In the previous paper, I discussed the phenomenon of jaywalking, particularly the “jaywalking culture” around UW Seattle campus. My observation is that, in a group setting, pedestrians are more likely to illegally cross the intersection if others jaywalk. Next, the questions to ask are: Why do people jaywalk? What are some other implications of this disobedient behavior? In “Jaywalking as a Function of Model Behavior” (1990), Brian Mullen, Carolyn Copper and James E. Driskell offered some explanations as means of understanding jaywalking and its effects in a social setting. They conducted meta-analysis on seven studies of jaywalk that included four experiment models: high-status obedient model, high-status disobedient model, low-status obedient model, and low-status disobedient model. By comparing various data, the conclusion came to be while both obedient models and disobedient models impact the frequency of jaywalking, disobedient models obtain greater social influence on fellow pedestrians than obedient models (Mullen et al. 1990). Besides the “antinormative” action itself, two other variables also help construct the phenomenon: the status of the walker and the size of cities (Mullen et al. 1990).
Disobedient models have greater influence on others, mainly for two reasons: First, individuals who perform disobedient behaviors attract more attention than those who perform obedient behaviors. (Mullen et al. 1990) Other pedestrians are inclined to pay more attention to inappropriate behaviors like jaywalking. When pedestrians cross the intersection legally, not much attention is directed onto them because they are displaying an act seen as normal, in the sense that everyone is following the rules as they are supposed to. However, ...
... middle of paper ...
...lking based on meta-analysis of different studies. While both obedient and disobedient models exert significant effect on the frequency of jaywalking, disobedient models produce greater impact than obedient models (Mullen et al. 1990). Furthermore, the difference status of models, size of city and pace of life contribute to the magnitude of jaywalking. As a disobedient behavior, jaywalking around UW campus as a social phenomenon is shaped by multiple factors.
Works Cited
Mullen, Brian, Carolyn Copper and James E. Driskell. “Jaywalking as a Function of Model Behavior.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16.2 (1990): 320 – 330
Becker, S. Howard, “Whose Side Are We On?” The Intersection Collection Pearson Custom Sociology
Diener, E. “Deindividuation: The Absence of Self-Awareness and Self-regulation in Group Members.” Psychology of Group Influence (1980)
The American Behavioral Scientist, 44(12), 2252-2268. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/214769221?accountid=45049. Gray, M. (2014). The 'Standard'. The L.A. riots: 15 years after Rodney King.
...’s obedience level is affected by the location and surroundings of the experiment; they also hold a mutual understanding on the question of ethics. Yet, there is a larger question. Could these points indicate that humans are not fully in control of their actions?
Areas such as skid-row are filled with people that are without the ability to function in normal society, and simply the fact that they exist is offensive to those that do operate within the normal realms of a community (Bittner, 1967). Due to the primitive nature of those individuals living in these chaotic areas, most officers feel it is necessary to enclose the area in which the behaviors occur to keep it from assimilating with “normal” society. The necessity to contain the areas similar to skid-row is the responsibility of the police, and with few governing superiors to mandate guidelines and the large amount of discretion allotted to police, they assume the peace keeping role and abandon the role of enforcer (Bittner, 1967). Maintaining peace is a difficult task in itself because of the uncontrolled way of life in skid-row. Therefore, it is by focusing on maintaining order and protecting the outside normalcy from skid-row inhabitants (Bittner, 1967) that officers use tactics where they choose non-enforcement, or make a decision to ignore a violation (Brown, 1981). According to Brown (1981), ignoring offenses brings with it a bartering situation between the ...
For space-saving purposes I will refer to this paper as the “Rialto Experiment.” The Rialto Experiment began on February 13th, 2012 and ran for a year. In this experiment Farrar wanted to find out if “rational beings, including police officers, [were] unlikely to embrace socially undesirable behavior when videotaped”(3). Almost a thousand shifts were randomly divided nearly equally into two treatment groups. Officers wearing cameras were the treatment group, and officers without cameras were the control group. Over 43,000 police-to-public contacts were documented over the span of one year during the experiment, and Farrar reported that the “findings suggest[ed] more than a 50% reduction in the total number of incidents of use of force compared to control conditions, and nearly ten times more citizens ' complaints in the twelve months prior to the experiment” (8). While his evidence strongly suggests that police cameras would greatly reduce the use of force and citizen complaints, even Farrar acquiesces that the Rialto Experiment did not collect any evidence from the citizens being recorded as to whether they modified their behavior after receiving the information that they were being videotaped. Several studies sourced by Farrar suggest that human beings positively modify their behavior when they are being observed (1-2). Farrar also notes that there may be “ethical considerations”(9) posed,
“When it comes to tax codes, or laws against littering or speeding or noise pollution, more and more ordinary citizens are becoming scofflaws [people who casually break the law]” (Trippett, A Red Light for Scofflaws). Frank Trippett in his excerpt, A Red Light for Scofflaws, argues that American citizens are casually breaking ‘minor’ laws in belief that these precepts are not that important, unlike the really violent crimes. The author supports his claim by first divulging what might the citizens think about the ‘minor’ laws. He then describe what he thought the people would do in regards to these laws (whether they would follow them or not). The author is trying to inform the commonality of the importance of this society’s laws, whether ‘minor’ or violent in order to make the people realize that every law are established and it is the people’s responsibility to obey them. In agreement with Trippett, today’s citizens are more prone to disobeying the ordinary, simple laws in thought that violent crimes are the main threats to the law and order of this society.
Several individuals within society typically follow social guidelines that they are unaware of performing. Social guidelines such as stopping at a red light or saying thank you when someone has done something for you. These social guidelines or norms give society a script to follow regarding their behavior and actions. Although norms are the acceptable actions and behaviors that society is taught to perform, there are occurrences where individuals stay away from those in which they are now enacting deviance. To act deviant is considered to break away or do something different of a social norm. There are several forms of deviance that occur frequently within society that violate social norms and hinder society’s overall function.
Kirst-Ashman, K. (2011). Human behavior in the macro social environment. (3rd ed., pp. 303-355). Belmont, CA: Brookes/Cole.
In-group relationships were built through activities that will promote group identification. Stereotypes were assumed, such as believing that in-group members are brave and friendly (described in favourable terms) and members of the other group – sneaky (unfavourable terms). Hostility developed rapidly, followed by bitter conflict. The experiment focused heavily on the concept of a 'group ' and what a perception of belonging to a group can actually do to the relationships of members within it and their relationships with people outside their group. Sherif remarked that anyone who came in at this point would have concluded that these youngsters were wicked and vicious. However, it was group processes rather than the personality that had produced the conflict. However, in one of Sherif’s studies, which, unfortunately, was never published, they refused to be divided and, together, they resisted attempts by the experimenters to set them against each other.
The avoidance group is people who we want to distance ourselves from. The author states that the reason we do this is because we want our behavior to be like the group wants us to be, and if anybody disagrees we stay away from them. The final group is We like to do it in groups. The first point is Phenomenon Deindividuation. Phenomenon Deindividuation is where a individual indentities becomes lost with in a group. The second point is Group shopping. Group shopping and behavior and home shoppong parties: People more likely to buy more when shopping in a group, where pressure to crnform may be intense (bandwagon effect). The reason we do this is because if we dont buy what everyone else is buying then we can become a outcast. The last part of the story is Conformity. Conformity is a change in beliefs or actions as a reaction to real or imagined group. The norms of conformity are unspoken rules that grovern many aspects of consumption. There are five factors that influence of conformity. They are: Cultural Pressures, Fear Of Deviance, Commitment, Group Unanimity, Size, and Expertise and finally Susceptibility to Interpersonal
... day. The hardest part of the experiment was going against social psychology; it was very uncomfortable going against the social norms. We also found that it was difficult to match all of our schedules to be able to do the experiment all together when the gym was full. Overall the experiment taught us that social norms have molded society to believe that they should restrain their original thoughts and actions when in a public place. Lastly, individuals should not disturb other social norms that occur within the range of accepted actions, especially in the area of clothing.
...azerolle &ump; Piquero, 1998; Piquero &ump; Sealock, 2000) as well as non-offending populations, including youths (Agnew and White, 1992; Aseltine et al., 2000; Brezina, 1996; Paternoster and Mazerolle, 1994), college students and adults (Mazerolle and Piquero, 1998; Broidy, 2001). The theory has also been examined across gender (Ganem, 2010; Broidy and Agnew, 1997; Eitle, 2002; Hoffman and Su, 1997; Mazerolle, 1998; Hay, 2003; Piquero and Sealock, 2004) and race (Jang and Johnson, 2003), and for property crimes, and other deviant behaviors.
Shoplifting When someone steals merchandise offered for sale in a retail store. is generically called shoplifting. To commit shoplifting one must "intend" to permanently deprive the merchant of the value of the merchandise. The ad is a re-sale. Shoplifting most often occurs by concealing merchandise. in a purse, pocket or bag, but can occur by a variety of methods.
Therefore, the community has informal social control, or the connection between social organization and crime. Some of the helpful factors to a community can be informal surveillance, movement-governing rules, and direct intervention. They also contain unity, structure, and integration. All of these qualities are proven to improve crime rate. Socially disorganized communities lack those qualities. According to our lecture, “characteristics such as poverty, residential mobility, and racial/ethnic heterogeneity contribute to social disorganization.” A major example would be when a community has weak social ties. This can be caused from a lack of resources needed to help others, such as single-parent families or poor families. These weak social ties cause social disorganization, which then leads higher levels of crime. According to Seigel, Social disorganization theory concentrates on the circumstances in the inner city that affect crimes. These circumstances include the deterioration of the neighborhoods, the lack of social control, gangs and other groups who violate the law, and the opposing social values within these neighborhoods (Siegel,
The concept of compliancy closely resembles the concept of conformity in the sense that individuals’ behaviors are adapted though the norms of their surrounding group. However, in comparison to obedience, compliancy is less as intense as obedience in which commands are given to an individual to perform behaviors and conform to beliefs by an authority figure. Compliance is more of
Punishers: Responses from the environment that decrease the likelihood of a behavior being repeated (McLeod, 2015).