Early Applications of Deviance
Regulation Theory to Norms-Based
Health Communication
Hart Blanton
Department of Psychology
University of Connecticut
Deviance Regulation
• Framework for conceptualizing identity-based
behavioral decision making.
– Dual motivational system
• Promoting a positive identity
• Preventing a negative identity
• Framework for conceptualizing identity-based
social influence.
– Two modes of influence
• Encouraging a positive (healthy) identity
• Discouraging a negative (unhealthy) identity
Health Communication Application
Negative Frame
Positive Frame
Advance Warnings
• Deviance Regulation Theory (DRT) is not strictly a
model of health decision making or health
communication.
• DRT is not designed to be a comprehensive behavioral
decision model.
– e.g., information, perceived control, behavioral skills.
• DRT is not focused on the many practical obstacles to
communicating effectively
– e.g., best images for promoting a positive health identity
• DRT has been developed primarily in the laboratory,
focusing on behavioral intention as an outcome.
Deviance Regulation Theory
The core predictions of the model
focus attention on the social and
cognitive consequences of being
different (deviating).
Three Views on Difference
1. People are motivated to “fit in” and conform
– Classic social psychological and sociological theories of
group life
– “Social Norming” efforts to reduce binge drinking
2. People are motivated to “stick out” and be unique
– Humanistic perspectives on identity and identity
development
– Rebellion/anti-conformity explanations of adolescent
health risk.
3. People are motivated to split the difference
– Optimal Distinctiveness Theory
Deviance Regulation View
4. Difference = Information
• DRT does not concern itself with the distinctiveness as
a motive but as a carrier of information.
– Attribution models
• Jones & Davis (1965)
– Spontaneous self-concept
• McGuire & McGuire (1988)
– Scarcity principle
• Jemmott, Ditto & Croyle (1988)
– Social projection
• Mullen Goethals (1990)
• Sherman, Presson & Chassin (1984)
Stickiness Heuristic
Identity “sticks” to distinct actions more than
common actions.
Illustration: Deciding to Smoke
On Being Different
• Deviance Regulation Theory posits greater
processing of uncommon than common
choices.
• As a result, identity-based decisions are
influenced more by the social images
(prototypes) associated with uncommon than
common choices.
Health Message Framing
Negative Frame
Positive Frame
Positive Message Frame
Non-Smoking Identity = Good
Negative Message Frame
Smoking Identity = Bad
Sample Study
Details
• 60 male and 58 female sexually-active college students.
• Manipulations
– Norm Perception
• Most sexually active students using condoms
• Most sexually active students not using condoms
– Message framing.
• Positive identity frame (responsible, concerned)
• Negative identity frame (irresponsible, unconcerned)
• Outcome
– Intention/willingness related to condom use at next
encounter (-7 to +7).
Condom Use Intentions
7
6
5
4
Negative Frame
3
Positive Frame
2
1
0
Condom Use
No Condom Use
Normative Behavior
Blanton, Stuart & VandenEijnden (2001; PSPB)
Quasi-Experimental Replication
Condom Use Intention
Negative Frame
Positive Frame
6
5
4
3
2
1
A Few
Some
Most
All
"How many sexually active students on campus regularly
use condoms?"
Extensions & Replications
• Outcomes
– Flu shot intentions
– Scheduling screening exams
– Consumer intentions
• Mediation tests
– Message produce more extreme evaluations when
they target distinct as opposed to common
actions
• Social prototypes
• Attitudes towards actors
Potential Implications
• When influence attempts focus on identity
concerns, messages should target uncommon
rather than common choices.
– Positive identity framing in healthy environments.
– Negative identity framing in unhealthy environments.
• The most effective message frame may change
over time, as behavioral norms change.
– Developmental shifts across the lifespan.
– Establishment of new norms.
Influence over Time
Start
What is
Normative?
Unhealthy
Behavior
Positive
Frame
Healthy
Behavior
Negative
Frame
Influence over Time
Start
What is
Normative?
Unhealthy
Behavior
Positive
Frame
Healthy
Behavior
Negative
Frame
Complications & Boundary Conditions
• Behavioral prediction often requires multidimensional
models, and DRT is limited to identity-based pathways
to behavior.
– Social prototypes
• Predictions regarding negative framing assume
“cooperative audience” that accepts message.
– Reactance motivations
– Reference demands
• Research has not sufficiently addressed complex norm
configurations, and such work is needed.
– Selection processes
– Multiple reference groups
Complication of Interest
• What do you do when people are not certain
of the norms around a behavior?
• Answer: Be careful not to communicate your
own certainty!
Conversational Implicatures
• Because identity tends to “stick” to distinct
actions, communicators reveal their
underlying assumptions by the actions they
target.
– Adapted from H.P. Grice (1957, 1959)
Communicators Dilemma
• The mere act of trying to intervene to
promote healthy decisions might convey to an
audience that the communicator assumes a
high frequency of unhealthy decisions.
– Donaldson et al. (1997, 2002) effect of resistanceskill training on prevalence assumptions for
alcohol, cigarettes and marijuana.
Framing Delimma
“I like that outfit. It doesn’t make you look fat.”
“No murders in Durham in August.”
“Pro Athlete Lauded for Being Decent Human Being”
• Communicators can convey their behavioral
assumptions by how they choose to frame their
comments
– Positive comments suggest that the praised actions
are praiseworthy (or uncommon).
– Negative comments suggest that the criticized actions
are criticism worthy (or uncommon).
What is Implied?
Estimated Virginity Prevalence
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Control
Negative Frame
Positive Frame
Framing Under Uncertainty
• When an audience is not certain of the norms
surrounding a behavior,
– positive framing can imply that the desired
(healthy) behavior is uncommon
– negative framing can imply that the undesired
(unhealthy) behavior is uncommon
Unintended Influence
• The tendency for positive framing to promote
unhealthy normative assumptions might
undermine health promotion efforts.
• Hall and Blanton (2009). Social Influence.
– Sexual refusal intentions
– Handwashing
Moderators
• Audience perception of knowledge regarding
behavioral norms.
– Stuart & Blanton (2003)
• Communicator’s appearance of knowledge
about behavioral norms
– Blanton & Hall (2007)
Model Summary
• Early attempts to apply Deviance Regulation
Theory to health communication have pointed to
two related effects
– Effect of normative assumptions on message frame
efficacy
– Effect of chosen message frame on normative
assumptions
• Both processes suggest situations in which
negative framing might be more influential than
positive framing.
– Assumes resistance motivations low.
Current Directions
• Today’s talk focused on momentary norms and
the tendency for identity to “stick” to uncommon
rather than common actions.
• Much of my present work focuses on stable,
internalized norms that define “stickiness” across
situations.
– Ideals: Ways to stand out from others in a good way
(e.g., extreme fitness).
– Oughts: Ways to stand out from others in a bad way
(e.g., disease).
Thanks