Competing norms and shifting saliences. How norm beliefs affected behavior among Dutch health care interns during the COVID-19 lockdown

A social norm clearly pre- or proscribes which kind of behavior is appropriate in a given situation. However, there are situations in which two competing norms apply, meaning that two opposing types of behavior are potentially legitimate. This study examines such a scenario among health care students during the initial COVID-19 lockdown in the Netherlands in 2020. The students faced two potentially competing norms, choosing between continuing to work in their internships, or to stay at home. Drawing on Goal-Framing Theory, we explore how the salience of norms may vary in four conditions of personal beliefs: sociality, normativity, conjointness, and interdependence. We argue perceived sociality and normativity serve as cues of the appropriate norm in a situation, which can be supported by beliefs about interdependence with others. The salience of disjoint norms, where the beneficiaries of normative behavior differ from those performing the behavior, is theorized to be more brittle than the salience of conjoint norms. Empirically, we surveyed 55 interns about their social norm perceptions, and employed Qualitative Comparative Analysis to uncover patterns in beliefs that lead to normative outcomes. The pathways to work continuation indicate the importance of normative beliefs in strengthening disjoint norms, combined with strong interdependence perceptions. The pathways to staying at home show how conjoint norms require less support, and that perceived normative ambivalence also favors the conjoint norm. Altogether, these results show the importance of assessing the varieties of beliefs underlying norms in situations of competing norms.