Gender Role Violations and Identity Misclassification: The Roles of Audience and Actor Variables

When people violate certain social role norms, they risk false categorization into a stigmatized group. For example, heterosexual men who perform female stereotypic behaviors are often misclassified as gay. This identity misclassification is aversive because it threatens fundamental psychological needs. Findings presented here reveal that expectations of identity misclassification fuel heterosexual actors’ (N?=?216) discomfort during imagined gender role violations and that audience variables that increase the likelihood of misclassification also increase role violators’ discomfort. Moreover, expectations of misclassification strongly predict people’s discomfort during gender role violations regardless of their standing along relevant actor dimensions (e.g., attitudes and self-views). These findings suggest that people’s—and particularly heterosexual men’s—expectations of identity misclassification are powerful mechanisms that underlie adherence to traditional gender role norms.     

Effects of Perceived Responsibility,Injury Severity,and Injury Target on Discipline Severity

We examined the effects of injury severity, injury target, and perceived responsibility on supervisors' discipline severity following a rule violation. Participants made discipline judgments after reading scenarios describing work rule violations. Data revealed an Injury Severity × Injury Target interactive effect on discipline severity. Respondents disciplined rule violators more severely when the behavior caused a serious coworker injury than when the violating behavior caused a minor coworker injury. Discipline severity decreased as the severity of the injury the rule violator experienced increased. That finding goes against conventional wisdom stating that a positive linear relation exists between the extent of an injury and discipline severity and suggests that supervisors might not make all discipline judgments in a simple, linear fashion.     

Achievement Place: experiments in self-government with pre-delinquents

One of the goals of many treatment programs for pre-delinquent youths is the development of the skills involved in the democratic decision-making process. At Achievement Place, one aspect of the treatment program is a semi-self-government system whereby the seven pre-delinquent youths can democratically establish many of their own rules of behavior, monitor their peers' behavior to detect violations of their rules, and conduct a "trial" to determine a rule violator's guilt or innocence, and to determine the consequences for a youth who violates a rule. Two experiments were carried out to determine the role of some of the procedures in the boys' participation in the self-government system. Experiment I showed that more boys participated in the discussion of consequences for a rule violation when they had complete responsibility for setting the consequence during the trials than when the teaching-parents set the consequence for each rule violation before the trial. An analysis of the rule violations in this experiment indicated that the boys in Achievement Place reported more of the rule violations that resulted in trials than reported by the teaching-parents or school personnel. The boys reported rule violations that occurred in the community and school as well as at Achievement Place, including most of the serious rule violations that came to the attention of the teaching-parents. In Experiment II, the results indicated that more trials were called when the teaching-parents were responsible for calling trials on rule violations reported by the peers than when the boys were responsible for calling trials. When the youths earned points for calling trials the average number of trials per day increased, but more trivial rule violations were reported. These results suggest that aspects of the democratic decision-making process in a small group of pre-delinquents can be studied and variables that affect participation can be identified and evaluated.     

Violations of Expectations in Creativity and Perversion

Expectations and violations of expectations provide an entry into creativity and into perversions of aggression in the form of violence. Both creative works and perversions are co-created by a violator of expectations and one whose expectations are violated. The life of Kip Kinkel, a fifteen-year-old mass murderer illustrates the reciprocal violation of expectations between Kip and his parents leading to his increasingly perverse ways of asserting his presence in a world that was slipping from his grasp. Whereas the histories of some violent persons are replete with violations of expectations of living in a safe, predictable, affectively responsive world, a number of creative people (Stravinsky, Chagall, Wagner) began life as violators of the expectation of their families. They were stillborn or became so sick that they were not expected to survive, but they did. In their paintings and operas the theme of being violators of expectations then became dominant.     

People as intuitive prosecutors: The impact of social-control goals on attributions of responsibility

Three experiments explored determinants of punitive character attributions to norm violators. Experiment 1 showed that ideological conservatism and manipulated threat to society increased anger and attributional punitiveness when there was ambiguity about culpability. Experiment 2 showed that informing observers that norm violations were widespread and rarely punished increased attributional punitiveness by activating anger-charged retributive goals. Experiment 3 showed that liberals and conservatives alike felt justified in assigning greater blame to high-status perpetrators who commit acts of negligence with more severe consequences but that only conservatives felt justified in doing so for low-status perpetrators. Overall, the results reinforce the hypothesis that societal threat activates a prosecutorial mindset identifiable by a correlated cluster of attributions, emotions, punishment goals and punitiveness.     

Professional ethics of psychologists and physicians: morality, confidentiality, and sexuality in Israel

Clinical psychologists' and nonpsychiatric physicians' attitudes and behaviors in sexual and confidentiality boundary violations were examined. The 171 participants' responses were analyzed by profession, sex, and status (student, resident, professional) on semantic differential, boundary violation vignettes, and a version of Pope, Tabachnick, and Keith-Spiegel's (1987) ethical scale. Psychologists rated sexual boundary violation as more unethical than did physicians (p less than .001). Rationale (p less than .01) and timing (p less than .0001) influenced ratings. Psychologists reported fewer sexualized behaviors than physicians (p less than .05). Professional experience (p less than .01) and sex (p less than .05) were associated with confidence-violating behavior. Overall, 78% of the sample reported attitudes or behaviors associated with boundary violations. The behavior violations were correlated (r = .49). Actual violators rated vignette violators more leniently than did nonviolators (p less than .01).     

Professional Ethics of Psychologists and Physicians: Mortality,Confidentiality, and Sexuality in Israel

Clinical psychologists' and nonpsychiatric physicians' attitudes and behaviors in sexual and confidentiality boundary violations were examined. The 171 participants' responses were analyzed by profession, sex, and status (student, resident, professional) on semantic differential, boundary violation vignettes, and a version of Pope, Tabachnick, and Keith-Spiegel's (1987) ethical scale. Psychologists rated sexual boundary violation as more unethical than did physicians (p<.001). Rationale (p<.01) and timing (p<.001) influenced ratings. Psychologists reported fewer sexualized behaviors than physicians (p<05). Professional experience (p<.01) and sex (p<.05) were associated with confidence-violating behavior. Overall, 78% of the sample reported attitudes or behaviors associated with boundary violations. The behavior violations were correlated (r=.49). Actual violators rated vignette violators more leniently than did nonviolators (p<.01).     

Role rigidity: a problem of identity misclassification?

When nonstigmatized individuals enact certain role-violating behaviors, they risk becoming "falsely accused deviants" (H. S. Becker, 1963, p. 20). For instance, when heterosexual men perform stereotypically feminine behaviors, they are liable to get misclassified as homosexual. Findings presented here reveal that expectations of identity misclassification fuel nonstigmatized individuals' negative reactions to role violations (Studies 1-2) and that using a disclaimer--that is, informing their audience of their nonstigmatized identity--assuages people's discomfort during a role-violating behavior (Studies 3-4). Moreover, when not concerned about being misclassified, nonstigmatized individuals benefit psychologically from the enactment of a challenging role violation (Study 4). Discussion considers the nature of the threat that misclassified role violators face and compares the plight of the falsely accused deviant to that of the truly stigmatized individual.     

Young children enforce social norms selectively depending on the violator's group affiliation

To become cooperative members of their cultural groups, developing children must follow their group's social norms. But young children are not just blind norm followers, they are also active norm enforcers, for example, protesting and correcting when someone plays a conventional game the "wrong" way. In two studies, we asked whether young children enforce social norms on all people equally, or only on ingroup members who presumably know and respect the norm. We looked at both moral norms involving harm and conventional game norms involving rule violations. Three-year-old children actively protested violation of moral norms equally for ingroup and outgroup individuals, but they enforced conventional game norms for ingroup members only. Despite their ingroup favoritism, young children nevertheless hold ingroup members to standards whose violation they tolerate from outsiders.     

Why Seemingly Trivial Events Sometimes Evoke Strong Emotional Reactions: The Role of Social Exchange Rule Violations

People sometimes display strong emotional reactions to events that appear disproportionate to the tangible magnitude of the event. Although previous work has addressed the role that perceived disrespect and unfairness have on such reactions, this study examined the role of perceived social exchange rule violations more broadly. Participants (N = 179) rated the effects of another person’s behavior on important personal outcomes, the degree to which the other person had violated fundamental rules of social exchange, and their reactions to the event. Results showed that perceptions of social exchange rule violations accounted for more variance in participants’ reactions than the tangible consequences of the event. The findings support the hypothesis that responses that appear disproportionate to the seriousness of the eliciting event are often fueled by perceived rule violations that may not be obvious to others.     

Moral Decision Making and Nontoleration of Honor Code Offenses

Acceptance of the nontoleration clause of an honor code, and incorporation of this principle as an internalized value, tends to diminish from year to year even as moral development increases. Convicted honor violators unanimously endorsed their commitment to the honor code in concept but indicated greater toleration of honor code offenses than a comparison group of nonviolators when confronted with realistic scenarios. Kohlberg's (1969) theory of moral development does not give adequate consideration to the contextual environment surrounding acts that are deemed moral or immoral. This study's findings were better explained by principles drawn from postmodern philosophy and the concept of Informed Belief.     

Relations between a laboratory-based sustained attention task and traffic violations in an Iranian sample of drivers

The role of cognitive abilities regarding driver behavior is crucially important in the occurrence of traffic violations and preventing tragic motor vehicle collisions. Sustained attention is one cognitive ability that may contribute to safe driving behavior. The present study investigated the relation between sustained attention and traffic violations. One hundred and one Iranian male drivers (age: M = 37.17, SD = 8.37) with at least 2 years driving experience voluntarily participated in the study. Participants were categorized into two groups based on the number of driving rule violations they committed over the last 2 years (n = 48 clean record, n = 53 violators). Sustained attention was measured by performance on the Conjunctive Continuous Performance Task (CCPT). Four CCPT performance measures were computed: (1) Mean reaction time for correct responses (M-RT); (2) standard deviation of reaction times for correct responses (SD-RT); (3) percent of omission errors (failure to respond to target stimulus); (4) percent of commission errors (identification of a non-target stimulus as target). Results showed after controlling for age and education, there was a significant group difference on M-RT, indicating that individuals with no traffic violations had faster reaction times as compared to those who had 1 or more traffic violations. No effect of group on any of the other outcomes was present after correcting for alpha inflation. When assessing the effect of age and education, education was significantly related to average reaction time and percent of omission errors. No significant effect of age was apparent. Findings suggest cognitive function, specifically sustained attention measured with a laboratory-based measure, may be associated with safe driving behavior.     

Making our Measures Match Perceptions: Do Severity and Type Matter When Assessing Academic Misconduct Offenses?

Traditional approaches to measurement of violations of academic integrity may overestimate the magnitude and severity of cheating and confound panic with planned cheating. Differences in the severity and level of premeditation of academic integrity violations have largely been unexamined. Results of a study based on a combined sample of business students showed that students are more likely to commit minor cheating offenses and engage in panic-based cheating as compared to serious and planned cheating offenses. Results also indicated there is a significant interaction between severity and type (planned vs. panic) of cheating. We hypothesized serious and planned cheating offenses would be related to justifications and found the largest differences were between panic and planned. Finally, panic and minor cheating were associated with two self-control-related personality traits. Implications for cheating research are discussed.     

Civil disobedience and legal responsibility

Conclusion In Section One the automatic ratification of existing law as immediately self-validating is shown to undermine the very purpose of law - the surpassing of arbitrariness and of Czar-like ukases. In Sections Two and Three there is an attempt to explore the justification or grounding that can be given for the existing laws and civil disobedience, respectively. In both cases, the justification has been given in terms of fundamental human dignity which should never be violated by empirical laws. Only when such a violation does occur can civil disobedience be justified. Therefore, the rationale for, and motivation of, both a legal system and civil disobedience are the same.However, one does not so easily resolve the opposition between the two. For the law itself is proclaimed apodictically, without the reservation that one may with impunity break the law and commit an act of civil disobedience whenever the law violates one's conscience. Otherwise, we do not have a rule of law but instead anarchy. For, as Jesus has said and Abraham Lincoln paraphrased it: A kingdom (house) divided against itself will not stand. The law cannot declare that it is legal to break the law without incapacitating itself. The law must punish its violators to be a valid law; without powers of enforcing sanctions against violators the law is no law.However, we must not consider for this reason that those who are responsible for making, interpreting, and enforcing the law (on the one hand) and those who are civilly disobedient (on the other hand) are working at cross purposes. Both are concerned with justice. The civilly disobedient individual (who has not given up on the existing legal system and therefore who stops short of being a revolutionary) is concerned with improving the existing legal system. He envisions his role as therapeutic rather than destructive. He believes that the ideal of justice is being violated in some way in the existing laws (even though these laws may have been found Constitutional by the Supreme Court). He therefore makes of himself a martyr, bearing witness to the truth, and hoping thereby to educate and enlighten and to move men of good will - in short, to effect a change in the law.Before an individual who respects the rule of law should be willing to be civilly disobedient he must be convinced of the violation of basic human rights in the law. He also must consider whether civil disobedience is the most effective means of producing the desired change. But beyond the pragmatic consideration of the most effective means to produce the desired end, there is also the question of what is most meaningful and suitable for him personally in living in conformity with the categorical imperative. Discussions of civil disobedience which limit themselves to questions of practical consequences do a great disservice to such actions. For, must we not admire those who resisted Hitler, even though they realized that their actions were futile in terms of changing the law and might even mean their deaths?In a free society, dedicated to the rule of law, all citizens are concerned with justice. Those entrusted with the responsibility of enforcing the law obviously must do just that, so that violators of the law have to be punished. However, when legislators and judges notice that some of the most perspicacious and conscientious individuals are openly violating existing laws in the name of a higher law, they should also make a serious reappraisal of their positions, looking to see whether they may not have become morally insensitive or careless. Indeed, the real value of a free society is its flexibility and tolerance of dissent, even that of civil disobedience, which can serve to dramatize forcefully, deep-seated convictions concerning the injustice of certain laws on the books. It is true that fanatics from time immemorial have been willing to sacrifice much in the name of their cause. But whenever one finds that there is an individual who is willing to sacrifice much without the hope of personal advantage and who is also willing to provide arguments in defense of his position, society would do well to listen to his words and actions.Without the constant delving scrutiny and criticism of existing laws, there cannot be true legal responsibility. Therefore, the civilly disobedient individual, who is willing to put his head on the block in order to abrogate unjust laws, is in fact the legally responsible individual par excellence.     

Upsetting others and provoking ridicule: Children's reasoning about the self‐presentational consequences of rule violation

This study examined children's understanding of the distinctive ‘self‐presentational’ impacts of moral and social‐conventional rule violations. A sample of 80 children aged 7–8 and 9–10 years generated examples of interpersonal events that would upset others and events that would elicit social attention to the self. As expected, both age groups consistently identified moral violations as leading to the former, and deviations from social norms as leading to the latter. Crucially, when children were asked to identify the social‐evaluative consequences of those breaches, they exhibited a significant increase with age in recognizing the self‐presentational risks of social‐conventional deviations.     

Rule-violations sensitise towards negative and authority-related stimuli

Rule violations have usually been studied from a third-person perspective, identifying situational factors that render violations more or less likely. A first-person perspective of the agent that actively violates the rules, on the other hand, is only just beginning to emerge. Here we show that committing a rule violation sensitises towards subsequent negative stimuli as well as subsequent authority-related stimuli. In a Prime-Probe design, we used an instructed rule-violation task as the Prime and a word categorisation task as the Probe. Also, we employed a control condition that used a rule inversion task as the Prime (instead of rule violations). Probe targets were categorised faster after a violation relative to after a rule-based response if they related to either, negative valence or authority. Inversions, however, primed only negative stimuli and did not accelerate the categorisation of authority-related stimuli. A heightened sensitivity towards authority-related targets thus seems to be specific to rule violations. A control experiment showed that these effects cannot be explained in terms of semantic priming. Therefore, we propose that rule violations necessarily activate authority-related representations that make rule violations qualitatively different from simple rule inversions.     

Toward a Greater Understanding of Antigay Prejudice: On the Role of Sexual Orientation and Gender Role Violation

Prejudice against gay men and lesbians could be driven by at least two types of expectancy violations: those pertaining to sexual orientation per se, and perceived violations of traditional gender roles (e.g., the fact that gay men are often inferred to be feminine and lesbians to be masculine). However, it is unclear whether one or the other (or both) of these expectancy violations are actually important in driving prejudicial reactions. In a completely crossed design, participants were asked to evaluate a target who varied with respect to biological sex, sexual orientation, and gender role (i.e., whether they were masculine or feminine). In addition, we also examined the contingency of these variables on preexisting individual differences in prejudice toward gay men and lesbians as a whole. Results showed a moderate trend among high prejudice participants to disparage “double violators,” that is, individuals who simultaneously violate expectations about both sexuality and gender roles. Implications for current research and practice are discussed.     

Morally Relevant Features

This article summarizes the account of morality presented in Morality: Its Nature and Justification (Oxford, 1998), with emphasis on that aspect of morality that deals with justifying violations of the moral rules. Such justification requires a two-step procedure; the first is describing the situation using only morally relevant features. I list these features, noting how diverse they are, and describe their characteristics. The second step is estimating the consequences of publicly allowing a violation with the same morally relevant features, that is, allowing a violation when everyone knows that it is allowed to violate the rule in the same circumstances, and comparing this to the estimated consequences of not publicly allowing that kind of violation. I then explain why fully informed, impartial rational persons can sometimes disagree about whether a violation should be publicly allowed and note that such weakly justified violations are the controversial cases.     

The relation of elementary-school children's externalizing behaviour to emotion attributions,evaluation of consequences,and moral reasoning

This study examined the relation of elementary-school children's externalizing behaviour to emotion attributions, evaluation of consequences, and moral reasoning. Externalizing behaviour was rated by the parents using the Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL/4 – 18). Moral development was assessed by three stories describing different types of rule violation and a moral conflict in friendship including obligations and self-interest. The children were asked about the emotions they would attribute to the hypothetical victimizer (or protagonist) and the self-as-victimizer (or protagonist), the evaluation of the interpersonal consequences of the rule violation (or action decision) as well as their justifications. Boys who made selfish action decisions and attributed positive emotions to the protagonist of the moral dilemma displayed more externalizing behaviour than girls. Furthermore, boys with consistent moral (negative) emotion attributions to the self-as-victimizer across the rule violations showed less externalizing behaviour than boys with inconsistent moral emotion attributions. Younger children who anticipated negative interpersonal consequences of transgressions displayed higher rates of externalizing behaviour than younger children who anticipated less negative consequences. Moral reasons in the context of emotion attributions to the self-as-victimizer were negatively associated with externalizing behaviour.