SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF HUMAN EMOTIONS Symbolic Interactionist Theories Although dramaturgical theories are primarily concerned with impression man- agement and strategic behavior as individuals seek to give off the appearance of conforming to the cultural script, symbolic interactionist theories see self and identity as the central dynamics behind emotional arousal. Self is more than a dramatic presentation; it is a powerful motive pushing individuals to behave in ways that allow them to verify both trans-situational self-conceptions and situ- ational role identities. Because Mead(1934, 1938)had very little to say about emotions, symbolic interactionists have primarily adopted Meads pragmatic view that social actors adjust their behavior to make things work in situations In con- temporary terms, using the language of current symbolic interactionist theorists, social actors behavior is self-directed. Given his analysis of pride and shame as master emotions, Cooley (1964 [1902))has had a more direct influence on current interaction theorizing on emotions. Also relevant to symbolic interactionists is the Gestalt traditions emphasis on cognitive consistency and congruence. The above ideas from Mead, Cooley, and Gestalt researchers are blended into a view of self as a cybernetic control system(Powers 1973)that monitors the extent to which self confirmed by others, with emotions emerging out of this confirmation process ( Burke1991,1996; Heise 1977,1979,1989) The basic generalization of all symbolic interactionist theories is that individuals seek to confirm their more global self-conceptions as well as their more context dependent identities in all episodes of interaction. When self is verified by others responding to self in a manner that is consistent with selfs own view, the person experiences positive emotions, such as pride and satisfaction. When self is not con- firmed, however, the incongruity between self-directed behavior and the responses of others generates negative emotions such as distress, anxiety, anger, shame, and guilt. Individuals are seen as motivated to bring cognitions about self into line with the responses of others and, correspondingly, to turn negative emotions into pos itive emotions. In Shott's(1979)theory, for example, the arousal of guilt, shame, and embarrassment signals to self that deviations from norms have occurred and that corrective behaviors must be forthcoming. Much theorizing within the sym bolic interactionist tradition examines the various strategies that individuals pursue to achieve congruity among self, norms and cultural standards, behavior, and the responses of others. Table 2 outlines some of the potential strategies employed by individuals These strategies are part of a larger control system within which self, others, and the situation are embedded. For example, some theories, such as identity control theory (Burke 1991, 1996), view self as composed of multiple identities. For each identity, there is a standard consisting of stored meanings that are used as a frame of reference to regulate behavior. Others evaluate self on the basis of the meanings at the persons behavior implies. If perceptions of self in the situation(given the responses of others) do not correspond to one's identity standard, a discrepancy exists, and negative emotion is felt. In response, self adjusts behavior, modifies how self is perceived by others in the situation, or changes the meaning of selfs identity31 May 2006 17:32 AR ANRV280-SO32-02.tex XMLPublishSM(2004/02/24) P1: JRX SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF HUMAN EMOTIONS 29 Symbolic Interactionist Theories Although dramaturgical theories are primarily concerned with impression man￾agement and strategic behavior as individuals seek to give off the appearance of conforming to the cultural script, symbolic interactionist theories see self and identity as the central dynamics behind emotional arousal. Self is more than a dramatic presentation; it is a powerful motive pushing individuals to behave in ways that allow them to verify both trans-situational self-conceptions and situ￾ational role identities. Because Mead (1934, 1938) had very little to say about emotions, symbolic interactionists have primarily adopted Mead’s pragmatic view that social actors adjust their behavior to make things work in situations. In con￾temporary terms, using the language of current symbolic interactionist theorists, social actors’ behavior is self-directed. Given his analysis of pride and shame as master emotions, Cooley (1964 [1902]) has had a more direct influence on current interaction theorizing on emotions. Also relevant to symbolic interactionists is the Gestalt tradition’s emphasis on cognitive consistency and congruence. The above ideas from Mead, Cooley, and Gestalt researchers are blended into a view of self as a cybernetic control system (Powers 1973) that monitors the extent to which self is confirmed by others, with emotions emerging out of this confirmation process (Burke 1991, 1996; Heise 1977, 1979, 1989). The basic generalization of all symbolic interactionist theories is that individuals seek to confirm their more global self-conceptions as well as their more context￾dependent identities in all episodes of interaction. When self is verified by others responding to self in a manner that is consistent with self’s own view, the person experiences positive emotions, such as pride and satisfaction. When self is not con- firmed, however, the incongruity between self-directed behavior and the responses of others generates negative emotions such as distress, anxiety, anger, shame, and guilt. Individuals are seen as motivated to bring cognitions about self into line with the responses of others and, correspondingly, to turn negative emotions into pos￾itive emotions. In Shott’s (1979) theory, for example, the arousal of guilt, shame, and embarrassment signals to self that deviations from norms have occurred and that corrective behaviors must be forthcoming. Much theorizing within the sym￾bolic interactionist tradition examines the various strategies that individuals pursue to achieve congruity among self, norms and cultural standards, behavior, and the responses of others. Table 2 outlines some of the potential strategies employed by individuals. These strategies are part of a larger control system within which self, others, and the situation are embedded. For example, some theories, such as identity control theory (Burke 1991, 1996), view self as composed of multiple identities. For each identity, there is a standard consisting of stored meanings that are used as a frame of reference to regulate behavior. Others evaluate self on the basis of the meanings that the person’s behavior implies. If perceptions of self in the situation (given the responses of others) do not correspond to one’s identity standard, a discrepancy exists, and negative emotion is felt. In response, self adjusts behavior, modifies how self is perceived by others in the situation, or changes the meaning of self’s identity Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2006.32:25-52. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 11/14/07. For personal use only