Search

This paper seeks to assess the utility of the transactional model of individual stress. According to the logic of the model, whether persons manifest stress is a multiplicative function of both situational and individual characteristics. The paper briefly discusses possible advantages of the perspective over other frames of reference. Then it describes a pilot study designed to determine whether hypotheses based on the transactional model could be supported empirically. Utilizing interview data from a small probability sample of all adults in the state of Missouri, scales were constructed by an improved method of item analysis for use as indicators of variations in stress and the situational and individual factors. Comparing stress scores by situational and individual variables produced results indicative of a multiplicative relationship and thus supportive of theories derived from the transactional perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the name suggests, social-psychology is a bastard field. It consists of such a variety of peoples doing so many different things in different ways, that it defies definition—at least for me. In spite of the neat delineations which are made in textbooks and the scholarly historical treatments which appear in encyclopediae and symposia, I find it difficult to grasp a concept of "social-psychology" which is anything more than the operational definition: "Social psychology is what people who call themselves social-psychologists, do." That is not much help, but it is all we have got. I mention my own confusion in this matter, not with the aim of confusing others, but by way of explanation: some of the issues I will touch upon in this paper may infringe upon what readers consider to be other areas of sociology. I regret such territorial invasions. But in my own quest for understanding why people act as they do, I have increasingly found that the traditional "fields" in the discipline and the traditional courses in the catalogue do not provide appropriate categories with which I can explain to colleagues and students what it is I am discovering. Having said all of this, let us get down to business. It is a decade since Dennis Wrong published the paper in which he challenged "The oversocialized conception of man in modern society" (1961). Reacting to a determinism which pervaded the social sciences and which seemed to be seeping into popular currency, Wrong asked if man were in fact as constrained by a monolithic culture as we social scientists would have it. A few years later Harold Garfinkel referred more bluntly to the models of men constructed by the various social sciences: he called them "judgmental dopes." The cultural dope and the psychological dope are, respectively, the man in the sociologist's society and the man in the psychologist's society (1967:67-68). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to outline and examine a few basic functions which ideology performs for the individual and for society. In order to progress in this direction, it might help to agree on some basic conceptual definitions. To begin with, some effort must be made to arrive at a satisfactory definition of ideology, since that term occupies a rather central place in this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ordinarily an anniversary occasions the reification of an artificial period. In this case however, there is a certain juncture in the history of the point of view which makes of the past quarter-century something worthy of consideration for symbolic interactionism as well as for our celebration of the founding of the Midwest Sociological Society. The year 1937 lies virtually in the middle of a four-year period which saw the publication of Mind, Self, and Society, Movements of Thought in the Nineteenth Century, and The Philosophy of the Act. It would represent the greatest naiveté to suggest that thus the year 1937 represented the introduction of symbolic interactionism. We are all aware of the long development: from James, Baldwin, and Cooley to Thomas, Faris, Dewey, Blumer, and Young. Even the Tardean imitation and suggestion which underlay Ross's Social Psychology contributed a good deal ordinarily not credited to him in the development of interaction theory. Nor is it the fact that Mead represents the fullest development of the orientation that makes so significant the posthumous publication of his works (for which we may conveniently take 1937 as an anchoring point). Mead's ideas had been known for a very long time. He had taught University of Chicago students from 1893 to 1931. His notions were bruited about in classes and seminars wherever there were professors conducting them who had studied at the University of Chicago—not least in the great heartland included in the Mid-west of our Society. Some of Mead's students had published their versions of his ideas or quotations from some of his philosophical papers—Kimbali Young's Source Book in Social Psychology of a decade earlier contained a paper by Mead, and his Social Psychology bore the strong imprint of Meadian interactionism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Symbolic interaction theory as derived mainly from the work of George Herbert Mead views the self-concept as a structure of attitudes which arises in social experience and organizes the individual's perception of his social milieu. Recently, tests based upon this symbolic interaction orientation have been developed for the elicitation of self attitudes. One such test frequently used is the Twenty Statements Test (TST) constructed by Manford Kuhn and Thomas McPartland. The TST attempts to ascertain the specific statements respondents use to identify themselves to themselves. The applicability of the TST to problems of self theory is indicated by the rather wide use which has been made of the instrument. Investigations using the TST have focused upon the following: self-concept and social position; a self-concept and behavior; and the self-concept and attitudes toward other social objects. While TST results have been of substantive interest, little attention has been given to the methodological issues involved in the instrument and its use. For example, little is known concerning the validity and reliability of the test and its scoring procedures. If substantive assertions based upon TST results are to be considered as sound, judicious concern should be directed toward basic methodological issues. It is the purpose of this paper to consider empirically one methodological aspect of the TST. The focus is upon the test format itself. The question is posed: Do variations in the TST format produce variations in individuals' response patterns? Specifically, does the length of the test influence the number and the nature of statements made by respondents? This paper is directed toward answering this question. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Theories of symbolic interaction and ethnomethodology, assume that everyone undertakes a complex process of construction of reality, including self-identity, in interaction with significant others. Utilizing insights into variations in identity reformulation in marriage obtained from a study of American metropolitan women, this paper concentrates on variations of identity reformulation among widows. The major hypothesis guiding the discussion is that the higher the education of the woman, as measured by formal schooling, the more she is likely to experience and undertake identity reformulation in marriage and in widowhood. The less education a woman has, the less she will be consciously affected in her identity formulation by these events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reports an exploration of the relationship between members' role performance and the benefits they receive from their organizations. The general relationship is interpreted in the context of a "social exchange model" for voluntary associations. Data for the analysis pertain to members of four voluntary farm organizations: Farm Bureau, Farmers Union, National Farmers Organization, and Grange. The data were obtained in a state-wide survey of Wisconsin farm operators in 1965. In general, the data show a moderate relationship, in a positive direction, between benefits and role performance. The benefits tend to differ in the magnitude and, in some instances, in the direction of their relationships to such performance. The findings indicate the importance of taking into account magnitude and direction of relationship, as well as interaction among the benefits and among costs, in order to devise a viable social exchange model of cost benefit relations for voluntary associations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper, then, is to bring organizational analysis to bear upon the problem of competition for control over goals, means, and organizationally relevant behavior. Further, emphasis is placed upon one type of strategy by which such competition has been managed, i.e., formal coaptation (See Selznick, 1949) and, additionally, some consequences of that strategy. The unit for analysis is the Christian Family Movement (CFM), a Midwest based, lay apostolic, action organization whose leaders claim the allegiance of some 60,000 married couples in fifty-five countries. For some time now CFM has been experiencing the pains of organizational transition, and its history reflects the consequences of two groups in competition for control over the organization's goals and means. One consequence is somewhat of a two-dimensional authority structure, each dimension of which is felt to be the only legitimate one from the standpoint of its representatives. Other consequences have to do with policy-development and the achievement of formally stated goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Students of self conceptions have examined a variety of research problems using responses to the question "Who Am I?" Only in the initial report of Kuhn and McPartland is attention given to the relationships among the responses made to this question. They present data showing an ordering of responses which they believe to be "… a reflection of the make-up of the self conception." The present paper reports research stemming from a re-examination of the posited order among responses to the question "Who Am I?" Through content analysis, Kuhn and McPartland classified responses to this question into two categories: "consensual" and "subconsensual." Responses classified as "consensual" were those "… statements which refer to groups and classes whose limits and conditions of membership are matters of common knowledge." Responses classified as "subconsensual" were those statements "… which refer to groups, classes, attributes, traits, or any other matters which would require interpretation by the respondent to be precise or to place him relative to other people." Kuhn and McPartland stated that "… respondents tended to exhaust all of the consensual references they would make before they made (if at all) any subconsensual ones; that is, having once begun to make subconsensual references they tended to make no more consensual references (if indeed they had made any at all)." Further, this ordering of consensual and subconsensual responses is reported to take the form of an ordinal scale when submitted to Guttman's scalogram analysis technique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we attempt to do the following with respect to the symbolic interactionist approach to social psychological phenomena: (1) to add to its relatively meager empirical base; (2) to develop a neglected aspect of the position, namely, the time dimension; and (3) to contribute to both the replication and the extension of the limited systematic research which has used this particular framework to focus on the key concept of self. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A number of questions have been recently raised or re-raised with respect to the status and intended function in sociology of the methodological device known as the "type." Martindale's summary of the historical and contemporary uses to which the typology has been put as well as his formulation of the issues connected with such use permits the economy of moving directly into a specification of the problems considered in this paper, and the proposed solutions. The present effort is directed primarily at providing one solution to the often raised problem of "the relation between the idealization involved in the type and the empirical reality," although less pressing issues are also treated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the most promising efforts to operationalize the concept of the "self" has been that of the late Professor Manford H. Kuhn and his students. This approach has employed the "Twenty-Statements Test," or TST, an open-ended instrument which is designed to elicit the respondent's "spontaneous" self-definitions in their order of salience. Since its first publication in 1954, the TST has been used in a variety of studies? However, previous studies of the "self" have been conducted on restricted population samples, and little is known about the self-definitions held by a general population. The present paper describes the TST responses of a representative sample of the general adult population of Iowa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The general theory of symbolic interaction, specifically self theory, is focused upon the importance of language as an instrument of definition and communication. People are seen as responding not directly to a resistant outer reality but to meanings of objects which are defined within a cultural system and social organization. G. H. Mead, in his discussion of the way persons develop self concepts and the accompanying ability to take roles effectively, speaks of the degree to which persons develop a "general other." This general other is an organized structure of attitudes believed to be common to all and is defined in terms of a universe of discourse growing out of the symbolic interaction of a community of individuals. Replies to the Twenty Statements Test, described by Kuhn and McPartland, display this quality. Self-identifying statements which people make fall along a rough spectrum of reference which can be broken up in various ways. The distinction which Kuhn and McPartland have reported is between what they call consensual and nonconsensual statements. Consensual statements are defined as those statements which would be generally understood by persons in the larger society without explanation. Nonconsensual statements are defined as those requiring interpretation before their social relevance can be assessed. The consensual statement is language behavior directed to the general other, while the nonconsensual statement is language directed to a more limited audience. H. S. Sullivan's contribution in developing the notion of the "significant other" consists in accounting for the fact that persons often do not seem to internalize standards and norms from the whole society but from segments of it on some selective basis. In this paper, the number of consensual statements made in response to the Twenty Statements Test will be called the locus score. Respondents are assigned to "high" and "low" locus categories as they make more or less than the median number of consensual statements. Expanding upon this frame of reference, it seems reasonable to propose that the locus quality found in self-conceptions of a given person is also characteristic of his conceptions of other objects. This hypothesis is based on the assumption that the self is the core of a set of interrelated attitudes, and that the level of reference employed by the respondent in his attitudes toward the self would therefore be applicable to other attitudes as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objectives of this paper are to propose a new concept for use in attitude studies; to explain one way in which this concept has been operationalized; to suggest an hypothesis for use in further studies of this concept; and to present some preliminary research findings concerning this hypothesis. Social scientists have long been interested in differences and similarities between people holding "liberal" and "conservative" attitudes toward various issues and problems of the day. Countless numbers of research studies have been conducted in this area. Perhaps most interesting among these studies have been several attempts to determine whether people tend to have a general liberal-conservative orientation, or whether we must expect their attitudes to vary in different situations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]