research paper about social norms

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• News & Views
• Published: 17 December 2018

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

Social norms and how they impact behaviour

• Katherine J. Reynolds 1  

Nature Human Behaviour volume  3 ,  pages 14–15 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

2041 Accesses

13 Citations

14 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Human behaviour

There is wide interest in the social norms construct across psychology, economics, law and social marketing. Now a study investigates an important missing piece in the social norms’ puzzle: what is the underlying process that explains how norms impact behaviour? The answer: self–other similarity (self-categorization) and internalization.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Co-evolution of conditional cooperation and social norm

• Balaraju Battu

Scientific Reports Open Access 03 October 2023

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

$29.99 / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

$119.00 per year

only $9.92 per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Hallsworth, M. et al. Lancet 387 , 1743–1752 (2016).

Article   Google Scholar  

Nolan, J. M., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J. & Griskevicius, V. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34 , 913–923 (2008).

Reynolds, K. J., Subasic, E. & Tindall, K. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 9 , 45–56 (2015).

Cialdini, R. B. Pre-suasion: A Revolutionary Way to Influence and Persuade 1st edn (Simon & Schuster, New York, 2016).

Turner, J. C. & Reynolds, K. J. in Handbook of Theories in Social Psychology (eds Van Lange, P., Kruglanski, A. & Higgins, T.) 399–417 (Sage, Thousand Oaks, 2012).

Reynolds, K. J. & Branscombe, N. R. in The Psychology of Change: Life Contexts, Experiences, and Identities (eds Reynolds, K. J. & Branscombe, N. R.) 265–281 (Psychology Press, London, 2015).

Pryor, C., Perfors, A. & Howe, P. D. L. Nat. Hum. Behav . https://doi.org/s41562-018-0489-y (2018).

Turner, J. C. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 35 , 1–22 (2005).

Nyborg, K. et al. Science 354 , 42–43 (2016).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Research School of Psychology, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

Katherine J. Reynolds

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katherine J. Reynolds .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Reynolds, K.J. Social norms and how they impact behaviour. Nat Hum Behav 3 , 14–15 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0498-x

Download citation

Published : 17 December 2018

Issue Date : January 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0498-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Scientific Reports (2023)

Trust in science, social consensus and vaccine confidence

• Patrick Sturgis
• Ian Brunton-Smith
• Jonathan Jackson

Nature Human Behaviour (2021)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

• Open supplemental data
• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Methods article, culture and social norms: development and application of a model for culturally contextualized communication measurement (mc 3 m).

• 1 University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States
• 2 Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States
• 3 Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States
• 4 Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States
• 5 Peking University, Beijing, China

Studies of social norms are common in the communication literature and are increasingly focused on cultural dynamics: studying co-cultural groups within national boundaries or comparing countries. Based on the review of the status quo in cross-cultural measurement development and our years of experience in conducting this research among a co-cultural group, this paper describes a Model for Culturally Contextualized Communication Measurement (MC 3 M) for intercultural and/or cross-cultural communication research. As an exemplar, we report on a program of research applying the model to develop a culturally derived measurement of social norms and the factors impacting the norm-behavior relationship for members of a unique population group (i.e., ethnically Tibetan pastoralists in Western China). The results provide preliminary evidence for the construct validity and reliability of the culturally derived measurements. The implications, benefits, and shortcomings of the MC 3 M model are discussed. Recommendations for advancing both conceptual and measurement refinement in intercultural and cross-cultural communication research are provided.

Introduction

Social norms research has rapidly garnered popularity in the past several decades in multiple disciplines, such as communication, social psychology, public health, and economics ( Chung and Rimal, 2016 ). Given the power of normative influence on perceptions and actions consistently shown in the body of literature ( Borsari and Carey, 2003 ; Rhodes et al., 2020 ), social norm theories, rooted in the U.S.-based research, are being applied in numerous cross-cultural contexts ( Mackie et al., 2015 ). Yet, problems persist with inconsistencies in the conceptual and operational definitions of norms ( Shulman et al., 2017 ), and findings of prior studies may be culturally bound ( Chung and Rimal, 2016 ).

To help fill this gap and advance scholarship on social norms and other culturally contextualized communication measurements, we combine qualitative and quantitative approaches to develop culturally derived measures of social norms in a unique population. 1 Specifically, we describe research that examines the nature of interpersonal communication as a basis for shaping social norms and normative perceptions ( Lapinski et al., 2021 ), using this information to derive a series of measures rooted in the cultural context. Data obtained from a multi-year project, including field visits, in-depth interviews, and household surveys about grassland conservation behaviors with ethnically Tibetan pastoralists on the Tibetan Plateau in Western China, are presented as the basis for conceptualization, scale development, and initial evidence for the validity of measures of social norms and related constructs from theories on the communication of social norms ( Rimal and Real, 2005 ; Lapinski et al., 2018 ). This population is the focus of our work because of their critical role in ecosystem conservation issues in Asia and as a marginalized cultural group ( Bessho, 2015 ; Bum, 2016 ). As the basis for this research, we offer a model derived from existing research and practice for the development or adaptation of constructs and measures for intercultural or cross-cultural communication research. The value of this paper is the presentation of a model for developing measures of social norms (and related scales in communication studies) accounting for cultural dynamics. This process is useful beyond the particular population studied here, as the detailed steps described in the model shed light on future research on similar issues (e.g., conservation and health) among marginalized groups or populations with unique historical and/or cultural backgrounds (e.g., indigenous people and ethnic minorities).

Conceptualizing and Measuring Social Norms in Cultural Context

Generally, social norms are “rules and standards that are understood by members of a group, and that guide or constrain social behavior without the force of law” ( Cialdini and Trost, 1998 , p. 152) shared through interpersonal and mediated communication ( Kincaid, 2004 ). Social norms can influence health, environmental, and philanthropic attitudes and behaviors and can be influenced through communication campaigns ( Shulman et al., 2017 ). International attention has focused on the use of social norm campaigns as key to social change on various issues (e.g., child marriage, female genital mutilation/cutting, food waste, vaccination) because these efforts involve changing beliefs and actions of an entire community or cultural group rather than those of individuals ( UNICEF, 2010 ).

Despite the growing popularity of social norms research, critical issues remain in literature, including vague conceptualizations of what constitutes a social norm and conflated definitions and inadequacies in the measures of different types of norms ( Shulman et al., 2017 ). These problems “impair our ability to understand what norms are, how they work, how they should be measured, and boundary conditions that dictate where norms should and should not be applied” ( Shulman et al., 2017 , p.1209). Meanwhile, the increasing trend of social norms research conducted as comparative studies or in countries other than the U.S. and Europe in recent years (e.g., Geber et al., 2019 ; Stamkou et al., 2019 ) has created a demand for new methods conceptualizing and measuring social norms and related constructs.

Indeed, what we know about norms may be impacted by the so-called WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) phenomenon documented in psychological research ( Henrich et al., 2010 ). Shulman et al.’s (2017) examination of 832 empirical studies in English language journals found that most studies of social norms (82.4%) were conducted in the U.S. and Western Europe; similar findings exist in global development where few international studies address measurement development or fundamental conceptualization of norms ( Mackie et al., 2015 ).

Constructing valid and reliable measures of key study concepts is regarded as one of the most critical steps in empirical research. No matter how well-designed a study is, poor measurement of study constructs can yield errors in interpreting the results. When studies are designed to compare two cultures or to study communication patterns and processes in a unique population or co-cultural group within a larger group, the measurement challenges are compounded ( Croucher and Kelly, 2019 , 2020 ). Differences in the conceptualization of core study ideas, languages, values, and other factors lead to substantial challenges when researchers try to maximize conceptual and measurement equivalence, reliability, and construct validity of measurement for samples from co-cultural groups within national boundaries or across national boundaries ( Herdman et al., 1997 ; Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998 ; Davidov et al., 2018 ).

Because of the culturally bound nature of social norms, it is crucial for researchers to establish and clearly describe conceptualizations and measurements of norms embedded in the appropriate cultural and social context. By culturally bound, in this case, we mean that although social norms, as unwritten codes of conduct, appear to exist in all human cultures, their form and function vary by group, complicating measurement. A lack of culturally valid measurement may hinder progress in theory building, especially in identifying boundary conditions for theories.

Studies of social norms and cultural dynamics have focused on nation/country (e.g., Cialdini et al., 1999 ) or race/ethnicity (e.g., LaBrie et al., 2012 ) as a delimiting concept. We recognize the benefits and limitations of using country or nation as the sole proxy or operationalization of culture, despite the prevalence of this practice in cross-cultural research (c.f., Schaffer and Riordan, 2003 ).

Using country, race, or ethnicity to identify cultural groups is convenient, clear, and tidy; most people can self-identify these characteristics when asked with valid indicators in the measures. Yet, country and culture are incongruent under most conditions. Generally, multiple co-cultural groups exist under the same overarching national identity ( Orbe, 1997 ). As such, culture may function at the level of a nation-state, a co-cultural group within a nation-state, or any collective of people who share deep or surface-level cultural elements (termed a unique population ). For the current study, we draw from the intercultural communication literature and use the term “culture” to include communities of people with uniquely shared communication characteristics, perceptions, values, beliefs, and practices . Shared practices, ethnicity, and language serve as indicators for the cultural group, which is the focus of the present study; ethnically Tibetan pastoralists . This group shares the following characteristics: they are historically nomadic and engage in animal husbandry, and they have Tibetan ethnicity with the Kham Tibetan dialect as their primary language.

Because, fundamentally, culture influences how people view the world, identifying within-culture conceptualizations of key study constructs should be the first step in empirical inquiry. As unwritten implicit rules, social norms are formed, shaped, and reinforced through observation and interpersonal and mediated communication among a collective. Normative perceptions may be formed about both the prevalence of behavior (i.e., commonly called descriptive norms ; what is done by most members of a group) and what most people think to be appropriate or inappropriate behaviors (i.e., injunctive norms ; what is socially approved or disapproved; Cialdini et al., 1990 ). Hence, it is critical to acknowledge the socially and culturally shared nature of social norms, as people relate to in-group members within a specific culture. That is, social norms, by their nature, emanate from collectives within a system. As such, it is necessary to identify the influential people and in-groups who are most connected to particular decisions or behaviors in order to contextualize norms.

Some research demonstrates the culturally bound nature of conceptualizations of social norms and their communication (e.g., Jensen and Bute, 2010 ; Lapinski et al., 2015 ). Using in-depth interviews and observation, the literature indicates that key conceptualizations developed in one cultural context (like injunctive norms with social prescriptions for appropriate behavior) may not exist in the same form when examined through a different cultural lens ( Jensen and Bute, 2010 ). Likewise, the nature of interpersonal and mediated communication about what is approved behavior is constrained by the nature of the social system (Elwood et al., 2000; Lapinski et al., 2015 ) and connected to cultural predispositions ( Lapinski et al., 2019 ).

Developing culturally derived social norms measures is also critical to enhance both the internal and external validity of the existing corpus of research to account for culturally-based concepts and processes ( Mollen et al., 2010 ). Surprisingly little is written about how to develop reliable and valid culturally derived measures of communication concepts like social norms; instead, one must go to the literature in cross-cultural and organizational psychology to find scholarship addressing some of these issues (c.f., Schaffer and Riordan, 2003 ). In public health, there is a robust literature on the cross-cultural adaptation of scales; yet, Epstein et al. (2015) reviewed 31 studies making recommendations for cross-cultural adaptation (CCA) and concluded there was no consensus on best practices for adapting measures across cultural contexts.

In sum, identifying and refining the culturally derived conceptualization of social norms is the first step in developing methods for measuring these constructs. Measurement development is critical for expanding social norms research to account for cultural similarities and differences in order to enhance both internal and external validity in the corpus of research to account for culturally-based concepts and processes ( Mollen et al., 2010 ; Lapinski et al., 2019 ).

Studies of Social Norms in Cultural Context: Absolutism, Universalism, and Relativism

Various approaches to studying cultural dynamics in social normative influence are evidenced in the literature (c.f., Fischer et al., 2009 ; Lee and Green, 1991 ; Park and Levine, 1999 ). Many of these studies have involved comparative research designs in which data from a U.S. sample are compared to a sample(s) of people from another nation ( Shulman et al., 2017 ). The predominant theories that address social norms, such as the theory of reasoned action (TRA; Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975 ), the theory of planned behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1991 ), focus theory of normative conduct ( Cialdini et al., 1990 ), social norms approach (SNA; Berkowitz, 2004 ), and theory of normative social behavior (TNSB; Rimal and Real, 2005 ), have been developed and tested primarily in the U.S. with measures of the core theoretical concepts constructed in English. Studies using these theories sometimes provide evidence for measurement reliability and validity of the study measures using data from samples, often of college undergraduates, in various regions of the U.S. (e.g., Cialdini et al., 1999 ; Jang, 2012 ).

It is when these theories and measures are applied in new cultural contexts that challenges may arise. That is, by moving existing normative concepts and measures into new cultural contexts, studies may fail to account for the dynamics of normative influence unique to the new context . A framework in cross-cultural psychology that can be applied to communication research describes three orientations to the cross-cultural adaptation of theories and measures, including absolutism, universalism, and relativism ( Herdman et al., 1997 ; Berry et al., 2002 ). Based on this framework, there are roughly three approaches to studying social norms in cultural context: 1 ) adoption of the conceptualization and measures from existing theories and using them with no modification in a new cultural context (absolutism); 2 ) using conceptualization and measures developed in one cultural context (often in the language of the researcher) and translating the measures into the primary language of the study participants or making other adjustments for cultural context (universalism), and 3 ) developing the study concepts and measures based on data (or dialogue) from within the cultural context in the language of participants for each cultural group included in the study (relativism). In each of these cases, the nuances of the study procedures and the reporting of the processes are different for each study. For example, studies may or may not report on: the development of conceptual definitions, translation and back translation of items, evidence for scale reliability or validity, or measurement invariance. In the following, we review and summarize examples of these orientations from across disciplines 2 and then propose a series of recommended practices derived from the existing literature, for culturally derived measurement of communication constructs.

Absolutism orientation assumes a minimal impact of “culture” on the constructs being studied (i.e., they are culture-free) because of the species-wide similarities among all human beings. As a result, standard instruments measuring the focal constructs are considered appropriate to be used in different cultures. This practice may result in a construct conceptualized and operationalized in one culture that is “imposed” directly onto another culture ( Berry et al., 2002 ). It involves adopting the conceptual definitions, study materials, and measures directly from prior research without substantial modifications 3 . It may include using measures from prior research in a particular country without any translation procedures or evidence for measurement construct validity or equivalence (e.g., Thøgersen and Ölander, 2006 ; Abikoye and Olley, 2012 ; Nguyen and Neighbors, 2013 ; Savani et al., 2015 ).

For example, Bobek et al. (2007) conducted an experimental study with participants recruited from Australia, Singapore, and the U.S. to examine the effects of social norms on tax compliance using Cialdini and Trost’s (1998) taxonomy of social norms. Factor analysis and scale reliability analysis were performed to establish evidence for the scales’ validity and reliability before proceeding to test hypotheses. However, across the three national samples, the constructs and measures were assumed to be equivalent, and a translation process was not described. 4 Likewise, using measures from the theory of planned behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1991 ), Wan et al. (2018) examined the moderating effect of subjective norms on the behavioral intention of using urban green spaces among Hong Kong residents. The convergent and discriminant validity and reliability of the measures were assessed before testing the structural model. But, no survey translation information was described, although most people in Hong Kong speak Cantonese as their primary language, and only 4.3% of the population use English regularly ( GovHK, 2020 ).

Universalism

The universalism orientation acknowledges that culture substantially impacts how constructs are expressed and defined across cultures. Though this approach still assumes species-wide similarities (i.e., universal patterns), it accepts the idea that measurement needs to be adapted cross-culturally, given that the context-free constructs and measurements are difficult or impossible to obtain. In this approach, conceptual definitions and measures are developed in one cultural context, typically in English. Then the study materials and measures are translated into the country’s language in which the research is conducted. Evidence for back-translation, construct validity, and measurement equivalence may or may not be described. There are a few social norms studies that account for cultural dynamics using this method (e.g., Cialdini et al., 1999 ; Park and Levine, 1999 ; Boer and Westhoff, 2006 ; Fornara et al., 2011 ; Jang et al., 2013 ; Stamkou et al., 2019 ; Walter et al., 2019 ).

For example, Stamkou et al. (2019) examined the moderating effect of cultural collectivism and tightness on responses to norm violators in 19 countries. The conceptual definition of the key study constructs and the measures, including social norms, norm violations, individualism-collectivism, and tightness-looseness, were adapted from existing literature developed in the U.S and translated into each country’s official language following the procedures outlined by Brislin (1986) ; validity and reliability evidence was provided. Likewise, Jain et al. (2018) investigated the effect of descriptive and injunctive norms on condom use among young men in Ethiopia using norms measures from the TNSB ( Rimal and Real, 2005 ) translated into Amharic, Afan Oromo, and Tigrigna. Adaptations were made in the norm measures to account for cultural context, but measurement validity and reliability evidence was not presented. Limaye et al. (2012) reported similar process in Malawi; acceptable reliability of the scales was presented, but measurement validity evidence was not included.

The last orientation, relativism , assumes that because of the substantial role of culture in people’s cognitive thinking patterns and behaviors, it is impossible to use standard measurements across cultures; hence, local instruments developed within a specific culture should be adopted ( Herdman et al., 1997 ; Berry et al., 2002 ). In this approach, the conceptual definitions and measures are developed within the focal cultural group, often through collaborative processes and formative data collection. The language in which they are developed may be that of the focal country or region. Measurement construct validity and equivalence evidence may or may not be described (e.g., Babalola, 2007 ; Rimal et al., 2015 ; Yilma et al., 2020 ). For example, Rimal et al. (2019) developed a personal narrative-based intervention, including social norms messages targeting adolescent students in Serbia, to improve their driving behaviors using conceptual definitions and measurement based on theory and cultural context. Formative data (i.e., one-on-one interviews, focus groups, and reaction interviews) was conducted first to develop the intervention and the measures of core concepts, including descriptive and injunctive norms. Results showed acceptable reliability of the normative scales, but measurement validity evidence was not included.

In sum, the literature on social norms and cultural dynamics indicates a range of approaches to developing concepts and measurements in cultural context for both single and multi-culture studies.

Model for Culturally Contextualized Communication Measurement (MC 3 M)

Based on the research on culturally derived measurement (Hui and Triandis, 1985; Pedhazur and Schmelkin, 2013 ; Schaffer and Riordan, 2003 ; Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998 ), research on measurement model validation and equivalence ( Bollen, 2005 ), and our team’s international and cross-cultural research, we present a Model for Culturally Contextualized Communication Measurement (MC 3 M) containing a series steps for the development of quantitative measures in communication science taking a relativistic approach ( Figure 1 ) and use a variant of this model in the current research. Although we focus here specifically on social norms, we believe this model may benefit other communication research. In the following sections, we describe a series of studies to illustrate the process of applying the model to develop culturally derived social norm measures.

FIGURE 1 . Proposed model for communication measurement development in cultural context: model for culturally contextualized communication measurement (MC 3 M).

The program of research that we report here was conducted on the Tibetan Platea in the Tsangsum Yungyul (Tibetan) or Sanjiangyuan (Mandarin) area of China, located in southern Qinghai Province. This region is home to about 960,000 inhabitants, 90% of whom are ethnically Tibetan, and nearly 70% are pastoralists, sometimes nomadic, herding mainly yaks and sheep ( see Appendix A). Geographically, the territory is vast, with human settlements dispersed, making data collection in the region challenging. The terrain includes glaciers and high-altitude grasslands, which input to three of Asia’s major rivers, the Yellow, Yangtze, and Mekong providing freshwater to nearly a quarter of the world’s population. The population of this region is generally Tibetan Buddhist. Their position as a unique or co-cultural group within China makes Tibetan pastoralists an important group to study social influence processes. They play a key role in the future of this ecologically sensitive region, but studies conducted in this area are rare ( Shen and Tan, 2012 ).

Step 1: Identification of Key Constructs

Discussions with cultural informants, review of the scientific and gray literature about the study region, field visits, and collaborative discussions with project partners were the first stage of this project; Step 1 in the MC 3 M. The cross-cultural (U.S. multi-ethnic, Han, Tibetan team), cross-disciplinary (anthropology, communication, sustainability, conservation biology, economics) team shared an interest in interpersonal communication about social norms and their effects on conservation behavior and the role of financial incentives in promoting conservation behavior among ethnically Tibetan pastoralists.

The exploratory work conducted in Step 1 revealed results in many key activities and insights, two of which we highlight here. First, discussion with collaborators coupled with our searches of the scientific literature revealed little social science data on the population of interest. This is critical because it drove our approach to the methods we used throughout the remainder of the project. Second, the focal constructs, behaviors, core theory, and research questions/predictions were developed collaboratively based on this process. Animal husbandry behaviors and their impact on the grassland and water ecology were identified as both salient for the study population and conservation practice. Specifically, herding types of animals with less relative ecological impact, reducing herd size to have less impact on grassland quality, and modifying grazing patterns to protect sensitive areas were the behaviors examined; organized patrolling to reduce poaching of wild animals was also examined but is reported elsewhere.

Step 2: In-Depth Interviews

As the next step in developing measures of the normative dimensions and providing construct validity evidence in this cultural context, in-depth interviews were conducted (Step 2 in the MC 3 M). The purpose of the interviews was to determine whether or not and how normative information was communicated to members of our study population and the character of that information in order to identify conceptualizations of social norms. In addition, we sought to understand the conditions under which normative information was available, the people from whom normative information emanates, and expected outcomes for the focal behaviors. Eighty in-depth interviews were conducted with members of our study population; detailed results are reported in companion papers ( Lapinski et al., 2018 ; Lapinski et al., 2021 ). Interview data were analyzed via quantitative content analysis, thematic analysis, and network analysis.

The interviews provided the basis for understanding indigenous conceptualizations of injunctive and descriptive norms, outcome expectancies associated with the behaviors, important referent groups for information about our study topics. In brief, the findings from the interviews uncovered normative influence as one basis for social power ( Kelman, 1961 ) among members of the study community ( Lapinski et al., 2018 ) and three essential themes for conceptualizing social norms ( Lapinski et al., 2021 ): 1 ) a shared understanding of what the participants believe is typical in the community, particularly local herding groups or villages (descriptive norms); 2 ) what participants believe is approved and disapproved or expected in the community (injunctive norms), and the anticipated reactions of others to compliance or noncompliance with expectations; and 3 ) important referent groups for decisions about herding (normative referents). Key referents were identified as dependent on the nature of information (general information, advice-seeking, or problem-focused), including herding group members, other villagers, family, and people in positions of power (e.g., veterinarians, government officials, village leaders).

Step 3: Refining Conceptualizations

Based on the findings from the interviews, revised conceptual definitions (Step 3 in the MC 3 M) and quantitative items were developed (Step 4, described in the method) to investigate further the influences of social norms on behaviors guided by several existing theories of social norms ( Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975 ; Cialdini et al., 1990 ; Rimal and Real, 2005 ) and our prior research ( Lapinski et al., 2018 ). Based on the interview data, the conceptualizations of both normative constructs (i.e., perceived descriptive norms and perceived injunctive norms, provided earlier in this paper) have been modified slightly to be culturally appropriate. Consistent with prior research, perceived descriptive norms are conceptualized as pastoralists’ perceptions of the prevalence of referent others’ (herding group and village group member) behavior. Perceived injunctive norms are conceptualized as perceptions of the referent others’ opinions and expectations about behaviors. A common element in conceptualizations of social norms–that social sanctions exist for noncompliance with the norm–was not included in the definition because it was not evidenced in our data. The key referent groups for this behavior are the herding group (if the pastoralist belongs to one) or others from the same village (if the pastoralist does not herd with a herding group). Families have been incorporated into the herding group conceptualization, given the clear overlap revealed from the interview data between these two groups.

Outcome expectations, as well as group identification and group orientation, were considered as key constructs in the study because prior research has shown they enhance the influence of social norms and appear to be critical in studies of cultural dynamics ( Cruz et al., 2000 ; Lapinski et al., 2007 ) and conceptualizations were shaped based on the results of the in-depth interviews. Outcome expectation is conceptualized as beliefs of the potential losses or benefits related to the behavior and includes monetary and non-monetary outcomes. The types of outcomes identified in the interviews included changes to the grassland, changes to economic well-being, and changes to identity as a Tibetan ( Lapinski et al., 2021 ). Group identity refers to feelings of affinity with one’s social group and the desire to be connected to that group ( Rimal and Real, 2005 ). Group orientation refers to one’s connection to the collective (i.e., the extent to which one’s social groups are central to the decision-making process). Giving priority to group goals over personal goals may function to enhance the influence of social norms on behaviors since group-oriented individuals are guided by group goals and norms in order to maintain harmony within groups ( Lapinski et al., 2007 ). Finally, we conceptualized behavioral intention as a person’s readiness to perform a behavior ( Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975 ) and a possible outcome of normative influence.

These conceptualizations form the basis for the development of items designed to measure each of the constructs. A cross-sectional survey was conducted with our study population in order to complete Steps 4–7 in the MC 3 M: The hypothesis is proposed:

H: The measures of perceived descriptive norms (PDN), perceived injunctive norms (PIN), outcome expectations (OE), group identity (GID), group orientation (GO), and behavioral intentions (BI) will yield valid and reliable unidimensional scales.

Sampling and Participants

Participants were recruited from one city and three counties in the study region via network sampling by project partners ( see Appendix A). Yushu Prefecture is an area of 267,000 square kilometers, with a total population of 283,100 people (95.3 percent Tibetan). As of 2015, Yushu Prefecture has one city and five counties; our sample included: Yushu City, Zaduo County, Nangqian County, and Chengduo County. Because of the behaviors examined in this study, three filter questions were asked at the beginning of the survey to ensure that the participant 1 ) was a pastoralist, 2 ) with at least 10 yaks in their herd, and 3 ) was the primary decision-maker in the household (i.e., the head of the household). Only people who answered affirmatively to these questions were included in the sample. During data cleaning, one participant was removed from the data analysis because his household had fewer than 10 yaks.

In total, 360 Tibetan pastoralists (85% male) in 10 townships participated in the surveys 5 , with an average age of 45.85 ( SD = 12.29), ranging from 18 to 80. The average size of the household was 6.52 ( SD = 2.57), with an average number of 2.36 ( SD = 1.48) school-aged children and 2.31 ( SD = 1.48) family members who helped with herding. Regarding the level of education, on average, participants had 1.3 years ( SD = 2.36) of schooling (including public schools and monastery schools), ranging from 0 (illiterate; 68.1%) to 15 years. Nearly all (98.3%) reported owning only yaks; less than 1% had both yaks and sheep (three misssing responses). The average herd size of yaks was 40.87 ( SD = 28.27), ranging from 0 to 200. Approximately 20% of the participants ( n = 71) belonged to herding groups, and 9 (12.7%) of them reported themselves as the leader of the herding group.

Survey Instrument Development

Step 4: initial item development and cognitive interviews.

The survey items were developed by the project team based on the results of the in-depth interviews ( Lapinski et al., 2018 , 2021 ) and prior research on social norms-related variables (Step 4 in the MC 3 M). The scale items were developed via the procedures suggested by Hunter and Gerbing (1982) . Items were developed for each distinct dimension by examining the conceptual definitions of the constructs and by deriving content from the interviews. Multiple items were created for each construct in order to allow for subsequent statistical tests of construct validity ( Hunter and Gerbing, 1982 ). The item construction process resulted in a large pool of items reviewed for face validity by the researchers. To enhance conceptual equivalence ( Herdman et al., 1997 ), each question was discussed by study team members and revised based on the discussion. Items that matched the conceptual definition of the construct were retained. The measures were developed in English and Tibetan simultaneously, captured in English, and then translated into Tibetan with flexibility for local variations in the dialect. The instrument was then back-translated to English to check for accuracy in interpretation and to avoid cultural biases. Then, the study team members discussed the final version of questionnaire questions one by one ( see Appendix B for the detailed procedures of translation and back-translation).

Two groups of cognitive interviews (four participants per group) were conducted with local community members to pilot the survey instrument before the data collection. This qualitative approach, conducted prior to the quantitative data collection, helped researchers examine how the respondents process and interpret questions and identify the factors influencing their answers ( Cabral and Savageau, 2013 ). Due to the benefit of improving item interpretation and strengthening scale quality shown in numerous studies (e.g., Collins, 2003 ; Ryan et al., 2012 ), the cognitive interview has been recommended as a standard step in survey development, refinement, and adaptation.

During the cognitive interviews, participants were asked to evaluate the survey questions with the goal of increasing the clarity, meaningfulness, and cultural appropriateness of the questions. Modifications were made to question wording and question order, and some questions were eliminated. Although we developed the scales to use verbally administered Likert-type response scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), based on the suggestions from local collaborators and cognitive interview participants, we adopted the strategy of using fingers (digits; commonly used among people in the sample in everyday life) as a response scale when asking about Likert-type questions (e.g., thumb = strongly agree; the little finger = strongly disagree), to help participant better understand the options. A “Not Sure” option was added based on the suggestions from the local collaborator and the feedback generated from the cognitive interviews.

Surveys were conducted by four ethnically-Tibetan enumerators who were native speakers of the Kham Tibetan dialect and also fluent in Mandarin Chinese. Enumerators received training on survey skills, survey instruments, and the protection of human subjects by the study team (Step 5 in the MC 3 M). The enumerators verbally administered all questions using the digit response scale described above and recorded the responses in booklets due to the low level of literacy among our potential participants 6 based on the exciting literature (e.g., John, 2000 ; Bangsbo, 2008 ), the fieldwork of our community collaborators in our study area over the years, and data from our previous interviews. To minimize unintended enumerator effects on the survey data, enumerators were trained not to provide any explanations to the survey questions other than clarification or to provide verbal or nonverbal reactions toward participants’ answers. Statistical analysis was conducted to ensure that no significant differences existed in study variables for different enumerators.

Upon approaching a potential participant, each enumerator first introduced him/herself and the purpose of the survey briefly. If the individual agreed to answer the initial eligibility questions, the enumerator would record the sex of the respondent through observation first and then ask the three filter questions mentioned above (i.e., a pastoralist with at least 10 yaks who is the head of their household). Once the participant was determined as eligible for the survey, the enumerator proceeded with the informed consent process, adapted to be culturally appropriate while retaining the key elements of consent. Participants were also provided with opportunities to ask questions before deciding to participate or not. If they agreed to participate, the enumerator would proceed to the main survey questions. First, each participant was asked if he/she belonged to a herding group. Based on the participant’s answer to this question, he/she was directed to the subsequent questions associated with a specific referent group (people in my herding group vs people in my village), measuring their perceived descriptive norms, perceived injunctive norms, group orientation, group identity, perceived outcome expectation, behavioral intentions of reducing their herd size and demographics. Based on local norms, participants did not receive incentives for participation.

Surveys were conducted in semi-private settings in Kham Tibetan dialect and lasted approximately 30 min each. Participants’ responses to each question were recorded on the survey paper in Mandarin Chinese by the surveyors and manually entered into the computer later by two research assistants who were fluent in both Chinese and English. Each research assistant first entered all the survey data independently, and then their data entry files were carefully compared to identify any inconsistencies caused by human error during the data entry process. Following several days of data collection, data were reviewed, and procedures were discussed to determine whether modifications were necessary; all study procedures were retained. One researcher who was tri-lingual (Kham Tibetan, Mandarin, and English) was responsible for quality control of the procedures and data. All procedures were approved by a university institutional review board.

Measurement

Likert-type scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) were adopted, with an additional option “Not Sure” added; response scales were administered using the enumerators’ fingers as a guide. All survey items ( see Appendix D), including factor loadings, are presented in Table 1 . Items either focused on herding group members or village group members as the referent, the 5 years prior to the survey as the time period, and herd size reduction as the behavior. Because of the nature of the study procedures, which were conducted in the field in naturalistic conditions, without incentives, every effort was made to streamline the questionnaire content and number of items per dimension in order to avoid attrition. For all scales, items retained following confirmatory factor analysis were summed such that higher scores indicated greater levels of the variable.

TABLE 1 . The Measurement Model of the Six Constructs.

Establishment of Measurement Model

Based on Hunter and Gerbing (1982) , the development and evaluation of a measurement model via factor analysis procedures included three steps: 1 ) construction of the model, 2 ) estimation of the observed correlations among the variables/items in the model, and 3 ) comparison of the observed correlations among variables with the correlations predicted by the model. The measurement model was specified first based on a theory of the relationships among the items. Thus, it was appropriate to use confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) procedures to estimate the parameters of the models and provide construct validity evidence. These procedures are included in Step 6 of the MC 3 M in Figure 1 ; all scale items are presented in Table 1 , with items removed following measurement analysis designated.

Scales and Items

Perceived descriptive norms (PDN). Participants’ perceived prevalence of others’ behavior of reducing the herd size among their referent group (herding group or people in the same village) was assessed with four items. One item directly asking about how many yaks they think the most households in their herding group/village own was dropped as it failed the internal consistency test with a low factor loading.

Perceived injunctive norms (PIN). Participants’ perceptions of the referent others’ opinions and anticipations of them reducing the size of their herds were assessed with four items initially. Two items, including a reverse-coded item, were eliminated due to low factor loadings.

Group identity (GID). Participants’ perceived attitudinal similarity and closeness with their referent group (their herding group or people in the same village) was assessed with four items derived from Rimal and Real (2005) . One item measuring participants’ perceived closeness to their herding group/village was dropped as it failed the internal consistency test with a low factor loading.

Outcome expectations (OE). Expectations about behavioral outcomes were measured by four items, including a reverse-coded item measuring the perceived benefits associated with herd reduction behavior. The results indicated small correlations among all the items ( see Table 1 ). Hence, it was deemed inappropriate to compose the variable by summing the items. This variable was removed from the rest of the analysis assessing the validity and reliability of the scales.

Group orientation (GO). The extent to which one is oriented toward group goals as opposed to individual goals was measured by a four-item scale derived from Triandis’ (1995) individualism-collectivism (INDCOL) scale and prior research ( Lapinski et al., 2007 ), which has been modified for this study based on the in-depth interviews.

Behavioral intention (BI). Participants’ intent to engage in the study behavior of reducing the number of yaks in their herds was measured with three items initially, including a reverse-coded item measuring the intention to increase the number of yaks in their herds. One item was eliminated due to its low factor loading.

Demographics. Participants’ demographic information was collected at the end of the survey, including biological sex (observed and recorded by the enumerator), age, number of people in their households, number of children, level of education, and residence location (county and township).

Missing Data and “Not-Sure” Responses

Missing data and responses of “not sure” (NS) were scrutinized for patterns ( Rubin, 1976 ) because the population under study is rarely surveyed, and the scales are newly developed ( see detailed results in Appendix C). The findings show that NS answers are more prevalent among village groups than herding groups, accounting for 93.62% of the total NS answers, suggesting the influential power of one’s herding group as the source of clearer normative information. For measurement validation in the subsequent analyses, both the missing and the NS data were eliminated, and the pairwise deletion was employed to retain sufficient statistical power.

Construct Validity Assessment

CFA was conducted using the lessR package developed by Gerbing (2021) within R programming environment to provide evidence that the observed scale items measured the same theoretical constructs. Both internal consistency and parallelism ( Hunter and Gerbing, 1982 ) were tested to evaluate the unidimensionality of the measurement model. The a priori specified criteria for item retention for tests of internal consistency include both the pattern and magnitude of the errors between predicted and obtained correlations between items ( e < 0.20) and examination of the size of the factor loadings. Once items were eliminated from a factor, factors were reanalyzed to test the unidimensionality of the new factor. Behavioral intentions with three items 7 was not included in this test.

In testing the internal consistency among items designed to measure PDN, item #4 was dropped as it failed the internal consistency test with a low factor loading and large error for predicted and obtained inter-item correlations ( e > 0.20). Since there were only three items left after the elimination, this factor was not tested again for internal consistency. When testing items measuring PIN, items #3 (reverse-coded) and #4 were eliminated due to the low factor loadings and large errors yielded. Two items were retained. Likewise, when testing items measuring group identity, item #4 was eliminated due to the low factor loading and large error. As such, no further internal consistency test was conducted. For the items measuring OE, the results showed insufficient factor loadings of all items developed in this scale with large errors. Hence, we deemed it was inappropriate to compose the variable by summing up the items and removed this variable from the rest of the analysis.

For the items measuring GO, the test of internal consistency via CFA indicated a plausible four-item solution for the scale; all items were retained. All errors for predicted and obtained inter-item correlations were small ( e < 0.20, goodness of fit RMSE = 0.06).

Tests of parallelism were next conducted to estimate how items measuring the same factor are distinct from other factors. Instead of assessing macro-level correlations between scales, tests of parallelism are conducted at the level of individual items with a low tolerance for errors (i.e., the discrepancy between the predicted correlations and the observed correlations). Results from the parallelism test showed that the four-factor model solution was acceptable: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.94, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.91, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.07, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = 0.06, χ 2 (67) = 228.01, p < 0.00, all errors were below the a priori specified value of 0.20. The factor loading for each scale item was reported in Table 1 , in which the five-factor solution was clearly demonstrated.

Discriminant Validity of the Constructs

After establishing the measurement model, the relationships among the four constructs were examined to assess the discriminant validity, which refers to measurement items within different constructs that should be unrelated ( Hunter and Gerbing, 1982 ). See Table 2 for the correlations among the variables in both herding and village groups. The mean and standard deviation for each variable were also reported in the table.

TABLE 2 . Zero-Order Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations of Measured Variables for Both Herding Group and Village Group Participants.

To assess discriminant validity, average variance extracted (AVE) was analyzed, which measures the amount of variance captured by a construct in relation to the amount of variance due to measurement error ( Fornell and Larcker, 1981 ). The formula for calculating AVE is as below:

where λ i is the factor loading of each measurement item on its corresponding construct, and ε i is the error measurement. A widely used criterion to assess discriminant validity is Fornell-Larcker criterion ( Fornell and Larcker, 1981 ), which suggested that based on the corrected correlations from the CFA model, the square root of a construct’s AVE should be larger than the coefficient of correlations between the specific construct and other constructs in the model–that is to say, a latent construct should explain better the variance of its own indicator rather than the variance of other latent constructs. Therefore, the square root of each construct’s AVE should have a greater value than the correlations with other latent constructs. If that is the case, discriminant validity is established on the construct level. In Table 2 , evidence is provided for the construct validity of the scales.

Measurement Invariance Tests

Since the survey questions pertained to different referent groups (herding group vs people in the same village), multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) was conducted using Mplus following procedures recommended by Byrne (2013) . These tests provide evidence that the observed scale indicators/items under study measured the same theoretical constructs (latent variables or factors) across the two groups of the sample. Without established measurement invariance, comparative analyses do not produce meaningful results, and results of differences between groups cannot be unambiguously interpreted ( Milfont and Fischer, 2015 ).

Firstly, a baseline model (Model 1) was established from each group without constraints imposed across the groups for configural invariance (i.e., pattern invariance test). Next, Model 2 examining metric invariance was tested by constraining the factor loadings to be equal across the two groups (i.e., weak measurement invariance test). Model 3 tested scalar invariance by constraining both the factor loadings and indicator/item intercepts equal across the two groups (i.e., strong measurement invariance test; Byrne, 2013 ). Results showed no significant changes in Chi-squares across the three models, indicating a satisfactory measurement equivalence across the two groups. This enabled us to compare mean scores for the underlying factors across groups in the later analysis. The results were reported in Table 3 .

TABLE 3 . Fit Indices for Measurement Invariance Tests between the Herding Group Members vs Village Group Members.

Reliability Assessment

Following the establishment of scale dimensionality, parallelism, and invariance, reliability was assessed via calculation of Cronbach’s alpha for each scale using SPSS v.25, with both the split data file based on the referent group (i.e., herding group vs village group) and the combined dataset. Hunter and Gerbing (1982) suggested that when establishing new measures, validity and reliability should be treated separately. Hence, it was necessary to establish the dimensionality of the scales before examining scale reliability.

In addition to Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability (sometimes called construct reliability) was assessed as an indicator of internal consistency in scale items ( Netemeyer et al., 2003 ). By measuring the total amount of true score variance relative to the total scale score variance ( Brunner and SÜβ, 2005 ), it serves as an indicator of the shared variance among the observed variables used as an indicator of a latent construct ( Fornell and Larcker, 1981 ). Thresholds for composite reliability are up for debate, but as a general guideline ( Fornell and Larcker, 1981 ; Netemeyer et al., 2003 ), composite reliability of the constructs should be higher than 0.7; The formula ( Netemeyer et al., 2003 ) is:

where: λ i = completely standardized loading for the i th indicator, V(δ i ) = variance of the error term for the i th indicator, and p = number of indicators.

Results ( see Table 1 ) showed that coefficient alphas ranged from 0.60 to 0.93. Considering the uniqueness of the target culture group in this study and the fact that this was the very first study ever in which the measures were developed, the relatively lower-alpha scores for group orientation (α = 0.68) and behavioral intentions (α = 0.60) suggest that future use of these scales should correct estimates for unreliability due to error of measurement. The composite reliability estimates ranged from 0.77 to 0.91, providing additional evidence for scale reliability.

Ground Truthing Results

Step 7 in the MC 3 M is “ground truthing” of process, method, and findings throughout the entire course of the research with stakeholders, including cultural insiders. In the current study, this was accomplished in several key ways. First, by conducting cognitive interviewing and ongoing data and procedural quality checks during the course of the study, we accounted for perceptions of cultural insiders. Second, we regularly presented our procedures and progress to our community collaborators and enumerators to gain their input; changes to procedures were made when possible without compromising study rigor or validity. Third, the findings of the study were presented to people working in this region and on these topics prior to publication to discuss the findings and learn about their understanding of the study findings relative to their experience. Fourth, our project partners who work in this region and one of whom is a member of the population from which we sampled, were included in all publications and reviewed the content for consistency with their experience and understanding of the cultural context.

Noting the critical role of reliable and valid culturally derived measures for social norms constructs and the lack of models for developing measures in cultural context, the present study was designed to propose and apply a model to guide intercultural and cross-cultural communication researchers developing quantitative measures of study constructs. Specifically, this study contributed to the existing corpus of communication literature by offering the Model for Culturally Contextualized Communication Measurement (MC 3 M) to describe the process of developing measures for communication research involving unique populations. This model, derived from prior research in disciplines outside of communication and applied over several years in a program of research among ethnically Tibetan pastoralists, provides a clear path forward for researchers conducting studies of communication processes across or within cultures among marginalized or co-cultural groups. In addition to proposing and applying the MC 3 M, the results of this study provide preliminary evidence for measurement validity and reliability of measures of key social norms constructs. We first discuss the measurement development and findings using the MC 3 M process and then describe the utility and limitations of the MC 3 M.

Social Norms Measures

The development of the culturally contextualized measures of social norms constructs began with significant informal and formal information gathering processes and data collection. Existing social norms theories and measures (e.g., Cialdini et al., 1990 ; Lapinski and Rimal, 2005 ) and the culturally-contextualized conceptual definitions served as the basis for new item development and testing using a cross-sectional survey. The content evaluation was conducted by discussions among the multi-lingual, multi-cultural team members, translation and back-translation, and through cognitive interviews among participants from the study population. As a result, we modified questions, revised the response scale, and decided to use finger-counting as a way to describe the response scale to respondents. Continuous process and data quality monitoring during data collection contributed to the development of the measures.

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) provided initial evidence for the construct validity of the culturally derived social norm measures. Tests of internal consistency and parallelism indicated that the data were consistent with unidimensional factors measuring the two types of norms: descriptive norms and injunctive norms, as well as group identity, group orientation, and behavioral intentions. Notably, several items were removed from the scales for each of these constructs due to insufficient factor loadings suggesting the need for continued scrutiny of these items in future research. The items designed to measure outcome expectations failed to meet a priori standards, and as such, these items were removed from the final measurement analysis. Outcome expectations play a key role in enhancing the effects of social norms ( Chung and Rimal, 2016 ), and future research should consider improved measures of this construct appropriate to cultural context. The failure of these items is difficult to explain. The content of the items was derived from in-depth interviews, and the adoption of procedures described by Ajzen et al. (1995) for belief elicitation was included; the item administration followed the same procedures as other scales. Nonetheless, it is clear that the items appear to be measuring unique concepts and do not form a unidimensional scale.

Most of the scales exhibited reliability coefficients within generally accepted ranges. However, the scale measuring behavioral intentions is relatively low. Perhaps this is due to the small number of items measuring this dimension since alpha is a function of the number of items on a scale. Because of the study procedures and the need to keep the questionnaire to a reasonable length to recruit and retain study participants without incentives, minimal items per dimension were administered. The behavioral intention scale could benefit from additional item refinement in future research studying behaviors in a cultural context. As an important limitation: although we focused a great deal on identifying, conceptualizing, and understanding the behaviors under study in the in-depth interviews ( Lapinski et al., 2021 ), we did not focus our efforts on understanding our study community’s thinking about the concept of “intent.” This is something any legal scholar will remind us is complicated and perhaps culturally bound.

Because of the novelty of the study issue and information from our collaborators that most of our participants would not have the experience participating in research studies, a significant amount of time was spent reviewing and refining the item response scales. Ultimately, we decided to use digit counting and verbal descriptions of the responses. A “not sure” category was included in the scales, based on the cognitive interviewing process, and many participants used this option. The fact that many used this response option reinforces the importance of including it, but also makes the analysis and treatment of “not sure” responses complicated. It stands as a key limitation to our measures and will be explored carefully in future research. Reviewing the measurement literature for advice on how to handle these data, there was surprisingly little guidance. This represents an opening for future research on measurement and the development of response scales to be used when verbal administration of items is necessary, and populations may have little experience participating in research. This finding also highlights the utility of using cognitive interviewing to refine response scales and items.

Substantively, the “not sure” responses show that participants who were asked about village group members as the referent were more uncertain about what is considered normative behavior compared to those belonging to a herding group. These findings were consistent with the existing social norms and communication theories (e.g., Kincaid, 2004 ; Lapinski and Rimal, 2005 ; Mackie et al., 2015 ) on the critical role of physically or psychologically proximal groups in shaping, communicating, and maintaining normative information of certain behaviors.

The process described for developing, evaluating, and validating the culturally derived social norm measures presented in this study has valuable empirical and theoretical implications for researchers who intend to conduct studies of co-cultural groups or unique populations. The model delineating the specific steps in developing culturally derived communication measures, starting from identifying and refining culturally derived conceptualizations, is a major contribution of this paper. Although we focus specifically on social norms research among the Tibetan population, we believe this model may have relevance for other communication research issues targeting other populations.

The MC 3 M has a number of key benefits and limitations. First, it provides a roadmap to researchers who wish to combine qualitative and quantitative methods to study communication processes in cultural contexts by specifying a set of best practices for developing measures. It is particularly applicable for populations or issues with little existing communication research, such as what we describe here. Second, it is based on existing research and practice and meant to function as a nascent and evolvable model as research on measurement development in cultural context progresses in the field of communication. There are certain additions and changes that could be incorporated into this model, and it is the hope of the researchers that it will have heuristic value, evolving as new knowledge is generated. Third, it is directly designed to be applied to intercultural, cross-cultural, and global communication research, filling a gap in the literature that has been dominated by other disciplines.

The model is not without limitations. Most importantly, we recognize that implementing the entire model requires significant time, resources, and relationships in a community. Further, the measures developed using the model cannot be simply taken and used in other cultural contexts but can serve as a basis for adaptation in intercultural communication research among similar populations and for similar issues. The relativism approach taken in the MC 3 M represents a departure from some of the existing cross-cultural/intercultural research, in which absolutism or universalism approaches are commonly adopted, and measures are used in communities without adaptation. With this said, we acknowledge that absolutism or universalism may still be appropriate in certain study contexts, such as when the research constructs are likely to be less sensitive to the influence of cultural or social factors.

Nonetheless, it is crucial to recognize the substantial role of culture in people’s communication, cognitions, and behaviors ( Herdman et al., 1997 ; Berry et al., 2002 ). As such, we encourage researchers to develop quantitative measures derived within a specific cultural context following rigorous procedures. Measurement development and validation are critical for expanding social norms and other communication research accounting for cultural similarities and differences. Doing so can enhance both internal and external validity in the corpus of research to account for culturally-based concepts and processes ( Mollen et al., 2010 ; Croucher et al., 2019 ).

The continued increasing global interactions highlight the need for cross-cultural researchers to be particularly careful and attentive to the issues of adapting existing constructs, theories, and measures developed in one culture for use in other cultures, and such issues are applicable to a variety of research disciplines. Acknowledging that nuances of the research process are different for each study, we hope that the proposed Model for Culturally Contextualized Communication Measurement, as well as the case we have described in this study, could serve to stimulate advancement in both conceptual and measurement refinement in intercultural and cross-cultural communication research.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Michigan State University. Written informed consent for participation was not required for this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.

Author Contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the many years of collaborative work and approved it for publication. The authors would like to acknowledge Ariane Leclerq, Ed Glazer, and the team of interviewers, coders, and surveyors/enumerators for their assistance with this project.

This project would not have been possible without a grant from the Sustainable Michigan Endowed Project at Michigan State University # 2011001. Partial support was provided by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch project numbers MICL02244, MICL02173, and MICL02362, and by National Science Foundation Award #SMA-1328503.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2021.770513/full#supplementary-material

1 This study reports on a long-term program of research involving an interdisciplinary, intercultural team of scientists and non-governmental organization staff first supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation in 2013 and continuing with data collections from 2014 to 2016. The authors do not have financial conflicts of interest.

2 As a caveat, only studies published in English language journals are reviewed here. Further, we only use the information available about these studies in the published version of the paper which may be incomplete.

3 Minor adaptions of the scales may be involved to fit with the specific study scenarios or focal behaviors.

4 Although English is the dominant language in Australia and the U.S., Singapore’s national languages are English, Mandarin, Malay, and Tamil ( Department of Statistics Singapore, 2019 ).

5 The geographical distance between villages is very far with some hundreds of kilometers apart and the primary transportation relies on rough mountain roads, so obtaining the sample was challenging. The participants were recruited primarily through community events and snowball sampling strategies.

6 We were conducting research in a politically sensitive area in China (c.f., Huang, 2013 ) and participants were likely to be unfamiliar with surveys. As such, we used verbally administered surveys.

7 Based on the suggestions from our experienced local collaborators and cultural insiders, we had to keep the survey short by limiting the number of items for each scale as much as possible, due to the reasons that 1 ) our survey was verbally administered, which took a much longer time to complete compared to a written/online survey, and 2 ) our study group had never participated in any studies or completed any surveys. Items developed in each scale with closely shared meaning may confuse them when answering the questions.

Abikoye, G. E., and Olley, B. O. (2012). Social Network Characteristics, Perceived Drinking Norms and Hazardous Alcohol Use. Afr. J. Drug Alcohol Stud. 11 (1), 1. doi:10.4314/ajdas.v11i1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ajzen, I., Nichols, A. J., and Driver, B. L. (1995). Identifying Salient Beliefs about Leisure Activities: Frequency of Elicitation Versus Response Latency1. J. Appl. Soc. Pyschol 25 (16), 1391–1410. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb02623.x

Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50 (2), 179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Babalola, S. (2007). Readiness for HIV Testing Among Young People in Northern Nigeria: The Roles of Social Norm and Perceived Stigma. AIDS Behav. 11 (5), 759–769. doi:10.1007/s10461-006-9189-0

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bangsbo, E. (2008). Schooling for Knowledge and Cultural Survival: Tibetan Community Schools in Nomadic Herding Areas. Educ. Rev. 60 (1), 69–84. doi:10.1080/00131910701794598

Berkowitz, A. D. (2004). The Social Norms Approach: Theory, Research and Annotated Bibliography. Available at: http://www.alanberkowitz.com/articles/social_norms.pdf .

Google Scholar

Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., and Dasen, P. R. (2002). Cross-cultural Psychology: Research and Applications . 2nd Edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .

Bessho, Y. (2015). Migration for Ecological Preservation? Tibetan Herders' Decision Making Process in the Eco-Migration Policy of Golok Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture (Qinghai Province, PRC). Nomadic Peoples 19 (2), 189–208. doi:10.3197/np.2015.190203

Bobek, D. D., Roberts, R. W., and Sweeney, J. T. (2007). The Social Norms of Tax Compliance: Evidence from Australia, Singapore, and the United States. J. Bus Ethics 74, 49–64. doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9219-x

Boer, H., and Westhoff, Y. (2006). The Role of Positive and Negative Signaling Communication by Strong and Weak Ties in the Shaping of Safe Sex Subjective Norms of Adolescents in South Africa. Commun. Theor. 16 (1), 75–90. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00006.x

Bollen, K. A. (2005). “Structural Equation Models,” in Encyclopedia of Biostatistics . Editors P. Armitage, and T. Colton (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons ). doi:10.1002/0470011815.b2a13089

Borsari, B., and Carey, K. B. (2003). Descriptive and Injunctive Norms in College Drinking: A Meta-Analytic Integration. J. Stud. Alcohol. 64 (3), 331–341. doi:10.15288/jsa.2003.64.331

Brislin, R. W. (1986). “The Wording and Translation of Research Instruments,” in Field Methods in Cross-Cultural Research . Editors W. J. Lonner, and J. W. Berry (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE ), 137–164.

Brunner, M., and SÜβ, H.-M. (2005). Analyzing the Reliability of Multidimensional Measures: An Example from Intelligence Research. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 65 (2), 227–240. doi:10.1177/0013164404268669

Bum, T. (2016). Guardians of Nature: Tibetan Pastoralists and the Natural World . Morrisville, North Carolina: Lulu Press, Inc., (Lulu.com) . Available at: https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/asianhighlandsperspectives

Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural Equation Modeling with Lisrel, Prelis, and Simplis: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming . Lawrence: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates .

Cabral, L., and Savageau, J. (2013). Linda Cabral and Judy Savageau on Improve Your Surveys by Conducting Cognitive Interviews. Linda Cabral and Judy Savageau on Improve Your Surveys by Conducting Cognitive Interviews. Available at: http://aea365.org/blog/linda-cabral-and-judy-savageau-on-improve-your-surveys-by-conducting-cognitive-interviews/ .

Chung, A., and Rimal, R. N. (2016). Social Norms: A Review. Rev. Commun. Res. 4, 1–28. doi:10.12840/issn.2255-4165.2016.04.01.008

Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., and Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: Recycling the Concept of Norms to Reduce Littering in Public Places. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 58 (6), 1015–1026. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015

Cialdini, R. B., and Trost, M. R. (1998). “Social Influence: Social Norms, Conformity and Compliance,” in The Handbook of Social Psychology . Editors D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey. 4th Edn. (New York: McGraw-Hill ), 151–192.

Cialdini, R. B., Wosinska, W., Barrett, D. W., Butner, J., and Gornik-Durose, M. (1999). Compliance with a Request in Two Cultures: The Differential Influence of Social Proof and Commitment/consistency on Collectivists and Individualists. Pers Soc. Psychol. Bull. 25 (10), 1242–1253. doi:10.1177/0146167299258006

Collins, D. (2003). Pretesting Survey Instruments: An Overview of Cognitive Methods. Qual. Life Res. 12 (3), 229–238. doi:10.1023/A:1023254226592

Croucher, S., and Kelly, S. (2020). Introduction and the Need for Validity. Ann. Int. Commun. Assoc. 44 (3), 175–176. doi:10.1080/23808985.2020.1792788

Croucher, S. M., and Kelly, S. (2019). “Measurement in Intercultural and Cross-Cultural Communication,” in Communication Research Measures III: A Sourcebook . Editors E. E. Graham, and J. P. Mazer (London: Routledge ), 141–159. doi:10.4324/9780203730188-10

Croucher, S. M., Kelly, S., Rahmani, D., Jackson, K., Galy-Badenas, F., Lando, A., et al. (2019). A Multi-National Validity Analysis of the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24). Ann. Int. Commun. Assoc. 43 (3), 193–209. doi:10.1080/23808985.2019.1602783

Cruz, M., Henningsen, D., and Williams, M. (2000). The Presence of Norms in the Absence of Groups? Hum. Comm Res 26 (1), 104–124. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2000.tb00752.x

Davidov, E., Muthen, B., and Schmidt, P. (2018). Measurement Invariance in Cross-National Studies. Sociological Methods Res. 47 (4), 631–636. doi:10.1177/0049124118789708

Department of Statistics Singapore, (2019). Education, Language Spoken and Literacy—Publications and Methodology. Available at: http://www.singstat.gov.sg/find-data/search-by-theme/population/education-language-spoken-and-literacy/publications-and-methodology .

Epstein, J., Santo, R. M., and Guillemin, F. (2015). A Review of Guidelines for Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Questionnaires Could Not Bring Out a Consensus. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 68 (4), 435–441. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.021

Fischer, R., Ferreira, M. C., Assmar, E., Redford, P., Harb, C., Glazer, S., et al. (2009). Individualism-collectivism as Descriptive Norms. J. Cross-Cultural Psychol. 40 (2), 187–213. doi:10.1177/0022022109332738

Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research . Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Publ. Co .

Fornara, F., Carrus, G., Passafaro, P., and Bonnes, M. (2011). Distinguishing the Sources of Normative Influence on Proenvironmental Behaviors. Group Process. Intergroup Relations 14 (5), 623–635. doi:10.1177/1368430211408149

Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Marketing Res. 18 (1), 39–50. doi:10.2307/3151312

Geber, S., Baumann, E., Czerwinski, F., and Klimmt, C. (2019). The Effects of Social Norms Among Peer Groups on Risk Behavior: A Multilevel Approach to Differentiate Perceived and Collective Norms. Commun. Res. 48 (3), 319–345. doi:10.1177/0093650218824213

Gerbing, D. (2021). Package ‘lessR. ’ CRAN. Available at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lessR/lessR.pdf .

GovHK, (2020). GovHK: Hong Kong – the Facts. Available at: https://www.gov.hk/en/about/abouthk/facts.htm .

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., and Norenzayan, A. (2010). The Weirdest People in the World? Behav. Brain Sci. 33 (2–3), 61–83. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999152X

Herdman, M., Fox-Rushby, J., and Badia, X. (1997). 'Equivalence' and the Translation and Adaptation of Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaires. Qual. Life Res. 6 (3), 237–247. doi:10.1023/a:1026410721664

Huang, H. (2013). The Silence Around Tibet’s Ecological Crisis. The Atlantic . Available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/05/the-silence-around-tibets-ecological-crisis/275617/ .

Hunter, J. E., and Gerbing, D. W. (1982). Unidimensional Measurement, Second Order Factor Analysis, and Causal Models. Res. Organizational Behav. Annu. Ser. Anal. Essays Crit. Rev. 4, 267–320.

Jain, A., Tobey, E., Ismail, H., and Erulkar, A. (2018). Condom Use at Last Sex by Young Men in Ethiopia: The Effect of Descriptive and Injunctive Norms. Reprod. Health 15, 164. doi:10.1186/s12978-018-0607-3

Jang, S. A., Rimal, R. N., and Cho, N. (2013). Exploring Parental Influences in the Theory of Normative Social Behavior. Commun. Res. 40 (1), 52–72. doi:10.1177/0093650211407061

Jang, S. A. (2012). Self-monitoring as a Moderator Between Descriptive Norms and Drinking: Findings Among Korean and American University Students. Health Commun. 27 (6), 546–558. doi:10.1080/10410236.2011.617242

Jensen, R. E., and Bute, J. J. (2010). Fertility-related Perceptions and Behaviors Among Low-Income Women: Injunctive Norms, Sanctions, and the Assumption of Choice. Qual. Health Res. 20 (11), 1573–1584. doi:10.1177/1049732310375619

John, G. (2000). Review of Education in Tibet. Policy and Practice since 1950 [Review of Review Of Education in Tibet. Policy And Practice since 1950 , by C. Bass]. Tibet J. 25 (2), 69–71. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43302443

Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of Opinion Change. Public Opin. Q. 25 (1), 57–78. doi:10.1086/266996

Kincaid, D. L. (2004). From Innovation to Social Norm: Bounded Normative Influence. J. Health Commun. 9 (Suppl. 1), 37–57. doi:10.1080/10810730490271511

LaBrie, J. W., Atkins, D. C., Neighbors, C., Mirza, T., and Larimer, M. E. (2012). Ethnicity Specific Norms and Alcohol Consumption Among Hispanic/Latino/a and Caucasian Students. Addict. Behaviors 37 (4), 573–576. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.01.007

Lapinski, M. K., Anderson, J., Cruz, S., and Lapine, P. (2015). Social Networks and the Communication of Norms About Prenatal Care in Rural Mexico. J. Health Commun. 20 (1), 112–120. doi:10.1080/10810730.2014.914605

Lapinski, M. K., Liu, R. W., Kerr, J. M., Zhao, J., and Bum, T. (2019). Characterizing Interpersonal Influence for Grassland Conservation Behaviours in a Unique Population. Environ. Commun. 13 (5), 664–680. doi:10.1080/17524032.2018.1436579

Lapinski, M. K., Liu, R. W., Kerr, J. M., Zhao, J., Bum, T., and Lu, Z. (2021). Culture and Social Norms: Behavioral Decisions About Grassland Conservation Among Ethnically Tibetan Pastoralists. J. Int. Intercultural Commun. 2021, 1–22. doi:10.1080/17513057.2021.1916569

Lapinski, M. K., and Rimal, R. N. (2005). An Explication of Social Norms. Commun. Theor. 15 (2), 127–147. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2005.tb00329.x

Lapinski, M. K., Rimal, R. N., DeVries, R., and Lee, E. L. (2007). The Role of Group Orientation and Descriptive Norms on Water Conservation Attitudes and Behaviors. Health Commun. 22 (2), 133–142. doi:10.1080/10410230701454049

Lapinski, M. K., Silk, K., Liu, R. W., and Totzkay, D. (2018). “Models for Environmental Communication for Unique Populations,” in Environmental Communication Among Minority Populations . Editors B. Takahashi, and S. Rosenthal (Abingdon-on-Thames: Taylor & Francis ), 6–27. doi:10.4324/9781351127080-2

Lee, C., and Green, R. T. (1991). Cross-cultural Examination of the Fishbein Behavioral Intentions Model. J. Int. Bus Stud. 22, 289–305. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490304

Limaye, R. J., Rimal, R. N., Mkandawire, G., Roberts, P., Dothi, W., and Brown, J. (2012). Talking About Sex in Malawi: Toward a Better Understanding of Interpersonal Communication for HIV Prevention. J. Public Health Res. 1 (2), 17–125. doi:10.4081/jphr.2012.e17

L. Milfont, T., and Fischer, R. (2015). Testing Measurement Invariance Across Groups: Applications in Cross-Cultural Research. Int. J. Psychol. Res. 3 (1), 111–130. doi:10.21500/20112084.857

Mackie, G., Moneti, F., and Shakya, H. (2015). What Are Social Norms? How Are They Measured? San Diego, CA: UNICEF/University of California . Available at: https://www.unicef.org/protection/files/4_09_30_Whole_What_are_Social_Norms.pdf .

Mollen, S., Rimal, R. N., and Lapinski, M. K. (2010). What Is Normative inHealth CommunicationResearch on Norms? A Review and Recommendations for Future Scholarship. Health Commun. 25 (6–7), 544–547. doi:10.1080/10410236.2010.496704

Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., and Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications .

Nguyen, M.-L., and Neighbors, C. (2013). Self-determination, Perceived Approval, and Drinking: Differences Between Asian Americans and Whites. Addict. Behaviors 38 (3), 1656–1662. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.10.001

Orbe, M. P. (1997). Constructing Co-cultural Theory: An Explication of Culture, Power, and Communication . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications .

Park, H. S., and Levine, T. R. (1999). The Theory of Reasoned Action and Self‐construal: Evidence from Three Cultures. Commun. Monogr. 66 (3), 199–218. doi:10.1080/03637759909376474

Pedhazur, E. J., and Schmelkin, L. P. (2013). Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated Approach . Hove, UK: Psychology Press .

Rhodes, N., Shulman, H. C., and McClaran, N. (2020). Changing Norms: A Meta-Analytic Integration of Research on Social Norms Appeals. Hum. Commun. Res. 46 (2–3), 161–191. doi:10.1093/hcr/hqz023

Rimal, R. N., and Real, K. (2005). How Behaviors Are Influenced by Perceived Norms. Commun. Res. 32 (3), 389–414. doi:10.1177/0093650205275385

Rimal, R. N., Sripad, P., Speizer, I. S., and Calhoun, L. M. (2015). Interpersonal Communication as an Agent of Normative Influence: A Mixed Method Study Among the Urban Poor in India. Reprod. Health 12, 71. doi:10.1186/s12978-015-0061-4

Rimal, R. N., Yilma, H., Ryskulova, N., and Geber, S. (2019). Driven to Succeed: Improving Adolescents' Driving Behaviors Through a Personal Narrative-Based Psychosocial Intervention in Serbia. Accid. Anal. Prev. 122, 172–180. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2018.09.034

Rubin, D. B. (1976). Inference and Missing Data. Biometrika 63 (3), 581–592. doi:10.1093/biomet/63.3.581

Ryan, K., Gannon-Slater, N., and Culbertson, M. J. (2012). Improving Survey Methods with Cognitive Interviews in Small- and Medium-Scale Evaluations. Am. J. Eval. 33 (3), 414–430. doi:10.1177/1098214012441499

Savani, K., Wadhwa, M., Uchida, Y., Ding, Y., and Naidu, N. V. R. (2015). When Norms Loom Larger Than the Self: Susceptibility of Preference-Choice Consistency to Normative Influence across Cultures. Organizational Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 129, 70–79. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.09.001

Schaffer, B. S., and Riordan, C. M. (2003). A Review of Cross-Cultural Methodologies for Organizational Research: A Best- Practices Approach. Organizational Res. Methods 6 (2), 169–215. doi:10.1177/1094428103251542

Shen, X., and Tan, J. (2012). Ecological Conservation, Cultural Preservation, and a Bridge Between: The Journey of Shanshui Conservation Center in the Sanjiangyuan Region, Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, China. Ecol. Soc. 17 (4), 38. doi:10.5751/ES-05345-170438

Shulman, H. C., Rhodes, N., Davidson, E., Ralston, R., Borghetti, L., and Morr, L. (2017). The State of the Field of Social Norms Research. Int. J. Commun. 11, 1192–1213. Available at: https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/6055/1966

Stamkou, E., van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Gelfand, M. J., van de Vijver, F. J. R., van Egmond, M. C., et al. (2019). Cultural Collectivism and Tightness Moderate Responses to Norm Violators: Effects on Power Perception, Moral Emotions, and Leader Support. Pers Soc. Psychol. Bull. 45 (6), 947–964. doi:10.1177/0146167218802832

Steenkamp, J. B. E. M., and Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing Measurement Invariance in Cross‐National Consumer Research. J. Consum Res. 25 (1), 78–107. doi:10.1086/209528

Thogersen, J., and Olander, F. (2006). The Dynamic Interaction of Personal Norms and Environment-Friendly Buying Behavior: A Panel Study1. J. Appl. Soc. Pyschol 36 (7), 1758–1780. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00080.x

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and Collectivism (Vol. Xv) . Boulder, CO: Westview Press .

UNICEF, (2010). The Dynamics of Social Change: Towards the Abandonment of Female Genital Mutilation/cutting in Five African Countries . New York, NY: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre . Available at: http://catalog.hathitrust.org/api/volumes/oclc/696099948.html .

Walter, N., Murphy, S. T., Frank, L. B., and Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (2019). The Power of Brokerage: Case Study of Normative Behavior, Latinas and Cervical Cancer. Commun. Res. 46 (5), 639–662. doi:10.1177/0093650217718655

Wan, C., Shen, G. Q., and Choi, S. (2018). The Moderating Effect of Subjective Norm in Predicting Intention to Use Urban Green Spaces: A Study of Hong Kong. Sustain. Cities Soc. 37, 288–297. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2017.11.022

Yilma, H., Sedlander, E., Rimal, R. N., Pant, I., Munjral, A., and Mohanty, S. (2020). The Reduction in Anemia Through Normative Innovations (RANI) Project: Study Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial in Odisha, India. BMC Public Health 20, 203. doi:10.1186/s12889-020-8271-2

Keywords: unique populations, social norms, cross-cultural communication, culturally derived measures, measurement validation

Citation: Liu RW, Lapinski MK, Kerr JM, Zhao J, Bum T and Lu Z (2022) Culture and Social Norms: Development and Application of a Model for Culturally Contextualized Communication Measurement (MC 3 M). Front. Commun. 6:770513. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2021.770513

Received: 03 September 2021; Accepted: 06 December 2021; Published: 03 January 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Liu, Lapinski, Kerr, Zhao, Bum and Lu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Rain W. Liu, [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.7(4); 2021 Apr

Gendered stereotypes and norms: A systematic review of interventions designed to shift attitudes and behaviour

Rebecca stewart.

a BehaviourWorks Australia, Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Breanna Wright

Steven roberts.

b School of Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Natalie Russell

c Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Associated Data

Data included in article.

In the face of ongoing attempts to achieve gender equality, there is increasing focus on the need to address outdated and detrimental gendered stereotypes and norms, to support societal and cultural change through individual attitudinal and behaviour change. This article systematically reviews interventions aiming to address gendered stereotypes and norms across several outcomes of gender inequality such as violence against women and sexual and reproductive health, to draw out common theory and practice and identify success factors. Three databases were searched; ProQuest Central, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Articles were included if they used established public health interventions types (direct participation programs, community mobilisation or strengthening, organisational or workforce development, communications, social marketing and social media, advocacy, legislative or policy reform) to shift attitudes and/or behaviour in relation to rigid gender stereotypes and norms. A total of 71 studies were included addressing norms and/or stereotypes across a range of intervention types and gender inequality outcomes, 55 of which reported statistically significant or mixed outcomes. The implicit theory of change in most studies was to change participants' attitudes by increasing their knowledge/awareness of gendered stereotypes or norms. Five additional strategies were identified that appear to strengthen intervention impact; peer engagement, addressing multiple levels of the ecological framework, developing agents of change, modelling/role models and co-design of interventions with participants or target populations. Consideration of cohort sex, length of intervention (multi-session vs single-session) and need for follow up data collection were all identified as factors influencing success. When it comes to engaging men and boys in particular, interventions with greater success include interactive learning, co-design and peer leadership. Several recommendations are made for program design, including that practitioners need to be cognisant of breaking down stereotypes amongst men (not just between genders) and the avoidance of reinforcing outdated stereotypes and norms inadvertently.

Gender; Stereotypes; Social norms; Attitude change; Behaviour change; Men and masculinities

1. Introduction

Gender is a widely accepted social determinant of health [ 1 , 2 ], as evidenced by the inclusion of Gender Equality as a standalone goal in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals [ 3 ]. In light of this, momentum is building around the need to invest in gender-transformative programs and initiatives designed to challenge harmful power and gender imbalances, in line with increasing acknowledgement that ‘restrictive gender norms harm health and limit life choices for all’ ([ 2 ] pe225, see also [ 1 , 4 ]).

Gender-transformative programs and interventions seek to critically examine gender related norms and expectations and increase gender equitable attitudes and behaviours, often with a focus on masculinity [ 5 , 6 ]. They are one of five approaches identified by Gupta [ 6 ] as part of a continuum that targets social change via efforts to address gender (in particular gender-based power imbalances), violence prevention and sexual and reproductive health rights. The approaches in ascending progressive order are; reinforcing damaging gender (and sexuality) stereotypes, gender neutral, gender sensitive, gender-transformative , and gender empowering. The emerging evidence pertaining to the effectiveness of gender-transformative interventions points to the importance of programs challenging the gender binary and related norms, as opposed to focusing only on specific behaviours or attitudes [ 1 , 7 , 8 ]. This understanding is in part derived from a growing appreciation of the need to address outdated and detrimental gendered stereotypes and norms in order to support societal and cultural change in relation to this issue [ 9 , 10 , 11 ]. In addition to this focus on gender-transformative interventions is an increasing call for the engagement of men and boys not only as allies but as participants, partners and agents of change in gender equality efforts [ 12 , 13 ].

When examining the issue of gender inequality, it is necessary to consider the underlying drivers that allow for the maintenance and ongoing repetition of sex-based disparities in access to resources, power and opportunities [ 14 ]. The drivers can largely be categorised as either, ‘structural and systemic’, or ‘social norms and gendered stereotypes’ [ 15 ]. Extensive research and work has, and continues to be, undertaken in relation to structural and systemic drivers. From this perspective, efforts to address inequalities have focused on areas societal institutions exert influence over women's rights and access. One example (of many) is the paid workforce and attempts to address unequal gender representation through policies and practices around recruitment [ 16 , 17 ], retention via tactics such as flexible working arrangements [ 18 , 19 , 20 ] and promotion [ 16 ].

The focus of this review, however, is stereotypes and norms, incorporating the attitudes, behavioural intentions and enacted behaviours that are produced and reinforced as a result of structures and systems that support inequalities. Both categories of drivers (structural and systemic and social norms and gendered stereotypes) are influenced by and exert influence upon each other. Heise and colleagues [ 12 ] suggest that gendered norms uphold the gender system and are embedded in institutions (i.e. structurally), thus determining who occupies positions of leadership, whose voices are heard and listened to, and whose needs are prioritised [ 10 ]. As noted by Kågesten and Chandra-Mouli [ 1 ], addressing both categories of drivers is crucial to the broader strategy needed to meet the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

Stereotypes are widely held, generalised assumptions regarding common traits (including strengths and weaknesses), based on group categorisation [ 21 , 22 ]. Traditional gendered stereotypes see the attribution of agentic traits such as ambition, power and competitiveness as inherent in men, and communal traits such as nurturing, empathy and concern for others as characteristics of women [ 21 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ]. In addition to these descriptive stereotypes (i.e. beliefs about specific characteristics a person possesses based on their gender) are prescriptive stereotypes, which are beliefs about specific characteristics that a person should possess based on their gender [ 21 , 25 ]. Gender-based stereotypes are informed by social norms relating to ideals and practices of masculinity and femininity (e.g. physical attributes, temperament, occupation/role suitability, etc.), which are subject to the influence of culture and time [ 15 , 21 , 26 ].

Social norms are informal (often unspoken) rules governing the behaviour of a group, emerging out of interactions with others and sanctioned by social networks [ 27 ]. Whilst stereotypes inform our assumptions about someone based on their gender [ 21 ], social norms govern the expected and accepted behaviour of women and men, often perpetuating gendered stereotypes (i.e. men as agentic, women as communal) [ 12 ]. Cialdini and Trost [ 27 ] delineate norms by suggesting that, in addition to these general societal behavioural expectations (see also [ 28 , 29 ]), there are personal norms (what we expect of ourselves) [ 30 ], and subjective norms (what we think others expect of us) [ 31 ]. Within subjective norms, there are injunctive norms (behaviours perceived as being approved by others) and descriptive norms (our observations and expectations of what most others are doing). Despite being malleable and subjective to cultural and socio-historical influences, portrayals and perpetuation of these stereotypes and social norms restrict aspirations, expectations and participation of both women and men, with demonstrations of counter-stereotypical behaviours often met with resistance and backlash ([ 12 , 24 , 32 ], see also [ 27 , 33 ]). These limitations are evident both between and among women and men, demonstrative of the power hierarchies that gender inequality and its drivers produce and sustain [ 12 ].

There is an extensive literature that explores interventions targeting gendered stereotypes and norms, each focusing on specific outcomes of gender inequality, such as violence against women [ 13 ], gender-based violence and sexual and reproductive health (including HIV prevention, treatment, care and support) [ 5 , 8 ], parental involvement [ 34 ], sexual and reproductive health rights [ 23 , 35 ], and health and wellbeing [ 2 ]. Comparisons of learnings across these focus areas remains difficult however due to the current lack of a synthesis of interventions across outcomes.

Despite this gap, one of the key findings to arise out of the literature relates to the common, and often implicit, theory of change around shifting participants' attitudes by increasing their knowledge/awareness of gendered stereotypes or norms, and the assumption that this will then lead to behaviour change. This was identified by Jewkes and colleagues [ 13 ] in their review of 67 intervention evaluations in relation to the prevention of violence against women, a finding they noted was in contradiction of research across disciplines which has consistently found this relationship to be complex and bidirectional [ 36 , 37 ]. Similarly, The International Centre for Research on Women indicate the ‘problematic assumption[s] regarding pathways to change’ ([ 7 ] p26) as one of the challenges to engaging men and boys in gender equality work, noting also the focus of evaluation, when undertaken, being on changes in attitude rather than behaviour. Ruane-McAteer and colleagues [ 35 ] made the same observation when looking at interventions aimed at gender equality in sexual and reproductive health, highlighting the need for greater interrogation into the intended outcomes of interventions including what the underlying theory of change is. These findings lend further support to the utilisation of the gender-transformative approach identified by Gupta [ 6 ] if fundamental and sustained shifts in understanding, attitudes and behaviour relating to gender inequality is the desired outcome.

In sum, much is known about gender stereotypes and norms and the contribution they make to perpetuating and sustaining gender inequality through the various outcomes discussed above. Less is known however about how to support and sustain more equitable attitudes and behaviours when it comes to addressing gender equality more broadly. This systematic review aims to address the question which intervention characteristics support change in attitudes and behaviour in relation to rigid gender stereotypes and norms. It will do this by consolidating the literature to determine what has been done and what works. This includes querying which intervention types work for whom in terms of participant age and sex, as well as delivery style and duration. Additionally, it will consider the theories of change being used to address attitudes and behaviours and how these shifts are being measured, including for impact longevity. Finally, it will allow for insight into interventions specifically targeting men and boys in relation to rigid gender stereotypes and norms, seeking out particular characteristics that are supportive of work engaging this particular cohort. These questions are intentionally broad and based on the framing of the above question it is expected that the review will capture primarily interventions that address underlying societal factors that support a culture in which harmful power and gender imbalances exist by addressing gender inequitable attitudes and behaviours. In asking these questions, this review consolidates the knowledge generated to date, to strengthen the design, development and implementation of future interventions, a synthesis that appears to be both absent and needed.

2.1. Data sources and search strategy

This review was undertaken in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [ 38 ]. A protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework (Title: Gendered norms: A systematic review of how to achieve change in rigid gender stereotypes, accessible at https://osf.io/gyk25/ ). Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method studies were identified through three electronic databases searched in February 2019 (ProQuest Central, PsycINFO and Web of Science). Four search strategies were developed in consultation with a subject librarian and tested across all three databases. The final strategy was confirmed by the lead author and a second reviewer (see Table 1 ).

Table 1

Search terms used.

There were no date or language exclusions, Title, Abstract & Keyword filters were applied where possible, and truncation was used in line with database specifications. The following intervention categories were included due to their standing in public health literature as being effective to create population level impact and having proven effective in addressing other significant health and social issues [ 39 ]; direct participation programs (referred to also as education based interventions throughout this review), community mobilisation or strengthening, organisational or workforce development, communications, social marketing and social media, advocacy, legislative or policy reform. Table 2 provides descriptions of each of these intervention categories that have been obtained from the actions outlined in the World Health Organisation's Ottawa Charter [ 40 ] and Jakarta Declaration [ 41 ] and are a comprehensive set of strategies grounded in prevention theory [ 42 ]. For the purposes of this review, legislative and policy reform within community, educational, organisational and workforce settings were included. Government legislation and policy reform were excluded.

Table 2

Public health intervention categories.

2.2. Screening

Initial search results were merged and duplicates removed using EndNote before transferring data management to Covidence for screening. Two researchers independently screened titles and abstracts excluding studies based on the criteria stipulated in Table 3 .

Table 3

Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

The University Library document request service was used to obtain articles otherwise inaccessible or in languages other than English. In cases where full-text or English versions were unable to be obtained, the study was excluded. Full-text screening was undertaken by the same two researchers independently and the final selection resulted in 71 included studies (see Figure 1 ).

PRISMA diagram of screening and study selection.

2.3. Data extraction

Data extraction was undertaken by the first author and checked for accuracy by the second author. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus with the remaining three authors. The extracted data included: citation, year and location of study, participant demographics (gender, age), study design, setting, theoretical underpinnings, motivation for study, measurement tools/instruments, primary outcomes and results. A formal meta-analysis was not conducted given heterogeneity of outcome variables and measures, due in part to the broad nature of the review question.

2.4. Quality appraisal

Three established quality appraisal tools were used to account for the different study designs included, the McMasters Critical Review Form – Qualitative Studies 2.0 [ 43 ], the McMasters Critical Review Form – Quantitative Studies [ 44 ], Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), version 2018 [ 45 ]. The first author completed quality appraisal for all studies, with the second author undertaking an accuracy check on ten percent of studies. The appraisal score represents the proportion of ‘yes’ responses out of the total number of criteria. ‘Not reported’ was treated as a ‘no’ response. A discussion of the outcomes is located under Results.

2.5. Data synthesis

Included studies were explored using a modified narrative synthesis approach comprising three elements; developing a theory of how interventions worked, why and with whom, developing a preliminary synthesis of findings of included studies, and exploring relationships in studies reporting statistically significant outcomes [ 46 ]. Preliminary analysis was conducted using groupings of studies based on intervention type and thematic analysis based on gender inequality outcomes driving the study and features of the studies including participant sex and age and intervention delivery style and duration [ 46 ]. A conceptual model was developed (see Theory of Change section under Results) as the method of relationship exploration amongst studies reporting significant results, using qualitative case descriptions [ 47 ]. The narrative synthesis was undertaken under the premise that the ‘evidence being synthesised in a systematic review does not necessarily offer a series of discrete answers to a specific question’, so much as ‘each piece of evidence offers are partial picture of the phenomenon of interest’ ([ 46 ] p21).

3.1. Literature search

The literature search returned 4,050 references after the removal of duplicates (see Figure 1 ), from which 210 potentially relevant abstracts were identified. Full-text review resulted in a final list of 71 articles evaluating 69 distinct interventions aligned with the public health methodologies outlined in Table 2 . Table 4 provides a list of the included studies, categorised by intervention type. Studies fell into eight categories of interventions in total, with several combining two methodology types described in Table 2 .

Table 4

Included articles categorised by intervention type.

3.2. Quality assessment

Overall, the results of the quality appraisal indicated a moderate level of confidence in the results. The appraisal scores for the 71 studies ranged from poor (.24) to excellent (.96). The median appraisal score was .71 for all included studies (n = 71) and .76 for studies reporting statistically significant positive results (n = 32). The majority of studies were rated moderate quality (n = 57, 80%), with moderate quality regarded as .50 - .79 [ 119 ]. Ten studies were regarded as high quality (14%, >.80), and four were rated as poor (6%, <.50) [ 119 ]. Of the studies with significant outcomes, one rated high quality (.82) and the remaining 31 were moderate quality, with 18 of these (58% of 31) rating >.70. For the 15 randomised control trials (including n = 13 x cluster), all articles provided clear study purposes and design, intervention details, reported statistical significance of results, reported appropriate analysis methods and drew appropriate conclusions. However, only four studies appropriately justified sampling process and selection. For the qualitative studies (n = 5), the lowest scoring criteria were in relation to describing the process of purposeful selection (n = 1, 20%) and sampling done until redundancy in data was reached (n = 2, 40%). For the quantitative studies (n = 47) the lowest scoring criteria were in relation to sample size justification (n = 8, 17%) and avoiding contamination (n = 1, 2%) and co-intervention (n = 0, none of the studies provided information on this) in regards to intervention participants. For the Mixed Method studies (n = 19) the lowest scoring criteria in relation to the qualitative component of the research was in relation to the findings being adequately derived from the data (n = 9, 47%), and for the mixed methods criteria it was in relation to adequately addressing the divergences and inconsistencies between quantitative and qualitative results (n = 6, 32%).

3.3. Measures

Measures of stereotypes and norms varied across quantitative and mixed method studies with 31 (47%) of the 66 articles reporting the use of 25 different psychometric evaluation tools. The remaining 35 (53%) of quantitative and mixed methods studies reported developing measurement tools specific to the study with inconsistencies in description and provision of psychometric properties. Of the studies that used psychometric evaluation tools, the most frequently used were the Gender Equitable Men Scale (GEMS, n = 6, plus n = 2 used questions from the GEMS), followed by the Gender Role Conflict Scale I (GRCS-I, n = 5, plus n = 1 used a Short Form version) and the Gender-Stereotyped Attitude Scale for Children (GASC, n = 5). Whilst most studies used explicit measures as listed here, implicit measures were also used across several studies, including the Gender-Career Implicit Attitudes Test (n = 1). The twenty-four studies that undertook qualitative data collection used interviews (participant n = 15, key informant n = 3) as well as focus groups (n = 8), ethnographic observations (n = 5) and document analysis (n = 2). Twenty (28%) of the 71 studies measured behaviour and/or behavioural intentions, of which 9 (45%) used self-report measures only, four (20%) used self-report and observational data, and two (10%) used observation only. Follow-up data was collected for four of the studies using self-report measures, and two using observation measures, and one using both methods.

3.4. Study and intervention characteristics

Table 5 provides a summary of study and intervention characteristics. All included studies were published between 1990 and 2019; n = 8 (11%) between 1990 and 1999, n = 15 (21%) between 2000 and 2009, and the majority n = 48 (68%) from 2010 to 2019. Interventions were delivered in 23 countries (one study did not specify a location), with the majority conducted in the U.S. (n = 33, 46%), followed by India (n = 10, 14%). A further 15 studies (21%) were undertaken in Africa across East Africa (n = 7, Ethiopia, Malawi, Mozambique, Uganda), South Africa (n = 6), and West Africa (n = 2, Nigeria, Senegal). The remaining fifteen studies were conducted in Central and South America (n = 4, Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador and Argentina), Europe (n = 3, Ireland, Spain and Turkey), Nepal (n = 2), and one study each in Australia, China, Oman, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the United Kingdom. Forty-seven (66%) studies employed quantitative methods, 19 (27%) reported both quantitative and qualitative (mixed) methods, and the remaining five studies (7%) reported qualitative methods. Forty-two of the quantitative and mixed-method approaches were non-randomised control trials, 13 were cluster randomised control trials, two were randomised control trials, and eight were quantitative descriptive studies.

Table 5

Summarised study and intervention characteristics (n = 71).

Based on total study sample sizes, data was reported on 46,673 participants. Sample sizes ranged from 15 to 122 for qualitative, 7 to 2887 for mixed methods, and 21 to 6073 for quantitative studies. Of the 71 studies, 23 (32%) reported on children (<18 years old), 13 (18%) on adolescents/young adults (<30 years old), 29 (41%) on adults (>18 years old), and six (8%) studies did not provided details on participant age. Thirty-seven (52%) studies recruited participants from educational settings (i.e. kindergarten, primary, middle and secondary/high school, tertiary including college residential settings, and summer camps/schools), 32 (45%) from general community settings (including home and sports), three from therapy-based programs for offenders (i.e. substance abuse and partner abuse prevention), and one sourced participants from both educational (vocational) and a workplace (factory).

As per Table 5 , the greatest proportion of all studies engaged mixed sex cohorts (n = 39, 55%), looked at norms (n = 34, 48%), were undertaken in community settings (n = 32, 45%), were education/direct participant interventions (n = 47, 66%) and undertook pre and post intervention evaluation (n = 49, 69%). Twenty-four studies reported on follow up data collection, with 10 reporting maintenance of outcomes.

Intervention lengths were varied, from individual sessions (90 min) to ongoing programs (up to 6 years) and were dependent on intervention type. Table 6 provides the duration range by intervention type.

Table 6

Intervention type and duration.

Of the 71 studies examined in this review, 10 (14%) stated a gender approach in relation to the continuum outlined at the start of this paper, utilising two of the five categories; gender-transformative and gender-sensitive [ 6 ]. Eight studies stated that they were gender-transformative, the definition of this strategy being to critically examine gender related norms and expectations and increase gender equitable attitudes and behaviours, often with a focus on masculinity [ 9 , 10 ]. An additional two stated they were gender-sensitive, the definition of which is to take into account and seek to address existing gender inequalities [ 10 ]. The remaining 61 (86%) studies did not specifically state engagement with a specific gender approach. Interpretation of the gender approach was not undertaken in relation to these 61 studies due to insufficient available data and to avoid potential risk of error, mislabelling or misidentification.

3.5. Characteristics supporting success

Due to the broad inclusion criteria for this review, there is considerable variation in study designs and the measurement of attitudes and behaviours. With the exception of the five studies using qualitative methods, all included studies reported on p-values, and 13 reported on effect sizes [ 51 , 60 , 66 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 83 , 92 , 99 , 110 ]. In addition to this, the centrality of gender norms and/or stereotypes within studies meeting inclusion criteria varied from a primary outcome to a secondary one, and in some studies was a peripheral consideration only, with minimal data reported. This heterogeneity prevents comparisons based purely on whether the outcomes of the studies were statistically significant, and as such consideration was also given to the inclusion of effect sizes, author interpretation, qualitative insights and whether outcomes reported as statistically non-significant reported encouraging results, which allowed for the inclusion of those using qualitative methods only [ 53 , 73 , 81 , 82 , 98 ].

As outlined in Table 5 , the studies were grouped into three categories based on reporting of statistical significance using p-values. Two categories include studies reporting statistically significant outcomes (n = 25) and those reporting mixed outcomes including some statistically significant results (n = 30), specifically in relation to the measurement of gender norms and/or stereotypes. Disparate outcomes included negligible behavioural changes, a shift in some but not all norms (i.e. shifts in descriptive but not personal norms, or masculine but not feminine stereotypes), and effects seen in some but not all participants (i.e. shifts in female participant scores but not male). It is worth noting that out of the 71 studies reviewed, all but one reported positive or negligible intervention impacts on attitudes and/or behaviours relating to gender norms and/or stereotypes. The other category include those reporting non-significant results (n = 2) as well as those that reported non-significant but positive results in relation to attitude and/or behaviour change towards gender norms and/or stereotypes (n = 14). These studies include those which had qualitative designs, several who reported on descriptive statistics only, and several which did not meet statistical significance but who demonstrated improvement in participant scores between base and end line and/or between intervention and control groups. The insights from the qualitative studies (n = 5) have been taken into consideration in the narrative synthesis of this review.

Studies reporting statistically significant outcomes were represented across seven of the eight intervention types. The only intervention category not represented was advocacy and education [ 48 ] which reported non-significant but positive results. The remainder of this section will consider the study characteristics of the statistically significant and mixed results categories, as well as identifying similar trends observed in the qualitative studies which reported positive but non-significant intervention outcomes. When considering intervention type, direct participant education was the most common, with 49 of the 55 studies reporting statistically significant or mixed outcomes containing a direct participant education component, and all but one of the five qualitative studies.

The majority of interventions reporting achievement of intended outcomes involved delivery of multiple sessions ranging from five x 20 min sessions across one week to multiple sessions across six years. This included 48 of the 55 studies reporting statistically significant or mixed outcomes, and all five qualitative studies. Only one of the seven that utilised single/one-off sessions reported significant outcomes. The remaining six studies had varying results, including finding shifts in descriptive but not personal norms amongst a male-only cohort, shifts in acceptance of both genders performing masculine behaviours but no shift in acceptance of males performing feminine behaviours, and significant outcomes for participants already demonstrating more egalitarian attitudes at baseline but not those holding more traditional ones – arguably the target audience.

When considering participant sex, the majority of studies reporting statistically significant or mixed results engaged mixed sex cohorts (n = 33 out of 55), with the remaining studies engaging male only (n = 13) and female only (n = 9) cohorts. Of the qualitative studies, three engaged mixed sex participant cohorts. Interestingly however, several studies reported disparate results, including significant outcomes for male but non-significant outcomes for female participants primarily in studies incorporating a community mobilisation element, and the reverse pattern in some studies that were education based. Additional discrepancies were found between several studies looking at individual and community level outcomes.

Finally, a quarter of studies worked with male only cohorts (n = 18). Of these, four reported significant results, nine reported mixed results, and the remaining five studies reported non-significant but positive outcomes, one of which was a qualitative study. Within these studies, two demonstrated shifts in more generalised descriptive norms and/or stereotypes relating to men, but not in relation to personal norms. Additionally, several studies demonstrated that shifts in male participant attitudes were not generalised, with discrepancies found in relation to attitudes shifting towards women but not men and in relation to some norms or stereotypes (for example men acting in ‘feminine’ ways) but not others that appeared to be more culturally entrenched. These studies are explored further in the Discussion.

In summary, interventions that used direct participant education, across multiple sessions, with mixed sex participant cohorts were associated with greater success in changing attitudes and in a small number of studies behaviour. Further to these characteristics, several strategies were identified that appear to enhance intervention impact which are discussed further in the next section.

3.6. Theory of change

One aim of this review was to draw out common theory and practice in order to strengthen future intervention development and delivery. Across all included studies, the implicit theory of change was raising knowledge/awareness for the purposes of shifting attitudes relating to gender norms and/or stereotypes. Direct participant education-based interventions was the predominant method of delivery. In addition to this, 23 (32%) studies attempted to take this a step further to address behaviour and/or behavioural intentions, of which 10 looked at gender equality outcomes (including bystander action and behavioural intentions), whilst the remaining studies focused on gender-based violence (n = 9), sexual and reproductive health (n = 2) and two studies which did not focus on behaviours related to the focus of this review.

As highlighted in Figure 2 , this common theory of change was the same across all identified intervention categories, irrespective of the overarching focus of the study (gender equality, prevention of violence, sexual and reproductive health, mental health and wellbeing). Those examining gender equality more broadly did so in relation to female empowerment in relationships, communities and political participation, identifying and addressing stereotypes and normative attitudes with kindergarten and school aged children. Those considering prevention of violence did so specifically in relation to violence against women, including intimate partner violence, rape awareness and myths, and a number of studies looking at teen dating violence. Sexual and reproductive health studies primarily assessed prevention of HIV, but also men and women's involvement in family planning, with several exploring the interconnected issues of violence and sexual and reproductive health. Finally, those studies looking at mental health and wellbeing did so in relation to mental and physical health outcomes and associated help-seeking behaviours, including reducing stigma around mental health (particularly amongst men in terms of acceptance and help seeking) and emotional expression (in relationships).

Breakdown of study characteristics and strategies associated with achieving intended outcomes.

In addition to the implicit theory of change, the review process identified five additional strategies that appear to have strengthened interventions (regardless of intervention type). In addition to implicit theory of change across all studies, one or more of these strategies were utilised by 31 of the 55 studies that reported statistically significant results:

• • Addressing more than one level of the ecological framework (n = 17): which refers to different levels of personal and environmental factors, all of which influence and are influenced by each other to differing degrees [ 120 ]. The levels are categorised as individual, relational, community/organisational and societal, with the individual level being the most commonly addressed across studies in this review;
• • Peer engagement (n = 14): Using participant peers (for example people from the same geographical location, gender, life experience, etc.) to support or lead an intervention, including the use of older students to mentor younger students, or using peer interactions as part of the intervention to enhance learning. This included students putting on performances for the broader school community, facilitation of peer discussions via online platforms or face-to-face via direct participant education and group activities or assignments;
• • Use of role models and modelling of desired attitudes and/or behaviours by facilitators or persons of influence in participants' lives (n = 11);
• • Developing agents of change (n = 7): developing knowledge and skills for the specific purpose of participants using these to engage with their spheres of influence and further promote, educate and support the people and environments in which they interact; and
• • Co-design (n = 6): Use of formative research or participant feedback to develop the intervention or to allow flexibility in its evolution as it progresses.

Additionally, four of the five studies using qualitative methods utilised one or more of these strategies; ecological framework (n = 3), peer engagement (n = 1), role models (n = 2), agents of change (n = 2) and co-design (n = 1). Whilst only a small number of studies reported engaging the last two strategies, developing agents of change and co-design, they have been highlighted due to their prominence in working with the sub-set of men and boys, as well as the use of role models/modelling.

The remaining 24 studies that reported significant outcomes did not utilise any of these five strategies. Eight used a research/experimental design, the remaining 16 were all direct participant education interventions, and either did not provide enough detail about the intervention structure or delivery to determine if they engaged in any of these strategies (n = 13), were focused on testing a specific theory (n = 2) or in the case of one study used financial incentives.

Figure 2 provides a conceptual model exploring the relationship amongst studies reporting statistically significant outcomes. Utilising the common theory of change as well as the additional identified strategies, interventions were able to address factors that act as gender inequality enforcers including knowledge, attitudes, environmental factors and behaviour and behavioural intentions (see Table 7 ), to achieve statistically significant shifts in attitudes, and in a small number of cases behaviour (see Table 8 ).

Table 7

Factors supportive of gender inequality in studies reporting significant positive outcomes (n = 55).

Table 8

Changes observed in attitudes and behaviours in studies reporting significant positive outcomes (n = 55).

4. Discussion

This systematic review synthesises evidence on ‘which intervention characteristics support change in attitudes and behaviours in relation to rigid gender stereotypes and norms’, based on the seventy-one studies that met the review inclusion criteria. Eight intervention types were identified, seven of which achieved statistically significant outcomes. Patterns of effectiveness were found based on delivery style and duration, as well as participant sex, and several strategies (peer engagement, addressing multiple levels of the ecological framework, skilling participants as agents of change, use of role models and modelling of desired attitudes and behaviours, and intervention co-design with participants) were identified that enhanced shifts in attitudes and in a small number of studies, behaviour. Additionally, a common theory of change was identified (increasing knowledge and raising awareness to achieve shifts in attitudes) across all studies reporting statistically significant results.

The articles included in this review covered a range of intervention types, duration and focus, demonstrating relative heterogeneity across these elements. This is not an unexpected outcome given the aim of this review was to allow for comparisons to be drawn across interventions, regardless of the overarching focus of the study (gender equality, prevention of violence, sexual and reproductive health, mental health and wellbeing). As a result, one of the key findings of this review is that design, delivery and engagement strategies that feature in studies reporting successful outcomes, are successful regardless of the intervention focus thus widening the evidence base from which those researching and implementing interventions can draw. That said, the heterogeneity of studies limits the ability for definitive conclusions to be drawn based on the studies considered in this review. Instead this section provides a discussion of the characteristics and strategies observed based on the narrative synthesis undertaken.

4.1. Intervention characteristics that support success

4.1.1. intervention type and participant demographics.

The 71 included studies were categorised into eight intervention types (see Table 4 ); advocacy and education, advocacy and community mobilisation, community mobilisation, community mobilisation and education, education (direct participant), research and education, research, and two studies that utilised four or more intervention types (advocacy via campaigns and social media, community mobilisation, education and legislation, and, advocacy, education, community mobilisation, policy and social marketing). With the exception of the individual study that utilised advocacy and education, all intervention types were captured in studies reporting statistically significant or mixed results.

Direct participant education was the most common intervention type across all studies (n = 47 out of 71, 66%). When considering those studies that included a component of direct participant education in their intervention (e.g. those studies which engaged education and community mobilisation) this figure rose to 63 of the 69 individual interventions looked at in this review, 54 of which reported outcomes that were either statistically significant (n = 23), mixed (n = 26) or were non-significant due to the qualitative research design, but reported positive outcomes (n = 5). These findings indicate that direct participant education is both a popular and an effective strategy for engaging participants in attitudinal (and in a small number of cases behaviour) change.

Similarly, mixed sex participant cohorts were involved in over half of all studies (n = 39 out of 71, 55%), of which 33 reported statistically significant or mixed results, and a further three did not meet statistical significance due to the qualitative research design but reported positive outcomes. Across several studies however, conflicting results were observed between male and female participants, with female's showing greater improvement in interventions using education [ 85 , 89 , 114 ] and males showing greater improvement when community mobilisation was incorporated [ 51 , 60 ]. That is not to say that male participants do not respond well to education-based interventions with 13 of the 18 studies engaging male only cohorts reporting intended outcomes using direct participant education. However, of these studies, nine also utilised one or more of the additional strategies identified such as co-design or peer engagement which whilst different to community engagement, employ similar principles around participant engagement [ 77 , 79 , 87 , 91 , 92 , 96 , 97 , 99 , 105 , 107 , 111 , 115 ]. These findings suggest that participant sex may impact on how well participants engage with an intervention type and thus how successful it is.

There was a relatively even spread of studies reporting significant outcomes across all age groups, in line with the notion that the impact of rigid gender norms and stereotypes are not age discriminant [ 10 ]. Whilst the broad nature of this review curtailed the possibility of determining the impact of aged based on the studies synthesised, the profile of studies reporting statistically significant outcomes indicates that no patterns were found in relation to impact and participants age.

The relatively small number of studies that observed the above differences in intervention design and delivery means definitive conclusions cannot be drawn based on the studies examined in this review. That said, all of these characteristics support an increase in personal buy-in. Interventions that incorporate community mobilisation engage with more than just the individual, often addressing community norms and creating environments supportive of change [ 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 117 , 118 ]. Similarly, education based programs that incorporate co-design and peer support do more than just knowledge and awareness raising with an individual participant, providing space for them to develop their competence and social networks [ 70 , 75 , 77 , 79 , 81 , 86 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 97 , 103 , 107 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 113 , 115 , 116 ]. When it comes to designing these interventions, it would appear that success may be influenced by which method is most engaging to the participants and that this is in turn influenced by the participants' sex. This finding is reinforced further when taking into consideration the quality of studies with those reporting on a mixed-sex cohort, which were generally lower in quality than those working with single sex groups. Whilst it appears mixed sex cohorts are both common and effective at obtaining significant results, these findings suggest that when addressing gendered stereotypes and norms, there is a need to consider and accommodate differences in how participants learn and respond when designing interventions to ensure the greatest chance of success in terms of impacting on all participants, regardless of sex, and ensuring quality of study design.

4.1.2. Intervention delivery

The findings from this review suggests that multi-session interventions are both more common and more likely to deliver significant outcomes than single-session or one-off interventions. This is evidenced by the fact that only one [ 67 ] out seven studies engaging the use of one-off sessions reported significant outcomes with the remaining six reporting mixed results [ 63 , 66 , 68 , 69 , 78 , 90 ]. Additionally, all but two of the studies [ 78 , 90 ] used a research/experimental study design, indicating a current gap in the literature in terms of real-world application and effectiveness of single session interventions. This review highlights the lack of reported evidence of single session effectiveness, particularly in terms of maintaining attitudinal changes in the few instances in which follow-up data was collected. Additionally this review only captured single-sessions that ran to a maximum of 2.5 h, further investigation is needed into the impact of one-off intensive sessions, such as those run over the course of a weekend. While more evidence is needed to reach definitive conclusions, the review indicates that single-session or one-off interventions are sub-optimal, aligning with the same finding by Barker and colleagues [ 5 ] in their review of interventions engaging men and boys in changing gender-based inequity in health. This is further reflected in the health promotion literature that points to the lack of demonstrated effectiveness of single-session direct participant interventions when it comes to addressing social determinants of health [ 121 , 122 , 123 ]. Studies that delivered multiple sessions demonstrate the ability to build rapport with and amongst the cohort (peer engagement, modelling, co-design) as well as the allowance of greater depth of learning and retention achievable through repeated touch points and revision. These are elements that can only happen through recurring and consistent exposure. Given these findings, practitioners should consider avoiding one-off or single-session delivery, in favour of multi-session or multi-touch point interventions allowing for greater engagement and impact.

4.1.3. Evaluation

Very few included studies collected follow-up data, with only one third of studies evaluating beyond immediate post-intervention data collection (n = 24). Of those that did, ten reported maintenance of their findings [ 55 , 56 , 64 , 70 , 79 , 93 , 95 , 103 , 113 , 116 ], eleven did not provide sufficient detail to determine [ 50 , 52 , 57 , 65 , 66 , 82 , 91 , 92 , 94 , 102 , 105 ] and two reported findings were not maintained [ 61 , 90 ]. The last study, a 90 min single session experiment with an education component, reported significant positive outcomes between base and end line scores, but saw a significant negative rebound in scores to worse than base line when they collected follow up data six weeks later [ 63 ]. This study supports the above argument for needing more than a single session in order to support change long term and highlights the importance of capturing follow up data not only to ensure longevity of significant outcomes, but also to capture reversion effects. The lack of standardised measures to capture shifts in norms is acknowledged empirically [ 11 , 13 ]. However, the outcomes of this review, including the lack of follow up data collection reported, are supportive of the need for increased investment in longitudinal follow-up, particularly in relation to measuring behaviour change and ensuring maintenance of observed changes to attitudes and behaviour over time (see also [ 124 ]).

4.1.4. Behaviour change

When it comes to behaviour change, definitive conclusions cannot be drawn due to the paucity of studies. The studies that did look at behaviour focused on the reduction of relational violence including the perpetration and experience of physical, psychological and sexual violence [ 50 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 59 , 60 , 105 , 115 ], as well as more equitable division of domestic labour [ 82 , 86 , 98 ] and responsibility for sexual and reproductive health [ 58 , 116 ], intention to take bystander action [ 65 , 102 , 117 ] and female political participation [ 81 ]. Lack of follow up data and use of measurement tools other than self-report, however, make it difficult to determine the permanency of the behaviour change and whether behavioural intentions transition to action. Models would suggest that interventions aimed at changing attitudes/norms would flow on to behaviour change but need to address multiple levels of the ecological framework not just the individual to support this change, and engage peer leadership and involvement in order to do so. This supports findings from the literature discussed at the start of this paper, alerting practitioners to the danger of making incorrect assumptions about ‘pathways to change’ [ 7 ] and the need to be mindful of the intention-behaviour gap which has been shown to disrupt this flow from attitude and intention to actual behaviour change [ 6 , 13 , 35 , 36 , 37 ].

If studies are to evaluate the impact of an intervention on behaviour, this objective must be made clear in the intervention design and evaluation strategy, and there must be an avoidance of relying on self-report data only, which is subject to numerous types of bias such as social desirability. Use of participant observation as well as key informant feedback would strengthen evaluation. The quality of studies that measured behaviour change was varied, ranging from poor (n = 1 at <.5 looking at behavioural intentions) to high (n = 3 at >.85 looking at bystander action and gender equality). The majority of studies however, were moderate in quality measuring either lower (n = 4 at .57, looking at gender-based violence, domestic labour division and bystander intention, and n = 2 at .64 looking at gender-based violence) to higher (n = 11 at .71-.79, looking at gender-based violence, gender equality, sexual and reproductive health and behavioural intentions), further supporting the finding that consideration in study design and evaluation is crucial. It is worth noting that measuring behaviour change is difficult, it requires greater resources should more than just self-report measurements be used, as well as longitudinal follow up to account for sustained change and to capture deterioration of behaviour post intervention should it occur.

4.2. Theory of change

Across all included studies, the implicit theory of change was knowledge/awareness raising for the purposes of shifting attitudes towards gender norms and/or stereotypes. This did not vary substantially across intervention type or study focus, whether it was norms, stereotypes or both being addressed, and for all participant cohorts. The conceptual framework developed (see Figure 2 ) shows that by increasing knowledge and raising awareness, the studies that reported statistically significant outcomes were able to address factors enforcing gender inequality in the form of knowledge, attitudes, environmental factors, and in a small number of cases behaviour.

Further to this common theory of change, several strategies were identified which appear to have enhanced the delivery and impact of these interventions. These included the use of participant peers to lead, support and heighten learning [ 49 , 77 , 79 , 81 , 86 , 90 , 92 , 93 , 103 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 113 , 115 , 116 , 117 ], involvement of multiple levels of the ecological framework (not just addressing the individual) [ 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 70 , 72 , 74 , 81 , 86 , 91 , 97 , 98 , 102 , 117 , 118 ], developing participants into agents of change [ 49 , 52 , 58 , 60 , 72 , 81 , 98 , 117 , 118 ], using modelling and role models [ 49 , 51 , 52 , 58 , 60 , 65 , 82 , 98 , 110 , 117 , 118 ], and the involvement of participants in co-designing the intervention [ 51 , 70 , 81 , 90 , 91 , 97 , 111 ]. As mentioned earlier, these strategies all contain principles designed to increase participant buy-in, creating a more personal and/or relatable experience.

One theory that can be used to consider this pattern is Petty and Cacioppo's [ 125 ] Elaboration Likelihood Model. The authors posit that attitudes changed through a central (deliberative processing) route, are more likely to show longevity, are greater predictors of behaviour change and are more resistant to a return to pre-intervention attitudes, than those that are the result of peripheral, or short cut, mental processing. Whether information is processed deliberately is dependent on a person's motivation and ability, both of which need to be present and both of which are influenced by external factors including context, message delivery and individual differences. In other words, the more accessible the message is and the more engaged a person is with the messaging they are exposed to, the stronger the attitude that is formed.

In the context of the studies in this review, the strategies found to enhance intervention impact all focus on creating a relationship and environment for the participant to engage in greater depth with the content of the intervention. This included not only the use of the five strategies discussed here, but also the use of multi-session delivery as well as use of delivery types aligned with participant responsiveness (community mobilisation and co-design elements when engaging men and boys, and education-focused interventions for engaging women and girls). With just under two thirds of studies reporting positive outcomes employing one or more of these strategies, practitioners should consider incorporating these into intervention design and delivery for existing interventions or initiatives as well as new ones.

4.3. Engaging men and boys

Represented by only a quarter of studies overall (n = 18 out of 71) this review further highlights the current dearth of research and formal evaluation of interventions working specifically with men and boys [ 124 ].

Across the 18 studies, four reported significant outcomes [ 59 , 79 , 97 , 111 ], nine reported mixed results with some but not all significant outcomes [ 49 , 63 , 68 , 77 , 91 , 92 , 99 , 105 , 115 ] and the remaining five reported non-significant but positive results [ 75 , 87 , 96 , 107 ], including one qualitative study [ 53 ]. Quality was reasonably high (n = 12 rated .71 - .86), and there were some interesting observations to be made about specific elements for this population.

The majority of the studies reporting positive significant or mixed results utilised one or more of the five additional strategies identified through this review (n = 10 out of 14) including the one qualitative study. Three studies used co-design principles to develop their intervention, which included formative research and evolution through group discussions across the duration of the intervention [ 91 , 97 , 111 ]. Four studies targeted more than just the individual participants including focusing on relational and community aspects [ 53 , 59 , 91 , 97 ]. Another six leveraged peer interaction in terms of group discussions and support, and leadership which included self-nominated peer leaders delivering sessions [ 49 , 77 , 79 , 92 , 111 , 115 ]. Finally, two studies incorporated role models [ 79 ] or role models and agents of change [ 49 ]. Similar to the overall profile of studies in this review, the majority in this group utilised direct participant education (n = 12 out of 14) either solely [ 77 , 79 , 91 , 92 , 97 , 99 , 105 , 111 , 115 ], or in conjunction with community mobilisation [ 53 , 59 ] or a research/experimental focus [ 63 ].

The use of the additional strategies in conjunction with direct participant education aligning with the earlier observation about male participants responding better in studies that incorporated a community or interpersonal element. A sentiment that was similarly observed by Burke and colleagues [ 79 ] in their study of men in relation to mental health and wellbeing, in which they surmised that a ‘peer-based group format’ appears to better support the psychosocial needs of men to allow them the space to ‘develop alternatives to traditional male gender role expectations and norms’ (p195).

When taken together, these findings suggest that feeling part of the process, being equipped with the information and skills, and having peer engagement, support and leadership/modelling, are all components that support the engagement of men and boys not only as allies but as participants, partners and agents of change when it comes to addressing gender inequality and the associated negative outcomes. This is reflective of the theory of change discussion outlining design principles that encourage and increase participant buy-in and the strength in creating a more personal and/or relatable learning experience.

Working with male only cohorts is another strategy used to create an environment that fosters participant buy-in [ 126 ]. Debate exists however around the efficacy of this approach, highlighted by the International Centre for Research on Women as an unsubstantiated assumption that the ‘best people to work with men are other men’ ([ 7 ] p26), which they identify as one of the key challenges to engaging men and boys in gender equality work [ 7 , 13 ]. Although acknowledging the success that has been observed in male-only education and preference across cultures for male educators, they caution of the potential for this assumption to extend to one that men cannot change by working with women [ 7 , 13 ]. The findings from this review support the need for further exploration and evaluation into the efficacy of male only participant interventions given the relatively small number of studies examined in this review and the variance in outcomes observed.

4.3.1. One size does not fit all

In addition to intervention and engagement strategies, the outcomes of several studies indicate a need to consider the specifics of content when it comes to engaging men and boys in discussions of gendered stereotypes and norms. This was evident in Pulerwitz and colleagues [ 59 ] study looking at male participants, which found an increase in egalitarian attitudes towards gendered stereotypes in relation to women, but a lack of corresponding acceptance and change when consideration was turned towards themselves and/or other males. Additionally, Brooks-Harris and colleagues [ 68 ] found significant shifts in male role attitudes broadly, but not in relation to personal gender roles or gender role conflict. Their findings suggest that targeted attention needs to be paid to addressing different types of stereotypes and norms, with attitudes towards one's own gender roles, and in the case of this study one's ‘fear of femininity’ being more resistant to change than attitudes towards more generalised stereotypes and norms. This is an important consideration for those working to engage men and boys, particularly around discussions of masculinity and what it means to be a man. Rigid gendered stereotypes and norms can cause harmful and restrictive outcomes for everyone [ 2 ] and it is crucial that interventions aimed at addressing them dismantle and avoid supporting these stereotypes; not just between sexes, but amongst them also [ 127 ]. Given the scarcity of evidence at present, further insight is required into how supportive spaces for exploration and growth are balanced with the avoidance of inadvertently reinforcing the very stereotypes and norms being addressed in relation to masculinity, particularly in the case of male only participant groups.

There is currently a gap in the research in relation to these findings, particularly outside of the U.S. and countries in Africa. Further research into how programs engaging men and boys in this space utilise these elements of intervention design and engagement strategies, content and the efficacy of single sex compared to mixed sex participant cohorts is needed.

4.4. Limitations and future directions

The broad approach taken in this review resulted in a large number of included studies (n = 71) and a resulting heterogeneity of study characteristics that restricted analysis options and assessment of publication bias. That said, the possibility of publication bias appears less apparent given that less than half of the 71 included studies reported statistically significant effects, with the remainder reporting mixed or non-significant outcomes. This may be in part due to the significant variance in evaluation approaches and selection of measurement tools used.

Heterogeneity of studies and intervention types limited the ability to draw statistical comparisons for specific outcomes, settings, and designs. Equally, minimal exclusion criteria in the study selection strategy also meant there was noteworthy variance in quality of studies observed across the entire sample of 71 papers. The authors acknowledge the limitations of using p-values as the primary measurement of significance and success. The lack of studies reporting on effect sizes (n = 13) in addition to the variance in study quality is a limitation of the review. However, the approach taken in this review, to include those studies with mixed outcomes and those reporting intended outcomes regardless of the p-value obtained, has allowed for an all-encompassing snapshot of the work happening and the extrapolation of strategies that have previously not been identified across such a broad spectrum of studies targeting gender norms and stereotypes.

An additional constraint was the inclusion of studies reported in English only. Despite being outside the scope of this review it is acknowledged that inclusion of non-English articles is necessary to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the literature.

The broad aim of the review and search strategy will have also inevitably resulted in some studies being missed. It was noted at the beginning of the paper that the framing of the research question was expected to impact the types of interventions captured. This was the case when considering the final list of included studies, in particular the relative absence of tertiary prevention interventions featured, such as those looking at men's behaviour change programs. This could in part account for the scarcity of interventions focused on behaviour change as opposed to the pre-cursors of attitudes and norms.

This review found that interventions using direct participant education interventions were the most common approach to raising awareness, dismantling harmful gender stereotypes and norms and shifting attitudes and beliefs towards more equitable gender norms. However due to the lack of follow-up data collected and reported, these changes can only be attributable to the short-term, with a need for further research into the longevity of these outcomes. Future research in this area needs to ensure the use of sound and consistent measurement tools, including avoiding a reliance solely on self-report measures for behaviour change (e.g. use of observations, key informant interviews, etc.), and more longitudinal data collection and follow-up.

When it comes to content design, as noted at the start of the paper, there is growing focus on the use and evaluation of gender-transformative interventions when engaging in gender equality efforts [ 1 , 2 , 6 , 128 ]. This review however found a distinct lack of engagement with this targeted approach, providing an opportunity for practitioners to explore this to strengthen engagement and impact of interventions (see 1 for a review of gender-transformative interventions working with young people). The scope of this review did not allow for further investigation to be undertaken to explore the gender approaches taken in the 61 studies which did not state their gender approach. There is scope for future investigation of this nature however in consultation with study authors.

An all-encompassing review, such as this one, allows for comparisons across intervention types and focus, such as those targeted at reducing violence or improving sexual and reproductive health behaviours. This broad approach allowed for the key finding that design, delivery and engagement strategies that feature in studies reporting successful outcomes, are successful regardless of the intervention focus thus widening the evidence based from which those researching and implementing interventions can draw. However, the establishment of this broad overview of interventions aimed at gendered stereotypes and norms highlights the current gap and opportunity for more targeted reviews in relation to these concepts.

5. Conclusion

Several characteristics supporting intervention success have been found based on the evidence examined in this review. The findings suggest that when planning, designing and developing interventions aimed at addressing rigid gender stereotypes and norms participant sex should help inform the intervention type chosen. Multi-session interventions are more effective than single or one-off sessions, and the use of additional strengthening strategies such as peer engagement and leadership, addressing multiple levels of the ecological framework, skilling up agents of change, modelling/role models, co-design with participants can support the achievement of intended outcomes. Longitudinal data collection is currently lacking but needed, and when seeking to extend the impact of an intervention to include behaviour change there is currently too much reliance on self-report data, which is subject to bias (e.g. social desirability).

When it comes to engaging men and boys, this review indicates that interventions have a greater chance of success when using peer-based learning in education programs, involving participants in the design and development, and the use of peer delivery and leadership. Ensuring clear learning objectives and outcomes in relation to specific types of norms, stereotypes and behaviours being addressed is crucial in making sure evaluation accurately captures these things. Practitioners need to be cognisant of breaking down stereotypes amongst men (not just between genders), as well as the need for extra attention to be paid in shifting some of the more deeply and culturally entrenched stereotypes and norms. More research is needed into the efficacy of working with male only cohorts, and care taken that rigid stereotypes and norms are not inadvertently reinforced when doing so.

Declarations

Author contribution statement.

Rebecca Stewart: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Wrote the paper.

Breanna Wright: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data.

Liam Smith, Steven Roberts, Natalie Russell: Conceived and designed the experiments.

Funding statement

This work was supported by Australian Government Research Training Program and the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth).

Data availability statement

Declaration of interests statement.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.

Acknowledgements

This research was completed as part of a PhD undertaken at Monash University.