Norms as obligations

Economists model legal compliance as the process of maximizing utility while weighing the consequences from norm violation against other (monetary and non-monetary) considerations. Legal philosophers, on the other hand, believe that the normative side of law is central. Citizens comply because they have an obligation to do so. Legal norms provide exclusionary reasons that prevent weighing up on other issues. We test and compare both models in a controlled online experiment. We conduct a modified dictator game with partially unknown yet ascertainable payoffs, and vary between treatments the presence and content of authoritative norms. Our experimental results show that – in the presence of a norm – participants follow norms without searching for information that they deem important in the absence of a norm. This pattern is independent of the specific content of the norm. Our results are consistent with the legal model of norm compliance. • Experiment tests norm compliance using modified dictator game. • Norms reduce information search, independent of content. • High compliance observed with both selfish and sacrificial norms. • Results support legal model of norms as obligations. • Suggests norms act as exclusionary reasons in decision-making.