Social norm
 
| ca | de | en | es | fr | it | nl | no | pl | pt | ru | ro | fi | sv | tr | vo |


 

 This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2008)

Social norms have been defined as "the rules that a group uses for appropriate and inappropriate values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors. These rules may be explicit or implicit. Failure to stick to the rules can result in severe punishments, the most feared of which is exclusion from the group."[1] They have also been described as the "customary rules of behavior that coordinate our interactions with others."[2] The social norms indicate the established and approved ways of doing things, of dress, of speech and of appearance. These vary and evolve not only through time but also vary from one age group to another and between social classes and social groups. What is deemed to be acceptable dress, speech or behaviour in one social group may not be accepted in another. Deference to the social norms maintains one's acceptance and popularity within a particular group; ignoring the social norms risks one becoming unacceptable, unpopular or even an outcast from a group. What is deemed acceptable to young people is often unacceptable to elderly people; this difference is caused by the different social norms that operate and are tacitly agreed-upon in such different groups of people. Social norms tend to be tacitly established and maintained through body language and non-verbal communication between people in their normal social discourse. We soon come to know when and where it is appropriate to say certain things, to use certain words, to discuss certain topics or wear certain clothes and when not to. We also come to know through experience what types of people we can and cannot discuss certain topics with or wear certain types of dress around. Mostly this knowledge is derived experientially.

Contents

Overview

Social norms can also be viewed as statements that regulate behavior and act as informal social controls. They are usually based in some degree of consensus and are maintained through social sanctions. In order to explain the content of normative rules, three different models are identified:

  • Focus on the actions of one's personal ego,
  • Focus on ego's reactions to actions of alter, and
  • Negotiation between ego and alter.

Game-theoretical analysis of norms

 This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (October 2007)

A general formal framework that can be used to represent the essential elements of the social situation surrounding a norm is the repeated game of game theory.

A norm gives a person a rule of thumb for how they should behave. However, a rational person only acts according to the rule if only it is optimal for them. The situation 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). In order for a norm to be stable, people's actions must reconstitute the expectation without change (micro-macro feedback loop). A set of such correct stable expectations is known as a Nash equilibrium. Thus, a stable norm must constitute a Nash equilibrium.

There exist various norms throughout the world. What accounts for the vast variety? From a game theoretical point of view, there are two explanans for this. One is the difference in games. Different parts of the world may give different environmental contexts and different people may have different values, which may result in a difference in games. The other is equilibrium selection not explicable by the game itself. Equilibrium selection is closely related to coordination. For a simple example, driving is common throughout the world, but in some countries people drive on the right and in other countries people drive on the left (see coordination game). A framework called comparative institutional analysis is proposed to deal with the game theoretical structural understanding of the variety of social norms.

Example (gift exchange)

 This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (October 2007)

The Norm of Reciprocity:

In the western world, it is a custom to exchange gifts on various holidays. It is so deeply ingrained in the minds of people that many do not think of acting otherwise.

Now, suppose you become fed up with exchanging gifts. It is not necessarily easy to change your actions. Unilaterally changing your actions to stop giving gifts may give others the impression that you are a selfish person, and that impression is probably not in your interest. Notice, that your friends may be following the norm for the same reasons as you. If that is the case, you are wrongly coordinating due to the customary norm of gift exchange and are trapped in a prisoner's dilemma game. Coordination with communication may be necessary to get out of the prisoner's dilemma situation.

See also

Bibliography

  • Axelrod, Robert, 1984, The Evolution of Cooperation, New York: Basic Books
  • Becker, Howard S, 1982, "Culture: A Sociological View," Yale Review, 71(4): 513-27
  • Bicchieri, Cristina. 2006. The Grammar of Society: The Nature and Dynamics ofSocial Norms, New York: Cambridge University Press
  • Blumer, Herbert, 1956, "Sociological Analysis and the 'Variable,'" American Sociological Review, 21(6): 683-90
  • Boyd, Robert and Peter J. Richerson, 1985, Culture and the Evolutionary Process, Chicago: University of Chicago Press
  • Burt, Ronald S, 1987, "Social Contagion and Innovation: Cohesive Versus Structural Equivalence," American Journal of Sociology 92(6): 1287-1335
  • Cialdini, R., 2007, Descriptive Social Norms as Underappreciated Sources of Social Control, Psychometrika, vol. 72, no. 2, 263-268,
  • Durkheim, Emile, 1915, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, New York: Free Press
  • Elster, Jon, 1989, Social norms and economic theory, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3, no. 4, 99-117
  • Fehr, Ernst, Urs Fischbacher, and Simon Gächter, 2002, Strong reciprocity, human cooperation, and the enforcement of social norms, Human Nature, 13, 1-25
  • Fine, Gary Alan, 2001, Social Norms, ed. by Michael Hechter and Karl-Dieter Opp, New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation
  • Hechter, Michael and Karl-Dieter Opp, eds, 2001, Social Norms, New York:Russell Sage Foundation
  • Heiss, Jerold, 1981, "Social Roles," In Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives, edited by Morris Rosenburg and Ralph H. Turner, New York: Basic Books.
  • Hochschild, Arlie, 1989, "The Economy of Gratitude," In The Sociology of Emotions: Original Essays and Research Papers, edited by David D. Franks and E. Doyle McCarthy, Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press
  • Horne, Christine, 2001, Social Norms, ed. by Michael Hechter and Karl-Dieter Opp, New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation
  • Kahneman and Miller (1986) Norm Theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives, Psychological Review, 80, 136-153
  • Kollock, Peter, 1994. "The Emergence of Exchange Structures: An Experimental Study of Uncertainty, Commitment, and Trust." American Journal of Sociology 100(2): 313-45
  • Kohn, Melvin L, 1977, Class and Conformity: A Study in Values, 2d ed Chicago: University of Chicago Press
  • Macy, Michael W and John Skvoretz, 1998, "The Evolution of Trust and Cooperation Between Strangers: A Computational Model," American Sociological Review, 63(5): 638-60
  • Mark, Noah, 1998, "Birds of a Feather Sing Together," Social Forces 77(2): 453-85
  • McElreath, R., Boyd, R., & Richerson, P.J., 2003, Shared norms and the evolution of ethnic markers, Current Anthropology, 44(1): 122-129

Full text

  • Opp, Karl-Dieter, 1982, "The Evolutionary Emergence of Norms," British Journal of Social Psychology, 21(2): 139-49
  • Posner, Eric, 1996, "The Regulation of Solidary Groups: The Influence of Legal and Nonlegal Sanctions on Collective Action," University of Chicago Law Review 63(1): 133-97[1]
  • Posner, Eric. 2000. Law and Social Norms. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press
  • Prentice, D. A. and 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, 243-256
  • Schultz, P.W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., Griskevicius, V., 2007, The Constructive, Destructive, and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms, Psychological Science, vol. 18, no. 5, 429-434, 2007[2]
  • Scott, John Finley, 1971, Internalization of Norms: A Sociological Theory of Moral Commitment, Englewoods Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall
  • Ullmann-Margalit, Edna, 1977, The Emergence of Norms. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  • Yamagishi, Toshio, Karen S. Cook, and Motoki Watabe. 1998. "Uncertainty, Trust, and Commitment Formation in the United States and Japan," American Journal of Sociology, 104(1), 165-94
  • Young, H. Peyton, 2008. "social norms." The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition. Abstract.

References

  1. ^ Social Norms
  2. ^ Steven N. Durlauf and Lawrence E. Blume (Eds), 'Social Norms' in New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, Second Edition, London: Macmillan, (forthcoming)

External links
neologizmy • Skuteczne Pozycjonowanie Google • Jaszczurka • Gady • Żółwie • Swistak • Ptaki • Psy • Pingwiny • Lisy • Konik polny • Delfiny • Radziwiłł Janusz • Bolesław • Anna Jagiellonka All Right Reserved © 2007, Designed by Stylish Blog.