Nicole Dubois

Normativity and self‐presentation

Notes that people use self‐presentation strategies to enhance their self‐image, and in doing so, they rely on norms. Raises the question of the desirability and feasibility of giving training to individuals in normative self‐presentation, where the idea is to teach the trainees to refer to judgment norms when responding in formal evaluation situations (like job interviews). Three judgment norms are used as illustration: internality, self‐sufficiency, and individual anchoring. The materials for training in these three norms are tested using the methods and techniques of the socionormative approach, and briefly presented. The ethical implications of this type of training are discussed.

Internality, Academic Status, and Intergroup Attributions.

Some pupils categorized as good vs. bad pupils were given a questionnaire of attributions, thus allowing the calculation of internality scores. They were also requested to answer as would a good (vs. a bad) pupil do. Finally, they also had to predict in which way a good (vs. a bad) pupil would answer on their behalf. The results were explained within the frame of two different theoretical fields: the theory of the norm of internality and the biases in terms of intergroup attributions. These results show that 1) the attribution of internal explanations relates to an attribution of value that takes place within the intergroup evaluation, 2) whereas the ultimate attribution error can clearly be observed among the good pupils, the bad pupils exhibit an attributive pattern that is favorable to the good pupils.RésuméDes élèves caractérisés sur la base de leur dossier comme “bons” ou “mauvais” passaient un questionnaire d’attributions permettant le calcul de scores d’internalité. Ils devaient également répondre comme le ferait un bon (ou un mauvais) élève. Ils devaient enfin prédire la façon dont un bon (ou un mauvais) élève répondrait à leur place. Les résultats ont été interprétés dans le cadre de deux champs théoriques différents: celui de la théorie de la norme d’internalité et celui des biais dans les attributions intergroupes. Les résultats montrent, 1) que l’attribution d’explications internes correspond à une attribution de valeur intervenant dans les évaluations intergroupes (norme d’internalité), 2) que si l’erreur ultime d’attribution est observée chez les bons élèves, les mauvais élèves exhibent un pattern attributif favorable aux bons élèves.

Internality-norm theory in educational contexts

The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the socionormative approach of internality in the field of education, and more specifically regarding scholastic judgment. It describes the theoretical development and the main procedures used by researchers to show that internal causal explanations have more value than external ones because they are normative and convey social value. We present results that show that the preference for internal explanations is learned in school. We also demonstrate that internal explanations are often chosen for self-presentation purposes and have some bearing in evaluative practices (here, scholastic judgment). We also present results which show that certain internal explanations of school events, regardless of their valence (success or failure), enhance the social worth of the pupil producing them. This applies to effort-based explanations which are more highly valued than others (e.g., in terms of personological traits such as aptitudes or abilities). Such results lead us to discuss the role played by internal explanations in the evaluation practices. We underline the relevant aspect of the socionormative theory of internality by comparison to another sociocognitive approach namely Weiner’s attributional theory of motivation.RésuméL’article fournit une vue d’ensemble de l’approche socionormative de l’internalité dans le champ éducatif, en particulier en matière de jugement scolaire. Il retrace le développement théorique et les principales procédures utilisées par les chercheurs pour montrer que les explications causales internes ont plus de valeur que d’autres, les externes, parce qu’elles sont normatives et porteuses de valeur sociale. Sont présentés des résultats empiriques qui montrent que la préférence pour l’internalité s’acquière à l’école, que les explications internes sont souvent choisies à des fins d’auto-présentation et qu’elles interviennent dans les pratiques d’évaluation (ici le jugement scolaire). Sont présentés également des résultats qui montrent que si l’émission d’une explication interne des événements scolaires, indépendamment de leur valence (résussites ou échecs), est toujours porteuse de valeur sociale pour l’élève qui l’émet, certaines de ces explications internes, comme celles qui en appellent à l’effort, sont plus valorisées que les autres (e.g., en termes de traits personnologiques comme les aptitudes ou les habiletés). De tels résultats nous conduisent à discuter le rôle joué par les explications internes dans les pratiques évaluatives et à souligner la pertinence de la théorie socionormative de l’internalité en regard d’une autre théorie sociocognitive, la théorie attributionnelle de la motivation de Weiner.

The Social Value of Persons: Theory and Applications

When people talk about an object in their environment, they have recourse not to scientific language, but to evaluative language. This evaluative language allows them to say what one does, can do or must do with that object (i.e., its functional or social value). For instance, when Mrs Smith talks about an orchid that someone has given her, she says, Its so delicate and refined! Its flowers come in fantastic shapes and yet it’s really easy to grow. When she talks about the meat she is cooking for dinner, she says, Its tender, juicy, and smells good. Statements like these make sense, but not scientific sense. These words are not the words of a botanist or a physiologist. This is a language used to say what one does, can do or must do with a flower or a cut of meat, something that is never expressed in descriptive or scientific language. A botanist might say, for example, that an orchid has three colorful sepals and three petals, that two of the petals are underdeveloped, that the third, on the contrary, is highly developed and forms the labellum, and so on. A physiologist might say that muscle is made up of thousands of cylindrical cells called muscle fibers, that each fiber is enveloped and separated from the others by a thin layer of connective tissue the endomysium -, and so on. Curiously, though, when Mrs Smith talks about her friends or neighbors, many social psychologists opine that the words she uses to describe those friends and neighbors are more like the descriptive or scientific words of the botanist or physiologist than the evaluative words she uses to talk about meat or flowers.