Hubbry Logo
Convention (norm)Convention (norm)Main
Open search
Convention (norm)
Community hub
Convention (norm)
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Convention (norm)
Convention (norm)
Convention (norm)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A convention influences a set of agreed, stipulated, or generally accepted standards, social norms, or other criteria, often taking the form of a custom.

In physical sciences, numerical values (such as constants, quantities, or scales of measurement) are called conventional if they do not represent a measured property of nature, but originate in a convention, for example an average of many measurements, agreed between the scientists working with these values.

General

[edit]

A convention is a selection from among two or more alternatives, where the rule or alternative is agreed upon among participants. Often the word refers to unwritten customs shared throughout a community. For instance, it is conventional in many societies that strangers being introduced shake hands. Some conventions are explicitly legislated; for example, it is conventional in the United States and in Germany that motorists drive on the right side of the road, whereas in Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Nepal, India and the United Kingdom motorists drive on the left. The standardization of time is a human convention based on the solar cycle or calendar. The extent to which justice is conventional (as opposed to natural or objective) is historically an important debate among philosophers.

The nature of conventions has raised long-lasting philosophical discussion. Quine, Davidson, and David Lewis published influential writings on the subject. Lewis's account of convention received an extended critique in Margaret Gilbert's On Social Facts (1989), where an alternative account is offered. Another view of convention comes from Ruth Millikan's Language: A Biological Model (2005), once more against Lewis.[example needed]

According to David Kalupahana, The Buddha described conventions—whether linguistic, social, political, moral, ethical, or even religious—as arising dependent on specific conditions. According to his paradigm, when conventions are considered absolute realities, they contribute to dogmatism, which in turn leads to conflict. This does not mean that conventions should be absolutely ignored as unreal and therefore useless. Instead, according to Buddhist thought, a wise person adopts a Middle Way without holding conventions to be ultimate or ignoring them when they are fruitful.[1]

Customary or social conventions

[edit]

Social

[edit]
Main articles: Norm (social), Mores, Norm (philosophy), and taboo

In sociology, a social rule refers to any social convention commonly adhered to in a society. These rules are not written in law or otherwise formalized. In social constructionism, there is a great focus on social rules. It is argued that these rules are socially constructed, that these rules act upon every member of a society, but at the same time, are re-produced by the individuals.

Sociologists representing symbolic interactionism argue that social rules are created through the interaction between the members of a society. The focus on active interaction highlights the fluid, shifting character of social rules. These are specific to the social context, a context that varies through time and place. That means a social rule changes over time within the same society. What was acceptable in the past may no longer be the case. Similarly, rules differ across space: what is acceptable in one society may not be so in another.

Social rules reflect what is acceptable or normal behaviour in any situation. Michel Foucault's concept of discourse is closely related to social rules as it offers a possible explanation how these rules are shaped and change. It is the social rules that tell people what is normal behaviour for any specific category. Thus, social rules tell a woman how to behave in a womanly manner, and a man, how to be manly. Other such rules are as follows:

  • Strangers being introduced shake hands, as in Western societies,[2][3] but:
    • Bow toward each other, in Korea, Japan and China
    • Wai each other in Thailand
    • Do not bow at each other, in the Jewish tradition
    • In the United States, eye contact, a nod of the head toward each other, and a smile, with no bowing; the palm of the hand faces sideways, neither upward nor downward, in a business handshake.
    • Present business cards to each other, in business meetings (both-handed in Japan)
  • Click heels together, while saluting in some military contexts [4]
  • In most places it's always polite to ask before kissing or hugging, this is called public display of affection.[5]
  • A property norm is to place things back where we found them.
  • A property norm is used to identify which commodities are accepted as money.[6][7]
  • A sexual norm can refer to a personal or a social norm.[8] Most cultures have social norms regarding sexuality, and define normal sexuality to consist only of certain sex acts between individuals who meet specific criteria of age, consanguinity, race/ethnicity, and/or social role and socioeconomic status. In the west outside the traditional norm between consenting adults what is considered not normal is what falls under what is regarded as paraphilia or sexual perversion.
  • A form of marriage, polygyny or polyandry, is right or wrong in a given society,[9][10][11] as is homosexual marriage considered wrong in many of the societies. A religious more for an example is that a woman or man must not cohabitate, live together, when romantically involved until they have gotten married. Adultery is considered wrong that is not violating sexual fidelity when there is union of a couple in marriage.
  • A men's and women's dress code.[12]
  • Avoid using rude hand gestures like pointing at people, swear words, offensive language etc.,[12]
  • A woman's curtsey[13] in some societies
  • In the Middle East, never displaying the sole of the foot toward another, as this would be seen as a grave insult.
  • In many schools, though seats for students are not assigned they are still "claimed" by certain students, and sitting in someone else's seat is considered an insult.[14]
  • To reciprocate when something is done for us.[15]
  • Etiquette norms,[16] like asking to be excused from the gathering's table, be ready to pay for your bill particularly in the case you asked people to dinner, it is a faux pas to refuse an offer of food as a guest.
  • Contraception norms, not to limit access to them by women who require it, some cultures limit contraception.[17][18][19][20][non-primary source needed]
  • Recreational drug use restrictions on access or as popularly accepted in the culture[21] where it is used as an example alcohol, nicotine, cannabis and hashish, there is a disincentive and prohibition for controlled substances where use and sale is prohibited like MDMA and party drugs.
  • The belief that certain forms of discrimination are unethical because they take something away from the person by restrictions and by being ostracised. Furthermore, can "Restrict women's and girls' rights, access to empowerment opportunities and resources".[22]
  • A person has a duty of care for the aged persons within the family.[2] This is particularly true in countries of Asia. Much of aged care falls under unpaid labor.
  • Refuse to favor known persons, as this would be an abuse of power relationship.
  • Do not make a promise if you know that you can not keep it.[2]
  • Do not ask for money if you know that you can not pay it back to that person or place.
  • "Practice honesty and not deceive the innocent with false promises to obtain economic benefits or gratuities."[2]
  • It is suitable to make a Pledge of Allegiance in the United States, when prompted to in some social contexts.[23][24]
  • An gentlemen's agreement, or gentleman's agreement, is an informal and legally non-binding agreement between two or more parties. We follow through on our business dealings, when we say we will do something then we do it and will not falter to do so.[2]
  • Do not divulge the privacy of others.[2]
  • Treat friends and family nonviolently, be faithful and honest in a couple, to treat with respect the beliefs, activities or aims of our parents, show respect for beliefs, religious and cultural symbols of others.[2]
  • Tolerate and respect people with functional diversity, particularly when they wish to integrate in a game or sports equipment. Also tolerate different points of view than your own, even if contrary, and do not try and change their beliefs by force.[2]
  • Give the seat to people with children, pregnant or elderly, in public and private transportation.[2]
  • Face the front, do not go elevator surfing, and do not push extra buttons in an elevator or stand too close to someone if there are few people.[12]
  • In a library, it is polite to have talk in the same noise volume as that of a classroom.
  • In a cinema, it is correct to not talk during a movie because people are there to watch the film, also it is correct to not have phones on as the light and sound will distract other patrons.[25]
  • If you are going to be punctual, notify friends or acquaintances if you will be late.[25]
  • If you cannot show up to an outing, restaurant, theater, cinema, etc., it's proper to give the reason over your phone or address sometime prior.[25]
  • It is a norm to speak one at a time.[25]
  • A religious vow is a special promise. It made in a religious sense or in ceremonies such as in marriages when there is a couple who are being promised to marriage called "marriage vows", they are also promising one another to be faithful and take care of their children.
  • Helping somebody in need,[26] for social responsibility or to prevent harm. See the parable of the Good Samaritan.
  • Do not go to a non-fast food restaurant or bar unless you have enough to make a good tip, depending on the place.[27]
  • Examples of US social norms or customs turned into laws include the following:
    • People under 21 cannot buy alcohol.
    • You must be 16 to drive.[28]
    • Firearms are legal and relatively accessible to anyone who wants one.[29]
    • In a city you cannot cross the street wherever you like, you must use a zebra crossing. You can be fined if the police catch you breaking this rule.[relevant? – discuss]
    • It is a social norm to provide tips in the US to waitresses and waiters.
  • There are numerous gender-specific norms that influence society:[25][better source needed]
    • Girls should wear pink; boys should wear blue.
    • Men should be strong and not show any emotion.
    • Women should be caring and nurturing.
    • Men should do repairs at the house and be the one to work and make money; while women are expected to take care of the housework and children.
    • A man should pay for the woman's meal when going out to dinner.
    • Men should open doors for women at bars, clubs, workplace, and should clear the way for the exit.[16]

Government

[edit]
Main article: Constitutional convention (political custom)

In government, convention is a set of unwritten rules that participants in the government must follow. These rules can be ignored only if justification is clear, or can be provided. Otherwise, consequences follow. Consequences may include ignoring some other convention that has until now been followed. According to the traditional doctrine (Dicey),[citation needed] conventions cannot be enforced in courts, because they are non-legal sets of rules. Convention is particularly important in the Westminster System of government, where many of the rules are unwritten.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Convention (norm)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A convention, in the context of social norms, constitutes a self-sustaining behavioral regularity among agents in a that resolves recurrent coordination problems, where adherence prevails because each prefers given the expectation—known to all—that others conform similarly, rendering alternatives inferior. This framework, pioneered by philosopher David Lewis, differentiates conventions from mere habits or instincts by their reliance on of interdependent preferences, allowing arbitrary equilibria (such as linguistic signaling systems) to stabilize without intrinsic moral force. Unlike value-laden norms enforced by guilt or approbation for inherent rightness, conventions arise pragmatically from empirical expectations in interactive settings, as evidenced by experiments where participants spontaneously converge on arbitrary patterns (e.g., matching colors or sequences) through trial-and-error, even absent central . These patterns persist due to and focal salience, but can shift via exogenous shocks or superior alternatives, highlighting their causal roots in mutual benefit rather than deontological obligation. Key characteristics include arbitrariness—multiple equilibria satisfy the problem equally—and vulnerability to breakdown if expectations falter, as in traffic rules or queuing practices, where deviation imposes coordination costs but lacks universal justification. While some conventions accrue normative weight over time through habitual reinforcement, potentially blurring into customs, their defining feature remains instrumental efficiency over prescriptive morality, informing analyses in , , and where they model emergent order without design. Controversies persist regarding whether all stable conventions inevitably engender social enforcement or moral critique, with evidence suggesting a spectrum from neutral equilibria to entrenched norms resistant to change.

Philosophical and Theoretical Foundations

Core Definition and Characteristics

A convention is a customary regularity in the behavior of a or subpopulation, whereby individuals conform because they expect others to do likewise, and this mutual expectation is self-sustaining due to the underlying coordination benefits it provides. This definition, rooted in analytical philosophy, emphasizes that conventions emerge in situations where multiple behavioral equilibria are possible, and the selected equilibrium is arbitrary yet stable because deviation by any single agent would yield inferior outcomes given others' adherence. Central characteristics include , meaning the convention could be replaced by an alternative regularity without altering the underlying payoffs—such as the choice between driving on the right or left side of the road, where either option equally resolves the coordination problem of avoiding collisions. Conventions are also self-enforcing, relying not on external or moral imperatives but on interdependent expectations: conformity persists because each agent prefers to match the prevailing pattern, anticipating that others will continue to do so. Another key feature is the necessity of common knowledge among participants, whereby not only do agents know the convention exists, but they know that others know it, and this iterated knowledge underpins its stability. Unlike biological drives or personal habits, conventions are socially constructed solutions to recurrent interactions where interests align but independent action leads to suboptimal results, such as standardized signaling in or queuing practices in public spaces. Empirical observations, such as the persistence of right-hand traffic in 163 countries as of 2023, illustrate how historical precedents lock in one arbitrary solution over alternatives despite no inherent superiority.

Game-Theoretic Analysis (David Lewis, 1969)

In Convention: A Philosophical Study (1969), David Lewis developed a game-theoretic framework to analyze conventions as emergent solutions to recurrent coordination problems, drawing on concepts from Thomas Schelling's work on focal points and interdependent decision-making. Coordination problems arise in situations where multiple agents must select actions with aligned interests—such that payoffs are higher when actions coincide—but where multiple outcomes yield equivalent benefits, creating a need for mutual predictability to avoid suboptimal results. Lewis distinguished pure coordination games, characterized by predominant coincidence of interests and no inherent advantage to one side (e.g., all drivers choosing the same road side), from games involving conflict, emphasizing that conventions pertain to the former. Central to Lewis's analysis is the notion of a coordination equilibrium, defined as a state in which no agent can improve their payoff by unilaterally deviating from their action, assuming others maintain theirs; in such equilibria, mutual conformity maximizes joint outcomes among available options. Conventions, per Lewis, are specific regularities R in the behavior of a population P facing recurrent situation S that achieve such equilibria through self-sustaining expectations rather than explicit agreement or coercion. Formally, R qualifies as a convention if: (1) nearly everyone in P conforms to R in S; (2) this conformity is common knowledge, meaning everyone knows, knows that others know, and so on iteratively, that nearly everyone expects conformity; (3) agents have roughly similar preferences over action combinations; (4) each agent prefers to conform to R given expected general conformity; and (5) there exists an alternative regularity R' (incompatible with R) under which the same conditional preferences would hold if it were generally expected instead. This structure ensures arbitrariness—conventions are not uniquely optimal but persist due to precedent and salience, as agents select equilibria based on shared expectations rather than intrinsic superiority. Lewis illustrated with examples like traffic rules, where driving on the right (in the U.S.) or left (in the U.K.) represents arbitrary but stable equilibria sustained by of others' adherence, yielding higher payoffs (e.g., avoiding collisions) than deviation. Similarly, conventions underpin use, where shared signaling equilibria enable communication, or monetary systems, where accepting paper coordinates exchange despite alternatives like . Stability derives from higher-order expectations: conditional preferences for conformity create a self-perpetuating loop, where deviation risks isolation from the coordinated benefits, without requiring external sanctions. This account contrasts with views of conventions as mere habits or impositions, highlighting their rational, equilibrium-based foundation in repeated interactions.

Distinctions from Moral Norms and Formal Laws

Conventions differ from norms primarily in their arbitrariness and functional role: conventions emerge as regularities in behavior that coordinate actions among agents where multiple equilibria are possible, without intrinsic claims to rightness or wrongness, whereas norms assert inherent obligations tied to , welfare, , or violations. norms are typically viewed as universalizable and independent of social rules or , such that a transgression like causing unjust remains wrong even if no convention prohibits it, in contrast to conventional breaches, which derive their impermissibility solely from established social practices. Empirical evidence from supports this distinction, showing that children as young as four years old judge violations (e.g., physical or ) as wrong irrespective of rules or consensus, while conventional violations (e.g., wearing unconventional to ) are deemed acceptable if rules change or do not exist. Philosophically, as articulated in David Lewis's analysis, conventions sustain behavior through self-enforcing expectations in low-conflict coordination scenarios, lacking the normative force of , which often addresses conflicts of interest or intrinsic ethical demands. Moral norms, by contrast, carry unconditional normative judgments that prioritize ethical imperatives over mere efficiency or tradition, rendering them less flexible to renegotiation than conventions, which can shift if alternative coordination equilibria gain salience. In relation to formal laws, conventions operate through decentralized, informal mechanisms of enforcement, such as social disapproval or reputational costs, without codified penalties or centralized authority, whereas laws are explicitly legislated rules backed by state coercion, including fines, , or other sanctions. Conventions are highly arbitrary and context-dependent, often varying across societies without undermining their legitimacy (e.g., driving on the left versus right), while laws, though sometimes incorporating conventional elements, derive justification from institutional processes and are less prone to arbitrariness due to deliberate design aimed at broader societal goals like or fairness. Unlike conventions, which stabilize via mutual expectations without requiring compliance for their validity, legal norms impose binding obligations enforceable independently of social acceptance, though they may draw normative support from underlying moral principles or conventions. This formal structure allows laws to override or formalize conventions, as seen in traffic regulations that codify driving-side preferences with penalties exceeding informal sanctions.

Classification and Types

Social and Customary Conventions

Social and customary conventions encompass informal, unwritten rules that prescribe behavioral expectations in everyday social contexts, arising from habitual practices rather than moral imperatives or legal mandates. These conventions are characterized by their —alternative patterns could equally serve coordination functions without altering underlying welfare—and their dependence on mutual expectations among participants, often evolving through path-dependent historical precedents. Unlike norms, which invoke intrinsic concerns like prevention or fairness, social conventions facilitate smooth interactions via , with violations typically eliciting mild disapproval such as or exclusion rather than outrage. Prominent examples include queuing norms, where individuals in societies like the form orderly lines for services, a practice enforced through stares or verbal rebukes rather than authority, contrasting with more assertive queue-jumping tolerated in some Middle Eastern or Latin American contexts. , such as using utensils in a specific sequence during meals in —fork in left hand, knife in right—represent another customary convention, transmitted intergenerationally and varying sharply across cultures, as in chopstick etiquette in . Dress codes for occasions, like donning black attire at funerals in many traditions to signal mourning, exemplify how these norms structure rituals without inherent moral weight, alterable by collective shift as seen in evolving wedding attire from formal gowns to casual ensembles in mid-20th-century America. Customary conventions often embed deeper cultural transmission, functioning as folkways—mildly sanctioned habits like saying "bless you" after a in English-speaking societies or removing shoes upon entering homes in —which reinforce group identity and predictability. These differ from by lacking strong ties to core values; for instance, greeting rituals such as handshakes in the U.S. versus in coordinate salutations efficiently but carry no universal ethical force, with adherence sustained by reciprocal expectations rather than guilt. Empirical studies on reveal that even young children distinguish these from moral violations, justifying conventional breaches by authority permission or contextual absence, underscoring their coordination role over deontological obligation. Stability derives from network effects, where widespread yields benefits like reduced friction in public spaces, though has induced shifts, such as declining formality in business attire since the 1990s in urban centers.

Linguistic and Signaling Conventions

Linguistic conventions constitute a class of social conventions wherein arbitrary regularities in use facilitate coordination in communication by establishing shared expectations about meaning and structure. David Lewis formalized this in his 1969 analysis, defining a convention as a regularity in behavior—such as associating specific phonetic sequences with concepts—sustained by mutual expectations among agents who prefer given that others conform similarly. These conventions solve recurrent coordination problems, like referring to the same referent (e.g., the English word "" denoting a perennial woody plant rather than an alternative term), where multiple equilibria exist but precedent selects one. Unlike innate linguistic universals, such as basic syntax constraints identified in Chomskyan theory, conventions encompass arbitrary elements like and orthographic rules, which vary across languages and dialects without inherent superiority. Empirical evidence from shows conventions evolving through path-dependent selection; for instance, the in English (roughly 1400–1700) entrenched irregular spelling conventions that persist despite phonetic changes, as communities coordinated on written forms via accumulated usage rather than deliberate reform. Deviation from these, such as idiosyncratic uptake, requires network effects for adoption, but widespread nonconformity incurs coordination costs like miscommunication, enforced informally through correction or exclusion in discourse. In multilingual settings, conventions emerge as equilibria where speakers alternate languages based on contextual salience, enabling efficient signaling of group affiliation or topic shifts. Signaling conventions broaden this framework to non-linguistic or hybrid signals, modeled as equilibria in signaling games where actions convey private information reliably due to interdependent expectations. Lewis extended his theory to such games, demonstrating how repeated interactions yield conventions like interpreting a raised hand as a request to speak, arising from regularities that align sender intentions with receiver responses. These differ from linguistic ones in potentially incorporating costly or indexical elements—e.g., a firm signaling trustworthiness in interactions, where the physical effort deters and coordinates on perceived reliability—but remain conventional insofar as alternatives (like bows in other cultures) could equally solve the coordination problem if mutually expected. In social networks, signaling conventions propagate via learning dynamics, with agents converging on interpretations that maximize coordination payoffs; simulations show that spatial or prestige-based structures accelerate adoption, as influential nodes establish precedents. For example, conventions in nonverbal cues, such as duration signaling interest in dyadic interactions, emerge as self-sustaining because nonconformity risks misaligned expectations, though cultural variance (e.g., prolonged as in some Asian contexts versus confrontation in Western ones) underscores their arbitrary, equilibrium-selected nature. Stability relies on , but perturbations like technological shifts (e.g., as digital signaling conventions) can introduce new equilibria, selected by salience or frequency rather than inherent truth.

Economic and Institutional Conventions

Economic conventions refer to informal, self-reinforcing norms that coordinate agents' expectations in economic interactions, often emerging as equilibria in repeated coordination games where no single strategy dominates individually but collective adherence yields mutual benefits. These differ from formal rules by lacking centralized enforcement, relying instead on precedent and evolutionary selection through imitation of successful behaviors. In , such conventions reduce transaction costs and uncertainty, enabling efficient without constant renegotiation. A canonical example is the convention of as a , which resolves the double inherent in economies. Individuals adopt a or token—such as in pre-modern societies or U.S. dollars post-1971—because its acceptance by others enhances its , creating network externalities that stabilize its value. Carl Menger's 1892 analysis showed this process as spontaneous, driven by individual rationality and dissemination through traders who recognize the advantages of a common medium, without requiring state imposition. Stability persists via evolutionary reinforcement, where non-conformists face exclusion from trade networks. Property rights exemplify another foundational economic convention, where norms like the —assigning ownership to the first possessor or improver of unowned resources—emerge to allocate scarce goods amid uncertainty. , in his 1739 Treatise of Human Nature, described as arising from a societal convention born of self-interest: agents forgo seizure of others' possessions to secure their own, as constant contestation would render holdings unstable and unproductive. This convention facilitates investment, as seen historically in economies where informal first-possession norms preceded formal titles, reducing conflicts and enabling division of labor. Douglass North's framework integrates this into institutional evolution, noting that such informal constraints historically lowered enforcement costs in exchanges, contributing to growth differentials, such as Europe's divergence from stagnant regions after 1000 AD. Institutional conventions broaden to norms embedding formal structures, such as codes of conduct in guilds or firms that enforce quality and . North emphasized that informal conventions, including self-imposed behavioral codes, complement laws by structuring incentives; for example, medieval European conventions ensured skill transmission and trust, supporting market expansion despite weak formal courts. In modern firms, conventions of delegation minimize decision lags, as deviations risk coordination failure. underscores their impact: transaction sector costs, shaped by institutional conventions, accounted for 45% of U.S. GNP in 1970, per Wallis and North's 1986 estimates, highlighting how path-dependent norms efficiency or inefficiency.

Mechanisms of Emergence and Stability

Solving Coordination Problems

Social conventions address coordination problems, which arise in situations where multiple agents must align their actions to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes, but lack centralized direction or pre-established agreements. In game-theoretic terms, these are pure coordination games featuring multiple equilibria, where payoffs are symmetric and highest when all participants select the same strategy, yet mismatches yield low or zero rewards. Conventions resolve such dilemmas by establishing a salient, self-reinforcing regularity of that becomes the focal point for expectations, enabling agents to anticipate and match others' choices without explicit communication. A classic illustration is the choice of driving side: in a two-player , both driving left or both right yields safe passage (high payoff), while opposing sides result in collision (low payoff). Societies converge on one side—right in most countries since the , left in others like the —through historical precedent and iterative reinforcement, transforming an arbitrary equilibrium into a stable norm via that deviation invites risk. This mechanism extends to greetings, such as right-handed handshakes, which standardize interaction to avoid awkward mismatches in dyadic encounters. Experimental studies confirm that repeated play in coordination games fosters convergence on one equilibrium, often the initially salient or randomly selected option, as agents learn to expect . Conventions' efficacy stems from their role in generating correlated expectations, akin to Schelling points—prominent, psychologically salient cues that guide one-shot coordination without prior signaling. For instance, in Schelling's 1960 experiment, participants tasked with meeting an unknown counterpart in predominantly chose at noon, converging absent communication due to shared focal prominence. Over time, such points evolve into enduring conventions when reinforced by successful outcomes and social observation, reducing and uncertainty in recurrent interactions. Theoretical models show that in stochastic environments, conventions persist as risk-dominant equilibria, where the basin of attraction for outweighs perturbations from noise or entrants. Empirical evidence from agent-based simulations and lab experiments underscores how conventions emerge endogenously: in n-player coordination games, melioration learning—agents shifting toward higher immediate payoffs—leads to convention formation within 100-200 iterations, even with imperfect information, as clustered interactions amplify local precedents into global norms. This process is path-dependent, with early fluctuations determining long-term stability, explaining why inefficient conventions (e.g., keyboard layout since 1878) endure despite superior alternatives. By internalizing coordination equilibria as habitual expectations, conventions thus preempt , fostering scalable in decentralized settings like markets or communities.

Enforcement via Informal Sanctions

Informal sanctions enforce conventions by imposing social costs on deviations, thereby incentivizing adherence without reliance on centralized authority or legal penalties. These sanctions operate through decentralized mechanisms where individuals or groups respond to nonconformity with disapproval, exclusion, or reputational harm, reinforcing the mutual expectations that sustain conventions as equilibria in coordination games. In David Lewis's analysis, conventions persist because participants conditionally prefer conformity given others' adherence; violations provoke criticism or resentment, signaling a breakdown in reciprocal expectations and prompting restorative actions to realign behavior. Negative informal sanctions predominate, including verbal disapproval, gossip, ridicule, shunning, and ostracism, which raise the personal costs of defection by damaging social standing or access to cooperative benefits. For instance, in traffic conventions like driving on the right side of the road, a violator faces immediate risks such as honking, swerving avoidance by others, or verbal rebukes, creating automatic and multilateral costs that deter recurrence without formal intervention. Positive sanctions, such as praise or social recognition for upholding conventions, further bolster stability by rewarding alignment, though they are less emphasized in enforcement dynamics. These mechanisms derive efficacy from their low enforcement costs relative to formal systems and their embedding in everyday interactions, fostering self-sustaining . Empirical studies indicate informal sanctions outperform formal ones in sustaining in repeated interactions, as they leverage peer monitoring and conditional retaliation to prevent free-riding. In linguistic conventions, for example, misuse of shared signaling—like incorrect preposition usage—elicits corrections or from fluent , preserving communicative efficiency through collective pressure. However, their effectiveness hinges on of the convention and sufficient group interdependence; isolated individuals face minimal sanctions, underscoring conventions' dependence on networked social structures.

Evolutionary Dynamics and Path Dependence

In evolutionary game theory, social conventions arise as stable outcomes in repeated coordination games, where agents imitate successful strategies to achieve mutual benefits, leading to convergence on one of multiple possible equilibria. Models show that even in symmetric games with indifferent payoffs—such as choosing between two arbitrary signals for coordination—stochastic perturbations or initial asymmetries drive the toward uniformity, as conformist amplifies the frequency-dependent advantages of the emergent norm. Brian Skyrms illustrates this through simulations of signaling games, where reinforcement from successful interactions selects arbitrary precedents as focal points, evolving them into self-sustaining conventions without central direction. Path dependence manifests in these dynamics as historical contingencies locking in particular conventions, rendering alternatives inefficient to adopt due to network externalities and coordination barriers. Once a threshold of adherents is reached, the convention's value increases with adoption scale, creating that resists displacement; for instance, the keyboard standard, standardized by typewriter manufacturers in the 1870s, persisted into the computer era despite ergonomic alternatives like Dvorak (developed in 1936) offering 20-40% faster typing speeds, because retraining costs and compatibility demands deterred mass switching. In conventions, evolutionary models predict strong lock-in to one side of the road, with simulations confirming that early random choices propagate via imitation, explaining persistent global variations (e.g., right-hand driving in 163 countries versus left in 76 as of 2023) and rare reversals like Sweden's 1967 transition, which required national campaigns, signage overhauls, and economic costs exceeding 1 billion SEK to overcome inertia. This path-dependent stability is empirically observed in networked populations, where minority norms fail to invade majorities without or external shocks, as local coordination reinforces global uniformity through social learning biases favoring majority imitation. Cultural evolution experiments further reveal that conventions endure suboptimal equilibria under fluctuating environments if sanctions deter deviation, though salience or migration can introduce tipping points for shifts. Such dynamics underscore how conventions, while adaptive for short-term coordination, can entrench inefficiencies absent deliberate interventions to realign incentives.

Societal Roles and Impacts

Enabling Spontaneous Social Order

Social conventions underpin spontaneous social order by furnishing decentralized mechanisms for coordination among individuals pursuing disparate ends, without reliance on hierarchical command or explicit design. In Friedrich Hayek's analysis, such orders—termed ""—arise when people adhere to general rules of conduct, including conventions, which abstractly constrain behavior to align actions predictably across society. These rules evolve through cultural selection, enabling vast numbers of people to cooperate via shared expectations rather than centralized planning, as evidenced in phenomena like market prices signaling . Empirical studies corroborate this process: experiments demonstrate that conventions can emerge globally in of interacting agents without institutional enforcement, driven by local adaptations to coordination incentives. For instance, in controlled settings with over 1,000 participants, shifts in social connectivity led to rapid convergence on arbitrary but stable norms, such as for coordination tasks, illustrating how conventions self-organize to resolve multiplicity in equilibria. This mirrors real-world spontaneous orders, where conventions like queuing or right-hand driving facilitate efficient interaction among strangers by providing focal points that reduce uncertainty. By embedding knowledge of others' likely responses into habitual practices, conventions extend the scope of effective action beyond personal acquaintance, fostering in complex societies. emphasized that this impersonal coordination leverages dispersed —such as local varying by context—far surpassing what any could orchestrate. Path-dependent ensures stability: once established, conventions resist disruption unless superior alternatives gain traction through repeated success, as seen in linguistic conventions persisting despite inefficiencies until network effects favor change. Thus, they enable resilient orders that adapt incrementally, prioritizing functional outcomes over imposed uniformity.

Facilitating Cooperation and Efficiency

Conventions serve as self-enforcing regularities that align individual actions in situations of interdependent decision-making, thereby enabling cooperation without prior negotiation or external enforcement. In coordination games, where multiple Pareto-superior equilibria exist, conventions provide a focal point for mutual expectations, allowing participants to select and sustain an outcome beneficial to all involved. This mechanism, as formalized by David Lewis in his 1969 analysis, relies on : agents conform because they expect others to do likewise, given viable alternatives, thus resolving uncertainty inherent in pure coordination scenarios. Experimental evidence from network-based coordination tasks demonstrates that such conventions converge rapidly when agents imitate past successful behaviors, prioritizing over egalitarian distribution in asymmetric games. Efficiency gains arise as conventions minimize transaction costs associated with bargaining, verification, and enforcement. By embedding predictable norms into routine interactions, societies avoid the overhead of explicit agreements; for example, customary payment conventions in markets streamline exchanges, reducing disputes and delays. Empirical research on social capital, which conventions bolster through repeated compliance, shows that higher-trust environments—sustained by norm adherence—lower information asymmetry and monitoring expenses, correlating with improved economic outcomes across regions. In organizational contexts, social conventions governing collaboration further amplify this by aligning efforts in repeated games, where deviations are deterred by anticipated reciprocal responses rather than formal sanctions. Beyond dyadic interactions, conventions scale to larger groups by facilitating emergent coordination in real-time environments, such as adaptive signaling in dynamic networks. Studies of convention formation in impure coordination games reveal that continuity of interaction accelerates of efficient precedents, as learners internalize regularities from prior rounds to optimize within-round outcomes. This evolutionary underscores causal realism in norm stability: efficiency emerges not from deliberate design but from iterative selection pressures favoring conventions that maximize joint utility over time, as evidenced in simulations where melioration learning synchronizes behaviors in n-player coordination setups. Consequently, entrenched conventions underpin spontaneous social orders, where decentralized agents achieve collective efficiency unattainable through isolated .

Historical Examples of Convention Shifts

In 1967, underwent a deliberate shift in its traffic convention from driving on the left side of the road to the right, aligning with most continental European neighbors to reduce cross-border accidents and facilitate trade. This change, known as (Högertrafikomläggningen, or "Right-Hand Traffic Reorganization"), occurred on , when all non-essential traffic halted from 1:00 a.m., and at 5:00 a.m., vehicles switched sides amid extensive public preparation campaigns involving over 360,000 road signs and millions of reflective stickers on cars. Traffic fatalities dropped by 17% in the following year, demonstrating the convention's rapid stabilization despite initial resistance rooted in longstanding norms inherited from horse-drawn carriages favoring left-side driving for right-handed swordsmen. The practice of dueling among European elites, once a entrenched convention for resolving honor disputes through ritualized , declined sharply from the early onward, supplanted by legal and evolving views of . Prevalent in the — with estimates of thousands of duels annually in alone— it persisted as a norm enforcing among aristocrats until bans like 's 1836 edict and cultural shifts emphasizing non-violent eroded its legitimacy. By the 1870s, dueling had become rare in English-speaking countries, with participation shifting from elites to middle classes before , as formal courts proved more effective at channeling disputes without fatalities, which occurred in about 1-3% of encounters. Dining etiquette conventions transformed during the , particularly with the widespread adoption of forks in around the , moving away from communal eating with hands and shared knives that risked spreading and conveyed barbarism. Introduced from and popularized in — reportedly brought forks to France upon marrying Henry II in 1533—the utensil shifted norms from spearing meat directly from platters to individual precision, reducing mess and symbolizing refinement amid rising urban densities and hygiene awareness. By the , this convention stabilized across courts, with manuals codifying place settings, as shared utensils had dominated medieval feasts where diners used personal knives to cut from common trenchers.

Criticisms, Debates, and Limitations

Arbitrariness and Resistance to Change

Social conventions are characterized by arbitrariness in the sense that the specific regularity adopted to resolve recurrent coordination problems lacks intrinsic superiority over feasible alternatives, provided expectations align accordingly. David Lewis defined a convention as a regularity in behavior where individuals conform because they expect others to do so, yielding mutual benefit, while an alternative regularity could achieve the same if expectations shifted uniformly. This arbitrariness underscores that conventions emerge from historical contingencies rather than objective optimality; for instance, the convention of driving on the right-hand side of the road prevails in approximately 163 countries, while left-hand driving persists in about 76, including the and , with no that one system outperforms the other in or when matches. Despite this contingency, conventions acquire normative force through reciprocal expectations and informal enforcement, creating a tension where arbitrary origins coexist with binding social obligations. Once established, conventions exhibit strong resistance to change due to , wherein initial adoption generates self-reinforcing mechanisms such as increasing and coordination costs that favor persistence over revision. In political and social contexts, path dependence manifests as "increasingly costly reversibility," where sunk investments in expectations, , and habits amplify the expense of deviation, often locking societies into equilibria that, while functional, foreclose alternatives without exogenous shocks or centralized coordination. This arises from interdependent : unilateral shifts invite sanctions or coordination failures, as seen in evolutionary models of norms where stability trumps potential gains from reconfiguration unless a defects simultaneously. Empirical analyses confirm that such resistance stems not from inherent rigidity but from the high transaction costs of realigning mutual expectations across large populations. A prominent illustration is the global divergence in road-driving conventions, where switching sides requires national mobilization to avert chaos. Sweden's 1967 transition, known as on September 3, exemplifies the barriers: despite growing cross-border traffic with right-driving neighbors prompting the shift from left to right, the operation entailed modifying 800,000 vehicles, repainting road markings, and installing new , at an estimated cost of 600 million Swedish kronor (equivalent to about $100 million in 1967 dollars), with no fatalities during the coordinated overnight switch but significant preparatory disruptions. Such cases highlight that while change is feasible under state mandate, decentralized social conventions—like handshake norms or queuing protocols—face even steeper hurdles absent authority, as voluntary coordination often fails due to holdout problems and uncertainty about others' adherence. This resistance preserves efficiency in stable environments but can perpetuate suboptimal equilibria if alternatives emerge, though evidence suggests most entrenched conventions endure because they sufficiently resolve coordination without manifest inferiority.

Tension with Individual Liberty and Innovation

Conventions, by enforcing behavioral uniformity through social expectations and sanctions, often generate friction with individual liberty, as they implicitly coerce adherence without formal legal compulsion. , in his 1859 essay , contended that societal customs exert a more pervasive on than overt tyranny, stifling the eccentricity and self-directed experimentation essential to human flourishing. This "despotism of custom," as Mill described it, prioritizes collective predictability over autonomous choice, potentially curtailing freedoms in areas like dress, speech, or lifestyle where no harm to others occurs. Empirical observations support this, as rigid norm enforcement correlates with reduced personal agency; for instance, in high-conformity settings, individuals face informal penalties such as for deviating from established patterns, limiting and self-expression. The same conformity pressures impede innovation, which thrives on deviation, risk-taking, and recombination of ideas outside prevailing norms. Cultures emphasizing , per Geert Hofstede's dimensions, exhibit stronger innovation outputs, with a positive between individualism scores and long-run driven by novel enterprises. In contrast, collectivist orientations—often reinforced by entrenched conventions—foster anti-innovation norms that penalize nonconformity, such as skepticism toward unproven methods or fear of disrupting social equilibria. Sociological analyses identify mechanisms like "" in norm systems, where high built on relational ties can paradoxically suppress creativity by prioritizing group harmony over disruptive advances. For example, studies of firm-level data reveal that excessive in norm-bound networks reduces patenting and R&D , as innovators anticipate reputational costs for challenging conventions. Historical cases illustrate this tension vividly. During the uprisings of 1811–1816 in , skilled artisans destroyed mechanized looms not merely for economic displacement but to defend artisanal norms of handcraft against factory conventions that devalued traditional mastery. Similarly, opposition to in the stemmed from cultural norms venerating "natural" preservation methods, delaying adoption despite technological viability and leading to prolonged food waste in norm-adherent communities. In pre-industrial guilds, entrenched conventions resisted procedural innovations like standardized parts, enforcing apprenticeships and to maintain exclusivity, which slowed broader technological until market pressures eroded such barriers. These episodes underscore how conventions, while stabilizing coordination, create path-dependent that innovators must overcome, often at personal cost, highlighting the causal trade-off between normative stability and progressive dynamism.

Relativism vs. Empirical Constraints on Conventions

Relativist perspectives on conventions assert that social norms emerge as arbitrary solutions to coordination problems, contingent on historical accidents and cultural transmission, with no intrinsic superiority among alternatives. This view aligns with descriptive , which documents variation in practices like driving-side conventions or greeting rituals across societies, implying equivalence in validity relative to local contexts. However, such accounts often overlook empirical limits, as not all conventions prove equally stable or adaptive under scrutiny from biological and environmental realities. Empirical constraints arise primarily from and evolutionary processes, which channel toward norms compatible with genetic fitness and ecological demands. demonstrates that social norms are not detached from ; instead, gene-culture imposes boundaries, as seen in how cognitive biases for and prestige-based learning favor traits aligned with survival pressures rather than infinite variability. For instance, biological predispositions, such as aversion to , underpin near-universal taboos, limiting the range of viable conventions despite cultural diversity in their expression. These constraints refute pure by showing that norms deviating from empirical realities—such as those ignoring risks in mating practices—face higher extinction rates in transmission models. Game-theoretic models of norm evolution further illustrate how payoffs and coordination equilibria impose non-arbitrary selection pressures. In scenarios like the Game of Chicken, evolutionary dynamics stabilize "consistent" norms that achieve correlated equilibria, prioritizing efficiency and equity over random or inefficient alternatives, as inconsistent norms fail to persist under imitation and selection. Similarly, norms tend toward equitable divisions (e.g., 50/50 splits) due to their stability against , constrained by the empirical structure of interdependent payoffs rather than cultural whim. Biological learning efficiencies modulate these dynamics; high social learning rates (r > 0.5) amplify constraints from environmental stability, rendering purely arbitrary conventions unsustainable over generations. These constraints do not eliminate multiplicity—path-dependent lock-ins can sustain suboptimal conventions, as in keyboard layouts—but they delineate a bounded space of feasible norms, with empirically superior ones (e.g., those enhancing group via reciprocity) outcompeting others in long-run simulations. Evidence from cross-cultural data reveals universals like norms of fairness and punishment, rooted in evolved , challenging claims of total arbitrariness and highlighting how deviations incur fitness costs. Thus, while captures historical contingency, empirical realism underscores causal limits, informing why certain conventions recur despite variation.

References

  1. https://philarchive.org/archive/SOUNAC
  2. https://ruccs.rutgers.edu/images/personal-ernest-lepore/Lewis%2520on%2520convention2.pdf
  3. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11245-008-9029-0
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4343158/
  5. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23780231221124556
  6. https://repository.upenn.edu/bitstreams/74865add-471b-4a6e-b419-aef9028b0816/download
  7. https://sites.unimi.it/guala/Conventions%2520and%2520Norms%2520JOEP_4.pdf
  8. https://as.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu-as/faculty/documents/Convention.pdf
  9. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=255444
  10. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236865694_Social_Conventions
  11. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/david-lewis/
  12. https://econjwatch.org/articles/convention-a-philosophical-studyintroduction-chapter-i-and-chapter-ii
  13. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-conventional/
  14. https://academic.oup.com/book/2050/chapter/141943473
  15. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-norms/
  16. https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691140902/social-conventions
  17. https://www.sas.rochester.edu/psy/people/faculty/smetana_judith/assets/pdf/Smetana_2013_YoungChildrens.pdf
  18. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780444531872000085
  19. https://openoregon.pressbooks.pub/ccj230/chapter/1-3-folkways-mores-taboo-behaviors/
  20. https://andrewmbailey.com/dkl/Languages_Language.pdf
  21. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0378216682900273
  22. https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1167
  23. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/david-lewis/language-use-and-convention/FBAE757BF44EA6E199EB76D161E3754A
  24. https://michael-franke.github.io/heimseite/Papers/networks.pdf
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8487749/
  26. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266887182_SIGNALING_CONVENTIONS_WHO_LEARNS_WHAT_WHERE_AND_WHEN_IN_A_SOCIAL_NETWORK
  27. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/11786849_13
  28. https://arxiv.org/html/2509.24660v1
  29. https://ex.hhs.se/dissertations/222045-FULLTEXT01.pdf
  30. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/1993/north/lecture/
  31. https://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/david-hume-on-property-as-a-convention-which-gradually-emerges-from-society-1739
  32. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.5.1.97
  33. https://books.core-econ.org/the-economy/microeconomics/04-strategic-interactions-13-coordination-games.html
  34. https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/publications/coordination.pdf
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4803472/
  36. https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/advanced-economicsciences2005.pdf
  37. https://www.jasss.org/20/3/1.html
  38. https://www.socialcapitalresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Informal-sanctions.pdf
  39. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1146&context=law_and_economics
  40. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/evolution-of-the-social-contract/3565986C7EC209D2E0E477DB9B07D50D
  41. https://sites.socsci.uci.edu/~bskyrms/bio/papers/salience_symmetry-breaking_convention.pdf
  42. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.75.2.332
  43. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167268103002002
  44. https://oyc.yale.edu/economics/econ-159/lecture-12
  45. https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/hayek-on-kinds-of-order-in-society
  46. https://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_15_01_2_boykin.pdf
  47. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1418838112
  48. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/what-is-spontaneous-order/859919D45A35BB567A7338B0EA4ECAD0
  49. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43773828
  50. https://cosmosandtaxis.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/ct_1_1_potts.pdf
  51. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165188921000099
  52. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225601243_Morality_social_norms_and_the_rule_of_law_as_transaction_cost-saving_devices_The_case_of_ancient_Athens
  53. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acfi.13034
  54. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016726819800119X
  55. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/07/dagen-h-sweden-switches-to-driving-on-the-right-1967
  56. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20180417-a-thrilling-mission-to-get-the-swedish-to-change-overnight
  57. https://www.thecollector.com/dueling-early-modern-europe-north-america/
  58. http://www.econ2.jhu.edu/people/young/SocNormsOCT1.pdf
  59. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/history-magazine/article/table-manners-renaissance-catherine-de-medici
  60. https://www.etiquettescholar.com/dining_etiquette/potpourri/dining_etiquette_history.html
  61. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/convention/
  62. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256034494_The_Arbitrariness_and_Normativity_of_Social_Conventions
  63. https://ces.fas.harvard.edu/uploads/files/Working-Papers-Archives/PSGE_WP7_9.pdf
  64. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137547125_9
  65. https://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/four.html
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3271573/
  67. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1330&context=nulr
  68. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283832268_When_social_capital_stifles_innovation
  69. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1042443123000136
  70. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1094202513000513
  71. https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/innovation-and-its-enemies-why-people-resist-new-technologies
  72. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/
  73. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9816358/
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5544263/
  75. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Anthropology/Cultural_Anthropology/Cultural_Anthropology_%28Evans%29/02%253A_Culture/2.06%253A_Cultural_Universals
  76. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1817095116
  77. https://www.cognitionandculture.net/wp-content/uploads/Rogers-AA-90-819.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.