Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Carolyn Sherif wikipedia , lookup
False consensus effect wikipedia , lookup
Communication in small groups wikipedia , lookup
Shelley E. Taylor wikipedia , lookup
Traian Herseni wikipedia , lookup
Social tuning wikipedia , lookup
Self-categorization theory wikipedia , lookup
Social dilemma wikipedia , lookup
Group dynamics wikipedia , lookup
Albert Bandura wikipedia , lookup
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.