Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice Copyright 1998 by the Educational Publishing Foundation

1998, Vol. 2, No. 1,48-56 1089-2699/98/S3.00

Group Norms and Attitude-Behavior Consistency: The Role of Group

Salience and Mood
Jackie M. Wellen, Michael A. Hogg, and Deborah J. Terry
University of Queensland

This study tested the social identity-self-categorization theory reconceptualization of

the role of norms in attitude-behavior relations. Specifically, the study investigated how
the effects of in-group norms on the relationship between people's attitudes and their
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

behavior vary as a function of the salience of group membership and mood. Partici-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

pants' (N= 131) attitudes toward students being responsible for picking up litter on
campus grounds were examined. As expected, the effects of the attitudinal congruency
of norms varied as a function of group salience under neutral mood (i.e., deliberative
processing) conditions. In-group norms were more influential for high-salience indivi-
duals than for low salience individuals in a neutral mood. These findings indicate
that in-group norms influence behavioral decision making for individuals high in
group salience only when there is an opportunity to carefully process the normative
information.

When people get together in groups, social
interaction produces norms that regulate behav-
ior (Sherif, 1936; Turner, 1991), a process that is
applicable to small face-to-face groups (e.g.,
sports teams) in which people interact directly
with one another as well as large-scale social
categories (e.g., ethnic groups) in which "inter-
action" is often indirect and channeled through
mass media. Group norms are emergent proper-
ties of groups. They influence people even when
other group members are not present, and thus
they are cognitively stored as attitudes about
beliefs, feelings, and behaviors.
Exactly how such attitudes influence behavior
is one of the chief questions facing contempo-
rary social psychology (e.g., Eagly & Chaiken,
1993; Terry & Hogg, in press). Probably the best
known attempt at answering this question has
been made by the theory of reasoned action
(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and its recent
extension, the theory of planned behavior
(Ajzen, 1991). These theories separate attitudes
(individual factors) from norms (social factors)
Jackie M. Wellen, Michael A. Hogg, and Deborah J. Terry,
School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane,
Queensland, Australia.
Thanks are due to Anne Wellen, who helped with the
collection of the data.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Jackie M. Wellen, School of Psychology,
University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072,
Australia. Electronic mail may be sent to jackie@psy.uq.edu.au.
48
and view them as having largely additive effects.
As an applied example, the theory of reasoned
action-planned behavior would propose that
people who intend to quit smoking are likely to
evaluate quitting as a favorable behavior (atti-
tude) and perceive that significant others would
endorse their decision to give up smoking
(subjective norm).
Although these theories have been influential
in the study of attitude-behavior relations,
research reveals that the link between norms and
behavioral intentions is much weaker than the
link between attitudes and intentions; norms
only weakly influence people's intentions to
behave in certain ways (see Ajzen, 1991). One
reason for this apparent lack of influence of
norms on behavior may be that Fishbein and
Ajzen (1975) conceptualized norms in an
additive fashion (a norm exists if a number of
significant others endorse a particular course of
action) and viewed norms and attitudes as
independently influencing behavior.
Norms can, however, be conceived in a
different way that is tied more closely to
contextually salient membership in specific
social groups. According to social identity
theory and self-categorization theory (e.g.,
Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Turner, 1982; Turner,
Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987),
groups influence people's attitudes and behav-
iors because the process of psychologically
belonging to a group involves categorization of
 NORM CONGRUENCY AND ATTITUDE-BEHAVIOR RELATIONS
oneself as a group member (i.e., group identifi-
cation), which in turn transforms one's self-
concept and concomitant attitudes, feelings, and
behavior such that they are consistent with, or
assimilated, by the group prototype (i.e., the
cognitive representation of the group norm).
Norms are treated as inextricable properties of
social groups derived from shared attitudes and
behaviors that have become prescriptive and
descriptive of group membership.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Building on social identity theory and self-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
categorization theory (e.g., Hogg & Abrams,
1988; Turner, 1982; Turner et al., 1987), we
have proposed that the attitude-behavior relation-
ship becomes significantly stronger under condi-
tions in which people categorize themselves and
identify with an in-group that defines member-
ship in terms of specific behaviorally and
attitudinally prescriptive norms (Hogg, 1996;
Terry & Hogg, 1996; White, Terry, & Hogg,
1994). From our perspective, attitudes and
norms are not independent. Attitudes (and
behaviors) become normative to the extent that
they characterize group membership, and they
influence people to the extent that the group they
characterize is the contextually salient in-group
in terms of which people categorize themselves
(i.e., identify). Our treatment of attitudes
diverges from the definition used by Fishbein
and Ajzen (1975) largely in terms of the scope of
the concept; we envisage that attitudes can be
personal, idiosyncratic judgments of the favor-
ableness of a behavior, but they can also be
socially shared and tied to specific group
memberships, in which case they are perceived
to be normative (i.e., part of the content of group
norms). In applying our example of quitting
smoking to social identity-self-categorization
theory, we would propose that individuals may
be more likely to give up smoking if they
perceive that a salient in-group with whom they
strongly identify would provide normative
support for not smoking. If the general group
attitude toward smoking is negative and individu-
als believe that most group members do not
smoke, their own attitudes and behavior should
gradually align with the group norm to the
extent that the group provides an important basis
for self-definition.
In addition to differing from more traditional
attitude-behavior theory (Ajzen, 1991; Fishbein
& Ajzen, 1975), our conceptualization of the
role of norms in attitude-behavior relations also
49
contrasts with other current approaches to
normative influence. For example, Miller and
Prentice (1996; Miller, Monin, & Prentice, in
press) have emphasized the importance of the
immediate context and associated cognitive
representations in the construction of group
norms. According to this approach, norms are
highly context specific and depend largely on
contextually salient representations. In contrast,
our treatment of norms emphasizes contextually
salient membership in specific social groups and
regards the content of norms as emanating from
group prototypical attitudes and behaviors
rather than from information available in the
immediate context.
Social identity and self-categorization analy-
ses of group processes and intergroup relations
and of the social self have good support (eg.,
Abrams & Hogg, 1990; Hogg, 1992; Hogg &
Abrams, 1988; Oakes, Haslam, & Turner, 1994;
Turner, 1991; Turner et al., 1987). The extension
to explain attitude-behavior relations as a
function of normative depersonalization is
relatively new but already has some initial
support (see Terry, Hogg, & White, in press).
For example, in two tests of the theory of
planned behavior, Terry and Hogg (1996) found
that the perceived norms of a behaviorally
relevant reference group (friends and peers at a
university) predicted intentions to engage in
regular exercise (Study 1) and women's inten-
tions to engage in sun-protective behaviors
(Study 2), but only for people who identified
strongly with the group. For people who did not
identify strongly with the group, personal
factors (perceived behavioral control in Study 1
and attitude in Study 2) were more influential
than norms in predicting behavior. Using a
slightly different but related theoretical perspec-
tive, Trafimow and Finlay (1996) obtained
similar findings in a within-subjects analysis of
the relative importance of attitudes and subjec-
tive norms in the prediction of behavioral
intentions; norms were more influential than
attitudes for people who had a stronger "collec-
tive self" (i.e., cognitions about group member-
ship were more salient than cognitions about
people's own traits and states). The study
reported in this article sought to replicate Terry
and Hogg's (1996) prior research by providing a
further test of the proposed reconceptualization
of the role of norms in attitude-behavior
relations along the lines suggested by social
 50 WELLEN, HOGG, AND TERRY
identity-self-categorization theory. In addition,
the present study developed this research further
by incorporating a consideration of the role of
mode of processing of attitudinal and normative
information in attitude-behavior relations as a
function of social identity salience.
Fazio (1986, 1990) has developed a theory of
how mode of processing affects the relationships
among attitudes, norms, and behavior. The
MODE (motivation and opportunity as determi-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
nants of mode of behavioral decision making)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
model distinguishes between two modes of
processing: (a) spontaneous processing, in
which low levels of motivation or ability cause
people to rely on context cues and other
heuristics, and (b) deliberative processing,
which involves careful and effortful consider-
ation of all available information under condi-
tions of high motivation and ability. On the basis
of Fazio's (1990) MODE model, it is possible to
derive predictions concerning the relative impor-
tance of attitudes and norms in behavioral
decision making. Spontaneous processing is
proposed to lead to the automatic activation of a
relevant attitude from memory; thus, attitudes,
to the extent that they are accessible, should be
more influential in determining behavior. When
deliberative processing occurs, norms are likely
to be more influential because all sources of
available information are considered. Empirical
tests of the MODE model (Fazio, 1990) support
the assumption that degree of processing
influences the extent to which attitudes, or other
specific attribute information, guide behavior
(see Sanbonmatsu & Fazio, 1990; Schuette &
Fazio, 1995).
One factor that has been shown to affect mode
of processing is mood (Forgas, 1989; Stroessner,
Hamilton, & Mackie, 1992); positive mood is
associated with spontaneous processing, and
neutral and negative moods are associated with
deliberative processing (Bless, Bohner, Schwarz,
& Strack, 1990). A model of how mood may
affect behavioral decision making has been
proposed by Forgas (1995; Forgas & Fiedler,
1996). Forgas's (1995; Forgas & Fiedler, 1996)
work integrates mood-related differences in
processing with ideas related to social identity
and self-categorization theory. This view pro-
poses that the effects of norms should vary as a
function of both the personal relevance of group
membership, in line with the social identity-self-
categorization perspective, and the mode of
processing, as suggested by the MODE model
(Fazio, 1990). Specifically, when group member-
ship has low personal relevance, norms should
have the most impact when normative informa-
tion is spontaneously processed; when group
membership has high personal relevance, norms
should have the most impact when normative
information is deliberatively processed. If the
group membership is highly self-relevant, people
will be motivated to scrutinize the information
effortfully. In support of this idea, Forgas and
Fiedler (1996) demonstrated that, under low
personal relevance, positive mood participants
(i.e., spontaneous processing) showed more
intergroup discrimination, and when relevance
was high, negative mood individuals (i.e.,
deliberative processing) showed more discrimi-
nation. Again, in applying our example of
quitting smoking, this perspective would pro-
pose that when normative pressure to give up
smoking emanates from a group with which the
person strongly identifies, it is likely to be more
influential when the person is in a neutral mood
(and presumably engages in systematic process-
ing). However, when social pressure to quit
smoking emanates from a less important source,
it is likely to have more impact when the
individual is in a positive mood.
The present study drew on ideas about mode
of processing and behavioral decision making,
as well as Forgas's (1995; Forgas & Fiedler,
1996) work on mood, to test our own social
identity-self-categorization model of the role of
norms in attitude-behavior relations. Building
on Terry and Hogg's (1996) original study, in
which levels of identification with the in-group
were measured, we also manipulated the sa-
lience of group membership in relation to an
assumed behaviorally relevant reference group.
Furthermore, we included an additional experi-
mental manipulation of mode of processing by
inducing either positive or neutral moods in
participants (presumed to engender spontaneous
and deliberative modes of processing). Our
participants and the focal group members were
local university students, and the focal attitude-
behavior was picking up litter on campus.
Participants had the salience of their group
membership raised or lowered, were placed in a
positive or a neutral mood, and were provided
with in-group normative information that was
congruent or incongruent with their own atti-
tude. Attitude-behavior consistency on a num-
 NORM CONGRUENCY AND ATTITUDE-BEHAVIOR RELATIONS 51

ber of behavioral measures served as the
dependent variable. On the basis of Forgas's
(1995; Forgas & Fiedler, 1996) work, we
predicted that the effect of norms on attitude-
behavior consistency would be strongest for
high salience participants when they were in a
neutral mood.
Method
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
attitude that emerged from the normative
information. Three versions of each set of
normative information were generated to con-
trol for order effects.
Mode of processing was manipulated by
inducing either positive or neutral moods.
Participants viewed 5-min video segments from
either a popular comedy series (positive mood
condition) or a documentary (neutral mood
condition). As a check for the effectiveness of

Introductory psychology students from a the mood manipulation, participants rated their
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

large Australian university (N = 131; 29 men, current mood on three 9-point semantic differen-
and 102 women) participated in a laboratory tials (happy-unhappy, bad-good, and pleasant-
experiment involving a 2 (low salience vs. unpleasant); see Wegener, Petty, & Smith,
high salience) X 2 (positive mood vs. neutral 1995). The items were combined into a measure
mood) X 2 (norm congruent vs. norm incongru- of mood (a = .88).
ent) between-subjects design. The research was Participants were then asked to move to a
introduced as a study of general student and different room in an adjoining building to
campus issues, and participants completed a complete the study. While they waited, individu-
four-item pretest measure of their attitude ally, in a specific area of a courtyard where some
toward the focal issue of students being litter had been placed near a bin, an assistant
responsible for picking up litter on campus unobtrusively observed their behavior for ap-
(9-point semantic differentials: good-bad, un- proximately 15 s and recorded their reactions to
pleasant—pleasant, undesirable-desirable, favor- the litter using a 3-point Guttman-type scale
able-unfavorable). The items were combined (1 = did not notice litter, 2 = looked at litter,
into a measure of initial attitude (a = .84). 3 = picked up litter). Three independent assis-
There was also a binary item asking participants tants, unaware of participants' assigned experi-
whether they opposed (rated as 1) or supported mental conditions, were involved in obtaining
(rated as 2) students being responsible for the measure of Utter behavior, and each received
picking up litter on campus; this item allowed us training in the use of the scoring method before
to unambiguously classify participants and the study. Attitude-behavior consistency was
subsequently distribute appropriate materials to measured by recoding participants' scores in
manipulate norm congruency. terms of their initial preference on the oppose-
Group salience was manipulated via a self- support item (1 = no attitude—behavior consis-
description task. We instructed participants in tency, 3 = strong attitude-behavior consistency).
the high salience condition to consider their In this second room, we administered another
identity as psychology students (an assumed questionnaire, ostensibly from the Students'
behaviorally relevant reference group) and to Union, which was interested in students' atti-
describe how they were similar to other tudes toward a number of campus issues. This
psychology students. Participants in the low questionnaire served as a quasi-behavioral
salience condition considered their identity as measure of participants' willingness to volunteer
unique individuals and described what made time (i.e., none, extra 1 hour, extra 5 hours,
them stand out as individuals. extra 10 hours, extra 20 hours, or unlimited) to a
Participants in the norm-congruent condition project aimed at reducing litter on campus (see
were presented with eight statements, ostensibly Fazio & Zanna, 1978). Responses were recoded
from other introductory psychology students. to form a binary measure of volunteering
Seven of the statements supported their attitude behavior (1 = did not volunteer, 2 = did volun-
toward the focal issue, and one statement was teer). Attitude—behavior consistency was mea-
attitudinally incongruent. Participants in the sured by expressing the score in terms of
norm-incongruent condition were presented whether participants' behavior was inconsistent
with seven attitudinally incongruent statements with (rated as 1) or consistent with (rated as 2)
and one statement that supported their attitude. their initial preference on the binary oppose-
We asked participants to summarize the general support scale.
 52 WELLEN, HOGG, AND TERRY
The final questionnaire assessed participants'
willingness to engage in three litter-related
behaviors (e.g., becoming a member of an action
group that meets to pick up litter on campus,
attending a rally about the importance of
students taking responsibility for litter on
campus, and having their name given to the
coordinator of an action group aimed at keeping
the campus tidy) on a scale ranging from not
willing at all (1) to very willing (9; a = .87).
Scores were recoded to obtain a measure of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
attitude-behavior consistency (1 = weak atti-
tude-behavior consistency, 9 = strong attitude-
behavior consistency) depending on partici-
pants' initial preference on the oppose-support
scale. The three willingness items were com-
bined to form a composite measure (a = .91).
Thefinalquestionnaire also contained manipu-
lation checks. As a context-specific check on the
salience manipulation, participants indicated
how often during the study their thoughts were
drawn to their status as psychology students
(1 = not at all, 9 = all the time). Six additional
items were used to obtain a measure of
perceived group identification (based on those
used by Hogg, Cooper-Shaw, & Holzworth,
1993). These items were designed to assess the
extent to which being a psychology student was
a relatively more enduring component of
participants' self-concepts (e.g., "How much do
you feel strong ties with other psychology
students?" [1 = not very much, 9 = very much]
and "How much do you feel yourself as
belonging to the group of people who study
psychology?" [1 = very much so, 9 = not at
all]). Factor analysis of these six items indicated
that five of them combined well (the exception
was an item that asked participants how much
they liked other psychology students) to produce
an identification scale (a = .80). Finally, as a
means of assessing the efficacy of the norm-
congruency manipulation, participants rated the
extent of similarity between their attitude
toward the focal issue and the attitude among
lst-year students (1 = not similar at all, 9 = ex-
tremely similar).
Results
Data Analysis Overview
Two (low salience vs. high salience) X 2
(positive mood vs. neutral mood) X 2 (norm
congruent vs. norm incongruent) between-
groups analyses of variance (ANOVAs) on the
manipulation check items established the effi-
cacy of the experimental manipulations. The
main analyses involved the same 2 X 2 X 2
between-groups ANOVAs on the three measures
of attitude-behavior consistency (i.e., litter
behavior, volunteering behavior, and willing-
ness to engage in litter-related behaviors).
An additional series of analyses in which
perceived identification as a psychology student
(dichotomized on the basis of a median split)
was substituted for group salience enabled a
more direct assessment of the role of identifica-
tion with a relevant group in the adoption of
group norms. Theoretically, identification, rather
than group salience, is the crucial variable that
should determine the impact of norms on
attitudes and behavior. These analyses com-
prised 2 (low identifiers vs. high identifiers) X 2
(positive mood vs. neutral mood) X 2 (norm
congruent vs. norm incongruent) between-
groups ANOVAs on each dependent measure.
For the purpose of analysis, the continuous
identification variable was dichotomized (on the
basis of a median split) to form groups of high
and low identifiers. Although use of the
dichotomized variable could have limited the
power of the analysis to detect possible effects
due to identification, this was believed to be
necessary to enhance the comparability of any
findings for group salience and identification.
Preliminary checks revealed that there were
no differences among cells in initial attitude
toward the focal issue or in terms of gender.
Because of the small number of male partici-
pants, analyses could not be conducted to
determine whether sex, in interaction with the
independent variables, was related to attitudinal
or behavioral responses.
Manipulation Checks
Norm congruency. A significant main effect
for norm congruency emerged on the measure of
participants' perceived consistency between
their initial attitude and the group norm, F(l,
122) = 39.75, p< .001, if = .25. Participants
in the norm-congruent condition perceived
greater consistency between their attitude and
the group norm (M = 6.95) than participants in
the norm-incongruent condition (Af = 4.71).
 NORM CONGRUENCY AND ATTITUDE-BEHAVIOR RELATIONS
Mood. A significant main effect for mood
emerged from the analysis of the composite
score for mood, F(l, 122) = 24.42, p < .001,
•n2 = .17. Individuals in the positive mood
condition rated their current mood as signifi-
cantly more positive (Af = 7.48) than individu-
als in the neutral mood condition (M = 6.25).
Group salience. There was also a signifi-
cant main effect for group salience on the
salience manipulation check item, F(l, 122) =
4.81, p < .05, TI2 = .04; in comparison with
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
participants in the low salience condition
(Af = 3.59), participants in the high salience
condition indicated that their status as psychol-
ogy students was emphasized more frequently
throughout the study (Af = 4.50).
Effects of Group Salience, Norm
Congruency, and Mood-Mode
of Processing
Analysis of the measure of litter behavior
revealed a significant main effect for salience
only, F(l, 122) = 5.74, p < .05, TI2 = .04.
Participants in the high salience condition
(Af = 2.05) displayed greater attitude-behavior
consistency than participants in the low salience
condition (Af = 1.88). There were no main or
interactive effects for the ANOVA conducted on
willingness to engage in litter-related behaviors.
The ANOVA conducted on volunteering
behavior revealed a significant main effect for
norm congruency, F(l, 121) = 4.84, p < .05,
•n2 •= .04. Participants in the norm-congruent
condition (M = 1.66) displayed greater attitude-
behavior consistency than participants in the
norm-incongruent condition (Af = 1.47). There
was also a significant Salience X Mood X Norm
Congruency interaction, F(l, 121) = 5.56, p <
.05, T\2 = .04. Further analysis revealed a
significant Salience X Norm Congruency inter-
action for participants in a neutral mood, F(l,
121) = 5.52, p < .05, if = .04, but not for
participants in a positive mood. For participants
in a neutral mood, who had presumably engaged
in deliberative processing, exposure to attitudi-
nally inconsistent normative information de-
creased attitude-behavior consistency more for
participants in the high salience condition
(Af = 1.27) than for participants in the low
salience condition (Af=1.71), F(l, 121) =
6.77,p<.Ol,T| 2 = .O5.
Although a significant effect was not found,
53
Low Salience
High Salience
Norm- Norm-
congruent incongruent
Nonn-congruency
Figure 1. Effects of group salience and norm congruency
on attitude-behavior consistency in participants in the
neutral mood condition on the measure of volunteering to
participate in a litter project.
there was a tendency for low salience partici-
pants in a neutral mood to show increased
attitude-behavior consistency when they were
provided with norm-incongruent information.
These participants may have behaved more in
accordance with their attitudes in an attempt to
psychologically distance themselves from a
relatively unimportant group whose members
were perceived to hold contrasting attitudes.
A similar pattern of findings emerged from
the analysis of the measure of willingness to
engage in litter-related behaviors (Figure 1).
There was a significant Identification X Mood X
Norm Congruency interaction, F(l, 122) =
4.37, p < .05, T|2 = .03. Further analysis
revealed that the interaction between identifica-
tion and norm congruency was significant under
neutral mood conditions, F(l, 122) = 4.61, p <
.05, T|2 = .04, but not under positive mood
conditions. The pattern of means for high and
low identifiers was similar to the pattern for high
and low salience individuals in the previous
three-way interaction; however, significant dif-
ferences emerged when individuals were ex-
posed to norm-congruent rather than to norm-
incongruent information. As expected, high
identifiers (Af = 6.10) displayed greater attitude-
behavior consistency than low identifiers
(Af = 4.07) when they processed attitudinally
 54 WELLEN, HOGG, AND TERRY
congruent normative information in a neutral
mood. Hence, participants in the neutral mood
condition, who had presumably engaged in
deliberative processing of attitudinally consis-
tent normative information, were more likely to
behave in accordance with their attitudes when
they strongly identified with the group than
when their levels of perceived identification
were lower.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Discussion
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
The purpose of the study reported in this
article was to examine the effects of salience of
group membership as a moderator of the effects
of in-group norms on attitude-behavior rela-
tions under positive and neutral mood condi-
tions (proposed to engender spontaneous and
deliberative modes of processing). Specifically,
the study was designed to test the prediction,
derived from research by Forgas and his
colleagues (Forgas, 1995; Forgas & Fiedler,
1996), that the effect of norms should be most
marked for high salience participants under
neutral mood (i.e., deliberative processing)
conditions.
Findings from the present study provided
support for this prediction; norms were found to
have the most impact on attitude-behavior
consistency for high salience individuals in a
neutral mood. On the measure of volunteering
behavior, high salience individuals showed
greater reduction in their attitude-behavior
consistency than low salience individuals when
they were provided with attitudinally incongru-
ent norms under neutral mood conditions.
Further support for this finding emerged in a
supplementary analysis of the willingness mea-
sure in which identification was substituted for
group salience. High identifiers showed greater
attitude-behavior consistency than low identifi-
ers when they were presented with attitudinally
congruent norms under neutral mood condi-
tions. Although the three-way interactions dif-
fered in terms of the effect of the attitudinal
congruence of norms (possibly as a result of die
measure of volunteering behavior being more
closely related to the behavioral criterion), both
interactions demonstrated that norms were more
influential for high salience individuals under
neutral mood conditions. This finding is consis-
tent with results reported by Forgas and Fiedler
(1996), who found that when group membership
was personally relevant, participants engaged in
more intergroup discrimination when they were
in a neutral mood rather than a positive mood.
Building on previous research by Terry and
Hogg (1996), the present study demonstrated
that norms had more impact on attitude-
behavior relations for high salience individuals
under neutral mood (i.e., deliberative process-
ing) conditions. Theoretically, these findings
provide support for a link between a number of
important theories in social psychology that
have each separately been extensively re-
searched but have rarely been investigated
interdependently. Social identity-self-categori-
zation theory provided the fundamental frame-
work for the perspective adopted in the present
article. In line with social identity-self-
categorization theory, norms received renewed
recognition as an important factor in attitude-
behavior relations, and the critical importance of
die salience of group membership was acknowl-
edged. Fazio's (1990) MODE model provided
recognition of the implications of mode of
processing for the impact of norms on attitude-
behavior relations. Recent work by Forgas
(1995; Forgas & Fiedler, 1996) on how the
effect of norms varies as a function of mood
(i.e., mode of processing) and the personal
relevance of group membership provided a
theoretical framework to allow the integration of
social-identity-related concepts and research on
mode of processing.
Overall, the present study demonstrates that
when an individual's social identity is based on
a salient category membership, information
from the social category—represented as group
norms—is an important source of information
about the self. Hence, it is likely that, when high
salience individuals are exposed to group
norms, they become motivated to systematically
contemplate the information and are provided
with the opportunity to do so only when
conditions favor deliberative processing. Under
positive mood conditions, high salience individu-
als are impeded in both their ability and
motivation to process normative information in
the preferred manner, which means that norma-
tive information is ignored.
There were a number of limitations to the
design of our study. First, it was difficult to
determine die extent of normative influence for
individuals in the norm-congruent condition;
these participants received normative informa-
 NORM CONGRUENCY AND ATTITUDE-BEHAVIOR RELATIONS
tion that was similar to their attitude. Future
studies would benefit from the inclusion of a
no-norm condition. Second, the assumed link
between mood and mode of processing adopted
in the present study was based on theory and
past research. Future research is required to
further establish the nature of mood implications
for mode of processing, especially in relation to
behavioral decision making.
Nevertheless, the results are important in that
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
they provide further evidence that norms
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
emerging from a salient in-group do influence
the degree of attitude-behavior consistency for
in-group members (see Terry & Hogg, 1996).
Also, this research was extended by showing
that such an effect is most marked under neutral
mood conditions, which are assumed to engen-
der deliberative processing of the normative
information. Further investigation of the mode
of processing implications for the social identity
theory conceptualization of the role of norms
provides a new direction for future research on
attitude-behavior relations (see Hogg & Terry,
in press). These findings have important practi-
cal implications for all types of social interac-
tions involving groups. In a clinical context,
these findings are especially informative about
the functioning of therapy groups. Normative
support from fellow group members in group
therapy situations may be effective only for
those who strongly identify with the group (i.e.,
being a member of the therapy group is an
important basis for self-definition). The effect of
such group norms is likely to diminish for
individuals who do not categorize themselves as
group members.
References
Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1990). Social identifica-
tion, self-categorization, and social influence.
European Review of Social Psychology, 1, 195-
228.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50, 179-211.
Bless, H., Bohner, G., Schwarz, N., & Strack, F.
(1990). Mood and persuasion: A cognitive response
analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulle-
tin, 16, 331-345.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of
attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanov-
ich.
Fazio, R. H. (1986). How do attitudes guide
55
behavior? In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins
(Eds.), The handbood of motivation and cognition:
Foundations of social behavior (pp. 204-243).
New York: Guilford Press.
Fazio, R. H. (1990). Multiple processes by which
attitudes guide behavior: The MODE model as an
integrative framework. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),
Advances in experimental psychology (Vol. 23, pp.
75-109). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Fazio, R. H , & Zanna, M. P. (1978). Attitudinal
qualities relating to the strength of the attitude-
behavior relationship. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 14, 389-408.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude,
intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory
and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Forgas, J. P. (1989). Mood effects on decision making
strategies. Australian Journal of Psychology, 41,
197-214.
Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgement: The affect
infusion model (ATM). Psychological Bulletin,
117, 39-66.
Forgas, J. P., & Fiedler, K. (1996). Us and them:
Mood effects on intergroup discrimination. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 28-40.
Hogg, M. A. (1992). The social psychology of group
cohesiveness: From attraction to social identity.
Hemel Hempstead, England: Harvester Wheat-
sheaf.
Hogg, M. A. (1996). Intragroup processes, group
structure and social identity. In W. P. Robinson
(Ed.), Social groups and identities: Developing the
legacy of Henri Tajfel (pp. 65-93). Oxford,
England: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifica-
tions: A social psychology of intergroup relations
and group processes. London: Routledge.
Hogg, M. A., Cooper-Shaw, L., & Holzworth, D. W.
(1993). Group prototypicality and depersonalized
attraction in small interactive groups. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 452-^65.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (in press). Social
contextual influences on attitude-behavior corre-
spondence, attitude change and persuasion. In D. J.
Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes, behavior and
social context: The role of norms and group
membership. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Miller, D. T, Monin, B., & Prentice, D. A. (in press).
Pluralistic ignorance and inconsistency between
private altitudes and public behaviors. In D. J.
Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes, behavior and
social context: The role of norms and group
membership. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Miller, D. T, & Prentice, D. A. (1996). The
construction of social norms and standards. In E. T.
Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social
psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp.
799-829). London: Guilford Press.
 56 WELLEN, HOGG, AND TERRY
Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & Turner, J. C. (1994).
Stereotyping and social reality. Oxford, England:
Blackwell.
Sanbonmatsu, D. M , & Fazio, R. H. (1990). The role
of attitudes in memory-based decision making.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,
614-622.
Schuette, R. A., & Fazio, R. H. (1995). Attitude
accessibility and motivation as determinants of
biased processing: A test of the MODE model.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21,
704-710.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms.
New York: Harper.
Stroessner, S. J., Hamilton, D. L., & Mackie, D. M.
(1992). Affect and stereotyping: The effect of
induced mood on distinctiveness-based illusory
correlations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 62, 564-576.
Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1996). Group norms and
the attitude-behavior relationship: A role for group
identification. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 22, 776-793.
Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (Eds.), (in press).
Attitudes, behavior and social context: The role of
norms and group membership. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., & White, K. M. (in press).
Attitude-behavior relations: Social identity and
group membership. In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg
(Eds.), Attitudes, behavior and social context: The
role of norms and group membership. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Trafimow, D., & Finlay, K. A. (1996). The importance
of subjective norms for a minority of people.
Between-subjects and within-subjects analyses.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22,
820-828.
Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition
of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social
identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15-40).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Milton Keynes,
England: Open University Press.
Turner, J. C , Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher,
S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the
social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford,
England: Blackwell.
Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., & Smith, S. M. (1995).
Positive mood can increase or decrease message
scrutiny: The hedonic contingency view of mood
and message processing. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 69, 5-15.
White, K. M., Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1994).
Safer sex behavior: The role of attitudes, norms,
and control factors. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 24, 2164-2192.