This document discusses a constructivist perspective on norms and normative change. Some key points of constructivism are that knowledge is constructed through social interaction and prior experiences, and meaning is negotiated through language. Constructivism acknowledges that individuals belong to multiple reference groups and can choose which norms to follow in a given situation. Normative change interventions cannot directly manage or control norms, but may be able to influence them by facilitating dialogue, clarifying language, and encouraging ethical persuasion rather than direct attribution. Norms and beliefs are also difficult to accurately measure.

1. A Constructivist Perspective on Norms
and Normative Change
Joseph Petraglia

2. Constructivism is so ingrained in our thinking
about cognition that most of us probably don’t
realize that we are constructivists.
But because norms and normative change are
rooted in cognition and learning, it deserves
some attention.

3. Constructivism is a theory
of knowledge (what we
think we “know”) and how
we know (a theory of
learning).

4. Constructivism takes many forms and the
“metatheory” has many contributors. Just to list
a few:
• Lev Vygotsky (Sociohistoricist/Psychologist)
• Jean Piaget (Developmental Psychologist)
• John Dewey (Philosopher of Education)
• Seymour Papert (Psychologist)
• Thomas Luckmann (Sociologist)
• Richard Rorty (Philosopher of Science)

5. Meaning negotiated through
language and social interaction
Basic Constructivist Metatheory
Prior
Experience
Prior
Experience

6. COMPLEXITY
CONSTRUCTIVIST
DIMENSION

7. Any SBC activity has to account for the
contextual, temporal and constructivist
complexity of the implementation
environment.
Elements of that environment are, by
nature, unstable and open to individual
interpretation.
Thus, the challenge for public health…

8. So what would constructivists say about
norm-shifting interventions?
• Individuals belong to MANY reference groups simultaneously (and
while some of these are rooted in demographics, perhaps the most
potent of them are matters of self-identity.
• Individuals have a lot of latitude in choosing (consciously or
subconsciously) which reference group they draw on as “relevant” in a
particular situation.
• The oft-cited different between “norms” and “beliefs” is untenable as
the distinction between personal and social is untenable.
• You can’t isolate a “norm of interest” from a network of norms some of
which are contradictory. For instance, I believe “many hands make light
work” but I also believe “too many cooks spoil the broth.”
• NSIs are packaged in language.The language used has a huge impact
on which norms are tapped in our long-term memory. When you encode
a norm into language you are dealing with something very slippery with
indeterminant meaning to others.

9. In short, normative change is unmanageable, but
it may be influenceable.
Furthermore… we should, in fact, seek to
influence norms in public health.

10. How can we influence norms?
1) Create conditions for dialogue, clarification and persuasion
2) Facilitate dialogue about behavior, the circumstance(s) in
which a particular behavior is acceptable and those in which
it is not.
3) Seek clarification of language (what we say vs. what we
mean vs. what we want to happen as a result—Austin’s
speech act theory). Sometimes people agree at levels that are
not readily apparent.
4) Encourage ethical persuasion—model good argument,
respect for evidence and attention to the logical, emotional
and ethical elements of argument.

11. Can we measure NSIs?
• Not with much accuracy—we can argue that NSIs have
contributed to change but we cannot attribute change to
them.
• Measures of belief are just as adequate/inadequate as
measures of descriptive or injunctive norm prevalence.
• See Guba and Lincoln’s (2001) Guidelines and Checklist for
Constructivist (a.k.a. 4th Generation) Evaluation*
* Anyone wanting this document can contact me at joseph@syntegral.org

12. Thank you