International Journal of Consumer Studies ISSN 1470-6423
Social influence and sustainability in households
1
Elizabeth B. Goldsmith and Ronald E. Goldsmith
ijcs_965
117..121
2
1
Department of Retail Merchandising and Product Development, College of Human Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, US
Department of Marketing, College of Business, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, US
2
Keywords
Households, opinion leadership, social
influence, sustainability.
Correspondence
Elizabeth B. Goldsmith, Department of Retail
Merchandising and Product Development,
College of Human Sciences, Florida State
University, Tallahassee, FL 32311, US.
E-mail: egoldsmith@fsu.edu
doi: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00965.x
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to discuss the role of social influence regarding sustainability
in households. Several research studies show that individual and family recycling and
e-consumption behaviours are more affected by people that the individual/family know
than by outside influences such as government or advertising campaigns. Social influence
theory, although prevalent in such diverse fields as communication, marketing, sociology
including medical and rural sociology, management information science and education,
has not been used as extensively in human sciences, home economics and human ecology,
specifically in applications to household green behaviour. The origins of social influence
are found in the ground-breaking work in opinion leadership by Lazarsfeld in sociology
and in E.M. Rogers’s diffusion of innovation theory. The present article makes a case for
using social influence theory as a framework for future studies and academic work in
environmentalism, and for those trying to increase or promote pro-environmental behaviour at the individual, family or household level.
Introduction
Sustainability is a topic of great importance to a variety of academic
disciplines as well as a practical concern for policy makers around
the world. In academia, the subject has been researched and discussed theoretically using a number of approaches. Governments
strive to encourage energy conservation, product reuse and recycling, as well as other behaviours that protect and improve the
environment (Geppert and Stamminger, 2010). Often, those interested in teaching and researching, or serving through the extension
service or other government units on the subject of environmentalism and green behaviour come from a variety of fields such as
engineering, geography, urban planning, sociology, family studies
and ecology. With such diverse backgrounds, the question arises:
What do these have in common? Usually, what they share is a
like-minded interest in improving the planet for future generations
and in sustainability with the realization that household behaviour
has a tremendous impact on the environment.
There are many definitions of sustainability. The most widely
recognized is the Brundtland Report (1987) definition, which states
that sustainability is about ‘meeting the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs.’ The Brundtland Report and Our Common Future are the
genesis of sustainability as a coherent set of principles and the
bedrock of several disciplines. Those who research and teach about
green consumption behaviour will most likely cite this report
including the concepts of inter-generational justice and the three
legs of sustainability: social, economic and environmental. The
present study adds to the knowledge base on the social aspects.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 35 (2011) 117–121
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
A more detailed definition of sustainability relevant to family
resource management and household technology and practices is
as follows:
Sustainability is about conscious design and the consideration
of the impacts consumption choices make on the environment
given finite resources. It involves ethics, ecology, and estimations of system life expectancies. The ultimate goal is sustainable development – a form of growth wherein societal needs,
present and future, are met. Sustainable development requires
the input and cooperation of all segments of society, producers as well as consumers. Towards this end, more careful
decisions at every level are being made about the products
and services brought into and used in the home (Goldsmith,
2010, p. 330).
In this definition, ecology is not just about marine life or preserving the rainforests, but about everyday practices multiplied across
the 6.4 billion people in the world that impact the air, water and
earth. According to Berkholz et al. (2010, p. 235), ‘the rising
demand for natural and non-renewable resources is not only limited
to agriculture and industry. A significant proportion of water and
energy consumption occurs in the domestic sector’. Individual and
family behaviour is heavily influenced by socialization in the home
and neighbourhood, learned by observation (such as recycling).
According to Hawkins et al. (2001), ‘. . . acquiring consumptionrelated knowledge is a life-long process’.
Those of us who are household experts are called upon to
provide informed leadership in the renewed thrust towards instituting more environmentally friendly practices in the home and to
do this in an informed and structured way. One important role of
117
Social influence and sustainability in households
household experts is to study sustainable behaviour and assemble
empirical findings that can form the basis for effective policy
(Schmidberger and Stamminger, 2010). Several tools are suggested as guides these efforts. For example, Schmidberger and
Stamminger (2010) describe the use of interactive software to
facilitate student learning in the field of household technology.
Survey research is used to gauge consumer attitudes and behaviour
(Abeliotis et al., 2010). Experimental methods are used to understand how individuals perform household tasks in order to provide
recommendations for improving sustainable behaviour (Berkholz
et al., 2010). It is proposed that social influence theory can provide
a basis for understanding consumption and developing policies to
encourage sustainable consumption. Prevalent in many social sciences, social influence theory is an effective way to understand the
spread of sustainable practices among families and households, as
well as ways to positively encourage this spread.
Overview of household green
consumption behaviour
Many of our household practices have a long and honoured history
passed down through the generations. One, of course, cannot in a
few paragraphs describe all that has gone on in families and
households over the centuries, but here are some introductory
comments that set the stage for the social influence discussion to
come. We know from pre-history (before writing) through surviving cave dwellings and wall carvings that there were divisions of
labour regarding who should do what in the home arena such as
tending fields, cooking and child care. Bringing this fast forward,
the Greeks and Romans lectured on these subjects, which they
considered philosophical as well as practical.
Books survive from Europe in the Middle Ages outlining the
running of estates and who should do what in households. Wealth
was tied up in who owned the most land, and to retain wealth, the
land including the manor houses had to be well maintained. As
literacy spread, household advice books and cookbooks proliferated for not only the wealthy but also the masses as well. They are
still popular in print and other media forms, showing the enduring
nature of the topics. Everyone has to decide where to live and what
to eat, and a great deal of time and effort is devoted to these
activities.
In the nineteenth century, courses in home economics or
domestic science were taught in the US and other countries,
becoming formalized as a field of study called home economics
at the Lake Placid Conferences in New York State from 1899 to
1908. The main founder, Ellen S. Richards, was a chemist, an
author, an environmental scientist and the first woman professor
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Richards, 1911).
Therefore, environmentalism, as it related to households, was the
primary subject from the very beginning. In time, household
studies became known as ‘family resource management’, a subtopic included within household equipment studies led by
Rebecca Lovingood at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, one of the editors of this special issue. Other applications included universities with home management houses and
laboratories, and academic leaders such as Irma Gross, Bea
Paolucci, Ruth Deacon and Francille Firebaugh to name only a
few (Goldsmith, 2010). These are Americans, but it would be
neglectful not to mention the past and ongoing leaders, educators
118
E.B. Goldsmith and R.E. Goldsmith
and contributors in Canada, the Caribbean, Australia, Europe,
Asia, South America and Africa.
Besides government and university researchers, appliance and
detergent manufacturers have been measuring household behaviours and attitudes towards being greener. They conduct research
studies at company headquarters and also in conjunction with
university laboratories. Field experiments in which researchers
interview consumers in their homes or have householders keep a
diary are also typical research methods. A comprehensive list of all
sustainable or green household studies is not the goal of this
article; instead, a sampling follows. Berkholz et al. (2010) conducted a study of washing up behaviours of UK consumers
wherein 150 participants washed a full load of soiled tableware
based on the standard EN 50242 ‘Electric Dishwashers for Household Use – Methods for Measuring Performance’ and also hand
washed tableware. The researchers reported that more energy and
water was used in hand washing tableware than in using machines
(automatic dishwashers). Further, they found that the machinewashed tableware was cleaner than the hand-washed tableware.
Hand washing also took approximately 60 min vs. 9 min total to
load and unload the same amount of tableware in a dishwasher.
John McCullough’s (2009) work on factors affecting household
repair services and the throwaway society focused on the end part
of consumption or ‘e-waste’. In July 2010, researchers presented a
number of papers on household green consumption behaviour in
the Programme Committee on Household Technology and Sustainability Research Sessions held during the International Federation of Home Economics Council Meeting in Sligo, Ireland.
The theme of the Council was ‘Vision 2020: Home Economics,
Changing Perspectives in a Changing Environment’, focusing on
three areas of contemporary concern: sustainability, globalization
and interculturalism. The goal of the papers was to share information and build on interactions, discussions and collaborations,
which will lead to improvement in the quality of everyday life for
individuals, families and households. Topics discussed included
best practices and patterns in cooking, laundry washing, dishwashing, and water and energy use from Thailand, the US, Europe and
South Africa. The meeting is mentioned here to show the global
stretch of this topic. Worldwide, researchers are measuring and
analysing patterns of behaviour and household impacts on the
greater environment. A question raised was how to get households
more involved in sustainability efforts, and if rebates and reduced
utility bills do not work, what does? One answer to this dilemma
is proposed in this paper, namely, social influence, the effect of the
behaviour of others and exchange of information formally and
informally.
The synergy provided by the 2010 Sligo Council Meeting and
the International Journal of Consumer Studies (IJCS) is an important part of the ongoing global exchange between fields dedicated
to understanding consumer behaviour better. The stated aim and
scope of the IJCS is to provide an international forum for academic and research papers with a focus on how consumer can
enhance their security and well-being.
Influencing behaviour: four strategies
Academics as well policy makers seek to improve consumer wellbeing in a variety of ways. These efforts rely on one of four basic
strategies.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 35 (2011) 117–121
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
E.B. Goldsmith and R.E. Goldsmith
The first is a ‘punishment’-oriented approach that seeks to put
into place some negative consequence of a behaviour that it wants
to discourage so that people will turn to a different, presumably
more positive behaviour. Legal sanctions and rules prohibiting
household behaviour that is not green are examples of this strategy. Another example would be when utilities charge users more
for a utility such as water if they use more than a set amount.
Certainly, some users are dissuaded by these consequences and
alter their behaviour to adopt the greener alternative. This strategy
can be thought of as a ‘legal or regulatory’ model.
A second strategy involves ‘rewarding’ or giving an incentive
to individuals for adopting behaviour. This can be thought of as
an ‘economics’ model. Selling utilities at differential prices (discounts) to encourage conservation is common. Another example
of incenting people to adopt green consumer behaviour can be
found in the field of cultural studies, which posit that for messages
or involvement such as in the health services, to be effective, a
change in culture is required (Thomas et al., 2010). In order to stay
involved, people have to find some reason such as enjoyment or a
sense of mutual caring perhaps through the ability to tell their
story, participating in panels or groups, or receiving a newsletter.
These incentives promote the desired green activity. Policy agencies could implement other similar strategies to encourage sustainable practices.
The third strategy is best termed ‘persuasion’. This topic has a
long history in social science research (Hovland et al., 1953. The
basic premise is that people will respond to information designed
to change their minds, and the desired behavioural change will
follow. The effectiveness of the strategy, however, varies according to a variety of factors including the sources of the information,
the channel through which it is transmitted, characteristics of the
receiver of the information and the nature of the persuasive
message itself. A recent development of this approach lies in
structuring the choice context so that people can make optimal
choices to benefit either themselves or society at large (Thaler and
Sunstein, 2009). Thus, they can be persuaded to make a behavioural choice if the information they are given and the choice
situation they face can be structured in favour of the best outcome.
Behaviour change strategies even combine aspects of all three
of these approaches in an effort to maximize effectiveness. Even
then, however, what remains overlooked is perhaps the most
important influence researchers can identify, the influence of other
people. Social influence is a very powerful shaper of human
behaviour. It can affect almost all types of behaviour, and its
effects are often unnoticed or unconscious. It enlists the punishment, reward and informational effects, but makes other people
their sources. We propose that social influence, and in particular
social communication, can be harnessed as a fourth strategy to
promote the spread of sustainable consumption by families and
households.
Social influence
In the words of Elliot Aronson (1972/2008), we are The Social
Animal. Much of our behaviour is predicated on the attitudes and
behaviours of others. Although thinkers and writers have meditated on the importance of other people for a very long time (‘It is
not good that man should be alone’, Genesis 2:18), social psychology as a formal science has been around only for about a century.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 35 (2011) 117–121
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Social influence and sustainability in households
Many early psychologists identified other people as a prime influence on the thoughts and behaviours of individuals. Sherif (1936)
proposed the concept of social norms or expected modes of behaviour established by groups. The concept of informational influence
was later added (e.g. Deutsch and Gerard, 1955) to expand the
scope of social influence theory. Asch (1956) demonstrated how
powerful the desire to conform could be. Milgram (1974) demonstrated the frightening extent to which people might bow to authority. Many of these studies emphasized compliance and conformity
(see Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004), but social influence theory has
many branches, one of which emphasizes the role of social communication in influencing others.
Social communication
Humans exert social influence in a variety of ways. We are concerned with what others think of us; our behaviour often depends
on our social reputations so that the possible disapproval of others
has a powerful influence on what we do. People observe others’
behaviour and imitate them. In addition, people deliberately
instruct each other in what to believe and how to behave through
formal teaching mechanisms and individually within social groups
such as dyads, families, clans and friend groups. Moreover, people
influence each other informally through conversation. The latter
can be termed ‘social communication’ and goes by several terms
such as ‘opinion leadership’, ‘word-of-mouth’ or ‘buzz’ (Goldsmith, 2006). When people internalize socially communicated
information, it becomes the basis and motive for future thoughts,
feelings and actions. Although it takes many forms, social communication can be non-scripted, informal and spontaneous, and
can use but does not require media to take place.
Social communication theory emerged as a prominent area of
social influence study in the work of Paul Lazarsfeld and his
colleagues (Lazarsfeld et al., 1944). Their focus was on the way in
which informal communication among people complemented the
influence of the mass media on voting behaviour. They discovered
that interpersonal communication was widespread and even more
important than mass media in shaping voting intentions. Moreover, they found that certain people were more central and influential than others were in their groups. They termed these
individuals ‘opinion leaders’, thereby instigating a major topic of
research that confirmed, expanded and refined this idea (Weimann,
1994), and continues to be important to this very day. For instance,
studies of social networking activity, which occupies growing
amounts of time online, find that social influence is not evenly
distributed among cybercitizens, but instead, opinion leaders arise
to be particularly influential on the Internet just as they are offline
(Kozinets et al., 2010). These opinion leaders are felt to be so
important that they are termed ‘e-fluentials’ and are actively
tracked by the public relations firm, Burson-Marsteller (see http://
www.burson-marsteller.com).
A second strong influence on social communication research
came from the pioneering work of Everett Rogers, who built upon
a variety of theories of social behaviour to formulate the concept
of diffusion theory (Rogers, 1962/2003). The essential features of
diffusion theory include the S-shaped curve that describes the
(theoretical) spread of a new behaviour, idea or product through
a social system; the normal distribution of time of adoption,
which yields the categories of adopters; and the concept of
119
Social influence and sustainability in households
innovativeness as the factor that distinguishes individuals by their
adoption behaviour. Early in this research tradition, social influence was identified as a major driving force for the spread of
innovations. Although a wide variety of influences play their roles
in the speed and shape with which an innovation diffuses through
a social system, communication flows, opinion leadership and
network links are highlighted as among the most important. Interest in the concepts of innovativeness, change agency and opinion
leadership remain prominent features of the intellectual landscape
even half a century later (e.g. Gladwell, 2000).
Much current research by scholars in a variety of fields, including computer science, information science, sociology and so forth
focuses on social communication on the Internet. New studies
appear daily suggesting that people online exert a strong influence
on the attitudes and behaviours of others (e.g. Centola, 2010).
More and more individuals are participating in online activities
that can be characterized as ‘social networking’. Inevitably, the
messages they receive or observe have a powerful influence.
How does social influence work?
Over time, consumers’ cognitive structures are established
through consumer socialization, observation or exposure, and
social and personal experiences. Consumers internalize the information they receive this way and use these cognitive structures
to make sense of the world around them. According to Foxall
and Goldsmith (1994), these structures or frameworks or schemata represent an integrated network of information, feelings,
attitudes and associated ideas and behaviours that households
and consumers use about a subject, a product category, brand,
store or shopping medium. Further, they posit that a special type
of schemata, called a script, is a stereotyped event sequence
describing what a consumer should do in a particular consumption situation. Certain situations or sequences (for example,
buying organic peaches vs. conventionally grown) will affect the
actions or procedures to follow. Social influence provides individuals with the information and the motivation to form new
attitudes and adopt new behaviours.
Understanding all that goes on behind environmental decisions
is fundamental in grasping repeated pro-environment behaviours
because as common sense tells us and as we know from Ajzen and
Fishbein (1980), past behaviours are the main guide to expected
future behaviours. Their theory of reasoned action states that
behavioural intentions are based on a combination of attitudes
towards specific behaviour and that social or normative beliefs
about the appropriateness of behaviour and of understanding motivation are key to understanding social behaviour. Social influence
is a key element in shaping attitudes and behaviours. Moreover, it
can be harnessed to bring about beliefs and attitude changes
leading to green behaviour, it can reinforce desired behaviours and
it can disseminate information about them.
Social influence and sustainable
behaviour
Several studies demonstrate the effectiveness of using social influence to promote sustainable behaviour. Schultz (1999) demonstrates in a field experiment that curb-side recycling among
community residents could be increased through positive feedback
120
E.B. Goldsmith and R.E. Goldsmith
from the neighbourhood. Cialdini (2005) shows how simply
rewording request cards in hotels to stress a social appeal could
increase towel reuse. Noland et al. (2008) show how important
normative social influence can be on energy conservation and
describe an experiment in which normative social influence produced the greatest change in behaviour compared with information highlighting other reasons to conserve. These and other
studies clearly show that there is ample empirical evidence supporting the argument that social influence can be a powerful force
in favour of promoting sustainable behaviour by individuals and
households. They provide examples of both effective research
methods and practical strategies that are simple and cheap to
implement.
Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to discuss social influence
and its connection to sustainability. Definitions such as the lead
one given in the Brundtland Report and applications of sustainability were given along with a brief overview of household green
consumption behaviour. The emphasis in the article was on the
four strategies for influencing behaviour, the literature on social
influence and social communication, and a description of how
social influence works. This coverage has implications for the
following three stakeholders.
First, for household experts, educators and opinion leaders, the
results largely confirm that we have a role to play as more consumers look to us for reliable information based on the best
practices and science. As educators, we are not selling products
and we are not green washing; we are giving the best information possible to improve individual and family life building on
our knowledge of resource management. We need to incorporate
social influence as another tool in the strategy repertory used to
promote green behaviour. Consumers willingly learn from each
other in person and online. There is no reason household experts
cannot create blogs, twitter and interact on social networks to
promote their cause.
Second, for environmental activists, and government and nongovernmental units from local townships to the United Nations,
those wanting more pro-environment activity to take place in
households, the implications are clear that attention has to be paid
to how messages are networked, how behaviours are socialized
and that how grass roots are critically important. Enlisting the
help of household experts, educators and opinion leaders matters.
There has to be buy-in and not merely pamphlets or lectures. For
example, many companies use word-of-mouth marketing to influence consumer-to-consumer communications. Viral marketing
and the Word of Mouth Marketing Association are good models to
follow in this regard. Policy makers could design strategies along
these lines to promote green behaviour.
Third, for researchers who are the primary force behind
research studies, the implications are clear: to continually improve
research methods and understanding of the value of a comprehensive theory such as social influence theory to provide a framework,
to consolidate what we know and to provide a basis as we go
forward. Researchers and companies continue to learn how the
social net functions. Household experts can join in this research
effort by applying newly developed techniques to their specific
topic to see if they work as well for sustainable consumption as
International Journal of Consumer Studies 35 (2011) 117–121
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
E.B. Goldsmith and R.E. Goldsmith
they do to sell products. The results of this research could be
applied to developing actionable strategies for public policy
applications.
This article has strength but also limitations. Environmentalism
is a fast-moving field; each new disaster or crisis from volcanoes
to oil spills brings a focus on a particular area such as air or water
quality affecting tourism, wildlife, business, fisheries and so forth.
Households have daily activities such as preparing food and
washing dishes that go on for the most part because basic human
needs have to be met regardless of these national and international
calamities. A limitation is often that people take such everyday
activities for granted, yet those of us who are household experts
know that this is ignorance more than it is a limitation. The
behaviour of billions of individuals is what impacts the earth, and
even the slightest shift in behaviour can have enormous positive
effects for preserving what we have for future generations.
Conclusion
Our review shows that social influence theory about human behaviour has true relevance for household environmental studies. With
research using this theory, we build on a strong tradition of
acknowledging the importance of people to people – that social
networks are critical to understand as a means of improving
quality of life. It is vital to environmental sustainability that this
message is extended to practitioners, researchers and products
influencing environmental products and services. The lessons
learned from social influence theory and application should be
used to develop a strategy for future involvement that reflects
company and public policy directives.
References
Abeliotis, K., Koniari, C. & Sardianou, E. (2010) The profile of the
green consumer in Greece. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 34, 153–160.
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting
Social Behavior. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Aronson, E. (1972/2008) The Social Animal, 10th edn. Worth Publishers, New York.
Asch, S. (1956) Studies of independence and conformity: a minority of
one against a unanimous majority. Psychology Monographs, 70, 416.
Berkholz, P., Stamminger, R., Wnuk, G., Owens, J. & Bernarde, S.
(2010) Manual dishwashing habits: an empirical analysis of UK consumers. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 34, 235–242.
Brundtland Report (1987) World Commission on Environment and
Development (WCED). Our Common Future. University Press,
Oxford, UK.
Centola, D. (2010) The spread of behavior in an online social network
experiment. Science, 329, 1194–1197.
Cialdini, R. (2005) Don’t throw in the towel: use social influence
research. The Observer, 18, 33–34. [WWW document].
URL http://’www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.
cfm?=1762
International Journal of Consumer Studies 35 (2011) 117–121
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Social influence and sustainability in households
Cialdini, R. & Goldstein, N. (2004) Social influence: compliance and
conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621.
Deutsch, M. & Gerard, H. (1955) A study of normative and informative
social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal
Social Psychology, 51, 629–636.
Foxall, G. & Goldsmith, R. (1994) Consumer Psychology for Marketing.
Routledge, London.
Geppert, J. & Stamminger, R. (2010) Do consumers act in a sustainable
way using their refrigerator? The influence of consumer real life
behaviour on the energy consumption of cooling appliances. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 34, 219–227.
Gladwell, M. (2000) The Tipping Point. Little, Brown and Co., Boston.
Goldsmith, E. (2010) Resource Management for Individuals and Families, 4th edn. Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Goldsmith, R.E. (2006) Electronic word of mouth. In Encyclopedia of
E-commerce, E-government, and Mobile Commerce (ed. by M.
Khosrow-Pour), pp. 408–412. Idea Group Reference, Information
Resources Management Association, London.
Hawkins, D., Coney, K. & Best, R. (2001) Consumer Behavior: Implications for Marketing Strategy. Richard D. Irwin, Chicago.
Hovland, C., Janis, I.L. & Kelley, H. (1953) Communication and Persuasion. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Kozinets, R.V., de Valck, K., Wojnicki, A.C. & Wilner, S.J.S. (2010)
Networked narratives: understanding word-of-mouth marketing in
online communities. Journal of Marketing, 74, 71–89.
Lazarsfeld, P.F., Berelson, B. & Gaudet, H. (1944) The People’s Choice.
Duell, Sloan, and Pearce, New York.
McCullough, J. (2009) Factors impacting the demand for repair services
of household products: the disappearing repair trades and the throwaway society. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33, 619–
626.
Milgram, S. (1974) Obedience to Authority. Harper & Row, New York.
Noland, J.M., Schultz, P.W., Cialdini, R.B., Goldstein, N.J. & Griskevicius, V. (2008) Normative social influence is underdetected. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 913–923.
Richards, E. (1911) Conservation by Sanitation: Air and Water, Disposal
of Waste. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Rogers, E.M. (1962/2003) Diffusion of Innovation. Free Press, New
York.
Schmidberger, W. & Stamminger, R. (2010) Application of an interactive exercise tool: student activity, performance and satisfaction in a
household technology course. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 34, 306–315.
Schultz, P.W. (1999) Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: a field experiment on curbside recycling. Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, 21, 25–38.
Sherif, M. (1936) The Psychology of Social Norms. Harper & Brothers,
New York.
Thaler, R.H. & Sunstein, C.R. (2009) Nudge: Improving Decisions
about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Penguin, London.
Thomas, P., Wilson, C. & Jones, P. (2010) Strengthening the voice of
mental health service users and carers in Wales: a focus group study
to inform future policy. International Journal of Consumer Studies,
34, 525–531.
Weimann, G. (1994) The Influentials. State University of New York
Press, Albany, NY.
121
Copyright of International Journal of Consumer Studies is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.