pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.18044 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-20 · 💰 econ.TH · econ.GN· q-fin.EC

Recognition: unknown

Perceived Social Norms under Uncertainty

Senran Lin
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 03:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💰 econ.TH econ.GNq-fin.EC
keywords social normsuncertaintybelief-based frameworkinformation disclosureinjunctive normsempirical expectationspersonal values
0
0 comments X

The pith

A belief-based framework shows that perceived social norms, personal values, and empirical expectations are linked by a common informational structure under uncertainty about appropriateness standards.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper introduces a framework for social norms that accounts for individuals being uncertain about the standard of appropriate behavior. It demonstrates that perceived injunctive norms, personal values, and expectations about what others do remain distinct yet are connected systematically through shared information. The model explains the varying effects of information disclosure on norm perceptions, hinging on the nature of the information, its public or private release, and its representation of private signals. This matters for understanding real-world social influences where full common knowledge of norms does not hold. By relaxing standard assumptions, the framework offers tools to analyze how information shapes behavior in uncertain social settings.

Core claim

The paper proposes a belief-based framework for social norms in single-action choice settings. By allowing uncertainty about the appropriateness standard and heterogeneous beliefs, it establishes that perceived injunctive social norms, personal values, and empirical expectations are connected through a common informational structure. It further shows that disclosed information influences these perceptions based on the specific content, the public or private nature of the disclosure, and the way the statistic reflects private cues.

What carries the argument

The common informational structure connecting perceived injunctive social norms, personal values, and empirical expectations within the belief-based framework under uncertainty.

Load-bearing premise

Individuals form beliefs about the appropriateness standard and others' beliefs using disclosed information whose effect varies with its public-private nature and encoding of private cues.

What would settle it

Observing no difference in how public versus private disclosures of the same statistic affect perceived injunctive norms, or finding that the effect does not depend on the statistic's encoding of private cues, would falsify the framework's key predictions.

read the original abstract

This paper proposes a belief-based framework for social norms in environments where individuals choose a single action. Relaxing the assumption that the appropriateness standard is common knowledge, the framework allows individuals to be uncertain about this standard and to hold heterogeneous assessments and beliefs about others' assessments. Within the framework, perceived injunctive social norms, personal values, and empirical expectations, while distinct, are systematically connected through a common informational structure. The framework further clarifies how disclosed information shapes perceived norms: its effect depends on what is disclosed, whether it is publicly or privately revealed, and how the disclosed statistic encodes underlying private cues.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a belief-based framework for social norms in environments where individuals choose a single action. By relaxing the common-knowledge assumption on the appropriateness standard, agents can be uncertain about the standard and hold heterogeneous assessments and beliefs about others' assessments. The framework asserts that perceived injunctive norms, personal values, and empirical expectations remain distinct yet are systematically connected through a shared informational structure. It further analyzes how disclosed information shapes perceived norms, with effects depending on the content disclosed, whether the disclosure is public or private, and how the disclosed statistic encodes underlying private cues.

Significance. If the connections are formally derived and non-trivial, the framework could provide a parsimonious way to integrate distinct norm-related objects without introducing new free parameters, which would be a useful contribution to the econ.TH literature on social norms and information. The emphasis on informational structure and the public/private distinction offers a clear mechanism for generating testable predictions about disclosure effects. The relaxation of common knowledge is a natural and potentially fruitful extension, but the absence of explicit derivations or examples in the abstract makes the magnitude of the advance difficult to gauge at present.

major comments (1)
  1. The abstract states that the three objects 'are systematically connected through a common informational structure' but supplies no formal definitions, updating rules, or derivation showing that the connections are not merely definitional. Without these, it is impossible to assess whether the framework generates new implications or merely restates the primitives.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract would benefit from a short illustrative example (e.g., a binary action with a binary appropriateness standard) to show how the informational structure links the three concepts in practice.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful review and constructive feedback. We address the major comment below, clarifying the formal content of the manuscript while acknowledging the abstract's brevity.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The abstract states that the three objects 'are systematically connected through a common informational structure' but supplies no formal definitions, updating rules, or derivation showing that the connections are not merely definitional. Without these, it is impossible to assess whether the framework generates new implications or merely restates the primitives.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract, by design, omits technical details and does not itself contain the formal definitions or derivations. These are developed in the body of the paper. Section 2 introduces the model with a common prior on the appropriateness standard θ, private signals s_i received by each agent, and Bayesian updating rules that generate posteriors. Perceived injunctive norms are defined as E[θ | s_i], personal values as the agent's own posterior, and empirical expectations as beliefs about others' actions conditional on the same information structure. Proposition 1 formally derives the systematic linkages among these objects as consequences of the shared posterior rather than by definition alone. Section 3 then uses these linkages to generate non-trivial implications for disclosure: public versus private revelation of a statistic produces distinct effects on perceived norms depending on how the statistic encodes the underlying signals. We will revise the abstract to note that the connections are formally derived from the information structure and yield testable predictions on disclosure. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper introduces a belief-based framework in which perceived injunctive norms, personal values, and empirical expectations are defined as distinct constructs linked by a shared informational structure over beliefs about an uncertain appropriateness standard. This linkage is a definitional feature of the proposed framework rather than a derived result obtained from independent premises or equations. No load-bearing self-citations, fitted parameters presented as predictions, or reductions of claims to their own inputs appear in the abstract or described logic. The framework remains self-contained against external benchmarks, with the relaxation of common knowledge serving as an explicit modeling choice rather than a hidden tautology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available; no specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are detailed in the provided text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5382 in / 1161 out tokens · 27367 ms · 2026-05-10T03:34:30.526822+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2006 , publisher =

    Bicchieri, Cristina , title =. 2006 , publisher =

    2006

  2. [2]

    Journal of Behavioral Decision Making , year =

    Bicchieri, Cristina and Chavez, Alex , title =. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making , year =

  3. [3]

    2020 , volume =

    Social Norms with Private Values: Theory and Experiments , journal =. 2020 , volume =

    2020

  4. [4]

    Nature Human Behaviour , year =

    Fehr, Ernst and Schurtenberger, Ivo , title =. Nature Human Behaviour , year =

  5. [5]

    and Weber, Roberto A

    Krupka, Erin L. and Weber, Roberto A. , title =. Journal of the European Economic Association , year =

  6. [6]

    and Paluck, Elizabeth Levy , title =

    Tankard, Margaret E. and Paluck, Elizabeth Levy , title =. Social Issues and Policy Review , year =

  7. [7]

    Nature Communications , year =

    Abbink, Klaus and Gangadharan, Lata and Handfield, Toby and Thrasher, John , title =. Nature Communications , year =

  8. [8]

    Political Science Research and Methods , year =

    Arias, Eric , title =. Political Science Research and Methods , year =

  9. [9]

    , title =

    Aycinena, Diego and Rentschler, Lucas and Beranek, Benjamin and Schulz, Jonathan F. , title =. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , year =

  10. [10]

    The Journal of Socio-Economics , year =

    Cullis, John and Jones, Philip and Savoia, Antonio , title =. The Journal of Socio-Economics , year =

  11. [11]

    and Hoover, Hanna G

    Eckel, Catherine C. and Hoover, Hanna G. and Krupka, Erin L. and Sinha, Nishita and Wilson, Rick K. , title =. Experimental Economics , year =

  12. [12]

    and Vostroknutov, Alexander , title =

    Kimbrough, Erik O. and Vostroknutov, Alexander , title =. Journal of the European Economic Association , year =

  13. [13]

    Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization , year =

    Kölle, Felix and Quercia, Simone , title =. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization , year =

  14. [14]

    How Norms Emerge from Conventions (and Change) , journal =

    Przepiorka, Wojtek and Sz. How Norms Emerge from Conventions (and Change) , journal =. 2022 , volume =

    2022

  15. [15]

    Social Norms and Cooperation in Real-Life Social Dilemmas , journal =

    Th. Social Norms and Cooperation in Real-Life Social Dilemmas , journal =. 2008 , volume =

    2008

  16. [16]

    Misperceived Social Norms: Women Working Outside the Home in

    Bursztyn, Leonardo and Gonz. Misperceived Social Norms: Women Working Outside the Home in. American Economic Review , year =

  17. [17]

    and Lewis, Melissa A

    Neighbors, Clayton and Larimer, Mary E. and Lewis, Melissa A. , title =. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , year =

  18. [18]

    Management Science , year =

    Schram, Arthur and Charness, Gary , title =. Management Science , year =. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2014.2073 , publisher =

    work page doi:10.1287/mnsc.2014.2073 2014

  19. [19]

    The Interaction of Descriptive and Injunctive Social Norms in Promoting Energy Conservation , journal =

    Bonan, Jacopo and Cattaneo, Cristina and. The Interaction of Descriptive and Injunctive Social Norms in Promoting Energy Conservation , journal =. 2020 , volume =

    2020

  20. [20]

    Journal of Behavioral Decision Making , year =

    Bicchieri, Cristina and Xiao, Erte , title =. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making , year =

  21. [21]

    Wesley and Nolan, Jessica M

    Schultz, P. Wesley and Nolan, Jessica M. and Cialdini, Robert B. and Goldstein, Noah J. and Griskevicius, Vladas , title =. Psychological Science , year =

  22. [22]

    2019 , volume =

    Noisy Memory and Over-Reaction to News , journal =. 2019 , volume =

    2019

  23. [23]

    American Economic Review , year =

    Bursztyn, Leonardo and Egorov, Georgy and Fiorin, Stefano , title =. American Economic Review , year =

  24. [24]

    The Quarterly Journal of Economics , year =

    Enke, Benjamin and Graeber, Thomas , title =. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , year =

  25. [25]

    , title =

    Frydman, Cary and Jin, Lawrence J. , title =. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , year =

  26. [26]

    The Review of Economic Studies , year =

    Khaw, Mel Win and Li, Ziang and Woodford, Michael , title =. The Review of Economic Studies , year =

  27. [27]

    The Quarterly Journal of Economics , year =

    Mullainathan, Sendhil , title =. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , year =

  28. [28]

    and Healy, Paul J

    Moore, Don A. and Healy, Paul J. , title =. Psychological Review , year =

  29. [29]

    , title =

    Oprea, Ryan and Vieider, Ferdinand M. , title =

  30. [30]

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , year =

    Paluck, Elizabeth Levy , title =. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , year =

  31. [31]

    , title =

    Paluck, Elizabeth Levy and Green, Donald P. , title =. American Political Science Review , year =

  32. [32]

    and Cohen, Jonathan D

    Prat-Carrabin, Arthur and Wilson, Robert C. and Cohen, Jonathan D. and. Human Inference in Changing Environments with Temporal Structure , journal =. 2021 , volume =

    2021

  33. [33]

    Annual Review of Economics , year =

    Woodford, Michael , title =. Annual Review of Economics , year =

  34. [34]

    Journal of Monetary Economics , year =

    Huo, Zhen and Pedroni, Marcelo , title =. Journal of Monetary Economics , year =

  35. [35]

    Gangadharan, T

    Abbink, K., L. Gangadharan, T. Handfield, and J. Thrasher (2017). Peer punishment promotes enforcement of bad social norms. Nature Communications\/ 8\/ (1), 609

    2017

  36. [36]

    Arias, E. (2019). How does media influence social norms? experimental evidence on the role of common knowledge. Political Science Research and Methods\/ 7\/ (3), 561--578

    2019

  37. [37]

    Rentschler, B

    Aycinena, D., L. Rentschler, B. Beranek, and J. F. Schulz (2022). Social norms and dishonesty across societies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences\/ 119\/ (31), e2120138119

    2022

  38. [38]

    Bicchieri, C. (2006). The Grammar of Society: The Nature and Dynamics of Social Norms . New York: Cambridge University Press

    2006

  39. [39]

    Bicchieri, C. and A. Chavez (2010). Behaving as expected: Public information and fairness norms. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making\/ 23\/ (2), 161--178

    2010

  40. [40]

    Bicchieri, C. and E. Xiao (2009). Do the right thing: But only if others do so. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making\/ 22\/ (2), 191--208

    2009

  41. [41]

    Cattaneo, G

    Bonan, J., C. Cattaneo, G. d'Adda , and M. Tavoni (2020). The interaction of descriptive and injunctive social norms in promoting energy conservation. Nature Energy\/ 5\/ (11), 900--909

    2020

  42. [42]

    Egorov, and S

    Bursztyn, L., G. Egorov, and S. Fiorin (2020). From extreme to mainstream: The erosion of social norms. American Economic Review\/ 110\/ (11), 3522--3548

    2020

  43. [43]

    Bursztyn, L., A. L. Gonz \'a lez, and D. Yanagizawa-Drott (2020). Misperceived social norms: Women working outside the home in Saudi Arabia . American Economic Review\/ 110\/ (10), 2997--3029

    2020

  44. [44]

    Jones, and A

    Cullis, J., P. Jones, and A. Savoia (2012). Social norms and tax compliance: Framing the decision to pay tax. The Journal of Socio-Economics\/ 41\/ (2), 159--168

    2012

  45. [45]

    da Silveira , R. A. and M. Woodford (2019). Noisy memory and over-reaction to news. AEA Papers and Proceedings\/ 109 , 557--561

    2019

  46. [46]

    Dufwenberg, F

    d'Adda , G., M. Dufwenberg, F. Passarelli, and G. Tabellini (2020). Social norms with private values: Theory and experiments. Games and Economic Behavior\/ 124 , 288--304

    2020

  47. [47]

    Eckel, C. C., H. G. Hoover, E. L. Krupka, N. Sinha, and R. K. Wilson (2023). Using social norms to explain giving behavior. Experimental Economics\/ 26\/ (5), 1115--1141

    2023

  48. [48]

    Enke, B. and T. Graeber (2023). Cognitive uncertainty. The Quarterly Journal of Economics\/ 138\/ (4), 2021--2067

    2023

  49. [49]

    Fehr, E. and I. Schurtenberger (2018). Normative foundations of human cooperation. Nature Human Behaviour\/ 2\/ (7), 458--468

    2018

  50. [50]

    Frydman, C. and L. J. Jin (2022). Efficient coding and risky choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics\/ 137\/ (1), 161--213

    2022

  51. [51]

    Huo, Z. and M. Pedroni (2023). Dynamic information aggregation: Learning from the past. Journal of Monetary Economics\/ 136 , 107--124

    2023

  52. [52]

    Khaw, M. W., Z. Li, and M. Woodford (2021). Cognitive imprecision and small-stakes risk aversion. The Review of Economic Studies\/ 88\/ (4), 1979--2013

    2021

  53. [53]

    Kimbrough, E. O. and A. Vostroknutov (2016). Norms make preferences social. Journal of the European Economic Association\/ 14\/ (3), 608--638

    2016

  54. [54]

    Krupka, E. L. and R. A. Weber (2013). Identifying social norms using coordination games: Why does Dictator Game sharing vary? Journal of the European Economic Association\/ 11\/ (3), 495--524

    2013

  55. [55]

    Kölle, F. and S. Quercia (2021). The influence of empirical and normative expectations on cooperation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization\/ 190 , 691--703

    2021

  56. [56]

    Moore, D. A. and P. J. Healy (2008). The trouble with overconfidence. Psychological Review\/ 115\/ (2), 502--517

    2008

  57. [57]

    Mullainathan, S. (2002). A memory-based model of bounded rationality. The Quarterly Journal of Economics\/ 117\/ (3), 735--774

    2002

  58. [58]

    Neighbors, C., M. E. Larimer, and M. A. Lewis (2004). Targeting misperceptions of descriptive drinking norms: Efficacy of a computer-delivered personalized normative feedback intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology\/ 72\/ (3), 434--447

    2004

  59. [59]

    Oprea, R. and F. M. Vieider (2024). Minding the gap: On the origins of probability weighting and the description-experience gap. Working paper

    2024

  60. [60]

    Paluck, E. L. (2009). Reducing intergroup prejudice and conflict using the media: A field experiment in Rwanda . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology\/ 96\/ (3), 574--587

    2009

  61. [61]

    Paluck, E. L. and D. P. Green (2009). Deference, dissent, and dispute resolution: An experimental intervention using mass media to change norms and behavior in Rwanda . American Political Science Review\/ 103\/ (4), 622--644

    2009

  62. [62]

    Prat-Carrabin, A., R. C. Wilson, J. D. Cohen, and R. A. da Silveira (2021). Human inference in changing environments with temporal structure. Psychological Review\/ 128\/ (5), 879--912

    2021

  63. [63]

    Sz \'e kely, G

    Przepiorka, W., \'A . Sz \'e kely, G. Andrighetto, A. Diekmann, and L. Tummolini (2022). How norms emerge from conventions (and change). Socius\/ 8 , 23780231221124556

    2022

  64. [64]

    Schram, A. and G. Charness (2015). Inducing social norms in laboratory allocation choices. Management Science\/ 61\/ (7), 1531--1546

    2015

  65. [65]

    Schultz, P. W., J. M. Nolan, R. B. Cialdini, N. J. Goldstein, and V. Griskevicius (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science\/ 18\/ (5), 429--434

    2007

  66. [66]

    Tankard, M. E. and E. L. Paluck (2016). Norm perception as a vehicle for social change. Social Issues and Policy Review\/ 10\/ (1), 181--211

    2016

  67. [67]

    Th gersen, J. (2008). Social norms and cooperation in real-life social dilemmas. Journal of Economic Psychology\/ 29\/ (4), 458--472

    2008

  68. [68]

    Woodford, M. (2020). Modeling imprecision in perception, valuation, and choice. Annual Review of Economics\/ 12\/ (1), 579--601

    2020