Social rules

A repressive state armed with a cultural policy can alienate more than it can include. Uddalok Bhattacharya to summarize

Aakar Patel: When it (the BJP) was not in power, when it had little hope of reaching power, the party defended the rights of Indian citizens over those of the state.

Today, when it controls the state, the The BJP defends the rights of the state on those of the individual.

The state strengthens its control over what we read, watch, hear or laugh, said Vanita Kohli-Khandekar. Why not facilitate our soft power instead of suppressing its strengths?

OUR EDIT SAID: No need to blame private clinics for slow vaccination

QUOTE

I want to appeal to the central government and Prime Minister Narendra Modi for Sunderlal Bahuguna to be honored with Bharat Ratna. Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal

Dear reader,

Business Standard has always strived to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that matter to you and have broader political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering has only strengthened our resolve and commitment to these ideals. Even in these difficult times resulting from Covid-19, we remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and cutting edge commentary on relevant current issues.
However, we have a demand.

As we fight the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more so that we can continue to provide you with more quality content. Our subscription model has received an encouraging response from many of you who have subscribed to our online content. More subscriptions to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of providing you with even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practice the journalism to which we are committed.

Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.

Digital editor

India’s new social rules went into effect today, May 26, 2020. Major social media platforms such as WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, among others, have had three months to comply with the new guidelines to ensure proper operation. Unfortunately, most of the major social media platforms are not yet complying with the new rules and guidelines. While platforms such as Facebook and Google have ensured compliance with the new IT rules, the secure messaging platform WhatsApp opposes the new guidelines. Also read – WhatsApp will soon let you hide for the last time from a scary stalker

According to the new IT rules, social media companies such as WhatsApp must have provisions for “identifying the first sender of information”. This clearly goes against basic WhatsApp end-to-end encryption policies on all messages. Time and time again, the Facebook-owned messaging platform has reminded users, even when the updated privacy policy was announced, that all messages on WhatsApp are end-to-end encrypted. In other words, no one, including WhatsApp and Facebook, can read users’ private messages. Also read – WhatsApp will stop working for some Android and iOS phones from November 1

According to the messaging platform, India’s new IT rules kill the concept of end-to-end encryption, which ensures that messages on the platform are secure and encrypted. Challenging this aspect of the new social rules, Facebook-owned messaging platform WhatsApp has moved the High Court to Delhi. The petition was filed on May 25. Also Read – Upcoming WhatsApp Features: New Reactions to Chat Bubble Messages, Overview of New Features That May Be Launched Soon

In an official statement to BGR India, a spokesperson for WhatsApp said: “requiring messaging apps to ‘track’ chats is like asking us to keep a fingerprint of every message sent on WhatsApp, which would break end-to-end encryption and fundamentally infringe on people’s right to privacy. .. “”We have consistently joined with civil society and experts around the world to oppose demands that would violate the privacy of our users.“, added the spokesperson.

Despite the questioning of the new social rules, WhatsApp assured that it “will continue to work with the Government of India on practical solutions to keep people safe, including responding to valid legal requests for the information we have.“

In a new official webpage released today, WhatsApp claims that “traceability reverses the way law enforcement typically investigates crimes”. “In a typical law enforcement request, a government asks technology companies to provide information about the account of a known person. With traceability, a government would provide a tech company with a piece of content and ask who sent it first.The web page added.

“To trace even one message, services would have to trace each message. This is because there is no way to predict what message a government would want to investigate in the future. In doing so, a government that chooses to impose traceability is effectively imposing a new form of mass surveillance.“, further explained the message.

The new rules for social media intermediaries could increase compliance costs for gamers, making it difficult for small businesses to compete with bigger giants like Facebook, according to industry watchers.

The new rules, announced last week, distinguish between “social media intermediaries” and “major social media intermediaries” with 50 lakh of registered users as the threshold for categorization.

Major social media intermediaries will need to do additional due diligence, including appointing a compliance officer, a nodal contact person and a resident grievance officer – the three officers residing in India .

Big players like Facebook have said they are studying the rules.

While many in the industry have welcomed the new regulations, saying they are aimed at addressing issues such as redressing grievances, fake news and user online safety, part of the industry has voiced concerns. concerns about rising compliance costs that could be difficult for smaller players.

Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) founder Mishi Choudhary said the rules call for undue burden and compliance and “ensure that only the big players with the funds and the means of big legal teams are the only ones who will be left to provide services “.

“(This could lead to) the increased barrier to entry and increased compliance costs for everyone,” she added.

India has 53 crore of WhatsApp users, 44.8 crore of YouTube users, 41 crore of Facebook users, 21 crore of Instagram users, while 1.75 crore of users are on the platform of Twitter microblogging, according to government data.

While players like Telegram and Signal do not disclose country-specific user numbers, these platforms have seen an increase in downloads in recent weeks due to concerns over the privacy policy update. of WhatsApp which aims to allow the sharing of limited user data with Facebook and its group companies.

Telegram did not respond to questions about the impact of the new rules on the platform.

Industry watchers have noted that players like Telegram and others may not have senior officials based in India and will now need to take a series of steps to ensure new standards are met as they arise. as their business grows and user base grows in India.

Under the amended IT rules, social media and streaming companies will be required to remove contentious content more quickly, appoint grievance officers and assist with investigations.

The “Intermediary Guidelines and Code of Ethics for Digital Media” designed to combat the misuse of social media platforms require actors like WhatsApp, Facebook and Twitter as well as streaming services like Netflix, YouTube and Amazon Prime Video appoint executives to coordinate with law enforcement, disclose the first creator of provocative content, and remove, within 24 hours, content depicting nudity or metamorphosed images of women.

Any contentious content reported by the government or the legal order must be removed within 36 hours.

An industry executive, who declined to be named, said some companies may choose to protect user privacy and challenge those rules in court.

Additionally, the industry believes there needs to be clarity on nuances like how long users must be active to be counted as registered users, and what if a platform goes down. below the threshold of 50 lakh of registered users.

Rameesh Kailasam, CEO of IndiaTech.org, also warned that while these rules are strong and elaborate, they can result in a certain degree of costs and operational challenges.

Nasscom noted that it is imperative that there be a balance between regulation and innovation as the world is in a phase of accelerating technological change.

The industry body also stressed that there is a need for “responsible use” and development of technology for all stakeholders – government, industry, startups and citizens.

The option of voluntary self-verification of user accounts, the right to receive explanatory notification about the removal or deactivation of access, and to seek redress against actions taken by intermediaries would be useful for end users. , Nasscom said.

The association also said the government stressed that the new rules would not hamper the creativity, or freedom of speech and expression of citizens, urging the government to ensure that this is the “principle design “monitoring during implementation.

(Only the title and image of this report may have been reworked by Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is automatically generated from a syndicated feed.)

England’s chief medical officer has warned of a ‘catastrophic’ resurgence of coronavirus cases if people stop following social distancing guidelines now that the mass vaccination program has begun.

Professor Chris Whitty told MPs the winter months are high risk for the NHS, especially due to respiratory infections. He stressed the importance of vaccinating around 20 million people as a priority for a vaccine before any substantial easing of restrictions.

He said at a joint hearing of the Commons committees for science and technology and health and social services that the UK is heading into spring 2021 “in much better shape than three or four years ago. months, “but he cautioned against complacency.

“That would be disastrous, because then the wave would come back incredibly quickly. We’re all very nervous about January and February, which is the highest risk period for the NHS in particular, March as well. The alternative is to say that ‘actually there is an end to it, we just need to get through this last period, and we really need to be self-disciplined, like we have been doing throughout this year. ”

This week, some of the UK’s most vulnerable people received the first injections of the Pfizer / BioNTech vaccine outside of a clinical trial, as the NHS launched the most ambitious mass vaccination program in its history.

Older people in nursing homes, other people over 80, and health and care workers are first in line for vaccine, followed by people with health problems and younger people.

While vaccines are “by far the most powerful tool in our box,” said Whitty, very few people would recommend “to start really eliminating [restrictions] during a high-risk time of year, that winter will always be for respiratory infections, until you have covered the levels set by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI).

He added: “I want to be very clear. For the next three months, we will not have sufficient protection. The idea that we can suddenly stop now because the vaccine is there – that would be really premature, it’s like someone giving up a 16 mile marathon race. It would be absolutely the wrong thing to do.

An estimated 20 million people are included on JCVI’s priority list for the Covid-19 vaccine, which includes all people aged 50 and over, and anyone from 16 years of age who has a health problem that affects them. puts you at a serious risk of coronavirus.

The UK Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) approved the Pfizer / BioNTech vaccine last week and is reviewing clinical trial data for the AstraZeneca / Oxford University vaccine and the US National Institutes of Health / Moderna vaccine .

Testifying at the session, June Raine, chief executive of the MHRA, said the regulator expected a new package of test data from AstraZeneca in the coming days, which would inform its decision to license the emergency use. More data from US Moderna vaccine trials are expected in the next week or two.

Whitty said he expected to have a portfolio of three to four vaccines by the middle of next year.

Clinical trials of Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Moderna vaccines have shown that they help protect against severe Covid-19 disease, but it is less clear whether they completely prevent infections and stop people from spreading the virus.

Whitty said the short-term impact of the vaccination program would be to reduce hospitalizations and deaths. However, the virus is believed to continue to circulate, leaving many people at risk for ‘long Covid’, a mix of medical problems that persist months after a person has apparently recovered.

On the prospects of returning to an almost normal life, Whitty said that at one point, society, through political leaders, would say the level of risk of infection was tolerable, “just as we accept that ‘on average, 7,000 people die from the flu. , and in a year of bad flu, 20,000 people die from the flu ”.

He added, “At one point you’re actually saying that the risk is now low enough that we can certainly largely eliminate the more onerous things that we have to deal with. It will be a kind of gradual retreat. But it’s a process of reducing risk, rather than just disappearing. “

The three-tier lockdown system sees every town and city in Britain assigned a local Covid alert level with specific rules in a bid to simplify restrictions as Downing Street seeks to curb infections

The new three-tier lockdown system was presented by Boris Johnson on Monday as the government seeks to step up the fight against a second wave of coronavirus.

Coming into force from Wednesday, each region in the UK has been assigned one of three local Covid alert levels, which will be regularly reviewed.

For example, the Liverpool area is below level 3 with closed pubs and additional restrictions tailored to the area also closing betting shops, gyms and casinos.

But what does the new three-tier alert system mean for meeting family and friends where you live?

The decision on which tier towns or cities will be put in place – or whether they will go up or down – will not be based solely on infection rates.

Local leaders, Public Health England and the Joint Biosecurity Center – who have already looked at growth rates and the number of people hospitalized – will determine when areas move from one level to another.

To help people understand what the restrictions are in their area, the government will make a postcode checker available.

Liverpool and the region are the only Level 3 area, and although most of the country is rated at ‘medium’ risk and not subject to additional restrictions, some 17 million people are at ‘high’ or ‘very high risk. “.

Level 1

The “medium” risk level is affected by current national restrictions such as the rule of six, the 10pm curfew and the rules on face masks and maintaining social distancing.

Much of southern England is at level 1.

People living in these areas – the majority of England – cannot meet more than six people and cannot see their friends having a drink after 10pm.

Friends can still get together, including at social events as well as in pubs and restaurants, as long as the “rule of six”, social distancing guidelines and personal hygiene practices are followed.

Meetings in a private garden during the day are permitted, but only for a maximum of six people, unless the participants are from the same household or members of a related household.

Weddings and civil union ceremonies involving family and friends – as well as some other public gatherings – have a maximum of 15 guests.

Level 2

This high-risk level covers a large part of the North-East and the North-West.

It primarily covers areas of the UK already subject to localized restrictions such as Greater Manchester, as well as large parts of Yorkshire.

Households and the various supportive bubbles cannot come together in any interior setting, whether at home or in public.

But people can socialize in private gardens although the rule of six applies.

This means that you cannot have someone outside of your household in your house and you cannot enter someone else’s house.

It is also forbidden to socialize with anyone outside your household in pubs, restaurants or any other indoor setting.

As long as the rule of six is ​​respected, up to six people can meet in an outdoor public setting.

Level 3

Currently, only the city of Liverpool region should be placed in this highest level.

Video upload

Video unavailable

Click to play
Press to play

The video will play automatically soon8to cancel

Play now

Level 3 restrictions prohibit meeting anyone outside of your home or bubble of support, both indoors and in private gardens.

This ban will also apply to any type of hotel business or paid place outside – like beer gardens, with pubs forced to close.

And people in Level 3 zones will have their wedding receptions banned – although up to 15 people are still allowed at a ceremony.

Somewhat confusingly, however, restaurants can remain open, and pubs that serve “substantial meals,” such as a main meal for lunch or dinner, can function and serve alcohol as part of the process. a meal.

Employees of any business who are asked to close under the level three restrictions will be entitled to 67% of their salary as long as the restrictions remain in effect.

Level 3 areas will be reviewed every 28 days.

An example of the confusion of guidelines is the current health regulations for weddings. In France, couples who get married can invite up to 10 guests at the town hall, up to 60 in a church and up to 200 in a private place.

The range of regulation is the result of a complex balance of Covid-19 laws, rights and health advice that currently governs life in France.

Restricting private spaces is unconstitutional

Part of the confusion stems from the fact that the government has the power to restrict social gatherings only in public places, not in private places.

A specialist in public law told a news source Le Figaro: “It is because the legislators did not foresee the need for it in any legal text like the law of May 23 declaring the state of health emergency, or that of July 9 specifying the exit from the state of emergency sanitary.

The specialist said: “If they tried to introduce the possibility of limiting gatherings in living spaces, lawmakers would face the difficulty of complying with possible bans when the inviolability of domestic spaces is practically a right. constitutional.

This leaves mayors, prefects and presidents of regions little power to regulate parties or weddings taking place in private spaces.

As such, local authorities in France have been left on the prowl when it comes to imposing new health laws.

While the July 9 decree gave them extensive powers to impose new laws as they see fit to regulate their local health situation, in reality, they do not always have the constitutional right to do so.

Not all public places are considered equal

The same principle of constitutional rights in France has led to the relaxation of restrictions to allow religious ceremonies towards the end of confinement. At the start of the 2 months of confinement in France, religious ceremonies were prohibited, but French law guarantees the right to freedom of worship by giving those who wish it a legal remedy.

However, French law becomes more difficult to regulate when it comes to gatherings in spaces such as cemeteries, which are both public and religious spaces.

Such loopholes and legalities have led to scenarios such as the Roland-Garros tennis tournament, exceptionally held from September 21 to October 11 of this year, with a severely restricted number of visitors even though the entire tournament will take place at the outside.

Meanwhile, French courthouses continue to hold public trials, even though they often take place in small, confined rooms.

Science is also crossing the law to issue seemingly contradictory regulations.

When it comes to exercise, dance halls and gyms are much more likely to be regulated than swimming pools. This is because the virus is more likely to be transmitted through the air than through water, making it riskier to run or dance near other people than to swim with them.

And another exception – public spaces that are “social services” such as schools and universities are entitled to a level of autonomy in the way they manage their space and the public that passes through them.

The government can rely less on the law

When the Minister of Health Olivier Véran announced new restrictions and a new map assessing risk levels across France on September 23, he announced no new law to accompany them.

Some see it as a sign that the government is trying to streamline the system.

Serge Slama, professor of law and public rights at the University of Grenoble, said Le Figaro: “In the same way that it is not necessary to pass new laws or to launch anti-terrorism regulations, two new intermediate zones were created by the public authorities thanks to the law of July 9 which extended the state. health emergency. “

“This makes it possible to tighten up regulations without decreeing the health crisis which has led to the state of health emergency and total containment.”

Related stories

French Prime Minister “doesn’t rule out” second lockdown amid record cases

Anger in Marseille as bars and restaurants have been ordered to close

During containment, we saw how the pandemic was causing new forms of social solidarity. In addition to the applause for caregivers and rainbow imagery, just staying home was a demonstration of a collective responsibility to protect vulnerable people. It was a sacrifice for the “greater good”, to which everyone adheres except one. well-publicized minority.

However, in our currently researching – in which we explore public attitudes towards COVID-19 and social distancing – we find that people stigmatize those who might have the disease or transmit it. Basically, this stigma is based on what sociologists call “other”. This is where we define, often negatively, certain individuals or groups based on their difference from us. Otherness is at the root of stereotypes and discrimination.

Most, if not all, infectious diseases are to some extent stigmatizing precisely because coming into contact with people with the disease can make us sick. But the fact that COVID-19 is a new disease with no cure or vaccine – and (compared to the flu) has a relatively high case fatality rate – adds to the fear factor that often leads to otherness. Stigma can also, as we see in this pandemic, potentially undermine disease control and control efforts.

How the stigma plays out

Our research shows that what were once relatively harmless behaviors like coughing and sneezing are now experienced as significant, dramatic and anxiety-provoking events. For example, one participant, who has a long-term cough because he is a smoker, reported feeling like he was treated like a “leper” while shopping.

Not wearing a mask in public divides public opinion – but face coverings will soon become mandatory in UK stores. Zoteva / Shutterstock

Another participant, suffering from hay fever, said he felt “on edge” about going out for fear of sneezing and worrying about what people might think or say. Many of our participants also described strong reactions to the coughing and sneezing of others in public spaces:

It’s interesting how we’ve gone from being polite and saying “blessings” to now having to defend people’s coughs and sneezes. If someone coughs, it elicits a very strong negative reaction towards them.

Often these reactions were expressed as anger towards those who came too close or did not adhere to new social norms, such as sneezing into the elbow. We have also seen widespread condemnation of those who are perceived to violate social distancing rules, such as getting too close to others in stores or on sidewalks. Of course, where distancing and hygiene guidelines are blatantly flouted, frustration and anger are arguably both expected and justified.

There is also a broader form of alteration between people with different interpretations of the guidelines, or between those who have differing opinions on whether the guidelines are too conservative or too insufficient. For example, in our research we found a general division between those who wanted to “live quite normally” as soon as possible and those who thought things were going too fast. Those who took advantage of or stretched guidelines were seen as “reckless” and a source of “frustration”.

As we continue to break out of confinement and reintegrate socially, the rules for how to behave – and what we can and cannot do in public – become more and more complex. We can expect new forms of social division and social stigma to emerge as a result.

The wider negative impact

The concern is that this division will worsen during the pandemic as measures continue to ease. The real problem is that official guidelines have often lacked clarity. It’s no wonder the government’s recent equivocation around face masks is a source of contention. Conversely, clear guidelines can help reduce otherness and division by reducing confusion and uncertainty about what is and is not acceptable.

There is clearly a need to avoid social division. Research on past pandemics has shown how stigma can seriously delay detection and treatment efforts, cooperation with contact tracing and isolation measures, and efficient allocation of resources for disease prevention and control. In today’s climate, if stigma is associated with having COVID-19, some people may be reluctant to report symptoms, take a test, or enter information into a contact tracing app.

For example, in research we conducted in May We found that one of the initial misconceptions some people had about contact tracing apps – and one of the reasons they wouldn’t consider using them – was that the app could allow users to ” specifically identify others (or to be identified themselves) as having COVID -19 (although this is in fact not possible).

One participant said of the app: “It’s like getting a horrible black mark. I could look and look like “my friend, my neighbor has COVID”. Another participant felt that “it could cause hate crimes as well, finding out ‘oh, you know, I got it from that person'”.

These views reveal implicit assumptions that COVID-19 is something shameful, socially undesirable, and a potential cause of discrimination and social exclusion. And they demonstrate the power of stigma to undermine efforts to control the virus through the government’s Track and Trace program.

However, there are tips to reduce the stigma. Previous research on other diseases such as flu pandemic and HIV / AIDS, as well as advice from organizations like Unicef and the World Health Organization, offer a number of lessons. Avoiding military metaphors (such as the “war” on COVID-19 and the fact that there are “victims” of COVID-19, tackling the disinformation surrounding the disease and not allowing the identity of a person to be defined by having COVID-19 can all have a positive effect.

Simon nicolas williams, Senior Lecturer in People and Organization, Swansea University and Kimberly Dienes, Senior Lecturer in Psychology and Mental Health, Manchester University

A copy of their peer-reviewed study published in BMJ Open is now available here:

This article is republished from The conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read it original article.

Australians should stop shaking hands and stay 1.5 meters from each other at all times under tough new rules from the federal government to slow the spread of the coronavirus.

Expanded ‘social distancing’ guidelines for handling the pandemic come on top of a legal ban on mass gatherings of 500 or more from Monday and new 14-day quarantine periods for anyone arriving from abroad .

The national cabinet of federal, state and territory leaders may introduce more measures in the coming weeks for visitors to elderly care facilities, Anzac Day commemorations, isolated communities and events in spaces closed, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said on Sunday.

One of the rules Mr. Morrison describes is to avoid physical contact “whether it is a handshake or something a little more intimate, unless [they are] close family and friends. ”He said it was common sense, but admitted it would be a disruption until everyone adjusted.

Deputy Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly said there would be no more handshaking under the guidelines, including between officials, with more cases of human-to-human transmission of the virus in Australia.

“This is a new thing that we have moved on, something that I will be practicing, my cabinet members and others,” Kelly said.

“There will be other measures that may need to be introduced depending on how things play out in the weeks or months to come.”

Schools would remain open, Mr Morrison said, explaining that keeping them open might seem counterintuitive, but closing them would affect the availability of essential workers such as doctors and nurses who might have to stay home and take care of children. children.

If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you follow them? For parents, it’s meant to be a rhetorical question – a way to win any argument that begins with “But all my friends are…” But behavioral science has revealed that adults will make a long list of. stupid things just to maintain links. within social groups, they consider their peers.

In the latest sign of how stupid we can become, researchers have found that people are willing to adopt an ethical standard after learning that people like them have been randomly assigned that position.

Normative

The new work has been published by Campbell Pryor, Amy Perfors and Piers Howe of the University of Melbourne. It is based on previous research that looked at how social norms are set. This work has suggested two ways that lead to their adoption. One is simply practical: people will adopt social norms that are popular because those norms are likely to have some use. An alternative explanation is only slightly less practical in that it postulates that adopting a social norm will ensure that you can avoid punishment by the rest of society for the violation.

Both assume that the adoption of social norms has practical consequences. But another explanation suggests that it is to establish the identity of the group (the technical term for this concept is “self-categorization theoryIn this view, people adopt standards because those standards help establish a shared identity with a group, while reinforcing differences with people outside the group. In this view, there is no does not need any practical benefits arising from the social practice itself; instead, the benefits are all indirect and based on the identity of the group.

To understand what is going on, the researchers have done their best to remove any practical consequences from the equation. They formed a group that never existed and assigned it a random social norm. They also ensured that study participants were out of touch with group members by recruiting them through Mechanical Turk.

To establish a group identity, study participants underwent a brief personality test. The results of this test were used to establish a group identity. Participants could then learn about various things about “people like you” and refer to a personality type, as well as the age and gender of the person.

For the actual experiments, the researchers offered some ethical dilemmas for the topics to consider: should you hire a friend or someone highly qualified? Should you report someone who robbed a bank but gave the money to a decaying orphanage? Participants learned that an earlier study group had faced one of these dilemmas and had been randomly assigned to consider one of the options, such as reporting the thief or hiring a friend.

False, unnecessary and randomly assigned

In reality, these earlier experimental groups never existed. The researchers simply told the real study participants that a high percentage of people like them in the fictitious group had been randomly assigned to consider one of the two options. Participants were then asked to decide which of the two options they would choose.

It should be emphasized how tenuous this link is. The past group was fictitious. The characteristics that subjects shared with the fictitious group were limited to age, gender, and one of five personality types. The actual participants were informed that the fictitious participants were only asked to consider a position rather than Choose this position, it had been assigned to the fictitious subjects at random. It is difficult to imagine that this would be enough to cause any identification as a member of a group, or to regard this option as some kind of social norm or ethical norm.

And yet …

Being told that people like you were randomly assigned to consider an opinion seemed to create a clear bias in favor of that position. Participants who were told that people like them were frequently called upon to consider hiring a friend were more likely to choose this as their own position; instead, if they were told that people like them were being asked to consider hiring the qualified person, they were more likely to choose that option. The same goes for whether or not to report a thief who gave money to an orphanage.

Replicated and controlled

The researchers included questions to eliminate those who misunderstood the scenario. They also swapped the wording so people would be made aware of the less common option. People have always shown a bias in favor of the popular option. Changing the description of fictitious former participants to be asked about an unrelated ethical issue reduced the bias to statistically insignificant noise. These seem to exclude that the choice is simply a matter of misunderstanding or familiarity.

As a final test, the researchers told the real participants that the invented ones considered both standards, but only specified one standard as the one considered by people like them. In this case, the bias has largely disappeared in the group, indicating that part of the effect is simply an affinity for what others were thinking. But they found out which participants had the strongest affinity for the group of people like them (again, using age, gender, and personality type). Among these participants, the bias in favor of this standard reappeared.

All of this is in line with a lot of previous research, which has indicated that establishing a group identity is extremely important to humans. The new work expands this to show that it is likely that group identity is also a major influence on the establishment of social norms, even when they have no use, and even though they are meant to be established by random assignment. So, all parents who are tempted to ask the question “if your friends jumped off a bridge” might want to take a moment to think about the fact that if their peers jumped off a bridge, they might suddenly find an affinity for the bridge jump. .

Nature Human Behavior, 2017. DOI: 10.1038 / s41562-018-0489-y (About DOIs).