This experiment tests the interactive effects of status of the offender and severity of a deviant act on the assessment ofpenaltiesfor socially proscribed behavior. The results reveal an overall tendency for high-status offenders to receive more lenient treatment than their low-status counterparts from members of decision-making groups having the task of assigning punishment. The discrepancy is greater in cases involving seriously deviant behavior. Analysis of group members' communicative behavior shows a tendency for members to focus on different types of concerns in arriving at these discrepant decisions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Asch, S.E. (1946) "Forming impressions of personality." J. of Abnormal and Social Psychology41: 258-290.
2.
Doob, A.J. and A.E. Gross (1968) "Status of frustrator as an inhibitor of horn honking responses." J. of Social Psychology76: 213-218.
3.
Fossum, J.A. and M.L. Moore (1975) "The stability of longitudinal and cross-sectional occupational prestige rankings." J. of Vocational Behavior7: 305-311.
4.
Gouran, D.S. (1969) "Variables related to consensus m group discussions of questions of policy." Speech Monographs36: 387-391.
5.
Harari, H. and J. McDavid (1969) "Situational influence on moral justice: a study of 'finking'." J. of Personality and Social Psychology11: 240-244.
6.
Horne, W.C. and G. Long (1972) "Effect of group discussion on umversalisticparticularistic onentation." J. of Experimental Social Psychology8: 236-246.
7.
Iverson, M.A. (1964) "Personality impressions of punitive stimulus persons of differential status." J. of Abnormal and Social Psychology68: 617-626.
8.
Jones, E.E. and K.E. Davis (1965) "From acts to dispositions: the attribution process," in L. Berkowitz (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 2. New York: Academic.
9.
Lindquist, E.F. (1953) Design and Analysis of Experiments in Psychology and Education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
10.
Parsons, T. and E.A. Shils (1951) Toward a General Theory of Action. Cambridge, MA. Harvard Univ. Press.
11.
Pepitone, A. (1958) "Attnbution of casuality, social attitudes, and cognitive matching processes," in R. Tagiuri and L. Petrullo (eds.) Personal Perception and Interpersonal Behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.
12.
Rokeach, M. and G. Rothman (1965) "The principle of belief congruence and the contiguity principle as models of cogmtive interaction." Psych. Rev.72: 128-142.
13.
Schwartz, R.D. and J.H. Skolnick (1957) "Two studies stigma." Social Problems10: 133-142.
14.
Shaw, M.E. and P.R. Costanzo (1970) Theories of Social Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill
15.
Wahrman, R. (1977) "Status, deviance, sanctions, and group discussion ." Small Group Behavior8: 147-168.
16.
———( 1972) "Status, deviance, and sanctions: a critical review ." Comparative Group Studies3: 203-224.
17.
———( 1970) "High status, deviance, and sanctions." Sociometry33: 485-504.
18.
Walster, E., B. Walster, D. Abrhams, and Z. Brown (1966) "The effect of liking on overratmg another." J. of Experimental and Social Psychology2: 70-84.
19.
Wiggins, J.A., F. Dill, and R. Schwarz (1965) "On status liability." Sociometry28: 197-209.
20.
Winer, B.J. (1971) Statistical Principles of Expenmental Design. New York: McGraw-Hill.
21.
Wyer, R.S. (1970) "The prediction of evaluations of social role occupants as a function of the favorableness, relevance, and probability associated with attributes of these occupants." Sociometry33: 79-96.
