A Sociocognitive Approach to Social Norms

Nicole Dubois

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2004
• ISBN:
  9781134517688
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psicología
• Subtopic: Historia y teoría en psicología

Societies and groups attribute greater value to some behaviours and some judgments. These 'norms' are what is most important for understanding how behaviours and judgments are socially regulated. The approach presented examines in particular the social foundations of our judgments.

1 Conformity and deviance

Benoit Testé

The aim of this chapter is to set out the uniqueness of the sociocognitive approach to conformity and deviance. First, the question of the definition of these two notions will be addressed. We shall then briefly review social psychological approaches focused on the group in order to clarify this uniqueness. Finally, a number of studies will be presented giving prominence to research concerning, on one hand, the effects of adherence vs. non-adherence to norms of judgment, and on the other hand, the sociocognitive dynamics implicated in the social regulation of deviance.

The notions of conformity and deviance

Conformity and deviance are generally defined in social psychology (Freedman and Doob, 1968; Levine, 1989), as indeed they are in sociology (Cohen, 1966; Gibbs, 1990; Ogien, 1995), in relation to the notion of “norm”.¹ Thus Hewstone (1996) defines deviance “as the non-conformity to norms of behavior”. According to this author, “normative theories are by definition theories concerning deviance”. This conceptual link between conformity, deviance and norm implies a certain number of zones of uncertainty associated with the poly-semic character of the notion of norm (see Introduction; Cialdini, Kallgren and Reno, 1991; Dubois, 1994). We shall review three of these zones of uncertainty.

Firstly, the definitions of conformity and deviance vary appreciably according to whether one refers to a descriptive or an injunctive definition of the notion of norm (see Codol, 1975; Cialdini, Kallgren and Reno, 1991). A descriptive definition leads one to consider conformity as a majority activity and deviance as a minority activity from a statistical point of view. On the other hand, defining a norm as injunctive (thus as a principle of prescription or evaluation) implies that one considers conformity and deviance from the point of view of value. This is because, on one hand, conformity and deviance only acquire meaning in relation to a system of values defining what events are more or less acceptable vs. unacceptable in a given social system, and on the other hand, because the following or transgression of a norm leads to the application of sanctions, either formal or informal, which attribute value to an individual, whether this value is positive or negative.²

Secondly, and depending on the author, the definition of deviance gives greater importance to one or other of two poles. Certain authors refer to a definition a priori of deviance in terms of transgression of a norm by an individual or a group. Thus, what is seen as deviant are behaviors – individuals departing from norms or rules, either formal or informal, accepted in a social unit. Mugny (1991) thus proposes that “…deviance can be defined as a socially perceived transgression of rules or norms in force in a given social system; it is a behavior which calls into question both the social norms and the cohesiveness or unity of the system” (p.65). Deviance is considered here as a characteristic specific to a behavior or an individual in relation to a given social system. The questions which are most often addressed are therefore those concerning the social and psychological conditions leading individuals to violate norms (Bandura, Barbaranelli, et al., 1996; Bandura, Caprara, et al., 2001) and the means of dissuading or preventing them from doing this (Cusson, 1998; Gassin, 1994). Other authors refer to a definition a posteriori of deviance in terms of a sanctioned act. What is seen as deviant are therefore behaviors/individuals designated, penalized or taken in hand as such, the sanctions being formal or informal: rejection, exclusion, derogation, stigmatization, disapprobation, placement, imprisonment, etc. Deviance therefore is conceptualized here as the result of a process of social regulation (Becker, 1963).

A third zone of uncertainty concerns the relation between conformity and deviance. The first way to conceptualize this relation is to envisage it as strictly bipolar or unidimensional. Deviance is therefore defined as the absence of conformity, and vice versa. Social psychological approaches focused on the group often fall within this conceptualization, which also happens to be in accordance with commonsense views. Using a descriptive definition of the notion of norm (see Cialdini, Kallgren and Reno, 1991), these approaches tend to split individuals into two opposing categories: conformists and deviants (Schachter, 1951). Moreover, they often implicitly assume a symmetrical character to the valorization of conformity and the penalization of deviance for a given norm (Turner, 1991). The relation between conformity and deviance can also be envisaged in a less systematic way. As Leyens (1979) points out, the absence of conformity does not always imply the sanctioning of the individual. Similarly, conformity does not always bring a surplus of value to an individual, permitting them to differentiate themselves from others. We shall come back to this point. One can even argue that a norm is rarely the source of both an attribution of value to conformity and a penalization of deviance, since the importance of these two processes of social differentiation depends on the type of norms and the function of the differentiation, either positive or negative, which they fulfill in social life.

In relation to these three zones of uncertainty, we can already retain three ideas concerning a sociocognitive approach.

1. It is based on an injunctive definition of the notion of norm, accompanied by a definition of value in terms of social utility, and not just in terms of desirability (see Introduction and Chapter 5).
2. As well as being concerned primarily with the social construction of norma-tivity, a sociocognitive approach can also refer to the two poles of the definition of deviance, that is, transgression of norms and sanctions, notably by studying the sociocognitive mechanisms involved in its perception and evaluation, as well as the normalizing effects resulting from its social control (Le Poultier, 1986).
3. It puts forward the hypothesis that the absence of adherence to certain norms, notably to certain norms of judgment, does not necessarily lead to stigmatization; it is thus normativity which confers on an individual a surplus of social value. Before setting out in more detail the features of this approach, we shall review the research of other approaches which, for their part, focus on group norms.

Research within group approaches: conformity and deviance towards group norms

Pressure towards uniformity in small groups

The approach of pressures towards uniformity in small groups defines deviance as divergence, or a perceived gap, between the position of an individual and the majority position of the group. It is based on an interpersonal and statistical definition of the notions of both deviance and norm. Thus, according to Jones and Gerard (1967, p.711), “…the deviant is an individual who behaves in a different manner from that expected by the group or the culture in which he moves. When it concerns research on communication and consensus in discussion groups, the term deviant applies to any individual whose views are markedly different from those of the majority, called the modal position”. It was Festinger (1950) who laid the theoretical foundations for studying deviance in groups. According to this author, using informal communication processes groups spontaneously exert pressure on individuals who depart from the modal position (norm) of the group. Festinger defines two sources of pressure for uniformity: on one hand, members of the group feel the need to create and maintain social reality, and on the other hand, the movement of the group towards its objectives induces them to perceive uniformity as desirable.³

The research carried out in the context of this model has confirmed the existence of such pressures towards uniformity and shows that remaining in a position of “deviance” can bring about devaluation and the implementation of informal sanctions. Moreover, the deviant may eventually be marginalized in the discussion, suggesting that the group redefines its boundaries by excluding him or her (see Festinger, Schachter, and Back, 1950; Festinger and Thibaut, 1951; Schachter, 1951; Katz, 1982; Lauderdale, Smith-Cunnien, et al., 1984; Kruglanski and Webster, 1991). Such group dynamics is modulated by several factors including: the degree of cohesiveness of the group (Schachter, 1951; Emerson, 1954; Barnard, Baird, et al., 1992), the interdependence of group members (Jones and DeCharms, 1957; Berkowitz and Howard, 1959), the discussion of sanctions (Wahrman, 1977), the motivation to attain consensus (Miller, Jackson, et al., 1987; Kruglanski and Webster, 1991; De Grada, Kruglanski, et al., 1999), the immediate or deferred character of the deviance (Sampson and Brandon, 1959; Doise and Moscovici, 1970; Gangloff, 1994), and the conformist past of the individual (Hollander, 1958).

A limit to the research arising from this approach concerns the minimal definition of deviance on which it is based, this being reduced to a simple lack of conformity. Any objection or minority position is therefore assimilated in the definition of a deviant act (Moscovici, 1976; Mugny, 1991). The link between deviance and norm is ambiguous, the existence of the norm often being inferred from the reactions observed towards the deviants (the minority).

Social identity and the exclusion of “black sheep”

Research on the pressures towards uniformity comes within the study of the dynamics of small groups. Drawing on the theory of social identity (Tajfel and Turner, 1979) and the theory of self-categorization (Turner, 1987), Marques and his colleagues envisaged a model applicable to the processes of differentiation between members of large groups, such as social categories (Marques, Yzerbyt, and Leyens, 1988; Marques and Yzerbyt, 1988; Marques, 1993; Marques, Abrams, et al., 1998). For these authors, any behavior, judgment, or performance of an ingroup member which endangers the positive nature of the group’s social identity can set off a symbolic process of rejection or exclusion. According to Marques and Serôdio (2000), “…a deviant act is one which endangers the value attributed to the ingroup. Such an act is doubly dangerous. On one hand, because it creates uncertainty. On the other hand, because this uncertainty has direct consequences for the very identity of other group members” (pp.186-187).

The “black sheep” effect is therefore defined as the simultaneous appearance of favoritism towards socially desirable ingroup members and discrimination against socially undesirable members. This effect has been the object of several experimental verifications (Marques, Yzerbyt, and Leyens, 1988; Marques and Yzerbyt, 1988; Marques, Robalo, and Rocha, 1992). Several conditions for the appearance of this effect have been brought to light, such as the specificity of the norm for the ingroup (Marques, Yzerbyt, and Leyens, 1988; Marques, 1990) or the feeling of social identity (Branscombe, Wann, et al., 1993, Branscombe and Wann, 1994; Biernat, Vescio, and Billings, 1999). The black sheep model has recently been enlarged to a model of “subjective group dynamics” (Marques, Yzerbyt, and Leyens, 1998), these dynamics designating “…a process by which people maximize and sustain descriptive intergroup differentiation while simultaneously maximizing and sustaining the relative validity of prescriptive ingroup norms through intragroup differentiation” (Abrams, Marques, et al., 2000, p.906).

The approach to conformity and deviance in groups through the bias of social identity mechanisms offers an important renewal by establishing an articu- lation between inter- and intragroup dynamics of differentiation which serve to maintain the positive nature of social identity. However, this research is limited by the fact that it does not integrate the variable of intergroup relations of domination (Sachdev and Bouhris, 1991).

Sociocognitive approach to liberal normativity: general injunctive norms of judgment

Theoretical position of the sociocognitive approach

In order to situate precisely the specific character of the sociocognitive approach, we shall start by defining four important differences between this approach and the group approaches to conformity and deviance which we have just briefly reviewed. The first difference stems from the fact that group approaches implicitly or explicitly situate conformity and deviance as two poles of the same continuum: deviance is defined by the absence of manifest conformity and vice versa (Schachter, 1951). Moreover, the importance of the norm is more or less supposed to vary symmetrically to the social approval of conformity and the rejection of deviance (Turner, 1991). As we have already pointed out, the sociocognitive approach develops the conceptualization that the attribution of value to conformity and the stigmatization of deviance are two distinc...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Illustrations
• Contributors
• Foreword
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction: The Concept of Norm
• 1. Conformity and Deviance
• 2. Paradigms of the Sociocognitive Approach
• 3. The Procedures of Measure: Questionnaires and Scales
• 4. Sociocognitive Development: Acquisition of the Normativeness of Internality
• 5. Judgment Norms, Social Utility, and Individualism
• 6. Norm of Internality, Social Utility of Internal Explanations, and Cognitive Functioning
• 7. Knowledge of General Social Norms: Normative Clearsightedness
• 8. Normativity and Evaluative Knowledge
• 9. Theory of the Social Norm of Internality Applied to Education and Organizations
• Conclusion: Some Bases for a Sociocognitive Approach to Judgment Norms
• Glossary