STATUS, EXPECTAHONS AND SANCTlONS FOR DEVIANCE Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MiCHlGA'N STATE UNEVERSITY RALPH WAHRMAN 191937 l r1 cats This is to certify that the thesis entitled Status ,Expectafions Md Sanctions. [74" 95/4446: presented by W?" 7611”!“ has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Mdegree inJg10’0yy Major professor Date W“ 0-169 Michigan in a: University ABSTRACT STATUS, EXPECTATIONS AND SANCTIONS FOR DEVIANCE by Ralph Wahrman A theory was proposed to account for research which finds that at times high status members may deviate from groups norms with relative impunity, while at other times high status members receive more severe penalties than those of lesser standing. The stronger the eXpectation of conformity by a given actor to a given norm, the more reluctant is the group to acknowledge that the expectation has been violated. Apparent deviant behavior of a high status actor may be excused, misperceived, denied or otherwise responded to in such a way as to allow the group to maintain its high expectations of the actor. Sanctions would then be minimal. If circumstances are such that these reSponses are unavailable to the group and the deviance must be acknowledged, the stronger the expectation of conformity, the more severe the sactions. An eXperiment examined the hypothesis that the higher the ex- pectations for an actor, the more disturbed is the group when he deviates and the more severe are the sanctions. Subjects were exposed to one of two treatments. In both treat- ments subjects were led to believe that they were interacting with two undergraduates and a graduate student. By means of a ten item insight test the nineteen subjects in the low expectation treatment were led to believe the graduate student was slightly more insightful (six out of ten correct) than they (four correct) and the other undergraduates (three correct). The twenty- Ralph Wahrman one subjects in the high eXpectation treatment were led to believe the graduate student was a good deal more insightful (nine correct) than they (four correct) and the other undergraduates. Subjects were given a case history of a delinquent to read. The case was written to suggest the boy needs warmth. Subjects were informed that the two undergrads agreed with them about the boy's need for warmth and the graduate took a punitive approach to the case. By means of notes previously prepared by the experimenter, the graduate indicated his unwillingness to change his mind. Pre and post esteem and annoyance measures were given. It was hypothesized that the graduate student's initially high esteem would be diminished in both treatments, but that the ”high expectation" deviant would provoke more annoyance and suffer greater loss of esteem than the ”low expectation” deviant. Analysis indicated that both deviants suffered loss of esteem and provoked annoyance. The predicted difference was not found. It is concluded that the experiment produced high expectations in both treatments but not differentially high expectations. The initial conditions necessary for test of the key hypothesis were not created and therefore the experiment was not a conclusive test of the hypothesis. Suggestions were offered for improving the design of the ex- periment for test of this and other hypotheses derived from the theory. STATUS, EXPECTATIONS AND SANCTIONS FOR DEVIAHCE by Ralph Wahrman A DISSERTATION Submitted to MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR of PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT of SOCIOLOGY 1967 K} J", I IJ’l/7 J, I} {\l " Xi a‘ COPYRIGHTED BY RALPH WAHRMAN 1968 ACKNOWLEDGFKEHTS I owe a dept of gratitude to my committee chairman Dr. Thomas L. Conner and the members of my committee, Dr. Alfred Dietze, ‘Dr. William Faunce and Dr. Frederick B. Waisanen for their patience, guidance and wisdom. To my wife, Judy and my friends who listened to my interminable lectures as this project progressed through its various stages, I offer my sympathy and the knowledge that I will never sufficiently be able to eXpress my appreciation for their suffering on my behalf. 9. |_a. Table of ACIOJOE-ILEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . List of Tables . . . . . . . . . List of Appendices . . . . . . . CHAPTER I. . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER II . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER III .. . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER IV . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . Appendices: Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix Bl“ . . . . . . . . . . Appendix BQ. . . . . . . . . . . Appendix Cl. . . . . . . . . . . Appendix C2. . . . . . . . . . Appendix Dl‘ . . . . . . . . . . Appendix D2. . . . . . . . . . . Appendix D3. . . . . . . . . . . Appendix DL}. 0 o o o o o o o o 0 Contents . H8 . 68 . 92 .100 Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix A Appendices Instructions to Subjects Insight Test Personal Inventories Pre—test Post—test Case of Johnny Rocco Judgement Questionnaire on Case Summary Judgements Forms Notes to Subjects 62 68 81 84 88 92 97 99 100 List 9}: Tables Title Page no. Pretest rejection measure 38 Pre-test and post-test mean friend- liness scores 41 Post-test rejection measure H2 Pre-test and Post-test means annoyance scores #3 iv CHAPTER II Design and Method I suggested in Chapter I that reactions to a deviant are influenced by the expectations a group had for his behavior, unexpected deviance being sanctioned more severely than expected deviance. High status members of A group have an advantage over those of lesser rank in that the group expects conformity more strongly from high status peOple and is reluctant to acknowledge that this expectation has been violated by acknowledging the deviance. They are simultaneously at a disadvantage in that given ack- nowledgement of their deviance they may be more severely sanctioned than those of lesser rank. An experiment was designed to compare reactions to two deviants-- both of high status—-but differing in the extent to which the group was given reason, over and above the sheer fact of their high status, for expecting conformity of each. The design made it difficult to avoid acknowledging the deviance. I hypothesized that the greater the justification for expecting conformity on a given norm, the greater would be the sanction, in terms of lost esteem, suffered by the deviant. The experimental data consisted of 1) two pre-measures of esteem, 2) a measure of expectation of conformity, 3) a measure of annoyance, and u) two post-measures of esteem. 22 23 Subjects were exposed to one of two situations. In the high expectation treatment they were led to believe a high status person had deviated from a norm on which they had very good reason to expect his conformity. In the low eXpectation condition subjects were led to believe a high status person had deviated from a norm on which they had less reason to expect his conformity. Comparisons were made of the esteem granted the high status actor before and after a disucssion in which he took a position on an issue which deviated from that taken by the rest of the group, and of the annoyance which this produced. It was hypothesized that the high eXpectation actor would suffer stronger sanctions in terms of lost esteem, although both would lose esteem because of their deviance. High status was induced by telling subjects that one of their number was a graduate student. High or low expectations for his performance in a disucssion of a case history were manipulated by means of scores on an "insight test" on which he demonstrated either very high or moderately high insight. The deviant act was a dissent from the group's consensus on the apprOpriate response to the case, a dissent which indicated an un- willingness or inability to utilize his alleged insight. The deviant insisted on being punitive toward a delinquent boy who obviously required warmth. The discussion took place by means of notes. All notes from subjects were intercepted and replaced by previously prepared notes from the eXperimenter. 2“ The Sample Male subjects were recruited from introductory sociology, social psychology, social science courses and, in the case of twelve subjects, from a fraternity pledge class. The initial sample consisted of forty-five subjects. Five were drOpped from the analysis for a) failing to complete allmaterials, or b) realizing that the experiment involved a deception and that the ex- perimenter was feeding them false information about the alleged deviant, or c) selecting a position on the issue being discussed so close to that attributed to the ”deviant” that in effect his position was not deviant, or d) changing their position so that they agreed with the "deviant" and thus eliminated his deviance. These conditions made impossible the test of the predictions about reactions to deviants. The final sample contained forty subjects, nineteen in the low expectation treatment and twenty-one in the high expectation treatment. Data on class levels of two subjects in each treatment were not collected. For the other subjects class levels were as follows: three freshmen, ten SOphomores, two juniors and two seniors were in the low expectation treatment. There were two freshmen, five sophomores, eleven juniors and one senior in the high expectation treatment. Experimental Procedure Subjects, four at a time, were seated in booths which blocked their views of one another. They were told that they were participants in a person perception experiment which required that they have limited interaction with one another (See Appendix A). 25 The procedure was as follows: Each subject found an index card on his desk which identified him as participant C. He was told that the other participants were A, B, and D. Manipulation of Expectations In the first phase of the study each subject was asked to examine ten case histories describing moral dilemmas and to predict the re- Sponses of the ten actors to these dilemmas. This was described to the subjects as an "insight test” and a sheet was appended to the cases to indicate how good a given score on this test was (See Appendix B). When these were completed and collected, subjects were asked to fill out a sheet which asked for various bits of personal information. This was allegedly to be passed to the other participants so that each could form initial impressions of the others. The personal inventories were collected and previously prepared inventories distributed in their place. Along with the false inventories, each subject was handed a slip purporting to show the insight scores received by himself and by the other participants. Two subjects in each group were randomly selected to receive the high expectation treatment and two subjects received the low expectation treatment. The false scores told the two subjects in the low expectation treatment that A had scored six points out of ten. The two subjects in the high eXpectation treatment were told that A had scored nine out of ten possible points. All four subjects were told that they had scored four out of ten and that B and D scored three out of ten. 26 These scores were intended to suggest respectively that subject A was either slightly more insightful than the others and the subject, or a good deal more insightful than the subject and the others. They were E2£_intended to produce higher levels of esteem or status for subject A. Esteem was measured after these scores were distributed to make certain that if such influence did take place, it would be observed. They were eXpected to give the subjects high or low expectations for subject A's performance in the discussion period the subjects had been told would take place later. Subjects were never explicitly told that the insight scores would predict anything other than the ability to perform ”well” in forming accurate judgements of the others on the basis of limited information, but it was assumed that subjects would believe that insight would be relevant to A's contribution to the later discussion of a case history. Manipulation of Status Along with the false insight scores each subject was handed three inventories allegedly describing the other three participants. These led the subjects to believe that they were interacting with A, a graduate student in sociology, B, a SOphomore sociology student and D, a SOphomore sociology student. (It was originally intended to make B a junior, but due to a clerical error he was made a SOphomore.) The sheet contained, besides this information, material about automobile tastes, tytlflg speed, favorite singers and musical groups, baseball teams and several other items selected to be so bland as to be useless in forming an impression of another person. The only usable information on these sheets was the year in school and major field. This latter item was identical for all the other H ' ‘ It partic1pants. 27 I assumed that graduate students carry high status in the eyes of undergraduates and that a sociology major would impress sub- jects in this contest - a situation involving understanding of and in- sight into other peOple's behavior. It was further assumed that subjects would be prepared to grant high esteem to the graduate in keeping with his high status (c.f. Hurwits, Zander and Hymovich, 1953). Subjects were asked immediately after receiving the false in- ventories and false insight scores to examine these documents and to form initial impressions of the other three participants. They then filled out a questionnaire on these impressions. This questionnaire contained two questions about the esteem in which they held the other participants, one question which was an initial measure of annoyance and a number of filler items. (See Appendix C.) These will be discussed below. The questionnaire concluded Phase I of the experiment. In the second Phase of the study subjects were told that they were to discuss the case history of a delinquent boy as a means of learning more about one another. Manipulation of Deviance Each subject was given a two page case history which described the life of Johnny Rocco (Evans, 19MB, 1966). This study utilized a version borrowed from Ballachey (1963). The case has been used in one form or another by Schachter, 1951; Fmerson, lOSU; Sampson and Brandon, 196M; Weller, 1962; Festinger and Thibaut, 1951; Arrowood and Amoroso, 1065 in studies of reactions to deviance. 28 The case is that of a delinquent boy and is written so as to emphasize the boy's need for warmth and love. Subjects are asked to select a treatment for the boy from a list of seven treatments. These range from position 1 - all love, through position 4 — equal measures of love and discipline, to position 7 - all discipline. (See Appendix D) Along with their own judgements of the case subjects were asked to predict the judgements of the others and to indicate the amount of confidence they had in both their own judgements and in the accuracy of their predictions of the other's judgements. These items represent the expectation measure. The subjects' judgements were collected and a slip allegedly des- cribing the judgements of the others was passed to ‘each subject. Subjects typically select positions 2 or 3 which emphasize the child's need for warmth. Subjects were told that the graduate student had selected position 6, which emphasizes discipline. Subjects were told that participants B and D had taken positions which were one step from their own. If the subject took position 2, he was told that D had selected position 1 and B, position 3. If he selected position 1, he was told that B and D had selected 2. If he selected 3, he was told that D had taken position 2 and B, position u. If the subject took position 4, B and D were said to have taken position 3. In the studies cited above, the eXperimenters attributed position 7 to their deviant. A pre-test indicated that under the conditions of this experiment, position 7 produced almost uniform incredulity, position six did not. 29 The dissent by the graduate student is treated here as viola- tion of a norm rather than a simple Opinion disafireement because the studies cited above suggest that there is in the college community a consensus on the belief that delinquents require warmth and under— H- stand ng if they are to be helped, and because in the experimental situation used here the case was written to make this seem obvious in the case of Johnny in particular. The norm was reinforced by telling the subjects that the other two participants were initially close to his judgement and later on in the eXperiment that they had come to agree with him completely. After the slips containing the alleged judgements of the others had been distributed to the subjects, they were told they might have two five minute periods in which they might discuss the case by writing notes to any or all of the other participants. Their notes were collected by the experimenter and were replaced by notes which had been prepared in advance. The notes were the same as or slightly modified versions of those used by Arrowood and Amoroso (1965), courtesy of Dr. Arrowood. The notes were intended to paraphrase the positions expressed in the numbered choices rather than to persuade the subject that A was correct. Two sets of messages were delivered, two from each alleged participant. A second vote was taken as to the appropriate treat- ment for Johnny and false summaries of the vote were again given each subject. 30 He was now told that participants B and D agreed with him while participant A still maintained that position 6 would be best (and therefore still demonstrated a lack of insight and understanding.) Subjects were then asked to give their current impressions of the others and to evaluate the contribution of each to the discussion, using forms like those they had filled out earlier. This supplied the post-deviance esteem measures and the measure of annoyance. When this was done, subjects were told to ignore the sealed envelope whiCh was marked PHASE III (a device utilized to throw off subjects who came to the laboratory expecting some sort of trickery by allowing the possibility that the deception might take place later) and that the experiment was over. Subjects were then debriefed, the experiment was explained. Each was given $1.25 and sworn to secrecy. The Esteem Measure Before and after the deviance subjects filled out a questionnaire on their Opinions of the other participants. They were asked two direct questions intended to tap an affective dimension of esteem and an instrumental dimension of esteem. To index the affective dimension of esteem subjects were asked to indicate by means of a check mark. "On the basis of what you know of the others, how friendly do you feel toward the other participants?" Quite Friendly Friendly Neither Friendly nor Unfriendly Unfriendly Quite Unfriendly IH'lelgl“ 31 Scores on this item were as indicated above. To index the in- strumental dimension of esteem subjects were asked to rank the others on the following item: ”If you were asked to work on a similar project with two of the other participants, who would you most prefer to leave out? Who next most? Next? Place a "1" next to the letter of the first person you would like to see left out, "2" next to your second choice, "3” next to the one you would like least to leave out.” Loss of esteem was indicated by a lower rating on the first question or a higher number on the second question. The Annoyance Measure It was anticipated that esteemtould be lost by the deviant because his behavior annoyed the subject. I hypothesized that the behavior of the deviant in the high expectation condition would produce greater annoyance with him than the behavior or the deviant in the low expectation condition would. This was tested by asking subjects to rate the other earticipants on ten bi—polar adjective scales. Only one of these scales was utilized. The others were inserted as filler items which were not analyzed. These also made plausible a question about annoyance without 1 making obvious that the experimenter knew that something annoying would happen. The critical item read as follows: Annoying 7 : 6 : 5 : M : 3 : 2 : l Unannoying. Subjects placed Che k marks in the space they felt most riv‘l ‘ cated above. unfin used in tne pre-test it was not intended to evoke more than a neutral response. (D J «o t—test rating was su>tracted from the base—line pre—test rating '1. as a measure of how annoying the deviance was. 32 The Expectation Measure The manipulation of insight scores was intended to produce a difference in the amount of justification subjects had for expecting conformity of the graduate student. Conformity was defined as agreement with the judgement of the subject. I assumed that subjects use their own judgement as the standard for what is insightful and correct. Subjects were asked to predict the way the others would judge the case history and the amount of confidence they had in their pre- dictions. If they expected conformity and insight of A, they would therefore predict that he would agree with them and indicate confidence in this prediction. The number of subjects predicting agreement and the mean amount of confidence expressed were used to index high and low expectations. The specific items read: "How do you estimate each of the other participants will answer?" "How certain are you of your estimate?” Certain 7 : 6 : 5 : u : 3 : 2 : l Uncertain. The check marks on the latter item were scored as indicated. These expectation questions were asked once before the subject knew A was deviant and once before he found out that A was still deviant. Alternative Reactions to Deviant The experiment was designed to produce two consequences for the deviant. I assumed that the deviant would lose some of the esteem initially granted him. This was hypothesized for both the high expectation and low expectation treatments. 33 I assumed that the graduate for whom higher expectations had been created would lose more esteem than the graduate for whom lesser expectations had been created. The experiment was intended to produce loss of esteem and re- jection of the deviant as a consequence of his violation of the norm and the group's eXpectations for his behavior. Assuming the deviance to be dissonance producing, there are other reactions theoretically possible which would make rejection of the deviant unnecessary, while reducing the dissonance. The experiment was designed to either eliminate alternative reactions or where that was not possible to measure the extent to which they were occuring so they could be taken into account. Subjects might have changed their views to agree with the graduate. Emerson (1953) and Israel (1956) note the occurence of such reactions. This would eliminate the deviance. I attempted to minimize the occurence of this response by informing the subjects that the other two participants agreed with him, giving him social support for his judgement. Another possible reaction might have been misperception of the deviant's position. Examination of his statements as presented in the notes might have led the subject to imagine the deviant's position as only a step or two from his own. Humbered positions were there— fore used so that thcre could be no misunderstanding of the deviant's choice. Subjects were asked to predict his vote after they had seen his notes and before they were informed that he had not changed his mind as an index of such miSperception. 3n Denial of the deviance was another possibility. Subjects might have suSpected that the deviant was fooling or not taking the dis— cussion seriously or was a plant by the experimenter. Notes to the deviant were examined to see if subjects had utilized this means of avoiding dissonance. The deviance might have been ignored, but the instructions to the subject requested discussion and that implied attending to the deviant. Subjects might have neither changed their views on the issue or the deviant, but held their judgements less confidently. Subjects were asked to indicate how certain they were of their judgements before they were informed of A's judgement. This was compared to the certainty they indicated they felt the second time they made a judgement of the case history. A difference between these two scores wculd have been an indication of a tendency to lose confidence. CHAPTER 3 Analysis The eXperiment exposed subjects to one of two situations. Subjects in the high expectation treatment (n=21) were led to believe a high status person deviated from a norm on which they had very good reason to expect his conformity. In the low expectation condition (n=19) subjects were led to believe that a high status person had deviated from a norm on which they had less reason to expect his conformity. The experimental data consisted of 1) two pre~measures of esteem, 2) a measure of predicted choice of treatment, 3) a measure of annoyance, a) two post-measures of esteem. Initial Esteem Measures The central hypotheses of the study related to the relative loss of esteem suffered by deviants for whom the group had had high or low expectations of conformity, but who were initially held in equally high esteem. The esteem measures were intended to serve as a means by which subjects could indicate their approval or disapproval of the behavior and characteristics of the other participants. Two items were utilized to index esteem. The first was a five point rating scale on which subjects could indicate for each other participant how friendly they felt toward him, a score of five indicating "quite friendly", a score of one indicating "quite unfriendly." The second esteem measure asked subjects to rank the other parti- cipants in terms of how anxious they would be to retain each if they were to work at a later time with only two of the three participants. 36 A rank of 1 indicating that the subjects would like least to retain that person, a rank of 3 indicating that the subject would like most to retain the person he had so ranked. I assumed that graduate students have high status in the eyes of undergraduates. I further assumed that this status could be trans- lated into esteem. That is, subjects knowing only that participant A was a graduate student ought to be prepared to grant him high esteem until and unless he demonstrated that he was not entitled to it. The pre-test hypothesis considered were: Hypothesis 1. The mean friendliness score assigned AH’ (participant A in the high eXpectation treatment), §.A will be higher H than the mean friendliness score assigned BH and DH (participants B and D in that treatment), E'BH and Y'DH respectively. Hypothesis 2. The mean friendliness score assigned A in the low eXpectation treatment (AL) will be higher than the mean friendliness score assigned BL and DL' (i Afi>>§ BL; X Afijxf DL) Hypothesis 3. The mean friendliness score assigned AH will equal the mean friendliness score assigned AL. §.AH = i AL' Hypothesis U. AF will be more frequently selected to be retained than 1 BH or DH’ retention being ranked 3 for third choice to leave the group. Hypothesis 5. AL will be selected more frequently to be retained than BL or DL‘ Hypothesis 6. AL will be selected to be retained as frequently as AH in their respective groups. 37 The bulk of the analysis below compared mean scores and per- centages. Although an attempt was made to use standard statistical tests for these data the small sample sizes and the uncertain distri- butions and properties of the scores suggested that none of these tests were appropriate.* This being the case and since the results of these tests did not contradict the analyses which follows, it was decided that a visual analysis might be more fruitful. The mean initial friendliness scores for the 21 subjects in the high expectation treatment and the 19 subjects in the low eXpectation treatment were as follows: A 3.79; B 3.37; D 3.u7 L3 L3 L: A”, 3.86; B 3.57; D 3.67 H’ H’ Hypothesis 1 suggests that H AH>>§’BH;§-AH:>§-DH'Z This appears to be the case and the hypothesis appears confirmed. Hypothesis 2 suggests that Y Afi>>§ Bi; H Afi>>§'DL. This appears to be the case and the hypothesis appears confirmed. Hypothesis 3 suggests that E'AH = R AL. The difference between these two means is only .06 and the hypothesis appears confirmed. The first three hypotheses suggest that the graduate student A in each treatment will initially be granted higher esteem as measured in mean friendliness scores, than the sonhomores, B and D. This seems to be the case although it should be noted that in an absolute sense none of the friendliness scores seems very high. J. C! For discussions of circumstances in which statistical tests in general or Snecific statistical tests may be inapprooriate, see the methodological appendix to Lipset, Trow and Coleman (l96?) and Siegel (1956). (0 CO Hypothesis U, 5 and 6 deal with the subject's desire to retain or eject other participants. The frequency with which subjects selected A, H and D in eacn treatment to be the first, second or third person left out of the group are indicated in Table I. Frequency of Choice for First, Second and Third Derson to He Left Out of Future Meetings. First Second Third First cecond Third AL 2 6 ll AU U H 1? 3L 12 5 2 B“ 11 9 1 JL 5 8 6 n5 s 3 7 Hypothesis 4 suggests that Au will be more frequently ranked last left out that R ——..—-.- P , or DU. This seems to be the case. The hypothesis .. 1 1:: appears to be con_lrned. Hypothesis 5 susges s that AL will be more frequently ranked last left out than B or P L L' This seems to be the case and hypothesis 5 appears to be confirmed. Hypothesis 6 suggests that AH and AL will be equally frequently selected to be last left out. As indicated in Table I, 13 of the high expectation grOUp and ll of the low expectation subjects voted to leave A out last. In percentages these represent 58% of the low expectation group, and 62% of the high expectation group. The 4% difference is not considered significant and the hypothesis appears to be confirmed. Both groups are equally reluctant to lose A. To summarize, subjects in both treatments initially grant the graduate student equal, high esteem on both esteem measures, as intended. Expectation Measure The experiment was designed to make both groups expect conformity from subject A to the judgements of the group on a case history. The low expectation treatment was intended to give the low expectation group reason to feel after the discussion that they had had little or less reason to expect conformity from A. I anticipated that 935233. the discussion took place both groups would predict conformity of A. "Conformity" was defined as a prediction by the subject that a participant would select the same position as one's own. A prediction of any other position than one's own was defined as "non-conformity." Subjects were asked to predict the choice of treatment for Johnny of each participant and to indicate how confident they were of each prediction. Hypothesis 7: AH will be expected to agree with one's own position more frequently than BH or D . H Hypothesis 8: AL will be expected to agree with one's own position more frequently than BL or DL. Hypothesis 9: AH will be expected to agree with one's own position as frequently as A . L The data indicate that 15 of the 21 high eXpectation subjects (71.u%) predicted that AH would select the same position as they them- selves had picked. Five subjects (23.8%) predicted that B would agree H with them. Eleven subjects (52.u%) predicted DH would agree with them. The mean confidence scores were respectively 5.13, H.80 and u.8l. These figures indicate both a more frequent belief that AH would agree and greater confidence in that prediction. 40 Agreement was eXpected of A by 13 of the 19 low expectation subjects L (68.4%), of B by 7 subjects (36.8%), of DL by 10 subjects (52.6%). L Mean confidence scores were respectively, 5.15, H.71 and 5.00. Hypothesis 7 suggests that AH will be more freouently expected to agree with the subject than EH or DH' This appears to be confirmed. Hypothesis 8 suggests that AL be more frequently expected to agree than BL or DL. This is the case and hypothesis 8 appears to be confirmed. Hypothesis 9 suggests that AH and AL will be equally frequently be expected to agree. Fifteen of 21 (71.4%) subjects expected AH to agree. Thirteen of nineteen subjects (68.u%) expected A to agree. L The hypothesis appears to be confirmed. The three percent difference is too slight to be considered important, i.e. due to anything more than sampling variability. Although "conformity" is defined above as an initial expectation that a participant will select exactly the same position as one's own, it should be noted that few subjects anticipated that any_participant would take a position more than two steps away from their own, and only twice did anyone predict that A would select a position as extreme as position "5”. Final Esteem Measures The theory suggests that deviation by A from the group's assess- ment of the case history will produce a reaction to A which results in his losing some of his esteem, AH losing more esteem than AL. Hypothesis 10. The mean score of AH on the friendliness measure will be lower on the post—test than on the pre-test. 41 Hypothesis 11. The mean friendliness score of AL on the post—test will be lower than on the pre—test. Hypothesis 12. The difference between the pre-test and post— test mean friendliness score will be greater for AH than for AL. Hypothesis 13. AH will be selected first to leave the group or D . more frequently than BH H Hypothesis 14. AL will be selected to be first left out of the‘ group more frequently than BL or DL. Hypothesis 15. AH will be selected to be first left out of the group more frequently than AL. Table II Pre—test mean, post-test mean friendliness scores Pre-Test Epst-Test Difference Post-Pre AH 3.86 3.10 —.76 BH 3.57 4.05 +.48 DH 3.67 4.10 +.43 AL 3.79 2.84 -.95 BL 3.37 4.00 +.63 DL 3.47 4.05 +.58 Table II indicated that AH and AL have both lost esteem from the pre-test to the post~test, while BH’ B D D have all gained L’ H’ L esteem. Hypothesis 10 and 11 are both apparently confirmed. Hypothesis 12 suggested that AH would suffer a greater loss of esteem than AL. This hypothesis is not confirmed. The reverse seems to be the case. 42 Hypotheses 13 and 14 suggested that the subjects would select A to be the first person left out more frequently than they would B or D. Table III shows the ranks assigned A, B, and D after the deviation. Table III Frequency of Choice for First, Second and Third Person to Be Left Out of Future Meetings. Férst Second Third _fi_ First Secpnd Third AL 10 4 5 AH 10 8 3 2 BL + 10 5 EH 5 4 12 DL 5 9 5 DH 6 9 6 Low n=19 High n=2l Table III indicates that 10 of the 21 subjects in the High expectation condition wish to leave out AH first (48%). Hypothesis 13 appears to be confirmed. Ten of the 19 subjects in the low eXpecta— tion treatment wish to leave out AL first (53%). Hypothesis 14 is apparently confirmed. Hypothesis 15 suggests that AH will be elected first out more frequently than AL' This is not the case. The difference, though slight, is in the Opposite direction from that predicted; Before eXploring the reasons why hypotheses 9 and 12, the central hypotheses of the study were disconfirmed, the annoyance measure must be examined. Apnoyance It was assumed that A would lose esteem in each treatment because his dissent annoyed the subjects. Presumably the agreement on the part of B and D would be pleasing (unannoying). It was predicted 43 that AII would lose more esteem than AL because given his higher ”insight” score, his behavior would be more surprising and more dis- turbing (annoying). The initial and final annoyence scores are indicated in Table IV. The lower the score, the more annoying is that person seen to be. Table IV Pre—test, Post-test Mean Annoyance Scores. Pre-test Post—te§£_ Difference Pre—test Minus Post—test AH 4.62 3.29 -l.33 13H 4.19 5.10 +0.91 DH 4.86 4.86 0.0 AL 4.74 3.37 —1.37 BL 4.16 5.00 +0.84 DL 4.74 4.37 - .37 As can be seen from Table IV, the subjects initially rated A, B, and D as slightly to the positive side of 4, the neutral category in both treatments. At the initial administration of the scale nothing particularly annoying or unannoyinq had yet been done. The item was intended for use as a base—line against which to measure the conse- ouences of deviance by A. Hypothesis 16. The post—test score for AH will be lower than the post-test score for BH or DH’ indicating greater annoyance with AH' Hypothesis 1?. The post—test score for A will be lower than the L post—test score for BI or DL, indicating greater annoyance than AL. J nu Hypothesis 18. The difference between pro—test and post-test annoyance scores will be greater for AH than AL, indicating that the behavior of AH is more annoying. Table IV indicates, as predicted, greater annoyance with AH than DH or DH' Hypothesis 16 appears to be confirmed. Annoyance also seems greater with AL than BL or D Hypothesis L. 17 appears to be confirmed. The difference between Au and A is small enough to be attributed L to sampling variability. Hypothesis 18 is not confirmed. Looking only at the absolute magnitudes of the changes, it would appear that contrary to prediction, the behavior of A was slightly L more annoying than that of AF' Interpretation The hypotheses with which the study was begun suggested that AL and AH would start with equally high status. They would differ in the extent to which the group had a right to expect insight of them. I predicted that a dissent from a normative Opinion which also demon— strated a lack of insight would produce greater annoyance with AH than AL. As a consequence of the differential annoyance AH should suffer greater loss of esteem. The data indicated that AH was not penalized more than AL. One of two things happened instead. Either AH lost the same amount of esteem as did AL' 0r AL lost more esteem than AH’ a reversal of what was predicted. The former interpretation would appear to be more reasonable. 45 Evidence for the latter interpretation could be found in the absolute size of change scores on the annoyance and friendliness measures and the larger prOportion of low expectation subjects who chooose AL to be the first person left out of future meetings. The sample is too small for th; slight differences in these .C: " ° ”-3— n ' ,J‘ 4.. q . . I: e conl-dentlv interpreted as indicatinr a rave 331 of . 1 U“ measures to the theory and the hypotheses derived from it. ->ted it would mean either that the theory is incorrect—that low expectationswhich are unmet are more disappointing than unmet hifih expectations. Or else it may mean that the alleged "low” expectation subjects had higher expectations than the allefied ”high” expectation subjects—for which there is no evidence. What seems more reasonalle is that any slicht differences in T the reactions are due to sampling variability. he two treatments did not differ in the extent to which they created differential T. l expectations. ;iscussion with several subjects after the data had 5 been collected indicated that the information that A was a soc1010:ist and that he had attained a higher ”insight“ score than the subject was sufficient to lead subjects in the ”low” eXpectation treatment to feel they had strong justification for expecting agreement from AL. The fact that the low eXpectation treatment subjects were told that AL had an insight score of 6 (described as ”above average”) while the high expectation treatment subjects had been told AI had scored 9 I 1 (described as "excellent, very unusual") seems to have made no difference. A 4.. ,1 . ° T _...,.~ ”a. a .H. , I i ‘.,w ‘n-s .3. e a study filtd a lar er sadnle, wllCm either identl_- i. all, '._ IV. ,_ .a' .- . , | _. ..‘_ ,.._° ‘ _ 3,-” SLuutut in tie lOn elpectatior treat ent as a socielc__st scoria, no ‘., 4.4.. ‘ as ‘7, 1 _' - ...- 3.,“ r ,1 .4 -u - ',‘.,-.. :r, i better than the subject, or a stldy WHICH does not iaeh_lly A as a SOCiologist would an a better, more conclusive test of tn: t5~ Alternate Deactions to the Deviant The experiment was intended to produce less of esteem and re— jection of the deviant as a consequence of his violation of the norm and the Group's expectations for his behavior. Assuming the devia.ce to be dissonance producing, there are other reactions theoretically possible which would make rejection of the deviant unnecessary, while ‘ reducing the dissonance. The design 0 f the experiment was intended to either eliminate alternative reactions or where that was not possible to measure the extent to which they were occurinq so they could be taken into account. Subjects might have changed their views to agree with the graduate. Emerson (lQSM) and Israel (1956) note the occurence of such reactions. This would eliminate the deviance. Despite the attempt to minimize this response by informing the subject that the other two participants agreed with his approach, one subject in the low eXpectation condition did switch to position six and he was eliminated from the sample. Five subjects in the high eXpectation condition and three in the low expectation condition moved one step closer to the deviant's position. Since their final positions were still on the warmth end of the continuum, they were not eliminated from the sample. Another possible reaction might have been misperception of the deviant's position. Examination of his statements as presented in the notes might have led the subject to imagine the deviant's position as only a step or two from his own. 47 Numbered positions were used so that there could be no mis- understanding of the deviant's choice. Answers given a question asked before the alleged results of the second vote were passed to the subjects, indicated that they eXpected the deviant to take position six as he had earlier. Denial of the deviance was another possibility. Subjects might have suSpected that the deviant was fooling or not taking the discussion seriously, or was a plant by the experimenter. Actually the few who had entertained the thought that the eXperimenter might be feeding them false information reported that they had dismissed this possibility from their minds. Others who had suspected that the deviant was not taking the task seriously reported that the notes convinced them he was serious—but wrong. The deviance might have been ignored, but the instructions to the subjects requested discussion and that meant attending to the deviant. Furthermore the subjects received notes from the deviant which were too shocking to their lack of understanding of Johnny's situation to be left unanswered. Only one subject—-on the first round of notes—~attempted to avoid r 1 discussing the case at all. he was in the low eXpectation condition in which dissonance and a desire to avoid the issue should have been less than in the high eXpectation condition. Subjects might have neither chaneed their views on the issue or the deviant, but held their judgements less confidently. A question asking how confident the subject was of his Opinion, scaline from 7 (quite confident) to 1 (not at all confident) was used. It showed no sign of loss of confidence. CHAPTER IV Conclusions and Suggestions for Future Research ,J The followine conclusions can be drawn from this StHLT: 'x/‘ 1) both Groups of subjects initially evaluated A, the graduate student, more highly than the two SOphomores, B and D, with whom they were allegedly participating. 2) Both groups of subjects initially eXpected conformity of A and were quite certain they would get it. 3) Both groups of subjects eXpressed annoyance at A for his non-conformity and did so equally. .L 4) Both groups of subjects lowered the level of esteem in which they held A as result of his non-conformity. 5) The two groups of subjects lowered the esteem level of the graduate equally. The study was desifined to compare reactions to two deviants who were equally highly esteemed but who differed in the extent to which they had given the group reason to eXpect conformity of them. In the high expectation treatments the group was to feel they had very good reason to expect conformity. In the low expectation treatment the group was to feel they had less reason to eXpect conformity. It was hypothesized that the more reason the group had to expect conformity, the more annoyed they would be at the deviant for not giving them the behavior to which they were entitled. Subjects were led to expect conformity by means of a falsified insight test which indicated that the graduate student had scored a good deal better (in the low expectation condition) than they. The graduate student, ilentified as a sociology major, eisaqreed with the subject and the other two participants on the apprOpriate M8 as treatment for a delinquent boy, demonstrating an inability or an unwillingness to use his alleged insight. Subjects displayed annoyance at the deviant as anticipated, but there was no evidence that they were more annoyed at the "high eXpectation” deviant than at the ”low expectation” deviant, contrary to prediction. Nor was there evidence that the high expectation deviant lost more esteem than the low eXpectation deviant, contrary to prediction. The measures of expectation consisted of two questions which asked each subject what response to the case they expected from the other participants and how certain they were that they were correct. These indicated that a majority of each group eXpected conformity of the graduate student and were quite certain that they would obtain it. In the context of the other findings of the study, this would seem to indicate that the differential expectations intended were not produced. Apparently telling subjects that the graduate student was a sociologist and that he had obtained a higher score than they on the ”insight test” led subjects to have high eXpectations for him regardless of whether his insight score was alleged to be five points or only two points higher than theirs. If the required conditions had been obtained, that is, a difference in the amount of justification subjects felt they had for eXpecting conformity, these measures would still have shown a prediction of conformity. It would have been based not on information about insightfulness, but rather on the desirability of conformity and the high esteem in which the actor had been held. ' it. i I‘ll ...‘ 50 When the study is done ayain to test t‘e hvnotuescs sucnes ted 1 here, the results will be ma iee more conclusive by means of the following: 1) 3) u) 5) the major of the nraduete will not be Specified as ”sociologis ." to the subject. "\ ‘ h 's I ’ 0 1- v _- g 1 _ _‘ .3. 0 a control CO‘C itjon in whicn OJ? 0. tne sensoror? n.rti— I O a ‘ O O O ‘ C einants is mace the CeViant will 1e included and his loss I 5 es eem compared with that of the firaduate deviants. 1 ‘ O O V 1‘ . tn~ Sin le Size Vlll be larger than the forty suwjects subjects will be asked i'lmedi etely after the experimental ‘V O l - \ " I‘- r' ' A ' session is over LO recount the way t j ,‘ 1 I V ‘° - ,-., ~—- - 7n -\4_., .-. 4-7... '~ ‘ ,-’a-L . --.- ,.v,,1 ‘ , seives tae LlJCf‘fiJ.mCJ fetteen tie ins; it scoies aha tan tr/*"1ce of the fraduate student. prescrte and ackno .hOT the annoya.‘1ce m. “f ldi —.-v (‘4‘::.r 4— +1-‘R'fl ,r 71.1; L... lci’l. LO L.-.L\JIY.-"' “mnchN-F h4- r- ,- F'r—jV'w-tj‘sgpj 12/") -— ti’,(; 'x'n r“: 3 “T" c“ ”1.,- ‘tlpd t‘.‘x ‘ruy heap“; QLUHZ. "/uff.1.'_‘_l.w_,.. O;.\; C“ we, tiOWOoltleo ...1 .:~., .ipOiQ filedjement that a norm has been violated, u“ deviant qu group has hijh r expections of confornity will provoke more (710 CPO OsitiOP II). otherr propos itions which compose he ‘heory should be 1 and elaborated on in future researcn, particularly th m s o non-confer ity to its norms. f an actor, the more annoyed 51 Proposition III The higher the status of an actor, the more resistant is the group to believinq that he has non—conformed. PrOposition IV The more relevant to an actor is tt 9 deviant behavior, the more likely is the group to respond in an extreme manner. The less relevant to an actor is the deviant behavior, the less extreme will be the response of the group. PrOpositions Ia, Ila and III can be exa mined using the situation developed for the present study with minor variations. Pronosition IV will probably require the development of a different situation for test as well as a good deal more conceptual labor. She p cificially, Proposition Ia—-the hifher the status of the actor the hidher t}1e exnectation for his con %0 “ity, could be demo strated this way: Subjects are diven the personal inventory scores and the information about class leve ls. Eliminate the information about major and the fake insifht test. If subjects predicted the graduate's conformity solely on the basis of his class levels, this would suggest that Pro opos sition la is correct. PrOposition IIa could be eztamined simultaneously using this same ‘ modification and attributin: the deviant View to the firaduate or a mn1or or a sephomore. If more annoyance were :enerated by the firaéuate LJ. \ "“fi "' \-'-- :7 ‘ *. .‘L. - 4’1" fi.~1’\ 1" 'L ‘ In this same experiuaat, Pro 031t1on 1II-—the L1 her tee status of the deviant, the C*reater the resistance to acknowledging the deviance—- ) could be examined. A simple indicator of such resistance would be the number of subjects in each condition--graduate devian , junior deviant, SOphomore devim -t——who expressed increclulity during the exueriment, or cnanged their vi -.s to his or excused the behavior. (3 52 Proposition IV suggests that the more relevant is a deviant act to the actor the more extreme will be the response. It was suggested earlier that relevance involves a retrospective insistence that the group had a right to eXpect conformity from a given actor on a given norm. Not merely reason, but absolute right to expect certain behavior. The group cannot simply say ”looks like we pre- dicted incorrectly, next time we won't predict his conformity on this issue.” What is involved is a sense of outrage, a feeling that ”the world won't make sense until we straighten this out." Three circumstances were suggested which might produce this idea of relevance—roles the actor holds, facilities for conformity and a set of behaviors for which status has been given in return. A simple situation for examining this would utilize this third circumstance. For example, in a design in which 1) a task leader deviated from a task norm, 2) a task leader deviated from a social-emotional norm, 3) a social—leader deviated from a social norm, and U) a social leader deviated from a social—emotional norm, one might examine the frequency with which one cluster of reactions, or another minimizing vs. maximizing, occurs. This is not completely adequate but is suggestive of one direction future research on the proposition might take profitably. The concept of ”relevance” required further thinking before it will be of maximum value. Other issues for exploration sutjesteo and impl1ea by the theory are these: W at are the determinants of relevance? That i: group decide that it has a rifiht to particularly expect conformi from on person and not 4. LY -I_‘|. another? 1 tneorv suqee ‘ T l— (D Cots ti“ 3'“ sood [-4 ~ :33 to 1nvest a deal Of energy in roFu.{ deviance In its his’ -‘. '1 -.——‘. V. ‘v teat Fells mill tci to 0 O cations ““9 to acknowledge 1.. 1,1,. 1 .J. If. 1? 7“: c. Future + e . -.3L;uCGS of sued 1 _‘ T1 = I firoup may he reluctant to acknowledge the conformity of its lo status membe S. Re“ under which groups Q ~_ 0 : clg;l_; S 't“’“ 'Y-‘x 4- + 1' 'P . “3 aCcOF .0 CO d. 51 -. L) ~./-‘.‘-\ ,~- r-a P~"\ 1-~ - u..'_.:.;.;:.,-;‘.x.(_.1.'t ._I.- Yv«.-s.. .WJ- 7 a ,H.AY,3I-.1 “t »_tj or,»t to .e carlluu cu-. ('1’ V 1 u q 4‘. - .. '— ,~ \ Q' r‘ ’IV" >’ f“ ‘f‘ ‘—‘ ‘ \~ P V‘" s '1' 7‘ ff" bv 0‘ I, fl.-- —‘ . s .‘s lee taeor» 0. lg. t at t cc, Ly {: ta as when c nevi at oCt V .1 — Y’ "‘2! F'L'WFY‘ t: ".r 4‘1‘1’1 C‘ “ ’1‘ ‘3 “ 7.. T -1 1x ‘ ”‘31 (‘4—"~"L‘ n (“7* 11‘». v: «w- " V3 0“ j '30 ..n..'. L2 L1 v . _‘ soil 1.1-2, a) c‘.£1c-...-.=q O _ C. .-_u A; c. ..:‘.!_U-‘, ._ O\,.. {‘5 .Jvi 3 .4 ac .2 -~ .‘ .. 4"»‘xq nnr) ~C ”x nAw-r} '~" ’1 (‘3 \1 “an 3 Dw;r—r_§ v-:"‘V“1V‘ "L\ "I’T ( 3“ ‘kw t‘lm .‘J~ fi:~ ~ L-‘La CC.C>I"4 C‘J- CL .— U‘, \u-i O; L» - - x4 I /_L. (La—K, 1’ . .A— v-._. - \._L.J L L . ILL Qjel»«V\ C - “Vt; _ .— C/l.l\ .5. " fl 1. '1 ")‘p "“7 r". ' w 77 11": uw‘r‘wr)‘n“ "1:“ n w Yvn‘) t" r1 it} ”A?“ qj c+thfit~+tw~wfl C Q.» -"—~_. k: C-‘l ‘ .i'.i' 4 Q ~ L J Ll , I “a L C,- ‘a’ O _ (‘11. ---- n w’—-—’ ‘ .. y... - -\.‘ 1 O . 0 w 0 q ‘ n \ ~ -v + -- a ‘r' v firv,’ ‘7 “‘1 ‘ l' ;-~. ‘3 V‘ '- fix r‘ - ‘ \wqr\ 'N *‘AA’W Jlo ”a «nltartaa 11“,; hitnoun nar;ua( a, u- follo to a LU . F“ .r‘ :rnwfi ~ V) 1* f‘ '1"w ‘n .1 —‘ . a . , r V -- "H '.‘7 x __1s lead, 1‘. loit. _u1tncm ea» crrtjt (1) [1 £0 E "s ’3 (1) . 71:1,) leaf}. on - a ‘ ‘ - r r3 1‘ . n v escaICa presente; were concern: only ._ . «C , - A ‘ < i—1 . ., ,‘ ‘ .-v-‘.'\ '1” v, -- ~ s 4-‘ no sanction-loss 0 ea “in. Pu: qer researcs on at to exai 1“ ~“ (‘ -\ . . v A 1 sanctions as well. study discussed in t 4 a. do- ass.; to A nice will nece at reactions searily occur. T‘ ' or “stance insure such overt reactions should I \_/ e exelored. than individual decisions are the concern. Interaction in natural groups also makes possible the efense of high status members by other high status members (as sunfiested by uhyte (lQMS) as well as the defiance of the status smstem by those of the lowest ranks who point out the group flaws and misbehavior of those of high rank (Riley and (ohn, 1968). These clashes of members at the extremes over the misbehavior of high status members and their consequences for group solidarity and the social control process are areas worthy of further study. 10. ll. 13. 14. BIBLIOCDADHV Arrowood, A. J. and Amorose, D. M. Social comparison and ordinal position. J. pers. soc. Psyehol., 1965, 2, 101-1ou Ballachey, E. L. Study Guide for Individual in Society. New York: McGraw—Hill, 1963 Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F., and McPhee, w. N., Voting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 195a Berkowitz, L. Repeated frustrations and eXpectations in hostility arousal. J. abn. soc. Psychol., 1960, 60 422-429 Berkowitz, L. and Howard, R. C. Reactions to Opinion deviates as affected by affiliation need (n) and group member interdependence. Sociometry, 1959, 22, 81-91 Bierstedt, R. The Social Order. (2nd ed.), New York: McGraw- Hill, 1963 Blau, P. M. Patterns of deviation in work groups. Sociometry, 1960, 23, 2u5—261 Blau, P. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley, 196“ Bredemeier, H. C., Toby, Marcia, L., and Riley, Matilda. Reputation in Matilda w. Riley, J. W. Riley and J. Toby, Sociological Studies in Scale Analysis. New Brunswick, N. J.: Rutgers University Press, 1954 Breed, W. Mass communication and sociocultural integration. Social Forces, 1958, 37, 109-116 Burke, P. J. Authority relations and disruptive behavior in small discussion groups. Sociometry, 1966, 29, 237-250 Brock, T. C. Communicator—recipient similarity and decision change. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1965, l, 650—65u Carlsmith, J. M. and Aronson, E. Some hedonic consequences of the confirmation and disconfirmation of expectancies. J. abn. soc. Psychol., 1963, 66, 151—156 Cohen, A. R. Upward communication in eXperimentally created hierarchies. hum. Relat., 1958, ll, Ml-SB 55 15. Cohen, A. R. Attitude Chan7e and Social Influence. New Vork: Basic Books, 1964 16. Davitz, J. Social perception and sociometric choice of children. J. alnorm. soc. Psychol., 1955, 50, 173-176 17. Ellis, R. A. Three dimension of status: A study of academic prestige in Washburne, H. (Bd.) Decis1ons Values and Groups. Vol. 2 flew Vork: Nac“illan, 1962, 25":‘u, 3—9 67.3" 397—200 18. Emerson, R. Beviat A n and rejection: An exnarimental r3a~ lication. 9 0 QC 727., 1954, 9, 699-699 11! 19. Emerson, R. A. Porer-de pendence relations: Two experiments. Sociometry, 1961', 27, 282—29 20. Evans, J. Johnny Rooco. J. abnorn. soc. Psychol., 1999, us, 957— 393 21. Festinger, L. Co7ni ”iv dissonance. Scientific American, 1952, 207, 9, 3—8 Ix) M Fes tin7er, L. A Theory of C07nitive Dissonance. Evanston, Ill.: Row, Peterson., 1957 23. Festinger, L., Pack, K., Kelley, H. N., and J. Thibaut, Theory and 6oc1itr. “T -orn chraH—*_1l, l 92 1' "7 uv:-Lr‘ ' ‘6 1 —.‘—. 3'3 ”'9 7 .L. C‘ ("L—a A r, U ’0 J_1'.:__ Q'Hfi L L: 3 o ’ - -cLl. '3 3 _. o o a :1“ c ’0‘.1LO:‘ 9 LT. ‘_ o t 14 _ «C Lr)1 .v .. .3. r. -1- : 4— ‘ v .C L. 1: _ ' ‘ — - . ‘ y 11 ueies-r31. violaticu oi era 61c 91 male. J. 7 19:“. 7) ., r ; F " r: (N 7 s~-. -3fC1Wl., 13)), 1 7 U 70, T n a . T: 3 , —. .. - 1.- .. ,1 99. Le vin;er, 3. and iree love, J. Interpersonal attrrctior ~nu T3 . O 0" ’1‘ ".5 a7reerent. J. ;ers. soc. Pch: 01., 1966, u, 6.7-072 r- - r ‘7“ J 9: q y1_ - , 3J0 4.1.11: hep) So .|o 5 *rO'I, I. I) all}. C01 'Xllav‘l (I. A-‘,)“1 ' M ’jf‘fifir‘ ' . _0_‘_ v v up 6a21cn C19", . f.. 1962 51. KcGrath, J. B. Social P77710177" “.“wMQH -¢L’ new New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969 52. Tanis H. The interpretation of Opiiion statemants as a fu ction o6 recipient attitude and source prestige. J. aunorn. 59c. Psychol., 1961, 63, 82—86 53. Mani. H. The interpretation of Opinion statements as a e 7e ambijuity and recipient attitude. 1)norm. soc. Psychol., 1961, 63, 76—81 59. Harsh, C. P. and Coleman, A. L. Farmers practice adoption rates in relation to adOption rates of leaders. Rural Soc ciol. , 1959, 19, 190—183 55. Meiei, F. Group leadership and institutionalization, Hum. Relat., 1999, 2, 23—29 56. Newcomb, T. M. Personality and Social _Chan7c Attitucc :1 1 Formation in a Student Community. E~Tew York: Dryden, 1993 57. Hewcomb, T. H. An approach to the study of communicative acts. Psychol. Rev., 1953, 60, 393—HOH 58. Newcomb, T. M. The Acguaintance Process. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961 59. Osgood, C. E. Cognitive dynamics in conduct of human affairs. Publ. Qpin. Ouart., 1960, 24, 391-365 65. 66. 67. 69. 70. 71” 72. \ FA”... ,‘ f1 " "‘-v. - -- ‘-' m r -..._' '.-‘. .3..- |d:\_ ‘O'-.fi \ O (.1 a(-l ‘..—A-.”~ -L L; N). :y A. A, _‘.C..:) v (J K101- Iii-ll“ _’ _ ,‘ .3.“ V. -. .‘3 .1...’ 1 -4- _,' - 1 , , a "- -,' 1 *1 .. Qi—\i. :... L3 Epux .-L.C -4.‘Jal O- C, k._._, ,1 L A -I O V Y r.— —-—- O .> " O J 171::7 ,7") [go 7‘ — _-—/'\J\J o " . .-'_ ‘xJ } J J 1.-..-- ..‘ ’1 ‘7 m_r,-.-,..‘ _ N, r) ,_,- 7 n , ‘P n 7171,, "”1 .1..- . ':V:JQO(~.L 9 L- o .—.' o , .'. kllgli;_1».*1'«].l - 9 . o 3 (‘,'I...."- _ LILAC)- :. 'o I. i , H 1‘ fl 1.-.]: r‘ '2 __.... '11,, . " ,1. 1 7,- , C _‘ ', 7.- cc: .31; -1;: . Vl‘.x.-d2 T::i11:::1_t'7 o_ 11-11:;ozqs, l ;17 ’1‘, o _ — K 'q,‘_-J‘_ '01, ‘-___:" ._- ‘ r: _‘_“ u _' ,. ‘f 4 fl __0._ w D;}lLOR u. LLLpidhlluAS o. c unalit,, SJCldl attiLutec. ‘3 ~.. :-3- .vvr. w I f‘ -\ - :v- ‘O‘- ~‘. '. " 3.x; CCC)1~LLVJ rLthnin ,1pro 5:.199. in 5.1 1u:u_, P. c d (a CU 5' gave a testimony. (33 d) E il‘g‘" Y7 .1“ ,k-a .v‘ ‘Au-‘n ~L?V1H JOLugOU Wm ' a“ . -,,a K. ..°C, A”._ 1.q-- 1 .l ,m-.mr., _ 0 i raern Jodison elm his .ii: Pqur have chh married for five ye rs. LY f -. ‘ ‘r A 1' "-‘r 'v < q "- « ~ . v--\ r“ ‘sv ON A . : . ~ ‘ ae grew up Ultn three protners. .arv1n was alwajs athletica lv inclinec _‘ o .4- 4.4.. ‘ o _ A 1. [—1 w 0 1 1' earning a varSitJ letter in college foot all. 10 his brotzers, he ,1 to epitomiz manly confiuence and ruggedness. Harriage meant CL. s-eme O (T for him an extension of the masculine prerogatives-«having a wife to wait on him and his children to look up to him. Peegy was an only child and felt strongly about having children. After four years of childless marriage, Pejfiy went to see a doctor. She was told there was nothine physically wronfi with her. When she reported this, Harvin reacted with anger. Ie felt that this was a j: reflection on his masculinity. A few months later Peggy sufieested they ”The next thing I adopt a child. Marvin became very angry and said, know you'll be telling he neighbors I can't father my own child.” But Marvin knew that this adoption matter was important to his wife. If they did not have children she would be unhappy and this dis- turbed him deeoly. However, he felt that if they went ahead with th adOption, he would be accepting the idea that he could not father his own child. Marvin Johnson actually did which of the following: A. He refused to discuss adoption any further. B. He decided to go ahead with adoption proceedings. 70 Walter Krueer, Jr. Walter Jr.'s father was an athletically inclined man who in high school had excelled in football. Walter, Jr. modeled himself after his father. He wanted above all else to earn his father's respect, and he too went out for football. He remembered with great pleasure his father once saying to him, ”You're just like me, on that football field you don't know what fear is. You're a real Kruger.” Shortly after the outbreak of the Korean War, Walter Jr. was drafted. Six months after his arrival in Korea, he sent his father a letter saying he had been in the hospital and was being sent home. However, he did not admit he had actually been in a mental hospital. Under the stress of combat, Walter Jr. had panicked and became tem— porarily deranged. He was being discharged for psychiatric reasons.‘ His father wrote that he would meet him in Chicago. During the flight from Chicago, Walter's father said, "I'm planning to throw a party for you, sort of a hero's welcom.” Walter Jr. became extremely disturbed: if he did not tell his father about his behavior in combat he would have to go through with the ”hero's welcowe". And this aroused in him feelings of guilt and shame. But if he told his father what had happened, he knew his father would lose all reSpect for him. Walter Kruger, Jr. actually did which of the following: A. He said nothing and allowed his father to give him a ”hero's welcome.” B. He told his father about his behavior in combat. 7l ! W‘ ' I 1.. _ WA... Charles Peten v __ -~-“-* --.—. As a young man, Charles Defien had founded a hardwar company. When his sons Bill and Robert graduated from College, he took them in as assistant managers. By the time he was sixty—three, his s)ns ureed him to retire. Rut Hr. Regen was troubled by the thoudht of ”sitting around like an old man." He often said, "If I can't do my job well, I'll be willinf to p “ admit it.” v 0 0 I Dr. Defien sUperVised every aspect of he bus1ness from taking OH _ ~ _ ‘ .. ‘-I Q Y “‘0 r: inventory to CABCLqu tee books. On one occasion, as h; was checllnt 1. J: , ,. .. ,,-_;. V11 73 ,1 1 ' ,3 .' ~ .—.--., - bOOLKeQQQP, o. e leaslemeat. MfiOD .o'cers ronie: talin; nnv honey, ‘n . —' ~— 4 N “ .. .... ' - l' '-. .,.‘ 3. H L ', .4 . 1‘ .‘...'. hr. memes suitabily fired him anv sa;d, I JCILGVQ a .an s cull a: it 0 O , 9 his PiStahes.' O D g ‘ Closer inslectiad of t,_ Tee's. however. reveals, no erbdmrle“ ht. g I' J 7 w a o 0 . V . 'I w Cetcnz uh:i fei*(uttV\: to :W r ?f1 sanrnial cnrtsteuxfrji‘ LXiCCLP”CS ' “IO? :‘6 ""s rcrsor“llv b‘iflit". ‘ .I ‘ ‘ ; I O 0 because 'r. “a an Wiscav"ird th, “irt;': “T“*f1fa w“ ”“q C73C7 ..' ’ 7' r‘: 1 ‘ ' -. .itd a c11f.cult cecwczo . ‘3 _ O O H .- I . hr. Dejen actually did Wth' of the followinq. v _‘ "‘ 'l W ' — ‘ ' 4— 1 ‘ ' ° 4- l» l ' . U A. He admittea his mister) to ”is SJ“\. h? ’ I 'n ' - , y ,w 1, .. _ .1 ‘ 1‘: .,,\ ‘ :. . P5 (3C11C_ .';.]-‘_\‘,’]_ ‘t ‘9: -l nvl \ Fur} \ LMS n. _F“S. \J a4. “v.4“ u.) . 4-3. ‘7‘ f: r; O w : r «kl; -1, L's—5L ll ll 0 -L. 1 .1. Q l- n' 1"\ that "Oll‘." Tl . .l ,. M C . +1. ~ 0 a a” Q). n l a a n; in a. w n O 1 l C C o. l O 7. .s ad is c” ....k.. m... 1 1 b in v. .i a 3 i .. v 1i wt Cu O l n 4 Pg 11* w I. . .a .1 n C _.. .. h ._ :1” S C 3 .m u 3 W. "J. .mu . o, .1 r l a S w 1. R O V. 1 an. e . . O .|_ "/J A he. 0 1L Ru w. 1R 0. P b. .0. C C 3 u i a. .. 3 m... a... -.C JC n .qu A... C, .T: 1L. V. .4 ,c .l a. 3.». nu cu 1L .. J .7. u .l a .. 0 1i ii M. ii it a c m“ .c a X .1. .T. .0. 9 3 “2.... .T. a e o t ”H K t a ‘ I ! JOUl- «.riv 'C . I fly}. 3" ~ ’_ f —— L_j_vxs O I S NO "sure fin v.77. O followi»= -_# a) ti! v 0“ ‘ tlme ne 1 .e"! 3 ula. L P p I f be neei ctually d: .—. C. l l '1 ‘4. I fl \A‘- 1 "l A.’ continued to see I‘ 1rs . - ,- J.:) a! l .n a, [ TT L. 17 7.7.1". Dill h Delis Dave Morris, his wife Jean, and their two children live in an Eastern city. Dave's father had often stressed the importance of a "closely—knit" femily life——of doing thincs tOfiether with one's wife and children. Dave always took these things for granted. In Dave's first position, with National Dynamics, he soon learned that he was more capable than many of his co—workers. He enjoyed doing a good job and the possibilities for advancement seemed good. His promotion to salesmanager came early. At the same time Dave began to think about the cost to his family of his rapid rise. He wondered if he would ever reach that point where he would be able to carry out all his resolutions to spend time with Jean and the children. After four years, as a salesmanager, Dave was asked to become administrative assistant to one of the vice presidents. When Dave discussed this with Jean, it precipitated a crisis. Jean said, "You never see your family now. I don't know how much longer I can stand being alone." Dave knew that the new job would allow him even less time for his family. Yet to decline the promotion would surely mean permanent relegation to his present job. Dave Morris actually did which of the following: A. He accepted the promotion. B. He declined the promotion. Sally Atkins Throughout her youth Sally Atkins dated very seldom, but she was very close to her father. Mr. Atkins believed in what he called "absolute integrity.” He often told Sally, ”No man can love a woman unless he respects her.” Sally agreed with her father in his strong convictions. It was due to her own religious beliefs that Sally went to a small y3u_ demoninational college. During her first three years of college, Sally dated infrequently. She felt alone and isolated. In her senior year she met Bob Palmer, a transfer student from State University, and was strongly attracted to him. After a few 3 "0!"! . dates, she started to talk about going steady, but Bob didn't seem ready to take this step. One night as they were parked in Bob's car he attempted to make advances to her. Sally became very frightened and asked Bob to take her home. She eXperienced both fear and guilt. Sally spent the next day trying to decide what to do. She liked Bob. At the same time, she felt that if she continued to see him she would be confronted with another crisis. When Bob called her that ha night, Sally had reached a decision. Sally Atkins actually did which of the following: I “I A. She told him she would see him again. ‘W Zuni-.- m B. She told him she did not wish to see him again. 75 June Kovacevich June Kovacevich grew up in an industrial city. Early she learned to hate the slums in which she lived. Her father and mother had died in an accident and June and two children were raised by Betty, their older sister. Betty had had to quite school in order to support June and the younger children. She resented it when June talked about going to college. Betty said, "Why should you get to go when I had to quit school to work?" During her senior year in high school, June was awarded a college scholarship and felt she was finally in a position to make a break with her miserable home life. She felt she would long ago have left home had it not been that Betty was not in very good health. When June told Betty about the scholarship, Betty said, "That's fine for you, but what if I get sick again? The kids might have to drOp out of school.” If June stayed it would be several years before the younger children would be through high school, and this was her one chance to get away. June Kovacevich actually did which of the following: A. She stayed home to help her brother and sister through school. B. She left her home and took the scholarship to college. 76 ’53 514:.- . wavmw 3. 5'30... —is_ “fit" Barbara Mitchel As a high school student Barbara Mitchel Spent a great deal of time practicing the piano, often three or four hours a day. She explained, "It helped me overcome the loneliness I felt." When she realized that she was musically talented, Barbara decided to attend a music conservatory. She said, "During the next four years, I worked extremely hard to express myself. Music transformed my whole existence.” After graduation she began a national concert tour. That summer she met Jim Caldwell, a young high school teacher. They saw each other quite frequently, and he gave her the attention and affection that she had never had. During the year while she enjoyed a very successful debut as a concert pianist they wrote to each other. When she finished her concert tour, Jim proposed. Barbara liked Jim very much and knew that he could provide those things which she had missed. But she also realized that while at first music had been a substitute for an empty childhood, it now gave meaning to her life. She knew, furthermore, that marriage would mean the end of her music career. Barbara Mitchel actually did which of the following: A. She married Jim and discontinued her music career. B. She did not marry Jim and continued her career as a pianist. l Kid“ '3 - “M, LE"; 9". LLI‘K Vi?” Luca: .. . _ k. 8—10 5-7 G S L P Scoring Information correct EXCELLENT, soon, AVERAGE, POOR, 78 Rare Unusual Usual Unusual he G. S. L. P. STANDARDIZED INSIGHT TEST {3 (5) Floyd Briggs actually did which of the following: ----- A. He testified. ----- B. He did not testify. Art Hartmann actually did which of the following: ————— A. He remained silent. _____ B, He gave testimony. Marvin Johnson actually did which of the following: ----- A. He refused to discuss adOption any further. ----- B. He decided to go ahead with adoption proceedings. Walter Kruger, Jr. actually did which of the following: ————— A. He said nothing and allowed his father to give him a "hero's welcome.” ----- B. He told his father about his behavior in combat. Mr. Degen actually did which of the following: ----- A. He admitted his mistake to his sons. ----- B. He concealed the truth from his sons. Bill Marshall actually did which of the following: ----- A. He stopped seeing Paula. ----- B. He continued to see Paula. 79 wan-n-2‘amstrfl R IP’ 80 Dave Morris actually did which of the following: ----- A. He accepted the promotion. ----- B. He declined the promotion. Sally Atkins actually did which of the following: ----- A. She told him she would see him again. ----- B. She told him she did not wish to see him again. June Kovacevich actually did which of the following: ----- A. She stayed home to help her brother and sister through school. ----- B. She left home and took the scholarship to college. Barbara Mitchel actually did which of the following: ----- A. She married Jim and discontinued her music career. ----- B. She did not marry Jim and continued her career as a pianist. APPENDIX Bl Personal Inventories Denver Diagnostic Personal Inventory Identifying letter B (Be sure you press hard enough to go through the carbons.) Sex _Male Year of school Soph. Major Sociology What is your favorite color? Red How tall are you? 5' 9” What is your favorite flower? Tulip Favorite Instrumental Group? Ramsey Lewis Have you seen any James Bond movies? Yes Do you drive? Yes If you own a car, what kind is it? Chevrolet Were you in the top half of your high school graduating class? Yes How many words per minute do you type? 35 Would you prefer to live in a private house or an apartment? House Have you ever considered joining the Peace Ccrps? Yes Favorite male singer? Jack Jones ___ Favorite female singer? Ella Fitzgerald Favorite baseball team? Detroit Are you the youngest child in your family? No How much older should a husband be than his wife? Two Years If you could be reincarnated as an animal, which animal would you choose to become? Tiger 82 APPENDIX Cl Pretest FRIENDLY IMMATURE DEVIOUS INTELLIGENT INTROVERTED SENSITIVE UN ANNOYING COLD WISE VALUABLE 85 UNFRIENDLY MATURE STRAIGHTFORWARD UNINTELLIGENT EXTROVERTED INSENSITIVE ANNOYIN G WARM FOOLISH WORTHLESS FRIENDLY : : : z : : UNFRIENDLY IHHATURE : : : : : : MATURE DEVIOUS : : z : : : STRAIGHTFORWARD INTELLIGENT : : : : : : UN NTELLIGENT INTROVERTED : : : : : : EXTROVERTED SENSITIVE : : : : : : INSENSITIVE NANNOYING : : : : : : ANNOYING COLD : : : : : : WARM WISE : : : : : : FOOLISH VALUABLE : : : : : : WORTHLESS 86 FRIENDLY II‘ATMATURE DEVIOUS INTELLIGENT INTRO VE RTE D SENSITIVE UN NNOYIPIG COLD WI SE VALUABLE 90 UNFRIENDLY M ATURE STRAIGHTFO RY-IARD [JI'~III~ITELLIGEN EXTROVERTED INSET-TSITIVE AmIOYING W ARM FOOLISH WORTHLESS (A) c- 0-; o. J” b w Q‘A\I ‘1‘.) 14¢ - , . o —- fi”“a ‘7'.“ ‘-~-- . - - F . vv“ - - A ‘0 h...-- V‘ P v‘y v.._- Q “He‘o -." 4--.“. \‘ v v . . . -‘. P-” \.r k—J I. On the basis of what you know about the others, how friendly do you feel toward the other participants? A B C D ——-———————.—————— Quite Friendly Friendly Neither Friendly nor Unfriendly Unfriendly Quite Unfriendly 2. In the second phase of this study you will be asked to discuss the case history of a delinquent boy. How valuable do you anticipate each person's comments will be? Place a ”1” next to the letter of the person you believe will have the best ideas, "2” next to the next best, and so on for ”3” and "A" (include yourself). A B C D If you were asked to work on a similar project with two of the other participants, who would you most prefer to leave out? Who next most? Next? Place a ”1” next to the letter of the first person you would like to see left out, ”2” next to your second choice, "3” next to the one you would like least to leave out. APPENDIX C2 Posttest ' 1 _ - ‘.*-- . WIS“ now.- I ‘.. U—b I ‘I . .u c .r E. C i _ _. T. r... .c ; . .. N is. . e 3 e e a.» C e .5 : _ : . O -3 wt 0 .3 8 3 M... C h. .2 t a t t . S I k a 1. L. .3 JOHNNY ROCCO CASE Johnny Rocco, the son of Italian immigrants, was born in a large Mid-western industrial city. There were nine other Rocco children when Johnny was born. One more child, David, came after Johnny. The neighborhood where the Roccos lived was one of the worst slums in the city. It was known for its high rate of crime and juvenile delinquency. It was a neighborhood of factories, junk yards, poolrooms, cheap liquor joints, and broken homes. By the time Johnny's father died, four of the older Rocco children had married and moved away. What was left of the Rocco family con- tinued in its dismal course, the children getting into one difficulty after another and Mrs. Rocco, sick and confused, trudging from school to police station to court, listening to complaints about them. Of the remaining children, only one boy, Georgie, the oldest, assumed any responsibility toward the others. When the rest of the children got so out of hand and Mrs. Rocco implored him to do something, he beat them brutally. One way Johnny's fumbling mother tried to pacify landlords was to keep her screaming, battling children out of the house and on the streets as much as possible. And one after another of the Rocco boys became known to the police. Five of Johnny's brothers, starting in child— hood, ran up police records covering charges of disturbing the peace, breaking and entering, larceny, perjury, assualt and battery, and mal— icious injury. 92 ha. m ,. --_. ‘l «av-‘8‘- . u I L a. .. 2 r. 93 "I was in the police station, too. Plenty!" Johnny says. ”Sat- urdays, they had kids' day. We'd be in this long corridor. There'd be all little kids sitting down. They'd bring us in an' those jerks, the cops, they'd be sitting there an' this cop here, he was always insulting us. 'You little bastard,' he'd tell me, and he'd belt me. I was just to him.” He was a trial to his teachers. They complained that he was "nervous, sullen, obstinate, cruel, disobedient, disruptive." "Teachers can stand him for only one day at a time," one said, "He talks to himself. He fights. When in Miss Clark's room, he attempted to kick her. He isn't going to be promoted. Hekknows this and refuses to study." With every new failure he was compelled to some new misbehavior. Once, at the beginning of a new semester, he told his teacher, ”I wasn't promoted. O.K. ! This year I'm going to make plenty of trouble." With every new punishment, Johnny's conviction grew that his teachers, like everybody else, war "against him." Johnny had been seeing his parole officer, Mr. O'Brien, for some time now. During these months of Mr. O'Brien's friendship with Johnny, his teachers found that he was making a tremendous effort to behave but that he was "like a kettle of boiling water with the lid about to blow off." Johnny managed to get through that term at school without too much trouble and was promoted, but school had not been out long before a house and stealing $50 worth of jewelry. Before he appeared in court, Mr. O'Brien visited him. Johnny, O'Brien reported, seemed ”unhappy, but stolid and apathetic, though once or twice, as we talked, he verged on tears." Fir. 0'3 , . JOKE?! 91+ Johnny didn't deny the theft, and as his confession poured out, Mr. O'Brien asked, "Even when I thought you were being a good boy, Johnny, were you stealing all the while?” Johnny, verging on tears, replied, ”Yes, sometimes. But lots of times I didn't steal because I thought of you.” ‘ v V Lv' "" ‘ 9 next :- \ r‘ a/ rent Clea: .: V' a: 95 On the next page you will find a form for listing the treatment, which in your opinion, is best for Johnny. Read the alternatives listed below and place the appropriate number in the space provided on the next page. 1. Love, kindness, and friendship are all that are necessary to make Johnny a better kid. If he can be placed in a more agreeable environ- ment-—a warm, friendly foster home, for example--his troubles will clear up. 2. Johnny should be put into surroundings where most emphasis will be placed on providing him with warmth and affection but where he will be punished if he really gets out of hand. 3. He should be sent into an environment where providing Johnny with warmth and affection will be emphasized slightly more than punishing him but where discipline and punishment will be frequent if his behavior warrants it. u. Johnny needs an equal measure of both love and discipline. Thus, he should be placed in an atmOSphere where he will be disciplined and punished if he does wrong but rewarded and given affection if he behaves himself, and where equal emphasis will be placed on both love and discipline. 5. Though they should not be too strong and frequent, punishment and discipline should be more emphasized than kindness and affection. Thus, Johnny should be placed in an atmOSphere where he will be seriously dis— ciplined but which will allow Opportunities for warmth and kindness to be shown him. e .C S. e A. .3 ~ I (*“fi't -- x.-- 96 6. He should be sent into surroundings where most emphasis will be placed on disciplining and punishing Johnny, but there should be the possibility for praise and kindness if he really behaves himself. 7. There's very little you can do with a kid like this but put him in a very severe disciplinary environment. Only by punishing him strongly can we change his behavior. APPENDIX D2 Judgement Questionnaires on Case -‘/ Eow do yr: (Leave y: Flow cert 97 Initial Questionnaire What kind of treatment would be best for Johnny? iy choice is # How certain are you of this choice? certain : : : : : : uncertain How do you estimate each of the other participants will answer? (Leave yourself out.) A # B # C # D # How certain are you of your estimate? A certain : : : : : : uncertain B certain : : : : : : uncertain C certain : : : : : : uncertain D certain : : : : : : uncertain APPENDIX D3 Summary Judgement Forms SUFH—‘IARY OF INITIAL JUDGEI'~IENTS A # B as! c # D I‘lr SUMMARY OF FINAL JUDGEMENTS A # B # c f; D # APPENDIX Du Notes to Subjects Notes from A to Subject* C: Johnny was always in the police station. Remember how he said "It was kids day on Saturdays" as if he didn't care. And he was there regularly. This can only mean that once the judge said "You're Free" he was going to go right out and steal and get into jams again. The kid is bad and the one way to correct this is to teach him the price of badness by strict punishment. A. C: No consistent discipline was ever applied to Johnny, therefore no one can say that it would not work. Mr. O'Brien probably meant well, but if he was stricter with Johnny, the kid would be a lot better off. A. *Regardless of the position the subject took he received these two notes from A. 100 Notes from B to Subject* C: In this case study, we saw that when the policeman just showered affection on Johnny, he still reverted back to his old ways. Perhaps if he was punished more, when he really got out of hand the situation would improve. B. C: You know that if a parent really loves a child he will insist that he shape-up and this means discipline. Johnny might just think they were dopes otherwise and take advantage of them. B. *Regardless of the position the subject took he received these two notes from B. 101 Notes from D at any position other than 1 to subject.* C: Let's face it, discipline is important, but all human beings need warmth and affection too. D. C: Johnny needs love obviously. This comes first. But every kid needs some guidance which means discipline when he gets way out of hand. D. *If the subject took any position other than position 2 he received these two notes from D. 102 Notes from D at position 1 to subject.* C: Johnny never had a chance in that neighborhood. His brother Georgie beat him. Did punishment make Johnny a good boy? Your opinion about punishment is wrong. Love and affection would change his behavior. D. C: A program consisting pply_of love and understanding has never been applied consistently to Johnny by all who have been in contact with him. Yet psychologists tell us this is a sure way to bring out the best in people. Let's try this conscientiously. My guess is that such a program will work because the kid is good at heart. D. *If subject took position 2 he received these two notes from D. 103