Being a Little Different

Are you in some large group or community that is separate from the mainstream - the kind of crowd that is involved in an  unorthodox religion, an offbeat sexual preference, an oddball entertainment? If so, then ...

Here are illustrations.

Elderly

Elderly folks in the subject pool of the Duke University Aging Center (studied by Chris Averett) saw a doctor as somewhat less powerful than other Americans do - an EPA profile of 1.8, 1.4, 0.1 - and the elderly saw a patient as substantially nicer and less powerless than most others do - an EPA profile of 1.1, -0.5, -0.4.

ACT analyses with program Interact suggest that these sentiments cause the the elderly to expect the following behaviors for the doctor: value, confide in, approve of, respect, believe, uplift, commend, snuggle. The patient might ask the doctor about something, agree with, admire, exalt, address, laud, idealize. If the doctor uplifts the patient, the doctor might feel affectionate, appreciative, compassionate, relieved, touched, generous, sympathetic; and the patient might feel at ease, contented, moved, calm, grateful, relieved, touched, awe struck. Subsequently, the doctor might respect, apologize to, value, commend, honor, remember, instruct, approve of the patient; and the patient might ask about something, admire, agree with, exalt, laud, accommodate, or address the doctor. If the patient asks about something, then the doctor should feel awe struck, at ease, moved, contented, calm, grateful, melancholy; and the patient should feel moved, awe struck, at ease, contented, relieved, touched, calm, charmed. Finally, the doctor might thank, explain, console, medicate, calm, apologize to, instruct, respect the patient; and the patient might admire, ask about, agree with, exalt, accommodate, answer, or laud the doctor.

On the other hand southern male university students view a doctor as good, powerful, and not lively - an EPA profile of 1.8, 2.1, -0.3 - and they view a patient as neither good nor bad but somewhat weak and lifeless: 0.1, -1.7, -0.8.

ACT analyses with program Interact suggest that these sentiments cause the students to expect that a doctor would consider, soothe, caution, bless, calm, listen to, esteem, or counsel a patient. Meanwhile, no more than minimal acts are expected from a weak and lifeless patient to a doctor. The analysis also suggests that, having listened to a patient, a doctor might feel sympathetic, appreciative, reverent, peaceful, contented, grateful, affectionate, relaxed; and the patient might feel at ease, calm, contented, moved, grateful, awe struck, touched. Subsequently according to the analysis, the doctor might console, medicate, calm, counsel, consider, explain to, instruct, or soothe the patient; while the patient remains passive.

In general, the elderly's sentiments about doctors and patients call for an expanded doctor-patient encounter with social support from the doctor and diverse action by the patient before any actual medical treatment is implemented. The elderly expect a doctor to medicate only after having engaged in some supportive interaction with the patient. The elderly's sentiments lead them to want richer doctor-patient interactions presumably because doctors are so central in the lives of the elderly.

Gay Christians

Members of a gay church congregation in South Carolina (studied by Bill Douglass, a graduate student working with Lynn Smith-Lovin) found unusual sentiments about a Christian (2.0, 1.3, 0.1) and a homosexual (1.6, 0.8, 0.8). The gay Christians saw both of these identities more positively than do most Americans, and the goodness and potency associated with "homosexual" by gay Christians is literally the opposite of what it is among most other people (-1.5, -0.8, 0.6).

With these sentiments, Interact predicts behaviors for a gay to a Christian of: entertain, amuse, speak to, amaze, rally, dazzle, greet, hail. The Christian should encourage, compliment, please, speak to, interest, welcome, invite, greet the gay. Assuming the Christian speaks to the gay, he would feel affectionate, in love, compassionate, pleased, passionate, relieved, generous, touched; and the gay would feel relieved, moved, contented, at ease, touched, amused, glad, charmed. Subsequently, the Christian might welcome, compliment, interest, encourage, please, speak to, appreciate, praise the gay; and the gay might amuse, entertain, delight, cheer, speak to, rally, encourage, amaze the Christian. If the gay responds by speaking to the Christian, then the gay should feel relieved, amused, touched, glad, contented, moved, cheered, delighted; and the Christian should feel awe struck, moved, at ease, contented, carefree, emotional, calm, lighthearted.

On the other hand, members of a southern Unitarian church rated Christian and homosexual pretty much as you might expect: the Christian was viewed positively (though not as positively as for the fundamentalist church members) and the homosexual was viewed negatively. According to program Interact, these sentiments produce interactions between the two which are not very satisfying, especially for Christians. The homosexual might mimic, chatter to, tease, deride, annoy, needle, heckle, blame a Christian. The Christian might evaluate, pacify, examine, query, brief, discipline, address, or analyze a homosexual. If the Christian queries the homosexual, the Christian and homosexual both would feel mostly neutral. In response, the homosexual might mimic, chatter to, tease, deride, annoy, needle, heckle, rib the Christian; and the Christian might consider, caution, examine, address, bless, pacify, excuse, evaluate the homosexual. The homosexual chattering to the Christian should make the homosexual feel awe struck, emotional, moved, anxious, charmed, lighthearted; while the Christian feels self-conscious, apprehensive, shocked, lovesick, nervous, impatient, displeased, uneasy.

ACT analyses suggest that homosexuals would have to behave deviantly and produce little in the way of pleasant emotions for others if they accepted the negatively valued identity of homosexual that is provided by the general culture. However, sentiments developed in the gay sub-culture permit them to behave normally and view themselves as positive interaction partners. A second survey of the two church congregations revealed that the Unitarians actually did have the expectations deduced from their sentiments by affect control theory, and the gay Christians saw their interactions in the positive manner generated from their positive sentiments.

Deviance sub-cultures

The negative sentiments we have about deviants allow us to predict deviants' behavior - on the whole, we expect bad people to behave badly, which they often do. Moreover, imagining that deviants share our negative sentiments about them allows us to understand their motives as well - bad people need to prove that they are bad, which makes them do evil.

By stigmatizing deviants we make their conduct comprehensible, and that is so useful that we rarely question whether deviants have the same interpretations as we do. We imagine that they must because they engage in the very actions that confirm their stigma! Yet lay intuitions about deviant psychology sometimes are wrong. Deviants who form sub-cultures acquire positive sentiments about the sub-culture's special identities and actions. Then those identities elicit the behaviors, not because the identities and behaviors are bad, but because they are good! That is, sub-cultural deviants do not feel they are engaging in despicable actions. They define themselves and their actions as positive.

The following chart makes the point vividly. The chart is based on self-reports given anonymously in 1980s deviance classes in Indiana, and it shows how 94 females and 62 males evaluated "smoking marijuana, hash" and "sniffing cocaine," depending on their total experience with recreational drugs. The center of a circle shows the average ratings of the two drugs within the group represented by the circle. The diameters of the circles show the percentages of respondents in the different groups, by sex.

You can see that people who have no experience with recreational drugs view both kinds of drug use as wicked. Those who have tried marijuana but nothing else view sniffing cocaine less negatively than non-users, and they feel that smoking marijuana is neutral. Those who have tried both marijuana and cocaine feel that using these drugs is a positive act. And those far enough into the drug sub-culture to have tried LSD as well as the other two drugs not only feel positive about drug usage, they feel that using marijuana is virtuous!

The same finding replicates again and again in the self-report studies. For example, those with experience in occult sub-cultures view invoking spirits positively, in contrast to others' views that this is devilish or witless. Students who have threatened someone with a weapon see this as positive, self-reassuring behavior in contrast to the abhorrence expressed by others. Students with homosexual experience see acts of homosexuality positively in contrast to the general condemnatory view.

Of course, some people normalize deviant acts by long repetition rather than by joining a group: they become a sub-culture of one. For example, the self-report data show that students who induce vomiting to get rid of food see the act as sensible instead of disgusting, but they each perhaps developed this sentiment on their own.

Deviant Deviants

Not all deviants normalize their identities or behaviors. Some really act out the plots we provide for them as deviants. They are the ones we might identify as psychiatrically disturbed in the sense that they maintain negative self-sentiments, confirm their negative self-concepts through behavior which they believe is bad, and endure the capricious and frequently negative emotions that such behavior induces.