Development of the Uskudar social norm scale in the social media age: Validity, Reliability studies and psychometric analysis
Vol 10, Issue 1, 2025, Article identifier:
VIEWS - 88 (Abstract) 26 (PDF)
Abstract
Nowadays, it is observed that digital life around the world is causing a transformation of social norms. The aim of this study is to develop a valid and reliable social norm scale in the self-rating type and to examine its psychometric properties in the social media age. Data was collected from 620 people from across Türkiye on a voluntary basis. As a result of the studies, the 28-item and 5-dimensional Uskudar Social Norm Scale (USNORM) was developed. The dimensions of the scale were named as “Lack of guilt and regret”, “No remorse”, “Emotional instability”, “Insensitivity to legal problems”, “Crime tendency”. The scale explained 51.72% of the total variance. The Cronbach Alpha value of the scale was found to be .89. In the confirmatory factor analysis study, goodness of fit values was found to be within the acceptable range. Some of the conclusions obtained through psychometric analysis are as follows: (a) The social norm perception level of those who use social media for 4 hours or more a day was found to be the lowest, (b) As the frequency of opening live chat on social media increases, the social norm perception level decreases, (c) The social norm perception level of those who stated that they ended their relationships after fighting on social media was low and was observed in the medium-strong impact area. The valid and reliable scale developed in this research will provide concrete data to the literature.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
1. Gross, J.; Vostroknutov, A. Why do people follow social norms? . Current Opinion in Psychology 2022, (44), 1-6.
2. Bicchieri, C. The grammar of society: The nature and dynamics of social norms; Cambridge University Press, 2005.
3. Elster, J. Social norms and economic theory. Journal of Economic Perspectives 1989, (3), 99-117.
4. Bizer, G. Y.; Magin, L. A.; Levine, M. R. The Social-Norm Espousal Scale. Personality and Individual Differences 2014, 58 (2014), 106-111.
5. Sherif, M. S. The psychology of social norms; Harper & Brothers, 1936.
6. Bohner, G.; Siebler, F.; Schmelcher, J. Social norms and the likelihood of raping: Perceived rape myth acceptance of others affects men’s rape proclivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2006, (32), 286–297. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167205280912.
7. Cialdini, R. B.; Reno, R. R.; Kallgren, C. A. A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1990, (58), 1015-1026. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015.
8. Feldman, G.; Albarracín, D. Norm theory and the action-effect: The role of social norms in regret following action and inaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2017, 69 (2017), 111-120.
9. Tarhan, N. Psychological Warfare; Timaş Publishing, 2016.
10. Gavrilets, S.; Richerson, P. J. Collective action and the evolution of social norm internalization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 2017, (114), 6068-6073. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1703857114.
11. Horne, C. The internal enforcement of norms. Eur. Socio Rev. 2003, (19), 335-343. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/19.4.335.
12. Vostroknutov, A. Social norms in experimental economics: Towards a unified theory of normative decision making. Analyse & Kritik 2020, 42 (1), 3-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/auk-2020-0002.
13. Kochanska, G.; Koenig, J. L.; Barry, R. A.; Kim, S.; Yoon, J. E. Children's conscience during toddler and preschool years, moral self, and a competent, adaptive developmental trajectory. Developmental psychology 2010, 46 (5), 1320-1332. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020381.
14. Giguère, B.; Lalonde, R.; Taylor, D. Drinking too much and feeling bad about it? How group identification moderates experiences of guilt and shame following norm transgression. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2013, (40), 617-632. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214521836.
15. Bénabou, R.; Tirole, J. Incentives and prosocial behavior. American economic review 2006, 96 (5), 1652-1678. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.639043.
16. Bursztyn, L.; Jensen, R. Social image and economic behavior in the field: identifying, understanding, and shaping Social pressure. Annu. Rev. Econ. 2017, (9), 131-153. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-063016-103625.
17. Grimalda, G.; Pondorfer, A.; Tracer, D. Social image concerns promote cooperation more than altruistic punishment. Nat. Commun. 2016, (7), 12288. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12288.
18. Gross, J.; Simon, S.; Everett, J. Inferring and enforcing cooperativeness and dishonesty through rule abidance and partner choice. Work. Pap. 2020, 1-33.
19. Schwardmann, P.; Van der Weele, J. Deception and self-deception. Nature human behaviour 2019, 3 (10), 1055-1061. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0666-7.
20. Bodner, R.; Prelec, D. Self signaling and diagnostic utility in everyday decision making. In Collected essays. In psychology and economics, Brocas, I., Carillo, J. Eds.; Oxford University Press, 2002.
21. Shalvi, S.; Handgraaf, M. J.; De Dreu, C. K. People avoid situations that enable them to deceive others. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2011, 47 (6), 1096-1106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.04.015.
22. Falk, A. Facing yourself – a note on self-image. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2021, (186), 724–734. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2020.11.003.
23. Bicchieri, C.; Dimant, E.; Sonderegger, S. It’s not A lie if you believe it: lying and belief distortion under norm-uncertainty. Working Paper SSRN Electr. J. 2022, 1-57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3326146.
24. Pittarello, A.; Leib, M.; Gordon-Hecker, T.; Shalvi, S. Justifications shape ethical blind spots. Psychological science 2015, 26 (6), 794-804. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615571018.
25. Shalvi, S.; Dana, J.; Handgraaf, M. J.; De Dreu, C. K. Justified ethicality: Observing desired counterfactuals modifies ethical perceptions and behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes 2011, 115 (2), 181-190. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.02.001.
26. Bicchieri, C.; Xiao, E. Do the right thing: but only if others do so. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 2009, 22 (2), 191-208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.621.
27. Bicchieri, C.; Dimant, E.; Gächter, S.; Nosenzo, D. Social proximity and the erosion of norm compliance. Games and Economic Behavior 2022, (132), 59-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3355028.
28. Engel, C.; Kurschilgen, M. The fragility of a nudge: the power of self-set norms to contain a social dilemma. Journal of Economic Psychology 2020, (81), 102293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2020.102293.
29. Lindström, B.; Jangard, S.; Selbing, I.; Olsson, A. The role of a “common is moral” heuristic in the stability and change of moral norms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2018, 147 (2), 228-242. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000365.
30. Kimbrough, E. O.; Vostroknutov, A. A theory of injunctive norms. Working Paper SSRN Electr. J. 2023, (2021), 1-57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3566589.
31. van Kleef, G. A.; Wanders, F.; Stamkou, E.; Homan, A. C. The Social dynamics of breaking the rules: antecedents and consequences of norm-violating behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology 2015, 6, 25-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.03.013.
32. Winter, F.; Zhang, N. Social norm enforcement in ethnically diverse communities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2018, 115 (11), 2722-2727. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1718309115.
33. Nee, V. Norms and networks in economic and organizational performance. American Economic Review 1998, 88 (2), 85-89.
34. Bernhard, H.; Fischbacher, U.; Fehr, E. Parochial altruism in humans. Nature 2006, 442 (7105), 912-915. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04981.
35. Balliet, D.; Wu, J.; De Dreu, C. K. Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: a meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin 2014, 140 (6), 1556. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037737.
36. Yamagishi, T.; Mifune, N. Does shared group membership promote altruism? . Ration Soc. 2008, 20 (1), 5-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463107085442.
37. Keizer, K.; Lindenberg, S.; Steg, L. The spreading of disorder. Science 2008, (322), 1681-1685. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1161405.
38. Lindenberg, S.; Steg, L. Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. Journal of Social issues 2007, 63 (1), 117-137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00499.x.
39. Yolcu, P.; Çiftçi, H. Comparison of social media usage habits and motivations: A review on university students. Van Yüzüncü Yıl University the Journal of Social Sciences Institute 2023, (60), 151-173.
40. Kabar, P. Our masks in the virtual world: Relationship between virtual identity, self-esteem and internet addiction. Journal of Dependence 2024, 244-253. DOI: 10.51982/bagimli.1365492
41. Kavut, S. Identity construction in social media as part of Goffman’s theory of self presentation: A research on Instagram. Nosyon: International Journal of Society and Culture Studies 2018, (1), 1-12.
42. Tarhan, N.; Tutgun-Ünal, A. Social Media Psychology; Der Publishing, 2021.
43. Özdemir, B.; Yıldırım, G. The construction of identity and presentation of the self in the digitalizing communication world: a research on communication faculty students. e-Journal of New Media 2019, 3 (3), 178-191.
44. Taşdelen, B. The new trend of the digital age social media impressors: The effect of vloggers on university students' purchasing behavior. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences 2020, 19 (3), 1071-1098.
45. Sezer, Ö. Public relations transformed by algorithms in the context of the surveillance society. Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey, 2024.
46. Bekiroğlu, H. A.; Şahin, E. The relationship between university students’ social media use intensity and their tendency to aggression. Social Sciences 2019, 14 (3), 215-236.
47. Bicchieri, C.; Group, P. S. N. T. a. C. Why People Do What They Do? A Social Norms Manual for Viet Nam, Indonesia and the Philippines; Florence, Italy, 2016.
48. Eriksson, K.; Strimling, P.; Gelfand, M.; Wu, J.; Abernathy, J.; Akotia, C. S.; ...; Van Lange, P. A. Perceptions of the appropriate response to norm violation in 57 societies. Nature communications 2021, 12 (1), 1481. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-21602-9.
49. Gelfand, M.; Harrington, J.; Jackson, J. The strength of Social norms across human groups. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2017, (12), 800–809. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617708631.
50. Henrich, J.; Boyd, R.; Bowles, S.; Camerer, C.; Fehr, E.; Gintis, H.; McElreath, R.; Alvard, M.; Barr, A.; Ensminger, J.; et al. “Economic man” in cross-cultural perspective: behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Behav. Brain Sci. 2005, (28), 795–815. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x05000142.
51. Nosenzo, D.; Görges, L. Measuring social norms in economics: Why it is important and how it is done. Analyse & Kritik 2020, 42 (2), 285-312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/auk-2020-0012.
52. Krupka, E. L.; Weber, R. A. Identifying social norms using coordination games: Why does dictator game sharing vary? Journal of the European Economic Association 2013, 11 (3), 495-524. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jeea.12006.
53. Kimbrough, E.; Vostroknutov, A. A portable method of eliciting respect for social norms. Economics Letters 2018, 168, 147-150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2018.04.030.
54. Gross, J.; Dreu, C. Oxytocin conditions trait-based rule adherence. Soc. Cognit. Affect Neurosci. 2017, (12), 427-435. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsw138.
55. Gross, J.; Dreu, C. Rule following mitigates collaborative cheating and facilitates the spreading of honesty within groups. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2020, (47), 395-409. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220927195.
56. Donald, I.; Cooper, S. R. A facet approach to extending the normative component of the theory of reasoned action. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2001, (40), 599-621.
57. Elliot, B. The application of the Theorists’ Workshop Model of Behaviour Change to motorists’ speeding behaviour in Western Australia; Office of Road safety, Department of Transport, Western Australia, 2001.
58. Groeger, J. A.; Chapman, P. R. Normative influences on decisions to offend. Appl. Psychol.: Int. Rev. 1997, 46 (3), 265–285.
59. Parker, D.; Manstead, A. S. R.; Stradling, S. G.; Reason, J. T.; Baxter, J. S. Intention to commit driving violations: an application of the theory of planned behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 1992, 77 (1), 94-101.
60. Parker, D.; Manstead, A. S.; Stradling, S. G. Extending the theory of planned behaviour: The role of personal norm. British journal of social psychology 1995, 34 (2), 127-138.
61. Rothengatter, T. Normative behaviour is unattractive if it is abnormal: Relationships between norms, attitudes and traffic law. In International Road Safety Symposium, Copenhagen, Denmark; 1991.
62. Deniz, E. Validity and reliability study of the Social Belief (Norm) Scale. In EGE 10th International Conference on Social Sciences, Izmir-Turkey, December 22 -24, 2023, 2023; Academy Global Conferences & Publishing: pp 1701-1710.
63. Berkowitz, L.; Lutterman, K. G. The traditional socially responsible personality. Public opinion quarterly 1968, 32 (2), 169-185. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/267597.
64. Crowne, D. P.; Marlowe, D. A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology 1960, (24), 349-354. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0047358.
65. Digman, J. M. Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology 1990, (41), 417-440. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.41.1.417.
66. Erbiçer, E. S. Investigation of university students' cyberbullying and cyber victimisation levels according to social cohesion and some personal variables. Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul-Turkey, 2017.
67. John, O. P.; Srivastava, S. The Big Five Trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In Handbook of personality: Theory and research, 2 ed.; Pervin, L. A., J., O. P. Eds.; Guilford Press, 1999; pp 102–139.
68. Lilienfeld, S. O.; Widows, M. R.; Staff, P. A. R. Psychopathic personality inventory TM-revised. Social Influence 2005, 61 (65), 97.
69. Walters, G. D. The psychological inventory of criminal thinking styles: Part I: Reliability and preliminary validity. Criminal Justice and Behavior 1995, 22 (3), 307-325. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093854895022003008.
70. Tavşancıl, E.; Aslan, E. Content analysis and application examples for special, written and other materials; Epsilon, 2021.
71. Büyüköztürk, Ş. Handbook of data analysis for social sciences; Pegem Citation Index, 2018.
72. Tinsley, H.; Tinsley, D. Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. J Couns Psychol. 1987, 34 (4), 414-424.
73. Jackson, D. L.; Gillaspy Jr, J. A.; Purc-Stephenson, R. Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: an overview and some recommendations. Psychological methods 2009, 14 (1), 6.
74. Tutgun-Ünal, A. Social media: Effect, addiction, measurement; Der Publishing, 2021.
75. Ceylan, T. Social status and role in social system analysis. Atatürk University Journal of Social Sciences 2011, 15 (1), 89-104.
76. Bonell, C.; Michie, S.; Reicher, S.; West, R.; Bear, L.; Yardley, L.; Curtis, V.; Amlot, R.; Rubin, G. J. Harnessing behavioural science in publish health campaigns to maintain ‘social distancing’ in response to the COVID‐19 pandemic: Key principles. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 2020, 74 (8), 617-619. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech‐2020‐214290.
77. Haslam, S. A.; Reicher, S. D.; Birney, M. E. Nothing by mere authority: Evidence that in an experimental analogue of the Milgram paradigm participants are motivated not by orders but by appeals to science. Journal of Social Issues 2014, 70 (3), 473-488. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12072.
78. Jackson, J.; Posch, C.; Bradford, B.; Hobson, Z.; Kyprianides, A.; Yesberg, J. The lockdown and social norms: Why the UK is complying by consent rather than compulsion. In LSE Research Online, Policy, B. P. a., Ed.; London School of Economics: LSE Research Online, 2020.
79. Mooijman, M.; van Dijk, W. W.; Van Dijk, E.; Ellemers, N. On sanction‐goal justifications: How and why deterrence justifications undermine rule compliance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2017, 112 (4), 577. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000084.
80. Van Bavel, J.; Baicker, K.; Boggio, P. S.; Capraro, V.; Cichocka, A.; Cikara, M.; Crockett, M. J.; Crum, A. J.; Douglas, K. M.; Druckman, J. N.; et al. Using social and behavioural science to support COVID‐19 pandemic response. Nature Human Behaviour 2020, 4 (5), 460-471. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562‐020‐0884‐z.
81. Mols, F.; Haslam, S. A.; Jetten, J.; Steffens, N. K. Why a nudge is not enough: A social identity critique of governance by stealth. European Journal of Political Research 2015, 54 (1), 81-98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475‐6765.12073.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v10i1.3290
(88 Abstract Views, 26 PDF Downloads)
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2025 Nevzat Tarhan, Aylin Tutgun Ünal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.