Search

As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes increasingly integrated into our lives, the need for new norms is urgent. However, AI evolves at a much faster pace than the characteristic time of norm formation, posing an unprecedented challenge to our societies. This paper examines possible criticalities of the processes of norm formation surrounding AI. It focuses on how new norms can be established, rather than on what these norms should be. It distinguishes different scenarios based on the centralization or decentralization of the norm formation process, analysing the cases where new norms are shaped by formal authorities or informal institutions, or emerge spontaneously in a bottom-up fashion. On the latter point, the paper reports a conversation with ChatGPT in which the LLM discusses some of the emerging norms it has observed. Far from seeking exhaustiveness, this article aims to offer readers interpretive tools to frame society's response to the growing pervasiveness of AI. An outlook on how AI could influence the formation of future social norms emphasizes the importance for open societies to anchor their formal deliberation process in an open, inclusive and transparent public discourse. This article is part of the theme issue 'Social norm change: drivers and consequences'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Addressing collective action problems requires individuals to engage in coordinated and cooperative behaviours. Existing research suggests that individuals' propensity to work together depends in part on their belief that others support the cause in question. People form their expectations about prevalent beliefs and behaviours from many sources. To date, most of the literature has focussed on how social norm perceptions are inferred from peers or summary statistics. We explore an understudied source of norm information: the passage of policies by democratically elected institutions. Institutional signals, such as the setting of defaults, national laws or policies, can act as coordination devices, signalling or prescribing social norms to large audiences. However, their expressive function is likely to depend on whether the institution is seen as accountable to the public. In two highly powered, pre-registered experiments (N = 11 636), we examine the role of policy signals as a source of social norm information. In Study 1, Americans randomly assigned to learn that their state passed a 100% renewable energy mandate believe that a greater percentage of their state's residents support such a mandate. In Study 2, we replicate this effect for national policy and show that the influence is moderated by information about whether the government represents the will of the people. This article is part of the theme issue 'Social norm change: drivers and consequences'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous studies have used various normative expressions such as 'should', 'appropriate' and 'approved' interchangeably to communicate injunctions and social norms. However, little is known about whether people's interpretations of normative language differ and whether behavioural responses might vary across them. In two studies (total n = 2903), we find that compliance is sensitive to the types of normative expressions and how they are used. Specifically, people are more likely to comply when the message is framed as an injunction rather than as what most people consider good behaviour (social norm framing). Behaviour is influenced by the type of normative expression when the norm is weak (donation to charities), not so when the norm is strong (reciprocity). Content analysis of free responses reveals individual differences in the interpretation of social norm messages, and heterogeneous motives for compliance. Messages in the social norm framing condition are perceived to be vague and uninformative, undermining their effectiveness. These results suggest that careful choice of normative expressions is in order when using messages to elicit compliance, especially when the underlying norms are weak. This article is part of the theme issue 'Social norm change: drivers and consequences'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Applied cultural evolution includes any effort to mobilize social learning and cultural evolution to promote behaviour change. Social tipping is one version of this idea based on conformity and coordination. Conformity and coordination can reinforce a harmful social norm, but they can also accelerate change from a harmful norm to a beneficial alternative. Perhaps unfortunately, the link between the size of an intervention and social tipping is complex in heterogeneous populations. A small intervention targeted at one segment of society can induce tipping better than a large intervention targeted at a different segment. We develop and examine two models showing that the link between social tipping and social welfare is also complex in heterogeneous populations. An intervention strategy that creates persistent miscoordination, exactly the opposite of tipping, can lead to higher social welfare than another strategy that leads to tipping. We show that the potential benefits of miscoordination often hinge specifically on the preferences of people most resistant to behaviour change. Altogether, ordinary forms of heterogeneity complicate applied cultural evolution considerably. Heterogeneity weakens both the link between the size of a social planner's intervention and behaviour change and the link between behaviour change and the well-being of society. This article is part of the theme issue 'Social norm change: drivers and consequences'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Across human societies, people are sometimes willing to punish norm violators. Such punishment can take the form of revenge from victims, seemingly altruistic intervention from third parties, or legitimized sanctioning from institutional representatives. Although prior work has documented cross-cultural regularities in norm enforcement, substantial variation exists in the prevalence and forms of punishment across societies. Such cross-societal variation may arise from universal psychological mechanisms responding to different socio-ecological conditions, or from cultural evolutionary processes, resulting in different norm enforcement systems. To date, empirical evidence from comparative studies across diverse societies has remained disconnected, owing to a lack of interdisciplinary integration and a prevalent tendency of empirical studies to focus on different underpinnings of variation in norm enforcement. To provide a more complete view of the shared and unique aspects of punishment across societies, we review prior research in anthropology, economics and psychology, and take a first step towards integrating the plethora of socio-ecological and cultural factors proposed to explain cross-societal variation in norm enforcement. We conclude by discussing how future cross-societal research can use diverse methodologies to illuminate key questions on the domain-specificity of punishment, the diversity of tactics supporting social norms, and their role in processes of norm change. This article is part of the theme issue 'Social norm change: drivers and consequences'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Global challenges like the climate crisis and pandemic outbreaks require collective responses where people quickly adapt to changing circumstances. Social norms are potential solutions, but only if they themselves are flexible enough. The COVID-19 pandemic provided a unique opportunity to study norm formation and decay in real-world contexts. We tracked empirical and normative expectations about social distancing and empirical and normative expectations of sanctioning from June 2021 to February 2022 to explore how norms and meta norms evolved as COVID-19 risk decreased and increased. We found that norms and meta norms partially coevolve with risk dynamics, although they recover with some delay. This implies that norms should be enforced as soon as risk increases. We therefore tested how sanctioning intentions vary for different hypothetical norms and find them to increase with a clear meta norm of sanctioning, yet decrease with a clear social norm of distance. In conclusion, social norms evolve spontaneously with changing risk, but might not be adaptive enough when the lack of meta norms of sanctioning introduce tolerance for norm violations. Moreover, norm nudges can potentially have negative externalities if strengthening the social norm increases tolerance for norm violations. These results put some limits to social norms as solutions to guide behaviour under risk. This article is part of the theme issue 'Social norm change: drivers and consequences'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The USA is fast becoming a 'majority–minority' country in which Whites will no longer comprise the numerically dominant racial group. Prior studies have linked Whites' status decline to heightened in-group solidarity and the feeling that Whites, as a group, face growing discrimination. In the light of these findings, we examine the extent to which a social norm controlling anti-White prejudice is now discernible in the USA. Drawing from an original survey measuring Americans' reactions to racially-offensive speech, we examine second-order beliefs about the social inappropriateness of offensive statements targeting White Americans. We find that White Americans (in comparison to non-Whites) are indeed more likely to profess a social norm governing anti-white prejudice. The pattern is most discernible among white Republicans whom we expect to be most fearful of demographic change. This article is part of the theme issue 'Social norm change: drivers and consequences'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We review theoretical approaches for modelling the origin, persistence and change of social norms. The most comprehensive models describe the coevolution of behaviours, personal, descriptive and injunctive norms while considering influences of various authorities and accounting for cognitive processes and between-individual differences. Models show that social norms can improve individual and group well-being. Under some conditions though, deleterious norms can persist in the population through conformity, preference falsification and pluralistic ignorance. Polarization in behaviour and beliefs can be maintained, even when societal advantages of particular behaviours or belief systems over alternatives are clear. Attempts to change social norms can backfire through cognitive processes including cognitive dissonance and psychological reactance. Under some conditions social norms can change rapidly via tipping point dynamics. Norms can be highly susceptible to manipulation, and network structure influences their propagation. Future models should incorporate network structure more thoroughly, explicitly study online norms, consider cultural variations and be applied to real-world processes. This article is part of the theme issue 'Social norm change: drivers and consequences'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social norms research is booming. In recent years, several experts have recommended using social norms (unwritten rules that prescribe what people ought or ought not to do) to confront the societal, environmental and health challenges our societies face. If we are to do so, a better understanding is required of how social norms themselves emerge, evolve and respond to these challenges. Social norms have long been used as post hoc explanations of behaviour or are seen as stable social constructs. Yet norms evolve dynamically with the changing group processes (e.g. political polarization, kinship structures) and societal challenges (e.g. pandemics, climate change) for which they are presented as solutions. The Theme Issue 'Social norm change: drivers and consequences' contains 14 contributions that present state-of-the-art approaches to understand what generates social norm change and how this impacts our societies. Contributions give insight into (i) the identification of norms, norm change and their effect on behaviour; (ii) drivers and consequences of spontaneous norm change; and (iii) how norm change can be engineered to promote desired behavioural change. This article is part of the theme issue 'Social norm change: drivers and consequences'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]