Cited by 74Experimental Behavioral Economics StudiesEconomic Theory and InstitutionsEthics in Business and Education

The Great Illusion: Ignorance, Informational Cascades, and the Persistence of Unpopular Norms

Bicchieri, Cristina, Fukui, Yoshitaka·1999·Business Ethics Quarterly

Abstract

Norms of discrimination against women and blacks, norms of revenge still alive in some Mediterranean countries, and norms that everybody dislikes and tries to circumvent, such as the invisible norms of reciprocity that hold among the Iks studied by Turnbull, are all examples of unpopular and inefficient norms that often persist in spite of their being disliked as well as being obviously inefficient from a social or economic viewpoint. The world of business is not immune to this problem. In all those countries in which corruption is endemic, bribing public officials to get lucrative contracts is the norm, but it is often true that such a norm is disliked by many, and that it may lead to highly inefficient social outcomes (Bicchieri and Rovelli 1995). From a functionalist viewpoint such norms are anomalous, since they do not seem to fulfill any beneficial role for society at large or even for the social groups involved in sustaining the norm. In many cases it would be possible to gain in efficiency by eliminating, say, norms of racial discrimination, in that it would be possible to increase the well-being of a racial minority without harming the rest of society. To social scientists who equate persistence with efficiency, the permanence of inefficient norms thus presents an anomaly. They rest their case on two claims: when a norm is inefficient, sooner or later this fact will become evident. And evidence of inefficiency will induce quick changes in the individual choices that sustain the norm. That is, no opportunity for social improvement remains unexploited for long. Unfortunately, all too often this is not the case, and this is not because people mistakenly believe inefficient norms to be good or efficient.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/3857639

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bicchieri, C., & Fukui, Y.
Venue
Business Ethics Quarterly
Published
1999-01
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
127-155
ISSN
  • 1052-150X (ISSN-L)
  • 2153-3326
OpenAlex
W2161960699
Cited by
74
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Business Ethics Quarterly (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic Theory and Institutions
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Ethics in Business and Education
Keywords
information cascades, ignorance, reciprocity norms, corruption, bribery, racial discrimination, gender discrimination, functionalism, 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