Introduction to Sociology C273 (Unit 3, Modules 8-11)

triad

in sociology, a group comprising of three people

dyad

in sociology, a group comprising of two people

categories

in sociology, people who share a trait or characteristic, such as American or Irish decent

Durkheim discovered that deviance serves three essential functions in society.

1. Deviance clarifies moral boundaries and affirms norms. 2. Reacting to deviance unites a group. 3. Deviance inspires social change.

Max Weber (1913) characterized bureaucracies as having certain characteristics that distinguish them from other formal organizations.

1. Written rules and laws: The charter, the mission statement, the dress code policy, the standards of practice, the official job descriptions, and the sexual harassment policy are all examples of written rules and laws. Placing these regulations in black and white formalizes them and removes ambiguity. 2. Division of labor: Individuals within a bureaucracy have specialized tasks. In small-scale bureaucracies, an individual might "wear many hats," but a salesperson typically does not also do the engineering. Departments, and the people within them, are generally focused on their specialty. 3. Written communication: Many companies have a catchphrase: "if you didn't write it down, it didn't happen." Written communication is required in large formal organizations such as bureaucracies because work requires coordination among a large number of people across time. Writing allows people to communicate what they've done and what still needs to be done, to others who aren't present. 4. Hierarchical organization: In addition to dividing the labor, there is a division of responsibility and accountability. At each level, the individuals are accountable to the level above and responsible for the level below. 5. Interchangeability: Inherent in the design of a bureaucracy is the interchangeability of its members. In this way, any (qualified) person could perform the duties specific to a role in the organization. This keeps the organization running in the event that an individual can no longer perform his or her role.

how in groups aid in socialization

1. provide signals about appropriate behavior: Explicit Some of the signals that groups transmit are explicit. In this case, someone from the group directly tells another member how to conduct him or herself. For example, perhaps a young child in a grocery store eats a candy bar without her father noticing. The child, named Jana, picks it up off the shelf, unwraps it, and starts eating it right there in the store. Her father, upon noticing, immediately starts to scold her. "Jana, you can't take food without paying for it. We have to pay. Taking things that don't belong to us is stealing." Jana now has a cursory understanding of theft. She is both told and shown a concrete law of her society by a member of her family. Implicit As Jana gets older, she may receive subtle signals from other groups that will shape her behavior. On the first day of middle school, Jana notices that all the other students wear an over-the-shoulder satchel—the newest style. She runs home and begs her father to buy her the same satchel. Without ever saying a word, Jana's peers have communicated to her that satchels are normal apparel. Jana's willingness to confirm is twofold; she wants to fit in, and she doesn't want to be singled out as not fitting in 2. teach a variety of ways to interact with other people: Typically, a person belongs to more than one group. In fact, most people usually belong to several. In each group, the dynamics, relationships, and roles will vary significantly. There's a good chance that you do not interact with your parents the same way that you interact with your friends. By high school, Jana occupies the following roles: a daughter and sister a student a friend (the funny friend) a member of the French Society Captain of the Math Team a Woodlawn Tiger a Minnesotan a Midwesterner The role that Jana fulfills helps define (either formally or informally) her relationship to and interactions with the other members of the group. While she occupies some roles daily, by high school, she has been placed in contexts that have triggered her group to expand to include her state and her region of the United States. The roles of Minnesotan or American are ones she probably occupies only every once in a while. This is an important point about in-groups and out-groups—the boundaries of in-groups and out-groups can change depending on the context. 3. help shape a person's sense of self: When people interact with a group, they do not merely adapt their behavior or fulfill roles; the person is making judgments about himself or herself based on these interactions. For example, Jana does not only learn the definition of theft from her father. When he scolds her for "stealing," she internalizes his expectation that she be a law-abiding citizen. Jana could integrate this expectation (and her ability to fulfill the expectation) into her identity. Ultimately she will come to identify as a law-abiding citizen. Similarly, she may evaluate how her peers treat her. They laugh at her jokes, so she comes to understand that she is the funny one in the group—and she may believe that she is a funny person. She may carry this piece of her identity with her through college and her early 20s when she will try to make it in stand-up comedy.

social explanation

Sociologists explain deviant behavior in three main theoretical traditions: functionalist perspective, conflict perspective, and symbolic interactionism, all of which will be explored later. The important thing to remember about sociological explanations of deviance is that they focus on factors outside of the individual, rather than solely examining the characteristics of a person that might cause him or her to commit deviant behavior. Sociology explores what functions "right" and "wrong" serve, why society classifies some behaviors and not others as deviant, and who controls the definition of deviance.

group classification

2 people (dyad*)The relationship is intense but fragile; both people are required to exert relatively equal effort. If one person disengages, the relationship can suffer or disintegrate.3 people (triad*)The three-person group is more stable than a dyad because each person is not solely responsible for maintaining the dynamic all the time.Imbalances in the relationship can mean that the third person functions as a mediator or could be thought of as an intruder.4 peopleThe number of relationships eclipses the number of group members. From here, the number of relationships in the group will always outnumber the group members.

status

an individuals position in a group or society defined by certain associated benefits and responsibilities

greater perception of sameness in the outgroup

A fourth effect of defining an out-group is that we perceive members of that group to be more alike than are members of our in-group. While we might recognize that our own high school is divided into cliques of students who are artsy, athletic, academic, fashionable, nerdy, popular, etc., we perceive the students at Woodlawn as all the same. This misperception causes stereotyping, when we assume all members of an out-group have a particular characteristic.

deviance inspires social change

According to Durkheim (1982), today's deviance can become tomorrow's morality. Deviant people push the boundaries of society and challenge the status quo. Durkheim argued that if the collective conscience were too strong, social norms could never change. Deviance is punished in a society, but over time it can become recognized as a category of behavior. Body piercings, for example, have migrated from outrageous to acceptable body markings over time. Divorce too has moved from a stigmatized category to acceptable.

deviance and crime 2

Although crime and deviance are related, it is important not to confuse the two. Crime* is a behavior or action that violates a society's legal code and provokes a response from the criminal justice system, while deviance violates social norms. The legal code and moral code of a society do not always align. Many towns have low speeding limits, and speeding is a violation of the law, but you would probably not think of a speeding motorist as a deviant. You might even approve of your friend's speeding if you are a passenger in his car eager to get to your destination. A family who paints their suburban home neon orange and pink might not be breaking the law, but, depending on the neighborhood, they might be viewed as deviant, eliciting gossip and negative comments from others. Sociologists are interested in the times when crime and deviance intersect as well as when they do not, and what that can tell us about society.

primary and secondary groups

All relationships are not created equal; the relationship that you have with your sister is probably very different from the one that you have with the coffee-shop waitress. Sociologists distinguish between the functions of these relationships and categorize them into primary groups and secondary groups. These are not groups per se, but categories for the types of relationships that a person may have in his or her life. A person's primary group* includes close, personal relationships maintained with people he or she cares about, such as friends and family. Interaction with these people is formative; they provide socialization, help shape ideals and schemas, transmit culture, and provide a sense of belonging. In contrast, a person's secondary group* comprises the people with whom they have a functional relationship, that is, they are pulled together for some common purpose. For example, they might belong to the same sports league, work in the same department, or attend the same class. The relationship is oriented around the common thread that brought them together; there is a functional reason for their interaction. This is not to say that classmates, coworkers, and teammates can't become friends! In fact, secondary group members commonly shift to become primary group members. The time spent together lends itself well to building relationships that may extend beyond, and exist after, the original context. Consider the man that sits down next you at the movie theater. You are both brought together in time and space for a common purpose. Does this mean that he is part of your secondary group? No, because the members in your secondary group interact with you fairly regularly. Instead, this man is part of an aggregate*, people that come together in proximity for a short period of time, without regularity, and without knowing one another. Other examples of aggregates are the people around you in a department store as you shop, the people next to you on the bus, or the people that are enjoying the same park on a sunny afternoon. Another way that sociologists categorize the relationships that people share is with a category*. People in a category share similar traits. For example, this might be all the people in your age group or all the people that share your political affiliation. The members of a category often do not know each other, interact, or feel a particular connection with each other. However, if the category is identity-defining, there is a good chance that the category members will make an effort to meet. In Ireland every year, for example, redheads convene at the Irish Redhead Convention.

out groups

Almost as important as in-groups are out-groups*, those groups to which an individual does not belong. For individuals, out-groups perform a few functions: They show the boundaries of in-groups. While in some cases this might be obvious because membership is well-documented, such as the case of an athletic club, other times the boundaries between groups are blurred, such as the case of cliques in high school. They help an individual define what they are and are not. Either formally or informally, there can be criteria for belonging to a group. Being unable to join a group, or choosing not to, helps an individual hone in on the identity that makes him or her suitable for some groups and not for others.

in groups

Belonging, or not belonging, to a group plays a large role in shaping a person's behavior. People tend to conform to the groups they belong to (or want to belong to) and distinguish themselves from the ones they don't. People use groups of friends, peers, or even celebrities as points of reference and comparison. From each group, people receive signals about appropriate or expected behavior. Sociology identifies three categories of groups based on these tenets of socialization: in-groups, out-groups, and reference groups. In-groups* are the groups to which a person belongs. Humans have a strong desire to belong, and so from a young age, we are very willing to adapt our behavior and ideals to fit in.

group phenomena

As mentioned, certain behaviors crop up in groups that do not occur when people are acting independently

conformity refers to

Conformity* is a process in which people suppress their individual needs in favor of those of a group (Asch, 1955). People conform through a desire to follow the norms and beliefs of others. This is an effect that can be viewed in an individual when he or she is placed within a group. This same type of suppression occurs when a person obeys social norms. Social norms* are the behaviors and attitudes that are expected from members of a particular group. Have you ever heard someone else express an opinion you thought was offensive? Did you speak up or let it go? Most people let it go because they desire to remain part of the "group." There are two basic types of conformity, motivated by different desires. The first is motivated by our desire to be accepted and liked by a group. This dynamic is called normative social influence*. We may not agree with the decision the group has made or the attitude others express, but we let ourselves go along with the group. The second type of conformity is motivated by the desire to be right or correct. If a person is uncertain about an answer or judgment, he or she will assume that the group judgment or answer is accurate. This dynamic is called informational social influence*. Other factors that influence conformity are group characteristics and individual status within the group. Cultures and conformity As you might expect, patterns of conformity differ from culture to culture. In cultures that are more individualistic, where independence and self-expression are more emphasized, conformity tends to be viewed negatively. However, in cultures that are more collectivist, where publicly challenging or disagreeing with a group standard is considered rude or insensitive, conformity is not as negatively regarded (Bond & Smith, 1996). Asch Conformity Experiment Solomon Asch was interested in answering the question of how far people would go to change their opinion to conform to a group norm. To explore this question, he devised an experiment where a subject was asked to match the line on the left to the line it most resembled out of the three lines on the right.

Deviance clarifies moral boundaries and affirms norms

Deviance is necessary to highlight shared social values because the definition of "good" depends on the opposing definition of "evil." For example, when a teacher punishes a student for cheating, the rest of the class is aware that cheating gets you in trouble. The punishment reinforces for everyone else the social norm of working hard to achieve good grades. By identifying a person or behavior as deviant, people draw a line between what is right and what is wrong. In the first example, the norm of hard work was reinforced. Now imagine a slightly different scenario in which a teacher punishes a student who has copied his research paper directly from a textbook. For some of the other students, this identification of deviance might actually clarify that copying a textbook is not considered an appropriate way to do research. This clarifying function of deviance operates more often around ambiguous social norms. When people gossip about a coworker who talks too much or when children tease a boy who giggles "like a girl," they are clarifying for the group what is appropriate behavior.

discriminations

an intentional or unintentional act which adversely affects a person or group's opportunities because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, marital status, national origin. age or other factors

Debbie Baiano Berman

Debbie Baiano Berman received both her Masters and Doctorate degrees in Sociology from Northeastern University in Boston. She also holds a Bachelor's degree in Sociology and English from SUNY Postdam. She focuses on culture, violence, deviance, and gender, with an interest in social theory. Deborah is a seasoned educator, with over twenty years of experience teaching a wide range of topics at various universities. Recently, she accepted an appointment as an Assistant Professor at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire.

conflict perspective

Deviance is linked to social inequality.

functionalists approach to deviance

The functionalist theory of deviance stems from the work of Émile Durkheim (1858-1917), who asserted that deviance is a necessary part of social organization, which counterintuitively contributes to the stability of society as a whole. Society has to police its boundaries, demonstrating what is right and wrong by accepting people or pushing them out. People who participate in identifying and punishing deviant behavior feel stronger social bonds with one another, and therefore a sense of well-being. Functionalists, following Durkheim, are more interested in how deviance functions for society as a whole, that is for the many people who are not labeled deviant (Durkheim, 1982).

what is deviance

Deviance* describes an action, behavior, trait, or another characteristic that violates social norms*. These norms can be formal rules, such as laws, or informal rules, such as socially-accepted standards. In order to identify an act as deviant, we must first recognize the values of the group against which the behavior is being judged. According to Howard Becker, the definition of deviance largely depends on the reactions of others to the action (Becker, 1963). If a person commits an act that goes against social norms, but it does not elicit a negative reaction from others, then it cannot really be considered deviant. If you wear a bathing suit to your workplace and no one comments or treats you differently, you have not committed a deviant act. If, on the other hand, people avoid you and your boss asks you to dress more appropriately, your action has been considered deviant. Since social norms differ from culture to culture, a deviant act committed in one society may be normal in another. Deviance is also relative to time and place, depending on the social context. For example, in 1835, a 27-year-old man marrying a 13-year-old girl was evidently considered acceptable since that's when Edgar Allan Poe (27) married his first cousin Virginia Eliza Clemm (13); at other times (such as our own), that act would be considered deviant. Moreover, the kind of deviance a society recognizes and punishes often depends on the social norms it is most interested in clarifying. A culture interested in protecting children will have strict views on acceptable ages for marrying. When people are considered deviant by society, there is often a stigma*, or strongly discrediting label, attached to their social identity. Erving Goffman theorized the concept of stigma in the 1960s, arguing that the label served as a way to separate and devalue an individual as a member of society. Having a stigma often leads to social isolation. Sociologists are especially interested in how someone might adopt this identity or internalize it, therefore perpetuating his or her deviance. It is important to remember that sociologists use the term "deviant" neutrally—they are not claiming an action is right or wrong; they are simply noting that others have responded negatively to the action. Sociologists are concerned with the outside factors that cause deviance and how deviance functions in society. Their explanations differ from those of other disciplines, such as biology and psychology.

coercive organizations

an organization that an individual is forced to join; work to resocialize their members to conform to strict rules for behavior and attitude

utilitarian organizations

an organization that maintains membership through a payment

types of formal organization

Formal organizations can be divided into three categories: voluntary, utilitarian, and coercive. Voluntary OrganizationsUtilitarian OrganizationsCoercive Organizations

group formation

People begin to think of themselves as members of a group with very little prompting. In Tajfel's (1970) study, the researchers were able to create groups with an in-group/out-group dynamic from boys that had strong relationships outside of the experiment; in fact, they were from the same classes. The boys began to identify as a group and to discriminate against the out-group based on a meaningless preference for one painting over another. There seems little incentive for them to favor this new, artificial "in-group" over an "out-group" made up of well-known classmates. Most people would probably predict that the boys would have felt loyalty to their classmates and chosen strategies that maximized the amount of money the researchers would payout to all of them. Instead, they favored their group and discriminated against the other.

factors that affect dynamics

German sociologist Georg Simmel investigated small group dynamics. The addition of a single person, Simmel noted, dramatically affects a group's dynamic. Further, he described patterns of behavior that emerge in various group sizes (Simmel, 1950). The larger the group, the more relationships that are possible among members. Past a certain point, it is not possible for an individual to maintain an intimate enough relationship with all other members; instead, the group splits into smaller factions*, groups in which intimate relationships are possible. Interestingly, the larger the group, the less able it is to survive solely on the relationships of its members. Instead, larger groups are likely to establish rules and objectives and to convene for a common purpose. If you have ever led a group, or been led as part of a group, you know that leadership greatly affects a group's dynamic. A leader's focus, as well as the style of leadership, can drive the team's motivation and inform inner relationships. A leader who is focused on completing the task at hand is called an instrumental leader*, and he or she often prioritizes the goals before group members' emotions. In contrast, an expressive leader* is one that puts the relationships, morale, and emotions of his or her team members first. In 1939 and the years following, Kurt Lewin and a team of researchers identified three leadership styles: Authoritarian or autocratic leadership: the leader tells others what to do. He or she makes the majority of the decisions and dominates the communication. Authoritarian leadership is best in a situation in which the leader has most or all of the expertise. It is a good leadership style when time is short. Democratic leadership: the leader opens up communication between him or herself and the group, actively soliciting opinions from the group, but retaining final control over decision making. Democratic leadership generally solicits greater investment from employees who feel themselves to be part of the power structure. This leadership style is best when subordinates have some expertise that the leader does not. Laissez-faire leadership: the leader shifts much of the decision making power to the group, although he or she still bears responsibility for the decision. Laissez-faire leadership works best when the employees have most of the expertise.

social groups

Groups are a fundamental structure of society and, as such, serve many purposes. They help to socialize us by transmitting culture. From our groups, we learn language, receive a model for normal behavior, and are governed by laws. Groups can provide a sense of belonging and security. They can also provide a good benchmark for measuring our own progress through life. Groups can work together to achieve common goals. We can use the groups to which we do not belong to more closely define the boundaries of our own groups. Many of the factors that define one group can determine the boundaries of another group. For example, a person's social network is typically guided, to an extent, by their age, class, and geography. However, a person may not be locked into a group. In many countries, a person born into poverty may be able to gain an education, wealth, and ultimately change his or her social class. In many societies, the following factors (to name only a few) lead to the formation of groups and define their boundaries: Geography: neighborhood, city, school district, county, country, sports team Traits: redheads, French speakers, Asian Americans Beliefs: religion, political affiliation, stance on an issue (vaccination, for example) Skills or Abilities: Varsity Team, Architectural Society Class: income and wealth, education, access to resources Family Age or Generation Social Network: friends and acquaintances; people with whom you spend time, interact, and share common interests

experiment in intergroup discrimmination

Henri Tajfel's work in social psychology was strongly influenced by his experiences as a young man in the World War II. A Polish Jew, Tajfel lost all of his immediate family and many friends to the Holocaust. His subsequent experiments on group formation, prejudice, and discrimination have had a profound impact on sociologists' understanding of these group dynamics. Many social scientists (quite reasonably) believed that discrimination and prejudice arose from long histories of conflict: that racial discrimination in the United States, for example, came solely from the history of slavery; or that the Irish conflict in the twentieth century was the result of colonialism and religious conflict. Tajfel thought differently because of his experiences in Germany, where there had been no historical basis for the genocide Jews experienced. In the 1970s, Tajfel conducted two experiments to test the formation and operation of groups. He studied the responses of 64 boys who were 14 and 15 years old, all from the same school. In one experiment, researchers first showed the boys unsigned paintings by Paul Klee and Wassily Kandinsky and told them to indicate which they liked better. Then the boys were told they had been divided based on their preference for one artist over another, though in fact, the assignment to a group was random. They were then given sets of choices of differing amounts of money to be paid by the researchers to their classmates. The boys were asked to choose the rewards for Two members of the other group (out-group) Two other members of their own group (in-group) A member of their own group and a member of the other group (in-group/out-group) When rewarding members of the same group (either the in-group or the out-group), the boys made choices that emphasized fairness over profit: that is, they chose equal amounts for the members, even if both got less overall. For the third set of choices, the boys chose sets of rewards that were equal or that favored the in-group, even if that meant less money overall. Also, the boys preferred to discriminate against the out-group member over maximizing the in-group member's profit. For example, instead of choosing $0.15 for the in-group member and the corresponding $0.25 for the out-group member, the boy would choose $0.07 for the in-group member and corresponding $0.01 for the out-group member to ensure that the in-group member got more money than the out-group member. The results showed that the boys would work against the interest of their own group to "win" against the out-group. The research also shows how quickly we fall into in-group/out-group dynamics and how powerful the desire to benefit our own group is.

reference groups

High school reunions are more than just an opportunity to catch up with long lost friends. Many alumni attend out of sheer curiosity as to how their classmates have fared and how they measure up in comparison. How many are married? Who has traveled the world? Who has a high-powered job? How do I compare? High school reunions are an opportunity to interact with a reference group. A reference group* is any group to which a person compares him or herself. Often these groups are family, friends, and peers; however, it could also be comprised of complete strangers, such as celebrities. If the individual identifies with the group in some way and compares him or herself to it, it can be considered a reference group. Reference groups often play a role in shaping our tastes, preferences, aspirations. This experience can have positive effects; for example, a kid might put in extra time on the basketball court practicing his layups so that he can measure up to the rest of his basketball team. However, (quite predictably) reference groups can have a negative influence. Any group can be a reference group if the individual identifies with them. If a person's reference group has sub-standard ideals or displays dangerous behavior, the person is susceptible to adopting such behavior.

Weber

Interestingly enough, Weber pegged religion as the key factor fueling a shift toward rationality. Calvinist Christians were abandoning the idea that a person's goodness is rewarded in heaven. They began to embrace the notion that God rewards goodness and hard work with measurable success that can be observed in one's lifetime.Coincidentally, industriousness was also a virtue of Calvinist societies, leading to an accumulation of wealth that the Calvinists attributed to God's approval. They then reinvested their excess money, which brought returns. Weber believed that Calvinists became capitalists inadvertently. At this point, Weber's theory rejoins Marx's; capitalism values efficiency. Established, traditional order was abandoned as formal organizations sprang up (Weber, 1930).

utilitarian organizations

an organization that maintains membership through payment

groupthink refers to

Irving Janis, a social psychologist, coined the term groupthink* to describe the extreme conformity that frequently occurs in the decision-making processes of very close groups (1972). It is a flawed, collective thought process that occurs as a direct result of individual conformity. In essence, although offering different points of view is key to coming to an informed decision, in groupthink, the group places greater importance on solidarity than on objectively evaluating the alternatives related to a decision. Groups tend to disparage opposing views, which makes it difficult for an individual to voice dissent. Without dissent, the group may believe that each person believes the decision is correct. In this way, groupthink becomes self-reinforcing. "If everyone agrees, how could it be a bad idea?" In such a manner, the group believes that it is incapable of making mistakes when, in fact, it is more likely to suffer a lapse in judgment. Remedies for groupthink include open discussion of differing views, objections, and doubts, as well as having outside experts challenge the group's views. Symptoms of Groupthink Silence means yes: often members of a group are unwilling to speak up when they have an objection to the actions or attitudes of the group, especially when it is perceived that these actions or attitudes are widely held by the group. Therefore, objections are not heard, and the group assumes that all members believe that said silence indicates agreement. Pressure: Members pressure one another not to challenge the dominant opinion. Resistance is rationalized: Instead of fairly evaluating dissent, members discredit warning signs and thinking that stands in opposition to the group's attitude. Source: Adapted from Janis & Mann (1977)

Karl Marx

Karl Marx noticed that around the end of the nineteenth century, people were experimenting with capitalism. After the invention of the steam engine, as machines powered by steam began to do tasks previously done by hand, the output of goods increased dramatically, and society began to undergo significant changes. For example, whereas once cloth was produced on hand looms by families at home, now cloth was produced in large quantities by workers in factories owned by capitalists. This efficiency yielded profit, which was reinvested to produce more wealth. The realization that leveraging secondary relationships could create efficient, task-oriented groups, (and more profit), led to a shift in mindset. People were more willing to adopt the new system, giving rise to more formal organizations, such as cloth factories, and gradually the overall rationalization of society. Marx admired the explosion in productivity that capitalism created, but he was harshly critical of the way it reshaped society. Instead of a person cooking, cleaning, caring for children, and weaving throughout the day as a member of a family, a worker labored for long hours at a single task, in effect becoming like a machine herself to make money for someone else. The fact that a worker's labor belongs to the company and not herself, Marx called the alienation of labor.

coercive

Membership in a coercive organization* is involuntary. A coercive organization works to resocialize the individual to conform to acceptable standards and behaviors. Mental hospitals and prisons are examples. While enlistment in the military is voluntary, subsequent participation is involuntary, qualifying it as a coercive organization. Further, the military adheres to strict codes of behavior, dress, and attitude, all of which are designed to make individuals conform (Etzioni, 1975). McLean Hospital McLean Hospital is a psychiatric facility in Belmont, Massachusetts that is at the forefront of neuroscience research. The facility offers treatment for alcohol and drug abuse, depression, anxiety, psychotic disorders, geriatric, and women's mental health, among other conditions. Patients that are admitted typically display dysfunctional behaviors and attitudes that are detrimental to themselves and their loved ones. Patients that are admitted, (either involuntarily, or voluntarily after giving consent to be kept there until rehabilitated), undergo certain types of psychiatric re-socialization. They must adhere to a schedule determined in part by the hospital, receive treatment, and (in some cases) medication, and work hard to be able to rejoin society. The rules put forth by McLean hospital are mandatory.

in group favoritism

One important aspect of division into groups is in-group favoritism*, in which people view members of their group more favorably than members of out-groups. Even more than just judging an in-group member favorably, people often give special advantages to in-group members in the form of money and resources (Sumner, 1906). Actually, the presence of groups can change how we think about people. Robert Merton (1968) showed that the same characteristic can be viewed positively if possessed by a member of one's own in-group, but negatively if possessed by an individual in an out-group. For example, you may view someone as stoic and thoughtful if they are part of your in-group, but timid and insecure if they are part of your out-group.

roles and status

One important function of groups is to confer status on individuals. In ordinary language, "status" means a high position in society, but sociologists use the term much more inclusively, to refer to any defined category of individual such as "nurse," "father," "voter," "dancer," etc. Status* is a position within a social structure. Clearly, just as people belong to many different groups, so too do they occupy a wide range of statuses. Often, in practice, sociologists are concerned with the prestige element of status, the extent to which the position someone is assigned confers power and authority. We assume, for example, that a "father," has more power than a "child," or that a "citizen" has more rights than a "non-citizen." Associated with status is role*, the actions and behaviors expected from a person who occupies the status. These terms are easily confused: a status is more like a static position, such as an identity category. You are a soccer player or an executive or a big sister, whereas a role is the active performance of a status. Someone can be a biological father of a child without taking on the role of a father, living with and caring for the child. Of course, you can also act like a "big sister" towards someone without being one. Be aware, however, that although status is more static, it too can change; someone can get fired and no longer occupy the status of "chief accountant," or someone can get married and then become a "husband." The social function of roles and statuses is to create predictability. In America, we expect "a player" to do what "the coach" tells her to do. This makes the relationship easier. The two people occupying those statuses do not need to waste valuable time negotiating who will make important decisions. To understand how much we unconsciously rely on statuses, consider meeting an adult and a child and being unsure whether the adult is the child's mother or grandmother. Most people would feel slightly uncomfortable without a definitive relationship category (and too embarrassed to ask!). Or consider asking someone you think is an employee where a product is in a store only to discover he doesn't work there—this, too, is mildly embarrassing for many. Because you mistook his status as "employee," you expected him to play a certain role (helping you out) that was inappropriate to his actual role (another customer). We routinely rely on statuses and roles to make sense of the world around us. Of course, all of us occupy multiple statuses at the same time. We refer to all of these as a status set*. A person can be a son, student, brother, soccer player, and friend. As this boy grows up, his status set will change. He may later be a partner, doctor, researcher, and piano player. Sometimes one status is much more consequential than others. A stay-at-home mother may come to feel that her status as "mother" has come to dominate her life—both how she thinks about herself and how other people see her. She may regret leaving behind the statuses (and associated roles) of "lawyer," "friend," "co-worker," and "volunteer." This dominant status is called a master status*. Similarly, someone who is disabled may experience the world through that master status, which dominates how he is seen and treated. Master statuses can be positive as well: a movie star is likely never to be just a "volunteer" or "neighbor" to those around her. Role expectations* are the behaviors and qualities expected from someone who occupies a certain status. If we see a child misbehaving in public without being corrected, we might feel critical towards her "father." If we later discover the adult with the child is the child's neighbor, we might excuse him (and even feel sympathy for him) because we don't expect neighbors to discipline children. Or perhaps we will feel just as critical. Role expectations depend on cultural norms. In some cultures, all adults are supposed to take responsibility for correcting children. People in these cultures would expect the neighbor in his status as "an adult" to correct the child's misbehavior. Because people occupy multiple statuses, they can experience role conflict*, conflicting expectations from two or more social roles. For example, if you do an internship at your mother's office, and suddenly a family friend is your supervisor, you might experience role conflict. You might not know how to greet her at the office—by her first name, as you have all your life, or with a title and last name, as the other interns do. You might worry both about being too deferential and about being too informal. The problem, as sociologists see it, is that you are trying to occupy two statuses that have conflicting role expectations. You are both the supervisor's friend and her intern, and each of those statuses requires behaviors and attitudes that conflict. In the example above, the conflict in role conflict came from occupying multiple statuses. Another kind of conflict occurs when there are conflicting expectations within the same status. This is called role strain*. Many of us have felt role strain in our status as a "friend." If one of our "friends" complains about his partner, and we feel he (and not his partner) is in the wrong, do we tell him how we really feel, or do we support him? The problem is that a "friend" is supposed to do both: a friend supports his friends, and a friend is someone who will step up and do the difficult job of telling his friend the truth. In this common case, the role expectations create role strain.

group dynamic

One of the most fascinating phenomena in sociology is group dynamics. Groups are more than a collective of individuals; groups can have characteristics—such as beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors—that emerge only after the group has formed, and which are not always displayed or shared by the majority of individuals in the group. Further, certain factors, such as size, leadership, and circumstance, can have a predictable effect on the dynamics of a group.

social organizations and deviance

Poet John Donne once wrote, "No man is an island." Given human beings' constant need to socially engage with others, nowhere is this sentiment more apparent than when one studies the sociological concept of groups. Groups, even in their most basic forms, are one of the building blocks of any society. A group is a number of people sharing a social relationship. Many people claim not to be members of any particular group. In almost every experience, this is simply not true. We are nearly all members of groups, regardless of how great or how seemingly insignificant the group may be. Take the example of a family. Most of us are members of some kind of family. A family will always consist of more than one individual. Additionally, a family also satisfies the required additional criteria of a sociological group. The members of a family will most certainly interact in some way, be it verbal communication, telecommunication, or even through body language. Family members also share a sense of belonging, have something in common, and possess norms that govern behavior. We learn how to behave from the groups around us, like families. Families teach us what counts as "normal" behavior, and it's often surprising to children (and adults!) to visit other families and discover the very different ways family members talk to one another, behave at the dinner table, or assume who will do what work within the household. Each group creates and reinforces its own norms. We can see the influence of groups another way as well. We think of ourselves as a single individual, but that self-image does not correspond to our actual behavior throughout the day as we move from group to group. For example, a teenager's parents are unlikely to have the same norms of behavior as her peers. She might talk and act one way with her parents; later the same day, she might talk and act in a very different way with her peers, and then a third way with her teachers. In each situation, the same individual responds to (and influences) the group's norms. Just as the daughter might be shocked to learn how a different family has very different norms, the parents might be shocked to learn what their daughter does with her friends. But there is a seeming problem with this theory. If members of a society learn social norms from social groups like family, why do people still break social norms? If schools teach respect for authority, why do students get expelled for disruptive or confrontational behavior? Sociology has a rich history of theory and research on crime and deviance*, actions, behaviors, and traits that violate social norms. Functionalists believe that deviance helps clarify the social boundaries, to teach the rest of us how not to behave. Conflict theorists focus on how crime and punishment are used as a tool by dominant social groups to reinforce their power. Symbolic interactionists are interested in how deviant behavior becomes a social identity, marking a person more generally. Norms and deviance are two sides of the same coin. How we ought to behave is as much defined by what we should not do as by what we should.

lesson intro

Throughout this course, you have been learning about social norms, how people learn to behave in culturally appropriate ways and from whom. On the surface, crime and deviance might seem to be outside social norms—the result of insufficient socialization or socialization that just didn't work. But crime and deviance are integrally connected to social norms and form important social functions. This lesson will present how different schools of sociology understand the social purpose and effects of deviance and crime.

reacting to deviance unites a group

Since people often respond to deviance with shared outrage, they reaffirm the moral ties that bind them together as a society. Consider the example of the "MeToo" movement below. On October 15, 2017, Alyssa Milano tweeted, "Suggested by a friend: 'If all the women who have been sexually harassed or assaulted wrote 'me too' as a status, we might give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem." Milano's tweet, galvanizing a movement that activist Tarana Burke created ten years earlier, at once worked to de-stigmatize the status of sexual assault survivor and stigmatize the social identity of sexual harasser. According to the New York Times, the #MeToo movement brought down 201 powerful men, including Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Al Franken, Charlie Rose, and Matt Lauer, among other politicians, CEOs, media personalities, and actors (Carlsen et al., 2018). The point, however, is not that a few individual men lost their positions of power, but rather that people all over America came together to publicly call out sexual harassment as deviant behavior. Although the #MeToo movement also stirred controversy and backlash, it was largely successful in defining workplace sexual harassment as unacceptable behavior by embodying that behavior in high-profile deviant men who were expelled from their jobs. The act of identifying this deviance brought a community of women and their supporters together.

social dilemma refers to

Social Dilemma Social dilemma* occurs when an individual must weigh a personal benefit against the benefit to all. In many cases, it is in the best interest of an individual or group to be selfish; however, if all parties act selfishly, all will endure negative consequences. An example of social dilemma can be observed in Christopher Nolan's film Batman: The Dark Knight. At the climax of the film, two ferries are attempting to escape Gotham City. One ferry is full of citizens, while the other ferry is full of convicted inmates from Arkham Asylum. Unbeknownst to the passengers on each ferry or to Batman, the Joker has rigged each ferry with explosives and given each boat the other's detonator. He informs each ferry that one must detonate the other's boat before midnight, or he will detonate both. The Joker assumes that the inhabitants of each ferry will act selfishly to save themselves. From a purely rational perspective, it is within each group's best interest to simply detonate the other ferry, (and to do so quickly). However, much to the Joker's dismay, both ferries refuse. This type of social cooperation, or lack of social cooperation, can be observed frequently. Currently, there is a global debate surrounding carbon emissions; it is expensive for countries to adopt and adhere to global emissions standards. The few that perpetuate pollutive industrial practices benefit financially from ignoring the global outcry to curb carbon emissions. However, it is beneficial to the entirety of the human race to adopt industry standards that do not pollute the environment. On the flip side, sometimes the generosity of many allows us to use this principle to our advantage. For example, crowd-sourcing music is a revolutionary practice that has been pioneered by artists such as Amanda Palmer. Palmer makes her music available for free, and only requests that listeners pay for it. As a result, those individuals that value the music will pay for it, shouldering the financial burden of those who are unable or choose not to pay. This model has been wildly successful, as many people value Palmer's music. From the perspective of social good, this helps give all people access to the music. Click on Palmer's picture to listen to her TED talk about asking for help.

social control

Social control* is how social norms are enforced. Agents of social control, such as a police officer or a school principal, regulate responses to deviance and crime. Social control of deviance can be exerted by formal means, such as a police officer arresting someone, or more informal ones, such as parents grounding a child for dying her hair green. Even more subtle behaviors can serve as informal kinds of social control, such as staring at someone who is talking too loudly in a public place. All of these actions—arresting someone, grounding a child, and staring—are ways to reinforce the acceptable standards of behavior in a society.

social loafing refers to

Social loafing* describes the lessened quantity or quality of an individual's work when they are operating as part of a group compared to their performance when they are not part of a group. The greater the number of people working on a task, the greater the tendency for social loafing. This behavior occurs when the group's work is evaluated holistically, meaning that the individual's contribution cannot be directly linked to him or her, and when no direct praise or criticism can be offered (Latane, Williams, & Harkins, 1979). Essentially, working within the group divorces the individual from the responsibility of his or her work. This may not be a conscious choice that the individual is making. Rather, they incorrectly make the assumption that with so many people working on the project, someone else will pick up the slack. While this behavior can be observed in cultures across the globe, Western, individualistic cultures are more prone to the behavior (Earley, 1989). Factors that reduce social loafing The group is made up of people that know each other. Members of the group consider the task meaningful. The individuals making up the group respect and value the opinions of the other members of the group. Source: Adapted from Karau & Williams (1993).

symbolic interactionalism

Social norms are upheld when people subtly or overtly respond to deviant behavior in their everyday interactions.

functionalist perspective

Society needs deviance because it creates social cohesion.

greater solidarity within the in group

Studies have shown that the presence and intensity of conflict with an out-group leads to greater in-group solidarity. That is, the more we fight against a common "enemy," the less we fight with each other.

the growth of formal organizations

The people within formal organizations are more focused on the task at hand than on the relationships that exist between the members of the organization. They govern much of what people do in modern societies. Formal organizations evolved slowly out of traditional societies. Traditional societies were primarily centered on farming—producing food and materials for everyday survival. In these societies, one's "coworkers" were members of the primary group, family members and neighbors. Labor was divided by gender and age. The mentality that drove this type of society placed value on the established order and was slow to change. Clearly, modern society has changed; in fact, there has been a steady and observable shift toward the use of formal organizations, to the point that they are now inseparable from our concept of a functioning society. Today people interact with many strangers and acquaintances on a daily basis to achieve their goals. In one day, you may send an email to a person that you've never met within your company. You say hello to the woman at the tollbooth as you pass through—not because you know her, but because it is the polite thing to do as you hand her your change. You may talk with customer service in order to resolve an issue with something you bought. In modern society, people rarely work exclusively with their family members or close neighbors. Max Weber called this shift the "rationalization of society," in which interactions are dictated by the need to accomplish objectives efficiently rather than by established traditions (1922). Rationalized societies give rise to formal organizations because these groups place a much higher value on achieving goals than they do on the relationships among the people that comprise them. When and why did this shift occur? Karl Marx and Max Weber sought to investigate this, and both proposed different theories that center around religion, capitalism, and efficiency. At present, both theories are widely accepted.

social media and reference group

The rise in popularity of social media over the past decade has had yielded some interesting data regarding reference groups, self-image, and the projected images of others. A study out of the University of Missouri showed that university students scrolling through their Facebook feeds were more likely to feel symptoms of depression if their friends' posts elicited jealousy. However, the same study showed that if jealousy was not present, Facebook use was not linked to depression (Tandoc, Ferrucci, & Duffy, 2015). For the students reading Facebook, their friends were a reference group against which they measured their own achievements and success. This is particularly salient given that many of us do not project an accurate self-image, on social media or otherwise. Researchers out of Stanford University demonstrated that many college freshmen regularly downplayed the projection of negative emotions and life events when they were posting on Facebook. Despite this, most assume that their peers' (mostly positive) projections were accurate (Jordan, Monin, Dweck, Lovett, John, & Gross, 2011). In essence, measuring oneself against reference groups has a detrimental effect on self-esteem if there is no understanding that others' projected images can be distorted.

in group and out group reinforcement

These in-group/out-group effects operate at all levels. People can divide themselves into groups on the basis of race, gender, community, and a whole host of other characteristics. One of the most prominent groups is a nation or culture, and the in-group/out-group dynamic can explain prejudice* and discrimination* against people of other races or nations. William Sumner (1906) coined the term ethnocentrism*, which is the act of judging another group's heritage or culture by the standards and values inherent in one's own culture, which is done with the implication that one's own culture is superior. For example, some cultures arrange marriages as a means of strengthening social and economic unions between families. From an ethnocentric Western perspective, an arranged marriage may seem like a cruel punishment for the children, rather than as an arrangement serving a functional, societal purpose. Avoiding negative forms of in-group favoritism such as racism or ethnocentrism requires that an individual be aware of this psychological tendency. When approaching unfamiliar cultures, he or she must try to understand the customs and practices first from the perspective of the culture, and reserve judgment until a full understanding has been reached. Often this leads to a better understanding of the biases inherent in one's own culture. For example, a person evaluating arranged marriages may come to understand that Western cultures place a high value on romantic love, but not as much value on the economic partnership between married couples.

utilitarian

Utilitarian organizations* are those that maintain membership through payment. Typically this is an individual's source of income. Utilitarian organizations are involuntary by proxy; it is not legally required that one join, but they are necessary means of sustaining oneself (Etzioni, 1975). Google Tech giant Google has been #1 on Fortune Magazine's Top 100 Best Places to Work since 2012. In addition to competitive salaries and benefits, the company offers such perks as cafeterias, gyms and exercise classes, special commuter buses, twelve weeks of paid leave for new parents, tuition reimbursement, unlimited sick time, and of course, the opportunity to work in a cutting-edge industry. The extra perks that Google offers are not necessary, but they certainly help attract talented employees and reduce turnover. More and more utilitarian organizations in the tech and advertising spaces are focusing on bulking up the beneficial aspects of the work environment alongside salary as part of their retention strategy. They recognize that salary is not the only consideration for employees.

deviance and crime

We all probably recognize certain behaviors that we define as deviant, or varying from social norms. The definition of deviance depends mostly on the group who is judging the behavior. Some sociological theories argue that deviance is necessary to maintain stability in society, while others say that the definition of what is deviant is created solely by those who hold power in a society in an effort to maintain their own control. Still others believe that the most important point in studying deviance is how we label others and internalize the labels put upon ourselves. Deviance shifts across space and time. Behaviors once classified as deviant might not be so anymore, and vice versa. One city or state or country might label a behavior deviant that is not labeled so elsewhere. Sociologists hesitate to define any one type of behavior as deviant, because of its shifting definition and meaning. The medicalization of deviant behavior is a good example of changing attitudes about deviance. People with mental illnesses were once considered outsiders in their community, but progress has been made in understanding these illnesses and treating them as medical problems, rather than as behavioral issues. Criminal behavior is one very visible type of deviance that is present in all societies, but it is necessary to remember that not all deviant behaviors are crimes, and not all crimes are necessarily considered deviant. In some social circles, for example, smoking marijuana would not be considered deviant, even if it is illegal in the state. Deviance is a central category for certain behaviors in a culture--and even for certain people. Sociologists are interested in deviance because it can tell them a lot about the values of a culture and how those values are enforced.

groups and organizations

We humans naturally categorize ourselves into groups. It is in our nature to align with people who share characteristics, proximity, or culture. From birth, our in-groups (such as our friends, family, and communities) help mold our attitudes. They teach us appropriate behavior, and help us understand where we fit within society. We draw lines in the sand between ourselves and out-groups: groups to which we do not belong. We think of these people as "others" or different from us. Much research has shown that we treat "others" very differently than we treat members of our in-groups. We give in-group members preferential treatment, and often we wage wars against the "others." However, the boundary that determines whether a person is in your in-group or out-group can change depending on context. We use them to ask questions like, "Am I thin enough? Accomplished enough? Am I enough of a rebel? How well do I measure up?" Sociologists distinguish between the people we know well and the people we only interact with to get things done. Our close relationships are part of our primary groups, and our acquaintances comprise our secondary groups. Around the turn of the century, people started leveraging their secondary relationships to accomplish tasks. We began creating formal organizations - groups of people that come together to achieve a common goal. Formal organizations can be totally voluntary (like a sports club), mandatory (like prison), or utilitarian, (meaning that you don't have to join, but in order to survive you should, like joining a company to earn a wage and pay your bills). When formal organizations become very highly organized, we call them bureaucracies. Bureaucracies divide up tasks and responsibility. There is hierarchy, with each level being responsible for the levels below it. In a bureaucracy, each person is completely replaceable. Some bureaucracies function perfectly normally. Others trip over their own rules and regulations. They create and follow rules, and then forget why they created those rules. They have trouble getting things done. This is called bureaucratic dysfunction. All in all, the many ways that we organize can be helpful in creating a functional, efficient, and inclusive society. We just need to understand how and why we organize into groups so that we can avoid the potentially negative consequences, such as prejudice and bureaucratic red tape!

implications of outgroups

We often view members of out-groups as the "other." The sense of otherness can be felt when our nations are at war, when we visit new places, or when we encounter new people. You may even consider the people that are working toward a different career to be others, even though you attend the same school. Whenever we feel a sense of others being different from us, we are encountering an out-group. "Otherness" or "togetherness", however, can often be defined by the scope of the environment in which the groups exist, and the boundaries can shift depending on the context. Often, the boundary shift occurs as a result of a triggering event. If a school is playing a rival team, the cliques in the school may suddenly disappear as everyone bands together against the rival. While there are characteristics of each group, the most important effects come from how in-groups and out-groups reinforce one another. The in-group and out-group dynamic is very powerful.

intro

What seven-year-old boy doesn't dream about taking the family car out for a spin? It's a totally normal, childhood fantasy in our automobile-obsessed culture, right? Most of us don't actually get to act out that fantasy, of course, and that's certainly a good thing for highway safety. But every now and then some little kid does slip behind the wheel—and what happens next can say a lot about our society and how it deals with unacceptable behavior, or what sociologists call deviance*. Lisa Wade studied side-by-side the cases of Preston Scarborough and Latarian Milton, two kids who lived that fantasy. Back in 2009, Preston Scarborough, a seven-year-old from Utah, swiped the keys to the family sedan and drove for several miles before the police caught up with him. He got a stern talking-to from his parents and had to go for four days without video games. However, his parents' reactions were mostly indulgent: his father called the incident "funny" and described Preston as a "cotton-candy, all-American kid" (DeGeneres, 2012). Preston and family wound up chatting with Meredith Vieira on the Today show and with Ellen DeGeneres on her syndicated talk show. Wade compared Preston's treatment to Latarian Milton's when he grabbed the keys to his grandmother's SUV and took it for a spin a year earlier. Once police caught up with Latarian, a Black seven-year-old, a few miles down the road, his grandmother said she wanted to "whip his behind" and police said they planned to press charges "to get him into the system, so that they can get him some kind of help" (Wade, 2013). Latarian, for his part, observed that "it's fun to do bad things" and referred to himself as a "hoodrat" (WPBF 25 News, 2008). Rather than the Today show and Ellen, he was invited to appear before Judge Judy and was parodied on the animated series The Boondocks. These two incidents, involving essentially identical behaviors, triggered reactions that were as different as black and white. From a sociological standpoint, the way people react to behavior helps define whether it is deviant—that is, a behavior that violates social norms*. As Howard Becker (1963) noted, deviance is "not a quality of a bad person but the result of someone defining someone's activity as bad." By that definition, which seven-year-old kid was deviant—Preston or Latarian? Both Preston and Latarian did the same thing, and the police caught both. But the reaction to Preston's joyride was essentially positive, a sort of "what a crazy kid" vibe, coupled with genuine relief that no one had gotten hurt. Once Preston was back with his parents, the police bowed out of the picture. By contrast, the reaction to Latarian's behavior was starkly negative: his grandmother's anger, the police's decision to press charges, the insinuation that Latarian was a bad kid who needed help, the merciless pillorying he took on social media after the TV coverage of his joyride went viral. Clearly, Latarian's behavior—though no different from Preston's—was deviant, because of the way society reacted to it. As Howard Becker might say, society defined Latarian's behavior as bad but not Preston's. Unfortunately, this differential treatment is well documented in the juvenile criminal justice system, in which African-American youth are more likely to be arrested than White youth and to receive harsher punishment (Rosich, 2007). Becker was a pioneer in advancing labeling theory*, which holds that people tend to fulfill the predictions others make about them. Strongly negative labels, or stigmas*, cause people to be shunned as outsiders; people may, in turn, internalize these negative labels and act accordingly, leading to more deviant behavior. Some people work very hard to avoid adopting the label as part of their identities, but resisting or fighting against a label is extremely difficult. Labels placed on us by others in our society are very powerful and oftentimes virtually impossible to shake by the person who has been labeled as such. But either way, the deviant label itself changes people—it forces them to define themselves in reaction to label about their identity. Let's apply those ideas to the Case of the Joyriding Seven-Year-Old. Latarian certainly didn't reject the deviant label: he said he enjoyed doing bad things. And, at least in the short term, he seemed to have internalized the label and was displaying more deviant behavior, because just two weeks after the SUV incident, he assaulted his grandmother at a local Wal-Mart because she refused to buy him some chicken wings. Authorities took him to a nearby hospital for psychiatric evaluation, and he seemed well on his way to becoming an outsider. Seven years later, Latarian seems to be fighting back against the deviant label. He has not had any scrapes with the law, and he recently graduated from middle school (Complex, 2015). He's looking forward to playing football in high school and college and hopes that someday he might play in the NFL. But the only reason we know all that about Latarian, and the only reason that his graduation from middle school made the evening news and then YouTube, is because he was once labeled, very publicly, as deviant. That's the essence of labeling theory: whether you accept the label or fight against it, it comes to define who you are.

crime

a behavior or action that violates a society's legal code

social norms

a culturally mandated set of values, beliefs, and behaviors that reflects and enforces culture; are created and mandated by groups

informational social influence

a dynamic of conformity that describes the tendency to assume that the group judgement or answer is accurate

Bureaucracy

a formal organization that has defined terms of membership, written governance and written communication, as well as division of labor, responsibility, and accountability

primary groups

a group of people with whom an individual maintains close personal relationships, such as friends and family

in-groups

a group to which a person feels they belong

out-groups

a group to which an individual feels he or she does not belong and does not identify with

expressive leader

a leader focused on the group's morale and dynamic; typically this person acts as a mediator and motivator

stigmas

a negative label attached to a person, behavior, or circumstance to distinguish that person or thing from the rest of society

factions

a smaller group of people within a larger group

master status

a special status that more completely defines a person than the other statuses he or she has

deviance

actions behaviors, traits, or characteristics that violate socially accepted standards or norms

deviance

actions, behaviors, traits, and characteristics that violate socially accepted standards and norms

status set

all of the statuses one person has at a given time

Voluntary

also called normative organizations, are organizations that a person willingly joins because they align with his or her interests or beliefs. Examples include sports organizations, clubs, volunteer work, or activism. In some cases, an individual may join because he or she feels a strong sense of obligation to, even though it is not required, such as a religious organization (Etzioni, 1975). Improv Everywhere Improv Everywhere touts itself as "a New York City-based prank collective that causes scenes of chaos and joy in public places." The group was created in 2001 by Charlie Todd. Participants, called "agents," respond to the organizers' requests to attend events with specifications on how to dress and act. The group operates entirely for fun, and videos of their pranks have consistently gone viral throughout the internet.

cohabitation

an arrangement in which two people living together are engaged in an intimate relationship but are not married

prejudice

an evaluation and unjustifiable attitude towards a group and its members

formal organization

groups comprised of secondary members that organize for an explicit purpose

social dilemma

occurs when an individual or group must weigh personal benefits against the well-being of society

voluntary organizations

organizations that an individual joins willingly because its purpose lines with his or her interests, beliefs, or values

aggregates

people that come close together in proximity in a short period of time, without regularity, and without knowing one another

secondary group

people with whom an individual shares a functional relations; the length of interaction is shorter and oriented around a common task

secondary groups

people with whom an individual shares a functional relationship; the length of interaction is typically shorter and oriented around a common task

social control

society's attempt to regulate and govern social behaviors, which can be formal or informal needs

normative social influence

the dynamic of conformity that is influenced by the desire to be accepted and liked by a group

role expectations

the expectations about the behaviors, actions, and qualities of someone occupying a certain status

role conflict

the experience of occupying two or more statuses with conflicting roles

groupthink

the practice of thinking or making decisions as a group in a way that discourages creativity or individual responsibility

conformity

the process of maintaining or changing behaviors to comply with the norms established by a society, subculture, or other group; in Merton's structural strain theory, the response of structural strain of pursuing socially approved goals by legitamate means

role

the set of attitudes and behaviors appropriate for a certain status

ethnocentrism

the tendency to believe that ones ethnic group or culture is superior

role strain

the tension among the role expectations associated with one strain

goal displacement

the the mean used to achieve a goal becomes more important than the goal itself

labeling theory

the theory that how people are labeled or identified will influence the self-identification and behavior of the people labeled

social loafing

when members of a group exert less effort on a common task than when working individually