Previous conformity, status and the rejection of the deviant

Abstract

Hollander (1958) suggested that one built up "idiosyncrasy credits" through conformity to a group's norm. These idiosyncrasy credits may later be used to deviate from a group's norm without fear of rejection. Wahrman (1970a) suggested that a high status deviant who had violated a general expectation of conformity would be subjected to more severe sanctions than one who had not violated an expectation of conformity. The purpose of this study was to assess the relative importance of previous conformity and status in the evaluation of a deviant. A total of 66 male college students (31 freshmen; 23 sophomores; 9 juniors; 3 seniors) participated in this study. Four students at a time reported to a laboratory where they were placed in separate cubicles under the guise of an impression formation study. Subjects were asked to read three case studies of juvenile delinquents and select the most appropriate treatment for each case. The treatment possibilities ranged from 1, "all love-no discipline" to 7, "all discipline-no love." Half of the subjects received instructions which indicated that they would get feedback on how the others evaluated all the cases. The feedback revealed that all subjects decided on a mild treatment for the first two cases. However, for the third case one subject "the deviant" deviated from the mild treatment decision. This was the "previous conformity" condition. The other half of the subjects received instructions which indicated that they would receive feedback only on the third case. This feedback revealed that all subjects but one "the deviant" conformed to a mild treatment decision. This was the "no previous conformity" condition. Further, the deviant was either described as a freshman (low status condition) or as a senior (high status condition). After subjects received feedback on the third case they were asked to fill out an "impression formation" questionnaire indicating their evaluation of the deviant. A measure of general rejection assessed the extent of annoyance and unpleasantness subjects felt towards the deviant. Subjects also indicated how friendly they felt towards the deviant and how much they desired to work with the deviant in the future. After filling out this questionnaire each subject was asked to choose the two subjects who they wanted to work with in the next phase of the study. Significant main effects for conformity were found for the general rejection measure (p < .01) and the amount of friendliness felt towards the deviant (p < .01). The data indicated that the deviant who had not previously conformed was seen as more annoying and unpleasant and less friendly than the deviant who had previously conformed. A trend (p < .06) in the same direction was also found for the desirability measure. No significant differences were found between the high and low status deviants on any measure of rejection. In addition, no significant differences were found in the proportion of subjects who chose to work with the deviant. It was concluded that previous conformity played a more important role in the evaluation of the deviant than did status. The lack of significance for status was discussed with regard to the confusion in the operational definition of status and the unimportance of status in evaluating the deviant.