Social Life
Olympic Swimmers Blow a Hidden Norm Out of the Water
Some behavioral norms are difficult know and can surprise when exposed.
Posted August 1, 2024 Reviewed by Margaret Foley
Key points
- Norms powerfully shape behavior, but some norms are hidden from view.
- The frequency of urinating in public pools is one example of a hidden norm.
- The prevalence of this behavior may shock you.
Examples of how norms shape our behavior are everywhere. We see them in shifts in clothing fashions and hairstyles to changes in more consequential areas, such as in same-sex marriages.
Interestingly, norms can shift in a tipping point manner, where the degree of prevalence in a behavior can lead to a quickened change and firm acceptance. In some cases, such as in same-sex marriages, perhaps, it can seem suddenly strange that the prior norm even existed at all.
Some behaviors, because they are frowned upon, reside in hidden areas of life in which their prevalence is unknown. Actual norms cannot exert their influence because of this, only their often distorted perception. If their prevalence were revealed, the behavior might become less frowned upon, becoming more the norm.
Take the behavior of peeing in public pools. We all know that doing so is against the rules of pool behavior. But what are the actual norms for this behavior?
I regularly exercise in the warm water pool at my local YMCA. The pool is a favorite place for families to swim with their small children. Recently, I noticed a mother with her young daughter leave the pool for the dressing room and return after a few minutes. I figured that the reason for this was that her daughter needed to pee, and her mother was teaching her appropriate rule.
It got me thinking about how prevalent this behavior actually was. How could one even determine the norm? I certainly hoped that most parents were teaching their kids this norm. Furthermore, I assumed that at least most adults had learned and followed this norm themselves.
The plain fact, however, was that I really did not know what people actually do. I could project from my own behavior and assume a low base rate. But I suspected, based on the false consensus effect (the tendency to see our own behavioral choices as relatively common and appropriate), that I may have overestimated the norm. And yet, all things considered, I figured that most people did not pee in public pools. Therefore, I concluded that the pool was essentially free of pee, at least in high concentration. Maybe.
Well, probably not.
Laine Higgins, a sports reporter for The Wall Street Journal, recently interviewed a sample of Olympic swimmers and contributed a story about what she learned. It turns out that it is very likely that most Olympic swimmers pee in the pool—and do so copiously.
As Lilly King, a three-time Olympian for Team USA, said, “I’ve probably peed in every single pool I’ve swum in.…That’s just how it goes.”
She was not alone. Other swimmers Higgins talked to made similar admissions.
Now, there may be some special circumstances causing this behavior. These swimmers not only keep hydrated but they also wear super-tight swimsuits that squeeze their bodies. This makes the urge to pee more extreme. To make matters worse, these suits are challenging to take off and put back on.
Fortunately, the chlorine does a decent job of neutralizing the ill effects of urine on pool users, and public pools have procedures for monitoring the contents of pool water and adjusting the chlorine accordingly.
Nonetheless, I was shocked to learn about this norm.
Probably, my perceptions of actual norms have been quite wrong, naively so as I think about it.
Furthermore, I should expect that as people learn about the behavior of competitive swimmers—admired public figures that they are—peeing in public pools will become even more prevalent. The floodgates will open.
Peace.
References
Cialdini, R.B., & Trost, M.R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.) The handbook of social psychology, (4th edition) vol. 2, pp. 151-192. New York: McGraw-Hill.