Social Norm Theory

Social norm theory is the first theoretical perspective through which prejudicial acts may be more closely examined and serves as a useful lens through which to understand the relationship among LGBT biased-based harassment, school culture, and policy. Berkowitz (2003) applied social norm theory across many areas, including problem-college drinking, eating disorders, bystander behavior, as well as prejudicial and generally problem behavior towards others. Theories of socialization, including social norm theory, state that prejudiced attitudes are formed through the influence of social identities, group membership, and interpersonal interactions (Eder & Nenga, 2003; Poteat, 2007).
There is a long history of the use of norms in understanding human behavior. According
to researchers, the use of norms for categorization and diagnostic purposes has occurred in social science applications since the late 19th century (Talburt, 2004). Developmental norms and related evaluations were initially introduced to assist psychologists, educators, and reformers for the purpose of studying, diagnosing, and administering youth within an identifiable population. Talburt (2004) disclosed that throughout the emergence of normed identification surrounding LGBT youth, “adults must evaluate and guide adolescents’ development and entry into appropriate citizenship and social relations” (p. 117). Such a history gives credence to the exploration of social norm theory as a reasonable approach to better understand the interplay of LGBT students within a public school setting with regard to social interaction and expectations.
Clarity of expected behavior for individuals through social norms might both confound expected outcomes and indicate some positional migration of normed behaviors.
Time interval research by Zitek and Hebl (2006) conducted on a group of university women uncovered that the clarity of the social norms influenced the extent of homophobic (intolerance of homosexuals) or other prejudicial acts were exhibited. As a social norm became more ambiguous, research participants were more likely to look to the reaction of others. Bowen and Bourgeois (2001) studied the effects of social norms upon students living in two dormitories at a large public university. Each dormitory was co-ed and housed both heterosexual and LGBT-identified students. Residents were surveyed at different intervals whether they personally knew LGBT individuals and whether they held negative or positive feelings toward those individuals. Bowen and Bourgeois’ research supported the effectiveness of close interactions among peers as an effective means of reducing prejudice related to sexual minorities. Each case clearly illuminates that a sense of familiarity is a key determinant in reducing social norms that perpetuate anti-gay bias and
behavior.
Research suggests that social norm interventions, including deliberate exposure to sexual minority populations, are successful in reducing anti-gay behavior occurrences (Berkowitz, 2003; Bowen & Bourgeois, 2001; Grabill, Lasane, Povitsky, Saxe, Munro, Phelps & Straub, 2005; Poteat, 2007; Zitek & Hebl, 2006). Yet it is clear that social norm intervention cannot serve as the sole intervention. Critical components for sustainable change to occur include: (a) provision of training and professional development for staff, (b) ensuring policies embrace the LGBT population and address acts of homophobia, and (c) establishment of school-wide programming to directly address homophobia (Bowen & Bourgeois, 2001; Mayo, 2004; Macgillivray, 2004; Poteat, 2007; Zitek & Hebl, 2006). Public schools must look to key findings surrounding social norms as a means to begin formulating strategies to reverse the socially-stigmatizing trends.
Social norm theory predicts that individuals will react in a predetermined way to the expression or behavior of others in an attempt to conform. There are two types of motivation behind the attempt to conform to social norms: (a) pluralistic ignorance and (b) normative conformity. The first type, pluralistic ignorance, can be defined as the desire to “read” a social group accurately and then attempt to match the group behavior expectations (Berkowitz, 2003; Berkowitz, 2005; Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004; Grabill et al. 2005). Pluralistic ignorance is highest when the fear of social disapproval motivates an individual’s behavior to adjust (Berkowitz, 2003). The second type of social norm motivation, normative conformity, can be defined as the motivation for seeking social approval from others (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). Berkowitz (2003) terms this type of motivation “false consensus” to describe individuals who unknowingly perpetuate problem behavior under the assumption that their actions match the ‘true’ norm.
The dissonance that exists between challenges to the heteronormativity within the community at large and the oft time hostile environments that LGBT students face each day create conflict that seems insurmountable to many (Koschoreck & Slattery, 2006). Multiple cases of anti-gay violence and harassment endured by sexual minority youth point to school cultures that are steeped in heterosexual norms (Alemán, 2009; Lugg, 2003). The power of public school culture over time is uncovered as the executor of expected norms surrounding heteronormativity and homophobia (Lugg, 2003). Efforts to address the existing norms in school communities will bring some level of conflict in order to begin to initiate cultural change (Alemán, 2009; Peterson & Deal, 1998).