Social interactions are governed by customs and conventions that prescribe a range of activities, such as salutations, gratuities, voting, and charitable contributions. By anticipating others’ conduct and averting punishment or incoordination, these rules assist in coordinating behavior and, in general, serve the interests of the person. However, following conventions frequently forces people to repress their own interests, such as stopping at stop signs in the absence of any cars. These societal norms have evolved over time to ensure harmonious living and mutual cooperation. Despite sometimes requiring personal sacrifices, the long-term benefits of following these rules—like increased social trust and order—often outweigh the immediate inconveniences.
Why do people follow norms?
Internalization
The idea that socialization causes norms to be internalized is one explanation. By seeing or experiencing incentives and penalties, people pick up norms. Kids learn moral behavior from their parents and escape punishment, but internalization can cause remorse or shame, which makes breaking the rules less likely. Additionally, socialization develops heuristics for honesty or fairness. Internalization plays a crucial role in shaping moral compasses from a young age, embedding societal expectations into individual behavior. This ingrained understanding of right and wrong ensures that even in the absence of external enforcement, individuals often choose to adhere to social norms out of an intrinsic sense of duty.
Social Image and Self-Image
Norm adherence is partly explained by social and self-image considerations. We aim to have a good social reputation and be seen as fair and honest. Self-image theories contend that, even in the absence of norms, people adhere to them in order to uphold their moral convictions. Studies demonstrating that people avoid situations that encourage them to violate norms or misremember activities in order to preserve their self-image confirm this. Selfish action can also be justified by strategic ignorance, which is the avoidance of learning about the societal ramifications of one’s decisions. This interplay between social and self-image suggests that maintaining a positive identity, both internally and externally, is a powerful motivator for norm adherence. The fear of social ostracism or self-reproach often drives individuals to comply with societal expectations, even when personal gain might suggest otherwise.
Social Learning
These hypotheses account for intraindividual variation but not adherence. People tend to modify their behavior in response to the behaviors of others. According to social learning, adhering to norms requires observing others. Participants who are categorized as “conditional cooperators” in social situations cooperate only insofar as others do. A critical mass or the conviction that others follow the standard are necessary for norm adherence. While broad conformance might create norms, witnessing infractions can erode adherence. Social learning underscores the importance of the collective in shaping individual behavior. The concept of “conditional cooperation” highlights that people often look to the actions of others as a guide, indicating that norm adherence is not just a personal choice but a socially reinforced one. However, the fragility of this adherence is evident, as witnessing non-compliance can quickly unravel established norms.
Other Mechanisms Influencing Norm Abidance
Power is another aspect, since strong people may be more likely to break the rules because they face less punishment or have more entitlements. Members of minority groups endure harsher penalties. Situational elements can draw attention to norms, and norm enforcement is stronger within in-groups (e.g., avoiding red signal violations in the presence of youngsters). Studies on the brain have shown that tight rule obedience results from disrupting the right prefrontal cortex, whereas flexible rule adherence is related to its stimulation. Lower self-control might lead to more infractions. These mechanisms illustrate the complexities of normabidance, where factors like power dynamics, group identity, and neurological influences intersect. The disparities in how norms are enforced across different groups and situations reveal the nuanced and sometimes unequal nature of social regulation.
Measuring Norms and Rule Following
Due to cross-cultural differences, specifically created activities are required to test norms and adherence effectively. A technique for identifying social norms was created by Krupka and Weber, who had participants judge the social appropriateness of various activities in made-up scenarios. By rewarding participants who agree with others’ assessments, mean appropriateness ratings indicate the norm. In Kimbrough and Vostroknutov’s rule-following task, participants are asked to distribute balls between baskets in accordance with a given rule in order to test individual norm adherence. This task connects with personality qualities such as the need for organization and predicts conduct in economic games. It also demonstrates that rule-followers are favored as collaborators in tasks requiring trust and are capable of maintaining group norms. These measurement techniques are crucial for understanding how norms operate in different cultural contexts. The ability to predict behavior and identify key personality traits linked to norm adherence provides valuable insights into the social fabric that binds communities together.
Conclusions
As research on norm adherence advances, we can better grasp the importance of norms in influencing behavior. Nonetheless, difficulties persist, especially in comprehending the formation and evolution of standards. A comprehensive theory is complicated by cross-cultural differences as well as the influence of emotions and risk on normative decisions. There is currently no widely recognized theory that explains norm abidance and emergence, despite attempts to take intentions, frames, and moral feelings into account. Future studies should concentrate on how norms originate and how normative change occurs, as well as the reasons why some groups engage in maladaptive behavior. The ongoing challenge in understanding norm adherence highlights the complexity of human social behavior. Future research focusing on the origins and evolution of norms, particularly in diverse cultural settings, will be essential in developing a more unified theory that accounts for the multifaceted nature of social compliance and deviation.
References
Grimalda, G., Pondorfer, A. and Tracer, D.P., 2024. Social image concerns promote cooperation more than altruistic punishment. Nature Communications, 7(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12288.
Kimbrough, E.O. and Vostroknutov, A., 2024. NORMS MAKE PREFERENCES SOCIAL. Journal of the European Economic Association, 14(3), pp.608–638. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/jeea.12152.
Krupka, E.L. and Weber, R.A., 2024. Identifying Social Norms using Coordination Games: Why Does Dictator Game Sharing Vary? SSRN Electronic Journal, (2008). doi:https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1310598.
Prelec, D., Leclerc, F., Thaler, R., Schelling, T., Winer, R., Dewatripont, M., Ainslie, G., Bratman, M., Carillo, J., Gilboa, I., Loewenstein, G., Mela, A., Rabin, M., Simester, D. and Zettelmeyer, F., 2001. Self-signaling and diagnostic utility in everyday decision making 1 Ronit Bodner. [online] Available at: https://nel.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/self-signaling-and-diagnostic-utility-in-everyday-decision-making.pdf [Accessed 31 August 2024].
