Download Social Psychology

6RFLDO3V\FKRORJ\7KH,QWHUSOD\EHWZHHQ6RFLRORJ\DQG3V\FKRORJ\
$XWKRUV3HJJ\$7KRLWV
6RXUFH6RFLDO)RUFHV9RO1R-XQSS
3XEOLVKHGE\8QLYHUVLW\RI1RUWK&DUROLQD3UHVV
6WDEOH85/http://www.jstor.org/stable/2580444
$FFHVVHG
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=uncpress.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
University of North Carolina Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Social Forces.
http://www.jstor.org
Social Psychology: The Interplay
between Sociology and Psychology*
PEGGYA. THOITS,VanderbiltUniversity
Abstract
In the area of social psychology,sociologistshave drawnmorefrequentlyfrom
moreoftenassessthe
thanthereverse.Thisis in partbecausesociologists
psychologists
and structuralcontexts
socialrelationships,
degreeto whichstatus characteristics,
moreoften
whilepsychologists
feelings,andbehaviors,
influenceindividuals'thoughts,
I illustrate
whichsuchsocialfactors
affectindividuals.
through
explicatethemechanisms
betweenthetwo
development
thesedifferences
bydiscussingpointsofparalleltheoretical
disciplines,substantivedivisionsof labor,and selectedtopicsof mutualinquiry.
could
work,sociologists
frompsychologists'
benefitsubstantially
Althoughsociologists
are
thatsociological
mechanisms
morepointeddemonstrations
offertheircounterparts
phenomenaand that structuralcontexts
crucialfor explainingkey psychological
in waysoftenoverlooked
bypsychologists.
behaviors
constrainindividuals'
I will focus in this article on the point of greatest intersectionbetween the
disciplinesof sociology and psychology:social psychology.Withinthis broad
interdisciplinarytradition,sociologists and psychologists routinely cite and
draw from each other's theory and research.I will argue, however, that the
directionof strongestinfluencehas run from psychology to sociology, rather
than the reverse. This is in part because sociologists generally devote their
effortsto identifyingwhichsocial phenomenahave effectson individualswhile
or processes
psychologists generally specialize in identifying the mechanisms
whichsocial phenomenahave theireffectson individuals.Consequently,
through
sociologistsoftenuse, explicitlyor implicitly,the workof psychologiststo fill in
the missing links that tie society to the individual.This observationfortifies
Gove's argumentthat sociology is, or should be, an integrativediscipline, a
point to which I will returnbelow.
The Various Social Psychologies
Accordingto Allport(1968),socialpsychologistsattemptto understandhow the
actual,imagined,or impliedpresenceof othersinfluencesthe thoughts,feelings,
and behaviorsof individuals.Allport'sdefinitionbest applies to work within
* Direct correspondenceto Peggy A. 7hoits, Departmentof Sociology, Box 1811-B, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235.E-mail: [email protected].
?) The University of North CarolinaPress
Social Forces, June 1995, 73(4):1231-1243
1232 / Social Forces 73:4, June 1995
the discipline of psychology - what House (1977)and Stryker(1977)have
The bystanderinterventionor "helping"
socialpsychology.
termedpsychological
literature provides a useful example. This research shows that the more
witnesses to an emergency(actualpresenceof others),the less likely any one
witness is to assist the victim (individualbehavior)(Latane& Darley 1970).
However, this literaturedoes not simply documentthe strengthor directionof
social influenceson behavior.Thekey word in Ailport'sdefinitionis howothers
affect the individual.The psychologist'sgoal is to identify the mechanismsor
processesthroughwhich others'actual or implied presenceaffectsthe person.
Bystanderresearchshows, for example,thatmultiplewitnessesto an emergency
are able to "diffuseresponsibility"for takingaction to otherpeople. Diffusion
of responsibilityis a mechanismthat helps to explainnoninterventions.
An alternativebrand of psychologicalsocial psychologyhas flourishedin
recent years. This is cognitive social psychology or the social cognition
approach, which investigates how people store and process information.
Informationis stored as prototypes,schemas,scripts,and the like;information
processing includes attending to cues, retrievingfrom memory, and making
judgments,inferences,attributions,and predictionsabout oneself and others.
Cognitions are loosely viewed as social in this approach because they are
derivedfromsocial experienceand have consequencesfor subsequentinterpersonal behavior.Forexample,masculineand feminineschemasare presumedto
be the productsof traditionalsex-rolesocializationand to functionas heuristic
models for rapidlyrecognizingand classifyringone's own and others'behavior
(Markus,Bernstein & Siladi 1982). The emphasis in this branch of social
psychology once again is on understandingmechanismsor processes,in this
case, the mental processes through which an individual's (socially derived)
cognitionshave effects on his/her own thoughts,feelings, or behaviors.
My point here is that identifyingprocessesor explanatorymechanisms(as
well as conditions under which individual-level phenomena occur) is the
common thrustof both psychologicaland cognitivesocial psychology.Because
sociologistsdraw moreheavilyfrom the psychologicalthanthe cognitivesocial
psychologicalliterature,I will contrastbrieflypsychologicalsocial psychology
with three sociological approaches:social structureand personality,symbolic
interactionism,and formalsmall-groupstheory.
A modificationto Allport's definition describes the social structureand
personality approach. It focuses on how individuals' relatively enduring
thoughts,feelings,and behaviorsare influencedby individuals'positionsin the
social structureand/or by the organizationof theirsocial environments.Kohn's
(1969) Classand Conformity
provides an exemplar,showing that social class
differencesin whethermen valued self-directionor conformityin theirchildren
depended on the structure of men's occupations.Those who did complex,
nonroutinized,and unsupervisedworkwere morelikely to value self-direction,
which presumably prepares their children to enter middle or upper class
occupationsin the future.
Note thata key differencebetweenpsychologicalsocial psychologyand the
social structureand personalityapproachrests (not surprisingly)on a divergence in the independent variables of greatest interest to each discipline.
Psychologists generally examine the influence of "others"on the individual
Interplaybetween Sociologyand Psychology/ 1233
without regard for the individual'sstanding or relationshiprelative to those
others.Socialstructureandpersonalityresearchersexaminedirectlythe impacts
of individuals'rolerelationshipsor theirrelativepower,prestige,or hierarchical
locationson cognitions,affects,and actions.The "how"in social structureand
personalityresearchtypicallyrefersto how stronglyand in what directionthese
variablesare associatedwith one another.Such relationshipsusually require
further explication.For example, an explanatorymechanismthat helps link
fathers'job structuresto theirvalues is reward;presumablyfathersvalue more
highly characteristicsfor which they are themselveshighly rewarded.Social
structureand personalitytheoristsoften leave the mechanismsthroughwhich
social structure influences individuals unexplored, implicitly or explicitly
borrowing the presumed links from psychology. Hence we have one reason
why sociology is more often informed by psychology than the reverse:
Psychologistssupply theoreticalmechanismsthatmay connectsocialstructural
variablesto cognitions,emotions,or actions.
ThesymbolicinteractionistapproachfurtherextendsAllport'sdefinitionof
socialpsychology.Symbolic interactionistsnot only inspect the influence of
specific and generalizedothers on the thoughts,feelings,and behaviorsof the
individual,but observethe individual'sinfluenceon specificothersand on the
social order. Whyte's (1981)classic StreetCornerSocietyprovides an example.
When Doc's boys bowled competitively against one another, their scores
matched their structuralpositions in Doc's gang regardless of their actual
bowling skills; in turn, their bowling scores reinforcedand maintainedtheir
gang status.
Symbolicinteractionistresearchfallsbetweensocialstructureandpersonality andpsychologicalsocialpsychology.Symbolicinteractionistspay attentionto
structuralrelationships,organizationalfeatures of social environments,and
generalizedexpectationsor norms that influencebehavior (consistentwith a
social structure and personality approach) yet simultaneously attempt to
identifythe mechanismsthroughwhich the individualand societyhave mutual
influences (consistent with the psychological endeavor). But due to major
differences in epistemology and methodology, symbolic interactionists'
explanatorymechanismsare often less deterministic,more complex,and more
interpretivethan those of psychologists.
Ironically,some of the key processesor mechanismslinkingself and society
accordingto symbolicinteractionisttheory- role-takingabilities,interpersonal
perceptions,impressionformationand management- havebeenstudiedmuch
moreexplicitlyand intensivelyby psychologists.Forexample,takingthe role of
the other has been almost exclusivelya topic of inquiryamong psychologists,
who have distinguishedbetween empathicand cognitive role-takingabilities
and investigatedthe differentialeffectsof these abilitieson moraldevelopment
and prosocialbehaviorssuch as helpingothers(e.g.,Chlopanet al. 1985;Kaplan
& Arbuthnot1985). Similarly, in the impression formationand impression
managementdomain, psychologists have drawn extensivelyfrom Goffman's
(1956,1963)work, testing and elaboratinghis insights (e.g.,Joneset al. 1984).
There is no comparableresearch in sociology which has explicitly tested
Goffman'sobservations,nor are most sociologistsfamiliarwith psychological
investigationsof role-takingand impressionmanagement(althoughsee Heise
1234 / Social Forces 73:4, June 1995
1987). However, other mechanisms identified by symbolic interactionists
(e.g., social identities, reflexive self-esteem) have been topics of mutual inquiry
in the two disciplines. I will return to such shared topics later.
Small-groups research puts a different twist on Allport's definition of social
psychology,expanding both the independent and dependent variables of interest.
Here, the researcher examines how the presenceof a group or the structureof a
group influences either the individual or the group as a whole. In this area,
sociologists and psychologists initially shared a common focus on how various
group structures affected conflict, cooperation, cohesion, information flow,
decision making, and the formation of power and status hierarchies. Work by
Bales (1950), Strodtbeck, James, and Hawkins (1957), and Sherif et al. ([1961]
1988) provide classic examples of early small groups research.
More recent years have seen a division of labor emerge between the two
disciplines. Psychologists have probed the conditions under which "groupthink"
Uanis 1982) and risky shifts/group polarization occur in decision-making
(Isenberg 1986) as well as conditions that alter bargaining strategies and
outcomes (Carmevale& Pruitt 1992). Sociologists have developed highly formal,
often mathematical, theories of the causes or consequences of inequality e.g., theories of status generalization, social exchange, equity, power dependence, and distributive justice (see reviews in Cook, Fine & House 1995). Note
that psychologists try to understand how dyads or small groups arrive at
decisions, generally without reference to power or status relationships within
groups; sociologists try to explain how members' social characteristics or
structural inequalities within groups subsequently affect group decisions or
behaviors. Unlike other sociological approaches, however, the formal smallgroups theory approach focuses explicitly on identifying and testing intervening
mechanisms and, as in much of psychological social psychology, the use of
experimental methods is customary.
The point of this broad comparison of the various social psychologies is that
sociologists and psychologists typically have different agendas. What makes
psychological social psychology distinctive for me is (1) its pursuit of explanatory processes with (2) little or no attention paid to variables dear to the hearts of
sociologists - status characteristics, role relationships, and organizational/hierarchical contexts. Despite drastic differences among the three sociological
approaches in methods and perspectives, all three, in their own ways and for
their own purposes, examine the consequences of social status, roles, and/or
social contexts for individuals' thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. The detailed and
explicit pursuit of explanatory mechanisms is of secondary importance in much
sociological work (with the exception of the formal small-groups branch).
Interplay:Parallel Conceptual Developments in the Two Disciplines
SELF-FULFILLNGPROPHECIES
Certain common phenomena have been described and studied fairly independently by social psychologists in both disciplines. Perhaps the most familiar
example is the self-fulfilling prophecy; psychologists call this the Rosenthal
effect, the Pygmalion effect, or the expectancy effect. This idea has figured
Interplay between Sociology and Psychology / 1235
prominently in sociological discussions of stigma, stereotyping, and labeling
effects. Sociologists frequently cite psychologists Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968),
who showed that significant gains in IQ and school performance occurred in a
random sample of elementary school children whose teachers were told they
would be "late bloomers." Both earlier and later psychological research pinned
down how it is that false expectations tend to come true (Miller & Turnbull
1986; Rosenthal 1966) - primarily through verbal and nonverbal behaviors that
encourage and reinforce expected responses in falsely labeled target persons.
Interestingly, expectation states theory and research in sociology also
explains the self-fulfilling prophecy, specifically, how status characteristicscome
to affect the exercise of power and influence in small, task-oriented groups. The
key (unobserved) mechanisms are performance expectations that are culturally
attached to statuses such as gender, race, and social class. Expectation-states
studies show that performance expectations alone (in the absence of face-to-face
interaction) can cause culturally based beliefs about ability to come true;
psychological research identifies verbal and especially nonverbal behaviors as
the more proximate mechanisms operating in face-to-face interaction. When
pressed to explain self-fulfilling prophecy effects, sociologists generally cite
expectation-states research and psychological studies; conversely, expectationstates studies are rarely cited among psychologists.
REFERENCE,COMPARISONGROUPS
Another important phenomenon that has received independent attention in the
two disciplines is the reference group (in sociology) or the social comparison
group (in psychology). The underlying ideas in Merton's (1968) and Festinger's
(1954) discussions of reference/comparison groups were quite similar: When
objective standards for behavior, opinions, or emotions are unavailable, people
look to others for reference or comparison. Reference/comparison groups serve
two functions; they provide normative guidance and standards for selfevaluation. Sociologists tend to apply the notions of reference/comparison
group when they are useful or seem appropriate, often post hoc. Most of the
research that specifies to whichgroups an individual will refer, the directions in
which comparisons are made (up, down, or across to similar others), and the
conditions under which comparisons occur has been conducted in psychology,
in part because selective comparisons are important coping strategies (Suls &
Wills 1991; Taylor, Buunk & Aspinwall 1990). Even research on a related
sociological phenomenon - relative deprivation - has been pursued most
vigorously by a psychologist (Crosby 1982). Unfortunately, most sociologists
have been unaware of psychological advances in social comparison theory and
knowledge.
PERCEIVEDCONTROL
A third topic of independent investigation in the two disciplines has been
control, mastery, or self-efficacy. Drawing from Rotter's (1966) concepts of
internal and external locus of control, sociologists have studied the degree to
which a sense of personal control or mastery over life enables individuals to
1236 / Social Forces 73:4, June 1995
resistthe negativeeffectsof stressexperiences.Sociologistspresumethata sense
of controlis a productof priorexperiencesand thatperceivingcontrolmakesan
individual more likely to engage in problem solving when confrontedwith
stressors. Psychologists, in contrast, examine the conditions under which
internal,stable,and globalattributionsfor successand failurearemade (Robins
1988)and the consequencesof self-efficacybeliefsfor actualbehavior(Bandura
1977;Schwarzer1992).Sociologistsroutinelycite the psychologicalliteratureto
support their assumptions about the causes and consequencesof personal
control.
Intexplay:Substantive Divisions of Labor
DEVIANCE AND CONFORMrIY
Sociologistsseem to spend more time and effortattemptingto explaindeviant
behavior than psychologists, who give more attention to conformity and
obedience(excludingthose, of course,who specializein abnormaland clinical
psychology).It is difficult to explainwhy this division of labor has occurred.
Perhapsit is becausepsychologists(well awareof the phenomenonof psychopathology)take deviancefor grantedwhile sociologists (heavilyinfluencedby
Parsonsian theory) tend to take conforming behavior for granted. In the
substantivearea of deviance,sociologicalwork approximateswhat goes on in
psychological social psychology more generally, although typically without
experimentalmethods.Sociologistsattemptto identifyand test the mechanisms
or processes that are thought to lead to criminaland other forms of deviant
behavior (including,in some cases, psychologicaland even biologicalmechanisms). Etiological theories that have spawned extensive research include
labelingtheory,differentialassociation/learningtheory,anomietheory,conflict
theory,and controltheory.Whensociologistsattemptto accountfor conformity
or obedience, however, they rely considerably on pioneering research by
psychologistssuch as Asch (1955),Cartwright(1968),Sherif(Sherifet al. [1961]
1988),and Milgram(1969).
SOCIALIZAflON
Anothersubstantivedivision of laborbetween the disciplineshas occurredin
the area of socialization.Psychologiststend to concentrateon child development, childhood socialization(includinggender-rolesocialization),and moral
development;sociologists draw heavily from this literature,as any textbook
shows. Sociologistsfrequentlyfocuson processesof adultsocialization(gender-,
age-, and role-appropriatebehavior)and the antecedentsand consequencesof
major role transitions throughout the life course (Brim 1976). Further, sociologists oftenexaminesocializationcontentand sources- what normsareimparted
to the novice and who learnswhat fromwhom (e.g.,Hochschild1983).Details
of how the novice learnsis psychology'sprovince;sociologistsrarelyexamine
the specific reinforcementprocesses operatingin the acquisitionof cultural
knowledge.(Deviant/criminalsocializationis theexceptionto thisrule,as noted
earlier.)
Interplaybetween Sociologyand Psychology/ 1237
ATITIUDES
Finally,attitudeassessmenthas long been of concernto both psychologistsand
sociologists becauseattitudesare believed to be useful in predictingbehavior.
But once again the two disciplines have diverged in substantiveemphasis.
Sociologists have devoted relatively more effort to documenting the social
distributionsof attitudesand the relationshipsamong them (e.g., are individuals' politicalattitudesconsistentwith theirsocial opinions?).Psychologistshave
honed in on the "attitude-behavior
problem,"seekingto ascertainwhy attitudes
are usually such weak predictorsof behaviorand to identifycircumstancesthat
strengthenthe attitude-behaviorlink (Ajzen1988).Although there are exceptions, much of what sociologistsknow aboutthe attitude-behavior
problemand
how to rectifyit is derivedfrom work by psychologists.
Intexplay:Topics of Mutual hiquiry
Sociologistsand psychologistshave had greatercontactand mutualinfluencein
some substantive topic areas. The three with which I am most familiar are
stress, emotion, and self/identity processes.Despite considerableinterchange
between the two disciplineson these topics, however,differentialemphasesin
researchcan still be discerned.
srRESS
Both sociologists and psychologists have documentedthe negative effects of
majorlife events, ongoing strains, and daily hassles on physical and mental
health.Althoughpsychologistsmorefrequentlystudy copingprocessesthando
sociologists, who more frequently study social support, members of both
disciplineshave shown thatsocial supportand coping resourcescan bufferthe
deleterious effects of stress. In many ways, the researchof sociologists and
psychologistsin the stress domainhas been virtuallyindistinguishablein terms
of theoreticalproblems,measurementinstruments,and methods(oftensurveys
or questionnaires).
On other questions, however, researchershave moved in disciplinecharacteristicdirections.Sociologistshave examinedthe social distributionsof
stressors,the distributionsof coping and supportresources,and the phenomenon of differentialvulnerability- the finding that membersof disadvantaged
sociodemographicgroups (women,the unmarried,those of low socioeconomic
status [SES])are emotionally more reactive to stressors than their relatively
advantaged counterparts.Once again, we see the sociological concern with
location in the social structureas a research-motivatingissue (Pearlin1989).
Characteristically,psychologists have more often tracked the mechanisms
through which and the conditions under which various coping strategiesor
supportivebehaviorshave beneficialor damagingconsequences(e.g.,Folkman
& Lazarus1985;Wortman& Lehman1985).Stressresearchersin sociology are
more likely to seize on the theories or findings of psychologists in order to
furthertheir own agendas tian are psychologists to build from the work of
sociologists.Forexample,applyingGilligan's(1982)conclusionsabouttheother-
1238 / Social Forces 73:4,June1995
directednessof women'smoralorientations,KesslerandMcLeod(1984)showed
that,comparedto men, women are more awareof and emotionallyvulnerable
to the negative experiencesof their loved ones. Thus, although the questions
and methodsof the two disciplinesarehighly similarin the stressarea,some of
the characteristicdivergencesI discussed earliercan still be discerned.
EMOTION
Initially, sociologists were highly influenced by psychological work in the
substantivearea of emotion. Schachter'stwo-factortheory - suggesting that
emotions are the joint product of situationalcues and physiologicalarousal
(Schachter& Singer1962)- helped sociologistsarticulateand justifysymbolic
interactionist and social construction of reality explanations of emotion.
Sociologistsalso struggledwith the theoreticalimplicationsof Ekman's(1984)
findingsthattherearecross-culturaluniversalsin facialexpressionsof emotion,
which raised the issue of the degree to which emotions are biologically
determinedor socially shaped.
Now the two disciplinesare movingin quitedifferentdirections.Following
the usual division of labor with respect to socialization,psychologists have
examined children's emotional development and abilities to regulate their
feelings (e.g., Campos, Campos & Barrett1989). In contrast,sociologists are
studying how adults, especially those entering service or people-oriented
occupations,aresocializedto managetheiremotions(Hochschild1983;Smith&
Kleinman1989). Psychologists have recently begun to explore the cognitive
organizationof emotions and the antecedentperceptionsthat reliably elicit
differentemotional states (Lazarus1991; Ortony & Clore 1988). In contrast,
sociologists are developing theories of how emotions function to produce or
sustainnormativebehavior,socialcohesion,or socialcontrol(Heise1987;Scheff
1988; Shott 1979). Thus, the cognitive emphasis in psychology is affecting
psychologists' current endeavors, while in sociology, emotional processes
borrowedfrom psychology are being used to help explainthe maintenanceof
inequality or the social order. (In this substantive domain, sociologists,
somewhatunusually,are tacklingthe problemof explainingconformity).
SELF/IDENTIY
Theories in psychology and sociology have long focused on explicatingthe
formation,maintenance,and impactsof self-conceptsandself-esteem.Psychologists have viewed the self as crucial to understandingmental health and
psychopathology;sociologists,especiallysymbolicinteractionists,view the self
as a link, if not thekey link, betweenindividualbehaviorand the social order.
Researchersin both disciplineshave been intriguedwith threeself-processesself-enhancement,self-consistency,and self-organization.Psychologistshave
been primarilyresponsiblefor pinpointing the conditions under which selfconsistency motives override the desire for self-enhancement(Swann et al.
1987).Structuralsymbolicinteractionistsusuallypresumethatenhancementand
consistencymotives operatein humanbehavior;insteadthey have studied the
Interplay between Sociology and Psychology / 1239
influences of social context on self-esteem and how individuals' identities are
hierarchically organized (Rosenberg 1979; Stryker & Serpe 1994).
Currently, a great deal of work in the two disciplines is focusing on the
formation and operation of social identities. Once again discipline-characteristic
emphases can be discerned. The comparable concept in psychology is "selfschema," which refers to the person's organized structure of concepts about the
self (Markus et al. 1982). Self-schemas typically are operationalized by psychologists with qualities or traits that apply to the self cross-situationally (e.g., masculine/feminine, dependent/independent). Note that these adjectives do not
directly indicate the social standing of the individual. How schemas are
organized and how they selectively influence information processing about
oneself and other people is of interest among psychologists, reflecting the
cognitive thrust within the discipline more generally (Linville & Carlston 1994).
In contrast, sociologists focus on social identities, or role-identities, which
are usually defined as self-conceptions in terms of one's social positions.
Identities typically are operationalized as nouns (parent/child, doctor/patient)
or as social categories (African American, disabled, Catholic). Note that these
directly tap role relationships and/or the individual's relative social power and
prestige. Sociologists are probing variations in role-identity salience and the
influence of identity salience on affect and behavior (Callero 1985; Stryker &
Serpe 1994; see also Deaux 1991).
A possible exception to these disciplinary divergences involves theory and
research on category-membership or group-membership identities, including
ethnic identities such as Hispanic and African-American. Most work on
category-membership identities in psychology derives from Tajfel's social
identity theory of intergroup behavior (Tajfel& Turner 1986). Tajfelposited that
people's positive self-evaluations are drawn in part from the social groups to
which they are assigr A or belong. If in-group/out-group comparisons are
unfavorable, individuals have a number of options to restore positive selfregard, including collective action. Tajfel's social identity theoxy has been
fruitfully applied to the experiences of Hispanic students entering predominantly white colleges (Ethier & Deaux 1994). Category-based identities straddle the
differential emphases on adjectives versus nouns in psychology and sociology.
Moreover, because categories are inherently social, psychologists are less likely
to ignore the relative power or prestige of others in relation to the self.
Although greater theoretical convergence and disciplinary interchange might
follow from a focus on such bridging conceptualizations, sociologists to date
generally have been unaware of Tajfel's intriguing contributions to theoxy on
social identity.
Conclusions
I have argued throughout this article that much of the influence between the
two disciplines runs from psychology to sociology primarily because psychologists more frequently pin down the dynamics or processes that underlie
phenomena which engross sociologists; sociological work is less frequently
1240 / Social Forces 73:4, June 1995
influentialin psychologybecausemost psychologistsarenot interestedin social
status, power, or role relationships.
It might seem that I fault sociologists for not attemptingmore often to
examineand verify mechanismsthatlink theirkey independentand dependent
variables. But this is not my intention. Demonstrationsthat differentiation,
ranking,power, and norms truly matter for people's thoughts,feelings, and
behaviorsare our unique contributionas a discipline,at least within the social
psychologicalrealm.Thatpsychologicalstudies can help to explainhow these
social phenomenacome to matteris all to the good. This is why I appreciate
Gove's argument that we should integrate, incorporate, or borrow from
psychological theory and research when appropriate;such integration can
strengthenour lines of reasoning,our findings,and our messages.We have our
own insights to offer to other disciplinesand to the public at large,whetheror
not we ourselvesfill in the interveningmechanisms.
On the other hand, we cannot expect psychologiststo explore adequately
theoreticalprocessesthatare uniquelysociological.People'sthoughts,feelings,
and behaviorsare also explainedby relational
dynamicsor mechanisms,such as
the social constructionof reality, the formationof and change in normative
expectations,the ability to take the role of the generalized other, and the
exerciseof power, prestige,and authority,to namebut a few truly sociological
processes. Turning the tables, attention to sociological mechanisms seem
necessaryto explain adequatelysuch phenomenaas the developmentof selfschemas,moralvalues, and even the desireto obey. Forexample,schemassuch
as "masculine"and "feminine"are social constructions;explainingthe origins
of genderschemasis a sociological,not psychological,task.Moreover,psychological theory and research often ignores social structural constraints on
individual behavior.Contextualand structuralconstraintson personalagency
are most likely to be identifiedsuccessfullyby sociologists,not psychologists.
In sum, sociologicalsocial psychologyhas benefittedand, in some substantive areas,could benefiteven more by incorporatingpsychologicaltheoryand
research.However,sociologistsmightreciprocallyinspirepsychologistsby more
pointed,convincingdemonstrationsthatsociologicalmechanismsarenecessary
to explain key psychological phenomena and that structural features are
importantoverlookedconstraintson individualaction.
References
Ajzen, Icek. 1988. Attitudes,Personality,and Behavior.Dorsey Press.
Ailport, GordonW. 1968. ThePersonin Psychology:SelectedEssays.BeaconPress.
Asch, Solomon E. 1955. "Opinuonsand Social Pressure."ScientificAmerican193:31-5.
Bales, RobertFreed. 1950. InteractionProcessAnalysis:A Methodfor the Studyof SmallGroups.
Addison-Wesley.
Bandura, Albert. 1977. "Self-Efficacy:Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change."
Review84:191-215.
Psychological
Interplay between Sociology and Psychology / 1241
Brim,Orville G., Jr. 1976. "Socializationin Later Life." Pp. 105-16 in CurrentPerspectivesin
SocialPsychology.4th ed., edited by Edwin P. Hollander and RaymondG. Hunt. Oxford
University Press.
Callero,Peter L. 1985. "Role-IdentitySalience."SocialPsychologyQuarterly48:203-14.
Campos,JosephJ.,RosemaryG. Campos,and KarenC. Barrett.1989."EmergentThemesin the
Study of Emotional Development and Emotion Regulation."Developmental
Psychology
25:394402.
Carnevale,Peter J., and Dean G. Pruitt.1992. "Negotiationand Mediation."AnnualReviewof
Psychology43:531-82.
Cartwright,Dorwin.1968. "TheNature of GroupCohesiveness."Pp. 91-109in GroupDynamics:
Researchand Theory.3d ed., edited by D. Cartwrightand A. Zander.Harper& Row.
Chlopan, Bruce E., Marianne L. McCain, Joyce L. Carbonell,and Richard L. Hagen. 1985.
"Empathy:Review of Available Measures."Journalof Personalityand SocialPsychology
48:635-53.
Cook, KarenS., Gary Alan Fine, and James S. House (eds.). 1995. Sociological
Perspectiveson
SocialPsychology.Allyn & Bacon.
Crosby,Faye J. 1982. RelativeDeprivationand WorkingWomen.OxfordUniversityPress.
Deaux, Kay. 1991. "Social Identities:Thoughts on Structureand Change."Pp. 77-93 in the
and SocialPsychology,edited by RebeccaC.
RelationalSelf:Convergences
of Psychoanalysis
Curtis.GuilfordPress.
Ekman, Paul. 1984. "Expressionand the Nature of Emotion."Pp. 31943 in Approachesto
Emotion,edited by Klaus Schererand Paul Ekman.Erlbaum.
Ethier,KathleenA., and Kay Deaux. 1994. "NegotiatingSocialIdentitywhen ContextsChange:
MaintainingIdentificationand Responding to Threat."Journalof Personalityand Social
Psychology67:243-51.
Festinger,Leon. 1954. "A Theoryof Social ComparisonProcesses."HumanRelations7:11740.
Folkman,Susan, and RichardS. Lazarus.1985. "If It Changes It Must Be a Process:Study of
Emotionand Coping during ThreeStages of a College Examination."lournalof Personality
and SocialPsychology48:150-70.
Harvard
Gilligan,Carol.1982.In a DifferentVoice:Psychological
TheoryandWomen'sDevelopment.
University Press.
Goffman,Erving.1956. ThePresentation
of Selfin EverydayLife.University of Edinburgh.
-.
1963. Stigma:Noteson theManagement
of SpoiledIdentity.Prentice-Hall.
Heise, David R. 1987. "Affect ControlTheory:Concepts and Model."Journalof Mathematical
Sociology13:1-33.
Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 1983. The ManagedHeart: Commercialization
of Human Feeling.
University of CaliforniaPress.
40:161-77.
House, JamesS. 1977. "TheThreeFaces of Social Psychology."Sociometry
Isenberg,Daniel J. 1986. "GroupPolarization:A CriticalReview and Meta-Analysis."Journalof
Personalityand SocialPsychology50:1141-51.
Janis, Irving Lester. 1982. Groupthink:
PsychologicalStudiesof Policy Decisionsand Fiascoes.
Houghton Mifflin.
Jones,EdwardE.,AmerigoFarina,AlbertH. Hastorf,Hazel Markus,Dale T. Miller,and Robert
W.H. Freeman.
A. Scott. 1984. SocialStigma:ThePsychologyof MarkedRelationships.
Kaplan,Paula J., and JackArbuthnot.1985. "AffectiveEmpathyand CognitiveRole-Takingin
20:323-33.
Delinquent and NondelinquentYouth."Adolescence
Kessler,RonaldC., and JaneD. McLeod.1984. "SexDifferencesin Vulnerabilityto Undesirable
Life Events."AmericanSociological
Review49:620-31.
A Studyin Values.Dorsey.
Kohn,Melvin L. 1969. Classand Conformity:
1242 / Social Forces 73:4, June 1995
Latane, Bibb, and John MUDarley. 1970. The UnresponsiveBystander:WMyDoesn'tHe Help?
Appleton -Century-Crofts.
Lazarus, Richard S. 1991. "Progress on a Cognitive-Motivational-RelationalTheory of
Emotion."AmericanPsychologist46:819-34.
Linville, PatriciaW., and Donal E. Carlston.1994. "SocialCognitionof the Self.' Pp. 143-93in
SocialCognition:Its Impacton SocialPsychology,edited by Patricia G. Devine, David L
Hamilton, and ThomasMNOstrom.Academic.
Markus,Hazel, M Crane,S. Bernstein4and M;Siladi.1982.'Self-Schemasand Gender."Jounal
of Personalityand SocialPsychology42.38-50.
Merton,RobertK 1968. SocialTheoryand SocialStructure.Free Press.
to Authority:An Experimental
View.Harper& Row.
Milgram,Stanley.1969. Obedience
Miller, Dale T., and William Turnbull. 1986. "Expectanciesand InterpersonalProcesses."
AnnualReviewof Psydhology37:233-56.
Ortony, Andrew, and Gerald L Clore. 1988. The CognitiveStructureof Emotions.Cambridge
University Press.
Pearlinz,LeonardI. 1989. 'The SociologicalStudy of Stress."Journalof Healthand Socil Behior
30:241-56.
Robins, Clive J. 1988. "Attributionsand Depression:Why Is the LiteratureSo Inconsistent?'
Journalof Personalityand SocialPsychology54:88049.
Rosenberg Morris.1979. Conceivingthe Self.Basic Books.
Rosenthal,Robert.1966. Experimenter
Researdh.
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Effectsin Behavioral
Rosenthal,Robert,and LenoreJacobson.1968. Pygmalionin the Classroom:
Teacer Expectations
and Pupils'IntellectualDevelopment.
Holt, Rinehart& Winston.
InternalversusExternalControlofReinforcement.
Rotter,JulianB. 1966.Generalized
Expectanciesfor
AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.
Schachter,Stanley, and JeromeE. Singer.1962. "Cognitive,Social and PhysiologicalDeterminants of EmotionalState."Psychological
Review69379-99.
Scheff, Thomas J. 1988. "Shameand Conformity:The Deference-EmotionSystem."American
Review53:395406.
Sociological
Schwarzer,Ralf (ed.). 1992. Self-Efficacy:
Controlof Action.HemispherePublishing.
Thought
Sherif, Muzafer,Oj. Harvey, B. JackWhite, William R. Hood, and CarolynW. Sherif. [1961]
1988. 77e RobbersCaveExperiment:
IntergroupConflictandCooperation.
WesleyanUniversity
Press.
Shott, Susan. 1979. "Emotionand Social Life: A Symbolic InteractionistAnalysis. American
Journalof Sociology84:1317-34.
Smith, Allen C., m, and Sherzyl Kleinman. 1989. "ManagingEmotions in Medical School:
Students'Contactswith the Living and the Dead." SocialPsychologyQuarterly52:56-69.
Strodtbeck, Fred L, Rita M James, and Charles Hawkins. 1957. "Social Status in Jury
Deliberations."AmericanSociological
Review22:713-19.
Stryker,Sheldon. 1977. "Developmentsin 'Two Social Psychologies':Toward an Appreciation
of Mutual Relevance."Sociometry
40:145-60.
Stryker,Sheldon, and RichardT. Serpe. 1994. "IdentitySalience and PsychologicalCentrality:
Equivalent,Overlapping,or ComplementaryConcepts?"SocialPsychologyQuarterly57:1635.
Suls, Jerry, and Thomas Ashby Wills. 1991. Social Comparison:ContemporaryTheoryand Research.
Erlbaum.
Interplaybetween Sociologyand Psychology/ 1243
Swann, William B., Jr.,John J. GriffinJr.,Steven C. Predmore,and Bebe Gaines. 1987. "The
Journal
Cognitive-AffectiveCrossfire:WhenSelf-ConsistencyConfrontsSelf-Enhancement."
of Personality and Social Psychology 52:881-89.
Tajfel,Henfi, and John C. Turner.1986. "TheSocial Identity Theoxyof IntergroupBehavior."
Pp. 7-24 in Psychology of Intergroup Relations. 2d ed., edited by Stephen Worchel and
William G. Austin. Nelson-Hall.
Taylor,Shelley E., BramP. Buunk, and Lisa G. Aspinwall. 1990. 'Social Comparison,Stress,
and Coping. Special Issue:Illustratingthe Value of BasicResearch."Personalityand Social
Psychology Bulletin 16:74-89.
Whyte, William Foote. 1981. Street Corner Society: The Social Structure of an Italian Slum. 3d ed.
University of Chicago Press.
Wortman, Camille B., and Darin R. Lehman. 1985. "Reactionsto Victims of Life Crises:
Support Attempts that Fail." Pp. 463-89 in Social Support:Theory,Research,and Applications,
edited by Irwin G. Sarasonand BarbaraR. Sarason.MartinusNijhoff.