IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp17748.html

Mutual Knowledge of Social Norms and Political Behavior

Author

Listed:
  • Hager, Anselm

    (Humboldt University Berlin)

  • Kazakbaeva, Elnura

    (Evidence Central Asia)

  • Hensel, Lukas

    (Peking University)

  • Esenaliev, Damir

    (ISDC - International Security and Development Center)

Abstract

Social norms are crucial drivers of human behavior. However, misperceptions of others’ opinions may sustain norms and conforming behavior even if a majority opposes the norm. Privately shifting individuals’ beliefs about true societal support may be insufficient to change behavior if others are perceived to continue to hold incorrect beliefs (“lack of mutual knowledge”). We conduct a field experiment with 5,201 women in Kyrgyzstan to test whether creating mutual knowledge about social norms affects how perceived social norms influence behavior. We show that providing information about societal support for female political activism alone does not affect women’s political engagement. However, when perceived mutual knowledge is created, the effect of information about social norms increases significantly. Using vignette experiments, we show that the effect of mutual knowledge on social punishment is a plausible mechanism behind the behavioral impact. These findings suggest that higher-order beliefs about social norms are an important force linking social norms and behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Hager, Anselm & Kazakbaeva, Elnura & Hensel, Lukas & Esenaliev, Damir, 2025. "Mutual Knowledge of Social Norms and Political Behavior," IZA Discussion Papers 17748, IZA Network @ LISER.
  • Handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp17748
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://docs.iza.org/dp17748.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vincent P. Crawford & Nagore Iriberri, 2007. "Level-k Auctions: Can a Nonequilibrium Model of Strategic Thinking Explain the Winner's Curse and Overbidding in Private-Value Auctions?," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(6), pages 1721-1770, November.
    2. Nimark, Kristoffer, 2008. "Dynamic pricing and imperfect common knowledge," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 365-382, March.
    3. Angeletos, George-Marios & La’O, Jennifer, 2009. "Incomplete information, higher-order beliefs and price inertia," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(S), pages 19-37.
    4. Costa-Gomes, Miguel & Crawford, Vincent P & Broseta, Bruno, 2001. "Cognition and Behavior in Normal-Form Games: An Experimental Study," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(5), pages 1193-1235, September.
    5. Bruno S. Frey & Stephan Meier, 2004. "Social Comparisons and Pro-social Behavior: Testing "Conditional Cooperation" in a Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(5), pages 1717-1722, December.
    6. Gorodnichenko, Yuriy & Yin, Xiao, 2024. "Higher-Order Beliefs and Risky Asset Holdings," IZA Discussion Papers 17120, IZA Network @ LISER.
    7. Hager, Anselm & Kazakbaeva, Elnura & Hensel, Lukas & Esenaliev, Damir, 2025. "Mutual Knowledge of Social Norms and Political Behavior," IZA Discussion Papers 17748, IZA Network @ LISER.
    8. González, Felipe, 2020. "Collective action in networks: Evidence from the Chilean student movement," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    9. Hallsworth, Michael & List, John A. & Metcalfe, Robert D. & Vlaev, Ivo, 2017. "The behavioralist as tax collector: Using natural field experiments to enhance tax compliance," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 14-31.
    10. Vincent P. Crawford & Miguel A. Costa-Gomes & Nagore Iriberri, 2013. "Structural Models of Nonequilibrium Strategic Thinking: Theory, Evidence, and Applications," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 51(1), pages 5-62, March.
    11. Xavier Giné & Ghazala Mansuri, 2018. "Together We Will: Experimental Evidence on Female Voting Behavior in Pakistan," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 10(1), pages 207-235, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hager, Anselm & Kazakbaeva, Elnura & Hensel, Lukas & Esenaliev, Damir, 2025. "Mutual Knowledge of Social Norms and Political Behavior," IZA Discussion Papers 17748, IZA Network @ LISER.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Choo, Lawrence C.Y & Kaplan, Todd R., 2014. "Explaining Behavior in the "11-20" Game," MPRA Paper 52808, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Shapiro, Dmitry & Shi, Xianwen & Zillante, Artie, 2014. "Level-k reasoning in a generalized beauty contest," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 308-329.
    3. Penczynski, Stefan P., 2017. "The nature of social learning: Experimental evidence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 148-165.
    4. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Johannes Buckenmaier, 2021. "Cognitive sophistication and deliberation times," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 558-592, June.
    5. Burchardi, Konrad B. & Penczynski, Stefan P., 2014. "Out of your mind: Eliciting individual reasoning in one shot games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 39-57.
    6. Bao, Leo & Gangadharan, Lata & Leister, C. Matthew, 2025. "Deterrence in networks," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 501-517.
    7. Ballester, Coralio & Rodriguez-Moral, Antonio & Vorsatz, Marc, 2024. "Cognitive reflection in experimental anchored guessing games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 179-195.
    8. Calford, Evan M. & Chakraborty, Anujit, 2025. "Higher-order beliefs in a sequential social dilemma," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    9. Kieren, Pascal & König-Kersting, Christian & Schmidt, Robert & Trautmann, Stefan & Heinicke, Franziska, 2025. "First-order and higher-order inflation expectations: Evidence about Households and Firms," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 233(C).
    10. Wanqun Zhao, 2020. "Cost of Reasoning and Strategic Sophistication," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-27, September.
    11. Kneeland, Terri, 2016. "Coordination under limited depth of reasoning," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 49-64.
    12. García-Pola, Bernardo & Iriberri, Nagore & Kovářík, Jaromír, 2020. "Non-equilibrium play in centipede games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 391-433.
    13. Dugar, Subhasish & Shahriar, Quazi, 2023. "Lying for votes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 46-72.
    14. Camerer, Colin & Nunnari, Salvatore & Palfrey, Thomas R., 2016. "Quantal response and nonequilibrium beliefs explain overbidding in maximum-value auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 243-263.
    15. Crawford, Vincent P., 2017. "Let׳s talk it over: Coordination via preplay communication with level-k thinking," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 20-31.
    16. García-Pola, Bernardo, 2020. "Do people minimize regret in strategic situations? A level-k comparison," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 82-104.
    17. Kneeland, Terri, 2022. "Mechanism design with level-k types: Theory and an application to bilateral trade," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    18. Edoardo Gallo & Joseph Lee & Yohanes Eko Riyanto & Erwin Wong, 2023. "Cooperation and Cognition in Social Networks," Papers 2305.01209, arXiv.org.
    19. Dvijotham, Krishnamurthy & Rabani, Yuval & Schulman, Leonard J., 2022. "Convergence of incentive-driven dynamics in Fisher markets," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 361-375.
    20. Malin Arve & Marco Serena, 2022. "Level- k Models and Overspending in Contests," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-12, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D70 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - General
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp17748. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Mark Fallak (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/izaaalu.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.