The Production of Nonconformity Within an Experimental Setting
Rigney, Ernest Greene, Jr.
This item is only available for download by members of the University of Illinois community. Students, faculty, and staff at the U of I may log in with your NetID and password to view the item. If you are trying to access an Illinois-restricted dissertation or thesis, you can request a copy through your library's Inter-Library Loan office or purchase a copy directly from ProQuest.
Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/2142/70994
Description
Title
The Production of Nonconformity Within an Experimental Setting
Author(s)
Rigney, Ernest Greene, Jr.
Issue Date
1982
Department of Study
Sociology
Discipline
Sociology
Degree Granting Institution
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Degree Name
Ph.D.
Degree Level
Dissertation
Keyword(s)
Sociology, General
Abstract
Two experiments addressed the question: What must a researcher do to produce nonconformity? In the first, three verbal strategies were used to produce nonconformity. Metainstructions were hypothesized to be the most effective strategy, followed by forewarning and challenge-insult. Seventy four subjects were assigned to a control condition or one of three treatment conditions. Control subjects were given 14 imperative instructions. Remaining subjects received these instructions prefaced by metainstructions, a forewarning, or a challenge-insult. Nonconformity was judged to occur if subjects did not complete the imperative instructions. None of the hypotheses were supported by the results.
The failure of the first experiment was re-examined. Alterations were made in the conceptualization and composition of metainstructions. Proscriptions, another variable, were incorporated into the experimental design. Three hypotheses were generated. Metainstructions and proscriptions were hypothesized to produce more nonconformity than a control condition. Metainstructions were hypothesized to produce more "active nonconformity," whereas proscriptions were hypothesized to produce more "tacit nonconformity."
In the second experiment, thirty-six subjects were randomly assigned to one of three conditions. Control subjects received seven imperative instructions. Other subjects received metainstructions intermixed with the imperative instructions. Remaining subjects received proscriptions prior to the imperative instructions. The results supported the three hypotheses. Metainstructions and proscriptions produced more nonconformity (73%) than the control condition (4%). Metainstructions produced more active nonconformity (70%) than did proscriptions (16%). Proscriptions produced more tacit nonconformity (84%) than did metainstructures (30%).
Two conclusions are warranted. First, symbolic activity produces nonconformity. Both metainstructions and proscriptions produce nonconformity. Second, active nonconformity is distinguishable from tacit nonconformity. Further research will determine whether or not these sources of and distinctions between types of nonconformity can be sustained.
Use this login method if you
don't
have an
@illinois.edu
email address.
(Oops, I do have one)
IDEALS migrated to a new platform on June 23, 2022. If you created
your account prior to this date, you will have to reset your password
using the forgot-password link below.
