Democratic Norms

Studying which role social norms play for democracies

This project builds on social norms theory from social psychology (Cialdini 1991; Bicchieri 2006) to reconceptualize democratic norms as citizens’ perceptions of what others actually do (descriptive norms) and ought to do (injunctive norms), while engaging literature on democratic legitimacy through participatory forums (Fishkin 2009; Dryzek 2000) and on regulatory measures for extremist expression (Valentim & Bischof 2022).

Traditional democracy research treats citizens’ support as individual attitudes or abstract values, but it overlooks the social dimension of perceptions and misperceptions of collective democratic consensus. Until now, scholarship has neither theorized nor systematically measured how descriptive and injunctive norms shape democratic attitudes and behaviors, nor evaluated interventions that correct misperceptions and bolster democratic resilience.

How we addressed it

  • Conceptual framework: Theorized democratic norms as social norms and identified mechanisms of normative influence.
  • Cross‑national measurement: Nationally representative surveys in 14 democracies (31 % of world population) to gauge perceived descriptive and injunctive norms.
  • Measurement experiments: Applied a novel social desirability bias method to validate stability of norm perceptions versus personal attitudes.
  • Vignette experiments: Embedded manipulated norm messages to test causal effects on democratic support, protest tolerance, and hate‑crime justification.

Key Findings

  1. Abstract consensus: Citizens perceive strong democratic consensus in the abstract, which significantly weakens for specific rights and institutional norms.
  2. Norm misperception gap: People overestimate descriptive support for democracy, while injunctive norms vary across contexts and groups.
  3. Robustness to bias: Perceptions of others’ normative beliefs remain stable under social desirability controls, whereas personal democratic attitudes are more susceptible to bias.
  4. Normative influence: Descriptive norm messages can increase tolerance for protest and reduce justification for hate crimes, but effects depend on message framing and social identity.
  5. Intervention outcomes: Across six challenged democracies, support for real‑world undemocratic behaviors—though higher than for hypothetical scenarios—is significantly more malleable, with interventions reducing endorsement of actual transgressions more effectively than for abstract ones.

Implications

For practice: Democracies should deploy norm‑correcting interventions—such as deliberative citizens’ assemblies—to foster accurate norm perceptions and social cohesion. Complementary institutional measures, like regulating extremist ideology through employment or representation bans, *cannot* reinforce democratic resilience.

For social science: This work urges integration of social‑norms theory into democratic stability research, refinement of measurement tools for descriptive and injunctive norms, and systematic evaluation of normative and regulatory interventions. Future studies should assess the efficacy of participatory forums and policy safeguards in sustaining democratic norms.

Publications

Working Papers

  • Social Norms, Local Opinion Leaders, and Support for Policy Proposals. With Julia Schulte‑Cloos & Roman Senninger (2024).
  • Hate Crimes Against Refugees: Cross‑National Survey Analysis. Work in progress.
  • Democratic Hypocrisy: Unequal Tolerance for Protest in Germany. With Morgan Le Corre Juratic & Markus Wagner. Work in progress.
  • Democratic Transgressions Embedded in Reality. With Kristian Frederiksen, Morgan Le Corre Juratic & Tim Lars Allinger. Work in progress.

Funding

  • Carlsberg Foundation Young Researcher Fellowship (2022–2025): € 595 358 [DKK 4 426 844]
  • AUFF Starting Grant 2021 (2022–2025): € 380 000 [DKK 2 817 961]