Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39114992›Full record

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

Navigating the normativity of behaviour settings: an observational case study.

Giulia Di Rienzo, Erik Myin, Ludger van Dijk

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study 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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. People, places, things and communities: expanding behaviour settings theory in the twenty-first century.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    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.

Giulia Di RienzoCentre for Philosophical Psychology, University of Antwerp , Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-9925-8647
Erik MyinCentre for Philosophical Psychology, University of Antwerp , Antwerp, Belgium.
Ludger van DijkCentre for Philosophical Psychology, University of Antwerp , Antwerp, Belgium.

Funding

Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traditionally, sensitivity to situational norms is understood as deriving from internal cognitive states that represent the rules for appropriate conduct. On an alternative view, norms are 'out there', in the practices and situations themselves, without being duplicated in the head. However, what does normativity look like when it is performed by people engaging with a concrete situation? A 'behaviour setting' offers a window onto these dynamics. This article presents an observational case study of normative coordination within a behaviour setting. Immersed in a scientific laboratory setting, the observations show how the normative demands of the overall behaviour setting can give shape to various places of action, or 'synomorphs', which invite the participants' activities. Responding to the different needs of each synomorph, in turn, maintains the behaviour setting. What connects these two reciprocal timescales of activity are the situationally sensitive activities of the participants. We end with several examples that bring such sensitivity to the interdependence of the norms of a behaviour setting to the fore. This article is part of the theme issue 'People, places, things, and communities: expanding behaviour settings theory in the twenty-first century'.

Indexed as

Social NormsHumansSocial Behaviorbehaviour settingsituated normativitytemporal reciprocity

Identifiers

PMID39114992
PMCPMC11338580

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.