This study investigates how a foreign language impacts social norms. We tested this by comparing the magnitude of response differences between norm-violating and norm-adhering behaviors in native language versus foreign language. In experiment 1, participants indicated the acceptability of third-person black and white lies in either their native or foreign language on a Likert scale. In experiment 2, participants indicated their first-person intentions to tell black and white lies on a Likert scale. Experiment 3 conceptually replicated experiment 1 on a slider scale, testing white lies and blunt truths. In experiment 4, participants provided dichotomous yes–no decisions to tell black and white lies. Results revealed a significant reduction of acceptability ratings in experiments 1 and 3 while only showing such a trend in experiments 2 and 4, suggesting language impacts particularly descriptive social norms. Collectively, these findings provide insight into how a foreign language diminishes the influence of social norms.

Research on ethical norms has grown in recent years, but imprecise language has made it unclear when these norms prescribe “what ought to be” and when they merely describe behaviors or perceptions (“what is”). Studies of ethical norms, moreover, tend not to investigate whether participants were influenced by the prescriptive aspect of the norm; the studies primarily demonstrate, rather, that people will mimic the behaviors or perceptions of others, which provides evidence for the already well-substantiated social proof theory. In this review article, we delineate three streams of norms research in business ethics: behavioral, perceptual, and prescriptive. We argue that by properly categorizing norms, and designing studies to investigate when prescriptions, more than mere mimicry, improve ethical outcomes in organizations, researchers can enhance managers’ efforts to promote ethical outcomes in organizations.

Politics and science have become increasingly intertwined. Salient scientific issues, such as climate change, evolution, and stem-cell research, become politicized, pitting partisans against one another. This creates a challenge of how to effectively communicate on such issues. Recent work emphasizes the need for tailored messages to specific groups. Here, we focus on whether generalized messages also can matter. We do so in the context of a highly polarized issue: extreme COVID-19 vaccine resistance. The results show that science-based, moral frame, and social norm messages move behavioral intentions, and do so by the same amount across the population (that is, homogeneous effects). Counter to common portrayals, the politicization of science does not preclude using broad messages that resonate with the entire population.

Public health officials have faced resistance in their efforts to promote mask-wearing to counter the spread of COVID-19. One approach to promoting behavior change is to alert people to the fact that a behavior is common (a descriptive norm). However, partisan differences in pandemic mitigation behavior mean that Americans may be especially (in)sensitive to information about behavioral norms depending on the party affiliation of the group in question. In July–August 2020, we tested the effects of providing information to respondents about how many Americans, co-partisans, or out-partisans report wearing masks regularly on both mask-wearing intentions and on the perceived effectiveness of masks. Learning that a majority of Americans report wearing masks regularly increases mask-wearing intentions and perceived effectiveness, though the effects of this information are not distinguishable from other treatments.

Social norms play an important role in our understanding of why people vote, yet very little is known about the relative importance of descriptive and injunctive norms for voter turnout or how normative influence is affected by the political and social relationship between citizens. Using political discussion network data from the British Election Study, this article examines the joint effect of descriptive and injunctive norms on turnout. It demonstrates that citizens follow the example of those closest to them (descriptive norms), especially their partner, but they also respond to social approval of voting from political discussants regardless of the nature of their relationship.

Tolerance of transgressions can influence the social cognitive and moral development of children and adolescents. Given the prevalent tolerance for bribery throughout the developing world and in China, the present research identified bribery as a serious transgression and investigated the various effects of moral evaluations and descriptive norms on transgression tolerance with increasing age. Thus, two studies examined these effects among primary, middle, and high school students (N = 972, 10-, 13-, and 16-year-olds). In Study 1, students’ transgression tolerance was negatively influenced by moral evaluations, and no age trend emerged. However, students reported more transgression tolerance with age owing to their increasing understanding of descriptive norms. In Study 2, the descriptive norms were manipulated: individuals in the high descriptive norm condition showed greater transgression tolerance than those in the low descriptive norm condition. An increasing tolerance of transgressions was observed only for those in the high descriptive norm condition. The effect of descriptive norms was found to contribute to the transgression tolerance trend.

We examined whether there are sex differences in children’s fruit and vegetable (FV) intake and in descriptive norms (i.e. perceived FV intake) related to parents and friends. We also studied whether friends’ impact is as important as that of parents on children’s FV intake. Data from the PRO GREENS project in Finland were obtained from 424 children at the age 11 years at baseline. At baseline, 2009 children filled in a questionnaire about descriptive norms conceptualised as perceived FV intake of their parents and friends. They also filled in a validated FFQ that assessed their FV intake both at baseline and in the follow-up in 2010. The associations were examined with multi-level regression analyses with multi-group comparisons. Girls reported higher perceived FV intake of friends and higher own fruit intake at baseline, compared with boys, and higher vegetable intake both at baseline and in the follow-up. Perceived FV intake of parents and friends was positively associated with both girls’ and boys’ FV intake in both study years. The impact of perceived fruit intake of the mother was stronger among boys. The change in children’s FV intake was affected only by perceived FV intake of father and friends. No large sex differences in descriptive norms were found, but the impact of friends on children’s FV intake can generally be considered as important as that of parents. Future interventions could benefit from taking into account friends’ impact as role models on children’s FV intake.

Research has shown that: individuals positively distinguish themselves from most other people; being consistent is positively valued; injunctive and descriptive norms are perceived to protect victims. Joining these findings, we argue that individuals present themselves as following injunctive and descriptive norms towards victims to a higher extent and more consistently than most people. In an experimental study 273 university students of both sexes indicated what they and most other people would approve of (injunctive norm) or typically do (descriptive norm) regarding various reactions towards either an innocent or a noninnocent victim. The reactions involved secondary victimization (devaluation/derogation, avoidance, suffering minimization, blaming the victim) and non secondary victimization (valuation, contact, suffering acknowledgment, not blaming the victim). Participants perceived themselves and most people as approving of more non secondary than secondary victimization reactions, except for blaming the noninnocent victim. Participants indicated they approved of most of the normative reactions to a higher extent than most people, which is interpreted as a new instance of the Primus Inter Pares effect. Participants also indicated they would show more consistency between their injunctive and descriptive norms, especially towards the innocent victim. Results suggest that individuals perceive themselves as more immune to perverse norms than most people.