Using group norms to modify what is socially and morally acceptable

• In Event: 1-141 - Harnessing cognitive biases to promote positive attitudes and behavior

Integrative Statement

Children often believe that how a group is reflects how individual group members should be (Roberts et al., 2017a). We examined whether children (ages 4-9) and adults maintained this descriptive-to-prescriptive tendency even in the strong case in which descriptive norms entailed uncommon (vs. common) behavior, thereby differing in their prevalence (e.g., drinking juice out of a cup instead of a bowl), and in the even stronger case in which they entailed negative (vs. positive) behavior, thereby differing in their valence (e.g., making babies cry instead of smile). These data shed new light on how concepts of group norms shape social-moral reasoning.

In Study 1, children and adults (N=151) were introduced to pairs of novel groups that were characterized by norms that differed in their prevalence (e.g., eating cake or beans at birthday parties). In Study 2, children and adults (N=165) were introduced to pairs of novel groups that were characterized by norms that differed in their valence (e.g., making babies cry instead of smile). In both studies, following the introduction of the groups, participants were shown conforming and non-conforming individuals. Thus, across studies, there were four behavior types: 1) a common/positive norm that an individual conformed to, 2) a common/positive norm that an individual did not conform to, 3) an uncommon/negative norm that an individual conformed to, and 4) an uncommon/negative norm that an individual did not conform to (see Table 1 for examples). Participants evaluated each behavior (e.g., is it OK or not OK for this Hibble to do X).

Descriptive-to-prescriptive reasoning influenced responses: when two individuals from different groups engaged in identical behaviors, be they common or uncommon, positive or negative, the individual who violated their group’s descriptive norms was worse than the individual who did not. Specifically, in Study 1, children and adults evaluated non-conformity to common norms as worse than conformity to uncommon norms (despite both cases involving uncommon behavior), and they evaluated non-conformity to uncommon norms as worse than conformity to common norms (despite both cases involving common behavior). In Study 2, children and adults evaluated non-conformity to positive norms as worse than conformity to negative norms (despite both cases involving negative behavior), and they evaluated non-conformity to negative norms as worse than conformity to positive norms (despite both cases involving positive behavior) (see Figure 1).

Thus, children and adults used group norms to evaluate the behaviors of individuals. As real-world examples, if children believe that women wear dresses whereas men wear suits (Blakemore, 2003), and then encounter a woman and a man both wearing suits, they may be uniquely negative toward the woman as she is violating normative expectations. If children believe that Black people are aggressive whereas White people are pleasant (Pauker et al., 2010), and then encounter a pleasant Black person and a pleasant White person, they may be uniquely negative toward the Black person as they are violating normative expectations. It will be suggested that harnessing (or disrupting) descriptive-to-prescriptive beliefs may be a critical way to promote positive attitudes toward individuals.

Authors

• Steven O. Roberts, Stanford University
  Presenting Author

• Arnold Ho, University of Michigan
  Non-Presenting Author

• Susan Gelman, University of Michigan
  Non-Presenting Author