Advertisement

Understanding Compliance Differences between Legal and Social Norms: The Case of Smoking Ban

  • Francien Dechesne
  • Virginia Dignum
  • Yao-Hua Tan
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7068)

Abstract

The values shared within a society influence the (social) behaviour of the agents in that society. This connection goes through implicit and explicit norms. Agents act in situations where different, possibly conflicting, norms are applicable. In the case of a norm conflict, an agent will decide to comply with one or more of the applicable norms, while violating others. Our interest is how the type of the norms may play a role in such decision, and take the chosen behaviour of an agent to depend on a personal preference order on the norm types.

We distinguish three different types of norms: legal norms, social norms and private norms. We use the introduction of the law prohibiting smoking in cafes as illustration: we present a simulation of this situation involving agents’ preferences over different norm types. The results of this simulation are used for an explorative a model for normative reasoning based on norm types. We discuss a possible connection between the composition of a society in terms of these profiles and its culture and the relevance of the model with respect to value sensitive design of socio-technological systems.

Keywords

Social Norm Legal Norm Norm Type Sensitive Design Norm Compliance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aldewereld, H.: Autonomy vs. Conformity - an Institutional Perspective on Norms and Protocols. PhD thesis, Univ. of Utrecht (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.: Co-ordination and Co-operation in Agent Systems: Social Laws and Argumentation. In: Rahwan, I., Moraitis, P. (eds.) ArgMAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5384, pp. 122–140. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bicchieri, C.: The Grammar of Society. Cambridge University Press (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Conte, R., Castelfranchi, C., Dignum, F.: Autonomous Norm Acceptance. In: Müller, J.P., Singh, M.P., Rao, A.S. (eds.) ATAL 1998. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1555, pp. 99–112. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dignum, F.: Autonomous agents with norms. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7, 69–79 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Esteva, M., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.-A., Sierra, C., Garcia, P., Arcos, J.-L.: On the Formal Specification of Electronic Institutions. In: Dignum, F., Sierra, C. (eds.) AgentLink 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1991, pp. 126–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Flanagan, M., Howe, D., Nissenbaum, H.: Values in design: Theory and practice. In: van den Hoven, M.J., Weckert, J. (eds.) Information Technology and Moral Philosophy. Cambridge University Press (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Friedman, B.: Value sensitive design. In: Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 769–774. Berkshire Publishing Group (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grossi, D.: Designing Invisible Handcuffs - Formal Investigations in Institutions and Organizations for Multi-Agent Systems. PhD thesis, Univ. of Utrecht (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hansson, S.O.: The Structure of Values and Norms. Cambridge University Press (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hofstede, G.: Culture’s Consequences, Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Sage Publications (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.: Cultural dimensions (2003), http://www.geert-hofstede.com/
  13. 13.
    International Tobacco Control Nederland. ITC policy evaluation project – de effecten van de rookvrije horeca op rookgedrag. eerste nameting (2009), http://www.stivoro.nl (in Dutch)
  14. 14.
    López, F.L., Luck, M., d’Inverno, M.: Constraining autonomy through norms. In: AAMAS 2002, pp. 674–681. ACM (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Manders-Huits, N., van den Hoven, J.: The need for a value-sensitive design of communication infrastructures. In: Sollie, P., Düwell, M. (eds.) Evaluating New Technologies. The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology, vol. 3, pp. 51–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Overbeek, S.J., Dignum, M.V., Tan, Y.-H.: Towards a value-sensitive system to support agents in norm fulfillment and enforcement. Presented at IAT4EB (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pettit, P.: Deliberative democracy and the discursive dilemma. Philosophical Issues 11(1), 268–299 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Repast organization for architecture and development (2003), http://repast.sourceforge.net
  19. 19.
    Scott, E.D.: Organizational moral values. Business Ethics Quarterly 12(1), 33–55 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    van den Hoven, M.J.: Design for values and values for design. Information Age +. Journal of the Australian Computer Society 7(2), 4–7 (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    van den Hoven, M.J.: ICT and Value Sensitive Design. In: Goujon, P., et al. (eds.) The Information Society. IFIP, vol. 233, pp. 67–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francien Dechesne
    • 1
  • Virginia Dignum
    • 2
  • Yao-Hua Tan
    • 2
  1. 1.Philosophy – Department of Technology, Policy and ManagementDelft University of TechnologyThe Netherlands
  2. 2.ICT – Department of Technology, Policy and ManagementDelft University of TechnologyThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations