Norm enforcement or help? A field experiment on the role of group membership in behavior towards free-riders in public transport

Cooperation in society is often regulated by social norms prescribing how people should behave. However, with every cooperative norm there are always some individuals violating the norm. For example, although most people think it is appropriate to pay for their use of public transport and do so, there are also some individuals who free-ride. Two strands of research have examined how people react to such norm violators. The first strand examined reactions that uphold the norm, i.e., norm enforcement. For example, individuals may verbally disapprove of individuals that enter a train or bus without checking in. The second strand of research examined how people that observe norm violations may be more likely to engage in norm-violating behaviors themselves. For example, individuals may help free-riders in public transport by alerting them when conductor is nearby. So far, these two opposing types of reactions have been studied separately. We have little understanding of the factors that cause individuals to be more or less likely to respond to norm violators with behaviors that either uphold the norm or help the norm violators. In this study, we examine the role of the norm violator’s group membership. Group membership plays a role in how people interpret the intentions behind others’ behaviors, including others’ norm violations. Intergroup attribution theory suggests that people are more likely to assume good reasons for ingroup members’ norm violations and ill intentions for outgroup members’ norm violations. For example, when observing a free-rider in public transport, people may be more likely to think the norm violator forgot to pay if the violator belongs to their ingroup, whereas they may be more likely to think the violator was unwilling to pay when the violator belongs to an outgroup. These attributions can shape how people will react to the norm violator; if they assume good intentions, they are more likely to help the norm violator. If they assume bad intentions, they may be more likely to disapprove of the norm violator. Intergroup attribution biases may thus drive reactions to norm violators, with more leniency towards ingroup norm violators than outgroup norm violators.