Climate change mitigation policies contribute to a global public good. However, they often impose disproportionate burdens on policy-vulnerable groups, undermining public support for effective climate action. Simultaneously, social norms about appropriate climate-friendly behavior exert social pressure, potentially influencing individuals’ preferences. Despite the importance of normative guidelines, little is known about the costs of complying with them. Thus, I ask the question if citizens choose to adjust their preferences to comply with social norms when they perceive the cost of such adjustments as prohibitive. To address this question, I conduct a pre-registered belief updating experiment in the framework of the Austrian National Election Study (N=3,000) in early 2025. I provide information treatments based on representative data to target citizens’ normative expectations about energy saving and food consumption and assess the effect of such treatments on mitigation policy preferences. I expect these updates to impact preferences differently depending on individuals’ initial over- or underestimation of social norms. Additionally, I expect that citizens with high perceived policy vulnerability are less affected by this treatment. In more detail, I conjecture that highly vulnerable citizens are more hesitant to support intrusive push mitigation policies after a normative belief update. In comparison, they may show greater willingness to adjust their preferences positively for pull mitigation policies. The study’s findings contribute to understanding how social norms and perceived vulnerability jointly shape policy preferences. They offer insights for designing climate policies that address short-term challenges while fostering broader public support for ambitious climate action.