Perspectives on the Concept of Social Control

Meier, Robert F.

doi:10.1146/annurev.so.08.080182.000343

Cited by 97 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…social control, outsider status in the group, etc. ; Gibbs, 1981a;Meier, 1982;Schachter, 1951). We suggested that small groups with frequent face-to-face contact use both positive and negative sanctions to perpetuate social norms, whereas large, unstructured social groups such as regional or national communities tend to perpetuate social norms solely through negative sanctions.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

The bystander effect and social control behavior: the effect of the presence of others on people's reactions to norm violations

Chekroun

Bräuer

2002

Euro J Social Psych

223

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Observers of deviant social behavior sometimes communicate disapproval directly or indirectly to the perpetrator of a deviant act. This reaction has been termed 'social control'. Three field studies were conducted to explore the influence of the number of bystander-observers on the likelihood of social control. We predicted that the presence of others would inhibit people's tendency to communicate their disapproval to the deviant but only if personal implication was low. In the first study, we measured participants' perceptions of two fictive situations, one in which a deviant draws graffiti in an elevator of a shopping center and one in which a deviant litters in a small neighborhood park by throwing a plastic bottle in the bushes. As expected, participants considered both behaviors to be equally counternormative but felt personally more implicated by the littering behavior in the park. In Studies 2 and 3, the two situations were enacted with confederates of the experimenter. Naïve bystanders served as participants, and social control was the primary dependent variable. Consistent with our hypothesis, we found evidence for a bystander effect in the low personal implication situation ('graffiti in the elevator') but not in the high personal implication situation ('littering in park'). These results make clear that perceived personal implication moderates the extent to which people are inhibited by the presence of others when they decide whether they should exert social control or not.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

The bystander effect and social control behavior: the effect of the presence of others on people's reactions to norm violations

Chekroun

Bräuer

2002

Euro J Social Psych

223

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, not surprisingly, education is one of the strongest predictors of having diverse social networks (Fischer 1982;Marsden 1987). Fourth, highly educated Americans are disproportionately likely to question, and relatively unlikely to conform to, external authority and social control (Fox et al 1977;Meier 1982). Fifth, one of the clearest influences of education is the positive effect of education on both social and organizational participation (Putnam 1995).…”

Section: Theory and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Education on Americans’ Religious Practices, Beliefs, and Affiliations

Schwadel

2011

Review of Religious Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I challenge the scholarly contention that increases in education uniformly lead to declines in religious participation, belief, and affiliation. I argue that education influences strategies of action, and these strategies of action are relevant to some religious beliefs and activities but not others. Analysis of survey data shows that (1) education negatively affects exclusivist religious viewpoints and biblical literalism but not belief in God or the afterlife; (2) education positively affects religious participation, devotional activities, and emphasizing the importance of religion in daily life; (3) education positively affects switching religious affiliations, particularly to a mainline Protestant denomination, but not disaffiliation; (4) education is positively associated with questioning the role of religion in secular society but not with support for curbing the public opinions of religious leaders; and (5) the effects of education on religious beliefs and participation vary across religious traditions. Education does influence Americans' religious beliefs and activities, but the effects of education on religion are complex.

show abstract

“…Social control (formal and informal sanctions) and influence (Cohen et al, 2006;Meier, 1982;Mittelmark, 1999;Valente and Pumpuang, 2007) Social capital and collective efficacy Social exchange and opinion leaders Women's studies Embodied context (values/ideals embodied or embraced through internal influences) (Brazy and Shah, 2006;Christakis and Fowler, 2007;Kushner, 2005;Tavares and Plotnikoff, 2008) Gender roles Behavioral economics Individual and societal (dis)incentives (Cohen and Farley, 2008;Day, 2006;Gordon-Larsen et al,;Green et al, 2009;Halpern et al, 2007;Pratt et al, 2004;Sturm, 2004;Wansink and Chandon, 2006; Market failure Availability bias (default decisions) Framing and priming Herd instinct (crowd influence) Social marketing and communications 4 P's: product, price, place, promotion (Andreasen, 1995;Borgatti et al, 2009;Brodie et al, 2001;Gantz and Wang, 2009;Grier and Bryant, 2005;Luke and Harris, 2007;Maibach et al, 2007;Gladwell, 2000) Communication channels and messengers Message packaging (e.g., entertainment value) Social networks Critical mass/tipping point (to spread practice beyond minority, must be promoted by 3 types: connectors, mavens and sales people) Social ecology and health policy Upstream-downstream approaches (Glasgow et al, 1999;Green et al, 2009;Katan, 2006;Kersh and Morone, 2002;Kumanyika and Ewart, 1990;Kumanyika et al, 2008;Smedley et al, 2000;Stokols et al, 2003) Population-level intervention (reach and exposure), multi-level intervention Implementation and dissemination science, including push-pull design principles (e.g., lowering the bar to make adoption of a behavior less costly financially and psychologically by developin...…”

Section: Disciplinementioning

confidence: 99%

The meta-volition model: Organizational leadership is the key ingredient in getting society moving, literally!

Yancey¹

2009

Preventive Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perspectives on the Concept of Social Control

Cited by 97 publications

References 26 publications

The bystander effect and social control behavior: the effect of the presence of others on people's reactions to norm violations

The bystander effect and social control behavior: the effect of the presence of others on people's reactions to norm violations

The Effects of Education on Americans’ Religious Practices, Beliefs, and Affiliations

The meta-volition model: Organizational leadership is the key ingredient in getting society moving, literally!

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About