Relationship Satisfaction as a Predictor of Relationship Behaviors

Of paramount importance to the study of relationship psychology are the issues of relationship satisfaction and relationship quality. There is a sizable body of literature devoted to the study of the factors which contribute to the building and to the breaking down of relationship stability. Why people enter relationships, why they stay in them, and why they choose to leave them are all connected to this idea that one can be satisfied or dissatisfied with the outcomes. The Social Exchange theory, credited to George Caspar Homans, posits that individuals assign value to interpersonal relationships based on the exchange of costs for benefits. This value is then compared to the estimated value of competing relationships and assuming that the current relationship is of better value, it continues.

Comparison level is an important foundation of social exchange theory in that it provides a base level of expectations against which the individual can contrast the outcomes of their current relationship. It is when the outcomes of a relationship fall below the comparison level (what is realistic and expected) that the perceived value of a relationship falls. (Sabatelli, 1988) For that reason it is important that individuals who are consciously assessing their relationship situation must establish what is a realistic expectation of a relationship and what is not. In a study that measured the expectations of premarital individuals in exclusive relationships and compared them to the expectations exhibited by recently married individuals of the same age group (20.1 years for unmarried females, 25.2 for their married counterparts, 21.6 years for unmarried males, and 25.6 for their counterparts) a disparity was displayed, exemplifying a basic misunderstanding of marital relationships by those who have never experienced them. The study expresses the disharmony between what unmarried individuals expect and what married individuals report. A scale of 1-10 was used to measure the expectations that unmarried individuals exhibited in twenty-six different areas of interpersonal communication. The most sizable differences noted by the study are intrasexual as opposed to intersexual. There is a greater disparity between the average score reported by unmarried men (204 out of 260) and married men (179 on the same scale) than between those unmarried men and unmarried women (214 of 260.) This finding suggests that individuals are likely to have more in common, with regard to relationship expectations, with members of the opposite sex, given the variable that neither have been married, than with a married member of their own sex. (Sabatelli, 1988) The largest difference in expectation scores came in sexual issues such as frequency of sexual activity, partner interest in sex, discussion of sexual issues, companionship, and displayed affection, with each variable being rated higher by the unmarried individuals than the married respondents. This lack of fundamental understanding is a well-known fact among marriage educators, who have stressed the importance of acquiring realistic expectations of marriage, and is well understood by marriage counselors who often ask individuals in troubled relationships to outline their expectations and the behaviors that fall short when exhibited by their partners (Sabatelli, 1988). How is an unmarried individual expected to construct a viable comparison level when the realities of marriage are such a drastic leap from the socially constructed expectations? Is this a cause of relationship dissatisfaction among married couples? Is it a contributing factor to the increase in divorce rates? What, if any, information can this study provide for exclusive couples who opt not to marry?

A study of cohabitating couples in Australia, compiled from census data, sheds light on the differences in the role that relationship satisfaction plays in a committed but nonmarital relationship. In a pathway analysis researchers examined the relationship that agreement and disagreement played in the behaviors of cohabitating couples over a course of three years. According to the research, perceived relationship quality, measured in self-report fashion, had a greater influence on separation than marriage in staggering abundance. 86% of couples in which the female partner reported being dissatisfied with the relationship ended unmarried as opposed to the 63% that followed that path after the male alone reported dissatisfaction. (Qu, 2009) This finding supports a substantial claim in the literature of relationship research that information on relationship satisfaction and financial security gathered from the female of a specific dyad is likely to predict future behavior of that pair when compared to the reports of the male of that couple. This is further supported when one looks to the marriage statistics. Only 36% of the couples who reported being mutually satisfied in a significant way were married by the end of the study, while 27% married with only the female being satisfied in the relationship (Qu, 2009). The power of relationship satisfaction is apparent in this study, in that it is often a determining factor in the end of a relationship or the choice to take a relationship to the next step. Is there a way to predict this variable? Can it be influenced by methods other than the assessments of the social exchange theory? Sabatelli's study insists that the behavior of a partner influences the relationship satisfaction and perceived relationship quality experienced by their counterpart.

One study, performed in Canada, measured relational-interdependent self-construal (RISC) as a predictor of perceived relationship quality using introductory psychology students whose mean age was 19.8 years and reported on experiences with friends whose mean age was 20.0 years. RISC is studied as a variable that measures how an individual factors their interpersonal relationships into their self-concept. The main hypothesis in question during the 2009 experiment conducted by researchers Marian Morry and Mie Kito would test if RISC inspired what are known as “relationship supportive behaviors” (RSB) characterized by trusting behaviors and increased disclosure. It was hypothesized that these RSB would indirectly influence the relationship quality reported through perceived fulfillment of relationship norms. This hypothesis proved problematic in that the results differed between sex. For men, there was a significant relation between the RSB and perceived relationship quality in cross-sex friendships but no such relationship existed in there same-sex friendships or in any relationships reported by women. (Morry, 2009). If these behaviors that are considered conducive to a healthy and high quality relationship are not the key to influencing an individual's perceived value of a relationship what is? Are there personal factor at work that are not measured by studying behaviors?

For the answers to what might affect an individual's comparison level, relationship satisfaction, and by extension their behaviors one must look in the basis of the theories in question. The primary factors in comparison level are the norms that individuals have come to expect in a relationship and what they feel that they deserve. Another study performed by Dr. Marian Morry measured how an individual's self-esteem influenced their metaperception (how they perceive their partner's opinion of them) and the influence that relationship had on overall relationship satisfaction. The experiment consisted of 191 introduction psychology (95 women and 96 men) whose average age was 19.8 years. In this experiment it was displayed that individuals who scored low on a scale of self-esteem consistently underestimated the perception and attributions made by their partners and reported lower relationship satisfaction while the opposite was true of those with high self-esteem (Morry, 2009). The specific hypotheses tested were first, that those high in Self-esteem would idealize their relationships and report higher metaperception than self-perception and that the inverse would be true of those low in the same measure; that they would report lower metaperception than self-perception when relating the perceptions to relationship-relevant traits such as “caring” and “invested” (Morry, 2009). Also hypothesized was the relationship between these behaviors and reported levels of relationship satisfaction. These hypotheses were proven as those low in self-esteem were deprecating, believing that their partner viewed them more negatively than they viewed themselves. As self-esteem increased this perceived regard moved toward self-verification (metaperception and self perceptions becoming equal) and then to self enhancement (metaperception exceeds self-perception) (Morry, 2009). At two standard deviations below the mean of self-esteem there was a difference of nearly one and a half points for each scale item measured on the metaperception of relationship-relevant traits, accounting for an overall difference of 10.5 points on a seven item scale. What other determining factors might there be in relationship satisfaction? Is it merely self-esteem and the behavior of a partner that influence how an individual values their relationship? What is there to be said of the resources spent on a relationship and how that cost influences perceived worth of that relationship?

The investment model, which measures an individual's commitment to a relationship by assigning importance to variables such as the quality of perceived alternatives and the resources which have been invested in the specific relationship, was tested as a predictor of relationship status and satisfaction in 1996 by researchers Jennifer Sacher and Mark Fine. This study was separated into three purposes, the first being to compare males and females from the same couple in their investment and commitment variables and then to retest and compare their satisfaction in that relationship six months later. The hypothesis of this purpose was that females would exhibit more cognitions that were geared toward maintaining a relationship than their male counterpart. The second purpose was a test of how well investment variables would predict the path taken by each couple. The specific hypothesis tested for this purpose was that high levels of commitment and low alternative quality would predict high relationship satisfaction at the second interval of testing. The third purpose was to assess differences to the extent to which males' scores and females' scores predicted relationship outcomes when drawn from the same relationship. The hypothesis at work in this purpose was that information gathered from the female of the dyad would be a stronger predictor of relationship status and satisfaction six months later. (Fine, 1996) All three of these hypotheses were proven correct as females reported higher commitment, lower alternative quality, and greater relationship satisfaction at both intervals, and the second and third hypotheses were proven simultaneously by the strong correlation between high commitment and satisfaction scores reported at the first interval by the females and the status and satisfaction reported at the second. The third hypothesis being strongly proven as only female scores at the first interval had any predictive relationship to scores recorded six months later. (Fine, 1996)

So what is it that the research community can learn from these studies? How can they be expanded upon? To better project a path for future research one must understand the shortcomings of the studies in existence. All of these studies except the Australian cohabitation research employed subjects whose mean age was less than 25 years, some going as low as 19.8. The expectations of a relationship change drastically with time as an individual's role in the life of their partner changes. One must wonder if the same levels of satisfaction would be recorded in the case of the RISC study conducted by Morry and Kito if the average age of participant's had been 30 or older. Would a male who has already established himself in a social and professional setting rely on the relationship supportive behaviors of a partner to establish his satisfaction or would the idea of “settling” and social pressures overcome shortcomings and nonconducive behaviors. One might expect that the societal influence of a family oriented society would produce a lowered threshold for acceptance of a partner in that case. Another shortcoming of these studies is the exclusion of homosexuals from the equation. If the Sacher and Fine investment study were repeated with heterosexual males would they find the relationship maintaining cognitions in one or both members of that dyad, and if so, would it predict the status of the relationship the same way? It is the general consensus that socialization of females to value relationships and include them in their self-concept more than males is the reason for the increased role women play in the determination of their relationship's course, so what would the effect of running the experiment with two men be? A researcher would be forced to control for the role each partner played in the relationship, whether it was the traditional male or female role. What of divorced individuals? Do their expectations of marriage differ from those of newlyweds in the way that newlyweds differ from unmarried respondents? The disillusionment of a divorce would undoubtedly make for lower expectations of future relationships as displayed by the self-esteem study, that those who have negative experience generalize those experiences and come to expect them.

In conclusion, the role that satisfaction plays in the course of a relationship and the construction of that satisfaction as a measurement of the relationship's quality are not fully understood by the current literature, but if the field is to expand and understand the behaviors of those who choose to continue or end their relationships more research must be done. This research must include a more broad subject base, including participants who are older, divorced, homosexual, parents, emotionally unstable, and all other variables that can influence how one might measure their own worth or that of their partner.

Bibliography:

1. Sabatelli R. (1988) Exploring Relationship Satisfaction: A social Exchange Perspective on the Interdependence between Theory, Research, and Practice

Family Relations, 37 (2) 217-222

2. Fine M. & Sacher J. (1996) Predicting Relationship Status and Satisfaction after Six Months among Dating Couples.

Journal of marriage and Family, 58 (1) 21-32

3.Morry M. & Sciangula A. (2009) Self-esteem and perceived regard: How I see myself affects my relationship satisfaction.

Journal of Social psychology, 149 (2) 143-158

4.De Vaus D. & Qu L. (2009) Cohabitation and Beyond: The contribution of each partner's relationship satisfaction and fertility aspirations to pathways of cohabitating couples.

Journal of Comparative family studies, 40 (4) 587-601

5. Kito M. & Morry M. (2009) Relational-interdependent self-construal as a predictor of relationship quality: the mediating roles of one's own behaviors and perceptions of the fulfillment if friendship functions

Journal of Social Psychology, 149 (3) 205-220

How to Sculpt your Image and Attract the Perfect Partner

I just finished writing this for my psychology class. I hope you enjoy.

How to Sculpt your Image and Attract the Perfect Partner

Of the most fundamental drives in human biology none has such far reaching and abundantly clear implications as the drive to find a partner and mate. This drive has affected the growth of our culture and the inspiration for the great majority of our media and literature. Its power is so ubiquitous that creative and analytical minds have speculated on its source and repercussions since the dawn of their disciplines. Yet we remain without a comprehensive theory of the cause, the power, and the exact science behind it. However, modern science trucks on, ever closing the gap between the mysteries of our world and our understanding as a species, and in these simple steps you can take advantage of the understandings imparted to us, and make yourself the most desirable person you can be; in order to attract the ideal mate.

Step 1: Decide if you want a long or short term experience.

This is the first step in the understanding and crafting of a better relationship experience for a reason. Your approach to a new image and a new self will be guided entirely by your goals. Human mating strategies change drastically given the context in which they are to be employed. (Buss,1994) It is because of the evolution of our species that we see these differences. Men, overwhelmingly prone to interest in short term relationships (Buss,1994) need to be aware of just that fact, that they are more likely to be interested in short mating experiences than their female counterparts, and women must be wary of these men if it is their impetus to craft a long lasting relationship at that point in time. This is, of course, no fault of the male, as his drive to mate quickly and reduce his investment (Buss,1994) may be entirely biological in foundation. In fact in sexual fantasy, a commonly trusted predictor of raw sexual intent, it is proven that males are more likely to be focused on the acquisition of many sexual partners over a short period of time; often going to the extreme of visualizing different partners over the course of a single fantasy (Ellis,1990). This shows through in separate research that inquired as to the ideal number of sexual partners men and women would like to experience at different intervals of time which showed a mean of eight or six as the ideal for men in the next two years, and eighteen partners over the course of a lifetime, whereas their female counterparts showed a mean of one partner and four to five for the respective time periods (Buss,1994). From this point out, it will be assumed that you’ve chosen your path to short term “Fling” or to forming a pair bond with the intent of breeding.

Step 2: Forget Convention

Heuristics are a time and resource saving tool that make daily life much easier than it could be. However, socially influenced heuristics, or folk advice based judgments have no place in the search for a mate. This step is more crucial to those who will be in search of a long term mate than a short term relationship if only because there are many more untested and unsubstantiated beliefs about the way attraction occurs when related to long term relationships. For instance, adolescents are often ingrained with the sentiment that a fitting partner of the opposite sex will often remind them of their opposite sex parent in some way. This folk belief has been perpetuated through repetition and confirmation bias for generations and has never been tested. Young women are often advised to find out how their prospective partner treats his mother to gain some insight into how he may treat them in the future. This “indicator” of a man’s receptiveness to a female figure has never been tested, and this claim remains an unscientific folk belief. To judge a prospective mate’s “worth” one must understand what is important to themselves, and this guide will help you transform that ideal self into your real self while you evaluate your own worth.

Step 3: Identify your own needs and desires

By gauging your experience against evolutionary challenges and the strategies by which our ancestors overcame them you can complete a comprehensive checklist of your needs and desires; once you understand the strategies and how they affect you, you can prioritize what you look for in a partner. This section is where we meet the unfortunate and puzzling sex differences in attraction and mate selection. According to current theories and research men and women have developed different strategies for selecting a mate based on the different challenges faced by their sex. In the short term, men face the challenge of finding fertile and accessible females while balancing the investments that would be necessitated by an attempt at mating (Buss,1994). The more challenging quandaries faced by females in generations past have been how to craft strategies that will allow immediate resource extraction from a prospective mate, and how to make a mate with short term relationship goals into a mate with long term commitment. (Buss,1994) Whereas the solutions to those challenges presented in the short term are contradictory, the long term mating challenges faced by both sexes are solved in more complementary fashion. As males begin to face issues such as uncertainty in the paternity of their supposed offspring and the identification of females with long-term reproductive value, females approach challenges such as finding a mate with quality genetics and a willingness to invest his resources in her and her offspring (Buss,1994). These challenges are all solved by the development of monogamy as a social construct and a prerequisite of long term relationships. These are the needs that guide human mate selection and are evolutionarily built into our species. Once you identify your behaviors that are conducive to overcoming these challenges you’ve grasped the strategies inherited from your ancestors. Establish what you feel like you want out of a relationship by envisioning your life goals for long term, and strategizing on how a partner could complement your ability to reach these goals. In the case of short term, identify your preferences in physical qualities and your willingness to invest (for men) or to what degree you require an investment (for women.)

Step 4: Understand the Opposite Sex

This step may be the most crucial of them all. Just as you have been influenced by evolutionary needs, so have all your prospective mates. Once you know what they are looking for you can bring out those qualities in yourself. If both partners are interested in a short term experience the burden of becoming available becomes that of the female. In most cases men are overwhelmingly ready for a short term sexual experience at all times. In a study at the University of Hawaii a startling finding showed that Seventy-five percent of men who were approached by an attractive stranger were receptive to the idea of having a sexual experience with her that night, thus supporting the bias that males have toward engaging in short term sexual endeavors with women who exhibit high levels of promiscuity (Buss,1994). For a woman to engage in a short term sexual experience she must sacrifice some of what characterizes women in their sexual behavior. The female experience of sexual fantasy is very different from the male experience as it is more heavily focused on the idea of a building seduction, importance of the setting which it occurs, emotional investment, and a unique partner that is responsive to them and excites them in a way that no other can (Ellis,1990). None of these characteristics are present in the idea of a short term sexual experience with a partner who has only minimally invested in her being and enjoyment of the event. For a female to engage in one of these short term “flings” she must only make herself available and choose from the dominant individuals of the opposite sex.

Long term relationships are more complicated issues and require a great deal more understanding on both sides of the fence. Luckily, in American culture, the sex differences narrow as more long term commitment becomes a goal. For instance, both men and women record reciprocal love, dependable character, emotional stability and maturity, a pleasant disposition, and intelligence as the top five factors that they find important in a prospective mate, in that order. After those factors men tend to stray toward the area of physical attraction while women record ambition and financial prospects as their next most important concerns (Buss,1990). This deviation is well in line with the adaptive strategies that our ancestors would have evolved to overcome mating challenges such as identifying females with high potential reproductive value, and identifying males who will be capable of contributing resources. These facts should be encouraging as they pave the way for a better understanding of what it takes to make a relationship work in the long run.

Step 5: Use what you have learned

All of this studying is wasted if you are incapable of capitalizing on your newfound knowledge! An understanding of the opposite sex and your own sex should grant you a better ability to sculpt your own image to that of what will be desired while remaining true to yourself and searching for a partner who exhibits what you find important. Some other strategies that will help you to attract your ideal mate are basic facts of human experience that can be used to help build the foundation of a long or short term relationship. Firstly, human beings can very easily mislabel their own experiences and draw sexual inspiration from them. In a field experiment by Dr. Aron, attractive confederates used the anxiety created by the crossing of an unstable bridge to influence how unsuspecting subjects interpreted an ambiguous stimulus. What they found was that the anxiety that was experienced was indeed transformed into sexual energy in a theory that Aron explains as the idea that any strong emotion can be relabeled as sexual attraction if an acceptable object of that attraction is present, and if circumstance does not require the subject’s full attention (Aron,1974).

Physical attractiveness is more powerful than one might expect, as was proven in an experiment in 2009 by Jie Sui and Chan Hong Liu. In this experiment the pair proved that even when given a cognitive task, attractive faces are distracting to the point that they can slow cognitive function. Controlled against unattractive and neutral faces, the attractive faces nearly doubled time spent making decisions as to the orientation of a symbol (Sui,2009).

With these two simple facts, you can construct situations in which your own perceived, intrasexual worth can be improved. Take up exciting hobbies and strive to improve your own physical attractiveness, especially if you are trying to entice a male to find your worth higher than your perceive it to be. This guide is a tool to improving your image in the eyes of your desired sex, whether you are interested in long or short term relationships.

Bibliography:

Aron, A (1974). Some Evidence for Heightened Sexual Attraction Under Conditions of high Anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 30(4), 510-517

Buss, D.M. (1990) International Preferences in Selecting Mates. Journal of cross-cultural psychology 21(1), 5-47

Buss, D.M. (1994) Strategies of Human Mating. American Scientist 82, 238-249

Ellis, B (1990) Sex Differences in Sexual Fantasy: An Evolutionary Psychological Approach. The Journal of Sex Research 27(4), 527-555

Sui, J (2009) Can beauty be Ignored? Effects of facial attractiveness on covert attention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 16(2), 276-281

Moral Panic

I wrote this for a Sociology of Crime class and figured you might like to read it. Not as many links this time, but citations are at the bottom.

Moral Panic

A moral panic is a powerful state into which a society can be thrown. This happening has far reach consequences; influencing the social norms that guide everyday behavior, and sometimes bringing about change in legislature that affects us all. Stanley Cohen characterized this state as a reactionary approach to an issue that grips the public’s interests and, in short, abuses the public’s faith in the media( Cohen, 1972).

The term was coined by Cohen in the face of an overwhelmingly typical example of public overreaction that stemmed from the English seaside in the mid 1960’s. This particular moral panic was sparked by a single event that was perceived as indicative of a larger problem, namely the aggressive behavior prevalent in youth culture at the time. Cohen first used the term “Community Sensitization” (1967) to explain a phenomenon that ensued after a fight erupted in a small town in England. That term, a predecessor of Moral Panic, was used to explain the heightened awareness that a community possesses after such events. Arrests are made, a type of offender is identified, and suddenly everyone who exemplifies that type is a focal point for the nation’s issues. Cohen made note of an aggressive cycle in which law enforcement would become more aware of the types of crime that these groups were “apt” to commit after an exceptional case, and thus become more fervent in their efforts to enforce law on said group. This would lead those who were resistant to become agitated, an altercation to break-out, an arrest to be made, and thus more focus being placed on the group and more awareness of their “type” of behavior.

Who is to be blamed for these sorts of moral panics and community sensitization? Cohen identified five groups called the “actors” in his theory(1972). The first actor is the Press who contribute by exaggerating a story and misinforming the public of the facts. An event is publicized with scandalizing details, which in some cases are nothing but rumors, repeated until they become common knowledge; the offenders are stripped of individuality and become a stereotyped, blank face only identifiable by his style of dress and bad attitude, but always prone to commit crime. Often the press will report crimes in a way that distorts the facts but doesn’t change them; in this particular incident one newspaper reported that the windows in “all the dance halls in town” had been broken. While this fact was true, the paper neglected to mention that the town only contained one dance hall. Such exaggerated language is one of the primary reasons that issues are taken to be more serious than they are in reality.

The press, however, would not publish a story if no one was going to read it; so Cohen referred to the public as the second group of actors in moral panic. The public’s interest, piqued by stories of violence and more willing to demonize a stranger than to concern themselves with other issues, latch on to stories such as these. The press is a business and to remain in that business it is compelled to report on those things which the public will find interesting, thus investigative reporters drum up more “evidence” and “Facts” to publish and the cycle begins again. The press reports, the public pays attention and buys their paper, so the press finds similar stories to report, in turn drawing more and more focus to an issue that may not have actually gotten any larger. This effect of magnifying an issue will bring more public attention and outcry to pressure the next group of actors.

The third group of actors, according to Cohen’s work, is the law enforcement group. This group experiences pressure from higher-ups and the common people to “do something” about what is, in their eyes, a growing concern. In this situation law enforcement officials are “re-educated” to combat a specific issue and undergo a series of effects that change the way they operate. The process of “Diffusion” in which the bonds between officials and different groups of officials are knit more tightly helps to create a unified front against the issue which inspired the moral panic. Methods of coping with the issue are shared between groups and members of those groups, and the most effective strategies are formed, sometimes leading to what is called “escalation” by Cohen, in which methods of dealing with the problem become increasingly severe as a quick and effective strategy is brainstormed. This escalation often leads to vicious consequences for perpetrators of minor infractions, and the overall level of civil liberties being reduced. Behaviors once dismissed as mischievous are perceived as criminal in these circumstances, and this is all in the name of pleasing their higher-ups, the fourth group of actors.

The lawmakers and politicians who call to the law enforcement group, alongside the public, misled by the press, are the fourth group of actors in the moral panic. They are characterized by the same overreactions as the public but by the people who have the means to change the way in which the issue is approached. These moral panics are most damaging when focused upon by lawmakers, as they reroute their normal business to deal with an issue that only appears to be larger than it was before they had considered it worth mentioning. In the example which led Cohen to construct his theory of Moral panic, British lawmakers proposed antiquated methods of “fixing” their “rampant” problem of youth violence. Discussions of harsh punishment filled parliament with provocation from an outraged public, incensed by the press who grossly exaggerated the issue. This group is by far the most influential of the actors as they are the top of the chain that leads down to the actual “solution” on the streets. That solution, however, is not always perceived as adequate, leading from the most influential to the most dangerous of the actor groups.

The final group involved in a moral panic is what is referred to by Cohen as “action groups” but what I term more accurately as “reaction groups.” These are the most outspoken subset of the public who find the solutions proposed by lawmakers and the remedies enacted by law enforcement to be insufficient. Two such action groups existed in England during the backlash from the seaside incident; one in favor of mandatory punishment via work camps, the other resorting to the archaic punishment by birch rod, both entirely fueled by a misplaced fear and hatred for a group of dangerously maladjusted youths that didn’t even exist. These “Moral entrepreneurs” (Becker, 1963) are covered by the press and thus help to perpetuate their own fears and throw the entire public into what is called a “warning phase” by Cohen.

Cohen’s warning phase is part of his disaster theory stating that, in a moral panic, the public enters the same state it does during an actual panic that could be sparked by weather disasters. This is characterized by the sensitization previously mentioned, the overreactions previously mentioned, and the speculation which is often employed by action groups to sway the public to support their outlandish and overzealous punitive measures.

Moral panic is a dangerous and possibly destructive state which alters a society’s values, laws, and the fabric of their identity. It is every person’s responsibility to consume press reports responsibly and to analyze the statistics of supposed “growing” problems in their society as to avoid being caught in the fervor of “popular issues” so that they can help to steer their people from the dangers of moral panic and community sensitization.

References

Becker, Howard S. 1963 Outsiders: studies in the sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press

Cohen, Stanley. 1967 “Mods, Rockers, and the Rest: Community reactions to Juvenile Delinquency.” Howard Journal, 12(2): 121-30

1972. Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The creation of the Mods and Rockers. London MacGibbon & Kee

Maiden Voyage

I would like to begin my blog with a short "lecture" on the idea of deviance and normalcy.

The world is unfortunately populated by a great deal of deviance; and what is more dangerous than that deviance, is the attitude from which it springs. While individuality and personal interests are the spice of life, those without the proper will-power and set of skills abuse these luxuries and become what I call "Dangerously deviant." A term I've used for years now to describe those people who take their interests to an extreme that threatens their functionality. Everyone has seen this person. The stereotypical "nerd in the basement" comes to mind. The man who lives with his parents well into his forties and uses his income to furnish an anti-social lifestyle. Examples of this are rampant; in 2005 a man in South Korea decided that a video game was more important than his life and took his anti-social behavior to an extreme. He collapsed and died after a 50 hour gaming session left him exhausted. The saddest part of this all is that it is not the small minority. It is such a recognized threat that there are "rehabilitation" programs some even funded by Federal governments to cope with these behaviors.

As I mentioned, I feel that the attitude taken toward this level of deviance is almost as dangerous as the behavior itself. Members of these dangerously deviant groups are often selfsocialized to combat the likely arguments they will hear from detractors of their choice. "My anime collection is less harmful than your cigarette smoke." is a popular argument used by some dangerously deviant members of groups that are fans of the japanese animation style. This is an example of how the dangerously deviant have decided to arm themselves, and it is a maladaptive strategy. There are patches to help you stop smoking, there are programs to cope with chemical dependence, and there should be more methods of combatting dangerously deviant behavior.

While the argument presented above seems valid, when placed under the electron microscope of behavioral science, it becomes less powerful. These dangerously deviant behaviors are dubbed so because of the damage they inflict upon the social skills of those who act upon them. Unless you work in a Chili's restaurant, you undoubtedly have a designated "Smoking" area at your job. This area, while it seems arbitrary and unimportant, actually serves as a powerful social device. According to the principles of relationship formation in psychology, the most powerful indicators of the likelihood that you will form a relationship with someone are proximity, similarity, and frequency of interaction. With the combination of the fact that two people work together and both smoke we can assume a few things. Firstly, they live within a reasonable proximity. If you can commute somewhere for work, arrangements could be made so that you can use that same area as a base for social networking. Second, they have things in common; they work together, they smoke, if they hold the same position they are likely to have similar levels of education. These are all powerful factors for the formation of relationships. The only basic principle that can not be assumed is frequency of interaction, as that will vary due to schedule and amount of employees at a facility. For these reasons, even smoking, an activity which carries the stigma of cancer, heart disease, and child endangerment, is a more socially conducive process than these anti-social, dangerously deviant behaviors.

"Nothing's normal! What's normal anyway?" The plague of our time is contained in this short exclaimation which is heard countless times a day. The attitudes held by the general populace are, in sort, to be blamed on the media. Twenty years ago The Simpsons, now considered an American classic depicting the average American family, was a story of tragically maladapted individuals scraping by with hodgepodge strategies. In 1991 Bill Cosby called Bart Simpson "Angry, confused, and frustrated," and further elaborated that he was "A bad role model for children." The response from the creator of the show was a resounding agreement without apology, which drew criticism then, but has now become what we expect. In short, our society has engaged in what is called a "Slippery slope" in that our standard for acceptable behavior has slipped, and what was once questionable is now acceptable, and what was unthinkable has become only questionable.

I have no solution to the issue concerning dangerous deviance and returning to the norm, however I believe that more of our young behavioral scientists should be concerned with this issue. We've become a society of enablers and acceptors when we should be guiding forces in the lives of those who need us, those who are at risk for Dangerously deviant behavior.

Thank you for taking the time out of your day to read this. I am the Elitist and for now I am looking forward to a better world by looking back at one.

Preface

Let me start by saying thank you for choosing this blog over some of the other fine competitors. I'll be sure to place some links for said competitors once I find some I like. Next I would like to lay a groundwork and aim for anyone who has stumbled upon this. With my blog, I hope to espouse and explain some thoughts and feelings that seem unrepresented by today's youth. I will be discussing subjects from my own area of expertise, that being different disciplines of psychology and sociology; however my message may come across as supportive of the constructive powers at work in our society (that word meaning the United States and ostensibly the "e" community.) This idea of supporting what is right seems to me, the best method of combatting the negativity that rages through the youth culture. That being said, I plan to write several articles that have no particular bias, just general theories on the workings of human beings and community, drawing (once again) from my own research as a psychologist and sociologist. So have no fear, if you are a fan of anti-establishment blogging, there will be plenty of thoughful research that shows you exactly what to be angry about, instead of hating everything in sight. Now without any further interruption I'd like to begin my first "lecture."