Çevreci Davranışlarda Dinamik Normlar: Mekanizması, Etkililiği ve Sınırlılıkları Üzerine Bir İnceleme

Tuğçenaz Elcil

EN TR

Dynamic Norms in Pro-Environmental Behavior: Mechanisms, Effectiveness, and Limitations

Abstract

Addressing environmental problems emphasizes the importance of adopting pro-environmental behaviors. However, environmental attitudes do not always lead to behavioral change. Perceived prevalence of pro-environmental behaviors can constitute a psychological barrier to behavior change. Researchers suggest that dynamic norms can promote behavioral change by reducing these barriers, however, their effectiveness depends on certain factors. This article aims to provide a comprehensive review of dynamic norms that may promote pro-environmental behavior. First, the concept of dynamic norms and their psychological mechanisms are introduced. Then, past findings are reviewed, and the conditions under which dynamic norms are effective, inconsistent findings and limitations are discussed. This review is expected to provide guidance for future studies and for the development of dynamic norm interventions in the context of environmental problems and the climate crisis. To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive review article in the Turkish literature focusing on dynamic norms.

Keywords

Çevreci Davranışlarda Dinamik Normlar: Mekanizması, Etkililiği ve Sınırlılıkları Üzerine Bir İnceleme

Öz

Çevre sorunlarının çözümü, çevreye olumsuz etkileri bulunan davranışların yerini çevreci davranışların almasını gerekli kılmaktadır. Ancak çevreci tutumlar her zaman davranışlara yansımamakta ve tutum-davranış uyumsuzluğunun ortaya çıktığı görülebilmektedir. Bu bağlamda davranışsal değişimin önündeki psikolojik bariyerlerden biri, çevreci davranışların sosyal bağlamdaki yaygınlığına ilişkin algılar olabilmektedir. Araştırmacılar, dinamik normların, bu psikolojik bariyerleri zayıflatarak davranış değişimini teşvik edebileceğini öne sürmüşlerdir. Bulgular, dinamik norm mesajlarının çevreci davranışları teşvik etmede etkili olabildiğini ancak etkisinin bazı faktörlere bağlı olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu makalenin amacı, çevreci davranışları teşvik etme potansiyeli taşıyan dinamik normlara dair kapsamlı bir inceleme sunmaktadır. Öncelikle dinamik norm kavramı ve psikolojik mekanizması ele alınmıştır. Ardından, çevreci davranış bağlamındaki bulgular incelenmiş ve dinamik normların etkisinin hangi koşullara bağlı olduğu, tutarsız bulguların olası sebepleri ve literatürün sınırlılıkları tartışılmıştır. Bu incelemenin, gelecekteki araştırmalara ve çevre sorunları ile iklim krizi bağlamlarında oluşturulacak dinamik norm müdahalelerine yol göstermesi beklenmektedir. Bildiğimiz kadarıyla mevcut çalışma, Türkçe literatürde dinamik normlara odaklanan ilk kapsamlı derlemedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ethical Statement

The ethical standards were followed throughout the preparation of this study.

References

Aitken, C., Chapman, R., ve McClure, J. (2011). Climate change, powerlessness and the commons dilemma: Assessing New Zealanders’ preparedness to act. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 752–760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.002
Aldoh, A., Sparks, P., ve Harris, P. R. (2021). Dynamic Norms and Food choice: Reflections on a failure of minority norm information to influence motivation to reduce meat consumption. Sustainability, 13(15), 8315. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158315
Andre, P., Boneva, T., Chopra, F., ve Falk, A. (2024). Globally representative evidence on the actual and perceived support for climate action. Nature Climate Change, 14(3), 253–259. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-01925-3
Bamberg, S., ve Möser, G. (2006). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002
Bergquist, M. (2019). Most people think they are more pro-environmental than others: A demonstration of the better-than-average effect in perceived pro-Environmental behavioral engagement. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 42(1), 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2019.1689364
Boenke, L., Panning, M., Thurow, A., Hörisch, J., ve Loschelder, D. D. (2022). Who can nudge for sustainable development? How nudge source renders dynamic norms (in-)effective in eliciting sustainable behavior. Journal of Cleaner Production, 368, 133246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133246
Bolsen, T., Palm, R., ve Kingsland, J. T. (2019). The impact of message source on the effectiveness of communications about climate change. Science Communication, 41(4), 464–487. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019863154
Bond, R., ve Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 111–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.111

Campbell, E., Kotcher, J. E., Myers, T., Munson, S., Borth, A. C., Rosenthal, S. A., Leiserowitz, A., ve Maibach, E. (2023). The potential role of descriptive and dynamic norms in promoting climate change advocacy. Oxford Open Climate Change, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfclm/kgad001
Capstick, S., Whitmarsh, L., Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N., ve Upham, P. (2014). International trends in public perceptions of climate change over the past quarter century. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change, 6(1), 35–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.321
Chen, A., ve Gifford, R. (2015). “I wanted to cooperate, but. . .”: Justifying suboptimal cooperation in a commons dilemma. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 47(4), 282–291. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000021
Cheng, L., Hao, M., Xiao, L., ve Wang, F. (2020). Join us: Dynamic norms encourage women to pursue STEM. Current Psychology, 41(9), 5967–5977. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01105-4
Chung, M., ve Lapinski, M. K. (2023). The effect of dynamic norms messages and group identity on Pro-Environmental behaviors. Communication Research, 51(4), 439–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502231176670
Cialdini, R. B., ve Jacobson, R. P. (2021). Influences of social norms on climate change-related behaviors. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.01.005
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., ve 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(6), 1015–1026. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015
Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., ve Reno, R. R. (1991). A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in experimental social psychology içinde (ss. 201–234).
Çoker, E. N., Pechey, R., Frie, K., Jebb, S. A., Stewart, C., Higgs, S., ve Cook, B. (2021). A dynamic social norm messaging intervention to reduce meat consumption: A randomized cross-over trial in retail store restaurants. Appetite, 169, 105824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105824
De Groot, J. I. M. (2022). The effectiveness of normative messages to decrease meat consumption: The superiority of dynamic normative messages framed as a loss. Frontiers in Sustainability, 3, 968201. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2022.968201
Doherty, K. L., ve Webler, T. N. (2016). Social norms and efficacy beliefs drive the Alarmed segment’s public-sphere climate actions. Nature Climate Change, 6(9), 879–884. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3025
Dolu, İ., Turhan, Z., ve Dilcen, H. Y. (2021). COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance is associated with Vaccine Hesitancy, Perceived Risk and Previous Vaccination Experiences. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 17, e97. https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2021.370 Dunlop, W. L., Beatty, D. J., ve Beauchamp, M. R. (2011). Examining the influence of Other-Efficacy and Self-Efficacy on personal performance. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 33(4), 586–593. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.33.4.586
Eriksson, L. (2025). The importance of a dynamic norm for climate adapted forest management via personal norm and perceived feasibility. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 105, 102651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2025.102651
Farrow, K., Grolleau, G., ve Ibanez, L. (2017). Social Norms and Pro-environmental Behavior: A Review of the evidence. Ecological Economics, 140, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.04.017
Geber, S., Tribelhorn, L., Hitchman, S. C., ve Friemel, T. N. (2022). Dynamic norms for dynamic times? An experiment on the effects of dynamic and static norms messages on COVID-19 vaccination intention. SCM Studies in Communication and Media, 11(3), 453–476. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2022-3-453
Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66(4), 290–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023566
Gifford, R. D., ve Chen, A. K. S. (2016). Why aren’t we taking action? Psychological barriers to climate-positive food choices. Climatic Change, 140(2), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1830-y
Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., ve Griskevicius, V. (2008). A Room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 472–482. https://doi.org/10.1086/586910
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., Bain, P. G., ve Fielding, K. S. (2016). Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate Change, 6(6), 622–626. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2943
IPCC (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (Ed.). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781009325844
Jugert, P., Greenaway, K. H., Barth, M., Büchner, R., Eisentraut, S., ve Fritsche, I. (2016). Collective efficacy increases pro-environmental intentions through increasing self-efficacy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 48, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.08.003
Kashima, Y., O’Brien, L., McNeill, I., Ambrose, M., Bruce, G., Critchley, C. R., Dudgeon, P., Newton, P., ve Robins, G. (2021). Low carbon readiness in social context: Introducing the social context of environmental identity model. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 24(2), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12454
Kennedy, E. H., Beckley, T. M., McFarlane, B. L., ve Nadeau, S. (2009). Why We Don’t “Walk the Talk”: Understanding the Environmental Values/Behaviour Gap in Canada. Human Ecology Review, 16(2), 151–160. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24707539
Kitt, S., Axsen, J., Long, Z., ve Rhodes, E. (2021). The role of trust in citizen acceptance of climate policy: Comparing perceptions of government competence, integrity and value similarity. Ecological Economics, 183, 106958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.106958
Klein, N., ve O’Brien, E. (2017). The power and limits of personal change: When a bad past does (and does not) inspire in the present. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(2), 210–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000088
Kosuth, M., Mason, S. A., ve Wattenberg, E. V. (2018). Anthropogenic contamination of tap water, beer, and sea salt. PLoS ONE, 13(4), e0194970. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194970
Lapinski, M. K., ve Rimal, R. N. (2005). An explication of social norms. Communication Theory, 15(2), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2005.tb00329.x
Lee, S., ve Liu, J. (2023). Leveraging dynamic norm messages to promote Counter-Normative Health behaviors: the moderating role of current and future injunctive norms, Attitude and Self-Efficacy. Health Communication, 38(6), 1071–1079. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2021.1991638
Loschelder, D. D., Siepelmeyer, H., Fischer, D., ve Rubel, J. A. (2019). Dynamic norms drive sustainable consumption: Norm-based nudging helps café customers to avoid disposable to-go-cups. Journal of Economic Psychology, 75, 102146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2019.02.002
Ma, H., ve Reynolds-Tylus, T. (2024). Dynamic Norms and vaping: A test of four mediators. Substance Use & Misuse, 59(14), 2037–2046. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2024.2392535
Malta, I., Hoeks, J., ve Graça, J. (2024). Communicating Trends in Sustainability Transitions: Minority Beliefs and Dynamic Norms about Plant-Based Food Consumption. Environmental Communication, 18(3), 339–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2023.2280751
Masciangelo, L., Lumbi, S. L., Rinderhagen, M., Hornberg, C., Liebig-Gonglach, M., ve Call, T. M. (2024). Promising behavior change techniques for climate-friendly behavior change – a systematic review. Frontiers in Public Health, 12, 1396958. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1396958
Mortensen, C. R., Neel, R., Cialdini, R. B., Jaeger, C. M., Jacobson, R. P., ve Ringel, M. M. (2017). Trending norms: a lever for encouraging behaviors performed by the minority. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(2), 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617734615
Milfont, T. L., ve Schultz, P. W. (2016). Culture and the natural environment. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8, 194–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.09.009
OECD (2025). Environmental outlook on the triple planetary crisis: Stakes, evolution and policy linkages. OECD Environmental Outlook içinde. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/257ffbb6-en
Pasca, L., ve Poggio, L. (2021). Biased perception of the environmental impact of everyday behaviors. The Journal of Social Psychology, 163(4), 515–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2021.2000354
Patel, V., Mirosa, M., ve Buckland, N. J. (2024). Testing the effect of descriptive dynamic social norm messages on meatless food purchases in Aotearoa New Zealand and UK university food outlets. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1260343
Petty, R. E., ve Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology içinde (s. 123–205). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60214-2
Prentice-Dunn, S., ve Rogers, R. W. (1986). Protection Motivation Theory and preventive health: Beyond the Health Belief Model. Health Education Research, 1(3), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/1.3.153
Quimby, C. C., ve Angelique, H. (2011). Identifying barriers and catalysts to fostering pro‐environmental behavior: Opportunities and challenges for community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 47(3–4), 388–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9389-7
Richter, I., Thøgersen, J., ve Klöckner, C. A. (2018). A social norms intervention going wrong: Boomerang effects from descriptive norms information. Sustainability, 10(8), 2848. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082848
Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., ve Griskevicius, V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18(5), 429–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01917.x
Sparkman, G., ve Hoffmann, T. (2025). What will it take to mitigate climate change? Maximizing norm transmission and potency for change-accelerating outcomes. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 65, 101570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2025.101570
Sparkman, G., ve Walton, G. M. (2017). Dynamic norms promote sustainable behavior, even if it is counternormative. Psychological Science, 28(11), 1663–1674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617719950
Sparkman, G., ve Walton, G. M. (2019). Witnessing change: Dynamic norms help resolve diverse barriers to personal change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 82, 238–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.01.007
Sparkman, G., Weitz, E., Robinson, T. N., Malhotra, N., ve Walton, G. M. (2020). Developing a scalable dynamic Norm Menu-Based intervention to reduce meat consumption. Sustainability, 12(6), 2453. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062453
Siegel, J. T., McManus, M. D., Blazek, D. R., ve Marshburn, A. (2022). Three-in-1,000 and dynamic norms: A mixed-method investigation of novel appeals for influencing organ donor registration. Social Science & Medicine, 317, 115544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115544
Tam, K., ve Chan, H. (2017). Environmental concern has a weaker association with pro-environmental behavior in some societies than others: A cross-cultural psychology perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 53, 213-223.
Tajfel, H. ve Turner, J.C. (1986) The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. S. Worchel ve W.G. Austin (Ed.), Psychology of Intergroup Relation içinde. Hall Publishers, Chicago, 7-24.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., ve Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil Blackwell.
Van de Mortel, T. F. (2008). Faking it: Social desirability response bias in selfreport research. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25(4), 40-48.
Van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., ve Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 504–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504
Van Zomeren, M., Spears, R., ve Leach, C. W. (2010). Experimental evidence for a dual pathway model analysis of coping with the climate crisis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 339–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.02.006
Wolfswinkel, S. M., Sparkman, G., De Vet, E., Poelman, M. P., ve Raghoebar, S. (2025). Dynamic norm perceptions and meat consumption: the moderating role of meat-related intrapersonal psychological factors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 106, 102719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2025.102719
Yuriev, A., Dahmen, M., Paillé, P., Boiral, O., ve Guillaumie, L. (2020). Pro-environmental behaviors through the lens of the theory of planned behavior: A scoping review. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 155, 104660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104660

Details

Primary Language

Turkish

Subjects

Social Psychology

Journal Section

Review

Authors

Tuğçenaz Elcil ^*
0000-0002-8948-4157
Türkiye

Publication Date

April 27, 2026

Submission Date

February 5, 2026

Acceptance Date

April 9, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Volume: 11 Number: 1

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA97WZ53DS

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Elcil, T. (2026). Çevreci Davranışlarda Dinamik Normlar: Mekanizması, Etkililiği ve Sınırlılıkları Üzerine Bir İnceleme. Türk Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, 11(1), 14-28. https://izlik.org/JA97WZ53DS