Rule Following Mitigates Collaborative Cheating and Facilitates the Spreading of Honesty Within Groups

Prosocial preferences can escalate intergroup conflicts by countering selfish motivations to leave

When defending against hostile enemies, individual group members can benefit from others staying in the group and fighting. However, individuals themselves may be better off by leaving the group and avoiding the personal risks associated with fighting. While fleeing is indeed commonly observed, when and why defenders fight or flee remains poorly understood and is addressed here with three incentivized and preregistered experiments (total n = 602). In stylized attacker-defender contest games in which defenders could stay and fight or leave, we show that the less costly leaving is, the more likely individuals are to abandon their group. In addition, more risk-averse individuals are more likely to leave. Conversely, individuals more likely stay and fight when they have pro-social preferences and when fellow group members cannot leave. However, those who stay not always contribute fully to group defense, to some degree free-riding on the efforts of other group members. Nonetheless, staying increased intergroup conflict and its associated costs.

A cognitive approach to learning, monitoring, and shifting social norms

Social norms govern and prescribe how group members behave. Since norms manifest in individuals' behavior, it is important to consider the cognitive demands associated with detecting and monitoring norm behaviors. Here I describe three types of norms that differ in the behavior they prescribe, the cognitive processes of behavior detection and monitoring they require, and the compliance and cooperative patterns they entail. Categorical norms, such as taboos, prescribe what actions group members must or shouldn't do, and may rely on affective outcomes. Scale-sensitive norms govern how much of a behavior one must do and rely on signal detection processes. History-sensitive norms consider a whole sequence of actions performed by specific individuals, such as the history of contribution, and require evidence accumulation mechanisms. Detecting and monitoring these different types of behaviors poses different cognitive demands, which may affect the extent and stability of social norms. By taking the cognitive perspective, it may be possible to understand why some norms are more resilient than others, and plan interventions that promote norm change by matching these cognitive demands.

Group Formation and the Evolution of Human Social Organization

Humans operate in groups that are oftentimes nested in multilayered collectives such as work units within departments and companies, neighborhoods within cities, and regions within nation states. With psychological science mostly focusing on proximate reasons for individuals to join existing groups and how existing groups function, we still poorly understand why groups form ex nihilo, how groups evolve into complex multilayered social structures, and what explains fission-fusion dynamics. Here we address group formation and the evolution of social organization at both the proximate and ultimate level of analysis. Building on models of fitness interdependence and cooperation, we propose that socioecologies can create positive interdependencies among strangers and pave the way for the formation of stable coalitions and groups through reciprocity and reputation-based partner selection. Such groups are marked by in-group bounded, parochial cooperation together with an array of social institutions for managing the commons, allowing groups to scale in size and complexity while avoiding the breakdown of cooperation. Our analysis reveals how distinct group cultures can endogenously emerge from reciprocal cooperation, shows that social identification and group commitment are likely consequences rather than causes of group cooperation, and explains when intergroup relations gravitate toward peaceful coexistence, integration, or conflict.

Norm Dynamics: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Social Norm Emergence, Persistence, and Change

Social norms are the glue that holds society together, yet our knowledge of them remains heavily intellectually siloed. This article provides an interdisciplinary review of the emerging field of norm dynamics by integrating research across the social sciences through a cultural-evolutionary lens. After reviewing key distinctions in theory and method, we discuss research on norm psychology-the neural and cognitive underpinnings of social norm learning and acquisition. We then overview how norms emerge and spread through intergenerational transmission, social networks, and group-level ecological and historical factors. Next, we discuss multilevel factors that lead norms to persist, change, or erode over time. We also consider cultural mismatches that can arise when a changing environment leads once-beneficial norms to become maladaptive. Finally, we discuss potential future research directions and the implications of norm dynamics for theory and policy.

Following Affirmative and Negated Rules

Rules are often stated in a negated manner ("no trespassing") rather than in an affirmative manner ("stay in your lane"). Here, we build on classic research on negation processing and, using a finger-tracking design on a touchscreen, we show that following negated rather than affirmative rules is harder as indicated by multiple performance measures. Moreover, our results indicate that practice has a surprisingly limited effect on negated rules, which are implemented more quickly with training, but this effect comes at the expense of reduced efficiency. Only affirmative rules are thus put into action efficiently, highlighting the importance of tailoring how rules are communicated to the peculiarities of the human mind.

Commitment to honesty oaths decreases dishonesty, but commitment to another individual does not affect dishonesty

Social commitment influences our behavior in various ways. Recent studies suggest that social commitment to other individuals or groups can increase dishonest behavior while feeling commitment to moral norms might decrease it. Here we show in a pre-registered series of 7 studies investigating the influence of social commitment on dishonest behavior by sampling 7566 participants across three countries (the UK, the US, and Mexico) that commitment to moral norms via honesty oaths might decrease dishonesty (OR = 0.79 [0.72, 0.88]). To the contrary, we found no credible evidence that social commitment to other individuals increases dishonesty (OR = 1.08 [0.97, 1.20]). Finally, we observed that commitment to moral norms was less effective if participants were committed to another individual at the same time (OR = 0.95 [0.86, 1.06]). Our findings point at the potential effectiveness of honesty oaths, while the observed effect sizes were small compared to previous studies.

Perceptions of Ethicality: The Role of Attire Style, Attire Appropriateness, and Context

Professional attire has traditionally been regarded as a sign of ethicality. However, recent trends towards a more casual workplace may have altered the general public's attire-based perceptions. To determine whether these trends have rendered the association between professional attire and ethicality obsolete, we draw on signaling theory and we examine, in two laboratory studies with working samples, the main effects of attire style (i.e., business formal, business casual, casual) on perceptions of employee ethicality. We also assess the mediating effects of attire appropriateness, the moderating effects of context (industry type), as well as their combined moderated-mediation effects in the relation between attire style and the outcome of interest. We find that casual attire is perceived as less ethical than business casual attire in both studies but is perceived as less ethical than business formal attire in the first study only. Moreover, the effect of attire style on perceptions of ethicality is mediated by perceptions of attire appropriateness. Lastly, we found inconclusive results for the moderated-mediation model, which suggest a more intricate effect of industry type than originally proposed. Three subsequent focus groups with working professionals provided additional insights into our findings and revealed workplace-relevant outcomes associated with perceptions of ethicality. Theoretical and practical implications, study limitations, and future research avenues are discussed.

Taking the chance!-Interindividual differences in rule-breaking

While some individuals tend to follow norms, others, in the face of tempting but forbidden options, tend to commit rule-breaking when this action is beneficial for themselves. Previous studies have neglected such interindividual differences in rule-breaking. The present study fills this gap by investigating cognitive characteristics of individuals who commit spontaneous deliberative rule-breaking (rule-breakers) versus rule-followers. We developed a computerised task, in which 133 participants were incentivised to sometimes violate set rules which would-if followed-lead to a loss. While 52% of participants tended to break rules to obtain a benefit, 48% tended to follow rules even if this behaviour led to loss. Although rule-breakers experienced significantly more cognitive conflict (measured via response times and mouse movement trajectories) than rule-followers, they also obtained higher payoffs. In rule-breakers, cognitive conflict was more pronounced when violating the rules than when following them, and mainly during action planning. This conflict increased with frequent, recurrent, and early rule-breaking. Our results were in line with the Decision-Implementation-Mandatory switch-Inhibition model and thus extend the application of this model to the interindividual differences in rule-breaking. Furthermore, personality traits such as extroversion, disagreeableness, risk propensity, high impulsiveness seem to play a role in the appreciation of behaviours and cognitive characteristics of rule-followers and rule-breakers. This study opens the path towards the understanding of the cognitive characteristics of the interindividual differences in responses towards rules, and especially in spontaneous deliberative rule-breaking.

The personality and cognitive traits associated with adolescents' sensitivity to social norms

Little is known about the personality and cognitive traits that shape adolescents' sensitivity to social norms. Further, few studies have harnessed novel empirical tools to elicit sensitivity to social norms among adolescent populations. This paper examines the association between sensitivity to norms and various personality and cognitive traits using an incentivised rule-following task grounded in Game Theory. Cross-sectional data were obtained from 1274 adolescents. Self-administered questionnaires were used to measure personality traits as well as other psychosocial characteristics. Incentivised rule-following experiments gauged sensitivity to social norms. A series of multilevel mixed effects ordered logistic regression models were employed to assess the association between sensitivity to norms and the personality and cognitive traits. The results highlighted statistically significant univariate associations between the personality and cognitive traits and sensitivity to norms. However, in the multivariate adjusted model, the only factor associated with sensitivity to norms was gender. The gender-stratified analyses revealed differences in the personality and cognitive traits associated with sensitivity to norms across genders. For males need to belong was significantly negatively associated with sensitivity to norms in the multivariate model. By comparison, emotional stability was negatively associated with sensitivity to norms for females. This study reinforced the findings from an earlier study and suggested female adolescents had higher levels of sensitivity to norms. The results indicated no consistent pattern between sensitivity to norms and the personality and cognitive traits. Our findings provide a basis for further empirical research on a relatively nascent construct, and bring a fresh perspective to the question of norm-following preferences among this age group.

Why do people follow social norms?

Norms prescribe how to make decisions in social situations and play a crucial role in sustaining cooperative relationships and coordinating collective action. However, following norms often requires restricting behavior, demanding to curtail selfishness, or suppressing personal goals. This raises the question why people adhere to norms. We review recent theories and empirical findings that aim at explaining why people follow norms even in private, when violations are difficult to detect and are not sanctioned. We discuss theories of norm internalization, social and self-image concerns, and social learning (i.e. preferences conditional on what others do/believe). Finally, we present two behavioral, incentivized tasks that can be used to elicit norms and measure the individual propensity to follow them.

Bad machines corrupt good morals

As machines powered by artificial intelligence (AI) influence humans' behaviour in ways that are both like and unlike the ways humans influence each other, worry emerges about the corrupting power of AI agents. To estimate the empirical validity of these fears, we review the available evidence from behavioural science, human-computer interaction and AI research. We propose four main social roles through which both humans and machines can influence ethical behaviour. These are: role model, advisor, partner and delegate. When AI agents become influencers (role models or advisors), their corrupting power may not exceed the corrupting power of humans (yet). However, AI agents acting as enablers of unethical behaviour (partners or delegates) have many characteristics that may let people reap unethical benefits while feeling good about themselves, a potentially perilous interaction. On the basis of these insights, we outline a research agenda to gain behavioural insights for better AI oversight.