Normative

Abstract: ?The stakeholder theory has been advanced and justified in the management literature on the basis of its descriptive accuracy, instrumental power, and normative validity. These three aspects of the theory, although interrelated, are quite distinct; they involve different types of evidence and argument and have different implications. In this article, we examine these three aspects of the theory and critique and integrate important contributions to the literature related to each. We conclude that the three aspects of stakeholder theory are mutually supportive and that the normative base of the theory-which includes the modern theory of property rights-is fundamental. If the unity of the corporate body is real, then there is reality and not simply legal fiction in the proposition that the managers of the unit are fiduciaries for it and not merely for its individual members, that they are . . . trustees for an institution [with multiple constituents] rather than attorneys for the stockholders.

Abstract: Past research has generated mixed support among social scientists for the utility of social norms in accounting for human behavior. We argue that norms do have a substantial impact on human action; however, the impact can only be properly recognized when researchers (a) separate 2 types of norms that at times act antagonistically in a situation—injunctive norms (what most others approve or disapprove) and descriptive norms (what most others do)—and (b) focus Ss' attention principally on the type of norm being studied. In 5 natural settings, focusing Ss on either the descriptive norms or the injunctive norms regarding littering caused the Ss* littering decisions to change only in accord with the dictates of the then more salient type of norm.

Abstract: Abstract In its extreme form, the quantitative method of assessment involves the standardized use of a set group, or battery, of tests. These tests are scored quantitatively, and the resulting data are compared with normative data from a group of non-brain-damaged people, preferably matched to the patient in regard to important variables such as age, sex, socioeconomic group, culture, and years of formal education. To establish whether a patient’s scores are typical of the scores of other people with similar disorders, comparisons with the scores of groups of patients with similar disorders or lesions in a similar area of the brain can sometimes be made. The advantage of the quantitative method is that the assessment can be conducted by a trained technician (psychometrist) who does not necessarily need to understand the concepts underlying the tests or their interpretation; a computer can score the tests and even interpret them according to the most likely pathology based on the best fit with normative and research data. The Halstead-Reitan Battery (Halstead 1947; Reitan and Davison 1974) is designed to be used in this way.

Abstract: Much research in the last two decades has demon- strated that human responses deviate from the performance deemed normative according to various models of decision mak- ing and rational judgment (e.g., the basic axioms of utility theory). This gap between the normative and the descriptive can be inter- preted as indicating systematic irrationalities in human cognition. However, four alternative interpretations preserve the assumption that human behavior and cognition is largely rational. These posit that the gap is due to (1) performance errors, (2) computational limitations, (3) the wrong norm being applied by the experi- menter, and (4) a different construal of the task by the subject. In the debates about the viability of these alternative explanations, attention has been focused too narrowly on the modal response. In a series of experiments involving most of the classic tasks in the heuristics and biases literature, we have examined the implica- tions of individual differences in performance for each of the four explanations of the normative/descriptive gap. Performance er- rors are a minor factor in the gap; computational limitations un- derlie non-normative responding on several tasks, particularly those that involve some type of cognitive decontextualization. Un- expected patterns of covariance can suggest when the wrong norm is being applied to a task or when an alternative construal of the task should be considered appropriate.