alexander y lauderdale - situated identities and social influence.pdf

7/30/2019 Alexander y Lauderdale - Situated Identities and social influence.pdf

1/10

Situated Identities and Social InfluenceAuthor(s): C. Norman Alexander, Jr. and Pat LauderdaleSource: Sociometry, Vol. 40, No. 3 (Sep., 1977), pp. 225-233Published by: American Sociological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3033529 .

Accessed: 02/01/2011 19:28

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

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 [email protected].

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Sociometry.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3033529?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asahttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3033529?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa


2/10

Sociomnetry1977,Vol. 40,No. 3, 225-233Situateddentitiesnd Social nfluence

C. NORMAN ALEXANDER, JR.Universityf owaPAT LAUDERDALEUniversity fMinnesota

Situated dentityheory ostulates a process for establishing hedefinition f a situation nd itsnormative tructure. he normative tructure s hypothesized opredictpreciselythe distribu-tionof anticipatedresponses.A simulation tudyof a well-known ocial influence xperimentillustratesthe paradigm for investigating hese ideas, and the results are supportive.Thegeneralitynd powerof situated dentity heory ncourage an interface etweenthesociologi-cal ideas of symbolic nteractionists nd thepsychological tradition f experimentationn theapproach to social psychological problems.

Thesearch or n adequate ndpreciseconceptualizationf how people definesocial ituations,onstructocialrealities,and normativelytructureheirpercep-tions ftheworld s a classicandpersis-tent roblemn sociologyndsocialpsy-chology. n a sense, the problems ascentral o the deas ofDurkheim, ann-heim,and Weber as it is to those ofCooley,Mead, andThomas Berger ndLuckmann, 966);but attemptedesolu-tions avenever roducedhekind f us-tained nd programmaticesearch radi-tionthatone wouldexpectfrom uchafundamentalheoreticalssue. The basicquestionshavebeenwithus for o longand have been treatedunderso manylabelsand guisesoverthedecadesthat tis impossible o associatethemwithasingle ource.Hence,wewillreferothecritical ssues as the problem f socialmeaningi.e.,the ocialmeaningf situ-ation,rather hanpersonalityspectsofthe ctors). ituateddentityheoryffersa generalpproach o theproblemfsitu-ationalmeaning nd provides n opera-tional efinitionfnormativetructuresnactionsettings.Theheory efines hese

* Authorsre listed lphabetically. e wishtothank he NationalScience Foundationnd theNationalnstitutefMental ealth or upportf hepresent esearch respectively,M-2759, Situa-tionalMeaningndSocialPsychologicalxperimen-tation," . Norman lexander,r., rincipalnves-tigator;ndGS-0900-4102, rainingrant, niver-sity fMinnesota,atLauderdale, ub-divisionn-vestigator).naddition,ommentsnthiswork romMartiBurt ndSteveMcLaughlin ereespeciallyhelpful.

units fcognitiverganizations thedis-positionalnferenceshat re madeabouta typical ctorperformingrecognizedaction na sociallydefinedetting.Situateddentityheoryeginswith heassumptionhatwhatGoffman1959) alls"expressions ivenoff"are pervasivelycommunicatedby ongoing activities(Alexandernd Epstein,1969). n brief,Goffman nd other symbolic nterac-tionistsssume hat eoplemustmutuallynegotiateheir espectivedentitieseforeinteractions possible nd that hey on-tinue oreinforcerrenegotiateheorigi-nal transactionhroughouthe ncounter.For ourpurposes,he ritical oints thatsomekind f"situateddentity"must eestablishedndmaintaineds a prerequi-sitefor ocialconduct. ituateddentitiesare the attributionshat re made aboutparticipantsn a particularetting s aconsequence f their ctions.Notonly sthis ituateddentityssential s a basisfor nitiatingnteraction,t is crucialforguidingnd anticipatinghe ourse fthatinteraction.This anticipative spect of situatedidentityormations ofprimemportance.We postulate hat ndividualswho con-front choice situationonstituteintheMeadian ense)the ituateddentitieshatwould resultfrom heir hoice of eachamongseveralalternatives. hen, theydecide whatto do or whatthey xpectanother ersonto do, based upontheirknowing hatkind fperson hey reortheother s (orwouldwant obecome) nsituateddentityerms.All other hings

225


3/10

226 SOCIOMETRYbeing qual,we predict hat personwillact to createthe most ociallydesirablesituated dentityorhimselfrherself.We are suggestingn answerto thestraightforwarduestion:Why o personsin a particularituationmake hechoicesthey o? Sincethey nterpretach choiceas havingmplicationsor he ype fper-son theywillbe seenas (whethert be atask eader, dentity-orientedctor,hon-est ndividual,r whatever resentationfself raltercaste),hey hoose ctions e-pending n howtheywant o be seen.Wepredict hat he achievementf a favor-able identitys the eading onsiderationin nteractiveocial situations. eforewebecomemore pecific boutthetheory'spredictions, owever,we should pecifythe conditionsnderwhich hey re ex-pected o hold.Ourfirstoncerns to dentifyhemostrelevant nd importantttributeimen-sionsmade alient ythe ituatedctivity.Forexample,weusually hink f nformalget-togetherss having distinctivet-mospheren whichcertain ttributei-mensionssuch as friendlyr unfriendly)arerelevanto characterizewide ange fbehaviors hat ccur here. imilarly,u-reaucratic ncounterslso have distinc-tive tmospheres,nwhich ualities uchas efficientr inefficientre frequentlyemphasized.They differ rom nformalsettingsbecause dimensions uch asfriendliness, armth, nd spontaneietyare so infrequentlyelevant o bureau-cratic ctivity. hus,we intend o definethe social meaningfsituatedctivitynterms fthe mportancerrelevance fthe dentity-dimensionslongwhichdis-positionalnferencesre made.Weare also nterestednwhetherrnotparticularction alternativesn the ac-tivityequence ossess normativetruc-ture.Here weaskfor onsensus bout heevaluation f achofthepotentialctionsthatmight e chosen t a particularime(cf.Mills,1940).This smerelyosay thatinour nformalncounters, eopleagreethat oingA instead fB isthe friendly"thing o do. It is also to recognize hatthere re events uch as mildlyarcasticcommentshat anbe taken s "friendlyjokes" or as "thinly eiled nsults," othere can be disagreementbout the

evaluative atingf a particularehavioror a rangeofbehaviorscf.Lauderdale,1976: 662-668). We will assume thatchoice-pointsre normativelytructuredwhen heres agreementbout valuativeratings n the relevantdentitymplica-tions ssociatedwith ach of thealterna-tivebehaviors.When he xistence fnormativetruc-turehas beenestablished,ituated den-tityheory redictshat ormativexpec-tations bout conductwillemergef theidentityevaluations associated withchoice alternativesre differentiatednterms f socialdesirability.fthe ituatedidentitymputationsbout n actorwouldbe morefavorablewhenhe chooses oneaction alternative ather han another,then eoplewill xpecthim ochoosethemorefavorable ne. The implicationfthispredictions thatpeople formulateexpectationsboutwhat hey nd otherswilldo byimaginativelyonstructinghesituateddentityonsequences fpoten-tial action lternatives.If we are right, henpersons shouldchoose actionalternativeso theextentthat hey roduce avorableituatedden-tities. onsider wo xtremeituations.nthefirst, here s one 'option'thatpro-duces a situateddentityutcome hat smuch more socially desirable hantheother hoices-we predict clear-cutx-pectationhat hisfavored ptionwill beselected. n the second,all options reprettymuch hesame nsituateddentityevaluations-and we predict hat therewillbe no clear-cut xpectation orbe-haviors n this kindof situation.n thelatterase,there s noreason nthebasisof he heoryoanticipatepreferenceorany particularhoice.Situateddentityheoryfferswo m-portantdvantages: hefirsts tsgeneral-ity. t applies to any social settingndevery ocialaction ituation.econd, t srelatively recise nitspredictions, oreprecise than most othertheories.Forexample,Alexander nd Knight 1971)replicated series of classic dissonanceexperimentshat howed eople ikedun-pleasant asksmore f heywerepaid essmoney o do them.This is thekindofpredictionhatmosttheories ffer, ithhypothesesphrased in ordinalterms.


4/10

SITUATED IDENTITIES AND SOCIAL INFLUENCE 227Situated identity heory,however,isspecific. n the Alexander nd Knight(1971)replication,eople weregiven nopportunityo check"how much" theyliked r dislikedheir askon a scale thatranged rom 5 to +5. Situateddentitytheory redictedhe modal response swell as the distributionn responsesamong ll thealternativesn each offourconditions.In thepresent tudy, eare nvolvednan analysisof social influence.We aretakingfor granted he hypothesis hatother theoriesgenerate,namely,thatpeopleconform ore fteno otherswhohave high evelsoftask ability han heydo to thosewith ow abilityevels.Thissystematicbservationwhich s an hy-pothesis fseveral heories)sfairlybvi-ous. Situateddentityheory oes a stepfurthero predict owmuchmoreoftenand atwhat pecificevel conformityillbe mainfest.notherwords, ituatedden-tity heory redicts he particularmeanand modal response nd the variance fthedistributionfresponsesmong lter-natives. o illustratehis,we will eportstudyhat ealswith ressureso conformto a peer's udgmentn an experimentnconformity.

EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OFCONFORMITYWhen two people of differingbilitydisagreewhileworkingn a jointtask,usually he one havingower bilitywilldefern udgmento the pinionf he nehaving higherability.This has beendemonstratedn a seriesofexperimentalstudiesof statuscharacteristicsnd ex-pectationtates Bergert al., 1972),witha perceptual ask in which ubjects rerandomly nduced to believe thattheyhave differentevelsof ability-high ndlow. Two subjects pairedas high- ndlow-ability)re shown series of slides

andasked o makenitialudgments. fterseeingtheirpartners'decisions,whichdisagreewith heirwn, hey re askedtoexamine he lides gain nd make finaldecision. As one would expect, low-abilityubjects re more ikely ochangetheirminds o agreewith heir igh-abilitypartners' iscrepantpinionshan rethe

high-abilityubjectsvis-a-visow-abilitypartners.We are interestedndevelopingn ac-countof howpeoplecometo define hesituation uch thattheygive thesere-sponses. n order odo thiswe conducteda simulationf one of these xperiments(Zelditcht al., 1972),portrayingheex-perimentalvents oobserversndaskingthem o maginehemselvess subjectsntheexperiment.In phase 1ofthe Zelditcht al. (1975)experiment,ubjects rebroughtnto helaboratoryndseated o that hey annotsee each other, n front f electronicpanelswhichtheyuse to communicatewith one another nd with the experi-menter. hey are toldthat heywillbejudging seriesof"contrastensitivity"slides, nd that heirudgmentsuringhefirst hase of the studywill determinetheir bilities t this ask. "Contrast en-sitivity"s allegednot o relate ogeneralintellectualbility, orto specific killssuchas geometricr artistic bility. heslidesare pictures f a rectangularlockconsistingfportionsf black ndwhite,and the subjects' task is to determinewhether he rectangular locks beingprojected n the screen ontain largerproportionf white r ofblack.After howing he slidesand securingeach subject'schoiceson the electronicpanels,theexperimenterells themhowwelltheyhave done. One subject s al-legedto have scored18 correct nswersout of a possible20, whiletheother sreportedo have gotten nly9 correct;these scores are explicitly escribed sunusually uperior nd unusually oor,respectively,o theresno doubtneithersubject'smind bouttheir elative bili-ties.Inphase2 oftheZelditcht al. experi-ment, hetwosubjects retoldthat heywillwork ogethers a team nd udgeasecond etof slides.Afterachmakes ninitial hoice,eachwill see on thepanelhis partner's hoice. The experimenterexplains hat hese nitialhoiceswillnotcount s part f he eam'sfinalcore,butare onlyforthepurposeof exchanginginformationetweenpartners o helpthemarriveat the best finaldecision.Aftereeing hese nitialhoices, ubjects


5/10

228 SOCIOMETRYare once again hown he lide;then heymake their final decisions, which arecommunicatednlyto theexperimenter.In this eriesof 25 presentations,heex-perimenter anipulateshe alleged om-municationetween artnerso that heysee themselvesndisagreement0 times.The dependent ariablemeasure s thenumber f timesa subject changesonthesedisagreementrialsoagreewith ispartner.

METHODSThese events were simulated for

classroom bservers ith taperecordingof an alleged experiment,oordinatedwith slide projections hat showed theoriginal timulusmaterial nd thepanellights een by subjectsntheexperiment.(Following em, 1972,wehave chosen ocall this a simulation ather hanroleenactment.)his method fpresentationpermitteds torun ll 12conditionsf heexperimentimultaneously,ssigningb-serversrandomlyo the various condi-tions.Because of henumber fobserversneeded 240), we repeated he presenta-tions n six differentlassroomsduringregularlycheduledmeetings. he obser-vers were undergraduatesn social sci-ence classes; none had beensubjects ntheoriginal xperiment.The simulation as two distinct arts,whichwe designates "estimation"nd"evaluation."

(1) Estimation study: Observers wereplaced neither igh-r ow-abilityondi-tions s follows: ach observer as givena bookletwhich howed subject eceiv-ing ither high-r ow-abilitycoredur-ingphase 1 of the simulated xperiment.Each observer as asked o magine eingthat ubjectndtogive "final esponse"during hase 2 of the simulatedxperi-ment s ifhe or she werethatsubject.Twenty bserverswere assigned o eachcondition.(2) Evaluation study: Here, observerswerealso placedin eitherhigh- r low-abilityonditionsythe lleged esponsesofthesubjectnphase1of thesimulatedexperiment. owever,during hase2 ofthe experiment, ach observer wasprovidedwith the alleged "actual final

choices" ofa subject nthe experiment.Six feedbackvariations reatedtwelveconditions. bservers aw their ubjectsstaywithinheirnitial hoicesfor 0,16,12,8, 4, or 0 times utofthe20disagree-ment rials.Twenty bserverswere as-signed oeachof the12conditions. fterseeinghow their ubjects adresponded,observers ated hem n a setof35 bipolardimensionsycircling neofninepointsalong he continuum.orexample:x . .. x . .. x . .. x . .. x . .. x . .. x . .. x . .. x(Indecisive) (Decisive)Each observerhen hose the ten adjec-tives elt o be most elevantoformingnoverallmpressionfwhat he ubjectwaslike as a person.The adjectiveswere selected na two-stage procedure. irst,we took theAn-derson 1968) and Goughand Heilbrun(1965) listsof morethaneighthundredwordsudgedmost mportantndrelevantto describingersonal raits ndreducedthisto slightlymorethanone hundredwords hat eemed ikely o be salientnthiscontext.Then,usinga judgmentalsituation imilar o the present xperi-ment,160 college student espondentswere asked to pick those wordstheythought most relevant to describesubject-participants.e based our finallist of 35 adjectivepairs on theirre-sponses

1The selection fthe top35 dimensions,atherthan ome arger r smaller umber,s essentiallyarbitrary.n theone hand,we want o includewide noughelectionfpotentiallyelevantimen-sionsso that nyunique ffectsf a particulare-sponsepattern illhave anopportunityo manifestthemselves.nthe ther and,wetryoavoid ver-burdeningespondentsith nunnecessarilyengthyandtiringask.Similarly,hefinal tilizationfthefivemost elevantimensionsn omputinghemeansituateddentityvaluationss a result f nspectionofthedata-thesewerehighlyelevantnall condi-tions,ndtheywere he nly nes hat howed uchimportancendconsistencycross veryvaluationcondition. alculatinghe mean coreson thetenmost elevantdjectivesn achevaluationonditiondoesnotappreciablyower hegoodness f fit e-tween he evaluationcoresand theestimationfconformity,nd t raisesproblemsfcomparabilityby using omewhat ifferentimensionalompo-nents or hesituateddentitycore neachcondi-tion.Copiesof the35 adjective airsused canbeobtained ywritinghefirst uthor.


6/10

SITUATED IDENTITIES AND SOCIAL INFLUENCE 229RESULTS

First, et us compare heresults romtheZelditcht al. experiment ith hosefromhe imulation.hemeans f ubjectresponses ndofobserverstimationsreshownnTable 1. They reimpressivelycorrespondent.hereare significantif-ferences eyond the .01 level betweenhigh-nd ow-abilityonditionesponsesin boththeexperimentalnd simulationstudies,and the mean stay-ratesthenumberf times personwould"stay"with is nitial hoice s hisfinal ecision)are fairly imilarwhenwe compare x-perimental ubjectsand simulationb-servers.The purposeof comparingimulationresultswith hose romhe riginalxper-iments toestablishheplausibilityftheclaim thatobservers nd experimentalsubjects rerespondingosimilarorma-tiveelementsnthe ituation,.e,tothoseaspects of the experimentaleality hatOrne (1969) calls "demand char-acteristics."By examiningxpectedre-sponseswebelieve hatwe earn bout hesociallydefinednatureof the situationcreated n theexperimentalettingcf.,Denzin, 1970: 456-458). Our primarytheoreticaloncerns toshowhowpeopleformulatexpectationaluidelinesor on-duct yconstructingituateddentitiesoreach ofthealternativeesponse atternsthat repossible.First,we want oknow ftheresponsesituations characterizedy stable etofdispositionalimensions ssociatedwiththe choicesto be made.Notonly s this

TABLE 1Mean Stay-Responsesfor High- and Low-AbilityConditions in Experimental and SimulationStudiesAbilityCondition Experiment SimulationHIGH 17.0 18.0(20) (20)LOW 7.4 8.8(20) (20)P (basedont-test): .01 .01* Experimentalesults akenfromZelditch tal. (1975).Note: N's in parentheses.

trueforthe high- nd low-abilityondi-tions, espectively,ut hedimensionsrebasically the same for both. Fiveadjectivepairs particularlyominateherelevance elections n terms f overallchoices, ndfairlyonsistentlyo withineach of thealternativevaluation ondi-tions takenseparately:ndependent-de-pendent,onsistent-inconsistent,efinite-uncertain, confident-doubtful, nddecisive-indecisive.hese fivepairs areamonghe enmost elevantneachof heseparateevaluationconditions,with asingle xception; nd they re among hefive mostrelevantn 80% ofthe condi-tions. The nature of the adjectivesselectedcorresponds o theimpressionsone mightget from decision-makingsituation hereface-to-faceontactwasprohibited and judgments involvednonemotional, alue-freetimuli for aquite ontrastingituationsing similarmethod, ee Lauderdale, 976:668.)Second,we want o knowf hevariousaction alternatives are consensuallyevaluated-that s, do people agree intheir valuative atingsf each responsepattern. o test this,we computed noverall ituateddentitycoreby averag-ing bservers' atings n those endimen-sionstheyselected s most relevant oform heirmpressions.hepositivendsofthe continuawere scored 9"; we de-termined hich ndwas positive ycon-sultingheevaluative atingsssigned ycollege tudentsopersonality-traitords(Anderson, 968).The variances f theseratings or ach evaluation onditionreshown nTable2.Thedatareveal relativeonsensusnthe observers' situated dentity SIT)evaluationsfallhigh-abilityubjectsndofthose ows whohavea high tay-rate.However, he owerthestay-ratef thelow-abilityubjects, he moredisparatetheSIT evaluations heyreceive. n ef-fect,there s no consensusabout theevaluativemplicationsfconformityylow-ability ubjects. Technically,thismeans hat heseconditions o not meetthe theoreticalssumptionsorapplica-tion f ituateddentityheory,utwe willexamine hesituateddentityvaluationsanywayto see what informationheymight rovide.


7/10

230 SOCIOMETRYTABLE 2

Variances in Mean Situated Identity (SIT)Evaluations by AbilityConditions andDifferences n Stay-RatesReported Variances fNumber f MeanSIT EvaluationsStay-Responses LowAbility HighAbility

20 2.9 2.8(20) (20)16 2.8 2.6(20) (20)12 2.9 5.2(20) (20)8 5.7 2.9(20) (20)4 7.4 2.3(20) (20)0 10.8 2.1(20) (20)

Note: N's inparentheses.The mean SIT evaluation cores arepresentednTable3,withhehighercoreindicating more favorable valuation.For high-abilityubjects, he results reclear-cut:The more oftenthe subjectstayedwithhis nitial ecision, he more

positively e is evaluated,by the ob-server.Thisexplains heveryhigh sti-mated tay-rateeportedn Table 1. Forthe ow-abilityubjects, heSIT evalua-tion cores show a bimodal istribution,which would indicate hatthe "middlerange"meanreportednTable 1was dueto a substantialispersionfresponse s-timationsnthat ondition.nfact, his sthe ase. Theresponse ariancesbtainedwithin he low-abilityonditionre sig-nificantlyifferentromhosewithin hehigh-abilityondition orboth heexperi-mental ubjectsand the simulation b-servers.Also,as we shall ee, observers

estimated bimodaldistributionf re-sponses hat orrespondsatherlosely othe situateddentityvaluations.The correspondence etween obser-vers' responses n the estimationondi-tion nd the bservers' IT evaluationsnthe feedback ondition s especially n-terestingor he ow-abilityondition,sFigure1 shows. Although he shapes ofthedistributionsre mpressivelyimilar,we should ote hat,while he IT evalua-tions are more positivefor the 20-staythan or he -stay osition, henumberfobserverswho estimationallyavor the0-stay atterns slightlyreater. ertainlythissa minor ifference,ut incewe areattentiveotheprecisionfsituatedden-tity heory, e exploredtfurther.RecallthatTable2 showed veryhighvariance for SIT evaluationsat andaround he0-stay esponse atternn thelow-ability condition, indicatingdis-agreementbout how to evaluatecom-plete conformityo the other.A closerlook showed hat hiswas not he esult frandomivergence,ut atherhe roductof twodistinctlyifferenteactions. hegroup ftwenty -stay,ow-abilityondi-tion bserversntheSIT evaluationtudywas ordered ccording o the SIT scoresgiven by each observer; he groupwasthen plitnto ubgroupsf10,onerepre-sentinghehigher IT scores,the otherthe lower SIT scores.Observersn thelower ubgroupvaluatedheirubjects tan averageof 4.6 on the9-point cales,while hose n thehigher ubgroup val-uated ubjects t an average f 8.4 on thesamescales.Compare his oevaluationsof 7.2 for20-stayssee Table 3). Abouthalf he bserversn0-stay valuationee

TABLE 3Mean Situateddentityvaluations f Stimulus ersons SP) Having DifferentStay-Rates y High and Low AbilityConditions

Ability Reported umber fStayResponses or PCondition 20 16 12 8 4 0 F*HIGH 8.3 7.9 4.1 3.6 2.7 3.1 6.01(20) (20) (20) (20) (20) (20)LOW 7.2 6.3 4.4 3.8 5.7 6.5 4.17(20) (20) (20) (20) (20) (20)

* Significance f differences ithin ondition p < .01) determinedyanalysis f variance,withdf= 5, 114 foreach condition.Note: N's in parentheses.


8/10

SITUATED IDENTITIES AND SOCIAL INFLUENCE 231Estimated Response Distributions

654

30 202 L odi L

0 5 10 15 20

Situated Identity Ratings

8.0* 7.0H u) 6.0X X 5.0*H X _> 4.0S 3.0 , B0 4 8 12 16 20

Stay-Response PatternFIGURE 1

Distributionsof response estimations nd situatedidentity evaluations in Low-Ability conditions.itasmoredesirableoadopt 0-stayhanany thertay osition. he0-stay ubjectgotpositive IT evaluations,ndwasseenas very ooperativendnotparticularlydominant. he other alf fthe bserversin0-stayvaluation awitas moredesir-able to adopta 20-stay osition, iewingthe0-stay ubject s indecisivend ack-ingin confidence. igure2 depictsthebimodal istributionfevaluationsf the0-stay ubject n contrast o the consen-sualratingsf the20-stayubject.It seems reasonable to posit thatsituated dentitymeasurementsan beused topredicthe election f lternativeactions nder onditionsnwhich he otalsituations notsocially efined-thats,wherethere s lack of consensus boutoneormore lternatives.orexample,et

13

on do(aX 8 OP %4 ~6 0-stay-t5-n0s3 gott

2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9Situated Identity Evaluations(20- and 0-Stav observers)FIGURE 2

Distribution of mean situated identity valuationsof 0-stay and 20-stay response patterns inLow-A bility evaluation conditions.us assume in thepresentnstance hattherewas no variancewhatsoevern thelow-ability,0-stay IT evaluations, orin each (half)ofthe 0-stay ubgrouping.Half of theobserverswould thenhavebeenconfrontedith choicebetween0-stay f8.4versus 20-stay f7.2, whilethe otherhalfwould perceivea 0-stayevaluated t 4.6 and a 20-stay f 7.2. Inthishypotheticalxample,wewouldpre-dict a preferenceorthe0-stay ositionamong hefirst alf fthe bserversndadramatic referenceor he20-stay osi-tion monghe atter alf. hus, s long ssome of thealternatives ave a clearlydefinedocialvalue,we should e able todevise a formulahatwouldpredict hedistributionfexpected hoicesfrom hedistributionf situated dentityvalua-tions t eachresponse lternative.The situateddentity pproach s de-signed o measure henormativeefini-tion fthe ituationndthefactors nder-lyinghebehavioralxpectationshere.nonesense, hen,t can be seenas specify-ing heprocesses f xpectationormationthat ther heories osit.For nstance,etusconsider he status haracteristicsndexpectationtates" deasthat nderlieheBergert al. (1972)predictionsbout on-formityates or ow- ndhigh-abilityub-jects inthepresent xperimentaletting.They ssume hat herelevantuehere sthemanipulatedharacteristicfcontrastsensitivity,hat his uedirectlyctivatesbehaviorallypecific erformancexpec-tations,ndthat heresultingxpectationstates re manifestnthe ctual tay-ratesof subjects.However,as a strictbe-


9/10

232 SOCIOMETRYhaviorist ight ote, he nterveningari-ableofexpectationsemains hypotheti-cal, theoreticalonstructhat s not nde-pendentlymeasured.Whyhave such acognitivessumptionf t s notneeded orpredictive urposes nd is notobserva-tionally ubstantiated?Situateddentityheory rovidesn an-swer to suchquestions y operationallydefining he interveningognitive ari-ables.We claim hat he situations nor-mativelyonstructedy subjectsntermsofthepotentialhatts ction lternativeshave for situated identity ormation.Differentresponse patterns producedifferentiallyesirable"'social selves,"andpeoplechoose among hem o as toobtain the most favorable dentityut-comes. n effect, ituateddentityheoryargues hat he relevant ues in the be-havioral ettingre firsttranslatedntoidentity otentials,nd that hesepoten-tial dentitiesrovidehebasisfor pecificbehavioral hoices.By attemptingo measure he nterven-ing ognitive ariables,we gainconsider-ableclaritybouthowpeople reperceiv-ing situations. ur results or the low-ability onditionffernsightfulvidenceto demonstratehis. For example,theexistence fsignificantlyigher ariancein thisconditionwas puzzling, ntil heSIT evaluations elped xplaint.First,substantialumberfobserversppear oregardhe bilitymanipulationnanunin-tendedway. Rather hanviewthe low-ability onformers doingthe sensiblething,hisfirst roup ees him s a sub-missive, indecisive person who lacksself-confidencend assertiveness. hus,yieldingo theopinion f a peer whoisknown o have high bilitys seenas un-desirable. Second, an almost equalnumberfobserversctually cceptthemanipulations intended.This secondgroup efines he ow-abilityonformerscooperatively eam-oriented,nselfishlyrelinquishingominance nd control,ndseesyieldingo thehigh-abilityartnersthemost cceptable esponse attern.For both groups of observers thesituated dentity ata reveal that re-sponsesare related o "face" concerns,andfor hefirstroup hese oncernsremaskinghe intended ffects f the ex-

perimentalmanipulation. erhaps thiscouldbe avoided nd the ow-abilityari-ance reduced if the instructions erechanged oreemphasizehe mportancefteamscores, he collective nonymityfresponses,hepersonal nd social rrele-vance of contrast ensitivity-inhort,anythinghatwould educe hepossibilityof doptingn ndividualistic,ompetitiveorientationowardthe task. The SITevaluationslso indicatehat t wouldbehelpfulo tell ubjects hat hey re ikelytobemore ertainf heirudgmentsftertheyhave seenthe slides secondtime,implyinghat people frequentlyhangetheirminds.A situateddentitynalysis fresponse atternvaluations nder hesealtered onditionsoulddeterminef uchinstructionalhangesimproved he in-tended mpact fthe bilitymanipulation.

CONCLUSIONSThispaperhas presented atato sup-port ituateddentityheory's xplanationofhowpeopleperceptuallytructureefi-nitions f situationsndformulateorma-tive expectationsbout conductwithinthem.We conducted simulationo ex-plain hedistributionsfresponsestima-tions n a mutualask llegedlynvolvingpersons fhigh nd low ability. he re-sultsof the data analysisfor thehigh-abilityondition upportituateddentitypredictions.We were able topredicthemodalcategorys well as anticipatehe

rough hapeof thedistributionalurve fresponses from the situated identityevaluations.he resultsor he ow-abilityconditionswere in roughaccord withsituateddentityypotheses. imodalitycharacterizedoththeresponse stima-tions ndthe ituateddentityvaluations,anddeparturesrom orrespondencee-tween hetwoappear xplicablentermsofsubgroupissensus bout hemeaningof 0-stayconforming)esponse attern.The theory f situateddentitys con-cernedwith onceptualizingndmeasur-ingthe bases fromwhichnormativex-pectationsmerge.t postulateshat hisoccursvia the dispositionalvaluationsassociated with alternative actionpossibilities. he differentialvaluationsof alternativectsarehypothesizedo n-


10/10

SITUATED IDENTITIES AND SOCIAL INFLUENCE 233fluence heanticipationshat ndividualsform boutpersonally esirable nd so-cially rewarding conduct. Althoughsituateddentityheorys still na devel-opmentaltage,t hows ubstantialrom-ise ofproviding powerfulnd preciseapproachto themeasurementf situa-tional meaning. Its straightforwardmethodologicalaradigm as facevalid-ity. tdeals with ariableshat rerelatedto sociological evelsofroleanalysis ndtosocialpsychologicalevelsofpersonal-ityattributes.he theory s sensitive othe nterdependencemong heelements(especially hebehavior, ctor, nd set-ting) f a social act (Burke,1954). t is,therefore,noperationalndresearchabletheory boutthebases of social realityconstructionnd theprocessby whichnormsguide social action and providesituational eaning.

REFERENCESAlexander, . Norman, r., ndJoyce pstein1969 "Problems fdispositionalnferencenper-son perceptionresearch." Sociometry32:381-395.Alexander,. Norman, r., nd GordonW. Knight1971 "Situated dentitiesnd socialpsycholog-ical experimentation."ociometry4:65-82.Anderson, ormanH.1968 "Likableness ratings f 555 personality-traitwords." Journal f PersonalityndSocialPsychology:272-273.Bem,D.J.1972 "Self-perceptionheory."n L. Berkowitz

(ed.), Advances in Experimental SocialPsychology, New York:Academic ress.Berger, oseph, ernard . Cohen, nd Morris el-ditch, r.1972 "Statuscharacteristicsnd social nterac-tion." American Sociological Review37:241-255.Berger, eter ., and Thomas uckmann1966 The Social Constructionf Reality.NewYork:Doubleday.Burke,Kenneth1954 Permanencend Change. os Altos,Calif.:Hermes.Denzin,Norman .1970 "The methodologiesf symbolicnterac-tion:A critical eviewof research ech-niques."Pp. 447-65 n G. P. Stone ndH.A. Faberman eds.), PsychologyhroughSymbolic nteraction.Waltham,Mass.:Ginn-Blaisdell.Goffman,rving1959 The PresentationfSelf nEverydayife.Garden ity,N.Y.: Doubleday.Gough,Harrison ., and Alfred . Heilbrun, r.1965 The AdjectiveCheck List Manual. PaloAlto, Calif.: Counsulting sychologistsPress.Lauderdale, at1976 "Deviance ndmoral oundaries." meri-can Sociological eview 1:660-676.Mills,C. Wright1940 "Situated ctions ndvocabulariesf mo-tive." American Sociological Review5:904-13.Orne,Martin .1969 "Demand characteristicsnd theconceptofquasi-controls."p. 143-179n R. Ro-senthalnd R.L. Rosnoweds.),ArtifactnBehavioralResearch.New York: Aca-demic ress.Zelditch, orris, r., atrick auderdale,nd SteveStublarec1975 "How are inconsistenciesetween tatusand ability esolved."TechnicalReportNo. 54, LaboratoryorSocial Research,Stanfordniversity,tanford,alifornia.

alexander y lauderdale - situated identities and social influence.pdf

Documents