Social Influence

ISSN: 1553-4510 (Print) 1553-4529 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/psif20

A slice of hygiene: justification and consequence

in the persuasiveness of prescriptive and
proscriptive signs

Krzysztof Jan Leoniak & Konrad Maj

To cite this article: Krzysztof Jan Leoniak & Konrad Maj (2016) A slice of hygiene: justification
and consequence in the persuasiveness of prescriptive and proscriptive signs, Social Influence,
11:4, 271-283, DOI: 10.1080/15534510.2016.1267663

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2016.1267663

Published online: 16 Jan 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=psif20

Download by: [The UC San Diego Library] Date: 17 January 2017, At: 12:26
Social Influence, 2016
VOL. 11, NO. 4, 271–283
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2016.1267663

A slice of hygiene: justification and consequence in the

persuasiveness of prescriptive and proscriptive signs
Krzysztof Jan Leoniak and Konrad Maj
Faculty of Psychology, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Warsaw, Poland

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Studies concerning sign effectiveness highlight the use of justifications Received 27 January 2016
and information about consequences of non-compliance. Assuming Accepted 25 November 2016
that the most persuasive messages contain both types of information, KEYWORDS
we compared the effectiveness of eight different signs (that Sign; persuasion; norms;
encouraged supermarket shoppers to hygienically handle bread). justification; consequence
The independent variables were (a) sign content (justification vs.
consequence vs. justification and consequence vs. neutral) and
(b) form of request (prescriptive vs. proscriptive). After assessing
the subjective level of the signs’ persuasiveness through a survey
(N = 240), we observed people’s compliance in a natural experiment
(N = 1.440). Signs containing both a justification and information about
consequences achieved the highest rating and actual compliance.

Introduction
To communicate established social norms, legislators and private owners commonly use
regulatory and warning signs due to the low costs of their application (Dwyer et al., 1993;
Geller, Winnett, & Everett, 1982; Stern & Oskamp, 1987). For example, posting a ‘no litter-
ing’ sign may be less expensive than installing additional trash cans in parks. But are such
interventions effective?
According to Goal-framing theory (Lindenberg & Steg, 2007) the influence of norms is deter-
mined by three goals: hedonic, gain, and normative. Each goal can evoke certain attitudes and
behavior scripts in reference to specific situations. Within a gain goal, people focus on guarding
and improving their resources. For example, if particular environmentally harmful behavior
(i.e., littering) is sanctioned, a person in a gain goal frame could choose to act environmentally
in order to avoid the negative consequences (i.e., paying fine). On the other hand, within a
hedonic goal, people focus on immediate gratification, which makes them sensitive to what
increase or decrease their mood state. The sight of litter in a public park may evoke negative
mood state, which can be reduced by cleaning it up. However, it is important how much effort
certain behavior costs. The thought of cleaning up the whole public park (which requires high
effort) can dampen the way one feels in comparison to the thought of throwing only one soda
can into the trash bin (which requires low effort). Finally, a normative goal is focused on what
is generally considered appropriate, therefore people pursuing this goal are more sensitive to

CONTACT  Krzysztof Jan Leoniak  kleoniak1@swps.edu.pl

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
272   K. J. LEONIAK AND K. MAJ

external information regarding norms. For example, visiting a national park for the first time
would induce a person to search the environment for cues (i.e., signs concerning campfire per-
missions) to answer the question: what behavior would be appropriate in this place or situation?
Therefore, we conclude that an effective regulatory sign should combine cues that would
activate at least one of the three goals (hedonic, gain, and normative) in the recipient.
Nevertheless, it is crucial to have properly worded and visually well designed sign to avoid
counterproductive effects (Winter, Sagarin, Rhoads, Barrett, & Cialdini, 2000).
Researchers have established that effective signs should (a) attract attention, (b) be under-
standable, and (c) motivate people to comply (Laughery, 2006; Wogalter, Begley, Scancorelli,
& Brelsford, 1997). To maximize these features, previous findings suggest the use of proper
visual sign design (e.g., adding color, enlarging print and using bold font, including pictorials)
and explicit information in the text about the posted regulation (Braun, Mine, & Silver, 1995;
Laughery, 2006; Schell, 2009; Wogalter et al., 1997; Wogalter, Conzola, & Smith-Jackson, 2002;
Wogalter, Kalsher, & Rashid, 1999). These guidelines closely relate with model of persuasion pro-
cess introduced by William McGuire (1985), which states that in order to persuade, constructed
message should be (a) presented in attractive and visible way to the recipient, (b) perspicuous in
the content, (c) perceived as useful, and (d) encouraging to compliance. Hence, we will address
this dimension further in relation to construction of our survey used in the first study. Currently,
the research focus is on words and language that can enhance the persuasiveness of signage (e.g.,
Burger & Shelton, 2011; Guéguen & Lamy, 2011; Lawrence, 2015; Pascual, Felonneau, Guéguen,
& Lafaille, 2014; Updegraff, Emanuel, Gallagher, & Steinman, 2011).

Prescription and proscription

Focus Theory of Normative Conduct (Cialdini, Kallgren, & Reno, 1991; Reno, Cialdni,
& Kallgren, 1993) states that normative information can describe either typical human
behavior (descriptive norm, i.e., ‘Most people don’t clean up after their dog’) or desirable
behavior in a particular situation (injunctive norm, i.e., ‘Please clean up after your dog’). In
changing undesired behavior it is recommended to use injunctive norms over descriptive
ones (Bator, Tabanico, Walton, & Shultz, 2014; Cialdini, 2003). For example, in a study
concerning off-trial hiking (Winter, 2006), posting a sign with descriptive norm increased
the undesired behavior whereas injunctive norm decreased it. This effect seems to corre-
spond with goal-framing theory. Inducing and supporting of normative goal, that would
evoke behavior change, requires direct and explicit cues. Injunctive norms seem to meet
this conditions, hence our focus on this type of social norms.
It is important to notice that injunctions can be framed positively (prescriptive) or neg-
atively (proscriptive) (Winter, 2006). For example, injunctive norm can encourage certain
behavior (prescriptive – ‘Please clean litter before you leave the park’) or discourage unde-
sirable one (proscriptive – ‘Please don’t litter during your stay in the park’). An important
question arises as to what form of request an effective sign should use – prescriptive or
proscriptive? The results of previous studies are contradictory (Cialdini et al., 2006; Winter,
Cialdini, Batar, Rhoads, & Sagarin, 1998; Winter et al., 2000), showing that even if positively
framed messages are perceived as more efficient, the negatively framed ones happen to be
more effective in practical use. Due to these inconsistencies, we have decided to compare
the effectiveness of both request forms – prescriptive and proscriptive – that would give us
the opportunity to discuss the reasons for this discrepancy.
 SOCIAL INFLUENCE   273

Consequence and justification

It is worth noticing that wording of most signs in public use does not simply consist only of
injunctive requests. For example, ‘No smoking! Individual violation: $50 fine’ sign includes
also the information about sanction/consequence on breaking the regulation. On the other
hand, sign ‘Please do not feed birds. It encourages vermin and is a health risk’ includes the
justification of posted regulation. We are interested in both types of this information (con-
sequence and justification) since they can activate certain goals (within the goal-framing
theory) that would lead to actual compliance.
Including information about the consequences of non-compliance with a stated rule (e.g.,
‘Campfires are not permitted. Violators are subject to a $250.00 fine.’; Duncan & Martin,
2002, p. 22) positively impacts the effectiveness of a regulation (Duncan & Martin, 2002;
Dwyer et al., 1993). As normative behavior theory (Blake & Davis, 1964) states, sanctions
should do the following: (a) clearly and directly express one’s will (Shelby, Vaske, & Donnelly,
1996), (b) increase willingness to complete the desired action (Gramann, Bonifield, & Kim,
1995), and (c) help in setting objectives for compliance (O’Reilly & Puffer, 1989). For exam-
ple, Reiter and Samuel (1980) limited the problem of littering in public parking lots through
the use of signs containing information about possible sanctions. Gramann, Bonifield, and
Kim (1995) concluded that sanctions create greater likelihood that people will refrain from
breaking a given norm. From the perspective of goal-framing theory, exposing sanctions
(or consequences) will induce in a recipient a gain goal, that would further lead to compli-
ance (since recipient in a gain goal would want to avoid possible negative consequences).
However, messages based solely on requests and threatened punishments may elicit negative
reactions, therefore reduce their potential to influence behavior and, in some cases even
lead to counterproductive effects (Pennebaker & Sanders, 1976; Winter et al., 2000).
In order to reduce this possibility it could be worth including additionally the justification
of a norm. For example, researchers (Wogalter et al., 1997) have compared the effectiveness
of elevator service signs encouraging riders to use the elevator only for longer distances.
The result was that signs containing pictures, explicit wording and justification (e.g., ‘If
you do this, we’ll have better elevator service.’; Wogalter et al., 1997, p. 183) were the most
effective. Researchers agree that including a justification is more effective than posting
a simple message (Duncan & Martin, 2002; Gramann et al., 1995; Ham, 1992; Widner
& Roggenbruck, 2000). The elaboration likelihood model (Petty, Cacioppo, & Goldman,
1981) points out that personal significance (of message content to the recipient) enhances
the motivated reception of the message; therefore, justification is important as it influences
the understanding and acceptance of norms (Christensen & Dustin, 1989). In conclusion,
justification to a regulation could counterweight possible negative reactions created by pre-
viously mentioned sanctions or consequences, therefore enhancing the overall persuasion
of the written message.

Research aims
However, there has been no research evaluating the persuasiveness of signs that include
both consequences and a justification even though these signs are in public use (i.e., ‘Do
not feed the waterfowl! It creates dependence, the spread of disease, and upsets the natural
cycles. They foul our shores, pollute our waters, and drive away timid species. Issued by
274   K. J. LEONIAK AND K. MAJ

the Bucks County Department of Parks & Recreation Ordinance #95, Section 38.b. Fines
up to $300 will be issued.’)
Based on previous findings and conception of goal-framing theory, we hypothesized that
a regulatory sign including both consequences and a justification (in comparison to signs
with one or neither of these elements) would (a) be perceived as being the most persuasive
and (b) enhance compliance. Also, due to inconsistencies in findings concerning request
form, we asked the following research question: Which form of the sign is more effective
– prescriptive or proscriptive? In the first study, we surveyed respondents to establish the
perceived persuasiveness of each sign. In the second study, we placed these signs in real-
life conditions and observed people’s behavior (to measure compliance to the regulation).

Situational context
One of the disobeyed norms in self-service stores is handling and selecting bread through
a plastic bag that fits over the hand. Therefore, we decided to test the effectiveness of signs
encouraging hygienic bread handling. For this purpose, we cooperated with four supermar-
kets in Warsaw, where management board members agreed to have the studies conducted.
Both studies were approved by the ethics committee from the University of Social Sciences
and Humanities in Warsaw.

Method of first study

We used the survey method to assess clients’ subjective rating of the constructed signs which
promoted hygienic bread handling.

Sample and place

The survey involved 240 customers (equally distributed between sexes) of supermarkets in
Warsaw. Respondents were divided into five age groups: 18–29 years old (n = 97); 30–39 years
old (n = 66); 40–49 years old (n = 39); 50–59 years old (n = 35); and 60 years old and older
(n = 3). The survey took place in stores next to the bread shelves where we placed the signs.
Data collection lasted for 10 days in a constant time interval between 3:00 pm and 5:00 pm

Variables
The study adopted two independent variables: (a) form of request (prescriptive vs. proscrip-
tive) and (b) sign content (justification vs. consequence vs. justification and consequence
vs. neutral). The dependent variable was the persuasiveness of the sign (mean of the ratings
given by respondents in the survey).

Materials
Signs
We constructed eight signs (example in Appendix 1) that differed in content and form
of request (in order to exclude the impact of message length). Each sign contained three
elements: (a) a request (prescriptive or proscriptive), (b) a justification or neutral content,
 SOCIAL INFLUENCE   275

Table 1. Written content type of the signs in eight research conditions.

Condition number Prescription Proscription Justification Consequence Neutral 1 Neutral 2
1 +   + +    
2 +   +     +
3 +     + +  
4 +       + +
5   + + +    
6   + +     +
7   +   + +  
8   +     + +

and (c) a consequence or neutral content. We decided to incorporate neutral sign content
in order to sustain similar quantity of written information between messages, since it is well
established that it can be an important factor in recipient compliance (Cole, Hammond,
& McCool, 1996).
The following statements appeared on the signs (translation from Polish):
• Prescriptive form: ‘Touch bread by hand through the plastic bag!’
• Proscriptive form: ‘Do not touch the bread by hand without the plastic bag!’
• Justification: ‘By doing this: – You won’t spread germs; – The bread will stay fresher
longer.’
• Consequence: ‘Bread touched without the use of plastic bag is considered bought.’
• Neutral content 1 (instead of a justification): ‘On the shelf you will find bread and
ciabattas.’
• Neutral content 2 (instead of a consequence): ‘Bread prices are located on the shelves.’
Based on these elements, we created the research conditions (see Table 1).
The content and appearance of the signs were discussed with the management of the
market network. The signs had a height of 11 cm and a width of 16.5 cm.

Survey
The survey (Cronbach’s α  =  .75) contained six dimensions of sign evaluation based on
the seven-point Thurstone scale, ranging from −3 (very negative) to +3 (very positive).
Dimensions were extracted on the basis of McGuire’s persuasion model (1985) and guide-
lines about sign evaluation from other researchers (Frantz, Rhoades, & Lehto, 2005). Scales
concerned the signs’ (a) visibility, (b) attractiveness, (c) perspicuity, (d) usefulness, (e) com-
pliance encouragement, and (f) elicited reaction (negative or positive). These dimensions
allowed us to calculate message persuasiveness (by averaging the ratings from each scale
given by respondents into one variable). We additionally placed demographical boxes (age
and sex) at the end of the survey.

Procedure
While in the bread section of the supermarket, we asked nearby clients to participate in a
short survey. After stating the purpose of the study and obtaining a verbal agreement, we
pointed at the sign placed on the shelf (one randomly selected version of the eight created)
and asked the respondent to rate it through the survey. The whole procedure took approx-
imately 2 minutes.
276   K. J. LEONIAK AND K. MAJ

Table 2. Means and standard deviations across experimental conditions.

Experimental condition M SD
Prescriptive with justification 5.51 1.02
Prescriptive with consequence 4.95 1.30
Prescriptive with justification and consequence 6.07 .89
Prescriptive with neutral content 5.16 .90
Proscriptive with justification 5.50 1.06
Proscriptive with consequence 5.22 .90
Proscriptive with justification and consequence 5.33 .92
Proscriptive with neutral content 5.32 .80

Results
A two-way between-subjects ANOVA of the form of request (prescriptive vs. proscriptive)
and sign content (justification vs. consequence vs. justification and consequence vs. neu-
tral) on the persuasiveness of the sign (measured by the survey) was conducted. Although
the main effect of the sign’s content was statistically significant, F(3, 232) = 4.51, p < .05,
η2 = .05 (the main effect of the form of request was not, F(1, 232) = .39, p = .52), there was a
significant interaction between both of the independent variables, F(3, 232) = 3.07, p < .05,
η2 = .04. Table 2 shows means and standard deviations across conditions.
Simple effects analysis of the variable of sign content showed statistically significant dif-
ferences between the prescriptive signs, F(3, 232) = 7.06, p < .05, η2 = .09. The prescription
that contained both a justification and a consequence was rated as being more persuasive
(n = 30, M = 6.07, SD = .89) than the prescription with only a consequence (n = 30, M = 4.95,
SD = 1.30) or only neutral content (n = 30, M = 5.16, SD = .90). However, they did not
differ in a significant way from the prescription that contained only a justification (n = 30,
M  =  5.51, SD  =  1.02). Analysis failed to provide the statistically significant differences
between the proscriptive signs, F(3, 232) = .43, p = .73.

Discussion
The primary goal of this study was to determine possible levels of persuasiveness of exper-
imental signs concerning hygienic bread handling. We partially confirmed our hypothesis,
which stated that signs containing both a justification and a consequence of the request
would be rated as being the most persuasive. However, the prescriptive sign containing
only a justification was rated as highly as one with both a justification and a consequence.
This result seems to confirm previous findings about the role of justification in persuasion
(Langer, Blank, & Chanowitz, 1978; Wogalter et al., 1997). On the other hand, our hypothesis
was not confirmed in the context of proscriptive signs. Nevertheless, presented results should
be interpreted with precautions, since the effect sizes were small (η2 = .05 for main effect of
sign content; η2 = .04 for interaction of independent variables). In answering our research
question, the results failed to provide any significant differences between request forms.
In a study of human attitudes, it is crucial to distinguish declaration from real behavior
(Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen & Fishbain, 2005). Therefore, the presented study is not sufficient to
address our hypothesis and research question. That is why we have conducted another study
using signs in real-life conditions (to rate their actual persuasiveness).
 SOCIAL INFLUENCE   277

Method of second study

In the second study, we observed customer compliance to the norm of hygienic bread
handling, which was expressed by different sign variations.

Sample and place

The study included 1440 observations in four supermarkets (in Warsaw) in order to exclude
observation of the same group of people twice. As a part of the same network, each store
had a similar assortment of goods, area size, visual identity, and organization of space. The
observations took place in the bread sections. To ensure good visibility, we mounted signs
next to the holes for bread selection (Appendix 2). Each shelf had two signs (a total of eight
signs on four shelves). Data collection lasted for 3 days in a constant time interval between
3:00 pm and 5:00 pm.

Variables and research conditions

Variables and research conditions were similar to the pre-study. The only difference con-
cerned the indicator of the dependent variable (sign persuasiveness), which was the actual
behavior of customers in relation to the posted signs. In the control condition, there was
no sign.

Materials
For the purpose of the natural experiment, we used the same set of signs as in first study. We
also created a form for making notations (observation number) and classifying observed
behavior (compliance or non-compliance).

Procedure
We used security cameras (mounted above the bread sections) for gathering observational
data. On the first day, we collected data for the control group (no signs) from four locations.
At the beginning of the second and third days, we placed randomly assigned sets of signs
in each location and then collected data. In conclusion, each of the four supermarkets had
two randomly assigned experimental conditions. At the end of each day, the signs were
removed. After collecting the data, we analyzed the security camera recordings from every
supermarket. We focused on situations where only one person approached the bread shelf.
To categorize customers’ behavior as being obedient to a sign, the subject had to put a plastic
bag on his or her hand and use it for handling the bread. Due to possible errors, we did not
categorize subjects by age and sex.

Results
In the first step, the differences between experimental locations were examined with the
use of the chi-square test for one variable. The value of the statistics was non-significant,
χ2 (3, 480) = .21, p = .98. Therefore, the number of behaviors consistent and inconsistent
278   K. J. LEONIAK AND K. MAJ

Table 3. Coefficients of two built models in logistic regression.

95% Confidence interval for EXP(B)
  B S.E. Wald χ2 p Exp(B) Lower Upper
Model 1
Sign content     81.11 <.001      
 Justification .99 .18 31.95 <.001 2.69 1.91 3.79
 Consequence .99 .18 31.95 <.001 2.69 1.91 3.79
  Justification + consequence 1.45 .17 69.92 <.001 4.25 3.03 5.96
 Neutral content .50 .18 7.60 .006 1.66 1.16 2.37
 Constant (control) −1.41 .12 150.83 <.001 .24    
Model 2
Sign content     81.11 <.001      
 Justification .99 .18 31.95 <.001 2.69 1.91 3.79
 Consequence .99 .18 31.95 <.001 2.69 1.91 3.79
  Justification + consequence 1.45 .17 69.92 <.001 4.25 3.03 5.96
 Neutral content .50 .18 7.60 .006 1.66 1.16 2.37
Form of request     2.79 .095      
 Prescriptive −.22 .13 2.79 .095 .80 .62 1.04
 Constant (proscriptive) −1.41 .12 150.83 <.001 .24    

Figure 1. Frequencies of shoppers compliant and noncompliant behaviors with the norm of hygienic
bread handling across the sign content conditions.

with the norm in each location was not different in a statistically significant way. In the
next step, the frequency of unhygienic bread handling was assessed. The proportion of
customers who touched bread through the plastic bag (n = 96) and without the plastic bag
(n = 384) was compared within the control group. The value of the statistics was significant,
χ2 (1, n = 480) = 172.80, p < .001, showing that significantly more people handled bread
in an unhygienic way.
To verify our hypothesis, logistic regression analysis was conducted to predict sign per-
suasiveness using sign content and form of request as predictors. In the first step, sign con-
tent was entered to a model; second step included form of request; and third step analyzed
the interaction of two predictors. Dependent variable – sign persuasion – was equal to 1
if customer complied to a regulation in a sign, and 0 if not. Table 3 shows coefficients of
built models.
 SOCIAL INFLUENCE   279

The results from Model 1 indicated that sign content reliably distinguished between
obedience and disobedience to the signs – χ2 (4) = 86.33; p < .001. The Wald criterion
demonstrated significant contribution of sign content – χ2 (4) = 81.11; p < .001. Statistics of
Cox and Snell’s (R2 = 0058) and Nagelkerke’s (R2 = 0081) revealed low relationship between
prediction and grouping, whereas overall prediction success was 67.3% (25.7% for obedience
and 87.8% for disobedience). Analysis of odds ratio (OR) for each experimental condition
(in comparison to control group) indicated that sign including both justification and conse-
quence (OR = 4.25) generated four times more likely compliance behavior with the written
norm. Posting sign with only consequence (OR = 2.69) or justification (OR = 2.69) caused
over two more times higher compliance rate. On the other hand, using sign with only neutral
content can potentially increase compliance by 66% with comparison to control condition.
The results from Model 2 revealed that the form of request fits the data on the level of
statistical tendency – χ2 (1) = 2.79; p = .095. Coefficients of pseudo R-squared statistics
raised to the level of R2 = .06 (Cox and Snell) and R2 = .084 (Nagelkerke). However, the
Hosmer-Lemeshow test was highly non-significant, therefore showing a good fit of model
to the data – χ2 (3) = 2.03; p = .845. Odds ratio for proscriptive form (OR = .8; after rever-
sal OR = 1.25) indicates that prescriptive form is associated with 25% higher chance for
customer compliance.
In the last step, the interaction between sign content and form of request was added to the
model, showing that both predictors did not interact with each other – χ2 (3) = 206; p = .560.
Since sign content significantly distinguished between customer obedience and diso-
bedience to the signs – series of chi-square test for two variables were conducted between
experimental conditions. Sign including both justification and consequence, differed from
sign with neutral content [χ2 (1, 480) = 24.51, p < .05, φ = .23] with potential of improving
customers compliance by two and a half times (OR = 2.57). Furthermore, sign with both
justification and consequence differed from sign with only justification [χ2 (1, 480) = 5.69,
p < .05, φ = .11] with 55% higher chance of inducing customers compliance (OR = 1.55). In
comparison to sign with only consequence, sign with both justification and consequence
differed significantly [χ2 (1, 480) = 6.14, p < .05, φ = .11] with 58% higher chance of inducing
customers compliance (OR = 1.58). Results did not provide statistically significant difference
between sign including only justification or only consequence – χ2 (1, 480) = .009, p = .93.
However, both of these conditions significantly differed from neutral sign condition – con-
sequence vs neutral: χ2 (1, 480) = 6.29, p < .05, φ = .11; and justification vs neutral: χ2 (1,
480) = 6.77, p < .05, φ = .12. Odds ratio of sign with consequence (OR = 1.62) and sign with
justification (OR = 1.65) showed that in comparison to neutral sign condition, they were
associated with 62 and 65% greater chance of customer compliance. Figure 1 presents the
frequencies of shoppers compliant and noncompliant behaviors with the norm of hygienic
bread handling across the sign content conditions.

Discussion
Our hypothesis, which stated that signs containing both a justification for and a consequence
of the request would achieve the highest compliance (be most persuasive), was confirmed.
The second study showed that regardless of the persuasive content, signs are an effective form
of changing customer behavior. Consequently, this finding seems to strengthen the predic-
tion from goal-framing theory which states that signs serve as cues in activating normative
280   K. J. LEONIAK AND K. MAJ

goal (Lindenberg & Steg, 2007). Interestingly, signs containing both a justification and a
consequence affected the subjects’ behavior more frequently (in comparison to other signs),
whereas signs with only justification or consequence revealed as equally effective. On the
other hand, the presence of signs with neutral content occurred as least effective intervention.
The results of the natural experiment do not allow us to answer the question of which
form of request (prescriptive or proscriptive) evokes higher compliance in the context of
the norm of hygienic bread handling. However, results showed statistical tendency towards
higher persuasion of proscriptive form.

General discussion
Both studies revealed that, as predicted, signs with a written justification and consequence
appear to be more persuasive than the use of either justification or consequence alone.
This regularity emerged from both descriptive and observational measures. However, it is
worth noticing that the use of content containing only a justification or consequence is also
sufficient; this confirmed findings from previous studies. The results showed that messages
including neutral content (except for the request) have limited impact. These findings could
be possibly explained within the goal-framing theory. Adding consequence to a regulation
could elicit gain goal in the recipient, whereas additional content of justification lowered
the possible negative reactions induced by consequence – therefore eliciting hedonic goal in
the recipient. However, presented interpretation should be treated cautiously since we did
not measure the induction of these goals and statistically significant results were associated
with small effect sizes.
As for the research question (Which request form is more persuasive?) – the first study
did not reveal significant differences between prescriptive and proscriptive form of sign.
Furthermore, natural observation analysis showed differences between request form but
on the level of statistical tendency. Hence, any further interpretation should be treated cau-
tiously. Our research question should be further examined in the context of sign persuasion.
Nevertheless, our findings show the importance of using both subjective and objective
measurements in calculating sign persuasiveness. Including only one of these methods
could leave researchers with false predictions.

Limitations and future research

We did not control the longitudinal effect of signs on attitude and behavior change. Therefore,
we could not assess the durability of sign persuasion. Furthermore, our observational data
lacked information about the sex and age of respondents (which could lead to more possible
explanations of sign effectiveness). We suggest the use of more precise measurements for
observation to gather these types of information and exclude possible errors.
Regarding sign design, we concluded that our consequence content (‘Bread touched
without the use of plastic bag is considered bought.’) could be replaced with a monetary
sanction. Unfortunately, in this specific situational context, we were not able to use this
kind of information because of consumer law. As for the justification content, it could be
taken into consideration if a false argument on a sign could be as persuasive as a real one.
Future research should address the limitations of the two presented studies and take
into consideration different situational contexts in which signs could be evaluated. The
 SOCIAL INFLUENCE   281

possibilities for written sign design are as numerous as their limitations. Further research can
provide important information about effective message design, which can lead to improving
people’s engagement in the public environment and the upholding of social norms.

Disclosure statement
Authors have no relevant financial or nonfinancial relationships to disclose.

References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50, 179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In D. Albarracin, B. T. Johnson,
& M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 173–221). Mahwah, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264000974
Bator, R. J., Tabanico, J. J., Walton, M. L., & Schultz, P. W. (2014). Promoting energy conservation with
implied norms and explicit messages. Social Influence, 9, 69–82. doi:10.1080/15534510.2013.778213
Blake, J., & Davis, K. (1964). Norms, values, and sanctions. In R. E. L. Faris (Ed.), Handbook of modern
sociology (pp. 456–484). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Braun, C. C., Mine, P. B., & Clayton Silver, N. C. (1995). The influence of color on warning label
perceptions. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 15, 179–187. doi:10.1016/0169-
8141(94)00036-3
Burger, J. M., & Shelton, M. (2011). Changing everyday health behaviors through descriptive norm
manipulations. Social Influence, 6, 69–77. doi:10.1080/15534510.2010.542305
Christensen, H. H., & Dustin, D. L. (1989). Reaching recreationists at different levels of moral
development. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 7, 78–80. Retrieved from http://
js.sagamorepub.com/jpra/article/view/1886
Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 12, 105–109.
Cialdini, R. B., Demaine, L. J., Sagarin, B. J., Barrett, D. W., Rhoads, K., & Winter, P. L. (2006). Managing
social norms for persuasive impact. Social Influence, 1, 3–15. doi:10.1080/15534510500181459
Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & 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, 24, 201–234. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60330-5
Cole, D. N., Hammond, T. P., & McCool, S. F. (1996). Information quantity and communication
effectiveness: Low-impact messages on wilderness trailside bulletin boards. Leisure Sciences, 19,
59–72. doi:10.1080/01490409709512239
Duncan, G. S., & Martin, S. R. (2002). Comparing the effectiveness of interpretive and sanction
messages for influencing wilderness visitors’ intended behavior. International Journal of Wilderness,
8, 20–25. Retrieved from http://www.wilderness.net/library/documents/duncan1.pdf
Dwyer, W. O., Leeming, F. C., Cobern, M. K., Porter, B. E., & Jackson, J. M. (1993). Critical review
of behavioral interventions to preserve the environment: Research since 1980. Environment and
Behavior, 25, 275–321. doi:10.1177/0013916593255001
Frantz, J. P., Rhoades, T. P., & Lehto, M. R. (2005). Practical considerations regarding the design and
evaluation of product warnings. In M. S. Wogalter, D. DeJoy, & K. R. Laughery (Eds.), Warnings
and risk communication (pp. 283–302). CRC Press.
Geller, E. S., Winnett, R. A., & Everett, P. (1982). Preserving the environment: New strategies for behavior
change. New York, NY: Pergamon.
Gramann, J. H., Bonifield, R. L., & Kim, Y. (1995). Effects of personality and situational factors
on intentions to obey rules in outdoor recreation areas. Journal of Leisure Research, 27,
326–343. Retrieved from http://sci.sdsu.edu/pub/IEMM/Recreation/3rdTierLiterature/
Gramann1995recreationandpersonality.pdf
282   K. J. LEONIAK AND K. MAJ

Guéguen, N., & Lamy, L. (2011). The effect of the word “love” on compliance to a request for
humanitarian aid: An evaluation in a field setting. Social Influence, 6, 249–258. doi:10.1080/15
534510.2011.627771
Ham, S. (1992). Environmental interpretation: A practical guide for people with big ideas and small
budgets. Golden, CO: North America Press. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/
publication/242764249
Langer, E., Blank, A., & Chanowitz, B. (1978). The mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful action:
The role of “placebic” information in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 36, 635–642. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.36.6.635
Laughery, K. R. (2006). Safety communications: Warnings. Applied Ergonomics, 37, 467–478.
doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2006.04.020
Lawrence, N. K. (2015). Highlighting the injunctive norm to reduce phone-related distracted driving.
Social Influence, 10, 109–118. doi:10.1080/15534510.2015.1007082
Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2007). Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental
behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 117–137. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00499.x
McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook
of social psychology (pp. 233–346). New York, NY: Random House.
O'Reilly, C. A., & Puffer, S. M. (1989). The impact of rewards and punishments in a social
context: A laboratory and field experiment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 41–53.
doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1989.tb00476.x
Pascual, A., Felonneau, M. L., Guéguen, N., & Lafaille, E. (2014). Conformity, obedience to authority,
and compliance without pressure to control cigarette butt pollution. Social Influence, 9, 83–98. do
i:10.1080/15534510.2013.778214
Pennebaker, J. W., & Sanders, D. Y. (1976). American graffiti: Effects of authority and reactance
arousal. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2, 264–267. doi:10.1177/014616727600200312
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-
based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847–855. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.41.5.847
Reiter, S. M., & Samuel, W. (1980). Littering as a function of prior litter and the presence or absence
of prohibitive signs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 45–55. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1980.
tb00692.x
Reno, R. R., Cialdini, R. B., & Kallgren, C. A. (1993). The transsituational influence of social norms.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 104–112. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.1.104
Shelby, B., Vaske, J. J., & Donnelly, M. P. (1996). Norms, standards, and natural resources. Leisure
Sciences, 18, 103–123. doi:10.1080/01490409609513276
Schell, K. L. (2009). Using enhanced text to facilitate recognition of drug names: Evidence from two
experimental studies. Applied Ergonomics, 40, 82–90. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2008.01.010
Stern, P. C., & Oskamp, S. (1987). Managing scarce environmental resources. In D. Stokols & I. Altman
(Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 1043–1088). New York, NY: Wiley.
Updegraff, J. A., Emanuel, A. S., Gallagher, K. M., & Steinman, C. T. (2011). Framing flu prevention:
An experimental field test of signs promoting hand hygiene during the 2009–2010 H1N1 pandemic.
Health Psychology, 30, 295–299. doi:10.1037/a0023125
Widner, C. J., & Roggenbuck, J. (2000). Reducing theft of petrified wood at Petrified Forest National
Park. Journal of Interpretation Research, 5, 1–18. Retrieved from https://www.interpnet.com/docs/
JIR-v5n1.pdf
Winter, P. L. (2006). The impact of normative message types on off-trail hiking. Journal of Interpretation
Research, 11, 35–52.
Winter, P. L., Cialdini, R. B., Bator, R. J., Rhoads, K., & Sagarin, B. J. (1998). An analysis of normative
messages in signs at recreation settings. Journal of Interpretation Research, 3, 39–47. Retrieved from
http://www.niu.edu/user/tj0bjs1/papers/wcbrs98.pdf
Winter, P. L., Sagarin, B. J., Rhoads, K., Barrett, D. W., & Cialdini, R. B. (2000). Choosing to encourage
or discourage: Perceived effectiveness of prescriptive versus proscriptive messages. Environmental
Management, 26, 589–594. doi:10.1007/s002670010117
 SOCIAL INFLUENCE   283

Wogalter, M. S., Begley, P. B., Scancorelli, L. F., & Brelsford, J. W. (1997). Effectiveness of elevator
service signs: Measurement of perceived understandability, willingness to comply and behaviour.
Applied Ergonomics, 28, 181–187. doi:10.1016/S0003-6870(96)00063-4
Wogalter, M. S., Conzola, V. C., & Smith-Jackson, T. L. (2002). Research-based guidelines for warning
design and evaluation. Applied Ergonomics, 33, 219–230. doi:10.1016/S0003-6870(02)00009-1
Wogalter, M. S., Kalsher, M. J., & Rashid, R. (1999). Effect of signal word and source attribution on
judgments of warning credibility and compliance likelihood. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, 24, 185–192. doi:10.1016/S0169-8141(98)00025-0

Appendix 1.

Appendix 2.