Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 191, Issue 18, pp 4409–4429 | Cite as

Why are there descriptive norms? Because we looked for them

  • Ryan Muldoon
  • Chiara Lisciandra
  • Stephan Hartmann
Article

Abstract

In this work, we present a mathematical model for the emergence of descriptive norms, where the individual decision problem is formalized with the standard Bayesian belief revision machinery. Previous work on the emergence of descriptive norms has relied on heuristic modeling. In this paper we show that with a Bayesian model we can provide a more general picture of the emergence of norms, which helps to motivate the assumptions made in heuristic models. In our model, the priors formalize the belief that a certain behavior is a regularity. The evidence is provided by other group members’ behavior and the likelihood by their reliability. We implement the model in a series of computer simulations and examine the group-level outcomes. We claim that domain-general belief revision helps explain why we look for regularities in social life in the first place. We argue that it is the disposition to look for regularities and react to them that generates descriptive norms. In our search for rules, we create them.

Keywords

Descriptive norms Norm emergence Explanation Social epistemology Agent-based modeling 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Jason McKenzie Alexander, Jan Sprenger, Kevin Zollman, and anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts.

References

  1. Bicchieri, C. (2006). The grammar of society. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bovens, L., & Hartmann, S. (2003). Bayesian epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Carpenter, M., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2005). Twelve- and 18-month-olds copy actions in terms of goals. Developmental Science, 8, F13–F20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chater, N., & Oaksford, M. (2008). The probabilistic mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Gopnik, A., & Tenenbaum, J. (2007). Bayesian networks, Bayesian learning and cognitive development. Developmental Science (special section on Bayesian and Bayes-Net approaches to development), 10(3), 281–287.Google Scholar
  6. Gopnik, A., Glymour, C., Sobel, D., Schulz, L., Kushnir, T., & Danks, D. (2004). A theory of causal learning in children: Causal maps and Bayes nets. Psychological Review, 111(1), 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Griffiths, T. L., Chater, N., Kemp, C., Perfors, A., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2010). Probabilistic models of cognition: Exploring representations and inductive biases. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(8), 357–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hacking, I. (2001). An introduction to probability and inductive logic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hartmann, S., & Sprenger, J. (2010). Bayesian epistemology. In S. Bernecker & D. Pritchard (Eds.), Routledge companion to epistemology (pp. 609–620). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Jones, M., & Love, B. C. (2011). Bayesian fundamentalism or enlightenment? On the explanatory status and theoretical contributions of Bayesian models of cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(4), 169–231.Google Scholar
  11. Miller, J., & Page, S. E. (2004). The standing ovation problem. Complexity, 9(5), 8–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Muldoon, R., Lisciandra, C., Bicchieri, C., Hartmann, S., & Sprenger, J. (2014). On the emergence of descriptive norms. Politics, Philosophy, and Economics, 13(1), 3–22.Google Scholar
  13. Rakoczy, H.,Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2008). The sources of normativity: Young children’s awareness of the normative structure of games. Developmental Psychology, 44(3), 875–881.Google Scholar
  14. Schupbach, J. N. (2011). Comparing probabilistic measures of explanatory power. Philosophy of Science, 78(5), 813–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schelling, T. C. (1978). Micromotives and macrobehavior. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  16. Tentori, K., Crupi, V., Bonini, N., & Osherson, D. (2007). Comparison of confirmation measures. Cognition, 103(1), 107–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Young, H. P. (2009). Innovation diffusion in heterogeneous populations: Contagion, social influence, and social learning. American Economic Review, 99(5), 1899–1924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryan Muldoon
    • 1
  • Chiara Lisciandra
    • 2
  • Stephan Hartmann
    • 3
  1. 1.Philosophy, Politics and Economics ProgramUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political and Economic Studies, Finnish Centre of Excellence in the Philosophy of the Social SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.Munich Center for Mathematical PhilosophyLudwig Maximilians UniversityMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations