Abstract
“Social norm” has been an important concept for sociologists, and shifts towards an increased attention to the role of costs and benefits for social behavior did not displace this concept but may have even boosted its importance (see Opp 1983). Still, much needs to be done, as Hechter and Opp’s book on social norms testifies in 2001. “Phenomena like cooperation, collective action, and social order cannot readily be explained on the basis of the rational egoistic behavioral assumptions that are typically countenanced by rational choice theorists…In their (the theorists’, S.L.) quest for explanations of these ostensibly problematic outcomes, social norms have come to occupy pride of place.” (Hechter and Opp, 2001, p. xii). Hechter and Opp go on to say that as much less is known about the emergence of social norms than about their effects, they focused their book on the emergence, just as Opp had done almost twenty years earlier (Opp 1983). I submit that there is a third topic concerning social norms that has received even less attention than their emergence: the way they work. There is a very specific reason why I am interested in this neglected topic. It concerns a puzzle right at the heart of classical sociology but not really recognized or given much attention. Ever since Durkheim’s book on suicide ([1897]), sociologists have been fascinated by the idea that social norms in modern market societies increasingly become vague or vanish and thus cease to regulate behavior in a vacuum of chronic anomie. They don’t state anymore what should be done or not done or, if they do, they contradict each other; in many cases they even become a matter of personal taste or vanish altogether. As a consequence, the social bond is broken, society becomes excessively individualized etc. But there is also a different thesis on social norms in his earlier book on the division of labor (1964 [1893])1 As societies become larger (due to fusion between smaller societies), the social norms have to cover increasingly a larger diversity of people and circumstances and, as a consequence, they become more abstract. “They rule only the most general forms of conduct and rule them in a very general manner, saying what must be done, not how it must be done.”
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bibliography
Bargh, John. A., Peter M. Gollwitzer, Anette Lee-Chai, Kimberly Barndollar, and Roman Trö tschel (2001). Automated will: Nonconscious activation and pursuit of behavioral goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81, 1014–1027
Bergman, R. (2002), “Why be moral? A conceptual model from developmental psychology”. Human Development 45:104–124
Boudon, R. (1996), “The “ Cognitivist model’: A generalized’ rational-choice model’.” Rationality and Society 8, 123–150
Carnevale, P.J.D., and Lawler, E.J. (1986), “Time pressure and the development of integrative agreements in bilateral negotiations”. Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 30: 636–659
Clark, Margret S, and Mills, Judson (1979), “Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37:12–24
Collins, A., and Gentner, D. (1987).“How people construct mental models.” In D. Holland and N. Quinn (eds.), Cultural Models in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
De Dreu, C.K.W., and Boles, T.L. (1998), “Share and share alike or winner take all?: The influence of social value orientation upon choice and recall of negotiation heuristics”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 76:253–276
Durkheim, E., Suicide. A Study in Sociology. Free Press, Glencoe, 1951. (originally 1897 in French)
Durkheim, E. (1964), The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Free Press (originally 1893)
Ellickson, R. C. (1991), Order Without Law. How Neighbors Settle Disputes. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press
Frey, B. S. (1997). Not Just For the Money. An Economic Theory of Personal Motivation. Brookfield: Edward Elgar Publishing
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Moskowitz, G. B. (1996). Goal effects on action and cognition. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (eds.), Social Psychology. Handbook of Basic Principles (pp. 361–399). London: The Guilford Press
Hechter, M. and Opp, K.-D.(eds.) (2001), Social Norms. New York: Russell Sage
Kochanska, G. (2002), “Committed compliance, moral self, and internalization: a mediational model.” Developmental Psychology 38:339–351
Kochanska, G., Gross, J. N., Lin, M., and Nichols, K. (2002), “Guilt in young children: development, determinants, and relations with a broader system of standards”. Child Development 73:461–482
Kohlberg, L. (1981), The Philosophy of Moral Development: Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice. Essays in Moral Development. Volume 1. San Francisco: Harper & Row
Kohlberg, L. and Candee, D. (1984), “The relationship of moral judgment to moral action”. In: W.M. Kurtines and J.L. Gewirtz (eds.), Morality, Moral Behavior, and Moral Development. New York: Wiley
Kruglanksi, A. W. (1996). Motivated social cognition: Principles of the interface. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (eds.), Social Psychology. Handbook of Basic Principles (pp. 493–520). London: The Guilford Press
Lindenberg, S. (1975), ‘Three psychological theories of a classical sociologist,’ Mens en Maatschappij, 50, 2:133–153
Lindenberg, S. (1983), “Utility and morality”, Kyklos 36, 3: 450–468
Lindenberg, S. (1986), “The paradox of privatization in consumption”, pp.297–310 in: Diekmann A., and Mitter P. (eds.), Paradoxical Effects of Social Behavior. Essays in Honor of Anatol Rapoport. Heidelberg/Wien: Physica-Verlag
Lindenberg, S. (1994) ‘Norms and the power of loss: Ellickson’s theory and beyond’. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 150, 1: 101–113
Lindenberg, S. (1998) Solidarity: its microfoundations and macro-dependence. A framing approach. Pp. 61–112 in P. Doreian and Fararo, T.J. (eds.), The Problem of Solidarity: Theories and Models. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach
Lindenberg, S. (2001a), “Social Rationality Versus Rational Egoism”.Pp.635–668 in: J. Turner (ed.), Handbook of Sociological Theory. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Lindenberg, S. (2001b), “Intrinsic motivation in a new light”. Kyklos 54:317–342
Lindenberg, S. (2006), Prosocial behavior, solidarity, and framing processes. In: D. Fetchenhauer, A. Flache, A.P. Buunk, and S. Lindenberg (eds.), Solidarity and Prosocial Behavior. An Integration of Sociological and Psychological Perspectives. (pp.23–44). New York: Springer
Nunner-Winkler, G. (1997), “The development of moral understanding and moral motivation.” International Journal of Educational Research 27: 587–603
Nunner-Winkler, G. (2000), “Wandel in den Moralvorstellungen. Ein Generationen-yergleich.” Pp. 299–336 in W. Edelstein and G. Nunner-Winkler (eds.), Moral im sozialen Kontext. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp
Opp, K.D. (1983), Die Entstehung sozialer Normen. Ein Integrationsversuch soziologischer, sozialpsychologischer und ö konomischer Erklärungen. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebek
Ridgeway, C.L., and Walker, H.A. (1995). “Status structures.” Pp.281–310 in Karen S. Cook, G.A. Fine, and J. S. House (eds), Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology, Boston: Allyn and Bacon
Sattler, N.D. and Kerr, N.L. (1991), “Might versus morality; Motivational and cognitive bases for social motives.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60:756–765
Scanzoni, J. and Szinovacz, M. (1980), Family Decision Making. Sage: Bevery Hills
Scheff, T.J.(1967), “Towards a sociological model of consensus”, American Sociological Review 32: 32–46
Van Lange, P.A.M., and Kuhlman, D.M. (1994), Social value orientation and impressions of partner’s honesty and intelligence: A test of the might versus morality effect.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76:126–141
Wellman, B, Carrington, P.J., and Hall, A. (1988), “Networks as personal communities”. Pp. 130–184 in B. Wellman B., and S.D. Berkowitz (eds.), Social Structures. A Network Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Wuthnow, R. (1998), Loose Connections. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lindenberg, S.M. (2008). Social norms: What happens when they become more abstract?. In: Diekmann, A., Eichner, K., Schmidt, P., Voss, T. (eds) Rational Choice: Theoretische Analysen und empirische Resultate. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90866-3_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90866-3_5
Publisher Name: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften
Print ISBN: 978-3-531-15545-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-531-90866-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Science (German Language)