Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2019-9
From legal to normative: A combined social representations and sociocognitive approach to diagnosing cultural change triggered by new environmental laws
Inconsistency between the expressed support for resource-conservation ideas and behaviours has emphasized the need to develop a better understanding of the psychosocial processes through which formal laws (reified universe) also become informal norms (consensual universe). Experimental paradigms of the sociocognitive approach to social norms are able to assess if cultural change fostered by the legal/reified universe has been incorporated by society to the level of influencing, and being expected, in interpersonal communications. This article proposes to combine elements from the social representations theory and the sociocognitive approach to social norms in a diagnose proposal for cultural change (appropriation and consensualization dimensions). Through a self-presentation paradigm, results of Study 1 show that conservation beliefs and behaviours are indeed used in interpersonal contexts in order to be well-seen; yet, this informal valorization is context-dependent. In Study 2, a hetero-evaluation paradigm was used. Results show that conservation beliefs are socially valued and crucial for people to be positively seen (appropriation). However, the expression of conservation behaviours is not required (consensualization). Overall, these results show that conservation beliefs and behaviours have become informal norms in Portugal. Still, this valorization is not yet homogeneous; it partially tolerates belief–behaviour inconsistency, a typical dynamic of emancipated representations.
AlvesH.CorreiaI. (2008).
On the normativity of expressing the belief in a just world: Empirical evidence. Social Justice Research,
21, 106–118.
2.
BatelS.Devine-WrightP.TangelandT. (2013).
Social acceptance of low carbon energy and associated infrastructures: A critical discussion. Energy Policy,
58, 1–5.
3.
BertoldoR. (2014). The Social Valorisation of Pro-environmentalism Framed by Formal Norms: A Comparative Psychosocial Analysis between Brazil and Portugal (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Lisbon University Institute, ISCTE-IUL, Lisbon. Retrieved from https://repositorio.iscte-iul.pt/handle/10071/8490
4.
BörzelT.FaganA. (2015).
Environmental governance in South East Europe/Western Balkans: Reassessing the transformative power of Europe. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy,
47, 1–16.
5.
BoulangerD.ChristensenB. (2018). Social representations as social forms and aesthetic phenomena: Dialogue between Moscovici and Simmel. In L. Tateo (Ed.), An old melody in a new song: Aesthetics and psychology. New York: Springer International Publishing.
6.
CastroP. (2012).
Legal innovation for social change: Exploring change and resistance to different types of sustainability laws. Political Psychology,
33, 105–121.
7.
CastroP.BatelS. (2008).
Social representation, change and resistance: On the difficulties of generalizing new norms. Culture & Psychology,
14, 475–497.
8.
CastroP.MouroC. (2011).
Psycho-social processes in dealing with legal innovation in the community: Insights from biodiversity conservation. American Journal of Community Psychology,
47(3–4), 362–373.
9.
DoiseW. (1980).
Levels of explanation in the European Journal of Social Psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology,
10, 213–231.
10.
Doise, W. (1982). L’explication en Psychologie Sociale. Paris: PUF.
11.
DoiseW. (2001). Human rights studied as normative social representations. In K. Deaux & G. Philogène (Eds.), Representations of the social (pp. 96–112). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
12.
DuboisN. (2003). The concept of norm. In DuboisN. (Ed.), A sociocognitive approach to social norms (pp. 1–15).
London, England:
Routledge.
13.
DuboisN.BeauvoisJ.-L. (2005).
Normativeness and individualism. European Journal of Social Psychology,
35, 123–146.
14.
ElcherothG.DoiseW.ReicherS. (2011).
On the knowledge of politics and the politics of knowledge: How a social representations approach helps us rethink the subject of political psychology. Political Psychology,
32, 729–758.
15.
European Commission. (2016). National student fee and support systems in European higher education – 2016/17. Eurydice facts and figures.
Luxembourg, Europe:
Publications Office of the European Union.
16.
FarrR. (1985). Social representations: Their role in the design and execution of laboratory experiments. In FarrR. M.MoscoviciS. (Eds.), Social representations (pp. 125–147).
Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
17.
FélonneauM.BeckerM. (2008).
Pro-environmental attitudes and behaviour: Revealing perceived social desirability. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale,
21, 25–53.
18.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP. (2002).
A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
82, 878–902.
19.
FoucaultM. (1982). The subject and power. In DreyfusH.RabinowP. (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (pp. 208–226).
Brighton, England:
Harvester.
20.
GaskellG.AllansdottirA.AllumN.CastroP.EsmerY.FischlerC., . . . WagerW. (2011).
The 2010 Eurobarometer on the life sciences. Nature Biotechnology,
29(2), 113–114.
21.
GiddensA. (2009). The politics of climate change.
Cambridge, England:
Polity Press.
22.
GillibertD.CambonL. (2003). Paradigms of the sociocognitive approach. In N. Dubois (Eds.), A sociocognitive approach to social norms (pp. 38–69). London, England: Routledge.
23.
GoffmanE. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life.
Garden City,
NY: Double-Day.
24.
GrossenM.OrvigA. S. (2011).
Dialogism and dialogicality in the study of the self. Culture & Psychology,
17, 491–509.
25.
HarréR. (1998). The epistemology of social representations. In U. Flick (Ed.), The psychology of the social (pp. 129–137). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
26.
HarréR. (2002).
Rom Harré on social structure and social change: Social reality and the myth of social structure. European Journal of Social Theory,
5, 111–123.
27.
JellisonJ. M.GreenJ. (1982).
A self-presentation approach to the fundamental attribution error: The norm of internality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
40, 643–649.
28.
JensenE.WagonerB. (2009).
Continuing commentary: A cyclical model of social change. Culture & Psychology,
15(2), 217–228.
29.
JovchelovitchS. (2011). Putting experiments in their place: Commentary on Robert Farr’s social representations: Their role in the design and execution of laboratory experiments. In R. M. Farr and S. Moscovici (Eds.), (1984), Social representations (pp. 125–147). Cambridge: CUP. Papers on Social Representations, 20, 12.1–12.12.
30.
KusL.LiuJ.WardC. (2013).
Relative deprivation versus system justification: Polemical social representations and identity positioning in a post-Soviet society. European Journal of Social Psychology,
43, 423–437.
31.
LavergneK. J.PelletierL. G. (2015).
Predicting individual differences in the choice of strategy to compensate for attitude-behaviour inconsistencies in the environmental domain. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
44, 135–148.
32.
MarkováI. (2006). Dialogicality and social representations: The dynamics of mind.
Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
33.
MarkováI.LinellP.GrossenM.OrvigA. S. (2007). Dialogue in focus groups: Exploring socially shared knowledge.
London, England:
Equinox.
34.
MoloneyG.HallR.WalkerI. (2005).
Social representations and themata: The construction and functioning of social knowledge about donation and transplantation. TheBritish Journal of Social Psychology,
44, 415–441.
35.
MoscoviciS. (1988).
Notes towards a description of social representations. European Journal of Social Psychology,
18, 211–250.
36.
MoscoviciS. (1989).
Preconditions for explanation in social psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology,
19, 407–430.
37.
MoscoviciS. (2000). Social representations: Explorations in social psychology.
London, England:
Polity Press.
38.
MoscoviciS.MarkováI. (2000). Ideas and their development: A dialogue between Serge Moscovici and Ivana Marková. In S. Moscovici & G. Duveen (Eds.), Social representations: Explorations in social psychology (pp. 224–286). Oxford, England: Polity Press.
39.
MouroC.CastroP. (2012).
Cognitive polyphasia in the reception of legal innovations for biodiversity conservation. Papers on Social Representations,
21, 3.1–3.21.
40.
MouroC.CastroP. (2016).
Self–other relations in biodiversity conservation in the community: Representational processes and adjustment to new actions. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology,
26, 340–353.
41.
RaudseppM. (2005).
Why is it so difficult to understand the theory of social representations?Culture Psychology,
11, 455–468.
42.
RogoffB. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In WertschJ. V.RioP. D.AlvarezA. (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139–164).
Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
SchenklerB. R. (1996). Impression management. In A. S. Manstead & M. Hewstone (Eds.), The Blackwell encyclopedia for social psychology (pp. 314–319). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
45.
StaerkléC.ClémenceA. (2004).
Why people are committed to human rights and still tolerate their violation: A contextual analysis of the principle-application gap. Social Justice Research,
17, 389–406.
46.
UzelgunM. A.MohammedD.LewinskiM.CastroP. (2015).
Managing disagreement through yes, but… constructions: An argumentative analysis. Discourse Studies,
17(4), 467–484. doi:10.1177/1461445615578965
47.
ValaJ.Garcia-MarquesL.Gouveia-PereiraM.LopesD. (1998).
Validation of polemical social representations: Introducing the intergroup differentiation of heterogeneity. Social Science Information,
37, 469–492.
48.
ValsinerJ. (2003).
Beyond social representations: A theory of enablement. Papers on Social Representations,
12, 7.1–7.16.
49.
ValsinerJ.LawrenceJ. A. (1997). Human development in culture across the life span. In BerryJ. W.DasenP. R.SaraswathiT. S. (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology.
Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn & Bacon, pp. 69–106.
50.
WagnerW. (1995).
Social representations, group affiliation, and projection: Knowing the limits of validity. European Journal of Social Psychology,
25, 125–139.
51.
WagnerW.SenR.PermanadeliR.HowarthC. S. (2012).
The veil and Muslim women’s identity: Cultural pressures and resistance to stereotyping. Culture & Psychology,
18(4), 521–541.
52.
WelteT. H. L.AnastasioP. A. (2010).
To conserve or not to conserve: Is status the question?Environment and Behavior,
42(6), 845–863.
