Situated Identities and Social Influence Author(s): C. Norman Alexander, Jr. and Pat Lauderdale Source: Sociometry, Vol.

40, No. 3 (Sep., 1977), pp. 225-233 Published by: American Sociological Association Stable 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 support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

Sociomnetry 1977,Vol. 40, No. 3, 225-233

Situated Identities and SocialInfluence *

C. NORMAN ALEXANDER, JR.
University ofIowa

PAT LAUDERDALE
Situated identity theory postulates a process for establishingthedefinition of a situationand its normativestructure. The normative structure is hypothesizedto predictpreciselythe distribution of anticipatedresponses. A simulationstudyof a well-known social influenceexperiment illustratesthe paradigm for investigatingthese ideas, and the results are supportive. The and power of situatedidentity generality theory encourage an interface betweenthe sociological ideas of symbolicinteractionists and thepsychological tradition of experimentation in the approach to social psychological problems.

University of Minnesota

The searchforan adequateand precise of how people define conceptualization socialrealities, construct socialsituations, theirpercepstructure and normatively tionsof theworldis a classic and persisand social psyin sociology problem tent is as chology.In a sense, the problem Mannto the ideas of Durkheim, central heim, and Weber as it is to those of Cooley,Mead, and Thomas(Bergerand resolu1966); but attempted Luckmann, ofsusthekind produced havenever tions researchtraditainedand programmatic such a tionthatone would expectfrom issue. The basic theoretical fundamental have been withus forso long questions and have been treatedunder so many labelsand guisesoverthedecades thatit is impossibleto associate themwith a to the source.Hence, we willrefer single criticalissues as the problemof social ofa situ(i.e., thesocialmeaning meaning aspects of thanpersonality ation,rather offers theory identity theactors).Situated ofsituto theproblem approach a general and providesan operaationalmeaning in structures ofnormative definition tional these defines theory action settings.The

as thedisorganization unitsof cognitive thatare madeabout inferences positional a recognized a typicalactor performing setting. actionin a sociallydefined with the begins identity theory Situated (1959)calls that what Goffman assumption givenoff" are pervasively "expressions communicatedby ongoing activities and Epstein,1969).In brief, (Alexander Goffmanand other symbolicinteracmutually peoplemust assumethat tionists before identities respective their negotiate is possibleand thattheyconinteraction or renegotiate theorigitinue to reinforce theencounter. throughout nal transaction is that thecritical point For ourpurposes, must be identity" somekindof "situated as a prerequiand maintained established identities Situated siteforsocial conduct. thatare made about are the attributions as a in a particular setting participants of their actions.Not onlyis consequence essentialas a basis thissituated identity it is crucialfor forinitiating interaction, thecourseofthat and anticipating guiding interaction. aspect of situated This anticipative importance. is ofprime formation identity who conindividuals We that postulate * Authors We wish to front are listedalphabetically. (in the choice situation constitute a and the thankthe National Science Foundation identities the that situated sense) Meadian of the support for Health ofMental Institute National SM-2759,"Situa- would resultfromtheirchoice of each presentresearch(respectively, Experimen- among several alternatives. andSocialPsychological Meaning Then, they tional Inves- decide what to do or whattheyexpect Principal Jr., Alexander, C. Norman tation," UniverGrant, Training andGS-0900-4102, tigator; personto do, based upon their In- another Sub-division Pat Lauderdale, of Minnesota, sity whatkindof persontheyare or from knowing work onthis comments In addition, vestigator). is (or wouldwantto become)in wereespecially theother MartiBurtand Steve McLaughlin helpful. terms.All otherthings situated identity
225

226

SOCIOMETRY

of a particular thata personwill evaluative beingequal, we predict behavior rating act to createthe mostsociallydesirable or a rangeof behaviors (cf. Lauderdale, or herself. 1976: 662-668). We will assume that forhimself situated identity an answerto the choice-points We are suggesting are normatively structured do persons whenthere question: Why straightforward is agreement aboutevaluative situation makethechoices ratings in a particular on the relevant identity implicaeach choice tionsassociatedwitheach of thealternainterpret they do? Sincethey forthetypeofper- tivebehaviors. implications as having it be a son theywillbe seen as (whether Whentheexistence ofnormative strucactor,hon- turehas been established, task leader,identity-oriented situated idenof tity estindividual, orwhatever presentation theory predicts normative that expecde- tationsabout conductwill emerge chooseactions selfor altercaste), they if the on howthey wantto be seen. We identity evaluations associated with pending of a favor- choice alternatives predict thatthe achievement are differentiated in able identity is the leadingconsideration terms Ifthesituated ofsocialdesirability. Before we identity in interactive social situations. imputations aboutan actorwould aboutthetheory's be morefavorable becomemorespecific whenhe chooses one however, we shouldspecify action alternative predictions, ratherthan another, underwhichtheyare ex- then the conditions peoplewillexpecthimto choosethe pectedto hold. morefavorable one. The implication of is to identify themost this prediction Ourfirst concern is thatpeople formulate dimen- expectations attribute relevantand important aboutwhattheyand others sionsmadesalient activity. will do by imaginatively bythesituated the constructing For example, we usually think ofinformal situated identity consequencesof potenat- tialactionalternatives. as havinga distinctive get-togethers in whichcertainattribute dimosphere If we are right, then persons should or unfriendly)choose action alternatives mensions (such as friendly to the extent a widerange to characterize of that arerelevant they produce favorable situated idenbu- tities. behaviors thatoccurthere.Similarly, Consider twoextreme situations. In also have distinc- the first, reaucratic encounters thereis one 'option'thatproin whichqualities tiveatmospheres, such duces a situated identity outcome thatis or inefficient are frequentlymuch more socially desirablethan the as efficient frominformal other emphasized.They differ choices-we predict a clear-cut exsettingsbecause dimensionssuch as pectation thatthisfavored willbe option warmth, and spontaneietyselected.In the second, all optionsare friendliness, to bureau- pretty are so infrequently relevant muchthesame in situated identity to define evaluations-and we predictthat there craticactivity. Thus,we intend of situated in will be no clear-cut activity the social meaning expectation forbeof the importance or relevanceof haviorsin this kindof situation. terms In the the identity-dimensions alongwhichdis- latter is no reasonon thebasis case, there inferences are made. positional ofthetheory to anticipate a preference for We are also interested inwhether or not anyparticular choice. in the acaction alternatives particular Situated offers two imidentity theory struc- portant tivity sequencepossessa normative Thefirst is itsgeneraladvantages: Herewe ask for consensus aboutthe ity. It applies to any social setting ture. and actions every evaluation ofeach ofthepotential socialactionsituation. Second,itis time relatively thatmight be chosenat a particular precisein its predictions, more to saythat precise than most other theories.For (cf.Mills,1940).Thisis merely in our informal encounters, people agree example, Alexanderand Knight(1971) A instead ofB is the"friendly" replicated that doing a series of classic dissonance to do. It is also to recognize that experiments thing thatshowedpeoplelikedunsarcastic pleasant thereare eventssuch as mildly tasksmoreifthey werepaidless comments thatcan be takenas "friendly moneyto do them.This is the kindof veiled insults,"so prediction jokes" or as "thinly thatmosttheories with offer, about the hypothesesphrased in ordinal terms. there can be disagreement

SITUATED IDENTITIES

AND SOCIAL INFLUENCE

227

low-ability subjectsvis-a-vis Situated identitytheory,however, is high-ability specific.In the Alexanderand Knight partners. an acin developing We are interested people were givenan (1971) replication, the to check "how much" they countof how people come to define opportunity such that they give these retaskon a scale that situation their likedor disliked to do thiswe conducted identity sponses.In order from-5 to +5. Situated ranged of one of theseexperiments the modal responseas a simulation theory predicted theexet al., 1972),portraying on responses (Zelditch well as the distribution andasking to observers events in each offour perimental all thealternatives among in as subjects themselves to imagine them conditions. in theexperiment. we areinvolved In thepresent study, We are et al. (1975) an analysisof social influence. In phase 1 of theZelditch intothe are brought subjects that experiment, takingfor grantedthe hypothesis cannot they and seatedso that other theories generate,namely, that laboratory who see each other, in frontof electronic to others moreoften peopleconform thanthey panels whichtheyuse to communicate have highlevelsof taskability levels. This with one anotherand withthe experido to thosewithlow ability (whichis an hy- menter. observation systematic They are told thattheywill be sensitivity" a seriesof "contrast is fairly obvi- judging ofseveral theories) pothesis the during their theory goes a step slides,andthat judgments identity ous. Situated how muchmoreoften first phase of the studywill determine further to predict senwill their at thistask. "Contrast levelconformity abilities and at whatspecific to general is allegednotto relate iden- sitivity" In other words, situated be mainfest. mean intellectual the particular nor to specificskills predicts titytheory ability, The or artistic ability. and modalresponseand the varianceof such as geometric block ofresponses alter- slidesare pictures among thedistribution of a rectangular a consisting ofblackand white, we willreport this, ofportions To illustrate natives. to conform and the subjects' task is to determine pressures that dealswith study blocks being in an experiment on whetherthe rectangular to a peer'sjudgment on the screencontaina larger conformity. projected of whiteor of black. proportion the slides and securing After showing EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF on the electronic choices each subject's CONFORMITY tellsthemhow panels,the experimenter When two people of differing ability well theyhave done. One subjectis alanswers on a joint task, leged to have scored 18 correct disagreewhile working will out of a possible 20, whilethe otheris usuallythe one havinglowerability only 9 correct; injudgment oftheone reported defer to theopinion to have gotten describedas having higher ability. This has been these scores are explicitly poor, in a seriesof experimentalunusuallysuperiorand unusually demonstrated ineither is no doubt so there and ex- respectively, studiesof statuscharacteristics abilirelative with subject'smindabout their et al., 1972), states(Berger pectation a perceptual task in whichsubjectsare ties. et al. experirandomly induced to believe that they In phase 2 oftheZelditch and ment, thetwo subjectsare toldthatthey levels of ability-high have different as a teamandjudge a low. Two subjects(pairedas high-and willworktogether each makesan are showna seriesof slides secondset of slides.After low-ability) After initial andaskedto makeinitial judgments. choice,each will see on the panel seeing theirpartners'decisions,which his partner'schoice. The experimenter choiceswillnot with their are askedto explains own,they disagree thattheseinitial score,but oftheteam'sfinal as part examine theslidesagainand makea final count decision. As one would expect, low- are only forthe purposeof exchanging between partnersto help are morelikely to change information subjects ability their their high-ability minds to agreewith them arriveat the best final decision. theseinitial choices,subjects thanare the After seeing discrepant opinions partners'

228

SOCIOMETRY

theslide;then are once againshown they choices" of a subjectin the experiment. make their final decisions, which are Six feedbackvariations created twelve communicated onlyto the experimenter. saw theirsubjects Observers conditions. In thisseriesof 25 presentations, theex- staywithin choicesfor20, 16, initial their perimenter manipulates the allegedcom- 12,8, 4, or 0 times outofthe20 disagreemunication between partners so thatthey menttrials.Twentyobservers were asin disagreement see themselves 20 times. signed After to each ofthe 12conditions. The dependent variablemeasureis the seeinghow their had responded, subjects number of times a subjectchanges on observers on a setof35bipolar them rated thesedisagreement to agreewith his dimensions trials one of ninepoints by circling partner. For example: alongthecontinuum. (Decisive) (Indecisive) These events were simulated for Each observer thenchose theten adjecwith classroom observers a taperecording tivesfelt an toforming relevant to be most of an alleged experiment, coordinated overall was thesubject ofwhat impression with slide projections that showed the like as a person. stimulus material and the panel original wereselectedin a twoThe adjectives in theexperiment.stageprocedure. lights seen by subjects First,we took the Anwe havechosento derson (1968) and Gough and Heilbrun (Following Bem, 1972, call this a simulation ratherthan role (1965) lists of more than eighthundred This method of presentationwords enactment.) andrelevant important judgedmost us to runall 12conditions ofthe to describing permitted traits and reduced personal ob- this to slightly experiment simultaneously, assigning more than one hundred serversrandomly to the variouscondi- wordsthatseemedlikely in to be salient tions.Because ofthenumber ofobservers this context.Then, using a judgmental needed (240), we repeatedthe presenta- situation similarto the presentexperitions in six different classroomsduring ment, 160 college studentrespondents regularly scheduled meetings. The obser- were asked to pick those words they in social sci- thought most relevant to describe vers were undergraduates ence classes; none had been subjectsin subject-participants. We based our final theoriginal experiment. list of 35 adjective pairs on theirreThe simulation has two distinct parts, .I and sponses whichwe designate as "estimation" "evaluation."
is essentially or smaller number, or low-ability condi- thansome larger placedin either highOn the one hand,we wantto includea tionsas follows: Each observer was given arbitrary. dimenrelevant ofpotentially selection enough a booklet whichshoweda subject receiv- wide reof a particular sionsso thatanyuniqueeffects or low-ability scoredur- sponsepattern ingeither a highto manifest willhavean opportunity toavoidoverwe try On theother hand, ingphase 1 of the simulated experiment. themselves. with an unnecessarily lengthy respondents Each observer was askedto imagine being burdening ofthe utilization thefinal task. and Similarly, tiring that andtogivea "final subject response" five themean incomputing dimensions most relevant during phase 2 of the simulated experi- situated ofinspection is a result evaluations identity mentas if he or she were thatsubject. ofthedata-thesewerehighly inall condirelevant showed such onesthat andthey weretheonly Twenty observers wereassigned to each tions, evaluation acrossevery andconsistency importance condition. the meanscoreson the ten
METHODS x . .. x . .. x . .. x . .. x . .. x . .. x . .. x . .. x

(1) Estimation study: Observers were

1 The selection rather of the top 35 dimensions,

were also placed in eitherhighor lowconditions ability bythealleged responses ofthesubject in phase 1 ofthesimulated experiment. However,during phase 2 of the experiment,each observer was providedwiththe alleged "actual final

(2) Evaluation study: Here, observers

condition. Calculating condition ineach evaluation most relevant adjectives of fitbelowerthegoodness does notappreciably of scoresand the estimation tweenthe evaluation ofcomparability and itraisesproblems conformity, dimensional different compoby usingsomewhat scorein each condiforthe situated identity nents tion.Copies of the 35 adjective pairsused can be author. thefirst obtained by writing

SITUATED IDENTITIES
RESULTS

AND SOCIAL INFLUENCE

229

trueforthe highand low-ability conditions, respectively, butthedimensions are First,let us comparethe results from basically the same for both. Five theZelditch et al. experiment withthose adjectivepairsparticularly dominate the from thesimulation. The meansofsubject relevanceselectionsin termsof overall responses andofobserver estimations are choices,and fairly consistently so within shownin Table 1. Theyare impressivelyeach of the alternative evaluation condicorrespondent. Thereare significant dif- tions taken separately:independent-deferencesbeyondthe .01 level between pendent, consistent-inconsistent, definitehighand low-ability condition responses uncertain, confident-doubtful, and in boththe experimental and simulation decisive-indecisive. These fivepairs are studies, and the mean stay-rates thetenmost relevant ineach ofthe (the among number of timesa personwould "stay" separate evaluationconditions, with a with hisinitial choiceas hisfinal exception; and theyare among the decision) single are fairly when we compareex- fivemostrelevant similar in 80% of the condiperimental subjects and simulation ob- tions. The nature of the adjectives servers. selectedcorresponds to the impressions The purposeof comparing simulation one mightget froma decision-making results with whereface-to-face contactwas thosefrom theoriginal exper- situation iment is to establish theplausibility ofthe prohibited and judgments involved claim that observersand experimentalnonemotional, value-free stimuli(for a subjects are responding situation usinga similar to similar norma- quitecontrasting tive elements inthesituation, see Lauderdale,1976:668.) i.e, to those method, aspects of the experimental reality that Second,we wantto knowifthevarious Orne (1969) calls "demand char- action alternatives are consensually acteristics." By examining expectedre- evaluated-thatis, do people agree in sponses we believe evaluative of each response that ratings we learn aboutthe their socially definednatureof the situation pattern. To test this, we computedan createdin the experimental identity scoreby averagsetting (cf., overallsituated Denzin, 1970: 456-458). Our primary ingobservers' ratings on thosetendimentheoretical to concern is to showhowpeople sions theyselectedas mostrelevant their The positive ends formulate impressions. expectational guidelines forcon- form ductbyconstructing werescored"9"; we desituated identities for of thecontinua each of the alternative whichend was positive by conresponsepatterns termined thatare possible. theevaluative sulting ratings assigned by to personality-trait words we wantto knowiftheresponse collegestudents First, situation is characterized of these 1968).The variances bya stablesetof (Anderson, dimensions associatedwith ratings foreach evaluation condition are dispositional thechoicesto be made. Not onlyis this shownin Table 2. in The data reveala relative consensus the observers' situated identity(SIT) TABLE 1 ofall high-ability and subjects Mean Stay-Responses for High- and Low-Ability evaluations of thoselows who have a highstay-rate. Conditions in Experimental and Simulation of the However,the lowerthe stay-rate Studies low-ability subjects,the more disparate Ability the SIT evaluations theyreceive.In efCondition * Experiment Simulation fect, there is no consensus about the HIGH 17.0 18.0 of conformity evaluative implications by (20) (20) this low-ability subjects. Technically, LOW 7.4 8.8 do not meet meansthattheseconditions (20) (20) the theoretical for applicaassumptions P (based on t-test): .01 .01 tion butwe will ofsituated identity theory, the situated evaluations identity * Experimental resultstakenfromZelditchet examine anyway to see what information they al. (1975). Note: N's in parentheses. might provide.

230
TABLE 2

SOCIOMETRY

of reestimated a bimodaldistribution to rather sponsesthat corresponds closely thesituated identity evaluations. The correspondence between observers' responsesin the estimation condiReported Variances of tionand theobservers' SIT evaluations in Number of Mean SIT Evaluations the feedback condition is especially inStay-Responses Low Ability HighAbility teresting forthelow-ability condition, as 20 2.9 2.8 1 Figure shows. Although the shapes of (20) (20) thedistributions are impressively similar, 16 2.8 2.6 we should notethat, while theSIT evalua(20) (20) 12 2.9 5.2 tions are more positivefor the 20-stay (20) (20) for the0-stay than position, thenumber of 8 5.7 2.9 observers who estimationally favor the (20) (20) is slightly 0-stay pattern greater. Certainly 4 7.4 2.3 is a minor this difference, butsincewe are (20) (20) 0 10.8 2.1 to theprecision ofsituated idenattentive (20) (20) we explored it further. tity theory, RecallthatTable 2 showeda veryhigh Note: N's in parentheses. variance for SIT evaluations at and in the the0-stay The mean SIT evaluationscores are around response pattern presented inTable3, with score low-abilitycondition, indicating disthehigher about how to evaluate comindicating a more favorableevaluation. agreement to the other.A closer For high-ability subjects,the resultsare plete conformity that this was nottheresult of clear-cut:The more oftenthe subject lookshowed stayedwithhis initial the more random theproduct butrather divergence, decision, he is evaluated,by the ob- of two distinctly The positively different reactions. server.This explainsthe veryhighesti- group of twenty condi0-stay, low-ability intheSIT evaluation study matedstay-rate in Table 1. For tionobservers reported according to the SIT scores the low-ability subjects,the SIT evalua- was ordered tionscores show a bimodaldistribution,givenby each observer;the groupwas of 10,one reprewhichwould indicatethat the "middle then intosubgroups split the higher SIT scores,the other in Table 1 was due senting range"meanreported to a substantial in the es- the lower SIT scores. Observers ofresponse dispersion timations in that In fact, their condition. thisis lowersubgroup evaluated subjects at thecase. The response obtained an averageof 4.6 on the 9-point variances scales, within the low-ability condition subgroup evalare sig- whilethosein the higher at an averageof8.4 on the thosewithin the uatedsubjects nificantly from different thisto evaluations condition forboththeexperi- same scales. Compare high-ability mentalsubjectsand the simulation ob- of 7.2 for20-stays (see Table 3). About in0-stay servers. theobservers see evaluation Also, as we shallsee, observers half
Variances in Mean Situated Identity (SIT) Evaluations by A bility Conditions and Differences in Stay-Rates

TABLE 3 Mean Situated Evaluationsof Stimulus Identity Persons(SP) Having Different Stay-Rates by High and Low AbilityConditions Ability Condition HIGH LOW Number of StayResponses forSP Reported 20 8.3 (20) 7.2 (20) 16 7.9 (20) 6.3 (20) 12 4.1 (20) 4.4 (20) 8 3.6 (20) 3.8 (20) 4 2.7 (20) 5.7 (20) 0 3.1 (20) 6.5 (20) F* 6.01 4.17

* Significance of differences withincondition(p < .01) determined by analysisof variance, with df= 5, 114 for each condition. Note: N's in parentheses.

SITUATED IDENTITIES
Estimated Response Distributions 6 5 4
3

AND SOCIAL INFLUENCE

13

231

9 on
(aX

OP

O do

2
0

02

Lo
5

di
10 Identity

43 n0s
2-3

~6 t5-

0-stay-

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

LL
15 20

FIGURE 2
Distribution of mean situated identityevaluations of 0-stay and 20-stay response patterns in Low-A bility evaluation conditions.

us assume in the presentinstancethat there was no variance in the whatsoever low-ability, 20-stay SIT evaluations, nor in each (half)of the 0-staysubgrouping. 8.0 Half of the observers would thenhave been with confronted a choicebetween a * 7.0 of8.4 versusa 20-stay 0-stay of7.2, while the otherhalf would perceivea 0-stay u) 6.0 of 7.2. In evaluatedat 4.6 and a 20-stay this would hypothetical example, we pre5.0 X X dict a preference forthe 0-stayposition > 4.0 thefirst oftheobservers half anda among dramatic forthe20-stay preference posiS , I 3.0 tion thelatter half. among 0 Thus,as longas 4 8 12 16 20 some of the alternatives have a clearly Stay-Response Pattern defined socialvalue,we should be able to the devise a formula thatwould predict FIGURE 1 of distribution choices from the expected Distributionsof response estimationsand situated of situatedidentity distribution evaluaidentity evaluations in Low-Ability conditions. tionsat each response alternative. to adopta 0-stay itas more desirable than The situatedidentity approachis deThe 0-stay anyother stay position. subject signedto measurethe normative definiSIT evaluations, andwas seen tionofthesituation gotpositive andthefactors underas verycooperative and not particularlylying In thebehavioral there. expectations oftheobservers one sense,then, dominant. The other half itcan be seenas specifyin 0-stay evaluation saw it as more desir- ingtheprocesses ofexpectation formation able to adopta 20-stay position, viewing that other let theories posit.For instance, the0-stay subjectas indecisive and lack- us consider the"statuscharacteristics and ing in confidence. Figure2 depictsthe expectation the states"ideasthat underlie bimodal of evaluations of the Berger distribution aboutconet al. (1972)predictions to the consen- formity 0-staysubjectin contrast for low-andhigh-ability rates subsual ratings of the20-stay subject. jects in thepresent experimental setting. It seems reasonable to posit that Theyassumethat therelevant cue hereis situatedidentity measurements ofcontrast can be themanipulated characteristic usedto predict theselection ofalternative sensitivity, activates that thiscue directly actions under conditions inwhich thetotal behaviorally specific performance expecsituation is not sociallydefined-that is, tations, theresulting and that expectation wherethereis lack of consensusabout states intheactualstay-rates are manifest oneor more alternatives. Forexample, let of subjects. However, as a strictbeSituated Ratings
H *H X _ B

232

SOCIOMETRY

Perhaps this manipulation. vari- perimental note,theintervening haviorist might variremains a hypotheti-couldbe avoidedand thelow-ability able of expectations were construct thatis notinde- ance reduced if the instructions cal, theoretical of theimportance toreemphasize pendently measured.Why have such a changed of anonymity ifitis notneededfor teamscores,the collective cognitive assumption and social irrelethepersonal predictive purposesand is not observa- responses, short, vance of contrastsensitivity-in tionally substantiated? wouldreducethepossibility that an an- anything theory provides Situated identity competitive an individualistic, swer to such questionsby operationallyofadopting toward the task. The SIT vari- orientation the intervening cognitive defining thatit wouldbe also indicate is nor- evaluations ables. We claimthatthe situation are likely they that to tellsubjects in terms helpful by subjects matively constructed after judgments oftheir certain itsactionalternativesto be more ofthepotential that have for situated identityformation.theyhave seen the slidesa secondtime, change that people frequently Differentresponse patterns produce implying of A situated analysis identity minds. desirable "'social selves," their differentially underthese evaluations pattern and people choose amongthemso as to response ifsuch coulddetermine conditions out- altered identity obtain the most favorable changes improvedthe intheory instructional comes. In effect, situated identity manipulation. impact oftheability cues in the be- tended arguesthatthe relevant into are firsttranslated havioralsetting and thatthesepotenidentity potentials, CONCLUSIONS thebasisfor specific tialidentities provide data to supThis paper has presented behavioral choices. theinterven- portsituated to measure By attempting explanation theory's identity defiwe gainconsider- ofhowpeopleperceptually ingcognitive variables, structure normaandformulate ofsituations able clarity abouthowpeopleareperceiv- nitions Our resultsfor the low- tive expectations ing situations. about conductwithin to exoffer evidence them.We conducted a simulation insightful ability condition to demonstrate estimathis. For example, the plainthedistributions ofresponse involving of significantly taskallegedly existence variance tionson a mutual higher The rein thiscondition untilthe personsof highand low ability. was puzzling, it. First, SIT evaluations a sults of the data analysisfor the highhelpedexplain situated ofobservers identity substantial number appearto ability condition support the inan unin- predictions. theability manipulation We were able to predict regard the tendedway. Ratherthanview the low- modalcategory as well as anticipate curveof as doingthe sensible rough abilityconformer shapeofthedistributional thisfirst groupsees himas a sub- responses from the situated identity thing, for thelow-ability The results missive, indecisive person who lacks evaluations. Thus, conditionswere in rough accord with self-confidence and assertiveness. to the opinionof a peer who is situated yielding Bimodality hypotheses. identity known is seen as un- characterized to have high ability both the responseestimaevaluations, identity desirable. Second, an almost equal tions andthesituated of observers actually accept the and departures benumber from correspondence in terms manipulation as intended.This second tweenthetwoappearexplicable as of subgroup defines thelow-ability conformer group dissensus aboutthemeaning unselfishlyofa 0-stay cooperatively team-oriented, pattern. response (conforming) and and control, relinquishing dominance is conidentity of situated The theory sees yielding to thehigh-ability as cernedwithconceptualizing and measurpartner themostacceptableresponse pattern. exwhichnormative ing the bases from thatthis It postulates For both groups of observers the pectations emerge. situated identitydata reveal that re- occurs via the dispositional evaluations sponsesare relatedto "face" concerns, associated with alternative action and forthefirst theseconcerns are possibilities. evaluations group The differential to inof the ex- ofalternative the intended effects acts are hypothesized masking

SITUATED IDENTITIES

AND SOCIAL INFLUENCE

233

(ed.), Advances in Experimental Social fluence the anticipations thatindividuals Press. 6, New York:Academic Psychology form about personally desirableand soZelBernard P. Cohen,and Morris Joseph, cially rewarding conduct. Although Berger, ditch, Jr. situated identity theory is stillin a devel- 1972 "Status characteristics and social interacopmental itshowssubstantial tion." American Sociological Review stage, prom37:241-255. ise of providing a powerful and precise PeterL., and ThomasLuckmann approachto the measurement of situa- Berger, of Reality.New 1966 The Social Construction tional meaning. Its straightforward York:Doubleday. methodological paradigm has face valid- Burke,Kenneth Los Altos,Calif.: and Change. ity.It deals with variables that are related 1954 Permanence Hermes. to sociological levelsof roleanalysis and K. Norman to socialpsychological levelsofpersonal- Denzin, of symbolic interac1970 "The methodologies ityattributes. The theory is sensitive to reviewof researchtechtion: A critical theinterdependence amongtheelements niques."Pp. 447-65in G. P. StoneandH. Through A. Faberman (eds.), Psychology (especiallythe behavior, actor,and setWaltham,Mass.: SymbolicInteraction. ting)of a social act (Burke,1954).It is, Ginn-Blaisdell. therefore, an operational andresearchable Goffman, Erving theory about the bases of social reality 1959 The Presentation Life. of Selfin Everyday Garden City,N.Y.: Doubleday. construction and the process by which B. Heilbrun, Jr. G., and Alfred normsguide social action and provide Gough,Harrison 1965 The AdjectiveCheck List Manual. Palo situational meaning. Psychologists Alto, Calif.: Counsulting

REFERENCES

C. Norman, Alexander, Jr.,and Joyce Epstein 1969 "Problems ofdispositional inperinference 5:904-13. son perceptionresearch." Sociometry Orne,Martin T. 32:381-395. and the concept 1969 "Demand characteristics C. Norman, W. Knight Alexander, andGordon Jr., of quasi-controls." Pp. 143-179in R. Roin 1971 "Situatedidentities and social psychologandR.L. Rosnow senthal (eds.),Artifact ical experimentation." Sociometry 34:65BehavioralResearch. New York: Aca82. demicPress. Anderson, Norman H. and Steve Patrick Lauderdale, Jr., Zelditch, Morris, 1968 "Likablenessratings of 555 personalityStublarec traitwords." Journal of Personality and betweenstatus 1975 "How are inconsistencies Social Psychology 9:272-273. and abilityresolved." TechnicalReport Bem,D.J. for Social Research, No. 54, Laboratory 1972 "Self-perception In L. Berkowitz California. theory." Stanford Stanford, University,

Press. Pat Lauderdale, Ameriboundaries." 1976 "Devianceand moral Review41:660-676. can Sociological Mills,C. Wright of mo1940 "Situatedactionsand vocabularies tive." American Sociological Review