Norm (social)

  (Redirected from Norm (sociology))

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

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

Social norms are described by sociologists as being laws that govern society’s behaviors ^[1]. Although these norms are not considered to be formal laws within society, they still work to promote a great deal of social control ^[2]. Social norms can be enforced formally (e.g., through sanctions) or informally (e.g., through body language and non-verbal communication cues ^[3].) If people do not follow these norms then they become labeled as deviants and this can lead to them being considered the outcast of society ^[4]. It is important to note that what is considered “normal” is relative to the location of the culture in which the social interaction is taking place ^[5]. Norms in every culture create conformity that allows for people to become socialized to the culture in which they live ^[6].

Sociology’s theorists such as Talcott Parsons and Karl Marx have both come up with theories for why they believe norms are needed in society ^[7]. According to Parsons of the functionalist school, norms dictate the interactions of people in all social encounters ^[8]. On the other hand, Marx believes that norms are used to promote the creation of roles in society which allows for people of different levels of social class structure to be able to function properly ^[9]. Marx claims that this power dynamic creates social order ^[10].

As social beings, individuals learn when and where it is appropriate to say certain things, to use certain words, to discuss certain topics or wear certain clothes, and when it is not. Thus, knowledge about cultural norms is important for impressions, ^[11] which is an individual's regulation of their nonverbal behavior. One also comes to know through experience what types of people he/she can and cannot discuss certain topics with or wear certain types of dress around ^[12]. Typically, this knowledge is derived through experience (i.e. social norms are learned through social interaction) ^[13]. An example of the need to police his or her behavior would be when people go to a job interview in the white collar work force and dress properly in order to give a great first impression so that they get the job.

• 1 Formal vs. Informal
• 2 Transmission of social norms
• 3 Terms related to social norms
• 4 Example of a norm
• 5 Game-theoretical analysis of social norms
• 6 See also
• 7 Bibliography
• 8 References
• 9 External links

Formal vs. Informal

Groups may adopt norms in two different ways. One form of norm adoption is the formal method, where norms are written down and implemented (e.g., laws, legislation, club rules) ^[14]. However, social norms are much more likely to be informal, and emerge gradually (e.g., not wearing socks with sandals) ^[15].

Norms can exist as both formal and informal rules of behavior. Both types of norms are described more clearly below:

• Informal: Informal norms are not necessarily laws set in writing, but are more so just routines that people follow in everyday life ^[16]. These informal norms, if broken, do not invite punishments or sanctions usually, but instead encourage reprimands, warnings, or othering ^[17]. Norms that are widely observed have great moral significance ^[18]. For example, incest is generally thought of as wrong in society, but many jurisdictions do not legally prohibit it.

• Formal: Formal norms are generally laws that if broken will result in some form of punishment ^[19]. A large number of these norms we follow naturally such as driving on the right side of the road in the United States or not speeding in order to avoid a ticket ^[20]. These norms serve to provide safety to the general public (i.e. gun laws, traffic laws, etc.).

Transmission of social norms

Groups internalize norms by accepting them as reasonable and proper standards for behaviour within the group. Once firmly established, a norm becomes a social fact, and thus, a part of the group's operational structure, and is difficult to change. With that being said, newcomers to a group can change a group's norms. However, it is much more likely that the new individual entering the group will adopt the group's norms, values, and perspectives, rather than the other way around.

Also, norms that are counter to the behaviours of the overarching society or culture may be transmitted and maintained within small subgroups of society. For example, Crandall (1988) noted that certain social groups (e.g., cheerleading squads, dance troupes, sports teams, sororities) have a rate of bulimia that is much higher than society as a whole.

Social groups have a big influence on social norms. Robert Jacobs and Donald Campbell's conducted a study and found that Confederates initially established a norm regarding rule use: Half the groups began with a majority rule and half with a seniority-based dictatorial rule. Groups made decisions about hiring (fictitious) job applicants. Half the groups in each decision rule condition received feedback that their decisions were correct and half that their decisions were incorrect. Groups that began with majority rule continued to use the rule. Groups that began with seniority rule always changed the rule and always changed it to majority rule. ^[21]

Social norms have a way of maintaining order and organizing groups. ^[22] Social norms demonstrate how ideal a society should be. ^[23] It is the job of groups in society to carry out these social norms. ^[24]

Terms related to social norms

A 'Descriptive Norm' refers to people's perceptions of what is commonly done in specific situations. An Injunctive Norm refers to people's perceptions of what is commonly approved or disapproved of within a particular culture.^[25]. In other words an 'Injunctive Norm' is what significant other thinks the person should to do. ^[26]

Prescriptive norms are unwritten rules that are understood and followed by society; state what we should do. Everyone does these every day without thinking about them. Example: when our schools teach "safer sex" practices, or when parents expect obedience from young children regardless of the setting. ^[27].

Proscriptive norms are unwritten rules that are known by society that one shouldn't do, or follow. These norms can vary from culture to culture. Example: when health officials warn us to avoid casual sex. ^[28].

'Subjective Norm' is determined by beliefs about the extent to which important others want them to perform a behavior. Social influences are conceptualized in terms of the pressure that people perceive from important others to perform, or not to perform, a behavior. ^[29]

Deviance is "nonconformity to a set of norms that are accepted by a significant number of people in a community or society (Appelbaum, 173)." In simple terms it is behavior that goes against norms.

'The Looking-Glass Self' is theory formed by Charles Cooley that states that our self-concepts are formed as reflections of the responses and evaluations of others in our environment.^[30].

Example of a norm

Norms affect the way one behaves in public. When one enters an elevator, it is expected that one turns around to face the doors. An example of a social norm violation would be to enter the elevator and remain facing the rest of the people. People conform to society by following social norms. ^[31]. Another example would be tipping a waitress at a restaurant. A violation of that social norm would be not tipping the waitress. ^[32] The community has a lot to do with the development of social norms. ^[33]. A person that chooses to throw trash away in a garbage can is following social norms, but an individual violating the norm would chose to litter. ^[34]. Although it is not illegal to not be courteous it is a social norm. ^[35]. A man holding the door for a woman is considered to be a social norm; a man violating the social norm would chose to not open the door for the woman and let her enter first. ^[36].

Game-theoretical analysis of social norms

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 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). 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.^[37]

From a game theoretical point of view, there are two explanations for the vast variety of norms that exist throughout the world. 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.

See also

Bibliography

• Axelrod, Robert (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books. 
• Appelbaum, R. P., Carr, D., Duneir, M., Giddens, A., 2009, "Confomity, Deviance, and Crime." Introduction to Sociology, New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., p173.
• 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 of Social 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
• Greif, Avner. 1994. "Cultural Beliefs and the Organization of Society: A Historical and Theoretical Reflection on Collectivist and Individualist Societies." The Journal of Political Economy, vol. 102, No. 5: 912–50.
• 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. doi:10.1086/345689. http://arbeit.ucdavis.edu/mcelreath/files/ethnic%20markers%202003.pdf. 
• 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

External links

• Social Norms entry by Cristina Bicchieri and Ryan Muldoon in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy