11 Complete

University of Groningen
The spreading of disorder.

Keizer, Kees
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to
cite from it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date:
2010
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):

Keizer, K. E. (2010). The spreading of disorder. Groningen: s.n.
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the
author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately
and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the
number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
Download date: 20-10-2017

The Spreading of Disorder
Voor mijn ouders
Printing: Ridderprint B.V.
ISBN (Paper version): 978-90-367-4586-4

ISBN (Electronic version): 978-90-367-4587-1
RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT GRONINGEN
THE SPREADING OF DISORDER
Proefschrift
ter verkrijging van het doctoraat in de

Gedrags- en Maatschappijwetenschappen
aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
op gezag van de
Rector Magnificus, dr. F. Zwarts,
in het openbaar te verdedigen op
donderdag 14 oktober 2010
om 11.00 uur
door
Kees Evert Keizer

geboren op 16 maart 1975
te Leeuwarden
Promotores : Prof. dr. S. M. Lindenberg
Prof. dr. E. M. Steg
Beoordelingscommissie : Prof. dr. P. W. Schultz

Prof. dr. R. P. M. Wittek
Prof. dr. A. J. M. W. Hagendoorn
ISBN: 978-90-367-4586-4
Contents
Page
Chapter 1: General introduction 7
Chapter 2: The Spreading of Disorder 17
Supporting material for the spreading of disorder 32
Chapter 3: Helpfulness in public places: 39
Why does it vary and how can it be increased?
Chapter 4: Higher-ups make especially influential norm violators 53
Chapter 5: The reversal effect of prohibition signs 67
Chapter 6: General discussion 85
Dutch summary / Nederlandse samenvatting 93
References 103
Acknowledgements 111
ICS dissertation series 113

Chapter 1
General Introduction
7
Chapter 1
Maybe the best introduction for this dissertation is a simple trip to your local
supermarket. What seems like an uninteresting everyday task is in the light of this
dissertation a journey in the field of social norms. We namely live in a world of rules,
standards and regulations, and on this trip you will encounter dozens. For example, you
are not allowed to park your car in front of the store. You have to use the right door to
enter the store. You have to use a shopping cart. You are not allowed to smoke, drink or
start eating that delicious looking croissant, you just picked up from the shelf. It is not
appropriate to jump the queue or litter the plastic bag of the croissant on the pavement.
Whereas it is the appropriate behavior to help the man who just dropped all his groceries.
You have to walk on the pavement. You are not allowed to jaywalk. When you finally
reach your car and loaded the groceries, you have to make the whole trip again because
you have to return the shopping cart. All these norms, i.e. rules of behavior tell us which
behavior is commonly approved or disapproved in a certain setting. Norms are
inseparable to life in social contexts. They are in a sense the glue of our society, as they
regulate people’s pursuit of personal needs and desires and in doing so prevent conflicts
and chaos (Sherif 1936/ 1965). Social norms in the strict sense are defined as: “rules and
standards that are understood by members of a group, and that guide and/or constrain
human behavior without the force of laws” (Cialdini & Trost, 1998, p. 152). In this
dissertation I use a broader definition of (social) norms namely the behavior generally
considered (in)appropriate, this refers to all legitimate rules, including laws, rules by
8
private companies and also pro-social norms such as helping someone in need. These
norms can be as general as “thou shalt not steal” or as specific as “no reading while
eating at the kitchen table” (a norm in the household where I grew up). Norms can be
transsituational (Reno, Cialdini, & Kallgren, 1993) and extend to all or many settings,
like being polite to others, but they can also be limited to a certain setting (Aarts, &
Dijksterhuis, 2003). For example, talking out loud is a norm violation in a library but
very appropriate while having a party.
Although norm-conforming behavior is in the best interest of others and the community
as a whole, it is often not in the best interest of the individual it self. It is much easier to
litter a soda can than carry the can with you to the next trashcan 4 blocks away. Although
it varies greatly across settings and situations whether people conform to norms, there is
no question that people’s behavior is often guided by social norms (e.g. Cialdini & Trost,
1998). So why do we conform to social norms? Violating social norms is often associated
with sanctions, whereas norm-conforming behavior is associated with approval and
reward. There is no denying that the forecast of a sanction for transgressions can induce
norm conforming behavior. In Singapore the police officer on every street corner and the
prospect of a fine up to $2000 will probably scare you into not littering. These sanctions
and rewards can also be informal, the classical work on conformity points to the human
desire to be liked (or not to be disliked) by others, as one of the mechanisms that drives
conformity to group norms (Deutch and Gerard, 1955). It is clear this mechanism can be
influential, it influences men into wearing a tie and woman into waxing there legs. Asch
(1956) for example showed that people when seated in a group are likely to follow the
answer given by the rest of the group even when it is clear (to them) that this answer is
9
Chapter 1
false. Although considerations of costs and benefits can spark norm-conforming
behavior, they are neither able to solely explain the influence of norms on behavior nor
the variance in this influence. For many norms the costs of transgression are low or even
absent, nevertheless people tent to conform to them. Littering or not returning your
shopping cart is not likely to get fined or be met by open disapproval by other people, so
their costs are low (if we don’t take Singapore into account). But the majority of people
does not litter anyway, even when other people are absent and there is no chance of
getting fined. Apparently, it is not (merely) anticipated sanctions that determine norm
conformity. What is going on? We know from prior research (Cialdini, Kallgren & Reno,
1990) that social norms need to be activated to influence behavior. This even applies to
personal norms, i.e. rules or standards for one’s own behavior (Kallgren, Reno, &
Cialdini, 2000). As norm conformity differs across settings, the environment seems to
play an important role in the activation and deactivation of norms. How exactly does this
work? What does it depend on? This dissertation explores these issues, using a theory
that specifically focuses on the environmental influences on the (de)activation of norms:
goal-framing theory.
The goal-framing theory (Lindenberg & Steg, 2007) states that the influence of norms on
people’s behavior is determined by the goal they pursue. Goals influence how one
perceives, evaluates and behaves (in) a setting and what one is sensitive to in that
situation. The theory distinguishes three overarching goals: hedonic, gain and normative
goals. People, pursuing a gain goal focus on guarding and improving their recourses.
People pursuing a hedonic goal are mainly focused on guarding and improving the way
10
they feel right now (short-term perspective). A normative goal on the other hand focuses
people at what is generally considered appropriate. All three goals may be influential at a
given time but the relative weight of their influence differs across situations. One of the
three overarching goals is focal at a given moment, with the other two goals in the
cognitive background. With regard to the focal goal, one is particularly attentive and
sensitive to information that pertains to this goal. Thus, people for whom the normative
goal is focal, will be especially attending and sensitive to information concerning norms
in a situation. Changes in the degree of activation of a goal can make a goal from the
background become focal and vice-versa. Thus, as goals can conflict, the weakening of
one goal will make another goal (or both other goals) relatively more influential.
Therefore the weakening of the normative goal makes hedonic and/ or gain goals more
influential, thereby inhibiting the influence of norms in general. Conversely,
strengthening the normative goal enhances the influence of norms on behavior.
The normative goal is a priori the weakest of the three; therefore its strength relies (more
than the other goals) on (external) support, especially on the behavior of other people. So
what happens when a setting reveals lack of support for a norm? In the public realm,
there are often cues that others violated a certain norm, such as litter on the streets,
graffiti on the walls, bicycles and cars parked where this is not allowed. According to the
theory such negative “norm-support cues” should weaken the general normative goal to
act appropriately and thus inhibit the influence of norms. This effect should hold for the
weakening of a norm that corresponds to the observed norm violation. For example,
seeing others throw trash on the ground, should make it more likely that one does not
keep to the anti-littering norm oneself. However, there should be an even more interesting
11
Chapter 1
phenomenon to be observed: if others show disrespect for one norm, one’s general goal to
keep to norms becomes weaker (less activated) and thus one should also be less likely to
follow another, quite unrelated, norm: a cross-norm inhibition effect. If this is correct,
then norm violations will have a tendency to spread from one norm to other norms. This
is only a prediction from goal-framing theory. Is there empirical support for this effect?
Are we for example more likely to litter, ignore prohibition signs or even steal in a setting
sprayed with graffiti? These and related questions will be pursued in this dissertation with
the help of experiments, many of which are field experiments with a high ecological
validity: experiments in the public realm.
The logic that links the different experiments and explains their sequence is the
following. First, we1 address norms that pertain to the maintenance of public order, such
as the anti-littering norm. In a series of studies (chapter 2), we focus on the cross-norm
inhibition effect in the public realm. Would this effect hold for various kinds of rules, as
the theory predicted? We vary the kinds of rules that one observed being transgressed
from social norms to police ordinances, to private rules and federal laws. We also vary
the rules one is willing to violate from anti-littering to trespassing to stealing.
Since one might be sanctioned financially or socially for littering or stealing, the question
is whether the activation of norms is due to the idea that where norms are violated by
others, norms are not enforced and therefore one can violate them with impunity. This
would not be an effect of norm (de)activation, as described earlier. To rule out a guess on
1
I use the term “we” and not “I” throughout the remainder of the dissertation, when I refer to the authors,
as the research described being the product of a collaboration with my promoters: Siegwart Lindenberg and
Linda Steg.
12
law enforcement as the mechanism behind an increase in norm violating behavior in these
settings, we look in chapter 3 at norms that are not associated with sanctions when
violated: pro-social norms. Although helping a stranger who dropped something or return
an item that somebody lost is considered appropriate behavior, you will not get
sanctioned for not acting accordingly. Are these pro-social helping norms also inhibited
in settings with negative norm support cues? Are we less likely to help someone in a
littered setting? If this is true it could explain why in public places helpfulness towards
strangers in public places varies so much across settings (Levine, Martinez, Sorenson,
1994).
In public places we are not only confronted with cues that signal disrespect for norms,
fortunately there are also cues clearly signaling respect or care for norms or disapproval
of norm violating behavior (i.e. positive-norm support cues). There is that shop owner
who sweeps the pavement of the street his shop is situated on. The person walking in
front of you who almost took the left door in the supermarket but turns around to take the
appropriate entrance. If negative norm-support cues like litter inhibit the influence of
norms, will positive norm-support cues than induce norm conforming behavior, by
strengthening the normative goal? Will observing a positive norm-support cue like
someone sweeping the streets reinforce the influence of norms (like being helpful to
strangers). We address the inhibition and the reinforcement of pro-social norm influence
in chapter 3.
The presence of people in general can make social norms more salient, but some people
can be expected to be especially influential in this respect: significant others. Significant
others are people whose normative expectations matter for the individual (see Ajzen
13
Chapter 1
1991). The (psychological) presence of these significant others can be expected to
activate the norms that are perceived to be endorsed by these significant others (Stapel,
Joly & Lindenberg, 2010). Thinking about a significant other will activate the norms they
are associated with (Chaiken, 1980; Fitzsimons & Bargh, 2003). In doing so the
normative expectations of significant others influence how people evaluate or behave (in)
certain settings. For example, merely thinking about your parents might make you sit up
strait or eat with knife and fork. In this dissertation we reason that higher-ups (in e.g.
companies) are also likely to make certain norms (e.g. company norms) more salient.
Thinking of your boss might induce you to clean your workspace as company rules
command. So what happens when a higher up violates the norm he or she makes salient?
What if the managers steal company money? The higher-ups are than the negative-norm
support cue for the norm they them selves make salient. Does this enhanced norm
salience also make the corresponding negative-norm support cue more salient and
therefore more influential? Does the norm-violating behavior of higher-ups inhibit the
influence of norms to a greater extent than when the norm violators are people with less
status in the company? These questions are addressed in chapter 4.
Significant others make norms (and their violation) particularly salient. Another way of
making them salient is by means of prohibition signs. Such signs are often placed in a
setting where a particular norm is frequently violated. Is this a wise approach or will
placing a prohibition sign also make the negative norm-support cues more salient and
thereby more influential? We address this possible reversal effect of prohibition signs in
chapter 5.
14
In sum, in this dissertation I study the inhibition effects of negative norm support cues on
norm-conformity and the norm reinforcement effects of positive norm-support cues. I
also investigate whether the influence of norm-support cues is enhanced when the
corresponding norm is made salient. The main focus lies on the cross-norm inhibition
effect. The general framework through out the dissertation is the goal framing theory. The
four empirical chapters take the form of four separate papers. Chapter 2 is already
published (Keizer, Lindenberg & Steg, 2008) chapters 3 and 5 are both under review and
chapter 4 will be submitted in the near future. As the chapters are separate papers there
will be some overlap in the theoretical reasoning.
15
16
Chapter 2
The Spreading of disorder
17
Chapter 2
Imagine that the neighborhood you are living in is covered with graffiti, litter, and
unreturned shopping carts. Would this reality cause you to litter more, trespass, or even
steal? A thesis known as the broken windows theory suggests that signs of disorderly and
petty criminal behavior trigger more disorderly and petty criminal behavior, thus causing
the behavior to spread. This may cause neighborhoods to decay and the quality of life of
its inhabitants to deteriorate. For a city government, this may be a vital policy issue. But
does disorder really spread in neighborhoods? So far there has not been strong empirical
support, and it is not clear what constitutes disorder and what may make it spread. We
generated hypotheses about the spread of disorder and tested them in six field
experiments. We found that, when people observe that others violated a certain social
norm or legitimate rule, they are more likely to violate other norms or rules, which causes
disorder to spread.
In the mid-1990s, the mayor of New York and his police commissioner adopted a
“Quality of life campaign.” Attention was focused on fighting signs of disorder and petty
crime. Graffiti was removed, streets were swept, and signs of vandalism were cleared.
This initiative was based on the broken windows theory (BWT) of Wilson and Kelling
(1982). The BWT suggests that signs of disorder like broken windows, litter, and graffiti
induce other (types of) disorder and petty crime (Gladwell, 2000). It was thought that
18
The spreading of disorder
removing these signs of disorder would take away an important trigger of disorderly and
petty criminal behavior. After the introduction of the campaign, petty crime rates in New
York dropped. Since then, approaches based on the BWT have become popular and have
been adopted worldwide (e.g., in various cities in the United States, Great Britain,
Netherlands, Indonesia, and South Africa).
BWT may be very popular, but it is also highly controversial. So far, it lacks empirical
support, and it fails to specify what constitutes disorder. Studies aimed to test the BWT
(Skogan, 1990; Kelling & Cole, 1996; Kelling & Sousa, 2001; Sampson & Raudenbush,
1999) have provided mixed results at best. The National Research Council (NRC, 2004)
concluded that the research did not provide strong support for the BWT. There is also
little evidence that broken window policing contributed to the sharp decrease in petty
crime in New York (Harcourt, 1998; Eck & Maquire, 2000; Harcourt & Ludwig, 2006).
Moreover, to our knowledge, research on the BWT has so far been correlational, so
conclusions about causality are shaky (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999; Harcourt, 1998).
The BWT suggests that a setting with disorder triggers disorderly and petty criminal
behavior, but it might be the other way around or both may be caused by a third variable.
Furthermore, the BWT gives no insight into what is and what is not a condition of
disorder that will spread. Because the BWT forms the backbone of many cities’ defense
against the growing threat of disorder and petty crime, these shortcomings need to be
addressed.
In the present study, we conducted six field experiments that address these issues. Our
first step was to conceptualize a disorderly setting in such a way that we can link it to a
process of spreading norm violations. Social norms refer either to the perception of
common (dis)approval of a particular kind of behavior (injunctive norm) or to a particular
19
Chapter 2
behavior common in a setting (descriptive norm) (Cialdini, Kallgren & Reno, 1990;
Cialdini, Kallgren & Reno, 1991; Cialdini, 1993; Codol, 1975; Marques, Abrams, Paez,
& Martinez-Taboada, 1998; Shaffer, 1983). Injunctive norms affect behavior because
they provide information about which behavior is most appropriate in a given situation
(e.g., Chaiken, Giner-Sorolla & Chen, 1996; Cialdini & Trost, 1998; Deutsch & Gerard,
1955). For example, the antilitter norm is a widely held injunctive norm (e.g., Berkowitz,
1972; Bickman, 1972). The extent to which an injunctive norm affects behavior depends
on how much the norm is on people’s mind (Reno, Cialdini & Kallgren, 1993; Schwartz
& Fleishman, 1978). For example, an antilitter norm will be more on people’s minds
when they see someone picking up a piece of litter (which shows disapprovement of
littering) (Cialdini, et al., 1991) or simply see a norm stated on a sign (Cialdini,
2003;Winter, et al., 2000). Descriptive norms affect behavior because they provide
information about which behavior is most common in a given situation. For example, a
littered setting shows that it is common to litter and will therefore enhance littering
(Cialdini, et al., 1990; Krauss, Freedman, & Whitcup, 1978; Finnie, 1973). Similar to
injunctive norms, the more conspicuous the descriptive norm, the more strongly it
influences behavior. For example, the probability that a participant litters in a littered
setting is enhanced when a lot of litter is present or when the participant watches
someone littering (Cialdini, et al., 1990). Injunctive and descriptive norms can be in
conflict, as for example in a setting where it is common to litter even though littering is
commonly disapproved of. Thus, settings described in BWT as disorderly (e.g., a littered
setting) can be conceptualized as settings in which descriptive and injunctive norms are in
conflict. The next question then is how behavior is influenced by such a setting.
Injunctive-norm information in a persuasive message is more effective when
20
accompanied by descriptive norm information that is in alignment rather than in conflict
with that message (Cialdini, 2003; Cialdini, et al., 2006; Rimal, Lapinski, Cook & Real,
2005; Schultz, Khazian & Zaleski, 2008). For example, a sign drawing attention to the
antilitter norm is more influential in reducing littering when placed in a non littered
setting than when it is placed in a prelittered setting (Reiter & Samuel, 1980). Thus, a
setting with graffiti, described by the BWT as a setting showing disorder, can cause the
spraying of graffiti because it inhibits the injunctive anti graffiti norm. In honor of the
individual who first described this process, we call this the Cialdini effect. The important
question for the BWT is whether or not it also causes disorderly (or petty criminal)
behavior in general. The question we will address is the following: Do more people litter
or even steal in a setting where the anti-graffiti norm (injunctive norm) is in conflict with
the descriptive norm (setting shows it is common to spray graffiti)?
The Cialdini effect has its basis in people’s tendency to reason “if a lot of people are
doing this, it’s probably a wise thing to do” and to do what they observe others are doing
(Cialdini, 2007) However, we believe that there is another, goal-driven mechanism at
work as well, which is particularly important for the spread of disorder. Much conformity
to injunctive norms is the result of people pursuing the goal to act appropriately.
However, people can also pursue a hedonic goal directed at feeling better right now or a
gain goal directed at guarding and improving one’s resources. All three goals can be in
conflict, and the weakening of one is likely to bring another goal to the fore (Lindenberg
& Steg, 2007). In a given situation, the goal to act appropriately is weakened when
people observe that others seemingly did (or do) not pursue the goal to act appropriately.
In turn, a weakening of this goal strengthens conflicting hedonic and gain goals. For
example, when people observe that others have painted graffiti where it should not have
21
Chapter 2
been painted, they actually observe inappropriate behavior. This, we predict, weakens
their concern for appropriateness and strengthens the goal to do what makes them feel
good (for example, by being lazy and throwing paper on the street) or the goal to gain
resources (say by stealing). Thus people don’t necessarily copy the inappropriate
behavior they observe but let concerns other than appropriateness take center stage. In
this way, one norm violation fosters violations of other norms, and disorder spreads from
one kind of inappropriate behavior to other kinds. We call this the cross- norm inhibition
effect. An important implication of this “goal-framing” theory for the BWT is that the
effect should not be limited to social norms in the strict sense of the word but would also
apply to all sorts of legitimate rules, such as laws, police ordinances, or even legitimate
rules established by private companies.
To test this theory, we conducted controlled field experiments in common public spaces
(see also attached supporting material), that is, in locations where ordinary “broken
window” kind of disorder could be observed.
Participants were people in the public space judged to be 18 years or older. There were no
signs in any of the studies that they were aware of being observed by the experimenter.
We distinguished between a contextual norm (which the participant witnessed having
been violated) and a target norm (a violation committed by the participant). What we
manipulated were the indications that the contextual norm was being violated. What we
observed as a dependent variable was the relative number of individuals who then
violated the target norm, which was inconvenient or costly to follow in this situation. We
predicted that disorder (violation of contextual norm) would spread (violation of target
norm). To study the robustness of this cross-norm inhibition effect, we conducted six
different studies. For ease of description, let us call the situation in which the contextual
22
norm is violated (i.e., inappropriate behavior by others is being displayed) the disorder
condition and the one in which it is not violated the order condition. Other factors
possibly influencing the results were kept constant between conditions (no signs of other
norm or rule violations, same weather conditions, and same period of the day). A
confederate posted out of sight observed whether participants did or did not violate the
target norm. Gender was coded at first but turned out not to have any impact on the
results and was dropped in later experiments. The arrangements in all experiments were
such that it was virtually impossible for people not to notice the violations of injunctive
norms (such as graffiti, wrongly parked bicycles, and firecrackers).
In study 1, the setting was an alley in Groningen located in a shopping area and
commonly used to park bicycles. In the order condition, the walls of the alley were clean
(Fig. 1A), whereas in the disorder condition they were covered with graffiti (Fig. 1B). A
standard prohibition sign (a round red sign with a round white center) with the text
“Graffiti” pointed out the disapproved behavior. The sign was highly noticeable, and
every subject entering the setting at least glanced at it. Participants (N = 77 in each
condition) were all people who came to collect their parked bicycles. In their absence, a
flyer with an elastic band had been attached to the handlebar of their bicycle. The flyer
was white and thus very noticeable. It read: “We wish everybody happy holidays,” signed
with the name of a nonexistent sportswear shop. The flyer had to be removed by the
participant to easily use the handlebar. Because there were no trashcans in the alley, “not
littering” meant taking the flyer with them. We counted throwing the flyer on the ground
or hanging it on another bicycle as littering.
The cross-norm inhibition effect of violating the anti-graffiti norm on littering was quite
substantial. Of the participants in the order condition (non-graffiti), 33% littered
23
Chapter 2
compared with 69% of the participants in the disorder condition (graffiti on the walls).
The difference is highly significant (χ²(1, 154) = 20.367, P < 0.001). In Groningen,
littering is generally tolerated by the police so that the effect could not be explained by
Fig. 1a (Left) Fig. 1b (Right)
a guess on law enforcement, such as “if people haven’t been caught painting graffiti, I
will not be caught dropping paper.”
We designed the next studies to include a variety of norms in order to address two
questions. We wanted to determine whether the cross- norm inhibition effect was
restricted to generally accepted social norms or whether, as expected by the goal-framing
theory, it also extended to local ordinances by the police or even to normative requests set
up by private companies. We also wanted to determine how far the influence would go.
In other words, would a norm violation just affect relatively light infractions, such as
littering, or would it go so far as to affect the willingness to violate such serious norms as
“thou shalt not steal”?
24
For study 2, we used a police ordinance as a contextual norm and “no trespassing” (as
ordered by the police) as the target norm in the setting of a car park. Thus, both
contextual and target norms were not general social norms but rules set up by the local
police for a particular local situation. A temporary fence (set up by us) closed off the
main entrance for people who came to pick up their car, but a gap of about 50 cm was left
open in the fence (Fig. 2; on next page). We attached two signs to the temporary fence
just 60 cm apart and directly next to the gap. The right sign (our contextual norm)
indicated that it was prohibited to lock bicycles to the fence. The left sign (our target
norm) made clear that it was prohibited to use this entrance and that people had to use an
alternative entrance to the car park, which required walking a 200-m detour. In the order
condition, four bicycles standing 1 m before the fence were ostensibly not locked to the
fence. In the disorder condition, four bicycles were locked to the fence for everyone to
see. The dependent variable was whether pedestrians conformed to the “no throughway”
sign (the target norm) and walked the 200-m detour to the temporary entrance that was
pointed out by the sign. Violating the “no throughway” ordinance meant stepping through
the gap in the fence. Subjects (N = 44 in the order condition and N = 49 in the disorder
condition) were all people who came to collect their car from the car park. A group of
people approaching the fence was counted as one subject.
25
Chapter 2
Fig. 2.
Again there was a clear cross-norm inhibition effect. Of the participants in the order
condition (where bicycles were not locked to the fence), 27% stepped through the gap in
the fence, compared with 82% of the participants in the disorder condition (where the
bicycles were attached to the fence). The difference is significant (χ²(1, 93) = 27.791, P <
0.001).
Would this also hold for a rule set by a private company that is not enforced with
sanctions? In study 3, a parking garage adjacent to a supermarket and health club was
used in which the contextual norm established by the private company is to return
shopping carts to the supermarket after loading groceries into one’s car. A very visible
26
sticker with the text: “please return your shopping carts” attached to the entrance doors of
the parking garage focused attention on this normative request (Fig. 3; on the next page).
In the order condition, the garage was clear of shopping carts that were not returned. In
the disorder condition, there were four unreturned shopping carts standing around in
disarray. The (unreturned) carts used in the disorder condition had no coin deposit
system, so people were not financially encouraged to return them. To discourage people
who just arrived from using the shopping carts and thus removing the disorder, we
smeared the handlebars of the carts with petroleum jelly. Participants (N = 60 in each
condition) were visitors of the supermarket and a health club who came to collect their
car from the multilevel parking garage. Only people not using a shopping cart were
included. The target norm was the anti-litter norm, already used in study 1. The
dependent variable was whether or not participants who returned to their car littered a
flyer (the same flyer as used in study 1) that was placed under the driver’s side
windshield wiper of their parked car. The results show that even with this private request,
a considerable cross-norm inhibition effect could be observed. Of the participants in the
condition without shopping carts, 30% littered the flyer, compared with 58% of the
participants in the condition for which unreturned shopping carts were present. The
difference is significant (χ²(1, 120) = 9.766, P = 0.002).
27
Chapter 2
Fig. 3.
Is disorder only linked to visual cues of norm violation? Would the cross-norm inhibition
effect be of any influence when the contextual norm was merely audible? In our fourth
study, we focused on a national law as a contextual norm. In Netherlands it is prohibited
by law (with a €60 fine) to set off fireworks in the weeks before New Year’s Eve. We
wanted to find out, 2 weeks before New Year’s Day, whether an offense against this
national law would induce people to litter. In contrast to studies 1 to 3, the contextual
norm was not made conspicuous (say by a sign stating the law). The law about fireworks
is well known, and its violation itself would immediately make the law salient in people’s
mind. The setting we used was a bicycle shed located near a busy train station. The
28
subjects (N = 50 in the order condition and N = 46 in the disorder condition) were all
people who came to collect their parked bicycle. In the order condition, there was no
sound of fireworks. In the disorder condition, we set off firecrackers (well within hearing
distance of the participants but out of sight to prevent any visual cues). We observed
whether participants littered a flyer (the same flyer as used in studies 1 and 3) attached to
the handlebar of their bicycle. Of the subjects in the order condition (no fireworks set
off), 52% littered the flyer compared with 80% of the subjects that heard fireworks being
set off as they entered the bicycle shed. The difference is significant (χ²(1,96) = 8.587, P
= 0.003).
For studies 5 and 6, the target norm was stealing, and we examined whether an envelope,
visibly containing a €5 note and hanging out of a mailbox, would be stolen more often if
a contextual norm was violated. The white (addressed) window envelope sticking out of
a mailbox (situated in Groningen) was very noticeable for everyone approaching the
mailbox, and it was clearly visible that the envelope contained a €5 note (Fig. 4). The
participants were all people who singly passed the mailbox on foot (and the few who
actually posted a letter). We conducted a baseline order condition (N = 71) in which the
mailbox was not covered with graffiti and the ground around the mailbox was clean. We
then conducted two disorder conditions: one in which the mailbox was covered with
graffiti without litter on the ground (N = 60, study 5) and one in which there was no
graffiti on the mailbox but the space around the mailbox was littered (N = 72, study 6).
The circumstances of all three conditions in term of period of the day and weather were
held constant. The dependent variable was whether or not people would steal the
envelope. Leaving the envelope or pushing it into the mailbox was considered not
stealing. Opening the envelope or taking it was considered stealing. Thus, we compared
29
Chapter 2
Fig. 4 .
two disorder conditions to the baseline condition. The study 5 results were quite dramatic.
Of the participants in the baseline order condition (no graffiti, no littering), 13% stole the
envelope compared with 27% of the subjects in the graffiti disorder condition. The
difference is significant (χ²(1, 131) = 4.122, P = 0.035).
The results of study 5 proved to be robust. Compared with the baseline order condition
(in which 13% stole the envelope), 25% of the subjects in study 6 stole the envelope in
the litter disorder condition. The difference is again significant (χ²(1, 143) = 3.545, P =
0.047). It is highly unlikely that this effect is due to a guess about the likelihood of law
enforcement triggered by littering. People are not likely to infer a low likelihood of law
enforcement against stealing from the fact that people littered the street, because in
Groningen littering is generally tolerated by the police whereas stealing is not. The most
30
likely interpretation of these results is, as before, that one disorder (graffiti or littering)
actually fostered a new disorder (stealing) by weakening the goal of acting appropriately.
Our conclusion is that, as a certain norm- violating behavior becomes more common, it
will negatively influence conformity to other norms and rules. The effect was not limited
to social norms but also applied to police ordinances and even to legitimate requests
established by private companies. The mere presence of graffiti more than doubled the
number of people littering and stealing. There is a clear message for policymakers and
police officers: Early disorder diagnosis and intervention are of vital importance when
fighting the spread of disorder. Signs of inappropriate behavior like graffiti or broken
windows lead to other inappropriate behavior (e.g., litter or stealing), which in turn
results in the inhibition of other norms (i.e., a general weakening of the goal to act
appropriately). So once disorder has spread, merely fixing the broken windows or
removing the graffiti may not be sufficient anymore. An effective intervention should
now address the goal to act appropriately on all fronts.
31
Chapter 2
Supporting Material for
The Spreading of Disorder
Materials and Method
We conducted six different studies, each as a field experiment with people who did not
know that they were observed. In the following, we repeat the description of each study
given in the Science article and add aspects of relevance that were not covered in the
article.
Study1 .The setting was an alley in Groningen located in a shopping area and commonly
used to park bicycles (Fig. 1). A standard prohibition sign (a round red sign with a round
white center) with the text “Graffiti”, pointed out the disapproved behavior (see Fig. 1A
and 1B). The sign was highly noticeable and every subject entering the setting at least
glanced at it. Subjects (N=77 in each condition) were all people who came to collect their
parked bicycle. In their absence a flyer with an elastic band had been attached to the
handlebar of their bicycle. The flyer was white and thus very noticeable. It read: “We
wish everybody happy holidays”, signed with the name of a non-existing sportswear
shop. The flyer had to be removed by the subjects to easily use the handlebar. As there
were no trashcans in the alley, ‘not littering’ meant taking the flyer with them. We
counted throwing the flyer on the ground or hanging it on another bicycle as littering.
32
Additional information: for the order condition, we painted the wall during the night so
that the next day (when the order condition was conducted) there would be no graffiti.
For the disorder condition, we applied graffiti to the wall during the night for the disorder
condition the following day. The graffiti consisted out of simple tags as the more
elaborated ‘pieces’ might be perceived as art instead of norm violations. In the order and
disorder conditions, we also attached a large symbolic sign prohibiting graffiti. We
attached it in such a way that it was clearly visible for people who came to pick up their
bicycle (within 3 meters of the sign). Although only the bicycles parked within 3 meters
were used in the experiment, all the bicycles in the alley were ‘flyered’ after they were
parked this to avoid that that the subjects felt frustrated because they received a flyer
whereas others did not. When people littered, it was inconspicuously picked up right
away because we wanted to avoid simple norm violation effects (descriptive norm effect
a la Cialdini) and concentrate on the cross-norm inhibition effect. For both experimental
conditions, the same weather conditions applied: cloudy skies. During rain showers the
experiment was stopped. After a rain shower every flyer was replaced with a dry one, as
taking a wet flyer would possibly be seen as more of burden. We also conducted the
experiments during the same period of the day: from 1 pm until 5 pm.
Study 2.We used a police ordinance as a contextual norm and “no trespassing” (as
ordered by the police) as target norm in the setting of a car park. Thus, both contextual
and target norms were not general social norms but rules set up by the local police for a
particular local situation. A temporary fence (set up by us) closed off the main entrance
for people who came to pick up their car, but a gap of about 50 cm was left open in the
33
Chapter 2
fence (Fig. 2). We attached two signs to the temporary fence just 60 cm apart and directly
next to the gap. The right sign (our contextual norm) indicated that it was prohibited to
lock bicycles to the fence. The left sign (our target norm) made clear that it was
prohibited to use this entrance and that people had to use an alternative entrance to the car
park which required walking a 200m detour. In the order condition, four bicycles
standing 1 meter before the fence were ostensibly not locked to the fence.
In the disorder condition, four bicycles were locked to the fence for everyone to see. The
dependent variable was whether pedestrians conformed to the “no throughway” sign (the
target norm) and walked the 200m detour to the temporary entrance that was pointed out
by the sign. Violating the “no throughway” ordinance meant stepping through the gap in
the fence. Subjects (N=44 in the order condition, N=49 in the disorder condition) were all
people who came to collect their car from the car park. A group of people approaching
the fence was counted as 1 subject.
Additional information. We placed the provisional fences to block the main entrance. The
gap we left was small enough to give the impression that the entrance was really closed
off, but it was also big enough (ca. 50cm) for people to get through if they so decided.
The signs we attached to the fence were very noticeable and clear in their content. For the
disorder condition, we clearly showed a violation of the contextual norm by using large
conspicuous chain locks, with which the bikes were tied to the fence. The purpose of the
chain lock was clearly to lock the bicycle to an object as each bike had another smaller
lock not suited for that purpose. In the order condition, the same locks were used but
now the chain lock (other than it was indented for), was only locked to the front wheel
and not to the fence. To make this more conspicuous the bicycles were parked 1 meter
34
before the fence. Again the same weather conditions applied throughout (cloudy skies),
and the two experimental conditions were conducted during the same period of the day
from 3 pm to 5.30 pm. During time frame the blocked pathway was almost solely used as
an entrance.
Study 3. Would this also hold for a rule set by a private company that is not enforced with
sanctions? A parking garage adjacent to a supermarket and health club was used in which
the contextual norm established by the private company is to return shopping carts to the
supermarket after loading groceries into one’s car. A very visible sticker with the text:
“please return your shopping carts” attached to the entrance doors of the parking garage
focused attention on this normative “request” (Fig. 3). In the order condition, the garage
was clear of shopping carts that were not returned. In the disorder condition, there were
four unreturned shopping carts standing around in disarray. The (unreturned) carts used in
the disorder condition had no coin deposit system, so people were not financially
encouraged to return them. To discourage people who just arrived from using the
shopping carts and thus removing the disorder, we smeared the handlebars of the carts
with Vaseline. Subjects (N=60 in each condition) were visitors of the supermarket and
health club who came to collect their car from the multilevel parking garage. Only people
not using a shopping cart were included. The target norm was the anti-litter norm, already
used in Study 1. The dependent variable was whether or not subjects who returned to
their car littered a flyer (the same flyer as used in Study 1) that was placed under the
driver’s side windshield wiper of their parked car.
35
Chapter 2
Additional information:. In order to prevent arriving people from taking the disarrayed
carts with them, we smeared Vaseline on the handlebars which without exception made
people leave the carts alone. When people came with shopping carts to collect their car,
they were not counted in the either experimental condition. When people littered, it was
again inconspicuously picked up right away (see Study 1). The experiments were
conducted during the same period of the day: 1 pm until 4.30 pm. Since it was indoors,
weather conditions might not pay a role. However, for the odd chance that people act
differently when they come into the garage from sunny or cloudy skies (or even rain), we
again took pains to keep weather conditions constant (cloudy skies).
Study 4. Is disorder only linked to visual cues of norm violation? Would the cross-norm
inhibition effect be of any influence when the contextual norm was merely audible? In
our fourth study, we focused on a national law as a contextual norm. In the Netherlands it
is prohibited by law (with a €60 fine) to set off fireworks in the weeks before New Year’s
Eve. We wanted to find out, 2weeks before New Year’s Day, whether an
offence against this national law would induce people to litter. In contrast to Studies 1-3,
the contextual norm was not made conspicuous (say by a sign stating the law). The law
about fireworks is well-known and its violation itself would immediately make the law
salient in people’s mind. The setting we used was a bicycle shed located near a busy train
station. The subjects (N=50 in the order condition, N=46 in the disorder condition) were
all people who came to collect their parked bicycle. In the order condition, there was no
sound of fireworks. In the disorder condition, we set off fire crackers (well within hearing
distance of the subjects, but out of sight to prevent any visual cues). We observed
36
whether subjects littered a flyer (the same flyer as used in Studies 1 and 3) attached to the
handlebar of their bicycle.
Additional information: The firecrackers we used were clearly audible but not deafening.
The impression we wanted to give is that people just around the corner were having fun
doing something against the law. We wanted the subjects to have the idea that several
people were lighting firecrackers. So the firecrackers were thrown in several directions,
to make the noise come from all sides. When people littered, it was again
inconspicuously picked up right away (see Study 1). Again, weather conditions (cloudy
skies) and period of the day were kept constant in both experimental conditions: 12.30
PM until 15.30 PM.
Studies 5 and 6. Here, the target norm was stealing and we examined whether an
envelope, visibly containing a €5 note and hanging out of a mailbox, would be stolen
more often if a contextual norm was violated. The white (addressed) window envelope
sticking out of a mailbox (situated in Groningen) was very noticeable for everyone
approaching the mailbox and it was clearly visible that the envelope contained a €5 note
(Fig. 4). The subjects were all people who singly passed the mailbox on foot (and the few
who actually posted a letter). We conducted a baseline order condition (N=71) in which
the mailbox was not covered with graffiti and the ground around the mailbox was clean.
We then conducted two disorder conditions: one in which the mailbox was covered with
graffiti without litter on the ground (N=60, Study 5) and one in which there was no
graffiti on the mailbox, but where the space around the mailbox was littered (N=72,
Study 6). The circumstances of all three conditions in term of period of the day and
37
Chapter 2
weather were held constant. The dependent variable was whether or not people would
steal the envelope. Leaving the envelope or pushing it into the mailbox was considered
not stealing. Opening the envelope or taking it was considered stealing. Thus we
compared two disorder conditions to the baseline condition.
Additional information: The €5 note that could be seen peeking through the window of
the envelop. We took pains to make sure that the envelope and its window with the €5
note was clearly visible not just for the few people who came to post a letter, but to the
people who walked by. This could be achieved by using fairly large envelopes and a
mailbox at a narrow sidewalk. Again, weather conditions (cloudy skies) and period of the
day (early afternoon) were kept constant in all experimental conditions. A pilot
observation of this mailbox showed us that in the early afternoon, the chances are highest
that people walk by singly and without people directly behind them. During this period (1
PM till 4 PM) very few people came to post a letter. In experiment 6, the disorder
conditions consisted of trash that did not just contain paper but also orange peels,
cigarette butts, and empty cans.
38
Chapter 3
Helpfulness in public places: Why does it
vary and how can it be increased?
39
Chapter 3
Would you help a stranger who dropped groceries or lost something? The quality of life
in public places depends much on people’s kindness and willingness to help. Helpfulness
differs greatly across settings, but little is known about the mechanisms generating these
differences, and effective ways to stimulate pro-social behavior in the streets. Recent
research on the broken window theory showed that cues of disrespect for norms, like
litter and graffiti, can cause norm-violating behavior to spread. We hypothesize that such
cues also inhibit pro-social behavior, as they weaken people’s goal to act appropriately.
Therefore, we predict that removing cues of disrespect for norms increases pro-social
behavior. This mechanism also implies that cues clearly signaling respect for norms (like
someone sweeping litter from the streets) makes pro-social behavior in public places even
more likely. Five field experiments demonstrate that the predicted effects are robust and
surprisingly large and show the potential of ‘norm-support cues’ as (low cost) targets for
interventions to improve quality of life in public places.
Although it is appropriate behavior (i.e. the norm) to be kind and helpful towards
strangers just about everywhere, research shows that such kindness greatly depends on
the city you are in (Levine, 2003). For example New York and Los Angles are
particularly low when it comes to pro-social behavior. Some theories explain differences
in pro-social behavior, focusing on different types of people (Camerer & Fehr, 2006;
Gintis, Bowles, Boyd, & Fehr, 2003), the internalization of norms and moral identity
40
Helpfulness in public spaces: Why does it vary and how can it be increased?
(Aquino & Reed, 2002), or on the effects of incentives (Andreoni, 1995; Fehr, 2004; Fehr
& Fischbacher, 2004). While providing much insight, these theories cannot account for
the variability of pro-social behavior in public places, as in public space, various people
are present, who are often strangers to each other, with no real encounters, and no or
limited chances for reciprocity. Levine, who studied this variability in many countries,
concluded that for the public space, it is most likely subtle differences across situations
that make people more or less pro-social (Levine, 2003). But what exactly would these
subtle differences be? Levine himself pointed at the possible influence of population size
and density. New York and Los Angles are indeed both big and crowded. He however
finds no correlation between city size or density and helpfulness for other cities in the
world (Levine, Martinez, Brase & Sorenson, 1994). Research by Latané (1981) suggests
that seeing other people who don’t help inhibits one’s own impulse to help (i.e. bystander
effect). Extensive work by Cialdini (Cialdini, Kallgren & Reno, 1990) shows that when
other people’s behavior is (made) salient, people indeed tend to imitate this behavior,
even if that behavior is considered inappropriate (i.e. against a norm).
On the basis of goal-framing theory and recent research (Keizer, Lindenberg & Steg,
2008), we suggest that next to imitation effects there is an even broader mechanism at
work: a cross-norm effect, in which observed conformity or respect for one norm (i.e.
norm support) affects conformity to other norms. Such a mechanism explains how respect
or disrespect for norms can spread from one norm to others. Goal framing theory
(Lindenberg & Steg, 2007) predicts that cues revealing disrespect for a norm (e.g. litter,
graffiti) weakens the influence of norms in general in favor of hedonic or gain goals, as
they weaken the relative weight of people’s general goal to act appropriately (the so-
41
Chapter 3
called cross-norm inhibition effect). This also explains how the “broken window” effect
(Kelling & Coles, 1996) may come about. A series of field experiments testing
predictions from goal-framing theory (Keizer, et al., 2008) demonstrated this effect and
its considerable strength, showing that cues signaling disrespect for norms can induce
other norm violations like littering, trespassing and even stealing. But what about pro-
social behavior like kindness and helpfulness towards strangers? As pro-social behavior
is generally considered to be appropriate behavior, the predictions from goal-framing
theory on cross-norm effects should also hold for pro-social behavior, even in both
directions: Disrespect by others for one norm will reduce the influence of pro-social
norms (cross-norm inhibition effect), whereas observing others’ respect for a particular
norm will strengthen the influence of pro-social norms (cross-norm reinforcement effect).
Do these predictions hold up? Would seeing a vandalized bicycle make people indeed
less likely to help? Would something so simple as a person sweeping the streets (i.e.
displaying care about the anti-littering norm) make people more likely to help somebody?
We designed a series of 5 (between subjects) field experiments to test cross-norm effects
on pro-social norms in both directions (i.e. inhibition and reinforcement effects). The
experiments were carefully constructed in such a manner that we could eliminate other
factors (like anticipated rewards for helping, possible bystander effects and individual
differences) as possible causes for differences in helping behavior. In all experiments, we
only focused on pedestrians who passed by without being accompanied by others.
Research (Keizer, et al., 2008) showed that subjects were more likely to steal an envelope
visibly containing 5 euro’s from a public mailbox when the setting around that mailbox
42
showed signs of norm violating behavior (i.e. graffiti or litter) than when these cues were
absent. In our first study we wanted to find out whether such cues would also make
people less likely to act pro-socially, in this case to help an unknown person who’s mail
apparently had fallen from a mailbox. We placed an envelope (no money inside) on the
ground in front (approximately 1.5 m) of a mailbox in Groningen. The closed bright
white envelope was very noticeable and the front (addressed and with a valid stamp) was
facing up. Subjects were all pedestrians that singly passed the envelope within 3 meter.
The dependent variable was whether or not subjects picked-up the envelope and put it in
the mailbox (conforming to the helping norm).
Fig. 1.
43
Chapter 3
We conducted a baseline control condition (N=82) with no signs of norm violating
behavior in the setting. Next, we manipulated the setting to show that others had violated
a certain norm (N=81). This cue consisted of two bicycles that were clearly vandalized
(e.g. bent wheels, twisted front fork; Fig. 1; on the previous page). We wanted to make
sure that the vandalized bicycles and the letter weren’t in competition for attention. In
other words that people did not see the letter because they were looking at the vandalized
bicycles. Therefore we positioned the bicycles in such a manner that for everyone looking
at the bicycles the envelope was in the line of sight. Both conditions were run during the
same time of day (in the afternoon) and under the same weather conditions (no rain,
partly cloudy). The results clearly showed a cross-norm inhibition effect: in the baseline
conditions 26% of the subjects stopped to post the letter, compared to only 5% when the
setting showed signs of norm violating behavior (i.e. vandalized bicycles). This
difference is substantial and highly significant χ2(1, 163) = 13.409, p=.0003.
Vandalizing bicycles is quite a severe norm violation, so we wondered whether the norm
inhibition effect on the (same) helping norm would still hold if subjects observed a more
subtle cue, i.e. signs of a less severe norm violation. We designed Study 2 to find out.
Study 2 was conducted under the same circumstances and in the same setting as Study 1
and our baseline condition. However, instead of vandalized bicycles we now placed a few
garbage bags in the setting where it is prohibited to place garbage bags on the street (60
Euro fine). We did not use litter as a cue to prevent that subjects mistakenly perceived the
envelope on the ground as litter. Again we positioned the garbage bags in such a manner
that the envelope was in line of sight for everyone looking at the garbage bags. The time
44
of day and the weather was similar to Study 1.The results support our findings in Study 1.
Only 12% of the subjects (N=83) stopped to post the letter when there were garbage bags
present, compared to 26% in the baseline condition. Again a substantial and significant
difference χ2(1, 165) = 4.972, p=.0258.
Both studies showed that the pro-social (helping) norm is likely to be inhibited by
observing cues that others violated another norm. What if conforming to the pro-social
norm would imply more effort than picking up and posting a letter? Will observing a lack
of respect for a norm unrelated to helping still make a difference in helping if it costs
more effort? We conducted Study 3 to find out.
In Study 3, subjects encountered a fallen bicycle. Our setting was an alley commonly
used by pedestrians (our subjects). When entering the alley, subjects in both the
experimental condition (N=81) and control condition (N=79) were confronted with a
parked bicycle that appeared to have fallen over.
45
Chapter 3
Fig. 2.#
Although the fallen bicycle was (slightly) inconvenient for everyone using the alley,
subjects could easily walk around it (Fig. 2). In order to enhance the impression that the
bicycle had fallen by accident rather than by a lack of care, we used a (woman’s) bicycle
in good condition, equipped with a bicycle seat for a small child and a set of panniers
containing a fresh flower bouquet. Conforming to the pro-social helping norm in this
study took more effort than picking up and posting a letter (as in Studies 1 and 2). It
implied picking up the fallen bicycle, which would be pro-social (i.e. helpful) towards the
bicycle owner whose bicycle and flower bouquet ran the risk of getting damaged as well
#
For privacy reasons, the participant in the photograph is an actor
46
as towards other pedestrians, as it made walking through the alley more convenient. In
our control condition no cues of norm violating behavior by others were present. As a
(subtle) cue of disrespect for a norm, we again placed garbage bags in the alley. The
experiment took place during the afternoon. The weather conditions were similar to our
previous experiment: no rain and partly cloudy. The results of this study support the
findings of Studies 1 and 2. In the control condition, 18% of the passersby conformed to
the pro-social norm by picking up the fallen bicycle, compared to only 6% of the subjects
in the experimental ‘garbage bags’ condition a large and significant effect χ2(1, 160)
=5.097, p=.0240.
Studies 1, 2 and 3 show that a cross-norm inhibition effect reduces the influence of a pro-
social helping norm when there are cues present that others show disrespect for a
particular norm. For possible interventions the crucial question is: does it also work the
other way around? Is there indeed a cross-norm reinforcement effect? Will observing
cues that others respect a norm (e.g. the anti-litter norm) increase the influence of pro-
social norms on behavior? We designed Study 4 to find out.
The setting of Study 4 was a sidewalk in the centre of Groningen. Subjects were people
walking towards the city centre. Conforming to the pro-social norm implied helping
someone (a confederate) picking up oranges that (s)he “accidentally” had dropped. The
subjects saw someone (our confederate) on the side of the sidewalk holding a bicycle and
at the same time trying to put some oranges into a bag. When the subject was at
approximately 5 meter distance of this scene, the confederate ‘accidentally’ dropped the
oranges. To pick up the oranges the confederate had to put the bicycle on its stand and
47
Chapter 3
walk around it. We observed out of sight whether subjects stopped to help this
confederate by picking up the oranges. We used confederates of both genders and noted
the gender of the subjects, as these two variables (possibly in interaction) could influence
helping behavior. The experiment stopped when pedestrians from the other direction
entered the scene or when several participants at the same time entered the scene. Our
manipulation, which took place approximately 10 meters away from the approaching
subject and 20 meters away from our first (‘orange’) confederate, consisted of the
behavior of a second confederate (alternatingly male and female). In our baseline control
condition, this second confederate just walked by while holding a can of soda. In the
experimental condition subjects saw and heard this confederate “accidentally” dropping a
piece of litter (an empty soda can) (s)he was holding. Instead of walking on (which would
be littering), this person stopped and picked up the empty can. By clearly conforming to
the anti-litter norm, the confederate displayed respect for this norm. The experiment took
place in the afternoon and weather conditions were similar in both conditions (no rain,
partly cloudy). In the baseline control condition (N=50) where the confederate just
walked by, 40% of the subjects stopped to help. However in the experimental ‘respect’
condition (N=56) 64% helped. The difference is sizable and significant (χ2(1, 106) =
6.252, p=.0124) and shows that a cue signaling respect for the anti-littering norm has a
cross-norm reinforcement effect on a pro-social (helping) norm. The sex of the
confederates did not result in (significant) differences in helping behavior, nor did the
interaction between sex of the subject and sex of the confederates.
In Study 4 the cue consisted of someone conforming to a norm. There might, however, be
an even stronger ‘respect’ cue, namely someone who takes the trouble to undo the
48
negative consequences of another person's norm violations, thereby clearly disapproving
of the norm violating behavior (Cialdini, et al., 1990). We designed Study 5 to test
whether observing such an active disapproval cue would result in an even larger cross-
norm reinforcement effect with regard to a pro-social norm.
Fig. 3. *
*
For privacy reasons, the participant in the photograph is an actor
49
Chapter 3
Study 5 was conducted under the same circumstances and in the same setting as Study 4,
and thus we could use the same baseline condition. However now the subjects in the
experimental condition saw our second confederate (again alternating male and female)
sweeping the sidewalk (Fig. 3; on the previous page), thereby demonstratively undoing
the negative consequences of other people’s littering and showing disapproval of their
littering. The swept litter consisted of an empty soda can, making the disapproval both
visible and audible. Similar to Study 4, neither the sex of the confederates nor the
interaction between sex of the confederates and sex of subject influenced helping
behavior. However the sweeping confederate had indeed an even more dramatic effect on
helping behavior than the norm conforming confederate in Study 4. In this experimental
condition (N=52), 83% of the participants helped, compared to 40% in the baseline
control condition (N=50) where the confederate just walked by χ2(1, 102) = 19.673,
p=.0001. Thus, seeing somebody sweep the sidewalk increased helping by more than
100%. Again, this result strongly supports our cross-norm reinforcement hypothesis.
General discussion
The present studies show that pro-social behavior in public places is strongly influenced
by norm support cues, subtle cues regarding the extent to which other people respect
norms. An observed lack of respect results in a cross-norm inhibition effect which
decreases the influence of pro-social norms (Studies 1, 2 and 3). The resulting decrease in
pro-social behavior (compared to the baseline condition) was quite dramatic, ranging
from 54 to 81 percent, revealing a strong “broken windows effect” (Kelling & Coles,
1996) on pro-social behavior.
50
An important additional question was whether the cross-norm effect would also work in a
positive direction. Would, for example, pro-social behavior in the streets increase simply
by having somebody sweep the sidewalk? Our results allow us to answer this with an
unequivocal yes. An orderly environment is not as enticing for pro-social behavior as an
environment in which others show actively respect for a common norm, by helping to
maintain the orderliness or, even better, by visibly undoing the negative consequences of
others’ norm violations. The effects of this cross-norm reinforcement effect were quite
dramatic, with helping behavior increasing between 60 and 108 percent compared to the
baseline condition.
After establishing the cross-norm inhibition effect for social norms in public places
(Keizer, et al., 2008), our current research shows that this effect also holds for pro-social
norms and that it operates in both directions, as goal-framing theory predicts. The results
support the expectation that subtle cues of (dis)respect for a norm can (at least
momentarily) decrease or increase the relative weight of the goal to act appropriately.
The present studies clearly show the apparent power of these subtle cues on pro-social
behavior in the streets. They not only leave us with this insight but also with a clear
message that is important for policy makers. In the public space, pro-social behavior is
vital for the quality of life. For once, it does not take expensive programs to intervene.
For example, a clear piece of advice implied by our findings is “clean up and do so when
people see it”. Demonstratively showing respect for norms can make a big difference.
Recall that in the public space, one person armed with a broom was able to boost helping
others in need by more than 100 percent.
51
52
Chapter 4
Higher-ups make especially influential
norm violators
53
Chapter 4
In recent times, many employees learned that their CEO’s gave themselves huge bonuses
while company rules prescribed all employees to be absolutely frugal with company money.
In firms like Enron and Merrill Lynch executives were even involved in fraud. Will this
kind of behavior of higher-ups have negative effects on the behavior of lower echelons? It is
often said that “higher-ups” should give a good example, implying that if they deviate
from the norms, the negative effect on norm conformity for the rest may be even
particularly strong. Is this true?
Surely, there is an effect of the norm deviation of one on the norm deviation of others.
For example, observing that others have littered makes people more likely to litter
(Cialdini, Kallgren, & Reno, 1990). However, it is even more dramatic. Recent research
(Keizer, Lindenberg, & Steg, 2008) revealed that people do not just imitate what others
are doing. Upon observing others’ norm transgressions, people are likely not to follow
other norms as well. We call this a “cross-norm inhibition” effect, which is based on a
shift in the relative weight of the goal to act appropriately (Lindenberg and Steg, 2007)
Cues of lacking support for one norm (so-called negative norm-support cues) thus
decrease the influence of other norms.
This effect has been proven to be quite robust for every-day situations with norm
violators who were not particularly distinguished (i.e. others in general: GO). In this
research, we however were interested in a specific group of violators: higher-ups. Are
54
Higher-ups make especially influential norm violators
higher ups indeed the influential norm violators they are thought to be? Will a norm
violation by a higher-up result in a stronger cross-norm inhibition effect than the same
violation by groups with less status? We know that there is a status effect on opinions
(Asch, et al, 1938; Asch, 1940). But will there also be a status effect on the cross-norm
inhibition effect? We believe there is such an effect that runs via the effect significant
others have on the activation (and inhibition) of norms.
Context specific significant others
Based on goal framing theory we predict that making a norm salient will also make
information regarding that norm more salient, including negative norm-support cues
concerning this norm. The more salient these negative norm-support cues are the more
influential they are and as a result the stronger the cross-norm inhibition effect is.
Significant others (SO) are people (such as parents and friends) whose opinion (and
normative expectations) matter more to the individual than those of generalized others
(GO) (Ajzen, 1991). SO are an important source of support for the goal to conform to a
particular norm or even to norms in general (see Lindenberg 2008; Lindenberg, Joly, and
Stapel in press). Significant others are special. Andersen and Cole (1990) even found out
that representations of significant others in the mind are richer and better connected, and
these features are more quickly retrieved than features of non-significant others. A norm
violation by a SO is therfore expected to be more noticable and to weigh more heavily
than the same violation by GO. As a result a norm violation by SO are expected to result
in a stronger cross-norm inhibition effect than the same violation by GO. Based on goal
framing theory we assume that making a norm salient will also make information
55
Chapter 4
regarding that norm more salient, including negative norm-support cues concerning this
norm. The more salient these negative norm-support cues are the more influential they
are and as a result the stronger the cross-norm inhibition effect is. The disrespect for a
norm by SO (i.e. a negative norm support cue) is therefore more salient and as a result
more influential than the disrespect displayed by GO. In short the combined effects of
the greater salience of the norm violating behavior and the greater reduction in norm
support make that a norm violation by SO are assumed to result in a stronger cross-norm
inhibition effect than the same violation by GO.
For employees, managers and supervisors are also likely to be SO. However, in
contrast to such SO as parents, they are likely to be SO only with regard to a restricted set
of norms: the company norms. For example the normative expectations of one’s manager
are highly relevant for one’s actions within the company setting, but not for one’s choices
and behavior outside that context. We shall therefore refer to this group of SO as context-
specific significant others (CSO). These CSO embody the norms that are relevant for the
company they stand for, and the higher up they are, the more they are seen as standing for
the norms of the whole (Homans, 1951; Ullrich, Christ, & Van Dick, 2009). Therefore
the higher the status of the CSO, the more important the CSO are as a source of norm
support (for norms concerning that specific context). Besides CSO being a source of
support for relevant context norms their (psychological) presence is also likely to make
these norms more salient, as is the case with SO (Chaiken, 1980; Fitzsimons & Bargh,
2003), which makes these norms more influential. Also the higher up the CSO the
stronger this salience effect is expected to be. Thus, executives are high status CSO,
colleagues are lower status CSO, and GO are “people” in general, unrelated to the
56
specific context. However while the (psychological) presence of some SO can strengthen
the goal to conform to norms in general (see Stapel et al. 2010), CSO are likely to make
only context specific norms more salient. Thinking or seeing one’s boss is likely to make
workplace norms more salient and strengthen the influence of these norms on one’s
behavior. At the office, thinking about one’s boss is likely to make the companies clean
desk policy more salient, but not likely to activate norms about, say, how to treat one’s
children. So what if the boss violated a context specific company norm as was the case
with Enron and Merrill Lynch? As CSO are a more important source of norm support for
the relevant context norms than GO, their transgression will diminish the support for
these norms more than the same violation by a GO, resulting in a stronger cross-norm
inhibition effect. The cross-norm inhibition effect is further enhanced by the salience
effect of the CSO, which makes the norm violating behavior more influential. As
reasoned, we further expect that the higher up the transgressing CSO, the stronger the
cross-norm inhibition effect on the context specific norms is.
To summarize our expectations: First norm violations by SO will result in a stronger
cross-norm inhibition effect than the same violation by GO (regardless of the context)
(Hypothesis 1). Secondly, in the specific context, learning about a violation of a context-
specific norm by CSO will results in a stronger cross-norm inhibition effect in that
context than the same violation by GO (Hypothesis 2). Thirdly, a violation of a context-
specific norm by a high status CSO will result in a stronger cross-norm inhibition effect
in that context than the same violation by a lower status CSO (Hypothesis 3).
57
Chapter 4
The Studies
We conducted 4 studies to test our hypotheses. In the first study we test hypotheses 1 and
2. In studies 2, 3 and 4 we investige the status effect on cross-norm inhibition and test
hypothesis 3. In all the studies, participants learned a certain group of people had
violated a norm (our context norm). The composition of this group was manipulated.
Subsequently, we measured or observed whether participants were more likely to violate
another norm (our target norm), which reveals the strength of the cross-norm inhibition
effect.
Study 1
In this study, we distinguish between CSO, SO (good friends) and GO. The goal of Study
1 was to test our hypothesis that violations of CSO would result in a strongest cross-norm
inhibition effect because they are significant others for the observers in a setting of the
observers. Friends are SO, but violating rules of their company (of which the observer of
the violation is not a member) is predicted to result in a lower cross-norm inhibition
effect. Finally, violations by GO in an unrelated company is predicted to create the lowest
cross-norm inhibition effect.
Procedure and Materials. Participants (N=86) were first year students who received
course credits for their participation. They read a scenario describing an organizational
setting. Participants were instructed to imagine they were working for a company that
produced pre-pealed potatoes. Their job was to peal the potatoes, and they were paid for
the number of potatoes pealed. They read that a new company rule (the target norm)
instructs them to peal the potatoes thinner than before (leaving a thinner skin as residue).
58
The scenario made clear that pealing thin will take more time than pealing thick. Thus,
conforming to this new rule would result in a decrease in income for the employee,
whereas violating the new rule would be profitable for the employee. The subjects were
then told that a group of people had violated another norm (the context norm). This group
had paid a expensive private dinner with company money. We examined to what extent
this information would influence subjects’ willingness to conform to the new target norm.
Participants were asked to report how likely it would be that they would violate the
pealing (target) norm in that context and peal the potatoes thicker than the rule required
(the dependent variable). They reported their answer on a 7-point scale (1 - not likely to
7 - likely). A within subject design was followed, that is, participants answered this
question for 3 different groups of (observed) norm violators (the independent variable):
general others (GO), good friends (SO), and executives of the company (CSO). In the
case of GO, they read that they overheard people on the street saying that they paid a
private dinner with money from the company they were working for. In the case of SO,
they read that good friends had paid a private dinner with money from the company they
were working for. In case of CSO, participants learned that executives of their (potato)
company had paid a private dinner with money of the company. To rule out a possible
fear of sanctions effect, we indicated in the scenario that the company was not able to
check whether an employee did or did not conform to the new pealing rule.
Results and discussion.
An one-way-repeated-measures ANOVA showed that whether the participants violated
the target norm was influenced by the composition of the group violating the context
59
Chapter 4
norm: F(1, 170) = 50.82 p<.01. The results of a post hoc comparison supports our
hypothesis: participants were more likely to violate the target norm when executives
(CSO) (M = 5.4, SD = 1.57) or good friends (SO) (M = 3.9, SD = 1.67) violated the
dinner (context) norm than when the group consisted of people in general (RO) (M = 3.4,
SD = 1.62): F(1,85) = 53.18, p< .01. Also norm violating CSO were more influential in
inducing a cross-norm inhibition effect than SO F(1,85) = 49.02, p< .01. This result
supports our second hypothesis that within the relevant context a violation by CSO will
induce a stronger cross-norm inhibition effect than the same violation by SO.
This result is an indication that the strengthening effect of status on cross-norm
inhibition indeed runs via the effect significant others have on the activation of norms.
The higher-ups in this experiment where executives, high status CSO. GO, the low status
group (or in this case no status group) were not CSO. Would our conclusion of the
strengthening effect of status on cross-norm inhibition still hold when the low status
group were low status CSO? Would lower status colleagues also create a weaker cross-
norm inhibition effect than the higher-up executives? Studies 2, 3 and 4 were designed to
test the hypothesis that an observed norm violation by high status CSO will induce a
stronger cross-norm inhibition effect that the same violation by lower status CSO or GO.
Study 2
Procedure and Materials. A between subject design was followed. Participants (N= 57)
were again first year students who received course credits for their participation. They
were randomly assigned to two conditions. Participants in both conditions were instructed
to imagine they were part of the scenario they were asked to read. The scenario used was
60
the same scenario as used in Study 1. This time the status of the CSO that violated the
‘dinner’ norm was systematically varied. In condition 1 (N= 29), participants learned that
other employees, representing low status CSO, had violated the ‘dinner’ norm (context
norm). The participants in condition 2 (N= 28) learned that their executives, the high
status CSO, had violated the ‘dinner’ norm (context norm). Participants in both
conditions were asked to report how likely it would be that they would violate the target
(pealing) norm after learning of the context (dinner) norm violation by the relevant CSO,
on a 7-point scale (1 - not likely, to 7 - likely).
Results. The results support our hypothesis. Participants in the high status CSO condition
(executives violating the dinner norm) were significantly more likely to violate the
pealing rule (target norm) (M = 4.9, SD = 1.49) than the participants in low status CSO
condition (employees violating the dinner norm) (M = 4.1, SD = 2.0): t(55) = 1.68, p <
.05.
Study 3
In Study 3, we examined whether the conclusion of Study 2 would still hold if we used a
within subject design, since that would show a more robust effect. Again, we tested the
hypothesis that a norm violation by a high status CSO will induce a stronger cross-norm
inhibition effect that the same violation by a lower status CSO.
Procedure and Materials. We used the same materials and adopted the same procedure as
used in Study 2. Participants (N = 93) were again first year students who received course
credits for their participation. They were asked to report on a 7-point scale (1 - not likely,
to 7 - likely) how likely it would be that they would violate the target norm (pealing rule)
61
Chapter 4
in that context after learning of the violation of the context (‘dinner’) norm by a group of
executives (high status CSO) and by fellow colleagues (low status CSO).
Results and discussion. Again, the data support our hypothesis and replicates the results
of study 2. Participants were significantly more likely to violate the target norm when the
contextual norm was violated by the high status CSO (executives) group (M = 5.0, SD =
1.79) compared to the low status (employees) group (M = 4.4, SD = 1.60): t(92) = 2.64,
p = .01.
Study 4
Study 4 aimed to replicate the results found in Studies 2 and 3 in a field experiment using
a different context and target norm. Participants (N= 161) were students that parked a
bicycle in a bicycle store adjacent the University sport complex. Again, we tested the
hypothesis that an observed norm violation by a high status CSO will induce a stronger
cross-norm inhibition effect that the same violation by a lower status CSO.
Procedure and Materials. A flyer was attached to the handlebar of the bicycles that were
parked in the bicycle store by the participants. The flyer advertised for a new issue of the
(fictitious) KNOW MAGAZINE by stating the headline of this issue. Participants read
that the majority (80%) of a certain group of people committed plagiarism (context norm)
when writing an article and that they could read more about it in the KNOW
MAGAZINE. We followed a between subject design. In the high status CSO condition
the flyer read that 80% of the professors committed plagiarism (Fig.2.; on page 64).
Participants in the low status CSO condition read that 80% of the students committed
plagiarism (Fig. 1; on page 64). To further focus attention on the specified group of norm
62
violators, the flyer showed (besides the text) in the high status CSO condition a
photograph of a professor dressed in toga, and in the low status CSO condition a student
studying. In both photographs, a black bar was printed across the eyes of the CSO. This
to make the person unrecognisable and to underline the fact that plagiarism is a (norm)
violation. In small print the flyer read the text : “read all about it in KNOW” (“Weet” in
Dutch). The magazine name was chosen because it is easy to remember, to avoid that
participants would take the flyer to remember the magazine’s name. Assignment of the
participants to one of the two conditions depended on where they parked their bicycle.
We attached a flyer with the low status CSO text to the bicycles in one parking aisle
while we attached the high status CSO flyer to the bicycles in another, identical aisle. We
observed the percentage of participants that violated the “do not litter” norm, our target
norm. The flyer had to be removed by the subjects to easily use the handlebar. As there
were no trashcans in the alley, ‘not littering’ meant taking the flyer with them. We
counted throwing the flyer on the ground or hanging it on another bicycle as littering. The
experiment took place on three different weekdays from 1600-1900 hour under the same
weather conditions.
Results and discussion. Again, the results support our hypothesis. 52% of the participants
violated the target (litter) norm when the contextual (plagiarism) norm was violated by
the high status CSO (professor) group, compared to 39% when the violators were a low
status CSO (fellow students) : χ²(1,160)= 2.822, p < .05.
63
Chapter 4
De afbeelding kan niet wo rden weergegeven. Mo gelijk is er onvoldo ende geheugen beschikbaar om de afbeelding te openen of is de afbeelding beschadigd. Start de com puter opnieuw op en open het bestand opnieuw. Als de afbeelding nog steeds wo rdt voorgesteld door een rode X , kunt u de afbeelding verwijderen en opnieuw invoegen.
Fig. 1. (Left) Low status CSO. Flyer reads “Did you know that 80% of all students committes plagiarism
when writing an article. “read all about it in KNOW” (“Weet” in Dutch)
Fig.2. (Right) Low status CSO. Flyer reads “Did you know that 80% of all professors committes
plagiarism when writing an article. “read all about it in KNOW” (“Weet” in Dutch)
General discussion
Our four studies show that the cross-norm inhibition effect strengthens when the status
of an norm violator increases. The results support our hypothesis that a higher-up (a high
status CSO) will induce a stronger cross-norm effect when violating a relevant context
norm than the same violation by (low status) GO (study 1) or low status CSO (study 2, 3
and 4). Similar to the higher-up CSO, the cross-norm inhibition effect was larger in
comparison to that of GO when good friends, a group that is typically seen as significant
64
others were the norm violators but in an unrelated context (study 1). This indicates that
the increased effect of status on the cross-norm inhibition runs via the effect that
significant others have on norm activation. The different studies reveal that that the
enhancing effect of status on cross-norm inhibition is quite robust. The effect is
apparently not merely limited to a lab setting but can influence behavior in an every day
setting (study 4).This conclusion conveys a clear message for policymakers: Enforcing
norm conformity of people in high status positions is essential, as they make the most
influential violators.
65
66
Chapter 5
The reversal effect of prohibition signs
67
Chapter 5
Before reading this article we would like you to stroll through your neighborhood. It is
likely that you will encounter many prohibition signs, as well as traces of the norm
violating behavior these signs are trying to reduce, like graffiti or litter. Based on goal
framing theory and previous research, we argue that signs of (dis)respect of others for
norms serve as norm-support cues which can weaken or strengthen the influence of
norms. This norm-support mechanism implies that (traces of) norm violating behavior by
others (i.e. negative norm-support cues) inhibit the influence of norms in general. We
also hypothesize that making a known norm salient by means of a prohibition sign will
not only focus people on this norm, but also on the (negative) norm-support cues in that
particular situation, thereby enhancing the influence of these norm-support cues.
Therefore, we expected that a prohibition sign placed in a setting with corresponding
negative norm-support cues induces rather than reduces violations of the very same norm
(i.e. same-norm reversal effect) and other norms (cross-norm reversal effect). We report
results of eight field experiments that support the negative norm-support mechanism as
well as the reversal effect of prohibition signs when cues show noncompliance. These
findings are not only intriguing but they have important and clear practical implications.
The goal-framing theory (Lindenberg & Steg, 2007) states that the influence of norms on
people’s behavior is determined by the goals they pursue. Goals influence how one
perceives, evaluates and behaves (in) a setting. The theory distinguishes three
overarching goals: hedonic, gain and normative goals. People, pursuing a gain goal focus
68
on guarding and improving their recourses. People pursuing a hedonic goal are less future
oriented and more focused at immediate gratification, that is they aim to “feel good right
now”. A normative goal on the other hand focuses you at what is generally considered
appropriate. Someone pursuing a normative goal is therefore sensitive to norms and
information regarding norms. All three goals may be influential at a given time but the
relative weight of their influence differs across situations. As goals can conflict, the
weakening of one goal will make another goal (or both other goals) more influential.
Therefore, the weakening of the normative goal makes hedonic and/ or gain goals more
influential, thereby inhibiting the influence of norms in general. On the other hand,
strengthening the normative goal enhances the influence of norms on behavior.
The normative goal is a priori the weakest of the three, therefore it’s strength relies,
more than the other goals, on (external) support. Consequently, cues about other people’s
respect or disrespect for norms and legitimate rules in general have a very strong
influence on the relative strength of the normative goal. By weakening the normative
goal, signs of disrespect for a norm like litter (i.e. negative norm-support cues) inhibit the
influence of this norm (i.e. same-norm inhibition effect) but also of other norms (i.e.
cross-norm inhibition effect; Keizer, Lindenberg & Steg, 2008). It is the cross-norm
effect that differentiates the norm-support cue mechanism from descriptive norm
influence (Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990;1991; Cialdini, 2007), which states that
people tent to copy the behavior of others when it is ambiguous how one should act. The
proposed mechanism of norm-support cues based on goal-framing theory implies for
example that people are not only more likely to litter in a littered setting (Cialdini et al.,
69
Chapter 5
1990, 1991) but also in an unlittered setting with other signs of norm violating behavior
like graffiti.
Prohibition signs are often used to enhance norm conforming behavior in the public realm
(see Winter et al., 2000). They are an important tool of regulating behavior by clearly
stating which rule applies in the particular situation. Prohibition signs are often placed in
settings where the behavior that is supposedly prohibited frequently occurs in order to
make the norm particularly salient. But is it wise to place an anti-litter sign in a littered
environment? Will negative norm-support cues in the vicinity of such a sign influence its
effectiveness? Might the signs surrounded by these cues even work counter productively
by increasing rather than decreasing rule-violating behavior? Based on goal-framing
theory and the norm-support cue mechanism, we hypothesize that making a norm salient
will not only focus people on that particular norm, but also on norm-support cues that
setting, thereby making these cues more influential. We therefore expect that making a
norm more salient by means of a prohibition sign in a setting with cues signaling that
other people did not conform to this norm (i.e. negative norm-support cues) will not
reduce but increase the number of people violating that norm (i.e. same-norm reversal
effect). Moreover, as the mechanism behind this effect runs through the weakening of the
goal to act appropriately, we expect that the reversal effect will also increase violations of
other norms in that setting (i.e. cross-norm reversal effect). Placing a prohibition sign in a
setting with negative norm-support cues regarding the norm made salient will strengthen
the cross-norm inhibition effect, which results in more violations of other norms.
In the present research we study the negative norm-support mechanism in a series of
eight consecutive field experiments. We first test its predicted inhibition effect on norms.
70
Second, we test the hypothesized reversal effect of prohibition signs. Third we answer the
question, whether placing a prohibition sign will induce norm conforming behavior in a
setting where corresponding negative norm-support cues are absent. In the first four field
experiments we study the same-norm inhibition and the same-norm reversal effect. We
look at norm conforming behavior under conditions where prohibition signs and norm-
support cues target the behavior we observe. In the last four experiments we look at
cross-norm inhibition effects, in which the observed behavior does not correspond with
the behavior targeted with the prohibition sign and the negative norm-support cues. The
question for this second set of experiments was whether we indeed find similar results
under these cross-norm conditions.
General Method
We tested our hypotheses under the same conditions, using the same location and
dependent variable to assure that we could compare (the results of) the different studies.
The setting in all studies was an alley in Groningen, the Netherlands, located in a
shopping area and commonly used to park bicycles. The participants were people who
came to recollect their parked bicycle. In their absence we attached a flyer to the
handlebar of their bicycle. The flyer was white and thus very noticeable. It read, “We
wish everybody happy holidays”, signed with the name of a non-existing sportswear
shop. The flyer had to be removed by the subjects to easily use the handlebar. We wanted
to find out whether (or not) people would conform to the anti-litter norm by not littering
the flyer (our dependent variable). As there were no trashcans in the alley, ‘not littering’
meant taking the flyer with them. We counted throwing the flyer on the ground or
hanging it on another bicycle as littering.
71
Chapter 5
Study 1: Same-Norm Inhibition Effect
In our first study we examined the norm-support mechanism in the absence of a
prohibition sign. The goal was to test our hypothesis that negative norm-support cues for
a norm indeed result in the inhibition of the influence of this norm (i.e. same-norm
inhibition). To do so, we first removed all litter and other signs of norm violating
behavior (like graffiti) in the alley to create a baseline control condition (N=77). For our
experimental condition (N=75), we littered the alley with a few empty soda cans, flyers,
plastic bags and candy wrappers. Based on the hypothesized norm-support mechanism
and the findings of prior research (Cialdini et al., 1990), we expected that people are less
likely to litter in our baseline “litter free” condition than in the littered condition. We used
an one-tailed test (in this study and the other studies) as the norm-support mechanism
The
results (Figure 1; on the next page) support this hypothesis: 53% of the people in the
baseline condition conformed to the anti-litter norm compared to 39% in the experimental
“littered” condition (χ2(1, 152) = 3.251, p=.036). Thus, people were 1.8 times more likely
to violate the anti-litter norm when cues of disrespect for this norm (i.e. litter) were
present.
72
"
!! !
!
!
%
&
!
Figure 1: Percentage of people that conformed to the anti-litter norm within the baseline (litter free)
condition and the littered condition.
Could an anti-litter (prohibition) sign present in the littered setting have prevented this
increase in littering? The widespread assumption is that a prohibition sign in these
situations would indeed reduce norm violating behavior. However, on the basis of goal-
framing theory, we hypothesized that placing a prohibition sign will not only make the
(anti-litter) norm more salient, but also the negative norm-support cues (i.e. litter),
thereby making them more influential. Is this really the case? Will placing a prohibition
sign in these situations indeed result in a (same-norm) reversal effect? We designed Study
2 to find out.
Study 2: Same-Norm Reversal Effect (1)
To test the hypothesized (same-norm) reversal effect, we pre-littered the alley to the same
extent (and using the same items) as the experimental condition of Study 1. However this
time we also attached an “anti-litter” prohibition sign (round red sign with white center)
73
Chapter 5
to the alley wall. The sign was highly noticeable and every subject entering the setting at
least glanced at it. As expected, the results show that the prohibition sign increased the
negative influence of the litter present. In Study 1, 39% of the people conformed to the
anti-litter norm in a littered setting (N=75). In the present study conducted in a similar
setting but with the anti-litter norm made salient by the sign (N= 74) only 28% of the
people conformed by not littering. Although quite substantial, the difference is marginally
significant (χ2(1, 149) = 1.768, p=.092). Is the difference merely based on chance or is
there a true (same-norm) reversal effect? Intrigued by this question and by the possible
reversal effect of making a norm salient in a setting with negative norm-support cues, we
decided to test the reversal effect using a larger sample to increase the power of the
experiment.
Study 3: Same-Norm Reversal Effect (2)
In Study 3 we used the same procedure as in Study 2. We compared the percentage of
people littering in a littered setting without a prohibition sign (N=150) to the percentage
of people littering in a littered setting with an “anti-litter” prohibition sign present
(N=150). The results (Figure 2; on the next page) indeed reveal a significant reversal
effect: 38% of the participants conformed to the anti-liter norm in a littered setting
without a prohibition sign, while 30% did so in a similar setting with the prohibition sign
(χ2(1, 300) = 2.885, p=.045). Placing a prohibition sign made people 1.5 times more
likely to litter in a littered setting. This reversal effect not only reveals the possible
negative effect of prohibition signs, it also supports our hypothesis that a norm made
salient enhances the influence of (negative) norm support cues in that setting. The
74
question now is whether a prohibition sign only increases norm violation or whether it
can increase norm compliance in a setting when there are no corresponding negative
norm-support cues present. We conducted a fourth study to find out.
&
Figure 2: Percentage of people that conformed to the anti-litter norm within the littered condition and the
littered condition with an anti-litter prohibition sign present.
Study 4: The Positive Same-Norm Effect of Prohibition Sign
In Study 4, we conducted an additional litter free condition with an anti-litter sign
(N=74). In this condition 61% conformed to the anti-litter norm (Figure 3; on the next
page). In our baseline “litter free” condition without a sign (N=77), 53% of the people
conformed to the anti-litter norm (χ2(1, 151) = .881, p=.174). The difference suggests
some positive effect of the sign itself, but it is not significant. Future research is needed to
examine whether this is due to a lack of power and that prohibition signs can indeed
generate a positive effect when negative norm-support cues are absent.
75
Chapter 5
"!
"
"!
! ! !
&
!
'
Figure 3: Percentage of people that conformed to the anti-litter norm within the baseline (litter free)
condition and the litter free condition with an anti-litter prohibition sign present
Discussion
The results clearly show that prohibition signs indeed decrease norm-conforming
behavior when negative norm-support cues are present in a setting. A comparison of the
results from Study 3 and 4 show that in a setting with a prohibition “anti-litter” sign and
no litter, 61% conformed to the anti-litter norm (Study 4), whereas this is only 30% in a
littered setting with a prohibition sign (see Study 3): χ2(1, 224) = 19.572, p=.000. In other
words, the presence of litter made people 3.6 times more likely to litter in settings with a
prohibition sign. This difference is more pronounced than the difference between the
conditions without a sign, where 53% conformed to the norm when litter was absent
(baseline condition) and only 39% conformed when litter was present (Study 3): χ2(1,
227) = 3.996, p=.023. Thus in settings without the prohibition sign, people were 1.8
times more likely to litter when litter was present compared to when litter was absent.
76
These results indeed suggest that cues of disrespect for a norm (by others) become more
influential when this norm is made salient by a prohibition sign.
Would we observe similar results for cross-norm effects? We proposed that the influence
of negative norm support cues is based on the weakening of the goal to act appropriately.
This mechanism implies that negative norm-support cues regarding a particular norm also
inhibit the influence of other norms (the so-called cross-norm inhibition effect). We
therefore expect that making a norm salient by means of a prohibition sign in a setting
where there are negative norm support cues regarding this norm will strengthen the cross-
norm inhibition effect. Is this really the case? To find out, we decided to replicate the first
four studies on littering, but this time the negative norm-support cues and prohibition sign
concern the anti-graffiti norm, whereas the observed norm-violating behavior concerns
littering. Our first goal (i.e. Study 5) was to test the cross-norm inhibition effect in a
setting with no prohibition sign present.
Study 5: Cross-Norm Inhibition Effect
For the experimental condition of Study 5 (N=77), the alley was cleaned of litter after
which the walls were sprayed with graffiti. The graffiti was highly noticeable, and
consisted out of several improvised tags in different colors. We compared the percentage
of people littering in this condition to the percentage of people littering in our graffiti and
litter free baseline condition (see Study 1; N=77). The results (Figure 4; on the next
page) indeed reveal the expected cross-norm inhibition effect: 53% conformed to the
anti-litter norm in the baseline condition compared to 38% in the experimental “graffiti”
77
Chapter 5
condition (χ2(1, 154) = .3.771, p=.026). The result shows that the influence of one norm
(in this case the anti-litter norm) is inhibited by cues signaling disrespect of people for
another norm (in this case the anti-graffiti norm). People were 1.9 times more likely to
litter when these negative norm-support cues were present.
!! !
! &
Figure 4: Percentage of people that conformed to the anti-litter norm within the baseline (graffiti free)
condition and graffiti condition.
We found in Studies 2 and 3 that placing a prohibition sign in a setting with
corresponding negative norm-support cues did not reduce but strengthen the same-norm
inhibition effect. We hypothesized that placing a sign in these situations would not only
result in a same-norm reversal effect, but also in a cross-norm reversal effect. Is this
really the case? In a setting with graffiti, would an anti-graffiti prohibition sign as
predicted enhance the cross-norm inhibition effect on the anti-litter norm, thereby
increasing littering? We designed Study 6 to find out.
78
Study 6: Cross-Norm Reversal Effect (1)
To test the cross-norm reversal effect we attached an “anti-graffiti” prohibition sign
(round red sign with in the white center the text “Graffiti”) to the alley wall in the
experimental “graffiti” condition. The sign was highly noticeable, every subject entering
the setting at least glanced at it. In this experimental condition (N=77), 31% of the
participants conformed to the anti litter norm compared to 38% in a setting with graffiti
and no sign (Study 1, N=77) (χ2(1, 154) = 0.719, p=.198). Although not significant, the
direction of the difference is in line with of our hypothesis. Thus, as in Study 3, we
wanted to find out whether the results were based on lack of power or whether it takes a
larger sample to show up. To find out we conducted Study 7.
Study 7: Cross-Norm Reversal Effect (2)
Study 7 is a repeat of Study 6 with a larger sample. We hypothesized that making a norm
more salient (by means of a prohibition sign) in a setting where there are cues signaling
disrespect for this norm will enhance the cross-norm inhibition effect, leading to a
reversal effect. The results (Figure 5; on next page) indeed support this cross-norm
reversal effect: 37% of the participants conformed to the anti-litter norm in the condition
where only graffiti was present (N=148) compared to 28% in the condition where next to
the graffiti an anti-graffiti sign was present (N=150): χ2(1, 298) = 2.848, p=.046. People
were 1.5 times more likely to litter in the alley sprayed with graffiti if there was an anti-
graffiti sign present. This finding holds a disturbing message: placing a prohibition sign
in a setting with signs that people do not respect the corresponding norm contributes to
79
Chapter 5
the spread of norm-violating behavior. But does a prohibition sign have any positive
impact at all? Would it reduce the cross-norm inhibition effect if there are no negative
norm-support cues? We conducted a final study to address this question.
!
&
( ('
Figure 5: Percentage of people that conformed to the anti-litter norm within graffiti condition and the
graffiti condition with an anti-graffiti prohibition sign present.
Study 8: The Positive Cross-Norm Effect of Prohibition Signs
For Study 8, we again removed all the graffiti and placed the anti-graffiti sign in the alley
(N=77). In this condition 68% conformed to the anti-litter norm. In our baseline “litter
and graffiti free” condition without a sign (N=77), 53% of the people conformed to the
anti-litter norm. In contrast to the study on the same-norm effect (Study 4), this difference
is significant (χ2(1, 154) = 3.285, p=.035) (Figure 6; on next page). This suggests that
placing a prohibition sign in an environment in which people seem to respect the
particular norm will make this respect for norms more salient and make people more
likely to conform to other norms.
80
"
"" !
!! ! !
!
&
!
!
'
Figure 6: Percentage of people that conformed to the anti-litter norm within the baseline (graffiti free)
condition and the graffiti free condition with an anti-graffiti prohibition sign present.
Discussion
The results of the second set of experiments not only support the cross-norm inhibition
effect but they also clearly show that the negative effect of prohibition signs when there is
clear disrespect for a norm also results in cross-norm inhibition effects. A comparison of
the results of Study 7 and 8 show that in a setting with a prohibition “anti-litter” sign and
no graffiti (Study 8), 68% conformed to the anti-litter norm, whereas this is only 28%
when graffiti is present as well (Study 7): χ2(1, 227) = 32.775, p=.000. Again, this
difference is more pronounced than the difference between the graffiti and clean
conditions in which we placed an anti-graffiti sign, where 53% conformed when graffiti
was absent (baseline condition) and only 37% conformed when graffiti was present
(Study 7): χ2(1, 225) = 5.357, p=.011. In other words, in settings with an anti-graffiti
sign, the presence of graffiti made people 4.6 times more likely to litter, whereas without
the anti-graffiti sign, people were 1.9 times more likely to litter when graffiti was present
81
Chapter 5
compared to when it was absent. The results support the cross-norm inhibition effect, and
show that cues of others’ disrespect for one norm reduces the likelihood of conformation
to other norms. Similar to Studies 3 and 4, we found that cues of disrespect for a norm by
others become more influential and result in a stronger cross-norm inhibition effect)
when this norm is made salient by a prohibition sign. We also saw that when the
environment indicates respect for the prohibition sign, it will increase the likelihood of
conforming to other norms.
General discussion
Prohibition signs belong to the general toolkit of influencing behavior in favor of a
particular norm or rule. But are these signs always effective or do they sometimes even
work counterproductively? Goal-framing theory allowed has concrete expectations about
the workings of these signs and our general conclusion is that indeed prohibition signs do
not always work as intended and sometimes even have a reversal effect. In the present
research and in earlier studies (Keizer, et al., 2008), we could show that negative norm-
support cues, i.e. cues signaling other people’s disrespect for a norm, have a negative
impact on conforming to that norm and even on conforming to other norms. Such cues
seem to lower the strength of the goal to act appropriately. In this study, we could show
that this effect is strengthened when prohibition signs make the corresponding norm more
salient. By increasing the norm salience, prohibition signs in the public space make
people more sensitive to information about norms and thus also more sensitive to the
presence of negative norm-support cues. In other words, in a setting where many people
do not follow the norm, it is wrong to believe that norm conformity can be increased by
82
making this norm extra salient with a prohibition sign. What the sign does is to weaken
the goal to follow norms by making the negative norm-support cues more salient.
This effect did not just hold for the norm that corresponds to the prohibition sign. As
hypothesized, we could show that if you observe that people don’t show respect for the
prohibition sign, you will also be likely to violate a completely different norm. This
“cross-norm” effect makes norm violations spread, and prohibition signs can be an
important factor in reinforcing this spread.
There are signs that convey both a normative message and the message that many people
do not follow the norm. For example, Schultz and Tabanico (2009) showed that some
signs, such as neighborhood watch signs, do not only admonish people to keep to the
norms, but also convey the message that many violate a norm. In that case the sign
automatically undermines its own effectiveness even without extra negative norm-support
cues.
The present research focuses on signs that make a known norm salient. However,
prohibition signs are also used to inform people of what the rules in this specific situation
are. Think of a “no-parking” sign. We don’t claim that placing such a sign will increase
parking compared to the same setting without the sign, because people have not been
aware of the specific rule before the sign was placed. Before placing the sign, parked cars
were just parked cars, but only after placing the sign do they become negative-norm
support cues. A field experiment indeed showed that such violations of a “no-parking”
norm communicated via a prohibition sign indeed sparked a cross-norm inhibition effect
on another norm (“no-trespassing”) (Keizer, et al., 2008).
83
Chapter 5
Our findings have important practical implications. Most importantly, prohibition signs
are often used in public places in an attempt to reduce a certain norm violating behavior
in a setting where this behavior is common. The same- and cross-norm reversal effect
demonstrated in our studies reveal that this well-intended attempt is not only not effective
but can actually reduce compliance and even increase deviant behavior with regard to
other norms. The findings of our research boil down to two concrete pieces of advice for
policy makers: First, focus on removing signs of norm violating behavior, especially in
settings where prohibition signs are (planned to be) used. Second, don’t place prohibition
signs where the rules are not enforced.
84
Chapter 6
General discussion
85
Chapter 6
We started this dissertation with a trip to the supermarket. The example illustrated the
sheer quantity of norms, rules and laws that target our behavior every day. Simple
observation teaches us that people are not consistent in following the rules. This
inconsistency occurs also for rules that people have internalized and for rules where
sanctions play a negligible role, if any. Intrigued by this variance in norm conformity we
asked ourselves the question: what can explain this variation? Based on goal-framing
theory we argued that the influence of norms and rules on behavior is affected by the
observed respect or disrespect for norms by others. This implies that observing cues of
disrespect for a norm (i.e. negative norm-support cue) will inhibit the influence of norms
in general by weakening the goal to act appropriately (i.e. the normative goal). On the
other hand observing cues of clear respect or care for a norm (i.e. positive norm-support
cue) reinforces the influence of norms in general by strengthening the normative goal.
Based on this suggested goal mechanism behind the influence of norms we had a series of
hypotheses. The first important hypothesis was that observing a negative norm-support
cue concerning one norm will (also) inhibit the influence of other norms (i.e. cross-norm
inhibition effect), including pro-social norms. Second, we hypothesized that observing a
positive norm-support cue regarding one norm will reinforce the influence of other norms
(i.e. cross-norm reinforcement effect). These positive and negative cross-norm effects
have to our knowledge never been studied or demonstrated before. Our third hypothesis
was that the influence of norm support cues affects social norms, but also legitimate
86
General discussion
rules, police ordinances, laws, company norms and even pro-social norms like
helpfulness towards strangers. The fourth hypothesis that we studied addressed the effect
of the salience of norms on the cross-norm (inhibition) effect. We expected that making a
norm salient not only makes this norm more salient, but also the corresponding norm-
support cues, thereby enhancing the influence of norm-support cues from others in the
environment. We tested our hypotheses in a total of 23 experiments, most of which were
field experiments situated in the public realm. The results support our expectations and
show robust effects. Let us briefly review each block of experiments and demonstrate
the support for our hypotheses.
Chapter 2: The spreading of disorder
In this chapter we tested the cross-norm inhibition effect (hypothesis 1) and whether it
indeed applied to social norms as well as to other rules such as police ordinances, private
company rules, and federal laws (hypothesis 3). We argued that the cross-norm inhibition
effect is the mechanism behind the claim made by the broken windows theory of Kelling
and Wilson (1982) that disorder spreads. In a series of six field experiments situated in
the public realm, we showed that observing disrespect for one legitimate norm indeed
makes other norm violations more likely, no matter whether it is a social norm, police
ordinance, private company rule, or federal law. Signs of norm violating behavior like
litter, graffiti or unauthorized parking induced violations like littering, trespassing and
even stealing. These findings provide clear support for our first and third hypotheses.
87
Chapter 6
Chapter 3: Helpfulness in public places: Why does it vary and how can it be
increased?
In chapter 3 we further investigated the reach of the cross-norm inhibition effect. We
studied whether signs of disrespect for norms (i.e. negative norm-support cues) would
also, as predicted reduce pro-social behavior like helpfulness and kindness towards
strangers (hypothesis 1). This question was extra important, because if the cross-norm
inhibition effect occurs also for pro-social behavior, we can be pretty sure that it is not
produced by the effect of disorder on the subjective probability of being caught by the
police. Negative norm support cues might signal the message that violations are not
sanctioned and therefore one can violate them with impunity. The results of three field
experiments in the public realm show that the effect indeed also holds for pro-social
behavior. This implies that the cross norm inhibition effect is not driven by the evasion of
sanctions.
Another pressing question was whether norm-support cues only work in the negative
direction or whether there is also a cross-norm reinforcement effect, as goal-framing
theory would predict (hypothesis 2). For this reason, we tested in the second part of
chapter 3 whether clear signs of respect for a norm (i.e. positive norm-support cues)
indeed strengthen the influence of (pro-social) norms on behavior, by strengthening the
normative goal. The results of two field experiments show that this is indeed the case.
The found support for the cross-norm inhibition and reinforcement mechanism makes it a
plausible basis for the variability of pro-social behavior in the public realm (Levine,
Martinez, Sorenson, 1994).
88
General discussion
Chapter 4: Higher-ups make especially influential norm violators
In chapter 4 we focused on a factor that is expected to influence the strength of the cross-
norm inhibition effect: the salience of the norm that is observed as being violated by
others (hypothesis 4). Based on goal-framing theory we argue that making a norm salient
will also focus attention on corresponding negative norm-support cues, thereby increasing
their influence, which in turn strengthens the cross-norm inhibition effect. We argue that
negative norm-support cues become more salient when important others violated the
particular norm. We looked in this chapter at a special kind of norm violators, namely
higher-ups in organizations. Significant others have been known to make norms they
stand for more salient than generalized others (“people”), and higher-ups are a special
kind of significant others, because they make norms salient that are restricted to a certain
context (in this case the company context). Violations of company norms by this group
are expected to result in a stronger cross-norm inhibition effect than the same violations
by lower status people within the organization because higher ups make the company
norms more salient. Violations by higher ups are therefore more salient and more
influential. The results of 4 experiments (of which one was a field experiment) indeed
show that a violation of a norm by higher-ups induces a stronger cross-norm inhibition
effect than the same violation by people lower in status or by people in general.
Chapter 5: The reversal effect of prohibition signs
The research in chapter 4 supported our fourth hypothesis that norm salience influences
the strength of the cross-norm inhibition effect. Having a high status makes the norms
89
Chapter 6
people stand for more salient in others. Another way in which norms can be made salient
is by placing prohibition signs in contexts in which people don’t know the rule or have to
be reminded of the rule. In chapter 5 we therefore again studied the norm salience effect
on cross-norm inhibition but now the violators were unspecified (no status) people. This
time the violated norm wasn’t made salient by the violators but by a prohibition sign. We
hypothesized that placing a prohibition sign in a setting with corresponding negative
norm-support cues strengthens the norm inhibition effect (hypothesis 4). Thus, we
predicted that prohibition signs in a context that shows disrespect for the corresponding
norm have a perverse reversal effect. We indeed found this effect in our experiments. It
did not only apply to the norm made salient but also to other norms in that setting (i.e. a
cross-norm reversal effect): placing an anti-graffiti sign in a setting with graffiti increased
the number of people littering in that setting.
General conclusion and practical implications
The research described in this dissertation shows the impact of negative and positive
norm-support cues on people’s goal to act appropriately. The robust and sizable results
reveal that whether people conform to a norm is greatly influenced by whether they
observe care and respect of others for this and other norms. The variety of norms studied
in this dissertation reveal the reach of the cross-norm effect. Negative norm-support cues
inhibited not only social norms (in the strict sense) but also rules, police ordinances,
federal laws, rules by companies, rules by and in organizations and even pro-social norms
like helpfulness and kindness towards strangers. Besides the theoretical support for goal-
framing theory, there are also important practical implications.
90
General discussion
Behavior in the public realm is targeted by numerous norms, rules and laws, as our trip to
the supermarket illustrated. The quality of our lives is entangled with (other) people
conforming to these rules of behavior. But as numerous as these rules are, so are the cues
revealing disrespect for them. Litter in the streets, graffiti on the walls, unauthorized
parked cars and bicycles, we encounter them every day. This dissertation reveals the
importance of removing negative norm-support cues. A common way to target norm-
violating behavior is placing prohibition signs exactly where people often violate a rule,
but, as our last chapter shows, this can have perverse effects. Placing such a sign can only
be an effective tool if it goes hand in hand with removing negative norm-support cues. In
most places in the world litter is already being removed, however the way this is done can
be improved. In the Netherlands, for example, litter is removed in the early morning
when there are not that many people around. From the efficiency perspective of the
cleaner this may be sensible, however from a normative perspective this is not a wise
approach. Not only does the litter cumulate during the day with all the negative
consequences, but you also miss out on the chance to induce norm conforming behavior
by being observed.
Should we be pessimistic about the chances of the present knowledge finding it’s way
into public policies? No, there is room for optimism; the findings of several of our studies
attracted the attention of policy makers nationally and internationally. It resulted in
various talks with municipalities, the government, police management and even street
cleaners. Based on our findings, several projects have started that for example have the
goal to alter the schedules of street cleaners and the immediate removal of graffiti. Every
talk I gave on inducing norm-conforming behavior (especially the talks to people in high
91
Chapter 6
status positions), I tried to end with the same message. It is with this message, I will also
end this dissertation: Give the good example, because you are more influential than you
think.
92
Dutch summary /
Nederlandse samenvatting
93
Dutch summary
Misschien is de beste introductie voor dit proefschrift een eenvoudig bezoekje aan de
lokale supermarkt. Wat een oninteressante dagelijkse taak lijkt, is in het licht van het
proefschrift dat voor je ligt een reis in de wereld van sociale normen. We komen continu
in aanraking met normen, regels en voorschriften, en op dit kleine uitstapje kom je
tientallen tegen. Het is niet toegestaan om je auto voor de winkel te parkeren. Je moet
tijdens het winkelen gebruik maken van een winkelwagentje. Je mag in de winkel niet
roken, drinken of alvast een hap nemen van die heerlijke croissant, die je zo juist uit het
schap hebt gepakt. Je wordt geacht achter aan in de rij voor de kassa aan te sluiten. Het is
verboden de plastic zak van de croissant op de stoep te deponeren en juist gewenst de
man die voor je zijn boodschappen laat vallen te helpen met oprapen. Als je dan eindelijk
je auto hebt bereikt en je boodschappen ingeladen, dan mag je de trip nog een keer maken
omdat je wordt geacht je winkelwagen terug te brengen. Al deze normen (regels voor
gedrag) vertellen ons welk gedrag in een bepaalde setting gewoonlijk wordt goed of juist
afgekeurd. Normen zijn onlosmakelijk verbonden met het leven in sociale contexten. Ze
zijn in zekere zin de lijm van onze samenleving, omdat ze conflicten en chaos voorkomen
door het nastreven van persoonlijke behoeftes en verlangens te reguleren (Sheriff 1936/
1965). Sociale normen in strikte zin worden gedefinieerd als: "regels en standaarden, die
worden onderschreven door de leden van een groep, en die het gedrag van mensen
reguleren en beheersen, zonder de kracht van wetten" (Cialdini & Trost, 1998, blz. 152).
In dit proefschrift hanteren we een bredere definitie van (sociale) normen, namelijk het
94
gedrag dat in het algemeen als (on)gewenst wordt gezien in een bepaalde situatie. Dit
verwijst naar alle legitieme regels, met inbegrip van wetten, regels door particuliere
bedrijven en ook pro-sociale normen, zoals het helpen van iemand in nood.
We weten uit het dagelijkse leven dat mensen niet altijd consistent zijn in het
conformeren aan normen. Alhoewel geanticipeerde sancties een rol spelen bij het al dan
niet conformeren aan normen, kunnen ze deze inconsistentie niet verklaren. Deze
inconsistentie komt namelijk ook voor bij regels waar sancties een te verwaarlozen rol
spelen, of zelfs afwezig zijn (zoals bij pro-sociale normen; Levine, Martinez & Sorenson,
1994). Geïntrigeerd door deze variabiliteit in normconformerend gedrag stelden we ons
zelf de vraag: wat kan deze variabiliteit verklaren? Gebaseerd op de doel-framing theorie
(Lindenberg & Steg, 2007) stellen we in dit proefschrift dat de invloed van normen op
gedrag wordt beïnvloed door het waargenomen respect of gebrek aan respect van anderen
voor normen. Dit houdt in dat het observeren van tekenen van een gebrek aan respect
voor een norm (“ negatieve norm-support cues”) de invloed van normen in het algemeen
inhibeert, door de verzwakking van het doel om algemeen gewenst gedrag te vertonen
(het normatieve doel). Een verzwakking van het normatieve doel versterkt namelijk de
relatieve invloed van hedonistische doelen en doelen die gericht zijn op het behouden en
verkrijgen van middelen (winst doelen), waardoor men eerder kiest voor gemakkelijke of
profijtelijke opties in plaats van het ‘juiste’ te doen. Aan de andere kant het observeren
van duidelijke tekenen van respect of zorg voor een norm (“ positieve norm-support
cues”) versterkt de invloed van normen in het algemeen, door een versterking van het
normatieve doel.
95
Dutch summary
Op basis van dit doelmechanisme achter de invloed van normen hebbenen we
verschillende hypotheses opgesteld. De eerste belangrijke hypothese stelt dat het
waarnemen van negatieve norm-support cues met betrekking tot een norm (ook) de
invloed van andere normen (met inbegrip van pro-sociale normen) op het gedrag
inhibeert; we noemen dit het cross-norm inhibitie effect. Ten tweede veronderstellen we
dat het waarnemen van positieve norm-support cues met betrekking tot een norm de
invloed van andere normen op het gedrag versterkt; we noemen dit het cross-norm
versterkingseffect. Deze positieve en negatieve cross-norm effecten zijn naar ons weten
nog nooit onderzocht of aangetoond. Onze derde hypothese stelt dat norm-support cues
niet alleen de invloed van sociale normen (in strikte betekenis) op gedrag beïnvloedt,
maar ook de invloed van legitieme regels, politie verordeningen, wetten, bedrijfsregels en
zelfs pro-sociale normen (zoals hulpvaardigheid tegenover vreemden) op gedrag. De
vierde hypothese, die we hebben getoetst richt zich op het effect van de saillantie van
normen op het cross-norm (inhibitie) effect. We verwachtten dat het saillant maken van
een norm niet alleen deze norm meer saillant maakt, maar ook de bijbehorende norm-
support cues, waardoor de invloed van deze norm-support cues toeneemt. We hebben
deze vier hypotheses getoetst in totaal 23 experimenten. De meeste van deze
experimenten waren veldexperimenten, die plaats vonden in de openbare ruimte. De
resultaten ondersteunen onze verwachtingen en tonen robuuste effecten. Hieronder geven
we een korte beschrijving van de uitkomsten van de verschillende hoofdstukken van dit
proefschrift. We beschrijven de verschillende series van experimenten en de steun die
deze experimenten leveren aan onze hypotheses.
96
Hoofdstuk 2: De verspreiding van wanorde
In dit hoofdstuk toetsten we het cross-norm inhibitie effect (hypothese 1) en gingen na of
het van invloed is op diverse type normen zoals bijvoorbeeld politieverordeningen, regels
van particuliere ondernemingen, en wetten (hypothese 3). We stellen dat het cross-norm-
inhibitie effect het mechanisme is achter de aanname van de “Broken window theory”
van Kelling en Wilson (1982) dat wanorde zich verspreidt. In een serie van zes
veldexperimenten die zijn uitgevoerd in het publieke domein laten we zien dat het
observeren van een gebrek aan respect voor een legitieme norm inderdaad andere
normovertredingen in de hand werkt, ongeacht of het gaat om een sociale norm (in strikte
zin), politieverordening, een regel van een particuliere onderneming, of een wet. Tekenen
van normovertredend gedrag zoals zwerfvuil, graffiti of fout geparkeerde fietsen
induceerden andere normovertredingen, zoals rommel op straat gooien, het negeren van
een bord “verboden toegang”, en zelfs stelen. Deze bevindingen geven duidelijke steun
aan onze eerste en derde hypothese.
Hoofdstuk 3: Hulpvaardigheid in de openbare ruimte: Waarom varieert het en hoe
kan het worden versterkt?
In hoofdstuk 3 hebben we het cross-norm inhibite effect verder onderzocht. We
bestudeerden de vraag of tekenen van een gebrek aan respect voor een norm (oftewel
negatieve norm-support cues) ook, zoals voorspeld, pro-sociaal gedrag, zoals
hulpvaardigheid en vriendelijkheid tegenover vreemden, vermindert (hypothese 1). Deze
vraag is belangrijk, want als het cross-norm inhibitie effect ook optreedt bij pro-sociaal
gedrag, ondersteunt dit ons idee dat de toename in normovertredend gedrag niet het
97
Dutch summary
gevolg is van het mogelijke effect van wanorde op de ingeschatte kans om bestraft te
worden door de politie. Negatieve norm-support cues, zoals bijvoorbeeld de
aanwezigheid van graffiti, zouden namelijk de boodschap af kunnen geven dat
normovertredingen niet worden gesanctioneerd, en dus dat je normen ongestraft kunt
overtreden. Het niet hulpvaardig zijn naar vreemden wordt echter (doorgaans) niet
gesanctioneerd. De resultaten van drie veldexperimenten in het publieke domein laten
zien dat, zoals verwacht, het cross-norm inhibitie effect ook geldt voor pro-sociaal
gedrag. Dit betekent dat het cross-norm inhibitie effect niet het gevolg is van een (lager)
ingeschatte kans op sancties.
Een andere belangrijke vraag was of de invloed van norm-support cues alleen werkt in
een negatieve richting, of dat er ook sprake is van een cross-norm versterkingseffect,
zoals de doel-framing theorie voorspelt (hypothese 2). Daarom hebben we in het tweede
deel van hoofdstuk 3 getoetst of duidelijke tekenen van respect voor een norm (dus
positieve norm-support cues) inderdaad de invloed van (pro-sociale) normen op gedrag
vergroot, door het versterken van het normatieve doel. De resultaten van twee
veldexperimenten laten zien dat dit inderdaad het geval is. Deze steun voor het cross-
norm inhibitie en versterkingsmechanisme geeft een plausibele verklaring voor de eerder
gevonden variabiliteit van pro-sociaal gedrag in het publieke domein (Levine, et al.,
1994).
Hoofdstuk 4: Hooggeplaatsten zijn invloedrijke normovertreders
In hoofdstuk 4 richtten we ons op een factor, die naar verwachting van invloed is op de
sterkte van het cross-norm inhibitie effect: de saillantie van de norm, die wordt
98
waargenomen als zijnde geschonden door anderen (hypothese 4). Gebaseerd op de doel-
framing theorie stellen we dat het saillant maken van een norm ook de aandacht vestigt
op overeenkomstige negatieve norm-support cues, waardoor de invloed van deze cues
wordt vergroot en dus het cross-norm inhibitie effect versterkt. We stellen dat negatieve
norm-support cues ten aanzien van een bepaalde norm meer saillant worden als
belangrijke anderen of mensen met status deze norm overtreden. We keken in dit
hoofdstuk naar een speciaal type normovertreders, namelijk mensen met status in
organisaties (in dit geval hooggeplaatsten). Belangrijke anderen (in het Engels:
significant others) maken normen waarvoor zij staan meer saillant dan mensen in het
algemeen. Hooggeplaatsten zijn een speciaal soort ‘significant others’, omdat ze normen
meer saillant maken die beperkt zijn tot een specifieke context (in dit geval de
bedrijfscontext). We verwachtten dat overtredingen van bedrijfsnormen door deze groep
resulteert in een sterker cross-norm inhibitie effect dan dezelfde normovertredingen door
mensen met een lagere status binnen de organisatie, omdat hooggeplaatsten de
bedrijfsnormen meer saillant maken. Overtredingen door hooggeplaatsten zijn daardoor
ook meer saillant, hetgeen het cross-norm inhibitie effect versterkt. De resultaten van de 4
experimenten (waarvan één veldexperiment) laten inderdaad zien dat een
normovertreding door hogergeplaatsten resulteert in een sterker cross-norm inhibitie
effect dan de dezelfde overtreding door mensen met een lagere status of door mensen in
het algemeen.
Hoofdstuk 5: Het averechtse effect van verbodsborden
Het onderzoek in hoofdstuk 4 ondersteunt onze vierde hypothese dat negatieve norm-
support cues meer van invloed worden (sterker cross-nomr inhibitie effect) als de
99
Dutch summary
bijbehorende norm meer saillant wordt gemaakt. Een vaak gebruikte manier om normen
saillant te maken in situaties waarin mensen niet weten wat de regel is of herinnerd
moeten worden aan de regel, is het plaatsen van een verbodsbord. In hoofdstuk 5 hebben
we daarom opnieuw het effect van norm saillantie op het cross-norm inhibitie effect
onderzocht. De norm(overtreding) werd nu niet saillant gemaakt door de overtreders
zelf, maar door een verbodsbord. Ditmaal waren de normovertreders niet-gespecificeerde
(statusloze) mensen. Onze hypothese was dat het plaatsen van een verbodsbord in een
omgeving met bijbehorende negatieve norm-support cues het (cross-)norm inhibitie effect
versterkt, omdat het deze cues meer saillant en daarmee meer van invloed maakt
(hypothese 4). We vonden dit averechtse effect inderdaad terug in onze experimenten. Dit
was niet alleen het geval voor de norm die saillant werd gemaakt middels het
verbodsbord, maar ook voor andere normen in die setting (i.e. een cross-norm inhibitie
effect): door het plaatsen van een anti-graffiti-bord in een omgeving met graffiti steeg het
aantal mensen dat rommel op de grond gooide in die setting.
Algemene conclusie en praktische implicaties
Het onderzoek beschreven in dit proefschrift toont het effect van negatieve en positieve
norm-support cues op het doel om het algemeen gewenste gedrag te vertonen, en daarmee
het effect van deze cues op normconform gedrag. De resultaten zijn sterk en robuust, en
laten zien dat de mate waarin mensen zich conformeren aan een norm sterk beïnvloed
wordt door het geobserveerde respect van anderen voor deze norm en andere normen. Dit
effect treedt op voor verschillende normen, regels, politieverordeningen, regels in
organisaties, wetten, en zelfs pro-sociale normen (zoals hulpvaardigheid en
vriendelijkheid tegenover vreemden), waaruit blijkt dat het bereik van het cross-norm
100
effect omvangrijk is.
Naast de theoretische ondersteuning voor de doel-framing theorie, zijn er ook belangrijke
praktische implicaties. Gedrag in het publieke domein wordt gereguleerd door tal van
normen, regels en wetten, zoals ons uitstapje naar de supermarkt illustreert. De kwaliteit
van ons leven is nauw verbonden met de mate waarin (andere) mensen zich aan deze
normen en gedragsregels conformeren. Maar zo talrijk als deze regels zijn, zo talrijk zijn
ook de signalen, die een gebrek aan respect voor deze regels laten zien. Zwerfvuil op
straat, graffiti op de muren, fout geparkeerde auto's en fietsen, we komen het dagelijks
tegen. Dit proefschrift toont het belang van het verwijderen van dergelijke negatieve
norm-support cues. Een veel voorkomende manier om normovertredend gedrag tegen te
gaan, is het plaatsen van verbodsborden in een setting waar mensen deze regel vaak
overtreden. Zoals onze laatste hoofdstuk laat zien, kan dit echter een averechts effect
hebben. Het plaatsen van een dergelijk bord is alleen een effectief instrument als het hand
in hand gaat met het verwijderen van deze negatieve norm-support cues.
Op de meeste plaatsen in de wereld wordt zwerfvuil al verwijderd, maar de manier
waarop dit gebeurt, kan eveneens worden verbeterd. In Nederland wordt nu nog vaak
zwerfvuil verwijderd in de vroege ochtend als er weinig mensen op straat zijn. Deze
aanpak is misschien zinvol vanuit efficiëntie perspectief, maar vanuit een normatief
perspectief is dit geen verstandige benadering. Niet alleen hoopt het zwerfvuil zich
gedurende de dag op, met alle negatieve gevolgen van dien, maar er is ook een gemiste
kans om normconformerend gedrag te induceren door de normovertreding zichtbaar af te
keuren.
101
Dutch summary
Moeten we pessimistisch over de kansen dat de hier gepresenteerde kennis zijn weg vindt
naar het openbare beleid? Nee, er is ruimte voor optimisme, de bevindingen van een
aantal van onze studies heeft de aandacht van beleidsmakers op nationaal en
internationaal niveau getrokken. Het resulteerde in diverse gesprekken met gemeenten, de
overheid, de politieleiding en zelfs straatreinigers. Gebaseerd op onze bevindingen, zijn
verschillende projecten gestart. Projecten, die bijvoorbeeld tot doel hebben graffiti direct
te verwijderen of het werkschema van straatreinigers aan te passen.
Elke voordracht, die ik geef over het induceren van normconformerend gedrag eindig ik
met dezelfde boodschap. Het is met deze boodschap, dat ik ook dit proefschrift zal
eindigen: Geef het goede voorbeeld, je hebt namelijk meer invloed dan je denkt.
102
References
References
Aarts, H., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2003). The silence of the library: Environment, situational
norm, and social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 18-28.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
Andersen, S M. and Cole, S.W. (1990). "Do I Know You?": The Role of Significant
Others in General Social Perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59,
384-399.
Andreoni, J. (1995). Warm glow versus cold prickle: The effects of positive and negative
framing on cooperation in experiments. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 110, 1-21.
Asch, S. E. (1940). Studies in the Principles of Judgments and Attitudes: II Determination
of Judgments by Group and by Ego Standards. The Journal of Social Psychology, 12,
433-465.
Asch, S. E., Block, H. & Hertzman, M. (1938). Studies in the Principles of Judgments
and Attitudes: I Two Basic Principles of Judgment. The Journal of Social Psychology, 5,
219-251.
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a
unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70, (9), 1-70.
103
References
Aquino, K. and Reed, II., A. (2002). The Self-Importance of Moral Identity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1423–1440.
Baldwin, M. W., & Holmes, J. G. (1987). Salient private audiences and awareness of the
self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1087-1098.
Berkowitz, L. (1972). Social norms, feelings, and other factors affecting helping and
altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp.
63-108). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bickman, L. (1972). Environmental attitudes and actions. Journal of Social Psychology,
87,323-324.
Camerer, C. F. and Fehr, E. (2006), When does “economic man” dominate social
behaviour? Science, 311, 47-52.
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of
source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
42, 752-766.
Chaiken, S., Giner-Sorolla, R., & Chen, S. (1996). Beyond accuracy: Defense and
impression motives in heuristic and systematic information processing. In P. M.
Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking motivation and
cognition to behavior (pp. 553-578). New York: Guilford.
104
References
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, 1015-1026.
Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative
conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human
behaviour. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 24,
pp. 201-233). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Cialdini, R. B. (1993). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (2 ed) New York:
Morrow.
Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and
compliance. In D. Gilber, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology
(4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 151 – 192). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Cialdini, R. B., Demaine, L. Sagarin, B. J., Barrett, D. W., Rhoads, K., & Winter, P. L.
(2006). Managing social norms for persuasive impact, Social Influence, 1, 3-15.
Cialdini, R. (2007). Descriptive social norms as underappreciated sources of social
control. Psychometrika, 72(2), 263-268.
Codol, J. P. (1975). On the so-called superior conformity of the self behavior: Twenty
experimental investigations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 457-501.
105
References
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H.B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social
influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 51,
629-636.
Eck, J. and E. Maguire. (2000). “Have Changes in Policing Reduced Violent Crime? An
Assessment of the Evidence.” In A. Blumstein and J. Wallman (Eds.), The Crime Drop in
America. (pp. 207–265). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Erdogan, B. Zafer. (1999). "Celebrity Endorsement: A Literature Review." Journal of
Marketing Management 15:291-314.
Fehr, E. (2004), Don’t lose your reputation. Nature, 432, 449-450.
Fehr, E. and Fischbacher, U. (2004), Social norms and human cooperation. Trends in
cognitive sciences, 8, 185-190.
Finnie, W C. (1973). Field experiments in litter control. Environment and Behavior,
5,123-144.
Fitzsimons, G. M., & Bargh, J. A. (2003). Thinking of you: Nonconscious pursuit of
interpersonal goals associated with relationship partners. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 84, 148-164.
Gintis, H., Bowles, S., Boyd, R., and Fehr, E. (2003), Explaining altruistic behavior in
humans. Evolution and Human Behavior 24, 153–172.
106
References
Gladwell, M. (2000). The Tipping Point. How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference.
Boston, MA : Little, Brown.
Gollwitzer, P. M. ,& Bargh, J. (Eds.) (1996). The psychology of action. Linking cognition
and motivation to behavior. New York: Guilford Press.
Harcourt, B. E. (1998). Reflecting on the subject: a critique of the social influence
conception of deterrence, the broken windows theory, and order-maintenance policing
New York style. Michigan Law Review, 97, 291-389.
Harcourt, B. E., & Ludwig, J. (2006). Broken windows: New evidence from New York
City and a five-city social experiment. University of Chicago Law Review, 73, 271-320.
Homans, G. (1951), The Human Group. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Kallgren, C. A., Reno, R. R., & Cialdini, R. B. (2000). A focus theory of normative
conduct: When norms do and do not affect behavior. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 26, 1002-1012.
Keizer, K. ,Lindenberg, S., Steg, L. (2008). The spreading of disorder, Science, 322,
168-16851.
Kelling, G. L. and Coles, C. M. (1996). Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and
Reducing Crime in Our Communities. New York, NY: The Free Press.
107
References
Kelling, G. L. and Sousa, W. H. (2001). Do Police Matter? An Analysis of the Impact of
New York City’s Police Reforms. Civic Report No. 22. New York, NY: Manhattan
Institute.
Krauss, R. M, Freedman, J. L, & Whitcup, M. (1978). Field and laboratory studies of
littering. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,14,109-122.
Latané, B. (1981), The Psychology of Social Impact. American Psychologist, 36, 343-
356.
Lindenberg, S. & Steg, L. (2007). Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding
environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues 65(1), 117-137.
Lindenberg, S. (2008). Social Rationality, Semi-Modularity and Goal-Framing: What Is
It All About? Analyse & Kritik, 30, 669-687.
Lindenberg, S.; Joly, J. & Stapel, D.A. (in press). The Norm-activating Power of
Celebrity: The Dynamics of Success and Influence. Social Psychology Quarterly.
Levine, R., Martinez, T., Brase, G. & Sorenson, K. Helping in 36 U.S. Cities (1994).
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 69-81.
Levine, R.V. (2003), The Kindness of Strangers. People’s willingness to help someone
during a chance encounter on a city street varies considerably around the world.
American Scientist, 91, 226-233.
108
References
Marques, J. M., Abrams, D., Paez, D., & Martinez-Taboada, C. (1998). The role of
categorization and in-group norms in judgments of groups and their members. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 976–988.
Reiter, S. M., & Samuel, W. (1980). Littering as a function of prior litter and the presence
or absence of prohibitive signs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10(1), 45-55.
Reno, R. R., Cialdini, R. B., & Kallgren, C. A. (1993). The transsituational influence of
social norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 104-112.
Rimal, R.N., Lapinski, M.K., Cook, R.J., & Real, K. (2005). Moving toward a theory of
normative influences: How perceived benefits and similarity moderate the impact of
descriptive norms on behaviors. Journal of Health Communication, 10, 433-450.
Sampson, R.J., & Raudenbush, S.W. (1999). Systematic social observation of public
spaces: A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology,
105(3), 603651.
Schwartz, S. H., & Fleishman, J. A. (1978). Personal norms and the mediation of
legitimacy effects on helping. Social Psychology, 41, 306-315.
Shaffer, L. S. (1983). Toward Pepitone’s vision of a normative social psychology: What
is a social norm? The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 4, 275-294.
Sherif, M. (1965). The psychology of social norms. New York: Octagon Books, Inc.
(Original work published 1936).
109
References
Schultz, P. W., Khazian, A. M., & Zaleski, A. C. (2008). Using normative social
influence to promote conservation among hotel guests. Social Influence, 3, 4-23.
Schultz, P. W., & Tabanico, J. T. (2009). Criminal beware: A social norms perspective on
posting public warning signs. Criminology, 47, 1201-1222.
Skogan, W. G. (1990). Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral of Decay in
American Neighborhoods. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Skogan, W. and K. Frydl (eds) (2004) Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing: The
Evidence. Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academies Press.
Stapel, D.A., Joly, J.F. & Lindenberg, S. (2010). Being there with others: How people
make environments norm-relevant. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 175-187.
Ullrich, J., Christ, O., & Van Dick, R. (2009). Substitutes for procedural fairness:
Prototypical leaders are endorsed whether they are fair or not. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94, 235-244.
Wilson, J. Q. and Kelling, G. L. (1982). Broken windows: the police and neighborhood
safety. The Atlantic Monthly, March, 29-38.
Winter, P., Sagarin, B., Rhoads, K., Barrett, D. and Cialini, R. (2000). Choosing to
Encourage or Discourage: Perceived Effectiveness of Persuasive versus
Prescriptive Messages. Environmental Management, 26(6), 589-594.
110
Acknowledgements
This dissertation could not have been written without the support of numerous people. I
would first and above all like to thank my promotores Siegwart Lindenberg and Linda
Steg. Working with you has been a stimulating, enriching experience and an absolute joy!
I would also like to thank:
The reading committee: Wesley Schultz, Louk Hagendoorn and Rafael Wittek, for taking
the time to review this dissertation and for being in the corona; the other members of the
corona, Bram Buunk, Sander Koole, Tom Postmes, Andreas Flache; my paranymphs: Jan
Willem Bolderdijk and Janet Veldstra; Wesley Schultz, John Torgerson, Tom Postmes,
Sander Koole, Talib Rothengatter, Jan Willem Bolderdijk for their helpful feedback; the
numerous students that helped with the experiments, specifically Maurits Sytstra; my
colleagues: Ellen van der Werff, Martijn Keizer, Jan Willem Bolderdijk, Berfu Unal,
Goda Perlavicute for their help with the experiments; Hendrik Linnewiel for his help with
planning the reception and for his work as a model in one of the photographs; my
colleagues at (Social) Psychology and the ICS for the great atmosphere; The ICS and the
department of Psychology for giving me the opportunity to do research; my friends for
their never ending attempts to distract me; my sister Aafke Keizer for all her advice.
Finally, I would like to thank my parents: for everything!
111
ICS dissertation series
112
The ICS-series presents dissertations of the Interuniversity Centre for Social Science Theory and
Methodology. Each of these studies aims at integrating explicit theory formation with state-of-the-art
empirical research or at the development of advanced methods for empirical research. The ICS was
founded in 1986 as a cooperative effort of the universities of Groningen and Utrecht. Since 1992, the ICS
expanded to the University of Nijmegen. Most of the projects are financed by the participating universities
or by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). The international composition of the
ICS graduate students is mirrored in the increasing international orientation of the projects and thus of the
ICS-series itself.
1) C. van Liere, (1990). Lastige Leerlingen. Een empirisch onderzoek naar sociale oorzaken van
probleemgedrag op basisscholen. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
2) Marco H.D. van Leeuwen, (1990). Bijstand in Amsterdam, ca. 1800 - 1850. Armenzorg als beheersings-
en overlevingsstrategie. ICS dissertation, Utrecht.
3) I. Maas, (1990). Deelname aan podiumkunsten via de podia, de media en actieve beoefening. Substitutie
of leereffecten? Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
4) M.I. Broese van Groenou, (1991). Gescheiden Netwerken. De relaties met vrienden en verwanten na
echtscheiding. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
5) Jan M.M. van den Bos, (1991). Dutch EC Policy Making. A Model-Guided Approach to Coordination
and Negotiation. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
6) Karin Sanders, (1991). Vrouwelijke Pioniers. Vrouwen en mannen met een 'mannelijke' hogere
beroepsopleiding aan het begin van hun loopbaan. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
7) Sjerp de Vries, (1991). Egoism, Altruism, and Social Justice. Theory and Experiments on Cooperation
in Social Dilemmas. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
8) Ronald S. Batenburg, (1991). Automatisering in bedrijf. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
9) Rudi Wielers, (1991). Selectie en allocatie op de arbeidsmarkt. Een uitwerking voor de informele en
geïnstitutionaliseerde kinderopvang. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
10) Gert P. Westert, (1991). Verschillen in ziekenhuisgebruik. ICS dissertation, Groningen.
11) Hanneke Hermsen, (1992). Votes and Policy Preferences. Equilibria in Party Systems. Amsterdam:
Thesis Publishers.
12) Cora J.M. Maas, (1992). Probleemleerlingen in het basisonderwijs. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
13) Ed A.W. Boxman, (1992). Contacten en carrière. Een empirisch-theoretisch onderzoek naar de relatie
tussen sociale netwerken en arbeidsmarktposities. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
14) Conny G.J. Taes, (1992). Kijken naar banen. Een onderzoek naar de inschatting van arbeids-
marktkansen bij schoolverlaters uit het middelbaar beroepsonderwijs. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
15) Peter van Roozendaal, (1992). Cabinets in Multi-Party Democracies. The Effect of Dominant and
Central Parties on Cabinet Composition and Durability. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
16) Marcel van Dam, (1992). Regio zonder regie. Verschillen in en effectiviteit van gemeentelijk
arbeidsmarktbeleid. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
17) Tanja van der Lippe, (1993). Arbeidsverdeling tussen mannen en vrouwen. Amsterdam: Thesis
Publishers.
18) Marc A. Jacobs, (1993). Software: Kopen of Kopiëren? Een sociaal-wetenschappelijk onderzoek onder
PC-gebruikers. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
19) Peter van der Meer, (1993). Verdringing op de Nederlandse arbeidsmarkt. Sector- en sekseverschillen.
Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
20) Gerbert Kraaykamp, (1993). Over lezen gesproken. Een studie naar sociale differentiatie in leesgedrag.
21) Evelien Zeggelink, (1993). Strangers into Friends. The Evolution of Friendship Networks Using an
Individual Oriented Modeling Approach. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
113
22) Jaco Berveling, (1994). Het stempel op de besluitvorming. Macht, invloed en besluitvorming op twee
Amsterdamse beleidsterreinen. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
23) Wim Bernasco, (1994). Coupled Careers. The Effects of Spouse's Resources on Success at Work.
24) Liset van Dijk, (1994). Choices in Child Care. The Distribution of Child Care Among Mothers, Fathers
and Non-Parental Care Providers. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
25) Jos de Haan, (1994). Research Groups in Dutch Sociology. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
26) K. Boahene, (1995). Innovation Adoption as a Socio-Economic Process. The Case of the Ghanaian
Cocoa Industry. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
27) Paul E.M. Ligthart, (1995). Solidarity in Economic Transactions. An Experimental Study of Framing
Effects in Bargaining and Contracting. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
28) Roger Th. A.J. Leenders, (1995). Structure and Influence. Statistical Models for the Dynamics of Actor
Attributes, Network Structure, and their Interdependence. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
29) Beate Völker, (1995). Should Auld Acquaintance Be Forgot...? Institutions of Communism, the
Transition to Capitalism and Personal Networks: the Case of East Germany. Amsterdam: Thesis Publis-
hers.
30) A. Cancrinus-Matthijsse, (1995). Tussen hulpverlening en ondernemerschap. Beroepsuitoefening en
taakopvattingen van openbare apothekers in een aantal West-Europese landen. Amsterdam: Thesis
Publishers.
31) Nardi Steverink, (1996). Zo lang mogelijk zelfstandig. Naar een verklaring van verschillen in oriëntatie
ten aanzien van opname in een verzorgingstehuis onder fysiek kwetsbare ouderen. Amsterdam: Thesis
Publishers.
32) Ellen Lindeman, (1996). Participatie in vrijwilligerswerk. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
33) Chris Snijders, (1996). Trust and Commitments. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
34) Koos Postma, (1996). Changing Prejudice in Hungary. A Study on the Collapse of State Socialism and
Its Impact on Prejudice Against Gypsies and Jews. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
35) Jooske T. van Busschbach, (1996). Uit het oog, uit het hart? Stabiliteit en verandering in persoonlijke
relaties. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
36) René Torenvlied, (1996). Besluiten in uitvoering. Theorieën over beleidsuitvoering modelmatig getoetst
op sociale vernieuwing in drie gemeenten. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
37) Andreas Flache, (1996). The Double Edge of Networks. An Analysis of the Effect of Informal Networks
on Cooperation in Social Dilemmas. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
38) Kees van Veen, (1997). Inside an Internal Labor Market: Formal Rules, Flexibility and Career Lines in
a Dutch Manufacturing Company. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
39) Lucienne van Eijk, (1997). Activity and Well-being in the Elderly. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
40) Róbert Gál, (1997). Unreliability. Contract Discipline and Contract Governance under Economic
Transition. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
41) Anne-Geerte van de Goor, (1997). Effects of Regulation on Disability Duration. ICS dissertation,
Utrecht.
42) Boris Blumberg, (1997). Das Management von Technologiekooperationen. Partnersuche und
Verhandlungen mit dem Partner aus Empirisch-Theoretischer Perspektive. ICS dissertation, Utrecht.
43) Marijke von Bergh, (1997). Loopbanen van oudere werknemers. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
44) Anna Petra Nieboer, (1997). Life-Events and Well-Being: A Prospective Study on Changes in
Well-Being of Elderly People Due to a Serious Illness Event or Death of the Spouse. Amsterdam: Thesis
Publishers.
45) Jacques Niehof, (1997). Resources and Social Reproduction: The Effects of Cultural and Material
Resources on Educational and Occupational Careers in Industrial Nations at the End of the Twentieth
Century. ICS dissertation, Nijmegen.
46) Ariana Need, (1997). The Kindred Vote. Individual and Family Effects of Social Class and Religion on
Electoral Change in the Netherlands, 1956-1994. ICS dissertation, Nijmegen.
114
47) Jim Allen, (1997). Sector Composition and the Effect of Education on Wages: an International
Comparison. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
48) Jack B.F. Hutten, (1998). Workload and Provision of Care in General Practice. An Empirical Study of
the Relation Between Workload of Dutch General Practitioners and the Content and Quality of their Care.
ICS dissertation, Utrecht.
49) Per B. Kropp, (1998). Berufserfolg im Transformationsprozeß. Eine theoretisch-empirische Studie über
die Gewinner und Verlierer der Wende in Ostdeutschland. ICS dissertation, Utrecht.
50) Maarten H.J. Wolbers, (1998). Diploma-inflatie en verdringing op de arbeidsmarkt. Een studie naar
ontwikkelingen in de opbrengsten van diploma's in Nederland. ICS dissertation, Nijmegen.
51) Wilma Smeenk, (1998). Opportunity and Marriage. The Impact of Individual Resources and Marriage
Market Structure on First Marriage Timing and Partner Choice in the Netherlands. ICS dissertation,
Nijmegen.
52) Marinus Spreen, (1999). Sampling Personal Network Structures: Statistical Inference in Ego-Graphs.
ICS dissertation, Groningen.
53) Vincent Buskens, (1999). Social Networks and Trust. ICS dissertation, Utrecht.
54) Susanne Rijken, (1999). Educational Expansion and Status Attainment. A Cross-National and Over-
Time Comparison. ICS dissertation, Utrecht.
55) Mérove Gijsberts, (1999). The Legitimation of Inequality in State-Socialist and Market Societies, 1987-
1996. ICS dissertation, Utrecht.
56) Gerhard G. Van de Bunt, (1999). Friends by Choice. An Actor-Oriented Statistical Network Model for
Friendship Networks Through Time. ICS dissertation, Groningen.
57) Robert Thomson, (1999). The Party Mandate: Election Pledges and Government Actions in the
Netherlands, 1986-1998. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.
58) Corine Baarda, (1999). Politieke besluiten en boeren beslissingen. Het draagvlak van het mestbeleid tot
2000. ICS dissertation, Groningen.
59) Rafael Wittek, (1999). Interdependence and Informal Control in Organizations. ICS dissertation,
Groningen.
60) Diane Payne, (1999). Policy Making in the European Union: an Analysis of the Impact of the Reform of
the Structural Funds in Ireland. ICS dissertation, Groningen.
61)René Veenstra, (1999). Leerlingen - Klassen - Scholen. Prestaties en vorderingen van leerlingen in het
voortgezet onderwijs. Amsterdam, Thela Thesis.
62) Marjolein Achterkamp, (1999). Influence Strategies in Collective Decision Making. A Comparison of
Two Models. ICS dissertation, Groningen.
63) Peter Mühlau, (2000). The Governance of the Employment Relation. A Relational Signaling
Perspective. ICS dissertation, Groningen.
64) Agnes Akkerman, (2000). Verdeelde vakbeweging en stakingen. Concurrentie om leden. ICS
dissertation, Groningen.
65) Sandra van Thiel, (2000). Quangocratization: Trends, Causes and Consequences. ICS dissertation,
Utrecht.
66) Rudi Turksema, (2000). Supply of Day Care. ICS dissertation, Utrecht.
67) Sylvia E. Korupp (2000). Mothers and the Process of Social Stratification. ICS dissertation, Utrecht.
68) Bernard A. Nijstad (2000). How the Group Affects the Mind: Effects of Communication in Idea
Generating Groups. ICS dissertation, Utrecht.
69) Inge F. de Wolf (2000). Opleidingsspecialisatie en arbeidsmarktsucces van sociale wetenschappers.
ICS dissertation, Utrecht.
70) Jan Kratzer (2001). Communication and Performance: An Empirical Study in Innovation Teams. ICS-
71) Madelon Kroneman (2001). Healthcare Systems and Hospital Bed Use. ICS/NIVEL-dissertation,
Utrecht.
72) Herman van de Werfhorst (2001). Field of Study and Social Inequality. Four Types of Educational
Resources in the Process of Stratification in the Netherlands. ICS-dissertation, Nijmegen.
115
73) Tamás Bartus (2001). Social Capital and Earnings Inequalities. The Role of Informal Job Search in
Hungary. ICS-dissertation Groningen.
74) Hester Moerbeek (2001). Friends and Foes in the Occupational Career. The Influence of Sweet and
Sour Social Capital on the Labour Market. ICS-dissertation, Nijmegen.
75) Marcel van Assen (2001). Essays on Actor Perspectives in Exchange Networks and Social Dilemmas.
ICS-dissertation, Groningen.
76) Inge Sieben (2001). Sibling Similarities and Social Stratification. The Impact of Family Background
across Countries and Cohorts. ICS-dissertation, Nijmegen.
77) Alinda van Bruggen (2001). Individual Production of Social Well-Being. An Exploratory Study. ICS-
78) Marcel Coenders (2001). Nationalistic Attitudes and Ethnic Exclusionism in a Comparative
Perspective: An Empirical Study of Attitudes Toward the Country and Ethnic Immigrants in 22 Countries.
ICS-dissertation, Nijmegen.
79) Marcel Lubbers (2001). Exclusionistic Electorates. Extreme Right-Wing Voting in Western Europe.
80) Uwe Matzat (2001). Social Networks and Cooperation in Electronic Communities. A theoretical-
empirical Analysis of Academic Communication and Internet Discussion Groups. ICS-dissertation,
Groningen.
81) Jacques P.G. Janssen (2002). Do Opposites Attract Divorce? Dimensions of Mixed Marriage and the
Risk of Divorce in the Netherlands, ICS-dissertation, Nijmegen.
82) Miranda Jansen (2002). Waardenoriëntaties en partnerrelaties. Een panelstudie naar wederzijdse
invloeden, ICS-dissertation, Utrecht.
83) Anne Rigt Poortman (2002). Socioeconomic Causes and Consequences of Divorce. ICS-dissertation,
Utrecht.
84) Alexander Gattig (2002). Intertemporal Decision Making, ICS-dissertation, Groningen.
85) Gerrit Rooks (2002). Contract en Conflict: Strategisch Management van Inkooptransacties, ICS-
dissertation, Utrecht.
86) Károly Takács (2002). Social Networks and Intergroup Conflict. ICS-dissertation, Groningen.
87) Thomas Gautschi (2002). Trust and Exchange, Effects of Temporal Embeddedness and Network
Embeddedness on Providing and Dividing a Surplus. ICS-dissertation, Utrecht.
88) Hilde Bras (2002). Zeeuwse meiden. Dienen in de levensloop van vrouwen, ca. 1850 – 1950. Aksant
Academic Publishers, Amsterdam.
89) Merijn Rengers (2002). Economic Lives of Artists. Studies into Careers and the Labour Market in the
Cultural Sector, ICS-dissertation, Utrecht.
90) Annelies Kassenberg (2002). Wat scholieren bindt. Sociale gemeenschap in scholen, ICS-dissertation,
Groningen
91) Marc Verboord (2003). Moet de meester dalen of de leerling klimmen? De invloed van
literatuuronderwijs en ouders op het lezen van boeken tussen 1975 en 2000. ICS-dissertation, Utrecht.
92) Marcel van Egmond (2003). Rain Falls on All of Us (but Some Manage to Get More Wet than Others):
Political Context and Electoral Participation. ICS-dissertation, Nijmegen.
93) Justine Horgan (2003). High Performance Human Resource Management in Ireland and the
Netherlands: Adoption and Effectiveness. ICS-dissertation, Groningen.
94) Corine Hoeben (2003). LETS' Be a Community. Community in Local Exchange Trading Systems. ICS-
95) Christian Steglich (2003). The Framing of Decision Situations. Automatic Goal Selection and Rational
Goal Pursuit. ICS-dissertation, Groningen.
96) Johan van Wilsem (2003). Crime and Context. The Impact of Individual, Neighborhood, City and
Country Characteristics on Victimization. ICS-dissertation, Nijmegen.
97) Christiaan Monden (2003). Education, Inequality and Health. The Impact of Partners and Life Course.
116
98) Evelyn Hello (2003). Educational Attainment and Ethnic Attitudes. How to Explain their Relationship.
99) Marnix Croes en Peter Tammes (2004). Gif laten wij niet voortbestaan. Een onderzoek naar de
overlevingskansen van joden in de Nederlandse gemeenten, 1940-1945. Aksant Academic Publishers,
Amsterdam
100) Ineke Nagel (2004). Cultuurdeelname in de levensloop. ICS- dissertation, Utrecht.
101) Marieke van der Wal (2004). Competencies to Participate in Life. Measurement and the Impact of
School. ICS-dissertation, Groningen.
102)Vivian Meertens (2004). Depressive Symptoms in the General Population: a Multifactorial Social
Approach. ICS -dissertation, Nijmegen.
103) Hanneke Schuurmans (2004). Promoting Well-Being in Frail Elderly People. Theory and
Intervention. ICS-dissertation, Groningen.
104) Javier Arregui (2004). Negotiation in Legislative Decision-Making in the European Union. ICS-
105) Tamar Fischer (2004). Parental Divorce, Conflict and Resources. The Effects on Children’s
Behaviour Problems, Socioeconomic Attainment, and Transitions in the Demographic Career. ICS-
dissertation, Nijmegen.
106) René Bekkers (2004). Giving and Volunteering in the Netherlands: Sociological and Psychological
Perspectives. ICS-dissertation, Utrecht.
107) Renée van der Hulst (2004). Gender Differences in Workplace Authority: An Empirical Study on
Social Networks. ICS-dissertation, Groningen.
108) Rita Smaniotto (2004). ‘You Scratch My Back and I Scratch Yours’ Versus ‘Love Thy Neighbour’.
Two Proximate Mechanisms of Reciprocal Altruism. ICS-dissertation, Groningen.
109) Maurice Gesthuizen (2004). The Life-Course of the Low-Educated in the Netherlands: Social and
Economic Risks. ICS-dissertation, Nijmegen.
110) Carlijne Philips (2005). Vakantiegemeenschappen. Kwalitatief en Kwantitatief Onderzoek naar
Gelegenheid en Refreshergemeenschap tijdens de Vakantie. ICS-dissertation, Groningen.
111) Esther de Ruijter (2005). Household Outsourcing. ICS-dissertation, Utrecht.
112) Frank van Tubergen (2005). The Integration of Immigrants in Cross-National Perspective: Origin,
Destination, and Community Effects. ICS-dissertation, Utrecht.
113) Ferry Koster (2005). For the Time Being. Accounting for Inconclusive Findings Concerning the
Effects of Temporary Employment Relationships on Solidary Behavior of Employees. ICS-dissertation,
Groningen.
114) Carolien Klein Haarhuis (2005). Promoting Anti-Corruption Reforms. Evaluating the Implementation
of a World Bank Anti-Corruption Program in Seven African Countries (1999-2001). ICS-dissertation,
Utrecht.
115) Martin van der Gaag (2005). Measurement of Individual Social Capital. ICS-dissertation, Groningen.
116) Johan Hansen (2005). Shaping Careers of Men and Women in Organizational Contexts. ICS-
117) Davide Barrera (2005). Trust in Embedded Settings. ICS-dissertation, Utrecht.
118) Mattijs Lambooij (2005). Promoting Cooperation. Studies into the Effects of Long-Term and Short-
Term Rewards on Cooperation of Employees. ICS-dissertation, Utrecht.
119) Lotte Vermeij (2006). What’s Cooking? Cultural Boundaries among Dutch Teenagers of Different
Ethnic Origins in the Context of School. ICS-dissertation, Utrecht.
120) Mathilde Strating (2006). Facing the Challenge of Rheumatoid Arthritis. A 13-year Prospective Study
among Patients and Cross-Sectional Study among Their Partners. ICS-dissertation, Groningen.
121) Jannes de Vries (2006). Measurement Error in Family Background Variables: The Bias in the
Intergenerational Transmission of Status, Cultural Consumption, Party Preference, and Religiosity. ICS-
122) Stefan Thau (2006). Workplace Deviance: Four Studies on Employee Motives and Self-Regulation.
ICS-dissertation, Groningen.
117
123) Mirjam Plantinga (2006). Employee Motivation and Employee Performance in Child Care. The effects
of the Introduction of Market Forces on Employees in the Dutch Child-Care Sector. ICS-dissertation,
Groningen.
124) Helga de Valk (2006). Pathways into Adulthood. A Comparative Study on Family Life Transitions
among Migrant and Dutch Youth. ICS-dissertation, Utrecht.
125) Henrike Elzen (2006). Self-Management for Chronically Ill Older People. ICS-Dissertation,
Groningen.
126) Ayse Güveli (2007). New Social Classes within the Service Class in the Netherlands and Britain.
Adjusting the EGP Class Schema for the Technocrats and the Social and Cultural Specialists. ICS-
127) Willem-Jan Verhoeven (2007). Income Attainment in Post-Communist Societies. ICS-dissertation,
Utrecht.
128) Marieke Voorpostel (2007). Sibling support: The Exchange of Help among Brothers and Sisters in the
Netherlands. ICS-dissertation, Utrecht.
129) Jacob Dijkstra (2007). The Effects of Externalities on Partner Choice and Payoffs in Exchange
Networks. ICS-dissertation, Groningen.
130) Patricia van Echtelt (2007). Time-Greedy Employment Relationships: Four Studies on the Time
Claims of Post-Fordist Work. ICS-dissertation, Groningen.
131) Sonja Vogt (2007). Heterogeneity in Social Dilemmas: The Case of Social Support. ICS-dissertation,
Utrecht.
132) Michael Schweinberger (2007). Statistical Methods for Studying the Evolution of Networks and
Behavior. ICS-dissertation, Groningen.
133) István Back (2007). Commitment and Evolution: Connecting Emotion and Reason in Long-term
Relationships. ICS-dissertation, Groningen.
134) Ruben van Gaalen (2007). Solidarity and Ambivalence in Parent-Child Relationships. ICS-
135) Jan Reitsma (2007). Religiosity and Solidarity – Dimensions and Relationships Disentangled and
Tested. ICS-dissertation, Nijmegen.
136) Jan Kornelis Dijkstra (2007). Status and Affection among (Pre)Adolescents and Their Relation with
Antisocial and Prosocial Behavior. ICS-dissertation, Groningen.
137) Wouter van Gils (2007). Full-time Working Couples in the Netherlands. Causes and Consequences.
138) Djamila Schans (2007). Ethnic Diversity in Intergenerational Solidarity. ICS-dissertation, Utrecht.
139) Ruud van der Meulen (2007). Brug over Woelig Water: Lidmaatschap van Sportverenigingen,
Vriendschappen, Kennissenkringen en Veralgemeend Vertrouwen. ICS-dissertation, Nijmegen.
140) Andrea Knecht (2008). Friendship Selection and Friends' Influence. Dynamics of Networks and Actor
Attributes in Early Adolescence. ICS-dissertation, Utrecht.
141) Ingrid Doorten (2008). The Division of Unpaid Work in the Household: A Stubborn Pattern? ICS-
142) Stijn Ruiter (2008). Association in Context and Association as Context: Causes and Consequences of
Voluntary Association Involvement. ICS-dissertation, Nijmegen.
143) Janneke Joly (2008). People on Our Minds: When Humanized Contexts Activate Social Norms. ICS-
144) Margreet Frieling (2008). ‘Joint production’ als motor voor actief burgerschap in de buurt. ICS-
dissertion, Groningen.
145) Ellen Verbakel (2008). The Partner as Resource or Restriction? Labour Market Careers of Husbands
and Wives and the Consequences for Inequality Between Couples. ICS-dissertation, Nijmegen.
146) Gijs van Houten (2008). Beleidsuitvoering in gelaagde stelsels. De doorwerking van aanbevelingen
van de Stichting van de Arbeid in het CAO-overleg. ICS-dissertation, Utrecht.
147) Eva Jaspers (2008). Intolerance over Time. Macro and Micro Level Questions on Attitudes Towards
Euthanasia, Homosexuality and Ethnic Minorities. ICS-dissertation, Nijmegen.
118
148) Gijs Weijters (2008). Youth delinquency in Dutch cities and schools: A multilevel approach. ICS-
149) Jessica Pass (2009). The Self in Social Rejection. ICS-dissertation, Groningen.
150) Gerald Mollenhorst (2009). Networks in Contexts. How Meeting Opportunities Affect Personal
Relationships. ICS-dissertation, Utrecht.
151) Tom van der Meer (2009). States of freely associating citizens: comparative studies into the impact of
state institutions on social, civic and political participation. ICS-dissertation, Nijmegen.
152) Manuela Vieth (2009). Commitments and Reciprocity in Trust Situations. Experimental Studies on
Obligation, Indignation, and Self-Consistency. ICS-dissertation, Utrecht.
153) Rense Corten (2009). Co-evolution of social networks and behavior in social dilemmas: Theoretical
and empirical perspectives. ICS-dissertation, Utrecht.
154) Arieke J. Rijken (2009). Happy families, high fertility? Childbearing choices in the context of family
and partner relationships. ICS-dissertation, Utrecht.
155) Jochem Tolsma (2009). Ethnic Hostility among Ethnic Majority and Minority Groups in the
Netherlands. An Investigation into the Impact of Social Mobility Experiences, the Local Living
Environment and Educational Attainment on Ethnic Hostility. ICS-dissertation, Nijmegen.
156) Freek Bucx (2009). Linked Lives: Young Adults' Life Course and Relations With Parents. ICS-
157) Philip Wotschack (2009). Household Governance and Time Allocation. Four studies on the
combination of work and care. ICS-dissertation, Groningen.
158) Nienke Moor (2009). Explaining worldwide religious diversity. The relationship between subsistence
technologies and ideas about the unknown in pre-industrial and (post-)industrial societies. ICS-
159) Lieke ten Brummelhuis (2009). Family matters at work. Depleting and enriching effects of employees’
family lives on work outcomes. ICS-dissertation, Utrecht.
160) Renske Keizer (2010). Remaining childless. Causes and consequences from a life course perspective.
ICS-dissertation, Utrecht.
161) Miranda Sentse (2010). Bridging Contexts: The interplay between family, child, and peers in
explaining problem behavior in early adolescence. ICS-dissertation, Groningen.
162) Nicole Tieben (2010). Transitions, Tracks and Transformations. Social inequality in transitions into,
through and out of secondary education in the Netherlands for cohorts born between 1914 and 1985. ICS-
163) Birgit Pauksztat (2010). Speaking up in organizations: Four studies on employee voice. ICS-
164) Richard Zijdeman (2010). Status attainment in the Netherlands, 1811-1941. Spatial and temporal
variation before and during industrialization. ICS-dissertation, Utrecht.
165) Rianne Kloosterman (2010). Social background and children's educational careers. The primary and
secondary effects of social background over transitions and over time in the Netherlands. ICS-dissertation,
Nijmegen.
166) Olav Aarts (2010). Religious diversity and religious involvement. A study of religious markets in
Western societies at the end of the twentieth century. ICS-dissertation, Nijmegen.
167) Stephanie Wiesmann (2010). 24/7 Negotiation in couples transition to parenthood. ICS-dissertation,
Utrecht.
168) Borja Martinovic (2010). Interethnic contacts: A dynamic analysis of interaction between immigrants
and natives in Western countries. ICS-dissertation, Utrecht.
169) Anne Roeters (2010). Family life under pressure? Parents' paid work and the quantity and quality of
parent-child and family time. ICS-dissertation, Utrecht.
170) Jelle Sijtsema (2010). Adolescent aggressive behavior: Status and stimulation goals in relation to the
peer context. ICS-dissertation, Groningen.
171) Kees Keizer (2010). The Spreading of Disorder. ICS-dissertation, Groningen.
119
120

11 Complete

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

11 Complete

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

University of Groningen

The spreading of disorder.

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):

Download date: 20-10-2017

Printing: Ridderprint B.V.

ISBN (Paper version): 978-90-367-4586-4

THE SPREADING OF DISORDER

ter verkrijging van het doctoraat in de

Kees Evert Keizer

Beoordelingscommissie : Prof. dr. P. W. Schultz

Chapter 1: General introduction 7

Chapter 2: The Spreading of Disorder 17

Supporting material for the spreading of disorder 32

Chapter 3: Helpfulness in public places: 39

Why does it vary and how can it be increased?

Chapter 4: Higher-ups make especially influential norm violators 53

Chapter 5: The reversal effect of prohibition signs 67

Chapter 6: General discussion 85

Dutch summary / Nederlandse samenvatting 93

ICS dissertation series 113

behavior is commonly approved or disapproved in a certain setting. Norms are

very appropriate while having a party.

with sanctions, whereas norm-conforming behavior is associated with approval and

false. Although considerations of costs and benefits can spark norm-conforming

that specifically focuses on the environmental influences on the (de)activation of norms:

influential, thereby inhibiting the influence of norms in general. Conversely,

strengthening the normative goal enhances the influence of norms on behavior.

validity: experiments in the public realm.

the rules one is willing to violate from anti-littering to trespassing to stealing.

can be expected to be especially influential in this respect: significant others. Significant

1991). The (psychological) presence of these significant others can be expected to

status in the company? These questions are addressed in chapter 4.

norm-conformity and the norm reinforcement effects of positive norm-support cues. I

will be some overlap in the theoretical reasoning.

The Spreading of disorder

Netherlands, Indonesia, and South Africa).

common (dis)approval of a particular kind of behavior (injunctive norm) or to a particular

Injunctive-norm information in a persuasive message is more effective when

accompanied by descriptive norm information that is in alignment rather than in conflict

the descriptive norm (setting shows it is common to spray graffiti)?

(Cialdini, 2007) However, we believe that there is another, goal-driven mechanism at

rules established by private companies.

window” kind of disorder could be observed.

We distinguished between a contextual norm (which the participant witnessed having

norms (such as graffiti, wrongly parked bicycles, and firecrackers).

or hanging it on another bicycle as littering.

substantial. Of the participants in the order condition (non-graffiti), 33% littered

Fig. 1a (Left) Fig. 1b (Right)

will not be caught dropping paper.”

restricted to generally accepted social norms or whether, as expected by the goal-framing

“thou shalt not steal”?

people approaching the fence was counted as one subject.

a considerable cross-norm inhibition effect could be observed. Of the participants in the

difference is significant (χ²(1, 120) = 9.766, P = 0.002).

study, we focused on a national law as a contextual norm. In Netherlands it is prohibited

difference is significant (χ²(1, 131) = 4.122, P = 0.035).

now address the goal to act appropriately on all fronts.

Supporting Material for

The Spreading of Disorder

Materials and Method

disorder conditions, we also attached a large symbolic sign prohibiting graffiti. We

the fence was counted as 1 subject.

driver’s side windshield wiper of their parked car.