norm violation assignment ideas

Skip to primary navigation
Skip to main content
Skip to primary sidebar
Skip to footer

Social Mettle

A List of Quirky Ideas for Social Norm Breaching Experiments

Suppose there is a game in which you are not allowed to say 'yes' or 'no', and have to answer only with another question. Using up the entire range of 'wh-questions', you can think of how entertaining this game can get. Social norm breaching is nothing different than this.

Suppose there is a game in which you are not allowed to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’, and have to answer only with another question. Using up the entire range of ‘wh-questions’, you can think of how entertaining this game can get. Social norm breaching is nothing different than this.

No Suggestions Implied! While a Superman costume flaunting an underwear is taken well, someone wearing undergarments over normal clothes (that too at a fancy dress party) becomes an act of breach! Unfair, isn’t it!

Eating with your hands while dining at a fancy restaurant, wearing your bathrobe to college one day, sending a reply via email when someone had called you on your cell phone, or talking to a stranger by getting very close to him/her, and such similar deeds are ones that a normal human being would usually avoid doing.

If you have tried any of these, you can be called a researcher who was engaged in studying social norm breaching experiments. Such kind acts of nonsense, which you may call bizarre, are not solely meant for entertainment purposes. This testing of socially accepted rules are mainly a part of the fields of sociology and social psychology. Yes, academics can get very interesting at times!

What are Breaching Experiments in Sociology?

Breaching experiments try to study the reactions of people when a social norm is broken or violated.

There are some unwritten rules that all of us follow in our day-to-day conduct. How one would (rather should) behave in a given situation is predefined and based on a lot of assumptions. These experiments try to break these ‘taken for granted’ social norms. Reactions of others to such tricks are also fun to look at. This concept is associated with the ethnomethodology theory of sociology , put forth by Harold Garfinkel.

An unexpected behavior or comment leaves the respondent completely puzzled, making the experiment successful. The approach behind such experiments highlights that, people continue to make a number of such rules everyday, and do not even realize it.

Experiment Ideas

Clearly, a breaching experiment is like asking for trouble. When the action is troublesome, it makes it visible that practices leading to social stability are so much ingrained into our minds. Breaching of norms has to be a deliberate act though; it is not an issue of conflicting opinions leading to disobedience of a given norm. You can try troubling others with the following ideas.

– To a casual question like ‘what’s up?’, you can say ‘the sky’. ‘How’s it going?’ can be replied to in an exhilarating manner, like ‘I didn’t see any ‘it’ going’. When people are not really interested in knowing about you, and they still ask those questions, you may actually stop them and really explain to them some random event going on in your life. (Be very sure about who you want to experiment with this though!)

Group of girl friends laughing at the dining table

– Some tests that college students were asked to take, involved behaving like a stranger or renter in one’s home. Talking only when asked about something, or being very polite, are some things their parents reacted to quite strongly.

– In the tic-tac-toe game, ask a person to play first. When he/she places an ‘X’ in a square, you place an ‘O’ on a line forming the matrix, and not in any square space. That person might get confused, or would exclaim, “Have you gone crazy?” Behaving according to the established practices of following given rules is so important here, even if it is a game. This exemplifies an established social order.

– At a decently crowded public place, get one of your friends to stand opposite you. You act like both of you are talking about something important. Then, act as if the both of you are holding a very thin and delicate cotton string in your fingertips, each one of you holding one end of it. Now, start to move away, very slowly, so that people feel that you are holding something very precious. Shout out words like, ‘easy’, ‘be careful’, or ‘watch out’. You may find a few people actually believing you and ducking while they pass through. Someone might even go around you, so as to not break that string. You would notice, it is very easy to create social norms.

Experiment Examples

Here are some examples of interpersonal conversations, mentioned in ethnomethodology literature as case studies of experimentation given by Garfinkel. These have been sourced from books like ‘Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology’ by John Heritage, and ‘Sociology in Perspective’ by Mark Kirby.

– The subject was telling the experimenter―a member of the subject’s car pool―about having had a flat tire while going to work the previous day.

S : I had a flat tire. E : What do you mean, you had a flat tire? She appeared momentarily stunned. Then she answered in a hostile way: ‘What do you mean? What do you mean? A flat tire is a flat tire. That is what I a meant. Nothing special. What a crazy question!’

– By asking ‘What do you mean?’, as a response to every statement, students were asked to continue the conversation.

S : Hi, Ray. How is your girlfriend feeling? E : What do you mean ‘How is she feeling?’. Do you mean physically or mentally? S : I mean how is she feeling? What’s the matter with you? (He looked peeved.) E : Nothing. Just explain a little clearer as to what you mean. S : Skip it. How are your Med School applications coming? E : What do you mean ‘How are they going?’ S : You know what I mean. E : I really don’t. S : What’s the matter with you? Are you sick?

– On Friday night, my husband and I were watching television. He remarked that he was tired. I asked, ‘How are you tired? Physically, mentally, or just bored?’

S : I don’t know, I guess physically, mainly. E : You mean that your muscles ache, or your bones? S : I guess so. Don’t be so technical. (After more watching) S : All these old movies have the same kind of old iron bedstead in them. E : What do you mean? Do you mean all old movies, or some of them, or just the ones you have seen? S : What’s the matter with you? You know what I mean. E : I wish you would be more specific. S : You know what I mean! Drop dead!

– The victim waived his hand cheerily.

S : How are you? E : How am I in regard to what? My health, my finance, my school work, my peace of mind, my … S : (Red in the face and suddenly out of control.) Look! I was just trying to be polite! Frankly, I don’t give a damn how you are.

The results from these cases proved that the experimenters could successfully break the norms. It was possible because of the fact that, any given conversation (or communication) takes place smoothly, ‘assuming the background knowledge’, which helps two people make sense of what the other means.

Well, if you’ve got the point now, you can be real ‘innovative and original’ with this act of breaching. Oh, but just be sure that you don’t mess with the wrong people at the wrong time.

Like it? Share it!

Get Updates Right to Your Inbox

Further insights.

Privacy Overview

--> --> , --> --> '; } else { document.getElementById("sessionDropdown").innerHTML = ' '; } --> --> -->

To explore the power of social norms, you are invited to complete this participant-observation assignment.

As mentioned in the textbook, norms are prescriptions for accepted or expected behaviors. Your assignment is to violate one of the five norms listed below:

Psychology Headlines

From around the world.

Scientific American Endorses Kamala Harris for President
Vaping May Harm College Students' Brains, Experts Warn
Asthma Inhalers Contribute to Climate Change, Study Shows
TV Star Wears Red Palm Print on Face at Emmys to Protest Violence
High Doses of ADHD Meds May Trigger Psychosis, Study Suggests
Florida School District Must Restore Books with LGBTQ+ Content
Tech Companies Commit to Fighting Harmful AI Sexual Imagery
Long Before Same-Sex Marriage Was Popular, Kamala Harris Embraced It

Source: Psychology News Center

Ideas for Breaching Experiments

A breaching experiment goes outside our ideas of social norms specifically to see how people will react to the violation of the arbitrary rules of a given situation. These experimental forays arise from the idea that people create social norms themselves without any awareness that they do so and that most individuals need to be shocked out of their ideas of normality to have any meaningful interactions.

Breaching with Figuratives

An example of "breaching" experimentally is to talk with an acquaintance and interpret his figurative usages literally, to explore the idea that we overuse figurative language to the point where interpretation becomes absurd. Your friend begins with "What's up?" and you reply "The sky." He may end the experimental conversation by saying "You trippin'!" Point out that you're standing and well-balanced, in no danger of tripping. Your friend's attempts to "normalize" the conversation throw light on how he responds to other situations that may puzzle his sense of social normality.

Article continues below this ad

More For You

How does john proctor's great dilemma change during the course of the play "the crucible", examples of tone in "thanatopsis", what is the tone of irving's short story "the legend of sleepy hollow", how does connell use suspense in "the most dangerous game", what should the conclusion do in a reflective essay, the talk-line experiment.

When we converse, we also create imaginary barriers, our force fields of comfort we call "personal space." An interesting breach of this is the talk-line. Enlist a compatriot to converse with in a hallway. As the two of you talk, move further away from each other so that you're at least 4 feet apart but keep your eye contact and conversation going. Notice how many people actually "duck" as they go between you as if your conversation has created an actual barrier. Again, they attempt to normalize the situation and re-establish boundaries that social convention has dictated.

Restaurants and Carlinisms

Sometimes social norms breach themselves. Eating with hands in a fancy restaurant used to be forbidden, but it's become more trendy with the introduction of different cultural norms. You still can breach restaurant etiquette experimentally. George Carlin, in "Brain Droppings," recommends asking a waiter if the garnish is free, then ordering a large plate of garnish. If you were to try this experiment, the waiter's response, and perhaps your own discomfort in placing the order, would reveal the predispositions you both have, that you must "set" normality in trivial situations, following norms simply because you believe they exist.

Garfinkle's Classics

Harold Garfinkle, the ethnomethodologist who pioneered breach experimentation, established experiments that invaded both home and business norms. He sent students back to their parental homes to act as renters and into businesses to mistake customers for salesmen. These actions, Garfinkle felt, brought to light automatic responses and the reinforcement of agreed social boundaries.

Dictionary.com: Breaching
Cengage.com: Choose Your Words: Figurative Language
The New York Times: Dining and Wine: Mind Your Manners: Eat with Your Hands
Brain Droppings (1st ed. 1997); George Carlin
Sociology Guide: Harold Garfinkle
The Social Experiment: Soc. 326: Contemporary Theory: Harold Garfinkel - Ethnomethodology and Breaching Experiment
Sniggle.net: Breaching Experiments
Wired Cosmos: Sociology in Action: The Breaching Experiment
ERIC: Making Sociology Relevant: The Assignment and Application of Breaching Experiments

Michael Stratford is a National Board-certified and Single Subject Credentialed teacher with a Master of Science in educational rehabilitation (University of Montana, 1995). He has taught English at the 6-12 level for more than 20 years. He has written extensively in literary criticism, student writing syllabi and numerous classroom educational paradigms.

For Instructors
About SocImages
Submitting Guest Posts

Norm Breaching: Social Responses to Mild Deviance

Redlark — May 18, 2012

It might be interesting to explore how different "norms" are experienced by different people. As a queer woman, here are thoughts on the three norms given above:

1. I've been socialized not to rock the boat, so I feel pressure to race over the door even if it's a nuisance. More importantly, I am now hyperaware of gender - because I assume that a man ostentatiously holding a door for me (if I'm not on crutches or carrying a giant box) is doing it out of gendered "chivalry". This reminds me that as a butch queer woman I am unattractive to straight dudes and often encounter resentment, hostility and ostentatious "gendering" (ie, some dude stares at my breasts really obviously or calls me "honey" in a sarcastic way to remind me that I may "think I'm a man" or think I don't have to look fuckable, but I'm still subject to his gaze ). In general, when a man holds a door for me unnecessarily (when we're both physically capable and fairly young, when I'm not carrying anything, when I am not so close to the door that to fail to hold it would mean to let is slam in my face), I get stressed and upset because I have to stop thinking of myself as "person walking around" and have to start thinking of myself as "person performing femininity and being evaluated by men".

I would argue that this is very different from how a man, a person in a wheelchair, a trans person, etc etc etc, would experience these "norms". The norms are shared, but everyone feels differently about the behavior that the norms generate.

2. To continue, as a butch queer woman, I have been shoved and body-checked by men at random on the sidewalk - or rather "off the sidewalk" - sometimes when there is a group of men taking up the whole sidewalk who do not want to share the sidewalk and sometimes out of what I assume is pure hostility. A man walking close to me and getting in the way makes me nervous because it can be the prelude to an unpleasant, homophobic encounter.

3. And of course, being stared at is experienced in different ways depending on who you are, even though it's always weird and uncomfortable.

D Traver Adolphus — May 18, 2012

I do that all the time. I didn't realize I was a deviant.

Leslee Bottomley Beldotti — May 18, 2012

I conducted my own experiments like this, year ago, when I lived in Chicago.

The most interesting one involved me refusing to look away first whenever I made random eye contact with a male stranger in public. The "norm" is that as a woman, I should always look away first.

The reaction I got depended greatly upon age and race. White men, especially if they were obviously younger than me, would become visibly nervous and look away first. Older white men would attempt to maintain the gaze a bit longer, but would usually relent and look away with some apparent discomfort. Black men, (unless they were teenagers or younger) seemed to perceive my unwillingness to look away first as some type of nonverbal challenge, or even as a sexual advance!

In case you're curious... women, regardless of age or race, would always look away first with little or no hesitation.

I didn't get the opportunity to test this on people of other races beyond black and caucasian.

Marie — May 18, 2012

Reminds me of Mormon humor. Polite, inoffensive, fun for all ages. Not particularly insightful. I'm learning more from the comments.

astrocomfy — May 18, 2012

I guess I thought the norm breaking in the video was that he was holding the door for people who were REALLY far away. What kind of people are you if you slam doors in people's faces if they're right behind you (people of either sex, btw)? But this guy was just holding doors for anyone, especially those that still had quite a distance to travel. And that is what made it awkward and uncomfortable, not that he was holding the door.

Roger Braun — May 18, 2012

This feels like one of the "Well, D'uh!" posts that I don't really like. What is this experiment supposed to tell us? Of course people react irritated when you are irritating. Most of these videos seem like autistic or even psychopathic behavior, so it's easy to imagine how people would react.

The Gaze and Mild Norm Breaching | Hourclass — May 18, 2012

[...] via Sociological Images Norm Breaching. [...]

Janether — May 18, 2012

I had a similar assignment in class, and I chose to trim my toenails in the dining area in my college and while I was watching a musical performed by the college students.

Lunad — May 19, 2012

I actually got into the habit of holding the door for people that are too far away when I was in college and most of the doors were locked, where it was considered a faux pas to close a door behind you when you clearly could have seen that someone was coming. Now I can't break the habit...

Legolewdite — May 19, 2012

Re: the stare - It's my understanding that the gaze contains power (Mulvey worked with this idea extensively...), and that those who see are considered more powerful than those merely seen. So in this culture where power so often exists in the form of an abusive relationship, it's no surprise to me that people become so anxious when this particular norm is transgressed...

Tusconian — May 19, 2012

I think a better discussion would not be people's reactions to deviant behavior, but WHY these behaviors are deviant. People like to chalk things like this up to "people just hate it when other people are nice" or "people overreact to the littlest things like being looked at," but that completely separates the "deviant" behavior from the context it's usually present in when these behaviors come up naturally as opposed to someone doing an experiment. As for being stared at, people usually "stare" (not just look or glance, but stare) for one of 3 reasons: your appearance somehow offends them, they're checking you out, or they're trying to take a peek at whatever you're doing. ALL of those are invasive, uncomfortable feelings. I don't want someone sitting there making me feel like an outcast for whatever I'd done to "look wrong," I don't want some creep ogling me, and I don't want anyone looking over my shoulder at my phone/computer/book/whatever. As for "getting in my way" that bothers and annoys me because obviously, I've got someplace to be. If I'm going to work or class or to meet someone, I don't like being impeded. I'm sure the woman with the double stroller would be even more irritated, because she has to navigate an SUV sized barge with toddlers in it around who she perceives as some doof who isn't paying attention. Having someone walk so close that you'd need to move off the sidewalk is just rude. Intentional or not, it screams "I'm more important and more worthy of this sidewalk than you are!" Holding the door is a little more hard to pin down, because it could just as easily be someone who misjudged distance. But, how often do you go online and see self-proclaimed nice guys acting like they deserve fanfare for simply not slamming a door in a woman's face, and blaming feminism for some completely fabricated story where a women screamed at him for being polite. Guys who hold doors for me at inappropriate times just as often as not do it in a dramatic way, with an ear to ear grin and maybe even a flourish ("after YOU, milady!"). It reads not as "look, I have enough social awareness not to be rude to you," but as "look at ME, I am not like those OTHER guys who disrespect woman and forgot chivalry! I hold DOORS and treat women like the delicate flowers on pedestals that they are! Where is my trophy?" Again, it is just as often someone goofing up and misjudging distance, but when it is often enough beyond simple manners, but showing off, it's suspicious.

Norms are sometimes completely fabricated, but just because something is a norm and sometimes norms are silly or oppressive doesn't mean norms in and of themselves are silly or oppressive. They should be questioned, but I don't know that this guy is questioning the right norms. He just seems like he's harassing people because it's funny to make them uncomfortable, without really considering WHY they're uncomfortable.

Barney — May 19, 2012

What we can't tell from the videos is how much people are made uncomfortable by the fact that norms are being broken, and how much these norms come about because there are other reasons that the norm-breaking behaviours make people uncomfortable.

Resources and Ideas « Q — August 3, 2016

[…] Aug3 by mstrongheart Norm Breaching: Social Responses to Mild Deviance […]

About Sociological Images

Sociological Images encourages people to exercise and develop their sociological imaginations with discussions of compelling visuals that span the breadth of sociological inquiry. Read more…

Posts by Topic

Subscribe by email.

CC Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike

Break a Norm Project

March 9, 2022
No Comments
Project-Based Learning , sociology

Do you ever get bored of going through the same cycle each week? Outside of work, this often looks like doing laundry and grocery shopping. Honestly, this is no way to relax on the weekend, but there is no other time to do these tasks. Thus, time outside of work is often restful but not very exciting. Sadly, this is also how many students feel in school. For them, it means following a carefully dictated schedule. Upon entering class, it means sitting in a specific spot, raising a hand to talk, and following a teacher’s request. Students follow the norms because of set expectations. The majority of students do not want to break the rules or upset authority figures. Thus, understanding a unit on crime and deviance can be challenging. To help appropriately allow students to experience the content, the Break a Norm Project will be perfect to use!

Break a Norm Project

It is fantastic to have a classroom full of students who want to do well academically and follow the rules. Honestly, this makes the lives of teachers easier. However, this aspect can cause students to struggle to understand crime and deviance in Sociology class. Now, no teacher wants to force students to start breaking laws and purposely get into trouble. Additionally, no teacher wants to encourage students to act out. However, there are creative ways to help students relate to the content!

The Break a Norm project is highly engaging! Honestly, it will be a project students always remember. The purchase includes the assignment, examples, and a rubric for easy grading. Students will see creative ways to break a norm without violating real law by looking at the examples. For instance, this may be skipping instead of walking or sitting at a teacher’s desk in the middle of a lesson. Ultimately, students will break a norm but do so legally.

Project Components

The Break a Norm Project includes five components. First, students write a statement of the problem, defining the norm they plan to violate and how it acts as a mechanism of social control. Then, students will explain why they are breaking the norm. Second, they will write a hypothesis. They will describe the range of reactions that others will have due to the violation. Third, they will describe the setting. This allows them to think about where the norm violation will occur and who will observe. Fourth, students will describe the incident. This will let them explain what happened. Lastly, students will complete a summary and interpretation. They will explain how it felt to violate the norm and receive reactions of those in society. Essentially, this project will allow students to gain a deeper understanding of crime and deviance.

Accountability

This project is a way to help students understand what it feels like to break a norm. However, it does not involve doing something to get arrested or into serious trouble. Therefore, it is essential to stress the importance of selecting a societal norm that is school appropriate. Ultimately, students are responsible for their actions. Hence, it is valuable to spend time reviewing the included examples together. By doing this, they will get a feel for what is acceptable and not.

Teacher Benefits of the Break a Norm Project

As a secondary Social Studies teacher, I understand the lack of available resources. Additionally, it is hard to develop creative lessons with so many different preps. Therefore, I create projects that are teacher tested and student approved. This means that I utilize the Break a Norm project each year. Specifically, I reflect on my students and their results to create comprehensive plans driven by proven results. I even provide FREE updates as I continuously reflect on lessons. As a teacher, I know how stressful life can be. Thus, all of my products are organized for teachers and engaging for students.

The Break a Norm Project is a powerful way to help students understand crime and deviance. It will allow students to see what it is like to go against the norm and the results. Ultimately, this will be a project students never forget!

If you do not want to miss any of the upcoming lessons, join my email list to be notified of all the interactive lessons coming up! By joining the email list, you will also receive a Final Sociology Project FREEBIE for blog exclusive subscribers!

JOIN MY LIST!

Guidelines for Write-up of

Breaking a Social Norm Assignment

(With thanks to Eells and Unnithan in Kain and Neas , 1993, pp. 55-56.)

The following format is to be followed as you write up this exercise. Please note that this is a skeletal outline and is intended to help you decide what information to include in your report. Be sure to cover all of these points, but don’t feel that you are limited to them. Elaborate and be creative where you can. Incorporate as much as you can from your learning about sociology in everyday settings.

This report should be 2-5 pages in length, typed and double-spaced. Good grammar and sentence structure are expected.

The format to use:

1. Statement of the Problem

A. Define the norm you will violate.

B. Describe briefly how this norm acts as a mechanism of social control.

C. Describe what you will do to violate the norm.

2. Hypothesis

A. Describe the range of possible reactions others will have to the violation of this norm.

B. What do you predict the major reaction will be?

3. Describe the setting

A. Physical—where is the norm violation taking place?

B. Social—How many and what types of persons are observing?

4. Describe the incident—tell what happened.

5. Summary and Interpretation

A. How did you feel as you were violating the norm?

B. Why did you feel the way you did?

C. Did people react the way you expected? Explain.

D. Did you encounter any difficulties in carrying out your assignment?

E. What, if anything, did you learn about how norms exercise social control?

F. Any other pertinent observations.

More Resources

Norm Violation Video Presentation

Medora W. Barnes + −

How to Cite

Download citation.

Download this resource to see full details. Download this resource to see full details.

Usage Notes

Learning goals and assessments.

Learning Goal(s):

1) To reinforce course concepts (such as norm, folkway, informal and formal sanctions, and deviance) and provide students with an opportunity to demonstrate their understanding.
2) To allow for the application of the steps in the research process (including collection and analysis of primary data).
3) To initiate personal growth though students developing a greater understanding of their comfort levels with conformity and deviance.

Goal Assessment(s):

Each student demonstrates their achievement of Goal #1 though the inclusion and correct usage of course concepts and terms within the video presentation.
Goal #2 is achieved through students clearly describing within the video their research question and research methods, and then explaining the data they collected and the logical conclusions that they reached.
Goal #3 is demonstrated by each student taking a turn, as part of the conclusion of the video, to thoughtfully reflect on what the experience of breaking the norm was like for them personally and how the project affected their perspective on social norms.

When using resources from TRAILS, please include a clear and legible citation.

Similar Resources

Medora W. Barnes, Norm Violation Video Presentation , TRAILS: Teaching Resources and Innovations Library for Sociology: All TRAILS Resources
Marcia Ghidina, Using Ma Vie en Rose to Teach about Gender Norms and Socialization , TRAILS: Teaching Resources and Innovations Library for Sociology: TRAILS Featured Resources
Laura Workman Eells, N. Prabha Unnithan, Technique 31: Norm Violation, Deviance, Labeling, Folkways, Mores , TRAILS: Teaching Resources and Innovations Library for Sociology: All TRAILS Resources
Joanna S. Hunter, Seeing Gender: Using a Gender Journal and Term Paper to Teach the Sociology of Gender , TRAILS: Teaching Resources and Innovations Library for Sociology: All TRAILS Resources
Jeffrey S Debies-Carl, Introduction to Qualitative Analysis: A Coding Exercise Using the Material Culture of College Students , TRAILS: Teaching Resources and Innovations Library for Sociology: All TRAILS Resources
Mary Nell Trautner, Elizabeth Borland, Using the Sociological Imagination to Teach about academic Integrity , TRAILS: Teaching Resources and Innovations Library for Sociology: All TRAILS Resources
Martha A. Easton, Norms, Deviance, and Social Control , TRAILS: Teaching Resources and Innovations Library for Sociology: TRAILS Featured Resources
Miriam W. Boeri, Deviance and Social Control , TRAILS: Teaching Resources and Innovations Library for Sociology: All TRAILS Resources
Janet Lohmann, Deviance and Conformity , TRAILS: Teaching Resources and Innovations Library for Sociology: All TRAILS Resources
Carol A Jenkins, Developing a Photographic Essay - Making a Public Statement About a Social Problem or Issue , TRAILS: Teaching Resources and Innovations Library for Sociology: Teaching High School Sociology

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >>

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this resource.

All ASA members get a subscription to TRAILS as a benefit of membership. Log in with your ASA account by clicking the button below.

By logging in, you agree to abide by the TRAILS user agreement .

Our website uses cookies to improve your browsing experience, to increase the speed and security for the site, to provide analytics about our site and visitors, and for marketing. By proceeding to the site, you are expressing your consent to the use of cookies. To find out more about how we use cookies, see our Privacy Policy .

SOC 210: Introduction to Sociology

Global road warrior.

Background & Topics

Definitions

Search for articles, search the internet.

Search Options | Summon Help

Search Tips and Examples

attitudes AND breastfeeding AND Mexico
public perception AND breastfeeding AND Mexico

When searching, try synonyms, which are words or phrases that are similar in meaning. To search for multiple synonyms at once, put them inside parentheses and connect them with the word OR.

(Mexico OR Hispanic OR Latin-American)
("social norms" OR "societal norms" OR "cultural norms")

To focus the search a little more, just add the word AND along with a keyword:

(Mexico OR Hispanic OR Latin-American) AND breastfeeding
("social norms" OR "societal norms" OR "cultural norms") AND breastfeeding
("social norms" OR "societal norms" OR "cultural norms") AND breastfeeding AND Mexico

You can use the same search techniques that you use to search library databases when searching Google or other Internet search engines.

Connect synonyms with the word OR and place them in parentheses.

("norm violations" OR "social norm") AND drinking AND Europe
("social norms" OR "norm violations" OR attitudes) AND "medical marijuana"
Search Google
Search DuckDuckGo
<< Previous: Websites
Next: Citations >>
Last Updated: Aug 29, 2024 9:08 AM
URL: https://libguides.pittcc.edu/introductiontosociology

Examples Of Social Norms & Societal Standards: Including Cultural Norms

Charlotte Nickerson

Research Assistant at Harvard University

Undergraduate at Harvard University

Charlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Norms are implicit (unwritten) social rules which define what is expected of individuals in certain situations. They are measures of what is seen as normal in society, and govern the acceptable behavior in society (societal standards).

Norms operate at several levels, from regulations concerning etiquette at the table to moral norms relating to the prior discharging of duties ( see values ).

Social norms vary from culture to culture, and can be specific to a particular group or situation. Some social norms are explicit, such as laws or religious teachings, while others are more implicit, such as etiquette.

Violating social norms can result in negative consequences, such as being ostracized from a community or, though only in exceptional circumstances, punished by law (Bicchieri, 2011).

Social norms word concepts banner. Community culture rules. Infographics with linear icons on green background. Isolated creative typography

Everyday social convention Norms

The following are some common social norms that people in the US and UK follow daily (Hechter & Opp, 2001):

Shaking hands when greeting someone

Saying “please” and “thank you”

Apologizing when one makes a mistake

Standing up when someone enters the room

Making eye contact during a conversation

Listening when someone is speaking

Offering help when someone is struggling

Respecting personal space

Accepting others” opinions even if we don’t agree with them

Being on time

Dressing appropriately for the occasion-

Thanking someone for a gift

Paying attention to personal hygiene

Speaking quietly in public and formal places

Clearing one”s dishes from the table after a meal at one’s own home, or at one of a friend or stranger

Not interrupting when someone else is speaking

Asking before borrowing something that belongs to someone else

Walking on the right side of a hallway or sidewalk

Saying “bless you” or “gesundheit” after someone sneezes

-Standing in line and not cutting in front of others

Yielding to pedestrians when driving

Hanging up one’s coat when entering someone else’s home

Taking off one”s shoes when entering someone else”s home (if this is the custom)

Not talking with food in one’s mouth

Chewing with one’s mouth closed

Not staring at others

Cultural Norms

Social norms vary widely across cultures and contexts (Reno et al., 1993).

For example, in Japan, some social norms that are typically followed include:

Bowing instead of shaking hands when greeting someone
Removing shoes before entering a home or certain public places
Eating quietly and with small bites
Using chopsticks correctly
Not blowing your nose in public
Speaking softly
Not making direct eye contact with others
Some social norms that are specific to meeting new people include:
Dressing neatly and conservatively
Exchanging business cards formally
Presenting and receiving gifts with two hands

In South America, in contrast, people are expected to (Young, 2007):

Greet others with a hug and a kiss on the cheek, even if one does not know them well
Stand close to someone when talking to them
Talk loudly for emphasis
Make eye contact
Use a lot of gestures when talking
Dress more casually than in Japan or the UK
It is common for men to whistle at women they find attractive
In some cultures, it is considered rude to refuse a drink when offered one by someone else
It is also considered rude to turn down food when offered some
Table manners are not as formal as in Japan or the UK, and it is common to see people eating with their hands
Burping and belching are also considered normal and not rude
In some cultures, it is considered good luck to spit on someone or something
Yawning is also considered normal and not rude

Social Norms For Students

School teaches children respect for authority, structure, and tolerance. The social norms expected of students follow suit (Hechter & Opp, 2001):

Being respectful to teachers

Listening in class

Handing in homework on time

Not talking when others are talking

Taking turns

Include everyone in activities

Playing fairly

Encouraging others

Trying one”s best

Respecting property and equipment

Being a good listener

Accepting differences among people

Avoiding put-downs and hurtful teasing

Some social norms that are generally followed while taking exams include:

Not cheating
Arriving on time
Not talking during the exam
Listening to and following the instructions given by the person administering the exam
Not leaving the room until the exam is over
Not bringing in any outside materials that are not allowed
Not looking at other people”s papers

Gender Social Norms

Some social norms that are associated with being a woman include (Moi, 2001):

Wearing makeup
Dressing in feminine clothing
Being polite and well mannered
Keeping one’s legs and arms covered
Not swearing
Avoiding physical labor
Letting men take the lead

Some social norms that are associated with being a man include (Moi, 2001):

Wearing masculine clothing
Having short hair
Taking up space
Talking loudly
Being assertive and confident
Engaging in physical labor
Protecting and providing for others
leading and being in charge

Some social norms that are associated with being transgender or gender non-conforming include:

Dressing in a way that does not conform to traditional gender norms
Using pronouns that do not correspond to the sex assigned at birth
Going by a different name than the one given at birth
Requesting that others use the pronoun corresponding to their preferred gender
Taking hormones or undergoing surgery to transition to the desired gender

Social Norms With Family

Young (2007) outlined numerous social norms pertaining to family, such as:

Listening to elders
Treating siblings and cousins with love and respect
Doing chores without being asked
Children not talking back to parents
Paying attention during family gatherings
Showing affection in appropriate ways
Respecting others’ privacy
Keeping family secrets
Being grateful for what you have
Appreciating the sacrifices made by your parents or guardians
Celebrating birthdays and other special occasions together
Sharing in family traditions

Social Norms At Work

Social norms at work are similar to those enforced at school (Hechter & Opp, 2001):

Coming to work on time

Dressing appropriately for the job

Putting in a full day”s work

Not calling in sick unnecessarily

Not taking extended lunches or coffee breaks

Not spending excessive time chatting with co-workers – Completing assigned tasks

Following company policies and procedures

Being a team player

Respecting others” opinions

Listening to and considering others” suggestions

Being an active participant in meetings

Completing assigned tasks on time

Respecting the decisions of the group even if you don’t agree with them

Social Norms While Dining Out

Some social norms that are typically followed while dining out include (Hechter & Opp, 2001):

Dressing neatly and appropriately for the occasion
Arriving on time for reservations
Refraining from talking loudly
Putting phones away and not using them at the table
Not ordering food that is too smelly
Ordering an appropriate amount of food
Not leaving a mess behind
Tipping the server generously (in American cultures)
Saying “please” and “thank you” to the staff
In many cultures, it is also considered rude to:
Critique the food or drink
Send food back
Make a scene
Interrupt others while they are talking
Leave without saying goodbye

Using Your Phon e

Social norms surrounding using phones include (Carter et al., 2014):

Putting one’s phone away when one is with other people
In many formal situations, only using one’s phone in designated areas
Silencing one’s phone when in class, at a meeting, or in any other situation where it would be disruptive to have one’s phone make noise
Asking permission before using someone else’s phone
Returning a missed call or voicemail within a reasonable amount of time
Not texting or talking on the phone while walking if it means one’s not paying attention to where they are going and could bump into someone or something

Social Norms While Driving

Although often broken, there are expectations surrounding one”s behavior on the road (Carter et al., 2014), such as:

Obeying the speed limit
Yielding to pedestrians
Coming to a complete stop at stop signs and red lights
Using turn signals when changing lanes or making turns
Yielding to other drivers who have the right of way
Not driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol
Not using a cell phone while driving
Paying attention to the road and not being distracted by passengers, music, or other things going on inside or outside of the car

Social Norms When Meeting A New Person

In general, some social norms that are typically followed when interacting with others include (Hechter & Opp, 2001):

Making eye contact
Standing up straight
Offering a handshake
Introducing oneself
Speaking clearly
Listening attentively
Asking questions
Not interrupting others while they are talking
Refraining from talking too much about oneself
Being polite and well-mannered
Not making any offensive jokes or comments

Social Norms With Friends

In general, close confidants follow a more relaxed set of social norms than acquaintances and strangers. Nonetheless, there are still expectations as to what constitutes a friend in many Western cultures, including (Young, 2007):

Giving each other honest feedback, though often without a harsh start-up
Accepting each other’s differences
forgiving each other
celebrating each other’s successes
comforting each other during tough times
laughing together and in response to each other’s jokes
sharing common interests
spending time together
making sacrifices for each other

What is the difference between mores, norms, and values?

Mores are the regulator of social life, while norms are the very specific rules and expectations that govern the behavior of individuals in a community. Mores are a subset of norms, representing the morality and character of a group or community.

Generally, they are considered to be absolutely right. On the other hand, norms can involve customs and expected behaviors that are more flexible and can change over time.

They usually deal with day-to-day behavior and are not as deeply ingrained as mores. While the violation of a norm may be uncomfortable, the violation of a more is usually socially unacceptable.

Mores are beliefs that we have about what is important, both to us and to society as a whole. A value, therefore, is a belief (right or wrong) about the way something should be.

While norms are specific rules dictating how people should act in a particular situation, values are general ideas that support the norm”.

In short, the values we hold are general behavioral guidelines. They tell us what we believe is right or wrong, for example, but that does not tell us how we should behave appropriately in any given social situation. This is the part played by norms in the overall structure of our social behavior.

Berkowitz, A. D. (2005). An overview of the social norms approach. Changing the culture of college drinking: A socially situated health communication campaign, 1, 193-214.

Bicchieri, C. (2011). Social Norms . Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Carter, P. M., Bingham, C. R., Zakrajsek, J. S., Shope, J. T., & Sayer, T. B. (2014). Social norms and risk perception: Predictors of distracted driving behavior among novice adolescent drivers. Journal of Adolescent Health, 54 (5), S32-S41.

Chung, A., & Rimal, R. N. (2016). Social norms : A review. Review of Communication Research, 4, 1-28.

Hechter, M., & Opp, K. D. (Eds.). (2001). Social norms .

Lapinski, M. K., & Rimal, R. N. (2005). An explication of social norms . Communication theory, 15 (2), 127-147.

Moi, T. (2001). What is a woman?: and other essays. Oxford University Press on Demand.

Reno, R. R., Cialdini, R. B., & Kallgren, C. A. (1993). The transsituational influence of social norms. Journal of Personality and social psychology, 64 (1), 104.

Sunstein, C. R. (1996). Social norms and social roles . Colum. L. Rev., 96, 903.

Young, H. P. (2007). Social Norms .

102 Examples of Social Norms (List)

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Learn about our Editorial Process

social norms examples and definition, explained below

Social norms are the unspoken rules that govern how people interact with each other. They can vary from culture to culture, and even from group to group within a culture.

Some social norms are so ingrained in our psyches that we don’t even think about them; we just automatically do what is expected of us. Social norms examples include covering your mouth when you cough, waiting your turn, and speaking softly in a library.

Breaking societal norms can sometimes lead to awkward or uncomfortable situations. For example, if you’re in a library where it’s considered rude to talk on your cell phone, and you answer a call, you’ll likely get some disapproving looks from the people around you.

Understanding the social norms of the place you’re visiting is an important part of cultural etiquette to show respect for the people around you.

Examples of Social Norms

Greeting people when you see them.
Saying “thank you” for favors.
Holding the door open for others.
Standing up when someone else enters the room.
Offering to help someone carrying something heavy.
Speaking quietly in public places.
Waiting in line politely.
Respecting other people’s personal space.
Disposing of trash properly.
Refraining from eating smelly foods in public.
Paying for goods or services with a smile.
Complimenting others on their appearance or achievements.
Asking others about their day or interests.
Avoiding gossip and rumors.
Volunteering to help others in need.
Saying “I’m sorry” when you’ve made a mistake.
Supporting others in their time of need.
Participating in group activities.
Respecting authority figures.
Being on time for important engagements.
Avoiding interrupting others when they are speaking.
Showing interest in other people’s lives and experiences.
Refraining from using offensive language or gestures.
Being honest and truthful with others at all times.
Treating others with kindness and respect, regardless of their social status or background.
Putting the needs of others before your own.
Participating in charitable works and activities.
Helping others whenever possible.
Welcoming guests into your home or place of business.
Nodding, smiling, and looking people in the eyes to show you are listening to them.
Following the laws and regulations of your country.
Respecting the rights and beliefs of others.
Cooperating with others in order to achieve common goals.
Being tolerant and understanding of different viewpoints.
Displaying good manners and etiquette in social interactions.
Waiting in line for your turn.
Taking your shoes off before walking into someone’s house.
Putting your dog on a leash in parks and other public spaces.
Letting the elderly or pregnant people take your seat on a bus.

Social Norms for Students

Arrive to class on time and prepared.
Pay attention and take notes.
Stay quiet when other students are working.
Raise your hand if you have a question.
Do your homework and turn it in on time.
Participate in class discussions.
Respect your teachers and classmates.
Follow the school’s rules and regulations.
Use appropriate language and behavior.
Ask permission to be excused if you need to go to the bathroom.
Go to the bathroom before class begins.
Keep your workspace clean.
Do not plagiarize or cheat.
Wait your turn to speak.
Ask permission to use other people’s supplies.
Include all your peers in your group when doing group work.

Related: Classroom Rules for Middle School

Social Norms while Dining Out

Wait to be seated.
Remain seated until everyone is served.
Don’t reach across the table.
Use your napkin.
Don’t chew with your mouth open.
Don’t talk with your mouth full.
Keep elbows off the table.
Use a fork and knife when eating.
Drink from a glass, not from the bottle or carton.
Request more bread or butter only if you’re going to eat it all.
Don’t criticize the food or service.
Thank your server when you’re finished.
Leave a tip if you’re satisfied with the service.

Social Norms while using your Phone

Keep your phone on silent or vibrate mode while in meetings.
Don’t answer your phone in a public place unless it’s an emergency.
Don’t talk on the phone while driving.
Don’t text while driving.
Don’t take or make calls during class.
Don’t use your phone in a movie theater.
Turn off your phone when you’re with someone else.
Place your phone on airplane mode while flying.
Do not look at someone else’s phone.
Ensure your ringtone is inoffensive when in public or around children.

Social Norms in Libraries

Be quiet and respect the other patrons.
Don’t talk on your phone.
Don’t bring food or drinks into the library.
Don’t sleep in the library.
Don’t bring pets into the library.
Return all books to the correct location.
Don’t mark or damage library books.
Make sure your cell phone is turned off.
Return your books on time.

Social Norms in Other Countries

In France, it is considered polite to kiss acquaintances on both cheeks when meeting them.
In Japan, it is customary to take your shoes off when entering someone’s home.
In India, it is considered rude to show the soles of your feet or to point your feet at someone else.
In Italy, it is common for people to give each other a light kiss on the cheek as a gesture of hello or goodbye.
In China, it is customary to leave some food on your plate after eating, as a sign of respect for the cook.
In Spain, it is customary to call elders “Don” or “Doña.”
In Iceland, it is considered polite to say “thank you” (Takk) after every meal.
In Thailand, it is customary to remove your shoes before entering a home or temple.
In Germany, it is customary to shake hands with everyone you meet, both men and women.
In Argentina, it is customary for people to hug and kiss cheeks as a gesture of hello or goodbye.

Social Norms that Should be Broken

“ Women should be polite” – Stand up for what you believe in, even if it makes you look bossy.
“Don’t draw attention to yourself” – Embrace your uniqueness and difference so long as you’re respectful of others.
“Don’t question your parents or your boss” – Protest bad behavior from people in authority if you know you’re morally right.
“Mistakes are embarrassing” – It’s okay to make mistakes and be seen to fail. It means you’re making an effort and pushing your boundaries.
“Respect your elders” – If your elders are engaging in bad behavior, stand up to them and let them know you’re taking note of what they’re doing.

Cultural vs Social Norms

Cultural norms are the customs and traditions that are passed down from one generation to the next. They’re connected to the traditions, values, and practices of a particular culture.

Societal norms, on the other hand, reflect the current social standard for appropriate behavior within a society. In modern multicultural societies, there are different groups with different cultural norms, but they must all agree on a common set of social norms for public spaces.

We also have a concept called group norms , which define how smaller groups – like workplace teams or sports teams – will operate. These might differ from group to group, and are highly dependant on the expectations and standards of the group/team leader.

Norms Change Depending on the Context

Norms are different depending on different contexts, including in different eras, and in different societies. What might be considered polite in one context could be considered rude in another.

For example, norms in the 1950s were much more gendered. Negative gender stereotypes restricted women because it was normative for women to be quiet, polite, and submissive in public. Today, women have much more equality.

Similarly, the norms and taboos in the United States will be very different from those in China. For example, Chinese businessmen are often expected to share expensive gifts during negotiations. In the United States, this could be considered bordering on bribery.

What are the Four Types of Norms?

There are four types of norms : folkways, mores, taboos, and laws.

Folkways are social conventions that are not strictly enforced, but are generally considered to be polite or appropriate. An example of a folkway is covering your mouth when you sneeze.
Mores are social conventions that are considered to have a moral dimension. Due to their moral dimension, they’re generally considered to be more important than folkways. Violation of mores can result in social sanctions so they often overlap with laws (mentioned below). An example of a more is not drinking and driving.
Taboos are considered ‘negative norms’, or things that you should avoid doing. If you do them, you’ll be seen as rude. An example of a taboo is using your phone in a movie theater or spitting indoors.
Laws are the most formal and serious type of norm. They are usually enforced by the government and can result in criminal penalties if violated. Examples of laws include not stealing from others and not assaulting others.

Conclusion: What are Social Norms?

Social norms are defined as the unspoken rules that help us to get along with others in a polite and respectful manner. It’s important to follow them so that we can maintain a positive social environment for everyone involved. Social norms examples include not spitting indoors, covering your mouth when you sneeze, and shaking hands with everyone you meet.

Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 10 Reasons you’re Perpetually Single
Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 20 Montessori Toddler Bedrooms (Design Inspiration)
Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 21 Montessori Homeschool Setups
Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 101 Hidden Talents Examples

Florian Wanders

1 Work and Organizational Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Astrid C. Homan

Annelies e. m. van vianen, rima-maria rahal.

2 Social Psychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

Gerben A. van Kleef

3 Social Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Associated Data

Data and analysis code are available through https://osf.io/xjpe5/ .

Norm violators demonstrate that they can behave as they wish, which makes them appear powerful. Potentially, this is the beginning of a self-reinforcing loop, in which greater perceived power invites further norm violations. Here we investigate the possibility that sanctions can break this loop by reducing the power that observers attribute to norm violators. Despite an abundance of research on the effects of sanctions as deterrents for norm-violating behavior, little is known about how sanctions may change perceptions of individuals who do (or do not) violate norms. Replicating previous research, we found in two studies ( N 1 = 203, N 2 = 132) that norm violators are perceived as having greater volitional capacity compared to norm abiders. Qualifying previous research, however, we demonstrate that perceptions of volition only translate into attributions of greater power in the absence of sanctions. We discuss implications for social hierarchies and point out avenues for further research on the social dynamics of power.

Introduction

Social norms—implicit or explicit rules or principles that are understood by members of a group and that guide and/or constrain behavior [ 1 ]–create a shared understanding of what is acceptable within a given context and thereby contribute to the functioning of social collectives [ 2 – 4 ]. Accordingly, research has documented that people who violate norms tend to elicit negative responses in others, including unfavorable social perceptions [ 5 ], negative emotions [ 6 – 8 ], scolding [ 9 ], gossip [ 10 ], and punishment [ 11 – 13 ]. Intriguingly, however, research has also demonstrated that norm violators are perceived as powerful [ 5 ], high in status [ 14 ], and influential [ 15 ]. This possibly opens the door to a “self-reinforcing loop” (p. 351 [ 16 ]): Norm violators appear powerful and bystanders may submit to powerful others [ 17 ], thereby inviting further norm violations and consolidating norm violators’ power [ 5 ]. The question then arises: How can we prevent people from gaining unjustified influence through norm violations? Here we investigate whether sanctions reduce the extent to which norm violators appear powerful, thereby breaking the self-reinforcing loop to power that norm violations can set off.

Norm violations signal power

We define norm violations as any behavior that infringes on a norm [ 5 ], whether informal (i.e., learned by observing others) or formal (i.e., written). Norm violations are ubiquitous, from talking at the movies to using public transport without a ticket. These behaviors violate social norms that are both endorsed and enacted by most members of a group (injunctive and descriptive norms, respectively) [ 4 ]. Injunctive and descriptive norms are individually perceived but when people are cognizant of prevailing norms and endorse these norms, both types of norms can converge and be shared at the collective level [ 18 ]. By ignoring the norms that bind others, norm violators demonstrate that they can act as they wish and do not fear interference from others [ 5 ]. This is a freedom that typically comes with higher rank [ 19 ].

The influential approach/inhibition theory of power [ 20 ] states that power, which is commonly defined as asymmetrical control over valuable resources that enables influence, liberates behavior, whereas powerlessness constrains it. Indeed, ample research supports that power renders people more likely to act, even if the resulting behavior is inappropriate or harmful [ 21 , 22 ]. Because behavioral freedom is thus intimately associated with power, people who observe unchecked behavior of others may make inferences about others’ level of power. Indeed, people who act as they wish and disregard social norms are perceived as having high status [ 14 ], influence [ 15 ], and power [ 5 ]. Furthermore, these perceptions can, under particular circumstances, fuel actual granting of power, for instance via the conferral of control over outcomes, voting, and leadership endorsement [ 23 , 24 ].

In line with the notion that power liberates behavior, previous research has demonstrated that norm violators are perceived as powerful because they appear to experience the freedom to act as they please [ 5 , 14 , 15 ]–that is, they are high on volitional capacity. In other words, norm violators are perceived as powerful because their behavior signals an underlying quality, namely the freedom to act at will. This argument resonates with costly signaling theory [ 25 , 26 ], which states that any seemingly costly behavior (involving large investments or risks of receiving negative outcomes) functions as a signal of an underlying characteristic [ 25 , 26 ]. An example of costly behavior is the reckless driving of young men as to show their strength and skills to peers and potential mates, risking serious injury or death—a type of behavior that is under particular circumstances “rewarded” with power [ 27 ]. Norm violations are potentially costly as they are frequently sanctioned [ 14 ] by means of formal (e.g., legal) punishment [ 28 ] and/or informal (social) punishment (e.g., anger, social exclusion [ 29 , 30 ]). According to costly signaling theory, people who engage in potentially costly norm-violating behavior signal that they possess traits that allow them not to worry about interferences from others. Because this capacity to do what one wants is typically reserved for the powerful [ 31 ], norm violators appear powerful when there are no additional cues that provide direct information about this attribute [ 5 ].

Sanctions curb norm violators’ perceived power

If norm violations signal power, this opens the door to a self-reinforcing loop [ 5 , 16 ]. Norm violators’ claim to power is likely to be granted because people tend to submit to powerful others [ 17 , 24 , 32 ]. For example, people who interrupt others during meetings may be granted influence by receiving more time to speak [ 14 , 33 ]. As a consequence, their contributions may be noted more readily, which increases their chances for influence and promotion [ 34 ]. Norm violators may therefore climb up in social hierarchies. The question then arises: Can people be prevented from gaining power through norm violations?

Here we adopt a social-perceptual lens and investigate whether sanctions reduce the extent to which norm violators appear powerful. Specifically, we propose that sanctions reduce the signal of power that norm violators’ apparent volitional capacity sends. Bystanders easily infer that norm violators are free to act according to their own volition [ 5 ]. In the absence of additional information, this inference of volitional capacity functions as a signal of power [ 5 , 16 ]. However, we argue that if bystanders receive information that norm violators are sanctioned, they no longer need to rely on such signals. That is, they may directly conclude that norm violators who are reprimanded for their behavior do not have the power they seemed to have but are bound by the same norms that bind others around them. To summarize, we argue that bystanders perceive norm violators as powerful because they infer that norm violators have the capacity to act according to their own volition (replication of Van Kleef et al [ 5 ]). However, we propose that sanctions reduce the extent to which observers perceive norm violators as powerful by severing the link between volition and power perceptions (see Fig 1 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is pone.0254574.g001.jpg

The goal of the current manuscript was to investigate whether sanctions reduce the extent to which norm violators are seen as powerful. In our experimental design we focus on the violation of a legal norm that most people in society tend to endorse and enact, and sanctions refer to formal rather than informal sanctions. We present the results of two studies which replicate the finding that unsanctioned norm violators appear powerful [ 5 ], and support the current hypothesis that sanctions curb the effect of norm violations on power perceptions. The investigation of the exact mechanism underlying this effect was in part exploratory, and we denote where this was the case when presenting our results.

Participants and design

Study 1 employed a 2 (norm violation: abide vs. violate) × 2 (sanctioning: no sanction vs. sanction) between-subjects design, and participants could win one of four 15€ vouchers. This study was part of a student project using a cell size of about 50 participants and including an additional exploratory condition ( n = 121) which we do not report here (see S1 File for further information). Ethics approval was obtained from the ethical review board, Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands (ref.: 2014-WOP-3498). The code of conduct of the German Society for Psychology does not require special permits for international researchers and, for ethical considerations in research, the same codified ethical guidelines apply in Germany as in the Netherlands. All participants provided written informed consent prior to their participation (online, by clicking “yes”).

We recruited 236 participants at a German university campus and through social media, of which 203 were retained for analyses (153 women, 50 men, M age = 23.78, range = 18–59). Seventeen participants were removed because they did not complete the questionnaire, and 16 participants were excluded because they failed attention checks. These exclusion criteria were decided a-priori. A sensitivity analysis conducted in G-power suggested that when testing a moderated mediation model involving 5 predictors (norm violation, volition, sanctioning, norm violation x sanctioning, volition x sanctioning) and α = 0.05 the analysis would have a power of 0.80 to detect a small to medium effect (ƒ 2 = 0.06). In addition, we calculated ν-statistics [ 35 ] for the central tests of our moderated mediation model. The ν-statistic for the regressions of volition on norm violation was ν = 0.897. The ν-statistic for the regression of power on volition, norm violation, sanctioning, and the two-way interactions between violation and sanctioning as well as volition and sanctioning was ν = 1.000. These statistics show that this study was sufficiently powered.

Manipulation

Participants read about a traveler who either purchased a ticket before boarding a train (norm abider) or purchased a snack instead and did not purchase a ticket (norm violator). The norm abider could not find the ticket when approached by a controller on the train but told the controller that he did buy one. Likewise, the norm violator told the controller that he did buy a ticket but said that he had already been checked. The controller then either did not insist on seeing the ticket (no sanction) or did insist and fined the traveler who was unable to show the ticket (sanction; see the S1 File for the full scenarios). Assignment to conditions was random.

After reading about the traveler, participants indicated to what extent they thought the traveler acted out of his own volition, and to what extent they perceived the traveler as powerful. The measures including all items can be found in the supplementary material. Participants answered a set of additional questions (administered as part of a thesis project) before completing manipulation and attention checks.

Volition perceptions . Perceptions of volition (α = .88) were measured with six items [ 1 ]. An example item is: “To what extent does this person feel free to do what s/he wants?” with scales ranging from 1 = not very much , to 7 = very much .

Power perceptions . Perceptions of power (α = .88) were measured with a validated 8-item sense of power scale [ 36 ]. Example items are: “I think this person has a great deal of power” and “I think this person’s wishes do not carry much weight (reverse scored)” with scale anchors ranging from 1 = strongly disagree , to 7 = strongly agree .

Manipulation checks . Two questions each assessed in how far participants thought the traveler violated norms (“To what extent did the traveler violate norms?”; “To what extent did the traveler abide by norms?” [reverse-scored]; r = .87) and in how far participants thought the traveler was sanctioned (“To what extent was the traveler sanctioned?”; “To what extent did the traveler get away unsanctioned?” [reverse-scored]; r = .93). Scale anchors for both manipulation checks were 1 = not at all , and 7 = extremely .

Attention checks . Participants answered two questions each asking whether traveling without a ticket was allowed/prohibited, whether the traveler did/did not buy a ticket, whether the traveler was/was not fined, and whether the traveler was/was not honest. Answer options were yes versus no, and participants who provided incorrect responses were excluded from the analyses.

Manipulation checks

To test whether the manipulations of norm violation and sanctioning were successful, we ran two separate ANOVAs with norm violation and sanctioning as between-subjects factors. First, the ANOVA with the norm violation manipulation check as dependent variable revealed the expected main effect of norm violation, F (1,199) = 1085.56, p < .001, η p 2 = .845. Norm violators ( M = 6.29, SD = 0.78, 95% CI [6.136, 6.442]) were seen as violating norms to a considerably greater extent than norm abiders ( M = 2.14, SD = 1.13, 95% CI [1.916, 2.361]). Unexpectedly, there was also a main effect of sanctioning, F (1,199) = 18.41, p < .001, η p 2 = 0.085, and a significant interaction effect, F (1,199) = 18.52, p < .001, η p 2 = 0.085. Further probing using simple slopes analysis revealed no significant effect of sanctioning for norm violators, t (199) = 0.01, p = .993, 95% CI [-0.348, 0.351], d = 0.002, but there was a significant effect for norm abiders, t (199) = 6.06, p < .001, 95% CI [0.728, 1.429], d = 1.207: Non-sanctioned norm abiders were perceived as violating norms to a greater extent than sanctioned norm abiders. Given that the effect sizes of the unexpected effects (both η p 2 = 0.085) were ten times smaller than that of the intended effect ( η p 2 = .845) we consider this manipulation successful.

Second, the ANOVA with the sanctioning manipulation check as dependent variable revealed only the expected main effect of sanctioning, F (1,199) = 1589.38, p < .001, η p 2 = .889. Sanctioned travelers ( M = 5.94, SD = 1.06, 95% CI [5.733, 6.149]) were seen as considerably more sanctioned than non-sanctioned travelers ( M = 1.29, SD = 0.51, 95% CI [1.186, 1.388]). Neither the effect of norm violation nor the interaction between sanctioning and norm violation were significant ( F < 2.85, p >.093). Thus, the manipulation was successful.

Replication of the norm violation-perceived power link

Next, we aimed to replicate Van Kleef et al.’s [ 5 ] norm violation → volition → perceived power links in the absence of sanctions, before investigating how these links are affected by the presence of sanctions. As illustrated in the left-hand panel of Fig 2 , a planned contrast revealed that in the absence of sanctions norm violators appeared more powerful than norm abiders, t (99) = 2.02, p = .047, 95% CI [0.005, 0.690], d = 0.401 (see Table 1 for means and standard deviations).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is pone.0254574.g002.jpg

Sanction Violation	No sanction		Sanction
Sanction Violation	Abide	Violate	Abide	Violate
Volition	4.41 (1.01)	6.06 (0.88)	3.75 (1.16)	5.77 (1.07)
Power	5.27 (0.94)	5.61 (0.79)	3.73 (0.90)	3.83 (0.89)

Note. Means within a row with a different subscript differ at p < .05.

For testing our directional prediction that volition mediates the link between norm violation and perceived power, we used one-tailed tests [ 37 ]. Norm violators were seen as acting more according to their own volition compared to norm abiders, B = 1.65, SE = 0.19, t (99) = 8.76, p < .001, 95% CI [1.276, 2.023], and greater perceived volitional capacity was, in turn, related to greater perceived power, B = 0.18, SE = 0.09, t (98) = 1.99, p = .025, 95% CI [0.029, Inf]. Bootstrapped confidence intervals indicate that the indirect effect of norm violation on perceived power via volition was significant, B indirect = 0.30, SE = 0.15, 95% CI [0.010, 0.582], υ = 0.029. The effect size υ indicates a sufficient although small indirect effect [ 38 ]. We therefore consider the replication of the norm violation → volition → perceived power links successful.

The role of sanctioning

Concerning the effect of sanctioning on the norm violation → volition → perceived power link, we predicted that sanctioning would reduce the extent to which norm violators appear powerful. Furthermore, we proposed that sanctioning would reduce the signal of power that norm violators’ apparent volitional capacity sends. We tested this idea in three steps. First, we tested whether sanctioning reduced the extent to which norm violators were seen as powerful. A planned contrast suggests that sanctioned norm violators were indeed perceived as less powerful than non-sanctioned norm violators t (100) = -10.68, p < .001, 95% CI [-2.114, -1.452], d = -2.115 (see Table 1 for means and standard deviations).

Next, we explored where in the norm violation → volition → perceived power links sanctions exerted their moderating impact. Our theoretical argument suggested that observers perceive norm violators as having greater volitional capacity than norm abiders regardless of whether they are sanctioned, whereas they will perceive norm violators as powerful only if they are not sanctioned. In line with this idea, a mixed-model ANOVA among norm violators with sanctioning (no sanction vs. sanction) as between-subjects factor and scale (volition vs. power) as within-subjects factor revealed—besides significant main effects of sanctioning, F (1,100) = 51.23, p < .001, η p 2 = .339 and scale F (1,100) = 122.81, p < .001, η p 2 = .551—a significant interaction between both, F (1,100) = 47.70, p < .001, η p 2 = .323. As Fig 3 shows, whereas sanctions did not significantly affect the extent to which norm violators appeared to act according to their own volition, t (100) = -1.50, p = .136, 95% CI [-0.675, 0.093], d = -0.298, they significantly reduced perceptions of power t (100) = -10.68, p < .001, 95% CI [-2.114, -1.452], d = -2.115. This suggests that sanctions reduce the signal of power that norm violators’ apparent volitional capacity sends.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is pone.0254574.g003.jpg

Error bars are standard errors around the mean.

In a final step, we tested whether sanctioning moderated the effect of volition on perceived power in the norm violation → volition → perceived power link. Sanctioning moderated the effect of volition on perceived power in the mediation chain when the confidence interval for the product a × b 2 of the effect of norm violation on volition (a in Fig 4 , left panel) and the interaction of volition and sanction on power perception (b 2 ) excludes zero [ 39 ]. See the supplement for a detailed explanation.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is pone.0254574.g004.jpg

Black arrows in the statistical model highlight relevant effects for moderated mediation (ab 2 ). Simple slopes with standard errors (right) illustrate b 2 , the lack of an interaction of volition and sanctions on power perceptions.

Contrary to our expectations, this was not the case, B = 0.10, SE = 0.2, 95% CI [-0.294, 0.520]. Whereas the effect of norm violation on volition (a) was significant, B = 1.85, SE = 0.15, t (201) = 12.40, p < .001, 95% CI [1.553, 2.141], the interaction between volition and sanctioning on power (b 2 ) was not, B = 0.05, SE = 0.12, t (197) = 0.45, p = .651, 95% CI [-0.181, 0.289], rendering the product a × b 2 nonsignificant. We therefore cannot conclude that sanctioning reduced the extent to which norm violators’ apparent volitional capacity translated into power perceptions. Fig 4 (right panel) illustrates this absence of an interaction between sanctions and volition (slopes are similar across conditions) and shows that sanctioning directly reduced perceptions of power.

Study 1 replicated the finding that norm violators are seen as acting more according to their own volition than norm abiders, and that greater volition in turn related to greater inferences of power [ 5 ]. As expected, sanctioning reduced the extent to which norm violators were seen as powerful. However, sanctioning did not significantly affect the extent to which norm violators appeared to act according to their own volition. Although this is consistent with our theoretical model, which proposes that sanctioning targets the power-signaling effect of volition in the norm violation → volition → perceived power mediation chain, we found no full support for this pattern. Instead, sanctioning directly reduced perceptions of power irrespective of volition. One explanation for why sanctioning did not moderate the power-signaling effect of volition could be that volition was not strongly linked to power perceptions in this study in the first place. Therefore, we aimed to replicate the norm violation → volition → perceived power chain in a second study which also allowed us to improve the ecological validity of our design.

The 2(violate vs. abide) × 2(no sanction vs. sanction) design of Study 1 allowed us to test our predictions in a single moderated mediation model. Yet, despite its elegance, this design necessitated a compromise: To enable orthogonal manipulations of norm violation and sanctioning, neither the norm violator (who never purchased a ticket) nor the norm abider (who lost it) showed a valid ticket, which is sanctionable behavior. Although this enabled a full-factorial design allowing different comparisons between conditions, including a condition with sanctions for a norm abider who lost the ticket, may have undermined the credibility of the scenario, and renders interpretation of the results less straightforward. First, norm violators might have appeared more powerful than norm abiders not because norm violators demonstrated volitional capacity, but because norm abiders seemed incapable. Second, one might question whether norm abiders who lost their ticket really abided by norms, as, according to German train regulations, travelers must at all times be able to show a valid ticket. Therefore, in Study 2, we let the norm abider buy and show a ticket to the controller, moving from the 2×2 design of Study 1 to a 3-cell design.

Study 2 employed a 3-cell (norm abider vs. norm violator vs. sanctioned norm violator) between-subjects design and relied on a sample of Dutch participants that was collected as part of a larger project. Participants could win one of five 10€ vouchers. Ethics approval was obtained from the ethical review board, Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of Amsterdam (ref.: 2017-COP-8050). All participants provided written informed consent prior to their participation (online, by clicking “yes”).

To ensure comparable cell sizes as in Study 1, we recruited 159 participants at the university, of which 132 were retained for analyses (83 women, 49 men, M age = 25.80, range = 18–66). Seven participants were removed because they did not complete the questionnaire, and an additional 20 participants were excluded because they failed attention checks. These exclusion criteria were decided a-priori. A sensitivity analysis conducted in G-power suggested that with 5 predictors (experimental condition 1 [non-sanctioned norm violators vs. abiders], experimental condition 2 [non-sanctioned norm violators vs. sanctioned norm violators], volition, violation x condition 1, volition x condition 2) and α = 0.05 the analysis would have a power of 0.80 to detect a small to medium effect (ƒ 2 = 0.10). In addition, we calculated ν-statistics [ 35 ] to establish sufficient power. The central test in Study 2 constituted the regression of power on the interaction between volition and experimental condition, which resulted in a ν-statistic of ν = .999 (regressing of volition on experimental condition resulted in a ν-statistic of 0.955). This indicates that our study was sufficiently powered.

As in Study 1, participants read about a traveler who either purchased a ticket before boarding a train (norm abider) or purchased a snack instead (and no ticket). When approached by a controller, the norm abider showed the ticket. The norm violator told the controller that he did buy a ticket but said that he had already been checked. The controller then either did not insist on seeing the ticket (norm violator) or did insist and fined the traveler who was unable to show the ticket (sanctioned norm violator; see the S1 File for the full scenarios). Assignment to conditions was random.

After reading about the traveler, participants completed the same measures of perceived power (α = .87) and volition (α = .85) as in Study 1. Besides completing manipulation and attention checks (see below), participants answered a set of additional questions as part of a student project, which were not analyzed (see the S1 File ).

Manipulation checks . Three questions assessed in how far participants thought the norm violator violated norms: “He behaved in line with norms”, “He violated norms”, and “He behaved appropriately” (reverse coded, α = .92; adapted from Stamkou et al [ 23 ]). Three further questions assessed in how far participants thought the traveler was sanctioned: “The traveler was punished”, “The traveler had to pay for his behavior”, and “The traveler was fined” (α = .96). Scale anchors for all scales in this study ranged from 1 = completely disagree , to 7 = completely agree .

Attention check . Participants were asked whether the traveler bought a ticket and whether the controller fined the traveler. Answer options were yes versus no, and participants who provided incorrect responses were excluded from the analyses.

Separate ANOVAs on the manipulation checks with experimental condition as between subjects variable revealed significant differences between conditions on both the norm violation manipulation check, F (2,129) = 161.62, p < .001, η p 2 = .715, and the sanctioning manipulation check, F (2,129) = 179.08, p < .001, η p 2 = .735. Participants perceived both the sanctioned ( M = 5.89, SD = 0.87, 95% CI [5.630, 6.143]) and the non-sanctioned norm violator ( M = 5.91, SD = 1.03, 95% CI [5.585, 6.237]) to have violated norms to a greater extent than the norm abider ( M = 2.41, SD = 1.23, 95% CI [2.036, 2.782]). Participants also perceived the sanctioned norm violator ( M = 5.95, SD = 0.85, 95% CI [5.702, 6.199]) as having been sanctioned to a greater extent than either the non-sanctioned norm violator ( M = 2.28, SD = 1.13, 95% CI [1.927, 2.643]), or the norm abider ( M = 2.20, SD = 1.24, 95% CI [1.821, 2.573]). This shows that the manipulations were successful.

As in Study 1, we aimed to replicate Van Kleef et al.’s [ 5 ] norm violation → volition → perceived power links in the absence of sanctioning, before investigating how these links are affected by sanctioning. As illustrated in Fig 5 , a planned contrast revealed that, in the absence of sanctions, norm violators appeared more powerful than norm abiders, t (83) = 7.27, p < .001, 95% CI [0.697, 1.222], d = 1.579 (see Table 2 for means and standard deviations).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is pone.0254574.g005.jpg

Condition	Control	No sanction	Sanction
Volition	4.21 (0.68)	5.33 (0.73)	5.13 (0.83)
Power	4.07 (0.49)	5.03 (0.71)	3.81 (0.82)

Note . Means within a row with a different subscript differ at p < .05.

Concerning the mediating role of volition, norm violators were seen as acting more according to their own volition compared to norm abiders, B = 1.12, SE = 0.15, t (83) = 7.30, p < .001, 95% CI [0.816, 1.427], and greater volitional capacity was, in turn, related to greater perceived power, B = 0.29, SE = 0.09, t (82) = 3.30, p = .001, 95% CI [0.117, 0.471. Bootstrapped confidence intervals showed that the indirect effect of norm violation on perceived power via volition was significant, B indirect = 0.33, SE = 0.12, 95% CI [0.118, 0.623], υ = 0.046. We therefore consider the replication of the norm violation → volition → perceived power chain successful and proceed to investigate how sanctions affect this chain.

We predicted that sanctioning reduces the extent to which norm violators appear powerful. Furthermore, we proposed that sanctioning reduces the signal of power that norm violators’ apparent volitional capacity sends. First, we tested whether sanctioning reduces the extent to which norm violators are seen as powerful. A planned contrast indicates that sanctioned norm violators were indeed perceived as less powerful than non-sanctioned norm violators, t (86) = -7.38, p < .001, 95% CI [-1.544, -0.889], d = -1.578 (see Table 2 for means and standard deviations).

Second, mixed-model ANOVA among norm violators with sanctioning (no sanction vs. sanction) as between-subjects factor and scale (volition vs. power) as within-subjects factor revealed—besides significant main effects of sanctioning, F (1,86) = 28.66, p < .001, η p 2 = .250 and scale F (1,86) = 64.37, p < .001, η p 2 = .428—a significant interaction between both, F (1,86) = 25.30, p < .001, η p 2 = .227. As Fig 6 shows, whereas sanctioning did not significantly reduce the extent to which norm violators appeared to act according to their own volition, t (86) = 1.18, p = .241, 95% CI [-0.136, 0.533], d = 0.252, they significantly reduced perceptions of power t (86) = 7.38, p < .001, 95% CI [0.889, 1.544], d = 1.578. As in Study 1, this is consistent with the possibility that sanctioning reduces the signal of power that norm violators’ apparent volitional capacity sends.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is pone.0254574.g006.jpg

In a final step, we tested whether sanctioning moderates the effect of volition on power perceptions. Unlike in Study 1, where the 2×2 design allowed us to test this prediction in a moderated mediation model, we now regressed power perceptions on the interaction between experimental condition and volition, overall R adj 2 = 0.401. This analysis corresponds to testing for moderated mediation in Study 1 (specifically, to the b 2 path in Fig 4 ). If sanctioning indeed reduces the signal of power that norm violators’ apparent volitional capacity sends, we should find an interaction between volition and the comparison of sanctioned vs. non-sanctioned norm violators, which is why we chose the latter as reference group. This regression revealed a significant effect of volition, B = 0.50, SE = 0.14, t (126) = 3.50, p = .001, 95% CI [0.218, 0.786], an interaction between volition and norm abidance (vs. non-sanctioned norm violation), B = -0.43, SE = 0.21, t (126) = -2.09, p = .039, 95% CI [-0.838, -0.022], and the expected interaction between volition and sanctioned norm violation (vs. non-sanctioned norm violation), B = -0.41, SE = 0.19, t (126) = -2.23, p = .028, 95% CI [-0.780, -0.046]. This suggests that the relationship between volition and power was different for non-sanctioned norm violators compared to both norm abiders and sanctioned norm violators. As the simple slopes in Fig 7 illustrate, for non-sanctioned norm violators, greater volition inferences translated into greater inferences of power, B = 0.50, SE = 0.14, 95% CI [0.218, 0.786], whereas this was not the case for norm abiders, B = 0.07, SE = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.222, 0.365], or sanctioned norm violators, B = 0.09, SE = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.144, 0.322]. The positive slope for non-sanctioned norm violators significantly differed from the flatter slopes of both norm abiders, t (126) = 2.09, p = .039, 95% CI [0.022, 0.838], d = 0.453, and sanctioned norm violators, t (126) = 2.23, p = .028, 95% CI [0.046, 0.780], d = 0.476, indicating that sanctions indeed attenuated the signal of power that norm violator’s apparent volition sends.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is pone.0254574.g007.jpg

The labels in the figure correspond to the following labels in Study 1: no sanction (non-sanctioned norm violator in Study 1), sanction (sanctioned norm violator), and control (non-sanctioned norm abider).

Study 2 replicated the finding that norm violators are seen as acting more according to their own volition, and that greater volition in turn relates to greater inferences of power [ 5 ]. As expected, sanctioning reduced the extent to which norm violators were seen as powerful, but it did not significantly affect the extent to which norm violators appeared to act according to their own volition. This suggests that sanctioning specifically targets the power-signaling effect of volition, and the interaction between experimental condition and volition further supported this prediction.

General discussion

Next to eliciting negative responses in observers, people who violate norms also demonstrate that they can behave as they wish, which makes them appear powerful [ 5 ]. This may open the door to a “self-reinforcing loop” (p. 351 [ 16 ]) in which norm violators gain power in the eyes of observers, in turn giving norm violators more leeway to keep violating norms and consolidating their ascribed power. The question then arises: How can we prevent people from gaining influence through norm violations? Here we proposed that sanctioning reduces the extent to which norm violator’s volition signals power, thereby breaking the norm violation → volition → perceived power chain. In two studies we replicated this chain [ 5 ], and in both studies sanctions reduced perceptions of power. In Study 1, in which we prioritized the use of a full-factorial design over ecological validity, sanctioning reduced power perceptions irrespective of volition. In Study 2, in which we employed a one-factor design to enable creating more realistic scenarios, we found support for the idea that sanctioning specifically targets the extent to which norm violators’ apparent volition signals power. Together, the results of both studies suggest that sanctioning can break the self-reinforcing loop to power that norm violations might set off [ 5 , 16 ].

Theoretical and practical implications

The current findings have a number of implications. From a theoretical perspective, we demonstrated that sanctioning reduces power perceptions, rather than perceptions of volition. By identifying a boundary condition of the power-signaling effect of volition, we expand previous research on this link [ 5 , 31 ] and enrich understanding of costly signaling [ 25 , 26 ]. Our findings suggest that potentially costly behavior (e.g., a norm violation) can only act as a signal of an underlying trait (e.g., power) in the absence of additional cues that provide direct information about that trait (e.g., no sanctions). When translating costly signaling theory from animal to human behavior [ 25 , 40 ], the possibility that additional information (e.g., a sanction) may drown potentially costly indirect signals (e.g., the demonstration of volitional capacity) needs to be taken into account.

From a practical perspective, our findings suggest that sanctions may be effective in breaking the self-reinforcing loop to power that norm violations may set off [ 5 , 16 ]. This points to ways in which the ascent of norm violators in social hierarchies can be prevented. For example, employees can create a culture in which blatant interruptions are not tolerated by reprimanding interrupters. Should norm violations persist, more formal sanctions may be called for.

Limitations and future directions

The current study has a number of limitations. First, although in both studies sanctioning reduced power perceptions, the results are mixed concerning the underlying mechanism. Whereas in Study 1 sanctioning reduced power perceptions irrespective of volition, Study 2 yielded support for the idea that sanctioning specifically targets the extent to which norm violators’ apparent volition signals power. One explanation for this discrepancy may lie in the different control conditions we employed. In Study 1, norm abiders were—like norm violators—not able to show a valid ticket, and some norm abiders were also sanctioned. Although this design is adequate to test predictions in a full-factorial model allowing different comparisons between conditions, it also made interpretation of the results difficult. We solved this dilemma by running a second study that was more realistic and unequivocal as norm abiders now bought and showed a valid ticket to the controller. Future replication efforts should therefore focus on Study 2 to gain further confidence in the robustness of our findings. Also, although previous research [ 5 , 14 ] confirmed the mediating role of volition in the link between norm violation and perceived power, future research could experimentally manipulate volition as to substantiate a causal relation between volition and perceived power.

A second limitation is our reliance on scenarios. This approach affords experimental control and allowed us to make clear to our participants whether or not norms were violated (by informing participants whether a ticket was bought). Although previous research [ 5 , 8 , 23 , 24 ] has shown that results obtained in scenario studies were very consistent with results obtained in more realistic settings, future studies could investigate and extend the current findings using more ecologically valid procedures. In addition, strong evidence for the effect of norm violation on power perceptions would be if bystanders would submit to the supposed power of norm violators, for example, by following their instructions. Future research could focus on measuring the behaviors of bystanders reflecting their submission to norm violators’ power.

A further complication and next step for future research is that real-life interactions may not terminate after a sanction, but instead the norm violator may object to, or even retaliate against, the punisher. Indeed, previous research already pointed out that enacting sanctions may only be possible for dominant individuals [ 41 ], and characteristics of the punisher therefore also need to be taken into account. Also, future studies could investigate observer responses in situations where the norm violator is a member of an ingroup or outgroup or where norm violators continue their behavior after being sanctioned.

Third, we considered the norm violation in this study as a violation of a descriptive and injunctive legal norm. We assumed that buying a train ticket is a well-known legal norm enacted and endorsed as appropriate by most study participants. Although we did not test this assumption, the results of the manipulation checks in both studies showed that participants perceived the behavior of the norm violator to be violating of norms. Train passengers who do not buy a train ticket transgress a legal norm and run the risk of being formally penalized by means of a fine. Note that laws, as opposed to social norms, are not negotiated through social interaction, which means that people’s responses to violating the legal norm to buy a train ticket may be relatively similar across social contexts [ 42 ]. Prior research has shown that legal norm violations such as financial fraud [ 5 ] or illegal parking [ 23 ] elicit similar responses from observers as non-legal norm violations such as arriving late to a meeting [ 8 ] or putting one’s feet on another’s table [ 5 ]. The recurring pattern across these and various other behaviors is that norm violators are perceived by others as powerful. Future research on norm violation could pay more attention to the actual endorsement and enactment of specific norms among study participants. Additionally, future research could examine situations where the violation of an injunctive norm does not constitute a violation of a descriptive norm and vice versa [ 43 , 44 ] to understand how participants differentially respond to violations of such more complicated normative influences.

In addition, not all norm violations are created equal [ 4 ]. Free-riding on the train is costly to society, and therefore sanctioning may be in order. However, some norms are outright harmful [ 45 ]. Going against such harmful norms may underline norm violators’ apparent conviction of what is right and wrong. When norms are violated for deontological reasons, sanctioning might not reduce inferences of power. On the contrary, sanctions might elevate norm violators to the status of a martyr as they suffer for a cause [ 46 ], thereby allowing them to amass even more influence.

Finally, our studies comprised a majority of female participants from different countries (Germany and the Netherlands). Although this gender composition is not representative for the population, we do not assume gender differences in individual responses to the violation of a legal norm such as buying a train ticket. Moreover, participants were randomly assigned to conditions and our findings corroborate those of previous research. We found that the German participants in Study 1 perceived non-sanctioned norm abiders to have violated norms to a greater extent than sanctioned norm abiders. This unexpected finding might stem from a culturally defined norm that a monetary fine should always be imposed when travelers cannot show a ticket. Indeed, cultures vary in norm strength and tolerance of deviant behavior [ 47 ] and may therefore differ in responses to (missing) sanctions. Also, the current studies were conducted in individualistic (as opposed to collectivistic) cultures where there is a positive link between norm violation and power perceptions [ 8 ]. Therefore, future research could address possible cultural differences in responses to the sanctioning of norm violations [ 48 ].

Our results indicate that sanctioning can prevent norm violators from gaining power in the eyes of observers. Sanctions may therefore be effective in breaking the self-reinforcing loop to power that norm violations can set off [ 5 , 16 ].

Supporting information

Funding statement.

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Data Availability

PLoS One. 2021; 16(7): e0254574.

Decision Letter 0

18 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-25007

Dear Dr. van Vianen,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

In the revised version of the paper, please address the reviewers' comments listed below. Additionally, please better explain the meaning of the variables you have used to validate the two studies.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 04 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at gro.solp@enosolp . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Camelia Delcea

Academic Editor

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. During our internal checks, the in-house editorial staff noted that you conducted research or obtained samples in another country (for study 1). Please check the relevant national regulations and laws applying to foreign researchers and state whether you obtained the required permits and approvals.

Please address this in your ethics statement in both the manuscript and submission information.

3. Thank you for your ethics statement:

'Institutional review board: Ethical review board, Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of Amsterdam

Approval numbers: 2014-WOP-3498 and 2017-COP-8050

Consent obtained written online anonymously'

a. Please amend your current ethics statement to confirm that your named institutional review board or ethics committee specifically approved this study.

b. Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: No

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The paper tackles an interesting and important topic, it is well written and all analyses are described clearly, including limitations and indicating which aspects where exploratory or previously hypothesized.

I thus have only a few minor comments:

- the authors remain a bit silent about which online participant pools they use. Is this something comparable to MTurk, or are these student participants?

- Some of the arguments for the difference in effects between the first study and previous studies are based on arguments about the German Railway norms, however, the second study then is (again, as previous studies, I guess) done in the Netherlands. It would be interesting to understand whether this - as opposed to the design differences - plays a role for the effects, whether norms and norm abidance are perceived differently in the two systems.

- the authors themselves discuss that one problem with the results is the hypothetical character. There are by now several studies from the team of Marie-Claire Villeval (Lyon) which use real settings to study similar questions. I am wondering whether the authors are aware of this research and whether they might consider doing more real world studies in the future.

- in their motivational examples, the authors always use firm contexts (interrupting colleagues etc.) - why do they then choose railway examples for the study?

- my main issue is actually with the signaling idea. If norm violation signals power through being a potentially costly volitional behavior, sanctioning should not necessarily reduce perceived power. The study actually cannot scrutinize this link, as it is a one-shot behavior that is being described. If there were no sanctions, it wouldn´t be costly signaling. Thus, the described mechanism could only work if norm violators keep violating even though there is a chance of being sanctioned - which implies, that in some cases they will be fined, in others not. The design is as it is, but I would like to see a more thorough discussion of this.

Reviewer #2: The study deals with an interesting and important topic related to social norms. The methods sound appropriate to test the hypotheses.

I now focus on issues that would help to improve this manuscript:

- One major issue with this paper is the need to explicate social norms. The literature has been well-documented with norms being conceptualized as injunctive norms and descriptive norms. The association between norms and social sanction has been extensively discussed in the work of Cialdini et al. (1990), Fishbein and Ajzen (2011), and Lapinski and Rimal (2005). Injunctive norms refer to what ought to be done while descriptive norms pertaining to the prevalence of a behavior. Thus, this study seems to intend to deal with injunctive norms rather than descriptive norms. Further, social norms and law are distinct concept (see Rimal & Lapinski, 2015). This study does not seem to distinguish law violation from norm violation. I would think this paper focuses on law and legal sanction, rather a norm-based approach.

- Similarly, the explication of the power concept is limited. Authors define power as the perceived potential to influence others, which is not real power (individuals might not actually hold that power, but only are perceived by others). The lack of explication makes the conceptualization and operationalization of this variable sound less convincing. When we read/see a person not buying a bus ticket, there is little ground to argue that others would think the violator has a great deal of power. The authors use an example of people violating the talking norms in meetings to illustrate their point, but these two contexts are fundamentally different: Some people can talk freely in meetings because they either have real power or the behavior could actually be part of the organizational norms (the meeting norm is that you can interrupt others' talk if you do have something important to say). I would not think a traveler who did not conform to the law as having "a great deal of power," not mentioning that they told lies to authorities. I would think that someone escaping a law sanction as a lucky individual and that should be inferred as the person having power, unless he/she has further actions (ex: making a phone call to powerful others, which is a form of reference power). Such definition and operationalization as written in the paper, therefore, do not sound convincing to me.

- I see that it is quite controversial to argue that freedom to do something would always lead to inferences of power possession. It might only signal power as the authors suggest under some certain conditions (there should be boundary conditions). I would think that people can think of someone who acts as she/he wants, which deviates from social approval, as having less power. This rival theory can be illustrated, for example, by historical accounts related to social movements in which less powerful individuals in a society (both real and perceived) violate a political norm/law to gain power. We may also see drivers overspeed and think of them as traffic violators who would likely confront more powerful others (policemen). This social comparison will likely lead to perceptions of the violators as being less powerful, or even having no power and thus defying law to satisfy their desired power. In the same vein, a person did not buy a ticket might mean he/she has no other choice (lack of freedom) and thus violates the law (no power). This line of reasoning shows that the theorization of the model in this paper seems problematic because the authors left too many rival theories unaddressed.

- When theorization is not sound, having supporting data does not help much. The three key variables likely often have some sorts of correlations. A statistical model can be statistically significant without any theoretical background. Plus, the idea that someone has power could have more freedom to do things, even violating a law is not new in the literature. Also, the idea of sanctioning someone reducing his/her power offers no novel theoretical implication (someone goes to jail of course will normally have much less power than before). I do not see how such theorizations add to the literature.

That says, I commend the authors on engaging in a project with a rigorously methodological design. I sincerely appreciate the author(s)’ work, and I wish them the best of luck with this project.

Reviewer #3: This manuscript reports two experiments designed to test the hypothesis that norm violators will appear less powerful when they are punished than when they are not. The experiments build on earlier research showing that norm violators are perceived as more powerful than norm abiders; they introduce sanctions as a moderator of this effect.

The manuscript has a number of strengths: The research is methodologically sound; the analyses are appropriate; the write-up is clear and complete. At the same time, the research makes a very modest contribution to the literature, even more modest than the write-up suggests. It mainly shows that an effect previously demonstrated by these investigators has limited scope. It is good to know that, of course, but it does not represent the level of contribution typically found in PLOS ONE articles.

Let me describe briefly how I would interpret the results of this research, as my interpretation is somewhat different from how the authors frame the results. These results demonstrate that in a situation in which there are rules for how to behave, people are sensitive to where the power lies: with the rules or with the individuals. (I’m using rules here, rather than norms, because the research scenario conflates the two, but the same analysis holds for norms.) To the extent that people follow the rules and violations of the rules are enforced, power lies with the rules; to the extent that people violate the rules and get away with it, power lies with the individuals. Volition, on the other hand, depends on whether people try to follow the rules. Study 1 shows that neither rule-abiders nor rule-violators have much power if the rules are enforced, but if the rules are not enforced, even people who accidentally violate them (by not having their ticket to present to the conductor) have power. Study 2 shows that rules are powerful when people abide by them and when they are enforced; the relationship between individual volition and power is strongest when rules are weak. This summary captures all of the findings of this research and is entirely consistent with current views of how social rules and norms work. They clarify that the earlier finding of greater power attributed to norm violators holds only when norms are weak, but that simply serves to limit the scope and importance of the earlier finding. It does not challenge or extend current understandings of the way norms work.

I will leave to the editor the decision of whether this manuscript makes enough of a contribution to warrant publication in PLOS ONE. Regardless of where it is published, I think some revision is in order to simplify and clarify the presentation and interpretation of the results.

Reviewer #4: Referee report: PONE-D-20-25007

Summary of the paper

The authors (1) replicate previous research that third-party observers believe that norm violators have a greater volition and power than norm abiders, and (2) extend that research to understand whether sanctions can be used to reduce perceptions of power associated with norm violation. The authors conduct two studies: (1) with a German online sample and a 2X2 design (Abiding norm, violating norm)X(Sanctions, No Sanctions) and (2) with a Dutch online sample with 1X3 design (Abiding Norm), (Violating Norm X Sanctions), (Violating Norm X No Sanctions).

The authors use a vignette about a passenger buying or not buying a ticket on a train, and a controller either sanctioning (or not) the passenger who fails to show a ticket. They measure survey respondents’ perceptions of the passenger’s volition and power using survey questions. The authors claim that the main mechanism of how norm violation affects power is through volition i.e., a passenger who violates a norm is considered to act on their own volition, and this belief about volition leads to increased perceptions about the power they possess. The authors find that sanctions reduce the perceptions of power of the passenger irrespective of whether they are norm abiding or not, and irrespective of their volition (Result of Study 1). They find weak evidence for the mechanism that norm violation affects power through volition.

The paper is well-written, and the data collection and analysis are well-done.

Major critique

1. The paper clearly shows that introduction of sanctions reduces power associated with both norm-abiding and norm-violating individuals. However, the mechanism that norm violation leads to increased volition that further leads to increased power is not supported by evidence. The authors cannot claim that the mechanism is true unless they vary volition exogenously and find that perceptions of power are affected by that variation.

2. The results from Study 1 suggest that introduction of sanctions reduce perceptions of passenger’s power irrespective of his/her volition and his/her norm abidance/violation. In study 2, the authors find a different result because that they do not have a treatment with sanctions for norm-abiding behavior in this Study and thus do not have much variation in volition. I don’t think we can conclude from Study 2 that the claimed mechanism (Norm Violation-->Increased volition-->Increased power) is true.

3. Moreover, volition and power are correlated. However, there is no evidence that it is higher volition that leads to greater power. It could be the other way round where higher power leads to having greater volition.

4. It is not clear what “power” means in the context of a passenger who either buys or does not buy a ticket on a train. How does not buying a ticket make one more influential? A better way to measure power in this situation would be to see if the third-party observer is more likely to follow instructions from someone who violated the norm versus who obeyed the norm.

5. The payment to participants is small and probabilistic. For example, the participants had a 20% chance of winning a 10Euro voucher in Study 2. It is unclear how seriously the participants took the survey with these small incentives.

6. The authors use a vignette about the norm of buying a ticket or not on a train. The authors may want to discuss how this specific situation can be generalized to other situations.

Minor critique

1. When you say norms, can you clarify if they are descriptive or prescriptive norms?

2. Both the sanction and no sanction conditions in the paper technically have sanctions, in one case they are enforced and in another they are not. The authors can clarify that by changing their terminology.

3. 75% of the sample is women and is not representative of the German population in Study 1. The authors may want to discuss how the gender composition of their sample may affect the result.

4. Since Study 1 and 2 are conducted with different populations (German vs Dutch online samples), the others should comment on how comparable these studies are. Are there differences in norms of ticket buying in these two populations?

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at gro.solp@serugif . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Author response to Decision Letter 0

28 Mar 2021

Responses to Editor comments

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Response: We have carefully checked that our manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements.

Response: The study was approved by the Ethical review board of the Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Amsterdam, but data was collected online from a convenience sample of participants in Germany. The Code of Conduct of the German Psychological Society stipulates ethical considerations ( https://www.dgps.de/index.php?id=85 ) for research with human participants, which do not reference special permits required for international researchers. Further, ethical considerations in research in Germany are subject to the same codified ethical guidelines as in the Netherlands, namely the Helsinki Declaration and European data protection regulations. Therefore, no additional permits were required to conduct this research. We have added this information in the ethics statement in both the manuscript (Methods section Study 1) and submission.

'Institutional review board: Ethical review board, Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Approval numbers: 2014-WOP-3498 and 2017-COP-8050

Response: We have amended the ethics statements in the Methods sections of Study 1 (p. 6) and Study 2 (p. 14), respectively and we have added the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form.

Responses to Reviewer #1:

The paper tackles an interesting and important topic, it is well written and all analyses are described clearly, including limitations and indicating which aspects where exploratory or previously hypothesized.

Response: Thank you for the overall positive evaluation of our work and your constructive comments.

1. the authors remain a bit silent about which online participant pools they use. Is this something comparable to MTurk, or are these student participants?

Response: The online participant pool (Mage=23.78) was recruited from passers-by at a German university campus as well as through social media. We have added this information on page 6.

2. Some of the arguments for the difference in effects between the first study and previous studies are based on arguments about the German Railway norms, however, the second study then is (again, as previous studies, I guess) done in the Netherlands. It would be interesting to understand whether this - as opposed to the design differences - plays a role for the effects, whether norms and norm abidance are perceived differently in the two systems.

Response: There are cultural differences as well as similarities between the two countries on dimensions that are relevant to norm violation. Germany scores higher than the Netherlands on cultural tightness, which relates to the importance that is attached to rules and the severity of punishment for violations (Gelfand et al., 2011). In Study 1 (German sample) we found that non-sanctioned norm abiders were perceived to have violated norms to a greater extent than sanctioned norm abiders, although the effect size was small. We could speculate that participants were aware of the railway operators’ right to fine the traveler and – due to their tightness - were indignant that the traveler got away without this fine.

Germany and the Netherlands are comparable in terms of individualism, the degree to which uniqueness, personal achievement, and self-expression are valued (as opposed to group harmony and collective outcomes). A cross-cultural comparison of responses to norm violations (including data from Germany and the Netherlands) revealed that particularly respondents from individualistic cultures (including Germany and the Netherlands) perceive norm violators as more powerful than norm abiders (Stamkou et al., 2019).

Finally, regarding the specific scenario in this study, we would like to note that Germany and the Netherlands are European Schengen states, allowing free traveling among these states, and therefore use similar terms and conditions for train travel. In the discussion section, we now address the possibility of cultural differences as a subject for future research.

3. the authors themselves discuss that one problem with the results is the hypothetical character. There are by now several studies from the team of Marie-Claire Villeval (Lyon) which use real settings to study similar questions. I am wondering whether the authors are aware of this research and whether they might consider doing more real world studies in the future.

Response: The work by Villeval and her colleagues (e.g., Dai et al., 2018) is very interesting and employs creative methods. Importantly, this work is mainly focused on the intrapersonal drivers of norm breaking behaviors (e.g., what determines cheating behavior in individuals) and not on interpersonal dynamics (i.e., how do others respond to observing individuals who violate the norms), which is the approach we take in our work.

Responses to norm violations can indeed be studied in various ways, which entail different trade-offs between ecological validity and experimental control. We have used a variety of approaches in our work, including scenarios, pictures, video clips, recalled situations, and live interactions with trained actors to investigate responses to norm violations (Stamkou et al., 2016, 2018, 2019; Van Kleef et al., 2011, 2012). Scenarios, pictures, and video clips afford greater experimental control, whereas recalled situations and live interactions afford greater ecological validity. Which method is most suitable in a given study depends on the nature of the research question in combination with the possibilities and constraints of the different methodological approaches. For the current project, we prioritized experimental control to enable causal conclusions about the effects of sanctioning on responses to norm violators. Although we acknowledge the limitations of the scenario approach, we have found in our previous work that results obtained in scenario studies were very consistent with results obtained in richer yet less controlled settings. We are therefore confident in the validity of the current findings. Nonetheless, we see value in validating and extending the current findings using more ecologically valid procedures, and in the revised paper we explicitly call for future research using such procedures (see p. 22).

References (not mentioned in the paper):

Dai, Z., Galeotti, F., & Villeval, M. C. (2018). Cheating in the lab predicts fraud in the field: An experiment in public transportation. Management Science, 64(3), 1081-1100.

Stamkou, E., Van Kleef, G. A., & Homan, A. C. (2018). The art of influence: When and why deviant artists gain impact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115, 276-303.

4. in their motivational examples, the authors always use firm contexts (interrupting colleagues etc.) - why do they then choose railway examples for the study?

Response: We have used the railway scenario because all study participants can easily imagine this setting and most likely have experience with the described situation. In our previous work (see references comment 3), we have used organizational, educational, artistic, and personal settings to study responses to norm violators and found that effects were consistent across settings.

5. my main issue is actually with the signaling idea. If norm violation signals power through being a potentially costly volitional behavior, sanctioning should not necessarily reduce perceived power. The study actually cannot scrutinize this link, as it is a one-shot behavior that is being described. If there were no sanctions, it wouldn´t be costly signaling. Thus, the described mechanism could only work if norm violators keep violating even though there is a chance of being sanctioned - which implies, that in some cases they will be fined, in others not. The design is as it is, but I would like to see a more thorough discussion of this.

Response: There is considerable evidence that individuals who violate norms are perceived by others as powerful (for a recent review, see Stamkou, Homan, & Van Kleef, 2020). The theoretical rationale underlying this prediction is that people who violate norms signal that they experience the leeway to act as they please despite normative constraints (Van Kleef et al., 2011). This is a freedom that typically comes with higher rank (Galinsky, Magee, Gruenfeld, Whitson, & Liljenquist, 2008). Accordingly, research has shown that people who violate norms are perceived as having high power (e.g., Van Kleef et al., 2011), status (e.g., Bellezza et al., 2014), and influence (e.g., Stamkou et al., 2018). Regarding the used scenario, individuals who do not buy a train ticket run a (high) risk of being sanctioned. Therefore, by not buying a ticket they signal to be oblivious to normative constraints and can behave as they wish (volition typically reserved for the powerful), which elicit power perceptions in observers. Our study shows that sanctions attenuated the signal of power that norm violator’s apparent volition sends. Observers likely conclude that the sanctioned norm violator does not have the power he seemed to have. In future studies, it would indeed be interesting to investigate how observers will respond to norm violators who keep violating even after having been sanctioned. We added this suggestion to the general discussion section.

Stamkou, E., Homan, A. C., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2020). Climbing the ladder or falling from grace? A threat-opportunity framework of the effects of norm violations on social rank. Current Opinion in Psychology, 33, 74-79.

Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Gruenfeld, D. H, Whitson, J. A., & Liljenquist, K. A. (2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1450–1466.

Responses to Reviewer #2:

The study deals with an interesting and important topic related to social norms. The methods sound appropriate to test the hypotheses.

Response: Thank you for this positive comment to our work and your suggestions for improvement.

1. One major issue with this paper is the need to explicate social norms. The literature has been well-documented with norms being conceptualized as injunctive norms and descriptive norms. The association between norms and social sanction has been extensively discussed in the work of Cialdini et al. (1990), Fishbein and Ajzen (2011), and Lapinski and Rimal (2005). Injunctive norms refer to what ought to be done while descriptive norms pertaining to the prevalence of a behavior. Thus, this study seems to intend to deal with injunctive norms rather than descriptive norms. Further, social norms and law are distinct concept (see Rimal & Lapinski, 2015). This study does not seem to distinguish law violation from norm violation. I would think this paper focuses on law and legal sanction, rather a norm-based approach.

Response: Although there is a clear conceptual distinction between descriptive and injunctive norms, many common norm violations fall in both categories (Van Kleef, Gelfand, & Jetten, 2019). This is because behaviors that are endorsed as appropriate by the majority of the members of a group (injunctive norms) also tend to be enacted by the majority of the members of a group (descriptive norms). Accordingly, almost all prior research on responses to norm violators has examined behaviors that would be considered violations of both descriptive and injunctive norms. For instance, studies examined responses to individuals who would come in late for a work meeting (Stamkou et al., 2019), put their feet on someone else’s table (Van Kleef et al., 2011), take someone else’s coffee (Van Kleef et al., 2012), park their bike in an illegal spot (Stamkou et al., 2016), or dress improperly for a (professional) occasion (Bellezza, Gino, & Keinan, 2014; Oostrom, Ronay, & Van Kleef, 2021). These are all behaviors that simultaneously infringe on injunctive norms (most people disapprove of these behaviors) and descriptive norms (most people do not exhibit these behaviors). The same is true for the norm violation examined in the current work: Most people believe it is appropriate to buy a train ticket (injunctive norm) and most people indeed do so (descriptive norm). The current operationalization thus reflects the natural conflation of descriptive and injunctive norms in real life. That said, it would be interesting to investigate in future research whether the moderating effect of sanctioning also applies to “pure” violations of descriptive versus injunctive norms. We now refer to descriptive and injunctive norms in the introduction section and we have added this suggestion for future research in the general discussion section.

The reviewer is correct in noting that we did not draw an explicit distinction between social and legal violations. Conceptually, we see legal violations as a subset of the broader category of norm violations. That is, people may violate norms in ways that are or are not punishable, depending on the nature of the infringement and the broader context (e.g., a national law system). In our previous work, we have seen that legal norm violations such as financial fraud (Van Kleef et al., 2011) or illegal parking (Stamkou et al., 2016) elicit similar responses from observers as non-legal norm violations such as arriving late to a meeting (Stamkou et al., 2019) or putting one’s feet on another’s table (Van Kleef et al., 2011): The recurring pattern across these and various other behaviors is that norm violators are perceived by others as powerful. In the revised introduction, we have made it explicit that our focus in the current research was on legal norm violations. Additionally, in the general discussion section (limitations and future directions) we note that previous research indicates that legal and non-legal norm violations elicit similar social responses (p. 23).

Oostrom, J. K., Ronay, R., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2021). The signalling effects of nonconforming dress style in personnel selection contexts: Do applicants’ qualifications matter? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 30, 70-82.

2. Similarly, the explication of the power concept is limited. Authors define power as the perceived potential to influence others, which is not real power (individuals might not actually hold that power, but only are perceived by others). The lack of explication makes the conceptualization and operationalization of this variable sound less convincing. When we read/see a person not buying a bus ticket, there is little ground to argue that others would think the violator has a great deal of power. The authors use an example of people violating the talking norms in meetings to illustrate their point, but these two contexts are fundamentally different: Some people can talk freely in meetings because they either have real power or the behavior could actually be part of the organizational norms (the meeting norm is that you can interrupt others' talk if you do have something important to say). I would not think a traveler who did not conform to the law as having "a great deal of power," not mentioning that they told lies to authorities. I would think that someone escaping a law sanction as a lucky individual and that should be inferred as the person having power, unless he/she has further actions (ex: making a phone call to powerful others, which is a form of reference power). Such definition and operationalization as written in the paper, therefore, do not sound convincing to me.

Response: There is considerable evidence that individuals who violate norms are perceived by others as powerful (for a recent review, see Stamkou, Homan, & Van Kleef, 2020). The theoretical rationale underlying this prediction is that people who violate norms signal that they experience the leeway to act as they please despite normative constraints (Van Kleef et al., 2011). This is a freedom that typically comes with higher rank (Galinsky, Magee, Gruenfeld, Whitson, & Liljenquist, 2008). Accordingly, research has shown that people who violate norms are perceived as having high power (e.g., Van Kleef et al., 2011), status (e.g., Bellezza et al., 2014), and influence (e.g., Stamkou et al., 2018). Furthermore, there is evidence that these perceptions can, under particular circumstances, fuel actual granting of power, for instance via the conferral of control over outcomes, voting, and leadership endorsement (Stamkou et al., 2016; Van Kleef et al., 2012). Our two studies have shown that even individuals who did not buy a train ticket were perceived as more powerful. To acknowledge that our research speaks to perceived power, we have made this explicit throughout the paper (e.g., p. 4, pp. 9-13, pp. 15-17, p. 20, p. 22).

3. I see that it is quite controversial to argue that freedom to do something would always lead to inferences of power possession. It might only signal power as the authors suggest under some certain conditions (there should be boundary conditions). I would think that people can think of someone who acts as she/he wants, which deviates from social approval, as having less power. This rival theory can be illustrated, for example, by historical accounts related to social movements in which less powerful individuals in a society (both real and perceived) violate a political norm/law to gain power. We may also see drivers overspeed and think of them as traffic violators who would likely confront more powerful others (policemen). This social comparison will likely lead to perceptions of the violators as being less powerful, or even having no power and thus defying law to satisfy their desired power. In the same vein, a person did not buy a ticket might mean he/she has no other choice (lack of freedom) and thus violates the law (no power). This line of reasoning shows that the theorization of the model in this paper seems problematic because the authors left too many rival theories unaddressed.

Response: Please, see our response to your comment 2 and the recent review of Stamkou et al., 2020. In our paper we recognize that potentially costly behavior (e.g., a norm violation) can only act as a signal of an underlying trait (e.g., power) in the absence of additional cues that provide direct information about that trait (see p. 4). Hence, norm violation may not signal power to the same degree when additional information is available. Yet, if additional information is lacking (which seems also the case in your example of the speedy driver), bystanders tend to ascribe power to the norm violator as has been repeatedly demonstrated in prior research and in the current study. We stress this in the discussion section on pp. 21-22. To our best knowledge, our study is one of the few examining a boundary condition, namely sanctioning. Future research could investigate other boundary conditions, such as the background of the norm violator (which can act as an additional information cue). For instance, if people are aware of the power of the person violating the norm – a situation that you raise in your comment above – this should act as a moderator of the effect. Distantly speaking to your comment, we have some unpublished research that suggests that outgroup members breaking the norm are not seen as more powerful, whereas ingroup members who break the norm are seen as more powerful. We have added this suggestion to the discussion section (p. 22).

4. When theorization is not sound, having supporting data does not help much. The three key variables likely often have some sorts of correlations. A statistical model can be statistically significant without any theoretical background. Plus, the idea that someone has power could have more freedom to do things, even violating a law is not new in the literature. Also, the idea of sanctioning someone reducing his/her power offers no novel theoretical implication (someone goes to jail of course will normally have much less power than before). I do not see how such theorizations add to the literature.

Response: The key contribution of our study is not that sanctioning reduces power per se, but that sanctioning reduces the effect of norm violation on power perceptions. Our work is based on costly signaling theory (Bergmüller et al., 2007; Zahavi, 1995) and prior empirical evidence for the norm violation � volition � power chain (see Stamkou et al., 2020). A robust finding (in individualistic societies) is that norm violators are perceived by others as powerful and high status. This is important, because people often defer to (and are less likely to speak up to) others whom they perceive as powerful (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009; Cheng, Tracy, Foulsham, Kingstone, & Henrich 2013). Moreover, norm violators are sometimes granted power and leadership due to the impression they make on others, and this increased power in turn makes future violations more likely (Van Kleef, Wanders, Stamkou, & Homan, 2015). To the degree that this vicious cycle is a cause for concern, it is important to understand how it can be broken. The current research provides first evidence that sanctioning can sever the link between norm violation and power perceptions, thereby disrupting a potentially toxic spiral of norm violation and power abuse. Future research can build on our work and provide further evidence for the role of sanctions or other punishing responses (e.g., informal (social) punishment) in preventing people from gaining influence through norm violations.

Cheng JT, Tracy JL, Foulsham T, Kingstone A, Henrich J. Two ways to the top: evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. J Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2013; 104(1). 103–125. doi: 10.1037/a0030398.

Response: We appreciate your challenging and constructive comments.

Responses to Reviewer #3:

This manuscript reports two experiments designed to test the hypothesis that norm violators will appear less powerful when they are punished than when they are not. The experiments build on earlier research showing that norm violators are perceived as more powerful than norm abiders; they introduce sanctions as a moderator of this effect.

Response: Thank you for your positive but also critical general comment.

Response: Our research is indeed built on solid theory and prior empirical evidence. We believe it is valuable to test theory in different context and with different methods. Also, it is good science to examine the boundary conditions of a theory. In this study, we do both: replicating prior evidence - but now in an experimental context where a legal norm is violated - and testing a boundary condition (sanctioning). Indeed, we show that norm violators gain more power in the eyes of bystanders when norms are not enforced by sanctions, which we believe is a highly relevant finding for dealing with norm violating behaviors in society. This finding may also hold for the violation of non-legal norms where the sanction is not a fine established by law or official rule but rather depends on the responses of bystanders. We plan further research into the ‘self-reinforcing loop’, by which norm violators appear powerful, bystanders submit to and consolidate the power of the norm violators and thus encourage further norm violation, can be broken (see p. 22). Based on your comment and the comments of the other reviewers we revised the text of the paper to clarify our conceptualizations and the interpretation of the results (see pp. 5, 21-24).

Responses to Reviewer #4:

Response: Thank you for your positive assessment of our work and your detailed comments.

Response: There is ample evidence from previous work that individuals who violate norms are perceived by others as having high volitional capacity, which in turn fuels perceptions of power and influence (e.g., Bellezza et al., 2014; Stamkou et al., 2018; Van Kleef et al., 2011). We replicate this link between volition and power. However, we agree that we didn’t manipulate volition and thus cannot claim causal evidence for this link. We address this point in the limitations and future directions section of the manuscript (see p. 22).

Response: The issue of sanctions for norm-abiding behavior is something we discussed at length in the author team. On the one hand, from the point of view of having orthogonal manipulations and allowing different comparisons between conditions, it is indeed desirable to include a condition in which norm-abiding behavior is sanctioned. On the other hand, from the point of view of validity, including such a condition is not desirable as it undermines the credibility of the scenario and makes the interpretation of comparisons with that condition less straightforward. We solved this dilemma by running two studies, one of each type, so that the disadvantages of one approach are remedied by the advantages of the other approach. We believe that in conjunction the two studies provide reasonable support for the presumed theoretical mechanism of volitional capacity. We have made these considerations more explicit in the revision (introduction Study 2 and limitations in the general discussion section; p. 13 and 21 respectively).

Response: Please, see our response to your comment 1.

Response: There is considerable evidence that individuals who violate norms are perceived by others as powerful (for a recent review, see Stamkou, Homan, & Van Kleef, 2020). The theoretical rationale underlying this prediction is that people who violate norms signal that they experience the leeway to act as they please despite normative constraints (Van Kleef et al., 2011). This is a freedom that typically comes with higher rank (Galinsky, Magee, Gruenfeld, Whitson, & Liljenquist, 2008). Accordingly, research has shown that people who violate norms are perceived as having high power (e.g., Van Kleef et al., 2011), status (e.g., Bellezza et al., 2014), and influence (e.g., Stamkou et al., 2018). Furthermore, there is evidence that these perceptions can, under particular circumstances, fuel actual granting of power, for instance via the conferral of control over outcomes, voting, and leadership endorsement (Stamkou et al., 2016; Van Kleef et al., 2012). Replicating previous studies, we also found that norm violation - operationalized as a passenger who did not buy a ticket on a train - elicited perceptions of power. Since people tend to submit to powerful others (DeRue & Ashford, 2010; Epitropaki et al., 2013; Van Kleef et al., 2012) it would indeed be valuable to investigate - in a similar context as in the current study - if observers are also more likely to follow instructions from norm violators (p. 22). Thank you for this interesting suggestion. We have added it to the general discussion section.

Response: We are confident that our findings are based on data of participants who took the survey seriously. First, we excluded participants who did not finish the questionnaire and therefore did not invest enough effort. Second, we excluded participants who failed the attention checks. Third, the manipulation checks showed that the intended differences between conditions in the presence or absence of norm violation and sanctions were achieved. Finally, although we believe that all participants who completed the questionnaire were sufficiently motivated, participants were randomly assigned to conditions and thus we may assume that participants’ motivation is the same across conditions.

Response: Previous work has revealed that very different norm violations across a variety of settings have very similar effects on perceptions of power. For instance, studies examined responses to individuals who would come in late for a work meeting (Stamkou et al., 2019), put their feet on someone else’s table (Van Kleef et al., 2011), take someone else’s coffee (Van Kleef et al., 2012), park their bike in an illegal spot (Stamkou et al., 2016), or dress improperly for a (professional) occasion (Bellezza, Gino, & Keinan, 2014; Oostrom, Ronay, & Van Kleef, 2021). These are all behaviors that people typically neither approve nor exhibit. The same is true for the norm violation examined in the current work: Most people find it appropriate to buy a train ticket and they behave accordingly. All in all, we believe that the findings reported in the current paper are likely to generalize to other types of norm violations and other settings.

Response: Although there is a clear conceptual distinction between descriptive and prescriptive (injunctive) norms, many common norm violations fall in both categories (Van Kleef, Gelfand, & Jetten, 2019). This is because behaviors that are endorsed as appropriate by the majority of the members of a group also tend to be enacted by the majority of the members of a group. Accordingly, almost all prior research on responses to norm violators has examined behaviors that would be considered violations of both descriptive and injunctive norms (see Bellezza et al., 2014; Oostrom et al., 2021; Stamkou et al., 2016; Stamkou et al., 2019; Van Kleef et al., 2011; Van Kleef et al., 2012). The same is true for the norm violation examined in the current work: Most people believe it is appropriate to buy a train ticket and most people indeed do so. The current operationalization thus reflects the natural conflation of descriptive and injunctive norms in real life. We now refer to descriptive and injunctive norms in the introduction section of the revised paper.

Response: We agree that not buying a train ticket carries the risk of a formal penalty that may be enforced or not. The sanctioning in our paper refers to a formal (legal) rather than an informal (social) punishment. Depending on the experimental condition in Study 1, a sanction was imposed or not when the violator exhibited sanctionable behavior, that is, could not show a ticket to the controller (see page 14). In the overview of our study (page 5) we now state that sanctions refer to formal sanctions.

Response: We agree that the gender composition in Study 1 is not representative for the German population. However, we have no specific assumptions about possible gender differences in individual responses to the violation of legal norms. Moreover, participants were randomly assigned to conditions and the findings of the two studies are largely the same and in line with previous research. We now discuss the gender composition of our studies in the general discussion section (p. 23).

Response: There are cultural differences as well as similarities between the two countries in dimensions that are relevant to norm violation. Germany scores higher than the Netherlands on cultural tightness, which relates to the importance that is attached to rules and the severity of punishment for violations (Gelfand et al., 2011). In Study 1 (German sample) we found that non-sanctioned norm abiders were perceived to have violated norms to a greater extent than sanctioned norm abiders, although the effect size was small. We could speculate that participants were aware of the railway operators’ right to fine the traveler and – due to their tightness - were indignant that the traveler got away without this fine.

Finally, regarding the specific scenario in this study, we would like to note that Germany and the Netherlands are European Schengen states, allowing free traveling among these states, and therefore use similar terms and conditions for train travel. In the discussion section (p. 24), we now address the possibility of cultural differences as a subject for future research.

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

21 May 2021

PONE-D-20-25007R1

In the revised version of the paper, please try to clarify the aspects related to descriptive and injunctive norms, how the perceived power has been measured, the specificity / limitations of the study. When revising the paper, please consider the reviewers' comments listed at the bottom of the email.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 05 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at gro.solp@enosolp . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Thank you for considering my comments carefully. I do not fully agree with your take on the signaling part, but your arguments are solid, and it is rather an empirical question whether your take is right, I think. As you refer it to further research, I think that´s sufficient.

Reviewer #2: I appreciate the authors’ efforts to address reviewers’ comments. I have these questions for the authors to clarify:

1. Descriptive and injunctive norms were not clearly defined in the revised manuscript. These norms are individually perceived. Social norms can be examined at the collective level, which is different from social norm existing at the individual/perceived level. At the collective level, both types of norms can converge, but not necessarily so at the perceived level. People are not always cognizant of the prevailing descriptive or injunctive norms in certain contexts (please see Tankard & Paluck, 2016). The social norm approach, therefore, suggests that misperception of social norms is a problematic issue for norm-violating behaviors (please see Berkowitz, 2005).

The authors wrote that injunctive norms and descriptive norms almost always work in the same directions. They wrote that behaviors that are endorsed as appropriate by the majority of the members of a group (injunctive norms) also tend to be enacted by the majority of the members of a group (descriptive norms). However, there are many situations where these two types of normative influences do not overlap, such as when people approve of, but do not practice, particular behaviors (Cialdini et al., 1990). Descriptive norms and injunctive norms can also be antagonistic, and they may provide us with conflicting information about normative behaviors in a given context (Lapinski & Rimal, 2005). For example, consider these norm-violating behaviors: drinking, smoking, speeding, etc. (please see, for example, Chung & Rimal, 2016; Hue et al., 2015).

The authors responded that “almost all prior research on responses to norm violators has examined behaviors that would be considered violations of both descriptive and injunctive norms.” Perhaps, this manuscript needs to speak for itself as to why these two types of norms are almost all considered in such a way? Also, it might be necessary to address other theoretical frameworks that argue otherwise. For instance, the focus theory of normative conduct (Cialdini et al., 1990), the theory of normative social behavior (Lapinski & Rimal, 2005), the reasoned action approach (Fishbein, 2009) suggest that violation of injunctive norms does not necessarily go along with violation of descriptive norms, and vice versa.

The authors commented that they see legal violations as a subset of the broader category of norm violations. So, it looks like this research approach suggests that violating the law also means violating social norms. To this point, please address this argument from social norm theorists:

“Different from laws, norms are socially negotiated and contextually dependent modes of conduct; laws are explicitly codified proscriptions that link violations with their corresponding punitive measures. Laws are not socially negotiated (although their enforcement might be), whereas norms and their transgressions, by definition, are negotiated through social interaction. This is an important criterion because it explains why the same mode of conduct (e.g., littering) is acceptable in one social context (littered environment) but not in another (clean environment; Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990). Laws and norms can certainly reinforce each other. For example, smokers may choose to refrain from lighting up in a public place for a number of reasons, including legal (fear of being penalized) or normative (fear of being accosted by someone in the vicinity), both of which lead to the same outcome (not lighting up). At other times, the two may act in opposition to each other, as when underage college students follow alcohol-drinking norms despite this behavior being illegal.” (page 394, Rimal & Lapinski, 2015)

Berkowitz, A. D. (2005). An overview of the social norms approach. Changing the culture of college drinking: A socially situated health communication campaign, 1, 193-214.

Chung, A., & Rimal, R. N. (2016). Social norms: A review. Review of Communication Research, 4, 1-28.

Hue, D.T., Brennan, L., Parker, L. & Florian, M. (2015). But I am normal: Safe driving in Vietnam. Journal of Social Marketing, 5(2), 105-124.

Lapinski, M. K., & Rimal, R. N. (2005). An explication of social norms. Communication Theory, 15(2), 127-147.

Rimal, R. N., & Lapinski, M. K. (2015). A re-explication of social norms, ten years later. Communication Theory, 25(4), 393-409.

Tankard, M. E., & Paluck, E. L. (2016). Norm perception as a vehicle for social change. Social Issues and Policy Review, 10(1), 181-211.

2. This study focuses on the association between norm violation and perception of power. The authors defined power as the perceived potential to influence others. Additionally, they suggested that the perception of someone having the capacity to do what that someone wants, it signals that the person has the capacity to influence others (perception of power; line 58-60, page 4). Following this logic, a person who does not buy a ticket is perceived as having the potential to influence others. I am still confused with this logic. How is it possible that we travel on a bus and witness a stranger not buying a ticket would make us think that that person has the potential to influence us and others? In this scenario, I might think that the person possesses some degrees of autonomy to conduct such a behavior. Yet, autonomy is conceptually different from power and does not always lead to the attribution of power. So, an inference from a high degree of autonomy to a high level of power sounds like a leap in logic. The authors cited several studies to back up this argument in their response, but the manuscript should speak for itself considering that this is a pivotal theorization in this study.

Additionally, the authors wrote that “people who violate norms demonstrate that they can behave as they wish.” How do we tell if people would attribute someone who does not buy a ticket either as the person wishes to do so or that the person has no choice at all? If the attribution is related to the second scenario, does that still mean that the person is perceived to have the capacity to influence others? This situation seems to relate to observers’ perceptions of efficacy of a norm violator as well as observers’ attributions of the norm violator's traits. Attribution theory suggests that human tends to attribute others’ negative behaviors as causally due to internal factors and with less positive traits (e.g., fundamental attribution errors). As such, a norm violator can be attributed with more negative attributes (e.g., poor, desperate) than positive attributes (e.g., rich, high self-efficacy). Isn’t it logical to think that positive attributes would be more likely to associate with higher perception of power?

3. Operationalization of perceived power: It might be helpful to see the specific items used to measure perceived power. Right now, the manuscript says that the authors measured this construct by items like “I think this person has a great deal of power,” which does not tell if participants understood that power was about the potential ability to influence themselves and others. It would also be more informative for reviewers and readers to see the specific items measuring other scales because the items were adapted to this research situation.

4. What has been the common context of the studies the authors cited? Were these studies mostly conducted in the western context where law and order and transportation infrastructure are to some extent more stable than that in developing countries? It is hard to fathom that a thieve on a public bus in a non-western country (norm violator) would be perceived by on-lookers as having the potential to influence others (power). It is also hard to think of an illegal drug user as being someone who has power to influence others. I wonder if there is such a line of research related to this study’s main theoretical framework to be able to be generalized with a global implication. Even in the review of Stamkou et al. (2021) that the authors cited, this norm violation – perceived power linkage was shown to have contradicting effects in India. To this point, I still see that there’s a significant challenge to persuade readers of the causal link between the observation of norm-violation behaviors and perceived power.

5. The citation of perceived norm types should be acknowledged to Cialdini et al. (1990) who coined the terms, which then became widely adopted in social science.

6. The term “costly behavior” should be clearly defined and with an example. Perhaps, not all readers will have the in-depth knowledge of the authors’ research discipline.

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Author response to Decision Letter 1

28 Jun 2021

Response: Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a second revised version of our manuscript.

Response: We have carefully considered the comments of Reviewer 2 and clarified the concepts of descriptive and injunctive norms, the measurement of perceived power, and the limitations of the study.

I appreciate the authors’ efforts to address reviewers’ comments.

Response: Thank you for your additional and helpful comments.

Response: Thank you for your concrete suggestion for better defining descriptive and injunctive norms. In the revised manuscript, we now state on page 3: “Injunctive and descriptive norms are individually perceived but when people are cognizant of prevailing norms and endorse these norms, both types of norms can converge and be shared at the collective level [18]”.

Also, please note that in our studies, people did perceive the behavior of the norm violator to be violating of norms (which is evident from the strong main effects on the manipulation check; eta squared = .845 in S1, and eta squared = .715 in S2). So, even though not everyone is always aware of the prevailing (descriptive or injunctive) norms in a certain situation, the behavior we studied in our research seems to be perceived consistently across participants.

Response: We fully agree that there are situations in which descriptive and injunctive norms do not overlap and that violation of injunctive norms does not necessarily go along with violation of descriptive norms. Your comment led us to realize that the claims we made about the frequent convergence of descriptive and injunctive norms we provided in the previous version of the paper may have been too strong, and we have therefore moderated our claims in the new revision. That said, in our studies we explicitly used a scenario in which a formal norm (a contract between the company operating the train and the passenger using its services) is violated (not buying a train ticket) that is likely endorsed and enacted by most members of a (western) society. In the revision, we have connected our claims about convergence of descriptive and injunctive norms more tightly to this specific operationalization so as not to imply that such convergence always occurs. To keep a clear focus in our paper, we decided not to elaborate further on other theoretical frameworks that address conflicting information about normative behaviors and possible discrepancies between the violation of injunctive and descriptive norms. Instead, in our discussion section we now reflect on our assumption that the participants in our study were cognizant of the norm to buy a train ticket and tended to endorse and enact this norm. The added information reads (page 24: “Third, we considered the norm violation in this study as a violation of a descriptive and injunctive legal norm. We assumed that buying a train ticket is a well-known legal norm enacted and endorsed as appropriate by most study participants. Although we did not test this assumption, the results of the manipulation checks in both studies showed that participants perceived the behavior of the norm violator to be violating of norms” and “Future research on norm violation could pay more attention to the actual endorsement and enactment of specific norms among study participants. Additionally, future research could examine situations where the violation of an injunctive norm does not constitute a violation of a descriptive norm and vice versa [43-44] to understand how participants differentially respond to violations of such more complicated normative influences”.

Response: Again, thank you for your concrete input. We now address the difference between laws and norms in the Discussion section. Our text on page 24 reads as follows: “Train passengers who do not buy a train ticket transgress a legal norm and run the risk of being formally penalized by means of a fine. Note that laws, as opposed to social norms, are not negotiated through social interaction, which means that people’s responses to violating the legal norm to buy a train ticket may be relatively similar across social contexts [42]. Prior research has shown that legal norm violations such as financial fraud [5] or illegal parking [23] elicit similar responses from observers as non-legal norm violations such as arriving late to a meeting [8] or putting one’s feet on another’s table [5]”.

Response: In order to better explain the link between norm violation and perceptions of power, we have revised the text on pages 3 and 4. The text on page 3 now reads as follows: “Social norms – implicit or explicit rules or principles that are understood by members of a group and that guide and/or constrain behavior [1] – create a shared understanding of what is acceptable within a given context and thereby contribute to the functioning of social collectives [2-4]. Accordingly, research has documented that people who violate norms tend to elicit negative responses in others, including unfavorable social perceptions [5], negative emotions [6- 8], scolding [9], gossip [10], and punishment [11-13]. Intriguingly, however, research has also demonstrated that norm violators are perceived as powerful [5], high in status [14], and influential [15]”.

The text on pages 3-5 now reads as: “By ignoring the norms that bind others, norm violators demonstrate that they can act as they wish and do not fear interference from others [5]. This is a freedom that typically comes with higher rank [19]. The influential approach/inhibition theory of power [20] states that power, which is commonly defined as asymmetrical control over valuable resources that enables influence, liberates behavior, whereas powerlessness constrains it. Indeed, ample research supports that power renders people more likely to act, even if the resulting behavior is inappropriate or harmful [21-22]. Because behavioral freedom is thus intimately associated with power, people who observe unchecked behavior of others may make inferences about others’ level of power. Indeed, people who act as they wish and disregard social norms are perceived as having high status [14], influence [15], and power [5]. Furthermore, these perceptions can, under particular circumstances, fuel actual granting of power, for instance via the conferral of control over outcomes, voting, and leadership endorsement [23-24]. In line with the notion that power liberates behavior, previous research has demonstrated that norm violators are perceived as powerful because they appear to experience the freedom to act as they please [14-15, 5] – that is, they are high on volitional capacity. In other words, norm violators are perceived as powerful because their behavior signals an underlying quality, namely the freedom to act at will. This argument resonates with costly signaling theory [25-26], which states that any seemingly costly behavior (involving large investments or risks of receiving negative outcomes) functions as a signal of an underlying characteristic [25-26]. An example of costly behavior is the reckless driving of young men as to show their strength and skills to peers and potential mates, risking serious injury or death – a type of behavior that is under particular circumstances “rewarded” with power [27]. Norm violations are potentially costly as they are frequently sanctioned [14] by means of formal (e.g., legal) punishment [28] and/or informal (social) punishment (e.g., anger, social exclusion [29-30]). According to costly signaling theory, people who engage in potentially costly norm-violating behavior signal that they possess traits that allow them not to worry about interferences from others. Because this capacity to do what one wants is typically reserved for the powerful [31], norm violators appear powerful when there are no additional cues that provide direct information about this attribute [5]”.

Thank you for your thoughts about other (than power) perceptions of norm violators. Your intuition that norm violators are generally perceived negatively is borne out by previous research, which we believe makes it all the more interesting that people still perceive norm violators as powerful – except when they are sanctioned, as we demonstrate in the current paper, because sanctioning severs the link between perceived volitional capacity and perceived power. In the introduction section on page 3, we now briefly discuss previous work that has documented negative responses to norm violations to better contextualize the current findings and enable nuanced conclusions. Your comment also led us to think about associations between perceived power and other social perceptions of norm violators more broadly, which we will seriously consider when preparing future research on responses to norm violations.

Response: In the method section of Study 1, we refer to the supplementary material containing the scale items.

Perceived Power (Anderson & Galinsky, 2006) was measured with the following items:

1. He can get people to listen to what he says.

2. His wishes do not carry much weight. [reverse scored]

3. He can get others to do what he wants.

4. Even if he voices them, his views have little sway. [reverse scored]

5. He thinks he has a great deal of power.

6. His ideas and opinions are often ignored. [reverse scored]

7. Even when he tries, he is not able to get his way. [reverse scored]

8. If he wants to, he gets to make the decisions.

In addition, we have added one more sample item of the perceived power scale in the Method section of Study 1.

Response: With regard to the question of whether a thieve on a bus would be perceived as being capable of influencing others, we believe the answer is a clear yes. Interpersonal influence stems not only from admirable qualities such as competence, expertise, and skill (which are related to prestige) but also from attributes such as assertiveness, intimidation, and coercion (which are related to dominance); see, for instance, Anderson and Kilduff (2009) and Cheng et al. (2013). With regard to culture, the studies we cite were mostly conducted in a western context, consequently showing a link between norm violation and observers’ power perceptions. Stamkou et al.’s (2019) cross-cultural comparison of responses to norm violations revealed that the link between norm violation and power perceptions is positive in individualistic cultures, but negative in collectivistic cultures (Stamkou et al., 2019). Moreover, individuals in tighter cultures are less willing to endorse norm violators as leaders, compared to those in looser cultures. It is clear from this cross-cultural study that observers’ responses to norm violations are indeed influenced by the cultural context in which the violation occurs. We have addressed this issue in the final paragraph of the Discussion section on page 25.

Response: Thank you for noting this omission. We have included the reference to Cialdini et al. (1990).

Response: We have revised the text on costly behavior. The text on page 5 now reads as: “This argument resonates with costly signaling theory [25-26], which states that any seemingly costly behavior (involving large investments or risks of receiving negative outcomes) functions as a signal of an underlying characteristic [25-26]. An example of costly behavior is the reckless driving of young men as to show their strength and skills to peers and potential mates, risking serious injury or death – a type of behavior that is under particular circumstances “rewarded” with power [27].”

References not included in the paper:

Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., Foulsham, T., Kingstone, A., & Henrich, J. (2013). Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 103-125.

References added to the paper:

1. Cialdini RB, Trost MR. Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindzey G, editors. Handbook of social psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1998. pp. 151–192.

2. Jetten J, Hornsey MJ. Deviance and dissent in groups. Annu Rev Psychol. 2014; 65: 461–485. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115151.

3. Tomasello M, Vaish A. Origins of human cooperation and morality. Annu Rev Psychol. 2013; 64: 231–255. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143812.

6. Gutierrez R, Giner-Sorolla R. Anger, disgust, and presumption of harm as reactions to taboo-breaking behaviors. Emotion. 2007; 7(4): 853–868. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.7.4.853 853.

7. Ohbuchi KI, Tamura T, Quigley BM, Tedeschi JT, Madi N, Bond MH, Mummendey A. Anger, blame, and dimensions of perceived norm violations: Culture, gender, and relationships. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2004; 34(8): 1587–1603. doi: 10 .1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02788.x.

9. Vaish A, Missana M, Tomasello M. Three-year-old children intervene in third-party moral transgressions. Br J Dev Psychol. 2011; 29(1): 124–130. doi: 10.1348/026151010X532888.

10. Beersma B, Van Kleef GA. Why people gossip: An empirical analysis of social motives, antecedents, and consequences. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2012; 42(11): 2640–2670. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00956.x.

11. Fehr E, Fischbacher U. Third-party punishment and social norms. Evol Hum Behav. 2004; 25(2): 63–87. doi: 10.1016/S1090-5138(04)00005-4.

12. Marques JM, Abrams D, Serôdio RG. Being better by being right: Subjective group dynamics and derogation of ingroup deviants when generic norms are undermined. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001; 81(3): 436–447. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.436.

13. Yamagishi T. The provision of a sanctioning system as a public good. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986; 51(1): 110–116. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.1.110.

15. Stamkou E, Van Kleef GA, Homan AC. The art of influence: When and why deviant artists gain impact. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2018; 115(2): 276-303. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000131.

18. Tankard ME, Paluck EL. Norm perception as a vehicle for social change. Soc Iss Policy Rev. 2016; 10(1): 181-211. doi: 10.1111/sipr.12022.

19. Galinsky AD, Magee JC, Gruenfeld DH, Whitson JA, Liljenquist KA. Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008; 95(6): 1450–1466. doi: 10.1037/a0012633.

20. Keltner D, Gruenfeld DH Anderson C. Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychol Rev, 2003; 110(2): 265-284. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265.

21. Cho M, Keltner D. Power, approach, and inhibition: Empirical advances of a theory. Cur Opin Psychol. 2020; 33: 196-200. doi: 10.1016/ j.copsyc.2019.08.013.

22. Pike BE, Galinsky AD. Power leads to action because it releases the psychological brakes on action. Cur Opin Psychol. 2020; 33: 91-94. doi: 10.1016/J.COPSYC.2019.06.028.

27. Van Kleef GA, Heerdink MW, Cheshin A, Stamkou E, Wanders F, Koning LF, et al. No guts, no glory? How risk-taking shapes dominance, prestige, and leadership endorsement. J Appl Psychol. (in press).

42. Rimal RN, Lapinski MK. A re-explication of social norms, ten years later. Commun Theor. 2015; 25(4): 393-409. doi: 10.1111/comt.12080.

43. Cialdini RB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA. A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1990; 58(6): 1015-1026. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015.

44. Lapinski MK, Rimal RN. An explication of social norms. Commun Theor. 2005; 15(2): 127-147. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2005.tb00329.x

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers R2 .docx

Decision Letter 2

30 Jun 2021

PONE-D-20-25007R2

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ , click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at gro.solp@gnillibrohtua .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Acceptance letter

21 Jul 2021

Dear Dr. van Vianen:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .

If we can help with anything else, please email us at gro.solp@enosolp .

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Camelia Delcea

Social Science

Examples of Norm Violations

Add this document to collection(s)

You can add this document to your study collection(s)

Add this document to saved

You can add this document to your saved list

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib

(For complaints, use another form )

Input it if you want to receive answer

Violations of Social Norms Stretch the Imagination

Our sense of what can happen is constrained by beliefs about what should happen..

Posted January 21, 2021 | Reviewed by Matt Huston

The last few months have been chock full of extraordinary events: a U.S. President attacking the legitimacy of an American election, senators and congressmen refusing to certify an electoral vote, an armed insurrection at the Capitol. News commentators have referred to these events as “unimaginable,” which is a strong word. Only logical contradictions, like a round square or a four-sided triangle, are truly unimaginable. But events like the Capitol insurrection are unimaginable in a different way: they lie outside the scope of ordinary possibility.

Psychologists who study how people reason about possibility find that our sense of what could happen is strongly constrained by our beliefs about what should happen. When contemplating future events or hypothetical outcomes, we fixate on events that conform to our expectations and ignore those that do not. Expectation-defying events are not just viewed as unlikely; they are viewed as impossible and thus unworthy of consideration. We don’t contemplate the possibility of an armed insurrection in the wake of a democratic election and then dismiss this possibility as unlikely. We never contemplate it at all.

Our tendency to view unusual events as impossible, rather than merely improbable, originates in childhood . Young children are skeptical of any event that violates the norms and regularities they are accustomed to. They claim it’s not possible to alter customs , traditions , cultural associations , rules of etiquette , or gender roles . They deny that a child could sing "Jingle Bells" at a birthday party, wear pajamas to the grocery store, or wear a bathing suit to school. They deny that adults could get together and change the name of dogs to "wugs," change the color of stoplights from red to purple, or change the side of the road we drive on. They claim it’s not possible to eat food with your hands, take a bath with your shoes on, or ask for something without saying “please.” And they reject the idea that a boy could wear makeup or a girl could play football.

These judgments are not absolute. Young children do show some recognition that violations of social norms are not truly impossible, like violations of physical laws. When explaining why people conform to social regularities, they cite reasons rather than causes—desires and permissions rather than capacities and capabilities. When asked whether anomalous events could occur on another planet , they agree that social anomalies could more often than physical anomalies, conceding that the citizens of another planet might call dogs "wugs" even if they couldn’t make rocks float in water.

While young children do show some awareness that social anomalies are possible, this awareness is largely implicit. It manifests itself in explanations or thought experiments and typically only when children are asked to consider many different anomalies. If you ask preschoolers, point-blank, whether a specific social anomaly is possible, most will say no. They claim the anomaly has not occurred in the past and will not occur in the future, no matter who is involved or why.

You may be concerned that children who claim a social anomaly couldn’t happen really mean that it shouldn’t happen—that they are commenting on the anomaly’s permissibility rather than its possibility. But that’s part of the point. If children’s understanding of what could happen is grounded in what they expect to happen, then they should confuse possibility with permissibility early on, before learning to reflect on their expectations.

My colleague Jonathan Phillips and I explored whether children truly conflate possibility with permissibility by asking them to evaluate both dimensions of the same expectation-defying events. We presented preschoolers and elementary schoolers with a variety of unexpected events.

Some violated moral rules, like stealing candy; some violated social conventions, like wearing pajamas to school; and some violated physical laws, like floating in the air. For all types of violations, we asked children whether the event could happen in the real world or was impossible and whether the event was okay or was wrong.

We found that older children, like adults, differentiated both the questions and the violations. When asked about possibility, they claimed that a person could not violate physical laws but could violate moral rules or social conventions. When asked about permissibility, they claimed it would be wrong to violate moral rules but not wrong (or as wrong) to violate social conventions or physical laws. Preschoolers, on the other hand, claimed it was both impossible and impermissible to commit any of these violations. They claimed that floating in the air is not just impossible but also wrong and that stealing candy is not just wrong but also impossible. Even minor violations, like wearing pajamas to school, were judged equally harshly; preschoolers claimed they neither could happen nor should happen.

Adults recognize that unconventional or immoral actions are possible, but we too conflate these distinctions when making snap judgments . Imagine, for example, that a friend is on the way to the airport when his car breaks down. How might he get to the airport in time to catch his flight? Could he hail a taxi? Could he teleport himself directly to the airport? Could he sneak onto public transportation? You probably agree that he could hail a taxi and disagree that he could teleport himself, but what about the third option, which involves deception and swindling? Given time to reflect, most people concede that this option is possible, but under time pressure, we make the opposite judgment, claiming that sneaking onto public transportation is impossible. We have to reflect on deviant behavior to recognize that it is, in fact, possible.

You Are a Conformist (That Is, You Are Human)

Shouldn’t and couldn’t are thus bound together in how we reason about possibility. It takes learning and reflection to differentiate the two. Consider your own reaction to hearing that the U.S. Capitol was invaded in early January. Chances are, the first question you asked yourself was not “Why did this happen?” but “How could this happen?”—a question about possibility. We know, reflectively, that moral rules can be broken, but we don’t expect them to be broken, and when they are, we fixate on the possibility of the transgression before pondering the transgressors’ motives and means. Deviant behavior is often just not within the scope of ordinary imagination . We instinctively expect our neighbors and compatriots to behave better.

Andrew Shtulman, Ph.D. , is an Associate Professor of Cognitive Science and Psychology at Occidental College and chair of its Psychology department.

Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Online Therapy
United States
Brooklyn, NY
Chicago, IL
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Asperger's
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Eating Disorders
Passive Aggression
Personality
Goal Setting
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Child Development
Self Tests NEW
Therapy Center
Diagnosis Dictionary
Types of Therapy

It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers.

Emotional Intelligence
Gaslighting
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

Home — Essay Samples — Sociology — Social Norms — Norm Violation in Sociology

Norm Violation in Sociology

Categories: Deviance Social Norms

About this sample

Words: 1203 |

Published: Feb 12, 2024

Words: 1203 | Pages: 3 | 7 min read

Social norms essay: research methodology, breaking a social norm essay: research results, discussion: the consequences of social norm violation, norm violation faq.

What is norm violation in sociology? Norm violation in sociology refers to the intentional or unintentional breaking of social rules and norms that govern society.
How do social norms shape society? Social norms play a significant role in shaping society by determining acceptable behavior. They provide guidelines for how individuals should act and interact with others in their community.
Can social norms change over time? Yes, social norms are not fixed and can change over time. What was once considered typical or acceptable may now be deemed unacceptable or outdated.
What was the focus of the norm violation experiment described in the essay? The norm violation experiment aimed to observe and analyze how individuals would respond to the violation of the social norm of using gender-segregated public restrooms. The experiment sought to determine whether people would attempt to correct the behavior or ignore it, highlighting their readiness to address norm violations.
What were the results of the norm violation experiment? The most common reaction observed was subtle confusion without any subsequent comments. Men recognized that the woman had entered the wrong restroom but chose to either leave hurriedly or avoid entering after seeing her inside. This indicated a preference to either escape or ignore norm violations rather than confront them. Only a few individuals attempted to point out the mistake, while others simply asked her to leave. There were no signs of disrespect or physical contact, with only one instance of rude behavior.
What were the consequences of the norm violation for the experimenter? The experimenter initially felt uncertainty and shame regarding her behavior, but as the experiment progressed, she became more accustomed to the situation. This suggests that hedonic adaptation may occur in similar circumstances, leading to a normalization of the behavior.
What does the norm violation experiment suggest about society? The norm violation experiment suggests that people prioritize their personal space and time over addressing others' social behavior directly. This may reflect an increasing trend towards individualism and selfishness in society. However, it is important to recognize the importance of cooperation and adherence to social norms for the functioning and survival of society.

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

Expert in: Sociology

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 488 words

2 pages / 1005 words

3 pages / 1591 words

2 pages / 834 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Social Norms

Implicit bias, an intrinsic component of human cognition, holds a significant role in shaping our attitudes, beliefs, and actions without conscious awareness. This essay delves deeply into the definition of implicit bias, [...]

In the intricate tapestry of society, the concept of being an outsider often raises intriguing questions about identity, belonging, and perception. The question, "are outsiders simply those who are misjudged or misunderstood," [...]

Norms and social norms are powerful forces that shape our behavior and guide our social interactions. They provide a sense of order, cohesion, and predictability in society. Norms act as social guidelines, ensuring that [...]

Social norms are an integral part of society, shaping the way individuals behave and interact with one another. These norms are the unwritten rules that govern our actions, beliefs, and values, and they vary across different [...]

While many of us may like to believe that our society today as we know it has advanced in many ways beyond the thoughts and beliefs of the colonial era and the time of slavery, this is unfortunately not the case. In many ways, [...]

Baines, S. (2011). Cannibalism in the Early Modern Atlantic World. Perspectives on European History, 41(1), 10-17.Boëtsch, G., Oettlé, A. C., & Leclerc, C. (2019). Cannibalism in prehistoric human populations: A review. Journal [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

A-Z Publications

Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior

Volume 11, 2024, review article, open access, norm-violating behavior in organizations: a comprehensive conceptual review and model of constructive and destructive norm-violating behavior.

Rebecca J. Bennett 1 , Bella L. Galperin 2 , Long Wang 3 , and Jigyashu Shukla 4
View Affiliations Hide Affiliations Affiliations: 1 Department of Management, College of Business, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA; email: [email protected] 2 John H. Sykes College of Business, The University of Tampa, Tampa, Florida, USA; email: [email protected] 3 Department of Management, College of Business, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; email: [email protected] 4 Department of Management, Willie A. Deese College of Business & Economics, North Carolina A&T State University, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA; email: [email protected]
Vol. 11:481-507 (Volume publication date January 2024) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110721-043001
First published as a Review in Advance on November 29, 2023
Copyright © 2024 by the author(s). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See credit lines of images or other third-party material in this article for license information

Norm violations can not only cause harm but also contribute to the well-being of organizations. During the last several decades, two different foci of research on workplace norm violations have generated a host of empirical studies on both constructive and destructive norm-violating behavior (NVB). However, the two closely related bodies of literature have remained in almost complete isolation from each other. Our conceptual review seeks to kindle a new perspective to better understand the general concept of NVB in organizations by combining the bifurcated silos of both constructive and destructive NVB. By conducting a systematic literature review of research on workplace NVBs over the past 30 years, we synthesize the major research findings on both constructive and destructive deviance into a general framework and examine the major antecedents, moderators, mediators, and outcomes as they fit within the major theoretical perspectives. Moreover, we study the commonalities of constructive and destructive NVB, focusing especially on the overlapping and dynamic relationships between the two concepts. To conclude, we propose new lines of inquiry for future research to assist academics and practitioners in understanding and managing different forms of organizational norm violations.

Article metrics loading...

Full text loading...

Literature Cited

Ajzen I. 1991 . The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50 : 2 179– 211 [Google Scholar]
Ajzen I , Fishbein M. 1980 . Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall [Google Scholar]
Amabile TM , Barsade SG , Mueller JS , Staw BM. 2005 . Affect and creativity at work. Adm. Sci. Q. 50 : 3 367– 403 https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.367 [Google Scholar]
Andreoli N , Lefkowitz J. 2009 . Individual and organizational antecedents of misconduct in organizations. J. Bus. Ethics 85 : 3 309– 32 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9772-6 [Google Scholar]
Augsdorfer P. 2012 . A diagnostic personality test to identify likely corporate bootleg researchers. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 16 : 1 1250003 [Google Scholar]
Avery DR , Mckay PF , Hunter EM. 2012 . Demography and disappearing merchandise: how older workforces influence retail shrinkage. J. Organ. Behav. 33 : 1 105– 20 [Google Scholar]
Baharom MN , Bin Sharfuddin MDK , Iqbal J. 2017 . A systematic review on the deviant workplace behavior. Rev. Public Adm. Manag. 5 : 231– 38 https://doi.org/10.4172/2315-7844.1000231 [Google Scholar]
Balducci C , Schaufeli WB , Fraccaroli F. 2011 . The job demands–resources model and counterproductive work behaviour: the role of job-related affect. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 20 : 4 467– 96 [Google Scholar]
Barron FH. 1974 . Behavioral decision theory: a topical bibliography for management scientists. Interfaces 5 : 56– 62 [Google Scholar]
Baskin MEB , Vardaman JM , Hancock JI. 2016 . The role of ethical climate and moral disengagement in well-intended employee rule breaking. J. Behav. Appl. Manag. 16 : 2 71– 90 [Google Scholar]
Belschak FD , Muhammad RS , Den Hartog DN. 2018 . Birds of a feather can butt heads: when Machiavellian employees work with Machiavellian leaders. J. Bus. Ethics 151 : 3 613– 26 [Google Scholar]
Bennett RJ , Aquino K , Reed A II , Thau S. 2005 . The normative nature of employee deviance and the impact of moral identity. Counterproductive Work Behavior: Investigations of Actors and Targets S Fox, PE Spector 107– 25 Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc. https://doi.org/10.1037/10893-005 [Google Scholar]
Bennett RJ , Marasi S , Locklear L. 2018 . Workplace deviance. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management DD Bergh. https://oxfordre.com/business/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.001.0001/acrefore-9780190224851-e-111 [Google Scholar]
Bennett RJ , Robinson SL. 2000 . Development of a measure of workplace deviance. J. Appl. Psychol. 85 : 3 349– 60 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.349 [Google Scholar]
Bennett RJ , Robinson SL. 2002 . The past, present and future of workplace deviance research. Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science J Greenberg 247– 81 Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2nd ed. [Google Scholar]
Ben-Yehuda N. 1990 . Positive and negative deviance: more fuel for a controversy. Deviant Behav . 11 : 3 221– 43 [Google Scholar]
Berry CM , Ones DS , Sackett PR. 2007 . Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: a review and meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 92 : 2 410– 24 [Google Scholar]
Bigelow B , Locklear L , Bennett RJ , Robinson SL , Posey MC 2024 . The reflective workplace deviance measure (RWD). Handbook of Counterproductive Work Behavior R Dalal, J Jensen, S Lim. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publ. [Google Scholar]
Bodankin M , Tziner A. 2009 . Constructive deviance, destructive deviance and personality: How do they interrelate?. Amfiteatru Econ . 11 : 26 549– 64 [Google Scholar]
Bolton LR , Becker LK , Barber LK. 2010 . Big five trait predictors of differential counterproductive work behavior dimensions. Pers. Individ. Dif. 49 : 5 537– 41 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.047 [Google Scholar]
Borry EL , Henderson AC. 2020 . Patients, protocols, and prosocial behavior: rule breaking in frontline health care. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 50 : 1 45– 61 [Google Scholar]
Boukis A. 2016 . Achieving favourable customer outcomes through employee deviance. Serv. Industries J. 36 : 7–8 319– 38 [Google Scholar]
Brady MK , Voorhees CM , Brusco ML. 2012 . Service sweethearting: its antecedents and customer consequences. J. Mark. 76 : 2 81– 98 [Google Scholar]
Burns GN , Morris MB , Wright CP. 2014 . Conceptual and statistical interactions: an illustration with the AB5C and CWBs. J. Bus. Psychol. 29 : 1 47– 60 [Google Scholar]
Carpenter NC , Berry CM. 2017 . Are counterproductive work behavior and withdrawal empirically distinct? A meta-analytic investigation. J. Manag. 43 : 3 834– 63 https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314544743 [Google Scholar]
Chen CC , Chen MY , Liu YC. 2013 . Negative affectivity and workplace deviance: the moderating role of ethical climate. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 24 : 15 2894– 910 https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.753550 [Google Scholar]
Chen T. 2020 . A college student behind a massively popular paint-mixing TikTok page was fired from Sherwin-Williams. BuzzFeed News Nov. 18. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tanyachen/college-student-behind-a-massively-popular-paint-mixing [Google Scholar]
Chiou H , Jopling JK , Scott JY , Ramsey M , Vranas K et al. 2017 . Detecting organisational innovations leading to improved ICU outcomes: a protocol for a double-blinded national positive deviance study of critical care delivery. BMJ Open 7 : 6 e015930 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-015930 [Google Scholar]
Christ-Brendemühl S , Schaarschmidt M. 2019 . Frontline backlash: service employees' deviance from digital processes. J. Serv. Mark. 31 : 936– 45 [Google Scholar]
Chung YW , Moon HK. 2011 . The moderating effects of collectivistic orientation on psychological ownership and constructive deviant behavior. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 6 : 12 65– 77 https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v6n12p65 [Google Scholar]
Cohen A , Ehrlich S. 2019 . Exchange variables, organizational culture and their relationship with constructive deviance. Manag. Res. Rev. 42 : 12 1423– 46 https://doi.org/10.1108/mrr-09-2018-0354 [Google Scholar]
Cole MS , Walter F , Bruch H. 2008 . Affective mechanisms linking dysfunctional behavior to performance in work teams: a moderated mediation study. J. Appl. Psychol. 93 : 5 945– 58 [Google Scholar]
Criscuolo P , Salter A , Ter Wal ALJ. 2014 . Going underground: bootlegging and individual innovative performance. Organ. Sci. 25 : 5 1287– 305 https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0856 [Google Scholar]
Cropanzano R , Anthony E , Daniels S , Hall A. 2017 . Social exchange theory: a critical review with theoretical remedies. Acad. Manag. Ann. 11 : 1 479– 516 [Google Scholar]
Curtis CR , Upchurch RS , Dickson D. 2013 . Restaurant industry perspectives on pro-social rule breaking: intent versus action. Hosp. Rev. 31 : 1 5 https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/hospitalityreview/vol31/iss1/5 [Google Scholar]
Dahling JJ , Chau SL , Mayer DM , Gregory JB. 2012 . Breaking rules for the right reasons? An investigation of pro-social rule breaking. J. Organ. Behav. 33 : 1 21– 42 https://doi.org/10.1002/job.730 [Google Scholar]
Dahling JJ , Gutworth MB. 2017 . Loyal rebels? A test of the normative conflict model of constructive deviance. J. Organ. Behav. 38 : 8 1167– 82 [Google Scholar]
Dalal RS. 2005 . A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 90 : 6 1241– 55 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1241 [Google Scholar]
De Clercq D , Bouckenooghe D , Raja U , Matsyborska G. 2014 . Unpacking the goal congruence-organizational deviance relationship: the roles of work engagement and emotional intelligence. J. Bus. Ethics 124 : 4 695– 711 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1902-0 [Google Scholar]
Den Hartog DN , Belschak FD 2012 . Work engagement and Machiavellianism in the ethical leadership process. J. Bus. Ethics 107 : 1 35– 47 [Google Scholar]
DeShong HL , Grant DM , Mullins-Sweatt SN. 2015 . Comparing models of counterproductive workplace behaviors: the five-factor model and the dark triad. Pers. Individ. Dif. 74 : 55– 60 [Google Scholar]
Detert JR , Trevino LK , Burris ER , Andiappan M. 2007 . Managerial modes of influence and counterproductivity in organizations: a longitudinal business-unit-level investigation. J. Appl. Psychol. 92 : 4 993– 1005 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.993 [Google Scholar]
Duffy MK , Ganster DC , Shaw JD. 1998 . Positive affectivity and negative outcomes: the role of tenure and job satisfaction. J. Appl. Psychol. 83 : 6 950– 59 [Google Scholar]
Dunlop PD , Lee K. 2004 . Workplace deviance, organizational citizenship behavior, and business unit performance: the bad apples do spoil the whole barrel. J. Organ. Behav. 25 : 1 67– 80 [Google Scholar]
Enns JR , Rotundo M. 2012 . When competition turns ugly: collective injustice, workgroup identification, and counterproductive work behavior. Hum. Perform. 25 : 1 26– 51 [Google Scholar]
Erdogan B , Ozyilmaz A , Bauer TN , Emre O. 2018 . Accidents happen: psychological empowerment as a moderator of accident involvement and its outcomes. Pers. Psychol. 71 : 1 67– 83 https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12228 [Google Scholar]
Ferris DL , Brown DJ , Lian H , Keeping LM. 2009 . When does self-esteem relate to deviant behavior? The role of contingencies of self-worth. J. Appl. Psychol. 94 : 5 1345– 53 [Google Scholar]
Fleming CJ. 2020 . Prosocial rule breaking at the street level: the roles of leaders, peers, and bureaucracy. Public Manag. Rev. 22 : 8 1191– 216 [Google Scholar]
Fox S , Spector PE , Goh A , Bruursema K , Kessler SR. 2012 . The deviant citizen: measuring potential positive relations between counterproductive work behaviour and organizational citizenship behaviour. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 85 : 1 199– 220 [Google Scholar]
Fox S , Spector PE , Miles D. 2001 . Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. J. Vocat. Behav. 59 : 3 291– 309 https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1803 [Google Scholar]
Fung B. 2020 . Amazon says it may fire workers who violate social distancing guidelines. CNN Business Apr. 7. https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/07/tech/amazon-social-distancing-enforcement/index.html [Google Scholar]
Galperin BL 2003 . Can workplace deviance be constructive?. Misbehaviour and Dysfunctional Attitudes in Organizations A Sagie, S Stashevsky, M Koslowsky 154– 70 Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan [Google Scholar]
Galperin BL. 2012 . Exploring the nomological network of workplace deviance: developing and validating a measure of constructive deviance. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 42 : 12 2988– 3025 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00971.x [Google Scholar]
Galperin BL , Burke RJ. 2006 . Uncovering the relationship between workaholism and workplace destructive and constructive deviance: an exploratory study. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 17 : 2 331– 47 https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190500404853 [Google Scholar]
Garcia PRJM , Restubog SLD , Denson TF. 2010 . The moderating role of prior exposure to aggressive home culture in the relationship between negative reciprocity beliefs and aggression. J. Res. Personal. 44 : 3 380– 85 [Google Scholar]
Garcia PRJM , Wang L , Lu V , Kiazad K , Restubog SLD. 2015 . When victims become culprits: the role of subordinates’ neuroticism in the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance. Pers. Individ. Dif. 72 : 225– 29 [Google Scholar]
Giacalone RA , Greenberg J 1997 . Antisocial Behavior in Organizations Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]
Globocnik D , Salomo S. 2015 . Do formal management practices impact the emergence of bootlegging behavior?. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 32 : 4 505– 21 https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12215 [Google Scholar]
Gong T , Wang CY. 2020 . The consequences of customer-oriented constructive deviance in luxury-hotel restaurants. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 57 : 102254 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102254 [Google Scholar]
Grasmick HG , Kobayashi E. 2002 . Workplace deviance in Japan: applying an extended model of deterrence. Deviant Behav . 23 : 1 21– 43 [Google Scholar]
Guay RP , Choi D , Oh IS , Mitchell MS , Mount MK , Shin KH. 2016 . Why people harm the organization and its members: relationships among personality, organizational commitment, and workplace deviance. Hum. Perform. 29 : 1 1– 15 https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2015.1120305 [Google Scholar]
Hastings SE , Finegan JE. 2011 . The role of ethical ideology in reactions to injustice. J. Bus. Ethics 100 : 4 689– 703 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0704-x [Google Scholar]
Herington MJ , van de Fliert E. 2018 . Positive deviance in theory and practice: a conceptual review. Deviant Behav 39 : 5 664– 78 [Google Scholar]
Hornsey MJ. 2016 . Dissent and deviance in intergroup contexts. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 11 : 1– 5 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.006 [Google Scholar]
Hung TK , Chi NW , Lu WL. 2009 . Exploring the relationships between perceived coworker loafing and counterproductive work behaviors: the mediating role of a revenge motive. J. Bus. Psychol. 24 : 3 257– 70 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9104-6 [Google Scholar]
Hunt SD , Chonko LB. 1984 . Marketing and Machiavellianism. J. Mark. 48 : 3 30– 42 [Google Scholar]
Isen AM. 1987 . Positive affect, cognitive processes, and social behavior. Adv. Exp. Social Psychol. 20 : 203– 53 [Google Scholar]
Jensen JM , Patel PC. 2011 . Predicting counterproductive work behavior from the interaction of personality traits. Pers. Individ. Dif. 51 : 4 466– 71 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.016 [Google Scholar]
Johnson B , Turner L. 2003 . Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research A Tashakkori, C Teddlie 297– 319 Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]
Johnson R , Rolentino A , Rodopman O , Cho E. 2010 . We (sometimes) know not how we feel: predicting job performance with an implicit measure of trait affectivity. Pers. Psychol. 63 : 197– 219 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01166.x [Google Scholar]
Judge TA , Scott BA , Ilies R. 2006 . Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance: test of a multilevel model. J. Appl. Psychol. 91 : 1 126– 38 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.126 [Google Scholar]
Jung JH , Yoo J. 2019 . The effects of deviant customer-oriented behaviors on service friendship: the moderating role of co-production. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 48 : 60– 69 [Google Scholar]
Kalemci RA , Kalemci-Tuzun I , Ozkan-Canbolat E. 2019 . Employee deviant behavior: role of culture and organizational relevant support. Eur. J. Manag. Bus. Econ. 28 : 2 126– 41 https://doi.org/10.1108/EJMBE-11-2018-0125 [Google Scholar]
Kannan-Narasimhan R. 2014 . Organizational ingenuity in nascent innovations: gaining resources and legitimacy through unconventional actions. Organ. Stud. 35 : 4 483– 509 [Google Scholar]
Khan GS. 2017 . Integrating antecedent of constructive deviance and exploring obstacles in organization and work-related outcomes. Res. J. Recent Sci. 6 : 11 1– 9 [Google Scholar]
Kim YJ , Toh SM. 2019 . Stuck in the past? The influence of a leader's past cultural experience on group culture and positive and negative group deviance. Acad. Manag. J. 62 : 3 944– 69 [Google Scholar]
Kluemper DH , Taylor SG , Bowler WM , Bing MN , Halbesleben JR. 2019 . How leaders perceive employee deviance: blaming victims while excusing favorites. J. Appl. Psychol. 104 : 7 946– 64 [Google Scholar]
Kobayashi E , Kerbo HR. 2016 . The deterrent effects of punishments for noncompliance and rewards for compliance: a comparison of hospital employees in Japan and the United States. Deviant Behav . 37 : 9 1077– 94 [Google Scholar]
Kong H , Kim H. 2017 . Customer aggression and workplace deviance: the moderating role of psychological ownership. Soc. Behav. Pers. 45 : 11 1761– 74 https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6617 [Google Scholar]
Krings F , Facchin S. 2009 . Organizational justice and men's likelihood to sexually harass: the moderating role of sexism and personality. J. Appl. Psychol. 94 : 2 501– 10 [Google Scholar]
Kunda Z. 1990 . The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol. Bull. 108 : 3 480– 98 [Google Scholar]
Kura KM , Shamsudin FM , Chauhan A. 2016 . Organisational trust as a mediator between perceived organisational support and constructive deviance. Int. J. Bus. Soc. 17 : 1 https://doi.org/10.33736/ijbs.506.2016 [Google Scholar]
Lee A , Schwarz G , Newman A , Legood A. 2019 . Investigating when and why psychological entitlement predicts unethical pro-organizational behavior. J. Bus. Ethics 154 : 1 109– 26 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3456-z [Google Scholar]
Leo C , Russell-Bennett R. 2014 . Developing a multidimensional scale of customer-oriented deviance (COD). J. Bus. Res. 67 : 6 1218– 25 [Google Scholar]
Li SL , Huo Y , Long LR. 2017 . Chinese traditionality matters: effects of differentiated empowering leadership on followers’ trust in leaders and work outcomes. J. Bus. Ethics 145 : 1 81– 93 [Google Scholar]
Li Y , Li DC , Li NN. 2019 . Sustainable influence of manager's pro-social rule-breaking behaviors on employees' performance. Sustainability 11 : 20 5625 https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205625 [Google Scholar]
Lian H , Ferris DL , Brown DJ. 2012 . Does power distance exacerbate or mitigate the effects of abusive supervision? It depends on the outcome. J. Appl. Psychol. 97 : 1 107– 23 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024610 [Google Scholar]
Lin KA , Savani K , Ilies R. 2019 . Doing good, feeling good? The roles of helping motivation and citizenship pressure. . J. Appl. Psychol. 104 : 3 1020– 35 [Google Scholar]
Lin SHJ , Johnson RE. 2018 . Opposing affective and cognitive effects of prevention focus on counterproductive work behavior. J. Bus. Psychol. 33 : 2 283– 96 [Google Scholar]
Liu Y , Berry CM. 2013 . Identity, moral, and equity perspectives on the relationship between experienced injustice and time theft. J. Bus. Ethics 118 : 1 73– 83 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1554-5 [Google Scholar]
Lorinkova NM , Perry SJ. 2017 . When is empowerment effective? The role of leader-leader exchange in empowering leadership, cynicism, and time theft. J. Manag. 43 : 5 1631– 54 https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314560411 [Google Scholar]
Ma B , Liu S , Lassleben H , Ma G. 2019 . The relationships between job insecurity, psychological contract breach and counterproductive workplace behavior. Pers. Rev. 48 : 2 595– 610 https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-04-2018-0138 [Google Scholar]
Mackey JD , Frieder RE , Perrewe PL , Gallagher VC , Brymer RA. 2015 . Empowered employees as social deviants: the role of abusive supervision. J. Bus. Psychol. 30 : 1 149– 62 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9345-x [Google Scholar]
Mainemelis C. 2010 . Stealing fire: creative deviance in the evolution of new ideas. Acad. Manag. Rev. 35 : 4 558– 78 [Google Scholar]
Malik P , Lenka U. 2019 . Exploring the impact of perceived AMO framework on constructive and destructive deviance: mediating role of employee engagement. Int. J. Manpower 40 : 5 994– 1011 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-05-2018-0164 [Google Scholar]
Marcus B , Schuler H. 2004 . Antecedents of counterproductive behavior at work: a general perspective. J. Appl. Psychol. 89 : 4 647– 60 http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.647 [Google Scholar]
Mawritz MB , Mayer DM , Hoobler JM , Wayne SJ , Marinova SV. 2012 . A trickle-down model of abusive supervision. Pers. Psychol. 65 : 2 325– 57 [Google Scholar]
Mayer DM , Kuenzi M , Greenbaum RL. 2010 . Examining the link between ethical leadership and employee misconduct: the mediating role of ethical climate. J. Bus. Ethics 95 : 7– 16 http://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0794-0 [Google Scholar]
Meier LL , Spector PE. 2013 . Reciprocal effects of work stressors and counterproductive work behavior: a five-wave longitudinal study. J. Appl. Psychol. 98 : 3 529– 39 [Google Scholar]
Mertens W , Recker J. 2020 . How store managers can empower their teams to engage in constructive deviance: theory development through a multiple case study. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 52 : 101937 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101937 [Google Scholar]
Michel JS , Newness K , Duniewicz K. 2016 . How abusive supervision affects workplace deviance: a moderated-mediation examination of aggressiveness and work-related negative affect. J. Bus. Psychol. 31 : 1 1– 22 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9400-2 [Google Scholar]
Mitchell MS , Ambrose ML. 2007 . Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. J. Appl. Psychol. 92 : 4 1159– 68 [Google Scholar]
Moore C , Mayer DM , Chiang FFT , Crossley C , Karlesky MJ , Birtch TA. 2019 . Leaders matter morally: the role of ethical leadership in shaping employee moral cognition and misconduct. J. Appl. Psychol. 104 : 1 123– 45 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000341 [Google Scholar]
Morrison EW. 2006 . Doing the job well: an investigation of pro-social rule breaking. J. Manag. 32 : 1 5– 28 https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305277790 [Google Scholar]
Neuman JH , Baron RA. 1998 . Workplace violence and workplace aggression: evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. J. Manag. 24 : 3 391– 419 [Google Scholar]
Neves P , Story J. 2015 . Ethical leadership and reputation: combined indirect effects on organizational deviance. J. Bus. Ethics 127 : 1 165– 76 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1997-3 [Google Scholar]
Ng TW , Yam KC. 2019 . When and why does employee creativity fuel deviance? Key psychological mechanisms. J. Appl. Psychol. 104 : 9 1144– 63 [Google Scholar]
O'Neill TA , Lee NM , Radan J , Law SJ , Lewis RJ , Carswell JJ. 2013 . The impact of “non-targeted traits” on personality test faking, hiring, and workplace deviance. Pers. Individ. Dif. 55 : 2 162– 68 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.02.027 [Google Scholar]
Packer DJ , Miners CT. 2014 . Tough love: the normative conflict model and a goal system approach to dissent decisions. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 8 : 7 354– 73 [Google Scholar]
Palmer JC , Komarraju M , Carter MZ , Karau SJ. 2017 . Angel on one shoulder: Can perceived organizational support moderate the relationship between the dark triad traits and counterproductive work behavior?. Pers. Individ. Dif. 110 : 31– 37 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.018 [Google Scholar]
Pan W , Sun L , Sun L-Y , Li C , Leung ASM. 2018 . Abusive supervision and job-oriented constructive deviance in the hotel industry: test of a nonlinear mediation and moderated curvilinear model. Int. J. Contemp. Hospitality Manag. 30 : 5 2249– 67 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-04-2017-0212 [Google Scholar]
Peterson DK. 2002 . Deviant workplace behavior and the organization's ethical climate. J. Bus. Psychol. 17 : 1 47– 61 http://doi.org/10.1023/a:1016296116093 [Google Scholar]
Pletzer JL , Oostrom JK , Bentvelzen M , de Vries RE. 2020 . Comparing domain- and facet-level relations of the HEXACO personality model with workplace deviance: a meta-analysis. Pers. Individ. Dif. 152 : 1 109539 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109539 [Google Scholar]
Quade MJ , Perry SJ , Hunter EM. 2019 . Boundary conditions of ethical leadership: exploring supervisor-induced and job hindrance stress as potential inhibitors. J. Bus. Ethics 158 : 4 1165– 84 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3771-4 [Google Scholar]
Reinke K. 2018 . CVS employee in Greenfield fired after stopping thief. Fox News 59 Dec. 5. https://fox59.com/news/cvs-employee-in-greenfield-fired-after-stopping-thief/ [Google Scholar]
Restubog SLD , Scott KL , Zagenczyk TJ. 2011 . When distress hits home: the role of contextual factors and psychological distress in predicting employees' responses to abusive supervision. J. Appl. Psychol. 96 : 4 713– 29 [Google Scholar]
Robinson SL , Bennett RJ. 1995 . A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: a multidimensional scaling study. Acad. Manag. J. 38 : 2 555– 72 [Google Scholar]
Robinson SL , Bennett RJ. 1997 . Workplace deviance: its definition, its manifestations, and its causes. Research on Negotiation in Organizations 6 Lewicki RJ, Bies RJ, Sheppard BH 3– 27 Bingley, UK: Emerald Group [Google Scholar]
Sardzoska EG , Tang TLP. 2012 . Work-related behavioral intentions in Macedonia: coping strategies, work environment, love of money, job satisfaction, and demographic variables. J. Bus. Ethics 108 : 3 373– 91 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1096-2 [Google Scholar]
Sarpong D , Maclean M. 2017 . Service nepotism in cosmopolitan transient social spaces. Work Employ. Soc. 31 : 5 764– 81 [Google Scholar]
Sharma N , Singh VK. 2018 . Psychological empowerment and employee engagement: testing the mediating effects of constructive deviance in Indian IT sector. Int. J. Hum. Cap. Inf. Technol. Prof. 9 : 4 44– 55 https://doi.org/10.4018/ijhcitp.2018100103 [Google Scholar]
Shum C , Ghosh A , Gatling A. 2019 . Prosocial rule-breaking to help coworker: nature, causes, and effect on service performance. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 79 : 100– 109 [Google Scholar]
Sittisom W. 2020 . Effect of HRM practices on constructive deviance in pharmaceutical companies: mediating by ethical climate. Syst. Rev. Pharm. 11 : 3 28– 36 [Google Scholar]
Smoktunowicz E , Baka L , Cieslak R , Nichols CF , Benight CC , Luszczynska A. 2015 . Explaining counterproductive work behaviors among police officers: The indirect effects of job demands are mediated by job burnout and moderated by job control and social support. Hum. Perform. 28 : 4 332– 50 [Google Scholar]
Spector PE , Bauer JA , Fox S. 2010 . Measurement artifacts in the assessment of counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: Do we know what we think we know?. J. Appl. Psychol. 95 : 4 781– 90 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019477 [Google Scholar]
Spector PE , Fox S 2005 . The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work behavior. Counterproductive Work Behavior: Investigations of Actors and Targets S Fox, PE Spector 151– 74 Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc. https://doi.org/10.1037/10893-007 [Google Scholar]
Spector PE , Fox S , Penney LM , Bruursema K , Goh A , Kessler S. 2006 . The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal?. J. Vocat. Behav. 68 : 3 446– 60 [Google Scholar]
Spreitzer GM , Sonenshein S. 2004 . Toward the construct definition of positive deviance. Am. Behav. Sci. 47 : 6 828– 47 [Google Scholar]
Tajfel H , Turner JC 1985 . The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. Psychology of Intergroup Relations S Worchel, WG Austin 7– 24 Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 2nd ed. [Google Scholar]
Taylor SG , Bedeian AG , Kluemper DH. 2012 . Linking workplace incivility to citizenship performance: the combined effects of affective commitment and conscientiousness. J. Organ. Behav. 33 : 7 878– 93 [Google Scholar]
Thiel CE , Hardy JH III , Peterson DR , Welsh DT , Bonner JM 2018 . Too many sheep in the flock? Span of control attenuates the influence of ethical leadership. J. Appl. Psychol. 103 : 12 1324 – 34 [Google Scholar]
Tu CK , Luo B. 2020 . Paternalistic leadership and pro-social rule breaking: the moderating roles of psychological empowerment and leader-member exchange. Hum. Syst. Manag. 39 : 1 93– 103 [Google Scholar]
Tziner A , Fein EC , Sharoni G , Bar-Hen P , Nord T. 2010 . Constructive deviance, leader-member exchange, and confidence in appraisal: How do they interrelate, if at all?. Rev. Psicol. Trab. Organ. 26 : 2 95– 100 https://doi.org/10.5093/tr2010v26n2a1 [Google Scholar]
Vadera AK , Pratt MG , Mishra P. 2013 . Constructive deviance in organizations: integrating and moving forward. J. Manag. 39 : 5 1221– 76 http://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313475816 [Google Scholar]
Van Dyne L , Cummings LL , Parks JM 1995 . Extra-role behaviors: in pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). Research in Organizational Behavior 17 LL Cummings, BM Staw 215– 85 Greenwich, CT: JAI Press [Google Scholar]
Van Dyne L , LePine JA. 1998 . Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: evidence of construct and predictive validity. Acad. Manag. J. 41 : 108– 19 [Google Scholar]
Vardaman JM , Gondo MB , Allen DG. 2014 . Ethical climate and pro-social rule breaking in the workplace. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 24 : 1 108– 18 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2012.05.001 [Google Scholar]
Vardi Y , Wiener Y. 1996 . Misbehavior in organizations: a motivational framework. Organ . Sci . 7 : 2 151– 65 [Google Scholar]
Wang L. 2019 . Creativity as a pragmatic moral tool. J. Bus. Res. 96 : 1– 13 [Google Scholar]
Wang L , Song F , Zhong CB. 2022 . High compensation and unethical reciprocity. J. Manag. 48 : 8 2223– 54 [Google Scholar]
Warren DE. 2003 . Constructive and destructive deviance in organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 28 : 4 622– 32 [Google Scholar]
Weiss HM , Cropanzano R 1996 . Affective events theory: a theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior 18 BM Staw, LL Cummings 1– 74 Greenwich, CT: JAI Press [Google Scholar]
Wilkins LT. 1965 . Social Deviance: Social Policy, Action, and Research Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall [Google Scholar]
Yang J , Diefendorff JM. 2009 . The relations of daily counterproductive workplace behavior with emotions, situational antecedents, and personality moderators: a diary study in Hong Kong. Pers. Psychol. 62 : 2 259– 95 [Google Scholar]
Yıldız B , Erat S , Alpkan L , Yıldız H , Sezen B. 2015 . Drivers of innovative constructive deviance: a moderated mediation analysis. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 195 : 1407– 16 [Google Scholar]
Yu K , Liu C , Li Y. 2019 . Beyond social exchange: career adaptability linking work stressors and counterproductive work behavior. Front. Psychol. 10 : 1079 [Google Scholar]
Zhang H , Zhou ZE , Zhan Y , Liu C , Zhang L. 2018 . Surface acting, emotional exhaustion, and employee sabotage to customers: moderating roles of quality of social exchanges. Front. Psychol. 9 : 2197 [Google Scholar]
Zhang L , Deng YL. 2016 . Guanxi with supervisor and counterproductive work behavior: the mediating role of job satisfaction. J. Bus. Ethics 134 : 3 413– 27 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2438-7 [Google Scholar]
Zhao J , Xiao S , Mao J , Liu W. 2018 . The buffering effect of Machiavellianism on the relationship between role conflict and counterproductive work behavior. Front. Psychol. 9 : 1776 [Google Scholar]
Zhu J , Xu S , Ouyang K , Herst D , Farndale E. 2018 . Ethical leadership and employee pro-social rule-breaking behavior in China. Asian Bus. Manag. 17 : 1 59– 81 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

Supplementary Data

Download the Supplemental Material (PDF).

Article Type: Review Article

Most Read This Month

Most cited most cited rss feed, conservation of resources in the organizational context: the reality of resources and their consequences, self-determination theory in work organizations: the state of a science, burnout and work engagement: the jd–r approach, psychological safety: the history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct, employee voice and silence, psychological capital: an evidence-based positive approach, how technology is changing work and organizations, research on workplace creativity: a review and redirection, abusive supervision, alternative work arrangements: two images of the new world of work.

Social Norms and Their Violations Essay

To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
As a template for you assignment

Norms and Reactions to Norm Violations

How we learn social norms, observations of social norms in college, violation of social norms, works cited.

A norm is a complex concept traditionally defined as the standard of beliefs and understandings that control human behavior in society (Spillius 75). On the other hand, psychologists define norms as informal understanding that regulates people’s behavior in smaller units such as offices (Spillius 75).

In addition, psychologists accentuate two components of social norms, namely, the behavior exhibition and acceptance by the group. Specific norms may characterize expectations of the culture. Norms are important because they act as behavior guidelines and help maintain order in society.

Norms are classified into four dimensions, which are taboos, mores, laws, and folkways. Folkways constitute daily actions that accord to the custom. Violations of such rules usually do not amount to serious penalty.

A more is a set of norms that promotes moral values in the society, the violation of which is fraught with dire consequences. Laws are written norms enforceable by a state agency, the breach of which leads to criminal liability. As far as taboos are concerned, their violation leads to an extreme penalty such as condemnation from society.

Social norms shape the behaviors and actions of individuals to a considerable extent. They represent an unwritten policy concerning the expected human behavior. Social norms are fundamental in promoting order and control in society. These rules reflect the behavioral patterns of members of a certain group. The application of these norms can be achieved through sanctions or body language in case of unofficial enforcement.

Sanctions are the expressions constructed on the approval or disapproval of certain types of behavior that vary depending on the values of the society. Sanctions can either be positive or negative depending on the society’s thoughts (Spillius 175). Positive sanctions are rewarded with prizes such as gifts and money, while negative ones are heavily discouraged.

Socialization and internalization provide a framework for conformity to norms in the society (Spillius 205). In the event of nonconformity, social control tools such as punishments, fines, and ostracism are implemented to restore order and control.

The understanding of social norms begins with the individual’s upbringing. Socially acceptable behaviors become a part of the person’s values from childhood to adulthood. For example; I remember at my tender age, belching while eating was unacceptable in my family. But violations of such rules did not amount to moral punishment. Although the discovery did make me feel uncomfortable about my manners and culture, it only helped me become a decent member of society and learn to meet its standards.

Different settings have specific expectations on the behavior of individuals. A college is a place that brings people from all walks of life in terms of socio-economic and political backgrounds together (Spillius 65). Due to this cultural diversity, set rules and regulations help in restoring order and discipline.

Values like discipline, sharing, and trusts are highly valued at college and in any institution. During class work, students are expected to raise their hands before making contributions to the debate. I remember one of the students expressing her concern without the lecturer’s permission, which violated the provisions of the classroom norms.

Upon detection, the lecturer expelled the student from the classroom pending disciplinary action. Students reacted angrily because they felt that their peer had violated the classroom norms of the college. So I would say the behavior leading to ostracizing the students doing socially biased things is a negative social norm. The behavior resulted in a violation of mores. Secondly, the classroom rules should focus on promoting positive social norms.

Sharing information is encouraged through group discussions and joint assignments, and violations of such norms would amount to breaking norms of folkways. Sharing and respect are some of the norms that we practice in our daily activities, and violations of these social norms usually lead to stringent penalties.

Spillius, Elizabeth. Family and Social Network: Roles, Norms, and External Relationships in Ordinary Urban Families . New York, NY: Free Press, 1971. Print.

Education Impact on Socialization
The Changing Landscape of Love and Marriage
Nature of Taboo Words
Eating Horse Is a Taboo in the US
Child Behavior Today and Ten Years Ago
Divorce Rates in the United Arab Emirates
Young Generation Healthy Lifestyle
Respect for Elder's Wisdom
Environmental Factors Influence on Life Aspirations
Defining Characteristic of LGBTQ Community
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, April 10). Social Norms and Their Violations. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-norms/

"Social Norms and Their Violations." IvyPanda , 10 Apr. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/social-norms/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Social Norms and Their Violations'. 10 April.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Social Norms and Their Violations." April 10, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-norms/.

1. IvyPanda . "Social Norms and Their Violations." April 10, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-norms/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Social Norms and Their Violations." April 10, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-norms/.

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

Basic site functions
Ensuring secure, safe transactions
Secure account login
Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
Remembering privacy and security settings
Analyzing site traffic and usage
Personalized search, content, and recommendations
Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

Remembering general and regional preferences
Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

IMAGES

Sociology // Norm Violation Activity // Editable by Teaching with a Grin
violating a social norm assignment
Examples of Norm Violations
Social Norm Violation: Essay
Social Norm Violation: Essay
Norm Violation Exercise-5

VIDEO

Social Norm Violation: Extreme Mall Walker
GCU PSA
Social Norm Violation: No Shoes in Publix
assignment ideas creative mind
Intro To World Passport Drama Member Drama
Subject wise assignment ideas for u 💓 #education #school #shorts #books #aesthetic #flowers

COMMENTS

A List of Quirky Ideas for Social Norm Breaching Experiments
Experiment Ideas. Clearly, a breaching experiment is like asking for trouble. When the action is troublesome, it makes it visible that practices leading to social stability are so much ingrained into our minds. Breaching of norms has to be a deliberate act though; it is not an issue of conflicting opinions leading to disobedience of a given norm.
Norm Violation Assignment
Also, you're welcome to discuss norm violation ideas with Professor Plous, the TAs, or fellow students, and to email Professor Plous photos or videos that friends take of you violating a norm, but as with all assignments in this class, you should execute and write up all work individually. Return to Top ©1996-2024, S. Plous:
Ideas for Breaching Experiments
A breaching experiment goes outside our ideas of social norms specifically to see how people will react to the violation of the arbitrary rules of a given situation. These experimental forays arise from the idea that people create social norms themselves without any awareness that they do so and that most individuals need to be shocked out of ...
Breaking Social Norms Project Ideas
Breaking Social Norms Project Ideas. Chris has a master's degree in history and teaches at the University of Northern Colorado. The intentional violation of minor social norms is a fun and popular ...
PDF ASA Resource Ideas for Domain 2
Conducting a norm violation has been a traditional assignment in Introduction to Sociology courses for many years. This assignment puts a different spin on the project by having students complete the assignment in small groups (3-4 students) and by asking them to create a 6-8 minute video presentation of their project. It
Norm Breaching: Social Responses to Mild Deviance
The norms are shared, but everyone feels differently about the behavior that the norms generate. 2. To continue, as a butch queer woman, I have been shoved and body-checked by men at random on the sidewalk - or rather "off the sidewalk" - sometimes when there is a group of men taking up the whole sidewalk who do not want to share the sidewalk ...
Break a Norm Project
Project Components. The Break a Norm Project includes five components. First, students write a statement of the problem, defining the norm they plan to violate and how it acts as a mechanism of social control. Then, students will explain why they are breaking the norm. Second, they will write a hypothesis.
An Introduction to Sociology
Incorporate as much as you can from your learning about sociology in everyday settings. This report should be 2-5 pages in length, typed and double-spaced. Good grammar and sentence structure are expected. The format to use: 1. Statement of the Problem. A. Define the norm you will violate. B. Describe briefly how this norm acts as a mechanism ...
Norm Violation Video Presentation
Conducting a norm violation has been a traditional assignment in Introduction to Sociology courses for many years. This assignment puts a different spin on the project by having students complete the assignment in small groups (3-4 students) and and by asking them to create a 6-8 minute video presentation of their project. It also asks students to collect their own data (of the social patterns ...
PSY 380: Norm Violation Project
The purpose of this course project is to give you increased awareness of the influence that implicit social norms have on social behavior. Your assignment is to engage in some norm-violating behavior, and then to analyze both your own and other people's reactions. The first step is to identify an implicit social norm about some common, everyday ...
Norm Violation Exercise-5
The purpose of this assignment is to encourage students to think about the role of social norms in society by conducting a social experiment: violation of a social norm. To conduct this social experiment, you need to first choose a particular social setting (because each social setting may have different social norms).
Norm Violation Assignment
Norm Violation Assignment; Search this Guide Search. SOC 210: Introduction to Sociology. Information and resources for assignments in Introduction to Sociology (SOC 210). ... ("norm violations" OR "social norm") AND drinking AND Europe (Mexico OR Hispanic OR Latin-American) AND breastfeeding
Examples of Social Norms & Societal Standards in Sociology
The following are some common social norms that people in the US and UK follow daily (Hechter & Opp, 2001): Shaking hands when greeting someone. Saying "please" and "thank you". Apologizing when one makes a mistake. Standing up when someone enters the room.
Breaching experiment
In the fields of sociology and social psychology, a breaching experiment is an experiment that seeks to examine people's reactions to violations of commonly accepted social rules or norms.Breaching experiments are most commonly associated with ethnomethodology, and in particular the work of Harold Garfinkel.Breaching experiments involve the conscious exhibition of "unexpected" behavior ...
102 Examples of Social Norms (List)
Examples of Social Norms. Greeting people when you see them. Saying "thank you" for favors. Holding the door open for others. Standing up when someone else enters the room. Offering to help someone carrying something heavy. Speaking quietly in public places. Waiting in line politely. Respecting other people's personal space.
How norm violators rise and fall in the eyes of others: The role of
Sanctions curb norm violators' perceived power. If norm violations signal power, this opens the door to a self-reinforcing loop [5, 16].Norm violators' claim to power is likely to be granted because people tend to submit to powerful others [17, 24, 32].For example, people who interrupt others during meetings may be granted influence by receiving more time to speak [14, 33].
Examples of Norm Violations
Examples of Norm Violations. Rules for norm violating. 1) Be safe. This rule trumps all other rules. ****. 2) You must violate the norm alone (no one else can be violating it with you). However, you can have a friend watch you. and make observations. 4) You many not harm anyone, including yourself.
Violations of Social Norms Stretch the Imagination
Some violated moral rules, like stealing candy; some violated social conventions, like wearing pajamas to school; and some violated physical laws, like floating in the air. For all types of ...
Norm Violation in Sociology: [Essay Example], 1203 words
One example of a social norm is the separation of public restrooms for men and women. While there may be some exceptions and instances of confusion, it is generally expected that individuals will use the restroom designated for their gender. In sociology, deviant behavior is described as norm violation, where individuals intentionally or ...
I have a Psychology experiment where I must break a social norm, who
It breaks a norm because people dont usually talk to strangers, let alone saying somethign nice to them for no reason. its funny the social ques you still have to follow though, like you still need an "opening". some sort of eye contact or situation to create an excuse to talk to people. their reactions can be predicted based on the demographic ...
Norm-Violating Behavior in Organizations: A Comprehensive Conceptual
Norm violations can not only cause harm but also contribute to the well-being of organizations. During the last several decades, two different foci of research on workplace norm violations have generated a host of empirical studies on both constructive and destructive norm-violating behavior (NVB). However, the two closely related bodies of literature have remained in almost complete isolation ...
Social Norms and Their Violations
Sharing information is encouraged through group discussions and joint assignments, and violations of such norms would amount to breaking norms of folkways. Sharing and respect are some of the norms that we practice in our daily activities, and violations of these social norms usually lead to stringent penalties. Works Cited. Spillius, Elizabeth.

A List of Quirky Ideas for Social Norm Breaching Experiments

What are Breaching Experiments in Sociology?

Experiment Ideas

Experiment Examples

Get Updates Right to Your Inbox

Privacy Overview

Psychology Headlines

Ideas for Breaching Experiments

Breaching with Figuratives

More For You

Restaurants and Carlinisms

Garfinkle's Classics

Norm Breaching: Social Responses to Mild Deviance

Redlark — May 18, 2012

D Traver Adolphus — May 18, 2012

Leslee Bottomley Beldotti — May 18, 2012

Marie — May 18, 2012

astrocomfy — May 18, 2012

Roger Braun — May 18, 2012

The Gaze and Mild Norm Breaching | Hourclass — May 18, 2012

Janether — May 18, 2012

Lunad — May 19, 2012

Legolewdite — May 19, 2012

Tusconian — May 19, 2012

Barney — May 19, 2012

Resources and Ideas « Q — August 3, 2016

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

About Sociological Images

Posts by Topic

Break a Norm Project

Break a Norm Project

Project Components

Accountability

Teacher Benefits of the Break a Norm Project

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

JOIN MY LIST!

Norm Violation Video Presentation

How to Cite

Usage Notes

Similar Resources

SOC 210: Introduction to Sociology

Definitions

Search Tips and Examples

Examples Of Social Norms & Societal Standards: Including Cultural Norms

Everyday social convention Norms

Cultural Norms

For example, in Japan, some social norms that are typically followed include:

In South America, in contrast, people are expected to (Young, 2007):

Social Norms For Students

Gender Social Norms

Social Norms With Family

Social Norms At Work

Social Norms While Dining Out

Using Your Phon e

Social Norms While Driving

Social Norms When Meeting A New Person

Social Norms With Friends

What is the difference between mores, norms, and values?

102 Examples of Social Norms (List)

Examples of Social Norms

Social Norms for Students

Social Norms while Dining Out

Social Norms while using your Phone

Social Norms in Libraries

Social Norms in Other Countries

Social Norms that Should be Broken

Cultural vs Social Norms

Norms Change Depending on the Context

What are the Four Types of Norms?

Conclusion: What are Social Norms?

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Florian Wanders

Astrid C. Homan

Gerben A. van Kleef

Associated Data

Introduction

Norm violations signal power

Sanctions curb norm violators’ perceived power

Participants and design

Manipulation