{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016600790513833993, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0023715415019762848, 'mean_word_length': 6.112359550561798, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Do Social Norms Affect Support for Earthquake-Strengthening Legislation? Comparing the Effects of Descriptive and Injunctive Norms

Social norms have been successfully applied in health promotion and environmental conservation, but their potential for encouraging natural hazard preparation is relatively untested. This research extends the focus theory of normative conduct to natural hazards and cognitive-behavioral outcomes by examining whether focusing individuals on descriptive and injunctive norms increases their support for earthquake-strengthening legislation in a seismically active city: Wellington, New Zealand. In a large community sample (N = 690), the injunctive norm condition increased support for the legislation compared with the control, whereas the descriptive norm condition did not. In contrast, the descriptive norm condition raised judgments of the feasibility of the strengthening work compared with the control, whereas the injunctive norm condition did not. These findings support previous research demonstrating the differing effects of descriptive and injunctive forms of normative information, and suggest that using both in the same communication is the best strategy for enhancing support for earthquake-strengthening legislation.