12.5

Loading...

En provenance du cours de University of Pennsylvania

Social Norms, Social Change II

171 notes

University of Pennsylvania

Social Norms, Social Change II

171 notes

This course is Part 2 of the Social Norms, Social Change series. In this course, we will examine social change, the tools we may use to enact change, and put into practice all we have learned in Part 1. See Social Norms, Social Change Part I at this link: https://coursera.org/learn/norms This course covers scripts and schemas, the cognitive structures in which social expectations are embedded, and their relationship with social norms. The course then examines the essentials of norm abandonment, including the relations between personal beliefs and social expectations. We will also evaluate existing intervention strategies, including legal reforms, information campaigns, economic incentives, and group deliberations. Finally, we look at a variety of tools policy makers may use to effect change, highlight the role of trendsetters in social change, and explore the conditions under which they can be successful. The course is a joint Penn-UNICEF project." Please see the following link for a 30% discount on the book that accompanies this course: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/9780190622053/?cc=us&lang=en&promocode=AAFLYG6

À partir de la leçon

Trendsetters and Social Change

This module covers trendsetters and their relations to social change. Who are trendsetters? What are their characteristics? How can we identify them? And how can we use them to bring about positive social change. This module also discusses the role of soap operas and edutainment in bringing about social change, how fictional characters and groups can act as trendsetters, and comparative advantages of edutainment interventions over traditional interventions.

Introduction1:18

Rencontrer les enseignants

Cristina Bicchieri
S. J. Patterson Harvie Professor of Social Thought and Comparative Ethics
Department of Philosophy

[MUSIC]

A significant revolution occurred in Egypt in 2011.

Characterized mainly by demonstrations and

other forms of non violent protests.

The 2011 protest in Tahrir Square, perhaps the most memorable

moment in the revolution, look like a sudden spike in behavioral change.

In truth, it was preceded by progressive change

in personal beliefs that were not made public.

As discussion was probably limited to small groups of dissenters.

There was a progressive accumulation of collective unrest and dissatisfaction with

the old regime that finally found a voice in the Tahrir Square protest.

The very act of protesting is a costly signal powerful enough

to convey the idea that dissenters are committed to change.

As was the case with the civil rights movement,

the media eventually amplified the effects of the protest by

disseminating information that the uprising was happening.

The progressive change in personal normative beliefs, that is,

an increasing disapproval towards the police brutality, lack of democratic

elections, and a lack of free speech under President Hosni Mubarak.

And the updating of normative and

empirical expectations facilitated by the media,

sufficiently motivated Egyptians citizens to coordinate a collective change.

A continuous progressive change in personal beliefs manifested

as a discontinuous shift or series shifts in behavior.

This figure is different from the one we saw in the previous video.

Here, you still see and s shaped continuous curve, but

it does not represent behavioral change.

Instead, it represent the percentage of people who through time,

change their personal normative beliefs about a particular norm.

The change may initiate slowly but then acquires momentum as more and

more people are convinced that change is necessary.

Now, look at the top of the s curve.

Here, almost 100% of the population have change beliefs about a norm.

Yet, this does not mean that 100% of people will act.

For a long time, we may not see a change in behavior.

And only when enough people have change their personal normal beliefs,

there will be a spike.

Appearing as a sudden abandonment of the social norm by

the majority of it's former adherence.

Note, the different majority of individuals care about the norm

that is have high norm sensitivity, believe change will

probably be very slow and you may not take the shape of an s curve.

I will discuss this case later in this lecture.

What I want to stress here is that the curve that represents belief change

will look different from the one that represents behavioral change.

In the lecture about tools for change, we explore various ways

in which individual beliefs factual and normative can change.

I've also pointed up that belief change especially when dealing with special

norms is not sufficient to induce behavioral change.

Individuals want to be reasonably sure that their choice to abandon

standing norm will not be finalized.

A spiking behavioral change therefore occurs when a mechanism

that coordinates empirical expectations that is our

believes about each other actions is in place.

So what induce a majority of people to change behavior?

What causes this panic?

What sort of coordination mechanism can help achieve behavioral change?

The Media will play an important role in coordinating empirical expectation

as they inform about the change in behavior as it happens in real time.

It is not only important to know that deviant behavior exists but,

at the same, to know that thousands of people who watch television or

listen to the radio are aware that change is occurring.

A Trusted government mandate is also coordination device

due to his public character.

Another way to build trust that indeed changes occur is a public commitment

that he is promising to abandon the old practice and to adopt a new one.

A public commitment may be very effective if it is made with people we know.

And with whom we have repeated interactions.

We are motivated to standby what we agreed to, lest our reputation be tarnished.

Nothing will convince others about the death of

our commitment like a costly signal.

In communities were promises are honored,

such commencement are empowered for tool to generate trust that changes coming.

When we trust that other people will abandon an old practice and

adopt a new one, we are functionally changing our empirical

expectation about the future behavior of members of our reference network.

Changing empirical expectation lessens the grip of normative ones and

norm change will follow.

Many NGOs report witnessing massive public declaration where

several villagers pledge conformity to a new behavior.

As a result,

the new normative expectations were created about how many members

of one's referenced network approved of the newest establish behaviour.

Public commitments when successful are effective way to coordinate people's

expectation that change will come.

>> In the communities where people have singed onto the abundant LGC.

When a family goes against the pledge or the declaration and

cuts a girl, then the opposite happens.

That family now is ostracized.

Nobody wants to visit them.

They'll not even come to the celebration, if they have one.

Neighbors will not come and congratulate you on cutting your girl,

because it's a collective decision.

We are not cutting the girl and you've gone against it.

It's important that we see a lot of people in the community openly declare that

they are not going to cut their daughters for it to translate into general change.

So it's important that lots more people openly come out and say that,

we stand for not cutting our girls.

So that others will see that, yes, it's okay not to cut your daughter.

>> Coordination, however, is rarely perfect.

Either the message may not last long enough, or

it may be heard by only a part of the population.

Or there may be some doubt about the legitimacy or truthfulness of the signal.

An imperfect coordinating mechanism may induced part of population

to initiate new behavior.

But these behavior, when of inadequate magnitude,

maybe too costly for people to sustain.

The figure you see tells a common story of imperfect coordination.

Like in the previous figure, the change in personal normative believes is gradual,

and change in behavior is discontinuous.

Change here takes place at intervals that represent the working of coordinating

mechanisms.

We may observe some change and

then a decline until some new coordinating device is implemented.

In this respect, norm abandonment can be quite fragile.

This process may continue with stops and

starts for a relatively long time until the majority has moved along.

The step y function will represent how coordinating signals

may only induce some partial change.

When the signal ends, even some who were convinced to change,

may revert to their old ways.

Realizing that not everyone coordinated on the signal.

New persistent signals will be needed to drive that population

to sustainable change.

Explorer notre catalogue

Rejoignez-nous gratuitement et obtenez des recommendations, des mises à jour et des offres personnalisées.

Coursera propose un accès universel à la meilleure formation au monde, en partenariat avec des universités et des organisations du plus haut niveau, pour proposer des cours en ligne.

© 2019 Coursera Inc. Tous droits réservés.

Télécharger dans l'App Store

Disponible sur Google Play