——

 

-

41-- was

0
'
0

I

.‘v' ‘ g
0

. ’V-

o
- -

,,-.: Li's-3:.

-' ‘ . I ('1' a"?

-.
l.‘ h
c"
‘ . '
' .0.
o 0")”
O .19. .
"‘ ‘:..
.
I
I
H
A
.
|
~ .
.
~
.
.
I u
o "
.
,
..
‘I
.. '
»
u.
a
I
‘ l
«
.
c
v
Iv u'
l
o I
.‘
~
.
‘,
Y
K
,' t
.. I
.» .
a ‘ l
-|
I
.
I

0
0‘2)?
3 ~
5

'3' ' "
:3
o ‘1,
o
3‘:;l‘
\lJ
“I,
l
a
0“
a
(I

       
  
  
    
   
   
     
      
 
 
 
 
  
 
   
  
      
     
  
 

I: ”'FQ‘EE’?‘ 3;:‘1’31 : -

c

 
 

 
 

/ .

w " R931». ~
\I.‘ f‘uz'kij‘w)" ‘1’}1-ll. “a; ‘s

‘fi‘zfiFfis-zx' "6-; thy-55‘»
‘\_ f1: ‘3‘“. e-"‘ "”P

‘ ‘r. ;
- ‘ h i
i I ' v‘“‘."‘ \'
p

‘S‘J‘fi 37.8 -

4.

.4 1' :-
».,,L‘ ..
')§u_‘;

'v,‘ I .. '
f‘flfi‘ ‘
{04"

I

I

,

.\

.39
\-

n‘ ' .v‘ ‘
.3 _ . , “Mn-£73“
. -“. .9-0. |.. .‘~ ' ."'
I“, ‘ . n \2- 1 "S
‘ :"M '1-‘r::.?:f.‘.;¢.‘;~
~. SST-“‘3” .‘.I,"..-‘I.L‘ .

r.

z:

,
"1.1193- '4-
2'22?

$
3

~
It" . .
o

a,
K

s' . :6',
‘53-’91
. J' ‘

1.2" ’
’h
,

‘ I
‘92"
2, 4

a“?
a.) '2";
n:
J
,
5,9
1
v:
5!
1-
3/

/-.' -.
‘flxtti"
2%,;
v 4"
.F’.

O n‘
ivr"; 41’
.4 n
'rt- 3* -

-v-l
_"
.‘l
1' .
_:1
7”"
N;

J; .2

'J
¢ v
"a
’1
'1’
'«$
"
‘I
O
x
I.
’5
,.
l
”I
1< ,
I
O 3
ll-
1 i
l O
J
.

(‘w-f-d
A’.
S?
}'

v '5 '
f“.

'f" 'l
f 25$.
‘ ”<6,
<'.‘:-r‘. .
‘37)
”a.
,Ji
-P~_'.\
.1)
L? “’1' .
' O
KE—
7*:
.2:- .
3?.
1:9.“
u v

  

  

' ’
f
“‘r
I";
f;
T
v? .
i
J-
E:

1

,4

   
 
  
    
 
 
  
  
  
 
 

p1,-
L9; -_ _ .
cl:- '_

‘3» IN I 3... “
x . . .Q r? 7 h
“ , 3-: 3‘21.
'. '4': ..

 
 
  
  
  
     
    
       
  

. , ~" ‘
. o W 'p I " v. - 3 o.
”if 3 5-.c-’-' , ~.. m?
1. $0.: ‘ Hi I ‘. L| . .(I! ..‘§ v."n:‘|‘ _ 3.) '
C‘i11‘4”;’?'§?~i.-"¢sz-‘%I§z‘.~.="; a . .3:
‘. _ ‘-‘\:. "'-.‘~\ (,‘w.-. \~(‘ ‘ *‘-‘A f . .
1. m9: °--\v.~.-‘;» N53»: h -- - - .w v
. ‘.. ‘.. ‘ - I“. “‘3‘ ;._ h
t? {91 ':!f-"-'-p\.’..~$.‘)t3;‘ .‘ 33-;3-{M'r3 .
---'— " v ‘-.r -: v2," 2..
S"\ 45‘£_._\\-';Ts~.‘...',‘.‘1(“ 335$. :. .Se‘ ‘g
A-:\}-.‘£R¢ 1‘N\:‘\.e,\l"ivl.3~;v.~; :00.“ .(\,‘.
..;e— '..'~7' -'="-"*1‘w\i-fi;<:n Xx 261-)?
'.""'!.’° ~ 5“} ”.243?" 84‘ (1'45“ B13":
‘ “Maw-v.2 :fi‘sfi‘
. . .' .; ' ..VA .N“ H'- “-
2" ‘S‘J ‘.~'. -'.\:\. f‘fi‘?’ 2-1 “. 5 :
3-21.} ‘ u1_‘.‘\ X 3., - 5-K" \' u‘,
um»: s-‘a' ’e"':"-‘J{ -. ‘ {W
C .L.‘¢:’. ." ~3.‘t..‘._..‘ ‘5‘ "fick'.
' "-"m- Nun-v“ .p‘ W a -'~.—';'~-
. a..‘ .g“. ’ .l'l‘“l . l“ '
‘3. - w ,u .w.
I " ~' 3
1K ' A ' .

    
 
 

 

. I“VL;A‘~§; ‘3
I"; .u" i" '
-~ m :5“:

. x . x.

r
.‘n/
a}:
(.0
OI
J:
, (in:
345*.
4". I
.1 3.
I I
I i:
,4”.
t h"
I I
)1 \.
- 3r

 
 

  
       
   

 
  
    
         
      

 
 
 

 
    
 

‘ .~ A 3. 1.3. s
{yin ~ ' .9 J..\°'
"4'7... x‘ .4' a ‘ i- 3.4" J“
i a ‘ ~ 5- v ‘ . ,. -
'\ h _.-.5.§:‘.‘.:"4_ ‘33 . 1:35: .
I ' . Q ' b
flirt-93$ ‘3 :'~ -" ~“ a.-
.. Vt,“ -‘,- - J' ," _.o- "‘1
,'n"_f 1’5 ." ._ "hi-3“ - ‘. "LJ’
. x my mum. ,. .
. ‘ " . ‘v'.’ I“ . . '9'". F.”
. . . A‘ .
.u ,' ‘n: 1.. ”M
, rs '. ' F"; 4'7.
_.‘ D. .' A M_"¢~"'
.l. ,- ‘. P. C... 1‘
'« . ‘Vfl' ‘0‘ I
.'.A- ' - ‘ ' 'I.";,t~"-
‘ .' ‘ ‘ . .‘ u' ’f- ‘_. .
n_4 " - .' . . a ‘1" ' 4" ,_ j... .r' ‘ '. -,.~'
I . ‘ _ .' ° 2“?“ “.1. K ‘-_I_u‘ - , ) ¥ ‘fl'
.— .- .-. I». ‘ I: e.” :3 , 7v..-.- d
é-,'3«..v’~ H» I": I» “he «1'- 2‘ a , ‘ r-QS * 1? ‘5
. 4" ‘ b‘Ci’gg 1“ :v‘] ‘ - .‘ v ' ‘v I \1 kn i-NLIF'I‘ .4220 '
,‘ ~ - - - - . .---. , v._ ~ .- -‘3 ‘. v,
A, ,3. J. r ”Cd-“ca;‘Q'fi~h\3:>9’\3 .13? ‘. 5.3..- {,
poi.” \.-."ng.':. J“ ,..,.'t‘,‘t‘i'.'. ;!.'fi‘ .A‘L.: 3" k— .‘j ”hp .E_‘
w: , \ any" .x‘tw in? “r.” mg 152%":
,- ‘ ,- ~h:¢~~'-L-~ a» w» z .\ .fimlim‘ ~- - w :
1 w. . . ~- . c. , . '- _
- 1- . _ - t. i. ‘ g.- V? .,
- . . - . , .
' ' ' <-. 'v .
_:, ‘ '1 _ ‘ . . , . '. .ah..~-.'.:*‘
' I ‘ . h 1
'- .'I" I ‘ .I‘NI". ". ' ‘39,“... -"
- 0.. "A .(.U‘ K I Q}§_' ’l: . ’1‘: '.=u.' u: AV [‘1 ‘-' I \ v
.‘ .-.' .‘nw' -"3 ‘~ -" .3, 5;? . "J. 31'}
." L, '=.-~'b ,f. 30.1." . " , "L. . ‘1‘ :3, ' . . _ \o' _ a .5 ,‘ '
, .. - n ~ 15! . v.. ...ws.n.._
\qi -. . 4.. "_'-n4;__f‘:1 l ‘34‘ 3. ‘7,” _ V1,,- ‘0"""'.‘.'I' 1’
I .'. ; f *2 r, ‘-s'1*‘&~‘ . 5‘ H ' " " '. .‘ v ' 4" *-
d‘ ' ., ', ‘ ‘_ . _ (IO. 'x‘s- .IT‘ , J‘ . .t“ 1"". l a; I .
-,.._\.-, - A]: z-m-z J ' 3’" "Hr - ‘ - - —. » “‘
o . ‘3 ‘ ' r., I‘ '.-3',0~ '5 I‘m . 0‘ 5 ,o .:I . _ ‘.| p. ‘ .. Ir.‘ . ,
I 1‘. r -- "I ‘Hf.‘§l “ H . -L o I- ‘ . . u'. .fl '-
. - , ‘v I‘ - - 1 , _ o
.. .. ‘ ‘8' r 1 H1; g." 3.§_ . .1. ‘3 £3. ‘ > .' J.-
:: n .. ‘ 1-; . "\m‘, 'r' ; mam-v 'w F‘
‘1 A" .’ ‘ \‘V- ". . - u‘ Kl}? 1' . . o; L . .\ ‘ . :.'.§'l'i; . " $L
. o, . ”A. 3 ' - .J ".' . .
.‘ '..-:"‘ .3 ,5. ": - I: \Q‘ ' JL . ' l... J"’:'. 4‘1“. all .1
. s 7 . .. , ’o- » " .x .. b ‘0 - ~ n
' o - o ‘.I"r‘ .' 5'- ' ""y| “L"..- l.‘ » .(W‘I‘.
I ‘ ‘ 0' U ' A" |- I f 1-)“ , o ' — t‘ '- ~ h- f, \ - {la ‘
. «1 .' .‘S V". .--:-," '.'.‘ "'1"""H.- ‘4 '\‘ \“Vt- " -|
‘ ." . ' ,. \ ' 3' v u 1' 'v‘: . FD H-'. M. lg", “H "
. ‘ . ‘. . ‘ a ; . r. ‘ .‘-I. “5-"? . I ’1'.'~ I I ’Y\
.' . ‘ an. . n..‘ -" ' ' _ 1.1,. "'1'. “v I .‘Jk “ .- I6“!
I. I . ‘2 k— -- . I -. .v ' .'.Il 'v‘ "r - I. ' . 1."
.,.1 . _: ‘5’. 1‘31“ .n- J. _. 3;: ‘5“ 1.1:. ‘ ‘ _V. '._(\k'. 5 .
.‘ 2. ‘..:' :1"‘ I._J. ‘\ I..‘§¢_‘J'-‘& lou‘ ' Jbrn
{flaw ._ - ~ V ' aim .“r . ':

 

 

 

~"- 7’ ‘1‘ 3335?st% . .
{f f"-’,§:J' -, . W/ifl‘ --'4« .._.__‘_¢ -. _’_
I" ‘2;le R»? ._ £67? MW, ,1 L

.r.. l "I " I I '5‘“:
l: This 1. to certify thal ale: 1} 3
E' them Mfled ' 3
H
l; INDIVIDUAI: WWOR IN RELETION TO THE 'f'
I; warn; NORHS OF A QECIFIC INTEREST GROUP
[II ' -. _.- .. -
{1' presented by ' fi -- _
,I
E WHALD R. MT
F’
E has been accepted towards fulfillment
.. of the requirements for
F
F M. A. degree in Sociology 8: Anthropology
I

Major professor
Baum—125L—
0-169 .

 

. ._ .
. *‘-'4\ -~—~.-vfir'r

 

'r

l"

‘ -

l‘

l
x

L.

l- "

t

r

u‘

i

l

;

K ./
'\

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to move this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or baton duo due.

-.___________1
E DUE _ DATE DUE

DATE DUE DAT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Affirmative Adm/Equal Opportunity lmtltutlon

 

INDIVIEUAL PATTERNS CF BLHAVIOR IN RELATION TO

THE SOCIAL NOhMS CF A SPECIFIC INTEREST GROUP

By
Donald R. Kogut

A THESIS
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Sociology and Anthropology
1952

:hE‘Srs"

Acknowledgment

 

The investigator extends his sincere appreciation
to Professor Kenneth Tiedke, of the Department of Sociology
and AnthrOpology, under whose supervision the project was
carried out. For assistance in methodology, the writer
expresses cordial thanks to Professor John Useem. For
constructive criticism and general assistance, the investi—
gator expresses his appreciation to Professors John Holland,
Duane L. Cibson, Charles P. Loomis, all of the Department
of Sociology and Anthropology, and Professor S. Howard

Bartley of the Department of Psychology.

n" r? n r")
:0 :'("§;:;'.‘:)‘,‘::"‘d

INDIVIDUAL PATTERNS CF BEHAVIOA IN ELLATICN TC

THE SOCIAL NORAS CF A SPECIFIC INTEAEST GRCUE
ABSTRACT

Social behavior in secondary groups is individual in
its enactment and collective in its effect upon the social
group or society which it builds. Although both processes
are not only simultaneous but coexistent, they have tended
to be separated in the social sciences, the individual aSpect
being studied by psychology and the collective by anthrOpology
and sociology. In this study the use of parts of all of these
disciplines has been made in an attempt to uncover something
of the social process as it functions through the social
group and its individuals.

The Michigan State College swimming team, because it
was a unified goal-oriented Specific interest group was
selected as the case for analysis. For six months, at 12-15
hours a week, participant observation and scheduled depth
interviewing were carried on, with the investigator's role
being clearly defined to the group.

The questions specifically asked from the general pro—
blem area outlined above are (1) What is the relationship
between group expectancies (i.e. norms) for the social be—
havior of the individual and that behavior as seen by the

individual and (2) What is the relationship between self

2

expectancies (i.e. norms) for the social behavior of the
individual self and that behavior as seen by the individual?
'and (5) Shat is the relationship between group eXpectancies
and self eXpectancies? The hypotheses offered are that there
is little conflict between these three variables of social
action. A fourth hypothesis was that there was adequate
communication of the content of the social norms to all mem-
bers.

The relationships between the variables were tested by
comparing within the context of an actual social situation
how 1. the individual perceived the social group expectancies
as compared to 2. hov he perceived his self eXpectancies as
conpared to 5. how he perceived his own social behavior.

The data shifted the problem since it was discovered
that 1. little or no agreement existed in the perception of
social norms across the group and 2. that there was a high
positive association between the individual's perception of
social norms (this new term being distinctly different than
the original concept ”group norm”), his self norms, and the
individual's own social behavior, and 5. that self norms for
friendliness and c00peration tended to be in close agreement
across the group and other norms pertaining to techniques of
social action tended to be in great "disagreement”.

Thus conclusions 1 and 5 from the data became the focal

points of a new problem and a new analysis.

The multi-disciplinary approach succeeded to the
xtent that the process-analysis of social behavior in
relation to the normative systems of the social group and
the social self has given empirical patterns which are
simple, complementary and descriptive of the coincidental

actions of a social group and the social actors.

Chapter Tags
I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. Theoretical Considerations and the Problem . . 9
III. Hypotheses, Assumptions and Lethodological Note 25
IV. The Research Design and Field Procedures . . . 50
V. Descriptive haterial on the Group and the
Parts of Social Action Being Studied . . . 45
VI. The Relationships Between the Variables:
(a) Individual Perception of the Social Norms,
(b) Self Norms, and (c) Self Ratings of
Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
VII. Relationships Between and the Data of the
Ratings of the Importance of the Social
Norms, Self Norms, and the Conformity of
Individual Behavior to the Norms as Seen
By the Individual . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
VIII. Analysis of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
X. Relationships of the Data to the Theory . . . 85
X. New Theoretical Problems Suggested by the Data 95

TABLE CF CG {TENTS

Literature Cited- 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 98

CHAETER I
INTRODUCTION

The title of this thesis suggests that some problem
of scientific interest exists in the relationship between
an individual's behavior and the norms1 or expectancies that
a social group may have in reference to the individual members.
The "problem" is that there is not a sufficient fund of know—
ledge on this subject for the phenomenon of the Specific in-
terest or non-primary group in a modern society. For some
time now, ethnologists have described instances of primitive
societies wherein individuals living in the publicity of an
extended primary group adhere closely to a well indoctrinated
legal-moral code. At least some reports2 have indicated
that the explicitly verbalized normative systems of the primi—
tive groups can find little individual contradiction, for
the threat of withdrawal of all reward and/or other punish-
ment almost completely prevents it. Furthermore, with no
means of considering and of the various aspects of reality

except by consensual validation with the village or with the

 

l. The use of the term here refers to: the definition
of situationally appropriate behavior for the social actor
by the group (behavior literally demanded rather than ideally
conceived).

2° e-S-a John Whiting, Becoming A Kwoma, Institute of
Human Relations, Yale University, 1941, (ethnographic section).

past ancestors or gods, the primitive indeed has little
choice in his "judgments."

In modern societies there is, however, the very differ—
ent phenomena of the specific interest group.1 This aggre-
gation is not a full time creator or controller of human action
and there may indeed be a difference in the extent of social
"normalcy" in the behavior of the members of this group as
compared to that of the primitive. It is to be noted that
the communication of the norms themselves is probably less
efficient for specific interest groups since few have full
time personnel who memorize and frequently publicly repeat
rights and duties of its members as do most primitive groups.
Also the privacy of behavior of individuals comprising the
Specific interest group is somewhat greater in that most of
the individual's life is usually Spent beyond the scrutiny of
the non-primary group. Whether or not the absence of the pub-
lic restraint has any effect on individual behavior in specific
interest groups is one of the questions this study sought to

answer.

 

l. The term as used here refers to: voluntary associa-
tion groups formed on a vocational or avocational basis. The
special interest groups are to be differentiated from primary
groups by the lessening of the primacy of social relations.
This is not a definition of the term but a description of the
way it is being used within this thesis. This kind of group
can be considered as one form of secondary groups.

The sociologist in devoting most of his efforts to a
description of modern society has offered a wealth of ma-
terial on the fact of the separate existences of the primary
and secondary groups. He has studied the social organization
of the primary group in modern society as has the ethnologist
the primitive society, and has demonstrated the similar exis-
tence of a normative system governing the behavior of the in—
dividual eSpecially during the socialization process within
the family. host sociologists have assumed that generali—
zations could be made from the data on the primary group to
the effect that each of the normative systems existed and
functioned similarly in both the primary and secondary group.
A significant contribution toward the validation of this pre-
mise has been the work of the sociological criminologists who
have shown the members of the "gang" to have rigid adherence
to their own social norms.1 Since the Specificity of prOper
behavior is clearly communicated in this type of group and
there is less idiosyncratic variation permitted or possible,
and since usually, these groups become the major, and possibly
only, group to which its members belong, it can be argued that
it is a primary group. In addition, by the description made

for a secondary group (footnote 1, page 1), this type of group

 

l. E. H. Sutherland, Principles of Criminology, J. B.
Lippincott, Philadelphia, 1954.
Thrasher, F. M. The Gang, 2nd rev. edition, Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill., 1956.

 

is not a secondary group because the members cannot easily,

if at all, sever relations with the group. The criminal
group, although a vocational and interest group, is also the
living group in the broadest sense and hence can be considered
to have much of the all inclusive directiveness of the family
(for children) or like the traditional orientation of society
for its personnel. Again we are left with the question of:
what is the relationship between the specific interest group's
normative system and the individual member's behavior?

The questions suggested by ethnological research and
sociological researchabove can be phrased together and so de-
signate the question of this study. It is to find out if
specific interest groups in a modern society have a normative
system with which the individual members concur in their per-
sonal or self norms1 and in their behavior. When schematized
this breaks down into the following questions:

1. Within a Specific interest group in a modern society:
are there social group norms and, if so, what re-
lationship do they have to the group?

a. With what force do they exist?
b. Vhat is their origin and what are their effects?

2. Are the social norms communicated to the individual
members?

 

l. A self norm is differentiated from the social norm
by asking the informant to refer to his personal rule of
conduct on a given matter as against hisjudgment of the
"average" opinion of the group on the same items of behavior.
This personal judgment of "proper" behavior can be conceived
of as the perceptions and attitudes about social behavior
that are being acquired from all experience, past and present,
outside of the group.

a. How much and how carefully?

b. Is the information equally available to
all?

9. Does the social behavior follow the directives
of the social norms?

a. To what extent?

b. What behavior is not covered by social
norms?

4. Do the self norms agree with the social norms
and the social behavior?

a. To what extent?

The absence of research on the above questions is a
reflection of the historical bents of the three disciplines
concerned; namely, anthrOpology, psychology and sociology.

The first has, as mentioned above, been concerned with the
recording of the various cultures of the rapidly disappearing
"primitive". Such data has shown that there is great primacy
of all social relations in the primitive social group and hence
no occurrences of a spatially removed specific interest group
(in the sense used here) have been recorded. Anthropologists
(as such) are just beginning to look at modern societies.

The methodological approach of the present study is to make

a Case analysis of a social unit rather than survey research
on an element of culture.

Clinical psychologists, although concerned with social
norms and their relationship to the individual, have failed to
make the kind of recording of data necessary to accomplish their

own ends. Working with a concept of personality they recorded

ON

the individual’s reaction to norms without actually record-
ing what the social norm(s) were. Furthermore, they did not
know the degree of awareness, on the part of the subject, of
the social norm or if the subject had some definite relation-
ship between his self norms and the given social norms. One
notable exception is the work done by muzefer Sherif on the
behavior of the individual in a laboratory setting of a social

grou: with Specifically described and communicated social norms.

l1"

This work, reported in his book, The Psychology of Social
Eggms, vill be dealt with in detail later under the discus-
sion of theory.

While sociologists have studied at some length the norma—
tive system operating in the primary family group and other
well integrated forms of the primary group, their research
has not extended to an analysis of the type being done here:
that of relating the normative system of a specific interest
group to the individuals norms and their behavior simultaneously.
The remarkably clear case of the family group has given what
amounts to a scientific principle about the function of the
normative system in the group and even lay observers have
roughly arrived at these conclusions, however, as the Space—
time proximity of vocation to the family has declined with
the evolution of modern societies, the relationship between
the normative system and the individual may be different.

The testing of the problem requires a group with a Specific

and rather easily observed set of characteristics. The first
characteristic required is that of a vocational or avocation-
al (including hobbies) kind of behavior for which the group

is a means to carrying out that given behavior. Secondly,

the behavior of the group cannot be the major activity of the
members of the group. Third, the association of the members
to the group must be voluntary. And fourth, the group must
spend sufficient time together to have a long enough period

of activity to necessitate a structuring of the collective be-
havior of its members.

The group actually selected for this study is the Michigan
State College Swimming Team coached by Charles McCaffree. They
fit the minimum criteria above in the following ways. (1) They
are a group devoted to a specific endeavor—-competitive swim-
ming; (2) the activity is not the major activity of its members
since scholastic, social and living situations absorb most of
thier time; (3) the members volunteer for membership and are
competitively selected for varsity positions, although these
remain secure after they are acquired, and (4) they are in
association with each other about 18 to 20 hours per week dur-
ing‘the regular competitive swimming season. To make a clear
picture of this group the following additional notations are
made at this time.

The position of the team in the college and state commun-
ity is that of a typical athletic team except that they demon-

strated superior ability in 1950 in winning third place in the

National College Athletic Association Finals in Swimming and
Diving and in 1951 (at the end of a very successful season
during which the study was made) taking second place in the
same meet. It goes without saying that to win in swimming
was the goal of the group but, in addition, winning the nation-
al team championship was and is the major goal. This team,
placed in the setting of a state college which is a member of
the Western Conference or ”Big Ten", and having a considerable
national reputation, has then a goal which not only is pre-set
for new members of the group but also one which, when attained,
offers considerable prestige as a reward. Within the actual
group this cultural goal is transmitted primarily through the
coach of the team. The function of the coach as a teacher,
trainer, and "salesman" of the goal, makes him an intermediary
between the larger society and the particular group. The fact
that the goal comes from "outside" the group may affect the
normative system but since membership in this group is voluntary
(and only to those who ”volunteer" hardest to become members),
the members must tacitly desire the goal of winning and/or the
prestige that goes with it. We have fourteen individuals in
agreement on at least one thing and thus the goal is their own
goal as well as one presented by their Culture.

This group is not completely described here since the data
presented later provide a more precise picture of both the

group and the problem introduced here.

CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND THE PROBLEM

The problem area defined by the questions in the intro-
duction extends through several disciplines and many interest
fields within them. But the three disciplines selected for
discussion here are those whose personnel have attempted a
consideration of the problem of theory and its construction.
Anthropology, psychology, and sociology fit the description
and their respective members have done some work on the pro—
blem.

To denote the sectors of theory which are pertinent to
the problem and which will be affected by the data, the follow—
ing breakdown is made:

First: a consideration of the problem can be made by
comparisons of the systems of social norms between the primi-
tive and modern society with the relationships (space, time
and function, at least) between the norms and the individual's
behavior being analyzed. The data on the primitive society,
while not "complete" in some absolutistic sense, are neverthe-
less, sufficient to make a rather complete conceptualization
of the relationships between the norms of the society and the
individual member. To make a similar analysis of a modern
society's Specific interest group and to make the suggested

comparison, the data of the questions addressed in the intro-

IO

duction are necessary.

Second: the problem has implications for a differential
analysis between the primary and specific interest group with-
in a modern society.

Third: the field description of the relationship between
social norms existing in a self-motivated social group and the
self norms of the persons in that group has not been made for
the secondary group in a modern society except by broad generali—
zations of relationships between a given social group and the
collective of its membership.

Fourth: at the same time an addition of data on the re-~
lationship between self norms and individual behavior might
have value when coupled with the third analytical possibility
above in the sense that either social or self norms may be
found to be the most significant or effective mechanism for
channelizing social behavior.

All of the above problems offer reasons for doing this
research and the resultant data contributes additional formu-
lations on the possible relationships involved. Each of the
problems has been considered by one or more of the three dis—
ciplines and the phrasings of it are worth reviewing here for
purposes of lending perspective to the questions of thissfudy.

The information the first sub-problem has asked for has
a significance in that it is knowledge that can give some
understanding of one of the more important facts of modern

society: This is, the function of the secondary grouP inan

ll

industrial and "contract" society. The cultural value of
social contract held by western whites may well be reflected
in the organization of the secondary group which functions in
the framework of a ”mass” production and distribution tech-
nology. If there exists in the Specific interest group a
different relationship between its groupness and its social
norms than in the primary group or the primitive society,
then many deductions can be made about the "mass” of national
aspects of modern culture.

He know from the extensive ethnological reports on primi-
tive societies that their social organization is held together
by a strong normative system whose effectiveness is apparently
maintained by its public nature. However, we do not know the
actual function of the normative system in the modern society's
specific interest group. If the role of the normative system
is different or relatively non-existent, a more precise under—
standing of the differences between primitive and modern
societies may be possible. The differences of the Sizes
of each type of society and their different relations between
human power and industrial techniques can well be analyzed in
terms of the respective functions of the normative systems.

In the primitive society, the anthropologist has been
with difficulty able to see the relationships between the

normative system of the larger group and that of "the primary

12

group within which the individual acquired his social self."1

In American culture the relationship of the primary to the
specific interest group is not so clear. The individual in
middle and late adolescence begins to become very mobile

with respect to hisspecific interest and even "new primary"
group associations. Thus his later and "chosen" group as-
sociations are often studied as if they have no relationship
to the earlier group. The American culture as a modern society
is very unlike primitive cultures in that its social struc-
ture is made of Specific interest groups which are removed

in time, Space and "political" control from the primary
group. This does not mean, of course, that the primary group
has no function in the social structure but rather the above
analysis notes that its effects on the structure must be
filtered through its individual members who go out to "join"
specific interest groups in the larger structure. These in~
dividuals are of the same variety as all the people we know
personally and as their families. With this wide variation
from person to person the forming of a Specific interest
group requires considerable adjustment by single individuals
in order to achieve a synthesis of desired social action as

seen by the collection of individuals. That this synthesis

 

l. Cooley, Charles Horton, Social Organization, Charles
Scribners Sons, New York, 1929, pp. ZB-jl.

13

occurs makes possible the existence of a group but the
synthesis (occurring mostly through verbal communication)
we know is never complete. While we can assume1 that in-
dividuals join or migrate to specific interest groups
which satisfy their most important needs, the intensity
of the needs varies from one individual to the next.

The whole pattern of social relationships at the
specific interest level in a modern society has yet to be
carefully formulated for want of the gathering of necessary
data such as the usual kinship patterns recorded in studies
of primitive societies. This latter kind of data outlines
the mutual obligations and rights of each person in a primi-
tive society and clarifies the relationships of these norms
to the individual's behavior as these occur in the context
of a primitive society that recognized individual action
within a status. It would appear that the primary group
in a modern society frequently exerts much the same kind
of control over the individual even after the necessary
period of close supervision during childhood. However,
the obligations and rights (norms of social behavior) govern-

ing individuals in Specific interest groups is an entirely

 

l. Assumed in Chapter I, MacIver, Robert, The Web 2:
Government, kacmillan Company, 1947, A chapter entitled "The
Mult—Group Society."

 

2. In the sense that the individual is accepted as act-
ing normally within a family and group position with specific
demands that his actions must fulfill. Idiosyncratic behavior
is accepted by permitting its expression in a religious sense
but even this must not contradict the social norms.

l4

self—constructed system (at least in those modern societies
characterized as "democratic") and it is possible that there
may be a difference in content or function of the norms. The
second sub—problem, the relationship between primary and
specific interest group norms and the third sub—problem,

the relationships between the self norms and the social norms
have been the subject of consideration of sociology. The
third and fourth sub—problems, the relationship.between self
norms and individual behavior, are within the interests of
psychology. More correctly all of these problems are within
a field known as social psychology. The following material
is divided only in that the first part can be considered
sociological social psychology and the second part psycho—
logical social psychology. Writers rather than disciplines
are referred to below.

Definitions of social status have been offered by several
writers, as ; a given configuration of norms or a normative
system to govern the behavior of an actor and deriving from
a social group.1 The configuration of norms for the actor

deriving from the actor has been variously called a self,2

5 4

super-ego, or self-reaction of rewarding behavior for the

 

Linton, Ralph, Study of Man, pp. 115-115.

 

1.
2. Mead, G. H., Hind, Self, and Sociehy, pp. 156-140.

5. Freud, Sigmund, Dictionary of Psycho—Analysis,
Phil. Library, N. Y., 1950, pp. 179.

4. Cameron Norman The Psycholog* of Behavior Disorders
9 3 3
pp. 97-102.

15

self. The research that has been done on social status
has been oriented toward finding out how it functions in
relation to the social structure: to find out what the
social source of the definition of the norm is, the justifi-
cation of it, and the reinforcement of it in terms of the
location of rewards and punishments. This kind of research
has given the proposition that social norms are determiners
of social behavior but it is to be noted that the extent
of this determination has never been tested. G. H. Mead
has assumed:
he (the individual) must also, in the same way that
he takes the attitudes of other individuals toward
himself and toward one another, take their attitudes
toward the various phases or aspects of the common
social activity or set of social undertakings in
which, as members of an organized society or social
group, they are all engaged.

That any individual does this completely is logically
impossible, for in the first place norms are often variously
or incompletely defined, have internal contradictions, are
excessive in their demands, or simply do not satisfy the
needs of the individual. Asocial and anti-social behavior
are glaring evidence of extreme non-acceptance of some social
norms but it is quite evident that even within the normal

range of social behavior there is considerable variation

from what is eXpected and accepted publicly. fiead has

 

1. Head, G. H., Mind, Self, and Society, University
of Chicago Press., 1954, pp. 154-155.

16

assumed that norms for behavior are derived from the con—
temporary social situation and thus has eliminated the
possibility of the individual having self norms which,
according to most clinical psychotherapists, although
socially derived, come into existence as a pertinent part
of the self at a much earlier age than when they are seen
functioning in the adult. In view of clinical evidence of
the effects of childhood experiences, H. S. Sullivan2 has
modified the concept of Mead's "generalized other" so as

to picture a "significant other" composed of selected mean-
ingful experiences from childhood which may be conscious or
unconscious for the individual and later on in time he ac-
quires a ”specific other" or "generalized other" which is_
composed of the norms of the society and more Specifically
the social group of which the individual is a member. The
configuration of norms of the "Significant other" has obvious—
1y been integrated into the self and for this reason I have
called them self norms. And the latter configuration of
norms known as the "specific other", although impinging
upon the self, has as its origin the social group. The
first becomes the rules of behavior by the self for the
self and the second, by the group for the self. Linesmith

and Strauss clearly described the self and its norms. To them

 

l. Sullivan, H. S., Conception of Modern Psychiatry,
1945. (This is a generalized discussion carried on at many
points in the text).

 

17

The concept of self, if it is to be uSeful and
valid, must be formulated as an organization of
activity. More specifically, it refers to (a) a
set of responses which (b) exercise a regulatory
function over other responses of the same organism.
This is equivalent to saying in another way what
we have already noted: that the behavior of the
child is first controlled and guided by the res—
ponses of others, but in time these responses be—
come internalized so that thI person himself controls
and guides his own behavior.

While G. H. Mead has emphasized the group norms and
their effect upon social behavior, another writer, B. Dai,2

has suggested that

it is around the conception of self that the many
other facets of a personality are organized, and

that what a person thinks of himself, consciously

or unconsciously, determines his behavior to an
extent not commonly realized. It (conception of
self) generally takes the form of some kind of
relation between the self and others. In this sense
the conception of self may also be thought of as a
role one intends, or is expected, to play in a social
Situation.

While the number of conceptions of the self or roles
an individual acquires necessarily increases with his social
contacts, there seems to be a natural hierarchy among them.
Those that are acquired early and in the primary group are
generally more important and basic than those that are ac-
quired later in secondary group contacts. Dr. Dai has revised

the thought on the "causes" of social behavior and added to

 

1. Lindesmith, A. R., and Strauss, A. L., Social Psycho—
.1ogy, New York, Dryden Press, 1949, pp. 199-201.

2. Dai, Bingham, Sociological Foundations of the Psychi-
atric Disorders of Childhood, p. 68, Child Research Clinic Sanehone,
Tennsylvania, May 1946.

5. Op. cit., p. 68.

18

the contributions of Mead, Reckless, Linton, Parsons,
Sullivan, and mullahy and his own observations to achieve

a new formulation. It points to what may be a more basic
determinant of social behavior, an aspect of that which

was referred to above as self-conception, namely self-norms.
Jhether it is or not is the question implicit in this study
although the closely associated questions noted above are

of equal importance since they bear directly on the same
problem.

The relationships which may exist between the three
variables of social norms, self norms, and social behavior,
complex because people are to some undetermined extent free
to seek their specific interest group associations. The re—
sult is that it is very difficult to separate the effects of
the contemporary social situation upon behavior for it may
have some connection to past situations of which the investi—
gator and the subject are both unaware. Ruth Benedict
suggests and illustrates this problem as follows.

Honesty in one experimental situation gave almost no

indication whether the child would cheat in another.

There turned out to be not honest-dishonest persons,

but honest-dishonest situations. In the same way in

the study of leaders there proved to be no uniform
traits that could be set down even in our own society.

The role developed the leader, and his qualities were

those that the situation emphasized. In thes

'situational' results it has become more and more

evident that social conduct even in a selected society

is 'not simply the expression of a fixed mechanism

that predetermines to a specific mode of conduct, but
rather a set of tendencies aroused in variable ways

19

by the specific problem that confronts us.1

The situation that confronts an individual and arouses
a "set of tendencies" can in our society be one of that
individual's choosing and hence whatever is unique in the
individual's wn norms may find a counterpart in the group
he belongs to. Separating the associations which each kind
of norm, social and self, has to the social behavior of the
individual in a particular social group situation is there-
fore difficult. The childhood experiences by which self norms

granted

are acquired are either lost to memory or are taken for g
as is the fact that most of us have lived the first sixteen

or more years of our life within the same primary group, the
family. Kardiner noted that this particular characteristic of
unconsciousness of the primary group as differentiated from
consciousness in the secondary (of the specific interest)
group when he said "the presence of those primary institu-
tions is never noted by the individual; they always seem as
self-evident as breathing."2 Social scientists doing research
in modern societies seem to have forgotten the "next of kin"

and the basic primary group that they form, which in our

culture the individual carries with him after adolescence

 

l. Benedict, Ruth, Patterns of Culture, p. 218. A
review and analysis of the material to be found below.

Hartshorne H. and May, H., Studies in Deceit, Book 1,
Macmillan, New fork, 1921, pp. 412:414.

 

 

2. Kardiner, Abram, The Individual and His Society,
Columbia University Press, New York, 1939, pp. 471.

 

even though he does not remain nearly so much in contact
with the family group as in primitive societies.

The above crossings of problems from different dis-
ciplines is necessary to do justice to what might be con-
sidered the complexity of the whole problem. Although the
boundaries of these disciplines are hazy, the given task
is but an observation of human behavior at the collective
(social norms), individual overt (actual social behavior)
and individual covert (self norms) levels in a given situa-
tion. This has been done once before.

This problem was worked on and written about by Muzafer

Sherif in his Psychology of Social Norms.1 The foremost

 

contribution of this laboratOry study was briefly that the
judgment (or opinion) of an individual moves quickly toward
agreement with a "norm" or standard set up in a group in
which there is communication of this norm to the given and

other individuals. This idea Sherif has exactingly demon-

 

strated in the laboratory and by assuming the underlined
words above in regard to their being the condition of com-
munication, he has made interesting analyses of social struc-
ture in American culture. However, the assumption that the
artificially created clear and complete communication of the

laboratory likewise exists in the field situation is not

 

1. Published in 1956 by Harper and Brothers, New York
and London.

21

considered justified by the writer. If communication
does not exist to the same degree in a specific interest
group as found in American culture, as it did in the labora—
tory, then the social norms of that group impinge less upon
the perceptual field of the individual. The present study
was a situation with a different structuring and containing
at least one more element than did Sherif's study-situation.
This was an attempt to record the relationship between social
norms and individual behavior as it occurs in an actual or
natural social setting. This is a different problem in
that social norms in the situation have been used as they V
occurred and their content has been described to see how
they fit into the social structure of the group.

The introduction of the term self norm is a renaming
of what Sherif called "individual judgment" as opposed to
social (group) judgment or norm. He described the self
norm as being at first at odds with the established norm
for the laboratory group and then moving toward close agree-
ment with it. This was not tested in the field. If the
perfect communication of the laboratory situation does not
exist in a "typical" secondary social group, then the self
norms may play a more significant role than Sherif thought
they did in his conclusions, since they would play the role
of guiding social behavior in the possible absence of the
social norms. The present study as a case analysis of a

small specific interest social group does not Speak for the

entire population of secondary groups but does outline the
processes of the normative system.

To reiterate a point made above, this area of research
is most adequately approached across three disciplines,
psychology for data and theory on individual behavior, and
anthropology and sociology for data and theory on collective
behavior. Since this is a problem that involves observa-
tion of the phenomenon in its "natural" or actual state, the
synthesis of the interdisciplinary (or non-disciplinary)
approach must also attend the field work and data analysis.
For this reason the data has been analyzed in two "directions,"
i.e., in terms of the single individual through all the data
on that individual and in terms of the group through all of
the data on a Specific item. This noting of the different
relations being analyzed keeps clear what apiven statistic

is describing.

CHAPTER III
HYPCTHESEU, AS UIPTI NS AND METHODOLOGICAL NOTE

The following hypotheses are those which were formu-
ated prior to any collection of data. The first two
hypotheses would logically have to be more or less correct
if the remainder were to be at all possible. For all of
the statements there is, however, the question of degree
of existence or of relationship. This must be continually
kept in mind to avoid "either or " propositions.

Hypothesis I. That a body of social norms exist
for a Specific interest group in a
modern society.

II. That the social group norms are com-
municated to all the members of a
secondary group and that the aware-
ness of the norms by each member is

pproximately equal.

III. That the social group norms have, be—
sides a Space-time relationship to
behavior, a definitely observable role
of channelizing individual behavior.

IV. That the Stcial norms will not be in
conflict with the self-norms of the
members of a secondary group.

V. That self norms will not be in conflict
with individual behavior.

 

1. This could appear to be the case if social and
self norms were identical and both channelized individual
behavior or if self norms seemed to channelize that behavior
that would be in conflict with the social norms or vice versa.

94

The writer considers the primary use of the hypotheses
to be for giving direction to the research and indicating
the possible range of data pertinent to the problem rather
than being only tested. Hence, the above premises are neither

good ‘uesses or even guesses at all and do not necessarily

C
on

reflect the prior suSpicions of the investigator. Suffice
it to say that the prior private guesses are highly erroneous.l

An Additional Note: The definition of a norm as given

 

previously, be it social or self, while descriptively com-
plete requires further analysis and examination to be ade-
quate for use in research. There has not been, to my know-
ledge, this further consideration which was found to be
necessary in order to understand the pilot reconnaisance
data on the variables being examined.

During the pilot reconnaisance it became evident through
the data collected on the content of the social norms that
the same qualities of behavior that all individuals conceived
of the group as demanding, they likewise demanded of them—

selves, but differences appeared among all the members, in

 

1. Briefly these guesses were that Hypotheses I and II
were correct because research on primitive societies and all
family groups has Shown them to be correct (this was a com—
pletely unanalyzed assumption), that Hypothesis III would not
be wholly true because research has shown social deviations
in behavior to be high, that IV might be correct because most
personality theory arising from clinical data shows that in-
dividuals cannot allow themselves to be "at odds" with society,
and that V would be correct because the same personality
theory premised that the individual must to a great extent
feel no great conflict between his ideals and his behavior.

25

their perception of the degree of intensity of demand for
conformity to the Specific social norms that the group had
for its members. Logical consideration easily reveals that
if a given quality of behavior is not at all demanded, this
norm simply does not exist. Likewise, a severe demand for
conformity to a given norm makes the importance of and the
actual significance or forcefulness of this norm proportion-
ally as great as the severity of the demand for conformity.
Thus a norm can be important or non—important, "big" or
"small", both in the sense of its consciously valued import—
ance to the social actors in the group and in the sense of
its weight in determining behavior for the members of the
group. For example, any items of behavior which are for-
bidden (in the sense of a taboo) or other items, non—conform—
ity and subsequently are very important to the social structure
of which they are a part. It can be said that they exist in
greater force than do norms which require very little or no
conformity or that the degree of conformity equals the im-
portance of a social norm. The only absolute measurement

of the force of a norm probably is the kind and degree of
punishments and rewards used to reinforce it. This latter
is not a concern of this study. Norms :f greater or lesser
importance (i.e. have a greater or lesser demand for con—
formity) even though otherwise containing the same demands
for behavior are actually completely different in their con-

tent and in their effect upon the social grOUp since the

D)
CW

imary behavior demand of any norm logically is its

ct
r5
(D
*U
*3

demani for conformity to it. Thus, subsequent examination
of the norms of the group under study re to be made in
terms of these two parts of a norm: 1. the specific be-
havior required, and 2. the degree to w.hich conformity is
required.

47‘ 1 . .
oi the Study

U)

Assuztpt ion.

 

The following assumptions do not include ep listeH1olo cal
assu31ptions. If any statement of assumptions of this order
vere to be mide they would roughly state that, 1. it is
possible to know, and 2. that sensory observation is a Valid
method. Many arguments can be raised Q ainst both of these
statements but their justification cannot be adequately
handled here and is not directly pertinent to this presenta-
tion.

Methodological Assumptions:

I. That an individual upon being assured of security from
punishment from either the interviewer or his social group
will, I) make an honest attempt at rating his own behavior,
and 2) be able to, with reasonable objectivity, recall actual,
overt behavior in his relation to the group.

II. That individual persons are able to conceive of both
quality and importance of norms for social behavior.

III. That whatever relationships are found to ex ist between
social norms, self norms, and the social behavior related to

them, are not "chance" relationships due to unknown forces

and that when the situation recorded here is found or repro-

27

duced elsewhere, the relationships will be identical with—
out exception.

Theoretical Assumptions:

I. That individuals "join" or migrate to Specific groups

to satisfy their needs (as expressed by norms requiring
Specific kinds of social action) although these needs may
vary considerably from person to person within the specific
interest group.

II. That the pressure or demand for conformity to the social
norms operates equally for all actors occupying the same
status when prestige is equal.

III. That individuals act collectively as a group to achieve
goals (needs) more or less common to all those participating.
IV. That individual behavior (social, psychological and
perceptual) is all part of one system.

Methodological Note

 

In the Introduction the operations of thissmudy were
described as descriptive and analytical. These terms as
well as the term "explanatory" ave been so corfased in the
'shifting language of the social sciences that a brief defini—
tion of their use by this writer is necessary.

Description is here held to be achieved when the events
of a given place and time are recorded and identified as to
those characteristics. In addition, each structural unit and
each process must be characterized sufficiently to enable

accurate identification for later observers. At this level

F0
0)

of research the whole of an event need not be recorded
since only some aspects of it may be of interest to the
observer(s).

The analytic level of research proceeds a step further
than denoting s pace- -tine relatio onships and descriptions of
the parts of the phenomena. This is the task of attempting
to record all the relationships between given parts within
a phenomenon be n5 observed. The phenomenon usually contains
structure or system. A system is bein5 studied here; namely,
man the social bein5, and the parts are his social norms, his
social behavior, individual and collective, and his individual
or self norms. Besides bein5 identified and recorded uithin
a specific situation, these parts are being analyzed to dis-
cover if any relati;nshi; 8 other than space- -time proximity
exist. Specifically each informant has recorded what the
relationships are to himself; i.e., his lerc ception of the

ared to his self norms, as cogpared

soc1al norms, as com“

‘4
.L

m1

to his own social behavior. The CUJQUlflCitlon of this is
describe d in Chap ter III.

EXplanaticn occurs, in the View of this writer, when
the question "Why," is answered by Specifying the cause(s)
of an event. What "cause" is or what constitutes explanation
is still a much discussed question in science and especially
in the social sciences. Primarily because of the lack of
adequate concepts and methods, thissmudy has been confined

to the analy tical— ~descriptive level of research and no attempt

29

has been made to "explain" any of the data recorded. To
achieve even a research design for the explanation of the

phenomena recorded in this group situation is to this

(.0

writer a'asn still in the stage of rambling imagination.
It may be that much more work at the analytic level on modern
societies will be necessary before extlanations of any kind
are gossible for this area of data. Certainly the work
presented here is intended only to fulfill the task of ”es-
cribing the parts and analyzing the relationships involved
between them and not why the parts or the relationships
exist. The research design then must organize the selection
of data to achieve the description of the “arts in the given

soace-time situation in which the group exists an to record

tr“

the relationship(s) between the parts as it occurs within
the actions, external and internal, of each individual.

This organizational step is outlined in the following pages.

CHAPTER IV

THE RESEARCH DESIGN AND FIELD PROCEDURES

Observing the Qualities of Social Action

Three parts of social action are being studied and
it is necessary that these be located and described within
the social situation being recorded.

Design of First Phase of Research. Social behavior
itself is probably the most obvious to observe casually
but, since the observer can only partially impute the
organization that exists in that behavior, a direct approach
to a detailed recording of the social norms is necessary.
A second and egually important reason for recording the.
social norms is that, whether realistically or not, members
of a social group admit to variations in behavior but insist
that there is the right way to do it! Implicit in this
assumption, made by most members of American society, is
the belief that the correct way to behave is as specifically
defined and as important to every other member of his social
group as it is to him. Thus clarity in the informant's des-
criptions of one of the parts, social norms, can be expected
and this can be the means for organizing the group data.

Since individual behavior and norms are being compared
to social norms, the standard must be the social norms. To

record all of the individual behavior and norms would not

51

only be impossible but needless since the organizing con-
cepts for the functioning of any group are its social norms.
It is in reference to these that the individual data must

be selected and organized for social norms are the only
referent points to the existent phenomenon of social be-
havior.

The recording of the three parts of the social action
phenomena occurred as follows.

The data needed to test the hypotheses enumerated in
the previous chapter are of two kinds. The first is qualita—
tive, that is, the sheer content of the social norms that
exist for the group under study, and the second, guantita—
tive, that of observing and/or measuring the differences
in importance that exist between a given social norm, self
norm and related social behavior.

The first of these kinds of data requires that each
norm be specifically defined and the social behavior that
it sanctions, be it abstention in one instance and performance
in another, adequately described. The most cursory examina—
tion of the norms of any group reveals, however, that it is
often very difficult to separate one norm from another since
they may be concerned with associated segments of the same
act and it is_difficult at another time, separation of norms
having been made, to be able to distinguish a significant
difference between them. Thus at some point in the acquisi-

tion of data about these norms a decision must be made, based

\.‘J
m

on the evidence at hand, to delineate one norm from another
and although these delineations may not be entirely accurate,
it is assumed that they differ from reality only slightly.1
It is quite possible that the investigator can become much
more aware of the norms than the actors who reSpond to them
in an almost automatic fashion and his recording of a des-
cription of each norm is sufficient for a pilot guide to
further investigation.
Procedure - Field Operation I

The initial task in the field was to attempt to record
the social norms for public behavior by noting all instances
in which rewards or punishments were meted out for Specific
acts. Each instance was recorded as to time, place, and
activity unit, and, slowly, over a period of three months,
the field notes provided a tentative list of social norms
and a more definite listing of the group's activity into its
units. The first list of social norms was not considered final
even though it appeared to the investigator that after in-
numerable observations the entire range of activity and de-
mands upon the members of the group had been covered. This
Operation primarily served as a period to gain rapport with
the group, to become familiar with its activities, to learn
as much as possible about the social norms by direct observa—

tion, and to learn the linguistic peculiarities of the group.

 

I. This Assumption II, pg. 26.

55

Procedure - Field Cperation II

In order to obtain the definite qualities of the social
norms, direct questioning of the informants was necessary.
Systematic and extensive probes were made into each of the
aspects of time, Space, and activity as they related to
given situations in which the group has been observed act—
ing. This becomes somewhat repetitious since most of the
norms apply in all of the situations. However, this is
necessary in order to probe every possibility. It cannot
be assumed that the informant will be aware and conscious
of the social norms so that he can easily verbalize them;
thus rapport and a lengthy interview are necessary. From
these raw data it was expected that a description of all
of the norms would be possible. Since intelligence, educa—
tion, personality, etc., can affect the number and kinds of
responses made by the informants, no attempt was made to ex-
plore by content analysis any similarities that might exis
across the verbatim records of the informants' responses.

Cross—Checking the Data

 

The kind of data needed in this study further structures
the techniques to be used in the field. As has been said
the norms and their importance must both be observed. The
first cannot be guessed at and it is neCessary to find out
exactly what the norms are before the second kind of data
can be gathered. This requires getting the background in-

formation, learning the linguistic peculiarities of the group,

51+

and finally, systematically and comprehensively question—
ing the informants. The "direct" observations in the first
field Operation were recorded as to time, place, actors,
social situation, and norms brought into play by evidence
of reward and/or punishment. In this way the group norms
for public behivior were recorded and then later checked by
direct questioning of all the actor-members of the group
about the norms as listed and described in the field notes
and then about the possibility oi others existing. This
questioning also uncovered data on group norms which actually
were means for the control of private behavior and hence not
subject to the overt demands of the group. Although punish—
ment or reward cannot be realistic:lly meted out toward in-
dividuals in regard to their private behavior, the norms

for private behavior are yet social in a sense because the
behavior which is "controlled" by these norms would be
punished or rewarded if the group came to know of it. The
group norms for both public and private behavior were checked
across the verbatim records of the interview material for

all of the members of the group. When the data was collected
on the content of social norms, a listing and description

of each social norm was made. Quantification was then possible.

Quantifying Social Action

 

A second aSpect of describing each norm is to quantify

its "importance"; i.e., the forcefulness of its demand for

)

conformity by waich it has *reatar or le )er im ortance to

k
V ¥

0)
f r

the group.1 To make this measu rc ent in a finite manner

e scale of the reward-punish—

C?

is difficult unless an absolu
ment system that demands conformity could be developed.

How ev

(:v

.r, the finite units are not needed to test the hypo—
theses but only some measure of the difference between units.
‘his leads into the second kind of data needed, that of the
differences between social norms, self norms, and social
behavior, for the purposes of comparing them. It is this

sec nd kind of data by udaich the hgxpc theses can be tested.

It is a; parent that these data can ot be had without the

ba asic data on the content of the social norms.

The investigation_of the content of the self norms is
almost unavoidably part of the interviewing process on social
norms because both can be recorded within the same interview
and the informants repeated y volunteer the views on how the
personnel of their group should behave. However, the actual
recording of the self norms, is necessary only in reference
to the social norms. For purposes of acquiring data to ans-
wer the ;uestio ns of this study only the recording of the
differences of individual norms with the social norms is use-
ful. Thus a representative statement of a social norm is

1

used as a standard for the individual to compare with his
self norm on the area of behavior covered by the social norm.
This comp rison is quantitatively exp sod by havin n5 the

informant rate his ovn degree of a5 reer ent or disa reement

 

I. See "An Additional Note", Chapter II.

56

with the social norm. This is more specifically described
below through the description of the scales used for making
these comparisons.

Likewise individual behavior per se was not recorded
but only the comparison between the behavior required by
a social norm and the individual's judgment of his own "acted

out" a reement or disagreement with it. A possible weak

5)

this step for it aqr

point occurs in prears likely that many
individuals would be reluctant to record their own devia—
tions from what they considered the group's social norms to
"ainin"

L.) L.)

be. This problem was handled by spending time in
the confidence of the infornantsl and also this was
methodologically handled by assuming that under stated con—

ditions, informants could and would give the necessary in—

H.

formation. The acquisition of these data was ach ev

(I)

d by
means of a scale described below. These data, *s with that

1

on the self norms, was made by a conparative reference to

H)

the individual's perCeption o

The research esign itself, beyond specifying exactly
what data are to be recorded, must also indicate how the
data are to be organized and analyzed.

Design of Second Phase of Research

 

The tes ing of the hypotheses requires comp n three

*5
pa.
(.3

s

 

l. About 3% - 4 months at an average of 12 - 15 hours

_. , q, -1, .,.'4_1 '- ~..,- .
per weCA wltfl the group.

.L

parts of a social situation: Social norms, self norms,
and individual social behavior. A measure of the agreement
between the shecific norms and related behavior is necessary

and the comparisons to be made are then through all the

h

data on each single individual and throu"h all the data on

OJ..-
each item across the ‘roup. Diadraiatically this agpears

U

as follows:

Social Norms Self Norms Social Behavior
Individual A a. a. a.
b. b. b.
c. c. c.
. Differences . Differences .
—————————————————— Differences ———-———-—-
D
Individual B a. a. a.
o ------- D ------ o ------- D ———————— o
________________ D—————-—-——————---————-—
Individual C n n n
D

As will be agparent from the diagram, this aspect of the
study will be an examination of norms and behavior rather
than individuals, although the social and self norms are be-
ing Lent grouped by the individuals who perceive and res;ond
to them. The above design enables coméarisons to be made
between the three carts in all gossible ways.

Procedure - Field Cgeration III

The type of question asked was, "How much of the time

\A
03

is conformity to this garticular norm demanded? Cr can it
be at all ignored or not conformed to and if so how much of
the time?" Thus for each social norm a figure in terms of

a percent of time in which conformit was required was pro—

(<1

jected by the informant. The introductory questions used
varied little from one informant to the next but such added
exglanation was made as seemed necessary to insure under-
standing on the tart of the informants of exactly what the
nature of the desired resgonse was. The same line of ques—
tioning was followed for the self norms and the data was

then comfarable. At this thase of data gathering there was
no intent to get a measure of how conforming the behavior

of each individual was, but, as is described in the presenta-

tion of the data, the informants came forth spontaneously

for the most gart and measured themselves in terms of their

 

rating of the soc1al

Q)

nd self norms. The ogportunity was

 

not lost to record this relationship and this became the
basis for the data presented in Chapter V.

vet a direct measure

v

Originally, the intention was to
of how much each member of the group conformed to the norms.
This was to be one by direct observation but several pro-
blems arose. The intensity of conformity could not be measur—
ed for a given act and some norms were negative a d there was
no way to compare abstinence to action. Conformity has two

spects: 1. how much of the time one conforms or not, and

2. how much the behavior is like the demanded gerformance.

Gra hicall" conformit" then looks like a ooint in time and
J J i

 

100
W of time of
conformity
O 103

% of approach to demanded behavior

While the time aspect might be recorded (except that record—
ing periods of latency for the norms would be almost imposs-
ible), developing a measure of likeness to the demanded

behavior is almost, if not actually impossible.

Changes In Techniques Required

With regard to the data that were collected as described
above, a problem arose. This is expanded upon in Chapter VI,
but briefly, there a geared to be an uncertainty as to com-
parability of the Judgments of the informants on the import—
ance of the norms, both social and self. While this would
not affect the analysis of individual behavior, it definitely
prevented the analysis across the group since the judgments
were not tranSposable. From this latter analysis, it was
suspected that the wide variation in the data collected
would be of interest, so a more standardized method of com—
paring the three social elements was deVeloped.
Procedure - Field Operation IV

The method for recording the differences between the

group norms and self norms was to establish distinct end

40
the norms. The lower point of this range is C or simply
no importinc . The ug- er is that of the most important
norm of those whicn existed for the group. The highest unit
(lC) denotes the Upper limit of this scale and O the lower
limit. The informants were then asmed to rat; the import—
ance of each norm in terms of this numerical scale from O

to 10. T‘iis is not a scale in the usual sense- i.e. aci
) ’

unit having knowable absolute value. HOVJU er, it is what

('1'

m.y be described as projective scale wi h an absolute ran e,

the lo ic l e::Lreme limits being defined as to quality of
the guintity (in the sense that nothingness is the Quality
of the quantity zero), but not the units of quantity included,
since this is perhaps unknowable. The informant prO‘ects
whatever "absolute" values of behavior that he as onto the
range of O to 10 and then denotes the difference between the
group norms on the first scale and the self norms on the
second scale. The units from O to 10 are assumed to be seen
by the informant s as egui—distant from each other. This
assumption seems warranted in View of the fact that :fte r
more than twelve years of formal and informal use of numbers
by the inf01nants, they will have learned to respond to

content of norms in numbers as equal units in the abstract.

The scale is sketched below:

Social Norms Self Norms
10 (most important) 10 (most important)
9 9
8 E
* *
O (of no importance) 0 (1- act importan )

41

This record of the differences between the same kind of

norms on the same scale and the same specific norms on
different scales provide the necessary data to est Hypotheses
IV.

A comparable measure of the informants' sicial behavior
is necessary. For this, a numeriCal range was used as aoove
but here the lower limit, zero, was defined as "no conformity"
and the upper, ten, as the complete fulfillment beyond the
minimum requirements. This scale measures in terms of a
specific range of possible behavior of which only under-
conformity is being recorded whereas the other scales include
the entire range possible for them. By the definition of the
numerical terms in the scale it follows that it directly
measures the degree of conformity or the agreement between

1 1

social norms and the social oenivior associated with the norms.

This provides directly the test of HVpothesis III. It also
provides the data by which Hypothesis IV can be tested by
comparison of this data with the measured differences between
group and self norms. A sketch of the scale appears below:

Rating by the Individual Actor
of his Own Social Behavior as
He Conceived of It

- (Complete fulfillment of
at least the minimum
requirements of the behavior
norm in question.)

H
O *\‘l ODxOO

- (No conformity to the social norm.)

The Relitiorship of the Investigator to the Group

 

The actual gathering of data about humans from them

#2

always has problems and the difficulties specific to this
study have been met as follows:

First, the presence of the investigator within the
group must be understood by the group and be acceptable to
them. In this case the investigator presented himself as
one who was interested in the relationships between the
techniques used and the goal of the group- Specifically
this was phrased as an Open question of "What relationship
did the techniques of social organization, swimming practice
behavior, and interpersonal relations have to the goal of
winning as a team in competitive swimming?" The data gather—
ed for the more specific problem of this thesis provided
the information to the swimming coach and team. This more
than allowed the presence of the investigator. All of the
personnel of the group became interested in helping in what—
ever way they could although they did not understand how to
do so. The time of intensive interviewing was spent in
open observations with note-taking which infromants were
allowed to see and in unstructured discussions with the in-
formants. After four months, initial apprehensions about
this person who kept on looking at everything, were reduced
to a point where they could not be detected by the investi-
gator. By this time the note—taking was considered routine.
Also questions, at first asked casually, now became more
specific but considered "all right". The interviewing of

each individual for the refined data presented here was

45

explained by telling the informants that these were final
recordings of data needed to "make the picture of the
situation complete". To all appearances the informants
accepted this and the majority seemed pleased to be of
assistance to the project.

This writer feels that field techniques of acquiring
data must satisfy at least three requirements of his behavior
in relation to the informants, 1. that the informants feel
secure from punishment from the investigator or from the
group for talking to the investigator; 2. that they ade-
quately understand what kind of data is needed; and 5. that
they have some interest and motive to give the information.
These needs thus structure the investigator's behavior. It
is necessary for him to have an extensive contact with the
group so as to become a familiar person and to attain the
status of being independent of the group but in communica-
tion with it; i.e., friendly toward it. Further, this long
period of getting rapport is useful in order to interest
the informants in giving the data needed and to have them
understand at least vaguely what is needed so that when an
interview is made, the eXplanation of the informant's role
is not completely new. It is also necessary to clearly de-
fine the investigator's role as being one in which informa-

tion is received but neither morally evaluated nor communicated

44

l a face-to-

to anyone. In this observers Opinion, only
. face relationship which has become casual and secure, bas-
ed on at least several months of such security, can result
in the close rapport required. This seems to be borne out

by the experience of the study.

 

1. Not until informants have witnessed the investigator
receiving some information and not divulging it to anyone
will they feel free to admit social "deviations".

CHAPTER IV
DESCRIPTIVB MATERIAL ON THE GROUP
AND THE PJKTj CF SLCIAL ACTION BEING STUDIED

Background of the Group

The 1951 Swimming Team at Michigan State College had
fourteen active members who successfully carried on the
reputation of being a rising team. Rated third in the nation
in 1950 and second in collegiate swimming in 1951, they have
been the recipients of considerable attention from sports-
writers. Within the setting of Michigan State College their
prestige is somewhat less than would be expected because of
the newly nationally prominent football team also existing
there. However, living in a social setting generally
appreciative of athletic success, they enjoy considerable
prestige. The team is comparatively small and the members
are primarily state residents. This team has not develOped
into a large scale Operation as have most football teams
and as have, at least, three collegiate swimming teams but
has retained the intimacy and social cohesion arising out
of their common identification with their state and college.

The position of the coach was described1 in the intro-

duction but two things might be added. 1. That he is

 

1. Page 8.

-f
c.

46

considerably more competent than the average coach and is
thus respected by the team, and 2. That he is less
authoritarian in his relationship with the team than is
typical of thirty to fortytmimming coaches known to the
author and as a result, although he urged the members to
work for success in competition, he allowed the group to
develop as it would.1

Further description of the group is made as the data
on the problem proceeds. The first of these descriptions
is that of the actual activities of the group.

Data - Field Operation I
The Time-Activity Situations of the Group

As the investigator became familiar with the surround-
ings and activities of the group through the pilot reconais-
sance, he began to observe the range of patterns of behaving
which characterized its daily and weekly activities.

The late afternoons of the week days were spent in
practice sessions during which a minor portion of two to
three hours was spent in actual swimming and the major part
in conversation and joking. Another period of activity was
the team meals on a Saturday before and after the swimming
meet, or if on the road the continuous association of the
members of the group over a week-end. The third major ac-

tivity was the swimming meet itself, starting from the training

 

1. See Chapter IV.

47
room idle talk (e.g., "who's racing what?" talk and spas-
modic joking) proceeding through the formal start of a meet
with the competition completing the public activity and the
dinner the more private group activity.

' Recording the Norms

In regard to these three time-activity situations,
the investigator spent several months of watching, talking
and casually questioning the informants. The goal of this
operation was to record and to abstract the group norms
governing public social behavior. Cnly those acts which
appeared significant in some way to the majority (i.e.,
to which the majority showed interest) of the group and
which were either rewarded or punished were recorded as
relevant to the group norms. Included also were acts which
were demanded verbally with proferrments of reward or punish-
ment in the future dependant upon the subsequent action of
the individual. Needless to say, most of the obvious in-
stances of the existence of a norm came through the vio-
lation of it. When this occurred the punishments ranging
from verbal attack through social ostracism to expulsion
from the group became evident either through their threaten—
ed or actual use. The rewards for conforming to the norms
are very difficult to describe for during periods of socially
normal group behavior, there seemed to be nothing quite de-
signatable as a reward. If rewards do exist for conformance

to social behavior of this secondary non-economic type group

48

”they'must be either the "reward" of not being punished or
'the individual's "satisfaction" with the permission or right
'to engage in the activities of the group. The latter is
\Nell demonstrated by the observation that the most effec-
'tive punishment of a group member is a threat or enactment
of expulsion from the group. Further evidence is the great
effort any individual must exert in order to become a member
of the group and it can be assumed that his decision to en-
gage in this complex of Special behavior in some way satisfy-
ing or rewarding. Just h w it is rewarding is a separate
problem and why it is rewarding, a psychological problem.

The only clear instance of reward in this group is that of
assignment of prestige. All the informants and all observed
situations indicated that prestige was completely related to
success as a competitive swimmer. This is not then a reward
for conformity to social behavior but rather acknowledgment
of membership in an abstract "social" class of a certain de-
gree of success as a competitive swimmer. Since membership
in any given class group in this case cannot apparently

be entirely made by conscious choice, then this is not an
example of a kind of soical behavior for which a social group
norm can demand conformity. In this kind of behavior evalua-
tion by the group there can be no punishment, only reward

or lack of it.

49

The final abstraction of norms (by inference) from

public behavior was completed after continued observation

in the three time-activity situations showed very little

modification of the norms by either reorganization or addi-

tion to them through continued recording of behavior. At

that time the norms were conceived of by the investigator,

according to the evidence at hand, as follows:

I.

II.

III.

IV.

VI.

Verbal and behavioral exhibition of a
"willingness to try" to succeed as a
conpetitor on the team.

Exhibition of "friendly" behavior to-

ward other members of the group.

Appearing "c00perative", "non-aggressive",
"conformistic", and/or submissive in inter-
personal relations and in relation to all
instances of reinforcement of the norms.
(Note: the first three adjectives are
interchangeably used by the informants to
describe the desired behavior. The last I
have added from my observations.)
Verbalizing at apprOpriate times that
"competition is good".

Verbalizing at apprOpriate times that
"swimming is good".

Attendance at all practice and other meetings

of the group.

50

VII. Taking time trials (i.e., a timing of
swimming).

VIII. Meeting practice requirements. (These
varied from.person to person since
different races required different
training.)

IX. To want to succeed in competition.

It is obvious that these norms reflect the central
goal of the group, i.e., their wanting to be a successful
athletic team. The efficiency of these norms for achiev-
ing that goal is questionable in two ways. First, the
specific kinds of behavior demanded may not at all be con-
ducive to helping any individual member toswim faster.
second, in demanding conformity to these norms,the group
may misdirect energy which could have been more efficient-
ly used. They represent an attempt to direct behavior into
chaneels that will make the individual more efficient in
competitive swimming. Whether they do succeed well in do-
ing this or not is a separate question which will be enlarged
upon later. Also it may be that these norms serve functions
or needs which are less obvious to this group and to the
investigator and hence a thorough understanding of why they

exist in this particular form escapes both of us.

Data - Field Operation II

In order to make an accurate abstraction of the norms

51

for this group, a rurther investigation was made. Each
member of the group was questioned in an open-ended1
interview on what the norms were. They were asked what
the norms Of a series Of time-activity situations were and
Specifically how they were defined by the while group.
Thus their perception of the group norms provided a list
of norms which might alter the list derived from Observa-
tions made by the investigator. This did happen in two
ways. First, there was a slight modification Of the norms
for public behavior, this occurring in two ways. The last
three norms as listed above were found not to be norms and
two other norms were discovered.2 Also, a simplification
Of the statement of each norm to language symbols meaning-
ful to the group was achieved through the long interviewing
and subsequent familiarity with these symbols. The follow-
ing represent the norms as revised by interviewing:

1. "Acting friendly".

2. Verbalizing a "willingness to try to succeed".

 

1. "Open-ended” here means allowing the informants to
fifl.in the answers to general questions in their own language
and extending as much data pertinent to the study as was
feasible in terms of time. The term also implies the use
of the now-questioning technique of the investigation after
he had set the area of discussion.

2. The verbal descriptions by the informants of the
social norms is considered by the investigator to be more
accurate than the direct observations by the logic that the
former are what the informants feel is important to conform
to and hence are Operating or actual norms. The norms that
were drOpped were considered irrelevant by all the informants.

5. "Reasonable attendance at practice".

4. "Giving encouragement to teammates".

5. Not verbalizing a dislike of competition.

6. "Acting as a team member should in public".

7. Not verbalizing a dislike of swimming.

8. Not appearing to be intentionally non—cooperative

(i.e. appearing to be cooperative).

The second modification Of the list of norms was the addition
Of an entirely new series of norms, these being controls for
private behavior. That such an elaborate set of definitions
of behavior would exist for activity that could not be very
well punished or rewarded, came as a surprise to the in—
vestigator. The obvious impossibility Of the group effec-
tively controlling the private behavior Of the individual
would tend to argue that the group would not be over con-
cerned with this behavior if it wanted to be an efficient
government. Yet the concern was strong and was accompanied
by an unawareness of the attendant.difficulties in punish-
ing such deviant behavior. The investigator questioned all
the informants as to whether only deviant private behavior
discovered or all deviant private behavior was to be punish~
ed and all except one informant said yes to the latter situa—
tion, the exception commenting that the latter was impossible
realistically but ideal. Certainly any admission of deviancy
in private or carelessness permitting its discovery brought

punishment or threat to the Offender. Later investigation

55

showed the group did not consider most of the norms for
private behavior quite as important as those for public
action, but they were yet important enough to warrant be-
ing considered. The norms for private behavior finally
abstracted from the language Of the informants and typical
of their use of word symbols are listed below.

1. "Eersonally liking swimming".

2. "NO smoking".

3. "Personally wanting to COOperate".

4. "Eating right" before a meet.

5. "NO drinking".

6. Personally "having a feeling for team spirit"

7. "Not staying up late before a meet".

8. "Personally liking competition".

9. "Personally wanting to be friendly".
Upon inspection of all the norms for behavior listed above
for this small group of fourteen persons, it becomes diffi-
cult tO imagine some of the norms as having utility in effect-
ing the goal which this group stated to be theirs. Rather
than accept this as being the only goal of the group I shall
leave to further investigation the question of why social
norms, or directives of behavior in any form, exist with
the Specific directions they have. It is Obvious that more
than one goal is desired and further obvious that the means
of achieving one goal can be destructive toward achieving

another. A brief analyis Of the list of norms above in

54.

relation to the group structure and goals that are apparent
is, however, feasible.

First it is important to note that none of the informants
gave an explanation of the utility of the norms, i.e. they
could not eXplain hgfl_they contributed to an achievement of
the central goal of the group.

It might be argued that social norms, rational or not,
"create" a stronger group cohesion. In any Observation of
social groups and in the Observations of this group, cohesive-
ness can be seen to exist in direct relation to the social
norms. As described above, however, this relation is that
the members accept without inquiry or examination the norm
or value that the other norms are good. The norms (No. 8)
on page 52 and (NO. 3) on page 53 above that refer to the
cooperativeness and conformity are those norms which in
temporal relationship must precede all others. Out of this
type of norm comes the "cohesiveness" which seems to rein-
force the group structure.1 What role the remaining specific
norms play remains a question, part Of which is examinable
in the data in the following chapters.

Although the intention at this time was to make a com-
plete collection of all of the data necessary to make the

analyses of the relationships noted in the title Of this

 

1. It is not here intended to imply that all cohesive—
ness is only due to this kind Of norm or necessarily to norms
at all. It is likely that there are different kinds of social
cohesiveness.

55

chapter, several problems arose. The methods used to collect
data at this timel did not lead to the desired data and

the material collected was unusable for testing the hypo-
theses. It was used as if it were data of a pilot study

and thus aided in the final develOpment of a tool that would
quantify the data properly. The following analyses and
summaries are presented without the data since the more
complete data are presented in Chapter VII. The appropriate
parts of that material duplicate the data upon which the

following comments are based.

 

1. Pp. 37-58.

PART II
CHAPTER VI
The Relationships Between the Variables:
a. Individual Perception of the Social
Norms b. Self Norms and c. Self Be—
havior. '
Data - Field Operation III

The following data was the result of the second fo-
cused interviewing of the informants. The data needed was
that with which the testing of the hypotheses as stated in
Chapter III could be made. The first specific goal was to
find out how important or forcefull each of the social norms
was in comparison to the associated self norm.

As often happens, the interviewing brought out unex-
pected information which while discovered after the fact
aids in the better understanding if presented before. This
phenomenon was the difficulty most of the informants had in
separating their self norms from the social norms of the
group. Repeatedly they would begin a sentence with "I think
that" thus and so should be---and only by constantly remind-
ing them that while discussing social norms the desired data
was "what they think the group demanded" could the two types
of norms be separated. It is also to be noted that on the

interview record for these informants there was a definite

 

1. See Chapter III, pg. 24.

57

reluctance for some to admit that social norms even exist—
ed as such.

Later, as self norms were discussed, all the informants
talked about their social behavior pertaining to each norm.
Understanding of the informants' inability to conceptualize
and keep distinct social from self norms came later when by
comparative analysis it was discovered that those who ha d
the greatest difficulty in conceiving of the social norms
were those who rated their self norms as much more important.
This followed proportionately so that those who rated the
importance of their self norm lower clearly and easily made
the distinction between the social and self norms. The
former of these polar types typically justified their "up-
ward" self norm difference from the social norms (they
could perceive what the social norms were when questioned
to the point) by a statement implying their greater desire
"to work hard" as a group member and that their making their
self norms more important meant that they were more "serious"
than "some of the fellows". The latter polar type Justified
their "downward" deviation from the social norms by stating
typically that "it isn't necessary to be so strict all the
time" or "there isn't much sense (or use) in most of these
norms".

All the informants presented these "Justifications" of
their self norms. The first type boasted and the second

admitted that their behavior was almost as deviant as their

58

stated difference of the self norms from their perception
of the social norms.

Comparative analysis of the perception of social norms
from this data indicated only that those who had rated their
self norms higher than the social norms tended to see the
latter as being average to very important while those who
rated their self norms lower than the social norms tended
to rate the social norms from very important to some of
no importance. A better measure of this was necessary and
became one of the reasons for the scaled data in Chapter VII.

The intra-person analysis of the informants' ratings1
of the two types of norms allowed a direct comparison within
the context of a social actor. Thus it is possible to see
upon examination of the interview records that

1. self norms varied little from the perception

of the social norms, and

2. self behavior followed closely both the per-

ceived social and self norms.
By examination across the group of records, the following
was discovered:

I. that there was a wider variation in the ratings

of self norms than of perceived social norms and
this variation moved in both directions (of greater
and lesser importance) away from the perception of

of social norms, and

 

l. The questions used to obtain this data are discussed
in Chapter IV.

59

2. that there tended to be little groupwide agree-
ment on what the importance of a given social
norm was (i.e. there was a very wide perception
of social norms.)

The most important aSpect of the across-the—group examina—
tion of the data is that there was very little communication
on the importance or forcefulness of the social norms be-
tween the members of the group. As each social norm was
asked to be rated by an informant, there was usually a period
of about 15—50 seconds before he would answer and than re-
peatedly each informant would remark that he "didn't really
know for sure" etc. This difficulty was entirely absent
during the rating of the self norms. Some of the informants
realiZed during the interviewing that they did not really
know with.any degree of clarity what the social norms were,
in short that there was virtually no communication between
group members about them. As the group analysis indicates,
there was little knowledge of what the "real social norms
were. Their reality is apparently only a statistical mean
from which there is a great degree of variance in perception.

An interesting but not quite as crucial a body of data
are the various spontaneous comments the informants made on
the "causal" relationships between social and self norms.
Both types (the higher-than average and lower-than-average
raters) felt that social norms were somewhat ineffectual

agents of social action. They felt that most of their

60

social norms existed as real sources of control in the
group(and they generalized beyond the group) but that each
person thought of the norms differently. When asked why
the latter was so, they had no answer but as examination
of the data on the individual shows in the summary state-
ment (1) under that section) above, the self norms may be
an explanation. It would seem that the actor tends to be-
lieve that his self norms are the "real" or mean social
norms and that this occurs because he does not attempt to
find out but merely assumes knowledge of the normative
system.

The investigator further questioned1 the informants on
these attitudes to find out what they thought controlled
their own behavior and also other persons' behavior in the
group. Their previously mentioned feeling that their own
self norms were somewhat superior to the social norms as
they perceived them, of course led them to say that in general
they followed their self norms. When they answered a question
of why other members conformed to the social norms, most were
acutely aware that there was a variation of behavior and that
most likely the other individuals had some "reason" for doing
as they did.‘ They made no direct answer as to why others did

conform to the extent that they seemed to.

 

1. This data was not recorded in a verbatim form since
no note-taking was done at the time of this interviewing al-
though this followed the formal interView. This questioning
was informal and was a check to see if the informants conceived
of the relationship between their perception of the social norms

and their self norms as they had stated it.

 

61

In a sense this lay Opinion approaches the reality of
the situation. The lack of communication prevented their
knowing exactly the dynamics of the normative system of the
group.

At this point in the gathering of the data, the original
question of the study could not be completely answered. Be-
sides the vagueness of the variation in the intensity of the
social norms perceived by various members, there was needed
some measure of social behavior both public and private,
that could be related to the individual's perception of the
social and self norms. The scale outlined in Chapter IV
was develOped and the data recorded with it is presented in
Chapter VII. Although it repeats the data presented above,
it also adds the information necessary to understanding the
social phenomena in question.

Thus far, the summarizing of the data in this chapter
has described the relationships between perception of social
norms, self norms and social behavior but new and important
aSpects, l. the variation in the perception of social norms
and 2. the need to more precisely relate social behavior
to its most closely associated elements, created new dimen-
sions to the entire problem which then suggested the further

investigation.

CHAPTER VII

Relationships Between and the Data of the
Importance of the Social, Self Norms, and
the Conformity of Individual Behavior to
the Norms As Seen by the Individual

Data - Field Operation

In the previous chapter it was stated that there was a
great variation in the perception of the social norms across
the group. This phenomenon appeared similarly in the ratings
of the importance of the social norms. Actually this variation
is of two kinds. The first is that of the extensive range
of perception of each norm as indicated by the widely dif-
ferent values assigned to it by each informant. Thus in
Table I, out of a range of eleven categories, a large por-
tion of this range was used for each of the norms. Below
is the tabulation of the responses to the norms and the
percentage of the possible range used by the members to
spread the ratings. This latter represents the extent of
the "scatter" of the reSponses. Also the mean response of
each norm is given.

Just as there occurred a wide variation of perceptions
to the social norms, so did there occur a similar and almost
identical variation regarding the actors' ratings of the im-
portance of their self norms. By calculating the mean number

of categories used for all the social norms as against the

65

self norms (i.e. the mean percentage of the range used
for each kind of norms), it was discovered that 9.117
out of the eleven categories was the mean average number

covered for both the social and self norms.

Table I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'Tabulation of Ratings of the Perceived Importance of the
Social Norms of the Group Under Study
55' The number of Ratings At a % of Mean
The Social Norms Given Numerical Value Range ReSpgg
P o 1 2 3 4 s s 7 9 10 Used a
a. "Personall' likin ., ,
swimmingfi g 1 1 1 5 9 1 4 917. 7.:
'b. "No smoking." 2 2 1 2 l l 2 5 82 5.6
0. "Acting friendly." 1 1 2 2 5 5 100 8.1
d. "Verbalizing a willingness 1 5 1 1 5 2 3 82 7.3
to try to succeed."
e. "Reasonable attendance 1 l 2 l 5 5 5 82 7.6
at practice." pp
f. "Personally wanting to 2 2 2 5 5 64 8.2
COOperate." 4#
g. "Eating right before a 2 1 2 5 5 2 1 91 5,4
meet."
h. "Giving encouragement 2 1 5 4 2 55 7.6
to team mates."
i. ”No drinking." 2 1 5 l 2 4 l 82 8.4
3. "Personally having a feel— , a -
ing for team spirit." 1 4 l 5 9 2 55 7.b
k. "Not verbalizing a dislike ,
of competition." 1 l 2 l 5 4 2 91 0.1
1. "Acting as a team 'should' .
in public. " l l 2 l 5 4 75 5'1
m. "Not staying up late be- 1 l 2 2 l l l 5 91 5.4
fore a meet.”
n. "Personally liking 1 l l 2 2 5 5 1 100 5.9
competition."
0. "Not verbalizing a dis- -
like of swimming." 1 2 2 l 2 2 j l 100 6'1
g_¥ i
p. "Personally wanting to l 5 l 2 6 2 91 7.2
be friendly."
9-;
q. "Not appearing to inten— 1 3 5 2 5 82

tionally non-COOperative."
(i.e. appearing to be co-
operative.)

7.9

Table II

Tabulation of Ratings of the Perceived Importance of the Self

Norms of the Group Under Study

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- The number of Ratings at a % of Mean
The Self Norms Given Numerical Value Range ReSpons
o 1 2 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 Used
a. “Personally liking l l l l 2 l 9 4 100% 7.2
swimming."
b. "No smoking." 1 1 l 2 5 2 1 5 100 6.1
0 "Acting friendly." 1 2 5 5 5 100 8.1
d. "Verbalizing a willingness
to try to succeed." l 2 l 1 4 2 5 100 7.4
e. "Reasonable attendance _
at practice." 1 1 l 4 2 5 64 8.54_
f. "Personal y wanting to ‘ “
cooperate." 1 5 6 5 55 9.l_#
g. "Eating right before
a meet." 1 1 4 2 4 l 100 4.9
h. "Giving encouragement
__ to team mates." 1 4 5 4 56 8.9
i. "No drinking." 4 1 2 1 5 1 2 82 6.1
3 "Personally having a C.
+__ feeling for team Spirit." 1 l 4 l 7 55 b 8
i k. "Not verbalizing a dis— a p
L__ like of competition." 1 l 1 2 1 5 1 5 1 100 0.4
I 1 "Acting as a team member 1 9 a 9 4 55 8.1
__¥ 'should' in public." ’
m. "Not staying up late - 1 _ r
before a meet." 1 l 2 5 5 5 1 82 5.9
n. "Personally liking q
1 competition." 1 1 5 5 2 2 100 6.8
' 0. "Not verbalizing a dis- . 1
like of swimming." 2 1 l 1 2 2 2 5 91 5.7
L__,
p. "Personally wanting to q _ . ,
I be friendly." 1 l 5 l 7 82 8.6
i q. "Not appearing to be in- 1 1 1 2 4 5 75 s.4
8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

tentionally non-c00perative.”
(i.e. appearing to be 000pera-

tive.

 

 

 

66

That the means are identical for both sets of norms
is striking but that they would be very similar is imagin—
able and in this instance a fact. However, the patterns of
the distributions are quite dissimilar in that the self norms
tend to use either much more or less of the possible range
than do the social norms. By inSpection of Table II as com-
pared to Table I this is evident and it is to be noticed
that when the same norm (in qualitative content) was com-
pared between the tables that either 1. the Spread of the
ratings was markedly greater for a given self norm, or 2.
sharper "agreement" between the ratings for a given self
norm was found by a clustering at the "high importance" end
of the scale.1 Thus for £222 of the self norms there seems
to be a much greater "agreement" than the members of the
group think there is for the social norms although they still
tend to slightly disagree with the social norm as they per-
ceive it. For the majority of the self norms, however, there
is merely a spordic movement away from the social norms and
here, as in the data of the previous chapter, we again find
a wide distribution of the social norms and also as great
a spread of the self norms but in a pattern different from
the social norms.

A further phenomenon of the unusual spreading is to be

 

1. If 8.0 or above is considered a high rating (and
high agreement) response then there are only two exceptions
to this generalization in Table II.

67

noted by comparing the distance between the high and low
mean responses to the social norms with that of the self
norms. Comparing the high to the low means of the social
norms (8.2 to 5.4) with that of the means of the self norms
(9.1 to 4.9), we find the latter having a greater Spread or
a movement away from the little centralness found in the
social norms by an increase of 48.9%.

The tendencies of the self norms to fluctuate show, as
was outlined, a greater agreement on some norms and a greater
disagreement on others. By inspection of the self norms on
Table II, those norms which are easily seen to be in sharper
agreement at the high end of the scale can be identified as
norms to do with beliefs about social interaction which are
described as "COOperativeness" and/or its demonstration or
a feeling of "friendliness".l To further facilitate this
kind of analysis of the norms, a table giving the rank order
of the social and self norms by their ratings follows. It
suffices to say at this point only that the ratings of the
norms, both social and self, have a natural dividing point
(the 10th norm in either ranking) in terms of the scores (as
indicated) and that those in the higher brackets for the social

norms are found to be repeated in the self norms with only

 

1. These norms (conformity norms) are concerned with
beliefs about social 000peration. By examination of Table III
it can be seen that the norms rated lower tend to be concerned
with beliefs about physical training.

slightly different scores and rankings. This suggests a
"final" discrimination of those norms which are of sufficient
importance to be actually functioning as such as against
those norms which are so vaguely agreed upon that it be-
comes difficult to imagine their having any function at all
although their existance has been confirmed by observation.
The unsuspected wide variation in the perception of social
norms shown by the data seems to raise a question of whether
any real decision can be made regarding the intensity of a
given social norm making it a "real force" or whether all
norms must be considered as having some function however
small it may be. The norms of high importance can yet stand
and be analyzed as such.

The data needed to test the hypotheses of this study
are all of the associations between perception of social norms,
self norms and perception of social behavior related to the
apprOpriate norms and differently from the summary presenta-
tion in the previous chapter of field observations and in-
terrogation of informants in which the relationships between
these three entities were directly observed and first hand
descriptions were made as closely in context as was possible,
the use of the projective scale for "measuring", or more
accurately relating, the entities allows the use of a sta-
tistical analysis. The choice of a particular statistical
technique to use is always a problem since a Specific kind

of analysis is usually desired and to achieve this an appro—

Mean
Ratings

8.2

8.1

8.1
7.9

7.6

7.6

7.1

704

7.4

7.5

6.4
6.1

5.9

5.6
5.4

5.4

Rank Order by Rated Importance of the Per-
ception of Social Norms as Compared to the

Self Norms

Rank Order of
Eerception of
Social Norms

l.

10.

ll.
12.

15.

14.

15.
16.

17.

lilo

Table III

Norms Rank Order of
Self Norms

"Personally Wanting
to cooperate.”

”Acting as a team
'should' in public.

Acting friendly.
"Not appearing to be
intentionally non-
cooperative." (i.e.
appearing to be
COOperative.)

"Giving encouragement
to team mates."

"Personally having a
feeling for team spirit."

"Reasonable attendance
at practice."

"Personally liking
swimming."

Personally wanting to
be friendly.

"Verbalizing a willingness
to 'try' to succeed."

"No drinking."

"Not verbalizing a dis-
like of swimming."

"Not verbalizing a dis-
like of competition.”

"Eersonally liking
competition."

No smoking.

"Eating 'right'before a
meet."

"Not staying up late before

a meet."

1.

12.

15.

l5.
17.

11.

13:8 an.
Ratings

8.9

6.1
4‘09

6.6

7O

priate relationship must be arranged between the technique
and the data. For these data, since these data are com-
parable across scales in the same units from the percep-
tion of social norms to the self norms, an analysis of

the association in relation to chande was desired. Unfor-
tunately the Pearsonian product-moment gives a measure of
association of the positions of two sets of data using the
standard deviations from both distributions and consequent-
ly does not consider the possibility of the variables being
functionally or integrally related. Hhile chi-square relates
the chance of two variables being associated in an homo—
geneous-pOpulation, it does not measure this in fixed units.
No other statistic known to the writer approaches the parti-
cular task at hand and of the two mentioned above only a

new technique derived from the chi-square would adequately
suffice (but to develop this new technique would involve
many more months or years than is profitable for the
analysis of this data.) Hence the product—moment r was used
because (this is the best available technique in statistics
as used by social scientists; and its apparent inadequacies
will not need further explanation.

The tables that follow give the rectilinear correla-
tions between the perception of social norms and the self
norms (Table IV), the perception of social norms and the
social behavior (Table V), and the self norms and the social

behavior (Table VI). These correlations are given for each

Table IV
Product-Koment Correlation between the Perception
of Social Norms and the Self Norms for all the

Social Actors in the Group Under Study.

Social Actors Ierception of Self Norms
Social Norms

A. .99
B. .99
C. .99
D. .99
E. .98
., .98
G. .97
H. .96
I. .94
J. .95
K. .92

. .88
M. .88
N. _ .87

Mean of the Correlations .95

72

Table V
Product-Loment Correlation Between the Perception
of Social Norms and the Social Behavior for all
the Social Actors in the Group Under Study

Social Actors Ierception of Social Behavior
Social forms

A. .99
B. .99
C. .98
D. .99
E. .98
F. .98
G. .c7
H. .99
I. .98
J. .91
K. .99
L. .99
1. .95
N. .99

CO

Mean of the Correlations .9

Table VI
Iroduct-Loment Correlation Between Self Norms
and Social Eehaxior for All the Social Actors

in the Group Under Study

Social Actors Self Norms Social Behavior
A. .99
B. .99
‘. .96
D. .82
3. .97
F. .96
G. .95
H. .85
I. .94
J. .96
K. .89
L. .95
1.. .75
L. .98

Mean of the Correlations .95

74

social actor in the group for examination of the possible
variation in the relationship of the three entities from
actor to actor (i.e. social person to social person) and
then the mean r is given to indicate the result of the
group findings. These data as that above are most fruit-
fully understood by examination of the tables presented
and the analyses following in the next unit are not the
only ones possible. They represent an examination of the
findings directly in relation to the original questions of

the study.

CHAPTER VIII

14

salami AND mm LY: IS“ or Tar"? DATA

k

The data presented in Chapters V, VI, and VII gives

the following information pertinent to this study:

1.

that there is little or no agreement in the
perception of the importance (i.e. influentual-
ity and prevalence) of social norms between the
social actors except for those norms concerned
with social cooperativeness and friendliness,

that a similar disagreement and agreement occur—
red between individuals conceptions of the im—
portance of their self norms,

that the different perceptions of the importance
of self norms tends to be either in less agreement
or more than the perception of social norms and
that those norms which have closer agreement are
again the norms concerned with social coopera—
tiveness and friendliness and these perceptions
are that these norms are very important,

that there is a high degree of association between
the perception of social norms and social behavior,
that there is a high degree of association between
the perception of social norms and self norms,
that there is a high degree of association between

the self norms and social behavior,

76

7. that there is a much lower degree of associa-
tion between the mean social norms and the
other two variables. (Summary statement of
l, 5, and 6 above.)

The primary task of this analysis is to relate the data
to the hypotheses of the study. The third of these hypo-
theses, to restate from Chapter III, is: ”that social
group norms have, besides a space—time relationship to be-
havior, a definitely observable role of channelizing individual
behavior." In conclusion the validity of this hypothesis
becomes apparent from Statement 7 above, from the data.

The hypothesis as stated is unquestionably invalid. The
hypothesis, in being constructed before the investigation
was made, did not formulate a meaningful description of the
relationships between the social elements involved. Thus
the term "social group norms", a concept arising out of

the theory, was employed to indicate the element whose re-
lationship to social behavior was to be studied. However,
the data shows clearly that lack of communication and sub-
sequent "disagreement" in the perception of the social norms
makes the concept useless since if it referred to the mean
perception of the social norms it would not be sufficiently
self-descriptive to indicate this and if it referred to
actual perception of social norms, there would be little
"groupness" involved. Thus by substituting the term "per-

ception of social norms" for social group norms, the new

77
hypothesis then becomes valid according to Statement 4
above, of the data.

Besides the revision of Hypothesis III, the replace-
ment of the concept "social group norm" with that of
"perception of social norms" changes the focus of the
entire problem for it indicates obviously that the for-
mer entity simply does not exist. By way of illustration,
even the classic example of the written law which we have
seen in trial cases in one court after another receive
reversed decisions until finally a supreme court decision
is made which is most often a new law and always the pro-
fessional lawyers and the "public" are divided in many ways
as to their interpretations of what the norm or law actually
"is". Actually a norm does not exist as such but only in
relation to an individual's perception of it. This per-
ception of the norm we find directly related to the organi-
zation of the self norm as per Statement 5, above, from the
data. This statement thus validates Hypothesis IV as it
is worded in Chapter III: "that the social group norms
will not be in conflict with the self norms of the members
of a secondary group." Since the perception of social norms
is highly related to social behavior and to self norms,
we could expect self norms to be highly related to social
behavior. Statement 6, above, from the data bears this
out and thus validates Hypothesis V as worded in Chapter
III: "that self norms will not be in conflict with in-

dividual behavior."

78

Hypotheses I and II are invalid as noted in the above
analyses.

These latter conclusions relate back to the discussion
above pg the existence of a norm being primarily related to
the individual's perception of it. Further it is apparent
that the relation continues.thrcugh self norms to social
behavior. Thus in a sense we can "explain" the wide varia-
tion in social behavior by the wide variation in the per-
ception of the social norms and by the almost identical
pattern of wide variation of the self norms as conceived
of by a given individual. This makes more clear why a
"group norm" does not exist since the wide variation in
self norms, the association of behavior to these, and the
lack of interest (as previously described) in finding out
what any "other person's" perception of a norm is, make
the existence of a group norm almost impossible, (although
not completely impossible as is indicated by the parts of
Statements 1-5 regarding the kind of norms on which some
"agreement" in perception does exist.)

As was discussed in Chapter V, a social norm is goal
oriented (i.e. it is usually thought of as a means to an
end). Thus the conclusion that group norms do not exist
as such would in essence mean that groupwide agreement in
goal orientation would not exist. This is true for the
most part but there is a unity of goal to the extent that

all of the members of this group and probably all the members

79

of any secondary group have some objective goal which they
seek. In the case under analysis the goal was to become
national champions in swimming and the norms then became
"means" by which this goal might be achieved. In this
consideration of the relationship between norms and goals
the latter is the "means" and the former "the end(s)", how—
ever, it is pertinent to also consider the relationship in
which norms are goals in themselves, both means and ends.
When the normative system is considered a means to a goal,
an analysis of the efficiency of these means can be made.
This was begun in Chapter V but here it is worth consider-
ing again since if social norms are a means to an end and

at the same time ends in themselves, then the parallel func-
tions might be contradictory at times. In the group under
analysis this probably is somewhat the case. Since they

did not attempt to discover the empirical data necessary
for improving their competitive swimming ability with a
definite effort or interest, the resulting norms do not re—
flect a planned and organized attempt to reach that group
goal. When this is related to the great variety of self
norms, it can be tentatively concluded that these determined
the normative system more than did the overt goal of success-
ful competition in swimming. This also eXplains the lack

of concern of why there is no attempt to systematically in-
vestigate improvements in swimming as well as the lack of

the attempt itself.

80

When the norms are considered in the light of their
effectiveness in controlling behavior toward the group
goal, there likewise occurs the conclusion that they do
not do so. Apparently highly individual goals control
the percepticn of the norms and social behavior. This is
not altogether unapparent to most persons or to the members
of this group and yet the group believed they had norms for
private behavior which is even more difficult to control
than public or social behavior. It would seem that a
real conflict existed for the actors when they attempted
to move toward the group goal and yet their own private
needs demanded attention. The attempt to control priVate
behavior which obviously is impossible (while it remains
private) seems more plausible as a non—rational attempt
to prevent these private needs from interfering with the
functioning of the group. The conflict seems to have arisen
out of an almost feverish haste to govern social behavior
and a lack of investigating how that behavior should be
controlled for the purpose of the group. Thus for each
actor a set of self norms arise which are unique. From
this we can see why the actors were not interested in what
the group norms might be and almost unaware of them since
their self norms which they felt so strongly made them
think that these were the group norms. ~Besides checking
the unique personal needs which are asocial that each in-

dividual has, the self norms also have a positive demand

81

for a kind of social acting that perhaps can be best con-
ceived of as a need itself. Briefly these needs reduce

or prevent states of tension as all behavior does, these
states being social or personal disturbances. Open hos-
tility can produce a great deal of tension as can feeling

of hostility, so for both the public and the private be-
havior exist self norms which make for an expression of
friendliness and demand for cooperative behavior. Actually
we find that this kind of norm for actively making the group
secure (rather than a norm that prohibits some kind of be-
havior) is the kind that the group considers the most im-
portant. They rated highest the norms for friendly behavior
and feeling, for acting cooperative and wanting to be co-
operative, for having team spirit, and for giving encourage—
ment to team mates. In these as well as the other norms

we can easily see that they are goals themselves. The norms
just mentioned, in that they secure cooperative activity

in the group, obviously make the team function more effec-
tively toward their group goal. The other norms are not

so easily seen to have such utility although in terms of
this conceptual scheme they still prevent or reduce tension.
The attempt to enforce them are not by any rational criteria
related to the major group goal in a constructive way and
hence must be considered norms which are highly individualis—

tic and thus passively or actively at odds with that goal.1

 

1. It is interesting to note that the most successful
swimmers, finalists and champions in the nation, rated these

s urious n sical tr ’ni v norms ver low in importance or
o no imp Eggnce at a 1. n0) _ y A”

82

From the above it becomes apparent that two kinds of
norms for behavior exist. They almost seem to dichotomize
into "rational" versus "non—rational" bur such is not
actually the case. One type is that of the demand for
cooperation and conformity, the other type a demand for
abstinence from some kind of behavior. The former actually,
besides being a demand for a specific kind of behavior,
in demanding c00perativeness and conformity also becomes
the norm which can allow the second type of norm. If the
demand for c00perativeness and conformity is one which ex-
cludes rational reasons (rewards) for conformity and achieves
its end by threat of punishment, then any kind of norm can
subsequently develOp. Thus the COOperation must always
precede the "non-rational" demands for inhibitions in social
group organization and is actually the "social" aspect of
such a structure. As indicated, the way in which conform-
ity to the social government is achieved determines the
rationality and efficiency of what the content of the latter
type norm will be. In a sense, it can be said that only one
norm of the former type exists, that of conformity, but that
the kind of behavior that is conforming varies. Given the
conformity the normative system can grow by new directives
for behavior and consequently a social structure will be-
come stronger. It is evident, however, that unless there
is contained within the demand for conformity a permission

to rationally examine the nature of the other norms, then

85

the goal of any group will not efficiently be approached.
Perhaps the clearest description of the difference between
these two norms is to note that the function of the norm
for conformity (COOperativeness, friendliness, etc,) is

to make an efficient social structure in which interpersonal
relationships can be utilized and the function of norms
otherwise directing behavior is to make use of multiple
human effort in achieving some goal.

There is an interesting paradox related to this area
of behavior which is well illustrated by the data on this
group. This is that while c00perativeness, friendliness,
etc. are highly valued there is yet very little communica-'
tion of feelings and ideas about the rest of the norms and
the whole group structure. It would seem logical that the
value of being friendly and the acting out of this behavior
would bring about by the expression of these feelings a
communication of ideas but this has not happened here and
even casual observation confirms that it does not often
happen. Also, this is associated with the fact that friend-
liness can only be expressed in certain ways that are con-
sidered "good" ways. This was not extensively described
in the description of the norms for this group but the
preciseness of the kinds of acceptable friendly behavior
was there. Thus there is this tie of a restriction on one
type of behavior perhaps putting restrictions on another,

i.e. the restriction of friendly behavior restricting

84

communication of a variety of ideas about techniques of
action. An added restriction is that there is also the
restriction of not experimenting with new kinds of ex-
pressions of feeling or of ideas. It would seem that a
new pattern of behavior at the level of the goal structur-
ing or technique norm is very often misinterpreted by others
in a social group or society as a change in the pattern of
friendliness, or in other words a change to hostility.
Whether this analysis uncovers the actual dynamics of this
case or not is an open question. The evidence seems to
suggest that it does, but its complexity suggests the need

for further investigation.

CHAPTER IX

RELATIONSHIES OF THE DATA TO THE THEORY

In Chapter II of this report there was a brief dis-
cussion of the theoretical lines of thought by various
persons and disciplines on the relationships between social
and self normative systems and the behavior "resulting"
from them. At that time a few of the ideas and questions
raised by these writers were presented as well as some ques-
tions about their ideas. Briefly those questions are sum-
marized, and grouped, below.

1. How do social group norms function in relation

to social behavior?

2. How do self norms function in relation to social
behavior?

5. How do social and self norms relate to each other
and how does this relationship affect, produce,
or control social behavior in a given situation?

The first two of these questions represent earlier
tendencies of sociology and psychology to try to "explain"
the "causes" of behavior. The last question relates the
question to social reality and thus makes possible an
analysis of social and self norms by empirical testing of
"natural" data. This newer theoretical or methodological

approach well indicates the deveIOpment that has taken

86

place in the scientific thinking on research problems in
this area and of this type.

With these questions came, of course, prOpositions
describing, in part, the relationships between the social
quanta involved. To each question there is below a state—
ment representative of each group attempting to make an
answer to the question.

G. H. Mead was the primary contributor of thought to
the first question and it was his hypothesis that the in-
dividual by taking the role of the other acquires attitudes
about himself, others, and the nature of social behavior
to enact. Although Mead in his book hind, Self, and Society
took considerable time and effort with data on how children
develOp a self, he did not in his final hypotheses relate
the social phenomena to either of the conditons of time,
situation or function of the behavior. R. Linton and T.
Parsons deveIOped the concept of "social status" from this
beginning by Mead but again they left out the conditions
of time and situation although the function of the behavior
began to be adequately described.

The second question is more or less a product of these
schools of psychology whose theoretical structure is more
or less that of "individual psychology". Examples of
writers of this bent are Krech and Crutchfield, Norman
Cameron, and to some extent Bingham Dai. The hypotheses

they offer to the second question roughly states that con-

87

ception of self is the guide or determiner of all be-
havior (overt) including the social. This view is express—
ed quite strongly by the first two writers while Bingham
Dai adds that social norms of the secondary group have an
effect upon behavior although this effect is of secondary
or lesser importance than are the experiences in the pri-
mary group. Obviously this group fails to take into account
the system of rewards that induce persons to control their
social behavior and punishments that control by restriction
and pain the social behavior. This might be broadly des-
ribed as a failure of individual psychology to recognize
that although the individual has needs or tensions and seeks
to satisfy or reduce them, most often the means of this
satisfaction is a social group which has its structure ori-
ented toward some goal. That social structures are effi—
ciently or rationally constructed is certainly not true
all of the time and hence the gratification of the individ-
ual's needs proceeds through a maze of confusing norms of
how to direct energy and so await satisfaction. There ob-
viously is not a Utogian society or single social group
that offers this easy gratification and thus social behavior
must in terms of biological reality continue to attempt to
construct more efficient social structures if it is to a-
chieve its self set goal. I suspect that no social struc-
‘ture will ever become so effective as to allow such easy
gratification that we can cease to consider the effect of

the social structure in "structuring" the individual's behavior.

The third question has been given answers through
the various hypotheses of H. S. Sullivan, Lindesmith and
Strauss, R. Benedict, S. Freud, A. Kardiner and other con-
tributors as a result of recent developments in this area
of inquiry. To make an exemplary hypotheses to satisfy
all these writers' contributions is only partially possible.
In general they say that social and self norms are linked
together in adult life within the context of a situation
at a point in time the link being the similar objective
functions they may have in directing and controlling be-
havior (i.e. to the extent that there is such objectivity)
toward some goal which is specific to a situation at a
given time. Likewise,dissimilarities between social and
self norms have an effect on social behavior in different
ways.

This proposition has more utility for understanding
the relationships between the variables than either of the
previous two in that it makes by way of a more "functional"
type of analysis a description of hgw the different social
quanta are related. This begins a highly descriptive kind
of statement that eventually will become truly explanatory.

To relate the findings of this study to the theory is
the primary function of this chapter and so the three "typi-
cal" questions representing the theory preceding the research
are worth considering in the light of the new data. The

first question, about "the function of (social norms) in

CF!
\0

relation to social behavior", seems to be inadequate. As
the data shows there are no real social or group norms ex-
cept as these are verbal definitions of behavior but since
these vary so greatly they cannot be considered as a real
element or quantum. The question as stated cannot there—
fore be answered except wherein a social norm is perceived
quite similarly by the social actors. This, as the data
shows, occurs only (in this case) when the norms are those
regarding conformity or cooperation. This being the one
necessary essential to the existence of any social group
or system, it can hardly be said that they affect social
behavior but that they are merely a logical conditon neces-
sary to social groupness. This type of norm, although the
core of socialness, is not of the same order as norms which
specifically define proper behavior both for action and
absence of action. The latter are the directives for be-
havior in terms of some goal and as previously discussed
may be either rational or non-rational. Thus the function
of norms to behavior has been partially described by the
organization of the data but the changes in the definitions
of what norms are has rendered the original question obsolete.
The second question asks, "How do self norms function
in relation to social behavior?" Self norms, the data shows,
are highly related (associated) to both the perception of
social norms and to social behavior. As shown in the pre-

ceding chapter, self norms affect the perception of the

90

I

hypothetical norms for the group and they, of course,
being in agreement with that perception combine with it

to quite closely direct the individual's behavior. The
functions of self norms in relation to social behavior

are regulative in the broad sense and more Specifically
they, as the data shows, direct the behavior into patterns
which will result in continuing as an accepted member of
the group, satisfying personal needs for certain restric-
tions and prescriptions of behavior, and achieving to

some measure the central goal of the group and the in-
dividual's part in it. Although this question was origin-
ally asked in the sense of "how do self norms cause social
behavior", the answer obviously (now) could not and does
not satisfy.

The third question of the relation of social and self
norms to each other and the effect of this on social be-
havior has been answered above. To add one point, however,
the incongruity of perceptions as to how to be "social" and
how to obtain a Specific goal of a group indicates that
social behavior will reflect this variation. That it does
is evident.

A brief consideration of the hypotheses offered by
various writers in the light of the data of this study will
complete the revision of theory. The well-known hypothesis

of Mead and his school is undoubtedly quite sound when checked

91

against the data of the social life of children or of the
tightly knit primary group but the data of the secondary
social group here analyzed definitely does not confirm it
for reasons obvious through previoas analysis. It seems to
be a legitimate guess that this secondary group is not uni-
que in its pattern of extreme variation of the norms since
the considerable time Spent together during the week (20-

50 hours), the closeness of their association while travel—
ing and living together on week-ends, and their conviction
(at first thought) that they did have rules and expectations,
would certainly lead one to expect that these norms would

be perceived uniformly, but they were not. Certainly most
secondary groups are less closely integrated than this one
and it can therefore be expected that the variation exists
there likewise. Also our whole societal structure being
what Maclver calls a "multi-group society" suggests that

it undoubtedly has the same pattern throughout. Thus Head's
hypothesis does not stand up as stated.

The second hypothesis of the individual psychologists
that "conception of self is the determiner of all social
behavior" is also invalid as such. The social reality des-
cribed above and relating to this premise denies that the
individual lives in a vacuum that constatly absorbs the
self needs and thus keeps the individual in a homeostatic

or some other kind of balance. That there is a strong

92

tendency toward this balance, seems to be true, but many
counter-tendencies also exist.

The last of the three hypotheses asserts that social
and self norms are tied together through having the same
function of being the system through which behavior is
directed toward some goal Specific to a situation at a given
time. The instance of a contradiction between one kind of
norm and another has also been described earlier and as
above the obvious result is a dissimilarity in function
between the two.

Insofar as this hypothesis goes, it is correct. The
variation of the perceptions of social norms modifies it
by adding that there often are many functions that a norm
performs and that only when they are similar (as in the
case of norms for conformity does a norm become a real part
of a group structure. Considerable rational examination
by the members of a group must occur before other functions
(toward goals) become similar.

Further additions to the theory can be stated by them-
selves rather than in relation to this particular hypo-
thesis. Briefly, the most important "new" social phenomena
discovered are: l. A very high variation in the way social,
norms are perceived; 2. That there is a priority of such
norms, (as conformity, COOperatitn, etc.) over norms that
Specifically define physical acts, for the achievement of

a social goal; 3. The variety of goals indicated by the

variety of self norms and perception of social norms often
acts contrary to the norms for conformity and also is often
mistakenly interpreted as such a contrary act; 4. Little
rational examination (organized or otherwise) of efficient
controls for behavior of the technique type of social norm
exist with the consequence that the above mentioned contrary-
to-group-goal acts occur; 5. The members of a secondary
group are for the most part unaware (and unaware that they
are unaware) of their ignorance of other members' self

norms, needs and ideas about techniques for achieving the

group goal(s).

CHATTER X

Y‘T‘V” r' vva/r“ 1n “n f T Dv- h,.
.L‘JIU .L¢LLVm_q+—U‘ LJJ + Llou—LJAJL

1"”! ”*7“

SLUUESLLJD BY 'lfili Drill-L

Of theoretical problems there is no end and an addi-
tion seems almos inappropriate. However, the sheer volume
of problems thought of and written about the general sub-
Ject of the thesis indicates the need for an approach
characterized by greater Specificity of inquiry. For both
reasons I shall limit myself to three problems which I con-
sider important and well defined as to their need for fur—
ther data.

The first is one resulting from the develOpment of
the polar types of the individuals reSponse to the scale
in his perceptionrf the social norms and his rating of
his self norms. Hidden in a footnote there is mentioned
the fact that those individuals who disregarded the be-
lief about physical training the most (i.e. norms for
the direction of behavior toward the goal of becoming a
superior competitive swimmer) were actually the best
swimmers. Also, in being the best and better swimmers
of the group, they were accorded the highest prestige in
Spite of their "deviant" behavior. Thus prestige is not
necessarily granted for conformity to physical training

norms and thus success in achieving the goal is associated

95

with not accepting these non-rationally derived norms.

This high prestige, high ability polar type is the same
polar type that rated many self norms lower than the social
norms. These norms were all of the physical trainingtype.
Besides being an interesting side point which seems quite
logical, there is a question of some significance. Briefly,
is the rating of the self norms lower than social norms due
to the ability and subsequent prestige of the individual or
are the ability and prestige due to the lower ratings of
the physical training norms? Although a hasty "conclusion"
might adOpt the first condition, the second is quite possi-
ble since the act of rejecting the non—rational physical
training norms may indicate rational experimentation by
those persons on how to swim better (and if this eXperimenta—
tion were successful,) and this would result in the success
and prestige.

The second problem arose out of consideration of the
evident lack of communication of feelings about "proper"
behavior and ideas about new directives for behavior. The
question Simply is: "Why the lack of such communication?"
The value of such communication and inquiry is well known
to every scientist, "pure" and "applied”, and it would seem
that the highly valued "common sense" of the layman would
lead to such efforts. But this has not occured. At the
end of Chapter VII a consideration.ef this problem was made

in terms of the confusion that often exists between "deviant"

96

behavior at the physical training level of norms and more
truly deviant behavior at the conformity and c00peration
level where actual anti-social behavior can destroy a
social structure. It seems likely that experimental be-
havior is considered erroneously as hostile behavior to
many persons, the conflict between religion and science
perhaps being the classic example. However, a further as—
pect of the pattern raises the final question when it is
noted that there is a training aspect to norms for coopera-
tion and friendliness, i.e. that the c00perative and friendly
behavior must occur in ahighly specific way. It seems that
to experiment in what actually amounts to an attempt to

be more cooperative and friendly is feared by some as a
hostile act. The question then is: why the fear of com-
municating and inquiring in how to be more c00perative and
friendly?

The third question arises out of the second in a general
way. Given the feelings of not wanting to communicate and
inquire into training norms and subsequently to not, in a
sense, become more COOperative and friendly, it can be said
that these feelings are actually norms (basic self norms).
They are part of the beliefs about training and COOperative
norms which define a behavior as to be valued at some Specific

quantity and no more. Thus there develops what can be des—

 

cribed as anti-rational and anti-social norms. Together they

represent a system of directives and tendencies completely
counter to any and all of the goals of the group and the
individual members. Whoever said that "man is not rational"
must certainly have been looking at this process but as is
obvious man is not certainly wholly irrational. The para—
doxical question in terms of this process is why is there

a system of tendencies entirely counter to the goals of
productive social living which hinders and sometimes destroys
the social unity, the productive teamwork, the development
of techniques, and finally the movement toward the goals

the individuals and group possess. The technical question
is: How do anti-social and anti-rational (goal) norms for
behavior develOp within the self and the social group? An
inquiry into the etiology of this process would be useful

to both the scientist of theory and application.

These few questions have been stated by the writer as
an expression of his intensified curiousity which attends
any inquiry into virtually anything. If nothing else, the
eXperience of field research makes much more evident what
one does not know and what generally is not known. It is
the hOpe of the writer that the data presented in this re-
port helps to know both what is and what is not known. The
revision of previous knowledge suggests that more than our
previous ignorance,we were ignorant of what we were ignorant.
Since the first step in research is to know what one does not

know, this last chapter and the entire report are offered.

BIBLIOGRAiHY

Benedict, Ruth, fatterns of Culture, New American Library,
New York, 1929.

 

Cameron, Norman, Psychology of Behavior Disorders, Houghton
hifflin Co., New York, 1947.

Dai, Bingham, Sociological Foundatiors of the Psychiatric
Disorders of Childhood, Child Research Clinic, Sanehone,
Eennsylvania, 1946.

 

Edwards, A. L., Statistical Analysis, Rinehart and Co., New
York, 1947.

 

Freud, Sigmund, Dictionary of Psychoanalysis, Philosophical
Library, New York, 1950.

 

Hartshorne, H. and May, h., Studies In Deceit, Book I,
hacmillan, hew York, 1921.

 

Kardiner, Abram, The Individual and His Society, Columbia
University Eress, New York, 1959.

 

Lindesmith, A. R. and Strauss, A. L., Social Psychology,
Dryden Press, New York, 1949.

 

Linton, Ralph, Study of Kan, D. Appleton—Century, New York
and London, 1956.

 

hacIver, Robert, The Web of Government, Macmillan and Co.,
1947.

Head, G. H., KindL_Self and Society, University of Chicago
Press, 1954.

 

Sherif, huzafer, The Ssychology of Social Norms, Harper and
Bros., New York and London, 195b.

 

Sullivan, H. S., Conceptions of Modern Psychiatry, hashington

1945.

 

Thrasher, F. N. The Gang, Second Rev. Ed., University of Chicago
:ress, Chicago, Ill., 1935.

Whiting, John, Becoming A Krona, Institute of Human Relations,
Yale University, 1941.

 

Yule, G. U. and Kendall, I. G., An Introduction to the Theory
of Statistics, Charles Griffen, Ltd., London, 1947.

 

ROOM USE ONLY

 

a

It. ohmik‘f .

VHFMDV<ruA . 95?. FRI},

 

ICH G

www