Investigates social norms' impact on anxiety and uncertainty in crisis communication, suggesting tailored messaging strategies.
Crises such as pandemics, wars, and environmental disasters disrupt public expectations and heighten uncertainty and anxiety. In these contexts, effective communication strategies are essential for helping individuals cope. Social-norm-based messages are often used to guide behavior and foster collective identity and emotional support, yet their cognitive and emotional impact in crisis communication remains underexplored. This study investigated whether and when social norms reduce uncertainty discrepancy and anxiety, and whether perceived psychological distance moderates these effects. A preregistered online experiment (N = 380) employed a between-subjects design, using the Fukushima nuclear wastewater release as the crisis stimulus. Contrary to expectations, no direct effects of descriptive or injunctive norms on uncertainty discrepancy or anxiety were found, nor did psychological distance moderate these effects. However, the exploratory findings revealed that the presence versus absence of social norms mattered in interaction with psychological distance: social-norm-based messages reduced anxiety among psychologically close individuals, whereas they reduced uncertainty discrepancy among psychologically moderate to distant participants. In addition, higher uncertainty discrepancy predicted higher anxiety. Theoretically, this study may extend social norms research by identifying a possible boundary condition, where the effect of social-norm-based messages weakens when intended outcomes shift from visible behaviors to internal cognitive or emotional states, and by pointing to the potential role of perceived psychological distance as a receiver-centered contextual factor. Practically, the findings tentatively suggest that crisis communicators may benefit from tailoring social-norm-based messages to audiences' psychological distance, emphasizing emotional support for psychologically close audiences and collective efficacy for distant ones.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: