Abstract
Inferring group norms is crucial for adapting behaviors in novel situations, but its underlying basis and computational account remain unclear. This study manipulated the prevalence of norm-consistent behaviors (i.e., straight-line movements) to examine whether and how norm inference is influenced by observed group behavior, exploring its consistency with Bayesian updating, robustness, and independence. The results revealed no significant difference in prior probabilities regarding the existence of group norms across conditions, but posterior probabilities increased with the prevalence of norm-consistent behaviors. Furthermore, the Bayesian inference model outputs positively predicted participants’ judgments, indicating that norm inference aligned with Bayesian updating. Even in the presence of deviant behaviors, norm inference remained consistent with Bayesian principles, demonstrating its robustness. Finally, the study revealed that individuals could infer group norms from observed behaviors, independent of desire inferences. These findings enhance our understanding of how individuals navigate group norms in novel situations.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
All data and example trial videos for each condition have been made publicly available via the Open Science Framework and can be accessed at https://osf.io/xtuz9/?view_only=b1a876617e9b46e9bb09bc11569cde4e.
Code availability
Analyses were conducted using R version 4.2.2. All code necessary to replicate the results of this study is publicly available on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/xtuz9/?view_only=b1a876617e9b46e9bb09bc11569cde4e.
References
Legros, S. & Cislaghi, B. Mapping the social-norms literature: an overview of reviews. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 15, 62–80 (2020).
McDonald, R. I. & Crandall, C. S. Social norms and social influence. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 3, 147–151 (2015).
Hawkins, R. X. D., Goodman, N. D. & Goldstone, R. L. The Emergence of Social Norms and Conventions. Trends Cogn. Sci. 23, 158–169 (2019).
Heyes, C. Rethinking Norm Psychology. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 19, 12–38 (2023).
House, B. R. et al. Universal norm psychology leads to societal diversity in prosocial behaviour and development. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 36–44 (2020).
Nyborg, K. et al. Social norms as solutions. Science 354, 42–43 (2016).
Király, I., Csibra, G. & Gergely, G. Beyond rational imitation: learning arbitrary means actions from communicative demonstrations. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 116, 471–486 (2013).
Reiter, A. M. F., Suzuki, S., O’Doherty, J. P., Li, S. C. & Eppinger, B. Risk contagion by peers affects learning and decision-making in adolescents. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 148, 1494–1504 (2019).
Suzuki, S., Jensen, E. L. S., Bossaerts, P. & O’Doherty, J. P. Behavioral contagion during learning about another agent’s risk-preferences acts on the neural representation of decision-risk. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, 3755–3760 (2016).
Pryor, C., Perfors, A. & Howe, P. D. L. Even arbitrary norms influence moral decision-making. Nat. Hum. Behav. 3, 57–62 (2019).
Reynolds, K. J. Social norms and how they impact behaviour. Nat. Hum. Behav. 3, 14–15 (2019).
Cranefield, S., Meneguzzi, F., Oren, N. & Savarimuthu, B. T. R. A Bayesian approach to norm identification. In Proc. Annu. Meet. Cogn. Sci. Soc. 38 (2016).
Zaki, J. Cue integration: a common framework for social cognition and physical perception. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 8, 296–312 (2013).
Anderson, J. E. & Dunning, D. Behavioral norms: variants and their identification. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 8, 721–738 (2014).
Tan, Z. X. & Ong, D. C. Bayesian inference of social norms as shared constraints on behavior. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1905.11110 (2019).
Dannals, J. E. & Oppenheimer, D. M. How people deal with outliers. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 36, e2303 (2023).
Levine, J. M. & Marques, J. M. Norm violators as threats and opportunities: the many faces of deviance in groups. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 19, 545–552 (2016).
Hogg, M. A., Sherman, D. K., Dierselhuis, J., Maitner, A. T. & Moffitt, G. Uncertainty, entitativity, and group identification. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 43, 135–142 (2007).
Zhang, W. et al. How we learn social norms: a three-stage model for social norm learning. Front. Psychol. 14, 1201014 (2023).
Jagiello, R., Heyes, C. & Whitehouse, H. Tradition and invention: The bifocal stance theory of cultural evolution. Behav. Brain Sci. 45, e249 (2022).
Legare, C. H. & Nielsen, M. Imitation and innovation: the dual engines of cultural learning. Trends Cogn. Sci. 19, 688–699 (2015).
Perugini, M. & Bagozzi, R. P. The role of desires and anticipated emotions in goal-directed behaviours: Broadening and deepening the theory of planned behaviour. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 79–98 (2001).
Prestwich, A., Perugini, M. & Hurling, R. Goal desires moderate intention - behaviour relations. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 47, 49–71 (2008).
Baker, C. L., Jara-Ettinger, J., Saxe, R. & Tenenbaum, J. B. Rational quantitative attribution of beliefs, desires and percepts in human mentalizing. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 1–10 (2017).
Horne, C. The internal enforcement of norms. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 19, 335–343 (2003).
Tomasello, M. & Carpenter, M. Shared intentionality. Dev. Sci. 10, 121–125 (2007).
Salice, A. & Miyazono, K. Being one of us. Group identification, joint actions, and collective intentionality. Philos. Psychol. 33, 42–63 (2020).
Blake, P. R., McAuliffe, K. & Warneken, F. The developmental origins of fairness: the knowledge–behavior gap. Trends Cogn. Sci. 18, 559–561 (2014).
House, B. R. & Tomasello, M. Modeling social norms increasingly influences costly sharing in middle childhood. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 171, 84–98 (2018).
Smith, C. E., Blake, P. R. & Harris, P. L. I Should but I won’t: why young children endorse norms of fair sharing but do not follow them. PLoS One 8, e59510 (2013).
Heider, F. & Simmel, M. An experimental study of apparent behavior. Am. J. Psychol. 57, 243–259 (1944).
Schachner, A. & Carey, S. Reasoning about ‘irrational’ actions: When intentional movements cannot be explained, the movements themselves are seen as the goal. Cognition 129, 309–327 (2013).
Duan, J. et al. Action generalization across group members: action efficiency matters. Cogn. Sci. 45, e12957 (2021).
Yin, J. et al. Event-related potential and behavioural evidence of goal-based expectations for consistent actions among group members. Br. J. Psychol. 114, 662–677 (2023).
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. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58, 1015–1026 (1991).
Aziz-Zadeh, L., Sheng, T., Liew, S. L. & Damasio, H. Understanding otherness: the neural bases of action comprehension and pain empathy in a congenital amputee. Cereb. Cortex 22, 811–819 (2012).
Lamm, C., Meltzoff, A. N. & Decety, J. How do we empathize with someone who is not like us? a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 22, 362–376 (2010).
Zhu, J. Q., Sanborn, A. N. & Chater, N. The Bayesian sampler: generic Bayesian inference causes incoherence in human probability judgments. Psychol. Rev. 127, 719–748 (2020).
Köster, R. et al. Spurious normativity enhances learning of compliance and enforcement behavior in artificial agents. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 119, e2106028118 (2022).
Antoniou, C., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I. & Read, D. Subjective Bayesian beliefs. J. Risk Uncertain. 50, 35–54 (2015).
Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Posavac, S. S. & Stasney, R. The subjective beliefs underlying probability overestimation. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 33, 276–295 (1997).
Schünemann, B., Schidelko, L. P., Proft, M. & Rakoczy, H. Children understand subjective (undesirable) desires before they understand subjective (false) beliefs. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 213, 105268 (2022).
Khalvati, K. et al. Modeling other minds: Bayesian inference explains human choices in group decision-making. Sci. Adv. 5, eaax8783 (2019).
Ullman, T. D. & Tenenbaum, J. B. Bayesian models of conceptual development: learning as building models of the world. Annu. Rev. Dev. Psychol. 2, 533–558 (2020).
van de Schoot, R. et al. Bayesian statistics and modelling. Nat. Rev. Methods Prim. 1, 1–26 (2021).
Kleiman-Weiner, M., Vientós, A., Rand, D. G. & Tenenbaum, J. B. Evolving general cooperation with a Bayesian theory of mind. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 122, e2400993122 (2025).
Xiang, T., Lohrenz, T. & Montague, P. R. Computational substrates of norms and their violations during social exchange. J. Neurosci. 33, 1099–1108 (2013).
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A. & Lang, A.-G. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav. Res. Methods 41, 1149–1160 (2009).
Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1988).
Kang, H. Sample size determination and power analysis using the G*Power software. J. Educ. Eval. Health Prof. 18, 17 (2021).
Roberts, S. O., Ho, A. K. & Gelman, S. A. The role of group norms in evaluating uncommon and negative behaviors. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 148, 374–387 (2019).
Xu, H., Duan, J., Chen, M. & Yin, J. The mechanisms of action prediction based on social group information. Chin. J. Appl. Psychol. 25, 239–252 (2019).
Yin, J., Duan, J., Huangliang, J., Hu, Y. & Zhang, F. Members of highly entitative groups are implicitly expected to behave consistently based on their deep-level goals instead of their shallow-level movements. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 48, 13–28 (2022).
Brainard, D. H. The psychophysics toolbox. Spat. Vis. 10, 433–436 (1997).
Campbell, D. T. Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 3, 14–25 (1958).
Powell, L. J. & Spelke, E. S. Preverbal infants expect members of social groups to act alike. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110, E3965–E3972 (2013).
Bao, H. W. S. bruceR: broadly useful convenient and efficient R functions. Version 2022.9 (2022).
De Martino, B., Bobadilla-Suarez, S., Nouguchi, T., Sharot, T. & Love, B. C. Social information is integrated into value and confidence judgments according to its reliability. J. Neurosci. 37, 6066–6074 (2017).
Park, S. A., Goïame, S., O’Connor, D. A. & Dreher, J.-C. Integration of individual and social information for decision-making in groups of different sizes. Plos Biol. 15, e2001958 (2017).
Bürkner, P. C. & Vuorre, M. Ordinal regression models in psychology: a tutorial. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 2, 77–101 (2019).
Nalborczyk, L., Batailler, C., Lœvenbruck, H., Vilain, A. & Bürkner, P. C. An introduction to bayesian multilevel models using brms: a case study of gender effects on vowel variability in standard Indonesian. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 62, 1225–1242 (2019).
Bürkner, P. C. brms: an R package for bayesian multilevel models using Stan. J. Stat. Softw. 80, 1–28 (2017).
Sorensen, T. & Vasishth, S. Bayesian linear mixed models using Stan: a tutorial for psychologists, linguists, and cognitive scientists. Quant. Methods Psychol. 12, 175–200 (2016).
McElreath, R. Statistical Rethinking: A Bayesian Course with Examples in and Stan. (Chapman and Hall/CRC, New York, 2020). https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315372495.
Keshev, M. & Meltzer-Asscher, A. Noisy is better than rare: comprehenders compromise subject-verb agreement to form more probable linguistic structures. Cogn. Psychol. 124, 101359 (2021).
Samara, I., Roth, T. S., Nikolic, M., Prochazkova, E. & Kret, M. E. Can third-party observers detect attraction in others based on subtle nonverbal cues?. Curr. Psychol. 42, 18928–18942 (2023).
Hedges, L. V. Effect sizes in cluster-randomized designs. J. Educ. Behav. Stat. 32, 341–370 (2007).
Durso, A. M. et al. Crowdsourcing snake identification with online communities of professional herpetologists and avocational snake enthusiasts. R. Soc. Open Sci. 8, 201273 (2021).
Fernández-López, M., Marcet, A. & Perea, M. Does orthographic processing emerge rapidly after learning a new script?. Br. J. Psychol. 112, 52–91 (2021).
Koenig, C., Becker, B. & Ulitzsch, E. Bayesian hierarchical response time modelling—a tutorial. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 76, 623–645 (2023).
BBaker, A., Sharma, K., Dunham, Y. & Jara-Ettinger, J. People use mixed strategies to make efficient but structured inferences about agents in roles. In Proc. Annu. Meet. Cogn. Sci. Soc. 47 (2025).
Deffner, D., Kleinow, V. & McElreath, R. Dynamic social learning in temporally and spatially variable environments. R. Soc. Open Sci. 7, 200734 (2020).
Tump, A. N., Deffner, D., Pleskac, T. J., Romanczuk, P. & M. Kurvers, R. H. J. A cognitive computational approach to social and collective decision-making. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 17456916231186964 (2023).
Vehtari, A., Gelman, A. & Gabry, J. Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC. Stat. Comput. 27, 1413–1432 (2017).
Akaike, H. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In Selected Papers of Hirotugu Akaike (eds Parzen, E., Tanabe, K. & Kitagawa, G.) 199–213 (Springer, 1998).
Watanabe, S. Asymptotic equivalence of bayes cross validation and widely applicable information criterion in singular learning theory. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 11, 3571–3594 (2010).
Doré, B. P., Weber, J. & Ochsner, K. N. Neural predictors of decisions to cognitively control emotion. J. Neurosci. 37, 2580–2588 (2017).
Scutari, M. Learning Bayesian networks with the bnlearn R package. J. Stat. Softw. 35, 1–22 (2010).
Wright, S. P. Adjusted P-values for simultaneous inference. Biometrics 48, 1005–1013 (1992).
Dowd, A. J. et al. Effects of a 12-week HIIT + group mediated cognitive behavioural intervention on quality of life among inactive adults with coeliac disease: findings from the pilot MOVE-C study. Psychol. Health 37, 440–456 (2021).
Knausenberger, J. et al. Majority residents’ perceptions of ‘economic’ and ‘political’ refugees: psychological processes underlying the flight-reason bias. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 54, 1335–1353 (2024).
Schiekiera, L. et al. Publication bias in academic decision-making in clinical psychology. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 8, 1–19 (2025).
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the Major Project of Philosophy and Social Science Research of the Ministry of Education of China [grant number 22JZD044]; the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant numbers 32371090; 32171072]; the Ningbo Youth Leading Talent Project [grant number 2024QL028]; the Humanities and Social Sciences Youth Foundation of the Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China [grant number 24YJC190047]; the Fundamental Research Funds for the Provincial Universities of Zhejiang [grant number SJWZ2024003].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
X.G., L.Z., and J.Y. were responsible for project administration and supervision; J.D., X.G., L.Z., and J.Y. designed research; J.D. performed research; J.D., X.G., L.Z., and J.Y. analyzed data; J.D. drafted a first version of the manuscript; X.G., L.Z., and J.Y. provided comments and suggestions and edited the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding authors
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.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Duan, J., Guo, X., Zheng, L. et al. A Bayesian perspective on observers’ inference of group norms. npj Sci. Learn. (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-026-00405-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-026-00405-x
