CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 41Psychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentSocial and Intergroup Psychology

The role of group norms in evaluating uncommon and negative behaviors.

Open access
Roberts, Steven O., Ho, Arnold K., Gelman, Susan A.·2019·Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
DOI 10.1037/xge0000534
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We provided a strong test of this descriptive-to-prescriptive tendency by examining whether children (Ages 4 to 9) maintained the correctness of group norms even when such norms differed in their prevalence (e.g., drinking juice out of bowls instead of cups; Study 1) or in their valence (e.g., giving people punches instead of flowers; Study 2). In Study 1, disapproval toward nonconformity varied as a function of the norm's prevalence and of participant age. In Study 2, both children and adults approved of conformity to positive norms and disapproved of conformity to negative norms (e.g., "If Glerks make babies cry, an individual Glerk should not"). Nevertheless, across studies, descriptive-to-prescriptive reasoning played a role. In Study 1, participants evaluated nonconformity to common norms as worse than conformity to uncommon norms (even though both cases involved uncommon behavior), and they evaluated nonconformity to uncommon norms as worse than conformity to common norms (even though both cases involved common behavior). In Study 2, participants evaluated nonconformity to positive norms as worse than conformity to negative norms (even though both cases involved negative behavior), and they evaluated nonconformity to negative norms as worse than conformity to positive norms (even though both cases involved positive behavior). Together, these data highlight the limits (and scope) of descriptive-to-prescriptive reasoning and suggest that when children (and adults) evaluate the appropriateness of someone's behavior, they consider not only the behavior, but also, the norms of the group. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/xge0000534

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Roberts et al. found that children and adults tended to judge a dissenting group member worse and expected conformity to group descriptive norms, even when the norms were morally problematic.

    “Across ages, participants tended to judge, for instance, a Hibble that, unlike other Hibbles, made babies cry as worse than a Glerk that, like other Glerks, did the same thing.”

    From Science Communication and the Problematic Impact of Descriptive Norms (2023) · cites this paper as Roberts et al. [2019]

  • Even when recipients of public scientific testimony are not themselves mentioned in the testimony, the claims are still likely to incline them to expect members of the mentioned groups to act in ways conforming to the descriptive norm.

    “even when it comes to recipients of PST who are not themselves mentioned in the PST, the claims are still likely to incline the recipients to expect members of groups who are mentioned in the PST to act in ways conforming to the descriptive norm.”

    From Science Communication and the Problematic Impact of Descriptive Norms (2023) · cites this paper as Roberts et al. [2019]

  • Roberts et al. found that participants presented with descriptive norms of a group to which they did not belong subsequently tended to disapprove of norm-violating behaviour among members of that group.

    “Roberts et al. found that study participants presented with descriptive norms of a group to which the participants themselves did not even belong still subsequently tended to disapprove of norm-violating behaviour among members of that group.”

    From Science Communication and the Problematic Impact of Descriptive Norms (2023) · cites this paper as Roberts et al. [2019]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Roberts, S. O., Ho, A. K., & Gelman, S. A.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2019-02
Volume
148
Issue
2
Pages
374-387
ISSN
  • 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2222
DOI
10.1037/xge0000534
OpenAlex
W2905834171
Cited by
41
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
2.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Ford Foundation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
group norms, conformity, nonconformity, children's moral judgment
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Child, Child Development, Child, Preschool, Female, Group Processes, Humans, Male, Social Conformity, Social Perception, Young Adult, Social Norms

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review