Modelling conditionally respected social norms: a critique from the intentional stance

There is a broad consensus in the leading general literature on norms and norm-change that norms are conditional, and based on descriptive and normative expectations. Expectations are a sub-set of beliefs. Hence some primary barriers to norm-change arise from dynamics among beliefs, and between beliefs and preferences. However, the literature has under-examined the distinction between two such barriers, preference falsification and pluralistic ignorance. We clarify the implications of the distinction for two leading conceptual frameworks (due to Kuran and Bicchieri, respectively), and ultimately for explicit models, of norms and norm change. We furthermore explain how, once this clarification is in place, the two models are naturally reconciled by interpreting the concepts of belief–and also preference–that they incorporate as based on attribution from Dennett’s intentional stance.