One fundamental function of social norms is to promote social coordination. Moreover, greater social coordination may be called for when tight norms govern social relations with others. Hence, the sensitivity to social norm violations may be jointly modulated by relational goals and a belief that the social context is tight (vs loose). We tested this analysis using an electrocortical marker of norm-violation detection (N400). Ninety-one young American adults were subliminally primed with either relational or neutral goals. Then they saw behaviors that were either norm-violating or normal. In the relational priming condition, the norm-violation N400 increased as a function of the perceived tightness of societal norms. In the control priming condition, however, the norm-violation N400 was weak regardless of perceived tightness. Thus, normative tightness was associated with increased neural processing of norm violations only when relational goals were activated. Implications for norm psychology are discussed.

As social animals, humans are unique to make the world function well by developing, maintaining, and enforcing social norms. As a prerequisite among these norm-related processes, learning social norms can act as a basis that helps us quickly coordinate with others, which is beneficial to social inclusion when people enter into a new environment or experience certain sociocultural changes. Given the positive effects of learning social norms on social order and sociocultural adaptability in daily life, there is an urgent need to understand the underlying mechanisms of social norm learning. In this article, we review a set of works regarding social norms and highlight the specificity of social norm learning. We then propose an integrated model of social norm learning containing three stages, i.e., pre-learning, reinforcement learning, and internalization, map a potential brain network in processing social norm learning, and further discuss the potential influencing factors that modulate social norm learning. Finally, we outline a couple of future directions along this line, including theoretical (i.e., societal and individual differences in social norm learning), methodological (i.e., longitudinal research, experimental methods, neuroimaging studies), and practical issues.

Social norms can coordinate individuals and groups during collective threats. Pandemic-related social norms (e.g., wearing masks, social distancing) emerged to curb the spread of COVID-19. However, little is known about the psychological consequences of the emerging norms. We conducted three experiments cross-culturally, during the early period of the COVID-19 pandemic in China (Study 1), the recovery period in China (Study 2), and the severe period in the United States and Canada (Study 3). Across the three studies, we first distinguished the opposite effects of social norms and risk perception on individuals’ psychological characteristics during the COVID-19 pandemic and further revealed that individuals who perceived stronger pandemic norms reported a lower level of COVID-19 risk perception, which in turn would be associated with fewer negative emotions, lower pressure, more positive emotions, higher levels of trusts, and more confidence in fighting against COVID-19. Our findings show that perceived tighter social norms are linked to beneficial psychological outcomes. This research helps governments, institutions, and individuals understand the mechanism and benefits of social norms during the pandemic, thereby facilitating policy formulation and better responses to social crises.

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, the public stigma associated with COVID-19 has emerged. To better understand the COVID-19 stigma, the present research conducted three studies on 1,493 Chinese participants from the outbreak to the recovery period of the COVID-19 pandemic to examine the psychological mechanisms of COVID-19 stigma by comparing it with other disease-related stigmas in terms of their explicit and implicit processes. Study 1 and Study 2 jointly demonstrated that the public endorsed more stigma toward the COVID-19 related people (i.e., the COVID-19 patients) relative to the other disease-related people (i.e., the SARS patients, people with flu) in multiple explicit aspects, including emotional, motivational, cognitive, and social processing. Using the implicit association test (IAT), Study 3 found no significant difference in the implicit measures of the COVID-19 vs. the SARS groups, which further revealed that the pandemic stigmas (i.e., COVID-19 and SARS) were similar at the implicit level. These findings suggest common (implicit level) but distinct (explicit level) psychological processes of the pandemic-related stigmas, which provide reference to policymakers in formulating suitable interventions to deal with COVID-19 stigma and a newly generated potential stigma and provide psychological support for the public in the future.