Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38244600›Full record

ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2024

Risk, sanctions and norm change: the formation and decay of social distancing norms.

Eva Vriens, Giulia Andrighetto, Luca Tummolini

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. A norm about harvest division is maintained by a desire to follow tradition, not by social policing.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  4. Social norm change: drivers and consequences.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Eva VriensInstitute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies, Italian National Research Council, Via S. Martino della Battaglia 44, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8824-0812
Giulia AndrighettoInstitute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies, Italian National Research Council, Via S. Martino della Battaglia 44, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3896-1363
Luca TummoliniInstitute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies, Italian National Research Council, Via S. Martino della Battaglia 44, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7791-0457
National Research Council · ITLinköping University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Global challenges like the climate crisis and pandemic outbreaks require collective responses where people quickly adapt to changing circumstances. Social norms are potential solutions, but only if they themselves are flexible enough. The COVID-19 pandemic provided a unique opportunity to study norm formation and decay in real-world contexts. We tracked empirical and normative expectations about social distancing and empirical and normative expectations of sanctioning from June 2021 to February 2022 to explore how norms and meta norms evolved as COVID-19 risk decreased and increased. We found that norms and meta norms partially coevolve with risk dynamics, although they recover with some delay. This implies that norms should be enforced as soon as risk increases. We therefore tested how sanctioning intentions vary for different hypothetical norms and find them to increase with a clear meta norm of sanctioning, yet decrease with a clear social norm of distance. In conclusion, social norms evolve spontaneously with changing risk, but might not be adaptive enough when the lack of meta norms of sanctioning introduce tolerance for norm violations. Moreover, norm nudges can potentially have negative externalities if strengthening the social norm increases tolerance for norm violations. These results put some limits to social norms as solutions to guide behaviour under risk. This article is part of the theme issue 'Social norm change: drivers and consequences'.

Indexed as

Physical DistancingSocial NormsHumansIntentionPandemicsCOVID-19meta normsnorm changerisksocial distancingsocial expectations

Identifiers

PMID38244600
PMCPMC10799734
OpenAlexW4391058498

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.