Counterproductive norms

Last updated

Counterproductive norms are group norms that prevent a group, organization, or other collective entities from performing or accomplishing its originally stated function by working oppositely to how they were initially intended. Group norms are typically enforced to facilitate group survival, to make group member behaviour predictable, to help avoid embarrassing interpersonal interactions, or to clarify distinctive aspects of the group’s identity. [1] Counterproductive norms exist despite the fact that they cause opposite outcomes of the intended prosocial functions.

Contents

Group norms are informal rules and standards that guide and regulate the behaviour of a group’s members. These norms may be implicit or explicit and are intended to provide information on appropriate behaviour for group members in particular social situations. Thus, counterproductive norms instead illicit inappropriate behaviour from group members. Group norms are not predetermined but rather arise out of social interactions. These norms can have powerful influence over group behaviour. Norms may arise due to critical events in a group’s history that established a precedent, as a result of primacy (the first emergent behaviour that sets group expectations), or from carry-over behaviours from past situations. [1] Groups establish these norms based on specific group values and goals and may establish sanctions in response to deviation from these norms. Such sanctions are typically applied in the form of social exclusion or disapproval. Counterproductive norms also typically consist of these attributes but the intention behind their activation is usually not prosocial and is instead opposite to their original function.

Mechanisms of counterproductive norms

Social proof

Counterproductive norms manifest in part because of the principle of social proof. Social proof is what happens when we learn what is correct by referring to the views of others. [2] This is especially true in unclear or ambiguous situations. [2] When people infer the appropriate behavior from the descriptive norm, they are looking to the behaviors of others to try and figure out the most effective course of action. [2] This might be a cognitive “short-cut" to determining most effective action, as the functional perspective of normative production might suggest. [3] Counterproductive norms can be created by looking to the behavior of others. [4] [2]

Normative influence

Both descriptive norms and injunctive norms are used in normative communications. If used incorrectly, they can create counter productive norms. [4] Descriptive norms describe what constitutes a normal behavior in a given context. [3] They are often referred to as the “is" norms, because they depict things as they actually are. [3] Injunctive norms describe whether a given action is considered acceptable. [3] They are called the “ought" norms" because they constitute what should be. [3] The descriptive norm is very powerful. The way that communications are phrased actually has a big impact on the effectiveness of the message. [5] [6] If that phrasing is used incorrectly, it follows that a counterproductive norm can develop.

Norm transmission

Norms may only exist in the context of a group. In other words, social norms do not exist with an independent individual. Norms may be transmitted deliberately by group members instructing others members on acceptable behaviour. They may also be transmitted passively through observation of others and their behaviours which are deemed acceptable by the group. [7] Counterproductive norms are perpetuated by the same mechanisms but differ from group norms in terms of their outcomes.

Theoretical perspectives

Two different perspectives give explanations for the formation and existence of group norms and counterproductive group norms.

The Societal-Value Perspective suggests that norms are arbitrary rules that exist as a result of cultural value or reinforcement. This theory states that a norm’s power depends on the value it represents to the culture. [8] Social norms evolve out of behaviours that repeatedly occur and are reinforced. [9] Thus, the strength of norms and counterproductive norms depend on various group dynamics. Because they evolve out of social interaction, one factor of norm strength is the available opportunities for group members to communicate. The strongest norms are those that are important to the group. As well, strength depends on the cohesiveness and unity of the group. [9]

The Functional Perspective suggests that norms exist to enhance survival potential by curtailing dysfunctional behaviours while encouraging socially proactive ones. Unlike the Societal-Value perspective, the Functional perspective states that norms are not arbitrary. Instead, they are meant to balance the needs of the individual with the goals of the group of social control and harmony. [10] Thus, norms exist to serve a purpose of survival. However, counterproductive norms work in opposition to socially proactive functions and therefore, cannot be adequately explained by this theory. Both the societal-value perspective and the functional perspective theories can be integrated to describe the fact that individuals experience pressure to communicate effectively with others within a cultural belief system with behaviour patterns that are relevant and informative, in the form of customs and traditions fulfill overarching needs based on the local social culture and physical environment. [10]

Examples of counterproductive behaviors

Industrial behavior

Much research has been done regarding counterproductive work behaviours. These behaviours include things such as theft, sabotage, workplace violence and aggression, incivility, revenge and service sabotage that are willfully committed with the intention of harming an organization or its members. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

Some research suggests that these counterproductive behaviours are enacted when individuals or groups feel maltreated or as if they do not have legitimate options to protest. [16] Possible antecedents of counterproductive norms include personality variables, organizational culture, control systems and injustice. [17] Personality variables refer to individual attributes such as integrity. In fact, results on integrity tests have been shown to be correlated to counterproductive work behaviors. [17] Organizational culture includes both the behavior of people within an organization and the meaning placed on these behaviors. An increased perception of the level of organizational acceptance for sexual harassment being correlated to actual reports of unwanted sexual coercion is an example of organizational culture influence on counterproductive workplace behavior. [17] Control systems are physical or procedural entities that aim to reduce counterproductive behaviors or increase the penalties for engaging in these behaviors in the workplace. [17] Sophisticated security systems are typically put in place with the intention of preventing counterproductive workplace behaviors but may be used in some situations as a means of committing sabotage (e.g. by falsifying records). Injustice in the work environment consists of perceived inequity as well as various other ideas within the concept of organizational justice. Organizational justice is composed of the concepts of distributive justice, which refers to equitable allocation of resources, and procedural justice, which refers to how these decisions are made and their perceived fairness. Feelings of injustice and frustration have been linked to various counterproductive behaviors such as sabotage, time-wasting, interpersonal aggression, job apathy, and other anti-social behaviors. [17]

Environmental messaging

Iron Eyes Cody PSA

One example of counterproductive norms are the Iron Eyes Cody Keep America Beautiful public service announcements. Cialdini (2003) argues that while the ad makers convey an injunctive norm about environmentalism, they contrasted this by portraying littering as a descriptive norm. [4] While they did have a lot of success and have been recognized as some of the best PSAs of all time, Cialdini argues that they could have been more effective, had they conveyed different descriptive norms. [18] [4]

Petrified wood Example

A study by Cialdini and colleagues tested whether signs conveying different norms had an effect on the rate of theft of petrified wood in a national forest. [5] They used one sign with a descriptive norm and one with an injunctive norm. [5] The descriptive norm “normalized" the behavior of theft, and as a result, raised the amount of theft. [5] The injunctive norm was more effective at reducing theft, and lowered it from the baseline. [5] The study gives us some empirical evidence that when messaging uses normative influence incorrectly, it can create or maintain a counterproductive norm.

Related Research Articles

Behavior or behaviour is the range of actions and mannerisms made by individuals, organisms, systems or artificial entities in some environment. These systems can include other systems or organisms as well as the inanimate physical environment. It is the computed response of the system or organism to various stimuli or inputs, whether internal or external, conscious or subconscious, overt or covert, and voluntary or involuntary.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social norm</span> Informal understanding of acceptable conduct

Social norms are shared standards of acceptable behavior by groups. Social norms can both be informal understandings that govern the behavior of members of a society, as well as be codified into rules and laws. Social normative influences or social norms, are deemed to be powerful drivers of human behavioural changes and well organized and incorporated by major theories which explain human behaviour. Institutions are composed of multiple norms. Norms are shared social beliefs about behavior; thus, they are distinct from "ideas", "attitudes", and "values", which can be held privately, and which do not necessarily concern behavior. Norms are contingent on context, social group, and historical circumstances.

Systemic bias is the inherent tendency of a process to support particular outcomes. The term generally refers to human systems such as institutions. Systemic bias is related to and overlaps conceptually with institutional bias and structural bias, and the terms are often used interchangeably.

Social influence comprises the ways in which individuals adjust their behavior to meet the demands of a social environment. It takes many forms and can be seen in conformity, socialization, peer pressure, obedience, leadership, persuasion, sales, and marketing. Typically social influence results from a specific action, command, or request, but people also alter their attitudes and behaviors in response to what they perceive others might do or think. In 1958, Harvard psychologist Herbert Kelman identified three broad varieties of social influence.

  1. Compliance is when people appear to agree with others but actually keep their dissenting opinions private.
  2. Identification is when people are influenced by someone who is liked and respected, such as a famous celebrity.
  3. Internalization is when people accept a belief or behavior and agree both publicly and privately.

Organizational behavior or organisational behaviour is the: "study of human behavior in organizational settings, the interface between human behavior and the organization, and the organization itself". Organizational behavioral research can be categorized in at least three ways:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theory of planned behavior</span> Theory that links behavior

The theory of planned behavior (TPB) is a psychological theory that links beliefs to behavior. The theory maintains that three core components, namely, attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control, together shape an individual's behavioral intentions. In turn, a tenet of TPB is that behavioral intention is the most proximal determinant of human social behavior.

Interactional justice is defined by sociologist John R. Schermerhorn as the "...degree to which the people affected by decision are treated by dignity and respect". The theory focuses on the interpersonal treatment people receive when procedures are implemented.

The social norms approach, or social norms marketing, is an environmental strategy gaining ground in health campaigns. While conducting research in the mid-1980s, two researchers, H.W. Perkins and A.D. Berkowitz, reported that students at a small U.S. college held exaggerated beliefs about the normal frequency and consumption habits of other students with regard to alcohol. These inflated perceptions have been found in many educational institutions, with varying populations and locations. Despite the fact that college drinking is at elevated levels, the perceived amount almost always exceeds actual behavior. The social norms approach has shown signs of countering misperceptions, however research on changes in behavior resulting from changed perceptions varies between mixed to conclusively nonexistent.

Normative social influence is a type of social influence that leads to conformity. It is defined in social psychology as "...the influence of other people that leads us to conform in order to be liked and accepted by them." The power of normative social influence stems from the human identity as a social being, with a need for companionship and association.

Greenberg (1987) introduced the concept of organizational justice with regard to how an employee judges the behavior of the organization and the employee's resulting attitude and behaviour. For example, if a firm makes redundant half of the workers, an employee may feel a sense of injustice with a resulting change in attitude and a drop in productivity.

The social identity model of deindividuation effects is a theory developed in social psychology and communication studies. SIDE explains the effects of anonymity and identifiability on group behavior. It has become one of several theories of technology that describe social effects of computer-mediated communication.

Occupational health psychology (OHP) is an interdisciplinary area of psychology that is concerned with the health and safety of workers. OHP addresses a number of major topic areas including the impact of occupational stressors on physical and mental health, the impact of involuntary unemployment on physical and mental health, work-family balance, workplace violence and other forms of mistreatment, psychosocial workplace factors that affect accident risk and safety, and interventions designed to improve and/or protect worker health. Although OHP emerged from two distinct disciplines within applied psychology, namely, health psychology and industrial and organizational psychology, for a long time the psychology establishment, including leaders of industrial/organizational psychology, rarely dealt with occupational stress and employee health, creating a need for the emergence of OHP. OHP has also been informed by other disciplines, including occupational medicine, sociology, industrial engineering, and economics, as well as preventive medicine and public health. OHP is thus concerned with the relationship of psychosocial workplace factors to the development, maintenance, and promotion of workers' health and that of their families. The World Health Organization and the International Labour Organization estimate that exposure to long working hours causes an estimated 745,000 workers to die from ischemic heart disease and stroke in 2016, mediated by occupational stress.

Workplace aggression is a specific type of aggression which occurs in the workplace. Workplace aggression is any type of hostile behavior that occurs in the workplace. It can range from verbal insults and threats to physical violence, and it can occur between coworkers, supervisors, and subordinates. Common examples of workplace aggression include gossiping, bullying, intimidation, sabotage, sexual harassment, and physical violence. These behaviors can have serious consequences, including reduced productivity, increased stress, and decreased morale.

The negative-state relief model states that human beings have an innate drive to reduce negative moods. They can be reduced by engaging in any mood-elevating behaviour, including helping behaviour, as it is paired with positive value such as smiles and thank you. Thus negative mood increases helpfulness because helping others can reduce one's own bad feelings.

Workplace deviance, in group psychology, may be described as the deliberate desire to cause harm to an organization – more specifically, a workplace. The concept has become an instrumental component in the field of organizational communication. More accurately, it can be seen as "voluntary behavior that violates institutionalized norms and in doing so threatens the well-being of the organization".

Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) is employee's behavior that goes against the legitimate interests of an organization. This behavior can harm the organization, other people within it, and other people and organizations outside it, including employers, other employees, suppliers, clients, patients and citizens. It has been proposed that a person-by-environment interaction (the relationship between a person's psychological and physical capacities and the demands placed on those capacities by the person's social and physical environment.) can be utilized to explain a variety of counterproductive behaviors. For instance, an employee who is high on trait anger is more likely to respond to a stressful incident at work with CWB.

The reasoned action approach (RAA) is an integrative framework for the prediction of human social behavior. The reasoned action approach states that attitudes towards the behavior, perceived norms, and perceived behavioral control determine people's intentions, while people's intentions predict their behaviors.

In behavioural sciences, social rationality is a type of decision strategy used in social contexts, in which a set of simple rules is applied in complex and uncertain situations.

Abusive supervision is most commonly studied in the context of the workplace, although it can arise in other areas such as in the household and at school. "Abusive supervision has been investigated as an antecedent to negative subordinate workplace outcome." "Workplace violence has combination of situational and personal factors". The study that was conducted looked at the link between abusive supervision and different workplace events.

Machiavellianism in the workplace is a concept studied by many organizational psychologists. Conceptualized originally by Richard Christie and Florence Geis, Machiavellianism refers to a psychological trait concept where individuals behave in a cold and duplicitous manner. It has in recent times been adapted and applied to the context of the workplace and organizations by many writers and academics.

References

  1. 1 2 Feldman 1984.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Cialdini 2008.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 Cialdini, Reno & Kallgren 1990.
  4. 1 2 3 4 Cialdini 2003.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 Cialdini et al. 2006.
  6. ↑ Goldstein, Cialdini & Griskevicius 2008.
  7. ↑ Cialdini, Kallgren & Reno 1991.
  8. ↑ Solomon, Greenberg & Pyszczynski 1991.
  9. 1 2 Opp 1982.
  10. 1 2 Schaller & Latane 1996.
  11. ↑ Greenberg 1990.
  12. ↑ Ambrose, Seabright & Schminke 2002.
  13. ↑ Barling, Dupré & Kelloway 2009.
  14. ↑ Andersson & Pearson 1999.
  15. ↑ Bies & Tripp 2005.
  16. ↑ Kelloway et al. 2009.
  17. 1 2 3 4 5 Sackett & DeVore 2001.
  18. ↑ "Pollution: Keep America Beautiful - Iron Eyes Cody". 2014. Retrieved 16 December 2014.

Bibliography

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.