Louisiana State UniversityLSU Digital Commons

LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School

1979

An Experimental Assessment of Appearance,Behavior, and Role Taking in Reactions toShoplifting.John Eugene KarlinLouisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion inLSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contactgradetd@lsu.edu.

Recommended CitationKarlin, John Eugene, "An Experimental Assessment of Appearance, Behavior, and Role Taking in Reactions to Shoplifting." (1979).LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 3398.https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/3398

INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.

1. The sign or “target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing pagefs) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department.

5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy.

UniversityMicrofilms

International31)0 N / f c E B R O A D ANN A R B O R . Ml 4 8 1 0 6 18 B t D F O R D ROW. L O N D O N WC1R 4 E J . E N G L A N D

7927S30KIRLIN* JOHN EUGENE

AN EXPERIMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF APPEARANCE* BEHAVIOR• AND ROLE TAKING IN REACTIONS TO SHOPLIFTING.THE LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY ANDRGB ICtiLTURAL ANO MECHANICAL C O L . * P H . O . * 1979

University'/Vtodnlms

International300 N. ZEEB RQAO. ANN ARBOR, Ml 48106

PLEASE NOTE:

In a ll casts this matarlal has baan filmed 1n the bast possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been Identified here with a check mark ^ .

1. Glossy photographs

2. Colored Illustrations

3. Photographs with dark background

4. Illustrations are poor copy

5. Print shows through as there Is text on both sides of page

6. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages throughout

7. Tightly bound copy with prin t lost 1n spine

8. Computer printout pages with Indistinct print

9. Page(s) lacking when material received, and not available from school or author

10. Pace(s) seem to be missing 1n numbering only as text follows

11. Poor carbon cooy

12. Not original copy, several pages with blurred type

13. Appendix pages are poor copy

14. Original copy with light type

15. Curling and wrinkled pages

16. Other

University'Microfilms

International300 N Z C iS BO- ANN A A BO ft Ul 48106 313) 761-4700

AN EXPERIMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF APPEARANCE, BEHAVIOR, AND ROLE TAKING IN

REACTIONS TO SHOPLIFTING

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and

Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophyin

The Department of Sociology

byJohn Eugene Karlin

B.S., Wichita State University, 1974 M.A.J., Wichita State University, 1975

August, 1979

DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to my parents. Merle and Evelyn Karlin, and to my family, Frances, my wife, and my son, John Wesley.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere thanks to a number of individuals who helped me at various times during this study. First of all, I am deeply indebted to Mr. Warren Gray, Head of Security, Sears, Roebuck and Company, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and Mr. Mark Killingsworth, Assistant Manager, Dillard's Department Store, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, through whose cooperation and assistance the data for this study was obtained.

In particular, I want to thank Dr. Forrest A. Deseran, Dr. Quentin A. L. Jenkins, Dr. Vera Andreasen,Dr. J. H. Jones, and Dr. Leonard Kilgore for serving on my examination committee, and for their contributions of time, advice, assistance, and understanding. Dr. Forrest A. Deseran, my major professor, who offered invaluable criticism and guidance throughout this research, deserves special acknowledgement, his suggestions were most helpful. Without his professional guidance this research would most surely have been lacking, if at all accomplished.

I owe a special debt of gratitude to Dr. Barton Farthing who patiently advised me throughout all of the statistical analysis, to Dr. Emilio A. Icaza for assisting me in the S.A.S. programming necessary for this study, and to fellow graduate student Jim Robinson for his assistance

iii

in coding and programming.I wish to thank Dr. Joe Lesem for his professional

photography work in filming the scenes which comprised my experimental stimuli, and Mr. Earl Smith who did a most professional job of acting in the films.

I would like to express my thanks to Merita Guillory and a number of fellow graduate students (one of which was Herman Gibson, III, who contributed a number of hours of his time) who helped in the collection of data.I wish to thank also Mrs. Verse Byers for her excellent job of editing this dissertation and to Mrs. Jeanette Watkins for a most professional job of typing.

Final appreciation is extended to the secretaries and student workers in the Department of Sociology, especially, to Mrs. Doris Hernandez and Mrs. Lewis Watson, for their kind assistance on several matters.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PageACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................... iiiLIST OF T A B L E S ............................................viiiLIST OF FIGURES.............................................. ixABSTRACT ................................................. xChapter

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................... 1The Problem.................................... 1Significance of the Study.................... 6Objectives of the Study......................... 10Organization .................................. 10

2. SYMBOLIC INTERACTION, PERSON PERCEPTIONAND ATTRIBUTION.................................. 14Language, Person Perception and

Stereotypes.................................... 20Role-taking, Role and Identity................ 27Personal Experience, Hedonic Relevance

and Personal Involvement .................. 4 23. METHODOLOGY......................................... 54

D e s i g n ........................................... 54Independent Variables............................54Dependent Variables..............................58Statistical Methods..............................60

4. F I N DINGS ............................................62v

Chapter PageDerivation of Scales ......................... €2

Semantic Differential Item Scale ......... 62Imagined Impact Scale......................... 65Personal Experience Score.....................67Respondent Reaction Score.....................67

F i n dings......................................... 67Behavior and Appearance....................... 67Imagined Impact................................ 70Experience..................................7 3

Personal Involvement ......................... 7 7Relevance and A c t i o n ......................... 81

5. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION........................... 87Interpretation of Findings .................. 87

Appearance and Behavior. ............87Imagined Impact................................ 90Experience..................................9 3Personal Involvement ...................... 94Relevance and A c t i o n ......................... 95

General Theoretical Premises ................ 97Empathetic vs. Rational Role-taking. . . . 97Personal vs Situational Attribution. . . . 98

Criticisms.......................................99T h e o r y ...................................... 9 9Methodology.................................... 99

Conclusion......................................101vi

Chapter PageBIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................ 105APPENDIX A ............................................... 118V I T A ...................................................... 133

vii

ge

63

66

6971

72

74

75

76

78

79

80

82

84

LIST OF TABLES

Rotation Methodo VarimaxRotated Factor Pattern ....................

Rotation Methodo VarimaxRotated Factor Pattern ....................

AttributesGeneral Linear Models Procedure...........

General Linear Models Procedure.............Impact

General Linear Models Procedure...........Experience

General Linear Models Procedure...........Experience

General Linear Models Procedure...........Experience

General Linear Models Procedure...........Respondent's Reaction

General Linear Models Procedure...........Respondent's Reaction

General Linear Models Procedure...........Respondent's Reaction

General Linear Models Procedure...........Hedonic

General Linear Models Procedure...........Action

General Linear Models Procedure...........

viii

Figure1.

LIST OF FIGURES

PageModified Solomon Four-Group Design ........... 55

ix

ABSTRACT

Labeling research does not adequately examine internal decision-making as an important part of the labeling process. Central to this criticism is the argu­ment that role-taking iB an integral aspect of reactions to deviance, an aspect which has been virtually ignored in deviance research. The purpose of this study was to experimentally examine the part played by the 'role-taking reactor' in the context of the actor's social identity.Four possible factors associated with the imputation of identity and reactions to deviance are specified: (1) be­havior, (2) appearance, (3) the degree of personal involve­ment of the reactor in the situation, and (4) the reactor's personal experience with the deviant act. Two approaches to role-taking— rational and empathetic— are examined in relation to the imagined consequences or impact that the reactor's behaviors would have for the actor. A modified Solomon Four-Group Design was employed using video depic­tions of shoplifting behaviors as stimuli. Unlike earlier related research efforts, subjects were retail personnel, persons likely to find shoplifting behaviors to be relevant in their everyday lives.

x

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

The ProblemOne of the major perspectives in the area of

deviance— labeling theory— has as its central concern social reactions to deviance. The notion, somewhat simpli­fied, is this: in order for an act to be deviant, it must be responded to as such. Thus, an act plus a label creates deviance (Becker, 1963). Labeling theorists point out that labeling theory is less concerned with primary than with secondary deviance,^ i.e., why the actor continues to engage in the behavior in question (Schur, 1971).

This concern has focused researchers' attention to the response of the actor to a label. The basic notion is that labeling produces secondary deviance because the actor accepts the identity as prescribed by the label.2 This perspective has its theoretical grounding in the school of thought known as symbolic interactionism (Empey. 1978; Rubington and Weinberg, 1978). Central to symbolic interaction theory is the notion that social phenomena evolve or are 'produced* in social interaction (Blumer, 1969; Meltzer, et al^, 1975).

A theoretical criticism that can be leveled at research in labeling is that in some cases the research

1

2typically does not adequately study what it purports to. That is, most labeling research does not study interactionbut rather focuses only on the products of interaction (Laur and Handel, 1 9 7 7 ) . Wilson (1970:78) states that: "meanings and definitions of situations are constructed and have their objectivity established through the inter­pretive processes of interaction rather than by reference to a body of culturally given common definitions." Blumer(1969) stresses the need to see the world as the actor sees it, for the actor's behavior takes place on the basis of his own particular meanings.

Most labeling research infers processes fromculturally given common definitions. Their focus is onthe 'label' and the actor's response to the label. In thisfocus there is a strong tendency to overlook cognitiveaspects and thus, the culturally given common definitionhas the same meaning for all potential labelers as well asthe individual being labeled. As a result, the emphasisturns out to be more on product than on process. Garfinkel(1967:25) states:

"As 'product', a common understanding consist of a shared agreement. 'Process' consists of how something that a person says or does is recognized to accord with a rule."

By ignoring internal decision-making processes, labeling research tends to assume recognition (of common under­standings) then infer process from it.

That interaction between individuals is necessarily related to this process is probably best expressed by

3Cooley (1927:60) "social knowledge is developed from contact with the minds of other men* through communication* which sets going a process of thought and sentiment similar to theirs and enables us to understand them by sharing their states of mind." As stated by Mead (1922:163)* "response becomes a meaning, when it is indicated by a generalized attitude both to the self and to others. Mind which is a process within which this analysis and indica­tions take place* lies in a field of conduct between a specific individual and the environment." A central notion to these processes is role-taking. Again* as expressed by Mead (1962:n .141):

"social intelligence* depends upon the given individ­ual's ability to take the roles of, or put himself in the place of* the other individuals implicated with him in given social situations; and upon his consequent sensitivity to their attitudes toward himself and toward one a n o t h e r . "4

The role-taking process can be further articulated relative to the concept of identity (e.g., Foote, 1951: Glaser and Strauss* 1974). Stone (1962) argueB that identity is distinguishable at two levels* identification of and identification with. Identification of refers to the placement of others in socially available categories. Identification with involves the ability to imagine oneself in the other's place. Identification of necessarily precedes identification with* i.e., we must be able to socially place others before we can take their attitudes.

It can be argued that labeling behaviors involve

4interpersonal processes which are congruent with general tenents of symbolic interaction. In particular, the role- taking process of reactors should be central to under­standing the ascription of labels to rule breaking actors,5 One problem with current labeling research is that it virtually ignores this basic aspect of social interaction. The purpose of this study was to empirically examine the part played by the 'role-taking reactor1 in the context of the actor’s social identity.

A study of Steffensmeier and Terry (1973)® exem­plifies the reactive conception of deviance by focusing on aspects of the actor and the audience and is closely related to the concerns raised in this paper. These authors varied the appearance and sex of an actor who was instructed to shoplift in the presence of store customers. Their hypothesis that actor appearance, operationalized as "hippie" or "straight," would affect audience responses to the shoplifting behavior was empirically supported.

In a later study, Deseran and Chung (1978) stated that the linkage inferred by Steffensmeier and Terry between actor identity (as indicated by appearance) and imputations made by audiences to the actors could not be empirically verified. Imputed identity was based solely on reactions toward the shoplifter and not on adequate knowledge of the meaning of appearance for the reactors. Deseran and Chung found that audience reactions are influenced by notions of this impact that particular

5reactions would have on the actor and that the degree of perceived impact is related to the socity identity (appearance) of the actor. Deseran et a K , (1978) later incorporated into the study a third dimension— personal shoplifting experience of the reactor. Hypothesizing that the imputation of identity to a shoplifting and non­shoplifting actor will be different for reactors who have themselves shoplifted than for reactors who have not shop­lifted and that reactors who have shoplifted themselves would be more certain about their imputations than those reactors who have not had similar experiences, the Deseran et al., (1978) findings were inconclusive.

The Deseran and Chung (1978) study was grounded inthe role-taking of George Herbert Mead, while the Deseran et al., (1978) study was based on the role-taking of C. H. Cooley. Three possible factors associated with the imputa­tion of identity and reactions to deviance were specified:behavior, appearance and personal experience. These were examined relative to two approaches to role-taking—

rational and empathetic— in relation to the imagined consequences or impact that the reactor's behaviors would have for the actor. Findings of the Deseran et al., study, although supporting the Median notion that the role-taking process involves, to a large degree, knowledge of others in a generalized sense, could not be taken to invalidate the hypotheses derived from Cooley's framework.

Following this line of research, then, the efforts

6of this paper was to further specify the role-taking process as it relates to reactions to deviance and to experimentally explore the effects of actor behavior, actor appearance, reactor personal experience and the degree of involvement on the part of the reactor in the shoplifting situation. To do this, the general research strategy was to extend the Deseran and Chung (1978) design by altering certain methodological procedures with the intention of further strengthening the study.

While symbolic interactionists in the Blumer (1969) tradition usually stress 'naturalistic investigation' and the use of 'sensitizing concepts,' this study follows McPhail's (1978) argument that experimental research is appropriate for empirically assessing hypotheses grounded in symbolic interactionist propositions. A major proce­dural advantage incorporated into this design over the previous studies was the use of the pre-test/post-test method. In addition, in order to address questions of external validity raised by using only undergraduate stu­dents (Deseran and Chung, 1978) or store customers (Steffensmeier and Terry, 1973), the study used retail clerks as subjects (N»202).

Significance of the StudyContemporary interest in deviance evolved in the

historical emergence of two models of criminology: theclassical and positivist. Although labeling theory did not

7bridge these two models until the 1960's {Quinney, 1975; Reckless, 1973; Sutherland and Cressey, 1970), labeling theory can be traced to such classical theorists as Emile Durkheim. In his 'Rules of Sociological Method,' Durkheim presents the notion that it is impossible for all individ­uals to be alike and since there cannot be a society in which the individuals do not differ more or less from the majority, it is also inevitable that among these differ­ences there are some with criminal attributes. However, what confers these attributes upon them is that definition which the collective lends them. In other words, society will designate them as criminal (Durkheim, 1938). Thus, reactions to deviance are of central importance to the study of deviance.

Articulation of the labeling perspective is usually referenced by theorists such as Howard Becker, who gave labeling theory its greatest impetus in the 1960's.There are several important reasons for further articula­tion of this perspective: (1) It is the first and onlyapproach to adequately bridge the positivist and classical schools of thought, (2) It has the potential for adequately explaining deviance in all three of its relative contexts: temporal, cultural, and situational, (3) The social response perspective not only has implications for the prevention of continued deviance but has implications for the rehabilitation process as well, (4) As expressed by Ohr (1978) the logic of the symbolic interactionism roots

8of labeling places the explanation of the first act clearly within the domain of the theory, and (5) The articulation of the role-taking reactor may not only have important implications for the production of deviance, but also for the reasons why people may not react to deviant behaviors to begin with. Thus, it has the potential of covering a wide range of theoretical and practical concerns in the field of deviance.

Knowledge of the role-taking process is very amena­ble to practical application in many spheres of human interaction. For instance, the awareness of these pro­cesses on the part of law enforcement personnel may help to reduce the effect of the self-fulfilling prophecy in relationships between the police and the public as dis­cussed by Kelly Shaver {1975). The area of deviance and social control is certainly an area that these notions can be significantly applied.

This conceptualization has implications for interpreting findings in the following areas of current research: {1) law enforcement, (2) legal adjudication, and{3) rehabilitation (Stoll, 1968). For instance, the implications of one study of police discretion and juvenile delinquency (Pilivian and Briar, 1964) indicated that it was in officers' discretionary authority to decide which juveniles were to come to the attention of the courts and correctional agencies and thereby be identified officially as delinquent. The Pilivian and Briar study indicated that

9in exercising this discretion policemen were strongly guided by the demeanor of those who were apprehended. The observation was made that the official delinquent, as distinguished from the juvenile who simply commits a delinquent act, is the product of a social judgment.

In court cases, the personal attributes of the victim, as well as the accused, appear to influence the jury in reaching their decision. Brooks, et al., (1975) in a jury simulation of a rape trial demonstrated that jurors thought that it was less justified to convict a man of raping a woman who had a history of prostitution than it was to convict a man of raping a woman of chaste character. The jury felt that the person should not be convicted if the victim were only a prostitute. Thus, in this case the attributes of the victim affected the response to the accused.

Finally, nowhere is the role-taking process probably more strongly implicated in importance in the area of rehabilitation than in the field of mental illness.The implications of the works of such authors as Goffman and Scheff are expressed in Bursten and D'esopo's (1965) study entitled 'The Obligation to Remain Sick.' Based on case studies the observation was made that in the role- taking process clients are virtually socialized to remain sick rather than be rehabilitated in conjunction with the perceptions and the needs of those charged with rehabilitation.8

10Objectives of the Study

In summary, the objectives of this study are:(1) to further extend and articulate the previous research involving the imputations of identity in shoplifting situations, (2) to get as closely as possible to the actual processes involved in the imputation of identity in rule- breaking situations, (3) to incorporate a methodological approach designed to tap or bridge both the interactional and the cognitive dimensions involved in the role-taking

aprocess, and (4) to provide some orientations for a frame­work for future research in the area of law enforcement, legal adjudication and rehabilitation.

OrganizationThe traditional steps in the scientific method,

e.g., statement of the problem, review of the literature, methodology and design, analysis and interpretation and lastly, conclusions and implications were followed with one exception. That exception as can be seen is the elimination of a chapter on the review of the literature by incorporating it into the other chapters.

In Chapter I, the 'statement of the problem' pre­sents background, criticisms and significant aspects underlying the study. These were the basic theoretical and methodological approach to the substantive area of deviance as couched in the labeling perspective. Chapter II incorporates a theoretical grounding in a review of

XIrelevant perspectives: person perception, attribution, andsymbolic interactionism. The theoretical development of specific issues— structural vs. situational and empathetic vs. rational role-taking— are presented in light of more specific notions— hedonic relevance, personal experience, and* personal involvement— along with a short discussion on integration and expansion of theoretical perspectives relating to the crucial points in the study.

Chapter III is concerned with research design and methodology. The description of the data source is followed by the definitions of the variables utilized in the study. In the next part of Chapter III, the charac­teristics of the data are presented which includes a discussion of the statistical techniques used. Chapter IV is devoted to the analysis and interpretation of the data collected. This part includes the analysis and interpre­tation of findings. Finally, Chapter V is organized around a summary and discussion of the findings. Implica­tions for further research and articulation in the light of current empirical research is discussed.

FOOTNOTES

^The first specific distinction made between primary and secondary deviance from the labeling perspec­tive is usually attributed to Edward M. Lemert (1951).

2Two good selected reviews of labeling theory are Schur (1971) and Cullen and Cullen (1978).

major underlying reason for this problem is pointed out by Giddens (1976: 22). Giddens states that "it is the social self with which Mead was preoccupied; and this emphasis has become even more pronounced in the writings of most of his followers. Hence much of the possible impact of this theoretical style has been lost, since the 'social self* can easily be reinterpreted as the 'socially determined self', and from then on the difference between symbolic interactionism and functionalism become much less marked."

^The concept of role-taking has been treated differently by different theorists. Although borrowed from Charles Horton Cooley (1902, 1966, 1926), Mead's usage of the concept is quite different. A discussion and review of this point can be found in Stark (1966, 1970), Hobart and Fahlberg (1965) and Johnathan Turner (1978).

^There has been much theoretical and empirical articulation of role-taking in the labeling process as found in the works of such authors as Becker (1963), Ball(1970) and Kitsuse (1962). These efforts however have usually been concerned about the labeling of self by the actor taking the role of others. Hepburn (1975) has sug­gested that the emerging of deviance involves a negotiation process between labelers and the labeled. The implica­tion is that reactors engage in role-taking themselves.Also see Turner's (1956) discussion on reflexive role- taking .

6Referring to this research is a series of studies: Terry and Steffensmeier (1973), Steffensmeier (1975),Steffensmeier and Steffensmeier (1975). Also see a related series of studies by Newman (1974a, 1974b), Newman and Trilling (1975) and Newman (1975).

7Some of the major works of that time are: Schur(1965, 1967), Erikson (1966), Scheff (1966, 1967) and

12

13Becker (1963, 1964).

®See Scheff {1964, 1967) and Goffman (1961).9In assessing the imputations of identity to an

actor by a reactor, if one concerns himself solely with interactional aspects, he leaves himself open to the criticism that cognitive processes have been ignored. See Hastorf et al., (1970), Lindesmith and Strauss (1977),Vander Zanden {1977) and Shaw and Costanzo (1970).

Chapter 2

SYMBOLIC INTERACTION, PERSON PERCEPTION AND ATTRIBUTION

In the first part of this chapter three orientations are discussed: (1) symbolic interactionist-labeling theory, (2) person perception and (3) attribution. The purpose is to examine the relationship between each of these perspectives and the construction of identities in social situations. By doing so a framework can be derived by which a closer analysis of these relationships can be made with the introduction of more specific notions in the following sections of this part of the study.

'Label' as used in interactionist-labeling theory tends to be synonymous with identity. According to Tittle (1975:401), "The essence of a label is in the acceptance by an audience of a (deviant) identity." The only signif­icant difference between a 'label' and any particular 'identity' is that a label is a deviant identity that carries with it a certain amount of social stigma. Identities, whether deviant or not, are constructed in part from our perceptions of individual traits, appearance and properties of the individual being perceived. However, personal characteristics of the actor are not the only source for identity, deviant or otherwise.

14

15A particular individual's traits, appearances,

etc., are only one aspect involved in the construction of identities. Only briefly mentioned here but to be dis­cussed more fully later, is the notion that identities can be culturally derived. That is, there is agreement in any particular culture upon the meaning of certain traits, appearances and properties of people. Because there is some agreement, then these culturally based components of identities can provide a framework upon which an individ­ual 's perceptions of another is based. Thus, an identity may be based more upon culturally agreed on definitions than upon the image or definition of an actor viewed by a perceiver in a particular situation. Perceptions of people are affected by both of these sources in identity construction. To whatever degree, however, our perceptions do play a role in the construction of identities, as Vander Zanden (1977:36) points out:

"Person perception refers to those processes by which we come to know and think about others— their characteristics, qualities, and inner states."

If identities are comprised of such traits, characteristics,appearances and inner states as perceived by others, and ifperson perception may be affected by culturally derivednotions about identity, then as stated by Steffensmeier andTerry (1973:424);

"An extreme (negative identity) can exercise a dispro­portionate influence in structuring perceptions.''

Likewise, person perception— the perception of individual

16traits--has important implications for the construction of identities. From traits, we form impressions or images which serve as the basis for the imputation of a particular identity.

An early assumption in the field of person per­ception was that our perception of others is direct. The focus of study was on defining the nature of the other which directly produced an identity (Jones and Gerard,1967). Later, with various theoretical frameworks of thought such as Kerleau-Ponty's (196 5:4) notion that even the most elementary perception is "charged with meaning," research was extended to the more subtle analysis of the role played by the perceiver in determining his experi­ences. For example, past experiences and motivational states were seen as having an impact on how others are perceived. This importance of 'meanings' (or subtle interpretations) in person perception provides the basis for a major criticism of the Steffensmeier and Terry (1973) study.

Steffensmeier and Terry (1973:425) concluded that their research upheld the interactionist-labeling perspective:

"The imputation of deviance resides not only in the fact of deviance per se: it also depends heavily onthe meanings that the audience attach to the behavior of the actor.”

It can be argued that their conclusions are not necessarily derivable from the data available from their research. The

17linkages between appearances and behaviors of the actors and imputations made by audiences to the actors remain inferential and cannot be verified from the findings of their field experiment.

The assertion that appearance"provides the potential reactor with information that enables him to locate an actor on a high-low evaluative continuum (Steffensmeier and Terry, 1973:423)"

is based solely upon observation of the reactor's behaviorstoward the shoplifter and not on the meanings that theappearance and behavior of the shoplifter had for thereactors. The purpose of this paper was to explore in moredetail the subjective basis for overt reactions to rule-breaking behaviors. For this purpose, a closer examinationof the role of perception in the imputation of identity isessential.

Our perceptions are ultimately dependent upon sensory processes (Kant, 1966). However, there remains the question of the nature of their interpretation. Because our perceptions are immediate and direct, they lead to the early naive belief that the interpretation process was fixed and built in. However, because our perceptions are highly selective, contemporary theory depicts man as an active processor of information (Kelley, 1971). The world is not merely imprinted upon us; instead, we play an active role in the construction of our reality (Berger and Luckman, 1967). In short, we 'select* variables in perception based on the meanings that they have for us.

18This selective perception affects the kind of identities we construct of others.

In this process, we select certain 'definitions of the situation'^ and either keep them or change them (Eagly and Chaiken, 1975). More specifically, the perceiver seems to seek stability even though the information he has about the situation may change. This stability depends on the ability of the perceiver to organize and combine informa­tion from different sources to maintain that stability.

Stability in perception is a result of the applica­tion of relationships between personal and situational variables which define others as a joint product of their traits and of mediating factors (Calhoun, et al., 1975).In this paper, the importance of distinguishing between identity o£ and identification with actors is stressed in the context of intervening mediating factors between audience perceptions o£ and reactions to rule-breaking behaviors. To examine adequately how these mediating factors affect the construction of identities, we must take into consideration the aspects of perception in which this stability is derived.

One of the aspects involved in the perception of others is that our perceptual definition also includes inferences about personality characteristics (Zanna, 1972; Bernhardson, 1970; Messick, 1972). To derive stability, we infer that individuals have certain traits which explain or make understandable their behavior over time. The

19perceiver takes a dominant role in selecting the traits of the other person he is observing and thus, defining. He does not passively record these properties of the other person, but selects and organizes his perceptions in terms of categories which are particularly useful and have meaning for him. Thus, the fact that we infer properties to others is of central importance in the derivation of stable identities.

Attribution theory concerns itself with the process by which we infer dispositional properties of another person from our perceptions of him.2 An attribution, as defined by Freedman, et al., (1978:102); "is the inference an observer makes about the internal state of an actor or of himself on the basis of overt behavior." The pioneering work of Fritz Heider (1944; 1958) pointed out that people desire to predict and control their environment and that the process of predicting the behavior of others rests upon the stability derived from attributing invariant character­istics to them.

In summary, three orientations related to the construction of identities have been examined: (1) inter-actionist-labeling theory, (2) person perception and (3) attribution. Interactionist-labeling theory concerns itself with (deviant) identities (an image or description of an individual) by which the stigmatized person is forced into a (deviant) role as prescribed by the identity, or he accepts the identity as his own. Person perception

20concerns itself with how we perceive these images or identities^ by analyzing: (1) the characteristics of theindividual being perceived, (2) mediating factors and (3) characteristics of the individual doing the perceiving. Attribution theory concerns itself with the inferences an observer (labeler) makes about an actor on the basis of perceived overt behavior and appearance.

It is from these three orientations— symbolic interactionist-labeling theory, person perception theory and attribution theory— that important variables have been derived as essential for a more detailed study of the labeling process. Those variables are personal experi­ence, hedonic relevance and personal involvement. However, discussion of these very specific notions is reserved until the last part of this chapter. The above discussion only generally links labeling from an interactionist perspective to person perception and attribution theory. Basically, they all concern themselves with some aspect of the construction of identities. What is needed is a more intricate linkage of these three orientations.

Language, Person Perception and StereotypesIn this section the notions of language and

stereotypes are introduced in addition to the notion of person perception for further articulation of the relation­ships involved in the construction of identities. The purpose is to more closely link together interactionist- labeling theory, person perception and attribution through

21language and stereotypes. From this discussion we can then proceed to the following section of this paper which developes these notions as they take place in the role- taking process.

A specific link between labeling, person perception and attribution that is most useful for the purposes of this study is language. A major reason for using language is that it allows us to deal adequately with a crucial theoretical issue, the issue of structural vs. situational determinants of identity. From the perspective of this paper, determinants of identity have their grounding in language. This notion is expressed by McCall and Simmons (1966:223):

"The members of various societies, including our own, are so thoroughly enculturated, so buried in the very languages they learn, that they never completely shake off this type of ethnocentrism, and social definitions become their self-definitions.’’

In light of this notion, the nature of the study at handtakes on significance.4

In this study, we are dealing with more generalizednotions of role than with more specific notions of role.That is, in a shoplifting situation, the person perceivedis a complete stranger. McCall and Simmons (1966:70)emphasize that:

"In interacting with strangers, we at first orient ourselves toward them in terms only of the ill- specified contours of their social roles. Such early interactions are, consequently, rather shallow, silted and uncertain."

In this study specific roles such as those of 'doctor,'

22•policeman,' 'student,* are not made explicit. Instead, the information that the reactor does have is derived from appearance and behavior. In the absence of personal knowledge of the other, we rely heavily upon our ability to attribute to others characteristics from limited information.

With information supplied by appearance only, identities as implied by role are far more generalized.The relationship between appearance, behavior and identi­ties as expressed by McCall and Simmons (1966:130) is one where:

"A person's social identities are not ordinarily to be physically perceived but are to be inferred from his appearance and especially, his actions. Social identities are seldom simply read off from a person's appearance but must be inferred from visible clues and from his behaviors."

Stone (1962:402-403) points out that two major contribu­tions of appearance to the construction of identity are:(1) appearance constitutes the other as a reality with meaning, identity and value and (2) appearance bridges the past and anticipated future with the present. Thus, these two aspects of appearance are integral to that phase of social interaction which establishes identification of self and other.

In this study appearance depicts socio-economic status, i.e., a "rich/poor" dichotomy which carries with it a more generalized conception of identity instead of the more specific identity of say 'doctor,' 'policeman,' etc.

23Therefore, the influence of specific role identities asculturally grounded should not come to play. As stated byMcCall and Simmons (1966:109):

"We tend to perceive only the gross outlines of people and events that lie any distance from our own positions in the social structure. Our appraisals of the very rich, the very poor, tend to be exceedingly super­ficial . "

Thus, the identity that is constructed should be based more upon general cultural underpinnings rather than upon specific role expectancies. The meanings of these under­pinnings, however, are linguistically grounded, and what still remains for consideration is the degree of structure in these identities as determined by language.

Perception is structured by language. Perception involved the experiencing of something,*^ we have feelings which may be ambiguous, feelings of familiarity or strange­ness. These feelings are very real even though we cannot label them exactly. However, we do categorize® from our experiences certain events or objects by the use of language (Whorf, 1956). Our experiences differ in their complexity, level of abstractness and importance and the nature of these experiences is inherent in the process by which we categorize them.

Although a person's experiences seem to be both immediate and structured, participation by the individual is part of their construction. One of the most salient aspects of the individual's participation in constructing his experiences is the categorizing process. People

24extract stimuli from the world and place them into a set of categories made up of words which are high level abstrac­tions. This categorization process is a good example of the effect of language on the structuring of experience.

This structuring of experience by language isexpressed by Whorf (1956:137):

"The cue to a certain line of behavior is often given by the analogies of the linguistic formula in which the situation is spoken of, and by which to some degree it is analyzed, classified, and allotted its place in that world which is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group. And we always assume that the linguistic analysis made by our group reflects reality better than it does."

What is of importance then for our analysis are the effects of these categories upon the imputation of identities as grounded in language.

The categories we use in constructing identities are derived from our past experiences and are grounded in our use of language and our cultural background (Hayakawa.1964). Some of these categories act as cultural universals and are agreed upon by the masses. However, because some people may employ different sets of categories, change categories, and differ in how they match data with categories in the process of perceiving others, then, whether it is culturally based categories or specific situational aspects which more determines an identity is left for examination (Chase, 1954). There are two important influences which may affect why we might employ different sets of categories and/or change categories in

25light of the present situation: (1) our past experienceand (2) goals or future states. Thus, these two influences "charge" the present situation and categories used with meaning (Merleau-Ponty, 1965).

One property of the individual as an information processor is that he utilizes a language which possesses a set of implicative relationships (Whorf, 1956; Hayakawa, 1964; Chase, 1954). The stimuli provide the raw material; and the individual, with the use of language, provides the meaning. However, the individual, in categorizing people and events, not only relates them to past experience and present situations, but these aspects of the individual are further affected by the fact that he anticipates the future (Mead, 1962, 1913). This notion provides another link between labeling, person perception and attribution.

How we perceive people, infer characteristics to them, and construct an identity of them is dependent upon how we categorize them. Our categorizing process is influenced by the fact that past experience, language, and present motivational states or goals for the future influence our perceptions of the present. Our past learning has a significant influence on perception, but it always operates within a framework of purposive activity (Webb, 1978). The experience-derived categories we apply are determined by the purposes we are trying to accomplish (Quine and Ullian, 1970; Pierce, 1877). Structure is inherent in the use of these categories (and rules for

26applying them)7 and is derived from socialization.

Perceptual dimensions are learned in the process of socialization. As emphasized by McCall and Simmons (1966: 110) :

"Past training and experience have a great deal to do with how one perceives situations and other people.The learned cultural patterns, the perspectives engendered by social position, and the individual's personal history all enter into the determination of which subset of incoming stimuli one perceives and which he ignores. One's cultural belief system learned during socialization, the sum of one's experi­ences, and one's currently salient roles all contribute to the composition of what he is set for perceiving in a situation and in other people."

There seems to be agreement within a particular culture onpersonality characteristics, or what may be called'stereotypes,' which tend to be more general notions ofpersonality characteristics than are usually implied byspecific roles (Passini and Norman, 1966; Mulaik, 1964;D'Andrade, 1965). These stereotypes are likely to be inpart linguistically determined and, given that thereappear to be stable dimensions of meaning in our culture(Osgood, et al., 1957), it may be that we constructstereotypes by applying those dimensions of meanings. Inthis sense stereotypes are culturally structured. With theuse of language we incorporate stereotypes into theconstruction of identities.

In summary, the notions of language, person perception and stereotypes have been articulated to examine more closely the relationships discussed in the preceding section. A perceiver may categorize his perceptions of

27otherB based upon culturally derived stereotypes whose usage is learned in socialization and whose structure is grounded in language. One of the major factors of the perceiver as found in Median theory is the importance of the meanings that these stereotypes have for him.

Mead's (1962, 1913) emphasis on the importance of language in this process becomes even more significant in the examination of the notion of role and identity in relation to the role-taking process involved in labeling. Before proceeding to that discussion, however, it is necessary to dispense with a theoretical concern underlying the issue of structure vs. situational determinants of identity. That concern is the issue of structure vs. process.8 If structure and process are placed on opposite ends of a continuum then, theoretically, there is some (middle) point on that continuum which can not be distin­guished as either structure or process, but as both. For the purposes of this study the construction of identities is just such a phenomena.

Role-taking, Role and IdentityIn this portion of the chapter the notions of role-

taking, role and identity are introduced to tie together the concepts discussed in the first two parts of this chapter. Role and identity are utilized to pull together those concepts discussed up to this point in the study into one conceptual framework-role-taking. It is through

28the process of role-taking that identities are produced.It is from the various orientations previously discussed that three final important variables which are essential for the assessment of the labeling process can be pre­sented in the next and concluding section of this chapter. Those variables are: (1) personal experience, (2) hedonicrelevance and (3) personal involvement.

In general, role-taking is the process whereby in reading and interpreting the gestures of others, humans communicate and interact.^ They become able to read each other. This role-taking is the ability to see the other’s attitudes and dispositions to act (Mead, 1962, 1913). Contemporary theorists such as Lindesmith and Strauss (1977:282) emphasize role-taking as "imaginatively assuming the position or point of view of another person.”

Role-taking as an act necessarily incorporates aspects of person perception and attribution as discussed above. We first must perceive an individual in a social context. In this perception, we attribute traits to him, and continuing this process, we ’take-his-role' in order to respond. Bernard Meltzer (1978:23-25) presents this notion adequately in his discussion of Mead's unit of study— the act. An act such as role-taking involves expressive, subtle and vicarious dimensions of human behavior. Any behavior is built upon necessary units of human activity, all of which require the presence of the other. Such units of behavior are perception, symbolic

29interaction, meaning, self, etc.

However, role-taking as discussed by different theorists is viewed in different ways. As commonly used in labeling theory, role-taking involves the appropriating of attitudes as one's own. As Head (1962:369-371) states, the individual in constructing a self takes the response of others. He responds to himself through the eyes of the other. Thus, he becomes an object to himself and responds to himself as others would. This attitude toward self is the attitude of the other. Elaborating upon Mead's notion Turner (1956:318-23) emphasizes that identification comes about in role-taking when others' attitudes are appropri­ated as one's own and becomes a complete self-conception which directs his behavior. A review of the literature indicates that in the articulation of role-taking, there is little consensus on its use. An array of concepts such as sympathy, empathy, affective, cognative (Rotenberg, 1974), social intelligence (Walker and Foley, 1973), empathetic imagination (Stark, 1966), have been used to elaborate upon this process. As implied by Deseran et al., (1978) two of the major issues involved (also in this study) are structural vs. situational and empathetic vs. rational role-taking.

The issue of role-taking as being determined by structural as opposed to situational dimensions is also expressed in the divergencies of the Chicago and Iowa schools of Symbolic Interaction (tleltzer and Petras, 1970),

30especially in the works of Blumer (1969) and Kuhn (1964). While Blumer emphasizes a processual (situational) view of social organization, Kuhn focuses more on structural aspects of social situations. This difference between role as structure and role as process is at its greatest between theorists of the symbolic interactionist and structural- functionalist bent.

The basic issue is that for theorists like Mead (1962), Blumer (1969), and Shibutani (1961) 'roles' are constantly in a process of being constructed and the individual is an active participant in their construction. But for theorists like Parsons (1937) and Merton (1968, 1976), roles are a part of the organized structure of society and are there a priori to the individual and forced upon him. That is, roles as structural phenomena determine or set limits upon behavior (interactions) rather than interaction determining or producing roles.

The relationship between role and identity is sometimes not examined closely enough by either of these schools of thought. More specifically and more importantly is the focus upon the notion of identity with which this paper is concerned. Role implies identity. Both role and identity are based on the perception of appearances, attitudes, behaviors, etc. Both identity and role depend upon the use of stereotypes in their construction. As was discussed earlier, however, role ususally involves a much more specific or precise image of the individual and thus

31provides a stronger base for expected behavior.Stereotypes as incorporated into roles can be equated with and understood in terms of what Alfred Schutz (1970) calls 'typifications.’ As expressed by Schutz (1970) in his discussion of 'typifications1 the idea is that people know that various types of people behave in typical ways under particular circumstances. These typifications consist simply of a set of standard expectations and assumptions about what individuals think others usually or typically do.

The structural aspect of role, however, as seen from the structural-functionalist perspective is still based upon definitions (and thus standard expectations). Definitions are ultimately grounded in linguistics (Wallace, 1962). This, for the purposes of this study, the issue of structure vs. situational notions of role as depicted by some symbolic interactionists and structural- functionalists is a false issue. From the perspective taken in this study, structural aspects of role are determined by language just as identities are structured by language, as discussed earlier in this paper. This structuring affects the type of role-taking that will characterize interaction and the type of identity constructed in that interaction.

From Head's viewpoint, role-taking is relatively rational in cases of secondary relationships (the level of interest in this paper), and is based upon the

32individual's knowled9e of the generalized properties of the group to which the other belongs. In other words, based upon an identification of an actor (in terms of structural social categories), the actor can take the role of the other in order to properly advance and adjust his or her own behavior (Mead, 19 72:254). Identity in this study was primarily based upon appearance and behavior. In order to examine the relationships involved, it is necessary to articulate and link together the notions of role, identity and role-taking much more closely than has been done to this point. As used thus far language continues to provide a most useful linkage of these notions.

Language provides not only for motivation for behavior through identities as suggested by Foote (1951) but provides grounding for all the central aspects of identity as produced in the role-taking process. The dependence upon learning, the context of previous experi­ence, the symbolic structuring of definitions of the situation, etc., which account for identities attributed to others are linguistically grounded. Language provides for the symbolic constructs (categories, stereotypes, roles) which organize appearance and behavior in particular situations and make them recognizable as identities recurrent in the historical experience of the perceiver (Foote, 1951).

It is by the function of language, and especially of identities ascribed by definitions of people, that

33meaning is provided for individuals. If regularities in human behavior are organized responses to actors which have been identified by common definition, then definitions motivate behavior (Foote, 1951). Identities are there but the important fact is what these identities mean to the perceiver. When one enters a new situation he attempts to relate it to old ones by constructing identities of others. The meanings of these identities are discovered in experi­ence and grounded in language (Foote, 1951).

Language then may be seen as a depository of memory by virtue of which we can call up in the present images of past consummations of acts. Present experience thus "calls-out" past experience through language. Language provides for our shared conceptual apparatus which organizes our accumulation of experience (Foote, 1951). Language in general and definitions in particular are thus the medi­ating links between individuals. If categories of experi­ence motivate behavior (for our interest, role-taking behavior) as suggested by Foote (1951), then verbal categories which structure categories of experience, structure identities. In short, role-taking via identifi­cation is a function of language.

Identification is the process whereby individuals are effectively linked with others by verbal categories which structure their interaction (Foote, 1951). Identifi­cation as a process proceeds by definitions, everyone categorizes his fellows in order to interact with them.

34We do not interact with others as unique individuals but in terms of their identities which we have constructed of them from such variables as appearance and behavior in the role-taking process (Foote, 1951).

Identities give common meaning, and establishment of one's own identity to oneself is as importnat in inter­action as to establish it for another (Foote, 1951) . As expressed by McCall and Simmons (1966:61):

"The basic 'thing* to be identified in any situation is the person himself. For each actor there is one key 'thing* whose identity and meaning must be consensually established before all else--namely himself."

Special identities give meaning to role-taking activity, and one's role in that activity has content only as based upon identity. Thus, for our purposes as it was for Mead, role-taking requires playing sub-overtly the role appropriate to the identity of the other as accurately as one can read off that identity (Foote, 1951). Identity as based upon such variables as appearance and behavior, then, is the key link between role and role-taking— the ability to take-the-role of the other. Thus identity as role must be examined before further elaboration of its relationship to the role-taking process.

Role as defined by Turner (1962:25) is "a pattern which can be regarded as the consistent behavior of a single type of actor (which) exist in varying degrees of concreteness and consistence." In a first encounter between strangers, then, role is the present pattern of

35behavior consistent with variables such as appearance and the situation. Identity, as used in this paper, can be equated with McCall and Simmons (1966:58) notion of 'character':

"A character is a person with a distinctive organiza­tion of such personal characteristics as appearance, mannerisms, habits, motives, and social statuses."

McCall and Simmons (1966:58) define role as"the characteristic and plausible line of action truly expressive of the personality of that character (identity)— If the actor's performance is congruent with that role, the audience attributes to him the corresponding character (identity)."

Thus, identity which is derived in the same manner from thesame variables as role becomes symbolic of or synonymouswith role. As stated by McCall and Simmons (1966:67-76),'role-identity,' which is both 'character* and 'role,' isconstructed by the individual himself. This role-identityis the individual's view of himself. Thus, these twodimensions of role identity encompass both structural andsituational aspects.

Role of the other can only be inferred by theperceiver. Roles in this sense, then, are not culturallygiven, but the language that the perceiver uses inconstructing them is. This notion is elaborated by McCalland Simmons (1966:70):

"Role-identities are not at all purely idiosyncratic but actually include many conventional standards and expectations that would be held toward any occupant of that status. Among the contents of any role- identity are included those vague and abstract expectations as social role. It is through these

36conventional contents of one's role-identities, acquired through the socialization process, that one is irrevocably a member of his culture. The conven­tional expectations provide the structural framework of a role-identity, whereas the individual embellish­ments put some human meat on these arid bones."

For Mead, role is the perspective or vantage point of theother. An individual acts as if he were expressing somerole through his behavior and assigns a higher reality tothe assumed role than to his specific behaviors (Foote,1951). He assigns this higher reality because he is notconscious of hie act until after he commits it (Mead,1962). Thus, it is the only way he can explain his ownbehavior. As expressed by McCall and Simmons (1966:69):

"Role-identities therefore constitute an important set of those perspectives or frames of reference for appraising one's thoughts and actions. They give the very meaning to our daily routine, for they largely determine our interpretations of the situations, events, and other people we encounter."

In this interpretation the individual uses culturallyagreed upon definitions. Thus, the placement of behavior,appearance, etc., in a role context determines identities.

The socially structured world of experience has many dimensions of identities (Foote, 19 51). However, role remains recognizable in spite of the incorporation of individual stereotyping into it. Role as defined by Turner (1962) is a type of actor rather than a type of person. Unique behavior of an individual can be identified as a role if his unique behavior is defined by others to be consistent with their notions of that role. The process of discovering and creating identities out of behavior is

37a process of categorizing behavior by definition. This recognizable criteria for the construction of identities is found in language.

There is constant modification of the context of specific roles, occasional rejection of the identification of a role, and sometimes the discovery or creation of a new role (Foote, 1951). Such modification takes place in the continued interplay between these somewhat vague and incomplete 'role-identities* and the experience of their overt enactment. 'Folk' definitions of role-identities are either already recognized in the group or are comparable to a relevant group (Foote, 1951).

The experiencing in varying degrees of the senti­ments and attitudes of others provide a coherence for their identity (Foote, 1951). Differing degress of involvement in the situation at the time of its taking place, and differing relations between the perceiver and the per­ceived, allow the role-identity to be understood in different ways. In this sense the validation of a role is its incorporation of a common identity. However, it must be remembered that not all people use the same set of definitions for evaluation (Foote, 1951).

The role is more or less imaginary, but not to the perceiver; to him it is a precise constellation of appear­ances and behaviors which describe (define) an actor's identity (Foote, 1951). The description is the definition. Description and definition are not differentiated in role.

38Validity includes a knowledge of what goes together and what does not, based upon the same or similar experiences with appearances, attitudes, etc., and specific behavior carried out by the same or similar individuals (Foote,1951).

Within this framework which guides the role-takingprocess, every role is a way of relating to other roles ina situation (Foote, 1951). Role-taking is the devising oflines of action on the basis of imputed other roles. Thisnotion is elaborated by McCall and Simmons (1966:65):

"We act toward things in terms of their implications for our plans of action, and therefore we have to discover the identity and meaning of every thing we encounter. For every plan of action, there is a classification of things in terms of their relevance to that plan. Once one has properly placed some thing in such a system of categories, he knows how to act toward it from the perspective of the underlying plan of action. In this way, identification as an act of categorization, placement or naming serves to release or inhibit certain acts toward things."

Role-taking then is perhaps most clearly indicated in theconsistency with which people construct identities fromsuch variables as the other's appearance and behavior. Asstated by McCall and Simmons (1966:130):

"When we use a person's behaviors as the basis of our inferences about his identities, we are employing the process of role-taking. Role-taking as a perceptual process lies in its aim to discover not the qualities of a person but the role he is performing before one, and thereby, his operative social identities. In role-taking one is trying to see through the other's specific acts to discover the line of action that gives them direction, coherence, and meaning."

Role-taking is a process of devising and dis­covering consistent patterns of behavior which can be

39identified with particular actors (Turner, 1962). The role-taking process is one in which roles are linguisti­cally identified and given content. The unifying element is the meaning that the other's role has for the role- taker. The importance of meaning is emphasized by McCall and Simmons (1966:105):

"Through this process of social perception we appraise the things and people around us and strive to assess what meanings they may have for the fulfillment of our role-identities. Other people and objects are per­ceived and interpreted in terms of their meanings for us— our definitions and classifications only in part reflect the ’real nature' of things. We create, as much as we define, the meanings of things. The perception of other people and objects as opportuni­ties, as threats, or as irrelevant--and the imputation of qualities to them more generally— is somewhat arbitrary."

Since the role definition (identity) itself directs perception selectively, then role-taking involves selective perception of the actions of others. Role definition incorporates a great amount of selective emphasis organized around some identity which has been imputed to the other (Turner, 1962).

Mead emphasized that through the generalized other the role-taker acts as if roles were real and objective entities (Turner, 1962). Roles are real, but, they are abstract. The perceiver only experiences them as being concrete. This phenomenon requires a 'gestalt' switch in perception. Role-taking is the process of grouping behavior and appearance into consistent identities which correspond to generalized categories of people. As

40expressed by McCall and Simmons (1966:106):

"We can be said to interact, not with individuals and objects, but with our images of them. We deal with them as objects that we have clothed with identities and meanings. We act toward them on the basis of their meanings for us, the implication they have for our manifold plans of action."

This categorization process itself, is a gestalt-formingaspect of role-taking behavior (Turner, 1962).

The perceiver’s role prepares him for various alternative reactions to others on the basis of the situa­tion (Turner, 1962). The more or less definite expecta­tions for the perceiver which are derived from both the role of the other and his conceptions of legitimate and illegitimate behavior, as directed toward the perceiver's role, affect the perceiver's conceptions of identity of both the other and self. Role-taking is thus differential in sensitivity and empathy to the various aspects of identity (Turner, 1962).

Role-taking is a process whereby actors attempt to organize their interaction so that the identity of each can be viewed in the expression of behavior which takes its meaning from the relevance that the behavior in question has for the perceiver (Turner, 1962). Thus, role-taking is affected by the relevance of the situation and behavior involved as derived from the role-taker's personal experi­ence with the same or similar situations and the degree to which he is involved in the present situation (Turner,1962).

41In summary# role-taking is a process whereby

individuals organize their interaction around alternative reactions based upon their and other's roles. Identity is symbolic of or synonymous with these roles. Thus, identity as role is the key link between role and role-taking. Role is a pattern of behavior, a type of actor. As such the placement of variables such as appearance and behavior in a role context determines identities. In this process role-taking incorporates aspects of symbolic interaction, person perception and attribution which are linked together by language, stereotypes and roles. Language, stereotypes and roles provide the framework in which identities are constructed. The type of role-taking that is done affects the identity that will be produced from it. The identities thus constructed are affected by such variables as appear­ance, behavior and the meanings that they have for the perceiver.

The meanings that these variables have for the perceiver are based upon the relevance that they have for him. This relevance is derived from the intricate relationships involved in the role-taking process, rela­tionships among language, stereotypes, and role; among role, role-taking, and identity; and among identity, appearance, and behavior. These relationships are affected by mediating factors such as: (1) the personal experienceof the perceiver, (2) the perceiver's perceptions, values, etc. (hedonic relevance), and (3) the degree of

42involvement on the part of the perceiver in the situation. These three mediating factors are discussed in the last part of this chapter in terms of their possible effects on the construction of identities. Drawn from the symbolic interactionist, person perception and attribution perspec­tives, these notions are applied to the shoplifting situation with which we were concerned in this study.

Personal Experience, Hedonic Relevance and Personal Involvement

In concluding chapter two, three specific notions, personal experience, hedonic relevance and personal involvement are examined in light of the role-taking process and their implications for the construction of identities. These three notions are more closely associ­ated with the type of role-taking done than are the other variables discussed up to this point. These notions and the type of role-taking they facilitate are discussed in terms of their relationship to the identification of an actor and identification with an actor. The identifica­tion with and identification of an actor are in turn associated with the potential consequences of observer reactions.

An alternative approach to role-taking has been offered by Cooley (Stark, 1966, 1970; Hobart and Fahlberg,1965). Role-taking from his perspective involves two conceptually distinguishable aspects. (1) the ascription of one's own attitudes and feelings onto the other

43(projection) and (2) the talcing of the attitudes and feelings of the other (empathy).

The important difference between Mead and Cooley is that for Cooley the role-taking process involves the projection of attitudes and feelings onto others from a personal experiential basis. That is, knowledge of another need not be first-hand or intimate in nature: one can beknowledgable of another's attitudes and feelings through having the same or similar experiences. For Mead, role- taking is less associated with affect or feeling and is based on knowledge of general abstract properties of social classes or subgroups.

Thus, projective role-taking is based on socio­cultural indexes such as behavior and appearance. It is characterized by the placing of identities upon actors and is associated with the identification of an actor. Empathetic role-taking is comprised of personal dimensions of actors such as attitudes and feelings. It is here where Cooley’s suggestion that knowledge of an actor need not be first-hand or intimate in nature, that one can be knowledgable of another's attitudes and feelings through having the same or similar experiences, becomes signifi­cant. The notion is expressed by McCall and Simmons (1966:134-35), that the capacity to take the role of the other requires that the individual's self is at least in part similar to the identity of the other. From this similarity we project our own identity so that we view

44Things in a similar manner as the other. The ability to engage in this aspect of role-taking is derived from our experiences and can be subjective or objective in nature. Role-taking then is affected by the amount of knowledge one has of the other. The knowledge may be direct or indirect as derived through interaction with similar others.

Empathetic role-taking may be characterized by identities coming from indirect interaction with actors based upon past experience and thus be associated with the identification of an actor. Both types of role-taking are associated with identification with an actor. An individ­ual then brings with him to a situation both cultural indexes and personal experiences. Although both are associated with the imputation of identities, one may play a much more significant part than the other. However, for personal experiences (empathetic role-taking) to become the dominating factor in role-taking, the experiences of the reactor must be the same or similar to that of the actor (Turner, 1956).

One type of problem in dealing with the role-taking process is in the use of cultural indexes as indicators in dyadic relationships. It is a problem of identifying that which evolves from interpersonal interaction (situational) or that which is imputed upon the interpersonal interaction (structural) (Hobart and Fahlberg, 1965). In short, how can we tell what most determines a particular identity in

45a particular situation: the sociocultural or personaldimension? Through the assessment of appearance and the imputation of identity in rule-breaking situations, this study empirically addressed this question.

Jones and Davis (1965) suggest that a majorfactor in attribution is hedonic relevance. Hedonicrelevance is the notion that the action observed may havepositive or negative consequences for the perceiver. Asstated by Jones and Davis (1965:237):

"A special and enormously important feature of many person perception settings is that the choice of an actor has significant rewarding or punishing implica­tions for the perceiver...the hedonic relevance of an effect is a function of its motivational significance for the perceiver: does the particular action conse­quence promote or undermine the perceiver's values; does it fulfill or obstruct his purpose? Effects which fulfill a purpose have positive relevance; those which obstruct a purpose have negative relevance."

This notion was applied to a shoplifting situation in a rational framework. For example, the reactor may see the high cost of merchandise as being a direct result of shop­lifting— a negative effect. Or, perhaps in a more general sense he may perceive any 'thief' as potentially harmful to him. Another way that the notion of hedonic relevance was expressed in a shoplifting situation is through an emotional framework; i.e., the reactor's response may be a reaffirmation of his own values— a defense of what he perceives to be moral or immoral or as a reaffirmation of his perceptions based on the identity of the individual and/or himself. McCall and Simmons

46(1966:75) emphasize that:

"Identities are continually in need of legitimation.One of man's most distinctive motives is the compelling and perpetual drive to acquire support for his ideal­ized conceptions of himself. The individual himself wishes to enact his roles, to fulfill his imaginings, to live according to his role-identities. The individ­ual wants very much to be and to do as he imagines himself being and doing in a particular social situation. One seeks interactions and audiences as opportunities for enactments whose intrinsic gratifi­cations he may enjoy and through which he can give himself role-support from his more richly elaborated perspectives. Men seek to live their lives and to live them in light of their role-identities."

This suggests then that the degree of personal involvementon the part of the reactor in a situation is a crucialvariable in the imputation of identity.H This importanceis expressed by Tagiuri and Petrullo (1958:xiv):

"The perceptual situation in which we are most interested is that of a real life with strong ego involvement, for this is the type of situation most important in human behavior."

It can be argued that the imputation of identity involves the degree to which the reactor is personally involved in the situation.^ Therefore, it can be hypothesized that the imputation of personal qualities involving the dimensions of behavior, appearance, and reactor experience also includes the degree of involvement of the reactor in the situation. Specifically, it can be hypothesized that the more relevant the situation to the reactor, the more the reactor will become personally involved. That is, the reactor will actively take part or interject himself into the situation. For instance, in ashoplifting situation the reactor may express a high degree

47of involvement by physically attempting to stop or apprehend a shoplifter. This involvement, it can be argued, will facilitate rational role-taking more than empathetic role-taking. Thus, it can be further hypo­thesized that the more relevant the situation to the reactor, the more he will engage in rational role-taking.

An additional purpose of this study then was tomeasure the degree of involvement on the part of thereactor in shoplifting and non-shoplifting situations andits effects if any upon the imputation of identity. Thedegree of involvement depends upon alternatives forresponse. As stated by McCall and Simmons (1966:82):

"Each of the person's role-identities suggests many concrete actions or performances that he would like to stage, being the sort of person he likes to think of himself as being. Some of these suggested alternative performances are more central and important to the given identity than others."

Part of any particular response is the fact that reactorsseek rewards for their performances. According to McCalland Simmons (1966), there may be intrinsic or extrinsicgratifications for a certain line of action. One type ofgratification that may come into play in a shopliftingsituation is the intrinsic reward of the support ofidentity. As expressed by McCall and Simmons (1966:83-84),potential rewards which would support the present identitywill induce behavior because individuals continaullyattempt to legitimate their self conceptions. McCall andSimmons (1966:150) further elaborate:

48"Many actions or performances are gratifying in themselves, they may be gratifying in that they afford us simply a sense of efficacy, of having done something in the world. Undoubtedly man's most distinctive type of gratification is support for his various role-identities."

For the purpose of this study, no personal involvement on the part of a reactor to a shoplifter was for the reactor to do nothing at all ignoring the incident. Involvement was indicated by the reactor personally confronting-- attempting to stop— the shoplifter or to bring the act to the attention of a third party (store personnel). A significant thrust of this approach is that we are no longer dealing primarily with the normative or structural aspects involved in the imputation of identity, but also with the situation aspects. By ignoring the degree of personal involvement on the part of the observer and the basis of that involvement, previous studies did not adequately deal with situational components. Not only can we deal with the theoretical issue of normative vs. situa­tional elements from this framework, but just as signifi­cantly, we can deal with the theoretical issue of rational vs. emphathetic role-taking. Both theoretical issues are adequately examined from this approach.

The problem in examining the attribution of internal qualities to an actor is that they may be separate from imputations based on the immediate situation. Imputations may be based on past experience, the immediate situation and/or projected future consequences. As stated by Kelley (1967:199):

49"Information dependence can be defined objectively, in terms of potential or actual effects on A's infor­mation level of receiving communication from B, or subjectively, in terms of anticipated or experienced effects."

As with reactions to other problematic situations, reactions to deviant acts involve not only current assess­ment of the situation but consideration of future conse­quences in light of the past. When other information is lacking for the establishment of identity, appearance provides a basis for determining identity and consequently provides a grounding for taking-the-role of the actor in light of potential consequences of observer reactions (Deseran and Chung, 1978).

John Dewey has stated that the deliberative process is a cognitive "experimentation" of imagining different lines of possible action to "see what the resulting action would be like if it were entered upon (Dewey, 1930:190)." Both Head and Dewey have argued that problematic situations illicit an imaginative rehearsal of alternative reactions to situations. The meaning of a particular interactive situation is established through a mental mediating process whereby persons imagine outcomes of their own actions priorto consummating an act (Mead, 1938:16-23).

In summary, three orientations related to the imputation of identities have been examined: (1) inter-actionist-labeling theory, (2) person perception and (3) attribution. These perspectives are linked together by language and the use of stereotypes in the construction

50of identities. A perceiver may categorize his perceptions of others based upon culturally derived stereotypes whoseusage is learned in socialization and whose structure isgrounded in language. The importance of these stereotypesin the construction of identities is the meaning that theyhave for the perceiver.

Identity is symbolic of or synonymous with role. Thus, identity as role is the key link between role and role-taking. Role is a pattern of behavior, a type of actor. As such the placement of behavior in a role context determines identities. The type of role-taking that is done affects the identity that will be produced from it.The identities thus constructed are affected by such vari­ables as appearance, behavior, and the meanings that they have for the perceiver.

The meanings that these variables have for the perceiver is based upon the relevance that they have for him. The relationships between those variables are conditioned by factors such as: personal experience, thedegree of involvement on the part of the reactor in the situation, and the type of role-taking engaged in. These notions are associated with both the identification of an actor and identification with an actor. From this process identities are constructed in light of potential consequences of observer reactions.

FOOTNOTES

!one important notion related to perception is W. I. Thomas's 'definition of the situation' (1978). For a discussion of its implications see McHugh (1968) and Ball (1972).

good organizational review of the literature is Deseran and Saxton (1975). For discussion, see Kelley, (1971) .

^Person perception as stated by Lindesmith et al. (1975:4 09) can be a "vicarious social process which occur when people assess others whom they merely observe or know about, but with whom they interact very little or not at all."

^In this study active reciprocal interaction between actor and reactor is at a minimum or nonexistent. Much of the literature and research conducted in labeling is based on the notion that identities in interaction are negotiated ones. Thus, because active reciprocal inter­action is at a minimum (the actor is unaware or does not respond to the actions of the reactor) in this study then the identities constructed are not negotiated identities as usually depicted in the literature.

5The importance of personal 'experiences' is a common thread running through various schools of thought, i.e., pragmatists such as James (1975), phenomenologists such as Schutz (1970), ethnomethodologists such as Garfinkel (1967) and symbolic interactionists such as Blumer (1969).

®Of concern in this paper is the type of cate­gorizing usually referred to as 'stereotyping.' Stereo­typing refers specifically to particular types of individuals which is derived from common definitions. A similar related notion is Schutz's (1970) 'typifications.1

7Garfinkel's (1967) ethnomethodology emphasizes the study of the methods used by folk or people. One central notion is that rules which frame our behavior are derived from experience. Hence, the emphasis is on the organiza­tion of perception (occasional corpus) which results in action becoming meaningful.

51

52®From an reductionist perspective all matter is a

process. Whitehead (1929) points out that we tend to think in terms of "simple location" viewing all phenomena as more or less fixed entities in time and space. However, whether a particular phenomena is stable or fluid depends upon one's perspective. For Whitehead for instance, a cnair or table is in process. The chair or table is simply changing at a much slower rate than certain other phenomena. In terms of human behavior, Whitehead (1929:193) wrote: 'Pro­cess is the becoming of experience."

In articulating this theoretical concern, the focus will be on aspects of labeling that relate to cognative processes. Specifically, the theoretical concerns involved in this study are; person perception, attribution and symbolic interaction. In this manner, labeling is viewed as a cognative activity. This view is grounded for instance in the notion that the thoughts of the reactor (labeler) are an ongoing unbroken process. Stated clearly by James (1890:240): "The confusion is between thethoughts themselves, taken as subjective facts, and the things of which they are aware. The things are discrete and discontinuous; but their comings and goings and contrasts no more break the flow of the thought that thinks them than they break the time and space in which they lie— the transition between the thought of one object and the thought of another is no more a break in the thought than a joint in a bamboo is a break in the wood— it is a part of the consciousness as much as the joint is a part of the bamboo." Thus, the concerns of this paper is with factors involved in this type of cognative activity in interaction. The elements, interaction and relationships involved do not exhaust all those possible under the ruberic of cognative processes but are those central to the at hand.

9For an articulated discussion on role-taking the reader is referred to Hewitt (1976). His notion of the difference between 'role-taking' and 'role-making' exemplify the notion of 'role* as a construction.

l^The reader is referred to the discussion of this issue in Turner (1978).

^ T h e degree of personal involvement is closely related to one's own identity and is expressed in percep­tion first of all (and probably most importantly) in selection. That is, we 'select' or perceive some things while ignoring others. Identity is based on what we have selectively perceived.

5312The 'involvement* of the perceiver in a social

situation can be on one of two levels: at one level isconcrete or physical involvement. At another level there is abstract involvement. That is, one can be 'involved* in a situation through his ideological, belief and value systems.

Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

DesignThe experiment was modeled after the Solomon Four-

Group Design (Campbell and Stanley, 1963:24-25). Subjects were randomly assigned to four treatment groups, each exposed to separate experimental stimuli in the form of video tapes depicting shoplifting and non-shoplifting behaviors of actors of high and low socio-economic status (S.E.S.) as suggested by the appearance of the actors.^- The four experimental stimuli thus were comprised of (1) low S.E.S. shoplifter, (2) low S.E.S. non-shoplifter,(3) high S.E.S. shoplifter, and (4) high S.E.S. non­shoplifter (see Figure 1). Half of the subjects for the shoplifting treatment responded to a pretest questionnaire (Figure 1; 01 and 05) midway through the tape and prior to exposure to the behavioral stimuli, all subjects responded to a post test questionnaire. This procedure allowed for an explicit empirical examination of the effects of both the behavioral stimuli and actor appearance on audience reactions.

Independent VariablesAppearance was operationalized by varying the

54

55

Low S.E.S. High S.E.S.

Tape 1 R 0^ X 02 R X O3

Tape 2 R 04

Tape 3 R 05 X 06 R X 0?

Tape 4 R O g

R = Random assignment of subjects.0 « Measurement.X ■ Behavioral stimulus (shoplifting).Tape 1 = Low S.E.S. shoplifter.Tape 2 = Low S.E.S. non-shoplifter. Tape 3 = High S.E.S. shoplifter.Tape 4 = High S.E.S. non-shoplifter.

Figure 1Modified Solomon Four-Group Design*

♦Source: Campbell and Stanley, 1963:24.

56attire and grooming of the actor. Results from pilot studies were used to determine the appropriate appearance for each S.E.S. type. Low S.E.S. identity was portrayed by using low quality, worn clothing and unkept grooming and high S.E.S. identity was portrayed with stylish clothing and a well groomed appearance.^

Behavior was operationalized as shoplifting and non-shoplifting. The scenes were taped in a retail store using a stationary camera in order to approximate the manner in which video equipment is typically used to deter shoplifting. The field of view included an isle of dis­plays leading to a cashier and exit. The actor (male) entered the field browsing among the displays. After approximately two minutes of examining specific items, the actor walked past the cashier and out the exit. The shop­lifting sequence occurred when the actor quickly placed the last item handled (a knit shirt) under his top coat before exiting. The actor replaced all of the items before exiting in the non-shoplifting sequence. Each scene was carefully rehearsed and timed to insure accurate replica­tion across treatments.

The personal experience of respondents was operationalized according to self reports. Subjects were asked to indicate on a check list the degree to which they had been personally involved with shoplifting experience prior to observing the tape. Items included: "shopliftedalone," "shoplifted with friends," "with others who

57shoplifted but did not shoplift self" and "observed other(s) shoplift." It should be noted that earlier studies (Deseran, 1972; Deseran and Chung, 1978) found a fairly even breakdown between self reports of shoplifting and non-shoplifting experiences.

Central to my research was the question of the degree of personal involvement of the reactor in the situation. In order to operationalize this notion, a third person was incorporated into the field of view in each taped scene. The third person— a browsing shopper— was strategically placed so that (1) he observed the action of the actor, (2) he was in a location between the actor and the exit, and (3) he was of approximately equal distance from the actor and the store clerk. The scene was contrived so that the third person had three possible choices of action upon observing the shoplifter: (1) hecould personally attempt to confront or stop the shop­lifter, (2) he could report the act to the store clerk or (3) he could do nothing at all— ignoring the act. The degree of personal involvement on the part of the respondent was obtained by responses to a questionnaire given immediately after viewing the scene. This was comprised of two sets of questions depicting the three possible choices of the third party in the scene. In the first set of questions the respondent was asked: "Whatshould the person who observed the shoplifter have done in your opinion? (1) stop the shoplifter himself, (2) tell

58the store clerk of his activity or (3) do nothing. The second set of questions asked the respondent what he would have done if he were the third person in the scene.

Dependent VariablesDependent variables were derived from subject

responses to questionnaires. Pretest questionnaires were administered randomly to half of each shoplifting treat­ment during a break in the video presentation. This break occurred prior to the actor's exit and therefore reflected responses based only on the actor's appearance. Post test questionnaires were administered to all respondents immedi­ately following the end of each tape. Questions ranged from perceptions of actor intentions and internal dispositions, to respondent experiences with and general reactions to shoplifting.

Attributions of dispositional qualities of the actor were obtained from a set of fifteen semantic differential items as used by Deseran and Chung {1978}. Subjects were asked to rate the actor for each item on a 9-point scale where the extremities of the scale represented the maximum positive or negative evaluation for each item, i.e., trustworthy/untrustworthy, honest/dishonest, etc.The responses were subjected to factor analysis using the varimax rotation procedure to determine identifiable factors. Mean scores for responses to these items, were treated as indicators of judgments of personal qualities

59of the actorB.

The semantic differential scale followed a technique developed by Osgood et al_. (1957). A 9-point, as opposed to a 7-point\ scale was used following the suggestion of McCroskey et al. (1967-68) that "the actual change in intensity of response is greater between the next to the end and end positions than between any others (p. 645)." Factor analysis was applied to the semantic differential items to derive scalable dimensions.Grinstead and Gregory (1969) suggest using factor analysis to examine the three primary sources of variation: scales,concepts, and subjects. "Thus scores may be analyzed for differences between scales, subjects, and concepts, or between any combination of these (p. 393).'*

The semantic differential scale is not a specific test but a technique that depends for its content upon the subject being studied. As Osgood et al. (1957) described it: "...a very general way of getting a certain type ofinformation, a highly generalizable technique of measure­ment which must be adapted to the requirements of each research problem to which it is applied (p. 76)." The semantic differential was thus applied to this study.2

The imagined consequences of alternative reactions to deviant behavior was operationalized by the question,"If he were accused of shoplifting, how would the subject be affected personally, in your opinion." Five statements followed each which were answered on a 9-point scale from

60"definitely no" to "definitely yes." The subject would(1) be extremely upset emotionally, (2) be concerned thathis family would think poorly of him, (3) be concerned that his friends would think poorly of him, (4) be more con­cerned with the inconvenience or costs involved than with reactions of family or friends, and (5) consider it a fact- of-life and not be upset one way or another. Composite mean scores for the first three of these five items were treated as an index of the respondents' imagined impact (high) being caught shoplfiting would have on the actor. Scores for the last two (4 and 5) were treated as an index for low imagined impact.

Statistical MethodsAs Campbell and Stanley (1963:25) suggest, no one

statistical procedure makes use of all observations in this design simultaneously. However, depending upon the specific question at hand, several techniques can be used. The main effects of appearance and behavior can be assessed using a 2x2 analysis of variance. The effects of pre­testing can be determined by comparing raw means (referring to Figure 1) and possible interaction effects by comparing cell means. Also, analysis of covariance can be applied to the treatments with pretests. Although less precise and not specified by the experimental design, multivariate analysis could be used to explore the effects of background variables derived from questionnaire items.

FOOTNOTES

*See Deseran (1972) for an extended discussion of creating appearances for experimental research.

^For a selected review see: Brinton (1961), Carteret al. (1968-69), Deutschmann (1959), Tucker (1971), Heise 7X95?), Weskel and Hennes (1965), Grinstead and Gregory, (1969), and McCroskey et al. (1967-68).

61

Chapter 4

FINDINGS

Derivation of ScalesSemantic Differential Item Scale. Three scales

were derived from attributes obtained from the fifteen semantic differential items discussed in Chapter 3 and reproduced (Part 1, G) in Appendix A.* The responses were subjected to factor analysis using the varimax rotation procedure to determine identifiable factors.^ Three sets of items loaded at .5000 or higher, each which represent dispositions related to attributes of the actor,^

As indicated in Table 1 by asterisk, the items in Factor 1 were: trustworthy, moral, considerate, conforming,sincere, and honest. Factor 2 items were: friendly, open-minded, polite and attractive. Factor 3 items were: responsible, faithful, principled, and reliable.

Although a purely subjective catagorization,Factor 1 was interpreted to indicate imputation of internal dimensions of the actor.* Derived from philosophical, religious, and social underpinnings, internal attributes are generally associated with the basic structure of the personality or 'character* of the individual. In short, the individual is a 'moral* person. Geared toward a world

62

63

Table 1

ROTATION HETKCOO VARIMAXRCTjhTEC f a c t o r p a t t e r n

FiCTCRl F ACTOR 2 F ACTOR 3TRUSTWORTHY 0.70412 * C.125C3 C.45368MORAL 0.66416 * 0.1417b 0.46400c o n s i d e r a t e 0.81638* C.20520 0. 14551CONFORM IMG O.TTbli * 0.16547 0.15092FRI2N0LY 0.18S34 0.76321* 0.10056SINCERE 0.56665* C.25C2T 0.35443RESPONSIBLE 0.39341 0.27415 0.75967 *OPEN-MINDED 0.08630 0.5411C* 3.35679f a i t h f u l 0.23652 0.19871 C. 6299C *PR INC[PLEO 0.49035 C.26534 0. 61318 *r e l i a b l e 0.264 7b C.18C57 0.66B21 *HONEST 0.63460 * C.12388 0.55666POLITE 0.22453 C.837 lb* 0.00310CONSERVATIVE 0.32161 C.49153 0.19117ATTRACTIVE 0.32664 0,67592* 0.23064

ORTHOGONAL TRANSFORMATION MATRIX

1 2 31 3.64176 -0.43677 -0.630362 0.29BG5 0.69941 -0.2197*.3 -0.7C66C -0.01733 -0.70740

PROPORTIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO CC*hCN VARIANCES 67 ROTATED FACTORS

F4CT0R1 FACTQB2 FACT0R3 3.649013 2.6624Tb 3.365690

64view, the 'moral* individual is the honest individual. To the degree that this derived internal character of man directs his behavior, it is to that same degree, that he is conforming to that viewed basic nature (as derived from philosophical, religious, and social underpinnings).

Factor 2 was subjectively interpreted to indicate imputation of expressive dimensions of the actor. The physical appearance of the individual is generally socially evaluated, i.e., certain traits are 'attractive* or 'unattractive.' Part of that physical appearance is the persons mannerisms, stature, movements. In everyday life and through such social evaluation as this, evaluative notions such as 'friendliness,' 'politeness,’ and 'open- mindedness* are generally associated with appearance.

In the same manner, Factor 3 was interpreted to indicate attributes related to cultural, interpersonal dimensions. Social interaction is evaluated in terms of desired relationships between individuals. Such notions of interaction are used in terms of a person's 'depend­ability' in carrying out his part of that interaction. Particular individuals aB part of that interaction are evaluated as 'reliable,' 'responsible,' 'faithful.* Upon such evaluation then the individual is, in a general sense, socially respondent. In short, he is principled.

Mean scores for responses to these items weighted by their factor loadings were thus treated as indicators of judgments of dimensions of personal qualities of the actor.

65Imagined Impact Scale. Imagined impact scores

were derived from a set of five responses on a 9-point semantic differential scale ranging from "definitely yes" to "definitely no" in reference to statements concerning the potential impact on the actor if he were accused of shoplifting (Appendix A; Part 1, F). The responses were subjected to factor analysis using the varimax rotation procedure to determine identifiable factors. Two sets of items loaded at .5000 or higher each, which represent the imagined impact upon the actor in relation to the possi­bility of being accused of shoplifting.

As indicated by asterisk in Table 2, the items in Factor 1 were (1) the subject would be upset emotionally,(2) the subject would be concerned about what her/his family would think of her/him, and (3) the subject would be concerned about what her/his friends would think of her/him. The items in Factor 2 were (1) the subject would be more concerned with the inconvenience or costs involved than with reactions of family or friends, (2) and the subject would consider it a "fact-of-life" and not be upset one way or another. The items in Factor 1 are items which may be interpreted as relating to notions of a personal impact upon the actor. The items in Factor 2 are items which may be interpreted as relating to notions of an impersonal impact upon the actor. In order to make responses to these scales consistent in direction with each other the values for the items in Factor 2 were reversed.'*

66

Table 2

PGTAIJCN M£Tt-OCO VAPIMAX ROTATED FACTOR PATTERN

EMOT JC'.ALLY UPSET CO'lCEF.N About FAMIL* CONCERN ABOUT Fa I ENOS INCCNVE IME'XE AND COSTS A FACT-Of-L1F£

FACT OP1 FACTC«20.78258* C.9304? * C.91720* *0.10787 0.31531

0.15*180.028440.C493O0.87237*0.74673*

CRTMCOCNAL TRANSFORMATION MATRIX

1 21 C.96218 0.272402 -0.27240 C.96216

PFCPQRTICNAL CONTRIBUTIONS TC CCrMCN VARIANCES »V ROTATES) FACTORS

FACTOR 1 FACT0R2 2.430410 1.345648

67Personal Experience Score. To derive a measure­

ment for personal experience of the respondent, subjects were dichotomized into two groups— per their prior experience with shoplifting. Those with prior experience with shoplifting and those with no prior experience with shoplifting. If respondents answered yes to any one of six questions about personal involvement in different shop­lifting situations (Appendix A; Part 4, A-F), they were classed with the experienced group (N=82). If respondents answered no to all of the six questions, they were classed with the non-experienced group (N-72). Experience was thus treated as a dichotomous variable.

Respondent Reaction Score. The same process was utilized for determining the respondent's reaction to the incident as was experience. Questions asking respondents what they would have done (as an observer) if they per­sonally were in the situation depicted in the taped scenes (Appendix A; Part 1, J), were dichotomized into two classes. The categorizing was based upon whether the respondent would either report the incident to store personnel (N*147) or whether the respondent would simply ignore the incident (N-28),6

Findings

Behavior and Appearance. The basic model for this research was a 2x2 factoral design to test the main effects

68of appearance and behavior upon the attribution process. That behavior was found to be significant is evident in Table 3. As expected, the behavior stimuli was found to result in statistically significant differences on all three attributional scale scores: internal dimension(F=19.61, p^.0001), expressive dimension {F“4.74, p^.03), and interpersonal dimension (F=17.49, p*t.0001).^ On all three attributional scales: internal dimension, expressivedimension, and interpersonal dimension, the shoplifter was judged more negatively than the non-shoplifter.

Appearance was found to result in statistically significant differences on only the expressive dimension (F-13.63, p«.0003). On the expressive dimension the low S.E.S. appearance was more negatively rated than the high S.E.S. appearance. On the internal dimension where behavior was highly significant, appearance was not statistically significant (F-3.78, p - NS.) although there was a tendency for the low S.E.S. actor to be more nega­tively rated. Appearance was also not statistically significant on the interpersonal dimension although the direction of response was similar to that for the internal dimension. With no interaction effects between appearance and behavior on any of these dimensions, they may be considered independent.8

As an additional check on the basic model, a pre­test/post-test design was used with only the shoplifting treatments. The pre-test part of the questionnaire was

69

Table

70given prior to the shoplifting act and the post-test part of the questionnaire was given after the act. A pairwise test of the differences of means was conducted on this data pairing each subject within pre-test/post-test treatments.^ The results are clearly indicated in Table 4. Behavior (pre-shoplifting = test 1 and post-shoplifting = test 2) was specifically tested. For this model shoplifting behavior was highly significant (F=67.48, p<.0001). On both high and low S.E.S. appearance, the shoplifter elicited a more negative response than did the non­shoplifter. A' pearance was not statistically significant and there were no interaction effects.

Imagined Impact. As indicated in Table 5, there were no statistically significant findings with the inclusion of the variable imagined impact into the basic model. For perceived personal impact and behavior the non-shoplifter was rated as undergoing a higher impact for being accused of shoplifting than the shoplifter (F«2.15, p<.1443). The findings on appearance and perceived personal impact (F-.79, p<.3754) indicate that the high S.E.S. appearing actor was perceived as undergoing a higher impact for being accused of shoplifting than the low S.E.S. appearing actor. Behavior and perceived impersonal impact findings although not statistically significant (F-1.12, p<.2920) indicated that the shoplifter was perceived as experiencing a higher degree of impact for being accused

Table 4

I M I H i M \tn*f

i ( ft

» * n w i 4

» ■ * ( « • t

( w i t f i f (i i n f n f 1 1

)»* tt*n / . u u r m

*1. rtiir.l iMt

M U S « U I « i

; , u m i i i 4 i

'l.f'llJfllr'f*

« • I * . i o u t

S tl * IH «

« ,* /*# f t irt

* - SOL**) * .¥.

|«, H(K-«

\i »«< MiH

t t R N t l

u t i t m f t l 1 H I I M I 1 I I f &«mMiHftrMT

i4 /

I1

H M I s \

U ift | ,44,tinii>*t‘t 11 0,4/14 10 t'J

4 . 4 I 1 . 4 /

4 1.0 f l . i t i

f l , f

0.4 M • 4 .< H K * U.OitU l ■>.> *••*»

UVt |* \\I

4/1I

I . . V ' l l K / tti.iirirbn'f.l|,k*4ft fl ut, >4 (I.(I. f H ' l

f l W I t f f I T r O T N f l F t 4M II4. I K H * f IV * \ t>m 1 i l ( U M l M I I * \ Ml f M f t l H I M

M M H f

1IIIIIMp f

1

If FI IV *\ 1 . 1 f ' J f ' J *

f v * m (

/. 1"F l ( *

t, 1 .'U

M t l

m i r s t t fmt w i f

* i uor i s**t m

i.i\riwi4v t ) i M / r n

s i n FftKI S U M

t ,I . I O l / U l l

vmm . iI 'Jtit W 4 M - I *

4 . 0 4 0 1I . W O I

1*l*|M*lf tf/41 *10 fM FWI« , I1 * • « Jiff ' * * * 4 * WHH I N « 4

WtiM * . ■ . ! , I 4 - W H / * * f . 1 # W » 0 4 4.4*M»Il iM 1 | I , ) I . I 7 H / 1 / I I 1 , 1 0 * 1 1 * 1 1 4.4«H»I

IfSI iPf ItffMf inf**F Mh 144 ff'4 , I| INI M linfftM *UKI| Ml «N*MI 1 O . M h l lI I fi.n*i4i//i) o . v N m tI | t . l H l M i r i d . h M I l M 4.IMHIIf 1 I J V t l l t l l O . I O T 4 4 / * n . i f i h i l

72

©©

•f

©

oGJr-tXIft}

ft5hU

Xft.

s<©V*

*k*g+

©j*

""i T C1^ J*. s? + *• *

S' V oM h> M * • •*m a ©

t‘%<v

*©

u" e* k/» ^ * 4& l/ 1 *hb: 4k vn « N 14. —A a Ip> * » if If* w‘ * ©< ** p* M t l ^ c * c X

o 5 M 4* _ c «*■* a ft. “ \< 3 *v *# % o — a 3 r -t i/i r* C O O — J' .e*a <J © u. % w •** ■c X

k. • * • 0. 1 I t 14 * *o O * » -1 o < *

• j 5 ■*4 *< t *k © a k*1z IP*c V? s

14Ayj Xa

■4- K- 4T Ife m iT-C « * c c 4

C

c

i*i C =

c9*4» ^ w.C ^ C

ta £ 1 roiRftito

it*t*l

itn

■>! i .^iiM'i'.n^

i.mihmhi

73of shoplifting than the non-shoplifter. Finally, for S.E.S. appearance and for perceived impersonal impact upon the actor, the low S.E.S. appearing actor was seen as under­going a higher impact than the high S.E.S. appearing actor (F=.04, p*.8422).

Experience. With respondents prior experience (with shoplifting) incorporated into the basic model, an interaction effect was indicated between experience and behavior (Tables 6, 7, 8). Experience was statistically significant (F=5.62, p<.01) with the internal dimension (Table 6). Experience was not statistically significant on either the expressive dimension (Table 7) or the inter­personal dimension (Table 8). The interaction effect between experience and behavior on the internal dimension (Table 6) (FM.87, p<.02) may be explained by the 2x2factoral design utilizing their least squares means (Table 6). This indicates that non-shoplifting behavior (Behavior Number 2 in Table 6) elicits less negative responses from subjects with no prior experience with shop­lifting than it does from subjects with prior experience with shoplifting. Apparently, subjects with shoplifting experience tend to rate others more negatively irrespective of behavior.

The same interaction effect was found for the expressive dimension in Table 7 (F=3.73, p<.05). However, there was also the additional effect found here (Table 7)

74

Table 6

Of*«NCI*T y*4l 4ft

fDv»C(4t>0* L

COftMC’iO T0 T*t

INItlML OllhIOl 0# M ut SOkiAAEf* l»***0ftll?2

I * * 1 * 4 . Cl * 4 3 3 4*

11 3 2 0 * . 4 i m * f *

* VAlUf

i . o

M r *J.wOi

i r j c i «

i. iris*a

i J u ' C l

M m t ICIi f %n r iu n uilt'WlftUitCtM M » K - * U 1

3* TtM 111

If. JftS3*Mt*, DH2 u>4 . > > * ♦ • * HS . O f J i M !

J . W ’ M H t f

* «4iUl M t *

l%.2+ 0.304 1).«! 0*03443**2 O.JHJ*,#f 0*324*;*«1 3.1*1*6,1* 0,3*13

1C41T SJUMfl *14%'K i H l L i n AN

. I O * 0 ) 3 U

t r o ( * ■i S M l l

»»•)« , v

« t«4vL Q« K l L l lL 3 » M *

i j,o*iro*ni* |K0fLlPT13C £ * , U O W 7 3 l

no (itl l * | A U

C.CM 1*HT4*

not , r n Q 0 t l * « » * * J

O.Cctlj . o o j i

mim ivtaibct f t i O t t f t l t I M

S C l l I lL SM M i

4 . i i « * t ; « a 4,13012*1*JTQ C M

i Sh ( aNMO* i T rOOi. IM mO

4 . J 0 0 1o . c d o i

* C P M « |0 * K V f l t l l K l s c u h1 S M I I 4

s.jiuri i*»****««uc

STO I*« L i N l i N

«* i*j*:n*o*2 ijiocnJ . 1 3 7 * 0 * 1 4

*101 ( Ti*4lOt3*|4**i:

c . o i g i

C . J M l C . 0 0 0 L

U A I f lk S A l M

*. r i i*)4ii * + • + 3 3 2 L U 4 . 1 | U t ) 4 l «.*IU IIlt

S t o C M I 1 * 1 * *

2 . 1 1 1 1 ) 1 4 3Q . | t » r f t * 2 ;j.inturih . l ^ C C l l i

M O * i I *001

j . j o a i0*2001J . J O O J4*0001

0 1 * 4 * 1 0 * * C J L f i 4 .1 M 4 *

a . f M U M St*i+t m u1 * J S * 4 4 1 M

iTO M l !&*<*•*

C . I M 4 1 D T 0*1*0012If 0 < . l J l t * l < . 4 C . 2 1 * * 1 1 1 f

* 4 0 * * I NiiCk iM ftM ]

J.wOOI4,0021OpCOOt0*1,001

75

Table 7

I I I C M C ' J C I

1U U * 1 | 0 # i t * o i i O u A M i *i i * i ( u « M ** , *

* 0 9 t t * I T . 3 X 3 * 1 2 1 J . * o J k

1 1 X 0 1 l t 9 , « J * > 2 » 9 » u a u L u i f O J l v

U M I C T f O r CTAL t % Li 2 1 3 . i . I C l W i i

l C l i U I 3 * FTM 111 IS 1 M ( 1

1 1 * * 1 1C*1 1 1( V t t i p o i i M V i o « * t t r i i i u i c t S t l " I X 9 t f ! C « C t » ( * * « IC *• > f 1

1I*kII

n , « * o n j i j6 . 3 1

3 , 6 6 7 2 « I « 7

i . )<» 14-. X

0 * >1 3 . ? J a . J* 6* 3*

1 . 6 X 1O.OOOl 3 . 9 0 1 0 J . J t k ) J . l 1 - * a . o i o r

i l H T U u a l i l * « * * i

s « i S C i k ML i * f M

i r o t H k t # H N

# * J » . 7f JJb. INC IN * j

ii 4 . J 7 0 I L I 7*

4 . I * 1 7 T 1 * TJ . l t M K l

3 - 3 C 0 IJ . - O J l

M K 4 * JO# i t u n L i- * ! 1*

5T*J E M C W i t n

M J f t » T * 0 0 1 1 * 1 *f |* J

i H O T L l f f l Mi i » - M Q * u r r i M G 2 3 . r 0 4 U * * T

3 . 10 9 0 1 3 * 6 6 - I f X o U f

C . 3 0 C k 2 . J u 4 L

i m a i e i c f i l « k f 9 4.1* 1 IN

STO 1 * 1 i J * « * N

m u * , r

t u o t u m i o a i « o r u o « i t f u i t i i c i i l . l t f l l t Q I

d . i i t i i r i i J . J J J l3 . 0 3 0 1

WO tl* 11*1**0.1**3 3*93 A.jHHJU

m u * T N93llJi#*:*«3{ . ^ 0 I 4.6441 ; . v j c i C . O J J l

XI » C * tt9LtHliHj. I4ki«*.3il*214g

srj xi L i m * *

0. UMlj s itJJNIIJH

* « J | , T *064.1*1**06 . JtiOl6.M0I3.6001J.JO-H

t W i l )i W ( * N

tu ft* klM4 4 * * n i , t HJ(K S*C*'I* JKI/D4U2), Jttwni* k.UJilMO

j.kWfj rsj 6.0601j.jgji3 .3 C 6 1) . 3 6 0 l

I-K i*» ( 3 . i

76

Table 8

liMl IIHC!£f*«tML Ll*C*4 ItCCItHE

1 0 U I C I 31 i u » ' )* i o u i i r s *C*« s t l m * H U U l • 4 . *

1 » 1 2 . 1 < * 4 ) J I J • • 4 * 7 1 0 1 0 2 * • 1 3 0« 3 0 9 1

f “ 0 » 1*1 2 • ) • ^ J 2 4 I 2 1 1 1 . 7 2 4 3 t * O J 1TO OS*

C 3 * M C t | 9 '7T*4l 1*3 3 3 1 • 134 7 13 J |

I t j l C I 3* 7 * M t i t 11 1 V t tO F 14 . 1

m » * » r *i dt i t n i i w ; i•0»A*1 ©•■ % tf f 11EWCTl t t > t O H l D ' C t 1 t - I W F ( I « 1 M

1LI11I

] 4 « : i 7 J ) 2 2 » 7 . 7 1 0 L 1 M * M i f u m n

1 0 , • * ■ 1 7 3 ) 1 i . M O l t l l l J . C 1 7 ; * 103

I * , r* 1 . * ) i . n ! * ♦ )t . i o0 . 9 1

3 . 3 9 0 i > . 2 1 * J 3* 2 1 * 4 O . O l M 0 , 2 2 2 4 3 . 1 H 1

1.2OJ20J rt&TD *44

L ^ l l i

9 .1 T 7 * «fc l* ).jTia 11

m u , rMQJLS"(*N> J

J,OOJ 1 j . j m i

SC41.UI lf l( if*

170 ?M4 ll"f *1 H O * . r "<1011*3 4*0HWrL!fTIW 1 l.HtlJIM C.!J*« t«17 Q.22*72111 3*3 101 >• 3001nrruorct s;uu

AM

ftioi ixniUMt l *-Z3r:«i32 niM imitDct i a . i t i o j u j J,1*14*19*

• * 0 * J 7*00* J**! iM* }

l . J J O l 3 * 3 0 0 1

I S " * # *St J I* ■ i i " i * *

Mtlft . TM O m S"< *<M C

1*7*41 r « n

*.0JLlQ1ll9 . 11*0*74*i,

a . n m i ' c

3*090 I

13.0001C • C3 0 I

t u ICUf 4 m e i*

1 . 1*01 m o*♦1*21jfoi 1.22*02)11 l . l f * 14171

i r u f i r I. J*« *Nj . l H i n u 3 . 2 1 1 * 1 * 2 1 0 . 2 * 1 7 0 1 * 1 0*2*11127 I

m u i » t H03C v * t * s « )

1 . 0 0 J I 3 . 3 9 ) 1 3-4001 3 . 3 0 U

3 C 4 t* 4

».*1114412 *•211074)04~«tl*2)7*

;to m iC l * f «*I

0 .1 4 * 3 * 1 * 4

J. )J-.411*2 0.12431312

**J4 » 7- O H SHAM***

3.J93L 3 .1 401 0.JOOt O . 'O O l

a - 1 n * a<

3.1111 1J

77that the non-experienced group rated the shoplifter more negatively than did the experienced group. For the interpersonal dimension (Table 8), these same two inter­action effects (F=5.63, p<.01) were found. The strongest of these interaction effects were elicited on the inter­personal dimension (Table 8) where the mean difference between scores were 1.76 and 1.93, respectively.

Personal InvolvementThe personal involvement of the respondent as

indicated by his responses to the questions asking what he or she would do in the taped scenes is reported in Tables 9, 10, and 11. As reported in Table 9, the personal involvement (report incident or ignore incident) was not found to be statistically significant with any of the other variables. However, as seen in Table 9, there was an interaction effect between personal involvement and behavior on the internal dimension (F=7.31, p<.0076) and between personal involvement and behavior on the expressive dimension (F=3.71, p<.05).

These interaction effects are examined in Tables 10 and 11. On the internal dimension (Table 10) the individuals who responded that they would ignore the shop­lifting incident (as was found with the experienced group) tended to rate the non-shoplifter much more favorably than the group that would report the actor. Evidently, those subjects who would report an individual tend to negatively

79

Table 10

U S r o w D E W ‘ 5 REACTION

G E N E R A L L I U C A R P C 11E I S P P n C e 0 C 1 f

L F A S I S Q U A R E S MEANS

9EMAV IQM SCALC1 LS*EAH5. 131»3S11 3.1*0963)71

STO ERR L S ME an

1. 101107,31 C . 2 2 9 9 1 7 i < l l

PHO'l , T H,10L 3*6 A,. i 1

0.3001 0.0 1C1SES SCALE]

LSNFAN

1.12906733 1.51)10103

STj foa poni? , t LSNFAN MCOLS^EAN*J

0 . 2 3 1 10 7 9 1o . i m o s n

0.0001U.0GJ1REACTION

REPORT 2 IGNORE 3

SCALEl I SHE AN

1.(.09 36509 1.253201C1

STO ERR LSHE AM

0 . 1 0 7 1 6 3 1 1G . 2 7 5 C 9 3 3 2

PROfl , I POOL SNfAN* )

U . 0 J 0 10.0001EXPER1IWCE SCALEl

I S H C A N

PRIOR EXPERIENCE 1 1 . 1 2 1 3 2 1 5 3 « 0 PRIOR EXPERIENCE 7 1 . 5 2 1 71 76 5

STO FT R PPOn i IL SHE AN POOL SHE AN*N

C.;129|17] C.23129173 C.COO 1 0.OuOlREACTION EXPERIENCE SCAlEl LSHE AN

A .01)22 J3 11 1. 1 97H7C? 4.IbtJICHS A .5 159982 i

STC EPR L SME AN

0 . 1 3 6 7 6 0 12 0 . 1 1 0 ) 1 5 2 L 0 . 1 ) 3 2 9 1 3 2 0 . J F 1 2 2 9 2 2

PPflB . T HO ILSHLAN'O

J . C J 0 1 0.JU01 o * oooi 0.0001REACTION S E S SCALE 1

L SHE- AN

A.307)8102 A . a 7 ? J I M | 6 1.35195061 A . 15115 IS J

sro ERRL SMEAD

0. 1)07032 0.111)9321 0.11173863 0.12712fCt

PftOtt . T HLIOL SHE AN*0

O.OCOl 1.000 I 0 . 0 0 0 1 0,0001

Table 11

RESPONDENT' 5 REACTION

GENERAL LINEAR HCOELS P9UCE0Ln F

LEAST SQUARES MEANS

REMAVIOR SCALES L SHEAN

■ * . * 9 1 0 3 7 1 53 . 6 3 5 8 3 2 0 7

STD ERR LSMEAN

c . n s n s o *0.23719310

PHUO , T HOOL >MF 4N*9C.C0 01 0.0001

SE S S C ALE S L S H£ AN

3. m 2*ossA . 3 9 5 S 5 0 E 7

STO ERR L SHE AN

0.0*41 J862 0. 1*1Ro7* 5

priio , t MOOL SHE AN"0

9 . 0 0 0 1 J . C 0 J 1

REACTION S CALES L SHE AN

REPORT 2 3 . 9 7 5 0 7 5 1 9 IGNORE 3 * . 1 5 1 7 6 * 2 3

STO E P « LSHE AN

0 . 1 1 6 5 5 3 2 7 0 . 2 5 2 5 8 0 2 *

PHOD . t TOOL SHL A N - 9

0.0001O.OJOIEXPERIENCE S C AL E S

L SMEAN

PRIOR EXPERIENCE I 3 , 9 7 7 5 6 6 0 5KO PRIOR EXPERIENCE 2 ' < . 1 * 9 2 7 3 1 7

STD ERR L SHEA N

0 . 2 1 3 9 7 6 2 ? 0 . 2 1 2 7 9 5 9 1

PROfl . T L O OL S ME A' HO

0 . 0 0 010 . 00 01REACTION EXPERIENCE SC ALES

L SHE a n

3 . 9 6 8 5 * 1 7 7 *.08160861 * . 0 8 6 5 9 0 3 3 * . 2 1 6 9 3 8 1 2

STO ERR I SHE an0 . 1 * 9 2 1 1 6 9 3 . I S 1 7 1 ? 15 0 . * J 1 1 * 9 5 5 0 . 3 9 * 8 0 0 9 3

PROD . T MOOL S ? E *■1*0

0 . l o r i o.cnoi o.coui0.1JOl

r e a c t i o n s f s scalesl s h e a t i

3 . 3 5 5 8 2 7 9 9 * . 3 9 * 3 2 2 3 9 3 . 9 0 * 7 * 9 1 0 * . 3 9 6 7 7 9 3 5

S T O ERR L SHEA 9

0 . 1 * 6 7 3 6 5 8 C . 1 6 1 6 2 1 8 3 0 . * 6 5 9 1 1 8 7 0 . 3 2 S R S 5 B 6

P RU* , 1MOOLSHEAN- O

3 . 0 0 0 1 0.000 1 O . C O ' l l 0.00 JI

eirate people irrespective of behavior. The group that would ignore the incident more negatively rated the shoplifter as opposed to the group that would report the shoplifter.

The interaction effect between personal involvement and behavior elicited in Table 11 for the expressive dimension indicates that those who would ignore the incident on the expressive dimension are not as favorable to the non­shoplifter as those who would ignore the incident were on the internal dimension. The most significant difference is that the group who would ignore the incident on the expressive dimension would give a more negative rating to the actor for shoplifting than would the group who would report the incident.

Relevance and Action. Two statements taken from a set of four statements about shoplifting in general were used as indicators of the hedonic relevance of the act for the respondent {Appendix A; Part 2, C). Responses on a 9-point semantic differential scale (from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree") to the statement "shoplifting is morally wrong" were taken as an indicator of the moral relevance of the act to the respondent. Responses on the same scale to the statement "the fact that shoplifting results in higher prices is more important than the moral questions" were taken as an indicator of the material relevance of the act to the respondent.

Table 12 indicates that moral relevance was not

82

found to be statistically significant with any of the other variables. Material relevance however, was found to be statistically significant (F-4.49, p .03) with the experi­ence of the respondent. This finding was further examined in Table 13 where t-tests of difference between mean scores for respondents with prior experience and respondents without prior experience with shoplifting were explored. There were no statistically significant differences between the two mean scores. However, although the differences between the mean scores are not statistically significant, the non-experienced group did give a much stronger rating to material relevance than did the experienced group.

Finally, in an effort to get at the projected ’final' response of the respondent to the situation, the respondents were asked "if you could have your way, what actions would you think appropriate for the person you observed in the scene, assuming that the person shop­lifted" (Appendix A; Part 1, K). The responses ranging from "the incident should be ignored" to "the person should be jailed" were taken to be the final action taken by the respondent. As indicated in Table 13, the final action taken by the respondent (as a dependent variable) was not found to be statistically significant with any of the other variables.

84

a

rjE-»

» *v*i C

*i

T1*

s£ -N -« J* * e "* **i '•v — y^ r p - i n ^

■T ^ Ifi — — O* « • * * » • a c 0 0 0 * 0

O <N O O «% ■"* O

t*o

p**

«N * © — 7* *- o— ** X <N « X^ O © %»fc C 'E t/1 ^ iT *#"4 ? o »• e *■ os ^ o ^ ’O ra - 7 < ^ e " \ u * / /

* t I r « < •© ^ O ^ — «%J —

* w> -*&X

b £ S!f* 6 t ?c^ 5 F ► t«s . u u < « 1 L h ! S !2 k

FOOTNOTES

lonly the post-teat questionnaire is replicated in the appendix. The only difference between the pre-test/ post-test questionnaire and the post-test questionniare is the addition of Part 1, G and H, as the first two pages in the pre-test/post-test questionniare.

2This procedure and the tables presented in this dissertation are from the SAS integrated system for data mangement and statistical analysis (see Barr et al., 1976).

^The use of any particular cut off such as .5000 or higher for factor loadings is purely subjective (Hannan, 1976). There have been no standard criteria either logical or statistically based established for the selection of variables based upon factor loadings (Timm, 1975). Thus, the relation of a variable to a factor can be presented as no more than a correlation of the former to the later based upon some subjective evaluation (Boudon, 196 8} .For a selected review of the literature see Winch (1974), Kolzinger and Harman (1941), Costner and Wager (1965), Harman (1976), Timm (1975), Boudon (1968 and Cooley and Lohnes (1971).

^The nature of the attribution process and the relation of attributes to different dimensions are, in everyday use, continually being changed and manipulated (Goffman, 1959) . Characteristics of these dimensions (such as the expressive dimension are unique to each individual and tend to be ephemeral (Scheflen, 1972} . Thus, the classi­fication, categorization, etc., of these relationships are by nature almost totally subjective at any point in time (Ossowska, 1972). For a qualitative perspective on the relationships of attributes to the dimensions presented in this paper, see Scheflen (1972), Ossowska (1972), and Goffman (1959).

5Respondents were asked to imagine the impact of the actor being accused of shoplifting regardless of what behavior was observed.

6The third possible response (to confront the actor) on the part of the respondent was answered by only a few respondents n*5 thus, this response was deleted.

^The level of significance selected for this data is .05 for significant and .01 for highly significant.

85

868These findings were further explored where t-tests

of difference between mean scores for shoplifting and non­shoplifting behavior and, high S.E.S. and low S.E.S. appearance were examined. Behavior for the internal dimension was highly significant (T*4.261, p<.0001). For the expressive dimension behavior was significant (T=2.0894, p<.03), and for the interpersonal dimension behavior was highly significant (T-4.1014, p<.0001). These findings indicate a significant difference between the mean scores of the behavioral stimuli. Appearance was significant on the expressive dimension (T=-3.8748, p<.0002) indicating a significant difference between the means of high and low S.E.S. stimuli. The effects of behavior on the imputation of personal qualities was evident. The shoplifting behavior elicited more negative responses with all three attribu- tional factors than did the non-shoplifting behavior. Low S.E.S. appearance elicited a more negative reaction on the expressive dimension than did S.E.S. approval.

9The pairwise test procedure is commonly used in pre-test/post-test research designs (Ostle, 1963).Although it has been favorably utilized in the field of psychology with such meansurement items as the I.Q. between twins (Hoel, 1971), and in the field of public opinion in conjunction with time series (Tanur, 1972), its most powerful usage has been in the utilization of model testing (Li, 1969). For a selected review of the usages of the pairwise test see Harnett (1970), Dixon and Massey (1969), Freund (1973), Tanur, (1972), Hoel (1971), Ostle (1963) and Li (1969).

Chapter 5

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Interpretation of FindingsAppearance and Behavior. This study brought into

question the research findings that "appearance constitutes a negative identity that results in a greater willingness on the part of the subject to report the shoplifter"(Steffensmeier and Terry, 1973:423). Also brought into question are the research findings that "appearance has little impact on the imputation of negative qualities" (Deseran and Chung, 1978:8). These two studies in conjunction with the findings of this study indicate that audience reactions to deviance may be more complex than is often assumed, especially, when one considers the fact that all three studies focused on reactions to shoplifting.

One reason for these apparently divergent findings may be related to the possibility that the imputation of identity may involve more than one Bet of attributes.Factor analysis of the responses to fifteen individual items (attributes) in this study suggests that for the retail store employees in our sample three types of attributes are involved in the imputation of identity (internal, which includes trusthworthy, moral, considerate,

87

88conforming, sincere, and honest; expressive, which includes friendly, open-minded, polite, and attractive; and interpersonal, which includes responsible, faithful, principled, and reliable). These sets of attributes were distinguished from one another by respondents and associ­ated with different stimuli (e.g., behavior and appearance) in the attribution process.

As was indicated by the responses of retail store employees, behavior was associated with all three dimen­sions: internal, expressive, and interpersonal. Whilebehavior had a significant effect on attributions of all three dimensions, the effect was most marked for the internal and interpersonal dimensions. Appearance, on the other hand, which had a statistically significant effect on the expressive and internal dimensions, was not statistically significant for the interpersonal dimension. Thus, imputing identity to others may not be undimen- sional; sets of attributes may be compartmentalized and referred to in relation to their relevance to specific stimuli. This may contribute to an understanding of the divergent findings among the Steffensmeier and Terry (1973), Deseran and Chung (1978) and present studies.

The use of different types of subjects may also have contributed to the divergent findings of the three studies. Steffensmeier and Terry used store customers as subjects,1 Deseran and Chung used college students, and this study used retail store employees.

89It can be argued that while attribution processes

in a general sense may operate in the same manner, these processes may manifest themselves differently depending upon characteristics of audiences. Where shoplifting behavior is concerned, then, the attribution process may reflect subcultural aspects of specific audiences rather than general cultural aspects (Ba-yunus and Allen, 1979).

It is evident that some factors tend to engulf the entire attributional process regardless of the particular audience which is involved (Snyder, 1974). In this case, as expected, behavior was the major factor. The question remains, however, as to what part that different sets of attributions play (in the imputation of identity) for different groups and what kinds of responses may be associated with them.

Appearance, in the Steffensmeier and Terry (197 3) study, elicited a strong response from store customers. Deseran and Chung (1978) found that appearance, while having a strong effect upon the imputation of impact, had less of an effect upon college students in reference to internal dispositions of the actor. Because neither the Deseran and Chung nor the Steffensmeier and Terry studies specifically dealt with attributional dimensions, it can only be spectulated as to what part different dimensions may have played in the store customers and college students responses.

As indicated in this study, appearance had a

90somewhat moderate effect upon store employees. As expected, appearance in this study was most closely associ­ated with what has been labeled the expressive dimension, less closely associated with the internal dimension, and even less associated with the interpersonal dimension. Considering this finding in conjunction with the finding that behavior had highly significant effects on attribu­tions of the internal dimension, it may be contended that people tend to refer to internal qualities of actors to construct evaluations for behavior more than they refer to external or social qualities (Bord, 1976).

Imagined Impact. The findings in this study bring into question the research findings that "both appearance and behavior result in statistically significant differ­ences in mean impact score” (Deseran and Chung, 1978:8-9). The point of the Deseran and Chung paper was that appear­ance was more salient in considerations of imagined impact. An explanation for this difference in findings may be that in the Deseran and Chung study respondents were college students while this study utilized retail store personnel. Imagined impact upon the other may be a major criteria for the imputation of identity on the part of college students but only a minor one for retail store employees*It may be argued that college students were able to place themselves in the situation more so than store employees. The students may have more closely associated themselves

91with the role of the shopper than did the employees, thus empathizing more closely with the actor. Or, it may be contended that retail store employees may simply be more focused upon the act itself than upon the individuals involved in the act (Hartmann, et al . , 1972; Hindelang, 1974).

This finding does not bring into question the symbolic interactionist notions of role-taking. As stated by John Dewey, "the deliberative process is a mental experimentation of imagining various lines of possible action to see what the resultant action would be like if it were entered upon" (Dewey, 1930:190). The key words in Dewey's statement are 1 resultant action.1 The perceived resultant action can be many different things for different individuals. In any interaction situation, the resultant action doe3 not necessarily have to be the imagined impact upon the other. The resultant action for instance could be the imagined impact upon the self.

For example, a police officer stops a parolee and finds him with a concealed weapon. The officer sends the parolee on his way and then drives to a nearby river and throws the weapon in the water. Now, if resultant action meant that the officer was thinking in terms of the impact on the parolee, one might say correctly that the officer was considering the impact upon the parolee of having his parole revoked and being sent back to prison. Or it could be that the imagined impact perceived by the officer

92was that of sitting at the police station at the end of the day for an extra hour, filling out what seems to him endless bureaucratic forms (in triplicate) necessary for such action. One might say just as correctly, that the impact upon the parolee one way or another simply never entered significantly in the officer's deliberative process.

This notion further elaborates the fact that "reactions to deviant acts are not necessarily undimen- sional imputations of identity but that the attribution of internal qualities to an actor may be separate from imputation of social location" (Deseran and Chung, 1978:9). Perhaps the imagined impact perceived by the store employee is neither a resultant consequence for himself or the actor. The perceived impact may be more generally located, i.e., the less people get away with shoplifting, the lower prices would be.

Finally, it may be noted that considerations involving the effect that reactions may have on an actor are usually influenced by a knowledge that reactions to a behavior are associated with serious sanctions (Dymond, 1950; Hogan and Dickstein, 1972). In this case, serious sanctions may not have been associated with the behavior. That is, retail employees are generally knowledgable of the fact that in most cases very little is done with the shoplifter (Cohen, 1974). First of all, most often the policy of retail stores is to simply warn the individual

93and then turn them loose. Secondly, even in those cases where charges are pressed, the official reaction to shop­lifting is usually probation (Reckless, 1973).

Experience. This study indicated that there were no statistically significant relationships between experi­ence and imagined impact. These findings are congruent with the findings of Deseran et al^, (1978) which were that "the perceiver's experience with shoplifting evidently has no effect on the . . . imagined impact on the actor if caught (p. 11)." However, experience was statistically significant on the imputation of internal dimension characteristics. Subjects with shoplifting experience tended to rate others more negatively irrespective of behavior.^

This is a puzzling finding, especially, when one considers the fact that respondents saw (in the taped scene) the actor leave the store without shoplifting. No explanation for this finding is given. Instead, it is suggested that future research focus not only upon the effects of experience on the imputation of identity, but the degree and types of experience with the deviant act and their effects upon the imputation of identity. The importance of past experience on perceptions is an integral one to labeling theory which demands empirical clarifica­tion. As stated by Mead (1962:113) "the traces of past experience are continually playing in upon our perceived

94world."

Personal Involvement. The findings suggest that subjects who would report an individual tend to negatively rate people irrespective of behavior. This may be because those who are prone to reporting incidents also tend to anticipate the reportable behavior. The explanation might simply be that because they have negatively rated the person (i.e., given him a label) then they are ready and willing to report the (thus stigmatized) individual (Ball, 1972). Just as with the experienced group, however, this finding is also puzzling. The difference between the group who would report the incident and the group with prior experience (both groups rated the individual negatively irrespective of behavior) is that the group who would report the incident indicated that they would respond in a certain way.

As with the finding that those with prior experi­ence with shoplifting tend to rate others more negatively irrespective of behavior, no explanation is evident for the finding that those who indicated that they would report the incident also tend to negatively rate others irrespective of their behavior. It can only be recommended that additional empirical research be done in this area.

This study also suggests that people who would ignore the shoplifting act rate the shoplifter more negatively than those who would report him. It may be

95that for those people who would ignore the act, the negative rating itself constitutes the sanctioning act.That is, the individual sanctions the actor by rating him negatively. This may be why the negative rating was so strong.

It may also be argued however that the individuals who would ignore the act do so because they perceive little or no social sanctions being applied if it were reported (Hindelang, 1974). Thus, they refrain from reporting the act because nothing will happen anyway (so why bother?). Another factor that may come into play in the decision not to report is due to the legal complexities of modern society. Although they may rate the act more negatively than others, some people may not report the act simply to avoid possible legal entanglements (Hindelang, 1974). This may be quite well where imagined impact might come into play. They are really not ignoring the act, but rather avoiding possible self-entanglements.

Relevance and Action. The findings indicated that those who had no previous experience with shoplifting gave a much stronger rating to the material relevance of the act than do people who have had experience with shop­lifting. It may be that people who have had no experience with a particular behavior tend to center their attention upon immediate aspects of the act (Jones and DeCharms,1957). There is no personal grounding for an in-depth

explanation of the behavior. Instead, what is of concern is its consequences in a "cost-benefit" sense (Messick and Reeder, 1972). This may be explained in terms of the notion of future consequences. If a person has had no experience with an act, it may be difficult for him to imagine what any very specific consequences of the act might be. Thus, the consequences in this case may be simply 'higher prices.' This is very plausible in light of the fact that higher prices is a readily accepted account of the impact of shoplifting in the general population.

Another possible explanation of the finding of material relevance on the part of some individuals is that in modern American society people may be oriented toward the practical and material aspects of life. Especially, if one considers the economic situation at the time of this study (inflation) it is understandable that material relevance would come into play in a shoplifting situation.

The action that people would take with the actor if they had their way was not found to be statistically significant with appearance or behavior. This may indicate that people do not readily see themselves in the role of judge, applying sanctions for behavior (Newman, 1974). One possible explanation is that there is no general agreement in the population as to what should be done with shop­lifters. Thus, individuals do not have ready made concrete responses for judgment.3

97In summary, this research suggests empirical

support for seven assertions: (1) The imputation ofidentity involves more than one set of attributes.(2) These sets of attributes are distinguished from one another by respondents and are associated in the attribu­tion process with different stimuli. (3) Audiences impute to actors internal qualities to construct evalua­tions for behavior. (4} The imagined impact of an audience member's reactions may not necessarily be based only on the impact that the behavior has for the actor, it is possible that self implication is important. C5) Some people who would ignore a deviant act rate actors more negatively than those who would report the act. (6) People with no prior experience with a deviant act tend to use cost-benefit explanations for the act. (7) People who rate deviants negatively are less likely to suggest legal sanctions than those who rate deviants less negatively.

General Theoretical Premises

Empathetic vs. Rational Role-taking. Beyond the specific assumptions about appearance and behavior, none of the more general theoretical notions (presented in Chapter 3) were supported by statistically significant findings. Empathetic role-taking, which involves the assessment of impact on the other, was not supported by this study. Although not statistically significant, the data tends to support the rational role-taking of

98George Herbert Mead. That is, the role-taking process involves, to a degree, knowledge of others in a generalized sense (Mead, 1962).

As we approach others about whom we know little, our ability to role-take is based upon our knowlege of the characteristics associated with the subgroup of which the other is a member. The specific behavior of others (e.g., shoplifting) provides indications of the characteristics peculiar of that individual (internal dimension) while the more general qualities of the other (expressive dimension) suggest frames of reference from v;hich to assess the probable implications of that behavior. Thus, as stated by Deseran et aj.. , "We can respond to others as unique beings capable of ideosyncratic behaviors while at the same time make sense of others in terms of our broader social understanding (1978:12)."

Personal vs Situational Attribution. Where the actor and reactor are strangers in a deviant situation, attributions may be based upon situational (and of course behavioral) aspects rather than personal attributes of the actor. Articulate imputations of identity may rely somewhat upon the situation or setting in which the reactor finds himself. The interaction effects between experience and behavior were evident for both the high and low S.E.S. appearing actor. This suggests that rather than any explicit personal attributes of the actor, it may have

99been the situation itself (the fact that the individual was in the store browsing through items) which provided the framework for past experience with shoplifting to come into play.

Criticisms

Theory. The theoretical notions in labeling theory tend to be too general in nature. Labeling theory assumes common processes across the general population. There seems to be a definite need for the development of more specific theoretical propositions. Especially, proposi­tions that would reflect audience subgroups within the general culture. The focus in labeling theory has been on the effects of the label upon the individual. What is needed is also a focus upon what factors affect labeling behavior (Cullen and Cullen, 1978). Factors such as age may play an important role in the labeling process. Age for instance may have contributed to the differences in findings between the Deseran and Chung (1978) and the present study. The mean age of the store employees in the present study was 37.79 years of age. The store employees were substantially older than the college students in the Deseran and Chung (1978) study. Also important, may be factors such as sex, race, educational and political (ideological) groupings.

Methodology. One of the major weaknesses of this

100research is that it did not allow for the probing into of individual responses on a personal basis. One of the most important areas this study attempted to tap, personal meanings, was not sufficiently examined. It is highly recommended that a qualitative approach be used in con­junction with quantitative measures for this type of research. Personal interviews would have added great depth to the findings of this research. Particularly, the respondent's prior experience and the impact (emotional, etc.) which the experience had upon him should be explored. A very important area which is in need of this type of exploration is the reasons why one would report the incident (shoplifting) as opposed to ignoring it? Or, why one would ignore the behavior rather than report it? Finally, an additional important area would be in terms of the relevance that the situation has for the individual, i.e., why is it perceived as only having material relevance and not social or moral relevance?

A second major weakness of this research was due to potential interactions among subjects. The study was conducted over a four day period in the same store.Although subjects were asked in writing on the question­naire and verbally by the researcher not to discuss the research with their associates until after the study was completed and the subjects were drawn from a large pool of employees, by the end of the fourth day there was some evidence that several of the subjects had heard about the

101study. It is suggested that this problem could be overcome by the use of different settings each day. That is, by using fewer employees from several different stores the problem of subject interaction could be controlled more efficiently.

More emphasis on ethnological approaches to label­ing theory would seem to be a step in the right direction. For example, researchers could observe employees as they worked {interact with others) and take part in their day to day activities and discussions. Also, it would be important to focus upon the relationships between store management and personnel. Especially, with respect to store policies and training directed toward employees on how to react to shoplifting situations.4

A major focus should be on those factors that enter into the labeling process and how those factors are associ­ated with subgroups as distinct from the general culture. This would also be important for the analysis of cross­group labeling, where the actor and reactor are from different subgroups within the population. This also points out the need for research in this area on the effects of such factors as race in the labeling process.

ConclusionThese findings point to the fact that there is a

need for further empirical assessment of factors associated with the imputation of identities in rule-breaking

102situations. Especially, there is a need for an articulate synthesis of both a quantitative and qualitative approach. It has been demonstrated that the analytical distinction between the imputation of identity and the attribution process can be empirically assessed relative to reactions to rule-breaking situations.

This conceptualization of the audience in the labeling process has important implications for inter­preting findings in the currently active research area dealing with the field of criminal justice. For instance, studies of simulated juries support the hypotheses that negatively rated defendants would be more harshly judged than positively rated defendants (Shaw, 19 72; Kaplan and Kemmerick, 1974).

Also, as a very practical application (specifically in relationship to this study) it is pointed out that in 1977 shoplifting comprised the 4th largest offense in the larceny-theft category of reported crimes to the F.B.I. Reported shoplifting offenses numbered 616,000 with an average value of forty-two dollars per offense (Government Printing Office, 1978). In light of the fact that most stores attach losses due to shoplifting onto consumer prices (some as high as 6% increase in price), reactions to shoplifting behavior could have an impact not only on those who must get by on fixed incomes at today's high prices but it could have an impact upon the economy itself (Rothman, 1978; Commerical Systems, Inc., 1978).

10 3Although this research has raised questions which

demand further empirical attention, it has offered some useful additions to existing approaches to the labeling or reactance theories of deviance. Basic tenants of the symbolic interactionist perspective, however, continue to provide a useful framework for continuing the empirical exploration of the reactive process.

In particular, the role-taking as suggested by Dewey and Mead, offers a basis for articulating and specifying the nature of reactions to deviance and the meaning of deviance itself. Finally, the central point to be taken from this study, is that labeling theorists have ignored the problem of the conditions under which one attributional dimension would be first constructed and then applied rather than another (Douglas, 1970). Hopefully, future research efforts will address this conceptualization in more detail.

FOOTNOTES

lit should be noted that the Steffensmeier and Terry (1973) study did not specifically concern itself with attributions but with the behavioral responses of the reactor.

2 The experience of the subject was derived from responses to six different questions depicting different situations with shoplifting. The questions ranged from "shoplifted alone" to merely "observed shoplifting." If the responded answered yes to any one of these six questions then he was categorized as having experience with shoplifting. What types of experience or the amount of experience was not used in the analysis.

• One contributing factor could have been that people need a little time to contemplate such a question and, (as can be seen in Appendix A) the questionnaire was lengthy and respondents had a limited time (about 1 hour) in which to answer the questions.

4The store used in this study did not have any specific training programs for personnel in how to react to shoplifting. Store policy simply directed employees to report shoplifting incidents to security personnel. The store relied more upon security personnel and mechanical devices to curb shoplifting than employees.

104

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, N. H. and Lampel, Anita K. "Effect of contexton ratings of personality traits," Psychonomic Science, 1965, 3, 433-434.

Ball, Donald. "The Problematics of Respectability," in Douglas (ed) Deviance and Respectability. New York. Basic Books, 1970.

Ball, Donald w. "The Definition of Situation." SomeTheoretical and Methodological Consequences of Taking w. I. Thomas Seriously. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 1972, 2: 61-82.

Barr, Anthony J., James H. Goodnight, John P. Sail,Jane T. Helwig, A user’s guide to SAS 76. SAS Institute, Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina, 1976.

Ba-Yunus, Ilyas and D. E. Allen. Shoplifting and Residence in College. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology,Vol. 7, No. 1, 19 79. Pp. 12-56";

Becker, Howard. Outsiders. New York: The Free Press,1963.

Becker, Howard. The Other Side. New York: The FreePress, 1964.

Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann. The Social Con­struction of Reality. Anchor Books: New York, 1967.

Bernhardson, Clemens S. and Ronald J. Fisher. "Perceptions of social desirability and frequency of occurrence of traits and the probability that the traits will be endorsed." Perceptual and Motor Skills, 19 79, 30: 571-576.

Blumer, Herbert. Symbolic Interactionist perspective and method. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969.

Bord, Richard J. "The Impact of Imputed Deviant Identities in Structuring Evaluations and Reactions." Sociometry, 1976, Vol. 39, No. 2, 108-116.

105

106Boudon, R. "A New Look at Correlation Analysis," in

Blalock, Hubert M. and Blalock, Ann S., Methodology in Social Research, McGraw-Hill, 1968.

Brinton, James E. Deriving an Attitude Scale fromSemantic Differential Data, Public Opinion Quarterly, 1961, 25(2) Summer, Pp. 285-295.

Brooks, W. N., A. N. Doob and H. M. Kirshenbaum.Character of the victim in the trial of a case of rape. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Toronto, 1975.

Bursten, Ben and Rose D'esopo. "The obligation to remain 3ick." Archives of General Psychitry 12 (April), 1965, 402-407.

Calhoun, Lawrence G., Richard E. Johnson and William K. Boardman. "Attribution of Depression to Internal- External and Stable-Unstable Cuases. Preliminary Investigation." Psychological Reports, 1975, 36: 63-466.

Campbell, Donald T. and Julian C. Stanley. Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963.

Cameron, Mary D. The Booster and The Snitch: DepartmentStore Shoplifting. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1964.

Carter, Richard F., W. Lee Ruggels, and Steven H. Chaffee. The Semantic Differential in Opinion Measurement.Public Opinion Quarterly, 1968-69, 32(4) Winter, Pp. 666-674.

Chase, Stuart. "Power of Words." New York: Harcourt,Brace and Janovitz, 1954.

Cohen, Lawrence and Rodney Stark. Discriminatory Labeling and The Five-finger Discount: An Empirical Analysisof Differential Shoplifting Dispositions. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 11 (January 1974), 2 5 -3 5 '.— H VSoiH TjT^-----------------

Commercial Service Systems, Inc. "Shoplifting Keeps Pace Kith Inflation." Security Management. July, 1978,Pp. 27-50.

Cooley, C. H. Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1902.

Cooley, C. H. "The Roots of Social Knowledge." American Journal of Sociology, Vol XXXII, July 1926-May 1927. 59-79.

107Cooley, C. H. Social Process. Carbondale, 111.: Southern

Illinois University Press, 1966.Cooley, W. and Lohnes, P. Multivariate Data Analysis.

New York, Wiley, 1971.Costner, Herbert L. and L. Wesley Wager. The Multivariate

Analysis of Dichotomized Variables. The American Journal of Sociology. Vol. LXX, No. 4 / January, 1965, 455-466.

Cullen, John and Frances Cullen. Toward a Paradigm of Labeling Theory. Lincoln, Nebraska University of Nebraska Press, 1978.

D 1Andrade, R. G, "Trait Psychology and ComponentialAnalysis." American Anthropologist, 1965, 67, 215- 228.

Deseran, F. A. Shoplifting, Appearance, and Internal Dispositions: An Experiment in Attribution Theory.M.A. Thesis, Colorado State University, 1972.

Deseran, Forrest A. and Stanley L. Saxton, Jr. "The Why, How, and when of Attribution Theory: A Review."Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Sociological Association, Chicago, Illinois.April 9-12, 1975.

Deseran, F. A. and Chang-Soo, Chung. Shoplifting, Appear­ance and Social Reaction: Some Experimental Findings.Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the South­western Sociological Association, Houston, Texas,1978.

Deseran, A. F., John Karlin and H. Gibson. Appearance and the Imputation of Identity in Rule Breaking and Non­rule Breaking Situations. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Mid-South Sociological Associ­ation, November, 1978, Jackson, Mississippi.

Dewey, John. Human Nature and Conduct: An Introductionto Social Psychology. New York: Modern Library,19 30.

Dion, Karen, Ellen Berscheid, and Elaine Walster. "What is beautiful is good," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 24:285-290.

Douglas, Jack. The American Social Order. Glencoe: TheFree Press , 1971.

108Douglas, Jack D. "Deviance and respectability: The social

construction of moral meanings" in J. Douglas (ed) Deviance and Respectability. New York: Basic Books,1970. Pp. 3-30.

Durkheim, Emile. The Rules of Sociological Method. New York: The Free Press, 1938.

Deutschmann, Paul J. The Semantic Differential: Its Useand Abuse. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1959, 23(3),Fall. Pp. 935-438.

Dymond, Rosalind F. "Personality amd Empathy." Journal of Counsulting Psychology, Vol. 14, No. 5, October,1950. Pp. 343-350.

Eagly, Alice H. and Shelly Chaiken. "An AttributionalAnalysis of the Effect of Communicator Characteristics on Opinion Change: The Case of Communicator Attrac­tiveness." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32: 136-144.

Efran, Michael. "The effects of physical appearance on the judgment of guilty, interpersonal attraction, and severity of recommended punishment in a simulated jury task." Journal of Research in Personality, 8 (June)1974. 45-54.

Erikson, Kai. T. The Wayward Puritans. New York: JohnWiley and Sons, 1966.

Empey, Lamar T. American Delinquency Its Meaning, and Construction. Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1978.

Foote, Nelson N. "Identification as the basis for atheory of motivation." American Sociological Review. 16: 14-21, 1951.

Freedman, Jonathan L., David O. Seans and J. Menvill Carlsmith. Social Psychology. Englewood Cliffs,New Jersey. Prentice-Hall, 1978.

Garfinkel, Harold. Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1967.

Giddens, Anthony. New Rules of Sociological Method. New York: Basic Books, 1976.

Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm L. Strauss. The discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine, 1974.

109Glaser, Barney and Anselm Strauss. "Awareness contexts and

social interaction." American Sociological Review,1964, 29:699-679.

Glassner, Barry and Jay Corzine. "Can labeling theory be saved?" Journal of the Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction" 1978, 1:74-89.

Goffman, Erving. Asylums. New York: Anchor, 1961.Goffman, Erving. Stigma. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:

Prentice-Hall, 1963.Goffman, Erving. The presentation of self in everyday life.

Doubleday and Company, Inc., Garden City, New York,1959.

Government Printing Office, Crime in The United States 1978. Washington, D.C.

Grinstead, Mary Jo and Cecil L. Gregory. Relevant Con­cepts Via the Semantic Differential with Factor Analysis: An Empirical Test. The SociologicalQuarterly, 1969, 10(3) Summer. Pp. 391-399.

Hall, Jerome. Theft, Law, and Society, 2d ed.,Indianapolis: Bobs-Merrill, 1952.

Harman, Harry Horace. Modern Factor Analysis, 3rd ed., Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1976.

Hartmann, Donald P., Donna M. Gelfand, Erent Page, and Patrice V*alder. Rates of Eystander Observation and Reporting of Continued Shoplifting Incidents. Criminology, 10 (November 1972). Pp. 247-267.

Hastorf, Albert II., David Schneider, Judith Polefka.Person Perception. Reading, Mass.: Addison-KesleyPublishing Company, 1970.

Hayakawa, S. I. "Language in Thought and Action." New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1964.

Heider, F. "Social Perception and Phenomenal Causality." Psychological Review, 1944, 51, 358-374.

Heider, F. "The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations."New York: Wiley, 1958.

Heise, David R. Some Methodological Issues in Semantic Differential Research. Psychological Bulletin,1969, Vol. 72, No. 6 , Pp. 406-422.

110Hepburn, John R. "The Role of the Audience in Deviant

Behavior and Deviant Identity." Sociology and Social Research, July 1975, Vol. 59, No. 4, 387-405.

Hewitt, John P. Self and Society. Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Boston, 1976.

Hindelang, Michael J. Decisions of Shoplifting Victims to Invoke the Criminal Justice Process, "Social Problems," 21 (April 1974) Pp. 580-593.

Hobart, C. W. and Nancy Falhberg. "The Measurement of Empathy." American Journal of Sociology, Vol. LXX,5 March 1965, 595-603.

Hogan, Robert and Ellen Dickstein. "Moral judgment andperceptions of injustice." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 23 (September):409-414.

Holzinger, Karl John and Harry H. Harman. Factor Analysis: A Synthesis of Factoral Methods, Chicago, 111. University of Chicago Press, 1941.

James, William. Principles of Psychology. New York:Henry Holt and Company, Vol. 1, 1890.

James, William. "Pragmatism." Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press, 1975.

Jones, E. E. and K. E. Davis. "From Acts to dispositions: The Attribution process in person perception," in L. Berkowitz (ed) Advances in experimental Social Psycho­logy, Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press, 1965.

Jones, E. E. and R. deCharms. "Changes in Social Percep­tion as a function of the personal relevance at behavior.Sociornetry, 1957, 20, 75-85. HMI.S8Jones, E. E. and Harold B. Gerard. "Foundations of Social

Psychology." New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967.Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Anchor Books.

New York, 1966.Kaplan, Martin F. and Gwen D. Kemmerick. "Juror judgment

as information integration: combining evidentialand nonevidential information." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 30:4$3-49d.

Kelley, H. H. "Attribution Theory in Social Psychology," in D. Levine (ed.) Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1967. Vol. 15. Lincoln, Nebraska: University ofNebraska Press, 1967.

IllKelley# H. H. "Attribution in Social Interaction#" in

E. E. Jones# et al.# "Attribution," Morristown# New Jersey: General Learning Press# 1971.

Kitsuse# John. Social Reactions to Deviant Behavior.Social Problems 9 (Winter) 1962, 247-56.

Kuhn, Manford H. "Major Trends in Symbolic Interaction Theory in the Past Twenty-five Years." Sociological Quarterly 5 (winter) 1964, 61-84.

Landy# David and Elliot Aronson. "The influences of the character of the criminal and his victim on the decisions of simulated jurors." Journal of Experi­mental Social Psychology, 1969, 5:141-152.

Lauer, Robert and Warren H. Handel. Social PsychologyThe Theory and Application of Symbolic Interactionism. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1977.

Lemert, Edwin M. Social Pathology. New York, McGraw-Hill,1951.

Li, Jerome C. R. Statistical Inference. Edwards Brokers, Inc., Michigan, 1969.

Lindesmith, Alfred R., Anselm Strauss and Norman K. Denson. Social Psychology. Hinsdale, 111. The Dryden Press, 1975.

Lindesmith, Alfred R. and Anselm Strauss. SocialPsychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,1977.

McCall, George J. and J. L. Simmons. Identities and Ineractions. The Free Press, New York, 1966.

McCroskey, James C., Samuel V. 0. Prichard, and William E. Arnold. Attitude Intensity and The Neutral Point on Semantic Differntial Scales. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1967-78, 31(4) Winter, Pp. 642-645.

McGeorge, C. "Situational Variation in Levels of MoralJudgment." British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1974, June, Vol. 44 (2) 116-172.

McHugh, Peter. Defining the Situation. Indianapolis:The Bobbs-Merrill Co.# 1968.

McPhail, Clark. Experimental Research in Convergent with Symbolic Interaction. Journal of the Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction, "(Forthcoming).

112Mead, George H. "The Social Self." The Journal of

Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods. Vol. X, Jan-Dee., 1913, 374-380.

Mead, George H. "A Behavioristic Account of the Signifi­cant Symbol." The Journal of Philosophy. Vol. XIX, Jan.-Dec. 1922,T57-163.

Mead, George H. The Philosophy of the Act. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938.

Mead, George Herbert. Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1962.

Meltzer, B. N. and J. W. Petras. "The Chicago and IowaSchools of Symbolic Interactionism" in T. Shibutani,(ed) Human Nature and Collective Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1970.

Meltzer, Bernard N., John W. Petras, Larry T. Reynolds. Symbolic Interactionis, Genesis, Varieties and Criticism. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 19 75.

Meltzer, Bernard N. "Mead's Social Psychology" in Manis, Jerome and Bernard Meltzer (eds) Symbolic Interaction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1978.

Merleau-Ponty, M. "Phenomenology of Perception." New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1965.

Merton, Robert K. Social Theory and Social Structure.New York: The Free Press, 1968.

Merton, R. K. The Role-Set: Problems in SociologicalTheory in Coser, Lewis and Bernard Rosenberg (eds) Sociological Theory. New York: MacMillian PublishingCo., 1976, Pp. 294-303.

Messick, David M. and Glenn Reeder. "Perceived motivation,role variations, and the attribution of personal characteristics." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 8:482-491, 1972.

Mulaik, S. A. "Are Personality Factors Raters'Conceptual Factors?" Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1964, 28, 506-511.

Newman, G. R. "Acts, Actors, and Reactions to Deviance." Sociology and Social Research, July 1974, Vol. 58,No. 4, 434-TTo .

113Newman, Graeme R. "The Effects of Stereotypes upon

Perceptions of Deviance." Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, Sept., 1974, 7, 3. 135-143.

Newman, G. R. and Carol Trilling. "Public Perceptions of Criminal Behavior: A Review of the Literature."Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 2, No. 3,September, 1975. 217-236.

Newman, Graeme R., "Toward a Transnational Classification of Crime and Deviance." Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 6 , No. 3, September 1975, 297-315.

Nesdale, Andrew, Brendan Rule, and Marilyn McAra. Moral judgments of aggression: personal and situationaldeterminants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1975, 5:339-349.

Osgood, C., G. J. Succi, and P. H. Tannenbaum. "TheMeasurement of Meaning." Urbana, 111.: Universityof Illinois Press, 1957.

Ossowska, Maria. Social Determinants of Moral Ideas.The University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1972.

Parsons, Talcott. The Structure of Social Action. New York: McGraw-Hill, 19 37,

Passini, F. T. and W. T. Norman. "A Universal Conception of Personality Structure?" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 44-49.

Peirce, C. S. "Illustrations of the Logic of Science:First Paper— The Fixation of Belief." Popular Science Monthly, Vol. XII, November 1877, 1-15.

Pilivian, Irving and Scott Briar. Police encounters with juveniles. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 70,No. 2 (September 1964, 206-14.

Quine, W. V. and J. S. Ullian. "The Web of Belief.” New York: Random House, 19 70.

Quinney, Richard. Criminology Analysis and Critique of Crime in America. Boston: Little Brown 6 Co., 1975.

Reckless, Walter C. The Crime Problem. Pacific Palisades, California: Goodyear Publishing Co., Inc., 1973.

Robin, Gerald D. Patterns of Department Store Shoplifting. Crime and Delinquency, 9 (April 1963), 163-172.

114Rotenberg, Mordecai. "Conceptual and Methodological Notes

on Affective and Cognitive Role Taking (Sympathy and Empathy): An Illustrative Experiment with Delinquentand Nondelinquent Boys." The Journal of Genetic Psychology. 1974, 125, 177^18^

Rothman, Marian Burk. "Internal and External Theft: VJhatIt Costs." Stores, January 1978. Pp. 44-46.

Ribington, Earl and Martin S. Weinberg. Deviance the Interactionist Perspective. New York: MacMillianPublishing Co., Inc., 197 8.

Rule, Brendan, Ronald Dyck, Marilyn McAra, and Andrew Nesdale. "Judgments of Aggression serving personal versus prosocial purposes." Social Behavior and Personality, 1975, 3:55-63.

Scheff, Thomas J. The Societal Reactions to Deviance: Ascriptive elements in the psychiatric screening of mental patients in a Midwestern State. Social Problems II (Spring), 1964. 401-13.

Scheff, Thomas J. Being Mentally 111. Chicago: Aldine, 1966.

Scheff, Thomas J. Negotiating Reality. Social Problems 16 (Summer), 1967, 3-17.

Scheflen, Albert E. Body Language and Social Order. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,1972.

Schur, Edwin M. Crimes without Victims. Englewood Cliffs,New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1965.

Schur, Edwin M. Reactions to Deviance: A Critical Assess­ment. American Journal of Sociology, 75 (November) 1967: 309-22.

Schur, Edwin M. Labeling Deviant Behavior— Its Sociologi­cal Implications. New York: Harper and Row, 1971.

Schutz, Alfred. On Phenomenology and Social Relations. Helmut Wagner (ed) Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1970.

Seligman, Clive, Nancy Paschall, and Glenn Takata."Effects on physical attractiveness on attribution of responsibility." Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 1974, 6 (July) 290-296.

Shaver, Kelly G. An Introduction to Attribution Processes. Cambridge, Mass.: Winthrop Publishers, Inc., 1975.

115Shaw, Jerry I. "Reactions to victims and defendents of

varying degrees of attractiveness." Psychonomic Science, 1972, 27:329-330.

Shaw, Marvin and Phillip Constanzo. Theories of Social Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1970.

Shibutani, Tamotsu. Society and Personality. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1961.

Smigel, Erwin O. Public Attitudes Toward Stealing as Related to the Size of the Victim Organization.American Sociological Review, 21 (June 1956), 320-327.

Snyder, Melvin L. The Field Engulfing Behavior: AnInvestigation of Attributing Emotional States and Dispositions. Unpublished Dissertation, Duke University, 1974.

Stark. Stanley. "Role-Taking, Empathic Imagination, and Roschach Human Movement Responses: A Review of TwoLiteratures." Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1966, 23, 243-256.

Stark, Stanley. "Gemeinschaft, Inner Creation, and Role- Taking (Empathy): III. Charles Horton Cooley on'Social' vs. 'Spatial.* ('Material') Knowledge," Psychological Reports 26: 183-210. 1970,

Steffensmeier, D. J. and R. M. Terry. "Deviance andRespectability: An Observational Study of Reactionsto Shoplifting." Social Forces, June 1973, Vol. 51,No. 4, Pp. 417-426.

Steffensmeir, Darrell and Robert Terry. Examining Deviance Experimentally. New York: Alfred Publishing Co.,1975.

Steffensmeier, Darrell J. "Levels of Dogmatism andWillingness to Report "hippie" and "straight" shop­lifters: A Field Experiment Accompanied by homeinterviews." Sociometry 38: 282-290, 1975.

Steffensmeier, Darrell J. and Renee Steffensmeier. "Attitudes and Behavior Toward Hippies: Fieldexperiment accompanied by home interviews." Sociological Quarterly, 16:3 393-400. Summer 1975.

Stoll, Clarice S. Images of Man and Social Control.Social Forces, 47 (December), 1968, 119-27.

116Stone, Gregory. Appearance and Self in Rose (_ed) Hunan

Behavioral and Social Process. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1962, 86-118.

Sutherland, Edwin H. and Donald A. Cressey. Criminology. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1970.

Szasz, Thomas. The Manufacture of Madness. New York:Dell Publishing Co., 1970.

Tagiuri, Tenato, Robert Blake, and Jerome Bruner. "Somedeterminants of the perception of positive and negative feelings of others." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1958, 48:585-592.

Tagiuri, Renato and Luigi Petrullo. Person Perception and Interpersonal Behavior. Stanford, Calif.: StanfordUniversity Press, 1958.

Terry, Robert M, and Darrell J, Steffensmeier. "TheInfluence of Organizational Factors on Willingness to Report a Shoplifting Experiment: A Field Experiment."Sociological Forces, 1973, 6 : 27-45.

Thomas, w. I. The Definition of The Situation in Jerome G. Manis and Bernnard N. Meltzer (eds) Symbolic Interaction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1978.

Timm, Neil H. Multivariate Analysis with Applications in education and psychology. Monterey, California, Brooks Cole Pub. Co., 1975.

Tittle, Charles R. Deterrents or Labeling? Social Forces, Vol. 53:3, March 1975, 399-409.

Tucker, Raymond K. Reliability of Semantic Differential Scales: The Role of Factor Analysis. Western Speech35(3), Summer 1971, Pp. 185-190.

Turner, Johnathan. The Structure of Sociological Theory. Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1978.

Turner, Ralph H. "Role-Taking, Role Standpoint, and Reference Group Behavior." American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 61, January 19J>(5 (Bobbs-Merrill Reprint).

Turner, Ralph H. Role Taking: Process vs. Conformity inArnold M. Rose (ed) Human Behavior and Social Pro­cesses. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1962, 20-40.

117Vander Zanden, James W. Social Psychology. New York:

Random House, 1977.Walker, R. E. and J. M. Foley. "Social Intelligence: Its

History and Measurement." Psychological Reports, 1973, 33, 839-864.

Wallace, Anthony F. C. Culture and Cognition. Science,Vol. 135, No. 3501, February 2, 1962.

Webb, Rodman B. "The Presence of the Past." University of Florida Monographs Social Sciences No. 57, Gainesville, Florida: Unviersity of Florida Press,1978.

Webster, Murray, Jr. Actions and Actors. Cambridge, Mass. Winthrop Pub., Inc., 1975.

Weksel, William and James D. Hennes. Attitude Intensity and the Semantic Differential. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, Vol. 2, No. 1, Pp. 91-94.

White, Garland and James McCarthy. "Social Status andthe applications of sanctions to hypothetical criminal offenders." Sociological Focus, 1976, 9:251-264.

White, Garland R., "Public responses to hypothetical crimes: effect of offender and victim status andseriousness of the offense on punative reactions." Social Forces, 1975, 53:411-420.

Whitehead, Alfred N. '’Procress and Reality." New York:The Free Press, 1929.

Whorf, Benjamin Lee. "Language, Thought and Reality." Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1956.

Wilson, Thomas. "Conceptions of Interaction and Forms of Sociological Explanation." American Sociological Review 35: 697-710, 1970.

Winch, Robert F. Heuristic and Empirical Typologies:A Job for Factor Analysis. American Sociological Review, Vol. XII, No. 1, February 1947, Pp. 68-75.

Zanna, M. P. and David L. Hamilton. "Attribute dimensions and patterns of trait inferences." Psychonomlc Science, 1972, 27:353-354.

APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRE

1KTHCDUCTI0K

Date obtained from thle questionnaire will be used In • study con­

cerned with dimension* related to the interpretation of behavior. The

data will be aolely the property of Louisiana State University and will

not be available to any other organisation or Institution. The statistical

result* of the study will be available upon request.

The research is being conducted by John E. Karlin and Dr. Forrest

A. Deseran, Department of Sociology and Rural Sociology at Louisian*

State University.

DO HOT put your none on the questionnaire. The study 1* concerned

with patterns of responses and not with identification of individual

respondents.

If you do not choose to participate, simply return the unmarked

questionnaire when they art collected. If you have consents about the

questionnaire, feel free to write then on the back side of the last

page.

Thank you.

118

119

INSTRUCTIONS

Please DO WOT page through tha questionnaire or talk during tht

study. It la Important that you fill out tha questionnaire ONLY whan

dirertad to do i d .

You will firat ba shown a video tape and than be askad to fill out

the quaationnalra. Tha tapa la short and will only ba shown once. Thus,

you will want to pay CLOSE attention In watching tha tape. Tha purpose

of filling out the questionnaire after watching tha taps is to gat an

Idea of what 1* involved in tha perception of others in social settings.

Thera are a number of questions and a L D U TED TIME in which they

Must ba answered. Thus, in answering tht questions give only your

PtlEDIATE or FIRST IMPRESSIONS ■

STOP! DO NOT CONTINUE UNTIL DIRECTED.

120

part i

We ar* interested In tha degree to which you faal tha balov H a t ad atatamanta reflect your thoughta aa you watched tha tapa. Slnca you are limited to vhat you have seen in a few minutee of video tapa, do notworry about accuracy; SIMPLY GIVE TOUR FIRST IMPRESSIONS.

Next to each atatement la a acale. Decide whether or not you agree with the ■tetement, then CIRCLE THE LINE which moat cloaely approximate* the degree which you are aura of your interpretation.

Example: Definitely DefinitelyYou could aaa the video 00 — ***t.p. clearly. |__J____|__ 1 1 1 i (f) I

A. From what you could see,m - th#a « bi*/*h*h?PllftJk Definitely Definitely(i.e., did he/ahe leave the *pramisea with merchandiseWithout paying?) I I [ 1 I 1 1 1 I

IF YOU ANSWERED ON THE "NO’1 SIDE OF THE SCALE FOR QUESTION 1, SKIP TO QUESTION F ON THE NEXT PAGE.

B. The subject entered the store with the intention of Illegally taking merchan­dise.

C. The subject was aware that she/he vat walking out of the atorc without paying for some merchan­dise.

D. The subject purposely concealed merchandise from store personnel.

E. The subject likely had no intention of taking any­thing at first, but decided on impulse to walk out with out paying for tha merchan­dise.

I 1 1 1 I I I I 1

I ! 1 ! i 1 1 1 1

1_ _ _ _ I_ _ _ I . 1 _ J _ _ _ l_ _ _ i_ _ _ i_ _ _ i

I I I I I I I I I

121

F. If she/he ware accused of shoplifting, how do you Chink the subject would be affected personally? (answer these questions even If you thought the subject did not shoplift):

1. The subject would be upset emotionally.

2. The subject would be concerned about tdiat her/ his family would think of her/him.

3. The subject would be concerned about what her his friends would think of her/him.

4. The subject would be more concerned with the inconvenience or costs involved than with reactions of family or friends.

5. The subject would con­sider it s "fect-of-life" and not be upset one way or another.

Definitely Definitelyno yesJ_ _ I_ _ !_ ! i J 1_ I_ I

J I I I I I I L i

1_ _ 1_ I_ ! i - J _ J _ _ I_ I

l i I_ I I J .1 I 1

I i I I 1 i I I i

C. Given that you have reviewed tha complete tapa, wa would like you to consider again the aarlaa of characterlatlci belov which refer to the subject. Ue would like you to consider each of then and to Indicate how you would character lee the eubject by CIRCLING the LIHE which le the best Indicator of your answer.

Again, do not worry about accuracy; simply give your first impression.

TRUSTWORTHY

HORAL

CONSIDERATE

CONFORMING

FRIENDLY

SINCERE

RESPONSIBLE

OPEN-MINDED

FAITHFUL

PRINCIPLED

RELIABLE

HONEST

POLITE

CONSERVATIVE

ATTRACTIVE

J UNTRUSTWORTHY

J IMMORAL

J SELF-CENTERED

J NONCONFORMING

| UNFRIENDLY

j INSINCERE

J IRRESPONSIBLE

J CLOSED-KINDED

J UNFAITHFUL

J UNPRINCIPLED

J UNRELIABLE

J DISHONEST

J R U MJ LIBERAL

J UNATTRACTIVE

H. Now we would like you to consider each of these distensions and to RANK the® according to tht degree to which thty art charactarlatic of tht subject. Do thla by placing tht appropriate number to the LEFT of the response. Rank only the TEN aoat charactarlatic. Use the acalt 10 * moat charactarlatic, 9 - aecond moat characttrlttlc, S " third most characteristic, etc. Tht Higher the mother, tha more you consider the item to be characteristic of the subject.

DO NOT uae tht SAME number for more than one dimension.

______ (ATTRACTIVE UNATTRACTIVE)

______ (CONSERVATIVE LIBERAL)

(ROUTE RUDE)

______ (HONEST DISHONEST)

______ (RELIABLE UNRELIABLE)

______ (PRINCIPLED UNPRINCIPLED)

______ (FAITHFUL UNFAITHFUL)

(OPEN-MINDED CLOSED-MINDED)

(RESPONSIBLE IRRESPONSIBLE)

______ (SINCERE INSINCERE)

(FRIENDLY UNFRIENDLY)

______ (CONFORMING NONCONFORM INC)

(CONSIDERATE SELF-CENTERED)

(MORAL DMOIAL)

(TRUSTWCRTHY UNTRUSTWORTHY)

124

I. In th* scene you 'ust caw, there war* three people: the aubject,who waa cloteat to the camera, a cashier in the distance; and another browsing customer. If the browsing customer had observed the subject shoplift, In your opIon what should the customer have done? {Check one only; answer the next 3 questions even if you did not think the aubject shoplifted)

1. Confront the aubject and tell him or her to replace the item.

2. Report the incident to the cashier or other store personnel,

3. Ignore the incident

4. Other (specify)

J. Referring to the above question, what would you have done if you were the customer and had observed the person shoplift (Check One).

1. Confront the aubject and tell him or her to replace the item.

2. Report the incident to the cashier or other store personnel.

3. Ignore the incident.

4. Other (specify) _________________ ,________________________________

K. If you could have your way, what actions would you think appropriate for the person you observed in the scene (reference is to the person closest to the camera), assuming that the person shoplifted (Check One).

1. The incident should be ignored.

2. The person should be warned, but not turned in.

3. The person should be turned over to lew enforcement agents.

4. The person should be placed on probation and/or fined.

3 . The person should be Jailed.

i. Other (specify) _____________________________________

125

Part II

A. W* ar* interaatad in hov you parcaiva youraalf. Balov la a aerlaa of charactarlatic* which wa would Ilka you to conaldar In ralatlon to youraalf. PI**** Indicate how you would characteris* youraalf by circlingthe line which la the bast indicator of your answer.

A* with your assaaaotant of tha parson in tha vldao tap*, do not worry about abaolut* accuracy, aisiply give your ivadlata iapraaalon.

TRUSTWORTHY

MORAL

CONSIDERATE

CONFORMING

FRIENDLY

SINCERE

RESPONSIBLE

CP DJ-WINDED

FAITHFUL

PRINCIPLED

RELIABLE

HONEST

POLITE

CONSERVATIVE

ATTRACTIVE

J UNTRUSTWORTHY

J IMMORAL

J SELF-CENTERED

J hONCONFORMING

| UNFRIENDLY

J INSINCERE

J IRRESPONSIBLE

J CLOSED-MINDED

J UNFAITHFUL

J UNPRINCIPLED

J UNRELIABLE

J DISHONEST

J RUDE

J LIBERAL

J UNATTRACTIVE

126

. ^ "* W°Uld llk* you to « ”» ■ « « «»eh of the** dlmaneionM andu? *“ ord*nS to the degree to which they are characteriitic of

R ^ k J 5 * X * r ^ pUClne th* *PPre,Prl*t* "'“ 'her to the LETT of the reeponae K ISh »oet characteristic. Dee the eeale ) ~ m o . t characterietiehilh!, ^ t charactarlatic. 6 - third moat charecterietic. etc. m *

« W . S rS S lw m S :D 0_NOT uee the SAME number for more then one dimen*ion.

(ATTRACTIVE UNATTRACTIVE)

_______ (CONSERVATIVE LIBERAL)

_______ (POLITE RUDE)

_______ (HONEST DISHONEST)

_______ (RELIABLE UNRELIABLE)

_______ (PRINCIPLED UNPRINCIPLED)

(FAITHFUL UNFAITHFUL)

(OPEN*MINDED CLOSED-MINDED)

(RESPONSIBLE IRRESPONSIBLE)

(SINCERE INSINCERE)

_______ (FRIENDLY UNFRIENDLY)

(CONFORMING NONCONFORMING)

(CONSIDERATE SELF-CENTERED)

______ (MCRAL XMtOAL)

(TRusrwacnrr u n t r u s t w o r t h y )

127

C. Indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each of the below statements concerning shoplifting in aeneral by circling the appropriate line.

Strongly StronglyAgree Disagree1 I I I !__ !__!__L-J

1. Shoplifting is Justifiable in some cases.

2. Shoplifting 1* morally wrong

3. The fact that shoplifting results in higher prices la more important than the moralquestions. I I I I I 1 I i . I

A. What is bothersome about shoplifting is that someone Is getting something free while others must pay forthe same thing. I I I . I I I f I

128

r»rt inWe would now like some general background Information about youreelf.

A. Age B. Sex_1. Hale

2. Female

C. Race1. White

J . Black

3. Other

D. Occupation (specify)A. taployer ______

B. Average weekly working hour*

C. How long have you been employed In thle occupation4 Months

E. EducationA. Schooling (Please check the appropriate item) _1. Lees than high school 6. Some college

7. College graduate (major

8. Some graduate school (major

9. Crsduetc degree (major _____

2. Some high school

3. High achool graduate

4. Some vocational school

i. Vocational school graduate

B. Are you presently a student? 1. Yes. part time

2. Yes, full time

3. No

If you answered "yes," in what type of schooling are you engaged? 1. High school ___ 3 , Undergraduate college (major

2. Vocational school A . Greduste school (major ___

129

Fart IV Shopllftlai E » w r l « n c «

In this part of tha quaationnalra we would Ilka you to respond to some quaatlona daallng with the natura of your owr Involvement with •hop Ilf ting altuatlons. ALL OF YOUR AHSVZRS WILL U M A X N STRICTLY C0NPIDD7TIAL. In fact, we Hava no way of tracing your Identity even if we wanted to (which we do notl). If you feel that these quaatlona are too personal, you are In no way obligated to answer then. However, the success of our research Is dependent upon frank and complete answers to these questions.

A. As a customer in a store, have you observed soMone else shoplift? Yes No

If "yes," then briefly Indicate;1. Type of item(s) shoplifted

2. Approximate sronetsry value of ites(s) __________________

3. Your age at the time (check each appropriate category) 1. 6-12________________ ___3. 18-21 2. 13-17_______________ ___U. 22 or over

A. Describe your experience(•)

B. As an employee in a store, have you observed someone else shoplift? 1. Yes 2. No

If "yss," then briefly Indicst;1. Type of item(s) shoplifted________________________ ______ _________

2. Approximate monetary value of ltem(s) __________________

3. Your age at the time (check each appropriate category) 1. 6-12 _____ 3. 18-21 2. 13-17 _____ A. 22 or over

6, Describe your experience(s).

C. Have you been with friend* who shoplifted, hue you did not participate?

1. Tee 2. Mo

If "yea," then briefly Indicate:1 . Type of item(a) shoplifted

I. Approximate monetary value of item(a)3. Tour age at the time (check each appropriate category)-

I. 6-12 3. 18-2) 2, 13-17 e. 22 or over

4, Describe your experience(a)

D. Have you ever shoplifted with friends? 1. Tea 2. No

If "yes,: then briefly Indicate:1. Type of ltem(s) shoplifted

2. Approximate monetary value of it«*(a)

3. Tour age at the time (check each appropriate category) 1. 6-12 3- I«-21_ _ 2. 13-17 *• 22 or over

A. Description of your experience(s)

E. Have you aver ehoplifted by youraalf (alone) ? Tea No

If "yea," then briefly Indicate:J. Type of ltem(a) ehoplifted ______________________________

2. Approximate monetary value of item(a) __________________

3, Tour age at the time (check each appropriate category)

4. Deecriptlon of your experience (a)

F. Aa a cuetcner or an employee in a atore, have you obaerved or been of another employee of the atore ahopllftlng?

Yea No

If "yea,” then briefly Indicate:1. Type of ltem(e) ehoplifted ___________________ ]___________________

2. Approximate monetary value of ltem(a) __________________________

3. Your age at the time (check each appropriate category)

.1 . 6-12

2. 13-173. 16-214. 22 or over

1. 6-12 2. 13-17

.3. 16-21 U. 22 or over

4. Deacrlptlon of your experlence(a)

C. If you have observed or been involved In other ( o r u of store "theft" (i.e., price teg switching, under pricing, etc.), plesee describe the circumstances.

H. In relation to shoplifting, have you ever been (check the appropriate items}: 1. Accused 7 (Briefly describe)

2. Arrested? (Briefly describe}

3. Convicted? (Briefly describe)

4. Hone of the above

I. What do you think ere the primary reasons for which people shoplift?

J. If you shoplifted yourself, what were your primary reasons?

VITA

The author was born in Wellington, Kansas, on December 9, 194 5. He received his elementary and secondary education in the Wellington Public School System. He graduated from Wellington Senior High School in 1965. The author received a B.S. Degree from Wichita State Univer­sity, Wichita, Kansas, in 1974 with a major in Administra­tion of Justice and minors in Sociology and Psychology.He received a Master of Administration of Justice Degree and a minor in Educational Administration from Wichita State University in 1975. The author is a candidate for the Ph.D. Degree majoring in Sociology with a minor in Education at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He is married to the former Frances Lynn Guillory of Eunice, Louisiana.

133

Candidate:

Major Field:

Title of Thesis:

EXAMINATION AND THESIS REPORT

John Eugene Karlin

Sociology

An Experimental Assessment of Appearance, Behavior, and Role Taking in Reactions to Shoplifting

Approved:

Major Professor and Chairman

n - h 1 P

/ Dean of the Graduate ffehool

EXAMINING COMMITTEE:

Date of Examination:

July 6, 19 79