Social Contagion and Goal Framing: The Sustainability of Rule Compliance

doi:10.1017/9781108759458.029

29 - Social Contagion and Goal Framing: The Sustainability of Rule Compliance

from Part IV - Legitimacy and Social Norms

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 May 2021

Siegwart Lindenberg ,

Frédérique Six and

Kees Keizer

Edited by

Benjamin van Rooij and

D. Daniel Sokol

Show author details

Benjamin van Rooij: Affiliation:
School of Law, University of Amsterdam
D. Daniel Sokol: Affiliation:
University of Florida

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Abstract: Rule compliance (in organizations or society at large) may be strengthened or weakened by social contagion processes. Observing others’ (non-)compliance with rules influences one’s own likelihood of compliance. Extant literature shows two social contagion theories that can explain this phenomenon. First, the theory of normative conduct (TNC) (Cialdini et al. 1990) suggests that people interpret the observed behaviour of others (i.e. the descriptive norm) as adaptive for that context, resulting in rational imitation. Second, Goal Framing Theory (GFT) (Lindenberg and Steg 2007) suggests that we should look not just at the contagion of concrete behaviour but at the process that governs the contagion of the very goal to comply with norms and legitimate rules. This is particularly important because it predicts that observed (non-)compliance regarding one rule also affects (non-)compliance with other rules (‘cross-norm effects’). Because the goal to comply tends to decay, it needs continuous support from the observation of other people’s respect for norms and legitimate rules. Compliance and non-compliance are thus both self-reinforcing mechanisms. This has clear implications for policy which are discussed in this chapter, most notably the importance of a focus on legitimizing rules, so that they are interpreted as norms by the general public.

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Compliance , pp. 422 - 437

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108759458.029 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Appelbaum, Steven H., Iaconi, Giulio David and Matousek, Albert. ‘Positive and Negative Deviant Workplace Behaviors: Causes, Impacts, and Solutions’. Corporate Governance 7, no. 5 (2007): 586–98.Google Scholar

Aquino, Karl, Freeman, Dan, Reed, Americus II and Lim, Vivien K. G.. ‘Testing a Social-Cognitive Model of Moral Behavior: The Interactive Influence of Situations and Moral Identity Centrality’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97, no. 1 (2009): 123–41.Google Scholar

Ariely, Dan, and Garcia-Rada, Ximena. ‘Contagious Dishonesty’. Scientific American 321, no. 3 (2019): 62–6.Google Scholar

Bergquist, Magnus, Nilsson, Andreas and Schultz, Wesley P.. ‘A Meta-analysis of Field-Experiments Using Social Norms to Promote Proenvironmental Behaviors’. Global Environmental Change 58 (2019).Google Scholar

Brown, Michael E., and Treviño, Linda K.. ‘Ethical Leadership: A Review and Future Directions’. Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006): 595–616.CrossRef Google Scholar

Brunner, Markus, and Ostermaier, Andreas. ‘Peer Influence on Managerial Honesty: The Role of Transparency and Expectations’. Journal of Business Ethics 154 (2019): 127–45.CrossRef Google Scholar

Burdon, W. M., and Sorour, Mohamed Karim. ‘Institutional Theory and Evolution of “A Legitimate” Compliance Culture: The Case of the UK Financial Service Sector’. Journal of Business Ethics (2018): doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018–3981-4.Google Scholar

Cialdini, Robert. ‘Descriptive Social Norms as Underappreciated Sources of Social Control’. Psychometrika 72, no. 2 (2007): 263–8.Google Scholar

Cialdini, Robert, Reno, Raymond R. and Kallgren, Carl A.. ‘A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct – Recycling the Concept of Norms to Reduce Littering in Public Places’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58 (1990): 1015–26.Google Scholar

Costa, Dora L., and Kahn, Matthew E.. ‘Energy Conservation “Nudge” and Environmentalist Ideology: Evidence from a Randomized Residential Field Experiment’. Journal of the. European Economic Association 11, no. 3 (2013): 680–702.Google Scholar

Etienne, Julien. ‘Compliance Theory: A Goal Framing Approach’. Law and Policy 33, no. 3 (2011): 305–33.Google Scholar

Fornara, Ferdinando, Carrus, Giuseppe, Passafaro, Paola and Bonnes, Mirilia. ‘Distinguishing the Sources of Normative Influence on Proenvironmental Behaviors: The Role of Local Norms in Household Waste Recycling’. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 14 (2011): 623–35.Google Scholar

Frey, Bruno S., and Gallus, Jana. 2017. Honours versus Money: The Economics of Awards. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gächter, Simon. 2007. ‘Conditional Cooperation: Behavioral Regularities from the Lab and the Field and Their Policy Implications’. In Psychology and Economics: A Promising New Cross-Disciplinary Field (Cesinfo Seminar Series), edited by Frey, B. S. and Stuzter, A., 19–50. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Goldstein, Noah, Cialdini, Robert and Griskevicius, Vladas. ‘A Room with a Viewpoint: Using Norm-Based Appeals to Motivate Conservation Behaviors in a Hotel Setting’. Journal of Consumer Research 35 (2008): 472–82.Google Scholar

Katz, Elihu, and Lazarsfeld, Paul. 1955. Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communication.Glencoe, IL:Free PressGoogle Scholar

Keizer, Kees, Lindenberg, Siegwart and Steg, Linda. ‘The Spreading of Disorder’. Science 322, no. 5908 (2008): 1681–5.Google Scholar

Keizer, Kees, Lindenberg, Siegwart and Steg, Linda. ‘The Reversal Effect of Prohibition Signs’. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 14, no. 5 (2011): 681–8.Google Scholar

Keizer, Kees, Lindenberg, Siegwart and Steg, Linda. ‘The Importance of Demonstratively Restoring Order’. PLOSone 8, no. 6 (2013): e65137.Google Scholar

Kouchaki, Maryam, Gino, Francesca and Feldman, Yval. ‘The Ethical Perils of Personal, Communal Relations: A Language Perspective’. Psychological Science (2019): DOI: 10.1177/0956797619882917.Google Scholar

Lindenberg, Siegwart & Kees Keizer. in press. ‘The Good Side of Bad Examples: Deviance by Out-Groups Can Increase Conformity to One’s Own Norms’.Google Scholar

Lindenberg, Siegwart. 2006. ‘Prosocial Behavior, Solidarity, and Framing Processes’. In Solidarity and Prosocial Behavior: An Integration of Sociological and Psychological Perspectives, edited by Fetchenhauer, Detlef, Flache, Andreas, Buunk, Abraham P. and Lindenberg, Siegwart, 23–44. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Lindenberg, Siegwart. 2008. ‘Social Norms: What Happens When They Become More Abstract?’ In Rational Choice: Theoretische Analysen und empirische Resultate, edited by Diekmann, Anadreas, Eichner, Klaus, Schmidt, Peter and Voss, Thomas, 63–82. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar

Lindenberg, Siegwart. 2014a. ‘Solidarity: Unpacking the Social Brain’. In Solidarity – Theory and Practice, edited by Laitinen, Arto and Pessi, Anne Birgitta, 30–54. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar

Lindenberg, Siegwart. ‘Sustainable Cooperation Needs Tinkering with Both Rules and Social Motivation’. Journal of Bioeconomics 16 (2014b): 71–81.Google Scholar

Lindenberg, Siegwart. 2017. ‘The Dependence of Human Cognitive and Motivational Processes on Institutional Systems’. In Social Dilemmas, Institutions, and the Evolution of Cooperation, edited by Jann, Ben and Przepiorka, Wojtek, 85–106. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lindenberg, Siegwart, and Foss, Nicolai. ‘Managing Joint Production Motivation: The Role of Goal-Framing and Governance Mechanisms’. Academy of Management Review 36, no. 3 (2011): 500–25.Google Scholar

Lindenberg, Siegwart, and Papies, Esther K.. ‘Two Kinds of Nudging and the Power of Cues: Shifting Salience of Alternatives and Shifting Salience of Goals’. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics 13 (2019): 229–63.Google Scholar

Lindenberg, Siegwart, and Steg, Linda. ‘Normative, Gain and Hedonic Goal Frames Guiding Environmental Behavior’. Journal of Social Issues 63, no. 1 (2007): 117–37.Google Scholar

Mas, Alexander, and Moretti, Enrico. ‘Peers at Work’. American Economic Review 99, no. 1 (2009): 112–45.Google Scholar

McBarnet, Doreen. 2002. ‘When Compliance Is Not the Solution but the Problem: From Changes in Law to Changes in Attitude’. In Taxing Democracy, edited by Braithwaite, Valerie, 229–244. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar

Mortensen, Chad F., Neel, Rebecca, Cialdini, Robert B., Jaeger, Christine M., Jacobson, Ryan P. and Ringel, Megan M.. ‘Trending Norms: A Lever for Encouraging Behaviors Performed by the Minority’. Social Psychological and Personality Science 10, no. 2 (2019): 201–10.CrossRef Google Scholar

Peterson, Dane K. ‘Deviant Workplace Behavior and the Organization’s Ethical Climate’. Journal of Business and Psychology 17, no. 1 (2002): 47–61.Google Scholar

Reno, Raymond R., Cialdini, Robert B. and Kallgren, Carl A.. ‘The Transsituational Influence of Social Norms’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64, no.1 (1993): 104–12.Google Scholar

Robinson, Carly, Gallus, Jana, Lee, Monica and Rogers, Todd. ‘The Demotivating Effect (and Unintended Message) of Awards’. HKS Working Paper No. RWP18-020 (2019): https://ssrn.com/abstract=3219502 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3219502.Google Scholar

Rogers, Todd., Goldstein, Noah J. and Fox, Craig R.. ‘Social Mobilization’. Annual Review of Psychology 69 (2018): 357–81.Google Scholar

Schaefers, Tobias, Wittkowski, Kristina, Benoit, Sabine and Ferraro, Rosellina. ‘Contagious Effects of Customer Misbehavior in Access-Based Services’. Journal of Service Research 19, no. 1 (2016): 3–21.Google Scholar

Sims, Ronald R., and Brinkmann, Johannes. ‘Leaders as Moral Role Models: The Case of John Gutfreund at Salomon Brothers’. Journal of Business Ethics 35 (2002): 327–39.Google Scholar

Singh, Prakash, and Twalo, Thembinkosi. ‘Mismanaging Unethical Behaviour in the Workplace’. Journal of Applied Business Research 31, no. 2 (2015): 515–30.Google Scholar

Smith, Joanne R., Louis, Winnifred R., Terry, Deborah J., Greenaway, Katharine H., Clarke, Miranda R. and Cheng, Xiaoliang. ‘Congruent or Conflicted? The Impact of Injunctive and Descriptive Norms on Environmental Intentions’. Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012): 353–61.Google Scholar

Steg, Linda, Lindenberg, Siegwart and Keizer, Kees. ‘Intrinsic Motivation, Norms and Environmental Behaviour: The Dynamics of Overarching Goals’. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics 9, no. 1–2 (2015): 179–207.Google Scholar

Stryker, Robin. ‘Rules, Resources, and Legitimacy Processes: Some Implications for Social Conflict, Order, and Change’. American Journal of Sociology 99, no. 4 (1994): 847–910.Google Scholar

Thöni, Christian, and Gächter, Simon. ‘Peer Effects and Social Preferences in Voluntary Cooperation: A Theoretical and Experimental Analysis’. Journal of Economic Psychology 48 (2015): 72–88.CrossRef Google Scholar

Traxler, Christian, and Winter, Joachim. ‘Survey Evidence on Conditional Norm Enforcement’. European Journal of Political Economy 28 (2012): 390–8.Google Scholar

Tyler, Tom R. 2006. Why People Obey the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Van Wijk, Eelco, and Six, Frédérique E.. 2014. De diversiteit van het willen, Een onderzoek naar de dynamiek van motivaties achter regelnaleving [Dynamics of Multiple Motivations]. The Hague: Boom.Google Scholar

Verplanken, Bas, and Sui, Jie, ‘Habit and Identity: Behavioral, Cognitive, Affective, and Motivational Facets of an Integrated Self’. Frontiers in Psychology (2019): doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01504.Google Scholar

Weber, Max. 1978 [1922]. Economy and Society, edited by Roth, G. and Wittich, C.. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

White, Katharine, and Dahl, Darren W.. ‘Are All Out-Groups Created Equal? Consumer Identity and Dissociative Influence’. Journal of Consumer Research 34 (2007): 525–36.Google Scholar