Perceptions of the appropriate response to norm violation in 57 societies
Language English Country Great Britain, England Media electronic
Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
PubMed
33674587
PubMed Central
PMC7935962
DOI
10.1038/s41467-021-21602-9
PII: 10.1038/s41467-021-21602-9
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- MeSH
- Value of Life MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Judgment MeSH
- Violence MeSH
- Perception * MeSH
- Comprehension MeSH
- Attention MeSH
- Social Behavior * MeSH
- Social Norms * MeSH
- Social Support MeSH
- Negotiating MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
Norm enforcement may be important for resolving conflicts and promoting cooperation. However, little is known about how preferred responses to norm violations vary across cultures and across domains. In a preregistered study of 57 countries (using convenience samples of 22,863 students and non-students), we measured perceptions of the appropriateness of various responses to a violation of a cooperative norm and to atypical social behaviors. Our findings highlight both cultural universals and cultural variation. We find a universal negative relation between appropriateness ratings of norm violations and appropriateness ratings of responses in the form of confrontation, social ostracism and gossip. Moreover, we find the country variation in the appropriateness of sanctions to be consistent across different norm violations but not across different sanctions. Specifically, in those countries where use of physical confrontation and social ostracism is rated as less appropriate, gossip is rated as more appropriate.
Aoyama Gakuin University Sagamihara city Kanagawa Japan
Center for Cultural Evolution Stockholm University Stockholm Sweden
Center for Culture and Evolution Brunel University London Uxbridge UK
Center for Social and Psychological Sciences Slovak Academy of Sciences Bratislava Slovakia
Daugavpils University Daugvapils Latvia
Departamento de Psicología Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú San Miguel Lima Peru
Department of Behavioral Sciences and Learning Linköping University Linköping Sweden
Department of Culture Politics and Society University of Turin Turin Italy
Department of Education and Social Work University of Patras Rion Patras Greece
Department of International Management Johannes Kepler University Linz Austria
Department of Personality and Social Psychology Universitas Airlangga Surabaya Indonesia
Department of Personality Psychology Yerevan State University Yerevan Armenia
Department of Political Science Trinity College Dublin Dublin 2 Ireland
Department of Psychology and Education Shahid Beheshti University Tehran Iran
Department of Psychology Mumbai Maharashtra India
Department of Psychology Sungkyunkwan University Seoul Republic of Korea
Department of Psychology University of Botswana Private Bag UB 00705 Gaborone Botswana
Department of Psychology University of Cologne Cologne Germany
Department of Psychology University of Ghana P O Box LG 84 Legon Accra Ghana
Department of Psychology University of Iceland Reykjavík Iceland
Department of Psychology University of Innsbruck Innsbruck Austria
Department of Psychology University of Maryland College Park MD USA
Department of Psychology University of Minnesota Minneapolis MN 55455 USA
Department of Psychology University of Nigeria Nsukka Nsukka Nigeria
Department of Psychology University of Western Ontario London ON Canada
Department of Psychology York University Toronto ON Canada
Department of Sociology University of South Carolina Columbia SC USA
Eötvös Loránd University Faculty of Psychology and Education Budapest Hungary
Faculty of Economics Shiga University Hikone Shiga Japan
Faculty of Medicine University of Colombo Colombo 8 Sri Lanka
Faculty of Philosophy and Arts University of Trnava Trnava Slovakia
Faculty of philosophy University of Banja Luka Banja Luka Bosnia and Herzegovina
Faculty of Psychology Chulalongkorn University Bangkok Thailand
Future Minds Gifted Centre Lima Peru
Guangzhou University Guangzhou Higher Education Mega Center Guangzhou P R China
Hanoi National University of Education Cau Giay District Hanoi Vietnam
IESE Business School Madrid Spain
Institute for Futures Studies Box 591 Stockholm Sweden
Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies National Research Council of Italy Rome Italy
Institute of Psychology Czech Academy of Sciences Brno Czech Republic
Instituto de Ciências Sociais Universidade de Lisboa Lisboa Portugal
Instituto de Investigaciones Psicológicas CABA República Argentina
Instituto Universitário de Lisboa ISCTE IUL CIS Lisbon Portugal
International School of Economics Kazakh British Technical University Almaty Kazakhstan
Koç University Rumelifeneri Sarıyer Rumelifeneri Yolu Istanbul Turkey
Kwansei Gakuin University Nishinomiya Hyogo Japan
Kyiv International Institute of Sociology Kyiv Ukraine
Labo PECS Faculty of Social Sciences Université d'Oran 2 Oran Algeria
Mackenzie Presbyterian University Business Administration Postgraduate Program São Paulo Brazil
Mälardalen University Västerås Sweden
Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods Bonn Germany
Melbourne School of Psychological Science University of Melbourne Parkville VIC Australia
Moscow State University of Psychology and Education Moscow Russia
Nagoya University Furo cho Chikusa ku Nagoya Aichi Japan
National Economics University Hai Ba Trung Dong Tam District Hanoi Vietnam
New School of Economics Satbayev University Almaty Kazakhstan
New York University Stern School of Business New York NY 10012 USA
Politics Psychology Law and Economics University of Amsterdam PO Box 15575 Amsterdam The Netherlands
Queen's University Goodes Hall Queen's University Kingston ON Canada
Saint Petersburg State University St Petersburg Russia
School of Natural Sciences and Health Tallinn University Tallinn Estonia
School of Psychology University of Kent Canterbury UK
School of Social Sciences Singapore Management University Singapore Singapore
Sunway University No 5 Jalan Universiti Bandar Sunway Selangor Darul Ehsan Malaysia
SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities Warsaw Chodakowska Poland
The Open University of Israel Raanana Israel
United States International University Africa Box 14634 00800 Nairobi Kenya
Universidad de los Andes Colombia Bogota Colombia
Universidad Diego Portales Santiago Chile
University of Athens Department of Political Science and Public Administration Athens Greece
University of Eastern Finland Department of Social Sciences P O Box 162770211 Kuopio Finland
University of Haifa Haifa Israel
University of Helsinki Faculty of Social Sciences Social Psychology PO Box 54 Helsinki Finland
See more in PubMed
Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ. Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2004;55:591–621. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015. PubMed DOI
Ostrom, E. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge University Press, 1990).
Gelfand MJ, Harrington J, Jackson J. The strength of social norms across human groups. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2017;12:800–809. doi: 10.1177/1745691617708631. PubMed DOI
Henrich J, Boyd R. Why people punish defectors: weak conformist transmission can stabilize costly enforcement of norms in cooperative dilemmas. J. Theor. Biol. 2001;208:79–89. doi: 10.1006/jtbi.2000.2202. PubMed DOI
Nikiforakis N, Engelmann D. Altruistic punishment and the threat of feuds. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2011;78:319–332. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2011.01.017. DOI
Kim, H. M. Relationship between economic sanctions and militarized conflict focusing on reciprocal causation. Def. Peace Econ. 31, 1–18 (2018).
Axelrod R. An evolutionary approach to norms. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 1986;80:1095–1111. doi: 10.1017/S0003055400185016. DOI
Falk A, Fehr E, Fischbacher U. Driving forces behind informal sanctions. Econometrica. 2005;73:2017–2030. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00644.x. DOI
Fehr E, Gächter S. Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature. 2002;415:137–140. doi: 10.1038/415137a. PubMed DOI
Elster, J. Explaining Social Behavior: More Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences (Cambridge University Press, 2015).
Molho C, Tybur JM, Van Lange PA, Balliet D. Direct and indirect punishment in daily life. Nat. Commun. 2020;11:3432. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-17286-2. PubMed DOI PMC
Heinrichs N, et al. Cultural differences in perceived social norms and social anxiety. Behav. Res. Ther. 2006;44:1187–1197. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2005.09.006. PubMed DOI
House BR, et al. Social norms and cultural diversity in the development of third-party punishment. Proc. R. Soc. B. 2020;287:20192794. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2019.2794. PubMed DOI PMC
Eriksson K, et al. Cultural universals and cultural differences in meta-norms about peer punishment. Manag. Organ. Rev. 2017;13:851–870. doi: 10.1017/mor.2017.42. DOI
Barrett HC, et al. Small-scale societies exhibit fundamental variation in the role of intentions in moral judgment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2016;113:4688–4693. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1522070113. PubMed DOI PMC
Gelfand MJ, et al. Differences between tight and loose cultures: a 33-nation study. Science. 2011;332:1100–1104. doi: 10.1126/science.1197754. PubMed DOI
Eriksson K, Andersson P, Strimling P. When is it appropriate to reprimand a norm violation?: The roles of anger, behavioral consequences, violation severity, and social distance. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 2017;12:396–407.
Cinyabuguma M, Page T, Putterman L. Can second-order punishment deter perverse punishment? Exp. Econ. 2006;9:265–279. doi: 10.1007/s10683-006-9127-z. DOI
Kiyonari T, Barclay P. Cooperation in social dilemmas: free riding may be thwarted by second-order reward rather than by punishment. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2008;95:826. doi: 10.1037/a0011381. PubMed DOI
Eriksson K, Andersson PA, Strimling P. Moderators of the disapproval of peer punishment. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 2016;19:152–168. doi: 10.1177/1368430215583519. DOI
Brauer M, Chaurand N. Descriptive norms, prescriptive norms, and social control: an intercultural comparison of people’s reactions to uncivil behaviors. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2010;40:490–499.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 3rd edn (McGraw-Hill, 2010).
Murray DR, Schaller M. Historical prevalence of infectious diseases within 230 geopolitical regions: a tool for investigating origins of culture. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2010;41:99–108. doi: 10.1177/0022022109349510. DOI
World Economic Forum. Global Gender Gap Report 2020 (2020).
Phelps, G. & Crabtree, S. Worldwide, median household income about $10,000. Galluphttps://news.gallup.com/poll/166211/worldwide-median-household-income-000.aspx (2013).
Roos P, Gelfand M, Nau D, Lun J. Societal threat and cultural variation in the strength of social norms: an evolutionary basis. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2015;129:14–23. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.01.003. DOI
Murray DR, Trudeau R, Schaller M. On the origins of cultural differences in conformity: four tests of the pathogen prevalence hypothesis. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2011;37:318–329. doi: 10.1177/0146167210394451. PubMed DOI
Inglehart, R. Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies (Princeton University Press, 1997).
Eriksson K, Cownden D, Ehn M, Strimling P. ‘Altruistic’and ‘antisocial’punishers are one and the same. Rev. Behav. Econ. 2014;1:209–221. doi: 10.1561/105.00000009. DOI
Boyd R, Gintis H, Bowles S, Richerson PJ. The evolution of altruistic punishment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2003;100:3531–3535. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0630443100. PubMed DOI PMC
Barclay P. Reputational benefits for altruistic punishment. Evol. Hum. Behav. 2006;27:325–344. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.01.003. DOI
Jordan JJ, Hoffman M, Bloom P, Rand DG. Third-party punishment as a costly signal of trustworthiness. Nature. 2016;530:473–476. doi: 10.1038/nature16981. PubMed DOI
Weber TO, Weisel O, Gächter S. Dispositional free riders do not free ride on punishment. Nat. Commun. 2018;9:1–9. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-02088-w. PubMed DOI PMC
Inglehart, R., Norris, P. & Ronald, I. Rising Tide: Gender Equality and Cultural Change Around the World (Cambridge University Press, 2003).
Wu J, Balliet D, Van Lange PA. Gossip versus punishment: the efficiency of reputation to promote and maintain cooperation. Sci. Rep. 2016;6:23919. doi: 10.1038/srep23919. PubMed DOI PMC
Yamagishi T, Yamagishi M. Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan. Motiv. Emot. 1994;18:129–166. doi: 10.1007/BF02249397. DOI
Demerath L, Korotayev AV. The importance of gossip across societies: correlations with institutionalization. Cross-Cult. Res. 2015;49:297–314. doi: 10.1177/1069397114554383. DOI
Taras V, Steel P, Kirkman BL. Improving national cultural indices using a longitudinal meta-analysis of Hofstede’s dimensions. J. World Bus. 2012;47:329–341. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2011.05.001. DOI
Changes in social norms during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic across 43 countries
