Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Cultural evolution of normative motivations for sustainable behaviour

Nature Sustainability volume 1, pages 218–224 (2018)Cite this article

Subjects

A Publisher Correction to this article was published on 18 June 2018

This article has been updated

Abstract

An emerging literature on the evolution of culture can offer new explanations for how norms encourage or obstruct sustainable practices. In particular, dual-inheritance theory describes how interactions between genetic and cultural evolution give rise, in part, to prosociality. Based on this theory, we identify the concept of normative motivation — internalized desires to follow and enforce norms. We discuss the utility of this concept in progressing two major research agendas across the social and behavioural sciences: the impact of motivation on cognition and normative behaviour, and the influence of norms on the policy process. Key contributions from considering norms from this evolutionary perspective include: (1) an improved model of the motivations that lead individuals to follow norms, (2) clarification of how and when incentives successfully generate motivations favouring sustainability and (3) new ideas for leveraging the influence of norms in public policy beyond financial incentives and education campaigns.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Descriptive versus injunctive norms.
Fig. 2: Dual-inheritance theory of normative motivation.
Fig. 3: Motivations for following descriptive versus injunctive norms.

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 18 June 2018

    Owing to a technical error, this Perspective was originally published without its received and accepted dates; the dates ‘Received: 29 November 2017; Accepted: 9 April 2018’ have now been included in all versions.

References

  1. Chudek, M. & Henrich, J. Culture–gene coevolution, norm-psychology and the emergence of human prosociality. Trends Cogn. Sci. 15, 218–226 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gintis, H. The hitchhiker’s guide to altruism: gene–culture coevolution and the internalization of norms. J. Theor. Biol. 220, 407–418 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sripada, C. S. & Stich, S. in The Innate Mind: Volume 2: Cognition and Culture (eds Carruthers, P. et al.) 280–301 (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, NY, 2006).

  4. Farrow, K., Grolleau, G. & Ibanez, L. Social norms and pro-environmental behavior: a review of the evidence. Ecol. Econ. 140, 1–13 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Nyborg, K. et al. Social norms as solutions. Science 354, 42–43 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bicchieri, C. Norms in the Wild: How to Diagnose, Measure, and Change Social Norms (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, NY, 2017).

  7. Smith, J. R. et al. Congruent or conflicted? The impact of injunctive and descriptive norms on environmental intentions. J. Environ. Psychol. 32, 353–361 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kinzig, A. P. et al. Social norms and global environmental challenges: the complex interaction of behaviors, values, and policy. BioScience 63, 164–175 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Raymond, L. et al. Making change: norm-based strategies for institutional change to address intractable problems. Polit. Res. Q. 67, 197–211 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Okereke, C. Equity norms in global environmental governance. Glob. Environ. Polit. 8, 25–50 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. May, P. J. Regulation and compliance motivations: examining different approaches. Public Admin. Rev. 65, 31–44 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Raymond, L. Reclaiming the Atmospheric Commons: The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and a New Model of Emissions Trading (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2016).

  13. Trivers, R. L. The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Q. Rev. Biol. 46, 34–57 (1971).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Tooby, J. & Cosmides, L. in The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture (eds Barkow, J. et al.) 19–136 (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, NY, 1992).

  15. Chudek, M., Zhao, W. & Henrich, J. in Cooperation and Its Evolution (eds Sterelny, K. et al.) 425–459 (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2013).

  16. Henrich, J. The Secret of Our Success: How Culture is Driving Human Evolution, Domesticating Our Species, and Making Us Smarter (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 2016).

  17. Richerson, P. J. & Boyd, R. Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution (Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 2005).

  18. Holden, C. & Mace, R. Phylogenetic analysis of the evolution of lactose digestion in adults. Hum. Biol. 81, 597–619 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Boyd, R. & Richÿerson, P. J. Culture and the evolution of human cooperation. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 364, 3281–3288 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Olive, A. Land, Stewardship, and Legitimacy: Endangered Species Policy in Canada and the United States (Univ. Toronto Press, Toronto, 2014).

  21. Schwartz, S. H. Normative influences on altruism. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 10, 221–279 (1977).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A. & Kalof, L. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 6, 81–97 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Davis, T. & Kelly, D. Norms, not moral norms: the boundaries of morality do not matter. Behav. Brain Sci. (in the press).

  24. van der Linden, S. Warm glow is associated with low- but not high-cost sustainable behaviour. Nat. Sustain 1, 28–30 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sperber, D. & Baumard, N. Moral reputation: an evolutionary and cognitive perspective. Mind Lang. 27, 495–518 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Schmidt, M., Butler, L., Heinz, J. & Tomasello, M. Young children see a single action and infer a social norm: promiscuous normativity in 3-year-olds. Psychol. Sci. 27, 1360–1370 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kenward, B., Karlsson, M. & Persson, J. Over-imitation is better explained by norm learning than by distorted causal learning. Proc. R. Soc. B 278, 1239–1246 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Chudek, M., Brosseau-Laird, P., Birch, S. & Henrich, J. in Navigating the Social World: What Infants, Children, and Other Species Can Teach Us (eds Banaji, M. & Gelman, S.) 181–185 (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, NY, 2013).

  29. Chudek, M., Heller, S., Birch, S. & Henrich, J. Prestige-biased cultural learning: bystander’s differential attention to potential models influences children’s learning. Evol. Hum. Behav. 33, 46–56 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A. & Reno, R. R. A focus theory of normative conduct: a theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 24, 201–234 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B. & Griskevicius, V. A room with a viewpoint: using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. J. Consum. Res. 35, 472–482 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Schultz, P. W. et al. The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychol. Sci. 18, 429–434 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Finnemore, M. & Sikkink, K. International norm dynamics and political change. Int. Organ 52, 887–917 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Allcott, H. Social norms and energy conservation. J. Public Econ. 95, 1082–1095 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Rothberger, H. Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: masculinity and the justification of meat consumption. Psychol. Men. Masc. 14, 363–375 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kunda, Z. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol. Bull. 108, 480–498 (1990).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Hennes, E. P., Ruisch, B. C., Feygina, I., Monteiro, C. A. & Jost, J. T. Motivated recall in the service of the economic system: the case of anthropogenic climate change. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 145, 755–771 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Taylor, S. E. & Brown, J. D. Illusion and well-being: a social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychol. Bull. 103, 193–210 (1988).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Kavka, G. S. in Morality, Reason and Truth: New Essays on the Foundations of Ethics (eds Copp, D. & Zimmermann, D.) 297–319 (Rowman & Allanheld, Totowa, NJ, 1984).

  40. Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 55, 68–78 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Gneezy, U., Meier, S. & Rey-Biel, P. When and why incentives (don’t) work to modify behavior. J. Econ. Perspect. 25, 191–209 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Frey, B. S. & Oberholzer-Gee, F. The cost of price incentives: an empirical analysis of motivation crowding-out. Am. Econ. Rev. 87, 746–755 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  43. van der Linden, S. Intrinsic motivation and pro-environmental behaviour. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 612–613 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Yoeli, E., Hoffman, M., Rand, D. G. & Nowak, M. A. Powering up with indirect reciprocity in a large-scale field experiment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, E10424–E10429 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Thaler, R. H. & Sunstein, C. R. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness (Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, CT, 2008).

  46. Bem, D. J. Self-perception: an alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychol. Rev. 74, 183–200 (1967).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Witt, U. Learning to consume: a theory of wants and the growth of demand. J. Evol. Econ. 11, 23–36 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kelman, M. Market discrimination and groups. Stanf. Law Rev. 53, 833–896 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Waring, T. & Acheson, J. Evidence of cultural group selection in territorial lobstering in Maine. Sustain. Sci. 13, 21–34 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Mortensen, C. R. et al. Trending norms: a lever for encouraging behaviors performed by the minority. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617734615 (2017).

  51. Ellickson, R. C. Order Without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991).

  52. Brook, A., Zint, M. & De Young, R. Landowners’ responses to an Endangered Species Act listing and implications for encouraging conservation. Conserv. Biol. 17, 1638–1649 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Friedman, E. J., Hochstetler, K. & Clark, A. M. Sovereignty, Democracy, and Global Civil Society: State-Society Relations at UN World Conferences (SUNY Press, Albany, NY, 2005).

  54. Hochstetler, K. & Milkoreit, M. Emerging powers in the climate negotiations: shifting identity conceptions. Polit. Res. Q. 67, 224–235 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Feygina, I., Jost, J. T. & Goldsmith, R. E. System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of “system-sanctioned change”. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 36, 326–338 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Baumgartner, F. R., De Boef, S. L. & Boydstun, A. E. The Decline of the Death Penalty and the Discovery of Innocence (Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, NY, 2008).

  57. Baunach, D. M. Decomposing trends in attitudes toward gay marriage, 1988-2006. Soc. Sci. Q. 92, 346–363 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Keck, M. E. & Sikkink, K. in The Social Movement Society: Contentious Politics for a New Century (eds Meyer, D. S. & Tarrow, S. G.) 217–238 (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, MD, 1998).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to B. Mihalec-Adkins, A. Roach and E. Ozgumus for their research assistance and to the Social Cognition of Social Justice Lab and participants in the Purdue University Center for the Environment Workshop on New Perspectives on Sustainability and Resilience for feedback. The authors also thank D. Kelly and A. Zabala for their helpful comments. Finally, the authors thank S. Bond and M. Lifton for help with figures, as well as the Purdue Center for the Environment and Department of Psychological Sciences for financial support for this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Purdue University , West Lafayette, IN, USA

    Taylor Davis

  2. Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

    Erin P. Hennes

  3. Department of Political Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

    Leigh Raymond

Authors
  1. Taylor Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erin P. Hennes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Leigh Raymond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

T.D., E.P.H. and L.R. contributed equally to the conceptualization, research and writing of this Perspective.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leigh Raymond.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Davis, T., Hennes, E.P. & Raymond, L. Cultural evolution of normative motivations for sustainable behaviour. Nat Sustain 1, 218–224 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0061-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0061-9

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing