Social-conventional Reasoning
Social-conventional Reasoning - Related Videos
01:37
Reason and Intuition
0 Views •
2020
The human brain processes information for decision-making using one of two routes: an intuitive system and a rational system (Epstein, 1994; popularized by Kahneman, 2011 as System 1 and System 2, respectively). The intuitive system is quick, impulsive, and operates with minimal effort, relying on emotions or habits to provide cues for what to do next, while the rational system is logical, analytical, deliberate, and methodical. Research in neuropsychology suggests that the brain can only use...
11:13
The Social Dimension of Stress: Experimental Manipulations of Social Support and Social Identity in the Trier Social Stress Test
0 Views •
Cited by 13 •
2015
Previous research on the social dimension of stress has focused on two important variables: social identity and social support. This protocol introduces an effective experimental manipulation of these two social variables and describes their implementation in a standard stress induction paradigm (Trier Social Stress Test).
04:56
Perspectives on Social Psychology
0 Views •
2023
Social Psychology is a complex field—one that investigates how social contexts affect people’s actions, thoughts, and attitudes. It brings the scientific method into our everyday lives by addressing questions relevant to interactions amongst individuals near and far or even over the internet. For example, the video about ostracism details an approach to induce feelings of exclusion without direct face-to-face contact. These videos are meant to show the wide reactionary nature of human beings,...
06:23
How Children Solve Problems Using Causal Reasoning
0 Views •
2023
Source: Laboratories of Judith Danovitch and Nicholaus Noles—University of Louisville Imagine a young child hears an adult say, “I want to watch the news,” then watches the adult press a button on the remote control. A moment later, the television screen turns on. The next day, the child wants to turn on the television screen to watch cartoons. How does the child know what to do? Is it enough to say, “I want to watch cartoons,” or is pushing the button on the remote control necessary, too?...
06:08
Exploring the Role of Deontic Reasoning and World Knowledge in Wason´s Selection Task
0 Views •
2025
This study aims to analyze how people reason with and about normative rules, deontic reasoning, and the importance of world knowledge in subjects´ inferences. For this purpose, one of the main experimental paradigms in reasoning research was used: Wason´s selection task.
FAQs
The distinction depends mainly on the kind of concern raised by the behavior. Violations of conventions are evaluated through social coordination, authority, and expectations, whereas moral transgressions are judged in relation to harm or justice. This contrast helps explain why people may treat a breach of etiquette differently from conduct that harms another person or violates fairness.
Authority and changeability help people determine whether a rule depends on an institution or reflects a broader obligation. A classroom procedure or organizational policy may be connected to authority and therefore open to revision, while judgments about harm or justice may not depend on whether an authority formally created the rule. These distinctions shape disagreement and compliance.
People do not evaluate customs independently of their social setting or experience. Context determines which expectations organize a particular group, while cultural differences can produce variation in accepted practices. Developmental changes also affect how children and adults understand authority, coordination, and norms, allowing psychologists to compare how judgments emerge and change across stages of life.
Researchers examine how children and adults judge familiar customs, including dress codes, classroom procedures, etiquette, and institutional policies. They compare these judgments across developmental stages and cultures, focusing on the roles assigned to authority, social coordination, context, and rule changeability. Such comparisons reveal where people share expectations and where social norms produce disagreement.
It can clarify why people comply with, challenge, or reinterpret rules that coordinate group activity. In schools, classroom procedures and dress codes provide examples of expectations tied to institutional settings; in organizations, policies serve similar coordinating functions. Studying judgments about these rules helps explain when disagreement concerns authority, context, or the appropriateness of changing a norm.
Changing norms requires people to negotiate whether an existing expectation remains appropriate, who has authority to revise it, and how the change affects coordination within the group. Social-conventional reasoning provides a framework for understanding these disagreements without treating every conflict as a dispute about harm or justice. It is therefore relevant to families, institutions, and wider communities.