This item is only available as the following downloads:
SAMPLE TITLE PAGE (2 top margin) I AM PUNK: A PROTOTYPE ANALYSIS OF IDENTITY IN THE PUNK MUSIC SUBCULTURE (4 spaces) BY NOELLE NEEMEH A Thesis Submitted to the Division of Social Sciences New College of Florida in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Bachelor of Arts (Single space all of this) Under the sponsorship of Dr. Steven Graham Sarasota, Florida April, 2011
I am Punk ii Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dr. Graham for his advice and support throughout the duration of my research. I would also like to thank Dr. Barton and Dr. Callahan for being a part of my committee. Special thanks to all my friends who supported me. Thanks to my mother
I am Punk iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Number Acknowledgements ii Table of Contents iii Abstract iv Introduction 1 Study 1 Method 21 Results 22 Discussion 23 Study 2 Method 24 Results 26 Discussion 28 General Discussion 31 References 3 3 Table 37 Appendix 3 8
I am Punk iv I AM PUNK: A PROTOTYPE ANALYSIS OF IDENTITY IN THE PUNK MUSIC SUBCULTURE Noelle Neemeh New College of Florida, 2011 ABSTRACT The present research looked at group and individ ual identity in the punk music subculture through a prototype analysis and through various measures (identity fusion and organizational identification). In the first study, a list was compiled of features that individuals saw as a description of the punk s ubculture. In the second study, participants had to rate how central they felt each word on a compiled list was to their concept of punks and themselves, as well as how positively or negatively they viewed it. Participants then completed measures for group identification. The results of Studies 1 and 2 indicate that punk identity does have a prototype structure and that members conceive of their group identity in very broad concepts. Findings are discussed in relation to theories of group and individual ide ntity, and in relation to length of membership and positivity ratings of punk prototypical features. Dr. Steven Graham Division of Social Sciences
I am Punk 1 I Am Punk: A Prototype Analysis of Identity in the Punk Music Subculture For over three decades, various groups have emerged from the transforming music scene. The mos t noteworthy and striking group in the music scene is the p unk subculture The punk music genre has contributed to the creation of several other musical genres (e.g., hardcore) and has provided great influence among listeners and mainstream culture alike (Cartledge, 2005) Alt hough this group has attracted a great deal of attention and h as brought about a revolution in the rock music genre, litt le research has focused specifically on the characteristics attributed to p unk The present study looks to address this gap in the research literature by looking at how members of this music subcul ture both define and view their group, as well as looking at how members view themselves in relation to their group Evolution and Group Formation Evolutionary Need for Groups It is widely believed that humans as a species are innately driven toward group behavior (see Alexander, 1974 ; Brewer & Caporael, 2006) Studying our physiological make up can help us to understand our biological limitations and to suggest explanations for specific behaviors. For instance, humans have an extended period of development during i nfancy and are weak in comparison to other species Our physiological shortcomings indicate that humans are not meant to survive as individual loners but rather in large groups where resources can be shared, protection is offered, and potential ma tes are more readily available. Humans are not the only animals who live in groups to ensure survival. In fact, most animals live in some sort of group situation (e.g., wolves, elephants, dolphins). Because humans are better able to survive and function in
I am Punk 2 cooperative groups, there seems to be an evolutionary shift in thinking and behavior. cognitive processes that support the development and maintenance of membership in p.145 ). Because individual survival is affected by the strengths and weaknesses of the group to which the individual belongs, acceptance in and commitment to the group is imperative. Being accepted by a group ensure s that one will have the support you need to survive. Our need to belong is so great that people will often place their group i dentity above their own needs (i.e., this is often observed in collectivist cultures; Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 198 8 ) Alt hough group formations in modern day may not be as related to survival as it once was, group re lations are so i ngrained in us that we continue to form groups to satisfy our need to belong and have some sort of connection with others. Group membershi p and roles within the group depend on the nature and function of the group. In larger, collective groups, personal relationships between members and even face to face interaction are not required. These groups ons of the group as a unit independent of p.153 ). Need to Belong Psychological theories commonly discuss the pervasive need to belong among human beings (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) However, (1970) hierarchy of needs before esteem and self actualization but after physiological and safety needs. Humans seem to naturally form groups, suggesting the importance groups seem to hold in societies. All over the
I am Punk 3 world groups exist in different cultures, countries, and continents. The differences among these groups are the number of different groups that exist wit hin the culture, the criteria for membership, and how enduring the m embership to the group is. The belongingness hypothesis which was proposed by Baumeister and Leary quantity of lasting, positive, and signific ant interpersonal relation ships (p.497). Evolutionarily, relationships, specifically group relationships, play a significant role in the survival of the human species. Numerous studies have shown that people who lack social bonds have higher rates of depression, unhappiness, psych opathology, and have even been shown to have poorer immune system functioning (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). On the other hand, people who are more accepted (have better support networks and more intimate friendships) tend to experience a variety of positive emotions. Thus, researchers have been concerned over the potential negative effects on health that may derive from poor social bonds. In a study by Hobfall and London (1986) on veterans of war, those who felt that they had greater social support were signi ficantly less likely to have post traumatic stress disorder than those who felt that they had less support. Suicide has even been found to be related to a lack of social integration. People who are single, divorced, and widowed have been shown to have high er rates of suicide when compared with married individuals (Rothberg & Jones, 1987) People who belong to subcultures that are decreasing in membership or popularity have been found to have an increased suicide rate as well (Trout, 1980) People also seem to form social bonds quickly and with ease, even when their
I am Punk 4 beliefs or personality. A classic study conducted by Sherif Harvey, Wh ite, Hood, and Sherif (1961 ) randomly ass igned boys at a camp to groups. The boys rapidly showed strong group loyalty and identification with their assigned group and even showed hostility toward the other group (see page 6 for more detail) According to the belongingness hypothesis, people need a certain amount of relationships in their lives. Therefore, social relationships are replaceable when inadequate or dissolved. For instance, L. J. Beckman (1981) found that parent child relationships had become increasingly important for elderly women who se other social networks had diminished due to death or lack of social interaction in retirement. However, for those who did not have children this parent child interaction was replaced by looking more to interactions with others (friends, groups) for happiness. Therefore group membership serves as a means for interaction and can act as a replacement for Group Identity Formation of In Groups The formation of in group identities a group in which a person as sociates with, can be a part of multiple in groups begins at a young age. We are socialized from birth to identify with specific groups for example, nation s religion s and race s From the mere age of five, children are able to understand that they belong to certain groups. However complete understanding of the implications of membership to that group does not arise until a later age of about nine or ten ( Allport, 1954) Though understanding does not fully develop at the age of five, Allport (1954) argues that children still hold fierce allegiance to their group(s).
I am Punk 5 Group membership does not require one to have direct contact or association with personal contacts. But ot ( Allport, 1954 p. 30 ) Whereas some in groups are eternal (e.g., a racial group), others are temporary and short lived (e.g., a high school club). Many in group memberships are acquired at birth (e.g., nationality sex, race), while others have to be earned or are acquired later on in life through experience (e.g., political group) Not only does membership change over time (dissociating from certain groups, while acquiring new membership in others), but involvemen transform with time. As a result, members of the same in group will often have different ideas as to what is considered a part o there are ov erarching themes which allow for individuals to be able to categorize themselves within that specific in group. In Groups versus Out Groups As belie f systems and objects are often defined through opposition black vs. whit e, male vs. female, republican vs. democrat so too are groups. Allport (1954) said n groups are often recreated to fit the needs of individuals, and when the needs are group may be primarily in terms of the hated out ( p.37 ) Thi s same in group love versus out group hate is oftentimes how prejudices are formed within societies. The preferences and beliefs of members must be aligned with the preferences and beliefs of the group. As history has shown, out groups are frequently used to strengthen and reinforce an in group e.g., Hitler created a common enemy, Jews, in order to solidify the Nazi hold over Germany. This is a
I am Punk 6 common occurrence that most people will experience in their l ife times. For instance, in high school and college, s chool spirit is increased when th ere is a sports match with a rival school. Not only does a common enemy (the out group) strengthen the in group identity of members, but adversity and trauma often exaggerate this phenomenon. Think of the infamous acts whic h occurred on September 11, 2001 ; this day brought out an amplified national identity in most Americans as well as a tendency of in group versus out group comparison situations do tend to fortify our identity with specific in groups, it is certainly not mandatory or necessary. In group versus out group mindset is often created through the existence of an out group, even when there are no opposing views or ideologies. Once people become part of a group they tend to evaluate in group members positively and out group members negatively. In fact, people seem to display this in group favoritism even when they are grouped randomly and informed that the groups are random (the minimal group paradigm). In a study on prejudice in social groups, two groups of 11 boys were brought to a ( Sheri f, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sheri f, 1961) The boys were bused into the camp separately so that both gro ups were unaware of the existence of the other group. The boys in this study were not placed into either of the groups based on any common factor among the members, though they all seemed to identify with their assigned group in a relatively short p eriod o f time. Within two to three days, both groups created social hierarchies within the group and even took it upon themselves to name their group The
I am Punk 7 strong group identification that the boys acquired became even more promin ent when their identities were threatened when each group found out about the other. The boys often reverted to name calling and hostility between the groups grew to such a degree that the researchers had to come up with a way to get the boys to work toget her for a common goal in order to reduce the friction and promote unity between the groups. Social Identity Theory Group mentality is very import ant on an individual level. It provide s people with a strong sense of self, social location, and belongingness. Social Identity Theory, which was first proposed by Tajfel and Turner in 1986, sought to provide an explanation for the psychological aspects behind intergroup discrimination. Social Identity Theory postulates roups to which they belong. According to Hogg (2006), a group is three or more people who view themselves as having similar attributes or beliefs that separate them from others. Each member has the same, or very similar, view of what constitutes group memb ership and how this compares and contrasts to other groups. While individual identity is based off of particular personality traits that rmed in two different ways: through a common bond or through a common identity. Common bond groups are built upon attachment among members, while common identity groups are based on attachment to the group ( Hogg, 2006) People often times have multiple grou p identities as well as individual identities. ocial and personal identities vary in subjective importance and
I am Punk 8 immediate situation (situationa ( p.115 ) Group membership is also variable; it fluctuates in length of time, membership size, and the function it serves for the individual as well as society. The motivating factors for group membership consist of self enhancement and un certainty reduction. Self enhancement is achieved through a positive view of the group ( Hogg, 2006 p.120 ) If we are uncertain of our individual identities and how we relate to others, we often search for a sense of belongingness. Group membership provides individuals with a diminished feeling of uncertainty about their place in society. In 2002, Jetten, Postmes, and Mcauliffe looked at conformity to group norms in collectivist a nd individualist groups collectivist groups tend to be more group oriented (e.g., Japan), while individualist groups tend to place more emphasis on the individual (e.g., the United States) They collected data from graduate students in America, a highly in dividualist nation, as well as graduate students in Indonesia, a highly collectivist nation. Participants completed a questionnaire on how much they identified with their national group, as well as an abbreviated version of the individualism and collectivi sm scale. The researchers predicted that participants who strongly identified with their nation would be more likely to conform to the beliefs and customs of that national group. While on the other hand, those who did not strongly identify with their natio n would not be likely to conform to the norms of that group. The researchers found in individualist group (the American students), those who identified strongly with the group conformed more to the group norms (being more individualistically oriented) than those who did not identify strongly with the group. The researchers also found similar results for the collectivist group (the Indonesian students); those who strongly identified with the national group
I am Punk 9 had more collectivist attitudes than those who did n ot identify strongly with the group. The researchers attribute these findings to the workings of social identity theory. The stronger the attachment a person has toward a group, the more likely it is that that the person will follow in group norms and beli efs. Therefore, in the context of this study, participants who identified strongly with their national group were more likely to conform to the standards and norms of their national group. Many theories have been based off of and inspired by social ident ity theory. One such theory include s organizational identification, belongingness to an organization, where the individual defines him or herself in terms of ( Mael & Ash forth, 1992 p.104 ) Though people tend to view their social identities in a positive manner, as well as classify themselves with groups who are viewed positively by others, identification with a group or organization can be painful if the group is viewed negatively or is viewed as failing. Mael and Ashforth (1992) examined self report data from alumni of a religious college, looking specifically at correlates of researchers found that increased identifi cation with thei r alma mater was related to prestige of views of the college, the number of school events they attend ed, willing ness to recommend the school for th eir children or friends, and satisfaction with their group. The researchers also noted that s ymbols played an important aspect in organizational identification. Symbols (e.g., flags help people to represent their nationality, fraternities often use letters from the Greek alphabet to symbolize their group, and gangs often will wear specific colors to signify their membership) provide images of what the organization represents and help
I am Punk 10 Membership in Stigmatized Groups s, why is it that this is still a fact of highly individualistic cultures, such as that of the United States? It has been argued that self esteem most likely plays a large role in group identities. Self esteem can be enhanced through positive comp group from out groups (i.e., thinking group is better ) However, this does not account for the fact that people join groups that a re socially disadvantaged or highly stigmatized (e.g ., gangs). According to Marilynn Brewer (1993 ) if people place negative attributes on the group rather than on themselves, their individual self esteem is not impacted negatively as much. Brewer argues that, in this case, esteem may actually be enhanced by self presentation as a typical group me mber since it alters the context in which negative trai ts or experiences are evaluated ( p.11 ) Though many people do not associate all of the qualities of their in group with themselves, people often still try to associate with predominant tra its Researchers have often dismissed this as a p art of self verification theory, ( Gmez, Huici, Seyle, & Swann, 2009 p.1021 ) Though in doing so, these researchers have ignored the fact that people stri ve to verify both positive and negative qualities. Gmez et al. (2009) challenged self verification theory by stating that people, so much as they are invested in the group, should seek verification for all attributes of the group whether they are positive negative, reflect individual beliefs, or disconnected from individual belief. In a total of five experiments, the researchers found that people preferred to interact with individuals who verified their in group identities (even if negative) over individu als who enhanced these identities.
I am Punk 11 trivings for in stronger among participants who were highly invest ed in their in group identities ( p.1021 ) The link between self esteem and stigmati zed groups is somewhat unclear. Individual members of groups seem to take on all of the attributes of their associated groups, whether positive or negative. It is unclear, however, whether negative attributes of the group have a detrimental effect on indiv esteem, or if the negative aspects of the group are nullified by the increased self esteem one gains through merely being accepted by the group. Despite the fact that stigmatized groups are viewed negatively by many, these groups seem to suppl y its members with support and even a sense of belongingness that outweighs any negative characteristics. Optimal Distinctiveness For most people, having multiple group identities is not uncommon. Their group identities can range from large groups, such as Americans to smaller more intimate groups, such as The question then arises as to how people are able to balance t heir individual and group identities. Acco theory of optimal distinctiveness social identity is activated in order to meet competing needs for differentiation of the self from others and inclusion of the self into larger social collectives (p.3). Optimal distinctiveness makes use of the ideas of depersonalization and distinctiveness. By balancing both of these concepts, one can achieve this equilibriu m (or optimal distinctiveness). Depersonalization is achieved through in groups whereby one sacrifice s individuality in order to adopt group membership while distinctiveness is achieved
I am Punk 12 through intergroup comparisons (comparing in group to other out groups). However, if there is not equilibrium between depersonalization and distinctiveness then it may lead people to gain a greater concept of the one that is minimized. Therefore, the largely inclusive group becomes the superordinate group and smaller categories within the larger group become the subordinate groups. For the superordinate group while the subordinate groups might include metal heads, scremo, popular rock, alternative rock, doom metal, etc. In this view, individuals in smaller groups (more minority groups), where there is more likely equilibrium, in group identity and group loyalty should be achieved more easily. Consequently the individuals in these groups should present themselves more in a manner which is harmonious with the expectations (stereotypes) of a typical membe r. However, if the group is too large and inclusive (superordinate group), then people will want to distinguish themselves more from the group and therefore will not readily display or be a part of the group expectations. A number of experimental studies h ave supported this theory of Optimal Distinctiveness. In 1994 Brewer and Weber looked at how assignment to distinctive or inclusive group categories affects group identification and self stereotyping. They found that participants in the distinctive minori ty group engaged in more group identification and self stereotyping than did participants in the large, inclusive majority groups. Brewer and Weber argued that those in the majority groups felt overly inclusive and tried to satisfy their needs for distinct iveness by displaying more interpersonal comparisons.
I am Punk 13 Identity Fusion In an attempt to address the recent political problems with terrorism, Swann, Gmez, Seyle, Morales, and Huici (2009) theorized a novel way to explain the extreme behaviors of people within groups. They make a distinction identities and their group identities, as many others have done in the past (e.g., Hogg, 2006) idual asp ects of the person (e g. introv erted, smart, punctual). O prototypical of the groups in which they identify with ( e. g. American, Republican, and Catholic ). Though most people are able to make the distinction between their personal For those who see themselves as having a fused identity, Swann et al. (2009) argues that other barrier is blurred and the group comes to be regarded as functionally equivalent with the ( p.995 ) According to the theory of identity fusion, people do not need to have personal relationships with or even have met most others in the group the individual identifies with in order to fus e their personal and group identities. When people care about the outcomes of their group as much as their personal outcomes, it indicates that people personalize their group identities. In order to test this theory of identity fusion, Swann et al. (2009) conducted three independent studies using Spanish undergraduates referencing their national group identity, Spain. A measure of identity fusion was created and utilized (see Appendix) This is a pictorial measure which is a modified version of Aron, Aron a (1992) assessment of close relationships. Participants were asked to choose which of the five images accurately reflected their relationship with the target group, in this case
I am Punk 14 The results were in support of identity fusion -those wh o indicated being more fused with the group were significantly more likely to report the likelihood of extreme behavior on behalf of the group (i.e., dying and fighting for the group). Even when used persons willingness to d ie for the group was increased. Researchers looking into cases of crowd and mob behaviors have found that identity fusion is not dependent upon prior relations with the group or the intent for future membership. In an archival the loss of self awareness and individual accountability in a group. Mann found that crowds were reported to maliciously enc ourage suicide when the crowds were large (300 or more), under cover of darkness, and when there was significant physical distance between the crowd and the victim, all of which aid in the deindividuation of members of the crowd. But why would people feel a connection to other members in the crowd, all which are most certainly perfect strangers? The explanation Mann gives in his study is that members of the crowd rationalize the situation by thinking that the suicidal person is crazy and that everyone in th e crowd is sane, therefore individuals will want to associate lose their sense of self, in a manner of speaking. Though this is a rare occurrence, it does speak to the basic nature of group formations and behaviors. In a classic study on deindividuation in groups, Diener, Beaman, Fraser, and Kelem (1976) observed the behavior of 1,300 trick or treaters. Inside the front door of the 27 houses they used in this study, two bowls were set on a table, one which had candy
I am Punk 15 and the other which had pennies and nickels. When the children arrived at the various houses, they were told to take a piece of candy but to not touch the bowl of money. As s site, they would watch through a peep hole the behaviors of the children. The researchers found that when the children arrived in a group, they were significantly more likely to steal from the bowls. Diener et al. (1976) concluded that w ith regard to th e deindividuation theory predictions, it would appear that group presence would decrease inhibitions by decreasing self awareness, by ( p.179 ) Differentiating Social Identity Theory, Optimal Distinctiveness, and Identity Fusion Though all of these theories indicate that people have a strong alignment with a group, there is a crucial difference between these theories. In social identity theory and optimal distinctiveness, when people identify with a group they undergo depersonalization. People become more prototypical of the group (they identify with the group more and their traits and beliefs align wi th the groups). Swann et al. (2009) make the argument that d epersonalized individuals may be well suited for falling in line and obeying orders issued by the group leader, but they lack the initiative to enact extraordinary actions for the group, as such ( p.996 ) On the other hand, identity fusion states that when individual identities are fused with group identities people do not renounce their sense of self for their group identity. Instead, their individua l identity is merged with the group identity, allowing for the individuals to view themselves as distinct members in the group. This, Swann et al. argues, allows for fused members to act on the behalf of the group.
I am Punk 16 Cognition One of the rema rkable aspects of the human mind is that it allows people to evaluate situations and people quickly through the use of prototypes. A prototype is a cognitive representation of a specific category of the category. For example, ones p rototype of a cat may be a small, furry animal that meows and has four legs. Though not all cats fit this description, this is the relative norm of the category. Prototypes are so convenient and efficient that we even utilize them when evaluating other s T his has been used within p sychology to explain why people hold stereotypes (see George & Zhou, 2001) When we view a person as a part of a group, we no longer see them as an individual with their own idiosyncratic attributes but instead we measure them aga inst the group prototype ( Hogg, 2006) This allows us to quickly assess unfamiliar others so that we are able to react appropriately. As is also widely known within psychology, we are able to assess information related to the self much more quickly and even remember more information when we make it relevant to the self ( Symons & Johnson, 1997 ) Researchers have used this phenomenon to try to explain how we are able to cognitively conceptualize ourselves and others. In a study cond ucted in 1996, Marilynn Brewer and Wendi Gardner looked at to think about an in group or out group. P articipants read a passage about taking a trip in a city and were asked to circle all the pronouns in the passage. These different pronouns were used to prime either an inclusive group ( we us ), an external group ( they them ), or nothing if in the control. After completing that task, Brewer and Gardner
I am Punk 17 judgment The participants were then placed in front of a computer and were shown 16 attitude statements on various issues and were asked to ju dge as quickly as possible whether the statements were similar or dissimilar to their own views. It was found that participants were able to make judgments that were similar to their own in the we condition relatively quickly, while dissimilar judgments re quired a longer response time. However, in the they condition, the similar judgments took longer, while the dissimilar ones took less time. W hen collective identities are salient, in group out group categorizations become the most important basis for evalu ating others. In a study conducted by Coats, Smith, Claypool, and Banner (1999), the relationship between in dividual traits/attitudes and in groups traits/attitudes were assessed using a reaction time test. Coats et al. (1999) argue that in order for one t o u various th eories on group behavior ( optimal distinctiveness, social identity theory, self categorization theory), the researchers hypo thesized that in concept. Participants were shown a list of words that are stereotypical of fraternities and sororities. Participants rate d on a Likert scale, as quickly as they could, h ow much the given traits were characteristic of themselves. Participants also complete d several explicit measures of group identification. Coats et al. (1999) found that participants rated the traits more rapidly for those that matched traits that the individual held and that were also held by the in group Additionally, participants who had faster reaction times tended to report higher levels of social ident ity, lower levels of
I am Punk 18 avoidance o f the group, an d viewed themselves as having greater similarity to the group. This research, combined with newer social theories, suggests that features of in groups definitions. Punk Music Scene History of Punk Su bculture The emergence of the Punk movement in the United States is thought to have origins in New York, Detroit, Cleveland, and even Los Angeles (Cartledge, 2005) The sudden increase in consumerism after World War II led to a new phenomenon in which ng people [had] to shape and realize their own identities through the consumption of ( Cartledge, 2005 p.66 ) Punk subculture emerged out of a rising need for youth to distinguish themselves from popular culture and music. It was not unt il 1975 The Ramones, Sex Pistols, the Clash, and the Dead Kennedys. Punk youths challenged popular culture and conservative ideologies directly through the music scene a s well as through its culture shocking stylistic qualities. Punks are often characterized as having rebellious attitudes, outlandish clothing and hairstyles (black leather, torn clothing adorned with safety pins and metal studs, spiked and dyed hair), as w ell as anarchistic beliefs wit h an emphasis on non conformity Out of the punk rock movement came a variety of rock genres e.g., ska, hardcore, gothic rock, grunge which continue to play an important role in music today ( Cartledge, 2005) Research De spite the fact that the punk music subculture has been a large part of the rock music scene for over three decades, little to no rese arch has been conducted on this group
I am Punk 19 or similar groups (e.g., goths) What little research has been done has been primarily in the discipline of sociology and has dealt with smaller groups within each subculture and has be en mainly observational work. The only study located that had psychologically relevant information, looked at and Kerr hypothesized that adolescents (goths and punks) in order to cope with being shy. By dressing and acting in a way that is against social conventions, these youths are projecting an image that they do not want contact from others, which in turn relieves It was also postulated that associating with radical groups may be a way for people to self handicap they can attribute social rejection and negative experiences to their appearance rather than t o their own personality traits. Using students in Sweden, Kerr (2009) asked the participants to choose from a list the peer crowd that they most identify with. Behavioral inhibition was looked at by having participants rate on a three eight situations (e.g., speaking in front of a class, making a phone call to someone you do not know). Emotional adjustment was determined by depression, measured using the Child Depression scale, and self esteem, using the Rosenberg self esteem scale. If these youths were indeed becoming a part of these radical peer groups as a coping strategy then, they should be more emotionally adjusted theory. R adical youths were si gnif icantly more inhibited (shy) than the other groups and were more poorly emotionally adjusted significantly more depressed and reported having lower self esteem.
I am Punk 20 Present Research The present research looks to fill the gap in the literatu re on the punk music subculture by acquiring a greater understanding of what constitutes membership and wh at attracts members to this group The present studies utilize the method of a prototype analysis In study one a list of features were compiled. In study tw o, the centrality of each feature was assessed, along with the positivity/negativity and measures of identity fusion and organizational identification. The present studies focus mainly on descriptive research techniques and seek to explore topics which, t o date have not been studied in depth. Consequently the researcher did not have many directional hypotheses. For study two, it was hypothesized that participants who reported bei ng members of their group ( punk) for a longer period of time would be more invested in their group and thus view their individual identity as being f used with their group identity and have a greater sense of organizational identification. Due to the similarities in the measures of organizational identification and identity fusio n, having more than one measure will serve as a test of convergent validity. Therefore, it was hypothesized that identity fusion and organizational identification would be positively related. Additionally, the researcher hypothesized that participants who reported a greater organizational identification and fused identity would rate the compiled characteristics as central to not only the group, but themselves, as well. Due to the fact that within society, the researcher did not make any hypotheses as to how members would view the positivity/negativity of the prototypical characteristics of their group.
I am Punk 21 Study 1: Compilation of Prototypic Punk Features In the first study, participants generated list s of featur es that they saw as descripti ve of the punk subculture. Participants were asked to list features of punk groups in an open ended survey. Method Participants Participants were 54 members of an online punk music forum: http://www.absolutepunk.net/forum.php Thirty two participants were excluded from the study due to either stating that they do not identify as punk, or due to a lack of sufficient information (e.g., many agreed to participate and then exit ed the study) This left a total of 22 participants 15 male, 5 female, 2 who prefer red not to answer the question The a median age of 22 and the majority was of Caucasian descent (62.5%). Procedure This survey was created using an internet based survey site (SurveyMonkey). The survey was distributed through an online forum for people who identify as punk or like punk music. This online forum was selected by using a search engine ( http://www.google.com specific site was selected, http://www.absolutepunk.net/forum.php due to its high online membership (339,132 active members). This site was generated as a way to help promote bands and to bring together people with similar interests. The online survey wa s posted as re given the instructions (adopted from Fehr & Russell, 1984): This is a study on the characteristics
I am Punk 22 and attributes that people think of when they think of the word punk. For example, if you were asked to list the characteristics of a person experiencing fear, you might write: possible danger occurs, attention is focused on the threat, heart beats wildly, the person runs as fast as they can. In the current study, we a re not interested in attributes of fear but in attributes of punk. Imagine that you are explaining the word punk to someone who has no experience with punks. Include the obvious. However, try not to just free associate. o instances of punks. Remember that these attributes can be positive or negative. Participants then completed demographic questions which included age, gender, race, religious affiliation, and how long they identified as being punk Results A list of all punk features was compiled and coded. Features were placed into one of 14 different categories D.I.Y. attitude/ independent; punk music/ music scene; anti establishment/ rebellious; free thinker/ individuality; anarchism; socio politically aware/ active; n on mainstream dress; support community/ against racism/ hatred (see Table 1) they were different form s of the same word, if they were accompanied by adjectives or adverbs, or if they were judged to be similar in meaning. For socio politically aware/ active d into the category punk music/ music scene
I am Punk 23 A greement was high at K = 0.946 Incongruent coding was resolved by a third coder. Attributes which were not stated by at least two participants were exclu ded Discussion There were several ways in which punk identity was conceptualized by participants. Listed features included a variety of different attributes which could be br oken down into behaviors ( support community/ friends ), belief systems ( anarchism against racism/ hatred ), physical attributes and personality traits ( non mainstream dress D.I.Y. attitude/ independent ), and even more abstract concepts such as love Though several of the listed features were in line with the common beliefs about punk identity (i.e., anarchism, non mainstream dress), there were a few that were unexpected (i.e., love, support community/ friends). These more unexpected features reflec t the stu more of an constitutes punk identity. This can be helpful in aiding people outside of this group (i.e., parents, teachers, counselors) to understand the views, motivations, and attitudes of people within the p unk music subculture. Study 2: Centrality Ratings of Punk Features In the second study, participants had to rate how central they felt each word on a compiled list was to their concept of punks and themselves, as well as how positively or negatively they viewed it. Participants then completed measures for group identification.
I am Punk 24 Methods Participants Participants were 68 47 males, 5 females members of an online punk music forum: http://www.absolutepunk.net/forum.php years with a median age of 21 The number of years participants reported identifying as punk ranged from two to 16 with a mean of about 6 years. Participants were primarily Caucasian (66.2%), and reported a diversity of religious affiliations (agnostic = 14.7%, atheist = 26.5%, Catholic = 8.8%, Christian = 10.3%, Jewish = 2.9%, Muslim = 1.5%, Hindu = 1.5%, other = 8.8%). Measures The survey used in this study included the following measures: Organizational Identifica tion (OID) The present version of OID contained six items originally developed by Mael and Ashforth (1992 ) which test ed perceptions of oneness or belongingness to their specific subculture (see Appendix A for questions). Participants had to rate on a 5 point Likert scale how much they agreed or disagreed with each statement. This scale has been reported to have adequate internal ( Ashforth, 1997). Identity Fusion. The identity fusion measure is a o ne item questionnaire which measures the amount in which individuals feel fused with a relational or collective group (see Appendix A). This instrument is a modified version of the pictorial measure developed by Schubert and Otten (2002). Respondents were presented with a set of Venn like diagrams, each representing different degrees of overlap between the two
I am Punk 25 circles. Participants had to choose which picture best represented the way they perceived their relationship with the group. Each picture represented a percentage of overlap between the individual and the group at 25% increments (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%). Procedure This survey was created using an internet based survey site (SurveyMonkey). The survey was distributed via an online forum for people who identify as punk or like punk music. The 14 features from Study 1 were ra ted for their centrality to the concept of punks and their own self concept. Participants were also asked to rate how positively or negatively they viewed each concept. Ratings we re made by a different group of participants from Study 1 Centrality and positivity/negativity were rated on 6 point scales (1 = not at all central to 6 = extremely central; 1 = very negative to 6 = very positive ). The listed features were placed in a different random order for each participant so as to avoid potential bias from the order in which the words appeared This survey was Instructions were as follows: In a previous study, we asked people to tell us their v iews of punks. Specifically, we asked responses of some of the people in our earlier study. Please read each of the descrip tions of punks below. After you have read each one, please rate how central or important you think each of the features is to the concept of punk. When participants had to rate how central the features were to their self concept, they were given the instru ctions:
I am Punk 26 Here is a list of the same characteristics or attributes you just viewed. Please read each of the descriptions and rate how central or important you think each of the features is to yourself (your personal identity). Participants then completed th e identity fusion measure, the organizational identification measure, as well as demographic questions which included age, gender, race, religious affiliation, and how long they identified as being punk Results Mean centrality ratings (self and group ) an d mean positivity for the 14 features are listed in Table 1 A Pearson product moment correlation was carried out for the number of years participants identified as being punk and the measure for identity fusion. No significant correlation was found, r (50 ) = 0.179, p = 0. 213 A second Pearson product moment correlation was conducted for the number of years participants identified as being punk and the measure for Organizational Identification. The result was non significant slightly negative correlation, r (50) = 0.143, p = 0.321. In order to test if there was a relationship between the measure for identity fusion and the measure for Organizational Identification, a Pearson correlation was computed. There was no significant relationship between these two measures, r (52) = 0.084, p = 0.556. ratings for themselves and the two identity measures (Organizational Identification and identity fusion). There was no significant relationship between identity fusio n and mean centrality ratings for the self, r (54) = 0.043, p = 0.756.
I am Punk 27 There was, however, a significant positive relationship between the measure for O.I.D. and mean centrality ratings for the self, r (52) = 0.45, p < 0.01 ratings for the group and the two identity measures (Organizational Identification and identity fusion). There was no significant relationship between the measure for identity fusion an d mean centrality ratings for the group, r (55) = 0.034, p = 0.804. There was, however, a significant positive relationship between the measure for O.I.D. and mean centrality ratings for the group, r (52) = 0.503, p < 0. 0 1 Pearson correlations were conduct ed to test the relationship between positivity ratings of punk features and the two identity measures. There was no significant association between mean positivity ratings and the measure for identity fusion, r (51) = 0.099, p = 0.491. A significant positi ve correlation was found between the measure for O.I.D. and mean positivity ratings, r (49) = 0.595, p < 0.01 Mean positivity ratings of the punk features were also looked at in relation to reported time of membership in the group. No significant relations hip was found, r (47) = 0.098, p = 0.514. Mean positivity ratings of the features were correlated with mean centrality ratings of the group. There was a strongly significant, positive relationship between positivity ratings and group centrality ratings, r ( 51) = 0.824, p < 0. 0 1 Mean positivity ratings were also positively correlated with mean centrality ratings of the self, r (51) = 0.858, p < 0.01 A Pearson correlation for mean centrality ratings for the self and the group was also calculated. There was a
I am Punk 28 strongly significant, positive relationship between centrality reports for the self and group, r (58) = 0.87, p < 0.01 In order to test the reliability of the measure for organizational ification internal consistency of the centrality and positivity ratings of the features, the 14 features were treated as cases and the 68 participants were treated as items. The internal consistency for the centrality ratings of the self, group, and positivity Discussion Due to the similarities in what the measures for organizational identification and identity fusion are testing, it was thought that they would be positively related. However, this was not the case. A possible explanation for this unexpected finding is that perhaps that participants did not like how directly the pictorial measure (identity fusion ) made people think about their individuality and how that is related to their group identity. It is possible that, specifically for members of this subculture, participants do not like to directly state that they are igh emphasis on rebellion and individuality within this group. Therefore, the more indirect measure (O.I.D.) seems to have served the research purposes better in this study; it allows members to retain a sense of individuality while still assessing how mem identities as a part of themselves.
I am Punk 29 It was hypothesized that participants who reported being members of their group (punk) for a longer period of time would be more invested in their group and thus would view their individual identit y as being fused with their group identity and have a greater sense of organizational identification. However, this hypothesis was not supported by the data. Scatterplots revealed that participants seemed to vary on their self reported ratings of Organizat ional Identification. While on the identity fusion measure, participants seemed to primarily rate themselves as 25% or 50% fused, though there was no clear pattern for age A possible explanation for this finding is that the identity fusion measure is not an accurate one for this particular population, which would explain the lack of a significant relationship between membership length and identity fusion. In regards to the O.I.D. measure and membership length, members could have varying levels of commitment and strength in group identity which may be unrelated to how long one has been a member. It was further hypothesized that participants who reported a greater O.I.D. and f used identity would rate the compiled characteristics as central to not only the group, but themselves, as well. This hypothesis was somewhat supported. The measure for identity fusion was not related to individual or group centrality ratings (probably for reasons stated above). Conversely, the measure for O.I.D. was positively related to self and group centrality ratings organizational identification, the higher they rated the features as being central to themselves and the group.
I am Punk 30 Thou gh no directional hypotheses were made for positivity ratings of the features, a positive relationship between mean positivity ratings and the O.I.D. measure was found positively they rated the f eatures. However, positivity ratings were unrelated to the measure for identity fusion. Again, this is most likely due to identity fusion not being a good measure for this particular group. In relation to the number of reported years participants identifie d as punk, no association was found for positivity ratings or centrality ratings of the self and group. Participants considered some listed features more prototypical (to punks and themselves) than others. There was a high level of agreement among particip ants as to which features were considered more representative of the group, as well as which were considered positive. Another important result of this study was that feature centrality (group and self) was associated with positivity ratings. This suggests that people within this subculture view the features that they consider a central part of their group identity as positive, while many people outside of this subculture often view mem It was also interesting to find that the re was a strong association between group centrality ratings and centrality ratings of the self. Participants who rated the various features as central to the group also rated the same features as being central to themselves. This suggests (in line with O. I.D. and identity fusion) that participants take on the group identities as a part of their personal identities. However, this is only an assumption based off of correlational data. Therefore, the direction of causality cannot be known.
I am Punk 31 General Discussion Limitations and Future Research There were several limitations to the two studies presented above. Participants in these studies were all recruited from one online forum. Internet recruitment for research has been known to attract more strongly opinionated people, which skew the data. Due to the fact that this survey was only accessible to people with internet access, this may have caused bias in the results. This seems to be less of an issue at this day and age, however, with many homes having their own co mputers and the ease of access to internet. The majority of participants were Caucasian, young, m ale, and atheist / agnostic, though this may not be a limitation as much as a result of the demographics that this subculture tends to attract. The first study a lso had a limited number of parti cipants. Despite this fact, most of the features attained from Study 1 seemed to have high agreement among participants in Study 2. Future research should look at more representative samples as well as other music subcultur es which have not been looked at in empirical research (i.e., goths). The relationship between O.I.D. and identity fusion should also be studied further to see if it primarily for this group that they are not related, or if it is like that for most groups. Conclusion Despite the fact that the punk music subculture has existed for over three decades and has transformed the music scene, researchers have failed to look at this group, as well as others, empirically. These studies have sought to fill in the
I am Punk 32 lar ge gap in the research literature and help to understand the core concepts consider punk identity to have a variety of characteristics. In Study 2, participants were able to reliably identify certain characteristics as more central than others. It was also found that O.I.D. was positivity ratings of the ratings of feature centrality (group and self) were associated with positivity ratings so that the more central features were viewed more positively. It was also found that there was a strong association between group centrality rat ings and centrality ratings of the self. In sum, the results of Studies 1 and 2 indicate that punk identity does have a prototype structure and that members conceive of their group identity in very broad concepts. Researchers should seek to study this grou p, as well as others, further. This area of research can help people outside of this subculture (i.e., parents, counselors) understand the motivations and views of those within this group.
I am Punk 33 References Alexander, R. D. (1974). The evolution of social behav ior. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 5 pp. 325 383. Allport, G. W. (1954). Formation of ingroups. The nature of prejudice ( pp. 29 47). Cambridge, Mass.: Addison Wesley Pub. Co. Aron, A., Aron, E., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 (4), 596. Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Petty tyranny in organizations: A preliminary examination of antecedents and consequences. Canadian Journal of Admi nistrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne Des Sciences De l'Administration, 14 ( 2), 126 140. Baumeister, R., & Leary, M. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117 497. Bec being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4J, 1075 1086. catching peer crowds: Do they fulfill a function for shy youths? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19 (1), 113.
I am Punk 34 Brewer, M. B. (1993). The role of distinctiveness in social identity and group behaviour. Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives. ( pp. 1 16) H ertfordshire, HP2 7EZ, England: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this" we"? levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (1), 83 93. Brewer, M. B., & Weber, J. G. (1994). Self evaluation effects of interpersonal versus intergroup social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (2), 268 275. Brewer, M., & Caporael, L. (2006). An evolutionary perspective on social identity: Revisiting groups. Evolu tion and social psychology (pp. 143 158). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Cartledge, F. (2005). In Steele V. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of clothing and fashion; punk Detroit: Charles Scribner's Sons. Coats, S., Smith, E. R., Claypool, H. M., & Banner, M. J. (20 00). Overlapping mental representations of self and in group: Reaction time evidence and its relationship with explicit measures of group identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36 (3), 304 315. Diener, E., Beaman, A., Fraser, S., & Kele m, R. (1976). Effects of deindividuation variables on stealing among halloween trick or treaters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33 ( 2), 178.
I am Punk 35 Fehr B., & Russell, J. A. (1984). Concept of emotion viewed from a prototype perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 464 486. George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 ( 3), 513 524. Gme z, ., Huici, C., Seyle, C., & Swann, W. (2009). Can self verification strivings fully transcend the self other barrier? seeking verification of ingroup identities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97 ( 6), 1021. Hobfall, S. E., & London, P. (1 986). The relationship of self concept and social support to emotional distress among women during the war. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 189 203. Hogg, M. (2006). Social identity theory. In P. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories ( pp. 111 128). Stanford, California: Stanford Social Sciences. Jetten, J., Postmes, T., & Mcauliffe, B. (2002). We're all individuals': Group norms of individualism and collectivism, levels of identification and identity threat. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32 (2), 189. Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13 ( 2), 103 123. Mann, L. (1981). The baiting crowd in episodes of threatened suicide. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41 (4), 703 709.
I am Punk 36 Maslow, A. (1970). A theory of human motivation. Motivation and personality (3rd ed., pp. 15 31). New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. Rothberg, J M., & Jones, F. D. (1987). Suicide in the U.S. Army: Epidemiological and periodic aspects. Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior, 17, 119 132. Sherif, M., Harvey, O., White, B., Hood, W., & Sherief, C. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The ro bbers cave experiment. (). Norman, Oklahoma: University Book Exchange. Swann, W., Gmez, ., Seyle, C., Morales, F., & Huici, C. (2009). Identity fusion: The interplay of personal and social identities in extreme group behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96 ( 5), 995. Symons, C., & Johnson, B. (1997). The self reference effect in memory: A meta analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 121 (3), 371 394. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel, & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7 24). Chicago: Nelson Hall. Triandis, H., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross cultural perspectives on self ingroup relation ships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (2), 323. Trout, D. L. (1980). The role of social isolation in suicide. Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior 10, 10 23.
I am Punk 37 Table 1 Mean (and Standard Deviation) of Punk Features in Descending Order Study 1 Study 2 Central Feature % of Participants Positivity Ratings Group Centrality Ratings Self Centrality Ratings Punk music/ music scene 50.00 5.04 (1.26) 4.38 (0.99) 4.24 (1.144) Anti establishment/ rebellious 45.45 3.53 (1.33) 3.24 (1.21) 2.72 (1.24) Free thinker/ individuality 31.82 5.43 (1.08) 4.19 (0.93) 4.47 (0.90) Anarchism 22.73 2.53 (1.41) 2.10 (1.14) 2.00 (1.24) Non mainstream dress 22.73 3.54 (1.28) 2.41 (1.14) 2.29 (1.20) Socio politically aware/ active 18.18 5.10 (1.22) 3.49 (1.11) 3.79 (1.15) Support community/ friends 13.64 5.35 (1.11) 3.79 (1.22) 4.02 (0.94) Question everything 13.64 4.35 (1.49) 3.31 (1.15) 3.48 (1.30) D.I.Y. attitude/ independent 13.64 5.27 (1.10) 4.31 (0.95) 4.12 (1.01) Outcast 9.09 2.90 (1.18) 2.49 (1.19) 2.45 (1.38) "I don't care" attitude 9.09 2.65 (1.23) 2.65 (1.21) 2.36 (1.25) Love 9.09 5.24 (1.18) 3.26 (1.23) 4.02 (1.08) Freedom 9.09 5.33 (1.09) 3.94 (1.13) 4.09 (0.92) Against racism/ hatred 9.09 5.42 (1.13) 3.91 (1.3) 4.28 (1.11)
I am Punk 38 Appendix Organizational Identification (O.I.D.) [ 1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree ] 1. When someone criticizes punks, it feels like a personal insult. 2. I am very interested in what others think about punks. 3. 4. 5. When someone praises punks, it feels like a personal compliment. 6. If a story in the media criticized punks, I would feel embarrassed. Measure of identity fusion