TURNER■ STETS TABLE 2 Control strategies enumerated by symbolic-interactionist theories Behavioral strategies 2. Seek to convince others to accept behavior and the meaning it implies, and thus confirm self. 3. Withdraw from situations in which self is not confirmed Cognitive strategies 1. Change self and identity standards by which self is judged 2. Move unconfirmed identity down in the hierarchy of prominence or salience 3. Selectively perceive or interpret gestures of others so as to verify an identity 4. Repress negative emotions that arise when self is not verified 5. Make external attributions that blame others. the situation or social structure for failure to verify self. Sources: Burke(1991). McCall Simmons(1978). Scheff(2000), Stryker (2004). Turner(2002) standard. Conversely, if self has been verified, behavior, self-perceptions, and the identity standard continue uninterrupted, and self experiences positive emotion In some variants of symbolic interactionist theories, an identity hierarchy is emphasized. When an identity is verified, it moves up the"salience"(Stryker 1980, 2004)or"prominence"(McCall Simmons 1978)hierarchy, with identities high in the hierarchy more likely to be presented than those lower in the hierarchy When individuals receive disconfirming feedback, however, negative emotional arousal pushes them to pursue one or more of the strategies listed in Table 2. when an identity is consistently disconfirmed, it moves down the salience or prominence hierarchy, particularly if an individual cannot leave the situation. Alternatively, a person may change the identity presented or the identity standard by which perceptions of self in the situation are compared (Burke 1991, 1996) Some symbolic interactionist theories extend the basic argument about control systems beyond a person's cognitions about self to include cognitions about the dentities of others, the role behaviors of others, and the setting in which identi- ties are presented and roles played. For example, in affect control theory(Heise 1977, 1979, 1989; Smith-Lovin 1990; Smith-Lovin Heise 1988), individuals re seen as motivated to keep transient meanings in the situation in line with the more general fundamental meanings about self, other, behavior, and the situation When fundamental and transient meanings reveal a deflection or contradiction the emotion that results depends on the transient meaning and its direction of change from the original, fundamental location. For example, if the transient meaning is more positive than the fundamental meaning, individuals feel more positive(for a positive identity) or less negative( for a negative identity) than they would feel if the identity were confirmed. In this way, emotion signals how events in the situation are maintaining (or not maintaining)meanings. Most symbolic interactionist theories emphasize that these Gestalt dynamics operate to bring identities, cognitions, cultural prescriptions, and social structure31 May 2006 17:32 AR ANRV280-SO32-02.tex XMLPublishSM(2004/02/24) P1: JRX 30 TURNER STETS TABLE 2 Control strategies enumerated by symbolic-interactionist theories Behavioral strategies 1. Change behavior to obtain confirming responses from others. 2. Seek to convince others to accept behavior and the meaning it implies, and thus confirm self. 3. Withdraw from situations in which self is not confirmed. Cognitive strategies 1. Change self and identity standards by which self is judged. 2. Move unconfirmed identity down in the hierarchy of prominence or salience. 3. Selectively perceive or interpret gestures of others so as to verify an identity. 4. Repress negative emotions that arise when self is not verified. 5. Make external attributions that blame others, the situation, or social structure for failure to verify self. Sources: Burke (1991), McCall & Simmons (1978), Scheff (2000), Stryker (2004), Turner (2002). standard. Conversely, if self has been verified, behavior, self-perceptions, and the identity standard continue uninterrupted, and self experiences positive emotion. In some variants of symbolic interactionist theories, an identity hierarchy is emphasized. When an identity is verified, it moves up the “salience” (Stryker 1980, 2004) or “prominence” (McCall & Simmons 1978) hierarchy, with identities high in the hierarchy more likely to be presented than those lower in the hierarchy. When individuals receive disconfirming feedback, however, negative emotional arousal pushes them to pursue one or more of the strategies listed in Table 2. When an identity is consistently disconfirmed, it moves down the salience or prominence hierarchy, particularly if an individual cannot leave the situation. Alternatively, a person may change the identity presented or the identity standard by which perceptions of self in the situation are compared (Burke 1991, 1996). Some symbolic interactionist theories extend the basic argument about control systems beyond a person’s cognitions about self to include cognitions about the identities of others, the role behaviors of others, and the setting in which identi￾ties are presented and roles played. For example, in affect control theory (Heise 1977, 1979, 1989; Smith-Lovin 1990; Smith-Lovin & Heise 1988), individuals are seen as motivated to keep transient meanings in the situation in line with the more general fundamental meanings about self, other, behavior, and the situation. When fundamental and transient meanings reveal a deflection or contradiction, the emotion that results depends on the transient meaning and its direction of change from the original, fundamental location. For example, if the transient meaning is more positive than the fundamental meaning, individuals feel more positive (for a positive identity) or less negative (for a negative identity) than they would feel if the identity were confirmed. In this way, emotion signals how events in the situation are maintaining (or not maintaining) meanings. Most symbolic interactionist theories emphasize that these Gestalt dynamics operate to bring identities, cognitions, cultural prescriptions, and social structure Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2006.32:25-52. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 11/14/07. For personal use only.