Cultural Variation in Social Perceptions of Norm-Breakers and Peer Punishers
Social norms may be enforced by individuals informally punishing each other for norm transgressions. In a preliminary study in 8 countries we found evidence of cultural variation in meta-norms, defined as social perceptions of norm-breakers and norm-enforcers. Here we develop novel hypotheses that relate this variation in meta-norms to variation in individualism and societal threat, and propose how it might influence norm compliance, acculturation of immigrants, and the speed of norm change in societies. These hypotheses are tested by means of a large cross-cultural survey, a survey to immigrants in Sweden, and laboratory studies that combine methods from cultural, social and cognitive psychology and behavioral economics.
Over the period of three years, the project will make several significant contributions: (1) It will provide robust country-measures of social perceptions of peer punishers and norm-breakers for a large selection (~30) of countries around the world. (2) It will demonstrate how culture influences meta-norms. (3) It will empirically answer how change of social norms in a society, and immigrant acculturation to the social norms in a new society, depend on meta-norms. These are timely topics in a world that gets smaller and smaller and that pays increasing attention to cultural differences.
The project is conducted by an international team involving several world-leading researchers.
Final report
Acting in a way that others find inappropriate constitutes a norm violation. One and the same behavior can violate norms to different degrees, depending on the culture in which it takes place. An individual who breaks a norm risks being subjected to social sanctions. There are different forms of social sanctions. Modern research distinguishes between confrontation, ostracism (avoidance) and gossip. Sanctions are an important form of behavior within groups. On the one hand, sanctions can enforce higher norm compliance. On the other hand, sanctions may incite in-group conflicts. Theorists have therefore long talked about the importance of metanorms, that is, norms about the use of social sanctions. However, previous empirical research on metanorms has focused mostly on economic sanctions in economic experiments and almost completely ignored the fact that real-life social sanctions exist in several distinct forms. This was true also for our original research plan, which did not differentiate between different types of social sanctions. In the plan, the aim of the project was to map how metanorms vary between different cultures. The important aim of differentiating between metanorms for confrontation, metanorms for ostracism and metanorms for gossip was added while developing the main study.
The project has consisted of the main study, which measures the norms and metanorms of many individuals in different countries, as well as a follow-up study measuring norms and metanorms among immigrants in Sweden originating from many different countries. These studies have become significantly more comprehensive than the original plan, as explained below.
Theorists have long discussed metanorms’ significance for cooperation in social dilemmas. In 2021, another research group published new data of variation between countries when it comes to cooperation in social dilemmas. This enabled an important addition to our project in the form of a study where we demonstrate that the intercountry variation in cooperation is strongly related to the variation in metanorms.
The project plan also specified that we were to study norm change at country level, using existing data and relate this to metanorms. However, the theoretical connection between norm change and metanorms was speculative. We have performed a large analysis of norm change at country level, but metanorms are no longer relevant in this analysis; we now have an alternative and much stronger theory for what drives norm change.
Another important addition to the project is that the main study was expanded with a measure of which emotions the participants felt when presented with different norm violations. This means that we can study how the emotions that a norm violation evokes affect which sanction is considered appropriate. Our theory is that the effect of emotions is greater in more individualistic cultures, which is also demonstrated in our data (Andersson et al., preprint). The original plan included a study in which we experimentally would test individualism as a cause of metanorms, but it was excluded after conducting a number of pilot studies without finding any effective manipulation of individualism.
The project spanned 2018-2021. During 2018, substantial development of the main study took place, and we recruited researchers in 57 countries who were to conduct data collection locally. In the beginning of 2019, the main study was translated and piloted together in the participating countries. A final version of the main study, along with hypotheses and analysis methods, was preregistered on 1 April 2019, whence data collection was initiated. Data collection continued through January 2020. Data from approximately 22.000 participants were collected.
The main study is a survey presenting a number of scenarios of norm violations to measure perceptions around norm violations, the emotions they evoke, and the perceptions around the appropriateness of different social sanctions: confrontation, ostracism, and gossip. Additionally, the survey measures a number of theoretically relevant cultural variables (“tightness,” individualism and modern values) and norms (hygiene and privacy).
When the covid pandemic became a fact, a few months after completed data collection, the co-author Giulia Andrighetto initiated a re-run of the study in as many countries as possible (42), adding certain questions about covid. The aim of this study was to investigate how the arrival of the pandemic affected levels of tightness, metanorms, and norms on hygiene that we measured in the main study.
During 2021 we developed a abbreviated version of the questionnaire for distribution among immigrants in Sweden. An opportunity arose where we could join in on another project at the Institute for Futures Studies, which investigates values of immigrants in Sweden. After approved ethics vetting, the study was preregistered in May 2021. We then sent the metanorm survey to participants in the IFFS study, resulting in 873 survey responses from immigrants originating from 89 different countries.
In the primary article of the main study, we present our key results (Eriksson, Strimling, Gelfand, et al., 2021). The first result is that metanorms are the same for norm violations of different categories: violations of cooperation norms, violations of situational conventions, and violations of metanorms. This is important in several ways. Firstly, it means that ‘metanorms’ is a well-defined concept in itself – we do not have to define a category of norm violations before discussing which sanctions are appropriate. Secondly, it means that the origin of metanorms most likely does not lie in the specific domain of cooperation (which previous theorists have assumed) because they look the same in other domains.
A second key finding is that metanorms for confrontation and social ostracism (we can think of them as “punitive” social sanctions) tend to vary in the opposite way compared with metanorms for gossip. Thus, it is not the case that some countries have more sanctions and others have less (which previous theorists have assumed). Instead, some countries’ metanorms favor punishment and other countries’ metanorms favor gossip. These countries can be characterized by different degrees of “modernity.” Modern countries – with a high median income, high sex equality and an accepting view on homosexuality – have, relatively, a positive view on gossip and a negative view on punishment. This result is important because it supports the theory that metanorms are not static but change as a part of a larger modernization process, as documented by Ronald Inglehart and other sociologists.
The third key result is that metanorms relate to cooperation and norms for cooperation (Eriksson, Simpson & Vartanova, 2021). Countries with high cooperation frequency in social dilemmas and strict norms around cooperation are characterized by, relatively, a positive view on gossip and a negative view on punishment. This result is important because previous theorists have assumed that it is a positive view on punishment that is required to maintain cooperation. Contrarily, it seems to be that gossip facilitates the development of cooperation norms.
In the project plan we posed the question how metanorms change upon migration between countries with differing metanorms. In a first data collection we have measured metanorms of relatively recent immigrants in Sweden and compared them to Swedish metanorms and the metanorms in the countries of origin. In this dataset it is not possible to fully differentiate effects of adaptation from effects of biased selection. That is, immigrants’ metanorms could potentially have deviated from typical metanorms in their country of origin already at the time of migrating. To study adaptation of values and metanorms over time, further data collections are planned with this group within the project that Pontus Strimling heads at the Institute for Futures Studies.
During the course of the project, several new research questions have emerged. Some of them we have already answered: How reliable are Hofstede’s cultural dimensions? How do hygiene norms vary between countries and are they different for women and men? How do norms vary when it comes to how much information to disclose about oneself online? How did metanorms and norms on hygiene change with the advent of the covid pandemic?
The main study is the result of collaboration between more than 100 researchers in 57 countries. The study of immigrants’ metanorms is the result of collaboration with researchers at the Institute for Futures Studies.
The results of this project have been reported in several published journal articles and completed manuscripts intended for publication. The data collected in the main study is openly available and will most likely be used in many future studies, also by other researchers. The results have also been disseminated to other researchers at academic seminars at the Centre for Cultural Evolution (Stockholm University), Centre for Collective Action Research (University of Gothenburg), and to international PhD students though a lecture part of the online course ”Bridging Social Psychology” (University of Amsterdam). The results are also treated at a lecture of the master level course ”Social behavior: Insights from evolutionary psychology” (Stockholm University). Finally, the results have been popularized through interviews in daily newspapers (Dagens Nyheter, Svenska Dagbladet, Göteborgs-Posten), and on the radio (the show Tro och vetande on Swedish Radio station P1). The results have also been mentioned on Swedish public service television, SVT.
The project has consisted of the main study, which measures the norms and metanorms of many individuals in different countries, as well as a follow-up study measuring norms and metanorms among immigrants in Sweden originating from many different countries. These studies have become significantly more comprehensive than the original plan, as explained below.
Theorists have long discussed metanorms’ significance for cooperation in social dilemmas. In 2021, another research group published new data of variation between countries when it comes to cooperation in social dilemmas. This enabled an important addition to our project in the form of a study where we demonstrate that the intercountry variation in cooperation is strongly related to the variation in metanorms.
The project plan also specified that we were to study norm change at country level, using existing data and relate this to metanorms. However, the theoretical connection between norm change and metanorms was speculative. We have performed a large analysis of norm change at country level, but metanorms are no longer relevant in this analysis; we now have an alternative and much stronger theory for what drives norm change.
Another important addition to the project is that the main study was expanded with a measure of which emotions the participants felt when presented with different norm violations. This means that we can study how the emotions that a norm violation evokes affect which sanction is considered appropriate. Our theory is that the effect of emotions is greater in more individualistic cultures, which is also demonstrated in our data (Andersson et al., preprint). The original plan included a study in which we experimentally would test individualism as a cause of metanorms, but it was excluded after conducting a number of pilot studies without finding any effective manipulation of individualism.
The project spanned 2018-2021. During 2018, substantial development of the main study took place, and we recruited researchers in 57 countries who were to conduct data collection locally. In the beginning of 2019, the main study was translated and piloted together in the participating countries. A final version of the main study, along with hypotheses and analysis methods, was preregistered on 1 April 2019, whence data collection was initiated. Data collection continued through January 2020. Data from approximately 22.000 participants were collected.
The main study is a survey presenting a number of scenarios of norm violations to measure perceptions around norm violations, the emotions they evoke, and the perceptions around the appropriateness of different social sanctions: confrontation, ostracism, and gossip. Additionally, the survey measures a number of theoretically relevant cultural variables (“tightness,” individualism and modern values) and norms (hygiene and privacy).
When the covid pandemic became a fact, a few months after completed data collection, the co-author Giulia Andrighetto initiated a re-run of the study in as many countries as possible (42), adding certain questions about covid. The aim of this study was to investigate how the arrival of the pandemic affected levels of tightness, metanorms, and norms on hygiene that we measured in the main study.
During 2021 we developed a abbreviated version of the questionnaire for distribution among immigrants in Sweden. An opportunity arose where we could join in on another project at the Institute for Futures Studies, which investigates values of immigrants in Sweden. After approved ethics vetting, the study was preregistered in May 2021. We then sent the metanorm survey to participants in the IFFS study, resulting in 873 survey responses from immigrants originating from 89 different countries.
In the primary article of the main study, we present our key results (Eriksson, Strimling, Gelfand, et al., 2021). The first result is that metanorms are the same for norm violations of different categories: violations of cooperation norms, violations of situational conventions, and violations of metanorms. This is important in several ways. Firstly, it means that ‘metanorms’ is a well-defined concept in itself – we do not have to define a category of norm violations before discussing which sanctions are appropriate. Secondly, it means that the origin of metanorms most likely does not lie in the specific domain of cooperation (which previous theorists have assumed) because they look the same in other domains.
A second key finding is that metanorms for confrontation and social ostracism (we can think of them as “punitive” social sanctions) tend to vary in the opposite way compared with metanorms for gossip. Thus, it is not the case that some countries have more sanctions and others have less (which previous theorists have assumed). Instead, some countries’ metanorms favor punishment and other countries’ metanorms favor gossip. These countries can be characterized by different degrees of “modernity.” Modern countries – with a high median income, high sex equality and an accepting view on homosexuality – have, relatively, a positive view on gossip and a negative view on punishment. This result is important because it supports the theory that metanorms are not static but change as a part of a larger modernization process, as documented by Ronald Inglehart and other sociologists.
The third key result is that metanorms relate to cooperation and norms for cooperation (Eriksson, Simpson & Vartanova, 2021). Countries with high cooperation frequency in social dilemmas and strict norms around cooperation are characterized by, relatively, a positive view on gossip and a negative view on punishment. This result is important because previous theorists have assumed that it is a positive view on punishment that is required to maintain cooperation. Contrarily, it seems to be that gossip facilitates the development of cooperation norms.
In the project plan we posed the question how metanorms change upon migration between countries with differing metanorms. In a first data collection we have measured metanorms of relatively recent immigrants in Sweden and compared them to Swedish metanorms and the metanorms in the countries of origin. In this dataset it is not possible to fully differentiate effects of adaptation from effects of biased selection. That is, immigrants’ metanorms could potentially have deviated from typical metanorms in their country of origin already at the time of migrating. To study adaptation of values and metanorms over time, further data collections are planned with this group within the project that Pontus Strimling heads at the Institute for Futures Studies.
During the course of the project, several new research questions have emerged. Some of them we have already answered: How reliable are Hofstede’s cultural dimensions? How do hygiene norms vary between countries and are they different for women and men? How do norms vary when it comes to how much information to disclose about oneself online? How did metanorms and norms on hygiene change with the advent of the covid pandemic?
The main study is the result of collaboration between more than 100 researchers in 57 countries. The study of immigrants’ metanorms is the result of collaboration with researchers at the Institute for Futures Studies.
The results of this project have been reported in several published journal articles and completed manuscripts intended for publication. The data collected in the main study is openly available and will most likely be used in many future studies, also by other researchers. The results have also been disseminated to other researchers at academic seminars at the Centre for Cultural Evolution (Stockholm University), Centre for Collective Action Research (University of Gothenburg), and to international PhD students though a lecture part of the online course ”Bridging Social Psychology” (University of Amsterdam). The results are also treated at a lecture of the master level course ”Social behavior: Insights from evolutionary psychology” (Stockholm University). Finally, the results have been popularized through interviews in daily newspapers (Dagens Nyheter, Svenska Dagbladet, Göteborgs-Posten), and on the radio (the show Tro och vetande on Swedish Radio station P1). The results have also been mentioned on Swedish public service television, SVT.