Investigating the impact of eating norms and collective autonomy support vs. collective control on unhealthy eating and its internalization

Our eating behaviors are highly influenced by those of individuals surrounding us and the groups we belong to. The first goal of this experiment was to determine how social norms that encourage (pro-) vs. discourage (anti-) unhealthy eating influence people’s intentions and motivations to eat unhealthily. Since these norms can be conveyed by one’s group in a manner that either promotes group members’ autonomy (i.e., collective autonomy support), or pressures them into eating certain foods (i.e., collective control), the experiment also tests which of these types of messages promotes the highest conformity to group norms. Hence, the second goal of this experiment was to investigate this synergetic effect of pro- vs anti-unhealthy eating norms and of collective autonomy support vs. collective control on participants’ unhealthy eating intentions and their motivations for unhealthy eating. An experimental study (N = 341) using a 2 (eating norm: pro-unhealthy eating norm vs. anti-unhealthy eating norm) x 3 (type of group support: collective autonomy support vs. collective control vs. no support) design was conducted. Results showed that pro-unhealthy eating norms increased participants’ intentions to eat salty and fatty food, but also their amotivation (i.e., lack of motivation) for unhealthy eating relative to anti-unhealthy eating norms. In addition, when pro-unhealthy eating was encouraged in a controlling (vs. in an autonomy supportive) manner, participants reported higher intentions to eat tofu tacos. Finally, when pro-unhealthy eating was promoted by supporting group members’ autonomy, participants reported higher integrated regulation, i.e., a highly internalized motivation, for unhealthy eating. These results demonstrate that eating norms do not impact all types of unhealthy food consumption in the same manner, and that collective control may be motivating in uncertain contexts; furthermore, when individuals’ autonomy is supported and promoted by other group members, they are more susceptible to integrate unhealthy eating in their life.

The Role of Dynamic Social Norms in Promoting the Internalization of Sportspersonship Behaviors and Values and Psychological Well-Being in Ice Hockey

Conducted among parents of young ice hockey players, this field experiment tested if making salient increasingly popular (i.e., dynamic) social norms that promote sportspersonship, learning, and having fun in sports, increases parents' own self-determined endorsement of these behaviors and values, improves their psychological well-being, and impacts on their children's on-ice behaviors. Hockey parents (N = 98) were randomly assigned to the experimental condition (i.e., presenting dynamic norms that increasingly favor sportspersonship, learning, and fun) vs. control condition (i.e., presenting neutral information). Parents' motivations for encouraging their child to learn and to have fun in hockey were then assessed. Score sheets for the games that followed the study provided access to their children's on-ice behaviors (i.e., penalties), as indicators of sportspersonship. Parents in the experimental condition reported higher self-determination for encouraging their child to learn and have fun in hockey compared to parents in the control condition. Furthermore, children of parents in the experimental condition had more assists. A mediation model revealed that the dynamic norms manipulation increased parents' self-determined motivation for encouraging their child to learn and to have fun in hockey, which in turn, predicted higher psychological well-being (i.e., lower anxiety, more vitality). Together, these results provide support for the contention that highlighting increasingly popular social norms that promote sportspersonship, learning, and fun in sports, represents a promising strategy for creating positive social change in this life context.

Sensitivity to social norm violation is related to political orientation

Human behavior is framed by several social structures. In the present study, we focus on two of the most important determinants of social structures: social norms and political orientation. Social norms are implicit models of shared expectations about how people should behave in different social contexts. Although humans are very sensitive to violations in social norms, there are important individual differences in our sensitivity to these violations. The second concept this study focuses on is political orientation that is define by a continuum from left (liberal) to right (conservative). Individual political orientation has been found to be related to various individual traits, such as cognitive style or sensitivity to negative stimuli. Here, we propose to study the relation between sensitivity to social norm violation and political orientation. Participants completed a task presenting scenarios with different degrees of social norm violation and a questionnaire to measure their political opinions on economic and identity issues. Using hierarchical regressions, we show that individual differences in sensitivity to social norm violation are partly explained by political orientation, and more precisely by the identity axis. The more individuals have right-oriented political opinions, the more they are sensitive to social norm violation, even when multiple demographics variables are considered. Our results suggest that political orientation, especially according to identity issues, is a significant factor of individual differences in social norm processing.

Collective Self-Determination: How the Agent of Help Promotes Pride, Well-Being, and Support for Intergroup Helping

This research integrates self-determination theory and the social identity approach to investigate the notion of collective (group level) self-determination, and to test how the agent of intergroup help (helping initiated by a group representative versus group members) shapes group members' motives and support for intergroup helping. Study 1 ( N = 432) demonstrates that collective self-determination predicts support for intergroup helping, group pride, and well-being, over and above individual-level self-determined motivation. Study 2 ( N = 216) confirmed that helping by group members was seen as more collectively self-determined than helping by a group representative, producing effects on pride, well-being, and support. Study 3 ( N = 124) explores a qualifier of these effects: People who identify more strongly with the leader who is providing the help also experience representative helping as more collectively self-determined, thereby promoting well-being, group pride, and support. Findings highlight the value of integrating self-determination theory with intergroup theories to consider collective aspects of self-determination.