Editing Social norm (section)

== Types ==
There is no clear consensus on how the term norm should be used.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Hechter|first1=Michael|title=Social Norms|last2=Opp|first2=Karl-Dieter|date=2001|publisher=Russell Sage Foundation|isbn=978-1-61044-280-0}}{{page needed|date=July 2020}}</ref>

[[Martha Finnemore]] and [[Kathryn Sikkink]] distinguish between three types of norms:<ref name=":1" />

# '''Regulative norms''': they "order and constrain behavior"
# '''Constitutive norms''': they "create new actors, interests, or categories of action"
# '''Evaluative and prescriptive norms''': they have an "oughtness" quality to them

Finnemore, Sikkink, [[Jeffrey W. Legro]] and others have argued that the robustness (or effectiveness) of norms can be measured by factors such as:
* The '''specificity''' of the norm: norms that are clear and specific are more likely to be effective<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" />
* The '''longevity''' of the norm: norms with a history are more likely to be effective<ref name=":1" />
* The '''universality''' of the norm: norms that make general claims (rather than localized and particularistic claims) are more likely to be effective<ref name=":1" />
* The '''prominence''' of the norm: norms that are widely accepted among powerful actors are more likely to be effective<ref name=":2" />
Christina Horne argues that the robustness of a norm is shaped by the degree of support for the actors who sanction deviant behaviors; she refers to norms regulating how to enforce norms as "metanorms."<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Horne|first=Christine|date=2009|title=A Social Norms Approach to Legitimacy|url=https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764209338799|journal=American Behavioral Scientist|language=en|volume=53|issue=3|pages=400–415|doi=10.1177/0002764209338799|s2cid=144726807|issn=0002-7642}}</ref> According to [[Beth A. Simmons|Beth G. Simmons]] and Hyeran Jo, diversity of support for a norm can be a strong indicator of robustness.<ref name=":4">{{Cite journal|last1=Simmons|first1=Beth A|last2=Jo|first2=Hyeran|date=2019|title=Measuring Norms and Normative Contestation: The Case of International Criminal Law|url=https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogy043|journal=Journal of Global Security Studies|volume=4|issue=1|pages=18–36|doi=10.1093/jogss/ogy043|issn=2057-3170}}</ref> They add that institutionalization of a norm raises its robustness.<ref name=":4" /> It has also been posited that norms that exist within broader clusters of distinct but mutually reinforcing norms may be more robust.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Lantis|first1=Jeffrey S.|last2=Wunderlich|first2=Carmen|date=2018|title=Resiliency dynamics of norm clusters: Norm contestation and international cooperation|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/review-of-international-studies/article/abs/resiliency-dynamics-of-norm-clusters-norm-contestation-and-international-cooperation/0EC3EFFA953F144859EC48C95E27A07F|journal=Review of International Studies|language=en|volume=44|issue=3|pages=570–593|doi=10.1017/S0260210517000626|s2cid=148853481|issn=0260-2105|access-date=2021-05-23|archive-date=2021-05-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210523214036/https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/review-of-international-studies/article/abs/resiliency-dynamics-of-norm-clusters-norm-contestation-and-international-cooperation/0EC3EFFA953F144859EC48C95E27A07F|url-status=live}}</ref>

[[Jeffrey Checkel]] argues that there are two common types of explanations for the efficacy of norms:<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Checkel|first=Jeffrey T.|date=2001|title=Why Comply? Social Learning and European Identity Change|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3078657|journal=International Organization|volume=55|issue=3|pages=553–588|doi=10.1162/00208180152507551|jstor=3078657|s2cid=143511229|issn=0020-8183|access-date=2021-04-17|archive-date=2021-08-08|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210808215937/https://www.jstor.org/stable/3078657|url-status=live}}</ref>
* [[Rationalism]]: actors comply with norms due to coercion, cost-benefit calculations, and material incentives
* [[Constructivism (philosophy of science)|Constructivism]]: actors comply with norms due to social learning and socialization
According to Peyton Young, mechanisms that support normative behavior include:<ref name=":8" />
* [[Coordination game|Coordination]]
* [[Peer pressure|Social pressure]]
* [[Signalling (economics)|Signaling]]
* [[Focal point (game theory)|Focal points]]

===Descriptive versus injunctive===
Descriptive norms depict what happens, while injunctive norms describe what ''should'' happen. Cialdini, Reno, and Kallgren (1990) define a descriptive norm as people's perceptions of what is commonly done in specific situations; it signifies what most people do, without assigning judgment. The absence of trash on the ground in a parking lot, for example, transmits the descriptive norm that most people there do not [[litter]].<ref name="cialdini 1990" /><ref name="cialdini 2007">{{cite journal | last1 = Cialdini | first1 = R | year = 2007 | title = Descriptive social norms as underappreciated sources of social control | journal = Psychometrika | volume = 72 | issue = 2| pages = 263–268 | doi=10.1007/s11336-006-1560-6| s2cid = 121708702 }}</ref> An Injunctive norm, on the other hand, transmits group approval about a particular behavior; it dictates how an individual ''should'' behave.<ref name="cialdini 1990" /><ref name="cialdini 2007" /><ref name="schultz">{{cite journal | last1 = Schultz | first1 = Nolan | last2 = Cialdini | first2 = Goldstein | last3 = Griskevicius | year = 2007 | title = The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms | url =http://csusm-dspace.calstate.edu/bitstream/10211.3/199684/1/Schultz200718.pdf | journal = Psychological Science | volume = 18 | issue = 5| pages = 429–434 | doi=10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01917.x| pmid = 17576283 | hdl = 10211.3/199684 | s2cid = 19200458 | hdl-access = free }}</ref><ref name="rivis">Rivis, Amanda, Sheeran, Paschal. "Descriptive Norms as an Additional Predictor in the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A Meta-Analysis". 2003</ref> Watching another person pick up trash off the ground and throw it out, a group member may pick up on the injunctive norm that he ought to not litter.

===Prescriptive and proscriptive norms===
Prescriptive norms are unwritten rules that are understood and followed by society and indicate what we should do.<ref name="wilson">{{cite journal | last1 = Wilson | first1 = K.L. | last2 = Lizzio | first2 = A.J. | last3 = Zauner | first3 = S. | last4 = Gallois | first4 = C. | year = 2001| title = Social rules for managing attempted interpersonal domination in the workplace: Influence of status and gender | journal = Sex Roles | volume = 44 | issue = 3/4| pages = 129–154 | doi=10.1023/a:1010998802612| s2cid = 142800037 }}</ref> Expressing gratitude or writing a Thank You card when someone gives you a gift represents a prescriptive norm in American culture. Proscriptive norms, in contrast, comprise the other end of the same spectrum; they are similarly society's unwritten rules about what one should not do.<ref name="wilson" /> These norms can vary between cultures; while kissing someone you just met on the cheek is an acceptable greeting in some European countries, this is not acceptable, and thus represents a proscriptive norm in the United States.

===Subjective norms===
Subjective norms are determined by beliefs about the extent to which important others want a person to perform a behavior.When combined with attitude toward behavior, subjective norms shape an individual's intentions.<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/44961884 |title=Attitudes, behavior, and social context : the role of norms and group membership |date=2000 |publisher=L. Erlbaum Associates |editor-first1=Deborah J. |editor-last1=Terry |editor-first2=Michael A. |editor-last2=Hogg |isbn=0-585-17974-3 |location=Mahwah, N.J. |oclc=44961884}}</ref> Social influences are conceptualized in terms of the pressure that people perceive from important others to perform, or not to perform, a behavior.<ref name="rivis" /> Social Psychologist Icek Azjen theorized that subjective norms are determined by the strength of a given normative belief and further weighted by the significance of a social referent, as represented in the following equation: SN ∝ Σ''n<sub>i</sub>m<sub>i ,</sub>'' where (n) is a normative belief and (m) is the motivation to comply with said belief.<ref name=":02">{{Cite journal |date=1991 |title=Author index for volume 50 |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90029-s |journal=Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes |volume=50 |issue=2 |pages=411 |doi=10.1016/0749-5978(91)90029-s |issn=0749-5978}}</ref>