Prevention regulatory focus, desired cultural tightness, civic moral disengagement, and emotional reactions to normative daily transgressions: a serial mediation model among adults in Italy.

Why do people have positive or indifferent reactions to norm violations? The present research hypothesized that individuals who focus on the avoidance of negative outcomes, for example punishments for rule violations, (i.e., a prevention focus) are hypothesized to also have a desire for rigid and clear norms (i.e., desired cultural tightness) as well as punishments for norm violations. Such norms and punishments narrow accepted behavior and, if clearly communicated, can limit rule violations. Consequently, individuals who desire higher levels of cultural tightness should be less likely to justify poor citizenship behavior (i.e., civic moral disengagement) as this behavior is antithetical to desired cultural tightness. Finally, such individuals should also be more likely to react negatively to norm violations. Data for the present study was conducted in Italy. A total of 1,181 participants were included in the analysis; participation requirements were that they be adults who were residents of Italy. Participants completed self-report measures of the prevention focus, desired cultural tightness, civic moral disengagement, and reactions to general norm violations (e.g., exceeding the speed limit, vandalism). The hypothesized serial mediation model was supported. This model can help explain why individuals can fail to react to "everyday" norm violations, as well societal-level violations (e.g., failing to respect hygienic standards during the COVID pandemic). It also calls on the need to develop mass communication approaches that can influence individuals' prevention focus on a large scale, as this can have downstream effects of reactions to such violations.

Social sanctions in response to injunctive norm violations.

Injunctive social norms are societal standards for how people are expected to behave. When individuals transgress these norms, they face social sanctions for their behavior. These sanctions can take many forms ranging from verbal or non-verbal reactions and from disapproval to ostracism. We review the stable characteristics and situational variables that affect a bystander's tendency to enact social sanctions against someone who violates an injunctive social norm. Stable characteristics include the bystander's extraversion, altruism, the belief that others can change their behavior, and their cultural background. Situational factors include the extent to which the violated norm implicates the bystander, the social hierarchies among the bystander and transgressor, the presence of additional bystanders, and (when applicable) the bystander's relationship to the victim of the norm violation. We also discuss the costs that a bystander can incur by attempting to enact social sanctions. We conclude with a discussion of the application of social sanctions to enforce pro-social social norms.

One step too far: social cerebellum in norm-violating navigation.

Social norms are pivotal in guiding social interactions. The current study investigated the potential contribution of the posterior cerebellum, a critical region involved in perceiving and comprehending the sequential dynamics of social actions, in detecting actions that either conform to or deviate from social norms. Participants engaged in a goal-directed task in which they observed others navigating towards a goal. The trajectories demonstrated either norm-violating (trespassing forbidden zones) or norm-following behaviors (avoiding forbidden zones). Results revealed that observing social norm-violating behaviors engaged the bilateral posterior cerebellar Crus 2 and the right temporoparietal junction (TPJ) from the mentalizing network, and the parahippocampal gyrus (PHG) to a greater extent than observing norm-following behaviors. These mentalizing regions were also activated when comparing social sequences against non-social and non-sequential control conditions. Reproducing norm-violating social trajectories observed earlier, activated the left cerebellar Crus 2 and the right PHG compared to reproducing norm-following trajectories. These findings illuminate the neural mechanisms in the cerebellum associated with detecting norm transgressions during social navigation, emphasizing the role of the posterior cerebellum in detecting and signaling deviations from anticipated sequences.

Collective action control: Ubiquitous processes and cultural differences.

Humans have two superpowers: reaching desired end-states (goals) and working together (cooperation). We conceptualize these two capabilities as one: collective action control. We discuss ubiquitous processes and (potential) cultural differences in collective action control in the context of two established frameworks-social identity and norms-as well as an emerging attribution of intent perspective. We illustrate collective action control processes by discussing responses to critical feedback during goal pursuit, as exemplified in research on the rejection of intergroup criticism (Intergroup Sensitivity Effect). Established frameworks did not predict the pattern of current empirical observations. We therefore call for developing the attribution of intent account through systematic theory building and research to identify the ubiquitous and culture-specific processes of collective action control.

Effects of group affiliation on neural signatures of fairness norm violations in antisocial violent offenders.

While norm-violating behavior in antisocial individuals has been widely studied, little is known about how these people react to unfair behavior directed towards them. Previous research yields inconclusive results with some evidence for rational and strategic behavior in antisocial individuals. Electrophysiological correlates as well as socio-contextual factors such as group affiliation that may inform decision making on fairness considerations have not been investigated in previous studies. This study compared fairness considerations of antisocial violent offenders (N = 25) and controls (N = 26) by using the Ultimatum Game where one player proposes a split of resources and the other player has to respond by accepting or declining the offer. Group affiliation of the proposer (in- vs. out-group) and fairness of offers (fair vs. unfair) were manipulated. We found no difference between groups regarding decision behavior. However, healthy participants showed an electrophysiological response to group affiliation, which was attenuated in the violent offender group. This data suggests intact understanding of social norms in antisocial violent offenders while electrophysiological response pattern may be linked to impaired emotional reactions to expectancy violations.

Processing Prescriptively Incorrect Comparative Particles: Evidence From Sentence-Matching and Eye-Tracking.

Speakers of a language sometimes use particular constructions which violate prescriptive grammar rules. Despite their prescriptive ungrammaticality, they can occur rather frequently. One such example is the comparative construction in Dutch and similarly in German, where the equative particle is used in comparative constructions instead of the prescriptively correct comparative particle (Dutch beter als Jan and German besser wie Jan "lit. better as John"). In a series of three experiments using sentence-matching and eye-tracking methodology, we investigated whether this grammatical norm violation is processed as grammatical, as ungrammatical, or whether it falls in between these two. We hypothesized that the latter would be the case. We analyzed our data using linear mixed effects models in order to capture possible individual differences. The results of the sentence-matching experiments, which were conducted in both Dutch and German, showed that the grammatical norm violation patterns with ungrammatical sentences in both languages. Our hypothesis was therefore not borne out. However, using the more sensitive eye-tracking method on Dutch speakers only, we found that the ungrammatical alternative leads to higher reading times than the grammatical norm violation. We also found significant individual variation regarding this very effect. We furthermore replicated the processing difference between the grammatical norm violation and the prescriptively correct variant. In summary, we conclude that while the results of the more sensitive eye-tracking experiment suggest that the grammatical norm violation is not processed completely on a par with ungrammatical sentences, the results of all three experiments clearly show that the grammatical norm violation cannot be considered grammatical, either.

Residential Mobility Decreases Neural Responses to Social Norm Violation.

Social norms are essential, but they vary across cultures and societies. With the internationalization of human society, population mobility has greatly increased, especially in developing countries, which can have an impact on people's psychological states and behaviors and result in sociocultural change. The current research used three studies to examine the hypothesis that residential mobility plays a crucial role in the perception of social norm violations. Study 1 used an association test and found that residential mobility was correlated with the perception of both weak and strong social norm violations in females. Study 2 combined electroencephalography and found a negative differential N400 between weak social norm violations and appropriate behavior between residentially mobile and stable mindsets, suggesting that residential mobility modulates individuals' detection of social norm-violating behavior. Study 3 revealed that residential mobility does not have a similar effect on semantic violations, which indicates that the effect of residential mobility does not occur in non-social norm violations. Our findings provide insight into how and why individuals' detection of social norm-violating behaviors varies according to the dynamic development of society. As residential mobility continues to increase worldwide, especially in developing countries, more attention should be paid to the concomitant impact during the course of sociocultural change to build a better strategy for cultural specific social governance.

Punishing the individual or the group for norm violation.

Background: It has recently been proposed that a key motivation for joining groups is the protection from consequences of negative behaviours, such as norm violations. Here we empirically test this claim by investigating whether cooperative decisions and the punishment of associated fairness-based norm violations are different in individuals vs. collectives in economic games. Methods: In the ultimatum game, participants made or received offers that they could reject at a cost to their outcome, a form of social punishment. In the dictator game with third-party punishment, participants made offers to a receiver while being observed by a punisher, or could themselves punish unfair offers. Results: Participants made lower offers when making their decision as part of a group as compared to alone. This difference correlated with participants' overall mean offers: those who were generally less generous were even less so in a group, suggesting that the collective structure was compatible with their intention. Participants were slower when punishing vs not punishing an unfair offer. Importantly here, they were slower when deciding whether to punish or not to punish groups as compared to individuals, only when the offer concerned them directly in second party punishment. Participants thus take more time to punish others, and to make their mind on whether to punish or not when facing a group of proposers. Conclusions: Together, these results show that people behave differently in a group, both in their willingness to share with others and in their punishment of norm violations. This could be explained by the fact that being in a collective structure allows to share responsibility with others, thereby protecting from negative consequences of norm violations.

Not intended, still embarrassed: Social anxiety is related to increased levels of embarrassment in response to unintentional social norm violations.

BACKGROUND: Social anxiety disorder (SAD) is associated with altered social norm (SN) processing: SAD-patients rate stories on SN violations as more inappropriate and more embarrassing than healthy participants, with the most prominent effect for stories on unintentional SN violations (i.e. committing a blunder). Until now it's unknown how levels of social anxiety (SA) are related to ratings of SN violations in the general population, in which SA-symptoms are present at a continuum. More insight in this relationship could improve our understanding of the symptom profile of SAD. Therefore, we investigated the relation between ratings of SN violations and SA-levels in the general population. METHODS: Adults and adolescents (n = 87) performed the revised Social Norm Processing Task (SNPT-R) and completed self-report questionnaires on social anxiety. Repeated-measures ANCOVAs were used to investigate the effect of SA on the ratings of inappropriateness and embarrassment. RESULTS: As hypothesized, participants with higher SA-levels rated SN violations as more inappropriate and more embarrassing. Whereas participants with low-to-intermediate SA-levels rated unintentional SN violations as less embarrassing than intentional SN violations, participants with high SA-levels (z-score SA ≥ 1.6) rated unintentional SN violations as equally embarrassing as intentional SN violations. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that increased embarrassment for unintentional SN violations is an important characteristic of social anxiety. These high levels of embarrassment are likely related to the debilitating concern of socially-anxious people that their skills and behavior do not meet expectations of others, and to their fear of blundering. This concern might be an important target for future therapeutic interventions.

How the brain processes violations of the grammatical norm: An fMRI study.

Native speakers of Dutch do not always adhere to prescriptive grammar rules in their daily speech. These grammatical norm violations can elicit emotional reactions in language purists, mostly high-educated people, who claim that for them these constructions are truly ungrammatical. However, linguists generally assume that grammatical norm violations are in fact truly grammatical, especially when they occur frequently in a language. In an fMRI study we investigated the processing of grammatical norm violations in the brains of language purists, and compared them with truly grammatical and truly ungrammatical sentences. Grammatical norm violations were found to be unique in that their processing resembled not only the processing of truly grammatical sentences (in left medial Superior Frontal Gyrus and Angular Gyrus), but also that of truly ungrammatical sentences (in Inferior Frontal Gyrus), despite what theories of grammar would usually lead us to believe.