AO3

• Schultz et al. (2007) suggest an unwelcome problem with social norms interventions. Although they are typically aimed at individuals whose behaviour is less desirable than the norm, those whose behaviour is more desirable than the norm will also receive the message. For those individuals who already engage in the constructive behaviour being advocated (e.g. drink less than the norm, use less energy than the norm and so on), a normative message can also be a spur to increasing these aspects of their behaviour to be more in line with the norm Schultz et al. refer to this as the boomerang effect
• Schultz et al. refer to this as the boomerang effect, where a social norms campaign might be effective in getting heavy energy users to use less electricity but can also cause those who use less than the norm to increase their usage!
• Social change through minority influence is very gradual The role played by minority influence may be limited since minorities such as the suffragettes rarely bring about social change quickly. Because there is a strong tendency for human beings to conform to the majority position, people are more likely to maintain the status quo rather than engage in social change. This suggests, therefore, that the influence of a minority is frequently more latent than direct (i.e. it creates the potential for change rather than actual social change).
• While social norms interventions have shown positive results in a number of diferent settings, they also have their limitations DeJong (2009) tested the effectiveness of social norms marketing campaigns to drive down alcohol use among students across 14 different colleges. Despite receiving normative information that corrected their misperceptions of subjective drinking norms, students in the social norms condition did not report lower self- reported alcohol consumption as a result of the campaign It appears, therefore, that not all social norms interventions are able to produce social change.