Information, Entanglement, and Emergent Social Norms: Searching for ‘Normal’

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, I would like to congratulate the author of the manuscript for the research carried out, which is the fruit of a significant effort that is reflected in a work of high scientific quality, as well as for her choice of the journal Societies for the dissemination of her work: which constitutes a place to place the terms of a challenge that involves situating certain questions of contemporary society that are generated within the institutional/governmental and non-governmental circuits of research, of a reflexive and critical type that are not popularly emerging in the scientific community, but profoundly necessary for the advancement of knowledge.

After a thorough review of the article, based on a detailed analysis of social norms and the concept of "normality" in the socio-cultural context in which we live, and after a careful examination of the content, I would like to suggest the publication of the article in its current version, without the need for further modifications.

The summary effectively captures the essence of the research, presenting the key information in a concise manner. It also includes a model of thinking for future research or possible lines of exploration, which is valuable for those wishing to explore the topic further.

This paper offers an innovative perspective that promotes critical thinking and examines social and procedural frameworks from an in-depth approach to the topic of norms/normality. The text is very well structured, clearly defining the key concepts that will be developed throughout the paper. It reads smoothly and allows for a deep and accessible understanding for any reader.

The main points of the article are set out in a clear and coherent manner and the manuscript provides the reader with a solid background framework, facilitating the understanding of the challenges facing the field of study addressed. The detailed descriptions included are essential for a critical analysis of the topic, adding richness to the content, which has been based on a powerful bibliographic analysis based on 229 references.

The article concludes with a solid synthesis of the findings, accompanied by concrete examples and remarkable figures that highlight the relevance and impact of the research carried out; it is evident that a topic of great interest and relevance in today's society has been addressed.

Finally, from a formal point of view, the citations and references are correctly integrated into the text and are presented in an orderly manner in the final section, meeting the required academic standards.

In sum, the content is contextualised with respect to previous theoretical background on the subject, the questions raised in the research and the methodology carried out for the composition of the manuscript are well placed, and the arguments and results of the work are coherent, following the standards of the journal Societies.

Author Response

Thank you for your thoughtful and very kind review of our work, and we are very pleased to hear that you found it interesting and engaging.

Although you did not request and specific revisions,  please note that we have added some text in the introduction [at line 46] and to the Discussion section [at lines 763 and 835] that should help to clarify the research background, hypotheses, and motivations.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The concept proposed in the article is presented ambiguously within the broader literature. The definition provided lacks a clear grounding in existing academic frameworks, making it difficult to situate it relative to established theories. For a stronger argument, the article should clarify its conceptual and disciplinary foundation by engaging more directly with seminal literature on social norms and theoretical models. Including sources such as Elster (2009) on social norms or Bourdieu’s (1977) work on habitus could have anchored the discussion more effectively.

 

Rather than introducing a novel concept, the article functions predominantly as a narrative literature review. The article covers a broad spectrum of existing works but lacks a clear methodological framework for the selection of sources. It does not offer a transparent rationale for how certain works were prioritized over others. Furthermore, the methodology for organizing and synthesizing these sources into the proposed model is not clearly articulated. 

 

The model presented is promising, but its contribution to the literature remains unclear, particularly regarding its theoretical positioning. The article does not specify which competing models of social norms it aims to challenge or build upon, leaving the reader unsure of its innovative value. Additionally, further elaboration is needed on how this model can be operationalized in practical analysis, especially within empirical studies.

 

One major weakness of the article is the lack of clarity surrounding the disciplinary scope. The article does not explicitly define whether it falls within sociology, anthropology, or another social science, making it difficult to assess the theoretical goals of the work. This vagueness extends to the purpose of the theoretical model, leaving readers unsure of its intended impact or application. A clearer articulation of the article’s interdisciplinary positioning, along with a discussion of its potential practical implications (e.g., in policy-making or behavioral analysis), would enhance its academic contribution.

In summary, the article offers an interesting model but lacks the necessary theoretical grounding and methodological transparency to make a substantial contribution to the field. Clarifying its conceptual framework, methodology, and theoretical positioning would significantly strengthen the article’s impact and scholarly relevance.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Good and engaging. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your thoughtful critique of this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses to your comments below.

Comment 1: The concept proposed in the article is presented ambiguously within the broader literature. The definition provided lacks a clear grounding in existing academic frameworks, making it difficult to situate it relative to established theories. For a stronger argument, the article should clarify its conceptual and disciplinary foundation by engaging more directly with seminal literature on social norms and theoretical models. Including sources such as Elster (2009) on social norms or Bourdieu’s (1977) work on habitus could have anchored the discussion more effectively.

Response 1: Thank you. We can see how the manuscript in its present form might give that impression. This article is a follow-up to a previously published work "Blinded for Peer Review" published in Societies 2023 that introduced the conceptual framework from which the model presented in this current work is derived.

The conceptual and disciplinary foundations within existing theories and literature on social norms are addressed at length in that prior work. Ambiguity is, unfortunately, endemic to established theorization on social norms as different disciplines have widely disparate conceptualizations. Legros and Cislaghi noted in their 2020 literature review on the topic that the “…cross-disciplinary manifestation of the social norms concept has meant the literature on what norms are and how they affect people’s actions has grown in very different directions and today includes several, often conflicting, theories.” The conceptual ambiguity surrounding social norms was the primary motivation for the prior and present work – to reconcile and synthesize current understanding in a way that may coherently address currently open questions on the subject.

We are familiar with the work of Elster and Bourdieu. Elster broadly describes social norms in the injunctive or “rule-based” sense, seeing them as a non-consequentialist counterpoint to rationality. Similarly, Bourdieu largely considered norms as a form of pre-rational or a priori conditioning in the production and reproduction of social capital. Neither substantively addressed origins or emergence of social norms (Elster explicitly declined to do so). We have argued, instead, that the instantiation and emergence of social norms is central to understanding their role and effects.

We have added the following clarifying text to the introduction [beginning at line 46 in the original pdf manuscript] to explicitly refer to our prior work for understanding the model’s interdisciplinary theoretical foundations.

“In our previous work [4], we conducted an interdisciplinary review of numerous conceptual frameworks surrounding social norms. We examined recent systematic literature reviews and leading theories across social and behavioral sciences such as social and evolutionary psychology, cognitive and neuro- sciences, sociology and behavioral economics, and cultural and evolutionary anthropology to identify the current status of research and open questions surrounding social norms. Although each approach’s theoretical constructs provided various descriptive characterizations for social norms, all acknowledged that substantially open questions and contradictions remain unaddressed.”

Comment 2: Rather than introducing a novel concept, the article functions predominantly as a narrative literature review. The article covers a broad spectrum of existing works but lacks a clear methodological framework for the selection of sources. It does not offer a transparent rationale for how certain works were prioritized over others. Furthermore, the methodology for organizing and synthesizing these sources into the proposed model is not clearly articulated.

Response 2: Establishing the relevant open questions regarding social norms, as well as the interdisciplinary nature of the topic, required review of pertinent literature but that is not the article’s objective. A more systematic interdisciplinary review can be found in the previous cited work (see “Response 1”).

The selection of sources for the “Open Questions…” portion of the article prioritized material that illustrated both the strengths and weaknesses of current theories and approaches. We wanted to highlight points of complementarity and/or contradiction between different conceptualizations of social norms, rather than provide a systematic review of or comparison with specific prevailing theories.

Sources for aspects of the model were selected for specific abstractions or defining characteristics relevant to the underlying processes of information that we describe. Given the diverse fields of those sources some limited review of core concepts and applications was warranted, but a comprehensive review of contributing abstractions is not feasible within the scope of the article.

Comment 3: The model presented is promising, but its contribution to the literature remains unclear, particularly regarding its theoretical positioning. The article does not specify which competing models of social norms it aims to challenge or build upon, leaving the reader unsure of its innovative value. Additionally, further elaboration is needed on how this model can be operationalized in practical analysis, especially within empirical studies.

Response 3: Again, we need to refer to our previous publication as to our model’s theoretical positioning. We have drawn from multiple disciplines to try and reconcile the empirical and theoretical understandings of social norms. Quoting from that earlier work:

“Our objective … is not to refute or critique specific theories or methods, but to propose a conceptual framework to reconcile divergent aspects of those theories. We consider social norms and their relation to the emergence of normative and institutional entities with respect to the capture and maintenance of socially embedded information. We suggest this as a way to bridge the theoretical divides between individual and collective accounts of sociality and norms by examining the processes through which pro-social rules or strategies may be derived from the communication and collective validation of experiential information.”

Specific operationalizations of our model would be dependent on field or discipline. We have tried to present a set of generalized abstractions from which to frame practical and empirical applications on a consistent and coherent basis.

Comment 4: One major weakness of the article is the lack of clarity surrounding the disciplinary scope. The article does not explicitly define whether it falls within sociology, anthropology, or another social science, making it difficult to assess the theoretical goals of the work. This vagueness extends to the purpose of the theoretical model, leaving readers unsure of its intended impact or application. A clearer articulation of the article’s interdisciplinary positioning, along with a discussion of its potential practical implications (e.g., in policy-making or behavioral analysis), would enhance its academic contribution.

Response 4: The open and interdisciplinary scope for the article was an intentional choice, since at least some concept of social norms is ubiquitous among all social and behavioral sciences. As noted above, the conceptual ambiguity and inconsistent definitions for what is a social norm and what role such norms play in decision processes, across and within fields of study, is a widely recognized problem. That problem has been exacerbated, we believe, by epistemic silos and overly narrow disciplinary or research-specific scoping of the core concepts. Operationalization of those concepts within specific field or applications should still, ultimately, refer to the same underlying conceptual understanding. Currently, that is not the case.

The purpose of the theoretical model is twofold:

• Firstly, the model illustrates the intrinsic entanglement of information, between both the physical and social environments and the individual and group-level processes, using already well-understood abstractions. This has the corollary implication that practical operationalization of these abstractions for specific applications is feasible within established simulation methods.

• Secondly, demonstrating that social norm formation operates as an entangled information search and optimization process (rather than as strategic rules or expectations for social engagement) obviates a perennial quandary of the social sciences – i.e., the perceived contradiction between autonomous agency and collective sociality, or (alternately framed) individual versus group fitness.

We have added text to the Introduction of the article [see “Response 1”] explicitly articulating the interdisciplinary basis and scope of the paper.

The following text has been added to the beginning of the Discussion section [beginning at line 763 in the original pdf manuscript] to clarify the purposes of the model:

“The model we have presented here not only addresses open questions surrounding social norms, but also resolves a more general and long-standing question within the social sciences – i.e., the perceived contradictions between autonomous agency and collective sociality, or (in evolutionary framing) individual versus group-level adaptive fitness of complex sociality. It illustrates the intrinsic entanglement of information, between both the physical and social environments and individual and group-level information processes, using abstractions that are already well-understood within multiple fields of study. This interdisciplinary synthesis provides a coherent conceptual foundation on which to frame practical applications for behavioral science and empirical research questions or the social sciences.”

The following text has been added to the end of the Discussion section [beginning at line 834 in the original pdf manuscript] to clarify the implications of the model:

“The implications of this are not merely academic. From climate change to sustainable practices, systemic inequality to disruptive technologies, or the increasing reliance on machine learning and artificial intelligence on our access to and utilization of resources and information – there is a growing interest in leveraging the tools of social and behavioral sciences to serve various interests. Increasingly, behavioral interventions are used in public policy and industry to ‘nudge’ desired outcomes while social media has significantly altered the landscape of our social interactions and sources of information. These all raise serious ethical concerns about a potential flood of misinformation and growing influence of agenda-driven manipulation of social perceptions.

If, however, information is central to social adaptation as we have argued here then altering or manipulating social information – no matter how well intentioned – may have unpredictable and far-reaching consequences. The disciplinary ambiguities in our understanding and apprehension of the critical role of social norms and their relationship to normative institutions is no longer a purely academic matter for debate. Our model demonstrates how the healthy functioning of a population depends on its ability to naturally classify, curate, and adapt to the information in its environment.”

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article under review offers a valuable narrative review of the chosen topic. The new manuscript expresses an advanced and better version. However, I would like to highlight a few points for improvement:

The integrations provided by the authors are relevant and contribute significantly to the topic under discussion. These additions help to enhance the breadth of the article and are well-accepted.

While the authors present the work as a conceptual paper, it is more appropriately categorized as a narrative review. The article largely synthesises existing literature. I recommend that the authors clearly acknowledge this distinction in the introduction and adjust the terminology accordingly, framing the paper as a narrative review rather than a conceptual one.

Consequentially, the paper would benefit from a more detailed explanation of the methodology used for selecting sources. The fact that the authors wrote another article that sets the ground is insufficient. They should make this article's reader understand the research field and the methodology used. A more structured explanation of the inclusion and exclusion criteria for sources would lend greater solidity to the paper.

 

Author Response

Thank you for reconsidering our revised article, and we are glad to hear that you feel that most of your comments were adequately addressed. It seems that the only remaining concern is the proper classification and framing of the work.

Comment: While the authors present the work as a conceptual paper, it is more appropriately categorized as a narrative review. The article largely synthesizes existing literature. I recommend that the authors clearly acknowledge this distinction in the introduction and adjust the terminology accordingly, framing the paper as a narrative review rather than a conceptual one.

Response: Respectfully, we must disagree with the characterization of the work as a narrative review rather than a conceptual paper. For that categorization to be accurate, the majority of the article would consist of summary and synthesis of established models for the formation, emergence, stabilization, and propagation of social norms and normative institutions. As we explain in Section 2 of the article ("Open Questions in Social Norms Research") and in our prior publication, however, these specific aspects of social norms are widely considered substantially open questions under all current conceptual models and theories.

Although heavily cited to provide examples, offer critiques or counterpoints, or to support our assertions – the remainder of the manuscript contains our own original proposals toward the conceptualization of social norms and their operations, rather than review of any existing and established work. We are explicitly proposing a new conceptual model for understanding social norms, not synthesizing existing literature on the subject, and the specific topics we are addressing with this model are themselves open questions.

Our conceptual and theoretical framework from that prior publication along with some summary critique of existing approaches are briefly presented in Section 3 ("Searching for 'Normal'"). None of the literature cited or concepts presented in the problem framing within Section 4 ("Balancing Risk against Innovation") currently address or consider the question of social norms and their role and operation directly.

We are, in fact, proposing (rather than reviewing) an argument that social baseline theory, social and collective cognition, and social learning are intrinsically related to the formation processes of social norms as information and re-purposing those concepts towards our model’s ends. Similarly, the conceptual model that we present in Section 5 ("The Dynamics of Social Information Norms") is entirely novel and based on our own prior work. The literature and concepts referenced in this section are not traditionally associated with social norms, but we have found their associated abstractions to have parallel applications to the problem.

We appreciate that the the conceptual topic is quite broad and that the interdisciplinary nature of the subject makes it difficult to address without extensive citation and background. We believe, though, that the majority of this article consists of original contributions to the topic and goes sufficiently beyond summary of existing research to qualify as a conceptual paper.