Norms

Source: Forsyth, D. R. (1994). Norms. In T. Manstead & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Blackwellencyclopedia of social psychology. Blackwell: Oxford, UK.

Consensual standards that describe what behaviorsshould and should not be performed in a givencontext are called social norms. They prescribe thesocially appropriate way to respond in the situation—the "normal" course of action—as well as proscribingactions to avoid if at all possible. Social norms, incontrast to statistical norms or general expectationsbased on intuitive base-rates for behavior, include anevaluative component. People who do not complywith the norms of a situation and cannot provide anacceptable explanation for their violation areevaluated negatively. This condemnation can includehostility, pressure to change, negative sanctions, andpunishment, but the reaction depends on themagnitude of the discrepancy, the importance of thenorm, and the characteristics of the person whoviolates the norm. Wearing too colorful a tie, notbowing properly when introduced, or talking aboutoverly intimate matters with a new acquaintance mayviolate situational norms of propriety, but they willrarely earn public rejection. Small violations thatreflect personal idiosyncrasies, if kept private, areoften overlooked, as are violations committed byprestigious or powerful individuals. Violations ofmoral norms prohibiting theft or prescribing duties,in contrast, will be roundly condemned (Sabini &Silver, 1978). This evaluative reaction is, however,asymmetric. Whereas violating a norm oftengenerates negative responses, merely complying witha norm will rarely earn one praise. A norm oftenbecomes salient to interactants only after it is violated(Forsyth, 1990).

Some norms, such as taboos regarding incestand cannibalism, structure actions in a wide varietyof contexts and cultures. Most norms, however, aremore limited in their domain of application. Normsthat regulate greetings and nonverbal behavior, forexample, tend to vary from culture to culture or evenwithin subgroups in a particular culture. A smilemay be universally recognized as an expression ofhappiness, but when that smile can be displayeddepends upon the display norms of the particularculture. These variations in content aside, normativeprocesses affect all manner of social situations, fromthe informal and intimate to the ceremonious andpublic. Spouses spliting up household chores, friendsgreeting on the street, executives discussing business

strategies, and strangers in queues all recognize andrespond in ways that are consistent with the normsgoverning that particular situation. Norms alsostructure action in situations that range from thecommonplace to the consequential. Simple behaviorssuch as choice of clothing ("Wear shoes in public"),manners ("Say thank-you"), and conventions ofaddress ("Call adult men `Mr.'") reflect social norms,but so do general societal principles of fairness ("Dounto others as they do unto you"), morality ("Do notlie and break promises"), and value ("Avoidlaziness").

Normative Theories of Social Processes

Norms are a fundamental element of socialstructure; they are the "cement of society" (Elster,1989, p. 251). They simplify behavioral choices,provide direction and motivation, organize socialinteractions, and make other people's responsespredictable and meaningful. Each person in societyis restrained to a degree by norms, but each personalso benefits from the order that norms provide.Moreover, although in some cases people may obeynorms merely to avoid sanctions or to seemagreeable, when they internalize a norm it becomes apart of their total value system; hence people oftenfollow norms not because of external pressure butbecause normative action is personally satisfying.Conversely, the violation of norms does not onlycarry sanctions from others. Individuals who violatenorms that they accept condemn themselves as well,and experience a range of negative emotionalconsequences such as extreme self-consciousness,embarrassment, guilt, and shame (Elster, 1989).

Many theoretical explanations of socialprocesses draw, either explicitly or implicitly, on theconcept of norms. Why, for example, do people whoare part of social movements or large crowdssometimes engage in aberrant behavior? In someinstances people can become so aroused by theexperience that the norms that typically govern theirconduct no longer constrain them. Hence, they act inodd ways. In other cases atypical norms emergewithin the collective, and these emergent normsprompt people to act in uncommon ways. Emergentnorms in urban gangs, for example, often emphasize

toughness and physical strength, so when conflictsamong members occur violence is the preferredmeans of settling the dispute.

Why do people help needy others? Because thenorm of social responsibility prompts individuals toaid people who can't help themselves. Why arepeople kind to those who treat them withconsideration but aggressive towards those who treatthem harshly? Because the norm of reciprocityenjoins them to pay back, in kind, what others give tothem: analyses of interpersonal conflict ranging frominterpersonal disputes to global warfare suggest thatviolence escalates when the norm of reciprocityrequires that aggressive actions must be counteredwith a more aggressive action. Why do peoplerespond negatively when they are underpaid or theyfeel that they are putting more time and effort into arelationship than their partner is? Because the normof equity defines a relationship as fair only if thoseinvolved receive an amount in return that isproportional to the amount they have invested. Therelationship becomes inequitable when what is givendoesn't match what is received. Why do people fallin love? Analyses suggest that love is, to a largeextent, defined by societal norms. Most Westernsocieties condone long-term, exclusive relationshipsbased on passion and commitment but negativelysanction short-term relationships between people wholack commitment. As these examples suggest, theexplanatory power of the concept of norms isexceptional.

The Development and Transmission of Norms

Norms, if written down, become formal rules ofproper conduct, but in most instances norms areadopted implicitly as people align their behaviorsuntil consensus in actions emerges. Sherif's classicanalysis of this process suggests that this gradualalignment of action reflects the development offrames of reference for behaviors and perceptions(Sherif, 1936). Individuals, once they join withothers, rapidly structure their experiences until theyconform to a general standard. This standard can bepressed upon the group by an outside authority or agroup leader, but Sherif notes that in most instancesnorms develop through reciprocal influence.Individuals do not actively try to conform to thejudgments of others, but instead use the groupconsensus to revise their own opinions and beliefs.

Sherif examined this process by takingadvantage of naturally occurring perceptual illusioncalled the autokinetic effect. People, when shown adot of light in an otherwise dark room, will think the

light is moving because the visual system lacks aframe of reference. Sherif arranged for men to statealoud their estimates of the distance the light movedwhen alone and in groups. He found that individualsmaking judgments by themselves establish their ownidiosyncratic average estimates, which varied from 1to 10 inches. When people made their judgmentswith other people, however, their personal estimatesblended with those of other group members until aconsensus was reached. By the final session, the menaccepted a standard estimate in place of their ownidiosyncratic judgments. Moreover, in subsequentindividual sessions subjects still relied on the groupnorm, suggesting that they had internalized the norm.

Subsequent studies found evidence of bothchange in the individual and change in the groupwhen a single individual who made extremejudgments was placed in each group. This individualdeflected the rest of the group members' judgmentsso that a more extreme norm guided the groupmembers' judgments. Once this arbitrary standardhad been created, the individual was removed fromthe group and replaced by a fresh member. Theremaining group members retained the large distancenorm, however, and the newest group membergradually adapted to the higher standard. Oldmembers were removed from the group and replacedwith naive subjects, but the new initiates continued toshift their estimates in the direction of the groupnorm. The arbitrary group norm eventuallydisappeared, but not before the group membershipshad been changed five or six times (see Forsyth,1990, for detailed references).

This process of socialization explains hownorms, once they are established, can become part ofthe group's stable structure. Even though theindividuals who originally fostered the norms are nolonger present, their normative innovations remain apart of the organization's traditions and newcomersmust change to adopt that tradition.

Socialization accounts for continuity inreligious, economic, moral, political, andinterpersonal beliefs across generations. Wheneverchildren learn norms of appropriate behavior in theirculture, new employees learn the boss's secret list ofdos and don'ts, or newcomers to a club discover thegroup's standards and expectations they areexperiencing socialization. In most instances it is theindividual who assimilates the group's norms, values,and perspectives (Moreland & Levine, 1982). Attimes, however, socialization can generate changes innorms as the group accommodates to fit the

newcomer's needs. Moscovici's (1985) theory ofminority influence similarly suggests that staunch,unyielding individuals can shift the group's normsprovided they maintain the appearance of consistencyand objectivity.

Newcomb demonstrated the intergenerationallongevity of norms in his 1943 study of politicalattitudes. Newcomb noted that even though most ofthe students who entered the college where he taughtcame from politically conservative families, theupperclassmen tended to express more liberalattitudes. Newcomb, after examining studentsattitudes over a four-year period, concluded thatstudents' attitudes changed as they left the familygroup and joined the new group composed ofclassmates and faculty at the college. While thefamily's norms supported conservative attitudes, thecollege community supported only liberal attitudes,and many women shifted their political attitudes tobetter match the norm of liberality. Indeed, the shifttowards liberalism was most pronounced among thepopular students, those who were more deeplyembedded in the university community, and thosewho were members of the most liberal subgroupwithin overall social organization. Individuals whodid not become more liberal tended to be isolatedfrom the college's social life or to be very family-oriented. The impact of this socializing experiencewas considerable, for the more liberal attitudescreated by the group remained a part of the beliefs ofmany of the graduates some 25 years later (seeForsyth, 1990, for detailed references).

Many other researchers have documented thisnorm-transmission process. Crandall (1988)describes how bulimia—a cycle of binge eatingfollowed by self-induced vomiting or other forms ofpurging—can be sustained by group norms. Bulimiais considered by society-at-large to be an abnormalbehavior, yet it is prevalent in certain groups, such ascheerleading squads, dance troupes, teams, andsororities. Crandall suggests that such groups, ratherthan viewing these actions as a threat to health,accept purging as a normal means of controlling one'sweight. In the sororities he studied he found that thewomen who were popular in the group were the oneswho binged at the rate established by the group'snorms. Also, as time passed, those who did not bingebegan to binge. Thus, even norms that counter tosociety's general traditions can establish a life of theirown in small subgroups within that society.

The Power of Norms

Norms exert such a powerful influence onbehavior that even individuals who privately rejecttheir society's norms usually follow these standardsnonetheless. Asch (1955) documented the too-humantendency to conform to norms experimentally byplacing individuals into groups that were makingincorrect judgments about the length of lines. All thegroup members save one were trained confederateswho deliberately made errors to see if the subjectwould conform to a unanimous majority's judgments.Each group member stated his judgment aloud, sowhen the subject's time to speak came he could eitherreport his own opinion—and disagree with thegroup—or conform to the group's opinion. Aschfound that people conformed about 35% of thetime—a surprisingly high rate considering thesimplicity of the judgment. He noted, however, thatpeople who conformed did so for two differentreasons. First, in some cases the individual's privateposition changed to match the norms of the group.They simply concluded "I am wrong, and the group isright." This form of social response to norms istermed CONVERSION or private acceptance.Others, in contrast, never accepted the norm of thegroup but they went along because they did not wantto seem out of step with the others, anger theexperimenter, or appear stupid. This type ofconformity is usually labeled COMPLIANCE: achange in public behavior to match the norm pairedwith private rejection of the norm itself. But whetherthe individual was converted or merely complying,the result was the same: Conformity to the situationalnorm.

Why do we tend to feel, think, and act in waysthat are consistent with social norms? Analyses ofnormative influence trace the source of a norm'spower back to both interpersonal and personalfactors. At an interpersonal level, people feelcompelled to act in accordance with norms because avariety of negative consequences could result fromnonconformity. Indeed, the interpersonalconsequences suffered by people who violatesociety's norms are both commonplace and varied.Those who violate norms of civility are oftenreminded of their duty and told to change their ways.People who violate the norms and regulations of theirgroups are disliked, assigned lower status jobs,pressured to conform, and in some cases excludedfrom membership (Schachter, 1951). Those whoadopt alternative life styles or occupations arereminded that they should be ashamed for theirvariance from the normal path. The individual whopublicly flaunts a moral norm, by acting in ways thatsociety condemns, will likely meet with moral

reproach: others respond by "telling him that he isdoing something wrong, and exactly what it is that iswrong about what he is doing, and what it is that hiswrong doing makes him—a cad, creep, or moralleper—or more simply just call him a creep for short"(Sabini & Silver, 1978, p. 103). And those whobreak society's laws—its legal norms—and arecaught in the violation meet with more formalsanctions: incarceration, monetary fines, publicdegradation, and even death.

Normative influence, however, also has apersonal component, for people also obey norms inorder to fulfill their own expectations about properbehavior. Norms are not simply external constraintsbut internalized standards; people feel duty bound toadhere to norms since, as responsible members ofsociety, they accept the legitimacy of the establishednorms and recognize the importance of supportingthese norms. General norms such as "Do not telllies" and "Help other people when they are in need"correspond to such personal norms as "I don't tell liesto other people" and "I help people whenever I can".Thus, people comply with the dictates of situationsnorms not only because they fear the negativeinterpersonal consequences—ostracism, ridicule,punishment—that their nonconformity may produce,but also because feel personally compelled to live upto their own expectations.

Milgram's (1992) studies of encounters betweenpeople in urban settings document both theinterpersonal and personal consequences ofcounternormative actions. He sought to explain thehigh degree of social order that characterizesencounters between complete strangers in publicplaces. Although these encounters are fleeting andrelatively inconsequential, Milgram noted that theyare for the most part ordered and predictable.Consider, for example, the waiting line or queue.Even though this group is comprised of individualswho are strangers to one another and who will likelynot meet again, interaction within the queue isordered by commonly recognized norms: do notbreak line; do not talk to the stranger next to you;face the front; move forward to fill spaces; and so on.These norms of civility are implicitly obeyed, andwhen they are broken members of the queue areready to challenge those who try to violate the norm.

Milgram studied this process by arranging for menand women to break into queues waiting outside ofticket offices and the like in New York City.Working either alone or in pairs, the accompliceswould simply say "Excuse me, I'd like to get in here"

and then insert themselves in the line. Theindividuals in the queue defended the norms of thesituation in nearly half of the lines studied. In a fewcases they used physical action, such as a tap on theshoulder or a push. In some lines the reaction wasverbal and ranged from the polite "Excuse me, butI'm already in line here" to impolite "Hey you SOB!The line's back there." In other cases the reactionwas primarily nonverbal: the people in line used dirtylooks, stares, and hostile, threatening gestures to venttheir objections. More people challenged theintrusion into the queue by two individuals than byone, although hostility was partly tempered bylocation. Far more of the complaints came frompeople standing behind the point of intrusion ratherthan from people standing in front of the intrusion.Self-interest, as well as the normative force of thequeues' rules, partly motivated people's reactions tothe queue-breakers' actions.

Milgram also documented the personalconsequences of violating norms. In oneinvestigation he had men and women board a NewYork City subway and perform a simplecounternormative behavior: asking someone for theirseat. In this situation, all interactants recognize andaccept the rule "all seats are filled on a first-come,first-served basis," so asking for someone to give uptheir seat is a norm violation. Still, many peoplegave up their seats, apparently because the requesttook them by surprise, they wanted to avoidinteraction, or because they normalized the situationby concluding that the requestor was ill. Milgramwas particularly intrigued, however, by the reactionsdisplayed by the norm-violators. Even though theywere volunteers who were deliberating breaking thesituational norms in the name of research, allexperienced severe emotional turmoil as theapproached the situation. They "reported that whenstanding in front of a subject, they felt anxious, tense,and embarrassed. Frequently, they were unable tovocalize the request for a seat and had to withdraw"(Milgram, 1992, p. 42). Milgram, who alsoperformed the norm-violation task, described theexperience as wrenching, and concluded that there isan "enormous inhibitory anxiety that ordinarilyprevents us from breaching social norms" (p. xxiv).

Norms, then, are not merely external forces thatrequire certain kinds of actions in certain kinds ofsituations. Rather, they are a fundamental componentof social structure that links each individual memberof society to the larger social order. Individualssometimes obey norms to avoid the sanctions thatviolations would provoke, but in most instances

normative behavior is consistent with personalpreferences, beliefs, and values. Norms existindependently of single individuals, but norms arenonetheless created by individuals in order to bringregularity to their social encounters.

References

Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and socialpressures. Scientific American, 193(5), 31-35.

Crandall, C. S. (1988). Social contagion of bingeeating. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,55, 588-598.

Elster, J. (1989). The cement of society: A studyof social order. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Forsyth, D. R. (1990). Group dynamics. PacificGrove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Milgram, S. (1992). The individual in a socialworld. J. Sabini & M. Silver (Eds.). New York:McGraw-Hill.

Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1982).Socialization in small groups: Temporal changes inindividual-group relations. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol.15, 137-192). New York: Academic Press.

Moscovici, S. (1985). Social influence andconformity. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.),Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 3rd ed., pp.347-412). New York: Random House.

Newcomb, T. M. (1943). Personality and socialchange. New York: Dryden.

Sabini, J. P., & Silver, M. (1978). Moral reproachand moral action. Journal for the Theory of SocialBehavior, 8, 103-123).

Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of socialnorms . New York: Harper and Row.