2000 stryker burke - past present future identity theory

8/10/2019 2000 Stryker Burke - Past Present Future Identity Theory

1/15

The Past, Present, and Future of an Identity TheoryAuthor(s): Sheldon Stryker and Peter J. BurkeSource: Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 63, No. 4, Special Millenium Issue on the State ofSociological Social Psychology (Dec., 2000), pp. 284-297Published by: American Sociological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2695840 .Accessed: 30/09/2011 18:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

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 formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toSocial Psychology Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2695840?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2695840?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa


2/15

Social PsychologyQuarterly2000,Vol. 63,No. 4,284-297

The Past, Present, nd Future of an Identity heory*SHELDON STRYKER

Indiana UniversityPETER J.BURKE

Washington tate University

Among he many raditions f research n "identity," wo omewhat ifferent etstrongly elated trands f dentity heory ave developed. hefirst, eflectedn thework f Stryker ndcolleagues,ocusesn the inkages f ocial tructures ith denti-ties. he econd, eflectedn the work f Burke nd colleagues, ocuses n the nternalprocess f elf-verification.n the resent aperwe review ach of these trands ndthen iscussways n which he wo elate o and complement ne another achpro-

vides context or he ther: he elation f ocial tructureso dentitiesnfluencesheprocess f self-verification, hile he rocess f self-verificationreates nd sustainssocial tructures. he aper oncludes ith xamples fpotentially seful pplicationsof dentity heory o other renas f ocialpsychology,nd with discussion f chal-lenges hat dentity heory ustmeet oprovide clear nderstanding f the elationbetweenelf nd ociety.

The language f "identity" s ubiquitousin contemporary ocial cience, utting crosspsychoanalysis, sychology, olitical cience,sociology, nd history. he common sage ofthe term dentity, owever, eliesthe consid-erable variability n both its conceptualmeanings nd ts heoretical ole.Even whenconsideration s restricted o sociology ndsocial psychology, ariation s still onsider-able.'

Three relatively distinct sages exist.Some use identity o refer ssentially o theculture f a people; ndeed hey rawno dis-tinction etween dentity nd, for xample,ethnicity (see the collected papers inCalhoun 1994).Thus they bscure he theo-retical urpose f ts ntroduction. thers seidentity o refer o common dentificationwith collectivity r social category, s insocial dentity heory Tajfel 982)or n con-temporary ork on socialmovements, huscreating common culture mong partici-pants Snowand Oliver 1995).Finally, omeusethe erm, s we do in the work nderlyingthis paper, with reference o parts of a self

*Send all correspondence o Peter J. Burke, De-partment f Sociology,Washington tate University,Pullman,WA 99164-4020;mail:[email protected].

1 See the extended discussion,most of which iesoutside the concerns f this paper, n Cerulo (1997),or the more imited reatment n Stryker 2000).

composed of the meanings that personsattach to the multiple oles they typicallyplay in highly ifferentiated ontemporarysocieties.This ast usage, f ourse, s not unique oour prior work. n some ways, t s sharedbyall who claim Mead (1934) and symbolicinteractionism s important o their ntellec-tual heritage, nd who recognize he com-plexity f ontemporary ocial ife; hosewhotake situated dentity erspective re a casein point e.g., Alexander and Wiley 1981).McCall and Simmons 1966)develop deasclosely elated o the earliest ublished re-sentation Stryker 968)of the deas basic tothis aper,2 etdifferent n more hannuanceand in approach to theory development.Specifically,he frame withinwhich dentityis conceptualized ere s shared for exam-ple) by affect control theorists andresearchers Heise 1977,1979;MacKinnon1994;Smith-Lovin nd Heise 1988)who aremotivated y theoretical roblems related

2 Identity heory was first resented at the 1966meetings f the American SociologicalAssociation.At the end of the presentation, McCall approachedStryker nd exclaimed "You've just presented ourbook " (The book had not yet ppeared.) Clearly, hefundamental deas involved were in the air at thetime.Not yet n place was a body of research estingand extending hese deas.

284


3/15

IDENTITY THEORY 285

but not dentical o those underlying hepre-sent paper, nd by tudents f multiple olesand identities nd their onsequences e.g.,Reitzesand Mutran 995; Thoits 983;Wiley1991).We limit ur attention ere o the trandof theorizing nd research represented y,and developing rom, ur earlier work. ince1966, hisworkhas appeared under he abelidentity heory; n the rest of this paper weretain hat sage to simplify resentation.

Identity heory as evolved n two ome-what different ut closely elateddirections.Both are instantiations f a theoretical ndresearch rogram abeled tructural ymbolicinteractionismStryker 980), whosegoal isto understand nd explain how social struc-tures ffect elf and how self affects ocialbehaviors. he first spect, owever, oncen-trates on examining how social structuresaffect he tructure f self nd how structureof he elf nfluences ocialbehavior, hereasthe second concentrates on the internaldynamics f self-processes s these affectsocial behavior. hus, elatively peaking, hefirst neglects internal dynamics of self-processes, hile he second neglectsways nwhich xternal ocialstructures mpinge nthe nternal rocesses. he first srepresentedby work of Stryker nd colleagues (e.g.,Stryker 980; Stryker nd Serpe 1982),thesecond by work of Burke and colleagues(e.g.,Burke 1991;Burke and Reitzes 1991;

Burke nd Stets 999).By explicitly rticulat-ing the relation etween hese wo bodies ofwork,we can refine nd expand he copeofthe structural ymbolic nteractionist rameand suggest new applications f the frameand derivative heories. he present aper sdirected o thesepurposes.

We begin by presenting he variant ofidentity heory nd related esearch ocusingon links between external ocial structure

and the tructure f elf;weprovidemetathe-oretical onsiderations ecessary o under-standing he concepts nd propositions. nthe next ectionwepresent hevariant ocus-ing on the nternal ynamics f self-process-es. We then articulate the two variants.Finally,we discuss extensions nd applica-tions f the articulated rame, s well as newquestions pened by the rticulated rame.

EXTERNAL SOCIAL STRUCTUREAND THESTRUCTURE OF SELF

Identity heory races ts roots to the

writings f GeorgeHerbert Mead (especially1934) which resent framework nderwrit-ing the analyses of numerous ociologicaland social psychological ssues. In them-selves,however,hey o not present testabletheory f any ssue. Many observers elievethat his ituation s due to the ambiguity fcentral oncepts nd to the ttendant ifficul-ty f operationalizinguch oncepts Meltzer1972; Stryker 980). In highly implified

form, ead's framework sserted formula:"Society hapes self hapes ocial behavior."Identity heory egan by ttempting o speci-fy nd make researchable he concepts of"society" nd "self" n Mead's frame nd toorganize these as explanations f specifiedbehaviors; uch putative xplanations ouldbe tested n systematic mpirical esearch(Stryker 968).

This specification ccepts the utility f

Mead's framework, ut departs romMeadto adopt view onsistent ith ontemporarysociologist's magery: ociety s seen as amosaicof relatively urablepatterned nter-actions nd relationships, ifferentiated etorganized, mbedded n an array f groups,organizations, ommunities, nd institutions,and ntersected y rosscutting oundaries fclass, ethnicity, ge, gender, religion, ndother ariables.n addition, ersons re seen

as living heir ives in relatively mall andspecializednetworks f social relationships,through oles hat upport heir articipationin suchnetworks. he embeddedness f pat-terned nteractions nd relationships mpliesa structural ymbolic nteractionist rgu-ment: he probability f entering nto theconcrete and discrete) ocial networks nwhich ersons ivetheir ives s nfluenced ylarger ocial structures n which hose net-works are embedded. That is, social struc-tures outside given social networks ct asboundaries ffecting heprobability hat er-sonswill nter hosenetworks.

These considerations ed to the initialidentity heory pecification f Mead's for-mula.Mead's "social behavior" ecame rolechoice behavior." The theory sought toanswer this quintessential uestion: Given


4/15

286 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY

situations n which there exist behavioraloptions ligned with wo (or more) sets ofrole expectations ttached o two or more)positions n networks f socialrelationships,

why opersons hooseone particular ourseof action? Stryker 968,1980).Acceptance f Mead's "self eflects oci-

ety" dictum mplies hat he self s multifac-eted, made up of interdependent andindependent, utually einforcing nd con-flicting arts. dentity heory hus adoptsJames' 1890)vision f persons ossessing smany elves s groups f persons withwhichthey nteract. o refer o each group-based

self, he theorists hose the term dentity,asserting hat ersons ave s many dentitiesas distinct etworks f relationships n whichthey ccupy ositions nd play roles. n iden-tity heory sage, social roles are expecta-tions attached to positions occupied innetworks f relationships;dentities re nter-nalizedrole expectations. he theory ssertsthat role choices re a function f dentitiesso conceptualized, nd that dentities ithin

self are organized n a salience hierarchyreflecting he mportance f hierarchy s anorganizational rinciple n society.

Identity alience s defined s the proba-bility hat n dentity illbe invoked crossvariety f situations, r alternatively crosspersons n a given ituation. orrowing romcognitive ocial psychology Markus 1977),theorists nderstand dentities s cognitiveschemas-internally tored nformation nd

meanings erving s frameworks or nter-preting xperience. s such, hey re cogni-tive bases for defining ituations, nd theyincrease ensitivity nd receptivity o certaincues for behavior. With elf thus pecified,identity heorists ypothesized hat hehigh-er the alience f an identity elative o otheridentities ncorporated nto the self, thegreater heprobability f behavioral hoicesin accord with he expectations ttached o

that dentity.The building of identity theory alsorequired pecification f he oncept f soci-ety." heorists ound hat pecificationn theconcept f "commitment." ersons, s statedabove, tend to live their ives in relativelysmall, pecialized etworks f ocial relation-ships.Commitment efers o the degree towhich persons' relationships o others n

their networks epend on possessing par-ticular dentity nd role; ommitment s mea-surable by the costs of losing meaningfulrelations o others, hould he dentity e for-

gone. The theory hypothesized that thesalience f an identity eflected ommitmentto the rolerelationships equiring hat denti-ty. hus we arrive t dentity heory's pecifi-cation of Mead's formula: commitmentshapes identity alience shapes role choicebehavior.

Variousresearchers ave examined hatspecification. he general onclusion s thatthe propositions f dentity heory re sup-

ported reasonably well. Accomplishedresearch, owever, lso suggests he need forrefinements f concept nd measurement oramplifications f the theory.

Thus, for example, Stryker nd Serpe(1982) demonstrate hat he salience of reli-gious identities redicts ime spent n reli-gious activities, nd the salience of religiousidentities s predicted ycommitment o rolerelationships based on religion. Callero

(1985) showsthat the salience of a donoridentity predicts the frequency of blooddonations; he also presents vidence thatcommitment o others n the blood donorcommunity ffects he salience of the donoridentity. uttbrock ndFreudiger 1991) pro-vide evidence hat he alience f the motheridentity mong first-time others xplains,(although o a limited egree)whether heyaccept heburdens f motherhood nd make

sacrifices or heir hild.The identity heory onceptions f den-tity nd identity alience uggest tability nidentities nd their alience cross time ndsituations. uch stability s demonstrated ySerpe (1987) in a longitudinal tudy f newstudents ho movefrom ometo a universi-ty n a small city. At the same time, erpeshows that students xperience hanges nprior commitments y entering ew social

relationships t the university, nd thesechanges n commitments ave the expectedeffects n the alience f dentities.

In related research, erpe and Stryker(1987)find hat on entering he university,students eek new relationships y oiningorganizations hat provide opportunities obehave naccordwith ighly alient dentitiesheld before ntrance.When they ucceed n


5/15

IDENTITY THEORY 287

doing o, their elf-structures emain table;changes n the salience of their dentitiesoccur when they re unable to find or usesuchopportunities.

INTERNALMECHANISMS

Identity heory began with questionsabout the origins f differential alienceofidentities n persons' elf-structures nd whyidentity aliencemay hange ver time e.g.,Stryker 968; Wells nd Stryker 988).Thesequestions ed to the development f theoryconcerning ways n which people are tied

into ocialstructure nd the onsequences fthese ies for heir dentities. he theory henasserted linkbetween dentity alience ndbehaviors ied to roles underlying he denti-ties; theorists argue that expectationsattached o roles were nternalized nd actedout.This ast ink, ater trengthened ycon-ceptualizing dentities s cognitive chemas(Stryker nd Serpe1994), emained heoreti-cally underdeveloped. nother ide to the

study f dentities emained, ne concerningthe nature f dentities nd howthey peratewithin he ontexts n which hey re held.

The problem equired clearer under-standing f the way n which dentities ro-duced behaviors expressing he identities.The solution was based on the traditionalsymbolic nteractionist deas that dentitiesare self-meanings nd that self-meaningsdevelop n the context f meanings f roles

and counter oles (Burke 1980;Burke andTully 1977).From a symbolic nteractionistperspective, ehaviors lso can be character-ized as meaningful; urke nd Reitzes 1981)proposed hat he ink between dentity ndbehavior existed in the meanings theyshared.

Implementation f these deas requiredmeasurement rocedures pplicable obothidentities nd behaviors. Burke and Tully

(1977)found hese n work by Osgoodandcolleagues Osgood, Suci,and Tannenbaum1957),who developed he emantic ifferen-tial measurement rocedure eflecting heirviewof meaning s internal, ipolar espons-es to stimuli. his dea was ncorporated ntoearlier work on self Schwartz nd Stryker1970)and s fundamental othe evolution faffect ontrol theory Heise 1977;Smith-

Lovin and Heise 1988),which lso has sym-bolic interactionist oots.3 urke and Tully(1977) showedthat elf-meanings, s reflex-ive responses o self-in-role, ould be mea-

sured reliably with semantic differentialscales.Using the semantic ifferential o mea-

sure college students' dentities nd behav-iors along the same dimensions, urke andReitzes 1981) found hat hared meaningswas the ink between dentity nd behavior:identities redicted ehavior nly when themeaning f the dentity orresponded o themeaning f the behavior. or example, tu-

dents' self-view s sociable one dimensionof the student dentity) id not predict ol-legeplansbecause ociability nd the tudentidentity id not share meaning. n contrast,students' elf-views f academic esponsibili-ty another imension f the student denti-ty) were strong redictor f collegeplans.

The question "How do self-meaningsrelate to meanings f one's behavior?"waselaborated ater na cybernetic odel f per-

ceptual ontrol asedon the work f Powers(1973).Affect ontrol heory Heise 1979)and the models f Carver nd Scheier 1990)developed along similar ines.For identitytheory, he model consists of four centralcomponents Burke 1991):the dentity tan-dard, or the set of (culturally rescribed)meanings eldby he ndividual hich efinehisor her role dentity na situation; he per-son'sperceptions f meaningswithin he it-

uation, matched to the dimensions ofmeaning n the dentity tandard; he com-parator r the mechanism hat ompares heperceived ituational meanings with thoseheld nthe dentity tandard; nd the ndivid-ual's behavior r activity, hich s a functionof the difference etween perceptions ndstandard.

Behavior, n this model, s organized ochange he ituation nd hence he perceived

self-relevant eaningsnorder obring heminto agreement with those in the identitystandard. Bringing ituationally erceived

3Affect ontrol heory sed he emantic ifferen-tial to measure he meaning f dentities long heuniversal imensions f evaluation, otency, ndactivity, hereasdentity heory hose omeasure hemeanings frole dentities s they elated o counterroles n ituations.


6/15

288 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGYQUARTERLY

self-relevant eanings nto agreement withthe dentity tandard s self-verification; hisis accomplished y ltering hecurrent itua-tion or by seeking nd creating new situa-

tions in which perceived self-relevantmeaningsmatch hose of the dentity tan-dard.

This model clarifies everal processes,none unique to the model, which now arebrought ogether n a common framework.First, y seeing behavior s a function f therelationship between what a person per-ceives n the ituation nd the self-meaningsheld by the individual Burke 1997; Heise

1979; Stets 1997) one can view behavior sgoal-directed: ehavior hanges he ituationin order o match meanings erceived n thesituation ithmeanings eld n the tandard.This view gives agency to the individual(Burke and Gray 1999;Tsushima nd Burke1999).

Second, emotion can be incorporateddirectly nto he model, s with ffect ontroltheory Heise 1979)and self-discrepancy he-

ory Higgins, t al. 1986).The model viewsemotion s due in part to the relationshipbetween erceived elf-meanings n the itu-ation nd the elf-definitional eanings eldin the identity tandard (see Carver andScheier1990;Stryker 987).A mismatch rincreasing n discrepancy i.e., problems nself-verification)esults n negative motion;a match or a decreasing discrepancy self-verification) results n positive emotion

(Burke and Stets 1999;Ellestad and Stets1998;Smith-Lovin 995;Stets nd Tsushima1999). For example, Stets and Tsushima(1999)find hat the intensity f anger andhow long anger asts are functions f thekinds f nterruptions f the elf-verificationprocess.

Yet, n addition o emotion nd affect soutcomes f elf-processes,motions re rec-ognizedas having heir wn consequences,

both directly n the ndividual who experi-encesthem nd on others s outward xpres-sions of the individual's state. Emotionssignal oself nd to others what hat tate s,making the state part of the situation towhich ll parties, ncluding he self, espond(Frank 1988; Stryker 987).For example,Burke and Stets 1999)find hat depressionand distress, hich esult rom roblems n

verifying he pousal dentity, ead to reducedcommitment o that dentity.

Scholarsexpanded the focus on mean-ings to include not only ymbolicmeanings

(as traditionally understood in symbolicinteractionism) ut lso signmeanings, hichare not necessarily hared Lindesmith ndStrauss 956).Drawing n the work f Freese(1988),Freese nd Burke 1994) showed hatmeaning erived rom igns llows ne to acton the nvironment n order oalter he eveland flow f resources resent n a situation,so as to match tandards eld n an identity.The inclusion f resources n dentity heory

allows he theory o take advantage f workon exchange and to tie it into relativelyrecent mphases on meanings n exchangetheory. uch meanings were first ntroducedby Emerson 1969, 1981)and later enteringinto Molm and Cook's (1994) treatment fexchange heory. s a result, dentity heoryis able to consider he moremundane xpec-tations or person ccupying role, uch susingmaterials, reparing ood, arning liv-

ing, nd buying oods and services Burke1997).

PUTTING TOGETHERTHE TWOSTRANDS

In this ection wemove owards ntegrat-ing the two parts of identity heory: neemphasizes he social structural ources ofidentity nd the relations mong dentities,and the other focuses n internal, ognitiveidentity rocesses. he two meet t behaviorthat xpresses dentities, ften n interactionwith thers.4 he former rrives t behaviorby moving rom ocial structures ocommit-ments o relationships hrough he conse-quent salience of the identity o behavior.The latter movesfrom nternalized dentitystandards nd perceptions f self-relevantmeanings, hrough comparison f the twothat ither erifies he dentities r ndicatesa discrepancy, o behavior that repairs hediscrepancy y ltering he ituation r creat-ingnew ituations.

Thisdescription uggests hat hese inesof theorizing eveloped independently f

4 McCall and Simmons 1966) also note the meet-ing of self-processes nd social structure n interac-tion.


7/15

IDENTITY THEORY 289

one another. n fact, owever, hey did not.The structural pproach onceived dentity ncognitive erms nd understood hat denti-ties sought onfirmation y finding r creat-ing situations in which they could beexpressed. The cognitive pproach under-stood that dentities ere embedded n andaffected y social structural ontexts. othunderstood elf as partially structure fmultiple dentities. oth understood denti-ties as linked to roles and to behaviorthroughmeanings. n the first pproach, t sargued that alient dentities re cognitiveschemas ffecting owpersonsdefine itua-tions nd making hemmore ensitive o cuescalling for identity-relevant behavior(Stryker nd Serpe 1994).This argument sgiven reater orce nd precision y he rgu-ment of the second approach: that the tiebetween dentity nd behavior xists n theircommonmeaning Burke nd Reitzes 1981).

One can see the complementary atureof tructural nd cognitive dentity heory yexamining how these two emphases fittogether. he concept of identity alienceimplies hat ersons re more ikely o definesituations hey nter, r in which heyfindthemselves,nways hat make highly alientidentity elevant; hisprocess nables themto enact that dentity Burke and Franzoi1988). Situations, owever, nvolve elationsto others; he extent o which persons canverify heir dentities ependson the denti-ties of those others, on how the othersrespond o identity laims, nd on whetherbehaviors hat could alter the situation oalign perceptions with standards of self-meanings n fact re viable Riley nd Burke1995).Thus, dentities ay r may not be con-firmed n situationally ased interaction.Again, f the dentity onfirmation rocess ssuccessful, he alience f the dentity illbereinforced; f the process s unsuccessful, hesalienceof the dentity s likely o diminish,perhaps onsiderably.

Relevant to further laboration of thelinks etween he woparts f dentity heoryis a view of social structures n which denti-ties exist. Identity theory generally hasfocused n role dentities.5 hat term mplies

5 Social identity heory, n the other hand, focuseson category-based dentities.We discuss he relation

a duality. ole is external; t s inked o socialpositionswithin he ocial structure. dentityis internal, onsisting f internalized mean-ings nd expectations ssociatedwith role.

From this perspective, ocial structure smade up of interconnecting ositions andassociated roles, each linked through heactivities, esources, nd meanings hat recontrolledmutually r sequentially.

In addition o the roles themselves, achrole or set of roles is embedded n one ormore f a variety f groups hat rovide on-text or he meanings nd expectations sso-ciatedwith he role. xamples nclude roupsand networks, s well as organizations, lass-es, unions, nd other ocial units insofar sthese units nvolve concrete relationshipsand interactions). he structure r connect-edness of the roles and groupings rovidesthe first evelof social structures' mpact nidentities.

One component f commitment s thenumber f others o whom ne is connectedby possessing particular dentity Stryker1980). This aspect of commitment eflectsdensity f ties, characteristic f the socialstructure n which n identity s embedded.Connectedness ncreases he salienceof theidentity, aking t more ikely hat he denti-ty willbe activated n a given ituation: er-sons occupying ensely onnected ositionsand holding elated oles willhave dentitiesassociatedwith hose position nd roles thatare more alient.

This increased salience is reflected nrole performances hat ccord more closelywith he meanings nd expectations ttachedto that dentity. urke and Reitzes (1991)found hat he bility opredict rom dentitymeanings o performances as greater orthose with more strongly ommitted denti-ties. tudents with more strongly ommit-ted student dentity orkmore ffectively overify nd maintain hat dentity-that s, tokeep perceptions f elf-relevant eanings nthe situation n line with elf-meanings ntheir dentity tandard.

Someaspects f ocial tructures, owev-er, re more problematic rom he viewpointof commitment o particular ole relation-

between dentity heory nd social identity heorylater n this paper.


8/15


ships, dentities ttached o those role rela-tionships, r the potential ap between elf-relevant perceptions in situations andidentity tandards. Persons typically re

embedded n multiple ole relationships nmultiple roups nd they oldmultiple den-tities. hese multiple oles nd multiple den-titiesmayreinforce ne another, ut perhapsmore ften o not Reitzes nd Mutran 995;Thoits 983;Wiley 991).When they o not,they ntroduce dentity ompetition r con-flicts hat omplicate he reciprocal elation-ships between commitments, dentitysalience, dentity tandards, nd self-relevant

perceptions Stryker 000).If the competing r conflicting dentitiesreflect reatly ifferent ommitments ndconsequently iffer reatly n salience, heidentity ased on greater ommitment ndhigher aliencewillbe reflected in situationswhere lternative dentities an be invoked)in the operative dentity tandard nd per-ceivedself-meanings.f the pressures f theimmediate ituation equire ow commitment

and a lowidentity alience,we expect hatgapbetween dentity tandard nd perceivedself-meanings ill ose motivational orce,and will become nconsequential orbehav-ior. f multiple ompeting r conflictingden-tities nvolve high and roughly quivalentcommitments nd salience, considerablestress s ikely o be generated, nd to stall rprevent ehavioral epair f a gap betweenstandards and perceived self-meanings

(Burke1991).The variety of structural ocations ofidentities mplies hatvarying esourceswillbe available for heir onstruction nd func-tioning, ncluding chievement f self-verifi-cation Berger, Cohen, and Zelditch 1972;Ridgeway nd Berger 1988).Tsushima ndBurke 1999) distinguished etween ower-level dentity tandards, hich ertain o pro-grams f behavior, nd higher-level dentity

standards, hich ertain ogeneral rinciplesand valuesguiding he ower-level tandardsfor behavior. hey found hat mothers os-sessing ewer esources with essincome reducation, r unmarried) ad esswell-devel-oped higher-level dentity tandards. urther,mothers ithout uch tandards ncounteredmore problems f control nd confrontationregarding heir hildren, nd suffered eel-

ings f ower elf-worth nd efficacy. n addi-tion, hese mothers ended o use child-rear-ing practices hat ed to children's ailure odevelophigher-leveldentity tandards.

While the above concerns he nfluenceof social structure on identities, someresearch s beginning o show how socialstructures epend n the functioning f den-tities. Burke and Stets 1999) present vi-dence that when everalpersons nteractingin a common ituation mutually erify heidentities eld by each, heir ommitment oone another ncreases. urther, hey egin oview themselves s a group-that s, s a new

social structure. lternatively, hen personsinteracting n a common ituation ave diffi-culties n verifying heir dentities, xistingties are broken nd structures issolve. Forexample, ast and Burke 1999) have shownthat divorce s more likely when the hus-bands' and wives' spousal dentities re notverified.

APPLICATIONSAND NEXT

CHALLENGESApplications

Identity heory as the potential o illu-minate wide range f ociological nd socialpsychological renas and issues; we havealready suggested ome of these. Here wefocus on two opportunities or the applica-tion of dentity heory oncepts nd models,whichhave remained elatively nexploiteduntil ow.Opportunities nherent n the "multipleidentities" onceptualizationf elf Sociologyhas long conceptualized ersons s occupy-ing multiple ositions n organized ets ofsocial relationships, nd as playing ut thediverse oles associated with hose multiplepositions Linton 936;Merton 957; arsons1949; Turner 1978). The related idea thatthese diverse olescan present ompeting rconflicting xpectations orpersons' behav-ior is widely understood and has enteredmuch ociological and social psychologicaltheory nd research Gross,McEachern, ndMason 1958;Hill 1949;Stryker nd Statham1985).More recently hese deas have beendisplayed uite prominently n literature nworking women's conflicts nd dilemmasconcerning oledemands f work nd of fam-


9/15

IDENTITY THEORY 291

ily Thoits 1987).Earlier, cholars ddressedrelated hemes egarding he existence ndconsequences of status inconsistency(Jackson and Burke 1965; Lenski 1954;

Stryker nd Macke 1978).Yet, conceptualizations of persons asoccupying ultiple tatuses r multiple ocialpositionswith ivergent oleexpectations onot fully ncorporate r anticipate "multi-ple identities" onception f self, or he he-oretical nd research ossibilitiesnherent nsuch conceptualizations. hese require theinternalization f role-related xpectationsand their rdering n a hierarchy f salience.

They also require the filtering f identitystandards hrough erceptions elevant othe self; he existence f such perceptions sone compelling reason why dentity ndidentity alience cannot imply e inferredfrom ocial ocations.

In brief, he dentity-theoretic odel sdifferent rom ole-conflictnd status ncon-sistency models and opens up differentopportunities hando those models. he pos-sibilities f thismodel re exhibited nrecentwork on gender-related opics Simon 1995;Stets 1995a,1995b;Thoits 1986).Ever here,however, heopportunities re not exploitedthoroughly, n part because of imitations ncurrent easurement pproaches omultipleidentities.

To visualize those opportunities, wereview recent ttempt oapply dentity he-ory to theorizing nd research on socialmovements Stryker 000).As noted earlier,students f social movements ecently aveborrowed from ocial identity heory heconcept of identity s identification ithsocial category Tajfel 1982).This concept,andthe oncept f ollective dentity s a cul-tural mergent rom he nteraction f socialmovementmembers, re keys to the itera-ture on "new social movements" Larana,Johnston, nd Gusfield 995). ndeed, omesociological students of movements haveused identity heory's oncept of identitysalience to explain why persons oin socialmovements McAdam and Paulsen 1993).None of these efforts, owever, dequatelytreat variations n rates nd kinds of move-ment members' participation n movementactivities. one deal successfully ith ues-tions such as the reasons for variation n

members' willingness o contribute money,time, r other resources-including isk oflife-to a movement.

Suchquestions anbe approachedwithconception of self composed of multipleidentities ied o participation n networks fsocialrelationships r in groupswith oten-tially ifferent gendasand expectations ormembers, ach affected y perceptions ele-vant o the elf. his onception isualizes hepossibility, ven the ikelihood, f competi-tion among dentities. y recognizing heinterplay f multiple dentities, n analyst anaccount for variation n persons' participa-tion in social movements by reference oways n which ommitments nd identitiesreinforce, onflict ith, r are ndependent fone another.

This llustration an be generalized. nysocial network r group s likely o containmembers and the larger the network orgroup, he more ikely t is to include uchpersons) whose membership n other net-works or groups may create dentities hateither einforce r impede variousforms fparticipation. lthough this nsight s notnew, ts use has been limited; t could beapplied widely not only o spousaland par-ent-child elationships, ut also to broaderkin, eligious, oluntary ssociational, oliti-cal, and any other ypeof relationship hatallowsvariation n levelsor kinds f partici-pation.

Amplifying xpectation tates Theoryand Status Characteristics Theory.Sociologicalsocial psychologists urrentlyrun he risk-visible n the work f our psy-chological ounterparts-of reating umer-ous specialized heories odeal with quallynumerous pecialized esearch opics. hesetheories onot ppear obearmuch elation-ship o one another. hat riskmust e avoid-ed if possible; hus he relating f deas across

specialized theoretical nd research radi-tions s valuable. Bringing dentity heoryinto he framework f expectation tates he-ory Berger 988; Fisek, erger, nd Norman1995;Ridgeway nd Berger 986) and statuscharacteristics heory Berger, et al. 1972;Foschi 1989;Wagner nd Berger 1993) canhelp clarify entral rocesses mphasized nthese heories see Stets nd Burke 1996).


10/15


Within he dentity heory ormulation,value or worth an be conceived s a cogni-tive ttribution ade to those resources hatallowself-verification. mong he mportant

resources ncorporated nto participant'sidentity tandards or he ccomplishment fa shared goal are the skills nd the perfor-mance evels of the participants hemselves.Participants ayattribute alue to the ndi-viduals including hemselves)who possessthese resources, thus according status,respect, and esteem to those individuals(again including hemselves). Participantswho receive tatus, espect, nd esteem rom

other articipants ill hemselves e aided nthe elf-verification rocess. n turn, hey relikely o accord tatus, espect, nd esteem ootherswhohelp ntheir wn elf-verification.

Identity heory einforces he dea that nthe absence of specific nformation boutskills nd performance evelsrelevant o thetask, participants n a group that seeks tosolve a collective problem will draw uponculturalmemory ontained n previous tatusand esteem llocations o obtain nformationabout possible resources vailable for thetask t hand. n this ense, tatus, espect, ndesteem are symbolic; they representresources otentially vailablefor uccessfulaccomplishment f the ask nd thus or elf-verification Ridgeway and Berger 1986;Ridgeway, Johnson, nd Diekema 1994).Manipulation f symbols nd resources norder o obtain oals san mportant unctionof identities Freese and Burke 1994). Indoing his, dentities reatevalue; nd by cre-ating value, dentities an both ncrease helevel of commitment o groups hatunderliethe dentities nd increase their alience-that s, he ikelihood hat hese dentities illbe activated n other ituations.

Challenges

An immediate hallenge s entailed nsuggestingways n which the two parts ofidentity heory re inked. t lies n designingand conducting research examining howcommitment o networks f social relation-ships and identity alience affects dentitystandards nd perceptions f self-relevantmeanings, nd viceversa.Here,however, eare interested n a larger question: What

work needs to be done beyond his mmedi-ate challenge o extend he range nd applic-ability f dentity heory?

One critical ask s to find ways f mple-

menting n research esigns he conceptualand theoretical nsights ttached o a viewofself as composed of multiple dentities.6There s good reason o believe hat he feed-back processes modeled by Burke need toaccommodate uch multiple dentities.Wesuggest that self-verification processesinvolving single dentity ill hemselves eaffected y the existence f other dentitiesimplicated n self-relevant eanings nd/or

identity tandards.7 either ocial life norself-cognitionsonsist f elements omplete-ly solated rom ne another ther han ena-lytically.

Certainly here s reason to believe thatthe postulated inks between commitmentand identity alience, nd between dentitysalience nd rolebehavior, or given denti-ty iedto a givennetwork f socialrelation-shipswillbe affected y other dentities nd

other roupmemberships. s suggested ar-lier, however, esearch o date generally asnot faced squarely the implications f the"multiple identities" conceptualizationexcept n the imited ase of pairs f conflict-ing identities uch as of spouse and laborforce articipant. n such case,oppositionalroleexpectations,dentity tandards, nd per-ceptions of self-relevant meanings an beascertained airly eadily.

The reason s so is obvious: he greaterthe number f related dentities, hegreaterthe difficulty f dealing imultaneously ithrelationships mong hem. here s no clearway of attacking he ssue at hand. Perhapsthis ssue could be handled by adapting heBurke nd Reitzes 1981)technique f estab-lishing ommonality f meanings f dentityand behavior to establish commonality fmeanings mong arge(r) numbers f denti-ties.8 r perhaps his hallenge ould be met

6Again,one mustkeep in mind hat multiple den-tities" s not equivalent o "multiple oles."

7 This iS one area in which Burke's (1997) simula-tion of network exchange with an identity heorymodel needed further evelopment to match someempirical utcomes.

8 Stets 1995b)suggested inking dentities hroughshared meanings.


11/15

IDENTITY THEORY 293

by following the procedures adopted inexpectation tates heory o combine he ta-tus mplications f multiple tatus haracter-istics (Berger, Rosenholtz, and Zelditch

1980).A second ritical hallenge s to developmeasures f identity meanings nd identitysalience hat re independent f self-reportsand that an be utilized n nonexperimentalresearch.Given the conceptions f identityand dentity alience s cognitive chemas, swell as contemporary nteractive omputer-based interviewing echnology, e envisionan interesting ossibility: heuse of priming

procedures nd response atency measurescommon n experimental ognitive ocialpsychological esearch o measure both theexistence and the salience of identities(Baldwin 1994;Fazio, et al. 1982;Higgins,Strauman, nd Klein 1986;Markus nd Wurf1987).Cognitive chemas nhance he peedandaccuracy f recognizing timuli elated othe chemas relative o unrelated timuli) swell as increasing torage nd recall of these

cues; it can be argued that greater espon-siveness o dentity-related ues ncreases helikelihood that dentity-relevant ehaviorwill be enacted-that is, that atency s adirectmeasure f dentity alience.

Again, given ontemporary echnology,we see no great ifficulty ither npresentingverbal r pictorial ues related nd unrelatedto identities, or in measuring intervalsbetween xposure ocues and recognition f

cues. n addition, y using imilar roceduresand requiring apid evaluation of identity-related ues as affectively ositive r nega-tive, we can obtain a measure of thepsychological centrality or importance(Rosenberg 979) of an identity, hichmea-sure s accomplishedn a manner hat voidsself-reports nd that s ndependent f denti-ty alience.

Another hallenge ies in developingclearer nd more omplete nderstanding fdifferent asesof dentity. ocial dentity he-ory has focused n category-based dentities(e.g., lackor white, hristian r Jew); denti-ty heory as focused rimarily n role-basedidentities e.g., arent r child, eacher r stu-dent). To some extent, oth have discussedperson-based dentities uch as dominance,honesty, r perseverance. t maybe that ach

basis of dentity as stronger r weaker iesto various sychological utcomes. princi-pal outcome f category-based dentities, orexample, may be self-esteem or the lack

thereof, epending n whether he categoryis valued positively r negatively y the per-sonor byothers n the person's nvironment.Self-efficacyspeciallymayreflect uccessfulrole performance nd the approbation ofrole partners; eelings f authenticity ayresult rom he bility o verify ersonal den-tities cross roles nd situations.

A further, ritical hallenge ies in theneed to detail more explicitly ow emotions

fit nto heframework f dentity heory. heresources ormeeting his need are diverse:they nclude Cooley's (1902) distinctionbetween the more biologically ased emo-tions nd the more ocially ased sentiments;Goffman's 1959) ideas regarding he cen-trality f elf n the production f entiments;Kemper's 1991) structural heory rguingthe emotional onsequences of changes npersons' changes n power and status posi-

tions n social structure; nd the modeling fthe role of sentiments n the management fidentity meanings n affect ontrol heory(Smith-Lovin 995).

Relevant o this hallenge s the work fHiggins, ond, et al. (1986)showing hatdif-ferent ypes f dentity tandards ead to dif-ferent ypes of emotional response whenself-verification ails. his resarch ocuses nfailures o meet tandards omposed f oth-

ers' expectations f what one ought o do,which esult n anxiety, nd failures o meetself-generateddealstandards, hich esult ndepression. erhaps other ypes f identitystandards an be distinguished, mplicatingother inds f emotional esponses.

Researchers should explore the emo-tional onsequences f failures n self-verifi-cation n relation o various ther imensionsof identity tandards-public and private,individual nd group, upervised nd unsu-pervised, racticed nd new, igher nd owerin the dentity ierarchy. ertainly, oo,theother ide of the self-verification nd emo-tional response needs to be explored.Whatare the emotional roducts f successful er-ification f self-standards? s it necessarilyand generally orrect o assume hat elf-ver-ification roduces ositive ffect?


12/15

294 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGYQUARTERLY

Finally, tryker 1987)has proposed hatemotional utbursts uring ocial nteractioncan serve s surprise ignals, o the elf, f thepreviously nrrecognized alienceof identi-

ties underlying he nteraction. et, we needto explore moregenerally nd morefully heimplications f a wide variety f emotionsand their expression for commitment,salience, elf-verification, nd the bufferingof stress. We believe hat hegreat ariety fideas about emotion mplicated n the fore-going discussion an be integrated nto anidentity heory that includes both socialstructural and internal self-processes.

Working n the premise hat this belief ssound,whether r not t s,promises o deep-en understandings f both elf-processesndemotional esponses nd to clarify ow theyrelate o one another.

Much work remains o be done in thenext millennium o meet these challenges,andbydoing o to bring s closer o complet-ing he askbegun y Mead (1934):providinga clear understanding f the reciprocal ela-tionships etween elf nd society.

REFERENCES

Alexander, C. Norman and Mary Glenn Wiley.1981. "Situated Activity and IdentityFormation." p.269-89 n SocialPsychology:SociologicalPerspectives, dited by MorrisRosenberg nd Ralph H. Turner. ew York:Basic Books.

Baldwin, Mark W. 1994. "Primed RelationalSchemas as a Source of Self-EvaluativeReactions."Journal f Social and ClinicalPsychology 3:380-403.

Berger, oseph. 988. Directions n ExpectationStates Research." Pp. 450-74 in StatusGeneralization: ew Theory nd Research,edited by Murray Webster, Jr., MarthaFoschi, et al. Stanford, CA: StanfordUniversity ress.

Berger, Joseph, Bernard P. Cohen, and MorrisZelditch, r. 972. Status haracteristics nd

Social Interaction." merican ociologicalReview 7:241-55.Berger, oseph, usan J. Rosenholtz, nd Morris

Zelditch. 1980. "Status OrganizingProcesses." Annual Review of Sociology6:479-508.

Burke, Peter J. 1980. "The Self: MeasurementImplications rom Symbolic nteractionistPerspective." ocial Psychology Quarterly43:18-29.

* 1991."Identity Processes and SocialStress." American Sociological Review56:836-49.* 1997. An Identity Model for Network

Exchange."American ociologicalReview62:134-50.

Burke, Peter J. and Stephen L. Franzoi. 1988."Studying ituations nd Identities UsingExperiential Sampling Methodology."American ociologicalReview 3:559-68.

Burke, eter J. nd Louis N. Gray. 999. WhereForward-Looking nd Backward-LookingModels Meet." Computational andMathematical rganization heory :75-96.

Burke, eter J. nd Donald C. Reitzes. 981. TheLink Between Identity and Role

Performance." ocial Psychology uarterly44:83-92.1991. An Identity heoryApproach o

Commitment." ocialPsychology uarterly54:239-51.

Burke, eter J. nd Jan E. Stets. 999. Trust ndCommitment hrough Self-Verification."SocialPsychology uarterly 2:347-66.

Burke, Peter J. and Judy Tully. 1977. "TheMeasurement of Role/Identity." ocialForces 5:881-97.

Calhoun, Craig. 1994. Social Theoryand the

Politics of Identity. Cambridge, MA:Blackwell.

Callero,Peter L. 1985. "Role-Identity alience."SocialPsychology uarterly 8:203-14.

Carver, Charles S. and Michael F. Scheier.1990."Principles f Self-Regulation: ction andEmotion." Pp. 3-52 in Handbook ofMotivation nd Cognition: oundations fSocial Behavior,Vol. 2, edited by E. ToryHiggins and Richard M. Sorrentino. NewYork:Guilford ress.

Cast, Alicia D. and Peter J. Burke. 1999."Integrating Self-Esteem into IdentityTheory." resented t the nnualmeetings fthe Pacific Sociological Association,Portland, R.

Cerulo, Karen A. 1997."Identity Construction:New ssues,New Directions." nnualReviewof Sociology 3:385-409.

Cooley, harlesH.1902.HumanNature nd SocialOrder. ew York: Charles cribner's ons.

Ellestad, une nd Jan . Stets. 998. Jealousy nd

Parenting: Predicting Emotions FromIdentity heory." ociological Perspectives41:639-68.

Emerson, ichard M. 1969. Operant Psychologyand Exchange Theory." Pp. 379-405 inBehavioral Sociology, dited by Robert L.Burgess and Don Bushell Jr. New York:ColumbiaUniversity ress.

1981."Social Exchange Theory." Pp.30-65 in Social Psychology: ociological


13/15

IDENTITY THEORY 295

Perspectives, dited by Morris Rosenbergand Ralph H. Turner. New York: BasicBooks.

Fazio, Russell H., J. Chen, E.C. McDonal, andSteven J. Sherman. 1982. "AttitudeAccessibility, Attitude-BehaviorConsistency, nd the Strength f the Object-Evaluation Association." Journal ofExperimental ocial Psychology 8:339-57.

Fisek, M. Hamit, Joseph Berger, nd Robert Z.Norman. 1995. "Evaluations and theFormation of Expectations." AmericanJournal f Sociology 01:721-46.

Foschi, Martha. 1989. "Status Characteristics,Standards, nd Attributions." p. 58-72 inSociological Theories in Progress: NewFormulations, dited by Joseph Berger,Morris Zelditch, Jr., nd Bo Anderson.Newbury ark, A:Sage.

Frank, Robert H. 1988. Passions Within eason:The Strategic Role of the Emotions. NewYork:Norton.

Freese, Lee. 1988. "The Very Thought ofResources." resented t annual meetings fthe American Sociological Association,Atlanta.

Freese, Lee and Peter J. Burke. 1994. "Persons,

Identities, nd Social Interaction." p. 1-24inAdvances n Group Processes, ol.11, dit-ed by Barry Markovsky, aren Heimer, ndJodiO'Brien.Greenwich, T: JAI.

Goffman, rving. 959. ThePresentation f Self nEveryday ife. GardenCity, Y:Doubleday.

Gross,Neal,AlexanderW.McEachern, nd WardS. Mason. 1958. "Role Conflict and ItsResolution." p.447-59 nReadings n SocialPsychology, dited by Eleanor E. Maccoby,Theodore M. Newcomb, and Eugene L.Hartley. ewYork:HenryHolt.

Heise, David R. 1977. "Social Action as theControl of Affect." Behavioral Science22:163-77.

1979.Understanding vents:Affect ndthe Construction of Social Action.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Higgins, . Tory, onald N. Bond,Ruth Klein, ndTimothy Strauman. 1986. "Self-Discrepancies nd Emotional VulnerabilityHow Magnitude, ccessibility, nd Type ofDiscrepancy nfluence Affect." ournal fPersonality nd SocialPsychology 1:5-15.

Higgins, . Tory, imothy trauman, nd RuthKlein. 1986."Standards nd the Process ofSelf-Evaluation: Multiple Affects fromMultiple tages." p. 23-63 n Handbook ofMotivation nd Cognition: oundations fSocial Behavior, edited by Richard M.Sorrentino nd E. Tory Higgins. ew York:Guilford ress.

Hill, Reuben. 1949. Families Under Stress:Adjustment o the Crisesof War Separationand Return. ew York:Harper.

Jackson, lton F and Peter J.Burke. 965. Statusand Symptoms of Stress: Additive andInteraction ffects." merican ociologicalReview 0:556-64.

James,William. 1890. Principles f Psychology.New York:Holt Rinehart nd Winston.

Kemper, heodore D. 1991. Predicting motionsFrom Social Relations." ocial PsychologyQuarterly 4:330-42.

Larana, Enrique, Hank Johnston, nd Joseph R.Gusfield. 995. NewSocial Movements:romIdeology to Identity. hiladelphia: TempleUniversity ress.

Lenski,Gerhard . 1954. Status rystallization:ANon-Vertical imension of SocialStatus."American ociological Review 9:405-13.

Lindesmith, lfred . and Anselm . Strauss. 956.SocialPsychology. ew York: Holt RinehartandWinston.

Linton, alph. 1936.TheStudy f Man. NewYork:Appleton-Century-Crofts.

MacKinnon,Neil J. 1994.Symbolic nteraction sAffect ontrol. lbany: UNY Press.

Markus, Hazel. 1977. "Self-Schemata and

Processing f Information bout the Self."Journal f Personality nd Social Psychology35:63-78.

Markus, Hazel and Elissa Wurf. 1987. "TheDynamic Self-Concept: A SocialPsychological erspective." nnual Reviewof Psychology 8:299-337.

McAdam, Doug and Ronnelle Paulsen. 1993."Specifying heRelationship etween ocialTies and Activism." American Journal fSociology 9:640-67.

McCall, George J. and J.L. Simmons. 1966.Identities nd Interactions. ew York: FreePress.

Mead, George H. 1934.Mind, Self and Society.Chicago:University f ChicagoPress.

Meltzer, Bernard N. 1972. "Mead's SocialPsychology." Pp. 4-22 in SymbolicInteraction: Reader n Social Psychology,edited by Jerome G. Manis and Bernard N.Meltzer. oston: Allyn nd Bacon.

Merton, obert K.1957. ocial Theory nd SocialStructure. lencoe, L:FreePress.

Molm, inda D.and Karen S. Cook. 1994. SocialExchange and Exchange Networks." Pp.209-35 nSociological erspectives n SocialPsychology, dited by Karen S. Cook, GaryAlanFine, ndJames .House.Boston:Allynand Bacon.

Nuttbrock, arry and Patricia Freudiger. 991."Identity alience and Motherhood: Testof Stryker's Theory." Social PsychologyQuarterly 4:146-57.


14/15


Osgood,CharlesE., George J. uci, nd Percy H.Tannenbaum. 1957. The Measurement fMeaning. Urbana: University of IllinoisPress.

Parsons, Talcott. 1949. The Structure f SocialAction.Glencoe, L: Free Press.Powers,William . 1973.Behavior: he Control fPerception. hicago:Aldine.

Reitzes, onald C. and Elizabeth J.Mutran. 995."Multiple Roles and Identities: FactorsInfluencing elf-Esteem Among Middle-Aged Working Men and Women." SocialPsychology uarterly 7:313-25.

Ridgeway, ecilia L. and Joseph Berger. 1986."Expectations, Legitimation, andDominance Behavior in Task Groups."

American ociological eview 1:603-17.1988."The Legitimation f Power andPrestige rders nTask Groups." p. 207-31in Status Generalization: ew Theory ndResearch, edited by Murray Webster, Jr.,Martha oschi, t al. Stanford, A: StanfordUniversity ress.

Ridgeway, ecilia L., Cathryn ohnson,nd DavidDiekema.1994.External tatus, egitimacy,and Compliance in Male and FemaleGroups." ocialForces 2:1051-1077.

Riley,Anna and Peter J. Burke.1995. Identitiesand Self-Verification n the Small Group."SocialPsychology uarterly 8:61-73.

Rosenberg, orris. 979. Conceiving he elf. NewYork:BasicBooks.

Schwartz,Michael and Sheldon Stryker. 970.Deviance, Selves and Others. Washington,DC: American ociological ssociation.

Serpe,Richard T. 1987. Stability nd Change nSelf:A Structural ymbolic nteractionistExplanation." ocial Psychology uarterly50:44-55.

Serpe,Richard . and Sheldon tryker. 987. TheConstruction f Self and Reconstruction fSocialRelationships." p.41-66 nAdvancesin Group Processes, edited by EdwardLawler and Barry Markovsky. reenwich,CT:JAI.

Simon,Robin W. 1995. Gender, Multiple Roles,Role Meaning, nd Mental Health."Journalof Health nd Social Behavior 6:182-94.

Smith-Lovin, ynn. 995. TheSociology fAffectand Emotion." Pp. 118-48 in SociologicalPerspectivesn Social Psychology, dited byKarenS.Cook,GaryAlanFine, nd James .House. Boston:Allyn nd Bacon.

Smith-Lovin, ynn and David R. Heise. 1988.Analyzing ocial Interaction: dvances nAffect ontrol Theory.New York: Gordonand Breach.

Snow, avidA. and PamelaE. Oliver. 995. SocialMovements nd Collective ehavior: ocialPsychological Dimensions and

Considerations." p. 571-600 n SociologicalPerspectivesn Social Psychology, dited byKaren Cook, Gary A. Fine, and James S.House. Boston:Allyn nd Bacon.

Stets,Jan E. 1995a. "Job Autonomy nd ControlOver One's Spouse: A CompensatoryProcess." Journal of Health and SocialBehavior 6:244-58.* 1995b. "Role Identities and Person

Identities: ender dentity, astery dentity,and Controlling ne's Partner." ociologicalPerspectives8:129-50.

* 1997. "Status and Identity n MaritalInteraction." ocial Psychology Quarterly60:185-217.

Stets,Jan E. and Peter J. Burke. 1996."Gender,

Control, nd nteraction." ocialPsychologyQuarterly 9:193-220.Stets, anE. and TeresaTsushima. 999. Identity

Theory, Emotions, and Mental Health."Presented at the annual meetings of theAmerican ociological ssociation, hicago.

Stryker, heldon. 1968."Identity alience andRolePerformance." ournal f Marriage ndthe amily :558-64.

1980.Symbolic nteractionism: SocialStructural Version. Menlo Park, CA:Benjamin ummings.

1987. "The Interplay of Affect andIdentity: Exploring the Relationships ofSocial Structure, ocial nteraction, elf, ndEmotion." resented t the nnual meetingsof the American SociologicalAssociation,Chicago.

2000. "Identity Competition: Key toDifferential Social Movement Involve-ment." in Identity, Self, and SocialMovements, p. 21-40 edited by SheldonStryker, imothy wens, nd Robert White.Minneapolis: niversity f Minnesota ress.

Stryker, heldon nd Anne Macke. 1978. StatusInconsistency nd Role Conflict." nnualReview f Sociology :57-90.

Stryker, heldon and Richard T. Serpe. 1982."Commitment, dentity alience, nd RoleBehavior: A Theory and ResearchExample." p. 199-218 n Personality, oles,and SocialBehavior, dited yWilliam ckesand Eric S. Knowles. New York: Springer-Verlag.

1994. "Identity Salience andPsychological Centrality: Equivalent,Overlapping, or Complementary Con-cepts?" Social Psychology Quarterly57:16-35.

Stryker, Sheldon and Anne Statham. 1985."Symbolic nteraction nd Role Theory." p.311-78 n Handbook of SocialPsychology,edited by Gardner Lindzey and EliotAronson.New York:RandomHouse.


15/15

IDENTITY THEORY 297

Tajfel,Henri. 982. Social Identity nd IntergroupRelations. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity ress.

Thoits, eggy A. 1983. "Multiple dentities ndPsychological Well-Being." AmericanSociological eview 9:174-87.1986. "Multiple dentities: xaminingGender and Marital Status Differences nDistress." American Sociological Review51:259-72.

1987. Negotiating ules." Pp. 11-22 inSpouse, Parent, Worker: On Gender andMultiple oles, dited y FayeJ. rosby. ewHaven:Yale University ress.

Tsushima, eresa nd Peter J. urke. 999. Levels,Agency, nd Control n the Parent dentity."

Social Psychology uarterly 2:173-89.Turner, alph. 1978. The Role and the Person."American ournal f Sociology 4:1-23.

Wagner, avid G.andJoseph erger. 993. StatusCharacteristics heory: The Growth of aProgram." p. 23-63 n Theoretical esearchPrograms: tudies n the Growth f Theory,

edited y Joseph erger, orris elditch, r.,et al. Stanford, CA: Stanford UniversityPress.

Wells, L. Edward and Sheldon Stryker. 988."Stability nd Change n Self Over the LifeCourse." Pp. 191-229 in Life-SpanDevelopmentnd Behavior, ol. 9, edited byPaul B. Bates, David L. Featherman, ndRichardM. Lerner. illsdale, J: rlbaum.

Wiley, Mary Glenn. 1991."Gender, Work, ndStress: he Potential mpact f Role-IdentitySalience and Commitment." ociologicalQuarterly 2:495-510.

Sheldon tryker, istinguished rofessor f Sociology,ndianaUniversity-Bloomington,

has long-standingnterestsn a symbolic nteractionisterspectiven social psychologyemphasizingtructural onstraints n self nd the onsequences f elf nd n the evelop-ment nd test f dentity heory, eriving rom hat erspective. ast ditor f Sociometry(now ocialPsychology uarterly) nd the merican ociological eview, ecipientf heASA's Section n Social Psychology's ooley-Mead ward or ifetime ontribution osocialpsychologynd the ociety or he tudy f Symbolicnteraction ead Award orLifetime chievement,is urrent esearch, ith ichard erpe nd Matthew unt, nves-tigates he mpact f ocial tructuralocation n commitmentso ocialrelationships.

Peter J. Burke s Professor nd Research cientist t Washington tate UniversityndChair f he SA SocialPsychologyection. is current ork xtends dentity heoryntoareas f motion, roup elationsnd ocial earning. ecent ublications nclude Levels,Agency, nd Control n the Parent dentity" withT Tsushima) n SocialPsychologyQuarterly, 999, Trust nd Commitmentn n dentity erificationontext,"with . tets)in Social Psyc'hology uarterly, 000, nd "Identity heory nd Social dentity heory"(with . tets) n SocialPsychology uarterly, 000.

2000 stryker burke - past present future identity theory

Documents