Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Author(s): Gregory C. Gibson, Richard Hogan, John Stahura and Eugene Jackson
Source: Sociological Focus, Vol. 40, No. 1 (February 2007), pp. 72-97
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20832317
Accessed: 11-12-2015 21:31 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20832317?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociological Focus.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:31:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
C Gibson
Gregory
RichardHogan
JohnStahura
EugeneJackson
PurdueUniversity
we investigatethe
Throughtheuse ofposed vignettesina telephonesurvey,
ofheroes.We examine theextenttowhich respondentsattribute
construction
heroes: ToddBeamer,
herostatus to three
potential9/11and "waron terrorism"
W.
Private
and
President
Bush.
Jessica
Lynch,
Army
George
Findingssuggest
natureand therarity
theimportance
of theextraordinary
ofactbn(s)performed
by
ofherostatus; theroleofclass, status,and partyinthe
heroes intheattribution
ofwhatshouldbe done ineach
attribution
process; and themoralconsideration
the
ofattribution
In
indicates
the
forthe
theory
utility
posed vignette. addition, study
of
heroism
of
in
examination
and
the
normative
constructs
viability
sociological
examining heroic behavior.
the terrorist attack of 9/11 and the subsequent wars inAfghanistan and
has received much mass media coverage and clearly warrants greater
heroism
Iraq,
attention by scholars. Every day, many people put their lives on the line to save others
Between
or to
War
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:31:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE
OFHEROES
MAKING
73
DEFINING
HEROISM
as heroism ranges from short-term
as those
qualifies
life-threatening acts, such
to
honored by the Carnegie Hero Fund Commission
(Gibson 2003),
long-term,
acts
in
or
for
of
courage
up
repeated
standing
principles, despite political
personal
consequences, such as those that John F. Kennedy (1961) has immortalized. Students
of altruism and prosocial behavior view heroism as the ultimate act of altruism?
What
puttingones lifeon the lineto save the lifeof another(Gibson 2003; Oliner 2003).
an endowment established
Fund Commission,
Carnegie Hero
by Andrew
rescue
a
in
efforts
1904 coal mine explosion, echoes this
Carnegie because of heroic
ones life on the line?in
status: Ma civilian who
criterion?putting
awarding hero
or her own life,
an
to
his
risks
voluntarily
knowingly,
extraordinary degree while
or
to save the life of another person is
saving
attempting
eligible for recognition by
The
tion, (2) unpaid nonprofessional people (civilians) in one time events of short duration,
e.g., Todd Beamer, and (3) unpaid nonprofessionals in events of long duration (e.g., res
no
to oneself. One ques
despite the objections of others, with
recognizable benefit
tion we address in this research iswhether Americans take the same broad view of
heroism, recognizing courage even without physical danger.
Heroism
should, however, be limited to cases where deeds exceed the typical
termed "transcending
of
response
persons in similar situations, what Klapp (1954:57)
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:31:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
74
FOCUS
SOCIOLOGICAL
the mediocre."
"Hero"
or "the standard bearers of the 'best'" (Schwartz 1969:82). Additionally, heroes can
serve as role models for others by virtue of their status, honor, and reflection of cul
tural values. This is exemplified in the recent death of professional football player Pat
Tillman, who gave up a lucrative contract and the potential for athletic fame and
to serve in the U.S. Army as a Ranger inAfghanistan. War heroes likeTillman
glory
can be important sources of psychological gratification for societal members (Elkin
1955:98), even if the heroic act was not an act ofwill. Tillman did not choose to die.
Jessica Lynch did not choose to be captured by the enemy. Nevertheless, we consider
a
large extent, victim.
For purposes of this paper, we shall define heroism broadly, as performing "excep
'life and
tional acts of courage or bravery that might involve great risk?including
was,
to a
Beamer) or long duration (Jessica Lynch and George W. Bush), which are acts ofwill or
volition (Beamer and Bush) or actions uncontrolled by victims of circumstance
to situations where
(Lynch). Although the above hero criteria generally limit heroism
there
GeorgeW.
might be riskto lifeand limb,we have elected to includePresident
Bush for consideration based on the assertion that lor some people, Bush has shown
courage and bravery against individuals, organizations, and nations opposed to his
stance on Iraq. Based on the literature,we suspect thatmore respondents will agree that
Todd Beamer is really a hero, compared to Jessica Lynch and George W. Bush, because
he was a nonprofessional who acted willingly at risk to life and limb in a short-term
effort to save the lives of others. We also suspect that President George W. Bush will
receive lower hero ratings since his actions did not pose great risk to his own life and
THEORETICAL
PERSPECTIVES
RoleTheory
we examinewhen and why people bestow the statusof hero upon
In thisstudy,
socially constructed,
is adopted
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:31:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THEMAKING
OF HEROES
75
external constraint
constructed
which
roles exist as "objectively real features of the social environment" (Callero 1986:346).
This aspect of roles helps actors organize perceptions, influence future actions in the
community setting, and frame the social world (Callero et al. 1987).
Actors "self-identify"
with the rolestheyadopt or performand labelothersby the
behave
1986:259);
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:31:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FOCUS
SOCIOLOGICAL
76
discussion
members
honor
Structural symbolic interactionism does not provide a roadmap for how character
istics of selfmight affect judgments of others, so we have chosen to supplement role
is oriented toward the judgments and assess
theory with attribution theory, which
ments
about others.
Attribution
Theory
Building upon Heiders (1958) pioneering formulations,psychologicallyfocused
ideas regarding the causality of behavior
peoples
an
actors
behavior, attribution theorists posit that
(Brown 1986a). By observing
to
to
the
"trace
causal
factors for the behavior under their
back"
people attempt
In this tracing back process,
examination
and DeLamater
1999).
(Michener
attribution
theorists examine
attribution
theorists startwith
actions
(1) stability, and (2) controllability. "Stability" refers to the duration of the
is,whether or not a cause changes over time. "Controllability" refers to
what extent an actor can change or affect the
the changeability of the cause?to
results of an event, or towhat extent causal factors related to an event are beyond an
actors control, termed "uncontrollability" (Wilson, Cruz, Marshall, and Rao 1993).
For example, some attribution theorists view "ability" as internal and stable, while
properties:
cause?that
182?183),
an actors behavior becomes salient to the observer,
for
setting
"there should be overestimation of the power of the situation" (external locus). Of
course the opposite would also be true: when the actor becomes salient, overestima
when
the situational
tion of the actor (internal locus) occurs. Brown (1986) suggests that the process of
rests with either the situation or the actor
most salient.
being
attributing causality
actors
or
actions attributes causality to the
behavior
Accordingly, noticing only the
actor; when noticing only "expressive behaviors, not gross actions" causality tends to
be attributed to situational factors (Brown 1986b: 190).
a
we
sociological perspective,
Turning our discussion of attribution theory toward
note
thatWeiner
aspects. These
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:31:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE
OFHEROES
MAKING
77
to a social actor?
Simply put, examination of responsibility?attributing responsibility
an actors roles,
expected role behavior (appropriate), and the
requires inspection of
actors actual "deeds" (Sanders et al. 1996). Additionally, the judgments of
responsibility
for an action can be affected by the observers social structural position. Hamilton
(1978) suggests that ones social class, level of education, and occupation can be impor
tant demographic variables to consider in studying the process of judgment formation.
This sociological perspective on the attribution process complements the social psycho
in consideration of status or reference groups
logical work considered above, especially
and role consistency and norms.
to the tenets of attribution
According
can
theory, we
hypothesize how others
attribute causal factors to behaviors and events. This is accomplished by determining
the following: (1) locus (internal or external; actor or situation), (2) consensus (com
or most social actors do, or the
monality among social actors; that is, something many
or not
to
specific actors), (3) stability (whether
uniqueness of the action being confined
towhich a
over time), and (4) controllability (the
or can
a cause
change
degree
changes
causal factor is under the control of the social actor). According toHamilton's sociolog
ical insights into the attribution process, we are presented with a comparison mecha
nism for attributing judgment for behavior. This comparison mechanism consists of the
actual doings of a social actor and the normative standard implied in roles and role per
formance expectations. The role performance expectations ("oughts" and "shoulds") are
to the actual behavior. Thus Hamilton's
insights into the attribution process
compared
a viable
interac
bridge between the sociologically oriented structural symbolic
provide
or
the
role
and
reference
tionism, supplemented by
group theory,
psychologically ori
we
shall require inmaking
ented attribution theory.This is just the sort of bridge that
sense of heroism in theminds of the general public.
HYPOTHESES
In Table
propose
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:31:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
78
FOCUS
SOCIOLOGICAL
Table 1. Hypothesized
Conditions
Conditions
inVignette
Hypothesized
Potential
Hero
LToddBeamer
2. JessicaLynch
3. President
GeorgeBush
InHarm's
Way
Nonprofesslonal
Role
? ?
?
/
Acted of
OwnVolition
to be a hero.
we
And,
finally, in examining
to be a hero.
do")
is
do")
is
H5:
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:31:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE
OfHEROES
MAKING
79
their judgment on whether persons in the vignettes are heroes. Since this is an explor
atory effort, rather than posing specific hypotheses (e.g., Republicans are more likely
we will,
to attribute hero status to
use class, status, and
George W. Bush),
initially,
as
our
in
Least
indices
controls
power
Squares (OLS) regression models pre
Ordinary
are
we will
dicting heroism judgments. If there
significant effects,
disaggregate
see which components of these indices yield
significant effects.
and
DATA
andDataCollection
Sampling
All data were collectedduring the springof 2004 throughrandomdigit dialing
telephone interviews. The targeted population for the survey consisted of individuals
18 years of age and older in the 48 contiguous states comprising the continental
United States. The site of data collection was the Department
of Sociology's Social
Research
Institute Computer
University. The
at Purdue
Assisted Telephone
Interviewing Lab (CATI)
21.1% and the cooperation rate was 46.2%
(see
to
(conservative to liberal), and (2) Political Party (strongly Republican
can be
stronglyDemocrat). The coding for each of the variables used in the indices
entation
found inAppendixA.
to measure the
are
Independent variables used in the statistical models
designed
attributional bases used by people in their judgments of heroism. Agreement with the
statements: "I would do" or "Most people would do what (the person in the vignette)
did" indicates the degree of consensus or role consistency (or external versus internal
locus) attributed to the action posed in the vignettes. These variables are called "con
sensus one" ("I would") and consensus two ("Most would"). Normative aspects of
with the
attributiontheory,
posed byHamilton (1978), are indicatedby agreement
variable represents
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:31:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
80
FOCUS
SOCIOLOGICAL
=
Table2. SampleCharacteristics
(N 199)
Characteristics
VariableSex
Female
Male
Missing
MaritalStatus
Married
Separated
Divorced
Widowed
NeverMarried
Refused
Missing
Race
White
African
American
AsianAmerican
62.3
0.6
122
51
26
107
1
14.1
24
10.1
17
12.9
22
1
26
85.4
5.2
0.6
146
9
1
8.0
Hispanic
Other
1.7
Missing
Level ofReligiosity
NotatAllReligious
NotVeryReligious
SomewhatReligious
VeryReligious
No religion
Missing
Level ofEducation
<HighSchool
Highschoolgraduate
Vocationaltraining
Some college
Collegegraduate
degree
Postgraduate
Don'tknow
Refused
Missing
70.5
29.5
1.1
5.8
42.2
28.9
22.0
3
26
2
10
73
50
38
26
8.9
15
20.7
11.2
27.8
20.2
35
19
47
34
11.2
19
3
26
(H)
(N) Characteristics
Variable Income
Lessthan
$15,000
$15,000-$25,000
$25,001-$35.000
$35,001-$50,000
$50,001-$75,000
$75,001-$100,000
ormore
$100,000
16.8
10.3
12.3
16.1
27.1
8.4
9.0
Refused
Don'tknow
Missing
Work
Status
Workingfulltime
parttime
Working
32.7
12.2
Homemaker
9.8
Unemployed
14 Inthemilitary
Student
Retired
Refused
Don'tknow
11.2
Missing
PoliticalOrientation
conservative
Extremely
Veryconservative
Somewhatconservative
Somewhatliberal
Veryliberal
liberal
Extremely
Missing
Political
Affiliation
Parly
Republican
strong
Republican
Leaning
Republican
Neither
Rep.or Dem.
LeaningDemocrat
Democrat
StrongDemocrat
Other
Don'tknow
Missing
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:31:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1.2
1.8
31.1
2.6
10.3
57.6
24.4
5.1
0.0
5.3
21.2
9.4
21.2
11.8
14.7
8.8
7.6
26
16
19
25
42
13
14
11
7
26
57
21
17
17
2
3
54
1
1
26
21
16
90
38
8
0
26
9
36
16
36
20
25
15
13
3
26
THEMAKING
OF HEROES
81
THEHERO
VIGNETTES
were
on the three heroism
vignettes
Questions
framed with
wake of the September 11th attackon theWorld Trade Center and thewars in
to the
respondents concerned
the September
11, 2001,
The
Jessica
The
=
=
to thesefourLikert-typeresponses(Strongly
Agree 5,Agree 4, NeitherAgree
nor
Disagree
3, Disagree
=1):
1. If the person
should do what
the person
(consensus
ANDDISCUSSION
RESULTS
3 indicates strong support for the statement that "Todd Beamer was a hero."
is between "agree" (4.0) and
response attributing hero status (4.33)
one standard deviation below the mean
is closer to
"strongly agree" (5.0). Even
Table
The
mean
"agree" (4.0)
(3.0). Clearly,
the respondents
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:31:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
82
FOCUS
SOCIOLOGICAL
Table3. Mean,StandardDeviation
andValidCases (N) forVariablesUsed inModel 1
Variable
Mean
ToddBeamerVignette:
Todd beamerisa hero.
4.33
IwoulddowhatToddBeamerdid.
Most peoplewoulddowhatToddBeamerdid.
PeopleshoulddowhatToddBeamerdid.
Jessica Lynch
Vignette:
ArmyPrivateJessicaLynchisa hero.
IwoulddowhatJessicaLynchdid.
Most peoplewoulddowhatJessicaLynchdid.
PeopleshoulddowhatJessicaLynchdid.
Standard
Deviation
.719 171
2.13
.914 157
3.34
171
1.04
4.02
.804
171
GeorgeW. BushVignette:
President
W. Bush isa hero.
George
IwoulddowhatGeorge
W. Bushdid.
W. Bushdid.
Most peoplewoulddowhatGeorge
W. Bushdid.
PeopleshoulddowhatGeorge
1.033.39
.986 3.46
3.30
3.47
165
156
1.02
158
.973
159
1.292.64
2.80
2.54
2.76
172
1701.37
1.04
167
172
1.22
Scale: 5 = strongly
agree; 4=agree; 3=neither agree nordisagree; 2=disagree; and 1 = stronglydisagree.
agreed
overwhelmingly
is evoked
disagreement
Beamer
is a hero. A
the statement
that Todd
comparable pattern of
do" what Beamer did
by
(consensus measure one). Here themean response (2.13) is "disagree" and a standard
deviation above yields "neither agree nor disagree" (3.0). Respondents were less
certain about what "most people would do" (consensus two), reporting a mean
of "neither agree nor disagree" within a standard deviation of either
was more agreement on the normative issue
disagreement. There
as much agreement as Beamers status as a
which
elicited
almost
should
do"),
("people
(3.34)
agreement or
response
hero.
In the Lynch vignette, respondents indicated that theywere unsure as to her hero
status (mean = 3.39, with one standard deviation [1.03]
indicating either agreement
or
on the consensus and normative condi
is
There
similar
uncertainty
disagreement).
tions, with mean ratings clustering just below 3.5 with standard deviations around 1.
to the Beamer ratings, the range of mean
Compared
ratings is very limited, but the
standard deviation is fairly high, indicating more uncertainty on normative and con
sensus measures, as on her status as hero.
pattern continues for the Bush vignette, although themean ratings are even
and
the standard deviations even higher. Here, respondents all but
lower,
disagree
=
(mean
2.64) as to Bushs hero status, but the standard deviation is large (1.29), so
that one standard deviation from the mean covers the range from
strongly disagree
This
to agree (3.93).
consensus
through both
(1.35)
In the Bush
THE
MAKING
OFHEROES
83
p<
were
=
.001) and Lynch {t -6,574; p<
in harms way. Hypothesis
was
only Beamer
.001)will be significantly
higher,since they
nonprofessional?a
=
.001) or Lynch (t -9.557; p<
.001), since
.001) or
was
3 pre
=
icantlylowerhero ratingsthanLynch (t ?6.574; p<
comparison of these three vignettes, it is clear that respondents attribute a higher hero
status to the potential hero who is in harms way and who is a
nonprofessional. The
effects of acting of her/his own volition are mixed.
Bivariate correlations are presented in Table 4. Since the total matrix is rather
we have elected to present
only the variables of particular interest, relegating the
large,
are
entire matrix to Appendix C. The statistically significant correlations
(p<0.05)
indicated in bold with an asterisk (*). Starting with column one, the Beamer vignette,
is negatively correlated (?.350)
condition one ("I would
with
do")
two ("Most
hero status (as predicted inHypothesis 4). Consensus
people
do") is positively correlated (.274) with Beamers hero status (contrary to
consensus
Beamers
would
Hypothesis
("People
should do")
is positively corre
lated (.521) with Beamers hero status(as predicted inHypothesis 6). Additionally,
income, lower-class respondents scored Private Jessica Lynch higher on hero status.
Column 3 indicates that Bushs hero status is positively correlated with both con
sensus conditions ("I would do": .817 and "Most people would do": .531) and the
normative condition ("People should do": 781). Bushs hero status is also negatively
correlated with political party and party index (which includes conservative-liberal)
score Bush
Thus we find, in bivariate correlations, limited support for the hypothesized effects
of consensus conditions but strong support for normative effects. Hypothesis 4 ("I
would do" negative correlation with heroism) is supported only for the Beamer
vignette. For Lynch and Bush, respondents reporting that they would do
5 ("Most would do"?negative
reported higher heroism ratings. Hypothesis
likewise
correla
observed. On
that people
should do
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:31:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
likewise
84
SOCIOLOGICAL
FOCUS
Table4. SelectedBivariate
Correlations
BeamerHero
BeamerHero
Consensus
Consensus2
Normative
Hero
Lynch
Consensus1 .495*
Consensus2 .173*
Normative.533
BushHero
Consensus 1 .817*
Consensus2 .531*
Normative.781*
LevelofEducation
Political
Orientation
Political
Party
MaritalStatus
Fulltime
Work
Professional Manager
Religiosity
Status Index
Class Index
Party Index
*p<
Hero
Lynch
BushHero
-.350*
.274*
.521*
.199*
-.034
.028
Gender
.092
.211*
.065
Age
-.058
-.007
.004
Income
.079
Race
.306*
-.149
-.136
-.060
-.102
*
- -.147
.531
-.158* .046
-.269*
.106
-.076
.024
-.098
.073
-.07
.059
-.022
.025
-.235*
.024
-.116
.155*
.186*
.106
-.105
.125
-.220*
-.107
.052
-.147
-.420*
.05
offered higher heroism ratings. Beyond the hypothesized normative effects, we also
found significant effects of class, status, or party identification, with
higher status
associated with heroism for the Beamer vignette, lower class associated with heroism
for Lynch, and Republican/conservative
partisanship associated with heroism for
Bush.
Table 5 presents the net effects of these variables when used to
predict heroism in
multivariate Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression models (estimated
separately
for each vignette). Model
1 includes
only the attribution conditions: consensus one
("I would do"), consensus two ("Most would do") and the normative ("People should
do") condition. Each of the three vignettes produced a significant F value indicative
of themodels predicativestrength.
The Beamer vignette
model explains32.7% of
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:31:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE
OFHEROES
MAKING
85
Table5. Unstandardized
Attribution
RegressionCoefficients
(andStandardError)from
andSignificant
Index
on
Conditions,Indices,
Hero
Status
Components
Regressed
Variable
1 2
ModelModel
Bush
Attribution
Condition:
1
Consensus
Beamer Lynch
-.186*
Consensus2
-.077
.339*
Beamer Lynch
.502*
-.109
.326*
Bush
.484*
(.053) (.074)
(.061) (.092)
.408*
Indices:
.504*
Bush
(.060) (.096)
.024
Normative
.345*
Beamer Lynch
-.035
.354*
.036
.333*
.043
.325*
Status .080*
-.037
.085
.423*
.015 -.025
.266*
-.057
.387*
.046
.392*
.255*
(.048)
.173
(.229)
.156
(.182)
(.037)
(.084)
(.073)
.009
Class .011
-.055*
.049*
Party .033
.021 -.126*
StatusComponents:
Gender
.116
(.110)
Mar.Status .130
M04)
.153
Age
Race
(.107)
.446*
(.150)
Religiosity .058
(.033)
Class Components:
Income
-.127*
Mgr/Prof.
.126
Full-time
-.167
LevelofEducation .008
- .076
PartyComponents:
Political
Orientation .039
PoliticalParty
.046
(.179)
(.144)
(.063)
-.300*
(.065)
F 25.594* 24.163* 122.434* 8.359* 16.138* 61.237* 10.147* 13.131* 47.860*
.327
.335
.697
.427
.269
.717
.374
.403
.746
If
(.595) (.855)
factors(VIF)arewell underbenchmark
set byNeteret al. (1996).
*p< .05Allvarianceinflation
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:31:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
86
SOCIOLOGICAL
FOCUS
predicted
in all three vignettes, and the pattern of relations mirrors the bivariate correlations. In
the Todd Beamer vignette, "I would do what Todd Beamer did," produced a negative
coefficient of ?.186,
providing additional support forHypothesis 4. The normative
measure
in the Todd
Beamer
vignette, "People
Beamer did,"
of .408,providingsupportforHypothesis6.
produceda positivecoefficient
In theJessicaLynchvignette(Model 1,Table 5), both consensusone and thenor
mative conditionyieldsignificant
(.345 for"Iwould do what Jes
positivecoefficients
sicaLynchdid" and .354 for"People shoulddo what JessicaLynchdid"). Contraryto
Hypothesis
consensus
would
Model2
InModel 2 (Table5), status,party,and class indicesare added to theequation.Model
F values forall threevignettes,
2 produced significant
although in theTodd Beamer
1
vignette, inclusion of the indices actually reduced the explained variance of Model
to
consensus
one
variable ("I would do what Todd Beamer
from 32.7%
26.9%. The
is reduced to insignificance with inclusion of the status, party, and class,
did")
(b
althoughonly the statuseffectissignificant
.080).
In the Jessica Lynch vignette, inclusion of the three indices increases the explained
inModel
1 to 42.7%. Consensus condition one ("I
variance almost 10% from 33.5%
the unstandardized
coefficient for
=
-.055).
vignette (b
In the George W.
explained
variance
remainsignificant
and both theclass (b=
?.126)
indicesare
significant.
Model3
InModel 3 the componentsof the significantindicesare included,in lieuof the
index, to determine which
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:31:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THEMAKING
OfHEROES
87
2.61, p<
.05). As
inModel
The onlymeasured
("I would do what Todd Beamer did") remains insignificant.
=
.446), indicating
component in the status index found to be significant is race (b
thatwhite respondents are more likely to attribute hero status to Todd Beamer than
nonwhite respondents.
income variable
in
(F
tistically
significant
one
5.56,p<
1 toModel
3 is sta
party affiliation.
together produced
significant variable of these indices?political
the unstandardized coefficient for political party affiliation indicates that
At ?.300,
as respondents move up the political party affiliation scale from
Strong Republican
(equals
1) to Strong Democrat
HeroStatus
Attributing
Mean
effect of being
in
the effect of volition (Hypothesis 3) is not clear. Perhaps it is the combined effects of
in harms way, and acting of ones own volition that
being nonprofessional,
as a real hero.
Beamer
Lynch was not acting of her own volition but she
distinguishes
was in harms way and, like Bush, was a
professional. In any case, she received, on
average, higher hero ratings than Bush, although significantly lower than Beamer.
From these results, one might infer that only Beamer was really a hero and drop
the other vignettes from the analysis. Ifwe limit our attention to the Beamer vignette,
we find considerable support for our
hypotheses. Respondents who rated Beamer
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:31:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
88
FOCUS
SOCIOLOGICAL
(consensus
two)would do likewise.
They also reportedthatpeople shoulddo what Bush/Lynch
did, suggesting that there was no moral dilemma here. Lynch and Bush were doing
their jobs (according to these respondents)?doing
what anyone would and should
same
do in the
in these cases, there is no
circumstances. Thus,
exceptional valor or
courage involved. These respondents perceived the actions taken by both Lynch and
Bush as related to duty (professional), and focused on task orientation (external
locus), rather than the personal choice (internal locus) as in the Beamer vignette
(nonprofessional).
vignettes, which apparently respondents viewed as higher in role salience; that is, they
were
"just doing their jobs," and theywere on task.
Ultimately, however, inmultivariate analysis, what most people would do (consen
sus two) does not
predict hero status when controlling for consensus one ("I would")
and the normative condition ("People should"). What
respondents report that they
would do, what theythinkmost people would do, and what theybelieve people
should do are related. Beyond that, however, the effect of perceptions of what others
do appears to be less important than: (1) what
theywould do and (2) ethical
standards they have for others?the
of
oughts what people should do. This appears to
would
judgment("People should").
With
condition
examined
inModel
one
condition
one
("I would
do")
indicated
that
since his actions may have ultimately led to his death, and common sense dictates
thatmost people would choose life over death, responses to the normative condition
consensus
dents who
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:31:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE
MAKING
OfHEROES
89
rare but
being "the standard bearers of the 'best.'" because their actions are at once
also reflective of exemplary moral/value orientation (what people should do). By vir
tue of
being "the standard bearers of the 'best'" and being rare, attributed hero status
appears
individuals who
do what most
of us don't
want todo or don't feelwe could do, butwhatwe shoulddo ifone strictly
adheresto
societal normative role expectations.
than Nonwhite
respondents. However, this finding should be
the
sample demographics, which indicate that only one out of every
weighed against
8.5 respondents was Nonwhite.
In the Jessica Lynch vignette, only the class index produced a significant effect. In
testing to determine which components of the class index were responsible for signif
icant effects, only income was found to be significant, with
decreasing respondent
income serving to strengthen respondents' attribution of hero status to Jessica Lynch.
This finding is really no surprise when one considers that most members of our mili
tary forces are primarily situated in lower income brackets. For many, the military
forces with their benefits packages (i.e., tuition support) are a primary avenue for
upward mobility in theUnited States.
In theGeorge W.
Bush vignette, both the class and party indices were found to be
effect, for both indices. This is somewhat surprising inasmuch as the variable measur
no
ing conservative to liberal political orientations produced
significant effect. The
in
of
its negative direction,
the
variable
lies
{b
?.300)
political party
significance
are
more
to
due
indicates
that
much
which,
likely to attribute
Republicans
scaling,
hero status to George W. Bush than Democrats. This finding points to the current
war in Iraq, and ratifies
bipolar nature of politics in the United States as well as the
the divisive effect of thewar in the 2004 presidential election.
In alignment with our proposed extension for role theory, a close examination of the
correlation table inAppendix C indicates some interesting patterns of significant rela
consensus and normative conditions for each
tionships, particularly when examining the
race appears
as a positive ("White") effect across all three
only
vignettes,
vignette. First,
and is significantly related to consensus conditions one ("I would do"), and two ("Most
in both the Beamer and Bush vignettes. In the Lynch vignette, race is
people would do")
consensus condition two ("Most
people would do").
significant only for
Next, income is a significant positive effect only in the Beamer vignette for the
normative condition ("People should do") but is significant and negative for consen
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:31:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
90
FOCUS
SOCIOLOGICAL
sus condition
conditions
one
("I would do") in the Lynch vignette and for both the consensus
and the normative condition in the Bush vignette. High-income
respon
dents thinkthatpeople shoulddo what Beamer did, but theywould not do what
Lynchdid (join theArmy).Also, theywould not do what Bush did and reportthat
most peoplewould not and definitelyshouldnot invadeIraqwithoutUN support.
we findno significant
with
relationships
Finally,whenwe look at politicalparty,
the consensus and normative conditions for the Beamer vignette, and only negative
and significant relationships for consensus condition one ("I would do") and the nor
with Republicans
mative condition
tion negatively related to consensus condition two ("Most people would do") in the
Bush vignette, the war appears to be less popular among highly educated as well as
high-income respondents.
the attribution of hero status for Lynch and particularly for Bush might be
Hence,
the results of party identification effects. Here the judgment says little or nothing
about Lynch or Bush as individuals or even within their roles as Army private or com
mander in chief. The critical issue is support for the invasion of Iraq, and the basis for
that judgment is essentially partisan. We would surmise, given the results of the 2004
was clearly bifurcated?either Democrat or
presidential election, which
Republican,
and absent a middle
ground?that
nature of the
political atmosphere
with theactors
bilityof our proposedextensionof role theory,inwhich identification
class, status, or party shapes the attribution of heroism.
CONCLUSION
hero status is clearly higher in situations in which a potential hero is
life and limb (Beamer and Lynch). Second,
being in harms way?risking
attributed hero status is also higher for the potential hero in the nonprofessional role
Attributed
viewed as
(Beamer) versus those in a professional role (Lynch and Bush). Third, mixed support
is found for situations of self-initiated action ("own volition"). Here the range of
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:31:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THEMAKING
OFHEROES
conditions
91
to a
limits us.
three vignettes
Lynch's case
Comparing
or a soldier who was killed rather
kidnap victim (e.g., Patty Hearst)
in the
nonprofessional
area
thancapturedmight help us todisentangletheseeffectsandmight be a fruitful
over
professional in attributed hero status; that is, the role of nonprofessional may be
a master condition for these vignettes.
was
thought Beamer
a hero would
direction of the normative ("People should do") was positive in all three vignettes. For
Todd Beamer, the combination of a negative consensus condition one and a positive
indicates just how extraordinary (individualistic) and rare a
normative condition
hero's behavior can be. In both the Jessica Lynch and George W. Bush vignettes, the
direction of both consensus and normative conditions were positive. This indicates
that respondents who thought that Lynch and Bush were heroes would do what
one
in theirsituationsand stressingrolesalience.
bydismissingindividuality
is problematic
war, heroes, and villains. Our work here encourages future scholars of heroism, role the
ory, and attribution theory (especially those in the tradition of Hamilton and Sanders
[1981]) to formulate and testdifferent permutations of these theoretical traditions.
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:31:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
92
SOCIOLOGICAL
FOCUS
A:RECODES
APPENDIX
FORINDICES
Status
Race:White =
Gender: Male
White = 0.
1; all other than
1 and female =
0.
= 1 and over65 = 0.
Age:Under 65
=
=
=
LevelofReligiosity:
Very religious 4; somewhatreligious 3; notveryreligious 2;
0.
Class
=
=
HighestLevelofEducation:Z score(postgraduate
degree 6; collegegraduate
=
5; some college
4; vocational
training
2; and less
thanhigh schoolgraduate=1).
Annual Income:$100K and higher= 7; $75,001-$100K = 6; $50,001-$75,000 =
5; $35,001-$50,000 = 4; $25,001-$35,000 = 3; $15,001-$25,000 = 2; and less
than$15,000 = 1.
=
1; all other than full-time = 0.
Employment Status: Full-time
=
Status: Managerial/Professional
1; all other than managerial/
Occupational
= 0.
professional
Party
Conservative/Liberal: Z score (extremely liberal = 6; very liberal = 5; spmewhat
liberal = 4; somewhat conservative = 3; very conservative = 2; and
extremely
conservative =1).
=
=
Political PartyAffiliation: Z score
7; Democrat
6; leaning
(strong Democrat
=
=
=
Democrat
5; neither Republican or Democrat
4; leaning Republican
3;
=
and
2;
Republican
strong Republican =1).
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:31:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE
MAKING
OFHEROES
B:PHONE
APPENDIX
SURVEY
DISPOSITIONS
Disposition Number
CompletedInterview173
Disconnect 310
Business 176
LanguageProblem21
No Answer360
Machine 387
Answering
Modem/Fax123
Busy 24
NotQualified(tooyoung) 21
Callbacks 29
Midterminates
(partialinterviews)26
Refusal 134
RefusalNeverCallAgain 197
TotalCalled 2368
Response Rate: 21.1%
ContactRate: 45.4 %
Rates were calculated according toGroves and Couper (1998).
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:31:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SOCIOLOGICAL
FOCUS
94
C: BIVARIATE
APPENDIX
CORRELATIONS
J2
?j
^
O)(O00MO)CO(DN
0>0)0)c0tto^c0
T-^?f-O
t-OOl?
_
m
_ co o
cm
co cm t- o
*
CO
CO
CM58
co _
S Wco
u>
co
. __
CO CO co O
ODtfJhrrlfi
9
I
CM CM
in *
co
CO
m
cmo
cmOOO
CM
CM
CM r
s
m
S5*
<D CO
*
cm
in
in
1- co m
OCM1
000
CM CM^
in co s
r
o
O
cm
r-csiw^ihcbNco
>?
-JO
CO
o>o(o
sow
O
co t
CO cm
in
1- o
in con
co cm ^
CM O) r
co in 0
O O
CM000
*
4i
rr C7> co co CO CM
O N o
co 0 m
t- O
O O
co 1
CO CD
.2 c
co co
CL CD2
CM CO t
in co
co CM
E
o
r-
CO
CM
CO
N
^
CVJCO CO
O N
CO CM in 1?
t? t* O O
CO
<D O)
CO CO
g co
CMO
l?
co t- co co co co co co N
co
go cm in II) CO N
co m
co
r- O
1- t- O
O
ro
o
I"
co Oi
t- CM
o
w w
^
CD 3CO 3CO
CM
si
co si
co cz
CD O o
CO o O
r
000
r r
1-
f
in
co
O
CO
CM U) O
CO COo
CO Oi CO CM CM CM
r- "o
o
o
I t
I" f
h-.
" CO O
O) CM o> o
in co in 1-CSIO
10
co co G)
t- v O
CM
1'
in
cm
I
in co in in
in cm
'
I'
C7)O N
CO CO CO cm m
in
COO)
r*. cm CO cmO
in co o
CO
y? o
<r- t- CM r- O O O
t?
CMO
CD CD N O
10
cm t s
m
cm co
I
* ?
?
o
00 m
CO
s _ co co
co t-OCM
CO
I
f
?58
01
co
CO N
CM co r N
o
tt co
OOO
o
CO o
CM CM 1
in 1- CO
* *
_
m
? CM^
CO
1?
t"
CM CO
in 01
co o>
1
O
^f- CO CO co
O)
O) NCMIO
CO
O O OOO
CO
o
o
CM
COO
^000
10
co
o>
co
m
CM
o
00 CO CO co O O
CO Oi COm ^>
co
CO
<J> co co
in o
CM CO
co o
t- O O 0000
CMO O
O
CM
I
I
co
3 CM o>r-
CO 0)
in
cm CO CO
o o o
co CO CO CO
in co t
^o o
in o o
I' 1" I
cm
o o S
r*?
in
m
CM
co cm
*
10 co co o>
co
COO
r- co
CMO
I
05 co
Oi
O
O O
co
tt
CO cm co
co s
^
co
I
*
h*. CM CO h
CO co co t
O o
co
to
CM CO io co CM
in
CMTf r
Ot
cm
CM CM t- t- co co o
*
*
?
ro *
CO t- CO co
o> t
10 1^.
rr
r O
cm?
co CO O) O S
CO O
CM 0> r
CO CM
CM CO r*- co co CO
cm O
CO O
r
OOO
o
r
I
I I
*
o
r*.
a>
10 m m tt CO 0)
e
10 co cm o
co CM co cn co i~ co
^
t- O
CM
cm o o
000
o
?
co
co in
co co
r
CM
ti- h?. co
o m ^
1- t- r*
10
ta
cm
CP
CMCMCMCMCM
?
? ?
00 m
<p
CM 00 co
t O
f- t
CM CM *f ?3
in
co
c9 N
<D ^
t- CM2 CM t-
Ifi (O S
?
<S a>"5
U- Ol.
<
X
CD
o 2
CO
CO >>
2> o
3
a> ? g
8 i2 is
oc
er
.E
co
r- CM CO TT in co
00 0)0
v- CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:31:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE
OfHEROES
MAKING
95
APPENDIX
C: BIVARIATE
CORRELATIONS
(Continued)
CM
m
o
< 10
co
O) CVJ (O
iCMO
f- O O
I
*
N N
CO 1
?
CM (O
^
f- CMO
CM
OCOlOCMOCMCMOl
Ot-i-CMt-t-Oi-CM
I I
I
Sm
t-
WON
oo oj
CM O)
o O
co ^
coO
co
I
OOCMCOCOCOOCMO
ini-COCMNCMi-O
OCM-i-OOt-OO '
Ot-CM
3 3 ?
I
oo
<r
t?
CO oo lo
tn cm 00 cm
<r
O
CM
CM
co
-jo
r-CMCO^in<OSOO
co
co
co
-5 Jr
1 gO?
2
uj
O) r O
N
CO t
o
in i
*
*
UJr
(O t
OTf
O)
IO CM CO 11)^
tCM
O
CM*
' COO
$8
?
r
CO
i?
CM -r co
co o
CMO
co co
r^.
*
Oi
O
If) r- n
i- cm co
o o
f r
TT O
in tt
x
O
se^f? o
O) 00
co n w
o
o> rin co o
co 0o CM
co n o
cm 00 co co 00 co i
co t? co o> ^>
t? OOO
o o
o
o
r
o o o
co cm
t? t?
"r- t? O
t? CM
co co
S V ^
*
*
T- at
T- CM
CO CM
I
o
? g ?
g?
Scctcczct
<DOOO>,000
cn o
z
o
in
co
ooo
003
*
*
*
*
?CMCMtO
NOr
09i-CMCOMflOOP3lO
r
r-NONrtOr-
co in co in
O
co
t- t- "O "O
f
I"
r- O
CD
TT O)
CO CD t- rf COO O
t? O
?
*
r? cm
in C7> COO
CM CO N
CO CM CO
t? Of?r-OO^-
lilt
0OCM0Or-St-CMC9
CMNOOr-^WO?
OOOOt-CMOCM
*
co
?
cn
co
CM
t- roo
n
(fl
U3 O
O ^ " Ol "f
r
*
*
T- i? CO CM CO
T- CM
CO CMO
r O
09 NO
3?
*
cm
co
CM
(0 CD n O N
(0 CO CO t- CO
f? T?
CMO O
O
O
O
co co
CM CO r- If) 09 S
a>
co
co cm rr m
T- o
o o
O O O O
* *
?23
co
O
lo co
cm
t~ O
O) O) N
^ O
CMO O
i
00 CM
O O
co t- co en co
<?& S ? SI ?
m
CO
O
CM CO ^
tj- in co in
t? co in cm
t- is"*
^
cm^
oo
O
CMO O
tf)co?t-(OOSO)
COCMIOOOt-OC?
OOi-Ot-i-Oy
*
rcocomoiooi-coo
r OlO^OlOCOOOO
CMOOt-CM<i-OOy
*T
en
co
i
co co h* A
OOU3?
i- CO T- CM
CM tt) O)
ONCM
O
CM t~
co
r^ocomcocMinco
NOOOTf
Ot-hr
0<i-^"00<r-00
r
I I I
0> co
09 t
o
o)
n
o
Oi-CONW(OCX)CO
CM OOOi-CMr-OO
I
I
CO O)
S
CO
r
O
O) m
n n
t- ?
O
cm
t?
CM 0) O
co
CO co
*
* *
O) U) N
h* O) (O O ^
CO?
h.
?
i ^
oo oo co cm a> oo to IO Ol O)
(O ^
*~ O
r- r- T- T- O o O
cm CO f- T- O O O
o)iocor>u)ococo(DO}e)c\iifl
CM OOt-T-OlT-OOT-^t-^^
CM
?o> in
co
(O t- co
T- O O
(O GO 00 S
r^._CMW N
r O
o
i-
(O^rcocMin^-oco
"miOCMOCMCMO
y-OOOt-i-OOt-t
r- O
CM 09 r- N
in co "3
m
o
r*. o o
CM co
xi
332
q.
OT-cMcorriricoKeboi
cp
q.
3
CD S
0? X x
CD
>,
co
<
-I
-i
2 ?
UL.
(IOlQC
1^co
coS iS
si
^CCCOOQ.
r- CM co
m
CO
O
CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:31:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
to
v
96
FOCUS
SOCIOLOGICAL
Gregory
C.
in the Department
is a Ph.D.
candidate
of Sociology and
at Purdue University. His research focuses on the gender and social
aspects of heroism. His dissertation research is aimed at understanding
Gibson
Anthropology
psychological
the role of gender in contemporary heroism.
of Sociology
Eugene Jackson is associate professor of sociology for the Department
and Anthropology at Purdue University. His research areas are social psychology and
mental health.
REFERENCES
-.
Bearman, Peter S. 1991. "The Social Structure of Suicide." Sociological Forum 6:501-524.
Brown, Roger. 1986a. "The Layman as Intuitive Scientist.**Pp. 133-168 inSocial Psychology,
2nd Edition, edited by Roger Brown. New York: Free Press.
1986b. "Systematic Biases inAttribution.** Pp. 169-199 in Social Psychology,2nd
PsychologyQuarterly 57:22-243.
Callero, Peter L., JudithA. Howard, and JaneA. Piliavin. 1987. "Helping Behavior as Role
Behavior: Disclosing Social Structure and History in theAnalysis of Prosocial Action.**
Social PsychologyQuarterly 50:247-256.
Durkheim, Emile. 1951. Suicide. Translated by John A. Spaulding and George Simpson.
Glencoe,
Eccles, Jacquelynne S. and Allan Wigfield. 2002. "Motivational Beliefs,Values, and Goals."
Annual Review ofPsychology53:109-132.
Elkin, Fredrick. 1955. "Popular Hero Symbols and Audience Gratifications." Journal of
Educational Sociology 29:97-107.
Gibson, Gregory C. 2003. "Carnegie Heroes: A Social Exchange Theory Examination."
Masters Thesis, Department of Sociology, Humboldt State University,CA.
GofFman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis:An Essay on theOrganization ofExperience. New York:
Harper Colophon.
Groves, Robert M. and Mick P. Couper.
New York: JohnWiley & Sons.
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:31:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THEMAKING
OFHEROES
97
Press.
Sanders, Joseph,V. Lee Hamilton, Gennady Denisovsky, Naotaka Kato, Mikio Kawai, Polina
Kozyreva, Takashi Kubo, Michael Matskovsky, Haruo Nishimura, and Kazuhiko Tokoro.
Serpe, Richard T.
-.
Quarterly 59:193-220.
Marriage and the
Stryker,Sheldon. 1968. "Identity Salience and Role Performance.nJournal of
Family 30:558-564.
2002. SymbolicInteractionism:
A Social StructuralVersion.Caldwell, NJ: Blackburn Press.
2000. "The Past, Present, and Future of Identity
Peter
Sheldon
and
Burke.
J.
Stryker,
Theory." Social PsychologyQuarterly 63:284-297
Stryker,Sheldon and Anne StathamMacke. 1978. "Status Inconsistency and Role Conflict."
Annual Review ofSociology4:57-90.
Thoits, Peggy A. 1986. "Multiple Identities: Examining Gender and Marital Status
Differences inDistress." American Sociological Review 51:259-272.
Turner, Ralph H. 1978. "The Role and the Person." American Journal ofSociology 84:1-23.
Weber, Max.
1978. Economy and Society. Edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich.
Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.
Weiner, Bernard. 2000. "Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Theories of Motivation from an
Attributional Perspective." Educational PsychologyReview 12:1-14.
Steven R., Michael G. Cruz, Linda Marshall, andNagesh Rao. 1993. "AnAttributional
Analysis ofCompliance-Gaining Interactions."CommunicationMonographs 60:352-372.
Wilson,
Znaniecki, Florian. 1965. Social Relations and Social Roles: The Unfinished SystematicSociology.
San Francisco: Chandler.
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:31:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions