Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Social references and self-evaluation : considerations in a therory of social influence Simmons, Alan Burtham 1965

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1965_A8 S55.pdf [ 6.62MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0105545.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0105545-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0105545-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0105545-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0105545-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0105545-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0105545-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0105545-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0105545.ris

Full Text

I. SOCIAL REFERENCES AND SELF-EVALUATION: \ CONSIDERATIONS IN A THEORY OF SOCIAL INFLUENCE by ALAN BURTHAM SIMMONS B. A., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1963 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of Anthropology and Sociology We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standards. THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1965 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r -m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s ^ I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i -c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Department ABSTRACT i i . Three main research t r a d i t i o n s have been associated with developments i n s o c i a l influence theory i n recent years: (1) the study of s o c i a l influence through persuasive communi-cations, often "mass communications"; (2) the study of s o c i a l influence through pressures to uniformity i n small groups; and (3) the study of s o c i a l influence through cognitive processes. Each of these research t r a d i t i o n s has tended to develop i t s own rather d i s t i n c t i v e perspective on the nature of s o c i a l influence, but each has had d i f f i c u l t y i n explaining one as-pect of s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e — i n a s i t u a t i o n where there are a va r i e t y of accessible sources of influence (different reference  groups) why does an i n d i v i d u a l adopt the perspective of one accessible group rather than another? In response to t h i s problem, and several other problems, a conceptual and t h e o r e t i -c a l framework for s o c i a l influence i s set f o r t h . From t h i s framework several empirically testable hypotheses are developed, to form a p a r t i a l explanation of s o c i a l influence. This theory focusses on s o c i a l norms, and how these become shared. Norms are viewed as performance e x p e c t a t i o n s — i d e a l s to be l i v e d up to. Following l e v e l of a s p i r a t i o n studies, deviance from s o c i a l norms i s perceived as non-achievement of an i d e a l l e v e l of performance and, under c e r t a i n conditions, capable of pro-voking feelings of f a i l u r e . Conformity to s o c i a l norms, on i i i . the other hand, i s perceived as tantamount to achievement of an i d e a l l e v e l of performance and capable of promoting feelings of adequacy. The i n d i v i d u a l i n an attempt to minimize feelings of f a i l u r e does two things; (1) he s t r i v e s to perform at the i d e a l l e v e l of performance that he has adopted, and/or (2) he tends to be attracted to, and hence i n t e r n a l i z e the norms of, action systems whose standards allow a favourable s e l f - a v a l u -ation. The Cooley-Mead suggestion that self-evaluation i s a function of one's evaluation by others i s examined under s p e c i f i e d conditions. Homans' suggestion that the evaluations one receives i n a system are related to h i s conformity are also examined, as part of t h i s theory. A study to t e s t the theory developed was c a r r i e d out among secondary school teachers i n a large metropolitan school. The teachers were interviewed to f i n d out how much they conformed to norms that they perceived to e x i s t within the profession, and whether the degree of conformity i n each case could be predicted by the theory. The r e s u l t s of conformity i n each case could be predicted by the theory. The r e s u l t s of t h i s study do not confirm the theory, but there i s evidence to indicate that t h i s may have been p a r t i a l l y due to inadequacies of procedure i n addition to inadequacies i n c e r t a i n t h e o r e t i c a l assumptions. i v . TABLE OP CONTENTS INTRODUCTION • 1. CHAPTER 1. AN OUTLINE OP THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL INFLUENCE THEORY 2. The nature of s o c i a l influence theory 3. Three current perspectives on s o c i a l influence 8. Social influence through persuasive communications 9. Social influence as "pressures to uniformity" i n the small group 10. So c i a l influence through "cognitive" processes 13. Summary 19. CHAPTER I I . A THEORY OF SOCIAL INFLUENCE 20. A general model for s o c i a l influence and the problems associated with i t s use 20. A general model for s o c i a l influence... 20. Segmental relevance of reference group norms ....23. Membership status i n reference groups 24. Reference groups as groups .....25. Group attractiveness and choice of reference groups 26. Concepts and propositions toward a theory of s o c i a l influence.27. Introductory comments 27. Conceptual framework 29. Propositions 31. Drive for favourable s e l f - a t t i t u d e s 32. Hypothesis 1. The Homan's hypothesis 33. Hypothesis 2. Normative compliance and a t t r a c t i o n 34. Hypothesis 3. Behavioural compliance and attraction...34. Hypothesis 4. A t t r a c t i o n and uniform evaluations 35. Hypothesis 5. The Cooley hypothesis 37. Hypothesis 6. The Cooley-Homans derivation 38. Hypothesis 7. Relevance and normative compliance 39. Hypothesis 8. A t t r a c t i o n , relevance and normative compliance 39. Hypothesis 9. Relevance and behavioural compliance.... 39. Hypothesis 10. A t t r a c t i o n , relevance and behavioural compliance 40. Hypothesis 11. Self-evaluation and a t t r a c t i o n 40. Hypothesis 12. Interaction and compliance 43. Summary 44. V . CHAPTER I I I . EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND PROCEDURE 46. Requirements for experimental s i t u a t i o n 46. Choice of experimental s i t u a t i o n .....47. Compliance, self-evaluation and relevance.. 49. Data c o l l e c t i o n pre-test 52. Protest findings and changes i n procedure 55. Defining subgroupings within the school 55. Interaction 57. The normative p o s i t i o n of one's reference group 57. Self-evaluation question 59. Evaluation of fellow teachers 59. Impersonal s i t u a t i o n 61. F i n a l Data C o l l e c t i o n 61. Summary 62. CHAPTER IN EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 64. Part I. I n i t i a l Findings 64. Hypothe s i s 1. The Homan1 s hypothe s i s 64. Hypothesis 2f and 3. Compliance and a t t r a c t i o n 66. Hypothesis 4. A t t r a c t i o n and Uniform evaluations 67. Hypothesis 5. Cooley hypothesis 68. Hypothesis 6. Cooley-Homans derivation 69. Hypothesis 7, 8, 9 and 10. Relevance, a t t r a c t i o n and compliance ..70. Hypothesis 11. Self-evaluation and a t t r a c t i o n 73. Summary of i n i t i a l analysis 73. Part 11. Analysis of Theoretical and Experimental Assumptions 76. Self-evaluationj operational and t h e o r e t i c a l assumptions....78. Operational d e f i n i t i o n of s e l f evaluation 79. A re-analysis of hypothesis 6, self-evaluation and behavioral compliance 81. The assumed drive for favourable s e l f evaluation 84. A re-evaluation of hypothesis 11, self-evaluation and at t r a c t i o n 85. Uniform evaluations 88. Summary of part II 91. Summary of chapter IV 92. v i . CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, ISSUES FOR FUTURE INVESTIGATION, AND CONCLUDING COMMENTS 94. Summary statement 94. Issues f o r further investigation 95. Membership status 97. St r i v i n g for acceptance 98. Acceptance and conformity 100. V i s i b i l i t y 101. Concluding comments 103. BIBLIOGRAPHY 106. APPENDIX A. PRE-TEST QUESTIONNAIRE 113. APPENDIX B. FINAL INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 124. APPENDIX C. CLIQUE AND NON-CLIQUE MEMBERSHIP 128. v i i . LIST OF TABLES Page: Table I. Correlation of f a i l u r e scores and sociometric choices received, c o n t r o l l i n g f o r a t t r a c t i o n 68. Table I I . Correlation of f a i l u r e scores and behavior deviances scores, c o n t r o l l i n g for a t t r a c t i o n 70. Table I I I . Mean difference between deviance scores (normative and behavioral) on non-relevant issues and deviances scores on relevant issues, c o n t r o l l i n g for a t t r a c t i o n 71. Table IV. Mean deviance scores by clique membership 132. Table V. Correlation of sociometric choices received with deviances scores, c o n t r o l l i n g for clique membership. 133. Table VI. Correlations of a t t r a c t i o n scores with normative deviances scores and with behavioral deviance scores, c o n t r o l l i n g for clique membership 134. Table VII. Correlation of sociometric choices received with f a i l u r e scores, c o n t r o l l i n g for a t t r a c t i o n and for clique membership 137. Table VIII.Mean differences between deviance scores (normative and behavioral) on non-relevant issues and deviance scores on relevant issues, c o n t r o l l i n g for a t t r a c t i o n and clique membership 139. Table IX. Mean deviance scores (normative and behavioral), c o n t r o l l i n g for a t t r a c t i o n and clique membership 142. 1. INTRODUCTION: The discussion i n t h i s paper i s organized into five chapters. These chapters represent an attempt to follow an i n t e r e s t i n s o c i a l influence processes from the assump-tions evident i n several current perspectives on the topic, through the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h e o r e t i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s i n these perspectives, to the development and t e s t i n g of several propositions focussing on possible solutions to the d i f f i c u l t i e s . Thus Chapter I i d e n t i f i e s the t h e o r e t i c a l meaning of the term "so c i a l influence" within the s o c i a l sciences and, more p a r t i c u l a r l y , within three somewhat di f f e r e n t schools of thought on the subject. Chapter II i s concerned with developing a conceptual and t h e o r e t i c a l framework for explaining some unanswered questions i n s o c i a l influence theory. The theory developed i s presented i n the form of a series of i n t e r r e l a t e d propositions. Chapter III reports an experimental procedure, and the assumptions underlying t h i s procedure, to test the propositions developed i n Chapter I I . The results of t h i s investigation are given i n Chapter IV. Chapter V, the f i n a l chapter, summarizes the progress made i n t h i s paper toward a better understanding of s o c i a l influence. In t h i s l a s t section an attempt i s made to point out the most pertinent questions for future research. 2. CHAPTER I. AN OUTLINE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL INFLUENCE THEORY  Introduction The study of sociology begins with a recognition of the h i s t o r i c a l facts that everywhere and always human beings have l i v e d i n association with one another and that, l i v i n g together, men adjust to one another i n such a way that the behaviour of each man i s somehow influencedby the behaviour of h i s fellows. At the most general l e v e l , we c a l l t h i s i n -fluence " s o c i a l influence". Thus, the study of s o c i a l i n -fluence i s i n some sense co-terminous with the study of s o c i -ology i t s e l f . Over time, however, the development of theory i n the s o c i a l sciences has given the term " s o c i a l influence" a more r e s t r i c t e d meaning. It seems appropriate, by way of an introductory chapter, to review b r i e f l y and very generally the assumptions underlying current perspectives i n s o c i a l i n -fluence theory. This review w i l l focus on some aspects of the h i s t o r i c a l evolution of s o c i a l influence theory. In t h i s regard, the discussion begins with some comments on the nature of s o c i a l influence theory and the i n i t i a l concerns which led to research i n t h i s area. The discussion then proceeds to focus on three current perspectives i n s o c i a l influence theory, and some of1 the general problems associated with t h e i r use. The N a t u r e o f S o c i a l I n f l u e n c e T h e o r y 3. I t i s p r o b a b l y f a i r t o s a y t h a t , w h i l e a n o t i o n o f s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e h a s a l w a y s b e e n t h e b a s i c a s s u m p t i o n u n d e r -l y i n g s o c i o l o g i c a l t h e o r y , i t i s o n l y f a i r l y r e c e n t l y t h a t s o c i o l o g i s t s h a v e b e c o m e c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e p r o c e s s o f s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e p e r s e . Th e f a c t t h a t men a d j u s t t o o n e a n o t h e r i n p a t t e r n e d w a y s h a s m e a n t t h a t t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e g r a d u a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d p a t t e r n s o f i n t e r - p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , b e l i e f , a n d b e h a v i o u r , c o m m o n l y r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e , c a n b e d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m t h e p r o c e s s - o f a d j u s t m e n t i t s e l f , b y w h i c h a n i n c u m b e n t a d a p t s t o t h e e x i s t i n g p a t t e r n o f s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n w h i c h h e f i n d s h i m s e l f . T r a d i t i o n a l l y , s o c i o -l o g i s t s h a v e c o n c e r n e d t h e m s e l v e s w i t h t h e s t u d y o f t h e s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . Th e s t u d y o f s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e p r o c e s s e s was i n i -t i a l l y a m a r g i n a l a r e a i n p s y c h o l o g y a n d , when i t b e g a n t o b e t h e s u b j e c t o f s e r i o u s i n q u i r y , i t was a s a m a i n s u b j e c t a r e a 1 i n t h e e m e r g i n g f i e l d o f s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g y . W h i l e t h e d i s -1. Th e e a r l y p s y c h o l o g i c a l , a n d h e n c e t h e e a r l y s o c i a l -p s y c h o l o g i c a l , p e r s p e c t i v e o n s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e l a r g e l y r e v o l v e d a r o u n d t h e c o n c e p t o f " i m i t a t i o n " . P s y c h o l o g i s t s l i k e J a m e s a n d M c D o u g a l , w r i t i n g a t a t i m e when i n s t i n c t was p o p u l a r f o r e x p l a n a t i o n , p r o p o s e d a n i n s t i n c t u a l b a s i s f o r i m i t a t i o n . T h i s was a l s o t h e i m p l i c i t v i e w o f C . H . C o o l e y . W i t h t h e d e v e l o p -m e n t o f l e a r n i n g t h e o r y , s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i s t s l i k e D o l l a r d a n d M i l l e r b e g a n t o v i e w i m i t a t i o n a s a " l e a r n e d r e s p o n s e " t h a t f a -c i l i t a t e d " g o a l - a t t a i n m e n t " . F o r a c o m p r e h e n s i v e summary o f t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e i m i t a t i o n v i e w o f s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e , s e e 4. tinction between the study of the social structure and the study of adjustment within the social structure is still the main basis for distinguishing sociology and social psychology, sociologists in recent years have in practise turned a good deal of attention to the study of adjustment, insofar as this concerns social influence processes. I believe this convergence of interest can be traced to a mutual concern with the "small group" in explaining behaviour. When a social scientist speaks about the social struc-ture he refers basically to the fact that interaction in a so-ciety is patterned! people do not just associate with other people, they associate with specific other people, a group of people If you like. Thus, insofar as an individual's behaviour is conditioned by a recipir-'O cal adjustment process with speci-fic others who are also adjusting to him and to each other, the behavioural outcome in one group is likely to be quite differ-ent from that in another. Using the word "group" in its broadest sense, we say that one ethnic group is different from another, one social class is different from another, and so on. Dollard and Miller (1941), especially Appendix A, where they re-view the position taken by psychologists from James to Skinner. The discussion of the historical development of social influence theory in Chapter I of this paper will largely ignore this early psychological viewpoint. 5. What we mean when we say that one group is different from another is that there are uniformities of behaviour in one group that are different from the uniformities of behaviour in the other. This is a founding observation in the social sciences: inter-individual uniformities exist within all groups—be these small like a family or friendship group, or large like a social class or a culture. Yet it is apparent in the development of these uniformities that the individual can only be directly influenced by those specific people with whom he interacts in his day to day life—his "primary group£ 2 affiliations as Cooley (1909) called them. From this point of view, the uniformities among larger social aggregates only develop insofar as the primary affiliations overlap. While the importance of "primary" affiliations in determining attitude and behaviour were well recognized among some social scientists at the turn of the century, the dis-tinction of "primary" affiliations generally implied the ex-istence of more diffuse "secondary" relationships. Many 2. Throughout this paper, references to published works are indicated by inserting the date of publication in brackets directly behind the author's name. If reference is made to a specific page or pages, these are noted after the date of pub-lication. The various works used as references are arranged alphabetically by the author's name and, under each author by date of publication, in the bibliography at the end of the paper. Dates of publication used in the text generally refer to the copyright date. 6. s o c i a l thinkers began to view the simultaneous h i s t o r i c a l trends of i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n and urbanization i n terms of the progressive deterioration of meaningful "primary" r e l a t i o n -3 ships. The e a r l y s o c i a l c r i t i c de Tocqueville, i n h i s c l a s s i c Democracy i n America, (1898), had already stressed how modern l i f e f a c i l i t a t e d the development of a 'mass s o c i e t y " — a so-c i e t y composed of a r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous mass of s o c i a l l y i s o l a t e d individuals who, without a primary community to pro-vide anchorage for t h e i r b e l i e f s and attitudes, were unpro-tected from the rapid flow of new ideas. C. H. Cooley com-mented that from de Tocqueville 1s point of view, society was ..."one mental whole, through which movements of thought could flow by a contagion l i k e that of a mob." (Cooley, 1909, p. 92) The i m p l i c i t theory of s o c i a l influence imbedded i n the "mass society" perspective had wide implications i n the s o c i a l sciences, but i t had p a r t i c u l a r significance for those scient-i s t s interested i n mass communications. Social c r i t i c s gradu-a l l y became concerned with the propaganda p o s s i b i l i t i e s of mass communication which could destroy the democratic state. " F i r s t the newspaper and l a t e r the radio, were seen as power-3. The well known d i s t i n c t i o n s by: Cooley, between "primary groups" and "other groups" (now referred to as secon-dary groups"); T<3nnies, between Gemeinschaft (community) and Gesellschaft (association); and Durkheim, between Organic and Mechanical S o l i d a r i t y , a l l suggest t h i s perspective. 7. ful weapons able to rubber-stamp ideas on the minds of defense-less readers and listeners." (Katz and Lazarsfeld, 1955, p. 16) It would appear that it was this concern with the possibilities of omnipotent mass media sending forth messages to an unprotected public that lay behind early mass communi-cations research. Out of these studies, however, arose a new and more sophisticated view of mass communications, a view that had profound implications for theories of social influence. The pioneering work by Lazarsfeld, Berelson and Gaudet (1944) on the 1940 American presidential campaign indicated that, sur-prisingly, the press and radio have very little effect on woting decisions and even less effect on changes in voting decisions. It was immediately apparent that there were a variety of intervening variables which modified the influence of mass media. Foremost among these appeared to be the "pri-mary" associations (family, friends, work associates, etc.) of the communication receivers. One tends to vote as his friends vote. Subsequent research focussed on the influence of communications from one's primary affiliations on the formation of voting decisions; the findings of this research tended to support the notion that voting decisions were a result of the resolution of "cross pressures" arising from various accessible communication sources. (Berelson, Lazars-8. feld, McPhee, 1954) The renewed focus on primary affilia-tions led researchers to eventually conclude that, insofar as mass communications influence people at all, they have their primary effect on opinion leaders, people with a concern in the subject and a desire for knowledge in the area. The opinion leaders, as recognized authorities, then spread their information to those with whom they associate. (This is the "two-step" hypothesis of mass communications postulated by 1 Katz and Lazarsfeld, 1955.) These changes in perspective in mass communication studies can probably best be understood in terms of a general rediscovery of the importance of the primary group. (See Katz and Lazarsfeld, 1955, ch. 2.) Three current perspectives on social influence. The greatly increased concern with social influence theory that developed in the late 1940's and the early and middle 50's can be seen as following two quite independent intellectual traditions, each identifiable with its own school of researchers. In addition to the continuing work on mass communications, the interest in social influence through per-suasive communications in general continued in the work of C. Hovland and his associates at the Yale School of Human Relations (see Hovland et al., 1953). In the same period, a large body of research into social influence processes with regard to the "small group" was accumulating at the Research 9. Center for Group Dynamics at Michigan, under the intellectual guidance of L. Festinger (see Cartwright and Zander, 1960). In more recent years, on the basis of developments in the group dynamics school, yet another research tradition has developed. This latest tradition focusses on social influence through "cognitive processes." (See Festinger, 1957). The research carried out by Hovland and his associates at Yale seems to be least important; i t w i l l be discussed f i r s t . Social influence through persuasive communications. The Yale researchers interested in social influence through persuasive communications appear to have organized their in-vestigation around Lasswell's (1949) oft-quoted communication formula: who says what to whom and with what effect? Thus, the social influence process can be broken down into a schema of communicators, communications, and communication receivers. According to Hovland and his associates, each of these factors can be viewed as sources of "intervening variables" which can influence the communication receiver's motivation to learn the communication.^ The research model used by the Yale school i n -volved measuring attitude change under experimental conditions which varied characteristics of the communicator, the communi-cation, and the communication receiver. Typically, the experi-4. This focus on learning theory in social influence processes can be traced to the previous research done on social influence at the Yale Human Relations School. Dollard and Miller (1941) were also at the Human Relations School. See footnote 1, this chapter. 10. mental setting involved a "speaker" communicating to an "audience" of some kind. The characteristics of the communi-cator were seen as important for social influence when they concerned such things as his "prestige" and his "credibility" (prestige suggestion). Important characteristics of the communication i t s e l f were such things as the order of pre-sentation of material, the amount of repetition, the degree to which there were implicit rewards and punishments for accept-ance and non-acceptance of the message in the communication, and so on. Finally, the characteristics of the communication receiver which could determine the social influence process concerned the receiver's psychological characteristics, such as persuasibility (generally as a function of low self-esteem), as well as the existence of sources of counter-communication, such as those from primary associations, within the audience. The unfortunate part about the approach of the Yale school during this period i s that the variables they isolated "...are hardly more than descriptive or common sense guidelines to variables that have to be conceptually revaluated in each new experimental setting." (Brehm and Cohn, 1962, p. 246) Social influences as "pressures to uniformity" in  the small group. The interest of the Group Dynamics research-11. ers i n the small group was, to some extent, based on e a r l i e r concerns with the "primary group" as an anchor for i n d i v i d u a l b e l i e f s and attitudes. Their main t h e o r e t i c a l departure con-cerned an over-riding focus on s o c i a l influence i n terms of pressures to uniformity a r i s i n g out of sustained face-to-face i n t e r a c t i o n . They c l e a r l y assumed that communication was the mechanism through which pressures, to uniformity operated, but t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n i s t approach led them to consider communica-tio n as more than just the exchange of verbal responses; rather, communication involved a l l kinds of behavioural ex-changes, including physical actions ( i . e . , "binging") and in t e r a c t i o n patterns ( i . e . , " r e j e c t i o n " of deviates). The t h e o r e t i c a l focus i n t h e i r view of s o c i a l influence was on group norms, which were at once: (1) products of s o c i a l i n -teraction, p a r t i c u l a r l y face-to-face i n t e r a c t i o n i n a "small group" ( i . e . Sherif's study i n 1936 on the development of judgmental norms i n an i n i t i a l l y unstructured situation) and (2) s o c i a l s t i m u l i which were capable of e l i c i t i n g conform-i t y from each of the "small group" participants ( i . e . , S. Aseh*s 1951 study on conformity to perceptual judgment norms). Thus, the Group Dynamics researchers following the orientation of K. Lewin (1951) asked two related ques-t i o n s : what are the sources of group norms and, once formed, 12. how do they come to influence the individual's behaviour? The answer to these questions had two parts. F i r s t l y , the Group Dynamics researchers hypothesized that group norms pro-vide s o c i a l r e a l i t y for the i n d i v i d u a l . Since there i s often no accessible evidence for the correctness of one's b e l i e f s and never any empirical basis to value judgments, the i n d i -vidual i n f e r s the correctness of h i s b e l i e f s and attitudes by comparing h i s p o s i t i o n with that held by others. When there i s a wide discrepancy between one's personal perspective and the one held by others around him, then the i n d i v i d u a l tends to change hi s perspective toward that held by these others. Secondly, they assumed that consensus, p a r t i c u l a r l y as t h i s refers to group goals and the road to them, i s necessary i f the group's a c t i v i t y i s to be coordinated and mutually satisfy.-: ing to i t s members. Thus, there w i l l be pressure to communi-cate within a group i n order to e s t a b l i s h consensus on group goals. Pressures to uniformity, then, were considered to arise out of the dual demand for " s o c i a l r e a l i t y " and for "group locomotion". (See Festinger, 1950) Moreover, the strength of either of these two sources of pressure to uni-formity were considered to be a function of the cohesiveness of the group (the extent to which members were mutually attracted) and the relevance (importance) of the issue to 13. the group. There are several empirical studies which i n d i -cate that the greater the cohesiveness of the group and the greater the relevance of the issue to the group, the greater \ w i l l be the conformity (consensus) on that issue within the group. (See the early studies by Schachter, 1951, and Back, 1951, for i l l u s t r a t i o n s of t h i s evidence.) While i t was not i n i t i a l l y recognized, i t became increasingly clear that the demand for " s o c i a l r e a l i t y " was a perceptual or i n t e r n a l source of pressure to uniformity and, as such, could be distinguished i n nature from the demand for 'group locomotion" which, even i f conceived i n t e r n a l l y , general-l y involved the application of external pressures (rejection, etc.) on deviant members to bring about conformity. The emer-gence of t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n between i n t e r n a l and external as-pects of s o c i a l pressure to uniformity, while not an e n t i r e l y clear one, appears to have been instrumental i n several sub-sequent t h e o r e t i c a l developments. These developments gener-a l l y concerned an increasing i n t e r e s t i n the i n t e r n a l or cog-n i t i v e aspects of s o c i a l influence. Social influence through "cognitive" processes. To begin with, the d i s t i n c t i o n between i n t e r n a l and external sources of pressure led to the emergence of a somewhat ana-logous d i s t i n c t i o n between public conformity ( " . . . s u p e r f i c i a l 14. changes on a verbal or overt l e v e l without accompanying changes i n b e l i e f . . . . " ) and private acceptance ("...a change that i s more general, more durable, more integrated with the 5 person's own values.") Public conformity i s generally seen as occurring only when the conforming i n d i v i d u a l wishes a favourable response from the person demanding compliance because the l a t t e r has control over access to desired goals. Thus, public conformity i s dependent upon overt rewards and punishments and takes place only under conditions of s u r v e i l - lance . Private acceptance, on the other hand, i s the resu l t of attempts to s o c i a l l y anchor b e l i e f s and attitudes, and oc-curs under conditions of a t t r a c t i o n to the influencing agent. During the middle and l a t t e r h a l f of the 1950's, researchers interested i n s o c i a l influence turned more atten-t i o n to the problems of private acceptance. Festinger (1954), a leader i n t h i s change i n focus, made important attempts to specify the demand for "s o c i a l r e a l i t y " i n terms of a psycho-l o g i c a l drive and to b u i l d a network of i n t e r r e l a t e d hypo-theses around t h i s to explain s o c i a l influence. It was argued that since "The holding of incorrect opinions and/or inaccur-ate appraisals of one's a b i l i t i e s can be punishing or even f a t a l i n many s i t u a t i o n s . . . . " then, "There exi s t s , i n the human organism, a drive to evaluate opinions and a b i l i t i e s . " 5. This d i s t i n c t i o n has been made by Festinger (1953), Jahoda (1959), and Kelman (1961). The quoted d e f i n i t i o n s are from Kelman's a r t i c l e . 15. (Festinger, 1954, p. 117) As was previously argued, to evalu-ate one's b e l i e f s and attitudes when, as i s often the case, there i s no objective means available, people compare t h e i r own p o s i t i o n with those of others, changing when there i s a discrepancy. Who one compares himself with depends l a r g e l y on the r e l a t i v e attractiveness of available comparative con-texts. The most important innovation i n t h i s reformulation of an e a r l i e r perspective was that a t t r a c t i o n could be speci-f i e d i n terms of the "perceived s i m i l a r i t y " of the available comparison standard. It was argued that the more si m i l a r the attributes of the people with whom one compares himself, the more accurate would be the appraisal. To summarize Festinger's theory, the s o c i a l influence process, whereby people develop attitude s i m i l a r i t i e s to cer-t a i n others, i s explained by an adjustment process r e s u l t i n g from a comparison with these others. The degree to which a given "group" of others are used as a comparison context de-pends on t h e i r attractiveness. And, i n turn, the degree to which a given "group" i s a t t r a c t i v e depends on t h e i r perceived s i m i l a r i t y . One may conclude that while s o c i a l influence may occur i n t h i s manner, the theory lends i t s e l f to a cir c u l a r , argument concerning the r e l a t i o n s h i p of a t t r a c t i o n and attitude s i m i l a r i t y . This problem w i l l be discussed i n chapter I I . 16. The focus on attraction, or positive emotional "valence," as the basis for attitude change led to increased interest in "cognitive balance" theories. This new focus re-presented a major change from the group dynamics position for while the group dynamics researchers focussed on the need for "social reality", the balance theorists focussed on the need for "cognitive balance". According to the balance theorists, perceptions (generally "knowledge" in any sense, including cog-nitions, beliefs, attitudes, etc.) in one's "cognitive f i e l d " may be either consistent or inconsistent with one another. The fundamental assumption was that when there i s inconsistency (im-balance) , the individual w i l l try to reorganize his conceptual f i e l d to minimize the strain resulting from the inconsistency. Insofar as the reorganization generally involved perceptions of the beliefs and attitudes of other people as well as one's own beliefs and attitudes, the process could involve change in one's beliefs and attitudes. The traditional framework for analyzing attitude change resulting from cognitive imbalance involves the three way relationship between an individual (P), another person or persons (0), and an impersonal object (X), which are cogni-tively experienced by the individual (P). 6 The object, among 6. For the i n i t i a l statement of this model, see Heider (1946). For a recent statement of Heider's theory as well as the considerable developments in this area by Osgood and Tannenbaum (1955) and Festinger (1957), see Zajonc (1960). 17. other things, may be considered to be a belief or an attitude. Each of the three relationships (P to 0, P to X, and 0 to X) are considered primarily in terms of the valence involved. The valence may be positive (generally liking or attraction) or negative (generally disliking or repulsion). There being three relationships, each of which may be positive or negative, means that there are eight (2 3) possible combinations of the valence structure concerning these three relationships. Whether or not a given combination i s balanced (four of them are and four are not) depends on a f a i r l y straightforward logical analysis. For example, i f a person (P) likes another person (0), and the other person (0) dislikes or rejects cer-tain beliefs or attitudes (X) which the person (P) adheres to, one would expect that the relationship would be a strain on the person (P), especially insofar as the mutual concern of both P and O with X was great. Findings by Jordan (1953), using a questionnaire to measure discomfort, and more con-vincing findings by Burdick and Burnes (1958), using a mea-sure of skin resistance (G.S.R.) as a measure of "strain", both indicate that unbalanced states are indeed more uncomfort-able for the person concerned than are balanced ones. Moreover, balance theories, particularly Festingers' (1957) version have been particularly useful in predicting many aspects of 18. the s o c i a l influence process, such as the reaction of a heavy smoker to cancer propaganda and the changing of a t t i -tudes toward d i s l i k e d food. Perhaps i t i s somewhat unfair to t h i s important body of knowledge to make the discussion of i t so short but, from the point of view of s o c i a l influence t theory, there are some major r e s t r i c t i o n s on i t s use. To begin with, as i n Festinger's (1954) approach, there i s nothing i n the theory which predicts or s p e c i f i e s the conditions under which a person w i l l be attracted to another person other than under conditions of perceived attitude s i m i l a r i t y . Secondly, given a dissonant si t u a t i o n , such as that i n the example given e a r l i e r i n t h i s paragraph, there are four possible ways that the i n d i v i d u a l can restore balance to the s i t u a t i o n . Each of these p o s s i b i l i t i e s has been reported i n the l i t e r a t u r e : (1) he can change h i s own attitude to the object (Smith, 1961); (2) he can change h i s attitude toward the other person (or persons) involved (Osgood and Tannenbaum, 1955); (3) he can attemptthrough communication, to change the other person's attitude to the object (Newcomb, 1953); or (4) he can do any combination of the preceeding three courses of action at the same time (Osgood and Tannenbaum, 1955). Unfortunately, at th i s time, no one has yet been able to specify the variables which determine which of the above p o s s i b i l i t i e s w i l l occur 19. i n a g i v e n s i t u a t i o n . Summary At the most g e n e r a l l e v e l s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e can be p e r c e i v e d as an adjustment p r o c e s s i n v o l v i n g communication. Much o f the co n c e r n about s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e among e a r l y w r i t e r s a r o s e out o f the p o l i t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s o f mass media. Cur-r e n t l y , one can d i s t i n g u i s h a t l e a s t t h r e e s e p a r a t e r e s e a r c h t r a d i t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e p r o c e s s e s : (1) the s t u d y o f s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e r e s u l t i n g from p e r s u a s i v e communica-t i o n s , o f t e n mass communications; (2) the s t u d y o f s o c i a l i n -f l u e n c e a r i s i n g from "pressure s t o u n i f o r m i t y " i n s m a l l group i n t e r a c t i o n ; and (3) the s t u d y o f s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e a r i s i n g out o f p e r c e p t u a l o r c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s . These r e s e a r c h t r a d i t i o n s were seen t o d i f f e r a l o n g a v a r i e t y o f d i m e n s i o n s , not the l e a s t o f wh i c h were: the i n i t i a l problems f o r wh i c h e x p l a n a t i o n was sought, the type o f r e s e a r c h done, and the t h e o r e t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e t a k e n . While e a c h . r e s e a r c h t r a d i t i o n tended t o b u i l d i t s own s e l f - c o n t a i n e d body o f t h e o r y , i t i s apparent t h a t t h e r e i s some h i s t o r i c a l c o n t i n u i t y and i n t e g r a -t i o n o f t h e i r f i n d i n g s and p e r s p e c t i v e s . *** 20. CHAPTER I I . A THEORY OF SOCIAL INFLUENCE. This chapter w i l l be devoted to developing a detailed theory of s o c i a l influence. The general focus i n t h i s task w i l l be on s o c i a l norms as the basis for s o c i a l i n -fluence. The f i r s t part of the chapter i s a discussion of a t r a d i t i o n a l paradigm for s o c i a l influence i n terms of s o c i a l norms; t h i s paradigm i s generally associated with "reference group" theory. Several t h e o r e t i c a l problems associated with the use of t h i s model w i l l be pointed out. The second part of t h i s chapter concerns the development of a theory of s o c i a l influence designed to t r y to resolve some of these rproblems. A general model for s o c i a l influence and the problems associ- ated with i t s use: A general model for s o c i a l influence. A general i n -t e l l e c t u a l perspective for the nature of s o c i a l influence was expressed some time ago by W. I. Thomas (1923) when he sug-gested that how one behaves under given circumstances depends on on one's d e f i n i t i o n of the s i t u a t i o n . Within the developing conceptual framework of the s o c i a l sciences, how one defines a s i t u a t i o n has been viewed as being dependent upon the frame  of reference one uses. (Sherif, 1936) Thus, with regard to s o c i a l influence processes, cer t a i n other people, through communication of various kinds, provide the concepts and per-spectives the in d i v i d u a l uses to define the world; these 21. people provide the values and the goals for the i n d i v i d u a l ; and they provide rules and presdriptions which delineate ap-proriate behaviour for the i n d i v i d u a l . These s o c i a l l y derived concepts, evaluative standards and prescriptions, a l l of which provide frames of reference for i n d i v i d u a l behaviour, are gener-1 a l l y referred to as norms. In t h i s manner, the t h e o r e t i c a l fo-cus on s o c i a l influence processes narrows down to how frames of reference, or norms, become shared. Attitude change, for exam-ple, i s the change of an established frame of reference. Through attitude change, one comes to share a new perspective, associated with a certain group of others (Newcomb, 1950, pp. 217-218) To the extent that the focus i n s o c i a l influence the-ory i s on shared frames of reference, the focus i s also on con-formity and non-conformity. I f a person shares the perspective of a given group of people, he i s said to be conforming to t h e i r norms. Conversely, within a group of people, anyone not sharing the referents of the other members i s "non-conforming". In the l i t e r a t u r e on s o c i a l influence, the source of one's perspective or frame of reference, i . e . , the group to which one conforms, 2 i s generally termed one's reference group. As several 1. This i s , c l e a r l y , a very general d e f i n i t i o n of a s o c i a l norms; l a t e r on i n t h i s chapter (see page ahead) more s p e c i f i c d e f i n i t i o n w i l l be given. For an expanded discussion of s o c i a l norms as shared frames of reference, see Newcomb (1950, pp. 195-232). For additional refinements on Newcomb's discussion, see Rommetveit (1955, part I ) . 2. In recent years, several a r t i c l e s (Kelly, 1952; 22. writers have pointed out, however, because the number of available reference groups i s i n f i n i t e l y large, there i s l i t t l e advantage i n claiming that an individual's behaviour i s deter-mined by a given group's perspective unless one has some theo-r e t i c a l basis for emp i r i c a l l y determining which group i s i n -3 volved. This i s not a new problem. As C.H. Cooley noted some f i f t y years ago, the non-conformist i s the one who seems to be out of step with the procession because he i s keeping time to another music; Cooley c a l l e d t h i s behaviour "remote conformity". Yet, with regard to s o c i a l influence, Cooley also noted that "...there is...no d e f i n i t e l i n e between con-Shibutani, 1955; and Turner, 1956) have appeared to point out the various usages of the concept reference group i n the s o c i a l influence l i t e r a t u r e . While each writer had made somewhat d i f -ferent d i s t i n c t i o n s , they have been unanimous i n d i s t i n g u i s h -ing between the following two usages: (1) the o r i g i n a l usage by Hyman (1942), where the fererence group comprised a stan-dard for evaluating one's po s i t i o n , status, and deprivation; and (2) the l a t e r usage by Newcomb (1943), where the reference group i s the source of one's values or perspective. The d i s -cussion above generally corresponds to Newcomb's usage, but l a t e r on i n t h i s chapter (see page ahead) the term reference group i s defined as the source of normative standards for making self-evaluations, thereby generally combining Hyman's and Newcomb*s usages. 3. H. Hyman, who i s generally credited with having coined the term reference group, i n a recent summary of de-velopments i n reference group theory, stressed that " . . . r e f e r -ence groups must be determined by empirical means, not imputed a r b i t r a r i l y " . (Hyman, 1960, p. 34) More recently s t i l l . Couch and Murray (1964, p. 502) have noted: "Seldom has the concept (reference group) been translated into empirical measures of human re l a t i o n s h i p s . " 23. formity and non-conformity; there i s simply a more or less c h a r a c t e r i s t i c and unusual way of selecting and combining accessible influences." (Cooley, 1902, pp. 301-302) The basic problem, then, i s to i d e n t i f y the variables which deter-mine the degree to which a given "accessible influence" w i l l be used as a source of perspective, i . e . , the degree to which a given group w i l l be used as a reference group. The following discussion analyzes th i s basic problem i n terms of a series of sub-problems. Segmental relevance of reference group norms. Schachter (1951) has shown that the degree of compliance on any issue within ad hoc "small groups" varies d i r e c t l y with the experimentally manipulated relevance of that issue i n the group. Si m i l a r l y , Rasmussen and Zander (1954) found that com-pliance to teaching norms among school teachers was greater on issues they considered important i n the group than i t was on issues which were perceived as less important. These findings bear on the notion that people use many reference groups, each one being segmentally relevant for a p a r t i c u l a r set of actions. Turner (1955), for example, found that an individual's family, h i s chosen occupational group and h i s r e l i g i o n may be considered d i f f e r e n t reference groups, each governing standards and behaviour on issues that are impor-tant within the system concerned. Charters and Newcomb (1958), 24. while agreeing that reference groups have segmental relevance, point out that the norms of d i f f e r e n t reference groups often overlap and concern the same behaviour. The degree to which a given group's norms w i l l be used i n preference to the norms of other groups depends, i n part, on the "salience" (contextu-a l relevance) of that group. Charters and Newcomb point out that the "salience" of a given reference group can be increa-sed under cert a i n conditions, thereby changing the subjects' response on an attitude questionnaire. Membership status i n reference groups. In the "small groups" studies on s o c i a l influence c a r r i e d out by the Group Dynamics researchers, the i n d i v i d u a l being influenced could generally be considered to be a member of the group; thi s was e s p e c i a l l y true i f by "membership" one referred to acceptance i n a group of int e r a c t i n g people. Thus, the i n -fluence i n these studies was from a membership group. A wide va r i e t y of research, however, has indicated that people are often "psychological" members in.groups i n which they could 5 not be considered to be members i n any other sense. Thus, people come to share the norms of groups to which they do not a c t u a l l y belong; i n other words, they may be influenced by a non-membership group. The fact that one need not belong 5. See Siegel and Siegel (1957); Eisenstadt (1954); and the discussion by Merton (1963, pp. 288-299). 25. to a group i n any more than a "psychological" manner presents special problems for the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the source of one's perspective. As Newcomb has, pointed out: A l l membership groups probably serve as reference groups for t h e i r members to some degree and i n some ways. But not a l l reference groups are membership groups; most of us: are also influencedby norms of some groups i n which we are not recognized as belonging. (Newcomb, 1950, p. 226) The variables which specify the degree to which a given group's norms are used by an i n d i v i d u a l , i t would appear, should be applicable irres p e c t i v e of one's membership status i n the group. Reference groups as "groups". To further confound the d i f f i c u l t i e s i n i d e n t i f y i n g reference groups, Merton has cor r e c t l y pointed out that the term "group" i n the reference group concept i s a misnomer. The concept reference group has been "...applied not only to groups but to in d i v i d u a l s and s o c i a l categories as we l l . " (Merton, 1961, p. 284) Thus, for, example, the concept of " s o c i a l c l a s s " (Bott, 1954), the re l i g i o u s categories of "Protestant" and "Catholic" (Charters and Newcomb,(1963), and the general d i s t i n c t i o n s between "men" and "women", "so l d i e r s " and "non-soldiers", and " o f f i c e r s " and "enlisted men" (Merton and K i t t , 1950) have a l l been used to depict reference groups. This seemingly a r b i t r a r y delineation of reference groups suggests that "A reference group may or 26. may not ex i s t , i n the sense of being recognized by people other than the person for whom i t serves as a reference group. A man may have a reference group whose members he has never seen, or who have long since died." (Newcomb, 1950, p. 225) Thus, reference groups may be i d i o s y n c r a t i c a l l y structured for each person. Bott (1954), for example, points out that while people use t h e i r subjective evaluations of class p o s i -t i o n for a reference group, each person's perception of the class structure and t h e i r own place i n i t tends to be highly i d i o s y n c r a t i c , varying greatly with personal experience. Group attractiveness and the choice of reference  groups. In the l i t e r a t u r e discussed i n chapter I, the main variable specifying the degree to which a given group's per-spective i s l i k e l y to be adopted by the i n d i v i d u a l i s the group's attractiveness to the i n d i v i d u a l . However, i t was noted, with regard to work done on " r e a l i t y t e s t i n g " and the work done on achieving "cognitive balance" (pp. 13-18), that unless one can specify the bases of a t t r a c t i o n independently of the attitude s i m i l a r i t y that one i s tr y i n g to explain, the concepts "attraction* 1 and 'attitude s i m i l a r i t y " tend to become co-terminous. A major concern i n the s o c i a l influence theory discussed i n the next section w i l l be with resolving the seemingly t a u t o l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between a t t r a c t i v e -ness and compliance. 27. Concepts and propositions toward a theory of s o c i a l influence. Introductory comments. This section concerns the development of, a theory of s o c i a l influence i n an attempt to resolve some of the problems discussed i n the previous section. As indicated i n the preceding paragraph, the main task i n t h i s theory i s to explain why a person w i l l be attracted to, and hence comply with the norms i n one group rather than another. In other words, an attempt w i l l be made to define a t t r a c t i o n independ-ently of attitude s i m i l a r i t y . For c l a r i t y , i t seems advisable to anticipate the general perspective that w i l l be taken i n approaching t h i s problem. Research on l e v e l of aspiration i n task performance situations provides the point of departure that w i l l be taken i n specifying the basis for a t t r a c t i o n to a group. "It was evident i n . . . ( e a r l y l e v e l of aspiration) studies that selec-t i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r l e v e l of aspiration and l a t e r changes i n aspiration l e v e l during a series of t r i a l s could u s e f u l l y be conceived of as coping behaviour, apparently intended to pre-vent a low evaluation of oneself." (Zander and Curtis, 1962, p. 63) I f one were to consider behavioural norms i n a group as l e v e l s of performance aspiration for the group's members, then the norms one chooses can also be seen as an attempt to prevent a low self-evaluation. Furthermore, i f one were to 28. assume, as the research i n l e v e l of aspiration studies i n d i -cates, that self-evaluation i s a function of the difference between the behavioural standards one adopts and one's actual performance, then i t would be l i k e l y that an i n d i v i d u a l w i l l adopt norms which allow him to minimize the discrepancy between these norms and his l e v e l of performance. The empirical e v i -dence i n connection with t h i s viewpoint w i l l be discussed l a t e r i n t h i s chapter. The theory of s o c i a l influence which follows w i l l exhibit the following points. F i r s t , the theory w i l l have something to say about the segmental relevance of group norms. Second, i t w i l l be applicable to a l l groups, regardless of one's membership status within the group. Third, the concept-ual framework used w i l l allow for the possible i d i o s y n c r a t i c structuring of reference groups. F i n a l l y , choice of reference groups w i l l be on the basis of a t t r a c t i o n which, i n turn, w i l l be s p e c i f i e d on the basis of the degree to which the norms i n the group concerned allow a favourable self-evaluation. In t h i s theory, one's reference group i s "The group whose norms of evaluation are used when an actor formulates h i s self= a t t i t u d e s . . . . " (Zetterberg, 1957, p. 184) The discussion begins with a presentation of the concepts which w i l l be used i n the theory. 29. Conceptual framework. As i n many other areas i n the s o c i a l sciences, the conceptual frameworks available for the study of s o c i a l i n -fluence d i f f e r between research schools. Hans Zetterberg, i n hi s paper Compliant Actions (1957), has developed a conceptual scheme which he hopes w i l l help integrate and refine previous •conceptual schemes for discussingssocial influence processes. Zetterberg's d i s t i n c t i o n s seem to be suited to the task i n t h i s paper. The following discussion i s an attempt to para-phrase and summarize those of his d i s t i n c t i o n s which w i l l be most useful. The basic terms i n Zetterberg's scheme are those of "actor" and "actions". An aggregate of actors (actions) i s termed an "action system." There i s no desire to add jargon to the l i t e r a t u r e , but the notion of an "action system" pro-vides a way out of the d i f f i c u l t i e s associated with the word "groip" i n the reference group concept. A l l that one need assume about the nature of an action system i s that i t i s a s o c i a l aggregate of some kind which i s v i s i b l e to a given actor and i s perceived as a unit by that actor. The v a r i -ables of a t t r a c t i o n , i n t e r a c t i o n , and membership, usually associated with the concept "group," may be considered to be independent attributes which may or may not be present i n any 30. combination in a given action system. Among actions, Zetterberg distinguishes three sub-classes. In any action system it is likely that some actors will describe various events, some will evaluate events, and some—perhaps the same persons—will prescribe what should be done about these events. Two of these three sub-classes have particular relevance for the theory building task at hand: (1) evaluations, because they are involved in self-evaluations, and (2) prescriptions, because these specify the behavioural standards which a person is required to meet in a given system. Any action that is repeated may be considered to be a uniform action. Since an action may be repeated by the same actor at different times or by several actors at the same time, one may further distinguish between a dispositional  action, a uniform action repeated by the same actor, and an aggregate action, a uniform action repeated at the same time by several actors. By combining the distinction between dis-positional and aggregate actions with the two sub-types of action, evaluations and prescriptions, noted above, one can derive the following concepts: An attitude is a dispositional evaluation; for example, the writer's feeling that derived definitions are better than non-derived ones. An expectation is a dispositional prescription; for example, my demand that the reader: Read these definitions carefully! A social value 31. (sometimes s o c i a l valuation) i s an aggregate evaluation, for example, people are more important than rocks. A s o c i a l norm i s an aggregate p r e s c r i p t i o n ; ; f o r example, s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s should not spend t h e i r time studying rocks. The derived d e f i n i t i o n s i n the previous paragraph provide the basic conceptual framework for the theory of s o c i a l influence which follows. The whole notion of s o c i a l influence, c l e a r l y , i s based on the supposition that d i s p o s i -t i o n a l and aggregate actions overlap. The father's expecta-t i o n about education enters as one element i n the s o c i a l norm about school attendance. However, t h i s overlap i s not to be taken for granted. The c h i l d ' s expectations about school attendance may be d i f f e r e n t from the s o c i a l norm and lead him into d i f f i c u l t i e s . The problem i s to specify the condi-tions under which d i s p o s i t i o n a l actions come to overlap with the aggregate actions i n a given action system. This problem i s just a re-statement of the main concern i n t h i s paper. Which variables determine the degree to which a given group w i l l be used as a reference group? Propositions. The l e v e l of aspiration studies referred to i n the introduction to t h i s section, i t w i l l be r e c a l l e d , suggested that people have a desire to maintain p o s i t i v e self-evaluations. This assumption may be stated as a postulate i n the following way: Drive for favourable s e l f - a t t i t u d e s : An actor's actions have  a tendency to become dispositions that are related to the  occurrence of favourable s e l f - a t t i t u d e s . (Zetterberg, 1957, p. 184) The above postulate, then, assumes that people at-tempt to adopt and to repeat those actions which allow them to have a favourable self-evaluation. While the following propositions i n the theory being developed do not form an e n t i r e l y deductive system, t h i s postulated drive for favour-able s e l f - a t t i t u d e s may be considered to be the highest order proposition i n the system. Support for the drive pos-tulate can only be i n f e r r e d from the v e r i f i c a t i o n of lower order propositions which i m p l i c i t l y r e l y on i t . Xn t h i s re-gard, one other point should be clear. In l i n e with the general perspective of l e v e l of aspiration studies, s e l f -attitudes are assumed to be a decreasing function of the size of the discrepancy between one's i n t e r n a l i z e d standards and one's actual performance. The more that a person i s not able to a t t a i n his standards for performance, the more he w i l l f e e l f a i l u r e or low-self-evaluation. This assumption 33. should be kept i n mind as the propositional structure i s set f o r t h . The f i r s t testable hypothesis i n the theory concerns the r e l a t i o n s h i p of compliance to the evaluation of the person i n the system. The proposition i s generally attributed to Homans (1950, pp. 140-144) who, i n his re-analysis of the Western E l e c t r i c Studies, was able to show that workers who complied to the norms (prescriptions) about p r o d u c t i v i t y were more popular than those who did not. In other words, the evaluation of an actor i n an action system i s a decreasing function of the discrepancy between system norms and actor's performance. This i s analogous to the assumption that s e l f -evaluation i s a decreasing function of the discrepancy between the actor's self-expectations and performance. HYPOTHESIS 1: the Homans hypothesis: The more an actor's  actions comply with the uniform prescriptions i n an action  system, the more favoured the evaluation of him and-or hhis  action tend to become i n the system. (Zetterberg, 195 7, p. 194) The degree to which an actor's actions comply with the uniform prescriptions i n an action system, as has been noted, depends on how attracted the actor i s to that system. 34. The more a t t r a c t i v e a system i s to an actor, the more that actor w i l l s t r i v e to adopt the perspective i n that system. In other words, a t t r a c t i o n to a given action system has i t s primary e f f e c t on changing one's self-expectations. Since, according to the drive postulate, an in d i v i d u a l w i l l t r y to mainsaiii a favourable self-evaluation, a change i n s e l f -expectations w i l l lead to attempts to change behaviour. In th i s roundabout fashion the actor's actions come to approximate the performance expectations i n a given system. HYPOTHESIS 2. Normative compliance and a t t r a c t i o n : The  greater an actor's a t t r a c t i o n to an action system, the more  his self-expectations w i l l comply with the norms i n the sys- tem. HYPOTHESIS 3. Behavioural compliance and a t t r a c t i o n : The  greater an actor's a t t r a c t i o n to an action system, the more  his actions w i l l comply with the norms i n that system. It w i l l be r e c a l l e d from the previous discussion that support for these two hypotheses includes the s i t u a t i o n where the actors are members of the action system involved (Schachter, 1951; and Back, 1951), as well as the case where the actors are only members i n a "psychological" sensec(Rasmussen and Zander, 1954; and Siegel and Siegel, 1957). 35. Since a t t r a c t i o n leads to behavioural compliance (hypothesis 3)land since behavioural compliance i s associated with the po s i t i v e uniform evaluations of the systems (hypothesis 1). then a t t r a c t i o n should also be related to the uniform evalu-ations of him and-or his actions i n the system. HYPOTHESIS 4. Attr a c t i o n and uniform evaluations: The more  attracted an actor i s to an action system, the more favorable  w i l l be the uniform evaluations of him and-or h i s actions i n the system. Some evidence i n support of t h i s proposition has been provided by Newcomb (1943) i n his study at Bennington College. The students at t h i s college who most i d e n t i f i e d with (were most attracted to) the student body were most l i k e l y to adopt the " l i b e r a l " orientation of the College. Moreover, strong l i b e r a l i s m was associated with prestige i n the school. The next proposition concerns the way i n which one's self-evaluation i s related to the uniform evaluations of that person i n the system. Cooley (1902, ch.V,VI) i s generally credited with the i n i t i a l suggestion that a person's s e l f -evaluation depends d i r e c t l y on the evaluation that others make of him. Each to each a looking-glass Reflects the other that doth pass. Thus, an individual's imagining of how he appears to another, 36. combined with his imagining of the other's judgment of that 6 appearance, i s the basis of s e l f - f e e l i n g . The major d i f f i -c u l t y with t h i s view of self-evaluation i s that not everybody i s equally important as a "looking g l a s s " — the loss of esteem among our friends, for example, i s apt to be much more demoral-7 i z i n g than loss of esteem among our enemies. The people who are important i n the formation of s e l f - a t t i t u d e s are generally referred to as "relevant others." Attempts to test Cooley's proposition by M. Manis (1955); Miyamoto and Dornbusch (1956), Reeder e_t al_. (1960), and Couch and Murrey (1964), insofar as they have been able to empirically i d e n t i f y the "relevant other" have a l l found that self-evaluation i s c l o s e l y related to the evaluation given by these "relevant others" to the person con-cerned. The reason why self-evaluation should depend upon 6. "Perhaps we do something, quite unnaturally, that we fi n d the s o c i a l order i s set against, or perhaps i t i s the or-dinary course of our l i f e that i s not so well regarded as we supposed. At any rate.y we f i n d that our self-esteem, self-con-fidence, and hope, being c h i e f l y founded on opinion a t t r i b u t -able to others, go down with a crash." (Cooley, 1902, pp.246-247) 7. This d i f f i c u l t y i s sim i l a r to that encountered i n "role" theory, p a r t i c u l a r l y as thi s relates to G. H. Mead's (1934, part V) focus on the content (as opposed to evaluation) of one's s e l f - d e f i n i t i o n which arises out of the response of the "generalized other". The problem i n t h i s case i s to specify which "generalized other" the i n d i v i d u a l uses i n defining h i s own "r o l e " . 37. the evaluation given by "relevant others" has been approached from d i f f e r e n t points of view. Within the group dynamics t r a -d i t i o n , where emphasis was on the need for "s o c i a l r e a l i t y " , researchers saw the "self™ as "...the organized c o l l e c t i o n of attitudes, opinions, and b e l i e f s an i n d i v i d u a l holds about himself." and as such i t was perceived to "...be i n f l u -encable by the same factors which influence other b e l i e f s and opinions." (Manis, 1955, pp. 362-63) Thus, as with other b e l i e f s and opinions, one must continually check his per-spective against that held by others. Within the developing framework of t h i s paper, how-ever, one's self-evaluation i s assumed to be the difference bet-ween one's performance standards and one's actual perfor-mance. In addition, one's evaluation i n the system i s hypo-thesized (Homans) to be a function of the difference between performance standards i n the system and one's actual behaviour. Given these two assumptions, the only way that self-evaluation can l o g i c a l l y be equal to the uniform evaluations i n the sys-tem i s for the actor's self-expectations to be equal to group norms. Thus, following hypothesis 2, Cooley*s proposition may be stated as follows: HYPOTHESIS 5. The Cooley hypothesis: The more at t r a c t i v e an  action system i s to an actor, the more the actor's s e l f - e v a l u -38. ation w i l l tend to approximate the uniform evaluations of him  and-or his actions i n the system. If an a c t o r 1 s s e l f - a t t i t u d e s are congruent with the uniform evaluations of him i n an att r a c t i v e system (Cooley) and i f the uniform evaluations of an actor i n a system are de-pendent on compliance to the norms i n that system (Homans), then one can further hypothesize that: HYPOTHESIS 6. The Cooley-Homans derivation: The more at t r a c - t i v e an action system i s to an actor, the more the actor's be- havioural compliance to system norms w i l l be associated with  favourable s e l f - a t t i t u d e s . Rasmussen and Zander (1954) of f e r some support for hypothesis 6 by showing that among secondary school teachers, conformity to norms about proper behaviour within the profes-sion i s associated with posi t i v e self-evaluations among teachers attracted to t h e i r acquaintances on the school s t a f f . The theory developed thus far has yet to account for the segmental relevance of reference group norms. The previously referred to studies by Schachter (1951) and by Rasmussen and Zander (1954) generally indicate that relevance has much the same e f f e c t as a t t r a c t i o n i n producing compliance. Both a t t r a c t i o n and relevance are measures of importance— 39. a t t r a c t i o n s p e c i f i e s the importance of the group and relevance s p e c i f i e s the importance of various issues within the group. It would appear, then, that the e f f e c t of relevance i s additive to the e f f e c t of a t t r a c t i o n . Once the importance of the group has been established, then the r e l a t i v e importance of various issues within the group becomes a major consideration. Moreover, as with a t t r a c t i o n , relevance may be considered to have i t s primary e f f e c t on the individual*s expectations or norms. The changed norms come to influence behaviour only through the -drive to maintain favourable self-evaluations. On the basis of the above argument, the following hypotheses can be stated. HYPOTHESIS 7. Relevance and normative compliance: The greater  the perceived relevance (importance) of any norm i n an action  system to an actor, the greater w i l l be the actor's normative  compliance on that issue. HYPOTHESIS 8. Attraction, Relevance and Normative Compliance. The more attracted an actor i s to an action system, the greater  w i l l be h i s normative compliance on issues which he perceives  as relevant i n that system. HYPOTHESIS 9 . Relevance and Behavioural Compliance: The  greater the perceived relevance of any norm i n an action sys- tem to an actor, the greater w i l l be the actor's behavioural 40. compliance on that issue. HYPOTHESIS 10. Attract i o n , relevance and behavioural com- pliance ; The more attracted an actor i s to an action system,  the greater w i l l be his behavioural compliance on issues Which  he perceives as relevant i n that system. The next hypothesis concerns the basis for an actor's a t t r a c t i o n to an action system. Since, according to the drive postulated, the i n d i v i d u a l i s seeking to make a po s i t i v e s e l f -evaluation, one may hypothesize that he w i l l be attracted to groups i n which he i s capable of maintaining a po s i t i v e s e l f -evaluation. Thus an actor w i l l be attracted to a normative system which provides standards which allow him to minimize the discrepancy between his performance and the system's standards. The hypothesis i n t h i s regard can be stated f o r -mally as follows: HYPOTHESIS 11. Self-evaluation and a t t r a c t i o n : The more  favourable an actor's self-evaluation with regard to the norms  in a given system, the greater w i l l be his a t t r a c t i o n to that  system. Support for hypothesis 11 has been provided by Stotland who, i n an experiment on task performance, found that "...group members who achieve goals set for them while they are i n a 41. group w i l l be more attracted to i t than those who do not achieve these goals." and that "...groups i n which the members are expected to achieve high lev e l s of performance w i l l be less a t t r a c t i v e to the members than groups i n which the members are only expected to achieve low levels of performance." (Stotland, 1959, p. 72) Similar findings are apparent i n the work of Zander and Curtis (1962). F i n a l l y , P h i l i p s (1964) found that among medical students as the gap between the values i n a given medical f i e l d and the students* expectations for f u l f i l -l i n g these values increases, the students 1 desire to enter that f i e l d decreases. The importance of hypothesis 11 for the th e o r e t i c a l system has been previously pointed out. In t h i s regard i t i s ess e n t i a l that a l l the evidence, both pro and con, on t h i s hypothesis be presented. It appears that there i s some evidence which, i f not contrary to the proposition, at least presents confounding information bearing upon i t . F i r s t of a l l , there i s some evidence to indicate that a t t r a c t i o n to a p a r t i c u l a r group i s also dependent upon the uniform evaluations (prestige) of that group within a wider normative system. Eisenstadt (1954), reporting on the assimilation of immigrants into I s r a e l , finds that immigrants motivated to j o i n a group w i l l tend to adopt the values of that non-membership group, and that immigrants tend to select as reference groups the groups 42. which confer prestige i n terms of the i n s t i t u t i o n a l structure of the society. Thus, i t i s possible that many of these immi-grants, as perhaps status-climbers i n other s o c i e t i e s , adopt standards which w i l l foster a low self-evaluation. Somewhat sim i l a r findings are reported by Jackson (1960) who found that i n a formal organization, a t t r a c t i o n to the organization i s not dependent on subjective feelings of worth within the organization, but on the s o c i a l worth as defined by one's i n s t i t u t i o n a l p o s i t i o n (status) i n the or-ganization. I s r a e l (1960) further confounds the issue by finding that people who evaluate themselves p o s i t i v e l y with regard to a certain performance tend to accept (be attracted to) those who praise t h e i r importance and tend to reject those who are c r i t i c a l ; more importantly, a person evaluating himself negatively with regard to a certain performance w i l l tend to reject those who praise him and to accept those who c r i t i c i z e him. It i s the l a t t e r finding reported by I s r a e l that the theory developed here could not predict. The f i n a l confounding issue concerns the fact that several researchers have viewed low self-evaluation as a permanent personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , and shown t h i s to be related to s u s c e p t i b i l i t y to influence from any accessible source. (See Janis, 1954; and Berkowitz and Lundy, 1956-5 7) No attempt w i l l be made to t r y to make t h e o r e t i c a l sense out of these findings. 43. The propositions set out thus far constitute the central framework for t h i s discussion of s o c i a l influence. It should be clear, however, that the system presented so far i s by no means a closed one which excludes the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of introducing other variables to refine and expand the theory. One example should s u f f i c e to i l l u s t r a t e t h i s point. Ttfhile a t t r a c t i o n i s the main basis for compliance i n the system, some research findings indicate that an i n d i v i d u a l may be i n -fluenced even when a t t r a c t i o n i s minimal, providing that s o c i a l contact (interaction) i s both frequent and enduring. On t h i s basis, one may hypothesize that: HYPOTHESIS 12. Interaction and compliance. The more that an  actor interacts with the actors i n an action system, the greater  w i l l be h i s compliance with the norms i n that system. Siegel and Siegel's (195 7) study provides a good example of support for t h i s proposition. The study concerned the dor-mitory arrangements for co-eds i n a college. Some co-eds were forced to l i v e i n dormitories i n which they did not prefer to l i v e — t h e y were strongly attracted to the residents i n a d i f f e r e n t dormitory. Other co-eds were placed i n the dormitory of t h e i r choice. Of the co-eds l i v i n g i n a d i f -ferent dormitory from the one they preferred, some eventually 44. gave up th e i r aspirations to enter the previously preferred dormitory. Considering the i n i t i a l l y a t t r a c t i v e dormitory as the compliance system, compliance to group norms was greatest among those who came to l i v e i n (interact with) the dormitory they i n i t i a l l y preferred; compliance was next greatest among those who remained attracted to the dormitory they i n i t i a l l y preferred although l i v i n g i n another; and compliance was least among those who changed t h e i r a t t r a c t i o n to the dormitory i n which they had been forced to l i v e . The results suggest that i n t e r a c t i o n has some e f f e c t on compliance. It i s also l i k e l y that i n t e r a c t i o n i s related to at t r a c t i o n , somewhat i n the manner that Homans (1950, p. I l l ) has suggested. Either, or both, of the l a t t e r p o s s i b i l i t i e s could form the basis for further propositions i n the system. Summary. The discussion i n t h i s chapter focussed on s o c i a l influence as a process i n which individuals come to share the frame of reference (norms) of a given reference group. The basic problem for s o c i a l influence theory, i n t h i s regard, was seen to concern the specific.iation of the variables which determine the degree to which an i n d i v i d u a l w i l l adopt the perspective of a given group. A v a r i e t y of sub-problems, such as the fact that reference group norms may be segmen-45. t a l l y relevant, the fact that an i n d i v i d u a l does not have to be a member of a group i n order to use that group as a r e f e r -ence group, and the fact that reference groups need not be "groups" at a l l , were discussed. Following from these pro-blems, a conceptual framework and a series of propositions, intended as a theory of s o c i a l influence, were set forth. The main concern i n the theory was to t r y to specify an indi v i d u a l ' s a t t r a c t i o n to a given group i n terms of a variable other than attitude s i m i l a r i t y . The point of view taken i n t h i s task was derived from findings i n studies on l e v e l of performah.ce aspiration. These studies suggested that i n d i -viduals, i n seeking to maintain favourable self-evaluations, are attracted more to groups where they are able to achieve the l e v e l of performance set for them. Since s o c i a l norms can also be viewed as lev e l s of performance aspiration, these observations provided the basis of a theory of s o c i a l influence. This theory was set forth as a series of i n t e r r e l a t e d propo-s i t i o n s . 46. CHAPTER I I I . EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND PROCEDURE. The discussion i n t h i s chapter concerns the pro-cedure adopted to t r y to test the propositions developed i n chapter I I . The discussion i s broken down into five sections: (1) the s i t u a t i o n a l requirements for an adequate test; (2) the s i t u a t i o n a c t u a l l y chosen; (3) the operational procedure for measuring compliance and self-evaluation; (4) the pre-test, and (5) the f i n a l data c o l l e c t i o n . Requirements for the experimental s i t u a t i o n . Perhaps the greatest advantage of b u i l d i n g a net-work of i n t e r r e l a t e d hypotheses i s that many propositions can be tested by c o l l e c t i n g data on a lim i t e d number of v a r i -ables. In p a r t i c u l a r , i t can be shown that a l l twelve hypo-theses developed i n chapter II can be tested by operation-a l i z i n g and c o l l e c t i n g data on the following s i x variabl e s : i n an action system, each actor's: (1) a t t r a c t i o n to the sys- tem,;! (2) in t e r a c t i o n with system members, and (3) compliance (deviance) on system norms of varying (4) relevance; and, i n addition, the (5) uniform evaluations of each actor by the other actors i n the system and each actor's (6) self-evaluation. What would be a suitable s i t u a t i o n i n which to measure these variables? The theory developed i n chapter II indicates that i t would be advantageous i f the experimental s i t u a t i o n met at least the following conditions. F i r s t l y , the action system should c l e a r l y meet the assumption of s o c i a l v i s i b i l i t y such that each actor w i l l have reasonably clear per-ceptions of system norms. Secondly, the sphere of a c t i v i t i e s to which the system norms pri m a r i l y relate should be important to the majority of the actors concerned. This i s desired so that both conformity to and deviance from group norms are l i k e l y to be meaningful to the members and, as a re s u l t , to be important c r i t e r i a i n the evaluations they make of each other. Thirdly, the behavioural standards implied i n the norms should be genuinely d i f f i c u l t to att a i n , so that compliance to group norms does not automatically ensure that one's performance w i l l allow a favourable s e l f - a t t i t u d e . Fourthly, the actors concerned should exhibit d i f f e r e n t amounts of a t t r a c t i o n to and in t e r a c t i o n with the other actors i n the system. F i n a l l y , some norms within the system should be capable of being recognized by the actors as being more relevant than others. Choice of Experimental Situation The s p e c i f i e d conditions for a research s i t u a t i o n seem to be well met i n the study of large work organizations 48. of professional people. It i s generally recognized that pro-fessional groups tend to develop norms describing the "best" practices i n the f i e l d . Since these norms involve one's l i v e l i h o o d and career they are c l e a r l y important to everyone i n the profession. Moreover, the fact that a large portion of the a c t i v i t i e s of professional organizations i s concerned with the maintenance of behavioural standards, means that the norms within the profession are l i k e l y to be e x p l i c i t and recognized by a l l . And yet, the very emphasis on the standards indicates that they may be d i f f i c u l t to a t t a i n i n day-to-day p r a c t i c e . The findings by Rasmussen and Zander (1954) on teachers and Blau (1955) on welfare agency workers indicate that a t t r a c t i o n to and i n t e r a c t i o n with one's fellow professionals tends to vary i n a manner that i s adequate for t e s t i n g the theory. In addition, Rasmussen and Zander (1954) report that professional norms among school teachers are perceived to be relevant i n varying degrees. Rasmussen and 'Zander's (1954) research on s e l f -evaluation and s o c i a l influence processes among school teachers provides a rather good model for the type of research required for the t h e o r e t i c a l problems i n t h i s paper. Their research provides a good model not only because teachers are an available professional group for the purposes of t h i s paper, but also because t h e i r t h e o r e t i c a l scheme i s very similar to the one i n t h i s paper. As i n t h i s paper, they assume that "...a group standard may help determine a l e v e l of aspiration for each of the members since i t represents the nature of the behaviour that i s valued by the group." and that, "If an i n -div i d u a l conforms to these standards, then, he should f e e l successful, since group conformity also means that he i s achieving his (group induced) i d e a l performance, i . e . , h i s l e v e l of a s p i r a t i o n . " (Rasmussen and Zander, p. 240). Compliance, Self-evaluation and Relevance The feature of Rasmussen and Zander's procedure which i s most relevant to the proposed research i n t h i s paper concerns t h e i r method of measuring conformity, the degree to which one's personal behaviour and normative standards corres-pond to the perceived group standards, and self-evaluation, the degree to which one's actual behaviour corresponds to one's i d e a l behaviour. In th i s regard, t h e i r procedure was to i d e n t i f y , from preliminary interviews with school teachers, which issues concerning teaching behaviour are generally im-portant i n the profession. Sixteen of these issues were then each arranged i n the form of an eight point scale, with number 1 and number 8 representing p o l a r l y opposite normative p o s i -tions on the issue. The issues were presented to a sample of teachers i n the following form: 50. SAMPLE SCALE: We ought to f i n d a teach- We should continually ing method that works and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 be experimenting with then st i c k to i t . new methods of teaching. The subjects were then asked to i d e n t i f y the following three things on these scales: (1) the "ideal" 1 p o s i t i o n of the "clique to which they belonged within the school; (2) t h e i r own " i d e a l " p o s i t i o n ; and (3) where they perceived themselves to be i n t h e i r day-to-day behaviour. From t h i s data i t i s possible to operationally define self-evaluation, behavioural compliance, normative compliance and relevance. Self-evalua- t i o n can be defined as a " f a i l u r e score"—the summed d i s c r e -pancies between the group's i d e a l performance and the i n d i -vidual's actual performance on a l l sixteen issues. Normative  compliance can be measured as a normative deviance s c o r e — t h e summed discrepancies between the individual's i d e a l perfor-mance and the system's i d e a l performance. For example, i n the sample scale above, i f the respondent put 8 for his group's i d e a l , 6 for h i s own i d e a l , and 4 for his actual behaviour, h i s f a i l u r e score would be 2 (6 - 4), his behav-i o u r a l deviance score would be 4 ( 8 - 4 ) and his normative deviance score would be 2 ( 8 - 6 ) . It should be clear that these measures are a l l the inverse of the t h e o r e t i c a l v a r i -ables; as f a i l u r e score increases, self-evaluation decreases, and so on. The relevance of each of these issues, moreover, 51. can be measured by asking the respondent to indicate which of the sixteen scale items are most important to the other members of the clique. Rasmussen and Zander's success with the above method indicates that the same procedure might be followed i n t e s t i n g 1 the propositions developed e a r l i e r i n t h i s paper. Thus, i t was decided to take advantage of the sixteen scaled normative issues that Rasmussen and Zander had already developed and to 2 use teachers i n the experimental procedure. 1. It w i l l be r e c a l l e d that Rasmussen and Zander's research findings have been used to support several propositions i n the theory developed i n chapter I I . They found that teachers highly attracted to t h e i r "groups" of associates on the school s t a f f complied more normatively and behaviourally to the perceived group norms (supports hypothesis 2 and 3). They found that the degree to which behavioural conformity i s associated with favourable s e l f - a t t i t u d e s depends on a t t r a c t i o n (supports hy-pothesis 6); they found that normative compliance was greater on issues perceived as relevant to the group (supports hypo-thesis 7); and, while t h i s was not previously reported, they found that those with high self-evaluations were more attracted to the teaching profession as a whole (provides some support for hypothesis 11). 2. The sixteen normative scales and the detailed des-c r i p t i o n of t h e i r use were not given i n Rasmussen and Zander's (1954) published work,;, t h i s information was kind l y provided by Dr. A. Zander, Director of the Research Center for Group Dynamics at the University of Michigan. Dr. Zander's a s s i s -tance i n t h i s regard i s greatly appreciated. The f i r s t step i n data c o l l e c t i o n was to develop and pre-test a questionnaire which employed the sixteen normative scales and which also contained a number of questions to oper-at i o n a l i z e the other variables. The questionnaire, once de-veloped, was administered to a l l teachers i n a large secondary school i n Vancouver. The resu l t s of thi s preliminary i n v e s t i -gation led to a considerable number of changes i n the approach to data c o l l e c t i o n . The following discussion of thi s i n i t i a l attempt to c o l l e c t data and the changes i n procedure a r i s i n g out of t h i s pre-test-., i s presented to c l a r i f y the nature of the assumptions made i n operationalizihg the experimental varia b l e s . Data c o l l e c t i o n pre-test The i n i t i a l questionnaire consisted of ten mimeo-graphed pages prefaced by a l e t t e r from the school p r i n c i p a l introducing the study and ind i c a t i n g the school board's ap-3 proval of the research. (A copy of the pre-test question-naire i s given i n Appendix A.) A personally addressed and signed l e t t e r accompanying the questionnaire indicated to 3. The writer i s indebted to Dr. S. A. M i l l e r , Direc-tor, Department of Research and Special Services, Board of School Trustees, i n Vancouver, B.C., for assistance i n arrang-ing access to the school used for the pre-test and the school used to make the f i n a l data c o l l e c t i o n . 53. the respondents that completion of any question was voluntary and that a l l data would be held i n s t r i c t e s t confidence. In l i n e with the assumptions i n the Rasmussen and Zander research i t was assumed that there might be differences between informal "cliques" of teachers within the school on behavioural standards. Thus, the f i r s t question asked the respondents to specify the "clique™ of s t a f f members to which they f e l t they belonged. "Which group of f a c u l t y people inside t h i s school do you f e e l you most belong to? By group i s meant two or more persons who think of each other as belonging together, based on common association, in t e r e s t , task or pleasure. This group may have some sort of formal or informal basis, but more l i k e l y i t i s simply a group that meets i n the lunch-room, smoking room or some other place during out-of-classroom hours. You may never have considered t h i s to be an organized group but i f you go to cer-t a i n places expecting to meet ce r t a i n people, they are, for the purposes of t h i s study, members of your group. The important c r i t e r i o n i s that you think of yourself as belonging with certain fellow teachers more than you do with other teachers."^ The respondents were given space to write the names of the people i n t h e i r group and were then asked the following ques-t i o n s : To determine an i n t e r a c t i o n rate, respondents were asked "How many times a week do you meet with t h i s group?" A t t r a c t i o n 4. This question, as well as the questions described below to operationalize int e r a c t i o n , a t t r a c t i o n , relevance, compliance, and self-evaluation, are a l l modeled after the un-published work of Rasmussen and Zander. (See footnote 2, p.51) 54. to the group was measured by asking two questions: (1) "If t h i s group broke up for a considerable length of time and some people were tryi n g to get i t started again, would you want to re j o i n ? " and, as part of the same question, "If you checked 'yes 1 or 'no1 to the previous question, how strongly did you f e e l about your preference?" (Answers were indicated on a fi v e point check l i s t from "very strongly" to "very s l i g h t l y " . ) (2) The subjects were also asked to pick a statement which best represented how they f e l t about the people i n t h e i r group. The six statements ranged from "I look forward with enthusiasm to the pleasure of spending leisure time with them" to "I do not r e a l l y enjoy t h e i r company s o c i a l l y , " Measures of s e l f - evaluation and compliance were sought by asking the respon-5 dents to complete eighteen of the eight point normative scales, by i n d i c a t i n g t h e i r group's i d e a l , t h e i r personal i d e a l and t h e i r perceived actual behaviour, as i n the example i n the preceding section of th i s chapter. Relevance was measured by asking the respondents to indicate which four of the scaled items were most important to the members of t h e i r group. In order to provide a check on the operational procedure for the measurement of self-evaluation, the respondents were also asked to rank themselves i n terms of t h e i r professional 5. In addition to the sixteen scales developed by Rasmussen and Zander, two more were added by the writer. a b i l i t y r e l a t i v e to the other teachers i n the school. Subjects were asked to check an appropriate statement from a l i s t running from "I rank among the top 5% of the teachers i n t h i s school" to "I rank i n the bottom 25% of the teachers i n th i s school". F i n a l l y , i n order to get information on the uniform evaluations of a teacher i n the system, the respondents were asked to rate the teaching a b i l i t y of each person they had previously named as a member of t h e i r group. The ra t i n g consisted of placing a number corresponding to a p o s i t i o n on an eight point scale (from "Very excellent" to "Poor") beside the written name of the group members. In addition to the questions directed s p e c i f i -c a l l y at operationalizing the experimental variables, there were several other questions seeking information about each teacher's o v e r a l l a t t r a c t i o n to the teaching profession and the degree to which groups outside the school functioned as reference groups. Pre-test findings and changes i n procedure: The i n i t i a l attempt at data c o l l e c t i o n f a i l e d i n several respects. Out of the forty-two questionnaires delivered, only about twenty were returned a week l a t e r . While every questionnaire returned was missing some information, a few had nothing but comments written on them. As might have been anticipated, the questions concerning self-evaluation of the teaching performance of one's fellows met with considerable resistance. There were other problems too. Most of those teachers who had responded, even i f only p a r t i a l l y , as well as several teachers who had not responded at a l l , were i n t e r -viewed to get an idea of how the procedure could be changed to meet with more success. The following points summarize the main d i f f i c u l t i e s discovered and the changes which were imple-mented to overcome these d i f f i c u l t i e s . Defining sub-groupings within the school. A l l but one of the teachers interviewed had great d i f f i c u l t y with the question asking them to name t h e i r group, the people that they f e l t they most belonged with i n the school. A few of the teachers were indignant, claiming that there were no groups i n the school. However, the conversation with these people indicated that the problem was more semantic than r e a l : sub-groupings existed, but the word "group" was offensive. The main reason for determining each respondent's group a f f i l i a t i o n s within the school, i t w i l l be r e c a l l e d , was to control for the p o s s i b i l i t y that informal "cliques" within the school had developed somewhat d i s t i n c t i v e norma-ti v e patterns. The respondents would have d i f f i c u l t y gener-a l i z i n g about the normative p o s i t i o n of the school s t a f f as a whole on a given issue i f these "clique" differences were great. Moreover, i t seemed that an index of a t t r a c t i o n (or interaction) with a s p e c i f i e d group of "friends"", rather than 56. with a more diffuse body of friends and marginal acquaintances, would be more meaningful i n terms of the theory. Another way of acquiring t h i s information, however, i s to ask people who they would consider to be t h e i r f r i e n d s — t h e people they l i k e b e s t — o n the s t a f f . Such a question does not imply that these friendship choices form a "group" i n any more than the ideo-syncratic sense referred to e a r l i e r . These choices w i l l , how-ever, constitute a s o c i a l l y v i s i b l e action system to the person concerned. Moreover, since these choices w i l l represent the generally most at t r a c t i v e people to the respondent, they should be most e f f e c t i v e as a reference group. Yet, because the choice of c e r t a i n people rather than others i s dependent on t h e i r r e l a -t i v e attractiveness, one may expect that an absolute measure of a t t r a c t i o n to (or in t e r a c t i o n with) one's choices w i l l vary from respondent to respondent. The interviewing among the pre-test subjects supported the above argument. Thus, the question designed to determine group a f f i l i a t i o n s was changed to the following: In any school, a given teacher i s not l i k e l y to know every other teacher on the s t a f f equally wel l . This i s e s p e c i a l l y so when the school i s very large. Some teachers may become f r i e n d l y with one another because they teach the same subject, because they meet together for coffee and lunch, or because they have similar outside interests? Whatever the reason might be, you yourself are l i k e l y to be more f r i e n d l y with some teachers than with others. These people who you l i k e may or may not be the people you see most often or know best among the s t a f f . But these people would be the ones that you would l i k e to see most often and to know best as friends. Please indicate (from 57. a numbered staff list) the names of the people in this school you would like to consider your friends. Interaction. The question asking teachers how many times a week they meet with the members in their group failed to indicate any differences between the pre-test subjects in-terviewed. The change in question specifying each teacher's action system did not appear to make any difference in this regard. It appears that teachers find some reason or oppor-tunity to talk with most of the teachers they know in the school at least once a day. The amount of time that they can spend socializing with one another within the school is, of course, prescribed by the work situation. Attempts to specify inter-action in terms of the amount of time spent together after school hours indicated that such a measure would be an index of attraction rather than interaction. In the face of these difficulties, it was decided that the interaction question would be dropped, leaving hypothesis 12 for testing at some other time. The normative position of one's reference group. Without exception the pre-test subjects interviewed indicated ' that they had a great deal of trouble estimating the position of "my group" on the normative scales. Some said they did not know the necessary information and others said they did know, but that it was "unethical" to give such information. 58. Part of the d i f f i c u l t y here appears to have been a carryover of the problems of defining group membership. This aspect of the problem was l a r g e l y remedied by the change i n the question concerning group a f f i l i a t i o n s . The interviews indicated that those who claimed that giving information about the teaching standards of other teachers was unethical appeared to be con-fusing norms with actual behaviour. This, i n turn, seemed to be l a r g e l y a result of the layout of the normative scales. Rasmussen and Zander presented the scales as idealism continua, running from right to l e f t i n each case. The i d e a l i s t i c stan-dards, as one might expect, were those that would most l i k e l y be associated with the o f f i c i a l ethic of the teaching profes-sion; for example: a teacher should experiment with new methods of teaching; should have a wide v a r i e t y of in t e r e s t s ; should never use mass punishment for i n d i v i d u a l misbehaviour; should handle a l l d i s c i p l i n e problems personally; and so on. Since the i d e a l i s t i c statement was always on the r i g h t , some teachers interpreted the right hand end as the intended "correct" i d e a l . They thought that to say that t h e i r friends might deviate from t h i s "correct" i d e a l implied serious c r i t i c i s m . To o f f s e t t h i s d i f f i c u l t y , h a l f the scale items were reversed and the preamble to the normative scales was changed to point out that the ideals expressed at either end of a scale could both be considered as extreme. F i n a l l y , several people were discouraged by the number of scales (eighteen). On the basis of the degree to which the scaled normative issues were considered to be im-portant among the pre-test subjects, the number of scales was reduced to twelve. Self-evaluation question. It w i l l be r e c a l l e d that, i n order to check the operational measure of self-evaluation as the difference between i n t e r n a l i z e d standards and perceived actual behaviour, the pre-test subjects were asked to evaluate t h e i r own teaching p r o f i c i e n c y r e l a t i v e to the s t a f f members. The respondents, for the most part, refused to answer t h i s question or anything s i m i l a r . The interviews indicated, how-ever, that the subjects were w i l l i n g to give a general e s t i -mate of how " s a t i s f i e d " they were with t h e i r performance. Ac-cording to the t h e o r e t i c a l framework, feelings of s a t i s f a c t i o n -d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , self-evaluation of performance, and feelings of success-failure, a l l concern the discrepancy between actual and i d e a l performance. Thus, the self-evaluation question was changed to: "Generally, how s a t i s f i e d are you with your day-to-day teaching?" (Responses were indicated on a five point scale running from " d i s s a t i s f i e d " to "extremely s a t i s -f i e d . ") Evaluation of fellow-teachers. The attempt to get a measure of the uniform evaluations of each person by asking each respondent to evaluate the members of h i s group f a i l e d com-p l e t e l y . This question, more than any other, was responsible 60. for the return of uncompleted questionnaires and the non-return of many other questionnaires. However, the interviews with the pre-test subjects indicated that the changes i n the previously mentioned question concerning group a f f i l i a t i o n s to a new question involving sociometric friendship choices might well solve t h i s problem. "Prestige" within a group i s commonly operationalized as the number of sociometric friendship choices 6 received. Of course, measuring the uniform evaluations of an actor i n terms of sociometric choices implies assumptions about the nature of the school s t a f f which may not be j u s t i f i e d . In p a r t i c u l a r , t h i s method of measuring the evaluation of a person i n the system assumes that the teachers within a school can be conceived of as comprising a f a i r l y uniform normative system, with prestige within the system as a whole determined by gener-a l l y s i milar c r i t e r i a . The experimental findings w i l l indicate 6. The number of sociometric friendship choices an i n -d i v i d u a l receives i s generally referred to as a measure of "popularity" rather than "prestige". Yet, there i s evidence to indicate that sociometric "popularity" i s a function of conformity to group norms: "Sociometric) Popularity appears to be related to the extent to which a person exemplifies the group ideal...(supporting research quoted)." (A.P. Haire, 1962, p. 141) Homans, who provided the hypothesis that uni-form evaluations increase with compliance, o r i g i n a l l y speci-f i e d the r e l a t i o n s h i p i n terms of "rank" and "conformity". (See Homans, 1950, p. 141) Homans defined "rank" l a r g e l y i n terms of the feelings of s u p e r i o r i t y and i n f e r i o r i t y held by some workers i n an i n d u s t r i a l work group. These feelings of r e l a t i v e status corresponded to type of work done and the l e v e l of pay received. These feelings were also apparent i n the i n t e r a c t i o n patterns i n the group. It would appear that "rank" i n Homans* sense, and "popularity" i n terms of sociometric friendship choices, because both terms are related to confor-mity, are alternative measures of uniform evaluations (or prestige) i n the system. 61. whether or not t h i s assumption i s j u s t i f i e d . Impersonal s i t u a t i o n . A good deal of the r e s i s t -ance to the questionnaire appears to have been the r e s u l t of the way i n which i t was di s t r i b u t e d — i m p e r s o n a l l y through the teachers* mail s l o t s . The subsequent success of interviews i n obtaining the desired information, aside from the changes made i n several of the questions, appears to have been l a r g e l y a r e s u l t of the camaraderie established i n the interview s i t u -ation. Thus, i t was decided that a l l the information should be obtained by interview. F i n a l data c o l l e c t i o n . The revised procedure was carr i e d out i n another large secondary school i n the Vancouver d i s t r i c t . (A copy of the interview schedule i s given i n Appendix B.) The writer was introduced to the school s t a f f by the p r i n c i p a l two weeks before the close of the school term. The time was advantageous because classes are over during these l a s t two weeks and while the teachers have various administrative tasks to f i n i s h up,, they are r e l a t i v e l y free throughout the day. The writer spent these l a s t two weeks i n the school conducting formal i n t e r -views and ta l k i n g informally with s t a f f members to get some assessment of the q u a l i t y of the data. Each interview took an average of t h i r t y - f i v e to f o r t y minutes. Generally, the school s t a f f were extremely cooperative. Out of a t o t a l s t a f f of forty-three people (excluding the p r i n c i p a l , v i c e - p r i n c i p a l , special counselor and one sick person), only two people claimed that they either did not want or did not have time for an i n t e r -view. One other person found the questions offensive and d i s -continued the interview before i t was completed. Each of the remaining f o r t y interviews provided information on a l l variables except relevance. Five respondents found i t impossible to select some of the normative issues as being more relevant than the others. At the end of each interview, the writer asked the respondent several questions i n order to estimate whether or not the respondent had taken the s i t u a t i o n and the questions seriously. The evidence i n th i s regard seems to indicate that the respondents thought the issues covered i n the scaled items were important and that, throughout the interview, they had done t h e i r best to give conscientious answers. Summary This chapter concerned the procedure car r i e d out to test the theory of s o c i a l influence developed i n chapter I I . Secondary school teachers were seen to be suitable as research subjects. Following the work done by previous researchers, the experimental variables were operationally defined i n question-naire form and pre-tested i n a large secondary school. This pre-test led to the development of some new operational d e f i n i -6 3 . t ions to replace the ones prev ious ly developed. The f i n a l data c o l l e c t i o n was car r ied out by interv iewing f o r t y of the f o r t y -three s t a f f members i n another large secondary school . There i s good reason to suggest that respondents made every e f f o r t to give r e l i a b l e information. 64. CHAPTER IV. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS. The organization of t h i s chapter can best be under-stood by a n t i c i p a t i n g the o v e r a l l findings. Only three of the eleven hypotheses were supported by the data. Much of the data analysis i n t h i s chapter, therefore, concerns a re-analysis of the findings to t r y to determine the main reasons for the f a i l u r e of t h i s theory. In t h i s regard, the discussion i n t h i s chapter i s broken into two parts. The f i r s t section, part one, consists of a f a i r l y straightforward presentation of the data bearing on each hypothesis. Part two, a review of the findings i n part one, attempts to specify which t h e o r e t i -c a l assumptions and which experimental operations are most c l e a r l y associated with negative findings. A li m i t e d amount of additional information bearing on some of the hypotheses i s also presented i n t h i s section. Part one. I n i t i a l findings. 1. The Homans hypothesis; The more an actor's actions comply with the uniform prescriptions i n an action system, the more favoured the uniform evaluation of him and-or his actions tends to become i n the system. Expected findings: Sociometric choices inversely co-related with behavioural deviance scores. 65. Actual findings: Sociometric choices received cor-relate with behavioural deviance scores at -0.03 (N. = 40; not 1 s i g n i f i c a n t ) . It w i l l be r e c a l l e d that, i n the absence of actual appraisals of the performance of the experimental subjects, i t was decided that the number of sociometric friendship choices one received could possibly be used as an index of the uniform evaluations of that person i n the system. While there were reservations about the assumptions underlying the use of friendship choices i n t h i s manner, the theory predicts that so-ciometric choices should be inversely related to behavioural deviance ( d i r e c t l y related to compliance). Behavioural deviance was measured as the summed discrepancies between perceived system norms and perceived actual behaviour, as measured on twelve normative scales. The correlations between sociometric choices received and behavioural deviance was found to be -0.03; th i s indicates that there i s no relationship between the two 1. Significance of correlations i n t h i s analysis are calculated on the Student's t d i s t r i b u t i o n . (See Hoel, 1960, pp. 150-151). Throughout the analysis, significance l e v e l s below .10 are reported as "not s i g n i f i c a n t " , and while lev e l s greater than .10 are a l l reported, the .05 l e v e l i s considered necessary to e s t a b l i s h s i g n i f i c a n c e . It should be noted, i n addition, that a l l the variables correlated s t a t i s t i c a l l y were also plotted one against the other on a graph. The graphs allowed an inspection to determine whether the lack of c o r r e l a -t i o n i n the negative findings was due to one or two extremely deviant cases. The results of t h i s analysis are indicated where applicable. 66. variables. The Homans hypothesis was not supported. 2. Normative compliance and a t t r a c t i o n . The greater an actor's a t t r a c t i o n to an action system, the more h i s behav-i o u r a l expectations w i l l comply with the norms i n the system. Expected findings: Inverse correlations between at t r a c t i o n and both normative deviance scores and behavioural deviance scores. Actual findings: A t t r a c t i o n and normative deviance scores correlate at -0.56 (N. = 40); s i g n i f i c a n t at .01. At-t r a c t i o n and behavioural deviance correlate at -0.30 (N. = 40; s i g n i f i c a n t at .08). The main tenet of reference group theory i s that i n -dividuals adopt the perspective of a t t r a c t i v e groups. In terms of the theory i n t h i s paper, the more attracted an i n d i v i d u a l i s to a group, the more hi s performance ideals w i l l approximate the performance ideals (norms) evident i n t h i s group. Moreover, since i t has been postulated that the i n d i v i d u a l w i l l t r y to maintain a favourable self-evaluation by l i v i n g up to his i d e a l , the more a t t r a c t i v e a group, the more that his performance w i l l also comply with the group's norms. Att r a c t i o n was measured by two questions: (1) Sub-jects were asked how much e f f o r t they would put into keeping i n touch with t h e i r "friends" i n the event that either they or t h e i r friends were to leave the school to teach elsewhere i n the Vancouver area. The responses to this question were categorized along a four point scale ranging from: "no e f f o r t at a l l " to "very much e f f o r t " . (2) Subjects were also asked to select the most appropriate of five statements to indicate how they f e l t about t h e i r "friends". The f i v e statements ranged from "I do not enjoy t h e i r company" to "I look forward with enthusiasm to the pleasure of spending le i s u r e time with them". These two scales, while asking somewhat d i f f e r e n t information, correlated at .74 (N. = 40; s i g n i f i c a n t at .01). The a t t r a c t i o n score for use i n the data analysis was c a l c u l a -ted as the sum of the scores on these two questions. The analysis of the data generally confirm the t h e o r e t i c a l expectations i n both hypothesis 2 and hypothesis 3. Attra c t i o n correlates with normative deviance at -0.56. At t r a c t i o n correlates with behavioural deviance at -0.30. While t h i s l a t t e r c o r r e l a t i o n i s not s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l , i t i s nonetheless i n the d i r e c t i o n expected and i s , i n addi-t i o n , congruent with the re l a t i o n s h i p between a t t r a c t i o n and normative deviance. 4. At t r a c t i o n and uniform evaluations. The more attracted an actor i s to an action system, the greater w i l l be the uniform evaluation of him and-or his actions i n the system. Expected findings: A p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between at t r a c t i o n scores and number of sociometric choices received. 68. Actual findings: A t t r a c t i o n and sociometric choices received correlate at .11 (N. = 40? not s i g n i f i c a n t ) . According to the theory, since a t t r a c t i o n leads to be-havioural compliance (hypothesis 3), and since behavioural com-pliance i s associated with the p o s i t i v e uniform evaluations of the system (hypothesis 1), then a t t r a c t i o n should also be r e l a -ted to the uniform evaluations one receives i n the system. The res u l t s thus far indicate that while there i s support for hypo-thesis 3, there i s no support for hypothesis 1. It i s not sur-p r i s i n g , therefore, to f i n d that hypothesis 4 i s also unsupport-ed. 5. The Cooley hypothesis. The more a t t r a c t i v e an action system i s to an actor, the more the actor's self-evaluation w i l l tend to approximate the uniform evaluation of him i n the system. Expected findings; An o v e r a l l inverse r e l a t i o n s h i p between f a i l u r e score and sociometric choices received and a greater inverse r e l a t i o n s h i p between these variables for those actors highly attracted to the system than for those not so at-tracted. Actual findings: Table I. Correlations of f a i l u r e score and sociometric choices received, c o n t r o l l i n g for a t t r a c t i o n . Correlation (r.) Significance A l l Ss. (N. = 40) .14 # High-attracted Ss. (N. = 20) .10 # Low-attracted Ss. (N. = 20) .28 # #— s i g n i f i c a n c e less than .10 l e v e l . 69. The Cooley hypothesis predicts that an i n d i v i d u a l * s self-evaluation w i l l be d i r e c t l y related to the uniform evalu-ations of him i n the system ( f a i l u r e score w i l l be inversely related to sociometric choices), but only insofar as the i n -d i v i d u a l concerned i s attracted to t h i s system and adopts the same evaluative standards (norms). For analysis, the subjects were s p l i t into two cate-gories on the basis of the degree to which they expressed a t t r a c t i o n to t h e i r ""friends" on the s t a f f . Those whose at-t r a c t i o n was above the mean l e v e l of a t t r a c t i o n expressed by a l l subjects were placed i n a high-attracted category and those whose expressed a t t r a c t i o n was below the mean were placed i n a low-attracted category. This procedure i s followed elsewhere i n the data analysis. The data indicate that there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t re-l a t i o n s h i p between f a i l u r e score and sociometric choices re-ceived regardless of a t t r a c t i o n . The Cooley hypothesis was not supported. 6. The Cooley-Homans derivation. The more at t r a c t i v e an action system i s to an actor, the more the actor's behavioural compliance to system norms w i l l be associated with favourable s e l f - a t t i t u d e s . 70. Expected findings; A higher p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between f a i l u r e score and behavioural deviance score for those highly attracted to the system than for those less attracted to the system. Actual findings: Table I I . Correlation of f a i l u r e scores and behavioural deviance scores, c o n t r o l l i n g for a t t r a c t i o n . Correlation Significance (r.) of d i f f . betw. t 2 High-attracted Ss. (N. = 20) .92 r ' s Low-attracted Ss. (N. = 20) .86 The r e s u l t s are i n the d i r e c t i o n predicted, but do not reach s i g n i f i c a n c e . 7. Relevance, and normative compliance. The greater the per-ceived relevance (importance) of any norm i n an action system to an actor, the greater w i l l be the actor's normative com-pliance on that issue. . 8. A t t r a c t i o n , relevance and normative compliance. The more attracted an actor i s to an action system, the greater w i l l be h i s normative compliance on issues which he perceives as r e l e -vant i n that system. (2. Significance of differences between correlations i n t h i s chapter are calculated using Fisher's Z function. (Spiegel, 1961, pp. 246-248) 71. 9. Relevance and behavioural compliance. The greater the per-ceived relevance of any norm i n an action system to an actor, the greater w i l l be the actor's behavioural compliance on that issue. 10. A t t r a c t i o n , relevance and behavioural compliance. The more attracted an actor i s to an action system, the greater w i l l be his behavioural compliance on issues which he perceives as relevant i n that system. Expected findings: Deviance (normative and behaviour-al) w i l l be less on relevant issues than on non-relevant issues; t h i s difference i n deviance between relevant and non-relevant issues w i l l be greater for those who are highly attracted to the system than for those not so highly attracted. Actual findings: Table I I I . Mean difference between deviance scores (norma-tive and behavioural) on non-relevant issues and deviance scores on relevant issues, c o n t r o l l i n g for a t t r a c t i o n . x difference, deviance S i g n i f i c -on non-relevant issues ance of 3 less deviance on r e l e - difference vant issues. Normative deviance. A l l Ss. (N. = 35)* .24 .01 High-attracted Ss. (N. = 20) .29 .01 Low-attracted Ss. (N. = 15) .22 # see page 72, end of table I I I . 3. The significance of the difference between deviance on non-relevant issues and relevant issues i s calculated on 72. Table III continued. Behavioural Deviance. A l l Ss. (N.=35)* High-attracted (N.=20) Low-attracted (N.=15) -0.03 -0.24 .28 # # # *Five respondents were unable to indicate some issues as being more important than others to t h e i r "friends". It i s i n t e r e s t -ing to note that a l l of these five were i n the low-attracted category. much greater on non-relevant items than on relevant items. This difference i s greater for those highly attracted to the system than for those not so highly•attracted, but the difference i s not s i g n i f i c a n t , thereby giving only p a r t i a l support to hypothesis 8. There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between behavioural deviance on relevant and non-relevant issues; thus hypothesis 9 i s not supported. With regard to hypo-thesis 10, the . data indicate that behavioural deviance i s act u a l l y greater on relevant items among those highly a t t r a c -ted and less on relevant items among those not so highly attracted; t h i s difference between highly and not so highly attracted subjects i s s i g n i f i c a n t . These facts indicate non-support for hypothesis 10. the basis of the n u l l hypothesis which predicts that the mean of these differences should equal zero. To allow for the small size of N. i n these calculations, significance was calculated using the Student's t d i s t r i b u t i o n i n conjunction with an ad-justment for N. and an adjustment for s. (Moroney, 1963, pp. 225-233) In support of hypothesis 7, normative deviance i s 11. Self-evaluation and attraction. The more favourable an actor's self-evaluation with regard to the norms in a given system, the greater will be his attraction to that system. Expected findings: Failure scores inversely cor-related with attraction scores. Actual findings: Failure scores and attraction scores correlate at .10 (N. = 40; not significant). The failure of this hypothesis is of major concern to the theoretical structure as a whole. While the relation-ship is not significant, it is clear that, if anything, failure score and attraction may be slightly positively related. In other words, the more attracted an actor is to a system, the more likely he is to experience a discrepancy between his ideal performance level and his actual performance level. This possibility was apparent to some extent in the findings with regard to hypotheses 2 and 3, where it was noted that attraction was fairly clearly related to normative compliance but not so clearly related to behavioural compliance. Summary of initial analysis. Of the eleven experimental hypotheses, only three were supported by the results, leaving eight unsupported hypotheses. 74. Supported: —hypothesis 2, proposing a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between a t t r a c t i o n and normative compliance. —hypothesis 3, proposing a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between a t t r a c t i o n and behavioural compliance. —hypothesis 7, proposing a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between the relevance of an issue and normative compliance. Not supported: —hypothesis 1, proposing a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between compliance and uniform evaluat ion rece ived. —hypothesis 4, proposing a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between a t t r a c t i o n and uniform evaluat ion rece ived . —hypothesis 5, proposing that a t t r a c t i o n would p o s i t i v e l y inf luence a r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n and uniform evaluat ion rece ived . —hypothesis 6 , proposing that a t t r a c t i o n would have a p o s i t i v e inf luence on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between behavioural compliance and s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n . —hypothesis 8, proposing that a t t r a c t i o n would have a p o s i t i v e inf luence on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between relevance of the issue and normative compliance. —hypothesis 9 , proposing a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between relevance and behavioural compliance. 75. — h y p o t h e s i s 10, p r o p o s i n g t h a t a t t r a c t i o n would have a p o s i -t i v e i n f l u e n c e on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between r e l e v a n c e o f the i s s u e and b e h a v i o u r a l c o m p l i a n c e . — h y p o t h e s i s 11, p r o p o s i n g t h a t s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n would be p o s i -t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o a t t r a c t i o n . W i t h r e g a r d t o the above f i n d i n g s , the f o l l o w i n g p o i n t s may be n o t e d : F i r s t , a l l t h r e e o f the s u p p o r t e d h ypotheses (2, 3, and 7) c o n c e r n the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the t h r e e v a r i a b l e s : a t t r a c t i o n , r e l e v a n c e and n o r m a t i v e and b e h a v i o u r a l c o m p l i a n c e . Second, w i t h the e x c e p t i o n o f hy p o t h e s e s 8, 9, and 10, w h i c h a g a i n c o n c e r n a t t r a c t i o n , r e l e v a n c e and b e h a v i o u r a l and n o r m a t i v e c o m p l i a n c e , t h e b u l k o f the un c o n f i r m e d hypo-t h e s e s (1, 4, 5, 6, and 11) c o n c e r n e i t h e r one o r b o t h o f the v a r i a b l e s ; u n i f o r m e v a l u a t i o n and s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n . I n the l i g h t o f t h e s e r e s u l t s , one may t e n t a t i v e l y c o n c l u d e t h a t : (1) the p r o p o s i t i o n s w h i c h d i d r e c e i v e s u p p o r t , c o n c e r n i n g some o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between a t t r a c t i o n , r e l e v a n c e , and com-p l i a n c e , a re c a p a b l e o f b e i n g p r e d i c t e d i n t h e o r e t i c a l s y s -tems w h i c h do not i n v o l v e assumptions about a d r i v e f o r f a v o u r a b l e s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s , and t h a t (2) the t h e o r e t i c a l s t r u c t u r e as i t now s t a n d s must be co n -s i d e r e d t o be c l e a r l y u n s u p p o r t e d by the e x p e r i m e n t a l r e s u l t s 76. reported, but that (3) this failure may well be due to an inadequate test of the theory. Part two. Analysis of theoretical and experimental  assumptions. The concern in this section is to begin to try to account for the failure of the data to support the theory. As previously indicated, it is important to dist-inguish between two possible causes of this failure. First, the assumptions underlying the theory may have been inad-equate or false. Secondly, the assumptions underlying the operationalization and measurement of the experimental 4 variables may have been inadequate or false. Distinguish-ing these two possible sources of failure will not be easy, if possible. To begin with, the failure of the data to support the theory may be due to the inadequacy of both experimental and theoretical assumptions. In addition, the degree to which a variable has been adequately operational-4. One may consider that an inadequate choice of an experimental situation is an aspect of inadequate operat-ionalization. The possibility that the choice of an experim-ental situation may have been inadequate in this investig-ation is considered to some extent in chapter V, the summary chapter. ized can>-only be inferred, in the final analysis, from its success in an empirical venture to test theory utilizing that variable. However, it may also be noted that, in a system of interrelated hypotheses, the success of the operational definition of a variable may be indicated by its presence in a supported hypothesis and, at the same time, its failure may be indicated by its presence in an unsup-ported hypothesis. If the case in which a given operational definition is associated with an unsupported hypothesis also involves theoretical assumptions not present in the case in which the same variable is associated with a supported hypoth-esis, then it may be possible to infer which theoretical assumptions are questionable. Similarly, if a given theor-etical assumption is supported in some hypotheses and not in others, and the cases in which it is not supported are linked with certain operational procedures, then it may be possible to infer which operational assumptions are questionable. An attempt to follow the logic in the above discussion in the present experimental findings, of course, would be handicapped by the small number of supported hypotheses. Nevertheless, the focus in the following discussion is on possible support for the experimental procedure, and on possible support for the theoretical assumptions underlying the propositions, to see whether or not there is any clear basis for maintaining 78. or modifying the theory as it now stands. The summary of findings at the end of part one of this chapter indicates the issues that should initially be investigated. Foremost among these issues are the assump-tions underlying the measures of self-evaluation and uniform  evaluation. At least one of these two variables, it will be recalled, was associated with five of the eight unsupported hypotheses and neither of them was associated with any of the three supported hypotheses. Moreover, and this is equally important, the other four variables—attraction, relevance, normative compliance, and behavioural compliance—were all associated with at least one supported hypothesis. Of the two problem variables, self-evaluation and uniform evaluation, the variable self-evaluation is most closely linked with crucial assumptions in the theory; it will be considered first. Self-evaluation: operational and theoretical assumptions. The basic assumption in the theory of social influence presented in this paper is that people have a need to maintain a favourable self-evaluation. In addition, it is assumed that an individual's self-evaluation increases to the extent that he perceives his performance to be approaching his self-expectations (performance ideals). Thus, self-evaluation was operationally defined as a failure score—the summed 79. differences between perceived actual and i d e a l performance on twelve normative issues. As f a i l u r e score increases, self-evaluation i s assumed to decrease. The question i s , then, i s i t the inadequacy of the basic assumption about a drive for favourable self-evaluation, or i s i t the f a i l u r e of the operational d e f i n i t i o n of self-evaluation, that i s pr i m a r i l y responsible for the negative findings associated with t h i s variable? The operational d e f i n i t i o n of self-evaluation. It should be clear that the degree to which the f a i l u r e score could adequately approximate subjective feelings of inadequacy, assuming the theory underlying the operational d e f i n i t i o n to be correct, depends upon the degree to which the normative issues chosen for the scaled items approximate the issues with which the i n d i v i d u a l i s concerned when he evaluates himself. I f the issues chosen for the scales were of marginal importance to each respondent's c r i t e r i a for evaluating him-s e l f , then one could hardly expect that the f a i l u r e score derived from these scales would be an actual measure of subjective feelings of inadequacy. In addition, one would expect that subjective feelings of inadequacy would be more c l o s e l y related to f a i l u r e score among respondents who perceived the system to be important—i.e., among those who were highly attracted to the system. 80. What evidence i s there to show that f a i l u r e scores a c t u a l l y measure subjective feelings of inadequacy? It w i l l be r e c a l l e d that the subjects were asked how s a t i s -f i e d they were with t h e i r day-to-day teaching performances. Their responses were recorded along a f i v e point scale ranging from " d i s s a t i s f i e d " to "extremely s a t i s f i e d " . Following the argument i n the above paragraph, one would expect that t h i s measure of s a t i s f a c t i o n would correlate negatively with f a i l -ure score, and that t h i s correlation;would be more inverse for the high-attracted subjects than for the low-attracted subjects. An analysis of the data c l e a r l y supports these expectations. For a l l the respondents, f a i l u r e scores cor-related at -0.72 (N. = 40); s i g n i f i c a n t at .01) with the sat-i s f a c t i o n scores. For the high-attracted respondents, the c o r r e l a t i o n between these two variables i s -0.94 (N. = 20; s i g n i f i c a n t at .01); and for the low-attracted respondents, 5 the c o r r e l a t i o n i s -0.67 (N. = 20; s i g n i f i c a n t at .01). These findings are accepted as evidence that f a i l u r e scores do, i n fact, measure subjective feelings of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . These findings also provide support for the t h e o r e t i c a l 5. Rasmussen and Zander (1954) report s i m i l a r findings with regard to t h e i r use of the normative scales on teachers. They report that f a i l u r e scores correlated at -0.40 with a s e l f - r a t i n g of professional a b i l i t y on a f i v e point scale ranging from "very good" to "very poor." Their findings also suggest that a t t r a c t i o n has some e f f e c t on the rel a t i o n s h i p between these scores, but the extent of t h i s e f f e c t i s not e n t i r e l y clear from t h e i r discussion. 81. assumptions underlying the nature of self-evaluation. A re-analysis of hypothesis 6, self-evaluation  and behavioural compliance. It w i l l be r e c a l l e d that hypothesis 6, the Cooley-Homans derivation, predicted that, insofar as a person was attracted to a group and adopted i t s evaluative standards, increasing behavioural compliance to group norms would be associated with an increasingly p o s i t i v e s e l f -evaluation. This hypothesis was based on the assumptions that (1) self-evaluation increases to the extent that one's per-formance approaches one's s e l f - e x p e c t a t i o n s — a n assumption v e r i f i e d i n the preceding paragraph—and (2) that a t t r a c t i o n p o s i t i v e l y influences the degree to which self-expectations approximate the uniform expectations i n the system—an assumption v e r i f i e d through the experimental support for hypothesis 2. The support of the two assumptions underlying hypothesis 6, combined with the non-support for t h i s hypothesis (the data bearing on hypothesis 6 were i n the d i r e c t i o n expect-ed, but did not reach s i g n i f i c a n c e ) , constitutes an unusual state of a f f a i r s . It would appear, i n t h i s regard, that there i s something wrong with the operational procedure specifying the r e l a t i o n s h i p between self-evaluation and behavioural compliance (the rel a t i o n s h i p between f a i l u r e score and behavioural deviance score). The following discussion i n v e s t i -gates t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y . 82. It w i l l be r e c a l l e d that behavioural deviance, normative deviance, and f a i l u r e score, were a l l defined i n terms of the three l o g i c a l l y possible discrepancies between actual behaviour, i d e a l behaviour, and perceived i d e a l behaviour i n the system, as s p e c i f i e d along the normative scales. Accord-ing to the assumptions i m p l i c i t i n the theory and i n t h i s operational procedure, behavioural deviance should always be equal to either the sum of,or the difference between,failure score and normative deviance score. I f t h i s were the case, anything which reduced normative deviance, as long as i t did not reduce behavioural deviance more, would automatically increase the rel a t i o n s h i p between behavioural deviance and 6 f a i l u r e score. Since a t t r a c t i o n has been shown to be d i r e c t l y 6. This assumption, however, holds only for two of three possible arrangements of the subject's i d e a l and actual performance r e l a t i v e to the system's i d e a l . To i l l u s t r a t e : SAMPLE SCALE: 1 2 _ 3 4 5 6 7 8 (1) The assumption holds for the case where the actor i s s t r i v i n g i n the d i r e c t i o n of the system:*s i d e a l : actor's performance, 2; actor's i d e a l , 4; perceived system i d e a l , 6. (2) The assumption also holds for the case where the actor's i d e a l i s i n the opposite d i r e c t i o n to that of the system, providing h i s performance i s i n the d i r e c t i o n of his own id e a l : performance, 4; actor's i d e a l , 2; system i d e a l , 6. (3 ) The assumption does not hold where the individual's i d e a l i s more extreme, r e l a t i v e to h i s own behaviour, than i s the system's ideal: performance, 2; actor's i d e a l , 6; system's i d e a l , 4. As far as i t can be inf e r r e d from Rasmussen and Zander's (1954) findings, only the f i r s t of these three p o s s i b i l i t i e s was evident i n t h e i r data. 83. related to decreasing normative deviance and not so d i r e c t l y related to decreasing behavioural deviance (the findings as-sociated with hypotheses 2 and 3), a t t r a c t i o n should auto-mati c a l l y be related to an increasing relationship between behavioural deviance and f a i l u r e score, as postulated i n hypothesis 6. Why then i s hypothesis 6 unconfirmed? Analysis of the data indicates that the f a i l u r e of hypothesis 6 may be due to an error i n the assumptions involved i n the operational-l y defined relationship between f a i l u r e score, behavioural deviance score, and normative deviance score. In p a r t i c u l a r , behavioural deviance score i s only the sum of, or the d i f f e r -ence between, normative deviance score and f a i l u r e score in eleven of the f o r t y sets of data, although several others are close to one or the other of these p o s s i b i l i t i e s . Analy-s i s of the data indicates, furthermore, that t h i s state of a f f a i r s r e s u l t s , largely, from the fact that on a given set of data (one interview) the behavioural deviance score on some scales i s the sum of f a i l u r e score and normative deviance score, and on other scales i t i s the difference of these two scores. Thus, i n the summed to t a l s of these discrepancy scores, neither of the anticipated p o s s i b i l i t i e s holds. Just to further confuse things, there i s one unanticipated s i t u -ation (the case where the i n d i v i d u a l perceives himself to be more " i d e a l i s t i c " than the group r e l a t i v e to h i s own behaviour; see f.n. 6) i n which behavioural deviance i s 84. neither the sum of, nor the difference between, normative deviance score and f a i l u r e score. This l a t t e r s i t u a t i o n occurred very infrequently, less than a dozen times i n t o t a l i n f i v e sets of data. It appears possible, then, that the lack of significance i n the data supporting hypothesis 6 i s a r e s u l t of operational inadequacies which, while not exceedingly great, tend to lower the general c o r r e l a t i o n between f a i l u r e scores and behavioural deviance scores, thereby obscuring the possible e f f e c t of a t t r a c t i o n on t h i s c o r r e l a t i o n . While hypothesis 6 employs.! the variable s e l f -evaluation, i t does not indicate any support for the drive for favourable self-evaluation assumption. Thus, regardless of the p o s s i b i l i t y that hypothesis 6 might be correct, the analysis w i l l have to focus on other findings to see i f there i s any support for the drive assumption. The following d i s -cussion concerns the evidence regarding the postulated drive for favourable self-evaluation. The assumed drive for favourable self-evaluation. The theory i n chapter II generally indicates two d i f f e r e n t ways i n which an i n d i v i d u a l can reduce the discrepancy between his performance expectations and 'his actual performance. As one might l o g i c a l l y expect: (1) the i n d i v i d u a l may adjust 85. h i s standards towards his level of performance (for example, one may adjust by being attracted to—and hence adopting the norms of—other people whose standards of performance are associated with a favourable self-evaluation, as in hypothesis 11) or, (2) the individual may adjust his level of performance towards the standards he adopts (for example, hypothesis 3, proposing a positive relationship between attraction and be-havioural compliance, is based on the assumption that attrac-tion has its primary' effect on normative standards and that the subsequent effect on behaviour is a result of the drive for positive self-evaluation). There is support, although not strong support, for hypothesis 3, but there is no support for hypothesis 11. Thus, there appears to be only partial support in the data for the drive assumption. However, there is some additional data bearing on hypothesis 11 which has not yet been discussed. This may well provide 'Eurther support for the drive assumption. A re-analysis of the data bearing on hypothesis  11. self-evaluation and attraction. The assumptions underlying the variable attraction have not yet been scrutinized. Attraction, to the system, in the empirical study, was measured in terms of one's liking" for and desire to remain in contact with one's friendship choices within the school's staff. Yet, friendship 86. choices have been used also as a measure of the uniform evalu-ations of the system—an evaluation supposedly linked to com-pliance to system norms. Thus, the assumptions underlying this framework are: (1) that people chose for "friends" those others who best represent the normative ideals of the school's staff, or a sub-group thereof, and (2) that people indicate attraction to their friends according to their potential/actual self-evaluation in the light of the ideals held by these people, and as a result of the first two assumptions, (3) that attrac-tion to one's friendship choices is tantamount to attraction to the normative system in the school or a sub-system thereof. There is some evidence to suggest that the last assumption (#3) is not justified, and hence it is also possible that one or both of the first two assumptions are not justified. The res-pondents were asked to indicate whether or not they would take teaching training in preference to other professional training if they were able to go back and make a choice "all over again" under conditions similar to those actually exis-ting when the original decision was made. The responses to this question were categorized according to the number of occupational preferences (none, one, two or more) made ahead of teaching. The results of this question are taken as an index of attraction to the teaching profession. This index correlates with failure scores at .55 (N. = 39; significant 87. at .01), thereby i n d i c a t i n g that a t t r a c t i o n to the teaching profession i s inversely related to self-evaluation ( d i r e c t l y related to f a i l u r e score). Thus, i f by system one refers to the teaching profession as a whole, the above findings i n d i -cate support for hypothesis 1 1 — a t t r a c t i o n to the system i s i n v e r s e l y related to self-evaluation. It w i l l be r e c a l l e d , however, that when the system was defined as one's friendship choices, there was no relationship between a t t r a c t i o n to the system and self-evaluation. Thus, one may conclude that assumptions 2 and 3 above i n t h i s paragraph are l i k e l y not j u s t i f i e d . People do not seem to indicate a t t r a c t i o n to t h e i r friends according to t h e i r potential/actual s e l f - e v a l u -ation i n the l i g h t of the ideals held by these people, and a t t r a c t i o n to one's friendship choices does not appear to be congruent with one's a t t r a c t i o n to the normative system i n the school. The l a t t e r point, i n d i c a t i n g that a t t r a c t i o n to one's friends within the system i s not the same as a t t r a c t i o n to the system as a whole, c l e a r l y shows the danger i n not delineating the dimensions of an action system. Action system, i t w i l l be r e c a l l e d , has been s p e c i f i e d as being at least three d i f f e r e n t things i n the data analysis. F i r s t l y , with regard to the measure of a t t r a c t i o n generally used i n the preceding discussion, system referred to one's friendship choices. Secondly, with regard to uniform evaluation (friend-ship choices) received, system referred to the school as a 88. whole. Thirdly, in the most recent analysis, in this para-graph, system referred to the teaching profession as a whole. More will be said about the confusion arising out of these various usages of the concept system in the next chapter. The analysis proceeds with a discussion of assumption 1 above, concerning the basis of friendship choices. Uniform evaluations. The main assumption underlying the concept of uniform evaluation was that, similar to self-evaluation, it was a decreasing function of the size of the discrepancy between an individual's performance and the ideals used as standards to judge that performance. The standards of evalu-ation in this case are the system norms. The main proposi-tion concerning the variable uniform evaluation is hypothesis 1, the Homans hypothesis, predicting a positive correlation between behavioural compliance to system norms and uniform evaluations in the system. In the operational procedure, it was assumed that uniform evaluation could be measured in terms of the number of sociometric friendship choices a per-son receives. The use of friendship choices in this manner assumes, in addition, that the school's staff comprises an action system with fairly uniform norms or evaluative stand-ards and with visibility of actions. The use of subjective 8 9 . estimates of behavioural deviance as a measure of deviance, moreover, assumes that the individual's estimate of his own deviance corresponds with the estimate that others in the system make of his deviance. Finally, measuring behavioural deviance as subjective estimates of deviance along twelve normative issues, and expecting that this estimate will approximate the estimate of the subject's deviance within the system, assumes that the issues chosen are relevant for such evaluations. It should be clear that the large number of assumptions underlying the attempt to relate uniform evalu-ations and compliance makes it extremely difficult to specify which assumptions, experimental or theoretical, are likely to be inadequate. However, the following points may be noted. (1) Previous analysis has indicated that the norma-tive issues in the scaled items are relevant to self-evalu-ations, thus one would expect that they would also be rele-vant for uniform evaluation. (2) Deviance measured in terms of subjective estimates of deviance has at least been shown to be useful with regard to attraction—increasing attraction is associated with decreasing deviance. (3) There is a possibility that the failure of hypothesis 1 is due to failure of the assumption about visibility in the action sys-tern. The classroom s i t u a t i o n , i t would appear, does not generally allow teachers to watch t h e i r fellow teachers perform. One p o s s i b i l i t y i n t h i s regard i s that teachers must make inferences about the actions of t h e i r fellows on the basis of t h e i r behavioural standards rather than t h e i r actual behaviour. In other words, they may judge one another on the basis of what each person says should be done rather than what each person a c t u a l l y does. The data allow one to test t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y . Sociometric choices received were correlated with normative deviance rather than behavioural deviance scores. These two variables, however, correlated at .01 (N. = 40), i n d i c a t i n g no r e l a t i o n s h i p . (4) The measure of uniform evaluations i n terms of sociometric choices received was, to some extent, an ad hoc measure. The o r i g i n a l intention (see chapter III) had been to get actual appraisals of each teacher Tbsy some of the othe r teachers i n the school. This i s the type of measure of uniform evaluation used successfully i n testing the Mead-Cooley proposition that self-evaluation i s a function of the uniform evaluations of one i n a system. (Miyamoto and Dornbusch, 1956; Couch and Murrey, 1964) The fact that the experimental s i t u a t i o n did not allow one to c o l l e c t data on uniform evaluations i n the manner i n i t i a l l y desired (see Chapter III) perhaps accounts for the f a i l u r e of hypothesis 91. 1 (uniform evaluations and compliance) and hypothesis 5 (uni-form evaluations and s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n ) . Summary of part two. An attempt was made to analyse the data to determine whether the f a i l u r e of the hypotheses reported i n the f i r s t part of t h i s chapter was p r i m a r i l y due to i n -adequate operational procedure or inadequate t h e o r e t i c a l assumptions. This analysis focussed on two variables, s e l f -evaluation and uniform evaluation, which were associated with a large portion of the negative findings. In t h i s regard, the following points were revealed i n the discussion. (1) Evidence was found i n support of the " f a i l u r e score" as an adequate operational measure of self-evaluation. This sup-port, i n d i c a t i n g that f a i l u r e score measures subjective feelings of inadequacy, constituted support for the theoret-i c a l assumptions concerning the nature of self-evaluation. (2) A procedural problem with regard to the operational d e f i n i t i o n s of self-evaluation, normative compliance and behavioural compliance, was found. This problem, while not great, was s u f f i c i e n t l y serious to suggest that the f a i l u r e of hypothesis 6, proposing that a t t r a c t i o n would p o s i t i v e l y influence a r e l a t i o n s h i p between self-evaluation and uniform evaluation, to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y supported by the data may have been due to operational inadequacies rather 92. than theoretical ones. (3) A limited amount of evidence was found in support of the basic assumption of a drive for favourable self-attitudes. This support concerned evidence in favour of hypothesis 3, proposing a relationship between attraction and behavioural compliance, and evidence in partial support of hypothesis 11, proposing a relationship between self-evaluation and attraction. (4) This partial support for hypothesis 11 revealed inadequacies in the concept action system. (5) No support could be found for the operational definition of uniform evaluation. In summary of the preceding points, the data do not allow one to specify clearly where the main failings in the theory or the experiment lie. It would appear that certain, conceptual inadequacies (such as the uncertain di-mensions of an action system) as well as certain operational inadequacies (such as the operational definition of uniform evaluation as sociometric friendship choices received) are involved, but the degree to which they are involved i s un-certain. The only thing that one can conclude from this analysis is that there is no clear evidence that empirical investigation was an adequate test of the theory. Summary of Chapter IV. The research conducted to investigate the theory developed in this paper must be considered to be clearly inconclusive. While the research did not support the theory 93. ( o n l y t h r e e o f t h e e l e v e n t e s t e d h y p o t h e s e s w e r e s u p p o r t e d ) , t h e r e was n o c l e a r e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e f a i l u r e i n t h i s r e g a r d was d u e t o t h e t h e o r y . A n a n a l y s i s o f t h e e v i d e n c e i n s u p -p o r t o f t h e o p e r a t i o n a l p r o c e d u r e s d i d n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e e m p i r i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n c o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d t o b e a n a d e q u a t e t e s t o f t h e t h e o r y . 94. CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, ISSUES FOR FUTURE INVESTIGATION, AND CONCLUDING COMMENTS This chapter, the f i n a l one, begins with a b r i e f summary statement about the progress made i n thi s paper toward a better understanding of s o c i a l influence. Following t h i s statement i s a discussion of several related issues that the preceding analysis has pointed out as being p a r t i c u l a r l y suitable for future in v e s t i g a t i o n . The chapter closes with a c r i t i c a l comment about the type of research reported i n t h i s paper and some suggestions for the type of research suitable for future investigations. Summary statement. This paper began with a discussion of the ex i s t i n g knowledge about, and t h e o r e t i c a l perspectives on s o c i a l influence processes. Following t h i s , several prob-lems associated with s o c i a l influence theory i n general were noted and twelve i n t e r r e l a t e d propositions were developed, as a theory to t r y to overcome these problems. This theory focussed on the variables specifying the s o c i a l source of an individual's perspective, i . e . , h i s reference group. The theory postulated a drive for favourable self-evaluation and claimed, to be able to explain both one's choice of reference groups, and one's conformity to the norms of a chosen reference group, as attempts to maximize one's s e l f -evaluation. The theory was intended to be applicable regard-less of the individual's status i n the reference group con-cerned. An empirical test was c a r r i e d out to investigate the theory developed. This empirical study found only very l i m i t e d support for the theory. However, there was no clear evidence that the study constituted an adequate test of the theory. This i n v e s t i g a t i o n of s o c i a l influence processes now closes with a review of a few related "problem" issues a r i s i n g out of the preceding analysis. These issues seem to be c l o s e l y connected with the f a i l u r e of the empirical inve s t i g a t i o n and as such represent issues for future study. Issues for future i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The discussion i n t h i s section attempts to accomplish the following two things: f i r s t , i t w i l l t r y to point out several main areas of inadequacy i n the theoret-i c a l and empirical investigation i n t h i s paper; and second, i t w i l l t r y to specify these inadequacies as topics for future investigation and to present data a r i s i n g from ad_ hoc analysis of the experimental r e s u l t s as a preliminary step to such inves t i g a t i o n . The main area of d i f f i c u l t y chosen for t h i s analysis concerns the s t r u c t u r a l dimensions of the source of s o c i a l influence. It w i l l be r e c a l l e d that the concept action system was developed to resolve some con-ceptual d i f f i c u l t i e s involved with delineation of the dimen-96. sions of an accessible source of influence. However, t h i s concept turned out to be vague and confusing when i t came to analysis of empirical data. (See chapter IV, p. 83) While there were many other unanswered questions raised i n the analysis i n t h i s paper, the issues associated with the con-cept action system seem to be most c l o s e l y related to the f a i l u r e reported by the empirical investigation. The d i s -cussion of these issues can best be approached by reviewing the assumptions underlying the development of t h i s concept. Review of the concept action system. In chapter II, i t was noted that while people are generally influenced by groups to which they belong as members, people are also influenced by groups to which they do not belong, except i n a "psychological" sense. The case i n which the influencing group i s a non-membership group may r e s u l t from the fact that for some reason the actor has not yet been granted acceptance by the group's members, or i t may r e s u l t from the fact that the influencing group i s nothing more than an i d i o s y n c r a t i c structuring of relevant others, not an actual group to grant acceptance at a l l . In the l i g h t of the above argument, the theory of s o c i a l influence developed i n t h i s paper formulated s o c i a l influence i n terms of a "psychologival membership" i n ( i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with or a t t r a c t i o n to) an action system. An action system, i n turn, was defined as a "psychological group" formed by any idiosyncratic structuring of socially visible others into a unit. Thus, according to this approach, both the extent to which the action system influencing a person constitutes a "real" group of reciprocally accepting and interacting members, and the extent to which the individual being influenced could be considered to be accepted as a member of such a group, were seen as largely irrelevant to the social influence process. Similarly, while visibility of actions was a criterion for the definition of an action system, the degree to which such visibility existed was not regarded as a variable. It now appears that these above assumptions may be inadequate and unjustified. The impli-cations of these assumptions will now be analysed in detail. Membership status. The concept of "membership" usually implies at least the following criteria: (1) an in-dividual defines himself as a member in a group where (2) the other members also define the individual as a member, (3) in a situation where the members of the group concerned are involved in a generally enduring pattern of interaction. (Merton, 1963, p. 286ff.) The definition of action system in this paper focusses on the first of these criteria and ignores the latter two. Yet the latter two may be just as important to the social influence process. The: degree to which other members in a group accept an actor will be con-98. sidered f i r s t . S t r i v i n g for acceptance. "In the l i t e r a t u r e . . . (on reference group processes) the desire to be accepted i s depicted as the mechanism which leads to the adoption of values and perspectives of the reference group." (Turner, 1956, p. 327) Conforming to a group's norms, i n fact, would seem to be necessary for acceptance. Rejection or non-acceptance, i t has long been noted, i s generally associated with deviance from a group's norms. (Schachter, 1951) One might expect then that the s o c i a l influence process may be d i f f e r e n t for group members and non-members, e s p e c i a l l y insofar as some of the non-members may be s t r i v i n g for acceptance. This p o s s i b i l i t y was investigated with regard to the empirical data previously c o l l e c t e d . (For a detailed discussion of these ad_ hoc findings, see Appendix C.) On the basis of re c i p r o c a l choice patterns, the respondents were s p l i t into two categories: clique and non-clique members. This d i s t i n c t i o n was intended as a method of separating those who were accepted into a group of some kind and those who were not. The analysis of the data c o n t r o l l i n g for clique membership indicated that the theory of s o c i a l influence developed i n t h i s paper i s far more ap-p l i c a b l e to non-clique members than i t i s to clique members. F i r s t l y , the number of sociometric choices received by non-clique members was p o s i t i v e l y related to t h e i r subjective appraisals of conformity (hypothesis 1) while no such r e l a -99. tionship existed among clique members. Secondly, changes i n conformity were found to be more responsive to changes i n at t r a c t i o n and relevance (hypotheses 2, 3, and 7) among non-clique members than they were among clique members. F i n a l l y , the number of sociometric choices received are p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to a t t r a c t i o n among non-clique members (hypothesis 4) while no such relationship existed among clique members. It should be clear that these findings must be considered un-cer t a i n because of the ad_ hoc nature of the d e f i n i t i o n of clique membership. Nevertheless, the findings suggest the following two points: F i r s t l y , i t appears that non-members are evaluated favourably and accepted as members i f they conform to group norms, while established members are ac-cepted and evaluated on c r i t e r i a other than conformity. Secondly, i t appears that the degree to which a non-member i s attracted to (seeks acceptance in) a group w i l l s i g n i f i -cantly influence h i s compliance to relevant group norms while the degree to which an established member i s attracted to the group w i l l not influence h i s compliance with relevant group norms to the same extent. These points suggested the anomolous s i t u a t i o n i n which prospective members seeking ac-ceptance are evaluated by d i f f e r e n t c r i t e r i a from those used with respect to e x i s t i n g members. Thus, as perhaps with members of low status minorities, acceptance i s dependent 100. upon an exemplary performance, a far better performance than is required of established members to remain accepted. Some further evidence in this respect is provided by the fact that the highly attracted non-clique members perceived themselves as conforming to system norms much more than did low-attracted clique members. The hypotheses suggested in the above dis-cussion all require further investigation. Acceptance and conformity. Homans, it has been noted, (hypothesis I) suggested that one's prestige in a group is related to conformity to group norms. Insofar as prestige is also a measure of acceptance, one could say that those people who are most accepted in a group conform most to the group's norms. It has also been noted, however, that people with prestige in a group often feel they have the least need to conform to the standards they believe are endorsed by that group. (Rasmussen and Zander, 1954,p. 248) This latter pos-sibility has been viewed as being particularly true when the person with prestige has some leadership function or is other-wise in a position to facilitate the attainment of group goals. (Kelley and Shapiro, 1954) With regard to the two somewhat opposite possibilities suggested above, Hare has noted that the appearance of conformity on the part of a prestigeful member in a group may be due to the fact that this person plays a majfor part in the formation of group opinions. "Since 101. his influence over the group i s usually measured by the number of members who agree with h i s opinion, i t i s often d i f f i c u l t to t e l l i f he i s the most 'conforming' or the most ' i n f l u e n t i a l . ' " (Hare, 1960, p. 41) Thus, the secure p o s i t i o n of group members with high prestige may accord them the great-est freedom to deviate from perceived group norms, yet these members may appear to be conforming because of t h e i r influence. This fact may account for the lack of a r e l a t i o n s h i p between uniform evaluations and conformity among clique members. An attempt to investigate t h i s l a t t e r p o s s i b i l i t y further i n the ad hoc data analysis was inconclusive. C l e a r l y , however, the area i s worthy of further i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 1 V i s i b i l i t y . Reference group theory generally assumes that i n d i v i d u a l s being influenced have knowledge of the norms and the actual behaviour of the groups to which they are oriented. Yet, t h i s assumption larg e l y ignores the l i m i t s which group structure may place on such v i s i b i l i t y . 1. While there have been a large number of studies focussing on the conditions under which an i n d i v i d u a l w i l l conform to the norms i n a group, few studies have focussed on the conditions under which an i n d i v i d u a l may deviate from group norms. I t seems possible that high acceptance, perhaps i n addition to another variable, may be a condition for devi-ance. For a recent discussion of the shortage of data regard-ing the conditions for deviance, see Jahoda, (1959). 102. (Merton, 1963, p. 337) This observation seems c l e a r l y a p p l i -cable to school teachers, the subjects used i n the i n v e s t i -gation reported i n t h i s paper. In schools the behaviour governed by the system norms takes place i n semi-isolation. Teachers do not often have the opportunity to see or evaluate each other's performance. They must i n f e r t h i s information from other observations. The ad hoc analysis i n t h i s regard indicated that among non-clique members, where there i s a rel a t i o n s h i p between sociometric choices received and sub-jective estimations of compliance,, sociometric choices re-ceived were only s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to normative conformity and not to behavioural conformity as predicted i n hypothesis I. Thus, i t i s possible that when v i s i b i l i t y of actions i s low, people use the normative positions of t h e i r fellows as bases for evaluation, but when v i s i b i l i t y i s high they use the actions of t h e i r fellows. There are additional considerations which enter into the re l a t i o n s h i p between v i s i b i l i t y and c r i t e r i a used for evaluation. For example, what difference does i t make i f the members form an interdependent uni t for attainment of group goals (as i n Homans' 1950 analysis of the Bank Wiring Group) rather than an association of independent actors. Teachers, of course, are not e n t i r e l y independent, but t h e i r organization tends to be i n that d i r e c t i o n . 103 Concluding comments. A general theory, such as the one developed i n this paper, always i m p l i c i t l y prefaces i t s propositions with the statement: " A l l other things being equal...." Yet, ;in the everyday empirical world, a l l other things are seldom equal. In any given s i t u a t i o n there are l i k e l y to be a varie of unspecified but confounding variables bearing upon the relationships being examined. The discussion i n the pre-vious section of t h i s chapter indicated that such variables as clique membership (acceptance) and s o c i a l v i s i b i l i t y may have been confounding uncontrolled variables i n the empirical s i t u a t i o n chosen for t h i s investigation of s o c i a l influence; i n other situations, the variables involved might have been d i f f e r e n t , but the e f f e c t could have been the same—very few clear relationships found. Even i n the s i t u a t i o n chosen, there are variables i n addition to those mentioned which l i k e l y had a bearing on the s o c i a l influence process. For example, the formal power structure which affects the teaching performance of the respondents as well as t h e i r interpersonal relationships, was not investigated, but one might assume that i t was relevant i n t h i s regard. 104. While lack of control over confounding relevant variables may have been involved i n the f a i l u r e of the evidence to support the theory, the lack of control over the operational measures of the variables most c e r t a i n l y contributed to the uncertainty of the empirical findings. For example, the data c o l l e c t e d gives no evidence to show that the measure of uni-form evaluations used i n t h i s study was adequate. Nor i s there any information to indicate whether subjective apprais-als of conformity relate to more objective appraisals of con-formity among the other members i n the system. In other words, there was no firm basis indicated for some of the assumptions underlying the operational measures of the var i a b l e s . It would appear, then,- that the empirical i n -vestigations i n t h i s paper was s e r i o u s l y lacking i n control over unspecified but relevant variables and i n control over the measures of the s p e c i f i e d v a r i a b l e s . The question now i s , how could control over these variables be increased. To begin with, obtaining control over the operational measures may require a narrowing down of the scope of the i n v e s t i g a -t i o n to the point where only one or two propositions are analysed at a time. This r e s t r i c t i o n would f a c i l i t a t e a more intensive analysis i n each case, as well as allowing the pro-105. gressive development of operational measures of the variables. Increasing the control over other relevant variables, of course, can be done by adding these variables to the theory. Since one has no theory to specify precisely which variables may be involved, and since the number of variables that could be introduced is infinite, it would seem wiser to introduce more control over the experimental situation as a whole. This latter suggestion is particularly valid if one's aim is, as the aim in this paper was, to investigate the relationships between a limited set of variables with "All other things being equal." Comprehensive control over the number of un-wanted variables entering into an experimental situation is, clearly, very difficult to achieve in the social sciences. However, the success of the small groups researchers, whose findings were so heavily utilized in the development of the theory in this paper, should be noted. In conclusion, the theory developed in this paper remains to be tested. Any future test of this theory should take into consideration the inadequacies evident in the empirical test of the theory. In this regard, it should exhibit much more control over the experimental situation and over the operational measures of the theoretical variables. 106. Bibliography Asch, S.E., Back, K., Berelson, B.R. Berkowitz, L., Blau, P.M., Bott, E., Brehm, J.W., Burdick, H.A., Cartwright, D. Cartwright, D. Charters, W.W. "Effects of group pressure upon the modifi-cation and d i s t o r t i o n of judgments". In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership, and men. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press, 1951, 177-190. "Influence through s o c i a l communication." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1951, 46, 9-23. , Lazarsfeld, P.F., and McPhee, W.N., Voting. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1954. and Lundy, R. "Personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s re-lated to s u s c e p t i b i l i t y to influence by peers or authority f i g u r e s . " Journal of Personality, 1956/57, 25, 306-316. The dynamics of bureaucracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955. "The concept of class as a reference group." Human Relations. 1954, T_, 259-285. and Cohen, A.R. Explorations i n cognitive dissonance. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962. and Burnes, A.J., "A test of 'strain toward symmetry' theories." Journal of Abnormal and  Social Psychology. 1958, 367-369. , "Some p r i n c i p l e s of mass persuasion". Human  Relations. 1949, 2., 253-268. , and Zander, A. (Eds.) Group dynamics: research  and theory. Evanston, I l l i n o i s : Row, Peterson and Company, 1962 (copyright 1960). J r . , and Newcomb, T.M. "Some a t t i t u d i n a l e f f e c t s of experimentally increased salience of a mem-bership group." In E.E. Maccoby, T.M. Newcomb and E.L. Hartley. (Eds.), Readings i n Social Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1958, (third e d i t i o n ) , 276-281. 107. Cooley, C H. Human nature and the s o c i a l order. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1902. Cooley, C.H. Social organization. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1909. Couch, C.J., and Murray, J.S. "Significant others and evalu-a t i o n . " Sociometry, Dec. 1964, 27, 502-509. Ditt e s , J . "Attraction to the group as a function of s e l f -esteem and acceptance by the group". Journal  of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 19, 77-82. Eisenstadt, S.M. "Reference group behaviour and s o c i a l i n t e -gration - an explorative study." American  Socio l o g i c a l Review, 1954, 19_, 175-185. Festinger, L. "Informal s o c i a l communication." Psychological Review, 1950, 57, 271-282. Festinger, L. "An analysis of compliant behaviour." In M. Sherif and M.O. Wilson (Eds.), Group Relations  at the Crossroads. New York: Harper, 1953,232-256. Festinger, L. "A theory of s o c i a l comparison processes." Human Relations, 1954, 7J 117-140. Festinger, L. "A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, I l l i n o i s : Row, Peterson and Sons, 1957. Festinger, L., Schachter, S., and Back, K. "The operation of group standards." In Cartwright and Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics,, Evanston, I l l i n o i s and Elmsford, New York: Row, Peterson and Sons, 1962, 241-259. Festinger, L., Torrey, J . , and Willerman, B. "Self-evaluation as a function of a t t r a c t i o n to the group." Human Relations, 1954, 7, 166, 174. Gerard, H.B. "The anchorage of opinions i n face to face groups." Human Relations, 1954, 313-325. 108. Hare, A. P. Handbook of small group research. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962. Heider, F. "Attitudes and cognitive organization." The Journal of Psychology, 1946, 21, 107-112. Hoel, P.G. Elementary statistics. New York and London: John Wiley and Sons, 1960. Homans, G.C. The human group. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1950. Hovland, G.I., Janis, I.L., and Kelley, H.H. Communication and persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953. Hyman, H.H. "The psychology of status." Archives of Psychology, 1942, 269. Hyman, H.H. "Reflection on reference groups." Public Opinion Quarterly, 1960, 24, 34-44. Israel, J. "The effect of positive and negative self-evaluation on attractiveness of the goal," Human Relations, 1960, 13, 33-40. Jackson, J.M. "Reference group processes in a formal organi-zation. " Sociometry, 1959, 22, 307-327. Jackson, J.M. and Saltzstein, H. "The effect of person-group relationships on conformity processes." Journal  of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1958, 57, 17-24. Jahoda, M. "Conformity and independence." Human Relations, 1959, 7:2, 99-119. Janis, I.L. "Personality correlates to the susceptibility of persuasion." Journal of Psychology, 1954, 22, 504-518. Jordan, W. "Behavioural forces that are a function of attitudes and of cognitive organization." Human  Relations. 1953, 6, 273-287. 109. Katz, E., and Lazarsfeld, P.F. Personal influence. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1955. Kelley, H. "Two functions of reference groups." In G. Swanson et_ a l . (Eds.), Readings i n s o c i a l  psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1952, 410-414. Kelley, H. "Communication i n experimentally created hierarchies". In Cartwright and Zander (Eds.), Group Dynamics. Evanson, I l l i n o i s , and Elmsford, New York: Row, Peterson, 1962, 781 - 799. Kelley, H., and Shapiro, M.M. "An experiment on conformity to group norms where conformity i n detrimental to group achievement." American So c i o l o g i c a l  Review, 1954, 19, 667-677. Kelman, H.C. "Processes of opinion change." Public Opinion Quarterly, 1961, 25, 57-78. Kuhn, M.H., and McPartland, T.S. "An empirical i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of s e l f - a t t i t u d e s . " American Sociological Review, February, 1954, 19, 68-76. Lasswell, H.D., "The structure and function of communication i n society." In W. Schramm (Ed.), Mass communi- cations . Urbana: University of I l l i n o i s Press, 1949, 192-215. Lazarsfeld, P.F., Berelson, B., and Gaudet, H. The people's choice. New York: Duel, Sloan and Pearce, 1944. Lewin, K. F i e l d theory i n s o c i a l science. New York: Harper, 1951 Manis, M. "Social i n t e r a c t i o n and the self-concept." J . of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 51, 362-370. Mead, G.H. In A. Strauss (Ed.), The s o c i a l psychology of George Herbert Mead. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962, (copyright 1934). Merton, R.K. Social Theory and s o c i a l structure. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1963. 110. Merton, R.K. "Reference groups and the s o c i a l structure". In Merton Social theory and s o c i a l structure. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1963, ch. 9, 281-386. Merton, R.K. and K i t t , A.S. "Contributions to the theory of reference group behaviour." In Merton and Lazarsfeld (Ed.) f Continuities i n s o c i a l research. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1950, 106-140. M i l l e r , N.E. and Bollard, J . Social learning and imitation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1941. Miyamoto, S.F., and Dornbusch, S.M. "A test of i n t e r a c t i o n i s t hypotheses of se l f - e v a l u a t i o n . " American Journal  of Sociology, Mar. 1956, 56, 399-403. Moroney, M.J. Facts from figures. Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books, A236, 1963 (Copyright 1951). Newcomb, T.M. Personality and s o c i a l change. New York: Dryden, 1943. Newcomb, T.M. Social psychology. The Dryden Press, 1950. Newcomb, T.M. "An approach to the study of communicative acts." Psychological Review, 1953, 60,393-404. Osgood, C.E., and Tannenbaum, P.H. "The p r i n c i p l e of congruity i n the pre c i s i o n of attitude change." Psycholo-g i c a l Review, 1955, 62, 42 r55. P h i l l i p s , B.S. "Expected value deprivation and occupational preference." Sociometry, June 1964,27, 151-160. Quarantelli, E.L., H e l f r i c h , M., and Yutsey, D. "Faculty and student perceptions i n the professional school." Sociology and Social Research, Oct. 1964, 49-1, 32-45. Rasmussen, G. and Zander, A. "Group Membership and s e l f -evaluation. " Human rel a t i o n s , 1954, 7, 239-251. Reeder, L.G., Donahue, G.A. and Biblarz, A. "Conceptions of s e l f and other." American Journal of Sociology, Sept. 1960, 153-159. 111. Rommetviet, R. Social norms and r o l e s . Oslo: Akademisk Forlag, 1953 and Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1955 Rosen, B.C. "The reference group approach to the parental factor i n attitude and behaviour formation." Social Forces, 1955, 34, 13-144 Schachter, S. "Deviation, r e j e c t i o n and communication." Journal  of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1951, 46, 190-207. Secord, P.F., and Backman, G.W. "Interpersonal congruency, perceived s i m i l a r i t y and friendship." Sociometry, June 1964, 27-2, 115-127. Sherif, M. The psychology of s o c i a l norms. New York: Harper, 1936. Shibutani, T. "Reference groups as perspectives." American  Journal of Sociology, 1955, 60, 562-569. Siegel, A.E., and Siegal, S. "Reference groups, membership groups, and attitude change." Journal of Abnorm- a l and Social Psychology, 1957, 55_, 360-364. Smith, E.E. "The power of dissonance techniques to change attitudes". Public Opinion Quarterly, 1961, 25, 626-629. Spiegal, M.R. Theory and problems of s t a t i s t i c s . New York: Schaum Publishing Company, 1961, 246-248. Stern, E., and K e l l e r , S. "Spontaneous group references i n France." Public Opinion Quarterly, 1953, 17, 208T217 Stotland, E. "Determinates of a t t r a c t i o n to groups." Journal  of Social Psychology, 1959, 49, 71-80. Stotland, E., Thorley, S., Thomas, E., Cohen, A. and Zander, A. "The effects of group expectation and s e l f esteem upon self-evaluation." Journal of Abnormal and  Social Psychology, 1957, 5_4, 55-63. Thomas, W. I. The unadjusted g i r l . Boston: L i t t l e , Brown and Company, 1923. 112. Tocqueville, A. de, Democracy i n America. New York, 1898. Turner, R.H. "Self and other i n moral judgments". American Socio l o g i c a l Review, 1954, 19, 249-255. Turner, R.H. "Reference groups of future oriented men." Social Forces, 1955, 34, 130-136. Turner, R.H. "Role taking, role standpoint, and reference group behaviours". American Journal of  Sociology, 1956, 61, 316-328. Zajonc, R.B. "The concepts of balance, congruity and dissonance." Public Opinion Quarterly, 1960, 24, 280-296. Zander, A., and Curtis, T. "Effects of s o c i a l power on aspira-tion setting and s t r i v i n g . " Journal of Abnormal  and Social Psychology, 1962, 64-1, 63-74. Zander, A. and Havelin, H. "Social comparison and interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n . " Human Relations, 1960, 13, 21-32. Zetterberg, H.L. "Compliant Actions." Acta Sociologica, 1957, 2, 179-201. 113. >' n APPENDIX A. THE PRE-TEST QUESTIONNAIRE. The following questionnaire was administered, through s t a f f mail s l o t s , to the forty-eight teachers i n a large secondary school i n Vancouver. The questionnaire was accompanied by two l e t t e r s which are not reproduced here. The f i r s t l e t t e r was from the school's p r i n c i p a l ; i t indicated the approval of the questionnaire by the Department of Research and Special Services of the Vancouver School Board and asked for the teachers* cooperation. The second l e t t e r , from the researcher, indicated the general purpose of the questionnaire ("part of a study on the formation of teaching standards among secondary school teachers") and guaranteed that the information revealed would be held i n s t r i c t e s t confidence. The variables operationally measured by the following questions are generally indicated by the bracketed t i t l e over each question or set of questions. A general review of the results of t h i s questionnaire as they were used i n the development of the f i n a l interview schedule (see Appendix B) i s given i n chapter I I I . Most of the questions i n t h i s questionnaire are modeled a f t e r work done by Rasmussen and Zander (1954). A l l but the l a s t two (17 and 18) of the scaled items for measuring self-evaluation and compliance are taken d i r e c t l y from Rasmussen and Zander. 114. >r< (Specification of Action System) Which group of fa c u l t y people inside this school do you f e e l you most belong to? By a group i s meant two or more persons who think of each other as belonging together, based on common association, i n t e r e s t , task or pleasure. This group may have some sort of formal or informal basis, but more l i k e l y i t i s simply a group that meets i n the lunchroom, smoking room or some other place during out-of-classroom hours. You may never .have considered t h i s to be an organized group, but i f you go to certai n places expecting to meet certain people, they are, for the purposes of th i s study, members of your group. The im-portant c r i t e r i o n i s that you think of yourself as belonging with certa i n fellow teachers more than you do with others. If you do not f e e l that you belong to any p a r t i c u l a r group of people within t h i s school, t r y to imagine a group to which you might belong and use thi s as your group. If you f e e l that you belong to more than one group— i . e . , one group of people with whom you have coffee and eat lunch and another somewhat d i f f e r e n t group of people with whom you meet for recreation i n the e v e n i n g s — t r y to pick the one group that you feel most a part of. Please l i s t below the names of those people whom you think of as belonging to your group. (Please p r i n t ; leave the brackets blank for now.) ( ) (__) (surname) ( i n i t i a l ) ' ( ) ( ") ( ) ( _ ! ( ) (continue l i s t on back i f necessary) (Interaction rate) On an average, how many times a week do you meet with t h i s group? (Check one): every day once a week twice a week less than once a week 115. // (Attraction score) If t h i s group broke up for a considerable length of time and some people were trying to get i t started again, would you want to rejoin? (Check one): yes no undecided If you checked "yes" or "no" on the previous question, how strongly did you f e e l about your preference? (Check one): very strong moderate very s l i g h t strong s l i g h t From the statements which follow, please select the one which best represents how you f e e l about the people i n your group. Place a ( */) i n the brackets beside t h i s statement. IF I THINK OF THE PEOPLE IN MY GROUP, ( ) I look forward with enthusiasm to the pleasure of spending l e i s u r e time with them. ( ) I very much enjoy spending leisure time with them. ( ) I enjoy the time I spend s o c i a l l y with them. ( ) I enjoy spending l e i s u r e time with them a l i t t l e . ( ) A l l i n a l l , spending l e i s u r e time with them i s s l i g h t l y unattractive. ( ) I do not r e a l l y enjoy t h e i r company s o c i a l l y . (Failure score, normative compliance and behavioural compliance) IMPORTANT, PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION CAREFULLY. The following questions are concerned with how teachers think they ought to act i n the classroom and how they a c t u a l l y do act i n day-to-day teaching. Before going on the s p e c i f i c questions, however, the following comments may help you to dist i n g u i s h ""ideal teaching behaviour" from "actual teaching behaviour". 115. /• 1. Some of the conversations i n your group have l i k e l y concerned the way i n which a teacher ought to act i n the classroom. What your teacher-friends say (or at least "think") about the way a teacher should act to be a good teacher may be d i f f e r e n t from what "text-books" say about the way a teacher should act. What the members of your group say about the way a teacher should act may also be d i f f e r e n t from the way i n which they a c t u a l l y do act. Yet these teachers are l i k e l y to be c r i t i c a l i f a teacher does not at least t r y to act i n the way they f e e l i s correct. 2. Depending on the issue, the way you would l i k e to act i n the classroom may vary somewhat or even considerably from the way the other members i n your group think a teacher should behave. For example, you may wish to be more or less s t r i c t than the members i n the group when i t comes to punishing student for not paying attention.In try i n g to decide how you would l i k e to behave i n the classroom, think of past s i t u a t i o n when you f e l t that you were at your very best, when your teaching be-haviour could not be bettered. This "best behaviour" is l i k e l y not the way you act i n day-to-day teaching, but i t represents how you would l i k e to act i f conditions were i d e a l . 3. In the following questions when reference i s made to the way you a c t u a l l y act i n the classroom, t r y to be as r e a l i s t i as possible. Try to think of how you act on a day-to-day basis, not how you hope to act tomorrow. Make the appraisal of how you a c t u a l l y behave i n the l i g h t of your actions l a s t week or l a s t month. 4. Remember, there i s no right or no wrong on the following questions. Other studies on teaching behaviour have indicated differences of opinion on how teachers f e l t they should act as well as differences i n the way they a c t u a l l y f e l t . (((* 116. INSTRUCTIONS FOR ANSWERING THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS. Each of the following questions i s divided i n two p a r t s — scale (A) and scale (B). On scale (A)— ; c i r c l e the point which you believe i s the p o s i t i o n  your group would agree upon as the way a teacher  would have to act i n order to be a good teacher. On scale ( B ) — c i r c l e the point which comes nearest to describing  your ACTUAL BEHAVIOUR i n the classroom. and— check the point which comes nearest to describing your IDEAL PERFORMANCE, how you would l i k e to act  under i d e a l conditions. EXAMPLE: Scale (A). HOW THE MEMBERS OF MY GROUP THINK A TEACHER OUGHT TO ACT. (Circle the number.) We ought to f i n d a 1 ( ^ ) 3 4 5 6 7 8 teaching method that works and then s t i c k to i t . We should continually be experimenting with new methods of teaching. (The above response—number 2 c i r c l e d — i n d i c a t e s that the teachers i n your group think i t i s better to s t i c k to the " t r i e d and true" while not denying the advantage of occasional experimentation. I f the members of your group a c t u a l l y f e e l that a good teacher would experiment i n every lesson, you would c i r c l e 8.) Scale (B). HOW I ACTUALLY ACT (Circle the number.) MY IDEAL BEHAVIOUR (Check the number.) I have found a teach- 1 2(3)4 5 6^7 8 I am continually experi-ing method that works menting with new methods and I st i c k to i t . of teaching. (The above response—3 c i r c l e d and 6 checked—indicates that you tend to st i c k to the methods that you f i n d work, only experimenting occasionally, but that you would l i k e to be experimenting more often than you a c t u a l l y are.) f ' ' 117. QUESTIONS. STOP. Please complete a l l scale (A) items f i r s t . When you have completed scale (A), then return to question number (1) and go through the questions again, completing the scale (B) item on each question. (*Note: the following l i s t shows the "A" scales only. The "B" scales can be reproduced by changing the subject from the second person (we's) to the f i r s t person ("I").) (1) If we know the subject 1 matter i n our own f i e l d , that i s s u f f i c i e n t . (2) At times we may punish the whole class when we are unable to i d e n t i f y the g u i l t y student. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 We ought to have a wide v a r i e t y of i n t e r e s t s ; school l i f e , current and c i v i c problems, s o c i a l welfare, fine arts, etc. We must never use mass punishment for i n d i -vidual misbehaviour. (3) We may depend on the p r i n c i p a l or counselor to take care of the more d i f f i c u l t d i s c i p l i n e problems. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A teacher must handle a l l d i s c i p l i n e problems personally. (4) It i s enough i f we don't d i s l i k e teaching and can get along a l l ri g h t with the students. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 We should have a genuine love for students and the teaching profession. (5) We should not burden ourselves with a child' s extra-school problems. 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 We must consider ourselves to be a very r e a l source of guidance to our p u p i l s . We should make attempts to gain further informa-t i o n about our students and, on occasion, give advice on matters not d i r e c t l y concerned with the school. 118. (6) We should seldom 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 p u b l i c l y compliment a student. (7) At times we may run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 out of patience and sympathy. (8) We may sometimes use 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 homework as a punish-ment for class misbehaviour. (9) It i s enough i f we use 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 common sense i n dealing with learning and t e s t i n g problems. (10) As long as we are not 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ac t u a l l y discourteous we are f u l f i l l i n g our obligations. ( I D We may f i n d i t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 impossible to keep from playing favourites occasionally. CL2) It i s enough i f we are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 w i l l i n g to meet the parents of our students. We should seize every opportunity to p u b l i c l y compliment a student for e f f o r t and achieve-ment. . No matter what happens, we must be patient and sympathetic towards our students. We should under no circumstances use home-work as a punishment for class misbehaviour. We should know and make use of the s c i e n t i f i c p r i n c i p l e s involved i n the psychology of learning, test con-struction, etc. We must be a l i v i n g demonstration of r e f i n e -ment and unusually good manners for our cla s s . We must maintain a s t r i c t l y impartial attitude toward a l l children. We should take the i n i t i a t i v e i n getting to know the parents of the children i n our cla s s . 119. (13) We should believe 1 2 3 4 5 there i s nothing sacred about the teaching profession. We may resent overtime work without overtime pay. (14) We need show only an 1 2 3 4 5 average amount of enthusiasm and pep i n the classroom. (15) If we have experience 1 2 3 4 5 and ingenuity we need not spend much time on lesson plans. 6 7 8 We should recognize that we have ce r t a i n obligations which are part of the teaching profession. If i t i s necessary to work overtime to meet these we should do so without grumbling. 6 7 8 We must show a l o t of enthusiasm and pep i n the classroom. 6 7 8 We ought to put a great deal of time and e f f o r t into the planning of class lessons. (16) Why put on? We should 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 We should always be act grumpy i f we f e e l optimistic and cheerful, that way. tending to spread good s p i r i t s . (17) It i s enough to teach 1 2 3 4 5 during i n - c l a s s hours. We do not f e e l that a teacher; needs to spend afternoons or evenings on e x t r a - c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s . (18) We believe that a 1 2 3 4 5 teacher should push students to the l i m i t of t h e i r a b i l i t y so that they w i l l p r o f i t most from the school experience. 6 7 8 Extra-curricular a c t i -v i t i e s are a very im-portant part of one's teaching r e s p o n s i b i l i -t i e s . We should spend whatever time we can afford on extra-curricu-l a r a c t i v i t i e s . 6 7 8 We believe that a teacher should led students work at t h e i r own rate because children tend to f i n d the rate which i s best for them. ) 0 o 120. STOP. Do not go past t h i s point u n t i l you have completed both the (A) and the (B) scales on each of the preceding questions. (Relevance) COMPLETE THE BOXES TO THE LEFT OF EACH OF THE PREVIOUS QUESTIONS: Please go back through each of the (A) scales (How the members of my group think a teacher ought to act) and put a  check i n the margin to the l e f t of those four items which  your group regards as most important i n being a good teacher. You have indicated that the teachers i n your group take a stand on each of the issues mentioned. However, they l i k e l y consider t h e i r stand on some of these issues to be more important f o r t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n of "good teaching behaviour" than t h e i r stand on other issues. A good measure of how important any of the above items might be i s to think of the amount of time your group spends discussing t h e i r stand on i t . Another measure of importance i s the amount of c r i t i c i s m these fellow-teachers would tend to give to a person who deviated consid-erably from t h e i r stand. Indicate the four most important items only. (Attraction to profession) If you could begin your professional career a l l over again and you could become such things as a lawyer, chemist, j o u r n a l i s t , s o c i a l worker, teacher, nurse, engineer, etc., and assuming that equal e f f o r t would be required to become a member of each of these professions, which profession would be your f i r s t choice?/' : your second choice? . : your t h i r d choice? . (Check on " f a i l u r e score" as measure of s e l f evaluation) How many years have you taught school? . How many years have you taught i n t h i s school? . Comparing yourself to a l l the other teachers i n t h i s school, how would 121. you rate your teaching a b i l i t y ? Check the statement which best describes your p o s i t i o n . I rank among the top 5% of the teachers i n th i s ; school. I rank among the top 10% of the teachers i n th i s school. I rank among the top 20% of the teachers i n t h i s school. I rank among the top 30% of the teachers i n t h i s school. I rank among the top 40% of the teachers i n t h i s school. I rank among the top 50% of the teachers i n t h i s school. I rank below the top 50% of the teachers i n th i s school. but I am better than the bottom 25% of the teachers i n thi s school. I rank among the bottom 25% of the teachers i n t h i s school. (Miscellanious: Check on other reference groups) The following questions are to determine how serio u s l y you would take c r i t i c a l eomments from other people i n the teaching profession i n determining your i n - c l a s s behavior. Select your answer from the l i s t given d i r e c t l y below the questions. If , for example, you found out that your method of d i s c i p l i n e or your method of maintaining control was not approved of by the teachers i n your group, how seriously would you consider t h e i r point of view i n future actions? (Select the number of the stateme below which best describes your position.) If, for example, you found out that your method of d i s c i p l i n e or your method of maintaining control was not approved of by the p r i n c i p a l and the v i c e - p r i n c i p a l i n t h i s school, how serio u s l y would you consider t h e i r point of view i n future action? (Select the number of the statement below which best describes your position.) I f , for example, you found out that your method of d i s c i p l i n e or your method of maintaining control was not approved of by a substantial group of your students' parents, how serio u s l y would you consider t h e i r point of view i n future action? (Select the number of the statement below which best describes your position.) 122. ANSWERS: 1. Very seriously. I would question my behavior i n the l i g h t of these c r i t i c i s m s , and I would t r y to make any necessary changes i n my future behavior. 2. Seriously. I would c e r t a i n l y consider t h e i r point of view and I would l i k e l y t r y to change my future behavior. 3. Moderately. I would consider t h e i r point of view and I would possibly t r y to change my behavior. 4. Not too seriously. I would be aware of t h e i r point of view but i t i s u n l i k e l y that I would t r y to change my behavior. 5. Not at a l l seriously. I would not be concerned with t h e i r point of view and I would not be the least i n c l i n e d to change my behavior. (Evaluation of others i n action system) Within your school and within the group to which you belong, there are l i k e l y i n d i v i d u a l differences i n the a b i l i t y to teach. These differences may be due to experience (length of time teaching) or to personal aptitude for t h i s kind of work. Thus, a person's a b i l i t y i n teaching may not r e f l e c t on his a b i l i t y i n other areas or on how much you appreciate him as a person. Other studies have shown that some teachers, on re-f l e c t i o n , have themselves r e a l i z e d that they may have been more suited for another profession. It would be most h e l p f u l i f you would t r y to evaluate the teaching a b i l i t y of the other f a c u l t y members i n your group. Please use the standards which you have set as your i d e a l i n making th i s appraisal. Try not to l e t your feelings about the other person's competence i n other than teaching areas enter into your judgement. Turn to page one (1) and i n the brackets at the end of the name of each person you have l i s t e d there, write one of the following numbers to indicate, generally, your evaluation. VERY EXCELLENT 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 POOR (If the person i s the best teacher you know you might give him a rating of 8; a very good teacher who was not quite the best you know would get 7, and so on.) 123. Thank you for your cooperation. I do sin c e r e l y hope that t h i s questionnaire was not too d i f f i c u l t or i n any way un-pleasant. I f you have any general comments to make about any part of th i s questionnaire please f e e l free to write them i n the space below or to speak to me personally. Respectfully, Alan Simmons. 124. APPENDIX B. THE FINAL INTERVIEW SCHEDULE. The following interview schedule was administered to forty-one of the forty-four teachers i n a large secondary school i n Vancouver. The information obtained from these interviews provided the empirical data for the investigation of the s o c i a l influence theory developed i n t h i s paper. The questions used i n t h i s interview were developed out of a pre-tests questionnaire administered i n another large secondary school i n Vancouver (see appendix A). The variables measured by each of the following questions are generally indicated by the bracketed t i t l e over each question or set of questions. In questions where the responses were used for quantitative analysis (correlations, e t c . ) , the numerical scores attached to each response are indicated i n brackets aft e r the response. Additional information about the scoring of the scaled items and the t h e o r e t i c a l meaning of the questions i s given i n chapter I I I . It should be made clear that the following questions were often, of necessity, supplemented by further questioning to make sure that the respondent understood the nature of the information requested. (Introduction) This interview i s part of a study on opinions about teaching practices among secondary school teachers. I f any of the following questions are unclear to you, please i n d i -your uncertainty before replying. It cannot be overemphasized that the answers to the following questions w i l l be held i n s t r i c t e s t confidence. A l l of the information recorded w i l l be-come part of s t a t i s t i c a l t o t a l s . No personal data w i l l be released to anyone. Before getting involved with the questions s p e c i f i -c a l l y concerned with best teaching practices, I would l i k e some information about your associations with other school teachers and some information about your own teaching career. (Friendship choicest s p e c i f i c a t i o n of action system and basis for measuring uniform evaluations.) In any school, a given teacher i s not l i k e l y to know every other teacher on the s t a f f equally well. This i s espe-c i a l l y so when the school i s very large. Some teachers may become f r i e n d l y with one another because they teach the same subject, because they meet together for coffee and lunch, or because they have similar outside i n t e r e s t s . Whatever the reason might be, you yourself are l i k e l y to be more f r i e n d l y with some teachers than with others. These people who you l i k e may or may not be the people you see most often or know best among the s t a f f . But these people would be the ones that you would l i k e to see most often and to know best as friends. Please indicate (from a numbered s t a f f l i s t ) the names of the people i n t h i s school who you would l i k e to consider your friends. (Attraction; the sum of the scores on both questions.) 1. Xf, for any reason, you or your friends were to leave t h i s school to teach elsewhere i n the Vancouver-Burnaby area, how much time and e f f o r t would you spend making arrange-ments to see and talk with these people again. (Responses: very much, would phone or v i s i t often (4); a f a i r  amount, would phone or v i s i t occasionally (3); not very much, would phone or v i s i t once or twice a year (2); none at a l l %1). 2. From the fi v e statements which follow, which one best represents how you f e e l about meeting with your "friends" 126. s o c i a l l y ? I look forward with enthusiasm to the pleasure of spending leis u r e time with them. (5). I very much enjoy spending l e i s u r e time with them. (4). I enjoy spending l e i s u r e time with them a l i t t l e . (3). A l l i n a l l , spending lei s u r e time with them i s s l i g h t l y unattractive. (2). I do not r e a l l y enjoy t h e i r company s o c i a l l y . (1). (Independent measure of self-evaluation.) Generally, how s a t i s f i e d are you with your day-to-day teaching? (Responses: extremely s a t i s f i e d (5); very s a t i s f i e d (4); somewhat s a t i s f i e d (3); neither s a t i s f i e d nor d i s s a t i s f i e d (2); d i s s a t i s f i e d (1). (Attraction to teaching profession.) If you could begin your professional career a l l over again and you could become such things as a lawyer, chemist, j o u r n a l i s t , s o c i a l worker, teacher, nurse, engineer, etc., assuming that equal e f f o r t would be required to become a mem-ber of each of these professions, which profession would be your f i r s t choice? your second choice? etc. (Responses: teaching f i r s t choice (3); teaching second choice, (2); teaching t h i r d choice or less than t h i r d choice (1). (Miscellaneous questions for ad hoc controls.) How many years have you taught school? How many years have you taught at t h i s school? How important i s i t for you to be thought of as a "good teacher" by the following people? students' parents; 127. school administrators (inspector, p r i n c i p a l , e t c . ) ; your friends i n th i s school; teacher friends outside t h i s school? (Responses: very important (4); quite important (3); s l i g h t - l y important (2); not important (1). (Twelve scaled items to measure f a i l u r e score, normative deviance score, and behavioural deviance score.) Note: The verbal preamble to the scaled items followed the pattern of the written preamble i n the pre-test questionnaire. Following t h i s i n i t i a l statement about the nature of the information required, the respondents were given a l i s t of twelve of the scaled items and asked to specify t h e i r friends' i d e a l performance, t h e i r own i d e a l performance, and t h e i r own actual performance on each issue. The twelve scaled items used were numbers, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16 (see appendix A). Six of these scales were reversed from the order indicated i n appendix A. (Relevance) You have indicated that your "friends" tend to take a cert a i n stand on each of the above issues. However, they are l i k e l y to consider t h e i r stand on some of these issues to be more important than t h e i r stand on others. Which four issues do you think they would regard as most important i n th i s respect? 128. Appendix C. Clique membership and s o c i a l acceptance. This appendix reports on an attempt to explain some of the negative findings reported i n chapter IV. The d i s -cussion centers around the introduction of a new variable into the analysis. This variable, concerning the difference i n s o c i a l acceptance between clique and non-clique members, appears to provide a useful d i s t i n c t i o n with regard to the s o c i a l i n -fluence process. I t should be cle a r i n the following analysis, however, that the d e f i n i t i o n distinguishing clique members from non-clique members i s ad hoc. The theory presented pre-viously i n t h i s paper does not provide any basis for making t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n or for attaching any meaning to t h i s d i s -t i n c t i o n . Thus, the findings reported here may only be con-sidered to be a part of preliminary investigation into the ef-fect of s o c i a l acceptance on the s o c i a l influence process. It w i l l be r e c a l l e d that i n the theory developed i n chapter I I , a t t r a c t i o n to a system was the variable which s p e c i f i e d the degree to which a person would comply with the norms i n that system. However, at that time, i t was not d i s -cussed whether or not i t makes any difference i f the attracted person i s an outsider seeking acceptance among people he would l i k e to associate himself with, or i f the attracted person i s a member i n good-standing i n the system. The attempt i n the following analysis i s to t r y to d i s t i n g u i s h those respondents who were generally accepted i n a system within the school from 129. those that were not accepted i n the same way. The d i s t i n c t i o n between those accepted into a system and those not so accepted i s operationally defined i n terms of the friendship choice patterns evident i n the sociometric data. In t h i s regard, a "clique" i s defined as a structure involving mutual acceptance among three or more people, as i d e n t i f i e d by each person choosing each other person on the sociometric friendship c h o i c e s . 1 Clique membership, according to t h i s d e f i n i t i o n , suggests acceptance of some kind—people choose others who choose them and each other. Non-clique membership, conversely, suggests r e j e c t i o n of some kind—people choose others who either do not choose them or do not choose each other. Due to the ad hoc nature of t h i s analysis, however, there i s no information to indicate whether or not clique membership i s a c t u a l l y associated with subjective feelings of acceptance or security. 1. This d e f i n i t i o n i s taken from Rasmussen and Zander (1954). The d e f i n i t i o n , when applied to the data gathered i n connection with the theory i n t h i s paper, reveals nine three member cl i q u e s . Since there i s an overlap of clique membership, however, the t o t a l number of clique members i s 21, leaving 19 non-clique members. I t i s of intere s t that an alternative d e f i n i t i o n of clique membership s p e c i f i e s exactly the same people as clique members while reducing the number of cliques to s i x . The alternative d e f i n i t i o n s p e c i f i e s a clique of three of more persons, each of whom chooses at least two of the other members who also choose him and each other. In a basic three member cliq u e , as with the former d e f i n i t i o n , each person must choose each other person. However, i n a four per-son clique, one pa i r of persons need not choose one another, and so on. 130. The theory of s o c i a l influence developed e a r l i e r i n t h i s paper does not allow one to predict what e f f e c t s clique membership might have on the s o c i a l influence process. Rasmussen and Zander (1954), however, using the above d e f i n i t i o n of clique membership, found data to suggest that: the teacher who i s a member of a c l o s e l y k n i t group has less need to conform to the standards he believes are endorsed by that group. The clique members perceives himself, perhaps, as being secure enough to deviate from the standards held by his group without threatening h i s status as a member." (p. 248) Thus, acceptance, or at least clique membership, may be one condition for deviance. On the basis of Rasmussen and Zander's finding, i t w i l l be hypothesized that clique members, because they are accepted/secure, f e e l less necessity of conforming to the stan-dards they perceive as being endorsed by the c l i q u e . One may further hypothesize that a t t r a c t i o n w i l l be most related to com-pliance among non-clique members. Non-clique members who are attracted to (seeking acceptance in) a system w i l l s t r i v e to conform to the norms i n that system. Non-clique members who are not attracted to a system w i l l not l i k e l y conform to the norms i n that system. Clique members, om the other hand, w i l l e xhibit conformity much more independently of t h e i r a t t r a c t i o n to the system. 131. On the basis of the discussion in the preceding para-graph, there are a number of other predictions that one could make concerning clique membership and the social influence pro-cess. A convenient way of organizing the discussion of these predictions and their support or non-support by the data i s to deal with some of the previously developed hypotheses, con-t r o l l i n g for clique membership in the data analysis. 1. The Homans hypothesis. Compliance and uniform evaluation. Contrary to expectations, the i n i t i a l data analysis indicated that there i s no relationship between behavioural compliance and sociometric choices received. Similarly, sub-sequent analysis indicated that normative compliance i s not related to sociometric choices received either. However, there i s a possibility that the relationship between these two var-iables i s different for clique members than i t is for non-clique members. In particular, following the argument in the preceding paragraph, one might expect that, insofar as soc-iometric choices received indicates acceptance into the system, the degree to which non-clique members are accepted depends on their compliance. Clique members, being secure in their acceptance, however, might not receive sociometric choices according to their compliance. Analysis of the data indicates that the mean number of sociometric choices received by clique members was 6.52, 132. while the mean number received by the non-clique members was 3.95; this difference is significant at the .01 level. Thus, the definition of clique-membership tends to select those people who received the most sociometric choices and, hence according to previous assumptions, are most accepted in the system as a whole. One might expect, then, on the basis of the Homans hypothesis, that clique members as a whole would be more conforming than non-clique members. The data, how-ever, indicate no difference between clique and non-clique members with regard to compliance. Table IV Mean deviance scores by clique membership. Nevertheless, the possibility s t i l l remains that sociometric choices received correlate differently with deviance scores for clique members than they do for non-clique members. Analysis of the data indicates that this i s indeed so. Clique Ss Non-clique Ss Significance Behavioural deviance Normative deviance 20.38 8.76 (N = 21) 17.84 # 7.66 # (N = 19) 133. Table V Correlation of sociometric choices received with de-viance scores, c o n t r o l l i n g for clique membership. Clique Ss Non-clique Ss Sig. of D i f f . (N = 21) (N = 18) a Behavioral deviance .01 -.36 # Normative deviance .29 -.64 .64 Among non-clique members there appears to be a rel a t i o n s h i p between sociometric choices received and deviance. There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between these two variables for clique members. I t i s of int e r e s t that the re l a t i o n s h i p be-tween normative deviance and sociometric choices received i s higher than the re l a t i o n s h i p between behavioral deviance and sociometric choices received. 2. A t t r a c t i o n and normative conformity. 3. A t t r a c t i o n and behavioral conformity. The i n i t i a l analysis showed that a t t r a c t i o n correlates with normative deviance at -0.56 and with behavioral deviance at -0.30, thereby supporting hypotheses 2 and 3. I t has been hypothesized e a r l i e r i n t h i s appendix that the inverse r e l a t i o n -ship between a t t r a c t i o n and the deviance scores should be a. An inspection of the graph p l o t t i n g sociometric choices received against deviance scores for non-clique members i n d i -cated one very discrepant set of data. This set of scores was more than 4 standard errors of estimate from the regression l i n e while a l l other scores were within one standard error of estimate. This set of discrepant scores was not included i n the f i n a l a nalysis. 134. greater for the non-clique members than for the clique members. This prediction appears to be supported by the data. Table VI Correlation of a t t r a c t i o n scores with normative deviance scores and with behavioral deviance scores c o n t r o l l i n g for clique membership. Clique Ss. Non-clique Ss. Sig. of D i f f . (N. = 20) (N. = 19) At t r a c t i o n and behavioral deviance .02 -0.44 # At t r a c t i o n and normative deviance -.41 -0.75 .10 Among clique members there i s no re l a t i o n s h i p between a t t r a c t i o n and behavioral deviance, while among non-clique members these variables correlate s i g n i f i c a n t l y at -0.44. S i m i l a r l y among clique members, a t t r a c t i o n and normative deviance correlate at -0.41; while among non-clique members these variables correlate at -0.75. Only the c o r r e l a t i o n between a t t r a c t i o n and normative deviance among non-clique members i s c l e a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t . 4. Uniform evaluations and a t t r a c t i o n . In the development of the theory i n chapter I I , i t was argued that i f uniform evaluations were a function of compliance, then a t t r a c t i o n , being the basis of compliance, would also be related to uniform evaluations. The i n i t i a l data analysis indicated that, while a t t r a c t i o n was related to com-pliance, uniform evaluations were not related to compliance, 135. and hence attraction was not related to uniform evaluation. The recent analysis relating uniform evaluations to com-pliance while controlling for clique membership, however, has indicated that the hypothesized relationship between these two variables holds only for non-clique members—the more a non-clique member perceives himself a s complying with the norms in the system, the more sociometric choices he receives. On the basis of this finding, one would expect that uniform evalu-ations w i l l be positively related to attraction among non-clique members, but not among clique members. The data support this prediction. Sociometric choices and attraction correlate at .61 (N. = 20; significant at .01) for non-clique members and at -0.09 (N. = 21; not significant) for clique members. 5. The Cooley hypothesis; uniform evaluation and self-evaluation. The Cooley hypothesis predicts that, insofar as a person i s attracted to a system and adopts i t s standards for evaluation, the person's self-evaluation w i l l tend to approxi-mate the uniform evaluation of him in the system. The hypo-thesis rests on the assumption that both self-evaluation and uniform evaluation concern the discrepancy between expectations for behavior and actual behavior. The data discussed to date, however, indicate that the relationship between compliance and uniform evaluation holds only for non-clique members. The 136. data also Indicate that uniform evaluations are much more d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to changes i n normative compliance than changes i n behavioral compliance. Thus, self-evaluation may be a function of the degree to which a person's performance approaches h i s i n t e r n a l i z e d self-expectations, while uniform evaluation may be a function of the degree to which a person's performance expectations approach the performance expectations i n the system. On the basis of previous findings, then, one would expect that there would be no rel a t i o n s h i p between uni-form evaluations and self-evaluation among clique members. However, among non-clique members, normative compliance i s c l e a r l y r e l a t e d to a t t r a c t i o n and normative compliance i s also c l e a r l y r e l a t e d to uniform evaluations. As a r e s u l t , one might expect that, among those non-clique members highly attracted to the system, there would be a po s i t i v e r e l a t i o n -ship between uniform evaluations and self-evaluation. The data support these predictions. The only unpredicted r e l a t i o n -ship i s the d i r e c t one between self-evaluation and uniform evaluations (inverse r e l a t i o n s h i p between f a i l u r e score and sociometric choices received) among the low-attracted non-clique members. The data do not allow one to pursue the reasons behind t h i s l a t t e r c o r r e l a t i o n . 137. Table VII Correlation of sociometric choices received with f a i l u r e scores, c o n t r o l l i n g for a t t r a c t i o n and for non-clique membership. Clique Ss. Non-clique Ss. High-attracted Ss .03 .67 (N. = 11; not (N. = 9; s i g n i f . .05) s i g n i f . ) Low-attracted Ss .29 -0.65 (N. = 10; not (N. = 10; s i g n i f . .05) s i g n i f . ) 6. The e f f e c t of a t t r a c t i o n on the re l a t i o n s h i p be-tween behavioral compliance and self-evaluation. The findings with regard to t h i s hypothesis and clique membership do not indicate anything worthy of note. Due to the operational inadequacies associated with t h i s proposition (see chapter IV, part two), these findings are not reported. 7. Relevance and normative compliance. 8. The e f f e c t of a t t r a c t i o n on the re l a t i o n s h i p be-tween relevance and normative compliance. 9. Relevance and behavioral compliance. 10. The e f f e c t of a t t r a c t i o n on the re l a t i o n s h i p between relevance and behavioral compliance. The i n i t i a l analysis showed that normative deviance, as expected, was greater on non-relevant items than on relevant items. This difference, again as expected, was greater for those highly attracted to the system than for those not so highly attracted to the system. These r e s u l t s supported 138. hypotheses 7 and 8. The analogous data with respect to be-havioral deviance scores indicated non-support for hypotheses 9 and 10., How would one expect clique membership to influence the r e l a t i o n s h i p between relevance and compliance? Generally, the assumption underlying the formation of the hypotheses concerning relevance was that relevance acts i n a s i m i l a r way to a t t r a c t i o n . Both relevance and a t t r a c t i o n are measures of importance"—attraction refers to the importance of the group or the system, and relevance refers to the importance of a given issue i n that system. The only additional assumption im-p l i e d i n t h i s argument i s that relevance i s generally additive to a t t r a c t i o n . Once the importance of the group has been established, then, and only then, does the r e l a t i v e importance of norms i n the group become important with regard to com-pliance. These being the assumptions, one would expect re-levance to have i t s primary e f f e c t among those people who ex-h i b i t e d a high r e l a t i o n s h i p between a t t r a c t i o n and compliance— i . e . , among the non-clique members. Moreover, one would expect that relevance would continue to have i t s greatest e f f e c t on normative compliance rather than on behavioral compliance. The r e s u l t s bear out these predictions. 139. Table VIII Mean differences between deviance score (normative and behavioral) on non-relevant issues and de-viance scores on relevant issues, c o n t r o l l i n g for at t r a c t i o n and clique membership. Normative deviance High-attracted Ss. Low-attracted Ss. A l l Ss. Non-Clique Ss. Clique Ss Total Ss, .39* .32 .36* .15 .13 .15 .25* .22 .24* Behavioral deviance High attracted Ss. Low attracted Ss. A l l Ss. -.40 .18 -.16 -.10 .34 .10 -.24 .28 -.03 There are no s i g n i f i c a n t relationships between relevance and behavioral compliance for eithe r clique or non-clique members, regardless of t h e i r a t t r a c t i o n to the system. Only among highly attracted clique members i s there a s i g n i f i c a n t re-la t i o n s h i p between relevance and normative compliance. The strength of t h i s l a t t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p i s s u f f i c i e n t to produce an o v e r a l l r e l a t i o n s h i p between relevance and compliance f o r non-clique subjects as a whole, regardless of a t t r a c t i o n , and for highly attracted subjects as a whole, regardless of clique membership. 11. Self-evaluation and a t t r a c t i o n . I t w i l l be r e c a l l e d that an alternative measure of a t t r a c t i o n , concerning the desire to re-enter the teaching pro-fession, was computed. I t was found that t h i s measure of * S i g n i f i c a n t at .01. A l l other figures s i g n i f i c a n t at less than .10 l e v e l . 140. attraction i s inversely correlated with failure scores at -0.55, thereby providing some limited support for operationally defining self-evaluation in terms of the failure score, with regard to the distinction between clique and non-clique members, one might expect that the effect of failure would have a more disheartening effect upon non-clique members who, in addition to not meeting the standards they had set for themselves, had not been accepted into the system. Among clique members, the desire to return to teaching correlates with failure scores at -0.52 (N. = 21) significant at .03) and among non-clique members, these variables correlate at -0.63 (N. = 18; sig-nificant at .01). The correlations differ in the direction expected, but the difference between them i s not great enough to exclude the possibility that i t occurred by chance. A major problem in the preceding analysis concerns the reasons why some people become defined as clique members and others do not. It is interesting to note that non-clique members who are attracted to the system perceive themselves as conforming to system norms significantly more than clique members who are not highly attracted to the system. A similar relationship i s evident for behavioral compliance. It would appear then, assuming subjective estimates of compliance to correspond to objective estimates, that compliance alone i s not sufficient for acceptance. Or, at least i f compliance is 141. necessary f o r i n i t i a l acceptance, i t i s not necessary for continued acceptance once accepted. A further analysis of the data to determine what differences may ex i s t between clique and non-clique members indicates that clique members have been i n the school somewhat longer on the average (x = 5.77 yrs.) than have non-clique members (x = 4.45 y r s . ) ; t h i s difference, however, i s not s i g n i f i c a n t . An alternative analysis was c a r r i e d out to see i f those teachers who had been i n the school for two years or less (N. = 9) and who have become clique members (N. = 4) were d i f f e r e n t i n any way from those who had not become clique members i n t h i s period. In p a r t i c u l a r , these two groups were checked to see i f there were differences i n t h e i r l e v e l s of compliance and i n t h e i r l e v e l s of a t t r a c t i o n . There was some evidence to indicate that the four teachers who were clique members despite t h e i r short period i n the school were more attracted to t h e i r f r i e n d -ship choices than were those who had been i n the school the same length of time but had not become clique members? t h i s difference, however, was not s i g n i f i c a n t . 142. Table IX Mean deviance scores (normative and behavioral), c o n t r o l l i n g for a t t r a c t i o n and clique membership, Clique Ss. Non-clique Ss. Mean normative deviance scores High attracted Ss. 6.17 (N.=ll) 4.11 (N. = 9) Low attracted Ss. 11.67 (N.= 9) 11.14 (N. = 7) Mean normative deviance scores High attracted Ss. 18.30 (N.=ll) 17.22 (N. = 9) Low attracted Ss. 25.25 (N.= 9) 17.71 (N. = 7) In summary to appendix three, i t should be cle a r that the ad hoc nature of the d e f i n i t i o n of clique membership, and the lack of an independent measure of the variable acceptance, do not permit one to make any firm conclusions about the data that have been revealed. One can say, however, that the con-sistency of the findings with regard to the greater a p p l i c -a b i l i t y of the s o c i a l influence theory presented i n t h i s paper to non-clique members indicate that clique membership patterns have some e f f e c t on the s o c i a l influence process. The reasons why difference may e x i s t i s a topic for future research. Some p o s s i b i l i t i e s concerning t h i s topic i s discussed i n chapter V. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0105545/manifest

Comment

Related Items