Informal social control refers to the everyday ways society encourages people to follow norms and behave appropriately. It works through approval, disapproval, gossip, or social pressure rather than laws or official punishment. It’s how families, friends, and communities help maintain order and shared values without needing formal rules or authorities.
Key Takeaways
- Social norms: Informal social control relies on shared norms and values that guide behavior in everyday life. People learn what’s acceptable through culture, community expectations, and social interaction.
- Community influence: Family, friends, and peers act as key agents of informal control by rewarding conformity and discouraging deviance through social approval or disapproval.
- Everyday enforcement: Approval, gossip, embarrassment, and exclusion are common ways that social groups maintain order without relying on formal laws.
- Social cohesion: These informal pressures help keep communities stable by promoting cooperation and reinforcing a sense of belonging.
- Contrast with laws: Unlike formal control, which uses official rules and punishments, informal social control operates naturally within social relationships and everyday interactions.
Introduction
Informal social control refers to a basic type of social control that is used to reward or punish people for unacceptable behavior, which sociologists call deviance.
It applies to behavior that violates informal, unwritten norms.
It relies on public or peer opinion to ensure compliance with a society’s dominant values and norms.
It works through everyday customs, norms, and expectations that typically emerge in face-to-face social interaction. Nothing is written down.
Its purpose is simple: maintain social order and encourage conformity to norms. No laws are involved.
Émile Durkheim argued that informal controls, together with restricted geographic mobility, formed the basis of social order in small-scale societies.
In large societies, by contrast, legal systems develop to regulate relationships that informal norms alone cannot maintain. That is the whole point.
Informal sanctions differ from person to person, group to group, and society to society. They can be positive (rewards) or negative (punishments).
Examples
Informal social control encompasses the rewards (positive sanctions) and punishments (negative sanctions) used in everyday life to encourage conformity to unwritten social norms (folkways and customs) and discourage deviance.
These controls typically arise in face-to-face social interactions.
Here are everyday examples of informal social control, categorized by the type of sanction applied:
Negative Informal Sanctions (Punishments)
These actions are non-official punishments applied by group members to stop socially unacceptable behavior.
People generally conform to informal norms because they fear risking these negative reactions.
| Behavior | Example of Sanction/Control | Mechanism |
|---|---|---|
| Non-Conformity to Folkways | Disapproving looks, frowns, or staring. | These are mild sanctions for minor norm violations, such as wearing flip-flops to an opera or wearing pajamas to the grocery store. |
| Verbal Reprimand/Criticism | Angry comments, verbal reprimands, criticism, or being told off. | A professor stopping a lecture to ask a student to turn off their mobile phone or parents punishing misbehavior with reprimands. Teachers might also convey distrust and criticism to “negatively labelled” pupils. |
| Exclusion/Isolation | Ostracism, shunning, rejection, or withdrawal of affection. | These are ways to sanction unwanted behavior, which can be expressed subtly through social pressure. The denial of recognition is another form of subtle coercion. |
| Ridicule and Mockery | Ridicule, sarcasm, and gossip. | These are highly effective mechanisms for conformity, especially among groups like workers who enforce norms (e.g., against “rate busting”), or peers who may ridicule those who do not conform to group expectations. Gossip refers to rumors about the personal lives of individuals. |
| Breach of Specific Norms | Failing to respond when greeted in the street, which breaks a “friendship norm” and may cause the acquaintance to reassess the relationship. | This applies to folkways (fairly weak norms). Violating norms about where to stand in line or how to speak to strangers in public (e.g., asking to try on someone’s shoes or sitting next to a stranger on a half-empty bus) can cause discomfort and outrage in bystanders. |
| Physical Sanctions | Punching people in the face or other forms of physical aggression, or beating someone up. Corporal punishment, such as slapping a child’s hand or buttocks, is used by parents for the purpose of correction or control. | While often related to crime, these actions, when used within a group to enforce internal norms, function as informal control. |
Positive Informal Sanctions (Rewards)
These are pleasant things or rewards given in interaction to try to make people conform and encourage desired behavior.
| Behavior | Example of Sanction/Control | Mechanism |
|---|---|---|
| Routine Conformity/Courtesy | A smile, a pat on the back, or an expression of thanks. | For example, a boy who helps an elderly woman board a bus may receive a smile and a “thank you”. |
| Praise and Approval | Verbal praise, loving attention, or commending students for their work. | Teachers often provide verbal praise and smiling to reinforce positive behavior in students. Parents reward proper behavior with smiles, loving attention, praise, and treats. |
| Non-Material Benefits | Non-material benefits or receiving a sense of satisfaction or prestige. | Joining a normative or voluntary organization often provides an intangible reward. |
Gossip and Reputation
Talking about someone’s conduct behind their back looks trivial. In practice, it is one of the most efficient informal-control mechanisms a group has.
Gossip lets people learn who is trustworthy without being cheated first. Wu, Balliet, and Van Lange (2016) tested this directly against its usual rival, formal-style punishment.
- Aim: To compare gossip against direct punishment as ways of sustaining cooperation within a group.
- Method: Participants played a public-goods game across four rounds, choosing to gossip about a poor performer or pay to punish them. They then played two further trust-game rounds with neither option.
- Results: The option to gossip raised both cooperation and earnings. The option to punish had no overall effect on cooperation and reduced individual earnings.
- Conclusion: Reputation-based sanctioning outperforms direct punishment, because it lets future partners avoid the untrustworthy without anyone paying the cost of retaliating.
Shaming and Ostracism
Where gossip works quietly, shaming works publicly. It marks a person’s conduct as unacceptable in front of others whose opinion they value.
Braithwaite (1989) distinguished two ways this can happen. Stigmatising shaming brands the offender rather than the offense, pushing them toward a permanent outsider identity.
Reintegrative shaming disapproves of the act. It still treats the person as a full member of the group. Braithwaite argued this sustains conformity better, because it leaves the social bond intact.
Ostracism sits at the far end of the same continuum. It withdraws social contact altogether. Because humans are a social species, even brief exclusion is experienced as genuinely painful.
How Culture Shapes Informal Social Control
The foundation of informal social control is deeply rooted in the cultural elements shared by a society or a social group.
In essence, culture (the shared values, beliefs, and norms) provides the blueprint for behavior, and socialization ensures that this blueprint is internalized, making informal social control a fundamental mechanism for maintaining social order.
Key cultural foundations that underpin informal social control include:
1. Values and Value Consensus
Values are the foundation because they represent the collective ideas about what is right or wrong, good or bad, and desirable or undesirable in a particular culture.
Since values are general behavioral guidelines that involve judgments about how things should be, they profoundly influence human social behavior and form the basis for norms.
- Socialization and Internalization: The process of socialization is how individuals learn, share, and internalize cultural values and beliefs, making them an essential part of their social make-up.
This internalization leads to internal social control, where individuals regulate their own behavior because they believe theft is wrong, for example, rather than solely fearing punishment.
- Value Consensus (Social Glue): Functionalist theorists argue that social order depends on a value consensus – a broad agreement on what values and norms matter most. This shared understanding acts like a social “glue,” binding people together.
When someone breaks a norm, the resulting disapproval reflects not just the rule they’ve broken, but the shared value it represents.
2. Norms (Folkways and Mores)
While values express what people believe, norms define what people are expected to do.
They are the unwritten, socially accepted rules that guide behavior in particular situations, translating cultural values into everyday practice.
- Folkways and Mores: Informal control applies primarily to informal norms. These include folkways (everyday customs that lack moral overtones, such as table manners) and mores (norms of great moral significance, vital to the well-being of a society, such as the value that able-bodied men should work for a living).
Violating mores results in much stronger social responses (often negative informal sanctions) than violating folkways.
- Social Expectations: Norms help explain why people behave similarly in similar circumstances. Informal norms are learned through observation, imitation, and general socialization, dictating appropriate behaviors without the need for written rules.
3. Social Bonds and Group Membership
Informal social control works best when people feel a strong sense of connection to others.
According to Control Theory, people with close relationships to family, friends, and community are more likely to conform. They care about maintaining approval and belonging.
- Attachment: The stronger a person’s emotional ties to others, the more they’re motivated to behave in ways that preserve those relationships. Fear of disappointing or losing respect from loved ones acts as a powerful informal control.
- Group Pressure: Social groups often enforce norms through approval and disapproval. Ridicule, gossip, or even mild exclusion can be enough to keep members in line—because these reactions come directly from people whose opinions matter most.
- Subcultures: Within larger societies, smaller subcultures may have their own distinctive norms and values. Informal social control operates within these groups too, ensuring members conform to the group’s expectations, even when those differ from mainstream culture.
Agents of Informal Social Control
Informal social control comes from the everyday people and groups around us – not from laws or officials.
These are the individuals, groups, and social settings that enforce the unwritten rules of behavior through ordinary interactions.
Instead of legal punishments, informal control works through social approval, disapproval, and subtle pressures in daily life.
1. Primary Groups and Close Relationships
The most powerful forms of informal control come from our closest relationships, where emotion, trust, and daily contact shape behavior.
-
Family and Relatives: The family is the main agent of socialization in every society. Parents and caregivers teach children social norms through praise, affection, and rewards (positive sanctions), or through disapproval and withdrawal of attention (negative sanctions). This helps children internalize moral values and regulate their own behavior.
-
Peer Groups: Friends and peers—especially during adolescence – exert strong pressure to fit in. People learn what’s acceptable by observing and copying peers. Both conformity and deviance (rule-breaking) often develop within these small, close-knit groups.
-
Friendships and Romantic Partners: Individuals often conform to social expectations because they care about how they’re viewed by people close to them. This emotional bond is what keeps behavior in line, as described by control theory.
-
Local Communities or Neighborhoods: In small or close-knit communities, informal control keeps order through familiarity and shared expectations. When these ties weaken, informal control breaks down, a pattern Social Disorganization Theory links to higher rates of deviance.
Sampson’s (1986) classic study of 171 U.S. cities found that weaker family structure independently predicted higher crime, even accounting for policing.
2. Everyday Interactions and Informal Groups
Informal control also happens constantly through small, everyday social exchanges—even with people we don’t know well.
-
Ordinary Social Interactions: Anyone can apply informal sanctions. A stranger giving a disapproving look, a friend refusing to talk after an argument, or a coworker making a sarcastic remark—all are ways people enforce norms in daily life.
-
Workplace Groups: In workplaces, informal networks often develop alongside official structures. These groups have their own unwritten rules, enforced through ridicule, gossip, or exclusion. For example, coworkers might mock someone who works “too hard” and makes others look bad—sometimes called “rate busting.”
-
Teachers and Mentors: Even in formal settings like schools, many forms of control are informal. A teacher asking a student to turn off their phone or giving a disappointed look is an informal sanction that encourages conformity without official punishment.
3. Cultural and Ideological Influences
Some forms of informal control operate on a broader, more indirect level—shaping people’s beliefs, values, and sense of what is “normal.”
-
Mass Media: The media helps shape cultural values by showing what behaviors are acceptable or unacceptable. It can reinforce social norms, promote moral standards, or even spark “moral panics” that influence public opinion about deviant behavior. Sociologists call this kind of subtle influence a form of “soft policing.”
-
Religion: Religion provides shared moral guidelines and reinforces conformity by linking behavior to spiritual rewards or punishments. Many religious teachings give divine authority to social norms, strengthening their impact on behavior.
-
Socialization: The process of socialization itself—learning values, norms, and roles from family, school, and society—creates internal social control. Over time, people learn to monitor and regulate their own actions according to what they believe is right.
Purpose of Informal Social Control
The main purpose of informal social control is to regulate behavior and enforce social norms so that society stays stable, orderly, and predictable.
In simple terms, it’s what keeps daily life running smoothly – helping people know what to expect from others and what others expect from them.
Sociologists such as Émile Durkheim and control theorists argue that these informal systems are essential for maintaining order, teaching values, and strengthening communities.
1. Maintaining Social Order and Stability
The core goal of any kind of social control – formal or informal – is to keep society organized and functioning.
-
Preventing Chaos: Without some form of control, people could behave unpredictably, making social life unstable or chaotic.
-
Encouraging Conformity: Informal control encourages people to follow shared norms and customs, helping communities function smoothly.
-
Creating Predictability: Because people generally follow the same unwritten rules, we can predict how others will behave. This makes everyday life feel safe, familiar, and manageable.
2. Reinforcing Norms and Shared Values
Durkheim believed that even reactions to deviant behavior (breaking the rules) serve a purpose—they remind society of what is acceptable and bring people together.
-
Clarifying Boundaries: When someone breaks a norm and faces social disapproval, it reinforces for everyone else what is considered right or wrong.
-
Building Unity: Negative reactions to deviance—such as ridicule, gossip, or exclusion—can actually strengthen group bonds, as people unite around shared values.
-
Protecting Core Values: Informal control helps defend a society’s values by continually reaffirming what it stands for. In this way, deviant acts can indirectly strengthen the moral fabric of the community.
3. Shaping Individual Behavior
Informal social control doesn’t just shape society—it shapes the person.
-
Socialization and Self-Control: From early childhood, people learn what’s acceptable through family, school, and peers. Over time, they internalize these lessons, learning to guide their own actions according to what they believe is right. This is known as internal social control.
-
Peer and Emotional Influence: People often conform because they care about what others think. The fear of losing approval—or the desire to gain it—motivates people to behave appropriately within their social groups.
4. Supporting Group Life
In small groups and communities, informal control serves everyday emotional and social needs.
-
Emotional Support: Informal groups often meet needs that formal institutions ignore – providing friendship, humor, comfort, and mutual protection.
-
Group Solidarity: By encouraging conformity, these groups build a sense of belonging and protect their members from unfair treatment or outside threats.
Critical Evaluation of Informal Social Control
Formal Versus Informal Control
Whether a norm counts as informal or formal control depends on whether it has been codified into law. Norms that people follow willingly, with no state authority behind them, remain informal social control instead.
The same norm can sit on either side of that line, depending on the society. Saudi Arabia is one example.
There, a Muslim who formally renounces Islam faces the death penalty from the state. That is formal control in action. In the United States, the same act carries no state-imposed punishment.
It might still carry an informal consequence: ostracism from one’s own family. Context decides which.
The line between the two is drawn by each society, not by the act itself. The same behaviour can be a crime in one place and a private matter in another.
Agents That Preserve Social Order
Families, schools, religious communities, and voluntary associations all help preserve social order without ever invoking the law.
A family, for example, is often where a person first learns restraint from lashing out in anger. That lesson can start very young. Religious teaching plays a similar role.
It can inspire non-aggressive conduct even toward people one disagrees with, by giving everyday norms a sense of shared moral weight that outlives any single disagreement.
Schools do this too, by cultivating civic virtue rather than simply enforcing rules. So do voluntary associations, which channel political frustration into dialogue.
The result, in each case, is the same: frustration with the status quo is directed into civil protest rather than disorder, exactly the channelling effect described above.
Why Informal Control Matters for Reducing Crime
Formal control generally relies on fear, such as the threat of imprisonment or execution, to secure compliance with the law as written. That deterrent logic rests on the certainty and proportionality of the punishment itself, at least in principle.
It rarely gives a reasoned argument for refraining from deviance in the first place. It also cannot guarantee every offender is caught.
Enforcement is uneven, too. Sociologists such as John Lambert have shown that policing and prosecution can be shaped by social stereotype and geography rather than applied consistently everywhere.
Families work differently. They teach children that gaining others’ support and love requires treating people with respect and care, an internalised reason to conform that formal sanction alone does not always supply.
Contemporary Research
Recent research asks two further questions: what happens to informal control when everyday life moves online, and how measurable are the community institutions theory has long assumed matter?
Rost, Stahel, and Frey (2016) tested the first question using real online behavior rather than self-report.
- Aim: To test whether online “firestorms”, sudden bursts of public criticism, function as digital norm enforcement, and whether anonymity drives the aggression involved.
- Method: The authors coded 532,197 comments across 1,612 petitions on a German platform for aggressive language, anonymity, and controversy. They then modelled the pattern with regression.
- Results: About one comment in five was aggressive. Non-anonymous commenters were more, not less, aggressive than anonymous ones, especially on high-profile controversies.
- Conclusion: Posting under one’s real name makes a public sanction more credible and reputationally effective, which is exactly what norm enforcement needs to work.
Two further studies specify how reliably informal control operates offline. Wo, Hipp, and Boessen (2016) tracked 87,641 census blocks across ten American cities. They found that voluntary organizations do reduce local crime. The effect, though, typically takes several years to appear after a group is established.
Sargeant and colleagues (2023) studied COVID-19 lockdown in Australia. They surveyed 1,595 residents. Those who saw police as handling the crisis fairly were more willing to informally enforce the rules themselves.
Together, these studies show the classic mechanisms of informal control persist online and in crisis settings, even as their scale and speed change.
The Dark Side: Disproportion and Vigilantism
The same features that make informal control efficient, no court, no due process, also make it capable of going badly wrong. An informal sanction is not bound by any principle of proportionality.
Rost and colleagues’ (2016) finding that non-anonymous online sanctioning is more aggressive shows how a norm-enforcing mechanism can escalate into a pile-on wildly disproportionate to the original offense. The damage can be reputational, psychological, or economic.
There is no appeal process at all, and no single body is ever accountable for the outcome. Braithwaite (1989) captured the same tension offline.
Reintegrative shaming disapproves of the act while keeping the person inside the group. Stigmatising shaming, by contrast, brands the person as a permanent outsider, making further deviance more likely.
Whose Norms Does It Enforce?
A further criticism asks not whether informal control works, but for whom.
Because sanctioning is diffuse and unofficial, it can serve two very different masters. It can police a genuinely shared norm just as easily as it enforces a dominant group’s preferences on a minority within the same community. A family member ostracized for their sexuality is one example.
A whistleblower frozen out by colleagues for reporting wrongdoing is a further example. Sometimes this pressure is manufactured from above rather than arising naturally from below.
Both examples share a pattern.
Soviet education policy in the early twentieth century moved from persuasion toward bureaucratic control of teachers and curricula. The Chinese Cultural Revolution used art and cultural production the same way, as a tool of ideological conformity.
Correlational, Not Causal, Evidence
Most evidence linking informal control to lower crime is correlational rather than causal. Communities with strong informal control differ in other ways too. Poverty and residential stability are hard to separate out statistically.
Only the gossip-versus-punishment mechanism has actually been tested experimentally, trading causal clarity for the artificiality of a laboratory game among strangers with small stakes and no lasting relationships.
The correlation itself is real.
Sampson’s (1986) finding that weaker family structure predicts higher crime is observational. So is Wo and colleagues’ (2016) finding that voluntary organizations later reduce it.
Safer, more stable neighborhoods might simply attract stronger families and more voluntary groups in the first place.
That gap matters.
Reverse causation of this kind is hard to rule out with confidence.
References
Beccaria, C. (2016). On crimes and punishments. Transaction Publishers.
Berger, A. A. (1995). Essentials of mass communication theory. SAGE Publications.
Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge University Press.
Carmichael, J. (2012, June 26). Social control. Oxford Bibliographies.
Donald, M. H. (2017). The war on cops: How the new attack on law and order makes everyone less safe. Encounter Books.
Durkheim, E. (1892). The division of labor in society. Free Press.
Durkheim, E. (1956). Education and sociology. Simon and Schuster.
Finnis, J. (1979). Natural law and natural rights. Oxford University Press.
George, R. P. (2010). In defense of natural law. Oxford University Press.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. University of California Press.
Hobbes, T. (1967). Leviathan. Ripol Klassik.
Janowitz, M. (1975). Sociological theory and social control. American Journal of Sociology, 81(1), 82–108.
King, R. (2010). Art in turmoil: The Chinese Cultural Revolution, 1966–76. University of British Columbia Press.
Lambert, J. L. (1986). Police powers and accountability. Croom Helm.
Lambert, J. R., & Jenkinson, R. F. (1970). Crime, police, and race relations: A study in Birmingham. Oxford University Press.
Lauglo, J. (1988). Soviet education policy 1917–1935: From ideology to bureaucratic control. Oxford Review of Education, 14(3), 285–299.
Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. Free Press.
Ross, E. A. (2009). Social control: A survey of the foundations of order. Transaction Publishers.
Rost, K., Stahel, L., & Frey, B. S. (2016). Digital social norm enforcement: Online firestorms in social media. PLOS ONE, 11(6), e0155923. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155923
Sampson, R. J. (1986). Crime in cities: The effects of formal and informal social control. Crime and Justice, 8, 271–311.
Sargeant, E., Murphy, K., McCarthy, M., & Williamson, H. (2023). The formal-informal control nexus during COVID-19: What drives informal social control of social distancing restrictions during lockdown? Crime & Delinquency, 69(4), 707–726. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128721991824
Wo, J. C., Hipp, J. R., & Boessen, A. (2016). Voluntary organizations and neighborhood crime: A dynamic perspective. Criminology, 54(2), 212–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12101
Wu, J., Balliet, D., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2016). Gossip versus punishment: The efficiency of reputation to promote and maintain cooperation. Scientific Reports, 6, Article 23919. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep23919
