The villain as reference idol: selection frequencies and salient attributes among New Zealand teenagers.

Melnick, Merrill J. ; Jackson, Steven J.

Merton (1957) once observed that "research and theory have tended to focus on reference groups to the relative neglect of reference individuals" (p. 302). Expanding on this point, Sherif (cited in Hyman, 1975) noted that there was considerable value in studying reference individuals who serve as models for the many. He referred to this glorified variety of reference individual as the "reference idol."

While the public hero/heroine as a special type of reference idol is well documented in the research literature (Harris, 1994; Russell, 1993), the influence of negative reference idols, or villains, has been largely unexamined. According to McEvoy and Erickson (1981), villains evoke general feelings of disdain, allow individuals to project negative sentiments onto them, and serve as an explicit personification of rejected values and behaviors. They argue that any theory "... concerning the influence of those with whom we interact can be enhanced by examining the functions of public heroes and villains as special types of reference objects, along with an analysis of the types and levels of their influence" (p. 112).

The frequency and salience of public heroes and villains as reference idols have obvious implications for the formation of attitudes, identities, and role-taking. McEvoy and Erickson underscore this point when they observe that "public figures can help to create and sustain value and action systems, functioning as symbolic representations of that which is perceived to be 'good' and 'bad' aspects of the socio-cultural system" (p. 114).

Because the stresses, strains, and crises that frequently attend adolescence make attraction and attachment to public figures especially strong (Balswick & Ingoldsby, 1982), the study of teenagers' heroes and villains becomes especially relevant. If heroes constitute an underappreciated category of "reference other" in the lives of teenagers (Melnick & Jackson, 1996), then the public others whom they use as avoidance role models (i.e., their villains) are also deserving of scholarly attention.

Characterized as the "struggle for independence," adolescence, beginning about the age of 11 in girls and somewhat later for boys (Schave & Schave, 1989), involves "... the process of building up an individual personality structure with its complex cognitive, motivational, linguistic, moral, and social features and abilities, as well as the subjective experience of being a unique personality" (Hurrelmann, 1994, p. 6). According to Schave and Schave, "during times of stress, due to changes in their cognitive capacities, they [adolescents] put a greater reliance on external sources [emphasis added] of support" (p. 72). The increased need by adolescents for external support systems in order to maintain their psychic equilibrium has intriguing implications for identity formation. The extent to which identification with villains, or avoidance role models, helps adolescents arrive at a set of values and beliefs to guide their actions, what Kimmel and Weiner (1985) refer to as an "ideological stance," is worthy of investigation.

The present study addressed the degree to which adolescents have villains and, more importantly, the level of influence villains have on adolescents' attitudes, values, behaviors, and identities. Villains were defined as public figures, real or fictional, living or deceased, whom an individual strongly dislikes. Since this investigation was essentially exploratory in nature, no formal a priori hypotheses were tested. Rather, the researchers endeavored to answer, and draw conclusions from, the following three questions: (1) Do New Zealand youth have public villains and, if so, who are they? (2) Which specific traits or characteristics do New Zealand youth most dislike in their villains? (3) To what degree do villains influence the lives of New Zealand youth?

The fact that the study of popular culture in New Zealand has been, at best, underdeveloped (Lealand, 1985; Wilcox, 1985) explains the paucity of research bearing directly on the selection and influence of mass media-created public others. As a result, the present study was largely informed by research based on the North American sociocultural context.

To date, interest in reference idols has focused on heroes and heroines - positive public others (Balswick & Ingoldsby, 1982; Castine & Roberts, 1974; Crawford & Stoneburner, 1987; Crepeau, 1981; Gomez, 1986; Harris, 1986, 1987, 1994; Ingham, Howell, & Swetman, 1993; Klapp, 1962; Kray, 1993; Segrave, 1993; Smith, 1976; Vander Velden, 1986). In an extensive review of the literature, Harris (1994) found that athletes, entertainers, and political and military leaders were the most frequently selected types of positive public others. Specifically, since the late 1940s, "....between one third and well over half of the famous people selected have been athletes and entertainers... politicians have comprised one fourth or less of the choices" (p. 33). Directing her attention specifically to adolescent samples, Harris's review of the literature, as well as her own data, showed that heroes, and in particular athletes, were especially popular among young people.

While patterns of attraction to heroes and heroines have been fleshed out in the last decade (Russell, 1993), patterns of aversion to villains (e.g., negative reference idols) remain unexplored. Not only are the correlates of selection (e.g., age, gender, socioeconomic status) and level of influence unknown, but the more fundamental question of whether young people even have negative role models begs to be answered.

METHOD

Data about public villains were obtained from a sample of New Zealand teenagers via a questionnaire: Who Is Your Villain? The instrument included demographic questions relating to the respondent's age, gender, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity. Respondents were asked to list all of their villains (i.e., "people whom you judge to be bad"). Respondents not having a villain were instructed to answer questions about their recreational interests. After listing their villains, respondents were directed to review their choices and then select the one person whom they most disliked. Questions followed about the person's line of work and "the personal characteristics or traits of your villain that make you dislike this person so much. In other words, what is it about this person that makes you think so poorly of him or her?"

In order to assess the villain's influence, McEvoy and Erickson's (1981) scaled typology for conceptualizing the levels of influence of reference idols was used. The five levels of negative influence are (1) simple disdain (lowest level of negative influence), (2) negative identification, (3) negative criterion source, (4) negative emulation, and (5) retaliation: personal sacrifice (highest level of negative influence). McEvoy and Erickson note that these five levels are "... not meant to be discrete and mutually exclusive. Rather, these ordinal levels might best be thought of as an ideal description of stages in the influence process" (p. 121). Each successive level reflects an increasingly stronger psychological investment or commitment. The typology, based on a pilot study involving detailed interviews with student samples concerning their orientation toward public figures, was developed strictly for its heuristic value. Students' responses were made on a 5-point, Likert-type scale (agree very much, agree, cannot say, disagree, or disagree very much).

School Sample

All 11 high schools in Dunedin, New Zealand, the second largest city in South Island with a population of 114,000, provided the survey sample. Specifically, each school principal designated one ninth-grade and one twelfth-grade class for participation. The researchers met with each of the targeted classes and administered the questionnaire during one session. The number of students attending the schools ranged from 358 to 1,122 (average school size was 670 students).

Student Sample

Five hundred ten teenagers participated; 241 (47.3%) were males and 269 (52.7%) were females. The average age of the 507 students who answered the age question was 14 years 5 months (SD = 1.56). Thirteen- and sixteen-year-olds accounted for approximately 85% of the sample. A total of 496 students answered the question, "With which ethnic/racial group do you most closely identify?"; 441 (88.9%) chose European, 19 (3.8%) chose Maori or European/Maori, 6 (1.2%) chose Pacific Islander, and 30 (6.1%) chose other.

A total of 435 students answered the question, "What does your father do for a living?" The Elley and Irving (1976) Socio-Economic Index yielded the following results: 224 (51.5%) fathers were employed in the three highest status job categories (i.e., higher professional/administrator, lower professional/technical, clerical/highly skilled), while 211 (48.5%) were employed in the three lowest status categories (i.e., skilled, semiskilled, unskilled). Just 51 (10.0%) of the students indicated they had a mother who worked outside the home.

RESULTS

Number of Villains

Students were directed to list as many of their personal public villains as they could think of: 917 villains were identified, an average of 2.60 (SD = 1.68) per student who answered the question. Whereas 352 students (69.0%) indicated they had at least one villain, 158 (31.0%) said they had no villain or left the question blank. Ninety-one different villains, from all walks of life, were identified.

There was no significant interaction between age and naming a villain, according to chi-square analysis. A comparison of the younger group (ages 12, 13, 14) and older group (ages 15, 16, 17) was nonsignificant, [[Chi].sup.2](1) = 2.73,p = .10, as it was for naming five or more villains, [[Chi].sup.2](1) = 2.10, p = .15.

While a greater percentage of females (78.4%) than males (72.1%) identified at least one negative reference idol, the interaction effect was nonsignificant for identifying a single villain, [[Chi].sup.2](1) = 2.17, p = .14, as well as five or more villains, [[Chi].sup.2](1) = .10, p = .75.

A comparison of the three highest and three lowest occupational subgroups also failed to yield significant interaction effects for naming one villain, [[Chi].sup.2](1) = .58, p = .45, or five or more villains, [[Chi].sup.2](1) = .24, p = .62.

Villain's Gender

When students were asked to choose the one person whom they most disliked, 342 villains were identified: 305 (89.2%) males and 37 (10.8%) females. Chi-square analysis revealed that females were no less likely than males to choose a male villain, [[Chi].sup.2](1) = 2.63, p = .10. However, females were eleven times more likely to "cross over" and choose an opposite-sex villain. Specifically, 7.6% of the males chose a female villain, while 85.9% of the females chose a male villain.

Villain's Occupation

A 10-category typology was created to include all responses to the question, "What does your villain do?" Approximately 70% of the villains were either politicians, criminals, or athletes (see Table 1). Among the most frequently chosen negative reference idols were New Zealand Prime Minister Jim Bolger (61), Adolph Hitler (58), Saddam Hussein (41), New Zealand mass murderer David Gray (12), New Zealand rugby player Richard Loe (11), New Zealand television personality Paul Holmes (8), and New Zealand model Rachel Hunter (8). A total of 168 respondents (32.9%) indicated they either did not have someone whom they most disliked or left the question blank.

Table 1

Work Categories of Most Disliked Villains by Gender of Student

Work Category Total Sample Male Female

 n (%) n (%) n (%)

Politician 144 (42.11) 59 (37.34) 85 (46.20)
Criminal 62 (18.13) 25 (15.82) 37 (20.11)
Athlete 39 (11.40) 31 (19.62) 8 (4.35)
Actor/Actress 24 (7.02) 13 (8.23) 11 (5.98)
TV Personality 23 (6.73) 9 (5.70) 14 (7.61)
Militarist 15 (4.39) 7 (4.43) 8 (4.35)
Cartoon Character 12 (3.51) 7 (4.43) 5 (2.72)
Model 9 (2.63) 1 (0.63) 8 (4.35)
Other 14 (4.09) 6 (3.80) 8 (4.35)

* This category includes game show hosts, news commentators, weather
forecasters, and other prominent people on TV.

There was a significant gender by villain's occupation interaction effect, [[Chi].sup.2](9) = 28.95, p = .00. In naming their villains, males most often selected politicians (37.3%), athletes (19.6%), and criminals (15.8%), while females chose politicians (46.2%), criminals (20.1%), and television personalities (7.6%).

Most Disliked Characteristics

A 10-category typology was created to include all characteristics identified by the students as most reprehensible. Of those who identified a most disliked public figure, 60.9% thought poorly of the person either because he or she committed a crime against humanity (students used such descriptors as evil, wicked, mad, and horrible to describe the person) or for personality reasons (the personality traits that most offended students included dishonesty, poor interpersonal skills, big-shot attitude, and selfishness).

There was a significant gender by characteristic interaction effect, [[Chi].sup.2](9) = 19.22, p = .02. For male students, the four most salient categories were negative personality traits (35.2%), crimes committed against humanity (25.0%), ideology (16.0%), and intelligence (9.6%). Females, on the other hand, thought very poorly of their villains because of crimes committed against humanity (37.0%), negative personality traits (24.3%), poor performance (13.3%), and ideology (11.0%).

Villain's Level of Influence

Simple disdain. Of the 342 students responding, 315 (92.1%) agreed with the statement, "I dislike my villain." Just 12 students (3.5%) disagreed, and 15 (4.4%) responded "cannot say." Approximately one-third of the sample did not respond to the statement.

Negative identification. Of the 339 students responding, 243 (71.7%) agreed with the statement, "I feel better when my villain fails or is unsuccessful." Only 30 (8.8%) disagreed with the statement, and 66 (19.5%) responded "cannot say."

Negative criterion source. Of the 338 students who had an opinion, 172 (50.9%) said they used their villain as a negative role model (that is, as a source of ideas, beliefs, or values to reject). Sixty-six (19.5%) did not use their villain as a negative criterion source, while 100 (29.6%) could not say.

Negative emulation. Of the 336 students responding, 158 (47.0%) said they try to act or behave in ways that are the opposite of the ways their villain acts or behaves. Sixty-one (18.2%) said their behavior was unaffected by their villain, while 117 (34.8%) could not say.

Retaliation: personal sacrifice. Of the 334 students responding, 143 (42.8%) indicated that they would be willing to make a personal sacrifice in order to oppose what their villain represents. Eighty-two (24.6%) said they would not be willing to retaliate against their villain, while 109 (32.6%) could not say what they would do.

Chi-square analysis was conducted in order to see whether there was an interaction between gender and villain's level of influence. The five responses were collapsed into three: agree, cannot say, and disagree. While females were generally more influenced by their villains than were males, the difference was significant only for Level 1, simple disdain, [[Chi].sup.2](2) = 7.25, p = .03.

DISCUSSION

1. Do New Zealand youth have public villains and, if so, who are they ? Nearly 70% of the students identified one or more negative reference idols; 115 (22.5%) indicated that they did not have a villain, while 43 (8.4%) left the question blank. How do these data compare with findings for positive reference idols? Harris (1994) reported that 128 3rd, 6th, 9th, and 12th graders selected 477 public heroes, with well over 90% able to identify one or more. Melnick and Jackson (1996), using a New Zealand sample of 6th and 9th graders, found that 82.2% were able to identify at least one hero or heroine. Thus, it appears that greater numbers of young people are able to identify a positive reference idol than a negative one. The greater attention bestowed upon positive role models in society is one possible explanation for this difference. Young people are much more likely to be encouraged at home, school, and by the mass media to imitate a positive reference idol than to reject the values and behaviors of a villain. Nevertheless, the fact that approximately 70% of the students surveyed identified an avoidance role model has important psychosocial implications.

Of special interest was the finding that almost 9 out of 10 villains named were males. Not only are male heroes preferred over female ones (Russell, 1993), but even when teenagers are asked to choose their villains, the preference is clearly for males. Since it is largely through the mass media, particularly television, that youth come to learn about celebrated and nefarious public others, it is tempting to conclude that the media have a much stronger inclination to report the activities of males, whether good or bad. The effect is to present an essentially male-skewed world to impressionable teenagers, one in which females have reason to wonder about their social position and role. The findings lend further support to the observation that New Zealand popular culture is under patriarchal control (Thompson, 1988).

The fact that approximately 8% of the male students "crossed over" and chose a female villain requires further study. Why would males name New Zealand politicians Helen Clarke, Shona Howarth, and Ruth Richardson, and elite squash player Susan DeVoy, as their most disliked villains? Although strictly speculation, it is possible that adolescent males have difficulty accepting female success in politics and sport, two of New Zealand's most male-dominated social institutions. Perhaps these findings are reflective of a more generalized male anxiety over the increasing female challenge to male power and privilege in New Zealand society. The findings may also suggest some type of male backlash, making them more likely to retaliate (the highest level of negative influence) against women. While beyond the scope of the present study, these issues deserve further attention. Qualitative studies involving in-depth interviews might best uncover the feelings and attitudes that underlie both male and female choices.

Judged by their selections, the students demonstrated a strikingly strong concern for humankind. In making Adolph Hitler one of their most cited villains, they were expressing their personal outrage at the horrors of the Holocaust; in selecting Saddam Hussein, they were demonstrating strong opposition to his naked aggression in the Persian Gulf; and in choosing David Gray, New Zealand's most infamous mass murderer, they were making a powerful statement against the taking of innocent lives. At a time when it seems fashionable to be critical of the lifestyles of teenagers, the shallowness of their values, and their moral insensibilities, it was enlightening to find that, for many, moral sensitivity, compassion, and belief in the sanctity of life apparently guided their choice of a negative reference idol.

Interestingly, two New Zealand rugby players, Richard Loe and Grant Fox, were among the most popular villains. The research literature clearly documents the fact that athletes figure prominently among the famous people teenagers choose for their heroes and heroines (Balswick & Ingoldsby, 1982; Harris, 1994). Russell (1993) has observed that while sports heroes "... do not represent a major source of personal heroes for the general population" (p. 133), among young people, they are an especially popular exemplar, and this is especially true for boys. So why were these two athletes chosen? In Loe's case, highly publicized acts of unsportsmanlike conduct on the field, resulting in his temporary ban from the game, probably earned him this dubious distinction. Fox, although possessing exceptional kicking skills, is viewed by many as not being able to do much else. Also, his less-than-exciting style of play is thought by some to have had a negative impact on the game.

2. Which characteristics do New Zealand youth most dislike in their villains? The students gave several reasons for disliking their most negative public other; however, villains who demonstrated a total disregard for human life were especially detested. Interestingly, while the "crimes against humanity" category was salient for both sexes, female students were more likely to be repulsed by violence against another person. Although strictly speculation, females, in general, may be more concerned about the sanctity of human life. Males may view violence and strong-armed political policy as somehow reinforcing traditional notions of masculine behavior. Thus, macho personality types may judge aggression as being less offensive (Russell, 1992). The possibility that females can better relate to the "victimized other" may also help explain the villains they chose and their reasons for choosing them. Additional research should compare the reasons male and female students offer for choosing the same villain. This type of villain-by-villain analysis would help illuminate gender differences.

3. To what extent do villains influence the personal lives of New Zealand youth? As expected, the percentage of students agreeing with each level of disdainment decreased as the degree of negative influence increased. While 92.1% of the students indicated simple disdain (the lowest level of negative influence) for the person they disliked most, only 42.8% indicated they would be willing to demonstrably oppose what he or she stands for (the highest level of negative influence). These findings confirm the value of the five levels for future research.

It appears that the influence of villains extends beyond negative feelings and simple disdain. The data suggest that avoidance role models also influence beliefs, values, self-appraisals, and behaviors. Of particular interest was the finding that negative reference idols apparently have a greater influence on females than on males. Perhaps the reason lies in the types of villains selected by both sexes, and the reasons each had for their choices. That is, some villains will prompt greater disdain than others. For males, the most cited villains were politicians and athletes, for reasons having mostly to do with negative personality traits. For females, the preference was for politicians and criminals, for reasons having to do with "crimes against humanity." It seems logical that villains who murder and commit genocide are more likely to evoke stronger negative affect than villains who are merely seen as dishonest and selfish. The fact that females are more likely to view themselves as physically vulnerable may explain why they are especially antagonistic toward violent criminals and political demagogues, and compassionate toward their victims. Further research should compare levels of negative influence by sex for the same villain.

With respect to the issue of retaliation against a negative reference idol, no attempt was made in the present study to identify the types of retribution males and females would use, or which types of villains they would be most likely to retaliate against. Without additional data, it is difficult to understand what students meant when they agreed with the statement, "I would be willing to make a personal sacrifice in order to oppose what my villain represents or stands for." For example, for the students who identified Adolph Hitler as their most disliked public figure, exactly what form would their retaliation take?

With considerable caution, it is suggested that villains influence teenagers' identity formation. While they have no direct sanctioning power, the influence these socially distant public figures did have in the lives of young people was telling. Approximately 72% of the students reported that they feel better (negative identification) when their villain fails or is unsuccessful; 51% indicated that they use their villain as a source of ideas, beliefs, and values to reject (negative criterion source); 47% said they try to act or behave in ways that are the opposite of the ways their villain acts or behaves (negative emulation); and 43% indicated that they would be willing to make a personal sacrifice in order to oppose what their villain represents (retaliation). Thus, it would appear that negative reference idols may help some to define an ideological stance, an important developmental task associated with identity formation during adolescence.

It must be pointed out, however, that considerable care must be exercised in interpreting these preliminary findings, since they are based only on tallied responses to an anonymous questionnaire, not personally shared feelings or observed behaviors. The students, wanting to be good subjects, may have identified bad people simply to comply with the survey directions and satisfy the researchers, or their responses may truly reflect the influence of avoidance role models in their lives.

The data on influence levels shed light on what it means for teenagers to dislike a well-known person, but can only be regarded as instructive at this point. While the researchers have offered informed speculations based on the quantitative analysis of aggregate data, qualitative analysis of choice, frequency, and level of influence on a villain-by-villain basis would provide additional support, specifically about gender differences.

Clearly, more qualitative methodologies should be utilized in subsequent investigations. For example, individual as well as focus group interviewing would enable researchers to draw more definitive conclusions regarding the extent to which disliked public figures contribute to adolescent identity formation.

Overall, the findings suggest that villains, as a special category of reference idol, help some adolescents gain ideological direction. By identifying and describing villains, these teenagers have revealed important information about their psychological development. At a more macro level, the villains identified in this study reflect the "spirit of the times" in the same way that heroes and heroines do. To what extent they offer critical commentary on social institutions and cultural values remains to be seen.

REFERENCES

Balswick, J., & Ingoldsby, B. (1982). Heroes and heroines among American adolescents. Sex Roles, 8, 243-249.

Castine, S. C., & Roberts, G. C. (1974). Modeling in the sociocultural process of the black athlete. International Review of Sport Sociology, 9, 59-74.

Crawford, S. A., & Stoneburner, G. H. (1987). The sports hero as villain: An American perspective. Momentum, 12, 41-60.

Crepeau, R. (1981). Sport, heroes, and myth. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 5, 23-31.

Elley, W. B., & Irving, J. C. (1976). Revised socio-economic index for New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 11, 25-36.

Gomez, J. (1986). Black women heroes: Here's reality, where's the fiction? The Black Scholar, 17, 8-13.

Harris, J. C. (1986). Athletic exemplars in context: General exemplar selection patterns in relation to sex, race, and age. Quest, 38, 95-115.

Harris, J. C. (1987). Athletic exemplars compared with the broad array of others: Selection frequencies and salient attributes. Paper presented at the annual conference of the North American Society for the Sociology of Sport, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Harris, J. C. (1994). Athletes and the American hero dilemma. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers.

Hurrelmann, K. (1994). Introduction: Interdisciplinary and international approaches to research on adolescence. In K. Hurrelmann (Ed.), International handbook of adolescence (pp. 1-15). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Hyman, H. H. (1975). Reference individuals and reference idols. In L. A. Coser (Ed.), The idea of social structure: Papers in honor of Robert K. Merton (pp. 265-282). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Ingham, A. G., Howell, J. W., & Swetman, R. D. (1993). Evaluating sport hero/heroines - Contents, forms, and social relations. Quest, 45, 197-210.

Irving, J. C., & Elley, W. B. (1977). A socio-economic index for the female labour force in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 12, 154-163.

Kimmel, D. C., & Weiner, I. B. (1985). Adolescence: A developmental transition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Klapp, O. E. (1962). Heroes, villains, and fools: The changing American character. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kray, S. (1993). Image of money: Cultural drift, capitalist fantasy and the prime-time female hero. Communication, 13, 277-302.

Lealand, G. (1985). Preface. Journal of Popular Culture, 19, 63-65.

McEvoy, A., & Erickson, E. L. (1981). Heroes and villains: A conceptual strategy for assessing their influence. Sociological Forces, 14, 111-122.

Melnick, M. J., & Jackson, S. J. (1996). Reference idol choices among New Zealand teenagers: Their heroes and heroines. Unpublished paper.

Merton, R. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

Russell, G. W. (1992). Response of the macho male to viewing a combatant sport. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 631-638.

Russell, G. W. (1993). Social psychology of sport. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Schave, D., & Schave, B. (1989). Early adolescence and the search for self: A developmental perspective. New York: Praeger.

Segrave, J. O. (1993). Sport as a cultural hero-system - What price glory? Quest, 45, 182-196.

Smith, G. J. (1976). An examination of the phenomenon of sports hero worship. Canadian Journal of Applied Sports Science, 1, 259-270.

Thompson, S. M. (1988). Challenging the hegemony: New Zealand women's opposition to rugby and the reproduction of a capitalist patriarchy. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 23, 205-212.

Vander Velden, L. (1986). Heroes and bad winners: Cultural differences. In L. Vander Velden & J. H. Humphrey (Eds.), Psychology and sociology of sport (Vol. 1, pp. 205-220). New York: AMS Press.

Wilcox, L. (1985). Introduction. Journal of Popular Culture, 19, 67-73.

Steven J. Jackson, Ph.D., Lecturer, School of Physical Education, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.