A pluralistic framework for the psychology of norms

Abstract

Social norms are commonly understood as rules that dictate which behaviors are appropriate, permissible, or obligatory in different situations for members of a given community. Many researchers have sought to explain the ubiquity of social norms in human life in terms of the psychological mechanisms underlying their acquisition, conformity, and enforcement. Existing theories of the psychology of social norms appeal to a variety of constructs, from prediction-error minimization, to reinforcement learning, to shared intentionality, to domain-specific adaptations for norm acquisition. In this paper, we propose a novel methodological and conceptual framework for the cognitive science of social norms that we call normative pluralism. We begin with an analysis of the (sometimes mixed) explanatory aims of the cognitive science of social norms. From this analysis, we derive a recommendation for a reformed conception of its explanandum: a minimally psychological construct that we call normative regularities. Our central empirical proposal is that the psychological underpinnings of social norms are most likely realized by a heterogeneous set of cognitive, motivational, and ecological mechanisms that vary between norms and between individuals, rather than by a single type of process or distinctive norm system. This pluralistic approach, we suggest, offers a methodologically sound point of departure for a fruitful and rigorous science of social norms.

Human and nonhuman norms: a dimensional framework

“…These proposals have proven controversial, as the capacity for social norms is frequently cited by other researchers as uniquely human, part of a suite of cognitive and evolutionary adaptations that contribute to 'the secret of our success' [32][33][34][35][36][37]. Adjudicating between these competing claims is challenging for two reasons: first, there is considerable conceptual confusion surrounding the explanatory targets of the cognitive science of social norms, such that importantly different senses of 'social norm' are regularly conflated; second, there is no consensus about the nature of the psychological capacities underlying human norm psychology, and so there is no agreed-upon benchmark against which nonhuman animal performance might be measured [38]. This paper offers a framework for moving past this impasse and towards a more fruitful comparative science of social norms.…”

In search of animal normativity: a framework for studying social norms in non‐human animals

“…These questions cannot be answered solely by examining capacities on an individual level. Their answers lie in the study of social interactions and community‐level patterns of behaviour (Westra & Andrews, 2022).…”

“…To distinguish this construct from other commonsense and theoretical uses of the term ‘social norm’, we will use the term normative regularity . Following Westra & Andrews (2022), we define a normative regularity as a socially maintained pattern of behavioural conformity within a community . This definition has three elements: the concept of patterns of behavioural conformity , the concept of social maintenance , and the concept of a community .…”

Social Norms and Agent Types: Bridging the Gap Between the Theoretical Models and Their Applications

“…This picture coarsely summarizes the major influences presented in many approaches toward social norms (e.g., Bicchieri 2006; Brennan et al 2013; Westra and Andrews 2022; cf. Kelly and Davis 2018).…”