
==== Front
Am J Trop Med Hyg
Am J Trop Med Hyg
tpmd
tropmed
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
0002-9637
1476-1645
The American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

38981491
tpmd230723
10.4269/ajtmh.23-0723
Research Article
Water Treatment Practices and Misperceived Social Norms among Women Living with Young Children in Rural Uganda
Perkins Jessica M. 1 2 *
Kakuhikire Bernard 3
Baguma Charles 3
Meadows Meredith 1
Abayateye Raphael 2
Rasmussen Justin D. 4
Satinsky Emily N. 5 6
Gumisiriza Patrick 3
Kananura Justus 3
Namara Elizabeth B. 3
Bangsberg David R. 3 7
Tsai Alexander C. 3 5 8 9
1 Department of Human and Organizational Development, Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee;
2 Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee;
3 Mbarara University of Science and Technology, Mbarara, Uganda;
4 Department of Psychology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina;
5 Center for Global Health, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts;
6 Department of Psychology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California;
7 VinUniversity, Hanoi, Vietnam;
8 Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts;
9 Mongan Institute, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
Financial support: This study was funded by Friends of a Healthy Uganda and U.S. NIH R01MH113494 . J. M. Perkins acknowledges salary support from NIH K01MH115811 .

Disclosure: Ethical approval was granted by the Partners Human Research Committee at Massachusetts General Hospital, the Research Ethics Committee at Mbarara University of Science and Technology, and the Vanderbilt Human Research Protections Program. Clearance from the Uganda National Council of Science and Technology and the Research Secretariat in the Office of the President of the Republic of Uganda was also granted.

Current contact information: Jessica M. Perkins and Meredith Meadows, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, E-mails: jessica.m.perkins@vanderbilt.edu and meredith.l.meadows@vanderbilt.edu. Bernard Kakuhikire, Charles Baguma, Patrick Gumisiriza, Justus Kananura, and Elizabeth B. Namara, Mbarara University of Science and Technology, Mbarara, Uganda, E-mails: baitwakaku@gmail.com, cbaguma@mustresearch.org, pgumisiriza@mustresearch.org, jkananura@mustresearch.org, and bnamara@mustresearch.org. Raphael Abayateye, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, E-mail: raphael.abayateye@vumc.org. Justin D. Rasmussen, Duke University, Durham, NC, E-mail: justin.rasmussen@duke.edu. Emily N. Satinsky, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, E-mail: satinsky@usc.edu. David R. Bangsberg, VinUniversity, Hanoi, Vietnam, E-mail: david.b@vinuni.edu.vn. Alexander C. Tsai, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, E-mail: actsai@mgh.harvard.edu.

* Address correspondence to Jessica M. Perkins, Peabody College of Education and Human Development, 230 Appleton Pl., Nashville, TN 37203-5721. E-mail: jessica.m.perkins@vanderbilt.edu
9 7 2024
9 2024
9 7 2024
111 3 627637
19 10 2023
26 1 2024
© 2024, The author(s)
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

ABSTRACT.

Access to water safe for consumption is critical for health and well-being, yet substantial structural barriers often necessitate household action to make water safer. Social norms about water treatment practices are understudied as a driver of personal water treatment practice. This study assesses reported and perceived water treatment practices among women in a rural, water insecure setting. We used cross-sectional data from a population-based study of women living with children under 5 years old across eight villages in southwest Uganda. Participants reported their typical household water treatment practices and what they perceived to be the common practices among most other women with young children in their own village. Modified multivariable Poisson regression models estimated the association between individual behavior and perceptions. Of 274 participants (78% response rate), 221 (81%) reported boiling water and 228 (83%) reported taking at least one action to make water safer. However, 135 (49%) misperceived most women with young children in their village not to boil their water, and 119 (43%) misperceived most to take no action. Participants who misperceived these norms were less likely to practice safe water treatment (e.g., for boiling water, adjusted relative risk = 0.80; 95% CI 0.69–0.92, P = 0.002), adjusting for other factors. Future research should assess whether making actual descriptive norms about local water treatment practices visible and salient (e.g., with messages such as “most women in this village boil their drinking water”) corrects misperceived norms and increases safe water treatment practices by some and supports consistent safe practices by others.
==== Body
pmcINTRODUCTION

Approximately two billion people worldwide retrieve their water from a feces-contaminated water source.1 More than 800,000 people die each year from diarrhea as a result of unclean drinking water, and 220 million receive treatment each year for having parasitic diseases from consuming unclean drinking water.1 Water insecurity is associated with many additional adverse outcomes, including malnutrition, infant health, personal injury, emotional distress, violence against women, and weakened community cohesion.2–10 In eastern and southern Africa, poor access to clean water, sanitation, and hygiene causes more than half of overall disease burden.11 Systematically providing clean water to rural populations in eastern and southern Africa would cost an estimated $5 billion.12 In the absence of structural solutions, individual households bear the burden of procuring clean water for household consumption, typically through point-of-use household water treatment practices and safe water storage.13–15

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 6 on water and sanitation includes ensuring universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all by 2030.16 In eastern and southern Africa, only 30% of people are able to use safely managed drinking water services.16 Educational and economic barriers often prevent uptake of safe water treatment practices.13,17,18 However, many strategies to decrease barriers and improve water treatment practices have not sufficiently increased take-up of safe practices.19 Implementing novel strategies aiming to improve health and development outcomes in water insecure contexts requires identifying other factors that influence safe water treatment practices. Misperceptions about most others’ water treatment practices (i.e., misperceived norms) as drivers of personal water treatment practices are an understudied opportunity for intervention.

Conceptual framework.

Social norms are conceived of as the shared unwritten rules that govern and constrain individual and social behavior.20,21 Decades of research on social norms indicate that humans follow what others do.22–24 Fear of receiving sanctions, being seen as part of the out-group, being isolated, wanting to be part of the in-group, and feeling identified with local groups can elicit conformity and motivate people to feel and behave how they think others do. Thus, perceived injunctive norms (i.e., beliefs about what most other support) and perceived descriptive norms (i.e., beliefs about what most others do) often influence behavior.25,26 Individuals form these perceptions about specific groups of people based on exposure to salient information, that is, visual or auditory cues in the environment.27

However, people often misperceive what it is that most others support and what most others do when asked about specific reference groups. Studies have found that people tend to incorrectly believe few people engage in health behaviors when in fact most do, and that many people engage in risk behaviors when in fact most do not.28–32 A lack of cues about health-promotive behavior, a focus on some (extreme) cues over other (e.g., less attention grabbing) cues, being in a group or network with outlier behavior, and various psychological attribution and conversation processes can lead to norm perception bias.27,33–39 These misperceptions matter because people act in line with their perceptions regardless of perception accuracy. A large body of work on perceived norms has shown evidence of both pervasive misperceived norms and strong links between misperceived norms and personal behavior across several fields and topics.40

People who misperceive norms are either in a state of false consensus41 or in a state of pluralistic ignorance.42 False consensus refers to when individuals incorrectly think that most others are like them (i.e., the state of thinking that most others do what I do or support what I support when in fact they do not). Pluralistic ignorance refers to when individuals incorrectly think that most others differ from them (i.e., the state of thinking that most others do not do what I do or support what I support when in fact they do). Both of these states are malleable as perceptions are malleable. Addressing misperceived norms among people in either state is important.

The social norms approach to behavior change harnesses these phenomena.43,44 The aim is to heighten the visibility and salience of actual local norms to change misperceived norms. In turn, people previously in a state of false consensus may change their behavior, and people previously in a state of pluralistic ignorance may change their outlook about their own behavior and become more vocal and visible about it and supportive of others to engage in the normative behavior. They may also be more likely to maintain their behavior and not succumb to effects of misperceived norms. A large body of research (including studies assessing causal effects) has shown that making actual health norms in relevant social groups more visible and salient can affect perceived norms and, in turn, lead to changes in individual and collective behavior.45–58

A review assessing sociopsychological determinants of safe water consumption practices across 14 studies identified perceived social norms as a critical factor driving household water treatment practices.59 Some additional recent studies also found that individuals’ perceptions about what most others do were associated with uptake of household water treatment among women caregivers in rural Nepal,60 among households in Indonesia,61 and among primary caregivers in Chad.62 No studies have assessed the type and extent of misperceived norms about water treatment practices in eastern and southern Africa nor how misperceptions may influence behavior. However, studies from this region on other health-related topics suggest that many individuals underestimate the prevalence of health behaviors and overestimate the prevalence of health risk behaviors, and that individuals’ perceptions of what most others do in their local environment influence their own behaviors.63–69

The current study.

In rural Uganda, many households lack access to clean water and experience mild to severe water insecurity.4,70 This study used a unique whole-population study design targeting women with young children across eight villages in rural Uganda to assess the role of misperceived norms about water treatment practices on water treatment behavior in this context. Specifically, the design permitted direct comparison of perceptions about most other women’s water treatment practices with aggregated reports about personal practices and reports from neighbors’ about their own practices. This comparison thus identified misperceived norms about water treatment practices. Associations between misperceptions and individuals’ actual practices were then estimated while adjusting for exposure to neighbors’ water treatment practices, household water source, and sociodemographic characteristics. Findings can inform the design of novel strategies to promote household uptake of safe water treatment practices are in rural eastern and southern Africa contexts.71,72

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study setting.

From 2016 through 2018, the study team conducted a population-based parent study on health and well-being. Specifically, this study targeted all resident adults across eight rural villages in Rwampara District, southwestern Uganda. The study setting was ∼260 km southwest of Kampala, the largest city in Uganda, and ∼20 km from the closest commercial hub, Mbarara City, which had a projected total population of 212,100 in 2018.73 The area contained eight small villages, which when grouped together are referred to as a parish. A parish is a local governance subunit. In rural areas in Uganda, parishes often contain several villages.

Almost all households within the study context have access to a stove and use firewood as the primary resource of fuel for cooking. Most households engaged in an agriculture-based economy, and a little more than half of households had a small solar power system providing enough electricity to charge small items like a mobile phone. Most households were experiencing daily household food and water insecurity.4,70,74,75 Approximately half of households with young children fetched water every day. Almost no households had their own rain-water harvesting tank, but water for daily needs was available from several private and public water sources distributed throughout the parish. They varied in quality from “improved” source (i.e., sheltered and protected from run-off contamination) to “unimproved” source (i.e., unprotected from contamination).70 Most of these sources were not safely managed drinking water services. Many were not free from fecal and priority chemical contamination, and many households did not have access points on their premises.76 Some water sources were reviewed on an ad hoc basis by local water committees for quality and operation.

Study population.

Women in this setting are typically responsible for collecting and storing water, household activities that require water (e.g., cooking and cleaning), and caring for the sick (e.g., when a young child gets diarrhea). Although the parent study collected data on many topics, information about water source, quality, and treatment practices were collected only from women with at least one child under 5 years old in their home (hereafter referred to as women with young children). Because this was a population-based study, all households within the parish were targeted for inclusion in this study if they had at least one woman who met this criterion. For households with more than one eligible woman, the only data included for this study were from the oldest eligible woman in the household with a young child. Thus, the current study targeted one woman at least 18 years of age per household who was living with at least one child under 5 years. This study was purposefully set up to represent all households with young children in this setting. This unique design permits direct comparison of perceived local norms with the local prevalence of behaviors within these villages.

The study context was similar to where most people in rural Uganda live. Specifically, 75% of people in Uganda (and most people in many other eastern and southern African countries) live in outlying rural areas where the local economy features agricultural and small-scale trading and enterprise, access to electricity and to piped clean water is rare, and household food and water insecurity are common.4,70,75,77 Likewise, the sociodemographic characteristics of the study population are also similar to national sociodemographic characteristics. For example, most adults are married, most adults have never enrolled in or never completed secondary education, the adult population contains a large portion of persons who are 18–30 years old, and, among the minor population, a large portion who are under 5 years old.77–79

Study procedures.

Community sensitization meetings open to all adults in the study setting were held before data collection to introduce the parent study to the targeted study population and respond to any questions.80 Additionally, a census was conducted in the targeted study setting to record all households within the eight villages and their permanent resident adults. At the time of the census, geographic location information was also collected for each household. Over the course of the data collection period, a team of research assistants who spoke the local language (Runyankore) approached eligible individuals, typically at their homes, and invited them to participate in the study. Eligible individuals who wished to participate provided written informed consent after learning about the study. A thumbprint plus a witness signature also indicated consent to participate. Research assistants then conducted one-on-one survey-based interviews typically at participants’ homes in a private location. Research assistants used a computer-assisted, survey-based interview tool to collect and record data. Survey questions had been through an iterative translation and piloting process between English and Runyankore to verify fidelity. Interviews lasted approximately 1 hour.

Ethical approval.

Ethical approval was granted by the Partners Human Research Committee at Massachusetts General Hospital, the Research Ethics Committee at Mbarara University of Science and Technology, and the Vanderbilt Human Research Protections Program. We also received clearance from the Uganda National Council of Science and Technology and the Research Secretariat in the Office of the President of the Republic of Uganda.

Measures.

Household water treatment practices.

To determine household water treatment practices, we asked each participant to report which action(s) they typically take to make their household drinking water safer. Specifically, we asked them if they 1) add bleach/chlorine to the water, 2) strain the water through a cloth, 3) boil the water, 4) use solar disinfection, 5) let the water stand and settle, 6) use another method to treat the water, or 7) take no action. Participants could report a yes or no response to each action except for the last option. Participants who reported taking no action could not report taking other actions.

Perceived norms about water treatment practices.

To assess perceptions about the local norm for water treatment practices, we asked each participant to indicate which of the same actions described above (e.g., add bleach/chlorine, strain through a cloth, etc.) that they thought most other women with young children in their own villages typically do to make their household drinking water safer. Participants could indicate a yes or no response about each action being typically done by most other women with young children in their own villages. Alternatively, participants could say most other women with young children take no action.

We chose “most women living with young children in your village” as the specific “local” reference network for eliciting individuals’ perceptions about water treatment norms for several reasons. First, gendered patterning of household labor in this setting suggests that women may identify more with other women regarding water treatment practices and may also feel like they have a better idea of what most local women do. Second, pilot testing indicated that study participants identified as belonging to a village, so the village was an easily understood social network. Moreover, village population sizes were small (ranging from 130 to 248 adults), and most people were socially connected within this community.80,81

Household water context.

Participants reported the main water source for their household and whether they thought that their household primarily used that source because it had acceptable water quality. Classification of sources according to Sustainable Development Goal standards was not available. However, household water insecurity was assessed using the Household Water Insecurity Access Scale (HWIAS), which consists of eight questions related to restricted water use (e.g., not drinking enough because water was not available or was too difficult to collect, worries about water access, and consuming/using water perceived to be unsafe or dirty).82 The HWIAS had been validated for use among Runyankore-speaking populations in Uganda.70 Composite HWIAS scores may range from 0 to 24 and were used to categorize household-level water access insecurity: water secure, mildly water insecure, moderately water insecure, and severely water insecure.

Neighbors’ household water treatment practices.

First, distances between participant households were computed using the geocoded location of each household. Relevant neighbors for a participant were defined as other participants in this study (i.e., women living with young children) who resided less than 0.2 km away from an individual participant based on haversine distance (i.e., the distance between two points on a spherical rather than flat surface). We used a 0.2-km threshold based on neighbor classification by a study of peer influence independently conducted in a similar context within the same rural area in Uganda.83 Using this definition of “neighbor,” we calculated for each participant the total number of neighboring households that had women living with young children. Then, we linked the data about neighbors’ reports of their typical household water treatment practices to each index participant and created a trichotomous variable: not having any neighbors; having one or more neighbor(s) who reported that they did not treat their household drinking water; and having one or more neighbors, all of whom reported that they treated their household drinking water. We included this variable as an additional explanatory factor because the behavior of proximal others reported by those proximal others could be associated with both personal water treatment practices and perceptions about the local norm for water treatment practice. This variable could be a confounder. Including it allows assessment of the association between perceptions about the local norm and personal water treatment practice independent from the influence of neighbors’ behavior.

STATISTICAL ANALYSES

We first summarized household water treatment practices by participant characteristics, household water contexts, and neighbors’ behavior. The most common water treatment practice among a majority of women with children in each village was identified and hereafter referred to as the local norm for water treatment in each village. We then calculated and summarized misperceptions about local norms by participant characteristics, household water contexts, and neighbors’ behavior. This population-based study was designed so that study participants were included as both participants and as part of the social reference groups. With this design, the study team could directly compare local norms (based on aggregated reports of water treatment practices at the village-level) with perceived norms (participants’ perceptions about typical local water treatment practices among women with young children in their villages). This comparison identifies misperceived norms, i.e., when individuals’ perceptions differ from local norms. Prior research has used this method to identify misperceived norms about other topics.63,64,67

Finally, we fitted a multivariable modified Poisson regression model with village-level cluster-correlated robust estimates of variance where engaging in the most common safe water treatment practice was the binary outcome (e.g., boil versus do not boil) and misperception of the local norm was the primary explanatory variable. With a binary dependent variable, the exponentiated regression coefficients from the modified Poisson regression model have been shown to yield estimated incidence rate ratios that can be interpreted straightforwardly as relative risk ratios.84 The model adjusted for age, primary school completion, marital status, household asset wealth quintile,85 household water context factors (main source type, perceived water quality, and water insecurity), neighbors’ water treatment practice, number of neighbors, and whether the participant had experienced diarrhea in the past 7 days. We also conducted two sensitivity analyses. Specifically, we fit another model where “taking at least one action versus none” was the outcome. The misperception and neighbor variables were also changed accordingly. Additionally, we fit the original model and included a variable representing how firewood was obtained as primary source of fuel (from own land, from others’ land, purchased, or firewood was not main source of fuel). (This variable was also collected during the parent study.)

RESULTS

The parent study had 775 households of which 350 had women living with young children. From this targeted population, 275 women with young children were interviewed and 274 provided data for the main outcome and explanatory variable (78% response rate). The number of participants per village ranged from 24 to 45 participants (with one participant per household). The number of close neighbors who were study participants (i.e., women living with young children) ranged from 0 to 16 people (median, 5; interquartile range, 3–8). Most participants had completed primary school (156 [57%]) and were married (234 [85%]). The average age was 36 years (SD = 9). Almost all participants (269 [98%]) reported using firewood as their primary source of fuel with 227 (84%), collecting it from their own land or others’ land.

Participants reported a range of household drinking-water sources: gravity flow scheme tap (88 [32%]), other kind of tap (47 [17%]), spring (68 [25%]), well (57 [21%]), and other source (14 [5%]). Approximately one-third of participants (91 [33%]) reported that the primary reason they used that source as their households’ main source of water was because of its acceptable water quality. Additionally, 83 (30%) reported that they had consumed water in the past 30 days that they thought might not be safe for their health. More than half of participants experienced household water insecurity, with 44 [17%]) experiencing severe water insecurity. One (<1%) participant declined to answer one or more of the questions describing their household’s water access insecurity. Few participants (14 [5%]) reported having diarrhea in the past 14 days.

Among 274 participants, 46 (16.8%) reported that they take no action treat their household drinking water to make it safer. However, 221 (80.7%) reported boiling the household drinking water. This was their only action. Five (1.8%) participants reported also only using one method, which excluded boiling water. Two (0.7%) participants reported using more than one method. The prevalence of boiling water ranged from 69% to 89% across villages, and most participants within each social stratum and household water context reported boiling their water (Table 1). Hereafter we refer to boiling water as the local norm.

Table 1 Household water treatment practices among women with children <5 years old across eight villages in Rwampara District, southwest Uganda (N = 274)

Variables	Participants	Boils Household Water to Make Safer for Consumption	
n	%	n	%	
Total	274	100	221	81	
Age, Years	
 18–29	66	24	52	79	
 30–39	121	44	98	81	
 40–49	70	26	56	80	
 ≥50	15	6	13	87	
Education	66	24	52	79	
 None/Some Primary Education	118	43	83	70	
 Completed Primary Education or More	156	57	138	88	
Marital Status	
 Not Married/Cohabiting	40	15	34	85	
 Married/Cohabiting as if Married	234	85	187	80	
Household Asset Wealth	
 1st (Quintile Poorest)	73	27	50	68	
 2nd Quintile	67	24	52	78	
 3rd Quintile	58	21	49	84	
 4th Quintile	43	16	37	86	
 5th (Quintile Least Poor)	33	12	33	100	
Main Source for Household Drinking Water	
 Gravity Flow Scheme	88	32	67	76	
 Other Kind of Tap	47	17	38	81	
 Well	57	21	52	91	
 Spring	68	25	51	75	
 Other	14	5	13	93	
Acceptable Quality of Water is Primary Reason for Water Source	
 No	151	55	124	82	
 Yes	91	33	72	79	
 Unknown	32	12	25	78	
Household Water Insecurity	
 Secure	120	47	94	78	
 Mild	25	10	22	88	
 Moderate	66	26	50	76	
 Severe	44	17	36	82	
Neighbors’ Reports of Own Household Water Treatment Practices	
 All Neighbors Take At Least One Action to Make Water Safer	119	43	106	89	
 Has One or More Neighbors Who Take No Action to Make Water Safer	142	52	105	74	
 Has No Close Neighbors	13	5	10	77	
Diarrhea in Past 2 Weeks	
 No	260	95	208	80	
 Yes	14	5	13	93	

Despite this clear local norm, many participants did not believe that safe water treatment practice was common. Among 53 participants who did not boil their water, 40 (75%) were in a state of false consensus. They incorrectly thought that most others do not boil their household drinking water and they do not boil water themselves. Among 221 participants who boil their water, 95 (43%) were in a state of pluralistic ignorance. They incorrectly thought that most others do not boil their household drinking water but do boil water themselves. Overall, 16 participants (5.8%) incorrectly believed that letting water settle was the local norm among women with young children in their villages, 119 (43%) participants incorrectly believed that most women with young children in their villages do nothing to make their household drinking water safer, and 135 (49%) participants incorrectly believed that most women with young children in their villages do not boil their household drinking water to make it safer. These misperceptions were pervasive across all social strata and household water contexts (Table 2).

Table 2 Misperceptions about local household drinking water treatment practices among women with children <5 years old across eight villages in Rwampara District, southwest Uganda (N = 274)

Variables	Incorrectly Believed that Most Women with Young Children in Own Village Take No Action to Make Household Drinking Water Safer	Incorrectly Believed that Most Women with Young Children in Own Village do not Boil Household Drinking Water	
n	%	n	%	
Total	119	43	139	51	
Age, Years	
 18–29	34	52	40	61	
 30–39	48	40	56	46	
 40–49	32	46	34	49	
 ≥50	5	33	5	33	
Education	
 None/Some Primary Education	55	47	59	50	
 Completed Primary Education or More	64	41	76	49	
Marital Status	
 Not Married/Cohabiting	12	30	15	38	
 Married/Cohabiting as if Married	107	46	120	51	
Household Asset Wealth	
 1st Quintile Poorest	36	49	41	56	
 2nd Quintile	30	45	31	46	
 3rd Quintile	20	34	29	50	
 4th Quintile	21	49	22	51	
 5th Quintile Least Poor	12	36	12	36	
Main Source for Household Drinking Water	
 Gravity Flow Scheme	54	61	60	68	
 Other Kind of Tap	17	36	19	40	
 Well	21	37	24	42	
 Spring	25	37	30	44	
 Other	2	14	2	14	
Acceptable Quality of Water is Primary Reason for Water Source	
 No	61	40	69	46	
 Yes	48	53	55	60	
 Unknown	10	31	11	34	
Household Water Insecurity	
 Secure	57	48	58	48	
 Mild	10	40	12	48	
 Moderate	29	44	34	52	
 Severe	22	50	24	55	
Neighbors’ Reports of Own Household Water Treatment Practices	
 All Neighbors Take At Least One Action to Make Drinking Water Safer	44	37	50	42	
 Has One or More Neighbors Who Take No Action to Make Drinking Water Safer	70	49	79	56	
 Has No Close Neighbors	5	38	6	46	
Diarrhea in Past 2 Weeks	
 No	116	45	131	50	
 Yes	3	21	4	29	

Among the 135 participants who misperceived boiling water as not being the local norm, 95 (70%) reported that they boil their household drinking water. In contrast among the 139 participants who perceived that boiling water was the local norm, 126 (91%) reported that they boil their household drinking water (chi-square = 18.04; P <0.001). Similarly, among the 119 participants who misperceived no action as the local norm, 86 (72%) reported that they took at least one action to treat their household drinking water to make it safer for consumption. In contrast, among the 155 participants who perceived that taking at least one action to treat household water was the local norm, 142 (92%) reported that they took at least one action to treat their household drinking water (χ2 = 18.03; P <0.001).

Women’s water treatment practices remained associated with their misperceptions of the local norm for water treatment practices when adjusting for household water context, neighbors’ water treatment practices, and sociodemographic factors. Participants who misperceived the local norm about boiling water were less likely themselves to practice this safe water treatment method (adjusted relative risk = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.69–0.92, P = 0.002) compared with participants who believed most others boil their household drinking water to make it safer. The estimated association between misperceiving taking no action as the local norm and personal report of taking at least one action to make the household drinking water safer was similar. Not completing primary education was also associated with not boiling water and not taking any action (Table 3). Including whether firewood was primary source of fuel and if so where firewood was obtained did not change the pattern or strength of the estimated associations.

Table 3 Multivariable modified Poisson regression models estimating associations between reported household water treatment practice and misperceiving the local norm about safe water treatment practice among women living with young children across eight villages in Rwampara District, southwest Uganda (N = 253)

Variables	Household Boils Water to Make Safer for Consumption	
aRR	95% CI	P-Value	
Perception of Local Norm on Household Drinking Water Treatment Practices	
 Misperceived Most Women with Young Children in Own Village to not Boil Drinking Water	0.80	0.69–0.92	0.002	
 Believed Most Women with Young Children in Own Village Boil Drinking Water	Ref	–	–	
Age (in Years)	1.00	0.99–1.01	0.908	
Married/Cohabiting as if Married (vs. Not Married)	0.90	0.79–1.02	0.107	
Did not Complete Primary Education (vs. Completed Primary Education)	0.83	0.74–0.93	0.001	
Household Asset Wealth	
 1st Quintile (Poorest)	0.79	0.62–1.01	0.061	
 2nd Quintile	0.88	0.67–1.17	0.391	
 3rd Quintile	0.97	0.79–1.18	0.734	
 4th Quintile	Ref	–	–	
 5th Quintile (Least Poor)	1.06	0.86–1.30	0.584	
Main Source of Household Drinking Water	
 Gravity Flow Scheme	Ref	–	–	
 Other Kind of Tap	0.96	0.80–1.14	0.616	
 Well	1.07	0.95–1.21	0.249	
 Spring	0.90	0.70–1.17	0.432	
 Other	1.03	0.84–1.26	0.769	
Acceptable Quality of Water is Primary Reason for Water Source	
 No	Ref	–	–	
 Yes	1.02	0.96–1.09	0.466	
 Unknown	0.94	0.85–1.05	0.266	
Household Water Insecurity	
 Secure	Ref	–	–	
 Mild	1.11	0.95–1.30	0.195	
 Moderate	0.97	0.86–1.09	0.574	
 Severe	1.10	0.91–1.33	0.309	
Neighbors’ Reports of Own Household Water Treatment Practices	
 All Neighbors Reported Boiling Water	Ref	–	–	
 Has One or More Neighbors who Reported not Boiling Water	0.94	0.77–1.15	0.545	
 Has No Close Neighbors	0.80	0.61–1.06	0.124	
 Number of Neighbors	0.99	0.97–1.01	0.339	
 Had Diarrhea in Past 2 Weeks (vs. Did Not)	1.08	0.91–1.29	0.374	
aRR = adjusted relative risk; Ref = reference. Models account for robust standard errors and clustering at the village level.

DISCUSSION

In this population-based study of women with young children across eight villages in rural Uganda, where there is limited access to clean drinking water, 43% of women misperceived safe water treatment practice as uncommon among peers. Specifically, they incorrectly believed that most women with young children in these villages do not typically treat their household drinking water in any way to make it safer. These misperceptions were present across social categories despite only 17% of women reporting that they do not take action to make their household drinking water safer.

The public health importance of this finding is that women who misperceived local norms about safe water treatment practices (i.e., they incorrectly thought that most did not boil their water) were less likely to treat their households’ drinking water themselves. These two key findings are analogous to phenomena whereby people overestimate peers’ engagement in health risk behaviors, in this context63,64,67,69,86 and elsewhere,87–95 and also analogous to estimates of strong associations that have been observed between perceived norms and personal behavior.87

Misperceived norms about water treatment practices might arise due to falsely attributing a behavior witnessed one time (e.g., someone not treating recently collected water before consumption) as typical behavior or by unconsciously extrapolating the behavior of one individual who does not treat their water to the entire group. Similarly, conditional on there being any “everyday discussion” about water treatment practices, if conversation happens in-person or on the news about children sick with diarrhea, then individuals might presume instead that most women (typically the main caregivers) are not treating the household water. Moreover, boiling water may not be a visible behavior, that is, neither regularly discussed nor done in tandem with others outside one’s own household. Not witnessing others engaging in safe water treatment practices (or not paying attention to the act of boiling water, for example) might make these behaviors seem uncommon.

Taken together, the findings from this study highlight an opportunity to implement a social norms approach strategy to increase water treatment practices in places lacking access to clean water. This approach focuses on correcting misperceived norms by disseminating messages about positive behavioral norms that already exist within a community and by making the desired behavior more visibly salient. For example, a verbal or visual norms message could indicate that “most women with young children in your village boil their household drinking water.” The mechanism behind this strategy is that changed perceptions will motivate behavioral change.43,44,96,97 This kind of messaging could be conducted alone or complement other local water, sanitation, and hygiene intervention strategies.98,99

Correcting misperceptions among people experiencing false consensus may encourage initiation of safe water treatment practices and then consistent use of such practices. Additionally, this strategy may prevent people who misperceive the norm but treat their drinking water, from relaxing their treatment practices. Highlighting what they personally already do as the true local norm would support their continued engagement in the health-protective behavior. A large body of research on other topics has shown that changing perceived norms drives personal behavior and attitudes.26,39,40,100–103 Finally, correcting misperceptions broadly across the population may increase conversation about safe water treatment practices and reduce silent bystander behavior. For example, this strategy might increase the likelihood that individuals will speak-up when they see unsafe water treatment practices, that they will encourage peers to adopt safer practices, or that they will offer resources (e.g., firewood) to help peers do so. Emphasizing local protective norms could complement other water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) strategies to address risk behavior. Further research is needed to assess effectiveness of this type of social norms approach strategy on increasing safe water treatment practices.

There are limitations to these interpretations. First, only one person per household reported their own water treatment practices. If multiple people per household take responsibility for household drinking water, then not collecting reports from everyone in a household about water treatment practices might affect calculation of actual local norms. However, in this setting, mothers are typically responsible for obtaining water and its various household uses. Second, determination of local norms was based on participants’ reports of their own behavior rather than on objective measures. Thus, participants may have reported that they engage in safe water treatment practices when in reality they do not. In studies of chlorine treatment of drinking water, the prevalence of self-reported water treatment is greater than the prevalence of positive chlorine tests, suggesting that social desirability bias may increase the propensity to report water treatment behavior.104,105 Yet almost half of participants in this study reported believing that most others do not use safe water treatment practices. Ostensibly these participants would feel less social pressure in reporting their own risk behavior (i.e., no safe water treatment practice) if they believe that most are not doing so too. Moreover, even if 20% of study participants falsely reported that they treat their water, the majority would still engage in safe water treatment practices. Additionally, although we did not collect information on whether participants were knowledgeable about boiling water as a safe water treatment practice, lack of knowledge is probably not a barrier. A recent study of key informants from this same region suggested that most people in this context treat their water in some way, almost always by boiling the water.106 Thus, the local norm in this study would still be to treat household drinking water. Third, the extent and role of misperceived norms may differ in contexts with greater water insecurity and less safe water treatment practice). However, people across contexts underestimate the prevalence of health behavior and overestimate the prevalence of health risk behavior despite contextual differences in the prevalence of a behavior.89,107,108 Finally, causal interpretation of results is not possible. However, implementing a social norms approach strategy may change misperception and ultimately personal and collective behavior regardless prior causal direction. Several longitudinal and experimental studies in other contexts have found that perceived norms at an earlier time point influence later personal behavior109–113 and that changing norm perceptions leads to changes in behavior and attitude.45,48,51,52,114–120

Future research is needed to address these questions. For example, future studies on this topic should attempt to collect objective measures of water treatment practices, for example, within a typical week. Additionally, collecting data on personal beliefs and perceived injunctive norms about whether using safe water treatment practices is what households in that context should do would inform the extent to which perceived descriptive norms and perceived injunctive norms may independently or interactively influence behavior. Moreover, in settings where safe water treatment practice may not yet be normative, personal and collective attitudes may support a health behavior even if local behavioral norms do not yet represent that health behavior. At the same time, it is possible that people may also misperceive injunctive norms around local water treatment practices. Another alternative would be to collect data on perceived norms about safe water treatment practices in specific scenarios (e.g., when cooking, or when someone is ill, etc.) and about safe water storage practices. Overall, however, this study provides the foundational evidence for future research to assess the causal effects of changing misperceived norms about water treatment practices on behavior and conversation at the individual and collective levels, and how it could effectively complement other WASH-related strategies.

CONCLUSION

In this population-based study of water treatment practices where potable water is rare, we found that almost one in five women living with young children do not boil household water or use other safe water treatment practices. Additionally, almost half of women across eight villages incorrectly believed that most other women with young children in their same villages do nothing to treat household drinking water. This misperception was associated with not personally engaging in safe water treatment practices. Implementing strategies to correct these misperceptions may hold promise for increasing both uptake and maintenance of safe water treatment practices among women with young children in water insecure settings.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the HopeNet cohort study participants, without whom this research would not be possible. We also thank members of the HopeNet study team for research assistance; in addition to the named study authors, HopeNet and other collaborative team members who contributed to data collection and/or study administration during all or any part of the study were as follows: Phionah Ahereza, Owen Alleluya, Patience Ayebare, Dickson Beinomugisha, Bridget Burns, Clare Kamagara, Allen Kiconco, Viola Kyokunda, Mercy Juliet, Patrick Lukwago Muleke, Rhina Mushagara, Rumbidzai Mushavi, Elijah Musinguzi, Moran Owembabazi, Sarah Nabachwa, Immaculate Ninsiima, Mellon Tayebwa, and Dagmar Vořechovská. We also thank Roger Hofmann of West Portal Software Corporation (San Francisco, CA) for developing and customizing the CASIC Builder software program used for survey administration. We thank Claire Evans who contributed research assistance in preparing the manuscript.
==== Refs
REFERENCES

1. World Health Organization , 2019. Fact Sheet: Drinking-Water. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/drinking-water. Accessed February 20, 2023.
2. Wutich A Brewis A Tsai A , 2020. Water and mental health. WIREs Water 7 : e1461.
3. Nunbogu AM Elliott SJ , 2021. Towards an integrated theoretical framework for understanding water insecurity and gender-based violence in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). Health Place 71 : 102651.34388581
4. Mushavi RC , 2020. “When you have no water, it means you have no peace”: A mixed-methods, whole-population study of water insecurity and depression in rural Uganda. Soc Sci Med 245 : 112561.31790879
5. Kangmennaang J Elliott SJ , 2021. Linking water (in)security and wellbeing in low-and middle-income countries. Water Secur 13 : 100089.
6. Cooper-Vince CE Arachy H Kakuhikire B Vořechovská D Mushavi RC Baguma C McDonough AQ Bangsberg DR Tsai AC , 2018. Water insecurity and gendered risk for depression in rural Uganda: A hotspot analysis. BMC Public Health 18 : 1143.30257659
7. Workman CL Brewis A Wutich A Young S Stoler J Kearns J , 2021. Understanding biopsychosocial health outcomes of syndemic water and food insecurity: Applications for global health. Am J Trop Med Hyg 104 : 8–11.33146108
8. Schuster RC Butler MS Wutich A Miller JD Young SL , Household Water Insecurity Experiences-Research Coordination Network , 2020. “If there is no water, we cannot feed our children”: The far-reaching consequences of water insecurity on infant feeding practices and infant health across 16 low- and middle-income countries. Am J Hum Biol 32 : e23357.31868269
9. Venkataramanan V Geere J-AL Thomae B Stoler J Hunter PR Young SL , 2020. In pursuit of ‘safe’ water: The burden of personal injury from water fetching in 21 low-income and middle-income countries. BMJ Glob Health 5 : e003328.
10. Geere J-AL Cortobius M Geere JH Hammer CC Hunter PR , 2018. Is water carriage associated with the water carrier’s health? A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative evidence. BMJ Glob Health 3 : e000764.
11. Ssemugabo C Wafula ST Ndejjo R Oporia F Osuret J Musoke D Halage AA , 2019. Knowledge and practices of households on safe water chain maintenance in a slum community in Kampala City, Uganda. Environ Health Prev Med 24 : 45.31200642
12. Hutton G Varughese M , 2016. The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene. Washington, DC: World Bank.
13. Clasen T , 2015. Household water treatment and safe storage to prevent diarrheal disease in developing countries. Curr Environ Health Rep 2 : 69–74.26231243
14. Ojomo E Elliott M Goodyear L Forson M Bartram J , 2015. Sustainability and scale-up of household water treatment and safe storage practices: Enablers and barriers to effective implementation. Int J Hyg Environ Health 218 : 704–713.25865927
15. World Health Organization , 2017. Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.
16. UNWATER , 2022. Sustainable Development Goal 6 on Water and Sanitation (SDG 6). Available at: https://www.sdg6data.org/en/indicator/6.1.1. Accessed November 28, 2022.
17. Imanishi M Kweza PF Slayton RB Urayai T Ziro O Mushayi W Francis-Chizororo M Kuonza LR Ayers T Freeman MM , 2014. Household water treatment uptake during a public health response to a large typhoid fever outbreak in Harare, Zimbabwe. Am J Trop Med Hyg 90 : 945–954.24664784
18. Tsai F-J Wu M Lin C-P , 2020. Does a free-trial approach increase purchase and use of a household water treatment and safe storage product in rural Haiti? Am J Trop Med Hyg 102 : 518–525.31971158
19. Ray I Smith KR , 2021. Towards safe drinking water and clean cooking for all. Lancet Glob Health 9 : e361–e365.33444550
20. Bicchieri C Mercier H Xenitidou M Edmonds B The Complexity of Social Norms. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 37–54.
21. Bicchieri C McNally P , 2018. Shrieking sirens: Schemata, scripts, and social norms. How change occurs. Soc Philos Policy 35 : 23–53.
22. Asch SE , 1956. Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychol Monogr Gen Appl 70 : 1–70.
23. Sherif M , 1936. The Psychology of Social Norms. New York, NY: Harper.
24. Cialdini RB Trost MR Gilbert DT Fiske ST Lindzey G The Handbook of Social Psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 151–192.
25. Cialdini RB Reno RR Kallgren CA , 1990. A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J Pers Soc Psychol 58 : 1015–1026.
26. Schultz PW Nolan JM Cialdini RB Goldstein NJ Griskevicius V , 2018. The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms: Reprise. Perspect Psychol Sci 13 : 249–254.29592653
27. Prentice DA , 2018. Intervening to change social norms: When does it work? Soc Res (New York) 85 : 115–139.
28. Perkins HW Haines MP Rice R , 2005. Misperceiving the college drinking norm and related problems: A nationwide study of exposure to prevention information, perceived norms and student alcohol misuse. J Stud Alcohol Drugs 66 : 470–478.
29. Perkins HW Perkins HW The Social Norms Approach to Preventing School and College Age Substance Abuse: A Handbook for Educators, Counselors, and Clinicians. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 209–223.
30. Perkins HW , 1995. Scope of the problem: Misperceptions of alcohol and drugs. Catalyst 1 : 1–2.
31. Perkins HW Berkowitz AD , 1986. Perceiving the community norms of alcohol use among students: Some research implications for campus alcohol education programming. Int J Addict 21 : 961–976.3793315
32. Prentice DA Miller DT , 1993. Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus: Some consequences of misperceiving the social norm. J Pers Soc Psychol 64 : 243–256.8433272
33. Dannals JE Miller DT , 2017. Social norm perception in groups with outliers. J Exp Psychol Gen 146 : 1342–1359.28682092
34. Geber S Baumann E Klimmt C , 2019. Where do norms come from? Peer communication as a factor in normative social influences on risk behavior. Communic Res 46 : 708–730.
35. Gilbert DT Malone PS , 1995. The correspondence bias. Psychol Bull 117 : 21–38.7870861
36. Kitts JA , 2003. Egocentric bias or information management? Selective disclosure and the social roots of norm misperception. Soc Psychol Q 66 : 222–237.
37. Lerman K Yan X Wu XZ , 2016. The “majority illusion” in social networks. PLoS One 11 : e0147617.26886112
38. Perkins HW Xenitidou M Edmonds B The Complexity of Social Norms. New York, NY: Springer, 11–36.
39. Tankard ME Paluck EL , 2016. Norm perception as a vehicle for social change. Soc Issues Policy Rev 10 : 181–211.
40. Perkins HW Perkins JM Anderson D Hall T Leading Campus Drug and Alcohol Abuse Prevention: Grounded Approaches for Student Impact. Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, 159–162, 417–424.
41. Ross L Greene D House P , 1977. The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. J Exp Soc Psychol 13 : 279–301.
42. Miller DT McFarland C , 1987. Pluralistic ignorance: When similarity is interpreted as dissimilarity. J Pers Soc Psychol 53 : 298–305.
43. Perkins HW , 2003. The Social Norms Approach to Preventing School and College Age Substance Abuse: A Handbook for Educators, Counselors, and Clinicians. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
44. Dempsey RC McAlaney J Bewick BM , 2018. A critical appraisal of the social norms approach as an interventional strategy for health-related behavior and attitude change. Front Psychol 9 : 1–16.29410639
45. Schultz PW , 1999. Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: A field experiment on curbside recycling. Basic Appl Soc Psych 21 : 25–36.
46. Haines MP Barker GP Perkins HW The Social Norms Approach to Preventing School and College Age Substance Abuse: A Handbook for Educators, Counselors, and Clinicians. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 21–34.
47. Perkins HW Craig DW Perkins HW The Social Norms Approach to Preventing School and College Age Substance Abuse: A Handbook for Educators, Counselors, and Clinicians. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Wiley, 35–64.
48. Paluck EL Shepherd HS , 2012. The salience of social referents: A field experiment on collective norms and harassment behavior in a school social network. J Pers Soc Psychol 103 : 899–915.22984831
49. Allcott H Rogers T , 2014. The short-run and long-run effects of behavioral interventions: Experimental evidence from energy conservation. Am Econ Rev 104 : 3003–3037.
50. Schultz PW Messina A Tronu G Limas EF Gupta R Estrada M , 2014. Personalized normative feedback and the moderating role of personal norms: A field experiment to reduce residential water consumption. Environ Behav 48 : 686–710.
51. Hallsworth M List JA Metcalfe RD Vlaev I , 2017. The behavioralist as tax collector: Using natural field experiments to enhance tax compliance. J Public Econ 148 : 14–31.
52. Green DP Wilke AM Cooper J , 2020. Countering violence against women by encouraging disclosure: A mass media experiment in rural Uganda. Comp Polit Stud 53 : 2283–2320.
53. Yu H , 2023. Social stigma as a barrier to HIV testing: Evidence from a randomized experiment in Mozambique. J Dev Econ 161 : 103035.
54. DeJong W Schneider SK Towvim LG Murphy MJ Doerr EE Simonsen NR Mason KE Scribner RA , 2006. A multisite randomized trial of social norms marketing campaigns to reduce college student drinking. J Stud Alcohol 67 : 868–879.17061004
55. LaBrie JW Hummer JF Neighbors C Pedersen ER , 2008. Live interactive group-specific normative feedback reduces misperceptions and drinking in college students: A randomized cluster trial. Psychol Addict Behav 22 : 141–148.18298241
56. Reid AE Aiken LS , 2013. Correcting injunctive norm misperceptions motivates behavior change: A randomized controlled sun protection intervention. Health Psychol 32 : 551–560.23646838
57. Sacarny A Barnett ML Le J Tetkoski F Yokum D Agrawal S , 2018. Effect of peer comparison letters for high-volume primary care prescribers of quetiapine in older and disabled adults: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry 75 : 1003–1011.30073273
58. Testa M Livingston JA Wang W Lewis MA , 2020. Preventing college sexual victimization by reducing hookups: A randomized controlled trial of a personalized normative feedback intervention. Prev Sci 21 : 388–397.32060880
59. Lilje J Mosler H-J , 2017. Socio-psychological determinants for safe drinking water consumption behaviors: A multi-country review. J Water Sanit Hyg Dev 7 : 13–24.
60. Daniel D Diener A Pande S Jansen S Marks S Meierhofer R Bhatta M Rietveld L , 2019. Understanding the effect of socio-economic characteristics and psychosocial factors on household water treatment practices in rural Nepal using Bayesian Belief Networks. Int J Hyg Environ Health 222 : 847–855.31047815
61. Daniel D Pande S Rietveld L , 2020. The effect of socio-economic characteristics on the use of household water treatment via psychosocial factors: A mediation analysis. Hydrol Sci J 65 : 2350–2358.
62. Lilje J Mosler H-J , 2018. Effects of a behavior change campaign on household drinking water disinfection in the Lake Chad basin using the RANAS approach. Sci Total Environ 619–620 : 1599–1607.
63. Perkins JM Krezanoski P Takada S Kakuhikire B Batwala V Tsai AC Christakis NA Bangsberg DR , 2019. Social norms, misperceptions, and mosquito net use: A population-based, cross-sectional study in rural Uganda. Malar J 18 : 1–13.30602373
64. Perkins JM Nyakato VN Kakuhikire B Mbabazi PK Perkins HW Tsai AC Subramanian SV Christakis NA Bangsberg DR , 2018. Actual versus perceived HIV testing norms, and personal HIV testing uptake: A cross-sectional, population-based study in rural Uganda. AIDS Behav 22 : 616–628.28233075
65. Mulawa M Yamanis TJ Balvanz P Kajula LJ Maman S , 2016. Comparing perceptions with actual reports of close friend’s HIV testing behavior among urban Tanzanian men. AIDS Behav 20 : 2014–2022.26880322
66. Carey KB Scott-Sheldon LAJ Carey MP Cain D Mlobeli R Vermaak R Mthembu J Simbayi LC Kalichman SC , 2011. Community norms for HIV risk behaviors among men in a South African township. J Behav Med 34 : 32–40.20680673
67. Perkins JM , 2022. Overestimation of alcohol consumption norms as a driver of alcohol consumption: A whole-population network study of men across eight villages in rural, southwestern Uganda. Addiction 117 : 68–81.34159646
68. Ganz G Neville FG Kassanjee R Ward CL , 2020. Parental misperceptions of in-group norms for child discipline. J Community Appl Soc Psychol 30 : 628–644.
69. Tsai AC Kakuhikire B Perkins JM Downey JM Baguma C Satinsky EN Gumisiriza P Kananura J Bangsberg DR , 2021. Normative vs personal attitudes toward persons with HIV, and the mediating role of perceived HIV stigma in rural Uganda. J Glob Health 11 : 04056.
70. Tsai AC Kakuhikire B Mushavi R Vořechovská D Perkins JM McDonough AQ Bangsberg DR , 2016. Population-based study of intra-household gender differences in water insecurity: Reliability and validity of a survey instrument for use in rural Uganda. J Water Health 14 : 280–292.27105413
71. Luoto J Levine D Albert J Luby S , 2014. Nudging to use: Achieving safe water behaviors in Kenya and Bangladesh. J Dev Econ 110 : 13–21.
72. Rosa G Clasen T , 2010. Estimating the scope of household water treatment in low- and medium-income countries. Am J Trop Med Hyg 82 : 289–300.20134007
73. Uganda Bureau of Statistics , 2014. National Population and Housing Census 2014: Provisional Results. Kampala, Uganda: UBS.
74. Cooper-Vince CE , 2017. Household water insecurity, missed schooling, and the mediating role of caregiver depression in rural Uganda. Glob Ment Health (Camb) 4 : e15.29230311
75. Perkins JM Nyakato VN Kakuhikire B Tsai AC Subramanian SV Bangsberg DR Christakis NA , 2018. Food insecurity, social networks, and symptoms of depression among men and women in rural Uganda: A cross-sectional, population-based study. Public Health Nutr 21 : 838–848.28988551
76. World Health Organization , 2017. Safely Managed Drinking Water—Thematic Report on Drinking Water. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.
77. Uganda Bureau of Statistics , 2018. Uganda Demographic and Health Survey 2016. Kampala, Uganda: UBS.
78. World Bank Group , 2021. The World Bank in Uganda. Available at: http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/uganda/overview. Accessed September 13, 2021.
79. Uganda Bureau of Statistics , 2021. Statistical Abstract. Kampala, Uganda: UBS. Available at: https://www.ubos.org/wp-content/uploads/publications/01_20222021_Statistical_Abstract.pdf. Accessed June 11, 2024.
80. Kakuhikire B , 2021. Correlates of attendance at community engagement meetings held in advance of bio-behavioral research studies: A longitudinal, sociocentric social network study in rural Uganda. PLoS Med 18 : e1003705.34270581
81. Takada S Nyakato V Nishi A O’Malley AJ Kakuhikire B Perkins JM Bangsberg DR Christakis NA Tsai AC , 2019. The social network context of HIV stigma: Population-based, sociocentric network study in rural Uganda. Soc Sci Med 233 : 229–236.31229909
82. Young SL Boateng GO Jamaluddine Z Miller JD Frongillo EA Neilands TB Collins SM Wutich A Jepson WE Stoler J , 2019. The Household Water InSecurity Experiences (HWISE) Scale: Development and validation of a household water insecurity measure for low-income and middle-income countries. BMJ Glob Health 4 : e001750.
83. Beltramo T Blalock G Levine DI Simons AM , 2015. Does peer use influence adoption of efficient cookstoves? Evidence from a randomized controlled trial in Uganda. J Health Commun 20 : 55–66.25839203
84. Zou G , 2004. A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol 159 : 702–706.15033648
85. Smith ML Kakuhikire B Baguma C Rasmussen JD Bangsberg DR Tsai AC , 2020. Do household asset wealth measurements depend on who is surveyed? Asset reporting concordance within multi-adult households in rural Uganda. J Glob Health 10 : 010412.32373331
86. Tsai AC Kakuhikire B Perkins JM Vořechovská D McDonough AQ Ogburn EL Downey JM Bangsberg DR , 2017. Measuring personal beliefs and perceived norms about intimate partner violence: Population-based survey experiment in rural Uganda. PLoS Med 14 : e1002303.28542176
87. Perkins HW Perkins JM Cimini MD Rivero EM Promoting Behavioral Health and Reducing Risk among College Students. New York, NY: Routledge, 127–144.
88. Perkins JM Perkins HW Craig DW , 2019. Misperceiving a code of silence: Peer support for telling authorities about weapons at school among middle school and high school students in the United States. Youth Soc 51 : 814–839.
89. Perkins JM Perkins HW Jurinsky J Craig DW , 2019. Adolescent tobacco use and misperceptions of social norms across schools in the United States. J Stud Alcohol Drugs 80 : 659–668.31790356
90. Perkins JM Perkins HW Craig DW , 2018. Misperceived norms and personal sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and fruit and vegetable intake among students in the United States. Appetite 129 : 82–93.29890185
91. Kroshus E Garnett BR Baugh CM Calzo JP , 2015. Social norms theory and concussion education. Health Educ Res 30 : 1004–1013.26471918
92. Orchowski LM , 2019. “Trouble in Paradigm” and the social norms approach to violence prevention. Violence Against Women 25 : 1672–1681.31640535
93. Dickie R Rasmussen S Cain R Williams L MacKay W , 2018. The effects of perceived social norms on handwashing behaviour in students. Psychol Health Med 23 : 154–159.28592138
94. Duong HT Parker L , 2018. Going with the flow. J Soc Mark 8 : 314–332.
95. Graupensperger SA-O Lee CM Larimer ME , 2021. Young adults underestimate how well peers adhere to COVID-19 preventive behavioral guidelines. J Prim Prev 42 : 309–318.33932222
96. Berkowitz AD Perkins W Perkins HW The Social Norms Approach to Preventing School and College Age Substance Abuse: A Handbook for Educators, Counselors, and Clinicians. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
97. Cislaghi B Berkowitz AD , 2021. The evolution of social norms interventions for health promotion: Distinguishing norms correction and norms transformation. J Glob Health 21 : 03065.
98. Quattrochi JP Coville A Mvukiyehe E Dohou CJ Esu F Cohen B Bokasola YL Croke K , 2021. Effects of a community-driven water, sanitation and hygiene intervention on water and sanitation infrastructure, access, behaviour, and governance: A cluster-randomised controlled trial in rural Democratic Republic of Congo. BMJ Glob Health 6 : e005030.
99. Hove J D’Ambruoso L Mabetha D van der Merwe M Byass P Kahn K Khosa S Witter S Twine R , 2019. “Water is life”: Developing community participation for clean water in rural South Africa. BMJ Glob Health 4 : e001377.
100. Miller DT Prentice DA , 2016. Changing norms to change behavior. Annu Rev Psychol 67 : 339–361.26253542
101. Reid AE Cialdini RB Aiken LS Steptoe A Handbook of Behavioral Medicine: Methods and Applications. New York, NY: Springer, 263–274.
102. Cialdini RB Jacobson RP , 2021. Influences of social norms on climate change-related behaviors. Curr Opin Behav Sci 42 : 1–8.
103. Farrow K Grolleau G Ibanez L , 2017. Social norms and pro-environmental behavior: A review of the evidence. Ecol Econ 140 : 1–13.
104. Luoto J Najnin N Mahmud M Albert J Islam MS Luby S Unicomb L Levine DI , 2011. What point-of-use water treatment products do consumers use? Evidence from a randomized controlled trial among the urban poor in Bangladesh. PLoS One 6 : e26132.22028817
105. John A Orkin K , 2022. Can simple psychological interventions increase preventive health investment? J Eur Econ Assoc 20 : 1001–1047.35721005
106. Catherine AN Ayesiga S Rukundo GZ Lejju JB Byarugaba F Tamwesigire IK , 2023. Community perceptions and practices on quality and safety of drinking water in Mbarara city, south western Uganda. PLOS Water 2 : e0000075.
107. Perkins HW , 2007. Misperceptions of peer drinking norms in Canada: Another look at the “reign of error” and its consequences among college students. Addict Behav 32 : 2645–2656.17719724
108. Perkins HW Craig DW , 2012. Student-athletes’ misperceptions of male and female peer drinking norms: A multi-site investigation of the “reign of error.” J Coll Student Dev 53 : 367–382.
109. Mulla MM Witte TH Richardson K Hart W Kassing FL Coffey CA Hackman CL Sherwood IM , 2018. The causal influence of perceived social norms on intimate partner violence perpetration: Converging cross-sectional, longitudinal, and experimental support for a social disinhibition model. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 45 : 652–668.30226406
110. Mulla MM Haikalis M Orchowski LM Berkowitz AD , 2020. The prospective influence of perceived social norms on bystander actions against sexual violence and relationship abuse: A multiple mediation model. J Interpers Violence 37 : NP2313–NP2337.32618213
111. Lewis MA Litt DM Neighbors C , 2015. The chicken or the egg: Examining temporal precedence among attitudes, injunctive norms, and college student drinking. J Stud Alcohol Drugs 76 : 594–601.26098035
112. Davey-Rothwell MA Latkin CA Tobin KE , 2010. Longitudinal analysis of the relationship between perceived norms and sharing injection paraphernalia. AIDS Behav 14 : 878–884.19148743
113. Bruine de Bruin W Parker AM Galesic M Vardavas R , 2019. Reports of social circles’ and own vaccination behavior: A national longitudinal survey. Health Psychol 38 : 975–983.31259597
114. Bursztyn L González AL Yanagizawa-Drott D , 2020. Misperceived social norms: Women working outside the home in Saudi Arabia. Am Econ Rev 110 : 2997–3029.
115. Linkenbach JW Bengtson PL Brandon JM Fredrickson AJ Kilmer JR Lubbers DT Ooms JD Roche VS Thompson SJ , 2021. Reduction of youth monthly alcohol use using the positive community norms approach. Child Adolesc Social Work J 38 : 1–11.
116. Hallsworth M Chadborn T Sallis A Sanders M Berry D Greaves F Clements L Davies SC , 2016. Provision of social norm feedback to high prescribers of antibiotics in general practice: A pragmatic national randomised controlled trial. Lancet 387 : 1743–1752.26898856
117. Köbis NC Troost M Brandt CO Soraperra I , 2019. Social norms of corruption in the field: Social nudges on posters can help to reduce bribery. Behav Public Policy 6 : 597–624.
118. Blair G Littman R Paluck EL , 2019. Motivating the adoption of new community-minded behaviors: An empirical test in Nigeria. Sci Adv 5 : 1–9.
119. Paluck EL Green DP , 2009. Deference, dissent, and dispute resolution: An experimental intervention using mass media to change norms and behavior in Rwanda. Am Polit Sci Rev 103 : 622–644.
120. Paluck EL , 2009. Reducing intergroup prejudice and conflict using the media: A field experiment in Rwanda. J Pers Soc Psychol 96 : 574–587.19254104
