Norm declines after prohibition happen in two distinct phases
Evidence
The shift occurred in two phases: a rapid initial decline in the years immediately following prohibition, as the normative signal propagated through the population; then a slower generational decay reflecting cohort replacement — the cohorts that grew up in post-prohibition Sweden replacing those socialized before 1979. The two phases are analytically distinct: the first reflects Conditions One and Four working together on the existing adult population; the second reflects the intergenerational epigenetic interruption that Arc 3 of this season documented — the children raised without physical punishment becoming parents who parent without physical punishment. — , The Rod and the Child, 8057
Categorization
- XREF: Two-phase model parallels the book’s earlier Arc 3 on intergenerational epigenetic transmission. — connects to: Legal prohibition plus community normative work shifted behavior even in a non-welfare-state, diverse society — , The Rod and the Child: A Global History…, 7363
Related
- Legal prohibition causes attitudinal change rather than merely reflecting it (similarity 0.83)
- Prohibition laws work as normative signals, not criminal sanctions (similarity 0.82)
- Legal change against corporal punishment cascades across generations rather than declining linearly (similarity 0.80)
- Legal prohibition plus community normative work shifted behavior even in a non-welfare-state, diverse society (similarity 0.80)
- Public education campaigns accelerate normative change beyond law alone (similarity 0.79)
- Prohibition weakens intergenerational transmission of hitting (similarity 0.79)
- Legal prohibition of corporal punishment drives attitudinal shifts rather than merely reflecting them (similarity 0.79)
- Legal prohibition shifts normalcy even for those who still practice the behavior (similarity 0.78)
- Swedish data validates the whole policy package rather than the law alone (similarity 0.78)