels replaced and whether the guests indicated that they wanted to16 SCHULTZ, KHAZIAN, ZALESKIreuse their towel (r 5 2.61; p , .01). Within the control group, 44% of theguests indicated that they wanted to reuse their towel on cleaning day, 53%of the guests in the specific normative message group, and 49% of the guestsin the generic normative message group. However, a chi-square test showedthat these differences were not significantly different, x2(2)52.40, p5.30).DISCUSSIONThe results from the three field experiments reported above clearlydemonstrate that normative messages can cause a change in behavior.These findings were demonstrated in a real-world context, on a behavior ofconsiderable social and environmental importance. In Experiment 1 wefound tentative evidence for the impact of normative messages on towel useamong hotel guests. In Experiment 2 we clarified this effect and extended itto a different context. Finally, in Experiment 3 we replicated this basic effectand also showed that normative information about either a generic referencegroup or a specific reference group can influence behavior.Several aspects of these findings are noteworthy. First, our results suggestthat normative social influence can be invoked using a printed message. Thisapproach has not been widely used by prior social psychological research.Indeed, most experimental studies of normative social influence haveutilized confederates to convey ‘‘what other people do’’ (Asch, 1956;Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990; Darley & Latane´, 1970). Because theconfederates are immediately present, the findings from these prior studiesFigure 1. Mean number of towels replaced6experimental condition.PROMOTING CONSERVATION IN HOTEL GUESTS 17have described normative social influence as an automatic response,requiring little cognitive elaboration (Cialdini, 2001; see also Bargh &Williams, 2006; Dijksterhuis & Nordgren, 2006). Our results suggestsomething different—a more elaborated pathway. We are not suggestingthat normative influence cannot operate through an automatic pathway—only that the automatic pathway does not provide an adequate explanationfor our results. Given the time delay between when participants would haveread our message and their decision to reuse their towel, it seems unlikelythat our message activated or primed an existing norm or behavioral pattern.Instead, the message may have served as a guide for behavior in the contextof the hotel (see also Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Schultz, 1999; Schultz et al.,2007 for additional evidence of norms as standards for future behavior).Interestingly, the normative message found to be most effective atmotivating behavior in our sample was the normative message thatcombined the descriptive and injunctive elements. Neither message alone(injunctive or descriptive) was sufficient in Experiment 1 to produce asignificant change in behavior. This finding is consistent with research onthe focus theory of normative conduct. Studies by Cialdini et al. (2006) haveshown that aligning the normative elements can considerably strengthen theeffect. If, as we have suggested in the preceding paragraph, normativemessages are used as a standard against which to judge one’s own behavior,then they can also act as a magnet—drawing behaviors toward them. Forindividuals who are not already engaging in the behavior, the isolateddescriptive normative message can motivate them to reuse their towels. Butfor individuals who are already engaging in the behavior, the isolatednormative message might act as a weight, reducing the frequency of theaction. In other work we have shown that aligning the injunctive anddescriptive aspects of a normative message can buffer this reduction forpeople already engaged in the behavior (Schultz et al., 2007).A third finding worth noting pertains to the specific norm condition usedin Experiment 3. It is interesting that the specific and generic conditions didnot differ, although both differed significantly from the control condition.That is, the referent group didn’t seem to alter the strength of the normativemessage. This was surprising, given previous findings that referent groupscloser to self can have a stronger affect on an individual’s behavior(Festinger, 1954). One possible explanation for the lack of difference comesfrom Christensen, Rothberger, Wood, and Matz (2004). Their resultsshowed that greater identification with a group was associated with morepositive evaluations of members who conformed to the group’s norm. Thatis, participants who strongly identified with a group felt more positive aboutthemselves when they conformed to an injunctive norm than when theyviolated it. This effect was not found for participants who were low in groupidentification, nor for participants who violated a descriptive group norm.18 SCHULTZ, KHAZIAN, ZALESKIThus, while group identification does appear to moderate the process ofnormative social influence, this effect is limited to injunctive norms and isnot as powerful in inducing conformity to descriptive norms. Indeed, inmany of the classic studies of conformity (e.g., Asch, 1956; Darley & Latane´,1968; Milgram et al., 1969), the participants were generally strangers. Usingthe behaviors of others as a guide for our own actions is an adaptiveheuristic, even if the others are unfamiliar to us.A fourth aspect of our findings pertains to the dependent variable. Unlikemany previous studies, we did not rely on self-report as our primaryoutcome measure (Baumeister & Vohs, 2006). Our primary dependentvariable was the number of towels replaced in each room. While weinterpreted this measure as an indication of towel reuse among guests, thereare other possible explanations. Most notably, guests might have beenmotivated to use fewer towels overall. In Experiments 2 and 3 we added asecondary measure of reuse, but the results were inconclusive. While reusewas strongly correlated with fewer towels replaced in the room, ourexperimental conditions did not produce significant differences in thelikelihood that a guest would reuse—only that fewer towels were replaced inthe room. While seemingly inconsequential, this issue offers an interestingperspective on normative social influence. Namely, the extent to which thepressure to conform is limited to the specific behavior, or whether itgeneralizes to a class of behaviors (cf. Hodges & Geyer, 2006). Ourspeculation is that normative pressure extends beyond the single targetbehavior to the class of actions—in this case, conservation. It’s not thatother guests at this hotel reuse their towels, but that other guests at this hoteltry to conserve energy, and towel reuse is just one way to conserve. For asimilar argument about the generalization to a class of behaviors, see Kaiserand Wilson (2004).Finally, we want to comment on the size of the effects in this study.Ostensibly, the effects were small: g25.01, .02, and .01 across the threestudies. However, for the resort, the behavior change was quite respectable.In Experiment 2 the normative messages produced a 25% decrease in thenumber of towels replaced (from 2.32 in the control condition, to 1.74). InExperiment 3 the generic normative message produced a 17% decrease in thenumber of towels replaced in each room (from 2.44 in the control condition,to 2.02). Percentage changes of this size are quite respectable, and for a hotelmanagement team looking for ways to cut costs, a 25% reduction in thelaundry budget can be an enormous saving, not to mention the substantialenvironmental benefits resulting from using less energy, water, andphosphates from the cleansers.While the results from these studies shed light on some aspects ofnormative social influence, there is still much more work to be done. Ourfindings suggest that normative messages can influence behavior, and thatPROMOTING CONSERVATION IN HOTEL GUESTS 19social interaction is not required. But a number of aspects of the process ofnormative social influence are unanswered. We have suggested thatnormative messages are internalized and subsequently used as a guide forone’s own behavior. But is this internalization process required? Perhaps theprocess is more peripheral, unmediated by cognitive elaboration orprocessing. Furthermore, how long does normative social influence last?Is the effect limited to the initial context (as a peripheral processingexplanation would predict), or is the effect more long lasting (as anelaborated internalization processing model would suggest)? Perhaps bothmediated and unmediated pathways can operate, depending on the nature ofthe behavior or context. Additional research is needed to answer thesequestions.In sum, the results from these three field experiments clearly show that theprocess of normative social influence extends to a relatively private behaviorand can be invoked through print messages. Our findings show that postingprinted normative messages in hotel rooms produced a significant increasein the number of towels reused by hotel guests. This effect occurred withoutsocial interaction—the behavior occurred in the privacy of one’s hotel room,and the normative information was presented on a printed card.Interestingly, our results do not show the normative information about aspecific referent group is more influential a generic norm message, and bothwere effective at promoting conservation.Manuscript received 4 July 2006Manuscript accepted 16 October 2007ENDNOTESNote 1: For comparison, we also ran the analysis as a Hierarchical Linear Model, with towel useclustered within hotel room, and multiple observations within room. The intercept from theunconditional means ANOVA was 1.61, and the ICC was .05. Then we entered baseline toweluse as a fixed factor, along with the dummy-coded experimental condition (15combined norms,05all other conditions) as level 2 predictors. As expected, the baseline covariate was statisticallysignificant (c015.73), t(48.85)56.78, p , .001, but the condition effect was not significant(c0252.16), t(49.85)521.44; p5.15.Note 2: As with Experiment 1, we also ran the analysis as a Hierarchical Linear Model, withtowel use as continuous dependent variable, clustered within condo unit. In the unconditionalmeans random effects ANOVA, the intercept was 1.80 and the ICC was .07. When thedichotomous experimental condition variable was added as a fixed factor at level 2, it wasstatistically significant (c0152.57), t(142.14)523.25, p , .001.Note 3: For comparison, the analyses were again run as a Hierarchical Linear Model, withtowel use clustered within condo room. The unconditional means model resulted in an interceptof 2.22 and an ICC of .05. We proceeded to test directly the three planned comparisons: genericversus control, specific versus control, and generic versus specific. The first (generic versuscontrol) was statistically significant (c0152.42), t(64.65522.73; p , .01. The second (specific20 SCHULTZ, KHAZIAN, ZALESKIversus control; c0152.24), t(84.77)521.72, p5.09 approached significance, and the comparisonof general versus specific was not significant (c015.17), t(84.38)51.19, p5.24.REFERENCESAbrams, D., Wetherell, M., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1990). Knowingwhat to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of normformation, conformity and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29,97–119.Agostinelli, G., Brown, J., & Miller, W. (1995). Effects of normative feedback on consumptionamong heavy drinking college students. Journal of Drug Education, 25, 31–40.Ando, K., Ohnuma, S., & Chang, E. (2007). Comparing normative influences as determinantsof environmentally conscious behaviours between the USA and Japan. Asian Journal ofSocial Psychology, 10, 171–178.Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against aunanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70(9), 1–70.Bargh, J., & Williams, E. (2006). The automaticity of social life. Current Directions inPsychological Science, 15, 1–4.Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2006). Are personality and social psychologists behavingthemselves? Dialogue, 21(1), 3 & 7.Blanton, H., Stuart, A. E., & Van den Eijnden, R. J. J. M. (2001). An introduction to devianceregulation theory: The effect of behavioral norms on message framing. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 27, 848–858.Borsari, B., & Carey, K. (2003). Descriptive and injunctive norms in college drinking: A metaanalytic integration. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64, 331–341.Buunk, B. P., Van den Eijnden, R. J. J. M., & Siero, F. W. (2002). The double-edged sword ofproviding information about the prevalence of safer sex. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 32, 684–699.Christensen, P. N., Rothgerber, H., Wood, W., & Matz, D. (2004). Social norms and identityrelevance: A motivational approach to normative behavior. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 30, 1295–1309.Cialdini, R., & Goldstein, N. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. AnnualReview of Psychology, 55, 591–621.Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. CurrentDirections in Psychological Science, 12, 105–109.Cialdini, R. B. (2005). Don’t throw in the towel: Use social influence research. APS Observer,18(4). Retrieved from http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/2005/0405/cialdini.cfm.Cialdini, R. B., Demaine, L., Sagarin, B. J., Barrett, D. W., Rhoads, K. L., & Winter, P. L.(2006). Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Social Influence, 1, 3–15.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 Personalityand Social Psychology, 58, 1015–1026.Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, andcompliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of socialpsychology, (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 151–193). New York: McGraw Hill.Clapp, J. D., Lange, J. E., Russel, C., Shillington, A., & Voas, R. (2003). A failed norms socialmarketing campaign. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64, 409–414.Costanzo, M., Archer, D., Aronson, E., & Pettigrew, T. (1986). Energy conservation behavior:The difficult path from information to action. American Psychologist, 41, 521–528.PROMOTING CONSERVATION IN HOTEL GUESTS 21Cunningham, W. H., & Lopreato, S. (1977). Energy use and conservation incentives: A study ofthe Southwestern United States. New York: Praeger.Darley, J., & Latane´, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion ofresponsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377–383.Darley, J., & Latane´, B. (1970). Norms and normative behavior: Field studies of socialinterdependence. In J. Macaulay & L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior(pp. 83–101). New York: Academic Press.Dijksterhuis, A., & Nordgren, L. (2006). A theory of unconscious thought. Perspectives onPsychological Science, 1, 95–109.Donaldson, S. I., Graham, J. W., & Hansen, W. B. (1994). Testing the generalizability ofintervening mechanism theories: Understanding the effects of adolescent drug useprevention interventions. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 17, 195–216.Donaldson, S. I., Graham, J. W., Piccinin, A. M., & Hansen, W. B. (1995). Resistance-skillstraining and onset of alcohol use: Evidence for beneficial and potentially harmful effects inpublic schools and in private Catholic schools. Health Psychology, 14, 291–300.Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002). Self and social identity. Annual Review ofPsychology, 53, 161–186.Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.Geller, E. S. (1992). It takes more than information to save energy. American Psychologist, 47,814–815.Goldstein, N. J., & Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Using social norms as a lever of social influence. InA. Pratkanis (Ed.), The science of social influence: Advances and future progress(pp. 167–191). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). A room with a viewpoint: Usingnormative appeals to motivate environmental conservation in a hotel setting. Manuscriptsubmitted for publication.Haines, M., & Barker, G. (2003). The Northern Illinois University experiment: A longitudinalcase study of the social norms approach. In W. Perkins (Ed.), The social norms approach topreventing school and college age substance abuse: A handbook for educators, counselors, andclinicians (pp. 21–34). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Hodges, B., & Geyer, A. (2006). A nonconformist account of the Asch experiments: Values,pragmatics, and moral dilemmas. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 2–19.Hogg, M. A. (2003). Social identity. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of selfand identity (pp. 462–479). New York: The Guilford Press.Kaiser, F., & Wilson, M. (2004). Goal-directed conservation behavior: The specific compositionof a general performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1531–1544.Kluger, A., & DeNisi, A. (1996). Effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historicalreview, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. PsychologicalBulletin, 119, 254–284.Lewin, K. (1952). Group discussion and social change. In G. E. Swanson, T. Newcomb, &E. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp. 459–473). New York: Holt.McKenzie-Mohr, D., & Smith, W. (1999). Fostering sustainable behavior: An introduction tocommunity-based social marketing. Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada: New Society.Milgram, S., Bickman, L., & Berkowitz, L. (1969). Note on the drawing power of crowds ofdifferent size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 79–82.Neighbors, C., Larimer, M. E., & Lewis, M. A. (2004). Targeting misperceptions of descriptivedrinking norms: Efficacy of a computer-delivered personalized normative feedbackintervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 434–447.Nolan, J., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R., Goldstein, N., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). Social norms asunderdetected agents of influence. Manuscript submitted for publication.22 SCHULTZ, KHAZIAN, ZALESKIPerkins, H. W. (2002). Social norms and the prevention of alcohol misuse in collegiate contexts.Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 14, 164–172.Perkins, H. W. (2003). The emergence and evolution of the social norms approach to substanceabuse prevention. In H. W. Perkins (Ed.), Social norms approach to preventing school andcollege age substance use (pp. 3–17). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Perkins, H. W., & Berkowitz, A. (1986). Using student alcohol surveys: Notes on clinical andeducation program applications. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 31, 44–51.Rimal, R., Lapinski, M., Cook, R., & Real, K. (2005). Moving toward a theory of normativeinfluences: How perceived benefits and similarity moderate the impact of descriptive normson behaviors. Journal of Health Communications, 10, 433–450.Samuelson, C., & Biek, M. (1991). Attitudes toward energy conservation: A confirmatoryfactor analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 549–568.Schultz, P. W. (1999). Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: A fieldexperiment of curbside recycling. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21, 25–36.Schultz, P. W. (2002). Knowledge, education and household recycling: Examining theknowledge-deficit model of behavior change. In T. Dietz & P. Stern (Eds.), Education,information and voluntary measures in environmental protection (pp. 67–82). Washington,DC: National Academy Press.Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J., Cialdini, R., Goldstein, N., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). Theconstructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science,18, 429–434.Schultz, P. W., Tabanico, J., & Rendo´n, T. (in press). Normative beliefs as agents of influence:Basic processes and real-world applications. In R. Prislin & W. Crano (Eds.), Attitudes andattitude change. New York: Psychology Press.Seligman, C., Darley, J. M., & Becker, L. J. (1978). Behavioral approaches to residential energyconservation. In R. H. Socolow (Ed.), Saving energy in the home: Princeton’s experiments atTwin Rivers. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Siegel, A., & Siegel, S. (1957). Reference groups, membership groups, and attitude change.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55, 360–364.Sonderegger, R. C. (1978). Movers and stayers: The resident’s contribution to variation acrosshouses in energy consumption for space heating. Energy and Buildings, 1, 313–324.Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1996). Group norms and the attitude–behavior relationship: Arole for group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 776–793.Wechsler, H., Nelson, T., Lee, J. E., Seiberg, M., Lewis, C., & Keeling, R. (2003). Perceptionand reality: A national evaluation of social norms marketing interventions to reduce collegestudents’ heavy alcohol use. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64, 484–494.PROMOTING CONSERVATION IN HOTEL GUESTS 23