Bringing together humanistic and intergroup perspectives to build a model of internalisation of normative social harmdoing

Abstract

This article introduces a model of the internalisation of normative social harmdoing: the MINSOH. This model seeks to explain how group members internalise harmful social norms such that they personally endorse their groups' normative actions. To this aim, the MINSOH integrates two divergent yet complementary theoretical perspectives: self‐determination theory and the social identity approach. These perspectives differ in their basic assumptions about the possibility for harm to become internalised, yet when integrated, they provide a powerful account of how harmdoing can become internalised. The MINSOH proposes specific conditions under which harmful normative actions become accepted by group members. This article outlines multiple self‐determined motivations for harmdoing and discrete group processes that enable harmdoing to be internalised and autonomously enacted, and reviews factors that facilitate (i.e., strong/unique/comparative social identification; endorsement of ideological justifications) and block the internalisation process (presence of multiple identities/diverging norms; inclusive superordinate identity). Directions for future research are then discussed.

The Role of Dynamic Social Norms in Promoting the Internalization of Sportspersonship Behaviors and Values and Psychological Well-Being in Ice Hockey

“…Results from the ANOVAs provided support for H1: Parents in the experimental condition reported higher selfdetermined motivation for encouraging their child to learn and to have fun in hockey compared to parents in the control condition. This finding provides evidence for the contention that making salient relevant and increasingly popular (i.e., dynamic) social norms can promote the internalizationin the form of higher self-determination -of the values and behaviors promoted by these norms (e.g., Amiot et al, 2020). It should be noted that the experimental manipulation had no effect on parents' non-self-determination; this finding suggests that making salient dynamic norms that increasingly promote learning, sportspersonship, and having fun, does not impact on the more controlled (i.e., non-self-determined) forms of motivations and, in this sense, does not seem to have been interpreted as pressuring by the participants (e.g., Amiot et al, 2013Amiot et al, , 2020.…”

“…Indeed, because they imply that a behavior or attitude is normal or appropriate, norms can convey the message that there are good and shared reasons for engaging in this behavior or for adhering to this viewpoint. In this sense, social norms can facilitate people's personal endorsement of a behavior and its internalization (Amiot et al, 2012(Amiot et al, , 2020. Drawing on self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan and Deci, 2017), when this occurs, the normative behavior is likely to be endorsed autonomously and out of choice.…”

“…In other words, if, among hockey parents, a self-determined endorsement of the dynamic norms promoting sportspersonship, learning, and having fun in sports, represents a mechanism through which the dynamic norms manipulation exerts its beneficial impact on well-being. Theoretically and empirically, testing this mediation sequence builds on prior work showing that (external) norms can become (internally) accepted and endorsed autonomously ( Amiot et al, 2020 ); self-determination, in turn, has been consistently associated with higher psychological well-being (e.g., Ryan and Deci, 2017 ).…”

Investigating the impact of eating norms and collective autonomy support vs. collective control on unhealthy eating and its internalization

“…Given that collective autonomy support involves providing a rationale for a behavior and acknowledging the individual’s perspective, this type of support may further justify unhealthy eating, and thus amplify the impact of eating norms (see [ 39 ] for the facilitating role of legitimizing ideologies in the process of accepting and internalizing harmful group norms). In contrast, and given that collective control involves promoting a behavior by pressuring group members into adopting this behavior (i.e., without taking into consideration their needs, desires, and feelings) [ 14 , 34 ], this type of support could weaken and reduce the influence of the eating norm.…”

The buffering role of social norms for unhealthy eating before, during, and after the Christmas holidays: A longitudinal study.

“…However, the manner in which social norms can influence the established negative relationship between unhealthy eating and subjective well-being per se has been understudied. Given that social norms can justify and legitimize behaviors, even harmful ones (Amiot et al, 2020), norms may also help individuals rationalize and become at ease with their (unhealthy) eating behavior, to the extent that these are normative. Using a longitudinal design, the goal of this research is to determine whether social norms that promote unhealthy eating can attenuate the negative impact of unhealthy eating on both perceived health and psychological well-being (i.e., vitality).…”