Download Positive Deviance and Social Bond Theory and more Study notes Sociology in PDF only on Docsity!
Free Inquiry In Creative Sociology Volume 34 NO.2 November 2006 107
POSITIVE DEVIANCE AND SOCIAL BOND THEORY
Melanie Wolfzorn and Alex Heckert, Indiana University of Pennsylvania and Druann Maria Heckert, Fayetteville State University
Unlike negative deviants, positive deviants have been infrequently examined empiri- cally. Further, traditional deviance/crimi- nology theory - developed with negative
deviants/criminals as the model - has not
been utilized to assess whether it is sa- lient in explaining positive deviants. Thus, this study focuses on a group of positive deviants, abstainers or near-abstainers, from criminal activity. Utilizing mixed meth- odology, this group was studied empirically in relation to social bond theory. Addition- af/y, based on the qualitative interviews, three other factors emerged as salient in promoting positive deviance: guilt, selt-as- surance in self~identity, and lack af moti~ vatian.
Positive deviance is a relatively new con- cept that is generating increasing attention across disciplines. For example, research in the area of nutritional studies is empiri- cally examining what factors are associated with positive deviance, defined as children who thrive under the worst nutritional condi- tions (Zeitlin 1991; Zeitlin, Ghassemi, & Man- sour 1990). Importantly, nutritional interven- tions based on positive deviance research have been found to be more successful than interventions based on traditional research (Dorsey 2000; Kumar Range, Naved, & Bhat- tarai 1997). Other disciplines, including pub- lic health (Babalola, Awasum, and Quenum- Renaud 2002), organizational research (Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn 2003; Wright 2003), criminology (Piquero, Brezina, & Turn- er 2005; Brezina & Piquero 2004), psychol- ogy, and educational research (Robinson & Fields 1983; Werner & Smith 1989; Garmezy 1991; Howard & Dryden 1999) have also em- pirically studied positive deviance or related concepts (e.g., delinquency abstainers, re- siliency, invulnerable children, positive cases, and the like). Within sociology, While work on positive deviance has been primarily conceptual and theoretical, there have been a few empirical studies of positive cases, such as gifted chil- dren (Huryn 1986), artists (Heckert 1989), athletes (Ewald 1981; Ewald & Jiobu 1985),
and ex-deviants (Brown 1991). Nonetheless, some of this research has not been concep- tualized with a positive deviance framing. In a recent example, Irwin (2003) described elite tattoo collectors as both positive and nega- tive deviants depending upon the social con- text. In criminology, theoretical discussion and limited empirical research (Piquero et al 2005; and Brezina & Piquero 2004) have been focused on delinquency abstainers. Typically constituting about six to twelve per- cent of the respondents in general national surveys of juveniles, abstainers are those individuals who self-report no delinquency involvement. Some scholars have assumed that a certain level of deviance is normal and thus have "pathologized" abstainers as suf- fering from character flaws - neurosis, mal- adjustment, ineptness, moroseness and over-control - that make them unattractive to their peers (Moffitt, Caspi, Dickson, Silva, & Stanton 1996). Recent quantitative research challenges these negative assumptions of abstainers, or positive deviants. Piquero et al (2005) found that delinquency abstainers are not socially isolated or universally un- happy. Although abstainers are less likely to spend time with delinquent peers or to be involved in the typical teen social scene, Piquero et al (2005) found that abstainers were not socially isolated and instead were involved with peer groups, albeit peer groups comprised of other abstainers. Abstainers are also less likely to be sad or depressed than other juveniles. Brezina and Piquero (2004), moreover, found that having strong moral beliefs opposing delinquent behavior was strongly associated with abstention. We contend that the field of deviance is ripe for studies that explore the concept of positive deviance in relation to traditional theo- ries of negative deviance. Such research could potentially accomplish a number of ob- jectives: suggest potential gaps and revi- sions to prevailing theories, compiement the emerging criminology literature pertaining to delinquency abstainers, and as Ben-Yehuda (1990) has suggested, open up entirely new thinking and theorizing within the sociology
108 Volume 34 No.2 November 2006 Free Inquiry In Creative Sociology
of deviance. Social bond theory is one of the dominant theories of deviance and crime and empha- sizes the importance of attachments to con- ventional society (Hirschi 1969). The role of attachments or lack of attachments in pro- ducing underconformity (delinquency and crime) and overconformity (abstention) is a potentially fruitful area of inquiry. Accordingly, in this study, we conduct quaiitative interviews to expiore the nature of social bonds as ex-
perienced by positive deviants or abstainers
and "near abstainers."
LITERATURE REVIEW
Social Bond Theory Bond theory - as a social controi theory - maintains that all individuals have the same impulses to deviate (cf., Reiss 1951; Nye 1958; Reckless 1967). Most people, how- ever, resist this inclination due to the fear of being rejected by society (Agnew 1993). When the social aspect of self is not well developed, deviance will occur (Ashley & Orenstein 1998) as a person detached from society is more prone to deviate. Durkheim (1963) argued that society and the morals and beliefs of society must have the author- ity to limit the wants of individuals. Durkheim (1972) noted that if society does not succeed in gaining the respect of an individual, then he or she will be unable to limit his or her own desires. A socially unattached person is more vulnerable to non-conformity. In social bond theory, the most influential of control theories, Hirschi (1969) maintained that individuals have desires to deviate and that delinquency occurs in the context of an individual tenuously bonded to society. He outlined four constructs that constitute the social bonding; attachment to significant oth- ers, commitment to conventionality, involve- ment in conforming activities, and belief in conventional values. Empirical support for social bond theory has generally been supportive, although the correlations have generally been modest or low (Akers & Sellers 2004) and some research contra- dicts the theory. For example, individuals who are strongly attached to deviant friends or parents are more likely to be deviant (Con- ger 1976; Jensen & Brownfield 1983; Kandei & Davies 1991; Sampson & Laub 1993; Warr 2002), and elements of the social bond may be more predictive of minor delinquency than serious deiinquency (Krohn & Massey 1980).
Social bond theory has focused on ex- plaining negative actors (Hirschi 1969). Ex- amining positive deviants would provide a striking and interesting contrast by which to illuminate social bond theory.
Positive Deviance An intriguing concept, positive deviance occupies contested terrain (cf., Best & Luck- enbill 1982; McCaghy 1985; Sagarin 1985; Clinard & Meier 1989; Goode 1991; Best 2004). The concept of positive deviance, simi- lar to the conception of deviance itself., has not been singuiarly constructed. A few idio- syncratic definitions exist (c.f., Buffalo & Rodgers 1971; Ewald 1981; Ewald & Jiobu 1985; Palmer & Humphrey 1990). Still, akin to the substantive field of deviance, two ma- jor perspectives have emerged: normative (or objectiVist) and reactivist (or subjectivist). From a normative perspective, positive devi- ance refers to behaviors or attributes that overconform, or reach the idealized ievel of the norm (Sorokin 1950; Wilkins 1965; Winslow 1970). For example, Sorokin (1950) distin9uished two types of deviance: the sub- normal and the "supranormal." Positive de- viance has also been advanced from a re- activist approach (Freedman & Doob 1968; Hawkins & Tiedeman 1975; Scarpitti & McFarlane 1975; Steffensmeier & Terry 1975; Norland, Hepburn, & Monette 1976). From this perspective, positive deviance refers to that which has been positively evaluated and labeled. Dodge (1985) synthesized these two definitions in positing that positive deviance refers to that which overconforms and is posi- tivelyevaluated. More recently, normative and reactivist definitions of deviance have been integrated as follows; negative deviance describes un- derconformity (or non-conformity) that is negatively evaiuated; deviance admiration denotes underconformity (or non-conformity) that is positively labeied; rate-busting sug- gests overconformity that produces negative reactions; and positive deviance depicts over- conformity that is positively evaluated (Heck- ert & Heckert 2002, 2004a, 2004b). Positive deviants have been examined from the lens of sociology. For example, Heckert (1989) examined the initial stigmati- zation of the French Impressionists, Huryn (1986) interviewed gifted students to identify the coping mechanisms they construct to contend with labeling, and Irwin (2003) has
110 Volume 34 NO.2 November 2006 Free Inquiry In Creative Sociology
"moderate to strong" validity coefficients (Hindelang, Hirschi, & Weis 1981, as cited in Empey, Stafford, & Hay 1999). The poten- tial for interview participants to lie on the sur- veys was not deemed to be a serious con- cern for the qualitative data because, by defi- nition, the positive deviants we were hoping to identify would answer questions honestly, provide their contact information, and should be willing to participate in interviews. During the interviews, participants who may have been misclassified as positive deviants would be able to be identified and excluded from the category of a positive deviant.
Quantitative Measurement The two variables measured In the quan- titative phase of this study were the strength of the social bond as defined by Hirschi (1969) and a serious delinquency scale modified to be appropriate for college stu- dents. The social bond index consisted of responses (strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree) to twelve items that represented the four components theorized by Hirschi to be important in infiuencing de- linquency: attachment to significant others, commitment to obtaining goals through con- ventional methods, involvement in conven- tional activities, and belief in conventional values. Attachment was operationalized by responses to three questions (currently in- volved in an important romantic relationship; if I knew something would disappoint my parents I would not do it; and my friends are a very important part of my life). The involve- ment element was operationalized with three questions pertaining to activities (between school, family, and social activities, I don't have a lot of free time; I spend a lot of time just hanging out with my friends; and I be- long to a lot of social, community, or religious organizations). The commitment element was operationalized by questions pertain- ing to conventional goals (I would not have a lot to lose right now if I got into a lot of trouble; I feel like I have worked hard to get where I am now in life; and maintaining my reputa- tion is very important to me). Finally, belief in conventional values was operationalized by three questions (I have a lot of respect for the police; it is all right to get around the law if you can get away with it; and it is important to me to earn the things I want in life). The bond index, an original scale for this re- search, was considered by a group of 4 indi-
viduals familiar with Hirschi's bond theory and it was agreed that it had face validity and that by prOViding 3 questions for each ele- ment, it was also agreed to have content va- lidity (Babbie 1998). Cronbach's alpha for the overall bond scale was .6, which is on the low end of acceptability. The actual over- all bond scores ranged from 21 to 46 (the theoretical range was 12 to 48), and the bond scores were normally distributed (skewness = -.06) with a mean of 36 and standard de- viation of 4. Thus, on the whole, the partici- pants were fairly well "bonded." The serious delinquency index used to measure the level of deviance was adapted from Nye and Short's (1957) self-reported scale (Brodsky & Smitherman 1983). The questions were adapted to be more current and to be applicable to college students rather than juveniles. All of the items consti- tute criminal offenses. In addition, several questions measuring minor offenses were included to compensate for items that were omitted because they did not apply to young adults. The students were asked how often (none, one or two times, three or four times, five to ten times, or more than ten times) they participated in eleven criminal activities rang- ing from relatively minor to rather serious (driven a car without a driver's license or per- mit; taken little things, worth less than $2; bought or drank beer, wine, or liquor while under the legal drinking age; purposely dam- aged or destroyed public or private property; driven a vehicle faster than the speed limit; knowingly committed a traffic violation other than speeding; forged somebody else's sig- nature; made anonymous phone calls just to annoy people; taken things of medium value, $2 to $50; taken things of large value, worth more than $50; and used or sold ille- gal drugs). Cronbach's alpha for the devi- ance index was .84 which indicates good internal consistency. The actual scores ranged from 11 to 55, which corresponds to the theoretical range as well. The scores were fairly normally distributed (skewness = .45) with a mean of 27.5 and standard devia- tion of 8.7.
Qualitative Sample Selection For the qualitative component of the stUdy, we employed a purposeful theory-based sample of students who responded to the quantitative survey. Once the surveys had been collected, scored, and entered into a
Data Analysis The quantitative data were analyzed by plotting and inspecting histograms and com- puting measures of central tendency, stan- dard deviations, and skewness. Cronbach's alphas were computed for the bond and devi- ance scales. In addition, bivariate scatter- plots, correlation coefficients, and regression coefficients were computed between the over- all bond scores and the deviance scores, as well as between the bond subscale scores and the deviance SCores. The qualitative interviews were tran- scribed and each interview transcript was read several times to obtain a sense of emerging themes. In this inductive analysis phase (Patton 2002), we remained open to any important or repeating themes. After re- peatedly reading through the transcripts, the first themes to emerge were the personali- ties of the participants, attachments to fam- ily, the beliefs of the participants, the tendency for participants to feel gUilt, empathy, the pres-
The topics explored in each interview in- cluded the following: what factors most influ- ence their decisions when they have a chance to do something that would break the law; how those factors came to be important to them; how they would feel if they did break the law (for something little and something big); how someone close to them would feel if they broke the law (little and big violations); how they felt their family and friends affected their behavior (attachment element); how they spent a typical week (involvement ele- ment); how they felt their beliefs about what is right and wrong were similar and different to those of most other people (belief ele- ment); what they defined as a goal they have in life and how they felt they would risk it if they decided to pursue that goal through un- ethical or illegal means and what the impact would be on their life if they lost that goal (commitment element); what people think about them because they break the law less than most people (asked of positive devi- ants); what they think of people who never seem to break the law (asked of negative cases); how they felt they fit into American society and what else they thought was im- portant for the interviewer to know. The inter- views were all tape recorded with the per- mission of the participants and notes per- taining to each interview and participant were recorded after each interview.
Free Inquiry In Creative Sociology
statistical data set, we identified positive de- viants based on their scores on the delin- quency checklist. Positive deviants were de- fined as individuals who scored between eleven and fourteen. A score of eleven meant they had not committed any of the criminal acts listed on the survey, and a score of four- teen could be obtained a number of ways
(e.g., checking "one or two times" on three of
the 11 items, or checking "5 to 10 times" on 1 item). Regardless, these positive deviants represented 5.3 percent of the participants and were clearly abstainers or near abstain- ers from crime. OUf goal was to interview at least twenty positive deviants; however, only nineteen positive deviants were identified based on their criminality scores and only nine of them agreed to be interviewed. Three potential participants refused to participate and the remaining seven could not be con- tacted through the information provided. One of the positive deviants interviewed was dropped from the data analysis after it was determined she did not truly fit the profile of a positive deviant. An international student, it was concluded that she scored exception- ally low on her deviance survey because of cultural differences. We also sought to interview "negative cases," (Patton 2002) defined as students who scored high on the social bond index and also scored high on the deviance index. Because Hirschi's (1969) theory would pre- dict that participants who scored high on social bonds would have lower deviance scores, these negative cases were of par- ticular interest. Of the four negative cases we identified, three agreed to be interviewed.
Qualitative Interviews The components of social bond theory served as sensitizing concepts for our quali- tative interviews. We conducted semi-struc- tured interviews which focused on the par- ticipants' perceptions of how the social bond variables impact their behavior and not spe- cifically on the actual deviant behaviors in which they mayor may not have engaged. We employed a flexible emergent design that allowed the interview guide to be altered based on previous interviews and what emerged within each individual interview. Owing to the collaborative nature of the semi- structured interviews, each participant had some different specific questions, although all participants discussed common topics.
Volume 34 NO.2 November 2006 111
Free Inquiry In Creative Sociology Volume 34 No.2 November 2006 113
quested any changes to the parts concern- ing them or questioned any of the interpreta- tions. The members who provided specific feedback stated that they appreciated the opportunity to review the analysis and found the interpretations interesting. These mem- ber checks increased our confidence in the results and analysis of the qualitative data (Patton 2002).
RESULTS
Quantitative Results Table 1 reveals the bivariate correlations between the deviance scores, the overall so- cial bond scores, and the separate compo- nents of the social bond. In general, the bi- variate associations were weak to moder- ate, with beliefs having the strongest asso- ciation with deviance (-.52), and the overall bond scores being moderately associated with deviance (-.47). Examination of the scatterplot (not shown) between the devi- ance and overall bond scores revealed a trend for the highest deviance scores to be associated with lower bond scores, but the relationship was not strong and consistent. There were definitely negative cases; there were individuals with low bond scores and low deviance scores, as well as individuals with relatively high bond scores and high deviance scores. All four specific compo- nents of the bond were highly correlated with the overall bond score, although the compo- nents were only weakly to moderately corre- lated with each other (from .10 to .44). Com- mitment and belief were moderately corre- lated (.44), whereas attachment was weakly correlated with involvement (.10) and belief (.19). The specific elements of the social bond appear to be somewhat independent of each other, helping to explain the relatively
low alpha of .60 for the overall social bond
scale.
Qualitative Results Social Bond Elements Attachment Attachment is a key variable of social bond theory. To understand the importance of at- tachment in respondents' lives, questions were asked regarding how family and friends impacted their behavior, how a significant person in their life would feel if they broke the law, and how that would impact their choices. Primarily, respondents indicated that their behavior was affected, to some ex-
tent, by their attachment to others, but not controlled by those attachments. Generally, the positive deviants mentioned that they would not want to disappoint significant oth- ers and that their family was integral in mold- ing them. As one participant explained:
My family's approvals are important to me, especially my father's approval, and I know that if I were to do things that are against the law that would really make him think less of me which would really hurt me, and umm ... seeing what comes from other people like, I always like people to see me as a good human being, as a right human being rather than you know someone who goes out and commits crimes ... lt's really important to me how other people think about me, that who are directly involved with me like fam~ ily and like close friends.
As another respondent directly stated in re- lation to specific acts of illegal behavior:
I always had a close relationship with my parents that I always told them what I was doing, they always asked those kind of ques- tions .... ln a way, I wouldn't want to disap- point them, so I don't think I would try some- thing like bad. Like going to parties or under- age drinking, just I guess in a way that I just wouldn't want to disappoint them.
This familial influence can become internal- ized. According to one respondent,
Everything that I do, I hear my mother in the back of my head that I should or shouldn't do it, even if it's something that she's never told me I shouldn't or should do. I can just imagine what she would say, so that has the biggest impact on me.
The family is clearly a potent social institu- tion in her case and other participants re- flected similar feelings. Furthermore, respondents reported that they received support from their peers for their good behavior. As one participant related,
I guess in high school, I remember a lot of the kids in the other cliques would always be partying and underage drinking ... 1mean my friends never did that, I think I was lucky to have friends that always found things to do.
114 Volume 34 No. 2 November 2006 Free Inquiry In Creative Sociology
Still, several reported that while this influence was important, the family was still the pivotal influence in their life. As one respondent ex- plained:
My family affects my behavior a lot more than my friends. I have one or two friends, if they said something to me I would really take it into consideration, but like my other friends I wouldn't care that much about what they said ... My family is small, it's just me and my parents; I'm an only child. So, I really would like to make them proud. I don't make any bad decisions because I think my parents would be really disappointed in me.
Generally, the respondents felt that their families and friends supported their behav- ior. Still, some reported being willing to make decisions contrary to the wishes of their sig- nificant others. One participant acknowl- edged this situation,
Because they are the people I care about they are the people I am around most of the time. So, naturally I would worry about what they thought of me or something I did. Up to a certain point. .. 1was going to do what was the best thing for me regardless of what they felt
Furthermore, and quite interestingly, various respondents reported that friends and fam- ily members were definitely not positive de- viants and this scenario could also impact their choices. According to one respondent:
Well, like my brother and sister have gotten in trouble and I saw the negative reaction that happens when you do things when you are bad and urn, I just never got in trouble and I definitely saw when other people got in trouble what happens and I never had the urge to get in trouble ... 1don't really know, I don't know why I'm a good kid, I did not grow up in a perfect house, my parents and my sister and brother are trouble makers. I don't know.
Family and peers are influential factors. For the negative cases, attachment simply did not create rule conformity. Generally, they felt that family had been a positive impact - and felt their families would support them even in the context of negative behaviors - on their lives. Friends had been a negative impact
on their choices. In contrast, positive devi- ants confirmed that primarily friends had been a positive impact and that they enjoyed spending time with friends similar to them. In fact, Hirschi (1 969) is not supported in that
everyone that was interviewed, positive or
negative, had strong relationships with oth- ers. Behavior differentiated these two groups. This qualitative finding resonates with the weak quantitative correlation (-.18) between attachment and deviance for the larger sample (n : 375).
Commitment Commitment is the second of the bonds. To ascertain the orientation of respondents to commitments, they were asked to ponder a goal in their life and the associated risk of pursuing that goal by unethical or illegal means; furthermore, they were asked to re- flect on the impact that not achieving that goal would have on their lives. While both nega- tive cases and the positive deviants similarly expressed not feeling personally satisfied if they achieved their goal through non-legiti- mate means, the positive deviants were less likely to be able to imagine the scenario. For example, one respondent claimed he would be "devastated" and another said that it wouid "destroy" his life. As expressed by one re- spondent,
I don't understand why people do stuff like that, like, I don'tthink I ever would, but I think if I ever did I would feel horrible about it, I would feel horrible about it if I didn't get caught, I have a very guilty conscience.
Another commented:
It would probably change the whole course of my life and what I want to do with it. I would have to restart it or find a different future ...Right there I would have to give up what I love to do and want to do for some- thing else. It means going through getting into schools with the reason for getting kicked out of the last school. It would be a bunch of stress and havoc in your life.
Positive deviants had a difficult time imag- ining how they would recover from the loss of the goal. All felt it would disrupt their life. As one respondent commented:
In the end, you are going to get caught.
116 Volume 34 No. 2 November 2006 Free Inquiry In Creative Sociology
and wrong to be similar or different from other people, specifically including friends and family. According to Hirschi,
We assume, in contrast, that there is a varia- tion in the extent to which people believe they should obey the rules of society, and, furthermore, that the less a person believes he should obey the rues, the more likely he is to violate them. (1969 26)
Positive deviants would be expected to be- lieve very strongly that they should obey the rules. All of the respondents indicated that they felt, in general, that most people had similar beliefs about what is right and wrong. Still, as one respondent noted, the key is simply that of "just doing it." The posllive deviants interviewed were more committed to follow- ing what they believe. As one respondent asserted,
J think that's the difference between me and other people. Not necessarily the morals, or the ideas of what's right and wrong, being able or just not being able to commit a crime due to the fact that you know it isn't right. Some people are just less inhibited that way.
Another participant, when asked to reflect on why she had followed the rules of her par- ents in contrast to her brother and her sister, commented
I think that we got the same concepts of right and wrong, I just followed them.
Another reflected:
In the western world, most people know what is right and what is wrong as in what is socially acceptable. It doesn't mean that they will abide by that, but they'll know it anyway. I think most people when they are doing something wrong, they know they are doing something wrong. Whether it's just wrong, or it's against the law. Like that's what I think, that's the case. But not every· one will feel bad about it ... 1think that's the difference between me and many other people who are committing crimes, that those people don't have like maybe the Freudian super ego to hold them back to say that's not right. You get the point.
On the other hand, the negative cases agreed that they had the same beliefs as other people, but that they did not always do what they think is right. Still, a question emerges. If the difference between the two groups' beliefs is primarily a difference in their ability to follow through on beliefs, why are the beliefs of the positive deviants more personally constraining?
Summary of Qualitative Results for the Social Bond Components Overall, in support of bond theory, positive deviant students did reveal a high level of attachment to others. Additionally, the posi- tive deviants generally displayed a high level of commitment to the conventional life. Fur- ther, the positive deviants also maintained a strong orientation to belief. Regarding in- volvement, support was not present. Posi- tive deviants described themselves as hav- ing more free time and less involvement in activities than the negative cases. Still, the elements of bonds were not consistently any stronger in the positive deviants than they were for other students. The survey data also indicated a moderate relationship between bond scores and deviance scores, particu- larly for the belief dimension. Nevertheless, the negative case analysis demonstrated that people could be very bonded and still feel free to deviate and break the law. Other fac- tors, however, did emerge in these interviews.
Other Factors Consistently, respondents brought up fac- tors other than those associated with bond theory. These variables included guilt, self- identity, and a lack of motivation to deviate.
Guilt Participants repeatedly mentioned that violating the law was not an option based on feelings - such as letting themselves down or feeling bad - that would accompany that choice. In fact, the respondents related that guilt was more consequential in shaping their choices than any potential repercus- sions, including formal or informal sanc- tions. One participant, replying to a question about how illegal drug use would make her feel, stated that her reaction would be:
Horrible, just horrible, I, um, I guess I'm a more emotional person, I'd probably cry about it. I would just hate to feel, to know
free Inquiry In Creative Sociology Volume 34 NO.2 November 2006 117
that I did something wrong, that I had some- thing on my record that just shows that I'd done something wrong ... Just knowing I'd done something wrong would be on my con- science and it would bother me that I'd know that I did something wrong.
Another respondent, addressing a question related to committing deviance, replied,
I would probably really [feel] ashamed. I feel bad just thinking aboul it, so I guess I'd feel, like, really horrible... lt's deviant, it's going against society's norms and it's just not what you're supposed to do.
In fact, all of the respondents described feel- ing guilty as a consequence of a hypotheti- cal situation of committing various crimes. Thus, guilt emerges as a major molder of this group of positive deviants. For example, one student simply asserted he didn't break the law as he didn't want to feel bad about himself. For the positive deviants, even the idea of breaking a minor law - a more norma- tive approach to youthful life - sparked feel- ings of guilt. Thus, these participants utilized words such as terrible, horrible, or guilty to describe how they would feel if they were to run a stop sign. This sense of guilt was internalized and deeply embedded. The participants con- veyed that their feelings of guilt were not link- ed to whether others knew or cared about their actions. One participant plainly stated,
Getting caught does not matter to me. If I know I'm cheating or doing something wrong, I will feel bad about myself. Getting caught would not be a worry.
Pressed to clarify this sense of gUilt, re- spondents delineated a combination of the following. Firstly, they worried how others might be negatively impacted by a deviant choice. For example, a respondent stated that even if nobody had been hurt, running a stop sign would make her feel really guilty, because she would imagine what could have happened if people had been hurt. Secondly, the participants, pondering on the potential- ity of breaking the law, indicated that they would feel that they had been deceiving them- selves and others about who they were as persons. As an example, one respondent replied,
So, I would feel like I was deceiving myself and people that taught me that it was wrong, but society as a whole.
In contrast, the negative cases did not mention guilt, feelings of deception, poten- tial consequences to others, or any other re- lated phenomenon. When asked how they would feel after breaking a minor law, the responses were "Nothing," or "No different." Thus, guilt constrains the behavior of this group of positive deviants in a way not expe- rienced by the negative cases.
Self-Identity These participants were overwhelmingly assured of their self-identity, an identity based on their own choice to follow a stricter path in life than others. As one respondent explained
My job on campus involves enforcing the rules. You get a lot of comments that I'm a narc, I'm a goodie two shoes. I dealt with that kind of stuff when I was younger. To me, they are just wordS ... l'm not easily swayed, I'm not easily convinced, and I'm not easily dragged along ... We were taught growing up, believe what you want but stand by it. .. I guess it's a little bit of determi- nation to do what's best for me and a cer- tain amount of stubbornness.
The respondents were so confident in their self-identity that they simply did not care if others agreed with their decisions; rather, they made their decisions to feel good within themselves. In response to a question delv- ing into her thoughts when subjected to peer pressure, a participant stated,
Nothing really, I just say no. I just tell them no until they give up.
As another participant confirmed, he would never break the law - despite peer pressure
I thought on occasion that that would make my life easier, but in the end it's about wheth- er I like myself, not whether or not other people like me and there are a lot of people that don't like me. That's fine, because at least I can wake up in the morning and look in the mirror and say well, you know, I didn't do anything wrong and that's how like,
free Inquiry In Creative Sociology Volume 34 No.2 November 2006 119
not the key to deviance abstention and com- mission. Rather specific beliefs, neutraliza- tion strategies, or the rewards of deviant be- havior likely prevail over general beliefs in producing deviance versus deviance absten- tion. Three additional factors emerged as im- portant in promoting positive deviance. They were guilt, self-identity, and motivation. Guilt and motivation can probably best correspond with a social learning or rational choice per- spective, as opposed to other deviance theo- ries. Guilt increases the costs of criminal be- havior, and lack of motivation to commit crime implies the lack of rewards perceived by posi- tive deviants in purSUing deviance activities. Self-identity as non-deviants was an impor- tant element discussed by positive deviants. With the exception of labeling theory, prevail- ing theories of deviance and criminality tend not to stress the importance of self-identity (or the empirical support for self-concept and similar concepts has been weak; cf., Akers & Sellers 2004). Our study supports theoreti- cal exploration regarding the role of positive identities in promoting deviance abstention. Deviance theory in general would benefit from exploring the utility of identity theories in ex- plaining both deviance and deviance absten- tion. None of the prevailing theories of devi- ance and crime provide a completely satis- factory explanation for deviance abstention. As discussed, the importance of social bonds in promoting deviance abstention was weak- ly supported. Social learning theory has, per- haps, the most applicability because of its emphasis on rewards and costs associated with behavioral choices. The importance of self-identity, however, is not accommodated by current renditions of social learning theory (Akers 1998; Akers & Sellers 2004). Learn- ing theory also fails to explain why some posi- tive deviants persist in their overconformity despite repeated sanctions that the study participants admitted were sometimes hurt- ful. Also, many of the positive deviants could not identify positive role models and noted that life would be easier if they lowered their high standards of behavior. Nevertheless, the ability of social learning theory to explain both deviant and conforming behaviors suggests promise as a theory that would illuminate positive deviance, with modifications. Low self-control theory holds some ap- peal in explaining deviance abstention (Gott-
fredson & Hirschi 1990). As expected accord- ing to the theory, the positive deviants reveal- ed a high level of self-control. In addition, the positive deviants did appear to act based on long-term consequences, which is stressed by the theory. Low self-control theory, how- ever, fails to account for the differing internal motivations of the positive deviants. As Pe- ter, LaGrange, and Silverman (2003 437) point out, the general theory of crime de- scribes differing motivations as "irrelevant," since the theory assumes that crime and deviance are attractive and natural, with po- tential benefits and pleasures for everyone. Yet, the positive deviants claimed iittle moti- vation to engage in criminal behavior. If there is little or no desire to deviate, then it does not require much self-control to abstain. The background of the positive and negative de- viants, moreover, did not suggest that par- enting and discipline styles experienced as children were very different or very relevant to the deviance abstention, yet Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) stressed that low seif-control is primarily a product of child-rearing prac- tices. Because our interview questions were not designed to directly explore low self-con- trol theory, our findings are only suggestive and future research should be designed to explore the relevance of low self-control theory in explaining positive deviance and deviance abstention. As suggested earlier, labeling theory holds promise in explaining positive deviance, al- though it requires revisions to accommodate positive identities as well as negative identi- ties. The impact of social reactions and sanc- tions to choosing abstention from criminal behavior should be explored in future re- search. Do individuals get labeled for posi- tive behavior and then does that in turn facili- tate an enmeshment in the role, or a transi- tion from primary to secondary deviance (Le- mert 1951)? Can a positive behavior be con- sidered a label and the societal reaction en- courages the transition from primary devia- tion to secondary deviation? As Scarpitti and McFarlane noted,
intellectuals and saints are generally evalu- ated positively and are rewarded for their activities, thus (hopefUlly again heightening the probability of future occurrence). (
Labeling theory might illuminate positive de-
120 Volume 34 NO.2 November 2006 Free Inquiry^ In^ Creative Sociology
viance. To reiterate, Ben-Yehuda (1990) has ar- gued persuasively that studying positive de- viance would benefit the field of deviance. Little sociological research, however, has focused on positive deviance or positive de- viants. This study represents an initial at- tempt to rectify this lacuna in the sociologi- cal literature. From another discipline, as Robinson and Fields commented,
because all the attention has been on path- ology rather than resistance to pathology, invulnerable children have been overlooked. (1983 64)
An increased understanding of positive de- viance would benef~ the discipline. Further- more, this research suggests that positive deviants do not need to be pathologized. Positive deviance has begun to establish a niche in certain substantive disciplines with practical and policy implications. An example from the field of public health is to examine more efficacious ways to combat AIDS by fo- cusing on the positive deviants (Babalola et al 2002). Perhaps, in the future, policy impli- cations will be a potential outcome within the sociological realm. Our research identi- fies some ways that positive deviants define the factors that produced their outcome. Fu- ture research might further attempt to focus on this issue with the goal of establishing social policy and programs intending to help more young people avoid trouble.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank Dr. Susan Boser, Dr. Dan Lee and the anonymous re- viewers for their insightful feedback and "posi- tive" contributions to this research.
REFERENCES Agnew R. 1993. Why do they do it? An examina- tion of the intervening mechanisms between 'social control' variables and delinquency. J Res Crime & Delinquency 30 245-256. Akers R 1998. Social Learning and Social Struc- ture: A General Theory of Crime and Devi· ance. Boston: Northeastern U Press. Akers RL & C.S. Sellers. 2004. Criminological Theory, 4 lh^ ed. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publish- ing. Ashley D. & D.M. Orenstein. 1998. Sociological Theory: Classical Statements, 4 th^ ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Babalola S., D. Awasum, & B. Quenum-Renaud.
- The correlates of safe sex practices among Rwandan youth: a positive deviance approach. African J AIDS Res 1 13-23. Babbie E. 1998. The Practice of Social Research, ffh Ed. NY: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Ben·Yehuda N. 1990. Positive and negative devi- ance: more fuel for the fire. Deviant Behav 221- 243 Best J. 2004. Deviance: Career of a Concept. Belmont, CA: ThomsonlWadsworth. Best J. & D.F. Luckenbill. 1982. Organizing Devi- ance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Brezina T. & A. Piquero. 2004. Abstention from delinquency: a function of personality defects or moral choice? Poster presented at the an- nual meetings of the American Society of Crimi- nology, November 16-20, Nashville, Tennes- see. Brodsky S. & H.O. Smitherman. 1983. Handbook of Scales for Research in Crime and Delin- quency NY: Plenum Press. Brown D. 1991. The professional ex-: an alterna- tive for exiting the deviant career. Sociological Qrtly 32 219- Buffalo M.D. & J.W. Rodgers. 1971. Behavioral norms, moral norms, and attachment: problems of deviance and conformity. Soc Prob 19 101-
Cameron K., J.E. Dutton, & R.E. Quinn. 2003. Posi- tive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline. San Francisco: Berrett- Koehler Publishers. Clinard M.B. & R.F. Meier. 1989. Sociology of Devi- ant Behavior, 7 th^ ed. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Conger R 1976. Social control and social learning models of delinquency: a synthesis. Criminal 14 17-40. Dodge 0.1985. The over-negatlvized conceptual- ization of deviance: a programmatic explora- tion. Deviant Behav 617-37. Dorsey O. 2000. Positive Deviant. Fast Company 41 284. Ourkheim E. 1963. Emile Durkheim. G. Simpson, ed. NY: Thomas Y. Crowell. 1972. Emile Durkheim: Selected Writ- ings. A. Giddens, ed. NY: Cambridge U Press. Empey L., M. Stafford, & C. Hay. 1999. American Delinquency: Its Meaning and Construction, 4th ed NY: Wadsworth. Ewald K. 1981. The Extension of the Becker Model of Socialization to Positive Deviance: The Cases of Weight Lifting and Running. Unpub- lished Ph.D. Dissertation: Ohio State U Press. Ewald K. & R Jiobu. 1985. Explaining positive de- viance: Becker's model and the case of run- ners and bodybuilders. Social Sport J 2 144-
Freedman J. & A.N. Doob. 1968. Deviance: The Psychology of Being Different. NY: Academic Press. Garmezy N. 1991. Resiliency and vulnerability to
122 Volume 34 No.2 November 2006 Free Inquiry In Creative Sociology
INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF MODERN SOCIOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY OF THE FAMILY
INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF MODERN SOCIOLOGY & INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY OF THE FAMILY
MANUSCRIPTS should tie submtted In duplicate and in acceptable fonn REF- ERENCES and FOOTNOTES snould be accordH19 to the FORMAT used in AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW Styles instruction forguieJance in prepar- ing manuscripts will ~ ;)rovided upon request to !he EDITOR PROCESSING FEE of $25 00 must accompany eacn paper submItted either to INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF" MODERN SOCIOLOGY or INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOClOLOGV OF THE FAMIL Y The manuscripts not accompa- nied by the feeNdl not be processed I.'ntll '.he ~ee 1$ r~ce,,,ed b'i ~he EDITOR
EDITORIAL OFFiCE Address correspondence on manuscripts, news and announcements Mail to. Editor Or Man S Oas; Sociology OepaMment Northern Illinois UniverSity DeKalb. IllirK)l$ 60115--2854, USA BUSINESS OFFICE Address r....·xrespondence on subscrip!lons, change of address, renewals, advP..r'.;,slng repr"1:lts of ,ndividual anicles and permiSSIon to Quote Mail to: Inlerl3tional Journals, PRINTS INDIA, 11 DARYA GA~J. Nt:'..... DELHI 110X121NDIA SUBSCRIPTION RATES AnnuaiRS 2eO, $40 single Issue RS 100, $20 Biannual MISSION Both Joumals are de'.oted to encourage cross-cultural, cross-national a:1d Inter·<liSClpllna,~; researcn 3no eXChange of information conceming significant developments In comparative SOCiology and sooology of marriage and the famdy The joumals ;Jublisn theoretical, methodological ar'd emptrical articles bOOk re':jews lel1ers to the Editor. comments, rejoinders annotated bibliographies "laws, and announcements
