Predicting performance expectations from affective impressions: Linking affect control theory and status characteristics theory☆
Introduction
Within sociological social psychology, several major theoretical paradigms examine the ways in which individuals interpret and respond to the social characteristics of interaction partners. Two such theoretical traditions—affect control theory (Heise, 1977, Heise, 1985, Heise, 2007, Smith-Lovin, 1987a) and the several branches of expectation states theory (Berger et al., 1977, Berger et al., 1998, Ridgeway, 1991, Foschi, 1996, Troyer et al., 2001, to list only a few)—have amassed substantial empirical support for their central claims. Although individually these two theories offer unique insights into social interaction, researchers have also devoted considerable attention to identifying and exploring potential connections that can bridge them. For example, Ridgeway and Smith-Lovin (1994) compare affect control theory (ACT) and expectation states theory (EST), highlighting several commonalities in the two theories, as well as pointing out important differences between the two. Additionally, Friedkin and Johnsen (2003) integrate social influence network theory, ACT, and status characteristics theory (a branch of EST) into a formal mathematical model that explains the formation of influence networks in status homogenous and status heterogeneous groups.
In examining the links between ACT and SCT, at least one substantial question remains unasked: is there a direct relationship between the primary theoretical constructs around which these two theories are built? Whereas ACT focuses on explicating how affective impressions based on fundamental sentiments contribute to the ways actors define situations and interaction partners (Heise, 1977, Smith-Lovin, 1987a), SCT examines the cognitive links between social characteristics of actors and behavioral outcomes related to hierarchies of power and prestige in task groups, as mediated by performance expectations (Berger et al., 1972). Having identified the central constructs driving ACT and SCT, the question becomes rather straight-forward: what is the relationship (if any) between affective impressions and performance expectations? And more specifically, given that affective impressions form the basis for defining other social actors, is it possible to predict performance expectations from affective impressions? It is this latter question that we seek to address in the current paper.
In what follows, we review past research, derive a set of hypotheses, and then present the results of two separate studies used to test our hypotheses. In the first study, we presented a group of research participants with a series of photographs, and through survey measures assessed respondents’ affective impressions and general performance expectations related to the individuals portrayed in the photographs. Data for the second study are drawn from experimental research in which participants’ status characteristics were systematically manipulated prior to an open interaction influence task. In study two, measures of affective impressions and general performance expectations were collected both before and after group interaction. By cross-validating our survey research with experimental data, we gain confidence that our findings accurately model the relationships among the affective and cognitive constructs at the core of ACT and status characteristics theory (SCT). Finally, following the presentation of results from the two empirical studies, we demonstrate how the model coefficients from these studies can be used along with ACT’s simulation engine, INTERACT, to generate predictions for future research.
Section snippets
Theoretical background
In this section, we outline the theoretical frameworks upon which we build our empirical examination. Beginning with a general overview of ACT and SCT, we call specific attention to the primary theoretical arguments and constructs in both. Next, we review related research and theoretical discussions on the affective and cognitive representations of social status and power, with an eye toward shedding light on the relationship between affective impressions and performance expectations. And last,
Study one method
Data for the first study were collected as part of a larger research project examining the cognitive and affective processes underlying the formation of status-based performance expectations. Although the data were not explicitly collected to address the questions raised in the present study, they are suitable for our purposes. Further, any shortcomings in our survey data are arguably addressed (as we explain below) through our use of multiple methods across the two studies.
Study one results
Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations for Evaluation, Potency, Activity, along with the general expectations scale values for the 30 stimulus photographs. As can be seen in the table, there is substantial variation in ratings across all four constructs. Comparing descriptive results across high- and low-status images, affective impressions for all three EPA dimensions were higher for photographs depicting women in high-status positions. Along the Evaluation dimension, differences
Study two method
To assess how affective impressions shape performance expectations for situations within the scope of EST, we require data from research participants interacting in a status differentiated group whose aim is to successfully complete a collective task. To meet the above criteria, we deemed it appropriate to employ data from a laboratory experiment explicitly designed to test specific facets of SCT. Like the data for study one, the experimental data we analyze here were collected as part of a
Study two results
Post-study questionnaire responses, as well as additional analyses (available upon request), suggested that the scope conditions of task orientation and collective orientation were adequately met, and as such, we determined that it was unnecessary to exclude any participants from analysis based on these criteria. Table 3 presents descriptive statistics for our independent and dependent variables for both pre- and post-discussion ratings. On the surface it is apparent that interaction plays an
Generating predictions for future research
One application of this research that we find particularly intriguing is the potential for social psychologists from both the ACT and EST traditions to explore status organizing processes and generate hypotheses using our model coefficients and ACT’s INTERACT simulation program. For example, in one extension of EST, Fisek et al. (1991) contend that homogenous groups (i.e. groups not initially differentiated according to a status characteristic) develop differential performance expectations
Discussion and conclusion
Whereas previous research has provided important information regarding how evaluation, potency, and activity reflect cultural beliefs about status and power, we extend this line of inquiry by directly connecting affective impressions to performance expectations, the latter of which (according to SCT), mediates the relationship between status, power, and behavior in small task groups. In finding support for all three of our hypotheses, we demonstrate a significant and positive relationship
References (46)
- et al.
Who is the better applicant? effects from gender, academic record, and type of decision
Soc. Sci. Res.
(2012) - et al.
Facts and artifacts in research: the case of communication medium, gender, and influence
Soc. Sci. Res.
(2008) - et al.
Gender status beliefs
Soc. Sci. Res.
(2005) - et al.
Expectations, Status, and Behavior
- et al.
Status characteristics and social interaction
Am. Sociol. Rev.
(1972) - et al.
Paths of relevance and the determination of power and prestige orders
Pacific Sociol. Rev.
(1976) - et al.
Status Characteristics and Social Interaction: An Expectation-States Approach
(1977) - et al.
Status inconsistency in task situations: a test of four status processing principles
Am. Sociol. Rev.
(1992) - et al.
The legitimation and delegitimation of power and prestige orders
Am. Sociol. Rev.
(1998) - et al.
Construction of status and referential structures
Sociol. Theory
(2002)
Tutorial in biostatistics: using the general linear mixed model to analyse unbalanced repeated measures and longitudinal data
Stat. Med.
Developing Sociological Knowledge: Theory and Method
Using simulated interactions to explore emotional processes and status organizing processes: a joint application of expectation states theory and affect control theory
Adv. Group Process.
Expectations and actions
Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward women and men
Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull.
Participation in heterogeneous and homogeneous groups: a theoretical integration
Am. J. Sociol.
Double standards in the evaluation of men and women
Social Psychol. Quart.
Bases of social power
Attitude change, affect control, and expectation states in the formation of influence networks
Adv. Group Process.
Bad but bold: ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
Social action as the control of affect
Behav. Sci.
Affect control theory: respecification, estimation, and tests of the formal model
J. Math. Sociol.
Affect control theory: concepts and model
J. Math. Sociol.
Cited by (16)
How and when employees' boundary-spanning behavior improves their creative performance: A moderated mediation model
2023, Journal of Management and OrganizationBoard's informal hierarchy: influences on enterprise innovation quality
2023, Management DecisionSelf-Sentiments and Depressive Symptoms: A Longitudinal Analysis
2023, American Behavioral ScientistModeling Status Interventions with Affect Control Theory
2023, American Behavioral Scientist
- ☆
This project was made possible with support from the National Science Foundation (award no. SES-0719310).