Elsevier

Social Science Research

Volume 50, March 2015, Pages 1-14
Social Science Research

Predicting performance expectations from affective impressions: Linking affect control theory and status characteristics theory

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.11.001Get rights and content

Highlights

  • We examine links between affect control theory (ACT) and status characteristics theory (SCT).

  • Two separate studies reveal a consistent relationship between ACT and SCT.

  • Affective impressions significantly predict general performance expectations.

  • We highlight potential approaches to use ACT and SCT jointly.

Abstract

Affect control theory (ACT) and status characteristics theory (SCT) offer separate and distinct explanations for how individuals interpret and process status- and power-relevant information about interaction partners. Existing research within affect control theory offers evidence that status and power are related to the affective impressions that individuals form of others along the dimensions of evaluation and potency, respectively. Alternately, status characteristics theory suggests that status and power influence interaction through the mediating cognitive construct of performance expectations. Although both theories have amassed an impressive amount of empirical support, research has yet to articulate theoretical and empirical connections between affective impressions and performance expectations. The purpose of our study is to address this gap. Elaborating a link between ACT and SCT in terms of their central concepts can serve as a stepping stone to improving the explanatory capacity of both theories, while providing a potential bridge by which they can be employed jointly.

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)

  • A. Cnaan et al.

    Tutorial in biostatistics: using the general linear mixed model to analyse unbalanced repeated measures and longitudinal data

    Stat. Med.

    (1997)
  • B.P. Cohen

    Developing Sociological Knowledge: Theory and Method

    (1989)
  • J. Dippong

    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.

    (2013)
  • J.E. Driskell et al.

    Expectations and actions

  • A.H. Eagly et al.

    Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward women and men

    Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull.

    (1989)
  • M.H. Fisek et al.

    Participation in heterogeneous and homogeneous groups: a theoretical integration

    Am. J. Sociol.

    (1991)
  • M. Foschi

    Double standards in the evaluation of men and women

    Social Psychol. Quart.

    (1996)
  • J.R.P. French et al.

    Bases of social power

  • N.E. Friedkin et al.

    Attitude change, affect control, and expectation states in the formation of influence networks

    Adv. Group Process.

    (2003)
  • P. Glick et al.

    Bad but bold: ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations

    J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.

    (2004)
  • D.R. Heise

    Social action as the control of affect

    Behav. Sci.

    (1977)
  • D.R. Heise

    Affect control theory: respecification, estimation, and tests of the formal model

    J. Math. Sociol.

    (1985)
  • D.R. Heise

    Affect control theory: concepts and model

    J. Math. Sociol.

    (1987)
  • This project was made possible with support from the National Science Foundation (award no. SES-0719310).

    View full text