Encyclopedia of Sociology Vol

ple to conform to those expectations or lead to the provision of resources that permit them to do so (Berger et al. 1989). When socially induced selfawareness causes people to attend to public aspects of themselves, they tend to be responsive to group influences. When self-awareness causes them to attend to their personal standards, they tend to direct their behavior to conform with those values even when they conflict with group standards. Thus, exposure to cameras induces public selfawareness and increases social conformity, while exposure to mirrors evokes private self-awareness and an increase in self-direction (Scheier and Carver 1983).

The effects of social stimuli on deviant, as opposed to conforming, behavior have been addressed from a variety of theoretical frameworks, including structured strain theory, differential association and deviant subculture theories, control theory, self-theory, and the labeling perspective. Attempts to integrate or elaborate any of these approaches encompass the following ideas (Gibbs 1981; Hollander 1975; Kaplan 1984; Messner et al. 1989; Moscovici 1985). First, individuals who experience rejection and failure in conventional social groups lose their motivation to conform to conventional norms and are motivated to deviate from those norms. At the same time, these individuals are disposed to seek alternative deviant patterns to attain or restore feelings of self-worth. Second, individuals who participate in groups that endorse behaviors that are be defined as deviant in other groups (whether because they seek alternative deviant patterns through which they can improve self-worth or because of long-term identification with a deviant subculture) positively value the ‘‘deviant’’ patterns and are provided with opportunities and the resources to engage in the deviant behavior. Third, individuals with the motivation and opportunity to engage in deviant behavior are deterred by anticipated negative responses from groups that define that behavior as deviant and to which they remain emotionally bonded. Individuals tend to conform to the normative expectations of a group to the extent that they are made aware of the deviant nature of their behavior or attributes, are attracted to the group and therefore are highly vulnerable to the sanctions the group may administer for deviant behavior, are prevented from leaving the group and so freeing themselves from vulnerability to the group’s

negative sanctions, identify with the group and thus adopt its normative standards, and internalize the normative standards and regard conformity as intrinsically valuable. Fourth, individuals who evoke negative social sanctions in response to initial deviance continue or increase the level of deviant behavior as a result of the effects of the negative social sanctions on increased alienation from the conventional group, increased association with deviant peers, and increased motivation to justify the initial deviance by more highly evaluating a deviant act. Continuity or escalation of deviant behavior also is likely to occur if motives that ordinarily inhibit the performance of deviant acts are weakened and if a person perceives an association between the deviant behavior and satisfaction of preexisting needs (including the need to enhance one’s self-esteem).

Psychological Influences on Social Systems.

The consequences of socially influenced psychological processes may be observed at the interpersonal level and at the more inclusive, culturally defined macrosocial-structure level (Kaplan 1986).

Interpersonal systems. Intrapsychic responses and behaviors influence interpersonal systems in a wide variety of ways. Among the more salient consequences are those relating to the stability and functioning of groups, intragroup influences, group membership, and intergroup relationships.

Individuals affect both the stability and the functioning of their groups through their behavior. The stability of a group is enhanced to the extent that individuals conform to the expectations other people have of them and thus validate those expectations. An individual contributes to group functioning by playing the roles other people expect her or him to play in the group, permitting others to play their complementary roles. Conformity is influenced by the need for self-approval and the approval of others when the criteria for approval are the group standards. If personal and group standards reflect the value of scholarship, individuals may study hard; if approximation to the standards of a particular social identity (such as male) is a salient basis for self-evaluation, people strive to conform to what they perceive as the role expectations associated with that position. More generally, persons may evaluate themselves in terms of conforming to others’ expectations. A salient value may be to evoke approving responses from

others. To that end, a person may behave in number of ways, including conforming to others’ expectations and presenting oneself to others in ways calculated to evoke approving responses. However, a person will strive to conform to group standards in order to approximate self-values only to the extent that success or failure is attributed to the degree of personal effort rather than to circumstances (Kaplan 1995). Conformity is also an outcome of the need for others’ approval. In a group in which the members are highly attracted to the group, conformity to group norms, including those related to productivity, is high. In such cohesive groups, members have greater power over one another than they do in groups where the individuals are less attracted to and dependent on the group (Cartwright and Zander 1968; Cialdini and Frost 1998; Hare 1976). The need for others’ approval is reflected in the use of disclaimers and excuses to mitigate others’ responses to personal behaviors (Hewitt and Stokes 1975; Karp and Ybels 1986; Spencer 1987). A perceived threat to the group increases members’ attraction to the group and conformity to shared norms while decreasing tolerance of deviance.

Interpersonal influence occurs through the use of both overt and covert behaviors. Overt methods of persuasion include the use of information or arguments, the offering of rewards, and the threat of punishment. Covert attempts to influence others are reflected in self-presentation in order to create the impression of oneself as likable or in other ways to manipulate the impression others have of one. Attempts at persuasion are more or less effective depending on the characteristics of the source of the communication, the message itself, and the target of the communication. For example, communications are more persuasive if they come from a number of independent sources each of which is perceived to be expert, trustworthy, or otherwise attractive to the target of the communication, than they are if they occur in mutually exclusive circumstances. The effectiveness of threats and promises in influencing others depends on the magnitude and certainty of the proffered rewards and punishments. When the parties involved in the influence process all have the capacity to reward or punish one another, changes in opinions or behaviors are influenced by bargaining and negotiation processes. Among the possible outcomes, depending

on a number of circumstances, are mutual influence, escalation of conflict, accommodation of one person to the demands of the other, and failure of the parties to agree (Michener and DeLamater 1994). In the course of group interaction, individuals develop more extreme attitudes than they held as individuals. This may be due to the pooling of arguments, which adds new reasons for the initially held attitude, or to the social support provided by other group members, which permits the person to be more extreme in his or her opinions with less fear of group rejection (Brandstatter et al. 1982).

Persons are motivated to present themselves in ways that evoke desired responses from others. This is accomplished through a variety of tactics. A significant feature of self-presentation is an individual’s social identity in a situation. By projecting a particular identity, the individual effectively imposes complementary identities on others; if the other people perform the roles associated with those identities, they in effect endorse the identity that the individual wishes to project. This imposition of social identities on others (altercasting) has the desirable effect of affirming the social identity the individual wishes to project. For example, by complying with a reason’s demands or following her or his lead, the others affirm that person’s position of authority or leadership. In addition, people’s favorable responses are intrinsically valued, other rewarding outcomes are contingent on them, and they indicate to a person that her of his public image reflects her or his personal ideals. Self-presentation may be used to create false as well as true images of oneself. The creation of false images (impression management) also is used to evoke responses from others that serve one’s personal needs. Tactics involving the false presentation of self include pretenses that one admires other individuals or share their opinions and presenting oneself as if one had admirable qualities that one does not in fact possess (Baumeister 1982; Tedeschi 1981).

The attraction and maintenance of group membership are a function of the perception by members that group participation is intrinsically desirable or instrumental to the achievement of shared or individually defined goals (Evans and Jarvis 1980). Relationships, as well as larger groups, grow and become resistant to dissolution as the partners become increasingly dependent on each other

for need satisfaction, which may lie in the relationship itself or in the role the partner plays in facilitating the satisfaction of other needs outside the relationship (that is, by providing social support). Primary relationships dissolve to the extent that the costs come to exceed the rewards—whether in absolute terms or relative to the cost-benefit ratio that may be obtained from alternative rela- tionships—and to the extent that the costs of remaining in the relationship outweigh the costs (including social disapproval) associated with terminating it (Cialdini and Frost 1998; Kelley and Thibaut 1978; Kerckhoff 1974). Among the costs are perceptions of inequity. Group members tend to compare the relationship between their own contributions to the group and the rewards they receive with other members’ contributions and rewards. Judgments of inequity are made when members perceive rewards to be out of proportion to contributions. Judgments that inequitable states exist stimulate responses to reduce the inequity or at least the perception of the inequity. The inability to redress or tolerate inequitable relationships may lead to eschewing membership in a group (Walster et al. 1978). In general, people select group memberships, when they have a choice, and maintain them in accordance with their value in facilitating self-approving responses. People maintain relationships by whose standards they may evaluate themselves positively and tend not to associate with groups by whose standards they would be considered failures (Kaplan 1986).

The nature of the responses that groups evoke from nonmembers is influenced by the nonmembers’ perceptions, evaluations, and feelings toward themselves and others. Negative emotions, such as anger, and consequent aggressive behavior may be directed toward groups when individuals’ interests cannot be served except at the cost of frustration of the objectives of another group or when individuals associate the other group with past experiences of failure. Among the benefits persons may experience at the cost of the other group’s outcomes is increased self-esteem. Aggressive behavior directed toward others deflects anger that might have been directed toward oneself. When the basis of one’s feelings of accomplishment are judged relative to the achievements of another group, aggressive behaviors that lead to the failure or destruction of the other group enhance feelings of pride in one’s own group. Stronger

levels of identification with one’s group or social category increase the need to enhance one’s group identity at the cost of adverse outcomes for other groups (Bobo 1983; LeVine and Campbell 1972; Worchel and Austin 1986). The tendency to devalue others as they deviate from one’s own group’s standards increases the justification for negative attitudes and hostile actions toward the other group. The need to justify aggressive attitudes toward another group also frequently leads to biased perceptions that reinforce or validate preexisting attitudes toward that group. Reversal of the process is impeded by the decreases in communication that accompany negative attitudes toward that group. Frequent experiences of observing aggressive responses desensitize a person to the effects of these responses and establish a normative judgment that they are within the expected range of responses.

Other individuals or groups may be the objects of helping behavior, depending on the actor’s intrapsychic responses. Negative affect (particularly negative self-feelings) decreases helping behavior by focusing attention inward and away from the plight of other individuals. Thus, some individuals are less likely to empathize with or even be aware of others’ needs. At the same time, distressful self-feelings motivate an individual to behave in ways that will earn self-approval. Helping behavior may serve this function by fulfilling others’ expectation that helping behavior be offered, conforming to role definitions of helping behavior as appropriate for particular social identities, and conforming to self-values regarding altruistic behavior and thus compensating for feelings of rejection and failure (Dovidio 1984).

Macrosocial structures . Psychological structures, intrapsychic responses, and behaviors influence the substance of the social structure at any given time and social change over time. Dimensions of personality that reflect evaluative standards affect the positions an individual has in the social structure. High value placed on educational attainment and achievement orientation lead ultimately to educational achievement and high occupational status. Similarly, studies of the relationship between the occupational structure and personality suggest that workers may be selected into jobs because of the fit between their personality characteristics and the requirements of the work situation (Kerckhoff 1989). Individuals who value self-

direction select occupations that permit the exercise of self-direction, that is, ones that involve less routine, more complex tasks, and low levels of supervision. Persons who place a high value on conformity tend to opt for occupations that are closely supervised, routine, and noncomplex.

The effects of persons as products of past socialization experiences and as stimulated by contemporary social situations on interpersonal social systems and the more inclusive social structure are mediated by the responses of those persons to themselves. An individual influences the current and future functioning of interpersonal systems by becoming self-aware and conceiving of the self in particular ways, evaluating the self as more or less closely approximating personal standards, and experiencing self-feelings that stimulate self-protec- tive and self-enhancing responses, some of which directly and indirectly affect the functioning of the interpersonal or social systems in which that individual participates.

If a person fails to behave in ways that meet self-imposed demands, that person will experience negative self-feelings that motivate him or her to behave in ways that will reduce the selfrejecting feelings. If the person identifies the selfrejecting experiences with particular social identities, she or he may reject the group and define it as a negative reference group, overidentify with the group and reevaluate formerly denigrated attributes as desirable ones, or project undesirable characteristics onto other groups or social categories and act with hostility toward them. Negative self-feelings also may lead to reduced levels of socioeconomic aspirations, occupational change, withdrawal from political participation or association with political activism, and changes in patterns of religious affiliation and participation (Kaplan 1986; Rosenberg and Kaplan 1982). If the circumstances that hinder a person from behaving in ways that earn self-approval and the self-protec- tive responses they stimulate are widespread, the inclusive social structure will be affected. The person’s responses directly affect interpersonal systems, that is, individuals who interact in the context of social relationships and groups that are governed by shared situation-specific, identity-spe- cific, or person-specific expectations. If the individual is motivated to withdraw from or otherwise disrupt the functioning of the interpersonal systems in which she or he participates, the function-

ing of the other individuals will be similarly disrupted, since others’ performance is contingent on the individual’s conformity to their expectations. However, the functioning of the interpersonal system willbe facilitated if the individual is motivated to conform to the normative expectations that the participants in the interaction situation view as applicable to the person in that particular situational context. If the disposition to deviate from normative expectations is prevalent, disruptions of social relationships will be widespread and the social structure will be less resistant to changes in patterns of response over time. While widespread conformity to shared expectations in particular social contexts has stabilizing influences on the broader social structure, widespread innovation or deviation from them influences the development of new social structural arrangements and definitions.

(SEE ALSO: Affect Control Theory and Impression Formation; Aggression; Attitudes; Attribution Theory; Behaviorism; Cognitive Consistency Theories; Collective Behavior; DecisionMaking Theory and Research; Extreme Influence; Field Theory; Game Theory and Strategic Interaction; Identity Theory; Intelligence; Interpersonal Attraction; Personality and Social Structure; Personality Theory; Persuasion; Prejudice; Role Theory; Self-Concept; Small Groups; Social Perception; Socialization; Symbolic Interaction Theory)

REFERENCES

Alexander, C. Norman, Jr., and Mary Glenn Wiley 1981 ‘‘Situated Activity and Identity Formation.’’ In M. Rosenberg and R. H. Turner, eds., Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives, New York: Basic Books.

Bandura, Albert 1973 Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

———. 1986. The Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Baron, Robert A. 1977 Human Aggression. New York:

Plenum.

Baumeister, Roy F. 1982 ‘‘A Self-Presentational View of Social Phenomena.’’ Psychological Bulletin 91:3–26.

Berger, Joseph, Morris Zelditch, Jr., and Bo Anderson, eds. 1989 Sociological Theories in Progress. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.

Berscheid, Ellen, and Harry T. Reis 1998 ‘‘Attraction and Close Relationships.’’ In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey, eds., The Handbook of Social Psychology, vol. 2, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Biddle, Bruce J. 1986 ‘‘Recent Developments in Role Theory.’’ In A. Inkeles, J. Coleman, and N. Smelser, eds., Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 12. Palo Alto, Calif.: Annual Reviews.

Bobo, Lawrence 1983 ‘‘Whites’ Opposition to Busing: Symbolic Racism or Realistic Group Conflict?’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45:1196–1210.

Brandstatter, Hermann, James H. Davis, and Gisela Stocker-Kreichgauer, eds. 1982 Group Decision Making. New York: Academic Press.

Cartwright, Dorwin, and Alvin Zander 1968 Group Dynamics. New York: Harper & Row.

Charon, Joel M. 1998 Symbolic Interactionism: An Introduction, an Interpretation, an Integration, 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Cialdini, Robert B., and Melanie R. Frost 1998 ‘‘Social Influence: Social Norms, Conformity, and Compliance.’’ In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey, eds., The Handbook of Social Psychology, vol. 2, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Cook, Karen S., Gary Alan Fine, and James S. House, eds. 1995 Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology. Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.

Corsaro, William A., and Donna Eder 1995 ‘‘Development and Socialization of Children and Adolescents.’’ In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, and J. S. House, eds.,

Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology. Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.

Dovidio, J. H. 1984 ‘‘Helping Behavior and Altruism: An Empirical and Conceptual Overview.’’ In L. Berkowitz, ed., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 17. New York: Academic Press.

Elder, Glen H. Jr., and Angela M. O’Rand 1995 ‘‘Adult Lives in a Changing Society.’’ In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, and J. S. House, eds., Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology, Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.

Evans, N. J., and Patricia A. Jarvis 1980 ‘‘Group Cohesion, a Review and Reevaluation.’’ Small Group Behavior 11:359–370.

Fiske, Alan P., Shinobu Kitayama, Hazel R. Markus, and Richard E. Nisbett 1998 ‘‘The Cultural Matrix of Social Psychology.’’ In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey, eds., The Handbook of Social Psychology, vol. 2, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gibbs, Jack P. 1981 Norms, Deviance, and Social Control.New York: Elsevier.

Gilbert, Daniel T., Susan T. Fiske, and Gardner Lindzey, eds. 1998 The Handbook of Social Psychology, vols. 1 and 2, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Goffman, Erving 1961 Asylums. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor.

Hare, A. Paul 1976 Handbook of Small Group Research. New York: Free Press.

Heiss, Jerold 1981 ‘‘Social Roles.’’ In M. Rosenberg and R. H. Turner, eds., Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives. New York: Basic Books.

Hewitt, John P., and R. Stokes 1975 ‘‘Disclaimers.’’

American Sociological Review 40:1–11.

Hollander, Edwin P. 1975 ‘‘Independence, Conformity and Civil Liberties: Some Implications from Social Psychological Research.’’ Journal of Social Issues 31:55–67.

——— 1981. ‘‘Social Structure and Personality.’’ In M. Rosenberg and R. Turner, eds., Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives. New York: Basic Books.

Kaplan, Howard B. 1972 ‘‘Toward a General Theory of Psychosocial Deviance: The Case of Aggressive Behavior.’’ Social Science and Medicine 6:593–617.

———1984 Patterns of Juvenile Delinquency. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.

———1986 Social Psychology of Self-Referent Behavior. New York: Plenum Press.

———1995 ‘‘Drugs, Crime, and Other Deviant Adaptations.’’ In H. B. Kaplan, eds., Drugs, Crime, and Other Deviant Adaptations: Longitudinal Studies. New York: Plenum Press.

———ed. 1996 Psychosocial Stress: Trends in Theory and Research. New York: Academic Press.

Karp, David Allen, and William C. Ybels 1986 Sociology and Everyday Life. Itasca, Ill.: Peacock.

Kelley, Harold H., and J. Michela 1980 ‘‘Attribution Theory and Research.’’ Annual Review of Psychology

31:457–501.

———, and John W. Thibaut 1978 Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of Interdependence. New York: Wiley.

Kerckhoff, Alan C. 1974 ‘‘The Social Context of Interpersonal Attraction.’’ In T. Huston, ed., Foundations of Interpersonal Attraction. New York: Academic Press.

———1989 ‘‘On the Social Psychology of Social Mobility Processes.’’ Social Forces 68:17–25.

———1995 ‘‘Social Stratification and Mobility Processes: Interaction between Individuals and Social Structures.’’ In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, and J. S. House, eds., Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology. Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.

Kohn, Melvin L., and Carmi Schooler, with the collaboration of Joanne Miller, K. Miller, S. Schoenbach, and R. Schoenberg 1983 Work and Personality: An Inquiry into the Impact of Social Stratification. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.

Krauss, Robert M., and Chi-Yue Chiu 1998 ‘‘Language and Social Behavior.’’ In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey, eds., The Handbook of Social Psychology, vol. 2, 4th ed. New York: The McGraw-Hill.

Leventhal, Howard 1980 ‘‘Toward a Comprehensive Theory of Emotion.’’ In L. Berkowitz, ed., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. vol. 13. New York: Academic Press.

Levine, John M. and Richard L. Moreland 1998 ‘‘Small Groups.’’ In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey, eds., The Handbook of Social Psychology, vol. 2, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Levine, Robert A., and Donald T. Campbell 1972 Ethnocentrism: Theories of Conflict, Ethnic Attitudes and Group Behavior. New York: Wiley.

Maynard, Douglas W., and Marilyn R. Whalen 1995 ‘‘Language, Action, and Social Interaction.’’ In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, and J. S. House, eds., Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology. Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.

Messner, Steven F., Marvin D. Krohn, and Allen E. Liska 1989 Theoretical Integration in the Study of Deviance and Crime: Problems and Prospects. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Michener, H. Andrew and John D. DeLamater 1994 Social Psychology, 3rd ed. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Miller-Loessi, Karen 1995 ‘‘Comparative Social Psychology.’’ In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, and J. S. House, eds.,

Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology. Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.

Molm, Linda D., and Karen S. Cook 1995 ‘‘Social Exchange and Exchange Networks.’’ In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, and J. S. House, eds., Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology. Needham Heights, Mass: Allyn and Bacon.

Moscovici, Serge 1985 ‘‘Social Influence and Conformity.’’ In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson, eds., Handbook of Social Psychology, vol. 2, 3rd ed. Reading, Mass.: Addi- son-Wesley.

Pennebaker, James W. 1980 ‘‘Self-Perception of Emotion and Internal Sensation.’’ In D. W. Wegner and R. R. Vallacher, eds., The Self in Social Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ridgeway, Cecilia L. and Henry A. Walker 1995 ‘‘Status Structures.’’ In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, and J. S. House, eds., Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology. Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.

Rokeach, Milton 1973 The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press.

Rosenberg, Morris, and Howard B. Kaplan, eds. 1982

The Social Psychology of the Self-Concept. Arlington Heights, Ill.: Harlan Davidson.

Scheier, Michael F., and Charles Carver 1983 ‘‘Two Sides of the Self: One for You and One for Me.’’ In J. Suls and A. G. Greenwald, eds., Psychological Perspectives on the Self, vol. 2. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Sewell, William H., and Robert M. Hauser 1980 ‘‘The Wisconsin Longitudinal Study of Social and Psychological Factors in Aspirations and Achievements.’’

Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization 1:59–99.

Singer, Jerome L., ed. 1971 The Control of Aggression and Violence: Cognitive and Physiological Factors. New York: Academic Press.

Spencer, J. William 1987 ‘‘Self-Work in Social Interaction: Negotiating Role-Identities.’’ Social Psychology Quarterly 50:131–142.

Stephan, Cookie White, and Walter G. Stephan 1990

Two Social Psychologies, 2nd ed. Belmont, Calif.:

Wadsworth.

Taylor, Shelley E. 1998. ‘‘The Social Being in Social Psychology.’’ In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey, eds., The Handbook of Social Psychology. vol. 1, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tedeschi, James T. ed. 1981 Impression Management Theory and Social Psychological Research. New York: Academic Press.

Turner, Ralph H. 1990 ‘‘Role Change.’’ In W. R. Scott and J. Blake, eds., Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 16. Palo Alto, Calif.: Annual Reviews.

Walster (Hatfield), Elaine, William Wolster, and Ellen Berscheid, eds. 1978 Equity: Theory and Research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Worchel, Stephen, and William G. Austin, eds. 1986 The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole.

Zillman, Dolf 1979 Hostility and Agression. Hillsdale, N.J.:

Erlbaum.

HOWARD B. KAPLAN

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF STATUS ALLOCATION

The processes of status allocation are among the most important phenomena of societal stratification structures, along with the ways in which those structures vary over time and between societies and the causes and consequences of those variations (Haller 2000). Within these partly stable

structures, these processes include the formation of individuals’ status aspirations, the effect of those aspirations on attained statuses, and the causes of status aspirations (Haller 1982), including those describing a person’s social origins (Alwin 1989). One’s social status is defined in terms of both ascribed and achieved characteristics. Unless the value or meaning of ascribed characteristics changes, it is only through change in one’s achieved characteristics that one’s status in society can change. In modern society, occupation, income, and education are the most common achieved characteristics that are studied within the framework of status attainment.

People tend to see themselves and others as occupying positions along hierarchical continua, with evaluations being associated with a person’s location in the hierarchy. One’s plan, however vague, to strive for a particular place in a status hierarchy is defined as one’s level of aspiration. As a mediator of achieved characteristics, and perhaps of ascribed characteristics as well, one’s levels of aspiration affect one’s levels of attainment (Haller 1982).

Status attainment research is concerned with the process by which people come to occupy their positions in life, some higher and some lower. Through social policy and social practice, the social system provides the opportunity structure for status attainment. The interface between sociology’s study of stratification and psychology’s study of individual motivation and achievement is dealt with by the field of the social psychology of status attainment.

HISTORY OF THE THEORETICAL FIELD

From the 1960s to the early 1980s, the theory of status allocation developed vigorously, increasing its theoretical comprehensiveness while maintaining its conceptual parsimony and explanatory power (Sewell et al. 1969, 1970; Haller and Woelfel 1972; Haller and Portes 1973; Haller 1982). These developments were matched by similar improvements in methods for testing the hypotheses of the theory (Duncan 1968; Duncan et al. 1968; Van De Geer 1971; Hauser et al. 1983). The social psychological theory of status attainment is both coherent and comprehensive by current standards of social science theory. The theory emerged from two traditions: one sociological, focusing on social

stratification research, and the other from social psychology, focusing on the self-concept and its formation.

The modern study of social stratification began with the work of Sorokin (1927) and was continued by Svaltastoga (1965), Duncan (1968), and Haller (1970), among others. Stratification theorists typically posit at least four classes of fundamental status variables, or status content dimensions. Those content dimensions reflect the societal rewards an individual receives and the means to obtain those rewards. Thus, they also may be seen as dimensions of power. Content dimensions are conceptualized as political status, economic status, social status, and informational status (Haller 2000). In status attainment research, educational attainment, occupational prestige, and income are examined as the main variables by which one can measure a person’s positions on the content dimensions.

The social psychological tradition that influenced status attainment is based primarily on work by Mead (1934). Lewin (1939) and Heider (1958) influenced this tradition as well. This tradition suggests that status in open societies is earned as opposed to being bestowed by a person’s lineage. Before persons assume their eventual statuses, they knowingly or unknowingly develop a level of aspiration for educational status, occupational status, income, and political influence. One’s level of aspiration is formed in three ways: by the modeling of others who are present, by self-reflection, and by adopting the status expectations held for a person by others. One can model the behavior of another person whom one knows only through mediated communication (e.g., by learning about another person’s behavior by reading about it in books, newspapers, or magazines or by observing that behavior on television or in movies). One also can learn about the status expectations that others hold for oneself through the media. There is evidence, however, that most sources of influence are not transmitted in this way but instead by the direct and indirect effects of ‘‘significant others’’ (Haller and Woelfel 1969, 1972; Haller et al. 1969).

Once formed, aspirations are difficult to change, and they guide the decisions one makes about life. Consequently, one’s level of aspiration is a significant determinant of one’s level of attainment (Haller 1982).

Since the early 1980s, much work on status attainment has not been systematic but instead directed by policy considerations (Haller 1982). Interestingly, in the last two decades, research on status attainment has grown more in other countries than it has in the United States. In the United States, approximately the same number of studies were conducted on status attainment in each year over the last two decades. However, studies in other countries have more than doubled, and for the first time since the inception of the field, more research is being conducted outside of the United States than within it.

STATUS ATTAINMENT MODELS

A complete model of the process of status attainment does not exist. However, many significant contributions to what is known about status attainment have come from just a few perspectives. The work of Blau and Duncan (1967) was significant for its careful operationalization of concepts and presentation of formal models subject to statistical analysis. Those authors presented an important model concerned with the effects of parents’ status, one’s own education, and one’s first job, although their model had four flaws. First, it lacked indicators for wealth and power, two important status content dimensions. Second, it contained a relatively primitive theory of the mechanisms of status attainment. Third, it lacked a comprehensive set of exogenous variables, which were limited to the father’s occupational and educational statuses. Fourth, much variance in educational and occupational statuses was not explained.

A more complete model of status attainment was introduced informally in 1967; a test of it appeared in Sewell et al. (1969). The conceptual system it embodied, however imperfectly, became known as the Wisconsin model. Path analyses emphasized the social psychological and social structural antecedents of educational and occupational attainment. This early form of the model assumes that all relationships between the key variables are linear and that social psychological variables mediate the process of status attainment. Status aspiration for education and occupation was found to be a powerful mediator of status attainment.

An important contribution of this research was the elaboration, both theoretical and meth-

odological, of the concept of the significant other’s influence. One’s set of significant others is often larger than one’s referent group of parents and peers. This set was defined to include all those who serve as definers and models. Definers are those who communicate their expectations, whereas models are those who provide illustrations of their statuses and related behaviors; an individual can serve in both capacities. The Wisconsin model changed the conception of social influence used in the study of status allocation from a list of individuals to a set of social processes by which the individuals in one’s environment help determine one’s status destination.

Sewell et al. (1969) found that the social structural and psychological factors of socioeconomic status and mental ability affect the academic performance of youths and that significant others have great influence in the status attainment process. However, the sample on which their original model was tested was limited, and this was a drawback for evaluating the internal and external validity of their model. The original sample consisted of 929 Wisconsin students who completed a survey as well as a follow-up group of males studied in 1964 whose fathers had been farmers in 1957 (Sewell et al. 1969).

The original form of the Wisconsin model was modified slightly in a study by Sewell et al. (1970), who proposed small changes that would make it applicable to boys with different residential backgrounds. As in the 1969 versions, one’s ability and one’s significant others were shown to affect one’s educational and occupational aspirations. In turn, those aspirations affected one’s educational and occupational status attainment (Sewell et al. 1970). Most significant was the finding that the Sewell et al. (1969) model could be used with minor modifications for young men from a variety of backgrounds.

The Wisconsin model was refined in two significant ways by Haller and Portes (1973). First, the model was modified by clarifying and completing the set of content dimensions of status. Second, it was shown that each content dimension of status also is manifested in both of two social psychological isomorphs (status ‘‘mirror’’ images): a status aspiration variable of each focal person and a corresponding variable describing the status orientation levels each of the focal person’s significant others expects of him or her (definers) or

illustrates to him or her (models). Third, the Wisconsin model incorporated structural dimensions of status. Two critical structural dimensions are status dispersion and status crystallization. Status attainment models were held to work best when status dispersion is wide, which means that inequality is great; there is little to learn about attainment in fairly homogeneous status systems. Status crystallization is the degree of correlation among status content dimensions (e.g., how one’s wealth corresponds to one’s power). When crystallization is high, a status attainment model is relatively simplified: It is as if the ultimate endogenous variable were an unobserved variable with many correlated indicators. In complex societies with moderate to high crystallization, status attainment models must be more complex, because the isomorphs of each status content dimension must be treated as separate endogenous variables in the model.

The Wisconsin model was retested in 1983 with more recently developed estimation procedures. It was found to be even more effective in explaining the process of educational and occupational attainment than it previously had been thought to be (Hauser et al. 1983). However, the model was not tested as a whole because not all the variables in the model were measured.

Concerns with Current Status Attainment Models. Research on status attainment models has not advanced much since the early 1980s, and flaws in the models of that time remain. More recent research has focused mostly on status inheritance, but the inheritance models are incomplete. None of these models has included measures drawn from the power dimension; indeed, none has seriously attempted to cover the entire range of variables implied by each of the four general status content dimensions (Haller 2000). In the models that have been tested, about 25 to 35 percent of the variance in attainment can be explained by parental status variables. The more nearly complete models explain much more than this.

The social psychological variables used in models today are virtually the same ones used twentyfive years ago. However, the world has changed drastically in the last twenty-five years, particularly with the advent of and pervasive use of communication technology. It is conceivable that mediated sources of influence play a greater role in status

attainment process, but it is impossible to know whether this is true. More generally, it is quite possible that the relationship among status attainment variables has changed, and there may be additional variables to consider.

Concerns with Current Status Attainment Research. The initial fifteen years of research from 1967 through 1982 were significant in terms of formulating theory, defining variables, and enlarging the subject populations to which the attainment model applied. Haller (1982) described four avenues of study that would advance status attainment research greatly.

First, there has not been a longitudinal study that followed a cohort sample and observed the influence of the variables in the model on status attainments beyond mid-career. For example, what influences the selection of a second occupation? In addition, how do one’s high school occupational, educational, and income aspirations affect one’s position and income thirty years or more after those aspirations are formed? Second, most earlier attainment research was restricted to high school students and their first positions after school. The development of status orientations among young children needs to be explored. Third, it is important to understand how status definers emerge in young children. Fourth, the mechanisms that activate the status attainment process have to be explicated.

Above all, the full panoply of variables specified in Haller (1982) should be tested on today’s youthful cohorts as they move through life.

THE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE

In status attainment research, the key variables that are feasible today are educational attainment, occupational prestige, and income. What is known about those variables?

Educational Status Attainment in the United States. Young children and early teens. The first longitudinal study of educational attainment conducted with young children spanned the period from fall 1985 to spring 1987. Achievement in the first grade was studied for minority groups, including African-Americans and Hispanics. Parental involvement, mobility, and motivation all had a direct influence on first-graders’ outcomes. Interestingly,

at least two of the three variables—parental involvement and mobility—are under the direct control of the parents. Additionally, the cognitive readiness of children entering kindergarten was found to have an indirect effect on first-graders’ outcomes. All the variables examined had a significant direct or indirect effects on those outcomes, including motivation, peer environment, parental involvement, readiness, and mobility (Reynolds 1989).

The second longitudinal study of educational attainment spanned a one-year period from fall 1987 to fall 1988, using a national sample of 3,116 youths. Data from this study were used to assess science achievement, attitude toward mathematics, and science and mathematics achievement in grades seven and eight. For young teenagers, prior achievement played a large mediating role in future mathematics and science achievement, but classroom context and parental involvement influenced their achievement as well (Reynolds 1991). Science achievement was directly affected by prior achievement, peer environment, and the amount and quality of instruction; mathematics achievement was most strongly influenced by prior achievement and the home environment (Reynolds and Walberg 1991, 1992).

Teenagers. Intelligence is a factor in predicting educational and occupational aspirations, but other variables appear to have a greater effect. There is a relatively small effect of parents’ statuses on their children’s but a relatively large effect of status aspirations and significant others’ expectations on one’s educational and occupational attainment. Thus, if one has significant others who expect one to go to college, it is more likely that one believes that going to college is possible and one is more likely to go.

Using annual data collected since 1975 for the Monitoring the Future survey, Morgan (1998) found that the educational aspirations of high school seniors increased between the late 1970s and the early 1990s. This effect was greater for white students than for African-American students. Morgan (1998) viewed aspirations as part of a cognitive process of continually calculating the costs and benefits of one’s educational aspirations; this variable may influence the effects of significant others. The finding is consistent with the results of many early studies (Haller and Miller, 1963, Hypothesis 4,– pp. 31, 41–45, 96), and is an expression of the

well-known Zeigarnik effect (Zeigarnik 1927, Lewin 1951).

The Wisconsin model from the 1970s worked well for the group of white males but not as well for others. With the addition of identity theory (Burke 1989) to the Wisconsin model, that model was found to work not only for white males but for African-American and white females as well. Identity theory suggests that one’s identity originates from one’s social interactions with others. When one’s identity is established, one acts in ways that maintain and confirm that identity. White males and females and African-American females constructed an academic identity that directly influenced their college plans. In other words, if they constructed the meaning of going to college in terms of job-related reasons (‘‘Going to college will help me get the kind of job I want’’), they were more likely to go to college. However, the model’s predictive ability for African-American males has been minimal. Preliminary research has indicated that one of the reasons for this may be that in that group there is insufficient correspondence between the constructs used in the modified Wisconsin model and the processes associated with Afri- can-American male attainment (Burke 1989; Burke and Hoelter 1988).

Education Outside the United States. Australia. In Australia, education is required for those aged 6–15. Thus, required education ends after the tenth year of school; however, students may elect to stay in the system for two more years. Students who left school after the tenth year earned less than did those who stayed the additional two years. Importantly, socioeconomic background, type of school attended, and career orientations appeared to be unrelated to the decision to leave school after the tenth year (Saha 1985).

Australian research sought to determine whether attending a private Catholic high school influenced attendance at college and the receipt of a college degree. Approximately two-thirds of those from public schools and two-thirds of those from private schools eventually obtain a college degree. However, only approximately 58 percent of those who receive a secondary degree from a Catholic school obtain a college degree (Williams and Carpenter 1990). Thus, receiving a private education results in the same chance of obtaining a college degree as does receiving a public school educa-