Talk:Norm (social)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Class Project[edit]

I reorganized and edited massive portions of the prior article for a graduate class project and as part of the American Psychological Science Wikipedia Initiative. Because social psychology explores norms as well, I added more research and made the definitions a bit more widely applicable. I will continue over the next few weeks to incorporate more psychology links and graphics when possible. I have attempted to uphold all Wiki policies while editing, although large portions were rewritten to flow better or incorporate more research. 04:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC) --BreezyBri08 20:00, 17 Nov 2012


This article makes a very poor attempt at trying to explain the use of norms in sociology and there are no references. Who has used the term 'norms' in sociology and why? --CJ 15:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reply: That's ridiculous! It makes plenty of references and is more intelligent than anything the likes of you could write, I'm sure..! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Cultural Norm smerge?[edit]

Hey. Could yall take a look at the cultural norm article and see if redirecting here, with or without a merge, would be appropriate? The Literate Engineer 19:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm going ahead with the redirect. No merging. Look at the history if you want.

Merger proposal[edit]

Merger? I think a better solution would be to convert convention (norm) into a dab page.All the single sentence definitions from that page should either be thrown away or embedded into relevant specialist pages. David91 16:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It is absolutely wrong to merge the pages Convention (norm) and Norm (sociology), especially because conventions have a large, autonomous and important discussion in philosophy, which forbids that they are viewed exclusively from a sociological standpoint!! Velho 18:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the merge, a convention in the sciences are spefic things that are NOT simply norms - and definately not social norms. Fresheneesz 23:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

JA: See Norm (philosophy), where some of the material about methodological norms would fit. Jon Awbrey 21:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree with the merger in the direction presently proposed. The article Convention (norm) seems to have a broader scope than this one. The merger should be in the opposite direction. FilipeS 22:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this article really representative of sociology?[edit]

The article is presently expressed in terms of "ego" and "alter". I have never seen these terms used in a similar context, and neither word appears in the article Sociology. "Ego" appears only once in Social psychology (sociology). I suggest that this ego/alter framework be eliminated from the structure-level of the article. At present, the top level begins with

  • Overview
    • 1.1 Actions of Ego
    • 1.2 Ego’s Reactions to Actions of Alter
    • 1.3 Negotiations between ego and alter

This cannot be NPOV. Harold f (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If this page is going to be linked with Social Norms it needs to focus less on all the other kinds and more on the Sociology part. I think it would be great for more people to get involved with trying to make it that. Jlydic09 (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Potential Rename[edit]

It seems that the page is being used to summarize work on social norms generally, and not work that is completely within the sociological academic world. I actually think this is a move in the right direction, as social norms are studied in a raft of different areas. Given the overlap it would make sense for the work to come together here. Should we therefore rename the page “Norms (social)”? Andrew (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the basis for this?[edit]

I just deleted this text:

For example, the Jewish faith harbors many restrictions concerning the consumption of pork. These restrictions are a result of individuals associating pork with the disease trichinosis and changing their dietary habits accordingly. This practice and others like it become normative and therefore continue even when the original threat of disease is no longer evident.

I, being Jewish am more or less outraged by the fact that this individual could just add this to a Wikipedia article without any valid sources or citations to support his claim and I highly doubt he could either. It's bordering on ignorance and stereotyping, especially since there's alot of other animals that don't fall under the laws of Kashrut and for that matter I think the prohibition of eating pork (or camel, hare, alligator and various other wild game) greatly predates any knowledge in the medical field of trichinosis and it certainly is not incorporated into Judaic Law based on such an asinine, anachronistic reason as this. It's like saying people go to pray in a Church, Synagogue or Mosque or any other house of worship because it was associated with being harbored from the toxic fumes of factories during the Industrial Revolution (or something similar thereof) and ever since has been part of the ritual routine.

Ignorance and outlandish claims have no place in Wikipedia or any Encyclopedia, digital or printed.

-Alan (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not making sense[edit]

I refer to the following part:

For a simple example, driving is common throughout the world, but in some countries people drive on the right and in other countries people drive on the left (see coordination game).

Driving on the left or right side is restricted by law, not norms. Using game theory to analyze this seems far-fetched, no?

Seriousj (talk) 02:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a law but going 55 is also a law on some roads and the norm for that is to go faster when there are no police. I think what the person who posted that was trying to say that even though it is a law it is also a norm that unless under the influence or completely crazy it is one that we follow that law even we the police are not present. That is how I think they related it to being a norm. Jlydic09 (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


This article is written entirely in second person and assumes the reader is an average american with no mental disorders such as autism. (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, replaced it with {{Inappropriate person}} (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Why does Social Custom redirect to this page?[edit]

I was looking for a page that discusses social customs. I typed "social custom" into the search box, and it redirected to this page. I'm looking for links and information about the many different types of social customs, not the norm. Why the redirect?

If this is not the correct page to ask this questions, please say so. Kathyfeller (talk) 10:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Check the Custom disambiguation page instead. --Jotamar (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Emergence of Norms[edit]

It would be helpful to include a section on the emergence of norms. Christine Horne wrote a piece that should be helpful.

Horne, Christine. 2005. "Sex and Sanctioning: Evaluating Two Theories of Norm Emergence" in Social Norms, ed. Michael Hechtor and Karl-Dieter Opp. Russell Sage Foundation: New York. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filthycleo (talkcontribs) 00:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

"Impression Management"[edit]

The definition of "impression management" provided here is wrong, and the citation for it is from a marginal source. According to Erving Goffman (whose use of the term is widely acknowledged in sociology as authoritative), impression management is not restricted to "nonverbal cues." Rather, it occurs within verbal interaction as well. As such, the definition should be revised and Goffman should be cited (see "The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life").

why the change?[edit]

Why has the name of this article been changed? Was it proposed and voted on? and a majority said yes, let's do it? I don't think so. That is the normal method. If it wasn't voted on and was never proposed but just done by some 'helpful' person then maybe it should be voted on or even reverted. Peter morrell 15:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Peter. That was me. I made the move as I felt it would be non-contentious. I posted about it about a week ago above, and didn’t hear anything. There were also the wiki-project notices for politics and philosophy, and the heavy use of the concept in social psychology, which led be to believe that it would be a well received change.
If you think it is a problem then I am open to your thoughts (you seem a bit miffed). Or perhaps rather than just reverting it we should suggest a move back to “norm (sociology)” and see if that is popular.Andrew (talk) 04:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, thanks for clarifying, no not miffed at all, i just wondered if it was some kind of unusual 'trigger-happy' drive-by edit!! from someone who might never show up again...a bit unorthodox but yeah am happy with it, no worries, cheers Peter morrell 17:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Would it perhaps be better to move this article to Social norms? Since with the way the lead begins, and the article's title right now the two seem to slightly conflict with each other. Gary King (talk · scripts) 06:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I have no strong feelings either way. As it stands it fits in well with the norms disabmbiguation page. And it might help get accross that often someone will simply say "norm" with the expectation that the audience will know that they are refering to a social norm. Andrew (talk) 02:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Stephh alonso class project[edit]

Adding to the Norm (Social) Wikipedia Page Outline

My proposition in changing this article is going into detail explanation on many of these sub categories such as expanding the Game Theory, the psychology of the social norm as explained by scholars, and the defiance of the social norm in terms of culture. Each of these subtopics will be deeply researched through the use of novels by research. Adding in only the un-biased, straight forward information will then allow for the article itself be able to be understood easier, as well as have more background on the intricacy that is the Social Norm as well as its importance in society. I plan to add sentences if not paragraphs to some of the subtopics that will further the research and information already provided. Listed below is the bibliography I so far will be using. Please provide feedback with any help and or comments regarding my plans of change!

Bibliography to be used:

  • Hechter, Michael, and Karl-Dieter Opp, eds.. Social Norms. Ed. Michael Hechter and Karl-Dieter Opp. Russell Sage Foundation, 2001. Web...
  • Dobbert, Duane, and Mackey, Thomas, eds. Deviance : Theories on Behaviors That Defy Social Norms. Westport, CT, USA: Praeger, 2015. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 16 February 2016.
  • Posner, Eric A. Law and Social Norms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2000. Print.
  • Greenspan, Patricia S. Practical Guilt: Moral Dilemmas, Emotions, and Social Norms. New York: Oxford UP, 1995. Print.

Stephh alonso (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Stephanie Alonso 2/16/16Stephh alonso (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Stephh alonso:, I think that this is an exceptional bibliography. One idea you might consider is to go to a basic introduction to sociology textbook and take a look at their section on norms to find some of the readings that they cite. But this is a great start. Alfgarciamora (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Duffy's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Duffy has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

Decent, up to date survey of norms.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Duffy has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

  • Reference : John Duffy & Huan Xie & Yong-Ju Lee, 2008. "Social Norms, Information and Trust among Strangers: Theory and Evidence," Working Papers 08007, Concordia University, Department of Economics, revised Jul 2001.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Camera's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Camera has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

1. The game theory section discusses norms as an equilibrium in terms of their "stability," but this is strange and technically incorrect. There are typically many equilibria, not all of which are stable, in a repeated game. So, the first paragraph is just confusing in my opinion and should be entirely re-written. Looks as if it has not been written by a game theorist at all.

Moreover, "the micro-macro feedback" is something I would not use to describe equilibrium. It is just strange to think of "macro" when the repeated game can involve just two persons.

The discussion of equilibrium selection is as confusing as the rest.

2. Examples of cooperative social norms can and should be given, referring back to Prisoners' Dilemma games. The only mention of cooperation is to Axelrod's work, which is way too little.

The section "game theory" should clearly discuss, for example, the intuition from the seminal works of Kandori (1992) and Ellison (1994), referring back to the notion of supergames in Friedman (1971). A social norms is not a rule of thumb; rules of thumb are history independent typically, while social norms need not be (and are likely not history dependent).

Lots of work must be done on this section of Wikipedia! I do not have to rewrite it entirely.

Kandori, Michihiro. 1992. Social norms and community enforcement. \emph{Review of Economic Studies}, 59, 63-80.

Ellison, Glenn. 1994. Cooperation in the prisoner's dilemma with anonymous random matching. \emph{Review of Economic Studies}, 61, 567-88

Friedman, J. W., A Non-cooperative Equilibrium for Supergames, The Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 1-12 (1971).

3. As novel developments: it has been recently demonstrated that social norms are difficult to support when players who face a social dilemma interact as strangers, in the sense that they infrequently interact, cannot communicate, and do not know the past conduct of others. Here, players may not trust each other, especially if they interact in a large group, which makes coordination on cooperative strategies difficult, because deviations from the norm must be enforced by the entire group.

This evidence has been used to suggest that monetary systems might have emerged precisely to overcome these coordination problems, and, in particular, to overcome frictions in establishing cooperative norms on a large scale (Camera, Casari and Bigoni, 2013).

Camera, G., Casari, M., and Bigoni, M. 2013. Money and trust among strangers. \emph{Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences}, 110(37), 14889-14893.

My comments are rough, but should give you and idea of how much is left out from this page.

Hope this helps

The reference

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Camera has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

  • Reference : Bigoni, Maria & Camera, Gabriele & Casari, Marco, 2014. "Money is more than memory," CFS Working Paper Series 496, Center for Financial Studies (CFS).

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)