Situated Identities and Social Psychological Experimentation Author(s): C. Norman Alexander, Jr. and Gordon W.

Knight Source: Sociometry, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Mar., 1971), pp. 65-82 Published by: American Sociological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2786351 . Accessed: 02/01/2011 19:28
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

Sociometry

1971, Vol. 34, No. 1, 65-82

Situated Identitiesand Social Psychological Experimentation*

C. NORMAN ALEXANDER, JR. AND GORDON W. KNIGHT Stanford University a newapproachto the conceptualization This paperintroduces and measureconditions and to the assessment mentof experimental of the meaningof dependent-variable in a givencondition. the results responses By simulating of a seriesof "insufficient and injustification" experiments, contradictory are accountedfor.The implications explicable findings and of the situation alternatives of available response forthe "situatedidentity" of the subjectactorare relatedto subject behavior. Withthe simplehypothesis that subjects attempt to createthe mostfavorable situatedidentities in experimental we are able to explainwhytheyanswred the dependent-variable encounters, questionas theydid and as observers estimated theywould do. Focusing on the salienceof situatedidentity attributes enables this approach,unlike to specify the differences that distinguish one experimental others, condition from another. We discussthe implications of thesefindings and recommend a new theoretical and methodological approachto experimentation in social psychology. Behaviorbecomesmeaningful social action when it is perceptually integratedinto a sharedinterpretive perspective (Heider, 1958; Mead, 1934). Attribution theoriessuggest that these explanatoryframesof reference importantly involve imputations about the dispositional characteristics of actors (Jonesand Davis, 1965; Kelley, 1967), while othertheorists have stronglyemphasizedthat social identityattributesorganize and orient interaction (Goffman, 1959, 1963; Strauss,1959). These variousperspectives suggestthe possibility of describing social activity in termsof the identity attributes of participants. In thispaper we proposeto conceptualize and measurethe definition and meaning of situations in termsof their"situatedidentity" implications for an actor's behavior.The term "situated identity"(Alexanderand Weil, 1969) designates the dispositional imputations about an individual that are conveyed by his actionsin a particular social context. When a personacts,
* This research was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (GS-2759, "Situational Meaning and Social PsychologicalExperimentation", C. Norman Alexander,Jr., Principal Investigator). 65

66

SOCIOMETRY

he communicates information about the kind of personhe presumesto be and obligesothersto regardhim as being that kind of person.In Mead's terminology, behaviors are "constituted" into action,because theyhave implications for the creation,affirmation, or transformation of an actor's situatedidentity. The social situation is conceptualized, from an actor'sperspective,as a range of possible identities entailed by the behavioralalternatives he confronts. For situationsto be socially definedthere must be relativeconsensus about the meaningof actions. Within a populationit is necessarythat there be someagreement about thedispositional dimensions thatare relevant to describean individual'sconduct,and about how a particular action is to be evaluated along those dimensions. When these conditions are met, thenwe can say that a situation has consensualmeaning or social reality. In essence,we will measuresocial situations by determining the situated identity implications conveyed by behavior within them. existsby thesecriteria, behaviorcan be predicted When a social situation if the situatedidentity that resultsfromthe choice of one action is more sociallydesirablethanthoseassociatedwithalternative actions: Individuals evaluated situated identity. should choose the most favorably Thus, our to the understanding of social action when becan contribute perspective havioralalternatives implydifferentially desirablesituatedidentities. Althoughwe do not presume that people spontaneously verbalize or theiractivityin these terms, we do assume that a consciously represent situatedidentity analysisadequatelydescribestheirnormative orientations in and interpretive toward conduct a social perspectives given Narcontext. fromeveryday life (Goffman, rativeincidents 1961, 1963), convinceus of and predictive theconceptual of thisapproach.Moreover, utility thespeculation and evidenceabout subjectorientations in social psychological experiments(Friedman,1967; Riecken,1962; Rosenthal,1966) make it imperative to deal systematically withsituational meanings. Afterrelating the situatedidentity to eventsin experimental perspective of somepuzzling we will apply it to the analysisand interpretation settings, of "insufficient and controversial findings justification" studies. Following of methods from our hypotheses, thepresentation and results a studytesting forexperimentation in social psychology. we will discusstheirimplications for futureresearchstrategies The paper concludeswith recommendations and fora shift in the focusof investigatory efforts. and SituatedIdentity Experimental Settings concernamong social psyIn recentyears there has been a growing the "meaning"to subjectsof experimental about understanding chologists

SITUATED IDENTITIES

AND THE EXPERIMENT

67

demonhas becomeacute because of the compelling The problem situations. in experito subtledifferences sensitive thatsubjectsare incredibly strations (Rosenthaland Rosnow,1969). actions,and expectations attitudes, menter are problems the questionof the accuracyof theiranticipations, Apartfrom proraised by the mere fact that subjects intuitpurposesand interpret events.When we add apprehension laboratory ceduresas they encounter 1965, 1969) (Rosenberg, formation or impression evaluations aboutpersonal that subjects it seemsinevitable sensitivity, interpersonal to thisheightened of theirbehaviorsand implications will be aware of the situatedidentity to them. attentive are the kind of social situations settings We suspectthat experimental concepts.Bem's that we proposeto measurein termsof situatedidentity to predictsubare able observers that "simulation" (1967) demonstration us to believe that this in experimental encourages settings jects' responses as showing simulations" "interpersonal successful is the case. We interpret that makes sense of framework interpretive that thereis some underlying It seemsobviousthat choiceseven undernovel circumstances. experimental of could not make consensual(much less "correct") estimations observers If subject responsesunless the action situationwere socially structured. of desirability the simulatedsituationsso clearlyconveysthe differential then it is likely that the actual situationcomresponsesto observers, to subjects. Indeed, Bem argues strongly municatedsimilarinformation cues to determine on the same situational rely and observers that subjects about the nature speculate not he does Although response. the appropriate them. we wantto specify of thesocial meanings, that literature the dissonance To testour ideas we selecteda studyfrom seriesof replicaand a complicated controversy has spawnedconsiderable tionsand simulations. a and Carlsmith's study (1959) requiredsubjects to perform Festinger dull, boring task, and-when a research assistant was "unexpectedly" naive subjectthat the task was interesting an ostensibly absent-to inform and enjoyable.For lyingto the otherperson,subjectswere told that they $1 or $20, afterwhichtheyratedthe task. Those paid wouldbe paid either were more negativetowardthe $20 to make the positivetask-descriptions taskthanthosepaid $1 to say theylikedit. Dissonance (Brehm and Cohen, 1962; Festinger,1957) predictsthis withmaking is moredissonant task-attitude thata negative reasoning result, for it with Thus, the for than $20. making a positivetask description $1 toward their attitudes in the change $1,condition arguesthatsubjects theory of it. their characterizations with positive the task to be more consonant estimathe differences these using Bem replicated task-liking Subsequently,

68

SOCIOMETRY

events were depictedon tapetions of observersto whom experimental recordings, (1967). Because theywerecontrary to "common sense,"the results of the original study generatedconsiderableattentionand discussion.During the subsequent debate, interpretation of the resultshas shiftedto questionsof sufficient versusinsufficient justification forbehavior.Such concerns are in closeaccordwithattribution theories (Jonesand Davis, 1965; Kelly, 1967). These theorieswould suggest that subjects sought a socially acceptable rationalefortheirlyingbehaviors. In highpayment conditions the external incentive itselfafforded such a rationale;while in low payment conditions subjectsresorted to internal explanations. When the external incentives were absent,subjectsattempted to account for theirconductby increasing reported(and perhaps"felt") task-liking. Carlsmith, Collins, and Helmreich(1966) replicatedand extendedthe and Carlsmith interFestinger withvariations thatare of considerable study, est. Half theirsubjectswerepaid from $.50 to $5.00 to tell a naive subject that the dull experimental task was interesting, thus essentially duplicating the originalexperimental conditions. The otherhalf wrotean anonymous the task,but the essaywouldbe seen onlyby the essay,similarly describing experimenter. the Festinger and Carlsmith results in the "face Although theyreplicated increasedwithincentive in the Essay condito face" condition, task-liking tions. They conclude that under some conditions increasing pressurefor leads to smalleramountsof attitudechange,whileunderothers compliance is the crucial it produces morechange."What remains unspecified, however, the and conditions" difference between role-play essay-writing (Carlsmith, et al., 1966,p. 12). Despite a good deal of speculative of their interpretation I as well as subsequentempiricalwork (Helmreichand Collins, results remainunspecified. 1968) these kinds of crucial differences It seems unlikely to us that further attemptsto reconciledissonanceand incentive of theseresults will be successful. theory interpretations conditions as well as the betweenexperimental The crucial differences can be explained choicesmade by subjectsin each condition by our situated that the responsealternatives of the We hypothesize identity perspective. evaluated situated task-liking question are associated with differentially one in each and thatsubjectschose the mostfavorable identity attributions condition.
1 For example, see the papers by J. Merrill Carlsmith, Irving L. Janis, Barry E. Collins, and Milton J. Rosenberg,in Robert P. Abelson et al., 1968:801-833.

SITUATED IDENTITIES AND THE EXPERIMENT

METHOD

69

conditions to We createdtape recordings of the fourbasic experimental studies.The simulate the essentialfeatures of the "insufficient justification" tapes depicta naive subject,"Bob Downing",spending an hourperforming two dull, boringtasks-stackingspools on a tray and turning pegs on a board.After doingthis,he is givena minimal explanation of the study: He is told that he has been a subject in the experiment's controlgroup,in whichsubjectsare toldnothing about the tasksahead of time; in the treatmentgroups, however, subjectsare initially led to expectthat the tasks are fun.Treatment groupexpectations are createdby a ResearchAssistant who pretends to be a subjectjust completing his participation in the study.He describes the tasks as interesting, exciting, enjoyable,and fun.The alleged purposeof the studyis to investigate the effects of task expectations on subjects'performances. Followingthis explanation,the experimenter requests Bob to give a favorable description of the tasks he performed; Bob agrees to do so, and providesa ratherenthusiastic presentation. Finally,he is asked to report how enjoyablehe actually foundthe tasks to be (on an 11-pointscale: verydull and boring-veryinteresting and enjoyable). The manipulations that differentiate the conditions concern(1) how muchmoneyBob is paid to makethe favorable task descriptions, and (2) the natureof his presentational encounter. et al. (1966), levels Incentive Manipulation:To replicatethe Carlsmith, of payment and avoid the extraordinarily high $20.00 paymentutilizedin and Carlsmith the original Festinger experiment (1959), we had the experiand $5.00 in the others. menter offer Bob $.50 in one set of conditions Bob is asked to tell an Encounter Manipulation:In one set of conditions, naive subject that the tasks are enjoyable.It is explainedthat ostensibly assistant (who usually sets this is necessarybecause the experimenter's absent and a "treatment condition"subject is unfortunately expectations) This condition, "Face Encounter", is intendedto is waitingto participate. and the "role-playing" conditionof the replicatethe originalexperiment In the "Essay Encounter"Bob is asked to writea favorable replication. and dictateit into a tape recorder task description providedby the experimenter.It is explained that his favorableimpressions will provide the scriptfor a researchassistantwho will later describethe tasks to naive conditions. subjectsin thetreatment an Interpersonal is essentially SimulaUp to this point,our experiment et al., (1966). Observers(our subjects) tion (Bem, 1967) of Carlsmith, hear one of the tapes, including Bob's favorabledescription of the tasks,

70

SOCIOMETRY

question. task-liking on thepost-experimental his response thentheyestimate how observers designby informing the experimental we extended However, question.After the task-liking the "Bob" theyheardhad actuallyanswered of what Bob was like as a for theirimpressions this,we asked observers person. Bob-LikingManipulation: Observerswere told Bob's responseto the following question: "How enjoyablewere the tasks? Indicate your feeling pointon theline below:" an appropriate by checking
-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

+1

+2

+3

+4

+5

Very Dull and Boring

Neutral Feelings

Very Interesting and Enjoyable

were told that he actually observers how Bob responded, Afterestimating - 2 to + 2. on thescale,from checked one (of five)position contains20 cells in a 2 x 2 x 5 design: Incentive Thus, our experiment Afterhearingone of the tapes and learning by Bob-Liking. by Encounter rated him on 25 Bi-polar scale, observers how Bob checkedthe task-liking Dimensions. Finallytheycircledthe tenadjectivestheyconsidered Adjective of Bob. overallimpression their to forming and important mostrelevant Pre-TestData problemsthat seemed critical,we conTo resolvesome methodological distort thatwe might First,we wereconcerned ductedan extensive pre-test. bias in selectof Bob by an unintended evaluations the "situatedidentity" of having obing the adjectives.Second,we were skepticalof the effects responseprior to being told how he serversestimateBob's task-liking our tapes to we presented "actually" respondedto that scale. Therefore, and used their 150 high school subjects in classroom administrations of theexperiment. thefinalversion to construct responses in the Anderson the morethan 800 wordscontained from By eliminating thatwereclearly (1968) and Goughand Heilbrun(1965) lists thoseterms the pre-test attribute down we narrowed inventory or redundant, irrelevant Bob in any of the characterize to 100 adjectives that mightpotentially Pre-testsubjectsheard one of the tapes and conditions. fourexperimental were asked to cross out those adjectivesthat they foundirrelevant;they to describeBob. Their responses circledthe ten adjectivesmost important in all conditions, relevant showedthat sixteenadjectiveswere descriptively We inin one or moreof the conditions. relevant whilesix morewerehighly and warm) to bringthe totalon the finallist cludedtwomore (independent

SITUATED IDENTITIES AND THE EXPERIMENT

71

to form to 25. The selectedadjectiveswerepaired withtheirantonyms bipolar scales of 51 points. Secondly,we anticipatedthat observers mightattemptto justifytheir initialestimate of Bob's task-liking responses whenlater confronted witha discrepant reportof "Bob-Liking".Since we desiredboth the estimates of Bob's task-liking and the identityreactionsto the reportedBob-Liking, we wantedto gather bothif we could avoid contaminating the latter.Thereforewe variedthe manner in whichfeedback on Bob-Liking(either- 3 or
-

1) was presented.

One-third of pre-test subjectswere asked to estimateBob's task-liking, and then selectedadjectivesrelevantto dewere told his actual response, weretold to "thinkabout" (but not writedown) scribehim.Another third how Bob wouldhave responded to the task-liking question; then,theywere toldhowhe responded and asked to pick relevant adjectives. The finalthird wereimmediately told how Bob "actually" responded, without havingestiin "relemated or thought about his feelings. We did not finddifferences the responsesof these three feedback vance" selectionswhen comparing groupsacrossthe twoBob-Liking conditions. in the withinthe limitedrangeof Bob-Likings Furthermore, investigated in selection of relevant pretest(-1, -3), the variation adjectivesby Bobwas substantially less than the Incentiveand Encounter Likingconditions That is, we foundthat Bob's response to the taskmanipulations produced. the attributes affect chosenas important likingquestiondid not appreciably of him. This tells us that Bob's reported an overallimpression to forming is muchless important forimpression response formation than the circumstancesunderwhichhe makes that response. Thus, we decidedthat asking of Bob's task-liking forpriorestimates experimental observers response would not bias theirsubsequent evaluationof his reported behavior. in SociallyDesirableSituatedIdentities Dependent-Variable Differences of task-liking in each of the four the mean estimations Table 1 presents definedby Incentiveand Encountermanipulations. The data conditions the significant conditional differences foundin the original clearlyreproduce simulation of FACE conditions studiesand the interpersonal experimental thereis an inverserelationship between (Bem, 1967). In FACE conditions and estimated incentive magnitude task-liking (p<.01); whileESSAY conditions showa directrelationship (<.01). Table 2 showsthe overallratingof "Bob Downing"on all 25 adjective and Bob-Liking dimensions-by Incentive, Encounter, manipulations. Evaluative ratings were scoredon a 51-point scale, withthe morefavorable pole (Anderson, 1968) of the dimension receiving the higherrating.There are

72

SOCIOMETRY
TABLE 1 Means of Estimated Task Liking-By Encounter arndIncentive Conditions
Encounter Incentive* Face Essay
-

$ .50 $5.00

+
-

.60(7a) 1.13(75)

.54(75)

+ 1.21(75)

*Differencesby Incentive within each encountercondition are significant at the .01 level by one-tailedT tests,not assumingequal variances.

dimensions.

highlysignificant differences withineach condition as a function of Bob's reported task-liking. Comparing theseimpression scoreswith the values in Table 1, it is evident thatBob receives the mostfavorable evaluations(30.0 or above) whenhe reportedly checksthe task-liking closestto the response estimated mean. This is truein all conditions. We can get a betteridea of the corrspondence betweenBob's dependentif we calculateevaluationscores variableresponses and his situatedidentity foronlythe mostrelevant attribution dimensions. Since the adjectivesthat an overallimpression observers to forming of Bob differed pickedas critical as a function substantially of Incentiveand Encountermanipulations, we calculatedBob's situatedidentity scoreson the ten most frequently chosen adjectiveswithin each of the fourbasic conditions. The graphsof Figure 1 illustrate the resultswe obtained: The top row shows the percentages of observers who estimated Bob's task-liking to be at one of the scale response positionsfrom-2 to +2, and the bottomrow presentsthe mean of observers' evaluations of Bob on the ten"Most conditionally relevant" identity

TABLE 2 Mean Evaluations of "Bob Downing" on All Adjective Pairs-By Encounter, Incentiveand Bob-Liking Conditions
Bob's ReportedLiking Response Encounter Incentive - 2 - 1 0 + 1 + 2 Significanceof Differences*

Face:

$ .50 $5.00

20.6 24.0 24.6 17.8

24.3 33.6 29.4 23.9

28.6 25.8 31.4 29.4

30.5 23.0 30.8 30.7

25.7 24.3 26.3 28.5

Essay:

p < .01 p < .01 p < .01 p < .01

$ .50 $5.00

* There are 15 cases per cell; significance levels determinedby one-way analysis of with (4,70) degreesof freedom. variance across Bob-likingconditions,

SITUATED IDENTITIES
FACE Encounter:
a) Estimated Liking of Tasks 100-1

AND THE EXPERIMENT

ESSAYEncounter:
100-1

73

6045-

6045|

Incentive:

$5.00-..--

30JI

b
4-

30 30

-2 Liking b) Evaluations --based uponthe 10 MostConditionally RelevantDimensions Incentive: 51-i 40'A 30<-

-1

+1

+2

-2 Liking 51-i

-1

+1

+2

3-

i
--30%No

, " r

40-

$ .50 U-on $5.00

20,>42

U 20-

2o

0-1 Liking

0-, Liking

-2

-1

+1

+2

-2

-1

+1

+2

FIGURE 1 of Response Estimationsand IdentityEvaluations Distribution

involvesthe strikingly parallel curves between The criticalcomparison theestimated task-liking peaks thetworows.Note thatin all fourconditions at the same positionas the most favorablesituated identityevaluation. of an individual'sresponseto the situation estimations Judgesdistribute in much the same way. and favorableevaluationsof his situatedidentity thanin Table 2, One-way of Varianceshowedhighly Even stronger Analysis in meanevaluations(p<.01) amongBob-Liking differences catesignificant by Incentivecondition. goriesin each Encounter as Bob-Liking themean In addition to evaluations approximates increasing consensusalso increases.When the interobserver of estimatedtask-liking, response,Bob receives Bob-Likingdivergesfromthe expectedtask-liking evaluations. is displayed and moredisparate unSuch a pattern less positive rate him less Bob-Likingis decidedly"deviant",in which case observers with ratherlow standard and negatively. Negative identities consensually as -2 in both FACEaccrueto Bob whenhis likingis reported deviations $.50 and ESSAY-$5.00 conditions. in the FACE conditions Since experimental results have been explained in terms of Bob along of "insufficient justification", we shalllook at theratings the justified-unjustified dimension. Table 3 presentsthese data by Incen-

74

SOCIOMETRY TABLE3

Dimension in Face ConditionsMean Evaluations of "Bob Downing" on Justification By Incentiveand Bob-Liking

Bob's ReportedLiking Response Incentive -2 -1 0 + 1 + 2 of -Significance Differences*

$ .50 $5.00

14.6 33.6

23.2 37.0

30.1 30.4

32.8 26.4

34.3 25.9

p < .01 p < .05

levels determinedby One-Way Analysis of *There are 15 cases per cell; significance with (4,70) degreesof freedom. Variance across Bob-Liking conditions,

In the $.50 condition, Bob is seen as more tive and Bob-Likingfeedback. justified to the extentthat he likes the task, althoughthe major drop in his justification score occursonly whenhe marksa negativescale position. whenhe checksthe -1 task-liking In the$5.00 condition he is mostjustified These ratwhenhe has positivetask attitudes. response and least justified (Figof task-liking estimations correspond to the distribution ings roughly ratings ure 1), but theyare less closelyrelatedto themthan the composite of Bob on the tenmostrelevant adjectives. as one dimension of evaluativerelevance We prefer to regard justification in but it is not the onlyone, and these action thatcharacterizes situations; as one, we will show later. Explainingbeit is not even the mostrelevant to a singlevariableis just too simple.Betterpredichaviorsby reference of relevant, disituated-identity tions resultwhen the total configuration discussion, we shall further mensionsis considered.Afterthe following natureof theseexperimental situations. the multidimensional explore
Discussion

are able to consensually estimate Thus far,we have shownthatobservers has a rather who complex the responsesof a stimulusperson undergone we have simuin a novel,laboratory seriesof experiences setting. Thereby, thatprevious differences by FACE and ESSAY encounters lated theincentive corstudieshave found.We also have shownthat thereis an impressive curves for estimatedtask-liking and betweenthe distribution respondence evaluations. We proposethat people are able thoseforthe situatedidentity because theyshare and evaluations to make theseestimations consensually It is because the potentialtask-likings structures. common convey symbolic are able to prethat individuals evaluatedsituatedidentities differentially dict the appropriate response;that is, the one that is associatedwith the evaluation. mostfavorable the distributions of identity Fromour perspective, the similarity between

SITUATED IDENTITIES AND THE EXPERIMENT

75

desireis causal: Concernto maximize and task-liking responses evaluations task-liking. determines the dependent-variable, able identityimpressions evaluathe situatedidentity of thiscausual orderwouldinterpret A reversal of behavior; Bob being rated highly tionsin termsof the appropriateness characterized fordeviance.Howand unfavorably foran expectedresponse because it does not specify any bases ever,we mustrejectthisinterpretation a way to meastheir nordoes it suggest expectation, peopleform uponwhich ure them. enthe situatedidentities conveyed by behavorialalternatives Measuring bias implicit whether thereis a "social desirability" ables us to determine show that responses.Our findings in the selectionof dependent-variable as are reeffects, subjects'actions can be subject to "social desirability" and attitudescales. From the subinventories sponseson some personality may include"face saving"or "image enhancexperiments ject's standpoint, of the expericonsequences thatare unintentional alternatives ing" response mentaldesign. were clearlyassociated evaluativeoutcomes In the studieswe examined, cast "Bob decidedly Some responses alternatives. withthedependent-variable unflattering light,while othersmade him a Downing" into an extremely are drawn from most appealing fellow.Since evaluativecharacterizations he may not be the subject'sresponse, and he can expectthemto be drawn, primarily to the directquestion: "How muchdid you enjoy the responding question: "What kindof personare you? tasks?" but rather to the implicit response." Indicateby checking a task-liking of the "insufficient There are good reasonsfor adoptingan explanation situatedidentities. Our perstudiesin termsof participants' justification" and no data in all simulation conditions, spectiveexplainsthe estimation othertheory reallyaccountsforany of it. In orderto extendthis explanato of resultsfrom it is onlynecessary the laboratory, tionto the prediction as otherssee them.It seemsreasonable assume that people see themselves subjectswould be even that personally apprehensive involved, evaluatively impliedby their of the situatedidentities more consciousthan observers explain we can parismoniously behaviors. Thus, fromthe same perspective we can deal both the simulation and the experimental data. Furthermore, of responses means,but also withthe distribution not onlywithconditional (see Figure1). forapproaching the measSituatedidentity also providesa methodology termsthat symbolicinteracoperationalizing of social situations, urement the "meaning"of for decades. It quantifies have used intuitively tionists situatedactivity and social action.The approachyieldsdata to replace the and measuremanipulations, settings, about what experimental speculation

76

SOCIOMETRY

ments meanto subjectswhoexperience them;and, consequently, howexperimenters oughtto interpret them. This section has shownthat differentially evaluatedsituatedidentities are conveyedby the action alternatives that people choose. The next section will demonstrate that changesin the conditions of the experiment alter the relevantand important dimensions of evaluation.Thus, we turnattention fromthe way situatedidentities determine dependent-variable responsesto the relationship between situatedidentities and independent variables. in SituatedIdentity Independent VariableDifferences Sets In additionto the evaluativecharacterizations (situated identities)that of the situation resultfrom a subject'sactions,the social context establishes dimensions therelative salienceof attribution forimpression This formation. of a social situation implies thatthebasic contours can be described in terms of the configuration of situatedidentity dimensions that are important for shapingan actor'simage.And it raisestheprospect thatwe may be able to measurethe points of comparability and discrepancy among experimental conditions. of adjectivesto forming relevance the differential Table 4 presents overall Incentive. The leftside of thetableshows impressions of Bob-by Encounter who circledan the percent of subjectsin each of the fourbasic conditions side of the table shows The right adjectiveas amongthe ten mostrelevant. in the selection conditions the significance of differences between of revelant and inclusion of adjectiveswas determined adjectives.The ordering by the differentiated or with which .05 between significance they (p < Ensmaller) counteror Incentiveconditions. in the identity differences dimenIt is evidentthat thereare pronounced each of the four conditions sions relevantto impression formation, providconfirm set. Some of the relevantdimensions "common ing a distinctive situations and it is comsense" notionsabout how the experimental differ; thesespeculations about situational to have evidenceto substantiate forting The attributes of friendliness, and likeability meaning. warmth, pleasantness, in FACE encounters, to Bob's situatedidentity formation are morerelevant is more important in ESSAY. Similarly, whereasintelligence Materialism saliencewith the higherincentive. have greater and Justification From an it is not surprising that these factorsdistinguish intuitive standpoint the situations. experimental is thenatureand number What is surprising and disturbing of dimensions that significantly differentiate Incentiveconditions. When different incentivelevelsalterbasic social imputations likeintelligence, pleasantness, sportsmanship,sincerity, positiveness, cooperativeness, flexibility, independence,

SITUATED

IDENTITIES

AND THE

EXPERIMENT

77

TABLE 4 Percent of Subjects SelectingDimensions Among the "Ten Most Relevant" to CharacterizeBob-By Encounter and Incentive Conditions
Percent (%) of Subjects Selecting Dimensionas Relevant Ditmellsion* Essay Face $ .50 $5.00 $ .50 $5.00 of Differences Significance Between Conditionsby Chi Square Encounter: Face vs. Essay Incentive: $ .50 vs. $5.00

Friendly-Unfriendly Warm-Cool Mature-Immature Active-Passive Likeable-Disagreeable Materialistic-Idealistic Intelligent-Simple Pleasant-Unpleasant

6O% 51 49 20 66 15 41 68

75%
51

44% 24

31% 35

p < .001
p < .001

ns
ns

28 45 63 61
25

21 53
52

24 51
53

p < .01 p < .01 p < .0.5 p < .01 p < .01 p < .02 ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

ns ns ns p < .001 p < .001 p < .01 p< p< p< p< p< p< p< .001 .01 .01 .01 .02 .05 .05

57
20

44 71 59 48 60
45 47 52

68 31 36 16 44
25 75

35 Sportsmanly-Unsportsmnanly 51 Sincere-Insincere Positive-Negative 48 Cooperative-Competitive 48 55 Flexible-Rigid 37 Justified-Unjustified 41 Independent-Depend-nt Self -Confident29 Self-Doubting

47
32

56
37

59 43 31

35 33 21

40 40 56 45

p < .05

* Relevance selections In addiwere made by 75 subjectsin each of the fourconditions. tion to the dimensionspresentedin the table, two were selected among the "Ten Most fredifferent Relevant" in at least one condition,but were not chosen with significantly quencies: Dependable-Undependableand Responsible-Irresponsible.

to question we are forced our intuitive about and self-confidence, impressions "should"have. In doingso, some fundathe effects thatincreased payment are challenged:the comparability mentalassumptions of experimentation of conditions and theirdifferentiation along a singlevariableof manipulativeinterest.
Discussion

To assigncausal influence reward(payment)requires that to differential all else be heldconstant magnitude itself. Our identity exceptforthereward imputation data show that changingone "element"in the social context changesthe meaningof the situationand of actions taken in it. That is, univariate value (fromthe experimenter's point of changesin the stimulus values (fromsubjects'perview) effect multi-variate changesin stimulation changeswith conditional spectives).The "meaning"of subjects'responses

78

SOCIOMETRY

manipulations, because of changesin the "kind of person"theybecomeby choosingamongavailable responsealternatives. When the meaning of the situation and situatedidentity of implications responses with changesin "the" independent vary in conjunction variable, thennotonlyis thecomparability of conditions questionable; but theability to assign causal influence to the intendedmanipulation is also weakened. In one sense,experiments createdifference populations of "persons"to participatein each of the experimental conditions by creating different situated identity "sets". Conventional "checks"on the effectiveness of manipulations are of littlevalue, because-while assessingwhether at least the intended effect occurred-they do not determine whether multiple changeshave been effected. There is a distinct that manylaboratory possibility studiesin social psyat all: in the sense that we cannotatchology may not be "experiments" tributecausal influence to a single manipulated variable nor specifythat in all but one respect.If "money"has such exconditions are comparable tensive it seemslikelythatotherforms effects, of differential reward(social electric even morewidespread approval, shock,etc.) wouldgenerate changes. On the otherhand, it is possiblethat thesemultivariate effects occur only in certaintypesof experimental situations. For some tasks and responses, thesituated sets of subjectsmay not affect identity predictions or outcomes. The possibilities deserveseriousconsideration and empirical exploration in replications and theplanning of future studies. and causalitythat we have raised are not The issues of comparability themdirectly but to confront a revision irresolvable, of experimental requires that we, as experimenters, Ratherthan assuming practices. know the stimulationvalue and meaning of our manipulations to subjects, data oughtto be such manipulations have. We may then find that gatheredon the effects unrelated apparently manipulations producethe same resultsbecause they effect changesin the same identity dimensions. For example, we might wantto knowtheeffects of increased "justification" on task-liking forcounter-attitudinal statements data The present responses. do not allow us to separate those effects fromincreasedmaterialism, decreasedsincerity, and so on. However, we could justify Bob's behavior without involving pay: He could be "required"to describethe task favorably; he couldbe asked to help theexperimenter out of thebind forfree;he could be toldthatthewaiting and wouldnot be paid subjectcouldnot participate if someonedidn't give him the properexpectational set. Probably,any of thesewill justifyhis favorable and have additionaleffects task-description on therelevance of situated But a seriesof such manipuidentity attributes.

SITUATED IDENTITIES AND THE EXPERIMENT

79

lationsshouldaffect thesalienceof different attributes, leavingthehighrelevance of justification fairlyconstant. had conSuch a researchstrategy would show eitherthat justification or stanteffects, despitewide variations in the salienceof otherattributes, that its effects were contingent on otherdimensions being salient. In any situacase, thisapproachwould providea systematic means formeasuring tional contextand assessingthe total effects of the independent variable manipulations. It wouldalso directoperational attention to situatedidentity variables thatare usuallytreated discursively wheninterpreting experimental results.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The situatedidentity perspective conceivesof individualsas structuring for complexactivitiesand stimulisequencesin termsof theirimplication of a givenpopulation participants' dispositional attributes. When members consensually invokethe same dimensions to characterize actors,the attributional process creates socialsituations. Behavior is predicted if their is a "most favorable" alternasituated identity to be gainedfrom one of the behavorial tivesthatare possibleunderthecircumstances. to choose People are expected to becomethekindof personthatwillbe mosthighly valued. To test these ideas we conductedan interpersonal simulation, gathering data not only on estimatedresponsesbut also on the situated identities createdby the stimulus-person The estimawhoseresponses were observed. tionresults in a seriesof "insufficient replicated therelationships found justification" studiesand werepredictable from evaluativeimpressions. Attempts to reconcile these resultswith dissonanceand incentive explanations have been unsatisfactory and inelegant. We proposethat subjectsand observers attachthe same situational meaningto experimental conditions and behaviors in them, and this enablesus to accountforthe entireseriesof results from a singleperspective. We conceptualize variablesat a different the predictively level important fromprevioustheories:In the social situationcreatedby each condition of an experiment In the exour concern is withthe consensual attributions. periments we considered the dependent-variable responseswere associated with differentially desirablesituatedidentities. Thus, the resultsobtained undertheseconditions could be explained by the "social desirability" of reformwithout reference to the variablesand hypotheses sponsealternatives To the extent thatdesirable situatedidentities are associated erlyemployed. withtheresponses from derived a particular theory, experimental data should show the "right" (predicted)resultsfor the wrongreasons.The apparent

80

SOCIOMETRY

confirmation of hypotheses may be producedby subjects' concernsabout self-presentation. At present, we can only wonderhow many studiesin the experimental literature of social psychology have achieved theirresultsbecause of the situated identities at stake. Some hints of how widespreadthese effects might be come from recent studiesin such established areas of investigation as game playing(Alexander and Weil, 1969), groupdecisionmaking(Madaras and Bem, 1968), and role-conflict resolution (Alexander and Epstein, 1969). Furthermore, giventhe evaluativeapprehension and "good subject" orientation with whichmost subjectsenter the laboratory, it seems quite likelythatprevious research in manyotherareas of social psychological investigation is implicated.2 The situated identity approachprovides a meansfordetecting theseinfluences in experimental situations. Prior simulations of intended experiments could determine the influence of situatedidentities in the variousconditions and gathering thiskindof data as part of the experimental procedure would yieldvaluableinformation about subjects'definitions of the situation. Aside from any corrective functions thata searchforsituatedidentity might serve in the interpretation of experimental results,the approachmay providea under meansto measurethesituational "conditions scientifically satisfactory which"responses are obtained. in assuming thatsituated identities define themeaning If we are correct of of actors to conductin them, and describethe orientations social settings extendsfar beyondthe laborarealmof the perspective thenthe predictive are the processesby which identities tory.What we need to understand so that it will becomepossibleto specify how are createdand transformed influence actors' behaviorsundervaryingsituasocial identities particular and methodological tionalconditions. The conceptual approachthatwe have in thispaper shouldprovidethe meansto proceedwiththis task. presented
2 The findings we present are even more distressing because the dependent variable responsesthat produce such dramatic changes in identityevaluation are relatively"nonimpactful" pencil-and-paperbehaviors. If an ostensibly"trivial" report of task-liking on a post-experimental questionnaire has such substantialimpact upon the kind of person of elicitingmore impactfuland ina subject becomes,we can only guess at the effects volvingresponses, as Aronsonand Carlsmith(1968) recommend.

REFERENCES
Abelson,Robert P., Elliot Aronson,William J. McGuire, Theodore M. Newcomb, Milton J. Rosenbergand PercyH. Tannenbaum (eds.) 1968 Theories of CognitiveConsistency:A Sourcebook. Chicago: Rand McNally. Alexander,C. Norman, Jr. and Harrison G. Weil

SITUATED IDENTITIES
1969

AND THE EXPERIMENT

81

"Players, persons, and purposes: situational meaning and the prisoner's dilemmagame". Sociometry Vol. 32 (June):121-144. Alexander, C. Norman, Jr. and Joyce Epstein 1969 "Problems of dispositionalinferencein person perception research". Sociometry Vol. 32 (December) :381-395. Anderson, NormanH. 1968 "Likableness ratingsof 555 personality-trait words". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology9 (July):272-279. Aronson, Elliot and J. MerrillCarlsmith 1968 "Experimentation in social psychology".Pp. 1-79 in Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson (eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology. Volume II. Reading,Mass.: Addison-Wesley. Bem, Daryl J. 1967 "Self-perception: an alternative interpretationof cognitive dissonance phenomena". Psychological Review 74 (May): 183-200. Brehm,JackW. and Arthur R. Cohen 1962 Explorationsin Cognitive Dissonance. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Carlsmith, J Merrill,Barry E. Collins and Robert L. Helmreich 1966 "Studies in forced compliance: I. the effectof pressurefor compliance on attitude change produced by face-to-face role playing and anonymous essay writing".Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology4 (January): 1-13. Leon Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson, & 1957 Co. Leon and J. Merrill Carlsmith Festinger, 1959 "Cognitive consequences of forced compliance". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology58 (January):203-210. Friedman, Neil The Social Nature of PsychologicalResearch. New York: Basic Books. 1967 Goffman, Erving 1959 The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, New York: Doubleday. 1961 Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. 1963 Behavior in Public Places. New York: The Free Press. B. Heilbrun,Jr. Gough,HarrisonG. and Alfred The Adjective Check List Manual. Palo Alto, California: Consulting 1965 Press. Psychologists ILeider, Fritz 1958 The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Robert and BarryE. Collins. Helmreich, and magnitudeof inducement "Studies in forced compliance: commitment 1968 of opinion change". Journal of Personalityand to comply as determinants Social Psychology 10 (September):75-81. Jones,Edward E. and Keith E. Davis "From acts to dispositions: the attributionprocess in person perception". 1965 Pp. 220-266 in Leonard Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in ExperimentalSocial Psychology.Volume II. New York: Academic Press.

82

SOCIOMETRY

Kelley,Harold H. "Attributiontheory in social psychology".Pp. 192-238 in David Levine 1967 (ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press. Madaras, GeorgeR. and Daryl J. Bern Journalof Experimental in group decision-making". 1968 "Risk and conservatism Social Psychology4 (July) :350-365. Mead, GeorgeHerbert 1934 Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. Riecken,HenryW. "A program for researchon experiments in social psychology".Pp. 25-41 1962 in Norman Washburne (ed.), Decisions, Values, and Groups. Volume II. New York: PergamonPress. Milton J. Rosenberg, "When dissonance fails: on eliminatingapprehensionfrom attitude mea1965 surement". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1 (January): 28-42. "The conditions and consequences of evaluation apprehension".Pp. 2801969 350 in Robert Rosenthal and Ralph L. Rosnow (eds.), Artifactin Behavioral Research.New York: AcademicPress. Rosenthal,Robert ExperimenterEffectsin Behavioral Research. New York: Appleton-Cen1966 tury-Crofts. Rosenthal,Robertand Ralph L. Rosnow (eds.) 1969 Artifactin Behavioral Research. New York: Academic Press. Strauss,Anselm Mirrorsand Masks. Glencoe: The Free Press. 1959