Rethinking Norm Psychology

Abstract

Norms permeate human life. Most of people’s activities can be characterized by rules about what is appropriate, allowed, required, or forbidden—rules that are crucial in making people hyper-cooperative animals. In this article, I examine the current cognitive-evolutionary account of “norm psychology” and propose an alternative that is better supported by evidence and better placed to promote interdisciplinary dialogue. The incumbent theory focuses on rules and claims that humans genetically inherit cognitive and motivational mechanisms specialized for processing these rules. The cultural-evolutionary alternative defines normativity in relation to behavior—compliance, enforcement, and commentary—and suggests that it depends on implicit and explicit processes. The implicit processes are genetically inherited and domain-general; rather than being specialized for normativity, they do many jobs in many species. The explicit processes are culturally inherited and domain-specific; they are constructed from mentalizing and reasoning by social interaction in childhood. The cultural-evolutionary, or “cognitive gadget,” perspective suggests that people alive today—parents, educators, elders, politicians, lawyers—have more responsibility for sustaining normativity than the nativist view implies. People’s actions not only shape and transmit the rules, but they also create in each new generation mental processes that can grasp the rules and put them into action.

Human and nonhuman norms: a dimensional framework

“…[43][44][45]). The sheer variety of mechanisms identified in this literature is striking, ranging from explicit, discursive representations of rules [33,34], to distinctively social affective processes [46], to richly metacognitive representations of other people's beliefs [39], to mechanisms underlying skilled action control [47,48], to a capacity for shared intentionally [35], to a domainspecific 'norm system' shaped by gene-culture coevolution [42,45], to phylogenically widespread domain-general mechanisms for association and reinforcement learning [49,50]. Notably, many of these proposals are not mutually exclusive and all of them plausibly explain some human social norms.…”

In search of animal normativity: a framework for studying social norms in non‐human animals

“…Birch (2021) proposed that the human normative sense is supported by model-based control systems that underpin expert performance in skilled action, such as tool manufacture, which involve standards for correct and incorrect performance (see also Sterelny, 2021). Still others have proposed that human norm psychology stems from basic domain-general processes, such as reinforcement learning, prediction-error minimization, and the maintenance of allostasis (Colombo, 2014;Theriault, Young & Barrett, 2021), or that norm psychology is a culturally evolved 'cognitive gadget' built upon domain-general foundations (Heyes, 2023). Andrews' (2020) naïve normativity model points instead to a set of basic cognitive prerequisites for social norms in humans, such as the detection of agents, the ability to distinguish between ingroup and outgroup members, and experiencing evaluative emotions.…”

Normative Processing Needs Multiple Levels of Explanation: From Algorithm to Implementation

“…Whereas some are enshrined in law (e.g., do not steal), others operate more informally, such as how one greets other people. A key debate is whether the cognitive or mental processes underlying norms are domain-specific, genetically inherited modules (Fehr & Schurtenberger, 2018; Henrich & Muthukrishna, 2021; Kelly & Davis, 2018) or domain-general psychological and neural processes generated through social learning (Heyes, 2022). A new proposal draws from both nativist and domain-general accounts and places “cultural evolution” as central to norm psychology.…”

“…A new proposal draws from both nativist and domain-general accounts and places “cultural evolution” as central to norm psychology. In this proposal, norms are shaped by a distinctively human, domain-specific cognitive process that is learned through domain-general associative-learning mechanisms (Heyes, 2022). This novel cultural evolution of norm psychology (CENP) framework incorporates aspects of both domain-general and domain-specific processes while remaining nonnativist.…”

“…A second important aspect in an empirical framework of norm psychology is an appreciation of the basic building blocks for norms. Heyes (2022) proposed that a “cognitive gadget” that is culturally learned and domain specific is central for norm psychology. The cognitive-gadget version contrasts with theories that are innate and domain-general or innate and domain-specific.…”