Norm Theory: The Construction of Norms
Norm theory proposes that people construct standards of normality in context by recalling relevant alternatives. It distinguishes judgments made after an event from predictions and examines which features people change in counterfactual thought.
THE IDEA
Norms help people represent categories and interpret experience. Norm theory challenges the idea that norms are always precomputed structures: norms, and sometimes their elements, can be constructed after an event, guided by the event’s characteristics and the immediate context. This approach resembles accounts that emphasize specific episodes and exemplars in category representation (Barsalou, 1987; Brooks, 1978; Hintzman, 1986; Jacoby & Brooks, 1984; McClelland & Rumelhart, 1985; Medin & Schaffer, 1978; Schank, 1982).
The theory separates normality and post-hoc interpretation from probability and anticipation. It also asks which attributes people hold fixed and which they change when imagining alternatives to reality. Hofstadter (1979, 1985) explored a related idea through slippability. As he puts it, it is “very hard to make a counterfactual world in which counterfactuals were not a key ingredient of thought” (Hofstadter, 1985, p. 239).
* This is an edited and condensed version of a paper that first appeared in Psychological Review, 93, 237–251. Copyright © 1986 by American Psychological Association. Adapted with permission.
When to use it
Evaluating blame or responsibility in legal and ethical situations
Understanding how people form judgments of likelihood and normality in social contexts
Analyzing biases in decision-making where expected outcomes influence perception
Designing user experiences that align with users' normative expectations
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Missing a Flight
A person who misses a flight by 5 minutes might think, 'If only I had left the house earlier.' In that comparison, the person changes the departure time and holds traffic conditions fixed. Another comparison might change the traffic instead.
Blame Assignment in Accidents
After a car accident, an observer may focus on a driver’s unusual decision to run a red light and imagine the accident being avoided if the driver had stopped. Another observer may focus on a mechanical failure. The example concerns which alternative comes to mind; normality alone does not settle blame.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Think of a recent event that surprised you. What norm did you expect, and how did the actual outcome differ?
Consider a time you engaged in counterfactual thinking (e.g., 'if only...'). Which attributes of the situation did you treat as mutable?
How do your interpretations of others' actions depend on whether those actions are seen as normal or abnormal?
Often confused with
References
- Norm Theory: Comparing Reality to Its Alternatives — Kahneman, D. & Miller, D. (1986)
- Categorization and Representation — Barsalou, L. W. (1987)
- Nonanalytic Concept Formation — Brooks, L. R. (1978)
- Schema Abstraction in a Multiple-Trace Memory Model — Hintzman, D. L. (1986)
- Nonanalytic Cognition: Memory, Perception, and Concept Learning — Jacoby, L. L. & Brooks, L. R. (1984)
- Distributed Memory and the Representation of General and Specific Information — McClelland, J. L. & Rumelhart, D. E. (1985)
- Context Theory of Classification Learning — Medin, D. L. & Schaffer, M. M. (1978)
- Dynamic Memory: A Theory of Reminding and Learning — Schank, R. C. (1982)
- Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid — Hofstadter, D. R. (1979)
- Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern — Hofstadter, D. R. (1985)
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Heuristics and Biases The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (Thomas Gilovich, Dale Griffin, Daniel Kahneman)