Social Norm or Market Norm?

I used a recent "letter to the editor" in a lesson last week as I believe in using authentic materials. I thought it a was pretty straightforward issue and did not expect much controversy. However, my eyes were opened when my student skilfully argued against the writer's position, which was initially mine.

The writer had written to complain about a group of students from a well known school who had gone into a MacDonald's restaurant, made a mess, and left without cleaning up after themselves. It appeared obvious to me, initially, that this was bad form, unacceptable and inconsiderate behaviour. But when I showed it to my Korean student from Australia International School, he said he disagreed with the writer because he felt that there are people paid to do the job. He also argued that the bins are not conveniently located and not meant for patrons. He continued to argue that it was unreasonable to expect patrons of MacD to clear up when they are already paying a premium which had factored in the cost of workers clearing up. Underpinning his line of argument was: Would helping them save cost on hiring cleaners bring down the cost of eating in MacD? Or will it only push up their profit margin? In contrast, hawker centres, which charge a lot less, have full time cleaners to clear tables, and no one is expected to clear up after themselves after their meals.

When I showed the same article to another of my students, an English boy from Tanglin Trust, I got a very different answer. He said that he was taught to always clean up after eating. Back in the UK, he added, MacDonalds do not have cleaners to clear up. He felt it was the 'morally correct' thing to do and we should be considerate and think of the people using the facilities after us. And while it is true there are people paid to clean up after us, out of respect for the working class, we should help them along a little by chucking the trash into the bin, so that they only have to wipe the tables.

I finally showed the same article to a third student, a girl from China but grew up in Singapore and now studying in Raffles Girls School. She too said she was taught the 'proper' behaviour was to clear up after yourself, and it was what they had to do in both RGS and her previous neighbourhood school. She emphasised that this is not a view shared by people back in China though, where they will just leave their trash on the table after eating.

I found it fascinating that Dan Ariely's principle of the Social vs Market Norm is actually in play here without me realising it. Those who argued that the students who did not clear up were perfectly in the right actually saw the issue from the market norm point of view. Clearing up or not, is an economic transaction. I am the patron and I paid for services. I am here to enjoy myself, not do cleaning up work for the restaurant and help them make more money (especially since they are already making so much off us as it is).

However, those who argued for people to be considerate, actually see the issue from a social point of view. They viewed the cause and effect to the social balance, where people should show consideration for other patrons in the restaurant, to be considerate to the workers so that they are not unnecessarily burdened with more work, etc.

Which viewpoint is valid? This appears to be the crucial question that we must answer. This is even more crucial for Singapore, since we started off from the Social Norms during Independence, and subsequently turned into a 'materialistic' market driven society. The call for a Civil Society seems to be an attempt to revert back to the social norm. However, if Dan Ariely's conclusions are correct, a situation that has progressed from social norms to market norms cannot easily go back to a social norm.


As Shakespeare, in Macbeth [iii. ii. 12] put it: "Things without all remedy Should be without regard. What's done is done. Ibid. v. i. 65 What's done cannot be undone."

Oops!