J. David Martin

Measurement of Relative Variation: Sociological Examples

There exists a variety of situations in which the dispersion of data, rather than their mean or other central value, is of interest. The coefficient of variation, which is a measure of dispersion divided by the appropriate measure of central tendency, is preferable to a raw measure of dispersion for this purpose. However, these measures do not have a constant range, and the common practice of dividing the variation value obtained by 100 and expressing the result as a per cent is particularly inappropriate, as all have maxima larger than unity for n>2. The present paper provides standardization procedures for coefficients of variation. The resulting standardized coefficients (called S-measures) have a zero-to-one range, and the common practice of dividing the variation value obtained by 100 and deviation) for descriptive purposes is demonstrated. It is suggested that S-measures replace, or at least supplement, coefficients of variation and raw dispersion measures when the problem of interest is relative dispersion between groups.

Crime and Deterrence: A Correlation Analysis

A correlation analysis of the severity and certainty of punish ment and offense rates for the major index crimes produces results consistent with the predictions of deterrence theory. Certainty of punishment proves to be the chief deterrent for most crimes. Homicide, however, is influenced by severity, pos sibly reflecting the differences between homicide and other of fenses. Little evidence of interaction is found between certainty and severity in effects on crime rate. A powerfunction proves to better describe the relationship between the punishment varia bles and crime rates than a rectilinear equation-a conclusion which, even apart from the date, appears more reasonable than the reverse.

Norm Formation and Subsequent Divergence: Replication and Variation

Summary Twelve dyads of high-school-age Canadians were administered a dot-counting estimation task in six trials, each containing 50 judgments. The first, fourth, fifth, and sixth trials were individual response trials in which subjects were not aware of one anothers estimates; the second and third trials were group trials in which judgments were announced aloud. Convergence of judgments was observed between the first and third trial; divergence between the third and subsequent trials. Divergence did not produce disparities equal to those present at the first (baseline) trial. Similar results were obtained in a pretest involving American undergraduates tested in triads; these results were not as clear-cut, presumably owing to the smaller number of judgments per trial and resulting instability of the averages. These data lead us to conclude that some divergence is normal after a short-term norm-formation experiment. The question of when to call a behavioral uniformity a “norm” is one of usage, and usage i...

Norm Formation or Conditioning ? A Study in Divergence

norms (e.g., DeFleur et al., 1971 ; Wilson, 1971; Newcomb et al., 1965). The Sherif model (1935, 1936, 1965), simply stated, suggests that interpersonal influence results in the formation of a group norm and this norm is in turn internalized by the individual group members. Although the textbooks would lead us to believe that the Sherif paradigm is widely accepted this is not the case. For example, those behavioral scientists who are concerned with work output

Suspicion of Confederacy by Group Members.

use continues (see, e.g., Asch, 1951; Schachter, 1951; Sherif, 1958; Alvarez, 1968; Foschi, 1971 ). The assumption that the stooge is effective in introducing stimuli to a group situation without also altering the situation can be questioned; one aspect particularly open to question is the assumption that the naive, data-generating subjects regard the stooge as one of themselves. They could be suspicious. Stricker et al. (1967, 1969) have found considerable suspicion of deception in some experiments and have further found that suspicious or undeceived subjects behave rather differently from those who

Negativistic delinquency revisited a behavioral analysis

Abstract A generalized revision of Albert Cohens theory of negativistic delinquency is presented. The antecedent conditions of that theory have been broadened to include all contradictions between ideals and the practices that might, but do not, carry them out. Anger produced by distributive injustice has replaced reaction-formation as a causal mechanism. As revised, the theory appears to explain a wider range of “ornery” activities, some of which were negative cases for the original Cohen theory.