{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.010716677829872739, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.948837209302326, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Gender, Attributions of Responsibility, and Negotiation of Deviant Labels in Small Groups

Incorporating both attribution and labeling theory, this article examines the negotiation of deviant labels in small groups, with emphasis on how that process is influenced by attributions of responsibility and the gender of group members. Pressures associated with goal-directed groups make deviant labeling and resistance a common occurrence, especially when the actions of members significantly interfere with group goals or normative expectations. Findings based on the analysis of narrative responses to vignettes demonstrate the prevalence and importance of accounts and conciliatory actions for mitigating group conflict and avoiding negative outcomes. Calling problematic members into account while avoiding hostile undertones effectively initiates dialogue and facilitates the negotiation of group strategies for completing tasks. However, the data also suggest that while deviant group members frequently offer accounts for objectionable behavior, such accounts are rarely honored by conforming members. The results also support previous work showing that women are more likely than men to use calls for accounts to seek mutually satisfactory solutions to group problems. In addition to accounts and conciliatory gestures, displays of interpersonal hostility and the formation of coalitions against the deviant were also found to be consequential elements of the deviance negotiation process.