These norms may be implicit or explicit and are intended to provide information on appropriate behaviour for group members in particular social situations.
Counterproductive norms also typically consist of these attributes but the intention behind their activation is usually not prosocial and is instead opposite to their original function.
The Societal-Value Perspective suggests that norms are arbitrary rules that exist as a result of cultural value or reinforcement.
Because they evolve out of social interaction, one factor of norm strength is the available opportunities for group members to communicate.
[9] The Functional Perspective suggests that norms exist to enhance survival potential by curtailing dysfunctional behaviours while encouraging socially proactive ones.
However, counterproductive norms work in opposition to socially proactive functions and therefore, cannot be adequately explained by this theory.
Both the societal-value perspective and the functional perspective theories can be integrated to describe the fact that individuals experience pressure to communicate effectively with others within a cultural belief system with behaviour patterns that are relevant and informative, in the form of customs and traditions fulfill overarching needs based on the local social culture and physical environment.
[11][12][13][14][15] Some research suggests that these counterproductive behaviours are enacted when individuals or groups feel maltreated or as if they do not have legitimate options to protest.
[16] Possible antecedents of counterproductive norms include personality variables, organizational culture, control systems and injustice.
[17] Sophisticated security systems are typically put in place with the intention of preventing counterproductive workplace behaviors but may be used in some situations as a means of committing sabotage (e.g. by falsifying records).
[4] While they did have a lot of success and have been recognized as some of the best PSAs of all time, Cialdini argues that they could have been more effective, had they conveyed different descriptive norms.
[18][4] A study by Cialdini and colleagues tested whether signs conveying different norms had an effect on the rate of theft of petrified wood in a national forest.
[5] The study gives us some empirical evidence that when messaging uses normative influence incorrectly, it can create or maintain a counterproductive norm.