Early Applications of Deviance Regulation Theory to NormsBased

Early Applications of Deviance Regulation Theory to Norms-Based Health Communication Hart Blanton Department of Psychology University of Connecticut

Deviance Regulation • Framework for conceptualizing identity-based behavioral decision making. – Dual motivational system • Promoting a positive identity • Preventing a negative identity • Framework for conceptualizing identity-based social influence. – Two modes of influence • Encouraging a positive (healthy) identity • Discouraging a negative (unhealthy) identity

Health Communication Application Negative Frame Positive Frame

Advance Warnings • Deviance Regulation Theory (DRT) is not strictly a model of health decision making or health communication. • DRT is not designed to be a comprehensive behavioral decision model. – e. g. , information, perceived control, behavioral skills. • DRT is not focused on the many practical obstacles to communicating effectively – e. g. , best images for promoting a positive health identity • DRT has been developed primarily in the laboratory, focusing on behavioral intention as an outcome.

Deviance Regulation Theory The core predictions of the model focus attention on the social and cognitive consequences of being different (deviating).

Three Views on Difference 1. People are motivated to “fit in” and conform – Classic social psychological and sociological theories of group life – “Social Norming” efforts to reduce binge drinking 2. People are motivated to “stick out” and be unique – Humanistic perspectives on identity and identity development – Rebellion/anti-conformity explanations of adolescent health risk. 3. People are motivated to split the difference – Optimal Distinctiveness Theory

Deviance Regulation View 4. Difference = Information • DRT does not concern itself with the distinctiveness as a motive but as a carrier of information. – Attribution models • Jones & Davis (1965) – Spontaneous self-concept • Mc. Guire & Mc. Guire (1988) – Scarcity principle • Jemmott, Ditto & Croyle (1988) – Social projection • Mullen Goethals (1990) • Sherman, Presson & Chassin (1984)

Stickiness Heuristic Identity “sticks” to distinct actions more than common actions.

Illustration: Deciding to Smoke

On Being Different • Deviance Regulation Theory posits greater processing of uncommon than common choices. • As a result, identity-based decisions are influenced more by the social images (prototypes) associated with uncommon than common choices.

Health Message Framing Negative Frame Positive Frame

Positive Message Frame Non-Smoking Identity = Good Negative Message Frame Smoking Identity = Bad

Sample Study Details • 60 male and 58 female sexually-active college students. • Manipulations – Norm Perception • Most sexually active students using condoms • Most sexually active students not using condoms – Message framing. • Positive identity frame (responsible, concerned) • Negative identity frame (irresponsible, unconcerned) • Outcome – Intention/willingness related to condom use at next encounter (-7 to +7).

Condom Use Intentions 7 6 5 4 3 Negative Frame 2 Positive Frame 1 0 Condom Use Normative Behavior Blanton, Stuart & Vanden. Eijnden (2001; PSPB)

Quasi-Experimental Replication

Extensions & Replications • Outcomes – Flu shot intentions – Scheduling screening exams – Consumer intentions • Mediation tests – Message produce more extreme evaluations when they target distinct as opposed to common actions • Social prototypes • Attitudes towards actors

Potential Implications • When influence attempts focus on identity concerns, messages should target uncommon rather than common choices. – Positive identity framing in healthy environments. – Negative identity framing in unhealthy environments. • The most effective message frame may change over time, as behavioral norms change. – Developmental shifts across the lifespan. – Establishment of new norms.

Influence over Time Start What is Normative? Unhealthy Behavior Positive Frame Healthy Behavior Negative Frame

Complications & Boundary Conditions • Behavioral prediction often requires multidimensional models, and DRT is limited to identity-based pathways to behavior. – Social prototypes • Predictions regarding negative framing assume “cooperative audience” that accepts message. – Reactance motivations – Reference demands • Research has not sufficiently addressed complex norm configurations, and such work is needed. – Selection processes – Multiple reference groups

Complication of Interest • What do you do when people are not certain of the norms around a behavior? • Answer: Be careful not to communicate your own certainty!

Conversational Implicatures • Because identity tends to “stick” to distinct actions, communicators reveal their underlying assumptions by the actions they target. – Adapted from H. P. Grice (1957, 1959)

Communicators Dilemma • The mere act of trying to intervene to promote healthy decisions might convey to an audience that the communicator assumes a high frequency of unhealthy decisions. – Donaldson et al. (1997, 2002) effect of resistanceskill training on prevalence assumptions for alcohol, cigarettes and marijuana.

Framing Delimma “I like that outfit. It doesn’t make you look fat. ” “No murders in Durham in August. ” “Pro Athlete Lauded for Being Decent Human Being” • Communicators can convey their behavioral assumptions by how they choose to frame their comments – Positive comments suggest that the praised actions are praiseworthy (or uncommon). – Negative comments suggest that the criticized actions are criticism worthy (or uncommon).

What is Implied?

Estimated Virginity Prevalence 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Control Negative Frame Positive Frame

Framing Under Uncertainty • When an audience is not certain of the norms surrounding a behavior, – positive framing can imply that the desired (healthy) behavior is uncommon – negative framing can imply that the undesired (unhealthy) behavior is uncommon

Unintended Influence • The tendency for positive framing to promote unhealthy normative assumptions might undermine health promotion efforts. • Hall and Blanton (2009). Social Influence. – Sexual refusal intentions – Handwashing

Moderators • Audience perception of knowledge regarding behavioral norms. – Stuart & Blanton (2003) • Communicator’s appearance of knowledge about behavioral norms – Blanton & Hall (2007)

Model Summary • Early attempts to apply Deviance Regulation Theory to health communication have pointed to two related effects – Effect of normative assumptions on message frame efficacy – Effect of chosen message frame on normative assumptions • Both processes suggest situations in which negative framing might be more influential than positive framing. – Assumes resistance motivations low.

Current Directions • Today’s talk focused on momentary norms and the tendency for identity to “stick” to uncommon rather than common actions. • Much of my present work focuses on stable, internalized norms that define “stickiness” across situations. – Ideals: Ways to stand out from others in a good way (e. g. , extreme fitness). – Oughts: Ways to stand out from others in a bad way (e. g. , disease).

Thanks