menu2

FAQs

A norms-shifting intervention is designed to change collective perceptions and behaviors, aiming to increase the belief that a desired behavior is acceptable, common and/or becoming more widespread. While interventions vary, these approaches usually identify the social norms and reference groups relevant to the behavior(s) of interest; seek change at the community rather than individual level; engage key influencers of norms; confront power imbalances such as those related to gender and age; and/or create or reinforce positive norms to support healthy behaviors.

We anticipate one more update in 2026, after which we will seek partners to continue maintaining the site. If you’d like to receive updates on the next release or are interested in partnering on future updates, please fill out this form.

  • Limited direct measurement of social norms
    Most studies used attitudes or behaviors as proxies rather than measuring social norms directly, making it hard to know whether changes were truly driven by shifts in norms or by other factors.
  • Inconsistent definitions of “social norms”
    Because studies used different terminology and descriptions, some relevant literature may have been missed, and comparing findings across studies can be challenging.
  • Insufficient documentation of interventions
    Many studies did not clearly describe how interventions were implemented—such as duration, intensity, or community engagement—making it difficult to identify which components contributed to change.
  • Lack of explicit theories of change
    Without a clear explanation of how programs expected norms to shift, it is harder to interpret results, compare across interventions, or understand the mechanisms driving change.
  • Delays in publication of newer evidence
    Recent programs with stronger norms measurement or innovative designs may not yet be published, meaning some emerging insights are not reflected in this review.
  • Limited evidence on sustainability
    Few studies tracked whether norm changes were sustained after funding ended, so it is difficult to determine what supports long-term impact.
  • Geographic scope was intentionally narrow
    The review focused on sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, which means relevant insights from Latin America, the Middle East, or Southeast Asia were not included.
  • Publication bias
    Studies showing positive results are more likely to be published, while neutral or unsuccessful findings are underreported, limiting a full understanding of what works and what doesn’t.
 
  • AI-assisted summaries may contain inaccuracies
    Summaries were generated with the help of artificial intelligence and then reviewed; however, some details may still be incomplete or imperfect. Users should always refer back to the original article for confirmation.
  • Repository categories mirror the original evidence review
    Definitions, classifications, and organizational structures come directly from the evidence review. As the repository is updated over time, the report itself will not be updated, which may create minor discrepancies.
  • Dependent on available documentation
    Where articles lacked detail on implementation, measurement, or program components, the repository may not fully capture elements users might be looking for.
  • Not a comprehensive global database
    Because the repository is tied to the geographic and thematic scope of the evidence review, it does not include studies or interventions outside the original inclusion criteria.
 

To help learn and improve our site, please take two minutes to complete this survey and inform how we can advocate to continue its funding.

Select up to 2

✓

Thank you!

Your survey has been submitted successfully.

Translate »