Britta Renner

F. Marijn Stok

Kirsten T. Verkooijen

Saar Mollen

Frontiers in Psychology

Stok, F.M.

Mollen, Saar

Verkooijen, Kirsten T.

Renner, Britta

NARCIS 

Editorial: Unravelling social norm effects: How and when social norms affect eating behavior

Mollen, S.

Verkooijen, K.T.

Renner, B.

Crossref

Editorial: Unravelling Social Norm Effects: How and When Social Norms Affect Eating Behavior

International Migration, Integration and Social Cohesion online publications

UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl)UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)Editorial: Unravelling social norm effects: How and when social norms affecteating behaviorStok, F.M.; Mollen, S.; Verkooijen, K.T.; Renner, B.DOI10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00738Publication date2018Document VersionFinal published versionPublished inFrontiers in PsychologyLicenseCC BYLink to publicationCitation for published version (APA):Stok, F. M., Mollen, S., Verkooijen, K. T., & Renner, B. (2018). Editorial: Unravelling socialnorm effects: How and when social norms affect eating behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 9,[738]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00738General rightsIt 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), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an opencontent license (like Creative Commons).Disclaimer/Complaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, pleaselet the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the materialinaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letterto: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Youwill be contacted as soon as possible.Download date:09 Mar 2023EDITORIALpublished: 15 May 2018doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00738Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 May 2018 | Volume 9 | Article 738Edited and reviewed by:Alix Timko,University of Pennsylvania,United States*Correspondence:F. Marijn Stokf.m.stok@uu.nlSpecialty section:This article was submitted toEating Behavior,a section of the journalFrontiers in PsychologyReceived: 22 March 2018Accepted: 26 April 2018Published: 15 May 2018Citation:Stok FM, Mollen S, Verkooijen KT andRenner B (2018) Editorial: UnravellingSocial Norm Effects: How and WhenSocial Norms Affect Eating Behavior.Front. Psychol. 9:738.doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00738Editorial: Unravelling Social NormEffects: How and When Social NormsAffect Eating BehaviorF. Marijn Stok 1,2*, Saar Mollen 3, Kirsten T. Verkooijen 4 and Britta Renner 21Department of Interdisciplinary Social Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands, 2Department of Psychology,University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany, 3 Amsterdam School of Communication Research, University of Amsterdam,Amsterdam, Netherlands, 4Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University and Research Center, Wageningen,NetherlandsKeywords: social norms, eating behavior, descriptive norms, injunctive norms, social influence, moderator effectsEditorial on the Research TopicUnravelling Social Norm Effects: How andWhen Social Norms Affect Eating BehaviorPURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH TOPICA consistent body of research has shown that human eating behavior is affected by the socialenvironment. For example, it has been shown that obesity spreads through social networks(Christakis and Fowler, 2007) and that the presence of others substantially affects people’s foodintake (Herman et al., 2003; Cruwys et al., 2015). A key aspect of the social environment are thesocial norms that exist in a group of people (Cialdini, 2003). Seminal studies on social norms(e.g., Asch, 1951; Goldstein et al., 2008) have shown that providing individuals with informationabout what other group members think or do (i.e., descriptive social norms) or what other groupmembers expect them to do (i.e., injunctive social norms) can influence these individuals’ thoughtsand behaviors.Social norms have also been found to affect eating behavior (for reviews, see Robinson et al.,2014b; Higgs, 2015; Stok et al., 2016), and social norms have become the focal point of a widerange of interventions aimed at changing unhealthy eating behavior (e.g., Stok et al., 2012; Mollenet al., 2013a; Robinson et al., 2014a). However, the outcomes of social norm interventions for healthpromotion have been mixed, with positive effects (Turner et al., 2008), no effects (Granfield, 2005),and even counterproductive effects being reported (Clapp et al., 2003). The variation in outcomessuggests that social norm effects are not yet well-understood. Indeed, we still know relatively littleabout how and when the so-called “social norms approach” is effective (Burchell et al., 2013), andwhat are the moderating and mediating variables in the context of eating behavior.Because of the great potential that social norms hold as a tool for improving eating behavior,improved insight into social norms’ working mechanisms is urgently needed. The purpose of thisResearch Topic was therefore to increase our understanding of social norm effects in the context ofeating behavior, focusing specifically on research examining mediators and/or moderators of socialnorm effects on eating behavior. The large number of views since opening the research topic (20,369views for Research Topic on 2-2-18) suggests that the relevance of the topic is widely recognized bythe scholarly community.Stok et al. Editorial: Unravelling Social Norm EffectsOVERVIEW OF CONTRIBUTIONSMost studies in the current Research Topic focused on theconsumption of unhealthy foods and/or drinks (Giese et al.;Hirata et al.; Wansink and Kniffin; Jones and Robinson), whilerelatively little attention was paid to the consumption of healthyfoods (only in Thomas et al.). Most studies the sample consistedof university students. There were two exceptions; Giese et al.investigated a large sample of children and adolescents in threedifferent countries, and Versluis and Papies used a consumerpanel in their second study. A strength of studies in the currenttopic is that they mostly focused on actual eating behavior asthe outcome measure, either self-reported (Giese et al.; Jones andRobinson) or objectively measured (Hirata et al.; Thomas et al.;Wansink and Kniffin).Most studies investigated when social norms influence eatingbehavior (i.e., effect moderators). Factors that were investigatedwere the type of norm (descriptive norm vs. liking norm;Thomas et al.), habit strength (Thomas et al.), identificationwith the group (Versluis and Papies), individual food preferences(Giese et al.), self-control (Jones and Robinson), presence ofothers (Wansink and Kniffin), time (Thomas et al.; Jones andRobinson), and self-esteem (Giese et al.; Hirata et al.). Onlyone study investigated why social norms affect eating behavior(i.e., effect mediators): Versluis and Papies investigated whetherperceptions about the appropriateness of portion sizes mediatedthe relationship between norms and expected portion sizes.Positive self-concept or self-esteem was the focus of twostudies (Giese et al.; Hirata et al.). While Giese et al. found thatchildren and adolescents conformed to a social norm more whenthey had positive self-concept, this was not confirmed in thestudents investigated by Hirata et al. One explanation for thesediverging findings may lie in the source of social influence understudy: while Giese et al. studied how group level healthy vs.unhealthy food preferences influenced individual snack intake,Hirata et al. examined to what extent food consumption wasmatched in female dyads. Another explanation may lie in theoperationalization of self-concept: Giese et al. measured socialself-esteem (e.g., “I am popular”), while Hirata et al. consideredself-esteem aspects related to individual characteristics (e.g., “Ihave good qualities”). Future research should investigate whetherthe importance of one’s self-concept in conformity to socialnorms depends on the source of the social norm, but also whichparts of a person’s self-concept are especially relevant in thedomain of social influence. Another avenue worthy of futureresearch is the causal direction of this relationship. While apositive social self-concept may mean that one values the groupand therefore adheres to group norms, it may also be the case thatconforming to group norms serves to enhance one’s self-concept(Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004).Time effects also sparked the interest of multiple researchers(Thomas et al.; Jones and Robinson). Jones and Robinson showedthat perceived descriptive norms predicted self-reported intakeof cakes and pastries 1 year later (although the effect wassmall), but not sugar sweetened beverages or alcohol. On theother hand, Thomas et al. found that broccoli consumption (butnot consumption of other foods) was higher in low habitualvegetable consumers after they heard that a majority of studentslikes vegetables a lot, irrespective of whether eating behaviorwas assessed immediately or a day later. These studies providesome indication that social norms may affect eating behaviorsimmediately, but also at a later point in time. The strengthwith which norms affect behavior over time and situations may,however, depend on the type of norm under consideration.Prior research has found for instance that injunctive, but notdescriptive, norm messages affected behavior 1 month later(Mollen et al., 2013b), while another previous study did showthat descriptive (majority vs. minority) norm messages had aneffect on behavior across a period of a week (Stok et al., 2014).More research on longitudinal effects of social norms is deemednecessary.While most studies investigated themoderators of social normeffects on eating behavior, only one study attempted to gain moreinsight into the mediators of social norm effects. Versluis andPapies found that the amount of food that was thought to beappropriate to serve oneself partially mediated the relationshipbetween a portion size norm and the amount people expectedto serve themselves. Extant literature ties different motives forconformity to different types of norms. While the influence ofdescriptive norms on behavior is frequently tied to informationalmotives, i.e., the desire to make an accurate choice, injunctivesocial norms are frequently tied to normative motives, i.e., thedesire to affiliate (Deutsch and Gerard, 1955). The study byVersluis and Papies shows that, in the domain of eating behavior,there is indeed evidence that information about what others deemappropriate (akin to injunctive norms) affects one’s perceptionabout what is the appropriate course of action, which thenpartially explains people’s expected behavior.CONCLUSIONThe aim of this research topic was to explore the mechanisms(the “how” and “when”) underlying the social norm effect in thecontext of eating behavior. The large diversity in contributionsillustrates the wide application, and hence possible implications,of the topic. Overall, the present studies did not yield evidenceof strong mediators or moderators of the social norm effect oneating behavior, and showed a tendency to investigatemoderatorsmore thanmediators. Nevertheless, the results provide importantleads for further research into potential relevant moderators,like self-esteem, habit strength as well as mediators, likeindividual (norm) perceptions. Recommendations for futureresearch would be to more frequently investigate healthy foodconsumption, to include more non-student populations, to paymore attention to longer-term effects of social norms on eatingbehavior, and to focus more on mediation effects.AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONSAll authors were part of the editorial team of the research topic,edited manuscripts, and reviewed manuscripts. FS, SM, and KVwrote the first version of the editorial. BR extensively revisedthe editorial. All authors agree to submission of the editorial forpublication in its current version.Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 May 2018 | Volume 9 | Article 738Stok et al. Editorial: Unravelling Social Norm EffectsREFERENCESAsch, S. E. (1951). “Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortionof judgments,” in Group Leadership and Men, ed H. Guetzkow (Pittsburg, PA:Carnegie Press), 177–190.Burchell, K., Rettie, R., and Patel, K. (2013). Marketing Social norms: socialmarketing and the ‘social norm approach’. J. Consum. Behav. 12, 1–9.doi: 10.1002/cb.1395Christakis, N. A., and Fowler, J. H. (2007). The spread of obesity ina large social network over 32 years. N. Engl. J. Med. 357, 370–379.doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa066082Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment.Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 12, 105–109. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.01242Cialdini, R. B., and Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence:compliance and conformity. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 55, 591–621.doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015Clapp, J. D., Lange, J. E., Russell, C., Shillington, A., and Voas, R. B. (2003).A failed norms social marketing campaign. J. Stud. Alcohol 64, 409–414.doi: 10.15288/jsa.2003.64.409Cruwys, T., Bevelander, K. E., and Hermans, R. C. (2015). Social modeling ofeating: a review of when and why social influence affects food intake and choice.Appetite 86, 3–18. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.08.035Deutsch, M., and Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informationalsocial influences upon individual judgment. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 51,629–636.Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., and Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with aviewpoint: using social norms to motivate environmental conservation inhotels. J. Consum. Res. 35, 472–482. doi: 10.1086/586910Granfield, R. (2005). Alcohol use in college: limitations on thetransformation of social norms. Addict. Res. Theory 13, 281–292.doi: 10.1080/16066350500053620Herman, C. P., Roth, D. A., and Polivy, J. (2003). Effects of the presence ofothers on food intake: a normative interpretation. Psychol. Bull. 129, 873–886.doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.6.873Higgs, S. (2015). Social norms and their influence on eating behaviours. Appetite86, 38–44. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.10.021Mollen, S., Rimal, R. N., Ruiter, R. A., and Kok, G. (2013a). Healthy and unhealthysocial norms and food selection. Findings from a field-experiment. Appetite 65,83–89. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2013.01.020Mollen, S., Rimal, R. N., Ruiter, R. A., Jang, S. A., and Kok, G. (2013b).Intervening or interfering? The influence of injunctive and descriptive normson intervention behaviours in alcohol consumption contexts. Psychol. Health28, 561–578. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2012.752827Robinson, E., Fleming, A., and Higgs, S. (2014a). Prompting healthier eating:testing the use of health and social norm based messages. Health Psychol. 33,1057–1064. doi: 10.1037/a0034213Robinson, E., Thomas, J., Aveyard, P., and Higgs, S. (2014b). What everyoneelse is eating: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect ofinformational eating norms on eating behavior. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 114,414–429. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2013.11.009Stok, F. M., de Ridder, D. T., de Vet, E., and de Wit, J. B. (2012). Minority talks:the influence of descriptive social norms on fruit intake. Psychol. Health 27,956–970. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2011.635303Stok, F. M., de Vet, E., de Ridder, D. T., and de Wit, J. B. (2016). The potentialof peer social norms to shape food intake in adolescents and young adults: asystematic review of effects and moderators. Health Psychol. Rev. 10, 326–340.doi: 10.1080/17437199.2016.1155161Stok, F. M., Verkooijen, K. T., de Ridder, D. T. D., de Wit, J. B. F., andde Vet, E. (2014). How norms work: Self-identification, attitude and self-efficacy mediate the relation between descriptive social norms and vegetableintake. Appl. Psychol. Health Well Being 6, 230–250. doi: 10.1111/aphw.12026Turner, J., Perkins, H. W., and Bauerle, J. (2008). Declining negative consequencesrelated to alcohol misuse among students exposed to a social normsmarketing intervention on a college campus. J. Am. Coll. Health 57, 85–94.doi: 10.3200/JACH.57.1.85-94Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research wasconducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that couldbe construed as a potential conflict of interest.Copyright © 2018 Stok, Mollen, Verkooijen and Renner. This is an open-accessarticle distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCBY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, providedthe original author(s) and the copyright owner are credited and that the originalpublication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice.No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with theseterms.Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3 May 2018 | Volume 9 | Article 738

English

Directory of Open Access Journals

Stok, F. Marijn

KOPS - The Institutional Repository of the University of Konstanz

Editorial: Unravelling Social Norm Effects : How and When Social Norms Affect Eating Behavior

Leerstoel de Wit

Public Health

Utrecht University Repository

UvA-DARE

UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl)UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)Editorial: Unravelling social norm effects: How and when social norms affecteating behaviorStok, F.M.; Mollen, S.; Verkooijen, K.T.; Renner, B.DOI10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00738Publication date2018Document VersionFinal published versionPublished inFrontiers in PsychologyLicenseCC BYLink to publicationCitation for published version (APA):Stok, F. M., Mollen, S., Verkooijen, K. T., & Renner, B. (2018). Editorial: Unravelling socialnorm effects: How and when social norms affect eating behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 9,[738]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00738General rightsIt 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), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an opencontent license (like Creative Commons).Disclaimer/Complaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, pleaselet the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the materialinaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letterto: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Youwill be contacted as soon as possible.Download date:11 Feb 2023EDITORIALpublished: 15 May 2018doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00738Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 May 2018 | Volume 9 | Article 738Edited and reviewed by:Alix Timko,University of Pennsylvania,United States*Correspondence:F. Marijn Stokf.m.stok@uu.nlSpecialty section:This article was submitted toEating Behavior,a section of the journalFrontiers in PsychologyReceived: 22 March 2018Accepted: 26 April 2018Published: 15 May 2018Citation:Stok FM, Mollen S, Verkooijen KT andRenner B (2018) Editorial: UnravellingSocial Norm Effects: How and WhenSocial Norms Affect Eating Behavior.Front. Psychol. 9:738.doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00738Editorial: Unravelling Social NormEffects: How and When Social NormsAffect Eating BehaviorF. Marijn Stok 1,2*, Saar Mollen 3, Kirsten T. Verkooijen 4 and Britta Renner 21Department of Interdisciplinary Social Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands, 2Department of Psychology,University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany, 3 Amsterdam School of Communication Research, University of Amsterdam,Amsterdam, Netherlands, 4Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University and Research Center, Wageningen,NetherlandsKeywords: social norms, eating behavior, descriptive norms, injunctive norms, social influence, moderator effectsEditorial on the Research TopicUnravelling Social Norm Effects: How andWhen Social Norms Affect Eating BehaviorPURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH TOPICA consistent body of research has shown that human eating behavior is affected by the socialenvironment. For example, it has been shown that obesity spreads through social networks(Christakis and Fowler, 2007) and that the presence of others substantially affects people’s foodintake (Herman et al., 2003; Cruwys et al., 2015). A key aspect of the social environment are thesocial norms that exist in a group of people (Cialdini, 2003). Seminal studies on social norms(e.g., Asch, 1951; Goldstein et al., 2008) have shown that providing individuals with informationabout what other group members think or do (i.e., descriptive social norms) or what other groupmembers expect them to do (i.e., injunctive social norms) can influence these individuals’ thoughtsand behaviors.Social norms have also been found to affect eating behavior (for reviews, see Robinson et al.,2014b; Higgs, 2015; Stok et al., 2016), and social norms have become the focal point of a widerange of interventions aimed at changing unhealthy eating behavior (e.g., Stok et al., 2012; Mollenet al., 2013a; Robinson et al., 2014a). However, the outcomes of social norm interventions for healthpromotion have been mixed, with positive effects (Turner et al., 2008), no effects (Granfield, 2005),and even counterproductive effects being reported (Clapp et al., 2003). The variation in outcomessuggests that social norm effects are not yet well-understood. Indeed, we still know relatively littleabout how and when the so-called “social norms approach” is effective (Burchell et al., 2013), andwhat are the moderating and mediating variables in the context of eating behavior.Because of the great potential that social norms hold as a tool for improving eating behavior,improved insight into social norms’ working mechanisms is urgently needed. The purpose of thisResearch Topic was therefore to increase our understanding of social norm effects in the context ofeating behavior, focusing specifically on research examining mediators and/or moderators of socialnorm effects on eating behavior. The large number of views since opening the research topic (20,369views for Research Topic on 2-2-18) suggests that the relevance of the topic is widely recognized bythe scholarly community.Stok et al. Editorial: Unravelling Social Norm EffectsOVERVIEW OF CONTRIBUTIONSMost studies in the current Research Topic focused on theconsumption of unhealthy foods and/or drinks (Giese et al.;Hirata et al.; Wansink and Kniffin; Jones and Robinson), whilerelatively little attention was paid to the consumption of healthyfoods (only in Thomas et al.). Most studies the sample consistedof university students. There were two exceptions; Giese et al.investigated a large sample of children and adolescents in threedifferent countries, and Versluis and Papies used a consumerpanel in their second study. A strength of studies in the currenttopic is that they mostly focused on actual eating behavior asthe outcome measure, either self-reported (Giese et al.; Jones andRobinson) or objectively measured (Hirata et al.; Thomas et al.;Wansink and Kniffin).Most studies investigated when social norms influence eatingbehavior (i.e., effect moderators). Factors that were investigatedwere the type of norm (descriptive norm vs. liking norm;Thomas et al.), habit strength (Thomas et al.), identificationwith the group (Versluis and Papies), individual food preferences(Giese et al.), self-control (Jones and Robinson), presence ofothers (Wansink and Kniffin), time (Thomas et al.; Jones andRobinson), and self-esteem (Giese et al.; Hirata et al.). Onlyone study investigated why social norms affect eating behavior(i.e., effect mediators): Versluis and Papies investigated whetherperceptions about the appropriateness of portion sizes mediatedthe relationship between norms and expected portion sizes.Positive self-concept or self-esteem was the focus of twostudies (Giese et al.; Hirata et al.). While Giese et al. found thatchildren and adolescents conformed to a social norm more whenthey had positive self-concept, this was not confirmed in thestudents investigated by Hirata et al. One explanation for thesediverging findings may lie in the source of social influence understudy: while Giese et al. studied how group level healthy vs.unhealthy food preferences influenced individual snack intake,Hirata et al. examined to what extent food consumption wasmatched in female dyads. Another explanation may lie in theoperationalization of self-concept: Giese et al. measured socialself-esteem (e.g., “I am popular”), while Hirata et al. consideredself-esteem aspects related to individual characteristics (e.g., “Ihave good qualities”). Future research should investigate whetherthe importance of one’s self-concept in conformity to socialnorms depends on the source of the social norm, but also whichparts of a person’s self-concept are especially relevant in thedomain of social influence. Another avenue worthy of futureresearch is the causal direction of this relationship. While apositive social self-concept may mean that one values the groupand therefore adheres to group norms, it may also be the case thatconforming to group norms serves to enhance one’s self-concept(Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004).Time effects also sparked the interest of multiple researchers(Thomas et al.; Jones and Robinson). Jones and Robinson showedthat perceived descriptive norms predicted self-reported intakeof cakes and pastries 1 year later (although the effect wassmall), but not sugar sweetened beverages or alcohol. On theother hand, Thomas et al. found that broccoli consumption (butnot consumption of other foods) was higher in low habitualvegetable consumers after they heard that a majority of studentslikes vegetables a lot, irrespective of whether eating behaviorwas assessed immediately or a day later. These studies providesome indication that social norms may affect eating behaviorsimmediately, but also at a later point in time. The strengthwith which norms affect behavior over time and situations may,however, depend on the type of norm under consideration.Prior research has found for instance that injunctive, but notdescriptive, norm messages affected behavior 1 month later(Mollen et al., 2013b), while another previous study did showthat descriptive (majority vs. minority) norm messages had aneffect on behavior across a period of a week (Stok et al., 2014).More research on longitudinal effects of social norms is deemednecessary.While most studies investigated themoderators of social normeffects on eating behavior, only one study attempted to gain moreinsight into the mediators of social norm effects. Versluis andPapies found that the amount of food that was thought to beappropriate to serve oneself partially mediated the relationshipbetween a portion size norm and the amount people expectedto serve themselves. Extant literature ties different motives forconformity to different types of norms. While the influence ofdescriptive norms on behavior is frequently tied to informationalmotives, i.e., the desire to make an accurate choice, injunctivesocial norms are frequently tied to normative motives, i.e., thedesire to affiliate (Deutsch and Gerard, 1955). The study byVersluis and Papies shows that, in the domain of eating behavior,there is indeed evidence that information about what others deemappropriate (akin to injunctive norms) affects one’s perceptionabout what is the appropriate course of action, which thenpartially explains people’s expected behavior.CONCLUSIONThe aim of this research topic was to explore the mechanisms(the “how” and “when”) underlying the social norm effect in thecontext of eating behavior. The large diversity in contributionsillustrates the wide application, and hence possible implications,of the topic. Overall, the present studies did not yield evidenceof strong mediators or moderators of the social norm effect oneating behavior, and showed a tendency to investigatemoderatorsmore thanmediators. Nevertheless, the results provide importantleads for further research into potential relevant moderators,like self-esteem, habit strength as well as mediators, likeindividual (norm) perceptions. Recommendations for futureresearch would be to more frequently investigate healthy foodconsumption, to include more non-student populations, to paymore attention to longer-term effects of social norms on eatingbehavior, and to focus more on mediation effects.AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONSAll authors were part of the editorial team of the research topic,edited manuscripts, and reviewed manuscripts. FS, SM, and KVwrote the first version of the editorial. BR extensively revisedthe editorial. All authors agree to submission of the editorial forpublication in its current version.Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 May 2018 | Volume 9 | Article 738Stok et al. Editorial: Unravelling Social Norm EffectsREFERENCESAsch, S. E. (1951). “Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortionof judgments,” in Group Leadership and Men, ed H. Guetzkow (Pittsburg, PA:Carnegie Press), 177–190.Burchell, K., Rettie, R., and Patel, K. (2013). Marketing Social norms: socialmarketing and the ‘social norm approach’. J. Consum. Behav. 12, 1–9.doi: 10.1002/cb.1395Christakis, N. A., and Fowler, J. H. (2007). The spread of obesity ina large social network over 32 years. N. Engl. J. Med. 357, 370–379.doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa066082Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment.Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 12, 105–109. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.01242Cialdini, R. B., and Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence:compliance and conformity. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 55, 591–621.doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015Clapp, J. D., Lange, J. E., Russell, C., Shillington, A., and Voas, R. B. (2003).A failed norms social marketing campaign. J. Stud. Alcohol 64, 409–414.doi: 10.15288/jsa.2003.64.409Cruwys, T., Bevelander, K. E., and Hermans, R. C. (2015). Social modeling ofeating: a review of when and why social influence affects food intake and choice.Appetite 86, 3–18. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.08.035Deutsch, M., and Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informationalsocial influences upon individual judgment. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 51,629–636.Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., and Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with aviewpoint: using social norms to motivate environmental conservation inhotels. J. Consum. Res. 35, 472–482. doi: 10.1086/586910Granfield, R. (2005). Alcohol use in college: limitations on thetransformation of social norms. Addict. Res. Theory 13, 281–292.doi: 10.1080/16066350500053620Herman, C. P., Roth, D. A., and Polivy, J. (2003). Effects of the presence ofothers on food intake: a normative interpretation. Psychol. Bull. 129, 873–886.doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.6.873Higgs, S. (2015). Social norms and their influence on eating behaviours. Appetite86, 38–44. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.10.021Mollen, S., Rimal, R. N., Ruiter, R. A., and Kok, G. (2013a). Healthy and unhealthysocial norms and food selection. Findings from a field-experiment. Appetite 65,83–89. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2013.01.020Mollen, S., Rimal, R. N., Ruiter, R. A., Jang, S. A., and Kok, G. (2013b).Intervening or interfering? The influence of injunctive and descriptive normson intervention behaviours in alcohol consumption contexts. Psychol. Health28, 561–578. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2012.752827Robinson, E., Fleming, A., and Higgs, S. (2014a). Prompting healthier eating:testing the use of health and social norm based messages. Health Psychol. 33,1057–1064. doi: 10.1037/a0034213Robinson, E., Thomas, J., Aveyard, P., and Higgs, S. (2014b). What everyoneelse is eating: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect ofinformational eating norms on eating behavior. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 114,414–429. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2013.11.009Stok, F. M., de Ridder, D. T., de Vet, E., and de Wit, J. B. (2012). Minority talks:the influence of descriptive social norms on fruit intake. Psychol. Health 27,956–970. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2011.635303Stok, F. M., de Vet, E., de Ridder, D. T., and de Wit, J. B. (2016). The potentialof peer social norms to shape food intake in adolescents and young adults: asystematic review of effects and moderators. Health Psychol. Rev. 10, 326–340.doi: 10.1080/17437199.2016.1155161Stok, F. M., Verkooijen, K. T., de Ridder, D. T. D., de Wit, J. B. F., andde Vet, E. (2014). How norms work: Self-identification, attitude and self-efficacy mediate the relation between descriptive social norms and vegetableintake. Appl. Psychol. Health Well Being 6, 230–250. doi: 10.1111/aphw.12026Turner, J., Perkins, H. W., and Bauerle, J. (2008). Declining negative consequencesrelated to alcohol misuse among students exposed to a social normsmarketing intervention on a college campus. J. Am. Coll. Health 57, 85–94.doi: 10.3200/JACH.57.1.85-94Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research wasconducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that couldbe construed as a potential conflict of interest.Copyright © 2018 Stok, Mollen, Verkooijen and Renner. This is an open-accessarticle distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCBY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, providedthe original author(s) and the copyright owner are credited and that the originalpublication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice.No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with theseterms.Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3 May 2018 | Volume 9 | Article 738

Editorial: Unravelling social norm effects: How and when social norms affect eating behavior

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NARCIS

NARCIS

Crossref

International Migration, Integration and Social Cohesion online publications

Directory of Open Access Journals

KOPS - The Institutional Repository of the University of Konstanz

NARCIS

Utrecht University Repository

UvA-DARE

International Migration, Integration and Social Cohesion online publications