Jump to content

Social norm

From Wikipedia
Social norm
Subclass ofrule, conformity Edit
Part ofhuman behavior Edit
Manifestation ofculture Edit

Social norms be shared standards of acceptable behavior by groups.[1][2] Social norms go fi be both informal understandings wey dey govern de behavior of members of sam society, as well as say you go be codified for rules den laws insyd.[3] Social normative dey influence anaa social norms, be powerful drivers of human behavioural changes den well organized wey ebe incorporated by major theories wey dey explain human behaviour.[4] Institutions be composed of multiple norms. Norms be shared social beliefs about behavior; dat be say, dem be distinct from "ideas", "attitudes", den "values", wey dem go fi hold am privately,  wey eno necessarily dey concern behavior.[2] Norms be contingent for context, social group, den historical circumstances top.[5]

Definition[edit | edit source]

Shaking hands after sam sports match be sam example of sam social norm.

Varied definitions of social norms dey, but agreement among scholars dey wey norms be:

1.     social den shared among members of sam group,

2.     related to behaviors den shape decision-making,

3.     proscriptive anaa prescriptive

4.     socially acceptable way of living by a group of people for sam society insyd.

For 1965 insyd, Jack P. Gibbs identify three basic normative dimensions wey all concepts of norms go fi be subsumed under:

1.     "sam collective evaluation of behavior for terms of (wat efor be - what it ought to be)"

2.     "sam collective expectation as to wat behavior ego be - (what behavior will be)"

3.     "particular reactions plus behavior" (edey include attempts sanction anaa induce certain conduct)

According to Ronald Jepperson, Peter Katzenstein den Alexander Wendt, "norms be collective expectations about proper behavior for sam given identity." Wayne Sandholtz dey argue against dis definition, as he dey rep say shared expectations be sam effect of norms, eno be sam intrinsic quality of norms. Sandholtz, Martha Finnemore den Kathryn Sikkink dey define norms instead as "standards of appropriate behavior give actors plus sam given identity." For dis definition insyd, norms get sam "oughtness" quality give dem.

Emergence den transmission[edit | edit source]

Groups go fi adopt norms for sam variety of ways insyd.

Sam stable den self-reinforcing norms go fi emerge spontaneously without conscious human design. Peyton Young dey go as far den talk say "norms typically dey evolve without top-down direction... through interactions of individuals rather than by design." Norms go fi develop informally, wey edey emerge gradually as sam result of repeated use of discretionary stimuli so say ego control behavior. Eno be necessarily laws wey dem set for writing insyd, informal norms dey represent generally accepted den widely sanctioned routines wey people dey follow for everyday life insyd. Dese informal norms, if ebreak, eno go fi invite formal legal punishments anaa sanctions, but instead ego encourage reprimands, warnings, anaa othering; incest, for example, ebe generally thought of as say ebe wrong for society insyd, but chaw jurisdictions no dey legally prohibit it.

Martha Finnemore den Kathryn Sikkink dey identify three stages for de life cycle of sam norm insyd:

1.     Norm emergence: Norm entrepreneurs dey seek say dem go persuade odas say dem go adopt demma ideas about wat be desirable den appropriate

2.     Norm cascade: If sam norm get broad acceptance wey e reach sam tipping point, plus norm leaders wey dey pressure odas say dem go adopt den adhere to de norm

3.     Norm internalization: If de norm cam acquire sam "taken-for-granted" quality wer compliance plus de norm be nearly automatic

Dem dey argue say several factors go fi raise de influence of certain norms:

·        Legitimation: Actors wey dey feel insecure about demma status den reputation go fi be more likely say ego embrace norms

·        Prominence: Norms wey actors dey hold wey be desirable den successful be more likely say ego diffuse to odas

·        Intrinsic qualities of the norm: Norms wey be specific, long-lasting, den universal be more likely say ego cam turn prominent

·        Path dependency: Norms wey dey relate plus preexisting norms be more likely say dem go accept am widely

·        World time-context: Systemic shocks (such as wars, revolutions den economic crises) go fi motivate sam search for new norms

Christina Horne den Stefanie Mollborn identify two broad categories of arguments give de emergence of norms:

1.     Consequentialism: dem dey create norms if sam individual ein behavior get consequences den externalities for oda members of de group.

2.     Relationalism: dem dey create norms secof menners dey want attract positive social reactions. For oda words, norms necessarily no dey contribute to de collective good.

Transfer of norms between groups[edit | edit source]

Individuals sana go fi import norms from sam previous organization go demma new group, wey dem go fi adopt ova tym. Without sam clear indication of how dem go act, menners typically dey rely for demma history top so say dem go determine de best course forward; wat na ebe successful before go fi serve dem well again. For sam group insyd, individuals go fi import different histories anaa scripts about appropriate behaviors; common experience ova tym go lead de group den define demma take for de right action top, usually plus de integration of several members' schemas. Under de importation paradigm, norm formation dey occur subtly den swiftly wey plus formal anaa informal development of norms go fi take longer.

Deviance from social norms[edit | edit source]

"Normal = bad word", sam graffiti for Ljubljana insyd, Slovenia

Deviance wey dem dey define as "nonconformity wey edey give set of norms wey significant number of people dey  accept for sam community anaa society insyd" More simply put, if group members no dey follow sam norm, dem dey cam turn label as sam deviant. For de sociological literature, e often go fi lead dem being considered outcasts of society. Yet, deviant behavior amongst kiddies be sam wat expected. Except de idea of dis deviance wey dey  manifest as sam criminal action, de social tolerance wey dem give  for de example of de kiddie, dem quickly dey withdraw against de criminal. Dem dey consider crime as one of de most extreme forms of deviancy according to scholar Clifford R. Shaw.

Behavior[edit | edit source]

Whereas ideas for general no dey necessarily get behavioral implications, Martha Finnemore note say "norms by definition dey concern behavior. One go fi talk say dem be collectively held ideas about behavior."

Norms wey dey run counter give de behaviors of de overarching society anaa culture go fi be transmitted den maintained within small subgroups of society. For example, Crandall (1988) note say certain groups (e.g., cheerleading squads, dance troupes, sports teams, sororities) get sam rate of bulimia, sam publicly recognized life-threatening disease, wey be much higher pass society as a whole. Social norms get sam way wey edey take maintain order den organize groups.

Social control[edit | edit source]

Although eno be considered say ebe formal laws within society, norms still dey work say ego promote sam great deal of social control. Dem be statements wey dey regulate conduct. De cultural phenomenon wey be de norm be de prescriber of acceptable behavior for specific instances insyd. As edey range for variations wey dey depend for culture, race, religion, den geographical location insyd, ebe de foundation of de terms wey sam know as acceptable say eno go hurt odas, de golden rule, den say ego keep promises wey dem pledge.

Sociology[edit | edit source]

For sociology insyd, dem dey see norms as rules wey dey bind sam individual ein actions to sam specific sanction for one of two forms insyd: sam punishment anaa sam reward. Through regulation of behavior, social norms dey create unique patterns wey dey allow for distinguishing characteristics between social systems. Dis dey create sam boundary wey dey allow for sam differentiation between menners wey dey sam specific social setting dem menners wey no dey.

Operant conditioning[edit | edit source]

De probability of dese behaviours wey dey occur again wey dem discuss for de theories of B. F. Skinner insyd, wey dey state say operant conditioning dey play sam role for de process of social norm development insyd. Operant conditioning be de process wey behaviours dey change as sam function of demma consequences. De probability say sam behaviour go occur go fi increase anaa decrease depending on de consequences of dat behaviour.

Focus theory of normative conduct[edit | edit source]

Cialdini, Reno, den Kallgren develop de focus theory of normative conduct so say ego describe how individuals implicitly dey juggle chaw behavioral expectations for once. Expanding for conflicting prior beliefs about whether say cultural, situational anaa personal norms dey motivate action, de researchers suggest de focus of sam individual ein attention go dictate wey behavioral expectation dem dey follow.

Types[edit | edit source]

No clear consensus dey for how dem go use de term norm.

Martha Finnemore den Kathryn Sikkink distinguish between three types of norms:

1.     Regulative norms: dem dey "order den constrain behavior"

2.     Constitutive norms: Dem dey "create new actors, interests, anaa categories of action"

3.     Evaluative and prescriptive norms: dem get sam "oughtness" quality give dem

Finnemore, Sikkink, Jeffrey W. Legro den odas argue say dem dey measure de robustness (anaa effectiveness) of norms plus factors such as:

·        De specificity of de norm: norms wey be clear den specific be more likely say ego be effective

·        De longevity of de norm: norms plus sam history be more likely say ego be effective

·        De universality of de norm: norms wey dey make general claims (rather than localized den particularistic claims) be more likely say ego be effective

·        De prominence of de norm: norms wey dem widely dey accept among powerful actors be more likely say ego be effective

Jeffrey Checkel dey argue say two common types of explanations for de efficacy of norms dey:

·        Rationalism: actors dey comply plus norms secof coercion, cost-benefit calculations, den material incentives

·        Constructivism: actors dey comply plus norms secof social learning den socialization

According to Peyton Young, mechanisms wey dey support normative behavior dey include:

·        Coordination

·        Social pressure

·        Signaling

·        Focal points

Descriptive versus injunctive[edit | edit source]

Descriptive norms dey depict wat dey happen, wey injunctive norms dey describe wat for happen. Cialdini, Reno, den Kallgren (1990) dey define sam descriptive norm as menners demma perceptions of wat dem commonly dey do for specific situations insyd; edey signify wat chaw menners dey do, without assigning judgment. De absence of trash wey dey ground for sam parking lot insyd, for example, edey transmit de descriptive norm wey chaw menners wey dey der no dey litter.

Prescriptive den proscriptive norms[edit | edit source]

Prescriptive norms be unwritten rules wey society dey bab den follow wey edey indicate wat we for do. Expressing gratitude anaa writing sam Thank You card if sambro give you sam gift dey represent sam prescriptive norm for American culture insyd. Proscriptive norms, for contrast insyd, dey comprise de oda end of de same spectrum; dem be similarly society ein unwritten rules about wat one for no do. Dese norms go fi vary between cultures; wey kissing sambro you just meet for ein cheek top be sam acceptable greeting for sam European countries insyd, dis no be acceptable, wey edey represent sam proscriptive norm for United States insyd.

Subjective norms[edit | edit source]

Dem dey determine Subjective norms plus beliefs about de extent wey important odas dey want sam person perform sam behavior.If dem combine plus attitude toward behavior, subjective norms dey shape sam individual ein intentions. Social influences be conceptualized in terms of de pressure wey menners dey perceive from important odas perform, anaa no go perform, sam behavior.

Figure 1. De return potential model (wey dem reproduce from Jackson, 1965).

Dem develop am for 1960s insyd, de return potential model dey provide sam method for plotting den visualizing group norms. For de regular coordinate plane, de amount of behavior exhibited be plotted for de X-axis top (label a for Figure 1 insyd) wey de amount of group acceptance anaa approval dey get plotted for de Y-axis top (b for Figure 1 insyd). De graph dey represent de potential return anaa positive outcome give sam individual for sam given behavioral norm.

Game theory[edit | edit source]

Main article: Game theory

Anoda general formal framework wey dem go fi use represent de essential elements of de social situation wey dey surround sam norm be de repeated game of game theory. Rational choice, sam branch of game theory, dey deal plus de relations den actions wey be socially committed among rational agents. Sam norm dey give person sam rule of thumb for how dem for behave. However, sam rational person dey act according to de rule only if ebe beneficial give dem. Dem go fi describe de situation as follows. Sam norm dey give sam expectation of how oda menners dey act for sam given situation insyd (macro).

Make you sana see[edit | edit source]

·        Anomie

·        Breaching experiment

·        Convention (norm)

·        Enculturation

·        Etiquette

·        Heteronormativity

·        Ideal (ethics)

·        Ideology

·        Morality

·        Mores

·        Norm (philosophy)

·        Norm of reciprocity

·        Normality (behavior)

·        Normalization (sociology)

·        Other (philosophy)

·        Philosophical value

·        Peer pressure

·        Rule complex

·        Social norms marketing

·        Social structure

·        Taboo

References[edit | edit source]

  1. Lapinski, M. K.; Rimal, R. N. (2005). "An explication of social norms". Communication Theory. 15 (2): 127–147. doi:10.1093/ct/15.2.127.
  2. 2.0 2.1 Finnemore, Martha (1996). National Interests in International Society. Cornell University Press. pp. 22–24, 26–27. ISBN 9780801483233. JSTOR 10.7591/j.ctt1rv61rh. Archived from the original on 2021-06-01. Retrieved 2021-04-18.
  3. Pristl, A-C; Kilian, S; 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:10.1002/cb.1890. S2CID 228807152.
  4. Legro, Jeffrey W. (1997). "Which Norms Matter? Revisiting the "Failure" of Internationalism". International Organization. 51 (1): 31–63. doi:10.1162/002081897550294. ISSN 0020-8183. JSTOR 2703951. S2CID 154368865. Archived from the original on 2021-04-17. Retrieved 2021-04-17.
  5. Young, 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.