Home  ›  What Is It Called When You Go Agains Social Norms

What Is It Called When You Go Agains Social Norms

Written By sexta-feira, 18 de março de 2022 Add Comment Edit

Informal understanding of acceptable deport

Shaking hands after a sports lucifer is an example of a social norm.

Social norms are shared standards of adequate behavior by groups.[1] [2] Social norms can both be informal understandings that govern the beliefs of members of a society, as well equally exist codification into rules and laws.[3] Social normative influences or social norms, are deemed to be powerful drivers of human behavioural changes and well organized and incorporated past major theories which explaining human being behaviour.[4] Institutions are composed of multiple norms.[v] Norms are shared and social beliefs about behavior; thus, they are distinct from "ideas", "attitudes", and "values", which can be held privately, and which do not necessarily business concern behavior.[2] Norms are contingent on context, social grouping, and historical circumstances.[6]

Scholars distinguish betwixt regulative norms (which constrain behavior), constitutive norms (which shape interests), and prescriptive norms (which prescribe what actors ought to do).[7] [5] [four] The effects of norms can be determined by a logic of appropriateness and logic of consequences; the former entails that actors follow norms considering it is socially advisable, and the latter entails that actors follow norms considering of price-benefit calculations.[8]

Three stages have been identified in the life wheel of a norm: (i) Norm emergence – norm entrepreneurs seek to persuade others of the desirability and appropriateness of sure behaviors; (2) Norm cascade – when a norm obtains broad credence; and (3) Norm internalization – when a norm acquires a "taken-for-granted" quality.[five] Norms are robust to various degrees: some norms are ofttimes violated whereas other norms are so deeply internalized that norm violations are infrequent.[2] [4] Evidence for the existence of norms can be detected in the patterns of behavior inside groups, as well as the articulation of norms in grouping discourse.[ii]

[edit]

There are varied definitions of social norms, but at that place is agreement among scholars that norms are:[9]

  1. social and shared among members of a group,
  2. related to behaviors and shape decision-making,
  3. proscriptive or prescriptive
  4. socially acceptable way of living by a group of people in a society.

In 1965, Jack P. Gibbs identified three basic normative dimensions that all concepts of norms could exist subsumed under:

  1. "a collective evaluation of behavior in terms of what information technology ought to be"
  2. "a collective expectation equally to what behavior will be"
  3. "particular reactions to behavior" (including attempts sanction or induce certain acquit)[10]

According to Ronald Jepperson, Peter Katzenstein and Alexander Wendt, "norms are collective expectations about proper behavior for a given identity."[eleven] Wayne Sandholtz argues against this definition, as he writes that shared expectations are an result of norms, non an intrinsic quality of norms.[12] Sandholtz, Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink define norms instead every bit "standards of appropriate behavior for actors with a given identity."[12] [five] In this definition, norms accept an "oughtness" quality to them.[12] [five]

Michael Hechter and Karl-Dieter Opp define norms as "cultural phenomena that prescribe and proscribe behavior in specific circumstances."[xiii] Sociologists Christine Horne and Stefanie Mollborn ascertain norms as "group-level evaluations of behavior."[14] This entails that norms are widespread expectations of social approval or disapproval of beliefs.[14] Scholars contend whether social norms are individual constructs or collective constructs.[9]

Economist and game theorist Peyton Young defines norms equally "patterns of behavior that are self-enforcing within a group."[vi] He emphasizes that norms are driven by shared expectations: "Everyone conforms, everyone is expected to conform, and everyone wants to conform when they expect everyone else to conform."[6] He characterizes norms as devices that "coordinate people'southward expectations in interactions that possess multiple equilibria."[fifteen]

Concepts such as "conventions", "customs", "morals", "mores", "rules", and "laws" accept been characterized as equivalent to norms.[x] Institutions can be considered collections or clusters of multiple norms.[five] Rules and norms are not necessarily distinct phenomena: both are standards of deport that tin have varying levels of specificity and formality.[12] [14] Laws are a highly formal version of norms.[16] [12] [17] Laws, rules and norms may be contradictory; for instance, a law may prohibit something merely norms still allow it.[14] Norms are not the equivalent of an aggregation of individual attitudes.[18] Ideas, attitudes and values are not necessarily norms, as these concepts do not necessarily concern behavior and may be held privately.[2] [14] "Prevalent behaviors" and behavioral regularities are not necessarily norms.[14] [ix] Instinctual or biological reactions, personal tastes, and personal habits are not necessarily norms.[9]

Emergence and transmission [edit]

Groups may prefer norms in a diverseness of ways.

Some stable and cocky-reinforcing norms may emerge spontaneously without conscious human design.[19] [13] Peyton Young goes every bit far as to say that "norms typically evolve without top-down management... through interactions of individuals rather than by design."[vi] Norms may develop informally, emerging gradually as a issue of repeated employ of discretionary stimuli to control behavior.[20] [21] Non necessarily laws set in writing, breezy norms represent mostly accustomed and widely sanctioned routines that people follow in everyday life.[22] These informal norms, if cleaved, may not invite formal legal punishments or sanctions, merely instead encourage reprimands, warnings, or othering; incest, for case, is mostly thought of every bit wrong in society, but many jurisdictions exercise not legally prohibit it.

Norms may too be created and avant-garde through conscious human being design by norm entrepreneurs.[23] [24] Norms tin ascend formally, where groups explicitly outline and implement behavioral expectations. Legal norms typically arise from design.[thirteen] [25] A big number of these norms we follow 'naturally' such as driving on the right side of the road in the US and on the left side in the Britain, or non speeding in social club to avoid a ticket.

Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink identify 3 stages in the life wheel of a norm:[5]

  1. Norm emergence: Norm entrepreneurs seek to persuade others to prefer their ideas about what is desirable and advisable
  2. Norm cascade: When a norm has broad acceptance and reaches a tipping betoken, with norm leaders pressuring others to adopt and adhere to the norm
  3. Norm internalization: When the norm has acquired a "taken-for-granted" quality where compliance with the norm is nearly automated

They contend that several factors may heighten the influence of certain norms:[5]

  • Legitimation: Actors that feel insecure virtually their condition and reputation may exist more than likely to embrace norms
  • Prominence: Norms that are held by actors seen as desirable and successful are more likely to diffuse to others
  • Intrinsic qualities of the norm: Norms that are specific, long-lasting, and universal are more than likely to become prominent
  • Path dependency: Norms that are related to preexisting norms are more likely to be widely accepted
  • World time-context: Systemic shocks (such every bit wars, revolutions and economical crises) may motivate a search for new norms

Christina Horne and Stefanie Mollborn have identified two broad categories of arguments for the emergence of norms:[14]

  1. Consequentialism: norms are created when an individual's behavior has consequences and externalities for other members of the grouping.
  2. Relationalism: norms are created because people desire to attract positive social reactions. In other words, norms do not necessarily contribute to the collective skilful.

Per consequentialism, norms contribute to the commonage good. Still, per relationalism, norms do not necessarily contribute to the collective good; norms may even exist harmful to the collective.[14]

Some scholars have characterized norms as inherently unstable, thus creating possibilities for norm change.[12] [26] [27] [28] According to Wayne Sandholtz, actors are more than likely to persuade others to change existing norms if they possess power, tin can reference existing foundational meta-norms, and can reference precedents.[29] Social proximity betwixt actors has been characterized as a fundamental component in sustaining social norms.[30]

Transfer of norms between groups [edit]

Individuals may also import norms from a previous system to their new group, which can get adopted over time.[31] [32] Without a clear indication of how to human activity, people typically rely on their history to decide the best course forward; what was successful earlier may serve them well again. In a group, individuals may all import different histories or scripts about appropriate behaviors; common feel over time volition lead the group to define as a whole its take on the right action, normally with the integration of several members' schemas.[32] Under the importation image, norm formation occurs subtly and swiftly[32] whereas with formal or informal evolution of norms may take longer.

Groups internalize norms by accepting them as reasonable and proper standards for behavior within the group. Once firmly established, a norm becomes a part of the group'south operational construction and hence more difficult to modify. While possible for newcomers to a group to change its norms, it is much more than likely that the new private will adopt the group'due south norms, values, and perspectives, rather than the other way around.[20]

[edit]

Deviance is divers as "nonconformity to a ready of norms that are accepted by a pregnant number of people in a community or lodge."[33] More simply put, if group members do not follow a norm, they become labeled as a deviant. In the sociological literature, this tin often lead to them being considered outcasts of society. Yet, deviant behavior amidst children is somewhat expected. Except the idea of this deviance manifesting as a criminal action, the social tolerance given in the instance of the child is quickly withdrawn confronting the criminal. Crime is considered one of the virtually extreme forms of deviancy according to scholar Clifford R. Shaw.[34]

What is considered "normal" is relative to the location of the civilization in which the social interaction is taking identify. In psychology, an individual who routinely disobeys group norms runs the take a chance of turning into the "institutionalized deviant." Like to the sociological definition, institutionalized deviants may be judged past other group members for their failure to adhere to norms. At starting time, group members may increase pressure level on a non-conformist, attempting to appoint the individual in conversation or explicate why he or she should follow their behavioral expectations. The function in which one decides on whether or non to behave is largely determined on how their deportment will affect others.[35] Particularly with new members who perhaps practice not know any better, groups may apply discretionary stimuli to bring an private's beliefs back into line. Over time, even so, if members keep to disobey, the group volition surrender on them every bit a lost cause; while the group may not necessarily revoke their membership, they may give them only superficial consideration.[twenty] If a worker is late to a meeting, for example, violating the office norm of punctuality, a boss or other co-worker may await for the individual to arrive and pull him bated subsequently to ask what happened. If the behavior continues, eventually the group may begin meetings without him since the individual "is always late." The grouping generalizes the individual's disobedience and promptly dismisses it, thereby reducing the member's influence and footing in future group disagreements.

Group tolerance for deviation varies across membership; not all group members receive the same handling for norm violations. Individuals may build upwardly a "reserve" of good behavior through conformity, which they can infringe against later. These idiosyncrasy credits provide a theoretical currency for agreement variations in group behavioral expectations.[36] A instructor, for instance, may more than easily forgive a straight-A student for misbehaving—who has by "skilful credit" saved up—than a repeatedly confusing student. While past performance can help build idiosyncrasy credits, some group members accept a higher balance to start with.[36] Individuals can import idiosyncrasy credits from some other group; babyhood movie stars, for example, who enroll in college, may experience more elbowroom in adopting school norms than other incoming freshmen. Finally, leaders or individuals in other high-status positions may brainstorm with more credits and be announced to be "above the rules" at times.[20] [36] Fifty-fifty their idiosyncrasy credits are not bottomless, even so; while held to a more lenient standard than the average member, leaders may still face grouping rejection if their disobedience becomes too extreme.

Deviance also causes multiple emotions one experiences when going confronting a norm. One of those emotions widely attributed to deviance is guilt. Guilt is connected to the ethics of duty which in turn becomes a primary object of moral obligation. Guilt is followed by an activity that is questioned after its doing.[37] It can be described every bit something negative to the self likewise equally a negative country of feeling. Used in both instances, it is both an unpleasant feeling likewise equally a grade of self-punishment. Using the metaphor of "dirty hands",[38] information technology is the staining or tainting of oneself and therefore having to cocky cleanse away the filth. It is a class of reparation that confronts oneself also as submitting to the possibility of anger and punishment from others. Guilt is a signal in both action and feeling that acts every bit a stimulus for further "honorable" actions.

Behavior [edit]

Whereas ideas in general do not necessarily have behavioral implications, Martha Finnemore notes that "norms past definition concern behavior. 1 could say that they are collectively held ideas virtually behavior."[2]

Norms running counter to the behaviors of the overarching society or civilization may be transmitted and maintained within pocket-size subgroups of society. For example, Crandall (1988) noted that certain groups (e.m., cheerleading squads, dance troupes, sports teams, sororities) accept a rate of bulimia, a publicly recognized life-threatening disease, that is much higher than society as a whole. Social norms accept a manner of maintaining order and organizing groups.[39]

In the field of social psychology, the roles of norms are emphasized—which can guide behavior in a sure situation or environment as "mental representations of appropriate behavior".[forty] It has been shown that normative messages can promote pro-social behavior, including decreasing alcohol use,[41] increasing voter turnout,[42] and reducing energy use.[43] According to the psychological definition of social norms' behavioral component, norms take two dimensions: how much a beliefs is exhibited, and how much the grouping approves of that beliefs.[44]

[edit]

Although not considered to be formal laws within gild, norms nevertheless work to promote a corking deal of social command.[45] They are statements that regulate conduct. The cultural miracle that is the norm is the prescriber of acceptable beliefs in specific instances. Ranging in variations depending on civilisation, race, religion, and geographical location, information technology is the foundation of the terms some know acceptable as non to injure others, the golden rule, and to keep promises that have been pledged.[46] Without them, at that place would be a globe without consensus, mutual ground, or restrictions. Even though the law and a state's legislation is not intended to control social norms, gild and the law are inherently linked and ane dictates the other. This is why information technology has been said that the language used in some legislation is controlling and dictating for what should or should not be accustomed. For instance, the criminalization of familial sexual relations is said to protect those that are vulnerable, yet fifty-fifty consenting adults cannot take sexual relationships with their relatives. The language surrounding these laws conveys the message that such acts are supposedly immoral and should be condemned, even though in that location is no bodily victim in these consenting relationships.[47]

Social norms can be enforced formally (eastward.g., through sanctions) or informally (e.k., through body language and non-exact communication cues).[48] Considering individuals oft derive physical or psychological resources from group membership, groups are said to control discretionary stimuli; groups can withhold or give out more than resources in response to members' adherence to group norms, finer controlling fellow member behavior through rewards and operant conditioning.[xx] Social psychology inquiry has plant the more than an individual values group-controlled resource or the more than an private sees group membership as central to his definition of self, the more likely he is to conform.[20] Social norms also allow an private to assess what behaviors the group deems of import to its existence or survival, since they represent a codification of belief; groups mostly do not punish members or create norms over actions which they care trivial about.[20] [31] Norms in every civilisation create conformity that allows for people to become socialized to the civilisation in which they live.[49]

As social beings, individuals learn when and where it is appropriate to say certain things, to use sure words, to discuss certain topics or wearable certain clothes, and when information technology is not. Thus, noesis about cultural norms is important for impressions,[50] which is an individual'south regulation of their nonverbal behavior. One as well comes to know through feel what types of people he/she can and cannot discuss sure topics with or wear certain types of dress around. Typically, this knowledge is derived through experience (i.e. social norms are learned through social interaction).[50] Wearing a arrange to a job interview in order to requite a great offset impression represents a common example of a social norm in the white collar work force.

In his work "Order without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes", Robert Ellickson studies diverse interactions between members of neighbourhoods and communities to show how societal norms create society within a small group of people. He argues that, in a small community or neighborhood, many rules and disputes tin be settled without a central governing body simply past the interactions within these communities.[51]

Sociology [edit]

For Talcott Parsons of the functionalist schoolhouse, norms dictate the interactions of people in all social encounters. On the other hand, Karl Marx believed that norms are used to promote the creation of roles in society which allows for people of unlike levels of social grade structure to be able to office properly.[49] Marx claims that this power dynamic creates social lodge.

Heinrich Popitz is convinced that the establishment of social norms, that make the future actions of alter foreseeable for ego, solves the problem of contingency (Niklas Luhmann). In this way, ego tin count on those actions as if they would already take been performed and does not have to wait for their actual execution; social interaction is thus accelerated. Important factors in the standardization of behavior are sanctions[52] and social roles.

Operant conditioning [edit]

The probability of these behaviours occurring again is discussed in the theories of B. F. Skinner, who states that operant conditioning plays a part in the process of social norm evolution. Operant conditioning is the process by which behaviours are changed as a function of their consequences. The probability that a behaviour will occur can exist increased or decreased depending on the consequences of said behaviour.

In the instance of social deviance, an individual who has gone against a norm will contact the negative contingencies associated with deviance, this may take the class of formal or informal rebuke, social isolation or censure, or more physical punishments such as fines or imprisonment. If one reduces the deviant behavior after receiving a negative consequence, then they have learned via penalty. If they have engaged in a beliefs consistent with a social norm after having an aversive stimulus reduced, and then they accept learned via negative reinforcement. Reinforcement increases behavior, while penalization decreases behavior.

Every bit an example of this, consider a child who has painted on the walls of her house, if she has never done this earlier she may immediately seek a reaction from her mother or begetter. The form of reaction taken past the mother or father will bear on whether the behaviour is likely to occur again in the future. If her parent is positive and approving of the behaviour information technology volition likely reoccur (reinforcement) however, if the parent offers an aversive consequence (physical punishment, fourth dimension-out, anger etc...) and then the child is less probable to repeat the behaviour in hereafter (penalisation).

Skinner also states that humans are conditioned from a very young age on how to bear and how to human activity with those around united states of america because the outside influences of the social club and location i is in.[53] Built to blend into the ambiance and mental attitude around us, deviance is a frowned upon action.

Focus theory of normative carry [edit]

Cialdini, Reno, and Kallgren developed the focus theory of normative conduct to describe how individuals implicitly juggle multiple behavioral expectations at once. Expanding on conflicting prior beliefs nigh whether cultural, situational or personal norms motivate action, the researchers suggested the focus of an individual's attention will dictate what behavioral expectation they follow.[54]

Types [edit]

There is no clear consensus on how the term norm should be used.[55]

Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink distinguish between iii types of norms:[5]

  1. Regulative norms: they "order and constrain beliefs"
  2. Constitutive norms: they "create new actors, interests, or categories of activeness"
  3. Evaluative and prescriptive norms: they have an "oughtness" quality to them

Finnemore, Sikkink, Jeffrey W. Legro and others accept argued that the robustness (or effectiveness) of norms can be measured by factors such every bit:

  • The specificity of the norm: norms that are clear and specific are more than likely to exist effective[5] [4]
  • The longevity of the norm: norms with a history are more probable to exist constructive[5]
  • The universality of the norm: norms that make general claims (rather than localized and particularistic claims) are more likely to be effective[5]
  • The prominence of the norm: norms that are widely accepted amid powerful actors are more than probable to be constructive[iv]

Christina Horne argues that the robustness of a norm is shaped by the caste of support for the actors who sanction deviant behaviors; she refers to norms regulating how to enforce norms equally "metanorms."[56] According to Beth M. Simmons and Hyeran Jo, diversity of support for a norm tin can be a strong indicator of robustness.[57] They add together that institutionalization of a norm raises its robustness.[57] Information technology has as well been posited that norms that exist within broader clusters of distinct merely mutually reinforcing norms may be more robust.[58]

Jeffrey Checkel argues that there are two mutual types of explanations for the efficacy of norms:[59]

  • Rationalism: actors comply with norms due to coercion, cost-benefit calculations, and material incentives
  • Constructivism: actors comply with norms due to social learning and socialization

According to Peyton Young, mechanisms that support normative behavior include:[6]

  • Coordination
  • Social pressure
  • Signaling
  • Focal points

Descriptive versus injunctive [edit]

Descriptive norms depict what happens, while injunctive norms draw what should happen. Cialdini, Reno, and Kallgren (1990) define a descriptive norm as people's perceptions of what is normally washed in specific situations; it signifies what most people practice, without assigning judgment. The absence of trash on the ground in a parking lot, for example, transmits the descriptive norm that most people there do non litter.[54] [60] An Injunctive norm, on the other mitt, transmits grouping approval about a particular behavior; information technology dictates how an individual should comport.[54] [60] [61] [62] Watching another person choice up trash off the footing and throw it out, a grouping fellow member may selection up on the injunctive norm that he ought to not litter.

Prescriptive and proscriptive norms [edit]

Prescriptive norms are unwritten rules that are understood and followed by society and indicate what we should do.[63] Expressing gratitude or writing a Thanks menu when someone gives y'all a gift represents a prescriptive norm in American culture. Proscriptive norms, in contrast, incorporate the other finish of the same spectrum; they are similarly society's unwritten rules about what one should non do.[63] These norms can vary between cultures; while kissing someone you just met on the cheek is an adequate greeting in some European countries, this is not acceptable, and thus represents a proscriptive norm in the U.s.a..

Subjective [edit]

Subjective norms are determined by beliefs nigh the extent to which important others want a person to perform a beliefs. Social influences are conceptualized in terms of the pressure level that people perceive from important others to perform, or not to perform, a beliefs.[62]

Mathematical representations [edit]

Over the last few decades, several theorists accept attempted to explain social norms from a more than theoretical point of view. By quantifying behavioral expectations graphically or attempting to plot the logic behind adherence, theorists hoped to exist able to predict whether or non individuals would conform. The return potential model and game theory provide a slightly more economic conceptualization of norms, suggesting individuals tin summate the toll or benefit behind possible behavioral outcomes. Under these theoretical frameworks, choosing to obey or violate norms becomes a more than deliberate, quantifiable determination.

Return potential model [edit]

Effigy i. The return potential model (reproduced from Jackson, 1965).

Developed in the 1960s, the render potential model provides a method for plotting and visualizing grouping norms. In the regular coordinate airplane, the amount of beliefs exhibited is plotted on the X-axis (label a in Figure 1) while the amount of group acceptance or approval gets plotted on the Y-axis (b in Figure one).[44] The graph represents the potential return or positive result to an private for a given behavioral norm. Theoretically, one could plot a point for each increase of behavior how much the grouping likes or dislikes that activity. For example, information technology may be the case that among first-year graduate students, strong social norms exist around how many daily cups of java a educatee drinks. If the render bend in Figure ane correctly displays the example social norm, we can encounter that if someone drinks 0 cups of coffee a day, the group strongly disapproves. The group disapproves of the behavior of whatsoever member who drinks fewer than four cups of coffee a day; the group disapproves of drinking more than seven cups, shown by the approval curve dipping dorsum beneath zero. As seen in this example, the return potential model displays how much group approval one can expect for each increase of behavior.

  • Signal of maximum return. The betoken with the greatest y-coordinate is called the point of maximum return, as it represents the corporeality of behavior the grouping likes the best.[44] While c in Figure 1 is labeling the return bend in general, the highlighted bespeak just above it at X=6, represents the point of maximum return. Extending our above case, the point of maximum render for showtime-year graduate students would exist 6 cups of java; they receive the about social approval for drinking exactly that many cups. Any more or any fewer cups would decrease the approval.
  • Range of tolerable behavior. Label d represents the range of tolerable beliefs, or the amount of action the group finds acceptable.[44] It encompasses all the positive expanse nether the curve. In Figure i, the range of tolerable behavior extends is 3, as the group approves of all behavior from 4 to 7 and vii-four=3. Carrying over our java example over again, we can encounter that first-years only approve of having a limited number of cups of coffee (between 4 and 7); more 7 cups or fewer than 4 would fall outside the range of tolerable behavior. Norms can have a narrower or wider range of tolerable behavior. Typically, a narrower range of behavior indicates a behavior with greater consequences to the grouping.[20]
  • Intensity. The intensity of the norm tells how much the group cares well-nigh the norm, or how much grouping affect is at stake to be won or lost. It is represented in the render potential model by the total amount of area subsumed by the curve, regardless of whether the area is positive or negative.[44] A norm with low intensity would not vary far from the x-axis; the corporeality of approving or disapproval for given behaviors would be closer to zero. A high-intensity norm, yet, would have more extreme approving ratings. In Figure 1, the intensity of the norm appears high, as few behaviors invoke a rating of indifference.
  • Crystallization. Finally, norm crystallization refers to how much variance exists inside the bend; translated from the theoretical dorsum to the actual norm, it shows how much understanding exists betwixt group members almost the approval for a given amount of beliefs.[44] It may exist that some members believe the norm more central to group operation than others. A group norm like how many cups of coffee commencement years should beverage would probably have depression crystallization since a lot of individuals have varying behavior about the appropriate corporeality of caffeine to imbibe; in contrast, the norm of non plagiarizing another student's work would probable have loftier crystallization, as people uniformly agree on the beliefs'south unacceptability. Showing the overall group norm, the return potential model in Figure 1 does non betoken the crystallization. However, a render potential model that plotted individual information points aslope the cumulative norm could demonstrate the variance and allow united states of america to deduce crystallization.

Game theory [edit]

Another general formal framework that can exist used to correspond the essential elements of the social situation surrounding a norm is the repeated game of game theory. Rational choice, a branch of game theory, deals with the relations and actions socially committed amongst rational agents.[64] A norm gives a person a rule of thumb for how they should behave. Nevertheless, a rational person acts co-ordinate to the rule just if information technology is beneficial for them. The state of affairs tin can be described as follows. A norm gives an expectation of how other people act in a given situation (macro). A person acts optimally given the expectation (micro). For a norm to be stable, people'south actions must reconstitute the expectation without modify (micro-macro feedback loop). A set of such correct stable expectations is known as a Nash equilibrium. Thus, a stable norm must found a Nash equilibrium.[65] In the Nash equilibrium, no i actor has any positive incentive in individually deviating from a sure action.[66] Social norms will be implemented if the actions of that specific norm come into understanding by the back up of the Nash equilibrium in the majority of the game theoretical approaches.[66]

From a game-theoretical point of view, there are ii explanations for the vast variety of norms that exist throughout the world. One is the difference in games. Different parts of the world may requite unlike ecology contexts and unlike people may accept unlike values, which may issue in a difference in games. The other is equilibrium selection not explicable by the game itself. Equilibrium option is closely related to coordination. For a simple example, driving is mutual throughout the earth, merely in some countries people bulldoze on the right and in other countries people bulldoze on the left (see coordination game). A framework called comparative institutional analysis is proposed to deal with the game theoretical structural understanding of the diverseness of social norms.

See also [edit]

  • Anomie
  • Breaching experiment
  • Convention (norm)
  • Enculturation
  • Etiquette
  • Heteronormativity
  • Ideal (ethics)
  • Credo
  • Morality
  • Mores
  • Norm (philosophy)
  • Norm of reciprocity
  • Normality (behavior)
  • Normalization (sociology)
  • Other (philosophy)
  • Philosophical value
  • Peer pressure
  • Dominion circuitous
  • Social norms marketing
  • Social construction
  • Taboo

References [edit]

  1. ^ Lapinski, Grand. K.; Rimal, R. N. (2005). "An explication of social norms". Advice Theory. 15 (ii): 127–147. doi:10.1093/ct/15.2.127.
  2. ^ a b c d eastward f Finnemore, Martha (1996). National Interests in International Society. Cornell University Press. pp. 22–24, 26–27. JSTOR 10.7591/j.ctt1rv61rh.
  3. ^ Pristl, A-C; Kilian, Due south; Mann, A. (2020). "When does a social norm catch the worm? Disentangling socialnormative influences on sustainable consumption behaviour". Consumer Behav. 20 (3): 635–654. doi:ten.1002/cb.1890. S2CID 228807152.
  4. ^ a b c d e Legro, Jeffrey W. (1997). "Which Norms Matter? Revisiting the "Failure" of Internationalism". International Organization. 51 (ane): 31–63. doi:x.1162/002081897550294. ISSN 0020-8183. JSTOR 2703951.
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k 50 Finnemore, Martha; Sikkink, Kathryn (1998). "International Norm Dynamics and Political Change". International Arrangement. 52 (four): 887–917. doi:x.1162/002081898550789. ISSN 0020-8183. JSTOR 2601361.
  6. ^ a b c d e Immature, H. Peyton (2015). "The Evolution of Social Norms". Annual Review of Economics. 7 (1): 359–387. doi:10.1146/annurev-economics-080614-115322. ISSN 1941-1383.
  7. ^ Tannenwald, Nina (1999). "The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Normative Basis of Nuclear Not-Use". International Organization. 53 (3): 433–468. doi:ten.1162/002081899550959. ISSN 0020-8183. JSTOR 2601286.
  8. ^ Herrmann, Richard K.; Shannon, Vaughn P. (2001). "Defending International Norms: The Role of Obligation, Material Interest, and Perception in Conclusion Making". International Organisation. 55 (3): 621–654. doi:10.1162/00208180152507579. ISSN 0020-8183. JSTOR 3078659. S2CID 145661726.
  9. ^ a b c d Legros, Sophie; Cislaghi, Beniamino (2020). "Mapping the Social-Norms Literature: An Overview of Reviews". Perspectives on Psychological Science. fifteen (i): 62–80. doi:10.1177/1745691619866455. ISSN 1745-6916. PMC6970459. PMID 31697614.
  10. ^ a b Gibbs, Jack P. (1965). "Norms: The Problem of Definition and Nomenclature". American Periodical of Sociology. 70 (5): 586–594. ISSN 0002-9602.
  11. ^ Katzenstein, Peter (1996). The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in Globe Politics. Columbia University Printing. p. 54. ISBN978-0-231-10469-two.
  12. ^ a b c d due east f Sandholtz, Wayne (2017). "International Norm Change". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. doi:x.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.588. ISBN9780190228637.
  13. ^ a b c Hecher, Michael; Opp, Karl-Dieter (2001). Social Norms. Russell Sage Foundation. pp. xi. ISBN978-0-87154-354-7. JSTOR x.7758/9781610442800.
  14. ^ a b c d east f thou h Horne, Christine; Mollborn, Stefanie (2020). "Norms: An Integrated Framework". Annual Review of Sociology. 46 (one): 467–487. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054658. ISSN 0360-0572. S2CID 225435025.
  15. ^ Young, H. Peyton (2016), "Social Norms", The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, London: Palgrave Macmillan U.k., pp. 1–7, doi:x.1057/978-i-349-95121-5_2338-1, ISBN978-i-349-95121-five , retrieved 2021-05-22
  16. ^ Knight, Jack (1992). Institutions and social conflict. Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–2. ISBN978-0-511-52817-0. OCLC 1127523562.
  17. ^ Streeck, Wolfgang; Thelen, Kathleen Ann (2005). Across Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies. Oxford Academy Press. p. 14. ISBN978-0-19-928046-nine.
  18. ^ Horne, Christine; Johnson, Monica Kirkpatrick (2021). "Testing an Integrated Theory: Distancing Norms in the Early Months of Covid-xix". Sociological Perspectives. 64 (5): 970–987. doi:10.1177/07311214211005493. ISSN 0731-1214.
  19. ^ Sugden, Robert (1989). "Spontaneous Guild". Journal of Economic Perspectives. 3 (4): 85–97. doi:10.1257/jep.three.4.85. ISSN 0895-3309.
  20. ^ a b c d e f g h Hackman, J.R. (1992). "Group influences on individuals in organizations". In Grand.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. three). Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Printing, 234-245.
  21. ^ Chong, D. (2000) Rational lives: norms and values in politics and society
  22. ^ Gerber, 50. & Macionis, J. (2011) Sociology, seventh Canadian ed., p. 65
  23. ^ Sunstein, Cass R. (1996). "Social Norms and Social Roles". Columbia Law Review. 96 (4): 903–968. doi:x.2307/1123430. ISSN 0010-1958. JSTOR 1123430. S2CID 153823271.
  24. ^ Keck, Margaret E.; Sikkink, Kathryn (1998). Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Cornell University Press. ISBN978-0-8014-3444-0. JSTOR x.7591/j.ctt5hh13f.
  25. ^ Kendall, D. (2011) Sociology in our times
  26. ^ Sandholtz, Wayne (2008-03-01). "Dynamics of International Norm Change: Rules confronting Wartime Plunder". European Journal of International Relations. fourteen (ane): 101–131. doi:10.1177/1354066107087766. ISSN 1354-0661. S2CID 143721778.
  27. ^ Wiener, Antje (2008). The Invisible Constitution of Politics: Contested Norms and International Encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-89596-5.
  28. ^ Krook, Mona Lena; Truthful, Jacqui (2012-03-01). "Rethinking the life cycles of international norms: The United Nations and the global promotion of gender equality". European Journal of International Relations. xviii (ane): 103–127. doi:ten.1177/1354066110380963. ISSN 1354-0661. S2CID 145545535.
  29. ^ Sandholtz, Wayne (2009). International Norms and Cycles of Change. Oxford Academy Press. pp. sixteen–18. ISBN978-0-nineteen-985537-7.
  30. ^ Bicchieri, Cristina; Dimant, Eugen; Gächter, Simon; Nosenzo, Daniele (2022). "Social proximity and the erosion of norm compliance". Games and Economic Behavior. 132: 59–72. doi:10.1016/j.geb.2021.xi.012. ISSN 0899-8256.
  31. ^ a b Feldman, D.C. (1984). "The evolution and enforcement of group norms". Academy of Management Review. nine (1): 47–55. doi:10.2307/258231. JSTOR 258231.
  32. ^ a b c Bettenhausen, Thousand.; Murnighan, J.K. (1985). "The emergence of norms in competitive decision-making groups". Administrative Science Quarterly. xxx (3): 350–372. doi:10.2307/2392667. JSTOR 2392667. S2CID 52525302.
  33. ^ Appelbaum, R. P., Carr, D., Duneir, Chiliad., & Giddens, A. (2009). "Conformity, Deviance, and Crime." Introduction to Sociology, New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., p. 173.
  34. ^ Molinari, Christina (2015). "Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay". In Dobbert, Duane L.; Mackey, Thomas X. (eds.). Deviance: Theories on Behaviors That Defy Social Norms: Theories on Behaviors That Defy Social Norms. ABC-CLIO. pp. 108–118. ISBN978-1-4408-3324-3.
  35. ^ Drobak, John N. "i. The Office of Social Variables." Norms and the Law. Cambridge: Cambridge Upward, 2006. Due north. pag. Print.
  36. ^ a b c Hollander, E.P. (1958). "Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit". Psychological Review. 65 (two): 117–127. doi:10.1037/h0042501. PMID 13542706.
  37. ^ Greenspan, Patricia S. "Chapter 4: Moral Residues." Practical Guilt: Moral Dilemmas, Emotions, and Social Norms. N.p.: Oxford Upwards, 1995. N. pag. Impress.
  38. ^ Greenspan, Patricia Southward. "Chapter half-dozen: Basing Ethics on Emotion." Practical Guilt: Moral Dilemmas, Emotions, and Social Norms
  39. ^ Huang, Peter H.; Wu, Ho-Mou (October 1994). "More Social club Without More than Law: A Theory of Social Norms and Organizational Cultures". The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. 10 (2): 390–406. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jleo.a036856. SSRN 5412.
  40. ^ Aarts, H.; Dijksterhuis, A. (2003). "The silence of the library: Environment, situational norm, and social behavior" (PDF). Periodical of Personality and Social Psychology. 84 (1): eighteen–28. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.ane.18. PMID 12518968. S2CID 18213113. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-07-09.
  41. ^ Collins, S. E.; Carey, G. B.; Sliwinski, M. J. (2002). "Mailed personalized normative feedback as a cursory intervention for at-take a chance college drinkers". Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 63 (5): 559–567. doi:10.15288/jsa.2002.63.559. PMID 12380852.
  42. ^ Gerber, A. S.; Rogers, T. (2009). "Descriptive social norms and motivation to vote: everybody's voting and and then should you". The Journal of Politics. 71 (i): 178–191. CiteSeerX10.1.1.691.37. doi:10.1017/s0022381608090117. S2CID 10783035.
  43. ^ Brandon, Alec; List, John A.; Metcalfe, Robert D.; Price, Michael Grand.; Rundhammer, Florian (19 March 2019). "Testing for crowd out in social nudges: Evidence from a natural field experiment in the marketplace for electricity". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 116 (12): 5293–5298. doi:10.1073/pnas.1802874115. PMC6431171. PMID 30104369.
  44. ^ a b c d e f Jackson, J. (1965). "Structural characteristics of norms". In I.D. Steiner & G. Fishbein (Eds.), Current studies in social psychology (pp. 301-309).
  45. ^ Druzin, Bryan (2016). "Using Social Norms as a Substitute for Law". Albany Law Review. 78: 68.
  46. ^ Hechter, Michael et al., eds.. "Introduction". Social Norms. Ed. Michael Hechter et al.. Russell Sage Foundation, 2001. xi–xx.
  47. ^ Roffee, James A (2013). "The Constructed Necessary Truth Behind New Labour'south Criminalisation of Incest". Social & Legal Studies. 23: 113–130. doi:10.1177/0964663913502068. S2CID 145292798.
  48. ^ Doering, Laura; Ody-Brasier, Amandine (2021). "Time and Punishment: How Individuals Reply to Being Sanctioned in Voluntary Associations". American Journal of Sociology. 127 (2): 441–491. doi:x.1086/717102. ISSN 0002-9602.
  49. ^ a b Marshall, One thousand. Oxford Dictionary of Sociology
  50. ^ a b Kamau, C. (2009) Strategizing impression management in corporations: cultural cognition every bit capital. In D. Harorimana (Ed) Cultural implications of cognition sharing, direction and transfer: identifying competitive reward. Chapter 4. Computer science Reference. ISBN 978-1-60566-790-4
  51. ^ Ellickson, Robert (1994). Order without Police force: How Neighbors Settle Disputes.
  52. ^ Encounter The International Handbook of Sociology, ed. by Stella R. Quah and Arnaud Sales, Sage 2000, p. 62.
  53. ^ Dobbert, Duane L., and Thomas Ten. Mackey. "Chapter ix: B.F. Skinner." Deviance: Theories on Behaviors That Defy Social Norms. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. Print.
  54. ^ a b c Cialdini, R.B.; Reno, R.R.; Kallgren, C.A. (1990). "A focus theory of normative deport: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 58 (vi): 1015–1026. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015. S2CID 7867498.
  55. ^ Hechter, Michael; Opp, Karl-Dieter (2001). Social Norms. Russell Sage Foundation. ISBN978-1-61044-280-0. [ folio needed ]
  56. ^ Horne, Christine (2009). "A Social Norms Approach to Legitimacy". American Behavioral Scientist. 53 (3): 400–415. doi:10.1177/0002764209338799. ISSN 0002-7642. S2CID 144726807.
  57. ^ a b Simmons, Beth A; Jo, Hyeran (2019). "Measuring Norms and Normative Contestation: The Case of International Criminal Law". Journal of Global Security Studies. 4 (1): 18–36. doi:x.1093/jogss/ogy043. ISSN 2057-3170.
  58. ^ Lantis, Jeffrey Due south.; Wunderlich, Carmen (2018). "Resiliency dynamics of norm clusters: Norm contestation and international cooperation". Review of International Studies. 44 (three): 570–593. doi:10.1017/S0260210517000626. ISSN 0260-2105. S2CID 148853481.
  59. ^ Checkel, Jeffrey T. (2001). "Why Comply? Social Learning and European Identity Change". International Organization. 55 (iii): 553–588. doi:10.1162/00208180152507551. ISSN 0020-8183. JSTOR 3078657. S2CID 143511229.
  60. ^ a b Cialdini, R (2007). "Descriptive social norms as underappreciated sources of social control". Psychometrika. 72 (ii): 263–268. doi:ten.1007/s11336-006-1560-6. S2CID 121708702.
  61. ^ Schultz, Nolan; Cialdini, Goldstein; Griskevicius (2007). "The effective, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms" (PDF). Psychological Science. 18 (5): 429–434. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01917.10. hdl:10211.3/199684. PMID 17576283. S2CID 19200458.
  62. ^ a b Rivis, Amanda, Sheeran, Paschal. "Descriptive Norms every bit an Additional Predictor in the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A Meta-Analysis". 2003
  63. ^ a b Wilson, K.Fifty.; Lizzio, A.J.; Zauner, S.; Gallois, C. (2001). "Social rules for managing attempted interpersonal domination in the workplace: Influence of status and gender". Sex Roles. 44 (3/four): 129–154. doi:ten.1023/a:1010998802612. S2CID 142800037.
  64. ^ Voss, Thomas. Game-Theoretical Perspectives on the Emergence of Social Norms. Social Norms, 2001, p.105.
  65. ^ Bicchieri, Cristina. 2006. The Grammer of Society: The Nature and Dynamics of Social Norms, New York: Cambridge University Printing, Ch. 1
  66. ^ a b Voss 2001, p. 105

Farther reading [edit]

  • Axelrod, Robert (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation . New York: Basic Books. ISBN9780465021222.
  • Appelbaum, R. P., Carr, D., Duneir, G., Giddens, A. (2009). Conformity, Deviance, and Crime. Introduction to Sociology, New York, NY: Due west. W. Norton & Company, Inc., p. 173.
  • Becker, H. S. (1982). "Civilization: A Sociological View". Yale Review. 71 (iv): 513–527.
  • Bicchieri, C. (2006). The Grammar of Guild: The Nature and Dynamics of Social Norms, New York: Cambridge University Printing.
  • Blumer, H (1956). "Sociological Assay and the 'Variable". American Sociological Review. 21 (6): 683–690. doi:ten.2307/2088418. JSTOR 2088418. S2CID 146998430.
  • Boyd, R. & Richerson, P.J. (1985). Civilisation and the Evolutionary Process, Chicago: University of Chicago Printing.
  • Burt, R.South. (1987). "Social Contagion and Innovation: Cohesive Versus Structural Equivalence". American Journal of Sociology. 92 (six): 1287–1335. doi:10.1086/228667. S2CID 22380365.
  • Rimal, Rajiv N. (2016). "Social Norms: A Review". Review of Communication Inquiry. 4 (1): ane–28. doi:10.12840/issn.2255-4165.2016.04.01.008.
  • Cialdini, R (2007). "Descriptive Social Norms as Underappreciated Sources of Social Control". Psychometrika. 72 (two): 263–268. doi:10.1007/s11336-006-1560-half dozen. S2CID 121708702.
  • Druzin, Bryan H. (24 June 2012). "Eating Peas with 1'due south Fingers: A Semiotic Approach to Law and Social Norms". International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique. 26 (2): 257–274. doi:x.1007/s11196-012-9271-z. S2CID 85439929.
  • Durkheim, E. (1915). The Unproblematic Forms of the Religious Life, New York: Gratis Press.
  • Elster, Jon (1 November 1989). "Social Norms and Economical Theory". Journal of Economic Perspectives. 3 (4): 99–117. doi:10.1257/jep.three.4.99. hdl:10535/3264.
  • Fehr, Ernst; Fischbacher, Urs; Gächter, Simon (March 2002). "Strong reciprocity, human cooperation, and the enforcement of social norms" (PDF). Human Nature. 13 (1): one–25. doi:10.1007/s12110-002-1012-7. PMID 26192593. S2CID 2901235.
  • Fine, Grand.A. (2001). Social Norms, ed. past Michael Hechter and Karl-Dieter Opp, New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
  • Greif, A (1994). "Cultural Beliefs and the Organization of Society: A Historical and Theoretical Reflection on Collectivist and Individualist Societies". Journal of Political Economy. 102 (5): 912–950. doi:10.1086/261959. S2CID 153431326.
  • Hechter, M. & Karl-Dieter Opp, eds. (2001). Social Norms, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
  • Heiss, J. (1981). "Social Roles," In Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives, Rosenburg, M. & Turner, R.H. (eds.), New York: Basic Books.
  • Hochschild, A. (1989). "The Economy of Gratitude," In D.D. Franks & E.D. McCarthy (Eds.), The Sociology of Emotions: Original Essays and Research Papers, Greenwich, CT: JAI Printing.
  • Horne, C. (2001). "Social Norms". In One thousand. Hechter & G. Opp (Eds.), New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
  • Kahneman, D.; Miller, D.T. (1986). "Norm Theory: Comparison reality to its alternatives" (PDF). Psychological Review. lxxx (2): 136–153. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.93.2.136. S2CID 7706059. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-07-11.
  • Kollock, P (1994). "The emergence of exchange structures: An experimental written report of uncertainty, commitment, and trust". American Journal of Sociology. 100 (2): 313–45. doi:10.1086/230539. S2CID 144646491.
  • Kohn, One thousand.Fifty. (1977). Class and Conformity: A Written report in Values, second ed., Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Macy, G.Westward.; Skvoretz, J. (1998). "The evolution of trust and cooperation betwixt strangers: A computational model". American Sociological Review. 63 (5): 638–660. doi:10.2307/2657332. JSTOR 2657332.
  • Mark, Northward (1998). "Birds of a feather sing together". Social Forces. 77 (2): 453–485. doi:10.1093/sf/77.two.453. S2CID 143739215.
  • McElreath, Richard; Boyd, Robert; Richerson, Peter J. (February 2003). "Shared Norms and the Development of Indigenous Markers" (PDF). Current Anthropology. 44 (one): 122–130. doi:10.1086/345689. S2CID 8796947. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-03-07.
  • Opp, K (1982). "The evolutionary emergence of norms". British Journal of Social Psychology. 21 (2): 139–149. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1982.tb00522.x.
  • Posner, Eric A. (1996). "The Regulation of Groups: The Influence of Legal and Nonlegal Sanctions on Collective Action". The University of Chicago Police force Review. 63 (1): 133–197. doi:10.2307/1600068. JSTOR 1600068.
  • Posner, E. (2000). Police force and Social Norms. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Printing
  • Prentice, D. A.; Miller, D. T. (1993). "Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus: Some consequences of misperceiving the social norm". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 64 (two): 243–256. CiteSeerXx.i.i.470.522. doi:ten.1037/0022-3514.64.2.243. PMID 8433272.
  • Schultz, P. Wesley; Nolan, Jessica M.; Cialdini, Robert B.; Goldstein, Noah J.; Griskevicius, Vladas (25 November 2016). "The Constructive, Destructive, and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms". Psychological Scientific discipline. 18 (5): 429–434. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01917.ten. hdl:10211.three/199684. PMID 17576283. S2CID 19200458.
  • Scott, J.F. (1971). Internalization of Norms: A Sociological Theory of Moral Commitment, Englewoods Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice–Hall.
  • Ullmann-Margalit, East. (1977). The Emergence of Norms. Oxford: Oxford Academy Press.
  • Yamagishi, T.; Cook, K.S.; Watabe, M. (1998). "Uncertainty, trust, and commitment formation in the United States and Nippon". American Journal of Folklore. 104 (i): 165–194. doi:10.1086/210005. S2CID 144931651.
  • Young, H.P. (2008). "Social norms". The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition.

External links [edit]

  • Bicchieri, Cristina; Muldoon, Ryan. "Social Norms". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

peacockdavere.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_norm

0 Response to "What Is It Called When You Go Agains Social Norms"

Postar um comentário

Assinar: Postar comentários (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel